20090056 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20151118

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 4 (2015)
GREENBRIER CREEK STREAM/WETLAND/BUFFER RESTORATION SITE
ALAMANCE AND CHATHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
(DMS Project No. 671, Contract No. 004801)
Construction Completed January 2011
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Raleigh, North Carolina
October 2015

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 4 (2015)
GREENBRIER CREEK STREAM/WETLAND/BUFFER RESTORATION SITE
ALAMANCE AND CHATHAM COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA
(DMS Project No. 671, Contract No. 004801)
Construction Completed January 2011
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
October 2015

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....
2.0 METHODOLOGY ..................
2.1 Vegetation Assessment ........
2.2 Stream Assessment ..............
3.0 REFERENCES ........................
Table of Contents
Appendices
1
2
3
3
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
APPENDIX B. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figures 2A -2B. Current Conditions Plan View
Site Fixed -Station Photos
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs
Tables 5a -5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
APPENDIX C. VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Planted Stems by Plot and Species
APPENDIX D. STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross-section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Substrate Plots
Table 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
APPENDIX F. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING
DMS Warranty Letter
Nursery Plant List -Supplemental Planting
Contractor Completion Notification
APPENDIX G. NUTRIENT OFFSET INFORMATION
June 12, 2007 DMS Nutrient Offset Meeting Summary Letter
NCDWQ Email Response
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site (Site) is situated within the United States Geological Society
(USGS) hydrologic unit 03030003 and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Priority
Sub -basin 03-06-12. The Site is located approximately 8 miles north of Siler City at the crossing of
Staley -Snow Camp/Pleasant Hill Church Road over Greenbrier Creek. The Site is encompassed within a
50.48 acre easement located in three parcels, individually owned by Jerrold Murchison (32.94 acres),
Charles Cheek (0.52 acres), and Larry Matthews (17.02 acres). Primary land uses were active row crop
production on the Murchison parcel and active pasture on the Matthews/Cheek parcels. Project streams,
Greenbrier Creek and an Unnamed Tributary (UT) to Greenbrier Creek, became impaired from poor land
management, stream dredging, upstream disturbances, and human impacts. This report (compiled based
on North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services' (NCDMS)'s Procedural Guidance and Content
Requirements for DMS Monitoring Reports Version 1.4 dated 11/7/11) summarizes data for Year 4
(2015) annual monitoring.
The project goals are to:
• Improve water quality by reducing nutrient loading from a livestock operation in a water supply
watershed.
• Reduce the high level of sediment loading to the stream from steep, eroding banks.
• Improve both aquatic and terrestrial riparian buffer habitat.
These goals will be accomplished through the implementation of the following objectives:
• Preservation and protection of important wetlands and stream channel reaches upstream of the
Matthews property.
• Improvement of water quality (reduction of nutrient and sediment inputs) by creating a vegetated
riparian buffer filter strip between the stream and livestock operations currently on the property.
• Reduction of high sediment loads in the stream through stabilization of eroding channel banks.
• Improvement of deteriorated aquatic habitat by reduction of nutrient and sediment loads in the
streams, providing more variable stream channel geometry and creating more opportunities for
carbon inputs from trees in the restored buffer zone.
• Improvement of terrestrial habitat through restoration of diverse native woody vegetation in the
riparian buffer zone and control of invasive Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).
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 499 planted stems per acre (excluding
livestakes) surviving in year 4 (2015). In addition, each individual plot met success criteria based on
planted stems with the exception of plots 5 and 7, which were 3 stems and 1 stem shy of success with 202
planted stems per acre and 283 planted stems per acre, respectively. However, when including naturally
recruited stems of black walnut (Juglans nigra) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) both plots 5 and
7 met success criteria.
Plot 5 is adjacent to the unnamed tributary, which is characterized by dense fescue that may have
outcompeted some of the planted bare root seedlings shortly after construction. Plot 7 is characterized by
a dense herbaceous layer as well as several mature trees that may have contributed to planted stem
mortality in this area. Supplemental planting at the Site occurred on February 13 and 14, 2012, in
response to the contractor's vegetation warranty assessment (Appendix F). During this effort, 1952 bare
root and 1 -gallon trees were planted at the Site. Supplemental planting appears to have resulted in
vegetative success across the majority of the Site.
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina page 1

Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and Japanese privet (Ligustrum japonicum) were observed scattered
throughout the site; however, these dense areas were treated several times over the course of the 2015
monitoring period. Invasive treatments appear successful, with just several small privet populations
remaining onsite (Figure 2A, Appendix B). In addition, scattered stems of Bradford pear (Pyrus
calleryana) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) are present in minimal numbers within the Site.
Herbaceous species including Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum) and fescue (Festuca sp.) are
found across the entire Site. Microstegium is found in portions of the Site that are covered by mature
canopy along the upstream portion of the unnamed tributary, downstream portions of Greenbrier Creek,
and throughout the preservation reach. Fescue is found in open areas previously maintained as pasture.
With the exception of the impounded and previously impounded areas, vegetation within the preservation
reach is well-established with scattered occurrences of invasive species. Three small but dense
populations of Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) were observed on the eastern edge of the
preservation reach (Figure 213, Appendix B). Additionally, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and microstegium (Microstegium vimineum) were observed scattered
throughout the reach.
A visual assessment and geomorphic survey were completed for the Site, and indicated that the project
reaches were performing within established success criteria ranges as shown below. Due to contracting
issues, no baseline data was collected for this project. Although there are no baseline cross-sections to
compare with Year 4 (2015) measurements, the Year 1 (2012) cross-sections should serve as an adequate
baseline. No significant bank erosion was recorded. In addition, no significant aggradation or
degradation of the bed was noted.
A total of six bankfull events have occurred within three different monitoring years.
Stream Success Criteria (from approved Restoration Plan 2008):
• Success is defined as the documentation of no substantial aggradation or degradation of the
channel or banks.
• Downcutting, deposition, bank erosion, and an increase in sands or finer substrate material must
be documented for assessment by the regulatory agencies.
• Comparison of existing condition BEHI values with BEHI values computed after vegetation is
established will indicate bank stabilization trajectories.
• A minimum of two bankfull events must occur in separate years within the five-year monitoring.
Beaver have been an ongoing issue within the Site and are being closely monitored and trapped when
necessary. Two dams were observed on restoration reaches during year 4 (2015) monitoring activities,
one in the vicinity of cross section 8 and one near the downstream -most easement crossing. (Dams 1 and
2, Figure 2A, Appendix B). Currently, one large, well-established impoundment is located on the
preservation reach consisting of three major beaver dams (Dams 3, 4, and 5, Figure 2B, Appendix B).
This impoundment is characterized by standing water and a lack of living woody stems. Several smaller
dams were removed during summer 2015, however few woody stems are surviving in the previously
impounded footprint. It does not appear that natural recruits are becoming established in these areas at
this time. The currently impounded and previously impounded areas are depicted on the Current
Conditions Plan View Map (Figure 213, Appendix B).
Fencing along the downstream ford has been heavily damaged by debris during high flow events.
Additionally, a small section of fencing has failed in the ford on the unnamed tributary, and some signs of
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina page 2

livestock activity within the easement at the upstream portion of this tributary were observed (Figure 2A,
Appendix B).
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 DMSs website. All raw data
supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from DMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Twelve vegetation plots were established and marked after construction with four -foot metal U -bar post
demarking the corners with a ten foot, three-quarter inch PVC at the origin. The plots are 10 meters
square and are located randomly within the Site. These plots were surveyed in early July for the Year 4
(2015) monitoring season using the CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al.
2008)(http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm); results are included in Appendix C. The taxonomic standard
for vegetation used for this document was Flora of the Southern and Mid -Atlantic States (Weakley 2012).
2.2 Stream Assessment
Annual stream monitoring was conducted in late March 2015. Fourteen permanent cross-sections, eight
riffle and six pool, were established and will be used to evaluate stream dimension; locations are depicted
on Figure 2A (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, bankf ill, breaks in slope, edge of water,
and thalweg. Data will be used to calculate width -depth ratios, entrenchment ratios, and bank height
ratios for each cross-section. In addition, photographs will be taken and pebble counts will be conducted
at each permanent cross-section location annually.
Two monitoring reaches were established (the unnamed tributary and Greenbrier Creek) and will be used
to evaluate longitudinal profile; locations are depicted on Figure 2A (Appendix B). Longitudinal profile
measurements will include average water surface slopes and facet slopes and pool -to -pool spacing.
Measurements of channel pattern (belt -width, meander length, and radius of curvature) was proposed for
Year 1 (2012); however, the design channel was developed at a sinuosity of 1.0-1.1, resulting in no
measurable meander bends, belt widths, or radius of curvature. Two crest gauges were installed onsite;
one on the unnamed tributary and one on Greenbrier Creek, upstream of the confluence. These will be
used to document bankfull events throughout the monitoring period. Additionally, thirty-one permanent
photo points were established throughout the restoration reach (14 cross-sections, 12 vegetation plots, and
5 fixed station photos). Photographs are included in the Appendices.
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina page 3

3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.2. (online). Available: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm.
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. 2012. Station at Mount Vernon Springs, Siler City, North Carolina. (online).
Available:
www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KNCSILER5 [February 15,
2012]. Weather Underground.
Weather Underground. 2014. Station KNCCHAPE13, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. (online). Available:
www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KNCCHAPE13 [September
19, 2014]. Weather Underground.
Weather Underground. 2015. Station KNCCHAPEI3, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. (online). Available:
www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KNCCHAPE13 [September
23, 2015]. Weather Underground.
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina page 4

APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Table 1. Project Restoration Components
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

j From Raleigh:
Follow US 64 to Siler City.
Turn right (north) onto US 421.
Travel approximately 3 miles to Piney Grove Church Road.
Exit and turn right northwest on Piney Grove Church Road.
Travel approximately 4.5 miles to the intersection with Staley
l 'C
Snow Camp Road.
;Y� �•` _��� -RAI: '/'Rl�: i!„J
-� Turn right (northeast) and travel approximately 2 miles to the
bridge over Greenbrier Creek.
k.
u _
- o
,� IY
� �', JET I r ry � �, ��„t+p'r - li '. `•� .�_, _ _ .
ti
-^111
Project Area _
.. -z I —l'3;- '� •�,!” ''p+g F.J 4 `�- —_�,: �' a cftk IU!
AL
7 r ti.•fa
L���'
I
421 _
m Q S
64
1-
t' �- ��. 0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Ave
Raleigh, NC 27603
[Axiom Emdnarunamaa, inc.
SITE LOCATION MAP
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
GREENBRIER SITE
Date
DMS PROJECT NUMBER 671
Sept. 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Project:
12-004.09

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Greenbrier Creek Stream Restoration Site (DMS Project Number 671)
Greenbrier Creek (final)
DMS Project Number 671
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
October 2015
Appendices
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian
Wetland
Type Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration
Buffer
Restoration Equivalent
Totals 2974
891
--
1.4 WMU
330,164
Projects Components
Project Component/
Reach ID
Station
Range
Existing Linear
Footage/
Acreage
Priority
Approach
Restoration/
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Linear Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Comment
Greenbrier Mainstem
Upstream of Bridge
659
PIII
R
670
1:1.5
Greenbrier Mainstem
Downstream of Bridge
1966
PIII
R
1945
1:1.5
UT Upstream of Culvert
1180
PIII
R
1129
1:1.5
UT Downstream of
Culvert
749
PIII
R
717
1:1.5
Greenbrier Mainstem
4455
Preservation
RE
4455
5:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear footage)
Riparian
Wetland (acres)
Buffer (square footage)
Restoration
--
330,164
Enhancement (Level
1)
4461
--
--
Preservation
4455
6.93
Totals
1 8916
1
6.93 1Mitigation
Units
1 3865 SMUs
1
1.4 WMU I
--
Greenbrier Creek (final)
DMS Project Number 671
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
October 2015
Appendices

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site (DMS Project Number 671)
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 4 year 8 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 4 year 8 months
Number of Reporting Years: 4
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan
October 2008
Final Design — Construction Plans
Kevin Nunnery 919-518-0311
April 28, 2010
Construction
Contractor
January 25, 2011
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
Stephen James 919-921-1116
February 1, 2011
Permanent seed mix applied to enitre project area
February 1, 2011
Containerized and bare root plantings for entire reach
Rodney Montgomery
February 8, 2011
As -built construction drawings
April 2011
Supplemental Planting of bare root and 1 gallon trees
Raleigh, NC 27613
February 14, 2012
Year 1 Monitoring (2012)
September 2012
February 2013
Year 2 Monitoring (2013)
July 2013
September 2013
Year 3 Monitoring (2014)
September 2014
October 2014
Year 4 Monitoring (2015)
September 2015
October 2015
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site (DMS Project Number 671)
Designer
Biohabitats, Inc.
8218 Creedmoor Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27613
Kevin Nunnery 919-518-0311
Construction, Planting, and Seeding
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
Contractor
Mount Airy, NC
Stephen James 919-921-1116
Seed Mix Source
Green Source
Colfax, NC
Rodney Montgomery
As -Built Construction Drawings
Biohabitats, Inc.
8218 Creedmoor Road, Suite 200
Raleigh, NC 27613
Kevin Nunnery 919-518-0311
Years 1-5 Monitoring Performers
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site (DMS Proiect Number 671)
Project Information
Project Name
Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site
Project County
Alamance and Chatham
Project Area (Acres)
50.48
Project Coordinates (Lat/Long — NAD83)
-79.48 89 50N, 35.84 01 17E
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS 8 -digit HUC
03030003
USGS 14 -digit HUC
03030003070010
NCDWQ Subbasin
03-06-12
Project Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.)
5.01
Project Drainage Area Impervious Surface
<5%
Watershed Type
Rural
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4
Restored/Enhanced Length (Linear Feet)
670 1945 1129 717
Drainage Area (Square Miles)
5.0 5.0 0.3 0.3
NCDWQ Index Number
17-43-5
NCDWQ Classification
WS -III
Valley Type/Morphological Description
VIII/C4
Dominant Soil Series
Chewacla
Drainage Class
Somewhat poorly drained
Soil Hydric Status
Nonhydric, may contain hydric Wehadkee
inclusions
Slope
0.0017 0.0099
FEMA Classification
AE floodplain AE floodplain
Native Vegetation Community
Hardwoods Hardwoods
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasives
1 —20 —20
Regulatory
Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Waters of the U.S. —Sections 404 and 401
Yes -Received Appropriate Permits
Endangered Species Act
No
Historic Preservation Act
No
CZMA/CAMA
No
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figures 2A -2B. Current Conditions Plan View
Site Fixed -Station Photographs
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs
Tables 5a -5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

4 i it Wr a L I
1 d �
`3f
�s
y
yt� � �'I�ll •'!�i' Thr.
ri
* L # 4
X.
2 ,� is
1
3��
Dam 2
y.
RRRRlRIrl�rAt t
00l00tottoo•, foist
{
Legend
C3Easement Boundary
^M^- Stream
In -Stream Structures
Stream Monitoring Reach
Cross-sections
Beaver Dams
Vegetation Monitoring Plots
Dense Privet
0 Crest Gauges
Fixed Station Photo Points
Easement Crossings
Fence Compromised at Crossing
Allowing Livestock Access
i
a
Fence Compromised at Crossing
Ok Due to High Flow Event
^� �A il
7.
5
H
44`" .
ti
12`
Aerial Photography Source: CGIA 2014 Leaf -Off
` Orthoimagery (provided by NC One Map)
0 125 250 500 750 1,000
Feet
Dwn. by.
KRJ/CLF
FIGURE
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
Axiom Environmental
Date:
Oct. 2015
218 snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
GREENBRIER CREEK STREAM RESTORATION SITE
DMS PROJECT NUMBER 671
2A
[phone]
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Project:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
12-004.09

Dwn. by.
KRJ/CLF
FIGURE
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
Axiom Environmental
Date:
218 Snow Avenue
GREENBRIER CREEK STREAM RESTORATION SITE
Raleigh, NC 27603
DMS PROJECT NUMBER 671
Oct. 2015
[phone]
Project
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
12-004.09

Photo
Point 1
Greenbrier Creek
Site Fixed -Station Photographs
Taken July 2015
(except Photo Point 1 taken September 2015)
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

Greenbrier Creek
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2015
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

Greenbrier Creek
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2015
(continued)
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

Table 5a Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Greenbrier
Assessed Length 2235
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-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
__Footage
as Intended
Ve etationVe
etation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
23
23
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
24
24
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
100
100
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
100
100
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
100
100
100%
2. Bank
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. 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%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
0
0
°
0/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
0
0
0%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
0%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
0%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
0
0
0%

Table 5b Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Greenbrier UT1
Assessed Length 867
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-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
__Footage
as Intended
Ve etationVe
etation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
35
35
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
36
36
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
100
100
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
100
100
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
100
100
100%
2. Bank
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. 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%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
1
1
o
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
0
0
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
0
0
100%

Greenbrier
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage16.5
Easement Acreage` 50.48
% Of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Planted
Ve etation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acrea a
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of planted woody and herbaceous material on stream banks
0.1 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
4. Invasive Areas of Concern`
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on visual observations and MY4 stem
1000 SF
11
0.86
1.7%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
0.1 acres
N/A
0
0.00
1 0.0%
count criteria.
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Encroachment
none
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Totall
0
1 0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage` 50.48
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 (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the
integration of risk factors by DMS such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the
projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the
potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in 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 listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the
narrative section of the executive summary.
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Tan and Pink
4. Invasive Areas of Concern`
Chinese privet and Tree of Heaven
1000 SF
11
0.86
1.7%
Polygons
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Encroachment
none
N/A
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 (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the
integration of risk factors by DMS such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the
projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the
potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in 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 listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the
narrative section of the executive summary.

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Based on Planted Stems
Greenbrier Creek Restoration Site (DMS Proiect Number 671)
Vegetation Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
1 * Yes
83%
2* Yes
3* Yes
4* Yes
5* No**
6 Yes
7* No**
8 Yes
9* Yes
10 Yes
l l * Yes
12* Yes
*These vegetation plots (Plots 1-5, 7, 9, and 11-12) are located entirely within riparian buffer credit areas and will be used to
document stream mitigation as well as riparian buffer success. Remaining vegetation plots (Plots 6, 8, and 10) are located
partially within the riparian buffer credit areas.
**Plots 5 and 7 don't make success criteria based on planted stems alone; however, when including naturally recruited stems of
black walnut (Juglans nigra) and black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), both plots 5 and 7 met success criteria.
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Greenbrier Creek Restoration Site (DMS Project Number 671)
Report Prepared By
Corri Faquin
Date Prepared
7/7/2015 14:53
database name
Axiom-DMS-2015-A-v2.3.l.mdb
database location
SXVS database\2015
computer name
PHILLIP-PC
file size
49610752
Metadataproject(s)
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
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 bSpp
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
671
project Name
Greenbrier Stream
Sampled Plots
12
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
DMS Project Code 671. Project Name: Greenbriar Stream
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 excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MY4 2015)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
671-01-0001
PnoLS P -all T
671-01-0002
PnoLS P -all T
671-01-0003
671-01-0004
671-01-0005
671-01-0006
671-01-0007
671-01-0008
PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T Pnol-S P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
1
1
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
8
4
4
5
12
12
13
5
5
5
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
1
1
2
1
3
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1
1
2
Pyrus calleryana
Callery pear
Exotic
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
2
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
2
2
2
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
11
11
1
21
21
2
21
2
2
31
31
3
1 1
3
31
3
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACREL485.61
12
51
12 20
1
0.02
51 81
485.61 809.41404.71404.71
10
61
10
1
0.02
61
15
81
6071
15
15
17
10
101 10
51
5 9
9
91 14
71
7 10
13
13 13
1 1 1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
31 31 41 41 41 41 41 41 71 61 61 91 31 31 41 51 5 5
6071 6071 6881 404.71 404.71 404.71 202.31 202.31 364.21 364.21 364.21 566.61 283.31 283.31 404.71 526.11 526.1 526.1
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species (continued)
DMS Project Code 671. Project Name: Greenbriar Stream
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 excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MY4 2015)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
671-01-0009
PnoLS P -all T
671-01-0010
PnoLS P -all T
671-01-0011
PnoLS P -all T
671-01-0012
PnoLS P -all T
MY4 (2015)
Pnol-S P -all T
MY3 (2014)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (2013)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1 (2012)
PnoLS P -all T
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
17
17
17
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
1
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
2
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
2
2
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
5
5
5
11
11
11
10
10
10
12
12
12
721
72
78
76
76
86
74
74
74
65
65
68
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
15
24
32
36
30
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
1
6
6
15
9
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
10
10
10
10
10
9
9
9
8
8
8
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
5
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Pyrus calleryana
Callery pear
Exotic
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
11
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
4
3
3
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
1
11
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
15
15
15
14
14
14
131
131
13
121
12
12
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
101
51
404.7
10 25
1
0.02
51 61
404.7 1012
17
51
688
17 19
1
0.02
51 61
688 768.9
19
51
768.9
191 20
1
0.02
51 6
768.9 809.4
211
51
849.8
211 22
1
0.02
51 61
849.8 890.3
1481
161
499.1
148 194
12
0.30
161 211
499.1 654.2
153
171
516
1531 209
12
0.30
171 211
516 704.8
1511
171
509.2
151 210
12
0.30
171 241
509.2 708.2
138
161
465.4
138 183
12
0.30
161 21
465.4 617.1
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes 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
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS -1, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
3/26/2015
L lPerkinson,
Field Crew:
Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
98.26
6.1
96.89
9.2
96.02
11.3
95.24
12.4
95.01
13.4
94.53
15.0
93.86
16.3
93.79
17.3
93.59
18.3
93.71
19.1
93.61
20.3
93.75
21.0
94.53
21.7
94.60
22.3
95.30
24.3
96.09
27.6
96.49
30.8
96.39
33.9
96.75
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
95.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
20.1
Bankfull Width:
14.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type E

River Basin:
Elevation
Cape Fear
100.94
3.92
100.26
Watershed:
100.21
Greenbrier Creek
100.20
9.96
igan
XS ID
99.48
XS - 2, Riffle
98.77
14.29
98.89
Feature
98.79
Riffle
98.79
19.04
98.72
Date:
98.99
3/26/2015
99.17
23.12
99.38
Field Crew:
100.09
Perkinson, Jern
100.38
31.3
100.53
32.8
100.48
;?..
Stream Type E
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 2, Riffle
102
--------------------------------------------------------------
101
2 100
_ _ _ _ Bankfull
--- _ Flood Prone Area
W
MY -01 9/12/12
99
MY -02 5/ 16/13
MY -03 3/5/14
MY -04 3/26/15
98
0
10
20 30
40
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.00
100.94
3.92
100.26
7.07
100.21
8.37
100.20
9.96
igan
Station
Elevation
0.00
100.94
3.92
100.26
7.07
100.21
8.37
100.20
9.96
99.75
11.34
99.48
12.83
98.77
14.29
98.89
16.00
98.79
17.63
98.79
19.04
98.72
20.11
98.99
21.].5
99.17
23.12
99.38
24.83
100.09
28.2
100.38
31.3
100.53
32.8
100.48
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
100.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
13.4
Bankfull Width:
15.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
101.3
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
17.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Fear
Cape
Greenbrier Creek
1.
\r
XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
3/26/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
11.87
99.16
12.87
98.54
t
4
f.
15.03
97.87
15.96
97.98
17.26
98.05
18.44
98.25
19.35
98.62
20.17
99.15
20.79
99.59
22.61
100.14
25.03
100.83
26.42
101.23
27.49
101.38
29.27
101.09
32.38
100.99
Stream Type E
Cape Fear River Basin,
Greenbrier Creek, XS - 3, Pool
102
101
E
100
0
Bankfall
99 -
- - - - Flood Prone Area
ti
(zl
MY -01 9/ 12/2012
MY -02 5/ 16/13
98
MY -03 3/5/14
MY -04 3/26/15
97
0 10
20 30
40
Station (feet)
Station
Fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
3/26/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
100.99
3.92
101.14
7.01
100.72
9.26
99.79
10.91
99.36
11.87
99.16
12.87
98.54
13.95
98.08
15.03
97.87
15.96
97.98
17.26
98.05
18.44
98.25
19.35
98.62
20.17
99.15
20.79
99.59
22.61
100.14
25.03
100.83
26.42
101.23
27.49
101.38
29.27
101.09
32.38
100.99
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
100.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
26.6
Bankfull Width:
17.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Fear
Cape
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
4�
Feature
Pool
Date:
3/26/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
12.17
104.43
13.33
104.24
13.92
103.80
14.74
103.44
15.54
103.29
16.41
103.30
17.32
103.35
17.95
103.45
18.97
103.98
19.39
104.08
20.31
104.31
yi
104.49
23.42
104.88
25.19
105.38
Aj
105.53
33.19
105.48
Stream Type
C/E
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 4, Pool
107
106
0 105
- - - - Bankfall
777
- - - - Flood Prone Area
W
MY -01 9/12/12
104
MY -02 5/ 16/13
MY -03 3/5/14
MY -04 3/26/15
103
0
10
20
30
40
Station (feet)
Station
Fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS - 4, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
3/26/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
105.94
4.33
105.58
6.00
105.42
8.24
105.16
10.97
104.55
12.17
104.43
13.33
104.24
13.92
103.80
14.74
103.44
15.54
103.29
16.41
103.30
17.32
103.35
17.95
103.45
18.97
103.98
19.39
104.08
20.31
104.31
20.86
104.49
23.42
104.88
25.19
105.38
27.19
105.53
33.19
105.48
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
105.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
19.6
Bankfull Width:
19.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

��� F i d
NIt`i axil"dr,
f <
l
}lj� '�•i? I II � n�r
far eY
Stream Type E
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 5, Riffle
106
--------------------------------------------------------------
105
d
5
0 104
tl ---- Bankfull
ti
W ----Flood Prone Area MY-019/12/12
103
MY-02 5/16/13
MY-03 3/5/14
MY-04 3/26/15
102
jj
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
River Basin: Cape Fear
Watershed: Greenbrier Creek
XS ID XS - 5, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Station
Elevation
0.00
104.18
5.48
103.82
7.91
Date:
3/26/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
��� F i d
NIt`i axil"dr,
f <
l
}lj� '�•i? I II � n�r
far eY
Stream Type E
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 5, Riffle
106
--------------------------------------------------------------
105
d
5
0 104
tl ---- Bankfull
ti
W ----Flood Prone Area MY-019/12/12
103
MY-02 5/16/13
MY-03 3/5/14
MY-04 3/26/15
102
jj
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
River Basin: Cape Fear
Watershed: Greenbrier Creek
XS ID XS - 5, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Station
Elevation
0.00
104.18
5.48
103.82
7.91
104.01
9.68
103.75
10.85
103.50
12.09
103.20
13.15
103.17
14.03
102.97
14.81
102.72
15.68
102.62
16.85
102.73
17.77
102.70
18.54
102.88
19.70
103.15
21.04
103.35
22.26
103.31
23.39
103.70
24.55
103.86
26.11
104.01
27.67
104.31
29.03
104.56
30.57
104.66
32.79
104.82
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
104.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
12.2
Bankfull Width:
17.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
105.3
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
25.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

f
i
i
r
--
Stream Type E
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 6, Riffle
103
--------------------------------------------------------------
102
d
0 101
--
� -- Bankfull
ti ---
_Flood Prone Area
W
MY -01 9/12/12
100
MY -02 5/16/13
MY -03 3/5/14
MY -04 3/26/15
99
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
River Basin: Cape Fear
Watershed: Greenbrier Creek
XS ID XS - 6, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Station
Elevation
0.00
101.73
5.93
101.64
9.49
Date:
3/26/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
f
i
i
r
--
Stream Type E
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS - 6, Riffle
103
--------------------------------------------------------------
102
d
0 101
--
� -- Bankfull
ti ---
_Flood Prone Area
W
MY -01 9/12/12
100
MY -02 5/16/13
MY -03 3/5/14
MY -04 3/26/15
99
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
River Basin: Cape Fear
Watershed: Greenbrier Creek
XS ID XS - 6, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Station
Elevation
0.00
101.73
5.93
101.64
9.49
101.34
11.11
101.14
12.24
100.64
13.66
100.61
14.12
100.50
14.74
100.18
15.59
99.96
17.09
99.93
18.12
99.93
19.34
100.09
20.56
100.60
22.29
100.99
23.62
101.37
26.4
101.39
28.9
101.49
30.6
101.75
32.8
101.58
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
101.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
11.4
Bankfull Width:
14.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
102.8
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
17.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS - 7, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
3/26/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.50
103.02
6.61
102.41
11.46
100.88
16.18
99.35
19.01
98.34
22.95
98.67
26.63
98.50
29.67
98.33
31.74
98.68
33.04
99.19
34.88
100.50
36.54
100.90
41.01
102.17
45.50
102.49
49.08
102.60
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
101.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
70.2
Bankfull Width:
31.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
105.3
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
W / D Ratio:
13.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type IF I E

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS - 8, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
3/26/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
102.65
5.31
102.56
9.82
101.01
13.37
100.35
15.00
98.94
17.62
98.55
22.22
98.24
26.47
98.39
30.89
98.35
33.10
98.41
35.85
99.54
37.96
100.31
41.69
101.62
45.61
102.78
49.10
102.77
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
102.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
103.8
Bankfull Width:
38.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I GE

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS - 9, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
3/26/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
102.22
7.39
101.87
13.79
99.60
15.26
99.14
17.05
98.94
18.91
98.17
21.91
98.05
25.69
97.77
28.50
98.48
30.75
97.72
33.13
97.35
34.67
97.65
36.19
97.94
37.85
99.19
39.48
99.69
41.78
100.28
44.11
101.18
47.04
102.48
52.16
102.98
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfufl Elevation:
100.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
60.4
Bankfull Width:
31.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
103.7
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfufl:
3.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
W / D Ratio:
16.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.4
Stream Type I E

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS -10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
3/26/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
101.84
4.37
101.88
8.29
100.86
10.91
99.90
13.32
98.99
15.56
98.07
18.59
97.27
21.07
96.21
24.29
96.10
26.55
96.06
29.98
95.97
32.45
96.35
34.48
97.58
36.25
98.03
37.49
98.58
39.19
100.19
41.37
100.37
43.27
100.82
45.59
101.69
52.38
104.18
100
SUMMARY DATA
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS -10, Pool
Bankfull Elevation:
101.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
112.6
Bankfull Width:
36.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
5.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
3.1
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I C/E
Cape Fear River Basin, Greenbrier Creek, XS -10, Pool
105
104
103
102
= -
101
100
- - - - Bankfull
99
----Flood Prone Area
�
ti
MY -01 9/12/12
W 98
MY -02 5/16/13
97
MY -03 3/5/14
96
MY -04 3/26/15
95
0
10 20 30 40
50 60
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS -11, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
3/26/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
102.20
8.14
102.57
11.85
101.57
15.63
100.10
17.41
99.58
20.23
96.57
24.20
95.28
26.15
95.19
28.76
96.02
30.38
96.42
33.28
96.89
34.75
96.98
36.25
98.10
37.59
98.46
39.89
99.30
41.52
99.44
43.42
99.94
44.64
100.26
47.54
101.23
50.65
101.79
52.73
101.81
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
99.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
64.0
Bankfull Width:
25.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
104.2
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
4.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.5
W / D Ratio:
9.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.5
Stream Type E

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS -12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
3/26/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
100.16
5.45
99.83
10.42
99.15
13.53
98.20
14.81
97.97
15.96
97.51
17.29
97.03
20.05
96.91
22.19
96.86
22.81
96.81
24.16
96.68
26.07
96.60
27.99
96.60
29.32
96.77
30.71
96.98
32.74
97.06
34.94
97.74
36.84
98.09
38.14
98.66
43.85
100.04
47.29
100.17
49.76
100.21
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
99.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
76.2
Bankfull Width:
39.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
103.2
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
2.0
W / D Ratio:
20.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type E

River Basin:
Fear
Cape
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS -13, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
3/26/2015
Field Crew:
7
19.66
95.68
22.90
95.38
24.84
95.61
26.85
96.05
28.91
96.41
31.19
96.67
32.96
98.09
36.20
98.37
Y
yn
43.10
99.21
45.88
99.58
50.19
N ;
A, , ..
Stream Type C/E
Cape Fear River Basin,
Greenbrier Creek, XS -13, Pool
101
100
99 -----------
--------------------------------
--------
5
0 98
---- Bankfull
- - - - Flood Prone Area.
ti
W 97
MY -01 9/12/12
MY -02 5/16/13
96
MY -03 3/5/14
MY -04 3/26/15
95
0 10
20
30 40
50 60
Station (feet)
Station
Fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS -13, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
3/26/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
99.97
5.43
100.12
8.91
99.94
12.94
98.57
16.88
96.39
19.66
95.68
22.90
95.38
24.84
95.61
26.85
96.05
28.91
96.41
31.19
96.67
32.96
98.09
36.20
98.37
40.85
98.44
43.10
99.21
45.88
99.58
50.19
100.10
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
56.1
Bankfull Width:
30.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
Greenbrier Creek
XS ID
XS -14, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
3/26/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
98.89
5.45
98.16
7.74
97.49
10.42
97.25
12.85
97.08
14.40
96.75
15.45
96.62
16.38
96.26
17.03
96.04
19.86
95.88
26.89
95.99
31.92
95.93
34.93
95.99
37.47
96.21
39.43
96.45
41.46
97.09
43.50
98.19
46.73
99.19
51.71
99.36
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
56.8
Bankfull Width:
37.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
100.1
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
W / D Ratio:
24.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type E

Name Greenbrier - Year 4 (2015) Profile
Main Reach (00+00 - 10+00)
Profile
3/26/15
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
Station
2015
Year 4 Monitoring Survey
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
0.0
95.3
96.7
2.0
94.9
97.7
12.0
95.2
95.9
2.8
95.5
95.9
29.2
96.0
96.7
33.8
95.6
97.7
22.8
95.3
95.9
26.8
96.0
96.3
39.5
95.5
96.7
67.7
95.6
97.7
41.4
95.9
96.2
46.1
94.3
96.4
57.2
93.6
96.7
81.4
94.2
97.7
55.2
94.9
96.2
63.5
94.2
96.4
70.6
94.1
96.7
144.4
94.5
97.7
88.6
94.6
96.2
75.3
95.0
96.4
81.8
95.2
96.7
171.8
94.1
97.7
99.1
95.2
96.3
105.5
95.0
96.3
113.4
95.4
96.7
191.1
94.7
97.7
154.1
94.6
96.3
117.9
94.5
96.4
133.5
95.0
96.7
224.3
93.8
97.7
163.2
94.3
96.3
176.5
94.3
96.3
158.1
94.3
96.7
262.0
94.8
97.6
213.5
94.1
96.3
206.7
93.8
96.3
185.3
94.5
96.7
274.0
94.9
97.7
250.8
94.6
96.3
251.2
94.8
96.3
220.9
93.9
96.7
295.6
95.9
97.7
297.6
94.3
96.3
286.2
94.0
96.4
252.8
94.8
96.8
325.1
94.6
97.7
310.8
95.0
96.3
296.9
95.3
96.4
286.5
94.6
96.7
327.1
94.5
97.7
357.4
95.4
96.3
311.5
95.0
96.4
300.7
95.5
96.7
352.8
95.5
97.7
397.3
95.4
96.3
322.0
94.6
96.4
330.0
94.4
96.7
409.4
95.5
97.7
447.1
94.8
96.4
322.7
94.5
96.4
343.4
95.3
96.7
455.4
95.7
97.7
452.6
94.1
96.3
338.3
95.1
96.3
413.8
95.9
96.7
471.1
94.1
97.7
481.0
94.0
96.3
395.5
95.2
96.4
442.5
95.4
96.6
496.0
94.9
97.7
501.6
95.2
96.3
411.2
94.6
96.4
445.7
95.5
96.7
513.5
96.2
97.7
533.4
95.6
96.4
453.5
93.7
96.4
458.4
94.7
96.6
560.5
96.4
97.7
554.0
96.2
96.7
471.6
93.7
96.4
470.5
95.0
96.7
589.4
96.5
98.0
582.1
96.9
97.3
486.7
94.2
96.4
484.7
94.7
96.7
603.9
95.5
98.0
593.7
95.7
97.2
498.9
95.5
96.4
493.7
95.7
96.7
628.4
95.1
98.0
617.0
95.6
97.3
529.2
95.7
96.4
538.1
96.0
96.7
676.8
95.6
98.0
652.1
95.3
97.3
535.6
94.8
96.5
574.4
96.6
97.1
708.0
95.7
98.0
670.0
95.7
97.3
540.9
94.7
96.5
593.1
96.0
97.2
724.4
96.0
97.9
717.8
96.0
97.2
549.2
96.2
96.7
612.9
95.4
97.1
759.4
96.3
98.0
784.4
95.9
97.3
578.5
96.9
97.3
fzZS_4
9115
97_
711
or d
0
X72_9
9b 7
Q71
999 9
95 7
97 4
101
100
99
`m
Q 98
m
m
w 97
c
0
n
a 96
W
95
94
93
0
Greenbrier Year 4 (2015) Profile - Reach 00+00 to 10+00
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (feet)
-0-Year 1 (2012) Bed -Year 2 (2013) Bed Year 3 (2014) Bed -Year 4 (2015) Bed Year 4 (2015) Water Surface
2012
2013
2014
2015
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0017
0.0010
0.0020
0.0019
Riffle Length
29
34
72
64
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0050
0.0006
0.0074
0.0087
Pool Length
18
27
52
58
Avg. Pool Slope
0.0000
0.0000
0.0004
0.0006
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (feet)
-0-Year 1 (2012) Bed -Year 2 (2013) Bed Year 3 (2014) Bed -Year 4 (2015) Bed Year 4 (2015) Water Surface

Name Greenbrier - Year 4 (2015) Profile
Main Reach (10+00 - 22+50)
Profile
3/26/15
101
100
99
`m
Q 98
m
m
w 97
c
0
n
a 96
W
95
94
93
1000
2012
2013
2014
2013
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0017
Year 1 Monitoring Survey
0.0020
0.0019
Year 2 Monitoring Survey
29
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevatim
0.0
95.3
96.7
964.7
96.9
98.0
29.2
96.0
96.7
1008.3
97.3
98.0
39.5
95.5
96.7
1033.6
95.8
98.0
57.2
93.6
96.7
1053.2
96.0
98.0
70.6
94.1
96.7
1068.6
96.7
98.0
81.8
95.2
96.7
1081.4
95.7
98.0
113.4
95.4
96.7
1106.3
96.1
98.0
133.5
95.0
96.7
1116.1
96.9
98.0
158.1
94.3
96.7
1131.9
95.6
98.0
185.3
94.5
96.7
1147.6
94.8
98.0
220.9
93.9
96.7
1168.5
94.6
97.9
252.8
94.8
96.8
1194.7
95.5
98.0
286.5
94.6
96.7
1203.3
97.5
98.0
300.7
95.5
96.7
1226.0
98.4
98.7
330.0
94.4
96.7
1237.4
98.0
98.7
343.4
95.3
96.7
1245.0
96.7
98.7
413.8
95.9
96.7
1268.7
96.5
98.7
442.5
95.4
96.6
1307.3
96.6
98.7
445.7
95.5
96.7
1320.1
97.1
98.7
458.4
94.7
96.6
1355.1
97.7
98.7
470.5
95.0
96.7
1364.0
96.9
98.7
484.7
94.7
96.7
1377.9
96.9
98.7
493.7
95.7
96.7
1385.3
97.4
98.7
538.1
96.0
96.7
1398.7
98.0
98.7
574.4
96.6
97.1
1405.5
97.6
98.7
593.1
96.0
97.2
1412.5
96.9
98.7
612.9
95.4
97.1
1429.7
96.6
98.7
fzZSd
9115
97_
442 3
4Z?
997
101
100
99
`m
Q 98
m
m
w 97
c
0
n
a 96
W
95
94
93
1000
Greenbrier Year 4 (2015) Profile - Reach 10+00 to 22+50
2014
2013
2014
2015
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0017
Year 3 Monitoring Survey
0.0020
0.0019
Year 4 Monitoring Survey
29
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
964.4
97.0
97.4
966.3
96.5
97.5
1008.2
97.5
98.0
1008.6
97.6
98.2
1022.0
96.7
98.1
1030.9
95.6
98.2
1065.9
96.2
98.1
1077.1
96.1
98.2
1072.3
96.2
98.1
1115.8
95.3
98.2
1090.5
95.8
98.1
1156.6
94.2
98.2
1100.5
96.2
98.1
1176.0
95.6
98.2
1113.5
96.2
98.1
1197.1
95.8
98.1
1120.5
95.4
98.1
1205.6
97.7
98.1
1146.9
94.4
98.1
1232.4
98.3
99.0
1183.4
95.5
98.1
1247.9
96.4
99.0
1200.3
97.6
98.1
1258.9
95.9
99.0
1232.4
98.1
98.8
1273.2
96.2
99.0
1243.9
96.6
98.9
1306.1
96.2
99.0
1256.6
96.8
98.9
1316.5
97.1
98.9
1289.4
96.5
98.9
1350.7
97.4
98.9
1302.7
96.3
98.9
1401.4
97.3
99.0
1316.3
97.1
98.9
1413.8
96.7
99.0
1344.6
97.6
98.9
1434.7
96.6
98.9
1361.2
96.9
98.8
1442.0
97.3
98.9
1388.5
97.1
98.9
1458.7
97.9
98.9
1395.3
97.4
98.9
1499.5
98.4
99.0
1406.0
96.9
98.9
1549.8
97.8
99.0
1429.8
96.7
98.9
1641.6
97.6
99.0
1450.2
98.3
98.9
1672.5
98.0
99.0
1476.3
97.3
98.9
1685.7
97.4
99.0
1500.2
98.4
98.9
1698.8
97.6
99.0
_1.52(L4
9R 4
99 1
1711, 1
99 1
99 1
Greenbrier Year 4 (2015) Profile - Reach 10+00 to 22+50
1200
-*-Year 1 (2012) Bed
1400
-1k-Year 2 (2013) Bed
1600
Distance (feet)
Year 3 (2014) Bed
1800
-Year4 (2015) Bed
2000
-Year4 (2015( Water Surface
2200
2012
2013
2014
2015
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0017
0.0010
0.0020
0.0019
Riffle Length
29
34
72
64
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0050
0.0006
0.0074
0.0087
Pool Length
18
27
52
58
Avg. Pool Slope
0.0000
0.0000
0.0004
0.0006
1200
-*-Year 1 (2012) Bed
1400
-1k-Year 2 (2013) Bed
1600
Distance (feet)
Year 3 (2014) Bed
1800
-Year4 (2015) Bed
2000
-Year4 (2015( Water Surface
2200

Name Greenbrier - Year 4 (2015) Profile
Unnamed Tributary (00+00 - 09+00)
Profile
3/26/15
110
108
100
98 4
0
2013
Year 2 Monitoring Survey
Station
2012
Water Elevation
Year 1 Monitoring Survey
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
0.0
99.1
22.6
99.0
29.3
98.7
34.3
98.8
41.7
99.1
50.4
99.1
55.2
98.8
63.4
98.9
68.8
98.8
78.3
98.7
83.7
98.8
94.5
99.0
104.0
99.0
109.8
98.9
114.0
99.0
120.8
98.9
127.2
99.0
136.1
99.4
149.6
100.0
156.0
99.3
168.5
99.5
178.9
99.7
184.5
99.8
187.1
99.6
193.7
99.7
198.3
99.7
200.1
99.6
110
108
100
98 4
0
2013
Year 2 Monitoring Survey
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
0.0
99.1
99.4
10.3
99.1
99.4
13.0
98.9
99.4
17.9
99.3
99.4
24.6
99.1
99.5
27.9
98.9
99.5
33.5
99.0
99.5
40.9
99.2
21.4
49.9
99.4
24.6
52.0
99.0
99.6
55.1
98.9
99.6
58.7
99.1
99.7
62.3
98.9
99.7
74.6
98.8
99.7
87.2
99.0
99.6
91.3
99.2
99.4
102.8
99.3
99.7
107.4
99.0
99.7
110.3
98.8
99.6
112.7
99.2
99.7
115.2
99.2
99.7
121.0
99.0
99.7
131.2
99.1
99.7
134.7
99.4
99.6
150.9
100.2
100.4
156.4
99.4
100.4
162.6
99.5
100.4
100 200
Year 1 (2012) Bed
228.2 99.9 100.5 210.7 99.8 100.3 * No water in channel during field measurments.
o¢n3 Inn Inn '7 91Q0 Innn Innn
Greenbrier Year 4 (2015) Profile - Unnamed Tributary 00+00 to 09+00
300
(Year 2 (2013) Bed
400
Distance (feet)
-*-Year 3 (2014) Bed
500
600
-14-Year 4(2015) Bed
700 800
- Year4(2015) Water Surface
900
2014
2013
2014
2015
Avg. Water Surface Slope
----
0.0092
Year 3 Monitoring Survey
Riffle Length
Year 4 Monitoring Survey
16
14
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
0.0206
0.0
98.8
9
0.0
98.8
99.1
Avg. Pool Slope
21.4
98.9
99.3
24.6
98.9
99.3
26.0
98.5
99.4
27.0
98.6
99.3
37.2
98.7
99.3
28.5
98.7
99.4
39.5
99.0
99.3
30.6
98.9
99.3
48.1
99.1
99.4
41.5
99.2
99.4
54.7
98.7
99.4
48.6
99.3
99.3
71.0
98.6
99.4
53.2
98.9
99.6
85.9
98.7
99.4
70.9
98.7
99.5
89.6
98.9
99.4
83.0
98.8
99.5
103.6
99.0
99.5
88.0
99.0
99.4
118.0
98.8
99.5
102.8
99.0
99.5
123.2
99.0
99.5
107.7
98.8
99.5
124.5
98.8
99.5
117.9
99.1
99.5
129.6
98.8
99.5
128.6
98.8
99.4
132.5
99.4
99.6
129.2
99.4
148.2
99.9
100.3
132.8
99.3
99.4
153.6
99.2
100.3
149.8
99.9
100.4
173.6
99.4
100.3
154.6
99.4
100.4
176.2
99.6
100.3
170.1
99.6
100.3
184.0
99.8
100.3
175.9
99.6
100.4
186.8
99.6
100.3
180.0
99.9
100.3
197.2
99.5
100.4
186.4
99.6
100.3
205.7
99.6
100.4
195.6
99.6
100.3
209.7
100.0
100.4
206.0
99.5
100.3
226.8
100.1
100.5
207.0
99.6
100.3
228.2 99.9 100.5 210.7 99.8 100.3 * No water in channel during field measurments.
o¢n3 Inn Inn '7 91Q0 Innn Innn
Greenbrier Year 4 (2015) Profile - Unnamed Tributary 00+00 to 09+00
300
(Year 2 (2013) Bed
400
Distance (feet)
-*-Year 3 (2014) Bed
500
600
-14-Year 4(2015) Bed
700 800
- Year4(2015) Water Surface
900
2012*
2013
2014
2015
Avg. Water Surface Slope
----
0.0092
0.0102
Riffle Length
10
16
14
Avg. Riffle Slope
----
0.0124
0.0206
Pool Length
9
6
15
Avg. Pool Slope
----
0.0008
0.0038
228.2 99.9 100.5 210.7 99.8 100.3 * No water in channel during field measurments.
o¢n3 Inn Inn '7 91Q0 Innn Innn
Greenbrier Year 4 (2015) Profile - Unnamed Tributary 00+00 to 09+00
300
(Year 2 (2013) Bed
400
Distance (feet)
-*-Year 3 (2014) Bed
500
600
-14-Year 4(2015) Bed
700 800
- Year4(2015) Water Surface
900

Pebble Coun
Greenbrier
Note: I Cross Section 2
0.01
0.1 1
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) +Cumulative Percent • Percent Item —,!,—Riffle —e --Pool —Run —e—Glide
Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
D16 D35 I D50 I D84 D95 silt/clav sand I gravel I cobble I boulder I bedrock

Pebble Coun
Greenbrier
Note: Cross Section 5
0.01
0.1 1
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) +Cumulative Percent • Percent Item —,!,—Riffle —e --Pool —Run —e—Glide
Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
D16 D35 I D50 I D84 D95 silt/clav sand I gravel I cobble I boulder I bedrock

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
20%
a 10%
0%
Pebble Coun
Greenbrier
Note: Cross Section 6
Pebble Count, Greenbrier
0.01 0.1 1
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) +Cumulative Percent • Percent Item -!-Riffle —e --Pool —Run —e—Glide
Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
D16 D35 I D50 I D84 D95 silt/clav sand I gravel I cobble I boulder I bedrock

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
ii 30%
0% 4--
0.01
Pebble Coun
Greenbrier
Note: Cross Section 7
0.1 1
Pebble Count, Greenbrier
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) +Cumulative Percent • Percent Item -!-Riffle —e --Pool —Run —e—Glide
Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
D16 D35 I D50 I D84 D95 silt/clav sand I gravel I cobble I boulder I bedrock

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
ii 30%
0% 4--
0.01
Pebble Coun
Greenbrier
Note: I Cross Section 9
0.1 1
Pebble Count, Greenbrier
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) +Cumulative Percent • Percent Item -!-Riffle —e --Pool —Run —e—Glide
Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
D16 D35 I D50 I D84 D95 silt/clav sand I gravel I cobble I boulder I bedrock

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
ii 30%
0% 4--
0.01
Pebble Coun
Greenbrier
Note: Cross Section 11
0.1 1
Pebble Count, Greenbrier
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) +Cumulative Percent • Percent Item -!-Riffle —e --Pool —Run —e—Glide
Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
D16 D35 I D50 I D84 D95 silt/clav sand I gravel I cobble I boulder I bedrock

Pebble Coun
Greenbrier
Note: I Cross Section 12
0.01
0.1 1
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) +Cumulative Percent • Percent Item —,!,—Riffle —e --Pool —Run —e—Glide
Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
D16 D35 I D50 I D84 D95 silt/clav sand I gravel I cobble I boulder I bedrock

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
ii 30%
0% 4--
0.01
Pebble Coun
Greenbrier
Note: I Cross Section 14
0.1 1
Pebble Count, Greenbrier
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) +Cumulative Percent • Percent Item -!-Riffle —e --Pool —Run —e—Glide
Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
D16 D35 I D50 I D84 D95 silt/clav sand I gravel I cobble I boulder I bedrock

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary - Unnamed Tributary
Greenbrier Creek (DMS Project Number 671)
Parameter Gauge Regional Curve
Pre
-Existing Condition - UT
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Year 1 (2012) Monitoring - UT
Dimension and Substrate - Rife Only LL UL Ea.
Min
Mean Med Max SD
Min Mean
Med Max SD
Min Max
Med
Min Mean Med Max SD
BF Width (ft)
3.2
6.6
27.6
12.0
14.5 14.7 16.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
8
50
140
40
100
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
1.2
0.7
0.7 0.8 0.9
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.4
2.0
LO
1.2 1.3 1.5
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.7
5.8
33.5
7.8
11.9 12.0 12.7
Width/Depth Ratio
3.7
7.4
23.0
18.0
16.3 18.1 23.6
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
>2.2
5.1
>2.2
6.1 6.6 6.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
-1.3
1.0
1.0
LO
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
----
----
----
2 12 10 1 32 1 35
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
----
----
----
No Water in Channel During Survey
Pool length (ft)
----
----
----
4.0 10.0 8.9 25.0 36.0
Pool Max depth (ft)
----
2.8
----
1.2 1.3 LS
Pool spacing (fi)
----
25
104
----
8 23 22 42 9
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
77
Radius of Curvature (ft)
----
1.0 1.1;
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft)
----
----
Channel Sinuosity to therefore, no
Meander Wavelength (ft)
----
94
100
----
pattern variables are able to be calculated.
Meander Width ratio
----
2.8
----
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (comoetencv) lbs/ftp
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transnort canacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G4c-t e
C4 -t e
C4 -type
C-type
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Length (ft)
-----
----
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
-----
----
868
868
Sinuosity
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0030 - 0.0038
0.0077
0.0038
BF slope (ft/ft)
-
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) i
----
-----
----
of Reacb with Eroding Banks
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biolozical or Otherl I
I
----
I
-----
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Greenbrier Creek (DMS Project Number 671)

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary - Main Channel (continued)
Greenbrier Creek (DMS Project Number 671)
on
Parameter Gauge Regial Curve
Pre -Existing Condition - Main
Channel
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Year 1 (2012) Monitoring - Main
Channel
Dimension and Substrate - Rife Only LL UL Ea.
Min Mean Med Max SD
Min Mean
Med Max SD
Min Max
Med
Min Mean Med Max SD
BF Width (ft)
20.0
27.6
35.0
27.0 31.0 37.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
160 200
140
160 200
100
BF Mean Depth (ft)
2.5
1.2
1.8
1.6 2.0 2.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
3.2
2.0
2.5
2.1 3.1 3.6
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
50.4
33.5
61.0
56.0 62.3 71.8
Width/Depth Ratio
8.1
23.0
20.0
12.9 15.5 22.9
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
5.1
>2.2
2.7 3.2 3.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
LO
1.0 1.0 1.7
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
----
----
----
5 38 29 114 29.9
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
----
----
----
0.0000 0.0050 0.0024 0.0263 0.0070
Pool length (ft)
----
----
----
8 33 17172 37.0
Pool Max depth (ft)
4.5
2.8
2.1 3.1 3.6
Pool spacing(fi)
25
104
26 93 72 260 56
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
77
Radius of Curvature (ft)
----
1.0 1.1;
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft)
----
----
Channel Sinuosity to therefore, no
Meander Wavelength (ft)
----
94
100
----
pattern variables are able to be calculated.
Meander Width ratio
----
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib,/ftp
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transnon canacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E5 -type
C4 -t e
C5 -type
C-type
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley Length (ft)
-----
----
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
-----
----
2235
2235
Sinuosity
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0009
0.0077
0.0009
0.0017
BF slope (ft/ft)
---
-----
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres) i
----
-----
----
of Reacb with Eroding Banks
-----
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Otherl I
----
-----
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Greenbrier Creek (DMS Project Number 671)

Table l la. Monitoring Data- Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Table Ilb. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
rr—rinr r-. prninrt N—h—F i,
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®
Floodprocc, Width (it) (approx)
13F Me- Derth (ft)
' •
' •
Table Ilb. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
rr—rinr r-. prninrt N—h—F i,
I " No W ater m UT Durine Fictd Measurements.
�����a®m®m©m®mmm®m®ma®®mmmmmmm
Profile -Unnamed Tributary No Water in Channel Darin FieldSurvey.$)
Mum .,. .. ����������
t et t
t e
t t
t tt
t t
t t• :
t t
t t t
t t
�������
IM
OMAN
t
,tt
tt
:,����������®a®moo®®moomm®®�����
t
:
I " No W ater m UT Durine Fictd Measurements.

Table l la. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections) (continued)
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®
Floodproce, Width (it) •
111
11
111
11
___ 11
111
11
111
___ 111
11
111
11 __

Table l la. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections) (continued)
Table Ilb. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary (continued)
f_--rinr r-. Pr.:- N..mhnr -11
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®
•'
.odp , Width ....
13F Me- Denth (ft)
Table Ilb. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary (continued)
f_--rinr r-. Pr.:- N..mhnr -11
_----
�����
• • ������®®�®®®mom®®®®�mm®®�®�����
Profile -Unnamed Tributary No Water in Channel Darin FieldSurvey.$)
Mum
��-----
�����omo®m©aam®®®mmm®mmmm�����
IM
OMAN
11
111
1 1
1
I

Table l la. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections) (continued)
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®
•'
Floodproce, Width .•• •

APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

Table 12: Verification of Bankfull Events
Greenbrier Stream Restoration Site (DMS Proiect Number 671)
Date of Data
Date of
Photo (if
Method
Collection
Occurrence
available)
Visual observations of overbank event including
wrack lines and sediment deposition resulting from a
9/21/2012
9/18/2012
1.78 inch* rainfall event on September 18, 2012 that
1
occurred after numerous rainfall events, within the 3
weeks prior, that totaled 2.34 inches*.
Visual observations of overbank event including
7/16/2013
7/4/2013
w'r'ack lines and sediment deposition resulting from
5.87 inches** of rainfall between 6/26/2013 and
7/4/2013.
Visual observations of wrack and sediment
7/17/2014
5/15/2014
deposition as well as crest gauge data indicate an
---
overbank event resulting from 3.46 inches** of
rainfall on 5/15/2014.
9/16/2014
8/9/2014
Crest gauge data indicates an overbank event
---
resulting from 2.34 inches** of rainfall on 8/9/2014.
Visual observations of wrack and sediment
9/16/2014
9/4/2014
deposition as well as crest gauge data indicate an
3
overbank event resulting from 2.15 inches** of
rainfall on 9/4/2014.
9/23/2015
12/24/14
2.24 inches** of rainfall on 12/22-12/24/2014.
4
* Reported at the Mount Vernon Springs, Siler City, NC weather station (Weather Underground 2012)
**Reported at the KNCCHAPEI3, Chapel Hill, NC weather station (Weather Underground 2014, Weather Underground 2015)
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

APPENDIX F. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING
DMS Warranty Letter
Nursery Plant List -Supplemental Planting
Contractor Completion Notification
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

Ecosystem
November 8, 2011
Joanne Cheatham
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
PO Box 1905
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Kitara A. Smith
Great American Insurance Company
580 Walnut Street
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Re: Greenbrier Creek Stream Restoration Site
SCO # 0406210-02
Vegetation Warranty Items
Dear Ms. Cheatham:
As stated in the November 8, 2011 letter addressed to you from Ed Hajnos, portions the Greenbrier
Creek project site did not meet the vegetation warranty as stated in contract documents. As per
SCO contract 0406210-02 Special Provision Section 6.0, bare roots were to be planted at 680 stems
per acre, and containerized seedlings at 435 per acre, of those 80% minimum were to survive for
one year from Project Acceptance. The warranty period began 2/28/2011 and will expire
2/28/2012.
Field data is summarized below and supplemental information about replant requirements is
attached.
Vegetation assessment methodology
Planted vegetation at the Greenbrier Creek site has been assessed once since February 2011 project
planting; on September 28, 2011 by the Owner. Data collected during the sampling effort report
higher plant mortality than contractually permissible. Warranty replant numbers are based on the
data collected. Field methodology and data are described below.
September 28, 2011 sampling
Fourteen (14) vegetation plots were established, each 1,076 sq ft (25m x 4m) in Zone 4 of the
original planting plan. All planted bare root and shrubs present within the plot were counted
towards the warranty criteria, including those that were top -dead but were re -sprouting at their
base. Given 680 stems were planted per acre, 544 per acre were required to survive 1 year, or 13
MODE R
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

per plot to meet the 100% warranty. Fourteen (14) sample plots did not meet the survival criteria
(Vegetation Warranty Data Map attached).
Zone 4 Data Results
Living bare roots
Required stems
Warranty
Supplemental planting
Plot
and shrubs
per plot
meet
density/acre needed to
meet warranty
1
4
13
No
364
2
6
13
No
283
3
6
13
No
283
4
2
13
No
445
5
10
13
No
121
6
3
13
No
405
7
10
13
No
121
8
1
13
No
486
9
1
13
No
486
10
12
13
No
40
11
4
13
No
364
12
3
13
No
405
13
3
13
No
405
14
4
13
No
364
Two vegetation plots were established, each 1,076
sq ft (25m x
4m) in Zone 5 of the original
planting
plan. All containerized
seedlings present
within the plot were counted towards the
warranty
criteria, including those
that were top -dead but were re -sprouting at their base. Given
435 stems were planted per acre, 348 per acre were required to survive
1 -year, or 9 per plot to
meet the
100% warranty. Two
(2) sample plots did
not meet the
survival criteria (Vegetation
Warranty Data Map attached).
Zone 5 Data Results
Living bare roots
Required stems
Warranty
Supplemental planting
Plot
and shrubs
per plot
meet
density/acre needed to
meet warranty
1
4
9
No
202
2 7 9 No 81
Supplemental planting
In general, some of plant survival in the Zone 4 and Zone 5 planting zones did not meet the
warranty requirement. The table below outlines necessary replanting areas. Surviving stems were
subtracted from the warranty criteria (544/acre for Zone 4 and 348 per acre for Zone 5) so that the
"Total plants needed" column is the number of remaining stems needed get warranty criteria
(544/348) stems per acre in areas with deficient vegetation. Planting densities were averaged into
planting zones and are identified on the attached Supplemental Planting Map.
CDEHR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceeP.net

Supplemental Planting Plan
Location Average # Total plants
(looking downstream) Planting Zone stems/ac needed Acres needed
to meet warrantv
Zone 5 (Unnamed
Zone 5
142
0.8
114
Tributary)
Unnamed Tributary (St
400+00 - 407+00) &
Zone 4
418
3.0
1,254
mainstem (St 106+50 -
100+00)
Right, mainstem (St
Zone 4
263
0.6
158
200+00 - 205+50)
Left, mainstem (St
Zone 4
310
0.7
217
200+00 - 206+00)
Left, mainstem (St
Zone 4
445
0.2
89
212+50 - 214+00)
Right, mainstem (St
Zone 4
121
1
121
210+50 - 219+00)
Total
6.3
1,952
Instructions
• The Supplemental Planting effort needs to be coordinated with EEP so we can arrange with
the landowner to be on site.
• All replant materials must conform to the original project specification (dormant season
planting, species composition, size, vigor, etc.)
• The Supplemental Planting effort must take place in the dormant season for Alamance
County; (December 1 --April 1).
• No planting shall be done when the temperature is below 320 F, when the soil to be
excavated for the plant hole is frozen, when the sides or bottom o the plant hole are frozen,
or when the soil is too wet.
MCDEMR
'forth Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

Although the warranty for this project doesn't expire until February 28, 2012, EEP does not intend
to reassess the site again for additional warranty compliance. Plants installed during the warranty
replant will not have a warranty place on them. Once Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
complies with this replanting, a Satisfaction Letter will be awarded.
If you disagree with this finding or have any questions, please contact me directly.
Sincerely,
C(�
Kri tie Corson
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Office [phone]
Cell [phone]
[e-mail]
cc:
Ed Hajnos, EEP
Jeff Jurek, EEP
Jeff Schaffer, EEP
Attachments
LaGCDENR
north Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, PJC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

it
M
■ Zone 4 plots
AZone 5 plots
conservation easement
QLI.,- M,—Awkdwffik`N =Now
Greenbrier Creek Stream Restoration
Alamance/Chatham Counties
Vegetation Warranty Map

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

Mellow Marsh Farm, Inc.
1312 Woody Store Road
Siler City, NC 27344
919.742.1200 ph
AIA 17 All iron r -_
Invoice
DATE INVOICE #
2/13/2012 3205
�1�-i��.-lz.0v iun
Mellowmarskrarm, i -1C.
4% surcharge for payment by
Quality Wetland Plants and Seeds
credit card.
BILL TO SHIP TO
Carolina Envirnomental Contracting, Inc.
P.O.Box 1905
Mount Airy, NC 27030
fax: [phone]
SHIP DATE
SHIP VIA
PROJECT
P.O. NUMBER
PAYMENT
TERMS
DUE DATE
2/13/2012
Customer
Greenbriar
Pending
check
Net 30
3/14/2012
QTY
ITEM CODE
DESCRIPTION
PRICE EACH
POT SIZE
AMOUNT
23
QURU G
Quercus rubra "Northern red oak"
5.00
gallon
115.00
23
NYSY G
Nyssa sylvatica "Black gum"
5.00
1 gallon
115.00
12
ACNE G
Acer negundo "Box elder"
5.00
gallon
60.00
3
ULAM G
Ulmus americana "American elm"
5.00
gallon
15.00
13
BENI G
Betula nigra "River birch"
5.00
1 gallon
65.00
20
QUPH G
Quercus phellos "Willow oak"
5.00
1 gallon
100.00
20
QUMI G
Quercus michauxii "Swamp chestnut oak"
5.00
1 gallon
100.00
368
FRPE BRTS
Fraxinus pennsylvanica "Green Ash"
0.80
bare root
294.40
368
PLOC BRTS
Platanus occidentalis "Sycamore"
0.80
bare root
294.40
368
NYSY BR...
Nyssa sylvatica "Black gum"
0.80
bare root
294.40
145
ACNE BR...
Acer negundo "Box elder"
0.80
bare root
116.00
368
ULAM BR...
Ulmus americana "American elm"
0.80
bare root
294.40
110
LIBE BRTS
Lindera benzoin "Spicebush"
1.25
bare root
137.50
111
VIDE BRTS
Viburnum dentatum "Arrow wood"
1.25
bare root
138.75
PO
Total
$2,139.85
Contract Terms & Conditions: Full payment due before delivery unless otherwise noted.
Payments/Credits
If you cannot receive your order at the scheduled time, the material will require special
S0 00
handling and a 25% restocking or holding fee may apply. Buyer agrees to pay amount
shown in Balance Due' according to `Terms'. Timely payment will not be contingent on
Balance Due
buyer's receipt of payment from his/her customer. A deposit may be required to hold plant
$2,139.85

Certified WBE / DBE
April 24, 2012
NCEEP
Attn: Mrs. Kristie Corson
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
P. O. Box 1905
Subject: Greenbriar Stream Restoration Project.
SCO ID No.: 0406210002A
Dear Mrs. Corson,
Mount Airy, NC 27030
OffiCe [phone]
Fax [phone]
This letter is to inform you that we were on site February 13, 2012 and February 14, 2012 to install the required
plants to satisfy the requirements of the warranty for the project. CEC planted the desired plants per the drawing
that was submitted to us by your office.
Sincerely,
Stephen D. James
Estimator/Project Manager
Cc. Joanne Cheatham, CEC
CEC Job File

APPENDIX G. NUTRIENT OFFSET INFORMATION
June 12, 2007 DMS Nutrient Offset Meeting Summary Letter
NCDWQ Email Response
Greenbrier Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 671 October 2015
Alamance and Chatham Counties, North Carolina Appendices

August 2, 2007
Rich Gannon .
North Carolina Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1617
SUBJECT: June 12, 2007 EEP Nutrient Offset meeting summary
This correspondence is provided to summarize our June 12, 2007 meeting with you, Tom Reeder,
Suzanne Klimek, Jim Stanfill and myself. The meeting was held in an attempt to clarify some issues
related to EEP's use of riparian buffers to mitigate for Nitrogen and Phosphorus. It is important to come
to a common understanding on these issues related to nutrient offset mitigation credit generation as we
plan the implementation of mitigation projects. Below are the topics we discussed as they were presented
in our May 14, 2007 letter to you. A surmnary of our discussions is below each topic in italics. We invite
your input and response to ensure we have captured our discussions accurately.
Riparian Buffer N Reduction Efficiencies: With regard to the January 4, 2007 report detailing your
discussions of NO3 — N reduction, we would like to clarify whether the benefits of land use change
and the benefit of periodic overbank flooding have been considered in the buffer efficiency
calculations. We also want to discuss EEP's buffer widths and the efficiencies that should be used for
buffers 100 feet or greater. A 50% efficiency was and is used in our calculations of buffer efficiency
for our offset projects. Our projects typically have 200 foot buffer widths.
The underlying questions here were — Can EEP get more credit for buffers that are wider than 50 feet
by using higher efficiency rates as shown in the NLEWpaper? As a group we agreed to use an
overall efficiency of 50%for riparian buffers used to offset nutrients regardless of width. Rich
Gannon noted that although higher efficiencies were suggested in the "NLEW" paper for buffers
wider than 50 feet, these numbers are not widely verified It is therefore appropriate to use 50% to
determine reductions. Jim Stanfill agreed noting that EEP buffers are often 200 feet wide and
although using a higher efficiency would generate greater mitigation credit, the 50 % number had
been used up to this point and EEP would continue to use that to calculate credits.
2. Level Spreaders: The use of level spreaders on riparian buffers not subject to concentrated flow
needs to be discussed. It is our understanding that guidance on level spreaders may only be meant to
apply to those riparian buffers being used as "onsite" treatment BMPs by permitees. We assume the
guidance does not apply to riparian buffer restoration as typically done by EEP, but would like to
discuss and get clarification on that issue.
The standard is to provide dose flow through buffers. Because EEP would often need to actually
clear portions of riparian buffers to install level spreaders, and also because EEP 's buffers are often
200 feet wide, we do not think the use of level spreaders is necessary as long as diffuse flow is
maintained. Tom Reeder and Rich Gannon agreed that level spreaders would not necessarily be
needed on EEP buffers in rural areas where diffuseflow is not an issue. FA
Rest7o ' .. E .. Prot2Gt, Our Stat& CDEN
�• � NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

Land Use Change: If EEP purchases agricultural land to do riparian buffer restoration we believe EEP
should get credit for restoration of the entire buffer width. That is, the first 50 feet of buffer would
not be excluded from our credit calculations. The argument for this is that while the act of EEP
purchasing the property may have changed a property's land use and, therefore, made it subject to the
buffer rules, the EEP is actually implementing an active riparian buffer restoration project on that
land, not simply taking it out of agricultural use. Furthermore, if EEP does not purchase these lands,
there will be no land use change.
Tom and Rich agreed with this statement- EEP should get credit for the entire width restored.
4. We also have some questions about the Jordan nutrient offset trading program, but staff are still
reviewing the information that has been released.
EEP will need to provide comments on the Jordan rules to ensure the fees are set appropriately and
the requirements (service area) are attainable. This area is likely to have higher implementation
costs and less opportunity for lower cost buffers as nutrient offset mitigation. If EEP will accept
payments in this area, we must be able to afford to implement projects.
5. EEP's Nutrient Offset Accounting Methods: Regarding EEP's nutrient offset requirements- Jim
Stanfill discussed how we measure the total pounds for 30 years when we accept a nutrient offset
payment and take on a requirement. Our projects are setup to offset a total numbers of pounds and,
therefore, we may have "shorter" (less than 30 years) more intense projects_ Rich and Tom were in
agreement with our accounting methods.
6. Riparian Buffer Mitigation Site location — clarification of intent of rules: In the Randleman
watershed (for Cape Fear 03), EEP staff have questioned where- upstream or downstream- in the
watershed the mitigation should take place. Mitigation that EEP already has downstream of the
reservoir can be used, but new pursuits should be upstream in order to protect the reservoir.
Likewise, in Catawba, new projects should be downstream of Lake James to be used as mitigation
credit. EEP staff also clarified that the rules do not have a time requirement for EEP to provide the
mitigation, but that the program uses the same time requirements as the MOU. Tom and Rich were
also agreeable to this.
7. Rich requested that EEP allow for transparencies in its program and asked for us to provide as much
data as possible in our annual report and work on information to be included on EEP's Web site.
EEP agreed and is working to set up a specific web page at the program's web site devoted to the
Nutrient Offset Program.
Thank you for taking the time to discuss these issues with us. If you need additional information or want
to offer corrections or clarifications to the information presented herein, please contact Kelly Williams at
[phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Kelly Williams
In -Lieu Fee Program Coordinator
cc: Tom Reeder, NCDWQ
Jim Stanfill, NCEEP
Suzanne Klimek, NCEEP
Marc Recktenwald, NCEEP
Deborah Amaral, NCEEP
R.estorqg... E ... Protect Our State
®V -1n
NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net

Williams, Kelly
From: Tom Reeder [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 1:14 PM
To: Kelly Williams
Cc: rich. [e-mail],- suzanne Klimeck
Subject: Re: EEP Nutrient offset meeting summary
Kelly - I have read the letter and I have no problems with it. It seems to me to be an
accurate record of what we discussed and agreed to. Thanks.
Kelly Williams wrote:
> Rich and Tom:
> I sent a copy of a meeting summary for your review to you last week.
> The letter is dated August 2, 2007. I have also attached it as a Word
> document. In an attempt to clarify what topics we discussed on June
> 12 when we got together in Tom's office to discuss nutrient offset and
> buffers, I simply added our understanding of our discussions beneath
> each topic as outlined in the letter sent to you prior to the meeting.
> Once you have a chance to review the summary comments (they are in
> /italics/ in the letter), I would like to hear back from you,
> especially if you have suggested changes to our summary. Feel free to
> either write back via email or add your comments or changes to the
> attached document using track changes. There are EEP staff who have
> requested a copy of the meeting summary, but I do not plan to get
> those out until I hear back from you that you are satisfied with it.
> Thanks for you help.
> Kelly Williams
> NCEEP