20000723 Ver 1_Mitigation Information_20130523

bU - D'723
os stem
a
PROGRAM
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eric Kulz, DWQ
FROM: Mac Haupt
DATE: May 23, 2013
RE: Closeout Request for Payne Dairy Buffer Site (EEP IMS #279)
The Payne Dairy Buffer Site is located in Alexander County in the Catawba 01 watershed. The
6t" year monitoring for the site concluded in 2006 and the site was formerly closed out in June of
2007. At the time there was no formal riparian buffer closeout process and while the buffer
assets were agreed upon at the time, no formal letter was required or submitted.
Based upon our past review, EEP requests closure of the site with the following riparian buffer
assets:
• 25.4 acres of Riparian Buffer credit (1,106,424 sq ft)
Perpetual site protection will be maintained by:
Eric Galamb
Stewardship Program
Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs, DENR
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
919 -715 -8696
Please find attached a copy of the closeout report, which contains a map detailing the final
enumeration of credits, and a credit /debit ledger. We respectfully request your concurrence to
officially close out the Riparian Buffer assets of the Payne Dairy Buffer Site.
CC. Jeff Jurek
Guy Pearce
Jim Stanfill
File
fktGu�. zi;I -... Protmtr -q C?�w Stigte ©EN
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699 -1652 / 919 -115 -0416 / www.nceep.net

Mitigation Project t, Payne Dairy
IMS ID #
279
River Basin
CATAWBA
Cataloging Unit
03050101
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.
Applied Credit Ratios: 1:1 1.5:1 2.5:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 273.1 Ibs /z146.4lbs /ac
Beginning Balance (square feet)
o
Z K
C U
z
w
O L
z
W
O d
i
V
U
U
H
L
U W
N W
U
O
Q
lo
217,800.00
Beginning Balance (credits)
217,800.00
EEP Debits (credits):
DWQ Permits
Impact Project Name
2006 -0014
Fire Station No. 38 (City of
Charlotte)
10,022.00
2006 -1903
Rowboat Dock and Dredge
Staging Area
1,800.00
2007 -1584
Northeast Pump Station
14,778.00
2007 -1984
438 Tuskarora Trail Lot 23
10,000.00
2007 -2052
Frank Hoguet Swimming
Pool
1,600.00
2007 -2030
Griffith Street Pump Station
Modifications
3.339,00
2008 -0999
N D T TIP R -3833B -
Brawley School Road
Widening
47.557.00
2008 -0999
NCDOT TIP R -3833B -
Brawley School Road
Widening
27,241.0J
2007 -1868
Bridgewater Powerhouse
Construction Project
21,487.00
2006 -0972
William Whitley Project
1,050.00
2010 -0527
Slanting Bridge Staging Area
1
2,100.00
Remaining Balance (credits)
76,826-001
0.00
0.00
*NOTE: The Payne Dairy mitigation site generated a total of 1,106,424 square feet (25.40 acres) of buffer mitigation. The amount of buffer assets shown as the beginning balance above represents only the amount of buffer
mitigation that has been sold to the Riparian Buffer ILF Program. There is an additional 888,624 square feet (20.40 acres) of buffer mitigation available for sell to the Riparian Buffer ILF Program as needed to meet requirements.

r�
Ecosystem
PROGRAM
EEP Project Closeout Summary
PrOlectID & Status
Proiect Name /Number: Payne Dairy (Jumping Run Creek)
EEP ID
279
County:
Alexander
Project Type:
Stream Restoration, Enhancement
Central Piedmont
Wetland Preservation
Current Status:
5 Years of Monitoring complete
Project Setting & Classifications
Basin:
Catawba
Physiographic Region:
Piedmont
Ecoregion:
Central Piedmont
USGS Hydro Unit:
03050101 - 120040
NCDWQ Subbasin_:
11- 62 -3 -1
Thermal Regime:
Warm
Trout Water:
No
Designer:
Kimley -Horn
Monitoring
Kimley -Horn, NCSU, SEC
Project Timeline
Feet
Milestone
Date
Construction Completed
R
As -built survey
June 2000
Monitoring Year -1
June 2001
Repair and Maintenance
Monitoring Year -2
June 2002
Monitoring Year -3
June 2003
Monitoring Year -4
June 2004
Monitoring Year -5
June 2005
Monitoring Year -6 (Vea)
June 2006
Table 1. Project Restoration Components and Mitigation Assets
Feet
SMU
Acres
WMU
R
5177
5177
E
Stream
470
313
Ell
Asset Data
675
C
Watershed Data and Characteristics
Drainage /Hydrology Component
Restoration Component
Asset
6.40
1.28
Ratio
6165
6.40
1.28
Wetland
DA
Stream
%
Land
Map #
Approach
Level
Ratio
Multip
Feet
SMU
Acres
WMU
P /l /E
Type
(SM)
Order
Imper
Use
303d
Jumping Run Upper (Above Henry Road)
Segment 1
1
P1 /P2
R
1.00
1.00
4377
4377
-
-
P
-
12
1st
<5%
A -Past
No
Jumping Run lower
(Below Payne Store Road)
Segment 1 (Down to confluence)
2
P2
R
1.00
1.00
800
800
P
-
Segment 2 (Confl to Pres se m)
3
P2
El
1.50
0.67
380
253
-
-
P
-
Segment 3 (Presery -one side)
4
-
-
-
0.00
1450
0
-
-
P
-
2.2
2nd
5%
A -Past
No
Tributary
Se ment 1 (Upper)
5
Fence /Plan
EII
2.00
0.50
1350
675
-
-
P
-
Segment 2 (Lower 90 feet)
6
P2
EI
1.50
0.67
90
60
-
-
P
-
0.4
1st
<5%
A -Past
No
etland
Jumping Run Upper (Above Henry Road)
Wetland 1
7
P
5.00
0.20
-
-
2.36
0.47
-
BLH
-
-
-
Wetland 2
8
P
5.00
0.20
0.03
0.01
-
BLH
-
-
-
Wetland 3
9
-
P
5.00
0.20
-
-
0.26
0.05
-
BLH
-
-
-
-
-
Wetland 4
10
P
5.00
0.20
-
-
0.30
0.06
BLH
-
-
Wetland 5
11
-
P
5.00
0.20
-
-
1.87
0.37
-
BLH
-
-
-
-
-
Jumping Run Lower (Below Payne Rd))
Wetland 9
12
-
P
5.00
0.20
-
1.40
0.28
-
BLH
-
-
-
Tributary
Wetland 6
13
P
5.00
0.20
-
0.01
0.00
-
BLH
-
-
-
-
Wetland 7
14
-
P
5.00
0.20
BLH
-
-
-
-
Road) Segment 1
1
Wetland 8
15
-
P
5.00
0.20
-
-
0.07
0.01
-
BLH
-
-
Buffer
Jumping Run Upper (Above Henry
Pt = Priority I Restoration R = Restoration
P2 = Priority II Restoration E = Wetland Enhancement
P3 = Priority III Restoration El = Stream Enhancement I
Ell = Stream Enhancemnt II
C = Wetland Creation
P = Preservation
SMU = Stream Mitigation Units
WMU = Wetland Mitigation Units
P /I /E = Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Asset Summary
Buffer
"2531
Level
Feet
SMU
Acres
WMU
R
5177
5177
E
El
470
313
Ell
1350
675
C
P
1450
6.40
1.28
8447
6165
6.40
1.28
Road) Segment 1
1
- - - - - - 25.36
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Level
Feet
SMU
Acres
WMU
R
5177
5177
E
El
470
313
Ell
1350
675
C
P
1450
6.40
1.28
8447
6165
6.40
1.28

03040101 4N ~and Asset St�nAsset Site Location Map
1
Monit Areas - 2
:IN y _._ -A.Exa ER 040102 Payne Dairy (Jumping Run)
REDE Areal XS 3 EEP Project Number 279
030 101
-Aree2XS -4
��Pree3XS -5
_ TFt4VBA Wee4XS 6 �'
Figure 1. Project Site Map

LLq ure 2. Payne Dairy (EEP Project Number 279) Pre - existing Condition Photos

Figure 3. Payne Dairy (EEP Project Number 279) As -built comparison photos

Channel Stability
Dimension
The restored channel's dimension exhibited stability. There appeared to be some lateral migration in one of the paired riffle and pool cross - sections at the very upper end of the project, but
this may have been a lateral shift in the survey by the monitoring consultant in years 3 -5. In any case, this is not evident in the field and did not represent a systemic reach response. The
riffle cross - sectional areas were either maintained or decreased due to a decrease in channel width, primarily below the bankfull elevation (development of an inner berm feature See Area 1
Riffle Cross section below), which was coincident with the development of dense vegetation in year 3. The riffle cross - sections classified as either the C channel that was designed or
exhibited tendencies towards development of an E channel as a result of the aforementioned narrowing. In all cases, healthy entrenchment ratios were maintained indicating good floodplain
capacity. With the exception of one riffle -pool cross - section pairing, the pool cross - sections exhibited and maintained greater depths than the riffles, indicating the maintenance of distinct
bedform features. Collectively, these conditions indicate stability or stable trends of the restored dimension. The plots below describe or typify some of the conditions and trends with regard
to channel dimension.
Payne Dairy - Area I Rrttk Station 0 +77
Baokfu8 Ek%. (appmi.)
IR50
100.00
99.50 -
W 99.00 -
9850 - - - - -- -
98•00 - _- - - Inner Berm Feature
i
9750 - - -
97A
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
Distaaee (feet)
- As- Bu0tSunev ---- 200ISaner - 2002Sunes - 2003Suseev 2005Sunec- BankfifiDasam
Figure 4. Area 1 Riffle cross - section typifying the development of an inner -berm feature
Table 2. Cross - Sectional Areas Based on As -built Bkfl Datum
Riffle
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Area 1
17.66
17.86
20.46
16.48
16.63
15.09
Area 2
25.71
25.53
28.07
25.04
23.27
25.48
Area 3
17.35
17.03
17.93
17.57
14.93
14.85
Area 4
32.4
29.46
32.22
24.23
22.99
23.05
Mean
20.24
20.14
22.16
19.70
18.27
18.47

20%
15%
10%
5%
C 0%
-5%
V -10%
° -15%
-20%
-25%
-30%
-35%
Payne Dairy - Percent Change in Riffle Area From As -built
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Monitoring Year
- --Area 1 --- Area 2 Area 3 -m- Area 4 — Mean
Figure 5. Percent change from As -built cross - sectional area
In order for the reach dimension to be considered stable, the change in the cross - sectional area should not be unidirectional and the amplitude in the variation should not increase over
the 5 -year monitoring period. A streams cross - section may exhibit an initial adjustment before a stable variation pattern can be observed around some new point of equilibrium. This is
often due to the fact that there is some level of uncertainty in any stream design, and the vegetation often takes 2 -3 years to exert significant influence on the channel. The above plot
includes the percent change relative to the as -built for each of the 4 project riffle cross - sections. The mean is also included. The projects cross - sectional area generally demonstrated a
healthy pattern of variability. After an initial moderate increase in the cross - section between years 1 and 2, the cross - section generally decreased with the development of an inner berm
depositional feature, effectively narrowing the channel. This condition was particularly evident in the cross - section from area 4. The onset of very dense vegetation was coincident with
this decrease in area in Year 3. This adjustment was followed by a lower level of variation in years 4 and 5, indicating the cross - section has likely reached a stable equilibrium. The
observed pattern indicates that the intended floodplain access was provided and maintained. Maintenance of a mean entrenchment ratio of approximately 5 over the 4 riffle cross -
sections supports this observation.

Profile
The upper section of the reach above Henry road demonstrated some vertical adjustment during year 2 which has since arrested. There was some aggradation above structure 2 near the
top of the project and some downcutting below it resulting from a short headcut for this upper section, but the monitoring reports /data for years 3 through 5 indicated this has stabilized. The
measured profiles indicated that the project reaches were vertically stable overall. The figure below provides a sampling of the surveyed profile. Bedform slope and spacing distributions
naturally varied from year to year, but distinct riffle -pool bedform distributions were maintained, providing diversity in the project bedform.
Jumping Run Creek Profile Area #3 Direcly above SR 1614
78
._
.
•
77
• •
2, 76
-- -
- - -•
A
- - - - - - - -
A
Z 75
- - - - - --
- _ - -- -• . -
V
��
f
..
♦
y
v 74
i
4 73
f
w 72
71
— -
0
50 100 150
200 250 300
350 400 450
Down Stream Distance (feet)
Vane
•
Figure 6.
Longitudinal Prof le Segment
Long Pro 2003
— — — Long Pro 2002 - - - - - - Long Pro 2001
As -built 2000 — — Long Pro 2004
12005 TW
- - - 2005 WS ♦ 2005 Bkf

Substrate
The substrate data collected from the 4 pairs of cross - sections in the 4 restoration reaches was somewhat variable and indicated sediments were being moved by the system, but were not
always depositing in bedforms that were typical for the observed substrate distributions The restoration plan indicated that the materials in the existing channel were silt and fine sand and
that based on upstream sediment distributions, the restoration reaches should maintain coarse sand to medium gravel in riffles Overall, while there were fluctuations in the distributions, the
substrates were in keeping with the classes described in the restoration plan
Area 1 XS1 — Riffle 5 year mean - Coarse sand (d50) to Fine gravel (d84) Fines observed in years 2 -4 with coarsening in year 5 Coarser than paired pool
Area 2 XS1 — Riffle 5 year mean - Very Coarse sand 050) to Medium Gravel (d84) Fines observed in years 3-4 with some recovery in year 5, but still generally finer than earlier
years As -built was extremely coarse, which may have been an artifact of a constructed riffle Paired pool data indicates some of the riffle material may have
been dislodged into the pool, because coarsening was observed in the paired pool as well
Area 3 XS1 — Riffle 5 Year Mean - Medium (d50) to coarse gravel (d84) Generally much coarser than the upstream riffle cross sections A pattern similar to that of Area 2 riffle
cross - section was observed with some fining in years 3 and 4 , but final riffle substrate in year 5 was medium to coarse gravel As with Area 2 it appears some
of the riffle material was dislodged into the pool, because the pool distribution exhibited some coarser material
Area 4 XS1 — Riffle 5 Year Mean - Medium (d50) to coarse gravel (d84)
Table 3 Project Bedform Substrate Means
Mean AB -Year 5
D50
D84
Mean AB -Year 5
D50
D84
Riffle Area 1
06
40
Pool Area 1
05
20
Riffle Area 2
1 7
11 3
Pool Area 2
23
98
Riffle Area 3
139
304
Pool Area 3
09
98
Riffle Area 4
102
258
Pool Area 4
09
105

Status of Engineered Structures
Grade control structures were comprised of log sills and rock cross vanes. These were 37 in number throughout the project, two of which were identified as significant structural failures and
9 of which were identified as stressed in 2006. This project was constructed in 2000 and the rock cross vanes were not constructed according to current standards. They did not possess a
significant vane arm angle and several were oversized, ineffectual and bypassed by flow. The project also included many root wads and single arm log vanes, the vast majority of which are
functioning well. Overall, the projects grade has been maintained and the majority of the projects structures are providing the intended function.
Macrobenthos
Monitoring of the benthos was performed pre- construction and in monitoring years 2 -6 by David Penrose of NCSU. Samples were
collected at an upstream reference site (site 1), a site within the restoration reach about 150 feet upstream of Henry road (site 2),
and a third site just below the project extent (site 3). Prior to construction, all metrics (EPT metrics and keystone taxa in particular)
were considerably lower at sites 2 and 3 as compared to the upstream reference. The first sampling event after construction
exhibited even lower biological quality at sites 2 and 3 as compared to the upstream reference, but after this initial response, these
sites demonstrated steady improvement in all metrics between 2003 and 2005 and achieved levels that were significantly better
than pre- construction and close to the upstream reference. However, sampling in 2006 saw a drop in quality at all stations,
particularly at sites 2 and 3. Site 3 still exhibited improvement over pre- construction levels. Sampling took place during high flows in
2006 in November as opposed to October. 2006 also saw the establishment of beaver dams above site 2, which were manually
breached by the adjacent landowner. Benthos sampling and measurement will continue at this project site as part of EEP funded
research.
m
i0
D
U
L
N
L
2
U
co
R
a
M
H
Abundant and Common taxa were used in the analyses.
Overbank Events
There is evidence of recent deposition and wrack alonq the project reach (see Figure 7).
Figure 7. Fresh overbank deposition near top of
project (2007).
Site 1,
Upstream Reference
Site 2 Restored
Reach
Site 3, Recove
Metric/Year
10/00
10/02
10/03
10 /04
10105
11 /06
10 /00
10/02
10103
10/04
10/05
11/06
10 100
10/02
10/03
10/04
10105
11106
Total Taxa
43
37
44
41
44
35
38
12
20
27
43
22
31
28
44
44
42
34
Richness
EPT Taxa
19
20
19
20
24
23
8
3
12
11
17
3
9
7
16
16
18
13
Richness
EPT
67
88
87
88
88
77
39
7
34
39
61
7
47
28
71
54
93
68
Abundance
Dominants
in Common
-
-
-
-
-
-
25%
5%
29%
30%
55%
27%
25%
16%
47%
60%
50%
47%
Index (%)*
# Indicator
10
12
14
19
21
15
2
0
5
6
13
3
4
0
6
12
13
9
taxa
Abundant and Common taxa were used in the analyses.
Overbank Events
There is evidence of recent deposition and wrack alonq the project reach (see Figure 7).
Figure 7. Fresh overbank deposition near top of
project (2007).

Table 5 Project Stem Counts
Stem Counts per Acre by Plot
Plots
rfMY
CY
Ave
1 1 2 1 3 1 4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Y1
2001
<260
Transects
Y2
2002
<260
Transects
Y3
2003
490
360
240
840
520
Y4
2004
120
80
0
120
280
Y5
2005
982
809
1255
769
1093
Y6
2006
459
121
40
688
486
1 0
688
1 607
891
1417
457
Project Goals, Outcomes and Conclusions
During the six years of vegetation monitoring, 3 different protocols have been
applied In year five, the data suggests no distinction was made between
planted stems and volunteers Also, some of the change in numbers is
attributed to changes in plot locations Regardless, the condition of the
vegetation is considered to be adequate for Close -out purposes
The above is summary of the salient information from the project restoration plan, mitigation plan and monitoring reports, which should be consulted if additional detail is sought The
primary project goal as stated in the project restoration plan is to improve water quality and the natural function of Jumping Run This was to be accomplished through the restoration
of the altered /degraded stream corridor, including adjacent riparian zones and flood prone areas, to its natural or referenced, stable condition
The project served to connect 3 existing corridors that are nearly completely forested along the Jumping Run mamstem including its headwaters The longest contiguous forested
segment was approximately 4700 feet prior to restoration, and is approximately 16,400 feet post - restoration Livestock are excluded from the entire project extent (all stream asset
polygons in Figure 1) The fenced easement also encompasses 9 wetland features depicted in Figure 1, which have been preserved, enhanced or restored as a result of project
measures The easement surrounding the upper stream segment (asset #1) encompasses an area that exceeds the standard 50 foot buffer acreage by 18 7 acres The tributary in
the lower section (Map assets 5 & 6) flows directly through the farm and the enhancement implemented on this segment provides protection not only from direct livestock pressures,
but from a wider array of stressors related directly to operations of the farm complex
The restored stream segments have exhibited geomorphologic stability, maintained floodplain access, and are surrounded by a dense buffer with a canopy that is providing significant
shading to the stream The restored pattern, dimension and profile are maintaining distinct bedforms and have yielded improved quality and distribution of instream habitat The
benthjc community exhibited improvement between 2003 and 2005, demonstrating a steady migration from pre - construction conditions towards reference However, the sites within
and below the project, sites 1 and 2, exhibited a drop in 2006 as compared to the improvements realized in 2005 This may be related to the development and breach of beaver dams
upstream of site 2 in 2006 and /or that sampling occurred at elevated flows in 2006, but the actual cause is unknown Even with what is interpreted as a temporary downturn, given the
3 prior years of improvement, the downstream site (site 3) still indicates improvement over pre - construction conditions This indicates improvement to the catchment has likely been
realized Monitoring of the benthos will continue as part of EEP- funded research
Collectively, the characteristics of the projects' assets and their measured performance yielded the ratios listed in table 1 EEP considers the project to be functioning well with a
trajectory such that the sites potential functional uplift has or will be realized EEP seeks regulatory closure on the assets detailed in Table 1