20100103 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20090521

4 ?
MCDONALDS POND RESTORATION SITE
2008 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3)
Richmond County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. D04020-2
Design Firm: International Paper
March 2009
2 0 1 0 0 1 0 3
Prepared for: NCDENR - ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1619
Prepared by: ECOSCIENCE: A DIVISION OF PBS&J
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101 n
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
ve,
F F,
1q,4
DENR - W',1 c . ,•• .
WETLANDS AND STQRN!s ,'ATER B.MNGH 4H NC FC d 2001
ANCeQu4r RC?U
?Akf
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
MCDONALDS POND RESTORATION SITE
2008 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3)
RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
PREPARED BY:
INTERNATIONAL (@ PAPER
INTERNATIONAL PAPER
PROJECT MANAGER: JAMES (BOB) TOBERMANN
6400 Poplar Avenue
Memphis, TN 38197
AND
i (W'cicncc
A division of P'
ECOSCIENCE: A DIVISION OF PBS&J
PROJECT MANAGER: DAVID JONES
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
March 2009
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
2 0 1 0 0 1 0 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
In response to a Request for Proposal (RFP, No. 16-D04016) issued in December of 2003, International
Paper Company (IP) proposed the establishment of the McDonalds Pond Restoration Site (hereafter
referred to as the "Site") located in Richmond County, approximately two (2) miles northeast of the town
of Hamlet and three (3) miles east of the town of Rockingham. In order to provide stream channel
restoration and riverine wetland restoration, IP has removed the McDonalds Pond Dam (Dam) located on
Falling Creek.
The Site comprises approximately 128 acres, and includes the 17.7 acre McDonalds Pond (a.k.a Shepards
Lake), portions of Falling Creek, numerous headwater tributaries and over 80 acres of forested riparian
wetlands, seepage wetlands, and marsh wetlands.
The Dam was removed in a manner to minimize potential impacts to water resources both upstream and
downstream of the dam. Gradual dewatering and phased dam removal were undertaken to avoid
introducing sediments and pollutants into the receiving Falling Creek reaches downstream. Heavy
equipment operated from or within the footprint of the former Dam during dam removal operations,
thereby minimizing the impact to the adjacent intact forest and wetland soil. Dam removal began with the
dewatering (lowering) of the pond in the fall of 2005, followed by the clearing of trees and small bushes
from the former earthen dam in February 2006. Excavation activities continued for approximately two
weeks until dam removal was complete in mid-March 2006.
Monitoring Plan
Monitoring activities began in March 2006 (Year 1), and will be performed for at least five-years or until
success criteria are achieved. Post removal monitoring data will be compared to reference sites as well as
biological baseline values collected in September 2004. Primary success criteria of the project include: 1)
the successful classification of restored/enhanced reaches as functioning systems, 2) channel stability
indicative of a stable stream system, 3) development of characteristic lotic aquatic communities, 4)
establishment of wetland hydrology (as defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE] Wetlands
Delineation Manual) within the former pond footprint, and 5) vegetative success of 320 stems/acre after
the third year of monitoring and 260 stems/acre after the fifth and final year of monitoring. The following
monitoring report describes the results of monitoring activities completed during (2008) Year 3
monitoring.
Year 3 Monitoring Results (2008)
Stream Assessment
Restored and enhanced segments of Falling Creek have continued to establish braided, anastomosed,
bifurcated, and single-threaded channels characteristic of the area. Restored and enhanced stream
segments across the Site have further developed stream pattern, profile, and dimension similar to that of
reference reaches. Cross-sections located within the former pond indicate that deposited pond sediment
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
continues to be transported downstream, as evidenced by increased bankfull areas. In addition, stream
banks have further stabilized with native vegetation.
Aquatic community assemblages within the former pond have maintained characteristics of a natural lotic
system. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the macroinvertebrate samples taken in October 2008 (Year 3) from
restored segments of Falling Creek (within the former pond) consisted of macroinvertebrate genera
predominantly found in lotic systems. Genera predominantly found in lentic systems represented only
eight percent (8%) of species collected within the former pond from the Year 3 sample.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Habitat Assessment Forms (HAFs) were completed
at multiple locations along the restored and enhanced segments of Falling Creek. The HAF scores
indicate that the restored and enhanced stream segments continue to develop in-stream habitat
characteristic of reference reaches.
Wetland Vegetation Assessment
Vegetation monitoring for Year 3 was performed based on the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) Levels
1 and 2 at eight (8) 10 x 10 meter plots. Based on Year 3 monitoring, the average count of surviving
planted species is 536 stems per acre. If volunteer species are included, the total survival increases to
3561 stems per acre. The Site exceeds the established success criteria of 320 stems/acre after the third
year and is on track to exceed the success criteria of 260 stems/acre after the fifth and final year.
Wetland Hydrology Assessment
Even though extreme drought conditions occurred in the area, all four (4) on-Site groundwater gauges
have registered water levels within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for at least 28 consecutive days
(Richmond County, NRCS) or 12.5 percent (12.5%) of the growing season. Therefore, wetland
hydrology at the Site is meeting the required success criteria.
Summary
Following the third year of monitoring, restored streams within the former pond have continued to
develop stable lotic conditions typical of reference systems. Pattern, profile, and dimension data obtained
from channel surveys indicate that stream geomorphology continues to shift toward that of reference
reaches. Stable single-threaded (E-channel) and braided (DA-channel) streams have continued to develop
at the Site. Groundwater gauge data within the former pond indicates restored wetland hydrology (despite
drought conditions) and closely resembles that of the upstream reference gauge. Vegetation surveys
support the establishment of a Streamhead Pocosin/Atlantic White Cedar forest community with thriving
planted and volunteer species. Stream, wetland vegetation, and wetland hydrology success criteria were
met in Year 3 monitoring.
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
ii
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... i
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... . I
1.1 Location and Setting .......................................................................................................... .1
1.2 Restoration Structure and Objectives ................................................................................. . l
1.3 Project Objectives .............................................................................................................. . l
1.4 Project History and Background ........................................................................................ .3
2.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS .......................................................... .5
2.1 Stream Assessment ............................................................................................................ .5
2. 1.1 Stream Channel Morphology ................................................................................. . 5
2.1.2 Stream Problem Areas .......................................................................................... 11
2.1.3 Aquatic Communities ........................................................................................... 11
2.1.4 Habitat Assessment .............................................................................................. 13
2.2 Wetland Assessment ......................................................................................................... 14
2.2.1 Vegetation Assessment ......................................................................................... 14
2.2.2 Groundwater Hydrology ....................................................................................... 16
2.2.3 Wetland Criteria Attainment ................................................................................ 16
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 17
APPENDICIES
Appendix A: Figures
1. Site Location
2. Stream Monitoring Plan View
3. Stream Monitoring Reach Plan Views
4. Vegetation Monitoring Plots
5. Monitoring Gauges
6. North Carolina Drought Monitor Data
Appendix B: Stream Geomorphology Data
Appendix C: Aquatic Community Data
Appendix D: NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet: Coastal Plain
Appendix E: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix F: Groundwater Gauge Hydrographs
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
iii
LIST OF TABLES '
Table 1. Summary of Stream and Wetland Mitigation Units ....................................................................2
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History ........................................ ....................................... 3

Table 3. '
Project Contacts .......................................................................................................................... 3
Table 3. Project Contacts (Cont.) ..............................................................................................................4
Table 4. Project Background .................................................................................................................... .4

Table 5.
Baseline Morphology and Hydrologic Summary ...................................................................... ,
.7
Table 6. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary ..................................................................... 8
Table 6a. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Cont.) .........................................................9

Table 6b.
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Cont.) ....................................................... '
10
Table 7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Metric Summary ........................................................................... 12
Table 8. NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Form Scores .............................................................................. 13

Table 9.
Stem Counts for Planted Species Arranged by Plot .................................................................. ,
15
Table 9a. Stem Counts for Volunteer Species Arranged by Plot .............................................................. 15
Table 10. Wetland Criteria Attainment ..................................................................................................... 16 ,
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site ,
iv
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 Location and Setting
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) is currently developing stream and wetland
restoration strategies for the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03040201. As a part of this
' effort, International Paper (IP) was selected to complete the McDonalds Pond Restoration Project located
in Richmond County. The McDonalds Pond Restoration Site (`hereafter referred to as the "Site") is
located approximately two (2) miles northeast of the town of Hamlet and three (3) miles east of the town
of Rockingham between NC Route 1 and NC Route 177 (Figure 1, Appendix A).
1.2 Restoration Structure and Objectives
' Falling Creek, the major drainage feature on-Site, was previously impounded by the McDonalds Pond
Dam (Dam), constructed over 70 years ago. Approximately 3,700 linear feet of Falling Creek and
tributaries were impacted by the construction of the pond dam including streams contained within the
pond footprint, as well as stream sections located both up and downstream of the pond. In addition,
' approximately 17.7 acres of riverine wetland were inundated with the construction of the dam.
Approximately 4.2 acres of the floodplain immediately upstream of the pond were impacted by the
"backwater effect" (the backing-up of water), creating marsh wetlands with saturated conditions
' unsuitable for historic wetland communities. An eroded pond outfall channel located at the northern
extent of the dam drained adjacent wetlands and redirected historic flows of the Falling Creek floodplain.
' Stream restoration efforts were achieved through the removal of the Dam resulting in the restoration of
2,969 linear feet of stream. The former Dam was excavated to the approximate level of the pre-existing
valley contours, allowing the stream unrestricted flow through the Site. Stream restoration efforts were
' designed to utilize passive stream channel restoration processes, allowing the channel to reestablish
naturally following the removal of the dam. Stream enhancement (Level I) was achieved through the
removal of the dam and the filling of the northern outfall channel, which returned the historic hydrologic
' characteristics (stream volume and velocity) to 770 feet of impacted stream channel downstream of the
former dam. Riverine wetland restoration was accomplished within the former 17.7 acre pond footprint
through the excavation of the Dam and the establishment of native Streamhead Pocosin and Atlantic
' White Cedar forest communities. Additionally, the Site includes the preservation of 5,800 linear feet of
stream, 77.8 acres of wetland, and 25.6 acres of upland/wetland ecotone buffer.
' 1.3 Project Objectives
The primary project goals include 1) the restoration of a stable, meandering stream channel through the
areas impacted by the Dam, 2) the restoration of historic lotic aquatic communities that represent the
' Site's natural range in variation, 3) the restoration of historic wetland conditions within the pond
footprint, and 4) the restoration of natural wetland plant communities within their historic locations.
' Additional potential benefits of the project include the restoration of wildlife functions associated with a
riparian corridor and stable stream and the enhancement of water quality function in the on-Site,
upstream, and downstream segments of Falling Creek and tributaries.
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
The specific goals of this project are to:
• Restore approximately 2,969 linear feet of historic stream course, flow volumes, and patterns
through the marsh wetlands, McDonalds Pond footprint, and immediately downstream of the
existing dam.
• Enhance an additional approximate 770 linear feet of Falling Creek downstream of the restored
stream channel extending into the gas line easement.
• Protect the headwaters of Falling Creek that are located within the Site through preservation of
approximately 5,800 linear feet of Falling Creek and associated tributaries.
• Restore approximately 17.7 acres of forested riverine wetlands within the McDonalds Pond
footprint.
• Enhance 4.2 acres of forested riverine wetlands within the marsh wetlands located at the head of
McDonalds Pond.
• Preserve 77.8 acres of forested riverine wetlands adjacent to Falling Creek and associated
tributaries.
• Restore and enhance habitat for vegetation and wildlife species, characteristic of Streamhead
Pocosin and Atlantic White Cedar Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
• Enhance the function and value of the Falling Creek wetland community through the preservation
of 25.6 acres of buffer along the Falling Creek stream/wetland complex.
Table 1. Summary of Stream and Wetland Mitigation Units

Restoration Activities Linear
feet
Acres Mitigation
Ratios Percentage
of Mitigation
Units Mitigation
Units
Stream Restoration 1,784 N/A 1:1 1,784
Stream Restoration
(undefined channel) 1,185 N/A 1:1 75 1,185
Stream Enhancement (Level I) 770 N/A 1:1.5 513
Stream Preservation 5,800 N/A 1:5 25 1,160
Total Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) Provided 4,642
Total SMUs Under Contract 4,364
Wetlands Restoration N/A 17.7 1:1 75 17.7
Wetland Enhancement N/A 4.2 1:2 2.1
Wetlands Preservation N/A 19 1:5 25 3.8
Total Wetland Mitigation Units (WMUs) Provided 23.6
Total WMUs Under Contract 23.4
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
2

1
1

1
1
1.4 Project History and Background
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting Histor y

Activity Report
Scheduled
Completion Data
Collection

Complete Actual
Completion or

Delivery
Restoration Plan *NA July 2005 August 2005
Final Design (90%) *NA Jul 2005 August 2005
Construction *NA N/A March 2006
Temporary S&E mix a plied to entire project area *NA N/A March 2006
Bare Root Seedling Installation *NA N/A March 2006
Mitigation Plan *NA June 2006 Jul 2006
Final Report *NA Oct 2006 Oct 2006
Year 1 Vegetation Monitoring Dec 2006 Oct 2006 Dec 2006
Year 1 Stream Monitoring Dec 2006 Oct 2006 Dec 2006
Year 2 Vegetation Monitoring Dec 2007 Oct 2007 February 2008
Year 2 Stream Monitoring Dec 2007 Oct 2007 February 2008
Year 3 Vegetation Monitoring Dec 2008 Oct 2008 Dec 2008
Year 3 Stream Monitoring Dec 2008 Oct 2008 Dec 2008
*NA - Scheduled completion dates unknown due to unanticipated project delays.
Table 3. Project Contacts
Designer 6400 Poplar Avenue
International Paper Memphis, TN 38197
[phone]
Construction Contractor 28723 Marston Road
Environmental Repair, Inc. Marston, NC 28363
[phone]
Planting Contractor PO BOX 789
Garcia Forest Service, Inc. Rockingham, NC 28379
[phone]
Seeding Contactor 28723 Marston Road
Environmental Repair, Inc. Marston, NC 28363
[phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers 6726 Highway 169
International Paper Bellville, GA 30414
[phone]
Route 1, Box 1097: County Road #3
Shellman, GA 39886
[phone]
EEP Project No. D04020-2
3
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site

Table 3. Project Contacts (Cont.)
Nursery Stock Suppliers
International Paper 5594 Highway 38 South
Blenheim, SC 29516
[phone]
North Carolina Division of Forest Resources
726 Claridge Nursery Road
Goldsboro, NC 27530
[phone]
Monitoring Performers 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
EcoScience: a Division of PBS&J Raleigh, NC 27604
[phone]
Stream Monitoring POC Jens Geratz
Vegetation Monitoring POC Jens Geratz
Table 4. Project Background
Project County Richmond
Drainage Area 2.5 square miles
Impervious cover estimate (%) <5 percent
Stream Order 3rd order
Ph sio ra hic Region Southeastern Plains
Ecoregion Griffith and Omernik) Sandhills
Rosgen Classification of As-built DA5/E5
Cowardin Classification Stream (R2UB2)
Dominant soil types Johnston (JmA)
Ailey (AcB, AcC)
Candor-Wakulla Complex (CaC, WcB
Reference Site ID Falling Creek
USGS HUC for Project and Reference 03040201
NCDWQ Sub-basin for Project and Reference 03-07-16
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference WSIII
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed? No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a
303d listed segment? Yes
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor Aquatic weeds
Percent of project easement fenced NA
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
2.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
The monitoring results described herein document the Year 3 (2008) monitoring activities. Stream
monitoring activities continued at two (2) stream reaches that were established in April 2006. Each
t monitoring reach is approximately 150 feet in length and is comprised of one (1) stream cross-section
where stream profile and dimension are monitored. Another 575 feet of stream channel profile and eight
(8) cross-sections were added to the Site monitoring activities in October 2006 (Figure 2, Appendix A).
' Wetland vegetation monitoring activities were conducted in October 2008 and consist of an inventory of
planted and volunteer species within eight (8) plots located throughout the former pond
(Figure 4, Appendix A). Wetland hydrology monitoring activities include groundwater gauge monitoring
conducted throughout the growing season (March 27 - November 5) (MRCS 1999) at four (4) gauges
located within the former pond (Figure 5, Appendix A).
' 2.1 Stream Assessment
2.1.1 Stream Channel Morphology
' Stream channel cross-sectional surveys were performed at all ten (10) on-Site monitoring locations in
October 2008 (Figure 2, Appendix 2). Bankf ill channel geometry for surveyed cross-sections are
presented in Tables 5, 6, 6a, and 6b. Cross-section parameters were not generated for XS2, XS7, or XS8
where stream braiding has developed multiple active channels. Stream pattern parameters including
channel beltwidth, radius of curvature, meander wavelength, and meander width ratio were generated
from Year 3 survey data, and will be re-evaluated during Year 5 monitoring. Cross-section plots are
' represented in Figures B 1-B 10 in Appendix B. Bankfull elevations depicted in cross-section plots were
adjusted from Year 2 as needed.
' In general, bankfull channel parameters were largely unchanged compared to conditions assessed during
Year 2 monitoring. Scouring and transportation of bank and bed material was detected at some
monitoring cross-sections where restored channels continue to migrate toward reference conditions.
' Soil subsidence has diminished as herbaceous and woody vegetation further stabilize the soil and begin to
provide shading to the developing forest floor.
' Stream longitudinal profile was surveyed for approximately 900 feet within the restored channel,
including the section of stream between on-Site Reach 3 and on-Site Reach 2 (Figure 2, Appendix A).
Longitudinal profile data for this portion of the stream is plotted along with Year 1 conditions in Figure
' B-11, Appendix B. A typical riffle/pool sequence is still developing within this portion of the stream.
The Site's natural low gradient and the large amount of coarse woody debris present within the channel
has produced numerous depositional features (traverse and diagonal bars) scattered among scour pools of
varying sizes. As a result, longitudinal profile parameters were not generated for the stream due to the
complexity and irregularity of the channel bed. These parameters may be calculated in fixture monitoring
years as riffle/pool features continue to establish and stabilize.
' The stream channel substrate is naturally comprised of more than 90 percent (90%) sand throughout the
Site. As a result, substrate sampling was not conducted at the cross-sections and is not included with the
' summarized cross-sectional parameters in Tables 5-6b.
' EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
5
This Page Left Blank Intentionally

u

b M O O0 O [? Ul 7 O O ar
Q
z is
Q
z et
Q
z it
Q
z
Q
z
Q
z

? 4.
- Cd
. N
?i
Q
Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

N *

Q *

Q *

Q +

Q *

Q +r

Q Q :? -1

'" O

O O

O v

w *

Q c

Q

Z
Z
Z
z
z
z
z O
N
00
•--
Q\
v
N
z
?-.
z
z
z
O
O
z
z
Q ? M

O f?'
E
Q
d
d
d
?
?
Q
Q
Q
a
-.
?
n
d
d
Q
Q
Q
d
z z z z z z z z z 00 z z z z z z

N ,a
01
O
O
M
M
C'
00 C) 00
V1 C,
r
Q
Y z z z

? O
O O
O kn
w
z z z z z z z z N N cr
VI , [ z z I 1 z z 0 0 z z

?
O z z z z z z ,
?
?Z z z z z z

? ? .-. ? O O O N O a1 00 O DD ? ? * iF » at # it
u ON O rn - N O, M ? O z z z z
z
z
I
L U >11 Q ? Q Q Q ? - Q Q 00 n '7 N Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
z Q
z
^' 0 0 W Q Q
z z z z z z z '- N 7 N z z z z z z 0 0 z z

C 5 Q d Q Q d d Q Q d N N E Q Q Q Q Q Q
GR z z z z z z z z z ? ? ^+ z z z z z z

? ? • O d' 00 ? N -+ DD Q Q Q Q Q Q
? . .M-
i ? .
a a?
IlO

:
-15

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

Q

z

m
.-. m

O m

O

?
..

Q
..

Q

?"'
?
•'"
Z Vl
M ?o
? 00
oo
N
z
z
z
z
z
z z
O
O
z
z
i. F? M
?
M cN

N
,J M

N
Q
Q
Q
Q_
Q
Q
Q
Q
i
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Fr1 W ? z z z z z z z z z 00 00 .-- z z z z z z
y ? ? ? '-' M Q O\ N Q Q ? Q ? Q
•-. 25 ... "' z °` M T-. rte/-- Z r7- z 7. z 7. z-. .7. r7- z
CO
F
N M 0O M Q C ?1 ' Q Q Q \ Q Q Q Q \ Q Q Q Q Q
?+ O r
,.

C 7 0 Q 00 Q < z Q Q Q Q Q
OM ? " z ? N110 z z z z z z z z z z z z
?'-+ ? ? 4''i ? •? •? C: ? Cr' ?i •? ?'' C"-r 4r"' L'i ? ? ? Tr' • O ?

cO
?i
?+
y
O
N
?+
O

l r?

Y o

7 ? C-''
U bC

r-i i•

A

A
A W)
b 00
'C1 CL
O CL
O
ti
A
L ?+ X N U O a N
' V] L r.l w 7) ZZ
rQ Q L: cd c
O .
. N G.
?
qs
o
v,
w
?
3
?
?
?
c
t w N aa w a x .? ? U ? °
e
a O U a x

E
` 'fl
A a a ? ?

v
w
G
U
0

O
O
ti
Per
O
a
b
C
O
A
U

N
O
N
O
O
A
z
U
U
a
a
w
w
r

M
X
O
U
?
? fn
M O
O
l?
?
? 00 M
b
Vl iF et
? 'IT
O
U 0 ? o ? N W

r 00

o 6

0
z
z

0O ° ? o -. o v a c z z

? N

L O

U
" iF
d iF
d K
d iF
d K
¢ iF
Q Q Q iF
Q iF
Q it
Q

:

z
z z z z z

z z z z Z

R (,) N *
d *
Q at
Q *
Q z
d *
¢ at
d w
d
Q r
d et
Q
i z z z z z z z z z Z Z
b

Q ¢ Q Q Q Q Q Q ¢ ¢ Q
z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z z

R
?
A
b

0

i,

X

,6 o
U

H U
?
M
n
a
f?
o
oo
'?
?
OO
n

3-i

? O
O a' O O C4 C') O z z
00 ? ON v 00
; o? v o o N m ? o Z Z

? y '
b
3 b
3 ? a a b b
c ?
CG ? a •
?a
? 3
?- N ?' W 3 x
++ a w c
y
L
R d k.
a
ca
b

0
N

C
H M M
b

O
N
O

rl ?

a,
0
0

O

? n
'- O O
V iN
-+ * +c x at
CA
0 • N ' z z z z

f7 M N
O M
N a a w z Q Q -_! O
C O
Olz * at
Q
M N z z z z z z o o Q z z

z
z
z
z
ID
d
Q
¢
d
Q

<
Q
Q
O
o z z z z
v,
in
d d d d d d d?j d Q
Z d
Z -.
'" o
o o
o ? Q d
z z z z z z z z o c Q Z Z

z z z z z z z z

wi m
M
°° ? z z z z
O

° N
N It
N C
v1 N
N Q
z Q
z Q
z d
z z
Z Q
z ? o
0 o
0 ? ¢
z d
z
C Q

°°
?*
O '^•
? d d d d
- z z z z

N L cd
34 _
? ? ? ? A" A• U
.
? ? ? ?

04 a
u
L d O
R
a a a` ?
b
w
v

0
L
O
Phi
0
O
a
'C
0
Q
0
z
.o
a
W
W

n

?n

0
.y
U
V] M l?
7 O
O ?
nj
p
?"• V'1
ir, M
AD
M -IF
Q it
Q
? O z z

0
U N D 7 N M O? O ?y Q Q
? C) 'D o N ? r q z z

+ ?O O M O •+ 0 ? 00 O z z

U

c?
8 ?

? o
•
L U M ? O
O 7
?' O ? Vl
O 7 iF
Q +i
Q
' "' O\ ri
c
??oII
I-i N
O
u
N
T
l?
O
?O
'r
?D
M
(ON
00 W) 00 . c O ° o z z

,? O\ O M N -,t 00 Q Q
z z

C?

L V]
U
?
`O U
U
M
M
O
M
?
?
M
d'
?
it
di

O
?
U N DD O ,? O\ a0 00
?c 7
O ,n
N O 7 O ,-. -4 M O z z
'y'y?? ? l? M ? ? ? N M at x
?c N O \O O O ? ? N O z z

° y w y 4
L ? x
? ? w N
o
e U y
L
? d w

0. A rig

?C
C
0

N
? M -z
Q *
Q -%
Q a
Q *
Q *
Q t
Q *
Q r
Q *
Q x-
Q
z z z z z z z z z z z

0
U
N
?
*
I

O

N

*
z z z z z z z z
z z z z z z z z z z z

+I I I I I

X

0
U
/1
N
Q
Q
C N f V O z z
0

it
U
r
O
,r
b
M
N
,?
O
00
V1
at
ie
N M O M ' ? N O z

M DO O N N z z

U
??
rr O
7
.-.
O
..r
N
N
,-.
h r
?
z
?.
O

N N ° z z

?y
m
O
0
0
Vl
r-i
V
N x
Q
Q
l
?r
' Qr
' ??-+ ? ?
' •? •? fir' ? ?.'
? ? ? ?

b
3 b
3 s0.
Q a¢i
Q aQi
Q .' 7. C7 O 'O O
b
b
? ? .? ?

o N
L 3 x
? e k' ?,
o
i
ee y u''

QI A v?

W
K
v°
x
N
0
0
u;
c
0
"O
0
Q
z
U
O
a
w
W
W

N

ti
v

L M
L'
0

u

ea
L
^C
x
C

bA ,
?
00
a X ?
0

U

z
d
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
d
z
o
?
CC
F U N
? w
d +r
d •
d •
¢ •
d +
d a
d w
d ar
d *
d ar
¢
z z z z z z z z z z z
z z
z z z z z z z z z
x '0 .2

3 d
3
Q

0.)
A

Q
A

?

E O

b 7

y
.
? c3
U -•
? GT
? '^"
3 ice- a
N W

8

pr A v?
N

0

0

b
0

a

b

0

Q
U
N
vi p
N

'b O
Q
w
?
k
U

? .o
a
b a

W
V1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2.1.2 Stream Problem Areas
During Year 3 monitoring, a beaver dam was constructed just upstream of the former Dam. Throughout
the year, scientists worked to breach the beaver dam and discourage beaver activities. Nuisance species
removal techniques were utilized with the successful removal of one beaver from the Site. While beaver
activities have resulted in minimal damage to the Site, a pro-active approach to manage and prevent
future beaver disturbance is proposed.
As discussed with the EEP project manager, IP and EcoScience propose to perform minor grading
activities on the former Dam and to remove all components of the existing beaver dam. Minor grading
will be targeted at lowering the elevation of the former Dam in areas where the residual footprint is above
adjacent floodplain elevations. It is assumed that these slightly elevated areas of the former Dam support
the establishment of beaver dams and upon removal, will reduce opportunities for beavers to re-construct
dams during the last two years of the project. Once grading activities are complete, the area will be
planted according to reference plant communities at agency required stocking levels. An immediate
inventory of planted stems will be taken and re-evaluated during Year 4 vegetation monitoring activities.
As discussed with EEP, if vegetation success of remedial planted stems is on target at the end of Year 5,
then no additional vegetative monitoring will be required. As with the first planting at the Site, it is
expected that planted stems will survive with little mortality and natural volunteers will further
supplement the establishment of woody species.
2.1.3 Aquatic Communities
Benthic macroinvertebrates were sampled within Falling Creek during Year 3 monitoring in October
2008. Aquatic community data, located in Appendix C, are based on laboratory identifications of benthic
macroinvertebrate taxa by Pennington and Associates, Inc., a NCDWQ-certified lab.
Aquatic community assemblages within the former pond continue to develop characteristics associated
with a lotic system. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of the macroinvertebrate samples collected during Year 3
monitoring from restored segments of Falling Creek (within the former pond) consisted of
macroinvertebrate genera predominantly found in lotic systems. Compared to baseline samples collected
prior to dam removal, the macroinvertebrate genera favoring lotic systems have increased thirty-one
percent (31%). Genera found in both lotic and lentic systems (with a preference for lotic) decreased
slightly within Falling Creek, while genera favoring lentic and lotic (with a preference for lentic) also
decreased. Genera predominantly found in lentic systems made up only eight percent (8%) of taxa
collected from Falling Creek.
EEP Project No. D04020-2
II
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
Graph 1. Comparisons between collected benthic macroinvertebrates and their habitat
preferences (Source: Merritt and Cummins 1984).
Lotic (27%)
t Lotic & Lentic (9%)
t Lentic & Lotic (27%)
Lentic (36%)
? Lotic (50%)
® Lotic & Lentic (21%)
o Lentic & Lotic (25%)
? Lentic (4%)
Lotic (52%)
Lotic & Lentic (13%)
o Lentic & Lotic (31%)
Unknown (4%)
Lotic (58%)
® Lotic & Lentic (19%)
Lentic & Lotic (141/6)
Lentic (8%)
In addition to benthic macroinvertebrate habitat preference comparisons, other comparative metrics
including the total number of organisms collected, the total taxa represented in the collection, the richness
(diversity) of EPT taxa, and the biotic index can be used to evaluate aquatic habitat restoration. Table 7
summarizes the mean values for all these metrics from benthic macroinvertebrates collected within
Falling Creek prior to dam removal and all subsequent monitoring years.
Table 7. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Metric Summary
Monitoring Year Total Organisms Total Taxa EPT Richness Biotic Index*
Baseline (2005) 32 15 2 7.42
Year 1 (2006) 209 35 16 5.33
Year 2 (2007) 187 38 12 4.95
Year 3 (2008) 73 24 8 5.21
[-The biotic index is derived from North Carolina Tolerance Values that are assigned to each collected species. These Tolerance Values
range from 0 for organisms intolerant of organic wastes to 10 for organisms very tolerant of organic wastes.
As seen in Table 7, all comparative metrics quantitatively improved following dam removal; but have
subsequently fallen in Year 3 monitoring. In the current monitoring year, the total number of organisms
and overall species diversity decreased. Additionally, the increase in biotic index values (following a
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
12
Baseline Habitat Preferences
Year 1 Habitat Preferences
Year 2 Habitat Preferences
Year 3 Habitat Preferences
' decrease in 2006 and 2007 indicative of improved water quality) shows that some variability between
years may be present. The decrease in total organisms, total taxa, and EPT richness from 2006 to 2008
could be due to an initial colonization spike of opportunistic species during the early successional stages
' of stream development, followed by the stabilization of stream macroinvertebrate communities typical of
the area. As the restored stream migrates more towards that of reference reaches, it is expected that
macroinvertebrate communities will further migrate more towards assemblages typical of the area. This
shift may result in an increase or decrease in the metrics presented in Table 7, but will ultimately
represent more historic/natural conditions.
Drought conditions within the Falling Creek watershed throughout the monitoring season has likely
' contributed to degraded benthic macroinvertebrate collections. Data obtained from the North Carolina
Drought Management Advisory Council indicates that drought conditions have persisted within
Richmond County continuously from May 2007 to September 2008 (just prior to Year 3 benthic
' sampling). During that time, Richmond County experienced rainfall deficits resulting in a classification
of Exceptional Drought ([D4] highest ranking drought classification) for fourteen straight weeks. Figure
6 (Appendix A) displays drought conditions in North Carolina during Year 3 monitoring and shows the
' progression of drought intensity in the Falling Creek watershed.
2.1.4 Habitat Assessment
' North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Habitat Assessment Forms (HAFs) were completed
at each cross-section location across the Site (Appendix D). Several HAF scores increased during Year 3
monitoring demonstrating an increased availability and quality of aquatic habitat at those locations. This
improvement is largely due to the favorable prevalence of in stream habitat including sticks, snags, logs,
leafpacks, and macrophytic vegetation. Limitations to habitat scores result from the lack of canopy trees
within the former pond that would otherwise provide stream shading and allochthonous input for in-
stream habitat. These scores will likely increase as the developing forest community begins to provide
shading and plant material to the establishing stream systems. The RAF scores are summarized in
Table 8.

Table 8. NCDWQ Habitat Assessment Form Scores
Score
Cross-section MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
XSR 1 (Reference) 98 98 96
XSR4 (Reference) 97 97 96
XS 1 78 95 91
XS2 80 80 82
XS3 84 98 93
XS4 63 66 75
XSR2 88 93 88
XS5 69 80 83
XSR3 85 90 88
XS6 65 71 74
XS7 74 76 82
XS8 86 90 91
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
13
In addition, stream habitat characterizations including habitat composition and percentage representation
were completed using plan-view drawings derived from total station surveys of the stream monitoring
reaches (Figure 3, Appendix A). Drawings were updated in the field through visual observation and
habitat composition was transcribed onto each drawing by hand. Drawings were digitized using GIS
technology to determine rough estimates of habitat type representation. Representative habitat included
adjacent stream bank trees, root mats/balls, stumps, coarse woody debris, leaf packs, and undercut banks.
During Year 2 monitoring, an increase in the number of predators, shredders, and shredder/collectors and
a decrease in the number of collector/gatherers and filter/collectors was observed. Year 3 monitoring
indicates a continued progression towards a stable aquatic community with a continued shift from early
successional composition. The following graph displays functional feeding group composition following
dam removal at the Site.
2.2 Wetland Assessment
2.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Eight (8) 10 x 10 meter plots were sampled in accordance with the Carolina Vegetation Survey Protocol.
Planted stems (woody) were marked with flagging and the species, height, diameter, vigor and coordinate
location within each plot was recorded. Volunteer species where noted and placed into height classes.
Success criteria for vegetation requires that at least 320 stems per acre must survive after the completion
of the third growing season. The required survival criterion will decrease by 10 percent per year after the
third year of vegetation monitoring (i.e., for an expected 290 stems per acre for Year 4, and 260 stems per
acre for Year 5). The Site is currently meeting the established success criteria for vegetation based on the
survival of the planted species with an average density of 536 trees per acre. Some large volunteer
species may have been included in the planted species inventory, for instances in which the yearly
monitoring species totals exceed the initial totals. Including all volunteer species raises the vegetation
survival within the Site to 3561 trees per acre. An inventory of planted stems is given in Table 9 and
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
14
Graph 2. Functional Feeding Group Composition
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I

plots are mapped in Figure 4 (Appendix A). A tally of volunteer woody species is listed in Table 9a.
Year 3 photographs are provided in Appendix E.
Table 9. Stem Counts for Planted Species Arranged by Plot

Species Plots Initial Year 1 Year 2 Year
13
Survival %
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 g Totals Totals Totals ,
Totals
Trees
Chamaecyparis
thyoides 3 5 3 2 2 6 7 2 32 31 31 30 94
Liriodendron
tuli ifera 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 3 1 17
Magnolia virginiana 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 10 10 11 5 50
Nyssa Mora 4 7 4 6 0 2 5 2 29 29 28 30 100
Persea borbonia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0
Pinus serotina 6 3 3 7 7 5 1 4 32 32 30 36 100
Pinus taeda 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 12 12 12 4 33
Table 9a. Stem Counts for Volunteer Species Arranged by Plot

Species Plots Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Totals Totals Totals
Trees
Acer rubrum 5 0 4 9 0 0 1 6 12 16 25
Betula nigra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
Chamaecyparis thyoides 10 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 4 13
Cyrilla racemilora 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 4
Li uidambar stryacii lua 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Liriodendron tuli ifera 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 14 7 5
Magnolia virginiana 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 8
Nyssa b fora 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Pinus serotina 30 40 168 9 58 87 4 136 105 168 532
Pinus taeda 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 6
Salix ni a 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 7 1 1
Shrubs
Clethra alnifolia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Baccharis halimifolia 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Kalmia angustifolia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Vaccinium corymbosum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
EEP Project No. D04020-2
15
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
2.2.2 Groundwater Hydrology
Success criteria for groundwater hydrology on the Site requires that wetland mitigation areas be
inundated or saturated (within 12 inches of the surface) by surface or groundwater for at least 28
consecutive days (Richmond County, NRCS) or 12.5 percent of the growing season. All four (4)
groundwater gauges located on-Site are currently meeting the wetland hydrologic success criteria.
Groundwater gauge locations are depicted in Figure 5 (Appendix A). Groundwater gauge hydrographs
are plotted on Figure F-1 (2008) (Appendix F).
2.2.3 Wetland Criteria Attainment
Table 10. Wetland Criteria Attainment
Gauge ID Gauge Hydrology
Threshold Met? Vegetation
Plot ID Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met?
Yes 1 Yes
Gauge l (26% of growing season) 2 Yes
Yes 3 Yes
Gauge2 °
(26 /o of growing season)
4
Yes
Yes 5 Yes
Gauge3 °
(33 /° of growing season)
6
Yes
Yes 7 Yes
°
(32 /o of growing season)
8
Yes
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
16

REFERENCES
Harod, J.J. 1964. The Distribution of Invertebrates on Submerged Aquatic Plants in a Chalk Stream.
Journal of Animal Ecology. Vol. 33, No. 2. (June 1964), pp. 335-348.
Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1984. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America.
Kendall-Hunt Publ.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 1999. Soil Survey of Richmond County, North
Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture.
North Carolina Drought Management Advisory Council (NCDMAC). 2007. Statewide Drought
Conditions Archive (online). Retrieved November 2007 from: www.ncdrought.org.
Rosgen, D. 1994. Applied Fluvial Geomorphology. Wildland Hydrology: Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
17
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
A
1
CONSERVAT
ION `. ?•
? ?-'EASMENT
\ , LAT 34.924
LONG 79.682
.?tPonl7 ? Ir ??nl'Irfll(15. ?r ?,
> r r- ?•
I'
v`
COUNTY o
77 - 10ME o
' 111
RpAp ?^ 2,000 0 2,000
FEET
M O N /
R
INTERNATIONAL(& PAPER
m
0
Y By
DGJ FIGURE
SITE LOCATION CKD ?KDeYi
MCDONALDS POND RESTORATION SITE JWG
Ecosystem oe.E
«-?-.-msf EEP Project No. D04020-2 DEC 2008
RICHMOND COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA Esc P°-CT
07-330.00
YADKIN-PEE DEE RIVER BASIN
ao 0
N O O
K
00
- O
Z Z Q - if'J O
CL
Z
d ? N O °,r Z 0
- v rn
® i Q Q Q w o O Q w Z 3 a a ?
a ?F- Z
Z Z in U woQw o N
$ zoo N - Z wF-J-
°J a 0CL F- O= HZIL > o 3 Z LL
N No O
w _ Z
U W H p u w
Y, /
LLJ
O4
oll
v`: to
oil
I?
?<IV)
Z Q// I I W
O Z CIE
` ilo
> E // I I
w
w N I
N Q // I
i M W
? ? // ?,ku' J II
x
L
\\ // N
\\ // (n
\\ // x
W
W
lY
U
Q
w
ry

x,
X

/CIE

c0 / /

x /

(/) /
/
/ ?(?... CO X / fn
x
_ Z
/ / U =

Z
O U
Q
?
/ w W

N
Z I a-
0

/
H O
of Q

z
/ Z U
0
W
/?:, I I M
I? x
I
I I
I I
II
II
N
I I ??
I? I I
II I ?
II II w
I w
I
??? II I I O W
II II
I I //
£8 OYN
O
O
O
In
r
o
a
g
?c 3
C

0
o .
0
o
O
0
r
x
0
1
O
= O
U ?
_u
N
= o
U ?
^II
W
cr
u
r
6
ir
LL
NLL/J
1..1?
O
I I
2
U
Q
Q
LJ
Of
LL.
LLLI
LiL
V
II
2
U
Q
L
Of

Z

O zZ U'

Z C)
C)
m z
3.1
_ o
K)

?L Li C)m

ZZgH UQ
?Q?7=w
WO?>
?

U
g
N
o
.0
0 O
O M '
,
W
-j
<
00
0

0

l?
.? v U V) 90 Z
(nO?Q m N U
2 m w o z
G= JJ?
3
0 0
0
Z
Z Z p Z
O w Z Z w w O
:2 O
Q U > z :2W Q i r
a a za w > W I
Q co p of S z w v
co S w
W
w
Z ? N (~ S w
Of w a w wo z
Z o 0 o a a z w a = U
z z z
W :2 :2 :2 :2 :2
Q a a a a a w a a a 6
6
W w w w w w
J w w w
N N N N N
IfffEEI
HER
I±EEH
0
0
0

:n
o
0
z 0
? II
Q o
J
J
J
Q

z
J z0

? N
?J W 0
n

n (.)
w
> N
Y
z o
c°
n
U Q
p?
Y
`)

-Li

Y ?
00

w

O U

\
_

U
Q
D
U
w
r)
z
O
a
0
w
11
C7 ro O
p 3 0 0
? ? ON o
U
w
„o
3

I
N w
O ~ z
J N ?
EL Z O
O_ Q?
N Q
Z Q a U
? N =
O o
H N D O
Z
Z of 0
O
Z v Z
Z C WO
O aU
F- 0 w p
Q W O
Q
1- Z 2:
w in U
U ?
LU
I
I
1 fi , .. ? f
C
uy w
O
rµ. ? a
Z
0
rN 2
r
s ?
t W
° i ''Z

O
w
U

a
?
0
z
w Z U

W O w

z ?
V' O a
z O c?
w
O

~
z
O
f cl?
w
I-
Q

°

O
(n
w
U

a
w
C]oe Of

w
U
::D

z
Q:? a
CD (n cl,
i83 O ?
/
11
I
1
X3
,g w
i F N
/ o
/
/
£9 avN
/ o
f o
N
w
[If
D
c?
LO
? c? m o
? ? 0 0
U rn
w
? r
., o
3
0
w
?- a
vi z_
w
O
Ill a
N
V
Q O
N a o
o
O L z
z z}
o ?
Z d z
O O o =)
CL a O
Z N a
O - w Z
z
O =
D V
U
r-
r
v
17,
u
w
a
a
O
J
Q
Z
0
Q
z
Lu
c e F
i z
ROO -
HOGIN
E?

\
i

\\ z
o

II

oll >z

oil w w
w F
N w

O Q
U w
°
v// CIE
I I
// I1
// I I
Q??// I I
I
ii I I
Richmond County Drought Data
D
t DM L
l Drought Level Drought Conditions by Percent Area
a
e eve Description None DO D1 D2
1 11412 0 0 8 Normal 99.92 0.08 0 0 0 0
1012612008 Normal 100 0 0 0 0 0
1012112008 Normal 100 0 0 0 0 0
1 011 42008 Normal 100 0 0 0 0 0
1 01712 0 0 8 Normal 100 0 0 0 0 0
9/30/2008 Normal 100 0 0 0 0 0
9/23/2008 Normal 99 95 0.05 0 0 0 0
9/1 612 0 0 8 Normal 95.77 4.23 0 0 0 0
919/2008 Normal 95 77 4.23 0 0 0 0
902008 DO Abnormally Dry 40.98 51.83 7.19 0 0 0
8/2612008 DO Abnormally Dry 40.98 51.83 7.19 0 0 0
8!19/2008 D1 Moderate Drought 0 38.92 61.08 D 0 0
811 212 0 0 8 D1 Moderate Drought 0 36.66 63.07 0.27 0 0
B/5f2008 D1 Moderate Drought 0 13.11 86.81 0.09 0 0
7/2 912 0 0 8 D2 Severe Drought 0 0 69.63 30.37 0 0
7/2212008 D2 Severe Drought 0 0 69.63 30.37 0 0
771 512008 D2 Severe Drought 0 0 69.63 30.37 0 0
7/812008 D2 Severe Drought 0 0 0 100 0 0
7/1/2008 D2 Severe Drought 0 0 0 88.1 0
612412008 D2 Severe Drought 0 0 20.6 74.15 0
611 712 0 0 8 D2 Severe Drought 0 0 20.6 74.15 0
611 012 0 0 8 D1 Moderate Drought 0 0 79.54 20.46 0 0
602008 01 Moderate Drought 0 0 90.87 9.13 0 0
5127f2OOB 01 Moderate Drought 0 0 90.87 9.13 0 0
512012008 D1 Moderate Drought 0 4.21 95.8 0 0 0
511 312 0 0 8 D1 Moderate Drought 0 4.21 95.8 0 0 0
502008 D1 Moderate Drought 0 4.21 95.8 0 0 0
412912008 D1 Moderate Drought 0 4.21 95.8 0 0 0
412 212 0 0 8 D2 Severe Drought 0 0 35.02 64.98 0 0
411512002 D2 Severe Drought 0 0 35 02 64.98 0 0
418/2008 D2 Severe Drought 0 0 35.02 64.98 0 0
411!2008 Extreme Drought 0 0 0 66.52 _ 0
3!2512008 Extreme Drought 0 0 0 66.52 0
311812002 Extreme Drought 0 0 0 66.52 0
3/11/2008 Extreme Drought 0 0 0 66.52 0
314/2008 Extreme Drought 0 0 0 0
2126f2008 Extreme Drought 0 0 0 0
211 972 0 0 8 e- Fxceptional Drought 0 0 0 0
211212008 Exceptional Drought 0 0 0 0
215/2008 Exceptional Drought 0 0 0 0
V2912009 Exceptional Drought 0 0 0 0
1/22/2008 Exceptional Drought 0 0 0 0
111512008 Exceptional Drought 0 0 0 0
1/8/2008 Exceptional Drought 0 0 0 0
111f2008 Exceptional Drought 0 0 0 0 s .r
12125!2007 Exceptional Drought 0 0 0 0
12fl8/2007 Exceptional Drought 0 0 0 0 0
12/1112007 Exceptional Drought 0 0 0 0 0
12/4!2007 Exceptional Draught 0 0 0 0 0 '?l ps:.
11f27J2007 Exceptional Drought 0 0 0 0
11/20/2007 ®- Exceptional Drought 0 0 0 D
1111312007 Extreme Drought 0 0 0 0
1102007 Extreme Drought 0 0 0 0 0
alern:
~ North Carolina Dwoey: MCG ckday: DGJ FIGURE
?? Drought Monitor Data Dale:

M
D
l
P JAN 2009

rmsclence

l'k0syStell] c
ona
ds
ond Restoration Site

tee.
-
6

f IWI'
A di
i
i 2008 Annual Monitoring Report (2008) N/A
1
on o
v
s
Richmond County, North Carolina ESC Project No.
07-330
APPENDIX B: STREAM GEOMORPHOLOGY DATA
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
B
O Q °
N O
u
M
M
M o O
Q O
G)o C) La=o ?r p ?M
C'o cn ?, ? ?~ pU
W W
Q U Z
U
N
m 00 a y
z La C.)
c o o U
IF V
I
m z z 3 zz o o o <
a c
Q m ?W m? N ? b ^ v
M 0 O O
LL.
O
n
c O E
N O
o II
L'i
a c
U ? > O
Q rn c c0 0
Q ?, o >
N
0 O C C)
°O In OwLn a)N,t NM:? Nql, 0 O C C
Q O 6Onq ggqqqqqU14?0! O>q d' Old O a
w o. ?'ma..rnrnrn?ncn.m Q Q 0 N 0 'o
Q a>
LU Z = Iw d O -,o o"-
° O N
.°
N N ~ is p O m" u o
w v vN3 NE 00? o a)
a s U- 00 I x -E °) c
..' L
N W Z -O fA O o
O U
o J J O N U 71 >
° x .J i z " cii _ o a a) oc
U m Y Y 0 x U }- < U O W W
J m M 3 w (V ri
z :D O O ?O^ NgONMdq(AMgN Z
Q p p d' NNN NN N MnLO Q
m
V1
00
00
.N-Z -` c !
z 2!
O O < +`+
LLJ
>> W
W W L? F
p p Y l...
K < r eft ?i. ?•,.
Of
ow 41-
i,? .i>' `''?' s •?41.cs?i?l?'y? a
lop
ro i" Grp ">?'
>- O t Ni
ink
W
u
z V)
< X
I-
IAN
o d O •' a_}
J UrS'
/ V / IflT_( .Fhk
77
O I N ar ` .,t f
-:
N (40
Q Q! t eii9Frn g7
IMF,
C-1 P,--
±? v? p
l 7
/?i r 4!
r
n Y.BY, `I Y
O
- - -- ---- r, i' a t
_ O i city a f
O O O o-) CO x#?.r r` . s
67 6? 6 0 Win: s-, a; t'4 t;n
-NI

a ? N ? ? z z O?

o OOON
OQ.r- O`p z
4.? o=
O ?
N?

0 i ? W 0 N ?? N N
..l ? g ? a ? ?o O x
- m

-
U
d S

co L
O O
O N
N
T
N
c N
?
U ?
O (n ? X

v
?
p 3: o

T T ?
> > "O O

(n (n W J

J q W O
a ¢ °O Q O
Q N _o z Z z O 0 N m w o 0
LL?? N Ire ??? V 1 OO V ?La o z o
p V 0
o 00 ®z J Z m
l p o o (n L. Z ¢ U m
i?`x y a 0-V) 0 07- V riper ~ v
z W La a T- o o cn v
L r 10
g ?_ m m
IE; - z v 0 La ? z X
V o
a o C) V) C/)
W
as o o as a ¢ ¢ a ¢ ¢ 11 11
a Jm w w mI z z z z z z o
LLJ
i
0 E
LL-
i
a
a
a 0 0
(v :0 0 c
OMgmOMln Oll')NM?Ogl?mmlf)O NC?mgq?c00m CONCCmmlon ?C ?r??lf)gq Q
M1?07.-M? N Q 0.-.-0[P NIA O(A I? ?M R N(nM Mtn (n q IONifI q ?O t ?OhtO? LJ
a Ommmmmggnr-Oggqq?nr\?q??nnr`qqNr` q?f-q?nnwnm 00 ggqm Q
m m m m m M IM m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m cn m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
J = x
W _ 0
p O p 'o
_ xx
W m
U v
(n
(n J W O
(/r U- J J D U N „
w ? O
Y
z u = 3
U m Y Y p W U Q V O
F w
z j m m W w
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Y E
0 000
O o o O O O O O O O g 0 0 0 N M O O O N O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 to N
O O O N O o 0 0 0 0 o n 0 O O O - Z
V(Vrim n0i U) mt`n MNri9??t() - q?Chgm? r m 0 r- m 0 M O ?n CO M 0 0 0 M M Q
O 04'1 ?MMM C d lf)In (D I? qqq q mm00- - N n NNNMM M C C oln O to^ f?qq qqq m III
(n )
fn
00 -?
O O ..{T. _ ,EC?? )
7z z
20 t" 4f. ?7; Cam/ F?? n
LL) LLJ
4 y1a i
Lo Lu C) D
C7
C7 "+ >a f > rf-f?i
O v Z y? j. 1, t d`
.`tom z WR'?jK.lltr?
LL.
Q EC
~ O O 00
D
(n
J G - ti r r
00 Ah
LLJ N x1a ?; ?? l s
r A
N r < ? w ik ice'
t f .?
`?) f tl 4 ?"
!?`C? ?'` 'rat
O
- --- -
Owl
%
? S_-mob `?,'? '? ? y '??
4t t -
•
A r ??
-- o ?? ??
rIq N
O O d7 00 r-- O
('13) NO?Ldn3?3
=?
w
m
rn o :°
?
N
°
O
II
co

p
L

U
N

C

.c O D.

N V1
O

•
C C
N O
> +
O 0->

-2. lu N

V O
T
C

?
(n
N
N

O
?

V

X
U
U
= C U

v (U

°'a
N
o ?

n

H
O
U O
N ?
N+J
N
C
O O
?
U O
.L-
C„'
? al

U O
(?
x
rn o
NO a
ON ?

L Y

??
o L
?
W 1J

0+

D
T

(n
N
.L.J
O

?
T

>
(n

O

?

Li

O

J
Z ? N M
s ;s ----1 a o o
d p L o a 0
N ?7- a N
Lg=o
P: -j L'i z O V O O CU L? m Oz 0
1!!
z O Q ?? 0 U? 1a LL 0
?aON 0. 0 0 MC)
Vi
U
N O ? v
dm U g aM UO _ 0x T 51
F = v ta Z m m a
Z a o ta ti V v 1? -6
U U UI w
W
za 3 az a r, n
a J o 0-a N n v

Q
l{,ILJ J CO ?''1 co

W
v N
N Un
O CO
O a t U u-

) O
c O
U
O 0
N O
N V7

a c
°
°
a Z .O
o

} O

¢

6
M
M
0
a
N
0
CO
M
01
M
d'
m
IC
?
o
O
(O
os
?
M
cv
N
I?
m
N
d'
CA
OI
M
N
N
?
OI
DJ
?
Q>
(A
I?
CA
M
I?
0
O
?
0 O

?
Q
W
w ° Q c U
_Q Q O O
_
V) O OO_
5 W U_ n cn n n cn ? n n n n cn n cn n o a < a
c

oC

J
'
x

x .
?

°
°
O
(n w
o
p
w
Q
<
Z °°
u°

N
3 U
In w v a vE c0
v
a i
E
I x
:2 E
( -
oQ
? 0 Q
0
Y
z

?

L

w n

3 U
U
w =s ° a v v
U° W
M Y Z p U i- Q...

E
i m m 3 I L'i Oz cv r.
? 01

E
D s
O U
O (n
N
T
N
c
? c r)
U 0 V)
O N X

i

o °
a>
E
°
c

T
T
F O
_
> > O
L
7
7 U
(n N W J
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
J co W O
rv'\ W 0 ` ~ U O
`a € 0 Q O Gag N N"j
a ?-+
O V O m
O U LA- a z ^o
z O > a? gQ?qw?La ®O U? 1?0 M?_ 3 0 C
OCL d? zo= N Z W
z ! W N O =? NN o
LLD 'm CL V 0
g w ° w g
o X m m a a
? U 1 a r U o v N w
a o
} Q o
W
z
O
Q
N
r b
00
00
N N Z
z z F
0 0 >
W
> > w
w W
J J J
W W J
W W W
O C Y
QQz
C
0 CDm
? I
O
00
O
w
U
Z
Q O
O
J
Q
z
O
_N
E
00
= N
O
N O
C
O O
O

'
c d

N (r)
C

0
c C
N O

p

?
u

U
,20
fn 0
O

p O
p -
? U

C C
O a
?
O ?w

)
f
0
V)
I N
V) c
n3
O
- O
Q

U O
E
•x
N O0
O` 0
U O U) a)

U)
c p
of
O U
O c
W .O
z N
v
E
co s
O U
O N
N
T
N
C
H C
U 3 O V)
O V) X

-C

O O
O ? o

T

T

? c
o
j j O
7 7 O O
V) V) W J

17
te `
-a
A.

? .aJ
• lv

??y
d
4 .
^
_
gy

N O
0 o O 0-) 00 r- CO
0-) m rn rn
( 1?) NOl VA3?1
Q 0 J 0
a ?- N z z zz O? T V)
F- 0
n O 00, 0
? o a Lj ?/?
Y?
a ?_ -COO Ua yLLO
v) z 000tH O`p zzU a 0 z D m
.? h
?-T L)
aV~1 a0 ?? Wlx ~ v
" t zz W g t? ain =o ON T
- w U Z X in m a
I', .. ~ m 'p v ti
. Z c v o v
v ? a i=
° U (Y W
lJ.l ri
a tz
a °°
D- V) LO
Q d W '? o to ° W
LL- °
I ? o
c o
a, _o
n
? II
Q C
O v O
Q '1a- O' C 0, 0 p :3 0
'r Z c O
O o ?q? to in co NN[n MCnO OO ,O C
O (n't mq inu)O >-
Q O Oo00p W pgNOOo o a w N? p.0 0"a
_
oooo? U o00o Q ¢ c N_ o
a w a= O o f
N W j o I? o L, ° Q) o o-
fn o W' u o
m m
cn m I w v co N E o `0
CL u) 0
= L -O (n o O
t
0 Y J D Z 6i u N 0 0- N C
bi C,
U m Y Y ~O U H Q U D W4
Z ° c m 3? W ZO N r7
O Y m
O c-MNq CP to(ncn OIn
O O -? M M? M g i n? q 0 0 Z
? O O cPgO.-Min l?q [nh cn [O Q
-NN NNNNNM d't m
u
(D 0
1 •?.i S.C" .s" c.-;L "+r?'1-psyy ??r ..
O O (n
N N Q Z i Y..r •p" . ,?-.x it i1?ti,jws M?l
r'if
Hi H W S 3rM1r i
J J J J
W W W J
L ??r
D _X ;' ? 9
OOOY ?.. ,..;
U 0 CD co i
O
y
r
L S
w
oc
• II
N
a
F
-17
1 s
n ;
I J;?s
N 0 Y ?fy sr -? "' ay P
O O 0 40 O y
(•1A) NOUVAII 3 ' r
j-VL? Y,
s
r

E

O U
O ?
N
T
C U N
F

O U)
?
x

o a°> E
D ? O

O C

7 O O O
(n N W J

J OD W O
Q ` ~ 0 (aj O
t Q N a O_
?iCil a O ?' O J ~ O m ° o
N H (? O O V c
y a <a<w ®o UQ Ida o Li co
cxi .q C14 o U N o W W
a ° O?aO N a? o= N? a 0 z N
?W v~i NN
s g LLD
a? =o Ox r e
4-; f ,aVi
m tAj Z rte' m m a
s H c
WD La
0 L) Ln LL)
W
a
Q J
Q
W
J
W
Q
n C?
C
o O
O
rn
? II

? a
Ovi
C

O?0
cz c
?O

O
O >
T
U U

O
rn? .E O
U
0 0
o ` N

C C
0a

N

H c
E
U O
N
c

U) 3:
U)
OO

U

- o
Q? ?
_
C w
N

•X

N O

o a
U o -0
Q)
p N
L

E
O
E

O> U
c
w?
O
Z ? N r7

E
0 L
O U
o cn
N
T
vi
c a)
j C V)
U X
O N
U
L
°?
.
o a°> E
°

T
T Q) C
O
> >

7
7 U
o
(n (n L? J
r (?
O O
O O
N N Z
co-'
H l
Q Q ?
> > 'w
W W
J J J
W W -?
D
W W L?
O 0 V
Q Q z
Of Q? Q
0 O m
1
1
1
1
I
I I
i
O
co
O
W
W
U
Z
Q
? O
J
Q
Z
O
N_
iT-
O
= O
N
O
N
O
?r . IC
-.i?1gs a F *Mt,.c?ltyvJ
??. ? y M \'- ? X14
m r m
O
FD O m 00 r
0-? m ?
N-A) N O UVAT 3
6
W -
IL N O
F N 'VIr= r a
t z
N .d n z
y a 0 pppV1
i W gam
s w
z WD
HH77N k,771iI?,
W
Q
Z
O
P
Q
N
O
00
O
Q0

W
U
Z
Q
~ O
J
Q
Z
O
N
Fh
O
= o
N
J
m
°O °O Q Z
. `/ O
z z z ~
O _O _O ?
? P W
Q Q Q J
> 1 > W
W W W
J J J J
W W W J
D
W w w Li
0 0 O Y
QQaz
m'd'(ifa
c?UC?m
,
,
1
1
1
O

O O O 00 Qo
? 0-)
(•iJ) NOIUVA- T?

E
b t
O U
O
N
T
V)
W
D C
U O
O CO ? X
`v
L

p O
p ? o

N c
O
>
> -O O
) U
(n N J

N CD
O

O O
N v

? C
?O
c '.. U
O
>

p O
w
U U

a 0
V) _0 'C O
U
O O
v

C C
0'a
c
E ?
V)

W U O
0
C
N3

20

U
_ N

Q C
°- O
U O
NE
x

n O

a
200-
U o
0
N?
o0
-

L
O U

N
w?
O
z N r?
Q O W O
< O
u O
M
U M
LLJ
O O O
O .. Lit
w
? ? Z s
? u
v
m •o
'o o U
U u, w

is :
'
:%1?
yp 'E?wi L ? ? fit' ?'
'.
? x'

•.JA - •.. `PZ
?L
%
vy L .;j. yN,Y
t'

2
zz z
OLai
?
0

O LL.
LL.
C
G
? U
I
N
`
a4
0 O=
:? (n 0)
Nw
a.0 o 0(n
? CL
H
''4.. ? ?sYeT'
4,4
m m m = = = m
J OD W O
_ C .,.-............ ?? Q O Q O
cf N L z Q 0 ~ N V) M
O z 1 70-10-1 / V ~) 0 co 0 z I? Co
- V ?/r/ Q:? tai ZO .i z Z00 ® O U Q a O O
o O? .-O oU N I .. w
LLD in
aO Ox o
L;laCL ?NN
U Z m m
A) ta
Z N _ O La
U C 'O o V
V d o U N w
z
O
Z
O
Q
Cn
n b
00
00
N N Z
Z Z ?
_O _O
Q Q WJ
~ ~
> > W
W W
J J J
W W J
W W L?
O 0 Y
aaz
[if ft? a
0C)m
t
O
W
O
r-
w
O
z
Q
?- o
V
0
Q
z
0
N
FY
O
= O
N
O
N
O
0 O
c O
O O
co
F II
CL c
a) O
N of
C
Oi c0 p .0 O)
c a a
U+ C p 6
O O U
C C
U) -0 0 0 d
O U N ?w
U 0 C n a)
O -
rny O O ?
N nY
nc E cp
X
O-0 0 N0 oU
(n - O 0 0- > C
w _ 0 a)
H Q U p w-0
O
Z N
ri *c+ f 1
s 7F i;

E
CC) -C
O U
O cn
N
T
N
C
c C CO
U :3 0 U)
O (n X
a)

a)
F
O a
E

T T O
> > -p p
I
:3 L -?) U
0
(n N W J

: IV
-ilk
.?

m r == m=== m mm r m m
O
O O 0-) CO f- QO
m 0-? rn 0-)
('iJ) NOUVA3?3
J OD W O
C O <
9L 0
DZ U? N m O C) 0
z
v) g 00 C O
z La 4)0 L) (if
Ar Z cy- 1?- s U) O? a 0 N
M
OOoN Op zU m? a v z U)
?IF L a ?H 0-
II; r z W g a? ?o Ocf) 0
g w N La"i z wx m m
IM:?.. 4 'L O yy a0. C -O O U
U d ~ O U w
W
QC
z
o.
Q
z Z Z Z Z Z z 0 _
0 d-qo u
Q O
> n n°O c
W o O t
0 II
W N
a c
z Ou) >°
O C N Q p
Q gcP00 Q ?'? UO ?>
U
Q NNMM 0 V ' O N
} 00 OO c
a (n C
u) -p O O a
w Q <; u) - -O -.?
Q. _ = OE a
Z =' Z Q.
d ° O m U N O?
Q)
z ¢ v yr c a) c o
w? 3 z E
w U Vn3 pE
I x
?. W M 0 00 o
u
Z No D J j o T _ L6? ?? N a o j > _0
O U) d d N OOf ONN 04f,?tn 00 qN7O V NNN000 U)MNOCO Inr d m Z O 2 W y W N C) U W
w -2 C: 7 7 O O
O C O0 (P Il I- d ? () ? 0O^ d 1? d NMONU)Cp?dcA ?n M d tON(O -I? In '-d U Q ? Y ~ d' U f- <i
V) W J
Q O^cn NO)OOO600006cO666g0rn O066c66 ONONWCANOW J m z Z O H 0 (n
J oocnrn(ncnmo?oooorncncncnrnrnmrncnocncncncnrnrnm(n(ncnrnrnorn ?i <m m a w E Z cV M
W Y :$
001" d Nd I- In 0,1 11) 10 OCOO n MM3 (Ahl?gd NO gOtO U7 u?CO cp MD] m' W
0 0 d LOO N.-d OqM N "t OIL OC'J IOON? NOO N
OOd N f? 0 011)rn Co CJ CnMd
O O NN N N 10 MM d Nh670OO'-? a N d N ??` 3 pOONNN NN NN?N
00
0 C)
V L^ e Zr yQ ; max..
ai ?•?
O co
.•?,,,-? ?+'???r1 s?ssr-" ' _ - i cy"c?j.E,ay^'.
N Q 4
O W W
/O
??../?
cl?
I
--- + .iv
I- N r--' U :`g v
LL ? ht 1 ice:' i.
W O W A
J. rt
? O
J
z O
N
O O 1 W_ s.
= N --- - {\ (/) a 'fie °?i.? ????• .,' ` ?t
O l O n^; S r i
O - - - - OC a + T- '?
U t v. _ `, +
O l - _ a T? nPr??
rr.
00
N:Z
- -- `' _
O
mfr/ ?. t f..d2 4 ` ? '
NJ) NOUVAIT]

E
q
O O
o
N
T vi
C
H ? ?

U
7 O
?
O cn ? X
`w
s

o a°?

T T ? .
O
U

N
Z
o O
I o
W
W I o
W

W
Q 0.
O
O
N
110 °
co LLJ
w Q z Q 0 Q p
a W q L z ^?pp Q 00 v?
' O } ar J ~ m O ^ O
l F- O O U - O
La Lo=O
Z LCH ?uO pU (/??? O o .. W
O 000- < v z°
0a? a? O V) I < M
V N O >of VNCO X v i++
W g LLO a0 =O ONU
F c,. Uz ?X m co Q.
U d O U N w

i

I ?
r'
i
_

? o
7
J

I
I
j
f ?

O O O O OI M F?
NOIIVNAT?
N
O
N
N
O
O
N
O
O
CD
W ?
U
z ?
Q ?
c
J O
Q N
Z
O
N O
a? O
O
S
O
DO
O
O
O
('\I
O
O
n b
00
00
N N
Z Z
O O
Q Q
w >
ww
J J
W W
W W
p p
Q Q
00
i
i
i
D
v
0
w
c
E
0
U
O
V
N
N

o

? O

? II
a c
O O
U) >
-
C ?
?' o rn.o o >
c? v
U U C O ? v
U O O O

,n -o
v C C
° a
o ?
V) -0
.
O C ? v1 0
U
O U O-
N
N N
I N U O NY
C
N E
X E
2
0
N O
L
, O
U
W O N

O
Q 0

U w?
Z .- N r7

co

O U
0
N
T
N
C N
c 00
U 0 U-)
O N
X
N
t
i
O N E
p ? O

O C

T
T
? O

>
> _
O

:3
v U
CO N J

Q O J O
W * O Q
Q ? N N O
Q z z Z Z >• U
n ?9 O +
o
O m u °
O
°
Z .3?N i 0
< VQ Uw
O J - ?n? ?! ? ? ® 3 0
° u7 2 z Z c~ VC14 Do J° w
f Z W ?aNN ao 0a U z
F- z M
0 =0 W
I g W g a uz° O m °
F c La v a
6 Z _w ,_.! Q r. c v o U
U d h ? U N w
O
O
co O O
O O
N N
i h
LO O O
Q Q
O
IO ?? W> I? p W W
Lo r O O J p 00 J
00 W p 00 W
.N . N N
O i^ W -- W
N ... - __ ?. t C9 Z O Q
U C)
Y O Z° Q
Z W O O L? °
w O
Z li
H.N.. d' Q 3 H - D'
qD ° Ja>c??m aQ U)
LJG - _._-- __ ? J wO
W J W Z W JLLJ p
- ° I N o w Q c w^ o w a Q °
o -: Z ,- I- 3'o 8 F wo 3 o
X `n jw
_ ooov>? oo p ii
C9 ?D J J?Qa O 0-
° W N J W (n 0' 0' O O
J
N w? co m m L w? m m w
N
Q S S= Z Q 2 m a U
- o W ?ac?ocD <of<0C) 0
't iA- N w
! O ::)
O Q D
z
m 3
o - I _ i I Z
DO o -- - c
O
00
? I ? I I I
I '
0
c0--
? I -- I
i
O
I
O - -
0
o -- -
M
N O
0 0 0 0 0 0 CO r (D Lf) It r) N O O
O O) M O) M M M O) ( (Y)00
O
O
O
00
N
O
O
N
0
N
O
N
N
O
O
N
O
00
O
CD
O
O
N
I!1_?I V/ iLli1I
C-D 00 ! I I ??_

°o 14 --1 1
Q 1 1 T-

o
N •- rt - -- r
I
° I `!
It n N O
O O O O O m M r- O u) ? M N Y) O O MMMO)MMMM CC)
O
O
0)
O
00
00
i
O ITI
c0
00 r
I
O
00
o
N ----- -
03
i
O
O
00
O
co
O
O
O ?
N
n
O
O
n
I
o
m -- -
cc I - -
O
co -
co-
0
CD
I
--- f ??
O
? ? N O
O O O O O O) ? ? O u7 d' r7 N ? O O
O O O O O O) O m m co

0

1
1

1
f
1

1

1

1
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site: Longitudinal Profile Data (Oct 2008)
TWG WS BKF TWG WS BKF
Station Elevation Elevation Elevation Station Elevation Elevation Elevation
0.0 94.3 95.9 95.9 513.2 91.9
10.5 94.6 525.6 91.6 93.1
18.8 93.8 536.6 92.0 93.0 93.2
27.4 94.1 545.7 91.5 93.1
44.8 93.8 95.9 557.8 91.7 93.1
50.7 94.2 569.1 92.0 93.0
59.2 93.9 577.8 91.6 92.9 93.1
70.1 94.4 95.6 582.5 92.0
86.1 93.9 589.3 92.1 92.9
92.6 93.7 596.9 90.9 92.8
96.7 94.3 95.2 95.2 601.2 92.0 92.9 93.1
103.6 94.3 608.8 91.5
113.2 93.3 95.0 615.2 92.2
127.6 93.6 620.7 90.8
137.6 93.4 627.5 91.7 93.1
153.1 93.4 633.0 90.8 92.8 93.0
160.8 93.7 640.2 91.9 92.9
167.6 93.6 95.2 658.2 91.7 92.8
180.3 93.5 672.9 91.3 92.6 92.6
192.4 93.6 682.3 91.3 92.7
208.0 94.1 692.4 91.1 92.7
221.4 93.9 94.8 703.7 91.3 92.7 92.9
236.0 94.0 94.7 721.8 91.4 92.6
248.6 93.5 94.7 742.0 91.3 92.6
266.8 92.2 94.8 751.3 91.1 92.6 92.5
274.2 94.3 94.6 757.0 90.6 92.5
290.8 93.5 94.5 764.5 90.5 92.6
302.4 93.1 94.6 94.3 771.1 90.6 92.9
314.1 93.3 94.4 777.2 91.0
323.0 92.8 94.5 786.2 91.3 92.5 92.5
331.6 93.0 791.4 90.5 92.5
345.7 93.8 94.2 797.7 90.7
361.5 93.2 94.1 809.5 91.3 92.4
370.2 93.1 94.3 814.8 91.1 92.5 92.5
382.2 93.2 820.8 90.9 92.5
394.0 92.6 94.0 829.7 89.9 92.4 92.7
402.7 92.5 93.9 834.2 90.2 92.4
418.2 92.5 93.9 837.8 91.4 92.3
429.6 92.5 93.6 94.1 843.1 90.3 92.5 92.2
438.7 92.9 93.8 846.1 90.5
451.4 92.6 93.7 851.3 90.8 92.4
466.3 92.5 93.5 858.5 90.4
471.8 92.8 93.4 93.4 868.0 90.7 92.4
479.6 92.4 93.5 873.1 91.0
486.9 92.0 93.4 877.4 90.5 92.3
495.3 92.4 93.3 93.3
EEP Project No. D04020-2
B-1
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
1

APPENDIX C: AQUATIC COMMUNITY DATA
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
C

SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Reach 1
(Reference)
Reach 2
Reach 3 Reach 4
(Reference)
ARTHROPODA
Isopoda
Asellidae SH
Caecidotea sp. 9.1 CG 1
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae CG
Pseudocloeon sp. 4 CG 1 2
Eurylophella sp. 4.3 SC 2 4
Heptageniidae SC
Maccaffertium (Stenonema) sp. SC 12 4
Leptophlebiidae CG 1
Paraleptophlebia sp. 0.9 CG 9 3 1
Odonata
Aeshnidae p
Basiaeschna janata 7.4 1
Boyeria vinosa 5.9 P 5 14 5
Calopterygidae p
Calopteryx sp. 7.8 P 2 3 4 3
Coenagrionidae P
Argia sp. 8.2 P 3 1
Cordulegastridae p
Cordulegaster sp. 5.7 P 1
Gomphidae p
Gomphus sp. 5.8 P 5 1 1 1
Dromogomphus armatus 5.9 P 4
Hagenius brevistylus 4 P 3 1
Progomphus obscurus 8.2 P 5 1
Libellulidae p
Landona julia 2 1
Macromia sp. 6.2 p 1
Neurocordulia sp. 5 6 8 1
Plecoptera
Leuctridae SH
Leuctra sp. 2.5 SH 9 4 31
Perlidae p
Acroneuria lycorias 2.1 P 8
Eccoptura xanthenes 3.7 P 1 2
Perlesta placida sp. gp. 4.7 p 2
Perlinella ephyre p 5
Perlodidae P 1
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
C-1

SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Reach 1
(Reference)
Reach 2
Reach 3 Reach 4
(Reference)
Hemiptera
Belostomatidae
Belostoma sp. 9.8 P
Corixidae 9 PI 1
Nepidae -
Ranatra sp. 7.8 P 1
Megaloptera
Corydalidae P
Chauliodes rastricornis 8.4 P
Nigronia serricornis 5 P 2 3
Trichoptera
Brachycentridae SH
Anisocentropus pyraloides 0.9 SH 1 1
Calamoceratidae SH
Heteroplectron americanum 3.2 - 1
Hydropsychidae FC
Diplectrona modesta 2.2 FC 2 17
Hydropsyche sp. FC 4 5 4
Leptoceridae CG
Triaenodes sp. 4.5 SH 2
Odontoceridae SC
Psilotreta sp. 0 SC 1
Philopotamidae FC
Chimarra aterrima 2.8 FC 1 9 4
Psychomyiidae CG
Lype diversa 4.1 SC 1
Sericostomatidae
Agarodes sp. 0.7 0.69 1 2
Coleoptera
Curculionidae
Elmidae CG
Promoresia elegans 2.2 SC 1 1
Stenelmis sp. 5.1 SC 2
Hydrophilidae p
Sperchopsis tesselatus 6.1 CG 4
Tropisternus sp. 9.7 P
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
C-2

SPECIES T.V. F.F.G. Reach 1
(Reference)
Reach 2
Reach 3 Reach 4
(Reference)
Diptera
Ceratopogonidae P 1
Chironomidae
Clinotanypus sp. P 1 1 1
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 P 2 12 4
Cricotopus bicinctus 8.5 CG 1
Cricotopus trifascia 2.8 CG 5
Cricotopus sp. CG 2
Microtendipes pedellus gp. 5.5 CG 2
Nanocladius sp. 7.1 CG 1
Parachaetocladius sp. 0 CG 1 2
Parametriocnemus sp. 3.7 CG 2
Polypedilum flavum (convictui 4.9 SH 1
Procladius sp. 9.1 P 1
Rheosmittia sp. 7 2 1
Rheotanytartsus exiguus gp. 5.9 1 4 1
Tanytarsus sp. 6.8 FC 1
Tvetenia paucunca 3.7 CG 2 1
Xylotopus par 6 SH 3
Simuliidae FC
Simulium Sp. 6 FC 1 2
Tipulidae SH
Hexatoma sp. 4.3 P 1
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 104 96 49 68
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 35 28 20 16
EPT 15 9 6 5
NCBI 4.19 5.38 5.04 3.26
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
C-3
1
I!

r
1 APPENDIX D: NCDWQ HABITAT ASSESSMENT FORM - COASTAL PLAIN
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
D

D
3106 Revision 7
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Coastal Plain Streams
fO'fAL SCORE
Biological Assessment Unit, ll?VQ
Directions for use: 'the observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perfomr a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
' Stream Locatio:t road: (Road Name )County
Date CCtf Basin Subbasin
Observer(s)- Type of Study: ? Fish ?Benihos O Basinwidc OSpecial Study (Describe)
' Latitude Longitude ___ _I?corcgion: ? CA ? SWP ? Sandhills ? CI3
Water Quality: Temperature °C fx) mg l Conductivity (corr. "S/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location. Check off what
you observe driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible I-and Ilse: %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture %Active Crops
%Fallow Fields %Commercial %Industrial %Ofher - Describe:
' Watershed land use ? Forest ? Agriculture ?Urban ? Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream _ - _ _ Channel (at top of bank)- _ -_._ Stream Depth: (in) Avg -Max
? Width variable ?Braided channel ?l.arge river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part ofehannel to top of bank): (pi)_
' Flow conditions : ?High ?Normal OLow
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ...................................... ?
' B. Water tills >75% of available channel, or <25% ofehannel substrate is exposed ........................ ?
C. Water fills 25-75%ofavailable channel, many logsfsnags exposed :::........................................ ?
D. Root mats out of water ................................................................ ?
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools. ................................ ............... ?
Turbidity- OClear ? Slightly Turbid ?Turbid ?1'annic ?Milky ?Colorcd (from dyes) ?Grecn tinge
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? ? YES ? NO
Details
?Ounmelized ditch
?Deeply incised-steep, straight banks ?Both banks undercut at bend ?Channel filled in with sediment
?Recenl overbank deposits ?Bar development ?Sewage smell
?Excessive periphyton growth ?Heavy filamentous algae growth
Manmade Stabilization: ?N ?Y, ?Rip-rup, cement, gabions ? Sediment/grade-control structure ?Bermelevee
Weather Conditions: _____Photos- ?N ?Y ODigital ?35nmt
Remarks:
TYPICAL Sri'REAM CROSS SECTION DIAGRAM ON BACK
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
D-1

1
1. Channel Modification
Score
A. Natural channel-minimal dredging ................................................................................ 15
B. Some channelization near bridge, or historic (>20 year old), and/or bends beginning to reappear.. 10
C. Extensive channelization, straight as far as can see, channelized ditch .......................... 5
D. Banks shored with hard structure, >80% of reach disrupted, instream habitat gone........ 0
Remarks_ Subtotal
II. Instream llabitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >50% of the
reach is snags, and I type is present, circle the score of 16. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and
have begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare. Common, or Abundant
-Sticks -Snags/logs Undercut banks or root mats _Macrophytes _Leafpacks
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLON17AT ION OR COVER
>500/. 30-50% 10.30% <10%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 is 10 5
3 types present ......................... 18 13 8 4
2 types present ......................... 17 12 7 3
1 type present ........................... 16 11 6 2
No substrate for benthos colonization and no fish cover ........... ................................ .0
? No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks_ _ Subtotal
Ill. Bottom Substrate (silt, clay, sand, detritus, gravel) look at entire reach for substrate scoring.
A. Substrate types mixed Score
1. gravel dominant ................................................................................... ................................ 15
2. sand dominant ...................................................................................... ............................... 13
3. detritus dominant ................................................................................. ............................... 7
4. silt/clay/muck dominant ....................................................................... .............................. 4
B. Substrate homogeneous
1. nearly all gravel ................................................................................... ............................... 12
2. nearly all sand ..................................................................................... ............................... 7
3. nearly all detritus ................................................................................. ............................... 4
4. nearly all silt/clay/muck ....... ...... ............ --............. ............................ .............................. 1
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow.
Remarks-
-Subtotal- -
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 100m length surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ............................................................................................................... 10
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in) ............................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the I00m length surveyed)
a, variety ofpool sizes ............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools about the same size ....................................................................................................... 4
B. Pools absent
1. Deep water/run habitat present ............................................................................................................ 4
2. Beep water/run habitat absent ............................................................................................................ 0
Subtotal
Remarks
Page Total_
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
D-2

I I

1
r

1
n

V. Bank Stability and Vegetation Score Score
A. Banks stable or no banks, just hood plain
1. little or no evidence of erosion or bank failure, little potential for erosion ........................ 10 10
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ................................ 9 9
2. few Imes or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ...................... 7 7
3. sparse vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ....................... 4 4
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow 2 2
5, little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident .............................0 0
Total
Remarks-
V1. Light Penetration (Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead).
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... a
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal ..................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No canopy and no shading ................................................................................................................. 0
Subtotal
Remarks- _
V11. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: A break in the riparian zone is any area which allows sediment to enter the stream. Breaks refer to the near-stream portion
of the riparian zone (banks); places where pollutants can directly enter the stream.
Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. zone width > 18 meters.. .............. ................................................. 5 5
2. zone width 12-18 meters ................................................................................... 4 4
3. zone width 6-12 meters ..................................................................................... 3 3
4. zone width < 6 meters ................................... ......................... .................. ........ 2 2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. zone width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 4 4
b. zone width 12-18 meters ....................................................................... 3 3
c. zone width 6-12 meters ....................................................................... 2 2
d. zone width < 6 meters ............ ........................................................ 1 1
2. breaks common
a. zone width > 18 meters ......................................................................... 3 3
b. zone width 12-18 meters ...................................................................... 2 2
c. zone width 6-12 meters ............ .............................................. 1 I
d. zone width < 6 meters ......................................................................... 0 0
Total
Remarks_
Page Total-
TOTAL SCORE
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
D-3
Typical Stream Cross-section
1
1

1
1
1
1
EEP Project No. D04020-2
D-4
This side is 45° bank angle.
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site

APPENDIX E: VEGETATION MONITORING PLOT PHOTOS
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
E
O
a
0
do

M
O
a
0
cw
a?

N
0
a
o?u

It
O
a
0
a?

Z o
.arW?,, S *«.
y
- Iv
l
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
E-1

i
+M1

?
21
I

^ 4
r ?r

ay. ?.
r? 7
r y Y ? {
l Y ?' 13' Y 'D P'
P-i
•?i
1 7
7n
1
_O
0.1
S~
O
N
bA

x"LSs1`C

x

ro

O
Rr
O
N
bA

' 's y
r-
FB/?O
I
3~
O
N
on
N

_ wti ?yg
?i ti 1•R?T 1? ?
777 R l7q
tr 7n i _: t $?
J?" ?dvt
rh R v
00
O
a
O
C4
bA
N

EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
E-2
APPENDIX F: GROUNDWATER GAUGE HYDROGRAPH
EEP Project No. D04020-2
McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
F
(ui) Ilejured
o n o ?n o `^ o `r? o v, o
kn 7 V M m N N ,--. .•-. O O
V
..r
O ?
S.a ? O
b
W by N
rte-,
V
O ?
W O
0 3 0
O O
Q ?
--------------------------------
Nov 5
°
U
a -j
V] [/1 V] V1 y
W
0 0 0 O u
N M V
fC
by bA W M W C
m m m m o N
(7 C7 I? I? ?
I i
W
N
bA
w
L
°
i-i
W
bO
C3
N cd
C °
Cd a
N
bA
r?
V
CIO
W cq
O
z
v
O

b?A
cd
Cd
Q
ti

£Z Sew
0
G y
w
O M H m
C

[ w
0
? O

March 27
f - - -
- - - -
r
o ?n o In O Wn o Vl o k o
d• M M N N .--.--+ O C O .--? i
(•Ij) izlu npunwD of gldaQ
A
cd
Q
EEP Project No. D04020-2 McDonalds Pond Restoration Site
F-1