20100516 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20140121

1 I1-Vb
UT ALTAMAHAW SITE
EEP Project No. 92837
MONITORING YEAR 2 (2013) FINAL SUBMITTAL
Construction Completed February 2011
Alamance County, NC
State Construction Project No. 09- 0762301
Prepared for the
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources RECEIVED
;;ENR - YJKTER QUALITY
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
r �
F�s stem
� � Ii a ellmell�
PROGRAM
December 2013
DEC 3 1 ?013
NO ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

Prepared by:
�ENGOINOEEIRING
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Cary, NC 27518
919.557.0929
www.ecologicaleng.com
"1.n„4 C-�.
G. Lane Sauls, Jr., Principal
This assessment and report are consistent with NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Template Version 1.3 (1115110) for EEP Monitoring 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 ................................................................................. ..............................4
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
Table 13. Monthly Rainfall Data
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 Resources, 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
Monitoring Report Year 2 (2013) Page 1
UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP December 2013

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, three of the five vegetation plots met the minimum success criteria. Stem counts
ranged from approximately 121 to 404 planted stems per acre and approximately 323 to 647 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. Several new planted stems were observed, which increased overall stem count numbers as
compared with last year's reporting.
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 June and July 2013, at least one bankfull event occurred. Evidence of this event was wrack material
above the bankfull indicators along the channel and cork shavings within the crest gage present at
approximately 40 inches. No other bankfull events were indicated during 2013. 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
Monitoring Report Year 2 (2013) Page 2
UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP December 2013

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
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.
Several issues were observed during the November field reconnaissance. These issues included (1) surface
erosion along the existing cattle crossing, (2) mowing within the easement area, (3) lack of boundary signage
and (4) erosion along the auxiliary spillway immediately outside of the Project Site.
Surface erosion at the cattle crossing is a result from repeated livestock trampling and compaction. This has
ultimately resulted in surface waters bypassing the existing modified level spreader and erosion around the
pipe along the downstream side of the crossing. Photographs in Appendix B depict this area of concern.
Mowing within the easement area was observed along both sides of the riparian corridor associated with the
UT. Figure 3 denotes the areas that have been recently mowed. The obvious purpose of the mowing was to
remove and control vegetation along the existing fence lines. It extends inward approximately four to five feet
from the woven wire.
Boundary signage along the conservation easement area is limited and does not currently meet EEP guidelines.
The lower portion of the auxiliary spillway immediately adjacent to the easement area has been eroded as a
result of heavy rains from the storm events in June and July. The standpipe associated with the pond upstream
of the project area is approximately 12 inches in diameter. More than nine inches of rain was recorded
between June 5 and July 14. Excess flows were diverted to the auxiliary spillway. These flows moved a section
of rip rap downstream towards the UT revealing the geotextile underlayment. Based on visual observations,
water has also eroded a portion of the soil under the geotextile fabric. Photographs of this area are depicted in
Appendix B.
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' 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.
Monitoring Report Year 2 (2013)
UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page 3
December 2013

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.
NC State Climate Office, 2013. Daily 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.
Monitoring Report Year 2 (2013)
UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page 4
December 2013

APPENDIX A.
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

*" rrr—.,
Ai
UT ALTAMAHAW CREEK )I_ ;��-
� � -f", �� „fir r'I ,F�� -- � (�}�—�• . s
�..� `" � \` e �� • 1 I vim. �J l -' ` -1 ( `d—_ -a�.� �. � �? / / �l.
'Q- Caswell•
. l l� v0 I�y� .y� ( 1 �� .. ✓�(`i• J _r j;,, � County
PROJECT SITE
tV 70 o531PC6 17
/
colon
leg
Hew.
\` �•_� .1� ;Z ( wr r �-' ulJ River 70 e
r
U 1 � �l , I ;, •.� GuHford rli on
� � County g
AN
ala once Swepsonvi lk
Rock
Greek
Saxapaha
f ( _ =))� Snow Camp Whitney
f•5Y -� �C f� , j 1 /i, J.; T1 I/ /� 1..- r� S' w ` - -` Randolph
I I _
C
, l - J hatham
CC
t l ✓ V 't �J / / County
DIRECTIONS FROM 1- 85/1 -40 IN ALAMANCE COUNTY:
Exit 140 (University Drive) — Proceed north for approximately 2.5 miles. Left onto Shallowford
Church Road — Proceed approximately one mile. Left onto NC 87- Proceed approximately 2.5 miles.
Right onto Hub Mill Road — Proceed approximately 0.75 miles. Right onto Altamahaw Union Ridge I" j
Road — Proceed approx. one mile. Turn right onto unnamed gravel roadway — Proceed approx. 0.25
miles. Enter site at metal gate on right, w w
PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP Map Sources:
UT to Altamahaw Site - EEP Project No. 92837 USGS Ossipee/Lake Burlington FIGURE 1
0111
F lit et17m! Alamance County, NC November 11, 2013 NC Maps and NCDOT

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT Altamahawl92837
Mitigation Credits
Phosphorus Nitrogen
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-riparian viefland Buffer Nutrient Nutrient
Offset Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals
738.5
0.013
Project Components
Component Restoration or Restoration Mitigation
Project .. Footage or Ratio
,.
Rip. Non - riverine Northwest boundary 0.026 acres E Equivalent 0.013 0.013 acres 2 to 1
UTAltamahawCreek
Center of Project Area 1,347 linear feet Ell 673.5 673.5 If
2to1
U T to U T Altamahaw
C reek
Southwest boundary 130 linear feet Ell 65 65 If
2 to 1
Component Summation
Non-riparian Restoration Level Stream (linear feet) Riparian Wetland (acres)
Restoration
Enhancement
0.026 acres
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
1,477 linear feet
C reation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
BMP Elements
Element
Location
PurposeJFunction
Notes
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretenton 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
Jenny S. Fleming, PE
[phone]
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
ArhorGen (843) 851 -4129
Cure Nursery (919) 542 -0186
Foggy Mountain Nursery (336) 3845323
Mellow Marsh Farm (919) 742 -1200
Superior Tree (850) 971 -5159
Monitoring Performer
Firm Information/ Address
Ecological Engineering, LLP
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101, Cary, NC 27518
Lane Sauls (stream, vegetation & wetland)
[phone]

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
UT Altamahavvl92837
Project Information
Project Name U T Altamahaw
Casty
Alamance
Pr*dAree
3.6 acres
PrajectCoadnales (lallxfe and "hide) 36 °1943.56" North/ 79 °28'37.91" West
Project
Physiograpluc Province Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic UritBdig# 3030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 1440 T 3030002030010
DWQ Subbasin
03.06.02
Projed Drainage Area
0.51 sq. mi. (334 acres)
Prcjed Drainage Area Peroentage of Impervious Area
Less than 1%
CGIA Land Use ClasskAon
Reach Summary
Parameters
Agricultural Land
Information
Reach 1 Reach 2
Length of Reach
1,347 linear fed
130 linear feet
Valley Classiicaion
Valley Type VIII
Valley Type VIII
Drainage Area
0.51 sq. mi. (334 acres)
0.39 sq. mi. (251 acres)
NCDWQ Stream ID Score
46.75
39.25
NCDWQ Water Quality Chassilicafon
C NSW
C NSW
Morphological Descnpfon (stream type)
C/E 5
C/E 5
Evolufanary Trend
E- C-G -F-E -C
E- C- G-F -E-C
Undertying Mapped Sails
Worsham sandy loam
Worsham sandy loam
Drainage Classifcalion
Poaty drained
Poorly drained
Sal Hydric Stotts
Hydric A
Hydric A
Slope
0 b 3%
0 to 3%
FEMA Classkafon
Zone AE -lower end
Zane AE - lower end
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Percent CwVmiicn of Excic Invasive Species
7 Wetland Summary
Size of Wetland
Less than 5% Less than 50/.
Information
0.026 acres
Welland Type
Seepage
Mapped Sal Series
Worsham sandy loam
Drainage Classillicaion
Poorly drained
Sad Hydric Stair
Hydric A
Saace of Hydrology
Groundwater
Hydrologic Impairment
N one
Naive Vegehafon Canmunity
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Percent Composition of Exoic Invasive Species
Regulatory
Waters of tie United States - Secion 404
Less than 5%
Considerations
Resolved
Waters of tte United States - Section 401
Resolved
Endangered Species Ad
Resolved
Historic Preservation Act
Resolved
Coastal Za WArea Management Ads (CZMA/CAMA)
Not Applicable
FEMA Floodplain Compiance
Resolved
Essenial Fisheries Habilat
Na Applicable

APPENDIX B.
Visual Assessment Data

1
yyydd�y3z �� C\
-gT
s6
Iri
PBBAIANEW
AIXY98 EASEMENT
V
O
�ab I ;-Pon
�qy� a o
gill
886666 3 �
J
LEGEND
CRMGAGB
r~ MONITORING PLAN VIEW Map Source:
UT to Altamahaw Site - EEP Project No. 92837 Ecological Engineering, LLP FIGURE 2
11 11Cement Alamance County, NC November 11, 2013 Baseline Monitoring Figure

Vegetation Plot 1
(323 planted stemslac)
YEAR 2 (2013) CONDITIONS /ISSUES
Vegetation Plot meets or exceeds 320 stems/acre
threshold.
E3 Vegetation Plot not meeting 320 stems/acre
threshold.
Invasive plant species
Mowing location within established easement
boundary
Area of concern
Beaver dam
Auxiliary spillway failure adjacent
to easement area
Wetland enhancement area
Surface water diversion from
modified SMP structure
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
(283 planted stemslac)
Vegetation Plot 4
(404 planted stemslac)
Vegetation Plot 5
(121 planted stems/ac)
0
Aerial Photography Source: www.googlemaps.com
Not to Scale
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
I UT to Altamahaw Site - EEP Project No. 92837 FIGURE 3
�',Illl�]l1C'C111Cl1t Alamance County, NC November 11, 2013

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment UT Altamahaw EEP Project No. 92837
Planted Acreaae 4.6
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
Mapping
Threshold
0.1
CCPV
Depiction
nla
Number of
Polygons
0
Combined
Acreage
0
% Planted
Acreage
0
1. Bare Areas
ac
material
2. Low Stem
Wood stem densities clear) below target levels based
Woody y g
0.1 ac
nla
2 of 5 veg
<0.1 ac
°
2.2 /°
Density Areas
on MY 3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria
plots
Total
2
<0.1 ac
2.2%
3. Areas of Poor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that area
0.25 ac
nla
0
1 ac
25%
Growth Rates or
obviously small given the monitoring year
Vigor
Cumulative Total
2
1.1
27.2%
NOTES: Two of five vegetation plots did not meet the required success criteria for planted stems. A supplemental planting is
proposed during November 2013 to augment existing trees within the easement area.
Portions of the lower project area are covered with a dense assemblage of blackberry. Planted tree stems were difficult to
impossible to locate in multiple areas. Blackberry treatment and removal is proposed in during November 2013.
Easement Acreaae 4.6
NOTES: Invasive plant species observed included Chinese privet and muff flora rose. 1 nese species were rrearea on ucrooer &w,
2013.
Easement encroachment was observed in three separate areas within the existing fenced area. This encroachment
consisted of mowing (4 to 5 -foot wide linear row immediately adjacent to the fence. As a result the plot markers and several
trees within two existing vegetation plots were distroyed. Mowing appears to have occurred during October 2013.

Photostation Comparison
UT Altamahaw Site • Monitoring Year 2 (2013)
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 UT
Altamahaw Creek.
Photostation 5.
Facing north from
east corner of
existing crossing.
Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012 MY 2 2013

Photostation
Comparison • Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012 MY 2 2013
Page 2
Photostation 6.
Facing southwest
from south comer 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 2.

Photostation
Comparison -
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 UT Altamahaw
Creek.
Photostation 14.
Facing downstream
along UT Altamahaw
Creek.
Photostation 15.
Facing north along x-
axis of Vegetation
Plot 3.
Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012 MY 2 2013

Photostation
Comparison -
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.
Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012 MY 2 2013

Photostation
Comparison
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 UT Altamahaw
Creek.
Photostation 24.
Facing northwest
along southern
easement boundary.
Photostation 25.
Facing northwest
along southern
easement boundary.
Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012 MY 2 2013

Photostation
Comparison -
Page 6
Photostation 26.
Facing north along x-
axis of Vegetation
Plot 5.
Photostation 27.
Facing northwest
across Vegetation
Plot 5.
Photostation 28.
Facing downstream
from confluence of
two unnamed
tributaries.
Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012 MY 2 2013

Additional Photographs
UT Altamahaw Site - Monitoring Year 2 (2013)
Photograph 29.
Facing southwest along the northern easement
boundary at mowing inside of the easement
fence.
Photograph 30. Photograph 31.
Facing southwest along the southern easement Facing northwest along the cattle crossing at
boundary at mowing inside of the easement mowing inside of the easement fence.
fence.
Photograph 32.
Facing southeast at erosion and bypass of the
modified level spreader associated with the cattle
crossing.
Photograph 33. Photograph 34.
Facing southeast at erosion and bypass of the Facing northwest at erosion and bypass of the
modified level spreader associated with the cattle modified level spreader associated with the cattle
crossing. crossing.
Photograph 35.
Existing blackberry with scattered stems of
Chinese privet and multiflora rose near
downstream end of the Project Area.
Photograph 36. Photograph 37.
Impounded water along the UT associated with Auxiliary spillway erosion immediately outside of
two beaver dams within the easement area. easement area.
Photograph 38.
Facing downstream along auxiliary spillway at
erosion.
Photograph 39.
Facing downstream along the UT at auxiliary
spillway sloughing into channel.

APPENDIX C.
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata
UT to Altamahaw Creek (EEP Project No. 92837)
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
UT Altamahaw/ 92837
Lane Sauls
Vegetation Plot ID
1
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Yes
Tract Mean
100%
2
Yes
100%
3
No
100%
4
Yes
100%
5
No
100%
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata
UT to Altamahaw Creek (EEP Project No. 92837)
Report Prepared By
Lane Sauls
Date Prepared
7/3112013 11:29
database name
cvseep- enlrytool- v2.3.1.mdb
database location
a e ma aw
CreekIMONITORINGIUTAItamahaw Year 22013
computer name
LANE
file size
DESCRIPTION OF ••
36573184
DOCUMENT
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
project(s) and project data.
Matadata
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.
This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This
includes like stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead
stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed byspecies.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and
percent of total stems impacted byeach.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied bytype for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANT ED living stems of each species for each
plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
PROJECT
ix of the count of total living stems of eacies (planted and
Amatr ch spe
natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are
92837
Project Code
Project Name
UT ALTAMAHAW
Description
River Basin
Cape Fear
length(ft)
1347
stream -to -edge width (ft)
50
area (sq m)
12512.77
Required Plots (calculated)
5
Sampled Plots
5

Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
C=D D, ,. i— r. A, D3av7 D.,Io&r Mauro• I IT AI TAMAHAW
Color for Density
/o
less than 10%
Fails tomeet.requirements, by less than 10%
more than 10%
Current
Plot D. 2013)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
92837•LS-0001
92837•LS-0002 1
228 41-S-0003 I
92837•LS-0004
92837•LS-0005
MY2 (2013)
MY1(2012)
MYO (2012)
Pnol.
Pall
T
Pnol-
Pall
T
Pnol.
Pell
T
Pnol-
Pall
T
Pnol-
Pall
T
Pnol-
Pall
T
PnoL
Pall
T
PnoL
Pell
T
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
1
Acerrubrum
red maple
Tree
3
3
3
Asiminatriloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
T ree
1
8
9
1
1
19
1
1
1
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cornusflorida
flowering dogwood
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
10
10
10
7
7
7
7
7
7
Ligustrum sinense
Chinese privet
Exotic
1
1
1
Liquidam bar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
6
6
8
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
sourwood
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1
2
1
4
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercusmichauxii
swamp chestnutoak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
Quercus pagoda
cherrybarkoak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
i
4
4
4
1
1
1
9
9
9
8
B
8
11
11
11
Rhus
sumac
shrub
2
1
t
4
2
Salixnigra
black willow
Tree
1
1
1
2
Sambucuscanadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
2
Ulmusamedcana
American elm
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
7
7
7
2
2
2
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
Stem count
size (area)
size (ACRES)
Spades count
Stems per ACRE
8
8
14
10
10
16
7
7
B
10
10
12
3
3
18
38
38
68
25
25
60
35
35
37
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.12
0.12
0.12
4 4
9
5 5
8
4 41
51
51 51
71
31 31
61
81
81
161
7 7
14
10 10
11
323.7
566 6M
404.71
647.5M
283.31
323.7
404.71
485.6M
121.41728.41307.61307.61
550AM
202.31
485,6M
283.31
299.5
Color for Density
/o
less than 10%
Fails tomeet.requirements, by less than 10%
more than 10%

APPENDIX D.
Hydrology Data

,. ._
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT Altamahawl92837
Date of Data Collection Date of Occurrence
n/a* November 3 & 4, 2012 NC State Climate Office None
7/31/2013 June 5.13 and June 28 -July 14, 2013 NC State Climate Office, Crest Gage & Visual Assessment
None
W/o
701/6
January
4.1038
1.05
2.45
* Based on daily rainfall data prior to installaton of Crest Gage. Approximately 2.4 inches of rain was recorded over a span of two days.
Table 13. Monthly Rainfall Data Summary - UT Altamahaw Site 2013
Month
Amount (in.)
W/o
701/6
January
4.1038
1.05
2.45
February
3.1642
0.93
2.17
March
2.9724
1.26
2.94
April
3.3429
1.08
2.52
May
3.2845
1.11
2.59
June
6.8952
1.17
2.73
J my
8.58
1.38
3.22
August
1.83
1.2
2.8
September
3.62
1.23
2.87
October
1.54
0.99
2.31
November
0
0.99
2.31
December
0
0.99
2.31
UT Aitamahaw Site 30 -70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall -Monitoring Year 2 Q0131,Alamance County, NC
10
Precipitation Data
F 30%
ik
5
4.
2
D=
Month
E E E
< p
2 0