20081540 Ver 1_20081540 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20090928_20090928

M-106
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 4 (2009)
Contract D05015 -1
LITTLE BUFFALO BUFFER MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
r-d�
&n.etnY PRRA
Prepared by:
09
Natural Resource
Restoration & Conservation
September 2009
*10 D
�009
Fe. °=SYST
� + °�.CIWENTPRpeI r
S
�lV4l0

Executive Summary
Restoration Systems, LLC (Restoration Systems) has completed riparian buffer restoration at the
Little Buffalo Buffer Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the Site) to assist the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in fulfilling restoration goals in the region
The Site is located in the southeastern portion of the Neuse River Basin Cataloging Unit
03020201 and within Johnston County, one of the fastest growing counties in the state of North
Carolina
The Site consists of a total of approximately 23 acres located on the west side of Bay Valley
Road (SR 2159) On -site ditches drain to Little Buffalo Creek which connects with the Little
River approximately 2 miles downstream of the Site near the town of Kenly A total of 18 5
Buffer Mitigation Units, resulting from 19 5 acres of buffer restoration, were completed in April
2006
Prior to restoration, Site land use consisted of agricultural fields utilized for row crop production
On -Site agricultural ditches were characterized by little or no vegetation and unstable banks
Site reforestation encompasses 18 5 acres of riparian buffer The primary goals of this buffer
restoration project focused on reforestation with native species in order to 1) convert active
cropland into riparian forest to reestablish forest functions, 2) intercept and assimilate nutrient,
pesticide, and sediment runoff from agricultural and development operations before reaching the
UT of Little Buffalo Creek and ultimately the Neuse River, 3) improve wildlife quantity and
quality, and 4) reduce residential development in an area where existing water, sewer, and
electric utilities make the Site a likely candidate for development
Overall, the densities of the five vegetation plots across the Site were above the required 320
stems /acre with an average of 1066 tree stems per acre in the Fourth Monitoring Year (2009)
All individual vegetation plots met success criteria and had good species diversity with 5 to 11
Character Tree Species present within each plot

Table of Contents
10 INTRODUCTION
2 0 VEGETATION MONITORING PROGRAM
1
3
2 1 Vegetation Success Criteria 4
2 2 Vegetation Sampling Results and Comparison to Success Criteria 5
3 0 CONCLUSIONS
4 0 LITERATURE CITED
5
8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Character Tree Species
Table 2 Vegetation Monitoring Data
Table 3 Summary of Vegetation Plot Results
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location Map 2
Figure 2 Monitoring Plan 6
APPENDICES
Appendix A Vegetation Plot Photographs
4
7
8

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems, LLC (Restoration Systems) has completed riparian buffer restoration at the
Little Buffalo Buffer Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the Site) to assist the North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in fulfilling restoration goals in the region
The Site is located in Johnston County, approximately one mule northwest of downtown Kenly
and Exit 107 of I -95, north of U S Hwy 301, and west of N C Hwy 222 (Figure 1)
The Site conservation easement encompasses 18 5 acres within NCDWQ sub -basin 03 -04 -06 and
Hydrologic Unit #03020201180070, which includes Buffalo Creek, Little Buffalo Creek, and the
Little River, a drainage area that encompasses a total of 317 square miles On -site ditches drain
to Little Buffalo Creek which connects with the Little River approximately 2 miles downstream
of the Site near the town of Kenly
A Buffer Restoration Plan was completed for the Site in July 2006 The plan outlined methods
designed to reforest the entire 19 5 -acre Site with native species in order to help improve water
quality within the Neuse River Basin Prior to implementation of the Restoration Plan, the entire
Site was utilized for agricultural practices The following activities provide 18 5 Buffer
Mitigation Units
• Restoration of approximately 18 5 acres of riparian buffer through planting with native
forest species
• Protection of the Site in perpetuity with a conservation easement which is held by the
State of North Carolina
The primary goals of this buffer restoration project focused on reforestation with native species
in order to 1) convert active cropland into riparian forest to reestablish forest functions, 2)
intercept and assimilate nutrient, pesticide, and sediment runoff from agricultural and
development operations before reaching the UT of Little Buffalo Creek and ultimately the Neuse
River, 3) improve wildlife quantity and quality, and 4) reduce residential development in an area
where existing water, sewer, and electric utilities make the Site a likely candidate for
development
Little Buffalo Buffer Restoration Site page 1
Annual Monitoring Report September 2009
Year 4 (2009) Restoration Systems, LLC

r
CD
E� ,
A tZ
O
� p
O
7
t9
x
N
0
m
O
7 In
� 'd
st '+
y
r gN y
ii 3 N
Cr
u
Client
JOHNSTONWLSON COUNTY LINE
it
0�
/
o
O
North Carolina Department
qfm
aulyly
of Environment and Natural
eDCNICP
Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
o:
e
5
w
0-P0
?K
_
Project
✓��,
d'
�27q,1,
E•�
,T
1
N
P`
R0�
'C
t3a LE
LITTLE BUFFALO BUFFER
MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
OQE
CUAM020MI
w
oa sFC
�
L�
5
L9
Tills
Legend
ti
?Oy
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
�\O�p
SON
Fr GRO�e
or
raven By. EFR ate: Nov. 2M6
�\ 4q CH w
Roads o¢ U1cH ii
Parcels
„aP�
Q
N
Ckd By. AVM ale: 1 " =2325ft
ESP ProjoatNo: T1315100
QAP o
Site Boundary of
j/-
CUMMINS
U
1,550
3.100
6,200
9,300
12.400
FIGURE 1
Feet
HOSS
g

The primary goals were accomplished by
1 Establishing a forested system between the agricultural fields and the receiving waters
By doing this, nutrient (prtmanly nitrogen), pesticide and sediment input into surface
waters of the Neuse River Basin was drastically reduced
2 Eliminating non -point sources of pollution, such as fertilizers, pesticides, and other
agricultural materials and providing a vegetated buffer adjacent to on -Site ditches to treat
any surface runoff
3 Improving wildlife habitat by creating a forested riparian corridor
A Buffer Restoration Plan was completed for the project in March 2006 (submitted in July
2006) Upon completion of the detailed plan, Bruton Nurseries and Landscapes planted the Site
in April 2006 ESP Associates, P A completed an as -built Mitigation Report in August 2006
Information on project managers, owners, and contractors follows
Owner Information
Restoration Systems, L L C
George Howard and John Preyer
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 107
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
(919) 755 -9490
Designer Information Planting Contractor and Monitoring Performer Information
ESP Associates, P A Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Adam McIntyre (Previously Bruton Nurseries & Landscapes)
14001 Weston Parkway Charlie Bruton
Suite 100 P O Box 1197
Cary, North Carolina 27513 Fremont, North Carolina 27830
(919) 678 -1070
2.0 VEGETATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Monitoring procedures for vegetation were designed in accordance with Stream Mitigation
Guidelines (USACE et al 2003) and the Draft Internal Guidance for Vegetation Monitoring
Plans for NCWRP Riparian Buffer and Wetland Restoration Projects (undated) A general
discussion of the plant community restoration monitoring program is provided Monitoring of
restoration efforts will be performed for a minimum of 5 years or until success criteria are
fulfilled The locations of monitoring plots are shown in Figure 2
Little Buffalo Buffer Restoration Site page 3
Annual Monitoring Report September 2009
Year 4 (2009) Restoration Systems, LLC

During the first, second, third, and fourth years, vegetation received visual evaluation on a
periodic basis to determine the degree of overtopping of planted species by nuisance species
Quantitative sampling was conducted in early fall of the first year, and again in early fall of
consecutive years Subsequently, quantitative sampling of vegetation will be performed between
September 15 and November 1 of each monitoring year for five years or until the vegetation
success criteria are achieved
Five sample transects were installed within planted areas of the Site shortly after replanting to
equally represent the Site (Figure 2) Each transect is 200 feet in length and 12 feet in width
(0 055 acre) In each sample plot, vegetation parameters that were monitored include species
composition and species density Photographs of the vegetation plots are, included in Appendix
A
2.1 Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component is dependent upon
density and growth of "Character Tree Species" (Table 1), as well as recruited seedlings from
adjacent forested communities Character tree species include planted species as well as those
observed in forest stands near the Site
Table 1. Character Tree Species
Character Tree Species
American elm (Ulmus americana)
Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
Cherrybark oak (Quercus falcata)
Chickasaw plum (Prunus angustifolia)
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
Paw paw (Asimina triloba)
River birch (Betula nigra)
Red twig dogwood (Cornus sericea)
Swamp black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)
Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
Southern crabapple (Malus angustifolia)
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
Sweetbay (Magnolia virgintana)
Water hickory(Carya aguatica)
Vegetation success criteria for the Site will be the existence of an overall density of at least 320
stems per acre five years after the initial planting Additional seedlings are expected to be
Little Buffalo Buffer Restoration Site page 4
Annual Monitoring Report September 2009
Year 4 (2009) Restoration Systems, LLC

1
recruited to the Site from adjacent forested communities These individuals may also be counted
in the overall success rate for the Site provided they are native hardwood tree species
If vegetation success criteria are not achieved based on average density calculations from
combined plots over the entire restoration area, supplemental planting may be performed with
Character Tree Species Supplemental planting will be performed as needed until vegetation
success criteria are achieved
No quantitative sampling requirements are proposed for herb assemblages as part of the
vegetation success criteria Visual estimates of the percent cover of herbaceous species will be
noted and documented through periodic photographs Photographs of the vegetation plots are
included in Appendix A
2.2 Vegetation Sampling Results and Comparison to Success Criteria
Quantitative sampling of vegetation was conducted in September 2009 Results are provided in
Table 2 Vegetation success criteria for Year 4 (320 stems per acre) were exceeded for the 2009
annual monitoring year with 1066 tree stems per acre across the Site All individual vegetation
plots met success criteria and had good species diversity with 5 to 11 Character Tree Species
present within each plot
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
In summary, vegetation plots across the Site were above the required 320 stems per acre with an
average of 1066 tree stems per acre in the Fourth Monitoring Year (Year 2009) All individual
vegetation plots met success criteria and had good species diversity with 5 to 11 Character Tree
Species present within each plot
Little Buffalo Buffer Restoration Site page 5
Annual Momtonng Report September 2009
Year 4 (2009) Restoration Systems, LLC

�RE
A tz
�so
s
0
d
y
N
y
Q
o C,
Vi .8j
b
EliEl

TABLE 2
2009 VEGETATION MONITORING DATA AND RESULTS
Note: Each plot totals 0.055 acre in size
Species*
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
Plot 5
Total
Stems
for
Plots 1-
5
Total
Stems/Acre
CbMder Trae S wont toward sueeese
uercus alcata (cherrybark oak
4
1
4
2
0
11
200
Fraxinus pennsylvanica (green ash)
1
3
2
4
0
10
182
Betula ni ra river birch)
0
0
0
2
0
2
36
N ssa s lvatica (swamp blac m
1
0
0
0
1 0
1
18
uercus michauxii (swamp chestnut oak
1
0
0
2
0
3
55
Ca rya s uatica (water hickory)
0
2
0
0
0
2
36
uercus phellos willow oak
10
6
6
1
3
26
473
Cornus sericea (red twig dogwood)
0
3
0
1
0
4
73
Prunus an usti olia (chickasaw plum)
1
2
0
0
1
4
73
Cornus amomum (silky dogwood)
0
1
0
1
0
2
36
Ulmus americana (American elm)
3
0
2
1
1
7
127
Celtis laevi ata (su arbe )
2
0
1
0
0
3
55
Platanus occidentalis (sycamore)
7
5
2
0
2
16
291
Liriodendron tut' i era (yellow poplar)
2
3
7
2
3
17
309
Asimina triloba (paw paw)
2
0
3
0
0
5
91
Malus an usti ra southern crabapple)
1
2
0
1
0
4
73
Magnolia vir iniana sweetba)
6
3
8
1
5
23
419
Acer rubrum (red maple)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Li uidambar slyraciflua (sweet um)
44
25
36
22
26
153
2785
TOTAL STEMS/PLOT
85
56
71
40
1 41
293
TOTAL STEMS /ACRE
1547
1019
1292
728
746
1 5332
AVERAGE TOTAL STEMS /ACRE (PLOTS
1 -5)
1066
*Planted species are in bold
Little Buffalo Buffer Restoration Site a 7
Annual Monitoring Report September 2009
Year 4 (2009) Restoration Systems, LLC

Table 3. Summary of Vegetation Plot Results
Plot
Stems/Acre Countin
e Towards Success Cnteria
Year 1
(2006)
Year 2
(2007)
Year 3
(2008 )
Year 4
(2009)
Year 5
(2010)
1
1238
1401
1329
1547
2
801
801
910
1019
3
1055
1092
1292
1292
4
1074
710
673
728
5
637
874
673
746
,
Average (Plots 1 -5)
961
976
975
1066
4.0 LITERATURE CITED
North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) Undated Draft Internal Guidance for
Vegetation Monitoring Plans for NCWRP Riparian Buffer and Wetland Restoration
Projects North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh,
North Carolina
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2003
Stream Mitigation Guidelines State of North Carolina
Little Buffalo Buffer Restoration Site page 8
Annual Monitoring Report September 2009
Year 4 (2009) Restoration Systems, LLC

APPENDIX A
VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

Little Buffalo Buffer Restoration Site
Year 4 (2009) Annual Monitoring Report
Vegetation Plot Photographs Taken September 2009
Plot 1
Plot 2

Plot 3
Plot 4

Plot 5