HomeMy WebLinkAboutRipshinBranchCloseoutReport_20170701Tate Farm Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Ashe County, NC
DMS Project No. 372
USACE Action 1D# SAW-2007-1244-305
DWR 401 # - deemed issued April 2007
Design -Bid -Build Project
CLOSEOUT REPORT: STREAM AND WETLAND
Project Setting & Classifications
Meeting Coordinates: 36.573978° N, 81.612512° W
County
Ashe
General Location
�1 mile south of the
Virginia state line & 3 miles
east of the Tennessee state
line
Basin
New
Physiographic Region
Blue Ridge
Ecoregion
Southern Crystalline Ridges
and Mountains
USGS Hydro Unit
05050001010050
NCDWQ Sub -basin
05-07-02
Wetland Classification
Ri arian
Thermal Regime
Cold
Trout Water
Yes
Project Performers
Source Agency
NCDMS
Provider
NCDMS
Designer:
Ecologic Associates
Monitoring Finn
Axiom Environmental
Approved for Transfer to
Stewardship
Yes
Stewards
NCDEQ Stewardship
Program
Project Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Month -Year
Project Instituted
May 2004
Restoration Plan
March 2007
Permitted
June 2007
Final Design —Construction Plans
September 2009
Enhancement reach buffer planting
May 2011
Construction Complete
August 2011
Construction Area Planting
December 2011
Year 1 Monitoring
October 20t2
Year 2 Monitoring
August 2013
Year 3 Monitoring
July 2014
Year 4 Monitoring
July 2015
Year 5 Monitoring
August 2016
Close Out Submission
July 2017
Note — Monitoring Year Dates reflect mo/yr of data completion
Page 1 of 33
Watershed Plannin¢ Summary
The Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) restoration project is located within 14UC 05050001010050, the
Big Horse Creek & Little Horse Creek watershed, which is listed as a Targeted Local Watershed
(TLW) in the 2009 New River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) plan. The Tate Farm
restoration project is currently the only DMS project in this TLW.
The project's main stem reach is on Ripshin Branch, a tributary to Big Horse Creek. Ripshin
Branch is classified as a Class C Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) by the NC Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR). The ORW designation is intended to protect unique and special
waters having excellent water quality and being of exceptional state or national ecological or
recreational significance. Class C waters are protected for uses such as secondary recreation,
fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life including propagation, survival and maintenance
of biological integrity, and agriculture.
The 2009 RBRP indicates that the Big Horse Creek & Little Horse Creek watershed contains
other High Quality Waters (HQWs) in addition to ORWs, a large portion of which are Trout
streams (Tr). The watershed also includes eight Natural Heritage Element Occurrences
(NHEOs), which represent Natural Heritage Program (NHP) - documented locations of rare and
endangered species and/or unique natural communities. Land cover in the watershed is
predominantly forested (81%), with 15% agricultural land cover and several animal operations.
Nearly 30% of the riparian buffers in the watershed are degraded (non -forested). The major
stressor to the Big Horse Creek & Little Horse Creek watershed is habitat degradation. The 2009
New River RBRP recommends stream, wetland, and buffer restoration and enhancement
projects, as well as headwaters preservation projects, to protect instream and riparian habitat. It
also recommends the implementation of agricultural and urban Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to maintain and enhance water quality and protect habitat.
The goals of the Tate Farm project are consistent with DMS watershed planning goals. The
project improves stream water quality and habitat by excluding livestock, establishing stable
channel geomorphology, and restoring riparian buffer. The restored channel maintains sediment
transport and experiences reduced bank scour, both of which improve benthic habitat. Riparian
buffers stabilize the stream channel, intercept sediment and nutrient inputs, provide terrestrial
habitat, and enhance benthic habitat by introducing woody debris to the channel.
Proieet Setting and Background Summary
Prior to Site implementation, the Site streams were impaired as the result of poor land management,
livestock intrusion, upstream disturbances, and human impacts. Most of the farm, excluding the project
areas and DMS's conservation easement, are under a farm easement in perpetuity with the Blue Ridge
Conservancy. The DMS project area conservation easement, combined with the Blue Ridge
Conservancy's farm easement, provide a unique tandem approach to site wide protection of streams and
wetlands from future development. The NCWRC designates this area of Ashe County, including Ripshin
Branch, as home to native brook trout. The receiving waters of Big Horse Creek just downstream are also
a hatchery -supported, public access fishery.
The surrounding area to the project is characterized by mountains with steep forested slopes, with small
inclusions of farm and pastureland in the floodplains. Mapped county rock types (sedimentary and
metamorphic) include Metafelsite (symbol Zmf), a lightcolored, porphyritic extrusive rock and
Metagraywacke interlayered with metaconglomerate, laminated metasiltstone, and slate (symbol Zml),
with minor inclusions of calcareous metasandstone, greenstone, and metarhyolite. The soils observed in
the proposed wetland restoration areas are typically inclusions of Iotla, which is a somewhat poorly
drained soil, or Toxaway, which is a poorly drained or very poorly drained soil, Depths to a cobble layer
were somewhat shallow for these series. Toxaway soils are typical of wetlands in the area. Iotla soils are
not hydric, but have very good potential for wetland creation, and in some cases may be present in
wetlands in this area. The extent of these soils was confirmed in the field and used as the basis of
restoration strategies.
Along both the Unnamed Tributary and Ripshin Branch there are wetlands located in the floodplains
adjacent to the streams. In all cases, these wetlands have been impacted by livestock, agriculture,
ditching, draining and filling. There are at least two areas along the Unnamed Tributary and three
locations along Ripshin Branch that have been delineated according to the 1987 USACE Wetland
Manual. These areas were flagged and mapped using a mapping grade GPS unit. On February 21, 2007,
Amanda Jones of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers visited the site and confirmed the wetland
identifications and boundaries established by DMS.
Stream visual assessments indicate that the stream is functioning as designed. Over the course of
the project, cross-section 8 on the Unnamed Tributary exhibited some thalweg movement. This
Page 2 of 33
was documented in the annual cross-section data as well as photographs. Prior to year 1 (2012) a
gravel bar formed in the riffle at cross-section 8. Several high energy flow events during years 2
(2013) and 3 (2014) pushed much of this gravel downstream. This resulted in the thalweg
migrating to the left bank of the stream and becoming slightly scoured at cross-section 8. The
sediment was transported downstream and deposited in pools, which is captured in the cross-
section 7 data. Though slight changes were observed in the cross -sectional area and thalweg
position of these cross -sections, the channel movement is natural and does not indicate
instability. Bankfall width remains within 10 percent of the design value. In addition, 11
bankfull events were documented throughout the course of the monitoring period with at least
one event occurring in four separate monitoring years.
While baseline as built conditions were surveyed as part of the construction contract, a baseline report
was not performed for this project. Because the designer was not scoped for a baseline report, and refused
to accept additional services associated with MYO-MY5, the onset of monitoring was delayed and the
monitoring contract timeline was started concurrent with MY1 data collection.
Page 3 of 33
Goals and Obiccti%es (from 2007 Restoration Plan)
GOALS
• Improve stream water quality and ecological function by excluding livestock, restoring pool and riffle
sequences, and restoring tree canopy and instream large woody debris.
• Enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the stream corridor and adjacent wetlands.
• Enhance and/or restore the ecological function of riparian wetlands.
• Restore the riparian corridor (forested buffer) for watershed and wildlife benefits.
• Enhance habitat for native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and improve fishery potential.
• Increase biodiversity of the stream ecology, riparian buffers, and wetlands.
OBJECTIVES
• Improve channel geomorphology toward reference conditions by providing watershed scaled and Rosgen-
typed channel dimension, adding floodplain benches where floodplain access is not feasible, restoring
sinuous pattern to straightened reaches where possible, and adjusting profile as needed to restore or
maintain sediment transport equilibrium.
• Restore stream -side flood prone area where appropriate (increase floodwater access to the floodplain).
• Reduce sediment and nutrient loading by reshaping and stabilizing banks, reducing bank scour, excluding
livestock, and restoring riparian buffers.
• Enhance or restore wetland hydrology and vegetation in former pastures and filled wetlands.
Success Criteria (from 2007 Restoration Plan
l
Success Criterion
Measured
Criteria Met
Parameter
Streams
• Channel morphology retains the design stream type over the
majority of the reach.
Yes —Site streams are
• Coarsening of riffle bed material in newly constructed reaches.
8 permanent
stable and have maintained
• Pool/riffle spacing should remain fairly constant.
cross -sections (6
design measurements
• Maintenance of bankfull width at riffles within 10 percent of
riffle and 2 pool);
pebble counts
throughout monitoring
period. Minimal
the design.
• Maintenance of bank height ratios at 1:1.
(cross -sections 4
aggradation/degradation
• Bank stability over 90 percent ofaltered channel reaches.
2
monitoring
mtoring
have occurred. Riffle bed
material has coarsened or
• Dimension and profile stability over 90 percent of altered
reaches; and 17
remained close to
channel reaches.
permanent photo
design/as-built values
• No significant channel aggradation or degradation.
points
throughout the monitoring
• Minimal development of instream bars.
period.
• Biological populations (invertebrate and fish) remain constant
or increase and species composition indicates a positive trend.
Vegetation
Planted stem densities
• Minimum of260 stems/acre in year 5
were just 2 stems shy of
success criteria in year 5
• Planted vegetation stabilizing at 20 years with distinct canopy,
18 vegetation
with an average of 258
subcanopy, and shrub layers.
plots measured
planted stems/acre
• Establishment of herbaceous cover over 75 percent of the soil
using the CVS
(excluding livestakes),
surface in restored wetlands and riparian areas.
Level H protocol
however when including
• Plant biodiversity dominated by native species, with minimal
natural recruits, Site stem
ecological impact from invasive species.
density is 411 stema(acre.
Onsite rain gauge
Yes — Success criteria were
Hydrology
and photo
met throughout the
monitoring period with a
• Documentation of two bankfull channel events
documentation of
total of 11 documented
bankfull events
bankfull events.
Wetland Hydrology
Yes — Site groundwater
• Hydrologic monitoring indicates groundwater within 12 inches
gauge data indicate
of the ground surface for 10 percent of the growing season
6 groundwater
groundwater within 12
• Increasing wetland vegetation
gauges and onsite
inches of the ground
• Development of hydric soils
rain gauge
surface for 10 percent of
• Fulfill US Army Corps of Engineers (U5ACE) criteria for
each growing season in
jurisdictional wetlands
wetland credit area.
Level spreaders were not
implemented at designers
Stable and
discretion; outlet protection
effective over
along the main stem at the
Stormwater Management Devices (Level Spreaders)
80% of their
downgradient end of
cumulative length
culverts below Ripshin
Road were implemented,
however, and are showing
success.
Page 4 of 33
d
m
m
m
a
+*
a
a
a n
2r n
n
3
o
>>
9
ro a
A
u N
A W
W W
W N
N W
N F+
N W
F+ DD
w 3
n m
N
n n
n
9'
yTy++
.r
s
a
�
-�•
C
C
f°
z
z
a
n
� a
n
5L v
Q
c
mw��6'
9
3
5
m
w
io
ro' m
iu ro
N m
ro e
af0i
m
m
on
m
S
S
�
d
= N
I
I
I
• I
.mm
\
p
pOp W
1-+
r
O
CD
IOD
O N
}
N
+
1+
F+
}
O
A
+
N
}
N O
S
+A
l�l1
S
O
3
N
K
W
A Y+
N 0o
N V
�+ F+
�l
N
W
0000
7
O
W A
,W
W pi
pN
V 00
O 00
Im
00
N O
tin
t0n0
O
O
pd0 w
Fm+ \ A
d
z
m
M
m
>
>
>
>
v
Q
a
d
fD
w �°
osi �
m f°
m M
m
m
z
m 2
m 2
m I
m
m
m
o
o
3
m
m
o
m o
m o
m o
m
S
o n
N
C N
0 0
d
N
T
m m
�.
N
A
F+ O
N W
t0
W N
O1 O
A r
r
N VI
N
r S
o1
N
A W
r
N N
N
�
O
O
71
9
p
A
W N
0~0 T
J 00
O 00
CT l0
� 00
A O
VI
L.
O
O
A
N
Ap
F+ a
W
N ID
w N
O
A r
N
N
T W
N pppp
O
pp
ppp
a
1V
7
A
lVD
W N
w ipD
00 01
OWi
V 00
LM
O 00
Of
FA+ 00
ID
A
l~fl
00
O
O
b ex'
A w
N
�c
to
O
7
o
r
rJ�
a, W
lilt V
T J
L.
00
F+
A
V
Q
m
N
A
W ~
W�
m
W N�
Q1
a,
T
W T
OD 00
O1
pO
A
O
N
O
N
00.
O
N
m
m
b
d
d
ti
S
_.
S
_•
S
S
j
S
j
S
j
S
3
>
>
O
O
3
7
7
m
m
m a
m
m
m
Daaa'
a
on,
fD
m
oa
3
s
.s..s,
3
3
m
d
.y.
f
iE
dOL
oFi
d
a�i I
N 7
[
o
d
a
o.
of
N
m
ID
ry
ID
m
m
C
m
m
m
N
m
m
n
m
C
m
n
m
�
m
n
to
n
cn
a
to
o.
m
N
0
F
�
a
w
N
�
•
N
0
a
a
o
-
8
C
vi"i �i'nAw�
�vmuooi A o�
oro mm AgA
00 v°°ia gm
�v1°igu'^'�
ro
I'
..
•
0
•
� •
3 a A�
T�
A
O 0�0 A 'p�j 0 3
C0 0 Om0 O 8 3'
O tN°
Ow ? 0 3
v 00 O D ip 3
V O O� V W C
QQA
W O O� V C
V o Q � O V W C
W O O V W C
QA
O o 0� '•' O V+ C
2
g y D
�5'am
i n�
3wo3
fDn
aowjO �,
n
1 R a 'c
t 2
z
�
R
n
o
o
l
0
v
10
o
O O� Y�
O O m 00 A
O O Oho W ry
O o �p � ry
a
0
m
Cc
C
O O •+ c
N O O H W �{
Cc
p O O N N L
a �ommc00$o0°°G
Vo88`$°° 3
m�$wrn3
�s
3 m
o d n
�
a
w
ro =
v n
n Qo
0
E
�
¢\ m
em¥
z
0§/
z-12g
%f50
�2 §
\ ;u /
5' w z
°d §
\
A. [
( §
N 3
k
3
m p
`va m 3
zr
0 m
n=m
5
w3
u�
m
n
�c
�mm
-a,DZ
c ego
`m Z
z�T0
�=Oz
�Wz
CO
0
w z
v �n
N=m
(7
C
o D
a
�.-M°
m > z
n ;7 O
Z -i K --I
o Z 0
C
v m D
o �v
w z
°) r i <
m
Dwn. by.
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW KRJ FIGURE
A- En—m —I Date:
2,a5nnw Avenue TATE FARM (AREA 2)Riiielgt,A D
(91%21, _1095 3 DMS PROJECT NUMBER 372 Dec. zols LJ
19�9I 215-1693
Ashe County, North Carolina Project:
Axiom Environmental, Inc. 12-004.13
0
CT
0 T~
N
m
rn �Dz
c �m0
' D
z
rn
�nmp
Z --IK -AzDO
c
m��
W W Z
N <
m
AHom EnNnMmBMB�
216 9na. AVBnu6
RN•iyn, NC276N
(919)215-1693
Axiom Envlronmentel, fnc.
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
TATE FARM (AREA 4)
DMS PROJECT NUMBER 372
Ashe County, North Carolina
own by
KRJ
FIGURE
Date.
Dec. 2016
2 F
Project.
12-004.13
L) 1
1 1
i
ato
�
CL
w8MMEMi
Sdaa
e m p a? D z o= R
ro
w
as
co
Ripshin Branch, XS -1, Rime
62
61
_
1
60
0
59
58
57
56
0 10 20
30 40
Station (teen
�.l1YDl le N,12
-uro2 aeluu
�b1Yd]OS,le,l�
-M1'DI �-31,10
MYL59,I:IE
Ripshis Branch, XS - 2, Pool
67 -
b6 -
_ 63 -
64 a
63
m
G2 •
61 -
1
60
0 LO 20
30 40
Station (feet/
Ripshin Branch, XS - 3, RUM
70
________________________ _ ____________
_________________-
68
--eNdJl
i
66
lalo-lz
.mac,
-aera2vawu
64
-MM05,1e,N
-MY.D#Q?115
-vrmml,le
62
0 10 20
30 40
Station (ftep
Ripshin Branch, XS - 4, Rime
82
80
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---'D.M
----
- wala9l�at
-an'Dr vs Is,u
76
-ura a.zals
ANDS 9,1,10
74
0 10 20 30 40
Stmtan (feet)
Page 13 of 33
Rlpshin Branch, XS - 5, Riffle
86
c 84
------------------------- -----.ry,p PrtrcA®
s�—asral zolau
{ 62 � M•az aauns
—M•a5mw19
—arras 9anls
my" 04 11
Bo
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Slarion (/eeq
Unnamed Tributary, XS - 6, Riffle
82
-----------------------------------------------------------------
r
---•aNEa
0
80
---------------
------------------------------
--
---•Fam ]mepAm,
�Nr-01 ]O�Iau
-arc-02 awIFi3
�`aY-0SMIYN
�afY-099:]'IS
-NY-059�140
'B
0
10 20
30
Station peer)
Unnamed Trlbutary, XS - 7. Pool
SS
----------- ---------------- -----
-.
----e amu
66
----Fmer—Al..
_
—MM wnw
_TI-Z
—M'42061a11
—a[YO10Y15.19
�a[ras9az�s
—a[Ya59'116
84
0 10
_0
Starion (feet)
Unnamed Tributary, XS - 8, Riffle
98
96
3•
c
--- -tlo,er—
Aw
Page 14 of 33
E E N E a E x ox S S E x E
5 8
F
B
L � �
`8 S
s
i
�
E
p
NN
M
t
Y
p
4 w�
g
k
{
8
}
i
€
`e
F
F
r
8
8
8
S
T
I
j
E€
'
R
}
g
��
m
iiin
mn
HIM
11111111'
iiiii
IN
1111111110
II
IINI
III12
11111
1119�
�IB9�10,
III
IIIII
II
��BI
1IIII
1911191110
III
Ilfll
19911
�91101m��
III
IIIII
�III�
N�11111'
III
IIIII
Iltl
�1191
�919111
III
11910
N��911��
III
Iltl
11019
1111111110
�90�1
WI�B991�
III
Ilrl
II
IINI
III�I
1991111��
IIIII
1@9@I�II�
III
IIRI
11iii
=iii1iia10
IN
iini
1
111
INN
III11
1111181110
III
IIIII
III1I
191191191
i
iiin
imun
IIII
iiiii
IIIIIII1111111110
III
1111111110
I�
II
III
III
I
I
I�II1111111110
1i216
I1@191:@1
11�19
I�@�I@I@
INI@
1991911�i
III
III
III
III
ICY
III1I
19180111�
1��
I��
11�
IIIII
1911911110
BI���
11169��1�
II��I
1@I�61=��
E
'
iwnnin
nan���u
101�BI@BN
IIIIIIIII�
IIIIIIIII�
119911991�
III�BI�1@I
II��11��11
91�9111�@�
91�9111091
�901i1o@I
09918910@I
91011010@
1121111011
1111111011
1111111111111
Verification of Bankfull Events - Tate Farm
Date of Data
Date of
Photo (if
Method
Collection
Occurrence
available
Approximately 3.9 inches of rain documented* at a nearby rain station over
June 7, 2013
January 17, 2013
a four day period from Jana 14-17, 2013.
Wrack and sediment observe on top of banks after approximately 4.2 inches
April 28, 2013
January 3Q 2013
1-3
of rain was documented" at a nearby rain station on January 30, 2013.
Approximately 4.34 inches of rain documented over three days at the onsite
June 12, 2013
May 7, 2013
rain gauge.
---
Wrack observed in the floodplain after approximately 5.92 inches of rain
June l2, 2013
May 24, 2013
4
was documented over eight days at the onsite rain gauge,
Approximately 4.13 inches of rain documented over two days at the onsite
August 13, 2013
July 4, 20] 3
rain gauge.
---
Wrack and laid back vegetation observed in the flood plain after
August 13, 2013
August 1 Q 2013
5
approximately 3.52 inches of rain was documented at the onsite rain gauge.
September 2-8,
Wrack observed in floodplain after rainfall totaling 4.37 inches documented
October 7, 2014
6
2014
at the onsite rain gauge.
Wrack and laid-back vegetation observed on the floodplain after
April 26, 2015
April 19, 2015
approximately 2.32 inches of rain documented at an onsite rain guage on
7-8
4119/15 with an additional 3.21 inches documented the preceding 2 weeks.
Approximately 4.21 inches of rain documented over two days at the onsite
November 5, 2015
July 14, 2015
rain gauge.
Approximately 6.38 inches of rain documented over a ten day period at the
November 5, 2015
October 3, 2015
---
onsite min gauge.
Approximately 2.57 inches ofrain documented in one day after 3,59 inches
August 31, 2016
August 8, 2016
of rain was documented over the previous five days at the onsite rain gauge.
'Jefferson Weather Station (Weathemndergmund 2014)
Page 19 of 33
Wetland Hvdrolot-v Data — Tate Farm
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season
Gauge
(Percentage)
Year 1 (2012)*
Year 2 (2013)
Year 3 (2014)
Year 4 (2015)
Year 5 (2016)
I
Yes/130 Days
Yes/34 Days
Yes/22 Days
Yes/26 Days
81%
21%
14%
16%
2
Yes/160 Days
Yes/160 Days
Yes/160 Days
Yes/160 Days
100%
100%
100%
100%
3
Yes/160 Days
Yes/160 Days
Yes/160 Days
Yes/160 Days
100%
100%
100%
1009%
4
Yes/152 Days
No/14 Days**
Yes/46 Days
Yes/61 Days
95%
8%
29%
38%
5
Yes/160 Days
Yes/47 Days
Yes/43 Days
Yes/60 Days
100%
29%
27%
38%
6
Yes/160 Days
Yes/46 Days
Yes/114 Days
Yes/80 Days
100%
29%
71%
50%
* Groundwater Gauges were installed in October 2012; therefore, groundwater monitoring was initiated during the
Year 2 (2013) monitoring year.
**Gauge 4 malfunctioned at beginning of 2014 growing season resulting in loss of data. A battery failure at the
beginning of the growing season resulted in a loss of data. The gauge was replaced and is currently functioning
properly, but during a subsequent visit additional data was lost due to a failed Meazura PDA. Based on hydrology
of the additional gauges, in addition to abundant precipitation, it is likely that Gauge 4 would have met success for
year 3 (2014).
Note - Success indicated at 10% per 2007 Restoration Plan.
Page 20 of 33
3
3
33'
3
y
d
A
c
S°'O
3�°�xF�o
°�_m�mNm
D�sD'^
Firm
8�A
z
o
m 3
33
$
a
�,
°
a
f n—
3
3
o' i
ssn
a ji 3
a 3
3
2
2
` ry
'� '�
W
'�
m 2
'�
'� r�
2 '�
2 2
n m'
2
2 2`
m 2
y rt N
O
1
N
i
ti
d
�ry�'
D$ A 3$
IS
K
T
O
W
G
U1 P
00
Y W-
�+ W
W
W
Q�
-
Y
A
y
3
O
10
A
i+
A V
pppp
W b
tYi� Ili
w
W
O
b
N
O Y
A A
J
N
W
N
N
N Y
Y
C
Orr
N
3
O
o
A
{N W
N O
OY1 W
A
V
N N
Y w
A
P
N
P
H
9
G
°
3 C
`v'
O
gmG
Id
9
<
W d
� 3
eow
Y
m omwA
YP
V�
wm
.•
A
d
A �
A
W
N
N
tp
W
P
W
p
W
IYII
N
Y °1
in
Y A
to A
r
O,AA
W
p
W
V~i
N
Y O�
W
Y P
to A
y
N
W
A
N
A m
N
°
� A
A V
Y A
tYn W
VYi
N N
W O
in
Y>
In A
J
W b
W
A
J
Y N
Y W
A
Y W
W
O
N
dt
N
3
A
Y V
A N
W
A Y
Y °Y1
N W
r
N
07
W
W N
W
N
W
Ell / P Reaches
liesEur
Areas
v
H
N
H
F+
H
00
V
01
M
A
W
W
LA m
A �
a
�
3
O
N
A
O
LHD
W
A
L~O
A
O
H
N
N
W
W
N
Ln
N
m
to �
m
O
00
Q1
O
01
tD
N
01
01
La
m
M
A
O
00
00
N
N
w
O
W
F+
N
N
N
N
1+
F+
lT
W
01
N
�4,
N
N
Ln
O
N
W
v
00
O
F+
N
N
A
WIN
MIU
N
w
A
N
00
O
LD
H
A
M
I—
A
N
00
LO O
�j
00
T
00
F+
O
N
O
M
O
N N
F+
W W
A
N
In
N
M
A
O
00
1-H
00
01
V
N
H
Co
L71
O00
N
O1
n 9
A a
N
O
N
A
O
N
W
A
IN+
A
O
H
W
N
W
W
FW+
a)
N
A
H
DD
H
N
00
r
A
f+
MI—
A
N
A
OD
0)
%D
N
O
M
(n
O
A
N
00
N
N
A
A
00
O.
A
O
f�
N
O
O
N
N
O
N
M
O
H
H
M
H
M
W
01
IUD N
N
O
N
N
Ln
O
W
W
A
lD
A
N
H
W
W
W
A
l�
m
W
N
3 Ol
Ln
w 1
H
N
01 A
A
N
H
w
M
1p
H
H
H
M
H
N
M
n 3
00
41
Co
I.-
O
N
O
W
W
N
1+
0�
V
DD
W
01
N
A
A
O
N
H
N
H
N
01
Ol
N
M
W
M
Ln 'V
as
H
H
H
00
H
A
H
M
I'-,
M
N
A
^
{
W
Ol
W LD
N
m[n
Ol
O
W
N
lb
as
0N
W
00
O
N
N
O
O
F+
N
O
N
M
H
N
H
V
N
Ol
W
01
N
O
A
Y
Ln
V
N
M
O
A
W
V
LD
A
N
N
W
N
A
A
W
V
W
.Ni H
N
O
N
w
/-+
m
W
H
L"
H
Ln
N
LJL
L"L 3 qL
ON
W
pi
co
fj
W
I..
O
F+
F+
Co
Co
N
M
I--
I..
V
N
01
L.
M
to �
CL
N
O
F+
N
O
O
W
A
LLO
A
O
W
W
N
W
A
N
V
N
N
00
N
H
V
H
A
H
r+
Ln
H
A
N
A
^ .�+
A
00
O
N
01
m
01
O
N
N
00
N
m
00
Co
00
0.
N
O
O
H
O
w
1-+
N
LO
N
M
H
H
H
0)
N
m
W
G1
N 0
N
O
W
W
ui
N
h+
A
O
A
W
H
A
N
W
W
N
W
A
N
V
m
3
In
Co
A
H
lD
!+
00
N
N
A
H
A
H
H
Ln
H
A
N
T
Cu 0
3 y
M
O
O
01
N
O
�I
H
N
Is
M
O
M
O1
N
00
01
N
H
N
H
00
H
N
01
O1
N
OD
0)
00
W
A
V
ry CL O1
W
W
0
W
V
� A
0
N
O
W
W
^ 3 A
N
In
H
M
A
W
C.
H
CL
N
N
W
W
N
m
3 a
�
o
N
N
A
N
Co
3 y
O
H
Ln
A
W
b
oa
N
W
DMS Recommendation and Conclusion
DMS recommends that the Tate Farm Site be closed out as proposed to generate 9885.7 Stream
Mitigation Units and 4.534 Riparian Wetland Mitigation Units.
The vegetation survey results indicated an average site density of 258 planted stems per acre
(excluding livestakes) surviving in year five, which is just 2 stems short of the 260 stems per acre
success criteria. However, when including naturally recruited species such as river birch (Betula
nigra), yellow birch (Betula lenta), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and Rhododendron
(Rhododendron maximum), Site stem densities are 411 stems per acre. Supplemental random
survey transects performed in April 2017 indicate high stem densities. One small area of
floodplain scour was observed on the downstream portion of Ripshin Branch. However,
vegetation, both woody and herbaceous, has been steadily reestablishing in this area, and it
appears to be stable. Additionally, little to no invasive species were observed.
Groundwater gauge data indicate that wetland hydrology with 10% hydroperiod has been easily
achieved throughout wetland restoration and enhancement areas. Wetland areas currently fulfill
the USACE requirements for jurisdictional wetlands, and an increase of wetland vegetation was
observed.
Contingencies
None,
Page 24 of 33
Pre -Construction Photos
Page 23 of 30
Post Construction Photos — Preservation, May 2014
Page 24 of 30
Post Construction Photos - August 2016
Page 25 of 30
Post Construction Photos - August 2016
wpm
-ac)�
r
:.i. ''A +
Page 26 of 30
Appendix A: Property Ownership Information & Verification of Protection Mechanism
The site protection instrument for this mitigation project includes the following document(s), available at the specified
County Register of Deeds office, and is linked to the property portfolio at:
http://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Mitijzation%20Services/Document%20Management%20Librarv/Property/Prope rtv`Yo20Portfolio/372 TateFarm P
D 2008.pd#
roject Name untyl Grantor Name W ➢tii 11 InN0 , .
Tate Farm JAshe JLarry Dale Miller and wife, Karen Miller IDB399,P2311 lConservation Easement
ate Farm JAshe Michael N. Tate and wife, Virginia B. Tate DB 390, P 1612 IConservation Easements
Long-term stewardship of this property is managed by the NC DEQ Stewardship Program.
APPENDIX B: Permits and Jurisdictional Determination
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. SAW-2007-1244-305 County: Ashe USGS Quad: Park
GENERAL, PERMIT (REGIONAL. AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner / Authorized Agent: NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, Attn: Salam Murtada
Address: 1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone No,: 919-715-1972
Size and location of property (water body, road name/number, town, etc.): 40-acre site adjacent to Ripshin Creek off SR
1361 (Ripshin Road) northwest of Lansing.
Description of projects area and activity: Restoration of 35201inear feet, enhancement of 13,000 linear feet and
preservation of 10,550 linear feet of perennial stream channel through the restoration/enhancement of natural
channel dimension, pattern and profile. Restoration of 4 acres, enhancement of 7.35 acres and preservation of 0.25
acres of wetland. Activities include construction of floodplain benches, restoration of floodprone area, stabilizing
stream banks, excluding livestock, excavating a new channel, filling old channel and planting native vegetation.
The proposed project will impact approximately 2450 linear feet of existing channel. SPECIAL CONDITION:
The permittee will implement, in full, the Ripsbin Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Plan of March 9, 2007.
Applicable Law: X Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number:
Nationwide Permit Number: 27
Your work is authorizcd by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached permit
conditions and your submitted plans. Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the
permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action.
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization is modified,
suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or
modified, this verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all requirements of
the modified nationwide permit If the nationwide permit authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the
activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commended (i.e., are
under construction) or are under contract to continence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the
activity is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case -by -case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization.
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also require an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification. You
should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone (919) 733-1786) to determine Section 401 requirements.
For activities occurring within the twenty coastal counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA),
prior to beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal Management,
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal,
State or local approvals/permits.
Ifthere are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Steven Lund at telephone 828-271-7980 x 223.
Corps Regulatory Official: Steven Lund ',:Sv -�-- Date: 6/29/2007
Expiration Date of Verification: 6/29/2009
Page 1 of 2
RECEIVED
AJ L 5 - 2007
NC ECOSYSTEM
EHHRPk1!-h: -AtT PROGRAM
Determination of Jurisdiction:
Based on preliminary information, there appear to be waters of the US including wetlands within the above described project area.
This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process
( Reference 33 CFR part 331).
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
X There are waters of the US and/or wetlands within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
The jurisdictional areas within the above described project area have been identified under a previous action.
Basis of Jurisdictional Determination: Ripshin Branch is a perennial tributary to Big Horse Creek which is tributary to North Fork
New River, a navigable water. Wetlands in the project area are abutting Ripshin Branch.
Corps Regulatory Official: Steven Lund ,::& W 4-
Date: 6/29/2007
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELMATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC., MUST BE
ATTACHED TO THE FILE COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
Copy Furnished:
Mr. Mark A. Taylor
EcoLogic Associates, PC
4321-A S. Elm -Eugene Street
Greensboro, NC 27406
Page 2 of 2
m
m
a
m
m
m
n
3
n
0
55
o
m-I>>
m
tD
�
m
O omi
obi
eno
ene
n
No
A�
m m
m
3
o f
�0000
c
00
(a
}a ,m
n
0
n
(Qp .e.
N
V V
V O
W [O
7
rp
N A
V
W D7
W Ol
U
O
.e ;
y
al
n
♦n
O
O
�
ry �1
N
O
V
N N
N V
N N
III
y
O
O_
N O
N 6
OO�Wap
V N_
i^r
V
O
OO
J
m
UO
OJ OVf
Or ( On
��Wpp
UD
A(�
O
Z
O
J' —I c
O=
O 3
3
()
J J
< G
rp
(�
O
9r cn 0
v N 0
m
0
o
o
� 6?
0 al
N (D
�.
QIn
o p
m0 -i
0
a�i -�
n
a
M_
o
m m (�"p
Z Z
N O
N O
N to.
-0D
3
O N
5 fN.)
Z
N
W
m
O
V o
w 013.
O N
R
w
N
j
Z
Op
O
_
in
0
O
±0
i.
oo
N
A
�
0
ee
O
N
p
W f
O
N
ro
r
N
A
e
rUp
er
V
Ba
p -nc '
b
O
O)
N
IV
O
O
V W
U
W Y
,O Dhearn
A
w
OWa
o
O
.r"i
V
W
(AT O
t
ro
0
Enhanceni
0
rn
N
m
N
�
W
ca � beam
eW.r
W
O
U
O
O
O
�
A
O
u
O
eOp �reaervdtlen
O
iparian
O
a
o 0
0
0 0
0 o
N
N Restoration
W
O
pp
A
A O
0�1
N 001
O N
A
Co
Riparian
Creation
Riparian
^�
Co
UD
A Enhance
m
N
pOI
A
O
W
m
N
W
NOi
U
A
O
Nonriparian
Restoration
Nonriparian
Creation
Nonriparian
Enhancement
Nonripar
Preservation
Coastal Marsh
Restoration
Coastal Marsh
Creation
Coastal Marsh
Enhancement
OAd;y
E- ZKr:o
;0noo
lo°,d cc:a
m= o A
G
m
aq
z z
o z
co
3 3
m m
a a
p'
3
�'-
-
O
6
b6
o
m
a c
N
a
n
m
o
O
m
yr
bbW
Nb
�
�j
N
mmm
�i rn
O
V
N O
m N
m
N 5
rl
W
W
>
> a
N
m
N
J
Stream EnhancmentlV
0 o
o O
<p
O'&
Q�
O
o
mo
0 6r
N
Shaem Enhencemeltt
o a
o
Stream Presery U'
0 o
gog
o
0 0
pep
Riparian Rasta, q
oW
Rlparten Creati
O
Rlparlan Enhanceme W
ro
A o
U
W
Rlparlan P N
-.,Ip.-an RB —ftn
Nonrlparlan Creation W
Nanrlparlen Enhencamenl N
Nonrlparlan Preservation U
Coastal Marsh Rastoratlon
Coastal Marsh Creation
C0851a1 Marsh Enhanoamarn N
Coastal Marsh Preservation
Appendix D. Additional Data
Tate Farm 2017 Vegetation Transects
Transect i
Transect 2
Transect 3
Transect 4
Transect 5
Transect 6
Dimensions(ft)
20x50
10x100
20x50
25x40
30x33
20x50
Trib to UT1
Upper end of
Bottom of
Ripshin Br.
UTl North
W. side
Trib to UT1
Area 3 Farm
Area 3 inside
Floodplain S
Description
side
above
E. side below
Road trib (S.
easement
side near plot
crossing
crossing
side)
fence
4
Stems
9
2
9
25
10
9
Acres
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
0.023
Stems/Acre
392
87
392
1089
436
392
Note :<2ft. not counted
Page 29 of 29
TABLE 1
PLANTING PLAN SUMMARY TABLE
TATE FARM CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION
RIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENT PLAN
N
ne ID
Area ac
S i fl
Ste
P
in Sim
Top of bank
8
1.9
10
435
a27
Liner
3116,
Dry floodplain
C
3.3
10
435
1436
Urw
Vie,
Wet flood lain
D
1.8
1 10
435
7b3
Liner
3He'
Wetland enhancement
E
1.5 1
10
435
Linef
3116"
Min % Compostlon by Stratum, any on"geqjm = 20%
Max % Co don by Stratum. any one specles - 40%
PlantIn
Stratum
B
C
D
E
CanopySubcan
n Na Seiantfie Name
Northern Red Oak Quercus rubrum varrubrum
x
x
camore Mm) ,Platanus oaidenralis
x
x
x
x
Wh[te Oak Mtn 4uescus alba
x
'
x
Blade Walnut Jugians nkpa
x
x
Blade Locust
Robinia seuJo "0A
x
x
White Pine
Anus wbus
x
x
Canada Hemlock
TsWa canadensis
x
x
Red Maple
Aw rubrum
x
x
x
Whke Basswood
Tillie heterophylla
x
x
Sveel Birch
BetulaWits
x
x
x
x
Yellow Birch
Betufa aRgharvensis
x
x
River Birch
Beftda n'
x
x
x
SilveMell Mtn
Hekrsia carafirsaa
x
x
x
Cucumber Tree
Aftgwft ecumvwte
x
x
x
Yellow Buckeye
Aesculus octarxka
x
I
x
Bidemut HIckory
CaWa cordlormis
x
x
Mokemut Hickory
Cage tomentoss
x
x
Green Ash
Proxi ua PLn-yhranica
x
x
x
x
Wild Plum
Prunus amancana
x
x
W tchtwel
Hamamelis vw9k-was
x
x
Sounvood
Oxydendronarboreum
x
x
Black cherry
Proms serchna
x
x
x
W. 3aurel
KaRnia latlfblla
x
x
Drooping Laucolhoe
Lmwttw axftds
x
x
x
Dentate VlbWWM
IRbumum dentatum
x
x
Serviceberry
Ametanctwrarborm
x
s
_
x
Sveetshrub
Cabocanthusfibndus
x
x
Summarsweet
I CleMra athoWta
x
x
Spiosbush
L 9we benzan
x
x
x
Sweet Azalea
Rhododendron earlescons
x
x
Flame Azalea
jRftvbd0ndrDn elacndulaceum
x
x
Swamp Azalea
"Rhododendron vi WWM
x
x
x
Smooth Azalea
!Rhododendron arborescerm
x
x
American Holly
flex oyaca
x
! x
x
x
Chokebe
Aroma arbutifolfa
x
l x
x
x
Blueberry
Vaocinium sp.
x
x
Tag alder
Alnusaerulata
x
x
x
ironwood
Cwpkms caralinlana
x
x
x
Silky dWwood
Comus amomum
x
x
x
S1ve Rose
Rosa lustds
x
x
vvmer be
!lox ven*7lwe
x
x
Hazelnut
Colyka americans
x
x
With -rod
vibumwncas3ko)des
x
x
11 r3w
EcoLogic
COLOR CODE PLANT LIST FOR TATE PROJECT
Sycamore (Mtn)
Orange/Black
River Birch
Pink
Silverbell (Mtn)
Orange/Yellow
/00
Green Ash
Green
/ O
Witchhazel
Green/White
y
Sourwood
Red/Orange
qc
Black Cherry
Black/White
57
Mt. Laurel
Orange/White
/s
Serviceberry
Red/White`
Spicebush
Yellow
Ge
I
Blueberry
Blue
Ironwood
Blue/Orange
Silky Dogwood
Red/Yellow
Hazelnut
Orange
Persimmon
Red
Black Gum
Pink/Black
_5" 7
Carolina Hemlock
White
;,00
Pawpaw
Yellow/Black
%Oo
Rhododendron
Red/Blue
3S�0
Silky Willow
Blue/Yellow
Yellow Birch
Green/Yellow
~f S
Elderberry
Pink/Yellow
300
Buttonbush
Green/Pink
Ninebark
Blue/Pink
-~
NNI,
-in
-10
1.
-in
CD
All
PREPARED Im
McoLoolc
ci
&
V)
NORTH CAROLINA
TATE FARM
A R
0
ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
RIPARIAN BUFFER
ENHANCEMENT
z
W 14
PLAN