20050408 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20140601

CHARLES WILLIAMS STREAM, WETLAND, AND BUFFER SITE
EEP Project No. 80
MONITORING YEAR 1 (2014)
Construction Completed February 2013
Planting Completed February 2014
Alamance 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
IL 72
rRocxnx�
FINAL REPORT June 2014

Prepared by:
ECOLOGICAL
ENGINEERING
1151 SE Cary Parkway, Suite 101
Cary, NC 27518
919.557.0929
www.ecologicaleng.com
G. Lane Sauls, Jr., Principal
Under Contract With:
f
5U N GATE
DESIGN GROUP
This assessment and report are consistent with NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Template Version 1.4 (11/07/11) for EEP Monitoring Reports.

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 Conditions and Performance Relative to Success Criteria ................................... 3
1.6 Other Information............................................................................................................... 3
2.0 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................. 4
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
Planting List Summary
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

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 restoration and/or 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 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, the east by
Ramseur -Julian Road and the south by Sandy Creek. Northeastern Randolph Middle School is on the property
Monitoring Report Year 1 (2014) Page 1
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP June 2014

opposite of Sandy Creek, to the south. The Project Site can be accessed by using the following directions from
US Highway 64.
• 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 SR 2442
(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.
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
Pre -Implementation Existing Conditions Summary
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
Exotic 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 is consistent with the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Regulatory District's
guidance for stream and wetland mitigation and the NCDENR's guidance for riparian buffer credit. The USACE
guidance documents the survival of a minimum of 320 planted woody stems/acre after Monitoring Year 3
(MY3). A mortality rate of 10% will be allowed after MY4 assessments (288 stems/acre) and correspondingly,
MY5 assessments (260 stems/acre). The NCDENR guidance documents successful riparian buffer credit if at
least 320 native, planted, hardwood stems/acre (trees only) are surviving at the end of the MY 5.
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-meter2
vegetation plots (Figure 2). Assessments included counts of both planted and natural stems. Due to the timing
of vegetation surveys, planted hardwood species that were unknown due to age, lack of bark formation,
wildlife browsing of buds, etc. were included in the stem counts. These species will be identified during MY2
monitoring activities. Based on the current monitoring effort, seven of eight vegetation plots met the
minimum success criteria established for MY3 stream/wetland mitigation criteria and 10 of 12 plots met the
Monitoring Report Year 1 (2014) Page 2
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP June 2014

criteria for riparian buffer credit. Appendices B and C depict more detailed information regarding the
vegetation condition, including annual photograph comparisons.
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. 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 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. 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.
Bankfull events were recorded during November 2013 and March 2014. Evidence of these events consisted of
wrack material above the bankfull indicators along the channel and cork shavings within the crest gage present
at approximately 36 and 30 inches, respectively. Annual photograph comparisons of the stream channel are
depicted in Appendix B and hydrologic data associated with this year's monitoring assessment is provided in
Appendix E.
1.5 Wetland Conditions and Performance Relative to Success Criteria
Wetland enhancement work was performed throughout the existing wetland areas. 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 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, as well as provide valuable habitat for wildlife.
1.6 Other Information
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver 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 signage along the conservation easement area is limited and does not currently meet EEP guidelines.
Monitoring Report Year 1 (2014) Page 3
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP June 2014

2.0 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 geo-referenced. Longitudinal profile station 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.
Particle size distribution protocols followed the Wolman Pebble Count Procedure, which requires an observer
with a metric ruler 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' 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 gage was installed near the downstream end of the Site along the UT. This gage will verify the on-site
occurrences of bankfull events. In addition to the crest gage, observations of wrack and deposition will also
serve to validate gage observations, as necessary. Documentation of the highest stage during the monitoring
interval will be assessed during each Site visit and the gage will be reset. The data related to bankfull
verification will be summarized in each year's report. Based on the elevation of the crest gage, any readings
observed higher than 22 inches on the gage will reflect a bankfull or above bankfull event.
Monitoring Report Year 1 (2014) Page 4
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP June 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-
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 1 (2014)
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County
Prepared by Ecological Engineering, LLP
Page 5
June 2014

APPENDIX A.
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables

he whjerl yrpled site 3s an ernl unrn m l m=rado Mw dthe NCOENR FwwMrn Enharrne m Pmwam /l _
IEFP} and I5 er,�nmpas and by a r nrded cpnsereatlon easernem, but IF lwdlred by land under pdr�lp ✓ _
owrprshiµ AgceF1oU,e ;ie, may r,,gwe ,N; 10e r gr Palevn ygraAarr -d - -
er�'rbre tN.S yr pt$~01 public la nut AIXv, 1, eu1h1r111d pa5vdnsl br;tlle 1M Federal
agendas a 9r Nr deslphees�eentraeams Imnleed Inthe dwdepment, =w%lghtand slewardshlp a1She Y!"sa .• _ W E,
—Wr fiOIiTe it pamilaPd MM fiM aFrm;-d X miirybr M ZK dKe"141". Arty lm "Pdyla�
ri Uffi.n a .CUuf br dnr per earr bulli de Mese pr.lbwlr Sa an rN&I awl edyr:aes requlw prier , •! GE 6w
I —dlrral Frith Err.
II :._ ..iP^ {r 1 �l wry •�-••�'.
1 ?'
0 1 000 2,000 Feet
.y
-
77
j F _
6M
Conservation Easement`
Boo a Cr
r�1 - • i aedyravt�-
'. f - �/ sandy Creek Church Road
-._{'. r.. 1, c .. 4. - Ir
0
GUILFGRD 1�
�-
' - x 54eakm 7
. .I�+unprsteA II •
1
CHATHAM � ria)
RANDOLPH'" �
Prepared By: ECOLOGICAL ENGINEERING
1151 SE Caly Palkway, Sit ite 101
Cary, NC 27518 ,
919-557-0929
Prepared For- NCEEP
217 West Jones 51. r�
Suite 30oQA
Raleigh, NC 27603 �,;1113Er[tYllt<.1�
role 7 Silo can be a:n. ssed6Y using the }allowing directions Bran US Highway EA �
rmrit on US alt in Siler Cty, to =11 the Town ol-lib-ony
::eed apprw6wloly 9.5 miles end Orn south (1911) onlo AJC 40
:::sed apvrommal* 0.7 miles along NC 49 and turn north (60[
-., SR 2459 [Sandy Creek Church Ready.
nw Sandy Creak Church Road oopeo dma'Gly 4 5 miya
- it inlersocls with SR 2452 (Ramseur•Julian Ready and tum Hath [right},
:.•Uw Ramseur,lulian R9ad appfWimalely 0.3 mII9s, amrsirlg OY9r $9hdy CrrlQk
n� ChMtea Williams Site Is on the wftl [loll) aide u1 Ate roadreE, immedanely "11h )l Sandy C:i
Charles Williams Site
Vicinity Map
Randolph County, NC FIGURE
EEP Contract No. D08035S 1
July 2013
Source- USGS Ouadranala MaoS (Grans Chaoal)

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland and Buffer Site/ 80
Mitigation
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
ComponentsProject
Restoration or
Restoration
Mitigation
Project Component
Stationing/Location
Existing Footage/ Acreage
Approach
Restoration
Footage or
Rati o
Equivalent
Acreage
Stream Enhancement
10+00 to 27+53
1,850 linear feet
EI
RE
1,233
1.5: 1
Riparian Wetland
areas east and west of U T
2.2 acres
E
RE
1.1
2: 1
Enhancement
to Sandy Creek
Buffer Restoration
Sandy Creek and UTto
201,481 square feet
R
R
201,481
1 : 1
TOB - 50'
Sandy Creek
Buffer Restoration (50'
Sandy Creek and UTto
119,203 square feet
R
R
119,203
1 : 1
100')
Sandy Creek
Buffer Restoration (101'
Sandy Creek and UTto
63,704 square feet
R
R
15,926
- 200')
Sandy Creek
Component
Buffer (squareUpland
Restoration Level
Stream (linear feet)
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Non-riparian Wetland (acres)
(acres)
feet)
Riverine Non-riverine
Restoration
384,208
Enhancement
2.2
Enhancement 1
1,850
Enhancement 11
Creation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
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; N I = 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, 1 month
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete (Feb 2014): 1 month
Number of Reporting Years: 1
ReportActivity or D.. Collection Complete Completion
Mitigation Plan September -08
or Delivery
May -09
Final Design - Construction Plans November -09
April -12
Construction
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
January -13
Bare -rooted Planting Applied
February -14
Baseline Monitoring Document June -13
July -13
Year 1 Monitoring March -14
May -14
Year 2 Monitoring
Firm Information/ Address
Year 3 Monitoring
908 Indian Trail Road, Edenton, NC 27932
Year 4 Monitoring
[phone]
Year 5 Monitoring
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 800, Cary, NC 27518
Year 6 Monitoring (vegetation only)
[phone]
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Charles Williams Stream Wetland and Buffer Site/ 80
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 [phone]
N C Forest Service Tree N ursery [phone]
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
Lane Sauls (stream, vegetation & wetland)
[phone]

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Charles Williams Stream Wetland and Buffer Site/ 80
Project Name
77
Charles Williams Stream Wetland and Buffer Site
County
Randolph
Project Area
18 acres
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35°49'31.95" North/ 79°39'02.64" West
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
7Hydrologicit
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit 03030003
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
Agricultural Land
now_
Length of Reach
1,753 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 5%
Size of Wetland
or
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 (CZMAICAMA)
Not Applicable
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Resolved
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Not Applicable

APPENDIX B.
Visual Assessment Data

Ramseur Julian Road
Vegetation Plot 12
404 planted stemslac
_
647 total stemslac
-Northeast
Randolph
Middle School
ki
Vegetation Plot 11 --
•
242 planted stemslac
_
323 total stemslac
UJ
_..�
Vegetation Plot 10
-
323 planted stemslac
323 total stemslac
r
f
AiL
LEGEND
Conservation Easement Boundary
Vegetation Plot meeting 320 planted
stemslacre threshold
Vegetation Plot not meeting 320
-
planted stemslacre threshold
Easement Encroachment Area
Vegetation Plot 9
_ _
_
445 planted stemslac
688 total stemslac
Map Source: Google Earth �
. _ Imagery Date 411512013 �, �
Information
depicted •Figure
2a
200 feet
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
ECOLOGICAL
6ENGINEERING
Charles
Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site, Randolph County, NC
FIGURE 3b
EEP Project No. 80 June 3, 2014

m
m
m
m
U
0
m
0
U
c
0
c
m
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
pMj
c0
M
W
c0
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
� O
O
y 4:
d N
N
c
N
a
F2
m
LfJ
LL'J
OJ
OJ
OJ
M
OJ
OJ
M
EM
O � _
Y!. co ca
� C
NT^O
'Pd
Ln C
N
Y
in N (n
as
m
(D
U
¢
(n Enl
(� fC
O
O
O
ai <EIg
N
a)
m N
ui Q
N
p
l0
m
N
M 6
Q
E2Lci
a
N
d
(gy�pp
a
O
N
01
N
a) U
N
b
No
Y
m
O
c
C
a7
E m
s
p
U
a)
0
U
.". to
m
.
a)
a
>
O_
E
l6 N
a�
a
o�
v
C
c
c
-°o
_�
;
0
d N
a>
"o
�
m
0
ME
C
E
S ti
a
Sc
ami
E
u'i
N
o m
o
,To
Sx
m fl-
a 'l6
O
E
N
C i3
U
�i
L
y
g
y
C
. N "d
O
O
am
�
N
_C
E N
E a� o
V c
a
>
t -�
c
vxOi
LD>,
a>
3
m a
aSi
> a�
m
m
m
£
La
co
o c a
a
aci
aci
c' (D
a`) m
L
a
m
CD Al
S - 6 v
(n
¢ a
"
"
cYi c
aNi
o
aNi
`a
€ o
m
O
d
ai
t6
C
U
C >
O
C
N
a)
Q H
D
J
(6
M N
o
ai O
m
a5
m
O
(n
m
O N
a 0
C
C
O
O
O
C
C
9>
b
U
N
o
O
a
wS
�
5
9
!
-SU
C
o
a)m
a`5 p
c
3
o
a)ti
m
w
CL
Y
49
O
a) O
m
U
C
a5
>
L
.Q
>
1102
U
FE
cn
O
(7
a
m
x
U
Y
c
m
m
w (n

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site/ 80
Planted Acreage:
16 acres
Mappingegetation
Category
Definitions
Polygons
Threshold Depiction
Acreage
Acreage
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
Bare Areas
0.1 acres Na
n/a
Na
Na
material.
Low Stem Density
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels
0.1 acres n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Areas
based on MY 3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
Total
n/a
n/a
n/a
Areas of Poor Growth
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are
0.25 acres n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rates or Vigor
obviously small given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
n/a
n/a
Na
Estimated Acreage:
18 acres
. . ! -
0•. UP.
..•
..-
CategoryRegetation
Invasive Areas of
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at
1,000 SF
See CCPV
3
<.1 acres
<1
Concern
map scale).
Easement
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at
1,000 SF
See CCPV
1
0.2 acres
<1%
Encroachment Areas
map scale).

Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site/ 80
Annual Photograph Comparison
Vegetation Plot 1
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot 3
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot
Facing Southwest
Baseline MYO (June 2013)
MY1 (March 2014)
Vol

Vegetation Plot
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot 7
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot 8
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot 9
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot 10
Facing Southwest
Baseline MYO (June 2013)
MY1 (March 2014)

Vegetation Plot 11
Facing Southwest
Vegetation Plot 12
Facing Southwest
Cross Section 1
Facing West
Cross Section 1
Facing
Dow nstream
Cross Section 2
Facing West
Baseline MYO (June 2013)
MY1 (March 2014)

Cross Section 2
Facing
Downstream
Cross Section 3
Facing West
Cross Section 3
Facing
Downstream
Cross Section 4
Facing West
Cross Section 4
Facing
Dow nstream
Baseline MYO (June 2013)
MY1 (March 2014)

APPENDIX C.
Vegetation Plot Data

PLANTING LIST ASCERTAINED FROM EEP
Sandy Creek (Charles Williams)
Species
Type
Riparian
Qt %
Wetland
Qt °/a
Nursery
Betula nigra
2-0 BR
300
10%
100
11%
NCFS
Carya glabra
2-0 BR
100
3%
6
Yes Yes Stream/Wetland Veg. = 67%
NCFS
Carya tomentosa
2-0 BR
200
7%
n/a Yes
10
NCFS
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2-0 BR
275
9%
100
11%
NCFS
Linodendron tuhpifera
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
340
10%
NCFS
Rmelanchier 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
Box vertibilata
1 -gal
37
4%
Native Roots
Magnolia virginiana
1 -gal
38
4%
Native Roots
3,074
100%
875
100%
N ote:
All Vegetation Plots aside from Plots #1 and #2 exhibit unidentified planted hardwood stems. These counts were
included in the MY1 assessments. Species identification will be conducted on those unknown stems during the growing
season associated with MY2 activities.
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site/ 80
Plot ID
Strearn/Wetland Vegetation Buffer Vegetation Survival Mract Mean
ThresholdVegetation
Survival Threshold.Mm
1
Yes Yes
2
No No
3
Yes Yes
4
Yes Yes
5
Yes Yes
6
Yes Yes Stream/Wetland Veg. = 67%
7
Yes Yes Buffer Veg. = 100%
8
Yes Yes
9
n/a Yes
10
n/a Yes
11
n/a N o
12
n/a Yes
N ote:
All Vegetation Plots aside from Plots #1 and #2 exhibit unidentified planted hardwood stems. These counts were
included in the MY1 assessments. Species identification will be conducted on those unknown stems during the growing
season associated with MY2 activities.

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site/ 80
Report Prepared By
Date Prepared
database name
database location
computer name
file size
Metadata
Proj, planted
Proj, total stems
Plots
Vigor
Vigor by Spp
Damage
Damage by Spp
Damage by Plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
Project Code
project Name
Description
River Basin
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
Lane Sauls
3/17/201416:39
Sandy C reekC harlesWilliams_80_RandolphC ounty_Year 0. mdb
P:\10000 Consultants\10227 Sungate\10227-017_Charles Williams Monitoring\CVS
Database
LSAULSPC
62709760
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and
project data.
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 year. This includes live
stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing,
etc.).
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
List of most frequent damage classes w ith number of occurrences and percent of total
stems impacted by each.
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage values tallied by type for each plot
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and
missing stems are excluded.
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers
combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
80
Sandy Creek - Charles Williams
Stream, Wetland and Buffer
Cape Fear
1,753
5 to 12
1,302
12
12

E E
a■1�■1■�1111��
��
a�1■1■11�1��
�■�11�1�1�11�
11
��
a�1�■1■1�1��
11
e
ai11■1■11■110
11
u ���11�1�11�111110
IIIIIIIiIR;�olii
a■��■�■��'t���
�■�ii�iii�i��
to
io
•II�Illill�liilINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IN
ii
1
III
1111111
E E

APPENDIX D.
Stream Survey Data

Cross Section Plot Exhibits
River Basin:
Cape Fear
Drainage Area (sq mi):
4.9
Date:
'
Field Crew:
E. Hajnos, R. Robol
1
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type:
C5 Photograph facing downstream @ XS 1
Width/Depth Ratio:
22.7
UT to Sandy Creek, Cross Section 1, Riffle, Station: 14+41
560
559
558
5557
9 556
As -Built 2013
0 555
554
�>� MY1 2/26/14
d
w 553
- - - - - - - -
- - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum
552
- • • • Floodprone Area
551
550
0 10
20 30 40
50 60 70
Distance (feet)
Watershed: UT Sandy Creek, MY -SUMMARY DATA 01
0.0 554.5
XS ID: XS 1, Riffle, STA. 14+41
Elevation
Drainage Area (sq mi):
4.9
Date:
2126/2014
Field Crew:
E. Hajnos, R. Robol
Depth at Bankfull: 1.6
41.5 553.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.0
Station
Elevation
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Station
Elevation

River Basin:
Watershed:
Cape Fear
01
Sandy Creek, MY -SUMMARY
Bankfull Elevation:
4.9
Date:
r.
Field Crew:
XS ID: 2, Glide, STA. 19+36
Drainage Arej(sqml)::qr
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
555.6
Flood Prone Width:
200+
Max. Depth at Bankfull:
2.8
DA��
1.6
Width/Depth Ratio:
12.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
>10
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
57.4
552.9
C5 Photograph facing downstream @ XS 2
UT to Sandy Creek, Cross Section 2, Run, Station: 19+36
560
558
556
..... ...... ...... ...... ...... .....
0 554
---- --
w 552
550
548
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (feet)
As -Built 2013
f MY1 2/26/14
- - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum
. • • • Floodprone Area
70
Station Elevation
0.0 552.9
7.9 553.6
14.1 553.1
18.5 552.8
20.1 552.2
21.8 551.2
23.5 550.4
24.7 550.0
27.0 550.7
29.4 550.9
32.5 550.9
34.8 551.0
35.3 551.2
37.4 552.2
39.5 552.9
47.0 553.1
Bankfull Elevation:
4.9
Date:
212612014
Field Crew:
E. Hajnos, R. Robol
Station Elevation
0.0 552.9
7.9 553.6
14.1 553.1
18.5 552.8
20.1 552.2
21.8 551.2
23.5 550.4
24.7 550.0
27.0 550.7
29.4 550.9
32.5 550.9
34.8 551.0
35.3 551.2
37.4 552.2
39.5 552.9
47.0 553.1
Bankfull Elevation:
552.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area:
32.8
Bankfull Width:
20.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
555.6
Flood Prone Width:
200+
Max. Depth at Bankfull:
2.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
Width/Depth Ratio:
12.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
>10
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
57.4
552.9

River Basin:
Watershed:
I(sqml)::qk�U
Cape Fear
T Sandy Creek, MY -01
Station'M
Elevation
-A.
4.
0.0 551.6
XS ID: XS 3, Run, STA. 23+49
Drainage Area 4.9
17.3 552.0
18.8 551.6
Date: 2126/2014
21.3 550.1
Field Crew: E. Hainos, R. Robol
22.6 549.2
SUMMARY DA��
23.9 549.0
25.5 549.0
Bankfull Elevation: 551.8
26.7 549.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area: 24.5
27.8 550.0
Bankfull Width: 17.8
31.2 550.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 554
33.1 550.8
Flood Prone Width: 200+
37.2 550.6
Max. Depth at Bankfull: 26
39.6 551.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
14
45.8
552.5
Stream Type:
C5 Phobgraphfacing downstrearn@XS3
Width/Depth Ratio:
12.9
58.8
551.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
>8
Bank Height Ratio:
1
UT to Sandy Creek, Cross Section 3,1311de, Station: 23+49
560
558 -
-
556 -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6 554
>
41 552 - - - - - - - - - - -
550
548
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (feet)
As -Built 2013
MY1 2/26/14
- - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum
. . . . Floodprone Area

River Basin:
Watershed:
Cape Fear
andy Creek, MY -01
XS ID:
Drainage AreI(sqml):Or
, Ride, STA. 27+14
4.9
Date:
2126/2014
Field Crew:
E. Hainos, R. Robol
SUMMARY ,.
Elevation
Bankfull Elevation:
551.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area:
37.8
Bankfull Width:
24.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
554.5
Flood Prone Width:
200+
Max. Depth at Bankfull:
2.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
Width/Depth Ratio:
15.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
>8.0
Bank Height Ratio:
0.4
Station
Elevation
0.0
551.0
11.2
551.1
16.9
551.5
23.3
551.6
26.0
550.7
27.7
549.8
28.5
548.7
30.4
548.7
31.9
548.8
33.1
548.9
34.7
549.2
35.9
549.8
36.2
549.9
44.5
550.7
48.6
551.9
57.4
551.9
63.8
552.1
UT to Sandy Creek, Cross Section 4, Riffle, Station: 27+14
560
558
m
556
m
c
554
0
552
m
LU 550
548
546
Stream Type: I C5 I Photograph facing downstream @ XS 4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (feet)
As -Built 2013
f MY1 2/26/14
- - - Baseline Bankfull Monitoring Datum
• • • Floodprone Area

Longitudinal Profile Plot Exhibit
O
U') LO U-) Ln m Lf) 'T
(:j) UOIIUA813
•
J.
HIM
1
0
0
I` C.0 r
IT NT
LO LO

Cross Section Pebble Count Exhibits
Summary Data
D50 0.29 mm
D84 0.55 mm
D95 1.5 mm
100%
90%
80%
d 70%
i 60%
>_ 50%
40%
E
v 30%
20%
10%
0%
100%
.- 90%
80%
a 70%
60%
rj 50%
m 40%
'2 30%
a 20%
10%
0%
-c; O N V Vf OD N N N M Yl O OC O
O O N O
a
Particle Size (mm)
Cumulative Percent
—2014 MY 1 (March 2014) N
0.01 0.1 1 30 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
■ 2014 MY 1 (March 2014)
Summary Data
D50 0.16 mm
D84 0.50 mm
D95 1.0 mm
100%
.- 90%
80%
a 70%
w 60%
�j 50%
m 40%
30%
'0 20%
10%
0% 00pp
NN O O O h O M O M M V t�D T N W .O N N C
O O O .� N V N W N. N N N M Yl O O O
66 N O
v
Particle Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
■ 2014 MY 1 (March 2014)
Charles Williams
Stream, Wetland,
Cross Section:
Feature: Riffle
and Buffer Site 180
I
2014 MY 1 (March 2014)
��0�
rr •
Summary Data
D50 0.29 mm
D84 0.55 mm
D95 1.5 mm
100%
90%
80%
d 70%
i 60%
>_ 50%
40%
E
v 30%
20%
10%
0%
100%
.- 90%
80%
a 70%
60%
rj 50%
m 40%
'2 30%
a 20%
10%
0%
-c; O N V Vf OD N N N M Yl O OC O
O O N O
a
Particle Size (mm)
Cumulative Percent
—2014 MY 1 (March 2014) N
0.01 0.1 1 30 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
■ 2014 MY 1 (March 2014)
Summary Data
D50 0.16 mm
D84 0.50 mm
D95 1.0 mm
100%
.- 90%
80%
a 70%
w 60%
�j 50%
m 40%
30%
'0 20%
10%
0% 00pp
NN O O O h O M O M M V t�D T N W .O N N C
O O O .� N V N W N. N N N M Yl O O O
66 N O
v
Particle Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
■ 2014 MY 1 (March 2014)

p
Charles Williams
Stream, Welland,
Cross Section:
Feature: Run
and Buffer Si
3
L;&Ib.
2014 MY 1 (March 2014)
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total p
Item %
Cum
SiIVCIay
silVclay
0.062
4
8%
8%
very fine sand
0.125
12
24%
32%
fine sand
0.25
14
28%
60%
Sand
medium sand
0.5
12
24%
84%
coarse sand
1.0
5
10%
941/.
very coarse sand
2.0
3
6%
100%
very finegravel
4.0
0
0%
100%
fine gravel
5.7
0
0%
100%
fine gravel
8.0
0
0%
100%
medium gravel
11.3
0
0%
100%
Gravel
medium gravel
16.0
0
0%
100%
coarse gravel
22.3
0
0%
100%
coarse gravel
32
0
0%
100%
very coarse gravel
45
0
0%
100%
very coarse gravel
64
0
0%
100%
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
Cobble
medium cobble
128
0
0%
100%
large cobble
180
0
0%
100%
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
50
100%
Summary Data
D50 0.20 mm
D84 0.50 mm
D95 1.4 mm
Summary Data
D50 0.20 mm
D84 0.40 mm
D95 0.6 mm
100%
90%
80%
d 70%
a 60%
>_ 50%
40%
E
� 30%
20%
10%
0%
0.01
Cumulative Percent
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
c
� 80%
a 70%
60%
ij 50%
w 40%
0 30%
'0 20%
10%
0%
N o
Particle Size (mm)
■ 2014 MY 1 (March 2014)
Cumulative Percent
�■1111111■■Il mid■1111111■1111111■1111111
�■1111111■1'/lllll�■1111111■1111111■1111111
�■11111111■�/llllll�■1111111■1111111■1111111
.,. ■1111111�I1111111�■1111111— MY 1 (March 2 014)
50%
■IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�■1111111■■nmi�■■■rad
'■IIIIIIII■1111111■1111111■1111111■1111111
�■1111111►I■1111111■1111111■1111111■1111111
�■11111Zi■1111111■1111111■1111111■1111111
■111�III�■1111111■1111111■1111111■1111111
■�111111�■�IIIIII�■�111111�■�IIIIII�■�IIIIII
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size (mm)
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
a 70%
60%
ij 50%
w 40%
.�
30%
'0 20%
10%
0%
N N O O O n O m O M N o N 0
O
6 6 O
^ v
Particle 8Ize(mm)
■ 2014 MY 1 (March 2014)

.
#
milli
11111
milli
11
milli
�11
11111
1111111111
Mill
I����
\2
I.\}
\
Mill
111111
11111111111111
11111
Mill
milli
I
•'
1111111111
Mill
INS
ƒ\
���������
�����
�����
•j
1111111111
Mill
11111
\\{
2
milli
111111111111111
mill
\
\
milli
Mill
1111111111
Mill
11111
Mill
11
Mill
SIR
HIM
III
IIIIIIIIIIII
11
.
#

/
§
k
�
9
/\
E§
%«
\
�
Co
/§_
/\
Ek.
&
2cu
in\-
cn
\
\\f\
k

•,
����������������������
Z:)����������������������
•'
����������������������
•
����������������������

011■11■�1�■111.�1�1■11
����II�����I������II
X11■11■�1�■11■■11■11■11
X11■11■�1�1
1■11■11
X11■11■�1�1
11
1■11■11
X11■11■�1�1
11
1■1
11
�����������
��
��
I
X11■11■WI■�
11
1
-X11■11■�1■��
11
1■11■11
�����I��I
����II����1
- X11■11■�1�1
11�1■11�1
�I�1���������
�������
11�!
X11■11■t■Ir■1111
1■11■11
:..�11■11■t■1�■11111■11■11
11■11■�IIIII�■11
11
X11■11■�IIIII�■11
11
1�■�1
t
t
1
1
11
�I
�����■�III�
��1
11
��IC:��i�I��CI�CC��
I
i.
��

APPENDIX E.
Hydrology Data

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site 180 - UT to Sandy Creek: 1,850 linear feet
Date of Data Collection Date of Occurrence Method Photo # (if available)
11/6/2013 unknown Crest Gage Not Available
3/6/2014 unknown Visual On-site (wrack) Not Available
s
Charles Williams Stream, Wetland, and Buffer Site / 80
2013-2014 Precipitation Data
a 2
1
0
No�' r\"' NO3
Month -Year
Amount (in.)
70%
30%