20050676 Ver 2_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20160224

Little River
Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project
SCO No. 070715501
DENR Contract No. D08049S
DMS Project No. 226
Moore County, North Carolina
FINAL
Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report
Data Collection: January through December 2015
Submission Date: January 26, 2016
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street, 3rd Floor, Suite 3000A; Raleigh, NC 27603

(This page intentionally left blank)

Little River
Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project
SCO No. 070715501
DENR Contract No. D08049S
DMS Project No. 226
Moore County, North Carolina
FINAL
Year 5 of 5 Monitoring Report Data Collection:
January through December 2015
Submission Date: January 26, 2016
Prepared by:
LM G
a-amLAND MANAGEMENT GRdUF INC
Land Management Group, Inc.
3805 Wrightsville Avenue; Suite 15
Wilmington, NC 28403
[phone]

(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...............................................................................................................................4
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
Appendix E. 2011 Agency Memo "Second Follow Up on Project Strategy"
FINAL Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project — DMS No. 226 ii
January 26, 2016 — Monitoring Year 5 of 5

(This page intentionally left blank)

3.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
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. This project will yield 1437.2 Stream
Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 32.36 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs). The project
work includes 3,593 linear feet of stream enhancement (II), 210 linear feet of stream
preservation, 54.8 acres riverine wetland enhancement, and 48.7 acres of riverine wetland
preservation.
Prior to mitigation activities, the project site was a jurisdictional wetland largely planted
as a loblolly pine plantation, with smaller areas containing an open field and some
riparian hardwoods along the Little River. The site was clearcut and re -planted in 2001
by the landowner before the project inception. In 2003, the site was acquired by the State
of NC for wetland restoration and enhancement, which included removal of all young
pine trees. During the 2005 permitting phase, the Agency (Division of Mitigation
Services, formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program) and regulatory agencies expressed
concern over damage that may occur during tree removal in what was described as an
overall "stable system." These concerns led to a delay in permitting, and resulted in a
modified project strategy that removed timbering, and replaced it with a prescribed fire to
knock back pines and understory planting of climax hardwoods. This strategy was
documented in a 2011 Memo "Second Follow Up on Project Strategy," attached in
Appendix E.
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. Land Management Group, Inc. (LMG) performed monitoring in Years One through
Five (2011-2015, Table 2).
FINAL Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project— DMS No. 226
January 26, 2016 — Monitoring Year 5 of 5

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 were
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).
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 MY5 monitoring assessment. Water was observed in the channel during the March,
May, and July site visits. The approximate depth of water in the channel during the visits
was between 2 and 6 inches. The crest gauge was also evaluated several times throughout
2015. Overbank flooding was not directly observed, but indicators of it, such as
deposition, matted vegetation, and scouring were noted.
Wetlands were determined and confirmed by a USACE-signed jurisdictional
determination (JD) conducted by Jennifer Frye (2/8/2006) and Emily Hughes
(3/13/2009). This JD provided the basis for the asset crediting strategy. Wetlands
within the conservation easement boundary were enhanced or preserved. Approximately
39.4 acres of wetlands in the bottomland hardwood forest adjacent to the Little River
channel and 9.3 acres of successional wetlands located in the northwest portion of the
project site were preserved. The wetlands within the 47.8 acre loblolly pine plantation
area and 7.0 acre grassy field area were enhanced through the planting of native
hardwood trees (See Table 1 for Project Components and Figure 2 for Component
Location).
Because a JD was conducted, there are no hydrological success criteria. However, five
continuous groundwater monitoring gauges were installed on the site 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 MY5 (2015), the groundwater monitoring gauges
located within the enhancement site demonstrated a water level within 12" of the soil
surface for between 3% and 22% of the growing season. Rainfall totals were below
average in May, July, and August, average in April and September, and above-average in
June and October (Appendix D).
• Gauge #1: 8% (18 days)
• Gauge #2: 3% (7 days)
• Gauge #3: 22% (50 days)
• Gauge #4: 22% (51 days)
• Reference Gauge: 22% (51 days)
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.
FINAL Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project— DMS No. 226 2
January 26, 2016 — Monitoring Year 5 of 5

Monitoring Year 5 (MY5 2015) observed a mean stem density of 252 planted stems per
acre in all the plots. The plots located in the grassy field area (Plots 1-3) averaged 310
planted stems per acre. The plots located within the pine plantation area (Plots 4-16) had
an average of 239 planted stems per acre. When including volunteers, the site had an
overall mean stem density of 2,390 stems (excluding mature pine trees). The plots
located in the grassy field area had an average of 2,158 stems per acre. The plots located
within the pine plantation area had an average of 2,478 stems per acre.
Plots #2, #3, and #12 did not meet the vegetation success criterion in MY5 2015. The
lack of meeting the success criterion for these plots was identified in early monitoring
reports. However, project managers did not replant in these areas because the natural
density was high considering volunteers. Additionally, the volunteer species in the areas
where plots did not meet success were diverse, and many plots contained favorable
climax hardwood species, many of which were identified in the planting plans. It should
be noted that the vigor of several planted hardwood species is low, likely owed to early
successional pine shading and legacy pine plantation soils which have lower pH (more
acidic).
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 EEP's website. All raw data
supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from EEP upon request.
4.0 METHODOLOGY
Vegetation
Sixteen (16) permanent vegetation plots are used for annual vegetation monitoring
(Figure 2). All vegetation monitoring was completed in September 2015 utilizing the
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) — EEP protocol Level 2 (version 4.2).
Hydroloa
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).
FINAL Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project— DMS No. 226 3
January 26, 2016 — Monitoring Year 5 of 5

5.0 REFERENCES
NCEEP. 2014. Annual Monitoring and Closeout Reporting Format, Data Requirements,
and Content Guidance. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, NC. February, 2014.
NCEEP. 2014. Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Year 4 of 5 Monitoring
Report. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Raleigh, NC. December, 2014.
NCEEP. 2014. Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Year 3 of 5 Monitoring
Report. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Raleigh, NC. January, 2014.
NCEEP. 2013. Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Year 2 of 5 Monitoring
Report. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Raleigh, NC. March, 2013.
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. 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.
6.0 Project Condition and Monitoring Data Appendices
FINAL Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project— DMS No. 226 4
January 26, 2016 — Monitoring Year 5 of 5

Appendix A.
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

(This page intentionally left blank for two-sided printing)

`- �` 1
"
ti
dr,
-,y C•. �F, dr.
pip Cp4h
f (+17
p41
y
� �' '�-yv,las `�'� �� Irr- 69U '�� r 111` , �b I � �., ' • �r a� 'r'k-:`,- * �as �, 3
4Q,I.
k Tom.
�-.,._ I r� s✓t I a��r rn �I ,s A'4 y � �� s ,v: Y I H- Il f'r �. \F= r:�r
� /J
�~ 0
qjr
690
�'�.�
Project Area' wtr
i
y_ -
�� if
{{ yq
p I'•
t
72
o
Ilk
�... / rt P 5'r s �yy'�r'�f •. .�,��1;:� I� � r _ �,� Jf�-.:.-•� L -a 'mak -�K l i� y
l r��1 ' J 'Y•;-0 �• `Iy ;� ��I .r'1 iJ 7 � 1 F -
i
I �I
f 1`'r'v
Directions to Site: From Raleigh take US -1 S/US-64 W
toward Sanford/Asheboro. Continue to follow US -1 S
for 50.9 miles. Take the Carolina 690 Exit toward Vass
Turn left onto N Carolina 690 E/Lobelia Rd. Continue
to follow 690 E/Lobelia Rd for 2.5 miles. Turn right onto
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
siaiitce

(This page intentionally left blank)

Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226
January 26, 2016 Appendix A.
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project/DMS Project No. 226
Mitigation Credits
Stream
(SMU)
Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland
(WMU) (WMU)
Nitrogen
Buffer Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE R
RE
Totals
1437.2
21
32.36
Project Components
Project
Component or
Reach ID
Stationing/Location
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Approach
Restoration
or
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
Units
(SMU/WMU)
Comment
Reach 1
Flows NW to SE across the
middle of site
1,726
E
R
1,726
2.5:1
690.4
Enhancement - planting occurred in the riparian
area of both banks
Reach 2
Flows NW to SE across the
middle of site
1,867
E
R
1,867
2.5:1
746.8
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
10:1
21
Preservation - area is protected by a
conservation easement with signage around
the boundary
Wetland 1
Pine Plantation
47.8
E
RE
47.8
2.5:1
19.12
Enhancement - weedy vegetation was
suppressed with fire and area was planted
Wetland 2
Grassy Field
7.0
E
RE
7.0
2:1
3.5
Enhancement - EI as a result of no trees
present in this area. Area was burned and
planted
Wetland 3
S boundary of site
39.4
P
RE
:39.4
5:1
7.88
Preservation - area is protected by a
conservation easement with signage around
the boundary
Wetland 4
Successional Wetlands- NW
1portion of the site
9.3
P
RE
1 9.3
1 5:1
1 1.86
Preservation - area is protected by a
conservation easement with signage around
Ithe boundary
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (If)
Riparian Wetland (ac)
Non -Riparian Wetland (ac) Buffer (sq ft) Upland (ac)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
Enhancement
54.8
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
3,593
Creation
Preservation
210
48.7
HQ Preservation
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226
January 26, 2016 Appendix A.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Little River Stream and Wetland
Enhancement Project -DMS Project No. 226
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: n/a
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 5 years
Number of Reporting Years': 5
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Deliver
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
Dec-13
Jan-14
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec-14
Dec-14
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec-15
Dec-15
1 = number of reports or data points produced excludinq the baseline
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226
January 26, 2016 Appendix A.

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project -DMS Project No. 226
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
Designer
801 Jones Franklin Road Suite 300; Raleigh, NC 27606
Primary project design POC
Amber Coleman [phone]
Construction Contractor
None
Carolina Silvics, Inc.
Planting Contractor
908 Indian Trail Road; Edenton, NC 27932
Planting Contractor POC
Mary -Margaret McKinney [phone]
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 [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Amber Coleman [phone]
Wetland Monitoring POC
Amber Coleman [phone]
Land Management Group, Inc.
Monitoring Performers (MYl - MYS)
3805 Wrightsville Avenue, Suite 15; Wilmington, NC 28403
Stream Monitoring POC
Kim Williams [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Kim Williams [phone]
Wetland Monitoring POC
Kim Williams [phone]
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226
January 26, 2016 Appendix A.

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project -DMS Project No. 226
Project Information
Project Name
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project
Project County
Moore
Project Area (ac)
125.8
Project Coordinates (Lat and Long)
35.223562, -79.240977
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Region
Sandhills
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit)
03030004070050
NCDWQ Subbasin
03-03-14
Project Drainage Area (sq mi)
0.52
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
Slope
0-1%
FEMA Classification
Zone X
Native Vegetation Community
Riverine bottomland hardwood
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation
0%
0% 0%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameter
Wetland 1
Wetland 2 Wetland 3
Size (ac)
47.8
7 48.7
Wetland Type
Riparian Riverine
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
Riverine 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 Floodplain Compliance
No
n/a
n/a
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
n/a
n/a
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226
January 26, 2016 Appendix A.

Appendix B.
Visual Assessment Data

(This page intentionally left blank)

(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
Woody stem densities clearly
2. Low Stem Density Areas
below target levels based on
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria
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 - DMS No. 226
January 26, 2016 - Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Appendix B.

(This page intentionally left blank)

i1 `I � 1�-• �� a � x k
_ �'' ..�- — �• F�• i
y
Iv n 1".�+u
ri �[► `�
- , y' � 7 ^` ��1.t!✓�.�aKJ d r 4 wwii_ _.
� 4

i
xjN
~(sem
r !�
Ir
EJF
� i sl 'y - �r►i`
! I ,�, "-.>� � y `, � e r.' '• fir`' �� r �: �" ��1 � ,-.� ._

r 47
,k G
\ � y � _! _ � �%• may, -:.
r
r`.
TA77
r 47
,k G
\ � y � _! _ � �%• may, -:.

f, s
Ilk
r f lk
t f
Ao-
}� ,,�• %e _^ z
t� - <:y��t � 4 ra t•�r �,
_'it- � jib `.� `�c�'x!�':'l''Y ���',� Li���: � rA '' •� " �� ,
q x s
{���>+ _ �. _ f � f 1 �{ sir r { • ti � - M `�i
��`• ,165/ �. - _ i y � � y � '.� _ �'� '-,tea..- - � �`."Y�

Stream Photo Station 4: looking upstream along Reach 1 (northwest) (Sept. 23, 2015)
ILT�m
P.10 -P. -a-
.
�'
Stream Photo Station 4: looking downstream along Reach 1 (southeast) (Sept. 22, 2015)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226 Appendix B
December 2015 - Monitoring Year 5 of 5 pp

_ = �� / � • e` � Sim F� �. � �. � __ � - - �
/ ..{
Vw
�
�- IM
5 1
N
Ti�( Kt ���•�,�'r ..'may 1
� ry4 •.'+� +� � a _' -
�� i

�¢
A s K«
t'31
zr zr• .. F "7,N Na
AL..

♦
N,
. v" l
, i Y
r EC � Iw
k �
} L
' Sll k,�•�P .,�
a � �.. 14a ✓ f _
f -
4 -
i
9
_ ` �,t•-. -moi` f.� a...
" ;:� y -
..�.
09/22/2015 r
_
dem
♦
N,
. v" l
, i Y
r EC � Iw
k �
} L

}� r
qM Y MAW',
I +�► NSa �''�—'
_ F_r
It'll d
•�i K" a :,, �,p,~ � tisk ��•� S'ylJ��.y ���',4� Y �
y
s
%' �, 309122%2015

Photo Station V7 - Veg Plot 4 looking along X-axis (Sept. 23, 2015)
Photo Station V8 - Veg Plot 4 looking across (Sept. 23, 2015)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226 Appendix B
December 2015 - Monitoring Year 5 of 5 pp

r
� y r ,�. _ •- T�-. � �x_ Wit'
l - .i..

Photo Station V11 - Veg Plot 6 looking along X-axis (Sept. 23, 2015)
Photo Station V12 - Veg Plot 6 looking across (Sept. 23, 2015)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226 Appendix B
December 2015 - Monitoring Year 5 of 5

ref,
• Ply! �`. ��.;
AAL
Photo Station V13 - Veg Plot 7 looking along X-axis (Sept. 23, 2015)
Photo Station V14 - Veg Plot 7 looking across (Sept. 23, 2015)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226 Appendix B
December 2015 - Monitoring Year 5 of 5

tAx
-� a v' - - _y�;�•'�``'' �,y'- � '
Jai./� � - y�`-�Pi '3 ' _ ` !' .'�q► T r,�'" .
' � _ by , a• "�"" w
_
�
1 �
�'" ,- f , y _. h ,. •... r FY ,'"a pal

Photo Station V19 - Veg Plot 10 looking along X-axis (Sept. 23, 2015)
Photo Station V20 - Veg Plot 10 looking across (Sept. 23, 2015)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226 Appendix B
December 2015 - Monitoring Year 5 of 5 pp

`f
- �C E^ • � ,- ,� L .,��j�$Rti� +fib �' � � M `' � I
a N d�3 a i/Xr v
VIC—
A
t 9/Z3I 1S
F
11 ti t �4.
111 ♦. fir-- ♦','!� _ rr� .��\ '1T '.-t
lo
fi +�
�. j 09 �'I

Photo Station V23 - Veg Plot 12 looking along X-axis (Sept. 23, 2015)
Photo Station V24 - Veg Plot 12 looking across (Sept. 23, 2015)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226 Appendix B
December 2015 - Monitoring Year 5 of 5

Photo Station V25 - Veg Plot 13 looking along X-axis (Sept. 23, 2015)
Photo Station V26 - Veg Plot 13 looking across (Sept. 23, 2015)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226 Appendix B
December 2015 - Monitoring Year 5 of 5

w 1._
A -j11 /d y%� � y. ,,. ai R � • t a*� err. ;�t�i 1 *,�, �.

Photo Station V29 - Veg Plot 15 looking along X-axis (Sept. 23, 2015)
Photo Station V30 - Veg Plot 15 looking across (Sept. 23, 2015)
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226 Appendix B
December 2015 - Monitoring Year 5 of 5

At
low
7E�r

Appendix C.
Vegetation Plot Data

(This page intentionally left blank)

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project
DMS No. 226
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
VP1
Y
81%
VP2
N
VP3
N
VP4
Y
VP5
Y
VP6
Y
VP7
Y
VP8
Y
VP9
Y
VP10
Y
VP11
Y
VP12
N
VP13
Y
VP14
Y
VP15
Y
VP16
Y
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226
January 26, 2016 - Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Appendix B.

Table 7. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project EEP No. 226
Report Prepared By
Kim Williams
Date Prepared
1/26/2016 10:00
Database Name
LittleRiver 226 MYS 2015.mdb
Database Location
L:\Wetlands\2008\LittleRiver\Annual Monitoring Report\Year 5
Computer Name
KWILLIAMS
Description Worksheets in This Document 1
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 Summary
Project Code
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 - DMS No. 226
January 26, 2016 - Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Appendix C.

Table 8. Planted and total stem counts (species by plot with annual means)
EEP Project Code 226. Project Name: Little River
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by more than 20%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 20%
Fails to meet requirements
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226
January 26, 2016 - Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Appendix C.
Current Plot Data (MY5 2015)
Scientific Name
Species
Common Name Type
E226-LMG-0001
Pnol-S P -all T
E226-LMG-0002
Pnol-S P -all T
E226-LMG-0003
Pnol-S P -all T
E226-LMG-0004
Pnol-S P -all T
E226-LMG-0005
Pnol-S P -all T
E226-LMG-0006 E226-LMG-0007
E226-LMG-0008
E226-LMG-0009
E226-LMG-0010
E226-LMG-0011
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
Acer rubrum
red maple Tree
2
2
13
19
30
20
10
11
Aronia
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry Shrub
1
3
1
2
1
1
2
6
Chamaecyparis thyoides
Atlantic white cedar Tree
Clethra alnifolia
coastal sweetpepperbush Shrub
8
Cyrilla racemiflora
swamp titi Shrub
5
6
20
14
7
8
9
7
10
8
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon Tree
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
6 6
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
2
2
2
Ilex glabra
inkberry Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
2
2
49
1
Ilex opaca
American holly Tree
1
1
7
2
4
2
Itea virginica
Virginia sweetspire Shrub
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar Tree
1
Leucothoe
doghobble
Ligustrum japonicum
Japanese privet Exotic
Ligustrum sinense
Chinese privet Exotic
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush Shrub
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum Tree
54
6
41
2
2
1
8
3
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree Tree
4
Lyonia lucida
fetterbush lyonia Shrub
Magnolia virginiana
sweetbay Tree
1
2
1
5
2
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle shrub
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum Tree
8
8
15
2
2
5
3
3
6
3
3
8
4
4
5
1
1
1
1
Ostrya virginiana
hophornbeam Tree
Persea borbonia
redbay tree
Persea palustris
swamp bay tree
1
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine Tree
8
5
4
1
11
3
5
10
9
Prunus serotina
black cherry Tree
Quercus
oak Tree
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak Tree
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak Tree
2
2
2
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak Tree
Quercus nigra
water oak Tree
1
5
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak Tree
Quercus phellos
willow oak Tree
1
1
1
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac shrub
1
19
6
Symplocos tinctoria
common sweetleaf Shrub
Vaccinium
blueberry Shrub
Vaccinium corymbosum
highbush blueberry Shrub
Viburnum
viburnum shrub
1
1
3
Stem count
12
12
90
5
5
33
6
6
54
7
7
36
5
5
46
5
5
36
6 6
53
11
11
67
4
4
95
7
7
59
5
5
57
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Species count
4
4
11L
3
10
4
4
6L2831
2
7
3
3
9
2
2
6
1 1
7
4
4
11
2
2
10
3
3
12
4
4
15
Stems per ACRE
486
486
3642202
1335
243
243
21852831
1457
202
2021
18621
2021
2021
14571
2431 2431 21451
4451
4451
27111
1621
1621
38451
2831
2831
23881
2021
2021
2307
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by more than 20%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 20%
Fails to meet requirements
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226
January 26, 2016 - Monitoring Year 5 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%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 20%
Fails to meet requirements
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226
January 26, 2016 - Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Current Plot Data (MY5 2015)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
E226-LMG-0012
Pnol-S P -all T
E226-LMG-0013
Pnol-S P -all T
E226-LMG-0014
PnoLS P -all T
E226-LMG-0015
Pnol-S P -all T
E226-LMG-0016
Pnol-S P -all T
MY5 (2015)
PnoLS P -all T
MY4 (2014)
Pnol-S P -all T
MY3 (2013)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (2012)
Pnol-S P -all T
MY1 (2011)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
20
10
19
16
172
109
232
123
55
Aronia
40
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
1
5
5
5
6
6
211
4
4
4
4
4
41
4
4
4
4
4
4
Chamaecyparis thyoides
Atlantic white cedar
Tree
2
Clethra alnifolia
coastal sweetpepperbus Shrub
1
1
49
1
5
1
34
96
1
95
1
133
Cyrilla racemiflora
swamp titi
Shrub
37
1 1
17
3
12
11
1
1
174
1
1
101
1
1
236
2
2
105
2
2
85
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
3
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
5
5
5
3
3
3
1
1
1
32
32
36
33
33
38
32
32
38
31
31
32
32
32
37
Ilex glabra
inkberry
Shrub
4
6
12
21
4
4
100
5
5
249
7
7
169
8
8
45
10
10
45
Ilex opaca
American holly
Tree
2
1
1
2
2
25
19
27
7
6
Itea virginica
Virginia sweetspire
Shrub
5
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
1
1
2
2
Leucothoe
doghobble
5
25
Ligustrum japonicum
Japanese privet
Exotic
2
Ligustrum sinense
Chinese privet
Exotic
1
8
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
5
5
8
6
6
148
95
114
68
54
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
5
4
3
5
4
Lyonia lucida
fetterbush lyonia
Shrub
10
3
3
Magnolia virginiana
sweetbay
Tree
4
3
1
1
20
13
14
9
9
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
1
1
4
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1 1
1
1
1
1
23
23
43
23
23
36
30
30
55
35
35
85
41
41
91
Ostrya virginiana
hophornbeam
Tree
12
Persea borbonia
redbay
tree
5
Persea palustris
swamp bay
tree
1
3
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
8
5
4
13
15
101
112
117
108
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
2
2
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak
Tree
8
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
12
12
31
8
8
23
8
8
43
9
9
15
10
10
14
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
5 5
5
2
2
2
21
21
23
25
25
25
24
24
26
18
18
34
19
19
19
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
6
9
6
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
9
35
15
66
12
3
Symplocos tinctoria
common sweetleaf
Shrub
9
9
16
11
Vaccinium
blueberry
Shrub
23
Vaccinium corymbosum
highbush blueberry
Shrub
1
1
Viburnum
viburnum
shrub
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
1 1 91
1
0
1 1 11
40 40 3683
6 6 62
1
0
2 2 10
243 243 2509
7
2
283
7 89
1
0
2 11
283 3602
5
3
202
5 76
1
0
3 12
2021 3076
8
3
3241
8
1
0
3
3241
113
10
4573
100
8
2531
100
16
0.40
8
2531
1057
25
26731
101
8
2551
101
16
0.40
8
2551
999
25
25271
110
9
2781
110
16
0.40
9
2781
1412
30
35711
111
9
2811
111
16
0.40
9
2811
667
21
16871
122
9
3091
122
16
0.40
9
3091
437
19
1105
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by more than 20%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 20%
Fails to meet requirements
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226
January 26, 2016 - Monitoring Year 5 of 5

Table 9. CVS - Damage by Plot
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement - EEP #226
2y
O�
a� Oy
v a40 c
q mF w
oQa Ick
O 0 wt
Q`oJ
E226-LMG-0001- ear:5 3 9 1 2
]2-year:5
3
2 2
1
11 2
73- ear:5
4
2 1
3
1
J4-year:5
4
3 1
1 1 1
2 2 1
D5- ear:5
51
1 1
1 3
4
J6-vear:5
21
31
1 1
E226-LMG-0008-year:5
5
61
21
11 2
E226-LMG-0009- ear:5
2
2
1
1
E226-LMG-0010-year:5
6
2
1
2 2 1
E226-LMG-0011- ear:5
4
1
4
E 226-L M G -0012 -yea r:5
1
1
1
FE226-LMG-0013- ear:5 1
5
1
1
i 4
—E226-LMG-0014-vear:5 1
61
1 1
21
1 3
E226-LMG-0016- ear:5 1 41 41 1 11 1 21 1
TOT: 116 1 6.51 381 61 171 41 331 5
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226
January 26, 2016 - Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Appendix C.

Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226
January 26, 2016 - Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Appendix C.
Table 10. CVS - Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement - EEP #226
47 47 h h h
h h h
h h h h
h H
a`
a` a` a` m`
a` a`
X i2 i2,a�
;iq' i�
i� i�
ti0
Fy00�ti
001% 00^i OOP OOci
O O O O O
00<o O5b 004i
O O O
00of 5bO,yh O~~
O O O O
O~M OtiP O~y
O O O
/$�
�Q,
ate`
c.QQQ�O
O O OOOOOOy�h
h
V
h
'r
v
Q Q Q Q Q Q
Q Q Q
Q Q Q Q
Q Q Q
Aronia arbutifolia
Shrub
Red Chokeberry
6
2
3
1
5
C rilla racemiflora
Shrub Tiswamp titi
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Tree
green ash
32
12
2.67
1 1 2 1 1
6 6
3 2
5 3 1
Ilex glabra
Shrub
inkberry
4
3
1.33
1 1
2
N ssa s Ivatica
Tree
black um
23
8
2.88
8 2 3 3 4
1 1
1
Quercus laurifolia
Tree
laurel oak
12
8
1.5
2 1 1
3
1 1
1 2
Quercus I rata
Tree
overcup oak
21
8
2.62
21 1 1 5 1
1 11 2
3 1 5
2
Quercus hellos
Tree
willow oak
1
1 1 1
11
1
TOT: 0 8
8
8
1001
81
1
121 5 6 7 5 5
6 11 4
7 5 1 6
7 5 8
Little River Stream and Wetland Enhancement Project - DMS No. 226
January 26, 2016 - Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Appendix C.

Appendix D.
Hydrologic Data

(This page intentionally left blank)

10
A
-20
-30
-40
Reference Gauge (AB37307)
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
51 days above -12"
^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
to 40
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
V WV
ky
r,
V kjL.
M
N
�
-Q
o
U
Co
j
o> Q Q Q
rn N^
z
of co h
^^ N ^ ^
c
O
NO
c
O
N �i v M
o oS cZj M N o of
^ N Co
N
CO
U)
^ N
^^ N ^ N
0
0
C�
C7
0
0
m
�
U)
w
AdU�h�h,
A A A
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
to 40
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Q Q Q U U U U
o
o> Q Q Q
rn N^
CO CO I O O O Z Z Z Z O
of co h
^^ N ^ ^
^^ N
^
^ N Co
N �i v M
o oS cZj M N o of
^ N Co
N N
^ N
^ N
^^ N ^ N
Date
Reference Gauge (AB37307) 12" Below Surface On-site Raingauge
m
7
Ime
C
3
2
1
Im

10.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
0.0
J4>5.0
m
0.0
-25.0
-30.0
-35.0
-40.0
Gauge 1 (A282F9D)
kr) 40 h h h ko to (r) h ko 40 ko h ko IX) 40 h k kr) cn h V) 40 LO ix) ko 40 kr) kr) ko V) h �0 to h 410 kr) kr) ko
CZ7 j� 1� ,Q -Q -Q " i i i i i i - :�, C� � 1� C j: j 6)C� Q 1 1. Q U U Z > > j U
IT T T Co
o °� N co N h d N `� p o� N C) C"41N N M N d N p °; N N M N
Date
Gauge #1 (A282F9D) 12" Below Surface On-site Raingauge
m
5
E
c
0
3 m
i►:
1
U
18 days above -12"
ch
N
7
L
\AN
O
Z
m
C 7
c
L
V
O
0
Co
0
70
W
L-4.
I Ahl Ahl
Ad A
11JUI
kr) 40 h h h ko to (r) h ko 40 ko h ko IX) 40 h k kr) cn h V) 40 LO ix) ko 40 kr) kr) ko V) h �0 to h 410 kr) kr) ko
CZ7 j� 1� ,Q -Q -Q " i i i i i i - :�, C� � 1� C j: j 6)C� Q 1 1. Q U U Z > > j U
IT T T Co
o °� N co N h d N `� p o� N C) C"41N N M N d N p °; N N M N
Date
Gauge #1 (A282F9D) 12" Below Surface On-site Raingauge
m
5
E
c
0
3 m
i►:
1
U

10
5
0
-5
d
j -15
d
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
Gauge #2 (A27AA3E)
m
r_
kc)
N
L
N
�
cn h 4)
h 4) h ko
7 days above -12" o
kr) h h hkr) h cn h h to h h
A A A A
A A A A A
A
o
�
A A
A A A
A A A A
m
o
oz.
N
�
m
c
Q
�, �, �,
Q Q �`� ��
a
3
Q0,- RD-
O O O Z 2 2 2
0 0s N
co A
o
06 C�cAo N A N M
N h ry o o> N^ cAo N M S cN co) C6
C�
0
Ul I.
w
' V VV `
M 11
h h h h h h ko 41) kr)
IX)
kc)
4)
IX) h
cn h 4)
h 4) h ko
h ko to b to ko
kr) h h hkr) h cn h h to h h
A A A A
A A A A A
A
A
A
A A
A A A
A A A A
A A A A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A
Q
�, �, �,
Q Q �`� ��
>� > > >
� �
> > > Q Q Q
Q0,- RD-
O O O Z 2 2 2
0 0s N
co A
t_N A A (V n
06 C�cAo N A N M
N h ry o o> N^ cAo N M S cN co) C6
Date
Gauge #2 (A27AA3E) 12" Below Surface On-site Raingauge
r
5
4
2
2
r

10
-5
-10
d
-15
d
3
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
Gauge 3 (EBD3D95)
hhko�oh«ohko IX) hkoh�oknh4")kohhhkokohhkokokohhhkokohkoko(nv)vokohIX) hhko(ncnvakoknIX)
C-7 -.30) 0) 0) 0) Q Q Q Q U
ia> U U U U>
iacammQ)Q)05a) IDmMraQ�a
QCL41QCaMM ZjZ3 �»»> ����a'a'a'a'000002ZZZaa
> > > > tL 4j_LL Q Q Q Q Q > > > > , , , ,
ANN hC-� oN cnC-� oN NrnNoNC�N �^N oA�N^Ni Nnio^NNMON N�k6C o6Mo
Date
Gauge #3 (EBD3D95) 12" Below Surface On-site Raingauge

10
5
0
-5
-10
C
d
-15
a�
is
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
h
Gauge 4 (EBD13A4)
Date
Gauge #4 (EBD13A4) 12" Below Surface On-site Raingauge
4
2
51 days above -12"
v V
v -w%
V %VV W\
h
I A
V VVV
r,
�
N
E
L
>
0
0
0
0
0
ca
a�
C)
0)
0
0
0
o
1=
_0
c
W
Date
Gauge #4 (EBD13A4) 12" Below Surface On-site Raingauge
4
2

0
7
0
c
c
0
4
U
T
IL 3
2
1
0
Little River Site
Rainfall 2015
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 & Fayetteville Airport SE, NC1515 1971-2000
(KFAY)www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu Monthly Rainfall (on-site) 30th Percentile 70th Percentile (wcc.nres.usda.gov)

Appendix E.
2011 Agency Memo
"Second Follow Up on Project Strategy"

MEMORANDUM
TO: Todd Tugwell, Chair
Interagency Review Team
FROM: Tracy Stapleton, Project Manager
THROUGH: Jeff Schaffer, Eastern WPPI Supervisor and Marc Recktenwald, WPPI Manager
RE: Second Follow Up on Project Strategy
Little River (IMS #226)
Cape Fear 03030004
DATE: 19 January 2011
This memo serves as an update of the restoration approach for the subject project, and to seek approval of the monitoring and
credit strategy for this project.
As you may recall, the Little River project is located near Vass in Moore County, in CF 04 (Figure 1). It is a WRP-originated
project that originally proposed a large amount of stream restoration. In 2001 the site was timbered, streams channelized, soil
bedded and loblolly pines planted in much of the floodplain wetlands by the owners for silviculture. The conservation easement
was purchased by EEP in 2003. During design development visits to the site with agency staff and a change in design firm delayed
and changed the restoration strategy at the site. In 2009, Stantec finalized plans to enhance the bedded pine plantation wetlands
by removing pines and re -planting. Concerns at EEP continued, though, including bringing large equipment into the site, and
disturbing the recovering soils. After another site visit with agencies, and internal discussion, EEP decided to plant a small
portion of the site, below existing pines, for enhancement of the stream and wetlands and comparison of bottomland hardwood
community development in planted and unplanted portions of the pine plantation.
Wetland Communit type
Acres
Wetland pine plantation
48
Wetland grassy fields
7
BLH preservation
49
Total
104
Warm Stream
Linear A
Channel A
1726
Channel B
1867
Total
3593
As discussed in the June 2010 IRT meeting, an approach being considered for restoration was to contract for burning of the site
to clear the existing underbrush for bareroot planting. EEP contracted with ASIS to burn the site in December 2010. The burning
was successful in opening up the understory at the site. Therefore EEP is changing its restoration approach and the resulting
credits from the approach's implemententation. EEP will now plant all 55 acres of wetland and stream buffer (pine plantation and
grassy fields) with bare roots of climax community species. The pine plantation, including stream buffer, will be planted at a rate
of 300 stems per acre, with a target of 150 planted stems per acre at Year 5. These bare roots will mimic the understory
development of these species, at a lower density than other wetland enhancement projects because of the high density of pines
forming a canopy above them. We anticipate more closely mimicking a jump-started successional community by bringing in
climax species to the nine year old loblolly stand. The grassy fields will be planted at a rate of 600 stems per acre
Most of EEP's wetland enhancement projects invovle planting bare roots in a jurisdictional wetland barren of woody stems. For
these projects, the ratio of 2:1 has been set by agreements that establish EEP policy. For this project, we propose 2.5: 1 credit in
pine plantation areas because of the lower density of planted woody stems. In the grassy fields, we anticipate 2:1 credit. This
would result in approximately 19.2 credits from the pine plantation, 3.5 credits from the grassy field area, and 9.8 credits from the
preservation area. The total anticipated wetland credits from this site are 32.5 riparian wetland mitigation units, all of which are
restoration equivalent credits. Stream credits total 1437 credits, attributed to Enhancement II of 3593 linear feet of stream
through planting.

Summary Table of Little River Proposed Mitigation
Type
Acres/If
Ratio
Total Credits
Riparian Wetland Enh
(pineplantation)
48
2.5:1
19.2
Riparian Wetland Enh
(grassy field
7
2:1
3.5
Riparian Wetland Pres
49
5:1
9.8
Stream Enh 2
3593
2.5:1
1,437.2
Monitoring
In the pine plantation wetlands, monitoring will include 8 CVS monitoring plots. Success will be met if 150 planted woody stems
per acre are surviving in year 5 of monitoring in the pine plantation area, while 260 planted woody stems per acre must be
surviving after 5 years of monitoring in the grassy field area. This lower density in the plantation area is a result of the loblolly pine
presence and abundance. The grassy field area will have 2 CVS vegetation plots. In addition, five monitoring wells will be re-
installed to collect hydrology data about the site.
The stream portion of the site will be equipped with a crest gage, photo points, and 6 CVS vegetation plots. Stream buffer plots,
because they are within the planted pine plantation, will also have a stem density requirement of 150 planted woody stems per
acre surviving in year 5 of monitoring to meet success.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 715-1658.
References
Parker, G.R. and W. T. Swank. Tree Species Response to Clear -cutting a Southern A, palachian Watershed, 1982: Coweeta Hydrologic
Laboratory, US Forest Service. North Carolina, USA.
Cain, Michael D. and Michael G. Shelton. Secondary forest succession following reproduction cutting on the Upper Coastal Plain of southeastern
Arkansas, USA, 2000: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Monticello, Arkansas.

Figure 1.0 Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Vass
Little War Mclniry Vap �•' � r r,,..`r f�`�h'r��, •..� � _. -
J
(we also Figure 10. 1)
Local Roads
/�V Major Roads f --
I\V Railroads c�
County BDundary
Streams r
MunripalitySite Boundary
_ a
Directions to Little River project site: From Raleigh follow US I South approximately 50 miles to Vass. Take
the NC 690 exit and follow NC 690 east for approximately 2.3 miles. Turn right into project site.

Figure 2.0 Project Vegetative Communities
a
Grassy Field F �7! — �r
� a
yr �' Pine Plantation`
r
— R
Preservation w
:tea, a
SuocessionaiWedand ProNnyBmdary Figure 10.5 Vegetative Communities
Grassy Field Prood Area
Bedded Pine Plantation — SUearn,P)D lohes Little River Wetland Enhancern ant
O &xtornland Hardvood Forest Moore County, NC
July 2007
a as NO izt� Feer IIuPlIr�