20181272 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2020_20210105

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20181272 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/06/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/5/2021
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
17. Stream r Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Paul Wiesner [e-mail]
Project Information
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20181272 Version:*1
Existing ID## Existing Version
Project Type: C' DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site
County: Yadkin
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Greenbrier_100086_MY1_2020.pdf 7.49MB
Rease upload only one R7Fof the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Paul Wiesner
Signature:*

Year 1 Monitoring Report
FINAL
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
Yadkin County, North Carolina
Monitoring Year 1
Data Collection Period: Submission Date:
October 2020 November 2020
MI* WI 1" IS,,' kit,
pot"?
r
t d. 4
,'„ s., Bey '�'..x _ �. �;
E r. � = -
72'
� ,C'�� 'I't r (f 'e ms . , , ,7
NCDEQ Contract No. 7616
DMS ID No. 100086
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01755
NCDWR ID: 20181272
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101
Prepared For: Prepared By:
0 NC Department of Environmental Quality Ecosystem Planning and Restoration
Division of Mitigation Services 1150 SE Maynard Road,Suite 140
„ 1652 Mail Service Center rEPR Cary, NC 27511
v'''' rT�ervr, Raleigh, NC 27603

Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
ECOSYSTEM 1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140
Raleigh, NC 27511
PLANNING 8c
EPR RESTORATION Phone: [phone]
www.eprusa.net
Mr. Paul Wiesner
NCDEQ— Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravencroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
December 7, 2020
RE: Response to Draft MY1 Monitoring Report Comments dated December 2, 2020
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin—CU#03040101 -Yadkin County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project# 100086, Contract#7616
Dear Mr. Wiesner,
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration (EPR) has reviewed the comments on the Draft MY1
Monitoring Report provided December 2, 2020. The comments have been addressed as described
below and the Final Baseline Report and electronic deliverables have been revised in response to
this review.
• Table 1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits & Table 3. Project Attribute Table: The
thermal regime for the project streams is "warm". This was a typo/mistake in the approved
mitigation plan that DMS did not catch in the review. Please update the tables accordingly."
o Tables 1 and 3 have been updated to reflect warm thermal regime.
• CCPV Maps: Since VP-4 is not meeting the MY3 interim success criteria of 320 stems/acre, it
should be shown as "red"on the CCPV Maps. This should be updated in the MY2 report once
the supplemental planting effort is completed and the plot meets the success criteria.
o VP-4 and RVP-1 are now shown as red on the CCPV maps.
• Table 6 & Table 7: Recommend showing the VP-4 stems/ acre cells (162 stems/ acre) as
orange/red since it is not meeting the MY3 interim success criteria of 320 stems/acre.
o The cells on Tables 6 and 7 showing the 162 stems/acre have been shaded red.
Electronic Support File Comments:
• Please provide the spatial feature used to display the vegetation problem area in Fig. 28.
o The spatial feature shapefile Greenbrier Veg Problem Areas has been added to the
digital submittal.
• In an effort to ensure that DMS has features that represent the creditable lengths or areas,
the mitigation plan features were reviewed. In the mitigation plan design features, UT18 has
a length of 232 ft, but is reported as 247.5 ft in the asset table. If possible, please resubmit the
mitigation plan features ensuring that the feature lengths match reported lengths.
""`�—j Providing ecosystem planning and restoration services to support a sustainable environment ----

Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, LLC
ECOSYSTEM 1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140
Raleigh, NC 27511
PLANNING &rPR RESTORATION Phone: [phone]
www.eprusa.net
o Based on a discussion with DMS, the shapefile will remain as originally provided.
If you have any questions regarding the MY1 Monitoring Report, please contact me at 919-623-5411
or via email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
r
Amy James, PWS
""" ----- Providing ecosystem planning and restoration services to support a sustainable environment�...00"^

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 1
1.1 Goals and Objectives 1
1.2 Performance Criteria 1
2.0 MONITORING DATA ASSESSMENT 6
2.1 Stream Monitoring 6
2.1.1 Stream Profile 6
2.1.2 Stream Dimension 6
2.1.3 Channel Stability 6
2.1.4 Stream Hydrology 7
2.2 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring 8
2.2.1 Vegetation Monitoring Data 8
3.0 REFERENCES 13
TABLES
TABLE 1. PROJECT MITIGATION QUANTITIES AND CREDITS 2
TABLE 2. SUMMARY: GOALS, PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS 3
TABLE 3. PROJECT ATTRIBUTE TABLE 5
FIGURES
FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP 9
FIGURE 2-2B. CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW:ASSET MAP 10
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
r
Year 1 Monitoring Report-FINAL
DMS Project ID#100086
PR Yadkin County,North Carolina

APPENDICES
Appendix A:Visual Assessment Data
Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Vegetation Photo Log
Photo Log
Appendix B:Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Appendix C: Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross-Sections with Annual Overlays
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary
Appendix D: Hydrologic Data
Table 10. Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure 3. Monthly Rainfall Summary Data
Precipitation and Water Level Hydrographs
Appendix E: Project Timeline and Contact Information
Table 11. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 12. Project Contacts Table
Appendix F: EPR Responses to IRT MY0 Comments
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
r
Year 1 Monitoring Report-FINAL
DMS Project ID#100086
PR Yadkin County,North Carolina

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC(EPR) implemented the Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
(Project; Site)for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)to provide 2,300 stream
mitigation credits (SMCs) in the Yadkin River Basin, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101.The Project
was instituted via NCDEQ-DMS RFP# 16-007406.The Project restored and enhanced 2,530 linear feet
(LF) of one perennial (UT1) and three intermittent(UT1A, UT1A-1, and UT1B) unnamed tributaries (UT)
to South Deep Creek within a 6.7-acre conservation easement. Mitigation assets are listed in Table 1.
The Site is located in DMS targeted local watershed 03040101130020. The Site was historically utilized
for agricultural and cattle practices. As such, streams and existing wetlands in the project area were
adversely impacted by direct cattle access, farming activities, and stream channelization.The Site is
situated on once active pastureland in a WS-III watershed that is approximately 49%agricultural land,
42%forest, and 8%developed land, including open space and low intensity development. Prior to
construction activities, project streams were incised, straightened, and suffered from significant cattle
damage.The adjacent wetlands were small, but similarly trampled, and heavily grazed. Pre-construction,
or pre-existing, site conditions are provided in Table 8 of Appendix C. Photos and a more detailed
description of Site conditions before restoration are available in the Mitigation Plan (Final version
submitted December 2019).
1.1 Goals and Objectives
The Project goals were established based on an assessment of site conditions and restoration potential
with careful consideration of the stressors identified in the Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report(NCEEP, 2009) and Yadkin Pee-Dee Basinwide Water Quality Plan
(NCDWQ 2008).These goals and objectives are presented in Table 2.
Site construction, planting, and baseline vegetation data collection were completed in April 2020 and
the as-built survey was completed in May 2020. A detailed timeline of the Project activity and reporting
history is provided in Appendix E.
1.2 Performance Criteria
Project success criteria were established in accordance with the NCDMS Mitigation Plan Template(ver.
06/2017), and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers—Wilmington District Public Notice:Notification of Issuance
of Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District
(October 24, 2016). The monitoring plan for the site follows the guidance NCDMS Annual Monitoring
Report Format, Data, and Content Requirements (October 2020).Table 2 details the United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) success criteria that evaluate whether project goals have been met
throughout the monitoring period.
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report-FINAL 1
DMS Project ID#100086
r�� Yadkin County,North Carolina

Table 1. Project Mitigation Quantities and Credits
Original
Project Mitigation Original Original
Component Plan As-built Thermal Regime Restoration Mitigation Mitigation
(reach ID,etc.) (ft/ac) (ft/ac) Level Ratio(X:1) Credits Notes/Comments
Full Channel Restoration,
Planted Buffer,Exclusion
UT1 Reach 1 843.00 852.00 Warm R 1.00000 843.00 of Livestock,and
Permanent Conservation
Easement.
Bank stabilization,
Bioengineering,Planted
UT1 Reach 2 40.00 40.00 Warm E2 2.50000 16.00 Buffer,Exclusion of
Livestock,and
Permanent Conservation
Easement
Full Channel Restoration,
Planted Buffer,Exclusion
UT1 Reach 3 1097.00 1141.00 Warm R 1.00000 1097.00 of Livestock,and
Permanent Conservation
Easement.
Grade Control
Structures,Bank
UT1A-1 153.70 145.00 Warm E2 2.50000 61.48 Stabilization,Exclusion of
Livestock,and
Permanent Conservation
Easement.
Full Channel Restoration,
UT1A 148.50 153.00 Warm R 1.00000 148.50 Planted Buffer,Exclusion
of Livestock,and
UT1B 247.50 228.00 Warm R 1.00000 247.50 Permanent Conservation
Easement.
Total Assets Summary: 2,413.48
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category Overall Assets Summary
Stream Riparian Wetland Non riparian
Restoration Wetland Asset Overall
Level (linear
feet) (acres) (acres) Category Credits
Non-
Riverine Stream 2,413.48
Riverine
Restoration 2,336
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II 193.7
Rehabilitation
Preservation
High Quality
Pres
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report-FINAL 2
EPR Yadkin rCounty,North Carolina

Table 2.Summary: Goals, Performance and Results
Likely Functional Cumulative Monitoring
Goal Objective/Treatment Uplift Performance Criteria Measurement Results
• Recordation and In Monitoring Year 1,Plot 4
protection of a indicated that the downstream
conservation Permanent Vegetation Plots riparian area of UT1 Reach 3 has a
• Stabilize eroding stream banks. 4 permanent vegetation plots,
easement meeting low stem count;therefore,that
Reduce • Install fencing to exclude livestock from project NCDMS guidelines 0.02 acre in size,surveyed area will be replanted during the
streams. during As-built,Years 1,2,3,5,
sediment inputs • Visual inspection of upcoming dormant season.
• Increase distance between active farming and 7 between July 1' and leaf
and stream fence installed to However,the 4 permanent
turbidity; operations and receiving waters by re-establishing exclude cattle from drop.Data collection includes riparian vegetation plots had an
a riparian buffer permanently protected through a the stream and species,height,planted vs.
conservation easement. volunteer,and age. overall average stem density of
riparian buffer, 415 stems/acre and have met the
demonstrating no interim success criteria of 320
encroachment. native stems/acre in Year 3.
• The exclusion of livestock • Vegetation success Annual Random Vegetation
• Install fencing to exclude livestock from project will remove a direct criteria of 320 native Plots
streams. source of nutrients, stems/acre in Year 3, 2 randomly selected vegetation The 2 randomly selected
• Reduce the amount of land in active livestock coliform,and sediment 260 stems/acre in Year plots,0.02 acre in size, vegetation plots had an average
pasture. from the system,as well 5 and 210 native
Reduce nutrient surveyed during As-built,Years stem density of 627 stems/acre
• Increase distance between active farming as a major contributor to stems/acre in Year 7.
inputs operations and receiving waters by re-establishing channel instability. • Trees must average 7 1,2,3,5,and 7 between July and have met the interim success
1st and leaf drop.Data criteria of 320 native stems/acre in
a riparian buffer permanently protected through a • Restored riparian buffers feet in height at year collection includes species and Year 3.
conservation easement. will provide woody debris 5,and 10 feet in height height.
• Restore riparian buffers to filter runoff. and detritus for aquatic at year 7.
organisms,reduced • Visual inspection of
• Install fencing to exclude livestock from project water temperatures,and BMP's to ensure
streams. increased dissolved proper function during
• Reduce the amount of land in active livestock
Reduce Fecal pasture. oxygen concentrations, monitoring period.
Coliform Inputs • Increase distance between active farming as well as shade and Geomorphic cross
operations and receiving waters by re-establishing diverse aquatic and sections indicate
terrestrial habitats that stable sections over
a riparian buffer permanently protected through a
are appropriate for the the monitoring period.
conservation easement. ecore ion and setting. Bank height ratio The Year 1 monitoring cross-
Restore • Restore riparian buffer vegetation to filter runoff g g Cross Sections
/ p g (BHR)cannot exceed section survey indicates that the
Enhance and provide organic matter and shade. Cross sections are surveyed
g 1.2 for all measured during Years 1,2,3,5,and 7.8 project streams are
Degraded • Protect riparian buffers with a permanent geomorphically stable and
Riparian Buffers conservation easement. cross sections on a total cross sections,6 on UT1
p restored channel dimensions have
given reach. (3 riffle/3 pool),1 on UT1A and
• Entrenchment ratio 1 on UT1B. not changed significantly during
• Install fencing to exclude livestock from project (ER)must be 2.2 or Monitoring Year 1.
Implement streams. above for all measured
Agricultural • Install alternative watering systems to keep riffle cross-sections for
BMPs in livestock away from streams. C/E stream types and
Agricultural • Restore and protect riparian buffers. 1.4 or above for B
Watersheds • Install vegetated swales to slow and filter stream types.
concentrated runoff before entering the streams.
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL 3
DMS Project ID#100086
rRk Yadkin County,North Carolina

Table 2.Summary: Goals, Performance and Results
Likely Functional Cumulative Monitoring
Goal Objective/Treatment Uplift Performance Criteria Measurement Results
A full longitudinal survey of the
project streams was conducted
Stream Profile during As-built monitoring.No
Full longitudinal survey on all signs of instability or degradation
restored and enhanced stream were noted during MY1
channels.Data was collected monitoring. Additional
• Functional uplift will during As-built survey only. longitudinal profile surveys will not
occur by restoring project • Documentation of be conducted unless stability
channels to their historic hydrophytic issues are identified in future
valley,raising the vegetation within monitoring years.
streambeds,and vegetation monitoring Stream photo points and visual
Protect High • Restore appropriate bed form diversity, plots. Visual Assessment assessment indicate that all
connecting them to
Resource Value headwater stream/wetland form,and in-stream • Documentation of four Conducted yearly on all restored channels and in-stream
Waters structures to provide appropriate habitat. adjacent wetlands at bankfull events in restored stream channels and structures are performing as
lower flows.
(including • Restore minimum 50-foot riparian buffers along different years in-stream structures. intended.No stream problem
•
HQW,ORW, all project reaches. The addition of in-stream throughout the areas were observed.
structures hep to ensure
and WS • Protect riparian buffers with a permanent monitoring period. No instability was documented
classifications) conservation easement. channel stability and will • Documentation of 30 Additional Cross Sections during MY1 monitoring,so no
provide greater bedform days of consecutive Only surveyed if instability is additional cross sections were
diversity,enhancing stream flow in all documented during monitoring surveyed.
aquatic habitat for native reaches each Stream Hydrology Monitoring
species. monitoring year 3 pressure transducers(1 on Flow gauge data from MY1
UT1,UT1A,and UT1B each) indicate that all three project
and a rain gauge will record streams met the established
precipitation and streamflow success criteria of 30 days or more
data continuously through the of consecutive flow throughout
monitorin the year.In addition,all 3 gauges
g period.Photos of recorded several bankfull events
high-water indicators will be
taken yearly. during 2020.
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report FINAL 4
DMS Project ID#100086
rRk Yadkin County,North Carolina

Table 3. Project Attribute Table
Project Background Information
Project Name Greenbrier Stream Restoration Project
County Yadkin
Project Area(acres) 6.7
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) latitude 36 deg 8'54"N,longitude 80 deg 49'46"W
Planted Acreage(Acres of Woody Stems Planted) 6.3
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin Pee-Dee
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8- 03040101 USGS Hydrologic 3040101130020
digit Unit 14-digit
Project Drainage Area(Acres and Sq.Mi.) 85 acres/0.13 Sq.Mi.(Total)
Project Stream Thermal Regime Warm
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious <1%
Area
CGIA Land Use Classification Agriculture/Pasture 49%, Forest 42%,8%
Residential/Developed
Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT1 UT1A-1 UT1A UT1B
Length of reach(linear feet) 1958 154 115 195
Valley confinement(Confined,moderately Moderately
confined,unconfined) confined Unconfined Unconfined Unconfined
Drainage area(Acres and Square Miles) 0.13 SgAMi.,85 0.01 Sq.Mi.,8 Ac 0.01 Sq.Mi.,8 Ac 0.02 Sq.Mi.,10 Ac
Perennial,Intermittent,Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Intermittent Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS-III WS-III WS-III WS-III
Stream Classification(existing) B4c/B4 B4 F4 G4
Stream Classification(proposed) B4/C4 B4 B4 B4
Evolutionary trend(Simon) IV III IV III
FEMA classification X X X X
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States-Section 404 Yes Yes USACE NWP 27-ID#SAW-2018-01755
Water of the United States-Section 401 Yes Yes DWR 401 WQC No.4134--ID#20181272
Division of Land Quality(Erosion and Sediment General Permit NCG010000-
Control) Yes Yes ID#YADKI-2020-010
Endangered Species Act No Yes Categorical Exclusion Document;Appendix 6 in
Historic Preservation Act No Yes Mitigation Plan
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA or No N/A N/A
CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
rE P"
n Year 1 Monitoring Report-FINAL 5
Yadkin rCounty,North Carolina

2.0 MONITORING DATA ASSESSMENT
Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) data was collected in September and October 2020. Current site conditions and
monitoring data are described in the following sections to evaluate whether the project is meeting the
success criteria established in the mitigation plan.
2.1 Stream Monitoring
Stream monitoring involves field data collection to assess the hydrologic and geomorphic functions of
UT1, UT1A, and UT1B. Monitored parameters, methods, schedule/frequency, and extent are
summarized in Table 2.These monitoring parameters follow USACE guidance but will also allow for
monitoring of other parameters to document site performance related to the project goals listed in
Table 2.The locations of the established monitoring cross sections and stream gauges are shown in
Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View(CCPV).
2.1.1 Stream Profile
A full longitudinal profile was surveyed for the entire length of the restored streams in May 2020 to
document as-built conditions. This survey was tied to a permanent benchmark and includes thalweg,
right bank, and left bank features. Profile measurements were taken at the head and tail of each riffle,
inverts of in-stream structures, and at the max depth of pools.The longitudinal profile will not be
surveyed during annual monitoring unless vertical channel instability has been observed during
monitoring and remedial actions or repairs are needed.
2.1.2 Stream Dimension
Eight(8) permanent cross sections were installed across the site; 6 on UT1 and 1 each on UT1A and
UT1B. Five (5) cross sections were installed in riffles and three (3)were installed in pools. Each cross-
section was marked using a length of rebar and steel t-posts on both streambanks.The location and
elevation of each pin was recorded to facilitate data comparison from year to year. Cross-sections were
surveyed using a Topcon RL-H5A Self Leveling Laser Level. Reported data includes measurements of
bankfull elevation (based on the as-built bankfull area), bank height ratio (based on the as-built bankfull
area), thalweg elevation, elevation of the low top of bank, maximum depth from the low top of bank,
and low top of bank cross-sectional area (Appendix C).Stream dimension measurements were made
using the NCDMS cross section tool (Version 1.0, 2020). Reference photos were taken of both
streambanks to provide a visual assessment of any changes that may have occurred since the previous
monitoring year.
The Year 1 monitoring cross-section survey indicates that the project streams are stable and restored
channel dimensions have not changed significantly during Monitoring Year 1.The pool cross sections
have deepened slightly since the as-built survey but do not appear to be degrading. The riffle cross-
sections showed only minor fluctuations compared to the as-built condition and all restored streams
meet the success criteria for restored stream channels as established in the mitigation plan and shown
in Table A.The cross-section plots, photos, and data summary(Table 9) are included in Appendix C.
2.1.3 Channel Stability
Channel stability is assessed on a yearly basis using photographs to visually document the condition of
the restored project streams. Photographs are taken from the same location in the same direction each
year. Sixteen (16) photo points were established during baseline monitoring and are shown in the CCPV
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report-FINAL 6
DMS Project ID#100086
r�� Yadkin County,North Carolina

(Figure 2). Visual assessments of channel stability and in-stream structure condition were also made
regularly throughout Monitoring Year 1.
Stream photo points and visual assessments indicate that all restored channels and in-stream structures
are in good condition and performing as intended. No significant stream problem areas were observed.
The minor floodplain rilling along UT1 Reach 1 that was noted after construction has mostly stabilized
and these areas are covered with dense herbaceous vegetation. Some sections of the restored channels
also contain this herbaceous vegetation as well; however, it does not appear to be causing any
significant problems. EPR believes this is a temporary issue and the material should wash through the
channel during the dormant season.
2.1.4 Stream Hydrology
Three (3) pressure transducers were installed in UT1, UT1A, and UT1B to document stream flow and the
occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period.The locations of these gauges are shown in
the CCPV(Figure 2). All three gauges were installed in the downstream end of pools.The constructed
bankfull elevation at each gauge was recorded, as well as the elevation of the downstream controlling
grade.These elevations will be compared with the gauge readings to determine whether the stream is
flowing and if a bankfull event has occurred. Photos will be taken of flood indicators such as debris lines
and sediment deposition on the floodplain whenever it is apparent that a bankfull event has occurred.
This Project utilizes a tipping bucket rain gauge installed at another EPR-completed stream restoration
approximately 0.75 miles to the southeast (Meadowbrook, DMS project no. 100024) to accurately
document rainfall at the Site.The rainfall data can be compared to the flow gauge data to verify that
high flows at the Site are correlated with rainfall events.The monitoring gauges were downloaded
regularly throughout Monitoring Year 1 and rainfall data is presented in Figure 3. Monthly Rainfall
Summary Data and the flow gauge plots are in Appendix D. When the rain gauge was downloaded
during MY1 monitoring in October 2020, there were several spider webs built inside the tipping bucket
that could have been impacting the mechanism that records rainfall.This could have altered the rainfall
data presented in Appendix D, but it is difficult to determine with certainty. Measures will be taken to
ensure this will not happen in future monitoring years.
Flow gauge data from MY1 indicate that all three project streams met the established success criteria of
30 days or more of consecutive flow throughout the year. According to the gauge for UT1 (SG-1), the
stream had consistent flow throughout the year and the gauge documented 6 separate bankfull events.
SG-2, located in UT1A, documented consistent flow throughout the year as well as 4 bankfull events. SG-
3, which is installed in UT1B, documented 134 days of consecutive flow from June 16, 2020 to October
27, 2020 when the gauge was last downloaded. SG3 also recorded 10 separate bankfull events. These
numerous events along UT1B are likely influenced by UT1B's proximity to a wetland area and strong
ground water interaction. Additionally, these small headwater reaches have very low top of bank
depths and flood flows can easily spill out onto the floodplain. This reach is performing as intended and
the number of bankfull events is not concerning along this reach. Bankfull events were further
documented by photographs of other flood indicators, which are provided in Appendix A.The date and
timing of these bankfull events correlated with significant rainfall events recorded by the tipping bucket
rain gauge.
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report-FINAL 7
DMS Project ID#100086
r�� Yadkin County,North Carolina

2.2 Riparian Vegetation Monitoring
Riparian vegetation monitoring evaluates the growth and development of planted and volunteer
vegetation across the site. Monitored parameters, methods, schedule/frequency, and extent are
summarized in Table 2.These monitoring parameters follow USACE guidance but will also allow for
monitoring of other parameters to document site performance related to the project goals listed in
Table 2.
2.2.1 Vegetation Monitoring Data
Four permanent vegetation monitoring plots were monitored across the site. The corners of the
permanent vegetation plots were marked using steel t-posts and the location of each plot was surveyed
during the as-built survey.The individual trees within each permanent plot were flagged and identified
to facilitate repeat monitoring each year. In addition to the 4 permanent plots, 2 randomly placed
vegetation plots are established each year and the location of these plots is recorded using a GPS. All
vegetation plots for MY1 are shown in the CCPV(Figure 2). Annual vegetation data was compiled and
summarized using the DMS Vegetation Data Entry Tool.
Year 1 vegetation monitoring occurred in October 2020 before leaf drop and more than 180 days after
planting. Stem counts for the vegetation plots (fixed and random) ranged from 4 trees per plot(162
trees per acre) in VP-4 F (Fixed)to 24 trees per plot(972 trees per acre) in VP-6 R (Random).The average
density of stems from all 6 vegetation plots (fixed and random)was 12 trees per plot (486 trees per
acre).Therefore, the vegetation plot data indicates that planted trees on the Site are meeting the
interim success criteria of 320 stems/acre in Monitoring Year 3.
One vegetation problem area is noted in Figure 2. As indicated by the low stem count in VP-4 F (4 trees),
the downstream riparian area of UT1 Reach 3 is covered in dense herbaceous vegetation that seems to
have outcompeted the bare root trees that were planted in early 2020.This area covers around 1 acre
and will be replanted in 2021. No other vegetation problem areas were noted in MY1. Riparian
herbaceous and woody vegetation that was established after construction appears to be flourishing
throughout the site. Additionally, no invasive species were noted within the conservation easement.
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report-FINAL 8
DMS Project ID#100086
r�� Yadkin County,North Carolina

1 _ 1 i o
' 2r: a
tin' �a x N a( n
a , O
n
cs`°K yal 3� 7rjI b
F a \ .,
West Swfn - 1 .�$fi Fo+� J 4
I t
' 1 kli Scrod R:] O iY
of n
.Rr, 1 Gs, '^ P� R'YAa Church i �,�� Roca rfvusr Rd
ti I s zd koan r4 op11 Li.�f k] Aroun[aiP
°r r r 2 f _ �a
Lceli r %
4 Gael SM C4 / r9 v
4\
" ceAdr Fafl51/, Y ~ Rln NO 6.4nc4 ojP t RMK kYlReHp"nainYC... S{
%da V 4 J a v�� vs
_ G I A / y 4
f
-�Hp.ds 1 ,y� c a Granby- �VPme n� �''gh
A+binrc A}all Rd WM nta,n f Q. 4n y S
Ci PROJECT LOCATION �� 6 i 5
2 36.1488° N �""°"' '— a
Hvnrc Afpxrte�n a a
04.
80.8289°IN 4.4
ty us.az,a wJkcy Y,d4r^RuYy CO I °�� • (E'Ntl - � due
Rd
f liedarg aa,:..r�,,. rc :v �a ,4
a
n
2
.... ti,,,o. tnu P4 ctaek B�oper svmmp,pP a
il
Pliv ' aenaaA egarmf C 3 �y
/11
s>
t 680 T Le
r 'Le? pi. ^1'
_ Ou { 11nPCe0f 41 Ch,” N•e,5,,k, 11
,121 Old u&d�1
Hums 1'1W Cre El&fey I �rc.vf - fr'�YW rP
!M] farn Moflniarn 1 5 r R., CIE),8rarrh Rq r �21�� Bilty Rem
Mokpo. I• .n — Swots Rd
AlvunfMn r SON I er ecA 3 �Cr r2-� +,44,f
8,1r� la ' Robarls Mnunearn • r
1lyrN.t i6 v�4 'i ° . rs: FI t %o
a
R '� SvThem Sc1o°1'd r 3�'Rd • A ,• ,� ?c 'a. u12
of ka Piney I f r'
d' f
•
q4ti-
4 Abumiin I
f Spy
?°. ' y� f CralEr R:1 yY;.,1'',,, ufl41lhR "a' '�„ t
I HanlptonvIIle
•r r.2..lchen4tgti�r Irn it Q? I. di,
'
O e..4 c Rr
m Rn
H.r
LEGEND o �e�n�aqP
salm Pain[.7wrch fie ilFn
CONSERVATION EASEMENT IN
era er aria. cpV'c34'
0 1 2 GREENBRIER STREAM RESTORATION PREPARED FOR:
NCDEQ
MILES VICINITY MAP DIVISION OF
MITIGATION SERVICES
PREPARED BY:
FIGURE 1A YADKIN COUNTY, NC ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING&
LEPR RESTORATION

J — Collins
k
\ i
i
irrIEEZEM
UT1A-1
Figure
� UT1A
-r iiiiiii.\ -,
..t,„\....
p•
6✓1
Figure 2B
.Irn ►' ,.gig tr Ir , i: . f ii
Streams- Restoration Fixed Veg Plot- Unsuccessful Top of Bank Vegetation Problem Areas
Streams- Enhancement Fixed Veg Plot-Successful Photo Points
No Credit Random Veg Plot- Unsuccessful ED Stream Gauges
Conservation Easement Random Veg Plot- Successful Cross Sections
NC OneMap Orthoimagery(2018)
o goo 200 N GREENBRIER STREAM RESTORATION SITE DM8 PROJECT
PC
Feet CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW: OVERVIEW MAP ID# 100086
1 inch=200 feet MYO: 2020 a r:;,,••..,s: DEC 2020
FIGURE 2 YADKIN COUNTY, NC r
ECOSYSTEMPLANNING&
RESYc RATId1,1

Collins Road
r
`' i. -xs-1
.'I l SG-1
•ti3�':` RVP-7 •
4- : !
' • I it •I' --
k�- ..' Art VP-1 ,, I ,i ,; y p I, i,+;, 4 ;•' f
{ • 141
i
)..4.55 :r • :rr 4;xs-2 ,r • r ;i:•. ,'4 j,. a. P;, + '[
4 • i. . fi f I, Y. k ..1. <� e' , fit. 'rt. 1,.
i� ! I .�-•1 .R.
...?•••.,,._.
ii, !f t? :, ,
1 rF •
f •
l • '1;,-. �.:�I r '. t ,`4•1,
it'F•' 1 ,yam , I �{:f 3,�:_ '�. , . .\ 7,t ' ' • li.,,)UT1A-1
Streams- Restoration Structures Cross Sections Fixed Veg Plot- Unsuccessful Vegetation Problem Areas
Streams- Enhancement Top of Bank Fixed Veg Plot-Successful
No Credit ) Photo Points Random Veg Plot- Unsuccessful
Conservation Easement ® Stream Gauges Random Veg Plot- Successful NC OneMap Orthoimagery(2018)
0 100 N GREENBRIER STREAM RESTORATION SITEliC DM8 PROJECT
FEET CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW: ASSET MAP ID# 100086
1 inch= 100 feet MY 1: 2020 DEC 2020
FIGURE 2A YADKIN COUNTY, NC EOM
PI ANNING&
PR Rt`i l oH.•711ON E N

• � •, tom;` --—-_
% - ', ,,',1,7,4-11r , , • . - '
".` �.., a .y C . • �ic,
E811=1:k,',,,,, •:.,,,cif.;, ,,,,,o.p. _;.„,.,..::,,,,,i, -.. - .,
r - w0�.. ? ` ;?0 , RVP-2 7.-'','f-. �,yi =, \`>' r'' i r
--, , • .6...,, -........0.ii ,00 II** ,i. ,fle 1• L ..
a
VP-3 -'fit' f. XS-8' .
4
- ,'''..0,' 1V-3'
w y�
es
XS-5 �-'...f``.'1 _ rf.
XS-6, x , 1
* kVt Al ' m
Low planted stem density,
dense herbaceous vegetation growth Y- ,, •,
TT r� • ri
i• • tffrk0; • i
.. .c.1 L.;0;41.ilh: #6. I:,4 iy.,+.‘. :,3,; 1 1 .. ., .4,....ii..e. ,i._.
„ !f .‘I.14-44C,r iii.g:ol 0'11,7 '11,kisill+;. , :
. C. #11 i%' ;')1' ,Alt:1 .it,i 7\
Streams- Restoration Structures Cross Sections Fixed Veg Plot- Unsuccessful IK/I Vegetation Problem Areas
Streams- Enhancement Top of Bank Fixed Veg Plot-Successful
No Credit f) Photo Points Random Veg Plot- Unsuccessful
Conservation Easement ® Stream Gauges Random Veg Plot- Successful NC OneMap Orthoimagery(2018)
0 100 N GREENBRIER STREAM RESTORATION SITEItZ DM8 PROJECT
FEET CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW: ASSET MAP ID# 100086
1 inch= 100 feet MY 1: 2020 DEC 2020
EM
FIGURE 2B YADKIN COUNTY, NC Pi ANNING&
EPR Ru,,ioNAl1cyN

3.0 REFERENCES
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). DMS
Vegetation Data Entry Tool, October 2020. https://ncdms.shinyapps.io/Veg Table Tool/
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). DMS Cross
Section Tool V.1.0 2020. https://ncdms.shinyapps.io/XS APP/
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). Annual
Monitoring Report Format, Data, and Content Requirements, October 2020.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Restoration
Priorities.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2008. Yadkin Pee-Dee Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. October 2016. Wilmington District Public Notice: Notification of Issuance
of Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington
District.
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
Year 1 Monitoring Report-FINAL 13
DMS Project ID#100086
r�� Yadkin County,North Carolina

Appendix A
Visual Assessment Data
Table 4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Vegetation Photo Log
Photo Log

Table 4a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project (DMS No.100086)
Reach ID UT1 Reach 1
Assessed Stream Length (ft) 843
Assessed Bank Length (ft) 1686
Number Total Amount of % Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Stable, Number in Unstable Performing
Performing As-built Footage as Intended
as Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor 0 100%
Bank growth and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears
Toe Erosion likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, 0 100%
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical- rotational, slumping, calving, 0 100%
or collapse
Totals 0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 24 24 100%
grade across the sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence
Bank Protection does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in 24 24 100%
DMS monitoring guidance document)
Appendix A
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project ECOSYSTEM rDMS No. 100086 PLANNING&
PR RESTORATION

Table 4b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project (DMS No.100086)
Reach ID UT1 Reach 3
Assessed Stream Length (ft) 1097
Assessed Bank Length (ft) 2194
Number Total Amount of % Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Stable, Number in Unstable Performing
Performing As-built Footage as Intended
as Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor 0 100%
Bank growth and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears
Toe Erosion likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, 0 100%
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical- rotational, slumping, calving, 0 100%
or collapse
Totals 0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade 15 15 100%
across the sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence
Bank Protection does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in 24 24 100%
DMS monitoring guidance document)
Appendix A
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project ECOSYSTEM rDMS No. 100086 PLANNING&
PR RESTORATION

Table 4c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project (DMS No.100086)
Reach ID UT1A
Assessed Stream Length (ft) 148.5
Assessed Bank Length (ft) 297
Number Total Amount of % Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Stable, Number in Unstable Performing
Performing As-built Footage as Intended
as Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor 0 100%
Bank growth and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears
Toe Erosion likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, 0 100%
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical- rotational, slumping, calving, 0 100%
or collapse
Totals 0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 6 6 100%
grade across the sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence
Bank Protection does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in 6 6 100%
DMS monitoring guidance document)
Appendix A
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project ECOSYSTEM rDMS No. 100086 PLANNING&
PR RESTORATION

Table 4d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project (DMS No.100086)
Reach ID UT1 B
Assessed Stream Length (ft) 247.5
Assessed Bank Length (ft) 495
Number Total Amount of % Stable,
Major Channel Category Metric Stable, Number in Unstable Performing
Performing As-built Footage as Intended
as Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor 0 100%
Bank growth and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears
Toe Erosion likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, 0 100%
appear sustainable and are providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical- rotational, slumping, calving, 0 100%
or collapse
Totals 0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of 6 6 100%
grade across the sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence
Bank Protection does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in 6 6 100%
DMS monitoring guidance document)
Appendix A
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project ECOSYSTEM
DMS No. 100086 PLANNING&
EPR RESTORATION

Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project (DMS No.100086)
Planted Acreage 6.34
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold Combined Acreage % of Planted Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous 0.1 acres 0.00 0.0%
material.
Low Stem Density Woody stem densities clearly below target levels 0.1 acres 1.00 15.8%
Areas based on current MY stem count criteria.
Total 1.00 15.8%
Areas of Poor Growth Planted areas where average height is not meeting 0.25 acres 0.00 0.0%
Rates current MY Performance Standard.
Cumulative Total 1.00 15.8%
Easement Acreage 6.7
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold Combined Acreage % of Easement Acreage
Invasives may occur outside of planted areas and
within the easement and will therefore be calculated
against the total easement acreage. Include species
Invasive Areas of with the potential to directly outcompete native, 0.1 acres 0.00 0.0%
Concern young, woody stems in the short-term or community
structure for existing communities. Species
included in summation above should be identified in
report summary.
Encroachment may be point, line, or polygon.
Encroachment to be mapped consists of any
Easement violation of restrictions specified in the conservation
Encroachment Areas easement. Common encroachments are mowing, None No Encroachments Noted
cattle access, vehicular access. Encroachment has
no threshold value as will need to be addressed
regardless of impact area.
Appendix A
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project ECOSYSTEM
DMS No. 100086 PLANNING&
_PR RESTORATION

Greenbrier Stream Mitigation j
Monitoring Year 1 (November 2020) - VegetationProect Photo Log
•
"sr te ` -
,(�.: ,tip �` a .re>' � Y� ,-1 k 6,,,,..,?;+l. W .''_ - � Z, w .f.
*S S, ^" C'YTS - „sa I'�y,,,� S} 'G " [ • 4.di,„ ,R,}"a A
-, � -x �fia' ',. - 4 is �•k r. .• ` P"_ aw- "x.
--Y tt ,h ti' 4 � i SIN' 4,�' k4- - ✓',, ,� , E- _.
'h r.'_*- -':,x ..�i. x".s`°vk °,o-u x,-.• �'' g-.= - _ - f'�_�x�. ...,.:.,. �.e.m,
Veg Plot 1 F—NE Corner(10/27/2020) Veg Plot 2 F—NW Corner(10/27/2020)
x ai+ .
c .J ,.
41.
•
•
•
- C -4- t +tY�x n y 4� ' F�. 'L .. 'k 1-.e ' # ��4y � S v g x `w / 4£ fib- p g 5'"" .' yi fk s
Veg Plot 3 F—NW Corner(10/27/2020) Veg Plot 4 F—NW Corner(10/27/2020)
te� „
-�' - I rt °t, «4 fed`;.. : '„t�f x+ �#• d �:� - - .Ct.- ' � v
x 4,w`$ d ., y iS r - -vi- ,g;� -itj f -:71*;N.. .-Al
s ,fi t - i ., t r ._-.'F'•t !�'� "o v..-. +' - ^ � - I't� �` «p� . .�,,",`.
^k ya y z'S LL4 C V - ?'� . _ v : "� - Y ^V Y
Veg Plot 5 R—pf-
NW Corner(10/27/2020) Veg Plot 6 R—N Corner(10/27/2020)
Appendix A
ECOSYSTEM
Greenbrier Stream Mitigat ion Project P�nNwNGa
DMS No. 100086 RCSTORnTtoN

Greenbrier StreamMitigation Project
Monitoring Year 1 (NovemberMiti 2020) - Photo Log
3 - �-, ,six.-��
kti
st
� y lx
--� 3 'S w'.S: R{ S • 'i r! )'S• yn'�X' Y ,, T�;, G
•
,fig � ,4,i' - .. ... . +,--— '...�, -7 '.
yet_ �," _ i- P.-- ,° x r Jq' r`t- %.
a. .� A P^L-.
Photo Point 1 —UT1 Reach 1, Sta. 10+00 Photo 2—UT1 Rea(1 ,
Facing Downstream(10/27/2020) Facing
Point Upstream 0/27/2020)ch1Sta. 11+50
•
n;.
•
¢ - 3 ^.fin cy{ d k "`' N %{ A
.::*,,--,::.- 41':::::::,di`44';':
'<.:44,4-'L , -";,`6."%'•:`.,,';'ft'3:-A6[. •"r--,'4'-40S-Vt.17.14-',i,r.:71''''''.''...'4:41.: VONT",..44,...V-;,',...‹;'4!-:.:-.,:-:- ..'.. ..73.':.'Ll.i,;*gp,,,,, i'.. l'cl-,,,.4ja,.. ,' '.**
-..L:t,:734AL'Ai :'°.'4,,,,.,,: ',.;--0;irf*k;rtr.A.ekie4;,..7.1!-',72.'!:::!.-:7.,744:ic*".'".14.Ii"' 4,44'...4::::,,L'''.1 :'',1.'''')3`1,'-'''.. ""Y.tii:k.:W1,-•%41•:"°14 ,'° ni--;.•4;0".,;:i4k1
-�o-gr •-;-. , 3 .P'?w �. ':. :�' � � J Rom; `"e �.- ".:
4 i % :1UI
¢ mai �- a . , t fi K - flit.
r '} ,d
'•"� s�. r,• .��� u: -`�-
Photo Point 3—UT1 Reach 1, Sta. 13+55 Photo Point 4—UT1 Reach 1, Sta. 15+00
Facing Downstream(10/27/2020) Facing Downstream (10/27/2020)
•
---
— - .}. -t -t 4 ! tee.$ i •0_ .� ,T
y � ` h i A ti{: ,.a ''� * '.,.'.)1,,...--!) -# -,.�;ffi.�y°'. �
h 4,'w • ..#a fCm` .}]' „V »*7. '�1 �, S ' -SSA' $ ,�5 & ' 'aK. +i`.
'a y. 'u' ,yn. iZ:' ,.:' ATE �r�hR�S .r _x"_�
1��S.:a$ :` �-_:x '."-41'��:45;:l AZ5V'sr,�-,. . t. ., 3'� .. iY�'§t,Y^:i,-x
Photo Point 5—UT1 Reach 1, Sta. 17+60 Photo Point 6—UT1 Reach 1, Sta./2 18+50
Facing Upstream(10/27/2020) Facing Downstream (10/27020)
Appendix A
ECOSYSTEM
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project PLANNING&
DMS# 100086 RESTORATION

Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 1 (November 2020) - Photo Log
•
d°fir
5 ? ,
sh iq- 1"R s `-4 u'� - 3- „ s 4 yi p,, g
c Y<�y4 .- £ .3 p `� Y .'Ft 4�SF1 r '°F f H d ,St{' _! 3 { '� .Y S'F rc.S
�r� ' [ �- s{j .t-, , _,,' ,4ti Fk ��' �i'�" �;;f i a ;4r F < �'R
Photo Point 7—UT1 Reach 3, Sta. 19+60 Photo Point 8—UT1 Reach 3, Sta. 21+00
Facing Upstream(10/27/2020) Looking Upstream at UT1A From UT1 (10/27/2020)
= ' a ,�_�
s i0.'
r+ r o2 �ax ° � ��
'�':- ham _
• 'jr,, - -'fr 4 ., - xr '�,''r w�vx"` `.Yk ,r 4 4`-'•-d,� t_.:iaLY y;
„x4 nr; ;x 3w? ,s - { k, 4 - , �" *` "x.�OJ l * ,3-
.4 - , � „ "a + a r - ih� f ay.vs' w a .-...s 5 @` „�e..., 'x'�s ,
-�x fi _ :r' - •..j -0 rs 4 ra t�` $ +. - � .,- +ate.s y.
--' r' _ z" ',0 ,''- yp d ° '? 4, `•�.r ` sue,
Y 4'1 ,.Z 'hf, vL k" C 7 E"3 ,- �' k }},laY
4- ; . r.•frrq { E• T - M A( re?.,, a .. F Y yr r ' # .A`..,`%gb
a
Photo Point 9—UT1 Reach 3, Sta. 22+40 Photo Point 10—UT1 Reach 3, Sta. 24+30
Facing Downstream(10/27/2020) Facing Upstream (10/27/2020)
F ,, tr
£a
e
i ,� °r 'j '? '� tom"t a a +
Li 7
,,'"`k' ry t 0r. • z -. -'R.i y-' '.�, 8 * '�r" ,aa�r ®,r y� " 4'4 _ i€` -..A
A.
•
�.)c w i
;., 1 �` x v:. a� '� ° 4. ��f 3k„..! nab,. ,ir* ., b y w. a _ ,;,.*
.. �i . �,. 2 :A„ 44,.. { - h e yC, =a�9tlf8 "4afC F j k- -- t tC
ut t i .i -�'r y. $-g' y^' *,f b' -"^n �.0, .,,'k , �_ 0. .,t f i. �� 4 ^ , �a - - e1a ,may
i.�, Y ,:. t.- s.-�- ...-tiiF�C%Z .!f _,, 1T 'AY. `` i'dT1, ' & 1'.: ;k .'w. '- . 'k'°Wrl :
Photo Point 11 —UT1 Reach 3, Sta. 25+55 Photo Point 12—UT1 Reach 3, Sta. 26+45
Facing Downstream(10/27/2020) Looking Upstream at UT1B From UT1 (10/27/2020)
Appendix A
ECOSYSTEM
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation •Project PLANNING DMS# 100086 RESTORATION

Greenbriering Stream Mitigation Proj
Monitor Year 1 (November 2020) - Photoect Log
;Alf' ,,i,.:„..07,p..... 4.:1?''.1 ..:,-,-.: '.
.yam k 7 ; ,1 y ''
. ` t E ', e
f
i.
'' �,- .ram .I4.,• `$_ r,:c t _y r. am - .e {i.
r
•
, a J ^ ` x< }FE ab� ,a ` 'n, ; . it
ii
'5-. sQ d v i- -: S � '- .y s F�„. ¢ 0.4,"� _ y>>' -� z .E. «r3 ,i".
Photo Point 13—UT1 Reach 3, Sta. 27+55 Photo Point 14—UT1 Reach 3, Sta. 29+45
Facing Upstream(10/27/2020) Facing Downstream (10/27/2020)
:,.
,:_.
_,A-,',.:- ,► '4 ,
-
�. rn*'1 K B y • ' J
•n.-:v' •5'�! °. `'� . `sr fin 1�.. :i ,
'YY p. _ i S A.
3S x
I.t,...:,--A.,...,..-.•„„_:..:,„--46',..--,,,e,e,3 %-,**.z,,'"x0-4.,10,." • '
....,.. ..„Aiip-;..f,r,v444..,`,44,Z.,...k.....i.L.:,&..441.z'4,7.pw.4-,.;;. ...,;.-..' -
4.- yvx i a tr`'`"P " per-. r ;I s 4s4; �`� • '
• • }Is e,`. S '4• y �' - ry 3' P UHF
""' r ✓-, , ^�„ W aj y ''4'.- Yn. rt -..;; ; �`w:rKy; ,, - - ',tits +;a=
Photo Point 15A—UT1 B, Sta. 11+90 Photo Point 15B—UT1 B, Sta. 11+90
Facing Downstream(10/27/2020) Facing Upstream (10/27/2020)
_.. ,
tj..4rkikle'4,;:':%,0/JO'f"--51.-4,4
s 5 v,'
r '
x � 7
01
e
-' ., ''r ,� .• p -fit,
•
. -�� >,x�, t5 a-�� fiiy .f .
'ye"m-;bffa` C � `^^V �� •� z'•��•� +` i �- iTB'rt�,� 4.�F�G� 8�:^ F - -
eg -zt- - - D. x- .- -
•
t y� w �,.4 -� - # '.n .' r« "1 ) -3-r r ry
•
d�z - + r< Kti —` ,0. xn: tx. F.
d :„ to h -.:,y,, L. €gar�!, µy; A t? „' � } _
Photo Point 16A—UT1A, Sta. 12+00 Photo Point 16B—UT1A, Sta. 12+00
Facing Downstream(10/27/2020) Facing Upstream Towards UT1A 1 (10/27/2020)
Appendix A
EG05YSTEM
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project P�aNwvGa
DMS# 100086 RESTORAT70N

Appendix B
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table

Table 6. Vegetation Plot Data
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project (NCDMS Project No. 100086)
Planted Acreage 6.34
Date of Initial Plant 2020-04-01
Date(s)of Supplemental Plant(s) #N/A
Date(s) Mowing #N/A
Date of Current Survey 2020-10-27
Plot size(ACRES) 0.0247
Indicator Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot 5 Veg Plot 6
Scientific Name Common Name Tree/Shrub R R
Status Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Planted Total Total Total
Alnus serrulata tag alder shrub OBL 1 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree FACW 3 3 2 2 6 6 1 3
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub FACW 1 1 2
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree FAC 1 1 3 3 1 1
Species Included Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree FACU 2 2 1 1
in Approved
Mitigation Plan Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree FACW 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 1
Quercus nigra water oak Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree FAC 1 1 1 1 2
Salix nigra black willow Tree OBL 21
Ulmus americana American elm Tree FACW 2 2 4 4 1
Sum Performance Standard 11 11 9 9 17 17 4 4 7 24
Current Year Stem Count 11 9 17 4 7 24
Stems/Acre 445 364 688 162 283 972
Mitigation Plan Species Count 8 4 7 3 5 2
Performance
Standard Dominant Species Composition (%) 27 33 35 50 29 88
Average Plot Height 2 2 1 2 2 15
% Invasives 0 0 0 0 0 0
Current Year Stem Count 11 9 17 4 7 24
Post Mitigation Stems/Acre 445 364 688 162 283 972
Plan Species Count 8 4 3 5 2
Performance Dominant Species Composition (%) 27 33 50 29 88
Standard Average Plot Height 2 2 1 2 2 15
Invasives 0 0 16_0 0 0
Does Not Meet Interim Success
1). Bolded species are proposed for the current monitoring year, italicized species are not approved,and a regular font indicates that the species has been approved.
2).The"Species Included in Approved Mitigation Plan"section contains only those species that were included in the original approved mitigation plan.The"Post Mitigation Plan Species"section includes species that are being
proposed through a mitigation plan addendum for the current monitoring year(bolded),species that have been approved in prior monitoring years through a mitigation plan addendum (regular font),and species that are not
approved (italicized).
3).The"Mitigation Plan Performance Standard"section is derived only from stems included in the original mitigation plan,whereas the"Post Mitigation Plan Performance Standard" includes data from mitigation plan
approved, post mitigation plan approved,and proposed stems.
Appendix B
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project ECOSYSTEM
r PLANNING&
DMS#100086
PR RESTORATION

Table 7. Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project(NCDMS Project No. 100086)
Vegetation Performance Standards Summary Table
Veg Plot 1 F Veg Plot 2 F Veg Plot 3 F
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring
Year 7
Monitoring
Year 5
Monitoring
Year 3
Monitoring
Year 2
Monitoring
Year 1 4 0 688
Monitoring
Year 0 0 769
Veg Plot 4 F Veg Plot Group 1 R Veg Plot Group 2 R
Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives Stems/Ac. Av.Ht.(ft) #Species %Invasives
Monitoring
Year 7
Monitoring
Year 5
Monitoring
Year 3
Monitoring
Year 2
Monitoring
0 283 5 0 972
Year 1
Monitoring
0
Year 0
eets Interim Success Criter' Does Not Meet Interim Success Criteria
*Each monitoring year represents a different plot for the random vegetation plot"groups". Random plots are denoted with an R,and fixed plots with an F.
Appendix B
r.Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project ECOSYSTEM
DMS#100086 PLANNING&
RESTORATION

Appendix C
Stream Geomorphology Data
Cross-Sections With Annual Overlays
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9. Cross-Section Morphology Monitoring Summary

Cross Section M -
XS1
Plot-UT1- Y1 Reach 1November 2020
Station 11+28-Pool
f.-g „ t s
I,,''
;.`.t^�a' 'tI 'k' .. , [ p1,7 F ,�¢a ,fir$ ' � �,5 x a
'' 9r + L� .e; a i C-5 x� x E " `2 L."' `'�
40'
, ` - _ t'gy p' 3 `. �4�3
, --4,..r:,,,..f.7-,,,l,,1- --#4...4-.,. .,-jrni.,.4re
-m- _,tom _-' - �+e.i., 0424
? ` , __ .. { �� `' �` ..�
ktfratt—
v "isp� r +' _ , jam', a \ !milV.
XS1 looking upstream XS1 facing right bank
MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1127.92 1127.87
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.09
Thalweg Elevation 1126.47 1126.23
LTOB Elevation 1127.92 1128.02
LTOB Max Depth 1.45 1.79
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 6.70 7.87
Entrenchment Ratio - -
XS1 Pool - 11+28
1133.0
As-Built-May 2020 MY1-2020
1132.0
1131.0
1130.0
+, 1129.0
11
1128.0
co
a)
w 1127.0
1126.0
1125.0
1124.0
1123.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY1- November 2020
XS2-UT1 Reach 1
Station 13+91-Riffle
* P ,:e0. i ",*�r` Wiz. ' s
p `a< 5-'J y, i�a �7� " -,' -•< ,, �' _yx `:. �M '•xe
t,
47-
Y• ��� � � r.� � �Y+ ��Y- �`I oaf �:x:y�' z� � 1 �'S , iRr, �`'>: ..si°�-J'.4}v '�*�, 3''
•
an
t as ' 1IT!PU4t
k ! I
‘'
. :_,.,...=A.-$t-_,-,41 ,-, , ,_---4 .-,-'.,,,,:,.:451.1..".,-.,-I,:". " '!- ..,,,c,f p;.-,-q,i-,:. ,--_::, -e,:,
�.3 �' y 5� �"�N� 1�\ `1. .' 'r. t. 1 1+� L S—:, fir .i' /7
� l�rs�. 3 �11 i�1 ? .' )=2,'''!°a��� .. sr�� � � �:1 ..+.� w:.�i
XS2 looking upstream XS2 looking downstream
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 112.0.53 1120.61
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.94
Thalweg Elevation 1119.35 1119.47
LTOB Elevation 1120.53 1120.55
LTOB Max Depth 1.18 1.08
3.97 3.59
LTOB Cross Sectional Area
Entrenchment Ratio >10.12 >10.11
XS2 Riffle- 13+91
1126
As-Built-May 2020 MY1-2020
1125
1124
1123
+, 1122
c
1121
t6
w 1120 \i
1119
1118
1117
1116
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY1- November 2020
XS3-UT1 Reach 3
Station 19+94-Riffle
W• s:�
yt,ir s ,� NTo:t d i�'. ,j
' 't � � `
i - sF i r'k• �� r t sk`, i -�. 'j pp n
q ,, 5� 7 1 Z {1��`. i kk1 3- ' 7 v },�f9 ° R„ 1 1 d
i �' $V , n t ,t3 '1° or.=hie'� ' 'N '�"`'I s� •Syr ,s,x
. 1 � t `I- 1'` ,,:. =r '� i `. �a of{ ._
d;
' .; r +x4 z s 4 ; 4, r? , k 1 r S 1 is, x t ''-
e
a--
,N,,-, ,.,._....*:ft -- __, ,— ,._ i.-, ..7:-,-,A,_. ..r.-..--..-- 412,.-.-- ,-- --,...,,,,,,,.„.._--,-,- ,A,,,,,,,i.:„.4,-,,,,dfi--:_-?;,:.--,7-c .. ,...t__,•--P'Arf" "-1
.•
�.+[ � �X,, , ,�rat '� �
XS3 looking upstream XS3 looking downstream
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1097.81 1097.90
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.97
Thalweg Elevation 1097.18 1097.28
LTOB Elevation 1097.81 1097.88
LTOB Max Depth 0.63 0.60
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 2.99 2.84
Entrenchment Ratio 6.39 5.80
XS3 Riffle - 19+94
1104
As Built May 2020 MY1-2020
1103
1102
1101
7
+, 1100
1099
ro
LT, 1098
N
1097
1096
1095
1094
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY1- November 2020
XS4-UT1 Reach 3
Station 22+48-Pool
n iy �.eta wo-� o- t `' -' .'7 i
k a a o-k A.,:-., te° '' r74, Try
� ;." � �� ``� -_: �� - s �'�1 �. r " '�
_� f .T,. .. "4+3t a .=. e Y .�� ^},, t ems „'`" n
/-.� � � k� yT � � 1,�+��p�,� �. l�, ��- ��„ .v'��'" i / off, � ��
S 5 - '� 4. �f-lt,� t 9 ''- ref er .a L+
v % ` '�. .,p i. .µ��E VV R=r 'tea \ -
XS4 looking upstream XS4 looking downstream
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on ABBankfull 1094.95 1094.80
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-BankfuBankfull Area Area 1.00 1.01
Thalweg a 1092.34 1092.06
LTOB ElevationElevtion
2.61
1094.95 1094.84
LTOB Max Depth 2.78
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 16.41 16.85
Entrenchment Ratio - -
XS4 Pool -22+48
1100
As Built May 2020 MY1-2020
1099
1098
1097
+, 1096
c
1095
uJ 1094
1093
1092
1091
1090
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (ft)

Cross Section M -
XS5Plot-UT1- Y1 Reach 3November 2020
Station 25+88-Riffle
1,-i4:,-;:-- --. .4,444;1")--;':.*: fri-,044`. ,;--.--4•i''' '._.:,ilP--e 4----;- --4.--,...4--4". -%o.'.'.:' -'--',-,,,i2.' . . '- --;;,,t-f;,
, t , 4 �\ 5 1-- ' �'„ x; y e a
•_,.----:' 5t,.c- ' ,---t .1t.;'g'1-.-_•_.4-n: 4-,=: ,-_-_.- .-..'-'',_...- ,,,O, . ':''_,' - ''.'-,:. -4-4,,,,-Y, :*t.......s,41--:?!.." It:.,._‘' ."flkgtk7A4t..7
._,,,.44, ,_,,, ,:,4 ,_._._,,-,,--c.. ,,:.41......;,;4",„..„.„__, .„,,,. _,. ,, ,A,,,,.;„ ,. .„-,,,„7„,,,.-. , ,.,-.1--.....,„...‘,.,,..L4-‘,4‘1..„ „......„,_ vi 3,,_ ,..
z_e_. 1,,,,,Air.
XS5 looking upstream XS5 looking downstream
MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1090.59 1090.64
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 1.02
Thalweg Elevation 1089.85 1089.83
LTOB Elevation 1090.59 1090.66
LTOB Max Depth 0.74 0.83
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 3.08 3.26
Entrenchment Ratio >9.39 >9.1
XS5 Riffle -25+88
1096
As Built May 2020 MY1-2020
1095
1094
1093
+, 1092
�_
c
•° 1091
co
cu
w 1090 �i
1089
1088
1087
1086
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY1- November 2020
XS6-UT1 Reach 3
Station 28+30-Pool
_ r µ .,
a
Y fy �, °V"Sd+^y ,4�� i ::, .- y L }''- -.e�� 1, rr '` { Z R
C Y' .,,, 'pt .-0 X % i f 1 s ...I k 0 A-F� y
+' - i�3i"� u.16 r I '� r6_... f � �• c tE" = R " nwx l 7 '_ -
• i
J3 1 a 3 „^ "s-r pr y .�. s ' i- -:� ��- t. JlT".'? 'K •
Y
v ;. 4� ,e, ,,,.. M1 -ram=. r'. -'_'�� - �.. �'e- ! '.1?3''ti� tb '-,1
XS6 looking upstream XS6 looking downstream
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation- ll 1086.63 1085.85
Bank Height Ratio-BasedBased onon AB-BankfuABBankfull Area Area 1.00 1.32
Thalweg a 1083.89 1083.24
LTOB ElevationElevtion 1086.63 1086.70
LTOB Max Depth 2.74 3.46
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 12.61 19.95
Entrenchment Ratio - -
XS6 Pool —28+30
1091
—As-Built May 2020 MY1-2020
1090
1089
1088
1087 -- _—� �'
c \ —�
•° 1086
cu
w 1085 \/
1084
1083
1082
1081
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY1- November 2020
XS7-UT1A
Station 12+44-Riffle
, 1 ,,,, , ,-.;0,L,.. ki.),,?..y4„-,.f.4,,,e7,-,tt,',,,.,:v ,,,,,.. .?4;,,,,,..7,,,,17,5,..-„,,ti!,,2,..-!„..,0,,L,1-:, ,--.3:',:::..1/;';-'... "4",y,:::'-'.1',4„,-;:r ''.-!1;';':"1:
1,k ,, ‘
' • ,, 4`'1; ....t(L'D� r �{ . 'C1. k f • t' ue, 4
,...--" rritr•-,4),Sk.',•-$7 •".--,'-., ., ',-,-to. .7.- , ' •* ,,/,.,------Ilite- ..-, -,,',„— ',''',• ir t?tr-4 ''','"; -.- -- ,?..,„1,-. ..?,,:AP3r,.F.,,‘,?4"-:..
::, •: ',',.frflt,n7--' 7--44.'SV,4'' ,1 .",'HL 1 -",',','i' ;'''' !.'(::-.::44R,4,• t ; Oi::*'*.?".;"''-VNT:-,0',•- -;
"4,' 1.-14Z,.-N-,;1-.. .'--' K-,-',_ :.---- ;,'I
Fy,�� � � r� �. � �,` a1`< e _
`
-��� a s.' Mk - wln "1 x / J :;' Y - r ::4:47XS looking�upstre -P'' 1, � '' XSSooking1 downstream
MVO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area 1097.98 1097.96
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.91
Thalweg Elevation 1097.35 1097.23
LTOB Elevation 1097.98 1097.89
LTOB Max Depth 0.63 0.66
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 1.76 1.47
Entrenchment Ratio 4.90 4.98
XS7 Riffle - 12+44
1104
As Built May 2020 MY1-2020
1103
1102
1101
+, 1100
c
•° 1099
cocu
w 1098
1097
1096
1095
1094
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance (ft)

Cross Section Plot-MY1- November 2020
XS8-UT1 B
Station 11+71-Riffle
'4. ', '4-0t.'-')
s
"�' j A �r K 1 �,� '� „,ma y .',, '1 R'y,'� 'l �„-•.
r " rl�� y�,r. ! I a .. `t V '_ 2' ^X yr l s µ A
. 'S� fir i f - <r� e ,;--' rzv �;-^` ,1 F �..,- �_t•
1,4
t`�--, _ �` ..:' Z 1` V ,�-. { ,,,k' i , -)9 a'�"k-�f 1
v•-,'_. 'I•'-'
":34,,,,Y;;;D;,;—:`,1+A- ;4+-4.'57k:4g-11' .". .t-1
sz iy ,A 4 .. o w'r, t.�l' _
5,i,
XS8 looking upstream XS8 looking downstream
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Elevation-Based on AB Bankfull Area ,089.94 1090.00
Bank Height Ratio-Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1.00 0.76
Thalweg Elevation 1089.59 1089.66
LTOB Elevation 1089.94 1089.92
LTOB Max
>5.26 >5.39
Depth 0.35 0.26
LTOB Cross Sectional Area 0.87 0.59
Entrenchment Ratio
XS8 Riffle- 11+71
1095
As Built May 2020 MY1-2020
1094
1093
1092
+, 1091
c
1090
cu
w 1089
1088
1087
1086
1085
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)

Table 8a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project (DMS No. 100086) - UT1 Reach 1 (843 feet)
Parameter Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 2.6 12 6.2 4.3 4.8 4.8 5.3 0.7 2 3.26 6.2 - 6.6 - - 5.7 6.2 6.7 - 5.9 - - - 1
Floodprone Width (ft) 20.0 26.5 26.5 33.0 9.2 2 8.7 11.2 - 13.7 - - 25.0 35.0 45.0 - >59.7 - - - 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.4 1.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.2 2 0.5 0.6 - 0.6 - - 0.4 0.5 0.6 - 0.7 - - - 1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.1 0.2 2 0.7 0.7 - 0.8 - - 0.5 0.6 0.7 - 1.2 - - - 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 1.8 8 3.1 2.6 2.9 2.9 3.3 0.5 2 2.3 2.7 - 3.2 - - 2.7 3.0 3.3 - 4.0 - - - 1
Width/Depth Ratio 5.6 8.4 8.4 11.1 3.9 2 12.0 15.0 - 18 - - 11.0 13.0 15.0 - 8.8 - - - 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.9 0.2 2 1.4 1.8 - 2.2 - - 4.0 5.7 7.3 - >10.1 - - - 1
Bank Height Ratio 1.5 2.1 2.1 2.8 0.9 2 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 - - - 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total riffle length 60-70% of reach length 7 17 33 16 26 24 39 8 14
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.027 0.032 0.032 0.038 0.008 2 0.019 10.025 I - 10.032 I - I - 0.0385 0.051 0.063 0.018 0.0279 0.028 0.039 0.0049 14
Pool Length (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total pool length 30-40% of reach length 6 11 19 8 14 15 19 3 14
Pool Max depth (ft) 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.9 0.9 2 1.11 1.5 - 1.9 - - 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.4 2.0 2.0 2.9 0.4 14
Pool Spacing (ft) 40.0 80.0 80.0 120.0 56.6 25 3.1 17.2 - 31.2 - - 3 17 31 28 42 40 60 11 14
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 6.0 19.0 20.0 38.0 11.4 8 N/A N/A - N/A - - N/A N/A N/A 17.2 20.4 20.5 23.8 2.0 8
Radius of Curvature (ft) 37.0 46.8 47.5 55.0 7.9 4 N/A N/A - N/A - - N/A N/A N/A 21.7 32.0 27.9 51.7 10.7 10
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 7.7 9.7 9.9 11.4 1.7 4 N/A N/A - N/A - - N/A N/A N/A 3.7 5.4 4.7 8.8 1.8 10
Meander Wavelength (ft) 66.0 111.7 86.0 224.0 57.8 11 N/A N/A - N/A - - N/A N/A N/A 50.0 93.1 99.0 113.0 19.1 9
Meander Width Ratio 1.2 4.0 4.2 7.9 2.4 8 N/A N/A - N/A - - N/A N/A N/A 2.9 3.5 3.5 4.0 0.3 8
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 0.45 0.82 1.24
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 84 142 160
Stream Power (transport capacity) lb/s 23 36 34
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification B4c B4 B4 B4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 2.8 1.9 2.0 2.79 2.3 1.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 5 15 6.2 7 7
Valley length (ft) 865 - 865
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 926 - 919 852
Sinuosity (ft) 1.07 1.1-1.2 1.03 1.02
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.018 - 0.035 0.032
BF slope (ft/ft) 0.019 - 0.036 0.032
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) 0.5 - 0.7 0.95
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks - -
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric - -
Biological or Other - -
Appendix C ECOSYSTEM
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project PLANNING &
DMS# 100086 EPR RESTORATION

Table 8b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project (DMS No. 100086) - UT1 Reach 3 (1097 feet)
Parameter Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 2.7 12 8.0 7.1 9.3 9.3 11.5 3.1 2 3.3 4.8 - 6.2 - - 7.1 7.6 8.1 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.7 0.0 2
Floodprone Width (ft) 11.4 15.3 15.3 19.1 5.5 2 7.6 7.8 - 8.1 - - 20.0 54.0 88.0 42.3 52.3 52.3 >62.4 - 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.4 1.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.1 2 0.4 0.5 - 0.6 - - 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.1 2 0.6 0.7 - 0.7 - - 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.1 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 2 10 4.8 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.6 0.4 2 1.3 2.4 - 3.6 - - 4.1 4.5 5.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.1 0.1 2
Width/Depth Ratio 12.4 20.6 20.6 28.7 11.5 2 12 14 - 15 - - 12.0 15.0 18.0 14.5 14.6 14.6 14.7 0.2 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.1 2 1.6 1.7 - 1.7 - - 4.0 5.7 7.3 6.4 7.9 7.9 >9.4 - 2
Bank Height Ratio 2.2 2.9 2.9 3.5 0.9 2 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total riffle length 60-70% of reach length 13 21 40 12 29 28 49 10 12
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.016 0.031 0.031 0.046 0.021 2 0.018 10.020 I - 10.023 I - I - 0.014 0.019 0.023 0.010 0.0168 0.0165 0.025 0.0052 12
Pool Length (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total pool length 30-40% of reach length 9 21 30 23 28 26 42 6 12
Pool Max depth (ft) 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.1 2 0.7 1.2 - 1.7 - - 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.9 0.3 12
Pool Spacing (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 17 25 - 33 - - 26 40 53 30 47 47 62 8 12
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 8.0 13.8 12.0 23.0 5.0 15.0 16.6 27.3 - 38.0 - - 27.0 44.0 61.0 29.3 33.5 33.6 37.9 2.5 21
Radius of Curvature (ft) 14.0 28.1 26.0 44.0 11.6 7.0 9.5 11.9 - 14.3 - - 15.0 19.0 23.0 17.5 22.5 22.4 26.2 2.7 20
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 1.5 3.0 2.8 4.7 1.2 7.0 2.0 2.5 - 3.0 - - 2.0 2.5 3.0 2.6 3.4 3.4 3.9 0.4 20
Meander Wavelength (ft) 36.0 71.8 61.0 128.0 29.0 15.0 33.3 49.9 - 66.5 - - 53.0 80.0 107.0 51.0 67.7 64.5 87.0 9.4 20
Meander Width Ratio 3.9 7.7 6.6 13.8 29.0 15.0 3.5 5.8 - 8.0 - - 3.5 5.8 8.0 4.4 5.0 5.1 5.7 0.4 8
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 0.79 0.54 0.38
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull 87.8 79.6 75.0
Stream Power (transport capacity) lb/s 18 19 24
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification B4 C4 C4 C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.0 6.0 2.2 3.1 2.8 4.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 6 60 10.4 12.5 12.5
Valley length (ft) 902 - 902
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 991.6 - 1097 1141
Sinuosity (ft) 1.09 1.2 to 1.4 1.22 1.26
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.015 - 0.013 0.014
BF slope (ft/ft) 0.016 - 0.016 0.014
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) 0.3 - 1.1 1.6
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks - -
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric - -
Biological or Other - -
Appendix C ECOSYSTEM
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project PLANNING &
DMS# 100086 EPR RESTORATION

Table 8c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project (DMS No. 100086) - UT1A (148.5 feet)
Parameter Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 1 8 3.5 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 - 1 1.6 2.5 - 3.5 - - 3.1 3.6 4.1 - 4.5 - - - 1
Floodprone Width (ft) 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 - 1 3.5 4.5 - 5.5 - - 5.0 7.5 10.0 - 22.3 - - - 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.3 1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 - 1 0.3 0.3 - 0.4 - - 0.2 0.3 0.4 - 0.4 - - - 1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 - 1 0.4 0.4 - 0.5 - - 0.3 0.4 0.5 - 0.6 - - - 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 1 6 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 - 1 0.7 0.9 - 1.1 - - 0.9 1.0 1.1 - 1.8 - - - 1
Width/Depth Ratio 26.8 26.8 26.8 26.8 - 1 12.0 15.0 - 18 - - 10.0 12.9 15.0 - 11.6 - - - 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 - 1 1.4 1.8 - 2.2 - - 1.4 2.1 2.8 - 4.9 - - - 1
Bank Height Ratio 14.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 - 1 1.0 1.0 - 1.1 - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 - - - 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total riffle length 60-70% of reach length 4.0 8.0 11.0 9 14 15 19 4 5
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.029 0.070 0.070 0.110 0.057 2 0.086 10.113 I - 10.140 I - I - 0.023 0.030 0.036 0.012 0.0292 0.032 0.047 0.0122 5
Pool Length (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total pool length 30-40% of reach length 3.0 5.0 12.0 5 12 12 20 5 5
Pool Max depth (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.7 0.9 - 1.2 - - 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.2 5
Pool Spacing (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.3 6.9 - 12.5 - - 2.0 10.0 18.0 18 23 22 32 5 4
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A - - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A - - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A - - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Meander Wavelength (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A - - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Meander Width Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A - - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 0.68 0.35 0.40
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull N/A N/A 80
Stream Power(transport capacity) lb/s 38 10 7
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification F4 B4 B4 B4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.0 2.0 1.6 3.8 2 1.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 3 12 1.8 2.0 2.0
Valley length (ft) 114 - 144
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 115 - 148.5 153
Sinuosity (ft) 1.01 1.1 to 1.2 1.03 1.06
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.078 - 0.020 0.018
BF slope (ft/ft) 0.078 - 0.021 0.018
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) 0.01 - 0.02 0.13
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks - -
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric - -
Biological or Other - -
Appendix C ECOSYSTEM
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project PLANNING &
DMS# 100086 EPR RESTORATION

Table 8d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project (DMS No. 100086) - UT1 B (247.50 feet)
Parameter Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 1 8 3.5 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 - 1 1.7 2.7 - 3.7 - - 3.1 3.6 4.1 - 3.7 - - - 1
Floodprone Width (ft) 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 - 1 3.8 4.9 - 6.0 - - 5.0 7.5 10.0 - >19.34 - - - 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.3 1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 - 1 0.3 0.4 - 0.4 - - 0.2 0.3 0.4 - 0.2 - - - 1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 - 1 0.4 0.5 - 0.5 - - 0.3 0.4 0.5 - 0.4 - - - 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 1 6 1.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 - 1 0.9 1.1 - 1.3 - - 0.9 1.0 1.1 - 0.9 - - - 1
Width/Depth Ratio 9.9 9.9 9.9 9.9 - 1 12.0 15.0 - 18.0 - - 10.0 12.9 15.0 - 15.3 - - - 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 - 1 1.4 1.8 - 2.2 - - 1.4 2.1 2.8 - >5.26 - - - 1
Bank Height Ratio 7.6 7.6 7.6 7.6 - 1 1.0 1.0 - 1.1 - - 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 - - - 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total riffle length 60-70% of reach length 8.0 10.0 15.0 15 18 19 20 2 3
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.035 0.039 0.039 0.042 0.005 2 0.026 10.035 I - 10.043 I - I - 0.019 0.024 0.030 0.050 0.055 0.055 0.060 0.0041 3
Pool Length (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total pool length 30-40% of reach length 5.0 12.0 15.0 12 15 12 20 4 3
Pool Max depth (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.7 1.0 - 1.3 - - 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.2 3
Pool Spacing (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.4 7.5 - 13.7 - - 2.0 10.0 18.0 27 29 27 34 3 3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A - - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A - - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A - - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Meander Wavelength (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A - - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Meander Width Ratio N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A - N/A - - N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 0.75 0.3 0.37
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull N/A N/A 75
Stream Power(transport capacity) lb/s 11 10 15
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification G4 B4 B4 B4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.0 2.0 1.6 1 2.3 2.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 3 12 1.8 2.3 2.3
Valley length (ft) 181 - 215
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 195 - 248 228
Sinuosity (ft) 1.08 1.1 to 1.2 1.15 1.06
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0239 - 0.017 0.026
BF slope (ft/ft) 0.0239 - 0.02 0.026
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) 0.03 - 0.04 0.18
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks - -
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric - -
Biological or Other - -
Appendix D ECOSYSTEM
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project PLANNING &
DMS# 100086 EPR RESTORATION

Table 9. Monitoring Data - Cross-Section Morphology Data Table
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project (DMS No. 100086)
UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 3
Cross Section 1 (Pool) Cross Section 2(Riffle) Cross Section 3(Riffle) Cross Section 4(Pool)
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft)- Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1127.92 1127.87 1120.53 1120.61 1097.81 1097.90 1094.95 1094.80
Bank Height Ratio- Based on AB Bankfull Area 1.00 1.09 1.00 0.94 1.00 0.97 1.00 1.01
Thalweg Elevation 1126.47 1126.23 1119.35 1119.47 1097.18 1097.28 1092.34 1092.06
LTOB Elevation 1127.92 1128.02 1120.53 1120.55 1097.81 1097.88 1094.95 1094.84
LTOB Max Depth (ft) 1.45 1.79 1.18 1.08 0.63 0.60 2.61 2.78
LTOB Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 6.70 7.87 3.97 3.59 2.99 2.84 16.41 16.85
Entrenchment Ratio - - >10.12 >10.11 6.39 5.80 - -
UT1 Reach 3 UT1A UT1B
Cross Section 5(Riffle) Cross Section 6(Pool) Cross Section 7(Riffle) Cross Section 8(Riffle)
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft)- Based on AB-Bankfull Area 1090.59 1090.64 1086.63 1085.85 1097.98 1097.96 1089.94 1090.00
Bank Height Ratio- Based on AB Bankfull Area 1 1.02 1.00 1.32364 1 0.90659 1 0.76023
Thalweg Elevation 1089.85 1089.83 1083.89 1083.24 1097.35 1097.23 1089.59 1089.66
LTOB Elevation 1090.59 1090.66 1086.63 1086.70 1097.98 1097.89 1089.94 1089.92
LTOB Max Depth (ft) 0.74 0.83 2.74 3.46 0.63 0.66 0.35 0.26
LTOB Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 3.08 3.26 12.61 19.95 1.76 1.47 0.87 0.59
Entrenchment Ratio >9.39 >9.1 - - 4.90 4.98 >5.26 >5.39
The above morphology parameters reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS,the IRT and industry mitigation providers/practitioners. The outcome resulted in the focus on three primary morphological parameters of interest for the purposes of tracking channel
change moving forward. They are the bank height ratio using a constant As-built bankfull area and the cross sectional area and max depth based on each years low top of bank. These are calculated as follows:
-Bank Height Ratio(BHR)takes the As-built bankful area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation. For example if the As-built bankfull area was 10 ft2,then the MY1 bankfull elevation would be adjusted until the calculated bankfull area within the MY1 cross section survey=10 ft2. The
BHR would then be calculated with the difference between the low top of bank(LTOB)elevation for MY1 and the thalweg elevation for MY1 in the numerator with the difference between the MY1 bankfull elevation and the MY1 thalweg elevation in the denominator. This same process is then carried out in each
successive year.
z -LTOB Area and Max depth-These are based on the LTOB elevation for each years survey(The same elevation used for the LTOB in the BHR calculation). Area below the LTOB elevation will be used and tracked for each year as above. The difference between the LTOB elevation and the thalweg elevation(same
as in the BHR calculation)will be recroded and tracked above as LTOB max depth.
Note:The smaller the channel the closer the survey measurements are to their limit of reliable detection,therefore inter-annual variation in morphological measurement(as a percentage)is by default magnified as channel size decereases. Some of the variability above is the result of this factor and some is due to the
large amount of depositional sediments observed.
Appendix C ECOSYSTEM
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project PLANNING &
DMS# 100086 EPR RESTORATION

Appendix D
Hydrologic Data
Table 10. Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure 3. Monthly Rainfall Summary Data
Precipitation and Water Level Hydrographs

Table 10. Bankfull Event Verification
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project (DMS No. 100086)
Overbank Events
Gage ID MY1 (2020) MY2 (2021) MY3 (2022) MY4 (2023) MY5 (2025) MY6 (2026) MY7 (2027)
6 separate events:
5/27/2020
5/29/2020
UT1 Reach 1 - GBSG1 8/9/2020-8/11/2020 - - - - - -
8/21/2020
9/29/2020
10/11/2020
4 separate events:
8/21/2020
UT1A - GBSG2 9/29/2020 - - - - - -
10/11/2020
10/25/2020
10 separate events:
5/21/2020
5/24/2020
5/27/2020
5/29/2020
UT1 B - GBSG3 8/15/2020 - - - - - -
8/17/2020
8/21/2020
9/29/2020
10/11/2020
10/25/2020

Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
Figure 3. Monthly Rainfall Data
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
2020 Monthly Rainfall —30th Percentile —70th Percentile
14.00
12.00
10.00
c
II ::: nil I Il
0
2 ill
.11111 119 I ill 11
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Month
Note:Historic rainfall data from WETS Station:Yadkinville 6 E,NC,1971-2019.Project rainfall data from HOBO Tipping Bucket Rain Gauge located at the
Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Site,0.75 miles SE.
Rainfall Summary
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Annual Precip Total 73.12 - - - - - -
WETS 30th Percentile 41.65 - - - - - -
WETS 70th Percentile 49.68 - - - - - -
Normal Y - - - - - -
*Note:2020 rainfall data does not include data from November or December because the gauge was last downloaded in October during MY1 monitoring.

Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
Year 1 (2020) Streamflow Data
GBSG1
1128.2
- 14
1128 • I •
1127.8 • LeviL
- 12
a
- 10 -
1127.6 — c
• )411111°14
•° 1127.4 8 0
co 'Z
> • +°
w 1127.2 JILL.
• - 6 a
- - I — • - - - - -
1127 - - - - � -- �
• I - - 4 �
1126.8 _ � � - •1 - - - - - - - � - -
/� ^• -I— A 1 ^ Al �, - 2
1 W l/l"—.�� A ..,JI� l - I L ..lIS L_L�.n....
1126.6 0
1/1/2020 1/31/2020 3/1/2020 3/31/2020 4/30/2020 5/30/2020 6/29/2020 7/29/2020 8/28/2020 9/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020
Date
Water Level(ft) ----•DS Riffle Elevation(ft) -Bankfull Elevation(ft) Daily Rainfall(in)
• 2020 Monthly Rainfall — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile
Site Info Year 1(2020)Streamflow Data
Stream Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project Gauge ID GBSG1
Reach UT1 Reach 1 Start Date 1/1/2020
Date Installed 4/29/2020 End Date 12/31/2020
Serial Number 20727108 Flow Criteria(Days) 30
Reach Type Perennial Recordings Per Day 24
Logger Elevation(ft) 1126.95
Controlling Grade Elevation(ft) 1127.24
Bankfull Elevation(ft) 1127.92
Most Consecutive Days of Flow 181
-Rainfall data from HOBO Tipping Bucket Rain Gauge located at Total Days of Flow 181
the Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Site,0.75 miles SE. Max High Water Level Above Bankfull(ft) 0.30
-Historic rainfall data from WETS Station:Yadkinville 6 E,NC, Bankfull Events 8
1971-2019 Meets Success Criteria Yes

Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
Year 1 (2020) Streamflow Data
GBSG2
1099.9
- 14
1099.7 • •
- 12
-
- 10 u
tEE .
• 8 g
• o
w 1098.9 • I - 6 Q
— — — � — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2
... O. • ... •••• ONO
1098.7 - - - - - -
•
_1_ _
1098.3 / L — . PA _ A _ A i AA lit k k di .. I A J A._ .
0
1/1/2020 1/31/2020 3/1/2020 3/31/2020 4/30/2020 5/30/2020 6/29/2020 7/29/2020 8/28/2020 9/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020
Date
Water Level(ft) ----•DS Riffle Elevation(ft) -Bankfull Elevation(ft) Daily Rainfall(in)
• 2020 Monthly Rainfall — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile
Site Info Year 1(2020)Streamflow Data
Stream Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project Gauge ID GBSG2
Reach UT1A Start Date 1/1/2020
Date Installed 4/29/2020 End Date 12/31/2020
Serial Number 20727105 Flow Criteria(Days) 30
Reach Type Perennial Recordings Per Day 24
Logger Elevation(ft) 1098.79
Controlling Grade Elevation(ft) 1098.92
Bankfull Elevation(ft) 1099.5
Most Consecutive Days of Flow 181
-Rainfall data from HOBO Tipping Bucket Rain Gauge located at Total Days of Flow 181
the Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Site,0.75 miles SE. Max High Water Level Above Bankfull(ft) 0.20
-Historic rainfall data from WETS Station:Yadkinville 6 E,NC, Bankfull Events 6
1971-2019 Meets Success Criteria Yes

Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project
Year 1 (2020) Streamflow Data
GBSG3
1091.7
- 14
1091.E 1 • •
1091.5 • - 12
1091.4 I "' 11 10 -
C
c
c 1091.3 — •
0 8 0
1091.2 • — o
w — 1 — — -o - 6 •Q
1091.1 - - - - _ _ — ._ - - - - - - - — — — —
- - — _ _ a"i
_ - L
I - O. • ...• - - L
1091 - •- - —
- — _ — - -r 4 - - I - -
:::
I - 2/� I V� _ . _PA A _ �.AiA:Pt I IAkk di � IA �J1I ./w 0
1/1/2020 1/31/2020 3/1/2020 3/31/2020 4/30/2020 5/30/2020 6/29/2020 7/29/2020 8/28/2020 9/27/2020 10/27/2020 11/26/2020 12/26/2020
Date
Water Level(ft) ----•DS Riffle Elevation(ft) -Bankfull Elevation(ft) Daily Rainfall(in)
• 2020 Monthly Rainfall — — —30th Percentile — — —70th Percentile
Site Info Year 1(2020)Streamflow Data
Stream Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project Gauge ID GBSG3
Reach UT1B Start Date 1/1/2020
Date Installed 4/29/2020 End Date 12/31/2020
Serial Number 20758210 Flow Criteria(Days) 30
Reach Type Perennial Recordings Per Day 24
Logger Elevation(ft) 1091.05
Controlling Grade Elevation(ft) 1091.17
Bankfull Elevation(ft) 1091.41
Most Consecutive Days of Flow 134
-Rainfall data from HOBO Tipping Bucket Rain Gauge located at Total Days of Flow 179
the Meadow Brook Stream Restoration Site,0.75 miles SE. Max High Water Level Above Bankfull(ft) 0.39
-Historic rainfall data from WETS Station:Yadkinville 6 E,NC, Bankfull Events 11
1971-2019. Meets Success Criteria Yes

Appendix E
Project Timeline and Contact Information
Table 11. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 12. Project Contacts Table

Table 11. Project Activity and Reporting History
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project (NCDMS Project No. 100086)
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 0 yrs 7 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 0 yrs 7 months
Number of reporting Years': 1
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or Deliverable Complete Delivery
Institution Date -- Jun-18
404 permit date -- Feb-20
Final Mitigation Plan 2018 -2019 Dec-19
Final Design—Construction Plans -- Feb-20
Site Earthwork March -April 2020 Apr-20
Bare-root plantings -- Apr-20
As-built Survey Jun-20 Jun-20
As-built Baseline Monitoring Report May-20 Jul-20
Year 1 Monitoring Nov-20 Nov-20
Year 2 Monitoring 2021 Nov-21
Year 3 Monitoring 2022 Nov-22
Year 4 Monitoring 2023 Nov-23
Year 5 Monitoring 2024 Nov-24
Year 6 Monitoring 2025 Nov-25
Year 7 Monitoring 2026 Nov-26
1 =The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
Appendix E
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project ECOSYSTEM
DMS# 100086 PLANNING&
EPR RESTORATION

Table 12. Project Contacts Table
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project (NCDMS Project No. 100086)
Designer Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC
1150 SE Maynard Road, Suite 140, Cary, NC 27511
Primary project design POC Kevin Tweedy, PE [phone]
Construction Contractor North State Environmental
2889 Lowery St, Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Construction contractor POC Darrell Westmoreland
Survey Contractor Kinder Land Surveying
203 W. Lebanon St., Mount Airy, NC 27030
Survey contractor POC Frank Kinder(336) 783-4200
Planting Contractor North State Environmental
2889 Lowery St, Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Planting contractor POC Darrell Westmoreland
Seeding Contractor North State Environmental
2889 Lowery St, Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Contractor POC Darrell Westmoreland
Seed Mix Source Green Resource, Colfax, NC
336-855-6363
Nursery Stock Supplier Dykes and Son Nursery, McMinnville, TN
931-668-8833
Live Stake Supplier Foggy Mountain Nursery, Lansing, NC
336-384-5323
Monitoring Performers Ecosystem Planning and Restoration, PLLC
Stream Monitoring POC Jake Byers, EPR [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC Amy James, EPR [phone]
Appendix E
Greenbrier Stream Mitigation Project ECOSYSTEM
PLANNING&
DMS# 100086
EPR RESTORATION

Appendix F
EPR Responses to IRT MYO Comments

t •�; -
-1110:
vk�f_
Iii . . It,
UT1 Reach 1 . is r ',' `•It ,�, , See Figure 1A
y w ._ ;;` UT1A-1
y ::: ,,,':' , I
}{If w r". �, fin: b
f`: , •-
`IC` i • '1El�? ',f, ' UT1A
if r. Y���,u 4 UT1B
alt
-- - 1 UT1 Reach 2 ' {'
- Ir. .: i �r
�(171p1■1
'Ly t..! �1 �I
UT1 Reach 3 =: ", u`,,
LEGEND _ • `..:.:x ,
WETLAND IMPACTS (PERM.) WETLAND ASSETS (No CREDIT) y t' 1
STREAM ASSETS WETLAND A(RR) •- • ° '•
- EII (2.5:1) MI WETLAND B (RR) :-
- R(1:1) WETLAND C (RR)
I WETLAND D (RR)
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
0 200 GREENBRIER STREAM RESTORATION PREPARED NCDEQOR:
FEET WETLAND IMPACTS MAP — OVERVIEW DIVISION OF
MITIGATION SERVICES
PREPARED BY:
C YADKIN COUNTY, NC A ECOSYSTEM
PCN l IGURE IPLANNING&
RESTORATION

From: Jake Byers
To: Kim Browning;Davis,Erin B
Cc: Tugwell.Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW(US);Haywood.Casey M CN(USA);Wilson.Travis W.;Munzer.Olivia;Merritt.Katie;Hamstead.Byron;
Wiesner.Paul;Kevin Tweedy;Amy James;Russell Myers
Subject: RE:[External]Notice of Initial Credit Release/NCDMS Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site/SAW-2018-01755/Yadkin Co.
Date: Friday,September 11,2020 9:57:57 AM
Attachments: Figl Wetland Impacts Overview.odf
CAUTION:External email.Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Hi Kim,
1.The alignment change was above Wetland B(see attached map included with the permit/PJD)and only shifted the upper approximately
40'of UT1A-1 slightly north.
2.We know the species planted on the site per the vegetation plans(species,densities,percentage of each species). When the sites are
planted,hundreds of bare-root stems that essentially look like sticks are mixed by hand into sacks so that workers can grab a stem out of the
sack,use a dibble bar to open a hole in the ground and plant a bare root,take a couple step and repeat. Identifying which species a tree/shrub
is when they essentially look like sticks poking out of the ground can be very difficult and inaccurate which is why we decided to wait until
MY1 to identify the species accurately.
Please let me know if you have any more questions.
Thanks,
-Jake
Original Message
From:Browning,Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW(USA)<[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday,September 11,2020 9:45 AM
To:Jake Byers<[e-mail]>;Davis,Erin B<[e-mail]>
Cc:Tugwell,Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW(USA)<[e-mail]>;Haywood,Casey M CIV(USA)
<[e-mail]>;Travis Wilson([e-mail])<[e-mail]>;Munzer,Olivia
<[e-mail]>;Merritt,Katie<[e-mail]>;Hamstead,Byron<byron [e-mail]>;Wiesner,Paul
<[e-mail]>;Kevin Tweedy<[e-mail]>;Amy James<[e-mail]>;Russell Myers
<[e-mail]>
Subject:RE:[External]Notice of Initial Credit Release/NCDMS Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site/SAW-2018-01755/Yadkin Co.
Thanks for the response,Jake.I do have two questions:
1.Will you please verify that the new alignment did not impact the existing wetlands that were around UT1A-1?
2.Since this is the as-built,shouldn't you know which species of trees are in each plot since they were just planted?
Thanks
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager,Regulatory Division I U.S.Army Corps of Engineers
Original Message
From:Jake Byers<[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday,September 11,2020 9:17 AM
To:Davis,Erin B<[e-mail]>
Cc:Browning,Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW(USA)<[e-mail]>;Tugwell,Todd J CIV USARMY
CESAW(USA)<[e-mail]>;Haywood,Casey M CIV(USA)<[e-mail]>;Travis
Wilson([e-mail])<[e-mail]>;Munzer,Olivia<[e-mail]>;Merritt,Katie
<[e-mail]>;Hamstead,Byron<[e-mail]>;Wiesner,Paul<[e-mail]>;Kevin Tweedy
<[e-mail]>;Amy James<[e-mail]>;Russell Myers<[e-mail]>
Subject:[Non-DoD Source]RE:[External]Notice of Initial Credit Release/NCDMS Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site/SAW-2018-01755/
Yadkin Co.
Good morning,

Please see the responses below to Erin's questions. Please let me know if you need any additional information.
DWR Comments,Erin Davis:
Given the realignment change for UT1A-1,was the proposed vegetative swale feature also constructed in a new location?
The original proposed alignment was incorrect due to survey error. The original alignment did not connect to the low valley point and
hydrology source. The realignment was needed to connect to the the existing swale and source of hydrology above UT1A-1. This existing
swale impounds some water and is vegetated and buffered by woody vegetation. It was determined during construction that clearing the
woody vegetation to grade and plant herbaceous vegetation would create less functional improvement than leaving this feature as is.
Since the vegetative survey was completed in May(growing season),why weren't the stem species identified in the veg plots table?
Very young bare-root tree species are quite difficult to identify,regardless if they are beginning to bud and leaf out. Making guesses of
species of individual stems during MYO when it is unclear,can create unnecessary work and confusion during subsequent monitoring reports
by having to change and update tables and counts possibly leading to inaccuracies. All trees will be accurately identified by species during
monitoring efforts this fall.
Thanks,
-Jake
Jake Byers,PE
Senior Water Resources Engineer
9 Old Weaver Farm Road
Weaverville,NC 28787
828-348-8580(office)
828-989-5592(cell)
919-388-0789(fax)
Blockedhttps://urldefense.com/v3/ http://www.eprusa.net ;!!HYmSToo!
LZtO hmZAhdJu1gNlzFuGOmvdYFf2cs2 H4C1VBp2urRWvaG2-bVh60TURo4bVPx8xxE$ <Blockedhttp://www.eprusa.net/>
<Blockedhttp://www.facebook.com/eprusa.net> <Blockedhttp://www.twitter.com/@ecosystemPR>
<Blockedhttp://www.linkedin.com/company/ecosystem-planning-and-restoration/>

From:Wiesner,Paul<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday,September 10,2020 4:22 PM
To:Jake Byers<[e-mail]>;Kevin Tweedy<[e-mail]>;Amy James<[e-mail]>
Subject:FW:[External]Notice of Initial Credit Release/NCDMS Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site/SAW-2018-01755/Yadkin Co.
Jake,Erin and Kevin;
Can you all respond to Erin's questions from the review? Please CC all with your responses.
Thanks
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville,N.C.28801
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From:Browning,Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW(USA)[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent:Thursday,September 10,2020 4:09 PM
To:Tugwell,Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW(US)<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;Davis,
Erin B<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;Haywood,Casey M CIV(USA)<[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]>>;Wilson,Travis W.<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
>;Munzer,Olivia<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>;Merritt,Katie<[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]>>;Byron Hamstead<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc:Kevin Tweedy<[e-mail]<[e-mail]>>;Wiesner,Paul<[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]>>;Amy James<[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject:[External]Notice of Initial Credit Release/NCDMS Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site/SAW-2018-01755/Yadkin Co.
CAUTION:External email.Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as an attachment to
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

Good afternoon,
The 15-Day Record Drawing review for the Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site(SAW-2018-01755)ended May 30,2020.Per Section
332.8(o)(9)of the 2008 Mitigation Rule,this review followed the streamlined review process.All comments received from the NCIRT are
incorporated in this email.Please address IRT concerns via email response.There were no objections to issuing the initial credit release.
Please find attached the current signed ledger.
DWR Comments,Erin Davis:
Given the realignment change for UT1A-1,was the proposed vegetative swale feature also constructed in a new location?
Since the vegetative survey was completed in May(growing season),why weren't the stem species identified in the veg plots table?
Thanks much,
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager,Regulatory Division I U.S.Army Corps of Engineers