20021785 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20130320

,n
r
01- 178sua (w0 Cor�
WELLS CREEK #2 — NCEEP Project #92688
2012 MONITORING REPORT — MY -02
ALAMANCE COUNTY NC — CAPE FEAR RIVER BASIN
CONDUCTED FOR THE NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, ECOSYTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Final Report Submitted March 20, 2013 to:
~ North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
hWem Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
� R Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
VamG=ft

WELLS CREEK #2 — NCEEP Project #92688
2012 MONITORING REPORT — YEAR 2
CONDUCTED FOR THE NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL
RESOURCES, ECOSYTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................ ..............................1
2.0 Methodology ............................................................................ ..............................3
2.1. Stream Methodology ................................:........................... ............................... 3
2.2. Vegetation Methodology ..................................................... ............................... 3
3.0 References ................................................................................ ..............................4
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1.0. Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 1.0 -1.1 Project Restoration Components
Table 2.0 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3.0 Project Contacts Table
Table 4.0 Project Attribute Table
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2.0 -2.1 Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5.0 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Figures 3.0 -3.7 Permanent Photopoints
Figures 4.0 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7.0 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Table 8.0 Vegetation Metadata
Table 9.0 Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
e- Tables Raw CVS vegetation data sheets
V
Wells Creek #2 — EEP #92688 2012 Final Monitoring Report
RJG &A Environmental Consultants Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Page i

Q
1.0 Executive Summary
1.1. Project Description: Wells Creek #2 (NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program # 92688) is a
stream mitigation project located near Snow Camp in southwestern Alamance County, North
Carolina (Figure 1.0). Wells Creek is a tributary to Cane Creek which flows east into the Haw
River in Cape Fear River Basin 14 -digit HUC #03030002 - 050050. NCEEP identified this HUC
as a Targeted Local Watershed in the 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority report.
Wells Creek #2 consists of two separate parcels: 1) The Northern (Enhancement) Reach is
located along Wells Creek upstream and downstream of Carl Noah Road and along tributary
UT3. The Southern (Preservation) Reach is located along Wells Creek tributaries UT and UT2
downstream of Longest Acres Road, 4000 feet southwest of the Enhancement Reach. The
stream segments immediately downstream of each project reach along Wells Creek and UT
were previously restored ( NCEEP project #414, Wells Creek). Tributary UT flows into Wells
Creek approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the Preservation Reach, just north of Beale Road.
Fencing was installed along both the Enhancement Reach and Preservation Reach to exclude
hogs and cattle, and both reaches received herbicide treatments between August 2010 and May
2011 to control invasive exotic plants. The Enhancement Reach also received tree and shrub
plantings in non - forested (former pasture) areas along Wells Creek south of Carl Noah Rd, and
understory shrubs were planted beneath the forest canopy along UT3 where livestock had
destroyed the understory. Planting was done between November 2010 and April 2011. This
project does not include any direct stream channel improvement work.
1.2. Goals & Objectives: The goals of the Wells Creek #2 project are to improve water quality
and restore riparian habitat. To achieve these goals, the project has the following objectives:
• Reduce direct nutrient loading and fecal coliform inputs into the streams by fencing out
cattle and hogs and providing an alternative livestock water system;
• Reduce excess sedimentation into the streams by eliminating livestock impacts from hoof
shear to forest floor and stream banks;
• Reestablish and enhance native forested buffers by planting native plants, removing
invasive exotic vegetation, and preventing future negative impacts within the buffer;
• Increase surface runoff infiltration and non -point pollutant removal through the buffer;
• Preserve existing natural, well - established riparian plant communities.
1.3. Vegetation Condition: Two vegetation monitoring plots (20m x 5m) were established in
April 2011 and resampled in September 2011 and September 2012. The two plots contained 16
and 13 live planted woody stems in 2012, and average density remained at 586 planted stems per
acre, the same density as recorded in 2011. Both plots exceed the MY3 planted stem density
r success criterion of 320 stems per acre for stream enhancement. Native volunteer woody
seedlings are abundant in both plots, and average density of planted plus native volunteer stems
was 1800 stems per acre. Based on visual assessment of the planted former pasture areas along
Wells Creek #2 — EEP #92688 2012 Final Monitoring Report
RJG &A Environmental Consultants Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Page 1

Wells Creek outside of the plots, planted woody stem survival and native volunteer recruitment
appears to be good throughout the easement area.
Visual assessment of the understory enhancement area along UT3 revealed good survival but
minimal growth of the planted shrubs. As reported in the May 2012 assessment, many planted
shrubs had sparse or stunted leaves, possibly due to canopy shading. Some also appeared to have
deer browsing damage. Invasive Microstegium grass is abundant along UT3 especially near the
head and near the confluence with Wells Creek (photo - points 8 to 11 and 14).
Herbicide treatment in 2010 -2011 along the Enhancement Reach appears to have effectively
reduced the abundance of tree of heaven, multiflora rose, privet and other woody exotic species
in most areas, although patches of multiflora rose were observed resprouting in 2012, mainly in
the area north of Carl Noah Rd. RJG &A marked approximately 30 patches of Rosa in this area
with pink flagging to facilitate further herbicide treatment, if needed. A few persisting patches
of multiflora rose, Chinese privet and Japanese honeysuckle that were not completely killed by
spraying in 2010 -2011 were also noted in 2012 along the Preservation Reach, mainly near the
upper end (where they are common in the roadside scrub community along Longest Acres Rd)
and near the confluence of UT 1 and UT2 at the lower end.
1.4. Stream Channel Condition: Based on the permanent photopoints and overall visual
assessment, there are no new areas of channel instability in the project area. The lower portion
of UT3 near its confluence with Wells Creek (near photopoint 8) remains incised with steep and
sparsely wooded banks, similar to its pre - project condition.
1.5. Easement Integrity: The September 2011 monitoring report noted livestock encroachment
(hog wallows and paths) in areas along tributary UT3 that hogs had used prior to fencing, and
which were still accessible to smaller hogs that could go under the fence. In 2012 there was no
further evidence of hogs getting inside the easement areas on either reach, and no livestock was
present in the adjacent pastures outside the easement fence. A decomposing calf was present
inside the easement fence just south of UT3 (near photopoint 8).
Fencing wire remains disengaged from the fence posts at the two cattle crossings across Wells
Creek, as noted in the September 2011 and May 2012 reports, and should be repaired prior to
releasing livestock into the adjacent pasture areas. Some fence posts near the confluence of
Wells Creek and UT -3 have pulled loose from the soft muddy soil in this area, as noted in
previous reports. Livestock exclusion fencing surrounding the Preservation Reach appears to be
intact, and no livestock encroachment or damage inside the conservation area was evident.
1.6. Summary Data: Summary information, data and statistics related to performance of
various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report
appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports
can be found in the mitigation and restoration plan documents available on EEP's website. All
raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from EEP upon request.
Wells Creek #2 — EEP #92688 2012 Final Monitonng Report
RJG &A Environmental Consultants Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Page 2

G
2.0 Methodology
Monitoring methodologies follow the current EEP- provided templates and guidelines (Lee et al
2008). Photographs were taken digitally. A Trimble Geo XT handheld mapping -grade unit was
used to collect vegetation comer, photopoint, and problem area locations. Problem areas
identified in the spring 2012 assessment were re- evaluated.
2.1. Stream Methodology
As outlined in the 2010 Existing Conditions Report, the Preservation Reach (southern reach)
consists of two unnamed tributaries to Wells Creek. UT is a perennial stream with a rocky
substrate. Channel width ranges from eight to 12 feet; overall channel morphology is stable.
UT2 is a five -foot wide intermittent stream that is slightly incised. At the Enhancement Reach
(northern reach), Wells Creek is an eight to 15 foot -wide perennial stream with a rocky substrate
and some areas of channel instability. UT3 is an intermittent stream with eroding banks due to
livestock damage. Photos in the Existing Conditions Report and Figures 3.0 -3.7 in this report
depict typical channel morphology.
This project does not include direct stream channel improvement work or stream geomorphology
data collection. Success of stream enhancement level II reaches will rely on using fixed
photopoints to evaluate stream stability and the absence of further channel degradation. Photos
taken during data collection for the Existing Conditions Report will serve as baseline photos.
Based on available data, no new areas of channel instability were identified during the March
2011, September 2011, May 2012 or September 2012 site visits.
2.2. Vegetation Methodology
Two representative vegetation survey plots were selected and installed along Wells Creek in
April 2011. Both plots measure five meters by 20 meters and are 100 square meters in area.
Pursuant to the guidelines, the four corners of each plot are marked with metal pipe.
Level 1 (planted woody stems) and Level 2 (volunteer woody stems) data collection was
performed in all plots, pursuant to the most recent CVS/EEP protocol (Lee et a12008).
Within each plot, each planted woody stem location (x and y) was recorded, and height and live
stem diameter were recorded for each stem location. All planted stems were marked with pink
flagging. Vegetation was identified using Radford (1968) and Weakley (2011). Photos were
taken of each vegetation plot from the 0,0 corner.
Wells Creek #2 — EEP #92688 2012 Final Monitoring Report
RJG &A Environmental Consultants Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Page 3

3.0 References
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Roberts, Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. (2008). CVS -EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved September 2011, from:
http: / /www.nceep. net / business /monitoring/veg/datasheets.htm.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell (1968). Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Weakley, Alan (2011). Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas.
Downloaded in December 2011 from: http: / /www.herbarium.unc.edu /flora.htm.
Wells Creek #2 — EEP #92688 2012 Final Monitoring Report
RJG &A Environmental Consultants Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Page 4

Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1.0.
Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Table I.A.
Project Restoration Components
Table I.B.
Project Component Summations
Table 2.0
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3.0
Project Contacts Table
Table 4.0
Project Attributes Table

� Figure 1.0. General Location Map. Wells Creek #2 Preservation , �,•. , � , ,';• ,,� __ .•• -� =•"
and Enhancement Project. Alamance County, North Carolina.
Vc-
`r \_J�` fr +,/ � l _ ��4? � � f, 1 !r •"''- � )� � rf ��1i /fr�� f f '/ /� ���'t �'�� �• `�,�,�•;
rr, -• , t ` r •. � i r f J r '4��� yr t
•�'`• f�,I 1 1 r � �� � T �/ �••• � 1•' •5 �� � �yr :•bra ti 11.-- I +ti•
f' `'` c:.7�� !.,'t' --• r '! � � J _.r � • * •'# i ti~ 1;,.ti J t•..• -�,�'r '' r^ 1 �lr' � '�..,� r ^•
5( "_j �t� t R r rt t '" - � '`"� � it �� � °� lt♦„� ^`; r •: ��!? � V
-^ ++ ,�./ f + r� f1 1 .tt.,�`. .� % .r •� ter' j ; E '�' J 5 Jr t
•' r rJ •rr 1 ��+ r, -r __fir , •_ _.L.r`,. i �: i l S —1 f A ` i ` -�`;.J ,4- s
1 ; � � ' � �"�r'r' � �4�.•"�"" f �r_ti�. "I II�. -u- ••4. � ��y ry +1� \. �11 j/+ j �J)� . +'!% i� ,� w.
- *, .Z rr• t ; r t r l Access to Enhancement Reach
1 d i 1~1r /�k..:�,• %J ` �•fa 1 *l`� r ,f r . f J'�, r ��
_ J .� i 1;'_J
. / 'r) `.'} 1 ' --"
1 r. - ; '+ I N 'j (� . �,. �•�t J� r
115Q �' r 1,. ` !.•.,r 1 r• _` • ,, 1 r Y-�I ,i• f r i �„Sr.. =a,.. v!�,.r�.•r�' • ',,��
..•"`�_ f J, ` ►( I r ti✓�' )�.. r. J 3 '1 �.J .`�L'•+'rfj i ,��•!•�- `�'I' I 5 �f
1 7. r 1 • • 1 ••� 1t L•— . �n� it..v�: •�r�i;
- 1 +j :S "�`, ...� r„J S ��� 1 t i �j+i (r • 1 r � t� S `` • ; 7 `� t . � '+ _.r• -+ r: "��'
��-• •1 r % %w`~ , r�.f'• � ,r'• •- � M'71 Jr� �i 1 � +/f ,< < ,;�, ,~i 1 � 1 :��1 �l�• .� � �
ir'� ♦� t r-•'' r ,•, y! rl i, „1�` rlf� l 1 t,l�, ♦•
f _ / �f
• .. �,�. - } -� _ Access to r _J ' 1� r. -- y 1
`�t • Preservation Reach (i -1.+f ' 1
r r ! � a•� 1I1 f • r�1' `•�y� f 11^`v. •� ` +•' •k � el •r pl/ _, � •�� � , � j r i. � - J� 1��r
� t w �y •, r _- - �''" , � ?i � t l ; 1, r � �. 1 f l €•'t : � . j ' r of
t � • i � •f ' �� ! r -• �.- .r _ � `-� ^1� j�i l• �- ( � � ``•. - r� % f ♦ jj f�f ,r•
t' ; z ( -• •r �, t-.; .r; . ; l ; ^; ! Directions to the Project:
Take NC Highway 49 South for approximately
r� ,' , ti t -,♦ rr •.` <, �� 8.9 miles. Take a left on Beale Road. ,
Enhancement Reach: After approximately
♦_ ,,�,� I 1 i . ; 1; , • t 1 t , t j 0.4 miles, take a left on to Cad Noah Road.
,, � l � � , 1 t � � ,�•>", � i ,�_,, �1 ,� The access point is approximately 0.8 miles
' ' down Carl Noah Road, where Wells Creek '
i passes under the road. The conservation
Wells Creek (#414) Conservation Easement Boundaries ! r't• f easement extends north and south of the road.
Wells Cr #2 (#92688) Conservation Easement Boundaries % ° ' Preservation Reach: After approximately ,
uSGS Streams %�,, 1.3 miles, take a left on Longest Acres Road. ;
The access point is approximately 0.8 miles
0 1,000 2,000 et ' down the road. The conservation easement
_ starts south of the road.

c-
Table 1A. Project Components
Wells Creek #2 (EEP #92688)
Ell
Project
Component or
Existing
Restoration
Approach
Mitigation
Stationing'
Mitigation
Stream
Mitigation
gMP
Comment
Reach ID
Length (ft)
Level
Length (ft)
Ratio
Units
Elements
Wells Creek -
Cattle fencing
Invasive vegetation
Preservation
438
P
n/a
438
00 +00 to 04 +38
5:1
87
& watering
treatment, riparian
buffer plantings
Wells Creek -
Cattle fencing
Invasive vegetation
Enhancement
1321
E2
n/a
1253*
04 +98 to 18 +19
2.5:1
501
& watering
treatment, riparian
buffer plantings
UT 3 -
Cattle fencing
Invasive vegetation
Enhancement
644
E2
n/a
644
00 +00 to 06 +44
2.5:1
258
& watering
treatment, riparian
buffer plantings
UT1 -
Preservation
1130
P
n/a
1130
00 +00 to 11 +30
5:1
226
Cattle fencing
Invasive vegetation
treatment
UT2 -
Preservation
48
P
n/a
48
00 +00 to 00 +48
5:1
10
Cattle fencing
Invasive vegetation
treatment
' = BR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond;
FS = Filter Strip; Grassed Swale = S; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area, O = Other
CF = Cattle Fencing; WS = Watering System; CH = Livestock Housing
`Stationing is estimated based on stream length measurements in ArcGIS. Measured upstream to downstream for each reach.
* Wells Creek enhancement reach mitigation length does not include two cattle crossings or road crossing at Carl Noah Road.

Table 1 B. Component Summations
Wells Creek #2 (EEP #926881
Restoration
Stream
Riparian
Mitigation
Length ft
Stationin '
Buffer
Level
If
Wetland Ac
Ac
Ac
Ac
BMP
Non -
Riverine Riverine
1897
1616
3513
1082
Restoration
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
MU Totals
Non -
Applicable

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Wells Creek #2 (#92688) - Monitoring Year 2 (2012)
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: n/a
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 22 months
Number of Reporting Years': 2
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Completion or Delivery
Complete
Conservation Easement Option Signed
n/a
May 12, 2008
Conservation Easement Survey Plat Recorded
n/a
October 8, 2008
Permanent Conservation Easement Executed &
n/a
December 31, 2008
Recorded
Cattle Exclusion Fencing & Livestock Watering
n/a
December 2009
System
Existing Conditions Report
January 2010
March 2010
Final Design — Construction Plans
January 2010
April 2010
Containerized plant installations"
n/a
November 2010
Invasive Exotic Vegetation Treatments
January 2010
December 2010
Baseline Monitoring /As -built Baseline Report
May 2011
June 2011
(Year 0 - baseline)
Monitoring Year 1 Report
September 2011
September 2011
Monitoring Year 2 Report
September 2012
March 2013
Saururus cemuus and Lobeha cardinalis planted within UT3 wetland seep in May 2011.

Table 3. Project Contacts
Wells Creek #2 (#92688) - Monitoring Year 2 (2012)
Designer Robert J. Goldstein & Associates
1221 Corporation Parkway, suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27610
Design POC - Gerald Pottern, Sean Doig, (919) 872 -1174
Farm BMPs Design Alamance County SWCD
Burlington NC
POC - Phil Ross, (336) 228 -1753
Planting I Invasives Contractor Habitat Assessment and Restoration Program
301 McCullough Drive, 4"' Floor
Charlotte, NC 28262
POC - Kam Blackmon, (704) 841 -2841
Nursery Stock Suppliers Cure Nursery, 919 -542 -6186
Parks Seed, 800 -845 -3369
Coastal Plain Conservation Nursery, 252482 -5707
Habitat And Restoration Plants (HARP), 704 - 841 -2841
Monitoring Firm Robert J. Goldstein & Associates
1221 Corporation Parkway, suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27610
Monitoring POC - Gerald Pottem, (919) 872 -1174

Table 4. Project Attributes
Wells Creek #2 — EEP#92688
Project County
Alamance
Ph sio ra hic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project 14 digit)
3030002 - 050050
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
Cape Fear 03 -06-04
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan?
2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priority Report
WRC Hab Class Warm, Cool, Cold
Warm
% of project easement fenced or demarcated
100%
INo
Beaver activity observed during design phase?
Restoration Com onent Attribute Table
Preservation
Enhancement
Drainage area
377 acres
958 acres
Stream order
1
1
Restored length feet
n/a
n/a
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Intermittent/Perennial
Watershed type Rural, Urban, Developing etc.
Rural
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution (e.g.)
Residential
4
4
A -Row Crop
2
0
A -Livestock
57
21
Forested
28
73
Etc.
9
2
Watershed impervious cover %
2
2
NCDWQ AU /Index number
16 -28-1
16 -28 -1
NCDWQ classification
C -NSW
C -NSW
303d listed?
No
No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment?
No
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
n'a
n/a
Total acreage of easement
4.62
7.52
Total vegetated acreage within the easement
4.62
6.07
Total planted acreage as part of the restoration
0
2.99 (including areas with
existing oversto
Ros en classification of pre-existing
n/a
n/a
Ros en classification of As -built
n/a
n/a
Valle a
n/a
n/a
Valley sloe
n/a
n'a
Valley side slope ranee. . 2 -3.%
n/a
n/a
Valley toe slope ranee. . 2 -3.%
n/a
n/a
Cowardin classification
n/a
n/a
Trout waters designation
n/a
n/a
Species of concern, endangered etc.? (Y/N)
N
N
Dominant soil series and characteristics
Series
Colfax
Colfax
Depth
65
65
Clay/0
19
19
K
0.17
0.17
T
4
4
Use N/A for items that may not apply. Use "" for items that are unavailable and "U" for items that are unknown

Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2.0. -2.1
Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5.0
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Figure 3.0 -3.7
Permanent Stream Photopoints
Figure 4.0
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos

.M.
z
RL
Perennial Seep
15
16

Table 5. Vegetation Assessment - Wells Creek #2 (#92688) - Monitoring Year 2 (2012)
Planted Acreage' 3.04
Easement Acreaae2 12.14
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acrea e
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or op ints (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). "RL" on ccpv
1000 SF
Color
-30 clumps
0.02
0.2%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
1criteria.
0.1 acres
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
none
Pattern and
Color
0
Color
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the
wit
0.25 acres
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
monit ear.
Color
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreaae2 12.14
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern /interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies
are those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree /shrub stands over
timeframes that are slightly longer (e.g. 1 -2 decades). The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with
regularity, but can be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are
based on the integration of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed
early in the projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within the timeframes
discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any
frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet,
dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere
between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon /area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the
number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.
% Of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Pol ons
Acrea a
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or op ints (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). "RL" on ccpv
1000 SF
Pattern and
Color
-30 clumps
0.02
0.2%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
Pattern and
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern /interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies
are those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree /shrub stands over
timeframes that are slightly longer (e.g. 1 -2 decades). The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with
regularity, but can be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are
based on the integration of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed
early in the projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within the timeframes
discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any
frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet,
dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere
between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon /area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the
number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.

Figure 3.0. Stream Photo Station Photo - Wells Creek #2 - Monitoring Year 2 (2012) - Project #92688
PP #1 - Looking S from Carl Noah Rd, E of Wells Cr (09/16/09)
PP #2 - Looking S along easement, W of Wells Cr (09/16/09)
PP #2 - Looking S along easement, W of Wells Cr (09/26/12)

Figure 3.1. Stream Photo Station Photo - Wells Creek #2 - Monitoring Year 2 (2012) - Project #92688
PP #3 — Looking SW along easement, W of Wells Cr (09/26/12)
PP #4 — Looking East from easement toward Wells Cr (09116/09)
PP #4 — Looking East from easement toward Wells Cr (09126112)

Figure 3.2. Stream Photo Station Photo - Wells Creek #2 - Monitoring Year 2 (2012) - Project #92688
PP #5 — Looking south along easement, E of Wells Cr (09/16/09)
PP #6 — Looking south from easement toward Wells Cr (09116109)
PP #6 — Looking south from easement toward Wells Cr (09/26112)

Figure 3.3. Stream Photo Station Photo - Wells Creek #2 - Monitoring Year 2 (2012) - Project #92688
PP #8 — Looking up UT3 from lower end (09/16/09)
PP #8 — Looking up UT3 from lower end (09/26/12)

Figure 3.4. Stream Photo Station Photo - Wells Creek #2 - Monitoring Year 2 (2012) - Project #92688
PP #9 — Looking downstream (east) along UT3 (09/16/09)
PP #10 — Looking across trampled banks, upper UT3 (09/16/09)
PP #10 — Looking across trampled banks, upper UT3 (09/26/12)

Figure 3.5. Stream Photo Station Photo - Wells Creek #2 - Monitoring Year 2 (2012) - Project #92688
PP #11 - Looking downstream from UT3 Head (09/16109)
PP #12 - Wells Cr north of Carl Noah Rd, looking upstr (01/03/10)
PP #12 - Wells Cr north of Carl Noah Rd, looking upstr (09/26/12)

Figure 3.6. Stream Photo Station Photo - Wells Creek #2 - Monitoring Year 2 (2012) - Project #92688
PP #14 - Confluence of Wells Creek and UT3 (09/16/09)
PP #14 - Confluence of Wells Creek and UT3 (09126/12)

Figure 3.7. Stream Photo Station Photo - Wells Creek #2 - Monitoring Year 2 (2012) - Project #92688
PP #15 — UT #1 Preservation Reach (09126/12)
PP #16 — UT1 Preservation Reach (01/03/10)
PP #16 — UT1 Preservation Reach (09/26/12)

Figure 4.0. Vegetation Plot Photos - Wells Creek #2 - Monitoring Year 2 (2012) - Project #92688
VP 1 (September 26, 2012)
VP 2 (April 27, 2011)
VP 2 (September 26, 2012)

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6.0 CVS Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 7.0 CVS Vegetation Monitoring Plot Metadata
Table 8.0 CVS Stem Counts, Total and Planted by Species, Plot and Year
e- Tables Raw CVS Vegetation Data Sheets

f
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Wells Creek #2 ( #92688)
Year 2 (26 -Sep -2012) Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Riparian Stream/ Unknown
Buffer Wetland Growth
Plot # Stems' Stem S 2 Live Stakes Invasives Volunteers3 Total4 Form
1 n/a 16 0 0 25 41 0
2 n/a 13 0 0 35 48 0
Wetland /Stream Vegetation Totals (per acre)
Stream/ Success
Wetland Criteria
of # Stems2 Volunteers3 Total4 Met?
1
647
1012
1659
Yes
2
526
1416
1942
Yes
Project Avg
S87
1214
1801
Yes
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals (per acre)
Riparian Success
Buffer Criteria
Plot # Stems' Met? It
1 n/a n/a
2 n/a n/a
Project Avg n/a n/a
Stem Class Characteristics
1 Buffer Stems: Native planted hardwood trees. NOT including pines, shrubs, vines or live- stakes.
2 Stream /Wetland Stems: Native planted hardwood trees + shrubs. NOT including vines, live stakes.
3 Volunteer Stems: Native trees and shrubs that were not planted. NOT including vines or exotics.
4 Total Stems: Planted + Volunteer native trees, shrubs and live stakes. NOT vines or exotics.
Color for Density Stem Density Success Criteria:
Exceeds requirements by 10% MY3 = 320 /ac
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% MYS = 260 /ac
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

Table 7. CVS Vegetation Metadata Table - Wells Creek #2 ( #92688) - Monitoring Year 2(2012)
Report Prepared By
Gerald Pottern
Date Prepared
03/06/2013
database name
WellsCreek2 2012.mdb
database location
D: \Sean \EEP \Wells Creek MY2 \2012
computer name
JESSIO
file size
35262464
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------- - - - --
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s)
and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This
excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes
live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems,
missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of
total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and
Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot;
dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural
volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
92688
project Name
Wells Creek #2
Description
Stream enhancement project in Alamance County
River Basin
Cape Fear
length(ft)
2,026 (Wells Creek and UT3)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
65' -95'
area (sq m)
12,302 sq. meters, 6,677 sq. meters only planted understory
Required Plots (calculated) 13
(per CVS -EEP Access database)
Sampled Plots 12

Table 8. CVS Stem Counts, Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
EEP Project Code 92688. Project Name: Wells Creek #2
Color Key for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10% or more
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Stem Density Success Criteria:
MY3 = 320 /ac
MY5 = 260 /ac
Current Plot Data (MY2 2012)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
E92688 -SD -0001
E92688 -SD -0002
MY2 (2012)
MY1 (2011)
MYO (2011)
Pnol-S
P -all
IT
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
I
1
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
3
31
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
1
1
2
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
5
1
1
6
7
Carya alba
mockernut hickory
Tree
5
5
Carya cordiformis
bitternut hickory
Tree
5
6
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus
ash
Tree
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
1
1
5
1
1
8
1
1
1
2
2
2
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
2
2
3
1
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub
2
2
2
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
12
12
4
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
16
3
3
9
3
3
25
3
3
15
3
3
3
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
31
4
4
4
31
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
3
Quercus stellata
post oak
Tree
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus velutina
black oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
2
2
1
Ulmus
elm
Tree
1
Ulmus americans
JAmerican elm
iTree
2
2
Viburnum dentatum
isouthern arrowwood JShrub
3
3
3
3
3
3
31
31
3
3
31
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
16
16
41
13
13
48
291
291
89
291
291
58
301
301
52
1
1
2
2
2
0.025
0.025
0.049
0.049
0.049
8
8
14
7
7
12
13
13
20
11
11
18
11
11
19
647.5
647.5
1659
526.1
526.1
1942
586.8
586.8
1801
586.8
586.8
1174
607
607
1052
Color Key for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10% or more
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Stem Density Success Criteria:
MY3 = 320 /ac
MY5 = 260 /ac