20080511 Ver 3_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20151229

To: Katie Merritt,
NC Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources — Water Quality
Programs
From: David Knowles,
Consultant for Greene Environmental Services, LLC
Date: December 28, 2015
Re: LaGrange Mitigation Bank, Phase II, First Annual Report (2015)
Ms Merritt -
Included is the La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II, First Annual Report for Year 2015. The
report is also on the included CD as a .pdf file.
Thank you,
David Knowles
[e-mail]
[phone]

La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II
First Annual Report / December 2015
Greene Environmental Services, LLC
Neuse River Umbrella Mitigation Bank / DWR#: 2008-05110
Submitted to:
Katie Merritt
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources — Water Quality Programs
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 Phone: [phone]; Fax: [phone]
Submitted by:
Greene Environmental Services, Jeff Becker and David Knowles
Ham Farms, 963 Hwy 258 S
Snow Hill, NC 28580
[phone]

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Location and Description................................................................. 3
2.0 Plantings of Seedlings............................................................................. 4
3.0 Monitoring Plot Survey Results................................................................. 6
4.0 Monitoring, Maintenance and Supplemental Planting.........................................9
5.0 Nutrient Offset and Buffer Potential........................................................... 10
6.0 Appendices......................................................................................... 11
Appendix A: Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity map of LaGrange Mitigation Bank
Figure 2: Local aerial photograph of LaGrange Mitigation Bank
Figures 3: Aerial map of tracts
Figures 4: Survey plat of Phase II
Figure 5. Monitoring plot locations on Phase II
Appendix B: Monitoring Plots and Photographs
Plot page: LAG -3
Plot page: LAG -4
2

1.0 Project Location and Description
Greene Environmental Services, LLC (GES) of Snow Hill, North Carolina expanded a mitigation
bank at near La Grange, NC to include additional acreage for riparian buffer and nutrient offset
credits. The original bank, La Grange Bank Parcel is 3.39 acres and is in its third of five post -
implementation monitoring years. As with the initial project, the new acreage is included in the
Greene Environmental Services Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Umbrella
Bank. The new, expansion project is named the La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II. It is
immediately adjacent to the initial La Grange Bank Parcel and is situated southwest of the
intersection of NC 903 and Old Jason Road (SR 1501), north of La Grange, in Lenoir County,
North Carolina (Appendix A: Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4). The latitude/longitude coordinates of the site
area approximately 350 20'30.00" N and 77°47'21.56" W. The purpose of the Phase II mitigation
bank expansion is to improve water quality within the Neuse River Basin by reducing nutrient and
sediment inputs to the watershed and providing off-site mitigation for development requiring
nutrient offsets.
The Phase H bank parcel is located within the Middle Neuse Watershed (HUC: 03020202).
Stormwater runoff from this site drains into Meeting House Branch (Stream Index # 27-72-3)
and via a farm drainage ditch and maintained canal system (un -named tributary, UT). Meeting
House Branch discharges to Bear Creek (Stream Index # 27-72-(0.1)), a major tributary to the
Neuse River (Appendix A: Figures 1 and 2).
The Phase II parcel is 3.50 acres. Of this 3.50 acres, 2.97 acres (6,750.87 lbs -N) were restored to
generate nutrient offsets and 0.52 acres (22,620.63 ft2) were restored to generate Neuse Riparian
Buffer Mitigation. The buffer restoration acreage was reduced by 30.57 ft2 as compared to the
BPDP. For reporting purposes, all acreages are rounded to the nearest hundredth of an acre.
Riparian buffer mitigation acreage was established in two sub -tracts labelled A and C in the
survey plat provided in Appendix A: Figures 4 and 5. Sub -tract A is 0.03 acres (1,491.00 ft2)
and buffers southerly flowing Meeting House Branch; sub -tract C is 0.49 acres (21,129.63 ft2)
and buffers the westerly flowing unnamed tributary to Meeting House Branch. Nutrient offset
acreage was established in two sub -tracts, B and D. Sub -tract B is 0.16 acres along the unnamed
3

tributary to Meeting House Branch and sub -tract D is 2.81 acres along a drainage ditch at the
eastern border of the Phase II tract that discharging to the UT that flows into Meeting House
Branch, and adjacent to the sub -tract C riparian buffer area. The riparian buffers extended from
the top of the ditch -banks 50 feet perpendicular to the buffered steam segments. The nutrient
offset acreage extended from the top of the ditch -banks a minimum of 50 feet and a maximum of
200 feet perpendicular to the buffered stream segments or to the border of Phase I. A 0.06 -acre
(2,613.60 ft2) triangular portion of the site adjacent to L-13 on the survey plat is beyond the 200 -
foot allowable limit for mitigation credit thus is not included in the mitigation credit calculations.
However, this isolated portion had to be purchased by Greene Environmental Services, LLC to
avoid the need to provide access an access easement concerns. This Phase II bank parcel was
established under the terms and conditions of the Greene Environmental Services Neuse River
Basin Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Umbrella Bank.
The Phase II parcel was previous agricultural cropland and approximately one acre was planted
with bald cypress and river birch saplings during March of 2010, at which time staff from the
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (now renamed the Department of
Environmental Quality), Division of Water Resources visited the site and determined that it was
suitable for mitigation. Katie Merritt with DWR visited the site in June of 2013 and determined
this Phase II acreage was still suitable for mitigation purposes.
2.0 Plantings of Seedlings the La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II
In an effort to restore some ecological functions and improve water quality in the local and
regional watersheds, the La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II project site was planted with
seedlings of native trees species and placed under permanent conservation easement. As a result
of these actions, the project site has been taken out of agricultural production, soils should
become better stabilized, and nutrient loading in adjacent streams should be reduced. Seedlings
of character tree species were planted in three installments during separate years prior to the
creation of the 3.50 -acre, La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II. In late winter of 2010 and 2014,
seedlings of river birch and bald cypress were planted in portions of the area that was to become
the Phase II expansion acreage (Table 1). In late winter of 2014 and 2015, yellow poplar, black
4

gum and sycamore were planted in the Phase II tracts. Also, in March of 2015, three oak species:
overcup oak, cherrybark oak and Shumard's oak were planted in the Phase II acreage.
Considering all planting installments, bald cypress and sycamore were the most frequently
planted species with the oak species least frequently planted (Table 1). A total of 1890 seedlings
were planted in the Phase II expansion acreage for an estimated density of 541.5 seedlings per
acre.
Plantings by sub -tract were as follows: riparian buffer sub -tracts A and C were planted in 2015
with a mix of yellow poplar, black gum, sycamore, overcup oak, cherrybark oak and Shumard
oak, from the top of the stream bank outward to 50 feet. Nutrient offset sub -tract B was planted
in 2015 with the same tree species from the top of the stream bank to the border of the pre-
existing La Grange Bank Parcel (roughly 30 feet). Nutrient offset sub -tract D was planted the
same mix of species from the existing stand of trees (mostly bald cypress and river birch)
initially planted in 2010, to the pre-existing La Grange Bank Parcel boundary or up to 200 feet
from the top of the ditch bank. Survival rates of the planted seedlings were assessed by counting
stems in two 100m2 monitoring plots that were established in representative stands of the project
site; the monitoring assessment for this first annual report was conducted on September 28, 2015.
Table 1. Species planted in the 3.50 acre, La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II.
Species
Common name
Year planted
Seedlings planted
Betula nigra
River birch
2010, 2014
270
Liriodendron tulipifea
Yellow poplar
2014, 2015
200
Nyssa sylvatica
Black gum
2014, 2015
220
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
2014, 2015
420
Quercus lyrata
Overcup oak
2015
100
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
2015
100
Quercus shumardii
Shumard oak
2015
100
Taxodium distichum
Bald cypress
2010, 2014
480
Total
1890 (541.5 per acre)
5

3.0 Monitoring Plot Survey Results
Two l Om x l Om (0.0247 acre) monitoring plots were established in the 3.50 -acre, La Grange
Mitigation Bank, Phase II project area (Appendix A: Figure 5). Monitoring plot LAG -3 was
established in a portion of Phase II that was planted with bald cypress and river birch
seedlings in 2010 and one yellow poplar planted in 2015. A plot survey in September 2015
indicated that there were eleven planted character trees in LAG -3 for an estimated density of
445.3 trees per acre (Table 2). Bald cypress was the most frequently encountered species
with seven stems in the plot; there were three stems of river birch and one yellow poplar.
One red maple was found in the plot but was not included in the plot data analysis. The
second monitoring plot, LAG -4, was situated in a portion of the Phase II expansion area that
was planted with seedlings in 2015. Three species were found in the monitoring plot,
sycamore, cherrybark oak and Shumard oak. A total of twelve seedlings were found in the
plot for an estimated density of 485.8 seedlings per acre (Table 2). All three species in plot
LAG -4 were equally represented with four stems each. The average density between the two
monitoring plots was 465.3 seedlings/trees per acre.
Stem heights in monitoring plots averaged 5.1 meters in plot LAG -3 and 0.7 in plot LAG -4
(Table 3). Stem heights were higher in Plot LAG -3 since most of these trees were five years
older than those in Plot LAG -4.
A comparison of survivorship in monitoring plots between those reported in the La Grange
Mitigation Bank, Phase II, "As -Built Report" from March 2015 to the survey conducted in
September 2015 and reported in this document indicated that Plot LAG -3 increased by one
stem with the addition on a yellow poplar that had not been recorded in March 2015 (Table
4). Plot LAG -4 decreased by two stems with the death of two sycamore seedlings. Overall,
there was a decline of 20.5 stems per acres for an average 465.3 per acre in September, 2015.
The success criterion of 320 stems per acre has been succeeded by approximately 145 stems.
9

The monitoring plots in the Phase II acreage were photo -documented using digital
photography imaged from the northwestern corner of the plot. All seedlings or trees were
flagging and their position within the plots were mapped (Appendix B).
Table 2. Planted tree sapling species, stem density and estimated stems per acre based on
surveys of 100m2 monitoring plots at the La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II.
Plot/Species
Common name
Stems per plot
Estimated stems per acre
LAG -3
Betula nigra
River birch
3
121.4
Liriodendron tulipifera
Yellow poplar
1
40.5
Taxodium distichum
Bald cypress
7
283.4
LAG -3 Total
11
445.3
LAG -4
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
4
161.9
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
4
161.9
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
4
161.9
LAG -4 Total
12
485.8
Combined Average of
LAG -3 and LAG -4
11.5
465.3
7

Table 3. Planted tree sapling species, average stem heights of stems in 100m2 monitoring plots at
the La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II.
Plot/Species
Common name
Average Stem Height (m) + Std
LAG -3
Betula nigra
River birch
8.3+0.6
Liriodendron tulipifera
Yellow poplar
1.5+0.0
Taxodium distichum
Bald cypress
4.3+1.0
LAG -3 Total
5.1+2.3
LAG -4
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
0.9+0.3
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark oak
0.5+0.0
Quercus shumardii
Shumard's oak
0.8+0.3
LAG -4 Total
0.7+0.3

Table 4. Comparison of planted seedling/sapling stem density per acre between the March
2015 and September 2015. Negative numbers represent a decline in stem density. Estimated
stems per acre are based on surveys of 100m2 monitoring plots at the La Grange Mitigation
Bank, Phase II.
4.0 Monitoring, Maintenance and Supplemental Planting
The La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II will be monitored seasonally during 2016 to ensure
that the terms of the conservation easement are not being violated due to unauthorized activities
at the site. Based on monitoring plot field data collected in September, 2016, the Mitigation
Bank is performing adequately. However, general observations of site conditions in some
locations outside of the monitoring plots indicated inconsistent seedling establishment in limited
locations. Pending approval of DWR staff, Greene Environmental Service, LLC proposes
supplemental planting with seedlings of appropriate species during the winter 2016 planting
season.
0
Estimated stems
Estimated stems
Change in
Plot/Species
Common
per acre March
per acre
stem density
name
2015
September 2015
LAG -3
Betula nigra
River birch
121.4
121.4
0.0
Liriodendron
yellow poplar
0.0
40.5
40.5
tulipifera
Taxodium
Bald cypress
283.4
283.4
0.0
distichum
LAG -3 Total
404.9
445.4
40.5
LAG -4
Platanus Sycamore
242.9
161.9
-81.0
occidentalis
Quercus pagoda Cherrybark oak
161.9
161.9
0.0
Quercus
Shumard's oak
161.9
161.9
0.0
uma dii
LAG -4 Total
566.8
485.8
-81
Combined Average of LAG -3
and LAG -4
485.8
465.3
-20.5
4.0 Monitoring, Maintenance and Supplemental Planting
The La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II will be monitored seasonally during 2016 to ensure
that the terms of the conservation easement are not being violated due to unauthorized activities
at the site. Based on monitoring plot field data collected in September, 2016, the Mitigation
Bank is performing adequately. However, general observations of site conditions in some
locations outside of the monitoring plots indicated inconsistent seedling establishment in limited
locations. Pending approval of DWR staff, Greene Environmental Service, LLC proposes
supplemental planting with seedlings of appropriate species during the winter 2016 planting
season.
0

5.0 Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Potential
The 3.50 -acre, La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II consists of 0.52 acres (22,620.63 ft2) of
potential Neuse Riparian Buffer credits in two sub -tracts as indicated in the Table 3 below. Two
separate sub -tracts, totaling 2.97 acres, have the potential to generate 6,750.87 pounds of
nitrogen nutrient offset credits at 2273.02 lbs/ac.
Table 5. Potential riparian buffer and nutrient offset credits at the La Grange Mitigation Bank,
Phase Il.
Sub -tract
Riparian Buffer
Sq.ft. Acres
Nutrient Offset
Acres
Nitrogen
Credits (lbs.)
A
1,491.00
0.03
NA
NA
B
NA
NA
0.16
363.68
C
21,129.63
0.49
NA
NA
D
NA
NA
2.81
6,387.19
Totals
22,620.63
0.52
2.97
6,750.87
10

6.0 Appendices
Appendix A: Figures
Figure 1: Vicinity map of La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II
Figure 2: Local aerial photograph of La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II
Figure 3: Aerial map of tracts at La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II
Figure 4: Survey plat of La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II
Figure 5. Monitoring plot locations at La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II
Appendix B: Monitoring Plot Maps and Photographs
Plot: LAG -3
Plot: LAG -4
11

1 _
-09 lgflgFl
oil -041
AO
0 4L
�� ..��t�M , � _ iy ';� 4;"_ � �a �. '.�•. �� i; :` �°'s... ?� �ri
` al
• � � l.�l'4y,�n~ �qk`
#°'ss- _' r+ I'g ..�yl510
'� ,f1 +r_ '� ,o
o j
F+
wseffietl-
a _

i i77 �P
G�Nftd
5
.: JLAG Phase I
�.� LAG Phase II
.tJn-named it outar ,J I)
�
Meering House Branch _
ds Gh 1pp' Vii!
,
_ Bear Creek 12
W
y
3550 f1 x �qrG ,r r ?C1A i:.rg ^.` a �7'lJ��_ y ilr art
`C
JI e
ll
0%
N ►T.

rr
Figure 3. Aerial photograph depicting GES La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II. The area in red is the pre-existing
La Grange Bank Parcel. The bank expansion parcel is the La Grange Mitigation Bank, Phase II and is depicted in green and blue.
The blues sub -tracts A and C are riparian buffers tracts; the green areas, sub -tracts B and D are nutrient offsets tracts. The light blue
lines depict waterways: Meeting House Branch and the Un -named Tributary, both of which are subject to Neuse River Buffer Rules;
the blue line indicated as `Ditch' is not subject to Buffer Rules. Two monitoring plots, LAG -A and LAG -B are depicted.

EIP
Existing Iron Pipe
NIP
New Iron Pipe
EIS—
Existing Iron Stake
NIS -----New
Iron Stake
PKS—
P.K.Noil Set
PKF-----P.K.Nail
Found
NPS
No Point Set
RRSF-----Rail
Road Spike Found
RRSS-----Rail
Road Spike Set
CMF
Concrete Monument Fou
P.P.
Power Pole
L.P.-----Lamp
Post
T.P.-----Telephone Pedestal
SECTION 20-58—( )
Center Line
R/W-----Right
of Way
NPS—
No Point Set
CSS -----Cotton
Spindle Set
CSF _—__—otton
Spindle Found
L-6
N
LEGEND
I, James
D. Grant, certify that this plat was drawn under my supervision from
BEARING
DISTAN C E
an actual
survey made under my
supervision ( deed description recorded in
EXEMPTION
APPROVAL STATEMENT
BookSEE
__, p6§Ie_____) that the
boundaries not surveyed are clearly indicated
S
as drawn
from information found
in books referenced; that the ratio of precision
L-3
as calculated is x;000+______;
that this plat was prepared in accordance with THIS
PROPERTY IS EXEMPT
FROM THE LENOIR COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
G.S. 47-30 as amended. Witness
my original signature, registration number PER
SECTION 20-58—( )
THEREOF.
and seal
thisl4th ___ dayJULY___
14 __-_, 20 _-_, A.D.
N
I, James D. Grant, PLS certify:
❑ a. That the survey creates a subdivision of land within the area of a county
or municipality that has an ordinance that regulates parcels of land.
❑ b. That the survey is located in such a portion of a county or municipality
that is unregulated as to an ordinance that regulates parcels of land.
❑ c. Any one of the following:
1. That the survey is of an existing parcel or parcels of land and
does not create a new street or change and existing street.
2. That the survey is of an existing building or other structure,
or natural feature, such as a water course; or
3. That the survey is a control survey.
d. That the survey is of another category, such as the recombination of
existing parcels, a court ordered survey, or other exception to the
definition of subdivision.
❑ e. That the information available to the surveyor is such that the surveyor
is unable to make a determination to the best of his or her professional
ability as to the provisions in (a) through (d) above.
James D. Grant, PLS L-3752
ADMINISTRATOR II \
1 Of
S. R I
DATE ��,\ 150 1 1
1 I I
James D. Grant, PLS. L-3752
OLD JAS' P KSS
R'C
I
N
I
ACREAGE DATA FOR BUFFER AREAS (D
0
AREA "A" = 1 ,491 .00 sq.ft. I o I
AREA "B " = 7,129.75 sq.ft.
PKS�� N'C S
7 S
AREA "C " = 21 ,129.63 sq.ft. i r \ 08
AREA "D" = 122,609.26 sq.ft. 1
I I i Fj��OS
I 1400
I 1
I I �
I 1 �
I I I
I � I
I� I
C I I
HAM STORAGE, LLC I 0 I
o I
D.B. 1597, Pg. 114 I co I I O
P.C. 12, Pg. 99 FIELDS PROPERTY I
I
D.B. 573, Pg. 488 FIELDS PROPERTY I
D.B. 1268, Pg. 896
II I I =
II I
CONTROL I 1
CORNER J I I z
S 8829'20"W _533.59' — E- P /
S 0526'37"W
38.42' S 8803'35"W 1004.15' __----_-_-----E�— ------------------- I
CANAL NPS —_---- =— _----==-----=_--- ---------------------------- _N 7924'
49 W 423.56'
— —— — — — — —_ — — — — — — — — — — — -
----------------- 15' FARM ROAD 38339' _ PKIFCONTROL
---1/2" EI. I CORNER
30.17' I
I I
I
I
I I
H—VIR M-1
CERTIFICATE OF REVIEW OFFICER
REFERENCES:D.B, 1597, Pg. 114
P.C. 12, Pg. 99 NORTH CAROLINA
GRANT & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
LAND SURVEYING SERVICES
P.O. BOX 517
SNOW HILL, N.C. 28580
[phone]
LIC. No. C-2168
HAM STORAGE, LLC
D.B. 1597, Pg. 114
P.C. 12, Pg. 99
"L-1" TH R U 1-13"
COURSE
BEARING
DISTAN C E
L-1
N
7928'20"W
89.83'
L-2
S
5548'31 "W
131 .1 5'
L-3
S
8507'30"W
159.91'
L-4
N
7152'56"W
83.94'
L-5
N
6332'50"W
72.25'
L-6
N
7318'56"W
226.27'
L-7
N
5115'42"E
28.37'
SURVEY FOR
L-8
S
7530'29"E
130.57'
L-9
S
6938'55"E
124.01'
L-10
L-11
S
N
661 9'05"E
6049'06"E
38.54'
138.24'
GREENS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVtCES, LLC
L-12
N
2300' 37"E
1 17.71 '
L-13
N
0526'37"E
131.85'
LENOIR COUNTY
I,______________________, REVIEW OFFICER OF LENOIR COUNTY, CERTIFY
THAT THE MAP OR PLAT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATION IS AFFIXED MEETS ALL
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORDING.
REVIEW OFFICER
OWNERS: HAM STORAGE, LLC.
(CONSERVATION EASEMENT)
A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY RECORDED IN D.B. 1 597, Pg. 1 1 4,
P.C. 12, Pg. 99, AND INCLUDES ALL OF THE 2.62 ACRE TRACT
RECORDED IN P.C. 13, Pg. 371 OF THE LENOIR COUNTY REGISTRY.
-
CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION BY REGISTER OF DEEDS MOSELEY HALL TWSP. LENOIR CO, N.0 .
NORTH CAROLINA
LFNOIR COUNTY
FILED FOR REGISTRATION ON THE DAY OF 20
AT ________(a.m./p.m.) AND DULY RECORDED IN PLAT CAB .____, Pg._____
REGISTER OF DEEDS
150 75 0 150 300 450
GRAPHIC SCALE INC HES/FEET
SCALE: 1' = 150' - DATE: 07/14/2014

s aass'sr'w
39.42'
NPS
—
3/# EIP
CANAL
N
Figure 5. Locations of IOm x IOm vegetation monitoring plots, LAG -3 and
LAG -4 in Phase II tract. LAG -3 is entirely within the nutrient offset acreage; LAG -4 is entirely
within the riparian buffer acreage.

Plot LAG -3
NW
Seedling ID / Species
1. River birch
2. River birch
3. Bald cypress
4. Bald cypress
5. Bald cypress
6. Bald cypress
7. Bald cypress
8. Bald cypress
9. River birch
10. Bald cypress
11. Red maple VOLUNTEER
12. Yellow poplar
SW

Plot LAG -4
NE
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10m
SE
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
NW
Seedling ID / Species
1. Shumard oak
2. Sycamore
3. Sycamore
4. Cherrybark oak
5. Cherrybark oak
6. Sycamore
7. Sycamore DEAD
8. Shumard oak
9. Shumard oak
10. Shumard oak
11. Sycamore DEAD
12. Sycamore
13. Cherrybark oak
14. Cherrybark oak
SW