20021924 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20150414

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 5 (2014)
MCINTYRE CREEK RESTORATION SITE
AT HORNETS NEST PARK
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(EEP Project No. 243, Contract No. 004499)
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
r�
En�fiar em nt
PROGRAM
December 2014

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 5 (2014)
MCINTYRE CREEK RESTORATION SITE
AT HORNETS NEST PARK
MECKLENBURG COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(EEP Project No. 243, Contract No. 004499)
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Design Firm:
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Landmark Center I, Suite 200
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
r4d'i
f m
Axiom Environmental, Inc. EVaiTement
PROGRAM
December 2014

Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... ..............................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. ............................... 3
2.1 Vegetation Assessment ....................................................................................... ............................... 3
2.2 Stream Assessment ............................................................................................. ............................... 3
2.3 Wetland Assessment ........................................................................................... ............................... 4
3.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ ..............................4
Appendices
APPENDIX A. PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
APPENDIX B. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figures 2 and 2A -2B. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A -5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Tables
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Fixed - Station Photos
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
APPENDIX C. VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9A. 2014 (Year 5) Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9B. Annual Totals and Planted Stems by Species
APPENDIX D. STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross - section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Substrate Plots
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment
Parameter Distributions)
Table 11 a. Monitoring Data — Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters —
Cross Sections)
Table l lb. Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
APPENDIX E. HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
2014 (Year 5) Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Figure 3. Annual Climatic Data vs. 30 -year Historic Data
Table 13. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment Summary
APPENDIX F. ADDITIONAL SITE DATA
Restoration Plan Figure 3. USGS Topographic Map (with drainage area)
Restoration Plan Figure 4. Existing Conditions (with soils)
Preconstruction Photographs
APPENDIX G. WATERSHED PLANNING SUMMARY
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Table of Contents

Appendices (continued)
APPENDIX H. LAND OWNERSHIP AND PROTECTION
APPENDIX I. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATIONS 404/401 PERMITS AND RELATED
CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX J. PROJECT DEBIT LEDGER
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Table of Contents

[91 Oill TABLI11►11►5 El
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) has completed restoration of 5178 linear
feet of stream at the McIntyre Creek Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site ") to assist in fulfilling
stream and wetland mitigation goals in the area. This report (compiled based on EEP's Procedural
Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports Version 1.4 dated 11/7/11) summarizes
data for year 5 (2014) monitoring.
The goals and objectives of this project focus on improving local water quality, habitat, and stream stability.
These goals were accomplished by the following.
1. Restoring stable channel morphology capable of moving flows and sediments provided by the
watershed.
2. Improving water quality by reducing soil and riparian vegetation loss resulting from lateral erosion
and bed degradation.
3. Improving aquatic habitat with bed variability and the use of in- stream structures.
4. Stabilizing tributaries draining into McIntyre Creek.
5. Providing educational opportunities through Mecklenburg County.
6. Improving the natural aesthetics of Hornets Nest Park.
7. Enhancing vegetation to provide habitat /food sources, shade the stream, filter overland runoff, and
remove soil particles and other nutrients from stormwater.
8. Protecting a Site identified in a watershed listed as impaired for elevated levels of copper and
turbidity (NCDWQ 2010).
The Site is located in Hornets Nest Park on the northern side of the City of Charlotte in Mecklenburg
County. The Site is located in United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit 03050101170020
(North Carolina Division of Water Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin 03- 08 -34) of the Catawba River Basin and
will service USGS 8 -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03050101. The Site is located in NCEEP Targeted Local
Watershed within the Long Creek watershed targeted for restoration. Waters in the Site drain
approximately 2.5 miles into Long Creek (NCDWQ No. 11- 120- [2.5]), which is listed as impaired for
elevated levels of copper and turbidity negatively affecting aquatic life (NCDWQ 2010).
Prior to construction, the Site contained a degraded stream channel with a disturbed riparian buffer located
within Hornets Nest Park. Site streams were characterized by eroding banks, channel widening, high
sediment inputs from construction occurring in the upstream watershed and onsite bank erosion, and
channel incision as indicated by bank - height- ratios ranging from 1.4 to 1.9. Surrounding land uses include
commercial and residential areas with narrow riparian corridors adjacent to streams. At least 50 percent of
the contributing watershed had been cleared and developed.
Project construction was completed between March 2007 -May 2008 and remediation construction to repair
structures, stabilize banks, provide grade control, and dissipate stormwater energy was completed between
August 2009 - January 2010. The project restored 5178 linear feet of stream using Priority I restoration by
constructing a new meandering channel within the McIntyre Creek floodplain, incorporating in- stream
structures, installing grade control structures at the confluence with two tributaries, and planting native
forest species. Site activities provide 5129 Stream Mitigation Units (49 linear feet of the restored channel
is located within a utility easement and therefore was not included in the available mitigation credit). The
Site is protected by a permanent conservation easement held by the State of North Carolina.
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina page 1

Success criteria for stream restoration will be assessed using measurements of stream dimension, pattern,
and profile; site photographs; visual assessments; and vegetation sampling. Cross - section measurements
should show little or no change from the as -built cross - sections. If changes occur, evaluations will be
completed to determine whether changes are minor adjustments trending towards a more stable channel or
if changes indicate movement towards an unstable condition. Annual measurements should indicate stable
bed form features with little change from the as -built survey. Pools are expected to maintain depth with
lower water surface slope and riffles are expected to remain shallower with steeper water surface slopes.
Substrate measurements should indicate maintenance of distributions from the design phase and baseline
measurements. In addition, there should be an absence of any significant aggradation or degradation of the
stream channel.
There are areas of bank erosion located throughout the site, with those at the bottom of the project
(Monitoring reach 1) being the most concerning in that they represent active mass wasting. As a result,
EEP is engaging in a repair of these areas in monitoring reach 1 early in 2015. The areas in reach 2 and 3
are less concerning in that they are dominated by surficial scour as opposed to mass wasting. Additionally,
these features developed earlier in the project, but have not advanced in recent years. The bank erosion
percentages within these reaches have either remained the same or improved slightly compared to prior
years, but will continue to be monitored. Erosion was also observed in pool cross sections 1 and 4 earlier
in the projects history, but these cross section have not demonstrated any appreciable change even when
exposed to multiple storm flows. The watershed is extremely flashy due to the extensive amount of
impervious surface in the contributing watershed and floods quickly even during modest rain events.
Therefore, as per EEP, these areas will continue to be monitored, but given the lack of change within the
last 3 years, the repair will focus on the bottom reach (Monitoring reach 1) thereby avoiding unnecessary
disturbance of sections that appear to have equilibrated.
Success criteria for stream restoration will include documentation of two bankfull channel events during
the monitoring period. In the event that less than two bankfull events occur during the first five years,
monitoring will continue until the second event is documented. In addition, bankfull events must occur
during separate monitoring years. A crest gauge is located within the Site to assist with documentation of
bankfull events (Figures 2 -2A, Appendix B). Two bankfull events were documented during the year 5
(2014) monitoring season for a total of five documented bankfull events within the five -year monitoring
period. Additionally, precipitation data indicates that one geomorphologically relevant flow event occurred
onsite during the year five (2014) monitoring season for a total of at least nine such flows occurring over
the five year monitoring period.
Vegetation success criteria dictate that an average density of 320 stems per acre must be surviving in the
first three monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 stems per acre must be surviving in year 4 and 260 stems
per acre in year 5. Stem counts will be based on an average of the evaluated vegetation plots. Based on
the number of stems counted, average densities were measured at 477 planted stems per acre (excluding
livestakes) surviving in year 5 (2014). The dominant species identified at the Site were planted stems of
river birch (Betula nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda), and silky
dogwood (Cornus amomum). The vegetation plots also included between 6 and 12 native woody species
with 25 observed in the plot data site wide. Nine of the ten individual plots met success criteria based on
planted stems alone. Plot 4 was below success criteria based on planted stems alone; however, when
including naturally recruited stems of appropriate species such as green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and
box elder (Ater negundo) plot 4 is well -above 260 stems per acre. Planted stems and natural recruits are
growing well throughout the Site; in general vegetation is vigorous.
Vegetation areas of concern within the Site include several small patches of multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina page 2

Additionally, several large patches of Kudzu (Pueraria lobata) were observed within the Site (depicted on
Figures 2A -2B, Appendix B). A treatment of all invasive species occurred in late October 2013 and again
in early 2014; these treatments initially appeared to be successful, however, several areas of kudzu have
spread during the 2014 growing season resulting in some tree mortality. EEP will continue to treat invasive
species within the Site as needed.
Two groundwater gauges (Gauges 2 and 3) were installed within the Site within wetland areas created as
the result of stream restoration activities. An additional gauge (Gauge 1) was placed just outside of
delineated wetland areas created as the result of stream restoration activities. Success criteria for wetland
groundwater hydrology at the Site requires inundation or saturation within 12 inches of the ground surface
for a consecutive period of 10 percent of the growing season or greater than 23 consecutive days (the
growing season in Mecklenburg County begins March 22 and ends November 11 [233 days]). Gauges 2
and 3 exceeded success criteria for year 5 (2014) and Gauge 1 was just short of success being inundated for
16 days or 6.8 percent of the growing season.
Beaver activity observed on the Site during previous monitoring years had lessened due to proactive
measurements taken by EEP. Abundant signs of beaver activity were observed throughout the Site during
monitoring year 5 (2014); at the time of the site visit one beaver dam was located (Figure 2A, Appendix
B). Proactive measures to control beaver are recommended to continue as necessary.
Summary information and data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment and
statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in tables and
figures within this report's appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found
in these reports can be found in the mitigation and restoration plan documents available on EEPs website.
All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from EEP upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Ten vegetation plots were established and marked after construction with four foot metal U -bar post
demarking the corners with a ten foot, three - quarter inch PVC at the origin. The plots are 10 meters square
and are located randomly within the Site. These plots were surveyed using the CVS -EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) ( http: / /cvs.bio.unc.edu /methods.hn); results are
included in Appendix C. The taxonomic standard for vegetation used for this document was Flora of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas (Weakley 2007).
2.2 Stream Assessment
Annual stream monitoring will be conducted following procedures established in the USDA Forest Service
Manual, Stream Channel Reference Sites (Harrelson et. al 1994) and methodologies utilized in the Rosgen
stream assessment and classification system ( Rosgen 1994 and 1996). Four permanent cross - sections, two
riffle and two pool, were established and will be used to evaluate stream dimension; locations are depicted
on Figures 2 and 2A -2B (Appendix B). Cross - sections are permanently monumented with 4 -foot metal
garden posts at each end point. Cross - sections will be surveyed to provide a detailed measurement of the
stream and banks including points on the adjacent floodplain, top of bank, bankfull, breaks in slope, edge
of water, and thalweg. Data will be used to calculate width -depth ratios, entrenchment ratios, and bank
height ratios for each cross - section. In addition, photographs will be taken and pebble counts will be
conducted at each permanent cross - section location annually.
Three approximately 1000 - linear foot monitoring reaches were established and will be used to evaluate
stream pattern and longitudinal profile; locations are depicted on Figures 2 and 2A -2B (Appendix B).
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina page 3

Measurements of channel pattern included belt- width, meander length, and radius of curvature (only in year
one). Subsequently, data was used to calculated meander -width ratios. Longitudinal profile measurements
will include average water surface slopes and facet slopes and pool -to -pool spacing. Ten permanent photo
points were established throughout the restoration reach; locations are depicted on Figures 2 and 2A -213
(Appendix B) and plots are included in Appendix B. In addition, visual stream morphology stability
assessments will be completed in each of the three monitoring reaches annually to assess the channel bed,
banks, and in- stream structures.
2.3 Wetland Assessment
Three groundwater monitoring gauges were installed at the Site in February 2011 and have been maintained
and monitored throughout growing season. Two gauges (Gauges 2 and 3) are located within delineated
wetlands created by stream restoration activities and one gauge (Gauge 1) is located within a marginal area
not in the delineated wetlands to assist with making a determination in marginal areas. Graphs of
groundwater hydrology and precipitation are included in Appendix E.
3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.2. (online). Available: http : / /cvs.bio.unc.edu /methods.htm.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2004. Climatography of the United States
No. 20; Monthly Station Climate Summaries, 1971 -2000. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National
Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2010. Final North Carolina 2010 Integrated Report
Category 4 and 5 (303(d) List EPA Approved August 31, 2010) (online). Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document — library/get file ?uuid= 8ffobb29- 62c2 -4b3 3 -810c-
2eee5afa75e9 &groupId =38364 [December 1, 2010]. North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2007. Catawba River Basin Restoration
Priorities. Available: http: / /www.nceep. net / services /restplans /RBRPCatawba2007.pdf [June
2010]. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Weakley, Alan S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas (online).
Available: http: / /www. herbarium .unc.edu /WeakleysFIora.pdf [February 1, 2008]. University of
North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina.
Weather Underground. 2014. Station at Charlotte Douglas International Airport (KCLT) in Charlotte,
North Carolina. (online). Available:
http:// www. wunderground .com/history /airport/KCLT /2014 /I1 /10 /CustomHistory html
[November 10, 20141.
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina page 4

APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

_ 20 Enterprise Street
Suite 7
Raleigh, NC 27607
�Alw
(919) 215 -1693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
own. by.
FIGURE
VICINITY MAP
cLF
MCINTYRE CREEK RESTORATION SITE
Date:
AT HORNETS NEST PARK
Nov zoo
Project:
10 -009
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
McIntyre Creek Restoration Site at Hornets Nest Park (EEP Project Number 243)
Miti ation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Type
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Totals
5129*
--
--
0.57
Projects Com onents
Restoration
Project
Existing Linear
Restoration/
Station
Priority
Linear
Mitigation
Component/
Footage/
Restoration
Comment
Range
Approach
Footage/
Ratio
Reach ID
Acreage
Equivalent
Acreage
Priority I stream restoration along the entire project,
McIntyre
5000
I
Restoration
5178 *
1:1
installation of in- stream structures, stabilizing the
Creek
confluence of two incoming tributaries, and planting
with native forest vegetation.
Wetland
-
0
--
Creation
1.71
3:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear footage)
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Restoration
5178
--
Creation
--
1.71
Totals
5178
1.71
Mitigation Units
5129 SMUs*
0.57
*Site activities restored 5178 linear feet of stream; however, 49 linear feet is located within a utility easement and is not included in the SMU calculation.
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
McIntyre Creek Restoration Site at Hornets Nest Park (EEP Project Number 243)
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 6.5 years
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 6.5 year
Number of Reporting Years: 5
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan
--
December 2002
Construction Plans
--
March 2005
Site Construction and Planting
--
May 2008
As -built Construction Drawings
--
February 2008
Remediation Construction
--
January 2010
As -built Remediation Construction Drawings
--
November 2009
As -built Record Drawings
--
February 2010
Baseline Monitoring Document
July 2010
December 2010
Year 1 (20 10) Monitoring Document
December 2010
December 2010
Year 2 (2011) Monitoring Document
November 2011
December 2011
Year 3 (2012) Monitoring Document
November 2012
November 2012
Beaver Management
--
Ongoing
Invasive Species Management
--
October 2013
Year 4 (2013) Monitoring Document
November 2013
December 2013
Year 5 (2014) Monitoring Document
November 2014
December 2014
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
McIntyre Creek Restoration Site at Hornets Nest Park (EEP Project Number 243)
Designer
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Landmark Center 1, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Gary Mryncza 919 - 783 -9214
Construction and Planting Contractor
United Construction, Inc.
6000 Old Pineville Road
Charlotte, NC 28217
704 - 679 -9229
As -built Surveyor
CSC of NC PC
4455 Morris Park Drive, Suite F
Charlotte, NC 28227
Mohammad Zamani 704 -573 -0112
Baseline Data Collection and
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Performers
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919 - 215 -1693
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
McIntyre Creek Restoration Site at Hornets Nest Park (EEP Proiect Number 243)
Project Information
Project Name
McIntyre Creek Restoration Site
Project County
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Project Area
17 acres
Project Coordinates
35.319972, - 80.865133
Project Watershed Su mary Information
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Southern Outer Piedmont
Project River Basin
Catawba
USGS 8 -digit HUC
03050101
USGS 14 -digit HUC
03050101170020
NCDWQ Subbasin
03 -08 -34
Project Drainage Area
2.55 square miles
Project Drainage Area Impervious Surface
>50%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Urban High
Reach Summary Information
Restored length
5178 linear feet
Drainage Area
2.55 square miles
NCDWQ Index Number
11- 120 -3 -(1)
NCDWQ Classification
C
Valley Type/Morphological Description
VIII/E5
Dominant Soil Series
Monacan
Drainage Class
Moderately well- somewhat poorly
Soil Hydric Status
Contains 5 % hydric Wehadkee soils
Slope
0.0033
FEMA Classification
100 -Year Floodzone
Native Vegetation Community
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasives
5.9%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Waters of the U.S. — Sections 404 and 401
Yes - Received Appropriate Permits
Endangered Species Act
No
Historic Preservation Act
No
CZMA/CAMA
No
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes- Received a No Rise Certification
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figures 2 and 2A -2B. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A -5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Tables
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Fixed - Station Photos
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

Legend
Conservation Easement
Wetlands
Cross- sections
Monitoring Reaches
Stream Fixed - Station Photo Points
Groundwater Gauges
Crest Gauge
Structures 14% ;
Streams t
Vegetation Plots l k �
Met Success Criteria Based on Planted Stems
Did Not Meet Success Criteria Based on Planted Stems Alone*
* *Based on planted stems alone, plot 4 doesn't meet success ti
criteria in year 5 (2014); however, when including naturally recruited
stems ofappropriate species such as box elder (Acer negundo) and �-
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), plot four was well -above 260
stems per acre. '' M
L 3
J `3
Aerial Photography Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye,
i- cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,
IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
0 250 500 1,000 1,500
Feet
ti ~ `.*0
N
f c
Axiom Enoron+nenlal, Inc.
Prepared for:
r�
os stem
E affient
PROGRAM
Project:
MCINTYRE
CREEK
RESTORATION
SITE
@ HORNETS
NEST PARK
Mecklenburg
County, NC
Title
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN
VIEW
Drawn by:
CLF /KRJ
Date:
NOV 2014
Scale:
1:3600
Project No.:
12- 004.03
FIGURE
2
Photo Point
Bearing
Latitude
Longitude
Feature
Latitude
Longitude
1
154
35.32065
- 80.87796
plot 1origin
35.31901
- 80.87667
2
140
35.32022
- 80.87791
plot 2 origin
35.31859
- 80.87602
3
324
35.31867
- 80.87613
4
188
35.31823
- 80.87550
plot 3 origin
35.31784
- 80.87533
5
135
35.31823
- 80.87550
plot4origin
35.31792
- 80.87444
6
78
35.31802
- 80.87389
plot 5 origin
35.31851
- 80.87234
7
90
35.31835
- 80.87224
plot 6 origin
35.31847
- 80.87068
8
120
35.31841
- 80.86887
9
90
35.31839
- 80.86747
plot 7 origin
35.31824
- 80.86931
10
~260
35.31927
- 80.86491
plot 8 origin
35.31837
- 80.86792
plot 9 origin
35.31873
- 80.86621
plot 10 origin
35.31895
- 80.86570
xsect 2 right bank
35.31820
- 80.87568
xsect 2 left bank
35.31816
- 80.87581
xsect 1 left bank
35.31922
- 80.87688
xsect 1 right bank
35.31929
- 80.87679
xsect 3 right bank
35.31859
- 80.86774
�y
a
xsect 3 left bank
35.31849
- 80.86773
xsect 4left bank
35.31893
- 80.86579
}
xsect 4 right bank
1 35.31901
- 80.86584
ti ~ `.*0
N
f c
Axiom Enoron+nenlal, Inc.
Prepared for:
r�
os stem
E affient
PROGRAM
Project:
MCINTYRE
CREEK
RESTORATION
SITE
@ HORNETS
NEST PARK
Mecklenburg
County, NC
Title
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN
VIEW
Drawn by:
CLF /KRJ
Date:
NOV 2014
Scale:
1:3600
Project No.:
12- 004.03
FIGURE
2

AV
..;'f Conservation Easement
Streams
y `y Wetlands
Z $ +,• ;:: T . _ Cross - sections
.. , Zi
Monitoring Reaches
eo � 4, { ,.�'" A rox.Stationin
a L
,- pp 9 Axiom Environmental, Inc.
� Structures
Crest Gauge y Prepared for:
Groundwater Gauges
` '•i .�,- riFr'��, ' .,' t' �� � - _ 4 �`t Stream Fixed - Station Photo Points �
Vegetation Areas of Concern
Rosa multiflora
• i 1 t Kudzu
ols�stem
Ligustrum sinense Eka ement
PROGRAM
4 Lonicera japonica
_ W L L L L L if dehb
3° Stream Areas of Concern Project:
Bank Erosion
Q Bank Slumping r
f e_
M'
® Reduced Structure Integrity
X
A._ ;r; Vegetation Plots
f, c / ,,f — _ Met Success Criteria Based on Planted Stems W L
Did Not Meet Success Criteria Based on Planted Stems Alone"
VW L L L L Y IhL L L L L X
1� L L li LLf dehVi Y L L L
L L L L L L LU L v_ L Mecklenburg
L W L VL L L L a IfId County, NC
add} i L L b
r Title:
L
f A-
Pool
Drawn by:
CLF /KRJ
f m = �I Date:
g
In " 4 NOV 2014
Q :,t Scale:
1:1800
° f o � � , •,� Project No.:
Beaver Dam k 12- 004.03
November 3, 2014 '
X L L JiL Y Y Y
a 1L x1L Yx Y Yx Y_ Y FIGURE
1L 1L L L L L'
0 125 250 500 750
f x
Feet

Conservation Easement
Streams
Wetlands
Cross- sections
Monitoring Reaches
Approx. Stationing
Structures
Crest Gauge
Groundwater Gauges
Stream Fixed - Station Photo Points
Vegetation Areas of Concern
Rosa multiflora
Kudzu
_ Ligustrum sinense
Lonicera japonica
NJ M M M MM Ijefic
Stream Areas of Concern
0 Bank Erosion
Q Bank Slumping
® Reduced Structure Integrity
Vegetation Plots
Met Success Criteria Based on Planted Stems
Did Not Meet Success Criteria Based on Planted Stems Alone -
XK M M M M EM MM M M M
MM MI%ef i WA aM M M M
M M M M M M R M W M
M III' M AM M M M b Pgrre
M M c
E
M
' Y
f g
n
Y M M rN C-M d L
b a Yam 4 Em 4
am C-M M M M M
0 125 250 500 750
Feet
ir.
6 u
0
M�
f
'
ni
FAV F M Jq
.4, % kA
r -
X, Ge4mapping ogrid, IGN, IG,P, swiss
Y
N
Axiom Envicori nenta], Inc.
Prepared for:
os stem
E stem
PROGRAM
Project:
, i'
ti
Y
r
x M
0` ge
f
My
Mecklenburg
County, NC
Title:
Y
Drawn by
M
CLF /KRJ
Date:
NOV 2014
Scale:
1:1800
Project No.:
12- 004.03
FIGURE
J'

Table 5A. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
McIntyre Creek Restoration Site at Hornets Nest Park (EEP Project Number 243)
Reach ID Reach 1
Assessed Length 1152
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
EAmount
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub -Cate o
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
17
17
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
17
17
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
17
17
100%
47halweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
17
17
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
17
17
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
2
60
97%
2
40
99%
Banks undercut /overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
1
25
99%
1
10
99%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
7
260
89%
3
100
930
Totals
10
345
85%
6
150
92%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
6
7
°
86%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
6
7
86%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath Sills or arms.
6
7
86%
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)
6
7
86%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
7
7
100%

Table 56. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
McIntyre Creek Restoration Site at Hornets Nest Park (EEP Project Number 243)
Reach ID Reach 2
Assessed Lenqth 1113
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-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Vegetation
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
17
18
94%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
18
18
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
17
18
94%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
18
18
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
18
18
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
3
85
96%
0
0
96%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
2
75
97%
1
10
97%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
1
50
98%
1
20
99%
Totals
6
210
91%
2
30
92%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
$
$
o
100 /o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
$
$
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
$
8
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)
6
8
75%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
8
8
100%

Table 5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
McIntyre Creek Restoration Site at Hornets Nest Park (EEP Project Number 243)
Reach ID Reach 3
Assessed Lenqth 1172
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-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Vegetation
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
16
17
94%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
16
16
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
15
16
94%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
16
16
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
17
17
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
4
120
95%
2
35
96%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
1
65
97%
1
25
98%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
1
50
98%
0
0
98%
Totals
6
235
90%
3
60
93%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
5
6
o
83%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
5
6
83%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
5
6
83%
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)
3
6
50%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
6
6
100%

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
McIntyre Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project 243)
Planted Acreage' 17
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
NA
None
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
NA
NA
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
NA
NA
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Totall
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage? 17
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage, crossings or any
elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
= 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 associat
acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern /interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those with the potent
to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree /shrub stands over timeframes that are slightly longer (e.g. 1 -2 decade:
The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverac
density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relati
to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not Iikley trigc
control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as w<
but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring histo
However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area
somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon /area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number
species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
% of Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Yellow,
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Several large patches of kudzu (Pueraria lobata) throughout the Site, as well as scattered smaller patches of multiflora
20 SF
orange,
25
2.34
13.8
rose (Rosa mult flora), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica ).
purple, and
green
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
NA
NA
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage, crossings or any
elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
= 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 associat
acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern /interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those with the potent
to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree /shrub stands over timeframes that are slightly longer (e.g. 1 -2 decade:
The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverac
density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relati
to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not Iikley trigc
control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as w<
but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring histo
However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area
somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon /area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number
species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.

McIntyre Creek
Stream Fixed- Station Photographs
Taken November 2014
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

McIntyre Creek
Stream Fixed- Station Photographs
Taken November 2014
(continued)
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

McIntyre Creek
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken November 2014
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

McIntyre Creek
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken November 2014
(continued)
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park
EEP Project Number 243
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
December 2014
Appendices

19 9 001111 :
VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9A. 2014 (Year 5) Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9B. Annual Totals and Planted Stems by Species
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
McIntyre Creek Restoration Site (EEP Proiect Number 234)
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
1
Yes
90%
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
No*
5
Yes
6
Yes
7
Yes
8
Yes
9
Yes
10
Yes
*Based on planted stems alone, plot 4 doesn't meet success criteria; however, when including naturally recruited stems of
appropriate species such as green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and box elder (Acer negundo) plot 4 was well -above 260 stems per
acre.
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
McIntyre Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 234)
Report Pre ared By
Corri Faquin
Date Prepared
11/6/2014 12:07
database name
Axiom -EEP- 2014- A- v2.3. l.mdb
database location
S: \CVS database\2014
computer name
PHILLIP -PC
file size
75567104
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Pro', planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Pro', total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems,
and all natural /volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor b Slip
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Slip
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
ALL Stems by Plot and
slip
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are
excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
243
project Name
McIntyre Creek @ Hornets Nest Park
Description
stream restoration
River Basin
Catawba
length(ft)
5178
stream-to-edge width ft
130
areas m
63120
Required Plots
NA
Sampled Plots
10
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park
EEP Project Number 243
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
December 2014
Appendices

Table 9A. 2014 (Year 5) Total Planted and Natural Recruits Stems by Plot and Species
McIntyre Creek
Current Plot Data (MY5 2014)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
E243- AXE -0001
E243- AXE -0002
E243- AXE -0003
E243- AXE -0004
E243- AXE -0005
E243- AXE -0006
E243- AXE -0007
E243- AXE -0008
E243- AXE -0009
E243- AXE -0010
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
8
5
2
2
37
20
13
11
16
12
16
7
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
4
Acer saccharinum
silver maple
Tree
2
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
3
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
3
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
13
13
15
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
Catalpa bignonioides
southern catalpa
Tree
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
Euonymus alatus
Exotic
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
5
3
3
10
7
7
20
66
89
3
3
41
130
12
4
4
8
6
6
12
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
4
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub
2
2
4
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
7
2
4
4
5
20
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
7
11
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
Morella
bayberry
shrub
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
1
Morus
mulberry
Tree
1
Morus rubra
red mulberry
Tree
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
1
1
1
2
36
3
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
2
1
1
1
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
Populus heterophylla
swamp cottonwood
Tree
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix
willow
Shrub or Tree
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
2
4
Ulmus
elm
Tree
2
2
2
Ulmus alata
1winged elm
ITree
3
3
3
Ulmus americans
jAmerican elm
ITree
1
1
2
11
11
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
18
18
50
71
71
31
17
17
72
5
5
100
10
101
118
25
25
82
71
71
159
10
10
76
8
8
31
111
111
45
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
10
10
14
r283.31 5
5
8
LL6881
7
10
2
2
8
5
5
9
6
6
9
4
4
8
4
4
9
4
4
6
3
3
6
728.4
728.4
2023
283.3
1255
2914
20 2.3
202.3
4047
404.7
404.7
4775
1012
1012
3318
283.3
283.3
6435
404.7
404.7
3076
323.7
323.7
1255
445.2
445.2
1821
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted stems excluding livestakes
P -all= Planted stems including livestakes
T = Planted stems and natural recruits
Total includes stems of natural recruits

Table 9B. Annual Total Planted and Natural Recruits Stems by Species
McIntyre Creek
Annual
Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY5 (2014)
MY4 (2013)
MY3 (2012)
MY2 (2011)
MY1 (2010)
MYO (2010)
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
2
2
145
3
3
60
3
3
55
3
3
156
3
3
58
3
3
127
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
4
4
40
16
SO
Acer saccharinum
silver maple
Tree
2
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
9
6
6
7
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
18
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
3
4
6
13
8
22
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
32
32
34
33
33
42
33
33
36
35
35
55
13
13
29
14
14
67
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
1
1
3
1
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Catalpa bignonioides
southern catalpa
Tree
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
5
Euonymus alatus
Exotic
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
25
25
393
25
25
296
25
25
397
27
27
513
27
27
278
25
25
1513
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
3
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
4
1
1
3
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
42
87
102
57
43
82
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
6
6
24
6
6
19
8
8
19
9
9
16
9
9
19
9
9
25
Morella
bayberry
shrub
1
Morella cerifera
wax myrtle
shrub
1
2
Morus
mulberry
Tree
1
Morus rubra
red mulberry
Tree
5
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
3
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
44
11
57
54
40
76
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
7
1
1
6
1
1
8
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
2
13
26
35
Populus heterophylla
swamp cottonwood
Tree
4
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
4
4
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
13
13
13
14
14
14
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Salix
willow
Shrub or Tree
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
6
2
1
Ulmus
elm
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
8
3
3
4
5
5
6
4
4
4
5
5
9
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
2
2
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
118
118
764
1241
1241
594
127
127
792
132
132
978
106
106
538
104
104
2115
10
10
10
10
10
10
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
15
15
25
19
19
25
19
19
25
18
18
27
18
18
22
17
17
34
477.5
477.5
3092
501.8
501.8
2404
514
514
3205
534.2
534.2
3958
429
4291
2177
420.91
420.91
8559
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS = Planted stems excluding livestakes
P -all= Planted stems including livestakes
T = Planted stems and natural recruits
Total includes stems of natural recruits

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross - section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Substrate Plots
Tables l0a -b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11 a -b. Monitoring Data
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

River Basin:
Catawba
Watershed:
McIntyre Creek
XS ID
XS - 1, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/27/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
97.43
3.0
97.31
4.8
96.77
6.1
96.82
6.6
97.24
7.3
97.14
8.0
95.39
8.8
94.22
10.8
93.41
12.8
92.45
15.2
91.76
16.5
90.71
18.4
90.22
19.5
90.67
22.1
92.00
23.5
92.76
24.2
92.98
25.4
95.38
26.5
95.58
28.2
96.71
30.0
97.3
31.4
97.8
34.4
97.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
96.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
76.1
Bankfull Width:
20.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
6.3
Mean Depth at BankfuB:
3.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I E

River Basin:
Bankfull Elevation:
Catawba
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
S^7"+�"ra"1P
Bankfull Width:
Watershed:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
McIntyre Creek
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
XS ID
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
XS - 2, Riffle
W / D Ratio:
1
Entrenchment Ratio:
Feature
Bank Height Ratio:
Riffle
Date:
2/27/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
96.07
25.9
97.63
Station
Elevation
28.6
98.35
30.7
99.29
0.00
99.13
37.4
99.54
5.47
98.80
9.21
98.49
10.22
98.48
10.85
97.76
11.98
97.25
12.95
96.79
13.76
94.64
14.83
94.69
16.65
94.60
18.63
94.72
19.97
94.91
Stream Type E
21.37
95.00
22.93
94.94
24.05
95.24
Catawba River Basin, McIntyre Creek, XS - 2, Riffle
ffl
102
101
----------------------------------------------------------------
100
99
Bankf ill
s
0 9$
Flood Prone Area
MY -00 6/10/10
9%
W
AMY- 0112/10/10
9 f
t MY -02 10 /10 /11
MY -03 8/1/12
95
MY -04 3/24/ 13
94
MY -05 2/27/14
0
10
20
30 40
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
97.6
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
33.6
Bankfull Width:
14.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
100.6
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
W / D Ratio:
6.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
24.8
96.07
25.9
97.63
27.3
98.04
28.6
98.35
30.7
99.29
33.5
99.61
37.4
99.54
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
97.6
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
33.6
Bankfull Width:
14.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
100.6
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
W / D Ratio:
6.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Catawba
Watershed:
McIntyre Creek
XS ID
XS - 3, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
2/27/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
107.97
3.07
108.30
4.80
108.52
6.21
108.11
7.22
107.60
9.24
105.00
10.13
104.70
11.54
104.67
12.37
104.71
13.48
104.83
14.33
104.80
15.41
105.10
16.62
105.61
17.53
106.15
19.2
107.70
20.8
107.77
23.1
107.4
24.6
107.6
26.9
107.5
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
107.2
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
20.9
Bankfull Width:
11.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
109.7
Flood Prone Width:
150.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
W / D Ratio:
6.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
13.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I E
Catawba River Basin, McIntyre Creek, XS - 3, Riffle
111
110
___________________________ _______________________________
109
w 108
107
�• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
106
MY -006/10 /2010
W105
tMY -0112/10/10
t MY -02 10/10/11
104
MY -03 8/1/12
103
MY -04 3/24/ 13
102
MY -05 2/27/14
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

IN
y
w6
a
* ' .
4
Stream Type C/E
Catawba River Basin, McIntyre Creek, XS - 4, Pool
112
111
110
109
108 � � � • BankfW]
� 107 • Flood Prone Area
O
106 MY- 006/]2/ 10
W 105 AMY- 0112/10/10
104 t MY-02 10/10/11
MY -03 8/1/12
103
MY -04 3/24/ 13
102 MY -05 2/27/14
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)
River Basin: Catawba
Watershed: McIntyre
Station E
Elevation
0.5 1
Creek
XS ID
XS - 4, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
2/27/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
IN
y
w6
a
* ' .
4
Stream Type C/E
Catawba River Basin, McIntyre Creek, XS - 4, Pool
112
111
110
109
108 � � � • BankfW]
� 107 • Flood Prone Area
O
106 MY- 006/]2/ 10
W 105 AMY- 0112/10/10
104 t MY-02 10/10/11
MY -03 8/1/12
103
MY -04 3/24/ 13
102 MY -05 2/27/14
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)
River Basin: Catawba
Watershed: McIntyre
Station E
Elevation
0.5 1
110.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankull Elevation: 109.2
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 50.1
Bankfull Width: 14.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
Flood Prone Width: NA
Max Depth at Bankfull: 5.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 3.4
W / D Ratio: NA
Entrenchment Ratio: NA
Bank Height Ratio: 1.0

Reach
Reach 1 (00 +00- 11 +50)
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Avg. Water Sorfaee Slope
11.0035
0.0042
0.0041
0.0043
0.0046
Fea[ore
Pmfi.e
32
26
27
34
34
36
Avg. R.flle Slope
0.0042
0.0047
0.0023
0.0034
0.0040
Date
2/27/14
16
t9
20
18
17
25
Av . Paul Sloe
76
76
0.0023
0.0033
0.0008
Crew
Perkinson, Jcmi an
2010
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
As -built
S-3
Year 1 Monitoring
\Survey
Year 2 Monitoring
\Survey
Year 3 Monitoring
\Survey
Year
4 Monitoring \Survey
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station
Bed Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Station
Bed ElevaRon
Station
Bed El -fie,
Station
Bed Elevation
Water ElevaRon
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
0.0
90.0
-13.1
88.0
-23.8
88.0
-19.1
88.6
10.6
89.8
90.7
-4.0
89.3
90.6
28.8
90.1
3A
89.5
-17.1
88.0
-11.7
88.9
44.5
90.2
91.0
37.4
90.2
90.8
762
91.1
41.8
90.1
5.8
89.8
6.2
90.3
86.5
91.1
91.6
87.8
91.0
91.6
91.6
88.9
87.6
91.0
41.5
90.2
44.1
90.2
102.3
89.0
91.6
95.3
89.6
91.6
115.6
89.1
103.3
89.0
82.6
91.0
90.8
90.8
125.4
88.2
91.7
122.8
88.8.
91.6
123.7
91.2
129.2
89.4
96.7
89.0
101.0
88.9
134.9
91.3
92.1
129.2
912
92.0
153.3
92.3
135.8
91.1
109.1
88.5
115.1
88.3
171.7
91.9
92.7
167.8
91.9
92.7
t 68.2
91.5
165.9
92.3
121.6
88.7
124.0
88.3
184.5
91.0
92.R
181.0
91.1
92.7
.87.5
91.1
184.9
912
121.7
88.7
134.6
91.3
197.8
91.1
92.R
193.0
91.1
92.6
195.2
92.3
199.3
91.1
131.5
91.3
1625
92.4
204.1
92.3
92.7
198.5
92.3
92.7
207.4
92.5
211.6
92.6
159.1
92.4
183.6
91.0
235.1
93.0
93 4
229.6
93.1
93.3
224.3
93.0
236.6
93.0
163.6
91.5
200.6
91.2
244.6
90.4
93.5
239.1
90.2
93.4
232.6
91.1
245.6
91.1
178.1
91.2
9.9
92.6
258.5
90.1
93.5
256.7
91.2
93.4
240.7
89.9
253.0
90.2
192.7
90.8
'_34.5
93.0
264.8
93.5
93.R
259.7
93.5
93.6
251.7
91.6
260.6
91.2
2050 .
92.6
'_46.9
90.2
269.3
91.9
93.R
292.5
92.3
93.5
254.7
93.5
266.9
93.5
230.6
93.0
258.2
90.2
284.6
92.4
93.R
301.2
90.6
93.6
260.4
92.3.
291.4
92.6
240.6
90.7
'- -64.8
93.5
296.7
92.3
93.1
318.6
90.4
93.6
283.4
922
308.8
91.2
255.5
90.8
296.4
92.2
305.5
91.0
9_,
33, .2
92.3
93.6
2973
91.2
328.6
90.5
260.4
93.5
101.9
90.7
327.4
90.4
93.R
352.5
92.2
93.6
308.1
91.5
340.0
92.6
265.0
92.1
125.2
90.2
335.0
92.3
93.R
358.7
91.0
93.6
314.1
90.3
350.9
92.5
271.5
92.1
137.2
92.5
359.5
92.0
93.8
370.6
91.4
93.6
326.8
89.3
368.3
92.0
280.4
92.9
360.9
92.4
370.6
90.9
93.8
381.9
92.7
93.6
34. .2
92.5
381.8
91.7
292.1
92.1
175.2
90.7
381.0
91.6
93.9
396.9
92.7
93.6
347.8
92.5
391.3
93.0
300.6
91.2
185.8
92.5
387.5
92.8
93.8
402.7
91.9
93.6
357.9
91.9
405.4
92,8
320.9
90.3
415.4
92.0
434.4
92.0
93.8
419.4
41.5
93.6
369.2
91.7
419.6
91.7
334.3
92.5
440.7
91.8
451.9
90.3
93 .ft
423.9
92.1
93.6
376.7
92.9
431.8
91.8:
352.8
92.4
453.1
90.3
465.6
90.6
93.8
433.5
91.4
93.6
Creek Year 5 (2014) Profile - Reach
00 +00 to 11 +50
McIntyre
99
97
95
93
91
89
87
85
0
9111 7 91
200 400 600 800
Distance feet)
BAs -built (2030) Bed tYear 1(2010) Bed - +-Year 2 (2011) Bed - Year 3 (2012) Bed -Year 4 (2013) Bed -Year 5 (2014) Bed
-Year5 (2014) Water Surface
1000
A,, bn.11
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Avg. Water Sorfaee Slope
11.0035
0.0042
0.0041
0.0043
0.0046
0.0045
R.& Length
32
26
27
34
34
36
Avg. R.flle Slope
0.0042
0.0047
0.0023
0.0034
0.0040
0.0048
Pool Length
16
t9
20
18
17
25
Av . Paul Sloe
76
76
0.0023
0.0033
0.0008
0.0003
9111 7 91
200 400 600 800
Distance feet)
BAs -built (2030) Bed tYear 1(2010) Bed - +-Year 2 (2011) Bed - Year 3 (2012) Bed -Year 4 (2013) Bed -Year 5 (2014) Bed
-Year5 (2014) Water Surface
1000

Reach
Reach 2(16+50- 27 +50)
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Avg. Water Sorfaee Slope
0.0035
0.0022
0.0020
0.0026
0.0025
Feature
Profile
32
30
25
28
38
31
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0042
0.0010
0.0010
0.0012
0.0014
Date
2/27/14
16
15
10
15
l7
20
Av . Paul Sloe
76
76
0.0000
0.0011
0.0018
Crew
Perkir - Jenri an
2010
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
As -built S-3
Year 1 Monitoring
\Survey
Year 2 Monitoring
\Survey
Year 3 Monitoring
\Survey
Year
4 Monitoring \Survey
Year
5 Monitoring \Survey
Station
Bed Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
1639.0
97.7
1660.7
98.0
1660.7
98.0
1657.2
98.0
1657.2
98.0
98.4
1659.2
98.0
98.3
1660.7
98.0
1672.6
95.9
1673.5
95.4
1666.5
95.7
1670.0
952
98 4
1670.4
95.2
98.3
1667.1
96.5
1681.9
95.4
1689.6
95.3
1683.0
95.2
1688.8
95.2
98.3
1695.5
95.3
98.3
1680.9
95.5
1690.5
95.8
1700.4
96.7
1690.0
95.5
1698.9
96.3
98.3
1701.2
95.9
98.3
1681.2
95.5
1700.6
96.8
1708.9
95.1
1696.0
96.3
1709.5
95.4
98.1
1708.4
95.1
98.2
1691.8
95.9
1708.4
95.3
1737.9
95.0
1703.1
95.4
1713.1
95.2
98.3
1733.9
95.0
98.3
1703.4
96.2
1712.0
95.8
1745.7
94.0
1714.1
95.4
1723.2
96.3
98.3
1757.4
94.9
98.3
1709.4
95.8
1720.9
96.5
1760.1
95.6
1721.9
96.2
1737.0
94.9
98.3
1763.8
98.2
98.3
1722.7
96.7
1734.4
95.2
1765.4
98.2
1732.2
95.1
1756.8
94.9
98.3
1771.0
95.5
98.3
1735.8
95.1
1743.2
94.6
1787.6
97.0
1743.5
93.9
1763.4
98.1
98 4
1784.9
95.4
98.4
1754.1
94.4
1763.9
98.2
1791.8
96.9
1749.7
94.2
1769.0
96.0
98.4
1793.5
96.2
98.3
1762.1
9b.8
1773.9
96.9
1816.4
96.1
1761.5
98.0
1775 4
96.0
98.4
1803.9
96.3
98.3
1764.9
982
1803.7
96.8
1825.5
96.9
1770.5
96.4
1780.5
96.6
98.4
1814.6
96.2
98.3
1766.3
96.9
1814.3
96.5
1837.9
97.7
1790.5
96.7
1809.0
96.9
98.5
1822.7
96.5
98.3
1789.2
96.9
1821.3
96.5
1856.1
97.3
1812.3
96.2
1826.0
97.3
98 4
1830.3
97.7
98.3
1805.7
96.9
1830.5
97.8
1870.2
95.4
1824.4
97.3
1847.2
97.1
91.4
1864.8
96.4
98.4
1815.7
96.3
1838.1
98.0
1890.0
96.1
18155.3
96.8
1862.1
96.5
98.4
1873.8
95.0
98.4
1822.0
96.7
1855.6
97.4
1899.6
97.5
IR(3.9
96.4
1870.8
94.9
984
1881.7
95.7
98.3
1829.8
97.7
1870.8
96.1
19192
97.6
1868.7
95.2
1886.8
95.8
98.4
1890.1
96.3
98.4
1856.8
97.4
1876.9
96.5
1937.6
97.6
1876.0
96.2
1897.4
97.9
985
1898.1
98.1
98.4
1870.4
96.0
1893.7
97.5
1951.4
96.9
1886.3
96.2
1914.0
97.6
98.5
1940.2
97.4
98.4
1876.9
96.4
1912.5
98.1
1964.5
96.7
1890.5
97.3
1949.9
97.1
986
1954.0
96.6
98.4
1888.1
96.9.
1935.1
97.7
1972.2
96.8
1895.3
W.1
1955.5
96.7
98.5
1970.3
96.6
98.4
1898.7
98.3
1953.4
96.9
1975.9
98.6
1917.0
97.5
1968.4
97.0
98.6
1973.9
98.7
99.0
1917.7
98.2
1957.4
96.8
1990.9
97.7
1937.0
97.4
1973.5
98.7
99.0
1989.0
97.7
99'0
1940.5
97.8
1977.0
96.9
1997.7
95.4
1942.9
97.2
1990.1
97.4
99.1
1997.6
95.7
99.0
19502
97.1
1974.6
98.7
2006.5
96.4
1960.4
96.7
McIntyre
1996.4
95.4
99.1
2017.8 96.6
16 +50 to 27 +50
98.9
Creek Year 5 (2014) Profile - Reach
104
102
a 100
0
98
r 96
94
92
1650 1850 2050 2250 2450 2650
Distance (feet)
-As -built (2010) Bed y Year 1 (2010) Bed -r Year 2 (2011) Bed - Year 3 (2012) Bed -Year 4 (2013) Bed Year 5 (2014) Bed -Year 5 (2014) Water Surface
RA 98.8 99.1 2402.595262 99.103352 2299.2 98.7 2547.9 99.0 0 : 26282 99.4 100.4 1
As -built
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Avg. Water Sorfaee Slope
0.0035
0.0022
0.0020
0.0026
0.0025
0.0021
Riffle Length
32
30
25
28
38
31
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0042
0.0010
0.0010
0.0012
0.0014
0.0005
Pool Length
16
15
10
15
l7
20
Av . Paul Sloe
76
76
0.0000
0.0011
0.0018
0.0013

Reach
Reach 3(36+00- 47 +55)
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0035
0.0020
0.0025
0.0029
0.0027
Feature
Profile
32
35
28
29
30
37
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0042
0.0027
0.0003
0.0022
0.0021
Date
2/27/14
16
12
16
16
17
17
Pool to Net S aein
76
76
0.0005
0.0018
0.0014
Crew
Perkirs J...*, an
2010
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
As -built Survey
Year 1 Monitoring
\Survey
Year 2 Monitoring
\Survey
Year 3 Monitoring
\Survey
Year
4 Mouitoring \Survey
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station
Bed Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Station
Bed ElevaRon
Station
Bed ElevaROn
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevators
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
3595.8
103.8
3600.4
102.8
3594.1
103.8
3588.8
103.5
3600.0
103.8
103.9
3596.0
103.4
103.6
3612.0
103.7
3611.1
103.4
3611.8
103.5
3604.6
103.2
3617.3
103.5
104.1
3614.7
103.2
103.7
3620.2
102.5
3615.7
1023
3616.8
102.1
3608.6
102.9
3623.4
102.1
104.0
3619.1
101.7
103.7
3629.0
102.4
3626.9
102.0
3625.8
102.0
3614.2
101.7
3630.1
101.9
104.1
3634.2
101.7
103.7
3633.6
102.8
3632.0
102.3
3638.2
1023
3622.9
101.8
3640.3
102.1
104
3643.8
1029
103.7
3650.1
102.7
3639.3
102.3
3651.1
102.4
3631.1
102.0
3647.1
102.6
104.1
3650.6
102.0
103.7
3662.4
102.5
3654.0
102.4
3657.4
102.7
3638.1
1022
3653.7
102.6
104.7
3680.0
L02.1
103.7
3674.4
102.4
3662.0
102.6
3663.9
102.0
3645.6
102.3
3664.9
101.9
104.1
3689.3
102.8
103.7
3681.7
102.8
3666.8
101.9
3672.5
101.8
3650.3
102.6
3673.7
101.5
104.1
3712.0
102.7
103.7
3695.1
103.2
3674.6
102.0
3684.6
102.8
3654.7
102.3
3674.9
101.6
104.1
3720.9
102.3
103.7
3717.0
103.1
3681.6
1026
3701.3
102.8
3662.8
lot.5
3687.9
102.6
104.1
3747.0
102.0
103.7
3730.2
103.0
3692.8
102.9
3733.0
102.8
3676.6
102.2
3706.3
102.7
104.1
3759.8
101.3
103.7
3747.3
102.4
3716.4
102.6
3745.5
102.2
3689.4
102.6
3726.2
102.6
!D .1
3768.1
102.2
103.7
3751.6
102.1
3743.5
102.8
3756.5
102.0
3700.7
102.4
3737.8
102.9
104.1
3788.0
102.9
103.7
3767.3
103.2
3749.0
102.0
3762.5
102.6
3709.4
102.4
3752.8
102.1
104.1
3810.2
102.7
103.8
3788.1
103.4
3757.9
102.0
3794.4
103.2
3719.2
102.3
3762.0
101.3
104.1
3829.0
1022
103.8
3819.3
102.9
3762.6
102.2
3796.5
103.2
3735.4
102A
3766.8
102.4
104.1
3843.3
102.3
103.8
3830.3
102.8
3770.2
102.0
3807.6
103.1
3746.3
101.3
3798.1
103.2
104.1
3855.6
101.9
103.8
3837.4
103.5
3772.2
103.0
3825.6
1025
3752.9
101.3
3819.4
102.7
104.1
3858.9
103.7
104.0
3844.1
102.6
3795.8
103.0
3835.2
102.6
3761.7
102.3
3831.2
102.7
104.1
3902.6
103.1
104.0
3855.3
102.9
3823.8
102.5
3851.0
102.3
3770.6
102.9
3840.1
102.5
104.1
3906.5
102.4
104.0
3857.4
104.1
3836.0
102.6
3855.4
103.9
3776.9
102.7
3852.0
102.5
104.1
3918.1
102.8
104.0
3882.6
103.4
3841.7
102.3
3877.3
103.0
3785.3
103.1
3857.8
102.1
104.1
3924.6
103.8
104.2
3893.1
103.4
3853.8
102.4
3884.3
103.0
3794.4
102.9
3861.0
104.0
104.2
3933.1
103.1
104.2
3911.6
102.8'
3855.4
104.0
3892.8
102.6
3804.7
10'.%
3881.7
103.3
104.3
3937.2
102.7
104.2
3921.5
104.4
3871.7
103.3
3903.4
102.5
3812.9
10'.6
3903.0
103.3
104.3
3950.2
102.7
104.2
3944.6
103.5
3890.9
102.6
3919.5
102.6
3823.7
102.4
3910.5 102.7 104.3
Creek Year 5 (2014) Profile - Reach
3954.1
103.5
104.3
McIntyre
36 +00 to 47 +55
109
108
107
^> 106
e
a 105
2 104
0
103
u 102
101
100
99
3600
3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800
Distance feet)
- A,built (2008) Bed tYear 1(2010) Bed -Year 2 (2011) Bed - Year 3 (2012) Bed -Year 4 (2013) Bed Year 5 (2014) Bed -Year 5 (2014) Water Surface
M built
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0035
0.0020
0.0025
0.0029
0.0027
0.0027
Riffle Lengtb
32
35
28
29
30
37
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0042
0.0027
0.0003
0.0022
0.0021
0.0022
Pool Length
16
12
16
16
17
17
Pool to Net S aein
76
76
0.0005
0.0018
0.0014
0.0006
3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800
Distance feet)
- A,built (2008) Bed tYear 1(2010) Bed -Year 2 (2011) Bed - Year 3 (2012) Bed -Year 4 (2013) Bed Year 5 (2014) Bed -Year 5 (2014) Water Surface

Wei hted Pebble Count
Percent Riffle:
Percent Pool
50
Percent Run:
Percent Glide
Pebble Count,
50
Material
Size Range (mm)
Total #
# #
#
# #
#
# #
#
# #
#
# #
# #
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
# #
#
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
#
McIntyre Creek
silt/clay
0 0.062
39.0
Catawba
very fine sanc
fine sand
medium sanc
coarse sand
very coarse sanc
0.062 0.13
7.0
- --
0.13 0.25
8.0
Note:
Total
0.25 0.5
2.0
Pebble Count, McIntyre Creek
100%
90%
0.5 1
7.0
1 2
4.0
very fine grave
fine grave
fine grave
medium grave
medium grave
coarse grave
coarse grave
very coarse grav
very coarse graVE
2 4
6.0
4 6
2.0
80%
6 8
6.0
70%
8 11
3.0
11 16
3.0
60%
16 22
5.0
°
50 /o
22 32
1.0
32 45
0.0
L
40%
45 64
2.0
�'
c
small cobble
medium cobblE
large cobblE
very large cobbl
64 90
1.0
90 128
0.0
c
20%
128 180
0.0
°;
a 10%
180 256
0.0
small boulder
small boulde
medium bouldei
large bouldei
very large boulde
256 362
0.0
0%
♦
+
�'
362 512
0.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) -a-Cumulative Percent • Percent Item - *-Riffle Pool -Run -Glide
512 1024
0.0
1024 2048
0.0
2048 4096
0.0
bedrock
4.0
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type
True
Weighted Count:
Total Particle Count
100
D16 I
D35 I
D50
D84
D95
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
I bedrock
100
#N /A I
#N /A 1
0.1
8
21
39%
28%
28%
1 %
0%
1 4%

Project Name: McIntire Creek Reach 3
Cross - Section: 1
Feature: Pool
Cumulative Percent
100%
2014
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt /Clay
silt /clay
0.062
36
36%
36%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
8
8%
44%
90%
fine sand
0.250
4
4%
48%
80%
medium sand
0.50
0
0%
48%
1�4 70%
coarse sand
1.00
8
8%
56%
a 60%
very coarse sand
2.0
4
4%
60%
> 50%
Gravel
very fine gavel
4.0
8
8%
68%
40%
fine gravel
5.7
4
4%
72%
30%
fine gravel
8.0
12
12%
84%
20%
medium gavel
11.3
8
8%
92%
101/1
medium gravel
16.0
0
0%
92%
0% ♦ \ \o 0
oo O• cA ♦oo
Particle Si- (mm)
course gravel
22.3
4
4%
96%
course gravel
32.0
0
0%
96%
very coarse gavel
45
0
0%
96%
--1 -2010 —MY2 -2011 —MY3 -2012 —MY4 -2013 —MY5 -2014
very coarse gavel
64
4
4%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble
128
0
0%
100%
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
large cobble
180
0
0%
100%
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
80%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
g 70%
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
a 60%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
50%
TOTAL % of whole count
100
100%
100%
40%
Summary Data
D50 0.6
D84 H
D95 20
v 30%
20%
0%
0%
obti \y5 L Oh 1 ti A y1 4 ♦y ♦b y L bh C� q0 y6 �O yb by \L tiA 4 ab
Particle Size (mm)
■MYI -2010 ■MY2 -2011 ■MY3 -2012 0 MY4 -2013 ■MY5 -2014

Project Name: McIntire Creek Reach 3
D50
0.4
Cross - Section: 2
15
Feature: Riffle
31
Cumulative Percent
100%
2014
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt /Clay
silt/clay
0.062
28
33%
33%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
8
10%
43%
90%
fine sand
0.250
4
5%
48%
80%
medium sand
0.50
4
5%
52%
° 70%
coarse sand
1.00
8
10%
62%
60%
P
very coarse sand
2.0
4
5%
67%
50
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
67%
40%
fine gravel
5.7
0
0%
67%
30
u 20%
fine gravel
8.0
4
5%
71%
10%
medium gravel
11.3
4
5%
76%
0%
oti oy ti 10 00 00
Particle Sim (mm)
medium gravel
16.0
8
10%
86%
course gravel
22.3
4
5%
90%
course gravel
32.0
4
5%
95%
very coarse gravel
45
0
0%
95%
-MY1 -2010 -MY2 -2011 -MY3 -2012 -MY4 -2013 -MY5 -2014
very coarse gravel
64
0
0%
95%
Cobble
small cobble
90
4
5%
100%
Individual Class Percent
100%
medium cobble
128
0
0%
100%
large cobble
180
0
0%
100%
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
BOUIdCY
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
90%
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
80^/
70%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
a 60%
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
50%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
40%
TOTAL % of whole count
84
100%
100%
° 30%
Rd
1
20%
4 10%
0%
Particle Size man)
■MY1 -2010 ■MY2 -2011 ■MY3 -2012 ■MY4 -2013 ■MY5 -2014
Summary Data
D50
0.4
D84
15
D95
31

Project Name: McIntire Creek Reach 1
Cross - Section: 3
Cumulative Percent
100%
90
Feature: Riffle
2014
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt /clay
0.062
24
24%
24%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
8
8%
32%
fine sand
0.250
12
12%
44%
80%
medium sand
0.50
4
4%
48%
70%
coarse sand
1.00
8
8%
56%
a 60%
very coarse sand
2.0
4
4%
60%
50
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
8
8%
68%
A 40%
fine gravel
5.7
4
4%
72%
1 30%
fine gravel
8.0
8
8%
80°
20%
medium gravel
11.3
0
0%
80%
10%
medium gravel
16.0
4
4%
84%
0%
00` oti ti \0 op oop
Particle Size (mm)
course gravel
22.3
12
12%
96%
course gravel
32.0
0
0%
96%
very coarse gravel
45
0
0%
96%
-MY1 -2010 -MY2 -2011 -MY3 -2012 -MY4 -2013 -MY5 -2014
very coarse gravel
64
4
4%
100%
4
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
Individual Class Percent
medium cobble
128
0
0%
100%
large cobble
180
0
0%
100%
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
100%
90%
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
80%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
70
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
a 60%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
50%
TOTAL % of whole count
100
100%
100%
40%
Summary Data
D50 0.6
D84 16
D95 21
d 30%
c 20%
'
10%
0%
0b`ti ,.i. 0,1,5 05 ♦ �. b �^ 3 1``j 1b "p, n, 0.5 bP p�0 �ry� 1gp yb 4"
0• 0• p
Particle Size (mm)
■MYI -2010 0 MY2 -2011 *MY3 -2012 ■MY4 -2013 ■MY5 -2014

Project Name: McIntire Creek Reach 1
D50
NA
Cross - Section: 4
0
D95
Cumulative Percent
100%
Feature: Pool
2014
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt /Clay
silt/clay
0.062
68
68%
68%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
4
4%
72%
90
fine sand
0.250
12
12%
84%
80%
4 70%
medium sand
0.50
0
0%
84%
coarse sand
1.00
4
4%
88%
w 60%
very coarse sand
2.0
4
4%
92%
50%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
8
8%
100%
40%
fine gravel
5.7
0
0%
100%
30
20%
fine gravel
8.0
0
0%
100%
10%
medium gravel
11.3
0
0%
100%
0%
OOH o �o 00 �o
Particle Size mun)
medium gravel
16.0
0
0%
100%
course gravel
22.3
0
0%
100%
course gravel
32.0
0
0%
100%
very coarse gravel
45
0
0%
100%
-MY1 -2010 -MY2 -2011 -MY3 -2012 -MY4 -2013 -MY5 -2014
very coarse gravel
64
0
0%
100%
4
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
Individual Class Percent
medium cobble
128
0
0%
100%
large cobble
180
0
0%
100%
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
100%
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
90%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
70%
70%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
i 50%
50
TOTAL % of whole count
100
100%
100%
40%
v' 30%
9 20%
C
10%
0%
90 ti` b ` %O ry5b +1, b�ti `O,LAryOD3 gb
O' O
Particle Size man)
■MYl -2010 ■MY2 -2011 GMY3 -2012 ■MY4 -2013 ■MY5 -2014
Summary Data
D50
NA
D84
0
D95
3

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
McIntyre Creek at Hornets Nest Park (EEP Project Number 243)
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
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Max
Med
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width (ft)
17.0
23.8
13.1
18.7
22.9
16.7
17.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
100
300
78
100
300
150
150
BF Mean Depth ft
2.5
2.7
1.6
2.3
2.8
1.5
2.0
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.1
3.7
2.8
3.3
4.0
2.9
3.2
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
42.1
58.6
21.3
42.0
70.0
26.4
32.9
Width/Depth Ratio
6.9
9.7
8.1
8.1
8.1
8.5
11.7
Entrenchment Ratio
4.5
17.5
5.9
5.0
16.0
8.5
9.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.3
1.9
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1
1 1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
- - --
- - --
- - --
10.1
32.1
32.8
91.7
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
0.003
0.006
0.0050
0.0110
0.0025
0.0065
0.0000
0.0012
0.0042
0.0313
Pool length ft
7.0
18.0
12.0
37.0
4.3
17.3
15.6
59.6
Pool Max depth (ft)
4.1
4.1
3.2
2.9
3.4
5.0
5.3
Pools acing (ft)
- - --
- - --
11.0
45.0
46.0
115.0
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 34 58 38 95 115 19 45 41 107
Radius of Curvature (ft) 60.3 148.1 10.3 25.6 37 70 24 49 40 246
Rc:Bankfu0 width (ft/ft) 2.6 6.3 0.8 2 2 4 1.4 2.8 2.3 14.3
Meander Wavelength ft 4.1 7.3 60 71 90 230 88 132 128 220
Meander Width ratio 1.4 2.5 4.6 5.4 5 10 1.1 2.6 2.4 6.2
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress corn etenc IbS,2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at banldull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E5-type
E5-typc
E5-type
E -typc
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.0-4.5
4.2-4.4
Bankfull Discharge cfs
180-280
Valley Length (ft)
240
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
300
5178
5178
Sinuosity
1.1 - 1.22
1.25
1.4
1.4
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0021 - 0.0027
0.0044
0.0021- 0.0025
0.0035
BF slope (0/ft)
- - - --
- - - --
--- ---
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acresl
I
-----
of Reach with Erodina Banks
- - - --
I - - - --
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
34 - 39 BEHI
Biological or Otherl
I
I - - - --
- - - --
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
McIntyre Creek at Hornets Nest Park (EEP Project Number 243)

Table Ila. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Mclntvre Creek at Hornets Nest Park (EEP Proiect Number 243)
Parameter
Cross Section 1
Cross Section 2
Cross Section 3
Cross Section 4
Pool
Riffle
Riffle
Pool
0
Med
Max
SD
Min
Dimension
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
BF Width ft
20.0
19.6
19.4
19.4
18.6
20.3
16.7
17.0
15.9
16.1
15.2
14.7
15.2
17.6
17.0
11.1
10.9
10.9
11.2
Flood rove Width ft
15.5
15.5
13.7
13.1
13.5
14.7
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
150
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BF Mean Depth ft
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.6
3.6
3.7
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.3
1.5
1.5
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.9
3.1
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
5.0
5.3
6.1
6.3
6.0
6.3
2.6
3.2
3.0
3.2
3.1
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.5
5.3
5.2
4.1
4.8
4.8
5.2
26.4
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
55.4
58.5
61.3
70.0
66.5
76.1
33.8
32.9
33.8
33.5
33.8
32.6
33.6
22.4
26.4
25.2
23.8
22.4
21.9
20.9
48.1
47.0
45.2
46.2
47.6
50.1
Width/Depth Ratio
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.5
8.6
7.5
7.7
7.1
6.5
7.5
11.7
11.4
5.2
5.3
5.5
6.0
5.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Entrenchment Ratio
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.0
8.8
9.4
9.3
9.9
10.2
8.5
8.8
13.5
13.8
13.7
13.4
13.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
d50 mm
3.1
0.4
0.3
NA
0.3
0.6
Riffle length ft
15.6
11.7
0.4
1.8
0.7
0.4
25.9
13.6
8.7
4.4
0.2
0.3
0.6
76.8
6.3
0.1
0.2
NA
NA
NA
12.1
Table llb. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
McIntyre Creek at Hornets Nest Park (EEP Prqject Number 243)
Parameter I Baseline MY -1 MY -2 MY -3 MY4 N1Y -5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Only
Min
'Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width ft
16.7
17.6
17.0
17
11.1
15.9
10.9
16.1
10.9
15.2
11.2
14.7
Flood rove Width ft
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
150
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.1
1.9
2.3
BF Max Depth ft
2.9
3.2
2.8
3.0
2.6
3.2
2.7
3.1
2.7
3.0
2.5
3.0
BF Cross Sectional Area (f Z)
26.4
32.9
25.2
33.8
23.8
33.5
22.4
33.8
21.9
32.6
20.9
33.6
Width/Depth Ratio
8.5
11.7
8.6
11.4
5.2
7.5
5.3
7.7
5.5
71
6.0
6.5
Entrenchment Ratio
8.5
9.0
8.8
8.8
9.4
13.5
9.3
13.8
9.9
13.7
10.2
13.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
I.0
Profile -Reach 1
Riffle length ft
10.1
32.1
32.8
91.7
10.9
25.9
24.5
50.5
7.4
27
21.1
76.8
15
41.2
33.8
99.3
25.7
12.1
33.8
34.4
75.9
15.1
14.6
36.3
32
91.8
20.4
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
0.0000
0.0012
0.0042
0.0313
0.0000
0.0047
0.0008
0.0296
0.0000
0.0023
0.0007
0.0126
0.0000
0.0034
0.0001
0.0221
0.01
0.0000
0.0040
0.0006
0.0201
0.0068
0.0000
0.0048
0.0008
0.0211
0.0076
Pool length ft
4.3
17.3
15.6
59.6
6.4
19.6
19.3
35.8
10.4
20.7
20.3
35.9
4.3
17.9
18.5
29.0
6.7
4.6
17.3
16.0
32.1
7.1
9.5
24.6
19.9
95.2
19.4
Pool Max depth ft
5.0
5.3
5.2
5.3
4.1
6.1
4.8
6.3
4.8
6.0
5.2
6.3
Pool spacing (ft)
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
Profile - Reach 2
Riffle length (ft)
10.1
32.1
32.8
91.7
11.9
30.1
30.1
58.2
4.7
24.7
22.4
61.2
5.9
28
19.4
102.5
25.2
9.1
37.6
32.7
81.7
22.9
7.7
31.3
31.5
65.9
17.5
Riffle slope ft/fr
0.0000
0.0012
0.0042
0.0313
0.0000
0.0100
0.0001
0.0061
0.0000
0.0014
0.0010
0.0046
0.0000
0.0012
0.0005
0.0050
0.00
0.0000
0.0014
0.0008
0.0076
0.0020
0.0000
0.0005
0.0000
0.0032
0.0009
Pool length ft
4.3
17.3
15.6
59.6
4.0
14.7
9.5
43.3
2.5
10.7
9.9
22.2
4.2
14.6
13.1
32.1
8.7
3.6
17.1
18.8
43.7
9.9
6.3
20.0
17.3
50.9
13.3
Pool Max depth ft
5.0
5.3
5.2
5.3
4.1
6.1
4.1
6.1
4.8
6.0
5.2
6.3
Pool spacing (ft)
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
Profile - Reach 3
Riffle length ft
10.1
32.1
32.8
91.7
9.7
34.6
34.7
63.7
7.5
28
27
61.1
5.5
27.3
28.6
48.4
11.7
6.6
30.2
29.4
64.4
14.2
8.6
36.8
39.7
65.3
16.1
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
0.0000
0.0012
0.0042
0.0313
0.0010
0.0027
0.0011
0.0150
0.0000
0.0007
0.0003
0.0041
0.0000
0.0022
0.0008
0.0089
0.00
0.0000
0.0021
0.0012
0.0124
0.0029
0.0000
0.0022
0.0013
0.0078
0.0027
Pool length ft
4.3
17.3
15.6
59.6
4.5
12.2
12.1
21.2
1.3
15.5
11.5
42.2
5.1
15.9
15.6
33.7
8.0
6.7
17.3
13.9
41.7
9.7
5.3
16.6
14.2
38.9
8.8
Pool Max depth (ft)
5.0
5.3
5.2
5.3
4.1
6.1
4.1
6.1
4.8
6.0
5.2
6.3
Pool spacing (ft)
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
48.0
77.0
76.0
169.0
Pattern
Channel Bettwidth ft 19 45 41 107
Radius of Curvature fr 24 49 40 246
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft 1.4 2.8 2.3 14.3
Meander Wavelength (ft) 88 132 128 220
Meander Width ratio 1.1 2.6 2.4 6.2
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
E -type
E -type
E -type
E -type
E -type
E -type
Channel Thalweg Length ft
5178
5178
5178
5178
5178
5178
Sinuosity
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft /ft)
0.0035
0.0020 - 0.0042
0.0002 - 0.0041
0.0026 - 0.0043
0.0025 - 0.0046
0.0021 - 0.0045
BF slope ft/ft
- - -
-
Ri %/RU %P %/�G % /S%
45
14
25
15
41
17
22
20
38
21
24
17
45
13
26
16
45
12
27
16
43
11
32
14
SC % /SA % /G ° /a /C%o/B ° /aB E%
dl6/d35/d5O/d84/d95
NA
0.18
0.3
7
15
NA
NA
0.2
9
25
NA
NA
0.2 9
9
24
NA
NA
0.1
8
21
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other

APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
2014 (Year 5) Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Figure 3. Annual Climatic Data vs. 30 -year Historic Data
Table 13. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment Summary
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
McInvtre Creek Restoration Site (EEP Proiect Number 243)
Date of Data
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo (if
Collection
available)
Total of 2.14 inches* of rain reported to fall over 2 days
September 23, 2010
July 12, 2010
(July 11 -12, 2010), in addition to large wrack/debris piles
1-2
and evidence of overbank flows within the adjacent
floodplain.
Total of 1.1 inches* of rain reported to fall over 2 days
September 23, 2010
August 19, 2010
(August 18 -19, 2010) after a total of 4.43 inches* of rain the
3
preceding 4 weeks, in addition to laid back vegetation and
evidence of recent standing water within the floodplain.
October 18, 2010
September 29, 2010
Overbank event likely occurred after a total of 4.04 inches*
of rain reported to fall over 6 days (September 25 -30, 2010).
October 21, 2011
August 5, 2011
Overbank event likely occurred after a total of 2.50 inches*
4
of rain reported to fall on August 5, 2011.
August 6, 2012
May 8, 2012
Overbank event likely occurred after a total of 2.77 inches*
of rain reported to fall on May 8 -9, 2012.
August 6, 2012
May 16, 2012
Overbank event likely occurred after a total of 2.71 inches*
of rain reported to fall on May 13 -16, 2012.
Debris, wrack, and laid back vegetation observed on the
February 21, 2013
January 17, 2013
floodplain after a total of 2.38 inches* of rain reported to fall
5 -6
on January 17, 2013.
November 18, 2013
April 28, 2013
Overbank event likely occurred after a total of 2.73 inches*
of rain reported to fall on April 27 -29, 2013.
November 18, 2013
May 6, 2013
Overbank event likely occurred after a total of 2.13 inches*
of rain reported to fall on May 5 -6, 2013.
Overbank event likely occurred after a total of 2.52 inches*
November 18, 2013
June 3, 2013
of rain reported to fall on June 2 -3, 2013 with an additional
--
3.10 on June 4 -13, 2013.
Overbank event likely occurred after a total of 4.23 inches*
November 18, 2013
July 4, 2013
of rain reported to fall on July 4 -11, 2013 with numerous
small rain events (0.1 -0.9 inches) in the proceeding and
following days.
Wrack and laid back vegetation observed on the floodplain
May 7, 2014
April 19, 2014
after a total of 2.80 inches* of rain reported to fall on April
--
18-19. 2014.
November 10, 2014
May 15, 2014
Overbank event likely occurred after a total of 2.11 inches*
of rain reported to fall on May 15, 2014
Wrack and laid back vegetation observed on the floodplain
November 3, 2014
August 1, 2014
after a total of 3.84 inches* of rain reported to fall July 31-
--
August 1, 2014
* Reported at KCLT Weather Station at the Charlotte Airport (Weatherunderground 2014).
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
c -4
°1 -8
-10
-12
-14
3: -16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
McIntyre Creek Gauge 1
Year 5 (2014 Data)
d d d
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
M N M LO N O (fl M O r- T ti T M L(') N M Cfl N O CO M O Cfl M O r- :!� T W LO T M LO
N N Nt - - N LO - - N M CO \ N N N M W - N M M \ N N N CD Co
Co M � d' Nt Lf) L() LO L j O O CD r- r- ti OD 000 000 m O O T O O O T T T
T T T T
Date
3
2.5
RIA
a�
t
U
c
r-
1.5.2
c�
r
.Q
U
m
L
1 a
0.5
I

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
a�
-4
U -6
-8
-10
-12
L -14
-16
?� -18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
T T T T T T T T T T T
O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N
lj LO dam' CO M M
N N N (0 N
Co Co LO LO CO CO
McIntyre Creek Gauge 2
Year 5 (2014 Data)
T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
C) O O O O O O O O O O o O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
M Co Co N N N T T T T T T T O
N M N M N \O N M
I- � 00 W m rn T O O O T
T T T T
Date
3
2.5
a�
t
U
c
c
1.5 0
r
ca
r
.Q
U
41
L
1 a
0.5
I

McIntyre Creek Gauge 3
Year 5 (2014 Data)
20
18
16
12
10
March 22
I Start of
Growing Season
6
4
2
0
-2
U -4
-6
63 days
> -10
ly
-12
....r . ........... ....
...................
.............
....... ....
-14
I
-16
I
-18
-20
-22
I
-24
-26
-30
-32
I
-34
-36
-38
-40
O O O
N N N
O O
N N
O
N
O O O
N N N
O O
N N
LO j 11 NT
N
Nt Nl-
N
It
- M
N
CO M
N
CO CO
Nt It
LO
Coo
LO LO
(0 CO
,It Nt Nt d Nt Nt Nt It It d- lzh v
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
CO M CO N N N O
N W - N M - N \O - N M
f� � CO CO 6) O O O O
Date
3
2.5
2 v,
1.5
1
0.5
a�
t
U
C
ca
a
U
m
a

Month
30th %*
70th %*
2010 **
2011 **
2012 **
2013 **
2014 **
Jan
2.79
4.76
4.88
1.36
2.29
4.28
2.9
Feb
2.27
4.28
3.79
3.44
1.30
3.46
4.01
Mar
2.84
5.28
4.37
4.52
3.89
3.44
4.48
Apr
1.85
3.57
1.44
3.32
1.67
4.56
7.39
May
2.34
4.41
3.37
4.73
5.92
3.00
4.05
June
2.02
4.16
2.89
3.10
1.02
7.31
2.85
July
2.38
4.58
2.48
3.53
3.98
7.46
4.38
Aug
2.29
4.51
4.75
5.18
3.11
1.80
3.74
Sept
2
4.68
4.18
5.55
4.82
3.06
3.99
Oct
1.77
4.52
1.13
3.04
1.21
0.48
1.35
Nov
2.3
4.01
1.38
3.34
0.65
3.63
Dec
2.09
3.81
1.74
3.41
3.84
7.14
*Charlotte Douglas International Airport 30 -year historic data (NOAH 2004)
* *Charlotte Douglas International Airport rainfall data (Weatherunderground 2014)
8
7
A
u
C
14
0
«•
M
'u
W
L
a
7
1
N
Figure 3. Annual Climatic Data vs. 30 -year Historic Data
M Q N C: 75 Z) Q- U O a)
Q Q cn O z O
2010 ** 6--12011 ** � 2012 ** � 2013 ** 2014 ** 30th %* 70th %*
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 13. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment Summary
McInytre Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 243)
* Note that gauges were installed in 2011 and no data is available for baseline, or year 1 (2012)
monitoring periods.
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season
Gauge
(Percentage)
Year 1 (2010)*
Year 2 (2011)*
Year 3 (2012)
Year 4 (2013)
Year 5 (2014)
1
No /7 day
No /8 day
Yes /23 day
No/ 16 days
(3.0%)
(3.4%)
(10.0%)
(6.8 %)
2
Yes /38 day
Yes /23 day
Yes /34 day
Yes /72 Days
(16.3%)
(10%)
(15.2%)
(30.6 %)
3
Yes /41 day
No /22 day
Yes /36 day
Yes /63 Days
(17.6%)
(9.4%)
(16.1%)
(26.8 %)
* Note that gauges were installed in 2011 and no data is available for baseline, or year 1 (2012)
monitoring periods.
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

APPENDIX F
ADDITIONAL SITE DATA
Restoration Plan Figure 3. Watershed Soils
Restoration Plan Figure 5. Watershed 1999 Aerial
Preconstruction Photographs
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

�l 1000 0 1000 Feet
Long Creek Local Watershed Source: Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Figure 3: Watershed Soils
Appling sandy loam (ApB) Urban land (Ur)
Cecil sandy clay loam (CeB, CeD) Vance sandy loam (VaB)
Cecil urban land complex (CuB) Wilkes loam (WkB, WkE)
KCIEnon (EnB, EnD) - Water (w) _<�
Helena sandy loam (HeB) /�/ Streams
ASSOCIATES OF Mecklenburg (Meb, MeD) ® Project Reach „F a
\ORTH C.AROLiNA, PA Mecklenburg urban land (MkB) project Reach Drainage
� Monacan loam (MO)

w .- r
t a <. ,•.
Long Creek Local Watershed % ►� "`
Figure 5. Watershed 1999 Aerial
Project Reach
Streams
KCI Project Reach Drainage
Watershed Area: 2.97 sq. miles
ASSOCIATES OF
FORTH CAROLINA, P�
Source: Mecklenburg County Engineering and Building Standards Department Mapping/GIS Services Division
.1 ,I
N.C: Wetlands Rcwtciradon PiYigratn
Ncnr•.Nn

McIntyre Creek
Preconstruction Photographs
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

I1\' • 2111 "9i
WATHERSHED PLANNING SUMMARY
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

LAND OWNERSHIP AND PROTECTION
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

F.11990 ID0,141
JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION 404/401 PERMITS
AND RELATED COORESPONDENCE
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices

PROJECT DEBIT LEDGER
McIntyre Creek (final) at Hornets Nest Park Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 243 December 2014
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Appendices