20090056 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20140121

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 2 (2013)
GREENBRIER CREEK STREAMIWETLAND/BUFFER RESTORATION 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
r
JAN 2 1 2 014 141COSystell]
J Nft - tAJA UALI
September 2013
0R' 06-Sc
RECEIVED
OCT 7 - 2013
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROORA O

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 2 (2013)
GREENBRIER CREEK STREAMIWETLAND/BUFFER RESTORATION 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
�0systelll
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
September 2013

1 0 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
Figures 2, 2A -213 Current Conditions Plan View
Site Fixed - Station Photos
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs
Tables 5a -5b Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6 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
Table I Oa Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table l Ob Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment
Parameter Distributions)
Table i 1 a Monitoring Data — Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters —
Cross Sections)
Table 11 b 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
2
3
3
Greenbrier Creek (FINAL) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 671 September 2013
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site (Site) is situated within the United States Geological Society
(USGS) hydrologic unit 03030003 and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Priority
Sub -basin 03 -06 -12 The Site is located approximately 8 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 Murchison (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 Creek, became impaired from poor land
management, stream dredging, upstream disturbances, and human impacts This 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 2 (2013)
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 (reduction 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 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 smense)
During Year 2 (2013) monitoring, twelve (12) vegetation plots were sampled Ten (10) of the twelve (12)
plots met or exceeded the success criteria of 320 stems /acre (minimum stem count after 3 years) The two
plots below success criteria (plots 5 and 6) had 243 and 283 stems per acre, respectively However, when
including naturally recruited stems of black walnut (Juglans nigra), plot 6 exceeds success criteria Plots
5 and 6 are adjacent to the unnamed tributary, which is characterized by dense fescue that may be
outcompeting planted 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
Chinese privet (Ligustrum smense) and Japanese privet (Ligustrumjapomcum) are scattered throughout
the site, however, several occurrences (two areas upstream of the confluence, one smaller area along the
easement boundary downstream of the bridge, and one area just downstream of the ford (near cross -
section 12) are particularly dense (Figure 2A, Appendix B) In addition, scattered stems of Bradford pear
(Pyrus calleryana) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) are present in minimal numbers within the Site
Herbaceous species including Japanese stiltgrass ( Microstegium vimmeum) and fescue (Festuca sp ) are
found across the entire Site Microstegium is found in portions of the Site that are covered by mature
Greenbrier Creek (FINAL) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 671 September 2013
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina page 1

canopy along the upstream portion of the unnamed tributary, downstream portions of Greenbrier Creek,
and throughout the preservation reach Fescue is found in open areas previously maintained as pasture,
these areas appear to have poor planted stem survival
With the exception of the previously impounded area, vegetation within the preservation reach is well -
established with scattered occurrences of invasive species Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and microstegium ( Microstegium vimineum) were observed scattered
throughout the reach
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 Due to contracting
issues, no baseline data was collected for this project Although there are no baseline cross - sections to
compare with Year 2 (2013) measurements, the Year 1 (2012) cross - sections should serve as an adequate
baseline No significant bank erosion was recorded In addition, no significant aggradation or
degradation of the bed was noted
One bankfull event was recorded during the year 2 (2013) monitoring season for a total of two bankfull
events with one occurring each monitoring year
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
Beaver have been an ongoing issue on the Site and are being closely monitored Three previously noted
beaver dams located 1) downstream of the Staley Snow Camp bridge crossing, 2) at Cross - section 12, and
3) at Cross - section 13 were removed by APHIS in May 2013 and were not present during monitoring
activities Currently, one large, well - established impoundment is located on the preservation reach
consisting of several beaver dams One large dam was destroyed in the summer of 2013, but it appears as
though the beaver are still active in this area Few woody stems are surviving in the impoundment
footprint, and no natural recruits are becoming established at this time This impoundment area is shown
on the Current Conditions Plan View Map (Figure 2B)
Summary information /data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment and
statistics related to performance of vanous 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
Greenbrier Creek (FINAL) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 671 September 2013
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina page 2

square and are located randomly within the Site These plots were surveyed in July for the Year 2 (2013)
monitoring season using the CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4 2 (Lee et al 2008)
(http: / /cvs.bio unc edu /methods htm), results are included in Appendix C The taxonomic standard for
vegetation used for this document was Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas
(Weakley 2007)
2.2 Stream Assessment
Annual stream monitoring was conducted in May 2013 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 floodplam, 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
Measurements 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 photos) 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, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas (online)
Available http / /www herbarium unc edu/WeakleysFlora pdf [February 1, 2008] University of
North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Weather Underground 2012 Station at Mount Vernon Springs, Siler City, North Carolina (online)
Available
www wunderground com /weatherstation /WXDailyHistory asp'?ID= KNCSILER5 [February 15,
2012] Weather Underground
Weather Underground 2013 Station KNCCHAPE 13, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (online) Available
www wunderground com /weatherstation /WXDailyHistory asp9ID= KNCCHAPE13 [August 27,
2013] Weather Underground
Greenbrier Creek (FINAL) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 671 September 2013
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina page 3

APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES
Figure I Vicinity Map
Table 1 Project Restoration Components
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Protect Attributes Table
Greenbrier Creek (FINAL) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 671 September 2013
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

Dwn. by FIGURE
-� SITE LOCATION MAP KRJ
' Axiom Environmental GREENBRIER SITE Date
218 Snow Ave Jan 2013
r ` Raleigh, NC 27603 EEP PROJECT NUMBER 671
Alamance County, North Carolina Project.
Axiom EnvironmenlN, Inc.
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 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Protect Number 671 September 2013
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices
Mite ation Credits
Stream
I
Riparian Wetland
Type
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Buffer
Totals
2974
891
--
1.4 WMU
330,164
Projects Com onents
Project Component/
Reach ID
Station
Range
Existing Linear
Footage/
Acreage
Priority
Approach
Restoration/
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Linear Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Comment
Greenbrier Mamstem
Upstream of Bridge
659
PIII
R
670
1 15
Greenbrier Mamstem
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 Mamstem
4455
Preservation
RE
4455
5 1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear footage)
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Buffer (square footage)
Restoration
--
--
330,164
Enhancement Level l)
4461
--
--
Preservation
4455
693
Totals
8916
1
693
Mitigation Units
3865 SMUs
1
1.4 WMU
—
Greenbrier Creek (FINAL) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Protect Number 671 September 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: 2 year 7 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 2 year 7 months
Number of Reporting Years: 2
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 enitre project area
February 1, 2011
Containerized and bare root plantings for entire reach
Rodney Montgomery
February 8, 2011
As -built construction drawings
Aril 2011
Supplemental Planting of bare root and 1 gallon trees
Raleigh, NC 27613
February 14, 2012
Year 1 Monitoring (2012)
September 2012
February 2013
Year 2 Monitoring (2013)
July 2013
September 2013
Year 3 Monitoring (2014)
Grant Lewis 919 -215 -1693
Year 4 Monitoring (2015)
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 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 Airy, 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 Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 671 September 2013
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site (EEP Proiect Number 671)
Proiect Information
Project Name
Greenbrier 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
Ph sio ra hic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS 8 -digit HUC
03030003
USGS 14-digit HUC
03030003070010
NCDWQ Subbasin
03 -06 -12
Project Drainage Area (Sq MI)
501
Project Drainage Area Impervious Surface
<5%
Watershed Tye
Rural
Reach Summa
Information
Parameters
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Restored/Enhanced Length (Linear Feet)
670
1945
1129
717
Drainage Area (Square Miles)
5 0
5 0
03
03
NCDWQ Index Number
17 -43 -5
NCDWQ Classification
WS -111
Valle Type/Morpho logical Description
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 lain
AE flood lain
Native Vegetation Community
Hardwoods
Hardwoods
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasives
1 —20
—20
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Waters of the U S — Sections 404 and 401
Yes - Received Appropriate Permits
Endangered Species Act
No
Historic Preservation Act
No
CZMA /LAMA
No
FEMA Flood lain Compliance
Yes
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
Greenbrier Creek (FINAL) Axiom Environmental, Inc.
EEP Project Number 671
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
September 2013
Appendices

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figures 2 and 2A -213 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 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 671 September 2013
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

� v P
It I
w
I
• i !"
Legend
C3 Easement Boundary
^rte Stream
Easement Crossings
F;
INC 'i
ft' -
1 S -
NN
4
i
I.
h
ell
= Aerial Photography Source: 1 -cub7Nnwld)e N
Prime 1m or better resolution imESRI, I �1 USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, pping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGR and the GIS Useunity0 250 500 1,000 1,500 0 eet
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
/ Raleigh, NC 27603
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
GREENBRIER CREEK STREAM RESTORATION SITE
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 671
Dwn. by.
KRJ /CLF
FIGURE
Date:
August 2013
(919) 215 -1693
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Project.
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
12 004.09

Dwn. by.
FIGURE
1
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
KRJ /CLF
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
GREENBRIER CREEK STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Date:
Raleigh, NC 27603
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 671
August 2013
2A
(919) 215 -1693
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Project
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
12- 004.09

k
or
A.
s i
it ,i
� - ?
• ,I l:` •,� � 1r --"'� •ire, r r ",
' s •��, ! ;�h � �� 1, �`� .�� Ate, '�- •' �'
r r
y A' .
_ ., � � • J ',j ''� _ice —T111 .
�•' I ,�., 4 ��f(///I'',■ //y rt
s {ILIA �.T r� ''� �- ,1! r. y � ` J� 'J•!4; . - 1
1 7
i1 �� • LrIF �� I• `�N 1
r,
i •
r _ ,
1f
r 5.{
v �
• -
.r
t•
1
L
r.
Legend
Easement Boundary
Stream
Impounded Area - No Woody Vegetation
Beaver Dams
` Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
GREENBRIER CREEK STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Dwn. by.
KRJ /CLF
FIGURE
Date:
Within beaver empoundment area,
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 671
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
there are several large, well - established
-
dams. These do not occur directly on
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
the stream center -line, however, they
"
are retaining water.
x..-
1i' t, ' d►
1.
�
1 t
. ' I yF[ •n
r
4
Aerial Photography Source: I -cubed Nationwide 1
Prime 1m or better resolution imagery (ESRI, 1 �1
USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIs User Community)
I
0 125 250
500 750 1,000
Feet
al
` Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
GREENBRIER CREEK STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Dwn. by.
KRJ /CLF
FIGURE
Date:
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 215 -1693
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 671
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
August 2013
Project
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
12- 004.09

Greenbrier Creek
Site Fixed - Station Photographs
Taken August 2013
Photo
Point 1
Greenbrier Creek (FINAL) Axiom Environmental, Inc
EEP Project Number 671
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
September 2013
Appendices

Greenbrier Creek
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2013
Plot 5
Plot 4
Greenbrier Creek (FINAL) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 671 September 2013
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

Greenbrier Creek
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2013
(continued)
Plot 8
Greenbrier Creek (FINAL) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 671 September 2013
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

Table 5a Visual Stream Mornholoov Stability Assessment
Reach ID Greenbrier
Assessed Length 2235
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Mayor
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
Foote a
as Intended
Ve elation
Ve elation
Vegetation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1 Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow
laterally (not to include point bars)
=' r >�i4; ,a7 t T `;� ±
��?s' Qy ,; -
�'
0
0
100%
e , r �•
T'�l �
" t a W
0
0
100%
, Js x5�''��Yy;'f
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture/ Substrate -Riffle maintains coarser substrate
23
23
100 /0 0
ryry,e ;, " r l
4f r f °
1 �
nfi 1t Mty
3 Meander Pool
Condition
1 De t Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1 6)
24
24
100%
i�
I
2 Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem rrffle)
100
100
k i Y(, �y �'
o
100%
v I '/ ' i E` y sJr
4 Thalweg Position
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
100
100r,��5�k,
100%
G"'v�,� - a,1y , i��•�iy ,,�n�
Pr d�r ��u.",",�,t ,1 h, a �'`� "���
2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
100
100
100 %I'
ni��'• "')�'1jl,�y lNAj +,wC'i ^..utA Ml +k" r ".Irn,,
'
�' , tii .. �� n G,"r R'a i• eY Al
2 Bank
1 Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
x �•v + „ ^ +�,rt,r �! $ '
W'
y -0 a
0
0
100%
100%
J ' i t' i +fib, wfi) c ry rr
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2 Undercut
likely Does NOT include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable
i a
'i,yl,'y1yy,
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat
a SrtS Ss
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
—..1 S +emaS'L`�,p� "ASK +7
TO Is
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
4 . r Al „, t', spa
3 Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
0
0��."
,t` +„ ' "i5'y '�,. `iq °a;t
C,t .g
v ” k
0 %°
>bi t; n,N'°i.`a`+ r. - -,Nw ' _�' ✓`^
C1S��
' 4 i
W'�`i
lYr
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
Q
Q
e;.LV'
Q%
0%
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
0
0`x
r = +!
'
-r
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15% (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
y ,, i! t .,,, t
d ,�,j
t�, +_t
0%
, `i' p • F•'}
xf a i,'e
) ,'• "' i t T !`
,
!a
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull
o
Depth ratio > 1 6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow
0
0
_ �` +,
Q /0

Table 5b Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Greenbrier UT1
Assessed Length 867
Adjusted %
Number
Numberwith
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
Category
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Footatie
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve elation
Vegetation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1 Aearadation -Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow
laterally (not to include point bars)
h' n r u , `r>
0
0
100%
Cy
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcuttmg
0
0
100 %"
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture/Substrate -Rifle maintains coarser substrate
35
35
100%
3 Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth ? 1 6)
36
36
°
100 /0
S " "�� R a' ` +`
2 Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream rifle and head of downstrem rrffle)
100
100
100%
p _ ' g n" 'f, ^,_
n;w ` v " � r
^�'��
..
J;R�
r' < "k ' };}"wt° r , °) y',
1r' =
� `��w";`�f'��i�;���r '���
-�'a, r x s
�' r ','�•x a��F�? "," +fit; i��
4 Thaiwe Position
9
1 Thalwe centering at u stream of meander bend Run
9 9 P ( )
100
100
o
100 %�
2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
100
100
X-
°ir' ,< r s "it
+. i
o
100 /0
^�`�''��
* %is'r��
r
n w
d £ �
r� ar, ww
r•� `o'i; °ate b_ ,+�r� ml�kt.�,t,
�'" ���' bU, i.''�, ,, .d .! n T .�
ni" k- ". '� i k�l.` ✓Y+,
4r� `i3i"r� ^^. 'z+r` i l_..
2 Bank
1 Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
2
0
0
100%
100%
scour and erosion
,
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2 Undercut
likely oes NOT include undercuts that are modest,
y appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
rdwY� '1 �f
<` M i- " i e 4" �;y ba
s4. I�til'lz�af�;.�,. d�1rr'ei y�a;v� t 'a
�� k` t. f'�n,+ J,.`, r .i,�- ^y?�i+ >'� sr;,vt�; tli'r
' P T018�
0
o
��ygy',
0
100/0
0
0
100%
3 Engineered
�
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
0 %�'
? e
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
0
Q
J
, �, `,� y at a ° $i�
0 %?;
!'-
" =,P.
Arvi
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow and emeath sills or arms
0
0
o
0 /o~i
4 =_ - ,;� ��
y1 g
* z nom° „� 4 k" w =3` `
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
0
0
0
0%
ws
"1'
15% (See guidance for this table m EEP monitoring guidance document)
`}n k ll yl �
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 16 Rootwads/logs base
0
0
?}
i> ;
�''
0%
i ^
providing some cover at -flow
fist`
? „
N}

Greenbrier
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 16.5
Easement Acreage 50.48
Ve etation Cateciory
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
De fiction
Number of
Po ons
Combined
Acrea a
% of
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Microstegium, tall fescue, multiflora rose, Chinese privet, Chinese lespedeza
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Planted
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
De fiction
Pol ons
Acreage
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%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on visual observations and MY3 stem count
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
1 0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage 50.48
Ve etation Cateciory
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
De fiction
Number of
Po ons
Combined
Acrea a
of
Easement
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Microstegium, tall fescue, multiflora rose, Chinese privet, Chinese lespedeza
1000 SF
Tan Polygons
4
0.14
0.3%
5. 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 not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
= 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 concern /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
risk /threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below
was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or
polygon /area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.

VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Critena Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Greenbrier Creek (FINAL) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 671 September 2013
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Greenbrier Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 671)
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
l l *
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
partially within the riparian buffer credit areas
* *Plot 6 doesn't make success criteria based on planted stems alone, however, when including naturally recruited stems of black
walnut (Juglans nigra), plot 6 exceeds success criteria
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Greenbrier Creek Restoration Site EP Project Number 671
Report Prepared By
Corri Fa um
Date Prepared
8/1/2013 15 40
database name
Axiom -EEP- 2013 -A -v2 3 1 mdb
database location
\\AE- SBS \RedirectedFolders\ erkinson \Deskto
computer name
PHILLIP -PC
file size
53940224
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
project(s) and project data
Pro j, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year This
excludes live stakes
Pro j, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year This
includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems,
missing, etc )
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots
Vigor b Spp
Frequency distnbution 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 (planted and natural
volunteers combined) for each plot, dead and missing stems are excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code
671
project Name
Greenbrier Stream
Sampled Plots
12
Greenbrier Creek (FINAL) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 671 September 2013
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

Table 9. Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Greenbrier Stream
Current Plot Data (MY2 2013)
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
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
1
1
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
5
5
5
15
15
15
5
S
5
1
1
1
4
4
4
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
9
1
3
4
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
9
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
21
1
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Pyrus calleryana
Callery pear
Exotic
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
1
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
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
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
12
12
13
11
11
23
19
19
28
9
9
9
6
6
9
7
7
10
9
9
13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
5
5
6
6
6
10
4
4
5
4
4
4
6
6
9
5
5
6
4
4
5
485.6
485.6
526.1
445.2
445.2
930.8
768.9
768.9
1133
364.2
364.2
364.2
242.8
242.8
364.2
283.3
283.3
404.7
364.2
364.2
526.1
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%

Table 9. Planted Stems by Plot and Species (continued)
Current Plot Data (MY2 2013)
Annual
Means
671-01-0010
671-01-0012
MYI (2013)
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%

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross - section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Substrate Plots
Tables 10a -b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 1 la -b Monitoring Data
Greenbrier Creek (FINAL) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 671 September 2013
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

River Basin:
Elevation
Cape Fear
98.30
3.4
97.50
Watershed:
96.58
Greenbrier Creek
95.56
12.2
XS Ill
94.48
XS - 1, Pool
94.12
16.4
93.62
Feature
93.62
Pool
94.16
20.7
94.56
Date:
95.13
5/16/2013
95.82
27.1
96.55
Field Crew:
96.46
Perkinson, Jernigan
96.68
Stream Type I.
Cape Fear River Basin,
Greenbrier Creek, XS - 1, Pool
99
98
-
97
5
0 96
- -
- ----
- - - -��
`o
1
--- • Bankfull
w 95
- - - - Flood Prone Area
MY -01 9/12/12
94
MY -02 5/16/13
93
0
10
20
30 40
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
98.30
3.4
97.50
7.3
96.58
10.1
95.56
12.2
Station
Elevation
0.0
98.30
3.4
97.50
7.3
96.58
10.1
95.56
12.2
94.74
13.8
94.48
15.1
94.12
16.4
93.62
17.5
93.62
19.7
94.16
20.7
94.56
21.9
95.13
23.7
95.82
27.1
96.55
30.8
96.46
33.7
96.68
SUMMARY DATA
Baekfall Elevation:.
96.1
Bankfhll Cross - Sectional Area:.
21.5
Bankfa8 Width:
16.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.4
Mean Depth at Baekfull:
1.3
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
I.0

River Basin:
Fear
CaDe
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
5/16/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
4�
;.
Stream T E
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 2, Riffle
102
101
d
0 100 =
C
m
� � Bankfull
LQ
- - - - Flood Prone Area
99
MY-01 9/12/12
MY -02 5/16/13
98
0
10 20 30
40
Station (feet)
Station E
Fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
5/16/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station E
Elevation
SM;11ARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 100.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 14.2
Bankfull Width: 15.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 101.3
Flood Prone Width: 100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.9
W / D Ratio: 16.5
Entrenchment Ratio: 6.5
Bank Height Ratio: 1.0

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
5/16/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
101.07
5.30
101,03
7.16
100.67
9.02
99.92
10.71
99.45
12.30
99.03
12.99
98.72
13.87
98.40
15.09
98.11
16.33
98.17
17.64
98.43
18.74
98.67
19.85
99.41
21.32
99.64
23.11
100.13
24.68
100.67
26.59
101.10
29.79
101.03
3240
100.99
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
100.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
24.6
Bankfull Width:
17.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type E
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 3, Pool
102
101
- -
--- - - - - -- ---- --------------- - - - - -- ----
100
0
99
- -
ti�
���•Bankfull
98 -
- - - - - -- -- - - - -- - - -
• Flood Prone Area
MY -01 9/12/2012
97
MY -02 5/16/13
0 10 20 30
40
Station (feel)

River Basin:
Elevation
Cape Fear
105.94
Watershed:
105.55
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS - 4, Pool
Perkinson, Jernigan
Feature
Pool
Date:
5/16/2013
Stream T C/E
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 4, Pool
107
106
- - -
- - - - -- --------------------------------
0 105
U
104
-- - • Bankfull
- - - ° lood Prone Area
f
MY -01 9/12/12
103
MY -02 5/16/13
0
10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
Station E
Elevation
0.00 1
105.94
3.93 1
105.55
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station E
Elevation
0.00 1
105.94
3.93 1
105.55
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 105.4
Bankull Cross - Sectional Area: 22.1
anktull Width: 21.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
Flood Prone Width: NA
Max Depth at Bankfull: 2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull: I.0
W / D Ratio: NA
Entrenchment Ratio: NA
Bank Height Ratio: 1.0

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
5/16/2013
Field Crew
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
104.12
3.75
103.97
7.46
104.02
9.51
103.73
11.13
103.28
12.96
103.06
14.84
102.72
16.41
102.72
17.80
102.68
18.97
103.02
20.50
103.35
22.30
103.34
24.04
103.80
27.91
104.40
30.22
104.73
32.64
104.89
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
104.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
12.6
Bankfull Width:
17.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
105.3
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
23.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
106
105
a.
0 104
C
y
i]
103
102 �
0
Stream Type E
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 5, Riffle
10 20
Station (feet)
30
Bankfull
- Flood Prone Area
MY -01 9/12/12
MY -02 5/16/13
40

River Basin:
fear
Cape
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
5/16/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
13.37
100.42
14.60
100.15
16.18
99.88
18.35
99.83
19.58
100.27
21.39
100.77
22.85
101.12
26.67
101.44
30.01
101.59
32.71
101.65
Stream T E
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 6, Riffle
103
102
v
-------- - - - -
-- -------------- - - - - -- ------ - - - -
--
0 101
a
y
-- - - Bankfull
4)
-- - Flood Prone Area
100
MY -01 9/1 M 2
- - - MY -02 5/16/13
99
0
10 20 30
40
Station (feet)
Station
fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
5/16/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
101.75
6.25
101.56
9.06
101.46
11.12
101.00
12.24
100.48
13.37
100.42
14.60
100.15
16.18
99.88
18.35
99.83
19.58
100.27
21.39
100.77
22.85
101.12
26.67
101.44
30.01
101.59
32.71
101.65
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
101.3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
12.2
Bankfull Width:
15.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
102.8
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
I.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
19.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS - 7, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
5/16/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jemi an
Station
Elevation
0.00
103.00
5.16
102.79
9.19
101.46
11.42
100.85
13.30
100.41
15.56
99.82
16.73
99.11
18.99
98.62
20.69
98.53
21.97
98.58
22.69
98.71
23.93
98.75
25.54
98.73
27.14
98.51
28.25
98.61
29.6
98.40
30.5
98.48
32.0
98.67
33.2
99.14
35.2
100.20
36.9
100.93
39.1
101.63
41.4
102.20
43.5
102.47
45.66
102.55
49.38
102.68
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
101.8
Bankfull Cross- Sectional Area:
69.7
Bankfull Width:
31.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
105.2
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
W / D Ratio:
14.3
Entreachtnent Ratio:
3.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I E
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 7, Riffle
106
105
_---- - - --_. ------ - - - - --
104
103
d
m
e
102
0
-- - - - - -- ---------------------------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - --
'c
101
o
-- -• Bankfull
100
_ _ - -Flood Prone Area
99
MY -01 9/17112
MY -02 5/16/13
98
97
0 10 20 30 40
50 61
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS - 8, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
5/16/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
102.71
4.54
102.62
6.87
102.10
9.42
101.11
10.95
100.78
12.94
100.17
14.70
99.59
15.74
98.82
17.10
98.48
18.98
98.15
21.71
98.25
24.63
98.26
26.49
98.43
28.71
98.27
30.99
98.17
32.81
98.20
34.67
98.81
36.26
99.52
37.93
100.23
39.96
100.97
42.95
101.90
45.42
102.62
47.29
102.70
49.16
102.59
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
102.1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
98.3
Bankfull Width:
36.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I C/E
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 8, Pool
103
102
- - - - -- -------- ---- -------- �-- _------- - - - - -- -_- -_.
101
y
``
100
0
W 99
Bankfull
98 98
- - - - Flood Prone Area
MY -0 1 9/11112
97
MY -02 5116/13
0 10 20 30 40
50 60
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Elevation
Cape Fear
102.19
5.12
tOL99
8.16
Watershed:
11.53
Greenbrier Creek
14.00
igan
15.91
98.98
XS ID
98.30
XS - 9, Riffle
97.95
23.05
97.83
;+
Feature
29.00
Riffle
30.77
97.35
33.43
97.18
Date:
97.30
5/16/2013
98.35
38.47
98.79
40.98
Field Crew:
44.29
Perkinson, Jern
47.38
102.37
49.93
102.44
52.33
102.93
Stream Type
E
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 9, Riffle
104
--- -----------
--- - --
------------------
- - - - --
103
102
-
101
------ - - - - --
0 100
----------------------------
- - - - -- -----
- - - - --
e
99
- - -- Bankfull
- - - -Flood Prone Area
98
MY-01 vnv12
97
MY -02 5/16/13
96
0 10
20
30
40
50 60
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.00
102.19
5.12
tOL99
8.16
IOL47
11.53
100.45
14.00
igan
Station
Elevation
0.00
102.19
5.12
tOL99
8.16
IOL47
11.53
100.45
14.00
99.64
15.91
98.98
17.61
98.30
19.39
97.95
23.05
97.83
25.92
97.50
29.00
98.33
30.77
97.35
33.43
97.18
35.41
97.30
36.66
98.35
38.47
98.79
40.98
99.85
44.29
101.07
47.38
102.37
49.93
102.44
52.33
102.93
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfoll Elevation:
100.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
63.8
Bankfull Width:
30.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
103.6
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
��' / U Ratio:
14.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.4

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS - 10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
5/16/2013
Field Crew.
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
101.79
4.71
101.60
7.65
100.75
10.02
100.04
12.17
99.13
15.03
98.07
17.00
97.53
20.68
97.23
23.07
96.96
25.89
96.69
28.92
96.61
31.13
96.45
33.41
96.55
35.04
97.89
36.79
98.16
38.42
98.89
40.77
99.94
43.61
100.80
46.75
101.97
49.81
103.04
52.39
104.03
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
101.1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
109.5
Bankfull Width:
37.9
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
102
a
`J 101
fi
100
99
- Bankfull
98
-• - - Flood Prone Area
97
MY -01 9/12/12
96
MY -02 5/16/13
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Elevation
Ca Fear
102.03
,
102.49
Watershed:
102.16
Greenbrier Creek
101.24
15.37
XS ID
98.89
XS - 1 1, Riffle
98.38
21.05
97.01
Feature
96.79
Riffle
97.00
27.12
96.81
Date:
96.72
5/ 16/2013
96.84
34.20
96.71
Field Crew:
97.59
Perkinson, Jernigan
98.35
40.95
ile
43.43
99.91
45.92
100.76
49.75
(,
52.72
101.76
r
Stream T pe I:
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 11, Riffle
104
103
102
--
101
0 100
a----------- -
_
- - - -- ----- --
-- ----------- - - - - -- ----
- - - - --
99
---- Bankfull
w
- - - - Flood Prone Area
9g
MY -01 9/12/12
97
MY -02 5/16/13
96
0 10
20
30 40
50 60
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.00
102.03
6.79
102.49
10.30
102.16
12.48
101.24
15.37
Station
Elevation
0.00
102.03
6.79
102.49
10.30
102.16
12.48
101.24
15.37
100.11
18.23
98.89
19.32
98.38
21.05
97.01
23.13
96.79
24.96
97.00
27.12
96.81
29.24
96.72
30.89
96.84
34.20
96.71
36.32
97.59
39.10
98.35
40.95
99.06
43.43
99.91
45.92
100.76
49.75
101.78
52.72
101.76
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
99.7
Bankfhll Cross - Sectional Area:
55.8
Bankfpll Width:
26.5
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:
12.6
Eetrenchmedt Ratio:
3.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.7

River Basin: Cape Fear 7 ....
- _ -
w_
102
101
0 100
c
w
96
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)
Watershed: Greenbrier Creek
XS ID XS - 12, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Dste: 5/16/2013
Field Crew: Perkinson, Jernigan
Station Elevation SUMMARY 0.00 100.31 Bankfull Elevation: 99.9
4.55 99.94 Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 57.6
7.55 99.55 Bankfull Width: 32.1
9.34 99.30 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 103.0
10.73 98.74 Flood Prone Width: 100.0
12.68 98.37
27.47 96.81
30.90 96.95 Stream T E
33.15 97.23
35.25 97.52
36.77 98.09 Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 12, Riffle
38.96 98.84
41.51 99.37 104
44.21 100.28
46.61 100.22 103
49.54 100.12
DATA
Max Depth at Bankfull: 3.1
15.22 97.70 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.8
18.14 97.05 W / D Ratio: 17.9
21.37 96.83 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.1
24.78 96.87 Bank Height Ratio: 1.0
- -- ----------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - - - --
-- Bankfull
Station Elevation SUMMARY 0.00 100.31 Bankfull Elevation: 99.9
4.55 99.94 Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 57.6
7.55 99.55 Bankfull Width: 32.1
9.34 99.30 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 103.0
10.73 98.74 Flood Prone Width: 100.0
12.68 98.37
27.47 96.81
30.90 96.95 Stream T E
33.15 97.23
35.25 97.52
36.77 98.09 Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 12, Riffle
38.96 98.84
41.51 99.37 104
44.21 100.28
46.61 100.22 103
49.54 100.12
DATA
Max Depth at Bankfull: 3.1
15.22 97.70 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.8
18.14 97.05 W / D Ratio: 17.9
21.37 96.83 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.1
24.78 96.87 Bank Height Ratio: 1.0
- -- ----------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - - - --
-- Bankfull
DATA
Max Depth at Bankfull: 3.1
15.22 97.70 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.8
18.14 97.05 W / D Ratio: 17.9
21.37 96.83 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.1
24.78 96.87 Bank Height Ratio: 1.0
- -- ----------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - - - --
-- Bankfull
99
-Flood Prone Area
98
MY -0I 9/17/12
97
MY -02 5/16/13
- -- ----------------------------------- - - - - -- - - - - - --
-- Bankfull

River Basin:
Elevation
Cape Fear
Creek
XS ID
XS - 13, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
5/16/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, ,Icrnigan
Watershed:
98.33
Greenbrier
97.76
a+
96.52
19.19
95.96
21.58
95.69
Y
95.25
25.59
95.40
27.56
96.15
1
97.02
30.70
97.37
32.67
97.31
35.91
97.26
38.19
97.23
39.52
97.38
40.87
97.86
42.34
98.83
44.00
99.35
46.35
99.67
48.68
99.85
50.28
100.04
°.
y
Stream Tye C/G
Cape Fear River Basin,
Greenbrier Creek, XS - 13, Pool
101
100 .
99 ---- - - - - --
-----------------
------- - - - - -- - - -
- - --
0 98
97
W
• Bankfull
- - Flood Prone Area
96
M Y -01 9/12/12
95 _,
MY -02 5/16/13
0 10
20
30 40
50 60
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.00
Creek
XS ID
XS - 13, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
5/16/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, ,Icrnigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
99.95
4.62
100.05
7.49
100.04
9.09
99.82
11.30
98.98
13.32
98.33
14.81
97.76
17.$0
96.52
19.19
95.96
21.58
95.69
24.22
95.25
25.59
95.40
27.56
96.15
29.14
97.02
30.70
97.37
32.67
97.31
35.91
97.26
38.19
97.23
39.52
97.38
40.87
97.86
42.34
98.83
44.00
99.35
46.35
99.67
48.68
99.85
50.28
100.04
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
61.9
Bankfull Width:
31.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Elevation
Cape Fear
Watershed:
Date:
Greenbrier Creek
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
:.�
XS ID
XS - 14, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
;.'
.....
Stream T
E
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 14, Riffle
101
100
-
a 99
o,
5
2 98
0
o
Bankfull
w 97
- - - - Flood Prone Area
MY -01 9/12/12
96
-
-
MY -02 5/16/13
95
0 10
20
30
40
50 60
Station (feet)
Station E
Elevation
Date:
5/16/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station E
Elevation
SMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 98.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 57.5
Bankfull Width: 37.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 100.0
Flood Prone Width: 100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull: 2.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.5
W / D Ratio: 23.9
Entrenchment Ratio: 2.7
Bank Height Ratio: 1.0

eject Name Greenbrier - Year 2 (2013) Profile
nth Main Reach (00+00 - 10+00)
ature Profile
to 5/16/13
ew Perkinson.Jernigan
2012 2013
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
0.0 95.3 96.7 2.0 94.9 97.7
29.2 96.0 96.7 33.8 95.6 97.7
39.5 95.5 96.7 67.7 95.6 97.7
57.2 93.6 96.7 81.4 94.2 97.7
70.6 94.1 96.7 144.4 94.5 97.7
81.8 95.2 %.7 171.8 94.1 97.7
113.4 95.4 %.7 191.1 94.7 97.7
133.5 95.0 96.7 224.3 93.8 97.7
158.1 94.3 %.7 262.0 94.8 97.6
1853 94.5 96.7 274.0 94.9 97.7
220.9 93.9 96.7 295.6 95.9 97.7
252.8 94.8 96.8 325.1 94.6 97.7
286.5 94.6 96.7 327.1 94.5 97.7
300.7 95.5 96.7 352.8 95.5 97.7
330.0 94.4 96.7 409.4 95.5 97.7
343.4 95.3 96.7 455.4 95.7 97.7
413.8 95.9 96.7 471.1 94.1 97.7
442.5 95.4 %.6 4%.0 94.9 97.7
445.7 95.5 %.7 513.5 96.2 97.7
458.4 94.7 96.6 560.5 96.4 97.7
470.5 95.0 96.7 589.4 96.5 98.0
484.7 94.7 96.7 603.9 95.5 98.0
493.7 95.7 96.7 628.4 95.1 98.0
538.1 96.0 96.7 676.8 95.6 98.0
574.4 %.6 97.1 708.0 95.7 98.0
593.1 %.0 97.2 724.4 96.0 97.9
612.9 95.4 97.1 759.4 %.3 98.0
101
loo
99
T
�0 I
� i
98
v
97
C
0
v 96
W
95:
94
93
0 200
-4-Year 1 (2012) Bed
,2- -a 97.4 98.5 1
2014
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Bed Elevation Wal
400
2015
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
)
Greenbrier Year 2 (2013) Profile - Reach 00 +00 to 10 +00
600
Distance (feet)
Year 2 (2013) Bed
800
Year 2 (2013) Water Surface
1000
2012
2013
2014
2015
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0017
0.0010
Riffle Length
29
34
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0050
0.0006
Pool Length
18
27
Avg. Pool Slope
0.0000
0.0000
)
Greenbrier Year 2 (2013) Profile - Reach 00 +00 to 10 +00
600
Distance (feet)
Year 2 (2013) Bed
800
Year 2 (2013) Water Surface
1000

Project Name
Reach
Feature
Date
Crev
Greenbrier - Year 2 (2013) Profile
Main Reach (10+00 - 22 +50)
Profile
5/16/13
Perkinson, Jernigan
2013
2014
2015
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0017
0.0010
2012
2013
29
2014
2015
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey,
0.0050
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
0.0
95.3 96.7
964.7
96.9
98.0
29.2
96.0 96.7
1008.3
97.3
98.0
39.5
95.5 96.7
1033.6
95.8
98.0
57.2
93.6 96.7
1053.2
96.0
98.0
70.6
94.1 96.7
1068.6
96.7
98.0
81.8
95.2 96.7
1081.4
95.7
98.0
113.4
95.4 96.7
1106.3
96.1
98.0
133.5
95.0 96.7
1116.1
96.9
98.0
158.1
94.3 96.7
1131.9
95.6
98.0
185.3
945 96.7
1147.6
94.8
98.0
220.9
93.9 96.7
1168.5
94.6
97.9
252.8
94.8 96.8
1194.7
95.5
98.0
286.5
94.6 96.7
1203.3
97.5
98.0
300.7
95.5 96.7
1226.0
98.4
98.7
330.0
94.4 96.7
1237.4
98.0
98.7
343.4
95.3 96.7
1245.0
96.7
98.7
413.8
95.9 96.7
1268.7
96.5
98.7
442.5
95.4 96.6
1307.3
96.6
98.7
445.7
95.5 96.7
1320.1
97.1
98.7
458.4
94.7 96.6
1355.1
97.7
98.7
470.5
95.0 96.7
1364.0
96.9
98.7
484.7
94.7 96.7
13779
96.9
98.7
493.7
95.7 96.7
1385.3
97.4
98.7
538.1
96.0 96.7
1398.7
98.0
98.7
574.4
96.6 97.1
1405.5
97.6
98.7
593.1
96.0 97.2
1412.5
96.9
98.7
612.9
95.4 97.1
1429.7
96.6
98.7
101 i
i
100
I
99
v
97
c
0
v 96
w
�I
95
I
94
93
1000
1322.4 97.4
Greenbrier Year 2 (2013) Profile - Reach 10 +00 to 22 +50
1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Distance (feet)
- +-Year 1 (2012) Bed Year 2 (2013) Bed Year 2 (2012) Water Surface
98.5 2059.6 98.2 998 1
2012
2013
2014
2015
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0017
0.0010
Riffle Length
29
34
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0050
0.0006
Pool Length
18
27
Avg. Pool Sloe
0.0000
0.0000
1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200
Distance (feet)
- +-Year 1 (2012) Bed Year 2 (2013) Bed Year 2 (2012) Water Surface
98.5 2059.6 98.2 998 1

ect Name
Greenbrier - Year 2 (2013) Profile
2012*
!h
Unnamed Tributary (00+00 - 09 +00)
2015
ure
Profile
Avg. Water Surface Slope
- --
0.0092
5/16/13
V
Perkinson,Jernigan
10
16
Avg. Riffle Slope
2012
0.0124
2013
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Pool Length
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
0.0
99.1
0.0
99.1
99.4
22.6
99.0
10.3
99.1
99.4
29.3
98.7
13.0
98.9
99.4
34.3
98.8
17.9
99.3
99.4
41.7
99.1
24.6
99.1
99.5
50.4
99.1
27.9
98.9
99.5
55.2
98.8
33.5
99.0
99.5
63.4
98.9
40.9
99.2
68.8
98.8
49.9
99.4
78.3
98.7
52.0
99.0
99.6
83.7
98.8
55.1
98.9
99.6
94.5
99.0
58.7
99.1
99.7
104.0
99.0
62.3
98.9
99.7
109.8
98.9
74.6
98.8
99.7
114.0
99.0
87.2
99.0
99.6
1208 .
98.9
91.3
99.2
99.4
127.2
99.0
102.8
99.3
99.7
136.1
99.4
107.4
99.0
99.7
149.6
100.0
110.3
98.8
99.6
156.0
99.3
112.7
99.2
99.7
168.5
99.5
115.2
99.2
99.7
178.9
99.7
121.0
99.0
99.7
184.5
99.8
131.2
99.1
99.7
187.1
99.6
134.7
99.4
99.6
193.7
99.7
150.9
100.2
100.4
198.3
99.7
156.4
99.4
100.4
200.1
99.6
162.6
99.5
100.4
2014 I 2015
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Bed Elevation %Water ICleration Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
110 �. - - -- -
loa
T
m 105
nl
N
104
C
O
v
W
102
100
98 ! ---- - - - -- - - - -
0 100 200 300
-*-Year 1(2012) Bed
425.0 102.2 434.9 101.9 102.7
I I * No water in channel during field measutments.
Greenbrier Year 2 (2013) Profile - Unnamed Tributary 00 +00 to 09 +00
400
Distance (feet)
Year 2 (2013) Bed
Soo 600 700
--Year 2 (2013) Water Surface
800 900
2012*
2013
2014
2015
Avg. Water Surface Slope
- --
0.0092
Riffle Length
10
16
Avg. Riffle Slope
- - --
0.0124
Pool Length
9
6
Avg. Pool Slope
- - --
0.0008
I I * No water in channel during field measutments.
Greenbrier Year 2 (2013) Profile - Unnamed Tributary 00 +00 to 09 +00
400
Distance (feet)
Year 2 (2013) Bed
Soo 600 700
--Year 2 (2013) Water Surface
800 900

Pebble Count,
Gr
, . ■ ■■ 111111 ■ ■■ 111111 ■ ■■ 111111 ■ ■IIIIIIII�r�111111i��111111
,
, ..
■
■■
111111
■
■■
111111
■
■■
111111■
■11111►■
■■111111■
■1111111
, .
■
■■
111111
■
■■
111111
■
■■
111111■
■1111
►,��■
■■111111■
■■111111
,
, ..
■
■■
111111
■
■■
111111■
■■111111
■
■111�III
■■■111111■
■■111111
.
, .
■
■■
111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■111111■
■■111111■
■1111111
,
, , .
■
■■
111111■
■1111111
■
■■
111111
■��IIIIII■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
, .
■
■■
111111
■
■■
111111
■
■1111111��1111111■
■■111111■
■1111111
,
,, .
,.
■
■■
111111
■�■
111111■
■11111,,11
■1111111■
■■111111■
■1111111
■■
11l�
!!i
■��nlllli��111111�
■!111�1!ir
■1111111■
■1111111
,
. , ■■ 1111111 ■ii1111111 ■■ 1111111 ■���11111 ■w�llllll ■■1111111
------ Bonn— also
- - ...
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type

Pebble
■
■
■1"
III■■
��
"'�
■
■
■""'I
■
■
■"!'��
■
■
■""II
■
■
■„"�
� .
.
■
■
■""'�
■
■
■'1""
■
■
■""II
■
■
■"�'II
■■
■"'III
■
■
■'1"'�
, ,
..
■■
1111111
■
■Illnll
■■
1111111
■
■Ilrillll■
■1111111■
■1111111
. ,
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,..
.
■■■
111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
. , ,
.
■■■
111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■
■
/IIIIIII■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
.
■■■IIIIII
■■
1111111■■
1111111
■
/��i�lll■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■!����III�!!�
■1111111■
■1111111
,..
,.. ■■■ ��������■ 1�1111��������1����1�111���111111��1111111
_ -- .., NIXIE ._
Size percent less than (mm)
--Percent by substrate type
..�.,.�
���...
...
._..

Pebble Count,
Gree -
, . ■■ 1111111 ■■ 1111111 ■■ 1111111■ ■11111!! ■r��lllll� ■111111
,
, ..
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
, ..
■■
1111111■
■1111111
■■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
, ..
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■
■11
►,111■
■1111111■
■1111111
.
.
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■IIIIIII■
■1111111■
■1111111
. ;
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■��IIIIII■
■IIIIIII■
■1111111
.
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■
■IIIIIiIr
■11111;■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
.
■
■1■
1111
■�111111��
■!��!1��!��IGhIII■
■1111111■
■1111111
'
,
. , ■■ 1111111 ■N■�+�III ►!■ 1111111 ■�i�111111i� ■1111111 ■■1111111
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type

-.. e Count,---
Greenbrier
, .. ■■ 1111111 ■ ■111IIII ■■ 1111111 ■ /�I�III�rIn1111��1111111
, ..
■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■x.1111111■
■■111111■
■1111111
, ,
■■
1111111■
■1111111
■
■1111111��1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
, .
■■
1111111■■
nlllll■■
111111���
■111111■■1111111■■111111
. ,
,.,
■■
1111111■■
1111111
■■11�11�!�i
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,,.,
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■�lii�lll
■
■1111111■■1111111■
■1111111
,.,
■■
1111111
■■
111111-
���1111111
■
■1111111■■1111111■
■1111111
. ,.
■■
1111111
■��iillll
■
■nlllll
■■111111■
■1111111
■■
■1111
,
,.,
■■
IIIIIII�r1111111
■
■11n111!!■!lclllll■
■1111111■
■1111111
,., ■ ■11la�1�!lliilll ►!l fill `�1��111�III�w1111111��1111111

Pebble Count,
Gr.-
-.. - LCMDT-asla -
.: ■ ■IIIIIII�■ 111111■■ 1111111 ■�!���Ill��r���llll�i�lillll
.
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■
■Illlll�ii
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
.
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■
■1111��I■
■1111111
■
■iilllli■
■1111111
,
, .
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■
■11��111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
. ,
.
■■
1111111
■
■1111111��!_�1�111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
. , .
■■
1111111
■
■1��!����i1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
.
■■
1111111
■■
111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
. , .
■
■1111111
■
111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111
■
■IIIIIN■
■111111
,
.
■
■11111.!
■01111111■■IIIIC�I!�
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
. , ■■ Ilf�lll■■ 1!l lll�i■!li�tll ■�IliMlll ■w1111111 ■■1111111
substrate type
=11111101
. ,
�
�•
�
... -
...-
. -. .

Pebble Count,
Gr
. ■■ 1111111 ■■ 1111111 ■■ 1111111 ■ ■Iilli�l�i�dllll���llllll
, ,
.
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■�1���111■
■1111111■
■1111111
, ,
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■
■111111����111111
■■1111111■
■1111111
,..
.
■■
1111111■■
1111111■■
11��
'nr/■1111111■■nlnll■■1111111
. , ,
.
■■
1111111■■
1111111
■��
►lilll■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
.
■■
1111111
■
■IIIIII��i1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
■■
1111111
■
■1!!��n
■■
1111111
■■1111111
■■1111111■
■1111111
,..
■■1111111
■��
111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■
■1111111
,..
■
■1111�����1l11111
■■
1111111
■
■11111�!�
■1111111■
■1111111
,.,
,. ■■ 11l..,... ii111111�iill iit�I�i�1i� 141II�i1111111�i1111111
- - Jill ...
Size percent less than (mm)
..
.
�•
���
... -
m.mmmm.T
.

Pebble Count,
.-
�Gr-- -
, . ■ ■■ 111111■■ IIIIIII�. �i�i��1�r��1�I��r������Ii�I11111I
,
.
■■
1111111
■
■Illll.;�i■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
.
■■
1111111
■
■1l�1111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
.
■■
1111111
■�illllll
■■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
,.
■
■IIIIIII�r1111111■
■111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
. , .
■
■IIIIIIII
/■
1111111■
■1111111
■
■INIIII■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
.
■
■1111111,■
1111111
■■
1111111■
■1111111
■■1111111■
■1111111
,
.
■
■Ill�,il■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
.
■
■Ililllly
■1l�Ill�i■
1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■1IND
. , ■■ 1111111 ■ ■IIIIIIIfi1111111■ ■111111 ■w1111111 ■■1111111
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type

iGreenbrier
. ■■ 1111111 ■■ 1111111 ■■ 1111111 ■■1 ■II�!ir1111111■ ■1111111
, ,
.
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■
■111��II■
■1111111■
■1111111
, ,
..
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■
■Ill�lll■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
.
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■
■1111111■�1111111■
■1111111■
■111111
. , ,
.
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■■
1111111
■1111111■
■1111111■
■111111
, ,
.
■■
1111111
■
■111111��111111!■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
, , ,
..
■■
1111111
■!!!1!�i�li■1
■111■
■1111111■
■1111111■
■1111111
■
■Illloll�nllllil
■■
1111111
■
■1111111■■1111111■
■111111
.
■
■11l�,��rl�1111111
■■
1111111■
■11111!■
■1111111■
■1111111
,
.. ■ ■IIIIIIIiiwilllll�i■Illllll�i ■111111 ■w1111111 ■■1111111
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary - Unnamed Tributary
Greenbrier Creek (EEP Project Number 671)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre- Existing Condition - UT
Reference Reach(a) Data
Design
Year 1 (2012) Monitoring - UT
Dimension and Substrate - Rdile Only
LL
UL
Eq
Min
Mean
Med
I Max
I SD
Mm
Mean
Mod
Max
SD
Mm
Max
Med
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width (ft)
32
66
276
120
145
147
165
Flood prone Width ft
8
50
140
40
100
BF Mean Depth ft
09
1 2
07
07
08
09
BF Max Depth ft
1 2
14
20
1 0
1 2
1 3
1 5
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft =)
27
58
33 5
78
119
120
127
Width/Depth Ran
37
74
230
18 0
163
181
236
Entrenchment Ran o
1 2
>2 2
5 1
>2 2
6 1
6 6
69
Bank Height Rati
1 0
—1 3
1 0
1 0
10
Profile
Riffle length ft
2 12 10 32 35
Riffle slo a tVft
No Water m Channel Dunn Survey
Pool len ft
4 0
10 0
89 J
250
L360
Pool Max de th ft
- --
28
12
13
15
Poolspacing (ft)
- --
25
104
- --
8
23
22
42
9
Pattern _
Channel Beltwidth (MI 1 77
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc Bankfull width f /ft ___ Channel Smuostry I 0 to 1 1, therefore, no
Meander Wavelength U01 I I I 1 94 1 1 1 100 1 Pattern variables are able to be calculated
Meander Width ranol I I I I I I I I 1 1 28
Transport parameters -
Reach Shear Stress (competency) z
Max pail size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transvort capacity) W /m=
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
G4c- a
C4-t7ype
C4-
C- type
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge cfs
Valley Len ft
Channel Thalweg Len ft
868
868
Sinuosity
10
1 1
1 0
10
Water Surface Slo tuft
0 0030 - 0 0038
00077
00038
Ban kfull FI I i (acres)
% of Reach with Eroding Ban
Channel Stability or Habitat n
or Other
I
Table lOb Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Greenbrier Creek (EEP Protect Number 671)

Table l0a Baseline Stream Data Summary -Matti Channel (continued)
Greenbrier Creek (EEP Protect Number 6711
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition - Main
Channel
Reference
Reference Reaches) Data
Design
1 (2012) Monitoring - Main
Channel
Dunemion and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Ea
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Max
Med
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width R)
200
276
35 0
27_0
31 0
37 1
Flood prone Width fl
160
200
140
160
200
100
BF Mean Depth fl
25
1 2
18_
1 6
20
23
BF Max Depth fl
32
20
25
21
31
36
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
504
33 5
61 0
560
623
71 8
Width/Depth Ratio
8 1
230
200
129
15 5
22 9
Entrenchment k
>2 2
5 1
>2 2
37
31
3 7
Bank Hei t Rah
10
1 0
10
'5
10
1 7
Profile
Riffle length R
- --
5
38
29
114
299
Riffle slo a fVfl
--
-
0 0000
00050
0 0024
0 0263
0 0070
Pool length fl
- - --
8
33
17
172
370
Pool Max depth
(ft)
2 1
3 1
3 6
Poolspacing fl
- --
25
104
26
93
72
260
56
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth R 77
1 1 1 1 1 1 ___
Radius of Curvature R
Channel Sinuosity 1 0 to 1 I therefore no
Rc Bankfull width fVf ___ ___
Meander Wavelength fl 94 1 100 1 patient vanables are able to be calculated
Meander Width -t.nI 1 28
Trgnsuorl parameters
Reach Shear Sttess (enntnetenm) z
Max part size mm mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power ns rt capacity) W /mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E5-type
C4-type
CS type
C- type
Bankfull Velocity (fps
Bankfull Discharge cfs
Valley Len fl
Channel Thalweg Len fl
2235
2235
Sinuosity
1 0
1 1
10
10
Water Surface Slope ft/R
00009
00077
00009
00017
BF slope
Bankfull Flood lam Area acres
% of Reach wnh Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Hai Metn
Rinfamcal or Other
Table IOb Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Greenbrier Creek (EEP Project Number 671)

Table l la Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections)
Greenbrier Creek (EEP Project Number 6711
Parameter
Cross Section 1 - UT
Cross Section 2 - UT
Cross Section 3 - UT
Cross Section 4 - UT
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Pool
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Dimension
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY]
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
BF Width ft
153
157
161
173
145
142
176
175
Flood prone Width ft
231
217
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)
NA
NA
100
1000
1000
NA
NA
NA
NA
BF Mean Depth ft
12
12
07
08
09
08
10
14
14
10
10
BF Max Depth ft
BF Max Depth ft
23
24
13
1 5
13
12
13
24
26
21
21
BF Cross Sectional Area (112)
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
196
196
119
120
127
120
142
126
142
248
1 246
223
221
Width/Depth Ratio
NA
NA
163
181
175
142
170
195
247
NA
NA
NA
NA
Entrenchment Ratio
NA
NA
6 1
69
70
6 9
5 8
62
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bank Height Ratio
NA
NA
Bank Height Ratio
1 0—+_1
0
1 0
NA
NA
NA
NA
d50 mm
--
-
Profile - Main Channel
Riffle length ft
604
41 3
5
38
29
--
--
10
48
34
194
45
--
--
Table I1b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Greenbrier Creek (EEP Proiect Number 6711
Parameter I Baseline MY -1 (UT) MY -2 (UT) MY -3 MY4 MY -5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Mm
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width ft
145
147
165
153
156
173
Flood prone Width ft
100
100
BF Mean Depth (11
07
08
09
07
08
09
BF Max Depth ft
12
13
1 5
13
13
1 5
BF Cross Sectional Area (112)
119
120
127
122
126
142
Width/Depth Ratio
163
181
236
170
195
247
Entrenchment Ratio
6 1
6 6
6 9
5 8
62
65
Bank Height Ratio
1 0
10
Profile - Main Channel
Riffle length ft
5
38
29
114
30
10
48
34
194
45
Riffle slope 11/11
00000
00049
00024
00263
00071
00000
00039
00006
00199
00067
Pool length ft
8
33
17
172
37
2
47
27
181
43
Pool Max depth ft
34
42
46
20
31
40
Pool spacing (ft)
26
93
72
260
56
25
101
98
220
54
Profile - Unnamed Tributary (* No Water in Channel D ring Field Surveys
Riffle length ft
2
12
10
32
7
3
17
16
51
12
Riffle slope ft/ft
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
0 0000
0 0164
0 0124
0 0481
00147
Pool length (ft)
4
10
9
25
36
2
7
6
25
6
Pool Max depth (ft
21
23
24
1 3
1 3
1 5
Pool spacing (ft)
8
23
22
42
9
14
32
31
58
12
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature (ft) Channel Sinuosity 1 0 to 1 1, therefore, no pattern
Rc Bankfull width ft/ft variables are able to be calculated
Meander Wavelength ft
Meander Width rats
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
C -T e
C -Type
Channel Thalweg Length ft
868
866
Sinuosity
1 1
1 1
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
- --
00092
BF slope ft/ft
- --
- --
Rt %/RU %P %G %/S°/
36
17
32
15
51
17
21
11
SC %/SA %/G° /u/C %/B %BE°/
j
1
4
7
60
1
29
0
dl6/d35/d5O/d84/d95
141
298
43
85
112
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metre
Biological or Otheij
. No Water in U I During Field Measurements

Table l la Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections) (continued)
Greenhrier CrPPk IVVP Prm Pet Number 6711
Parameter
Cross Section 5 - UT
Cross Section 6 - UT
Cross Section 7 - Main Tributary
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Dimension
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
BF Width ft
165
173
145
147
147
156
153
156
173
308
316
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
BF Mean Depth ft
07
07
09
08
23
22
BF Mean Depth ft
BF Max Depth ft
13
13
08
09
07
1 5
1 5
36
34
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
119
126
BF Max Depth ft
127
122
12
1 3
1 5
71 8
1 697
13
1 5
W idth/De th Ratio
229
238
170
199
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft Z)
134
143
119
Entrenchment Ratio
127
61
5 8
126
142
68
64
32
32
Bank Height Ratio
Width/Depth Ratio
10
1 0
163
1 0
10
170
195
247
10
10
d50 mm
586
461
500
39 6
83
74
66
69
58
Table 11 b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary (continued)
Greenbrier Creek (EEP Protect Number 671)
Parameter I Baseline MY -1 (UT) MY -2 (UT) MY -3 MY4 MY -5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width ft
145
147
165
153
156
173
Flood prone Width (ft)
100
100
BF Mean Depth ft
07
08
09
07
08
09
BF Max Depth ft
12
1 3
1 5
13
13
1 5
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft Z)
119
120
127
122
126
142
Width/Depth Ratio
163
181
236
170
195
247
Entrenchment Ratio
6 1
66
69
58
62
65
Bank Height Ratio
10
1 0
Profile - Main Channel
Riffle length ft
5
38
29
114
30
10
48
34
194
45
Riffle slope ft/ft
00000
00049
00024
00263
00071
00000
00039
00006
00199
00067
Pool length ft
8
33
17
172
37
2
47
27
181
43
Pool Max depth ft
34
42
46
20
31
40
Pool spacing (ft)
26
93
72
260
56
25
101
98
220
54
Profile - Unnamed Tributary (* No Water in Channel D ring Field Surveys
Riffle length 11
2
12
10
32
7
3
17
16
51
12
Riffle slope ft/ft
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
0 0000
0 0164
0 0124
0 0481
00147
Pool length ft
4
10
9
25
36
2
7
6
25
6
Pool Max depth ft
2 1
23
24
13
1 3
1 5
Pool spacing (ft)
8
23
22
42
9
14
32
31
58
12
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft Channel Sinuosity 1 0 to 1 1, therefore, no pattern
Rc Bankfull width ft/ft variables are able to be calculated
Meander Wavelength ft
Meander Width ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
C -Type
C -Type
Channel Thalweg Length ft
868
866
Sinuosity
1 1
1 1
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (It/ft)
00092
BF slope ft/ft
-- --
- --
Ri %/RU %P %G %/S°/
36
17
32
15
51
17
21
11
SC %/SA %/G %/C %/B %BE °/
4
7
60
29
0
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
141
298
43
85
112
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
• No water in U I During yield Measurements

Table l la Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections) (continued)
Greenbrier Creetc tV VP Prmert Number 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
Riffle
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Dimension
MYO
MY)
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
BF Width ft
265
387
368
37 1
310
308
374
379
Flood prone Width (ft )
270
265
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)
NA
NA
100
1000
1000
NA
NA
1000
1000
BF Mean Depth ft
28
27
16
21
27
20
21
29
29
21
21
BF Max Depth ft
BF Max Depth (ft)
42
40
31
36
20
31
32
46
46
30
30
BF Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
BF Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
1098
983
560
623
71 8
623
638
576
983
1097
1 1095
560
558
Width/Depth Ratio
NA
NA
129
15 5
154
149
126
147
232
NA
NA
130
126
Entrenchment Ratio
NA
NA
27
32
32
3 7
27
3 1
NA
NA
37
38
Bank Height Ratio
NA
NA
Bank Height Ratio
14
14
1 0
1 7
10
NA
NA
1 7
1 7
16
d50 mm
- - --
--
Profile - Main Channel
Riffle length ft
40
28
5
38
29
- - --
--
10
48
34
194
45
10
2 8
Table 11 b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary (continued)
Greenbrier Creek (EEP Protect Number 671)
Parameter I Baseline MY -1 (Main Channel) MY -2 (Main Channel ) MY -3 MY4 MY -5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Mm
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width ft
270
31 0
37 1
265
32 1
37 1
Flood prone Width (ft )
100
100
BF Mean Depth ft
16
20
23
16
21
27
BF Max Depth ft
21
31
36
20
31
40
BF Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
560
623
71 8
55 8
576
983
Width/Depth Ratio
129
15 5
229
126
147
232
Entrenchment Ratio
27
32
3 7
27
3 1
38
Bank Height Ratio
10
1 0
1 7
10
10
1 7
Profile - Main Channel
Riffle length ft
5
38
29
114
30
10
48
34
194
45
Riffle slope ft/ft
00000
00049
00024
00263
00071
00000
00039
00006
00199
00067
Pool length ft
8
33
17
172
37
2
47
27
181
43
Pool Max depth ft
34
42
46
20
31
40
Pool spacing (ft)
26
93
72
260
56
25
101
98
220
54
Profile - Unnamed Tributary (* No Water in Channel D ring Field Surveys
Riffle length ft
2
12
10
32
7
3
17
16
51
12
Riffle slope ft/ft)
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
0 0000
0 0164
0 0124
0 0481
00147
Pool length ft
4
10
9
25
36
2
7
6
25
6
Pool Max depth ft
21
23
24
13
1 3
1 5
Pool spacing (ft)
8
23
22
42
9
14
32
31
58
12
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft Channel Sinuosity 1 0 to 1 1, therefore, no pattern
Rc Bankf ill width ft/ft variables are able to be calculated
Meander Wavelength ft
Meander Width ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
C -Type
C -Type
Channel Thalweg Len ft
2235
2216
Smuositv
1 1
1 1
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
00017
0 001
BF slope ft/ft
- --
- --
Ri %/RU %P %G %0/S°/
38
13
35
15
37
9
43
11
SC %/SA° /a/G %/C° /uB %BE°/
11
47
34
8
0
dl6/d35/d5O/d84/d95
009
023
08
45
76
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Othe
* No Water in UT During Field Measurements

Table lla. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections) (continued)
Greenbrier Creek (EEP Protect Number 671)
Parameter
Cross Section 12 - Main Channel
Cross Section 13 - Main Channel
Cross Section 14 - Main Channel
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Dimension
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
BF Width ft
37 1
32 1
270
31 0
315
31 1
265
32 1
37 1
367
37 1
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)
1000
1000
NA
NA
1000
1000
BF Mean Depth ft
19
18
18
20
16
15
BF Mean Depth ft
BF Max Depth (ft )
31
31
20
23
16
34
37
21
20
BF Cross Sectional Area qt)
718
576
1
BF Max Depth ft
560
619
21
31
36
573
575
31
40
Width/Depth Ratio
192
179
NA
NA
BF Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
23 5
239
560
Entrenchment Ratiol
71 8
27
3 1
576
983
NA
NA
27
27
Bank Height Ratiol
Width/Depth Ratio
1 0
1 0
129
NA
NA
126
147
232
10
1 0
d50 mm
02
02
- - --
466
146
32
37
27
Table 11 b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary (continued)
Greenbrier Creek (EEP Protect Number 671)
Parameter I Baseline MY -1 Main Channel) MY -2 MY -3 MY4 MY -5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Mm
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width ft
270
31 0
37 1
265
32 1
37 1
Flood tune Width ft
100
100
BF Mean Depth ft
16
20
23
16
21
27
BF Max Depth ft
21
31
36
20
31
40
BF Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
560
62 3
71 8
558
576
983
Width/Depth Ratio
129
155
229
126
147
232
Entrenchment Ratio
27
32
37
27
3 1
38
Bank Height Ratio
10
1 0
1 7
1 0
10
1 7
Profile - Main Channel
Riffle length ft
5
38
29
114
30
10
48
34
194
45
Riffle slope ft/ft
00000
00049
00024
00263
00071
00000
00039
00006
00199
00067
Pool length ft
8
33
17
172
37
2
47
27
181
43
Pool Max depth ft
34
42
46
20
31
40
Pool spacing (ft)
26
93
72
260
56
25
101
98
220
54
Profile - Unnamed Tributary (* No Water in Channel D ring Field Surveys
Riffle length ft
2
12
10
32
7
3
17
16
51
12
Riffle slope ft/11
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
0 0000
0 0164
0 0124
0 0481
00147
Pool length ft
4
10
9
25
36
2
7
6
25
6
Pool Max depth (ft
21
23
24
1 3
13
1 5
Pool spacing (ft)
8
23
22
42
9
14
32
31
58
12
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft Channel Sinuosity 1 0 to 1 1, therefore, no pattern
Re Bankfull width ft/ft vanables are able to be calculated
Meander Wavelength ft
Meander Width ratio"
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
C -Type
C -Type
Channel Thalweg Len fl
2235
2216
Sinuosity
1 1
1 1
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
00017
0 001
BF slope ft/ft
- - --
- --
Ri %/RU %P %G %/S°/
38
13
35
15
37
9
43
11
SC %/SA %/G %/C %/B %BE°/
11
47
34
8
0
dl6/d35/d5O/d84/d95
009
023
08
45
76
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Other!
• No water in U I During Held Measurements

APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12 Verification of Bankf ill Events
Greenbrier Creek (FINAL) Axiom Environmental, Inc.
EEP Project Number 671
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
September 2013
Appendices

Table 12: Verification of Bankfull Events
Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site (EEP Project 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 -2
occurred after numerous rainfall events, within the 3
weeks prior, that totaled 2.34 inches *.
Visual observations of overbank event including
wrack lines and sediment deposition resulting from
7/16/2013
7/4/2013
34
5.87 inches ** of rainfall between 6/26/2013 and
7/4/2013.
* Reported at the Mount Vernon Springs, Siler City, NC weather station (Weather Underground 2012)
* *Reported at the KNCCHAPEI3, Chapel Hill, NC weather station (Weather Underground 2013)
Greenbrier Creek (FINAL) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 671 September 2013
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

APPENDIX F SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING
EEP Warranty Letter
Nursery Plant List- Supplemental Planting
Contractor Completion Notification
Greenbrier Creek (FINAL) Axiom Environmental, Inc.
EEP Project Number 671
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
September 2013
Appendices

r_11�1
:Ecosystem
PROGRAM
November 8, 2011
Joanne Cheatham
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc
PO Box 1905
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Kitara A. Smith
Great American Insurance Company
580 Walnut Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Re Greenbrier Creek Stream Restoration Site
SCO # 0406210 -02
Vegetation Warranty items
Dear Ms Cheatham
As stated in the November 8, 2011 letter addressed to you from Ed Hajnos, portions the Greenbrier
Creek project site did not meet the vegetation warranty as stated in contract documents. As per
SCO contract 0406210 -02 Special Provision Section 6 0, bare roots were to be planted at 680 stems
per acre, and containerized seedlings at 435 per acre, of those 80% minimum were to survive for
one year from Project Acceptance The warranty period began 2/28/2019 and will expire
2/28/2012
Field data is summarized below and supplemental information about replant requirements is
attached.
Vegetation assessment methodology
Planted vegetation at the Greenbrier Creek site has been assessed once since February 2011 project
planting, on September 28, 2011 by the Owner. Data collected during the sampling effort report
higher plant mortality than contractually permissible Warranty replant numbers are based on the
data collected Field methodology and data are described below
September 28, 2011 sampling
Fourteen (14) vegetation plots were established, each 1,076 sq ft (25m x 4m) in Zone 4 of the
original planting plan All planted bare root and shrubs present within the plot were counted
towards the warranty criteria, including those that were top -dead but were re- sprouting at their
base. Given 680 stems were planted per acre, 544 per acre were required to survive 1 year, or 13
Qq A
MCDENR
Nnrth Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Piopiam, 1652 PiaiI lei vice CentNi, Raleiph, NL 27699 -1652 / 919 7 15 -0476 / www nceep net

per plot to meet the 100% warranty. Fourteen (14) sample plots did not meet the survival criteria
(Vegetation Warranty Data Map attached).
Zone 4 Data Results
Plot
Living bare roots
and shrubs
Required stems
per plot
Warranty
meet
Supplemental planting
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 x 4m) in Zone 5 of the original
planting plan. All containerized seedlings present within the plot were counted towards the
warranty criteria, including those that were top -dead but were re- sprouting at their base. Given
435 stems were planted per acre, 348 per acre were required to survive 1 -year, or 9 per plot to
meet the 100% warranty Two (2) sample plots did not meet the survival criteria (Vegetation
Warranty Data Map attached).
Zone 5 Data Results
Plot Living bare roots Required stems
and shrubs per plot
Warranty Supplemental planting
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 did not meet the
warranty requirement The table below outlines necessary replanting areas Surviving stems were
subtracted from the warranty criteria (544 /acre for Zone 4 and 348 per acre for Zone 5) so that the
"Total plants needed" column is the number of remaining stems needed get warranty criteria
(544/348) stems per acre in areas with deficient vegetation Planting densities were averaged into
planting zones and are identified on the attached Supplemental Planting Map.
IA
NI C- D EIi' R
I\loi th Carolina Ccosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Marl Service Center, Raleigh, K ).1699 -1652 / 919 -715 -0476 / wwa nceep net

Supplemental Planting Plan
Location
Average #
Total plants
(looking downstream)
Planting Zone
stems /ac needed
Acres
needed
to meet warranty
Zone 5 (Unnamed
Zone 5
142
0.8
114
Tributary)
Unnamed Tributary (St
400 +00 - 407 +00) &
Zone 4
418
3.0
1,254
mainstem (St 106 +50 -
100 +00)
Right, mainstem (St
Zone 4
263
0.6
158
200 +00 - 205 +50)
Left, mainstem (St
Zone 4
310
07
217
200 +00 - 206 +00)
Left, mainstem (St
Zone 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
Instructions
• The Supplemental Planting effort needs to be coordinated with EEP so we can arrange with
the landowner to be on site
• All replant materials must conform to the original project specification (dormant season
planting, species composition, size, vigor, etc )
• The Supplemental Planting effort must take place in the dormant season for Alamance
County, (December 1 -April 1).
• No planting shall be done when the temperature is below 320 F, when the soil to be
excavated for the plant hole is frozen, when the sides or bottom o the plant hole are frozen,
or when the soil is too wet
&1�
MODE 2
Ploith Cmolma rcosysteni CnhancemenI Program, 1657 flail Sei vice Centei, Rale-h, IBC 27699 -1657 / 919 -715 0476 / wviv., nceep net

Although the warranty for this project doesn't expire until February 28, 2012, EEP 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, a Satisfaction Letter will be awarded.
If you disagree with this finding or have any questions, please contact me directly.
Sincerely,
c
Kri tie Corson
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Office (919) 715 -1954
Cell (919) 218 -1373
kristie.corsonPncdenr.gov
cc:
Ed Hajnos, EEP
Jeff Jurek, EEP
Jeff Schaffer, EEP
Attachments
i
I0iI,11 1 (0 U ?II? i IiI1 1 t.' ii It „i I I I 16 1 -Kid 1_ ;I!:' (fiu1 �. �i1d ,I ,;i II

.y
4w
a
M ; :fir' -
■ Zone 4 plots
- Zone 5 plots
conservation easement
q
t
-.FW-
,q ,
r:
s t�
IM
Greenbrier Creek Stream Restoration
Alamance /Chatham Counties
Vegetation Warranty Map
V

Location
Zone 5 (Unnamed Tributary)
Unnamed Tributary (St 400 +00 - 407 +00)
& mainstem (St 106 +50 - 100 +00)
Right, mainstem (St 200 +00 - 205 +SO)
Left, mainstem (St 200 +00 - 206 +00)
Left, mainstem (St 212 +50 - 214 +00)
Right, mainstem (St 210 +50 - 219 +00)
Total
Planting Zone Acres plants
needed
Zone 5 0.8 114
Zone 4
3
1254
Zone 4
0.6
158
Zone 4
0.7
217
Zone 4
0.2
89
Zone 4
1
121
Total
6.3
1,952
Greenbrier Creek
Vegetation Warranty Map
G0' Zone 5 replant
Zone 4 replant

Mellow Marsh Farm, Inc.
1312 Woody Store Road
Siler City, NC 27344
919 742 1200 ph
n n 7A 1) i ')on t—
Invoice
DATE INVOIC7#]
2/13/2012 3205
MellowMarskrarmjl-i C.
4% surcharge for payment by
Quality Wetland Plants and Seeds
credit card
BILL TO SHIP TO
Carolina Envimomental Contracting Inc
P O Box 1905
Mount Airy, NC 27030
fax 336 - 320 -3854
SHIP DATE
SHIP VIA
PROJECT
P O NUMBER
PAYMENT
TERMS
DUE DATE
2/13/2012
Customer
Greenbriar
Pending
check
Net 30
3/14/2012
QTY
ITEM CODE
DESCRIPTION
PRICE EACH
POT SIZE
AMOUNT
23
QURU G
Quercus rubra "Northern red oak"
500
gallon
11500
23
NYSY G
Nyssa sylvatica "Black gum"
500
1 gallon
11500
12
ACNE G
Acer negundo "Box elder"
500
gallon
6000
3
ULAM G
Ulmus americana "American elm"
500
gallon
1500
13
BENI G
Betula nigra "River birch"
500
1 gallon
6500
20
QUPH G
Quercus phellos "Willow oak"
500
1 gallon
10000
20
QUMI G
Quercus michauxii "Swamp chestnut oak"
500
l gallon
10000
368
FRPE BRTS
Fraxinus pennsylvanica "Green Ash"
080
bare root
29440
368
PLOC BRTS
Platanus occidentalis "Sycamore"
080
bare root
29440
368
NYSY BR
Nyssa sylvatica "Black gum"
080
bare root
29440
145
ACNE BR
Acer negundo "Box elder"
080
bare root
11600
368
ULAM BR
Ulmus americana "American elm"
080
bare root
29440
110
LIBE BRTS
Lindera benzom "Spicebush"
125
bare root
13750
111
VIDE BRTS
Viburnum dentatum "Arrow wood"
1 25
bare root
13875
PO
Total
$2,13985
Contract Terms & Conditions Full payment due before delivery unless otherwise noted
If you cannot receive your order at the scheduled time, the material will require special
Payments /Credits
$000
handling and a 25% restocking or holding fee may apply Buyer agrees to pay amount
shown in `Balance Due' according to `Terms' Timely payment will not be contingent on
buyer's receipt of payment from his /her customer A deposit may be required to hold plant
Balance Due
I
$2,13985

Certified 4VBE / DBE
April 24, 2012
NCEEP
Attn: Mrs Kristie Corson
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
P O Box 1905
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Office (336) 320 -3849
Fax [phone]
Subject: Greenbnar 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 Nutrient Offset Meeting Summary Letter
NCDWQ Email Response
Greenbrier Creek (FINAL) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 671 September 2013
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

Y
1,11co stem
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 EEP'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 dose 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 YWA
RmtDYG;L9... E ... PYDtwtiilcj ciar Stag NCDEE R
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 / 919 - 715 -0476 / www nceep net

3. Land Use Change- If EEP purchases agricultural land to do riparian buffer restoration we believe EEP
should get credit for restoration of the entire buffer width That is, the first 40 feet of buffer would
not be excluded from our credit calculations The argument for this is that while the act of EEP
purchasing the-property may have changed a property's land use and', therefore; made -it subject to the
buffer rules, the EEP is actually implementing an active riparian buffer restoration project on that
land, not simply taking it out of agricultural use Furthennore, if EEP does not purchase these lands,
there will be no land use change
Torn and Rich agreed with this statement- EEP should get credit for the ealir e, width t estored
We also have some questions about the Jordan nutrient offset trading; program, but staff are still
reviewing the information that has been released.
EEP will need to provide comments on the Jordwi rules to ensure the fees are set capproprtately and
the requirements (service area) are attainable `flits area,is hkely to have ltigher,implementation
costs and less opportwitty for lower cost buffers as nutrient offset innigation ff JEEP will accept
payments in thit area, we initst be able to afford to unplement projects
S EEP's Nutrient Offset Accounting Methods, Regarding EEP's mdrient offset requirements - Jun
Stanfill discussed how we measure the lolal pounds for 30 years when ive accept a trulrient offset
perymeni and take on a requirement Our projects are .Yet up to offset a total numbers rf pounds and,
therefore. we may have "shorter" (less than 30 years) more intense projects. Rich and 'font were in
agreement with Our accounting nielhas
6 Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site location — clarification of intent of rules: fn the Randleman
watershed (for Cape Fear 03), EEP staff have questioned inhere- upstream or down streattt- rn the
watershed the mitigation should take place Xhligatton that EEP already has dmvneream of the
reservoir can be used but new pursuits should he upstream in Larder to protect the reservoir
Likewise, ur Catativba neiv projects should be downstream of Lake Jantes to be used as mitigation
credit EEP .Staff also clay f ed drat the rules do not have a tune requireinent for EEP to provide the
mitigation- but that the program uses the .same time requrreinents as the WOU. Tom und'Rich were
calsv agreeable to this
i Rrch requested that EEP allow for transparencies in its program and asked for us to provide as inuch
data as possible in our annual report and work on information to be mciuded an EEPs Web site
EEP agreed and is workitig to set up a specV4, web page at the program 's web site devoted to the
l+utrwnt Offset Prograin
Thank, you for taking the time to discuss these issues with us. If you need additional mforination or want
to offer corrections or clarifications to the information presented herein, please contact Kelbv Williams at
(914) 716 -1921 or Kellv.,�v►lliams @ncmail.net.
Sincerely
Kelly Williams
In -Lieu Fee Program Coordinator
CC. Tom Reeder, NCDWQ
Jim Stanfill- INCEEP
Suzanne Klimek, \FCEI~P
Marc Reclk-tenwald, NCEEP
Deborah Airia.ral, NCEEP
R,ftori;i�j_ E ... Pro"' fta&
;
HMENR
idorth Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 - 16521919- 715 -0476 /www nceep net

Williams, Kelly
From: Tom Reeder [tom reeder @ncmail 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.
> Thanks for you help.
> Kelly Williams
> NCEEP
1