20050634 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20130212

Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek)
Stream Restoration Monitoring Report
EEP Project # 276
EEP Contract # D080285
Monitoring Year 02
05.A3
FF� t `�. 2013
D NR - WP.TVE;R DUALITY
!e mde & Stormwatas Rrnnri,
Submitted to:
o stem
E iai eI1lellt
PROGRAM
NCEEP, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Construction Completed: May 2010
Data Collection: August 2012
Submitted: January 2013
RECEIVED
NC ECOSYSTEM
Et4oA,MCEMENT PROGRAM

Monitoring Firm
KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Project Contact: Adam Spiller
Email: adam.spiller(&kci.com
KCI Project No: 1207106713_RC12
Design Firm
EcoLogic Associates, P.C.
3808 Clifton Road
Greensboro, NC 27407
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 i 2012 — MY02

Table of Contents
10 Executive Summary/Project Abstract 1
2.0 Methodology 2
30 References 2
Appendix A — Proiect Vicinity May and Background Tables
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
4
Figure 2 Site Map ... ...
..5
Table 1 a —Project Components
6
Table 1 b — Component Summations
.6
Table 2 — Project Activity and Reporting History
7
Table 3 — Project Contacts
7
Table 4 — Project Attributes
8
Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3 Current Condition Plan View
10
Table 5 — Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment ...... ...
.12
Table 6 — Vegetation Condition Assessment
13
Stream Station Photos
14
Vegetation Plot Photos ..
19
Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 — Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment .. ....
22
Table 8 — CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
23
Table 9 — CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
24
Appendix D — Stream Survey Data
Cross Section Plots
27
Longitudinal Profile Plots
33
Pebble Count Plots
36
Table 10 — Baseline- Stream Data Summary Table.
42
Table 11 a Monitoring - Cross - Section Morphology Data Table
43
Table l lb Monitoring - Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
44
Appendix E — Hydrology Data
Table 12 — Verification of Bankfull Events
45
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site
EEP PrQlect # 276 11
KCI Associates of North Carolina
2012 — MY02

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / PROJECT ABSTRACT
The Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site, completed in May 2010, restored a
total of 2,919 linear feet of stream and 167,092 square feet of buffer restoration in the Neuse River Basin
The project is located in the USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020201 -07 -0060 This HU is within the EEP's
Neuse River Basin Local Watershed Plan and is also listed as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in
EEP's Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities 2010 The project goals and objectives are listed below
Project Goals
• Restore a stable channel morphology and floodplain to the project stream that is capable of
moving the flows and sediment provided by its watershed
• Improve water quality by reducing bank erosion and bed degradation
• Provide a riparian management zone that is compatible with the surrounding uses (golf course
and electrical transmission corridor) and yet retains the ecological function of the riparian zone
• Enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the stream corridor
Project Objectives
• Restore 2,919 linear feet of stable stream channel with the appropriate pattern, profile, and
dimension that can support efficient sediment transport
• Plant native trees and shrubs throughout the site
• Grade a floodplam adjacent to the stream
The vegetation monitoring success criterion for the planted stream riparian zone is a density of 320
stems /acre after the third year of monitoring and an allowance for 10% mortality in the fourth and fifth
years with a final density of 260 stems /acre The second -year vegetation monitoring was based on the
Level 2 CVS -EEP vegetation monitoring protocol The site's average density for this monitoring period
was 439 planted stems /acre, including live stakes, and 387 planted stems /acre, excluding live stakes
Including volunteers, the site averaged 5,064 total stems /acre Both of the vegetation monitoring plots in
the streamside planting area (Plots 1 and 6), had planted stem densities below the five -year success
criterion of 260 stems /acre Of the plots in the buffer restoration area (Plots 2, 3, 49 5, and 7), Plot 7 had a
planted stem density below the five -year success criterion of 320 stems /acre The 2012 monitoring found
an overall low vigor and live stake survivability throughout the site Due to the fact that the planted
vegetation is still young, the low vigor areas have not been quantified There were many loblolly pine and
sweetgum volunteers throughout the easement, in certain areas these volunteers are extremely dense
Invasive species are not currently an issue of concern at the site
Second -year monitoring found Richland Creek to be mostly stable, with only minor changes from the
baseline conditions The stream has had areas of localized bank erosion since construction (2% of all
banks), with six areas along the stream, only one area (Station 26 +25) displaying signs of mass wasting
(1% of all banks) One area along the stream is experiencing bed degradation along with one area
experiencing deposition These areas will continue to be watched closely in Monitoring Year Three The
longitudinal and cross - sectional data also reflect the overall stability in the project streams As a part of
the stream success criterion, the stream must experience at least two bankfull events, each in separate
monitoring years The site has experienced multiple bankfull events since construction
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 and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly the
Restoration Plan) documents available on the EEPs website. All raw data supporting the tables and
figures in the appendices are available from EEP upon request
Paschal Golf Coiirse (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCl Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project 9 276 1 2012 — MY02

2.0 METHODOLOGY
The survey data were collected with a total station instrument
The stationing for the longitudinal profile is based on the thalweg stationing and has been adjusted to
match grade control structures from previous longitudinal profiles The stationing was adjusted by
changing the stationing between grade control structures to match the stationing from previous surveys
The CVS -EEP protocol, Level 2 (http / /cvs bio unc edu/methods htm) was used to collect vegetation data
from the site
3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, M T, R K Peet, S.D Roberts, and T R Wentworth 2006 CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4 0 (http / /cvs bio unc edu/methods htm)
NCEEP 2010 DRAFT - Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities
(http //www nceep net /services /restplans/DRAFT_RBRP Neuse_201007 pdf)
USACE 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines USACE, NCDENR -DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
Paschal Gottf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site
EEP Protect # 176
KCI Associates of North Carolina
2012 — MY02

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Paschal GoljCourse (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCl Associates ojNorth Carolina
EEP Project # 276 3 2012 — W02

GRANVILLE
FRANKLIN
ORANGE DURHAM F7;��
I CHATHAM
r LEE
0,
HARNETT
WAKE
NASH
JOHNSTON
r
\AIN e+
to
V
I
R� m
G
m
CEDAR
Figure 1. Vicinity Map - Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek), Project No. 276
Project Location
Roads
— Major Streams and Rivers 1:24,000 i
It KCMunicipalities 0.2 0.1 o 0.2 p
me
T
Project Easement Miles
CITY OF
WAKE FOREST
AT
P�HF
sO�Tyq�� qvF
98
OV��RO
1
DIRECTIONS TO PASCHEL GOLF COURSE (RICHLAND CREEK):
FROM RALEIGH, TAKE US HIGHWAY 1 NORTH TOWARD WAKE
FOREST. THEN TAKE A RIGHT ONTO THE NC 98 NORTH EXIT
TOWARD WAKE FOREST. TRAVEL APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE ON NC
HOLDING AVE 981DURHAM RD AND THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE PROJECT
WILL BE ON THE LEFT.
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under
private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or
along the easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is
not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal
agencies or their designees/contractors involved in the development,
y
oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the
terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or
activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and
Op
activities requires prior coordination with EEP.
Figure 1. Vicinity Map - Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek), Project No. 276
Project Location
Roads
— Major Streams and Rivers 1:24,000 i
It KCMunicipalities 0.2 0.1 o 0.2 p
me
T
Project Easement Miles

i
e1t�,
- .. `,� ;y� '°'ray?•,
`ham-,.
�W
q r t
r,
+ M
AA
�y
is
}
Aw
>� v
1
1,
MAC
A
. r � �!/�M�iI��_ .yam r �'•_ '

Table la. Protect Components
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Project No. 276
Project
Existing
Restoration
Linear Footage
Non- Riverme
Mitigation
Mitigation
BMP
Component or
Feet/Acres
Level
Approach
or Square Feet*
Stationing
Ratio
Credits+
Elements
Comment
Reach ID
Creation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
Totals (Feet/Acres)
2,919
0
0
0
3.84
0
MU Totals
2 766
0
0
In- stream structures, including offset rock cross
Richland Creek
N/A
R
P2
2,919
10 +00 - 39 +80
1 1
2,766
vanes, riffle grade controls, and rock sills, were
used to stabilize restored channel Planted a
ri arian buffer
Buffer
R
167,0922
1 1
1 167,0922
1
IBuffer was planted with native vegetation
*Linear footage does not include the stream length that runs under a golf cart bridge through an easement exception Square feet of buffer are limited to the areas of the
buffer that meet the regulatory criteria for buffer restoration credit See Figure 2 for the locations of the creditable buffer
'The credits have been reduced to account for areas where the stream flows through vegetation management zones within the easement These management areas are
depicted on Figure 2 They include a utility right of way and a play over area for the golf course Under the utility right of way the buffer will be allowed to grow to a
height of 12' Due to this restriction the 309 mitigation credits that would be generated by the stream in the right of way is reduced by 25% to 231 stream credits The
vegetation in the play over area will be trimmed to a few feet high Due to this restriction, the 151 mitigation credits that would be generated by the stream in the play
over area are reduced by 50% to 76 stream credits There is 2,459 If of stream that does not have any reductions and will generate 2,459 credits
Table lb. Component Summations
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Project No. 276
Restoration Level Stream I
Riparian Wetland Ac
Non -Ri ar Ac Upland Ac Buffer Ac
BMP
Riverme
Non- Riverme
i �_ '
Restoration
2,919
3 84
Enhancement
0 0
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Creation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
Totals (Feet/Acres)
2,919
0
0
0
3.84
0
MU Totals
2 766
0
0
0
3.84
0
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restot ation Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 6 2012 — W02

Table 2. Project Activity & Reporhng History
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Project No. 276
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 2 yr 7 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 2 yr 7 months
Number of Reporting Years: 2
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan
2004
June 2007
Final Des - Construction Plans
Mark Taylor, PE (336) 632 -4441
Sept 2007
Construction
May 2010
Planting'
`
May 2010
Baseline Monitoring/Report
Aug 2010
Dec 2010
Year 1 Monitoring
Aug 2011
Dec 2011
Year 2 Monitoring
Aug 2012
Nov 2012
Table 3. Project Contacts
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Project No. 276
Designer
EcoLog►c Associates, P C
3808 Clifton Road
Greensboro, NC 27407
Primary Project Design POC
Mark Taylor, PE (336) 632 -4441
Construction Contractor
River Works
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
Construction Contractor POC
William Pedersen (919) 459 -9034
Planting Contractor
H + J Forest Service
Planting Contractor POC
Matt Hitch (910) 264 -1612
Monitoring Performers
KCI Associates of North Carolina
4601 Six Forks Road, Suite 220
Raleigh, NC 27609
Monitoring POC
lAdarn Spiller (919) 278 -2514
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 7 2012 — MY02

Paschal Golf Course
River Basin
USGS HUC
NCDWQ Sub -Basin
Within Extent of EEP Watershed Plan
WRC Class
% of Project Easement Demarcated
Beaver Activity Observed During Design Phase
Restoration
Drainage Area (sq mi )
Stream Order
Restored Length (feet)
Perennial or Intermittent
Watershed Type
Watershed LULC Distribution
Forest/Wetland
Agricultural/Managed Herbaceous
Developed
Watershed Impervious Cover
NCDWQ AU /Index Number
NCDWQ Classification
303d Listed
Upstream of 303d Listed Segment
Reasons for 303d Listing or Stressor
Total Acreage of Easement
Total Vegetated Acreage within Easement
Total Planted Acreage as Part of Restoration
Rosgen Classification of Pre - Existing
Rosgen Classification of As -Built
Side Slope Range
Toe Slope Range
-din Classification
Waters Designation
;s of Concern, Endangered, Etc
iant Soil Series and Characteristics
Series
Depth
Clay%
K
T
of is for items that do not annly
" -" is for items that are unavailable
"U" is for items that are unknown
ect
ind Creek) / Project No. 276
Wake County
Piedmont
Northern Outer Piedmont
Neuse
03020201
03 -04 -02
Yes - Draft - Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities 2010
Warm
70 %, with wooden bollards
Yes
ponent Attributes
78
Second
2,919
Perennial
35%
35%
30%
10%
27 -21
NSW
U
U
U
85
13
72
C4/F4
C4
0 002
No
None
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KC1 Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 8 2012 — MY02

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 9 2012 — MY01

LEGEND
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
'
..................... ...............................
'
AS -BUILT STATIONED
CENTERLINE, TOP OF BANK . .. ...............................
AND TOP OF TERRACE .................. ...............................
ate• e
..
PHOTOPOINT .................................... . ......................... I...................
■
CROSS - SECTION ....................................... ...............................
f-----i
OLD STREAM CHANNEL ................ ...............................
0 W
Z i U
g c�
=Z
U z
tY 0
`a.
W Z
z
')o
o
j
o� a
U�
N
J � �
U
w
J W O
-- STORMWWATER-
U Y
OUTFALL
- i y
•
HEADCUT
Y
.,+'� " p
.<a►
Y `
��' 1
SLUMPING /PIPING
_ /.� .�, BEHIND ROOT WAD'
a
NOV 2012
1. = 100'
FIGURE 3
CURRENT
-50 -25 0 50
100
CONDITION
PLAN VIEW
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET 1 OF 2
�� •
� O
D
a'=
,
VEG
IiO _ PLOT 3,i,'
I'"OO`
i
i
' ,.w-
.I arrk.��; °. �'•^ -.. `fix.
-
LEGEND
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
'
..................... ...............................
'
AS -BUILT STATIONED
CENTERLINE, TOP OF BANK . .. ...............................
AND TOP OF TERRACE .................. ...............................
ate• e
..
PHOTOPOINT .................................... . ......................... I...................
■
CROSS - SECTION ....................................... ...............................
f-----i
OLD STREAM CHANNEL ................ ...............................
PROJECT CONDITION
STREAM BED DEGRADATION- ..............................
'
STREAM BED DEPOSITION ........ ...............................
'
BANKEROSION ............................................. ...............................
MASS WASTING OF BANK ............ ...............................
VEG PLOT ACHIEVING
DENSITY CRITERION ............................. ...............................
■
VEG PLOT BELOW
DENSITY CRITERION ............................. ...............................
L '
� 4 1
mac.
PROJECT CONDITION DETAILS
VEG PLOT TOTAL / PLANTED STEM DENSITY 1100/550
STRUCTURE PIPING
STRUCTURE NOT PROTECTING BANK ...____ __..____ B
IMAGE SOURCE: NC 1010 STATEWIDE ORTHOIMAGERY
NOTE: IMAGE TAKEN DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
N
W
Z
O
rn
r= E
ii�Il <
j
s
LIE-
0-0., z
z
w oa
az
06
�¢ z OU
I
ti
illiz5 yz
w o
vW
z
w
LU
W
2
WWN N Z
LL
cc
J
Q
�U
0 W
Z i U
g c�
=Z
U z
tY 0
`a.
W Z
z
')o
o
j
o� a
U�
N
J � �
U
w
J W O
U Y
=
U If
U)
Q
NC GAIo
NAO '83
a
NOV 2012
1. = 100'
FIGURE 3
CURRENT
-50 -25 0 50
100
CONDITION
PLAN VIEW
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET 1 OF 2

OUTFALL
M �!
40 .
N.
.�jy� 'r JkC +i •� r
v. ♦ y
n
LEGEND
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
'
.................... ...............................
'
AS -BUILT STATIONED
CENTERLINE, TOP OF BANK . .. ...............................
AND TOP OF TERRACE ................. ...............................
PHOTOPOINT .............................................. ...............................
■
CROSS - SECTION ......................................... ...............................
OLD STREAM CHANNEL ................... ...............................
It
LEGEND
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
'
.................... ...............................
'
AS -BUILT STATIONED
CENTERLINE, TOP OF BANK . .. ...............................
AND TOP OF TERRACE ................. ...............................
PHOTOPOINT .............................................. ...............................
■
CROSS - SECTION ......................................... ...............................
OLD STREAM CHANNEL ................... ...............................
C
243
PROJECT CONDITION
STREAM BED DEGRADATION _ ..............................
'
STREAM BED DEPOSITION ......... ...............................
'
BANKEROSION ............................................ ...............................
MASS WASTING OF BANK _ ......... ...............................
VEG PLOT ACHIEVING
DENSITY CRITERION ............................. ...............................
■
VEG PLOT BELOW
DENSITY CRITERION ............................. ...............................
PROJECT CONDITION DETAILS
VEG PLOT TOTAL / PLANTED STEM DENSITY ......... 11001550
STRUCTURE PIPING __.. _._ ...........___ ................ P
STRUCTURE NOT PROTECTING BANK B
IMAGE SOURCF- NC 7010 STATFWII)F ORTI-IOIMAGFRY
NOTE: IMAGE TAKEN DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
I!�
-50 -25 0 50 100
GRAPHIC SCALE
Z
0
rn
z
Z
LL w o<
�y : 0E
0
x Z pU
Z F
z
i
w
Y
W
W N Z
m W 2
Z } v
= Z �
U tY z
o >
r W z
U) o
j� o
o� Q
U ti
Lj_ 04
J � E
U it
J W O
Q p w
_ Er a
U)
Q
a NOV 20'2
1p = 100'
FIGURE ?
CURRENT
N4 G IC CONDITION
PLAN VIEW
SHEET OF 2

Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Project Number and Name. 276 - Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek)
Assessed Length 2,919 Reach - Richland Creek
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Major Channel
Performing as
Total Number
Lhstable
Lhmstable
Perfornung as
Cateaory
Channel SubCate o
Metric
Intended
in As -built
Segments
Foota a
Intended
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability (Riffle
and Run units)
I 4eeradation -Bar formation /growth sufficient to
significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)
1
10
100%
2 De uadatuon -Evidence ofdowncutlm g
1
20
991/6
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture/ Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
17
17
1001/6
3 Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull
Depth > 1 6)
13
13
100%
2 Length appropriate (>30% ofcenterhne distance
between tad of upstream riffle and head of downs [rem
13
13
1001/6
riffle)
4 Thalweg Posibon
LLThalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
1 17
17
100%
2 Thalwe = centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
1 17
17
100%
2 Bank
1 ScouredLFrodipg
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor
growth and /or scour and erosion
6
105
o
98/0
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass
2 Undercut
wasting appears likely Does NOT include undercuts that
0
0
100%
are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
I
20
100%
Totals
7
125
98%
3 Fngmneered
Structures
I Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or
logs
16
16
100%
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade
across the sill
15
15
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or
1
2
501/6
arms
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does
3 Bank Protection
not exceed 15% (See guidance for this table m EEP
14
16
88%
monitoring guidance document)
Pool fomung structures maintaining —Max Pool Depth
4 Habitat
Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 16 Rootwads /logs providing
16
16
1001/6
some cover at base -flow
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Ci eek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project 9 276 12 2012— MY02

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Project Number and Name: 276 - Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek)
Planted Acreage 7.2 Easement Acreage 8 5
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Ve etshon CateLtV
Definitions
Mapping Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
% of Planted Acre age
Very limited cover of both woody and
Pattern and
1 Bare Areas
0 1 acre
0
000
00%
herbaceous material
Color*
2 Low Stem Density
Woody stem densities clearly below
Pattern and
target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5
0 1 acre
+
0
000
00%
Areas
Color
stem count criteria
` Total
0
000
000/0
Areas with woody stems of a size
3. Areas of Poor
Pattern and
class that are obviously small given the
0 25 acre
0
000
000/0
Growth Rates or Vigor
Color
monitoring year
Cumulative Totall
0
000
000/0
4 Invasive Areas of Areas or points (if too small to render Pattern and
1,000 SF
las
0
000
00
Concern polygons at ma scale) Color
5 Easement
Areas or points (if too small to render
Pattern and
Encroachment Areas
las polygons at ma scale)
none
Color
0
0 00
0 0%
*These areas were not depicted on the CCPV Generally, the floodplam of Richland Creek has many small scattered bare areas that are below the
mapping threshold, but are significant when combined
+These areas were not depicted on the CCPV Generally, the floodplam of Richland Creek has many scattered areas of nots;able low stem densities
that are below the mapping threshold, but are significant when combined
Paschal Golf Cow se (Richland Ci eek) Stream Restoe anon Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 13 2012— MY02

Photo Point #1 — Looking upstream at fish ramp 8/6/2010— Photo Point #1 — Looking upstream at fish ramp
Baseline 11/5/2012— MY -02
Photo Point #2 — Looking downstream 8/6/2010— Baseline
Photo Point #2 — Looking upstream 8/6/2010— Baseline
Photo Point #2 — Looking downstream 11 /5/2012— MY -02
Photo Point #2 — Looking upstream 11/5/2012— MY -02
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project 9 276 14 2012 — MY02

Photo Point #3 — Looking downstream 8/6/2010— Baseline
Photo Point #3 — Looking upstream 8/6/2010— Baseline
Photo Point #4 — Looking downstream 8/6/2010— Baseline
Photo Point #3 — Looking downstream 11/5/2012— MY -02
Photo Point #3 — Looking upstream 11/5/2012— MY -02
Photo Point #4 — Looking downstream 11/5/2012— MY -02
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCl Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 15 2012 — MY02

I 1
ti
V -
-
Photo Point #4 — Looking upstream 8/6/2010— Baseline
Photo Point #4 — Looking upstream 11/5/2012— MY -02
Photo Point #5 — Looking upstream from bridge 8/6/2010— Photo Point #5 — Looking upstream from bridge
Baseline 11/5/2012— MY -02
Photo Point #6 — 8/6/2010 — Baseline
Photo Point #6 — 11/5/2012— MY -02
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 16 2012 — MY02

Photo Point #7 — 8/6/2010 — Baseline
Photo Point #8 - 8/6/2010- Baseline
Photo Point #9 - 8/6/2010- Baseline
Photo Point #7 — 11/5/2012— MY -02
Photo Point #8 - 11/5/2012- MY -02
Photo Point #9 - 11/5/2012- MY -02
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 17 2012 — MY02

Photo Point # 10 — 8/6/2010 — Baseline
Photo Point #I I — 8/6/2010— Baseline
Photo Point # 10 — 11 /5/2012— MY -02
Photo Point #I I — 11 /5/2012— MY -02
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KC/ Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 18 2012 — MY02

Vegetation Plot Photos
Veg Plot #I — 7/17/2012
Veg Plot #2 — 7/17/2012
Veg Plot #3 — 7/17/2012
Veg Plot #4 — 7/17/2012
Veg Plot #5 — 7/17/2012
Veg Plot #6 — 7/17/2012
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 19 2012 - MY02

Veg Plot #7 — 7/17/2012
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 20 2012 — MY02

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 21 2012 — MY02

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Project No. 276
Stream Vegetation Totals (per
acre)
Plot ID
Stream Stems
2Volunteers
;Total
Success
Criteria
Met?
1
121
121
445
No
6
243
243
5,908
No
Project Avg
182
182
3 177
Buffer Ve etation Totals (per
acre
Plot ID
BBuffer Stems
Success
Cntena
Met?
2
526
Yes
3
445
Yes
4
526
Yes
5
567
Yes
7
283
No
Project Avg
469
Stream Stems Native planted woody stems Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes
2Volunteers Native woody stems NOT planted.
3Total Planted+ volunteer native woody stems Includes live stakes
4Buffer Stems Native planted hardwood trees Does NOT include live stakes and shrubs
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KC1 Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 22 2012 — MY02

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Project No. 276
Report Prepared By
April Helms
Date Prepared
11/7/2012 10 20
database name
KCI- 2012 -R mdb
database location
M \2007\12071067 2007 EEP OPEN END\Veg database
computer name
12- CV76KFI
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS
IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s)
and project data
Prod, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year This
excludes live stakes
Prol, 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 Slip
Damage values tallied by e for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by e for each plot
Planted Stems by Plot and
Slip
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
304
project Name
Richland Creek
Description
River Basin
Neuse
length(ft)
stream-to-edge width ft
area (sq m
,Required Plots calculated
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KC/Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project 9 276 23 2012 — MY02

Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Project No. 276
Current Plot Data (MY2 2012)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
E304 -01 -0001
E304
-01 -0002
E304
-01 -0003
E304
-01 -0004
E304
-01 -0005
E304
-01 -0006
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Alnus serf ulata
hazel alder
Shrub
4
4
4
2
2
2
Aroma arbutt olia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
2
2
2
5
5
5
4
4
4
Betula ni ra
river birch
Tree
Baccharis
baccharis
Shrub
1
Betula nt ra
river birch
Tree
28
5
Celtts
hackberry
Tree
]
1
1
1
1
1
Celtts occtdentalts
common hackberry
Tree
Ce halanthus occtdentalts
common buttonbush
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
l
Clethra alni oha
coastal sweetpepperbush
Shrub
1
1
1
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
l
l
1
]
1
l
1
1
3
3
Diospyros vii iniana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
Lt uidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
5
1
1
5
7
Lirtodendron tult tfera
tuli tree
Tree
1
N ssa s lvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
5
1
1
1
l
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
3
81
94
68
197
132
Platanus occtdentalts
American sycamore
Tree
4
4
7
5
5
5
5
5
7
2
2
2
2
Quercus laurt olia
laurel oak
Tree
1
1
]
Quercus mtchauxtt
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
Quercus nt ra
water oak
Tree
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
4
Sahx sericea
silky willow
Shrub
1
3
7
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Shrub
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
3
3
11
13
1 16
110
11
11
107
13
13
111
14
17
228
6
6
146
1
1
]
1
1
1
002
002
002
002
002
002
2
2
4
6
7
10
5
5
8
7
7
9
7
8
13
2
2
5
121
121
445
526
647
4452
445
445
4330
526
1 526
144921
567
1 688
192271
243
243
1 5908
Paschal Goy-Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates offorth Carolina
EEP Project # 276
� 24
2012 - MY02

Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species continued
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Protect No. 276
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Typ e
E304
-01 -0007
MY2
2012)
MY1 (2011)
M 2010
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
Aroma arbutfolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
2
2
2
13
13
13
7
7
7
Betula ni ra
river birch
Tree
I
Baccharis
baccharis
Shrub
1
Betula m ra
river birch
Tree
33
Celtts
hackberry
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Celtts occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
1
1
1
Ce halanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
Clethra alnifolia
coastal sweet a perbush
Shrub
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
3
3
5
11
11
9
19
19
18
54
54
Diospyros vrr intana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Lr uidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
65
84
2
Liriodendron tuli i era
tuli tree
Tree
1
2
2
Nyssa s lvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
7
4
4
7
5
5
5
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
81
656
10
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
9
19
19
32
19
19
31
20
20
20
Quercus laurr olia
laurel oak
Tree
1
]
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
I
1
1
4
8
1
20
20
1
21
21
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
I
1
1
12
12
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
8
10
10
28
40
40
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood IShrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
7
10
163
67
76
876
79
111
141
114
193
193
1
7
7
7
002
0 17
0 17
017
4
5
8
1 14
l4
19
15
16
20
17
17
17
283
405
6596
387
439
5064
457
642
815
659
1 116
1116
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 25 2012 - MY02

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project 9 276 26 2012 — MY02

Cross - Section Plots
River Basin:
Neuse
Watershed:
Richland Creek, MY -02
XS ID
XS - 1, Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi :
7.8
Date:
8/3/2012
Field Crew:
A. French, F. Davis
Station
Elevation
0.0
264.34
0.2
264.06
3.2
263.69
0.0
263.40
1.2
263.19
5.1
262.09
10.0
260.58
13.7
259.85
19.9
259.73
26.3
259.61
34.6
259.56
38.0
259.51
41.7
259.28
43.7
258.81
45.5
258.05
48.7
256.90
50.3
256.36
54.2
256.29
55.9
256.00
57.6
255.93
59.6
255.91
61.3
255.89
63.6
256.08
64.9
256.27
65.8
257.21
69.2
257.34
71.2
257.41
73.9
258.62
76.0
259.50
79.9
259.70
83.9
259.75
87.3
259.87
90.4
261.08
94.0
262.76
96.2
263.89
SUMMARY" DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
259.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
78.5
Bankfull Width:
35.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
262.8
Flood Prone Width:
89
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
W / D Ratio:
16.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
265
264
263
262
261
260
0 259
258
w 257
256
255
due to space
0
Neuse River Basin, Richland Creek, MV-02, XS - 1, Riffle
--------------------- ----- ------
10 20 30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
Station (Feet)
---- amlioo -- Flood PIMAm
MY-00. V3110
MY-01. 7/11/11
MY -0:.&43/1:
110

River Basin:
Neuse
Watershed:
Richland Creek, MY -02
XS ID
XS - 2, Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
7.8
Date:
8/3/2012
Field Crew:
A. French, F. Davis
Station
Elevation
0.0
257.11
3.3
256.85
7.5
256.79
14.8
256.85
22.5
256.70
26.1
256.67
30.7
254.59
33.3
253.51
35.9
253.21
38.9
25104
41.2
25118
44.8
252.98
46.9
253.00
49.5
253.19
51.8
253.54
55.6
255.33
58.6
256.81
62.8
256.60
66.9
256.79
69.8
256.79
70.1
257.13
262
261
260
259
258
257
0 256
255
LQ 254
253
252
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
256.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
87.6
Bankfull Width:
35.6
Flood Prune Area Elevation:
260.4
Flood Prone Width:
>70
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.5
W / D Ratio:
14.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Neuse River Basin, Richland Creek, MY -02, XS - 2, Riffle
777
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
. BAO1 WH . Flood Pmm Area MY481. 813/10
50 60 70
MY111. 7 '11, 11 NI) 112, 9,11!1'

River Basin:
Elevation
Neese
Watershed:
Area (s mi :
7.8
Richland Creek, MY -02
8/3/2012
XS ID
A. French, F. Davis
XS - 3, Pool
Drainage
.,
258
257
256
255
v
254
fi
253
`v
252
251
250
Station
Elevation
Area (s mi :
7.8
Date:
8/3/2012
Field Crew:
A. French, F. Davis
Station
Elevation
SL�MM.4RY DATA
Bankfull Width: : 36.1
14.3 256.39 Flood Prone Area Elevation: -
20.8 256.29 Flood Prone Width: -
24.3 256.12 Max Depth at Bankfull: 5.0
28.3 254.38 Mean Depth of Bankfull: 2.7
29.9 253.84 W / D Ratio: -
33.9 253.50 Entrenchment Ratio:
34.9 252.93 Bank Height Ratio:
-
-
38.1 252.60
41.9 251.92
46.4 251.28
49.3 251.72 Neese River Basin, Richland Creek, MY -02, XS - 3, Pool
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
- •B,drm rtv4a,8/4/10 attr.01.7n1/11 -xtV-uz.annz
38.1 252.60
41.9 251.92
46.4 251.28
49.3 251.72 Neese River Basin, Richland Creek, MY -02, XS - 3, Pool
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
- •B,drm rtv4a,8/4/10 attr.01.7n1/11 -xtV-uz.annz

River Basin:
Elevation
0.0
Neese
y-
Watershed:
(s mi):
7.8
Richland Creek MY -02
8/3/2012
XS ID
A. French, F. Davis
20.2
XS - 4 Riffle
22.6
Drainage Area
23.9
253.80
25.5
253.12
27.7
252.44
28.3
252.16
30.6
252.17
31.3
252.03
33.0
251.83
35.1
251.76
37.4
251.72
39.5
251.77
41.6
251.70
i�ia.L.n �R, .a -
251.82
43.9
252.26
46.1
t ?t
47.5
252.59
48.3
252.99
,
253.26
52.0
254.24
53.6
254.96
57.9
255.20
62.0
255.30
65.5
255.33
68.2
255.43
68.5
255.72
0
Station
Elevation
0.0
255.45
0.9
255.21
(s mi):
7.8
Date:
8/3/2012
Field Crew:
A. French, F. Davis
Station
Elevation
0.0
255.45
0.9
255.21
4.8
255.25
8.9
255.31
14.5
255.38
20.2
255.41
22.6
254.49
23.9
253.80
25.5
253.12
27.7
252.44
28.3
252.16
30.6
252.17
31.3
252.03
33.0
251.83
35.1
251.76
37.4
251.72
39.5
251.77
41.6
251.70
42.9
251.82
43.9
252.26
46.1
252.54
47.5
252.59
48.3
252.99
50.3
253.26
52.0
254.24
53.6
254.96
57.9
255.20
62.0
255.30
65.5
255.33
68.2
255.43
68.5
255.72
SIIMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
254.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
73.1
Bankfull Width:
31.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
258.1
Flood Prone Width:
>68
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
W / D Ratio:
13.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Neese River Basin, Richland Creek, MY -02, JAS - 4, Riffle
260
259
=----_----_-_--- __- - - - -
258
257
256
--
c
255
-- - -_ - -- -- - --
254
253
252
251
250
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7
Station (feet)
Bankfull - - - - Pbod 17orc Am IA1f-0D, B/V10 MY-01. 7/13/11 MY -03, il3/12

River Basin
Neuse
Watershed
Richland Creek, MY -02
XS ID
XS - 5, Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi
78
Date
8/3/2012
Field Crew
A French, F Davis
Station
Elevation
00
25368
07
25347
42
253 31
93
253 35
13 8
25342
179
25325
204
25220
222
25166
23 8
251 09
249
25063
266
25041
273
250 16
278
24978
28 8
24956
307
24943
329
24945
349
25028
369
24930
386
249 14
405
24927
42 1
24966
443
25079
448
251 03
467
252 14
487
25328
527
253 31
580
25345
636
25346
674
253 52
679
2S380
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation
253 3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area.
850
Bankfull Width
319
Flood Prone Area Elevation
-
Flood Prone Width
-
Max Depth at Bankfull
4 1
Mean Depth at Bankfull
27
W / D Ratio
-
Entrenchment Ratio
-
Bank Height Ratio
Neuse River Basin, Richland Creek, MY01, XS - 5, Pool
255
254
253
-- - - -- — -------------------------------- --------------- -
252
'
251
250
W
249
248
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
���- B-U.11 MY -00 8/3/10 MY -01 7/13/11 MY -02 8/3112 '

River Basin:
Neuse
Watershed:
Richland Creek MY -02
XS ID
XS -6 Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
7.8
Date:
8/3/2012
Field Crew:
A. French, F. Davis
Station
Elevation
0.0
252.55
0.5
252.23
5.4
252.12
9.8
252.34
14.0
252.15
16.2
251.11
17.9
250.36
19.5
249.42
20.9
248.97
23.4
248.97
26.0
249.04
29.0
248.95
33.7
249.12
37.3
249.44
39.8
249.93
42.0
250.35
44.2
251.29
46.2
252.19
49.9
252.19
54.6
252.31
60.5
252.22
60.9
252.44
SLIMMARI' DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
252.2
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
77.9
Bankfull Width:
33.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
255.4
Flood Prone Width:
>60
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
W / D Ratio:
14.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
LO
256
255
254
253
252
fi
251
Q
w 250
249
248
0
Neuse River Basin, Richland Creek, MY02, XS - 6, Riffle
10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)
-- BIditl Mad rmwAme MYIm.9/4/10 MY -01,7/13/11 MY-OZ Snnwu
60

265
264
263
262
261
260
259
258
H
W
257
z
256
F
d
255
W
w 254
W
253
252
251
250
249
248
247
246
245
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
STATION (FT)
Longitudinal Profile
Richland Creek
EEP Project Number 304- MY-02
Stations 0 +00 - 10 +00
MY -00, 8/3/10 MY -01, 7/11/11 — MY -02, 8/3/12 ■ Bankfull — — – Water Surface BKF Slope - - -- WS Slope

E�
z
0
H
d
W
W
W
265
264
263
262
261
260
259
258
257
256
255
254
253
252
251
250
249
248
247
246
245
Longitudinal Profile
Richland Creek
EEP Project Number 304- MY-02
Stations 10 +00 - 20 +00
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
STATION (FT)
— — — Water Surface MY -00, 8/3/10 MY -01, 7/11/11 MY -02, 8/3/12 ■ Bankfull - - -- WS Slope BKF Slope

265
264
263
262
261
260
259
258
257
F-�
f=,
256
z
C
255
d
W 254
W 253
252
251
250
249
248
247
246
245
2000 2100 2200 2300 2400 2500 2600 2700 2800 2900 3000
STATION (FT)
- MY -00, 8/4/10 MY -0 1, 7/13/11 MY -02, 8/3/2012 ■ Bankfull — — - Water Surface Linear (Bankfull) - - - Linear (Water Surface)
Longitudinal Profile
Richland Creek
EEP Project Number 304- MY-02
Stations 20 +00 - 30 +00

Pebble Count Plots
Cross
- Section 1 Riffle
- MY -02
Particle Size Distribution
Richland Creek
XS 1 Riffle
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
Fine
.125 - .25
A
Medium
.25-.50
N
a
100%
80%
— - -
Coarse
.50- 1
D
1
Very Coarse
1 - 2
S
8
Very Fine
2 - 4
8
u
60%
Fine
4 -5.7
G
1
Fine
5.7-8
R
4
Medium
8- 11.3
A
7
0
r
t,
Medium
11.3- 16
V
9
Coarse
16-22.6
E
19
!
e
40%
Coarse
22.6-32
L
15
Very Coarse
32-45
S
6
20%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
'-- • -MY -00 - {-MY -01 --w--MY-02
1000 10000
Very Coarse
45-64
6
Small
64-90
C
5
Small
90- 128
O
2
Large
128- 180
B
3
Large
180 -256
L
5
Small
256-362
B
1
Size (mm)
D 16 3.7
D35 14
D50 20
D65 27
D84 64
D95 190
Size Distribution
mean 15.4
dispersion 4.3
skewness -0.10
Type
Small
362-512
L
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
0%
9%
75%
15%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024-2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Note:

Cross
- Section 2 Riffle
- MY -02
Particle Size Distribution
Richland Creek
XS 2 Riffle
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
Fine
.125 - .25
A
I
Medium
.25-.50
N
4
Coarse
.50- 1
D
4
a
100%
Very Coarse
1 - 2
S
16
Very Fine
2 - 4
1
�?
80%
60%
Fine
4-5.7
G
7
Fine
5.7-8
R
10
Medium
8- 11.3
A
1
0
r
Medium
11.3- 16
V
7
Coarse
16-22.6
E
I I
v
40%
Coarse
22.6-32
L
5
Very Coarse
32-45
S
14
20%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
� MY -00 t MY -01 t MY -02
1000 10000
Very Coarse
45-64
4
Small
64-90
C
3
Small
90- 128
O
3
Large
128- 180
B
3
Large
180-256
L
4
Small
256-362
B
1
Size (mm)
D16 1.4
D35 6.4
D50 15
D65 28
D84 59
D95 200
Size Distribution
mean 9.1
dispersion 7.3
skewness -0.17
Type
Small
362-512
L
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood /det
artificial
0%
25%
60%
13%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Medium
512-1024
D
Lr - Very Lrg
1024-2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
1
Total
100
Note:

Cross-
Section 3 Pool
- MY -02
100%
Particle Size Distribution
Richland Creek
XS 3 Pool
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
3
Fine
.125 - .25
A
9
Medium
.25-.50
N
17
Coarse
.50- 1
D
8
80%
Very Coarse
1 -2
S
17
Very Fine
2-4
24
Fine
4-5.7
G
4
E
e
u
60%
Fine
5.7-8
R
4
Medium
8- 11.3
A
8
a
L
°%
Medium
11.3- 16
V
1
Coarse
16-22.6
E
3
S
iz
0
40 °
20%
Coarse
22.6-32
L
2
Very Coarse
32-45
S
0%
Very Coarse
45-64
Small
64-90
C
Small
90- 128
O
0.01
0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
-MY-00 ----MY-01 'MY-02
1000 10000
Large
128- 180
B
Large
180-256
L
Small
256-362
B
Size (mm)
D16 0.29
D35 0.84
D50 1.7
D65 2.7
D84 6.9
D95 16
Size Distribution
mean 1.4
dispersion 5.0
skewness -0.07
Type
Small
362-512
L
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood /det
artificial
0%
54%
46%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Medium
512-1024
D
Lr - Very Lrg
1024-2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Note:

Cross
- Section 4 Riffle
- MY -02
Particle Size Distribution
Richland Creek
XS 4 Riffle
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
Fine
.125-.25
A
Medium
.25-.50
N
2
Coarse
.50- 1
D
7
a
100%
Very Coarse
1 - 2
S
3
Very Fine
2-4
1
u
80%
60%
Fine
4-5.7
G
Fine
5.7-8
R
Medium
8- 11.3
A
�
Medium
1 1.3 - 16
V
Coarse
16-22.6
E
9
i;
ii
e
40%
Coarse
22.6-32
L
5
Very Coarse
32-45
S
13
20%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
t —+—
MY -00 MY -01
1000 10000
Very Coarse
45-64
22
Small
64-90
C
20
Small
90- 128
O
10
Large
128- 180
B
6
Large
180-256
L
2
Small
256-362
B
Size (mm)
D 16 18
D35 39
D50 53
D65 67
D84 97
D95 150
Size Distribution
mean 41.8
dispersion 2.4
skewness -0.12
Type
Small
362-512
L
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood /det
artificial
0%
12%
50%
38%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Medium
512- 1024
D
Lr - Very Lrg
1024-2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Note:

Cross
- Section 5 Pool
- MY -02
Particle Size Distribution
Richland Creek
XS 5 Pool
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
Fine
.125 - .25
A
4
Medium
.25-.50
N
25
a
100%
80%
Coarse
.50- .50 - 1
D
13
Very Coarse
1 -2
S
18
Very Fine
2 - 4
14
Fine
4-5.7
G
1
E
v
60%
Fine
5.7-8
R
6
Medium
8- 11.3
A
9
0
E
L
°%
Medium
l 1.3 - 16
V
4
Coarse
16-22.6
E
3
�
o
4o °
20%
Coarse
22.6-32
L
Very Coarse
32-45
S
1
0°i°
0.01
0.1
l 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
F___MY_00 0 'MY-01 I MY-o2
1000 10000
Very Coarse
45-64
Small
64-90
C
Small
90- 128
O
Large
128- 180
B
Large
180-256
L
Small
256-362
B
Size
D 16
D35
D50
D65
D84
D95
(mm)
0.33
0.62
1.3
2.3
8.3
15
Size Distribution
mean 1.7
dispersion 5.2
skewness 0.09
Type
Small
362-512
L
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood /det
artificial
0%
62%
38%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Medium
512-1024
D
Lr - Very Lrg
1024-2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Note:

Cross
- Section 6 Riffle
- MV -02
Particle Size Distribution
Richland Creek
XS 6 Riffle
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
<0.062
S/C
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
Fine
.125 - .25
A
Medium
.25-.50
N
100%
Coarse
.50- 1
D
5
Very Coarse
1 - 2
S
5
80%
•
Very Fine
2 - 4
7
Fine
4 -5.7
G
E
0
v
Fine
5.7-8
R
2
Medium
8- 11.3
A
5
°w 60%
Medium
11.3- 16
V
6
Coarse
16-22.6
E
20
e 40%
20%
Coarse
22.6-32
L
8
Very Coarse
32-45
S
5
0 %
0.01
0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
• -MY-00 ---A--MY-01 t MY -02
1000 10000
Very Coarse
45-64
3
Small
64-90
C
3
Small
90- 128
O
8
Large
128- 180
B
10
Large
180-256
L
10
Small
256-362
B
2
Size (mm)
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
L D95
3.6
17
22
57
160
2.10
Size Distribution
mean 24.0
dispersion 6.7
skewness 0.03
Type
Small
362-512
L
I
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood /det
artificial
0%
10%
56%
31%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Medium
512- 1024
D
Lr - Very Lrg
1024-2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
Note:

a
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary: Richland Creek - 2,919 If
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Protect No. 276
Parameter
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach Data (Upper Richland Creek)
Design
As -built
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL
Eq
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
22
350
280
320
330
31 9
327
322
344
1 2
4
Flood prone Width ft)
28
60
>100
100
i
>60
>72
>69
>90
128
4
Bankfull Mean Depth 11)
14
28
23
24
26
24
26
26
28
02
4
Bankfull Max Depth (11)
34
38
375
34
33
35
35
38
02
4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
48
72
67
75
850
802
842
83 7
893
1 4 1
4
Width/Depth Ratio
120
13 8
122
133
121
11 4
127
125
145
1 3
4
Entrenchment Ratio
1 7
1 9
3 1
36
3 0
>1 9
>2 0
>2 0
>2 0
00
4
Bank Height Ratio
1 2
1 1
1 0
1 0
10
1 0
1 0
00
4
d50 (mm)
120
1
1
1
1
120
41
127
140
200
80
4
Profile
Rittle Length (11)
14
48
30
177
42
20
Riffle Sloe 11/11)
00200
00370
00050
00090
00056
00011
00089
00075
00212
00067
20
Pool Length (ft)
23
96
5
25
41
8
74
82
150
42
19
Pool Max Depth
40
46
55
43
50
56
092
2
PoolSpacing (11)
38
258
25
90
150
230
63
153
155
216
49
19
Pool Volume 113
Pattern
Channel Beltm,idth (ft)
22
71
100
300
60
300
37
78
83
116
25
9
Radius of Curvature ft)
32
98
37
70
80
100
80
90
90
100
10
14
Re Bankfull width ft/ft)
134
1 1
21
24
25
28
28
3 1
Meander Wavelength (ft)
110
300
110
200
220
330
259
321
312
395
45
11
Meander Width Ratio
1 59
93
107
90
1 1
24
25
3 5
Substrate bed and transport parameters
Ri %/Ru %/P %/G %/S%
SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
0%/16%/55%/27%/2%/0%
d16 /d35 /d50 /d84 /d95 / di' /di, (Min)
15/73/12/35/49/ -/-
19/20/34/54/87/120 / -/-
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb /112
035
040
040
Max part size mm mobilized at bankfull
20 -80
20 -90
31
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM )
78
48
78
78
Impervious cover estimate
10%
10%
10%
Ros en Classification
F4 /1
C4
C4 /1
C4 /1
Bankfull Velocity s)
3 1-70
36-50
5 0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
305-400
260-280
425
Valley length (ft)
2 710
2 710
Channel thalweg length (ft)
2 919
Sinuosity
1 22
1 1
1 20
1 10
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
00028
00040
00028
00028
BF slope ( ft/ft)
00028
00027
Bankfull Floodplam Area (acres)
Proportion over wide ( %)
Entrenchment Class (ER Range)
Incision Class (BHR Range)
BEHI V L% / L% / M% / H% / V H% / E%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site
EEP Pr4lect # 276
42
KC1 Associates of North Carolina
2012 — MY02

,16
0
0
Table 11a. Monitoring - Cross - Section Morphology Data
Paschal Golf Course Richland Creek / Pro'ect No. 276
Dimension and Substrate
Cross - Section
1 (Riffle)
Cross - Section
2 (Riffle)
I Cross - Section 3 (Pool)
Cross - Section
4 (Riffle)
Cross - Section 5 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline elevation
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY]
MY2
MY3
MY41
MY5
MY+
Base
MY]
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY31
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
IMY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Bankfitll Width (ft)
344
336
354
319
352
356
314
33 9
36 1
32 1
319
319
315
325
319
Floodprone Width (11)
>90
>90
>90
>70
>70
>70
-
-
-
>68
>68
>68
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
24
24
22
28
25
25
33
29
27
25
24
23
29
28
27
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
34
34
35
38
38
37
56
50
50
33
32
32
43
47
41
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area f �
81 7
799
785
893
885
876
1
10401
992
97 8
802
765
73 1
908
906
850
Bankf ill Width/Depth Ratio
145
141
160
114
14 0
145
-
-
-
128
13 3
139
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2 0
>2 0
>2 2
>2 0
>1 8
>2 0
-
-
-
>2 0
>2 1
>2 2
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1 0
1 0
1 0
10
1 0
1 0
-
-
-
10
10
1 0
-
-
-
Cross- Sectional Area Between End Pins ft2
4775
4780
4774
111 4
1086
1144
_
135 7
1342
135 6
100 1
1006
962
1064
1106
1074
d50 mm
20
190
200
340
170
150
04
079
17
1
1 460
420
530
17
035
13
Cross - Section
6 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline elevation
l[BB-sej
NMYA
OWN
" J3,1
FMY�41
LMiY±51
lv Y� &"
Bankfull Width (ft)
322
326
333
Floodprone Width (ft)
>60
>60
>60
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
27
25
23
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
35
34
32
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft2)
856
822
779
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
121
129
142
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>1 9
>1 8
>1 9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
10
1 0
1 0
Cross - Sectional Area Between End Pins IL
943
941
92 1
d50 mm
440
240
220
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KC1 Associates of North Carolina
EEP Pr4lect 9 276 43 2012 — MY02

Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KC /Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 44 2012 — M702
Table l lb. Monitoring- Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) / Project No. 276
Richland Creek (2,919 ft.
Parameter
MY01 2011)
MY02 (2012)
MY03 2013)
MY04 2014
MY05 (2015)
Dimension
Mm
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Mm
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Mm
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Mm
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
319
342
33 1
352
3 031
4
319
34 1
344
356
1 771
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
68
72
69
90
12 754
4
60
72
69
89
12 285
4
Bankh l Mean Depth (ft)
23
24
24
25
0 082
4
22
23
23
25
0 126
4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
32
3 5
34
3 8
0 252
4
32
34
34
37
0 245
4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area (ft')
765
818
81 1
886
5 102
4
73 1
793
782
876
6 053
4
Width/Depth Ratio
129
143
137
168
1 756
4
139
147
144
160
0 933
4
Entrenchment Ratio
18
19
19
2 1
0 150
4
18
2 1
2 1
26
0 340
4
Bank. Height Ratio
10
10
10
10
0 000
4
1 0
10
10
10
1 0 000
4
Patte rn
Channel Beltwdth (ft)
37
78
83
116
25
9
Radius of Curvature (ft)
80
91 1
90
100
9
9
Rad of Cury Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
25
27
27
26
Meander Wavelength (ft)
259
321
312
395
45
11
Meander Width Ratio
12
23
25
30
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
18
41
30
103
23
17
17
33
26
65
16
18
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0 001
0 010
0 008
0 019
0 006
17
0 002
0 013
0 010
0 025
0 008
18
Pool Length (ft)
31
72
74
122
24
17
12
68
78
120
31
17
Pool Max Depth (ft)
15
15
15
1
1 5
15
11
1
Pool Spacing (ft)
86
172
169
262
45
16
51
161
159
256
54
16
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
2,710
2,710
Channel Thahveg Length (ft)
2,919
2,919
Sinuosity
1 1
I 1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
00032
00034
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
00029
00025
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
0 33 %/36°/x/47 % /16 %/0 67%
0%/29%/54 % /16 % /1%
d16 / d35 / d50 / d65/ d84 / d95
1 1/10/17/65/110
4 6/13/19/31/66/135
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
1%
2%
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KC /Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 44 2012 — M702

Appendix E
Hydrology Data
Paschal Golf Coarse (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KCI Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 45 2012 — MY02

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Paschal Golf Course Richland Creek / Project No. 276
Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo #
5/17/2010
5/17/2010
Photographed on site
1, See Below
9/28/2011
9/16/2011
Crest gauge
None
11/5/2012
unknown
Crest gauge and indicators of storm event
None
Photo #1 - Bankfull Event, 5/17/2010
Paschal Golf Course (Richland Creek) Stream Restoration Site KC1 Associates of North Carolina
EEP Project # 276 46 2012 — MY02