20150636 Ver 1_MR Review - Neville Farms I & II_20220614

From:
Merritt, Katie
To:
Baker. Caroline D
Subject:
FW: [External] RE: MR Review - Neville Farms I & II
Date:
Tuesday, June 14, 2022 12:45:03 PM
Please file email chain below in 2015-0636.
From: Merritt, Katie
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 12:44 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [External] RE: MR Review - Neville Farms I & II
Hey Mike,
I will need confirmation including photo documentation that supplemental plantings have occurred
in Plot 7 considering documentation showed substantial mortality. It is best to plant containerized
trees and to plant during a time where the weather is cooler. I'll need to see stem heights provided
for all plots to see if a trend in taller growth of stems is occurring. A site visit for late September —
early October will be best.
Thanks
Katie
From: mherrmann Co�watershedinvestmentsnc.net
[maiIto: mherrmannC@watershed investmentsnc.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2022 1:17 PM
To: Merritt, Katie <katie.merrittPncdenr.gov>
Subject: [External] RE: MR Review - Neville Farms I & II
CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to Report Spam.
Hi Katie — What will you need for evaluating close-out at Neville later this year? The site is in Year 6.
Should we plan on monitoring and a subsequent site visit? When would you like to get to the site?
-Mike
From: mherrmann Co�watershedinvestmentsnc.net <mherrmann(@watershedinvestmentsnc.net>
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 7:57 AM
To: 'Merritt, Katie' <katie.merritt(@ ncdenr.gov>
Cc: 'Wojoski, Paul A' <[e-mail]>; 'Baker, Caroline U <caroline.bakerPncdenr.gov>
Subject: RE: MR Review - Neville Farms I & II
Hi Katie —
Attached is the bond continuation certificate for Neville Farms.

I do have questions/concerns about the criteria for which this site will be deemed approved for
close-out. I was hoping you would elaborate on a couple of items. Knowing your responses will help
with maintenance and planning at the site.
Should we plan on a standard monitoring report for the Fall of 2022? Include transects?
What are the success criteria for which the site will be assessed for closeout? The two most relevant
criteria from both the MBI and 2015 Buffer Rule appear to be the following:
1. Native hardwood trees planted at a density sufficient to provide 260 stems per acre after five
years while allowing that hardwood tree volunteer species may be included to meet
performance standards as determined by DWR.
2. Invasive and noxious species will be monitored and controlled so that none become dominant
or alter the desired community structure of the site.
Regarding the 1st goal, I believe that we have met the stated success criteria. From the Year 5
monitoring report, six of the seven plots had planted stem counts above the goal of 260 stems/acre
with an average for all seven plots of 358 stems/acre. Only the area in and around Plot 7 had
planted stems counts below 260 stems/acre. In Plot 7, when planted stems were combined with
natural recruits, the stems per acre increased from 202 to 607, respectively. The herbicide
treatment of fescue in the Plot 7 area did result in the loss of some planted stems. Replanting at a
density of 125 stems/acre with 1-gallon container plants helped with those losses. Recruits, many
from the original plant list, are now becoming well established. When planted stems densities are
combined with recruits, density across the project jumps from an average of 358 to 890 stems per
acre. Adding more stems to increase density appears unnecessary.
Regarding Goal 2, our work to control invasive species contributed to stem densities that exceed
success criteria in both plots and transects. Invasive controls at the site included cutting and
herbicide treatment during site prep, Year 2 herbicide application to Japanese Stilt grass
(Microstegium vimineum) and Autumn Olive (Eleagnus umbellate) and the aforementioned Year 4
fescue control. This work has prevented invasive plants from becoming dominant. We will continue
to monitor the site for invasive plants and control their presence to make sure they do not
negatively impact the site.
How is plant height being used as a part of the site's success criteria? In my review of the approved
MBI and the 2015 Buffer Rule, no mention is made of planted stem height as success criteria. If
height criteria are going to be applied, they should be a part of the buffer rule and included in the
MBI.
Thank you for your review and feedback.
Mike Herrmann

1630 Weatherford Circle
Raleigh, NC 27604
(p) 919-559-6264
mherrmann�g%watershedinvestmentsnc.net
www.watersbedinvestmentsnc.net
This electronic mail communication may contain privileged, confidential, and/or proprietary information which is the property of Watershed
Investments NC, LLC or one of its affiliates. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized agent of the intended recipient please
delete this communication and notify the sender that you have received it in error.
From: Merritt, Katie <katie.merrittPncdenr.gov>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2022 4:12 PM
To: mherrmann <mherrmann(@watershedinvestmentsnc.net>
Cc: Wojoski, Paul A <Paul.Wojoski(@ncdenr.gov>; Baker, Caroline D <caroline.baker(@ncdenr.gov>
Subject: MR Review - Neville Farms I & II
Hey Mike,
I have finalized my review of the Year 5 monitoring report for the Neville Farms Phase I and
Phase 11 sites. Based on the conditions of the vegetation at the site, DWR is not going to issue a
closeout approval for these two bank sites. Vegetation data submitted with the report indicate
that Plot 7 and the area around it, may need supplemental plantings and allowed to recover
from adaptive management efforts in 2020 that killed planted trees. Of the seven plots,
vegetation data suggests that planted stems in three plots (3, 4, and 5) need additional time to
grow. Most of the stems in plots 3, 4 and 5 are still below reasonable heights at year 5. Most
of the stems in these three plots are less than 5 feet with many less than 3 feet, and is
indicative of either being recently planted, having poor growth or affected by stressors.
Substantial adaptive management efforts were performed by WINC in 2020, and therefore DWR
will issue a 5% credit release with the remaining 5% issued if an onsite visit by DWR to reassess
vegetation shows better performance in Plots 3, 4, 5 and 7. DWR will reassess onsite
conditions in early Fall 2022 to determine whether to closeout out the site for any further
monitoring.
Please submit proof of bond renewal through one more year and DWR can proceed with the
issuance of a credit release. The current bond for this site expired in early February 2022.
Thank you for your attention to this matter,
katie
Katie Merritt
Nutrient Offset & Buffer Banking Coordinator
401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

Work Cell: 919-500-0683
Website: https://deg.nc.gov about/divisions/water-resources water -quality permitting/401-
buffer-permitting/nutrient-offset-buffer-mitigation-program
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, NC 27620
1617 Mail Service Center, Raleiah, NC 27699-1617