The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20100516 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20150414UT ALTAMAHAW SITE EEP Project No. 92837 MONITORING YEAR 3 (2014) 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 Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 PROGR.hM December 2014 Prepared by: ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING 1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101 Cary, NC 27518 919.557.0929 www.ecologicaleng.com -Z)64041- David G. Cooper, Project Scientist This assessment and report are consistent with NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program Template Version 1.3 (1/15/10) 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 ....... ............................... 3 1.4 Other Information ........................................................................... ............................... 3 2.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ ..............................4 3.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................... ..............................5 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 APPENDIX E. Letter of Intent and Conservation Easement Agreement Letter of Intent and Conservation Easement Agreement Note: Tables S, 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 these goals. 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) to identify and rank parcels for retrofits, stream repair, preservation and /or conservation. The Project improved the existing emergency spillway associated with a large pond immediately upstream of the Project Site. Prior to improvement (stabilization), this spillway was severely eroded and contributed sediment into the main stream channel. The existing stream crossing was also stabilized to further prevent erosion into the main stream channel. The Project 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 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 Monitoring Report Year 3 (2014) Page 1 UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP December 2014 The objectives were to completely exclude livestock from the easement area and to install plantings designed to maintain vertical stability, lateral stability and habitat, as well as re- vegetate and supplement those areas lacking suitable vegetation along the easement area. An alternative livestock 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 are 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% is allowed after MY4 assessments (288 stems /acre) and correspondingly, MY5 assessments (260 stems /acre). Invasive, exotic species were present prior to implementation and criteria also include the removal of all such species prior to project closeout. EEP is treating invasive species. Privet and multiflora rose were treated on 10/24/2013 and 5/21/2014. 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 include counts of both planted and natural stems. Based on this year's monitoring effort, four of the five vegetation plots met the minimum success criteria. Stem counts ranged from approximately 202 to 809 planted stems per acre and approximately 688 to 1,335 total stems per acre across the Site. Prior to baseline assessments and as previously reported, it was discovered that cattle had accessed the easement area between the completion of implementation activities and baseline assessments, damaging planted stems. Supplemental planting was performed in November 2013. During MY3 vegetation counts, several new planted stems were observed, which increased overall stem count numbers as compared with last year's reporting. A list of supplementally planted species can be found in the table below. Species Type Source Qt Percentage Box Elder - Acer ne undo Container 22 6% Native Roots River Birch - Betula ni ra Container 66 17% Native Roots Green Ash - Fraxinus penns Ivanica Container 14 4% Native Roots Tulip Poplar - Liriodendron tulipifera Container 50 13% Native Roots Black Gum - Nyssa sylvatica var sylvatica Container 41 11% Native Roots American Sycamore - Platanus occidentalis Container 67 18% Native Roots Eastern Cottonwood - Populus deltoides Container 19 5% Native Roots Swamp Chestnut Oak - Quercus michauxii Container 17 4% Native Roots Pin Oak - Quercus palustris Container 28 7% Native Roots Willow Oak - Quercus phellos Container 28 7% Native Roots American Elm - Ulmus - americana Container 14 4% Native Roots Persimmon - Diospyros virginiana Container 14 4% Native Roots TOTALS 380 100% Appendices B and C depict more detailed information regarding the vegetation condition, including annual comparative photographs. Monitoring Report Year 3 (2014) Page 2 UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP December 2014 1.3 Stream Stability /Condition and Comparison to Success Criteria No in- channel enhancement activities were conducted as part of this project. Annual assessments include comparative photographs and monitoring of channel hydrology. 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 the previous year's monitoring (MY2), at least one bankfull event was documented. A bankfull event was also documented during MY3. 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 documented during 2014. Annual comparative photographs of the stream channels are depicted in Appendix B and hydrologic data associated with this year's monitoring assessment are provided in Appendix D. 1.4 Other Information Summary information /data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver dams or encroachment and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the 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. During MY3, boundary signage was erected in order to meet current EEP guidelines. Two issues were observed during the October field reconnaissance. These issues included (1) surface erosion along the existing cattle crossing, and (2) erosion along the auxiliary spillway immediately outside of the Project Site. Mowing within the easement was also observed, but is allowed to the extent observed per the attached Letter of Intent (see below and Appendix Q. Surface erosion at the cattle crossing is a result of 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. The lower portion of the auxiliary spillway immediately adjacent to the easement area has been eroded as a result of heavy rains from storm events in 2013 and 2014. The standpipe associated with the pond upstream of the project area is approximately 12 inches in diameter. Excess flows from heavy rains are diverted to the auxiliary spillway, and a section of rip rap has migrated 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. EEP will repair the auxiliary spillway in 2015. 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 apparent purpose of the mowing was to remove and control vegetation along the existing fence lines. Mowing extends inward approximately four to five feet from the woven wire. As documented in the attached Letter of Intent and Conservation Easement Agreement (Appendix E), the observed mowing is allowed. Monitoring Report Year 3 (2014) Page 3 UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP December 2014 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: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /eep). Vegetation assessments were conducted using the CVS -EEP protocol (Version 4.2). As part of this protocol, vegetation is assessed using 100- meter 2 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. 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. Monitoring Report Year 3 (2014) Page 4 UT Alta mahaw Site, Ala mance County Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP December 2014 3.0 REFERENCES Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts and T.R. Wentworth, 2008. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 ( 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, 2014. 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 3 (2014) UT Alta ma haw Site, Ala mance County Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP Page 5 December 2014 APPENDIX A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables {nN - W E STER TRt - S-- - _ — - 0 1,000 2,000 1" = 2,000' v a� SAW MML DR _ 6 �9 2 iBARBER FOSTER RD'V 700 00 GENORE OR L, Clover t Garden rau ST r ,ur _. op Rv ahaw UT ALTAMAHAW CREEK r ° -' > }r, boo •� ` C014 'l MCNWROD DR 21.1 R� 1R "�yg`HAi UNiox RID FQ - ,0 J '' - Caswedf a: Eton colicg Haw n i�WP rim River' 70, ebane o Guitford rli on sp i County Gra a Orange County ER Al. arse � Swep s a nvi 11 iC Rock r "[i Creek 48 Saxapaha so PR FJ i e fla Snow Camp Whitney ,andolph E C oa my Chatham 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 mile. Right onto Altamahaw Union Ridge Road - Proceed approximately one mile. Turn right onto unnamed gravel roadway - Proceed approximately 0.25 mile. Enter site at metal gate on right. PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP Map Source: UT to Altamahaw Site - EEP Project No. 92837 2013 Lake Burlington and FIGURE 1 , stem Ossipee USGS Quadrangles ��]c R Alamance Co., NC November 2014 Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits UT Altamahaw192837 'L Mitigation Credits Stream Riparian IL L Non-riparian Nitrogen Offset Offset Type R mommil- RE R RE R FRE Totals 738.5 0.013 Project Components Project Component Restoration Existing Footage/ Stationing/Location Approach Restoration Acreage Equivalent Restoration Footage or Acreage .. . tio Ratio Rip. Non - riverine Northwest boundary 0.026 acres E 0.013 0.013 acres 2 to 1 UT Altamahaw Creek Center of Project 1,347 linear feet Ell 673.5 673.5 If 2 to 1 Area UT to UT Altamahaw Creek Southwest boundary 130 linear feet Ell 65 65 If 2 to 1 Component Summation Non-riparian Riparian Wetland (acres) land Restoration Level Restoration Stream (linear feet) (acres) (square (acres) Enhancement 0.026 acres Enhancement I Enhancement 11 1,477 linear feet Creation Preservation HQ Preservation BMP Elements Element Location Purpose /Function Notes BMP Elements BR = Bioretention 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 2. Project Activity and Reporting UT Altarnahawl 92837 Elapsed .. Elapsed plete: 3 years 8 months Number of Reporting Activity or Report Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery Mitigation Plan Mn Final Design - Construction Plans (919 ) 557 -0929 Construction . . Temporary S &E Mix Applied to Entire Project Area . . Permanent Seed Mix Applied to Entire Project Area . . Bare Root, Live Stake and Tubling Plantings Applied Baseline Monitoring Document Year 1 Monitoring . , . . . . Year 2 Monitoring 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 800, Cary, NC 27518 Supplemental Bare Root and Tubling Plantings Applied November-1 Year 3 Monitoring Firm Information/ Address Year 4 Monitoring 908 Indian Trail Rd., Edenton, NC 27932 Year 5 Monitoring (252) 482 -8491 Table 3. Project Contact Table UT Altamahawl 92837 Designer Firm Information/ Address Ecological Engineering, LLP 1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101, Cary, NC 27518 Jenny S. Fleming, PE (919 ) 557 -0929 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 Supplemental Planting Contractor Firm Information/ Address Carolina Silvics, Inc. 908 Indian Trail Rd., Edenton, NC 27932 Mary- Margaret S. McKinney (252) 482 -8491 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 ArborGen (843) 851 -4129, Cure Nursery (919) 542 -6186, Foggy Mountain Nursery (336) 384 -5323, Mellow Marsh Farm (919) 742 -1200, Native Roots Nurse 910 385 -8385, Superior Tree (850 ) 971 -5159 Invasive Management Contractor Firm Information/ Address HARP, Inc. 301 McCullough Drive 41h Floor, Charlotte, NC 28262 Kari Blackmon 704 841 -2841 Monitoring Performer Firm Information/ Address Ecological Engineering, LLP 1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101, Cary, NC 27518 Ed Ha'nos, David Cooper stream, vegetation & wetland 919 557 -0929 Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes UT Altamahaw192837 Project Name U T A Itamahaw County Alamance Project Area 3.6 acres Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 36 °10'43.56" North] 79 °28'37.91" West Project Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Province Piedmont River Basin Cape Fear USGS Hydrologic Unit8 -digit 3030002 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit J 3030002030010 DWQ Subbasin 03.06.02 Project Drainage Area 0.51 sq. mi. (334 acres) Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area Less than 1% CGIA Land Use Classification Agricultural Land Parameters Reach 1 Reach 2 Length of Reach 1,347 linear feet 130 linear feet Valley Classification 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 Classification C NSW C NSW Morphological Description (stream type) C/E 5 C/E 5 Evolutionary Trend E- C- G -F -E -C E- C- G -F -E -C Underlying Mapped Soils Worsham sandy loam Worsham sandy loam Drainage Classification Poorly drained Poorly drained Soil Hydric Status Hydric A Hydric A Slope 0 to 3% 0 to 3% FEMA Classification Zone AE -lower end Zone AE - lower end Native Vegetation Community Piedmont Alluvial Forest Piedmont Alluvial Forest Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Species Less than 51/o Less than 5% Eff"701and Summary Size of Wetland Information 0.026 acres Wetland Type Seepage Mapped Soil Series Worsham sandy loam Drainage Classification Poorly drained Soil Hydric Status Hydric A Source of Hydrology Groundwater Hydrologic Impairment None N ativ a Vegetation C ommunity Piedmont Alluvial Forest Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Species wr Regulatory Waters of the U nited States - Section 404 Less than 51/o Considerations Resolved Waters of the United States - Section 401 Resolved Endangered Species Act Resolved Historic Presery ation Act Resolved Coastal Zone /Area Management Acts (CZM A/C AMA) Not Applicable FEMA Floodplain Compliance Resolved Essential Fisheries Habitat Not Applicable APPENDIX B Visual Assessment Data .+CCM EAIMA yr , ��rY Z 1 ',r -J TN `v fey m� } yr 1 r tiY ,�� I R�rery 7 r 15 5 1 Y ,, LEGEND Dal a � ►1 r1 r0TOGRAPi[ [ nCnrrox CMTGAGB MONITORING PLAN VIEW Map Source: UT to Altamahaw Site - EEP Project No. 92837 Ecological Engineering, LLP FIGURE 2 1' I loll �C1�Illlt Alamance County, NC November, 2014 Baseline Monitoring Figure i y_. .+CCM EAIMA yr , ��rY Z 1 ',r -J TN `v fey m� } yr 1 r tiY ,�� I R�rery 7 r 15 5 1 Y ,, LEGEND Dal a � ►1 r1 r0TOGRAPi[ [ nCnrrox CMTGAGB MONITORING PLAN VIEW Map Source: UT to Altamahaw Site - EEP Project No. 92837 Ecological Engineering, LLP FIGURE 2 1' I loll �C1�Illlt Alamance County, NC November, 2014 Baseline Monitoring Figure L z�U 0 5 150 1" = 150' Vegetation Plot 1 MY3 Status ?' �7 Erosion of road bed I Ii adjacent to culvert Surface water diversion from modified BMP structure t c . r. Vegetation Plot 4 MY3 Status Legend Conservation Easement Boundary (Approximate) Auxiliary spillway failure adjacent to easement area **.I Vegetation Plot 2 MY3 Status ftiid Vegetation Plot 3 MY3 Status Ld�_ Vegetation Plot 5 MY3 Status r• ence damaged -I by fallen trees Wetland enhancement area Fence damaged Vegetation Plot does not M by fallen trees meet 320 stems /acre threshold i a Vegetation Plot meets 0 or exceeds 320 stems /acre threshold Invasive plant species /blackberry thicket Mowing within established easement boundary OOther Areas of Concern ,, �' +Aft CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW Map Source: UT to Altamahaw Site - EEP Project No. 92837 2010 Aerial from FIGURE 3 , tiem NCOneMap.com 1{,1] Ial lceinci 1 Alamance Co., NC November 2014 rRacwna, Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment UT Altamahaw EEP Project No. 92837 Planted Acreage 4.6 Vegetation Mapping Category Threshold Depiction Polygons 1. Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous 0.1 ac nla 0 0 0 material 2. Low Stem Woody stem densities clearly below target levels 0.1 ac nla 1 of 5 <0.05 ac 1.1% Density Areas based on MY 3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria veg. plots Total 1 <0.05 ac 1.1% 3. Areas of Poor Areas with woody stems of a size class that is Growth Rates or obviously small given the monitoring year 0.25 ac nla 0 1 ac 25% Vigor Cumulative Total 1 2 1 1.1 27.2% NOTES: One of five vegetation plots did not meet the required success criteria for planted stems. Supplemental planting was performed 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 locate in multiple areas. Blackberry treatment and removal was performed during October 2013. NOTES: Invasive plant species observed included Chinese privet and multiflora rose. These species were treated in October 2013. Minor 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. Hand clearing of invasive species and blackberry was also performed during supplemental plantings. Photostation Comparison UT Altamahaw Site - Monitoring Year 3 (2014) 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. Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012 MY 2 2013 MY 3 2014 (Veg. Plots 711512014, Other Photos 1011412014) Photostation Comparison - Page 2 Photostation 4. Facing east (upstream) along UT Altamahaw Creek. Photostation 5. Facing north from east corner of existing crossing. Photostation 6. Facing southwest from south corner of existing crossing. Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012 MY 2 2013 MY 3 2014 (Veg. Plots 711512014, Other Photos 1011412014) Photostation Comparison - Page 3 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. Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012 MY 2 2013 MY 3 2014 (Veg. Plots 711512014, Other Photos 1011412014) Photostation Comparison - Page 4 Photostation 10. Facing north along x• axis of Vegetation Plot 2. Photostation 11. Facing northwest across Vegetation Plot 2. Photostation 12. Facing west at riparian area from Vegetation Plot 2. Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012 MY 2 2013 MY 3 2014 (Veg. Plots 711512014, Other Photos 1011412014) Photostation Comparison - Page 5 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 MY 3 2014 (Veg. Plots 711512014, Other Photos 1011412014) Ff f Ili Photostation Comparison - Page 6 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. Baseline Condition 2012 4 - s ;y. MY 12012 MY 2 2013 MY 3 2014 (Veg. Plots 711512014, Other Photos 1011412014) Photostation Comparison - Page 7 Photostation 19. Facing northwest along easement boundary. Photostation 20. Facing northeast along easement boundary. Photostation 21. Facing downstream along UT Altamahaw Creek at the crest gage. Baseline Condition 2012 INAVIDA MY 2 2013 MY 3 2014 (Veg. Plots 711512014, Other Photos 1011412014) X dam- .�.r,� lw�'�r,cn � ✓. , - -. Photostation Comparison - Page 8 Photostation 22. Facing downstream along UT Altamahaw Creek. Photostation 23. Facing upstream along UT Altamahaw Creek. Photostation 24. Facing northwest along southern easement boundary. Baseline Condition 2012 MY 2 2013 MY 3 2014 (Veg. Plots 711512014, Other Photos 1011412014) Photostation Comparison - Page 9 Photostation 25. Facing northwest along southern easement boundary. Photostation 26. Facing north along x• axis of Vegetation Plot 5. Photostation 27. Facing northwest across Vegetation Plot 5. Baseline Condition 2012 Id,va will PA MY 2 2013 MY 3 2014 (Veg. Plots 711512014, Other Photos 10/14/2014) f .., f, Photostation Comparison - Baseline Condition 2012 Page 10 � S Photostation 28. Facing downstream from confluence of two unnamed Irv, I., , tributaries. 4 INAWNPA ,71APIKII&? MY 3 2014 (Veg. Plots 711512014, Other Photos 1011412014) APPENDIX C Vegetation Plot Data Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment UT Altamahaw/ 92837 Vegetation •. 1 .. Met? Yes Tract Mean 100% 2 Yes 100% 3 Yes 100% 4 Yes 100% 5 No 100% Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata UT to Altamahaw Creek (EEP Project No. 92837) Report Prepared By David Cooper Date Prepared 7/16/2014 11:31 database name Ecological Engi nee ri ng- 2014- UTAltamahawYear 3 -A.mdb database location P: \50000 State \EEP 50512 \50512 -001 EEP Altamahaw Creek \MONITORING \UT Altamahaw Year 3 2014 computer name WKST6 file size 47972352 Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data. 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 live stakes, all planted stems, and all Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.). Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes forstems for all plots. Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species. Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each. Damage by Spp Damage val ues tallied by type for each species. Damage by Plot Damage val ues tallied by type for each plot. Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded. ALL Stems by Plot and spp A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded. .• Project Code 92837 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 EEP Project Code 92837. Project Name: UT ALTAMAHAW Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% .. IMINNIPMr Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 92837 -LS -0001 92837 -LS -0002 92837 -LS -0003 92837 -LS -0004 92837 -LS -0005 MY3 (2014) MY2 (2013) MY1(2012) MYO (2012) Pnol-S P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T Acer negundo boxelder Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Acer rubrum red maple Tree 1 2 3 3 3 Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Betula nigra river birch Tree 4 4 4 2 2 2 6 61 6 9 1 1 19 1 1 1 Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 11 2 13 Carya hickory Tree 1 1 Carya ovata shagbark hickory Tree 1 1 1 Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 1 2 3 Cornus florida flowering dogwood Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 3 3 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 12 12 13 10 10 10 7 7 7 7 7 7 Ilex verticillata common winterberr Shrub 2 2 Juglans nigra black walnut Tree 3 1 3 7 Ligustrum sinense Chinese privet Exotic 1 1 Liquidambarstyraciflua sweetgum Tree 2 10 12 6 8 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 5 5 7 1 Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ostrya virginiana hophornbeam Tree 3 2 11 16 Oxydendrum arboreum sourwood Tree 1 1 1 Platanus occidental is American sycamore Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 7 7 7 5 5 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 Prunus serotina black cherry Tree 4 Quercus oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 211 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 6 6 6 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 10 10 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 11 11 11 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 5 5 5 Rhus sumac shrub 4 2 Salix nigra blackwillow Tree 2 2 1 1 2 Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub 2 Sambucus nigra European black elde Shrub 2 1 1 4 Ulmus alata winged elm Tree 2 2 Ulmus americana American elm Tree 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 7 7 7 7 2 2 2 Unknown Shrub or Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE 17 17 26 9 9 17 11 11 22 20 20 34 5 5 33 62 62 132 38 38 68 25 25 60 35 35 37 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 91 91 13 5 5L 91 61 6 7 8 8 17 4 4 9 12 12 24 8 8 16 7 7 14 10 10 11 688 688 1052 364.2 364.2 688 445.2 445.2 890.3 809.4 809.4 1376 202.3 202.3 1335 501.8 501.8 1068 307.61307. 6 550.4 202.31 202.3 485.61 283.3 283.3 299.5 Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% APPENDIX D Hydrology Data Date of Data Collection Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events UT Altamahaw/ 92837 Date of Occurrence Method Photo # (if available) 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 7/15/2014 Prior to 7 /15/2014 Wrack line observations None 7/15/2014 7/15/2014 Observed rainfall in excess of 3" in less than 12 hours None 1.24 2.89 April Table 13. Monthly Rainfall Data Summary - UT Altamahaw Site 2014 Month Amount (in.) 30% 70% January 3.2739 1.13 2.65 February 2.7327 1.01 2.35 March 3.4547 1.24 2.89 April 3.0625 1.04 2.42 May 3.8113 1.07 2.51 June 1.1215 1.16 2.70 July 1.0944 1.45 3.39 August 2.2531 1.28 2.98 September 2.6037 1.15 2.67 October 1.8513 1.01 2.35 November Not Evaluated 0.96 2.23 December Not Evaluated 0.99 2.32 G _C C O UT Altamahaw Site 30 -70 perrentile Graph For Rainfall -Monitoring Year 3 QOUL AJamance County, NC r 1111 e a m E Q p u a i n Month APPENDIX E Letter of Intent and Conservation Easement Agreement Review of Letter of Intent and Conservation Easement Agreement Project Tracking System # 92837 SPO File #: 001 -P County: Alamance Property: Conservation Easement ( +/- 4 acres) Tract PIN# 8858849144 Project: UT to Altamahaw Stream Enhancement Project Owner(s): Charles S. Hursey Sr. & ETAL Property owner(s) complete the section below. Please return this form in the enclosed envelope I have reviewed the letter of intent and conservation easement document. fs I am in agreement with the letter of intent; temporary construction easement and conservation easement template for future access in reference to the above mentioned property. ~" I have reviewed the letter of intent and conservation easement and have the following concerns: Date;,3-1�1 /�— ; Signed:— Date: Letter of intent Proposed EEP Stream Restoration Project This document sets forth agreements between the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and the landowner regarding the proposed EEP restoration project described below. EEP is proposing a stream enhancement project on an unnamed tributary to Altamahaw Creek located on a farm owned by Charles Hursey in Alamance County. EEP is hereby providing a letter of intent regarding proposed responsibilities of EEP as they relate to the "UT to Altamahaw" enhancement project. PROJECT NAME: UT to Altamahaw EEP # 92837 EEP intends to enhance, or preserve stream and wetland areas on this site. As part of these efforts, EEP intends pay for the installation and design of agricultural BMPs (best management practices) necessary to protect the streams. BMPs will include exclusionary cattle fencing, one alternative water supply well and one watering station and two gates. Exclusionary fencing will be installed along, and approximately 1 -foot outside of, the easement boundary as it generally occurs on the tributary which occurs in the current pasture area. A 5 -foot grassy clearance zone inside the exclusionary fencing and on the conservation easement will be allowed to be managed by mowing, or other manual means, to keep this area open and clear of woody vegetation. EEP will provide grading and stone for the existing emergency spillway of the farm pond. EEP will provide stone cover for the existing culvert crossing. NOTE: Donations of land or conservation easements may be tax deductible, however, please be aware that any amenities, such as fencing or bridges, built on your land may have property tax implications. Please check with your tax attorney regarding the effects of any improvements. The completion of this project and the items described in this letter are subject to budget and timing constraints. Funding is available only for land that is protected by the restrictions described in the attached permanent conservation easement agreement. Director of Operations Ecosysteni Enhancement Program hme i R ?OnR