20070491 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_2014_20150414

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 3 (2014)
TATE FARM (RIPSHIN BRANCH)
STREAM/WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(EEP Project No. 372, Contract No. 004802)
Construction Completed December 2011
,y
it
Ama
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ekaoi ement
PROGRAM
November 2014

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 3 (2014)
TATE FARM (RIPSHIN BRANCH)
STREAM/WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
ASHE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(EEP Project No. 372, Contract No. 004802)
Construction Completed December 2011
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
November 2014
icy �enmnt
PROGRAM
i -
1•
V �
' q &l .
-
- ..
g�
l
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
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
November 2014
icy �enmnt
PROGRAM

Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... ............................... l
2.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... ............................... 3
2.1 Vegetation Assessment ......................................................................... ............................... 3
2.2 Stream Assessment ................................................................................ ............................... 3
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 -2F. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A -5B. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Stream Fixed - Station Photographs
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
APPENDIX C. VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
APPENDIX D. STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross - section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Substrate Plots
Table I Oa- IOd. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 a- I 1 d. Monitoring Data
APPENDIX E. HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 13. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as
the Site) is situated within US Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 05050001 of the
Upper New River Basin and is in a portion of NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Priority
Sub -basin 05- 07 -02. The project is located in the northwest corner of Ashe County, about 1 mile
south of the Virginia state line and 3 miles east of the Tennessee state line (Figure 1, Appendix
A). The Site is encompassed within a 61.92 -acre easement located in a tract owned by Michael
and Virginia Tate. The Site includes an unnamed tributary to Ripshin Branch (UT), Ripshin
Branch proper, associated floodplain wetlands, and additional tributaries found on the property
(Figure 2, Appendix B). 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 3 (2014) monitoring.
The project goals are as follows.
• Improve stream water quality and ecological function by excluding livestock, restoring pool and
riffle sequences, and restoring tree canopy and instream large woody debris.
• Enhance aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the stream corridor and adjacent wetlands.
• Enhance and/or restore the ecological function of riparian wetlands.
• Restore the riparian corridor (forested buffer) for watershed and wildlife benefits.
• Enhance habitat for native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and improve fishery potential.
• Increase biodiversity of the stream ecology, riparian buffers, and wetlands.
These goals will be accomplished through the implementation of the following objectives.
• Improve channel geomorphology toward reference conditions by providing watershed scaled and
Rosgen -typed channel dimension, adding floodplain benches where floodplain access is not
feasible, restoring sinuous pattern to straightened reaches where possible, and adjusting profile as
needed to restore or maintain sediment transport equilibrium.
• Restore stream -side floodprone area where appropriate (increase floodwater access to the
floodplain).
• Reduce sediment and nutrient loading by reshaping and stabilizing banks, reducing bank scour,
excluding livestock, and restoring riparian buffers.
• Enhance or restore wetland hydrology and vegetation in former pastures and filled wetlands.
After construction, five vegetation plots were established and sampled. During Year 2 (2013)
monitoring, thirteen additional vegetation plots were established and sampled. Vegetation
Success Criteria (from the approved Ripshin Branch Stream & Wetland Restoration Plan
[NCEEP 2007]) include the following.
• Survival of planted vegetation should exceed 80 percent after 5 years following planting
(minimum 260 stems /acre).
• Planted vegetation stabilizing at 20 years with distinct canopy, subcanopy, and shrub layers.
• Establishment of herbaceous cover over 75 percent of the soil surface in restored wetlands and
riparian areas.
• Plant biodiversity dominated by native species, with minimal ecological impact from invasive
species.
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina page 1

Overall, vegetation was slightly below success criteria with an average of 286 planted stems /acre
(excluding livestakes) across the Site. In addition, six of the eighteen vegetation monitoring
plots met, or exceeded success criteria of 320 stems /acre (minimum stem count after 2 years).
Vegetation plots 2 and 4 were below success criteria with 283 and 162 stems /acre, respectively.
Potential causes of the low stem counts at these plots include excessive hydrology associated
with wetland restoration and over competition by sedges and soft rush (Carex spp. and Juncus
effusus, respectively). Additional plots below success criteria can be attributed to poor planted
stem survival due to harsh, high elevation climate and poor soils. Supplemental planting
throughout these areas is recommended for the winter of 2014/2015.
In addition to low stem densities, one vegetation area of concern was noted at the beginning of
2013. An overbank event scoured the floodplain and deposited gravel and silt along both banks
at the downstream end of Ripshin Branch near Vegetation Plot 5, and a number of planted stems
were buried by debris and sediment. This area appears to have stabilized, with woody stems
reestablishing. However, it is still scoured and is characterized by poorly developed rocky soils.
A visual assessment and geomorphic survey were completed for the Site. The visual assessment
indicated that project reaches were performing within established success criteria ranges as
shown below. During a 2013 heavy, summer rain event, a boulder was dislodged in a right bank
structure in the lower portion of Ripshin Branch. The boulder has since been stabilized by dense
herbaceous vegetation and is no longer dislodged. The structure will continue to be monitored
closely but is not expected to dislodge again during normal rain conditions.
During Monitoring Years 2 and 3 (2013- 2014), approximately 25,320 linear feet of additional
stream was mapped onsite using sub -meter GPS. The locations of additional streams are
depicted on Figures 2A -2F (Appendix B).
Stream Success Criteria (from the approved Ripshin Branch Stream & Wetland Restoration Plan
[NCEEP 2007]) is as follows.
• Channel morphology retains the design stream type over the majority of the reach.
• Coarsening of riffle bed material in newly constructed reaches.
• Pool /riffle spacing should remain fairly constant.
• Maintenance of bankfull width at riffles within 10 percent of the design.
• Maintenance of bank height ratios at 1:1.
• Bank stability over 90 percent of altered channel reaches.
• Dimension and profile stability over 90 percent of altered channel reaches.
• No significant channel aggradation or degradation.
• Minimal development of instream bars.
• Biological populations (invertebrate and fish) remain constant or increase and species
composition indicates a positive trend.
Success criteria for stream restoration will be based on stream stability assessed using
measurements of stream dimension, pattern, and profile; Site photographs; visual assessments;
and vegetation sampling. Stream appear to be functioning properly, emulates design conditions,
and is trending towards success.
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina page 2

Wetland hydrology success criteria (from the approved Ripshin Branch Stream & Wetland
Restoration Plan [NCEEP 2007]) is as follows.
• Hydrologic monitoring indicates groundwater within 12 inches of the ground surface for
10 percent of the growing season
• Increasing wetland vegetation
• Development of hydric soils
• Fulfill US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) criteria for jurisdictional wetlands
Six groundwater gauges were installed at the Site in mid - October 2012; therefore, no
groundwater gauge data is available for year 1 (2012) monitoring. Five of six groundwater
gauges were saturated/inundated for well over 10 percent of the year 3 (2014) growing season.
Groundwater Gauge 4 fell just short of success, being inundated 8 percent of the growing season.
A battery failure at the beginning of the growing season resulted in a loss of data. The gauge
was replaced and is currently functioning properly, but during a subsequent visit additional data
was lost due to a failed Meazura PDA. Based on hydrology of the additional gauges, in addition
to abundant precipitation, it is likely that Gauge 4 would have met success during the 2014
growing season.
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment
and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in
tables and figures within this report's appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report
(formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly the Restoration Plan) documents
available on the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) website. All raw data
supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from NCEEP upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Five vegetation plots were established and marked during the Year 1 (2012) monitoring period,
and 13 additional plots were established and marked during the Year 2 (2013) monitoring period,
yielding a total of 18 vegetation plots on the site. Plots were established by installing 4 -foot,
metal U -bar post at the corners and a 10 -foot, 0.75 inch PVC at the origin. The plots are 10
meters square or 20 meters by 5 meters and are located randomly within the Site. These plots
were surveyed in July 2014 for the Year 3 (2014) monitoring season CVS -EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Levels 1 -2 Plot Sampling Only Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008)
(hqp:/ /cvs.bio.unc.edu /methods.htm); results are included in Appendix C. The taxonomic
standard for vegetation used for this document was Flora of the Southern and Mid - Atlantic
States (Weakley 2012).
2.2 Stream Assessment
Annual stream monitoring was conducted in May 2014. Measurements were taken using a
Topcon GTS 303 total station and Recon data collector. The raw total station file was processed
using Carlson Survey Software into a Computer Aided Design (CAD) file. Coordinates were
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina page 3

exported as a text /ASCII file to Microsoft Excel for processing and presentation of data. Pebble
counts were completed using the modified Wolman method ( Rosgen 1993).
Eight permanent cross - sections, six riffle and two pool, were established and will be used to
evaluate stream dimension; locations are depicted on Figures 2A and 2B (Appendix B). Cross -
sections are permanently monumented with 4 -foot metal U -bar 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, pebble counts were completed at cross - sections 4 and
8, and photographs will be taken at each permanent cross - section annually.
Two monitoring reaches were established (Unnamed Tributary and Ripshin Branch) and will be
used to evaluate stream pattern and longitudinal profile; locations are depicted on Figures 2A and
2B (Appendix B). Longitudinal profile measurements include average water surface slopes,
facet slopes, and pool -to -pool spacing. Seventeen permanent photo points were established
throughout the restoration reach; locations are depicted on Figures 2A and 2B (Appendix B). In
addition, visual stream morphology and stability assessments were completed in each of the two
monitoring reaches to assess the channel bed, banks, and in- stream structures.
3.0 REFERENCES
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). Unpublished. Procedural Guidance and Content
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Projects, Version 1.4, dated 11/07/11. NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Available online at
http: // portal. ncdenr .org /c /document library/get file ?p_l id= 1169848 &folderld = 2288101
&name = DLFE- 39268.ndf
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS -EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Levels 1 -2 Plot Sampling Only, Version 4.2. Available online at
http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm.
N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2007. Ripshin Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration
Plan - Ashe County, NC.
Rosgen. 1993. Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, Training Manual. River Short Course,
Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Weakley, Alan S. 2012. Flora of the Southern and Mid - Atlantic States. Available online at:
http: / /www. herbarium .unc.edu /WeakleysFIora.pdf [September 28, 2012]. University of
North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Weather Underground. 2014. Station at Jefferson, North Carolina. (online). Available:
http: / /www.wunderground. com/history /airport/KGEV /2014/ 1 / 1 /CustomHistory.html ?day
end =7 &monthend =6 &yearend =2013 &req_ city =NA &req_state= NA &req_statename =NA
[June 7, 2014]. Weather Underground.
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe 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
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina Appendices

_,�
1 rye#, cry t� l
` r o
If V (F 1 -
'
` Project Site Y �
p -
pg ,
,
`c
M1 f> W
4
KQe
a
f rv" i
LAiewnel - _ -
to, � z 5 Sh
_ 194
Directions from Raleigh:
Take 1 -40 West approx. 100 miles to US -421 North.
Travel approx. 71 miles, then take a right on US -221 North. f ycQ �.
After approx. 12 miles, turn left on NC- 194N /US -221 Bus. North.
i
Travel approx. 5 miles, then turn left on NC- 194N/NC -88W.
After 2 miles, turn right on NC -194N.
Continue on S. Big Horse Creek Road.
Turn Left on Big Windfall Road.
After approx. 5 miles, turn left onto Rip Shin Road. r-� Site is about 2.5 miles on the right. >
iTa.S w4� A•,:n
0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5
Fes,
Miles •Copyri git:© 2013 National Geographic Society i cyubed
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 215 -1693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
VICINITY MAP
TATE FARM (RIPSHIN BRANCH)
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 372
Ashe County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
Date:
December 2013
Project:
12- 004.13

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 372)
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Type
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Buffer
Totals
7308
2774
3.8
1.99
Projects Com onents
Existing Linear
Restoration/
Restoration
Project Component/
Station
Priority
Mitigation
Footage/
Restoration
Linear Footage/
Comment
Reach ID
Range
Approach
Ratio
Acreage
Equivalent
Acreage
Reach I (Ripshin Br. —
00 +00—
800
Enhancement
E II
800
1:2.5
Area 2)
08 +00
Reach 1B (Ripshin Br. —
08 +00-
350
Priority II
R
400
1:1
Area 2 )
12 +00
Reach 1C (Ripshin Br. —
12 +00-
285
Enhancement
E II
285
1:2.5
Area 2)
14 +85
Reach 2A (Ripshin Br. —
14 +85-
785
Priority II
R
815
1:1
Area 2)
23 +00
Ripshin Branch — Area 2
--
518
Preservation
P
518
1:5
Reach 3A (UT — Area 1)
00 +00-
132
Enhancement
El
124
1:1.5
01 +24
Reach 3B (UT — Area 1)
01 +24-
688
Priority I
R
788
1:1
09 +12
Area I Tributaries
2419
Enhancement
E II
2419
1:2.5
Area 1 Tributaries
889
Preservation
P
889
1:5
Area 2 Tributaries
2166
Enhancement
E II
2166
1:2.5
Area 2 Tributaries
1158
Preservation
P
1158
1:5
Area 3 Tributaries
4020
Enhancement
E II
4020
1:2.5
Area 3 Tributaries
2208
Preservation
P
2208
1:5
Area 4 Tributaries
3367
Enhancement
E II
3367
1:2.5
Area 4 Tributaries
9096
Preservation
P
9096
1:5
Wetland UT
0
R
1.5
1:1
Wetland UT
1.24
E
1.24
1:2
Wetland Ripshin Branch
I
1 0
1
1 R
1 2.30
1 1:1
Wetland Ripshin Branch
1
1 2.74
1
1 E
1 2.74
1 1:2
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits (continued)
Tate Farm (Ri shin Branch) Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 372)
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear footage)
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Buffer (square footage)
Restoration
2003
3.8
Enhancement (Level I)
124
Enhancement (Level lI)
13057
Preservation
13869
Wetland Enhancement
3.98
Creation
Totals
29053
7.78
Mitigation Units
10082 SMUs
5.79 WMUs
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 372)
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 3 years 3 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 2 year 11 months
Number of Reporting Years: 3
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan
March 2007
Final Design — Construction Plans
Land Mechanics Designs, Inc
September 2009
Construction
August 2011
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
Habitat Assessment Restoration Program
August 2011
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
Surveyor
August 2011
Containerized and B &B plantings for entire reach
Raleigh, NC 27603
December 2011
As -built Construction Plans
Seed Mix Source
December 2011
Year 1 Monitoring (2012)
October 2012
December 2012
Year 2 Monitoring (2013)
November 2013
January 2014
Year 3 Monitoring (2014)
October 2014
November 2014
Year 4 Monitoring (2015)
Grant Lewis 919 - 215 -1693
Year 5 Monitoring (2016)
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 372)
Designer
Ecologic Associates, P.C.
Greensboro, NC 27404
Mark Taylor 336 - 382 -9362
Construction Contractor
Land Mechanics Designs, Inc
Willow Spring, NC 27529
Lloyd Glover 919 - 422 -3392
Planting and Seeding Contractor
Habitat Assessment Restoration Program
Charlotte, NC 28262
Surveyor
Stewart Proctor
Raleigh, NC 27603
Herb Proctor 919 - 779 -1855
Seed Mix Source
Green Resource
Colfax, NC 27235
336- 855 -6363
Years 1 -5 Monitoring Performers
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919 - 215 -1693
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 372)
Project Information
Project Name
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch)
Project County
Ashe
Project Area (Acres)
61.92
Project Coordinates (NAD83
2007)
1,037,279.65, 1,234,847,66
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Region
Blue Ridge
Ecoregion
Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Project River Basin
Upper New
USGS 8 -digit HUC
05050001
USGS 14 -digit HUC
05050001010050
NCDWQ Subbasin
05 -07 -02
Project Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.)
2.0
Project Drainage Area
Impervious Surface
<5%
Watershed Type
Rural
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach 1
(Ripshin
Branch)
Reach 2
(UT)
Area 1
Tributaries
Area 2
Tributaries
Area 3
Tributaries
Area 4
Tributaries
Restored/Enhanced Length
(Linear Feet)
2300
912
2419
2166
4020
3367
Drainage Area (Square Miles)
2.0
0.56
NA
NA
NA
NA
NCDWQ Index Number
05 -07
NCDWQ Classification
C, NSW, Tr
Valley Type /Morphological
Description
II /BC4
Dominant Soil Series
Colvard and Toxaway
Drainage Class
Well and Poorly Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Nonhydric and Hydric
Slope
0.02
F0,02
FEMA Classification
NA
Native Vegetation Community
Montane Alluvial Forest and Swamp Forest -Bog Complex
Percent Composition of Exotic
Invasives
<5%
<5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Waters of the U.S. — Sections
404 and 401
Yes- Received Appropriate Permits
Endangered Species Act
No Effect
Historic Preservation Act
No
CZMA /CAMA
NA
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
NA
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina Appendices

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figures 2 and 2A -2F. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A -513. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Stream Fixed - Station Photographs
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina Appendices

Legend
C3 Easement Boundary
Streams
Livestock Fence
CVS Plots
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 215 -1693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
„ 41
. -.
r� k ■`
.ar
v
0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000
Feet ,
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
TATE FARM
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 372
Ashe County, North Carolina
Ion.f
i?,
Dwn. by. KRJ FIGURE
Date:
October 2014
Project: 2
12- 004.13

Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
�` •� (919) 215 -1693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
TATE FARM (UT)
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 372
Ashe County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
^ A
L)
Date:
October 2014
Project:
12- 004.13

Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, INC 27603
(919) 215 -1693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
TATE FARM (RIPSHIN BRANCH)
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 372
Ashe County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
2 B
Date:
October 2014
Project:
12- 004.13

1 Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, 27603
(919) 215 -1-1 693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
TATE FARM (AREA 1)
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 372
Ashe County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
Date:
October 2014
2C
Project:
12- 004.13

Legend
C3 Easement Boundary
Streams
CVS Plots
,. ,a► J w ;
O Rain Gauge ,. •'- . �.�: =f
Farm Plan Features"
Livestock Fence
0 Well
• i
Water Tank ` r'•�. _�, � ', f �
:
- Spring Development
i � - Y 1. � � ��,,..! • �1 f ,� A
WTI "t
y♦ *k
K
v ,
IVI
a�
it
0 125 250 500 750 1,000
Feet,
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
TATE FARM (AREA 2)
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 372
Ashe County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
Date:
October 2014
2D
Axiom Environmental
12- 004.13
218 Snow Avenue
F1
1
Raleigh, INC 27603
(919) 215 -1693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
TATE FARM (AREA 2)
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 372
Ashe County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
Date:
October 2014
2D
Project:
12- 004.13

Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
�` •� (919) 215 -1693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
TATE FARM (AREA 3)
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 372
Ashe County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
^
Date:
October 2014
LJ
E
Project:
12- 004.13

= Area 4
..I
� r
z�
E
n
I
I
Legend -
Easement Boundary , f
Streams 3:4 �.
CVS Plots
Rain Gauge : `''•,
Farm Plan Features, k�`�;'?
Livestock Fence
o] WellaC,41�L7�' tf,
s x
Water Tank r+r'�f-
A. Spring Development ��� �`'
4
0 125 250 500 750 1,000 1,250
Feet ;, =
_ Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 215 -1693
Awr VA
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
TATE FARM (AREA 4)
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 372
Ashe County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
Date:
October 2014
2F
Project:
12- 004.13

Table 5A Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Unnamed Tributary
Assessed Length 800
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel
Performing as
Total Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Ve elation
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
12
12
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
10
10
100%
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
10
10
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
10
10
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
10 10
100%
iL
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
IL Totals
0
0
100%
0 0 100
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
4
4
100%
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
8
8
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
4
4
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)
4
4
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio? 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
4
4
100

Table 5B Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Ripshin Branch
Assessed Length 1444
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Number Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel
Performing as
Total Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing as
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cat000ry
Metric
Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Ve elation
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
21
21
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
25
25
100%
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
25
25
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
25
25
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
25 25
100%
iL
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
IL Totals
0
0
100%
0 0 100
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
8
8
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
0
0
NA
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
8
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)
8
8
100
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 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage' 17.48
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
De iction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
Tan
2
0.22
1.3%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels.
0.1 acres
NA
NA
8.00
45.8%
Total
2
8.22
47.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
NA
I 0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
2
8.22
47.0%
Easement Acreage' 61.9
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
De iction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern`
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
100 SF
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
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
other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment, the
associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern /interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those with the
potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short -term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree /shrub stands over timeframes that are slightly longer te.g.
1 -2 decades). The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be mapped, if in the Judgement off the
observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by EEP such as species present,
their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practica it 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 trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of reating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the
"watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in 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 history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives
polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon /area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern
and species can be (Fisted as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.

Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch)
Stream Fixed - Station Photographs
Taken October 2014
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final)
EEP Project Number 372
Ashe County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
November 2014
Appendices

Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch)
Stream Fixed - Station Photographs
Taken October 2014
(continued)
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final)
EEP Project Number 372
Ashe County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
November 2014
Appendices

Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch)
Stream Fixed - Station Photographs
Taken October 2014
(continued)
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina Appendices

Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch)
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2014
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final)
EEP Project Number 372
Ashe County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
November 2014
Appendices

Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch)
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2014
(Continued)
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final)
EEP Project Number 372
Ashe County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
November 2014
Appendices

Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch)
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2014
(Continued)
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina Appendices

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Based on Planted Stems
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 372)
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
1
Yes
33%
2
No
3
Yes
4
No
5
Yes
6
No
7
No
8
No
9
Yes
10
No
11
Yes
12
No*
13
No
14
Yes
15
No
16
No
17
No
18
No*
*When including natural recruits such as red maple (Acer rubrum), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), and silky willow (Salix
sericea) in plot 12 and red maple (Acer rubrum), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana) in
plot 18, these plots exceed 320 stems /acre.
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 372)
Report Prepared By
Corri Faquin
Date Prepared
7/31/2014 15:22
database name
Axiom -EEP- 2014- A- v2.3. l.mdb
database location
\\ AE- SBS\ RedirectedFolders \KJernigan\Desktop
computer name
KEENAN -PC
file size
1 68812800
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 Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead
and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY ----- -- ------------------------- -----
Project Code
372
project Name
Tate Farm
Description
Stream and Wetland Restoration
River Basin
New
length(ft)
stream-to-edge width (ft)
area (s m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
18
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
EEP Project Code 372. Project Name: Tate Farm
Current Plot Data (MY3 2
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
372 -01 -0001
372 -01 -0002
372 -01 -0003
372 -01 -0004
372 -01 -0005
372 -01 -0006
372 -01 -0007
372 -01 -0008
372 -01 -0009
372 -01 -0010
372 -01 -0011
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
IT
PnoLS
P -all
IT
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
I P -all
T
Acer pensylvanicum
striped maple
Shrub Tree
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
1
Aesculus (lava
yellow buckeye
Tree
Alnus
alder
Shrub
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
4
4
4
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
2
2
2
3
3
3
Betula lenta
sweet birch
Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
29
Carya
hickory
Tree
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
11
2
2
2
Corylus americana
American hazelnut
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Crataegus
hawthorn
Tree
Crataegus phaenopyrum
Washington hawthorn
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
Fagus grandifolia
American beech
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
5
5
5
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
2
2
21
1
1
1
Ilex opaca
American holly
Tree
2
2
2
Kalmia
laurel
Kalmia latifolia
mountain laurel
Shrub Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
3
3
3
7
Malus
apple
Tree
1
1
1
Pinus strobus
eastern white pine
Tree
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
6
6
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
2
2
2
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rhododendron
rhododendron
Rhododendron maximum
great laurel
Shrub
1
1
1
4
4
4
Rhus
sumac
shrub
Salix
willow
Shrub or Tree
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
Tsuga canadensis
eastern hemlock
Tree
3
3
3
Vaccinium corymbosum
highbush blueberry
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
14
14
Viburnum dentatum
isouthern arrowwood
IShrub
31
31
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
121
121
13
71
71
7
131
131
13
41
41
4
141
141
14
21
2
2
3
3
3
21
21
2
101
101
11
41
41
4
21
21
59
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
6
6
7
2
2
2
4
4
8
485.6
485.6
526.1
283.3
283.3
283.3
526.1
526.1
526.1
161.9
161.9
161.9
566.6
566.6
566.6
80.94
80.94
80.94
121.4
121.4
121.4
80.94
80.94
80.94
404.7
404.7
445.2
161.9
161.9
161.9
849.81
849.81
2388
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P -all = Planting including livestakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 109/c T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
Fails to meet requirements by more than 109/, T includes natural recruits

Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species (cont'd)
EEP Project Code 372. Project Name: Tate Farm
!014)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
372 -01 -0012
372 -01 -0013
372 -01 -0014
372 -01 -0015
372 -01 -0016
372 -01 -0017
372 -01 -0018
MY3 (2014)
MY2 (2013)
MY1 (2012)
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acer pensylvanicum
striped maple
Shrub Tree
1
1
3
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
3
1
3
10
17
12
Aesculus flava
yellow buckeye
Tree
1
6
7
3
Alnus
alder
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
4
4
4
4
4
41
5
5
5
Aronia arbutifolia
Red Chokeberry
Shrub
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Betula lenta
sweet birch
Tree
3
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
13
13
14
14
14
12
12
12
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
30
1
1
1
1
1
33
Carya
hickory
Tree
61
6
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
61
5
5
5
51
5
5
Corylus americana
American hazelnut
Shrub
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
30
6
6
6
Crataegus
hawthorn
Tree
1
1
3
Crataegus phaenopyrum
Washington hawthorn
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
1
4
4
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fagus grandifolia
American beech
Tree
9
9
1
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
16
16
16
15
151
15
10
10
14
Ilex opaca
American holly
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
31
31
3
3
Kalmia
laurel
15
Kalmia latifolia
mountain laurel
Shrub Tree
3
3
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
3
3
11
3
3
4
3
3
16
Malus
apple
Tree
1
1
11
11
1
1
1
1
1
Pinus strobus
eastern white pine
Tree
1
2
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
21
1
1
11
15
15
15
14
14
14
141
14
14
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Rhododendron
rhododendron
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 2
2
21
21
2
9
1
1
4
Rhododendron maximum
great laurel
Shrub
2
2
41
7
7
9
7
7
7
7
7
7
Rhus
sumac
shrub
1
Salix
willow
Shrub or Tree
5
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
3
3
7
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Tsuga canadensis
eastern hemlock
Tree
1
11
3
3
5
3
3
4
1
Vaccinium corymbosum
highbush blueberry
Shrub
16
16
16
15
15
19
131
13
13
Viburnum dentatum
isouthern arrowwood
IShrub
1
7
7
7
101
101
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
41
41
17
3
3
3
22
22
24
01
01
0
41
51
5
2
21
2
0
0
27
1271
1281
210
119
121
203
1081
109
192
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
18
18
18
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.44
0.44
0.44
31
31
8
21
21
2
101
101
121
01
01
0
31
41
4
2
2
2
0
0
7
22
23
31
22
23
28
21
22
31
161.9
161.9
688
121.4
121.4
121.4
890.3
890.3
971.2
0
0
0
161.9
202.3
202.3
80.94180.94180
94
01
01
1093
285.51
287.8
472.1
267.51
2721
456.41242.81
24531
431.7
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P -all = Planting including livestakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 109/c T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
Fails to meet requirements by more than 109/, T includes natural recruits

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross - section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Substrate Plots
Tables IOa -d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11 a -d. Monitoring Data
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina Appendices

River Basin:
Elevation S
Upper New
Watershed:
1.6
Tate Farm
5/15/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
XS ID
XS - 1, Riffle
*F
Drainage
r,..
�i
Station E
Elevation S
Area (s mi):
1.6
Date:
5/15/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station E
Elevation S
Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.9
17.01 57.02 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.1
20.16 57.13 W / D Ratio: 23.1
22.51 57.14 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.1
23.91 57.35 Bank Height Ratio: 1.0
62
w 60
m
0 59
y 5g •Bankfiill
W � � � • Flood Prone Area
57 t MY -Ol 10/16/12
MY -02 06/114/13
$6 MY -03 05115114
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
62
w 60
m
0 59
y 5g •Bankfiill
W � � � • Flood Prone Area
57 t MY -Ol 10/16/12
MY -02 06/114/13
$6 MY -03 05115114
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Elevation
Upper New
64.34
3.99
64.44
Watershed:
1.6
Tate Farm
5/15/2014
Field Crew:
J
XS ID
60.82
XS - 2, Pool
61.49
11.69
61.58
Drainage
61.94
14.90
62.41
16.51
62.79
19.42
63.44
21.41
63.63
24.11
63.66
27.97
63.81
29.9
64.07
31.8
64.44
35.0
64.51
a
Stream Type
B/C
Ripshin
Branch, XS - 2, Pool
67
66
65
64
0
.�
63
ti
-- - • Bankfull
W 62
- - • Flood Prone Area
61
t MY -01 10/16/12
MY -02 06/14/13
60
MY -03 05/15/14
0
10
20
30 40
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.00
64.34
3.99
64.44
Area (s mi):
1.6
Date:
5/15/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
64.34
3.99
64.44
6.56
63.97
8.23
63.82
8.89
61.18
9.81
60.82
10.72
61.49
11.69
61.58
13.06
61.94
14.90
62.41
16.51
62.79
19.42
63.44
21.41
63.63
24.11
63.66
27.97
63.81
29.9
64.07
31.8
64.44
35.0
64.51
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
64.2
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
28.1
Bankfull Width:
25.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
-,-,,4 .
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
I . l
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:

SUMMARY DATA
Elevation
66.16
65.69
65.32
65.02
64.81
64.29
63.97
63.89
64.02
64.28
64.32
64.90
64.93
Upper New
Tate Farm
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
�4
Stream Type B/C
a
River Basin:
Watershed:
XS ID
5/15/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
0.54
5.90
8.54
11.09
12.83
14.61
16.58
19.73
21.07
23.01
25.69
27.68
28.77
30.57
65.71
66.03
66.10
66.13
66.09
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
32.2
33.3
35.8
38.6
m
0
66
m
• Bankfiill
64
� � � •Flood Prone Area
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
65.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
XS - 3, Riffle
Drama e Area (s mi):
1.6
Date:
5/15/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
65.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
33.2
Bankfull Width:
28.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
68.0
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2. 1
Mean Depth at BankfulL•
1.2
W / D Ratio:
24.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Ripshio Branch, XS - 3, Riffle
70
68
w
m
0
66
m
• Bankfiill
64
� � � •Flood Prone Area
t MY -Ol 10116/12
MY -02 06/14/13
62
MY -03 05115114
0 10 20
30 40
Station (feet)

Elevation
77.61
77.83
77.94
77.25
76.88
76.35
76.17
76.12
75.94
76.29
76.96
77.29
77.78
Upper New
Tate Farm
XS - 4, Riffle
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
77.8
24.4
22.0
79.6
>80
1.8
1.1
19.8
3.6
1.0
Stream Type
B/C
River Basin:
Watershed:
XS ID
Drainage
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
0.00
6.47
10.19
12.78
15.02
16.78
19.55
21.92
24.02
26.62
28.48
30.69
32.77
37.52
77.87
77.77
80
Ripshin Branch, XS - 4, Riffle
42.9
----------------------------------- -------------------------------
w 78 ------------------ - - - -
0 -
L� 76
74
0 10 20
Station (feet)
- - - - -
• Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
�- MY -01 10/16/12
MY -02 06/14/13
MY -03 05/15/14
30
Area (s mi):
1.6
Date:
5/15/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
_

SUMMARY DATA
Elevation
83.0
83.0
82.8
82.8
82.6
82.4
82.3
81.8
81.6
81.8
81.8
81.5
81.5
Upper New
Tate Farm
XS - 5, Riffle
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
83.0
18.3
25.3
84.5
>80
1.5
0.7
35.0
3.2
1.0
Stream Type B/C
River Basin:
Watershed:
XS ID
Drainage
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
0.0
9.3
12.6
15.2
17.0
18.3
19.5
20.6
22.6
24.6
25.6
26.7
28.1
29.5
81.57
82.00
82.28
82.49
82.96
83.11
83.04
83.30'x,
84.06
85.17
84.91
84.44
86
Ripshin Branch, XS - 5, Riffle
30.4
31.2
33.0
35.4
41.0
45.3
46.9
49.2
84
0 ----- __•__•__•_ - - -
82
W
80
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
............
- - • Bankfiill
- - • Flood Prone Area
­4--MY-01 10/16/12
MY -02 06/14/13
MY -03 05/15/14
50 60
51.6
53.5
55.7
SUMMARY DATA
Area (s mi):
1.6
Date:
5/15/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA

SUMMARY DATA
Elevation
80.3
80.2
80.0
79.4?
79.2'_'''
79.1
79.0
78.6:
78.4
78.3
78.4
78.3
78.6
Upper New
Tate Farm
XS - 6, Riffle
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
.4
it
Stream Type
B/C
"
i"
River Basin:
Watershed:
XS ID
Drainage
Perkinson, Jernigan
1.7
Station
0.0
6.8
9.2
10.3
11.0
13.4
15.0
15.5
16.1
16.9
17.6
18.3
18.7
19.1
78.73
78.82
79.17
79.47
80.03
80.35
80.66
Bank Height Ratio:
82
Unnamed Tributary, XS - 6, Riffle
20.8
23.1
24.4
26.1
E
__________________________•__•__•__ ___________________________••__
30.5
33.0
0 80
• Bankfull
W • Flood Prone Area
t MY -01 10/16/12
MY -02 06/14/13
78 MY -03 05/15/14
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
80.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
16.9
Bankfull Width:
Area (s mi):
0.6
Date:
5/15/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
80.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
16.9
Bankfull Width:
17.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
81.7
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull-
1.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
18.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Upper New
0.0
87.7
Watershed:
Tate Farm
Area (s mi):
0.6
XS ID
XS - 7, Pool
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Drainage
86.2
7.2
86.4
8.1
86.6
9.3
87.1
11.3
87.2
12.9
87.5
14.0
87.4
17.4
87.1
20.6
87.33
23.6
87.59
Stream Type
B/C
Unnamed Tributary, XS - 7, Pool
88
- - - - - - - - -- - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - -- - ---
w
0 86
d
• Bankfiill
• Flood Prone Area
t MY -01 8/18/09
MY -02 06/14/13
84
MY03 05/15/14
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
87.7
3.9
87.7
Area (s mi):
0.6
Date:
5/15/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
87.7
3.9
87.7
4.9
87.3
5.4
86.9
5.8
86.3
6.5
86.2
7.2
86.4
8.1
86.6
9.3
87.1
11.3
87.2
12.9
87.5
14.0
87.4
17.4
87.1
20.6
87.33
23.6
87.59
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
x7.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
4.9
Bankfull Width:
14.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
L 2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
-

SUMMARY DATA
Elevation
94.7
94.5
94.2
94.4
94.0
93.6
93.6
93.4
93.7
94.3
94.4
94.4
94.2
Upper New
Tate Farm
XS - 8, Riffle
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
i
�f
Stream Type B/C
Y.
_
River Basin:
Watershed:
XS ID
Drainage
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
0.0
2.4
5.3
7.5
8.1
8.4
9.4
9.9
10.6
11.4
12.4
16.2
17.3
19.0
94.61
94.62
Entrenchment Ratio:
96
Unnamed Tributary, XS - 8, Riffle
1.0
22.7
m
---------------------------------------------------------------
0 94
Is
,�
W
92
0 10
Station (feet)
• Bankfull
•Flood. Prone Area
� MY -01 10/16/12
MY -02 06/14/13
W -03 05/15/14
20
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
94.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.6
Bankfull Width:
Area (s mi):
0.6
Date: _
5/15/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
94.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.6
Bankfull Width:
5.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
95.4
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
9.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
16.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Name Tate Farm - Profile
Ripshin Branch Station 00+00 - 10+00
Profile
5/15/14
2012
Year I Monitoring \Survey
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
0.0
56.0
56.9
2.7
56.5
57.2
25.9
57.5
57.8
30.5
57.2
57.8
35.5
57.6
58.3
45.5
58.4
58.8
56.9
58.3
59.0
73.5
58.0
58.9
85.6
57.9
59.0
99.7
58.5
58.9
110.4
58.4
59.0
119.6
57.3
59.1
125.2
57.1
59.1
131.6
57.6
59.1
135.8
57.9
59.0
150.3
58.7
59.4
166.7
59.9
60.2
181.1
60.3
60.7
187.6
59.7
60.7
197.8
59.9
60.6
207.7
60.2
60.9
226.2
60.9
61.5
233.5
60.6
61.6
242.0
61.3
61.7
252.5
61.2
61.8
270.3
61.7
62.2
288.0
61.0
62.2
80
75
70
`m
v
w 65
c
0
M
v
w
60
55
50 +
0
100
2013
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
4.5
57.1
57.3
27.8
57.4
58.1
32.5
57.5
58.1
38.0
57.7
58.4
61.3
58.7
59.1
74.6
58.4
59.2
83.8
58.1
59.1
112.1
58.1
59.4
127.4
57.9
59.4
148.2
58.3
59.6
157.4
58.8
59.6
164.2
59.6
60.2
184.0
60.3
60.7
188.7
59.9
60.8
198.0
60.0
60.8
211.5
60.0
61.0
220.0
61.0
61.3
247.4
61.3
61.9
284.4
62.1
62.6
291.9
61.3
62.8
318.1
60.6
62.8
327.9
61.0
62.7
342.6
61.7
62.8
357.3
62.5
63.1
423.8
64.3
64.7
451.3
64.8
65.2
464.0
64.2
65.4
200
-+--Year 1 (2012) Bed
300
Tate Farm Year 3 (2014) Profile - Ripshin Branch 00 +00 to 10 +00
400 500 600
Distance (feet)
Year 2 (2013) Bed Year 3 (2014) Bed
700
2014
2015
2016
2015
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
-31.4
55.4 56.1
33
53
15.2
57.2 57.7
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0247
40.4
57.8 58.3
64.7
58.6 59.0
28
43
72.9
58.2 59.1
Pool to Pool Spacing
55
80.9
58.1 59.0
101.6
58.0 59.2
120.2
57.7 59.3
145.3
58.6 59.4
159.8
58.9 59.8
179.8
59.8 60.6
192.4
60.2 60.6
216.9
60.4 61.2
247.1
61.2 61.8
280.7
62.4 62.7
290.0
61.5 62.7
307.5
61.0 62.7
322.8
61.4 62.7
340.3
61.5 62.7
356.5
62.6 63.0
408.4
64.1 64.5
463.4
64.5 65.3
469.8
64.0 65.3
480.5
63.8 65.3
498.2
64.3 65.5
509.7
65.3 65.9
518.7
64.8 65.9
579. n
raj 6150
300
Tate Farm Year 3 (2014) Profile - Ripshin Branch 00 +00 to 10 +00
400 500 600
Distance (feet)
Year 2 (2013) Bed Year 3 (2014) Bed
700
--Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
800
900 1000
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0182
0.0189
0.0191
Riffle Length
35
33
53
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0247
0.0228
0.0224
Pool Length
28
28
43
Pool to Pool Spacing
55
66
88
--Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
800
900 1000

Name Tate Farm - Profile
Ripshin Branch Station 10 +00 - 15 +00
Profile
5/15/14
Station
2012
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station
2013
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station
2014
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
2015
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
2016
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
999.9
74.6
75.4
971.6
74.8
75.2
998.2
74.8
75.3
Avg. Riffle Slope
1006.2
74.7
75.4
1015.1
75.5
76.0
1004.8
74.5
75.3
1009.5
74.7
75.4
1043.2
75.9
76.4
1013.8
74.5
75.3
1012.2
75.2
75.5
1046.7
75.5
76.4
1016.2
75.3
75.8
1021.1
75.3
75.8
1051.5
75.4
76.3
1054.7
76.1
76.6
1031.3
75.4
76.0
1054.5
76.2
76.5
1066.4
76.5
76.7
1035.0
75.4
75.9
1066.4
76.5
76.7
1085.9
76.5
77.1
1046.3
75.2
76.0
1084.2
76.6
77.2
1088.5
76.1
77.0
1049.5
75.6
76.2
1087.8
76.3
77.2
1091.7
76.0
77.0
1065.4
76.5
76.8
1091.8
76.1
77.6
1096.7
77.0
77.5
1069.0
75.9
76.8
1096.4
76.9
77.6
1122.6
78.0
78.5
1079.6
75.8
76.9
1110.9
77.7
78.3
1133.1
77.3
78.6
1084.3
76.3
77.0
1129.4
77.9
78.7
1144.1
77.3
78.6
1093.0
76.3
77.1
1133.0
77.2
78.7
1164.7
77.7
78.6
1099.3
77.0
77.4
1147.3
77.3
78.7
1175.1
77.6
78.6
1119.9
77.4
78.1
1163.2
77.6
78.7
1184.3
78.4
79.0
1136.3
77.3
78.1
1178.6
77.6
78.8
1212.3
79.4
79.8
1149.4
76.9
78.1
1182.4
78.5
79.0
1221.1
79.2
79.8
1160.3
77.4
78.1
1196.6
78.8
79.2
1229.3
78.9
79.8
1167.0
77.1
78.1
1201.6
78.5
79.4
1253.4
79.4
80.0
1177.9
77.1
78.3
1206.7
79.2
79.8
1265.1
79.3
80.1
1185.0
78.3
78.8
1270.5
80.0
80.6
1269.6
79.9
80.3
1200.8
78.8
79.4
1292.0
80.8
81.1
1293.1
80.8
81.1
1215.9
79.5
79.8
1296.5
80.5
81.2
1322.0
81.7
82.2
1223.6
78.7
79.8
1301.5
80.5
81.5
1333.3
81.4
82.3
1231.2
78.8
79.8
1305.8
80.9
81.7
1349.6
81.7
82.3
1238.9
78.9
79.8
1329.1
81.9
82.4
1361.4
81.7
82.3
u -)_r
86
84
82
a
m
s 80
m
v
w 78
C
0
m
M 76
74
72
70 4-
1000
1050
1100
-$---Year 1 (2012) Bed
1150
Tate Farm Year 3 (2014) Profile - Ripshin Branch 10 +00 to 15 +00
1LUU
tYear 2 (2013) Bed
1250
Distance (feet)
1300
-A-Year 3(2014) Bed
1350 1400
--K--Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
1450
1500
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0182
0.0189
0.0191
Riffle Length
35
33
53
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0247
0.0228
0.0224
Pool Length
28
28
43
Pool to Pool Spacing
55
66
88
1350 1400
--K--Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
1450
1500

Name Tate Farm - Profile
Unnamed Tributary Station 00 +00 - 08 +00
Profile
5/15/14
2012
Year I Monitoring \Survey
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
0.0
77.7
78.3
9.1
78.2
78.5
13.5
78.0
78.5
17.5
77.9
78.5
22.1
78.4
78.6
46.8
78.7
79.0
53.7
77.9
79.0
59.5
78.1
79.0
68.7
78.9
79.3
73.4
78.7
79.3
75.9
79.6
79.8
89.0
80.1
80.1
95.2
80.0
80.2
101.7
79.2
80.3
106.9
78.8
80.3
110.6
79.1
80.3
118.9
79.4
80.3
123.5
80.2
80.5
134.6
80.8
81.0
145.9
80.9
81.4
151.9
80.0
81.4
154.8
79.7
81.3
159.8
803
81.4
162.8
81.0
81.4
172.3
81.6
81.8
185.5
81.9
82.2
195.8
82.2
82.5
100
95
m 90
n
Cu
85
c
0
M
a
W
80
75
70 4
0
2013
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
2.6
77.9
78.3
21.0
78.3
78.7
30.4
78.4
78.8
46.8
78.6
79.1
52.0
78.2
79.1
59.3
78.0
79.1
67.3
79.1
79.2
76.0
79.6
79.9
89.0
80.0
80.2
96.9
79.2
80.2
103.7
79.0
80.2
111.7
79.3
80.2
117.7
80.1
80.3
131.2
80.7
81.1
140.1
81.1
81.4
144.3
80.7
81.5
152.3
80.3
81.5
157.9
80.6
81.5
165.1
81.3
81.7
171.6
81.7
81.9
198.9
82.4
82.6
218.1
82.2
82.8
223.3
82.1
82.8
231.1
81.7
82.8
245.2
82.3
82.8
250.2
82.8
83.0
270.2
83.4
83.4
Tate Farm Year 3 (2014) Profile - Unnamed Tributary 00 +00 to 08 +00
2014
2015
2016
2015
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
1.0
77.7 79.2
22
26
13.6
78.1 79.4
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0235
31.9
78.4 79.7
45.8
78.7 80.1
24
13
50.9
78.2 80.0
Pool to Pool Spacing
44
54.4
78.2 80.0
58.5
78.1 80.1
66.4
79.1 80.2
72.0
79.2 80.2
72.8
79.1 80.4
74.4
79.5 80.7
88.2
80.0 81.1
98.1
79.3 81.1
102.5
78.9 81.1
108.0
79.5 81.1
111.6
79.3 81.1
121.1
80.2 81.3
125.4
80.2 81.4
127.9
80.6 81.7
132.2
80.6 81.8
137.2
81.1 82.3
143.0
80.6 82.3
151.7
80.3 82.3
155.0
80.3 82.3
163.2
81,2 82.3
180.6
81.5 82.8
200.2
82.3 83.5
?Or s
ui R R3 5
Tate Farm Year 3 (2014) Profile - Unnamed Tributary 00 +00 to 08 +00
100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance (feet)
tYear 1 (2012) Bed (Year 2 (2013) Bed -Year 3 (2014) Bed --K--Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
700
800
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0201
0.0205
0.0196
Riffle Length
30
22
26
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0235
0.0294
0.0251
Pool Length
21
24
13
Pool to Pool Spacing
44
48
37
100 200 300 400 500 600
Distance (feet)
tYear 1 (2012) Bed (Year 2 (2013) Bed -Year 3 (2014) Bed --K--Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
700
800

Pebble Count,
Note:
Tate Farm
New River
Cross Section 4 - Ripshin Branch
100% Pebble Count, Tate Farm
I i i I II I I I I II I I i i I IIII I i i I II I I I II I I I I I II !
90% ! ! 11
80%
I I I VIII
III
I I I VIII
III
I I
I VIII
III
I I I Ili;!
li!
I
I VIII
I I III
I I I I!'
!!
70%
I I I I
I I I III
I Ili
I
I I
I I I III
I Ili
I I
I I I
I I
I III
I Ili
I I I I I Ili
I I I I III I
I
I I
I I I Ili
I III
I I I I
I I I I III
I Ili
60%
c
50% o
i i l l
IIII
! i l l
IIII
I i
l l
IIII
! i l l III;
! i
l l IIII
i l l
III;
�
~ 40%
�
ii 30 /o o
I I! !IIII
I I! !IIII
I I!
!IIII
I !IIII
I I!
!IIII
I I!!
I! i
�
I I
I I I VIII
I Ili
! I I
I I I VIII
I Ili
!
I I
I I
I VIII
I Ili
I I I Ili
I I I VIII
I I
I I
I I I Ili
I VIII
! I I
I I I
I Ili
VIII
v 20%
i
CL 10%
! ! !
III
!III
! ! !
III
!!I
I
I!i
i III
! ! IIII
♦
♦ !
III
! III
!
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I V I I I I I I♦I J� I I I♦ I I IIII I I I IIII
0% VIII ♦I IIII IIII l l l ii,
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) —n—Cumulative Percent ♦ Percent Item —B— Riffle —Pool —x —Run Glide
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type
D16
D35
D50
D84
D95
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
6.000
42.51
80.3
180
431
0%
8%
34%
48%
10%
0%

Pebble Count,
Note:
Tate Farm
New River
Cross Section 8 - Unnamed Tributary
Pebble Count, Tate Farm
100%
I V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIII I V I I I I I V I I I I I V I I I I !
90% l l
80%
III
III
III
III
III
!!
70%
I I I I
I I I III
I Ili
i t
I I I I
IIII!
III
I I
I I I
I IIII!
I III
I I I IIII!
I I I I III
I I I IIII!
I I I I III
I I I I
I I I I III
I Ili
60%
50%
' I I I
IIII
! I I
I IIII
� I
I I
III
! I I I IIII
! I I I
IIII
! I I I
I Ili
�
~ 40%
11 1 11111
11 1
11111
11
1 1
1!
1 1 11 1 11111
11 1 11111
11 1 11111
�
ii 30 /o o
20%
V
II
! I
II (
I IIII!
1 � I IIII!
II Ir V
I I I IIII!
II (
! I I
II V
I Ili
II
U
CL 10%
I I ! ! I � I �I ! !IIII ♦ I j l IIII � I ! ! !IIII I I ! !IIII I I ! !III !
! I I II! ! ! III I I II! i i i!il! i ! VIII ! I Ilii,
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) --m—Cumulative Percent ♦ Percent Item —B— Riffle Pool —x —Run Glide
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type
D16
D35
D50
D84
D95
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
0.157
3.36
8.4
20
27
6%
26%
68%
0%
0%
0%

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Ripshin Branch)
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) - EEP Project Number 372
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
E .
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Max
Med
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width (ft)
SC % /SA % /G % /C %B %BE%
21.0
24.0
14.4
17.1
23.0
25.0
Flood prone Width ft
35
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
60
27
4.0 -12.0
95
25
80
0.5
3.0 -5.0
BF Mean Depth ft
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
BF Max Depth ft
1.9
1.7
1.9
2.7
2.9
Incision Class <1.2/1.2- 1.49/1.5- 1.99/ >2.0
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
26.0
29.0
17.6
20.7
30.0
35.0
Width/Depth Ratio
18.5
21.0
11.8
13.2
17.0
18.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.9
2.6
1.6
6.6
1.5
2.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.8
1.2
1.0
1.2
Profile
Riffle length ft
Riffle slope ft/ft
0.0040
0.0170
0.0420
0.0400
Pool length LftJ
9.0
43.0
11.0
18.7
20.0
70.0
Pool Max depth ft
3.6
0.9
2.6
3.5
3.6
Pool spacing (ft)
33.0
253.0
25.7
69.3
80.0
130.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
7
80 20
41.7 29 150
Radius of Curvature-Lf-ti
10
160 25.3
185 55 135
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft
0.4
1 1.8
5.9 3 4.2
Meander Wavelength LftJ
30
240 97.5
140 85 365
Meander Width ratio
0.8
2.1 6.8
8 4.4 6.6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lbs /fe
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport ca acit W /m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
B4 /F4 /C4
B4 /C4
B4 /C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
5.5
4.8-5
Bankfull Discharge cfs
158
Valley Length ft
- - --
- - --
Channel Thalweg Length ft
- - --
- - --
2300
SinuosL
1.2
1.1 - 1.2
1.1 - 1.3
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
0.018 -0.024
0.012 - 0.019
0.02
BF slope ft /ft
- - --
- - --
- - --
Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
- - --
- - --
- - --
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
- - --
- - --
Channel Stability or Habitat Metrici
I
Biolo ical or Other
- - --
- - --
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) - EEP Project Number 372 - Ripshin Branch
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach es Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Ri % /RU %P %G % /S%
SC % /SA % /G % /C %B %BE%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
0.2 -0.3
4.0 -12.0
0.5
3.0 -5.0
Entrainment Class <1.5/1.5- 1.99/2.0- 4.9/5.0-
Incision Class <1.2/1.2- 1.49/1.5- 1.99/ >2.0

Table 10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Unnamed Tributary)
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) - EEP Project Number 372
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
E .
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Max
Med
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width (ft)
SC % /SA % /G % /C % /B %BE%
18.0
14.4
16.0
Flood prone Width ft
28
0.2
4.8
12.8
44.2
95
16
80
50
73.0
100.0
BF Mean Depth ft
0.9
1.2
Entrainment Class <1.5/1.5- 1.99/2.0- 4.9/5.0-
0.9
BF Max Depth ft
1.4
1.7
1
1.3
1.4
Incision Class <1.2/1.2- 1.49/1.5 - 1.99/ >2.0
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
16.3
17.6
14.0
Width/Depth Ratio
21.8
11.8
18.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
6.6
1.0
2.5
Bank Height Ratio
2.3
1.2
1.0
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle slope ft /ft
0.0400
0.0170
0.0400
Pool length ft
3.6
19.9
18.7
25.0
Pool Max depth ft
1.4
2.6
1.9
Pool spacing (ft)
11.0
80.0
69.0
50.0
90.0
60.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
12
33 41.7 35 100
Radius of Curvature ft
2.5
25 25.3 40 200
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft
0.8 1.8 3.4 14
Meander Wavelength ft
50
170 97.5 120 160
Meander Width ratio
4.9 2.9 8.3 8.8
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) ]bs /ft2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
134/174
C4
134 /C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
5.1
4.5
Bankfull Discharge cfs
83.07
Valley Length ft
- - --
- - --
Channel Thalwe Len th (ft)
- - --
- - --
912
Sinuosit
1.2
1.2
1.0 -1.2
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
0.02
0.012
0.02
BF slope ft/ft
- - --
- - --
- - --
Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
- - --
- - --
- - --
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
- - --
- - --
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
I
I - - --
I ----
Biolo ical or Other
Table 10d. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) - EEP Project Number 372 - Unnamed Tributary
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach es Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Ri % /RU %P %G % /S%
SC % /SA % /G % /C % /B %BE%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
0.2
4.8
12.8
44.2
78.5
8.0
11.8
18.4
73.0
100.0
Entrainment Class <1.5/1.5- 1.99/2.0- 4.9/5.0-
Incision Class <1.2/1.2- 1.49/1.5 - 1.99/ >2.0

Table lla. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Tate Farm (Rinshin Branch) - F.F.P Proiect Numher 372 - Rinshin Branch
Table l lb. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Tate Farm (Rivshin Branch) - EEP Proiect Number 372 - Ripshin Branch
Parameter Baseline MY -1 MY -2 MY -3 MY -4
Cross Section 1
Cross Section 2
Cross Section 3
Cross Section 4
Cross Section 5
Parameter
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
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+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
BF Width ft
23.4
23.3
25.8
23.2
25.0
25.3
28.1
23.3
28.7
21.4
23.3
22.0
80
21.7
24.0
25.3
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)
80.0
80.0
80.0
BF Mean Depth ft
NA
NA
NA
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.2
80.0
80.0
80.0
1.3
0.2
0.7
1.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.6
1.3
1.1
1.9
1.9
2.0
0.1
1.3
1.3
1.2
2.1
0.3
1.1
0.9
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
BF Max Depth (ft)
19.2
1.9
1.9
1.9
7.8
18.0
24.4
24.5
3.4
3.3
3.4
26.2
26.6
33.2
6.4
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.8
Width/Depth Ratio
1.9
1.7
1.5
21.2
20.6
24.1
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
17.9
27.6
27.9
28.8
5.6
20.0
25.9
23.7
36.1
32.2
28.1
37.4
30.7
33.2
Entrenchment Ratio
23.5
21.0
24.4
2.8
1 3.4
1 3.6
19.2
18.0
18.3
3.4
3.4
3.4
Wide th Ratio
2.8
19.8
19.5
23.1
1
NA
1
21.1
1 17.7
24.8
19.5
25.9
19.8
1.O
24.5
32.0
35.0
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
3.4
3.4
3.1
NA
NA
NA
Riffle length (ft)
2.8
3.4
2.8
35.1
26.3
107.8
28.6
3.7
3.4
3.6
198.3
50.7
13
71
3.7
3.3
3.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0059
0.0247
0.0260
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0238
0.0228
0.0355
0.0065
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0363
0.01
1.0
1.0
1.0
d50 mm
Pool length (ft)
- - --
8.6
79.2
81.6
80.3
16.2
10.1
34.1
27.8
- - --
- - --
- - --
43
46
95
26
- - --
- --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
Pool Max depth (ft)
Table l lb. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Tate Farm (Rivshin Branch) - EEP Proiect Number 372 - Ripshin Branch
Parameter Baseline MY -1 MY -2 MY -3 MY -4
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
Nlax
SD
BF Width ft
21.4
23.7
22.6
28.1
3.1
23.3
23.5
23.3
24
0.4
22.0
25.5
25.6
28.7
17
Flood prone Width ft
80
80
80
BF Mean Depth ft
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.2
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.3
0.2
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.2
0.2
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.1
0.1
1.7
1.9
1.9
2.0
0.1
1.5
1.8
1.9
2.1
0.3
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
19.2
26.9
25.6
37.4
7.8
18.0
24.4
24.5
30.7
5.9
18.3
26.2
26.6
33.2
6.4
Width/Depth Ratio
19.5
21.2
20.6
24.1
2.2
17.9
23.3
22.7
30.0
5.6
20.0
25.9
23.7
36.1
7.1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.8
1 3.4
1 3.6
1 3.7
0.4
1 3.3
3.4
3.4
3.4
0.1
2.8
3.2
31
3.6
0.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.O
1.0
Profile - Downstream
Riffle length (ft)
5.3
35.1
26.3
107.8
28.6
14.2
56.5
33
198.3
50.7
13
71
52
233
63
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
0.0059
0.0247
0.0260
0.0445
0.0105
0.0145
0.0238
0.0228
0.0355
0.0065
0.0014
0.0224
0.0239
0.0363
0.01
Pool length (ft)
8.6
27.7
24.7
77.0
16.2
10.1
34.1
27.8
102.9
25.5
11
43
46
95
26
Pool Max depth (ft)
3.4
3.3
3.4
Pool spacing (11)
8.6
55.4
43.8
160.7
37.0
24.3
84.0
65.9
234.1
54.6
28
113
88
270
77
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankftill width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B/C -type
B/C -type
B/C -type
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1444
1449
453
Sinuosity
12
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0182
0.0189
0.0191
BF slope )
- - --
- --
- - --
/n
Ri %/RU %P %G % /S%
SC % /SA % /GO o /C %/B %BE%
dl6/d35/d5O/d84/d95
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
--
- - --
- --
Biological or Other,

Table Ile. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Tate Farm (Rioshin Branch) - EEP Project Number 372 - Unnamed Tributary
Parameter
Cross Section 6
Cross Section 7
Cross Section 8
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Dimension
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
BF Width ft
17.4
16.8
17.5
16.8
17.8
17.8
18.7
16.0
15.8
14.7
11.3
17.5
8.8
17.4
18.7
5.0
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)
80.0
80.0
80.0
NA
NA
NA
80.0
80.0
80.0
80
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.8
1.0
BF Max Depth ft
0.4
1.7
1.7
1.7
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.8
2.4
1.6
1.2
1.2
0.7
1.0
BF Max Depth ft
BF Cross Sectional Area (fe)
17.4
15.8
16.9
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.7
14.5
8.9
4.9
1.2
1.7
0.7
1.0
8.9
7.6
2.6
0.5
Width/Depth Ratio
17.4
17.9
18.1
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
NA
NA
NA
8.9
13.2
34.0
46.0
9.6
7.6
11.7
11.7
Entrenchment Ratio
5.8
4.6
4.8
4.6
16.9
10.1
NA
NA
NA
4.6
4.3
16.0
Bank Height Ratio
17.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
12.3
18.7
32.7
32.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
13.8
13.8
17.5
8.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
d50 (mm)
-- --
- - --
----
- - --
- - --
- - --
4.6
4.3
1.0
7.3
8.4
0.3
4.6
10.3
Table 11d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) - EEP Project Number 372 - Unnamed Tributary
Parameter Baseline MY -1 MY -2 MY -3 MY -4 MY -5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width (ft)
17.4
16.8
17.8
17.8
18.7
1.3
5.0
11.3
11.3
17.5
8.8
Flood prone Width ft
80
80
80
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.4
BF Max Depth ft
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.7
0.4
0.7
1.2
1.2
1.7
0.7
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.7
0.5
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
8.9
13.2
13.2
17.4
6.0
7.6
11.7
11.7
15.8
5.8
2.6
9.8
9.8
16.9
10.1
Width/Depth Ratio
17.4
26.1
26.1
34.8
12.3
18.7
32.7
32.7
46.8
19.9
10.0
13.8
13.8
17.5
8.1
Entrenchment Ratio
4.6
4.3
4.5
4.5
4.8
0.3
4.6
10.3
10.3
16.0
8.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile - Upstream
Riffle length ft
3.9
29.7
27.3
65
17.9
8.79
26.5
22.4
53
14.8
3
26
23
66
17
Riffle slope (ft /ft)
0.0064
0.0235
0.0233
0.0436
0.0108
0.0038
0.0305
0.0294
0.0639
0.0154
0.0000
0.0251
0.0230
0.0627
0.02
Pool length ft
7.1
20.8
19.0
43.2
10.8
7.4
22.7
23.7
39.9
9.8
3.0
13.0
11.0
33.0
7.0
Pool Max depth (ft)
2.4
1.6
1.2
Pool spacing (ft)
7.1
43.6
39.3
103.9
28.7
12.9
42.7
47.9
85.2
18.3
8.0
37.0
35.0
78.0
20.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B/C -type
B/C -type
B/C -type
Channel Thalweg Length ft
799
803
816
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0201
0.0205
0.0196
BF slope t
- - --
- --
- - --
Ri %0 /R V %OP %OG % /S %0
SC % /SA % /G % /C %/B %BE%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
19
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
- - --
- - --
----
Biological or Other

APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 13. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 372)
Date of Data
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo (if
Collection
available)
Approximately 3.9 inches of rain documented* at a nearby
June 7, 2013
January 17, 2013
rain station over a four day period from January 14 -17, 2013.
--
Wrack and sediment observe on top of banks after
April 28, 2013
January 30, 2013
approximately 4.2 inches of rain was documented* at a
1 -3
nearby rain station on January 30, 2013.
Approximately 4.34 inches of rain documented over three
June 12, 2013
May 7, 2013
days at the onsite rain gauge.
- --
Wrack observed in the floodplain after approximately 5.92
June 12, 2013
May 24, 2013
inches of rain was documented over eight days at the onsite
4
rain gauge.
August 13, 2013
July 4, 2013
Approximately 4.13 inches of rain documented over two
days at the onsite rain gauge.
Wrack and laid back vegetation observed in the flood plain
August 13, 2013
August 10, 2013
after approximately 3.52 inches of rain was documented at
5
the onsite rain gauge.
October 7, 2014
September 2 -8, 2014
Wrack observed in floodplain after rainfall totaling 4.37
6
inches documented at the onsite rain gauge.
*Jefferson Weather Station (Weatherunderground 2013)
Bankfull Photo 2:
Unnamed Tributary
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 13. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment Summary
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Proiect Number 372)
* Groundwater Gauges were installed in October 2012; therefore, groundwater monitoring was initiated during the
Year 2 (2013) monitoring year.
* *Gauge 4 malfunctioned at beginning of 2014 growing season resulting in loss of data. A battery failure at the
beginning of the growing season resulted in a loss of data. The gauge was replaced and is currently functioning
properly, but during a subsequent visit additional data was lost due to a failed Meazura PDA. Based on hydrology
of the additional gauges, in addition to abundant precipitation, it is likely that Gauge 4 would have met success for
year 3 (2014).
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina Appendices
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season
Gauge
(Percentage)
Year 1 (2012)*
Year 2 (2013)
Year 3 (2014)
Year 4 (2015)
Year 5 (2016)
1
--
130 Days
34 Days
(81 %)
(21 %)
2
160 Days
160 Days
(100 %)
(100 %)
3
160 Days
160 Days
(100 %)
(100 %)
4
152 Days
14 Days **
(95 %)
ON
5
160 Days
47 Days
(100 %)
(29 %)
6
160 Days
46 Days
(100 %)
(26 %)
* Groundwater Gauges were installed in October 2012; therefore, groundwater monitoring was initiated during the
Year 2 (2013) monitoring year.
* *Gauge 4 malfunctioned at beginning of 2014 growing season resulting in loss of data. A battery failure at the
beginning of the growing season resulted in a loss of data. The gauge was replaced and is currently functioning
properly, but during a subsequent visit additional data was lost due to a failed Meazura PDA. Based on hydrology
of the additional gauges, in addition to abundant precipitation, it is likely that Gauge 4 would have met success for
year 3 (2014).
Tate Farm (Ripshin Branch) (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 372 November 2014
Ashe County, North Carolina Appendices

Tate Farm Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 3 (2014 Data)
12
—
10
8
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season
6
May
1
Oct
7
4
�-
2
_ 0
+–
2
a, -4
>
v -6
J
L p
++ -8
1
LA
ro
3 -10
v
IV
NO
0 14
34 Da
vs
21
Days
16
-18
-20
22
I
-24
-26
I
-28
I
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
A
W
(n
v
(n
N
V7
N
(n
N
41
A
M
M
(n
V
N
V
V
V V
N W
00
00
N
00
N
(o
N
tD
W
tD
(D
(D
N
00
\
F\-�
N
I\-�
00
N
(n
\
W
\
I-a
O)
W O
a)
\
W
O
V
\
N
O
I--
-I
NJ
A
\
N
\
W
\
N
\
\
\
N
\
F-
\
F-
\
F.
I--
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Date
2.5
2.0
2
c
3
0
1.5 E
m
c
s
1.0
0.5
s l

Tate Farm Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 3 (2014 Data)
12
10
End
Growing
Season
8
Begin
Growing
Season
Oct
7
6
May
1
4
2
0
,_—, -2
-4
3 -6
L p
V -8
m
=i�
160
Days
3
° -14
C7
-16
-18
-20
I
22
-24
I
-26
-28
-30
-32
�-
-34
-36
-38
Hf
-
L
0
A
\
Ul
\
(l
\
Ul
\
Ul
\
T
\
Ol
\
Ol
\
T
\
J
\
V
\
V
\
V V
\ \
00
\
00
\
00
\
00
\
\
\
\
\
O
O
W
O
V
I--'
N
00
Oo
A
\
00
N
t
N
\
W
\
0)
N W
W O
U.)
N
O
N
V
W
N
\
O0
\ N
-ph
N
N
N
A
N
N
N
F"
A
N
A
\
\ \
N
\
\
\
N
\
\
\
\
\
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Date
2.5
2.0
c
C
3
0
1.5 E
Q
w
_
cr
1.0
0.5
We

Tate Farm Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 3 (2014 Data)
12
10
-
8
Begin
Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
6
May 1
Oct
7
4
�
2
0
-2
AA
N
> -4
J
W -6
L
°J -81+
M
3 -10
160 Days
3 -12
-14
IL^
V
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
—
A
\
In
\
In
\
Ln
\
Ln
\
61
\
61
\
Ol
\
Ol
\
V
\
V
\
V
\
V V
\ \
Co
\
Oo
\
Oo
\
Co
\
l0
\
1.0
\
1.0
\
l0
\
N
0
N
0
W
\
V
I--`
\
N
\
N
\
A
I--`
F-+
\
N
\
N
l0
N W
\ \
N
\
N
\
N
\
W
\
\
N
\
\
\
\
\
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Date
2.5
2.0
c
3
0
1.5 E
M
C
M
1.0
0.5
0.0

Tate Farm Groundwater Gauge 4
Year 3 (2014 Data)
12
10
8
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
6
May
1
Oct
7
4
2
_ 0
-2
-4
a, -6
J
V -8
3 -10
Gauge /Data
Logger
Malfunction
0 -14
14 Days
-16
-18
-20
22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
A
\
Ln In
\ \
(n
\
V1 Cn
\ \
Ql
\
M
\
01
\
'I J J
\ \ \
V V
\ \
00 00
\ \
00
\
00
\
lD lD
\ \
\
\
O
O
W
N A
00
F"
00
N
In
M
N W
W O
Ql h
W
N
O
N
W F-�
'1
N
A
\
F-'
\
CO
N
A N
N
N A
N
N
N
A A N
N N
A N
N
N
4-1 \
A N
\
N
\
N
\
N
\
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Date
2.5
2.0
C
c
7
0
1.5 Q
c
or
1.0
0.5
0.0

Tate Farm Groundwater Gauge 5
Year 3 (2014 Data)
12
10
Begin
Growing
Season
8
May
1
End
Growing
Season
6
Oct
7
4
2
A
�-
0
2
CU 4
CU -6
J
L p
i, -8
447
�o
3 -10
v
-14
Days
25
Da
vs
c�
16
-18
-20
22
I
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
A
\
V7
\
V7
\
Ln
\
-n
\
M
\
M
\
M
\
T
\
V
\
V
\
V
\
V V
\ \
00
\
00
\
00
\
00
\
lD
\
lD
\
lD
\
lD
\
0
0
W
V
N
N
00
A
N
N
N
N
lD
N W
41
N
N
N
W
N
N
N
\
\
O
\
A
N
00
\
N
CO
V7
\
\
0�
M
W O
\
W
O
V
\
O
V
CO
N
A
N
N
N
A
N
N
N
A
A
N
N N
A
N
N
N
A
N
N
N
N
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Date
2.5
2.0
c
C
7
0
1.5 E
a
m
C
M
cc
1.0
0.5
0.0

Tate Farm Groundwater Gauge 6
Year 3 (2014 Data)
12
10
8
Begin
Growing
Season
End
Growing
Season
6
May
1
Oct
7
4
2
�-
_ 0
�-
-2
a, -4
01 -6
J
L p
-8
3 -10
42
Days
25 Days
v
3 -12
-14
c7
-16
-18
-20
22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
A
W
Ul
v
(n
(P
N
-n
a)
a)
a)
al
V
N
V
V
J J
N W
00
00
00
N
00
N
lD
W
lD
lD
N
lD
N
I--
I--
I\-�
N
A
I\-�
F\-�
N
l\D
F\-�
aa)
F-a
N
\
\
00
\
N
00
(n
\
\
0)
W O
\
W
O
V
\
O
-I
A
f-'
W
N
A
N
N
N
A
N
N
N
A
A
N
N N
A
N
N
N
A
N
N
N
N
N
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Date
2.5
2.0
c
c
3
0
1.5 a
m
c
s
1.0
0.5
O