20080324 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20140808

Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
2013 Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Alamance County, NC
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit: 03030002
NCEEP Project Number: 92372
NCEEP Contract Number: 4998
Submitted To:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
FINAL — 2013 Monitoring Report — Year 2 of 5
Project Construction Completed: 2012
Data Collection for Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Report Submitted: January 2014
AM
_ern
NCDENR
r';J
L i ae em
PROGRAM

Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
2013 Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Alamance County, NC
Cape Fear River Basin
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Prepared by:
EEE Consulting, Inc.
601 Cascade Pointe Lane, Suite 101
Cary, NC 27513
Project Manager:
Ray Bode, PWS
(919) 650 -2463 ext. 225
rbode @eee- consulting.com
January 2014
FINAL
�EEE Consulting, Inc.
��Environmental, Engineering and Educational Solutions

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary /Project Abstract .................................. ..............................2
2. Methodology ................................................................. ..............................4
2.1 Stream Survey Methodology ......................................... ..............................4
2.2 Vegetation Survey Methodology ..................................... ..............................4
3. References .................................................................... ..............................5
Appendix A: Proj
Figure 1:
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
APPENDICES, FIGURES, and TABLES
ect Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Vicinity Map
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Project Activity and Reporting History
Project Contacts Table
Project Attribute Table
Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2: Current Condition Plan View
Figure 3:
Conservation Easement Marked Posts
Figure 4:
Final Conservation Easement Plat
Figure 5:
Conservation Easement Coordinate List
Table 5:
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6:
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Photo Log 1:
Established Photo Stations
Photo Log 2:
Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7: Vegetation Plot Success by Project Asset Type
Table 8: CVS Stem Count Total and Planted with/without Livestakes by Plot and Species
Appendix D: Stream Survey Data
Figure 6:
Cross Section with Annual Overlays
Figure 7:
Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figure 8:
Pebble Counts with Annual Overlays
Table 9:
Stream Bank Erosion Pin Data Table
Table 10a: Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 10b: Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic
Containment Parameter Distributions)
Table 11 a: Monitoring — Cross - Section Morphology Data Table
Table l lb: Monitoring — Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Appendix E: Hydrologic Data
Table 12: Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure 9: Monthly Rainfall Data
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of 5; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
1

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / PROJECT ABSTRACT
The primary goals of this stream restoration project focus on improving water quality, enhancing
flood attenuation, and restoring aquatic habitat. These goals will be accomplished by the
following objectives:
• Reducing non -point sources of pollution associated with former lawn maintenance in the
park area by providing a vegetative buffer adjacent to Little Alamance Creek and its
unnamed tributary (UT) and the installation of stormwater best management practices to
treat surface runoff. The riparian buffer will remain in a State -owned conservation
easement in perpetuity.
• Reducing sedimentation on -site and in downstream receiving waters through a reduction
of bank erosion associated with current vegetation maintenance practices and by
providing a forested vegetative buffer adjacent to Little Alamance Creek and its tributary.
• Reestablishing stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and
sediment loads by restoring stable dimension, pattern, and profile.
• Promoting floodwater attenuation through increased flood storage capacity by
construction of bankfull benches along Little Alamance Creek and its tributary.
• Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability.
The Site consists of 1,293 linear feet of enhanced (Level I and II) channel along Little Alamance
Creek and its UT. The project is located in City Park in the City of Burlington, Alamance
County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The surrounding land use is recreational and the project is
easily accessible by the public. Little Alamance Creek and its UT are located in the 8 -digit
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002; the 14 -digit Local Watershed Unit HUC 03030002-
040010; and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality ( NCDWQ) Subbasin 03 -06 -03
( NCDWQ, 2005). The project lies within the Southern Outer Piedmont ecoregion of the
Piedmont physiographic province of NC (Griffith et al., 2002). The North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program ( NCEEP) has identified the Cape Fear HUC 03030002, and in particular
Little Alamance Creek, in their Local Watershed Plan as needing repair along with conservation
opportunities. Watersheds in this plan exhibit the need and opportunity for stream and riparian
buffer restoration (NCDENR, 2001). In 2000, Little Alamance Creek was listed as impaired by
the NCDWQ due to poor stream biological ratings ( NCEEP, 2008).
Little Alamance Creek was originally planted in April, 2012. On September 11, 2012, the site
was inspected by NCEEP and vegetative sampling reported higher mortality than contractually
permissible. Of the 15 inspection plots, 6 did not meet the 80 percent survival warranty. The
areas identified as needing supplemental planting were re- planted on December 12, 2012.
Monitoring Year 1 efforts showed that the site is currently meeting vegetation success criteria of
320 stems per acre at most plot locations. However, monitoring year 2 efforts report the majority
of the site is not meeting the success criteria. Monitoring in year 1 occurred in March and was
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of 5; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
2

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
therefore difficult to distinguish between volunteer and planted stems as there were no leaves on
the plants. This made identification difficult. Only vegetation plots 1 and 6 have met the 320
stems per acre requirement (Appendix C; Table 7). Volunteer species are establishing on site as
expected and thus increasing the overall stems per acre. Volunteer species have increased the
stems per acre over 320 for all plots except vegetation plot 5, 7, and 8. Several invasive species
were identified throughout the project reach. These species include white mulberry (Morus alba),
tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese privet
(Ligustrum japonicum), Mostly these species occurred at very low density as single isolated
stems and therefore do not impose a treat. Only areas with a cluster of stems were noted and
recorded. Three areas were identified with invasive species in the conservations easement
(Figure 2) in monitoring year 1. Along the upper reaches of the UT, multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora) was observed. These areas are negligible in size and are represented as point features.
Along the upper reach of the mainstem, Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) was observed. This
area was also negligible in size and is represented as a point feature. Three additional problems
were identified in monitoring year 2 efforts (Figure 2). These sites were observed in Year 1, but
have grown to warrant reporting. In vegetation plot 1, by cross section 2, several stems of
Chinese privet and white mulberry was identified. English ivy (Hedera helix) was also noted. By
cross section 9, several stems of multiflora rose was identified along both the right and left bank.
Downstream of vegetation plot 8, along the left bank, virginsbower (Clematis terniflora) was
observed in unusually high density. Overall, the presence of invasive species is minor, covering
approximately 7 percent of the planted easement. These areas will continue to be monitored in
the upcoming monitoring years. In addition, evidence of recent beaver activity (fresh chews and
tracks) were observed throughout the entire length of the project reach. No other problems areas
were observed.
In general, the Little Alamance Creek Stream Restoration Site is in very good condition. All
structures are intact and performing as intended. The Monitoring Year 1 and 2 thalweg has not
deviated from the design thalweg. Monitoring year 1 identified one area along the UT
downstream of cross section 14 that had lateral bank erosion for approximately 75 feet (Figure
2). In monitoring year 2, this area was noted to be increasing in severity. In 2013, there were
several heavy rain events that caused high flow and flooding (Appendix E). As a result, several
new stream problem areas have occurred (Figure 2). Immediately downstream of cross section 1,
the left bank displayed lateral bank erosion for approximately 100 feet. This was observed in
Monitoring Year 1, but the storm events have increased the severity of erosion to warrant
reporting. Immediately downstream of cross section 9, the left bank displayed lateral bank
erosion for approximately 30 feet. At the confluence of the UT and mainstem, a mid - channel bar
has formed. There was also lateral bank erosion at the confluence along the left bank for
approximately 50 feet. Minor changes in the mainstem bed profile have occurred during
Monitoring Year 2. These changes are likely a result of substrate mobilization during the large
flood events. This type of substrate movement is characteristic of natural geomorphic processes
and does not appear to pose a risk for vertical incision or lateral bank erosion. These areas will
continue to be monitored. Along the UT, two pools displayed significant aggradation as seen on
the longitudinal profile graphic. These areas will continue to be monitored in the upcoming
monitoring years. No other problems areas were observed. Two crest gauges were installed
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of 5; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
3

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
during Monitoring Year 1; one gauge along the mainstem of Little Alamance Creek and one
gauge along the UT. These gauges were checked in Monitoring Year 2 (Appendix E).
Wetland mitigation is not a part of this project.
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment
and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in
the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting information
formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly
Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly the Restoration Plan). These documents
are available on NCEEP's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices is available from NCEEP upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
All monitoring methodologies follow NCEEP's 2011 Monitoring Requirements and
Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation ( NCEEP, 2011). This monitoring
report is consistent with NCEEP's Monitoring Report Template Version 1.5 adopted June 8,
2012. GPS data was collected using sub -meter accuracy Trimble Geo XH handheld unit. Stream
and vegetation problems areas were identified and noted in the field on As -Built Plan Sheets
prepared by ARCADIS G &M of North Carolina ( ARCADIS, 2012). Twenty permanent photo
stations were established during the project set up by EEE Consulting, Inc. (EEE) and
photographs were taken from these locations (Figure 2). Photographs were taken at a high
resolution using a Sony Cyber -shot 14.1 megapixel digital camera.
2.1 STREAM SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Prior to Year 1 monitoring efforts, EEE established eight permanent riffle cross - sections and six
permanent pool cross sections (Figure 2). GPS points were collected on both banks of each
established cross section. The entire length of mitigation, 2,725 linear feet of stream profile, was
surveyed. Stream monitoring and geomorphological surveys were preformed consistent with the
USACE 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the USDA 1994 Forest Service Manual Stream
Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique (USAGE, 2003; Harrelson et
al, 1994). Stream survey data was collected using a Nikon total station with a Recon data logger
and is georeferenced in NAD83 -State Plane Feet- FIPS3200. The data were analyzed using
RIVERMorph. Pebble counts were conducted consistent with the 1954 Wolman Pebble Count
technique (modified by Rosgen, 1996). A random sample of 100 pebbles from each cross section
was collected within the wetted perimeter of the channel. Samples were not taken from the
banks. Photographs were taken at each cross section. A photo was taken from the left bank
looking towards the right bank.
2.2 VEGETATION SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Prior to Year 1 monitoring efforts, EEE established eight vegetation plots per the CVS -EEP
vegetation monitoring protocol (Figure 2). Five plots are 10 meters by 10 meters in size and 2
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of S; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
4

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
plots, (VP 6 and 7) are 20 meters by 5 meters in size. GPS points were collected all four corners
of each established vegetation plot. Vegetation monitoring was performed in accordance with the
2008 CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation for Level 1 -2 Plot Sampling Only, Version
4.2 (Lee et al, 2008). Level 2 sampling was performed for each vegetation plot. Each corner of
the vegetation plot was marked with steel electrical metallic tubing (EMT) driven into the
ground. Because the project is within a public park, minimal flagging was used to mark the stems
and the vegetation plot corner pins. Minimal orange flagging was used to mark only planted
stems during vegetation counts. Photographs were taken at each vegetation plot from the
southwest corner facing the northeast corner.
3.0 REFERENCES
ARCADIS G &M of North Carolina, 2012. As -Built Survey of Little Alamance Creek Stream
Restoration. Prepared for the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Griffith, Glenn, J. Omemik, J. Comstock, 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina Regional Descriptions.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Corvallis. OR.
Harrelson, Cheryl C., C.L. Rawlins, John P. Potyondy, 1994. US Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Available URL:
htt2: / /www.fs. fed .us /Ti/pubs ®rm/rmc trg 245.pd£ [Date Accessed: 4 January 2013].
Lee, Michael T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, and T. R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.0 Available URL: htip :Hcvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm. [Date Accessed: 4
January 2013].
NC Division of Water Quality, 2005. Cape Fear River Basin Water Quality Plan. Available URL:
http: / /portal.ncdenr.org /web /wq//ps/bpuibasin/capefear /2005. [Date Accessed: 4 January 20131.
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2001. Watershed Restoration Plan for the Cape
Fear River Basin. Prepared by: NCDENR, NCDWQ, and NCWRP. Available URL:
http: / /www.nceep .net /services /restplans /cap e_fear 2001.pdf. [Date Accessed: 4 January 20131.
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 2008. Little Alamance, Travis, & Tickle Creek Watershed Report
& Project Atlas: An Ecosystem Enhancement Program Funded Local Watershed Plan Phase 111.
Prepared by Piedmond Triad Council of Governments. Available URL:
hM2: / /www.ptcog.org//planning services /environmental planning /documents /water LATTPhaseIII.
pddf. [Date Accessed: 4 January 2013].
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 2011. Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for
Stream and/or Wetland Mitigation. Available URL:
hitp: // portal. ncdenr .org /c /document _ librar /get _file ?p_1_id = 1169848 &folderld = 2288101 &name =D
LFE- 39234.pdf. [Date Accessed: 4 January 2013].
RIVERMorph Stream Restoration Software, Version 5.1.0. Rivermorph LLC.
Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs. CO.
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of 5; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
5

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
US Army Corps of Engineers, 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. Prepared by: USAGE, NCDWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC. Available URL:
hqp:// www. in. gov/ idem /files/headwater_nc_stream_miti atg ion ug ide.pd£ [Date Accessed: 4
January 2013].
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of 5; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
6

Appendix A:
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map
Table 1: Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3: Project Contacts Table
Table 4: Project Attribute Table

Legend N Figure 1: Vicinity Map
r-�l Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
tem Alamance Count
Project Reach � rai �ement Y
Streams NCEEP Project Number: 92372
0 750 1,500 3,000 EEE Consulting, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5
12 Digit HUC Feet La Cary, NC January 2014

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) / #92372
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non - riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset Nutrient Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 1293 0
Project Component -or-
Reach ID
Reach I (El I)
Reach I (EI)
Reach II – Tributary (EI)
Reach III (Ell)
Reach IV (EI)
Reach V (Ell)
Reach VI (Ell)
Reach VI (EI)
Reach VI (R)
Reach VII (Ell)
Stationing /Location *
10 +25 -10+
10+75-11+
12 +25 -15+
10 +25 -14+
15 +50 -19+
19 +30 -21+
21 +60 -26+
26 +50 -27+
27 +25 -28+
31 +75 -33+
28 +50 -31+
33 +50 -36+
Restoration Level Stream Credit Length **
(linear feet)
Restoration
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
High Quality
Preservation
220
821
252
Project Components
Existing A
Approach
Restoration -or- Restoration
Restoration Footage or Mitigation
Equivalent Acreage" Ratio
R 13 2.5:1
R 206 1.5:1
R 204 1.5:1
R 106 2.5:1
R 328 1.5:1
R 15 2.5:1
R 20 2.5:1
R 83 1.5:1
R 220 1:1
R 98 2.5:1
Buffer Upland
(square feet) (acres)
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose /Function Notes
LS Reach 1
LS Reach 4
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S =
Grassed Swale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer
*Stationing/Location is not exact, but based on the stationing provided in the Record Drawings dated 10/2012.
* *Credit Length is based on nearest point method determined by EEP staff. Reduced credits reflect pre - existing
sewer & water easements and reduced buffer widths.
Buffer Upland
(square feet) (acres)
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose /Function Notes
LS Reach 1
LS Reach 4
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S =
Grassed Swale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer
*Stationing/Location is not exact, but based on the stationing provided in the Record Drawings dated 10/2012.
* *Credit Length is based on nearest point method determined by EEP staff. Reduced credits reflect pre - existing
sewer & water easements and reduced buffer widths.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration /EEP Number (92372)
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 2 yrs 1 month
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 2 yrs 1 month
Number of Reporting Years`: 2
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Institution Date
Nov -06
N/A
Categorical Exclusion
Sep -07
N/A
404 Permit Date
Apr -08
N/A
Restoration Plan
Jan -08
N/A
Final Design — Construction Plans
Sep -10
N/A
Construction
Feb -12
Apr -12
Seeding, bare roots, and live stake planting
Feb -12
Apr -12
Bare Root - Supplemental Planting
N/A
Dec -12
Mitigation Plan / As -built (Year 0 Monitoring - baseline)
N/A
N/A
Year 1 Monitoring
Mar -13
Jun -13
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov -14
Jan -14
Year 3 Monitoring
TBD
TBD
Year 4 Monitoring
TBD
TBD
Year 5 Monitoring
TBD
TBD
Due to contracting delays, no baseline data was collected for this project. Although there are no baseline cross sections to compare with MY1 (2013)
measurements, the 2013 cross sections will serve as an adequate baseline for the remaining monitoring period. Similarly, no baseline vegetation
data was collected until March 2013, approximately 13 months after planting occurred in February 2012.
Bolded items are examples of those items that are not standard, but may come up and should be included
Non - bolded items represent events that are standard components over the course of a typical project.
The above are obviously not the extent of potential relevant project activities, but are just provided as example as part of this exhibit.
If planting and morphology are on split monitoring schedules that should be made clear in the table

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration /EEP Number (92372)
Designer
ARCADIS G &M of North Carolina, Inc
801 Corporate Drive, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27607
Primary project design POC
Robert Le sic 919 854 -1282 ext. 195
Construction Contractor
Shamrock Environmental Corporation
6106 Corporate Park Drive
Browns Summit, NC 27214
Construction contractor POC
336 375 -1989
Survey Contractor
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
3201 Glenridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
Survey contractor POC
Elisabeth Turner 919 875 -1378
Planting Contractor
Carolina Wetland Services
550 East Westinghouse Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28273
Planting contractor POC
(704) 527 -1177
Seeding Contractor
Information Not available
Contractor point of contact
POC name and phone
Seed Mix Sources
Information Not available
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Native, Inc. (704) 527 -1177
Monitoring Performers
EEE Consulting, Inc.
601 Cascade Pointe Lane
Suite 101
Cary, NC 27513
Stream Monitoring POC
Ray Bode, PWS (919) 650 -2463 ext. 225
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Tina Sekula, PWS (919) 650 -2463 ext. 223

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park Stream Restoration /EEP Number 92372
Project Information
Project Name
Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
County
Alamance County
Project Area (acres)
7.06 acres
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36.083566 ; - 79.454233
Project Watershed Characteristics
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8- digit: 03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14- digit: 3030002040010
DWQ Sub -basin
03 -06 -03
Project Drainage Area (acres)
2690 acres
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
40 percent
CGIA Land Use Classification
Forest Land
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach I
Trib
Reach III
Reach IV
Reach V
Reach VI
Reach VII
Length of Reach (linear feet)
445 If
432.5 If
327.5 If
632.5 If
57.5 If
528 If
315 If
Valley Classification
Type VIII
Type VIII
Type VIII
Type VIII
Type VIII
Type VIII
Type VIII
Drainage area (acres)
2600 ac
124 ac
2630 ac
2650 ac
2655 ac
2680 ac
2690 ac
NCDWQ Stream Identification Score
47.5
33
47.5
47.5
47.5
47.5
47.5
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS -V;NSW
WS -V;NSW
WS -V;NSW
WS -V;NSW
WS -V;NSW
WS -V;NSW
WS -V;NSW
Morphological Description (stream type)
C /E5/1
E4/1
C /E5/1
C /E5/1
C /E5/1
C /E5/1
C /E5/1
Evolutionary Trend
C4/1
C4/1
C4/1
C4/1
C4/1
C4/1
C4/1
Underlying Mapped Soils
Cecil
fine sandy loam (CbC2)
Drainage Class
Well drained
Soil Hydric Class
Non - Hydric
Slope
6 to 10 percent slopes
FEMA Classification
AE FloodzonT
No Study
I AE Floodzone
I AE Floodzone
I AE Floodzone
AE Floodzone
AE Floodzone
Native Vegetation Community
Mixed Mesic Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
5 percent
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
Nationwide Permit 27 (Action ID SAW- 2008 -01198 )
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
Nationwide Permit 27 (Action ID SAW- 2008 -01198 )
Endangered Species Act
No
N/A
N/A
Historic Preservation Act
No
N/A
N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
FEMA Floodplain Consistency Checklist (Categorical Exclusion)
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A

Appendix B:
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2: Current Condition Plan View
Figure 3: Conservation Easement Marked Posts
Figure 4: Final Conservation Easement Plat
Figure 5: Conservation Easement Coordinate List
Table 5: Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6: Vegetation Condition Assessment
Photo Log 1: Established Photo Stations
Photo Log 2: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos

� t
a
lift
ch Reach 5 �IS
cruC OR i r
r N
t
IX
Prev ious locati- on�of- beaver dam,
which was removed by the City.
R
Mt
3
XS 4,`0
Q► �1'
�I
4
�
�
•�
.
arm �•.
XS Pins
X
Y
XS Pins
X
Y
1 LT
36.083434822400
- 79.456434322100
8 LT
36.083781004500
- 79.452795534100
1,
1 RT
36.083288774000
- 79.456479096900
8 RT
36.083649585800
- 79.452946669000
•
2 LT
36.083255852600
- 79.455878029400
9 LT
36.083747714100
- 79.452739263800
1 N/
2 RT
36.083107328000
- 79.456039660700
9 RT
36.083611010500
- 79.452856235800
+7�5���
3 LT
36.083095444000
- 79.455736123000
10 LT
36.083629805400
- 79.452557535900
-�
fS,
Q
/ g Plot SW Corner
fs1, q) VehrJe
Lat
Longitude
3 RT
36.082978864100
- 79.455903359700
10 RT
36.083502341700
- 79.452590178100
�2 Q-
1
36.082439988
- 79.456324099
4 LT
36.083255035400
- 79.454862386800
11 LT
36.082318048600
- 79.456590293700
J
2
36.083243440
- 79.456564421
4 RT
36.083245857200
- 79.454650758400
11 RT
36.082240928000
- 79.456485794000
i►
`
3
36.083136923
- 79.455737460
5 LT
36.084066109200
- 79.453325103200
12 LT
36.082403342300
- 79.4564277654001
4
36.082799516
- 79.455317425
5 RT
36.083930338000
- 79.453290470100
12 RT
36.082303040000
- 79.456373839200
y ,'
5
36.083474857
- 79.455096845
6 LT
36.083893647700
- 79.452956931200
13 LT
36.082438153700
- 79.4563594265001
6
36.083809437
- 79.452847391
6 RT
36.083792325100
- 79.453114194900
13 RT
36.082389676100
- 79.456198681800
Overbrook Road
7
36.083482988
- 79.452740202
7 LT
36..
83823409000
- 79.452864854500
14 LT
36.082581815700
- 79.456025302200
Source:
USDA FSA NAIP Aerial Photograph North Carolina 2012
8 136.082870312
- 79.451806985
7 RT
36.0837216509001-79.453013892000114
RT
36.082490083700
- 79.455969614400
Legend
Crest Gauges
Conservation Easement
Structures
r-;J
Figure
2: Current Condition
Plan View
N
Little Alamance
Creek (Burlington
Park) Stream Restoration
O
Photostations
-- Contours (oft)
- VP Criteria Not Met
[��' St�lIt
Alamance County
g Centerline
0 VP Criteria Met
1 1I1d1 C11]�Iii
NCEEP Project
Number: 92372
ODesigned
Invasive Species
MY1 Thalweg
Utility Easement
00-1
Bank Instability
MY2Thalweg
EEE
Consulting, Inc.
Monitoring Year 2 of 5
Existing Crossings
Designed Top of Bank
0
75 150
300
:�e
Cary,
NC
January 2014
Feet
Cross Sections

J1
Property Information:
Owner: City of Burlington
Alamance County Parcel 1D# 8864790671
Alamance County Tax Map # 104 -442 -217
Conservation Easement Notes:
Total Area in Conservation Easement: 6.98 Acres t
0.25 Acres± in Temporary Construction Easement
All corners of the Conservation Easement are marked
Deed References: Deed Book 98 Page 220 with Rebar and Aluminum NCEEP Caps, unless noted.
Deed Book 136 Page46
`� Amss \�vv
\V A\
Refernce Boundary Survey Plat prepared by
Line #
City of Burlington Engineering Department
A�lp�V
pro
Entitled Final Plat Property of, City of Burlington
N 70 036'20" E
City Park Map #1, Dated September 14, 1995
L -2
N 69 020'21" E
46.63'
S�3 °51
`\ \ \ \\
or
LEGEND
Existing Iron Pipe •
New Iron Pipe O -
Man Hole 0
Monument ■
Power Pole • PP
Utility Line
i l i
/
Property Of
City of Burlington
P.O.B. Alamance County Parcel ID# 8864790671
" "
Tract G
Alamance County Tax Map# 104 -442 -217
\ P.O.B.
lr L -19 �\ Tracts a
F" ! th W
\ o L 1 > 109 $ W
/-� L -17 74 2� r sa� L, o u
\ 41 20 �Y5 108 1 °47'33"
, - 169 L'�6J 91 3 L c222 L -23 j 7A &Wilding _ �J (>9.40' s� 662 p1 fL
S ` �\ \� \ Y - h LSto!�t? rain �0i n' 76�k 40 L2s ��\ W 8 rn'I �$ °Z1 Temporary Construction Easement
NCGS GRID NORTH \ , - - -
s 3
\ \� �Q Headwall 410 •a Z
ao
,�q F Q ` 4
sne+�oa a of u'
IX Q $ A
M S Q
o KE
#70 $
12 [or r Q.
A
a
ti� qb
r � � ^gyp, tP° d• R¢ � wr
Na
`\ y ,, C �c90 , 16 Conservatlon 18 \
\ \\ \ ` \ Easement Area "E" N tn % � N o 191 I i - Temporary VICINITY MAP
p - R v� N \ sr v Tem o Construction Easement
LINE TABLE a 90 \ .a \ \� c �4, g s61° Area "G Temp"
386 0.99 Acres± � 61 ° r ' s,1 „ 0.25 Acres±
Line# Bearing Distance ��i�' ,- 181 $ ence \ �\ r1l X03„ 3143 F
Tie L-1 S 39 °26'01" W 60.99' /' \ `�^� I2 s sPe °ker P °'e ` ` • PP -z- F
i O B ti N 1,38, Weaker Pole ro ee Removed • 66.40' L 3
\ 3� , .v 6sOs •To Be Removed 'y 62.40' 9~ 1
t ' E' h 6� 18 p 0. 2 19
GPS CO MS
Property Of \ + 46., 184 110.00' 312 111.35' L_30 85 °06'50" Y.P 7�� �iectric°I Temporary Construction Easement
PROVIDED BY,AICEADIS (.'1 Of Burlington ` \ 163 S 75° � o L -28 7 \ \ P° 3 "A" 390
City gt \ 1 423 $ $7 44'53" W 18j, 3 v � I o ee Removed
14849626.62 �' Alamance County Parcel ID# 8864790671 \ 4"E 221.35' \ \ �SAo }3 Conservation I3i.43 ?c28 ,
E 1864965.2 Alamance Cozen Tax Ma 104 - 442 -217 A ` d 16j 44 ✓� v \ �4� 3 Easement Area "G" �4� 3
V� 164 �29�� 9,, 23
f,- 29 s w \ r 53.94' Conservation \ 46 a4' /
-�S s 1.20 Acres±
�$ � �S ° ���_ N tomV `� A S29 °20'18 "E Easement Area "F" vvX'% �� 3 %�9 Temporary construction Eosemen
o (4� Z i 39' �„ 6,�� �0 7 e tneo + \ RA8° �A�,c 13.95' "12.S�F� P Y
69 12 2 300 0.16 Acres_ dam, a� \
- � J �9 ��; 12� 25'w �� 165 392
�y 2 oniro, Pglnt Conservation
739 , �''� 1 2 � sin t +e4.o� �� \ \ o Easement Area "D"
N2 ° 6 ii Control Comer 395 L' o.se' Rlyht of Rf�l °q4 ,rte
~scat om o +oo.o0 49" c8, 7_1 13 \ \ p°
3 „ 9 Conservation h, a \ , 0.59 Acres±
2 Ell No v8 Q9��, Easement Area "A "�?° g ,W s66s9 ` 162 N
8° ? ti ti 3p„ P.O.B. ` �t
2gs p 46 Acres± `�� TrOact B \' \ P.O.B. E 174.
p o 28 6" A 131 n ti Tract "C" Trac D'�
a� A V 96, 109.14' S q h� �• V ��vr, N 75
A IV 7 o .1 7 3 N o , 2p1 � 1 Q °392
�\N\ `� 9j T act "A„ S 5�u' qo� � ~ 52� �6 136 1� l7 5 S 75 S E
Z's 151 4�! S a I�q., Q° � 79'96' , s o
Iii 156
O\ -0 98, t`I 696 N�
j \ Property Of 4�O h M q I ~ I
City of Burlington !{ a o e
\ \ Alamance County Parcel ID# 8864790671 301 Conservation Z N W
Easement Area "B" - Conservation
\ � \ Alamance County Tax Map# 104 -442 -217 W � y � � -�
\ 1.75 Acres± ,' N Easement Area "C"
S ;16� 1.10 Acres±
od
�hy
\ e - -_ z / 29
Property Of ��v I2593, sp�A�
\
City of Burlington ` \@2` N 73n 3
�° Power Alamance County Parcel ID# 8864790671 �� A 5326" R, '
eox Alamance County Tax Map# 104 -442 -217 ��8�
iSewer]ine /e�ent25 196.80' S 87 °11'56" W\ 195 V,
\�q e_ P.O .B ^y�ti1 o�h51a
\ < Tract "El" a S 35
-1 vv V A vv 210 N 88 °17'06" E200
157 \ ��° �9, 118.26' 201 �
\ s� � � loo
w \��Vvv ° 400 % tk3o� y1
o � `
202
�°--i \\ \P \i\
Pro of \��dv 399 40137.15'
158 City of Burlington \ e A�� v o S 05 °09'20 �'`'
ov
\ o ' zap I I Alamance County Parcel ID# 8864790671 `v A "p� A�w 441 a °� yt 203
149
p o
X63 148 106
\ \385 Boas 384',x' Ill
144 ,' i
\ " Storm R'
�,� ti %v
Drin
\ storm \ \\ �,�, s� Y` 107
Dm;n i` ti
CURVE TABLE
Curve # Bearing Chord Radius Arc :J� °°t°,�O'l�
C -1 N 82 °3542" W 28.28' 100.00' 28.38'
C -2 N 69 °24'31" W 17.63' 100.00' 17.65'
C -3 N 46 °32'56" W 61.15' 100A0' 62.15' I r C-1 zz 2= === _
Certificate of Accuracy
State of North Carolina, County of Alamance
I, Douglas R. Yarbrough, certify that under my direction and supervision this map was drawn
from an actual field land survey made by me; that the error of closure as calculated by latitudes and
and departures is: 1 : 10,000 for the perimeter and 1 :10,000 for platting of interior lot lines;
that the boundar�e� not gurvgyed are shown as broken Imes plotted from deed infomunion fond
indeed book_ ,page -- ; that this map was
prepared in a accordance with GS 47 -30 as amended;
that the survey was requested by the owner or his
duly authorized agent; that all required monuments
and markers have been installed; that a0 new lines
calculated from data not obtained in the field are
indicated by a "C "; and that this plat is within the
Jurisdiction of the City of Burlington.
Witness my hand and seal this 5th day of
Maw 2008
Douglas R. Yarbrough, Professional Land Surveyor L -3395
I, Douglas R. Yarbrough, Professional Land Surveyor, L -3395, Certify
To one of the following:
❑ A. This survey creates a subdivision of land within the area of a county or
municipality that has an ordinance that regulates parcels of land.
❑ B. This survey is located in such portion of a county or municipality that is
unregulated as to an ordinance that regulates parcels of land.
❑ C. Any one of the following:
1. That the survey is of an existing parcel or parcels of land and does not create a
new street or change an existing street;
2. That the survey is of an existing building or other structure, or natural feature,
such as a watercourses; or
3. the the survey is a control survey.
D. This survey is of another category, such as the recombination of existing parcels,
a coup- ordered survey, or other exception to the definition of subdivision.
❑ E. The information available to the surveyor is such that the surveyor is unable to
make a determination to the best of his or her professional ability as to provisions
contained in l - 4 above.
Douglas R. Yarbrough, Professional Land Surveyor, L -3395
63s ti� Alamance County Tax Map# 104 -442 -217
`� Amss \�vv
\V A\
r~ v
Line #
°���
A�lp�V
pro
L -1
N 70 036'20" E
159
L -2
N 69 020'21" E
46.63'
S�3 °51
`\ \ \ \\
or
W
L -4
• PP
j I Property Of
375
\ a
L -5
r°
402
City of Burlington
Alamance County Parcel ID# 8864790671 \ °' 403 1
i I Alamance County Tax Map# 104 -442 -217 \ y Q S 6S
x--25' Water Line Easement Centered on _ ` `Headwall/
I Painted Location as provided by � � \
City Of Burlington
Edge of Bridge
o
I\
OVERBROOK ROAD
S 89104'22" W =
Certificate of Ownership and Dedication
I, (we) hereby certify that I (we) am (are) the owner(s) if the property, shown and described
hereon, which was conveyed to me (us) by deed as recorded in deed book 136
page 46 , and that I(we) hereby acknowledge this plat and allotment to be my(our)
free act and deed and do hereby dedicate to public use as streets, rights -of -way,
and easements forever, all areas so shown or indicated on said plat.
OWNER
OWNER
OWNER
Date
Date
Date
County of Alamance, State of North Carolina
I, a notary public of the county and state aforesaid, certify that
, personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the execution
of the foregoing instrument.
Witness my hand and official stamp or seal, this , day of '20-
Notary Public
My commission expires
Planning Director Certification
NO APPROVAL REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 33 -1 OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES OF THE THE CITY OF BURLINGTON.
PLANNING DIRECTOR
City of Burlington Certification
Recommended by the Burlington Planning and Zoning
Commission on the day of , 20
Chairman of Planning and Zoning Commission
date.
Approved by the Burlington City Council on the
day of , 20 , provided
that the plat be recorded within sixty (60) days of final approval.
City Clerk
date.
Review Officer Certification
State of Ninth Carolina, County of Alamance
I, , Review Officer of Alamance County,
certify that the map or plat to which this certification is affixed meets all
statutory requirements for recording.
Review Officer Date
Final Plat
Conservation Easement for
the State of North Carolina,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
Little Alamance Creek at Burlington Park
SPO #001 -AAAG EEP #92372
BURLINGTON TOWNSHIP ALAMANCE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: 05/01/2008 SCALE 1" = 100' 'CRAPHJC SCALE
0' 50' 100' 200' 300'
LANDMARK SURVEYING, INC. - 109 EAST HARDEN STREET - GRAHAM, NC 27253
PHONE: [phone] - FACSB41LE: (336) 227 -5919 - EMAIL: dylandmark @triad.rf.com
Job Number: 08 -04 -01 - Drawing Name: Y080401 NCEEP Little Alamance Creek
Field Crew: DWM & RMW - Drawn By: DRY - Checked By:
Revisions: 05/20/08 Revisions to Conservation Easement Boundaries,after 05/08/02008 walk - through with C.O.B. Representitives & NCEEP Staff,
06/20/08 Revisions to Conservation Easement Boundaries,after 06/05/02008- 2nd walk- through with C.O.B Representltives & NCEEP Staff.
07/15/08 Revisions to Conservation Easement Boundary Area "B" as per meeting with C.O.B. Representitives and NCEEP Staff.
LINE TABLE
Line #
Bearing
Distance
L -1
N 70 036'20" E
36.93'
L -2
N 69 020'21" E
46.63'
L -3
N 59 °47'13" E
57.06'
L -4
S 43 °59'57" E
41.68'
L -5
S 60 °52'02" E
40.00'
L -6
S 66 °12'35" W
56.03'
L -7
S 37 °12'39" W
64.04'
L -8
S 671844" E
43.27'
L -9
N 51 °42'28" W
51.48'
L -10
N 49 °25'20" W
63.45'
L -11
S 04 °58'22" E
38.00'
L -12
N 29 °35'00" E
54.44'
L -13
S 32 °05'35" E
46.29'
L -14
N 00°16'40" E
42.66'
L -15
N 50 °22'34" E
27.84'
L -16
N 69 °21'29" E
58.74'
L -17
S 71 °40'25" E
7.97'
L -18
N 66 °26'32" E
8.90'
L -19
N 63 °50'04" E
20.72'
L -20
S 71 °13'11" E
27.32'
L-21
S 56 °14'03" E
12.12'
L -22
N 88 °59'18" E
41.52'
L -23
S 83 °12'35" E
86.33'
L -24
N 81 °39'06" E
66.07'
L -25
S 63 °06'28" E
67.20'
L -26
S 00 93'50" W
42.52'
L -27
S 34 °22'35" W
46.94'
L -28
S 82 °55'27" W
40.80'
L-29
N 44 °24'47" E
49.65'
L -30
S 84 °59'13" W
62.40'
L -31
S 54 °17'14" E
48.24'
L -32
N 81 °18'07" W
50.71'
L -33
S 39 °38'58" W
41.12'
L -34
N 04 °26'24" W
28.11'
Final Plat
Conservation Easement for
the State of North Carolina,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
Little Alamance Creek at Burlington Park
SPO #001 -AAAG EEP #92372
BURLINGTON TOWNSHIP ALAMANCE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: 05/01/2008 SCALE 1" = 100' 'CRAPHJC SCALE
0' 50' 100' 200' 300'
LANDMARK SURVEYING, INC. - 109 EAST HARDEN STREET - GRAHAM, NC 27253
PHONE: [phone] - FACSB41LE: (336) 227 -5919 - EMAIL: dylandmark @triad.rf.com
Job Number: 08 -04 -01 - Drawing Name: Y080401 NCEEP Little Alamance Creek
Field Crew: DWM & RMW - Drawn By: DRY - Checked By:
Revisions: 05/20/08 Revisions to Conservation Easement Boundaries,after 05/08/02008 walk - through with C.O.B. Representitives & NCEEP Staff,
06/20/08 Revisions to Conservation Easement Boundaries,after 06/05/02008- 2nd walk- through with C.O.B Representltives & NCEEP Staff.
07/15/08 Revisions to Conservation Easement Boundary Area "B" as per meeting with C.O.B. Representitives and NCEEP Staff.

Property Information: Conservation Easement Notes:
Owner: City of Burlington Total Area in Conservation Easement: 6.98 Acres ±
Alamance County Parcel 1D# 8864790671 0.25 Acres± in Temporary Construction Easement
Alamance County Tax Map # 104 -442 -217
N All comers of the Conservation Easement are marked
Deed References: Deed Book 98 Page 220 with Rebar and Aluminum NCEEP Caps, unless noted.
Deed Book 136 Page46
Refernce Boundary Survey Plat prepared by
City of Burlington Engineering Department
Entitled Final Plat Property of, City of Burlington) fp .
W City Park Map #1, Dated September 14, 1995 1 �`' Q
E 1. Y� S. 1
4,s
�il� . I
S ` XVi �• ���5�� ysg�3g u�
NCGS GRID NORTH tor.,4"al
•\ N Hfodwall
LINE TABLE ,u g5y� , 11.11 1:
GPS C0 ORD 7 F$
PRf}V1I1ED ADlS
N 84962662
/ ' 81864965.24
r'
fig°
a 0 .D Tract W, 38" yy ?ro
•\ \ Property Of
\ City of Burlington
.\ Alamance County Parcel ID# 8864790671
•\ Alamance County Tax Map# 104 -442 -217
LEGEND
Existing Iron Pipe •
New Iron Pipe Q
Man Hole 9
Monument ■
Power Pole a rr
Utility Line - ,
Property Of
City of Burlington
Alamance County Parcel ID# 8864790671
111 \ 11 1 �� Traci "G„ Alamance County Tax Map# 104442 -217
J 11 IIL o.B. / tv L
L-19
�- S 87 044'53" W
H
o \ VICINITY MAP
Temporary Construction Easement
Area "G -Temp"
r�4.4� \� 0.25 Acres
♦
`FP
t t, �Iaetrlcal \ Temporary Construction Easement
Se R.mov■a'•. Conservatlon� `'�4a8
53.94' Conservation Ease �1ant Area G ?� 3�3, s% A
Acres±
` S 29 °20'18" E Easement Area "F" `��\ \ , \�,�
016A ±
f�
Tamporary Construction Easement
\ 1.75 Acres# -,� s' i \Easement Area "C" p
1.10 Acres±
�\ O z
bS
i
� r 6043$ 313T y
�\ '� . ,�15 ,� �' •'�•` / 5� i l � � W .V3 °59'3"
Property Of
•\, lr�i� \ �.�� �� t,f� s (! City of Burlington zo
? l Alamance County Parcel ID# 8864790671
Alamance County Tax Map# 104-442 -217
Stang 11\ tr f' �' j
• r � r 'wX _me Crtered
CURVE TABLE D � as
`l�' 1 I by
Corn # B Chard Radius .Art �i, '�= ��i tid I j ! �' Of H>gli aston
C -1 N 82°35'42" W 28.2W 100.00` 28.39' N�
C -2 N 69°2431" W 17.63' 100.00' 17.65
C -3 N 46'32'5&'W MIN 100X 62AS C -! 5 )
1a
Certificate of Accurac
State of North Csrolius, County of Alamance
t Douglas R. Yarbrough, ca* that under ray dhwum and supervisiaa atla map was drawn
from an actual field land survey made by me; flat the error of closure as calculated by latitudes and
and departures le 1: 10,000 for the perimeter and ! :10,000 for plawng of interior hrt Swi,
that the bounda>j not sarvaysd am shown as broken lines plotted from dead information found
in dead book± , pup 4C -f : that ±Lis map wu
prepared in a accardauce with GS 47 -30 as amended Certificate of Ownership and Dedication
that the survey wu mquestod by the owner or his �� 1 j j f f -- p
daly autha imd agent; thud all required manuwenta , ♦� S} % i (we) hereby certify drat I (we) am (are) the owner(s) it the property, shown sad descnhod
acid markers have been installed: Ran all new lino ♦ ��
catenlalcd from data sot obminW in the field arm ♦♦ � �A �j hereoa which were cemve }'ed w mr (rte) >>3 daod m recorded is dud boot 1 o b
♦ E5 S 1 ' ' "7' ♦ pw -46 -, and that I(we) booby acSoruwkdge tbja plat and allotment to be my(our)
indicated by a "C ": and tbu this plat i4 wishla the ♦� 40fr OH9 •• �� fr°e act ad deed sad do hereby dedicate to public use as street,, righds -of -way.
Jurisdiction of the City of Htrrlingwp i , 4 s and easements forever, a0 areas so shown or indicated m said plat
Witness my haul and Seal trio d4y at ���
1!' aP MR o : L-3395 ; -6 g
wbVNER
(�! r9 v 0�.:
JOAO Z.41 .Q
Do R. ugh Profe Land Surve 3395 �I. SUR•� ♦♦�
,S �t , ♦ OWNER Aare
1, Dou4tm R. Ywfirouyh, esaW41 [.sad Surveyor. L,3395,
T.b one of the foiloMmF OWNER Date
A, TWs survry creates a subdivisim of land atithin tba area ofa county a
municipality that bat an ordinance that regulates pucdo of land
H. M survey is kxuw in suds pmtim of a county err municipaliy. that L CotM of AlatuxaQ9, State of North Carolina
umeyulstod as to sa edtuame then regdatuperech of had. ` ■ • ■ i ■ L a notary public of the county Pad state aforesaid, certify that
Q C.AzwoueafthefollowinF 06 + , �, •�■ a
I. 'nut the survey is of on exisdul parcel orpeacels of land and does nat ercate a + �k�, j �!. ��•
new street or change an uktlns woof 0 , • •' A. • ;;.-•
• i
2. 'flat Ibb survey is of an exisdue building or other atrrctur•, or natural faattue. r► - •
sucb u a waurcaaaam or 4•
3. die the survey L a control survey. ■ . NOTARY . •
i D. T1dr survey L ofsnothu careyey, such err drerecombivaaro ofraiet ngpacclq ; NOTARY • e .1-a- ly appeared before me this day nod acknowledged the execution
a court - ordered survey, rA °titer ezcep[ion to ate dc0alti°u of s tbdivisim . • oo,? : the foregoing iriauumont �r�
Q E The information w -flaw to the aurvryor is such tha the surveyor is wu ble ■ i i r Wllum sty hand and official stamp a seal, ti,i. day of . 49
rralx a aetatmlaatlm to ate b/at o�f his rr herprafessio w ty rs t° a� P ; PUBLIC . r
con ' tat g � 1C. ■ % 6
17pu & Ywhm Ceesicmal eye. L -3395 • ■• + ;O; • b • 6' Na blfo j
My commission expires
/�
city of Prop" ��� \ � \ N 73 �3
Power) Alamance County Parcel ID# 8864790671 �� \ z6" W `('
Box Alamance County Tait Map# 104 -442 -217
yep, \
146.84'
-- <'
ANY
Planning Director Certification
NO AP RE.QuIREAUNDl=R SWnON 33 -1 OF THE CODE
UFO OF THE THE CITY OF BURLINGTON.
-z - (P - 09
PLANNING MU CKIR
City of Burlington Certification
Rmo mactu d by the Burlington Pbuming std Zoning
Commission on the- day of .20- .
Chairman of Planning fwd Ztming Commission
date.
Approvod by the Burlington City Council on the
day of 20 -, provided
Chu r� be rwwdod widan. army (60) days of final approvaL
okv
dada
Property of
City of Burlington
Alamance County Parcel ID# 8864790671
Alamance County Tax Map# 104442 -217
Temporary Construction Easemen
V.
Tract '-;Cl
a N 88017'06.E
4 118.
F a 9
� t t� ��
X111 rw''�' 1
i 1 111 5 i
1 1 1 vii
1
5 35 7p 5�f E
5ti
37.15'
S 05 009'20" W
N !M
R
�, '- n Uf
eaowa
�i 1 �� Edge of Bridge
• 2�s== xx =.soG���Se:a� -+-��, rxcxa � �x� =� y � `
OVERBROOK ROAD �.
see 2o4,54w
. - R Ra °213" w 145.06 =- 5 89 °09'17" W 177.88' -
Review Officer Certification
SIM of Norte Grolink Coun ndAinmanue
e L ✓ • V i:• Review auras of•Alamance County,
certify that the map or plat to which this cenificauan L affixed meets ail
statutory t ornate= for recordins .
L1 610q
Review
LINE TABLE
Line #
Beating
Distance
win
N 70°36'20" E
36.93'
L -2
N 69°20'21" E
46.63'
L-3
N 59 047'13" E
57.06
L-4
S 43 059'57" E
41.68'
L-5
S 60 052'02" E
40.00'
L -6
S 66 012'35" W
56.03`
L-7
S 37 012'39" W
64.04'
L -8
S 67 01844" E
43.27'
L-9
N 514728" W
51.48'
L-10
N 49 025'20" W
63.45'
L -11
S 04 058'22" E
38.00'
L-12
N 29 03500" E
54AN
L-13
S 32 005'35" E
46.29'
L -14
N ODD 16'40" E
42.66'
L-15
N 50 022'34" E
27 -SN
L-16
N 69 °21'29" E
58.74'
L -17
S 71 °40'25" E
7.97
L-18
N 66 026'32" E
8.90'
L-19
N 63 °50'04" E
20.72'
\ 1.75 Acres# -,� s' i \Easement Area "C" p
1.10 Acres±
�\ O z
bS
i
� r 6043$ 313T y
�\ '� . ,�15 ,� �' •'�•` / 5� i l � � W .V3 °59'3"
Property Of
•\, lr�i� \ �.�� �� t,f� s (! City of Burlington zo
? l Alamance County Parcel ID# 8864790671
Alamance County Tax Map# 104-442 -217
Stang 11\ tr f' �' j
• r � r 'wX _me Crtered
CURVE TABLE D � as
`l�' 1 I by
Corn # B Chard Radius .Art �i, '�= ��i tid I j ! �' Of H>gli aston
C -1 N 82°35'42" W 28.2W 100.00` 28.39' N�
C -2 N 69°2431" W 17.63' 100.00' 17.65
C -3 N 46'32'5&'W MIN 100X 62AS C -! 5 )
1a
Certificate of Accurac
State of North Csrolius, County of Alamance
t Douglas R. Yarbrough, ca* that under ray dhwum and supervisiaa atla map was drawn
from an actual field land survey made by me; flat the error of closure as calculated by latitudes and
and departures le 1: 10,000 for the perimeter and ! :10,000 for plawng of interior hrt Swi,
that the bounda>j not sarvaysd am shown as broken lines plotted from dead information found
in dead book± , pup 4C -f : that ±Lis map wu
prepared in a accardauce with GS 47 -30 as amended Certificate of Ownership and Dedication
that the survey wu mquestod by the owner or his �� 1 j j f f -- p
daly autha imd agent; thud all required manuwenta , ♦� S} % i (we) hereby certify drat I (we) am (are) the owner(s) it the property, shown sad descnhod
acid markers have been installed: Ran all new lino ♦ ��
catenlalcd from data sot obminW in the field arm ♦♦ � �A �j hereoa which were cemve }'ed w mr (rte) >>3 daod m recorded is dud boot 1 o b
♦ E5 S 1 ' ' "7' ♦ pw -46 -, and that I(we) booby acSoruwkdge tbja plat and allotment to be my(our)
indicated by a "C ": and tbu this plat i4 wishla the ♦� 40fr OH9 •• �� fr°e act ad deed sad do hereby dedicate to public use as street,, righds -of -way.
Jurisdiction of the City of Htrrlingwp i , 4 s and easements forever, a0 areas so shown or indicated m said plat
Witness my haul and Seal trio d4y at ���
1!' aP MR o : L-3395 ; -6 g
wbVNER
(�! r9 v 0�.:
JOAO Z.41 .Q
Do R. ugh Profe Land Surve 3395 �I. SUR•� ♦♦�
,S �t , ♦ OWNER Aare
1, Dou4tm R. Ywfirouyh, esaW41 [.sad Surveyor. L,3395,
T.b one of the foiloMmF OWNER Date
A, TWs survry creates a subdivisim of land atithin tba area ofa county a
municipality that bat an ordinance that regulates pucdo of land
H. M survey is kxuw in suds pmtim of a county err municipaliy. that L CotM of AlatuxaQ9, State of North Carolina
umeyulstod as to sa edtuame then regdatuperech of had. ` ■ • ■ i ■ L a notary public of the county Pad state aforesaid, certify that
Q C.AzwoueafthefollowinF 06 + , �, •�■ a
I. 'nut the survey is of on exisdul parcel orpeacels of land and does nat ercate a + �k�, j �!. ��•
new street or change an uktlns woof 0 , • •' A. • ;;.-•
• i
2. 'flat Ibb survey is of an exisdue building or other atrrctur•, or natural faattue. r► - •
sucb u a waurcaaaam or 4•
3. die the survey L a control survey. ■ . NOTARY . •
i D. T1dr survey L ofsnothu careyey, such err drerecombivaaro ofraiet ngpacclq ; NOTARY • e .1-a- ly appeared before me this day nod acknowledged the execution
a court - ordered survey, rA °titer ezcep[ion to ate dc0alti°u of s tbdivisim . • oo,? : the foregoing iriauumont �r�
Q E The information w -flaw to the aurvryor is such tha the surveyor is wu ble ■ i i r Wllum sty hand and official stamp a seal, ti,i. day of . 49
rralx a aetatmlaatlm to ate b/at o�f his rr herprafessio w ty rs t° a� P ; PUBLIC . r
con ' tat g � 1C. ■ % 6
17pu & Ywhm Ceesicmal eye. L -3395 • ■• + ;O; • b • 6' Na blfo j
My commission expires
/�
city of Prop" ��� \ � \ N 73 �3
Power) Alamance County Parcel ID# 8864790671 �� \ z6" W `('
Box Alamance County Tait Map# 104 -442 -217
yep, \
146.84'
-- <'
ANY
Planning Director Certification
NO AP RE.QuIREAUNDl=R SWnON 33 -1 OF THE CODE
UFO OF THE THE CITY OF BURLINGTON.
-z - (P - 09
PLANNING MU CKIR
City of Burlington Certification
Rmo mactu d by the Burlington Pbuming std Zoning
Commission on the- day of .20- .
Chairman of Planning fwd Ztming Commission
date.
Approvod by the Burlington City Council on the
day of 20 -, provided
Chu r� be rwwdod widan. army (60) days of final approvaL
okv
dada
Property of
City of Burlington
Alamance County Parcel ID# 8864790671
Alamance County Tax Map# 104442 -217
Temporary Construction Easemen
V.
Tract '-;Cl
a N 88017'06.E
4 118.
F a 9
� t t� ��
X111 rw''�' 1
i 1 111 5 i
1 1 1 vii
1
5 35 7p 5�f E
5ti
37.15'
S 05 009'20" W
N !M
R
�, '- n Uf
eaowa
�i 1 �� Edge of Bridge
• 2�s== xx =.soG���Se:a� -+-��, rxcxa � �x� =� y � `
OVERBROOK ROAD �.
see 2o4,54w
. - R Ra °213" w 145.06 =- 5 89 °09'17" W 177.88' -
Review Officer Certification
SIM of Norte Grolink Coun ndAinmanue
e L ✓ • V i:• Review auras of•Alamance County,
certify that the map or plat to which this cenificauan L affixed meets ail
statutory t ornate= for recordins .
L1 610q
Review
IlNIflIII�IIN�II� IIII�IIII�IfI�IIIlIII�II!II�II IlIII��IIlIIII�III flII�I
Doc ID: 009918410001 Type: CRP
Recorded; 02/09/2009 at 02:24:46 P11
Fee Amt: $21.00 Page 1 of 1
Alamance, NC
DAVID J.P. BARBER REGISTER OF DEEDS
BK73 Pa122
/38a eA
Final Plat
Conservation Easement for
the State of North Carolina,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
Little Alamance Creek at Burlington Park
SPCA #001 -AAAG EEP #92372
BURLINGTON TOWNSHIP ALAMANCE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: 05/01/2008 SCALE V =1001 GRAPHIC SCALE
' or lbo, 2do, 3 Y
LANDMARK SURVEYING, INC. - 109 EAST HARDEN STREET - GRAHAM, NC 27253
PHONE: [phone] - FACSIMILE: (336) 227 -5919 - EMAIL: [e-mail]
Job Number: 08 -04 -01 - Drawing Name: Y080401 NCEEP Little Alamance Creek
Field Crew: DWM & RMW - Drawn By: DRY - Checked By:
Revisions: 05/20/08 Revisions to Conservation Easement Boandarle9,after 05 /08/02008 walk- through with C.Q.B. Representitives & NCEEP Staff.
QS /20/08 Revisions to Conservation Easement Boundarles,after 04/05/02008- 2nd walk- through with C.0.8. Representitives dt NCEEP Staff.
a15/08 08 Revisions to Conservation Easement Bounds Area .Ir as per meeiln with C.O.B. R resentitives and NCEEP Stall
LINE TABLE
Line #
Beating
Distance
L -1
N 70°36'20" E
36.93'
L -2
N 69°20'21" E
46.63'
L-3
N 59 047'13" E
57.06
L-4
S 43 059'57" E
41.68'
L-5
S 60 052'02" E
40.00'
L -6
S 66 012'35" W
56.03`
L-7
S 37 012'39" W
64.04'
L -8
S 67 01844" E
43.27'
L-9
N 514728" W
51.48'
L-10
N 49 025'20" W
63.45'
L -11
S 04 058'22" E
38.00'
L-12
N 29 03500" E
54AN
L-13
S 32 005'35" E
46.29'
L -14
N ODD 16'40" E
42.66'
L-15
N 50 022'34" E
27 -SN
L-16
N 69 °21'29" E
58.74'
L -17
S 71 °40'25" E
7.97
L-18
N 66 026'32" E
8.90'
L-19
N 63 °50'04" E
20.72'
L -20
S 71 013'11" E
27.32'
L -21
S 56 014'03" E
1212'
1x22
N 88 059'18" E
41.52'
L -23
S 83 012'35" E
86.33'
L -24
N 81 039'06" E
66.07'
L-25
S 63 006'28" E
67.20'
L -26
S 0O°33'50" W
42.52'
L -27
S 34°22'35" W
46.94'
L -28
S 82 °55'27" W
40.80'
L -29
N 44°24'47" E
49.65'
L-30
S 84 °59'13" W
62.40'
L-31
S 54°17'14" E
48.24
L-32
N 81°18'07" W
50.71'
L -33
S 39 98'58" W
41.12'
L-34
N 04 °26'24" W
28.11'
IlNIflIII�IIN�II� IIII�IIII�IfI�IIIlIII�II!II�II IlIII��IIlIIII�III flII�I
Doc ID: 009918410001 Type: CRP
Recorded; 02/09/2009 at 02:24:46 P11
Fee Amt: $21.00 Page 1 of 1
Alamance, NC
DAVID J.P. BARBER REGISTER OF DEEDS
BK73 Pa122
/38a eA
Final Plat
Conservation Easement for
the State of North Carolina,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
Little Alamance Creek at Burlington Park
SPCA #001 -AAAG EEP #92372
BURLINGTON TOWNSHIP ALAMANCE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
DATE: 05/01/2008 SCALE V =1001 GRAPHIC SCALE
' or lbo, 2do, 3 Y
LANDMARK SURVEYING, INC. - 109 EAST HARDEN STREET - GRAHAM, NC 27253
PHONE: [phone] - FACSIMILE: (336) 227 -5919 - EMAIL: [e-mail]
Job Number: 08 -04 -01 - Drawing Name: Y080401 NCEEP Little Alamance Creek
Field Crew: DWM & RMW - Drawn By: DRY - Checked By:
Revisions: 05/20/08 Revisions to Conservation Easement Boandarle9,after 05 /08/02008 walk- through with C.Q.B. Representitives & NCEEP Staff.
QS /20/08 Revisions to Conservation Easement Boundarles,after 04/05/02008- 2nd walk- through with C.0.8. Representitives dt NCEEP Staff.
a15/08 08 Revisions to Conservation Easement Bounds Area .Ir as per meeiln with C.O.B. R resentitives and NCEEP Stall

AREA "A"
NORTH
EAST
Point #
849579.51554
1864926.55171
395
849591.77729
1864961.38155
298
849608.22978
1865005.01204
299
849636.94197
1865054.31867
294
849589.39149
1865164.49481
129
849486.98274
1865107.29342
130
849513.45974
186500 1.41137
131
849579.51554
1864926.55171
395
AREA "B„
NORTH
EAST
Point #
849559.40556
1865193.45108
134
849557.84265
1865237.72626
35
849479.25598
1865422.79011
136
849353.03468
1865393.66448
137
849291.86683
1865358.17065
105
849225.45240
1865275.15897
106
849221.25010
1865257.53874
140
849198.64891
1865206.27156
384
849147.64645
1865167.54338
107
849081.54893
1865093.68513
292
849087.74837
1865077.18420
293
849176.03999
1865035.54448
144
849199.39922
1865024.52791
385
849235.42971
1865096.89567
148
849299.41895
1865225.41897
149
849408.35898
1865232.57548
301
849467.50926
1865142.23314
151
849559.40556
1865193.45108
134
AREA "C"
NORTH
EAST
Point #
849462.56616
1865462.71229
152
849435.13638
1865526.69686
153
849482.39703
1865579.69130
155
849462.88378
1865657.23514
156
849442.70621
1865703.37024
157
849329.27516
1865707.26253
158
849260.03559
1865644.92151
159
849240.35724
1865576.32112
160
849321.13162
1865434.07191
396
849339.57571
1865437.80714
161
849462.56616
1865462.71229
152
AREA "D„
NORTH
EAST
Point #
849523.67028
1865531.49915
162
849606.54503
1865505.41990
300
849687.60418
1865479.86867
163
849646.26097
1865642.17633
164
849599.23801
1865668.60583
165
849480.56349
1865700.07636
166
849523.67028
1865531.49915
162

AREA "E„
NORTH
EAST
Point #
849734.94933
1865506.74625
386
849777.61339
1865506.95303
168
849795.36536
1865528.39325
X69
849816.07420
1865583.36623
411
849813.56859
1865590.93079
172
849817.12503
1865599.08756
173
849826.26238
1865617.68539
174
849817.46632
1865643.55279
175
849810.73250
1865653.62464
176
849811.46562
1865695.14176
108
849801.25856
1865780.86612
410
849810.85135
1865846.23666
409
849780.45763
1865906.16581
180
849737.93964
1865905.74732
181
849699.19996
1865879.24506
182
849694.17460
1865838.75955
183
849689.79904
1865727.49867
312
849685.47681
1865617.58282
184
849734.94933
1865506.74625
386
IFio7.wm
NORTH
EAST
Point #
849815.92160
1865940.90924
110
849824.39775
1865999.70351
log
849710.30838
1866007.56636
187
849704.65272
1865941.40823
388
849815.92160
1865940.90924
110
AREA "G„
NORTH
EAST
Point #
849811.20595
1866037.84131
189
849795.766go
1866075.73608
338
849767.10290
1866116.74370
191
849696.12266
1866262.27953
390
849631.25699
1866395.27$23
391
849625.14242
1866407.81537
79 MH
849617.01962
1866417.32501
392
849561.30036
1866482.55746
393
849497.45831
1866557.29954
195
849490.28422
1866410.67696
196
849556.17669
1866325.00704
197
849591.11839
186620402424
404
849632.65737
1866156.80372
346
849702.64017
1866057.68956
199
849811.20595
1866037.84131
189

AREA "H"
NORTH
EAST
Point #
849465.79522
1866531.05945
200
849450.23363
1866542.12494
201
849390.76406
1866563.46603
202
849352.71701
1866583.54506
401
849315.71724
1866580.20684
203
849204.47066
1866564.90566
402
849156.80929
1866462.67261
403
849229.09022
1866442.93365
375
849332.80632
1866481.41733
399
849405.63461
1866455.34439
400
849462.25590
1866412.85336
210
849465.79522
1866531.05945
200

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Mainstem
Assessed Length 2275 If
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vecietation
Vegetation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
6
6
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
4
4
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
4
4
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
4
4
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
4
4
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
3
180
96%
1
100
98%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
3
180
100%
1
100
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
6
6
o
100 /o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
0
0
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
6
6
100%
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
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
4
4
100%

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Unnamed Tributary
Assessed Length 450 If
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Ve etation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
2
2
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
-
2
2
100%
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
2
2
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
2
2
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
2
2
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
1
75
99%
0
0
99%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
1
75
99%
0
0
99%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
°
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
1
1
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesnot exceed
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
1
1
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
2
2
°
100 /o

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage' 7.06 ac
Easement Acreage 7.06 ac
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Planted
Vecietation Cateciory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Red veg plot
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
2. Low Stem Density Areas
0
0.01 acres
0.0%
6
0.06
0.8%
criteria.
polygons
Total
6
0.06
0.8%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
1year.
0.25 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
,Vigor
Cumulative Total
6
1 0.06
0.8%
Easement Acreage 7.06 ac
1 = Enter the lanted acrea a within the ease ent. This nu ber is caalI ulated as th a Bement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel
acreage, crossings or any of er elements not �irectly planter as part of he project etiorta
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas. but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreaae. Invasives of concern /interest are listed below. The list of hiah concern
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Yellow Point
7 points
0.50
7.1%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
1 = Enter the lanted acrea a within the ease ent. This nu ber is caalI ulated as th a Bement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel
acreage, crossings or any of er elements not �irectly planter as part of he project etiorta
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas. but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreaae. Invasives of concern /interest are listed below. The list of hiah concern

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
Photo Log 1: Established Photo Stations
Photo Station 1, rail line at bollard 172, facing east;
April 3, 2013
Photo Station 2, level spreader at bollard 410,
facing east; April 3, 2013
Photo Station 3, rail line discharge, facing south;
April 3, 2013
Photo Station 1, rail line at bollard 172, facing
east; October 15, 2013
Photo Station 2, level spreader at bollard 410,
facing east; October 15, 2013
Photo Station 3, rail line discharge, facing south;
October 15, 2013
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of S; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
Appendix B

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
�4 0 _
S
Photo Station 4, discharge at bollard 312,
facing west; April 3, 2013
Photo Station 4, discharge at bollard 312,
facing west; October 15, 2013
Photo Station 5, view of easement facing northwest; Photo Station 5, view of easement facing
April 3, 2013 northwest; October 15, 2013
Photo Station 6, VP 7 at bollard 401, facing west;
April 3, 2013
Photo Station 6, VP 7 at bollard 401, facing west;
October 15, 2013
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of S; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
Appendix B

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
Photo Station 7, XS 1, facing right bank;
March 27, 2013
Photo Station 8, XS 2, facing right bank;
March 27, 2013
Photo Station 9, XS 3, facing right bank;
March 27, 2013
Photo Station 7, XS 1, facing right bank;
October 15, 2013
Photo Station 8, XS 2, facing right bank;
October 15, 2013
Photo Station 9, XS 3, facing right bank;
October 15, 2013
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of S; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
Appendix B

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
Photo Station 10, XS 4, facing right bank;
April 3, 2013
Photo Station 11, XS 5, facing right bank;
March 27, 2013
Photo Station 12, XS 6, facing right bank;
April 3, 2013
Photo Station 10, XS 4, facing right bank;
October 15, 2013
Photo Station 11, XS 5, facing right bank;
October 15, 2013
Photo Station 12, XS 6, facing right bank;
October 15, 2013
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of 5; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
Appendix B

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
Photo Station 13, XS 7, facing right bank;
April 3, 2013
Photo Station 14, XS 8, facing right bank;
April 3, 2013
Photo Station 15, XS 9, facing right bank;
April 3, 2013
Photo Station 13, XS 7, facing right bank;
October 15, 2013
Photo Station 14, XS 8, facing right bank;
October 15, 2013
Photo Station 15, XS 9, facing right bank;
October 15, 2013
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of 5; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
Appendix B

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
Photo Station 16, XS 10, facing right bank;
April 3, 2013
Photo Station 17, XS 11, facing right bank;
April 3, 2013
,,„ `` +'-0 .,,, ,era•
0% ,.
1
Bii ,1
.r
1 - pry '� ♦ A;� �e,y.
Photo Station 18, XS 12, facing right bank;
April 3, 2013
Photo Station 16, XS 10, facing right bank;
October 15, 2013
Photo Station 17, XS 11, facing right bank;
October 15, 2013
Photo Station 18, XS 12, facing right bank;
October 15, 2013
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of 5; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
Appendix B

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
Photo Station 19, XS 13, facing right bank;
April 3, 2013
Photo Station 20, XS 14, facing right bank;
April 3, 2013
Photo Station 19, XS 13, facing right bank;
October 15, 2013
Photo Station 20, XS 14, facing right bank;
October 15, 2013
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of 5; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
Appendix B

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
Photo Log 2: Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Veg Plot 1, view from southwest corner;
March 27, 2013
Veg Plot 2, view from southwest corner;
March 27, 2013
Veg Plot 3, view from southwest corner;
March 27, 2013
Veg Plot 1, view from southwest corner;
October 15, 2013
Veg Plot 2, view from southwest corner;
October 15, 2013
Veg Plot 3, view from southwest corner;
October 15, 2013
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of 5; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
Appendix B

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
Veg Plot 4, view from southwest corner;
March 27, 2013
Veg Plot 5, view from southwest corner;
March 27, 2013
Veg Plot 6, view from southwest corner;
April 3, 2013
Veg Plot 4, view from southwest corner;
October 15, 2013
Veg Plot 5, view from southwest corner;
October 15, 2013
Veg Plot 6, view from southwest corner;
October 15, 2013
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of 5; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
Appendix B

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
Veg Plot 7, view from southwest corner;
April 3, 2013
Veg Plot 8, view from southwest corner;
April 3, 2013
Veg Plot 7, view from southwest corner;
October 15, 2013
Veg Plot 8, view from southwest corner;
October 15, 2013
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of 5; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
Appendix B

Appendix C:
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7: Vegetation Plot Success by Project Asset Type
Table 8: CVS Stem Count Total and Planted with /without Livestakes by
Plot and Species

Table 7: Little Alamance ( #92372)
Year 2 (15- Oct -2013)
Vegetation Plot Summary Information
Plot #
Riparian
Buffer
Stems'
Stream/
Wetland
Stemsl
Live Stakes
Invasives
Volunteers3
Total4
Unknown
Growth
Form
1
n/a
8
0
1
6
13
0
2
n/a
5
0
0
12
17
0
3
n/a
5
0
1
50
54
0
4
n/a
7
0
0
6
13
0
5
n/a
2
0
0
5
7
0
6
n/a
11
0
0
8
19
0
7
n/a
2
1
0
3
6
0
8 n/a 3 0 0 0 3 0
Wetland /Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Stream/ Success
Wetland Criteria
Plot # SteMSZ Volunteers3 Total4 Met?
1
324
243
526
Yes, barely
2
202
486
688
No
3
202
2023
2185
No
4
283
243
526
No
5
81
202
283
No
6
445
324
769
Yes
7
81
121
243
No
8
121
0
121
No
Project Avg
218
455
668
No
Riparian Buffer Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Riparian Success
Buffer Criteria
Plot # Stems' Met?
1
n/a
2
n/a
3
n/a
4
n/a
5
n/a
6
n/a
7
n/a
8
n/a
Project Avg
n/a
Stem Class characteristics
1Buffer
Stems Native planted hardwood trees. Does NOT include shrubs. No pines. No vines.
2Stream/
Wetland
Stems Native planted woody stems. Includes shrubs, does NOT include live stakes. No vines
3Volunteers Native woody stems. Not planted. No vines.
4Total Planted + volunteer native woody stems. Includes live stakes. Excl. exotics. Excl. vines.

Table 8: EEP Proiect Code 92372. Proiect Name: Little Alamance
Current Plot Data (MY2 2013)
• i iii
� iii
� i��
� ii i�
� iii
� iii.
� iii
� ��i:
Ir
StemsperACRE
r r
r r
r i
t r
t r
t r
t r
t r
t t
t r

Appendix D:
Stream Survey Data
Figure 6: Cross Sections with Annual Overlays
Figure 7: Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figure 8: Pebble Counts with Annual Overlays
Table 9: Stream Bank Erosion Pin Data Table
Table 10a: Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 10b: Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and
Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Table 11 a: Monitoring — Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Table 11 b: Monitoring — Stream Reach Morphology Data Table

Z
C
O
CO
N
W
XS 1 (2013)
O XS 1 (2013) ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points % XS 1 (2012)
Wbkf = 19.6 Dbkf = 2.17 Abkf = 42
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Distance (ft)

C
O
c6
N
W
XS 2 (2013)
O XS 2 (2013) ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points 0 XS 2 (2012)
Wbkf = 37.2 Dbkf = 3.67 Abkf = 136.8
0 20 40 60 80
Horizontal Distance (ft)

C
O
c6
O
W
Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
EEP No. 92372
Reach 1, XS 3
Pool
Station 13 +62.29
O XS 3 (2013) ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points 0 XS 3 (2012)
Wbkf = 33.3 Dbkf = 2.67 Abkf = 89
0 20 40 60 80
Horizontal Distance (ft)

4J
C
O
c6
N
W
XS 4 (2013)
O XS 4 (2013) ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points 0 XS 4 (2012)
Wbkf = 22.6 Dbkf = 1.97 Abkf = 44.5
0 16 32 48 64 80
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Z
C
O
W
XS 5 (2013)
XS 5 (2013) ♦ Bankfull Indicators V Water Surface Points 0 XS 5 (2012)
wbkf = 1 Dbkf = 2.2 Abkf = 38.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Z
C
O
CO
N
W
XS 6 (2013)
O XS 6 (2013) ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points % XS 6 (2012)
Wbkf - 40.9 Dbkf = 4.25 Abkf = 174.2
0 20 40 60 80
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Z
C
O
m
W
XS 7 (2013)
XS 7 (2013) ® Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points 0 XS 7 (2012)
wbkf = 33.3 obsf = 3.91 Abkf = 115.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Z
C
O
CO
N
W
XS 8 (2013)
O XS 8 (2013) ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points 0 XS 8 (2012)
Wbkf = 36.6 Dbkf = 3.08 Abkf = 112.6
0 20 40 60 80
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Z
C
O
CO
N
W
XS 9 (2013)
u XS 9 (2013) ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points % XS 9 (2012)
Wbkf = 25.7 Dbkf = 2.45 Abkf = 62.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Z
C
O
N
W
XS 10
O XS 10 (2013) ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points XS 10 (2012)
Wbkf = 34.3 Dbkf = 2.71 Abkf = 93.1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)

C
O
N
W
XS 11 (2013)
O XS 11 (2013) ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points XS 11 (2012)
Wbkf = 20.4 Dbkf = 1.4 Abkf = 28.6
0 10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Z
C
O
N
W
XS 12 (2013)
O XS 12 (2013) ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points 0 XS 12 (2012)
Wbkf = 10.3 Dbkf = .83 Abkf = 8.5
0 10 20 30 40 50
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Z
C
O
CO
N
W
XS 13 (2013)
O XS 13 (2013) ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points XS 13 (2012)
Wbkf = 10.5 Dbkf = 1.61 Abkf = 16.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Z
C
O
N
W
XS 14 (2013)
O XS 14 (2013) ♦ Bankfull Indicators ♦ Water Surface Points XS 14 (2012)
Wbkf = 10.3 Dbkf = 1.67 Abkf = 17.1
0 10 20 30 40
Horizontal Distance (ft)

C
O
N
W
Main Stem (2013)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
Distance along stream (ft)
• CH
G WS
♦ BKF
P1
O P2
t P3
X P4
t Main Stem (2012)

C
O
.ID,
N
W
Tributary (2013)
Distance along stream (ft)
• CH
o WS
• BKF
• P1
o P2
\�
+ P3
V +
x P4
+ Tributary (2012)
Distance along stream (ft)

L
LL
U
L
n
XS 1 (2013)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
A XS 1 (2013) (PC)
0 XS 1 (2012) (PC)

U
L
n
XS 1 (2013)
0 -0.062 0.125 -0.25 0.25 -0.50 0.50 -1.0 2.0 -4.0 4.0 -5.7 5.7 -8.0 8.0 -11.3 11.3 -16.0 16.0 -22.6 22.6 -32.0 45 -64 180 -256
Particle Size (mm)

L
W
LL
Q)
U
L
^W
n
XS 4 (2013)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
A XS 4 (2013) (PC)
0 XS 4 (2012) (PC)

o!
U
L
LL
XS 4 (2013)
0.125 -0.25 0.50 -1.0 2.0 -4.0 4.0 -5.7 5.7 -8.0 8.0 -11.3 11.3 -16.0 16.0 -22.6 22.6 -32.0 45 -64 64 -90 128 -180
Particle Size (mm)

L
W
LL
Q)
U
L
^W
n
XS 5 (2013)
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
XS 5 (2013) (PC)
0 XS 5 (2012) (PC)

U
L
n
XS 5 (2013)
0.125 -0.25 0.50 -1.0 2.0 -4.0 4.0 -5.7 5.7 -8.0 8.0 -11.3 11.3 -16.0 16.0 -22.6 22.6 -32.0 32 -45 45 -64 180 -256
Particle Size (mm)

L
W
LL
Q)
U
L
^W
n
XS 8 (2013)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
XS 8 (2013) (PC)
0 XS 8 (2012) (PC)

U
L
LL
XS 8 (2013)
C14 N O O O O M O CD O 7 LO -t Co V
O 7 m (O N N N O
O O N
LO m (f1 N O M O O M oOD m
O N O of O N
O N
O
Particle Size (mm)

L
W
LL
Q)
U
L
^W
n
XS 9 (2013)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
XS 9 (2013) (PC)
0 XS 9 (2012) (PC)

o!
U
L
LL
XS 9 (2013)
0 -0.062 0.125- 0.250.25 -0.50 0.50 -1.0 2.0 -4.0 4.0 -5.7 5.7 -8.0 8.0 -11.3 11.3 -16.0 16.0 -22.6 22.6 -32.0 32 -45 45 -64 64 -90 128 -180 Bedrock
Particle Size (mm)

L
W
LL
U
L
^W
n
XS 10 (2013)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
A XS 10 (2013) (PC)
0 XS 10 (2012) (PC)

o!
U
L
LL
XS 10 (2013)
� N O O O � O M O CO O V 0 00
O 7 Ln 00 O N N
O O N M
O i i i N O
m LO Ln N V l(7 O M O (O
O N N O 00 CO N
O N
O .2
Particle Size (mm)

L
Q]
LL
U
L
n
XS 12 (2013)
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
A XS 12 (2013) (PC)
0 XS 12 PC (2012) (PC)

o!
U
L
LL
XS 12 (2013)
V 't 0 U
N V' O (O N N p
N M
O O O O N D
N
LO � N 7 LO O M O (fl M � � m
O 06 CO N
N
Particle Size (mm)

L
Q]
LL
U
L
n
XS 14 (2013)
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
A XS 14 (2013) (PC)
0 XS 14 PC (2012) (PC)

o!
U
L
LL
XS 14 (2013)
UO O O O O L V O Y
N uJ N 7 to a0 CO N N 7 (O m V
O O N M
O O O O I— N O O (p Co LO
U') LO N V (C1 M 7 (D m
N N O o0 CD N
O — .2 N
O
Particle Size (mm)

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
Table 9: Stream Bank Erosion Pin Data Table
Per discussions with NCEEP, bank pins are not required and therefore were not installed by EEE
Consulting.
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of 5; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
Appendix D

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Alamance Creek Burlington Park) Stream Restoration /EEP Number 92372) Mainstem 2275 If
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - :Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
31.8
36.2
42.5
15.1
36.2
19.3
26.3
36.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
70
94
120
30
>80
47.2
52.7
65.7
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.2
2.6
2.9
1.6
1
2.6
1
2.09
2.53
3.08
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.9
4
4.1
2.6
4
2.96
3.61
4.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
79.3
95
125
24.3
95
40.83
68.78
112.77
Width /Depth Ratio
11.6
14
17
9.3
13.8
7.85
10.31
12.26
Entrenchment Ratio
2.1
2.6
3.8
2
>2.2
1.645
2.079
2.488
B
'ank Height Ratio
1
1.2
1.4
1
1
0.32
0.66
0.83
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
62
159.33
137.16
353.24
119.9
5
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.003
0.013
0.025
0.003
0.013
0.025
0.0001
0.003326
0.00345
0.00983
0.0033
5
Pool Length (ft)
107.9
293.7
505.4
107.9
293.7
505.4
37.58
99.32
90.19
182.26
44.37
14
Pool Max depth (ft)
5.5
6.1
6.9
5.5
1 6.1
6.9
3.03
4.4
1 4.525
1 5.91
1 0.8265
1 10
Pool Spacing (ft)l
1 313.71
473.1
1
1 749.5
1
313.7
1 473.1
1 749.5
1 48.851
147.39
1 92.07
1 347.97
1 115.45
1 9
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
33
70
255
33
70
255
87.3
233
462
Radius of Curvature (ft)
45
115
220
45
115
220
51.2
118.8
280.7
Rc:Bankfull width (ft /ft)
1.2
3.2
6.1
1.2
3.2
6.1
2
4.5
10.7
Meander Wavelength (ft)
227
361
559
227
361
559
436.2
454.6
475.2
Meander Width Ratio I I 1 1 0.9 1 1.9 1 1 7 1 0.9 1.9 7 7.7 17.3 24.1
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
30
30
0.26
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
80
55.7
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C /E/5/1
C /E4
C 4/1
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.5
2.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
237.5
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
2968.4
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft /ft)
0.0024
0.0024
0.0024
BF slope (ft /ft)
0.00258
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser /slope.
4 =Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park Stream Restoration /EEP Number 92372 Unnamed Tributar 450 If
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
r Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.9
12
13
15.1
10.9
12
13
9.86
9.89
9.91
Floodprone Width (ft)
27
33.5
40
30
27
33.5
40
8.5
12.5
16.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1
1.1
1 1.3
1 1.5
1
1 1.6
1
1.1
1 1.3
1.5
0.86
1.27
1
1.67
' Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2
2
2.1
2.6
2
2
2.1
1.43
2.17
2.91
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
14.8
15.8
16.7
24.3
14.8
15.8
16.7
8.5
12.5
16.5
Width /Depth Ratio
7.1
9.3
11.5
9.3
7.1
9.3
11.5
5.9
8.71
11.52
Entrenchment Ratio
2.1
2.9
3.7
2
2.1
2.9
3.7
2.25
3.38
4.52
'Bank Height Ratio
1
1.2
1.3
1
1
0.99
1.27
2.56
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
26.98
41.87
59.91
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.015
0.025
0.05
0.015
0.025
0.05
0.006
0.01
0.018
Pool Length (ft)
4
18.2
163
4
18.2
163
12.96
28.2
60.96
Pool Max depth (ft)
1 2.4
2.4
1
1 0.74
2.06
3.26
Pool Spacing (ft)l
1 23.41
34.1
1
1 54.8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
23.4
1 34.1
1 54.8
1 12.521
30.1
1
1 60.61
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
13.5
24.6
33.7
13.5
24.6
33.7 5.5
10.39
18.97
Radius of Curvature (ft)
15
29
55
15
29
55 5.22
15.81
31.25
Rc:Bankfull width (ft /ft)
1.2
2.4
4.6
1.2
2.4
4.6 1.547
1.784
2.02
Meander Wavelength (ft)
55.8
1 83.9
1
1 111.9
55.8
1 83.9
1 111.9 135.7
1 172.4
1
1 209.2
Meander Width Ratio I I 1 1 4.7 1 7 1 1 9.3 1 4.7 1 7 1 9.3 1 0.556 1 1.051 1 1 1.918
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
0.71
0.71
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
48
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E4/1
C /E4
C4/1
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.4
4.4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
68.7
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft /ft)
0.0095
0.0095
BF slope (ft /ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
I = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser /slope.
4 -Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value /needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration /EEP Number (92372) Mainstem (2275 If)
Parameter
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As- built /Baseline
'Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
1SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
1d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)
0.2
0.7
2.4
138
216
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5 -1.99 / 2.0 -4.9 / 5.0 -9.9 / >10
3Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2 -1.49 / 1.5-1.991 >2.0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt /Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader /consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre- existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross- sections as part of the design survey), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre - constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader /consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross - sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution /coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration /EEP Number (92372) Unnamed Tributary (450 If)
Parameter
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As- built /Baseline
1 Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
1SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
1d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)
0.2
0.5
3.4
19
53
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5 -1.99 / 2.0 -4.9 / 5.0 -9.9 / >10
3Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2 -1.49 / 1.5-1.991 >2.0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt /Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader /consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre- existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross- sections as part of the design survey), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre - constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader /consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross - sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution /coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 11a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park Stream Restoration /EEP Number 92372 Mainstem 2275 I
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Pool)
Cross Section 3 (Pool)
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base MY1 I MY2 I MY3 MY4 I MY5 MY+
Base MY1 I MY2 I MY3 MY4 I MY5 I MY+
Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 MY4 I MY5 I MY+
Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 MY4 I MY5 MY+
Base MY1 I MY2 I MY3 MY4 I MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
NAD 83 NC State Plane feet
NAD 83 NC State Plane feet
NAD 83 NC State Plane feet
NAD 83 NC State Plane feet
NAD 83 NC State Plane feet
Bankfull Width (ft)
19.3
19.3
19.63
35.68
35.68
37.23
32.55
32.55
33.33
25.62
25.62
22.6
19.43
19.43
19.44
Floodprone Width (ft)
48.01
48.01
45.1
73.15
73.2
73.27
65.21
65.21
65.18
47.46
47.46
43
47.21
47.21
44.04
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.46
2.46
2.17
3.62
3.62
3.67
2.74
2.74
2.67
2.09
2.09
1.97
2.1
2.1
2.17
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.26
3.26
2.92
5.1
5.1
5.38
3.87
3.87
3.91
2.96
2.96
2.65
3.15
3.15
2.98
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
47.41
47.41
42.63
129
129
136.8
89.22
89.22
88.97
53.43
53.43
44.54
40.83
40.83
42.26
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
7.85
7.85
9.05
9.86
1 9.86
10.14
1
11.881
11.88
12.48
1
12.261
12.26
11.47
9.25
9.25
8.96
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.49
2.49
2.3
2.05
2.05
1.97
2
2
1.96
1.85
1.85
1.9
2.43
2.43
2.27
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.06
1.06
1.01
1
1
0.99
1
1
0.98
1.75
1.75
1.01
0.95
0.95
0.97
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
176.8
176.8
172.2
257.2
257.2
267
159.1
159.1
158.4
219.1
219.1
207.7
141.3
141.3
138.7
d50 (mm)
6.21
6.21
3.63
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.18
2.18
6.21
8.37
8.37
7.49
Cross Section 6 (Pool)
Cross Section 7 (Pool)
Cross Section 8 (Riffle)
Cross Section 9 (Riffle)
Cross Section 10
(Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base MY1 MY2 I MY3 MY4 I MY5 MY,
Base MY1 MY2 I MY3 MY4 I MY5 MY-
Base MY1 MY2 I MY3 MY4 I MY5 MY+
Base MY1 MY2 I MY3 MY4 I MY5 MY+
Base MY1 MY2 I MY3
MY4
I MY5 MY,
Record elevation (datum) used
NAD 83 NC State Plane feet
NAD 83 NC State Plane feet
NAD 83 NC State Plane feet
NAD 83 NC State Plane feet
NAD 83 NC State Plane feet
Bankfull Width (ft)
36.61
36.6
40.9
31.31
31.31
33.33
34.88
34.88
36.62
21.79
21.79
25.66
30.6
30.6
34.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
60.21
60.21
60.42
56.8
56.8
58.36
65.72
65.72
65.79
47.34
47.34
52.87
48.37
48.37
48.37
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
3.08
3.08
4.25
3.15
3.15
3.47
3.08
3.08
3.08
2.34
2.34
2.45
2.25
2.25
2.72
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
4.6
4.6
6.19
4.21
4.21
4.65
4.6
4.6
4.82
3.11
3.11
3.51
3.81
3.81
4.72
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
112.8
112.8
174.1
98.77
98.77
115.8
107.3
107.3
112.6
50.91
50.91
62.79
68.86
68.86
93.13
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
11.88
11.88
9.64
9.94
9.94
9.61
11.32
11.32
11.89
9.31
1 9.31
10.471
13.6
1 13.6
12.61
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
1.65
1.65
1.48
1.81
1.81
1.75
1.88
1.88
1.8
2.17
2.17
2.06
1.58
1.58
1.41
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.38
1.38
1
1.06
1.06
0.99
1.02
1.02
1
1
1
1
1.28
1.28
1
Cross Sectional Area between end pins ft2
295
295
292.9
210.6
210.6
197.4
271.4
271.4
248.8
245.3
245.3
229.9
162.4
162.4
166.5
d50 (mm)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5.7
5.7
3.73
2.22
2.2
4.73
3.52
3.52
5.36
1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurvey will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional /depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."

Table 11a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration /EEP Number (92372) Unnamed Tributary (450 If)
Cross Section 11 (Pool)
Cross Section 12 (Riffle)
Cross Section 13 (Pool)
Cross Section 14 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base MY1 MY2 I MY3 MY4 I MY5 MY,
Base MY1 r MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY+
Base'l MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 I MY5 I MY+
Base I MY1 I MY2 I MY3 I MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
NAD 83 NC State Plane feet
NAD 83 State Plane feet
NAD 83 State Plane feet
NAD 83 State Plane feet
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.57
15.57
19.85
9.91
9.91
10.26
9.86
9.86
10.49
10.08
10.08
9.16
Floodprone Width (ft)
24.74
24.74
41.54
22.32
22.32
22.38
44.52
44.52
46.56
36.5
36.2
37.12
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.69
0.69
1.38
0.86
0.86
0.83
1.67
1.67
1.61
1.52
1.52
1.64
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.7
1.7
2.78
1.43
1.43
1.54
2.91
2.91
3.03
2.46
2.46
2.71
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
10.73
10.73
27.45
8.5
8.5
8.5
16.5
16.5
16.85
15.37
15.37
15
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
22.57
22.57
14.38
11.52
11.52
12.36
5.9
1 5.9
6.52
6.63
6.63
5.59
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
1.59
1.59
2.09
2.25
2.25
2.18
4.51
4.51
4.44
3.59
3.59
4.05
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
2.34
2.34
2.41
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.19
1.19
1.1
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
113.4
113.4
110.8
76.3
76.3
74.7
133.6
133.6
129.9
60.3
60.3
54.3
d50 (mm)
N/A
N/A
N/A
5.21
5.21
7.42
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.3
3.3
4
1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurvey will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional /depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot as
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculat
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt /Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Alamance Creek Burlin ton Park Stream Restoration /EEP Number 92372 Mainstem 2275 If
Parameter
Baseline I MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
19.3
26.3
23.71
36.6
6.7
6
19.3
26.3
23.71
36.6
6.7
6
19.4
26.4
24.13
36.62
7.4
6
Floodprone Width (ft)
47.2
52.7
47.74
65.7
7.8
6
47.2
52.7
47.74
65.7
7.8
6
43
49.86
46.74
65.8
8.6
6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.09
2.53
2.3
3.08
0.36
6
2.09
2.53
2.3
3.08
0.36
6
1.97
2.43
2.31
3.08
0.41
6
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.96
3.61
1 3.19
4.6
0.64
6
2.96
3.61
3.19
4.6
0.64
6
2.65
3.6
3.245
4.82
0.94
6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
40.83
68.78
52.17
112.77
24.7
6
40.83
68.78
52.17
112.77
24.7
6
42.26
66.34
53.665
112.64
29.9
6
Width /Depth Ratio
7.85
10.31
10.32
12.26
2.4
6
7.85
10.31
10.32
12.26
2.4
6
8.96
10.74
10.97
12.61
1.5
6
Entrenchment Ratio
1.645
2.079
2.02
2.488
0.37
6
1.645
2.079
2.02
2.488
0.37
6
1.41
1.96
1.98
2.3
0.33
6
'Bank Height Ratio
0.9
1 1
1
1 1.01
0.006
6
0.99
1
1 1
1.01
0.006
6
0.98
0.995
0.992
1 1
0.006
6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
62
159.33
137.16
353.24
119.9
5
62
159.33
137.16
353.24
119.9
5
26.55
52.64
42.12
101.02
29.9
5
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0001
0.003326
0.00345
0.00983
0.0033
5
0.0001
0.003326
0.00345
0.00983
0.0033
5
0.003890
0.0116
0.0133
0.0180
0.0070
5
Pool Length (ft)
37.58
99.32
90.19
182.26
44.37
14
37.58
99.32
90.19
182.26
44.37
14
24.23
124.2
1 132.17
217.92
1 55.56
14
Pool Max depth (ft)
3.03
4.4
4.525
5.91
0.8265
14
3.03
4.4
4.525
5.91
0.8265
14
1.3
2.45
2.63
3.21
0.963
14
Pool Spacing (ft)l
48.851
147.39
92.07
347.97
115.45
9
48.85
147.39
92.07
347.97
115.45
9
31.69
86.5
69.97
214.55
58.43
9
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
87.3 233
462
Radius of Curvature (ft)
51.2 118.8
280.7
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft /ft)
2 4.5
10.7
Meander Wavelength (ft)
436.2 454.6
475.2
Meander Width Ratio
7.7 1 17.3
24.1
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E4
E4
E4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
2673
2673
2673
Sinuosity (ft)
1.6
1.6
1.6
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft /ft)
0.00242
0.00242
0.00248
BF slope (ft /ft)
0.00237
0.00237
0.00238
3Rl% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/
2% of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt /Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt /Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
Note: Calculations for the Unnamed Tributary are less than 3, which means that calculating media, SD, etc is not statistically correct
Exhibit Table 11 b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration /EEP Number (92372) Unnamed Tributary (450 If)
Parameter
Baseline
I MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.86
9.89
9.91
9.86
9.89
9.91
9.16
9.71
10.26
Floodprone Width (ft)
8.5
12.5
16.5
8.5
12.5
16.5
22.38
29.75
37.12
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.86
1.27
1.67
0.86
1.27
1.67
0.83
1.24
1.64
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.43
2.17
1
2.91
1.43
2.17
1
2.91
1.54
2.13
2.17
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
8.5
12.5
16.5
8.5
12.5
16.5
5.3
9.18
12.36
Width /Depth Ratio
5.9
8.71
11.52
5.9
8.71
11.52
4.05
8.21
12.36
Entrenchment Ratio
2.25
3.38
4.52
2.25
3.38
4.52
1.1
1.64
2.18
'Bank Height Ratio
0.99
1.27
2.56
0.99
1.27
2.56
0.99
1.29
1.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
26.98
41.87
59.91
26.98
41.87
59.91
15.83
29.07
61.12
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.006
0.0104
0.018
0.006
0.0104
0.018
0.003
0.022
0.046
Pool Length (ft)
12.96
28.2
60.96
12.96
28.2
60.96
8.2
16.84
23.12
Pool Max depth (ft)
0.74
2.06
3.26
0.74
2.06
3.26
0.63
1.33
2.22
Pool Spacing (ft)
12.52
30.1
60.61
12.52
30.1
60.61
12.03
14.78
14.88
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
5.5
10.39
18.97
Radius of Curvature (ft)
5.22
15.81
31.25
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft /ft)
1.547
1.784
2.02
Meander Wavelength (ft)
135.7
172.42
209.2
Meander Width Ratiol
0.556
1.051
1.918
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E 4
E 4
E 4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
426.02
426.02
426.02
Sinuosity (ft)
1.02
1.02
1.02
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft /ft)
0.00758
0.00758
0.00766
BF slope (ft /ft)
0.00728
0.00728
0.00754
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be'
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt /Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
Note: Calculations for the Unnamed Tributary are less than 3, which means that calculating media, SD, etc is not statistically correct

Appendix E:
Hydrologic Data
Table 12: Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure 9: Monthly Rainfall Data

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
Insert Table 12: Verification of Bankfull Events
Crest gauges were installed during Monitoring Year 1 field work. In July of monitoring year 2,
there was a short period of several heavy rainfall events. As a result, Little Alamance Creek
flooded and the crest gauge did not accurately record the flood event. Photographs of the event
are shown below.
July 2013 Storm Event
View of Rail Road at PS 1
July 3, 2013
View of water gauge on main tributary
July 3, 2013
Bridge at XS 5
July 3, 2013
View of Bridge at XS 4
July 3, 2013
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of 5; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
Appendix E

EEE Consulting, Inc. Little Alamance Creek (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration
View from XS 7
July 3, 2013
View from PS 2, level spreader
July 3, 2013
Little Alamance (Burlington Park) Stream Restoration; NCEEP Project No. 92372; NCEEP Contract No. 4998;
Monitoring Year 2 of 5; Submitted: January 2014
FINAL
Appendix E

8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
c
0
4.00
x.
a 3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
30th Percentile
LittleAlamance Creek 30 -70 Percentile Graph
Burlington, North Carolina
(Source: NOAA Station GHCND:USC00311239)
70th Percentile
IV /
0.00
Jan '13 Feb '13 Mar'13 Apr'13 May'13 Jun '13 Jul '13
Date
2013 Rainfall — –30th Percentile
Aug'13 Sep '13 Oct '13 Nov'13 Dee '13
70th Percentile