20100516 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20151204

UT ALTAMAHAW SITE
DMS Project No. 92837

MONITORING YEAR 4 (2015)
Construction Completed February 2011

Alamance County, NC
State Construction Project No. 09-0762301

Prepared for the
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services

217 West Jones St.
Raleigh, NC 27603

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

Final Report-November 2015

Prepared by:

1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Cary, NC 27518
919.557.0929
www.ecologicaleng.com

_______________________________
Heather Smith, 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 .......................... 2
1.4 Other Information ................................................................................................. 3

2.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 3

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 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.

Monitoring Report Year 4 (2015) Page 1
UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP September 2015
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ PROJECT ABSTRACT

The UT Altamahaw Site is located with in 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:

Key Watershed Stressors Management Strategies
Stream bank erosion Riparian buffers & livestock exclusion
Lack of adequate buffer Riparian buffers & livestock exclusion
Stormwater runoff Stormwater BMPs
Livestock access to streams Livestock exclusion
Nutrients Agricultural BMPs, riparian buffers & stormwater
BMPs
Fecal coliform Agricultural BMPs & stormwater BMPs

Monitoring Report Year 4 (2015) Page 2
UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP September 2015
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/are). 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, 5/21/2014, and 6/8/2015.

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-meter2 vegetation plots (Figure 2). Assessments include 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 283 to 607 planted stems per acre and
approximately 809 to 1,295 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 MY4 vegetation counts, several new
planted stems were observed, which increased overall stem count numbers as compared with last
year’s reporting. Some of these stems were not located the previous year due to dense herbaceous
and blackberry vegetation

Appendices B and C depict more detailed information regarding the vegetation condition, including
annual comparative photographs.

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 & MY3), at least one bankfull event was documented. A
bankfull event was also documented during MY4 . Evidence of this event was cork shavings within the
crest gage present at approximately 17 inches. No other bankfull events were documented during
2015. 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.

Monitoring Report Year 4 (2015) Page 3
UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP September 2015
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.

The two issues were observed during MY 3 were still present. 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 E).

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. Backwater under contract with DMS repaired
the spillway in late August 2015. The spillway area will be monitored for stability during future
monitoring site visits.

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.

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-meter2 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

Monitoring Report Year 4 (2015) Page 4
UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP September 2015
(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 4 (2015) Page 5
UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP September 2015
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.

APPENDIX A

Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAPUT to Altamahaw Site - DMS Project No. 92837
Alamance Co., NC
UT ALTAMAHAW CREEK
September 2015
Map Source:
2013 Lake Burlington and Ossipee USGS Quadrangles
DIRECTIONS FROM I-85/I-40 IN ALAMANCE COUNTY:Exit 140 (University Drive) - Proceed north for approximately 2.5 miles. Left onto ShallowfordChurch 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 RidgeRoad - Proceed approximately one mile. Turn right onto unnamed gravel roadway - Proceed approximately 0.25 mile. Enter site at metal gate on right.
^
N
C
High
w
ay
87
FIGURE 1
.0 1,900950
1" = 2,000'
Prepared For:
Buffer Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient Offset
TypeRRERRERRE
Totals738.50.013
Approach
Restoration or
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
E0.0130.013 acres2 to 1
EII673.5673.5 lf2 to 1
EII6565 lf2 to 1
RiverineNon-riverine
0.026 acres
HQ Preservation
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.
BMP Elements
BMP Elements
Notes
Enhancement
Creation
Preservation
ElementLocation
Component Summation
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Restoration LevelStream (linear feet)
Restoration
Northwest boundary
Center of Project Area
UT to UT Altamahaw
Creek Southwest boundary
1,347 linear feet
0.026 acres
Purpose/Function
Riparian Wetland (acres)
1,477 linear feet
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT Altamahaw/ 92837
130 linear feet
Rip. Non-riverine
UT Altamahaw Creek
Mitigation Credits
Buffer (square
feet)
StreamRiparian WetlandNon-riparian wetland
Project ComponentStationing/LocationExisting Footage/ Acreage
Project Components
Non-riparian Wetland (acres)Upland (acres)
Data Collection CompleteCompletion or Delivery
May-10May-10
June-10June-10
February-11
February-11
February-11
February-11
January-12February-12
August-12 December-12
July-13 November-13
Supplemental Bare Root and Tubling Plantings Applied November-13
July-14November-14
Table 3. Project Contact Table
UT Altamahaw/ 92837
Planting Contractor
Riverworks, Inc.
George Morris
Firm Information/ Address
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 800, Cary, NC 27518
[phone]
[phone]
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 800, Cary, NC 27518
Green Resource [phone]
[phone]
Riverworks, Inc.
Seeding ContractorFirm Information/ Address
Superior Tree [phone]
Mellow Marsh Farm [phone]
Foggy Mountain Nursery [phone]
Firm Information/ Address
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101, Cary, NC 27518
Monitoring Performer
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Ecological Engineering, LLP
ArborGen [phone]
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT Altamahaw/ 92837
Activity or Report
Seed Mix Sources
George Morris
Firm Information/ Address
Jenny S. Fleming, PE
Ecological Engineering, LLP
Temporary S&E Mix Applied to Entire Project Area
Year 1 Monitoring
Baseline Monitoring Document
Bare Root, Live Stake and Tubling Plantings Applied
Permanent Seed Mix Applied to Entire Project Area
Construction
Final Design - Construction Plans
Mitigation Plan
Year 2 Monitoring
Native Roots Nursery [phone]
Supplemental Planting Contractor Firm Information/ Address
Carolina Silvics, Inc.908 Indian Trail Rd., Edenton, NC 27932
Mary-Margaret S. McKinney
Designer
Firm Information/ Address
[phone]
[phone]
Cure Nursery [phone]
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 800, Cary, NC 27518
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 3 Monitoring
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101, Cary, NC 27518
Bill Wright
Riverworks, Inc.
Construction Contractor
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 3030002 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 3030002030010
Reach 1Reach 2
1,347 linear feet 130 linear feet
Valley Type VIII Valley Type VIII
0.51 sq. mi. (334 acres)0.39 sq. mi. (251 acres)
46.75 39.25
C NSW C NSW
C/E 5 C/E 5
E-C-G-F-E-C E-C-G-F-E-C
Worsham sandy loam Worsham sandy loam
Poorly drained Poorly drained
Hydric A Hydric A
0 to 3%0 to 3%
Zone AE - lower end Zone AE - lower end
Piedmont Alluvial Forest Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Less than 5%Less than 5%
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Species
Coastal Zone/Area Management Acts (CZMA/CAMA)
Historic Preservation Act
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
UT Altamahaw/ 92837
Resolved
Resolved
Resolved
Endangered Species Act
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Native Vegetation Community
Hydrologic Impairment
Source of Hydrology
Soil Hydric Status
Not Applicable
Resolved
Not Applicable
Resolved
Essential Fisheries Habitat
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Worsham sandy loam
Seepage
Drainage Classification
Mapped Soil Series
Wetland Type
Less than 5%
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
None
Groundwater
Drainage Area
Valley Classification
Length of Reach
Parameters
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
NCDWQ Stream ID Score
Hydric A
Poorly drained
Drainage Classification
Underlying Mapped Soils
Evolutionary Trend
Morphological Description (stream type)
Size of Wetland 0.026 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
Project Drainage Area
DWQ Subbasin
River Basin
Physiographic Province
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Species
Native Vegetation Community
FEMA Classification
Slope
Soil Hydric Status
Regulatory Considerations
36°10'43.56'' North/ 79°28'37.91" West
3.6 acres
Alamance
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Project Area
County
Agricultural Land
Less than 1%
0.51 sq. mi. (334 acres)
Project Information
Project Watershed Summary Information
Reach Summary Information
Wetland Summary Information
UT AltamahawProject Name
03.06.02
Cape Fear
Piedmont
CGIA Land Use Classification

APPENDIX B

Visual Assessment Data
Prepared For:
Baseline Monitoring Figure
FIGURE 2
MONITORING PLAN VIEW
UT to Altamahaw Site - DMS Project No. 92837
Alamance County, NC September, 2015
Map Source:
Ecological Engineering, LLP
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEWUT to Altamahaw Site - DMS Project No. 92837
Alamance Co., NC September 2015
Map Source:
2010 Aerial from NCOneMap.com FIGURE 3
.0 14070
1" = 150'
Vegetation Plot 1MY3 Status
Auxiliary spillway failure adjacent to easement area
Surface water diversion from modified BMP structure
Erosion of road bedadjacent to culvert
Vegetation Plot 2MY3 Status
Vegetation Plot 3MY3 Status
Vegetation Plot 4MY3 Status
Vegetation Plot 5MY3 Status
Legend
Invasive plant species/blackberry thicket
Other Areas of Concern
Mowing within established easement boundary
Wetland enhancement area
Conservation Easement Boundary (Approximate)
Vegetation Plot meets or exceeds 320 stems/acre threshold
Vegetation Plot does not meet 320 stems/acre threshold
Prepared For:
Table 6.Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage4.6
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% Planted
Acreage
1. Bare AreasVery limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material0.1 acn/a000
2. Low Stem Density
Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on
MY 3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria 0.1 acn/a 1 of 5 veg.
plots <0.05 ac1.1%
1<0.05 ac1.1%
3. Areas of Poor
Growth Rates or
Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that is obviously
small given the monitoring year 0.25 acn/a01 ac25%
21.127.2%
NOTES:
Easement Acreage4.6
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% Planted
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of
Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map
scale)0.1 acYes100.1 ac2.1%
5. Easement
Encroachment
Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map
scale)0.1 acYes30.2 ac4.3%
NOTES:
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.
UT Altamahaw DMS Project No. 92837
Cumulative Total
Total
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.
Invasive plant species observed included Chinese privet and multiflora rose. These species were treated in October 2013.
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.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
UT

A
l
t
a
m
a
h
a
w

S
i
t
e

-

M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g

Y
e
a
r

4

(
2
0
1
5
)
Ph
o
t
o

#

a
n
d

Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ba
s
e
l
i
n
e

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

2
0
1
2
MY

1

2
0
1
2
MY

2

2
0
1
3
MY 3 2014MY 4 2015 (6/5/2015)
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

1
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

s
o
u
t
h

e
a
s
t

al
o
n
g

y
-
a
x
i
s

o
f

Ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

P
l
o
t

1
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

2
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

s
o
u
t
h

a
c
r
o
s
s

Ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

P
l
o
t

1
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

3
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

n
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
t

to
w
a
r
d
s

V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
o
t

1
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

4
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

e
a
s
t

(u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m
)

a
l
o
n
g

U
T

Al
t
a
m
a
h
a
w

C
r
e
e
k
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

-

Pa
g
e

2
Ba
s
e
l
i
n
e

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

2
0
1
2
MY

1

2
0
1
2
MY

2

2
0
1
3
MY 3 2014MY 4 2015 (6/5/2015)
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

5
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

n
o
r
t
h

f
r
o
m

ea
s
t

c
o
r
n
e
r

o
f

ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

6
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

s
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t

fr
o
m

s
o
u
t
h

c
o
r
n
e
r

o
f

ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

7
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

s
o
u
t
h

a
l
o
n
g

UT

A
l
t
a
m
h
a
w

C
r
e
e
k

fr
o
m

e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g

cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

8
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

s
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t

fr
o
m

c
o
r
n
e
r

a
t

ex
i
s
t
i
n
g

w
e
s
t

c
o
r
n
e
r

of

c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

-

Pa
g
e

3
Ba
s
e
l
i
n
e

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

2
0
1
2
MY

1

2
0
1
2
MY

2

2
0
1
3
MY 3 2014MY 4 2015 (6/5/2015)
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

9
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

al
o
n
g

U
T

Al
t
a
m
a
h
a
w

C
r
e
e
k

no
r
t
h

o
f

V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
o
t

2
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

1
0
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

n
o
r
t
h

a
l
o
n
g

x
-
ax
i
s

o
f

V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
o
t

2
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

1
1
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

n
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t

ac
r
o
s
s

V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
o
t

2
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

1
2
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

w
e
s
t

a
t

ri
p
a
r
i
a
n

a
r
e
a

f
r
o
m

Ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

P
l
o
t

2
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

-

Pa
g
e

4
Ba
s
e
l
i
n
e

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

2
0
1
2
MY

1

2
0
1
2
MY

2

2
0
1
3
MY 3 2014MY 4 2015 (6/5/2015)
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

1
3
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

al
o
n
g

U
T

Al
t
a
m
a
h
a
w

C
r
e
e
k
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

1
4
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

al
o
n
g

U
T

Al
t
a
m
a
h
a
w

C
r
e
e
k
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

1
5
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

n
o
r
t
h

a
l
o
n
g

x
-
ax
i
s

o
f

V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
o
t

3
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

1
6
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

n
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t

ac
r
o
s
s

V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
o
t

3
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

-

Pa
g
e

5
Ba
s
e
l
i
n
e

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

2
0
1
2
MY

1

2
0
1
2
MY

2

2
0
1
3
MY 3 2014MY 4 2015 (6/5/2015)
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

1
7
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

n
o
r
t
h

a
l
o
n
g

x
-
ax
i
s

o
f

V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
o
t

4
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

1
8
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

n
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t

ac
r
o
s
s

V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
o
t

4
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

1
9
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

n
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t

al
o
n
g

e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t

bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

2
0
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

n
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
t

al
o
n
g

e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t

bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

-

Pa
g
e

6
Ba
s
e
l
i
n
e

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

2
0
1
2
MY

1

2
0
1
2
MY

2

2
0
1
3
MY 3 2014MY 4 2015 (6/5/2015)
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

2
1
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

al
o
n
g

U
T

Alt
a
m
a
h
a
w

C
r
e
e
k

a
t

th
e

c
r
e
s
t

g
a
g
e
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

2
2
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

al
o
n
g

U
T

Al
t
a
m
a
h
a
w

C
r
e
e
k
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

2
3
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m

al
o
n
g

U
T

Al
t
a
m
a
h
a
w

C
r
e
e
k
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

2
4
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

n
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t

al
o
n
g

s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

ea
s
e
m
e
n
t

b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

Co
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n

-

Pa
g
e

7
Ba
s
e
l
i
n
e

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

2
0
1
2
MY

1

2
0
1
2
MY

2

2
0
1
3
MY 3 2014MY 4 2015 (6/5/2015)
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

2
5
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

n
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t

al
o
n
g

s
o
u
t
h
e
r
n

ea
s
e
m
e
n
t

b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

2
6
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

n
o
r
t
h

a
l
o
n
g

x
-
ax
i
s

o
f

V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
o
t

5
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

2
7
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

n
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t

ac
r
o
s
s

V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n

Pl
o
t

5
.
Ph
o
t
o
s
t
a
t
i
o
n

2
8
.

Fa
c
i
n
g

d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m

fr
o
m

c
o
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e

o
f

tw
o

u
n
n
a
m
e
d

tr
i
b
u
t
a
r
i
e
s
.

APPENDIX C

Vegetation Plot Data
Vegetation Plot IDVegetation Survival Threshold Met?Tract Mean
1 Yes 100%
2 Yes 100%
3 Yes 100%
4 Yes 100%
5 No 100%
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
UT Altamahaw/ 92837
Report Prepared By Heather Smith
Date Prepared 8/4/2015 14:45
database name EcologicalEngineering-2015-UTAltamahawYear 4.mdb
database location
P:\50000 State\EEP 50512\50512-001 EEP Altamahaw
Creek\MONITORING\UT Altamahaw Year 4 2015
computer name WKST7
file size 44838912
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 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 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 values tallied by type 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 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 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata
UT to Altamahaw Creek (DMS Project No. 92837)
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Ta
b
l
e

9
:

D
M
S

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
d
e

9
2
8
3
7

Pr
o
j
e
c
t

N
a
m
e
:

U
T

A
L
T
A
M
A
H
A
W
Pn
o
L
S
P
-
a
l
l
T
P
n
o
L
S
P
-
a
l
l
T
P
n
o
L
S
P
-
a
l
l
T
P
n
o
L
S
P
-
a
l
l
T
P
n
o
L
S
P
-
a
l
l
T
Ac
e
r

n
e
g
u
n
d
o
b
o
x
e
l
d
e
r
T
r
e
e
1
1
1
Ace
r

r
u
b
r
u
m
re
d

m
a
p
l
e
Tr
e
e
2
1
1
Asi
m
i
n
a

t
r
i
l
o
b
a
pa
w
p
a
w
Tr
e
e
1
1
1
Be
t
u
l
a

n
i
g
r
a
r
i
v
e
r

b
i
r
c
h
T
r
e
e
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Ca
r
p
i
n
u
s

c
a
r
o
l
i
n
i
a
n
a
Ame
r
i
c
a
n

h
o
r
n
b
e
a
m
T
r
e
e
3
1
Ca
r
y
a
hi
c
k
o
r
y
Tr
e
e
1
Ca
r
y
a

o
v
a
t
a
sh
a
g
b
a
r
k

h
i
c
k
o
r
y
T
r
e
e
Ce
l
t
i
s

l
a
e
v
i
g
a
t
a
su
g
a
r
b
e
r
r
y
Tr
e
e
1
2
2
Ce
r
c
i
s

c
a
n
a
d
e
n
s
i
s
ea
s
t
e
r
n

r
e
d
b
u
d
T
r
e
e
1
2
Co
r
n
u
s

a
m
o
m
u
m
si
l
k
y

d
o
g
w
o
o
d
S
h
r
u
b
1
Co
r
n
u
s

f
l
o
r
i
d
a
fl
o
w
e
r
i
n
g

d
o
g
w
o
o
d
T
r
e
e
22
2
1
1
2
Fr
a
x
i
n
u
s

p
e
n
n
s
y
l
v
a
n
i
c
a
gr
e
e
n

a
s
h
Tr
e
e
3
3
4
22
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
Il
e
x

v
e
r
t
i
c
i
l
l
a
t
a
co
m
m
o
n

w
i
n
t
e
r
b
e
r
r
y
Sh
r
u
b
5
Ju
g
l
a
n
s

n
i
g
r
a
bl
a
c
k

w
a
l
n
u
t
Tr
e
e
2
3
3
Li
g
u
s
t
r
u
m

s
i
n
e
n
s
e
Ch
i
n
e
s
e

p
r
i
v
e
t
Ex
o
t
i
c
Li
q
u
i
d
a
m
b
a
r

s
t
y
r
a
c
i
f
l
u
a
sw
e
e
t
g
u
m
Tr
e
e
2
2
6
Li
r
i
o
d
e
n
d
r
o
n

t
u
l
i
p
i
f
e
r
a
tu
l
i
p
t
r
e
e
Tr
e
e
12
2
2
2
2
2
3
Ny
s
s
a

s
y
l
v
a
t
i
c
a
bl
a
c
k
g
u
m
Tr
e
e
22
2
1
1
1
Os
t
r
y
a

v
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
n
a
ho
p
h
o
r
n
b
e
a
m
T
r
e
e
Ox
y
d
e
n
d
r
u
m

a
r
b
o
r
e
u
m
so
u
r
w
o
o
d
Tr
e
e
Pl
a
t
a
n
u
s

o
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
i
s
Ame
r
i
c
a
n

s
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
T
r
e
e
1
1
1
1
1
4
Pr
u
n
u
s

s
e
r
o
t
i
n
a
bl
a
c
k

c
h
e
r
r
y
Tr
e
e
Qu
e
r
c
u
s
oa
k
Tr
e
e
2
2
2
Qu
e
r
c
u
s

l
y
r
a
t
a
ov
e
r
c
u
p

o
a
k
Tr
e
e
2
2
2
Qu
e
r
c
u
s

m
i
c
h
a
u
x
i
i
sw
a
m
p

c
h
e
s
t
n
u
t

o
a
k
Tr
e
e
22
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
Qu
e
r
c
u
s

p
a
g
o
d
a
c
h
e
r
r
y
b
a
r
k

o
a
k
T
r
e
e
22
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
2
2
Qu
e
r
c
u
s

p
h
e
l
l
o
s
w
i
l
l
o
w

o
a
k
Tr
e
e
22
3
1
1
2
Rh
u
s
s
u
m
a
c
s
h
r
u
b
Sa
l
i
x

n
i
g
r
a
b
l
a
c
k

w
i
l
l
o
w
Tr
e
e
Sa
m
b
u
c
u
s

c
a
n
a
d
e
n
s
i
s
C
o
m
m
o
n

E
l
d
e
r
b
e
r
r
y
Sh
r
u
b
1
2
1
Sa
m
b
u
c
u
s

n
i
g
r
a
Eu
r
o
p
e
a
n

b
l
a
c
k

e
l
d
e
r
b
e
r
r
y
S
h
r
u
b
Ul
m
u
s

a
l
a
t
a
wi
n
g
e
d

e
l
m
Tr
e
e
1
Ul
m
u
s

a
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
a
Ame
r
i
c
a
n

e
l
m
T
r
e
e
22
2
1
1
1
1
1
7
Ul
m
u
s

r
u
b
r
a
s
l
i
p
p
e
r
y

e
l
m
T
r
e
e
1
Un
k
n
o
w
n
S
h
r
u
b

o
r

T
r
e
e
15
1
5
2
1
7
7
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
1
4
1
4
2
5
7
7
3
2
88
1
2
5
5
1
1
6
6
8
7
7
1
3
6
6
1
4
60
7
6
0
7
8
4
9
.
8
2
8
3
.
3
2
8
3
.
3
8
4
9
.
8
4
4
5
.
2
4
4
5
.
2
8
0
9
.
4
5
6
6
.
6
5
6
6
.
6
1
0
1
2
2
8
3
.
3
2
8
3
.
3
1
2
9
5
Cu
r
r
e
n
t

P
l
o
t

D
a
t
a

(
M
Y
4

2
0
1
5
)
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c

N
a
m
e
C
o
m
m
o
n

N
a
m
e
Sp
e
c
i
e
s

Ty
p
e
92
8
3
7
-
L
S
-
0
0
0
1
9
2
8
3
7
-
L
S
-
0
0
0
2
9
2
8
3
7
-
L
S
-
0
0
0
3
9
2
8
3
7
-
L
S
-
0
0
0
4
9
2
8
3
7
-
L
S
-
0
0
0
5
Sp
e
c
i
e
s

c
o
u
n
t
St
e
m
s

p
e
r

A
C
R
E
1
si
z
e

(
A
C
R
E
S
)
0.
0
2
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
2
St
e
m

c
o
u
n
t
si
z
e

(
a
r
e
s
)
11
1
1
Ta
b
l
e

9
:
E
E
P

P
r
o
j
e
c
t

C
o
d
e

9
2
8
3
7
.

Pr
o
j
e
c
t

N
a
m
e
:

U
T

A
L
T
A
M
A
H
A
W
Pn
o
L
S
P
-
a
l
l
T
P
n
o
L
S
P
-
a
l
l
T
P
n
o
L
S
P
-
a
l
l
T
P
n
o
L
S
P
-
a
l
l
T
P
n
o
L
S
P
-
a
l
l
T
Ac
e
r

n
e
g
u
n
d
o
b
o
x
e
l
d
e
r
T
r
e
e
11
1
1
1
1
1
Ace
r

r
u
b
r
u
m
re
d

m
a
p
l
e
Tr
e
e
4
3
33
Asi
m
i
n
a

t
r
i
l
o
b
a
pa
w
p
a
w
Tr
e
e
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Be
t
u
l
a

n
i
g
r
a
r
i
v
e
r

b
i
r
c
h
T
r
e
e
55
5
6
6
6
9
1
1
1
9
1
1
1
Ca
r
p
i
n
u
s

c
a
r
o
l
i
n
i
a
n
a
Ame
r
i
c
a
n

h
o
r
n
b
e
a
m
T
r
e
e
4
13
Ca
r
y
a
hi
c
k
o
r
y
Tr
e
e
1
1
Ca
r
y
a

o
v
a
t
a
sh
a
g
b
a
r
k

h
i
c
k
o
r
y
T
r
e
e
11
1
Ce
l
t
i
s

l
a
e
v
i
g
a
t
a
su
g
a
r
b
e
r
r
y
Tr
e
e
5
3
Ce
r
c
i
s

c
a
n
a
d
e
n
s
i
s
ea
s
t
e
r
n

r
e
d
b
u
d
T
r
e
e
3
Co
r
n
u
s

a
m
o
m
u
m
si
l
k
y

d
o
g
w
o
o
d
S
h
r
u
b
1
Co
r
n
u
s

f
l
o
r
i
d
a
fl
o
w
e
r
i
n
g

d
o
g
w
o
o
d
T
r
e
e
33
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Fr
a
x
i
n
u
s

p
e
n
n
s
y
l
v
a
n
i
c
a
gr
e
e
n

a
s
h
Tr
e
e
7
7
9
1
2
1
2
1
3
1
0
1
0
1
0
777777
Il
e
x

v
e
r
t
i
c
i
l
l
a
t
a
co
m
m
o
n

w
i
n
t
e
r
b
e
r
r
y
Sh
r
u
b
5
2
Ju
g
l
a
n
s

n
i
g
r
a
bl
a
c
k

w
a
l
n
u
t
Tr
e
e
8
7
Li
g
u
s
t
r
u
m

s
i
n
e
n
s
e
Ch
i
n
e
s
e

p
r
i
v
e
t
Ex
o
t
i
c
11
Li
q
u
i
d
a
m
b
a
r

s
t
y
r
a
c
i
f
l
u
a
sw
e
e
t
g
u
m
Tr
e
e
10
12
68
Li
r
i
o
d
e
n
d
r
o
n

t
u
l
i
p
i
f
e
r
a
tu
l
i
p
t
r
e
e
Tr
e
e
44
8
5
5
7
1
Ny
s
s
a

s
y
l
v
a
t
i
c
a
bl
a
c
k
g
u
m
Tr
e
e
33
3
1
1
1
Os
t
r
y
a

v
i
r
g
i
n
i
a
n
a
ho
p
h
o
r
n
b
e
a
m
T
r
e
e
16
Ox
y
d
e
n
d
r
u
m

a
r
b
o
r
e
u
m
so
u
r
w
o
o
d
Tr
e
e
111
Pl
a
t
a
n
u
s

o
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
i
s
Ame
r
i
c
a
n

s
y
c
a
m
o
r
e
T
r
e
e
22
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
Pr
u
n
u
s

s
e
r
o
t
i
n
a
b
l
a
c
k

c
h
e
r
r
y
T
r
e
e
4
Qu
e
r
c
u
s
o
a
k
T
r
e
e
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Qu
e
r
c
u
s

l
y
r
a
t
a
o
v
e
r
c
u
p

o
a
k
T
r
e
e
2
2
2
Qu
e
r
c
u
s

m
i
c
h
a
u
x
i
i
s
w
a
m
p

c
h
e
s
t
n
u
t

o
a
k
Tr
e
e
66
6
6
6
6
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
Qu
e
r
c
u
s

p
a
g
o
d
a
c
h
e
r
r
y
b
a
r
k

o
a
k
T
r
e
e
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
0
99
9
8
8
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
Qu
e
r
c
u
s

p
h
e
l
l
o
s
w
i
l
l
o
w

o
a
k
Tr
e
e
33
5
5
5
5
Rh
u
s
s
u
m
a
c
s
h
r
u
b
42
Sa
l
i
x

n
i
g
r
a
b
l
a
c
k

w
i
l
l
o
w
Tr
e
e
2112
Sa
m
b
u
c
u
s

c
a
n
a
d
e
n
s
i
s
C
o
m
m
o
n

E
l
d
e
r
b
e
r
r
y
Sh
r
u
b
4
2
Sa
m
b
u
c
u
s

n
i
g
r
a
Eu
r
o
p
e
a
n

b
l
a
c
k

e
l
d
e
r
b
e
r
r
y
S
h
r
u
b
4
Ul
m
u
s

a
l
a
t
a
wi
n
g
e
d

e
l
m
Tr
e
e
1
2
Ul
m
u
s

a
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
a
Ame
r
i
c
a
n

e
l
m
T
r
e
e
4
4
1
0
6
6
77
7
7
222
Ul
m
u
s

r
u
b
r
a
sl
i
p
p
e
r
y

e
l
m
Tr
e
e
1
Un
k
n
o
w
n
Sh
r
u
b

o
r

T
r
e
e
222333
54
5
4
1
1
9
6
2
6
2
1
3
2
3
8
3
8
6
8
2
5
2
5
6
0
3
5
3
5
3
7
14
1
4
2
6
1
2
1
2
2
4
8
8
1
6
7
7
1
4
1
0
1
0
1
1
43
7
.
0
6
4
3
7
.
0
6
9
6
3
.
1
5
5
0
1
.
8
1
5
0
1
.
8
1
1
0
6
8
.
3
7
3
0
7
.
5
6
3
0
7
.
5
6
5
5
0
.
3
7
2
0
2
.
3
4
2
0
2
.
3
4
4
8
5
.
6
2
2
8
3
.
2
8
2
8
3
.
2
8
2
9
9
.
4
7
Sp
e
c
i
e
s

c
o
u
n
t
St
e
m
s

p
e
r

A
C
R
E
0.
1
2
0.
1
2
0.
1
2
0.120.12
5
5
5
5
5
si
z
e

(
A
C
R
E
S
)
si
z
e

(
a
r
e
s
)
MY
4

(
2
0
1
5
)
MY
3

(
2
0
1
4
)
MY
2

(
2
0
1
3
)
MY1 (2012)MY0 (2012)
St
e
m

c
o
u
n
t
An
n
u
a
l

M
e
a
n
s
Sc
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c

N
a
m
e
Co
m
m
o
n

N
a
m
e
Sp
e
c
i
e
s

Ty
p
e

APPENDIX D

Hydrology Data

Date of Data CollectionDate of Occurrence Method Photo # (if available)
n/a*November 3 & 4, 2012 NC State Climate Office None
7/31/2013June 5-13 and June 28-July 14, 2013NC 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
6/5/2015 Prior to 6/5/2015 Crest Gauge None
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT Altamahaw/ 92837
* Based on daily rainfall data prior to installation of Crest Gage. Approximately 2.4 inches of rain was recorded over a span of two days.
Month Amount (in.)30%70%
January 2.0251.132.65
February 2.57251.012.35
March 3.19451.242.89
April 2.91481.042.42
May 2.08161.072.51
June 4.15441.162.70
July 2.49131.453.39
August 2.6831.282.98
September 5.51251.152.67
October 2.26351.012.35
November Not Evaluated0.962.23
December Not Evaluated0.992.32
Table 13. Monthly Rainfall Data Summary - UT Altamahaw Site 2015

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