20080229 Ver 1_Response to MY 6 Comments_20131122

Tito John R. McAdams
Company, Inc.
Raleigh / Durham, NC
2905 Meridian Parkway
Durham, North Carolina 27713
[phone]
Charlotte, NC
11301 Carmel Common Blvd,
Suite 111
Charlotte North Carolina 28226
[phone]
November 21, 2013
Ms. Katie Merritt
Environmental Compliance Specialist & Nutrient 011',w-t Coordinator
Wetlands & Storinwater Branch
NCDENR - WR
Archdale Building
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Re: Forrest Creek Mitigation Bank Stream Restoration Site
Year 6 Monitoring Report — Vegetation Monitoring
Response to Monitoring Year 6 Report Comments
EBX-13050
Following your October 8, 2013 e-mail, please find our responses to your
review comments on the prQject listed above. Our response comments are in
bold.
I Please see the email below sent frornTorniny last April, regarding what
EBX planned to do for reinediation at Forrest Creek following our site
visit last spring. The intended remediation efforts are not mentioned in
the Year 6 Monitoring Report for Forrest creek, All that I can
Understand from the report, is that vegetation data was collected from
the 3 plots, The "Action Required" referenced in the report from the
l)WR letter specifically stated what rernediation would be expected
from 1-",'13X. Please provide some insight into this so that I may be able
to understand what EBX did in response to the WR letter dated May
3, 2013. Additionally, if supplemental planting was performed, please
incorporate that into this report.
JRM Response: Section 1.1 of the Monitoring Year 6 Report has the
additional paragraph added: "Action Taken: Four
beaver dams were removed during the months of May
and June, 2013. Livestakes were planted within
unprotected banks of the stream. In addition, within
bare areas of the buffer, the soil was scraped; a seed
mix was planted, and 100 1-gallon steins of the
following tree species were planted:
Betula nigra (river birch), 35 total
Quercus michauxii (swamp chestnut oak), 45 total
Nyssa sylvatica (black gum), 20 total
McAdamsCoxoju Designing Tomorrow's Infrastructure & Communities

!!jl'M.c,A,DA,-M.S
Ms. Kathic Merritt
F'orrest Creek Mitigation Bank Stream Rcstoration Site
Year 6 Monitoring Report - Vegetation Monitoring
November 21, 2013
Page 2 of 2
Consideration of this response is greatly appreciated. A revised report is
provided, If you ShOUld have any qUestions or mquirc additional information,
please do not hesitate to contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
'rite Jolin R. MeAdams Company, late.
George Buchholz, RL'I'M, 13WS
Environme-ntal Scientist
cc: Tomilly Cousins, E'livironmental Bane & Exchange, LLC
Enclosures
FBX-13050

1.0 Inti,oduction
L Project Location and DescHplion
The Forrest Creek Stream Restoration Site (Site) of the Forrest Creek Mitigation Ban](
(Batik) is located in Orange County North Carolina within land owned by Milton A. Latta
and Sons Dairy Farms, Inc. A permanent conservation easement covers the restored stream
and surrounding riparian buffer. This casement defines the Site' s boundaries. The Site is
located approximately seven miles northeast of flillsborotigh and six miles northwest of
Durham in northeastern Orange County, North Carolina (see Figure 1, Appendix A). The
streams lie within USGS hydrologic unit 03020201020020 in the Ncuse Rivet, Basin. "I'lie
North Carolina Division of Water Quality NCDWQ) classifies the main reach, Forrest Creek,
as a WS -11 (water supply 11), HQW (high quality water), and NSW (nutrient sensitive water),
The Site includes two streams. The larger reach (Forrest Creek) flows through the property
from north to south and drains a 3. 6 square mile arell, consisting of predominantly forest and
pasture land. The smaller tributary (UT 1) flows from west to east before joining with Forrest
Creek and drains a 0.1 square mile area consisting of predominantly pasture land. Located in
Appendix A is the Forrest Creek Restoration Conservation Easement As-Built Exhibit
(Sheets I through 5).
The stream restoration work is regulated under the Forrest Creek Mitigation Bank Mitigation
Banking Instrument (MBI) signed by the Sponsor and the US Army Corp of Engineers
(USACE), the US Environmental Protection Agency (USETA), the NC Division of Water
Quality (now hereby referred to as Division of Water Resources [DWR]), and the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). These agencies comprise the Interagency
Review Team (IRT'), formerly the MBRT, in accordance with Federal guidelines and
regulations including the Compensatory Mitigation losses of Aquatic Resources Final Rule,
33 CFR Parts 325 and 332 and 40 CFR ])art 230. Restoration work resulted in the restoration
of 6, 825 linear feet, enhancement (Level 1) of 325 linear feet, and preservation of 3,005
linear feet of stream. With the restoration, water quality has been improved due to a decrease
in nutrients, turbidity, and moderation in water temperature. Biochemical oxygen demand has
been reduced through filtering in the riparian buffer and riverine wetlands. Potential habitats
have been added through the creation of bed features and the reestablishment of riparian
vegetative community.
The annual monitoring work assesses the Site's streams, the Forrest Creek main channel and
the Unnamed Tributary to Forrest Creek, to determine restoration Success. The monitoring
plan has been set up based on guidance provided by The Stream Mitigation Guidelines
developed by the United States Corps of Engineers -- Wilmington District (McLendon, et al.
2003), version 1. 2 11/ 16/ 2006) of the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(E'EP) document entitled Content, Format, and Data ReqLlil'ClllelltS for EEP Monitoring
Reports ", version 2.0 (3/27/2008) of the E17P document entitled "Mitigation Plan Document
Formal, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance ", and the Forrest Creek Mitigation Batik
Mitigation Plan (May 2008).
Monitoring has occurred annually for five years and reports have been submitted. Annual
monitoring work has included reference photographs, vegetative stern counts, materials
sampling, site survey, bankfull, event docutnen tali oil, and visual assessment and mapping of
significant features. Year 5, 2012 monitoring was completed on September 18 -19 and
October 16, 2012 with the submission of Year 5 Monitoring Report flor the Forrest Creek
Buffer Mitigation Bank on December 4, 2012, Members of the IRT, more specifically
representatives from DWR and USACE, met with FBX-EM, LLC (EBX) on-site to evaluate
the success of the riparian buffer restoration. Based oil the results of the on -site meeting,
2

DWR requested additional of years ()VYR Additional
Monitoring letter, May 3, 20}]DWRProject4, 2008-0229,Appendix E). More
'fitaJ1y,[)WD had the following comments:
"Significant areas within of the riparian buffer along the entire reach oftile
Forrest Creek mitigation site appeared to lack adequate stern Counts most likely due
to soil type and hydrology issues. Stems that were present in Zone I were mostly
small, indicating they may have been part of supplemental planting performed in
2010 required by DWQ and ACOE'.
Action Requh-cd: EBX shall reevaluate Zone I throughout the entire mitigated
portions of 1"ort-cst Creek and provide a rernediation plan sufficient to provide
adequate vegetation in Zone 1. Sufficient ground cover should be reestablished in all
bare areas and, where adequate stern Counts are absent, I-,'IIX shall plant trees that are
desirable for that specific soil type and hydrology, DW6 rccommends larger trees be
planted in sorne of the most problematic areas along the reach. Modifications to tile
approved buffer mitigation plan are allowed to provide EBX with the flexibility of
choosing tree species and vegetation that are more likely to survive and reach
Maturity, f.11BX may make additional recommendations to promote site success.
Monitoring abu\ be submitted lot- 3 more years (2013. 2014, ` and 2015) and
shall record only the vegetation conditions along Zone L"
Four beaver darns were removed during the months [ May and Jline,
2013. Liveotokom were planted within unprotected batiks o[ the oincaon. }om]diiiou,
within bare areas of the buffer, the soil was scraped; aseed roix was planted, and lOO
} -gallon sterns of the following tree species were planted:
Betuha biroh),35total
nurousruichmoxii Chestnut oak), 45 total
This Monitoring Report m]droascn buffer rcak/aUioo a,00x bctp/cou Stations 214f00 and
232+00, which includes Vegetation Plots 2, ], and 4.
1,2 Ptoject Goals and
The goals ofthe project relate to providing ecological improvements tothe Site' sstreams
and riparian buffers through beneficial modifications olhydrology, water quality, and
habitat.
Goals related to hydrology include:
* Ko establishing flood plain connection hy raising bed elevations (DTl)or
towerfivy adiacent O d \ io(FooestCrcuk
* loo»oaningOood storage byru- en{ob]iskiog flnudp]aiocuUnoctioo
(}oelm related to water quality include:
• Reducing turbidity and pollution by reducing sediment and uub'iou1 inputs cattle
cxo]uoiou\
• Reducing water temperatures by providing shading
• Increasing / stabilizing oxygen levels by reducing |lDT) /COD and increasing
re0xygooaiiugturbu1cuce
Goals related to habitat include:

• Improving in stream bed habitat by increasing riffle ---- pool diversity, reducing
sediment deposition, and improving low flow water depths
• Improving batik habitat by increasing stability and woody bioniass
• Improving floodplain habitat by establishing inicrotopography and hydrology,
removing invasive vegetation, and increasing habitat diversity
• Improving food web dynamics by adding biomass (such as detritus, coarse woody
debris, and leaf matter) and re- establishing floodplain connection
The restoration achieves these goals through the following obJectives.
• Stabilizing channel bed and banks through modifying dimension, pattern, and
profile using natural channel design
• Installing in- stream structures such as rock vanes, log vanes, and Constructed
ri ffl es
• Raising stream bed elevations or lowering floodplairts
• Restoring soils in riparian buffer by excluding cattle and adding organic
components
Removing invasive vegetation
• Planting native vegetation in riparian buffer
• Fencing out livestock
Together, these improvements have provided functional uplift fbr the watershed as a whole,
'Fhe dimension, pattern, and profile were restored using Rosgen Priority I and 11 restoration
approaches (Rosgen, David L. 1997). The Priority I approach was used on the UT to Forrest
Creek to raise bed elevations and reconnect the stream to the abandoned floodplain. The
Priority H approach was used on Forrest Creek to reestablish all active floodplain at the
existing bed elevation. These methods have decreased streani batik erosion, establish all
active floodplain, reduce channel stress during floods, improve aquatic habitat, and reduce
fine sediments. A portion of Forrest Creek immediately above tile restoration reach was
enhanced by modifying a downstream crossing that had created ponding upstream Of it. The
crossing modification reestablished natural flow and will create a natural channel profile.
Above the enhancement area, a section of Forrest Creek has been placed Under conservation
easement to preserve a Functional stream channel and riparian buffer.
The remaining impaired riparian buffer was planted as four (4) zones. Zones I and 2 are the
stream channel and batik zones consisting of tree and shrub species and native herbaceous
seeding typically found along stream banks in the region. Live stakes comprised the bulk of
installed species within these zones. Zone 3 is the riparian zone consisting of selected tree
and shrub species with a range of tolerances to inundation and saturation. Zone 4 is tile
transitional zone that includes tile buffer areas (subject ofa separate report prepared for
DWR). Sec `tables I - III for more inlorrnation regarding project structure, activity, history,
and contacts,
2.0- Vegetation Condition and Comparison
Current stem counts (i.e. stem is defined as single living tree species) were calculated using
vegetation plot monitoring data. Success will be defined as the survival of 111111inlUrn density of
320 trees and shrubs per acre. As for Monitoring Year 6, monitoring was conducted for three (3)
vegetation plots (Vegetation Plots 2, 3, and 4) located between Stations 214-1-00 and 232-1-00.
Monitoring Year 6 field activities were conducted on October 10 and October 24, 2013. The
planted vegetation Survival threshold was rnet for vegetation plot 2, while it was not niet for
vegetation plots 3 and 4. The planted and volunteer survival threshold was met for all three (3)
vegetation plots. Summary tables of the data collected are provided in Appendix B,

3.0 Methodology
3.1 Vegetation Monitoring 11/otv
Baseline vegetation monitoring was conducted in accordance to CVS4`T'P Protocol for
Recording Vegetation (CVS-EEP, v4.2). All monitoring methodologies follow the most current
templates and guidelines provided by FEP (EEP, 2010; J."J"P, 2011). All till-cc (3) vegetation
plots that were installed were located in Monitoring Year 6. Sheets 1 through 5 of the Forrest
Crock Restoration Conservation Easement As-Built Exhibit (Appendix A) depict location of the
vegetation plots. Table I (Appendix B) provides a success summary for each vegetation
monitoring plot. Based on the vegetation monitoring, the survival threshold was mot for
vegetation plot 2 when for both planted vegetation survival and planted and VOlUIItCCr Survival.
For vegetation plots 3 and 4, the survival threshold was not met for the planted vegetation
Survival but it was met for the planted and volunteer survival. Table 2 (Appendix B) provides a
summary of stems per acre by vegetation plot and by monitoring year.
Vegetation monitoring plots were photographed and are located in Appendix C. Vegetation
Monitoring Plot Data Sheets are provided in Appendix D. Flacli Vegetation Monitoring Plot
Data Shoot provides mcaSUrCMCIltS, location, and vigor of each planted species within a
respective vegetation monitoring plot,