20160225 Ver 2_Year 1 Monitoring Report with Appendices_20191004

ID#* 20160225
Select Reviewer:*
Katie Merritt
Initial Review
Completed Date
10/04/2019
Mitigation Project Submittal -10/4/2019
Version* 2
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? *
Type of Mitigation Project:*
r Stream r Wetlands V Buffer V Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jason Lorch
Project Information
r Yes t: No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Existing 20160225 Existing 2
(DWR) (nunbersonly ...nodash) Version: (nun-bersonly)
I D#: *
Project Type: f DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Sout Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer
Mitigation Bank Parcel
County: Chatham
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: SouthFork Buffer and Nutrient MY1 Report with
13.4MB
Appendices.pdf
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subr itted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jason Lorch
Signature:*

South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
DWR ID# 2016-0225v2
Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC's Cane Creek Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank
.a
MONITORING YEAR 1 REPORT
October 2019
ktp
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
PREPARED BY:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]

MONITORING YEAR 1 REPORT
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC's Cane Creek Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................2
1.1 Project Description....................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Bank Sponsor................................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Project History..............................................................................................................................2
1.4 Project Location............................................................................................................................3
1.5 Project Design...............................................................................................................................3
2.0 VEGETATION MONITORING.....................................................................................................4
2.1 Success Criteria.............................................................................................................................4
2.2 Description of Species and Monitoring Protocol..........................................................................4
2.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring................................................................................................5
2.4 Parcel Adaptive Management......................................................................................................6
2.5 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................6
3.0 REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Project Reporting History
Table 2
Tree Species Selected for Buffer Restoration
Table 3
Character/ Existing Tree and Shrub Species
Table 4
Monitoring Plot Summary — Planting
Table 5
Monitoring Plot Summary—Year 1
APPENDICES
Appendix
A: Figures
Figure 1
Parcel Location Map
Figure 2
Service Area Map
Figure 3
Credit Generation Map
Figure 4
Monitoring Components Map
Appendix B: Bank Credit Ledger
Appendix C: Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 6 Vegetation Plot Success Summary
Table 7 Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Results
Appendix E: Overview Photos
W South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 1
Monitoring Year 1 Report

1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Description
The South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel ("Parcel") is a part of the Wildlands
Holdings IV, LLC (Sponsor) Cane Creek Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank (Bank). The Umbrella
Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI) for the Bank and the Bank Parcel Development Plan (BPDP) were
approved on July 18, 2018. The project was planned, designed, and constructed encompassing land
along tributaries to South Fork Cane Creek in Chatham County, NC (Figure 1). The purpose of the Parcel
is to provide riparian buffer and nutrient offset mitigation credits to compensate for buffer impacts and
development requiring nutrient offset payments according to the Consolidated Buffer Mitigation Rule
15A NCAC 02B .0295 (effective November 1, 2015) and development requiring nutrient offset payments
according to 15A NCAC 0213 .0240 within the Haw River Sub -watershed of the Jordan Lake Watershed.
The service area is depicted in Figure 2.
This Parcel was restored to provide nutrient offset and buffer mitigation through the creation of a
Nutrient Offset and Buffer Bank. The project involves restoring riparian buffers adjacent to the existing
mitigated streams on-site in order to help reduce non -point source contaminant discharges to
downstream waters in the Jordan Lake Watershed within the Cape Fear River Basin. Out of the 18.13
acres, 14.83 acres have been mitigated for either Jordan Lake riparian buffer credit or nutrient offset
credit. In general, riparian buffer restoration area widths on streams range from 50 feet to 100 feet from
the top of bank for Jordan Lake buffer credits and nutrient offset credit.
1.2 Bank Sponsor
The South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel is a part of the Bank. The Umbrella
Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI) for the Bank was signed in July 2018.
Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Attn: Shawn Wilkerson
Email: [e-mail]
1.3 Project History
The construction of the Stream Bank site was completed in July 2018. No major adjustments were made
during construction that drastically affected the Buffer and Nutrient Offset Bank Parcel. Buffer and
nutrient offset credits were adjusted to reflect the presence of vernal pools that were added during
construction, and a minor alignment adjustment to UT2. The Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument
(UMBI) for the Bank and the Bank Parcel Development Plan (BPDP) were approved on July 18, 2018. The
As -Built Monitoring Report was approved in May 2019. More details on project history can be found
below in Table 1.
W South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 2
Monitoring Year 1 Report

Table 1. Project Reporting History
Activity
Completion Date
Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC Cane Creek UMBI
July 2018
Bank Parcel Development Package Approved
July 2018
Conservation Easement
January 2018
Bare Root Planting
December 2018
As -Built & Baseline Monitoring Document
May 2019
Year 1 Monitoring Completed
September 2019
1.4 Project Location
The Parcel is located in Chatham County near the Town of Snow Camp, NC (35° 49' 21.28" N and 79° 22'
54.62" W). From Raleigh, take US -64 West to the exit for NC -87 North. Continue north on NC -87 for 1.8
miles and turn left onto Silk Hope Gum Spring Road. Continue on Silk Hope Gum Spring Road for 8.1
miles. Turn right onto Silk Hope -Lindley Mill Road and continue for 2.9 miles. Turn left onto Moon
Lindley Road and continue for 1.3 miles. Turn left onto Johnny Lindley Road and continue for 0.7 miles
to 1727 Johnny Lindley Road, Snow Camp, NC (Figure 1).
1.5 Project Design
The Parcel will generate 14.83 acres to be used for either Jordan Lake riparian buffer credit or nutrient
offset credit at 2,249.36 pounds of nitrogen per acre of riparian restoration and 143.81 pounds of
phosphorus per acre of riparian restoration (71% and 67% delivery factor respectively). Site credit
generation is shown in Figure 3. The revegetation plan for the Parcel included planting of bare root trees
and controlling invasive species growth. Bare root trees selected for the Parcel were native bottomland
hardwood species typical for Piedmont communities (Table 2). The riparian buffer will immobilize
nutrients, reducing quantities available to downstream aquatic ecosystems in the Cape Fear River Basin.
Table 2. Tree Species Selected for Buffer Restoration
Scientic Name
Common Name
Planted Number
% of Total
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
950
25%
Celtis occidentalis
Hackberry
100
3%
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
400
11%
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
200
5%
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
350
9%
Betula nigra
River Birch
850
23%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
450
12%
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
300
8%
Ulmus americana
American Elm
150
4%
Total
3,750
100%
Prior to construction, the Parcel consisted primarily of livestock pasture except for a few areas. The
cattle pastures on the Parcel are dominated by fescue grasses (Festuca spp.) and broomsedge
(Andropogon virginicus). Much of the riparian areas on the Parcel are wooded; however, cattle had
access to the streams. Vegetation in the wooded areas is primarily hardwood species including white
W South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 3
Monitoring Year 1 Report

oak (Quercus alba), red oak (Quercus rubra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua), red maple (Acerrubrum), southern red oak (Quercus
falcata), and American elm (Ulmus americana) (Table 3).
Table 3. Character/ Existing Tree and Shrub Species
Scientific Name
Common Name
Quercus alba
White Oak
Quercus rubra
Red Oak
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip -Poplar
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweetgum
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Quercus falcata
Southern Red Oak
Ulmus americana
American Elm
2.0 Vegetation Monitoring
2.1 Success Criteria
Success Criteria for the Parcel are based on the health and survival of a minimum density of 260 trees
per acre after five years of monitoring, and no one species comprises more than 50 percent of stems.
Height, visual assessment of damage, and vigor will be used as indicators of overall health. Desirable
species may be included to meet the success criteria upon DWR approval.
If vegetative success criteria are not achieved based on acreage density calculations from combined
monitoring plots over the entire restoration area, or if an inspection of a buffer restoration site indicates
that portions of the Parcel do not have sufficient stem densities or are otherwise deficient,
supplemental planting shall be performed with tree species approved by NCDWR. Supplemental
planting shall be performed as needed until vegetative success criteria are met. No quantitative
measurements of herb assemblages will be required to meet the vegetative success criteria.
2.2 Description of Species and Monitoring Protocol
The number of plots required was determined in accordance with the Carolina Vegetative Sampling
Protocol (CVS Levels 1 & 2) such that at least 2 percent of the Parcel is encompassed in monitoring plots.
Five 10 -meter by 10 -meter vegetation monitoring plots were installed within the buffer restoration area
to measure the survival of the planted trees (Figure 4). PVC pipe was used to mark the four corners of
the plots. GPS points were taken at each of the corners and a reference photo was taken from the
southwest corner of each plot (Appendix D). All planted stems within the plots were marked with
flagging tape and recorded. Total numbers of tree species planted within the monitoring plots as well as
planting density and plant composition are detailed in Table 4. Detailed results of the Monitoring Year 1
stem count are summarized in Appendix C. No planting was required in cattle exclusion or preservation
areas, however visual assessments will be conducted to ensure no encroachments or livestock access
has occurred within the conservation easement.
W South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 4
Monitoring Year 1 Report

Table 4. Monitoring Plot Summary — Planting (As -Built)
Scientific Name
Total Stems Flagged
(MYO)
Calculated Planted
Stem Density
(Stems/Acre)
Live Stem
Composition
Platanus occidentalis
19
152
25%
Celtis occidentalis
2
18
3%
Quercus michauxii
8
67
11%
Quercus pagoda
4
30
5%
Quercus phellos
7
54
9
Betula nigra
17
140
23%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9
73
12%
Liriodendron tulipifera
6
49
8%
Ulmus americana
1 3
1 24
1 4%
Total
1 75
607
1 100%
2.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring
The 5 vegetation plots (Plots 3-7) were sampled in September 2019 at the end of the first growing
season. A reference photo was taken from the southwest corner of each plot, which can be found in
Appendix D along with the stem count raw data. Total numbers of tree species identified within the
monitoring plots as well as density and composition are summarized in Table 5. Vegetation result tables
with planted stem density, and stem count by plot and species are summarized in Appendix C.
The 2019 vegetation monitoring resulted in an average planted stem density of 502 stems per acre,
which is greater than the final requirement of 260 stems per acre and has not changed drastically since
the as -built density of 607 stems per acre recorded in January 2019.
Visual assessments of the cattle exclusion and preservation areas within the conservation easement
concluded:
• Fencing is in good condition throughout the Parcel;
• No cattle access within the conservation easement area;
• No encroachment has occurred;
• Diffuse flow is being maintained in the conservation easement area; and
• There has not been any cutting, clearing, filling, grading, or similar activities that would
negatively affect the functioning of the buffer.
The Parcel is on track to meet its final success criteria.
W South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 5
Monitoring Year 1 Report

Table 5. Monitoring Plot Summary — Year 1
Scientic Name
Total Stems Flagged
(MY1)
Calculated Live Stem
Density (Stems/Acre)
Live Stem
Composition
Platanus occidentalis
20
160
27%
Celtis occidentalis
2
18
3%
Quercus michauxii
8
67
12%
Quercus pagoda
3
23
4%
Quercus phellos
8
62
11%
Betula nigra
12
99
17%
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
12
98
17%
Liriodendron tulipifera
2
17
3
Ulmus americana
1
8
1%
Gleditsia triacanthos
1
8
1%
Liquidamberstyracaflua
3
23
4%
Total
72
583
100%
2.4 Parcel Adaptive Management
The Parcel has been properly and accurately marked by adding witness posts with easement placards
every 100 ft and at every corner of the easement. Fencing locations were agreed upon with the
landowner and displayed accurately in Figures 3 and 4.
Adaptive measures will be developed, or appropriate remedial actions will be implemented in the event
that the Parcel or a specific component of the Parcel fails to achieve the success criteria. Parcel
maintenance will be performed to correct any identified problems that have a high likelihood of
affecting project success. Such items include but are not limited to excess tree mortality caused by fire,
flooding, drought, or insects. Any actions implemented will be designed to achieve the success criteria
and will include a work schedule and updated monitoring criteria.
2.5 Conclusions
The 2019 vegetation monitoring data reflects that the Parcel has not suffered significant mortality and is
on trajectory to achieve final vegetative success criteria of 260 stems per acre by the end of Monitoring
Year Five. No problems were identified, such as invasive species or excessive tree mortality, during
monitoring year one. Therefore, no corrective actions are required at this time.
3.0 References
Guidelines for Riparian Buffer Restoration. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. October 2004.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.0. Retrieved from
http://www.nceep.net/business/monitoring/veg/datasheets.htm.
Peet, R.K., T.R. Wentworth and P.S. White. 1998. A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274. http:Hcvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm
Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC (2017). Cane Creek Mitigation Banking Instrument. NCDWR, Raleigh NC.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/nutrientbufferbanks
W South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel Page 6
Monitoring Year 1 Report

Appendix A: Figures

Figure 1. Parcel Location Map
WILD LANDS South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
ENGINEERING Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
0 0.5 1 Miles
I i i I Chatham County, NC
i Wr ftrq
a
f
Rd
g_
3
J
�
p
Qua ke nbush Ra
,a
762 rt
O
s�
C
I 2D
d
"rk Rat
a
ALAMANCE
---- �—--————
————————————------—— — — — — —— Ir
CHATHAM "-
n
b�r
or s
E
3
e
`r
r
CentecG
�d
o<KGip
J" South Fork Bank
Parcel Location
U
s�
�
Rd
M
Jo hnny' `,
ca�ch
or
aft
C
�0-A0
&-
�o
60Unde�oC Rd
772 R
'
fro
Il
e
3
:2 Wit/ Brown Rd
a
m-
Greek
-
v
Cr
�G
r! 3
70
�d ��
a
SID
�e SSS i
r
f - H��� Rd
a
Figure 1. Parcel Location Map
WILD LANDS South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
ENGINEERING Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
0 0.5 1 Miles
I i i I Chatham County, NC

Figure 2. Service Area Map
W I L D L A N D S South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
ENGINEERING 0 5 10 Mlles Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
I I I I
Chatham County, NC
��a
�Q
---
R,,
I County Boundaries
L----
HUC 03030002
Danville
�� a
Jordan Lake Sub -Watersheds
VIRGINIA
_.._.._.._.._.__.._.._t.._.._.._.._.._.._....._.._.._,
r--_--_----•_
Service Area - Riparian Buffer Credits
j
„k
South Fork Mitigation Bank Parcel Location
i
Yanceyville
I
—'
P_.:buro o
I
FI ?I
r.pl al
I
I
I
I
i
I Jxf I
I i
I
---_--_-----_--_--_--_-----_--_
ti .....................
I I
I I
Oak Ridge C
I
I
I
iI
Rurlingh_,n IL;I;;n
' I
01030002 i
i
'
i
C�urhsn
High Point
I
�
I
�_..----"-'•-..----"-• _.I --
i Haw River
Upper Nib Hope !
w
i
I
i
I
I
j
wer
I
j
pie
Haw
Rive
•`/
"----'--•'--'----.._.._--------.._..—•---._..----.._..---_..
fir',
Raven
``
iil
%'• ck
ciattee Park
L
•�• •
•,,�
% Llllu i�t
I1
Figure 2. Service Area Map
W I L D L A N D S South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
ENGINEERING 0 5 10 Mlles Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
I I I I
Chatham County, NC

�Agag
t1(w
ti
t -
f
+ /,/�
lip
Conservation Easement (18.13 ac)
Internal Crossing
Streams & Vernal Pools (2.42 ac)
South Fork Credit Zones
Restoration 0-100' (4.92 ac)
Restoration 0<50' (0.48 ac)
Enhancement 0-100' (0.47 ac)
Cattle Exclusion 0-100' (8.52 ac)
♦♦� ` Preservation 0-100' (0.44 ac )
No Credit ( 0.88 ac)
• n—n Project Fencing
Figure 3. Credit Generation Map
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
W 1 L D L A N D S Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
ENGINEERING 0 200 400 Feet
I I i I Chatham County, NC

i
Al 4
i
[3
. b '
i
�❑7 II
}f
_ I
Conservation Easement (18.13 ac)
Internal Crossing
- Streams & Vernal Pools (2.42 ac)
South Fork Credit Zones
Restoration 0-100' (4.92 ac)
Restoration 0<50' (0.48 ac)
Enhancement 0-100' (0.47 ac)
Cattle Exclusion 0-100' (8.52 ac)
0
Preservation 0-100'(0.44 ac)
No Credit ( 0.88 ac)
9—n Project Fencing
❑ Buffer Vegetation Monitoring Plots
Figure 4. Monitoring Components Map
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
PAW'' W I L D L A N D S Cape Fear River Basin 03030002
w I ENGINEERING 0 200 400 Feet
I I I I Chatham County, NC

Appendix B: Bank Credit Ledger

*Credits shown below are only for mitigation
credits approved by the UMBI, BPDP, and As -Built.
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI)
Haw River Subwatershed - South Fork Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Bank
Nitrogen Credit Ledger
Date Last Updated: 9
DWR Bank Parcel Project #:2016-016- 0225v2
As -Built Credit Total: N/A
Delivery Factor: 71% N
W I LD LAN DS
HOLDINGS OO
Sale/Release Date Purchaser Name or % of Credit Release Project Name
14Credits Released/Available to
digit HUC of Project
Bank
Credits Debited/Sold From
Nutrient Credit Balance Local Gov't
Bank Requiring
Generated Delivered
Nitrogen (lbs) Nitrogen (lbs)
Generated Delivered Generated Delivered
Nitrogen (lbs) Nitrogen (lbs) Nitrogen (lbs)
Nitrogen
(Ibs)
8/27/2018 Tasks 18,7 Release (25%)
03030002050050 2929.79 V 2080.15
2929.79
2080.15 NCDWR
DWR Approved Transfer to South Fork Buffer
12/17/2018 Restoration Ledger
2979.79 2080.15 0.00
0 NCDWR
5/1/2019 Task 2 Release (20%)
03030002050050 2343.83 1664.12
2343.83
1664.12 NCDWR
5/30/2019 Task Release (10%)
03030002050050 813.15 785.75
3156.981
2449.87 NCDWR
Total Balances
3156.98
2449.87

*Credits shown below are only for mitigation credits approved by the UMBI, BPDP, and As -Built.
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI)
Haw River Subwatershed - South Fork Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Bank
Phosphorus Credit Ledger WILD LANDS
Date Last Updated: 9-9-19HOLDINGS
DWR Bank Parcel Project#: 2016-016- 0225v2
As -Built Credit Total: N/A
Delivery Factor: 67% P
Sale/Release Purchaser Name or % of Credit Release
Date
14 -digit HUC of Credits Released/Available to
Project Name
Project Bank
Credits Debited/Sold From Local Gov't
Nutrient Credit Balance
Bank Requiring
Generated Delivered
Phosphorus Phosphorus
(Ibs) (Ibs)
Generated Delivered Generated Delivered
Phosphorus Phosphorus Phosphorus Phosphorus
(Ibs) (Ibs) (Ibs) (Ibs)
8/27/2018 Tasks 1&7 (25%)
03030002050050 187.31
187.31 125.50 NCDWR
DWR Approved Transfer to South Fork
12/17/2018 Buffer Restoration Ledger
187.31 125.5 0 0 NCDWR
5/1/2019 Task 2 Release (20%)
03030002050050 149.85 100.4
149.85 100.4 NCDWR
5/30/2019 Task 3 Release (10%)
03030002050050 52 34.84
201.85 135.24 NCDWR
Total Balances
201.85 135.24

*Credits shown below are
only for mitigation credits approved by the UMBI, BPDP, and As -Built.
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI)
Haw River Subwatershed - South Fork Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Bank
Buffer Restoration & Enhancement Credit Ledger
Date Last Updated: 9-9-19
DWR Bank Parcel Project #:2016-016- 0225v2
Total Credits Released To Date: 0.13ac
W I LD LA N D S
HOLDINGS
Sale/
Purchaser Name or % of Credit Release
Release Date
Credits
Project w/ 14 Digit HUC Released/Available to
Bank
Credits Debited/Sold From
Buffer Credit Balance
Bank
Local Gov't
Square Feet Acres
Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres
8/27/2018 Tasks 18,7 (25%)
03030002050050 5771.7 0.13
5771.7
0.13 NCDWR
DWR Approved Transfer from South Fork
12/17/20181 Buffer Nutrient Offset Ledgers
56628 1.3
62399.7
1.43 NCDWR
5/1/2019 Task 2 Release (20%)
03030002050050 4617.36 0.106
67017.06
1.54 NCDWR
5/30/2019 Task 3 Release (10%)
03030002050050 6635.99 1 0.1523414
1 73653.05
1.69 NCDWR
7/15/2019 Collin Clampett
Lochside Sanitary Sewer Relocation (Clampett Residence)
03030002050050
1839 0.042 71814.05
1.649 City of Greensboro
8/13/2019 Manns Chapel Subdivision LLC
Ryan's Crossing (aka: Manns Chapel Subdivision) 03030002050050
15078 0.346 56736.05
1.302 Chatham County
Total Balances
I 1
1 56736.05
1.302

*Credits shown below are only for mitigation credits approved by the UMBI, BPDP, and As -Built.
Cane Creek Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI)
Haw River Subwatershed - South Fork Nutrient Offset & Buffer Mitigation Bank
Buffer Enhancement (Cattle Exclusion) &Preservation Credit Ledger
Date Last Updated: 9-9-19
DWR Bank Parcel Project#: 2016-0225v2
WILD LAND S
HOLDINGS
Sale/ Purchaser Name or % of Credit
Release Date Release
Credits Credits Debited/Sold
Project w/ 14 Digit HUC Released/Available to
Bank From Bank
Buffer Credit Balance Local Gov't
Square Feet Acres Square Feet Acres
Square Feet Acres
8/27/2018 Tasks 1&7 (25%)
03030002050050 48678.3 1.1175
48678.3 1.1175 NCDWR
5/1/2019 Task 2 Release (20%)
03030002050050 38942.64 0.894
87620.94 2.0115 NCDWR
5/30/2019 Task 3 Release (10%)
03030002050050 15537.61 0.35669444
103158.55 2.36819 NCDWR
Total Balances
103158.60 2.368

Appendix C: Vegetation Assessment Data

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Success Summary
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 1- 2019
Plot
Year
Northing
Easting
Planted Living Stems
Missing Stems
Volunteer Stems
Total Living Stems
Planted Living Stems
per Acre
Total Living
Stems per Acre
Number of Total
species per Acre
Vegetation
Threshold Met?
3
1
754752
1886490
14
1
0
14
567
567
7
Yes
4
1
755142
1887010
11
4
0
11
445
445
6
Yes
5
1
754682
1886680
11
4
2
13
445
526
4
Yes
6
1
754695
1886250
14
1
3
17
567
688
8
Yes
7
1
755620
1887380
12
3
5
17
486
688
6
Yes

Table 7. Planted and Total Stem Counts
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnols - Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems
T: Total Stems
Current Plot Data (MY1 2019)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
VP 3
PnoLS P -all
T
VP 4
Pnol-S P -all
T
VP 5
Pnol-S P -all
T
VP 6
Pnol-S P -all
T
VP 7
Pnol-S P -all
T
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
Celtis occidentalis
Northern Hackberry
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
6
Gleditsia triacanthos
Honey Locust
Tree
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
7
7
7
2
2
2
6
6
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
ITree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
J14
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
1
1
1
Stem count14
14
11
11
1 11
11
11
13
14
14
17
12
12
17
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
7
7
7
6
6
1 6
4
4
4
8
8
9
6
6
7
StemsperACRE
567
567
567
445
445
1 445
445
445
526
567
1 567
688
486
1 486
1 688
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnols - Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems
T: Total Stems

Table 7. Planted and Total Stem Counts
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
Monitoring Year 1 - 2019
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnols - Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems
T: Total Stems
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY1 (2019)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2019)
Pnol-S P -all T
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
11
11
12
17
17
17
Celtis occidentalis
Northern Hackberry
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
8
8
12
9
9
9
Gleditsia triacanthos
Honey Locust
Tree
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
2
2
6
6
6
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
19
19
20
19
19
19
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
8
8
8
8
8
8
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
ITree
3
3
3
4
4
4
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
ITree
8
8
8
7
7
7
Ulmus americana
American Elm
ITree
1
1
1
3
3
3
Stem count
62
62
72
75
75
75
size (ares)
5
5
size (ACRES)
0.12
0.12
Species count
9
1 9
1 11
9
9
9
Stems per ACRE
502
1 502
1 583
607
607
607
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnols - Planted Stems Excluding Live Stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems
T: Total Stems

Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Results

Veg Plot 3 - Year 1
Tree ID
Species
X (m)
Y (m)
Height (cm)
1
Quercus michauxii
0.8
0.6
101
2
Platanus occidentalis
1.2
2.8
138
3
Celtis occidentalis
1.0
4.7
88
4
Platanus occidentalis
0.8
7.1
91
5
Platanus occidentalis
0.6
9.5
93
6
Quercus michauxii
4.8
9.0
87
7
Betula nigra
5.1
6.5
88
8
Platanus occidentalis
5.1
4.6
112
9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5.0
3.0
92
10
Quercus phellos
5.0
0.9
81
11
Platanus occidentalis
9.5
0.8
87
12
Platanus occidentalis
9.4
2.9
68
13
Quercus pagoda
9.2
4.4
94
14
Platanus occidentalis
9.2
7.1
152
15
Betula nigra
9.3
9.7
Missing
%46/
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Parcel
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Results

Veg Plot 4 - Year 1
Tree ID
Species
X (m)
Y (m)
Height (cm)
16
Betula nigra
0.6
0.6
71
17
Betula nigra
0.6
2.4
42
18
Platanus occidentalis
0.6
4.6
94
19
Quercus phellos
0.6
6.9
65
20
Betula nigra
0.6
9.5
63
21
Quercus pagoda
4.7
9.5
67
22
Liriodendron tulipifera
4.7
7.1
Missing
23
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
4.7
5.2
91
24
Quercus phellos
4.7
3.3
73
25
Liriodendron tulipifera
4.9
0.7
Missing
26
Ulmus americana
9.6
0.6
Missing
27
Platanus occidentalis
9.5
2.7
55
28
Quercus michauxii
9.6
5.1
46
29
Betula nigra
9.6
7.2
Missing
30
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9.6
9.4
91
%46/
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Parcel
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Results

Veg Plot 5 - Year 1
Tree ID
Species
X (m)
Y (m)
Height (cm)
31
Platanus occidentalis
0.4
0.5
172
32
Platanus occidentalis
0.5
2.7
141
33
Liriodendron tulipifera
0.5
4.3
Missing
34
Betula nigra
0.5
6.3
82
35
Platanus occidentalis
0.6
8.4
132
36
Ulmus americana
5.0
8.2
Missing
37
Liriodendron tulipifera
5.1
6.3
Missing
38
Betula nigra
5.1
4.2
86
39
Betula nigra
5.1
1.9
Missing
40
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5.1
0.6
142
41
Platanus occidentalis
9.6
0.6
117
42
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
9.6
2.1
138
43
Platanus occidentalis
9.5
4.3
127
44
Platanus occidentalis
9.4
6.3
92
45
Quercus phellos
9.5
8.1
61
%46/
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Parcel
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Results

Veg Plot 6 - Year 1
Tree ID
Species
X (m)
Y (m)
Height (cm)
49
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
0.6
0.5
88
50
Betula nigra
2.8
0.5
72
51
Betula nigra
4.6
0.5
Missing
52
Quercus michauxii
7.1
0.5
81
53
Quercus pagoda
9.6
0.5
62
54
Celtis occidentalis
9.3
4.5
85
55
Quercus pagoda
6.9
4.7
52
56
Platanus occidentalis
5.0
5.0
142
57
Quercus michauxii
3.1
5.0
132
58
Quercus michauxii
1.1
5.0
98
59
Platanus occidentalis
0.3
5.0
157
60
Quercus michauxii
2.9
9.3
88
61
Betula nigra
5.1
9.2
31
62
Liriodendron tulipifera
6.9
9.2
119
63
Liriodendron tulipifera
9.5
9.2
65
%46/
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Parcel
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Results

Veg Plot 7 - Year 1
Tree ID
Species
X (m)
Y (m)
Height (cm)
64
Betula nigra
0.7
0.4
88
65
Quercus phellos
2.7
0.8
55
66
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
5.1
0.6
Missing
67
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
7.3
0.4
68
68
Platanus occidentalis
9.8
0.3
129
69
Quercus phellos
9.3
4.9
72
70
Betula nigra
7.2
4.9
40
71
Quercus phellos
4.9
5.0
45
72
Ulmus americana
2.5
4.9
56
73
Betula nigra
0.7
4.9
Missing
74
Betula nigra
0.2
9.4
Missing
75
Platanus occidentalis
3.3
9.3
103
76
Betula nigra
5.4
9.3
68
77
Quercus michauxii
8.3
9.3
53
78
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
8.8
9.4
55
%46/
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Parcel
Appendix D: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos and Data Results

Appendix E: Overview Photos

gg"sip
,A" Of
mss • r.
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
Appendix E: Overview Photographs

r:
y
e
if
South Fork Nutrient Offset and Buffer Mitigation Bank Parcel
kv Appendix E: Overview Photographs