20160225 Ver 2_South Fork Buffer and Nutrient MY5 Report_20230918

ID#* 20160225 Version* 2
Select Reviewer:
Katie Merritt
Initial Review Completed Date 09/25/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 9/18/2023
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* Yes No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name: * Email Address:
Kaitlyn Hogarth [e-mail]
Project Information
ID#: * 20160225 Version:* 2
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer
Mitigation Bank Parcel
County: Chatham
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Closeout Report
File Upload: South Fork Buffer and Nutrient MY5 Report.pdf 14.22MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
...........................................
Print Name:* Kaitlyn Hogarth
Signature:
�?YtJre' 7y4�2tbF

South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
DWR ID# 2016-0225v2
Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC's Cane Creek Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank
z .:
I. � . E,
'6'
r �aA41
MONITORING YEAR 5 REPORT
September 2023
wtw,
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
PREPARED BY:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]

MONITORING YEAR 5 REPORT
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC's Cane Creek Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 2
2.0 Parcel Location & Background.................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Project history...............................................................................................................................2
2.2 Location and Setting..................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Parcel Background........................................................................................................................ 3
2.4 Project Objectives......................................................................................................................... 3
2.5 Mitigation Activities......................................................................................................................4
3.0 Monitoring............................................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Monitoring Process and Protocol.................................................................................................4
3.2 Results of Vegetation and Visual Assessment Monitoring........................................................... 5
4.0 Long -Term Management.......................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Parcel Maintenance...................................................................................................................... 6
5.0 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................. 6
6.0 References................................................................................................................................7
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Project Reporting History
Table 2
Character/ Existing Tree and Shrub Species
Table 3
Tree Species Selected for Buffer Restoration
Table 4
Monitoring Plot Summary —As-Built (MYO)
Table 5
Monitoring Plot Summary — MY5
APPENDICES
Appendix
A: Figures
Figure 1
Parcel Location Map
Figure 2
Service Area Map
Figure 3
Credit Generation Map
Figure 4
Monitoring Components Map
Appendix
B: Bank Credit Ledger
Appendix
C: Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 6
Vegetation Plot Success Summary
Table 7
Planted and Total Stem Counts
Table 8
Average Vegetation Height by Plot
Graph 1
Vegetation Plot Trends
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Results
Appendix E: Overview Photographs
W South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 1
Monitoring Year 5 Report

MONITORING YEAR 5 REPORT
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC's Cane Creek Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank
The South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel (Parcel) is a part of the Wildlands
Holdings IV, LLC (Sponsor) Cane Creek Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank (Bank). The Parcel
surrounds tributaries to South Fork Cane Creek in Chatham County, NC (Figure 1). The purpose of the
Parcel is to provide riparian buffer and nutrient offset mitigation credits to compensate for unavoidable
buffer impacts in the 03030002 Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) of the Cape Fear River Basin, within the Haw
River Sub -watershed of the Jordan Lake Watershed. The Parcel was planned and designed according to
the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective November 1, 2015) and 15A
NCAC 02B .0703. The service area is depicted in Figure 2.
1.0 Introduction
This Parcel was developed to provide stream mitigation through the creation of a Stream Mitigation
Bank as well as nutrient offset and buffer mitigation through the creation of a Nutrient Offset & Buffer
Mitigation Bank. Riparian restoration activities deemed suitable for nutrient offset on this Parcel will
generate 2,249.36 lbs. -Nitrogen per acre and 143.81 lbs. -Phosphorus per acre (with a delivery factor of
71% and 67% respectively).
The Parcel involved restoring riparian buffers adjacent to mitigated streams onsite to help reduce non -
point source contaminant discharges to downstream waters in the Jordan Lake Watershed within the
Cape Fear River Basin. Approximately 18.13 acres are protected with a permanent conservation
easement. Of the 18.13 acres, 14.83 acres have been restored for either Jordan Lake riparian buffer
credit or nutrient offset credit. In general, riparian buffer restoration area widths on streams range from
50 feet to 100 feet from the top of bank.
2.0 Parcel Location & Background
2.1 Project history
Project history can be found below in Table 1.
Table 1. Project Reporting History
Activity
Completion Date
Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC Cane Creek UMBI
March 2018
Bank Parcel Development Package Approved
July 2018
Conservation Easement
July 2018
Bare Root Planting
December 2018
As -Built & Baseline Monitoring Document
March 2019
Year 1 Monitoring Completed
September 2019
Year 2 Monitoring Completed
September 2020
Year 3 Monitoring Completed
September 2021
Year 4 Monitoring Completed
September 2022
Year 5 Monitoring Completed
September 2023
W South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 2
Monitoring Year 5 Report

2.2 Location and Setting
The Parcel is located in Chatham County near the Town of Snow Camp, NC (35° 49' 21.28" N and 79° 22'
54.62" W). From Raleigh, take US-64 West to the exit for NC-87 North. Continue north on NC-87 for 1.8
miles and turn left onto Silk Hope Gum Spring Road. Continue on Silk Hope Gum Spring Road for 8.1
miles. Turn right onto Silk Hope -Lindley Mill Road and continue for 2.9 miles. Turn left onto Moon
Lindley Road and continue for 1.3 miles. Turn left onto Johnny Lindley Road and continue for 0.7 miles
to 1727 Johnny Lindley Road, Snow Camp, NC (Figure 1).
2. 3 Parcel Background
Prior to construction, the Parcel consisted primarily of livestock pasture except for a few areas that were
already forested. The cattle pastures on the Parcel were dominated by fescue grasses (Festuca spp.) and
broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus). Much of the riparian area on the Parcel was wooded; however,
cattle had access to the streams. Vegetation in the wooded areas is primarily hardwood species
including white oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua), red maple (Acerrubrum), southern red
oak (Quercus falcata), and American elm (Ulmus americana) (Table 2).
Table 2. Character/ Existing Tree and Shrub Species
Scientific Name
Common Name
Quercus alba
White Oak
Quercus rubra
Red Oak
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip -Poplar
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweetgum
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Quercus falcata
Southern Red Oak
Ulmus amen .cana
American Elm
2.4 Project Objectives
The main objective of the Parcel is to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus loading to the Cape Fear
tributaries by establishing a forested riparian buffer of selected species on land previously used for
agricultural purposes (Table 3). The riparian buffer will immobilize nutrients, reducing quantities
available to downstream aquatic ecosystems in the Cape Fear River Basin.
Table 3. Tree Species Selected for Buffer Restoration
Scientific Name
Common Name
Planted Number
% of Total
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
950
25%
Celtis occidentalis
Hackberry
100
3%
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
400
11%
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
200
5%
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
350
9%
Betula nigra
River Birch
850
23%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
450
12%
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip -Poplar
300
8%
W South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 3
Monitoring Year 5 Report

Scientific Name
Common Name
Planted Number
% of Total
Ulmus americana
American Elm
150
4%
Total
3,750
100%
2. 5 Mitigation Activities
The revegetation plan for the entire buffer restoration area included permanent seeding, planting bare
root trees, live stakes, and controlling invasive species growth. The specific species composition that was
planted was selected based on the community type, observation of occurrence of species in riparian
buffers adjacent to the Parcel, and best professional judgement on species establishment and
anticipated Parcel conditions in the early years following project implementation (Table 3). Trees were
planted at a density sufficient to meet the performance standards outlined in the Consolidated Buffer
Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 of 260 trees per acre at the end of five years. An appropriate seed
mix was also applied to provide ground cover for soil stabilization and reduction of sediment loss, as
necessary.
While planting was not anticipated to be needed in the cattle exclusion areas, except where required in
the stream mitigation plan, a seed mix was applied where cattle had removed all vegetation and caused
bare soils. The cattle exclusion areas within the easement were fenced to prevent further cattle
encroachment by using Three -Strand High Tensile Wire Fence, which was later changed to woven
barbed wire fencing in January 2021. No planting was performed in the buffer preservation areas except
in areas affected during construction.
Table 4. Monitoring Plot Summary —As-Built (MYO)
Scientific Name
Total Stems Flagged
(MYO)
Calculated Planted
Stem Density
(Stems/Acre)
Live Stem
Composition
Platanus occidentalis
19
152
25%
Celtis occidentalis
2
18
3%
Quercus michauxii
8
67
11%
Quercus pagoda
4
30
5%
Quercus phellos
7
54
9%
Betula nigra
17
140
23%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9
73
12%
Liriodendron tulipifera
6
49
8%
Ulmus americana
3
24
4%
Total
75
607
100
3.0 Monitoring
3.1 Monitoring Process and Protocol
Five 10-meter by 10-meter vegetation monitoring plots (plots numbered 3-7) were installed within the
buffer restoration area to measure the survival of the planted trees (Figure 4). The number of plots
required was determined in accordance with the Carolina Vegetative Sampling Protocol (CVS) Levels 1 &
2. Performance Standards for the Parcel are based on the health and survival of a minimum density of
260 trees per acre after five years of monitoring, and no one species comprises more than 50 percent of
stems. Height, visual assessment of damage, and vigor are used as indicators of overall health. Desirable
volunteer species may be included to meet the success criteria upon NCDWR approval. A reference
W South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 4
Monitoring Year 5 Report

photo was taken from the southwestern corner of each vegetation plot and included in the appendix. All
planted stems in the vegetation plots were marked with flagging tape and recorded. The total number
of each tree species planted within the monitoring plots, as well as planting density, and composition at
as -built are included in Table 4 for comparison purposes.
Annual monitoring activities began in the fall of 2019 and will continue each year for the remainder of
the monitoring period. Species composition, density, and survival rates will be evaluated on an annual
basis by plot for the entire Parcel. An annual monitoring report will be submitted to NCDWR no later
than December 315Y of each year for five consecutive years.
3.2 Results of Vegetation and Visual Assessment Monitoring
The 5 vegetation plots (Plots 3-7) were sampled in September 2023 at the end of the fifth growing
season. A reference photo was taken from the southwest corner of each plot, which can be found in
Appendix D along with the stem count raw data. Total numbers of planted tree species identified within
the monitoring plots as well as density and composition are summarized in Table 5. Vegetation result
tables with planted stem density, and stem count by plot and species are summarized in Appendix C.
The 2023 vegetation monitoring resulted in an average planted stem density of 445 stems per acre with
individual plot densities ranging from 364 to 526 stems per acre. When including volunteer species, the
average stem density is 1,238 stems per acre with individual plot densities ranging from 647 to 1,700
stems per acre. Both planted and total average stem densities well exceed the final requirement of 260
stems per acre. All plots have 4 or more planted species and most stems across plots have scored high in
vigor. Additionally, plots have shown a positive trend in average height throughout monitoring years
(see Appendix Q. Vegetation plots 4, 6, and 7 have relatively dense volunteer populations. Plot 7 has 18
green ash volunteers, while plots 4 and 6 have 21 and 18 sweet gum volunteers, respectively. These
volunteers do not appear to be adversely impacting planted stems. Furthermore, most planted stems
within these plots scored high on vigor, indicating that they are healthy. Volunteer species will continue
to be monitored to ensure they do not out -compete planted species. If volunteer species hinder the
growth of planted trees remedial actions will be taken.
Visual assessments of the cattle exclusion and preservation areas within the conservation easement
concluded:
• Fencing is in good condition throughout the Parcel;
• No cattle access within the conservation easement area;
• No encroachment has occurred;
• Diffuse flow is being maintained in the conservation easement area; and
• There has not been any cutting, clearing, filling, grading, or similar activities that would
negatively affect the functioning of the buffer.
The Parcel is on track to meet its final success criteria.
Table 5. Monitoring Plot Summary — MY5
Scientific Name
Total Stems Flagged
(MY5)
Calculated Live Stem
Density (Stems/Acre)
Live Stem
Composition
Platanus occidentalis
19
154
34%
Celtis occidentalis
2
16
4%
Quercus michauxii
7
57
13%
Quercus pagoda
2
16
4%
Quercus phellos
5
40
9%
W South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 5
Monitoring Year 5 Report

Scientific Name
Total Stems Flagged
(MY5)
Calculated Live Stem
Density (Stems/Acre)
Live Stem
Composition
Betula nigra
9
73
15%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
8
65
15%
Liriodendron tulipifera
1
8
2%
Ulmus amen .cana
2
16
4%
Total
55
445
100%
4.0 Long -Term Management
4.1 Parcel Maintenance
Issues with the initially installed high tinsel fencing maintaining a continuous stream of electricity were
noted during Monitoring Year 2. The high tinsel fencing was therefore replaced with woven barbed wire
during January 2021. Cows have continued to occasionally bypass the fencing at crossings, where the
original high tinsel fencing remains; however, the landowner has been contacted and no permanent
damage as a result of cattle encroachment has been observed.
While vegetation plot data has reflected that trees are doing well across the Parcel, closer visual
assessments at the end of monitoring year 4 and beginning of monitoring year 5 led Wildlands to believe
that some areas not represented by vegetation plots would benefit from a relatively low -density
supplemental planting. Therefore, 0.93 acres were supplementally planted in late February 2023 at a
density of 100 stems per acre along UT1 and UT2. Wildlands notified NCDWR of the intent to perform a
supplemental planting via email on February 2"d, 2023. A combination of bare root and 1-gallon
containerized stems were used. Species selected were originally approved in the Bank Parcel
Development Package (BPDP). Prior to the supplemental planting, these areas were brush cut to
minimize blackberry shrub competition. To further ensure the success of the supplemental planting, soil
amendments were applied locally around the base of each tree in April 2023. Localized soil amendments
were performed along UT2 and SF4A. Following their first growing season, most of the new stems have
survived and appear healthy.
In prior monitoring years, infrequently dispersed princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), tree of heaven
(Ailanthus altissima), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) stems had been observed and treated. In
June and July 2023 these species were again treated as scattered stems appeared throughout the
Parcel. Additionally, sweetgum stems were selectively thinned along a portion of the right bank of SMA
close to the downstream crossing where they posed a threat of hindering the growth of more desirable
species.
Throughout the remainder of the Parcel, adaptive measures will be developed, or appropriate remedial
actions will be implemented in the event the Parcel, or a specific component of the Parcel fails to
achieve the success criteria. Parcel maintenance will be performed to correct any identified problems
that have a high likelihood of affecting project success. Such items include but are not limited to excess
tree mortality caused by fire, flooding, drought, or insects. Any actions implemented will be designed to
achieve the success criteria and will include a work schedule and updated monitoring criteria.
5.0 Conclusions
Overall, vegetation is doing well across the Parcel, with most recorded stems scoring high in vigor and
the vegetation plots continuing to display a positive change in height. The Parcel has an average planted
stem density of 445 stems per acre with individual plot densities ranging from 364 to 526 stems per
acre. When including volunteer species, the average stem density increases to 1,238 stems per acre,
with plots ranging from 647 to 1,700 stems per acre. Based on visual assessment, the February 2023
W South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 6
Monitoring Year 5 Report

supplementally planted stems have shown a high rate of survival throughout their first growing season.
Scattered occurrences of tree of heaven, princess tree, and Chinese privet were noted across the Parcel
and treated in June and July of 2023. Sweet gum stems were also selectively thinned along a portion of
SF4A to reduce their competition with planted species. Native and non-native invasive plant populations
have remained under control throughout monitoring year 5 and do not appear to pose a threat to
desirable vegetation.
6.0 References
Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. October 2004.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.0. Retrieved from
http://www.nceep.net/business/monitoring/veg/datasheets.htm.
Peet, R.K., T.R. Wentworth and P.S. White. 1998. A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274. http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm
Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC (2017). Cane Creek Mitigation Banking Instrument. NCDWR, Raleigh NC.
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/nutrientbufferbanks
Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC (2018). South Fork Bank Parcel Development Package. NCDWR, Raleigh NC.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/nutrientbufferbanks
W South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 7
Monitoring Year 5 Report

Appendix A: Figures

- Project Location
L
J
�■ Conservation Easement (18.13 ac)
o
akenbush f?d
tsn�
-0
Nan 9
one 5w h
O
�. •
`)oa
-
S
d
762 h
sg
,r
a
Clark Rcl
- -
----
ALAMANCE
-
---
- - - - - --
---
CHATHAM
�n5 ,
Churcli
k
South Fork Bank Parcel Location
��a Jam soo
J tt
adk\ ch a
Cost
3
95�
Jo hnrK
ya
ca��
0,e
.0
-
CD �o
U r%ye (wood Rd
S/
772 ft
G\'ae.
�C,40
s Wit/ Brown F'
�a Co, A
,ess�e 0 y
m
Rd \�� -
0
Figure 1. Parcel Location Map
W I L D L A N D S South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
E N G I N E E R I N G 0 0.5 1 Miles Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
I i i i I
Chatham County, NC

0 HUC 03030002
County Boundaries
Jordan Lake Sub -Watersheds _.._..—••——.._.._.._.._.._..—••—•.—..—.._ _.._..—••—••--•—••—••—••—••—•
Service Area - Riparian Buffer Credits i
South Fork Mitigation Bank Parcel Location j G Ek I j
1 o I
c�
iMayodaI,, ! Yanc ville 1
j ev - I
i 1.1a.l, ,„�t
1 a
888 IT ,
I
1 I i I
I
..._.�_. 1r— ••—.._.-_.._.._.._•. L.._.•—••—•--•._..
tnumeru 1 1 i I j
Oak Ridge
I I 1 I
Burlington
I I
i L3he 0j030002
I
High Point
i ;stt
j---•----------------- i Haw River
1Ir j �u —•-�
1 ail 'I
I I
I 1
.,h,.I ,,�. i
1
1
i
I6 I �i
1 Ihll I .i.,n.di
m
I
1
I I, �I , Illill
Upper New Hope
1
wer
p/e
A
Ha
Ra—
Rock
date Part
Sprint
Lllli .
Figure 2. Service Area Map
W I L D L A N D S South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
E N G I N E E R I N G Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
0 5 10 Miles
' ' ' I Chatham County, NC

AWILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
- - . Conservation Easement
- -� (18.13 ac)
Project Streams and Vernal
- Pools (2.42 ac)
r/T Internal Crossing
South Fork Credit Zones
Restoration 0-100' (4.92 ac)
= Restoration 0<50' (0.48 ac)
Enhancement 0-100' (0.47 ac)
Cattle Exclusion 0-100' (8.52
ac)
Preservation 0-100' (0.44 ac )
No Credit ( 0.88 ac)
9 = Project Fencing
Figure 3. Credit Generation Map
0 200 400 Feet South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
I Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC

� ♦ i
r, I ♦
♦ %I �
r � � ❑r
11
, - - .
L
Conservation Easement
(18.13 ac)
-
Project Streams and Vernal
Pools (2.42 ac)
Internal Crossing
South Fork Credit Zones
Restoration 0-100' (4.92 ac)
Restoration 0<50' (0.48 ac)
Enhancement 0-100' (0.47 ac)
Cattle Exclusion 0-100' (8.52
ac)
Preservation 0-100' (0.44 ac )
No Credit ( 0.88 ac)
®MY5
Supplemental Planting
(0.93 ac)
MY5 Tree Boosters (2.66 ac)
C
Project Fencing
❑
Vegetation Plot
Figure 4. Monitoring Components Map
%,,,WILDLANDS 0 190 380 Feet 1^ South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
w I ENGINEERING I\
I I I I N Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
Chatham County, NC

Appendix B: Bank Credit Ledger

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI): South Fork Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear (HUC 03030002) - Haw River Sub watershed
Date Last Updated: 9-14-2023
Nitrogen Credit Ledger W I L D LA N D S r4D
DWR Bank Parcel Project #: 2016-0225v2 HOLDINGS
As -Built Credit Total: N/A
Delivery Factor: 71% N
Sale/Release
Date
Purchaser Name or % of Credit Release
Project Name
14-digit HUC of Project
Credits Released/Available to
Bank
Credits Debited/Sold From Bank
Nutrient Credit Balance
Local Gov't
Requiring
Generated
Nitrogen (Ibs)
Delivered
Nitrogen (Ibs)
Generated
Nitrogen (Ibs)
Delivered
Nitrogen (Ibs)
Generated
Nitrogen (Ibs)
Delivered Nitrogen
(Ibs)
8/27/2018
Tasks 1&7 Credit Release (25%)
03030002050050
2,929.79
2,080.15
2,929.79
2,080.15
NCDWR
12/17/2018
DWR Approved Transfer to South Fork Buffer Restoration Ledger
2,929.79
2,080.15
-
-
NCDWR
5/1/2019
Task 2 Credit Release (20%)
03030002050050
2,343.83
1,664.12
2,343.83
1,664.12
NCDWR
5/30/2019
Task 3 Credit Release (10%)
03030002050050
813.15
577.34
3,156.98
2,241.46
NCDWR
1/9/2020
Task 4 Credit Release (10%)
03030002050050
1,106.69
785.75
4,263.67
3,027.21
NCDWR
2/23/2021
Task 5 Credit Release (10%)
03030002050050
1,106.69
785.75
5,370.36
3,812.96
NCDWR
3/4/2022
ITask 6 Credit Release (10%)
03030002050050
1,106.69
785.75
6,477.05
4,598.71
NCDWR
3/16/2023
ITask 8 Credit Release (5%)
03030002050050
553.34
392.87
7,030.39
4,991.58
NCDWR
Total Balances
9,960.18
7,071.73
2,929.79
2,080.15
7,030.39
4,991.58

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI): South Fork Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear (HUC 03030002) - Haw River Subwatershed
Phosphorus Credit Ledger W I L D LA N a y
Date Last Updated: 9-14-2023
DWR Bank Parcel Project #: 2016-0225v2 HOLDINGS*
As-Built Credit Total: N/A
Delivery Factor: 67% N
Sale/Release
Date
Purchaser Name or % of Credit Release
Project Name
14-digit HUC of
Project
Credits Released/Available to Bank
Credits Debited/Sold From Bank
Nutrient Credit Balance
Local Gov't
Requiring
Generated
Phosphorus (Ibs)
Delivered
Phosphorus (Ibs)
Generated
Phosphorus (Ibs)
Delivered
Phosphorus (Ibs)
Generated
Phosphorus (Ibs)
Delivered Phosphorus
(Ibs)
8/27/2018
Tasks 1&7 Credit Release (25%)
03030002050050
187.31
125.50
187.31
125.50
NCDWR
12/17/2018
DWR Approved Transfer to South Fork Buffer Restoration Ledger
187.31
125.5
-
-
NCDWR
5/l/2019
Task 2 Credit Release (20%)
03030002050050
149.85
100.4
149.85
100.40
NCDWR
5/30/2019
Task 3 Credit Release (10%)
03030002050050
52
34.84
201.85
135.24
NCDWR
1/9/2020
Task 4 Credit Release (10%)
03030002050050
70.76
47.41
272.61
182.65
NCDWR
2/23/2021
Task 5 Credit Release (10%)
03030002050050
70.76
47.41
343.37
230.06
NCDWR
3/4/2022
Task 6 Credit Release (10%)
03030002050050
70.76
47.41
414.13
277.47
NCDWR
3/16/2023
Task 8 Credit Release (5%)
03030002050050
35.38
23.70
449.51
301.17
NCDWR
Total Balances
1
1 636.821
426.671
187.311
125.501
449.511
301.17

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI): South Fork Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear (HUC 03030002) Haw River Sub watershed
Buffer Restoration & Enhancement Credit Ledger W I L D LA N D S
Date Last Updated: 9-14-2023 HOLDINGSID
DWR Bank Parcel Project #: 2016-0225v2
Total Credits Released To Date: 84,487.30 sq. ft.
Delivery Factor: 71% N
Sale/
Release Date
Purchaser Name or % of Credit
Release
Project Name
Project w/ 14 Digit
HUC
Credits
Released/Available to
Bank
Credits Debited/Sold From
Bank
Buffer Credit Balance
Local Gov't
Requiring
Square Feet
Acres
Square Feet
Acres
Square Feet
Acres
8/27/2018
Tasks 1&7 Credit Release (25%)
03030002050050
5,771.70
0.13
5,771.70
0.13
NCDWR
12/17/2018
DWR Approved Transfer from South Fork Buffer Nutrient Offset Ledgers
56,628.00
1.30
62,399.70
1.43
NCDWR
5/1/2019
Task 2 Credit Release (20%)
03030002050050
4,617.36
0.11
67,017.06
1.54
NCDWR
5/30/2019
Task 3 Credit Release (10%)
03030002050050
6,635.99
0.15
73,653.05
1.69
NCDWR
7/15/2019
Collin Clampett
Lochside Sanitary Sewer Relocation (Clampett Residence)
03030002050050
1,839.00
0.042
71,814.05
1.65
City of Greensboro
8/13/2019
Mann's Chapel Subdivision, LLC
Ryan's Crossing Subdivision (aka: Mann's Chapel Subdivision)
03030002050050
15,078.00
0.346
56,736.05
1.30
Chatham County
1/9/2020
Task 4 Credit Release (10%)
03030002050050
3,095.50
0.07
59,831.55
1.37
NCDWR
3/30/2020
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority
Piedmont Triad International Airport Rental Car Facilities Relocation (DWR # 20191081 V2) PARTIAL
03030002050050
58,193.04
1.336
1,638.51
0.04
NCDWR
2/23/2021
Task 5 Credit Release (10%)
03030002050050
3,095.50
0.07
4,734.01
0.11
NCDWR
3/4/2022
Task 6 Credit Release (10%)
03030002050050
3,095.50
0.07
7,829.51
0.18
NCDWR
3/16/2023
Task 8 Credit Release (5%)
03030002050050
1,547.75
0.04
9,377.26
0.22
NCDWR
Total Balances
1
84,487.301
1 75,110.04
1
1 9,377.26
0.22

Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI): South Fork Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Bank
Cape Fear (HUC 03030002) -Haw River Subwatershed WILDLANDS
Buffer Enhancement (Cattle Exclusion) & Preservation Credit Ledger
Date Last Updated: 9-14-2023 HOLDINGS
DWR Bank Parcel Project #: 2016-0225v2
Total Credits Released To Date: 168,804.90 sq. ft.
Sale/
Release Date
Purchaser Name or % of Credit
Release
Project Name
Project w/ 14 Digit
HUC
Credits
Released/Available to
Bank
Credits Debited/Sold
From Bank
Buffer Credit Balance
Local Gov't Requiring
Square Feet
Acres
Square Feet
Acres
Square Feet
Acres
8/27/2018
Tasks 1&7 Credit Release (25%)
03030002050050
48,678.30
1.12
48,678.30
1.12
NCDWR
5/1/2019
Task 2 Credit Release (20%)
03030002050050
38,942.64
0.89
87,620.94
2.01
NCDWR
5/30/2019
Task 3 Credit Release (10%)
03030002050050
15,537.61
0.36
103,158.55
2.37
NCDWR
10/21/2019
Publix
Publix
03030002050050
98,892.71
2.27
4,265.84
0.10
Guilford County/ EMC
1/9/2020
ITask 4 Credit Release (10%)
03030002050050
18,756.10
0.43
23,021.94
0.53
JNCDWR
3/30/2020
1 Piedmont Triad Airport Authority
Piedmont Triad International Airport Rental Car Facilities Relocation (DWR # 20191081 V2) PARTIAL
03030002050050
23,021.94
0.53
1 -
-
JNCDWR
2/23/2021
Task 5 Credit Release (10%)
03030002050050
18,756.10
0.43
18,756.10
0.43
NCDWR
3/4/2022
Task 6 Credit Release (10%)
03030002050050
18,756.10
0.43
37,512.20
0.86
NCDWR
3/16/2023
Task 8 Credit Release (5%)
03030002050050
9,378.05
0.22
46,890.25
1.08
NCDWR
Total Balances
168,804.90
121,914.65
46,890.25
1.08

Appendix C: Vegetation Assessment Data

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Success Summary
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 5 - 2023
Plot
Year
Northing
Easting
Planted Living
Stems
Missing
Stems
Volunteer
Stems
Total Living
Stems
Planted Living Stems
per Acre
Total Living Stems
per Acre
Planted Number of
Species
Vegetation Threshold
Met?
3
4
754752
1886490
13
0
3
16
526
647
6
Yes
4
4
755142
1887010
9
0
33
42
364
1,700
6
Yes
5
1 4
1 754682
1 1886680
1 12
1 1
1 16
1 28
1 486
1 1,133
1 4
1 Yes
6
4
754695
1886250
9
0
22
32
405
1,295
7
Yes
7
4
755620
1887380
10
0
24
35
445
1,416
5
Yes
*Target density is a minimum of 260 trees per acre at the end of the five (5) year monitoring period.

Table 7. Planted and Total Stem Counts
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 5 - 2023
Current Plot Data (MY5 2022)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
VP 3
VP 4
VP 5
VP 6
VP 7
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
jPnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
cer negundo
Box Elder
Tree
1
cerrubrum
Red Maple
Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
Celtis occidentalis
Northern Hackberry
Shrub Tree
1
1
3
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
21
Gleditsia triocanthos
Honey Locust
Shrub Tree
1
1
uniperus virginiana
Eastern Red Cedar
Tree
Liquidamborstyrocifluo
Sweet Gum
Tree
21
7
18
4
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
1
1
2
Pinus
Pine
Tree
Pinus taeda
Loblolly Pine
Tree
Platonus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
7
1 7
7
2
2
2
6
6
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Tree
11
3
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
4
Ulmus rubra
ISlippery Elm
ITree
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACREI
13
13
16
9
9
42
12
12
28
10
10
32
11
11
35
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
6
1 6
7
6
6
9
4
1 4
6
7
7
10
5
5
8
526
1 526
647
364
364
11,7001
486
1 486
11,1331
405
1 405
11,295
445
1 445
11,416
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnols - Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P-all: Number of Planted Stems
T: Total Stems

Table 7. Planted and Total Stem Counts
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 5 - 2023
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY5 (2023)
MY4 (2022)
MY3 (2021)
MY2 (2020)
MY1 (2019)
MYO (2019)
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer negundo
Box Elder
Tree
1
1
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
Betula nigro
River Birch
Tree
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
11
11
11
11
11
12
17
17
17
Celtis occidentalis
Northern Hackberry
Shrub Tree
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
8
8
26
8
8
35
8
8
61
9
9
29
8
8
1 12
9
9
9
Gleditsia triacanthos
Honey Locust
Shrub Tree
2
2
5
2
1
uniperus virginiana
Eastern Red Cedar
Tree
1
1
Liquidambarstyraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
50
15
14
14
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
Pinus
Pine
Tree
1
Pinus toeda
Loblolly Pine
Tree
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
19
19
22
19
19
21
19
19
21
19
19
21
19
19
20
19
19
19
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
Ulmus alato
Winged Elm
Tree
14
2
158
Ulmus americano
American Elm
Tree
2
2
5
2
1 2
8
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1 1
3
3
3
Ulmus rubra
ISlippery Elm
ITree
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
55
55
153
56
1 56
115
57
57
293
63
63
102
62
62
72
75
75
75
5
5
5
5
5
5
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
9
1 9
15
19
9
16
9
9
14
9
1 9
11
9
9
1 11
9
9
9
445
1 445
1 1,2381
453
1 453
1 931
1 461
1 461
12,3711
510
1 510
1 826
1 502
1 502
1 583
1 607
1 607
607
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnols - Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P-all: Number of Planted Stems
T: Total Stems

Table 8. Average Vegetation Height by Plot
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 5 - 2023
Average Height by Plot (feet)
Plot
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
3
2.5
3.5
5.5
8.0
10.6
11.9
4
2.3
2.5
3.9
5.5
6.3
9.2
5
2.3
4.2
6.7
10.6
14.7
18.1
6
2.3
3.3
4.0
5.9
8.1
11.9
7
1 2.2
2.5
3.6
6.5
8.6
10.4
Average
1 2.3
3.2
4.7
7.3
9.7
12.3

Graph 1. Vegetation Plot Trends
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 5 - 2023
Average Height through MY5 (feet)
14.0
12.0
10.0
w 8.0
Y
L
v 6.0
2
4.0
2.0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Monitoring Year

Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Results

Veg Plot 3 - Year 5
Tree ID
Species
X (m)
Y (m)
Height (cm)
Vigor
1
Quercus michauxii
0.8
0.6
64
4
2
Platanus occidentalis
1.2
2.8
510
4
3
Celtis occidentalis
1.0
4.7
260
4
4
Platanus occidentalis
0.8
7.1
510
4
5
Platanus occidentalis
0.6
9.5
500
4
6
Quercus michauxii
4.8
9.0
80
4
7
Betula nigra
5.1
6.5
Dead
0
8
Platanus occidentalis
5.1
4.6
510
4
9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5.0
3.0
200
4
10
Quercus phellos
5.0
0.9
162
4
11
Platanus occidentalis
9.5
0.8
500
4
12
Platanus occidentalis
9.4
2.9
480
4
13
Quercus pagoda
9.2
4.4
60
4
14
Platanus occidentalis
9.2
7.1
470
4
15
Betula nigra
9.3
9.7
Dead
0
OR
k; Z11
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Parcel
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Results

Veg Plot 4 - Year 5
Tree ID
Species
X (m)
Y (m)
Height (cm)
Vigor
16
Betula nigra
0.6
0.6
64
4
17
Betula nigra
0.6
2.4
90
4
18
Platanus occidentalis
0.6
4.6
800
4
19
Quercus phellos
0.6
6.9
142
4
20
Betula nigra
0.6
9.5
78
4
21
Quercus pagoda
4.7
9.5
Dead
0
22
Liriodendron tulipifera
4.7
7.1
Dead
0
23
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
4.7
5.2
Dead
0
24
Quercus phellos
4.7
3.3
Dead
0
25
Liriodendron tulipifera
4.9
0.7
Dead
0
26
Ulmus americana
9.6
0.6
130
4
27
Platanus occidentalis
9.5
2.7
750
4
28
Quercus michauxii
9.6
5.1
63
4
29
Betula nigra
9.6
7.2
Dead
0
30
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9.6
9.4
200
4
WSouth Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Parcel
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Results

Veg Plot 5 - Year 5
Tree ID
Species
X (m)
Y (m)
Height (cm)
Vigor
31
Platanus occidentalis
0.4
0.5
800
4
32
Platanus occidentalis
0.5
2.7
580
4
33
Liriodendron tulipifera
0.5
4.3
Dead
0
34
Betula nigra
0.5
6.3
520
4
35
Platanus occidentalis
0.6
8.4
500
4
36
Betula nigra
5.0
8.2
72
4
37
Liriodendron tulipifera
5.1
6.3
Dead
0
38
Betula nigra
5.1
4.2
580
4
39
Betula nigra
5.1
1.9
535
4
40
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5.1
0.6
330
4
41
Platanus occidentalis
9.6
0.6
635
4
42
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9.6
2.1
350
4
43
Platanus occidentalis
9.5
4.3
675
4
44
Platanus occidentalis
9.4
6.3
500
4
45
Quercus phellos
9.5
8.1
Missing
M
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Parcel
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Results

Veg Plot 6 - Year 5
Tree ID
Species
X (m)
Y (m)
Height (cm)
Vigor
49
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
0.6
0.5
280
4
50
Betula nigra
2.8
0.5
300
4
51
Betula nigra
4.6
0.5
Dead
0
52
Quercus michauxii
7.1
0.5
149
4
53
Quercus pagoda
9.6
0.5
151
4
54
Celtis occidentalis
9.3
4.5
174
4
55
Quercus phellos
6.9
4.7
Dead
0
56
Platanus occidentalis
5.0
5.0
750
4
57
Quercus michauxii
3.1
5.0
400
4
58
Quercus michauxii
1.1
5.0
120
4
59
Platanus occidentalis
0.3
9.2
700
4
60
Quercus michauxii
2.9
9.3
Dead
0
61
Betula nigra
5.1
9.2
Dead
0
62
Liriodendron tulipifera
6.9
9.2
300
4
63
Liriodendron tulipifera
1 9.5
1 9.2
1 Dead
0
WSouth Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Parcel
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Results

off, f
If
jV4k

Appendix E: Overview Photographs

South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
Appendix E: Overview Photographs

South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
Appendix E: Overview Photographs