20100516 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20130212

UT ALTAMAHAW SITE
EEP Project No. 92837
MONITORING YEAR 1 (2012) DRAFT SUBMITTAL
Construction Completed February 2011
Alamance County, NC
State Construction Project No. 09- 0762301
Prepared for the
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
FEB 1 9 2013
Mlft - WATER (QUALITY
_Wetlands Siwater Branch
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Ill 111[1����11 l�l
rROCannt 4T
RECEIVED
NC ECOSYS'TF-Wl
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

Prepared by:
ECOLOGICAL
ENGINEERING
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Cary, NC 27518
919 557 0929
G Lane Sauls, Jr , Principal
This assessment and report are consistent with NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Template Version 13 (1115110) for EEP Monitonng Reports

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY /PROJECT ABSTRACT ...................................... ............................... 1
1.1 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................ ............................... 1
1.2 Vegetation Condition and Comparison to Success Criteria ................. ............................... 2
1.3 Stream Stability /Condition and Comparison to Success Criteria ......... ............................... 2
1.4 Other Information ................................................................................ ............................... 2
2.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................... ............................... 3
3.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................... ..............................3
APPENDIX A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
APPENDIX B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2. Monitoring Plan View
Figure 3. Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Photograph Comparisons
APPENDIX C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
APPENDIX D. Hydrologic Data
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Monthly Rainfall Data Comparison Chart
Note: Tables 5, 10 and 11 are not included as part of this monitoring assessment and report due to the
required protocols associated with the monitoring of this project.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ PROJECT ABSTRACT
The UT Altamahaw Site is located within HUC 03030002 and sub -basin 03 -06 -02 of the Cape Fear River Basin in
Alamance County, North Carolina (Figure 1). It includes portions of two unnamed tributaries (UTs) to
Altamahaw Creek. The enhancement lengths of the main and secondary channels are 1,347 and 130 linear
feet, respectively. In addition, 0.026 acres of wetlands were enhanced as part of the overall project. The UT
Altamahaw Site is protected for perpetuity under a conservation easement purchased from Mr. Charles Hursey
Sr., Charles Hursey II, Christopher Hursey and Carey Hursey in 2008. Project restoration components, activity
and reporting history, contacts and attribute data are all provided in Appendix A.
1.1 Goals and Objectives
The Project's goals were to:
• reduce nutrient and sediment water quality stressors,
• provide for uplift in water quality functions,
• improve instream and wetland aquatic habitats, including riparian terrestrial habitats, and
• provide for greater overall instream and wetland habitat complexity and quality.
Stream enhancement, the primary project component, served as the dominant input for achieving this goal.
These goals were consistent with the Travis and Tickle Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP). The LWP, completed
in 2008, identified six goals; two of which are met by the Project. These are (1) to improve water quality
through stormwater management and (2) identify and rank parcels for retrofits, stream repair, preservation
and /or conservation. The Project improved the emergency spillway associated with the existing pond
immediately upstream of the Project Site and the existing stream crossing to further prevent erosion into the
main stream channel. It also included the design and installation of a modified level spreader to diffuse surface
flows from the nearby pasture through a vegetated buffer. In addition, the Site was also one of the specific
areas identified through the stakeholder process associated with the LWP.
The LWP process identified nine key watershed stressors and their corresponding management strategies.
These stressors were identified via the local stakeholder groups including EEP, Piedmont Land Conservancy,
Haw River Assembly, Piedmont Triad Council of Governments, Alamance and Guilford Counties, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Cities of Burlington and Graham, Towns of Elon and Gibsonville, NC Division of
Water Quality, NC Wildlife Resources Commission and Resource Conservation & Development. The UT to
Altamahaw Stream Enhancement Project combats six of those stressors with the following strategies:
Kev Watershed Stressors
Stream bank erosion
Lack of adequate buffer
Stormwater runoff
Livestock access to streams
Nutrients
Fecal coliform
Management Strategies
Riparian buffers & livestock exclusion
Riparian buffers & livestock exclusion
Stormwater BMPs
Livestock exclusion
Agricultural BMPs, riparian buffers & stormwater BMPs
Agricultural BMPs & stormwater BMPs
The objectives were to exclude livestock in their entirety from the easement area and install plantings
designed to maintain vertical stability, lateral stability and habitat, as well as re- vegetate and supplement
Draft Monitoring Report Year 1 (2012)
UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page 1
December, 2012

those areas lacking suitable vegetation along the easement area An alternative water supply was provided
and the existing crossing was Improved to prevent further erosion In addition, enhancement of the auxiliary
spillway associated with the pond Immediately upstream of the Site and construction of a modified level
spreader to combat surface flows from the pasture were also completed as part of Implementation activities
Ultimately, this supplemental planting will provide Increased opportunities for the filtration of pollutants and
nutrients prior to entering the stream channel as well as, the stabilization of sediment along the associated
stream banks
1.2 Vegetation Condition and Comparison to Success Criteria
Vegetation success criteria at the Site is consistent with the USACE Wilmington Regulatory District's guidance
for wetland mitigation which documents the survival of a minimum of 320 planted woody stems /acre after
Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) The mortality rate of 10% will be allowed after MY4 assessments (288 stems /acre)
and correspondingly, MY5 assessments (260 stems /acre) Invasive, exotic species were present prior to
implementation and criteria will also include the removal of all such species prior to project closeout
Vegetation Is currently being assessed using plot layouts consistent with the EEP /Carolina Vegetation Survey
(CVS) Level II Vegetation Protocol Stem count data is ascertained from five permanently placed 10- meter 2
vegetation plots (Figure 2) Assessments included counts of both planted and natural stems Based on this
year's monitoring effort, only one of the five vegetation plots met the minimum success criteria Stem counts
ranged from approximately 100 to 350 planted stems per acre and approximately 350 to 1,350 total stems per
acre across the site Prior to baseline assessments, It was discovered that cattle had accessed the easement
area between the completion of implementation activities and baseline assessments Damages were
unrealized at the time, however, based on recent vegetation counts, it appears that overall seedling mortality
can be attributed to this occurrence in addition to common mortality rationales such as drought, Inferior
specimens, etc
Appendices B and C depict more detailed information regarding the vegetation condition, including annual
photograph comparisons
1.3 Stream Stability /Condition and Comparison to Success Criteria
No in- channel enhancement activities were conducted as part of this project Assessments include only annual
photograph comparisons and monitoring of hydrology associated with the channel A minimum of two bankfull
events must be documented within the standard five -year monitoring period In order for the hydrology -based
monitoring to be considered complete, the two events must occur in separate monitoring years
During November 2011, at least one bankfull event occurred This was prior to installation of the crest gage
though construction was complete No bankfull events were reported during 2012 Annual photograph
comparisons of the stream channels are depicted in Appendix B and hydrologic data associated with this year's
monitoring assessment Is provided In Appendix D
1.4 Other Information
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 Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly the
Draft Monitoring Report Year 1 (2012) Page 2
UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP December, 2012

Restoration Plan) documents available on EEP's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices is available from EEP upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
This monitoring report follows methodology consistent with EEP's Procedural Guidance and Content
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports (Version 1.3, dated 1/15/10), available at EEP's website
(http: / /www.nceep.net).
Vegetation assessments were conducted using the CVS -EEP protocol (Version 4.2). As part of this protocol,
vegetation is assessed using 100- meter 2 plots, or modules. The scientific method requires that measurements
be as unbiased as possible, and that they be repeatable. Plots are designed to achieve both of these objectives;
in particular, different people should be able to inventory the same plot and produce similar data (Lee et. al.,
2006).
According to Lee et. al. (2006), there are many different goals in recording vegetation, and both time and
resources for collecting plot data are extremely variable. To provide appropriate flexibility in project design,
the CVS -EEP protocol supports five distinct types of vegetation plot records, which are referred to as levels in
recognition of the increasing level of detail and complexity across the sequence. The lower levels require less
detail and fewer types of information about both vegetation and environment, and thus are generally sampled
with less time and effort (Lee et. al., 2006). Level 1 (Planted Stem Inventory Plots) and Level 2 (Total Woody
Stem Inventory Plots) inventories were completed on all five of the vegetation plots at the Project Site.
Level 1 plots are applicable only for restoration areas with planted woody stems. The primary purpose is to
determine the pattern of installation of plant material with respect to species, spacing, and density, and to
monitor the survival and growth of those installed plants. Level 1 plots are one module in size (Lee et. al.,
2006).
Level 2 plots also are designed specifically for restoration areas and represent a superset of information
collected for Level 1 plots. In these plots planted woody stems are recorded exactly as for Level 1, but in
addition all woody stems resulting from natural regeneration are recorded by size class using separate
datasheets. These plots allow an accurate and rapid assessment of the overall trajectory of woody -plant
restoration and regeneration on a site. Level 2 plots are one module in size (Lee et. al., 2006).
A crest gage was installed near the downstream end of the Site along the main UT. This gage will verify the on-
site occurrences of bankfull events. In addition to the crest gage, observations of wrack and deposition will
also serve to validate gage observations, as necessary. Documentation of the highest stage during the
monitoring interval will be assessed during each Site visit and the gage will be reset. The data related to
bankfull verification will be summarized in each year's report. Based on the elevation of the crest gage, any
readings observed higher than 12 inches on the gage will reflect a bankfull or above bankfull event.
3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts and T.R. Wentworth, 2006. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.0 (http: / /cvs.bio.unc.edu /methods.htm).
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 2012. UT Altamahaw Creek Baseline Monitoring Document and
As -built Baseline Report. Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP.
Draft Monitoring Report Year 1 (2012)
UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page 3
December, 2012

NC State Climate Office, 2012 Dally Precipitation Data from Burlington /Alamance Airport (KBUY), Alamance
County (www nc- climate ncsu edu)
US Army Corps of Engineers, US Environmental Protection Agency, NC Wildlife Resources Commission and NC
Department of Environment Division of Water Quality, 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines
Draft Monitoring Report Year 1 (2012)
UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page 4
December, 2012

APPENDIX A.
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

•`4
J
V
moo
L
UT ALTAM AHAW -REEK A
4
V
4�-
-7
V*
Y
�Nl
7\
J
U h"' 0 Ir"V­'t,
�u
C-7
Q,
tk
0.
J
V
.J "IN
7:_j I
ly 1.1
awepso-
j
DIRECTIONS FROM 1-85/1-40 IN ALAMANCE COUNTY: Rock
Creek
ti Exit 140 (University Drive) — Proceed north for approximately 2.5 miles.
Left onto Shallowford Church Road — Proceed approximately one mile. a Saxapaha
Left onto NC 87- Proceed approximately 2.5 miles. Eli
Right onto Hub Mill Road — Proceed approximately 0.75 miles. Whitney
Right onto Altamahaw Union Ridge Road — Proceed approx. one mile SnowCamp
Randolph,
Turn right onto unnamed gravel roadway — Proceed approx. 0.25 miles. county
Enter site at metal gate on right. Chalharn
County
PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP
UT Altarnahaw Creek Site
Alarnance County, NC FIGURE
sotem EEP Project No. 92837 SCO Project No.09-0762301
December 3, 2012
1 IM 1011clit Sources: NCDOT and NC Atlas & Gazetteer. USGS Maps Ossipee and Lake Burlington
rgocgnza

r (Y\5 = i4_11 -13a.s sMk.s
0.03a� ©.CIS Rwn.yLs
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT Altamahaw/ 92837
Mitigation Credits
Phosphorus Nitrogen
Stream
Riparian
Offset Offset
Type R
RE R RE R I RE
Totals 738.5
0.013
Project Components
Restoration Existing Footage/ .
Component Project
Rip. Non - riverine
Approach .. Acreage
Equivalent Acreage
Northwest boundary 0.026 acres E 0.013 0.013 acres 2 to 1
UTAltamahaw
Center of Project Area 1,347linearfeet
Ell 673.5
673.51f 2 t 1
Creek
UT to UT
Southwest boundary 130linearfeet
Ell 65
651f
2to1
Altamahaw Creek
Component Summation
Non-riparian
Riparian Wetland (acres) Upland
Restoration Level
Restoration
Stream (linear feet)
(acres) (square feet) (acres)
Enhancement
0.026 acres
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
1,4771inearfeet '
Creation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Pur se /Function
Notes
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretention
Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Dentention
Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S = Grassed Swale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer.

Table 3. Project Contact Table
UT Altamahaw/ 92837
Designer
Firm Information/ Address
Ecological Engineering, LLP
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101, Cary, NC 27518
Jenn S. Fleming, PE
919 557 -0929
Construction Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
Riverworks, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 800, Cary, NC 27518
Bill Wright
919 459 -9001
Planting Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
Riverworks, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 800, Cary, NC 27518
George Morris
919 459 -9001
Seeding Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
Riverworks, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 800, Cary, NC 27518
George Morris
919 459 -9001
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource 336 855 -6363
Nursery Stock Suppliers
ArborGen (843) 851 -4129
Cure Nursery (919) 542 -6186
Foggy Mo u n to i n N u rs e ry ( 336) 384 -5323
Mellow Marsh Farm (919) 742 -1200
Su a ri o r Tre a 850 971 -5159
Monitoring Performer
Firm Information/ Address
Ecological Engineering, LLP
1151 SE Ca ry Pa rkwa y, Suite 101, Cary, N C 27518
G. Lane Sauls Jr. (stream, vegetation & wetland)
(919) 557 -0929

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
UT Altamahaw/ 92837
Project Information
•
LITAltamahaw
Alamance
•
3.6 acres
• - .. .
. . 36 °10'43.56" North/ 79 °28'37.91" West
Project Watershed Summary Information
.• .. • .
Piedmont
Ca a Fear
. • .: :.
3030002 3030002030010
• ...
03.06.02
• -
0.51 s q. mi. 334 acres
•
Less than 1%
Agricultural Land
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach 1
Reach 2
•
1,347linearfeet
130linearfeet
ValleyType VIII ValleyType VIII
-
0.51 s q. mi. 334 acres 0.39 s q. mi. 251 acres
• • 0
46.75 39.25
• • •
. C NSW C NSW
• ..• •
C /E5 C /E5
•
E- C- G -F -E -C E- C- G -F -E -C
.• .. -.
Worsham sandy loam Worsham sandy loam
Poorl drained Poorl drained
H dricA H dricA
.. -
0 to 3% 0 to 3%
Zone AE - lower end Zone AE - lower end
Piedmont Alluvial Forest Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Less than 5% Less than 5%
Wetland Summary Information
0.026 acres
Seepage
..
Worsham sandy loam
Poorl drained
H dricA
.. •
Groundwater
... • ..
None
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
.. .
Less than 5%
Regulatory Considerations
Resolved
•
�� Resolved
.. • •
Resolved
Resolved
..
NotApplicable
• •.. . .
Resolved
NotApplicable

APPENDIX B.
Visual Assessment Data

S
—'W —
9t
�!6
r~
7
1{',I 71I CIleiCilt
raooa v�
1 -.
01145
6��gxx
J
SP
11 s d -
pilag e
MONITORING PLAN VIEW
UT to Altamahaw Site
EEP Project No. 92837
Alamance County, NC
December 3, 2012
FIGURE 2

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
UT Altamahaw/ 92837
Vegetation
Category
Definitions
Mapping CCPV
Threshold Depiction
Number of
Combined
% Planted
Very limited cover of both woody and
0.1 ac n/a
0
0
0
1. Bare Areas
herbaceous material
2. Low Stem
Woody stem densities clearly below target
0.1 ac
n/a
4
3.7
80
Density Areas
levels based on MY 3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria
Totall
4
3.7
0
3. Areas of Poor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that
0.25
0
0
0
Growth Rates or
area obviously small given the monitoring year
ac
n/a
Vigor
Cumulative Totall
0
1 0
0
Easement Acreage 4.6
4. Invasive Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as none n/a 0 0 0
polygons at map scale)
5. Easement
Encroachment Areas or points (if too small to render as none n/a 0 0 0
polygons at map scale)
Areas

Photostation Comparison
UT Altamahaw Site - Monitoring Year 1 (2012)
Photo # and Location
Photostation 1. Facing south
east along y -axis of Vegetation
Plot 1.
Photostation 2. Facing south
across Vegetation Plot 1.
Photostation 3. Facing northeast
towards Vegetation Plot 1.
Photostation 4. Facing east
(upstream) along LIT Altamahaw
Creek.
Photostation 5. Facing north
from east corner of existing
crossing.
Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012

Photostation Comparison
Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012
Page 2
Photostation 6. Facing
southwest from south corner of
existing crossing.
Photostation 7. Facing south
along UT Altamhaw Creek from
existing crossing.
Photostation 8. Facing
southwest from corner at
existing west corner of crossing.
Photostation 9. Facing upstream
along UT Altamahaw Creek
north of Vegetation Plot 2.
Photostation 10. Facing north
along x -axis of Vegetation Plot

Photostation Comparison
Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012
Page 3
Photostation 11. Facing
northwest across Vegetation
Plot 2.
Photostation 12. Facing west at
riparian area from Vegetation
Plot 2.
Photostation 13. Facing
upstream along UTAltamahaw
Creek.
Photostation 14. Facing
downstream along UT
Altamahaw Creek.
Photostation 15. Facing north
along x -axis of Vegetation Plot

Photostation Comparison
Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012
Page 4
Photostation 16. Facing
northwest across Vegetation
Plot 3.
Photostation 17. Facing north
along x -axis of Vegetation Plot 4.
Photostation 18. Facing
northwest across Vegetation
Plot 4.
Photostation 19. Facing
northwest along easement
boundary.
Photostation 20. Facing
northeast along easement
boundary.

Photostation Comparison
Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012
Page 5
Photostation 21. Facing
downstream along UT
Altamahaw Creek at the crest
gage.
Photostation 22. Facing
downstream along UT
Altamahaw Creek.
Photostation 23. Facing
upstream along UTAltamahaw
Creek.
Photostation 24. Facing
northwest along southern
easement boundary.
Photostation 25. Facing
northwest along southern
easement boundary.

Photostation Comparison
Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012
Page 6
Photostation 26. Facing north
along x -axis of Vegetation Plot
Photostation 27. Facing
northwest across Vegetation
Plot 5.
Photostation 28. Facing
downstream from confluence of
two unnamed tributaries.

APPENDIX C.
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
UT Altamahaw/ 92837
Report Prepared By
Vegetation Plot
1
ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met? Tract
No
Mean
100%
2
No
100%
3
No
100%
4
Yes
100%
5
No
100%
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
UT Altamahaw Creek (EEP Project No. 92837)
Report Prepared By
Lane Sauls
Date Prepared
10/30/2012 10:43
database name
Ecol ogi ca I Engi nee ri ng- 2012 -UTAI to ma ha wYe a rl -A.md b
S: \Projects \50000 State \EEP 50512 \50512 -001 EEP Alta ma ha w
database location
Creek\MONITORI NG\Yea r 12012
computer name
LANE
file size 136397056
DESCRIPTION OF •
DOCUMENT
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summa ry of
Metadata
project(s) and project data.
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This
Proj, planted
excludes live stakes.
Each project is listed with its TOTALstems peracre, foreach year. This
Proj, total stems
includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems.
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead
Plots
stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequencydistribution of vigor classes listed byspecies.
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent
Damage
of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied bytype foreach species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied bytype for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot;
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
dead and missing stems are excluded.
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural
ALLStems Plotands
volunteers combinedl foreach lot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT
92837
Project Code
project Name
UT ALTAMAHAW
Description
Stream enhancement
River Basin
Cape Fear
length(ft)
1347
stream - to-edge width (ft)
50
area (sq m)
12512.77
Required Plots (calculated)
5
Sampled Plots
10

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
UT Altamahaw Site (EEP Proiect No. 92837)
ii6fty r 3 Success Criteria)
Yo
less than 10%
Faf s o mee re Ire ents by less than 101A
by more than 10%
Other Colors
Indicates that vol unteer sped es exist within plot
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
TYPE
PLOT 1
CURRENT
PLOT 2
DATA (MY 12012)
PLOT 3
PLOT 4
PLOT S
ANNUAL
CURRENT MEAN
MEANS
AS BUILT
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
Acer ne undo
boxelder
Tree
1
1
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
1
3
Betula ni ra
river birch
Tree
2
1
3
1
1
1
12
2
19
1
1
Cornus Florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
1
1
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
1
7
7
7
7
Li ustrum sinense
Chinese privet
Tree
1
1
Li q uidambars tyra ciflua
sweet um
Tree
8
8
Liriodendron tuli ifera
tuli tree
Tree
1
1
Ox dendrum arboreum
Sourwood
Tree
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
Quercus s .
Oakspecies
Tree
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
3
3
1
1
8
8
11
11
Rhus sp.
sumac
Shrub
1
1
2
Salixnigra
black willow
Shrub
1
1
2
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
1
1
2
2
Unknown
Tree
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
PLOT AREA (ACRES)
sPEOEs COUNT
STEM COUNT
STEMS PER ACRE
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.1
0.1
2 7
6
9
5 9
7 9
5
27
25
61
35
37
1 5
4
6
3 5
3 5
5
9
6
15
10
11
350
300
450
450
450
1350
610
370
ii6fty r 3 Success Criteria)
Yo
less than 10%
Faf s o mee re Ire ents by less than 101A
by more than 10%
Other Colors
Indicates that vol unteer sped es exist within plot

APPENDIX D.
Hydrology Data

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT Altamahaw/ 92837
Date of Data Date of Occurrence
n /a* Nove m be r 3 & 4, 2012 NCState Climate Office None
* Based on dailyrainfall data priorto installation of Crest Gage. Approximately 2.4 inches of
rain was recorded over span of two days.
UT Altarnshaw Site 30 -70 P6meritile Graph tar Rainfall - MunitoAng Year 1 12011 - 20121, Alarnance Cwmty, NC
in
"0"1 itaVion Data
3,OPR
- -70%
8
t
c
I.w
d 2 1n
7 a a
m c o