20040977 Ver 1_Monitoring Report_20081029

City Pond Mitigation Project
Anson County, North Carolina
Year 4 Monitoring Report
6 C-6 ?1
CT 2 9 2008
SIR - WAFER QUALITY
AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Prepared for
Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC
909 Capability Drive, Suite 3100
Raleigh, NC 27606 /
Prepared by Io!
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
And
Ecosystem & Land Trust Monitoring
PO Box 1492
3674 Pine Swamp Road
Sparta, NC 28675
October 2008 KEG
1 o, 0a ? 7P08
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
Table of Contents
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 Project Description .................................................................................................... .. 1
2.2 Project Purpose .......................................................................................................... .. 5
2.3 Project History & Schedule ....................................................................................... .. 5
VEGETATION .................................................................................................................... .. 5
3.1 Vegetation Success Criteria ....................................................................................... .. 5
3.2 Description of Species and Vegetation Monitoring ................................................... .. 5
3.3 Results of Vegetation Monitoring .............................................................................. .. 6
3.4 Vegetation Observations & Conclusions ................................................................... .. 7
STR EAM MONITORING .................................................................................................. .. 8
4.1 Stream Success Criteria ............................................................................................. .. 8
4.2 Stream Morphology Monitoring Plan ........................................................................ .. 8
4.2.1 Cross Sections .................................................................................................. .. 8
4.2.2 Longitudinal Profile ......................................................................................... .. 9
4.2.3 Hydrology ........................................................................................................ .. 9
4.2.4 Photo Reference Stations ................................................................................... 9
4.3 Stream Morphology Monitoring Results ..................................................................... 9
4.3.1 Cross Sections .................................................................................................... 9
4.3.2 Longitudinal Profile ......................................................................................... 11
4.3.3 Hydrology ........................................................................................................ 17
4.3.4 Climate Data .................................................................................................... 17
4.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey Results ............................................................... 19
4.5 Stream Conclusions ................................................................................................... 21
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................. 21
i
October 2008
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. USGS Map .........................................
Figure 3. Monitoring Plan View ........................
Figure 4a-e. Stream Problem Areas ...................
Figure 5. 2008 Precipitation for City Pond .......
........................................................................... 4
......................................................................... 10
......................................................................... 12
......................................................................... 19
List of Tables
Table 1. Project Mitigation Structure and Objectives .................................................................... 2
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History ............................................................................ 5
Table 3. Project Contacts ................................................................................................................ 5
Table 4. Planted Tree Species ........................................................................................................ 6
Table 5. Results of Vegetation Monitoring .................................................................................... 7
Table 6. Stream Areas Requiring Observation ............................................................................. 11
Table 7. Crest Gauge Data ............................................................................................................ 17
Table 8. Summary of Morphologic Monitoring Parameters ........................................................ 17
Table 9. County and On-site Rainfall Data .................................................................................. 18
Table 10. Macroinvertebrate Data ................................................................................................ 19
APPENDICES
Appendix A As-Built Survey
Appendix B 2008 Profile and Cross Section Data
Appendix C 2008 Site Photos
ii October 2008

1.0 SUMMARY
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
0 The City Pond Stream Mitigation Project site is located near the town of Wadesboro in Anson
County, North Carolina. The project involved the restoration and enhancement of 10,574 linear
• feet of channelized stream on several unnamed tributaries to City Pond. All restoration is being
monitored for five years to document success. Baseline data on stream morphology and
vegetation were collected immediately after construction and planting were complete. This
• information is documented in the As-Built Report completed in 2005. The As-Built survey is
included as Appendix A of this report. Information on stream morphology and vegetation will be
• collected each year and compared to the baseline data and data from previous monitoring years.
•
This Annual Monitoring Report presents the monitoring data collected during Year 4 at the City
Pond Stream Restoration Site. Data collected for 2008 include: monthly crest gauge readings,
monthly on-site rain gauge readings, monthly observations of current conditions, as well as
• annual benthic macroinvertebrate survey, cross sections, digital images, and observations of
potential stream stability problems.
•
The design for the City Pond project involved the restoration of channel dimension, pattern, and
• profile on eight separate reaches, and the enhancement of dimension and profile on one reach.
After construction, it was documented that 9,869 linear feet of stream had been restored, and 705
linear feet of stream had been enhanced.
The data presented in this Annual Monitoring Report is from 3 crest gauges, 20 cross sections,
and 3,400 linear feet of longitudinal profile on 8 reaches, as required in the approved Restoration
• Plan for this site. Digital images were recorded at all 20 cross sections and all in-stream structures
• that could be located.
The 2008 stream monitoring data documents that little has changed in the stream channel pattern
• and cross-sectional dimensions since last year's monitoring efforts. Most in-stream structures
continue to function as designed. There were minor cases of bed erosion throughout the various
reaches. In other areas of the stream, sediment and vegetation has accumulated in the channel
• bottom. During 2008, the stream channel experienced multiple bankfull events. It was concluded
that the site remains on track to achieve the stream success criteria as specified in the Restoration
Plan.
•
Five 0.1 acre monitoring plots were used to measure survival of the planted woody vegetation.
The vegetation monitoring documented a range of survival between 500 and 650 stems per acre
for 2008. With an average of 568 stems per acre, the site has met the interim vegetation survival
• criteria of 320 stems per acre after the third growing season. The planted woody vegetation
appears vigorous throughout the site.

2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City Pond Stream Restoration Project is located near the town of Wadesboro in Anson
• County, North Carolina (Figure 1 & Figure 2). The stream systems that historically flowed
• through the site were channelized and highly incised prior to restoration. The design for the
restored streams involved the construction of new meandering channels across the low slope
valleys, and restored step pool channels in the higher slope valleys.

October 2008
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
The site has a history of pasture and hay production, preceded by row crop production. Ditches
were used to increase land use and improve drainage when the land was under crop production.
The streams on the project site were channelized, and riparian vegetation was cleared in most
locations. Stream and riparian functions on the site had been severely impacted as a result of
agricultural conversion.
The project involved the restoration and enhancement of 10,574 linear feet of channelized stream
on several unnamed tributaries to City Pond. The project restored 9,869 linear feet of channel
dimension, pattern, and profile, and enhanced 705 linear feet of channel dimension and/or profile.
Table 1 shows the as-built lengths and restoration type for each reach. The 2008 monitoring
season represents the fourth year of monitoring for this site.
Table 1. Proiect Mitigation Structure and Obiectives
Reach Name As-BuiltLength feet " Restoration A roach
RI 705 Enhancement I
R2 2,611 Restoration
R3 777 Restoration
S1 734 Restoration
S2 1,150 Restoration
S3 710 Restoration
S4 1,711 Restoration
S5 1,744 Restoration
S6 432 Restoration
Total 10,574
2 October 2008
0

0
w
is
r,
I

00

ei
S
a
0
h
el
e
7r
City Pond Project Site
Y
`N
.,
PVT

Figure 1
City Pond Stream Mitigation Site
Project Location Map
Anson County, NC
1 inch equals 2,000 feet

•

• Y
R •• I"A ' ••`•. O.O?(c .o?? ??. O Sp(,T?r ?? qshF PVT N
° 'P
>

•

• ?
O,y
g
. , Q????? C9 9?0 J
HARGRAVE a <
_ '(+`' ` '?``? Z?L? Cpl
/'
?
`•
W
b
'
d
,
., %c
°? ?;
oro
?;
es
i,
a
?. OP •r...,,N G\
• L C? , _. °??? ?Q • 4
4`«? PRINGF/END <q?SFO Z? •'Y. •?•'IY?
LANSFORD
`
'
?? FRF
r h
l

i
^ Q L
till

,? DNS
,? A `S• ?? ?TOWNSEND uR
?
•!`
C
L
' ! '-
e
?`
., A
A
S
J
T ?.,
. ?

co
-_ kE3>`I I -13A
?+?`,?
??
1p9
_
?
g
?G
_ y
QJ•C
•
A
6
yr
1
46

City Pond Project Site
u ,
J
s
• ? a -
_ ?F
? '
i?
?'FW
•
y At
Ri O Q? ?_ RFF i
1\.
4t-4 8
• ?• • v Q? • J . f
• *. - m
R~
•
•

• a
VT
?
'
....
..
?6'
('ham z ?
'
?

• ,
,
•
.
???
?
l`
C
\? Fes`'
• .
-
.

•
• Figure 2.
• City Pond Stream Mitigation Site
• USGS Topographic Map
• Anson County, NC
• 1 inch equals 2,000 feet

•

City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
2.2 PROJECT PURPOSE
Monitoring of the City Pond Mitigation Site is required to demonstrate successful mitigation
based on the criteria described in the City Pond Mitigation Plan. Both stream and vegetation
monitoring are conducted throughout the growing season. Success criteria must be met for five
consecutive years. This Annual Report details the results of the stream monitoring for 2008 at the
City Pond Stream Mitigation Site.
2.3 PROJECT HISTORY & SCHEDULE
This project was identified by EBX in the spring of 2004. The following table outlines project
history and milestones, as well as background information (Table 2).
Table 2. Proiect Activitv and Reporting Historv
"Date s 'Acti aia'Pirformed
November 2004 Construction Began
May 2005 Construction Completed
May 2005 Planting Completed
June 2005 Post Construction Monitoring Gauges Installed
August 2005 As-Built Report Submitted
November 2005 1 st Annual Monitoring Report
February 2006 Replanted 3.5 acres with two year old trees
November 2006 2nd Annual Monitoring Report
November 2007 3rd Annual Monitoring Report
November 2008 Scheduled 4th Annual Monitoring Report
November 2009 (scheduled) I 5th Annual Monitoring Report
Table 3. Proiect Cnntacts
Contact Firm inform
Project Manager EBX-Neuse 1, LLC
Norton Webster 919 608-9688
Designer Buck Engineering PC
Kevin Tweedy, PE 919 463-5488
Monitoring Contractor WK Dickson and Co., Inc
Daniel Ingram 919 782-0495
3.0 VEGETATION
3.1 VEGETATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
The interim measure of vegetative success for the City Pond Mitigation Plan was the survival of
at least 320 3-year-old planted trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period. The
final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 260 5-year-old planted trees per acre at the
end of Year 5 of the monitoring period.
Up to 20% of the site species composition may be comprised of volunteers. Remedial action may
be required should volunteers (i.e., sweetgum, red maple, etc.) exceed 20% composition.
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF SPECIES AND VEGETATION MONITORING
The following tree species were planted in the riparian buffer:
5
October 2008
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
Table 4. Planted Tree Species
o. otritittdipie Scieutific Name
FAC;Statns
1 Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata FACU
2 Willow Oak Quercus phellos FACW-
3 Persimmon Diospyrus virginiana FAC
4 Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvan. FACW
5 Yellow poplar Liriodendron tulipifera FAC
6 Sycamore Platanus occidentalis FACW-
7 Water Oak Quercus nigra FAC
8 American Elm Ulmus americana FACW
9 Laurel Oak uercus lauri olia FACW
The following monitoring protocol was designed to predict vegetative survivability. Five plots
were established on the City Pond Mitigation Site, and cover approximately 2% of the site. The
vegetation monitoring plots were designed to be 1/10th of an acre in size, or 50 feet x 87 feet
dimensionally. The plots were randomly located and randomly oriented within the riparian buffer.
Plot construction involved using metal fence posts at each of the four corners to clearly and
permanently establish the area to be sampled. Ropes were then hung connecting all four corners
to help in determining if trees close to the plot boundary were inside or outside of the plot. Trees
right on the boundary and trees just outside of the boundary that appear to have greater than 50%
of their canopy inside the boundary were counted inside the plot. A ten-foot piece of white PVC
pipe was placed over the metal post on one corner to facilitate visual location of the site
throughout the five-year monitoring period.
All of the planted stems inside the plot were marked with orange flagging and a 3-foot-tall piece
of half-inch PVC to distinguish them from any colonizers, and to help in locating them in the
future. Each stem was then tagged with a permanent, numbered aluminum tag.
3.3 RESULTS OF VEGETATION MONITORING
Table 5 presents stem counts for each of the monitoring plots. The species ID numbers across the
top row correspond to the numbered species listed in Table 4. Each plot is identified down the left
column.
6 October 2008
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
Table 5. Results of Vegetation Monitoring
Spedes ID Number (from Table 4)
Plot 1 2 3 4 5. 6- 7 S: ' Total Stems/acre
CP1 0 20 8 1 4 9 6 11 0 59 590
CP2 0 23 0 1 1 4 0 28 0 57 570
CP3 2 4 27 2 2 8 0 8 0 53 530
CP4 0 8 10 20 0 1 13 13 0 65 650
CPS 0 10 3 5 9 9 6 4 4 50 500
Average Stems/Acre: 568
Range of Stems per Acre: 500-650
Volunteer woody species were observed in most of the vegetation plots, but were deemed too
small to tally. If these trees persist into the next growing season and exceed 12 inches tall, they
will be flagged and added to the overall stems per acre assessment of the site. Sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciua) is the most common volunteer, though privet (Ligustrum spp.), loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda) and red maple (Acer rubrum) was also observed.
• 3.4 VEGETATION OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSIONS
• This site was planted in bottomland hardwood forest species in March 2005. There were five 0.1-
acre vegetation monitoring plots established throughout the planting areas. The 2008 vegetation
monitoring revealed that the site has an average tree density of 568 stems per acre. This site met
• the minimum success interim criteria of 320 trees per acre at the end of year three and is on
• trajectory to meet the final success criteria of 260 trees per acre by the end of year five.
At the beginning of the 2006 growing season, two-year-old trees were replanted in and around
• Plot 5 due to exaggerated mortality the previous year. The mortality was attributed to dry
conditions shortly after the planting occurred, and to lower quality trees. These trees were part of
a separate delivery and were dry at planting time. The two-year-old saplings are generally
• healthy, and their mortality rate is consistent with that of the site as a whole.
After construction of the mitigation site, a permanent ground cover seed mixture of Virginia wild-
rye (Elymus virginicus), switch grass (Panicum virgatum), and fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea)
was broadcast on the site at a rate of 10 pounds per acre. These species are found on the site.
Naturally occurring hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation, including cattails (Typha spp.), rush
(Juncus effusus), spikerush (Eleocharis obtusa), knotweed (Polygonum persicaria), iris (Iris
spp.), arrow-leaf tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), and sedge (Carex spp.) are observed across
the site, particularly in inundated areas. Woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), an obligate wetland
plant, is dominant in the central wetter zone of the site. The presence of these herbaceous
wetland plants indicates the presence of wetland hydrology on the site.
There are zones of weedy species occurring on the site, though none seem to be posing any
problems for the woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation. The majority of the weedy
species are annuals and seem to pose very little threat to survivability onsite. Commonly seen
weedy vegetation includes hay, dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum), dogfennel (Eupatorium
7 October 2008
40 -
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
capillifolium), broomsedge (Andropogon spp.), buttercup (Ranunculus spp.) and blackberry
(Rubus spp.).
4.0 STREAM MONITORING
4.1 STREAM SUCCESS CRITERIA
As stated in the approved Restoration Plan, the stream restoration success criteria for the site
includes the following:
• Bankfull Events: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five-year
monitoring period.
• Cross sections: There should be little change in as-built cross sections. Cross sections
shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method and all monitored cross
sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for "B" or "C" type
channels. Cross section data will be collected annually.
• Longitudinal Profile: The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are
remaining stable, i.e. they are not aggrading or degrading. Bedforms observed should be
consistent with those observed in "E" or "C" type channels. Profile data will be collected
in monitoring Years 1, 3, 4, and 5.
• Photo Reference Stations: Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel
aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness
of erosion control measures. Photos will be taken annually at permanent cross sections
and grade control structures.
• Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling: Benthic macroinvertebrates will be sampled
annually in monitoring years 1, 2, and 3. Benthic macroinvertebrate samples will be
identified, and a tolerance value will be calculated.
4.2 STREAM MORPHOLOGY MONITORING PLAN
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted
following completion of construction on the City Pond Site:
• Benthic Macroinvertebrates: Benthic macroinvertebrate data will be collected from the reference
reach (Beaverdam Branch) and within the project reach. Year 3 post-restoration sampling was
done in early 2008. Sample collections follow protocols described in the standard operating
• procedures of the Biological Assessment Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality. The Qual-4
collection method is used for the collection of macroinvertebrate samples. The metrics to be
calculated include total and EPT taxa richness, EPT abundance, and biotic index values.
4.2.1 Cross Sections
According to the As-Built Report written in August 2005, 20 cross sections are to be monitored
along the restored tributaries R2, R3, S3, S4, S5, and S6. Locations of these cross sections are
specified in Figure 3. Each cross section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to
establish the exact transect used. Permanent cross section pins were surveyed and located relative
to a common benchmark to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year data. The annual cross
section surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including floodplain, top of bank,
bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg. In addition, any fluvial features present will be
documented. Permanent cross sections for 2008 (Year 4) were surveyed in July 2008. Data and
photos of each cross section are included as Appendix B.
8 October 2008
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
4.2.2 Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal profile will be surveyed in years one, three, four, and five of the five-year
monitoring period. The profile will be conducted for a length of restored channel of at least 30%
of the total restoration length or 3,000 feet, whichever is greater. Features measured will include
thalweg, inverts of located stream structures, water surface, and top of bank on either side of the
channel. The longitudinal survey of 3,400 linear feet of stream channel was conducted for 2008
(Year 4) in July of 2008.
4.2.3 Hydrology
Three crest gauges were installed on the site to document bankfull events. These gauges record
the highest out-of-bank flow event that occurs each month and are checked in the last week of
every month during the growing season. The gauges are located on the downstream portions of
Rl, R2, and S4 (Figure 3).
4.2.4 Photo Reference Stations
Photographs are used to visually document restoration success. Although specific photo points
are not set up across the City Pond site, photos were taken at every located structure. Reference
photos are taken at each permanent cross section from both stream banks, as well as facing
upstream and downstream. The survey tape is centered in the photographs of the bank, and the
water line is located in the lower edge of the frame with as much of the bank as possible included
in each photo. Problem area photos and general photos of the site are located in Appendix D.
4.3 STREAM MORPHOLOGY MONITORING RESULTS
4.3.1 Cross Sections
The cross sections were surveyed during the monitoring set-up, Year 1, Year 2, Year 3, and in
July 2008 for Year 4. The baseline data has been compared with the Year 1 and Year 2
monitoring data in Appendix B. Also included in Appendix B are the surveyed cross sections for
Year 3 and Year 4. Compared to the documented data from the Year 3 survey, the Year 4 channel
cross sections showed that overall stream dimensions remained stable during this fourth growing
season. Some localized areas of bed scour and/or aggradation were noted; however, these
adjustments are common and indicate a movement toward greater stability. There is very little
difference between the baseline cross sections, and Years 1-4 cross sections.
9 October 2008

N
_ n

00
£8 CIVN

C LL.
N

U o
0
c
0

x

j

W d .fin '

fi? w
,
` 1
1
5
N t?-;?-

Cd
\? ?Y 4?? ? J
x

% < J

-;.
O U d

Q
_
In Ul
ti' O
{yrt ?: ? ?
X m

X tD ?'7 4k
,~
•- w
to

*?> 0 O

O
,
n
O s:
f
X d X 1/
u' t;l

\ { \
1/
y? t
..
x Al 5. ,wR ? Jt /' . 3
{ Y '?
? Y
?- y \

KC ?`?!° y ? -., ; ?t'
? r\Y?•? ??`?, l.Sl?l\LjI J
tt? ? ?
W

r ?; ,
?z? x rat: x
?

o

w x
J
CL ?

'
'cFb
• ,.a ? W
,.
•.
?. , V
W 1?.i1
? .?r?:. Wm

X v:? Yy it ?%
\
Y:^ I
` x

N
\ X

000--0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
4.3.2 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile survey was conducted along four separate reaches of the restoration
project, totaling approximately 3,400 linear feet. Survey was conducted in reach R2 from STA
27+50 (XS 4) to STA 39+50 (XS 6), in reach R3 from STA 44+00 (XS 7) to STA 49+00 (XS 8),
in reach S4 from STA 15+50 (XS 13) to STA 23+50 (XS 15), and in reach S5 from STA 14+00
(XS 10) to STA 23+00 (XS 12). The longitudinal profile information documents the elevations
and locations of known streambed features and in-stream grade control structures according to the
As-Built survey plans, as shown in Appendix A. The profile and cross sections show that there
has been very little adjustment to stream profile or dimension since construction. Table 6
summarizes stream areas requiring observation. Figures 4a-4e show the locations of the stream
areas that require observation.
Table 6_ Ctream Area. Rennirino Observation

ID
Station
Feature ;_
Problem
Severity + Recommend
on
SPAT Rl 10+20 Culvert Left bank erosion at culvert outlet Moderate Monitor
SPA2 S1 11+80 Lo weir Erosion US of structure Minor Monitor
SPA3 S l 15+30 Lo weir Headcut Minor Monitor
SPA4 S I 15+80 Lo weir Erosion, potential problem Minor Monitor
SPA5 S5 18+50 Left bank Erosion behind matting Minor None
SPA6 R2 23+90 Left bank Undercut, approx. 15' loo Moderate Monitor
SPAT R2 34+50 Right bank Erosion behind matting Minor None
SPA8 R3 47+80 Left bank Erosion Minor Monitor
SPA9 R3 48+50 Flood lain Lack of vegetation on right bank Moderate None
SPA10 S3 13+20 Left bank Erosion behind matting Heavy Monitor
11 October 2008
0 Q
Q
E
o
a-
?-
o
_ a-
? " U
E
CIO
qqyy ?s
cot,
o f
m
Ile
y-
'oo
1-? f r o
-40
r .! ry rpi ?. ?:
t j N 118
f j + "e1? LU
f f _ boa°' m z x
SA4
Iltt A`? ? ' .s
ax
i z?+ N
f
r t,? a I
f q'
+G7
f ? {
? r
a

N in
Q ?
0 - ?
n
U
s E
s} p
} N
o
c 1?
t- -
v ?
10
? ? ? "` •?..? `'- ?-ao-.. ? ?-sip ?,,,,. •?' l tea.- ?
!'-- ++
1 a /
qty
-34- L&I
S
41
r .-
h "? ev m
/ r z
vi
/ tr a
r l?e? N
'Ic
to
w
t
0 1

u
O U
Q
a?
O -
-- LL-
O
cn
t ?
R p
zvel
-01
l
? yy
ru` w l
1
t l ? ;f
??J( nom/ ?
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
a
N
c E
oil 11?Ii? 1 01
a?
41 /j/
x
{r A ?sz
?---
Ce)
/ I I
00
k
Cf)
40
?-L U
46
.-- T Anon ?o+ ZV'i C N UVIS 4 133N2 gW1WVM SS-

Q
-0 E
C O
O _
O
n
U E
d
a.?
-?
V)

NOLLVJS 8 133HS miNI1HO11 W -gS-
?

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
4.3.3 Hydrology
During the 2008 monitoring season, three crest gauges were monitored to determine if there were
any out-of-bank flow events in the City Pond stream channel. Between the months of February
and September, six bankfull events have been documented during the monthly onsite visits. Crest
gauges 1 (in Reach Rl) and 3 (in Reach S4) each registered 2 out-of-bank flows, while crest
gauge 2 (Reach R2) registered six out-of-bank flows. The largest stream flow documented for
Year 4 by the onsite crest gauges was a flow that occurred during July and was 3.5 feet above the
bankfull stage. Based on observations of ponded water, debris lines, and sediment deposition on
the floodplain, it has been determined that this bankfull event spread over much of the riparian
areas adjacent to the stream. The hydrology success criteria have already been satisfied by
bankfull events in previous monitoring years.
Table 7. Crest Gauge Data
Month i
ded Crest Gaugo l ?riAt Gang e
e 2 - C*i4t Giuge 3
January --- --- ---
February 0.00 0.60 0.00
March 0.00 0.65 0.00
April 0.00 1.05 0.20
May 0.00 0.00 0.00
June 0.00 0.00 0.00
Jul 0.00 3.50 0.00
August 0.40 1.50 0.70
September 0.70 2.30 0.00
October --- ---
November ---
December --- ---
Table 8. Summarv of MorDholotyie Monitoring, Parameters
4 rear 4 Rear 4 Yesr 4'Y. Yew' ear
Parameter
Ruch

<Sl ch
Rea

d Reach
l
. Reac
? eac e
.h e 611

e eh ,
µ I
F R2 S
L
. a,. r ? F- 4 ?r'C
Drainage Area (Ac) x x x x x x x x
Bankfull Xsec Area,
Abkf s ft 3.8 15.5 8.0 37.5 19.1 9.9 5.3 3.1
Avg. Bankfull
Width, Wbkf ft 7.6 11.3 9.6 33.6 14.7 10.8 8.8 7.2
Bankfull W/D 15.6 8.2 11.5 30.0 11.3 11.9 14.6 16.8
Bankfull Mean
Depth, Dbkf ft 0.5 1.4 0.8 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.6 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth,
Dmax ft 1.0 2.9 1.5 2.7 2.5 1.6 0.9 1.0
4.3.4 Climate Data
In 2008 the City Pond restoration site experienced drought conditions consistent with state-wide
trends, which were similar to those that occurred in 2007. Precipitation levels at the Wadesboro
monitoring station near the City Pond site fell within the normal range for much of the spring and
summer. In June, the precipitation level fell below the normal range, to 1.19 inches (Figure 5 and
17 October 2008
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
Table 9). During July, the Wadesboro station received 3.95 inches-1.31 inches below the
historic monthly average. Above average rainfall in August and September reversed the rainfall
deficit that had been accumulating from January through July.
Table 9. Countv and On-site Rainfall Data
Normal Limits
rOn
Month Average 30

Percent 70

Percent
Wadesboro
P?rec?pitation
-Site
Precipitation
January 4.66 3.31 5.78 1.88 ---
February 3.56 2.18 4.37 3.79 6.15
March 4.61 3.28 5.58 3.71 2.63
April 2.94 1.54 3.78 3.96 3.38
May 3.44 2.18 3.93 2.39 2.60
June 4.56 2.74 5.84 1.19 1.95
July 5.26 3.26 6.06 3.95 5.35
August 4.41 2.67 5.36 13.16 7.25
September 4.25 2.15 5.87 7.36 9.74
October 3.66 1.85 4.87 --- ---
November 3.1 2.14 3.86 --- ---
December 3.28 2.16 3.83 --- ---
Total 47.73 29.46 59.13 41.39 39.05
18 October 2008
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report,for 2008 (Year 4)
Figure 5. 2008 Precipitation for City Pond
F 2008 Precipitation for City Pond Site
15
14
13
12
11
10
N
t 9
V
C
C
O
jp 7
.Q
6
a
s
4
3
2-
1
0
J
F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
-Wadesboro Daily Rainfall --o-On-site Rain Gauge ------- 30th/70th Percentile -A Wadesboro Monthly Rainfall
4.4 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY RESULTS
On both the R and S streams, there was a distinct downstream decline in tolerance value of the
organisms, with higher EPT taxa richness and lower biotic index values at the upstream sampling
sites. The 2007/2008 drought had a severe affect, producing low total taxa richness at all
sampling sites (8-12 taxa). Similar results had been seen in 2007, with only 10-13 taxa per site.
There was a conspicuous absence of two very common stream taxa: Cheumatopsyche and
Stenonema modestum. Flow dependent organisms (esp. Simuliidae) were present at the
downstream sites, but more time would be required to establish a normal stream fauna.
Table 10. Macroinvertebrate Data

Taxon Tolerance
Value
Count
Order EPHEMEROPTERA R2 R3 S4 S5
Genus Species Paralepto hlebia s 0.9 2 - 1
Genus Species Plauditus dubius r 5.8 6 4 - 3
Genus Species Si hlonurus s 5.8 2 - - -
Genus Species Caenis s 7.4 - - 1 -

Order PLECOPTERA
Genus Species Perlesta s 4.7 23 16 27 2
19
October 2008
City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
Genus Species Am hinemura s 3.3 12 - 3 -

Order TRICHOPTERA
Genus Species NeoDhvlax ous 2.2 1 - - -

Order COLEOPTERA
Genus Species Neo onus mellitus r 4.0 4 - 3 -
Genus Species Peltodvtes s 8.7 - 4 - -

Order DIPTERA: MISC
Genus Species Simulium s 6.0 3 18 - 11
S'
Order DIPTEA
Family CHIRONOMIDAE
Genus Species Concha elo is group 8.4 5 2 3 2
Genus Species Zavrelim is s 9.1 - - - 2
Genus Species Orthocladius dorenus 5.6 - 3 1 -
Genus Species 0. robacki 6.6 - 1 - -
Genus Species 0. ni ritus 4.6 - 1 - -
Genus Species Cricoto us bicinctus 8.5 - 3 1 -

Genus Species Psectrocladius
sordidellus r
-
-
-
2
-
Genus Species Parachironomus s 9.4 - - 2 -

Order OLIGOCHAETA
Genus Species Lumbriiculidae 7 7 - -
Genus Species Me adriles 9 - - - 1
Genus Species Limnodrilus s 9.5 - - 1 -

Order CRUSTACEA
Genus Species Cran on x s 7.9 11 - 1 -
Genus Species Procambarus s 7 - 1 - 1

Order MOLLUSCA
Genus Species Ph Sella s 8.8 - 3 1 -

Genus Species Pseudosuccinea
columella
7.7
-
1
-
-
Genus Species Menetus dilatatus 8.2 - - 1
ii
Order OTHER
Genus S ecies Corixidae (Henri tera) 9 - 1 - -

Total Taxa Richness 12 12 12 8
EPT Taxa Richness 6 2 4 2
Number of organisms 77 55 46 23
NC Biotic Index 5.6 6.3 5.'7 6.6
BI rating (not a Good- Good-
bioclassification) Good Fair Fair Fair
20 October 2008

City Pond Mitigation Site
Annual Monitoring Report for 2008 (Year 4)
4.5 STREAM CONCLUSIONS
In-stream structures installed within the channel include constructed riffles, cross vanes, log
vanes, log weirs, root wads, and step-pools. Visual observations of structures throughout the 2008
growing season indicated that most structures are functioning as designed. Three separate log
weirs on reach S 1 were undercutting and allowing water to flow underneath. Headcuts have
started to form in various spots in S 1 as well as erosion along banks just downstream of log weir
structures. There are several other areas of minor bank erosion throughout the rest of the project
due to improperly installed coir matting and low vegetation density. Many of these banks appear
to be stabilizing and no immediate action is required. The banks will be monitored to ensure that
they remain stable.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Data collected during monitoring Year 4 and observations of conditions at the site
indicate that the project continues to be successful. The stream morphology is generally
stable. Several in-stream structures are experiencing slight scour, but appear to still be
functioning properly. Some siltation is occurring throughout the various reaches,
resulting in vegetation growth in the channel. These vegetated areas are accumulating
more sediment which is causing slight downcutting to either side of these mid-channel
bars. It was concluded that the site continues to be on track to achieve the stream success
criteria specified in the Restoration Plan.
• • Vegetation monitoring efforts have documented the average number of stems per acre on
• site to be 568, which is a survival rate of 90% based on the initial planting count of 632
stems per acre. The vegetation survivability is acceptable and the final vegetative success
criteria should be met for the end of the fifth growing season.

• On both the R and S streams, there was a distinct downstream decline in water and/or
habitat quality, with higher EPT taxa richness and lower biotic index values at the
upstream sites. The 2007/2008 drought had a severe affect, producing low total taxa
richness at all sampling sites (8-12 taxa).
• Monitoring of stream and vegetation will continue through the 2009 season (Year 5).
21
October 2008
APPENDIX A
As-Built Survey
fillg
w s?ed
W
O {p
C w
U $tl
R
F ? U
>y
W cc u
j3m 3? W W
?`u?i = m 3F ?M
Nyy?$
S? E
LO
v
d
f`
g
z
O `5
Q _ O \ x? ?eaac a'+o
ca
_ \a `fin
S
1
g i ?.
vv?
Z:f 4?/ r -40- m N
Y{ 11? ` ( ~ \ 40-- x_-41
? go
1 I J l ` ?tC 39 -40 39l o +?j?
O \ / NN%i
°?,.
JLU
04
ten'
co g?
z
O
v
r
w
w
x
N
W
z
J
Y
Q
CSI ?In a
"fy \
\L f.'ti O
! n
o? &
a ?$
T3Y
?7$
z
w O
4
w
h y
? ?\$ \ w
z
1-1-P

0
Ca ? ?
J
U
N
I
h ?
O
Ln
A
CN
N
O
O
O 2
lLI N
L
>
>-
w
w
z
N
w
z
J
Q
A
N
• • • • • • • • •I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • t • • • • • • • • • •

loll

K
W
cl:
?
yy
??•gi

Z
m
Eli g92 F< m
A
W
i
W
CV
z
Q
F-
a
r
w
w
2
co
LJ
z
F
5
C D
jy0i
yJ ef.
0
liJ
Q
U
h
1fh
N

8

Z z c??
O

t ?
o
??
` v
m?
gw
g x?
WW
R
??

[
u

?
? !
?
tY
f ?W H V
J
0
4 0 ?.
a
? U
N
,o ZS'Z4+ZZ NOUVIS 8 133HS 3NnHo1HW -9S'
\ /1 ecc , , y \ :,
?i1s $ 1??,?s ??sl -4S' / rl' 1 \;E * RAF
CJV -0
? i •sz z ? p \ 1 ?w f c;
lit
4k \ 1 1 ( I { / s \q,, \ \ 1 N i 1 u
,qr l0
uj
t nr
ag
l
n
Z
i
0
C
pg tV
r m F W S W
m
4£?5
i
11
1 I f ? / / / /
??1 II1 II
a
f+c
1^ti{
?J
c
SFIE" 7 S.rpjmON 20+92 46
I?
G
y u / ?o I I ?' ?? r \ \ \ 1
too,
/ r
ZglZ +ZZ NOLLV1S Z 133HS WlHOlVW -SS-
w6P'80'HSd"Sd'XS3-dWIO\}

G Sr?..a

Z V ??
G ?
b ?~
=2

w3W c

z
?-O
U
W
a
w
w
z m
®W
0--1
w
w
£8 (3VN
-"ONNW
?I
0
o?
al
?0.
• ,i
U?
n
F?
R
0
x o
G 4] E
uj
O v
4A
n
C
r
W
o z `'
o m m
U
<O
N ?r O
4Ow
< wU
w Za o
a o; ?
pZ w
J < y
20 . WU
2 H Q m
!q (7 ZW JZ
WE Ww ?a
FW mz ?o
0. '1 F
FN J QF
00 ?? zp
?Q yw O2
Q Y z ZW
mF -W
FM- Q
H µi !L z
Q(7
HI CL f ?
ZOII ci vi
•.......•i•••••••••••••••••••••••i'••••••••i•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
APPENDIX B
2008 Profile and Cross Section Data
?orYwBfi'?
N ?:dl,,,.; C "
R€i S Yt 1 ?f /r4
ALVIN&
1r?
!t
? r
4 r
Y
C
f0
r
t
C
Y
O
O
J
Y
C
t9
J
m
Y
O
O
J

?I
u
II ?-

Gam..
N
G!
1 I
I
1
N
U
6? T
? I
V1 ? m
v 3 a
0
a° o

v
_ Y
Ail
?i
v?

I a
o
r
- d - c o?
- c ? a x
(1;1) uoilenalg

e
Y `rx

t
Fo-
ls?
*IRT
,?t'p
tom,, G?"j
4
q?p'a? ??. t* X4.1

r
e
rr,
rr
? y
?,?? Y

'oop
?Ay
rid ?'4
P ?

O
Vl }
M
O
7 N

1
T
M

M
72
0 3

u °

o
0. w
Y

O P

Vl N
N
O
a

i a
0
lo
(1j) uoilenalA
0
T
v
I
�
!
I
lC
i
�n
! j
I
N
4.
td
73
Q
O
pa
CC
Q
O
L
V
O
C
Q
O
M
>
N
a
N
p
I
�
O
N
y
�
O
a
o
0
o
O,
11
r -
00 r_ l0 V1 V M
(g) U011VAalg

K
.,g6 fit

? f ?C x
t y

rM '
+^P i

i

µ*

e

t
,,k}?r
;z?gr ? x P
a ? a wy 4. ?y 4
T"
y

r h.
? T

t?

'a .

Y
C
.Q
Y
O
O
J
Y
C
J
R
C
Y
O
O
J

C
v> >y'

ICE
N
m ?

C
O 3
W
U d
b
3
L
(? N
G
O
b >

U N
n
.
? CJ
G
O

r V rf? N - O
r r r t` r
({{) uogenOl?j
1
•
a
t
3
>I1T
p
v 1
C
p
N
F.
6�
4)
W
p
L
V
r3
O
a
m
Q
C
rA
cd
•
I
C
(�) uoc��naig

?
f
? - y t
3
?
y +y
w
` ,
G "`.I db q, .

q Y
?

??? b.5 f ??
M }
i
f
y r ,?
xi,
wd6ar^? Erb ? '? ? ;
s
b

t r
r

ar " `'
` J
G
t

xW " MJ.

?^4
t

Ada ? eC:.r w .aye :?• :? 'h
99F y.Y?N-` "?G"? ?tl 6c r? "y.7
rS.5 ? ? 14'i
V k
y ^'
p.

d
N
}
I
?
II

m N
w 1

C
O
it
m
ti

O
v N 'b
3.
d

4 'u

Y_ c
N
V C

i
O
0.
O
O ?
v-,

V ,^ N 0
(tj) UOIJVAO('?

?v
Y
O
O
J

R

sai"

1, f-i
w f0
a
. c

r
M
u
?

0
a,
?,
l
rl T
C

h
0 M
l
U "' c

o
C. o v

7.
w M
?
V-.
U

I
N h
N
O

vi ' O

(tf) uogUA313
f
r
sy" L

@
... r
to Q
{+?9M rt? A?HA .
?`
o {
2
Y
too N

1, 4 i,

gC.
°v 4 `M•?
T y Z LL
fC

+ d3Y
a

, ?.t..
Y?
G
d N
Yt
0
J
y..
t

t
?
?
x rt
!yam
L y ?? .,
r
.
y

i N N
l
" PM
i
.q

w
?4,s w e +; e.
?' y ?
J
ar
? S

is

V?

?
O
M
vl ? '
+I

7
cJ
N
ire
C a
m
O ^

U
'°
0 3,
s~ ,_

C N
O yi
a
I
U P
O
N
R
u

C
O

b
cl
c
o
N
x o a
r
x x ? 10
t`
(1j) UO!jPA3[]
C
?C
? I

Vl vI
}

M I
? A
GJ
C
c7
N
O
O
u

?n
p V7
M
w
u
5

u I M, 3

d
c ?I
to

V ?? I
Y
C

N
C .fl
I
j
J
Vl R
O
a
0

I
I
o 0

v V M N
0o x x x x 0
a
a r
(u) U011En21A
O
'o
m a.. ? wry
t

W
•f.
a
?n c
c
vl
M

a
o
0? ' a
u

r'i c
C
O
U
y
Uj

vi
7
C1
? ? I Q
U
-o c 3
O o?
a

Y
G

O
N

? G
O
L1,
a
0

o 0

< r N o ..
(t{) UOIILIAO13

Y
C
R
Q
L
R
C?
C:
Y
C)
C1
J

r

Y
N
G
C
`J

'r
m

C M
N
F
U
W 1

L' ,? CO
U
d t
0
3
0
L
V M
_

O

7.
N
X
?+ C
P
N
L:
in O
c

O

l?
? i!? V M N Ci
(1{) UOIJUAalH
Y
c
.r
.r
ca
a?
c
Y
O
O
J

3
f
?
'
` , .
?
t 4 Lr
?

m
"rk+m A

0

a
M
M '
N
C ?
M ?
b
3
N Q]
0 0
U
V
c
A
c
O
O
a
vi
C'
V
0
L
U
O
0.
I U
O`. ?G l? SJ Vl V M N --
t` r r ? ? n r ? r
(13) UOIJBADJA

Y+',
? 'S}
rj ?
p
J
f yy

t J
?.
-
wi ? F J4
_

1

T J?k

° ir i V, ?.w

O ?

r1
VI

v

A N

l?
? T

C p],
y M ?

3
o

L
U _

O O

Q U
0.
w
fJ ?
U A
O
N
V
U
O
Q
O

O 01 00 1?
(1,}) UOIJV
? ? ?
Aal?j O

r

?, Y•a d ??Ym

.z«
N w ?

m
?
a
. r

41% 1
ro C
A?•nA '. ? Q

^?tw
I`
U
C r?;
cG
U
I }
v
N
V
C I
Ny V
W _
j I
.rr vi p] I
u .?
u
O ?
L
U
.I
^c
O N ?
a 1
U+ ?
C
N
cQ
ro
U
^i G
I ?
O
G
o II
C
r r r r
(lj) UOIJOAa[A

F° '?
x
? ar p\ WJF"r + C
"
h m? JJj

y.ffiP". .W ,
. ? t Y

F

r
?r
o
V I
U
j
J1TI-
C I
M
N i
I U I
? r
0
N
C
Cut ? Q
0
L O
U rd G
'O is I
C U
U
.L
1 G
V
U
C
? O
Q
0
x r` ..
x x r t? ? ?
(t{) uogenalg

±"!1 '?
9
.r o-
1

-w

Al"

P? o

:k y g4'4'Y? ?g.

"5''W rH lM ? w

4? .
c

k w4 y?,r,
,w C
%?tla ' _ . "' fC

M. d

Ac*ir': J
.r.
V»
.
wa, c4
y cm
t W v?.

,gy
p ynp

°S

I

o
y
R
}

?y N
O
V] ? Q
«.
I
b
0 3
s.

U
0
I

'a I?
N
C
O ai I
4 a?

U G
I .n
?I
c IIc
c
a
c
c,
to
C

x x x z
(11) UOgtiADIA
a
yy /`
l

J

R. Y 'R n w..v
?
z
?
z'?x g
_
?.r

O
rY
I ?
}
C
5.
p
M
N
N
r
C,r O
I
Q ?

u N '°
31

C,

O
O. Y

R

U ? II

L
.7

O
I
?n

0
C
0, x ?
Q" ? ;
({}) uouenalg O

T
0
0
o
X
I
•

+ 0
o
+ x
•
I??
v
?
x
i
--- - it

? x o
o
o0
?
0 I
• O

?i
• O
O
xX
r
0

+ o
- _- O
00

O .a
+
°

•+ o

- °o
w
..

Q
?i -1 o

Qr N
col •
+ °
?
?

•
- - °
o o
.fir
v N
e?
¦
+X x
? ? o
w
0 - - o
0
•+x
o
° i
t

- o
- °o
M
a +X x
?
a
N O

r
O
N
• O
o
• W
+•
+
x x O
O
+

o •+

O O M r O
ao I- r r` r

U') V
r` r

Cl) N
r r °
O
O
t? r
(33) UOIJUA01:j

m
0
0
N
X
O
O
N
x
0
0
N
X
O
O O
O
J
O r
O `V
C -T
~ ? N
U 4.+
¦
M
s 3
V r
? o
N N
W
I ?
lip
N
U
x
O
N
L
N
C1]
N
G
U
r
0
0
N
C
C
O
O
v
CZ
W
v
C
0 0
M
C
C
U
O
O
N
O
Cl
O
O oG ?D ?T N 00 ?G ?t N
x r r r r ? ? ? ?
(1!) UOIJUAal:i
G_
x
co
O
H
co
O
O
N
X
m
0
F-
O
O
N
m
O
H
J
00
O
O
N
X
co
0
O J
+ r
M C)
N N
O
Q r CO
C)
rr
O o0
u N
N?
W
N
m
C
C
(0
L
U
co
0
O
N
N
ED
N
C
C
(D
U
0
0
I•TN
I
O
O
r
O
O
O
O
u
U
L'
O ?
O 0
U
C
G
s
U
M
c

O
r `C V r? N
r r r r r r r
(13) UOIJUAa13

O
O
M
N
O
O
O
C ?
O .?
U ?
U
W
z
x
N

m
`r^
r
O
O
N

m
F-'
.-1
x
O
c
N
X
m
O
F-
a
0
0
•
3
N
m
b
U
f..
s
U
x
0
0
N
b
C>
m
U
C
C
cd
U
n
C
O
N
0
0
x
O
O
r
O
0
o ?
u
C
D
v
C
C
o c?
o ?
? U
O
C
M
O
O
N
O
x Ic V N C? x 1z; d
00 x x x x r 1 r
(1!) UOIIUAal:i
APPENDIX C
2008 Site Photos
^" ,./"fMP •' x '? Ai?,P"??h ??"t 4, A4 ALL'

? v

Left bank erosion @ station 10+20 facing downstream (R1)
Left bank erosion @ station 10+20 facing upstream (R1)

Erosion behind log weir @ station 11+80 facing upstream (S 1)
Headcut forming downstream of log weir @ station 15+30 (S 1)
•'r?' ?, , UK
, 741.
d
N.
Maw /'« "'.x ??`, .,y 1yl.? ?, • ?! ? ?. ? y?`W? Pte;
Channel erosion downstream of log weir @ station 15+80 (S 1)
t , a
IN,
Ak-
r; tit ? . .• br ? ? 'gyp . ?
W , ' r sr e? ?? z y
,
,
6lAy a-. .xa ??"?y
if, 11,
w 4` : ?rr rf+ a. mM? r? . ? ? A""' s , ? « 'rte Ya ?'
M t
F.
7A
Erosion behind coir matting @ station 18+50 (S5)

Undercutting along left bank @ station 23+90 (R2)
n ti
? A ? dN
t
t
r tn'J
FOP
0,14 A
4S<r a
C'
q„.y p

A, 0?
Erosion behind matting along right bank @ station 34+50 (R2)
a•.
,n,pp xP t N 'S'Y'"? w, W ?^ ;e a b ib,w rv? e%" Kea
b rs?
j
Erosion along left bank @ station 47+80 (R3)
Bare tloodplain due to lack of vegetation @ station 48+50 (R3)
d. yy?
.?
k a ? 'MBA OF 14
f z
Erosion on left bank @ station 13+20 (S3)
Constructed Riffle (Typ.)

Root Wads (Typ.)

ro
Uverworked, underpaid employee (Typ.)
k°''7-4MN AS
?: a a
eQ ?f' y?
a .{9.ryy* ,?.?.
c6 f, p ?.r A ? ?' ? ?
All
Q
2
r? F
y` a e Y ?, ? 6 i. '` ?r
^ ??gq? 4? t ? ? ,rl? ty?r t} l }
fah
i" .sdt?+?`",fir
Vegetation Plot #2
Vegetation Plot #1
v.
i
Fat r=r
;4
• l y t ` r
" w
3 G x' ? i ? t ? al yet r? t ? a a 1 ' {?'?A r, f? "Sy? fc
r., ? , t V ? ?, e {d r a }
e }? a ?? @;# f c c 7? i+ } ''?aa1d + <<a „ ?? r, 4ya
J?4;a
• ?•' „ d 4 A
1.
+td n ? «at
u ar t f 1+„ so IC i ?4 x f
? ?? c ,,r f ?u?'? 1 ? >E r F 1 y?, k 1 lati F ???a?l 1 ? f ,
• °t1?? 5.?}?. -'bl, ?f+i ?? ..?j gl.,,+?'? '?(, ?, 4': ?^f•S aPS'?' 9,.?1 ???• „?-, ?4?k 1'.•? "{,t?r`ir ! c??fa ??
iii T i JN• 1" e? ?+Sq. , y
Vegetation Plot #3
y3
d^ Y
? A
• ?? ?, ?;+<s f `'sue ' ?`?'? a F' ? ? ? ? a - :
171
? '? ?4?r ?' ? •" h x?; T4 ill ?r.4 ? `??`crr??y'" ? ? v ? i ? . ?? •
J?Y r t o rq?. r ? ?L •"?^P ?l 'a tb, c ?y t -.x D
M a.? x) '? V 9llr i 'i
G ? ?° 1Y T . y 4 1 ?p ? ?Yf
i 1`?p??I ?y is V d.J? t ? 1t ?,
Vegetation Plot #4
L,

Vegetation Plot #5