20100516 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20170119

UT ALTAMAHAW SITE
DMS Project No. 92837
MONITORING YEAR 5 (2016)
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
Environmental
Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Final Report -October 2016
7e
1`'ilk
:+
Prepared for the
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones St.
Raleigh, NC 27603
Environmental
Quality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Final Report -October 2016

Prepared by:
�ENGOINOEEIRING
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Cary, NC 27518
919.557.0929
www.ecologicaleng.com
Heather Smith, LSS, Project Scientist
This assessment and report are consistent with NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services
Template Version 1.3 (1/15/10) for DMS Monitoring Reports.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
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.

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 DMS, 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
Manaaement Strateaies
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 5 (2016) Page 1
UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP October 2016

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. DMS 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 DMS/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, four of the five vegetation plots met
the minimum success criteria. Stem counts ranged from approximately 202 to 647 planted stems per
acre and approximately 728 to 1,416 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.
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 & MY4), at least one bankfull event was
documented in each year. A bankfull event was not documented during the 2016 monitoring period.
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 5 (2016) Page 2
LIT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP October 2016

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 DMS's website. All raw
data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from DMS upon request.
Two of the issues from MY4 were still present in during the MY5 period. These issues included (1)
surface erosion along the existing cattle crossing and (2) erosion along the auxiliary spillway
immediately outside the Project Site.
The surface erosion at the cattle crossing is continuing and 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 was repaired in
late August 2015 by Backwater Environmental. Rock sills were installed and rip rap was placed
between the sills. The large rip rap had moved down the slope and was partially in the unnamed
tributary during the February 2016 site visit. The displaced rip rap does not appear to have migrated
further into the channel as of September 2016. The rock sills are stable but the geotextile fabric is
showing.
The other two issues noted during the MY4 period were not present during the MY5 site visit; mowing
along the fence line within the easement and a beaver dam off-site was causing a backwater effect
onto the project.
There was not recent evidence of mowing along the fence line. The herbaceous vegetation along the
fence line was thinner due to past mowing. The apparent purpose of the past mowing was to remove
and control vegetation along the existing fence lines. Past mowing extended inward approximately
four to five feet from the woven wire. As documented in the attached Letter of Intent and Conservation
Easement Agreement (Appendix E), mowing is allowed.
There is no longer a beaver dam downstream of the project easement. The backwater effect from the
dam has dissipated.
METHODOLOGY
This monitoring report follows methodology consistent with DMS's Procedural Guidance and Content
Requirements for DMS Monitoring Reports (Version 1.3, dated 1/15/10), available at DMS's website
(http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep).
Vegetation assessments were conducted using the CVS -DMS 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
Monitoring Report Year 5 (2016) Page 3
UT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP October 2016

project design, the CVS -DMS 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 5 (2016) Page 4
LIT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP October 2016

3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts and T.R. Wentworth, 2008. CVS -DMS 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 5 (2016)
LIT Altamahaw Site, Alamance County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page 5
October 2016

APPENDIX A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

a —
A.
N
W Qty E STER TRL
0 950 1,900
1" = 2,000' Q4
y, SAW MILL DR 6�4 1
BARBER FOSTER R!] a
✓ �..._
y,
d 4 700
7[TQ
LENORE DR,Clover
Garden
SUTTON DODD RD _✓�, - 1� r J
ahaw LIT ALTAMAHAW CREEK
BIRCHWO.OD-
�1
Ug kttyL MAyAW umio?i RIDGE
Caswell
County
S
Ft a
6�a PROJECT SITE
Grove
Ossipee92
is
9 C� .
Elon
Colleg
ti ne-s.s9nr�a 00 Rover ebane
a Gudiotd rii an�
2 i_.au.nry
Orange
�- Gr a Count,
LN d Ala encs
SwrpSornriN
// m! bock
t A� Creek
16.
Soxapaha
2^ ^OLL SnmwCarnp whitney�
`pFyS Qd� ff Randolph. ar
County
Chatham
�j County
DIRECTIONS FROM 1-85/1-40 IN ALAMANCE COUNTY:
Exit 140 (University Drive) - Proceed north for approximately 2.5 miles. Left onto Shallowford %
Church Road - Proceed approximately one mile. Left onto NC 87 - Proceed approximately 2.5 miles.
Right onto Hub Mill Road - Proceed approximately 0.75 mile. Right onto Altamahaw Union Ridge r
Road - Proceed approximately one mile. Turn right onto unnamed gravel roadway - Proceed
approximately 0.25 mile. Enter site at metal gate on right.
Prepared For: PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP Map Source:
UT to Altamahaw Site - DMS Project No. 92837 2013 Lake Burlington and FIGURE 1
ND Ossipee USGS Quadrangles
Alamance Co., NC October 2016

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT Altamahaw192837
Mitigation Credits
Riparian Wetlandj"Non Wriparian wetland Buffer
NitrogenStream
I
Nutrient Offset
Nutrient Offset
Type R
RE R RE
R RE
Totals 738.5
0.013
Project Components
Project Component
Restoration..
Stationing/Location Existing Footage cre ge AlpproacO Restoration
1�_
Footage or
Equivalent
Acreage
Ratio
Rip. Non-riverine
Northwest boundary 0.026 acres E 0.013
0.013 acres
2 to 1
UT Altamahaw Creek
Center of Project Area
1,347 linear feet
Ell 673.5
673.5 If
2 to 1
UT to UT Altamahaw
Southwest boundary
130 linear feet
Ell 65
65 If
2 to 1
Creek
Restoration Level
Component Summation
FR"iparian
Stream (linear feet) Riverine Non-riverine Non -riparian Wetland (acres)
feet)
Upland (acres)
Restoration
Enhancement
0.026 acres
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
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 3. Project Contact Table
UT Altamahaw/ 92837
Designer
Firm Information/ Address
Ecological Engineering, LLP
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101, Cary, NC 27518
Jenny S. Fleming, PE
[phone]
Construction Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
Backwater Environmental
288 East St. Suite 2003, Pittsboro, NC 27312
Wes Newell
[phone]
Construction Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
Riverworks, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 800, Cary, NC 27518
Bill Wright
[phone]
Planting Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
Riverworks, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 800, Cary, NC 27518
George Morris
[phone]
Supplemental Planting Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
Carolina Silvics, Inc.
908 Indian Trail Rd., Edenton, NC 27932
Mary -Margaret S. McKinney
[phone]
Seeding Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
Riverworks, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 800, Cary, NC 27518
George Morris
[phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
ArborGen [phone]
Cure Nursery [phone]
Foggy Mountain Nursery [phone]
Mellow Marsh Farm [phone]
Native Roots Nursery [phone]
Superior Tree [phone]
Monitoring Performer
Firm Information/ Address
Ecological Engineering, LLP
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101, Cary, NC 27518
Heather Smith, David Cooper (stream, vegetation & wetland)
[phone]

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
UT Altamahaw/ 92837
Project Information
Project Name
UT Altamahaw,
County
Alamance
Project Area
3.6 acres
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Project
36°10'43.56" North/ 79°28'37.91" West
Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 3030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
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
Reach Summary Information
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
Wetland
Less than 5%
Summary Information
Less than 5%
Size of Wetland
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
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Species
Less than 5%
Regulatory Considerations
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Resolved
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Resolved
Endangered Species Act
Resolved
Historic Preservation Act
Resolved
Coastal Zone/Area Management Acts (CZMA/CAMA)
Not Applicable
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Resolved
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Not Applicable

APPENDIX B
Visual Assessment Data

rAn
v
a 3gx d
ACCP-18 FA3ENMIT
QD
a,
I 1
i
81
J
�zA q raa 3
,e
—01
a
LEGEND
ckwroAos �m
Prepared For: MONITORING PLAN VIEW Map Source:
UT to Altamahaw Site - DMS Project No. 92837 Ecological Engineering, LLP FIGURE 2
Enviranmento!
Quality Alamance County, NC October, 2016 Baseline Monitoring Figure

3
0 70 140
1"=150'
�A
arc -
Vegetation Plot 1
MY5 Status
K.xY
Auxiliary spillway repair
adjacent to easement area
ov-
Vegetation Plot 2
MY5 Status
r. Vegetation Plot 3
Erosion of road be MY5 Status
adjacent to culvert
,r.
Surface water diversion
from modified BMP structure -
Vegetation Plot 5
MY5 Status
a ?` Vegetation Plot 4 `y
.9
MY5 Status _ •
.. J",
Legend
r
Conservation Easement Boundary (Approximate)
Wetland enhancement area
Vegetation Plot does not ,•
- meet 260 stems/acre threshold
Vegetation Plot meets
or exceeds 260 stems/acre threshold W6 -
Invasive plant species/blackberry thicket
Past mowing in easement
0 Other Areas of Concern _
Prepared For: CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW Map Source:
UT to Altamahaw Site - DMS Project No. 92837 FIGURE 3
2010 Aerial from
NCOneMap.com
Environmental Alamance Co., NC October 2016
Quality

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment UT Altamahaw DMS Project No. 92837
Planted Acreage
4.6
Category
DefinitionsVegetation Threshold Depiction
Polygons Acreage Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1 ac n/a
0 0 0
2. Low Stem Density
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on
0.1 ac
n/a
0
0
0.0%
Areas
MY 3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria
Total
0
0
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that is obviously
Growth Rates or
0.25 ac
n/a
0
0
0%
small given the monitoring year
Vigor
Cumulative Total
0
10
NOTES:
One of five vegetation plots did not meet the required success criteria for planted stems but met with volunteer stems.
Easement Acreage 4.6

;�� ,,:+�: '�- qti�� a�.- � �, - -'4�i' �, • 'fir `'� r
9. ., - '� ' n �A;,f _. - i.. a '" • #� '1 ✓ ,' ,. kai � `�"'��
7
M ♦ �
d y�'
-
I ,
Y
Wr
Imill 111
I g
r
' �? a �1_ .-., '1`� i ;� `w -.-?r•.- - -. .'-ei 1. - ii �� i'T'' �'...,. 'i
.tt � � n; .•�..- � � ':� � *' 1 , rti: ,� wig ��t ,:>. r .,.
r
L�y
«z On
- l -`,*
-
-low g. 3
k�
At
,
�Y
r.`
r y - -
:,
_ I
i t
:} b
u
t f M '
;
MEL

Photostation
Comparison - Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012 MY 2 2013 MY 3 2014 MY 4 MY 5 2016 (912012016)
Page 2
MN.
r
•
Photostation 5. • •• _• - -
Facing north from +
souteast corner of
existing crossing.
I
L.
Photostation 6.
Facing southwest r � .. �. •, ,� , . -
from southwest
comer of existing ! - ,-
I
F
' y r
,
r
•
{
Photostation 8.
Facing southwest
r + .
from northwest • •'
corner of existing r
crossing.
h F -�

Photostation
Comparison - Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012 MY 2 2013 MY 3 2014 MY 4 MY 5 2016 (912012016)
Page 3
Akio
a _. .. a ♦, - Lq
y
`4-
q
y. •
Photostation 12.
Facing west at
riparian area from
Vegetation Plot 2.

.-
,,
� i Goi,
ZW 77"
6g5 y{
<:3
d .
_ara•
■ r - _ - - - _
l9 � ,... , • ; -� s � ,..: ' ".,.� . � ".. < . ' .F�
77
Ilk
a s �• '1t kFrti.. -.h i +c
• 7c
,
r k - L3
,
t

Photostation
Comparison - Baseline Condition 2012 MY 12012 MY 2 2013 MY 3 2014 MY 4 MY 5 2016 (912012016)
Page 5
'
,V
r, r
F r w
�� x wWOW-
-
a .�
s
dot
f� a
r
r
Photostation 20.
Facing northeast y
along easement' y
boundary. fl `
f � .6 N s .y f:� �f.,: eY...i� a.. �mL. .1 ra•� _�.

,
j
•Tf t P
•
r
r _
i � -r.. g :j. et„"'�(4 �,` , y d.` :. _, ti-:'- - 16- •s-'�f°��G� in.. _ -� _ d _ _ _ ..+mac.. __ - _ _.
:
ilk s
J
471
,
' � ° � � a e �I �.�„r �". ^,�,�. _ _ -,� .. •�,' -h - ti� `ice f �f� t,-.-
•
:
s
h`
is _- - - • CIL

• 7r•
�� hyl- ., ;e"�• els s"1i .ti_' - _ � - I `'" �'r. '� -'i.
f i
z
S 1.
.. M --.W
r
f• �
r
,
P _
Com,
JA" - el,
I�
- ' . ' ' t yam• 'v iP - - t .
7-W I
x- ��`� mar►
Ar
rl
• . I f� sr .
M r
i
r
,'T n
,
v 1
... r 1

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
UT Altamahaw/92837
Vegetation Plot ID
1
VegetationThreshold Met? MU
Yes
Tract Mean
80%
2
Yes
80%
3
Yes
80%
4
Yes
80%
5
No
80%

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata
UT to Altamahaw Creek (DMS Project No. 92837)
Report Prepared By Heather Smith
Date Prepared 9/29/2016 10:46
database name EcologicalEngineering-2016-UTAltamahawYear 5.mdb
P:\50000 State\EEP 50512\50512-001 EEP Altamahaw
database location Creek\MONITORING\UT Altamahaw Year 5 2016
computer name WKST7
file size 45092864
Damage
Damage by Spp
Damage by Plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
Project Code
project Name
Description
River Basin
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
List of most frequent damage classes with number of
occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each
species for each plot; dead and missing stems are
excluded.
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.
92837
UT ALTAMAHAW
Cape Fear
1347
50
12512.77
5
5
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a
Metadata
summary of project(s) and project data.
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for
Proj, planted
each year. This excludes live stakes.
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for
each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems,
Proj, total stems
and all natural/volunteer stems.
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live
Plots
stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all
Vigor
plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
Damage by Spp
Damage by Plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
Project Code
project Name
Description
River Basin
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
List of most frequent damage classes with number of
occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each
species for each plot; dead and missing stems are
excluded.
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.
92837
UT ALTAMAHAW
Cape Fear
1347
50
12512.77
5
5

Table 9: DMS Project Code 92837
Project Name: UT ALTAMAHAW
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
92837 -LS -0001
92837 -LS -0002
92837 -LS -0003
92837 -LS -0004
92837 -LS -0005
PnoLS P -all T Pnol-S P -all T
Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
11
1
1
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
6
2
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
3
Carya
hickory
Tree
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
Tree
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
3
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
2
2
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
21
2
31
3
3
11
1
1
Ilex verticillata
common winterberry
Shrub
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
3
5
Ligustrum sinense
Chinese privet
Exotic
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
3
6
6
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
21
2
2
1
1
1
6
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
Ostrya virginiana
hophornbeam
Tree
Oxydendrum arboreum
sourwood
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
11
1
1
3
3
3
2
1
1
9
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
3
3
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
3
3
6
11
1
1
Rhus
sumac
shrub
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
2
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
3
Sambucus nigra
European black elderberry Shrub
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
2
21
2
1
1
1
1
1
7
Ulmus rubra
slippery elm
Tree
2
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
16
16 27
8
8
18
101
10
21
131
131
27
5
5
35
1 1
1 1 1
0.02 0.02
0.02 0.02 0.02
91 91 13 51 S1 9
6 6 8 6 6 9 4 4
9
647.5 647.5 1092.7 323.7 323.7 728.4
404.7 404.7 849.8 526.11 526.11 1092.7 202.31202.31141-6-4

Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY5 2016
MY4 2016
MY3 2014
MY2 2013
MY1 2012
MYO 2012
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
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 rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
8
4
3
3
3
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
4
4
7
5
51
5
61
6
6
9
1
11
19
1
1
1
Carya
hickory
Tree
3
4
13
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
Tree
1
1
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
3
5
3
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
3
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
Ilex verticillata
common winterberry
Shrub
9
9
11
7
7
9
12
12
131
10
10
10
7
7
7
7
7
7
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
5
2
Ligustrum sinense
Chinese privet
Exotic
8
8
7
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
15
10
12
6
8
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
3
3
9
4
4
8
5
5
7
1
Ostrya virginiana
hophornbeam
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
Oxydendrum arboreum
sourwood
Tree
16
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
11
1
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
51
5
15
2
2
5
7
7
71
5
5
5
3
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus
oak
Tree
4
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
21
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
41
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
9
9
9
11
11
11
10
10
10
9
9
9
8
8
8
11
11
11
Rhus
sumac
shrub
41
4
7
3
3
5
5
5
5
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
4
2
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
Sambucus nigra
European black elderberry
Shrub
3
4
2
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
4
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
1
2
Ulmus rubra
Islippery elm
ITree
4
4
10
4
4
10
6
6
7
7
7
7
2
2
2
Unknown
I
IShrub or Tree
2
1
52
13
420.9
52 128
5
0.12
13 23
420.9 1036.0
54
141
437.11437.11963
541 119
5
0.12
141 26
2
62
121
501.8
621 132
5
0.12
121 24
501.8 1068.4
381
8
307.6
38 68
5
0.12
8 16
307.6 550.4
2
25
7
202.3
2 2
25 60
5
0.12
7 14
202.3 485.6
3
351
10
283.3
3 3
35 37
5
0.12
10 11
283.3 299.5

APPENDIX D
Hydrology Data

Date of Data Collection
n/a*
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT Altamahawl 92837
Date of Occurrence Method Photo
November 3 & 4, 2012 NC State Climate Office
# (if available)
None
7/31/2013
June 5-13 and June 28 -July 14, 2013 NC State Climate Office, Crest Gage & Usual 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
*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.
Table 13. Monthly Rainfall Data Summary - UT Altamahaw Site 2016
Month
Amount (in.)
30%
70%
January
1.4821
1.13
2.65
February
3.4039
1.01
2.35
March
2.5235
1.24
2.89
April
1.6621
1.04
2.42
May
4.9861
1.07
2.51
June
3.7018
1.16
2.70
July
5.3322
1.45
3.39
August
1.9236
1.28
2.98
September
7.2138
1.15
2.67
October
Not Evaluated
1.01
2.35
November
Not Evaluated
0.96
2.23
December
Not Evaluated
0.99
2.32
UTAltamahaw Site 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall - Monitoring Year 5 (2016)
Alamance County, NIC
Zo
rrr Precipitation Data
30
70
8
m
6
U
C
C
C
O
'a
m 4
(L`
2
0
t = m �.
C N N d N
[9 L6 a C
m ¢E ® E E
ID
l� ... O O N
N
U)Z D
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