20090688 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2016_20170119

CHARLES WILLIAMS STREAM, WETLAND, AND BUFFER SITE
DMS Project No. 80
MONITORING YEAR 4 (2016)
Construction Completed February 2013
Planting Completed February 2014
Randolph County, NC
State Construction Project No. 07-07125-01A
� �y. � ���� '.2 ��J� i�'._ "fit. ►'�,
Prepared for the
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Environmental
Quality
November 2016

Prepared by:
�ENGOINOEEIRING
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Cary, NC 27518
919.557.0929
www.ecologicaleng.com
David G. Cooper, Project Scientist
Under Contract With:
SCJ N GATE
DESIGN GROUP
This assessment and report are consistent with NCDENR Division of Mitigation Services
Template Version 1.4 (11/07/11) for Monitoring Reports.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
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......................................................................................................
5
3.0 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................
6
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 DMS
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
2016 Precipitation Data Chart
APPENDIX F. Detailed Thalweg Profile
Detailed Thalweg Longitudinal Profile Plot Exhibits

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 Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) 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
DMS 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. DMS 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 4 (2016) Page 1
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP November 2016

• 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 Sum
Physiographic Province
River Basin Name
USGS 8 -digit HUC
USGS 14 -digit HUC
NCDWQ Subbasin
Underlying Mapped Soil(s)
Drainage Class
Hydric Status
Slope
Available Water Capacity
FEMA Classification
Piedmont
Cape Fear
03030003
03030002020010
03-06-09
Chewacla loam
Somewhat poorly drained
B
0-2%
Moderate to High
Zone AE
County
Property Owner Name
Stream #1 Name
Drainage Area
NCDWQ Score
Rosgen Classification
Invasive Vegetation Observed Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
1.3 Vegetation Condition and Comparison to Success Criteria
Randolph
Charles Williams
UT to Sandy Creek
4.9 sq. mi.
(Perennial)
C5
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) at the end
of the MY 5 to successfully earn riparian buffer credit.
Vegetation is currently being assessed using plot layouts consistent with the Carolina Vegetation
Survey (CVS) Level II Vegetation Protocol. Stem count data is obtained from 12 permanently placed
10-meter2 vegetation plots (Figures 3a and 3b). Assessments include counts of both planted and
natural stems. Due to low stem counts during MY2, supplemental planting of species in the original
planting list at approximately 300 stems per acre was performed between December 2014 and March
2015. Based on the current monitoring effort, 7 of 8 vegetation plots met the minimum success criteria
established for MY4 stream/wetland mitigation criteria and 9 of 12 plots met the criteria for riparian
buffer credit. Appendices B and C depict more detailed information regarding the vegetation condition,
including annual photograph comparisons.
Monitoring Report Year 4 (2016) Page 2
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP November 2016

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 areas not proposed as wetland enhancement.
1.4 Stream Stability/Condition and Comparison to Success Criteria
Enhancement (Level 1) of the UT 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.
Evidence of a recent overbank event was documented on February 18, 2016. The overbank event
was caused by the removal of the large beaver dam immediately upstream of the project boundary
along the unnamed tributary to Sandy Creek. Evidence of this overbank event consisted of wrack
material and sediment staining above the bankfull indicators along the channel, alluvial deposits
outside the channel, and flattened vegetation far into the floodplain. The crest gauge was not used as
an indicator of bankfull events during MY4 due to the overwhelming visual evidence of these events
and the fact that the gauge was unable to be accurately read, possibly due to the deterioration of cork
dust or its removal by ants. New cork dust will be added to the crest gauge for documentation of
bankfull events during MY5 monitoring. 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 the DMS website. All
raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from DMS upon request.
Boundary marking along the conservation easement using signage consistent with DMS guidelines
was performed by Ecological Engineering on December 8, 2014, and is considered completed.
During MY2 monitoring, a recently constructed beaver dam was observed within the channel at
approximately station 14+34.75. In May of 2015 during MY3 monitoring, another recently constructed
beaver dam was observed immediately upstream of the culverted road crossing at approximately
station 19+51.50. During June of 2015, these dams were removed by hand and beaver trapping was
Monitoring Report Year 4 (2016) Page 3
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP November 2016

conducted by APHIS. As of July 20, 2016, no additional beaver activity was observed within the
easement area. During a subsequent site visit on October 4, 2016, the beaver dam upstream of the
road crossing was observed to have been reconstructed.
During late MY3 or early MY4, the large beaver impoundment at the upstream end of the project area
was breached. It is not clear whether the breach was intentional, or whether the dam naturally
breached as a result of a storm event. In February 2016, evidence of very high water and strong
overbank flow was observed, likely from this breach, but a full assessment of the channel was not
possible at the time due to high water and turbidity. Banks were observed to be generally stable and
vegetated, and no structure instability or failure was observed. Please refer to Appendix B for
representative photographs.
Prior to MY3, stream stability monitoring longitudinal profile survey data representing the state of the
UT from the upstream, northern easement boundary downstream to the southern easement boundary
was collected at widely spaced intervals, providing a low resolution depiction of channel morphology.
Survey data from MY3 on was collected at a higher resolution, allowing a more detailed comparison of
the stream bed over time. Please refer to Appendix D for a comparison of MY4 longitudinal profile
data with previous monitoring data. Although the more detailed longitudinal profile added survey
points to the profile, key grade control locations (heads of runs, riffles, and structures) have
maintained their elevations over the course of monitoring. A comparison of high resolution MY3 and
MY4 data shows possible sediment accumulation near the downstream end of the UT, likely caused
by the large water release from the upstream beaver impoundment. Subsequent survey data in future
monitoring years will be collected to the level of detail represented in MY3 and MY4 data, which will
allow an ongoing comparison of stream bed stability. An additional Appendix F is provided to depict
the detailed longitudinal profile of the channel thalweg. For ease of comparison, this appendix
consists of four sheets, each showing a reach of the channel thalweg at a larger scale than the chart
in Appendix D.
Monitoring Report Year 4 (2016) Page 4
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP November 2016

2.0 METHODOLOGY
This monitoring report follows methodology consistent with DMS's Procedural Guidance and Content
Requirements for Monitoring Reports (Version 1.4, dated 11/07/11), available at the DMS website
(http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep).
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 originally developed based on the design stationing, and follows the LIT from the
northern to the southern property boundary (upstream to downstream) as depicted on the survey plat.
Based on comments from DMS during the review of the draft MY2 monitoring report, the MY3
longitudinal profile survey incorporated more detailed data collection to more accurately represent
changes in channel morphology over time. The same level of detail was collected during MY4 channel
surveys. As the MY3 survey is a more complete longitudinal profile, channel stationing is more
accurate than that shown in previous longitudinal profiles. In order to compensate for differences in
stationing, channel survey shots from previous monitoring years were viewed in plan view and
compared to MY3 channel stations. Stationing of previous years' shots was adjusted to reflect the
more accurate MY3 channel stationing. Similarly, stationing of MY4 data points was also adjusted
based on the MY3 channel stationing. Appendix D includes an overlay of channel survey data based
on this adjusted stationing. Subsequent surveys will continue to collect the level of detail represented
in the MY3 and MY4 surveys.
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 each cross section.
Vegetation assessments were conducted using the CVS protocol (Version 4.2). As part of this
protocol, vegetation is assessed using 100-meter2 plots, or modules. The scientific method requires
that measurements be as unbiased as possible, and that they be repeatable. Plots are designed to
achieve both of these objectives; in particular, different people should be able to inventory the same
plot and produce similar data (Lee et. al., 2006). According to Lee et. al. (2006), there are many
different goals in recording vegetation, and both time and resources for collecting plot data are
extremely variable. To provide appropriate flexibility in project design, the CVS 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 LIT 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 4 (2016) Page 5
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP November 2016

3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts and T.R. Wentworth, 2006. CVS 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/wg/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.
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services, 2015. Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site
Moniroting Year 3 Final Report. Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP.
NC State Climate Office, 2016. Daily Precipitation Data from Siler City Airport (SILR), Chatham
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 4 (2016) Page 6
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP November 2016

APPENDIX A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

\
0
�
W+
E
� � � O � OLD.
S . n
0 1,000 2,000 �� is Chton
J11
s n l
�J ti
�\ eSD=� 1 CONSERVATION EASEMENT
g � eaow arm
isingMds
0,
(10777 Cr
\ �
)YN650
7\
�'CH RCH(RD
�-SANDY-CREEK \,
�WILLIAM
S DA
R \`
NC
Charles Williams Site
_ 55�
%750
F/
MCMASTERS
C
\ENCE FOCL
RK RD;GARY�\
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�,1L
0.7 miles, then turn right onto SR 2459 (Sandy Creek Church Road). Proceed approximately 4.5 miles, then AW,* ?
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:
h 0'. Charles Williams Site -
DMS Project No. 80 2013 Grays Chapel and FIGURE 1
Environmental Liberty USGS Quadrangles
Quality Randolph Co., NC October 2016

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Charles Williams Stream. Wetland and Buffer Site 180
Nitrogen Phosphorus
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -riparian wetland Buffer Nutrient Nutrient Offset
Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 1,233 1.1 336,430
Project Component
Stationing/Location
Existing Footage/
Acreage
Stream Enhancement
10+00 to 27+53
1,850 linear feet
Riparian Wetland
areas east and west of UT
2.2 acres
Enhancement
to Sandy Creek
Buffer Restoration
Sandy Creek and UT to
201,481 square feet
(TOB - 50')
Sandy Creek
RE
Buffer Restoration (50'
Sandy Creek and UT to
182,907 square feet
- 200')
Sandy Creek
1:1
Restoration Level Stream (linear feet) Riparian Wetland (acres)
Riverine Non-riverine
Restoration
Enhancement 2.2
Enhancement 1 1,850
Enhancement 11
Creation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
Non -riparian Wetland Buffer Upland
(acres) (square feet) (acres)
384,208
Element Location Purpose/Function Notes
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip, S =
Grassed Swale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer.
Restoration or
Restoration
Mitigation
Approach
Restoration
Footage or
Ratio
Equivalent
Acreage
EI
RE
1,233
1.5:1
E
RE
1.1
2:1
R
R
201,481
1:1
R
R
182,907
1:1
Non -riparian Wetland Buffer Upland
(acres) (square feet) (acres)
384,208
Element Location Purpose/Function Notes
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip, S =
Grassed Swale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer.

Table 3. Project Contact Table
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Charles Williams Stream Wetland and Buffer Site 180
Activity
Mitigation Plan
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete (Feb 2013): 2 years, 9 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete (Feb 2014): 1 year, 9 months
Number of Reporting Years: 3
or Report Data Collection Complete
September -08
Completion or Delivery
May -09
Final Design - Construction Plans
November -09
April -12
Construction
Firm Information/ Address
February -13
Temporary S&E Mix Applied to Entire Project Area
January -13
Permanent Seed Mix Applied to Entire Project Area
January -13
Live Stake Plantings Applied
Strader Fencing, Inc.
January -13
Baseline Monitoring Document
June -13
July -13
Bare -rooted Planting Applied
Carolina Silvics, Inc. (bare -rooted & containerized)
February -14
Year 1 Monitoring
March -14
May -14
Year 2 Monitoring
September -14
November -14
Year 3 Monitoring
June -15
November -15
Year 4 Monitoring
July -16
November -16
Year 5 Monitoring
Green Resource, LLC [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers (live stakes only)
Year 6 Monitoring (vegetation only)
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Charles Williams Stream Wetland and Buffer Site 180
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
Riverworks, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 800, Cary, NC 27518
Bill Wright
[phone]
Hauling Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
Strader Fencing, Inc.
5434 Amick Road, Julian, NC 27283
[phone]
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, Suite 800, Cary, NC 27518
George Morris
[phone]
Seeding Contractor
Firm Information/ Address
Strader Fencing, Inc.
5434 Amick Road, Julian, NC 27283
Kenneth L. Strader
[phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers (live stakes only)
Native Roots Nursery (910) 385-838E
NC Forest Service Tree Nursery (919) 731-798E
Foggy Mountain Nursery [phone]
Mellow Marsh Farm [phone]
Monitoring Performer
Firm Information/ Address
Ecological Engineering, LLP
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101, Cary, NC 27518
David Cooper, Heather Smith, Lane Sauls (stream, vegetation & wetland)
[phone]

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Charles Williams Stream Wetland and Buffer Site 180
Project Name
Charles Williams Stream Wetland and Buffer Site
!7Randolph
County
Project Area
18 acres
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35°49'31.95" Norlh/ 79°39'02.64" West
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
7USGSologic
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03030003
Unit 14-digit 1 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
Agricultural Land
Length of Reach
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 2%
FEMA Classification
Zone AE
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Species
Less than 51/o
Size of Wetland
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
Less than 5%
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

Legend �*
X03 Easement Boundary
-f'— Stream Enhancement
Riverine Wetland Enhancement
® Buffer Restoration Credit 200'��
Buffer Restoration Credit 100' (' H� '✓
� r
Buffer Restoration Credit 50T'/ {
"AF
} i 7#f w# r )%F-;
177
r ✓' �r ' �-:sr � fiJ .! r is
s ,
e § t
t G f
r
{ VA'alOar;
a s e y
',4F f7 6 ,r 4 ^•,
e
C
5
19+85
� §1
c`
X28+50 �r
rn -
_ i f
*" :
-* Northeast, Randolph N
Middle School wr
0 175 350
1" = 350'
MITIGATION COMPONENTS Map Source:
Charles Williams Site -
DMS Project No. 80 2014 Aerial from FIGURE 2
Environmental NCOneMap.com
Quality Randolph Co., NC October 2016

"+N Recently breached
E beaver dam upstream m 10+00
S of easement �., -^ ' , Bed scour.
0 100 200
1" = 200 " - �'= Vegetation Plot 1
567 Planted Stems/Acre
z#W
xx�` 2145 Total Stems/Acre
Area of potential =„......
j
low stem density : d. ...... Area of potential
stem density
Vegetation Plot 2'-
4Y. 607 Planted Stems/Acre r .
890 Total Stems/Acre!.
= Vegetation Plot 4
688 Planted Stems/Acre
Cross-section 1
�? 728Total Stems/Acre
oay7.
Area of potential± Logs against
low stem density --' easement fence
Vegetation Plot 3
364 Planted Stems/Acre ="
890 Total Stems/Acre
Cross� _..
-�,- - •. -section 2
,
2 60 -inch CSP &
At -grade Stream Crossing 205 Vegetation Plot 6
283 Planted Stems/Acre
Vegetation Plot 5 526 Total Stems/Acre
486 Planted Stems/Acre
607 Total Stems/Acre -= Vegetation Plot 7
- 486 Planted Stems/Acre
688 Total Stems/Acre
-
ah Legend
Aggradation, pool filling.
Easement Boundary
Cross -Sections
Crest Gauge
Vegetation Plot 8 : w Riverine Wetland Enhancement
324 Planted Stems/Acre
Current Notable Areas
364Total Stems/Acre
Vegetation Plot Meeting
288 Planted Stems/Acre
Vegetation Plot not Meeting
288 Planted Stems/Acre
Cross -Section 4 28+50 Cross Vane (stable)
a Log Vane (stable)
K,
Crest Gauge,
Rootwad (stable)
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW Map Source:
Charles Williams Site -
DMS Project No. 80 2014 Aerial from FIGURE 3a
Environmental NCOneMap.com
Quality Randolph Co., NC November 2016

0 125 250
1" = 250'
Vegetation Plot 12
243 Planted Stems/Acre
1862 Total Stems/Acre
A— 'wK
Nr
AO
A J
Northeast RandolphSchoolle hOol
J J
vegetation t-ioi lw
/ , 486 Planted StemsAcre
1052 Total Stems/Acre
N
-A
It,
Vegetation Plot 9
324 Planted Stems/Acre
S, 809 Total Stems/Acre
'V"
W.
Legend
Vegetation Plot not Meeting 288 Planted Stems/Acre
1 03� Vegetation Plot Meeting 288 Planted Stems/Acre
Easement Boundary
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW Map Source:
Charles Williams Site -
DMS Project No. 80 2014 Aerial from FIGURE 3b
Environmental NCOneMap.com
Quality Randolph Co., NC October 2016

\
§
)
) §
J
\
_
)
)
§
J
CD
7
_
`{
E2
r
e
=
=
e=
�
k
10
■
r
In
=
z=
r
=
=
r
� \
o � 2
o = m
CD -0
LO
/
0
»
=
w
=
r
=
=
r
E E
®
-
k
/
co
Cl)
§Co
-
/
/
\
\
U)«
\
§
z
`°
> \
-
/
CD
cm
//
-
cu
}\
f
/
;®
� 2
-
%
e !
%
)}
ƒco
S
/
§
_
0
0
-
/
{
/\
/
k
//
_
\
{
/§
,
-
-
/
\k\
f
3%}
t
t
7
_
2
-_
2;
\>
-
E
{
=
9
:
0
f\
]
]
\
-
\/
_a
\
cu
\ /
§
ƒ
/ %
\
-
°
-
_
-
§
Of
/J
_
_
cu—
}\
7)
/
-
\/
/
�®
§
-
-
_
-
-
$
22
-
/\/
\
y%
=
(
/
;�-0
Co
-
_
ƒ/
/
i//
j\j
§
j/
\
\
\
j \
/ /
76
CL
0
/
~
\
2
)
_
\
}
\
/
\
{
\
\
\
-
}
m
/
/$
1
m

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site 180
Planted Acreage:
16 acres
CategoryDefinitions
4110A
Very limited cover of both woody and
MappingVegetati
Threshold Depiction Polygons
0.1 acres n/a
n/a
n/a
Planted
n/a
Bare Areas
herbaceous material.
Low Stem Density
Woody stem densities clearly below target
Areas
levels based on MY 3, 4, or 5 stem count
0.1 acres See CCPV
2
<0.2 ac.
1%
criteria.
Total
2
<0.2 ac.
1%
Areas of Poor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that is
Growth Rates or
obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Vigor
Cumulative Total
2
<0.2 ac.
1%
Estimated Acrea e:
18 acres
VegetationMapping
CategoryThreshold
Depiction Polygons
A ea. -
Not
depicted —
invasives
Invasive Areas of
Areas or points (if too small to render as
are found
Concern
polygons at map scale).
1,000 SF singly
0
<.1 acres
<1 %
throughout
easement
after
treatment
Easement
Areas or points (if too small to render as
Encroachment
polygons at map scale).
1,000 SF See CCPV
1
0.3 acres
1%
Areas

Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site 180 - Annual Photograph Comparison
Baseline MYO (June 2013)
Vegetation Plot 1
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot 2
Facing Southwest
Vegetai
Facing
MY1 (March 2014)
MY2 (September 2014)
MY4 (June 2016)
t

Vegetal
Facing
Vegetai
Facing
Baseline MYO (June 2013)
MY1 (March 2014)
MY2 (September 2014)
MY3 (June 2015)
MY4 (June 2016)
Vegetation Plot 6
Facing Southwest

Vegetation Plot 7
Facing Southwes
Vegetation Plot 8
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot 9
Facing Southwest
Baseline MYO (June 2013)
MY1 (March 2014)
MY2 (September 2014)
MY3 (June 2015)
MY4 (June 2016)

1 1 1� �T •r r• 1� 1 1 r
_-
fir. ;1
x z
Vegetation Plot
12 Facing y „
Southwest ' +{, • r_� - >d »N_- * ice,
♦.r ry& � •. •`. 4" �e "4 „^ .ra •'. � h+�yu"'s - +r�r }tea y ,ry, ^.;� f -- � `3'°'R - _ I ; �� ` 's•
-
�

Cross Section 1
Facing West
Cross Section 1
Facing
Downstream
Baseline MYO (June 2013)
MY1 (March 2014)
mrz (aeptemoer zu-i4)
Ih'
r
�A
t aka#
r�
MY3 (June 2015)
MY4 (July 2016)
NOTE: XS1 West Photo Taken Oct. 2016.

Cross Section 2
Facing West
Cross Section 2
Facing
Downstream
Cross Section 3
Facing West
MY1 (March 2014)
MY2 (September 2014)
MY3 (June 2015)
MY4 (July 2016)

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)
MY3 (June 2015)
MY4 (July 2016)

Overbank Events
MY4
Beaver Dams
MY4
1. Wrack at High Elevation, Documented 18 Feb. 2016 2. Overbank Wrack and Scour, Documented 18 Feb. 2016 3. Flattened Vegetation Outside Channel, Documented 18
Feb. 2016
1. Breached Beaver Dam, 30 June 2015
2. Site of Previous Beaverdam, Not Reconstructed as of 19
July 2016
3. Beaver Dam Reconstructed as of 4 Oct. 2016
4. Log Jam Documented 20 July 2016
r
4. Breached Beaver Impoundment Upstream of Project,18 5. Breached Beaver Impoundment Upstream of Project, 2
Feb. 2016 June 2016
r„

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Plot Data

Planted Vegetation Summary
During MY3 monitoring, new stems were documented from a supplemental planting performed by
Carolina Silvics in early 2015. Stem density was observed to be adequate in 12 of the 12 vegetation
plots. Please refer to the letter and tables below.
Proposed Supplemental Planting Letter
§ROLINA
ILVICS
October 6, 2014
Nntrwnl Rrsoarers Prafessionals
Mr. Jeff Schaffer
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Re: D13002S
Site: Sandy Creek (Charlie Williams), EEP# 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
the ground in the existing herbaceous competition and apply Oust(D XP
Web: wu+m.caroliltrisilnics.cmli
(sulfometuron methyl) herbicide to the paths. Herbicide will not be
applied to areas of standing water or areas along the channel. Stems

§ROLINA
ILVICS
Nahrral Resource. Profrssionnis
Offices 252482-8491
Fax: [phone]
Web:yianu.carohnRsituics.com
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
[phone] or [e-mail].
Respectfully,
CAROLINA SILVICS, INC.
Mary -Margaret McKinney, RF
President

Original Planting List from DMS
Sandv Creek (Charles Williams)
Species
Type
Riparian
Qty %
Wetland
Qty %
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
flex 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
Stream/Wetland Buffer Vegetation
Vegetation Plot ID Vegetation Survival Survival Threshold
Threshold Met? Met?
1 Yes Yes
2 Yes Yes
3 Yes Yes
4 Yes Yes
5 Yes Yes
6 No No Stream/Wetland Veg. = 87.5%
7 Yes Yes Buffer Veg. = 75%
8 Yes Yes
9 n/a Yes
10 n/a Yes
11 n/a No
12 n/a No
Notes:
Supplemental planting at approximately 300 stems per acre was performed 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 7/25/2016 15:18
database name SandyCreekCharlesWilliams_80_RandolphCounty_Year 4.mdb
database location P:110000 Consultants110227 Sungate110227-017_Charles Williams
Monitoring\CVS Database
computer name WKST6
file size 63737856
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
project Name
project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.
Damage by Plot
This excludes live stakes.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year.
Proj, total stems
This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer
area (sq m)
stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead
Sampled Plots
stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and
project Name
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
stream -to -edge width (ft)
plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
area (sq m)
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are
Sampled Plots
excluded.
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)
EEP Project Code 80. Project Name: Sandy Creek - Charles Williai
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
080-01-0001
080-01-0002
080-01-0003
080-01-0004
080-01-0005
080-01-0006
8
080-01-0007
080-01-0008
080-01-0009
080-01-0010
080-01-0011
080-01-0012
Annual Means
MY3 (2016)
PnoLS 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
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
PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
1
8
7
7
16
39
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
4
4
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
2
1 1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
6 6
10
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
2 2
7
Carya
hickory
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
7
3 3
12
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
2
6
8
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1 1
2
7 7
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
14 14
34
4
4
51
2 2
31
5
5
61
2
2
2
3
3
3
6
6
6
1
1
11
2
2
2
2 2
2
1
41 41
65
Ilex decidua
possumhaw
shrub
1
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
2
3
1
7
13
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
9
3
12
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
2
2
1 1
1
2
2
2 1
1
1
3 3
3
9 9
9
Magnolia virginiana
sweetbay
Tree
1
1
1
1 1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
6 6
7
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2 2
2
7 7
7
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
2
2
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1 1
1
2 2
2
7 7
7
Quercus laurifolia
laurel oak
Tree
2
2
2
1 2 2
2
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
4
4
4
1 1
1
5
5
5
2
2
2
1
1
1
13 13
13
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oal<
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
2 2
2
1
9 9
10
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
2
2
2
4 4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
13 13
14
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1 1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
11
6
17
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
1
1
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
1 1
1
14 14
53
15
15
22
9 9
22
17
17
18
12
12
15
7
7
13
13
13
17
8
8
9 8
8
20
12
12
26
7 7
14
6 6
46
128 128
275
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
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
1 1
7
7
7
9
5 5
7
7
7
7
7
7
81
5
5
61
6
6
101
6
6
61 7
7
11
7
7
9
4 4
5
3 3
10
16 16
27
566.6 566.6 21451
607
6071 890.3
364.2 364.2 890.3
688
688 728.4 485.6 485.6
6071 283.31
283.3 526.11 526.1 526.1
6881 323.71 323.7 364.21323.71 323.7 809.41 485.6 485.6 10521283.31 283.3 566.61 242.8 242.8 18621 431.7 431.7 927.4
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

APPENDIX D
Stream Survey Data

®
\
U)
/
\
�
#
/
�f
e
=
fA.
/
E
�
J
\
\
z
f
®
J
}
-
.Ju
e
JLn2 )
e
.»
a
J
=
Q
k§
_
m 2 / / / j <
\
E
/
�
ƒ
�
k
/
k
\ 2
(
©
..- .
%
7
)
@
..�
o
&
rlj > y ,
m
a
m
o
�
# \ 0
\
�
§
< } } / 2 /
\
j
A
G
2
t#
§
a
e
a
^. `
E
4
%
§
Q
®
b
:
©/
S
Q
o
«
«
o
�
_
»
)
/
/
/
/
/
/
m
e«�
w
e
m
_
Lo
�
o
'IT
0
0
0�
a
o
c
o
r
o
o
x
e
c&
\
\
7
\
%
\
& -
7
� � k..
: o
/ : ■ �
a : ■
G|
0
LO
LO
Lr)
CD
CN
�
o
$
/
U)
B
0 :
%
2 :
0 :LLI
7 . - o
cn
.
7 % § / J / /
Ln Ln e z e z
(!m m79§
/
\
�
\
/
\
�
J
_
/
z
6
®
J
e
#
e
�
a
J
=
Q
k§
_
6
\
E
/
�
ƒ
�
k
/
k
E\
\
�
©
%
7
�
@
&
o
&
<
a
m
o
�
�
§
�
\
A
G
2
t#
§
a
e
a
w
a
4
k
§
}
©/
)
/
/
/
/
/
/
_
0
0
0�
a
o
c
o
r
o
o
x
e
c&
\
\
7
\
%
/
\
�
\
/
\
�
J
_
/
z
6
®
J
\
/
w
a
J
=
Q
k§
_
6
\
E
/
�
ƒ
�
k
/
k
E\
\
�
©
%
7
7
�
�
§
�
\
A
G
§
}
k
2
k
§
}
J
k
$
_
j
m
a
J
=
Q
k§
_
a
#
\
E
\
E
/
�
ƒ
�
k
/
k
E\
\
�
�_
�
_

N
co
co
NO
N
Lf")
p
NO
V
N
O
i
co
O
CO
C7
O
X
�
E
D
E
tin
LLL
N
ami
D7
�
N
nU
aS
o
+'
rn
Q
C
O0
O
�
o
cu
C
V
�
�
H
M
U
03
T Ln
�
X
N
C
m
C
m
O
LL
(
@
Q
X
�
Q
f6
L
�
'O
N
L
W
.•, �'t. n
cW
O m C
m o
y
.N
N ri v
N Ql lD n Q
01
Q
N m N
O
d
aj
O
m
L
�
R
m
Q" L°
U
�
y
�_
C
N
$
>
R'
i6
�
�
X
�
O
R
O
N
LL
I
O
n
�
E
m
O
kD
O
O
H
00
O
In
CO
C
M
N
c
�
�rj
N
a7
a0
CO
�
Ch
M
O
�
M
lf)
M
r
0
0
0
Lf)
M
M
io
Ln
lC)
LLj
lf')
L!")
Lti
L(7
Ln
l(')
L(7
O
�}'
'V'
�
In
LO
LIj
lf')
LO
ll')
lL')
L(7
a0
N
O
�
Lf)
V
�O
W
N
I�
O
M
O
W
�
00
I�
�
N
N
N
M
M
tel'
W
O
Ln
�
�
d'
N
M
�
�
�
M
LO
�
O
�
V'
�
�
�
Lf�
CSO
N
cc
O
M
O
W
moi'
�
co
N
N
O
O
00
O
O
co
O
co
00
c1'
CO
co
M
O
d
d
U
to 1
+ 1 �_
O c
m
0 1
1
+
Lo
1
O
N N
O
w+
V
d
N
N
O 0
U
Y
N
d
L
U
T
co
O
(10
O 00 w 'T N O 00
O w Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
+� Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln
(}aa;) u01}ena13
v
co
co
NO
N
Lf")
p
NO
V
N
O
i
co
O
CO
C7
O
C
E
LLL
N
~
�
D7
�
N
nU
aS
c
rn
Q
(6
O
N
cu
R
C
o
V
�
�
H
M
�
D
�
X
N
C
m
C
m
O
LL
N
p
O
@
Q
X
�
Q
f6
L
�
'O
N
L
W
O)
C
m
y
.N
�
01
Q
d
d
O
m
L
�
R
U
�
y
�_
C
N
$
>
R'
i6
�
�
X
�
O
R
O
N
LL
O
�}'
'V'
CO
I�
a0
N
O
�
Lf)
V
�O
N
I�
O
M
O
W
�
00
I�
�
N
N
N
M
M
tel'
W
v
co
co
NO
N
Lf")
p
NO
V
N
O
i
co
O
CO
C7
O
C
E
LLL
N
~
�
D7
�
N
nU
aS
c
rn
Q
(6
O
N
cu
R
C
o
V
�
�
H
M
�
D
�
X
N
C
m
C
m
O
LL
N
p
O
@
Q
X
�
Q
f6
L
�
'O
N
L
W
O)
C
m
y
.N
�
01
Q
d
d
O
m
L
�
R
U
�
y
�_
C
N
$
>
R'
i6
�
�
X
�
O
R
O
N
LL
�
�
�
M
co
NO
N
Lf")
p
NO
V
N
W
�
O
CO
C7
O
Q
O
R
C
o
�
�
�
�
f0
N
C
m
N
C
m
C
m
O
LL
N
p
O
@
Q
X
�
Q
f6
L
�
'O
N
L
W
O)
C
m

Cl)
g
n
q
w
w
c
\
x
\
\
(
/
E
e
y
w=�
CL)
§
w
o
o�
\
/
2
0
-
®
�
\
®
\
J
7�
D
\
3
E%
03
q
mw
/
m 3 J \ \ \
k
Q�
% 9 2 \ (
7
k
0-
t Q Q .g =
/® \ 2
\ § /
-
/?
g
g
J \ 2 ƒ
s
e
a
e
2
w
§
ƒ ƒ
§/
n
e//
\
A
%
ƒ
}
&
k
§
j
2
A
7/
:
S
S
S
S
_
j
J
k§
k
E\
§
o\@
0
7
a@
R=
q
\
ƒ
/
\
\
&
\
2
�
S
m
=
_
�
�
�
�
k
�
_
\
�
@Ca
Q
§ /
/
2
leg o
®
$
/
U)
S
0 :
%
2 :
0 :
7 . . o
cn
. . .
7
% § m J / / &
Ln z z z z z z
(!m m79§
o
g
n
q
w
w
c
o=—
\
\
(
e
n
w=�
CL)
§
w
o
o�
\
n
2
�
-
�
J
®
\
J
i
3
E%
q
j
/
c\��
Q�
J
7
k
-
g
g
o
s
e
a
e
2
w
§
§/
n
e//
\
A
6
§
}
k
k
§
j
2
7/
$
S
S
S
_
j
J
k§
k
E\
§
o\@
0
7
a@
R=
q
\
ƒ
/
\
\
&
\
2
�
S
m
=
_
�
�
�
�
k
�
_
\
\
(
§
\
LL.
CL)
§
§
\
3
\
a
2
�
-
�
J
®
\
J
/
j
/
J
7
k
§
�
\
A
6
§
}
k
k
§
j
2
\
/
§
§
\
3
\
f
2
u-)
J
k
$
a
j
J
k§
k
E\
\
ƒ
/
\
/
\
�
m
=
_
�
�
�
�
k
�
_

I�
�
E
OD
�
}
x
�
�
�
o
N
E
�
ch
¢
c
�
~
N
LL
N
N
H
�
0-)
�
S
a
U
aS
o
o
�
Cu
T
0
U
0
o
�
cn
v
Ln Z5
L
Q
Q
o
�
X
N [6 N
O \
t0 O O m O
0
@
m
O
3
\ N N
N Ql LO ^ Q
a
IL
CO -i N m v 0
d
R
i
d
d
L6
m
--
O
�
R
Q m
U
d
N
r,
W
U
W��
>
O
y
O
d
d
Q
L
t
d
WQ�
E
_
Q
y
d
N
y
O
O
N
I�
M
00
O
����
ti
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
X
f6
f6
d
CO
M
�
CO
CO
N
00
CO
I�
N
co
�
�
m
O
M
I�
Ln
CO
�
�
�
�
co
N
co
Ln
F
N
M
ap
O)
O
O
CO
N
O
M
O
O
N
2
�
—
—
—�
CO
00
67
O
O
—
N
N
N
is
L[7
�
�
�
Lf)
rF
T
�t
L[7
�
�
�
�
O
�
00
(`')
>
LC;
LO
Lf7
Lfi
O
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
Lf';
�
M
W
O
00
M�
m�
�
N
N
N�
CO
O
LPI
�
I�
�
�
O
O
Ln
00
N
O
aD
f -
N
O
�
�
�
�
�
m
O�
w
'IT
O�
N
Cfl
�
N
M
O
�
f-
�
CO
O
O
O
m
Ln
07
00
O
N
CO
O
CO
Cl)
M
C6
' d
LL
C>
V
N ' m
O ;
CIZ
d
w
O
co
C
O
U
d
co
tp
N O
O
U
Y
U
d
U
ED
l O
R
Cl)
"D U) Ln U) Ln O �' ''
ate+
L(1 m m m m Ln Ln m
(1001) UOIIEA013
ca
m
cu
cc
I�
�
�
OD
�
}
O
�
�
6)
M
N
p
N
�
ch
¢
�
~
N
LL
N
N
H
�
0-)
�
S
a
U
aS
�
o
�
Cu
T
U
�
o
�
cn
v
U
Q
o
�
X
m
O
o
@
m
3
3
a
N
d
R
i
d
d
L6
m
w
O
�
R
U
d
N
.R
W��
>
y
O
d
d
L
t
d
WQ�
�
_
Q
y
d
L
y
Y
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
X
f6
f6
d
�
O
m
m
m
L.L_
L.L
m
�2
�
W
m
N
R
N
N
00
N
D
N
(D
O
�
00
(`')
M
O
O
S
CO
67
Ln
N
M�
�
M
O
00
M�
m�
�
N
N
N�
CO
I�
�
�
OD
�
}
O
�
�
6)
M
N
p
N
�
ch
¢
�
~
N
LL
N
N
H
�
0-)
�
S
a
U
aS
�
o
�
Cu
T
U
�
o
�
cn
v
U
Q
o
�
X
m
O
o
@
m
3
3
a
N
d
R
i
d
d
L6
m
w
O
�
R
U
d
N
.R
W��
>
I�
�
�
OD
�
}
O
�
�
6)
M
N
N
p
N
ch
ch
o�
n
L�
is
Q
o
m
O
o
@
m
3
3
C
Y
�
�
O
O
�
O
O
In
.R
>
y
O
d
d
L
t
d
WQ�
�
_
Q
y
d
L
y
Y
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
X
f6
f6
d
�
O
m
m
m
L.L_
L.L
m
�2
�
W
m

Longitudinal Profile Plot Exhibit
M
LO
t
ti
N
O
0
0
v
t0 �
d
w r
CD cn
w Y
N
d y
U
cn
F-
a a
co u
LO u
LO u
O
O
O
M
O
O
00
N
4
■
■

Cross Section Pebble Count Exhibits
Summary Dale
❑50 034 mm
684 1 45.00 mm
095 149.00 mm
Summary Dita
050 0.20 mm
D84 6.28 E.E.
695 11.20
�1■111■I�■Illllll�■IIIpP-■Illlllll
.'■Illllll11111�
n■■Illlllln■■Iilllll�■�:i�llln■■1111111
■■■1111111■■■WMIMUMM
Illlllln■■1111111►r1111111n■■�111�11
M0IIIIIIIMI1111111���111111���111111���111�11
.;.; �■IIIIIII■111111■■■1111111■■■111111■■■111111
�■1111111-■Illlllln■■Illlllln■■Illlllln■■111111
' �■1111!31■■■1111111■■■1111111■■■1111111■■■111111
,.��■111111■■111111■■111111■■Ifllll�■■111111
1 k / 1 11 111
Individual Class Percent
100%
80%
a
w 6x96
R a4°6
'a ■ 2016 MY 4 (July 2016)
a 2(P6
c �
In O O Q t. P m Q m - iff a O N 6 N a w
M N a g g
e
Particle Size (mm)
,1. n■■1111111 �■Illlp!�■1111111■1111111
:.., �■Illlllln■ ��■���tlln■■Illlllln■■1111111
,., �■1111111 �lt�llllll�■1111111■�IIIIII
n■■Illlllln■■I• �■1111111—�-1". --r .""
' �■Illllllr �■1111111n��nomrn��nonn
;.; �■IIIIIIII �■1111111■Illllil�■1111111
�■1111!�i�■Ilnllln■■1111111■1111111n■■111■I
' n■■Illlllln■■1111111n■■1111111n■■1111111n■■
;:: n■■Ilumn■■Ilmm�■■Ilumn■�Ilnnln■■1
,,. �■�111111�■�111111���11111I�1■�111111�
1 k 1 a le 111
Individual Class Percent
100°6
80%
a
60%
V
w 40°,6
v' ■ 2016 MY 4 (July 2016)
0 0 o o n a 0^,i ao6
a
Particle Size )mm)
Chatres Williams
Stream, Watland
Cross Section:
FoatureAlde
and Buff
2
��WF"
2015 MY 4(July 2016)
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total#
Rom -4
Cum
StlIlClay
siluolay
0.062
15
30%
30%
very fine sand
0.125
6
12%
42%
fine sand
0.25
6
12%
54%
Sand
medium sand
0.5
8
16%
70%
coarse sand
1.0
5
10%
80%
very coarse sand
20
1
2%
82%
very fine gravel
40
0
0%
82%
fine gravel
5.7
0
0%
82%
fine gravel 80 4 8%
90%
medium gravel 11.3 3 6%
96%
Crawl
medium gravel
160
1
2%
98%
wazsegravel 22.3 1 2%
100%
worse gravel
32
0
0%
100%
very coarsegravH 45 0 0%
100%
very knerse gravd
64
D
0%
100%
oohh'a
90
Q
Q%
106%
ium cobble
128
0
0%
160%
�ebble
�small
ge cobble
180
0
0%
1w%
arge mbGe
256
0
0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
large boulder 2048 00%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
400%
0
096
100°10
TOTAL %ofwhole counV
60
1 100%
Summary Dita
050 0.20 mm
D84 6.28 E.E.
695 11.20
�1■111■I�■Illllll�■IIIpP-■Illlllll
.'■Illllll11111�
n■■Illlllln■■Iilllll�■�:i�llln■■1111111
■■■1111111■■■WMIMUMM
Illlllln■■1111111►r1111111n■■�111�11
M0IIIIIIIMI1111111���111111���111111���111�11
.;.; �■IIIIIII■111111■■■1111111■■■111111■■■111111
�■1111111-■Illlllln■■Illlllln■■Illlllln■■111111
' �■1111!31■■■1111111■■■1111111■■■1111111■■■111111
,.��■111111■■111111■■111111■■Ifllll�■■111111
1 k / 1 11 111
Individual Class Percent
100%
80%
a
w 6x96
R a4°6
'a ■ 2016 MY 4 (July 2016)
a 2(P6
c �
In O O Q t. P m Q m - iff a O N 6 N a w
M N a g g
e
Particle Size (mm)
,1. n■■1111111 �■Illlp!�■1111111■1111111
:.., �■Illlllln■ ��■���tlln■■Illlllln■■1111111
,., �■1111111 �lt�llllll�■1111111■�IIIIII
n■■Illlllln■■I• �■1111111—�-1". --r .""
' �■Illllllr �■1111111n��nomrn��nonn
;.; �■IIIIIIII �■1111111■Illllil�■1111111
�■1111!�i�■Ilnllln■■1111111■1111111n■■111■I
' n■■Illlllln■■1111111n■■1111111n■■1111111n■■
;:: n■■Ilumn■■Ilmm�■■Ilumn■�Ilnnln■■1
,,. �■�111111�■�111111���11111I�1■�111111�
1 k 1 a le 111
Individual Class Percent
100°6
80%
a
60%
V
w 40°,6
v' ■ 2016 MY 4 (July 2016)
0 0 o o n a 0^,i ao6
a
Particle Size )mm)

Summary Data
D50 080 mm
0843200 mm
.1 83.50 mm
Summary Data
050 0.146 mm
1) 5.70 rnm
045 50.88 mm
n■�Illllln n■n■IInn1U'.�i�■�IYIII
Cumulative Percent
n■�Illlllnn�ln■;
8,03A, n■�lulun nn
n■�Illllln p�mnn!�min
n■�Illllln_ II���IIlIII 1 62015)
n■�Illllllr n■�Illllln■
n■�11111� n■�Illlllln■� 1
n■�Illliln n■�Illllln■�IIIIII
n■111►,flln n■�Illllln■Illlllln■
■�111111�■�I■Iln��llllll�■�Illllln■�1
0.01 1 1 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
1D0%
'✓ ao%
a`
60%
w
U
m 40%
v' ■ 2016 MY4 (July 2016)
a 20%
0%
0 o e
Particle Size (mm)
100%
90°%
8a-,6
70°56
i 60%
a 50DA
40°.6
E
� 3Q°,6
20%
10%
0%
0.01
Cumulative Percent
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Individual Class Percent
100%
a
U
m 4L}°�
v' ■ 2016 MY4 (J a I 2016)
ao%
�Np N N elf p q p IO t4 O rA N N O 00 O t0 N N 1 Wp u0
oi W lO try
c c
Particle Size (mm)

O
m
M
I
@
O
W
M
M
N
O
O
O
W
M
M
N
N
N
M
A
W
O
O
M
N
11J
N
N
u7
0
0
0
N
UJ
M
N
cp
M
M�O
c6
CV
n
Ci
O
O
m
M
N
N
W
O)
i0
M
N
I�
M
�
O
cOD
Q)
Ii
N
N
�
CD
r
N
N
N
O
A
(OO
N
V
W
%�
O
M
O
O
V
M
(O
O
M
c6
i0
N
M
M
N
W
U
u7
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
�
d
u,
oc
Y
L i
fC U
E T
E c
= m
U) N
77
O
ate.. H
fC �
Eo
0
fC �
U- N
d w
C �
00
N =
a
R 16
u>
R
R w
O
r
N
M
C
M
V
N
�fJ
M
W
N
Ci
O
O
F- c
O
O
u)
E
R
C
N
O
W
O
N
"2O
�
Lq
O
O
W
O
M
dN
M
N
V
L
A
M
M
CM7
l0
U
Z
W
O
L6
O
o
M
�
N
o
V.
:t7
-O
'O
dm
.�
.�
.6
76
v
�
v
d
C
'O
>
m
N
C
N
x
@
m
�.
°'
C N
E
L
m
a�
=
C
N
J
d
O
to
C
N
N
x
U
@
2
t6
3
C
d
.'C...
U
U
'V
`O)
C
C
O
N
N
O-
Y
O
O'
d
cL
O
U
U
N
N
�-'
O
2'
p
d
O
O
d
m
U
O
@
d
EO
d
.N
d
U
U
N
tq
N
N
t6
L
CJ
m
@
L
O
O_
m
o
�
c
m
aL
m
m
m
rn
E
o
o
oa
-0
3
m
LL
m
o
U
�
m
w
m
m
ID
u)
O
--
cLi
m
co
U
_
E
m
U
m
w
of
vl
u)
.0
o
m
t
N
w
(n
N
d
d
@
�
H
d
E
@
@
9
3
6
d
d
E
@
O
n
@
o
O
m
M
I

a
y
E
u
M.
m
sz
E
II
a
U
`o
m
o
m
o
U
2 .1..
c
o
CD
LO
0
0
■■
o
�
0
0
0
0
CD
N
p
0
p
CO
O
O
oO
O
Ln
O
yr
•L
4-
U)
L
m
L
y„r
�+ N
ER
d
Ca O
i co
O
U
Y
v a�
a�
U
_O
O �
L C
R
cn
= O
i
Y co
i W
m N
i
d �
Co m
� R
L �
� R
N
N
p
N
V
co
N
o
O
N
Zr)
O
V
E N
� Ro
N —_
O
o
O
(OO.
LO
O
M
o
O
r—
O
O
N
!
i
o
E t
U
r
�
oLO
0
0
N
d
O
o
o
�
Ch
O
O
coo
do
O
cu
m
o
c
o
S
O
co
G
c
c
E
O
O
d
N
mo
E
;
A
'1;7
67
67
m
C�
c
�
o
Lo
�
Lo
r
U
U
rn
7
0
p
C7
CV
N
C6
cc/)
O
CS
N
0
U')
�
LL)
V
U—
V1
M
L()
N
W
�
�
U
co
V
N
O
a
E6
_N
C
C
Cd
G
U
C
d
C
W
N
a
y
E
u
M.
m
sz
E
II
a
U
`o
m
o
m
o
U
2 .1..

O
O
Q
O
ti
cc
co
C
O
.(n
O
CDN
a
3
}
r
N
O
N
�04 —
O
M
M
O
N
n
O
A
<")
N'C'
NC:)
N
O
Cl)
�N,
M
O
00
O
._
N
C,4
t'-
O
O
N
LO
O
nj
M
CO
O
O
00
}.
2
r
N
00
N
Cn
CA
W
Ln
00
(A
p
LO
O
CO
O
C7
O
m
V
N
O
N
CV
CD
Cl)
CD
00
A
}
}
CV
+
N
O
OCVWN
CO
o
AA
I
V'
C)
CO
CO
Ln
O
O
N
N
N
M
M
Cl)
W
OL
U
N
}
'7
N
++Ln
N
M
M
�-
N
O
0A0
O
)}
CC!
+
p
O
00
O
N
N
O
00
O
m
C'I
N
E C
a
O
(� LO
a 00
_ r
In
N
N
O
CV
N
CO
M
[O
A
� Y
=
y
O
}
L
d
c
—
o
H
E C
N
N
N
Ci
M
O
yam+
N Vi
}
CV
+
O
O
f�
O,
cV
6
O
NCO
O
Cj
O
i
N
A
m
N
V
M
I�
C7
Q
}
w
O
V,
O
CD
C7
i
O
N
C•i
M
A
Q
L
CLO
p
cc::,)
CO
00
w
O
C IC
}
C=;
N
CV
CV
N
Cl)
CV
Cj
A
d
C �
O
V% lC
d
m
m
6
O
N
CV
C7P.
M
A
N
•L V
}
O
M
Lf)to
N
N
O
Cd
OO
y-+
2
A
CV
LC')
CV
A
N
ATi
CC
N
O O
C
M
O
C-
CA
CO
CO
00
C7
A
G
N
COO
N
C -4
N
�w
rC14
N
CT
N
r
coO
f5)
O
O
`-
Cj
N
LO
N
O
N
O
N 6"
CO
N
V
L6
O
CO
N
N
O
O
N
CO
N
N
CV
O
O
O
f�
M
O
O
L
N
N
co
CO
N
N
N
CV
t
s
t
s
t
s
s
s
f�
E
0
0
Q
Q
N
0)
O
Z,
Q
CZ
N
m
O'
O
O
_6
N
C
X
C6
N
�
N
—
N
C
X
N
N
�
L
N
2
C
N
Y
N
O
C
Y
-,e
—
Oo
Y
m
O
Co
m
-0O
o
wcn
N
J�
cts—W
N
y
>
co
y
W
Z
CC
m
m
D
m
m
m
p
U—O
Y
m
cmCNN
co
M
m
m
m
Q
5
(D
o
O
m
N
m
U
wN
Cl)
O
O
O
2
°1
c
Y
Q
�
N
Q
N
C
C
O
_C
CD
R
�
C
N
X
_
7
C.1
C
O
C
O
N
N
R
m
N
m
O
O
Q
O
ti
cc
co
C
O
.(n
O
CDN
a
3

N
of O
M V
U
m
a
N
c
m
c_
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
0
Cl)
O
N
N
O
M
M
A
o
r
@
0
0
T
N
N
N
O
M
M
N
^
N
A
O
CD
O'n
O
l�
N
o
W
U
LO[J
(D
r
N
N
N
O
W
OJ
V
p
M
Q
o
N
^
N
M
^
A
o
O
@
+
p
Q)
Np
Tw
p
N
N
N
A
O
O
@
C
O
y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
u'�
LCJ
N
N
�
E C_
a @
0
W
o
@ @
U
N
o
O
�
-0C
_@ OC
O
M
(D
N
7 '�
W
r
(\rl
N
p
O
O
O
W
y y
Np
N
M
N
p
O
M
>
r
lfJ
N
fn
U
o
po
po
0
N
r
p
p
N
N
O
N
MCli
N
p
A
M
N
r
N
p@
U
d
4�-
o
rn
_O w
@ C
U �
N
M
�2
42
O
r
N
r
y
e
C
N
^
N
M
W
A
N
O
o
N
O
W
O
co
U
N
c
O
O
p
r
p
O
O
O
�}
�.
o
Y
N
(p0
N
M
N
O
p
r
rn
U
�O
3
N U
CL
T
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
-
N
N
y0
Q N
N
o
@
cn
N
O
(D
co
�O
O
—
-
p
O
O
Oj
O
U
TiP
N
M
A
A
cp
00
M
N
5
d
O
N
O
co
N+
r
r
r
N
U
o
O
0
o
o
0
0
0
d
N
O
N
O
N
N
M
N
O
N
�
A
W
A
O
NM
O
O
r
N
O
N
r
e
m
G
M
N
f0
N
�
V
N
A
M
N
N
A
A
A
N
O
N
O
�L
C
O to
=
rn
r
o
d
c
rn
w
N
m
o
rn
��ri
p
uN-i
o
cO C_
G C
d
r �
r y
L
v
O
U
o
y
O
N
L
N
O
N
N
cr')
A
A
O
O
W
N
M
N
m
N
l()
p
}M
CO
CD
0
O
0
O
N
:2N
V
O
N
d1
N
pr
M
�
A
W
O
p
r
O
O
M
M
L[7
c
N
M
N
r
M
A
N
O
M
A
A
A
V
M
r
M
O
O
O
p
N
D
m
N
O
p
c
p
N
(p0
O
pO
N
A
N
O
�7
O
00
C, j2o�
aN0
O
M
i0
@
d)
}
O
p
A
W
A
O
M
O
O
O
O
N
M
N
M
O
O)
r
O O O
r N
O O (p
N
O
N
p
�2
�2
}
M
O
O
LO
O
O
O
O
a
07
O
N
p
V
O
O
O
d'
N
O p
p
o
-M
O
p
M
to l0 r
r
o
c
N
N
M
<D
r
r
N
A
m
N
O
O
�,Oj
00
p
Ki
O O m O
O O
QJ
M
o
u7
.O
O
.0
r
V
0
e
o
s
c
N
2i
N
X
Q
fl-
N
m
E
w
N
m
J
o
Cn
m
J
a
X
m
3 m a d
a
w
=
O
c
o
N
C7
m
�'
m
o
Y
O
d
.
t6
O_
U
c
=
N
O
O
CO U w
`m
3
U
m
a
w`
mg
=
a
c
@
a
o
o
a
m
O c
m
m
d
U
,n
a
r
`0
o
0
O
w
C
W
m
d
L O m 'OO
N
O>i
.T-
CO
Ci N
2
0
fO
U
o
c
c
o
y
c
m
o
m
U
�
y
N
d
R
N
�
d
E
�
a
rn
a
c
m
c
o
.N
�
y
�
�
c
c
E
v
o
c
o
o
a
a
N
of O
M V

APPENDIX E
Hydrology Data

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site / 80 - UT to Sandy Creek: 1,850
linear feet
IDate of Data Collection Date of Occurrence iwnl� Method __ Photo # (if availabVI.
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
4/17/2015
4/17/2015
Visual On-site (active
Not Available
overbank event)
Visual On-site (wrack,
6/30/2015
unknown
sediment staining, alluvial
Not Available
deposits)
unknown — likely
Visual On-site (wrack,
2/18/2016
caused by beaver dam
sediment staining, alluvial
Overbank 1,2,3
breach
deposits, flattened
vegetation)
Visual On-site (log jam
7/20/2016
unknown
from previous high flow
Overbank 4
event)
8
7
G 6
v 5
4
0 3
2
1
0
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site / 80
2016 Precipitation Data through Oct. 25, 2016
Month - Year
Amount (in.)
. — 70%
30%
5

APPENDIX F
Detailed Thalweg Profile

551
550
C
549
cC
d
W
548
547
546 +--
1000
Profile Reach
(UT to Sandy Creek Sta. 10+00 to 14+50)
Large beaver dam at upstream end of project was
breached in late MY 3 or early MY 4, resulting in
sediment deposition in pools downstream. No
information whether cause was intentional/human or
accidental/natural.
1050 1100 1150
—Thalweg, Baseline —Thalweg, MY1
Beaver Dam - MY2,
Removed May 2015 in MY3
1200 1250 1300 1350
Station (ft)
Thalweg, MY2 Thalweg, MY3 —Thalweg, MY 0 Structures, MY3
1400
1450

552
551
550
C
549
d
W
548
547
Profile Reach
(UT to Sandy Creek Sta. 14+50 to 19+00)
546 4---
1450
1500
1550
1600
—Thalweg, Baseline —Thalweg, MY1
1650
Thalweg, MY2
1700
Station (ft)
1750
1800
Thalweg, MY3 —Thalweg, MY 4 ■ Structures, MY3 —XS1
1850
1900

552 -
550
C
549
d
W
548
547
546 4---
1900
Profile Reach
(UT to Sandy Creek Sta. 19+00 to 23+50)
Culverted Road Crossing, Left
Culvert Pipe
Beaver Dam - MY3,
Removed May 2015 in MY3
1950 2000 2050
—Thalweg, Baseline Thalweg, MY1 Thalweg, MY2
2100 2150 2200 2250
Station (ft)
Thalweg, MY3 —Thalweg, MY4 0 Structures, MY3 —Left Culvert, MY4 —XS2
2300
2350

552
551
550
C
549
d
W
548
547
Profile Reach
(UT to Sandy Creek Sta. 23+50 to 28+00
546 4--
2350
2400 2450 2500
—Thalweg, Baseline —Thawleg, MY1
NOTE: This MY 3 Point was shot slightly
off the thalweg on top of a log J -hook.
The corresponding MY 4 point (below)
was shot where the thalweg spills over
the log J -hook.
2550 2600 2650 2700
Station (ft)
Thalweg, MY2 Thalweg, MY3 —Thalweg MY 4 ■ Structures, MY3 —XS3 —XS4
2750
JA
2800