20051061 Ver 1_Closeout Request_20130220 (5)

05- a i
(
Ecosystem
PROGRAM
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Eric Kulz
THROUGH:
Tim Baumgartner
FROM:
Melonie Allen
DATE:
February 20, 2013
RE:
Closeout Request for Ut Rocky River Mitigation Site (EEP IMS #402)
The Ut to Rocky River Mitigation Site is located in Chatham County in the Cape Fear 03
watershed. The 5a' year monitoring for the site concluded in December 2011. While in the field
reviewing 2012 Piedmont Close Out sites, buffer assets were evaluated by DWQ (Eric Kulz) and
EEP (Tim Baumgartner) staff on June 12, 2012. Based on the onsite review, EEP requests
closure of the site's buffer assets generating 7,405.20 sq. ft (.17 ac.) of buffer mitigation.
Perpetual site protection will be determined by:
NC DOT
Office of Natural Environment
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1548
Please find attached a link to the Ut Rocky River 5t' year monitoring report, the project debit
ledger, and a map detailing the final enumeration of credits. We respectfully request your
concurrence to officially close out the buffer assets of the Ut to Rocky River Mitigation Project.
cc Jeff Jurek
Jim Stanfill
File

Buffer Asset Map Ut Rocky River
Appendix A.
Figure 1.1. Avaiable Buffer Mitigation Credits
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
_ - M
�EEx
yW6
uW
2
C�
i m C C
fir;
W
~ 2
a xx
J`�I Jl

Mitigation Project Name
UT to Rocky River (Smith Tract)
IMS ID #
402
River Basin
CAPE FEAR
Cataloging Unit
03030003
Project Type
Riparian Buffer Mitigation
Comment: The project was funded by the Statewide ILF Program and verified buffer assets were sold to the Riparian Buffer Restoration Program.
Annlied Credit Ratios' 1'1 1.5.1 2 51 51 1'1 3'1 2'1 51 1'1 3'1 21 5'.1 1'1 3'1 21 5 1 1'1 3.1 2 273 1 lhs /ac 146 41hs /ac
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 2/12/2013
All buffer mitigation debits valid as of 2/12/2013.
C
O
C
d
C
2
�1
2
-•
E
N
N
O
cCo
nC �
n ii
a Z
s c
a
_
Z
o.
zM
U
z
°L
z
w
U
U
U W
O
Z
a
Z
Beginning Balance (square feet)
7,45.20
Beginning Balance (credits)
EEP Debits (credits):
DWQ Permits
Impact Project Name
DOT - Greensboro Western Urban Loop-Randleman
2003 -0909
Wate
7,405.20
Remaining Balance (credits)
6-661
1 0.001
0.00
Information from EEP Debit Ledger dated 2/12/2013
All buffer mitigation debits valid as of 2/12/2013.

Considering this submittal is for buffer asset review only, some
stream data removed to reduce printing volume. For full report see
the following link http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /eep /research -and-
data.
UT ROCKY RIVER STREAM RESTORATION — NCEEP Project #402
2011 FINAL MONITORING REPORT — YEAR 5
CONDUCTED FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Submitted on February 27, 2012 to:
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
�S teIll } 152 Mail Service Center
�()S
t Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
rROCw�M

UT ROCKY RIVER STREAM RESTORATION — NCEEP Project #402
2011 FINAL MONITORING REPORT — YEAR 5
CONDUCTED FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary ............................................................... ............................... 1
2.0 Methodology ............................................................................ ..............................2
21 Stream Methodology 2
22 Vegetation Methodology ... 2
3.0 References ................................................................................ ..............................3
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 10
Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 10
Project Restoration Components
Figure 1 1
Buffer Mitigation Credits
Table 2 0
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 0
Project Contacts Table
Table 4 0
Project Attribute Table
Appendix B.
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2 0 -2 1
Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5 0
Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table 6 0
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Figures 3 0 -3.3
Stream Station Photos
Figures 4 0 -4 2
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7.0 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Table 8 0 Vegetation Metadata
Table 9 0 Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Report Supplemental Planting Report
UT Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream Restoration 2011 Final Monitoring Report
EEP Project #402 Year 5 of 5
RJG &A

Appendix D.
Stream Survey Data
Figures 5 0 -5.4
Cross sections with Annual Overlays
Figures 6 0 -6.2
Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figures 7 0 -7 4
Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Tables 10.0
Baseline Stream Data Summary Table
Table 11 0
Monitoring— Cross - Section Morphology Data Table
Table 11.1
Monitoring— Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Appendix E.
Hydrologic Data
Table 12 0
Verification of Bankfull Events
UT Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream Restoration 2011 Final Monitoring Report
EEP Project #402 Year 5 of 5
RIG &A

1.0 Executive Summary
The goals of the UT Rocky River Stream Restoration Project are to.
• Improve water quality and reduce erosion through restricting cattle access and
improved riparian buffers,
• Improve aquatic habitat using natural material stabilization structures; and
• Provide aesthetic value, wildlife habitat, and bank stability through
restoration/enhancement of the riparian zone
The objectives for this restoration are to
• Exclude cattle from Reach 1,
• Enhance approximately 150 feet of Reach 1 and stabilize an additional 955 feet of
the same reach;
• Reconnect Reach 2 to its floodplam,
• Provide a stable channel for both reaches in terms of pattern, profile, and
dimension, and
• Provide a conservation easement and enhance /restore portions of the buffer for
both reaches
The average live planted woody stem density (472 live stems per acre) has exceeded the
vegetation success criteria (260 live stems per acre in Year 5) by 81 percent Planted
vegetation survival in the two vegetation plots in Reach 1 do not met the success criteria,
however planted stem density along Reach 1 has increased due to a supplemental
planting along the left bank of Reach Ion March 11, 2011 A total of 145 stems were
planted. Additional details about this planting can be found in Appendix C Three
sections along Reach 2 qualify for riparian buffer credit. Planted stem density in these
areas exceeds the required 320 stems /acre Invasive exotics were treated throughout the
conservation easement in the summer of 2010 and 2011
Overall, the restoration project appears to have met morphological goals The enhanced
sections of Reach 1 are stable Flowing water was present in the Reach 2 channel during
the initial 2011 assessment conducted, but there was no flow during the August 2011 site
visits The lack of flow during the summer and fall assessments in 2011 corresponds
with similar findings in 2007 through 2010 The overgrown channel hampered visual
assessment, but overall the channel appears to be stable
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 is available from EEP upon request
UT Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream Restoration 2011 Final Monitoring Report
EEP Project #402 Year 5 of 5
RJG &A Page I

2.0 Methodology
Monitoring methodologies follow the current EEP- provided templates and guidelines
(Lee et al 2006) Photographs were taken digitally A Trimble Geo XT handheld
mapping -grade unit was used to collect cross section, vegetation corner, photopoint, and
problem area locations All problem areas identified on the spring 2011 versions of the
CCPV were re- evaluated
2.1. Stream Methodology
Methods employed were a combination of those specified in the Mitigation Plan, the First
Annual Monitoring Report, and standard regulatory guidance and procedures documents
Stream monitoring data was collected using the techniques described in USACE Stream
Mitigation Guidelines, US Forest Service's Stream Channel Reference Sites, and Applied
River Morphology ( USACE, 2003, Harrelson et al , 1994, Rosgen, 1996). A South Total
Station and Nikon automatic level were used for collecting all geomorphic data.
Photographs facing upstream were taken at each cross section
2.2. Vegetation Methodology
A total of six representative vegetation survey plots were selected and installed in the
Reaches 1 and 2 by Ward Engineering in 2007. All plots measure 100 square meters in
area and are five meters by 20 meters Pursuant to the guidelines, the four corners of
each plot (0,0, 0,20, 5,0, and 5,20.) are marked with metal pipe
Level 1 (planted woody stems) and Level 2 (volunteer woody stems) data collection was
performed in all plots, pursuant to the most recent CVS/EEP protocol (Lee et al 2006)
Within each plot, each planted woody stem location (x and y) was recorded, and height
and live stem diameter were recorded for each stem location All planted stems were
identified with pink flagging Vegetation was identified using Weakley ( Weakley 2007)
Photos were taken of each vegetation plot from the 0,0 corner
UT Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream Restoration 2011 Final Monitoring Report
EEP Project #402 Year 5 of 5
RJG &A Page 2

3.0 References
Harrelson, Cheryl, C L Rawlins, and John Potpondy (1994) Stream Channel
Reference Sates An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique USDA, Forest Service
General Technical Report RM -245
Lee, Michael T , Peet, Robert K , Roberts, Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. (2006).
CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4 0 Retrieved October 30, 2006,
from http: / /www nceep net / business /monitoring/veg /datasheets htm
Radford, A E, H.E Ahles, and C R. Bell (1968) Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC
Robert J Goldstein & Associates (RJG &A) (2009). UT to Rocky River (Smith Tract)
Stream and Buffer Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation, Chatham County, North
Carolina Final Monitoring Report February 15, 2008
Rosgen, D L. (1996) Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa
Springs, CO
Rosgen, DL (1997). "A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers.
In Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel
Incision, ed S S Y. Wang, E J. Langendoen and F B Shields, Jr University of
Mississippi Press, Oxford, MS
USACOE (2003) Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACOE, USEPA, NCWRC,
NCDENR -DWQ
Ward Consulting Engineering (2007) UT to Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream and
Buffer Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation, Chatham County, North Carolina
Mitigation Report March 20, 2007
Ward Consulting Engineering (2008) UT to Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream and
Buffer Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation, Chatham County, North Carolina
Final Monitoring Report. February 15, 2008
Weakley, Alan (2007) Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding
Areas Retrieved March 27, 2007 from. http / /www herbarium unc edu/flora htm
UT Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream Restoration 2011 Final Monitoring Report
EEP Project #402 Year 5 of 5
RJG &A Page 3

Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 10
Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 10
Project Restoration Components
Figure 1 1
Buffer Mitigation Credits
Table 2 0
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3.0
Project Contacts Table
Table 4 0
Project Attribute Table

UT Rocky River Stream Restoration (EEP Project #402)
Appendix A. Figure 1. Vicinity Map.
` J�
/i
Reach 2 � .. � � i �` �•
-/� Reach
► ., vV i Project Entrance
_ I.r
t
13
L-11
Figure 1. UT Rocky River Stream
Restoration - Chatham County -
NCEEP #402
r�
N
0 1,000 2,000
Wee1,
' f
Chatham County
o sa
L-11
Figure 1. UT Rocky River Stream
Restoration - Chatham County -
NCEEP #402
r�
N
0 1,000 2,000
Wee1,

Appendix A
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
Miti ation Credits
Stream
E2 222n Wetland
Non - riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient
Offset
,Type
R
I RE
R
I RE
R
I RE
Ratio
00 +00- 00 +47,
Totals
1 1111
1 443
1 0 1
0
0
1 0
017
0
0
Project Com onents
Project
Component or
Existing
Approach
(PI, PII,
Restorationor Restoration
Restoration
Footage or
Mitigation
Reach ID
Stationing/Location
Footage /Acreage
etc)
Equivalent
Acreage'
Ratio
00 +00- 00 +47,
Reach 1
00 +107 -08 +87
827
SS
Ell
827 LF
2 5 1
08 +87 -9 +10, 9 +50-
Reach 1
10 +95
U
P1
El
168 LF
1 51
Reach 2
00 +00 - 11 +11
U
P1
R
1,111 LF
1 1
Reach 2
00 +00 -11 +11
017
R
0 17 AC
1 1
Coin onent Summations
Restoration Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Buffer Upland
Level linear feet acres acres (square feet acres
Non- t
Rivenne I Rivenne
Restoration 1111 ® 7405
Enhancement
Enhancement 1 168 ®�
Enhancement II 827
Creation
Preservation ®�
HQ Preservation ®®
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function Notes
1 = In 2010 numbers were adjusted to exclude all ford crossings and bridges Any differences in asset numbers between the 2011
report and earlier reports are due to this adjustment
2 = BR = Bioretention Cell, SF = Sand Filter, SW = Stormwater Wetland, WDP = Wet Detention Pond,
DDP = Dry Detention Pond, FS = Filter Strip, Grassed Swale = S, LS = Level Spreader, NI = Natural Infiltration Area,
0 = Other, CF = Cattle Fencing, WS = Watering System, CH = Livestock Housing

Appendix A.
Figure 1.1. Available Buffer Mitigation Credits
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
H
E
S
Q
LL
W
W
z
z
V
CD N
w 0 C c
0 CO E
Q E °' m
iG a� 4 f0
_ c w
m � c
a Q o
m c
6
LL N G
Z M P S a° ci
ce

Appendix A
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 4 yrs l l months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 4 yrs 9 Months
Number of Reporting Years'* 5
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
2003
Apr-05
Final Design — 90%
NA
--
Construction
NA
Oct -06
Temporary S &E mix applied
NA
July 2006 (R1), Sept
2006 R2
Permanent seed mix applied
NA
July 2006 (R1), Sept
2006 (R2)
Bare Root Planting
NA
Dec -06
Mite ation Plan /As -built
--
Mar -07
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec -07
Qualitative Evaluation
Nov -07
Vegetation
Nov -10
Geomorphologic
Nov -07
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov -08
Qualitative Evaluation
Oct -08
Vegetation
Oct -08
Geomorphologic
Oct -08
Year 3 Monitoring
Nov -09
Qualitative Evaluation
Oct -09
Vegetation
Oct -09
Geomorphologic
Oct -09
Year 4 Monitoring
Oct -10
Qualitative Evaluation
Oct -10
Vegetation
Aug-1 0
Geomorphologic
Aug-1 0
Year 5 Monitoring
Sep -11
Qualitative Evaluation
Aug -11
Vegetation
Aug-1 1
Geomorphologic
Aug -11
Bolded items are examples of those items that are not standard, but may come up and should be included
Non - bolded items represent events that are standard components over the course of a typical project
part of this exhibit
If planting and morphology are on split monitoring schedules that should be made clear in the table
1 = Equals the number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline

Appendix A
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
Designer
Ward Consulting Engineers
8386 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615 -5088
Primary project design POC
Becky Ward
919 870 -0526
Construction Contractor
McQueen Construction
619 Patrick Road
Bahama, NC 27503
Construction contractor POC
Harvey McQueen
919 697 -0614
Survey Contractor
NA
Survey contractor POC
NA
Planting Contractor
Southern Garden Inc
P 0 Box 808
Apex, NC 27502
Planting contractor POC
NA
919 362 -1050
Seeding Contractor
McQueen Construction
619 Patrick Road
Contractor point of contact
Bahama, NC 27503
Harvey McQueen
919 697 -0614
Seed Mix Sources
Evergreen Seed
919 567 -1333
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Coastal Plain Consery Nursery, Inc (Edenton, NC)
Ellen Colodne 252 482 -5707
Cure Nursery (Pittsboro, NC)
Bill and Jennifer Cure 919 542 -6186
Brook Run Nursery (Blackstone, VA)
Howard Malinski 919 422 -8727
Monitoring Performers
Robert J Goldstein & Associates
1221 Corporation Parkway, Raleigh NC 27610
Stream Monitoring POC
Sean Doig, (919) 872 -1174
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Sean Doig, (919) 872 -1174
Wetland Monitoring POC
NA

Appendix A
Table 4. Project Attribute Table
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project 6402
Pro ect County
Chatham
Ph siogra hic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
45c Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project 14 digit
3030003070020
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
03 -06 -12
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan?
No
WRC Hab Class Warm, Cool, Cold
Warm
% of project easement fenced or demarcated
100%
Beaver activity observed during design hase?
NA
Restoration Component Attribute Table
Reach 1
Reach 2
Drainage area
128
021
Stream order
Second
First
Restored length feet
1095
1111
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Intermittent
Watershed type Rural, Urban, Developing etc
Rural
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution e
-
-
Residential
-
-
Ag -Row Crop
-
-
A - Livestock
-
-
Forested
-
-
Etc
-
-
Watershed impervious cover (% )
2%
1%
NCDWQ AU /Index number
17 -43 -9
17 -43 -9
NCDWQ classification
C
C
303d listed?
No
No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment'?
No
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
NA
NA
Total acreage of easement
568
342
Total vegetated acreage within the easement
-
-
Total planted acreage as part of the restoration
-
-
Ros en classification of pre-existing
C4 /E4
G4
Ros en classification of As -built'
C4 /E4
C4
Valle e
-
-
Vallev sloe
0 012
0 012
Valley side slope range (e g 2 -3 % )
-
-
Valley toe slope ranee g 2 -3 %
-
-
Cowardm classification
NA
NA
Trout waters designation
No
No
Species of concern, endangered etc ? (Y/N )J
No
No

Appendix A
Table 4. Project Attribute Table
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
Dominant sod series and characteristics
Cid- Lignum Complex 2-
6% slopes
Nanford -Baden Complex, 2
6% slopes
Series
Cid- Nanford -Li num
Cid- Nanford -Li num
Depth
0 -80
0 -80
Cla %
10 -55%
2 -35%
K
24-55
43-64
T
2-4
4

Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2 0. -2 2 Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5.0 -5 1 Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table 6 0 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Figure 3 0 -3 4 Stream Station Photos
Figures 4 0 -4 1 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos

UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402 MYS (2011)
Table 51 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment'
Reach ID Reach 2
Assessed Length 1111
- LOW now In cnannei nas anowea nerbaceous matenai to become estamisnea over the course or the year, maKing visuai assessment airticua
+As -built data for Section 2 not available Numbers are based on earlier monitoring year assessments
Number
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major Channel
Channel
Stable,
Performing as
Total Number
Number of
Unstable
Amount of
Unstable
% Stable,
Performing as
Stabilizing
Woody
Stabilizing
Woody
Stabilizing
Woody
Cate o
Sub -Cat o
Metric
Intended
in As -built
S ments
Foota a
Intended
V etation
V etabon
V etabon
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1 Aagradabon -Bar forrnabon/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2 Degradation -Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
30
30
100%
3 Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1 6)
-
30
32
94%
2 Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tad of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem nffle)
32
32
100%
4 Thalweg Position
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
32
32
100%
2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
32
32
100%
2 Bank
1 Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2 Undercut
likely Does NOT include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3 Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
8
8
100%
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
8
8
100%
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
8
8
100%
Bank erosion wthin the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3 Bank Protection
15% (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
8
8
100%
document)
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1 6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow
6
8
75%
- LOW now In cnannei nas anowea nerbaceous matenai to become estamisnea over the course or the year, maKing visuai assessment airticua
+As -built data for Section 2 not available Numbers are based on earlier monitoring year assessments

UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402 MYS (2011)
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage' 34
Easement Acreage2 91
e etation Cateaory
Definitions
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vacietation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
De action
ons
e a
Ae a e
1 Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0 1 acres
NA
0
000
00%
2 Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria
01
Lime Green
2
078
229%
Stippling
Total
2• _'
0 78
22 9%
3 Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year
0 25 acres
NA
0
000
00%
r•r j u 7d z•, ' - - - ^_ roCumulative Tootal78
22 9%
— _
.T�fdelr S�_ _...1�. _ .z —"i. =. •1` -5° tom_:_
6w
.j`:s.'k... M'.
7
Easement Acreage2 91
e etation Cateaory
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
De ietion
Number of
Po ons
Combined
Aerea a
Of
Easement
Acrea e
Invasive Areas of Concem4
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
01
NA
0
000
00%
5 Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
NA
0
000
0 70% 7
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant Rem (i a, item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage Invasives of concernfinterest are listed below The list of high concern spoes are those
with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e g monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes that are
slightly longer (e g 1 -2 decades) The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be
mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of
risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control but potentially large coverages of Microstegwm in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating
extensive amounts of ground cover Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency Those in red italics are of particular interest given
their extreme nsk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons The symbology
scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzmg invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conddon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches In any case, the
point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary

Appendix B. Figure 3.0. Stream Station Photos
Photopoint 1 -Reach 1- Station 1110
11/14/2007
8/9/2011
-Reach 2- Station 110
11/14/2007 8/9/2011

Appendix B. Figure 3.1. Stream Station Photos
-Reach 2- Station 285
11/14/2007
-Reach 2- Station 325
8/9/2011
11/14/2007 8/9/2011

Appendix B. Figure 3.2. Stream Station Photos
;ach 2- Station 450
11/14/2007
-Reach 2- Station 535
8/9/2011
11/14/2007 8/9/2011

Appendix B. Figure 3.3. Stream Station Photos
-Reach 2- Station 610
11/14/2007
Reach 2- Station 1070
8/9/2011
11/14/2007 8/9/2011

Appendix B. Figure 4.0. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Veg Plot 1 -Reach 1- Station 1070
10/29/2007
ach 1- Station 240
7/28/2011
10/29/2007 7/28/2011

Appendix B. Figure 4.1. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
=h 2- Station 180
11/16/2007
Veg Plot 4 -Reach 2- Station 425
7/28/2011
10/29/2007 7/28/2011

Appendix B. Figure 4.2. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
zch 2- Station 770
10/23/2008
Veg Plot 6 -Reach 2- Station 960
7/29/2011
10/30/2007 7/29/2011

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7.0 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Table 8 0 Vegetation Metadata
Table 9 0 Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Report Supplemental Planting Report

Appendix C
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
MY5 2011
Tract
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold
Met
Tract Mean
Reach 1
1
N
0%
2
N
Reach 2
3
Y
100%
5
Y
6
Y

Appendix C
Table 8. Vegetation Metadata
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
MYS 2011
Report Prepared By
lean doi
Date Prepared
8/22/2011 19 17
database name
402UTtoRR mdb
database location
D \Sean \EEP\RockyRiver \11 Mon itoring\UTRockyRiver_SmithTract-
402 -MY5- 2011 \Su port Files \3 Vegetation Plot Data
computer name
JESSIO
134316288
file size
Pro', total stems
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
PROJECT SUMMARY------------------------------- - - - - --
Project Code
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
Metadata
project(s) and project data
Description
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each
Pro j, planted
year This excludes live stakes
length(ft)
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year
stream-to-edge width ft
This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer
Pro', total stems
stems
Required Plots calculated
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems,
Plots
dead stems, missing, etc
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots
Vigor b Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences
Damage
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
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
each plot, dead and missing stems are excluded
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted
and natural volunteers combined) for each plot, dead and missing
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
stems are excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY------------------------------- - - - - --
Project Code
402
.project Name
UT to Rocky River (Smith Tract)
Description
stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation
River Basin
Cape Fear
length(ft)
R1 1,095, R2 1,111
stream-to-edge width ft
R1 25' -64', R2 T -125'
areas m
R1 3,830, R2 4,660
Required Plots calculated
6
Sampled Plots
6

Table 9 Planted and Total Stem Counts UT to Rocky Rver Stream Restoration - EEP Project 0402
Current Plot Data IMYS 20771
Annual Means
���
������
oo
©o00
00
©o00
�
o00
000
000
000
Stem couw
oomvomoommmo�mo
®mmmm
®mom
®om�mm����
size (ares)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
sin (ACRES)
Species coun�
o ©v
oom
oom
oom
oom
oom
mmm
mmm
mmm
mmm
mmm

WEEKLY INSPECTION REPORT
Date of Inspection 03 -11 -2011
Date of Report 03 -14 -2011
SCO ID# 09- 0730012 (Axiom Envirommnental)
Supplemental Planting Oversight for EEP Supplemental Planting 2010 -03
Project UT Rocky River — EEP #402
Location Chatham County, North Carolina
Inspection of Supplemental Planting 2010 -03 (Constr Contract D09116s) (Contract(s))
By Axiom Environmental, Inc (Designer)
(Name)
Name & Title of Inspector Phillip H Perkinson — Project Scientist
COMMENTS The UT Rocky Rover supplemental planting was initiated 03 -11 -2011 and completed
03 -11 -2011
Axiom Environmental arrived ahead of planting contractors and walked the planting
areas All plants were staged within the site easement by the contractor (River
Works, George Morris) on the day prior to plant installation No planting areas were
flagged due to the small size of planting zones and number of stems being planted
Axiom assisted contractors in the placement of trees to be representative of a natural
system A total of 145 containerized plants were installed at the site Only the left
bank of the stream was planted per mapping provided by the NC EEP No changes
were made in the distribution of stems or planting areas — see attached planting plan
All stems planted met NC EEP size and vigor requirements A final walk through
was conducted by Axiom Environmental on 03 -11 -2011, all work was completed as
outlined in the bid document
Species
Quantity
Planted
Container
Size
Ironwood, Carpinus carohniana
60
#5
Cherrybark Oak, Quercus pagoda
40
#5
Red Oak, Quercus rubra
20
#5
Arrowwood, Vibumum dentatum
1 25
1 #5
(This report is to be made weekly by the designer and submitted as a part of monthly progress reports )
SCO (Rev 11/6/06)

z
rf i k-
j' ,
i'>>�,;IE�COStem
L a
r♦ w
Legend
Staging Area
E:DE::Ic= Site Access
2010 -03 Planting Areas
2010 -03 Project Easements
_ Plant Area Quantity Acreage Planting Type
1 120 0.6 Mparian
2 25 0.13 Riparian
N
A*
0 62.5 125 250
Feet
UT Rocky River - EEP #402
Chatham County
PLANTING PLAN
October 2010
r
t
Legend
Staging Area
E:DE::Ic= Site Access
2010 -03 Planting Areas
2010 -03 Project Easements
_ Plant Area Quantity Acreage Planting Type
1 120 0.6 Mparian
2 25 0.13 Riparian
N
A*
0 62.5 125 250
Feet
UT Rocky River - EEP #402
Chatham County
PLANTING PLAN
October 2010

EEP Supplemental Planting Species Lists - SP2010 -03
(Various Project Sites)
Containerized Plant Measurements - June 2010
Plant Species
Type
Minimum Caliper
inches
Minimum Height
feet
Black Cherry
tree
7/16
40
Black Willow
tree
11/16
55
Carolina Ash 10 -gal
tree
3/4
70
Cherrybark Oak
tree
3/8
25
Green Ash
tree
3/4
70
Ironwood
tree
7/16
40
Persimmon
tree
5/16
35
Red Maple
tree
3/8
30
Red Oak
tree
1/2
45
River Birch 10-gal
tree
1
70
River Birch 5-gal
tree
7/8
60
Water Oak
tree
3/8
25
White Oak
tree
5/8
30
Willow Oak
tree
3/8
30
Arrowwood
shrub
3/8
25
Button Bush
shrub
1/2
50
Elderberry
shrub
1/2
45
Red Chokeberry
shrub
3/8
50
Silky Dogwood
shrub
5/8
50