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