20120396 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report 2017_20171220

MONITORING YEAR 2
:,4091:31
Final
MOORES FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
Surry County, NC
DEQ Contract 6500
DMS Project Number 94709
DWR # 12-0396
USACE Action ID SAW -2011-02257
Data Collection Period: June -October 2017
Submission Date: December 20, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
INC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
wk*
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
restored, enhanced, and preserved approximately 19,587 linear feet (LF) of Moores Fork and 13
unnamed tributaries (UTs), provided livestock fencing and alternative water sources to keep livestock
out of the streams, removed invasive plant species across the project, and established native riparian
buffers. The restoration project was developed to fulfill stream mitigation requirements accepted by
the DMS for the Upper Yadkin River Basin (HUC 03040101). The Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
(the Site) will net 11,602 stream mitigation credits through a combination of restoration, enhancement I
and 11, and preservation.
The Site is within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) identified in the Upper Yadkin River Basin
Restoration Priority (RBRP) plan (NCDENR, 2009). The RBRP identified the Stewarts Creek 14 -digit HUC
03040101100010 as a TLW. Agriculture is the primary land use in the watershed (36% agriculture land
cover and only 3% impervious cover) and the RBRP identified degraded riparian buffers as the major
stressor to water quality. The Site is also located within the identified as a priority subwatershed for
stream restoration and agricultural BMPs during the initial Upper Yadkin -Ararat River local watershed
planning (LWP).
The final design was completed in June of 2013. Construction activities and as -built surveys were
completed in December of 2014. Planting of the site took place in February of 2015. A large flood event
with an estimated return interval of 50 to 100 years occurred at the site on April 18-19, 2015, causing
damage to the main stem of Moores Fork. This damage was repaired in March and April of 2016, and a
second as -built survey was performed on the repaired areas in April of 2016. The baseline monitoring
efforts began in June of 2016 and monitoring year one efforts were initiated in late October of 2016. The
Monitoring Year 2 monitoring activities were completed in October 2017.
The Site is on track to meet MY2 success criteria for vegetation, geomorphology, and hydrology
performance standards. The vegetation survey resulted in an average stem density of 472 planted stems
per acre. The Site has met the interim requirement of 320 stems per acre, with 10 of the 12 plots (83%)
individually meeting this requirement. The vegetation monitoring and visual assessment revealed
growing invasive plant populations in the riparian areas of Moores Fork Reaches 1 and 3, Silage
Tributary Reach 2, and Barn Tributary Reach 1. Morphological surveys indicate that the channel
dimensions are stable and functioning as designed with minor deviation from the as -built baseline
dimensions. At least one bankfull event occurred during the MY2 data collection, which was recorded by
the Moores Fork crest gage. The performance standard of two recorded bankfull events in separate
monitoring years has been met for Moores Fork and partially met for the Silage Tributary.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - FINAL

MOORES FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
Year 2 Monitoring Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
Figure 2
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
1.2
Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
Table 3
1.2.1
Vegetation Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
Project Baseline Information and Attributes
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-3
Appendix B
1.2.3
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-3
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-3
Table 7
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-3
Stream Photographs
1.3
Monitoring Year 2 Summary......................................................................................................1-4
Appendix C
Section2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Section3:
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................3-1
Table 10
APPENDICES
Appendix A General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4a -b
Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Table 5
Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.6
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 6a -j
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10
Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Appendix D
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11a -b
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12a -b
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross -Section)
Cross -Section Plots
Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix E
Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13
Verification of Bankfull Events
Monthly Rainfall Data
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - FINAL

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site was implemented under a design -bid -build contract with DMS in Surry County, NC. The Site is
located in the Yadkin River Basin; eight -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03040101 and the 14 -digit Hydrologic
Unit Code (HUC) 03040101100010 (Figure 1). Located in the Piedmont physiographic province (NCGS
2004), the project watershed primarily includes agricultural land cover. The drainage area for the lower
end of Moores Fork is 1,527 acres and the drainage area for Silage Tributary is 156 acres. The site is
located approximately 0.25 mile north of NC 89 on Horton Road. The project site is located on both
sides of Horton Road. Latitude and longitude for the site are 36.506671 N and -80.704115 W,
respectively (Figure 1).
The NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) restored, enhanced, and preserved approximately
19,587 linear feet (LF) of Moores Fork and 13 unnamed tributaries (UTs), provided livestock fencing and
alternative water sources to keep livestock out of the streams, removed invasive plant species across
the project, and established native riparian buffers. The restoration project was developed to fulfill
stream mitigation requirements accepted by the DMS for the Upper Yadkin River Basin (HUC 03040101).
Mitigation work within the Site included restoring and enhancing 15,308 LF and preserving 4,279 LF of
stream. The Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project will net 11,602 stream mitigation credits through a
combination of restoration, enhancement I and 11, and preservation. 7.8 stream mitigation credits were
removed because of an overhead utility easement that crosses Silage Tributary Reach 2 starting at STA
30+10.49 and ending at STA 30+33.95 as shown in Table 1 of Appendix A. The final design was
completed in June of 2013. Construction activities and as -built surveys were completed in December of
2014. Planting of the site took place in March of 2015. A large flood event with an estimated return
interval of 50 to 100 years occurred at the site on April 18-19, 2015, causing damage to the main stem of
Moores Fork. This damage was repaired in March and April of 2016, and a second as -built survey was
performed on the repaired areas in April of 2016. The baseline monitoring efforts began in June of 2016
and monitoring year one efforts were initiated in late October of 2016. More detailed information
related to the project activity, history, and contacts can be found in Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2. Please refer to the Project Component Map (Figure 2) for the stream features and to
Table 1 for the project component and mitigation credit information for the Site. This report documents
the results of the monitoring year two efforts (MY2).
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, dairy and farming operations on the site had deforested riparian buffers
and allowed direct livestock access to the stream, leading to elevated temperatures and nutrients.
Channel straightening and dredging throughout much of the project had also contributed to channel
degradation. Table 11 in Appendix D present the pre -restoration conditions in detail.
This mitigation site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Yadkin River Basin.
The project goals identified in the Mitigation Plan (Confluence, 2012) include:
• Improve water quality in Moores Fork and the UTs through reductions in sediment and nutrient
inputs from local sources;
• Create conditions for dynamic equilibrium of water and sediment movement between the
supply reaches and project reaches;
• Promote floodwater attenuation and secondary functions associated with more frequent and
extensive floodwater contact times;
• Improve in -stream habitat by increasing the diversity of bedform features;
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - FINAL 1-1

• Enhance and protect native riparian vegetation communities; and
Reduce fecal, nutrient, and sediment loads to project streams by promoting and implementing
livestock best management practices.
The project objectives have been defined as follows:
• Restoration of the dimension, pattern, profile of approximately 1,828 LF of Moores Fork Reach 2
and 243 LF of the Pond Tributary;
• Restoration of the dimension and profile (Enhancement 1) of the channel for approximately
2,832 LF of Moores Fork Reach 3, 900 LF of Silage Reach 1, 2,448 LF of Silage Reach 2, 300 LF of
Barn Reach 1 and 112 LF of Corn Reach 2;
• Limited channel work coupled with livestock exclusion, gully stabilization, invasive species
control and buffer planting (Enhancement 11) on approximately 761 LF of Moores Fork Reach 1,
167 LF of Cow Tributary 1, 767 LF of Cow Tributary 2, 3,134 LF of Barn Reach 2, 1,350 LF of Corn
Reach 1, and 466 LF of UT1;
• Livestock exclusion fencing and other best management practice installations;
• Invasive plant species control measures across the entire project wherever necessary; and
• Preservation of approximately 4,279 LF of relatively un -impacted forested streams (UTs 2, 3, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10) in a permanent conservation easement.
1.2 Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted during MY2 to assess the condition of the project. The stream
restoration success criteria for the Site follows the approved performance standards presented in the
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project Final Mitigation Plan (Confluence, 2012). Annual monitoring will
be conducted for seven years to provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding
of project status and trends.
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). A total of 12
vegetation monitoring plots were established during the baseline monitoring within the project
easement areas using a standard 10 by 10 meter plot. Please refer to Figure 3 in Appendix B for the
vegetation monitoring locations. At the end of year five of the monitoring period, the vegetation success
criterion is the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor along restored and
enhanced reaches. The final vegetation success criterion is the survival of 210 planted stems per acre at
the end of year seven of the monitoring period. The interim measure of vegetation success for the Site is
the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period.
The MY2 vegetation survey was completed in August 2017, resulting in an average stem density of 472
planted stems per acre. The Site has met the interim requirement of 320 stems per acre, with 10 of the
12 plots (83%) individually meeting this requirement. Vegetation plots 2 and 3, with both having
densities of 283 stems per acre, did not meet the interim success criteria. They however still meet
density requirements of 260 planted stems per acre at the end of monitoring year 5. The planted stem
mortality was approximately 3% of the MY1 stem count which was 486 stems per acre. There is an
average of 12 stems per plot. Approximately 3.8% of the planted stems scored a vigor of 1, indicating
that they are unlikely to survive. This low vigor rating is due to damage from drought, insects,
suffocation from dense herbaceous cover, vine strangulation, or other unknown factors. Please refer to
Appendix B for vegetation plot photographs and Appendix C for vegetation data tables.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - FINAL 1-2

1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Several vegetation problem areas of invasive plant populations have been identified in MY2 throughout
the Site with species including: kudzu (Pueraria montana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), English Ivy (Hedera helix), Japanese
stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum). Areas with kudzu and Chinese privet are becoming especially
prevalent in the upper portion of Moores Fork Reach 1 and the left riparian area of Moores Fork Reach
3. Additional dense areas of Chinese privet are spreading along Silage Tributary Reach 2. Many planted
stems are damaged from vine strangulation along Barn Tributary Reach 1. DMS is currently in the
process to contract with a provider for invasive species control and treatment should begin spring 2018.
Generally, the site has a strong herbaceous cover consisting of various species of clover, rye grass,
fescue, and sedge. Small isolated bare/poorly vegetated areas were observed along the right bank of
Moores Fork Reach 2 near stations 30+50 and 34+50 and the left bank of Moores Fork Reach 3 near
stations 48+00 and 52+00. These vegetation areas of concern are shown in Figure 3 in Appendix B.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY2 were conducted in June and July 2017. In general, MY2 riffle pebble
counts in Moores Fork indicate coarser sediment size distribution as compared to MYO. Cross-section
data indicate that channel dimensions for Moores Fork have changed very little since the April 2016
baseline data were collected. Riffle width to depth ratios have changed only modestly, and pool depths
are being maintained close to baseline depths. At Moores Fork Cross -Section 6, an increase in bankfull
cross-sectional area was observed where a boulder of a stone toe structure has been undermined on
the outer bend of the channel.
For the Silage Tributary, MY2 riffle pebble counts indicate similar or coarser sediment size distribution as
compared to MYO. For both reaches of the Silage Tributary, MY2 indicates somewhat larger deviations
from the baseline in part due to the small channel dimensions, even slight variations in measurement
have significant effects on dimensionless ratios. At Silage Tributary Cross -Section 3, the survey data
indicates some channel bed scour due to concentrated flow against a small bar that has formed,
resulting in an increase in cross-sectional area. For the remaining cross-sections, results indicate that
channel dimensions are stable and functioning well. Please refer to Appendix D for cross-section plots
and morphological summary tables.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
Stream areas of concern included instances of bank erosion and sediment deposition. Moores Fork
Reach 3 has localized areas of bank erosion at STA 49+00 and near the confluence of UT8 (STA 44+50).
There is piping visible under a log vane structure (STA 41+10) and a stone toe boulder structure is
undermined (STA 47+40) on Moores Fork Reach 3. Also, a headcut is visible at the confluence of UT8 and
Moores Fork Reach 3. Silage Tributary Reach 2 has new or expanded bank erosion (STA 22+30, 30+30,
31+20, and 34+50). A log step and boulder step both on Silage Tributary Reach 2 show signs of being
undermined. These areas will continue to be monitored in future years for signs of accelerated
instability. Stream areas of concern are indicated in Table 6 and Figure 3 in Appendix B.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
Crest gage data collected from Moores Fork Reach 2 and the Silage Tributary Reach 2 on July 10, 2017
indicate that a bankfull event occurred. A bankfull measurement was documented for Moores Fork but
no indicator was evident for the Silage Tributary. A nearby rain gage station recorded approximately 21
inches of rain between May and August of 2017 (NCCRONOS, 2017). NCCRONOS daily rainfall data
suggest that the bankfull event may have occurred around May 25, 2017. In order to meet project
performance standards, one additional bankfull event measurement will be required for the Silage
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - FINAL 1-3

Tributary. Two bankfull flow events must be documented on restoration reaches within the seven-year
monitoring period and must occur in separate years. Therefore, the performance standard has been
partially met in MY2. Refer to Appendix E for hydrologic data and graphs.
1.3 Monitoring Year 2 Summary
The Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project is on track to meet monitoring success criteria for
vegetation, geomorphology, and hydrology performance standards. The MY2 vegetation survey resulted
in an average stem density of 472 planted stems per acre. The Site has met the interim requirement of
320 planted stems per acre, with 10 of the 12 plots (83%) individually meeting this requirement. The
MY2 vegetation monitoring and visual assessment revealed growing invasive plant populations in the
riparian areas of Moores Fork Reaches 1 and 3, Silage Tributary Reach 2, and Barn Tributary Reach 1.
Morphological surveys indicate that the channel dimensions are stable and functioning as designed with
minor deviation from the as -built baseline dimensions. At least one bankfull event occurred during MY2,
and was recorded by the Moores Fork crest gage. The performance standard of two recorded bankfull
events in separate monitoring years has been met for Moores Fork and partially met for the Silage
Tributary.
Summary information and data related to the 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 annual monitoring reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan
documents available on DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices
are available from DMS upon request.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - FINAL 1-4

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
The stream monitoring methodologies utilized in MY2 are based on standard guidance and procedures
documents (Rosgen 1996 and USACE 2003).
• Cross-section data were collected throughout four reaches using a total station survey. Sixteen
cross-sections were surveyed. Cross-sections were permanently marked with capped rebar and
PVC conduit.
• Sixty-nine permanent photo points were established throughout the project to visually monitor
stream stability and vegetation.
• Wolman pebble counts were conducted at ten representative riffle cross-sections to evaluate
particle size distribution over time. A minimum of 100 particles were selected at random and
measured (Harrelson 1994).
• Vegetation monitoring included documenting species composition and survival of planted stems
within twelve randomly located vegetation plots. Each 0.0247 acre vegetation plot was
permanently marked with rebar and PVC conduit at all four corners.
• Two crest gages were installed and were checked during semi-annual visits to determine if a
bankfull event has occurred. The crest gages were installed and surveyed at riffles on Moores
Fork and Silage Tributary.
• Visual assessments were performed on all stream and buffer restoration areas on a semi-annual
basis. Problem areas were noted, including channel instability (lateral and/or vertical instability,
structure failure/instability and/or piping, headcuts), vegetation health (low stem density,
vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment), beaver activity, and livestock access.
Areas of concern were mapped, photographed, and described in this monitoring report.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Confluence Engineering, PC. 2012. Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Plan. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-
2.pdf
North Carolina Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database (NCCRONOS).
2016. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. MT Airy 2 W. Station ID No. 315890.
Accessed October 2017.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Surface Water Classifications. Retrieved
from http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-
standards/classifications
NCDENR. 2009. Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration Priorities. Retrieved from
https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-
documents/yadkin-river-basin
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS). 2004. Physiography of North Carolina. Map compiled by the
Division of Land Resources. Raleigh.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1998. North Carolina Geology.
https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/north-carolina-geological-
survey/
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report -FINAL 3-1