20051919 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20130212

a
_ FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
GOOSE CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION
DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(EEP Project Number 147, Contract Number 004681)
Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
AWQ Cy7
OS - Iql�
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
RECER -1917D
JAN 182011
Ed111a1[1Cf'lle it NC EC05YSTZ_ti`
PROGRAM
ENHA1!CEMENT PROGRAM
January 2013

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
GOOSE CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION
DURHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(EEP Project Number 147, Contract Number 004681)
Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Design Firm:
Biohabitats
8218 Creedmoor Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27613
Axiom Environ"wW, Inc.
January 2013
r�
En a eme t
PROpRAM
Y
W

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/PROJECT ABSTRACT
The Goose Creek Stream Restoration Site (Site) is located in the City of Durham, North Carolina in a
highly developed watershed (Figure 1, Appendix A) Goose Creek is part of the Neuse River Basin
(Upper Neuse, Subbasm 03- 04 -01) and is located in USGS Cataloging Unit 03020201 This project is
located in the EEP's Ellerbe Creek Local Watershed Plan
(http / /www nceep net / services /lwps/ Upper_ Neuse / Ellerbe _Creek_Local_Watershed_PIan pdf) area,
which is targeted for mitigation to protect watershed functions, increase aquatic life, decrease destructive
flooding, provide recreational opportunities, and protect the Falls Lake drinking water supply The
preproject stream was highly modified and artificially confined by concrete along the southern/upstream
channel and banks, and by rock walls in the northern/downstream reach The project aimed to eradicate
artificial hardening structures, and restore a more natural channel geometry and riparian buffer Project
restoration efforts provided 1465 linear feet of stream restoration, 1 38 acres of riparian buffer restoration,
and 0 06 acre of riparian buffer enhancement Tables summarizing project objectives and activities can
be found in Appendix A This report (compiled based on the EEP's Procedural Guidance and Content
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports Version 14 dated 11/7/11) summarizes data for year 4 (2012)
monitoring
The goals of the Goose Creek stream restoration protect included the following
• To improve aquatic habitat by removing the fabriform channel liner on the Eastway Elementary
School reach (upstream/southem reach) and the stone retaining walls on the Longmeadow Park
reach (downstream/northern reach) and reintroduce a more defined and natural riffle /pool channel
geometry
• To improve water quality by reducing nutrient loading from adjacent developed properties
through restoration of a riparian buffer
• To improve terrestrial habitat by restoring a riparian buffer
• To decrease the sediment and nutrient content of stormwater flow originating in the Barnes Street
Redevelopment project site, which flows through the Site and into Goose Creek, through the
means of a re- configured stormwater channel which slows stormwater flow, allowing sediment to
settle and nutrients to be absorbed by planted vegetation
Goals were accomplished by removing artificial hardening structures, constructing a natural, stable
profile and dimension for the stream channel, and reestablishing a continuous riparian buffer along the
stream banks Project implementation has greatly increased the prominence of riffles and pools in the
reach and improved aquatic habitat within the Site
Based on the Goose Creek Mitigation Plan Baseline document (2009), success criteria dictate that an
average density of 260 stems per acre must be surviving after five monitoring years Based on the
number of stems counted, average densities were measured at 496 planted stems excluding livestakes per
acre surviving in year 4 (2012) The dominant species identified at the Site were planted stems of green
ash (Fraxmus pennsylvanica), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
All individual plots met success criteria based on planted stems alone
Three large willow oaks (located on the downstream /northern reach) that had succumbed to the stress of
old age and drought were removed by the City of Durham in the winter of 2011 with the approval of EEP
Planting within these areas as well four additional areas on the upstream /southern reach) were planted
with 70 five- gallon sized containerized trees of red oak, sycamore, red chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolta),
red maple, cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), and Shumard oak (Quercus shumardii), in addition to 25
livestakes of silky dogwood (Corpus amomum) 2012 planting information is provided in Appendix F
Goose Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 147 January 2013
Durham County, North Carolina page i

Noted vegetation problem areas within the Site, depicted on the attached Figures 2A -213 (Appendix B),
include the development of invasive species such as Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense) scattered along
the northern/downstream reach between Liberty Street and Holloway Street Other invasive species
include small patches of Japanese hops (Humulusjaponicas) just north of the Liberty Street bridge on the
right bank and adjacent to the left bank of the western tributary to the southern/upstream reach Mimosa
(Albizia julibrissm), chinaberry (Melia azedarach), and white mulberry (Morus alba), are located in
several locations along the northern (downstream reach) Chinese privet (Ligustrum smense) and
Japanese privet (Ligustrum japonicum) are located just north of the stormwater wetland and adjacent to
the fence just south of the tributary to the southern/upstream reach coming from the west Scotch broom
(Cytisus scoparius) is located at the very southeastern corner of the Site and has spread rapidly over the
past year, some treatment/control of this species occurred in the 2011 monitoring year by cutting plants to
remove the seed source In addition, scattered stems of Bradford pear (Pyrus calleryana), white
mulberry, wintercreeper (Euonymous fortunes), air yam (Discorea bulb fera), and multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora) are located adjacent to the southern /upstream reach Herbaceous species including Nepalese
browntop (Microstegium vimineum) and Asiatic dayflower (Commelina communes) are also located in
several areas along the southern /upstream reach near the stream channel Currently, invasive species
within the Site are not affecting planted tree stem survival or growth, and are therefore expected to be
shaded out as planted trees mature, however, they will continue to be watched throughout the monitoring
period
Wisteria (Wisteria frutescens) is located just north of Liberty Street on the right bank adjacent to the
bridge and giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) is scattered throughout the Site and occasionally forms thick
stands Wisteria and giant ragweed are not invasive species but can be problematic due to their growth
habits and potential to shade or, in the case of wisteria, girdle planted trees
In addition, an area of sparse herbaceous survival and stunted vegetative growth in the southernmost area
of the Site as the result of poor soils was noted in previous years, but has been generally colonized by
grasses and weedy forbs (see scotch broom photo above)
Success criteria for stream restoration reaches dictate that little to no change from the as -built channel
occur over the monitoring period Year 4 (2012) monitoring measurements indicate that there have been
minimal changes in cross - sections and profile downstream of Liberty Street as compared to as -built data
The stream profile upstream of Liberty Street was designed to adjust itself to changes in watershed flows
A total of seven bankfull events are documented to have occurred at the Site with three events in year 1
(2009), three events in year 2 (2010), three events in year 3 (2011), and two events to date in the year 4
(2012) monitoring period
Noted stream problem areas within the Site include two compromised structures (Figure 2B, Appendix
B) The structure upstream of Cross - section 5 is compromised due to undercutting of the structure on the
right bank Subsequently structure rocks have fallen into the stream causing aggradation of sediment
This has created a bench that supports limited herbaceous growth and has caused the channel to constrict
Reduced channel width appears to have caused additional erosion to the left bank just downstream at the
confluence of the adjacent tributary An additional structure downstream of Cross - section 6 is
compromised due to undercutting of the structure on the left bank Subsequently structure rocks appear to
have fallen into the stream, however, this does not appear to be affecting stream stability Stream
instability appears localized to the immediate vicinity of both failing structures Dense, rooted vegetation
adjacent to the structures is reducing lateral erosion and bed scour appears contained to the footprint of
Goose Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 147 January 2013
Durham County, North Carolina page u

the structure No further maintenance is recommended at this time, however, these structures should be
watched throughout the remainder of the annual monitoring timeframe
In summary, the Site achieved success criteria for vegetation and stream attributes in the Fourth
Monitoring Year (2012) Summary information and 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 tables and figures within this report's appendices Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the mitigation and restoration plan documents
available on EEPs website All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available
from EEP upon request
Goose Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 147 January 2013
Durham County, North Carolina page ui

Table of Contents
1 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/PROJECT ABSTRACT
20 METHODOLOGY
2 1 Vegetation Assessment
2 2 Stream Assessment
3 0 REFERENCES
List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location
Figures 2a -2b Monitoring Plan View
List of Tables
Table 1 Site Restoration Structures and Objectives
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
Tables 5a -5b Qualitative Visual Stability Assessments
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Table 8 Vegetation Metadata Table
Table 9 Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table 10 Verification of Bankfull Events
Appendices
APPENDIX A PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES
Figure 1 Site Location
Table 1 Site Restoration Structures and Objectives
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Attributes Table
APPENDIX B VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figures 2a -2b Monitoring Plan View
Table 5a North Reach Goose Creek Qualitative Stability Assessment
Table 5b South Reach Goose Creek Qualitative Stability Assessment
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
APPENDIX C VEGETATION ASSESSMENT DATA
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
CVS Summary Data Tables
Table 8 Vegetation Metadata Table
Table 9 Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
APPENDIX D STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross - section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Pebble Count Plots
APPENDIX E HYDROLOGIC DATA
Table 10 Verification of Bankfull Events
APPENDIX F SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix C
Appendix C
Appendix E
Goose Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 147 January 2013
Durham County, North Carolina Table of Contents

2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Following Site construction, four plots (10- meters square) were established and monumented with metal
rebar at all plot corners Sampling was conducted for year 4 (2012) on June 18, 2012 as outlined in the
CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 42 (Lee et al 2008)
(http / /cvs bio unc edu /methods htm), results are included in Appendix C The taxonomic standard for
vegetation used for this document was Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas
(Weakley 2007) The locations of vegetation monitoring plots are depicted on Figures 2A -2B in
Appendix B Visual assessments were completed on June 18 and July 26, 2012 for year 4 (2012)
2.2 Stream Assessment
Eight permanent cross - sections were established after construction was completed Measurements of
each cross - section include points at all breaks in slope including top of bank, bankfull, and thalweg
Riffle cross - sections are classified using the Applied Fluvial Morphology ( Rosgen 1996) stream
classification system Longitudinal profile measurements of the entire Site restoration reaches include
thalweg and water surface, with each measurement taken at the head of facets (i e riffle, run, pool, and
glide) in addition to the maximum pool depth Visual assessment of in- stream structures was conducted
to determine if failure has occurred Failure of a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure,
undermining of the structure, abandonment of the channel around the structure, and/or stream flow
beneath the structure Stream measurements were completed the week of August 13, 2012 and August
20, 2012 (Appendix D)
3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, Michael T, R K Peet, S D Roberts, and T R Wentworth 2008 CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4 2 (online) Available http / /cvs bio unc edu /methods htm
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2007 Redbook, Surface Waters and Wetlands
Standards North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality Raleigh, North Carolina
Rosgen, D 1996 Applied River Morphology Wildland Hydrology (Publisher) Pagosa Springs,
Colorado
Weakley, Alan S 2007 Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas (online)
Available http //www herbarium unc edu/WeakleysFlora pdf [February 1, 2008] University of
North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Weather Underground 2012 Station at Raleigh- Durham Airport, North Carolina (online) Available
http / /www wunderground com /history/airport/KRDU/ [August 20, 2012] Weather
Underground
Goose Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 147 January 2013
Durham County, North Carolina page i

APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES
Figure 1
Site Location
Table 1
Site Restoration Structures and Objectives
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contacts Table
Table 4
Project Attributes Table
Goose Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 147 January 2013
Durham County, North Carolina Appendices

00-W kv
Goose Creek ov
IF
tj
Restoration Site
WV t.de/Longitude
4 La
=6oil +`+ r
1W, 11
AP
iz ,�Ik NO WA
NO
7`!
coo
�ii1.IO X11 ��AII /����r �+- ::� _�� ,�l /�1Ti1:_� �j.� "� ���)►'�� J� �1,
.. ��,. �.
`�'•, \� �;
In \ * *,, T,h`� `� �'a�
war
�•/ rich �r �� ,
' ►14v� �1�;r�' a3'J rIC {�' >y� ir�i'Ia' ' , �j (�� /!f?' �.li��'�
���.C` <i_>Zl�`r'b' -I�,�;�I�r:::.��lis� ♦ /ai r.' 1�1([� 1kt+R I'PA�
L i;:

Table 1. Site Restoration Structures and Objectives
Goose Creek Restoration Site EP Project Number 147
*Buffer restoration and enhancement is to be used to mitigate for buffer impacts per the Neuse River Buffer Rules
* *Restored length of Longmeadow reach does not include 55 feet of stream between the end of the project and the Holloway Street
culvert that was not restored
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Goose Creek Restoration Site (EEP Proiect Number 147)
Activity or Report
Pre-
Actual Completion or Delivery
Restoration Plan
July 2005
Planted
Buffer
Buffer
Restoration
Reach
Protect
Stationing
Restoration
Approach
Easement
Restoration
Enhancement
Length
Planting
Length ft
February 2009
Level
March 2009
Acreage
(acres)*
acres *
(ft)**
Eastway
514
3 +48 -8 +61
Restoration
P2
086
--
-
514
Upstream
March 2012
Year 4 (2012 ) Monitoring
August 2012
August 2012
Eastway
347
0 +00 -3 +47
Restoration
P2
14
058
006
347
Downstream
Longmeadow
659
0 +55 -6 +59
Restoration
P2
1 69
08
--
604
Park Section
TOTALS
1500
- ®"
3.95
1.38
0.06
1465
Component Summations
Restoration
Stream (linear feet)
Restoration Buffer (acres)*
Level
Restoration
1465
1 38
Enhancement
--
006
1465 linear feet
1.44 acres
TOTALS
1465 SMUs
1.41 BMWs
*Buffer restoration and enhancement is to be used to mitigate for buffer impacts per the Neuse River Buffer Rules
* *Restored length of Longmeadow reach does not include 55 feet of stream between the end of the project and the Holloway Street
culvert that was not restored
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Goose Creek Restoration Site (EEP Proiect Number 147)
Activity or Report
Data Collection Completion
Actual Completion or Delivery
Restoration Plan
July 2005
October 2005
Final Design-Construction Plans
November 2006
Aril 2008
Construction
--
September 2008
Permanent Seeding Completed
--
September 2008
As- Builts
October 2008
December 2008
Planting
--
February 2009
Mitigation Plan
March 2009
March 2009
Year 1 2009) Monitoring
October 2009
November 2009
Year 2 2010 Monitoring
August 2010
January 2011
Supplemental Planting
March 2011
Year 3 2011 Monitoring
June 2011
July 2011
Supplemental Planting
March 2012
Year 4 (2012 ) Monitoring
August 2012
August 2012
Goose Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 147 January 2013
Durham County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Goose Creek Restoration Site (EEP Proiect Number 147)
Designer
8918 Creedmoor Road, Suite 200
Biohabitats, Inc
Raleigh, NC 27613
Kevin Nunnery 919 -518 -0311
Construction Contractor
6106 Corporate Park Dr
Shamrock Environmental, Inc
Browns Summit, NC 27214
Dan Albert 336 - 375 -1989
Survey Contractor
668 Marsh Country Lane
Level Cross Surveying, PLLC
Randleman, NC 23717
Sheri Willard 336 - 495 -1713
Planting Contractor
1932 Holt Rd
Southern Garden, Inc
Cary, NC 27519
Todd Laakso 919 - 362 -1050
Seed Mix Suppliers
1218 Management Way, Garner, NC 27529
Green - Resource
Rodney Montgomery 919- 779 -4727
Planting Stock Suppliers
880 Buteo Ridge Road
Container Stock -Cure Nursery
Pittsboro, NC 27312
Bill Cure 919 -542 -6186
Balled in Burlap
3705 New Bern Ave
Taylor's Nursery
Raleigh, NC 27610
Richard Taylor 919 231 -6161
Year 1 -4 (2009 -12) Monitoring
218 Snow Avenue
Performer
Raleigh, NC 27603
Axiom Environmental, Inc
Grant Lewis (919) 215 -1693
Goose Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 147 January 2013
Durham County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Goose Creek Restoration Site EEP Project Number 147
Pro ect County
Durham
Ph sio ra hic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ton
Triassic Basin
Project River Basin
Neuse
USGS HUC for Project 14 digit)
3020201050010
NCDW Sub -basin for Project
03 -04 -01
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan?
Ellerbe Creek Local Watershed Plan
WRC Hab Class Warm, Cool, Cold
Warm
% of project easement demarcated
100%
Beaver activity observed?
No
Eastway u stream
Eastway downstream
Longmeadow
Drainage area
350
396
481
Stream order
2
2
2
Restored length feet
514
347
604
Perennial or Intermittent
perennial
perennial
perennial
Watershed type Rural, Urban, etc
urban
urban
urban
Watershed LULC Distribution
Urban -Low Intensity Developed
44
44
43
Urban-High Intensity Developed
22
22
22
Residential Urban
18
18
19
Forest, Herbaceous, Open Water
16
16
16
Watershed impervious cover %
—55
—55
—54
NCDW AU /Index number
27 -5 -1
27 -5 -1
27 -5 -1
NCDWQ classification
WS -IV, NSW
WS -N, NSW
WS -N, NSW
303d listed?
no
no
no
Upstream of a 303d listed segment?
yes
yes
yes
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
urban stormwater
urban stormwater
urban stormwater
Total acreage of easement
09
1 4
17
Ros en classification of pre-existing
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ros en classification of As -built
Bc5
Bc5
Bc5
Valle type/slope
N/A
N/A
N/A
Valley side slope ranee g 2 -3 %
10 -15%
10 -15%
10 -15%
Valley toe slope ranee g 2 -3 %
3 -5%
3 -5%
3 -5%
Dominant soil series /characteristics
Series
Whitestore -Urban
Whitestore -Urban
Whitestore -Urban
De th
60"
60"
60"
Cla %
5 -70
5 -70
5 -70
Used N/A for items that may not apply Use " -" for items that are unavailable and "U" for items that are unknown
Goose Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 147 January 2013
Durham County, North Carolina Appendices

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figures 2a -2b Monitoring Plan View
Table 5a North Reach Goose Creek Qualitative Stability Assessment
Table 5b South Reach Goose Creek Qualitative Stability Assessment
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Goose Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 147 January 2013
Durham County, North Carolina Appendices

Note: Johnson grass is
scattered along the
1 -
northern /downstream reach
35.99411022280
between Liberty Street
- 78.88441700420 3
and Holloway Street;
v 1 ai in -
however, it does not
35.99422471960
appear to be affecting
- 78.88406798710 3
planted tree stems.
v 2 origin -
Additional species scat ered
Plot
throughout this area include
- 78.88370854310 3
Bradford pear, mimosa,
j
Japanese privet, china-
35.99179449810
berry, and white mulberry.
- 78.88364574290 3
35.99197147050
Comment'
Longitude
Latitude
1
- 78.88428807010
350
35.99120309110
origin -
- 78.88373014370 3
35.99138760720
AL
- 78.88431515510 3
35.99422927800
xst -
- 78.88412084630 3
35.99426334970
xs2 -
vN =
-y-u- Wal, xe = uuee -ee
•`i
V 1
i_
i
2010 CGIA Leaf -off Orthophotography
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
y Raleigh, 27603
(919)215 -1-1 693
Axiom En - rnentai. Inc.
XsectI
'1r
--�' PI
Japanese hops are located
on the right bank and
wisteria on the left bank
adjacent to the bridge.
I
1,111Idl ell 11
Three large willow oaks
removed planted City of Durham; I I ��' 2A
area was planted with 165
containerized trees.
0
k-Uiect �ct 3
2B 4
r
Legend
St. - Conservation Easement
\� diftow- Restored Stream Channel
1 Cross- sections
},
t � Vegetation Plot Origin
` Vegetation Plots
® Removed Oak Trees
0 37.5 75 150 225 300
Feet
Scale 1:1250
MONITORING PLAN VIEW
GOOSE CREEK SITE
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 147
Durham County, North Carolina
Dr by. FIGURE
CLF
Dale 2A
July 2012
Project:
10-009
99419284740
1 -
- 78.88431099220 3
35.99411022280
1 -
- 78.88441700420 3
35.99413186950
v 1 ai in -
- 78.88440030210 3
35.99422471960
2 -
- 78.88406798710 3
35.99405434090
v 2 origin -
- 78.88408533090 3
35.99414585150
- 78.88370854310 3
35.99179182840
- 78.88365999570 3
35.99179449810
- 78.88364574290 3
35.99197147050
vp3 on in -
- 78.88369943100 3
35.99197805180
- 78.88374436330 3
- 78.88369684360 3
35.99120309110
origin -
- 78.88373014370 3
35.99138760720
xs1 -
- 78.88431515510 3
35.99422927800
xst -
- 78.88412084630 3
35.99426334970
xs2 -
- 78.88405842400 3
35.99364372310
xs2 -
- 78.88386791880 3
35.99376040220
xs3 -
- 78.88358099280 3
35.99321673000
xs3 -
- 78.88384776390 3
35.99324014180
xs4 -
- 78.88363044960 3
xs4 -
- 78.88384681400 3
zs5 -
- 78.88364554900 3
xs5 -
- 78.88387897610 3
xs6 -
- 78.88390661370 3
35.99142297110
xs6 -
- 78.88369007520 3
35.99136346110
xs7 -
- 78.88368865170 3
35.99067103710
xs7 -
- 78.88390759170 3
35.99068068430
xs8 -
- 78.88390127690 3
35.99039694400
zs8 -
- 76.68371291820 3
35.99040630750
-y-u- Wal, xe = uuee -ee
•`i
V 1
i_
i
2010 CGIA Leaf -off Orthophotography
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
y Raleigh, 27603
(919)215 -1-1 693
Axiom En - rnentai. Inc.
XsectI
'1r
--�' PI
Japanese hops are located
on the right bank and
wisteria on the left bank
adjacent to the bridge.
I
1,111Idl ell 11
Three large willow oaks
removed planted City of Durham; I I ��' 2A
area was planted with 165
containerized trees.
0
k-Uiect �ct 3
2B 4
r
Legend
St. - Conservation Easement
\� diftow- Restored Stream Channel
1 Cross- sections
},
t � Vegetation Plot Origin
` Vegetation Plots
® Removed Oak Trees
0 37.5 75 150 225 300
Feet
Scale 1:1250
MONITORING PLAN VIEW
GOOSE CREEK SITE
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 147
Durham County, North Carolina
Dr by. FIGURE
CLF
Dale 2A
July 2012
Project:
10-009
XsectI
'1r
--�' PI
Japanese hops are located
on the right bank and
wisteria on the left bank
adjacent to the bridge.
I
1,111Idl ell 11
Three large willow oaks
removed planted City of Durham; I I ��' 2A
area was planted with 165
containerized trees.
0
k-Uiect �ct 3
2B 4
r
Legend
St. - Conservation Easement
\� diftow- Restored Stream Channel
1 Cross- sections
},
t � Vegetation Plot Origin
` Vegetation Plots
® Removed Oak Trees
0 37.5 75 150 225 300
Feet
Scale 1:1250
MONITORING PLAN VIEW
GOOSE CREEK SITE
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 147
Durham County, North Carolina
Dr by. FIGURE
CLF
Dale 2A
July 2012
Project:
10-009

2010 CG 1A Leaf -off
Multiflorat rose &
Chinese privet
Japanese hops
Comment'
Longitude
Lathude
v 1
- 78.88428807010
35.99419284740
v 1
- 78.88431099220
35.99411022280
v 1
- 78.88441700420
35.99413188950
1 origin
- 78.88440030210
35.99422471960
v
- 78.88398521060
35.99416646130
v
- 78.88395978500
35.99407776030
v
- 78.88406798710
35.99405434090
2 origin
- 78.88408533090
35.99414585150
v
- 78.88370854310
35.99179182840
- 78.88365999570
35.99179449810
- 78.88364574290
35.99197147050
3 origin
- 71188369943100
35.99197805180
v
- 76.88374436330
35.99120963450
v
- 78.88369684360
35.99120309110
v
- 78.88367122940
35.99138281330
on in
- 78.88373014370
35.99138760720
xs1
- 78.8&431515510
35.99422927800
xsl
- 78.88412084630
35.99426334970
xs2
- 78.88405842400
35.99364372310
xs2
- 78.88386791880
35.99376040220
xs3
- 78.88358099280
35.99321673000
xs3
- 78.88384776390
35.99324014180
xs4
- 78.88363044960
35.99302764270
xs4
- 78.88384681400
35.99311337920
xs5
1 - 78.88364554900
35.99188687370
xs5
- 78.88387897610
35.99197005400
xs6
- 78.88390661370
35.99142297110
xs6
- 78.88369007520
35.99136346110
xs7
- 78.88368865170
35.99067103710
xs7
- 78.88390759170
35.99068068430
xs8
- 78.88390127690
35.99039694400
xs8
- 78.88371291820
1 35.99040630750
Hvp = vegetation plot, xs - cross -section
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
• '� (919) 215 -1693
Ax�9m EnwroRlnbnlal. nl.
Scattered Chinese 8 Japanese privet,
Bradford pear, white mulberry,
wintercreeper, air yam, and multiflora
rose.
. r�
item
16k-
Asiatic dayf lower and microstegium
[ r =._ '"
_.
ry Compromised sbuctire with aggradation
and constriction of channel.
XS@Cr 6 Compromised structure that
is not affecting stream' `
L .. .
stability at this time.
%d
Plot 4. .."
Stunted plant growth
due to poor soils with Scotch broom
st
`•� w located along the right bank of the
stream. A �
i Legend
Conservation Easement
Restored Stream Channel
r T i Cross- sections
` XSe 1 f Structures
Vegetation Plot Origin
Vegetation Plots
a
0 40 80 160 240 320
Feet
y�! � Scale 1:1250
Dw by.
FIGURE
MONITORING PLAN VIEW CLF
GOOSE CREEK SITE Date
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 147 July zolz
Durham County, North Carolina ProiecC
10 -009

Table 5a. Eastway (Southern/Upstream) Reach Goose Creek Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment (861 linear feet)
Goose Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 147)
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -built and reference baselines)
(# Stable)
Number
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Total Number
/ feet in
unstable state
% Perform
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perform
Mean or
Total
A Riffles
1 Presents
7
7
N/A
100
100
2 Armor stable (e g no displacement)?
7
7
N/A
100
3 Facet grade appears stable?
7
7
N/A
100
4 Minimal evidence of embedding/finmg?
7
7
N/A
100
5 Length appropriate9
7
7
N/A
100
B Pools
1 Presents a g no severe a radation
6
6
N/A
100
100
2 Sufficiently deep (Dmax pool Mean Bkf> 2 2 ?)
6
6
N/A
100
3 Length appropriate?
6
6
N/A
100
C Thalweg
1 Upstream of meander bend centering?
NA
NA
N/A
N/A
2 Downstream of meander centering?
NA
NA
N/A
D Meanders
1 Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
NA
NA
N/A
N/A
2 Of those eroding, # w/ concomitant point bar formation?
NA
NA
N/A
3 Apparent Rc within spec?
NA
NA
N/A
4 Sufficient flood lam access and relief?
NA
NA
N/A
E Bed General
1 General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)
N/A
N/A
0
100
100
2 Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down
cutting or head cutting?
N/A
N/A
0
100
F Bank
1 Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank
N/A
N/A
0
100
100
G Vanes
1 Free of back or arm scour?
13
15
N/A
87
100
2 Height appropriate?
13
15
N/A
87
3 Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
15
15
N/A
100
4 Free of piping or other structural failures?
13
15
N/A
87
H Wads/
1 Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2 Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Goose Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 147 January 2013
Durham County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 5b. Long Meadow (Northern/Downstream) Reach Goose Creek Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment (659 linear feet)
Goose Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 147
Feature
Category
Metric (per As -built and reference baselmes)
(# Stable)
Number
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
per As -built
Total Number
/ feet in
unstable state
% Perform
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perform
Mean or
Total
A Riffles
1 Present9
9
9
N/A
100
100
2 Armor stable (e g no dis lacement)9
9
9
N/A
100
3 Facet grade appears stable?
9
9
N/A
100
4 Minimal evidence of embeddmg/finmg?
9
9
N/A
100
5 Length appropriate?
9
9
N/A
100
B Pools
1 Present? (e g no severe a radation)
7
7
N/A
100
100
2 Sufficiently deep (Dmax pool Mean Bkf> 2 2 ?)
7
7
N/A
100
3 Length appropriate?
7
7
N/A
100
C Thalweg
1 Upstream of meander bend centering?
NA
NA
N/A
N/A
2 Downstream of meander centering?
NA
NA
N/A
D Meanders
1 Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
NA
NA
N/A
N/A
2 Of those erodmg, # w/ concomitant point bar formation?
NA
NA
N/A
3 Apparent Rc within spec?
NA
NA
N/A
4 Sufficient flood lain access and relief?
NA
NA
N/A
E Bed General
1 General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)
N/A
N/A
0
100
100
2 Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing down
cutting or head cutting?
N/A
N/A
0
100
F Bank
1 Actively erodmg, wasting, or slumping bank
N/A
N/A
40
94
94
G Vanes
1 Free of back or arm scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
2 Height appropriate?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3 Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
N/A
N/A
N/A
4 Free of piping or other structural failures?
N/A
N/A
N/A
H Wads/
1 Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Boulders
2 Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
N/A
Goose Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 147 January 2013
Durham County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Goose Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project 147)
Planted Acreaqe' 38
Vecietation Cateoory
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acrea a
% of Planted
Acrea e
1 Bare Areas
NA
NA
NA
0
000
00%
2 Low Stem Density Areas
NA
NA
NA
0
000
00%
Total
0
000
00%
3 Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Vegetation growth is slow in the southern portion of the Site
001
NA
2
009
24%
Cumulative Total
2
009
24%
Pncpmpnt ArrpnnW 39
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage, crossings or any other
elements not directly planted as part of the project effort
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment the associated
acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i e , item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage Invasives of concem /interest are listed below The list of high concern spoes are those with the
potential to directly outcompete native young woody stems in the short-term (e g monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree /shrub stands over timeframes that are slightly longer (e g 1 -2
decades) The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity but can be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their
coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density or growth of planted woody stems Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by EEP such as species present their coverage
distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegwm in the herb layer
will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within the bmeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade
are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme nsk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a
projects monitoring history However areas of discreet dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons particulalry for situations where the
conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches In any case the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend
items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary
00
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Ve elation Cate o
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Johnson grass is scattered along the northem /downstream reach etween Liberty Street and Holloway
Street however, it does not appear to be affecting planted tree stems Additional species scattered through
this area include Bradford pear mimosa Japanese privet, chinaberry and white mulberry These areas ar
Invasive Areas of Concern"
difficult to quantify and therefore aren't depicted on mapping (Figure 2A) or accounted for in the following
001
NA
5
025
66%
numbers Additional areas depicted on mapping and accounted for in the following numbers include severe
small areas containing Chinese & Japanese privet Bradford pear white muibery wintercreeper, air yam,
multiflora rose Japanese hops asiatic day flower, and scotch broom
5 Easement Encroachment Areas' NA NA NA
1 0
000
1 00
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage, crossings or any other
elements not directly planted as part of the project effort
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment the associated
acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i e , item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage Invasives of concem /interest are listed below The list of high concern spoes are those with the
potential to directly outcompete native young woody stems in the short-term (e g monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree /shrub stands over timeframes that are slightly longer (e g 1 -2
decades) The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity but can be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their
coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density or growth of planted woody stems Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by EEP such as species present their coverage
distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegwm in the herb layer
will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within the bmeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade
are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme nsk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a
projects monitoring history However areas of discreet dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons particulalry for situations where the
conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches In any case the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend
items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary

Goose Creek Restoration Site
Year 4 (2012) Annual Monitoring
Vegetation Plot Photos (taken June 18, 2012)
Goose Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 147 January 2013
Durham County, North Carolina Appendices

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION ASSESSMENT DATA
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
CVS Summary Data Tables
Table 8 Vegetation Metadata Table
Table 9 Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Goose Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 147 January 2013
Durham County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Goose Creek Restoration Site (EEP Proiect Number 147)
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
1
Yes
100%
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
Yes
Goose Creek (final)
EEP Project Number 147
Durham County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
January 2013
Appendices

Table 8. Vegetation Metadata Table
Goose Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 147)
Report Prepared By
Corn Faquin
Date Prepared
7/18/2012 9 54
database name
Axiom -EEP- 2012 -A mdb
database location
C \Axiom \Business \CVS
computer name
CORRI -PC
file size
49704960
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year This excludes live stakes
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year This includes live stakes, all planted stems,
and all natural /volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc )
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots
Vigor by 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 Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot, dead and missing stems are
excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
147
project Name
Goose Creek
Description
River Basin
Neuse
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
4
Goose Creek (final)
EEP Project Number 147
Durham County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
January 2013
Appendices

Table 9. Total Planted and Natural Recruits Stems by Plot and Species
Goose Creek
Current Plot Data (MY4 2012)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
E147- AXE -0001
E147 -AXE -0002
E147 -AXE -0003
E147 -AXE -0004
MY4 (2012)
MY3 (2011)
MY2 (2010)
MY1 (2009)
MYO (2009)
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acer ne undo
boxelder
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
cer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
cer saccharinum
silver maple
Tree
2
2
2
melanchier arborea
common serviceber
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
6
1
7
3
7
Betula ni ra
river birch
Tree
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
6
3
3
3
2
2
4
2
2
2
11
11
11
Callicar a americana
American beau ber
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Catalpa
catalpa
Tree
7
1
3
11
Catalpa bi nonioides
southern catalpa
Tree
8
Celtis laevi ata
su arber
Tree
2
2
Ce halanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
1
1
1
10
10
10
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
Corpus
dogwood
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Corpus amomum
silk dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus
ash
Tree
12
Fraxinus caroliniana
Carolina ash
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fraxinus enns Ivanica
green ash
Tree
13
1
1
3
3
3
4
5
5
5
9
9
25
9
9
9
9
9
22
7
7
10
Ilex decidua
ossumhaw
shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
7
7
7
Juni erus vir iniana
eastern redcedar
Tree
2
2
1
1
Li ustrum 'a onicum
Japanese rivet
Exotic
6
9
15
Li ustrum sinense
Chinese rivet
Exotic
1
6
4
11
Li uidambar s raciflua
sweet um
Tree
1
4
1
6
1
4
Liriodendron tuli ifera
tuli tree
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
Morus
mulberry
Tree
93
Morus alba
white mulberry
Exotic
1
71
7
79
27
Morus rubra
red mulberry
Tree
2
20
Ox dendrum arboreum
sourwood
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
7
3
3
3
6
6
10
6
6
7
4
4
14
5
5
8
6
6
6
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
P rus calle ana
Gallery ear
Exotic
2
3
5
Quercus
oak
Tree
3
3
3
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus hellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Rhus labra
smooth sumac
shrub
1
1
Ulmus
elm
Tree
1
1
2
1
1
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
8
81
35
12
12
35
11
11
106
18
18
41
491
491
217
491
491
95
411
45
45
72
65
65
65
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
61
61
13
=
81
15
8
8
16
7
7
131
16
16
27
16
16
22
13
13
21
�15
17
14
14
14
323:T
323.7
1416
;;
485.6
1416
2
445.2
4290
728.4
728.4
1659
X95:7
495.7
2195
,4 X
495.7
961 1
�4�A`
414.8
1882
,0-1
455.2713
728.4342
07 8142
657.6142
657.6142
Color for Density
M��r -
y less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
y more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted stems excluding livestakes
P -all= Planted stems including livestakes
T = Planted stems and natural recruits
Total includes stems of natural recruits

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross - section Plots and Tables
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Pebble Count Plots
Goose Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 147 January 2013
Durham County, North Carolina Appendices

River Basin:
Neuse
Watershed:
Goose Creek
XS ID
XS - I
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/14/2012
Field Crew:
Wean, Perkinson,Jernigan
Station
Elevation
1.3
333.0
4.6
332.8
9.0
331.8
14.2
329.7
14.5
329.8
14.8
329.3
18.0
328.3
19.9
327.9
21.0
327.8
21.7
327.2
24.1
327.1
28.8
327.3
30.1
327.2
31.0
327.0
32.7
327.0
35.4
326.5
38.8
326.6
41.8
327.5
43.2
327.7
53.2
332.2
58.9
332.8
331
--- -Flood Prone Area
ty
330
- +- As- Built2008
329
t MY -01 11 /2 /09
328
t MY -02 8/11 /10
327
MY -03 2/9/11
326
MY04 8/14/12
0 10 20 30 40 50 70
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
331.1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
120.2
Bankfull Width:
39.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
335.6
Flood Prone Width:
170.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull-
3.0
W / D Ratio:
13.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
Stream Type I E
Neuse River Basin, Goose Creek, XS - 1
337
336
335
334
333
a
332
--- - Bankfull
331
--- -Flood Prone Area
ty
330
- +- As- Built2008
329
t MY -01 11 /2 /09
328
t MY -02 8/11 /10
327
MY -03 2/9/11
326
MY04 8/14/12
0 10 20 30 40 50 70
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Neuse
Watershed:
Goose Creek
XS ID
XS -2
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/14/2012
Field Crew:
Dean, Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
332.30
7.34
331.37
13.07
329.53
14.32
328.46
16.14
328.46
17.52
328.05
21.17
328.14
23.63
328.15
25.12
328.09
26.23
328.42
27.59
328.08
30.46
328.07
31.77
328.48
34.39
328.36
36.18
328.16
37.42
328.34
38.27
328.88
39.65
329.39
43.56
330.40
51.33
331.82
63.48
333.06
71.55
333.46
333
- - -- Bankfull
332
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
331.8
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
112.9
Bankfull Width:
47.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
335.5
Flood Prone Width:
300.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.4
W / D Ratio:
19.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I E/c
Neuse River Basin, Goose Creek, XS - 2
337
336
--------------------------------------------------------------------
335
334
333
- - -- Bankfull
332
------------------------------------------.-._--------
ii
- -- -Flood Prone Area
1
331
w
Aw
- � As -Built 2008
330
-y- MY -0 1 11 /2/09
329
- MY- 028/11/10
328
MY -03 2/9/2011
327
MY -04 8/14/12
0 10 20 30 40 50
60 70 80
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Elevation
Neuse
332.36
0.8
332.08
Watershed:
331.93
Goose Creek
329.63
x
XS ID
328.01
XS -3
326.81
23.9
325.72
Feature
325.90
Pool
325.80
34.5
326.18
Date:
327.70
8/14/2012
330.12
44.6
330.34
Field Crew:
332.35
Dean, Perkinson, Jernigan
332.92
62.1
332.99
71.4
333.04
Stream
Type
Neuse River Basin, Goose Creek, XS - 3
336
334
332
- - - - Bankfull
°- 330
- -- -Flood Prone Area
T As- Built2008
w 328
-AMY- 0111/2/09
- -MY- 028/11/10
326
MY -03 3/25/11
MY04 8/14/12
324
0 10
20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
St#don
Elevation
-8.2
332.36
0.8
332.08
8.1
331.93
12.9
329.63
15.2
St#don
Elevation
-8.2
332.36
0.8
332.08
8.1
331.93
12.9
329.63
15.2
328.39
16.7
328.01
19.6
326.81
23.9
325.72
28.0
325.90
32.5
325.80
34.5
326.18
40.8
327.70
41.5
330.12
44.6
330.34
48.5
332.35
51.4
332.92
62.1
332.99
71.4
333.04
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
331.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
161.1
Bankfull Width:
39.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
6.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
4.1
W ! D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Elevation
Neuse
332.1
ate.
331.5
Watershed:
330.7
Goose Creek
330.6
14.6 3
t'
XS ID
328.6
XS - 4
328.5
23.1 3
328.7
Featuer
329.6
Riffle
329.5
30.5 3
329.8
Date:
329.7
8/14/2012
Field Crew:
Dean, Parkinson, Jernigan
k
}
Stre C
Neuse River Basin, Goose Creek, XS - 4
336
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
334
- - -- Bankfull
c
S 332
- -- -Flood Prone Area
T As- BuiIt2008
w
-�- MY -01 11 /2/09
330
MY -02 8/11/10
MY -03 2/9/11
MY -04 8/14112
328
0 10
20
30 40 50
60 70
Station (feet)
Station E
Elevation
0.0 3
332.1
3.4 3
331.5
6.5 3
330.7
11.7 3
330.6
14.6 3
Station E
Elevation
0.0 3
332.1
3.4 3
331.5
6.5 3
330.7
11.7 3
330.6
14.6 3
328.6
17.1 3
328.6
21.2 3
328.5
23.1 3
328.7
24.7 3
329.6
28.0 3
329.5
30.5 3
329.8
31.8 3
329.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 332.1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 84.3
Bankfull Width: 42.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 335.7
Flood Prone Width: 240.0
Max Depth at Bankfull: 3.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 2.0
W / D Ratio: 21.5
Entrenchment Ratio: 5.6
Bank Height Ratio: 1.0

River Basin;
Neuse
Watershed:
Goose Creek
XS ID
XS -5
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/14/2012
Field Crew:
Dean, Perkinson, Jernigan
-
-
Station
Elevation
-0.3
334.6
Bankfull Elevation:
333.5
3.8
334.1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
106.5
7.8
333.2
Bankfull Width:
64.1
11.5
332.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
14.5
332.3
Flood Prone Width:
-
15.4
330.8
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.6
16.2
330.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
17.3
330.6
W ! D Ratio:
-
18.5
329.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
19.9
329.1
Bank Height Ratio:
20.6
328.9
21.5
329.1
Stream
22.6
329.2
23.8
328.9
24.4
329.1
Neuse River Basin, Goose Creek, XS - 5
25.4
329.9
27.0
330.6
28.3
330.5
28.9
330.8
334
29.6
330.8
- - -- ------------------------------
--- ----
-- --------- --- -- -- --- --
31.5
330.3
32.1
330.6
33.3
330.8
-- 332
PTL
- - -- Bankfull
34.0
332.4
0
_ _ - - Flood Prone Area
36.1
332.4
io
38.1
331.9
°'
{ -- As- Built2008
42.1
331.9
W
-� MY -01 11/2/09
330
58.2
332.8
MY- 028/11/10
76.7
333.9
MY- 032/9/11
MY -04 8/14/12
328
0 10
20 30
40
50 60 70 80
Station (feet)
River Basin;
Neuse
Watershed:
Goose Creek
XS ID
XS -5
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/14/2012
Field Crew:
Dean, Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
-
-

River Basin:
Neuse
Watershed:
Goose Creek
XS ID
XS -6
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/14/2012
Field Crew:
Dean, Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
336.1
7.1
334.9
12.5
334.1
18.5
333.1
20.4
332.8
22.0
332.3
25.6
331.7
26.7
331.0
28.2
330.9
29.1
330.2
30.9
330.2
33.6
330.5
34.1
331.9
40.6
332.7
67.8
334.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
334.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
70.6
Bankfull Width:
53.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
337.8
Flood Prone Width:
162.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.8
Mean De th at Bankfull:
1.3
W / D Ratio:
40.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.0
Bank Height Ratio:.
1.0
Stream Type I C'

River Basin:
Elevation S
Neuse
Watershed:
Goose Creek
XS ID
XS -7
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/14/2012
Field Crew:
Dean, Perkinson, Jernigan
ar r
Neuse River Basin, Goose Creek, XS - 7
^��
c
0
w
332
330
0 10
20 30 40
50 60 70
Station (feet)
St4tion E
Elevation S
St4tion E
Elevation S
Bankfull Elevation: 335.1
4.6 335.5 Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 106.1
16.2 334.1 Bankfull Width: 46.9
22.3 333.0 Flood Prone Area Elevation: -
25.4 332.3 Flood Prone Width: -
29.0 332.1 Max Depth at Bankfull: 5.0
30.5 331.6 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 2.3
31.1 331.1 W / D Ratio:
31.8 330.8 Entrenchment Ratio:
33.3 330.5 Bank Height Ratio:
-
-
-
- - -- -Flood
m 334 Prone Area
T As -Built 2006
-- -��MY- 0111/2109
-� MY -02 8/11 /10
MY-032/9/11
MY -04 8114/12
- - -- -Flood
m 334 Prone Area
T As -Built 2006
-- -��MY- 0111/2109
-� MY -02 8/11 /10
MY-032/9/11
MY -04 8114/12

River Basin:
Elevation
Neuse
336.5
?� :-
t
"t
Watershed:
335.7
Goose Ceek
334.2
13.5
r
XS ID
334.8
xs -8
334.9
.4
i
333.6
Feature
333.2
Riffle
331.8
23.4
331.7
Date:
332.1
8/14/2012
t.:
29.7
333.2
Field Crew:
333.1
Dean, Perkinson, Jernigan
337.3
51.9
340.2
t
Stream Type
E/C
Neuse River Basin, Goose Ceek, XS - 8
342
340
338
� 336
0
boor
334
Ul
332
330
0 10
20 30
40
50 60
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
-3.0
336.5
0.0
336.3
1.6
335.7
7.8
334.2
13.5
Station
Elevation
-3.0
336.5
0.0
336.3
1.6
335.7
7.8
334.2
13.5
334.3
16.3
334.8
18.6
334.9
20.2
333.6
21.1
333.2
22.0
331.8
23.4
331.7
24.9
332.1
27.3
333.6
29.7
333.2
30.9
333.1
43.6
337.3
51.9
340.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
336.1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
75.9
Bankfull Width:
39.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
340.5
Flood Prone Width:
170.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
W / D Ratio:
20.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
- - - - Bankfull
- - - -Flood Prone Area
As- BuIIt2008
t MY -01 1112/09
+ MY-028111 /10
MY-032/9/11
MY -04 8!14/12

00+00 to 10+00
Profile
8/14/12
2008
As -built Survey
Station Bed Elevation
2009
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation
2010
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation
Station
2011
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Bed Elevation Water Elev
902.6
328.6
0.0
333.0
1001.6
326.4
-6.7
331.2
333.0
903.9
328.7
9.1
331.1
993.7
326.6
11.4
331.3
333.0
905.2
328.8
19.6
332.1
982.5
328.6
21.4
332.8
333.0
906.4
328.9
38.4
331.8
958.4
329.0
30.2
332.3
332.9
907.9
328.8
46.1
332.2
920.3
329.1
37.5
332.2
332.9
909.4
328.8
52.6
331.7
865.1
329.5
51.3
332.6
332.8
911.2
328.9
59.1
332.0
852.5
328.4
58.0
331.4
332.6
913.4
328.8
61.7
331.6
842.6
328.2
71.0
332.0
332.6
914.7
328.9
65.3
332.2
837.0
328.3
81.9
330.7
332.6
916.2
328.7
71.2
331.9
827.8
327.7
98.1
331.2
332.6
917.6
328.7
83.0
331.0
808.5
326.9
106.6
331.9
332.7
919.6
328.3
87.9
330.7
799.6
326.7
116.3
331.6
332.6
921.2
328.3
96.0
331.2
791.1
329.1
133.0
331.0
332.6
922.7
328.2
102.8
331.1
771.0
328.8
150.2
331.0
332.6
924.4
328.2
112.2
331.4
751.6
328.9
161.6
331.3
332.6
926.7
328.2
120.0
331.4
746.2
328.4
170.4
332.3
332.6
927.8
328.5
129.1
331.1
732.1
328.5
186.7
331.6
332.2
929.2
328.6
136.3
330.9
727.6
329.0
193.4
331.4
332.2
930.3
328.6
146.6
330.9
718.5
329.1
216.1
331.1
332.2
931.5
328.6
177.2
332.2
711.7
328.7
230.1
331.6
332.2
932.7
328.6
181.8
332.1
703.7
328.7
241.7
331.8
332.1
933.8
328.6
186.9
331.7
695.8
327.5
249.4
331.4
332.0
935.1
328.6
194.6
331.3
687.5
328.9
256.1
330.6
332.0
936.1
328.7
200.5
331.6
676.9
329.0
263.4
331.1
332.0
937.5
328.6
2113
331.3
671.4
328.7
273.6
330.8
332.0
938.8
328.9
221.4
331.4
665.3
329.0
282.3
331.4
332.0
940.3
328.8
229.3
331.1
656.7
328.8
286.4
330.9
332.0
941.4
328.8
237.5
331.4
645.4
328.6
294.0
331.5
332.0
2012
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
-7.0
331.3
333.0
1.6
331.5
333.0
11.8
332.4
333.0
26.2
332.6
333.0
31.9
332.3
333.0
49.7
331.7
333.0
56.7
332.7
333.0
66.5
332.4
332.7
80.9
331.5
332.5
98.6
331.6
332.5
123.0
331.9
332.5
134.2
331.6
332.5
139.0
330.6
332.5
148.9
331.8
332.5
154.1
331.3
332.5
165.8
331.6
332.5
173.0
331.9
332.4
182.0
331.8
332.3
200.0
331.7
331.9
214.2
331.2
331.9
245.0
331.6
331.9
253.9
330.9
331.9
266.8
331.1
332.0
274.1
331.6
332.0
284.5
331.8
332.0
293.0
331.1
331.7
310.1
331.3
331.6
324.8
330.5
331.4
2013
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Bed Elevation Water
Goose Creek Year 4 (2012) Profile - Reach 00+00 to 10+00
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Avg. Water Surface
0.0037
0.0037
0.0037
0.0038
Riffle Length
35
36
37
35
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.2290
0.0075
0.0102
0.0050
Pool Length
40
33
30
15
Pool Slope
0.0008
0.0007
0.0008
0.0006
Goose Creek Year 4 (2012) Profile - Reach 00+00 to 10+00
334 - _
333
-
332
331
.c
330
r
329
a
0
1+
1
s 328
W
V A
327 -
326
325
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (feet)
-As -built (2009) Bed -Year 1(2009) Bed - *-Year 2 (2010) Bed -Year 3 (2011) Bed - r-Year 4 (2012) Bed -Year 4 (2012) Water Surface

Kj
,-Ject ;'ame
we U�rccac - i
Reach
10+00 to 16+00
Feature
Profile
Date
8/14112
Crew
Dean, Perkinsor.
328.3
1082.2
327.6
2008
As -built Survey
Station
Bed Elevatim
998.4
326.6
1000.2
326.7
1001.1
326.8
1002.9
326.9
1004.9
326.8
1006.7
326.9
1008.2
326.9
1009.8
327.0
1011.6
327.1
1013.9
327.2
1015.3
327.7
1016.7
327.7
1018.1
328.1
1019.1
328.4
1020.4
328.4
1021.3
328.6
1022.3
328.6
1023.2
328.7
1024.3
328.8
1025.6
328.8
1026.7
328.9
1027.9
328.9
1028.7
328.7
1030.0
328.8
1031.0
328.8
1032.2
328.8
1033.4
328.8
2011
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Station
2009
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Station
Bed Elevation
994.5
326.7
1036.6
329.2
1075.4
328.3
1082.2
327.6
1088.8
328.4
1103.8
326.0
1116.3
325.9
1134.0
328.3
1166.1
327.7
1179.8
325.8
1203.7
326.6
1217.4
327.8
1231.0
325.7
1239.4
326.4
1263.6
328.0
1313.0
327.3
1331.0
325.5
1368.8
325.9
1382.4
327.4
1435.6
326.7
1448.5
324.9
1468.4
325.4
1496.8
327.1
1531.7
326.8
1574.0
326.0
1575.2
326.5
2011
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Station
2010
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Station
Bed Elevation
1582.5
325.8
1562.1
326.2
1536.8
327.0
1501.2
327.1
1484.5
325.8
1471.8
325.2
1455.3
325.1
1439.1
327.1
1419.5
327.5
1385.7
327.1
1377.3
325.8
1366.6
325.6
1348.8
325.7
1327.0
326.8
1296.0
328.1
1267.0
327.9
1256.5
326.4
1240.1
326.1
1224.2
327.7
1214.6
326.2
1200.1
325.9
1185.8
325.7
1173.6
327.9
1139.8
328.2
1132.5
326.1
1119.7
325.2
1108.0
325.6
2011
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevatio
993.9
326.0
329.4
1020.3
327.7
329.4
1032.8
329.0
329.4
1069.2
328.5
328.9
1078.2
327.1
328.8
1085.6
328.7
328.8
1101.7
325.7
328.8
1114.4
325.1
328.8
1124.5
325.8
328.8
1134.6
328.6
328.8
1166.8
328.1
328.7
1183.0
325.4
328.7
1207.3
326.2
328.7
1218.5
327.8
328.7
1228.7
325.9
328.7
1239.7
326.4
328.7
1251.6
326.7
328.7
1264.0
328.3
328.7
1290.3
328.0
328.3
1315.6
327.2
327.9
1336.1
325.6
327.9
1346.6
325.6
327.9
1358.8
325.9
327.9
1374.9
325.6
327.9
1387.6
327.2
327.9
1429.4
327.3
327.7
1444.3
327.0
327.5
329.4
329.4
329.0
329.0
329.0
329.0
329.0
329.1
329.0
329.0
329.0
329.0
328.9
328.9
328.9
328.8
328.9
328.9
328.9
328.9
328.9
328.9
328.9
328.0
328.1
328.0
2013
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Bed Elevation W
2012
2010
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Station
Bed Elevation Wat
997.8
326.5
1012.9
326.9
1033.8
329.1
1075.2
328.4
1081.6
327.8
1089.3
328.9
1093.5
328.4
1100.3
326.2
1112.0
326.1
1114.3
325.1
1119.6
325.4
1127.8
325.8
1137.0
328.4
1160.9
328.0
1171.0
328.0
1178.6
325.7
1194.0
325.8
1214.1
326.1
1224.1
328.2
1232.8
325.9
1247.1
326.1
1255.4
326.6
1266.5
328.3
1293.5
328.4
1319.5
327.7
1334.8
325.8
1347.5
325.7
329.4
329.4
329.0
329.0
329.0
329.0
329.0
329.1
329.0
329.0
329.0
329.0
328.9
328.9
328.9
328.8
328.9
328.9
328.9
328.9
328.9
328.9
328.9
328.0
328.1
328.0
2013
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Bed Elevation W
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Avg. Water Surface
0.0037
0.0037
0.0037
0.0038
Riffle Length
35
36
37
35
r~
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.2290
0.0075
0.0102
0.0050
Pool Length
40
33
30
15
Pool Slope
0.0008
0.0007
0.0008
0.0006
Goose Creek Year 4 (2012) Profile - Reach 10+00 to 16 +00
330
- - - ---- - - - - -- - - - - --
329
�.
328
r~
Ir
y
327
-
e
326
0
w
d
W
325
324
323
1000
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Distance feet
-A s built (2005) Bed +Year 1(2009) Bed - i-Year 2(2010) Bed --Year 3 (2011) Bed -Year 4 (2012) Bed -*-Year 4 (2012) Water Surface

Percent Riffle:
Percent Pool
Percent Run:
Percent Glide:
Material
Size Ran a mm
Total #
lu
- --
- --
- --
Note: Goose Creek Upstream Reach 2011
Pebble Count, - --
100%
90% 111T NTI
silt/clay
0 0.062
15.4
very fine san
fine san
medium san
coarse san
very coarse san
0.062 0.13
2.9
0.13 0.25
3.8
0.25 0.5
7.7
0.5 1
11.7
1 2
12.8
very fine grav
fine grave
fine grave
medium grave
medium grave
coarse grave
coarse grave
very coarse grave
very coarse grave
2 4
4.0
4 6
9.0
6 8
12.0
80%
70%
8 11
4.9
11 16
3.0
16 22
4.0
60%
50%
22 32
4.0
32 45
0.0
45 64
1.0
40%
a�
LL 30%
small cobble
medium cobble
large cobbl
very Iar a cobbl
64 90
2.0
90 128
0.0
c
128 180
2.0
00 20%
0- 10%
L2L]
180 256
0.0
small boulder
small boulde
medium boulde
large boulde
very large boulde
256 362
0.0
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) -f- Cumulative Percent • Percent Item Riffle - *-Pool -Run Glide
362 512
0.0
512 1024
0.0
1024 2048
0.0
2048 4096
0.0
bedroc
0.0
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type
True
Weighted Count:1
Total Particle Count
100
D16
D35
D50
D84
D95
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder I
bedrock
102
0.072
0.68
1.6
11
32
15%
39%
42%
4%
0% 1
0%

Weldhiod Pebble Count
50
50
" Percent
Percent Glide-:':
Run:,
—
Percent Riffle:
Percent-..
Goose Creek Downstream Reach 201:
-
..
very fine •
fine sand
medium • coarse
•
coarse very '
1
1 1
1
®
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■iiiiiill
■
■Ir:�lll
■x1111111
■x1111111
very
fine grave'
• grave'
coarse _
coarse grave
_
coarse very ..:
very coarse
®
■■
1111111
■l�1ii1111■
■1111111
■��IIIIII■
■1111111■
■1111111
•,.
1111111■
/
1111111
■
■1!:���I
■��IIIIII■
■1111111■
■1111111
■■
1111111
/ /I'■■
.■gi�ai■1111111
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,,.
, .
■
■Illllllr
■1111111
■
■1111.!�I■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
®
®
■
■1111,
ID
.�i�
w
■ ■�Illiii
■�IIIII■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
.
,.
■
■Ill�ulr■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
small ...
medium ...:
..:
large very ....::
.. •,
• 1
, ,
■
■1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
, .
, .
■
■IIIIIIIS�IIIIIII
■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
: ;
, ,
small • • •
small .. • ,'
medium .•.i
large very large ...
O
■■ 1111111 ■ ■1!l 111! ■!11!!111 ■ ■!lGI�IM ■11 IIII ■■1111111
1 1 , 1 �, 111 1111
,. ,•
Percent by substrate type

APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGIC DATA
Table 10 Verification of Bankfull Events
Goose Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 147 January 2013
Durham County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 10. Verification of Bankfull Events
Goose Creek Restoration Site (EEP Pro'ect Number 147
Date of Data
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo (if
Collection
available
Visual observation of overbank as the result of Tropical
November 11, 2009
November 11, 2009
Storm Ida
1 -2
Visual observation of overbank in addition to a total of 0.82
September 29, 2010
June 11, 2009
inches* of rain occurring after numerous rain events, within
the 2 weeks prior, that totaled 2.75 inches *.
Visual observations of wrack lines within the floodplain with
September 29, 2010
September 23, 2009
a total of 1.7 inches* of rain occurring within a 2 -day period
from September 22 -23, 2009.
Visual observations of overbank event including wrack lines
and sediment deposition resulting from a 1.37 inch* rainfall
February 10, 2010
February 5, 2010
event on February 5, 2009 that occurred after numerous
3 -4
rainfall events, within the 3 weeks prior, that totaled 3.94
inches *.
A total of 4.57 inches* of rain occurring between May 16-
September 29, 2010
May 23, 2010
23, 2010.
--
A total of 2.9 inches* of rain fall between September 26 -27,
September 29, 2010
September 27, 2010
2010 with more rain expected to follow.
--
Visual observations of overbank event including wrack lines
June 23, 2011
May 27, 2011
resulting from a 1.64 inch* rainfall event on May 27, 2011.
5
A total of 3.26 inches* of rain occurring between July 30 -31,
August 20, 2012
July 31, 2011
2011.
--
August 20, 2012
August 6, 2011
A total of 4.31 inches* of rain fall between August 6, 2011.
--
A total of 3.61 inches* of rain occurring between March 16-
August 20, 2012
March 21, 2012
26, 2012.
--
August 20, 2012
July 28, 2012
A total of 3.7 inches* of rain fall between Jul 20 -28, 2012.
--
* Reported at the Raleigh- Durham Airport (Weather Underground 2012)
Goose Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 147 January 2013
Durham County, North Carolina Appendices

Goose Creek (final)
EEP Project Number 147
Durham County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
January 2013
Appendices

Goose Creek (final)
EEP Project Number 147
Durham County, North Carolina
' ' =1110.141
SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING
Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2012)
January 2013
Appendices

1.
Date of Inspection
Date of Report
Project
Location
Inspection of
By
INSPECTION REPORT
March 9, 2012
March 9, 2012
Goose Creek — EEP #147
Durham, NC
Supplemental Planting (Direct Pay for Services)
Riverworks Inc
Name & Title of Inspector
COMMENTS
Perry Sugg — EEP Project Mir
(Contractor)
At the direction of EEP, River Works Inc installed 70 containerized trees and 25 live stakes at the Goose
Creek project site in Durham NC on March 9, 2012 The containerized trees were owner- provided plants grown
by NCWRC's plant nursery in Yanceyville NC WRC delivered all plants on the day of planting River Works
supplied the live stakes
River Works installed 70 five -gal contamerized trees within targeted areas identified by EEP (sec attached
map) Two areas planted on Long Meadow Park were in the vicinity of 2 large dead willow oaks that the City of
Durham had removed the previous September 2011 George Morris (River Works) was instructed to plant the
planting areas with appropriate representation of species, and spaced at least 10 feet from existing trees The 25
live stakes (silky dogwood) were installed along the Eastway Reach in two small areas of bare banks
Species
Quantity
Planted
Red Oak (Quercus rubro)
10
Sycamore (Platanus occidentahs)
15
Red Chokcbcrry (Aroma arbut foha)
10
Red maple (Ater rubrum)
10
Cherrybark Oak (Quercus pagoda)
15
Shumard Oak (Quercus shumordii)
10
All trees planted met NC EEP size and vigor requirements A final walk through was conducted by EEP upon
completion on 3/9/2012 and approved
Supplemental Planting
Goose Creek #147

9WOR, rty
Supplemental Planting
u March 13, 2012
C f k
♦ S W
Akins St
rn
A �
7 � � i - _ �. 3 ._ \ F. ' .tom w.• ��
is ti
NOTE: EEP Stream Restoration
Quantities of container plant material installed EAST'WAY REACH
for each area shown for each area. Areas are approximate. COOSe Creek - EEP #14%
N Durham NC
March Zlll l
Legend w t;
CE_Goose_INAL 0 50 100 200
O Supplemertal_plantlng_2012 Feet S

Supplemental Planting ,
March 13, 2012
yj `' A' '` �'�•
Eva St� 12 7�
N.
+V
}Liberty
ti
i
N
' ":-- -mot . m
�. s t '
NOTE: LONG MEADOW PARK
Quantities of container plant material installed EEP Stream Restoration
for each area shown for each area. Areas are approximate. REACH Goose Creek - EEP #147
N Durham NC
Legend W E M i rch 2012
CE-Goose-FINAL 0 50 100 200
Q Supplemental- planting_2012 Feet S