Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout20171122 Ver 2_2017-1122 v2_GUC - 2023 MY4 Report__20240129Annual Monitoring Report MY4 (2023) GUC NUTRIENT OFFSET AND BUFFER MITIGATION BANK PARCEL DWR Project #: 2017-1122v2 Tar-Pamlico River Basin In Agreement with: The GUC Mitigation Banking Instrument for Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Credits Pursuant to the Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Management Strategy Prepared By: Restoration Systems, LLC 1101 Haynes St. Suite 211 Raleigh, NC 27604 Phone: 919-755-9490 Fax: 919-755-9492 January 2024 GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Monitoring Summary MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 MY4 (2023) MONITORING SUMMARY General Notes • Planted stem die-off continues to be an issue. Low survival was observed sitewide in MY 4 (2023). • Nuisance animal activity (pig rooting /deer browse) are noticeable on site, but not problematic. • Adverse climate patterns are believed to be the greatest challenges to vegetative success at this time. Lack of consistent moisture availability, as previously noted in 2021 Adaptive Management plan, appears to be driving mortality. • Prolonged drought during the growing season in 2022 (MY3) is the most obvious reason for the decline in survival from MY 2 to MY 3. • A summary of all remedial planting and maintenance is included Section 6, with additional detail provided in Appendix C Restoration Area = 86.20 Acres - 2020 Originally Planting 63,900 stems. - 2021 Adaptive Management Planting 24,650 stems. - 2022 Adaptive Management Planting 14,350 stems. - 2023 Adaptive Management Planting 3,750 stems. Total Stems Planted = 106,650 stems or 1,237 stems per acre. • On August 9, 2023, a site visit was performed between a Restoration Systems (RS) staff member and Chad Casselman, the Operations Manager with Native Forest Nursery (NFN). NFN is one of RS’s main suppliers of bare root material. Chad has a bachelor’s degree in Forest Management from Suny College of Environmental Science and Forestry and a master's degree in Forest Biology from Virginia Tech University. The purpose of the site visit was to assess the current site conditions with regard to meeting the Site’s performance standards as detailed in the Site Mitigation Plan. Chad’s notes are provided in Section 6.0 Parcel Management Summary. CE Assignment • On May 31, 2023, RS completed the assignment of the Conservation Easement to the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation, Inc. A recorded copy of the assignment is included in Appendix D. Vegetation • 3,750 stems were planted in February 2023. A small percentage (roughly 10%) of Loblolly Pines (Pinus taeda) were interplanted within the remedial action plan zones to test their viability to grow within the Site. The planted pines will not be counted towards the success criteria. See Appendix C for details of the remedial action plan and Figure 2A (Appendix A) for planting locations. • MY 4 (2023) data collected shows an average of 241 planted stems/acre across the Parcel; 29 of the 87 individual plots met the success criteria (Table 5, Appendix B). • The vigor of trees throughout the site varied; deer browsing is limiting the height of some planted stems, though their vigor is strong – i.e., large caliber at base but stunted heigh from deer browsing. GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Monitoring Summary MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 Yearly Monitoring Summary Year Fixed Veg. Plots Meeting Success (of 87 Total) Average Stems per acre Random Veg. Transects Meeting Success # % MY 0 (2020) Planted 85 98% Planted 612.6 n/a w/ Natural Recruits 85 98% w/ Natural Recruits 665.2 MY 1 (2020) Planted 46 53% Planted 327.5 n/a w/ Natural Recruits 46 53% w/ Natural Recruits 365.6 MY 2 (2021) Planted 59 68% Planted 334.0 11 of 14 w/ Natural Recruits 60 69% w/ Natural Recruits 343.3 393 stems /ac MY 3 (2022) Planted 35 40% Planted 240.5 4 of 17 w/ Natural Recruits 35 40% w/ Natural Recruits 242.8 202 stems / ac MY4 (2023) Planted 29 33% Planted 241.0 n/a w/ Natural Recruits 30 34% w/ Natural Recruits 247.5 Yearly Maintenance Summaries 2021 Maintenance Summary: • In the winter of 2020/2021 RS contracted USDA Wildlife Services staff (Josh Biesecker) and coordinated a trapping and removal effort using highly effective remote-operated traps. By March 2021, 12 pigs were trapped and removed. • 24,650 stems were planted during the implementation of the adaptive management plan. 2022 Maintenance Summary: • In March 2022, RS planted an additional 14,350 stems across 24.5 acres observed to have low vigor during the drought period which occurred in late 2021. See Appendix C for location figure. These areas were monitored by random transects in MY 3. 2023 Maintenance Summary: • In February 2023, RS planted an additional 3,750 stems within 2 test areas to observe further effects of drought and soil conditions on several more drought-tolerant species that were not originally planted. In total, RS has planted 106,650 tree and shrub saplings at the Parcel (original planting = 63,900, 2021 adaptive management planting 24,650, 2022 maintenance planting 14,350, 2023 remedial action planting 3,750). 2023 Third-Party Site Assessment: • On August 9, 2023, a site visit was performed between a Restoration Systems (RS) staff member and Chad Casselman, the Operations Manager with Native Forest Nursery (NFN). NFN is one of RS’s main suppliers of bare root material. Chad has a bachelor’s degree in Forest Management from Suny College of Environmental Science and Forestry and a master's degree in Forest Biology from Virginia Tech University. The purpose of the site visit was to assess the current site conditions with regard to meeting the Site’s performance standards as detailed in the Site Mitigation Plan. Chad’s notes are provided in Section 6.0 Parcel Management Summary. GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Table of Contents MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel DWR Project #: 2017-1122v2 Annual Monitoring Report MY4 (2023) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Parcel Location ................................................................................................................................. 1 2.1 Parcel Background ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Parcel Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 2 3.0 Restoration Activities ....................................................................................................................... 3 3.1 Construction Activities .............................................................................................................. 4 3.2 Riparian Area Restoration Activities ......................................................................................... 4 4.0 Mitigation Potential ......................................................................................................................... 6 5.0 Monitoring Protocol & Success Criteria ........................................................................................... 7 5.1 Monitoring Protocol .................................................................................................................. 7 5.2 Parcel Maintenance .................................................................................................................. 7 5.3 Long-Term Management Plan ................................................................................................. 7 6.0 Parcel Management Summary ........................................................................................................ 7 7.0 References ..................................................................................................................................... 11 APPENDIX ITEMS Appendix A: General Figures and Tables Figure 1 - Parcel Location / Service Area Figures 2, 2A-B – Current Conditions Plan View Figures 3, 3A-D – Credit Determination Table 1 - Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 2 - Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 - Project Contact Table 4 - Project Baseline Information and Attributes Appendix B: Vegetation Data, CVS Output Tables Table 5 – Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species Vegetation Plot Photos MY4 (2023) Planted Stem Height and Vigor Data Appendix C: Parcel Management 2021 Adaptive Management Figure + Transect Data 2021 Soil Test Results 2021 Rainfall Data 2022 Adaptive Management Map 2022 Climate Data 2023 Adaptive Management Plan 2023 Climate Data Appendix D: Conservation Easement Assignment GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 1 MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 1.0 Introduction Restoration Systems (Sponsor) is pleased to provide the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NC DWR) with this Annual Monitoring Report for the GUC Bank Parcel (Parcel). As agreed upon in the GUC Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) and GUC Bank Parcel Development Packaged (BPDP), made and entered into on February 17, 2020, by Restoration Systems, LLC (RS), acting as Bank Sponsor (Sponsor), and the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Water Resources (DWR). This document details the riparian area restoration activities, monitoring efforts, and the Parcel's mitigation potential. The Parcel is 97.14 acres and is designed to provide mitigation credits for unavoidable impacts due to development within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Tar-Pamlico River Riparian Buffer mitigation credits provided by this Parcel are available in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin, according to 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule – CMB rule) (effective date– October 24, 2014) (Appendix D). Mitigation credits for Nutrient Offset are made available within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin USGS 8-digit HUC 03020103. Supporting figures, tables, and photos are located in Appendix A. NCDWR representatives Katie Merritt and Chris Pullinger conducted an onsite determination for parcel applicability and suitability on November 11, 2017. Follow-up information was provided to Katie Merritt on January 22, 2019, and the Division provided a Site Viability for Buffer & Nutrient Offset on March 25, 2019, and revised on May 29, 2019 (Appendix C). A phased approach was taken to allow for the completion of the Piedmont Natural Gas pipeline 24 "Line 24" – DWR 2018-1640. The Parcel was permitted in two phases (Phase 1, 68.02 acres, and Phase 2, 29.07 acres). Completion of the pipeline within the City of Greenville's property, including 401 permit release, occurred in March 2020, allowing RS to perform restoration activities on both phases simultaneously. As such, both phases will be reported on and monitored congruently and as one, with one monitoring report submitted at the end of each year and one financial assurance policy. Restoration construction activities involved removing existing farm infrastructure, including piped crossings, dirt roads, a utility line, and a small agricultural building. RS began preparation for the restoration of the riparian buffer and planted the Parcel in March 2020. Riparian buffer restoration activities included ripping/bedding the Parcel with a narrow set plow, bare-root planting, and broadcast application of a permanent seed mix. During March 18th – 26, 2020, Axiom Environmental installed eighty- seven (87) Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) monitoring plots and collected as-built data. Katie Merritt of DWR performed a restoration verification site visit on June 17, 2020. 2.0 Parcel Location The Parcel is located approximately 4.5 miles east of Greenville in Pitt County, NC, and within Greenville's municipal boundaries (Figure 1, Appendix A). The Parcel is within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin 14-digit USGS Cataloging Unit 03020103070030 of the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain (North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Sub-basin Number 03-03-05) (Figure 1, Appendix A). Parcel Location: (35.603194, -77.294509) Directions to Parcel from Raleigh: - Take I-440 East from Capital Boulevard, - Follow US-264 East to US-264 West (Greenville), - Take Old Pactolus Rd for 3.2 miles, - The Parcel is located on the right. GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 2 MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 2.1 Parcel Background The Parcel encompasses 97.14 acres of historical agricultural fields. Before Parcel development, agricultural fields were used as biosolids irrigation fields for the City of Greenville Waster Water Facility and row crop production of hay or sorghum. The Parcel includes three unnamed tributaries and two surface water conveyances/ditches with direct hydrologic connection to the Tar River, in addition to a third unnamed tributary that connects to an onsite tributary before discharging into the Tar River (Figures 3A-B, Appendix A). Before construction, Parcel surface water conveyances and unnamed tributaries were cleared of vegetation by historical agricultural practices and maintained as cleared ditches. Small pockets of disturbed forests were located on the Parcel at the top of Feature 2, along the margins of Feature 5, and in the southeast corner of Feature 8 (Figures 3A-B, Appendix A). Dirt roads, a powerline, and a small dilapidated agricultural building were removed from the Parcel's footprint. The Parcel comprises three separate tracts just north of the Tar River. Currently, Parcel tracts are subject to two existing 50-foot Piedmont Natural Gas Company, Inc. (PNG) Easements. PNG Line 42, DWR Permit No. 2012-1024 v7, runs roughly east to west across the GUC-owned tracts, and PNG easement and gas line (Line 24 – DWR 2018-1640 – 401 approval on 04-26-2019 with DWR approval and 401 release on March 11, 2020) connects to Line 42 and runs south under the Tar River. Both PNG easements are outside of the Parcel's footprint. 2.2 Parcel Objectives The primary goals associated with the restoration of riparian areas within the Bank Parcel focused on improving water quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring wildlife habitat. The Project goals for each Phase are identical, while the Restoration Plan for each differed only with regard to the removal of existing infrastructure. These goals were achieved by creating a forested riparian buffer adjacent to stream channels and a forested riparian area along agricultural ditches and were accomplished by the following. 1. Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural production, including a) ceasing the broadcast application of class B biosolids, fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural materials into and adjacent to Parcel surface water conveyances (ditches) and streams, b) providing a restored buffer to filter runoff from adjacent lands. 2. Reducing sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters by reducing bank erosion, vegetation maintenance, and agricultural land disturbances. 3. Promoting floodwater attenuation by increasing frictional resistance of floodwaters crossing Parcel floodplains. 4. Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed shading and natural detritus input. 5. Providing a terrestrial wildlife corridor and refuge in an area extensively developed for agricultural production. 6. Restoring and re-establishing natural community structure, habitat diversity, and functional continuity. 7. Protecting the Parcel's riparian buffer functions and values in perpetuity. GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 3 MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 3.0 Restoration Activities A restoration plan, including the following components, was completed in March 2020. Primary components of the Restoration Plan included the following. 1. Removal of an existing, abandoned farm building adjacent to feature 6B & removal of a powerline adjacent to features 6A and 6B 2. Removal of existing compacted earth roads adjacent to features 6A, 6B, and 3. Removal of four culverts 4. Parcel-wide soil preparation & herbaceous vegetation treatment 5. Riparian area restoration (replanting) extending from the top of bank (TOB) out 200' where applicable and 6. Parcel protection in perpetuity through a conservation easement. Tables A & B detail the restoration and protection activities. An outline of restoration activities and their completion dates is provided in Table 2 (Appendix A). Table A – Summary Restoration Activities Restoration Plan Activity Phase 1 (Figure 3A-C, Appendix A) Phase 2 (Figure 4A-B, Appendix A) Removal of Existing Infrastructure 1.) Removal of existing dirt roads adjacent to Parcel Features 2 & 8 2.) Removal of two existing culverts at the confluence of Features 7B and 8 1.) Removal of existing dirt roads adjacent to Parcel Features 6A, 6B 2.) Removal of two existing culverts at the confluence of Features 5 and 6A 3.) Removal of an existing, abandoned farm building adjacent to feature 6B 4.) Removal of a powerline adjacent to features 6A and 6B Riparian Restoration 1.) Parcel-wide soil preparation herbaceous vegetation treatment ahead of planting 2.) Establishment of a native herbaceous community via site-specific seed mix* 3.) Establishment of a native hardwood forest via the planting of bare-root saplings from the top of bank out a maximum of 200' along Parcel Features 1.) Parcel-wide soil preparation herbaceous vegetation treatment ahead of planting 2.) Establishment of a native herbaceous community via site-specific seed mix* 3.) Establishment of a native hardwood forest via the planting of bare-root saplings from the top of bank out a maximum of 200' along Parcel Features * Permanent Seed Mix: Table D Table B – Summary Protection Activities Parcel Protection (97.14 acres) 1.) RS was granted a Conservation Easement by the City of Greenville, North Carolina, on March 19, 2020. The conservation easement was recorded at the Pitt County Register of Deeds; Book No. 3912, Page 577-600. 2.) RS marked the easement at every corner with an iron, CE cap, and corner t-post. Additionally, easement posts were placed every 200-feet along the Parcel boundaries Conservation Easement Assignment 1.) On May 31, 2023, RS completed the assignment of the Conservation Easement to the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation, Inc (Pitt County Register of Deeds Book 4414 Pg 847- 875 GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 4 MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 3.1 Construction Activities Three primary construction activities occurred onsite, including 1) the removal of an abandoned farm building adjacent to feature 6B & removal of a powerline adjacent to features 6A and 6B; 2) the removal of existing compacted earth roads adjacent to features 6A, 6B, and 8; and 3) removal of four culverts. After removing the powerline, abandoned agricultural building, and compacted earth roads. Treatment of coastal Bermuda grass was completed in 2019. RS did not feel it was necessary to apply an additional treatment nor a pre-emergent treatment for other herbaceous species. The Parcel was prepared for bare- root planting by ripping parallel planting beds off each of the Parcel's features. The ripping and bedding provided additional water storage for bare-root plantings and introduced microtopography, promoting diffuse flow and surface water storage throughout the floodplain. Soil amendments were made by the prior farmer before the planting of 2019 row crops. RS did not apply additional soil amendments. Four culverts were removed, two between features 5 and 6A, and two between features 7B and 8. After the culverts were removed, the side slopes were graded to match existing slopes at approximately a five- to-one (5:1) slope. Matting, native seed mix, and live stakes were used to stabilize the stream banks, providing long-term stability. Where necessary, black willow live stakes were used to stabilize the banks throughout the Parcel. 3.2 Riparian Area Restoration Activities Restoration of the riparian area allows for the recolonization and expansion of characteristic species across the landscape. The riparian areas were restored in accordance with 15A NCAC 02B .0295. The planting plan for the entire riparian restoration area (Phase 1 and 2), included planting native bare root hardwood and shrub saplings across 86.36 acres at a Parcel density of 740 stems per acre and live stakes for stream bank stabilization where necessary and the broadcast application of 195 LB of permeant seed mix (~2 lb. per acre). Community associations utilized include 1) Brownwater Bottomland Hardwoods (High Subtype) and 2) Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) (Schafale 2012). The planted species composition is intentionally diverse and, while based on these communities, also accounted for local observations and nursery availability. All species were selected based on their ability for sediment stabilization, rapid growth rate, the ability to withstand hydraulic forces associated with flood events, suitability to specific soil types, and Parcel conditions. Trees were mixed thoroughly before planting to provide diverse and random planting across the Parcel. Planting occurred at a density sufficient to meet the performance standards outlined in Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 of 260 trees per acre at the end of five years. No singular tree species accounted for greater than 50% of the established stems. The bare root planting list is provided in Table C, followed by the permanent seed mix in Table D. MY4 (2023) vegetation data is provided in Appendix B. Vegetation data for MY4 was collected in September and October 2023 by Axiom Environmental and derived an average planted stem density of 241 stems per acre. In addition to native hardwood trees, the Sponsor planted several species of native shrubs, aiding in developing a robust, ecologically sound riparian buffer. Shrub species are counted towards success criteria per the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (November 1, 2015). GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 5 MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 Table C – Planting List Common Name Scientific Name Tree/ Shrub* Total % of Total Planted Trees River birch Betula nigra Tree 5200 8.14% Hickory (mockernut) Carya tomentosa Tree 1000 1.56% Chinkapin Castanea pumila Shrub 200 0.31% Sugarberry Celtis laevigata Tree 1900 2.97% Hackberry Celtis occidentalis Tree 1400 2.19% Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis Shrub 800 1.25% Redbud Cercis canadensis Tree 1100 1.72% Silky dogwood Cornus amomum Shrub 700 1.10% Hawthorn Crataegus marshallii Shrub 900 1.41% Persimmon Diospyros virginiana Tree 1200 1.88% Yellow poplar Liriodendron tulipifera Tree 5200 8.14% Crabapple Malus angustifolia Tree 600 0.94% Mulberry Morus rubra Tree 1600 2.50% Carolina buckthorn Frangula caroliniana Shrub 2000 3.13% Black gum Nyssa sylvatica Tree 5100 7.98% Sycamore Platanus occidentalis Tree 5200 8.14% Chickasaw plum Prunus angustifolia Tree 500 0.78% Wild Cherry Prunus serotina Tree 1100 1.72% Oak (White) Quercus alba Tree 2200 3.44% Oak (Swamp White) Quercus bicolor Tree 2100 3.29% Oak (Laurel) Quercus laurifolia Tree 1200 1.88% Oak (Overcup) Quercus lyrata Tree 3000 4.69% Oak (Swamp Chestnut) Quercus michauxii Tree 3300 5.16% Oak (Water) Quercus nigra Tree 3,000 4.69% Oak (Cherrybark) Quercus pagoda Tree 3000 4.69% Oak (Willow) Quercus phellos Tree 2300 3.60% Oak (Northern Red) Quercus rubra Tree 3000 4.69% Oak (Shumard) Quercus shumardii Tree 2100 3.29% American Elm Ulmus americana Tree 3000 4.69% Arrowwood Vibrunum dentatum Shrub 1000 1.56% Total 63,900 100% *CVS species type designation GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 6 MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 Table D – Permanent Seed Common Name Amount (in pounds) Common Name Amount (in pounds) Common Yarrow 1.95 Showy Ticktrefoil 1.95 Redtop 29.25 Purple Coneflower 11.70 Winter Bentgrass, 9.75 Virginia Wildrye, 'Madison' 9.75 Creeping Bentgrass 9.75 Perennial Gaillardia (Blanketflower) 3.90 Clusterspike False Indigo 1.95 Narrowleaf Sunflower 2.93 Showy Aster 1.95 Oxeye Sunflower 1.95 Blue False Indigo 3.90 Wild Bergamot 0.98 Oxeye Daisy 9.75 Deertongue, Tioga 9.75 Shasta Daisy 5.85 Tall White Beardtongue 1.95 Lanceleaf Coreopsis 9.75 Clasping Coneflower 1.95 Plains Coreopsis 9.75 Blackeyed Susan 5.85 Cosmos 3.90 Purpletop 39.00 Rocket Larkspur 3.90 Blue Vervain 1.95 Total (pounds) 195.00 4.0 Mitigation Potential DWR has determined the nitrogen and phosphorous abatement of restored riparian areas to be 2273.02 lbs per acre for nitrogen and 146.4 lbs per acre for phosphorous, as agreed to in the GUC MBI. Riparian buffer credits were measured by the hundredth of an acre and converted into square feet. The mitigation potential for each Project Phase is detailed below. The Parcel generated 86.20 acres of restored riparian area within a 97.14-acre Parcel. The Parcel will preserve 10.94 acres of riparian areas, streams, and ditches. Table 1 (Appendix A) outlines the components and mitigation credits to be generated within the Parcel. Tar-Pamlico riparian buffer mitigation credit generated along Features 2, 6B, 7A, 7B, & 8 (all unnamed tributaries) can be used for either riparian buffer credits or nutrient offset credits, but not both. For this document, RS has chosen to designate the riparian areas from top-of-bank to 100 feet as Riparian Buffer Credit and areas from 101-200 feet as Nutrient Offset Credit. Riparian Buffer Credits can be converted and transferred to Nutrient Offset Credits; however, Nutrient Offset Credits conversions from areas 101- 200 feet to Riparian Buffer Credits will not occur. Nutrient offset credits (nitrogen and phosphorous) generated along the two surface water conveyances (ditches), Features 5 and 6A, cannot be converted into riparian buffer mitigation credits. RS must request and receive approval to transfer any mitigation credits from DWR before adding or removing credits from the ledgers. The Sponsor will maintain three credit ledgers per Phase. One ledger will account for riparian buffer credits, one will account for nitrogen nutrient offset credits, and one will account for phosphorous nutrient offset credits. All mitigation credit assets shall be shown on the credit ledgers (Table 1, Appendix A). GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 7 MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 5.0 Monitoring Protocol & Success Criteria 5.1 Monitoring Protocol Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation at each Phase will monitor plant survival and species diversity. Quantitative sampling will include eighty-seven (87 [Phase 1 = 61 Plots & Phase 2 = 26) permanent 10 x 10-meter vegetation plots as outlined in the CVS Level 1-2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and will occur no earlier than Fall of each year (Figures 2A-B, Appendix A). A reference photo will be taken from the origin point of each plot. All planted stems in the plots will be marked with flagging tape and recorded. Data collected will include species, height, and planting type (planted stem and/or volunteer). Monitoring of the restoration efforts will be performed for five years or until success criteria are fulfilled. RS shall submit to NCDWR annual monitoring reports for both Project Phases (1 and 2) no later than December 31 of each year. Each report will document the success of the vegetation and any maintenance, supplemental planting, or encroachment within the easement areas. Success criteria within the buffer and nutrient offset restoration areas will be based on the survival of planted species at a density of 260 stems per acre after five years of monitoring. 5.2 Parcel Maintenance A remedial action plan will be developed and implemented with the approval of NCDWR in the event the Parcel or a specific component of the Parcel fails to achieve success criteria as outlined above. Other vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. If exotic invasive plant species require treatment, such species will be controlled by mechanical (physical removal with the use of a chainsaw) and/or chemical methods (aquatic approved herbicide) following North Carolina Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. If mowing is deemed necessary by the Sponsor during the monitoring period, the Sponsor must receive approval by the DWR prior to any mowing activities within Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the Neuse buffers along UT2 to ensure that no buffer violations have been performed. Failure to receive approval to mow within the Tar-Pamlico buffer as defined in 15A NCAC 02B .0258 by the DWR could result in Tar-Pamlico buffer violations and violations of the conservation easement. If necessary, the Sponsor will develop a species- specific control plan. 5.3 Long-Term Management Plan The conservation easement preserves all areas and prohibits all uses of the property inconsistent with its use as mitigation property, including any activity that would materially alter the Parcel's biological integrity. RS will transfer or assign the conservation easement and its interests in perpetuity to a qualified holder under NC General Statute ("GS") 121-34 et seq. and 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code before the submittal of the Year 4 Monitoring Report. The holder shall be a land trust or stewardship program accredited by the Land Trust Accreditation Commission and/or has been approved by DWR. A land trust must be certified under 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 6.0 Parcel Management Summary MY 1 - 2020 During the June 2020 as-built walkthrough, DWR and RS determined a small area adjacent to vegetation plot 9 was not planted during the initial Parcel planting effort in March 2020. During the as-built walkthrough and subsequent field visits, RS took GPS points where planting did not occur. The area totaled 0.54 acres and was planted in early February 2021. GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 8 MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 Yr. 1 (2020) monitoring efforts determined the Parcel is meeting success sitewide. However, RS observed extensive dieback of planted hardwood species across the entire Parcel during the Yr. 1, 2020 Monitoring Season. RS believes poor tree stock, moderate planting conditions, and drought are the leading causes for the low efficacy with planted stems. To ensure a successful riparian forest establishes, RS proposed replanting twenty-four thousand six hundred and fifty (24,650) hardwood bare roots across the entire ninety-seven (97) acre easement. Spacing and densities of the planted stems will be based on zones depending on survivability within specific areas. A map identifying each zone is provided in Appendix C. To offset the potential for dieback from drought, RS added Terra-Sorb to the root balls of each sapling planted. Terra-Sorb is a non-toxic super-absorbent hydrogel material that absorbs up to 150 times its weight in water and releases it into the roots when the soils are dry. The species below were picked from the original planting list with minor modifications based on species success during Yr. 1. Table E outlines the species and number of stems RS planted in February 2021. Densities were determined by Yr. 1 monitoring data and infield observations. Documentation of the January 2021 Adaptive Management Plan is included in Appendix C. Table E: February 2021 Planted Species and Quantities Species Number of Stems Betula nigra 2,800 Celtis occidentalis 1,500 Cercis canadensis 900 Diospyros virginiana 900 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1,400 Liriodendron tulipifera 1,300 Morus rubra 700 Nyssa sylvatica 1,500 Platanus Occidentalis 2,800 Quercus alba 1,400 Quercus lyrate 350 Quercus nigra 3,350 Quercus phellos 3,250 Quercus rubra 1,000 Quercus shumardii 1,000 Ulmus americana 500 Total 24,650 MY 2 - 2021 Yr. 2 (2021) monitoring efforts determined the Parcel is meeting success sitewide. However, RS observed dieback and low vigor of planted hardwood species in several zones during the Yr. 2, 2021 Monitoring Season, particularly in fall site visits during a late drought period. These observations led RS to conduct supplemental planting in these zones in March 2022 with species from the original planting list. See Appendix C for planting zone locations. See Table F below for species information. GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 9 MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 Table F: February 2022 Planted Species and Quantities Species Number of Stems Betula nigra 1,250 Celtis occidentalis 750 Cercis canadensis 750 Diospyros virginiana 1,250 Liriodendron tulipifera 1,250 Malus angustifolia 750 Morus rubra 1,250 Nyssa sylvatica 1,250 Platanus occidentalis 1,250 Quercus michauxii 1,250 Quercus nigra 1,250 Ulmus americana 1,250 Vibrunum dentatum 850 Total 14,350 MY 3 - 2022 Due to continued dieback and low vigor of planted hardwood species during MY 3 (2022) and based on the challenging soil conditions and unfavorable climate outlook, RS has proposed a measured approach to bringing the site up to standard. The plan included limited planting of test areas in February 2023. Table below summarizes the planted species and quantities. The 2023 remedial action plan is detailed in Appendix C. Table G: February 2023 Planted Species and Quantities Species Number of Stems Amelanchier spp. 350 Aronia arbutifolia 350 Betula nigra 750 Liriodendron tulipifera 150 Morus rubra 600 Nyssa sylvatica 100 Pinus taeda 400 Platanus occidentalis 150 Quercus michauxii 400 Quercus nigra 200 Ulmus americana 300 Total 3,750 GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 10 MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 On August 9, 2023, a site visit was performed between a Restoration Systems (RS) staff member and Chad Casselman, the Operations Manager with Native Forest Nursery (NFN). NFN is one of RS’s main suppliers of bare root material. Chad has a bachelor’s degree in Forest Management from Suny College of Environmental Science and Forestry and a master's degree in Forest Biology from Virginia Tech University. The purpose of the site visit was to assess the current site conditions with regard to meeting the Site’s performance standards as detailed in the Site Mitigation Plan. Greenville Utilities Commission – Site Assessment Report (Chad Casselman) Site Conditions: The site was visited on August 9, 2023, to assess site productivity factors and existing vegetation. Below is a summary of observations by category. 1. Soil Conditions a. Very sandy soil that could be prone to drought. b. It was noted that there was a small area (approximately 1 acre) in the southwest corner of the site that was known to be very wet seasonally. This area had significantly higher density of living tree species and taller tree species. This could speak to the importance of soil moisture dynamics on the site. c. It was also noted that there were almost no species present that typically have shallow and fibrous root systems throughout the site. These would be the red maple, sweetgum, buttonbush, silky dogwood type species. This is very rare to not have these species present in some degree. Along with this, it was noted that oaks were found throughout the site. Oaks are tap rooted species that have deeper root systems from the nursery and are also more drought tolerant. This again could speak to important soil moisture dynamics. 2. Vegetation a. Think competing vegetation was observed over most of the site. There were occasional patches of light herbaceous vegetation throughout the site. This seemed odd as there seemed to be no reason to have these differences based on the soil and other site factors in adjacent areas with heavy vegetation. This could point to soil chemical properties in these areas given the historical land use. b. It was noted that the land adjacent to the project site was used in crop production in recent years. It could be possible that herbicides used to manage the crops drifted over the project area. The lack of the fibrous rooted species and presence of oak species corroborates this as oaks are much more tolerant of herbicides in general than the other species. Removing this risk to increase the success of future plantings should be part of the strategy. 3. Other Factors a. Significant deer browsing was observed on all living stems. There were oaks that had a one- inch caliper at the soil line that were only two feet tall due to deer browsing. There is no question that deer browsing is impacting success on this site. GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 11 MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 7.0 References Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule - 15A NCAC 02B .0295 (Published November 17, 2014) Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, SD. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina. Neuse River Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy 15A NCAC 2B .0233, 15A NCAC 02B .0240, and 15A NCAC 02B .0295 Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. Schafale, M. P. and Weakley, 2012. A Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1974. Soil Survey of Pitt County, NC. GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Appendices MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 Appendix A: General Figures and Tables Figure 1 - Parcel Location / Service Area Figures 2, 2A-B - Current Conditions Plan View Figures 3, 3A-D - Credit Determination Table 1 - Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 2 - Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 - Project Contact Table 4 - Project Baseline Information and Attributes HYDE PITT W AKE DARE DUPLIN BERTIE N ASH CRAV EN CARTERET BEAUFORT SAMPSON HALIFAX W AYN E JOHN STON TYRRELL JON ES PAMLICO MARTIN LEN OIR HARN ETT ON SLOW FRAN KLIN W ILSON CUMBERLAN D EDGECOMBE GRAN V ILLE W ARREN DURHAM GREEN E BLADEN W ASHIN GTON V AN CE GATES HERTFORD CAMDEN CHOW AN CURRITUCKPERSON PERQUIMAN S N ORTHAMPTON ROBESON PASQUOTAN K CHATHAM ORAN GE LEE PEN DER Tar-Pamlico River BasinUSGS HUC 03020103 Bank Parcel LocationPitt County, NC Latitude: 35.603194°Longitude: -77.294509° RESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC 1101 HAYN ES ST, SUITE 211RALEIGH, N C 27604 PHON E : 919.755.9490FAX : 919.755.9492 This m a p a nd a ll da ta co nta ined within a re supplied as is with no wa rra nty. Resto ra tio n System s, LLC expressly discla im s respo nsib ility fo r da m a ges o r lia b ility fro m a ny cla im s tha t m a y arise o ut o f the use o r m isuse o f this m a p. It is the so le respo nsib ility o f the user to determ ine if the data o n this m a p is co m pa tib le with the user’s needs. This m a p was no t crea ted as survey da ta , no r sho uld it b e used as such. It is the user’s respo nsib ility to o b ta in pro per survey data , prepa red b y a licensed surveyo r, where required b y la w. SCALE: DATE: 06 - 2019 Co o rdina te System :N AD_ 1983_ SP_ N C_ FIPS_ 3200_ Ft. Aeria l Im a gery: (c) ESRI SITE: GUC-00 Figure 1: Parcel Location & Service Area 1 in = 12 m iles Legend Ta r-Pa m River Ba sin USGS HUC 6-Digit: 030201 N C Co unty Bo unda ries N C River Sub b a sins: USGS 8-Digit HUCs Ba nk Pa rcel Service Area : Ta r-Pa m River Ba sin USGS HUC 8-Digit: 03020103 Service La yer Credits: So urces: Esri,DeLo rm e, N AV TEQ, To m To m , Interm a p,increm ent P Co rp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO,N PS, N RCAN , Geo Ba se, IGN , Ka da ster N L,Ordna nce Survey, Esri Ja pa n, METI, EsriChina (Ho ng Ko ng), swissto po , a nd the GISUser Co m m unity Directio ns to Pa rcel fro m Ra leigh:- Get o n I-440 E fro m Ca pita l Blvd- Fo llo w US-264 E to US-264 W (Greenville)- Ta ke Old Pa cto lus Rd 3.2 m iles – Pa rcel is lo ca ted o n yo ur right 0 30 6015 Miles ³ FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: KRJ DEC 2023 1:6800 20-008 Title: Project: Prepared for: Pitt County, NC GUC SITE CURRENTCONDITIONSPLAN VIEW 2 ³ 0 1,000 2,000500Feet Legend GUC Easement = 97.14 acres Hydrologic Features CVS Plots Figure 2A Figure 2B Feature1 Feature 2 F e a t u r e 5 Feature 6B Feature 6A F e a t u r e 7 A Feature7B Feature8 1 8 5 7 9 36 4 2 22 11 25 28 26 70 37 68 75 74 12 31 24 20 69 21 73 10 36 4438 71 23 72 42 14 30 40 29 35 34 41 32 13 15 45 18 33 17 19 16 27 43 39 NCCGIA, NC 911 Board FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: APS DEC 2023 1:3850 20-008 Title: Project: Prepared for: Pitt County, NC GUC SITE CURRENTCONDITIONSPLAN VIEW 2A ³ 0 500 1,000250Feet Legend GUC Easement = 97.14 acres Hydrologic Features CVS Plots Meeting MY4 (2023) Success Criteria CVS Plots Not Meeting MY4 (2023) Success Criteria 2023 Supplemental Planting Areas Top of Bank to 20-Feet Top of Bank to 30-Feet Top of Bank to 50-Feet Top of Bank to 100-Feet Top of Bank to 200-Feet Feature1-Ditch Feature 2 - S tream F e a t u r e 5 -D it c h Feature 6A - D itc h Feature 6B - S tream F e a t u r e 7 A -S t r e a m 64 7978 86 65 28 66 26 76 57 70 56 37 67 87 75 58 74 53 55 63 80 62 31 69 73 81 44 71 60 72 82 83 52 42 30 40 29 84 47 49 59 41 46 32 77 51 45 85 61 48 54 27 50 43 39 35 FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: APS DEC 2023 1:3850 20-008 Title: Project: Prepared for: Pitt County, NC GUC SITE CURRENTCONDITIONSPLAN VIEW 2B ³ 0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet Legend GUC Easement = 97.14 acres Hydrologic Features CVS Plots Meeting MY4 (2023) Success Criteria CVS Plots Not Meeting MY4 (2023) Success Criteria Top of Bank to 20-Feet Top of Bank to 30-Feet Top of Bank to 50-Feet Top of Bank to 100-Feet Top of Bank to 200-Feet F e a t u r e 7 A -S t r e a m Feature7B- S tream Feature8-Stream F e a t u r e 5 -D it c h FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: KRJ JUL 2020 1:7500 20-008 Title: Project: Prepared for: Pitt County, NC GUC SITE 3 ³ 0 1,000 2,000500Feet Legend GUC Easement = 97.14 acres Top of Bank (TOB) of Bank Parcel Hydrologic Features Top of Bank to 20-Feet Top of Bank to 30-Feet Top of Bank to 50-Feet Top of Bank to 100-Feet Top of Bank to 200-Feet No Credit: Less Than 20-Feet or Non-Contiguous Area Zone A (20-29'), Buffer Restoration Zone A (0-50'), Buffer Restoration Zone B (51'-100'), Buffer Restoration Zone A (0-50'), Buffer Preservation Zone B (51'-100'), Buffer Preservation Zone C (101'-200'), Buffer Preservation Zone A (20-29'), Nutrient Offset Zone A (0-50'), Nutrient Offset Zone B (51'-100'), Nutrient Offset Zone C (101'-200'), Nutrient Offset Figure 2A Figure 2B Feature1 Feature 2 F e a t u r e 5 Feature 6B Feature 6A F e a t u r e 7 A Feature7B Feature 8 CREDITDETERMINATION Figure 2C Figure 2D FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: KRJ JUL 2020 1:2600 20-008 Title: Project: Prepared for: Pitt County, NC GUC SITE 3A ³ 0 400 800200Feet Legend GUC Easement = 97.14 acres Top of Bank (TOB) of Bank Parcel Hydrologic Features No Credit: Less Than 20-Feet or Non-Contiguous Area Zone A (20-29'), Buffer Restoration Zone A (0-50'), Buffer Restoration Zone B (51'-100'), Buffer Restoration Zone A (0-50'), Buffer Preservation Zone B (51'-100'), Buffer Preservation Zone C (101'-200'), Buffer Preservation Zone A (20-29'), Nutrient Offset Zone A (0-50'), Nutrient Offset Zone B (51'-100'), Nutrient Offset Zone C (101'-200'), Nutrient Offset Top of Bank to 20-Feet Top of Bank to 30-Feet Top of Bank to 50-Feet Top of Bank to 100-Feet Top of Bank to 200-Feet Feature1-Ditch Feature 2 -Stream TOB - 20-Feet = No Credit Zone A (20-29'), Buffer Restoration (75% of RBM Credit) NOTE ABOUT WIDTHS: Riparian Buffer Mitigation (RBM) Restoration Areas TOB to 20-29' qualifies for 75% RBM credit TOB-100 ft. = Buffer width is contiguous from TOB, is a minimum of 30 ft. from the TOB and maximum of 100 ft. from the TOB, and qualifies for 100% RBM credit. Riparian Buffer Credit 101-200 ft. = Buffer width is contiguous from TOB, is a minimum of 101 ft. from the TOB and a maximum of 200 ft. from the TOB, and qualifies for 33% RBM credit. Nutrient Offset Credit (NOC) TOB to 20-29' qualifies for 75% Nutrient Offset Credit TOB-200 ft. = Buffer width is contiguous from TOB, is a minimum of 30 ft. from the TOB and a maximum of 200 ft. from the TOB, and qualifies for 100% Nutrient Offset Credit. CREDITDETERMINATION FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: KRJ JUL 2020 1:2800 20-008 Title: Project: Prepared for: Pitt County, NC GUC SITE CREDITDETERMINATION 3B ³ 0 300 600150Feet Legend GUC Easement = 97.14 acres Top of Bank (TOB) of Bank Parcel Hydrologic Features No Credit: Less Than 20-Feet or Non-Contiguous Area Zone A (20-29'), Buffer Restoration Zone A (0-50'), Buffer Restoration Zone B (51'-100'), Buffer Restoration Zone A (0-50'), Buffer Preservation Zone B (51'-100'), Buffer Preservation Zone C (101'-200'), Buffer Preservation Zone A (20-29'), Nutrient Offset Zone A (0-50'), Nutrient Offset Zone B (51'-100'), Nutrient Offset Zone C (101'-200'), Nutrient Offset Top of Bank to 20-Feet Top of Bank to 30-Feet Top of Bank to 50-Feet Top of Bank to 100-Feet Top of Bank to 200-Feet F e a t u r e 5 - D it c h NOTE ABOUT WIDTHS: Riparian Buffer Mitigation (RBM) Restoration Areas TOB to 20-29' qualifies for 75% RBM credit TOB-100 ft. = Buffer width is contiguous from TOB, is a minimum of 30 ft. from the TOB and maximum of 100 ft. from the TOB, and qualifies for 100% RBM credit. Riparian Buffer Credit 101-200 ft. = Buffer width is contiguous from TOB, is a minimum of 101 ft. from the TOB and a maximum of 200 ft. from the TOB, and qualifies for 33% RBM credit. Nutrient Offset Credit (NOC) TOB to 20-29' qualifies for 75% Nutrient Offset Credit TOB-200 ft. = Buffer width is contiguous from TOB, is a minimum of 30 ft. from the TOB and a maximum of 200 ft. from the TOB, and qualifies for 100% Nutrient Offset Credit. NO CREDIT AREA (Existing Forest Adjacent to a Ditch) Both Sides of Ditch Fea tu re 6 A -D itc h Fe a tu re 6 B -S trea m NO CREDIT AREA (Existing Forest Adjacent to a Ditch) Both Sides of Ditch F e a t u r e 7 A - S t r e a m TOB - 20-Feet = No Credit Zone A (20-29'), Restoration for NOC (75% of NO Credit) TOB - 20-Feet = No Credit Zone A (20-29'), Restoration for NOC (75% of NO Credit) TOB - 20-Feet = No Credit Zone A (20-29'), Restoration for NOC (75% of NO Credit) TOB - 20-Feet = No Credit Zone A (20-29'), Restoration for NOC (75% of NO Credit) FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: KRJ JUL 2020 1:2600 20-008 Title: Project: Prepared for: Pitt County, NC GUC SITE CREDITDETERMINATION 3C ³ 0 400 800200Feet Legend GUC Easement = 97.14 acres Top of Bank (TOB) of Bank Parcel Hydrologic Features No Credit: Less Than 20-Feet or Non-Contiguous Area Zone A (20-29'), Buffer Restoration Zone A (0-50'), Buffer Restoration Zone B (51'-100'), Buffer Restoration Zone A (0-50'), Buffer Preservation Zone B (51'-100'), Buffer Preservation Zone C (101'-200'), Buffer Preservation Zone A (20-29'), Nutrient Offset Zone A (0-50'), Nutrient Offset Zone B (51'-100'), Nutrient Offset Zone C (101'-200'), Nutrient Offset Top of Bank to 20-Feet Top of Bank to 30-Feet Top of Bank to 50-Feet Top of Bank to 100-Feet Top of Bank to 200-Feet NOTE ABOUT WIDTHS: Riparian Buffer Mitigation (RBM) Restoration Areas TOB to 20-29' qualifies for 75% RBM credit TOB-100 ft. = Buffer width is contiguous from TOB, is a minimum of 30 ft. from the TOB and maximum of 100 ft. from the TOB, and qualifies for 100% RBM credit. Riparian Buffer Credit 101-200 ft. = Buffer width is contiguous from TOB, is a minimum of 101 ft. from the TOB and a maximum of 200 ft. from the TOB, and qualifies for 33% RBM credit. Nutrient Offset Credit (NOC) TOB to 20-29' qualifies for 75% Nutrient Offset Credit TOB-200 ft. = Buffer width is contiguous from TOB, is a minimum of 30 ft. from the TOB and a maximum of 200 ft. from the TOB, and qualifies for 100% Nutrient Offset Credit. F e a t u r e 7 A -S t r e a m FIGURE Drawn by: Date: Scale: Project No.: KRJ JUL 2020 1:2200 20-008 Title: Project: Prepared for: Pitt County, NC GUC SITE 3D ³ 0 300 600150Feet Legend GUC Easement = 97.14 acres Top of Bank (TOB) of Bank Parcel Hydrologic Features No Credit: Less Than 20-Feet or Non-Contiguous Area Zone A (20-29'), Buffer Restoration Zone A (0-50'), Buffer Restoration Zone B (51'-100'), Buffer Restoration Zone A (0-50'), Buffer Preservation Zone B (51'-100'), Buffer Preservation Zone C (101'-200'), Buffer Preservation Zone A (20-29'), Nutrient Offset Zone A (0-50'), Nutrient Offset Zone B (51'-100'), Nutrient Offset Zone C (101'-200'), Nutrient Offset Top of Bank to 20-Feet Top of Bank to 30-Feet Top of Bank to 50-Feet Top of Bank to 100-Feet Top of Bank to 200-Feet TOB - 20-Feet = No Credit Zone A (20-29'), Buffer Restoration (75% of RBM Credit) NOTE ABOUT WIDTHS: Riparian Buffer Mitigation (RBM) Restoration Areas TOB to 20-29' qualifies for 75% RBM credit TOB-100 ft. = Buffer width is contiguous from TOB, is a minimum of 30 ft. from the TOB and maximum of 100 ft. from the TOB, and qualifies for 100% RBM credit. Riparian Buffer Credit 101-200 ft. = Buffer width is contiguous from TOB, is a minimum of 101 ft. from the TOB and a maximum of 200 ft. from the TOB, and qualifies for 33% RBM credit. Nutrient Offset Credit (NOC) TOB to 20-29' qualifies for 75% Nutrient Offset Credit TOB-200 ft. = Buffer width is contiguous from TOB, is a minimum of 30 ft. from the TOB and a maximum of 200 ft. from the TOB, and qualifies for 100% Nutrient Offset Credit. CREDITDETERMINATION F e a t u r e 8 -S t r e a m F e a t u r e 7 B -S t r e a m Table 1. GUC Mitigation Site, 2017-1122v2, Project Credits Project Area N Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound) P Credit Conversion Ratio (ft2/pound) Credit Type Location Subject? (enter NO if ephemeral or ditch 1) Feature Type Mitigation Activity Min-Max Buffer Width (ft)Feature Name Total Area (ft2) Total (Creditable) Area of Buffer Mitigation (ft2) Initial Credit Ratio (x:1)% Full Credit Final Credit Ratio (x:1) Convertible to Riparian Buffer? Riparian Buffer Credits Convertible to Nutrient Offset? Delivered Nutrient Offset: N (lbs) Delivered Nutrient Offset: P (lbs) Buffer Rural Yes I / P Restoration 20-29 2, 7B 401 1 75%1.33333 Yes 300.751 No —— Buffer Rural Yes I / P Restoration 0-100 2, 6B, 7A, 7B, 8 1,491,585 1 100%1.00000 Yes 1,491,585.000 Yes 0.000 0.000 ——— Nutrient Offset Rural No Ditch Restoration 0-100 5, 6A, 420,657 1 100%No —Yes 21,950.434 1,413.778 Nutrient Offset Rural No Ditch Restoration 101-200 5, 6A 382,282 1 33%No —Yes 19,947.962 1,284.803 Nutrient Offset Rural Yes I / P Restoration 101-200 2,6B, 7A, 7B, 8 1,460,125 1 33%No —Yes 76,191.257 4,907.306 ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— ——— Totals:2,263,063 1,491,986 Enter Preservation Credits Below Eligible for Preservation (ft2):497,329 Credit Type Location Subject?Feature Type Mitigation Activity Min-Max Buffer Width (ft)Feature Name Total Area (sf) Total (Creditable) Area for Buffer Mitigation (ft2) Initial Credit Ratio (x:1)% Full Credit Final Credit Ratio (x:1) Riparian Buffer Credits Buffer Rural Yes I / P 0-100 2, 8 64,781 64,781 10 100%10.00000 6,478.100 Buffer Rural Yes I / P 101-200 2 10,492 10,492 10 33%30.30303 346.242 Buffer — Buffer — Buffer — Buffer Preservation — Buffer — Buffer — Buffer — Buffer — Buffer — Preservation Area Subtotal (ft2):75,273 Preservation as % Total Area of Buffer Mitigation:3.8% Ephemeral Reaches as % Total Area of Buffer Mitigation:0.0%Square Feet Credits 1,491,986 1,491,885.751 0 0.000 75,273 6,824.342 0 1567259.181 1,567,259 1,498,710.093 1491986 Square Feet Credits Nitrogen:118,089.653 1. The Randleman Lake buffer rules allow some ditches to be classified as subject according to 15A NCAC 02B .0250 (5)(a).Phosphorus:7,605.887 last updated 11/22/2019 2,263,063 TOTAL AREA OF BUFFER MITIGATION (TABM) TOTAL NUTRIENT OFFSET MITIGATION Mitigation Totals Nutrient Offset: Preservation: Total Riparian Buffer: Tar-Pamlico 03020103 19.16394 297.54099 Restoration: Enhancement: Mitigation Totals GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Appendices MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Activity / Milestone BPDP Proposed Date Actual Date BPDP Approved NA January 23, 2020 Parcel Protection Q1 2020 March 19, 2020 Easement Transfer to Third Party By Yr. 4 Monitoring (2023) May 31, 2023 Soil preparation Q1 2020 March 2020 Removal of Powerline/Pole Q1 2020 May 2019 Planting Q1 2020 March 12, 2020 As-Built Data Collection Q1 2020 March 18th – 26, 2020 As-Built Report Submittal Q2 2020 July 2020 Year 1 Monitoring Q4 2020 December 2020 Year 2 Monitoring Q4 2021 November 2021 Year 3 Monitoring Q4 2022 January 2022 Year 4 Monitoring Q4 2023 December 2023 Yeah 5 Monitoring Q4 2024 On Schedule Table 3: Project Contact Firm POC & Address Full Delivery Provider Designer/Permitting Restoration Systems, LLC 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 POC: Raymond Holz 919.755.9490 Planting Contractor Seeding Contractor Restoration Systems, LLC Josh Merritt: 919.755.9490 Matthew Harrell: 919.755.9490 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Nursery Stock Suppliers: ArborGen 1.888.888.7158 Baseline Data Collection Axiom Environmental, Inc. Grant Lewis; 919.215.1693 218 Snow Ave. Raleigh, NC 27603 Vegetation Monitoring: Axiom Environmental, Inc. Grant Lewis; 919.215.1693 218 Snow Ave. Raleigh, NC 27603 GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Appendices MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 Table 4: Project Baseline Information & Attributes Project Information Project Name GUC County Pitt Project Area (acres) 97.14 Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35.603194ºN, -77.294509ºW (NAD83/WGS84) Project Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Province Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain River Basin Tar-Pamlico USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03020103 USGS Hydrologic Unit14-digit 03020103070030 DWR Sub-basin 03-03-05 Project Drainage Area, Total Outfall (acres) 975 Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area > 5% GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Appendices MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 Appendix B: Baseline Vegetation Data, CVS Output Tables Table 5 – Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species Vegetation Plot Photos MY4 (2023) Planted Stem Height and Vigor Data Table 5. Total Stems by Plot and Species Project Name: Greenville Nutrient Site PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T Acer negundo boxelder Tree Betula nigra river birch Tree 222 111 111 Carya hickory Tree Carya tomentosa Mockernut Hickory Castanea pumila chinkapin Shrub Tree Celtis hackberry Tree Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 111 Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree 222 222111 Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 111 Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 111 Crataegus hawthorn Tree Crataegus marshallii parsley hawthorn Shrub Tree 333 Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 222 222 111 222222111 Frangula caroliniana Carolina buckthorn Shrub Tree Juglans nigra black walnut Tree Juniperus virginiana eastern redcedar Tree Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree Malus angustifolia southern crabapple Tree 111 111 Morus rubra red mulberry Tree 111 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 111 Pinus taeda loblolly pine Tree Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 111 666 222 Prunus serotina black cherry Tree 111111111555 111 Quercus oak Tree 111 222111111111 111222111111 Quercus alba white oak Tree 111 111 Quercus bicolor swamp white oak Tree Quercus laurifolia laurel oak Tree 111 Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 222 111 222111 111 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 333 111 Quercus nigra water oak Tree 111111 111 Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 222111 111 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 111 222112 111 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 111 111 111222111111 Ulmus elm Tree 111 Ulmus alata winged elm Tree Ulmus americana American elm Tree 222111111 111333 Unknown Shrub Tree Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub 222 888555555444101010444666667666555555888141414999555222 444444444444444333555444555444555333888777444222 324 324 324 202 202 202 202 202 202 162 162 162 405 405 405 162 162 162 243 243 243 243 243 283 243 243 243 202 202 202 202 202 202 324 324 324 567 567 567 364 364 364 202 202 202 80.9 80.9 80.9 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% PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes P­all = Planting including livestakes T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes T includes natural recruits Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 20008­01­0001 20008­01­0002 20008­01­0003 20008­01­0004 20008­01­0005 20008­01­0006 20008­01­0013 20008­01­0014 20008­01­0015 20008­01­001620008­01­0007 20008­01­0008 20008­01­0009 20008­01­0010 20008­01­0011 20008­01­0012 Species count Stems per ACRE 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 Current Plot Data (MY4 2023) Table 5. Total Stems by Plot and Species Project Name: Greenville Nutrient Site PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T Acer negundo boxelder Tree Betula nigra river birch Tree 111 111222 111111 111 Carya hickory Tree Carya tomentosa Mockernut Hickory Castanea pumila chinkapin Shrub Tree Celtis hackberry Tree Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree 111 444 222222 Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub Crataegus hawthorn Tree Crataegus marshallii parsley hawthorn Shrub Tree 111 Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 223 Frangula caroliniana Carolina buckthorn Shrub Tree Juglans nigra black walnut Tree Juniperus virginiana eastern redcedar Tree Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 111111 Malus angustifolia southern crabapple Tree 111 Morus rubra red mulberry Tree 222 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 111 111 111 Pinus taeda loblolly pine Tree Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 111222111111 222 111 666111 Prunus serotina black cherry Tree 111 222 111111 Quercus oak Tree 111 111111 222 111 Quercus alba white oak Tree 222 Quercus bicolor swamp white oak Tree 111 Quercus laurifolia laurel oak Tree Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 333 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 111 111 Quercus nigra water oak Tree Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 111 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 111 222 222 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 111 Ulmus elm Tree Ulmus alata winged elm Tree Ulmus americana American elm Tree 111 111222 222 Unknown Shrub Tree Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub 334444111333111555777444999888999555666111444444 222333111333111555444333555444333444444111444333 121 121 162 162 162 162 40.5 40.5 40.5 121 121 121 40.5 40.5 40.5 202 202 202 283 283 283 162 162 162 364 364 364 324 324 324 364 364 364 202 202 202 243 243 243 40.5 40.5 40.5 162 162 162 162 162 162 Color for Density PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes P­all = Planting including livestakes T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes T includes natural recruits 20008­01­0017 20008­01­0018Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 20008­01­0025 20008­01­0026 20008­01­0027 20008­01­0028 20008­01­0029 20008­01­003020008­01­0019 20008­01­0020 20008­01­0021 20008­01­0022 20008­01­0023 20008­01­0024 20008­01­0031 20008­01­0032 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE 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% Current Plot Data (MY4 2023) Table 5. Total Stems by Plot and Species Project Name: Greenville Nutrient Site PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T Acer negundo boxelder Tree Betula nigra river birch Tree 111 111 111 Carya hickory Tree Carya tomentosa Mockernut Hickory Castanea pumila chinkapin Shrub Tree Celtis hackberry Tree Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 111 Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree 222 Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 222 Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 333222 Crataegus hawthorn Tree Crataegus marshallii parsley hawthorn Shrub Tree 111 111 Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 112 2 Frangula caroliniana Carolina buckthorn Shrub Tree Juglans nigra black walnut Tree Juniperus virginiana eastern redcedar Tree Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 222 333 Malus angustifolia southern crabapple Tree 111222 Morus rubra red mulberry Tree 333111222 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 111 Pinus taeda loblolly pine Tree Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 111333 111 111 111 333111 Prunus serotina black cherry Tree 111222 333222 Quercus oak Tree 333 111 111111 222 444 Quercus alba white oak Tree Quercus bicolor swamp white oak Tree Quercus laurifolia laurel oak Tree Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 111 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 111 111 111 111 111 Quercus nigra water oak Tree 222 111 Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 111 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 111 111 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 111 111111111 111444 Ulmus elm Tree Ulmus alata winged elm Tree Ulmus americana American elm Tree 444333 Unknown Shrub Tree Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub 444888555333666222111111888444111111556888444666141416 444444333222444222999444222111111333444222444667 162 162 162 324 324 324 202 202 202 121 121 121 243 243 243 80.9 80.9 80.9 445 445 445 324 324 324 162 162 162 40.5 40.5 40.5 40.5 40.5 40.5 202 202 243 324 324 324 162 162 162 243 243 243 567 567 647 Color for Density 20008­01­0043 20008­01­0044 20008­01­0045 20008­01­0046 20008­01­0047 20008­01­004820008­01­0037 20008­01­0038 20008­01­0039 20008­01­0040 20008­01­0041 20008­01­004220008­01­0033 20008­01­0034 20008­01­0035 20008­01­0036Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE 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% 0.02 PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes P­all = Planting including livestakes T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes T includes natural recruits 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 Current Plot Data (MY4 2023) Table 5. Total Stems by Plot and Species Project Name: Greenville Nutrient Site PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T Acer negundo boxelder Tree Betula nigra river birch Tree 222111 111 333 444444 Carya hickory Tree Carya tomentosa Mockernut Hickory Castanea pumila chinkapin Shrub Tree Celtis hackberry Tree Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree 222 111 Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub 111 Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub Crataegus hawthorn Tree Crataegus marshallii parsley hawthorn Shrub Tree Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 1 111 Frangula caroliniana Carolina buckthorn Shrub Tree Juglans nigra black walnut Tree Juniperus virginiana eastern redcedar Tree Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 111 222 Malus angustifolia southern crabapple Tree 111 Morus rubra red mulberry Tree 222 111111 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 111 111 111111 333 Pinus taeda loblolly pine Tree Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 111333444444555 111 111 222 Prunus serotina black cherry Tree 111 Quercus oak Tree 333555 111444444 777 111 111 Quercus alba white oak Tree 111 111 Quercus bicolor swamp white oak Tree 111 111 Quercus laurifolia laurel oak Tree 111 Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 222 111 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 666 111 Quercus nigra water oak Tree 111 111 444 111 Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 111 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 111 555 222 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 333 111 333 111 111 111111 Ulmus elm Tree Ulmus alata winged elm Tree Ulmus americana American elm Tree 222 111111 444 Unknown Shrub Tree Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub 000101010131313000334666555131313141414777202020111131313333131313121212 000555777000334444333555666333777111555333666888 0 0 0 405 405 405 526 526 526 0 0 0121121162 243 243 243 202 202 202 526 526 526 567 567 567 283 283 283 809 809 809 40.5 40.5 40.5 526 526 526 121 121 121 526 526 526 486 486 486 Color for Density PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes P­all = Planting including livestakes T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes T includes natural recruits 20008­01­0049 20008­01­0050 20008­01­0051 20008­01­0052 20008­01­0053 20008­01­0054 20008­01­0058 20008­01­0059 20008­01­0060 20008­01­006420008­01­0061 20008­01­0062 20008­01­006320008­01­0055 20008­01­0056 20008­01­0057 1 0.02 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 Current Plot Data (MY4 2023) Table 5. Total Stems by Plot and Species Project Name: Greenville Nutrient Site PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T Acer negundo boxelder Tree Betula nigra river birch Tree 222 111111333333 Carya hickory Tree Carya tomentosa Mockernut Hickory Castanea pumila chinkapin Shrub Tree Celtis hackberry Tree Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree 111 Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 111111 111 Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 111 111 Crataegus hawthorn Tree Crataegus marshallii parsley hawthorn Shrub Tree 111 222111 111 111 Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 111 111222 5 1 111 Frangula caroliniana Carolina buckthorn Shrub Tree Juglans nigra black walnut Tree 1 Juniperus virginiana eastern redcedar Tree Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 111 333 111 Malus angustifolia southern crabapple Tree 111 Morus rubra red mulberry Tree Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree Pinus taeda loblolly pine Tree Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 111 112 Prunus serotina black cherry Tree 222 Quercus oak Tree 111 666 222333 111 222444111 222555 Quercus alba white oak Tree 222111111 111 Quercus bicolor swamp white oak Tree Quercus laurifolia laurel oak Tree Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 111 333 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 555 111 111111 Quercus nigra water oak Tree Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 111 111 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 111 333 111222 111 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree Ulmus elm Tree Ulmus alata winged elm Tree Ulmus americana American elm Tree 222 111 Unknown Shrub Tree Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub 555333141414889999666227112333666121212101010111111556888 444333333667555444112112333444777555111111444444 202 202 202 121 121 121 567 567 567 324 324 364 364 364 364 243 243 243 80.9 80.9 28340.540.580.9 121 121 121 243 243 243 486 486 486 405 405 40540.540.540.540.540.540.5 202 202 243 324 324 324 Color for Density PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes P­all = Planting including livestakes T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes T includes natural recruits 20008­01­0079 20008­01­008020008­01­0065 20008­01­0066Scientific Name 20008­01­0073 20008­01­0074 20008­01­0075 20008­01­0076 20008­01­0077 20008­01­007820008­01­0067 20008­01­0068 20008­01­0069 20008­01­0070 20008­01­0071 20008­01­0072 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02size (ACRES) 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 Species count Stems per ACRE Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Current Plot Data (MY4 2023) Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Common Name Species Type Stem count size (ares) Table 5. Total Stems by Plot and Species Project Name: Greenville Nutrient Site PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T PnoLS P­all T Acer negundo boxelder Tree 1 Betula nigra river birch Tree 111 40 40 40 39 39 39 73 73 73 70 70 70 128 128 128 Carya hickory Tree 2 Carya tomentosa Mockernut Hickory 777 Castanea pumila chinkapin Shrub Tree 111111222 Celtis hackberry Tree 1 1 1 272727 Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 222222 Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree 111 21 21 21 20 20 20 25 25 25 24 24 24 333 Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub 111111222444444 Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 6667771212 12 10 10 10 13 13 13 Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 8881010 10 13 13 13 15 15 15 24 24 24 Crataegus hawthorn Tree 111 Crataegus marshallii parsley hawthorn Shrub Tree 111 13 13 13 14 14 14 13 13 14 17 17 17 17 17 17 Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 222333 2424 35 16 16 16 13 13 18 11 11 11 36 36 36 Frangula caroliniana Carolina buckthorn Shrub Tree 111333666 Juglans nigra black walnut Tree 11 Juniperus virginiana eastern redcedar Tree 111 Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 380111 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 111 16 16 16 17 17 17 32 32 32 32 32 32 91 91 91 Malus angustifolia southern crabapple Tree 88888811111211 11 11 12 12 12 Morus rubra red mulberry Tree 13 13 13 15 15 15 20 20 20 23 23 23 36 36 36 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 12 12 12 15 15 15 21 21 21 35 35 35 74 74 74 Pinus taeda loblolly pine Tree 2 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 333111 111 63636458 58 60 55 55 55 53 53 53 93 93 93 Prunus serotina black cherry Tree 25 25 25 26 26 26 37 37 37 45 45 46 81 81 82 Quercus oak Tree 2228484 84 99 99 99 162 162 162 169 169 169 358 358 358 Quercus alba white oak Tree 111 1212 12 8887771616 16 29 29 29 Quercus bicolor swamp white oak Tree 333444777999212121 Quercus laurifolia laurel oak Tree 222222333555888 Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 111 19 19 19 22 22 22 12 12 12 13 13 13 17 17 17 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 26 26 26 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 19 19 19 Quercus nigra water oak Tree 13 13 13 12 12 12 10 10 10 9992828 28 Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 9998883331111212 12 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 111 3333232 33 27 27 27 31 31 31 17 17 17 10 10 10 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 111 222 31 31 31 35 35 35 43 43 45 49 49 49 68 68 68 Ulmus elm Tree 111 111111 Ulmus alata winged elm Tree 4 Ulmus americana American elm Tree 32 32 32 33 33 33 44 44 44 35 35 35 53 53 53 Unknown Shrub Tree 46 46 46 4441212 12 Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub 2222224445552828 28 3 3 3 6 6 6 4 4 4 2 2 2 5 5 5 0 0 0 5 5 5 518 518 532 518 518 523 723 723 743 707 707 789 1317 1317 1430 33344433311133300022227272826 26 28 31 31 36 29 29 31 30 30 32 121 121 121 243 243 243 162 162 162 80.9 80.9 80.9 202 202 202 000202202 202 241 241 247 241 241 243 336 336 346 329 329 367 613 613 665 Color for Density PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes P­all = Planting including livestakes T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes T includes natural recruits 20008­01­0087 Annual Means MY4 (2023) MY3 (2022) MY2 (2021) MY1 (2020) MY0 (2020)20008­01­0081 20008­01­0082 20008­01­0083 20008­01­0084 20008­01­0085 20008­01­0086 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 1 0.02 87 2.15 87 2.15 87 2.15 87 2.15 1 0.02 1 0.02 87 2.15 Current Plot Data (MY4 2023) Scientific Name Common Name Species Type Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE 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% GUC MY4 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September and October 2023) GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Appendix B: Vegetation Data, CVS Output Table MY4 Monitoring Report – December 2023 Plot 7 Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 3 Plot 4 Plot 5 Plot 6 Plot 8 GUC MY4 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September and October 2023) GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Appendix B: Vegetation Data, CVS Output Table MY4 Monitoring Report – December 2023 Plot 15 Plot 9 Plot 10 Plot 11 Plot 12 Plot 13 Plot 14 Plot 16 GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Appendix B: Vegetation Data, CVS Output Table MY4 Monitoring Report – December 2023 Plot 23 Plot 17 Plot 18 Plot 19 Plot 20 Plot 21 Plot 22 Plot 24 GUC MY4 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September and October 2023) GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Appendix B: Vegetation Data, CVS Output Table MY4 Monitoring Report – December 2023 Plot 31 Plot 25 Plot 26 Plot 27 Plot 28 Plot 29 Plot 30 Plot 32 GUC MY4 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September and October 2023) GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Appendix B: Vegetation Data, CVS Output Table MY4 Monitoring Report – December 2023 Plot 39 Plot 33 Plot 34 Plot 35 Plot 36 Plot 37 Plot 38 Plot 40 GUC MY4 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September and October 2023) GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Appendix B: Vegetation Data, CVS Output Table MY4 Monitoring Report – December 2023 Plot 47 Plot 41 Plot 42 Plot 43 Plot 44 Plot 45 Plot 46 Plot 48 GUC MY4 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September and October 2023) GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Appendix B: Vegetation Data, CVS Output Table MY4 Monitoring Report – December 2023 Plot 55 Plot 49 Plot 50 Plot 51 Plot 52 Plot 53 Plot 54 Plot 56 GUC MY4 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September and October 2023) GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Appendix B: Vegetation Data, CVS Output Table MY4 Monitoring Report – December 2023 Plot 63 Plot 57 Plot 58 Plot 59 Plot 60 Plot 61 Plot 62 Plot 64 GUC MY4 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September and October 2023) GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Appendix B: Vegetation Data, CVS Output Table MY4 Monitoring Report – December 2023 Plot 71 Plot 65 Plot 66 Plot 67 Plot 68 Plot 69 Plot 70 Plot 72 GUC MY4 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September and October 2023) GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Appendix B: Vegetation Data, CVS Output Table MY4 Monitoring Report – December 2023 Plot 79 Plot 73 Plot 74 Plot 75 Plot 76 Plot 77 Plot 78 Plot 80 GUC MY4 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September and October 2023) GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Appendix B: Vegetation Data, CVS Output Table MY4 Monitoring Report – December 2023 Plot 87 Plot 81 Plot 82 Plot 83 Plot 84 Plot 85 Plot 86 GUC MY4 (2023) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs (taken September and October 2023) Plot Scientific Name X Y Height (cm) DBH Vigor Plot Average Vigor 1 Quercus michauxii 3 4.9 20 2 1 Quercus michauxii 6.8 1.7 28 3 1 Diospyros virginiana 9.2 3.6 60 1 1 Diospyros virginiana 0.8 8.7 35 1 1 Quercus michauxii 1.5 1.3 75 3 1 Ulmus americana 8.6 5.1 55 3 1 Morus rubra 8.7 8.1 15 1 1 Ulmus americana 6.2 8.5 29 3 2 Betula nigra 1.6 1.2 60 3 2 Betula nigra 1.5 3.6 21 3 2 Prunus serotina 6.1 1.2 42 3 2 Ulmus americana 8.6 1.6 40 3 2 Ulmus 5 8.3 49 3 3 Diospyros virginiana 4.0 3.1 71 2 3 Diospyros virginiana 6.5 2.2 94 3 3 Prunus serotina 8.6 1.1 84 3 3 Ulmus americana 5.5 7.8 51 2 3 Quercus phellos 1 9.1 5 1 4 Quercus rubra 0.1 1.2 61 3 4 Prunus serotina 7.9 6.5 8 3 4 Quercus nigra 6.6 9.4 82 4 4 Betula nigra 2.5 7.9 21 2 5 Prunus serotina 3 1.1 65 3 5 Prunus serotina 1.9 3.7 31 3 5 Prunus serotina 5.1 3.9 25 2 5 Prunus serotina 5.7 1.1 38 3 5 Prunus serotina 8.5 0.9 56 3 5 Crataegus marshallii 6.3 6.6 69 2 5 Crataegus marshallii 1.4 9.3 51 2 5 Crataegus marshallii 1.1 6.4 18 1 5 Quercus nigra 9.8 4.4 8 1 5 Quercus 0.9 8.1 10 1 6 Quercus lyrata 4.2 3.9 28 1 6 Betula nigra 6.2 7.9 10 1 6 Quercus lyrata 3.5 6.5 49 3 6 Quercus rubra 0.1 6.5 8 1 7 Quercus phellos 7.1 1.1 75 1 7 Quercus michauxii 9.1 5.2 39 3 7 Quercus phellos 6.2 6.6 43 2 7 Cercis canadensis 6.9 9 29 2 7 Platanus occidentalis 4.5 6 78 3 7 Diospyros virginiana 4.1 0.1 100 3 8 Quercus pagoda 2.3 3.7 52 3 8 Quercus pagoda 7 4.4 54 3 8 Quercus phellos 9.6 9.8 28 2 8 Quercus 7 8.9 110 3 8 Quercus 4.4 8.4 161 0.2 4 8 Quercus rubra 0.6 5.7 59 3 9 Malus angustifolia 1.2 2 38 2 9 Quercus rubra 4.9 0 22 3 9 Quercus 8.3 2.4 52 3 9 Quercus lyrata 7.7 5 71 3 9 Quercus rubra 7.6 7.5 71 1 9 Quercus pagoda 3.5 8.4 64 3 10 Quercus rubra 5.4 1.1 78 3 10 Cornus amomum 6.2 0.7 60 3 10 Celtis occidentalis 8.5 0.3 115 3 10 Celtis occidentalis 8.1 4.6 90 3 10 Quercus 8.2 9.1 15 2 2.3 3.0 2.5 2.8 2.1 3.0 2.2 3.0 2.1 1.5 Plot Scientific Name X Y Height (cm) DBH Vigor Plot Average Vigor 11 Malus angustifolia 1.9 0.1 65 1 11 Quercus alba 5.4 3.9 38 3 11 Quercus 5.5 1.9 50 2 11 Quercus rubra 8.5 2.5 67 3 11 Quercus pagoda 1.1 9.4 60 1 12 Prunus serotina 4.7 4.8 35 3 12 Platanus occidentalis 5.6 3.7 365 4 4 12 Platanus occidentalis 5.5 0.4 350 3.5 4 12 Ulmus americana 7.8 0.1 43 2 12 Platanus occidentalis 9.1 5.2 350 3 4 12 Platanus occidentalis 5.5 6.3 285 1.7 4 12 Platanus occidentalis 5.7 8.9 275 1.5 3 12 Platanus occidentalis 3.9 3.9 200 1 3 13 Quercus 2.9 0.5 80 3 13 Diospyros virginiana 1.9 2.8 20 2 13 Viburnum dentatum 5.3 2.6 20 2 13 Quercus phellos 9.4 0.6 73 3 13 Ulmus americana 8 4.9 42 3 13 Celtis laevigata 5.6 6.8 55 3 13 Diospyros virginiana 8.9 9.9 69 3 13 Ulmus americana 5.8 9.4 56 3 13 Viburnum dentatum 3.3 7 40 3 13 Ulmus americana 1.9 8.9 38 3 13 Celtis occidentalis 7.6 6.1 52 3 13 Quercus lyrata 4.2 1.8 44 3 13 Quercus lyrata 7.4 0.4 70 3 13 Celtis occidentalis 9.1 2.1 32 3 14 Quercus nigra 3.2 1.3 35 3 14 Celtis occidentalis 4.4 2.8 92 3 14 Quercus laurifolia 5.7 1.7 71 3 14 Diospyros virginiana 5.2 0.3 85 3 14 Quercus 8.7 6.1 86 3 14 Nyssa sylvatica 7.2 6.5 66 3 14 Quercus lyrata 5.6 8.1 72 3 14 Quercus 3.1 7.7 37 3 14 Diospyros virginiana 8.3 0.6 118 3 15 Platanus occidentalis 6.5 3 144 0.2 4 15 Quercus alba 8.5 6 60 3 15 Quercus 5.9 9 66 3 15 Platanus occidentalis 8.8 1 165 0.25 3 15 Diospyros virginiana 4.7 0.7 61 4 16 Quercus lyrata 7.8 9.2 36 3 16 Quercus 9.5 9.5 41 3 17 Platanus occidentalis 0.7 0.2 205 1 3 17 Diospyros virginiana 8.3 7.6 76 3 17 Diospyros virginiana 8.7 9.5 52 3 18 Platanus occidentalis 1.3 4 170 0.25 4 18 Platanus occidentalis 5.9 4.4 193 0.5 4 18 Betula nigra 1.8 7 55 4 18 Quercus 4.5 8.2 70 3 19 Platanus occidentalis 1 0.2 55 3 3.0 20 Platanus occidentalis 0.5 0.5 40 2 20 Quercus phellos 5.5 0.1 55 2 20 Ulmus americana 1.2 9.8 39 3 21 Liriodendron tulipifera 9.1 7.3 45 2 2.0 22 Prunus serotina 3.4 1.5 72 3 22 Liriodendron tulipifera 6.2 9 31 2 22 Nyssa sylvatica 3.4 9.1 56 4 22 Quercus 4 9.7 19 1 22 Betula nigra 6.8 6.2 18 2 3.8 2.3 2.4 3.4 2.9 3.0 3.4 3.0 3.0 2.0 Plot Scientific Name X Y Height (cm) DBH Vigor Plot Average Vigor 23 Quercus 9.2 8.4 8 1 23 Platanus occidentalis 2 2.1 43 3 23 Betula nigra 8.7 1.9 28 2 23 Quercus phellos 8 8.3 25 2 23 Betula nigra 5.5 8.2 32 3 23 Platanus occidentalis 8.4 0.8 21 3 23 Quercus phellos 0.2 6.4 36 3 24 Celtis occidentalis 9 9.3 39 3 24 Prunus serotina 5.9 9.8 55 4 24 Prunus serotina 6.2 6.6 71 4 24 Nyssa sylvatica 3.1 9.4 86 4 25 Quercus alba 2 2.3 66 3 25 Betula nigra 4.9 1.6 55 3 25 Quercus alba 1.1 5.7 30 4 25 Quercus 1 1.3 92 3 25 Quercus lyrata 5.6 9.4 75 3 25 Quercus lyrata 6.2 6.3 43 3 25 Quercus lyrata 0.6 8 51 3 25 Quercus 7.8 5.5 40 2 25 Platanus occidentalis 6.1 1.5 48 2 26 Betula nigra 1.7 1.3 78 3 26 Celtis occidentalis 9.1 8.8 45 3 26 Celtis occidentalis 6.5 8.8 40 3 26 Ulmus americana 3.6 8.8 105 4 26 Quercus phellos 0.4 8.6 53 4 26 Celtis occidentalis 2.7 5.3 66 4 26 Celtis occidentalis 0.9 1 65 3 26 Quercus phellos 6.3 3.4 59 4 27 Platanus occidentalis 2.5 0.8 190 1.5 4 27 Platanus occidentalis 6 0.6 265 1.7 4 27 Platanus occidentalis 6.6 4.2 263 2.1 4 27 Quercus 8.9 2.4 131 2 27 Platanus occidentalis 6.7 7 271 2.1 4 27 Ulmus americana 8.5 9.4 52 2 27 Platanus occidentalis 2.2 6.7 356 3.6 4 27 Ulmus americana 8.6 5.7 42 3 27 Platanus occidentalis 4.3 1.1 70 4 28 Celtis occidentalis 4 2.4 65 2 28 Quercus michauxii 8.3 0 135 4 28 Celtis occidentalis 3.6 5.6 35 2 28 Platanus occidentalis 6.7 8.1 139 0.1 4 28 Betula nigra 3.3 8 28 3 29 Morus rubra 1 3.2 20 3 29 Celtis occidentalis 3.7 2 15 2 29 Celtis occidentalis 3.5 1.1 56 2 29 Nyssa sylvatica 7.9 0 29 2 29 Malus angustifolia 5.6 0.5 31 3 29 Morus rubra 0.8 6.1 61 3 30 Prunus serotina 7.9 3.3 60 3 3.0 31 Quercus bicolor 3.1 3.6 80 3 31 Quercus pagoda 0.3 3.7 100 4 31 Prunus serotina 6 5.6 39 3 31 Quercus rubra 0.3 9 153 0.2 4 32 Crataegus marshallii 5 4.1 36 2 32 Ulmus americana 7.3 3.7 32 2 32 Ulmus americana 0.5 9.8 51 3 32 Quercus michauxii 2.1 6.1 69 3 3.5 3.4 3.0 2.5 3.5 2.5 2.4 3.8 2.9 Plot Scientific Name X Y Height (cm) DBH Vigor Plot Average Vigor 33 Malus angustifolia 6.3 9.4 65 2 33 Quercus michauxii 3.6 5.7 73 4 33 Betula nigra 2.1 9.4 45 4 33 Crataegus marshallii 5 4.9 102 4 34 Malus angustifolia 4 2.9 61 2 34 Quercus nigra 6.7 3 61 3 34 Malus angustifolia 6.7 6.3 59 3 34 Quercus nigra 9.9 6.8 62 3 34 Quercus 1.7 2.7 66 2 34 Quercus 0.7 5.5 70 3 34 Quercus 4.7 5 85 3 34 Platanus occidentalis 9.5 0.8 30 1 35 Quercus lyrata 9.2 5.8 75 3 35 Quercus rubra 5.6 7.3 32 3 35 Platanus occidentalis 9.2 0.2 73 4 35 Platanus occidentalis 4.4 5.1 36 3 35 Platanus occidentalis 8.9 7 46 3 36 Cercis canadensis 8.8 3.9 15 1 36 Cercis canadensis 7.8 6.8 66 3 36 Crataegus marshallii 5 6 51 3 37 Morus rubra 1 4.5 5 1 37 Morus rubra 3.3 4.5 75 2 37 Quercus pagoda 7.2 1 65 3 37 Quercus 9.4 1.1 66 4 37 Morus rubra 9.8 4.6 31 2 37 Quercus michauxii 8.3 7.2 36 2 38 Morus rubra 2.3 1.7 10 2 38 Quercus rubra 9.2 9.8 45 2 39 Nyssa sylvatica 1.5 0 41 2 39 Quercus rubra 0 4.9 65 3 39 Platanus occidentalis 4.8 0.8 292 3.3 4 39 Celtis laevigata 3.1 5.4 91 3 39 Morus rubra 7.1 2.5 35 4 39 Betula nigra 6.9 0 91 4 39 Celtis occidentalis 9.6 0.5 52 3 39 Morus rubra 7.7 5.8 26 3 39 Celtis occidentalis 10 5.9 10 3 39 Prunus serotina 5.8 8.2 73 3 39 Quercus 5.8 2.2 68 4 40 Prunus serotina 0.4 3 52 3 40 Ulmus americana 6.6 1.2 38 2 40 Ulmus americana 6.9 3.2 40 2 40 Ulmus americana 6.5 5.9 41 3 40 Ulmus americana 6.7 8 38 2 40 Quercus 6.9 9.8 51 2 40 Quercus rubra 3.2 6.6 35 3 40 Prunus serotina 0.4 7.8 55 3 41 Ulmus americana 5 1.8 25 3 41 Ulmus americana 4.7 3.8 28 3 41 Quercus phellos 9.1 9.2 76 3 41 Ulmus americana 3.7 8.6 66 3 42 Platanus occidentalis 1.5 0.7 375 3 4 4.0 43 Quercus michauxii 2.1 8.8 61 3 3.0 44 Prunus serotina 6.7 1.9 44 3 44 Platanus occidentalis 2.6 3.6 30 3 44 Prunus serotina 9.1 9.2 88 3 44 Prunus serotina 4.7 8.3 26 3 44 Diospyros virginiana 4.7 8.1 83 3 3.3 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.5 2.5 3.2 2.3 2.3 2.0 Plot Scientific Name X Y Height (cm) DBH Vigor Plot Average Vigor 45 Quercus 0.7 0.6 58 3 45 Cornus amomum 3.9 4 121 3 45 Prunus serotina 7.1 9.5 72 3 45 Prunus serotina 3.9 9.6 64 3 45 Cornus amomum 1.2 8.1 69 3 45 Cornus amomum 2.5 6.1 69 3 45 Quercus michauxii 0.3 5.9 5 3 45 Quercus 4.8 9.9 30 3 46 Cornus amomum 2.6 3.7 106 3 46 Liriodendron tulipifera 7.6 5.8 75 3 46 Cornus amomum 2.7 8.4 69 3 46 Liriodendron tulipifera 6.9 8.3 64 3 47 Quercus rubra 3.8 2.1 50 3 47 Platanus occidentalis 6.4 2.6 325 2.5 4 47 Quercus phellos 8.8 5.9 45 3 47 Platanus occidentalis 5.8 7.9 275 2.5 3 47 Platanus occidentalis 6 5.7 315 2.5 4 47 Betula nigra 1.1 5.3 69 3 48 Liriodendron tulipifera 2.1 0.5 91 3 48 Quercus michauxii 4.8 2.2 80 3 48 Quercus 4.6 5 112 3 48 Quercus nigra 7.2 1.7 80 3 48 Quercus rubra 7.4 4.5 85 3 48 Quercus rubra 9.7 2.3 75 3 48 Quercus rubra 10 5.2 75 3 48 Quercus 9.9 7.9 55 3 48 Quercus rubra 7.3 7.2 95 3 48 Platanus occidentalis 7.6 9.8 25 3 48 Quercus 4.9 9.9 56 3 48 Quercus 4.8 7.3 94 3 48 Liriodendron tulipifera 1.9 5.5 78 3 48 Liriodendron tulipifera 2.1 2.7 10 1 50 Betula nigra 3 3.3 38 3 50 Quercus nigra 5.8 0.7 75 3 50 Quercus bicolor 9.9 4.2 66 3 50 Quercus rubra 7.4 6.2 46 3 50 Quercus 9.5 6.5 69 2 50 Quercus 9.3 8.9 82 3 50 Quercus rubra 7.3 8.8 65 3 50 Quercus rubra 5 6 41 3 50 Betula nigra 2.7 5.8 51 3 50 Quercus 9.9 1.7 25 3 51 Quercus 4.2 1.5 126 3 51 Quercus 3.7 3.6 80 3 51 Quercus 6.8 0.5 90 3 51 Quercus 6.6 3.3 107 3 51 Quercus lyrata 9.2 1.3 130 3 51 Ulmus americana 8.5 7.3 15 1 51 Ulmus americana 8.4 10 53 3 51 Quercus lyrata 6 5.9 85 3 51 Quercus 5.9 8.6 59 3 51 Quercus alba 3.3 6 93 3 51 Quercus phellos 1.9 1.8 52 3 51 Betula nigra 5.3 4.4 69 3 51 Liriodendron tulipifera 9 4.8 41 3 53 Nyssa sylvatica 6.3 2.8 10 1 53 Quercus rubra 9.4 3 32 2 53 Quercus lyrata 6.3 5.6 31 2 3.3 2.9 2.9 2.8 1.7 3.0 3.0 Plot Scientific Name X Y Height (cm) DBH Vigor Plot Average Vigor 54 Morus rubra 1.1 1.2 3 1 54 Morus rubra 1.2 3.9 24 3 54 Celtis occidentalis 6.9 2.5 49 3 54 Celtis occidentalis 9.7 1.2 35 3 54 Betula nigra 6.5 4.9 60 3 54 Platanus occidentalis 9.8 6.1 30 3 55 Nyssa sylvatica 8.7 0.5 15 3 55 Platanus occidentalis 9.2 6 290 1.5 3 55 Platanus occidentalis 3.3 8.4 106 3 55 Quercus 6.5 1.7 80 3 55 Platanus occidentalis 1.7 6.7 43 3 56 Quercus rubra 2.1 1.3 46 3 56 Quercus rubra 4.5 1 50 3 56 Quercus rubra 2.7 3.8 45 3 56 Quercus 6.7 0.8 41 3 56 Ulmus americana 9.4 0.9 42 3 56 Quercus 9.2 3.8 102 3 56 Platanus occidentalis 9.6 6.2 185 1.1 3 56 Platanus occidentalis 7.7 6.2 117 3 56 Platanus occidentalis 5.6 6.3 330 2 4 56 Quercus 5 8.9 78 3 56 Platanus occidentalis 3.4 6.2 220 1.5 3 56 Quercus 1 6.1 93 3 56 Quercus pagoda 0.5 8.4 103 3 57 Quercus 1.6 2 104 3 57 Ulmus americana 4.4 0.2 5 1 57 Quercus alba 3.8 2.4 89 3 57 Platanus occidentalis 3.3 4.9 315 1.6 4 57 Platanus occidentalis 0.8 4.2 270 1.2 4 57 Quercus 6 2.5 22 1 57 Quercus 8.2 2.8 47 3 57 Platanus occidentalis 8.2 5.6 280 0.8 4 57 Platanus occidentalis 5.8 5.5 270 1.5 4 57 Betula nigra 6.6 8.4 67 3 57 Betula nigra 1.9 7.6 82 3 57 Quercus 6.4 0.3 56 3 57 Betula nigra 3.5 7.8 32 3 57 Quercus nigra 0.9 8.2 45 3 58 Celtis occidentalis 4.3 0.6 53 4 58 Platanus occidentalis 4.5 2.8 300 1.8 4 58 Platanus occidentalis 2.1 3.3 85 3 58 Platanus occidentalis 7.1 2.9 360 2.2 4 58 Platanus occidentalis 9.3 2.8 35 2.2 4 58 Platanus occidentalis 10 0.4 310 1.5 4 58 Nyssa sylvatica 9.1 5.5 38 2 59 Prunus serotina 1.8 1.9 62 3 59 Quercus phellos 4.6 1.5 76 3 59 Quercus 1.6 4.9 83 3 59 Quercus 7 4 108 3 59 Quercus laurifolia 7.3 1.2 77 3 59 Quercus 9.8 1 85 3 59 Quercus rubra 8.1 9 59 3 59 Nyssa sylvatica 5.8 1.1 38 3 59 Quercus phellos 4.2 3.9 62 3 59 Quercus phellos 6.4 9.5 52 3 59 Quercus 5.5 7.4 65 3 59 Quercus 7 6.7 40 3 59 Quercus 7 6.4 56 3 59 Quercus 8.3 9.2 91 3 59 Quercus nigra 7.4 8.4 70 3 59 Quercus phellos 7.7 8.4 30 3 59 Quercus nigra 6.4 9.2 42 3 59 Quercus nigra 1.6 10 41 3 59 Quercus nigra 3.3 9.9 58 3 59 Quercus phellos 3 6.5 79 3 2.7 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.6 3.0 Plot Scientific Name X Y Height (cm) DBH Vigor Plot Average Vigor 60 Platanus occidentalis 4.7 8.3 87 3 3.0 61 Ulmus americana 2.2 1.9 50 3 61 Ulmus americana 4.9 2 65 3 61 Ulmus americana 7.1 1.3 46 3 61 Ulmus americana 9.6 1.1 76 3 61 Quercus michauxii 8.3 7.7 84 3 61 Quercus michauxii 9.2 7.7 30 3 61 Quercus michauxii 6.4 7.6 48 3 61 Quercus michauxii 2.7 8 93 3 61 Quercus bicolor 2.4 9.1 30 2 61 Diospyros virginiana 0.8 5 51 3 61 Quercus michauxii 1.3 8.8 51 2 61 Quercus michauxii 7.3 8.3 10 1 61 Quercus rubra 0.8 2.2 117 3 62 Morus rubra 8.3 5.3 23 3 62 Platanus occidentalis 7.3 7.1 113 3 62 Quercus 2.6 7.6 35 3 63 Quercus phellos 0.3 1.3 53 3 63 Morus rubra 4.5 3.8 36 3 63 Quercus phellos 7.9 1.1 27 3 63 Quercus rubra 7.1 3.6 19 3 63 Betula nigra 8.3 6.6 56 3 63 Betula nigra 6.1 6.8 89 3 63 Liriodendron tulipifera 5.2 9.5 38 3 63 Betula nigra 3.7 6.6 109 0.1 4 63 Liriodendron tulipifera 2.1 8.8 25 2 63 Betula nigra 1.2 6 84 3 63 Nyssa sylvatica 2.6 4.5 37 3 63 Nyssa sylvatica 8.3 7.5 38 3 63 Nyssa sylvatica 1.1 7.9 50 3 63 Quercus rubra 5.1 10 53 3 64 Betula nigra 0.2 2.2 90 3 64 Betula nigra 2.6 1.6 141 0.5 4 64 Quercus nigra 4.7 4.5 24 2 64 Betula nigra 5.5 1.7 192 0.5 4 64 Betula nigra 8.5 3.9 120 3 64 Malus angustifolia 5.3 6.7 73 3 64 Platanus occidentalis 7.2 7.8 380 2.1 3 64 Quercus michauxii 9.2 6.9 46 3 64 Cephalanthus occidentalis 2.3 6.1 85 3 64 Platanus occidentalis 3.3 1.6 250 1.5 4 64 Quercus 7.5 9.9 68 4 64 Quercus rubra 7.3 8.5 41 3 65 Quercus phellos 2.9 4.5 29 3 65 Quercus 2.3 0.7 28 2 65 Betula nigra 8.7 1.2 92 2 65 Crataegus marshallii 10 4.4 60 3 65 Betula nigra 0.8 6.4 78 3 66 Liriodendron tulipifera 0.1 7.7 38 3 66 Diospyros virginiana 2 7.9 83 3 66 Platanus occidentalis 7.1 1.2 49 3 67 Quercus michauxii 0.1 3.6 79 3 67 Quercus 3.6 1.2 55 3 67 Quercus 5.5 3.5 80 3 67 Quercus michauxii 6.2 0.9 25 3 67 Quercus phellos 9 3.5 75 3 67 Quercus michauxii 8.9 0.9 62 3 67 Quercus michauxii 9.5 6.2 67 3 67 Quercus 7.1 6.1 80 3 67 Quercus 9.2 9 120 0.2 4 67 Quercus 6.5 9 61 3 67 Quercus michauxii 3.4 9.1 64 3 67 Quercus phellos 4.1 6 80 3 67 Quercus phellos 1.5 5.8 124 0.1 4 67 Quercus 0.7 8.9 73 4 3.0 3.0 3.3 2.6 3.0 3.2 2.7 Plot Scientific Name X Y Height (cm) DBH Vigor Plot Average Vigor 68 Quercus alba 2.7 2.9 118 3 68 Quercus pagoda 8.9 3 119 3 68 Cornus amomum 9 5.7 60 3 68 Prunus serotina 8.6 8.8 80 3 68 Prunus serotina 5.3 9.7 58 3 68 Quercus alba 2.7 5.4 55 3 68 Quercus lyrata 3 0.9 25 3 68 Diospyros virginiana 5.2 9.7 115 3 69 Liriodendron tulipifera 1.2 4.4 90 3 69 Quercus 8.3 1.2 138 0.25 3 69 Liriodendron tulipifera 8 4.4 42 3 69 Diospyros virginiana 7.9 7.6 80 3 69 Quercus 0.5 9.7 34 3 69 Cercis canadensis 5.2 3.3 56 3 69 Quercus alba 0.7 0.1 71 3 69 Diospyros virginiana 8.6 2.4 104 3 69 Liriodendron tulipifera 7.2 8.5 41 3 70 Quercus michauxii 8.5 7.9 30 3 70 Quercus 0.7 1.1 21 3 70 Quercus 4.3 1.4 5 3 70 Quercus 7 1.2 10 1 70 Quercus alba 6.4 6.1 38 3 70 Cercis canadensis 3.6 4.9 10 1 71 Crataegus marshallii 8.8 2.8 35 3 71 Crataegus marshallii 7.9 9.3 28 3 72 Crataegus marshallii 9.1 1.2 28 3 3.0 73 Betula nigra 4.4 4.5 81 3 73 Quercus phellos 9.7 0.9 35 3 73 Quercus 0.4 1 72 3 74 Celtis occidentalis 0.4 0.4 11 1 74 Betula nigra 0 5.2 58 3 74 Ulmus americana 5.7 0.3 24 3 74 Quercus phellos 1.3 0.3 10 1 74 Ulmus americana 1.3 4.7 40 3 74 Quercus phellos 1.3 6.7 26 3 75 Betula nigra 0.7 0.7 220 1 4 75 Quercus lyrata 5.7 2.3 180 1.5 3 75 Quercus michauxii 9.1 2.2 80 3 75 Quercus 8.9 4.4 200 0.75 3 75 Quercus 8.3 10 165 1.1 3 75 Cercis canadensis 5.3 5.9 40 3 75 Betula nigra 5 8.6 300 3 4 75 Quercus lyrata 1.8 5.9 90 3 75 Betula nigra 0 6.1 225 2.2 3 75 Quercus lyrata 8.6 1.1 105 3 75 Diospyros virginiana 5.2 7.7 60 3 75 Quercus alba 9.2 8.5 153 1.3 4 76 Quercus 2.2 2.7 82 3 76 Quercus 5 2.3 123 3 76 Ulmus americana 2.6 4.6 31 3 76 Quercus 9.5 2.5 81 3 76 Quercus 8.7 5.5 75 3 76 Quercus michauxii 5.8 4.9 20 1 76 Crataegus marshallii 5.8 9.4 52 3 76 Betula nigra 8.2 9.7 125 3 76 Betula nigra 3.3 9 113 3 76 Betula nigra 0.1 8.9 86 3 77 Quercus 0.2 6.4 52 2 2.0 3.3 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.3 3.0 3.0 2.3 Plot Scientific Name X Y Height (cm) DBH Vigor Plot Average Vigor 78 Malus angustifolia 0.9 2.6 42 3 3.0 79 Quercus 10 8.3 58 3 79 Quercus pagoda 8.7 4.2 16 1 79 Quercus 3.9 5.3 52 3 79 Platanus occidentalis 9.8 2.1 53 3 79 Liriodendron tulipifera 2.6 9.5 38 3 80 Quercus 1 2.1 66 3 80 Quercus 4.4 2.3 40 3 80 Quercus 6.1 1.3 29 3 80 Quercus 7.9 0.6 35 3 80 Cornus amomum 2.3 8.8 68 3 80 Crataegus marshallii 1 5.6 30 3 80 Quercus phellos 1.4 1.6 35 3 80 Quercus 5.1 1.1 28 3 81 Quercus rubra 0.2 3.3 60 3 81 Liriodendron tulipifera 3.6 3.9 20 3 81 Quercus lyrata 8.7 9 61 3 81 Platanus occidentalis 6.4 8.8 32 3 82 Platanus occidentalis 0.7 4.8 575 3 3 82 Betula nigra 2.5 4.6 84 3 82 Platanus occidentalis 3.5 4.6 375 3 3 82 Platanus occidentalis 6.4 5 138 0.25 3 82 Crataegus marshallii 6.1 8.9 63 3 82 Celtis occidentalis 2.3 8.1 42 3 83 Platanus occidentalis 8.4 7.9 260 2 4 83 Quercus phellos 4.6 7.6 122 3 83 Quercus rubra 6.9 9 112 3 83 Quercus rubra 4.9 7.2 70 3 84 Diospyros virginiana 8.4 8.2 94 3 84 Diospyros virginiana 6.1 8.2 55 3 85 Diospyros virginiana 8 8.3 30 1 85 Platanus occidentalis 8.3 7.3 135 3 85 Quercus alba 2.2 4.2 110 3 85 Diospyros virginiana 2.8 3.9 75 3 85 Diospyros virginiana 8.6 6 123 3 87 Quercus 9 5.3 55 2 87 Quercus 6.5 6.5 69 2 87 Quercus phellos 6.9 9.6 80 3 87 Quercus phellos 6.4 2.9 52 3 87 Quercus phellos 6.9 9 31 3 3.3 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.0 3.0 3.0 GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Appendices MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 Appendix C: Additional Data 2021 Adaptive Management Figure + Transect Data 2021 Soil Test Results 2021 Rainfall Data 2022 Adaptive Management Map 2022 Climate Data 2023 Adaptive Management Plan 2023 Climate Data Fe a t u r e 2 - S t r e a m Fea t u r e 5 - D i t c h Fe a t u r e 6 A - D i t c h Fe a t u r e 6 B - S t r e a m Fea t u r e 7 A - S t r e a m Fea t u r e 7 A - S t r e a m Fea t u r e 7 B - S t r e a m Fea t u r e 8 - S t r e a m SUNN Y S I D E R D Zone 2 Ac res = 2.62Ave Stem s/Plot = 296Ad d 200 stem s/a c reSp a c ing = 11' x 20'Tota l = 570 stem s Zone 1 Zone 1 = 5.47 Ac rea sAve. Stem s/Plot = 245Ad d 250 stem s/a c reSp a c ing = 11' x 17'Stem s need ed = 1,300 stem s Zone 3 Ave. Stem s/Plot = 680N o p la nting Area not p la nted d uring inita l site p la nting in 03/2020 Ac res = 0.75 a c res Ad d 600 stem s/a c reSp a c ing = 8' x 9'Tota l = 300 stem s Zone 4 Ac res = 1.59Ave Stem s/Plot = 202Ad d 400 stem s/a c reSp a c ing = 11' x 10'Tota l = 630 stem s Zone 5 Ac res = 10.4Ave Stem s/Plot = 314Ad d 220 stem s/a c reSp a c ing = 11' x 20'Tota l = 2,300 stem s Zone 6 Ac res = 7.8Ave Stem s/Plot = 178Ad d 400 stem s/a c reSp a c ing = 11' x 10'Tota l = 3,120 stem s Zone 7 Ac res = 3.25Ave Stem s/Plot = 94Ad d 500 stem s/a c reSp a c ing = 11' x 8'Tota l = 1,625 stem s Zone 8 Ac res = 51.6Ave Stem s/Plot = 374Ad d 220 stem s/a c reSp a c ing = 11' x 20'Tota l = 11,352 stem s Zone 9 Ac res = 4.78Ave Stem s/Plot = 137Ad d 400 stem s/a c reSp a c ing = 11' x 10'Tota l = 1,900 stem s Zone 10 Ac res = 2.1Ave Stem s/Plot = 60Ad d 500 stem s/a c reSp a c ing = 11' x 8'Tota l = 1,050 Zone 8 Ac res = 51.6Ave Stem s/Plot = 374Ad d 220 stem s/a c reSp a c ing = 11' x 20'Tota l = 11,352 stem s Zone 8 Ac res = 51.6Ave Stem s/Plot = 374Ad d 220 stem s/a c reSp a c ing = 11' x 20'Tota l = 11,352 stem s 1 8 5 7 9 36 2 22 11 64 7978 86 65 25 28 66 26 76 57 70 56 37 68 67 87 75 58 74 53 55 63 12 80 62 31 24 20 69 21 73 811036 4438 71 23 60 72 82 83 52 42 14 30 40 29 8435 34 47 49 59 41 46 32 77 13 51 15 45 18 85 33 61 17 48 54 19 16 27 50 43 39 T1 T8 T7 T5 T6 T3 T9 T2 T4 T1 1 T14 T10 T 1 2 T13. 4 Legend Post AMP Tra nsec ts - 03/12/2021 Existing Rip a ria n Forest: 2.10 Ac res GUC - CV S Plot Loc a tions (87 tota l) Top of Ba nk to 50-Feet Top of Ba nk to 100-Feet Top of Ba nk to 200-Feet Top of Ba nk (TOB) of Ba nk Pa rc el Hyd rologic Fea tures Pa rc el Fea tures - Top of Ba nk Rec ord ed Conserva tion Ea sem ent: 97.14 Ac res Fee-Sim p le Tra c ts 1 in = 458 ft qRESTORATION SYSTEMS, LLC 1101 HAY N ES ST, SUITE 211RALEIGH, N C 27604 PHON E : 919.755.9490FAX : 919.755.9492 This m a p a nd a ll d a ta c onta ined within a re sup p lied a s is with no wa rra nty. Restora tion System s, LLC exp ressly d isc la im s resp onsib ility for d a m a ges or lia b ility from a ny c la im s tha t m a y a rise out of the use or m isuse of this m a p . It is the sole resp onsibility of the user to d eterm ine if the d a ta on this m a p is c om p a tible with the user’s need s. This m a p wa s not c rea ted a s survey d a ta , nor should it b e used a s suc h. It is the user’s resp onsibility to obt a in p rop er survey d a ta , p rep a red b y a lic ensed surveyor, where required b y la w. SCALE: DATE: 04 - 2021 Coord ina te System :N AD_1983_SP_N C_FIPS_3200_Ft. Aeria l Im a gery: (c ) servic es.nc onem a p .gov 0 240 480 720 960120 Feet SITE: GUC-00 GUCBuffer & Nutrient Offset Bank Parcel2021 Adaptive Management Plan GUC Temporary Veg Plots ‐ Post AMP planting (Date of Transects 03/12/2021) T‐1 (190⁰)T‐2 (191⁰)T‐3 (14⁰)T‐4 (258⁰)T‐5 (80⁰)T‐6 (97⁰)T‐7 (119⁰)T‐8 (71⁰)T‐9 (341⁰)T‐10 (69⁰)T‐11 (2⁰)T‐12 (355⁰)T‐13 (289⁰)T‐14 (269⁰) Betula nigra 1492 1 2 Celtis occidentalis 1 312 Crataegus marshallii 1 3 Diospyros virginiana 3 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 111 231 Liriodendron tulipifera 11 31 11 Morus rubra 111 1 1 Nyssa sylvativa 21 Platanus occidentalis 2 11 251 Prunus serotina 1 2 Quercus lyrata 1 212 Quercus nigra 1 1211 3 Quercus phellos 113 Quercus rubra 1 1 Quercus spp.1336112 7214 Ulmus americana 2 23 12 Total Stems 11 6 14 9 10 6 10 8 6 11 14 8 9 14 Total Stems/Acre 445 243 567 364 405 243 405 324 243 445 567 324 364 567 Area Density Pre AMP (Stems/Acre)245 296 94 137 60 220 94 374 178 314 0 680 202 374 Species 50m x 2m Temporary Plot (Bearing) NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: (919) 733-2655 Website: www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/ Report No.FY22-SL008749 Mehlich-3 Extraction Completed: Received:Sampled: Soil Report Farm: Client: Links to Helpful Information Advisor: Sunnyside Road, Greenville 27810/18/202110/13/202110/05/2021 Diagnostic Phillip Perkinson 1900 Varnell Avenue RALEIGH, NC 27612 Sampled County : Pitt 412495Client ID: Advisor ID: The plant growth and root growth were poor. New buds were dead. Bare root hardwood seedlings in putter restoration project. No soil amendments have been made. The soil fertility levels varied widely among the samples. The soil pH is low in GUL7. The soil potassium is low or marginal in many samples. The soil sulfur is low in all the samples. Note the recommendations. You can contact NCDA & CS regional agronomist Brandon Poole at 919-706-7000 if you need further assistance. Jagathi Kamalakanthan, Agronomist, 10/18/2021 Agronomist's Comments: Lime History: Sample ID: More Information Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm ; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm ; NO3-N in mg/dm ]: Soil Class: Ca%NO3-NSS-IESPNaCu-IZn-AIZn-IMn-AI2Mn-AI1Mn-IS-IMg%K-IP-IpHAcBS%CECW/VHM% 2 - 1 - Crop Recommendations:Lime BCuZnMnSMgK2OP2O5N Mineral Hardwood, E Hardwood, E 0.0 0.0 GUL1 0 0 0 0 222816.80.6937.81.380.60 61092585919 0 0 70 70 Note: 11 Note: 11 258 (tons/acre) 333 0 0 65 27 Nutrients (lb/acre) 0.0 0 0 0 0 Lime History: Sample ID: More Information Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm ; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm ; NO3-N in mg/dm ]: Soil Class: Ca%NO3-NSS-IESPNaCu-IZn-AIZn-IMn-AI2Mn-AI1Mn-IS-IMg%K-IP-IpHAcBS%CECW/VHM% 2 - 1 - Crop Recommendations:Lime BCuZnMnSMgK2OP2O5N Mineral Hardwood, E Hardwood, E 0.0 0.0 GUL2 0 0 0 0 224487.20.2978.01.320.41 710629838117 0 0 70 70 Note: 11 Note: 11 298 (tons/acre) 333 0 0 70 26 Nutrients (lb/acre) 0.0 0 0 0 0 Thank you for using agronomic services to manage nutrients and safeguard environmental quality. through a grant from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission. Reprogramming of the laboratory-information-management system that makes this report possible is being funded - Steve Troxler, Commissioner of Agriculture NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: (919) 733-2655 Website: www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/ Report No.FY22-SL008749 Page 2 of 5Phillip Perkinson Lime History: Sample ID: More Information Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm ; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm ; NO3-N in mg/dm ]: Soil Class: Ca%NO3-NSS-IESPNaCu-IZn-AIZn-IMn-AI2Mn-AI1Mn-IS-IMg%K-IP-IpHAcBS%CECW/VHM% 2 - 1 - Crop Recommendations:Lime BCuZnMnSMgK2OP2O5N Mineral Hardwood, E Hardwood, E 0.0 0.0 GUL3 0 0 0 0 545776.60.8897.21.230.56 8895384417 0 0 30 30 Note: 11 Note: 11 538 (tons/acre) 333 0 0 63 22 Nutrients (lb/acre) 0.0 0 0 0 0 Lime History: Sample ID: More Information Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm ; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm ; NO3-N in mg/dm ]: Soil Class: Ca%NO3-NSS-IESPNaCu-IZn-AIZn-IMn-AI2Mn-AI1Mn-IS-IMg%K-IP-IpHAcBS%CECW/VHM% 2 - 1 - Crop Recommendations:Lime BCuZnMnSMgK2OP2O5N Mineral Hardwood, E Hardwood, E 0.0 0.0 GUL4 0 0 0 0 181305.60.9632.41.430.09 41865557 0 0 70 70 Note: 11 Note: 11 65 (tons/acre) 333 0 0 38 22 Nutrients (lb/acre) 0.0 0 0 $ $ Lime History: Sample ID: More Information Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm ; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm ; NO3-N in mg/dm ]: Soil Class: Ca%NO3-NSS-IESPNaCu-IZn-AIZn-IMn-AI2Mn-AI1Mn-IS-IMg%K-IP-IpHAcBS%CECW/VHM% 2 - 1 - Crop Recommendations:Lime BCuZnMnSMgK2OP2O5N Mineral Hardwood, E Hardwood, E 0.0 0.0 GUL5 0 0 0 0 22865.72.0584.71.201.49 520452433 0 0 70 70 Note: 11 Note: 11 45 (tons/acre) 333 0 0 40 16 Nutrients (lb/acre) 0.0 0 0 $ $ NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: (919) 733-2655 Website: www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/ Report No.FY22-SL008749 Page 3 of 5Phillip Perkinson Lime History: Sample ID: More Information Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm ; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm ; NO3-N in mg/dm ]: Soil Class: Ca%NO3-NSS-IESPNaCu-IZn-AIZn-IMn-AI2Mn-AI1Mn-IS-IMg%K-IP-IpHAcBS%CECW/VHM% 2 - 1 - Crop Recommendations:Lime BCuZnMnSMgK2OP2O5N Mineral Hardwood, E Hardwood, E 0.0 0.0 GUL6 0 0 0 0 172446.60.6884.61.350.27 51202487917 0 0 70 70 Note: 11 Note: 11 248 (tons/acre) 333 0 0 60 26 Nutrients (lb/acre) 0.0 0 0 0 0 Lime History: Sample ID: More Information Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm ; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm ; NO3-N in mg/dm ]: Soil Class: Ca%NO3-NSS-IESPNaCu-IZn-AIZn-IMn-AI2Mn-AI1Mn-IS-IMg%K-IP-IpHAcBS%CECW/VHM% 2 - 1 - Crop Recommendations:Lime BCuZnMnSMgK2OP2O5N Mineral Hardwood, E Hardwood, E 0.6 0.0 GUL7 0 0 $ 25 191705.12.4404.01.310.81 53510522042 0 0 70 70 Note: 11 Note: 11 Note: $ 105 (tons/acre) 333 0 0 32 6 Nutrients (lb/acre) 0.0 0 0 0 0 Lime History: Sample ID: More Information Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm ; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm ; NO3-N in mg/dm ]: Soil Class: Ca%NO3-NSS-IESPNaCu-IZn-AIZn-IMn-AI2Mn-AI1Mn-IS-IMg%K-IP-IpHAcBS%CECW/VHM% 2 - 1 - Crop Recommendations:Lime BCuZnMnSMgK2OP2O5N Mineral Hardwood, E Hardwood, E 0.0 0.0 GUL8 0 0 0 0 332366.60.6833.41.310.13 634192812 0 0 50 50 Note: 11 Note: 11 19 (tons/acre) 333 0 0 51 27 Nutrients (lb/acre) 0.0 $ $ 0 0 NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: (919) 733-2655 Website: www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/ Report No.FY22-SL008749 Page 4 of 5Phillip Perkinson Lime History: Sample ID: More Information Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm ; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm ; NO3-N in mg/dm ]: Soil Class: Ca%NO3-NSS-IESPNaCu-IZn-AIZn-IMn-AI2Mn-AI1Mn-IS-IMg%K-IP-IpHAcBS%CECW/VHM% 2 - 1 - Crop Recommendations:Lime BCuZnMnSMgK2OP2O5N Mineral Hardwood, E Hardwood, E 0.0 0.0 GUL9 0 0 0 0 141266.40.6843.51.240.04 618442618 0 0 80 80 Note: 11 Note: 11 44 (tons/acre) 333 0 0 53 29 Nutrients (lb/acre) 0.0 0 0 $ $ Lime History: Sample ID: More Information Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm ; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm ; NO3-N in mg/dm ]: Soil Class: Ca%NO3-NSS-IESPNaCu-IZn-AIZn-IMn-AI2Mn-AI1Mn-IS-IMg%K-IP-IpHAcBS%CECW/VHM% 2 - 1 - Crop Recommendations:Lime BCuZnMnSMgK2OP2O5N Mineral Hardwood, E Hardwood, E 0.0 0.0 GUL10 0 0 0 0 263767.00.4959.31.230.32 8112940517021 0 0 60 60 Note: 11 Note: 11 405 (tons/acre) 333 0 0 68 26 Nutrients (lb/acre) 0.1 0 0 0 0 NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: (919) 733-2655 Website: www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/ Report No.FY22-SL008749 Page 5 of 5Phillip Perkinson Recommendations Lime If testing finds that soil pH is too low for the crop(s) indicated, a lime recommendation will be given in units of either ton/acre or lb/1000 sq ft. For best results, mix the lime into the top 6 to 8 inches of soil several months before planting. For no-till or established plantings where this is not possible, apply no more than 1 to 1.5 ton/acre (50 lb/1000 sq ft) at one time, even if the report recommends more. You can apply the rest in similar increments every six months until the full rate is applied. If MG is recommended and lime is needed, use dolomitric lime. Fertilizer Recommendations for field crops or other large areas are listed separately for each nutrient to be added (in units of lb/acre unless otherwise specified). Recommendations for N (and sometimes for B) are based on research/field studies for the crop being grown, not on soil test results. K-I and P-I values are based on test results and should be > 50. If they are not, follow the fertilizer recommendations given. If Mg is needed and no lime is recommended, 0-0-22 (11.5% Mg) is an excellent source; 175 to 250 lb per acre alone or in a fertilizer blend will usually satisfy crop needs, SS-I levels appear only on reports for greenhouse soil or problem samples. Farmers and other commercial producers should pay special attention to micronutrient levels. If $, pH$, $pH, C or Z notations appear on the soil report, refer to . In general, homeowners do not need to be concerned about micronutrients. Various crop notes also address lime fertilizer needs; visit Recommendations for small areas, such as home lawns/gardens, are listed in units of lb/1000 sq ft . If you cannot find the exact fertilizer grade recommended on the report, visit to find information that may help you choose a comparable alternate. For more information, read . Test Results The first seven values [soil class, HM%, W/V, CEC, BS%, Ac and pH] describe the soil and its degree of acidity. The remaining 16 [P-I, K-I, Ca%, Mg%, Mn-I, Mn-AI1, Mn-AI2, Zn-I, Zn-AI, Cu-I, S-I, SS-I, Na, ESP, SS-I, NO 3-N (not routinely available)] indicate levels of plant nutrients or other fertility measurement. Visit Report Abbreviations Ac exchangeable acidity B boron BS% % CEC occupied by basic cations Ca%% CEC occupied by calcium CEC cation exchange capacity Cu-I copper index ESP exchangeable sodium percent HM%percent humic matter K-I potassium index K2O potash Mg%% CEC occupied by magnesium MIN mineral soil class Mn manganese Mn-Al1 Mn-availability index for crop 1 Mn-AI2 Mn-availability index for crop 2 Mn-I manganese index M-O mineral-organic soil class N nitrogen Na sodium NO3-N nitrate nitrogen ORG organic soil class pH current soil pH P-I phosphorus index P2O5 phosphate S-I sulfur index SS-I soluble salt index W/V weight per volume Zn-AI zinc availability index Zn-I zinc index Understanding the Soil Report: explanation of measurements, abbreviations and units $Note: Secondary Nutrients and Micronutrients www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/obpart4.htm#fs A Homeowner's Guide to Fertilizer. www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/uyrst.htm ncagr.gov/agronomi/pubs.htm. 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Jan-21 Feb-21 Mar-21 Apr-21 May-21 Jun-21 Jul-21 Aug-21 Sep-21 Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21 Ra i n f a l l A m o u n t s ( i n ) Month/Year GUC Rainfall Analysis (2021) Monthly Rainfall Totals 30th percentile (30% chance precip less than) 70th percentile (30% chance precip more than) Source: AgACIS -Greenville, NC WETS Station Normal Rainfall National Drought Mitigation Center, Hegewisch, K.C., Abatzoglou, J.T., McEvoy, D., Chedwiggen, O., Nijssen, B., and Huntington, J.L..' Historical Water Watcher' web tool. Climate Toolbox (https://climatetoolbox.org/) accessed on [2021-11-17]. The U.S. Drought Monitor is produced through a partnership between the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska- Lincoln, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2021 GUC Replant 14,350 stems planted Legend Easement Replant Zones (24.55 acres) 3000 ft N ➤➤ N 2022 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 Apr-22 May-22 Jun-22 Jul-22 Aug-22 Sep-22 Oct-22 Nov-22 Dec-22 Ra i n f a l l A m o u n t s ( i n ) Month/Year GUC Rainfall Analysis (2022) Monthly Rainfall Totals 30th percentile (30% chance precip less than) 70th percentile (30% chance precip more than) Source: AgACIS -Greenville, NC WETS Station Normal Rainfall National Drought Mitigation CenterUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln3310 Holdrege StreetLincoln, NE 68583https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/DmData/TimeSeries.aspx (accessed January 3, 2023) 2022 Climate Data: Drought Persistence US Dept of CommerceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNational Weather Service1325 East West HighwaySilver Springs, MD 20910https://water.weather.gov/precip.index.php (accessed January 3, 2023) Displaying Last 365-Day Departure from Normal Precipitation ~8 inch deficit in 2022 SITE 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492 January 4, 2023 ATTN: Katie Merritt, North Carolina Division of Water Resources 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Subject: DRAFT 2023 Remedial Action Plan for the GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank (DWR Project #: 2017-0112) Restoration Systems (RS) has observed extensive dieback of planted hardwood species across the entire site for the GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank during the Yr. 3, 2022 Monitoring Season. The Yr. 3 Monitoring survey shows an average of two hundred and forty (240) stems per acre across the site, which fails to meet the success criteria. The low efficacy is widespread across the site and not contained to just one area of the project. RS believes soil conditions and drought are combined in causing the low survival of planted stems. As discussed in the 2021 AMP, soil moisture availability is a known limiting factor for tree establishment on the soils at this site. Further review of the available literature for these soil series indicate that reforestation efforts are prone to challenges, including drought vulnerability to varying degrees sitewide. See USGS Soil Survey (Karnowski, Edwin H. Soil Survey, Pitt County, North Carolina. The Service, 1974.) Prolonged drought conditions in 2022 in Pitt County contributed to significant seedling mortality and continue to impact the site due to rainfall deficit. The climate outlook, according to the State Climate Office, calls for a continued La Nina pattern this winter which is likely to prolong drought impacts through a warm and dry winter pattern. (Davis, Corey. (2022, November 17). Winter Outlook for 2022-23: La Nina Lives On. North Carolina State Climate Office Climate Blog. https://climate.ncsu.edu/blog/2022/11/winter-outlook-for-2022-23-la-nina-lives-on/ ). Based on the challenging soil conditions and unfavorable climate outlook, RS proposes to take a measured approach to bringing the site up to standard. The plan includes limited planting of test areas in January/February 2023 summarized as follows: 1.3,750 stems to be planted across 7.29 acres. See Figure 1 and Table 1. 2.Species will include species from original planting list as well as: i.Aronia arbutifolia, a native shrub known for drought tolerance. ii.Amelanchier spp., a native shrub known for drought tolerance. iii.Pinus taeda, a native softwood which may serve as an effective nurse crop. 3.2023 Monitoring will include additional sampling in test planting areas. RS remains committed to meeting success criteria on this site. Soil moisture challenges are expected to diminish over time in most areas as herbaceous species build a thatch layer and additional stems of drought resistance species and/or nurse crops further assist the successful establishment of the target community. Drought conditions are also expected to fade at some point, at which time existing planted stems are likely to respond with increased vigor and volunteer stems are expected in many portions of the site. RS looks forward to meeting with DWR staff to discuss this draft plan. 1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492 Figure 1: Remedial planting locations (yellow) Table 1: Remedial planting species Species # Amelanchier spp. 350 Aronia arbutifolia 350 Betula nigra 750 Liriodendron tulipifera 150 Morus rubra 600 Nyssa sylvatica 100 Pinus taeda 400 Platanus Occidentalis 150 Quercus michauxii 400 Quercus nigra 200 Ulmus americana 300 Total 3,750 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Jan‐23 Feb ‐23 Mar‐23 Apr‐23 May‐23 Jun‐23 Jul‐23 Aug‐23 Sep‐23 Oct‐23 Nov‐23 Dec‐23 Ra i n f a l l  Am o u n t s  (i n ) Month/Year GUC Rainfall Anaylsis (2023) Monthly Rainfall  Totals 30th percentile  (30% chance precip less than) 70th percentile  (30% chance precip more than) Source: AgACIS ‐Greenville, NC WETS Station Normal Rainfall GUC Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Appendices MY4 Monitoring Report – January 2024 Appendix D: Conservation Easement Assignment