HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050676 Ver 2_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20130212Little River
Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project
SCO No. 070715501
DENR Contract No. D08049S
EEP Project No. 226
Moore County, North Carolina
Year 2 of 5 Monitoring Report
Data Collection: January through December 2012
Submission Date: January 30, 2013
Prepared for:
4 rIA
�Cosystelll
U
FF 3 1 ? 20;3
W@Sldnda
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
217 West Jones Street, 3rd Floor, Suite 3000A; Raleigh, NC 27603
M
z
sz
go
M
w
0)
0
o
,0
Qw
(This page intentionally left blank)
Little River
Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project
SCO No. 070715501
DENR Contract No. D080495
EEP Project No. 226
Moore County, North Carolina
Year 2 of 5 Monitoring Report Data Collection:
January through December 2012
Submission Date: January 30, 2013
Prepared by:
AI�LMG
0 1 LAND MANAGEMENT GROUP INC
3w
Land Management Group, Inc
3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15
Wilmington, NC 28403
(910) 452 -0001
(This page intentionally left blank)
Table of Contents
1.0 TITLE PAGE ..................................................................................................... ..............................i
2.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................... ............................... ii
3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/PROJECT ABSTRACT ................................... ..............................1
4.0 METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... ..............................3
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................. ..............................3
6.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING DATA APPENDICES .... ..............................4
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Appendix D Hydrologic Data
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Protect — EEP No 226
January 30, 2013 — Monitoring Year 2 of 5
3.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/PROJECT ABSTRACT
The Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Site is located on a 125 -acre
conservation easement along Little River near Vass, NC (Moore County) within the Cape
Fear River Basin #03030004 Cataloging Unit (Figure 1) It is located within a larger tract
owned by J J Barnes and his family. The larger tract is actively managed for wildlife
habitat to facilitate hunting on the overall tract Prior to mitigation activities, the project
site was a jurisdictional wetland with planted loblolly pine The pine plantation was
planted in the early 2000s as part of the CREP program. The stream and wetland
enhancement project is funded by the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP).
The overall goal for the Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Site is to preserve
and enhance a natural bottomland hardwood forest which exhibits desired functions
appropriate to the existing geomorphic setting of the site.
Specific goals include
1) Preservation of wildlife habitat; and
2) Natural community enhancement.
The project objectives include
1) Partial removal of undesired vegetation via burning to promote desired
species growth; and
2) Planting of the project site with specific native species to enhance natural
habitat
To accomplish these goals, the site was burned in December of 2010 and planted in
January of 2011. The baseline field monitoring was performed by Stantec in February of
2011 Monitoring Year One vegetation monitoring was performed by LMG in October of
2011
Stream enhancement II and preservation are both components of this project (Table 1)
Three stream channels traverse the project site Small portions of the channels have been
altered in the past but currently appear stable. The project includes 3,593 linear feet of
stream enhancement II on two tributaries to the Little River (Reach 1 & Reach 2) and 210
linear feet of stream preservation of one associated tributary (Reach 3)
Wetlands within the conservation easement boundary were enhanced or preserved
Approximately 39 acres of wetlands in the bottomland hardwood forest adjacent to the
Little River channel and approximately nine acres of successional wetlands located in the
northwest portion of the project site have been preserved The wetlands within the
approximately 48 -acre loblolly pine plantation area and 7 -acre grassy field area have
been enhanced through the planting of native hardwood trees (See Table 1 for Project
Components and Figure 2 for Component Location)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project— EEP No 226 1
January 30, 2013 — Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Vegetation monitoring is conducted on an annual basis using sixteen (16) permanent
vegetation plots (Figure 2) The vegetation success criterion for the pine plantation area is
the survival of 150 planted woody stems per acre at the end of the five -year monitoring
period. The success criterion for the grassy field area is the survival of 260 planted
woody stems per acre at the end of the five -year monitoring period Monitoring Year 2
(MY2 2012) observed a mean stem density of 283 planted stems per acre in the plots
The plots located within pine plantation area (Plots 4 -16) had an average of 261 planted
stems per acre. The plots located in the grassy field area (Plots 1 -3) had an average of 377
planted stems per acre. When volunteer stems were included, the site had an overall mean
stem density of 1687 stems per acre in the plots The plots located within pine plantation
area had an average of 1653 planted and volunteer stems per acre. The plots located in
the grassy field area had an average of 1834 planted and volunteer stems per acre
The project consisted of the enhancement and preservation of existing wetlands and
streams within the site Prior to mitigation, wetlands were determined and confirmed by a
jurisdictional determination Therefore, there is no hydrological success criterion.
However, five continuous groundwater monitoring gauges were installed on the site in
order to monitor and confirm hydrology Four of the gauges are located in wetlands of the
pine plantation and a fifth is a reference gauge located in a preserved wetland area on the
west side of the project. During the growing season of MY2 (2012), the groundwater
monitoring gauges located within the enhancement site demonstrated a water level within
12" of the soil surface for between 2% and 11% of the growing season.
• Gauge # 1 4% (9 days)
• Gauge #2 2% (4 days)
• Gauge #3 11% (25 days)
• Gauge #4 10% (23 days)
• Reference Gauge 22% (52 days)
Streams are visually assessed each year to monitor for stability. One crest gauge was
installed on -site and is located adjacent to Vegetation Plot 7 Streams were stable during
the MY2 monitoring assessment The crest gauge was evaluated several tunes throughout
2012 During these visits, water was noted within the channel, but no indications of
overbank flooding were noted.
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or
encroachment 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 ESP's website All raw data
supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from EEP upon request.
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project — EEP No 226 2
January 30, 2013 — Monitoring Year 2 of 5
4.0 METHODOLOGY
Vegetation
Sixteen (16) permanent vegetation plots are used for annual vegetation monitoring
(Figure 2). All vegetation monitoring was completed in September 2012 utilizing the
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) — EEP protocol Level 2 (version 4 2)
Hydrology
A crest gauge was installed within a stream to monitor flow and is assessed through
visual evaluation. Five groundwater monitoring gauges were installed on site (4 within
the enhancement area and 1 within the reference area) All groundwater monitoring
gauges were downloaded quarterly utilizing Remote Data System, Inc data loggers and
software. Data from the groundwater monitoring gauges are not used toward success
criteria of the wetland
Photo documentation was performed at prescribed locations across the site A digital
camera was used to take photos at each predetermined photo point location (Figure 2)
5.0 References
NCEEP. 2012 Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Year 1 of 5 Monitoring
Report North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program Raleigh, NC March, 2012.
NCEEP 2011 Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement As -Built & Baseline
Monitoring Report North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Raleigh, NC. December, 2011
NCEEP 2010 Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring
Reports. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program Raleigh, NC Version 13 January 15, 2010
NCEEP 2008 CVS -EEP Vegetation Sampling Protocol North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program Raleigh, NC Version
4 2, 2008
NCEEP 2007 Little River Wetland Enhancement Restoration Plan North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program Raleigh, NC
September 28, 2007
US Army Corps Of Engineers 1987 U S Army Corps of Engineers Tech Report Y -87 -1, 1987
Wetland Delineation Manual, Washington, DC AD /A176
US Army Corps Of Engineers 2005 U S Army Corps of Engineers Information Regarding
Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina, Wilmington Regulatory Field
Office
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project — EEP No 226 3
January 30, 2013 — Monitoring Year 2 of 5
6.0 Project Condition and Monitoring Data Appendices
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project— EEP No 226
January 30, 2013 — Monitoring Year 2 of 5
(This page intentionally left blank)
Appendix A.
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
(This page intentionally left blank for double -sided printing)
C +Tr ,any.
C.
1.
VASS
� r
'7�
4�- 690 may. p41
�Y ..v a x~ • ' f
l 4 ,
w
�4!-- ',',� tl ���{ 1'.1• � per'..
` F Project Area ,
1 1
• oc
1'
Directions to Site: From Raleigh take US -1 S /US -64 W e;Y
toward Sanford /Asheboro. Continue to follow US -1 S
for 50.9 miles. Take the Carolina 690 Exit toward Vass. .�
'E 1 0 0.3�5�
Turn left onto N Carolina 690 E /Lobelia Rd. Continue Q: _
to follow 690 E /Lobelia Rd for 2.5 miles. Turn right onto " �`� INN
ids
a dirt driveway, follow the dirt driveway and make a left
at the fork. Continue down the dirt road to the NW Figure 1. Vicinity Map
corner of the site. Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement
EEP Project #226
Moore County, NC
7.5' USGS Topoquad Lobelia
Project boundary
J -Bar Ranch parcel boundary
Municipal boundary r?
I',cvsystcm
(This page intentionally left blank)
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Pro ect/EEP Project No 226
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - Riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
-
Totals
1437
21
275
Pro
ect Components
Project
Component or
Reach ID
Stationing /Location
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Approach
Restoration or
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Comment
Reach 1
Flows NW to SE across the
middle of site
1,726
Ell
R
1,726
2 5 1
Enhancement - planting occurred in the riparian
area of both banks
Reach 2
Flows NW to SE across the
middle of site
1,867
Ell
R
1,867
2 5 1
Enhancement - planting occurred in the riparian
area of both banks
Reach 3
Enters the site on middle N
boundary, tributary of Reach 2
210
P
RE
210
101
Preservation - area is protected by a
conservation easement with signage around the
boundary
Wetland 1
Pine Plantation
478
Ell
RE
478
2 5 1
Enhancement - weedy vegetation was
suppressed with fire and area was planted
Wetland 2
Grassy Field
70
Ell
RE
70
21
Enhancement - El as a result of no trees
present in this area Area was burned and
planted
Wetland 3
NW portion of the site and S
boundary of site
487
P
RE
487
101
Preservation - area is protected by a
conservation easement with signage around the
boundary
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (If)
Riparian Wetland (ac)
Non - Riparian Wetland (ac)
Buffer (sq ft)
Upland (ac)
Rivenne
Non- Rivenne
a
Restoration
Enhancement
548
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
3,593
Creation
Preservation
210
487
HQ Preservation
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose /Function
Notes
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No 226
January 30, 2013 Appendix A
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Little River Stream and Wetland
Enhancement Project -EEP Project No. 226
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: n/a
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 24 months
Number of Reporting Years': 2
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Delivery
Mitigation Plan
Sep -07
Oct -07
Final Design — Construction Plans
n/a
n/a
Construction
n/a
n/a
Seeding
n/a
n/a
Prescribed Burn
n/a
Dec -10
Planting
n/a
Jan -11
As -built (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
Feb -11
Dec -11
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec -11
Feb -12
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec -12
Jan -13
Year 3 Monitoring
n/a
n/a
Year 4 Monitoring
n/a
n/a
Year 5 Monitoring
n/a
n/a
1 = number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No 226
January 30, 2013 Appendix A
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project -EEP Project No. 226
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc
Designer
801 Jones Franklin Road Suite 300, Raleigh, NC 27606
Primary project design POC
Amber Coleman (919) 865 -7399
Construction Contractor
None
Carolina Silvics, Inc
Planting Contractor
908 Indian Trail Road, Edenton, NC 27932
Planting Contractor POC
Mary- Margaret McKinney (252) 482 -8491
Seeding Contractor
None
Seed Mix Sources
None
ArborGen and Superior Trees
Arborgen - 180 Westvaco road, Summerville, SC 29483
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Superior Trees - 12493 E US Highway, Lee, FL 32059
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc
Monitoring Performers (MYO)
801 Jones Franklin Road Suite 300, Raleigh, NC 27606
Stream Monitoring POC
Amber Coleman (919) 865 -7399
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Amber Coleman (919) 865 -7399
Wetland Monitoring POC
Amber Coleman (919) 865 -7399
Land Management Group, Inc
Monitoring Performers (MY1 & MY2)
P O Box 2522, Wilmington, NC 28402
Stream Monitoring POC
Kim Williams (910) 452 -0001
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Kim Williams (910) 452 -0001
Wetland Monitoring POC
Kim Williams (910) 452 -0001
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No 226
January 30, 2013 Appendix A
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project -EEP Project No. 226
Protect Information
Project Name
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project
Project County
Moore
Project Area (ac)
1258
Project Coordinates (Lat and Long)
35 223562, -79 240977
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiogra hic Region
Sandhills
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit)
03030004070050
NCDWQ Subbasm
03 -03 -14
Project Drainage Area (sq mi)
052
Project Drainage impervious cover estimate ( %)
< 1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Active Forest Management and Harvesting, Unused
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Length of Reach (linear feet)
1,726
1,867
210
Valley Classification
VIII
Drainage Area (ac)
335
NCDWQ Stream Identification Score
30 28 28
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
Perennial
Morphological Description (stream type)
C5
E5
E5
Evolutionary Trend
C5
C5
C5
Underlying Mapped Soils
Bibb
Drainage Class
Poorly Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Yes
Sloe
0 -1%
FEMA Classification
Zone X
Native Vegetation Community
Riverme bottomland hardwood
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation
0% 0% 0%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameter
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
Wetland 3
Size (ac)
478
7
487
Wetland Type
Riparian Riverme
Mapped Soils Series
Bibb
Drainage Class
Poorly Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Overbank flooding and groundwater
Hydrologic Impairment
None
Native Vegetation Community
Riverme bottomland hardwood
Percent of Exotic /Invasive Vegetation
0% 0% 0%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes Yes USACE 404 Permit
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes Yes NCDWQ 401 Permit
Endangered Species Act
No
n/a
n/a
Historic Preservation Act
No
n/a
n/a
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) Coastal
Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
n/a
n/a
FEMA Flood lain Compliance
No
n/a
n/a
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
n/a
n/a
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No 226
January 30, 2013 Appendix A
Appendix B.
Visual Assessment Data
(This page intentionally left blank)
•. , y. it �. ,,... '.'# . .. : a °''-!�
� �; ,�,r�R � s• .- - +�� � " Reach 3 � y; �`
VA
fNd 4' yr Reach 2
•`, " ; Successional Wetlands Reach 1
v,.. -f r <yY_ .�, 1 -,r ,: � •:} 'f'le��d�' -• r ,r 1 UP1r6 -
h f E
t, V r
a M •
, • ,: UP15
y: 17 UP1 r VP4 s:vzs VP
r
f ry iT
UP6 V11" 12
+ vr�fw a
Figure 2. Project Components and
v
Current Conditions Plan View
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement
EEP #: 226 Veg Plot Origin LatUeT Longitude
Moore County, North Carolina VP1 35_224019 - 79.243264'
January 2013 VP2 35.224237 - 79.242410
VP3 35.223424 - 79.242268
Reference well Precipitation gauge VP4 35.222751 - 79.2413281
• VP5 35.223274 - 79.240922
+ Groundwater monitoring we Wetland enhancement VP6 35.223772 79.2404741
Crest gauge T Wetland preservation VP7 35.224976 - 79.2399251
• Photo stations (S = Stream, V = Veg) % Uplands VP8 35.223259 - 79.2389811
Vegetation monitoring plots (VP 1 -16) Easement boundary Vegetation Monitoring Counts VP9 35.222613 - 79.239121
Existing streams Property boundary u VP10 35.225090 - 79.238909
Meets 5 -yr success criterion by more than 20% VP11 35.224839 - 79.238393
Existing ditches Area with low woody a; VP12 35.223612 - 79.238206
Stream enhancement stem density ;} .S Meets 5 -yr success criterion by less than 20% VP13 35.223814 - 79.237441
Stream preservation _ Beaver dam VP14 35.225665 79.2377911
Does not meet 5 -yr success criterion 'P 15 35.224439 - 79.236249
1'k:OSy'Stelll 'P 16 35.225448 - 79.2355241
(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV Depiction
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
% of Planted Acreage
Very limited cover of both
1. Bare Areas
woody and herbaceous
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
material
Area near Plot 2, 12 and 13
had stem densities lower than
the five -year monitoring
success criterion. However,
Woody stem densities clearly
Plots 2 and 13 did not meet
2. Low Stem Density Areas
below target levels based on
criterion at baseline and these
Red Outline on Figure 2
2
1.5 ac
1.5 ac
MY3, 41 or 5 stem count criteria
areas were probably under -
planted. Additionally, some
ponding was observed near
Plots 12 and 13 (may be from
beaver dams along Reach 2).
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates
Areas with woody stems of a
or Vigor
size class that are obviously
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
small given the monitoring year
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226
January 30, 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 Appendix B.
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project EEP
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
VP1
Y
88%
VP2
N
VP3
Y
VP4
Y
VP5
Y
VP6
Y
VP7
Y
VP8
Y
VP9
Y
VP10
Y
VP11
Y
VP12
Y
VP13
N
VP14
Y
VP15
Y
VP16
Y
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226
January 30, 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 Appendix B.
Stream Photo Station 1: looking upstream (northwest) (Sept 24, 2012)
Stream Photo Station 1: looking downstream (southeast) (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Stream Photo Station 2: looking upstream (northwest) (Oct 6, 2011)
Stream Photo Station 2: looking northeast (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 pp
Stream Photo Station 2: looking downstream (southeast) (Sept 24, 2012)
Stream Photo Station 3: looking upstream along Reach 2 (west) (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5
4.
Stream Photo Station 3: looking upstream at Reach 3 (north) (Sept 24, 2012)
r,
d
Stream Photo Station 3: looking downstream along Reach 2 (east) (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 pp
Stream Photo Station 4: looking upstream along Reach 1 (northwest) (Sept 24, 2012)
Stream Photo Station 4: looking downstream along Reach 1 (southeast) (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Stream Photo Station 5: looking upstream along Reach 1 (northwest) (Sept 24, 2012)
Stream Photo Station 5: looking downstream along Reach 1 (southeast) (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 pp
Vegetation Plot Photos (all photos recorded on October 5 and 6, 2011)
Photo Station V1 - Veg Plot 1 looking along X -axis (Sept 24, 2012)
Photo Station V2 - Veg Plot 1 looking across (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Photo Station V3 - Veg Plot 2 looking along X -axis (Sept 24, 2012)
Photo Station V4 - Veg Plot 2 looking across (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 pp
Photo Station V5 - Veg Plot 3 looking along X -axis (Sept 24, 2012)
Photo Station V6 - Veg Plot 3 looking across (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Photo Station V7 - Veg Plot 4 looking along X -axis (Sept 24, 2012)
Photo Station V8 - Veg Plot 4 looking across (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 PP
Photo Station V9 - Veg Plot 5 looking along X -axis (Sept 24, 2012)
Photo Station V10 - Veg Plot 5 looking across (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Photo Station V11 - Veg Plot 6 looking along X -axis (Sept 24, 2012)
Photo Station V12 - Veg Plot 6 looking across (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 pp
Photo Station V13 - Veg Plot 7 looking along X -axis (Sept 24, 2012)
Photo Station V14 - Veg Plot 7 looking across (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Photo Station V15 - Veg Plot 8 looking along X -axis (Sept 24, 2012)
Photo Station V16 - Veg Plot 8 looking across (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 pp
COO,"'
I
dR
ZK�
09/24/2012
414
14;
41'
'0012412012
COO,"'
I
dR
ZK�
09/24/2012
Photo Station V19 - Veg Plot 10 looking along X -axis (Sept 24, 2012)
Photo Station V20 - Veg Plot 10 looking across (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 pp
Photo Station V21 - Veg Plot 11 looking along X -axis (Sept 24, 2012)
Photo Station V22 - Veg Plot 11 looking across (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Photo Station V23 - Veg Plot 12 looking along X -axis (Sept 24, 2012)
Photo Station V24 - Veg Plot 12 looking across (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 PP
Photo Station V25 - Veg Plot 13 looking along X -axis (Sept 24, 2012)
Photo Station V26 - Veg Plot 13 looking across (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5
f
l�1✓ t - 4 � �'. r ..
09;, "24;'2012
a '�
f
~_•
�• it
ii �`'
\ `.—
��
-
v
09+24,:2012
f
l�1✓ t - 4 � �'. r ..
09;, "24;'2012
Photo Station V29 - Veg Plot 15 looking along X -axis (Sept 24, 2012)
Photo Station V30 - Veg Plot 15 looking across (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Photo Station V31 - Veg Plot 16 looking along X -axis (Sept 24, 2012)
Photo Station V32 - Veg Plot 16 looking across (Sept 24, 2012)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226 Appendix B
January 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 pp
Appendix C.
Vegetation Plot Data
(This page intentionally left blank for two -sided printing)
Table 7. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project EEP No. 226
Report Prepared By
Kim Williams
Date Prepared
1/30/2013 13 30
Database Name
LittleRiver 226 W22012 mdb
Database Location
L \ Wetlands\2008\LittleRiver\Annual Monitoring Report \Year 2
Computer Name
KWILLIAMS
D, - - I I 7-h '47MINVIP, ksheets in This Document
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project and
project data
Proj Planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year This
includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems
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
Project Code
roject Summary
226
Project Name
Little River
Description
Stream and Wetland Enhancement
River Basin
Cape Fear
Length (ft)
Stream -to -Edge Width (ft)
Area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
16
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No 226
January 30, 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 Appendix C
(This page intentionally left blank)
Table 8. Planted and total stem counts (species by plot with annual means)
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by more than 20%
but by less than 20%
Fails to meet requirements, but by less than 20%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 20%
Grassy Field Area 5 -yr Success Criteric 260 stems/ac
Pine Plantation Area 5 -yr Success Crite 150 stems/ac
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226
January 30, 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 Appendix C.
Current Plot Data (MY2 2012)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Specie
s Type
E226 -LMG -0001
E226 -LMG -0002
E226 -LMG -0003
E226 -LMG -0004
E226 -LMG -0005
E226 -LMG -0006
E226 -LMG -0007
E226 -LMG -0008
E226 -LMG -0009
E226 -LMG -0010
E226 -LMG -0011
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
cer rubrum
red maple
Tree
5
2
5
10
8
8
25
20
ronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
Cyrilla racemiflora
swamp titi
Shrub
8
5
15
1
1
8
5
1
25
5
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
6
6
6
7
7
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
Ilex glabra
inkberry
Shrub
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
Ilex opaca
American holly
Shrub
2
uniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
2
Ligustrum sinense
Chinese privet
shrub
2
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
25
2
17
2
3
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
4
Lyonia lucida
fetterbush lyonia
Shrub
3
Magnolia virginiana
sweetbay
Shrub
1
3
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
7
7
32
4
4
9
5
5
9
3
3
5
7
7
12
5
5
5
4
2
2
2
Pinus taeda
Loblolly pine
Tree
4
4
2
11
1
8
5
12
9
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Shrub
Quercus
oak
Shrub
3
3
3
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
3
3
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
17
3
3
3
2
2
2
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
Shrub
6
6
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
11
11
78
6
6
26
11
11
32
S
5
34
6
6
42
10
10
29
6
6
18
16
16
SS
4
4
51
5
5
40
6
6
42
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
3
3
7
3
3
8
4
4
5
2
2
6
4
4
9
3
3
6
1
1
5
4
4
8
2
2
6
2
2
8
3
3
8
445.2
445.2
3157
242.8
242.8
1052
445.2
445.2
1295
202.3
202.3
13761
242.81
242.81
1700
404.71
404.71
1174
242.81
242.81
728.4
647.51
647.51
22261
161.91
161.91
20641
202.31
202.31
1619l
242.81
242.81
1700
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by more than 20%
but by less than 20%
Fails to meet requirements, but by less than 20%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 20%
Grassy Field Area 5 -yr Success Criteric 260 stems/ac
Pine Plantation Area 5 -yr Success Crite 150 stems/ac
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226
January 30, 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 Appendix C.
Table 8 contd. Planted and total stem counts (species by plot with annual means)
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by more than 20%
ij 0
JUIRMut by less than 20%
Fails to meet requirements, but by less than 20%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 20%
Grassy Field Area 5 -yr Success Criterion: 260 stems /ac
Pine Plantation Area 5 -yr Success Criterion: 150 stems /ac
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226
January 30, 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Current Plot Data (MY2 20 12)
Annual Means
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
E226 -LMG -0012
E226 -LMG -0013
E226 -LMG -0014
E226 -LMG -0015
E226 -LMG -0016
MY2 (2012)
MYO (2010)
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
15
10
I
5
1
10
0
123
0
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
Cyrilla racemiflora
swamp titi
Shrub
15
1
1
6
12
2
2
105
2
2
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1 1
1
1
0
3
1 0
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
4
4
4
3
3
31
1
1
1
31
31
321
30
30
30
Ilex glabra
inkberry
Shrub
1
11
10
20
8
8
45
12
12
12
Ilex opaca
American holly
Shrub
1
4
0
7
0
uniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
0
2
0
Ligustrum sinense
Chinese privet
shrub
0
2
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
2
4
10
2
0
68
0
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
0
5
0
Lyonia lucida
fetterbush lyonia
Shrub
0
31
0
Magnolia virginiana
sweetbay
Shrub
1
1
2
0
9
0
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
6
2
2
2
36
36
86
46
46
46
Pinus taeda
Loblolly pine
Tree
3
1
12
2
0
108
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Shrub
1
0
1
0
Quercus
oak
Shrub
3
3
3
4
4
4
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak
Tree
3
2
3
3
3
9
9
14
7
7
7
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
18
18
34
13
13
13
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
IShrub
0
12
0
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species coun
Stems per ACRE
2
2
44
3
3
30
5
5
34
8
8
48
81
81
64
112
112
667
125
125
125
1
1
1
1
1
16
16
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.40
0.40
21
21
7
2
21
71
21
21
9
4
4
9
3
3
8
21
9
21
9
9
9
80.937
80.937
1780.6
121.41
121.41
1214.1
202.34
202.34
1375.9
323.75
323.75
1942.5
323.75
323.75
2590
283.28
283.28
1687
316.16
316.16
316.16
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by more than 20%
ij 0
JUIRMut by less than 20%
Fails to meet requirements, but by less than 20%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 20%
Grassy Field Area 5 -yr Success Criterion: 260 stems /ac
Pine Plantation Area 5 -yr Success Criterion: 150 stems /ac
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226
January 30, 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Table 9 CVS - Damage by Plot
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement - EEP #226
leme
o�
m i
FAA a0C
m `
O_
F
Op `
226 -LMG -0001 -year l 1 3 S 1 3
226 -LMG- 0002 -vear 2 1 01 6
I 1226 -LMG- 0004 -vear2 1 11 41 1 1 11
226 -LMG -0006- ear 2 1 21 101 11 1
226 -LMG -0007- ear 2 0 6
226-1-MG-0008-year-2 0 16
226 -LMG- 0009-vear2 0 5
226 -LMG -0011-year 2 1 01 8
226 -LMG- 0012 -vear 2 1 11 51 1 1
01 5
2
226 -LMG -0016- ear2 1 11 71 1 1
TOT 16 1 131 111 1 11 1
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project- EEP No 226
January 30, 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 Appendix C
Exceeds requirements by 10
s requirements, but by less than 10
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226
January 30, 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 Appendix C.
Table 10. CVS - Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Little
River Stream and Wetland Enhancement - EEP #226
!L !Y !Y h
9V
!L
!L
!Y
!V ry
ti
ti
A0 A0 �0 �0
�0
�0
�o
�e
Ao
�0 �e
.m
o 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
0
0
0 4 0
=�D
oC
C12
Fg
0C .my
Q�T
o
N y`0
(yfo ryto ryfo tyro ti� ryro %io
ry(o
ryfo
ti
ryio
ti� ryro
Iv
ry(o
ryto
IV
tyro
FF
moo`
.ti
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q Q
Q
Q
Q
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
4
1
4
4
C rilla racemiflora
swamp titi
2
2
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
31
12
2.58
1
1
2
1
1
6
7
2
2
4
3
1
Ilex glabra
inkberry
8
5
1.6
1
2
2
2
1
Lindera benzoin
northern s icebush
1
1
1
1
N ssa s Ivatica
black um
35
9
3.89
7
4
5
2
7
5
2
1
2
Quercus
oak
3
1
3
3
Quercus laurifolia
Ilaurel oak
1 91
41
2.25
1
3
2
3
Quercus I rata
lovercup oak
1 181
91
21
1
1
3
1
21
21
31
2
2
1
2
TOT:
0
9
19
1 1111
91
1
ill
61
I'll
51
51
101
61
16
51
61
21
31'
51
8
8
Exceeds requirements by 10
s requirements, but by less than 10
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - EEP No. 226
January 30, 2013 - Monitoring Year 2 of 5 Appendix C.
Appendix D.
Hydrologic Data
(This page intentionally left blank)
Water Level (in)
O Cn O Cn O Cn O Crl O U7 O
1 - ✓an 1
2
8 - ✓an
12
1 S_ ✓an 1
22 - ✓an 2
29_ ✓an
12
5'Feb 12
12 Feb -12
26-Feb- 6- Fe
1 2
4 -Mar
18- Mar -12
1
2g Mar' 2
1
Mar_ 12
I1 'Apr -12
15 Apr_ 12
CD 22 Apr 12
29-Apr-12
CD Apr_ 12
16-A4,
y -12
2p_May-12
W 2? -A4 12
ay-
3 -✓un_ 2
10 -✓un_ 12
17 Jun - 12
° 24_✓un -12
CO (D 12
CD 0 8 -jul _ 12
15 -✓ut,
Cn Cn 22- ✓u1 -12
29_✓ut-12
15Au'2
O 91
19 Au9 -12
°
26-,A 9-12
�.
2
2-Sep -1
2
16- -12
23_Se 2
CD 30_ Sep -12
pl
t2
�_ pC , 12
21- Ct -1
2
28- OCt-
12
�Ct -1
2
1�_Nov'12
18 No v-
V- 12
25 Nov -12
2- peg -12
9 -,Dec 12
O N w A Cr
Precipitation (in)
m
m
n
m
su
C
to
m
D
w
w
0
4
v
U
v
c
CD
N
OD
N
0
N
CO
a
0
v
0
m
O
7
N
m
D
m
CD
1 '✓an-1
lS - n' 2
✓a
12
22 ✓an -12
2g ✓an -12
S -Feb 12
19 -Fab, 12
26 -Fab 12
1
Mar'
1 J- Mar- 1
18-M, Mar 2
1
r-
25-Mar 12
_ 12
81-Apr- 12
Apr_ r 12
22 Apr 12
2g, pr 12
Apr1
2
13_May -12
20- 12
12
27-May- y -12
3- ✓-12
U
10- ✓un - �2
12
17 ✓Un 12
0 24 -✓Un 12
� 1 _ ✓u /_ 12
8-j
-12
1 S'✓ul_ 1
22'✓Ul_ 12
2g'✓Ul_ 12
12 Aug -12
19_Aug 12
28_AIJ 12
g -12
2�Sep 12
16 -Sap, 12
23 -Sp 12
30-Sep- e' �2
p t -12 2
14_��t,1
t1
2j'�c
28_�C t 12
2
11 Nov'12
V-
25 -Nay_ 12
12 2
2 Dec -1
9 -Dec 12
VVater Level (ip)
o cn o cn o cn o cn o cn o
O N w A to
Precipitation (in)
ti
C
c�
cD
N
00
N
A
t0
v
5�
to
rowin
I
Seas
n- March
23
P.
je7
C
CO
CL
m
Cr
0
ng S
aason-
N
November
7
En
of G
O N w A to
Precipitation (in)
ti
C
c�
cD
N
00
N
A
t0
v
Water Level (in)
W W N N 1 1
1 Jan,1
O Cn 0 Cn O m O Cn O Cn 0
1 S Jan 2
12
-Jan- Jan, 12 2
2g_ Jan 1
2,Feb -1e1b_ 12
2
9-Feb-
26-Feb- e
1 2
14`A4ar
12
Mar -1 2
18_A,lar_
2S_A4ar -12
I 1 Apr -12
1SApr_12
v
22-A Apr -12
29-12
N Apr_ 12
N 16 Ma ' 2
Y1
3�MaY -1
20 -Ma 2
27 May` 12
-May- 2
10 -Jun 12
12
m o 24_Jun
12
m fu u 1 2
1- JU / -12
Cn 8'JUl-
v 1S'Ju / -12
m 22 -JUI -1
29 -Ju /_ 12
I 1 S-Aug- 12
CD 19-A",9-12
12
26-Aug -1 g 12
2'S2
ep 1
2
CD 16_8 ep -12
23_Sep'12
3p -Sepp, 12
12
14 -Oct 1Oct' 12
21, Oct -1
Oct_ 12
28-Oct- 14_NoV' 12
18_NoV 12
2S -NOS' 12
2 - ,Dec' 1
9-Dec- 12
C) N Co -p cn
Precipitation (in)
c
c�
CD
N
D
N
V
D
W
m
v
81-'/an- 1
2
S - ✓an 12
Zg_
1
Z Jan'12
✓an_12
12 Feb-12
1 12
g_
Feb_12
26- Feb -12
4 -Mar 12
11 'Mar_ 12
18'Mar_
ZS -Mar_ �2
I 1 Apr -12
1 S Apr -12
Apr -
12
� 22-Apr_
w 29 Apr -12
m 13 May' 12
0 2p'May_ 12
27 May 12
3_ ✓Uy 12
N 1�n 12
jun,12
W o 24 -✓Un 12
o 1 12
ca 8'JU112
1 S�JU1.1
CD 22 -Ju1_ 12
I 29`JU1 -12
0 12 A Ug'12
CD 9
26-A 12
91 2
Uzi
2 -Sep 12
9-S -12
23- beP -12
3p_ Sep 12
p1
7.O�t 2
24,Oct -12
28 -OCt -1
O�t,12
2
14- OV -12
18_NaV 12
25 -/10v' 12
-Dec- 12
9_ Dec- 12
Water Level (in)
-kI W W N N
C) cn o cn o cn o
cn o M o
0
O N w A to
Precipitation (in)
aG)i
c
c�
�D
w
m
W
v
w
v
!
Water Level (in)
1. ✓an 1 o cn o m o m o cn o cn o
8_ ✓a 2
1S✓ n'12
22-J, an_ 12
2g ✓n 12
12 Feb. 12
19- eb,1
eb
26-p, b 2
1 >
Mar
1g Mar 2 12
2S Mar 12
1Mar12
1S'1 pr_ 12
I 2 ?'qpr 12
29'1 pr_ 12
CD 6 qpr 12
_a 13 May' 12
T 20. ay' 12
m2
2j /jay' 1
3.✓Uy 12
10 ✓ n' 12
1�J h'12
r> 24_J n'12
V Un_
o m 8 ✓U� 2
Cn 1S.-J, 12
22 ✓v/ 12
0 29.✓ 12
IJA / 12
1211 9 -12
0 19_
CD
26 q
9_S
16_Sep 12
CD
23'Se '12
3p,S� 12
p' 2
lgO12
27 0 12
28 12
�Cj' 2
4_No 1
11, 12
18 N� v_ 12
2S °V 12
2 NOS 12
O
9.Oec' 12
eC' 12
C) ry w cn
Precipitation (in)
ti
A)
C
t�
cD
O
n
D
m
IfV
10
9
8
7
c 6
c
0
5
.Q
m
CL 4
3
2
1
0
Little River Site
Rainfall 2012
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Month
30% & 70% precipitation data obtained from
Precipitation data obtained from: Moore County WETS Station: Carthage 8
On -site rain gauge SE, NC1515 1971 -2000
9 9 ® Monthly Rainfall (on -site) 30th Percentile 70th Percentile (wcc.nres.usda.gov)