20090688 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20150414

s
22cCkk,C -C �Z� 1,30VI
PW12-- 2oo 50VWF
CHARLES WILLIAMS STREAM, WETLAND, AND BUFFER SITE
EEP Project No. 80
MONITORING YEAR 2 (2014)
Construction Completed February 2013
Planting Completed February 2014
Randolph County, NC
State Construction Project No. 07.07125.01A
Prepared for the
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
oRca�c
t!01 �41 - D
APR 1 4 2015
k DENR - WATER RESOURCES
TRANSPORTATION PERMITTING UNIT
FINAL REPORT December 2014

Prepared by:
ECOLOGICAL
ENGINEERING
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Cary, NC 27518
919.557.0929
www.ecologicaleng.com
-Dx4ze7640.ei
David G. Cooper, Project Scientist
Under Contract With:
SU.NGATE
bESlGN GROUP
This assessment and report are consistent with NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Template Version 1.4 (11/07/11) for EEP Monitoring Reports.

a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY /PROJECT ABSTRACT .......................................... ..............................1
1.1 Goals and Objectives ....................................................................... ............................... 1
1.2 Background Summary ....................................................................... ..............................1
1.3 Vegetation Condition and Comparison to Success Criteria ............... ............................... 2
1.4 Stream Stability /Condition and Comparison to Success Criteria ....... ............................... 3
1.5 Wetland Condition and Performance Relative to Success Criteria .... ............................... 3
1.6 Other Information ........................................................................... ............................... 3
2.0 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... ..............................4
3.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................... ..............................5
APPENDIX A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
APPENDIX B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2. Mitigation Components
Figure 3. Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Photograph Comparisons
APPENDIX C. Vegetation Plot Data
Planted Vegetation Summary
Proposed Supplemental Planting Letter
Original Planting List from EEP
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. Stream Survey Data
Cross Section Plot Exhibits
Longitudinal Profile Plot Exhibit
Cross Section Pebble Count Exhibits
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11. Monitoring Data
APPENDIX E. Hydrology Data
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
2013 -2014 Precipitation Data Chart
APPENDIX F. EEP Comments and Response to Comments — Draft MY 2 Report
Response to EEP Comments dated December 17, 2014

c T
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ PROJECT ABSTRACT
The Charles Williams Stream, Wetland and Buffer Site, hereinafter referred to as the "Project Site" or "Site," is
located in Randolph County, North Carolina, within US Geological Survey (USGS) 8 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC) 03030003 and NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03 -06 -09 of the Cape Fear River Basin
(Figure 1). The project involved the enhancement of 1,850 linear feet of an unnamed tributary (UT) to Sandy
Creek, 2.2 acres of wetlands and 8.8 acres of riparian buffer. The Site is protected for perpetuity under a
conservation easement purchased from Mr. Charles Williams in 2006. 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 component, served as the dominant input for achieving this goal.
No restoration goals were identified in the Cape Fear River Basinwide Management Plan (NCDWQ, 2005) with
regard to the Sandy Creek watershed. There were no sources or stressors listed for the watershed area
associated with the Project Site. The NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) develops River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) to guide its
restoration activities within each of the state's 54 cataloging units. RBRPs delineate specific watersheds that
exhibit both the need and opportunity for wetland, stream and riparian buffer restoration. These watersheds
are called Targeted Local Watersheds (TLWs) and receive priority for EEP planning and restoration project
funds. The 2009 Draft Cape Fear River RBRP identified HUC 03030003020010, which includes the Project Site,
as a Targeted Local Watershed. The following information is taken directly from the RBRP. "...This is a largely
rural hydrologic unit (HU). The main stream, Sandy Creek, flows through Randolph County to Sandy Creek
Reservoir, a drinking water supply for Ramseur and Franklinville. As of 2006, the HU had no streams on DWQ's
list of impaired waters; however, the reservoir shows indications of high nutrient levels, likely related to the
large number of animal operations in the HU. The HU is a Water Supply Watershed and a long portion of Sandy
Creek is recognized by the State's Natural Heritage Program as a Significant Natural Heritage Area. EEP has
been active in the HU with five projects that include components of preserving wetlands (3 acres) and streams
(5,100 linear feet) and restoring wetlands (15 acres) and streams (15,000 linear feet). Piedmont Land
Conservancy has also been active in protecting streamside buffers in the HU. Continued implementation of
practices to reduce nutrient inputs to Sandy Creek Reservoir is recommended for this HU."
1.2 Background Summary
The Project Site is situated in northeastern Randolph County, approximately four miles west of Liberty and six
miles north of Ramseur (Figure 1). It is bordered to the north and west by undeveloped land, to the east by SR
2442 (Ramseur - Julian Road), and to the south by Sandy Creek. Northeastern Randolph Middle School is on the
property opposite of Sandy Creek, to the south. The Project Site can be accessed by using the following
directions from US Highway 64.
Monitoring Report Year 2 (2014) Page 1
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP December 2014

• Turn north on US 421 in Siler City, towards the Town of Liberty.
• Proceed approximately 9.5 miles and turn south (left) onto NC 49.
• Proceed approximately 0.7 miles along NC 49 and turn north (right) onto SR 2459 (Sandy Creek
Church Road).
• Follow Sandy Creek Church Road approximately 4.5 miles until it intersects with Ramseur - Julian
Road and turn north (right),
• Follow Ramseur - Julian Road approximately 0.3 miles, crossing over Sandy Creek. The Charles
Williams Site is on the west (left) side of the roadway, immediately north of Sandy Creek.
Situated in the Piedmont physiographic province and the Cape Fear River Basin, the Project Site encompasses
18 acres of former pasture and existing riparian forest. Elevations across the Site range between approximately
550 and 560 feet above Mean Sea Level. The following chart depicts pre - implementation existing condition
information regarding the Site.
Pre - Implementation Existing Conditions Summa
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
County
Randolph
River Basin Name
Cape Fear
Property Owner Name
Charles Williams
USGS 8 -digit HUC
03030003
USGS 14 -digit HUC
03030002020010
Stream #1 Name
UT to Sandy Creek
NCDWQ Subbasin
03 -06 -09
Drainage Area
4.9 sq. mi.
Underlying Mapped Soil(s)
Chewacla loam
NCDWQScore
(Perennial)
Drainage Class
Somewhat poorly drained
Rosgen Classification
C5
Hydric Status
B
Slope
0 -2 %
Available Water Capacity
Moderate to High
FEMA Classification
Zone AE
Invasive Vegetation Observed Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
1.3 Vegetation Condition and Comparison to Success Criteria
Vegetation success criteria are consistent with the US Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) Wilmington Regulatory
District's guidance for stream and wetland mitigation and the NCDENR's guidance for riparian buffer credit.
The USACE guidance requires the survival of a minimum of 320 planted woody stems /acre after Monitoring
Year 3 (MY3). A mortality rate of 10% is allowed after MY4 assessments (288 stems /acre) and, correspondingly,
after MY5 assessments (260 stems /acre). The NCDENR guidance requires survival of at least 320 native,
planted, hardwood stems /acre (trees only) the end of the MY 5 to successfully earn riparian buffer credit.
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 12 permanently placed 10- meter 2
vegetation plots (Figures 3a and 3b). Assessments include counts of both planted and natural stems. Due to
the timing of MY1 vegetation surveys, planted hardwood species that were unknown due to age, lack of bark
formation, wildlife browsing of buds, etc. were included in the MY1 stem counts. These species were identified
during MY2 monitoring. Based on the current monitoring effort, two of eight vegetation plots met the
minimum success criteria established for MY3 stream /wetland mitigation criteria and two of twelve plots met
the criteria for riparian buffer credit. Supplemental planting is planned for the 2014 -2015 planting season.
Appendices B and C depict more detailed information regarding the vegetation condition, including annual
Monitoring Report Year 2 (2014) Page 2
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP December 2014

photograph comparisons and additional information regarding the proposed supplemental planting. Appendix
F also contains additional information regarding vegetation monitoring and performance.
Due to the random placement of vegetation plots, only one of the eight plots associated with stream /wetland
credit is currently placed within the wetland enhancement area (Vegetation Plot #6). The remaining seven
plots are situated in non - wetland areas; however, based on current site conditions, three plots (Vegetation
Plots #3, #7, and #8) may likely be in wetland areas by MY4 assessments. The locations of the current plots will
be reassessed during MY4 activities.
1.4 Stream Stability /Condition and Comparison to Success Criteria
Enhancement (Level 1) of the LIT utilized natural channel design methodologies consistent with Priority Level IV
stream restoration protocols. These protocols specifically include the stabilization of the existing channel in
place. To document successful stabilization, 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.
A bankfull event was recorded during September 2014. Evidence of this event consisted of wrack material
above the bankfull indicators along the channel and cork shavings within the crest gauge present at
approximately 38 inches. Annual photograph comparisons of the stream channel are depicted in Appendix B
and hydrologic data associated with this year's monitoring assessment are provided in Appendix E.
1.5 Wetland Condition and Performance Relative to Success Criteria
Wetland enhancement work was performed throughout the existing wetland areas. Prior to enhancement,
these wetlands were severely degraded as a result of continuous soil compaction and grazing from livestock.
The enhancement work included livestock removal via exclusion fencing and supplemental plantings. Benefits
of the enhancement include water quality improvement by trapping nutrients such as nitrogen and
phosphorous, toxic substances and disease - causing microorganisms. Wetlands also slow and intercept surface
runoff, protect stream banks from erosion, protect upland areas from flooding, and provide valuable habitat
for wildlife.
1.6 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.
Boundary marking along the conservation easement using signage consistent with EEP guidelines was
performed by Ecological Engineering on December 8, 2014. A report detailing the boundary marking effort is in
preparation to EEP. Boundary marking will be reviewed and amended as needed based on EEP comment, and
additional information will be provided in the MY3 (2015) report.
During MY2 monitoring, a recently constructed beaver dam was observed within the channel. The location of
this dam is shown in Figure 3a.
Monitoring Report Year 2 (2014) Page 3
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP December 2014

200 METHODOLOGY
This monitoring report follows methodology consistent with EEP's Procedural Guidance and Content
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports (Version 1.4, dated 11/07/11), available at EEP's website
(http: / /www.nceep.net).
All surveys were performed via total station and survey grade Global Positioning System (GPS). Each survey
point has three - dimensional coordinates and is tied to survey control points. Longitudinal profile stationing
was developed based on the design stationing, and follows the UT from the northern to the southern property
boundary (upstream to downstream) as depicted on the survey plat. Based on comments from EEP during the
review of the draft MY2 monitoring report, future surveys of longitudinal profile data will incorporate more
detailed data collection than has been shown to date. Please refer to Appendix F for additional information
regarding survey methodology for future monitoring years.
Particle size distribution protocols followed the Wolman Pebble Count Procedure, which requires an observer
with a metric ruler to measure particles based on their intermediate axis. This information is correlated into a
graph depicting a particle size analysis of the cross section.
Vegetation assessments were conducted using the CVS -EEP protocol (Version 4.2). As part of this protocol,
vegetation is assessed using 100- meter 2 plots, or modules. The scientific method requires that measurements
be as unbiased as possible, and that they be repeatable. Plots are designed to achieve both of these objectives;
in particular, different people should be able to inventory the same plot and produce similar data (Lee et. al.,
2006). According to Lee et. al. (2006), there are many different goals in recording vegetation, and both time
and resources for collecting plot data are extremely variable. To provide appropriate flexibility in project
design, the CVS -EEP protocol supports five distinct types of vegetation plot records, which are referred to as
levels in recognition of the increasing level of detail and complexity across the sequence. The lower levels
require less detail and fewer types of information about both vegetation and environment, and thus are
generally sampled with less time and effort (Lee et. al., 2006). Level 1 (Planted Stem Inventory Plots) and Level
2 (Total Woody Stem Inventory Plots) inventories were completed on all 12 of the vegetation plots at the
Project Site.
A crest gauge was installed near the downstream end of the Site along the UT to verify the on -site occurrences
of bankfull events. In addition to the crest gauge, observations of recently deposited overbank wrack and /or
sediment serve to validate gauge observations, as necessary. Documentation of the highest stage during the
monitoring interval is assessed during each Site visit and the gauge is reset. The data related to bankfull
verification are summarized in each year's report. Based on the elevation of the crest gauge, any readings
observed higher than 22 inches on the gauge reflect a bankfull or above bankfull event.
Monitoring Report Year 2 (2014) Page 4
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP December 2014

3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, Michael T:, R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts and T.R. Wentworth, 2006. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.0 ( http: / /cvs.bio.unc.edu /methods.htm).
NCDENR Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) , 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Management Plan. Available at:
http: / /Portal.ncdenr.org /web /wq /ps /bpu /basin /capefear.
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 2013. Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site Baseline
Monitoring Document and As -built Baseline Report. Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP.
NC State Climate Office, 2014. Daily Precipitation Data from Siler City Airport (SILR), Chatham County (www.nc-
cli mate. 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 2 (2014)
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page 5
December 2014

APPENDIX A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

I Y
v H E 0 � —_� 0,O LIBERTY
0 1,000 2,000 \v S) (1 1 j! (\ ( Melanchton�
/ r
I" - 2,000'
SHfLAR.DR > l L `�� > 1 i,� °° II I ✓�
LIBERTY RD �,✓� `:` l S�
- \t J11 UST RD ,
K!311 "aeadow•Farm% (!� CONSERVATION EASEMENT
roe > >> --
FO
J li -;� .i�� �� / ^✓ i ✓~/_SANDY CREEK'CHURCH:RD ✓`'.
\11' }''i� l� s •�� . t - (��1�4\ Cf�1\ ,
lM lLUA
i
\
y-"-
NC in
Charles Williams Site
AU
C. %�� `1 I 1 I .�� +�~ J/ 1 ~ r.ARYSfRS
i
�' y I , :�' '� 1 �' �/� U
DIRECTIONS FROM US HWY 64 IN SILER CITY, NC: Turn north on US 421 in Siler City, towards the
Town of Liberty. Proceed approximately 9.5 miles, then turn left onto NC 49. Proceed approximately
0.7 miles, then turn right onto SR 2459 (Sandy Creek Church Road). Proceed approximately 4.5 miles, then
turn right onto SR 2442 (Ramseur - Julian Road). Proceed approixmately 0.3 miles, crossing over Sandy
Creek. The Charles Williams site is on the west (left) side of the roadway, immediately north of Sandy Creek.
PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP Map Source:
Charles Williams Site -
EEP Project No. 80 2013 Grays Chapel and FIGURE 1
tem Liberty USGS Quadrangles
11 I'll 'e111e1 t Randolph Co., NC November 2014
raouwi.

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland and Buffer Site / 80
Mitigation Credits
Nitrogen Phosphorus
Stream Riparian Wetland Non - riparian wetland Buffer Nutrient Nutrient
Offset offset
1,233
1.1
Project Components
336,430
Totals
Existing Footage!
Restoration or
Restoration
Mitigation
Project Component
Stationing /Location
Acreage Approach
Restoration
Footage or
Ratio
Equivalent
Acreage
Stream Enhancement
10 +00 to 27 +53
1,850 linear feet
El
RE
1,233
1.5:1
Riparian Wetland
areas east and west
Enhancement
of UT to Sandy
2.2 acres
E
RE
1.1
2 : 1
Creek
Buffer Restoration JOB
Sandy Creek and
201,481 square feet
R
R
201,481
1 : 1
-50')
UT to Sandy Creek
Buffer Restoration (50' -
Sandy Creek and
119,203 square feet
R
R
119,203
1 : 1
100')
UT to Sandy Creek
Buffer Restoration (101'
Sandy Creek and
63,704 square feet
R R
15,926
4 : 1
-200')
UT to Sandy Creek
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear feet)
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Non - riparian Wetland
Buffer
(square
Upland
(acres)
feet)
(acres)
Riverine Non - riverine
Restoration
384 208
Enhancement
2.2
Enhancement 1
1,850
Enhancement 11
s
Creation
Preservation
HQ
Preservation
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function Notes
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Dentention Pond; FS = Filter Strip;
S = Grassed Swale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Charles Williams Stream Wetland and Buffer Site/ 80
Charles Williams Stream Wetland and Buffer Site/ 80
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete (Feb 2013): 1 year, 9 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete (Feb 2014): 9 months
Number of Reporting Years: 2
Report Activity or Data Collection Complete Compledon
Mitigation Plan September -08
or Delivery
May-09
Final Design • Construction Plans
November -09
Jenny S. Fleming, PE
Ap6lk12
Construction
Firm Information/ Address
Riverworks, Inc.
February-13
Temporary S &E Mix Applied to Entire Project Area
(919) 459 -9001
Hauling Contractor
January-13
Permanent Seed Mix Applied to Entire Project Area
5434 Amick Road, Julian, NC 27283
January 13
Live Stake Plantings Applied
Firm Information/ Address
Carolina Silvics, Inc. (bare- rooted & containerized)
January 13
Bare-rooted Planting Applied
[phone]
Riverworks, Inc. (livestakes only)
February-14
Baseline Monitoring Document
June -13
Seeding Contractor
July -13
Year 1 Monitoring
March -14
Kenneth L. Strader
May -14
Year 2 Monitoring
September -14
Nursery Stock Suppliers (live stakes only)
November -14
Year 3 Monitoring
INC Forest Service Tree N ursery (919) 731 -7988
Foggy Mountain Nursery (336) 384 -5323
Year 4 Monitoring
Mellow Marsh Farm (919) 742 -1200
Monitoring Performer
Firm Information/ Address
Year 5 Monitoring
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suit 101, Cary, NC 27518
David Cooper, Ed Halnos, Reid Robol (stream, vegetation & wetland)
[phone]
Year 6 Monitoring (vegetation only)
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Charles Williams Stream Wetland and Buffer Site/ 80
Designer
Firm Information! Address
Ecological Engineering, LLP
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suit 101, Cary, NC 27518
Jenny S. Fleming, PE
(919) 557 -0929
Construction Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
Riverworks, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suit 800, Cary, NC 27518
Bill Wright
(919) 459 -9001
Hauling Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
Si ader Fencing Inc
5434 Amick Road, Julian, NC 27283
(336) 697 -7005
Planting Contractor(s)
Firm Information/ Address
Carolina Silvics, Inc. (bare- rooted & containerized)
908 Indian Trail Road, Edenton, NC 27932
Mary- Margaret S. McKinney, RF, PWS
[phone]
Riverworks, Inc. (livestakes only)
8000 Regency Parkway, SOle 800, Cary, NC 27518
George Morris
(919) 459 -9001
Seeding Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
Stader Fencing, Inc
5434 Amick Road, Julian, NC 27283
Kenneth L. Strader
(336) 697 -7005
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers (live stakes only)
Native Roots Nursery (10 ) 385-8385
INC Forest Service Tree N ursery (919) 731 -7988
Foggy Mountain Nursery (336) 384 -5323
Mellow Marsh Farm (919) 742 -1200
Monitoring Performer
Firm Information/ Address
Ecological Engineering, LLP
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suit 101, Cary, NC 27518
David Cooper, Ed Halnos, Reid Robol (stream, vegetation & wetland)
[phone]

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Charles Williams Stream Wetland and Buffer Site 180
Project Information
Project Name Charles Williams Stream Wetland and Butter Site
County Randolph
Project Area 18 acres
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35 °49'31.95" North/ 79 °39'02.64" West
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03030003
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit r 03030003020010
DWQ Subbasin
03 -06 -09
Project Drainage Area
4.9 sq. mi.
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
5 to 6%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Reach Summary
Length of Reach
Agricultural Land
Information
1,850 linear feet
Valley Classification
Valley Type VIII
Drainage Area
4.9 sq. mi.
NCDWQ Stream ID Score
>50
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS -III
Morphological Description (stream type)
C5
Evolutionary Trend
C- G -F -E -C
Underlying Mapped Soils
Chewacla loam
Drainage Classification
Poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric B
Slope
0 to 21/o
FEMA Classification
Zone AE
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Species
Wetland Summary
Size of Wetland
Less than 5%
Information
1.96 acres
Wetland Type
Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
Chewacla loam
Drainage Classification
Somewhat poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric B
Source of Hydrology
Overbank flooding
Hydrologic Impairment
None
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Species
Regulatory Considerations
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Less than 5%
Resolved
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Resolved
Endangered Species Act
Resolved
Historic Preservation Ad
Resolved
Coastal ZonelArea Management Ads (CZMA/CAMA)
Not Applicable
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Resolved
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Not Applicable

APPENDIX B
Visual Assessment Data

C
1 +f
100
1" = 200•
200
Vegetation Plot 2
0 Planted Stems /Acre
0 Total Stems /Acre
Beaver Dam
Cross- section 1 —�
,
Vegetation Plot 3
283 Planted Stems /Acre
768 Total Stems /Acre
Cross - section 2 —
t 2 60 -inch CSP &
At -grade Stream Crossing ,
Vegetation Plot 5
323 Planted Stems /Acre
323 Total Stems /Acre
Cross - section 3
Vegetation Plot 8
81 Planted Stems /Acre
81 Total Stems /Acre
Cross - section 4
Crest Gaug!1i
Vegetation Plot 1
526 Planted Stems /Acre
890 Total Stems /Acre
...- -f; -
Vegetation Plot 4
i - 283 Planted Stems /Acre
'?!� " =- 283 Total Stems /Acre
-a
20 +00 Vegetation Plot 6
242 Planted Stems /Acre
323 Total Stems /Acre
Vegetation Plot 7
81 Planted Stems /Acre
202 Total Stems /Acre
Legend
Easement Boundary
Cross - Sections
Crest Gauge
Riverine Wetland Enhancef
Vegetation Plot Meeting
320 Planted Stems /Acre
Vegetation Plot not Meeting
320 Planted Stems /Acre
on
Cross Vane (stable)
DLog Vane (stable)
28 +50
Rootwad (stable)
QInvasive Areas of Concern
n
Other Areas of Concern
rl_d�l CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW Map Source:
Charles Williams Site -
V nn }p EEP Project No. 80 NCOne Aerial p.com
vsy Ste]Il ## NCOneMap.com
c11i_�Ili�it RandolphCo.,NC November 2014
'R04NAM
FIGURE 3a
I

Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Assessment
Assessed Length: 1,85O linear feet
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site 180
Number Number Footage
Major Channel Sub- Stable. T otal Number of Amount of % Stable, with with for
Channel
Category VAdric Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Category as Intended As-Built Segments Footage as Intended Woody Woody Woody
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
Aggradation -Bar famatian/growth suflcient fo significantly detect flcw
� U 100
laterally (rid to include print bars).
Vertical Stability
Degradation - Evidence ofdown- cutting. 0 0 100 f
Tex b,reJSubstrate - Riflle maintains coarser substrate. 0 0 100
Rifle Condition '
Bed
Minder Pod
Depth - Suffic . ient (Max Pod Depth Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6).
—
4
5
80
Condition
Length - Appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream
4
5
80
rifle and head of downstream riffle).
y
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (run).
8
8
100
T14weg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (glide).
7
8
80
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
Scoured /Eroding
scour and erosion.
0
0
100
none
rime
n/a
Banks undercut/overhanging to the ex tent that mass wasting appears likely.
Bank
Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable and are
0
0
100
none
none
nia
providing habitat
Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving. or collapse.
0
0
100
none
none
n/a
Totals
0
0
95
n/a
n/a
n/a
Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
8
8
8
Grade control structures exhibting maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
3
Grade Control
eer
EnginEngineered
piping
Structures lacking any substantial flaw underneath sills or arms.
8
8
8
Bank erosion with the structures extent of influence does NOT exceed
Bank Protection
15 %.
8
8
8
Pod forming structures maintaining - Max. Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Habitat
Depth ratio > 1.6. Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -low.
3
3
3

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site 180
Planted Acrea e:
16 acres
Vegetation
Category
..
..
Depiction
Polygons
.
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and
0.1 acres
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
herbaceous material.
Low Stem Density
Woody stem densities clearly below target
levels based on MY 3, 4, or 5 stem count
0.1 acres
See CCPV
10
+/-0.1 ac.
<1%
Areas
criteria.
Total
n/a
n/a
n/a
Areas of Poor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are
Growth Rates or
obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Vigor
Cumulative Total
n!a
nla
n/a
Estimated Acrea e:
18 acres
Vegetation
Category
Definitions
Mapping
.. Depiction Polygons
,.
Invasive Areas of
Areas or points (if too small to render as
1,000 SF See CCPV
3
<.1 acres
<1
Concern
polygons at map scale).
Easement
Encroachment
Areas or points (if too small to render as
1,000 SF
See CCPV
1
0.3 acres
<1%
Areas
polygons at map scale).

Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site 180 - Annual Photograph Comparison
Vegetation Plot
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot 2
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot 3
Facing Southwest
MY2 (September 2014)

Vegetation Plot 4
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot 5
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot 6
Facing Southwest
Baseline MYO (June 2013)
MY1 (March 2014)
MTZ (September ZU14)
k'
P �
SO
rk

Vegetation Plot 7
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot 8
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot 9
Facing Southwest
Baseline MYO (June 2013)
X'+ Ak
MY1 (March 2014)
��T,:'; .rah _ �-_. ,.Q•._
I
PM
°L r;
_ f q
i fyy p ` r
1
�'•-etl It `��� ..�� y � � � � ''fit'
t�xP; a Wri
�z
r. t
MY2 (September 2014)
` -t
.fl
F
ft
P � S
�4
i
k,u
,�k�
}
Y�I
w
�r ��]!f ti 1 Y Spa y ,,"� W t ♦+!

Vegetation Plot 1
Facing Southwes
Baseline MYO (June 2013)
MY2 (September 2014)
Vegetation Plot 11
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot 1
Facing Southwes

Cross Section 1
Facing West
Cross Section 1
Facing
Downstream
Baseline MYO (June 2013)
MY1 (March 2014)

Cross Section 2
Facing West
Cross Section 2
Facing
Downstream
Cross Section 3
Facing West
Baseline MYO (June 2013)
MY1 (March 2014)
MY2 (September 2014)

Cross Section 3
Facing
Downstream
Cross Section 4
Facing West
Cross Section 4
Facing
Downstream
Baseline MYO (June 2013)
MY1 (March 2014)
MY2 (September 2014)

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Plot Data

Planted Vegetation Summary
During MY2 monitoring, competition from dense native herbaceous vegetation was observed, and contributed
to low planted woody stem counts in 10 of the 12 Vegetation Plots. Supplemental planting and herbaceous
control is proposed between December 2014 and March 2015 to augment planted woody stems. Please refer
to the letter and tables below.
Proposed Supplemental Planting Letter
§ ROLINA
ILVICS
October 6, 2014
Natural Resources Pro fessionals
Mr. Jeff Schaffer
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Re: D13002S
Site: Sandy Creek (Charlie Williams), EEP0 80
Randolph County, NC
Dear Mr. Schaffer:
This letter serves as our Site Maintenance Report the above referenced
project site and proposes replanting activities at the site.
Messrs. William Skinner and Perry Sugg of Carolina Silvics, Inc. last
visited the project site on September 9, 2014. Herbicide applications
were performed at this time to control privet (Ligustrum spp.) and air
yam (Dioscorea bulbifera). While on -site they observed many areas of
the site where herbaceous vegetation was extremely thick and possibly
outcompeting the planted stems. They also observed many dead stems
and that the tops of many planted stems appeared to have died -back but
were resprouting.
The Fall monitoring data and baseline monitoring data that you have
provided shows approximately 65% survival at this site and correlates
with what we observed on -site.
Carolina Silvics, Inc. proposes to replant the site between December 15,
2014 and March 15, 2015 with approximately 3,450 stems (an average
of 300 stems per acre) from the original planting list for the site. These
stems will distributed throughout the site as needed based upon the Fall
monitoring report and observed conditions on site. Seedling orders are
being finalized now and will be forwarded to you for approval within
the next week.
Since survival percentage of stems is less than we would like, we feel
that both soil amelioration and competition control measures are needed
Office: 252-482-8491
at this site. Within portions of the site where competition seems
Fax: [phone]
particularly heavy, we will manually cut paths several feet wide low to
Web: unlnucarolinasilaics.conl
the ground in the existing herbaceous competition and apply Oust® XP
(sulfometuron methyl) herbicide to the paths. Herbicide will not be
applied to areas of standing water or areas along the channel. Stems

§ROLINA
I LVICS
Nafimt R~ur Profcssi~is
Office•. 252 -482 -8491
Fax: [phone]
Web: zort ,ttcar'oiieasih,ics.corn
will then be replanted into these paths. Conversely, in areas where general
vegetative growth is sparse, we will apply a slow release fertilizer at time
of planting to improve general soil fertility in those areas.
We will notify you in advance of our replanting and maintenance activities
on this site. We request that a member of your staff be onsite with us as
we begin these actives so that proper distribution of the seedlings can be
agreed -upon in the field by all parties.
Please know that Carolina Silvics, Inc. is committed to the success of this
project and will take the measures necessary to ensure that we remain in
contract compliance. If you have any questions regarding this report or
our proposed replanting and maintenance activities, please contact me at
(252) 482 -8491 or mary- margaret @carolinasilvics.com.
Respectfully,
CAROLINA SILVICS, INC.
Mary- Margaret McKinney, RF
President

Original Planting List from EEP
Sandv Creek (Charles Williams)
Species
Type
QtRiparian /o
QtWetland
/o
Nursery
Betula nigra
2 -0 BR
300
10%
100
11%
NCFS
Carya glabra
2 -0 BR
100
3%
NCFS
Carya tomentosa
2 -0 BR
200
7%
NCFS
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2 -0 BR
275
9%
100
11%
NCFS
Liriodendron tulipifera
2 -0 BR
400
13%
NCFS
Platanus occidentalis
2 -0 BR
225
7%
200
23%
NCFS
Quercus falcata var. pagodiafolia
2 -0 BR
300
10%
100
11%
NCFS
Quercus nigra
2 -0 BR
100
11%
NCFS
Quercus phellos
2 -0 BR
600
20%
200
23%
NCFS
Quercus rubra
2 -0 BR
300
10%
NCFS
Amelanchier arborea
1 -gal
25
1 %
Native Roots
Carpinus caroliniana
1 -gal
85
3%
Native Roots
Chionanthus virginicus
1 -gal
64
2%
Native Roots
Diospyros virginiana
2 -0 BR
200
7%
NCFS
Ilex verticillata
1 -gal
37
4%
Native Roots
Magnolia virginiana
1 -gal
38
4%
Native Roots
3,074
100%
875
100%
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site 180
StrearnMetland Buffer Vegetation
Vegetation Plot ID Vegetation Survival Survival Threshold Tract Mean
Threshold Met? Met?
1 Yes Yes
2 No No
3 No No
4 No No
5 Yes Yes
6 No No Stream/Wetland Veg. = 67%
7 No No Buffer Veg. = 1001 /o
8 No No
9 n/a No
10 n/a No
11 n/a No
12 n/a No
Notes:
Previously unidentified planted woody stems were identified during MY2 vegetation counts.
Supplemental planting at approximately 300 stems per acre is proposed between December 2014 and March
2015.

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site / 80
Report Prepared By
David Cooper
Date Prepared
9/17/2014 12:24
database name
SandyCreekCharlesWilliams _80_RandolphCounty_Year 2.mdb
P: \10000 Consultants \10227 Sungate \10227- 017_Charles
database location
Williams Monitoring \CVS Database
computer name
WKST6
file size
63438848
[t)ESCRIPTION OF ••
DOCUMENT
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.
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each
Proj, total stems
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.
List of most frequent damage classes with number of
Damage
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.
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
(planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead
and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT
Project Code
80
project Name
Sandy Creek - Charles Williams
Description
Stream, Wetland and Buffer
River Basin
Cape Fear
length(ft)
1,850
stream -to -edge width (ft)
5 to 12
area (sq m)
1,302
Required Plots (calculated)
12
Sampled Plots
12

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site (80)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
080 -01- 0001
080 -01- 0002
080 -01- 0003
080-01 -0004
080-01 -0005
080-01 -0006
080 -01- 0007
080-01 -0008
080 -01- 0009
080 -01- 0010
080-01 -0011
080-01 -0012
Annual Means
MY1(2014) MYO(2014)
Pno
Pall
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
5
3
3
6
17
13
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
11
11
11
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
4
1
1
1
1
1
5
2
2
2
Carya
hickory
Tree
1 2
2
21
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1 1
1
1
1
1
11
1 21
2
21
1
1
4
4
4
1
11
1
Fraxinuspennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
13
13
19
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
24
24
33
33
33
33
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
3
1
4
5
Liriodendrontulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Magnolia vir iniana
sweetbay
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
10
10
10
30
30
30
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak
Tree
2
2
2
21
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
4
4
41
2
22
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
9
9
9
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Salix nigra
Iblackwillow
Tree
8
2
10
1
Unknown
I
Shrub or Tree
27
27
27
Stem count
size (arcs)
13
13
22
01
01
0
71
7
19
7
71
7
81
81
8
61
61
8
21
21
21
21
2
61
61
11
41
41
8
3
31
7
71
7
13
65
65
110
1131
113
151
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
12
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.30
0.30
1
1
21
01
01
0
3
3
5
5 5
5
5 5
5
3 3
4
2 2
3
1
1
1
4 4
5
2 2
4
2
2
4
3 3
4
12
12
15
9
9
13
526
526.1
890.3
0
0
M3
283.3
768.9
283. 283.3
283.3
323 323.7
323.7
2418 242.8
323.7
80.94
202.3
80.
80.94
80.94
2dZ 242.8
445.2
16L 161.9
323.7
121
121.4
283.3
2$3 283.3
526.1
219.
219.2
371
381.1
381.1
509.2
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, kilt by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

FAU24- I1hyt
Stream Survey Data

Cross Section Plot Exhibits
River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
UTSaidy Creek, MY -01
XS ID:
XS 1, Rite, STA. 14+41
Drainage Area (sq mi):
4.9
Date:
9/160014
Field Crew:
E. Hajnos, R. Rabol
Station
Bankfull Elevation:
5528
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area:
727
Bankfull Width:
23.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
554.7
Flood Prone Width:
66.1
1.8
0.9
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
Width /Depth Ratio:
25.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Station
Elevation
0.0
554.5
8.3
553.5
15.5
5528
18.8
5522
19.9
551.8
220
550 -9
25.5
551.5
28.9
551.4
31.1
551.4
33.3
5519
39.7
5528
50.9
553.3
621
553.7
66.1
554.5
UT to Sandy Creek, Cross Section 1, Riffle, Station: 14+41
560
559
558
m 557
556
0 555
554
w 553
552
551
550
Stream Type: C5 Ph*graph bwQ downstream @ X5 1
�Fr 1...... 1 ...................•..... Y........... ...........• L........... s......a I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (feet)
As -Built 2013
—Ar— MY1 2/26/14
t MY 2 9/16/2014
- -- Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum
...... Floodprone Area

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
UTSandy Creek, MY -01
XS ID:
XS 2, Glide, STA. 19+36
Drainage Area (sq mi):
4.9
Date:
9/162014
Field Crew:
F_ H4nos, R_ Robd
Station
Banidull Elevation:
55283
Banidull Cross Sectional Area:
35.3
Banidull Width:
19.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
555.9
Flood Prone Width:
200+
Max Depth at Banktull:
3.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
Width /Depth Ratio:
10.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
>10
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Station
Oevatlon
0.0
553.3
9.4
553.5
16.7
5528
18.9
551.6
19.6
551.5
21.7
549.8
23.4
550.0
26.0
551.5
29.5
550.4
31.4
549.8
321
550.1
33.3
551.5
362
5529
45.0
553.1
54.5
553.0
Stream Type: I C5 I PhuNWh facing downst wn @ XS 2
UT to Sandy Creek, Cross Section 2, Run, Station: 19 +36
560
558
m 556 As -Built 2013
_. ....... ........ 26 /
0 554 -�- MY1 2/26/14
w
m 552 MY 2 9/16/2014
w
550 - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum
...... Floodprone Area
548
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (feet)
4

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
UTSandy Creek, MY-01
XS ID:
XS 3, Mirk STA. 23+49
Drainage Area (sq mi):
4.9
Date:
9016W14
Field Crew:
E Hainos, R. Robol
Ban'TuIT Elevation:
551.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area:
33.5
Bankfull Width:
20.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
554.9
Flood Prone Width:
200+
Max. Depth at Bankfull:
3.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
Width /Depth Ratio:
121
Entrenchment Ratio:
>8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Station
Elevation
0.0
551.6
11.2
5520
17.8
551.9
20.3
550.9
21.7
549.7
227
548.9
24.4
549.0
27.1
5492
29.1
550.5
31.3
551.0
37.1
550.6
40.5
5520
49.0
5525
55.4
5520
UT to Sandy Creek, Cross Section 3, Glide, Station: 23+49
560
558
m 556
o 554
0
O 552
W
550
548
Stream Type: I C5 I Ph*graph facing dowrst�m XS 3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (feet)
As -Built 2013
—rr— MY1 2126/14
--+— MY 2 9/16/14
- -- Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum
•••••• F"prone Area

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
UTSardy Creek, MY -01
XS ID:
XS 4, Rite, STA. 27 +14
Drainage Area (sq mi):
49
Date:
9/167114
Field Crew:
E. Halnos, R Robol
Station
Banidull Elevation:
551.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area:
37.1
Bankfull Width:
24.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
554.6
Flood Prone Width:
200
Max. Depth at Bankfull:
2.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
Width /Depth Ratio:
15.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
>8.0
Bank Height Ratio:
10
Station
Elevation
00
551 1
12.9
551.5
22.3
551.7
25.7
5508
27.6
560.1
28.1
549.7
28.3
548.8
31.0
549.1
33.0
549.1
362
549.7
40 -7
550.4
46.4
551.7
54.1
552 -0
629
552 -1
UT to SandyCreek, Cross Section 4, Riffle, Station:27 +14
560
558
•
556
554 ........................ .
c
0
552
0
w 550
548
546
0 10 20
Stream Type: C5 I Ph*graph Facing downstean @ XS 4
30 40 50 60 70
Distance (feet)
As -Built 2013
—�— MY1 2/26/14
--�— MY 2 9/16/14
- -- Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum
•••••• Floodprone Area

556
555
554
553
552
0 551
ca
550
w
549
548
547
546
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000
Station (ft)
Profile Reach
(UT Sandy Creek Sta. 10 +00 to 17 +53)
• As Built Bankfull 2013 • MY1 Bankfull MY 2 Bankfull
•••••.. As Built Water Surface •••••.• MY1 Water Surface MY2WaterSurface
As Built Thalweg Thalweg MY1 2/26/14 Thalweg MY 9/16/14
■ As Built Top of Bank 0 MY 2 Top of Bank
r-
0
7
ao
r«
c
a
3'
ry
0
ro
v
0
m
x
s
■
INI
U c
'y N
N �
O C
U fO
� N
O O
� U
• As Built Bankfull 2013 • MY1 Bankfull MY 2 Bankfull
•••••.. As Built Water Surface •••••.• MY1 Water Surface MY2WaterSurface
As Built Thalweg Thalweg MY1 2/26/14 Thalweg MY 9/16/14
■ As Built Top of Bank 0 MY 2 Top of Bank
r-
0
7
ao
r«
c
a
3'
ry
0
ro
v
0
m
x
s

I.
Cross Section Pebble Count Exhibits
Charles Williams Stream. Wed". and Buffer Silo ISO
Cross Section: I
Feattare: Riffle
2014 MY 2 (September 2014)
swc lay
silytlay
0062
0
0%
0%
~~p
very Ine said
0.125
0
0%
0%
Sand
Ire said
025
10
2196
20%
medum sad
0.5
10
2D%
39%
coarse said
1.0
10
2D%
59%
78%
very vase sard
2.0
10
206
78%
9896
very Ire gavel
4.0
0
0%
78%
98%
fine gavel
57
3
6%
84%
fine geld
8.0
1
2%
86%
medum gavel
11.3
3
6%
92%
Gravel
medium gavel
16.0
2
4%
96%
0%
coarse gavel
72.3
0
0%
96%
100%
coarse gavel
32
1
2%
98%
I ery coarse gavel
45
1
2%
100%
v ery coarse gavel
64
1 0
0%
100%
100%
snallorbble
90
0
0%
100%
Cobble
medum cobble
128
0
0%
100%
large cobble
18D
0
0%
100%
very lagecdlble
255
0
0%
100%
1 100%
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
BoJda
small balder
512
0
0%
100%
median balder
medium balder
1024
0
0%
100%
lags boulder
lags boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
Bedrock
betook
40W6
0
0%
100%
TOTAL %of
whole countl
51
100%
D50 0.70 mm
D84 5.7 mm
D95 16 mm
Charles Williams Stream. Vkdand, wd Buffer Site 180
Feature: Gide
2014 MY 2 (September 2014)
SiWClay
s4tday
0062
0
0%
0%
~~p
very Ire sad
0125
0
096
0%
Ire said
0.25
10
2J%
21%
Sad
medum sad
0.5
10
20%
39%
coarse sad
1.0
20
39%
78%
very coarse sand
2.0
10
21%
9896
very fine gavel
4.0
0
0%
98%
**grwei
5.7
0
0%
98%
Me gravel
80
1
2%
100%
madam gavel
11.3
0
0%
100%
Gravel
medum gavel
16.0
0
0%
100%
ccarsegavel
22.3
0
0%
100%
coarse gavel
32
0
0%
100%
very coarse gavel
45
0
0%
100%
very coarse gavel
64
0
0%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medum cobble
128
0
0%
100%
lags 00"
180
0
0%
1OD%
very lagsabble
2%
0
0%
1 100%
Bodder
small balder
362
0
0%
100%
small balder
572
0
0%
100%
median balder
1024
0
0%
100%
lags boulder
2)48
0
0%
10596
Bedrock
bedeck
40086
0
0%
100%
TOTAL %of
whole count
51
100%
=11.8
100%
90%
80%
Cumulative Percent
I - -
i 70% - - --
a60% - _ __ - -.:_ . -. - -- —2014 WY 2(September 2014)
40% — -- _ ---I— --- --
t.1
30%
0%
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Sln(mm)
Individual Class Percent
100%
« 90%
e80%
ni 70%
60%
-2 50%
+ 40%
a
30%
a 20%
10%
0%
Odry
pryy
SO
40
00
X60 9ti
be'
~~p
�y6
ytiti
ti
Particle Size
(mm)
100%
90%
80%
70%
a 60%
Z 50%
40%
E
30%
20%
30%
0%
Cumulative Percent
1000
■ 2014 MY 2 (September 2014)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
particle Mae("
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
a 70%
E 60%
!� 50%
40%
30%
v 20%
C 10%
0%
p .-
00 p. O O O tiO ^v b 6 ti0 ti6 y:L
ry00%
Partlde Size (mm)
012014 MY 2 (September 2014) 11

D50 0,07 mm
D84 11.3mm
D95 -mm
Crow Section
Feature:
DeaeApdon Mrirw ..
4
Riffle
2014 W 2 (Seplinber 2D14)
S Cary
.IOJ
0062
0
0%
0%
very Ire sad
0.125
0
0%
0%
Ire said
025
0
0%
0%
Sard
medum said
0.5
0
0%
0%
mass sad
10
10
20%
20%
very coase sand
2.0
1 19
38%
58%
very Ire gad
4.0
5
10%
66%
finegad
5.7
0
0%
68%
Ire gad
8.0
0
0%
68%
medungravei
11.3
0
0%
68%
:3, avd
meA ngavel
16.0
10
27%
88%
coasegavel
72.3
2
4%
92%
cmrse g el
32
0
0%
92%
very coarse gav el
45
4
8%
100%
v ery coarse gavel
64
0
0%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
madam cobble
128
0
0%
100%
large cobble
180
0
0%
700%
very lags cobble
256
0
0%
100%
Boulder
small balls
362
0
0%
100%
small boJobr
512
0
0%
100%
median boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
Large bolder
2018
0
0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL %of
whole count
50
100%
D50 1.70 mm
084 1 SO mm
D95 NO mm
100%
90%
80%
p 70%
a 60%
2 50%
X
� 40%
E
r? 30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
Cumulative Percent
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Sin J=4
Individual Class Percent
100%
« 90%
� 80%
a° 70%
°w 60%
j 50%
40%
30%
a 20%
10%
0%
Particle Size (mm)
Cumulative Percent
• 2014 MV 2 (September 2014)
Individual Class Percent
100%
80%
i 70%
60%
�j 50%
40%
30%
a 20%
10%
0%
Particle
oOro1' O•Ly ,y0 a0 $O X60 °i1' F� %.ti0 ryyro y'r'1' �p0�
Particle Site(rmn)
■ 2014 MV 2 (September 2014)

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site/ 80 - UT to Sandy Creek: 1,850 linear feet
Parametar Gauge? Regional Curve Pre-Usting Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design
Dimension and Substrate - RiffleOnly
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SDS
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mod
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
S D 5
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
25.2
1
25.2
22
23.5
24.9
24.9
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
>300
1
>300
63
>131
200+
200+
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.58
1
1.59
1
1.3
1.5
1.5
2
'Bankiull Max Depth (ft)
2.6
1
2.6
1.7
2.3
2.8
2.8
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (e)
40.0
1
40
21.7
28.9
36.1
36.1
2
Widh/Deph Ratio
15.8
1
15.8
>15
>15
>15
>15
2
Entrenchment Ratio
>15
1
>15
2.9
7.5
8.4
>8
2
Bank Height Rat
1.0
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
39
51.5
51.5
64
2
Riffle Slope (fVft)
0.013
1
0.013
0.26
0.28
0.28
0.3
2
Pool Length (ft)
8.3
30.5
63.7
30.5
168
198
196
232
27.5
4
Pool Max depth (ft)
3.4
1
1
1
1 1
1
3.4
3.1
3.5
3.4
4.25
4
Pod Spacing (ft)
56.0
116.0
94.0
116.4
158
372
239
719
3
Pattern
Channel Bellwidth (ft)
31.7
44.9
62.3
31.7
44.9
62.3
40
74.5
78.5
101
24.8
4
Radius of Curvature (ft)
15.0
37.8
95.0
15
37.8
95
19
60.5
58
107
31.5
4
Rc:Bankfull width (tuft)
0.6
1.5
3.8
0.6
1.5
3.8
0.9
2.7
2.6
4.8
1.4
4
Meander Wavelength (ft)
73.0
133.8
216.0
73
133.8
216
86
149.25
121.5
268
70.1
4
Meander Width Ratio
2.9
5.3
8.6
1.3
1.8
2.5
3.9
6.7
5.5
12
3.1
4
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ibif
0.1425
0.07
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
2.0
2.0
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m`
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.9
3 75
3.05
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
150.0
Valley length (ft)
1961
Channel Thahweg length (ft)
1850
1850
1850
Sinuosity (ft)
1.06
1.06
1.06
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fVft)
0.0014
0.0014
0.0013
BF slope (ftlft)
0.0013
0.0013
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
°% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metic
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2= For projects with a proximal US GS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from he by of bank to tihe toe of the terrace riser /slope.
4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison lo monitoring data; 5. Of valuetneeded only if the n exceeds 3

sllao asayl w pa4quen1b pue pajoe.4 eq pinoys slyl uayl wr4ep Ilrpueq awlaseq ayl molaq jo anoge sdolanap aoueoglu6ls qo ainleaq leuo41sodap iayloue ql 'Janannoy 'lenbe aq pIM sjalaweied leuolsuawp qo slas onnl asaq ua q
ajr4eaq leuo4lsodap lueo4lu6ls /luo aq sulewai wgep aulaseq ayl ql /atins qo awq a Ole patiasgo sl pue sdolanap leyl ajr4eaq leuoglsodop luewwop /ue qo uogenala R4 uo pasee = Z
„ tiessaoau aq of pauwwja4apgl wr4ep lualslsuoo e uo paseq uolsslwgns ajr4q e w palelnoleoaj eq pIM sanl2A -uo4euuquoo eplAojd q pajlnboe bulaq sl jauuo}jad
joud e woo egep leuo41Ppy sanleA palelnoleo aouangul Aew yolynn 'tiolsly 6wJogluow ayl Jano lualslsuoo ueaq sey wr4ep 6uuolluow a 4 p uleliaoun sill,, :sjels leyl papnlouw aq pinoys slyl ul eloulooq e uolsslwgns llodaj sjeaA uan16 e coq aw4 w panlosal aq louueo slylgl 'd33 yllnn passnoslp aq lsnw slyl sje@A joud jo)
pasn wr4ep ayl ajlnboe louueo pue loafad aq pquayul sey jauuo}jad aylgl paysllgelsa wr4ep aullaseq ayl uo paseq pue lualslsuoo aq pinoys yolgm 'wr4ep aL4 se pasn uo.enal@ aL41ndu I luawdolanap leuo41sodap�leuolsuawlp qo ssalpie6ei wgep Ili-pueq aullaseq ayl uo paseq aq IliM Aatinsai 6uuolluow joq syldap pue sylpm = L
alyad 1ewpnl!6uol ayl se Dann se suo!loas -ssoao painseaw w4l wojq 1!nsaa p!nn s!yl .algel aq) ui sselo yoea w abelool goeaj lelol aql to a6eluaojad ayl ap!noid pue paleo!pui sasselo a41 olu! abelool goew ayl u!q /u6!ssy = £
salew!lse lens!A se lIGm se suogoas -ssao painseaw ayl wal llnsaj ll!nn sigi .algel aU1 u! sselo goea w a6elool yoeei lelol aql to abeluaojad aql ap!nad pue paleo!pul sasselo ay1 olw a6elool goeei ayl wq/u6!ssy - sselo luawgouailu3 = Z
anedgnsxew= ds!p'anedxew =dip . �oojpaq' japino8 'alggoo'laneJE)'pueS'/elo/ll!S 'd91S'ap!IJ'lood'un�{'all H= L
ui pall!l aq lou (lleo!dAlll!M asagl legl aleo!pu! sllao papegS
0
0
0
0591
0
0
0
0991
(ww) NP
0991
0
ON
0
0
092 1,
0
0
0
0
(�) sud pue uaannlaq eajy leuogoaS ssoi 0
O'Z>
OZ>
09C
OLI
590
tE'O
Z10
OM 1y61aH > Ue8 IIrpUeB
%0
1 %0
1 %0
1 %0 L
I %£8
%L
ogqq luawy3ua.qu3 Ili -pUee
%
11,691
%bl
%09
%11
Mop
Z 310LI100J aaS •leaX uaAI�
Cue ul uollelndod aunbaa
lou XULU .lo XULU silaa asz)q -L
%o
I %11
o4ey 44da1)MlpM Ilnl>lUeB
I %b8
%1
%S 1 %J 1 %d 1 %n2j %!J,
Also(] •c •d
wi jeau!! 058` 6 vajo ApueS of .Ln - 081 aj!S jopq pue `pue!laM `wear ;S swe!!!!M sa!ieyo
(suognqujsla J848Weaed luauauleluoa 016010.lpAH pue `jue8'pa8 `ajeajsgnS) AGewwnS ejea weeilS ouilese8 -q04 algel
(�) eajy leuo4oaS ssao IIrpue8
(y) yldap xeW llq) Ueq
(4) yldao ueaW Ilrpue8
(B) 41pM auadpool j
(4) Lopm Iirwes
pasn (wnlep) uolgenala pJooaa
zaingea; lingMueq 6uldolanapAuenno uo paseq
0 1
01
0 1
01
0' l
o' l,
0' 1
l' l
l l
0' 1
O L
0' L
ogea 146!@ H >1ue 8111'Pue8
09<
09<
08<
08<
08<
08<
OL<
001<
001<
8Z
6Z
6Z
ogealuawyoua-0u3llnhlUeg
991,
291,
991,
lZ1,
Z ZL
O'bl
L OL
6Z1,
9 11,
Z SZ
Z
EZZE
ogeb L4d@(]4pM lirpUeB
[-LE
8 LE
L 9E
S ££
0-6Z
P-9£
£'S£
8'Z£
b EE
L ZZ
S ZZ
L LZ
(�) easy leuogoaS ssao Ili -pue8
6Z
6'Z
S Z
£
8'Z
8 Z
L E
8'Z
S Z
8'L
9'1
L'L
(8) 41daa XeW IlnhlUeo
S l
S L
9 1
Cl
9'L
9 1
8'L
9'1
L L
6'0
O l
O l
(p) 41daa ueaW prpue8
+OOZ
+OOZ
+OOZ
+OOZ
+OOZ
+OOZ
+OOZ
+OOZ
+OOZ
l'99
b 99
0 £9
(4) Lop!AA auadpool j
1 bZ
S bZ
6 bZ
L'OZ
9,91,
9'ZZ
b 61
9 OZ
96L
6U
9'7
07
(4) L4PM IIrmUes
pasn (wniep) uolgenala paooaa
+AW SAW bAW EAW ZAW 1AW aSeB +AW SAW bAW EAW ZAW LAW aSeB +AW SAW VAN £AW ZAW lAW ase8 +AW SAW bAW £AW ZAW lAW ase8 `uolgenala Ilry>lueq aullaseq paxg uo paseq
iaaj jeou!! Osw6 vejo ApueS o3 in - 091 ej!S jadln8 pue `puelleM `weal ;S swe!!!!M sopeyo
(su01439S ssoaa - sa919uaeaed leuolsuawla) tiewwnS A6oloudaoUy leuoisuauala - ejea 6uiiquoIN -e� algel
alyad 1ewpnl!6uol ayl se Dann se suo!loas -ssoao painseaw w4l wojq 1!nsaa p!nn s!yl .algel aq) ui sselo yoea w abelool goeaj lelol aql to a6eluaojad ayl ap!noid pue paleo!pui sasselo a41 olu! abelool goew ayl u!q /u6!ssy = £
salew!lse lens!A se lIGm se suogoas -ssao painseaw ayl wal llnsaj ll!nn sigi .algel aU1 u! sselo goea w a6elool yoeei lelol aql to abeluaojad aql ap!nad pue paleo!pul sasselo ay1 olw a6elool goeei ayl wq/u6!ssy - sselo luawgouailu3 = Z
anedgnsxew= ds!p'anedxew =dip . �oojpaq' japino8 'alggoo'laneJE)'pueS'/elo/ll!S 'd91S'ap!IJ'lood'un�{'all H= L
ui pall!l aq lou (lleo!dAlll!M asagl legl aleo!pu! sllao papegS
0
0
0
0591
0
0
0
0991
O'Z <166 1-9 116f l-ZI1 Z' �> sse13 u0!s!Ou!
0991
0
ON
0
0
092 1,
0
0
0
0
0 l< 166- 0' 91 6'V- O' ZI661-91 191 >sse10Iuaw4OIJ9Au3Z
O'Z>
OZ>
09C
OLI
590
tE'O
Z10
( ww )ds!Pld!P196P1b9P10GPISEP196P1
%0
1 %0
1 %0
1 %0 L
I %£8
%L
%a81 %81 %0 1 %91 %es 1 %JS 1
%
11,691
%bl
%09
%11
%o
I %11
I %t
I %b8
%1
%S 1 %J 1 %d 1 %n2j %!J,
Also(] •c •d
wi jeau!! 058` 6 vajo ApueS of .Ln - 081 aj!S jopq pue `pue!laM `wear ;S swe!!!!M sa!ieyo
(suognqujsla J848Weaed luauauleluoa 016010.lpAH pue `jue8'pa8 `ajeajsgnS) AGewwnS ejea weeilS ouilese8 -q04 algel

Table 11 b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site 180 - UT to Sandy Creek: 1,7481inear feet
Parameter Baseline MY-11 MY-2 MY- 3 W-4 MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - iM01111ty
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD°
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD°
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD°
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
22
23.5
24.9
24.9
2
22.6
23.5
24.5
24.5
2
23.9
24.0
24.0
24.1
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
63
>131
200+
200+
2
65.4
>132.7
200+
200+
2
66.1
>133
200+
200+
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (it)
1
1.3
1.5
1.5
2
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.5
2
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.5
2
Bankfull Max Depth (11)
1.7
2.3
2.8
2.8
2
1.6
2.5
2.9
2.9
2
1.8
2.35
2.35
2.9
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
213
28.9
36.1
36.1
2
22.5
30.5
37.8
37.8
2
22.7
29.9
29.9
37.1
2
Width/Depth Ratio
>15
>15
>15
>15
2
>15
>15
>15
>15
2
>15
>15
>15
>15
2
Entrenchment Ratio
2.9
7.5
8.4
>8
2
2.9
>5.4
>8
>8
2
2.8
>5.4
>8
>8
2
Bank Height Rat
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
39.0
51.5
51.5
64.0
2
53.13
75.34
783
91
14.5
6
88.9
127.7
123.7
160.1
26.9
5
Rife Slope (Nft)
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
2
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.0
6
0.004
0.008
0.007
0.016
0.004
5
Pod Length (ft)
168.0
198.0
196.0
232.0
27.5
j 4
283.6
283.6
283.6
283.6
2
115.8
127.7
127.7
139.6
2
Pod Max depth (ft)
3.1
3.5
3.4
4.3
4
0.8
1.5
1.5
2.3
2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2
Pod Spacing (ft)
158.0
372.0
239.0
719.0
3
283.6
283.6
283.6
2816
1
975.2
975.2
975.2
975.2
1
Pattenn
Channel Beltwidh (ft)
40,0
74.5
78.5
101.0
24.8
4
Radius of Curvature (ft)
19.0
60.5
56.0
107.0
31.5
4
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless usual data, dimensional data or profile data
indicate significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (fl/ft)
0.9
2.7
2.6
4.8
1.4
4
Meander Wavelength (ft)
86.0
149.3
121.5
268.0
70.1
4
Meander Width Ratio
3.9
63
5.5
12.0
3.1
4
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
C5
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1748
1748
1748
Sinuosity (ft)
1.06
1.06
1.06
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (Nft)
0.0013
0.0013
0.0018
BF slope (Nft)
0.0013
0.0013
0.0010
3Ri% 1 Ru% I P% I G% I S%
5%
80%
15%
5%
80%
15%
51/6
3SC %ISa %IG %IC %I8 %IBe%
3d161 d351 d501 d84 I d95
Z% of Reach with Eroding Bank
"i
0
0
C hamel Stability or H abitat M epic
Biological or Other
anaoea ceps maicae mat mese wni rypcany not oe mieo in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information fiom both the cross - section surveys and he longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks hat are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Shp; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip= max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of valuetneeded only 9 the n exceeds 3

. N U
APPENDIX E
Hydrology Data

M N ..
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site / 80 - UT to Sandy Creek: 1,850 linear feet
Date of Data Collection Date of Occurrence Method Photo # (if available)
11/6/2013 unknown Crest Gauge Not Available
3/6/2014
unknown
Visual On -site (wrack)
Not Available
9/16/2014
unknown
Crest Gauge
Not Available
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site / 80
2014 Precipitation Data
s- - - - -- - - - -- -- -- - - - - -
d7 - - - - - - - --
6 - -- - -- -- - -- - -- - - -- -
5
= 4
0
a3 -- - - - -- Amount in.
2 )
1 70%
0 -- - -- 30%
Na
Month -Year

J .k
APPENDIX F
Response to EEP Comments — Draft MY2 Report

b ECOLOGICAL
ENGWEERING
December 17, 2014
Ms. Kristie Corson
EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
- ,. ,
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Cary, North Carolina 27518
(919) 557 -0929
www.ecologicaleng.com
Subject: Response to Comments - DRAFT Annual Monitoring Report — Monitoring Year 2 (2014)
Sandy Creek (Charles Williams) Site Monitoring
Cape Fear River Basin — CU# 03030002
Randolph County, North Carolina
Contract No. 004682 — Task 5
EEP Project # 80
Dear Ms. Corson:
Thank you for your comment letter dated December 15, 2014 based on your review of the draft
Monitoring Year 02 Report for Sandy Creek - Charles Williams Stream, Wetland and Buffer Site (EEP
Project #80). Per our recent phone conversation, please find the comments addressed individually below,
and do not hesitate to contact me with any additional questions. A revised monitoring report is in
preparation.
We appreciate your assistance with this project to date.
ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING, LLP
7)l.C'o40,C--
David Cooper,
Project Scientist
• Comment. Table 9 —The MYI data reports 0 planted stems and 0 total stems for Veg Plot #2
NCEEP staff visited the site on December 11, 2014, and counted 4 stems in Veg Plot #2. MYO
report data included 5 total stems. The MYI data reports 2 planted stems for Veg Plot# & NCEEP
staff counted S flagged stems (3 stems live stems, I dead stem, I re- sprout).
➢ Response: Table 9 only shows live, planted stems and does not account for flagged, planted stems
which were either not located or which were located but found to be apparently dead. Data collection
for MYI (per CVS notation) was performed on September 16, 2014.
With regard to Veg. Plot #2 — during data collection, 4 planted stems were located. All located stems
were considered dead. A fifth planted stem was not located and was labeled as missing. Table 9
shows 0 live, planted stems.
Page 1 of 3

•k IL
Charles Williams — MY2 Response to Comments December 17, 2014
EEP Project # 80 Ecological Engineering Project # 10227 -017
With regard to Veg. Plot #8 — during data collection, 6 planted stems were located. 4 of these stems
were labeled as dead, 1 was a normal live stem, and 1 was a re- sprout. Two additional stems were not
located and were labeled as missing. Table 9 shows 2 live, planted stems.
It is possible that some of the stems which were considered dead at the time of data collection may re-
sprout in the coming season. If this is observed our data will be amended to show re- sprouts as
needed.
• Comment: Please confirm if the data collected for MYI was accurately entered into CVS.
➢ Response: We have confirmed, by reviewing the hard copies of the field data sheets and comparing to
the data entered into the CVS database, that the data were accurately entered. As noted above, report
Table 9 only captures live, planted stems and does not account for dead or missing stems which were
entered into the database.
• Comment: Please describe the reason for the reduced stem count between MYO and MY].
➢ Response: We suspect there may be multiple reasons for the reduced stem count between MYO and
MY1 (per CVS notation). The primary cause appears to be the vigorous, dense, tall herbaceous
growth across many areas of the site. Herbaceous cover was observed to overwhelm and weight down
small, planted bare -root stems, and made accurate data collection (finding the planted stems) very
difficult. The reduced stem count is likely attributable to the heavy herbaceous cover, which lowers
vigor of planted stems and makes location of stems more difficult.
As previously noted, data collection for MY (per CVS notation) was performed on September 16,
2014. To improve likelihood of finding planted stems, data collection in subsequent monitoring years
will be performed earlier in the growing season, prior to full annual growth of herbaceous cover.
• Comment: The Profile Reach data between Station 2300 and 2700 appears incorrect. Please
confirm
Response: A comparison of As- built, MY1, and MY2 longitudinal profile charts does indeed show
what appears to be incorrect data. Specifically, As -built data show a pool at station 2447, MY] data
show no pool in this area, and MY2 data show a pool at station 2575.
To determine the cause of this data representation, the raw point files were opened in Microstation
and viewed in plan view. Longitudinal profile data shots were observed to be spaced widely apart and
inconsistent in location between subsequent monitoring years. Due to the lack of detailed data
collection, it is currently not possible to determine the actual longitudinal profile of the stream. There
may be a single pool migrating downstream, or it is also possible that different pools were captured
between As -built and MY2 data collection and the pools were completely missed during MY].
Because data points were not taken in the same spots, we cannot currently assess which of these
possibilities is correct.
To improve the accuracy of subsequent longitudinal profile charts, greater detail will be collected in
the field. An effort will be made to capture grade breaks (including individual pools and riffles) at
more closely spaced intervals than have been captured in the past.
Page 2 of 3

•• ..
all
Charles Williams — MY2 Response to Comments December 17, 2014
EEP Project # 80 Ecological Engineering Project # 10227 -017
• Comment: Please add the station numbers to the Plan Views.
➢ Response: We have added the station numbers to the Plan Views.
• Comment: Figure 3b - Veg Plot #12 total stems /acre should read "6 526.
➢ Response: We have corrected this typographic error on Figure 3b.
Comment: Please revise as necessary and provide 3 hardcopies and 1 pdf copy.
Y Response: We will provide the requested revised MY2 report.
Page 3 of 3