The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20090056 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20130212mq D?'00 FINAL ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT YEAR 1 (2012) GREENBRIER CREEK STREAM/WETLAND/BUFFER RESTORTION SITE ALAMANCE AND CHATHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA (EEP Project No. 671, Contract No. 004801) Construction Completed January 2011 Submitted to: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program Raleigh, North Carolina REC E IVF FEB a 5 201: kwsystcl NC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM February 2013 WATE Sg r nrr 3r'Ch FINAL ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT YEAR 1 (2012) GREENBRIER CREEK STREAM/WETLAND/BUFFER RESTORTION SITE ALAMANCE AND CHATHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA (EEP Project No. 671, Contract No. 004801) Construction Completed January 2011 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 �v Axam Environmental. Inc_ February 2013 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 0 METHODOLOGY 2 1 Vegetation Assessment 2 2 Stream Assessment 3 0 REFERENCES Table of Contents Appendices APPENDIX A PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES Figure 1 Vicinity Map Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 Project Contacts Table Table 4 Project Baseline Information and Attributes APPENDIX B VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA Figure 2 Current Conditions,Plan View Site Fixed - Station Photos Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs Tables 5a -5b Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment, Table G Vegetation Condition Assessment APPENDIX C VEGETATION PLOT DATA Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata Table 9 Planted Stems by Plot and Species APPENDIX D STREAM SURVEY DATA Cross - section Plots Longitudinal Profile Plots Substrate Plots 2 2 2 3 Table 10a Baseline Stream Data Summary Table 10b Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions) Table l l a Monitoring Data— Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Sections) Table 1 lb Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary APPENDIX E HYDROLOGY DATA Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events APPENDIX F SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING EEP Warranty Letter Nursery Plant List- Supplemental Planting Contractor Completion Notification APPENDIX G NUTRIENT OFFSET INFORMATION June 12, 2007 EEP Nutrient Offset Meeting Summary Letter NCDWQ Email Response Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Table of Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Ceenbrier Site Stream Restoration Site (Site) is situated within the United States Geological Society (USGS) hydrologic unit 03030003 and is in a portion of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Priority Sub -basin 03 -06 -12 The site is located approximately eight miles north of Siler City at the crossing of Staley -Snow Camp/Pleasant Hill Church Road over Greenbrier Creek The Site is encompassed within a 50 48 acre easement located in three parcels, individually owned by Jerrold Murclson (32 94 acres), Charles Cheek (0 52 acres), and Larry Matthews (17 02 acres) Primary land uses were active row crop production on the Murchison parcel and active pasture on the Matthews /Cheek parcels Project streams, Greenbrier Creek and an Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Greenbrier Cieek, became unpaired from poor land management, stream dredging, upstream disturbances, and human impacts T7us report (compiled based on North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)'s Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports Version 14 dated 11/7/11) summarizes data for Year 1 (2012) annual monitoring The project goals are to • Improve water quality by reducing nutrient loading from 'a livestock operation in a water supply watershed • Reduce the high level of sediment loading to the stream from steep, eroding banks • Improve both aquatic and terrestrial riparian buffer habitat These goals will be accomplished through the implementation of the following objectives • Preservation and protection of important wetlands and stream channel reaches upstream of the Matthews property • Improvement of water quality (ieduction of nutrient and sediment inputs) by creating a vegetated riparian buffer filter strip between the stream and livestock operations currently on the property • Reduction of high sediment loads in the stream through stabilization of eroding channel banks • Improvement of deteriorated aquatic habitat by reduction of nutrient and sediment loads in the streams, providing more variable stream channel geometry and creating more opportunities for carbon inputs from the trees in the restored buffer zone • Improvement of terrestrial habitat through restoration of diverse native woody vegetation in the riparian buffer zone and control of invasive Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) Durmg Year 1 (2012) monitoring twelve (12) vegetation plots were installed and sampled Ten (10) of the twelve (12) plots met or exceeded the success criteria of 320 stems /acre (mrmmum stem count after 1 year) The two plots below success criteria include plots 5 and 6, which had 243 and 283 stems per acre, respectively Plots 5 and 6 are adjacent to the unnamed tributary, which is characterized by dense fescue that may be outcompetmg bare root seedlings Supplemental planting at the Site occurred on February 13 and 14, 2012, in response to the contractor's vegetation warranty assessment (Appendix F) During this effort, 1952 bare root and 1 gallon trees were planted at the Site Supplemental planting appears to have resulted in vegetative success across the majority of the Site Vegetative pioblem areas weie noted above along the main Greenbrier Creek channel neat the bridge (upstream of the confluence with the UT [Figure 2, Appendix A) Prior to construction, Chinese privet was prevalent within the easement All Chinese privet was removed and/or treated during construction activities, mcludmg the preservation reach Chinese privet continues to occur sporadically throughout the Site, however, upstream of the bridge, the Chinese privet is particularly dense and may require further chemical control Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina page 1 A visual assessment and geomorphic survey were completed for the Site, and indicated that the project reaches were performing within established success criteria ranges as shown below. No significant batik erosion was recorded. In addition, no aggradation or degradation of the bed was noted. Due to contracting issues, no baseline data was collected for this project. Although there are no baseline cross - sections to compare with Year 1 (2012) measurements, the channel exhibits no signs of sloughing or erosion, and 2012 cross sections should serve as an adequate baseline for the remaining monitoring period. Stream Success Criteria (from approved Restoration Plan 2008): • Success is defined as the documentation of no substantial aggradation or degradation of the channel or banks. Downcutting, deposition, bank erosion and an increase in sands or finer substrate material must be documented for assessment by the regulatory agencies. Comparison of the existing conditions BEHI values with the BEHI values computed after vegetation is established will indicate bank stabilization trajectories. A minimum of two bankfull events must occur in separate years within the five -year monitoring. 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 tables and figures within this report's appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly the Restoration Plan) documents available on EEPs website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from EEP upon request. 2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Vegetation Assessment Twelve vegetation plots were established and marked after construction with four -foot metal U -bar post demarking the corners with a ten foot, three- quarter inch PVC at the origin. The plots are 10 meters square and are located randomly within the Site. These plots were surveyed in September for the Year 1 (2012) monitoring season using the CVS EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) ( littp:/ /cvs.bio.une.edu /methods.litm); 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). 2.2 Stream Assessment Annual stream monitoring was conducted in September 2012. Fourteen permanent cross - sections, eight riffle and six pool, were established and will be used to evaluate stream dimension; locations are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B). Cross - sections are permanently monumented with 4-foot metal garden posts at each end point. Cross - sections will be surveyed to provide a detailed measurement of the stream and banks including points on the adjacent floodplain, top of bank, bankfull, breaks in slope, edge of water, and thalweg. Data will be used to calculate width-depth ratios, entrenchment ratios, and bank height ratios for each cross - section. In addition, photographs will be taken and pebble counts will be conducted at each permanent cross - section location annually. Two monitoring reaches were established (the unnamed tributary and Greenbrier Creek) and will be used to evaluate longitudinal profile; locations are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B). Longitudinal profile measurements will include average water surface slopes and facet slopes and pool -to -pool spacing. Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina page 2 Measurement of channel, pattern (belt- width, meander length, and radius of curvature) was proposed for Year 1 (2012), however, the design channel was developed at a sinuosity of 10, resulting in no measurable meander bends, belt widths, or radius of curvature Two crest gauges were installed onsite, one on the unnamed tributary and one on Greenbrier Creek, upstream of the confluence These will be used to document bankfull events throughout the monitoring period Additionally, thirty one permanent photo points were established throughout the restoration reach (14 cross sections, 12 vegetation plots, and 5 fixed station photo) Photographs are included in the Appendices 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 Weakley, Alan S 2007 Flora of the Carolinas, Virgmia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas ( onlme) 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 Mount Vernon Springs, Siler City, North Carolina ( onlme) Available www wunderground com /weatherstation/WXDailyHistory asp7IID=KNCSILER5 [February 15, 2012] Weathei Underground' r. Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina page 3 L- APPENDIX A PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES Figure 1 Vicinity Map Table 1 Project Restoration Components Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 Project Contacts Table Table 4 Project Attributes Table Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Enwronmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carohna Appendices From Raleigh: Follow US 64 to Slier City. r i ? Turn right (north) onto US 421. r Travel approximately 3 miles to Piney Grove Church Road. + ' t Exit and turn right (northwest) on Piney Grove Church Road. - • YX \ '-- = Travel approximately 4.5 miles to the intersection with Staley Snow Camp Road. Turn right (northeast) and travel approximately 2 miles to the bridge over Greenbrier Creek. I 666 AN Project Area ;f �, sin• n. V. ' 421 _-�•� __ s_ :. . -� -''i _. i. ,;,,,•. -. �, �' it .} r... r -+ -4 `+, j "rte .. -.. .� _ i 64 - '. Miles Dwn. by. FIGURE SITE LOCATION MAP KRJ Axiom Environmental 218 Snow Ave \� Raleigh, GREENBRIER SITE EEP PROJECT NUMBER 671 Date: ,tan 2013 \ NC 27603 K Alamance County, North Carolina Project: A.'iom Enw4ronmentm, Ir:. 12- 004.09 Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Greenbrier Creek Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 6711 Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices Miti anon Credits Stream Riparian Wetland Buffet Type Restoration Restoration Equivalent Restoration Restoration Equivalent Totals 2974 891 1 -- 1.4 WMU 330,164 Pro ects 011110onents Project Component/ Reach ID Station Range Existing Existing Linear Footage/ Acreage Approach Restoration/ Restoration Equivalent Restoration Linear Footage/ Acreage Mitigation Ratio Comment Greenbrier Mainstem Upstream of Bnd e 659 PIII R 670 1 15 Greenbrier Mainstem Downstream of Bridge 1966 PIII R 1945 1 15 UT Upstream of Culvert 1180 PIII R 1129 1 15 UT Downstream of Culvert 749 PIII R 717 1 15 Greenbrier Mainstem 4455 Preservation RE 4455 5 1 Component Summation Restoration Lei el Stream (linear footage) Riparian Wetland (acres) Buffer (square footage) Restoration — — 330,164 Enhancement (Level 4461 - -- — Preservation 4455 693 Totals 8916 693 Mitigation Units 3865 SMUs 1.4 WMU Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 671) Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 1 year 7 months Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 1 year 7 months Number of Renorting Years: 1 Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery Restoration Plan October 2008 Final Design — Construction Plans Kevin Nunnery 919- 518 -0311 Aril 28, 2010 Construction Contractor January 25, 2011 Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area Stephen James 919 -921 -1116 February 1, 2011 Permanent seed mix applied to emtre project area February 1, 2011 Contamenzed and bare root plantings for entire reach Rodney Montgomery February 8, 2011 As -built construction drawings Aril 2011 Supplemental Planting of bare i oot and 1 gallon trees Raleigh, NC 27613 February 14, 2012 Year 1 Monitoring 2012 Se tembei 2012 February 2013 Year 2 Monitoring 2013 218 Snow Avenue Year 3 Monitoring 2014 Grant Lewis 919 - 215 -1693 Year 4 Monitorin 2015 Table 3. Project Contacts Table G'reenhrier Stream Restnrntinn Site (VF.P Prniert Nnmher 671) Designer Biohabitats, Inc 8218 Creedmoor Road, Suite 200 Raleigh; NC 27613 Kevin Nunnery 919- 518 -0311 Construction, Planting, and Seeding Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc Contractor Mount Any, NC Stephen James 919 -921 -1116 Seed Mix Source Green Source Colfax, NC Rodney Montgomery As -Built Construction Drawings Biohabitats, Inc 8218 Creedmoor Road, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27613 Kevin Nunnery 919 -518 -0311 Years 1 -5 Monitoring Performers Axiom Environmental, Inc 218 Snow Avenue Raleigh, NC 27603 Grant Lewis 919 - 215 -1693 Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Eniwronmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 671) Project Information Project Name Greenbner Stream Restoration Site Project County Alamance and Chatham Project Area Acres 5048 Project Coordinates (Lat/Long — NAD83 -79 48 89 50N, 35 84 01 17E Project Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Region Piedmont Ecoregion Carohna Slate Belt Project River Basm Cape Fear USGS 8-(b it HUC 03030003 USGS 14-digit HUC 03030003070010 NCDWQ Subbasm 03 -06 -12 Project Drainage Area S Mt 501 Project Drainage Area Impervious Surface <5% Watershed Type Rural Reach Summar, Information Parameters Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Restored/Enhanced Len (Linear Feet 670 1945 1129 717 Drainage Area (Square Miles 5 0 5 0 03 03_ NCDWQ Index Number 1743 -5 NCDWQ Classification WS -III Valle Type/Morphological Descn tion VIII/C4 Dominant Soil Series Chewacla Drainage Class Somewhat poorly drained Soil Hydric Status Nonhydric, may contain hydric Wehadkee inclusions Sloe 00017 00099 FEMA Classification AE flood lam AE flood lam Native Vegetation Commumty Hardwoods Hardwoods Percent Composition of Exotic Invasives —20 —20 Regulatory Considerations Regulation Applicable Waters of the U S — Sections 404 and 401 Yes - Received Appropnate Permits Endangered Species Act No Histonc Preservation Act No CZMA /CAMA No FEMA Flood lain Compliance Yes Essential Fishenes Habitat No Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices APPENDIX B VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA Figure 2 Current Conditions Plan View Site Fixed - Station Photographs Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs Tables 5a -5b Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Protect Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices Dwn. by. FIGURE MONITORING PLAN VIEW KRJ Axiom Environmental 218 Snow Avenue GREENBRIER CREEK STREAM RESTORATION SITE Date Raleigh, NC 27603 EEP PROJECT NUMBER 671 Jan. 2013 (919) 215 -1693 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Project Axiom Environmental, Inc. 12- 004.09 9 ; E di t� 14 Greenbriar Creek Site Fixed - Station Photographs Taken September 2012 Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year I of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices Greenbrier Creek Vegetation Monitoring Photographs Taken September 2012 Plot 5 Plot 2 Plot 4 Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices Greenbrier Creek Vegetation Monitoring Photographs Taken September 2012 (continued) Plot 8 Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental; Inc. Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices Table 5a Visual Stream Moreholoav Stability Assessment Reach ID Greenbrlar Assessed Length 2235 Adjusted % Number 01 for i major Stable, T01W Number of Amount Stabilizing Channel Channel Performing 1 Numberit Unstable Unstabi e� Woody •i -Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect 3�. h''+'G `'r �� 11 •'`•`+ �1 (Riffle and Run units) flow laterally (not to include point bars) �Sa Ayf4rd rsyJ _■ :. r .. . 1 yy'�.�` �^�,�y�: W4 - '3 »3 '.'� :. ® �'� -�:' Y "'c3`�• ,'"�'!# ,s.�. kS i' iNV 3:- - I TexturetSubstrate substrate 3. Meander Pool Condition ■ : pth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth 16) e. o� A Length between 11 ®® 11 Fi :Y�-F. - ,�''j'' `1�''rt::r� .,,µ, ,y �• 11' . -,t Hry r-' S,.t� e�t+- ° -'�Y,r P.. -a �f.}e upstream riffle and head of downstrem nffle) ., „�34 TTY. 4 Thalweg Position I Thalvveg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) qn 2 Thatweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide) ��iGyt � -NFU- ry�i ��. �;� A. v,fT,1 E'+r�:tJ 1'- 3.F. 4 � „J � �'. ��, '�S \:t ':.y'1 `sn�. ;yT �i � -'.'� '� "'�A.�3� �: Q'.. M�1�`� it.�+f � :>S” '�. �.yl%" 'i✓. - j I 4�.' - ' - vegetative .. .. - :. ... 11' scour and erosion nk. lercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears n �BL .k U5 IW7 include undercuts that a and are providing habitat C jb' ,r -1 w Bank slurnping,catving or collapse -JU`;n F., :i +_u�,.x7F , i` �'.. "=c`i: s^ ;fir' t .'^a:�� s • � a �+ e - � � ®� 3 Engineered Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs `3,` Structures �, x-r �' 3 NMI .. $ &•..fig Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill rU� Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doer not exceed Poolforrnmg structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth Meanftin� Depth ratio > 1 6 Rootwads4ogs providing some cover at base-flow Table 5b Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Reach ID Greenbrlar UT7 Assessed Length 867 '"$^' _y$.GT ;fit 3r 'iE Adjusted % dislodged intact with no Number 4 Number with Footage with for Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of % Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing Woody Woody Woody Cate o Sub -Cate o Metric as Intended As -built Se ments Footatie as Intended Vegetation Ve etation V elation 1 Bed 1 Vertical Stability Y 1 Anaradation -Bar formation/ growth sufficient to significantly deflect 9 g Y 0 0 100°6 lea f 4 ` ;yq • I_. Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull (Riffle and Run units) flow laterally (net to include point bars) Depth rabo > 16 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow 2 Dearadation - Evidence of downcuttmg , °- - . 0 0 100% ,4 . 2. Riffle Condition 1 Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 35 35 100% a Meander Pool Condition 1 Death Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth � 1 6) — 36 36 it 100% 1 2 Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tad of 100 100 100% - upstream nine and head of downstrem a fle) kit 4 Thalweg Position 1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 100 100 _ 100% 5 2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide) 100 100 * +;, a 100% F - 2 Bank t Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or 0 0 100% 100 °6i scour and erosion Banks underoutloverhangarg to the extent that mass wasting appears 2 Undercut likely DoeshM include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable '. 0 0 100% 100% and are providing habitat , 3. Macs Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 100% Total 0 0 100% 0 0 100% '"$^' _y$.GT ;fit 3r 'iE dislodged intact with no 4 2. Grade Control Grade control Structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the ad A Struct ras laclong any substantial flow underneath sills or arms a� Bank Protection X ,3. Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth rabo > 16 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow Greenbrier Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Planted Acreage 16.5 Easement Acreaae 50.48 Ve etatlon Cateaory Definitions Mapping Threshold CCPV De Ictlon Number of Polvaons Combined Acreage % of 4. Invasive Areas of Concern Microstegium, tall fescue, mukiflora rose, Chinese privet, Chinese lespedeza Mapping CCPV Number of Combined Planted Ve etatlon Cate o Definitions Threshold De Iction Polvoons Acrea a Acreage 1. Bare Areas Very limited cover of planted woody and herbaceous material on stream banks 0.1 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0% woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on visual observations and MY3 stem 2. Low Stem Density Areas 1count 0.1 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0% criteria. Total 0.00 0.0% 3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year. 0.25 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0% Cumulative Total 0 0.00 0.0% Easement Acreaae 50.48 Ve etatlon Cateaory Definitions Mapping Threshold CCPV De Ictlon Number of Polvaons Combined Acreage % of Easement Acreag e 4. Invasive Areas of Concern Microstegium, tall fescue, mukiflora rose, Chinese privet, Chinese lespedeza 1000 SF N/A 0 0.00 0.0% 15. Easement Encroachment Areas Microstegium encroachment none N/A 0 0.00 0.0% = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were riot subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage, crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort. = The acreage within the easement boundaries. = 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. = 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 spcies 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 Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within the timeframes 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 are of particular interest given their extreme hsk/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 symbolizing invasives polygons, particularry 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. APPENDIX C VEGETATION PLOT DATA Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata Table 9 Planted Stems by Plot and Species - Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Ina Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Greenbrier Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 6711 Vegetation Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met? Tract Mean 1 * Yes 83% 2* Yes 3 * Yes 4* Yes 5* No 6 No 7* Yes 8 Yes 9* Yes 10 Yes II* Yes 12* Yes *These vegetation plots (Plots 1 -5, 7, 9, and 11 -12) are located entirely within riparian buffer credit areas and will be used to document stream mitigation as well as riparian buffer success Remaining vegetation plots (Plots 6, 8, and 10) are located parhall3 "thin the riparian buffer credit areas Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata Greenbrier Creek Restoratinn Site (F.F.P Prniect Number 671) Report Prepared By Com Fa uin Date Prepared 9/17/2012 17 43 database name Axiom -EEP- 2012 -A mdb database location C \Documents and Sethn s\ erkinson\Deskto computer name PHILLIP -LT file size 56070144 Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data Pro l, planted Each project is listed wth its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year This excludes live stakes Pro j, total stems Each project is listed month its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year 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 b Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by e for each species Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by e for each plot Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot, dead and missing stems are excluded ALL Stems by Plot and spp A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code 671 project Name Greenbnar Stream Description River Basin Required Plots calculated Sampled Plots 12 Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices Table 9. Planted Stems by Plot and Species Greenbrier Creek Current Plot Data (MY1 2012) Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 671 -01 -0001* 671 -01 -0002* 671 -01 -0003* 671 -01 -0004* 671 -01 -0005* 671 -01 -0006 671 -01 -0007* 671 -01 -0008 Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T PnoLS P -all IT Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Acer negundo boxelder Tree 4 4 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 Acer rubrum red maple Tree Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis Shrub 1 Betula nigra river birch Tree 2 2 2 Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ca rya hickory Tree 1 1 1 Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fraxinus americana white ash Tree 1 1 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 3 3 3 5 5 5 13 13 16 5 5 5 1 1 1 4 4 4 3 3 3 Juglans nigra black walnut Tree 1 3 1 1 8 1 Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 3 4 1 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 Nyssa tupelo Tree 1 1 1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 Prunus serotina black cherry Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 1 1 1 Robinia pseudoacacia black locust Tree 1 Salix sericea silky willow Shrub 2 2 2 Ulmus americana American elm Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Stem count size (ares size (ACRES Species count Stems per ACRE ill ill 1 Ill 7 t 16 17 17 24 8 8 8 6 6 8 7 7 8 9 9 17 13 13 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 5 5 6 6 6 8 4 4 6 3 3 3 6 6 8 5 5 6 4 4 5 7 7 9 445.2 445.2 566.6 445.2 445.2 647.5 688 688 971.2 323.7 323.7 323.7 242.8 242.8 323.7 283.3 283.3 323.7 364.2 364.2 688 526.1 526.11 607 Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10% *Plots are documenting stream mitigation as well as stream buffer mitigation. Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Table 9. Planted Stems by Plot and Species (continued) Greenbrier Creek Current Plot Data (MY1 2012) Annual Means Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 671 -01 -0009* 671 -01 -0010 671 -01 -0011* 671 -01 -0012* MY1 (2012) Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Pnol-S P -all T Acer negundo boxelder Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 18 18 18 Acer rubrum red maple Tree 1 1 Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis Shrub 1 Betula nigra river birch Tree 21 2 2 Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 3 3 3 Ca rya hickory Tree 1 1 1 Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree 3 3 3 Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 1 1 1 11 1 1 4 4 4 Fraxinus americana white ash Tree 1 1 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 3 3 3 7 7 7 10 10 10 111 11 11 6S 65 68 Juglans nigra black walnut Tree 15 30 Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 1 9 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 3 31 3 1 1 1 5 5 5 Nyssa tupelo Tree 11 1 1 Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 8 8 8 Prunus serotina black cherry Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 8 8 8 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 1 1 1 Robinia pseudoacacia black locust Tree 1 Salix sericea silky willow Shrub 2 2 2 Ulmus americana American elm Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 121 12 Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub 1 1 1 4 41 4 Stem count size (ares size (ACRES Species count Stems per ACRE 9 9 24 11 11 11 17 17 17 19 19 21 138 138 183 1 1 1 1 12 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.30 5 5 6 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 7 16 16 21 364.2 364.21971.21445.21445.21445.2 688 6881 6881768.91 768.91 849.8 465.41 465.41 617.1 Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10% Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% *Plots are documenting stream mitigation as well as stream buffer mitigation. APPENDIX D STREAM SURVEY DATA Cross - section Plots Longitudinal Profile Plots Substrate Plots Tables lOa -b Baseline Stream Data Summary Tables 11 a -b Monitoring Data Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices River Basin: Elevation Cape Fear 96.68 4.5 Watershed: 6.2 Greenbrier Creek 9.1 96.06 XS ID Jerni an XS - 1, Pool 93.92 17.6 Feature 19.2 Pool 20.5 94.69 Date: 96.25 9/12/2012 r. 33.6 Field Crew: Parkinson, Dean, Stream F Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 1, Pool 99 98 - — a 97 5 0 9G --- ----- -- - - - - -- --- -- --- ------ -------- - - -- -- - - -- - - - - - -- - -- c ---- Ba,,kf li W 95 — — — — Flood Prone Area 94 MY- 019/12/12 93 0 i 10 20 30 40 j Station (feet) Station Elevation 0.0 96.68 4.5 96.27 6.2 9656 9.1 96.06 15.4 Jerni an Station Elevation 0.0 96.68 4.5 96.27 6.2 9656 9.1 96.06 15.4 93.79 16.3 93.92 17.6 93.95 19.2 94.56 20.5 94.69 25.4 96.25 30.2 97.53 33.6 98.32 SUMMARY DATA Banldull Elevation: 96.1 Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 19.6 Bankfull Width: 1 s.7 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA Flood Prone Width: NA Max Depth at Bankfull: '_.3 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.2 W / D Ratio: NA Entrenchment Ratio: NA Bank Height Ratio: 1.0 River Basin: Cape Peal Watershed: Greenbrier Creek XS 1D XS - 2, Ritile Feature Mille Date: 9/12/2012 Field Crew: Peikinson, Dean- Jenu an Station Elevation 0.00 100.47 6.26 100.24 8.80 99.97 9.53 99.39 1187 98.95 15.05 98.75 16.53 98.82 19.29 98.92 21.70 99.51 24.47 100.29 29.76 100.43 31.92 100.70 33.03 101.00 99 - -- Flood Pronc .Arta MY -01 9/12/12 98 0 10 20 30 40 Station (feet) SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: 100.0 Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 12.0 Bankfull Width: 14.5 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 101.2 Flood Prone Width: 100.0 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.2 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.8 W / D Ratio: 17.5 Entrenchment Ratio: 6.9 Bank Height Ratio: 1.0 Stream Type I E Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 2, Riffle 102 -- - -- -- -------- ` ---------------------------------- 101 -- - y 0 �" 100 ------------ - -- - Bankfull w 99 - -- Flood Pronc .Arta MY -01 9/12/12 98 0 10 20 30 40 Station (feet) River Basin: Elevation Cape Few- 100.99 5.58 Watershed: 10.12 Greenbrier Creek 12.48 XS ID P�� kinsoll, Dean. Jenu an X5 - 3, Pool 98.27 17.34 Feature 19.66 Pool 2450 :r P Date: 100.71 9/12/2012 1OL04 32bi 101.01 s' Stream E Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 3, Pool 102 101 ------------ ------- --- ------ --- ---- -- - --- -- �. y a 100 - _ r W — � ^ — Bankiidl 99 Flood Prone Area MY -MY Y'12/2U12 98 0 10 20 30 40 Station (feel) Station Elevation O.OII 100.99 5.58 101.30 10.12 99.86 12.48 Field Crew: P�� kinsoll, Dean. Jenu an Station Elevation O.OII 100.99 5.58 101.30 10.12 99.86 12.48 99.28 14.67 98.42 15.89 98.27 17.34 98.38 19.66 98.78 2450 100.34 2.08 100.71 27.76 1OL04 32bi 101.01 SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: 100.7 Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 24.8 Bankfull Width: 17.6 Flood Prune Area Elevation: NA Flood Prone Width: NA Max Depth at Bankfull: 2.4 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.4 W / D Ratio: NA Entrenchment Ratio: NA Bank Height Ratio: I.0 hYy Stream C/E Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 4, Pool 107 106 v 0 105 - - C 104 - - - - Flood Pronc Arca MY -01 9/12,12 103 0 10 20 30 40 Sintion (feet) River Basin: Cape Fein Watershed: Greenbrier Creek XS ID XS - 4. Pool Feature Puol Date: 9/12/2012 Station Elevation 0.0 105.5 5.3 105.4 9.1 105.0 11.4 Field Crew: Perkulsolr, Dean. Jerni atr hYy Stream C/E Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 4, Pool 107 106 v 0 105 - - C 104 - - - - Flood Pronc Arca MY -01 9/12,12 103 0 10 20 30 40 Sintion (feet) River Basin: Cape Fein Watershed: Greenbrier Creek XS ID XS - 4. Pool Feature Puol Date: 9/12/2012 Station Elevation 0.0 105.5 5.3 105.4 9.1 105.0 11.4 104.5 12.6 104.2 13.9 103.9 14.8 103.7 15.4 103.E 16.1 103.4 17.-1 103.5 18.8 lU3S 19.9 104.0 27.6 105.5 33.1 ]U5.9 SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: 105.5 Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 22.3 Bankfull Width: 23. l Flood Prune Area Elevation: NA Flood Prune Width: NA Max Depth at Bankt'ull: 2.1 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.0 W / D Ratio: NA Entrenchment Ratio: NA Bank Height Ratio: 1.0 River Basin: Elevation Cu e Feat' 104.89 Watershed: 10459 Greenbrier Creek 104.08 XS ID 104A3 XS - 5, Ri81e Jemi an Feature 103.27 Ritlle 103.11 Date: 102.7 9/12/2012 1(12.58 Field Crew: ((12.56 Perkinsol>, Dean, 102.79 19.14 103.01 20.76 103.18 23.76 103.86 27.90 103.90 32.7 104.22 Stream e E Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 5, Riffle 10(1 105 -- --- - - - - -- - -- -- - - -_ - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - 0 104 w 103 - - - - -_. -- - "flood Prone .Mea W -01 9/12112 102 0 10 20 30 40 Station (feet) Station Elevation 0.00 104.89 3.83 10459 6.22 104.08 6.99 104A3 7.82 Jemi an Station Elevation 0.00 104.89 3.83 10459 6.22 104.08 6.99 104A3 7.82 103.81 1058 103.27 12.36 103.11 14.06 102.7 1.1.82 1(12.58 17.28 ((12.56 17.98 102.79 19.14 103.01 20.76 103.18 23.76 103.86 27.90 103.90 32.7 104.22 SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: 103.9 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: l l .9 Bankfull Width: 165 Flood Prune Area Elevation: 105.2 Flood Prone Width: 100.0 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.3 Mean Depth at Bankfull: W /D Ratio: ?2.9 Entrenchment Ratio: 6.1 Bank Height Ratio: 1.0 River Basin: Cape Few Watershed: Greenbrier Creek XS ID XS - 6, Riffle Feature Riffle Date: 9/12/2012 Field Crew: Perkinson, Dean, Jem an Station Elevation 0.00 101.55 3.55 101.2 9.33 10132 12.11 100.55 14.65 99.88 16.46 99.81 18.30 99.96 1958 100.37 24.61 101.46 28.90 101.67 32.93 101.68 — — — — Flood Prone Area 100 -.- —MY-01912/12 99 0 10 20 30 40 Station (feet) SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: 101.3 Bankrull Cross - Sectional Area: 12.7 Bankfull Width: 14.7 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 102.8 Flood Prone Width: 100.0 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.5 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.9 W / D Ratio: 17.0 Entrenchment Ratio: 6.8 Bank Height Ratio: LO Stream Type I E Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 6, Riffle 103 102 `� ------- ---- - -- -------- --- ---- --- - - - --- ---------------- 0 101 0 .�; --- -Bankf U W — — — — Flood Prone Area 100 -.- —MY-01912/12 99 0 10 20 30 40 Station (feet) River Basin: Ca pe Fear Watershed: Greenbrier Creek XS ID XS - 7, Riffle Feature RitHe Date: 9/12/2012 Field Crew: Pei kinsom Dealt Jemi an Station Elevation 0.00 103.00 6.57 102.52 15.81 99.35 19.64 98.34 22.69 98.51 27.07 98.46 28.71 98.50 29.93 98.17 30.92 98.25 31.39 98.47 32.89 99.14 34.67 99.98 39.59 101.77 42.25 102.31 49.07 102.62 SUMMARY DATA Bankfllli Elevation: 101.8 Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 71.8 Bankfull Width: 30.8 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 105.4 Flood Prune Width: 100.0 Max Depth at Bankfull: 16 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 23 W / D Ratio: 132 Entrenchment Ratio: 12 Bank Height Ratio: LO Stream Type 1 E Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 7, Riffle 106 105 ------------------------------------------- - - -. _ 104 103 e102 0 ---- -- - - -- ------------- ------- --- --- ------ - - - - -- - ---- - - ---- 101 tv - Bankfull 100 - - - - Flood Pronc .Arta 99 MY-01 9/12/12 98 97 0 l0 20 30 40 50 60 Station (feel) River Basin: Elevation Cape Few 102.7 2.3 Watershed: 5.5 Greenbrier Creek 7.5 101.8 XS ID , Jenu an XS - 8. Pool 99.8 15.5 Feature 20.2 Pcwl 23.2 98.3 Date: 98.3 9/12/2012 98.2 .. r Field Crew: 35.2 Perku�so», De�i 37.9 160.3 44.2 102.4 46.1 102.7 49.1 102.6 e -_ - - Stream a C/E Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Cheek, XS - 8, Pool 103 102 101 c 100 99 98 97 G 10 20 30 4G 50 60 Station (feet) Station Elevation 0.0 102.7 2.3 102.6 5.5 102.4 7.5 101.8 9.1 , Jenu an Station Elevation 0.0 102.7 2.3 102.6 5.5 102.4 7.5 101.8 9.1 101.3 13.5 99.8 15.5 98.8 20.2 98.2 23.2 98.3 26.2 98.3 29.8 98.2 33.0 98.3 35.2 99.1 37.9 160.3 44.2 102.4 46.1 102.7 49.1 102.6 SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: 102.1 Bankfull Crass - Sectional Area: 109.8 Bankfull Width: 38.7 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA Flood Prune Width: NA Max Depth at Bankfull: 4.2 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 2.8 W / D Ratio: NA Entrenchment Ratio: NA Bank Height Ratio: 1.0 ---- l�aolcfull ---- - Flood Prone .4rea MY -0I 9/12J12 River Basin: Cape Pear Watershed: Greenbrier Creek XS ID XS - 9, Ri81e Feature Rilue Date: 9/12/2012 Field Crew: Perkinson, Dean, Jenu m1 Station Elevation 0.00 102.19 3.26 102.24 7.23 101.74 11.55 100.41 15.47 99.11 18.49 98.36 19.90 98.00 2355 9797 25.08 97.83 25.66 97.60 26.83 97.67 2759 97.64 28.73 98.18 30.12 97.43 31.76 97.36 32.6 97.46 34.6 97.31 36.5 97.66 37.5 98.80 40.7 99.71 48.0 10252 523 102.88 SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: 100.4 Bankfull Cross- Sectional Area: 62.3 Bankfull Width: 31.0 Flood Prune Area Elevation: 103.5 Flood Prune Width: 100.0 Max Depth at Bankfull: 3.1 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 10 W / D Ratio: 15.4 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.2 Bank Height Ratio: 1.4 Stream Type I E Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 9, Riffle 104 103 102 - - 101 ------- - - - -- -------------------------------- - - - - -- ------ - - - - -- - loo ---- Ban�lall W 99 - - - - Flood Prone Area 98 W- 019/1 2/12 97 96 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Slalion (feel) River Basin: Cape Few Watershed: Greenbrier Creek XS ID XS - 10 Pool Feature Pool Date: 9/12/2012 Field Crew: Pei kmson, Dean, Jemi an Station Elevation 0.0 101,9 3.4 101.9 6.9 101.1 14.9 98.3 18.0 97.6 20.0 97.0 24.4 96.7 30.8 96.5 33.5 97.0 37.0 98.3 46.0 101,7 52.6 104.1 100 W 99 Bankfull 98 SUMMARY DATA Bankfuil Elevation: 101.1 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 109.7 Bankfull Width: 37.4 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA Flood Prone Width: NA Max Depth at Bankfull: 4.6 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 2.9 W / D Ratio: NA Entrenchment Ratio: NA Bank Height Ratio: 1.0 Stream Type I C/E Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 10, Pool 105 104 103 tu 102 `J ��--------- - - - - -- 101 .2 100 W 99 Bankfull 98 — — — Flood Pronc Arca 97 MY -01 9112112 96 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Station (feel) River Basin: Cape Fear Watershed: Greenbrier Creek XS ID XS - 11. Riffle Feature Riffle Date: 9/12/2012 Field Crew: Parkinson, Dean, Jemi an Station Elevation 0.00 102.08 6.56 102.26 9.34 102.11 10.26 102.20 11.38 101.91 16.32 99.70 20.95 97.41 23.75 96.66 25.36 96.86 28.04 96.73 31.48 96.80 33.46 96.80 35.80 97.45 38.12 98.14 40.90 98.79 42.3 99.36 49.1 101.61 53.2 101.77 100 - - - - Bankfull SUMMARY DATA Banff ull Elevation: 99.7 Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 56.0 Bankfull Width: 27.0 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 102.7 Flood Prone Width: 100.0 Max Depth at Bankfull: 3.0 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 2.1 W / D Ratio: 13.0 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.7 Bank Height Ratio: 1.7 Stream Type I E Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 11, Riffle 104 103 -- - °------------------------------------------------------------------ 102 101 0 100 - - - - Bankfull W 99 - - - - Flood Prone : V.. 98 MY -01 9/12/12 97 96 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Slahon (feel) River Basin: Cape Fear Watershed: Greenbrier Creek XS ID XS - 12, Riffle Feature Ritlle Date: 9/12/2012 Field Crew: Parkinson, Dean, Jerni m1 Station Elevation 0.110 IM25 5.81 99.90 18.01 97.23 2167 97.04 25.59 97.06 27.14 96.84 29.37 96.91 3118 97.17 37.78 98.54 44.38 100.27 4242 100.10 101 100 - - -- ------------------ ---- ---- -- -- ------ --- -- -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - sankfidl W 99 SUMMARY DATA Banff full Elevation: 99.9 Banff full Cross - Sectional Area: 71.8 Bankfull Width: 37.1 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 103.0 Flood Prone Width: 100.0 Max Depth at Bankfull: 3.1 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.9 W / D Ratio: 19.2 Entrenchment Ratio: 2.7 Bank Height Ratio: 1.0 Stream Type I E Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 12, Riffle 104 103 - - -- - -- - - - -- 102 101 100 - - -- ------------------ ---- ---- -- -- ------ --- -- -- -- - - - - - -- - - - - sankfidl W 99 --- -blood Pronc Area 98 ___ _ 97 — r. MY- 019/12/12 96 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Slalion (feel) River Basin: Elevation Cape Fear 99.9 XS - 13, Pool Feature Watershed: Date; Grernbrier Creek Field Crew: - 20.6 ry. YS ID 95.8 23.1 95.5 24.6 95.7 25.9 96.0 27.0 96.5 29.6 97.4 32.5 97.6 35.2 97.4 39.6 97S -33.9 99.3 47.9 99.9 50.1 100.0 f" Rr `r { Stream a C/E Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 13, Pool 101 100 99 a 98 97 96 95 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Station (feet) Station Elevation 0.0 99.9 XS - 13, Pool Feature Pawl Date; 9/12/2012 Field Crew: Petkinsoir, Deaz�, Jemi an Station Elevation 0.0 99.9 11.5 98.9 15.4 97.7 17.1 96.7 18.2 96.3 20.6 96A 22.0 95.8 23.1 95.5 24.6 95.7 25.9 96.0 27.0 96.5 29.6 97.4 32.5 97.6 35.2 97.4 39.6 97S -33.9 99.3 47.9 99.9 50.1 100.0 SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: 98.9 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: X6.0 Bankfull Width: 31.E Flood Prune Area Elevation: NA Flood Prone Width: NA Max Depth at Bankfull: 3.4 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.8 W / D Ratio: NA Entrenchment Ratio: NA Bank Height Ratio: 1.0 Sankfull ---- FloodProncArca Ntv-o1 envtz River Basin: Cape Fear Watershed: Greenbrier Creek XS ID XS - 14 Riffle Feature Riffle Date: 9 /12/2012 Field Crew: Perkmson, Dean Jernigan Station Elevation 0.00 98.89 6.04 97.97 9.10 97.28 12.64 96.60 15.84 96.36 20.83 95.96 27.01 95.89 32.76 95.87 3632 96.09 39.26 96.64 45.83 99.13 46.87 99.40 51.38 99.39 98 - - - - BankM 97 - -° Flood Nonc .Area SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Elevation: 98.0 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 57.3 Bankfull Width: 36.7 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 100.1 Flood Prone Width: 100,0 Max Depth at Bankfull: 2.1 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.6 W / D Ratio: 23.5 Entrenchment Ratio: 2.7 Bank Height Ratio: LO Stream Type I E Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 14, Riffle 101 - ------- -- ---- ------ ---- --- --- -- -- -- -- ----- 100 .� d 5 99 98 - - - - BankM 97 - -° Flood Nonc .Area 96 - -MY-01 9/12/12 95 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Station (feet) each Man. Rwch (OU+00- M,00) 12M Ned, aae vn2n2 Pahms9n Ucan Jm.i a. 1012 23u Year 1 Munn trig `Survey Year i M3e11m1.a8 :wrrn' sudem ]kd Eler'nkm Wme, F2eva0ae &.d.. Bed Uevadu Wwn El"iti0e s U.0 153 16.7 ri.2 9UU 967 3Y.S 95.5 96.7 57.2 936 167 70.6 90.1 117 SI.B 95.2 96,7 113.4 954 96.7 133.5 95.0 96.7 158.1 90.3 96.7 185 3 Y4.5 96.7 ''_ _0 9 13.9 96.7 252.9 94.8 96.8 286.5 94.6 96.7 300'. 95.5 96.7 33O.0 94.4 96.7 343.4 15.3 96.7 413.8 95.9 96.7 H'' -.5 954 96.6 445.' Y55 %.7 4584 94.7 96.6 470.5 95.0 96.7 481.7 947 96.7 493.7 9 5 7 96.7 5381 9G0 961 574.4 96.6 97.1 513.1 9ti.0 Y7.1 012.9 95.4 97.1 102 101 100 F 99 4 98 8 97 ■ a- ■ i- a�- a--t -a a -■ a s a I-- -- -- - -- - - -- - -- ___. ..--- -. _-_.. - - -- -- 94 93 0 200 40D -► Mrl 120221 Bed 1014 x015 Yen 3Mo01torll.e `8urvr) Yen 4Mmlaarle8':Smvev 13224 97.4 983 Greenbrier Year 1(2012) Profile -Reach 00+00 to 10+00 600 B00 -._- rllatanaNM1 fVwrl (20121 WatwSurface 1000 2012 2013 2014 2315 AvB. Wale wrrcn Slq.c -1 UU 1' RR(Ic IX 2Y All. RIM, Slope 3.OM 113l l.rn(Ih 18 Mg. Nw 51 r 0 01 600 B00 -._- rllatanaNM1 fVwrl (20121 WatwSurface 1000 Re4 L Main Rm h (10-00-22+50) F..,, Pre.lr Dale 90J12 C Pnkimm D Joni atl 2012 1615 2014 2015 Veer. Umins\4m'vey Yea, 2 Mmi-ft'Surrey Year 3ManitoU51g S., vg Yeu 4 Mmftwing Survey St.u. Bed Fle-la. WMer Ele-dom Station Bed D-U.. Wale FI-11m 8tatim Bed Elevation Wale YleraUm Sl.u- Bea Fler4Uon Weer Flevadon 0.0 95.3 96.7 Avg. RMFI, slope 0.0050 29.2 96.0 90 Caul".mpn 39.5 955 96.7 5-,.2 93.6 967 0.0000 70.6 94.1 96.7 81.8 95.1 96 7 "13.4 YS 4 16.7 133.5 95.0 96 7 158.1 94.3 96.7 185.3 94.5 96.7 220.9 93.9 96 7 251.8 94.8 %.8 2tl6.5 94.6 96.7 3001 95.5 96.7 330.0 94.4 96.7 343A 95-3 967 413.8 95.9 96.7 442.3 15.4 96.6 445.7 955 96 7 458.4 94.7 96.6 470.5 95 0 96.7 484.7 94.1 96.7 493.7 151 967 538.1 96.0 96.7 574A 96.6 97.1 5Y3.1 Yti0 97: 612.9 "A 97.1 Greenbrier Year 1 (2012) Profile - Reach 10+00 to 22 +50 102 - 101 100 F 99 ti E 98 97 4 r g6 95 94 - 93 1000 1200 13224 97A 98.5 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 Dimna(fa0tl - +- Year1(2012)Bed a Year1(2012) Water6urface 2012 2013 2014 2015 Avg. Water Surface FA Tr 0.0017 .r I-91h 29 Avg. RMFI, slope 0.0050 Caul".mpn le Av . P. el 0.0000 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 Dimna(fa0tl - +- Year1(2012)Bed a Year1(2012) Water6urface b 1.1mNU<6Tnbuluy(00.00.09 +oat ur< Fragile 9112!11 , peeki e D leni a1 1011 1VI3 Yeu' 1 MuNtalOg t5w'vey 1< 2 Asodtor§R \3urvey kNm Bad Flnitlua Waa r FI -tion Watl90 &d FI-11. W,le 0.0 99.1 11.6 99.0 29.3 9a.7 34.3 9tl.8 41.7 99.1 50.4 99.1 55,2 9ktl 63.4 989 68.8 98.8 78.3 Ya.7 8.3.7 98.5 94.5 99.0 104.0 99.0 1098 98.9 1140 99.0 IlO.tl 3v3.9 117,1 99.0 136.1 99.1 14Y 100.0 156.0 99.3 168.5 99.5 17x.9 99.7 Iws 99a 187,1 99.6 IY3.7 99.7 198.3 997 100.1 99.6 2,11 1015 Y<v 3 Alaulturlog 6Survry }'ev 4 MunitorNg 18urvey Greenbrier Year 1(2012) Profile - Unnamed Tributary 00+00 to 09+00 109 108 107. _ f 106 105 104 c 103 ._ 101 . 100 99 98 -- -__ -.. -. __.__.___.__- ._- __..______.___. _______ ____.__..__. _.___._- _ ._____._ ._. __. _______ __ _._ _.. .... _ ._ - _.__ - - _____ ____._ _.. _----- ___..__. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 oiatsn (4a) Year 1120121 Bed Year 1120121 Water surface 475.0 103.2 2011' 2 -11J 2u11 2-115 Avg. Wate Surf -Shp< 8tl0<I.mglh IU Avg. Rlflle Slap,. !bW l.euglh 9 Av . PoW AI Greenbrier Year 1(2012) Profile - Unnamed Tributary 00+00 to 09+00 109 108 107. _ f 106 105 104 c 103 ._ 101 . 100 99 98 -- -__ -.. -. __.__.___.__- ._- __..______.___. _______ ____.__..__. _.___._- _ ._____._ ._. __. _______ __ _._ _.. .... _ ._ - _.__ - - _____ ____._ _.. _----- ___..__. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 oiatsn (4a) Year 1120121 Bed Year 1120121 Water surface 475.0 103.2 __j _ Pebble Count, Greenbrier Note Cross Section 2 Pebble Count, Greenbrier 100% {� 3 � jb l 's „": :=y�'At^"�J F�t8:wd�� ' t.i . ° ; � eF}�' C90% l5�� '€r'.� tZkr E� � . h Cf�p�,G � ke f'jj� t ,i � i ll "a Q 1' "^ ti � � 4i" � {{�Y� ''. iP6�-• ' � 280% �c f ' " � �J'Tf¢�� 1 s ' r'��-C+w€,L � i �d.4 �X"Y � '1 4 s70% G° §�_b � +4 v6v ~� t 3_ 'm 6 0% HTI t ^€ � 3 - i� 1� ' �B�cd�°e+� • ,e ` ,3 _ ,zfiP ,}ty � .�� 50% afist" �-b. p MA '��' 'i3 P "" F CO_ 4 � � "Tr �.��°,„c?d 4 "�� •h, � i f ~ 40% .� t � -_ %P � °� � > ��Y t r ' o ,r ^,�� ",� ZER r 0 t r v_ ' 30% ` P£*�a>� r� f c� h LL f : n i � `3a � �' 20% n� ,x "E''Y ;., ^v - ��: r ' - " � �" u L y + � a _ 'i •'AE'� ;�."$ - r �" .i nS{ i �y�T& a 10% �l ..`' r° a` , 1 � Lsz . + - a +Y' fiT _ ^� ' e �d� 'Vi" _111, IF �f' J' 30% n N ,C Wirt, o 0 01 0 1 1 10 100 1000 10000 Particle Size (mm) --o—Cumulative Percent Percent Rem —Riffe a Pool —Run —Glide Size percent less than (mm) -- Percent by substrate type D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulde c k 17 792 39 04 60 4 1 105 120 8% 4% 40% 48% 09A Pebble Count, Greenbrier Note Cross Section 6 - Pebble Count, Greenbrier 100% ` 4 { � 4� k tv� , b 4 VA, Q }9 rk '� �1. �R,�dkS, %�. 90% ' , r a�yf �` �ax 2 80% di .�. hiv.n(,-� '^R (r� d i ,, yfi ,: 70% � ' _5 ' � . 60% i � �^ � ° � a i . 50% < ~ _ 4P40% a, tY `p a pia'n ° �S� � +R _0 4Aw 30% ^u'�^_." 3` �y � a I` . Id t LL 20% _z 5r�. " t '. � ma" v d• � a z a 10% ¢W*s�'h.� ��Ss �.�.5 Z F 'TPaR T i0" - yz % 00 1�I`�q 01 01 1 10 100 1000 0 00 Particle Size (mm) --m—Cumulative Percent Percent Item —Riffle Pool - Run —Glide Size percent less than (mm) - Percent by substrate type D16 D35 D0 D84 D95 silt/clay sand gravel cobble bou!der bedrock 41 323 51 35 58 6 90 124 0% 0% 60% 40% 0% 0 % Pebble Count, Greenbrier Note Cross Section 6 " Pebble Count, Greenbrier 100% n _ �Y'"�, 90% " 'r f' > vi a `✓ry^,u( `9,y� - w r) a 70% � ', i�qr,; U V. S 5 rs w t Ys�, xg� r.� �g °, irT Y Y' ^ .� iw S . F '' _ � ��_ : Y L M 3 � .v k . k�- Y' 3 - `� 5 Q'iw 41F $% ,fy rr5°«'•a d+ c �" h �(i q 60% 1U 11_111'w n n, t� zSi �� r'ex� Ids � ax�� „�� "� � '_�� i ` „� ; ° Y �'.• c 50% ram �. ¢mot+ x. � r% �A.. � a Thy t� � 'd e�"'S � M1m � g h �S'^"P'rt °` �� }' �'xA� rYVe' s r ' e _ 4a G.3 -aT.. Y s.< e - �".,dg' }t; a ' �sT + v- °u y yejs%{+' �t_FW9u 40% ��4 ,�� -n ".tl �i`FKk„e3''��n� �'`�'�1A e - #5 �n e ,�..�c r 30% Il C%,,�x�;°y '�'s §': wa '3mi§ �g< v91n':�F iY w�p NF Vi.$µ �A kv �r��r?��''k*�i ^ b .�.- a 10% = � t � TI ��I s- °q -12;° �w i >� x'= 5 si n1l f A - 4 -u �M_ 0% �tT i t �G t gy , = TNt Y 2 0 01 01 1 10 100 1000 10000 Particle Size (mm) -t Cumulative Percent • Percent Item —Riffle —Pool —Run -+ -Glide Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock 26 533 38 60 500 82 103 00/o 0% 64% 36% 0% 1 0% i Pebble Count, Greenbrier Note Cross Section 7 Pebble Count, Greenbrier 100% s tV �' 80% �_ "s °�.#G": v'L'y' 14 'c °N ✓» yN ��g � �f v� a•"V-NI i��.I= i'� - �F` 70% iL e^ N` 4 Wx s a t M .f'�ry F� h fie' �' ✓£ °''�, 60% — v :A � "Fr zr m: x ° s n e, 40% u_ 30 %� 04 VIO a w x "IF YS ��D'. +S S@ I. �� y`le 6 a 3 °k'i g ' �zr' _ w, 10% �1H 5 _ �1 �r i3'b ` `.fit zil 401- v'4roq; fiYt"1 PRcri „ #i 9 .f, 0% 0 01 01 1 10 100 1000 10000 Particle Size (mm) --*—Cumulative Percent • Percent Item —Riffle —e —Pool —Run —Glide Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock 0 198 2 59 8 3 24 29 0% 32% 1 68% 0% 0% 0% i Pebble Count, Greenbrier Note Cross Section 10 Pebble Count, Greenbrier 100% tQ M� +I> ?srT r I i; <<fI''S�^ 'P� ^'# �'�„Jil 'M �13��a.�lS 1Y�V��J i, +r #�� ,�.�g n2�N'�:b. ��FtR•�ttd�i±�;�,5"Yi .� �'�uiM2 ^'Sr4'ai�'9'{+ alt x;h' ��9!'��j�q �p �iJ 1 v 80% " 6� ` a ` ✓A '�� " U i L rne`~ ° +� F�+'ilia ' .', ') � $ l� .tip `y�?i7vr;ii{ dAei'' °.. ", " P "" F t i h_.. W � ` < �¢��., i Z 70% I ' s�- c%! �3 tN� ' `fi u .� . + ��' "K y A`b c .4 C d . ,� � . • c } * �ry n ��+.• - 1 c � 'n,y � v k � � 1 '� "Zo '� t fi h F 2� �� .s .{ � � Fi ' ' .R "i' � Y fix y 60% 1� '� I" e�5 ao�'wP � �'Sb ' ' �" n x ! 5 oz >4" a e �; 1 e 4Ar�em -_ t0 V. g = a tt . + i , = x Y; '+y— m'` 'r r 4 e ��. e f -+ a .•'K'.'�� i✓sa v, xx* ',{.`�4^ §,� i 30% g -��yw�,�_,z.� 2 y�" r� o'-v ^ ', ,;'' E; p ,a P4 w`s ' �+ 'S" y yfea.1'A', li ..,a a $ ` _ ti s{? y`.^ ;�: ,� ;% '+� x �;4�t✓i,,3 4tl • k2v "" i !G'''^r jk �,T, ;� ' k tir` r t i FF. ' - *�,ti� �.y '- , } t. Sx~,.' 10% 001 01 1 10 100 1000 10000 Particle Size (mm) —*— Cumulative Percent • Percent Item —Riffle — e—Pool —Run —+ —Glide - Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type D16 D35 - D50 D84 D95 silt/clay sand aaravel cobble boulder bedrock 0 161 035 40 12 19 0% 46% 1 54% 0% 0% 0% Pebble Count, 7F Greenbrier Note Cross Section 11 Pebble Count, Greenbrier 100% �a' f. ¢ a, M, Tz ^ r l `e 80% '�F s ^ i t . 4. 5 - ' IY 7O/ ly^9l° F Uayh. VNylf &f II 60% o-f 50% ' a ^ 30% a' _ i8 _ LL t� En _ c r,z '� of ,z sy. � ✓ a 10% �o R N'k"�' P4 ^i s i ` r "$ � �:.. "d4" i �`x 4 ,`R3.. +,� �« �`� ' .@RS a .is a �•' '` , g , 0% 001 01 1 10 100 1000 10000 Particle Size (mm) tCumulative Percent • Percent Item —a— Riffle —Pool —Run —Glide Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type D16 D35 D50 284 D95 silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock 0 145 041 1 0 1 92 125 0% 54% 21% 25% 0% 0% Pebble Count, Greenbner Note Cross Section 12 100% Pebble Count, Greenbrier 90% c .n�r �yi�rr i5+yj�� rn e 3�_dY. ^ Zn '- /t�^ ?�x� �� N `-�� .' �� S "'� yS � ,�. � �, ��",� ," °- . �� 't�S ;d " � : , . ^ ' � , ' � ��"+at`n^g5�:�i�A � '"�+- �'� @,i ,:�y� � r2, ,�"� ��.'",i'� +�^�� °�� ,YC y.�' 9�'�t'a zii et�e ''' ` '' d� r E6 � - , ' . l } i .n @9'� , .`' r ��' � �'i`+ y + a�� K '._'4 , ae� - ; t � � „ E . E . %�� t� a�� a�N ✓ t��. i+j�,` _ z S t +e ` > y S � , t ' i p �A < „ wiid� & y� " y � � ` �' / . i . ll a �� v ._ � '� � �4 „ d - - '� - �� s � ��d"rp 5 £ f ` x "} 4� 4 - « . c�. if � i ' _ P „ i � " 0. � i � 4 t x� i�z��e'h��%xY£�;� ..��c�{i ,k.i'"'� #.'4 3 h � . �^ � � ' ',. � �� . �y >. r ,� r , , .' y .n� 4"� "S. f y y ,. ^.� . r i� ''f�- r ,., .1w5� � „�� „r � ".: 4 K�ps i`bv'iA.�I�,'' �` �; "�� "�� a -' -� a '� ,2�fY¢•� .ti � o 2'�J� Y:d n ': 7'` a � '�° � i a�id"�e-�fa�N" " -, G�_c�,�` P � "�� '� � a�` � � . am,rS1 F� .� � �- z o : a � c� �a '� ` . h� i,iti E �rKd a� a ` - ' "�e , Rb ' . 4 "Js&' "d z "[ ''Y° 1 �y r a = G % " ' ` Kl4�+�S�'�a��',4',gpey.E� .v y ' - & _ m� : . __ 3 3 �"` gt , � . ' � ,"�: �" +� ' `h" � " r o- G 4 ; A �� ' . + ` r , 6T> 2 �� ' - ¢{ � t �I1 3 ,� �s�fi�i i M d�-a � �tFi'� d Fg�t b ° a � S V yo ' �� i � � t � ' �% .�Y:Wy ��'� ,z; K ti'�?Y� .: k�i�.i �-i. +i= +�� n � �e�'`,� ' yM P� iF"�'e a-` � 1� ' �� , `e° �' ' �z „ � •P � .°wr _ t . ti ra "�1 � ,�1 �r`v 'r Y'm•, , ` arfi��; "w� �. �� 93 �% '>y$' ga �4u 4,� � _ q iNk�80% �4 u �E iy �� 3 i>, 70% om V"I . � . � a�� F � J ' " ' � � � ° a. 4.� p ' • ' � � v . J S eF '5 1 t Q P "i��•�'.��y '<.` '�' 760% � L� m 50% 3 �iAd Ib t ��k� s"d� � 3,'i��d€° 4e."_ ` 4`-� ' 'xZr '$ ',$ 2.� �� , fit-�� i`'�> # +� -krw �, '_ � ��Y> %' ; �y'� � `qq'Y+u i,i�.^:7��„,,4`�% ta , �y y.'s�'�� F— ri� � °�4': ' ��T � ' •`* . . i . j , { 1;�ai"1 '`��'- ,3s �A'��k a�,i' ry `^ *��''�4 M' `} d c ;�� ,�F.3 .- '� �.t'v ��` y"�,v �� z+�y � s e �� ro a f�, . � � � t�i , , 2�, � �a � S.��a: .a . 3 'e. ' ,: �n ttr . � d . A 9 7 ! � o " d 7 F 1 < @}R � is�k�``3r� � x �� v3 � 3� "i YE �� r -s r w \ u * g'�' .�� i 7 'v ' r . ' � . 1 '`� '"� ,{ � � ,qx '� � ` . :`�d .��Y'i40% x G 30% 2 I J° , a) 20% f h a Az�a- 10% a c 44i?8 y 0% 0 01 - 0 1 1 10 100 1000 I 1� � � . � 0�b,+.y�t �3 � ' � + IA � k � 4 j 0 00 Particle Size (mm) . }Cumulative Percent Percent Item — Rde Pool — Run tGlide Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 sand gravel cobble boulder P�d.rocl 0 070 0 12 0 2 1 15 12% 1 766 12% 0% 0% 77 Pebble Count, Greenbner E: Note Cross Section 14 Pebble Count, Greenbner 100% . .,- t � � u , ' ;� �' 4 i� � r '4 > , � � '" ;o ar �- �� i ,r �' �"� ;`, �..;. �'`�,tMA.,��,� �YE "'f �"�� ?y��<� �� s,r^ .° , �e� a � 90% �x ii�( ��4, �Qy ' . ' x3ON,r � � .,�,>y"'A '44 �y, '.t'k", c� > t � � r ' 1 N?±, S� �n +1 °�n � a J P . Y "��" y?t�r l'�,��# f�o 1480% ". . x}•' � `.F 'b d- ,' :Y �a, � - 4F�}�9 ,� - '.'p ^�°'mf i��'" 5a ,� <EQ C F� ' r �.} f�z x." A �� _ �4. n�� R d ,� ;Jy d'h zT��wp .',' ��` ��6",e : " �3 � r n � ° = 5 i.'~"� �� yK '''K'�� '4 ° � , �r,Y, w ° ' � G § 70% , . }"' a e r C A t { _ ah , �.'� ^z V r iqV�i � ��"�'=� g f R " R r p��a M:�y� �d� t� "�¢ �iY �" �"°M f � f� c g 60% v= 5 1 � r � � r�Mrsr C:¢��''"a 9 #r,> r�YY�y " � � ; ' 7,r��e Fj-ak� n�"�� ` 50% ^ �� i r, [' - L 4 ?��'n �Ss " Y a V 4 � 1 : 4_ `�E k }` ' &7`r t � � �� i VI,1140% $�.q" '_z A` �°-� ,N r Rr ' 1 k4 P v, a �� ~ v'a�"r'`� y,�,k �„�� p1 - �� 'i 'f � .� "' i I p. �a F 1 N °'„� %,r�� "A a � ^�, Rt r " ' i , y� i r�F ; v �_ sz ��• p ,"� � dy � r i >✓"`nu�r n��o�,y �� 30% �,� , � � ,. �` �4t ,, �a�� °,��F �e' LL nk�a 4 "� � f n a ve' a � � ` r °' �� I e �"� � �� ?r 20% v � v a ° " s � �v�aa • �` Tr �� r h , x � `t1� �' � a 10% � �fb.�`� � �i ' � ��' �"�w � �r.� IX ax �„� ��'u =jq . � .'�J x�! . w¢ � � ai ? ,s � � ��ry. •�M� �a�,`$ F1 h � �y.� a�c�* F ir w � 0% 1��}° 0, 0 0 0 01 0 1 1 10 100 100t Particle Size (mm) --w-Cumulative Percent Percent Rem —a—Riffle —Pool —Run -*--Ghde Size percent less than (mm) Percent by_ substrate type D16 D35 D50 D84 D95 silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder b r0o0 c k 0 500 34 11 46 6 78 89 0% 20% 48% 32% 0% % Table 9a Baseline Stream Data Summary- Unnamed Tributary i Green hrier Creek iFFP Prniert Number 6711 Parameter Gauge Regional Cmrye Pre- Existlng Condition -UT Reference Reach( ") Data _ Design Year 1(2012) Monitoring -iTl Dimension and Substrate = Riffle -,W Ri %/RU %P%G*A/S' LL UL Eq Min IMean Med Max SD Min Mean I Med Max SD I Min Max Med I Min Mean Med Max SD BF Width (11) 17 32 "+� a 32 SC%/SA °.0 /G%C*/.9%EE % 66 276 a 1 145 147 165 Floo roue Width ft , * a� °� 8 ^'a 3 ` 415 50 a + 140 100 1-954-650 BF Mean Depth ft 09 12 w'. 5 -i,5 Enuammnt Class 15/15- 199/20.49/50- 07 06 09 BF Mac Depth 11 ai`�. -; .= 12 14 20 L78 1 2 1 a 15 BF Cross Secbmial Area its 27 5 8 33 5 11 9 12 0 117 Wi Rauo •4 37 74 230 163 181 236 Entrenchment Ratiu n-' %..>s ,- `'r ^"5" 12 >22 51 G1 G6 69 Bank He tRati 7.a- 1 0 -13 1 U 10 1;' 'Cz�" a x f' *L -.,A .mss-, - kx "'r, r�&f, + � ....z ^l_r � Z- _ --"- s`c '' - ......>. -" . m�'sc � tf°�... _ s„�h ,.,.,,".t Rdflelength R .=s'?f.. $.` ,6't �'w,.'- 2 12 10 32 35 Rittle sloe Nft `•" r'� — — - No Water m ChannT14 -Pool 1 th it e4 a+ lers.�,,u -9'� ' -; R ,V a»- ;r'i -`e - _ 4 0 10 0 8 Pool Max d th It h� . - _ ' a r z.7 ^- 2 8 1 2 1 "29 Pool c ft r�i vw.e. Z ,s ; � "�-8r n V9 ? A 25 104 8 23 22 Pattern _ ' ^�a-, -1 -' =ter i e x - q -,Z F _ - '§ W -3 0 Chanel Beltwidth A 77 - I I - Radius of Cluvaturo ft Er» Channel Sinuosity 10 to 1 1 therefore no pattern variables are able to be calculated R. Bankfull width Meander Wavel ft �4- '114 94 1 1 1 100 Meander Width ratio h�_� <; ;t, '4-A-4 28 T rt - stir, >.q�m ti'i ..� r -� ,1 - - n'4 �..�n"`s� :.'h, ,•• - d3`S'. .- a-.,, er.n Ps'�4'�la er,.y n„yi� a, w.4 So— lbsht 5-,ai �no�ie "t`P eKim"' }X= +ry"at%1# irvu.. `FA R'NS�. n- "ro„Y.fr.3?. - TF- m- - c (mm )mobih2ed at bankhfl 'in .;.�� _'° ' =.'* --� ,.;� -: �, - � _ , ° aa. Addkfoael Reach Param "et�ra ,� �.,° �' �° � -t~, .c. '%8th � r� fir, . r � ; �: r�,°s � +- +i- �'a'��r» �a + -� M= �- v..r�'> J -.t s • i - e 4 --sr ,.`a ,.� Rosgen Classihcau G4,t a CA-ty e- C4 c C e - Bankfull Velocity Bankfull Discltar a tafs Valley Lmwffi ift)Velf ' A-- Channel ThWwcg L tl - * 7� 868 868 Smuos ft1+rt Ate. 5 " "S„"- e'8`«'t+ 10 11 1 U 10 Water Surface Slope 00030 -0 0038 00077 00038 BF Awe Nft 5"w rt.. - - Bankfull Floodplain Area aCfea .c} u , ofReachwithEro B °` -max, ,,�$ -- �r 1!Z_ 1, ,"4 Chuff Iel StabLh cr Habitat Mein sbr =7ly iv �E"s"'W ^.9 °4_am awe7`�'".lYr,`�3„+oT tr r,. _� rig 77'7�Aa� Br.Icwcal or Oth A+, Zz I S 5a Table 9b Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrology Containment Parameter Distributions) Greenbrier Creek (EEP Project Number 671) Parameter Prv-Fxhd.e Condition Reference Reachea Data DWVn Mordtorine Baseline -6 t r Y '�„e 'x.n'Y�t� _� 1. -ILI i,3 Ae'.w,`.°d'' L�t�a .. _ Y �..eT "u ._�"`ak ,Lz r aGW�i+ tSs'�iF a� Q R2. °ra "�i �_ �k-n"777 77M777 77dc Ri %/RU %P%G*A/S' 17 32 "+� a SC%/SA °.0 /G%C*/.9%EE % a 4 w36 y k°1 ^'a 3 ` 415 a + /d95 dl6 /d35 /dSU /d84 U U9 ] 5 1-954-650 120 U w'. 5 -i,5 Enuammnt Class 15/15- 199/20.49/50- -n- �.e . Incision Cas<12/12- 149115- 991' Table 9a. Basellne Stream Data Summary - Main Channel (Lontlnued) Gf en nbrier Creek (EEP Prulea Number 671) Parameter Gauge Regional Curve Pre-Exisdng Condition - Main Chamid Reference Reaeh(ea) Data Dalgn Year 1 (2012) Monitoring - Main Channel Imetadon and Substrate - Riffle ` -dc. LL UL Eq Min Mean Med Ma: SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Max Mrd Min Mean Med Max SD BF Width (ft) SC % /SA %/G%/C%B %HE% 200 276 350 270 r "� 310 371 -,.a Floodprone Width ft r '3- J .. 160 200 d16/051d_50/d84165 140 160 200 1 5 9 5 650 100 BF Mean De ft 25 12 Enhamm ent Class -15/15-199/2 0-4 915 0-1 1 1 l8 16 *- 20 21 BF Max Depth tft) = e o �- " +' 32 = r "i 20 25 21 Inciei lass -12/1 2.149115-1 99/>2 0 11 36 BF Cross Sectional Area 11t 504 ° + "r 335 610 5C U 621 71 8 WiddMqAh Ratio �`r h. y ro n "- 8 1 230 200 129 155 229 Entrenchment Ratio - ^° l >2 2 5 1 >2 2 27 32 37 Bank Height Pui w *.2t I +rxr "- "e !"+f'° + 10 I U 1 U 1 0 1 U 17 oflle ':` "ea.,.:'a,3_�.r ., ""c" .. >,+``a A � ¢} Rd11c length ��° _ 5 38 29 114 29 9 Ritflc slo a "r, 'O ` 0 0000 0 0050 0 0024 0 0263 0 0070 Pool ten 8 33 17 172 37 0 Pool Max de �' `s n- ;« 45 28 2 1 321 3 G Pools c ft =� - -. 25 104 26 93 72 260 56 [tern: .�, .ea , ;'w�'� ixz, ;,p, -=. ,n,^ .� -., x °a „�"� % -i"1" d_44 Tt_ Chmiel Beltwidth — 77 Channel Smuosty 10 to 1 1 therefore, no padran vanables are able to be calculated. Radius of Curvature (ft) — Re Bankfull width fl/ dd" - + +• rr Meander Wavel ft , , -4 v � .i " 94 100 Mcandcr Width ratio > it 4 1 1 28 Tram r ,�`YC3. T Y��I'4?T -moll - I I I 1pi O`Irr" 1 40"1 W owe -'� Max part size (nun) mobilized at bankful - 41, N"_.�mry. +'��x �,' av fi 4ddklvmd Reach Parameters° -' a ^:zm r. z- u>� + - y ilr . -^ ceyy -- ;e -v Ro en Classihcah rt1 E5- e C4-type C5-type C e Bankfull Velociry amll Bankfull Discharge (ct3 Vail LcriLqth ft _ -,`nv ,Am; 'AZ `r* • _ �-+ .. �""-g s -^e Channel Thalweg L (fl )l "' -v,N - 2235 2235 Smumi !;A'^^- 1 U 1 1 1 U 1 0 Water Surface Sl c fUlt ^%- x 00009 - 00077 UOW9 00017 BF slope (ft/ft) _1 w x.:a?' �W _..=.�.fi -' — — — BanktuU Floo lain Area acres �L&,`- .�,-�a — of Reach with Eru B � — — Channel Stability or Habitat Metric r - �'r i . "` a' .3 �� d 1 Le ;rs ;i f , "r "`.a ,- .��" -R., Biological a Othe "'h'r -" - r^•_a< I '! r� °n Table 9b Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Ban6, and HydralugIL Containment Parameter Distributions) Greenbrier Creek (EEP Project Number 671) Parameter Pre-Rdstime Condtdun Reference Reach(es) Data Dultn I Monitoring Baseline "'77-Tx' RiWIZU %P %G %/S% 1 1-4— '4 egyri n,,, S_'na 38 13 SC % /SA %/G%/C%B %HE% - e5 r "� _fir'^" -,.a +'-z .. d16/051d_50/d84165 U U9 1 5 9 5 650 Enhamm ent Class -15/15-199/2 0-4 915 0-1 1 1 1 1 *- a = e o �- " +' �"K =Win" = r "i Inciei lass -12/1 2.149115-1 99/>2 0 + u_ ° + "r r L e z u m w Q H ed A A a 1 5� e a O .o .7 T�1 F `r 1 Q O Y Id y � kill L d�J �1 ^, m � O '�gY'IP In ��F�+ 1 9 Q M O v � N z N N z z z 4� O FI N M 1,41 � y J@ „r � ° L V �n N P op O Tfl. 9y n a f r ro Qr u rn i- � U n N �§ ,� i ♦ �'' n k a o u+ b zzz �n O 3 �aa �3 � a U 9 o y w R L ed A A a 1 5� e a O .o .7 T�1 F b 3 `r Id kill '�gY'IP ��F�+ 1,41 Tfl. ro Qr i- �§ ,� i ♦ �'' n k a o u+ b W y lax "I" �e'�1 L" `�,� Zr' .7et Tai s v '4kx n �� + � ,�l `m11' v r*r u b'" t" t w A a' t � e � 13 t 8 OF 4 u t•: �^ e&� t R.Fa pw 4 d I [IT T+ Cfx!' 1 r t e CIS- sf f Yk mm ell ? 4 N z, - Y cS?� lal C) r- �o � C, r�i ycta 117, °� y $ �PPr I I �a o 3 � N to 01 N [� lJ R M �p flV r O M i N �alnl 9p` k 5 .) O ^ N z N i '� O 1 V ea — — — �,p, „tT"p ' ^ ; 00 x 61 eG 00 M _, N � l� N N t� ti t"�. ^ Q' .�' 'r' N N ^Ye N y T oo b�y O fr+k C a�a � � b 00 � p • Q' hap �� r; �i° �} y rfik 5 M O M CA ,�P' y H N m{ a Fe 1 t In O 0 m 10> N N Q V' ^ W ,y O 4, z O 1�4 r/1 n4 r efn^ x >L'1 t ,ro zC �n 414 �y � VZ a6 ro R v yy y y1 VJ O \° C Y'`s� 10 R d ❑ ° td G p S rvj U •'I'i paa i O O ,p Goa p �+ 4i yd M °' U 013 y ar.'i U m 'r' k" ° V W �-I y Nn i� b LL y tJ �G O a° E', O a° r'y' ,gyp.` 4 �° �i Ur w R5 y ct b 3 TablelOa Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections) (Lontmued) Greenbrier Creek (EEP Proiect Number 671) Parameter Cross Section 5 - UT Cross Section 6 - UT Cross SeLtion 7 - Main Tributary Riffle Riffle Riffle Mean Med WPM SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Dimension MYO MYI MY2 MY3 NfY4 MY5 MY5+ MYO myl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ MYO Myl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ BF Width (4) 145 165 147 165 147 309 Floodpi one Width (ft) (appiox 1000 Flood one Width (ft 1000 100 1000 BF Mean Depth (tl: 07 09 BF Mean Depth (ft 23 07 08 BF Max Depth (ft 1 3 1 5 36 BF Cross Sectional Area (fi) I 119 I A 1 13 127 1 71 8 Width/Depth Rati( 229 170 119 134 120 127 Entrenchment Rato 61 68 32 Width/Depth RatiA Bank Height Rah 10 181 236 1 0 10 d50 (mm), 586 Entrenchment Rah 1 500 61 66 69 83 Table l0b Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary (continued) Greenbrier Creek (EEP Project Number 671) Parameter Baseline MY-1 (Ul) MY-2 MY-3 MY4 MY-5 t 3 _� =z Ml;'_ I, Difiten7twin and,Subiffiatiz Riffle 12--, -' '�O_ A Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Mm Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD BF Width (ft 145 147 165 Flood one Width (ft 100 BF Mean Depth (ft 07 08 09 BF Max Depth (ft I I A 12 13 1 5 BF Cross Sectional Area (d) 119 120 127 Width/Depth RatiA 163 181 236 Entrenchment Rah 61 66 69 Bank Height Rah 4 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 �V A -'t -OWTZ"', - Riffle length (a 5 39 29 114 30 Riffle slope (ft/ft 00000 00049 00024 00263 00071 Pool length (ft 8 33 17 172 37 Pool Max depth (ft 34 42 46 Pool spacing (ft 26 93 72 260 56 Pr6f ikl-`�Uu naniid Triliiffi�rf (,*,, Nd Vitii in"OraAh el Diu ruigneld'Su e:Y f T Mitfle length (ft I ft 2 12 10 32 7 Riffle slope ( t" NA* NA* NA* NA* NA* Pool length ( i ft 4 10 9 25 36 i ft Pool Max depth (ft 2 1 23 24 Pool spacing (ft , 8 23 22 42 9 4'r J ILI, KrI '��OURVI�. T171 7M "4V?, Er -FIrIM 4� -w-WIN Channel Belhvidth (ft] Radius of Curvature (ft Channel Sinuosity 1 0 to 1 1, therefore, no pattt;.. Re Bankfull xkidth ( ft/ft variables are able to be calculated Meander Wavele ft Meander Width rati L mr V--s' �R - I , , , , � , -" h �4_40'�-' I V 4 k, -rw^ L I I I �t 4:2 1, ttll§ I 3� "--1A I "', XPA".;' I I U" I k4c'A 1 .4 A, I 'V i I 4�'AQ* 1 Ai Z - I _2 ""�t'Z r*4-;63 "C' 'z"', -T Rosgen Classificatio C-Type Channel Thalweg Length (tt 868 Sinuosity Water Surtace Slope (Channel) (tt/ft BF slope (ft/ft Ri%/RU%P'/oG%/S'/, 36 17 32 15 SC%/SAO/o/G%/C%ABO/oBEO/( dl6/d35/d50 /d84/d95 % of Reach With FAoding Bank; 0 Channel Stability of Habitat Metrit I— Biologiral or Othel I * No Water in UT During Field Measurements LI N TAblel0a Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections) (LODtmued) r--h— V-1, 1wrlD V.'t V.-h- 6711 Parameter Cross Section 8 - Main Channel Cross Section 9 - Main Channel Cross Section 10 - Main Channel Cross Section 11- Main Channel Pool Riffle Pool Piffle ov-_� �o-' - - _1 9 5 9-2-MO W�, i 0 ?_ A10T Med Max SD Min VZ�:��: MAAS __:�IVA� _'� -11 ^?� _kv� %'T 4- ? SD - Mean Med - �15;_O "I � Dimension MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY5+ BF Width (ft 387 31 0 374 Flood pi one Width (ft 270 100 Floodpi one Width (ft) (approx NA 1000 NA BF Mean Depth (ft 1000 16 20 23 BF Mean Depth (ff 28 20 29 BF Max Depth (ft] 21 21 BF Max Depth (tt 36 42 3 1 46 30 I 1 1 BF Cross Sectional Area (d) 1098 71 8 623 1 1 1 1 1097 560 WidftDepth RatiA 1 Widdi/Deptli Ratic NA 155 229 154 NA 130 Entrenchment Ratil Entrenchment Rati NA 27 1 32 37 32 NA 37 Bank Height Rah I NA I 1 10 10 1 14 1 1 NA 1 7 d50 (mm)l_ Pr6f1l4F�.MamCh"nel;i-'-14- '� : , , 1, " � '�! - - ' , , -�' 4- -� - - C Riffle length (ft 40 5 38 29 114 30 1 0 Table 10b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary (continued) Greenbripi, Creek fF.F.P Prow& Numher 671) Parameter Baseline MY-1 (Main Channel) MY-2 MY-3 MY4 MY-5 ZU ,if Z' 7, 7 7 77., 7 7777- W Drfiiefisi&�;iid Substrate= R. iffli Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max 3D Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD BF Width (ft 270 31 0 371 Flood pi one Width (ft 100 BF Mean Depth (ft 16 20 23 BF Max Depth (ft] 21 3 1 36 BF Cross Sectional Area (f?)j I 1 1 560 6 623 71 8 WidftDepth RatiA 129 h 155 229 Entrenchment Ratil 27 1 32 37 Bank Height RatiLl I I 1 10 10 1 17 1 1 1 Pr6f1l4F�.MamCh"nel;i-'-14- '� : , , 1, " � '�! - - ' , , -�' 4- -� - - C Riffle length (ft 5 38 29 114 30 Riffle slope (ft/ft 'E 00000 00049 00024 00263 00071 Pool le ( i ngth � 8 33 17 172 37 Pool Max depth ( ft 34 42 46 Pool spacing 26 93 72 260 56 ]?i6'filFr,',Uiiiiai'ed�Tiibueary,'(�,-No Water in Cfid6nil Diirmk F -p Rittle length ft 2 12 10 32 7 Riffle slope (ft/tt NA* NA* NA* NA* NA* Pool length (N 4 10 9 25 36 Pool Max depth (tt 21 23 24 Pool spacing (tt 8 23 22 42 9 E� Channel Beltwidth (ft Channel Sinuosity 10 to 1 1, therefore no patter variables are able to be calculated *"#A� 4 S, 4, "�a' 4 'V�Le" AT, Vwtk�V$ ffc IN -,,,I ;'�k-14�11 Radius of Curvature (ft MWO EW'*40 '6�KM 4k�'1_%k11bPkC _1�1_.11191 Rc Bankfull width (ft/ft L Meander Wavelength i"AW, V'M I 'W49 w, �!k !VY4 1 V, F, `F s, Ack-OM-11�1 11";L'X'11� F�' % - Meander Width rati( Rosgen Classificatioz C-Type Channel Thalweg Length (ft 2235 Sinuosity I I Water Su Lace Slope (Channel) (ft/ft 00017 BF slope (ft/ft — 0 0 Rl%/RU%PO/oG%/S 38 0 G /C /B / E SC%/SAG/o/GQ/a/CO/o/BO/oBE /d95 dlF6/d35/d5O/d84/d95 I 1 1 11 "�v''d % of Reach with Firod B 0 Channel Stability or Habitat Meta Biological or MA • No Water in Ul During Yield Measurements Table l0a Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections) (Lontmued) Greenhrier Creak (FFP P t Nnmher 671) Parameter Cross Section 12 - Main Channel Cross Section 13 - Main Channel Cross Section 14 - Main Channel Riffles Pool Riffle ' i? 'as} t .i,. �aaxx.. �il`W-sn-`- Mean Med Max SD Min Mean r`3xPs TkymX x ��.«� �''�- Dimension MYO MY] MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYS+ MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 I MY5 I MY-5+ MYO MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MYS+ BF Width (ft 37 1 27 0 31 0 31 5 367 Floodpione Width (ft) (appiox 1000 NA 1000 100 BF Mean Depth (fl 19 1 8 16 BF Mean De th ( BF Max Depth (ft 3 1 2 0 2 3 34 21 BF Cross Sectional Area (ti) 71 8 BF Max De th ( 560 2 1 3 1 3 6 573 Width/Depth Raul 192 NA BF Cross Sectional Area ( 235 56 0 Entrenchment Rah 71 8 27 NA 27 Bank Height Ratr Wldth/D th Ra 10 12 9 NA 22 9 10 d50 (mm )l 02 Entrenchment Ra 466 3 2 3 7 Table 10b Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary (continued) Grvenhner f'reeti fF.F.P Prnieet Nnmher 6711 Parameter Baseline MY -1 (Main Channel MY -2 MY -3 MY4 MY -5 W - n D .E -. F3€f - .a:a, 3"'A� Dimenston `and,Siibstrate;t`Rifflif u , 2 �a Onl in Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Mod Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Mm Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD Min Mean Med Max SD BF Width ( 27 0 31 0 37 1 Flood rone Width ( 100 BF Mean De th ( 1 6 2 0 2 3 BF Max De th ( 2 1 3 1 3 6 BF Cross Sectional Area ( 56 0 62 3 71 8 Wldth/D th Ra 12 9 15 5 22 9 Entrenchment Ra 2 7 3 2 3 7 Bank Height Ra 10 10 1 7 ', &"�- r°{"a" rV S �lnfils"3L`Lt Piufile Main,Channeh;� h ti `s;�a 4ki�i ^'§� rE r'C r'a ,M ,,,. H� M3'`- '�' �`.+; "P , m s# ...+af a. ,ir" F�r.>•L", -"r ,� a�,�%. '- y v.,r�; °R "w� ", . a -- =fence, K. yd ,„ " ` > - xa,- �„3'"...3'ma, n A t tc.&° �' f^i '"'ti.k4`i�.r` ^ yr'+ `x ,r. �<.% 'i - r. ' `r a - °' "u. "_r ° "` 'y" E''m Riffle length (ft 5 38 29 114 30 Riffle slope (fi/ft 00000 00049 0 0024 0 0263 00071 Pool le (ft 8 33 17 172 37 Pool Max depth (ft 34 42 46 Pool spacing (ft 26 93 72 260 56 Profile - Unnamd Tribua r „( ',NWater in Ghannel Durin Field Surve - 4 , "s t µ v K i Riffle length ft 2 12 10 32 7 Riffle slope (ft/ft NA* NA* NA* NA* NA* Pool length (ft 4 10 9 25 36 Pool Max depth (ft 21 23 24 Pool spacing (it 8 23 22 42 9 h, .,a4 x � ` a iii- _ .- n ta- ` t`- r mr ^t.zT -i.,4 �r ✓ , ;s' a ^-em "a:, z rr - '� a - - �,,.' - 'L'say' "- ,fi�^�K rs:- i< -°��' -r -.. ^-ai �5,� �c:� _ _ _ s""T -'"^v Fa '_ ss--. »�-v, _ .r- m,,.^— ""z - 3-'�" - -x, x*�- - , - 6i o a1Pl°x'Ri`5b c?+,r 'Sis4 � �&_r�.`.i t"'St2'n;r `�" ,.2 ,. ¢1'�� #° "re t`:9 -.> >v +.. `a` r4> - �' cxr, q- r w� 3�� ca- _. }_ Patt_erni " ^s a, a r a al " _ E r re ut x _ _ �. 7*Y c'"��u Kn `4'9i: ,� -F a3w -a.. M _v+'�'�%� -� " Channel Beltwidth ft ( Radius of Curvature Channel Sinuosity 1 0 to 1 1, theietore no aft Rc Bankfull width (ft/ft p variables are able to be calculatedr Meander Wavele ft ( Meander Widthratr v ¢� ,< �^ ° t� C '�: �E#3"Y SK �nPS^% , 3� °° a V` ��}y+�� -r �^ .f $&o�'i .iTt li�� s , � '� M * � �i4 °�� d f3 ,a Qz i� 7v,g�f f Jc 4' +fi�4w '�^ aA.'.` 7 a6'S z7�"+ � w&'�� K:ft�`Y VR"d.'� �%_I�,., .�,4 �, E a &4-V' �. x X � R �.. �� 't e.s r � t$'A'�w2,�[�"'r° i �6Y 4cg`' °�! � a �_ Rrz w g � .'s r : P �E , _ 1' d 1' o r � tee` a Yf t4 p� 71,77777, } } 6 17777"' t- y 7 � >7 V'° 14 x ._: x=% 8 xA`z� r i - - ^< > = � +' '� �- r p 2 aav[ ti = � r'b - i Q= - u 4 ;. _ # q�'€e`u fir° N 3 ,�" rr a'w "yV_� 14'4_ xsr:"T a�7 Ir a '„ y m IN-- _ ,� �- R r ..W Additional °Reach °Parame "tern i , '� '�rzr r: H ' �� • `sa '�' n "'M� ¢ Es..w'� � Ros en Classificatio C -Ty e Channel Thalweg Length (ft 2235 Sinuosity I 1 Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft 00017 BF slope Oft — Ri %/RU %P%G % /S°/ 38 13 1 35 1 15 SC % /SA ° /a /G % /C %B %BE° oy b g,. ` i'0004 7 dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95 A �� +4` �r1a W 9yaa rd �.pr 4 x '+ %�' �, � ' �a;`� -. �Yl d. � J4� , " t? a � �," � �°`TM '.-Hx Jr, �`" a � tt L tie rU S i z9nV e'hc^ rx' % of Reach with Eroding B 0 Channel Stability of Habitat Metn Biological or Othe - rvo water in u i Airing rieia measurements APPENDIX E HYDROLOGY DATA Table 12 Venfication of Bankfull Events Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices Table 12: Verification of Bankfull Events Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site (EEP Proiect Number 671) Date of Data Collection Date of Occurrence !Method Photo (if available Visual observations of overbank event including wrack lines and sediment deposition resulting from a 9/21/2012 9/18/2012 1.78 inch* rainfall event on September 18, 2012 that 1 -3 occurred after numerous rainfall events, within the 3 weeks prior, that totaled 2.34 inches *. * Reported at the Mount Vernon Springs, Siler City, NC weather station (Weather Underground 2012) Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices L' APPENDIX F SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING EEP Warranty Letter Nursery Plant List- Supplemental Planting Contractor Completion Notification Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices Ecosystem 'd November 8, 2011 Joanne Cheatham Carolina FnviiomnentaI Contracting, Inc PO Box 1905 Mount Airy, NC 27030 Kitara A Smith Great American Insurance Company 580 Walnut Sti ect Cincinnati, OH 45202 Re Greenbi iei Creek Sti earn Restoration Site SCO # 0406210 -02 Vegetation Warranty Items Dear Ms Cheatham As stated In the November 8, 2011 letter addressed to you from Fd Hatnos, poi Lions the Greenbrier Creek protect site did not sleet the vegetation warranty as Stated in contract documents As per SCO contract 0406210 -02 Special Provision Section 6 0, bare roots were to he planted at 680 stems pei aci e, and container ized seedlings at 435 per aci e, of those 80% nninumull wer e to sui vivo for one year flow Pi olect Acceptance The war i anty per rod began 2/28/201 1 and will extra e 2/28/2012 Field data is summarized below and supplemental information about replant i equu ennents is attached Vegetation assessment methodology Planted vegetation at the Greenbr iei Creek site has been assessed once since Febi uai y 2011 pi otect planting, on September 28, 2011 by the Owner Data collected dining the sampling effort repot t higher plaint inoi tahty than coati actually pernussible War ranty replant nunlbei s ai e based on the data collected Field methodology and data are desci ibed below September 28, 2011 sampling Four teen (14) vegetation plots were estahhshed, each 1,076 sq tt (ZSnn x 411)) un 'Lone 4 of the of iginal planting plan All planted bare root and shrubs present within the plot wei e counted towards the wai ranty criteria, including those that were lop -dead but wer e i e -spa outing at then base Given 680 stems were planted per acre, 544 per acre were required to survive l yeai, or 13 4,a,h i i -ohita Lco-,y:f'hu Eultao!r"+iPil! P�0,3-214f 16' � ILiO lei Tire frilrie" 111IPlah Fir fi &99 10112 / 91f W' 0,1/6 � 47rrst ttifah ii per plot to meet the 100% wa► t arty fourteen (14) sample plots did not meet the survival criteria (Vegetation Warranty Data Map attached) `Lone 4 Data Results Living bare roots Required stems Warranty Supplemental planting Plot and shrubs per plot meet density /acre needed to meet warranty 1 4 13 No 364 2 6 13 No 283 3 6 13 No 283 _ 4 2 13 No 445 5 10 13 No 121 6 3 13 No 405 7 10 13 No 121 8 1 13 No 486 9 1 13 No 486 10 12 13 No 40 11 4 13 No 364 12 3 13 No 405 13 3 13 No 405 14 4 13 No 364 Two vegetation plots were established, each 1,076 sq ft (25m a 4m) rn Zone 5 of the original planting plan All containerized seedlings present within the plot were counted towaids the warranty criteria, including those that were top -dead but were ►e- sprouting at their base Given 435 stems wei a planted per acre, 348 per acre were i equn ed to survive 1 -year, of 9 per plot to meet the 100% warranty Two (2) sample plots did not meet the survival criteria (Vegetation Watt anty Data Map attached) Zone 5 Data Results Living bare roots Required steins Warranty Supplemental planting Plot and shrubs per plot meet density /acre needed to meet warranty 1 4 9 No 202 2 7 9 No 81 Supplemental planting In general, some of plant survival in the Zone 4 and Zone 5 planting zones the not meet the warranty requu ement The table below outlines necessa►y t cplanting ar eas Sur vrvrng stems war e subti acted from the warranty ci itei is (544 /acre for Zone 4 and 348 pct aci e tot Zone 5) so that the "Total plants needed" column is the number of i emaining stems needed get war i anty ci itei is (544/348) stems per acre in areas with deficient vegetation Planting densities were averaged into planting cones and ai e identified on the attached Supplemental Planting Map tm ih f awlii6- i m,ln,om lnl!_ mp,otm Pogrom I(W i 1741 relttm, J1,13Y9 h!i` f F 11111 i Il 0176 % "'S9;" iV 'Z;? AC, Supplemental Planting Plan Location Average # Total plants (looking downstream) Planting Zone stems /ac needed Acres needed to meet warranty Zone 5 (Unnamed Zone 5 1.42 08 114 Tributai y) Unnamed Ti ibutary (St 400 +00 - 407 +00) & 'Lone 4 418 3 0 1,254 mainstem (St 106 +50 - 100 +00) Right, mainstem (St 'Lone 4 263 06 158 200 +00 - 205 +50) Left, mainstem (St Lone 4 310 07 217 200 +00 - 206 +00) Left, mainstem (St 'Lone 4 445 02 89 212 +50 - 214 +00) Right, mainstem (St Zone 4 121 1 121 - 210 +50 - 219 +00) Total 6.3 1,952 Imtructhons • "I he Supplemental Planting effort needs to be coordinated with EEP so we can a[ range with the landowner to be on site • All replant mates ials must confoi in to the original p► olect specification (doi mart season planting, species composition, size, vigor, etc) • The Supplemental Planting effoi t must take place in the dor mant season for Alamance County, (December 1 -April 1), • No planting shall he done when the tempeiature is below 3211 F, when the soil to be excavated foi the plant hole is ft ozen, when the sides or bottom o the plant hole are frozen, or when the soil is too wet 4""(; 11d1olma I" m,, ,( 2Iil Io llIUO'; JIPGI1I'JLlditt, }it�iIiml 4691 165) / 911} 1'1 -OA7b t llt'V'i1PQ{�t!Ilt! Although the warranty for this project doesn't expire. until February 28, 2012, EE1' does not intend to reassess the site again for additional warranty compliance. Plants installed during the warranty replant will not have a warranty place on them. Once Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc. complies with this replanting, it Satisfaction Letter will be awarded. If you disagree with this finding or have any questions, please contact me directly. Sincerely, Kri�tie Corson NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program Office (919) 715 -1954 Cell (919) 218 -1373 kr_istie.corsonC.(1)ncdenrg v cc: Ed 1- lajnos, E1:P Jeff Jurek, UP Jeff Schaffer, UP Attachments Location Zone 5 (Unnamed Tributary) Unnamed Tributary (St 400 +00 - 407 +00) & mainstem (St 106 +50 - 100 +00) Right, mainstem (St 200 +00 - 205 +50) Left, mainstem (St 200 +00 - 206 +00) Left, mainstem (St 212 +50 - 214 +00) Right, mainstem (St 210 +50.219 +00) Total Greenbrier Creek Planting Zone Acres plants needed Vegetation Warranty Map 'Lone 5 0.8 114 Zone 4 3 1254 Zone 5 replant Zone 4 0.6 1 SH Zone 4 0.7 217 Zone 4 replant Zone 4 0.2 89 Zone 1 121 Total 6.3 1,952 Mellow Marsh Farrn, Inc. 1312 Woody Store Road Slier City, NC 27344 919 742 1200 ph ,. 1 11 Invoice DATE INVOICE # 2/1112012 3206 McllowMar,5kra rn], 11-10.. 4t' /o .urchat ge for payment by Quality Welland Plants and Seeds credit card BILL TO SHIP TO Carolina Cnvitnumental Contracting, Inc P O Box 1905 Mount Airy, NC 27010 Ia., 336 -120 -3954 SHIP DATE SHIP VIA PROJECT P O NUMBER PAYMENT TERMS DUE DATE 2113!2012 Customer C,reenbnar Pending check Net 10 311412012 QTY ITEM CODE DESCRIPTION PRICE EACH POT SIZE AMOUNT 23 QURU G Qucicus rubra "Northern n d oak" 500 gallon 11500 23 NYSY G Nyssa sylvahca "Blac k guns" 300 1 gallon 11500 12 ACNE G Acei negundo "Box elder" 5 (x) gallon 1111 00 3 ULAM G Ulmus amencana "Amct ican elm" 500 gallon 1500 13 BENI G Betula mgra "River birch" 500 1 gallon 65 00 24) QUPI I G Quetcus phellut "Willow oak" 500 1 gallon 10000 20 QUMI G Quercus mtchauxn "Swamp chcytnut oak" 500 1 gallon 104) (1O 369 r RPE BRT4 I iasnuu pcwi%)I\ami—t "(nr\n Atilt" 080 bald IVol 29440 369 PLOC BRTS Platanus occidentalts "Sycamore" 080 ban- root 29440 368 NYSY Bit Nyssa svlvatica "Bla(k gum" 080 barc root 29440 145 ACNE BR Acer negundo "Box cider" 080 hare root 11600 368 ULAM 13R Uhnus amencana "American clm" 080 bare root 29440 110 LIBI' 13RTS Lmdera henzom "Spicebush" 1 25 bare root 137 50 I I I VIDI- BRTS Vibunn in dentatum "Arrow wood" 1 25 bare root 11875 PC) Total 52 13985 Contract Terms & Coilditions Full payment due belorc delivery Little." otherwise noted If you Latntot receive your order at the scheduled tune, the material tc ill require special Payments /Credits $000 handling and a 25440 restocking or holding fee may apply Buyer agrees to pav amount shown in 'Balance Duc' according to 'l erns Ti nel) payment will not be contingent on buyers receipl of pavntent )rum his/her customer A deposit may be required to hold plant Balance Due S2.13985 Certified "E / [)B' April 24, 2012 NCEEP Attn: Mrs. Kristie Corson Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc. P. O. Box 1905 Mouth Airy, NC 27030 Office (336) 320 -3849 Fax (336) 320.3854 Subject: Greenbriar Stream Restoration Project. SCO ID No.: 0406210002A Dear Mrs. Corson, This letter is to inform you that we were on site February 13, 2012 and February 14, 2012 to install the required plants to satisfy the requirements of the warranty for the project. CEC planted the desired plants per the drawing that was submitted to us by your office. Sincerely, Stephen D. James Estimator/Project Manager Cc. Joanne Cheatham, CEC CEC Job File APPENDIX G NUTRIENT OFFSET INFORMATION June 12, 2007 EEP Nutnent Offset Meeting Summary Letter NCDWQ Email Response Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) EEP Project Number 671 February 2013 Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices r-1%0-- A;J �FCO Stem 3� x PROGRAM August 2, 2007 Rich Gannon North Carolina Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 -1617 SUBJECT June 12, 2007 EEP Nutrient Offset meeting summary This correspondence is provided to summarize our June 12, 2007 meeting with you, Tom Reeder, Suzanne Klimek, Jim Stanfill and myself The meeting was held in an attempt to clarify some issues related to ESP's use of riparian buffers to mitigate for Nitrogen and Phosphorus It is important to come to a common understanding on these issues related to nutrient offset mitigation credit generation as we plan the implementation of mitigation projects Below are the topics we discussed as they were presented in our May 14, 2007 letter to you A summary of our discussions is below each topic in italics We invite your input and response to ensure we have captured our discussions accurately Riparian Buffer N Reduction Efficiencies With regard to the January 4, 2007 report detailing your discussions of NO3 — N reduction, we would like to clarify whether the benefits of land use change and the benefit of periodic overbank flooding have been considered in the buffer efficiency calculations We also want to discuss EEP's buffer widths and the efficiencies that should be used for buffers 100 feet or greater A 50% efficiency was and is used in our calculations of buffer efficiency for our offset projects. Our projects typically have 200 foot buffer widths The underlying questions here were — Can EEP get more credit for buffers that are wider than 50 feet by using higher efficiency rates as shown in the NLEW paper? As a group we agreed to use an overall efficiency of 50% for riparian buffers used to offset nutrients regardless of width. Rich Gannon noted that although higher efficiencies were suggested in the "NLEW" paper for buffers wider than 50 feet, these numbers are not widely verified It is therefore appropriate to use 50% to determine reductions Jim Stanfill agreed noting that EEP buffers are often 200 feet wide and although using a higher efficiency would generate greater mitigation credit, the 50 % number had been used up to this point and EEP would continue to use that to calculate credits 2 Level Spreaders- The use of level spreaders on riparian buffers not subject to concentrated flow needs to be discussed. It is our understanding that guidance on level spreaders may only be meant to apply to those riparian buffers being used as "onsite" treatment BMPs by permitees We assume the guidance does not apply to riparian buffer restoration as typically done by EEP, but would like to discuss and get clarification on that issue The standard is to provide die flow through buffers Because EEP would often need to actually clear portions of riparian buffers to install level spreaders, and also because EEP's buffers are often 200 feet wide, we do not think the use of level spreaders is necessary as long as die flow is maintained Tom Reeder and Rich Gannon agreed that level spreaders would not necessarily be needed on EEP buffers in rural areas where d ffuse flow is not an issue F A E ... PYD�P,Gt7,`l9 0" fl,A& ADEN North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mad Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 - 715 -0476 / www nceep net 3. Land t_tsc,Chaitgc- 1f>1LP`purchases agriculturdl landtip'do riparlwfbuf er,restotation wetclieve �,Ep sla`ould get, - credit for restoration, ofilie entire bufer wid tll i'hd is, the first -50 feet of iuffcr woald not be excluded frt5n�,+atrr credo ealculahons T1ae argument Cc r tins >s %hat hi( the act 4'r,4" porchising the,propetty may hakrefchanged i property ;s land use arid, there Care,•rnade,t(subjectio-thc buffet rules? die EEP is ai tilally impleiaienting an .ictive iciparian buffer rest- dt:ativti projer 00 that land, ►at►4 simply takan "it wit ►af agrict�lttir` -I tis& —Tdriherrnoro, ifi=1yT,P does n5t,laurch9s &'these lands`, there NviII be no land,use charge. Torre and Rich armed s,wrth thts statement- EEP` hdufd gel crilli the error e uvelth resMra4 A,., We Uso Iaave son e,gtiestiolis;about the iordan nuinetlt oll'sei traadiitgyprograirt, but staff are still reViewi' g rite mfon?�ation that has been released. , EEy will nli to pro rule c6r+nnenls,an the Jordon reles to ertsd! -e tfrefix{'.y ur e set qb,r1 gprrirzd, t11� Y@ r�Irt?)trG!lilC (L;lwiCE' aI'GxG) are LtttpiflQbfe 77l,$•151'iCt is t<i'K y',!a? have hir�►fzer rtrr�al�7raen�i71ic+7� CCJSr` "s rrtrtl foss c+ppcar'l�rrrity rar_lr. Pr ctr51 hr{fers us m kid nt cff etlrrrtr trPl It �1L ^'r' i� ff,treLr,rrt ctlfrrrd rls th did dr€ u, ve rmial be 1;h m) tri�j�t d tot iUipf�rr;�rr% pr�jcc�hl. 5 EEP's Nutrient Offsgt accounting 14'1ctfiads, Regarding EL,P's iiWrient 6JIsel r'vourefmifS- Jury Statrfrli discussed hOw we mea re the total jtpunds�, %t- .�0,tVcrrs ,* ter; w� , trccept �r�nldriprtt gffSel drrr�faent Lard ttt 'ore rx rP�clrair ertrent Ow- projects Lfr cj se! up.tcarcrl set it fnt2rf rztrtttfac�t:s t7f, crtrnels trrrd tlreic�ir�rtzr � �e�rma hme - sborter" (Iews}tlion 30 tircnrs), rmr�re rmierrsc,pt ti %ects ,1>?ac17,�rrt�f.?�trr,rvPrr? in agreemew with giir gcrrartmimg, nwthvgs. <a. jtiparian Buopr Mitigattop, Site location— clarification of intent ofn6s- liar I& imidle -man tulj ?er lr it ,, f6r Carpe Feai ' EP S16 f Inve gzfc4 4wied wr itro irpclreaJ � r• �%i ��rr �IrZFr�n t +? l r� iv�rrerecirerl tfrct rrsrli�atttr:: ,�farr��,,�d Itrkc,= taf�d ,�t�rlr�trr�fr idtrrt FOP eft °��Li'r•' 1sra:>a, riniur�:re��rr,t� %�tir� ra °'erva r tf,tie ut�ed beet mcfty rutstfitish_ould he trpwredrn in order 1r1 prbie &the, r•l-III, Gtlteiv se" in Catawba iiew pro I is sr'r;uld be downslre 1 , ohake Jan r�s ttr Ae �Ycxd w rrrrtigrrtre►m credrr 1",►rp a(sC+ fur c�cf tFiut the,rtrles do not lr(me'a time LEp tapem)r44� the rnffi* * rtinri,, -iiur rhae the prn,�p n uses Me smi tfrng requirdrrreki Les tha„ MOM a- ral,mgW,eeable to this - Qr lrrarrslxrrenizra s, in Its prggr qirr rand atkedf6ir i4s ro pi ovide as miliveh- detta cis pvssible,irl Darr , rimuirf r, Bart arrd.rv;lr," art zl r�r +rl�itr`vrr td b r rlrrrie }tin !''r > � tee Ekk ti�p"r d and d,,, imirki`rr� to set z ,tr agree, c wil the tnr bg st e, site t r� �_ &d frl.11ae lVtatrrent (?�s��! t'r-o,rrrrrr' ' Iiatil. }'cru,f`or tftkiri tie, ttrlae�tr't3isouss -, ,these issues v ith, us if 4ou•ileed,[iditit►aial informaltonr ita �zrt ito,offer.cUrreotioais:car information pnes; tted,htei itt, please caiitact'Kcj1 v 1'i�lia�as at (9,I{?) 716 -1911 orKellymiliiatnsfgmcmai1.net. -.cc, `fog keeder. `i Ok' Suzanne-'ktinick., Ni7tPP ,*arc ft cktenwald', 3NCEEP, De�il la A.>naral,10kP , Siiw� rely KeIiYINII'9lltiltIIs _In,tieaa<:i'ee Pr6gram Cogrdinator Ncirth't jarhnacosytarn 64ancemai7t Praram 1ti52 Prlalf ^Servic~ti Center,ieigh, NC 275,994652 -1 919=:16 -04'76 1 www,nceep net Williams, Kelly From: Tom Reeder [tom reder@ncmad net] Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 1 14 PM To: Kelly Williams Cc: rich gannon @ncmad net, suzanne Klimeck Subject: Re EEP Nutrient offset meeting summary Kelly - I have read the letter and I have no problems with it. It seems to me to be an accurate record of what we discussed and agreed to. Thanks. Kelly Williams wrote: - > Rich and Tom: > I sent a copy of a meeting summary for your review to you last week. > The letter is dated August 2, 2007. I have also attached it as a Word - > document. In an attempt to clarify what topics we discussed on June > 12 when we got together in Tom's office to discuss nutrient offset and > buffers, I simply added our understanding of our discussions beneath > each topic as outlined in the letter sent to you prior to the meeting. > Once you have a chance to review the summary comments (they are in > /italics/ in the letter), I would like to hear back from you, > especially if you have suggested changes to our summary. Feel free to > either write back via email or add your comments or changes to the > attached document using track changes. There are EEP staff who have > requested a copy of the meeting summary, but I do not plan to get > those out until I hear back from you that you are satisfied with it. r > > Thanks for you help. > Kelly Williams > NCEEP -, 1