20050377a Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20120823

El
QS G377a
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland
Restoration
Submitted to:
EEP Project No. 65
2011 Monitoring Report: Year 5 of 5
Construction Completed: February 2007
Submission Date: April 2012
NCDENR -EEP
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
I.a la1 f emlf
r Ill
09@[ff0w@@
AUG 2 J 2012
VIE7Uw US +K 4 ER OUAUTY
AND STOR WATER SK4W;n
ARTMA
WUNR
RECEIVED
APR 1 2 2012
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

P-0
Table of Contents
SECTION 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 1 Goals and Objectives
1 -1
1 2 Vegetation Assessment
1-2
1 3 Stream Assessment
1 -3
14 Wetland Assessment
1 -4
1 5 Annual Monitoring Summary
1-4
SECTION 2 - METHODOLOGY
2 1 Methodology 2 -1
SECTION 3 - REFERENCES
SECTION 4 - APPENDICES
List of Appendices
Appendix A— Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 1
Project Restoration Components
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contacts Table
Table 4
Project Attribute Table
Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CPV)
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Photos Stream Station Photos
Photos Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Table 9 CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and April 2012
Wetland Restoration Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Project No 65

Table of Contents
Appendix D — Stream Survey Data
Figure 3a -d
Cross - sections with annual overlays
Figure 4
Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figure 5a -d
Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Tables 10a,b
Baseline — Stream Data Summary Tables
Table 11 a
Monitoring — Cross - Section Morphology Data Table
Table 11 b
Monitoring — Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Appendix E — Hydrologic Data
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure 6 Monthly Rainfall Data
Figure 7a -c Precipitation and Water Level Plots
Table 13 Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and April 2012
Wetland Restoration Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Project No 65

SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table of Contents
SECTION 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project (Site) is located in
Anson County, North Carolina, north of the Town of Wadesboro within the Piedmont
eco- region and in the Yadkin River Basin (USGS Subbasm HUC 03040104) (Appendix
1 1) The Site includes one of the two Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) project
sites located on the 200 -acre Bishop Site (Dula Thoroughfare (DT) and Unnamed
Tributary (UT) to Dula Thoroughfare) The Site is confined within a North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) -owned conservation easement The stream
preservation /enhancement/restoration plan was designed by EcoScience Corporation
and constructed by Vaughn Construction, Inc Construction and planting activities were
completed in February 2007 As -built surveys for the Site were performed in May 2007
The first annual monitoring activities were conducted in October 2007
This report serves as the fifth year of the five year monitoring plan for the Site
1 1 Goals and Objectives
Prior to restoration, the Site was predominantly utilized for row cropping and
recreational activities, such as hunting and wildlife viewing Historically, drainage
features and wetland areas were dredged, straightened, and filled in to provide land for
agricultural purposes These activities are thought to have inhibited stream channel
stability and water quality, therefore, producing an incised, eroded stream Primary
goals for the Site were to restore stable dimension, pattern, and profile for impacted on-
site stream reaches and to restore adjacent rivenne wetlands Secondary Site
restoration goals included stream channel and adjacent wetland enhancement and
preservation
Restoration goals established for the Site include
Dula Thoroughfare
• Aquatic habitat creation via excavation of vernal pools within floodplain cut areas
• Re- establishment of the characteristic, pre - disturbance Piedmont Bottomland
Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990) community adjacent to restoration reaches
using bare root seedling plantings
UT Dula Thoroughfare
• Re- establishment of the characteristic, pre - disturbance Piedmont Bottomland
Forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990) community adjacent to restoration reaches
using bare root seedling plantings
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and April 2012
Wetland Restoration Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Project No 65

Table of Contents
The project objectives include
Dula Thoroughfare
Priority II stream restoration via excavation of approximately 2,730 linear feet of a
designed E -type stream of Dula Thoroughfare (Including an associated tributary),
Including adjacent floodplaln excavation to achieve and entrenchment ratio
characteristic of E -type streams
Restoration of approximately 31 acres of rivenne wetlands adjacent to Dula
Thoroughfare via floodplaln excavation in previously Identified hydric soil areas,
thereby re- establishing jurisdictional wetland hydrology
UT Dula Thoroughfare
Level I enhancement of approximately 1,871 linear feet of stream via backfill of
straightened and ditched portions of the existing watercourse, thereby re-
establishing characteristic stream dimension and pattern by reintroducing flow
into adjacent relic channel areas
Level II enhancement of approximately 480 linear feet of stream via riparian
plantings adjacent to the UT to Dula Thoroughfare streambanks
Re- vegetation of open areas adjacent to the UT to Dula Thoroughfare via
plantings of characteristic, pre - disturbance community types described by
Schafale and Weakley (1990) using bare root seedling plantings
The main reach of DT was restored by relocating approximately 2,730 If of the existing
channel and its tributary DT (Reach 1) and Its tributary (Reach 2) were designed as E-
type streams by creating bankfull benches to re- establish floodplaln connection The
UT to DT enhancement (Level 1) along Reach 3 was established via backfill of
straightened and ditched portions of the existing watercourse, thereby re- establishing
characteristic stream dimension and pattern by reintroducing flow into adjacent relic
channel areas Enhancement (Level 2) along Reach 4 was established through riparian
plantings adjacent to the streambanks The Site's riparian areas were planted to
improve habitat and stabilize streambanks via planting bare root seedlings to recreate
pre - disturbance vegetative communities within their appropriate landscape contexts
Appendix 2 provides more detailed project activity, history, contact information, and
watershed /site background information for this project
1.2 Vegetation Assessment
JJG conducted the 2011 (year 5 of 5) vegetation assessment and vegetation plot
analysis In August 2011 per the 2006 CVS -EEP Level 2 protocol (Lee et al , 2006) The
eight vegetation plots previously established in the design phase were selected
randomly and represent the riparian buffer zone (DT has five vegetation plots and UT to
DT has three vegetation plots) Vegetation monitoring success criteria, as stated In the
2007 mitigation plan, requires an average number of planted stems per acre exceeding
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and April 2012
Wetland Restoration Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Project No 65

Table of Contents
320 stems /acre after the third year of monitoring and 260 stems /acre after the fifth and
final year of project monitoring
The 2011 vegetation monitoring results indicated that the main reach of DT has met the
vegetation success criteria in four (Plots 8, 9, 10, and 11) of the five plots Results for
the UT to DT indicate that two (Plots 14 and 15) out of three did not meet the 2011
vegetation success criteria Potential causes of unsuccessful establishment in Plot 12
were likely due to excessive inundation and flooding associated with the downstream
beaver dam along DT Woody vegetation growth observed in Plots 14 and 15 was
limited due to competition with blackberry and other invasive species along UT to DT
Although five of eight plots met the vegetation success threshold, the results from plots
12, 14 and 15 did not substantially decrease the overall site's average survivability
estimate, having an average of 592 living woody stems per acre per plot Monitoring
data averaged from both sites recorded an average of 15 planted live stems per plot
Plots in DT and UT to DT that have met the success criteria had stem densities of
approximately 802 and 364 planted stems per acre, respectively
The mean 802 stems per acre for DT is slightly below that of MY -1's mean density of
842 stems per acre, but still vastly exceeds the required average of 260 stems per acre
The mean density of 243 stems per acre for UT to DT is considerably less than the MY-
1 mean density of 310 stems per acre UT to DT does not satisfy the requirement for a
stem density of 260 stems per acre In consideration of total mean density, both DT and
UT to DT consist of elevated stem densities due to inclusion of naturally grown
volunteer /recruit specimens within each plot The difference in success between DT and
UT to DT is likely due to shading and topographical differences between the planting
areas Additionally, the persistence of invasive species along UT to DT has likely
contributed to lower stem densities and overall success Please refer to Appendix 3 for
more detailed information on the 2011 vegetation data
1.3 Stream Assessment
Results from the 2011 stream monitoring effort indicate the DT and UT to DT appear
stable, but are experiencing unintended flow conditions The entire restored stream
length (main channel and its tributary) of DT was assessed from the project origination
at the gravel road to the downstream end of the restoration project where the
preservation reach begins The UT to DT was assessed from the beginning of the
project approximately 300 feet upstream from the first cross vane triplet to the
downstream end of the restoration project where the preservation reach begins
Dula Thoroughfare -Main Channel
Overall, the present stream dimensions along DT appear stable The average bankfull
width (5 8 ft) of the surveyed cross - sections is coincides with the proposed 6 0 ft
Cross - sectional area, entrenchment ratio, and width /depth ratio remain consistent with
baseline parameter ranges and amongst each year Each cross section maintained a
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and April 2012
Wetland Restoration Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Project No 65

Page ii
Table of Contents
bank height ratio of 1 0, indicating connection with the flood prone area and no
significant incision A new right bank pin was installed in 2009 and 2010, but could not
be located during MY5 monitoring, which resulted in slightly different cross - sectional
surveys depending on the angle used across the channel The average bankfull and
water surface slopes for the 2011 monitoring year were calculated as 0 0014 ft/ft and
0 0014 ft/ft, respectively Due to the lack of well defined bed features, riffle slopes were
not calculated Several areas along the channel still continue to exhibit increasing levels
of in- stream vegetation growth The substrate along the reach was dominated by silt
deposition The silt substrate was unconsolidated, which may have contributed to
variations between yearly cross - sections and profiles as a firm surface for elevation
capture was not always possible The persistence of silt laden bed material is likely due
to a combination of watershed particle contribution and the beaver dam Impoundment
effects The dam was breached prior to MY 2011 stream monitoring, but the dam still
appears to be a bottleneck and Impediment for water flow as water pools before existing
the restored channel
Dula Thoroughfare- Tnbutary
Based on current monitoring data and the visual Inspection, the channel appears to be
functioning properly and maintaining stability No erosion failure was observed along
this reach In- stream vegetation and poor streambank vegetation cover were observed
and noted In the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV, Appendix B) The substrate
along the entire reach was dominated by silt deposition
UT to Dula Thoroughfare
All cross -vanes triplets appear to be stable and are not showing any signs of erosion or
piping Cross - section results calculated during MY 2011 monitoring indicate the channel
has remained relatively stable throughout the monitoring period Only slight changes in
channel morphology are evident and can be attributed to natural variations
Both DT and UT to DT appear stable, but have experienced abnormal flow conditions
over the past few monitoring years As a result, in- stream vegetation has developed
throughout the channels Overall, the Site appears to be stable and could function as
intended in normal flow conditions
A crest gauge is located on the main channel and its tributary of the DT site At least
one bankfull or greater event occurred within the DT restoration project in monitoring
year 2011 Other indicators such as old wrack lines and staining were observed at the
bankfull and greater elevations within the restoration site as well
1.4 Wetland Assessment
Three groundwater monitoring gauges were installed on the DT site by EcoScience
The monitoring gauges are programmed to download groundwater levels daily and were
downloaded monthly in order to capture hydrological data during the growing season
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and April 2012
Wetland Restoration Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Project No 65

CI
Page u
Table of Contents
The target wetland hydrological success criterion is saturation or inundation for at least
12 5 percent of the growing season in the lower landscape (floodplain) positions To
achieve the above hydrologic success criterion, groundwater levels must be within 12-
inches of the ground surface for 31 consecutive days, which is 12 5 percent of the
March 15 to November 18 (249 days)
All gauges on Site achieved the wetland success criterion of soil saturation within the
upper 12 inches for the required minimum of 31 consecutive days, which is 12 5 percent
of the growing season There were no problem areas observed within the wetland
restoration zones for the DT Site Within the wetland zones, hydrophytic vegetation and
hydrology Indicators have developed The planted woody stem species throughout the
wetland areas are meeting the required success criteria, however, minimal woody
stems were observed within plot 14 It is suspected that the planted stem rates may
have been too low in this area to achieve success criteria With the natural recruitment
of woody vegetation, the planted riparian area could improve and exceed the vegetation
success criteria by year five Please refer to Appendix E for the wetland plots and a
summary of wetland criteria attainment
1 5 Annual Monitoring Summary
Overall, the Site appears to be stable and has met stream and wetland mitigation goals
for monitoring year 5 DT has met the vegetation success requirements, but UT to DT
has not achieved the required mean planted stem density
The background information provided in this report is referenced from the mitigation
plan and previous monitoring reports prepared by EcoScience (2007) Summary
information /data related to the occurrence of Items such as beaver or encroachment
and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be
found In the tables and figures in the report appendices Narrative background and
supporting Information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline
Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and In the Mitigation Plan (formerly the
Restoration Plan) documents available on EEP's website All raw data supporting the
tables and figures In the appendices is available from EEP upon request
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and April 2012
Wetland Restoration Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Project No 65

mo-
SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY

r ^1
JIG
SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Methodology
Methods employed for this report were a combination of those established by standard
regulatory guidance and procedures documents as well as previous monitoring reports
completed by EcoScience. Survey data collected was performed via total station to
establish the current longitudinal profile and cross - section elevations. Data recorded
during this monitoring event were georeferenced using historically established positions
to evaluate annual progress. Longitudinal stationing for the stream profile, cross -
sectional surveys, and additional geomorphic assessments were performed following
guidelines outlined in the Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field
Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration a Natural Channel
Design Handbook (Doll et al, 2003). Substrate analysis and particle size distribution
were established using a modified Wolman pebble count (Rosgen 1996) at each cross -
section location.
Vegetation monitoring for Year 5 was performed based on the Carolina Vegetation
Survey (CVS) Level 2 (Lee et al. 2006). Plot locations are consistent with previous
years and plot sizes consist of eight 10m x 10m plots. The taxonomic standard for
vegetation follows Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas
(Weakley, 2007). Precipitation data for the hydrographs was obtained from Weather
Underground for the Albemarle, NC weather station (the nearest offering daily
precipitation data) through the following URL (Data Period January 2011 through
December 2011).
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KVUJ/2008/1 /1 /Custom HistorV.html?daVe
nd =14 &monthend =10 &yea rend = 2008 &reg city =NA &reg state =NA &reg statename =NA
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and April 2012
Wetland Restoration Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Project No. 65

SECTION 3
REFERENCES

SECTION 3
REFERENCES
Doll, B A, Grabow, G L, Hall, K A, Halley, J, Harman, W A, Jennings, G D, and
Wise, D E, 2003 Stream Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook
EcoScience Corporation 2007 Bishop Site Stream and Wetland Restoration 2007
Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1) Raleigh, NC
EcoScience Corporation 2007 Mitigation Report (Bishop Site Stream and Wetland
Restoration) Raleigh, NC
EcoScience Corporation 200 Restoration Plan Report (Bishop Site Stream and
Wetland Restoration) Raleigh, NC
Harrelson, Cheryl C, Rawlins, C L, Potyondy, John P 1994 Stream Channel
Reference Sites An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique Gen Tech Rep RM -245
Fort Collins, CO U S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station 61 p
Lee, Michael T, Peet, Robert K, Steven D, Wentworth, Thomas R (2006) CVS -EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4 0 Retrieved from
http / /www nceep net / business /monitoring /veg /datasheets htm
Rosgen, D L 1996 Applied River Morphology Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa
Springs,
CO
Weakley, A S 2008 Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, Northern Flonda, and
Surrounding Areas (Draft April 2008) University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel
Hill, NC
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and April 2012
Wetland Restoration Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Project No 65

SECTION 4
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data
Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Appendix D — Stream Survey Data
Appendix E — Hydrologic Data

NO
APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND
TABLES
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 1 Project Restoration Components
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and April 2012
Wetland Restoration Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Project No 65

X
"JJ
t
r
C= Conservation Easement CZ3 Wetland Restoration
Stream Restoration (Priority 2) EM Wetland Enhancement
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) EM Wetland Preservation
J Stream Enhancement (Level 2)
f Stream Preservation
wq
�'J I ))]Dula Th mughfare P)-f�go T
�q
orou� t
iry to Dula Th
r
A
0 1
01
3W.
_7
7 je-
Dula Thoroughfare
t
J
"TI i, pt
�J
e.1
USGS and Aerial Sowce: NCDOTGIS
AI
rn
lilt \,
Directions to the Site:
The Site is located north of Wadesboro in Anson County, NC, just upstream of the
Legend
confluence of the Rocky and Yadkin Rivers. From Charlotte, take US Highway 74 5
East to Wadesboro, then take US 52 north. Approximately 1.3 miles south of
14% County Boundary
US 52's crossing over the Rocky River, tum east onto Carpenter Road (a gravel road). �-- r Conservation Easement
Follow Carpenter Road to the east. Gated access points to the Site (one for Camp J Al
Branch, one for Dula Thoroughfare and UT to Dula Thoroughfare) abut Carpenter l Jr ", 1 2,000 1,000 0 2,000
Road from the east. =61 1 Feet
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Dula Thoroughfare and UT to Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland
Restoration/EEP Project No. 65
Anson County, NC
INN— it Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Submittal Date: April 2012

Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No 65
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
Non - npan an
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
0 et
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
TvDe
R Ell ER, P
R WE P
N/A
-
Totals
5,440 33 SMU
406 WMU
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Project Components
Project
Component/Reach ID
Stationing (ft)
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Approach
Restoration or
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acres
Mitigation Ratio
Reach 1 -DT Main
Channel
0+00 —20+25
2,025 If
P2
Restoration
2,025 If
1 1
Reach 2 -DT Tributary
0+00-7+05
7051f
P2
Restoration
7051f
1 1
Reach 3 UT to DT
N /A*
1,871 If
N/A
Enhancement
Level 1
1,871 If
1 5 1
Reach 4 -UT to DT
N /A*
4801f
N/A
Enhancement
Level 2
4801f
2 5 1
Stream Preservation **
N/A
6,355 if
N/A
Preservation
6,355 if
5 1
Riparian Wetland
ReMoraition
N/A
3 1 ac
N/A
Restoration
3 1 ac
1 1
Riparian Wetland
Enhancement
N/A
0 9 ac
N/A
Wetland
Enhancement
0 9 ac
2 1
Riparian Wetland
Preservation
N/A
2 3 ac
N/A
Preservation
2 3 ac
5 1
Component Summations
Restoration Level
Stream (linear
feet)
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Non - npanan
Wetland
(acres)
Buffer
(square feet)
Upland (acres)
Riverme
Non- Rivenne
Restoration (R)
2,730
3 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Enhancement (E)
0 9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Enahncement I (E)
1,871
Enhancement II (E)
480
Creation (C)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Preservation (P)
6,355
2 3
N/A
N/A
N/A
HQ Preservation (P)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Totals
11,436
6.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretention Cell, SF = Sand Filter, SW = Stormwater Wetland, WDP = Wet Detention Pond, DDP Dry Detention Pond, FS = Filter Strip, S =
Grassed Swale, LS = Level Spreader, NI = Natural Infiltration Area, FB = Forested Buffer
SMU = Stream Mitigation Unit WMU = Wetland Miti ation Unit `
Appendix A - Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Dula Thoroughfare Monitoring Report
Year 5 of 5

Appendix A Protect Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No 65
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete 5 Years 3 Months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete 4 Years 11 Months
Number of Reporting Years 5
Activity or Report
Data Collection Completed
Actual Completion or Delivery
Restoration Plan
Aug-04
Se 04
Final Design 90 %)
Mar -05
Jun -05
Construction
N /A*
Feb -07
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project
area*
N/A
Throughout construction
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
N/A
Oct -06
Bare Root Seedling Installation
N/A
Feb -07
Mitigation Plan
Jun -07
Oct -07
Final Report
Jun -07
Oct -07
Year 1 Monitoring
Oct -07 /Dec -07
Oct -07 /Dec -08
Year 2 Monitoring
May-08/Sept-08
Oct -08
Year 3 Monitoring
Jul -09 /Jan -10
Jan -10
Year 4 Monitoring
Jun- 10/Feb -11
Feb -11
Year 5 Monitonn
Jul -I I/Mar -12
Apr -] 2
*Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed
Appendix A - Protect Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Dula Thoroughfare Monitoring Report
Year 5 of 5

Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No 65
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Appendix A - Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Dula Thoroughfare Monitoring Report
Year 5of5
EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Designer
Raleigh, NC 27604
919 - 828 -3433
Vaughn Contruct►on, Inc
Tommy Vaughn and Spencer Walker
Construction Contractor
(Foremen)
P O Box 796
Wadesboro, NC 28170
704 -694 -6450
Kiker Forestry and Realty
P O Box 933
Planting Contractor
Wadesboro, NC 28170
704 -694 -6436
Seeding Contractor
N/A
Monitoring Performers
EcoScience Corporation
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Year 1
Raleigh, NC 27604
919- 828 -3433
Jordan, Jones & Goulding
Year 2- present
6801 Governors Lake Parkway
Norcross GA 30071
Stream Monitoring, POC
Alison Nichols, 770 -455 -8555
Vegetation Monitoring, POC
Wetland Monitoring, POC
Appendix A - Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Dula Thoroughfare Monitoring Report
Year 5of5

Appendls A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Table 4 Project Baseline information and Attributes
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No 65
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Project Information
Pro ect Name
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Welland Restoration (Bishop site
Protect County
Anson County, North Carolina
Protect Area acres
148 acres e x
Project Coordinates
35e 9 7 0" N 80 5' 10 24" W
Pro ect Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin
USGS HUC for Pro ect 8 du pt)
03040104 and 03040105
USGS HUC for Pro ect 14 di Wt)
03040104061050 and 03040105081060
DWO Sub -basin
03 -07 10 and 03 07 14
Pro ect Drainage Area acres
378
Protect Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area'
< 1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
1 01 01_03
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Length of reach (linear feet)
2025
705
1,871
480
Valley classification
U
U
U
U
Drainage area acres
U
U
U
U
NCDWQ stream identification score
U
U
U
U
NCDWO Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
C
Moroholoatral Descn ion stream
Perennial
Perennial
Internuttent
Intermittent
Evolutionaly trend
E5 to F/DS
I E5 to E/D6
C5 to ES
C5 to ES
Underlying mapped sods
Badm Channery Silt Loam (BaB BaC) Badm Goldston Complex (BgD) McQueen (MrB)
Shellbluff (ShA) Tetotum (ToA) Chewacla (ChA)
Drainage Class
U
U
U
U
Soil Hydric slams
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Slope
U
U
U
U
FEMA classification
100 y ear flood lam
100 ear flood lain
100 year flood lam
100 year flood lam
Native vegetation community
bottomland hardwood
bottomland hardwood
bottomland hardwood
bottomland hardwood
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
U
U
U
U
Wetland Summary Informatlon••
Parameters
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
Wetland 3
Wetland 4
Size of Wetland acres
2 18
229
048
037
Wetland Type (non riparian riparian nvenne or npanan
on nvenne)
Riparian nvenne
Riparian nvenne
Rivarum nvenne
Ri an nvenne
Mapped Soil Senes
ShA, ToA
ToA
BaB BaC
BaC
Drainage class
PFOI/PEM
PFOI
PFOI
PFOI
Soil H dnc Status
None
None
None
None
Source of Hydrology
Slo & Overbank
Slope&Overbank
Slope&Gverbank
Slope&Overbank
Hydrologic im irment
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native v mi
vegetation corruni
bottomisnd hardwood
bottomland hardwood
bottomlend hardwood
bonomland hardwood
Percent cormitisition of exotic invasive vegetation
U
U
U
U
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable'
Resolved9
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States Section 404
Yes
Yes
Restoration Plan
Waters of the United States Section 401
No
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Feasibility Stud
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Feasibility Stud
Costal Zone Manage ment Act CZMA Costal Area
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Fkiod lain Compliance
Yes
U
N/A
Essential Fishenes Habitat
I No
I N/A
N/A
'At the tone of pried mnhpktim
•• WetiuA meption was not included fm this restore on pmjm
'WA items do ml apply / rterm are huavadabk / ll' hmm tie unlohown
Appendix A - Background Tables
Dula Thoroughfare Monitoring Document
Year 5 of 5
Wetland 5
0 082
Riparian nvenne
BaC
PFOI
None
Slope& Overbank
N/A
bottomland hardwood
U

JJG
APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Photos Stream Station Photos
Photos Vegetation Plot Photos
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and April 2012
Wetland Restoration Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Project No 65

r'. r4 • . 7 s Q 1 "� :+yr '; tip,' r . i
N •'t� + ' y sysv
*ir•' ��• �; ' • - �.t5..`t T 1 .r; - r ,ir ti h:. ..�• `- fr -Fc � \ .�� ,y'M�`,re.�.. rJ.
0
1 rt' d
r t
5
r r ,
'e
Al r :tk1 :d:' 'r- .1 ` `P +- eP. f'.. !
r ...
r
I�9[ { -
x
�..� - "" ..,,� ._ N - ; ✓ '�` , , ...`� �', �. , ..! - e � � ` to � - • s. p .. -�, • I
r
.'fie r h _" , - i '. ','>✓e'. p . -:� ,�y _ ts. y 4 q .
.N
:. -; o-_ , -. �,t �.'�' '- �. •�'Y� .: -. � -,� -'_ � rat �� t - d
4014�L1
R
P,
g J
tirCi;+. VM ek
• *� xi' ��, ";,�. DULATHOROUGHFARE
t .{ TRIBUTARY '
V � N � 1J { JTi�) �� (P ➢ xly
s. �i}•dta- y iA e � p � ar��' '� -
Y Y
y�FP j ;Y
1 ti ��py
,r t
LEGEND
Conservation Easement ® Wetland Restoration
Extent of Bankfull Bench ® Wetland Enhancement
-- Terrace Crest Wetland Preservation
Channel Bottom 2011 -In- Stream Vegetation
-- Channel Top 2011 -Poor Vegetation Cover
Stream Centerline 2011- Beaver Dam
Cross - Section Crest Gauge
Stationing (100' interval) ® Groundwater Gauge - Meets Criteria
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) ® Groundwater Gauge - Did Not Meet Criteria
Stream Enhancement (Level 2) Vegetation Plot Success
Stream Preservation 0 Meets 60 30 0 60
Q Did Not Meet V Feet
NOTES: PROJECT NO. 65 NC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM DATE: JANUARY 2012
1. GENERAL SITE DATAARE PROVIDED BY NCEEP. ANSON COUNTY DULATHOROUGHFARE AND LIT TO DULA THOROUGHFARE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SCALE: 1 " =60'
2. ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE NORTH CAROLINA JOB NO.: JJX31100
tiftla, ne nt MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5 CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
FIGURE 2 -1

r
DULA THOROUGHFARE
'± MAIN CHANNEL
' 1
r s 2 r� j
VP '1 .
J —' —w
y r h S-
,_ j 1 - u
�i#.l—
Yt�.�'•+o
ss "
.1 t R - -i `mill .{[. '`•Li -
'T - F
__... ._._;..kin.. 'd� •- .'� ',� _..� d- ..ti
r~
'oosstem
11 at .11lellt
� f
i ' 0. r •. # w� 'c.1• may.
go
.,.
i
a.
- x
NOTES:
1. GENERAL SITE DATAARE PROVIDED BY NCEEP
2. ALL LOCATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE
PROJECT NO. 65
ANSON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5 ire
x �
tilt "' Y` it
S
Ma
LEGEND
Conservation Easement ® V*tiand Restoration
..... Extent of Bankfull Bench ® Watland Enhancement
-- Terrace Crest Watland Preservation
Channel Bottom - 2011 -In -Stream Megetation
— Channel Top - 2011 -Poor Vegetation Cover
Stream Centerline 2011- Beaver Dam
Cross-Section ® Crest Gauge
— Stationing (100' interval) Groundwater Gauge - Meets Criteria
— Stream Enhancement (Level 1) Groundwater Gauge - Did Not Meet Criteria
— Stream Enhancement (Level 2) Vegetation Plot Success
--- Stream Preservation Q Meets
Q Did Not Meet
._., -_..., =.aS:.r"''..as.aa�:,.or..ati� �. •sat. ♦. ^- �i.'.�n.�s.,.�i�•e.:a.•i:es
NC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
DULATHOROUGHFARE AND UTTO DULA THOROUGHFARE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
a
DATE: JANUARY 2012
SCALE: 1" = 60'
JOB NO.: JJX31100
FIGURE 2 -7
x • fl .
t 4
ko- ly ~
�s�1 1 V�T�, •' �
.; t
~ �
�'. y
DULA THOROUGHFARE
'± MAIN CHANNEL
' 1
r s 2 r� j
VP '1 .
J —' —w
y r h S-
,_ j 1 - u
�i#.l—
Yt�.�'•+o
ss "
.1 t R - -i `mill .{[. '`•Li -
'T - F
__... ._._;..kin.. 'd� •- .'� ',� _..� d- ..ti
r~
'oosstem
11 at .11lellt
� f
i ' 0. r •. # w� 'c.1• may.
go
.,.
i
a.
- x
NOTES:
1. GENERAL SITE DATAARE PROVIDED BY NCEEP
2. ALL LOCATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE
PROJECT NO. 65
ANSON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5 ire
x �
tilt "' Y` it
S
Ma
LEGEND
Conservation Easement ® V*tiand Restoration
..... Extent of Bankfull Bench ® Watland Enhancement
-- Terrace Crest Watland Preservation
Channel Bottom - 2011 -In -Stream Megetation
— Channel Top - 2011 -Poor Vegetation Cover
Stream Centerline 2011- Beaver Dam
Cross-Section ® Crest Gauge
— Stationing (100' interval) Groundwater Gauge - Meets Criteria
— Stream Enhancement (Level 1) Groundwater Gauge - Did Not Meet Criteria
— Stream Enhancement (Level 2) Vegetation Plot Success
--- Stream Preservation Q Meets
Q Did Not Meet
._., -_..., =.aS:.r"''..as.aa�:,.or..ati� �. •sat. ♦. ^- �i.'.�n.�s.,.�i�•e.:a.•i:es
NC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
DULATHOROUGHFARE AND UTTO DULA THOROUGHFARE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
a
DATE: JANUARY 2012
SCALE: 1" = 60'
JOB NO.: JJX31100
FIGURE 2 -7
r~
'oosstem
11 at .11lellt
� f
i ' 0. r •. # w� 'c.1• may.
go
.,.
i
a.
- x
NOTES:
1. GENERAL SITE DATAARE PROVIDED BY NCEEP
2. ALL LOCATIONS AREAPPROXIMATE
PROJECT NO. 65
ANSON COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
MONITORING YEAR 5 OF 5 ire
x �
tilt "' Y` it
S
Ma
LEGEND
Conservation Easement ® V*tiand Restoration
..... Extent of Bankfull Bench ® Watland Enhancement
-- Terrace Crest Watland Preservation
Channel Bottom - 2011 -In -Stream Megetation
— Channel Top - 2011 -Poor Vegetation Cover
Stream Centerline 2011- Beaver Dam
Cross-Section ® Crest Gauge
— Stationing (100' interval) Groundwater Gauge - Meets Criteria
— Stream Enhancement (Level 1) Groundwater Gauge - Did Not Meet Criteria
— Stream Enhancement (Level 2) Vegetation Plot Success
--- Stream Preservation Q Meets
Q Did Not Meet
._., -_..., =.aS:.r"''..as.aa�:,.or..ati� �. •sat. ♦. ^- �i.'.�n.�s.,.�i�•e.:a.•i:es
NC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
DULATHOROUGHFARE AND UTTO DULA THOROUGHFARE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
a
DATE: JANUARY 2012
SCALE: 1" = 60'
JOB NO.: JJX31100
FIGURE 2 -7
._., -_..., =.aS:.r"''..as.aa�:,.or..ati� �. •sat. ♦. ^- �i.'.�n.�s.,.�i�•e.:a.•i:es
NC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
DULATHOROUGHFARE AND UTTO DULA THOROUGHFARE STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
a
DATE: JANUARY 2012
SCALE: 1" = 60'
JOB NO.: JJX31100
FIGURE 2 -7

Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Dula Thoroughfare - Main Channel (2,025 If)
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No 65
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
*As in previous years, the stream bed features consist of runs and small pools and lack well- defined riffle features
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Dula Thoroughfare
Year 5 of 5
Adjust %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Channel
Channel
Stable,
Performing
Total
Number in
Number of
Unstable
Amount of
Unstable
% Stable,
Performing
Stabilizing
Woody
Stabilizing
Woody
Stabilizing
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Category
Metric
as Intended
As -Built
S in
Foota a
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
I Bed
I Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2 Riffle Condition*
Texture./Substrate
N/A*
N/A*
N/A
3 Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
8
30
27%
Length Appropnate
8
30
27%
Condition
Thalweg centenng at upstream of meander bend (Run)
30
30
100%
4 Thalweg Position
Thalweg centenng at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
30
30
1000/0
2 Bank
1 Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
2
167
92%
0
0
92%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
2 Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
2
167
92%
0
0
92%
3 Engineered
Structures
I Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
N/A
0
N/A
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
N/A
0
N/A
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
N/A
0
N/A
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
N/A
0
N/A
4 Habitat
Pool fortrung structures maintaining —Max Pool Depth Bankfull Depth >_ 1 6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow
N/A
0
N/A
*As in previous years, the stream bed features consist of runs and small pools and lack well- defined riffle features
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Dula Thoroughfare
Year 5 of 5

Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Dula Thoroughfare - Tributary (7051f)
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No 65
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
""Rte stream bed features consist mainly of runs and small pools
Appendix B - Visual Assessment Data
Dula Thoroughfare - Tributary
Year 5 of 5
Adjust e
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Channel
Channel
Stable,
Performing
Total
Number in
Number of
Unstable
Amount of
Unstable
% Stable,
Performing
Stabilizing
Woody
Stabilizing
Woody
Stabilizing
Woody
Category
Sub - Category
Metric
as Intended
As -Built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
1000/0
(Riffle and Run units)
2 Riffle Condition*
Textine/Substrate
N/A
0
N/A
3 Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
N/A
1 I
N/A
Length Appropriate
0
11
0%
Condition
Thahveg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
I 1
l
100%
4 Thalweg Position
Thelweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
I 1
Hi 1
100%
2 Bank
1 Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
5
122
83%
0
0
83%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
2 Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable and are
0
0
1000/.
0
0
1000/.
providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving, or collapse
0
0
1000/0
0
0
1000/0
Totals
5
122
83%
0
0
83%
3 Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically mtact with no dislodged boulders or logs
N/A
0
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
N/A
0
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
N/A
0
NNA
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
N/A
0
4 Habitat
Pool fortmng structures maintaining —Max Pool Depth Bankfull Depth ? 1 6
Rootwads/I providing some cover at baseflow
N/A
0
""Rte stream bed features consist mainly of runs and small pools
Appendix B - Visual Assessment Data
Dula Thoroughfare - Tributary
Year 5 of 5

Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
UT to Dula Thoroughfare (2,351 If)
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No 65
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Appendix B - Visual Assessment Data
UT to Dula Thoroughfare
Year 5 of 5
Adjust ° o
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Channel
Channel
Stable,
Performing
Total
Number in
Number of
Unstable
Amount of
Unstable
% Stable,
Performing
Stabilizing
Woody
Stabilizing
Woody
Stabilizing
Woody
Category
Sub - Category
Metric
as Intended
As -Built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
I Bed
1 Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2 Riffle Condition
Texture]Substrate
N/A
0
N/A
3 Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
N/A
0
N/A
length Appropnate
N/A
0
N/A
Condition
Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
N/A
0
N/A
4 Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)
N/A
0
N/A
2 Bank
1 Scoured/Eroded
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting supply from poor growth and/or scour
and erosion
0
0
1000/0
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely
2 Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable and arc
0
0
1000/0
0
0
1000/0
providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving, or collapse
0
0
1000/.
0
0
1000/0
Totals
0
0
1000/0
0
0
1000/0
3 Engineered
Structures
I Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
3
3
1000/0
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the si l
N/A
N/A
N/A
2s Piping
Structures lacking any substantial Flow underneath sills or arms
3
3
100%
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
N/A
N/A
N/A
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining —Max Pool Depth Bankfull Depth? 1 6
Rootwadstlogs providmg some cover at baseflow
N/A
N/A
N/A
Appendix B - Visual Assessment Data
UT to Dula Thoroughfare
Year 5 of 5

Appendix B
Table 6a Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Dula Thoroughfare and Trib to Dula Thoroughfare/EEP Project No 65
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
111 —f—i A -0000*
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
acres
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0 1
0
0
0000/0
Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria
0 1
0
0
0%
Totall
0
1 0
000
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitonng year
0
1 0
1 0
000%
F.nammpnt Aernnorp* 71
o
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
S
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000
0
0
00/0
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
0
0
0%

Appendix B
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
UT to Dula Thoroughfare/EEP Project No 65
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Planted AcrPaae 17
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
acres
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
%o
Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
01
0
0
000%
Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria
0 1
0
0
000%
Totali
0
1 0
000
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year
005
1 1
1 005
0 29%
117 —arrant Aerafia 11
o
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
S
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000
0
0
0%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
0
0
0%

Vegetation Plot 8
(MY 1 - 4/2006)
Vegetation Plot 8
(MY 5 - 8/2011)
Vegetation Plot 8
(MY 5 - 8/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
Vegetation Plot Photos
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
�a�l iat
Ewsyst—em 1 Monitoring Year 5 of 5
April 2012 0

Vegetation Plot 9
(MY 1 - 4/2006)
Vegetation Plot 9
(MY 2 - 8/2011)
Vegetation Plot 9
(MY 5 - 8/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
�F Vegetation Plot Photos
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
N lent Monitoring Year 5 of 5 it
April 2012 OF

Vegetation Plot 10
(MY 1 - 4/2006)
Vegetation Plot 10
(MY 2 - 8/2011)
Vegetation Plot 10
(MY 2 - 8/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
Vegetation Plot Photos
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
v'ar o .... it Monitoring Year 5 of 5 pie
April 2012

Vegetation Plot 11
(MY 1 - 4/2006)
Vegetation Plot 11
(MY 5 - 8/2011)
Vegetation Plot 11
(MY 5 - 8/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared Fay:
Vegetation Plot Photos
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Emystem ; EEP Project No. 65
<<< Monitoring Year 5 of 5 8 PC
April 2012

Vegetation Plot 12
(MY 1 - 4/2006)
�I
Vegetation Plot 12
(MY 5 - 8/2011)
Vegetation Plot 12
(MY 5 - 8/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
Vegetation Plot Photos
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
r-�I EEP Project No. 65
I]�ICAt Monitoring Year 5 of 5 pie
April 2012

Vegetation Plot 13
(MY 1 - 4/2006)
Vegetation Plot 13
(MY 5 - 8/2011)
Vegetation Plot 13
(MY 5 - 8/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
Vegetation Plot Photos
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
Fa Wi „ment Monitoring Year 5 of 5 iR
April 2012

Vegetation Plot 14
(MY 3 - 6/2009)
Vegetation Plot 14
(MY 5 - 8/2011)
Vegetation Plot 14
(MY 5 - 8/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
Vegetation Plot Photos
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
1110, t ;�n�iIf Monitoring Year 5 of 5
April 2012 1 &C I

Vegetation Plot 15
(MY 1 - 4/2006)
Vegetation Plot 15
(MY 5 - 8/2011)
Vegetation Plot 15
(MY 5 - 8/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
Vegetation Plot Photos
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
��n%i7 Monitoring Year 5 of 5 01
April 2012

Cross Section 1: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 1: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 1: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 2: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
Stream Station & Cross Section Photos
r~ Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
tom{ Monitoring Year 5 of 5 iR
Anril 2012

Cross Section 2: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 2: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 2: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 2: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
Stream Station & Cross Section Photos
r~ Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
1! tent Monitoring Year 5 of 5
April 2012

Cross Section 3: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 3: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 3: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 3: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
Stream Station & Cross Section Photos
rDula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
A! ment Monitoring Year 5 of 5 IR
April 2012

Cross Section 4: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 4: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 4: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 4: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
Stream Station & Cross Section Photos
rDula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
ent Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Anri12012

Cross Section 13: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 13: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 13: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 13: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
Stream Station & Cross Section Photos
r` Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
h tent Monitoring Year 5 of 5
April 2012

Cross Section 14: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 14: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 14: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 14: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
Stream Station & Cross Section Photos
C` Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
lent Monitoring Year 5 of 5 im
April 2012

Cross Section 15: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 15: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 10/2006)
Cross Section 15: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Cross Section 15: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
Stream Station & Cross Section Photos
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
�� EEP Project No. 65
ORWRht Monitoring Year 5 of 5
-"'- April 2012

Photo Point 1: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 7/2006)
Photo Point 1: View Downstream
(MY 1 - 7/2006)
Photo Point 1: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Photo Point 1: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
Stream Station & Cross Section Photos
` Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
Lacant Monitoring Year 5 of 5
April 2012

Photo Point 2: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 7/2006)
Photo Point 2: View Downstream
(MY 1 - 7/2006)
Photo Point 2: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Photo Point 2: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
Stream Station & Cross Section Photos
Air ` Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
ient Monitoring Year 5 of 5 pre
April 2012

Photo Point 3: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 7/2006)
Photo Point 3: View Downstream
(MY 1 - 7/2006)
Photo Point 3: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Photo Point 3: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
Stream Station & Cross Section Photos
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
I'.' i gent Monitoring Year 5 of 5
April 2012

Photo Point 4: View Upstream
(MY 1 - 7/2006)
Photo Point 4: View Downstream
(MY 1 - 7/2006)
Photo Point 4: View Upstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Photo Point 4: View Downstream
(MY 5 - 7/2011)
Prepared For: Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data Prepared By:
Stream Station & Cross Section Photos
C` Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
EEP Project No. 65
Fa tent Monitoring Year 5 of 5
April 2012

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Table 9 CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plat and Species
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and April 2012
Wetland Restoration Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Project No 65

Appendix C
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project 65
Dula Thoroughfare and UT Dula Thoroughfare
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met
(Y /N)
Plot 8
Y
Plot 9
Y
Plot 10
Y
Plot 11
Y
Plot 12
N
Plot 13
Y
Plot 14
N
Plot 15
N 77J

Appendix C
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project 65
Dula Thoroughfare and UT Dula Thoroughfare
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Report Prepared By
Heath Caldwell
Date Prepared
9!7/2011 15 20
database name
Database mdb
database location
J VJX31 I00\iv15 -Field Monitoring Data\MY 2011 \VEGETATION\Bishop Sites
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN
THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata
Description of database file thereport worksheets and a summary of project(s) and project data
Prol, planted
Each ivoiect is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre for each year This excludes live stakes
Prol, total stems
Each vroiect is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre for each year This includes live stakes all planted stems and all natural/volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summa data live stems dead stems missing, etc
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for sterns for all plots
Vigor b Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each
Damage by S p
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot, dead and nussing stems are excluded
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined ) for each plot, dead and missing stems are excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code
D05010S
project Name
Bishop Site Stream and Wetland Restoration
Description
Stream and wetland restoration/enhancement in Anson County
length(ft)
stream-to-edge width ft
areas m
Re utred Plots calculated
8
Sam led Plots
18

Appendix C
Table 9 CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Dula Thoroughfare/EEP Project No 65
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Type =Shrub or Tree
P = Planted
T = Total
Current Data (MY5 -2011)
Annual Means
Species
Common Name
Type
Plot 8
Plot 9 1
Plot 10
Plot 11
Plot 12
Current Mean
MY1 - 2007
MY2 - 2008
MY3 - 2009
MY4 - 2010
P
F.T
P I
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
Acernegundo
box -elder
T
3
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Acerrubrum
red maple
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
Baccharts hamilifolia
groundsel tree
S
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Betula nigro
river birch
T
1
1
17
17
14
14
2
79
2
2
7
23 1
7
7
7
9
7
7
7
7
Carya glabra
pignut hickory
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Caryo ovata
shagbark hickory
T
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Celtts loevtgato
sugarberry
T
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentals
common buttonbush
T
1
1
51
5
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
Comus amomum
silky dogwood
T
3
3
91
14
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
5 1
4
4
4
5
Corpus Honda
flowering dogwood
S
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
1
1
N/A
N/A
Dtospyros vtrgtntana
common persimmon
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fagus grandtfolta
American beech
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
T
31
5
4
4
1
1
2
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
Ltqutdamborstyractflua
sweet gum
T
3
N/A
1 1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
Nyssa btflora
swamp tupelo
T
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ptnus taeda
loblolly pine
T
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Platanus occtdentahs
American sycamore
T
1
1
5
5
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus mtchouxtt
swamp chestnut oak
T
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
T
2
4
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
T
21
4
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus rubra
Northern red oak
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Quercus sp
oak species
T
N/A
I N/A
I N/A
I N/A
N/A
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ulmus alata
winged elm
T
48
N/A
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
58
Ulmus amencona
JAmencan elm
T
3
4
11
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
1 8
Plot Area (acres)
Species Count
Stem Count
Stems per Acrel
00247
8
9
8
8
9
9
4
6
3
5
11
13
7
7
7
8
12
12
12
12
15
24
39
47
30
30
9
90
6
55
22
51
21
21
20
24
29
29
29
29
607
F 72
1579
11903
1 1215
1 1215
1 364
3644
243
12227
802
1 1992
842
1 842
802
980
1 810
818
810
818
Type =Shrub or Tree
P = Planted
T = Total

Appendix C
Table 9 CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
UT to Dula Thoroughfare/EEP Project No 65
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Type =Shrub or Tree
P = Planted
T = Total
Current Data (MY5 -2011)
Annual Means
Species
Common Name
Type
Plot 13
Plot 14
Plot 15
Current can
MYl - 2007
MY2 - 2008
MY2 - 2008
MY4 - 2010
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
T
2
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
17
Carya glabra
pignut hickory
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Celts loev►gato
sugarberry
T
2
2
1
1
4
4
2
3
3
3
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cornus flor►da
flowering dogwood
S
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
D►ospyros v►rg►n►ano
common persimmon
T
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
Fagus grand►foho
American beech
T
1
1
1
3
2
4
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
L►qu►dambar styrac►flua
sweet gum
T
1
2
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
Nyssa b►floro
swamp tupelo
T
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
1
1
N/A
N/A
P►nus toeda
loblolly pine
T
22
3
11
N/A
12
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
11
Quercus falcato
southern red oak
T
4
4
2
3
1
3
2
3
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
T
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
T
2
2
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Rhus glabra
smooth sumac
S
7
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
Taxod►um d►st►chum
bald cypress
T
I
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Plot Area (acres)
Species Count
Stem Count
Stems per Acre1538
00247
6
3
5
4
7
4
7
4
4
4
4
6
6
4
8
J364
38
4
11
5
24
6
23
8
8
6
6
9
9
7
27
162
445
202
972
243
985
310
310
243
256
283
283
243
1039
Type =Shrub or Tree
P = Planted
T = Total

ow
APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA
Figures 3a -3d Cross - sections with Annual Overlays
Figure 4 Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figures 5a -5d Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Tables 10a,b Baseline — Stream Data Summary Tables
Table 11a Monitoring — Cross - Section Morphology Data Table
Table 11b Monitoring — Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and April 2012
Wetland Restoration Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Project No 65

Appendix D. Stream Survey Data
Figure 3a: Cross - Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration /EEP Project No. 65
Dula Thoroughfare Main Channel
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Project Name Dula Thorou htare
EEP Project Number 65
Cross - Section ID XS -1, Riffle, 1+93 mot'
Survey
XS -1: View Upstream XS -1: View Downstream
Bankfull Elevation ft
996.84
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftZ)
4.94
Bankfull Width ft
Station
Elevation
Notes
Flood Prone Width ft
120.18
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.31
998.26
xs1
1.49
998.24
xS1
4.73
997.62
xS1
............................. ............................... ....... .......
a
8.68
997.33
xS1
16.86
997.25
xS1
995.5
25.39
997.36
xS1
37.32
997.32
xS1
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
48.32
997.24
xs1
56.18
997.22
xs1
62.02
997
xS1
64.91
997.2
xS1
66.66
997.1
xS1
67.18
996.74
xS1
67.6
996.48
xS1
68.42
995.8
xs1
69.57
995.69
xS1
69.72
995.5
xS1
69.77
995.54
xS1
70.69
995.69
xS1
71.79
996.03
xs1
72.44
996.53
xS1
72.88
996.64
xS1
Station Elevation Notes
113.1 996.87 xS1
116.17 997 xS1
119.91 997.62 xS1
122.09 998.21 xS1
125.02 998.26 xs1- b
73.59
996.86
xS1
74.58
997.26
xS1
78.25
997.23
xS1
86.44
997.06
xs1
93.19
996.81
xS1
99.09
996.82
xS1
107.85
996.77
xsl
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
996.84
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftZ)
4.94
Bankfull Width ft
Date
3/2012
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
996.84
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ftZ)
4.94
Bankfull Width ft
6.49
Flood Prone Area Elevation ft
998.18
Flood Prone Width ft
120.18
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.76
Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.34
W/D Ratio
8.54
Entrenchment Ratio
18.52
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Dula Thoroughfare (Main Channel) - MYS
Cross - Section 1 -Pool
998.5
998
--
997.5
997
............................. ............................... ....... .......
a
c996.5
0
'F
...... ............................... .......................... .................... ...............................
cv 996
995.5
995
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station (ft)
��MYI -2007 t MY2 -2008 �� MY3 -2009 •�� MY42010 ��MYS -2011 • • .... Bankfull ...... Water Surface

Appendix D. Stream Survey Data
Figure 3b: Cross - Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration /EEP Project No. 65
Dula Thoroughfare Main Channel
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Project Name Dula Thoroughfare
EEP Project Number 65
Cross - Section ID XS -2, Run, 10+21
Survey
Bankfull Elevation ft
996.22
XS -2: View Upstream
4.81
1
XS -2: View Downstream
Date
3/2012
999.24
Flood Prone Width ft
150.94
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.65
Bankfull Max Depth ft
3.02
W/D Ratio
1 1.45
Entrenchment Ratio
20.29
Station
Elevation
Notes
0
999.35
xs2 -I t
0
999.31
xs2 -I b
3.02
999.08
xs2
4.94
998.28
xs2
�
997
8.12
997.2
xs2
10.59
996.47
xs2
...............................
16.99
996.14
xs2
21.92
995.94
xs2
995
23.43
995.71
xs2
23.89
994.94
xs2
27.51
993.69
xs2
w
994
36.75
993.38
xs2
46.98
993.2
xs2
56.86
993.2
xs2
63.4
993.34
xs2
66.3
995.82
xs2
67.37
995.9
xs2
0
20
40 60 80 100
120
70.3
995.91
xs2
78.75
995.94
xs2
�•r� MY 1 -2007
87.02
996.12
xs2
95.73
996.26
xs2
98.99
996.25
xs2
Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes Station Elevation Notes
105.1 995.61 xs2 126.65 996.07 xs2 146.75 996.73 xs2
105.42 995.97 xs2 131.72 996.07 xs2 150.14 997.19 xs2
106.92 996.28 xs2 133.73 995.74 xs2 151.86 997.38 xs2- b
107.53 996.39 xs2 135.8 995.88 xs2
111.47 996.66 xs2 138.66 995.9 xs2
115.79 996.48 xs2 140.28 996 xs2
121.79 996.28 xs2 143.95 996.41 xs2
100.5
995.88
xs2
100.53
996.03
xs2
101.84
994.97
xs2
101.99
995.47
xs2
103.26
994.9
xs2
104.3
995.05
xs2
104.4
995.45
xs2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
996.22
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft)
4.81
Bankfull Width ft
Date
3/2012
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
996.22
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft)
4.81
Bankfull Width ft
7.44
Flood Prone Area Elevation ft
999.24
Flood Prone Width ft
150.94
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.65
Bankfull Max Depth ft
3.02
W/D Ratio
1 1.45
Entrenchment Ratio
20.29
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Dula Thoroughfare (Main Channel) -MYS
Cross - Section 2 -Run
l000
999
998
-
�
997
`°
996
......... ......
...............................
.. ............
°
995
w
994
993
992
0
20
40 60 80 100
120
140 160 180
ti
�•r� MY 1 -2007
�� MY2 -2008 �� MY3 -2009 �� MY4 -2010
�� MYS -2011
• • .... Baolcfull ...... Weter Surface

Ipendix D. Stream Survey Data
;ure 3c: Cross - Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
da Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No. 65
da Thoroughfare Main Channel
unitoring Year 5 of 5
Project Name
Dula Thoroughfare
EEP Project Number
65
Cross - Section ID
XS-3, Pool, 16 +99
Survey Date
3/2012
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation 11
995.02
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft)
3.02
Bankfull Width ft
4.92
Flood Prone Area Elevation 11
995.88
Flood Prone Width ft
47.07
Bankfull Mean De th ft
0.61
Bankfull Max De m, ft
0.86
W/D Ratio
8.07
Entrenchment Ratio
9.57
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Station
Elevation
Notes
0
996.71
xs3 -I b
1.41
996.72
xs3
2.55
996.35
xs3
3.44
995.81
xs3
5.92
995.45
xs3
7.56
995.01
xs3
8.96
995.01
xs3
14.9
995.13
xs3
20.92
995.15
xs3
25.88
995.17
xs3
28.7
995.17
xs3
32.45
995.19
xs3
33.25
995.19
xs3
34.35
994.82
xs3
34.34
994.56
xs3
34.62
994.16
xs3
35.24
994.77
xs3
35.39
994.16
xs3
35.33
994.18
xs3
37.01
994.16
xs3
37.96
994.76
1 xs3
38.08
994.77
xs3
38.11
994.77
xs3
38.72
995.2
xs3
38.97
995.2
xs3
41.6
994.99
xs3
44.43
994.99
xs3
50.39
994.96
xs3 -r b
f
XS -3: View Upstream
XS-3: View Downstream
Dula Thoroughfare (Main Channel) - MY5
Cross - Section 3 - Pool
1000
The right cross- section pin was re- established in MY -2010
999
-
998
-!
997
/
1
0 996
-
995
w
994
993
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Station (ft)
--msr- MY140/2007 t MY2- 5/2008 -m- MY3- 1/1010 --0- MY4- 112011 --m- MY5- 3/2012 ...... Banidhll ...... water Surface

Appendix D. Stream Survey Data
Figure 3d: Cross - Section Plots and Raw Data Tables
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration /EEP Project No. 65
Dula Thoroughfare Tributary
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Project Name
Dula Thoroughfare
EEP Project Number
65
Cross - Section ID
XS4, Run
Survey Date
3/2012
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation ft
998.39
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft)
1.50
Bankfull Width ft
4.47
Flood Prone Area Elevation ft
999.19
Flood Prone Width ft
90.60
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.33
Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.80
W/D Ratio
13.55
Entrenchment Ratio
20.27
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Station
Elevation
Notes
0.03
1000.16
xs4 -I t
0
1000.07
xs4 -I b
1.08
1000.13
xs4
3.64
999.93
xs4
5.55
999.31
xs4
8.38 1
998.82
xs4
14.65
998.54
xs4
21.59
998.77
xs4
29.71
998.56
xs4
41.31
998.62
xs4
50.56
998.43
xs4
53.47
998.48
xs4
54.02
998.41
xs4
54.51
998.11
xs4
54.67
998.01
xs4
55.49
997.59
xs4
55.6
997.8
xs4
55.85
997.7
xs4
55.94
997.74
xs4
57.66
998.47
xs4
58.92
998.2
xs4
59.45
998.81
xs4
67.43
998.44
xs4
79.3
998.57
xs4
101.37
999.35
xs4
111.98
999.98
xs4
XS4: View Upstream
XS4: View Downstream
Dula Thoroughfare (Tributary) - MY5
Cross - Section 4 - Run
1000.5
1000
999.5
Z
999
NO
c 998.5
..
................... .. .....
998
.......................... ............................... ...................................... ...............................
W
997.5
997
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)
MYI- 10/2007 MY2- 5/2008 ---M- MY3- 1/2010 --0- MY4-1 /2011 --w- MYS- 3/2012 ...... Bankfull ...... Water Surface

999
998
997
L
Cd
7..
4 996
L
cc
W
995
994
993
992
Figure 4 - Longitudinal Plot
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration /EEP Project No. 65 -Main Channel
2011 Monitoring Year
MY5of5
♦ ♦♦
........................
A ♦
A :
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Station (ft)
TW- 10/2007 TW- 5/2008 TW- 1/2010 TW- 1/2011 -TW- 3/2012 ........ WS- 3/2012 ♦ BKF- 3/2012 • Cross - Section

1001
1000
999
a
w 998 -
0
y
d
w 997 -
996
995
Figure 4 - Longitudinal Plot
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration /EEP Project No. 65- Tributary
2011 Monitoring Year
MY 5 of 5
100 200 300 400
Station (ft)
500 600 700
TW- 10/2007 TW- 5/2008 TW- 1/2010 TW- 1/2011 TW- 3/2012 •...•.•. WS- 3/2012 ♦ BKF- 3/2012 • Cross - Section

Appendix D. Stream Survey Data
Figure 5a: Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No. 65
Dula Thoroughfare Main Channel
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Project Name: Dula Thoroughfare -Main Channel
Cross - Section: 1
Feature: Pool
MY5- 8/2011
Cumulative Percent
Description Material
Size
mm
Total #
Item %
Cum %
1
Silt/Clay silt /clay
0.062
100
100%
100%
0.9
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
100%
'
0.8
fine sand
Sand medium sand
0.250
0.50
0
0
1 0%
0%
100%
100%
c
0.7
0.6
coarse sand
1.00
0
0%
100%
0.5
HI
very coarse sand
2.0
0
0%
100%
=
Z 0.4
very fine gravel
fine gravel
fine ravel
medium gravel
Gravel medium ravel
course gravel
4.0
5.7
8.0
11.3
16.0
22.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0.3
a 0.2
> 0.1
° 0
Doti oti do ti� ti000
" Particle Size (mm)
course gravel
32.0
0
1 0%
100%
_MY1 (10/2007)
—MY2 (5/2008) —MY3 (1/2010)
—MY4- 2/2011 —MY5- 8/2011
very coarse gravel
45
0
0%
100%
very coarse gravel
64
0
0%
100%
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
Cobble medium cobble
large cobble
128
180
0
0
0%
1 0%
100%
100%
Individual Class Percent
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
100%
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
90%
small boulder
Boulder
medium boulder
large boulder
512
1024
2048
0
0
0
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
80%
70%
°;
60%
0
R
50%
40%
Bedrock bedrock
TOTAL % of whole count
Summary Data
D50 0.03
40096
0
100
0%
100%
100%
100%
30%
:
20%
10%
0%
D84 0.05
D95 0.060
ooh o�,yh o yh oh ti
ti R h1 �,y?� ti� �L'3 �'L ph �k rO
Particle Size (mm)
■ MY1 (10/2007)
■ MY2 (5/2008) a MY3 (1/2010) ■ MY4- 2/2011 ■ MY5 - 8/2011
Appendix D - Stream Survey Data
Dula Thoroughfare
Year 5 of 5

Appendix D. Stream Survey Data
Figure 5b: Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No. 65
Dula Thoroughfare Main Channel
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Project Name: Dula Thoroughfare -Main Channel
Cross - Section: 2
Feature:
Run
Cumulative Percent
MY5- 8/2011
Description Material
Size
Total #
Item %
Cum %
100%
mm
90%
Silt/Clay silt/clay
0.062
100
100%
100%
80%
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
100%
'c
70%
fine sand
0.250
0
1 0%
100%
60%
Sand medium sand
0.50
0
0%
100%
50%
coarse sand
1.00
0
0%
100%
=
40%
very coarse sand
2.0
0
0%
100%
30%
very fine ravel
4.0
0
0%
100%
�
a
o
20%
i
fine gravel
5.7
0
0%
100%
10%
fine gravel
8.0
0
0%
100%
°
0%
medium gravel
11.3
0
0%
100%
o4ti
oti
ti yo
yoo �000
Gravel medium gravel
16.0
0
0%
100%
"
Particle Size (mm)
course gravel
22.3
0
0%
100%
—MY1
(10/2007) —MY2
(5/2008) - -• —MY3 (1/2010)
MY4- 2/2011 MY5 - 8/2011
course gravel
32.0
0
0%
100%
very coarse gravel
45
0
0%
100%
very coarse gravel
64
0
0%
100%
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
Individual Class Percent
medium cobble
128
0
0%
100%
Cobble large cobble
180
0
0%
100%
100%
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
90%
80%
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
70%
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
60%
Boulder
;,
N
50%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
W
qp%
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
U
300
Bedrock bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
20%
TOTAL % of whole count
100
100%
100%
:2
'6
10%
Summary Data
c
_
0%
D50 0.03
ti ti ti 3�
0
9 ti o•
o
ti ti
do ,yo goo
D84 0.05
Particle Size (mm)
D95 0.06
■ MY1 (10/2007)
■ MY2 (5/2008) ■ MY3 (1/2010) ■
MY4- 2/2011 ■ MY5 - 8/2011
Appendix D - Stream Surv
ey Data
Dula Thoroughfare
Year 5 of 5
ey Data
Dula Thoroughfare
Year 5 of 5

Appendix D. Stream Survey Data
Figure 5c: Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No. 65
Dula Thoroughfare Main Channel
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Project Name: Dula Thoroughfare -Main Channel
Cross - Section: 3
Feature:
Pool
MY5- 8/2011
Cumulative Percent
Size
Description Material
Total #
Item %
Cum %
mm
100/
Silt/Clay silt/clay
0.062
100
100%
100%
90%
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
100%
�
i i
80°
fine sand
0.250
0
0%
100%
S
70%
i
Sand medium sand
0.50
0
0%
100%
cc
60%
coarse sand
1.00
0
0%
100%
50%
40%
i
very coarse sand
2.0
0
0%
100%
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
100%
30%
20%
10 %
fine gravel 5.7 0 0% 100%
fine gravel
8.0
0
0%
100%
aa,
Z
0%
medium gravel
11.3
0
0%
100%
2
E
oti
oti
ti ,yp
pp
Gravel medium gravel
16.0
0
0%
100%
o
ti ti�
course gravel
22.3
0
0%
100%
Particle Size (mm)
course gravel
32.0
0
1 0%
100%
MY1 (10/2007)
MY2 (5/2008) MY4- 2/2011
MY5 - 8/2011
very coarse gravel
45
0
0%
100%
very coarse gravel
64
0
0%
100%
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble
128
0
0%
100%
Individual Class Percent
Cobble
large cobble
180
0
1 0%
100%
100%
90%
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
80%
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
70%
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
Boulder
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
60%
50%
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
%;
Bedrock bedrock
40096
0
0% 1
100%
40%
TOTAL % of whole count
100
100% 1
100%
i0
30%
20%
M
e
10%
Summary Data
c
D50 0.03
0%
D84
ti ti ti '� h
0.05
00 0'? o•
y y
y0 LO
D95 0.06
Particle Size (mm)
boo
■ MY1 (10/2007)
■ MY2 (5/2008) ■ MY3 (1/2010) ■ MY4- 2/2011 ■ MY5 - 8/2011
Appendix D - Stream Surv
ey Data
Dula Thoroughfare
Year 5 of 5
ey Data
Dula Thoroughfare
Year 5 of 5

Appendix D. Stream Survey Data
Figure 5d: Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration /EEP Project No. 65
Dula Thoroughfare Main Channel
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Project Name: Dula Thoroughfare- Tributary
Cross - Section: 4
Feature:
Run
MY5- 8/2011
Cumulative Percent
Description Material
Silt/Clay silt/clay
Size
mm
0.062
Total #
100
Item %
100%
Cum %
100%
c
r
+�
100%
90%
80%
very fine sand
fine sand
0.125
0.250
0
0
0%
1 0%
100%
100%
70%
`=
60%
Sand medium sand
0.50
0
0%
100%
5
50%
—
coarse sand
very coarse sand
1.00
2.0
0
0
0%
0%
100%
100%
t—
a 40%
; 30%
very fine gravel
fine ravel
4.0
5.7
0
0
0%
0%
100%
100%
0
20%
E
10%
fine gravel
8.0
0
0%
100%
3
0% 1
medium gravel
11.3
0
0%
100%
Doti
o,
ti 41
ti�
tipo�
Gravel medium gravel
16.0
0
0%
100%
Particle Size (mm)
course gravel
22.3
0
0%
100%
_MY1 (10/2007)
—MY2 (5/2008) —MY3 (1/2010)
MY4- 2/2011
MY5 - 8/2011
course gravel
32.0
0
0%
100%
very coarse gravel
45
0
0%
100%
very coarse gravel
64
0
0%
100%
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
Individual Class Percent
Cobble medium cobble
large cobble
128
180
0
0
0%
1 0%
100%
100%
100%
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
90%
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
80%
Boulder small boulder
medium boulder
large boulder
Bedrock bedrock
TOTAL % of whole count
Summary Data
512
1024
2048
40096
0
0
0
0
100
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
70°%
60%
a
N
50%
0 40
%
-ij
30%
20%
a
10%
E
0%
D50 0.03
D84 0.05
D95 0.1
o�oL yy
p• p•
Particle Size (mm)
■ MY1 (10/2007)
■ MY2 (5/2008) ■ MY3 (1/2010)
■ MY4- 2/2011
■ MY5 - 8/2011
D50 was not calculated due to particle size.
Appendix D - Stream Surv
ey Data
Dula Thoroughfare
Year 5 of 5
ey Data
Dula Thoroughfare
Year 5 of 5

0-
APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGIC DATA
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure 6 Monthly Rainfall Data
Figure 7a -c Precipitation and Water Level Plots
Table 13 Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and April 2012
Wetland Restoration Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Project No 65

Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Protect No 65
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Date of Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo # if available
12/2007
Unknown
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tributary)
9/2007
Unknown
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Maw Channel and Tnbutary)
6/2009
Unknown
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Maw Channel and Tributary)
1/2011
Unknown
Visual Observation
N/A
(Main Channel and Tributary)
4/19/2011
Unknown
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tnbutary)
5/19/2011
Unknown
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tributary)
7/22/2011
Unknown
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tributary)
7/22/2011
Unknown
Visual Observation
N/A
(Maw Channel and Tnbutary)
3/22/2012
Unknown
Crest Gauge
N/A
(Main Channel and Tnbutary)
3/22/2012
Unknown
Visual Observation
N/A
(Main Channel and Tnbutary)
Appendix E - Hydrologic Data
Dula Thoroughfare
Year 5 of 5

Appendix E. Hydrologic Data
Figure 6: Monthly Rainfall Data
Dula Thoroughfare /EEP Project No.65
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
6
5
v 4
t
U
C
Monthly Precipitation (Site)
0 3
30th Percentile (Region)
n 70th Percentile (Region)
U
v 2
d
1
0
titi titi titi titi titi titi titi NI titi titi titi titi
PJ� �O
*Regional rainfall data referenced from NC Cronos Database Divisonal Data for the Southern Piedmont of North Carolina - Data Period January 2011 through December 2011.
Monthly precipitation referenced from the USGS 351218080331345 CRN -29 rain gage Real -Time daily data, January 2011 through December 2011.
Appendix E - Hydrologic Data
Dula Thoroughfare
Year 5 of 5

Figure 7a: Precipitation and Water Level Plots for Gauges
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No. 65
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Growing Season: (March 15 - November 18)
Hydrology Monitoring - MY 5
Groundwater Gauge 1
10 163 Consecutive Days 2
1.8
5 1.6
1.4
0 _
1.2 E-
4-
y c
3 -5 1 E
M a
c
'0 0.8 c
41
0 a
-10
0.6
C L
W
a
C 0.4
-15
J 0.2
-zo
I I I I Ills I I li 0
rq H 11
14 1
o O O O O O O O o O O o O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
u1 Ol N t0 O _q V'1 Q1 N LO
O m 1- LN ! \ 00
ai .1 m 14
l0
00
M m v v Ln ui 00 00 rn rn o o �
Date
111=111 Daily Precipitation (in) Gauge Height Required Depth

Figure 7b: Precipitation and Water Level Plots for Gauges
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No. 65
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Growing Season: (March 15 - November 18)
10
5
Hydrology Monitoring - MY 5
Groundwater Gauge 2
149 Consecutive Days
2
1.8
1.6
0
-5
1.4
V -10
1.2 Z__
`
M
W
3 -15
c
1 E
M
c
o -20
Q
c
0.8 M
M
r -25
:e
0.6 'u EL
a
y
0-30
a
0.4
-35
0.2
-40
�� ��
I
�. �
I
�� �
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0
0
0
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
N
\
N
\
o
N N N N N N N N N
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
N n c-I tf1 N l0 o m
N N
\ \
r
N
\
X11
N
\
00
H
ri
\
m
r4
N
\
m
rl
\
a
rq
N
\
v
ri
\
LA
-1
N \ N \ .--I \ �--q M a--I
\ lD \ n \ 00
Ln to n ao 00 rn
q H
N e-I
rn o
N
o
\
Date
1m Daily Precipitation (in) Gauge Height Required Depth

Figure 7c: Precipitation and Water Level Plots for Gauges
Dula Thoroughfare Stream and Wetland Restoration/EEP Project No. 65
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Growing Season: (March 15 - November 18)
Hydrology Monitoring - MY 5
Groundwater Gauge 3
10.0
2
1.8
5.0
87 Consecuti fie Days
1.6
i
0.0
1.4
\J
1.2
5.0
c
CU
3
1 E
-o
910.0
a
C
0.8 2
M
0
0.6 .a
X1.5.0
CL
p
0.4 a
-20.0
0.2
-25.0
' �I �
!
� . �
I � �
I 11 li � I
I
li
I
0
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O O o O O O
N N N N N N
o
N
O
N
o
N
O
N
O
N
\
V1
\
01
\
N
\
lD
\
O
\
N
\
n
\ \ \ \ \ \
-1 lf1 Q1 N l0 O
\
M
\
\
�--I
\
Vl
\
00
ri
\
N
\
r-1
\
N
\
r-I
\
N
\
\
lD
N \ e-i \ e-I (Y7
\ 1� \ 00 \ \
lD I� W 00
N
\
01
r4
N
\
Ol
\
O
\
O
r-4
ri
M f/1
�
�
11'1
tll
Date
IAI■■11m Daily Precipitation (in) Gauge Height
Required Depth

Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table 13 Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
Dula Thoroughfare /EEP Project No 65
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results for Years 1 through 5
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season
Gauge
(Percentage)
Year 1 (2007 )
Year 2 2008
Year 3 2009
Year 4 (2010)
Year 5 (2011
Yes /81 Days
Yes /117 Days
No /19 Days
Yes/ 163 Days
GW 1
N /A*
(33 %)
(47 %)^
(8 %)
(65 %)
Yes /41 Days
Yes /69 Days
Yes /99 Days
Yes /54 Days
Yes/ 149 Days
GW2
(16 %) **
(28 %)
(40 %)
(22 %)-
(60 %)
Yes /42 Days
Yes/80 Days
Yes /96 Days
Yes /53 Days
Yes /87 Days
GW3
(17 %) **
(32 %)
(39 %)
(21 %)
1 (35 %)
*Gauge was not installed until 7/11/2007
* *Percentages based off of number reported in EcoScience report, raw data was unavailable
^Groundwater data is only reported through 9/28/2009
^^Groundwater data is only reported through 7/27/2010