20050634 Ver 1_AsBuilt Monitoring Report_20110131

Monitoring Firm
KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Protect Contact Adam Speller
Email adam spoler(&kci com
KCI Protect No 12071067B_RCB
Design Firm
EcoLogic Associates, P C
3808 Clifton Road
Greensboro NC 27407
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KC /Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 r Baseline Monitoring Report

Table of Contents
10 Protect Goals, Background and Attributes 1
1 1 Location and Setting 1
12 Project Goals and Objectives I
13 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach 1
14 Project History Contacts and Attribute Data 2
20
Success Criteria 2
21
Dimension 2
22
Pattern and Profile 2
23
Substrate 2
24
Sediment Transport 3
25
Vegetation 3
26
Hydrology 3
3 0
Monitoring Plan 3
31
Dimension 3
32
Profile 3
33
Pattern 3
34
Substrate 3
35
Visual Assessment 4
36
Vegetation 4
37
Digital Photos 4
3 8
Watershed Conditions 4
4 0 Baseline Conditions
5 0 Maintenance and Contingency Plans
6 0 References
Appendix A — General FiF-ures and Tables
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Site Map
Table 1 a
— Project Components
Table 1 b
—Component Summations
Table 2 —
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 —
Project Contacts
Table 4 —
Project Attributes
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site
EEP Project # 276 it
5
7
8
9
9
10
10
11
KCI Associates of North Carolina
Baseline Monitoring Report

Appendix B — Mornholoffical Summary Data and Plots
Table 5 — Baseline Stream Data Summary 13
Table 6 — Morphology and Hydraulic Momtonng Summary (Dimensional Parameters) 14
Cross - Section Plots 15
Longitudinal Profile Plot 21
Pebble Count Plots 24
Appendix C — Vegetation Data
Table 7 — Vegetation Plot Data 31
Vegetation Plot Photos 32
Appendix D — Stream Photos
Baseline Momtonng Photos 37
Appendix E — Current Condition Plan View 40
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KC Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 ui Baseline Monitoring Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site, completed in May 2010, restored a
total of 2,919 linear feet of stream in the Neuse River Basin The project is located in the USGS
Hydrologic Unit 03020201070060 This HU is within the ESP's Neuse River Basin Local Watershed
Plan and is also listed as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in EEP s Draft - Neuse River Basin
Restoration Priorities 2010 The project goals and objectives are listed below
Project Goals
• Restore a stable channel morphology and floodplain to the project stream that is capable of
moving the flows and sediment provided by its watershed
• Improve water quality by reducing bank erosion and bed degradation
• Provide a riparian management zone that is compatible with the surrounding uses (golf course
and electrical transmission corridor) and yet retains the ecological function of the riparian zone
• Enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the stream corridor
Project Objectives
• Restore 2 919 linear feet of stable stream channel with the appropriate pattern, profile, and
dimension that can support the sediment transport system
• Plant native trees and shrubs throughout the site
• Grade a floodplain adjacent to the stream
The project site, which is protected by an 8 5 -acre permanent conservation easement held by the State of
North Carolina, is situated in Wake County in the Northern Outer Piedmont ecoregion of the Piedmont
physiographic province The site is located along Richland Creek, bounded by Stadium Drive at the
upstream limits of the site and NC -98 at the downstream limits of the site on the Paschal Golf Course in
the Town of Wake Forest The site's 7 8- square mile watershed is mostly urban east of the site and
rural/residential to the west The stream has been directly adjacent to the golf course since the course's
construction in 1917 As a result of the highly managed landuse surrounding the site, the stream has been
impacted by straightening, buffer clearing and other hydrologic changes The upper 300 feet of the project
are within an electncal transmission corridor which has historically been managed by the utility
company, maintaining vegetation below 12 tall The pre - restoration assessment classified the upper
portion of the stream as an unstable C4 stream type and the lower part as an F4 stream The assessment
also found the stream had significant eroding banks for most of its length The restoration plan called for
building a stable C4 stream channel with appropriate meander geometry, consistent bankfull width,
increased pool depths, steeper riffles flatter pools, and native riparian vegetation on the banks The
design was developed using two reference reaches, an upstream reach of Richland Creek and UT to Lake
Wheeler, which is in Raleigh, North Carolina There were only limited modifications made to the design
and planting plan during construction, which included lengthening three constructed riffles and improving
various storm water conveyances to the project stream
The monitoring components were installed in early July 2010 The monitoring plan includes longitudinal
profile along the entire stream length and six cross - sections, four in riffles and two in pools Eleven
permanent photo points have been established with a total of fourteen photos to be taken annually To
determine the success of the planted buffer, seven permanent vegetation monitoring plots were
established according to the CVS -EEP protocol These monitoring components shall be evaluated on a
yearly basis or until the success criteria are met The first year of monitoring will take place in 2011
Paschal Goll(Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KC/ Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 ry Baseline Monitoring Report

10 Project Goals, Background and Attributes
1 1 Location and Setting
The project site, which is protected by an 8 5 -acre permanent conservation easement held
by the State of North Carolina, is situated in Wake County in the Northern Outer
Piedmont ecoregion of the Piedmont physiographic province The site is located along
Richland Creek, bounded by Stadium Drive at the upstream limits of the site and NC -98
at the downstream limits of the site on the Paschal Golf Course in the Town of Wake
Forest The site s 7 8- square mile watershed is mostly urban east of the site and
rural residential to the west See Figure 1 in Appendix A
The project is located in the USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020201 of the Neuse River Basin
and drains approximately 7 8 square miles
12 Project Goals and Objectives
Project Goals
• Restore a stable channel morphology and floodplam to the project stream that is
capable of moving the flows and sediment provided by its watershed
• Improve water quality by reducing bank erosion and bed degradation
• Provide a riparian management zone that is compatible with the surrounding uses
(golf course and electrical transmission corridor) and yet retains the ecological
function of the riparian zone
• Enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the stream corridor
Project Objectives
• Restore 2 919 linear feet of stable stream channel with the appropriate pattern,
profile, and dimension that can support the sediment transport system
• Plant native trees and shrubs throughout the site
• Grade a floodplam adjacent to the stream
13 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
C This protect restored 2,919 linear feet of Richland (Station 00+00 - 29 +19) See Figure 2
J in Appendix A for an overview of the site layout The entire project was designed with
( ) the one set of design criteria and is one continuous reach There is a 47' easement
exception at Station 11+00 where a golf cart bridge crosses the stream This 47' is not
eligible for credit From approximately Stations 01 +50 to 04 +50 the stream is under an
C electrical transmission right of way and has vegetation restrictions requiring trimming of
all vegetation to 12 or under There is also a golf play -over area on both sides of the golf
_ cart bridge over Richland Creek This part of the easement also has a vegetation
�J maintenance plan The project begins after it flows under the Stadium Drive bridge at the
northern part of the site A concrete utility crossing immediately after the bridge created a
blockage to fish passage To allow fish passage, a rock ramp fishway was built, linking
CD Richland Creek up and downstream of the bridge
U
C)
r-,
U
C
C
0
O
0
The site has been directly adjacent to the golf course since the course's construction in
1917 As a result of the highly managed landuse surrounding the site, the stream has been
highly impacted by straightening, buffer clearing and other hydrologic changes The pre -
restoration assessment classified the upper portion of the stream as an unstable C4 stream
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site
EEP Project # 276
KCl Associates of North Carolina
Baseline Monitoring Report

type and the lower part as an F4 stream The assessment found the stream had significant
eroding banks for most of its length The restoration plan called for building a stable C4
stream channel with appropriate meander geometry, consistent bankfull width, increased
pool depths, steeper riffles, flatter pools, and native riparian vegetation on the banks The
design was developed using two reference reaches an upstream reach of Richland Creek
and UT to Lake Wheeler, which is in Raleigh North Carolina There were no significant
changes in the design and planting plan during the construction process
14 Project History, Contacts and Attribute Data
The project was first identified as a candidate for restoration by Wake County NRCS
District Conservationist Tom Hill This project has been in the planning phases since
2004 with the final restoration plan completed in June 2007 Construction began in
December 2009 The site was completed and planted in May 2010
20 Success Criteria
21 Dimension
The dimensional data from the yearly cross - section survey should show minimal change
over the course of the monitoring period However, some change is natural and expected,
indicating that the site is settling post- construction Changes that may indicate
destabilizing conditions include significant widening or deepening of the riffle section or
a consistent trend of change over the course of the monitoring For a pool cross - section
deepening is frequently a positive change while consistent filling of the pool may indicate
destabilization
22 Pattern and Profile
For the profile, the reach under assessment should not demonstrate any trends in thalweg
aggradation or degradation over any significant continuous portion of its length The
profile should also demonstrate contrasting bedform diversity against the pre - existing
condition Bedform distributions, nffle /pool lengths and slopes will vary, but should do
so around design distributions The majority of pools should be maintained at greater
depths with lower water surface slopes while nffles should be shallow with greater water
surface slopes Pattern features should show little adjustment over the monitoring period
23 Substrate
Substrate measurements, from annual pebble count data, should indicate the progression
towards, or the maintenance of the anticipated distributions from the design phase While
stream projects are designed to transport bedload in equilibrium and carry overall
sediment loads at bankfull, fines can be transported even at low discharges and upstream
instability beyond design projections can also lead to deposition as storm events recede in
areas of energy dissipation such as restoration reaches This can have the effect of
obscuring bedform and fining of riffles especially in the first few years after the
implementation of a stream project In many cases subsequent narrowing and reduction
of W/D ratios as a project develops /stabilizes can then increase transport efficiency and
return bedform to intended distributions, but some fining can persist due to upstream
disturbance
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCl Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 2 Baseline Monitoring Report

24 Sediment Transport
Maintenance of sediment transport will be evident by stable features in the monitored
cross - sections and profile From these two indicators, there should be no evidence of any
significant trend in aggradatton or degradation throughout the channel
25 Vegetation
Vegetation success is based on the criteria established in the USACE Stream Mitgation
Guidelines (2003) This document states that vegetation monitoring results indicate the
following planted stem density minimums in the corresponding monitoring years 320
stems/acre through year three, 288 stems/acre in year four, and 260 stems /acre in year
five If monitoring indicates that the specified survival rate is not being met, appropriate
corrective actions will be developed to include invasive species control, the removal of
dead/dying plants, and replanting
26 Hydrology
A minimum of two bankfull events, occurring in separate years, must be documented
within the monitoring period
30 Momtonnp_ Plan
31 Dimension
Six permanent monitoring cross - sections have been established on the site Four riffle
cross - sections and two pool cross - sections have been installed on Richland Creek
Permanent monuments of rebar in concrete have been established at each end of these
cross - sections These cross - sections will be surveyed each year with measurements
occurring at bankfull, top of bank, edge of water, and other significant breaks in slope
32 Profile
The entire profile of the restored streams will be surveyed each monitoring year The
profile will be surveyed in detail, documenting the elevations of the thalweg, water
surface, and bankfull Pool and riffle features will be called out to calculate feature slopes
and lengths
33 Pattern
Pattern measurements have been taken for the as-built condition and are documented in
this report Future pattern measurements will not be taken unless there is evidence that
significant geomorphological adjustments have occurred
34 Substrate
Pebble counts will be conducted annually at all of the permanent cross - sections These
pebble counts will be used to calculate the sediment distribution at the cross - sections and
the D50 and D84 at each location
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 3 Baseline Monitoring Report

35 Visual Assessment
A visual assessment of the stream to include an assessment of the bank (lateral stability),
bed (vertical stability), the easement boundary, and site vegetation will be completed
each year to document the necessary parameters required for the EEP monitoring report
36 Vegetation
Seven vegetation plots were set up and assessed for the baseline vegetation monitoring
Vegetation data collection must follow the CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation
(Lee et al 2006, http / /cvs bio unc edu/methods htm) The baseline vegetation monitoring
was conducted as Level 1 Inventory of Planted Stems, as will the first year monitoring
Beginning in year two and continuing throughout the rest of the monitoring penod the
site will be monitored using the Level 2 protocol
37 Digital Photos
Eleven permanent photo stations have been established as part of the baseline monitoring
Three of these photo stations have two photos assigned to them, so there is a total of 14
photos taken from these photo stations Starting in the first monitoring year, these photos
will be taken in late October / early November so that vegetative conditions are similar at
the site between monitoring years
38 Watershed Conditions
Yearly monitoring will document any evident changes in the watershed Any large
hydrologic events in the watershed, such as tropical storms or hurricanes will also be
documented in the yearly monitoring reports
40 Baseline Conditions
The site was built as designed without any significant changes from the design plans
A detailed baseline survey was conducted post - construction by KCI in early July 2010 The
baseline survey of the longitudinal profile and cross - sections shows that the as-built Richland
Creek channel closely reflects the design conditions
A few species from the planting plan were unavailable at the designed quantities at the time of
planting This resulted in fewer planted stems of hackberry (Celtis laevigata), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), and sweet pepperbush (Clethra aln folta) and additional stems of sycamore
(Platanus occidentahs), chokeberry (Aronia arbuttfoha) blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), and
elderberry (Sambucus Canadensts) were planted, along with stems of spicebush (Lindera
benzoin) and swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxu), which were not in the original planting
plan The seven vegetation monitoring plots established dunng the baseline conditions survey
calculated a total site average of 1,159 planted stems /acre and 659 planted stems /acre when
excluding live stakes All plots had an average density of at least 486 total planted stems /acre
50 Maintenance and Contingency Plans
Problem areas at the Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Restoration Site will be dealt with
accordingly based on the severity of the problem and at the discretion of the EEP Site
maintenance may include reinstallation of coir matting, removal of debris from the channel,
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 4 Baseline Monitoring Report

stabilization of bank erosion with protective structures, or adjustments to in- stream structures
All maintenance activities will be documented in the yearly monitoring reports
The baseline monitoring was conducted with a total station instrument The longitudinal
stationing is based on the honzontal layout of the surveyed thalweg The Level 1 CVS -EEP
protocol (http / /cvs bio unc edu/methods htm) was used to collect vegetation data
`6 0 References
Lee Michael T, R K Peet, S D Roberts, and T R Wentworth 2006 CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4 0 (http //cvs bio unc edu/methods htm)
USACE 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines USACE, NCDENR -DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 5 Baseline Monitoring Report

APPENDIX A
General Figures and Tables
Paschal GoljCourse (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KC/ Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 6 Baseline Monitoring Report

GRANVILLE
O
FRANKLIN m
ORANGE DURHAM MT
RpTRD `Q
a _
Ue _
NASH
WAKE
CHATHAM
eY'
0
JOHNSTON
t
LEE
HARNETT
1 y
01
J
co
m
s-
Z
CEDARAVE
0
CITY OF
WAKE FOREST t
o� vyv
' J >�
-• p/N
98 uRNRO SOUThq�E EgVF
ti
O
• DIRECTIONS TO PASCHEL GOLF COURSE (RICHLAND CREEK):
FROM RALEIGH, TAKE US HIGHWAY 1 NORTH TOWARD WAKE
FOREST. THEN TAKE A RIGHT ONTO THE NC 98 NORTH EXIT
TOWARD WAKE FOREST. TRAVEL APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE ON NC
HOLD AVE 98/DURHAM RD AND THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE PROJECT
WILL BE ON THE LEFT.
� The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under
private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or
along the easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is
� not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal
C agencies or their designees /contractors involved in the development,
y oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the
terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or
< — - activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and
OP activities requires prior coordination with EEP.
Figure 1. Vicinity Map - Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek), Project No. 276
Project Location
Roads
Major Streams and Rivers 1:24,000
E��in�ent
KCI Municipalities oz ul o uz
.o.,..
Project Easement Miks

OnnnOCno10' �- ��i0000000n00000000OOOOOOCI��� ;r�`�n00
Table la Project Components
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Project No 276
Project
Existing
Restoration
kak �-2 "'% `-W
Linear Footage
Non- Riverme
Mitigation
Mitigation
BMP
�Y �� ���� 'i '
Component or
Feet /Acres
Level
Approach
or Square Feet*
Stationing
Ratio
Credits+
Elements
Comment
Reach ID
HQ Preservationx
Totals Feet/Acres
2,919
0
0
In stream structures including offset rock cross
Richland Creek
N/A
R
P2
2 919
10 +00 39 +80
1 1
2 766
0
vanes riffle grade controls and rock sills were
used to stabilize restored channel Planted a
rinarian buffer
Buffer
R
167,0922
l 1
167 092
1
IBuffer was planted with native vegetation
*Linear footage does not include the stream length that runs under a golf cart bridge through an easement exception Square feet of buffer are limited to the areas of the
buffer that meet the regulatory criteria for buffer restoration credit See Figure 2 for the locations of the creditable buffer
'The credits have been reduced to account for areas where the stream flows through vegetation management zones within the easement These management areas are
depicted on Figure 2 They include a utility right of way and a play over area for the golf course Under the utility right of way the buffer will be allowed to grow to a
height of 12 Due to this restriction the 309 mitigation credits that would be generated by the stream in the right of way is reduced by 25% to 231 stream credits The
vegetation in the play over area will be trimmed to a few feet high Due to this restriction the 151 mitigation credits that would be generated by the stream in the play
over area are reduced by 50% to 76 stream credits There is 2 4591f of stream that does not have any reductions and will generate 2 459 credits
Table lb Component Summations
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Project No 276
Restoration Level I Strea;700
Riparian Wetland Ac
Non -Ri ar Ac
Upland Ac Buffer Ac BMP
kak �-2 "'% `-W
Rrverme
Non- Riverme
Restoration
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
2 919
i .MW !'�'���
�Y �� ���� 'i '
384 ? -
t r �
tWV t
x�+�
V°e_���
?E
Creation
r'
Preservation
HQ Preservationx
Totals Feet/Acres
2,919
0
0
0
384
0
MU Totalsl
2,766
0
0
0
384
0
Paschal Gotf Course (Richland Ct eek) Sn eam Restoration Site KC/ Associates of Not th Cat ohna
EEP Project # 276 9 Baseline Monitoring Report

Table 2 Project Activity & Reporting History
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) /Project No 276
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan
2004
June 2007
Final Design - Construction Plans
Primary Project Design POC
Sept 2007
Construction
6`
May 2010
Planting
May 2010
Baseline Monitoring/Report
Aug 2010
Dec 2010
Year 1 Monitoring
Planting Contractor POC
"
2
Year 2 Monitoring
KCI Associates of North Carolina
Year 3 Monitoring
s
Raleigh NC 27609
Year 4 Monitoring
JAdam Spiller [phone]
Year 5 Monitoring
Table 3 Project Contacts
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Project No 276
Designer
EcoLogic Associates P C
3808 Clifton Road
Greensboro NC 27407
Primary Project Design POC
Mark Taylor PE [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary NC 27518
Construction Contractor POC
William Pedersen (919) 459 -9034
Planting Contractor
H + J Forest Service
Planting Contractor POC
Matt Hitch [phone]
Monitoring Performers
KCI Associates of North Carolina
4601 Six Forks Road Suite 220
Raleigh NC 27609
onitonng POC
JAdam Spiller [phone]
Paschal GoIrCourse (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Protect # 276 10 Baseline Monitoring Report

Table 4 Project Attributes
Paschal Golf Course Richland Creek / Project No 276
Project County
Wake County
Ph sio ra hic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Northern Outer Piedmont
River Basin
Neuse
USGS HUC
03020201
NCDWQ Sub Basin
03 04 02
Within Extent of EEP Watershed Plan
Yes - Draft - Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities 2010
WRC Class
Warm
% of Project Easement Demarcated
70% with wooden bollards
Beaver Activity Observed Dunng Design Phase
Yes
Restoration Component Attributes
Drainage Area (sq mi)
78
Stream Order
Second
Restored Length (feet)
2 919
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Watershed Type
Suburban
Watershed LULC Distribution
Forest/Wetland
Agricultural/Managed Herbaceous
Developed
35%
35%
30%
Watershed Impervious Cover
10%
CDWQ AU /Index Number
27 -21
NCDWQ Classification
C NSW
303d Listed
U
Upstream of 303d Listed Segment
U
Reasons for 303d Listing or Stressor
U
Total Acreage of Easement
85
Total Vegetated Acreage within Easement
13
Total Planted Acreage as Part of Restoration
72
Ros en Classification of Pre Existing
C4/F4
os en Classification of As Built
C4
Valley Type
Valley Sloe
0 002
Valley Side Slope Range
Valley Toe Slope Range
-
Cowardin Classification
Trout Waters Designation
No
Species of Concern Endangered Etc
None
Dominant Soil Series and Characteristics
Senes
Depth
Clay%
K
T
Chewacla
Dee
-
-
N/A is for items that do not apply
is for items that are unavailable
"U" is for items that are unknown
Paschal Golf Coarse (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KC! Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 ! / Baseline Monitoring Report

APPENDIX B
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Paschal GoljCourse (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates ojNorth Carolina
EEP Project # 276 12 Baseline Monitoring Report

Table 5 Baseline Stream Data Summary
I
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Project No 276
Parameter
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach Data (Upper Richland Creek)
Design
As -built
-
w
f
_
_
n ~
Dimension and Substrate Riffle
LL
UL
E
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD�
n
Mtn
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
22
350
28 0
,� "��
w1
32 0
� i #'
�
33 0
4 -1
31 9
32 7
322
344
1 2
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
�
-sqaW
t.XAto
28
,,
60
IIL*-°,�
>100
�,A' �
",u_
100
}"
>60
>72
>69
>90
128
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
S
a L
14
28
}
23
�', P'
E'
24
f
26
11
24
26
26
28
02
4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
_O j
3 4
�'
3 8
tW
''
Pr's"
3 75
� �
�
3 4
�;
3 3
3 5
3 5
3 8
0 2
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
��
48
72
db� '
67��
75
85 0
80 2
842
837
893
4 1
4
Width/Depth Ratio
sv�p
t `
120
138
>
' `
122
133
121
114 1
127
125
145
1 3
4
Entrenchment Ratio
��
.�
w'
1 7
1 9
#�,
3 1
'°;
36
i
30
>1 9
>2 0
>2 0
>2 0
00
4
Bank Height Ratio
12
��
"�
�
�y�
1 1
�' s
°' .
"
9
to
11,
1 0
1 0
10
10
00
4
d50 (-m)
za ° °�
�x
'
120
v
ktuYl J.
l
p
T
120
4
127
140
200
80
4
��
��
Riffle Length (ft)
„ �zzt
'�_ -V_p ,
� °
Y 'f
tt V- i- ,
�0`sr�
a ,
�, 3i
j 4 ��
R'+'c ^A-�YY
�t x
mss' �wW"
_
»�5 '-
g
� fL. �x.
i 'i
¢ 't
@ aL".l
sY
F 4
14
48
30
177
20
Riffle Slo a (ft/ft)
i a
��
�
0 0200
2�
�'�4'
0 0370
�x
0 0050
`�'
�as �
�{
�-„
0 0090
� -�`
f
s-� � �.
0 0056
��e
0 0011
0 0089
0 0075
0 0212
20
Pool Len ft)
�-
"rte
23
�
�
96
Q v
5
�
Y`
25
r
`
41
r' 4J
8
74
82
150
19
Pool Max De th
�
�r8 �6' at
4 0
I
�i .�
er
. ,;•P
4 6
� ro r
w <�� rs
5 5
7 a
4 3
5 0
e`er
5 6
N42
2
Pool S acing (ft)
�s
�S
38
S
258
�r d
�� ;
25
lad �
90
e
150
— 1
230
63
153
155
216
19
Pool Volume ft'
#�
�.f
i
�
x
'a
�t
k��
7
i��iaF
7 "
���
�'
tea'
atte "rn .�``-,���t,��''�`As�'� ��'
�''��'`�
�
t_ �
� `� ��c
"�".,� �� -,.� �.�.�,�. �,�a
.� �+����...'�`'"'`� rte:- c •� at'°.�' � �.`."��,.�a '.�b'��rr�' �' �'�
� +�� ������'.,>��
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
J-'vJ
�
22
V HMV
�,
71
;�
� a
100
�4ieW Sw 0%
300
0�;
60
4X55 '"'
300
37
78
83
116
25
9
Radius ot Curvature (ft)
'4ur'Mp'
32
',�
98
a�
37
���"��
70
-` a�
80
'
100
80
90
90
100
10
14
Rc Bankfull H idth (ft/ft)
1 34
Vx IWt
�����
z
i
1 1
2 1
2 4
25
28
28
3 1
E
7-4
Meander Wavelength (ft)
p," ;
_1
110
IT' �� ��
ms's ffN'-
300
110
' t � tW- i
wY,.
200
� r�
,, �
� 220
330
259
321
312
395
45
11
Meander Width Ratio
� " a " � ,
t o 7
1 59
° � " � a
s �
i
93
10 7;
a
9�0
1y�1
24
25
35
ag
i -�„
ubstiat° bed and trans oit arameters� a
RI O /� O /PO o O
/d nu /Wr /�G /�S /0
`.R .2^
.a�FSI:. ^9i. '�tS�,B�de"
T
Tk `�;�'� y",t
"'"Y C .'4.e"+.~¢ "�.3:i9? '+ire ^f
� f 1° 4 s�
6 Y
tlLt' a�4Fa�a� V9 n' �S ^P=r
!S F� .� 33:. �- � +1Lt.✓M i .1'�n of v *
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be %�z
0 %/16 %/55 %/27 %/2 % /0%
d]6 /d35 /d50 /d84 /d95 /di ° /di'Pmm
�'��-
15/73/12/35/49/ /��,�"�s�:
�"' k,r�,��g���`
19/20/34/54/87/120
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb /ft2t*�
°
r`
0 35
�4� s 4a
040
040
Max part size mm mobilized at bankfull
20 80
'fin -°° ; '� z �` - st-' "�� �J°"�','
2090
31
2
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
T4 y�{J�y, t f
L ti v. i,� F ,T+,$' ". �'L +� ate. a a` • $ ..
�P
i ,., -.. r i t r „£° 'Sj 1 s .. a' i } - ^SA !t E
dP ..�_ � '�, ° Z
�iR�� tr F
1 �cr7f — .�.y'".{�y°.
R �1 m > A}
ddihmial ReacliTirameters a r
's sta°a+s
q -
3ca.&
°� _ - '`� � �,.,t t ,1
r �i u R s3�aisa F
Drainage Area (SM)
',
78
48
78
78
Impervious cover estimate
10%
t a � 5r 3 �, � s s.1 Wk ,"?.„A^,Q�
10%
10%
Ros en Classification
174 /1
C4
C4 /1
C4 /1
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
; 6Z
JJV'qWJ
3 1 70
36 50
50
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
r"`'
305 400
260 280
425
Valley length (ft)
2710
t � w Sit ; r fir
.4`1_AAWeU7V14
2 710
Channel tha]we Ien ft
g g� ( )
` sa'
i� ��. �
mot#` r'f
-a� *f at. � y+.R � �.. `�� -r�' #° t.�-�
�'� n * �" ,� z "-- r
,ntt� �� i }� ��t"� ha�'4�r � ��
e
e .. ", 4
2 919
Sinuosity
r
122
1 1
1 20
1 10
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)�
# `
00028
00040
00028
00028
BF slope (ft/ft)
��
�a = �� c 'V- �� -- °
�� "` � � ", ti 5y'� �, � v��, zb
00028
00027
Bankf ill Flood lam Area (acres)
"rq '"� ,7_'P -u t� _3 �' �
_ _ �;.� ; r� g
, r-
'~
Proportion over wide (%
l )
i t i
--& �
K ' s « _i "
4 �. �i.�T)4a r rt �
- e a Y , >r > d r�
��� � —Ir'- �'a� ,....... .rd Y',...s
kff
� ~ a `� �
v ti p r y
y_�+'Yi�'r a, v- ���,.a
Entrenchment Class (ER Range)
X 7_ Via' -
t
�tia
��
z Y
��
R `= - a
Y r
r t-,
Incision Class (BHR Range)
3
7� '�'d "1
r, r r���
fc
'a,.- A
���
`�� x
;'°�`
5-cF ..� X
"
X d
°° �s
"'� "�
°..r,u.."hr.+
k
BEHI VL %/ L %/ M %/ H %/ VH %/ E%
,.
r ..' m » r
—
� e _ ., r y �a � k� ..._.
'9C
•a �.. M'�T ,. ¢i ����r S � �n.'� f (�. 1 4 _ Ey ..
Channel Stability or Habitat Metre
c
}}
�i' �y �j"A ,i
ry
'!. � y � u s�i9'c -'�
*'t,
9[ �-
t�'` Pa` S
rtjp $gam r5 J
1-C vb$;
�3� 'mac! �++�=t�� crPTi"i2 =--R er J"
Biological of Other
g�,� y
«,
��', -V � e,
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCl Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 13 Baseline Monitoring Repoi I

Table 6 Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary (Dimensional Parameters)
Paschal Golf Course chland Creek)/ Project No 276
Dimension and Substrate
Cross - Section ]
(Riffle)
Cross - Section 2 (Riffle)
Cross - Section 3 (Pool)
Cross - Section 4
(Riffle)
Cross - Section 5 (Pool)
aced on fixed baselme elev&tVfif
#Base
MYl
MY2
;MY3
SMY4
MY5,
MY±
gBasee
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
�MY5,
tMY±
Base
MY1
iMY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MtY++
i Base„
4M,Y,is
aMY2
3MY3,
MY4
MY5
MY
,Basey
MY11
MY2
MY3
tMY4
MX-5,
IV Y+
Bankfull Width (ft)
344
tv
�
31 9
�
�
4
�S*
314
a t�
w�
�'-4,o*
q91 4'
'
32 1
A'
�
&JA
31 5
„9
%A%
+ M
t+
V
Floodprone Width (ft)
>90
IW
R$
90
>70
°s4
e
� �
`�
�
- 6
9
>68
��
oz.
tia
Ke
OW
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2 4
rss
�
'
.,_
2 8'
'4
s
3 3
'"
'€
A
�'
_
a�
^`'
2 5`;'
tt
2 9
y
�a�
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
34
�
3 8
�
�
��c
,
t
5 6
;, `
, =x,
�,
e ti
"
�'
33
�
w
4 3
t
� a
s ,M
a
WV
�
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
81 7
�
�
�,��
893
`
�
' �a
,� $
104 0
s �
,� r
V
,, � �
-ON
�
80 2
�
M
Z
"��
�`��
90 8
��
���
�,�
�
W
vWI
Bankf ill Width/Depth Ratio
145
�
Z��
�
11 4
"
c� �"
z s
f�
g� r
�� 9
r
w� `
+�
12 8
v'`n �
r `
'
'
it
#�
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2 0
�
'�x
€�
_
>2 0
- �TMi
'
<
ti
x 4
a ='°
" `
°°'
b
a
_
��
L�
°
r
>2 0
a u
�
,
��
a
�
T
W_1
"
�
Bankf ill Bank Height Ratio
10
e
��
10
�r
r-,'W
r .s�Z
1 0
a
`
�
`
x
r
'�
a
Z
Cros i (ft)
477 5
4775
111 4
"a:�ti��iu
y
tf� 5
13571
=N_<
y
}s�1
`'
1001r��
s°�Px
-
i
1064_.��
d50 mm
2 0
f
� "�
�
4
"
34 0
�
_
gym
P �Z,-
t 1°
0 4
gar
'�" °
460
*L�
�*
17
?-42
ZM:
a w
a
FM
Cross - Section 6 (Riffle)
ased on fixed baseline elevation 4 _ ���
Wise]
'W41)
MY-2i
MY3'
IMY4,
LMY5J
MY,�+,
Bankfull Width (ft)
322
�
O
k
� �
Floodprone Width (ft)
>60
�
�
��;
�
;.. �'
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
27
"M
0-15*
k'fC*
�
V
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
35
�
Ai�
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
85 6
�tr
`'
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12 1
`-v
UM
"
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>1 9
_!�i
*
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1 0
` m
=.
°
t�`J
V A
44�
Cross Sectional Area Between End Pins (ft)
943
d50 mm
44 0
'NIZ
I%Q�&Iv
IW_
-mss V.
€
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 14 Baseline Monitoring Report

Cross - Section Plots
River Basin:
Neuse
Watershed:
Richland Creek, MY -00
XS ID
XS - 1, Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
7.8
Date:
8/3/2010
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
- Shtlun
Elevation
0.0
264.34
0.2
264.06
3.2
263.69
6.6
263.46
11.0
262.35
15.1
261.02
18.1
260.10
26.7
259.66
34.5
259.62
42.8
259.57
47.1
259.38
50.0
258.70
52.9
257.33
53.7
256.58
54.8
256.43
58.0
256.20
60.5
256.17
63.4
255.97
65.7
256.15
69.1
256.17
71.8
256.28
73.2
256.42
75.1
256.96
79.3
258.48
82.4
259.71
87.8
259.72
93.2
259.94
98.2
262.11
101.9
263.91
106.7
263.94
110.7
263.88
110.9
264.16
265
264
263
262
v
261
3 260
� e
259
W
258
257
256
255
SLiMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
259.4
Bankfull Cross- Sectional Area:
81.7
Bankfull Width:
34.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
262.8
Flood Prone Width:
>90
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.4
W / D Ratio:
14.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Neuse River Basin, Richland Creek, MV-00, XS - 1, Riffle
- - - - Bankfull
- - - - Flood Prone Area
�- MY-00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (feet)
110

River Basin:
Neuse
Watershed:
Richland Creek, MY -00
XS ID
XS - 2, Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi :
78
Date:
8/3/2010
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
Station
Elevation
0.0
257.11
0.2
256.93
6.2
256.88
16.0
256.80
22.7
256.71
26.4
1 256.76
29.1
255.70
30.7
254.77
31.7
254.12
32.8
253.94
33.0
253.52
35.1
253.27
37.7
1 253.13
39.1
252.94
41.8
253.14
43.7
253.04
45.5
253.02
47.9
253.09
50.0
253.23
52.0
253.33
54.1
254.40
56.3
255.70
58.4
256.82
63.8
256.68
69.6
256.85
70.1
257.10
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
256.8
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
85.6
Bankfull Width:
30.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
260.6
Flood Prone Width:
>70
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.8
W / D Ratio:
10.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
262
261
260
259
258
fi
257
c 256
w
255
254
253
252
Neuse River Basin, Richland Creek, MY -00, XS - 2, Riffle
- - - -- ---- sm►a,ll
- -- Flood Prone Aree
t MY-00
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
50 60 70

River Basin:
lElevaHoe
0.0
Neuse
0.3
256.64
Watershed:
7.8
Date:
Richland Creek, MY -00
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
XS ID
256.26
26.1
XS - 3, Pool
28.0
254.50
Drainage
253.80
31.3
253.62
y.,
253.36
35.6
253.01
37.6
252.61
40.3
251.93
42.3
251.16
44.6
250.65
46.8
250.82
48.2
251.03
49.4
251.65
50.6
251.98
51.5
252.96
53.0
254.01
54.2
255.26
I
256.55
256.63
a256.1
256.61
256.71
256.99
I t
Neuse River Basin, Richland Creek, MY -00, XS - 3, Pool
258
257 -
- --
-
256 -
-
-- - -- i
255
-
-
254 -
w
253 -
- -
-
252
- - -
--- -am►rwi
251 -
-
� ntvaiu
250
-
0 10
20 30
40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
Station
lElevaHoe
0.0
256.84
0.3
256.64
Area s mi :
7.8
Date:
8/4/2010
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
Station
lElevaHoe
0.0
256.84
0.3
256.64
4.0
256.43
12.0
256.50
19.0
256.36
24.1
256.26
26.1
255.40
28.0
254.50
29.2
253.80
31.3
253.62
33.8
253.36
35.6
253.01
37.6
252.61
40.3
251.93
42.3
251.16
44.6
250.65
46.8
250.82
48.2
251.03
49.4
251.65
50.6
251.98
51.5
252.96
53.0
254.01
54.2
255.26
I
256.55
256.63
a256.1
256.61
256.71
256.99
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
256.3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
104.0
Bankfull Width:
31.4
Flood Prune Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
5.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
3.3
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
I 0

River Basin:
Elevation
Neuse
Watershed:
7.8
Date:
Richland Creek, MY-00
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
XS ID
XS - 4, Riffle
T'
Drainage Are
Neuse River Basin, Richland Creek, MY-00, XS - 4, Riffle
260
259
258 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
257
256
255
- - - - - -- -
t
w
254
253
252
-- -- Bankfidl
251
- -- - Flood Prone Area
-r- MY-00
250
0 10
20 30 40 50
60 70
Station (Peet)
Station E
Elevation
a s mi :
7.8
Date:
8/4/2010
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
Station E
Elevation
SMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 254.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 80.2
Bankfull Width: 32.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 258.2
Flood Prone idth: >68
Max Depth at Bankfull: 3.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 2.5
W / D Ratio: 12.8
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.1
Bank Height Ratio: 1.0

River Basin:
Elevation S
Neuse
Watershed:
7,8
Date:
Richland Creek, MY -00
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
XS ID
XS - 5, Pool
y
Drainage
:.
e e
...
MY00, XS - 5, Pool
255
254
--- ---- ----------------
---- - - - - -- --
253 -
- --
- -- -
v
- -- - --
-
e
0
,°�,
W
250 -
-
249 --
- - -
TI \' -uu
248
0 10
20
30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
Station E
Elevation S
Area s mi :
7,8
Date:
8/4/2010
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
Station E
Elevation S
Max Depth at Bankfull: 4.3
20.7 252.13 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 2.9
22.0 251.53 W / D Ratio: -
Bank Height Ratio: 1.0
-
enchment Ratio: -

River Basin:
Elevation
Neuse
252.52
0.3
Watershed:
Area s mi :
Richland Creek, MY -00
'S An
8/4/2010
YS ID
A. French, L. Lord
XS - 6, Riffle
251.32
17.2
Drainage
18.4
249.80
19.3
249.27
20.1
248.87
21.5
248.88
23.9
248.99
26.3
248.97
27.7
249.00
28.8
248.79
30.9
248.95
32.8
248.95
36.2
248.95
38.0
249.09
38.8
249.25
40.6
249.73
41.5
250.03
42.8
250.79
45.0
251.50
46.2
252.15
51.0
252.24
56.8
252.23
60.5
252.27
60.9
252.43
Neuse River Basin, Richland Creek, MY00, XS - 6, Riffle
256 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
255
254
- --
253
-- - - -- - - - - - -- -
252 - - - - -
--- �----------------------------- - - - - -�
- --
- -�
v
cif 251
- -- - - -
-- -
250
• Bankfull
249
- -- Flood Prone Area
�- MY -00
248
0 10
20 30 40
50 60
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
252.52
0.3
252.34
Area s mi :
7.8
Date:
8/4/2010
Field Crew:
A. French, L. Lord
Station
Elevation
0.0
252.52
0.3
252.34
4.1
252.31
8.9
252.32
13.9
252.29
15.6
251.32
17.2
250.52
18.4
249.80
19.3
249.27
20.1
248.87
21.5
248.88
23.9
248.99
26.3
248.97
27.7
249.00
28.8
248.79
30.9
248.95
32.8
248.95
36.2
248.95
38.0
249.09
38.8
249.25
40.6
249.73
41.5
250.03
42.8
250.79
45.0
251.50
46.2
252.15
51.0
252.24
56.8
252.23
60.5
252.27
60.9
252.43
SUMM1IARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
252.3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
85.6
Bankfull 3�'idth:
32.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
255.8
Flood Prone Width:
>60
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.7
W / D Ratio:
12.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.9
Bank lief hl Ratio:
1.0

z
0
2651
264
263
262
261
260
259
258
257
256
255
294
253
252
251
250
249
248
247
246
245
4
Longitudinal Profile
Richland Creek
EEP Project Number 304- MY-00
Stations 0+00 - 10+00
■
■ -0 0027x + �26O
- --- ---- -----
- - - - - - - - - - - --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Sws= -0 0028x + 257 25
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
STATION (Vr)
MY-00 ■ Bankfull Water Surface BKF Slope WS Slope
I
900
1000

265
264
263
262
261
260
259
258
257
256
255
244
253
252
251
2%
249
248
247
246
245
Longitudinal Profile
Richland Creek
EEP Project Number 304- W-00
Stations 10+00 - 20+00
SixF= -0 0027x + 260 25
■
■
Sws -0 0028x + 257 25
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 11500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
STATION (17117)
—MY 00 ■ Bankfall — — Water Surface BKF Slope - -- - WS Slope

265
264
263
262
261
260
259
258
257
G�
z 256
0
255
Fr
d
W254
W 253
252
251
250
249
248
247
246
245
I
f
Longitudinal Profile
Richland Creek
EEP Project Number 304 - W-00
Stations 20 +00 - 30 +00
■
SBA -0 0027x + 260 25
■
■
- - - - SA s = -0 0028x + 257 25
- - - - - --
- - - - - - - - - -- - - --- -- - - -- ----------------
�---------
2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000
STATION (FT)
— MY -00 ■ Bankfull -- — Water Surface BKF Slope - - - -- WS Slope

Pebble Count Plots
Particle Richland Distribution
Richland Creek
XS I Riffle
"Particle,.
iMilluneterA
, , 0A
,,^4Cot ntI,
, Stlt/Cla _�
< 0 062
S/C
1
' Very Fine
, Fine
edlum
Coarse4 `,
Ue Coarsse
062- 125
125- 25
25- 50
50-1
1 -2
S�
A
N
D
S
1
6
2
100%
>
40
Ve`ryTmes
Ftneld
Fine �
' Medtum�
Medium
Coarse
Coarse b
Very Coarse
Ue Coarse
2-4
4-57
5 7-8
8 - 11 3
11 3 - 16
16 226
226-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
" ? �
9 80%
U
°/
MY 00
1
3
60
P
= °
40%
11
4
4
e
6
2
20%
0%
001 0 1 1 to loo 1000 10000
Particle Size Millimeters
1
'Small' - -�
Sma l'',;'
Laarrgew
L'�ar° e
64 90
90 128
128- 180
180 256
C
O
B
L
1
3
3
5
Small, �,
Small
-e
Mdmm�
Lrg-- Veryy Lr 1
256 - 362
362-512
512- 1024
1024-2048
B
L
D
R
4
1
1
Size mm) � fi � Size Distribution �&
D16 1 1 b mean 105 a�
D35 1 5 k dispersion 259
D50 2 rv� skewness 051
i � w D65 11 '
�'� D84 100 , v � � ` a
D95 280 x� ���
s
Type
silt/clay 1%
sand 49%
gravel 32%
cobble 12%
boulder 6%
bedrock 0%
hardpan 0%
wood/det 0%
artificial 0%
,s
aN
"
"Bedrock`s,
>2048
BDRK
�
No
100

"4f "I ' "440 os`s-
Section *Ibffle
- MY -00'x
' a wx
Particle Size Distribution
Richland Creek
XS 4 Riffle
Particles
iL4Millimeteil+
tip ' °
Country°
¢Silt/Clay
< 0 062
S/C
��r�� �' �;
= "t ,,e y, men
062- 125
S
1
^ Fme� If
125- 25
A
r
2
P m*
,Mediu
25- 50
N
-G arise
50 1
D
2
l00%
tVe xCoarse
1 - 2
S
>
42
2
*" =,Very Fdme.4�
2-4
rot - Pla A
x
80%
a >� Fine
4 5 7
G
+MY 00
2
2
t Pine-
57 8
R
q 60%
2
t~
Medium,
8 11 3
A
Medium
11 3 16
V
°%
4
4
4o °
a
Coarse
4
16-226
E
15
`Coarse
,Very Coarse F
226 32
32-45
L
S
13
20%
Ve aCoarse
45-64
0%
13
2 malls �
k�br i
64-90
90 128
C
22
z_ Small r r`
'Large
rlm
128- 180
O
B
10
Dot
o t
t 10 100 1000
Particle Size Millimeters
10000
3
1
Lar e'a'At
180 - 256
L
gird' Smallyd'
256-362
B
1
Size
(mm)
#i -�F, Size DistributionA r
�;2
Type
�F y <Smalll
362-512
L
D16
15
mean 367
silt/clay
0%
Medium
512 1024
D
�,
'� U D35
31
dispersion 25 ,� �,
sand
7%
Lrg Ve Lrg
1024-2048
R
D50
D65
r D84
46
67
90
t skewness 0 11 Y`z
`���'�
'° �;-� ?�' o ,� -'�,,
r
gravel
cobble
boulder
55%
36 %r-
2%
.,;Bedrocks
>2048
BDRK
M100
,, �, f� ,� � �, ,Total
" � ,� � � f« ��
ti� rc��
Note
A'�
a� + i
ly � `� D95
140
+^ w �P
r
bedrock
0%
°
;y—
�ttr"� i zt�w sa�`��
�m
i.rP� ,r a n m�J'. iaes �h3r#
,4� y ae
� a d r �# s � v eE ��
' k+ "
hardpan
p
wood/det
o
0 /°
0%
�8;�
i d 'r9K it
�, "� Y f• a,'h"'
f4' ears 4 1a
' �r 4r�J c"?ia
t.E tc �`r
. t'�`��'.v§X"y°
�'' „ S r,ef a.
i�.,y k
a
artificial
0%
���i������ 'JJJ�JJJJJJJJJJ�JJ���JJ�J�J�J��

OOOJ�O�f�n�On0000�0000000C�00C�0000�00C�0�00 (�� 00
,Q ,,�,,W_AwtdCross,Section
51Pool=
MY -OO,�,y
D6, j
Particle Size Distribution
Richland Creek
XS 5 Pool
; Particle.
&Millimeter {x
*yN-k4;
d, Count,*
Silt/Cliy
< 0 062
S/C
1
q� Very Fme
062- 125
S
10
6
125 - 25
A
"F&Ifl
25- 50
N
15
° Coarse
50 1
D
100%
3
Ve Coarser
1 - 2
S
>
80%
19
V,eU me t'
�F
2-4
17
' „ine�a
4 -57
G
1
t MY 00
6
WrIM ne ti
5 7- 8
R
60%
7
tur n
8- 11 3
A
ium,
11 3 - 16
V
G
5
�Cose�
Y, Coarseri
16-226
226 32
E
L
5
\ ao i°
4
eryCoarse i
32-45
S
1
20%
zd ,
LW e
Ve Coarsew
45-64
0%
7'Y Small' � >,
64 90
C
`z, � � �
�,,SmalP a4,
90 - 128
O
001 01 1 10 100 1000 10000
��
I izlk
LVie,
128 - 180
B
Particle Size Millimeters
�r
+Lar a�
180-256
L
Smalls
�Size
S- all
256-362
362-512
B
L
��' y
t
(mm) s� Size Distribution F
U
D16 022 mean 1 6
Type
RIF
silt/clay 1%
A, Medium
512 - 1024
D
-�
D35 1 i � dispersion 7 1
-
53%
� �`�
,
,y s y�
sand
�
o L r g - er g
1024-2048
R
�”
*1
a D50 1 7 �' < skewness -0 03
'',a *
gravel 46%
Iii
,c 49edcock >2048 BDRK � , §
µ� r' 11'��Totfillwjj 100
D65 3 1 < 1i` ;+
D84 110
cobble 0%
boulder 0%
Note
D95 22 T .1
bedrock 0%
r
hardpan 0%
wood/det 0%
�'Ls�r��a
°r "aa
artificial 0%
�,r

„., ,$ Cross
Secho`n,kRtftle
"- (MY =00
Oj
100%
Particle Size Distribution
Richland Creek
XS 6 Riffle
�UParticle
; Milltmeter
� t�
J Count"
SiIVCla'i-�
< 0 062
S/C
1
VeryFtne A
: Fme �'
�r i'�”
Medium r
Coarse'- a
4 1 i 'Coarsel
062- 125
125 25
25- 50-
50-1
1 - 2
S
A
N
D
S
;
, Y
2
2
>
18
ety�Fme�-A
Fine+
fl, 'Fme � "�
, +Medtumr� 1
�Med1
t Cn
oarse ;,
r Coarse
',Ye, jCoarse'
a s°
"Ove SCoarse l
2-4
4 -57
5 7 - 8
8- 11 3
113 16
16 - 22 6
226-32
32-45
45-64
G
R
A
V
E
L
S
60 °%
tMY 00
0
1
2
7
°
7
3
�. o
e 40 /°
20%
7
6
7
0%
001
0 1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Millimeters
L--Small`-
w S all ;
Y Z
Large z
�,Pu Lar e
64 90
2 128
128 180
180 256
C
B
B
L
9
8
11
9
" Small 'A
a- �Smakll ar
Medium
Lr ='V `�gug
';Bedrock ,lf
256 362
362-512
512 - 1024
1024-2048
>2048
B
L
D
R
BDRK
4
�� Size mm) a: -f � ' Size Distribution " r
.4 D16 16 �= mean 179
t D35 15 dispersion 160 �1 ' ��
D50 44 b skewness -027
D65 91 77"' 1
rr
200
D95 470 p Nf� a� 3 � t °
,fw #jj��'"�` rr r� s
,r'�fyi' i yk' �'� (,+�� 'A�9 + i'k7�ri
4 x 4 41t ,
°i�
Type
, x R
`
e
7
"
2
silt/clay 1%
sand 20 %g
gravel 36 /4t
cobble 33%
boulder 10%
bedrock 0%
hardpan 0%
°
wood/det 0 /o
artificial 0%
ryl
� -r
4
Note,`- � 'r T ^mss, y t
r})f� a" t "�AA�
a «�� , wt t r tl
'k,� tf.,,
'S r" �'-`
000000000000 0 0 0 0 0-' U�0000 00000C200000, 000000

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Data
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCl Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 30 Baseline Monitoring Report

Table 7 Vegetation Plot Data
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Project No 276 `
i
Current Plot Data 2010
Annual Means
Scientific Name
1hackberry2
Common Name
S cues Type
304 -01 -0001
304 -01 -0002
304 -01 -0003
304 -01 -0 004
304 -01 -0005
304 -01 -0
006
304 -01 -0007
MYO (2010)
P -all
T
P -LS
Pall
T
P -IS
P -all
T
P -LS
P -all
T
P -LS
P -all
T
P -IS
P -all
T
P -LS
P -all
T
P -IS
P -all
T
lnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub Tree
5
5
3
3
8
8
Celtis
2
1
1
3
3
Celtis occrdentalts
common hackberry
Shrub Tree
0
1
1
1
1
Ce halanthus occrdentalts
common buttonbush
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
3
3
5
5
Clethra alnr olra
coastal sweetpepperbush
Shrub
1
1
2
2
1
3
3
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
15
15
14
15
15
1
1
1
1
12
12
12
10
10
10
36
54
54
Diospyros vrr iniana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
3
3
4
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
8
8
N ssa s lvatica
blackgurn
Tree
1
1
2
2
1
I
1
1
5
5
Platanus occrdentalts
Amencan sycamore
Tree
4
4
5
5
5
5
1
1
2
2
3
3
20
20
ercus michauxu
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
I
ercus nt ra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
ercus hellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
4
4
6
6
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub Tree
5
6
6
9
9
9
6
6
6
20
21
21
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
11
12
12
Unknown
unknown
1
1
1
5
5
2
2
5
5
5
10
10
7
7
6
10
1ff456711116
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Shrub Tree
1
1
Stem coun
0
17
17
21
40
40
0
17
17
0
19
19
31
49
49
0
12
12
27
39
3size
fares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0 02
0 02
0 02
0 02
0 02
0 02
0 02
Species coup
0
3
3
4
9
9
0
8
8
0
8
8
4
11
11
0
5
5
4
7
7
Stems r A
0
688
688
849 8
1619
1619
0
688
688
0
768 9
768 9
1255
1983
1983
0
485 6
485 6
1093
1578
15
_
P -LS = Planted Live Stakes
P -all= Planted Stems mcludmg liv e stakes
T = Total sterns ncludmg
planted and volunteer sterns
!
�iJ
Paschal Golf Course(Rtchland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 31 Baseline Monitoring Report

Vegetation Plot Photos
Veg Plot # 1— 8/6/2010
Veg Plot #2 — 8/6/2010
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCl Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project k 276 32 Baseline Monitoring Report

Veg Plot #3 — 8/6/2010
Veg Plot #4 — 8/6/2010
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCl Associates ojNorth Carolina
EEP Project # 276 33 Baseline Monitoring Report

Veg Plot #5 — 8/6/2010
Veg Plot #6 — 8/6/2010
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCl Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 34 Baseline Monitoring Report

Veg Plot #7 — 8/6/2010
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KC/ Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 35 Baseline Monitoring Report

APPENDIX D
Stream Photos
Paschal Golf Coarse (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KC /Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 36 Baseline Monitoring Report

Photo Point #I — Looking upstream at fish ramp 8/6/2010
Photo Point #2 — Looking downstream 8/6/2010
Photo Point #2 — Looking upstream 8/6/2010
Photo Point #3 — Looking downstream 8/6/2010
Photo Point #3 — Looking upstream 8/6/2010
a
a '
Photo Point #4 — Looking downstream 8/6/2010
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 37 Baseline Monitoring Report

Photo Point #4 — Looking upstream 8/6/2010
Photo Point #5 — Looking upstream from bridge 8/6/2010
Photo Point #6 — 8/6/2010
Photo Point #7 — 8/6/2010
Photo Point #8 — 8/6/2010
Photo Point #9 — 8/6/2010
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KC/ Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 38 Baseline Monitoring Report

Photo Point # 10 - 8/6/2010
Photo Point #I I - 8/6/2010
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KC/ Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 39 Baseline Monitoring Report

�J
C
C
C
C
621-1
APPENDIX E
Current Condition Plan View
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site
EEP Project # 276 40
KCI Associates of North Carolina
Baseline Monitoring Report

�,�. , t. �,'`�� {� - F -- �� , � j gyp: tee.. � - �y r� • � - • "� f' ' , �• ;' � - ' ■ ■ ■ ■ ■�
•140.:
Ilk
t
\ STORMIMAihTLR •' ,. e
./• PP#1
VET OUTFACE
` \ PLOT 1M • \ / . / � • — . _.-.. _ . .
\ Ix CROSS'.
\ j SECTION #1
•
4 +00 > ,
VEG PL0T2 PPk_ •lw, F� -'' 9 }(� •` - r }S _, '�
"�`_ I • -1 ' ` i'�/ `�y / �• r"
LEGEND
EASEMENT BOUNDARY .......................
AS -BUILT STATIONED
CENTERLINE, TOP OF BANK,
AND TOP OF TERRACE `� -~
PHOTO POINT ...... ............................... �O
CROSS - SECTION.
OLD STREAM CHANNEL ......................
PROJECT CONDITION
STREAM BED DEGRADATION ...............
BANK EROSION ... ...............................
z
0-I y F
w o¢
UNDERCUT BANK ..............................
MASS WASTING OF BANK,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
O]
VEG PLOT ACHIEVING
DENSITY CRITERION
-._~ --
...........................
YQ
VEG PLOT BELOW
DENSITY CRITERION ...........................
PROJECT CONDITION DETAILS
VEG PLOT PLANTED STEM DENSITY ............. SJC
STRUCTURE PIPING ........................ P
z
0-I y F
w o¢
O]
T
xn
YQ
z
¢
O+
xo
N
F�
z a
W
Y
W Ur
2
w Z Z
c=
op
t�
Z Z U
U o
z
w
�Z
�•
QE O
Q
U � 3
ILLti
J N r
O w
LL
IU LL
=O x
U�
a
NC GRID
NAD 83
DEC 2010
l' . ,00
CURRENT
-50 -25 0 50
100
CONDITION
PLAN VIEW
GRAPHIC SCALE

yr
LEGEND
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
.......................
AS -BUILT STATIONED
CENTERLINE, TOP OF BANK,
VEG PLOT ACHIEVING
DENSITY CRITERION
AND TOP OF TERRACE .......................
PHOTO POINT ..... ...............................
CROSS - SECTION . ...............................
OLD STREAM CHANNEL ......................
PROJECT CONDITION
STREAM BED DEGRADATION ...............
BANK EROSION ... ...............................
UNDERCUT BANK ...............................
MASS WASTING OF BANK ....................
VEG PLOT ACHIEVING
DENSITY CRITERION
.....................•.....
VEG PLOT BELOW
DENSITY CRITERION ...........................
10
PROJECT CONDITION DETAILS
VEG PLOT PLANTED STEM DENSITY ............. 89
STRUCTURE PIPING ........................ P
f -
d 11 L
J �
7w_ ~
A•
r ♦t,r ! �
C
f
r`
-50 -25 0 50 100
GRAPHIC SCALE
r „
z
2
0
_w
z
� az
fn N S
• y0
_Z
N � W
K
W
i
z
Y
w Z z
O
co
Z Z U
go
_ � o
U w z
� Z
J
QO
U
o m Y
U � 3
LL
J N H
O � w
U o
= W Y ILL
LLJ
U a
Qa
CURRENT
NC GF =o CONDITION
_' B' 1 PLAN VIEW