20061346 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20090212

I 06 134
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
' YEAR 2 (2008)
CONTRACT D06003-1

RECEMED
JAN 1 6 2009
6 fC EC;,) SYSTEM
dHA? Ck:t,"rNT PROGRAM
LLOYD STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
yd J 4,
FULL DELIVERY PROJECT ••y` # 4 `e` z' ?' f
WHITE OAK RIVER BASIN
CATALOGING UNIT 03030001
DEfJtt VVATEi,+, . C.dli
ANA S ir`iR`r?";,',TER 8?,E??dG?t
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
Prepared by: e?
b
And
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Restoration Systems, LLC Axiom Environmental, Inc.
' 1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 2126 Rowland Pond Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Willow Springs, North Carolina 27592
November 2008
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, L.L.C. has completed restoration of stream and wetlands (riverine and nonriverine)
at the Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site to assist the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program in fulfilling stream and wetland mitigation goals in the region. The Site is located approximately
1 mile southeast of Richlands and 5 miles northwest of Jacksonville, in Onslow County. The Site is
located in United States Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03030001010030 (North
Carolina Division of Water Quality Subbasin 03-05-02) of the White Oak River Basin and will service the
USGS 8-digit CU 03030001. This report serves as the Year 2 (2008) annual monitoring report.
Primary activities at the Site included 1) stream restoration, 2) wetland restoration, 3) soil scarification,
and 4) plant community restoration. Project restoration efforts provide a minimum of 4750 Stream
Mitigation Units, 3.3 riverine Wetland Mitigation Units, and 3.1 nonriverine Wetland Mitigation Units as
outlined in the June 2005 Technical Proposal.
Five vegetation plots (10 meters by 10 meters in size) were established and permanently monumented.
These plots were surveyed in late July and mid-September 2008 for the Year 2 (2008) monitoring season.
Based on the number of stems present, the average density of all plots was 599 planted stems per acre
surviving in Year 2 (2008). The dominant species identified at the Site were planted stems of sycamore
(Platanus americana), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and sugarberry (Celtis laevigata).
Vegetation sampling across the Site was above the required average density with 599 planted stems per
acre with individual plot densities ranging from 364 to 809 planted stems per acre. A small area of poor
vegetation growth is located near groundwater monitoring Gauge 4, most likely due to a lack of nutrients
in the soil after construction. This area will continue to be monitoring; however, is expected to recover
naturally. No other vegetation problem areas were noted during the Year 2 (2008) monitoring season.
Twelve cross-sections and longitudinal profiles within three reaches totaling 3442 linear feet were
measured during Year 2 (2008) monitoring. As a whole, monitoring measurements indicate that there
have been minimal changes in both the longitudinal profile and cross-sections as compared to as-built
data. The as-built channel geometry compares favorably with the emulated, stable E/C type stream reach
as set forth in the detailed mitigation plan and construction plans. Current monitoring has demonstrated
dimension, pattern, and profile were stable over the course of the monitoring period.
One stream problem area was noted at the forded stream crossing located within Monitoring Reach 1.
Heavy trucks used the ford during a logging operation affecting the integrity of the structure and causing
water to pond within approximately 100 linear feet of stream channel behind the ford. Restoration
Systems will resolve this problem during the winter of 2008-2009. No other stream problem areas were
noted within the Site during the Year 2 (2008) monitoring year.
Four restoration Site groundwater gauges and one reference groundwater gauge were operated for the
Year 2 (2008) monitoring season. One of the two groundwater gauges within the riverine wetland
restoration area was inundated/saturated within 12 inches of the surface for greater than 8 percent of the
growing season and none of the two monitored gauges within the nonriverine wetland restoration areas
were inundated/saturated within 12 inches of the surface for greater than 10 percent of the growing
season. However, rainfall data for the Year 2 (2008) growing season at nearby rain stations was widely
Annual Monitoring Report Executive Summary
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

varying and no conclusions could be made. Therefore, comparisons to the reference groundwater gauge
were made and of the groundwater gauges should be considered successful for the Year 2 (2008)
monitoring period.
In summary, the restoration site achieved success criteria for vegetation, stream, and hydrology attributes
in the Second Monitoring Year (2008).
Annual Monitoring Report
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Executive Summary

TABLE OF CONTENTS
'
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ....................................................... .................................................1
1.1 Location and Setting ............................................................... .................................................1

1.2 Project Objectives ...................................................................
.................................................1 '
1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach .................. ................................................. l
1.4 Project History and Background ..............................................
2.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS ........ .................................................4
................................................. 5 '
2.1 Vegetation Assessment ............................................................ ................................................. 5
-2.1.1 Vegetation Success Criteria ............................................. ................................................. 5
2.1.2 Vegetative Problem Areas ............................................... ................................................. 6 '
2.2 Stream Assessment ................................................................. ................................................. 6
2.2.1 Stream Success Criteria ................................................... ................................................. 6
2.2.2 Bankfull Events ............................................................... ................................................. 7

2.2.3 Stream Problem Areas .....................................................
................................................. 8 ,
2.2.4 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment .. ................................................. 8
2.2.5 Quantitative Stream Measurements ..........
........................
2.3 Wetland Assessment ....................................... .................................................9 '
2.3.1 Wetland Success Criteria ................................................. .................................................9
2.3.2 Wetland Problem Areas ................................................... .................................................9
2.3.3 Wetland Criteria Attainment ............................................ ...............................................14 ,
3.0 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ ...............................................15
4.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................... ...............................................17
FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location .......................................................................... ................................................. 2 '
Figure 2. Climatic Data .......................................................................... ...............................................14
TABLES
Table 1. Site Restoration Structures and Objectives ................................................................................ 3 ,
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History .................................... ..................................................4
Table 3. Project Contacts Table ............................................................ ..................................................4

Table 4. Project Background Table .......................................................
..................................................5 '
Table 5. Planted Species and Reference Forest Ecosystem .................... .................................................. 6
Table 6. Verification of Bankfull Events ............................................... .................................................. 7
Table 7A-C. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment ... ...............................................8-9 '
Table 8. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary ....................... ................................................10
Table 9A-C. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary ............. ...........................................11-13
Table 10. Wetland Criteria Attainment for Year 2 (2008) ...................... ................................................14

Table 11. Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results ..............................
................................................15 '
Table 12. Summary of Planted Vegetation Plot Results ......................... ................................................16
Annual Monitoring Report page i t
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

1
1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. VEGETATION DATA
1. Vegetation Survey Data Tables
2. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
APPENDIX B. GEOMORPHOLOGIC DATA
1. Tables B1-B3. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
2. Cross-section Plots and Tables
3. Longitudinal Profile Plots
4. Stream Fixed Station Photos
5. Stream Problem Area Photos
APPENDIX C. HYDROLOGY DATA
2008 Groundwater Gauge Data
APPENDIX D. MONITORING PLAN VIEW
Annual Monitoring Report
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
page ii
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.1 Location and Setting
Restoration Systems, L.L.C. (Restoration Systems) has completed restoration of stream and wetlands
(riverine and nonriverine) at the Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the
"Site") to assist the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) in fulfilling stream and
wetland mitigation goals in the region. The Site is located approximately 1 mile southeast of Richlands and
5 miles northwest of Jacksonville, in Onslow County (Figure 1). The Site is located in United States
Geological Survey (USGS) Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03030001010030 (North Carolina Division of Water
Quality [NCDWQ] Subbasin 03-05-02) of the White Oak River Basin and will service the USGS 8-digit
CU 03030001.
Directions to the Site from Richlands, North Carolina, are as follows:
? Travel east on Highway 24 for approximately 4 miles
? Turn left on Northwest Bridge Road and travel approximately 2 miles
? The Site is ol? the left
1.2 Project Objectives
The primary components of the restoration project included 1) construction of a stable, riffle-pool stream
channel; 2) enhancement of water quality functions within, upstream, and downstream of the Site 3)
creation of a natural vegetated buffer along restored stream channels; 4) restoration of jurisdictional
riverine and nonriverine wetlands in the Site; 5) improvement of aquatic habitat and species diversity by
enhancing stream bed variability; and 6) restoration of wildlife functions associated with a riparian
corridor/stable stream.
1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
A 24.3-acre conservation easement has been placed on the Site to incorporate all restoration activities. The
Site contains 22.5 acres of hydric soil, two unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the New River (main and eastern
tributaries), riparian buffer, and upland slopes. The purpose of this project was to restore stable pattern,
dimension, and profile to the UTs; restore hydrology to drained riverine and nonriverine wetlands; and
revegetate streams, floodplains, and wetlands within the Site. The Site drainage area encompasses
approximately 1.4 square miles of land at the downstream Site outfall that is characterized by agricultural
land, forest, and low-density residential development.
Prior to construction, the entire Site was characterized by active pasture, fallow fields, and forest stands.
Pasture was grazed by livestock including cattle and horses, and livestock had access to the entire Site. No
exclusionary barriers were located adjacent to onsite streams or wetlands and livestock contributed to
degradation of stream banks, unstable channel characteristics (stream entrenchment, erosion, and bank
collapse), degraded water quality, compacted hydric soils, and decreased wetland function. In addition, the
eastern tributary didn't receive natural stream flows. A berm had been placed near the eastern property/Site
boundary to redirect stream flows into a linear ditch that drained south along the eastern property boundary
into roadside ditches along the southern property boundary. The roadside ditch tied into the main tributary
in the southwestern portion of the Site.
The primary goals of this stream and wetland restoration project focused on improving water quality,
enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring aquatic and riparian habitat and were accomplished by:
Annual Monitoring Report page 1
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Directions to the Site from Richlands, North Carolina: ?
-> Take Highway 24 east for - 4 miles.
a Turn left on Northwest Bridge Road (denoted as Gum
Branch Road in some gazateers)
wM1ARV
-> Travel approximately 2 miles; the Site is on the left
owl
.? P . ., artlr A
Ji 11 R'ANN S AT^E I%o)RFfST ?,.. / .? '?
I 1 v ? ? 1, KaY .? a ?
Y? rt rr tj ,..t 6Y:
i
lYn
d+YN
_...1 l r,d- I r I
?5 ' ) '? ? 5' ? NC)F'bi'ANDf ? ? f?. r A y ? . • lr+ ?ri ?_ fa ?7«+9r ?-mow--,-L.
-
SIATF I•Wk5f _ ?i re s. / \
R (fqY Atn.n t.. (', `tl LAPP _ '? ti. 4M •t'
??. N Nb+d. .4 tIt / a= •' , '! X ?.,YMp 1y'i % ,\ p,?f'f'
qV11 ill
ir 4,.
00
Reference ' - T HOFMANN S TE FOR&sT
Forest
\ °`
00 1?
Lloyd
Site Location tian?. `?t ; ?$PLx? s
17
t .'^t y _ JncksnllviU? !WA
Ywo., d" raw. v.,
1 mi. 4 mi.
1:160 000
1 ?.
Source: 2003 North Carolina Atlas and Gaetteer , p.77. !
SITE LOCATION Dwn. by:
CLF FIGURE
NAlow W*.w Spdng, NC 27694 N27592 LLOYD STREAM AND WETLAND
Sping
(919) 7161699 RESTORATION SITE Date: NOV 2008
(919) 941• M fmc
Onslow County, North Carolina Project 08-007
• Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural production including a)
removal of livestock from streams, stream banks, and floodplains; b) cessation of broadcasting
fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural materials into and adjacent to Site streams and wetlands;
and c) providing a vegetative buffer adjacent to streams and wetlands to treat surface runoff.
• Reducing sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters by a) reducing bank
erosion associated with hoof shear, vegetation maintenance, and agricultural plowing to Site
streams and b) providing a forested vegetative buffer adjacent to Site streams and wetlands.
• Reestablishing stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment loads by
restoring stable dimension, pattern, and profile.
• Promoting floodwater attenuation by a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows to the abandoned
floodplain terrace; b) restoring secondary, entrenched tributaries thereby reducing floodwater
velocities within smallef catchment basins; c) restoring depressional floodplain wetlands and
increasing storage capacity for floodwaters within the Site; and d) revegetating Site floodplains to
increase frictional resistance on floodwaters crossing Site floodplains.
• Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability.
• Providing wildlife habitat including a forested riparian corridor within a region of the state highly
dissected by agricultural land use.
Primary activities at the Site included 1) belt-width preparation and grading, 2) floodplain bench
excavation, 3) channel excavation, 4) installation of channel and ditch plugs, 5) backfilling of the
abandoned channel and ditches, 6) ditch rerouting, 7) installation of in-stream structures and a Terracell
drop structure at the Site outfall, 8) construction of a piped channel crossing, 9) floodplain soil
scarification, and 10) plant community restoration.
Table 1 describes the Site restoration structures and objectives, which have provided a minimum of 4750
Stream Mitigation Units, 3.3 riverine Wetland Mitigation Units, and 3.1 nonriverine Wetland Mitigation
Units as outlined in the June 2005 Technical Proposal. Site restoration activities included the following.
• Restored 5858 linear feet of stream within two UTs to the New River by constructing meandering,
CB-type channels.
• Restored 3.3 acres of riverine wetland through filling ditches, removal of spoil castings,
eliminating agricultural practices, and/or planting with native forest vegetation.
• Restored 3.1 acres of nonriverine wetland through filling ditches, removal of spoil castings,
eliminating agricultural practices, and/or planting with native forest vegetation.
• Reforested the entire floodplain with native forest species.
Table 1. Site Restoration Structures and Objectives
Restoration Segment/
Reach ID Station Range Restoration
T e/A roach* Designed Linear
Footage/Acreage SMU/WMUs
Tributary 1 0+00-27+96 Restoration/PI 2796 2796
Tributary 2 0+00-30+62 Restoration/PI 3062 3062
Riverine Wetlands -- Restoration 3.3 3.3
Nonriverine Wetlands -- Restoration 3.1 3.1
Mitigation Unit Summations
Stream Riverine Wetland Nonriverine Wetland
5858 SMU 3.3 WMU 3.1 WMU
*PI=Priority I
Annual Monitoring Report
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
page 3 '
1.4 Project History and Background
Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background
information are summarized in Tables 2-4.
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History

Activity or Report Data
Collection
Completion Actual
Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan May 2006 June 2006
Construction Completion NA March 2007
Site Planting NA March 2007
Mitigation Plan/As-builts March 2007 May 2007
amended July 2007
Year 1 Monitoring (2008) November 2007 December 2007
Year 2 Monitoring (2008) November 2008 November 2008
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Full Delivery Provider Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
George Howard and John Preyer [phone]
Construction Contractor Backwater Environmental
PO Box 1654
Pittsboro, North Carolina 27312
Wes Newell [phone]
Planting Contractor Carolina Silvics
908 Indian Trail Road
Edenton, North Carolina 27932
Dwight McKinney [phone]
Designer and Year 2 (2008) Monitoring Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Performer 2126 Rowland Pond Dr.
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Grant Lewis [phone]
Year 1 (2007) Monitoring Performer ARACDIS G&M of North Carolina, Inc.
801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 300
Raleigh, NC 27607
Ben Furr and Keven Duerr [phone]
Annual Monitoring Report page 4
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Table 4. Project Background Table
Project County Onslow County, North Carolina
Drainage Area 1.4 square miles
Drainage impervious cover estimate (%) < 5
Stream Order First and Second
Physiogra hic Region Coastal Plain
Ecoregion Carolina Flatwoods
Rosgen Classification of As-built E-/C-type
Cowardin Classification Riverine: PFO1J
Nonriverine: PFOIA
Dominant Soil Types Rains, Muckalee, Goldsboro, Grifton,
Craven
Reference Site ID Bullard Branch
USGS HUC Site: 03030001
Reference: 03030007
NCDWQ Subbasin Site: 03-05-02
Reference: 03-06-22
NCDWQ Classification C NSW (Stream Index # 19-(1))
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed? No
Any portion of project upstream of a 303d listed segment? No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor Not Applicable
% of project easement fenced 100%
1.5 Monitoring Plan View
Monitoring activities for the Site, including relevant structures and utilities, project features, specific
project structures, and monitoring features are detailed in the monitoring plan view in Appendix D. Site
features including vegetation, stream dimension (cross-sections), stream profile and pattern, wetland
hydrology, and photographic documentation were monitored in Year 2 (2008).
2.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Following Site construction, five plots (10 meters by 10 meters in size) were established and monumented
with metal fence posts at all plot corners and PVC at each plot origin. Sampling was conducted as outlined
in the CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (Lee et al. 2006)
(http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm); results are included in Appendix A. The taxonomic standard for
vegetation used for this document was Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas
(Weakley 2007). The locations of vegetation monitoring plots were placed to accurately represent the
entire Site and are depicted on the monitoring plan view in Appendix D.
2.1.1 Vegetation Success Criteria
Success criteria have been established to verify that the vegetation component supports community
elements necessary for forest development. Success criteria are dependent upon the density and growth of
characteristic forest species. Additional success criteria are dependent upon density and growth of
"Characteristic Tree Species." Characteristic Tree Species include planted species, species identified
through inventory of a reference (relatively undisturbed) forest community used to orient the planting plan,
and appropriate Schafale and Weakley (1990) community descriptions (Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp
and Nonriverine Wet Hardwoods Forest). All canopy tree species planted and identified in the reference
Annual Monitoring Report page 5
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

I
forest will be utilized to define "Characteristic Tree Species" as termed in the success criteria. Table 5
' below outlines planted and reference forest species.
r
n

Table 5. Planted Species and Reference Forest Ecosystem
Planted Species Reference Species
Pawpaw (Asimina triloba) Red maple (Acer rubrum)
River birch (Betula nigra) Ironwood (Carpinus carohnia)
Mockernut hickory (Carya alba) Pignut hickory (Carya glabra)
Water hickory (Carya aquatica) Dogwood (Corpus sp.)
Sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) Ash (Fraxinus sp.)
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) American holly (Ilex opaca)
Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) Sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua)
Black walnut (Juglans nigra) Yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) White oak (Quercus albs
Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) Water oak (Quercus nigra)
Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagodaefolia) Laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia)
Water oak (Quercus nigra) Swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii)
Willow oak (Quercus phellos) Cherrybark oak (Quercus pagoda)
American elm (Ulmus americana)
Success criteria dictate that an average density of 320 stems per acre of Character Tree Species must be
surviving in the first three monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 Character Tree Species per acre must be
surviving in year 4 and 260 Character Tree Species per acre in year 5.
2.1.2 Vegetative Problem Areas
Vegetation sampling across the Site was above the required average density with an overall average of 599
planted stems per acre. A small area of poor vegetation growth is located near groundwater monitoring
Gauge 4, most likely due to a lack of nutrients in the soil after construction. This area will continue to be
monitoring; however, is expected to recover naturally. In addition, four small (less than 2 feet tall) privet
bushes near Station 16+00 of Tributary 1 were treated with a 2% solution of glyphosate herbicide in July.
' No other vegetation problem areas were noted during the Year 2 (2008) monitoring season.
2.2 Stream Assessment
' Twelve permanent cross-sections within three reaches totaling 3442 linear feet were established after
construction was completed. Measurements of each cross-section include points at all breaks in slope
including top of bank, bankfull, and thalweg. Riffle cross-sections are classified using the Rosgen stream
classification system. Longitudinal profile measurements include thalweg, water surface, and bankfull;
' with each measurement taken at the head of facets (i.e. riffle, run, pool, and glide) in addition to the
maximum pool depth.
' 2.2.1 Stream Success Criteria
Success criteria for stream restoration will include 1) successful classification of the reach as a functioning
stream system (Rosgen 1996) and 2) channel variables indicative of a stable stream system.
Annual Monitoring Report
page 6
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
The channel configuration will be measured on an annual basis in order to track changes in channel
geometry, profile, or substrate. These data will be utilized to determine the success in restoring stream
channel stability. Specifically, the width-to-depth ratio should characterize an E-type and/or a borderline
E-type/C-type channel (< 18), bank-height ratios indicative of a stable or moderately unstable channel, and
minimal changes in cross-sectional area, channel width, and/or bank erosion along the monitoring reach. In
addition, channel abandonment and/or shoot cutoffs must not occur and sinuosity values must remain at
approximately 1.3 (thalweg distance/straight-line distance). The field indicator of bankfull will be
described in each monitoring year and indicated on a representative channel cross-section figure. If the
stream channel is down-cutting or the channel width is enlarging due to bank erosion, additional bank or
slope stabilization methods will be employed.
Some areas within the design channel may be expected to form low-slope, braided, stream/swamp
complexes similar to Muckalee swamps in the area. These stream/swamp complexes would not be
considered unstable; however, footage of stream channel restoration in these reaches will be recalculated
from distance along the thalweg (1.3 sinuosity) to distance along the valley (1.0 sinuosity).
Stream substrate is not expected to coarsen over time; therefore, pebble counts are not proposed as part of
the stream success criteria.
Visual assessment of in-stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred. Failure of
a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of the
channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure.
2.2.2 Bankfull Events
No bankfull events were documented during the Year 2 (2008) monitoring period.
Table 6. Verification of Bankfull Events

Date of Data
Date of Method-State Climate Office of North Carolina
Preci itation Data
Photo (if
Collection Occurrence Precipitation Total
inches Station available)
-- 5/18/07 1.1 314471 - Jacksonville --
-- 6/3/07 1.25 314471 - Jacksonville --
-- 6/30/07 1.39 314471 - Jacksonville --
-- 7/21/07 2.05 314471 - Jacksonville --
-- 8/12/07 1.52 314471 - Jacksonville --
8/22/07 1.26 314471 - Jacksonville --
-- 9/20/07 1.54 314144 - Hoffinan Forest --
-- 9/21/07 1.54 314144 - Hoffman Forest --
Annual Monitoring Report page 7
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

2.2.3 Stream Problem Areas
1 One stream problem area was noted at the forded stream crossing located within Monitoring Reach 1.
Heavy trucks used the ford during a logging operation affecting the integrity of the structure and causing
water to pond within approximately 100 linear feet of stream channel behind the ford; pictures are included
' in Appendix B. Restoration Systems is currently assessing the problem and will either install a culvert or
lower the level of the ford during the winter of 2008-2009. No other stream problem areas were noted
within the Site during the Year 2 (2008) monitoring year.
' 2.2.4 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Each stream reach was visually inspected during the Year 2 (2008) monitoring period using eight feature
categories and various metrics within each category. Assessment features included riffles, pools, thalweg,
' meanders, channel bed, structures, and root wads/boulders. Tables for semi-quantitative assessements of
each reach are included in Appendix B (Tables B1-B5). The mean percentage of performance for features
within each reach are summarized in the tables below.
I

Table 7A. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Llovd (Reach 1)

Feature As-built Year 1
2007 Year 2
2008 Year 3
2009 Year 4
2010 Year 5
2011
A. Riffles 100% 100% 99%
B. Pools 100% 90% 100%
C. Thalweg 100% 100% 100%
D. Meanders 100% 100% 100%
E. Bed General 100% 100% 100%
F. Banks 100% 100% 100%
G. Vanes / I Hooks, Etc. 100% 100% 100%
H. Wads and Boulders NA NA NA
' Table 7B. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Llovd (Reach 21

k

Feature As-built Year 1
2007 Year 2
2008 Year 3
2009 Year 4
2010 Year 5
2011
A. Riffles 100% 100% 100%
B. Pools 100% 100% 99%
C. Thalweg 100% 100% 100%
D. Meanders 100% 100% 100%
E. Bed General 100% 95% 100%
F. Banks 100% 100% 100%
G. Vanes / J. Hooks, Etc. 100% 100% 100%
H. Wads and Boulders NA NA NA
Annual Monitoring Report
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
page 8
Table 7C. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Llovd (Reach 3)

Feature As-built Year 1
200 Year 2
2008 Year 3
2009 Year 4
2010 Year 5
2011
A. Riffles 100% 100% 100%
B. Pools 100% 90% 98%
C. Thalwe 100% 100% 100%
D. Meanders 100% 100% 100%
E. Bed General 100% 100% 100%
F. Banks 100% 90% 100%
G. Vanes / J. Hooks, Etc. 100% 100% 88%
H. Wads and Boulders NA NA NA
2.2.5 Quantitative Stream Measurements
During the Year 2 (2008) monitoring period 12 cross-sections and longitudinal profiles within three reaches
totaling 3442 linear feet were measured. Permanent cross-sections, longitudinal profiles, and photographs
are included in Appendix B. As a whole, monitoring measurements indicate minimal changes in both the
longitudinal profile and cross-sections as compared to as-built conditions. Although detailed surveys of as-
built conditions weren't conducted immediately following construction, the monitored profiles and cross-
sections in Year 1 (2007) match the designed stream channel. Therefore, comparisons for Year 2 (2008)
and each subsequent year will be made with Year 1 (2007), which accurately represents the as-
built/baseline conditions. The Year 2 (2008) channel geometry compares favorably with the emulated,
stable E/C type stream reach as set forth in the detailed mitigation plan and as constructed. Current
monitoring has demonstrated dimension, pattern, and profile were stable over the course of the monitoring
period. Tables for quantitative assessments are included below; these tables include data from previous
years.
2.3 Wetland Assessment
Four groundwater monitoring gauges and one reference groundwater gauge were maintained and monitored
throughout the Year 2 (2008) growing season. Graphs of groundwater hydrology and precipitation from a
nearby rain station in Kenansville (Weather Underground 2008) are included in Appendix C.
2.3.1 Wetland Success Criteria
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for at least 10 percent within Rains
soils (nonriverine wetlands) and 8 percent within Muckalee soils (riverine wetlands) of the growing season,
during average climatic conditions. The growing season extends from April 8 to November 5 (212 days).
This value is based on DRAINMOD simulations for 42 years of rainfall data in an old field stage. These
areas are expected to support hydrophytic vegetation. If wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by
vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be performed in these areas
(Environmental Laboratory 1987).
In atypical dry years, the hydroperiod must exceed 75 percent of the hydroperiod exhibited by the reference
gauges. Reference gauge data will be used to compare wetland hydroperiods between the restoration areas
and relatively undisturbed reference wetlands. This data will supplement regulatory evaluation of success
criteria and also provide information that shall allow interpretation of mitigation success in years not
supporting "normal" rainfall conditions.
2.3.2 Wetland Problem Areas
No wetland problem areas were identified within the Site during Year 2 (2008) monitoring.
Annual Monitoring Report page 9
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

0

I

R
.7
V
R
? a
v
? V
Q
R ?
O y
gyp, Q
L f
c
d
00
H

°O z z ^ Z Z Z Z Z z N z z z z z z z z
? X
D\
Q

Q
Q
p
Q
Q
d
d
d
?7 -

Q
m
d
d
Q
Q
d
d
,?-
d
?5
Q
d
Q
z. Z. z. z z z z z ^ 1 z z z ? z z ?. z z z • Zi zi Zi z+ z z

? i
' S rn d d d N Q d Q d d ?,. d m Q Q ?? ; d Q d d '? ' d d
? z z z ^ z z z z z z ^ z z " z z z z z 4
i
`Sy?rr
'. F. ? N
N ?
z ? ?O O
^ er
N
.-. Q
z Q
z
.„ .-.
M
N V1
r ? t
+
4 Q
z. Q
0 d
z n A ' Q
z d
z .`
0
pp
•
iy
O
^
N
N
M
ry
M
Q
¢ '?
' .
^
V V
d
n
r
Q
Q
Q p?
h
oo V
.-. vi
N
O Vi
pN
8
N N CA
z.
z
rt
z
O
z
"?
z
Z

M

W
A O O O
e ?-, n ? O z z ? z. ?
O z. M z z

x1 F. N
^
^ ry N Z z m
^ M ,.: z O z z z
V1 O

N ? O Q d Q d Q ¢ ry ON }- i d d V1 Q Q Q Q O Q ?p

W
.. y
y
H
N
z
z
z
Z
N y
z y
F
z
M 00 00
M
j„
z.
Q
z
-
z y
f+
z
z
r.
z
w

N 5 d O d d ¢ Q '"" Q Q Q M J O ry Q Q '.
C z ^ z z z z z z z N m Vi N ,., z 0 z m z z

b
N M D, M V •- Q Q d8'' m Q Q
rn o v z z O a z z
M
U
D
O
N
M
Vl
N
Q
Q
bll
N
?
Q
Q
Q
Q
M
Q'
D
E.y O n O z z i z z p
O z

QI p
' O

e 5 ? N ? CO ANN C
M t- t- oo O\ .-• O Q d ." y ?•: s bq : Q
:
z s ? r z a b y :
'" ° z

.• z 9 o z z
Ei

O A
H

id

N

?!

N

m

1?

p

oo

¢

Q [

.: v
34
.a

Q

Q

N

Q

O
?. o oo rn
z
z a
b
} .
.,
z
z
z
z o o
z
a J U t o
•

W
5
'
?o
oo
.-,
oo
N
n
m
vi
Q
?
' ' Y 'y U
4
•?
- n ? O .-, m .. t z Z p .
a? z z
z s ? z a b =

A

C/I

.? a ._ o
3 ?
3
w ca A ? .? ? ? b
3 a k a a ? ? d
t
A c x a 0.01 V
°
3
b °' °
O 0
te 8
ti
d w U
C

o
°a
3
fA
0
b
?
v
? f?.
°? ' P
.
y e
>
.c y a
i
en
? m w . 7

a ? ? 0?4 3
.
y
?
p
?
?
d
Ij?
Y
m
O
A a a` ? Q
z
z

s
7
bD
C
O
C
O
0
L
? d
w
'O V
? N
c
a`
o .-
i
u
a
d
a a
d
? c
F.:

E
a

e
0 ?

?
U 00 N t? r?., 0 '
r 0 0
v VI
N d

O
O ?
y ? ?
[
y ?
1

C

O ^ Y
U O
j _ N ya

7 ; N ? ri ^ ? "" O O

n ,.. v v
O
d
?
O
N
Q
W C

O
l
u p
o

"" O
L ? ry 1 I I 1 O 1 I O

h M N ? N OO
v v -

V
N
'O
M
OO \°
O?
en
%?

00
? O

d 8
O
N ? ?O M ,? M O N AD

C C I!1 '? N O M In .

O
a01i
O
t, M

?

° d N ^ ?0 ?'? DD N 00 -
U
?p
DO
M
?
?

~
?
M
?

~

?
?
i
i o
`?
EO
^•
N
l?
?D
N
?
M C
N M
I\!1
? O Vl 0 ? CD

.?.r

00 00 r-

00 r-

0

O

O

""
_
?

N r- 00

N
iG
G A
C :
° 00 °
o
[
?
?
E
a
c
.? w
3 3 ? a A „ ? ? b r-L
A L
co ? a ? o
? o
? ?
o L
- w U

c ? w ? 3 c rA
°' 45
o
U
rn
R
a
c o
w
N P? W
x
i
U
?
?
? a,
e
v o
° O „ w 04 a
C i0
u ca
q d w 3
l w
` :fl
Q
a: a
11

F

t,
Ol
C
7
b0
C
L
O
C
O
7
L
xw
o ?
a"
Ip N
rG 'C
W i l l 1 1 1 1 1
?
a

e

0 ?

d
O N aO O ? n N ?O 10 .--? 1? ?0

N
O

?
N In

I I I L I I
I I
V] O

?y V1 M 01
r M - O -1 ?O M ?GI
^ N r

O
O ?
N pA
1 O

a
' 4 fl
N
O
O
l+
?
? z O

i N
?! 1?
00 O 10
16 00
6 N

? ?

?+ M

I? -+ .-.

OH t?

O

?

i O

`''

fC
U ?^ o

M ? ?
,?y M p M O? rl' V1 N 01 00 C
00 C)
M
?
V'1
?
M
Vl
00
O C

C
?
?
? 00
V)
M
?
r-
N o
A I
l-
O
V)
M
M
M

?
N .-. O O W
M
a6 ? C O

O rr ? N .-r oO .-r N .

V
V
v7
an
0
? ^O
L
M
en
N
00
w [?
? O
N
O N
N
V1
-
t
.
V
?
.-y
F
F
F
M O M 0 0
O

?

1
CN
1
.-r
N
O
q
[?
DD
?
M
?
00
N
'0
O
Vl
N O
^ N 0 1

3 3 ? A A ? ? ? b L
L ¢ ? co C

o
?'
a
a?

w

b
°
x
'
S
?
T,
?
°
?
a1

N
U
c?a
3

0
°' En
0
° CO)
-?
$
a
v 'A

?

a
g ? a? 3 W ?
m N
? ? 0 a s a CL' "X > ? Ck(
04 [ w ? 3 x ?, ? ? x U 5 o

A Q n
a
a
a`
t.
7
d0
C
O
C
L
.fl
C
o?
C6,
a?

a ?
N
C
O

q
di N
? N
.N-•i O
'Il --?
Nl
.-: ?
?.j M
rr M
nj ? M .--?
i
i
U

N
~ d
O O
O
P

ei

i
O N .. O
77
cn
C.

O
O o
.N
i
.

o .?

v, N O? O ? N ?O ?O N ^• O? ^? ? v N
06 kn O ; M

tn o k n
?
? O
?

0 p
O V
?O M
M ap
O DO
?j ?
N ?
? 00
M M
OO -
p?
?
? ?
M O?
N
?
0
Pw

f??y N ...
N

?O .r

O --?
O
O
W

N N .. ° N M
? ? O
C
i+

lu M
et M
N
01 p1
M O\
O p?
N ?p
M
H
m ? O
L N M F
r. ?
N M N
O O
y --tr el
cV
? ^" n N N ~
_
N

-SO -.

? O
a? a? Q 'D 00 O q aQ? yQ? r m app ]
V p p n
V

?w w N 3 x v ; x
c =
. ?
? ? L ? ?, s

o tl

E
U
w
«
?
.n

?
?
d

w

?=
w

^o
'o 3
a A v ? w a, 064
Q

F1

2.3.3 Wetland Criteria Attainment
One of the two monitored gauges within the riverine wetland restoration areas was inundated/saturated
within 12 inches of the surface for greater than 8 percent of the growing season and none of the two
monitored gauges within the nonriverine wetland restoration areas was inundated/saturated within 12
inches of the surface for greater than 10 percent of the growing season, which extends from April 8 to
November 5 (212 days) (Table 10). However, rainfall data for the Year 2 (2008) growing season at nearby
rain stations was conflicting. Data collected at a station in Kenansville was extremely below normal with
15 inches of rain while data collected at a station in Richlands was just below normal with 29 inches of rain
occurring from April to October 2008 compared to the 30-year historic mean rainfall of 31 inches occurring
for April to October (Weather Underground 2008, NOAA 2004) (Figure 2). Most of the monthly data
collected at the stations in Kenansville and Richlands for 2008 was similar; however, data for the months of
April-May and August-September were widely varying, for example in the month of August 2008 1.94
inches of rain was documented in Kenansville while 7.12 inches of rain was documented in Richlands.
Since the Year 2 (2008) monitoring season rainfall data was inconclusive, comparisons to the reference
groundwater gauge were made. Based on comparisons to reference groundwater gauge data, all
groundwater gauges should be considered successful for the Year 2 (2008) monitoring period.
Hydrographs containing groundwater and precipitation data for each gauge can be found in Appendix B.
Figure 2. Climatic Data
8
7
6
5
4
= 3
2
1
0
¦ 2008 Totals Kenansville
¦ 2008 Totals Richlands
30-year Historic Mean

Month
2008 Totals
Kenansville
2008 Totals
Richlands 30-year
Historic
Mean
April 2.99 6.47 3.16
May 1.82 3.59 3.68
June 0.73 0.84 4.49
July 3.95 4.73 6.06
August 1.94 7.12 5.40
September 2.93 6.00 5.00
October 0.75 1.11 3.21
Total 15.11 29.86 31.00
Annual Monitoring Report
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
page 14
Po ???co Off.
yF'
Table 10. Wetland Criteria Attainment for Year 2 (2008)

Gauge ED Hydrology
Threshold
Met? Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Criteria Met?
Site
Mean
Vegetation
Plot ID Vegetation
Survival
Threshold Met?
Site
Mean
1 Yes Yes 1 Yes
2 Yes Yes 2 Yes
3 Yes Yes 100 % 3 Yes 100%
4 Yes Yes 4 Yes
5 Yes
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
Year 2 (2008) monitoring season rainfall data from nearby rain stations was inconclusive as explained
above in Section 2.2.3 (Wetland Criteria Attainment); therefore, comparisons to the reference groundwater
gauge were made. Based on comparisons to reference groundwater gauge data, all groundwater gauges
within the Site should be considered successful for the Year 2 (2008) monitoring period. A summary of
groundwater gauge data for the Year 2 (2008) is included in Table 11. Also, all vegetation plots across the
Site were above the required 320 stems per acre with an average of 599 tree stems per acre in the Second
Monitoring Year (Year 2008) (Table 12).
Table 11. Summary of Groundwater Gauge Results
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season
Gauge (Percentage)
Year 1 200 * Year 2 (2008)** 3 2009
Year Year 4 (2010 Year 5 2011
1 Yes/7 days Yes/ 12 days _
Riverine (3.3 percent) (5.7 percent)
2 Yes/ 15 days Yes/10 days a
Nonriverine (7.1 percent) (4.7 percent)
3 No/2 days Yes/8 days ?' a 3d
Nonriverine (0.9 percent) (3.8 percent)

4
Yes/ 18 days
Yes/75 days
"
?..F 1 Al
.
'
Riverine (8.4 percent) (35.4 percent) - -
Yes/8 days Yes/9 days
Reference (3.8 percent) (3.8 percent)
*Annual precipitation to date of this data for the Year 1 (2007) monitoring period was 46.7 inches, 10 inches heiow me average of
56.4 according to a nearby station (SCONC 2007); therefore, success criteria are based on the reference gauge.
**Annual precipitation to date of this data for the Year 2 (2007) monitoring period was inconclusive at nearby rain stations;
therefore, success criteria are based on comparisons to reference gauge data.
Annual Monitoring Report page 15
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

1
1
1
Table 12. Summary of Planted Vegetation Plot Results
Pl
t Planted Stems/Acre Counting Towards Success Criteria
o Year 1 (200 Year 2 2008 Year 3 (2009) Year 4 2010 Year 5 (2011)
1 728 607 '
2 728 809
3 809 769
4 445 445 f
5 364 364
Average of All

Plots (1-5)

15

99
,±
r.

E.
Annual Monitoring Report
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
page 16
4.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-
87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Lee, Michael T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.0. (online). Available: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2004. Climatography of the United States
No. 20; Monthly Station Climate Summaries, 1971-2000. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, National
Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
State Climate Office of North Carolina (SCONC). 2007. North Carolina Climate Retrieval and
Observations Network of the Southeast Database. (online). Available: http://www.nc-
climate.ncsu.edu/cronos/index.php?station=314144&temporal=daily [December 19, 2007]. State
Climate Office of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Weakley, Alan S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas (online).
Available: http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/WeakleysFlora.pdf [February 1, 2008]. University of
North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina.
Weather Underground. 2008. Station in Kenansville, North Carolina. (online). Available:
http•//www wunderground com/cgi-bin/findweather/hdtForecast?query=kenansville%2C+nc
UearchTVpe=WEATHER [November 7, 2008]. Weather Underground.
Annual Monitoring Report page 17
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

11

APPENDIX A
VEGETATION DATA
1. Vegetation Survey Data Tables
2. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Annual Monitoring Report
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices
t
o s

E o
v ? v
N ? L
0

a,
c
?
v

10 m C. c
N CL E
-0 N E
U Y 10
E
U
w 10 N
41
Y u
O1 1 L
/1
O 1
L N
W N
4-1
> N
C
Y
41
C
j N 7
N
fC O1 I
/1
E
°
v N o
41 f0
d U
w
N C
41
N N
C. L -a C.
N
~
O
L C
a m m
10 4! i vi
O
(
U
W
E u 1 aci m
M N
N Y L C.
- C. v
u u g
L
C
N
N ?
W O u

v
t
0
L 41
N L •
u v-
O Q.
u
41 M 0
4.- L-
(U (A
O1 L U N N U
01
-C CL m E
N
Y I O
C
L E
E +v+
N -O C
C
U
y 0
.
E O
O N
3 N E
N L
o ++
0 t
*=
•
C N
a E
?
-0 Y N N ? U 7
E O w N M 0 Ln W M M N x
111 a' H J C N N N O) OJ 40 O1
Z O
N Q H u u m
- p O j L1
N J O

L N
41
IC
L
L
U
`-
`-
m
i a H'
++ E
i N
N Op OD CL CL m
E
O Q +
•+ a
a m ? _? 4'
O 00
v w y L ?_ o c E a
° v 3 a o a
00
N 1- 3 3
c0 ,
,
- c
O c
O
+
+? o
C
O
O N to
a' W C
C a
OJ i+ ++ +
C N N? •N
E t
0 O m w N
" T
N W N Q vf
o
• > a
, ' 41 41 V E
a+ > LO D -a \
+ :
4-1

N

N

N N

O
j
V
c1
V
O N

O 7

N N N

" L

?

=

3
C
C t "a a N
7 O N a O N (L) 41 4+ >' >'

O > > O
'a
a ++ I H O O
41 C O
C1 C C
E O) N x ?
N
LL L L L
•n C. C. 7 7 M N - Q
O :3
O f9 O E E
a i Z u u a 0 W T m l0 E O
U U Q 0 W W 10 J LL LL .J Q a

W
W
= a
H C.
Y.
CL 'O
O
3 `°
co c 0

d
d LA.
O N
E
Q
o
a
E f0 E Z - o m a
m
CL 41
a- m p
w 60
IA L& >. J2
` E
a w w ?; a W m 4 d d 0
a` m m 3 a r Q m :'

C
? .C
m C.
E M
A 'A

p L E E E
-1
C. a
+ a
+ a
+ W d O
O
W
to
M
M
M
J
w a 'a v u o a > > o o o a

<n
C
41
,
co
O
H
O1
O O
J J 1
Y
i 10
O
L
1
0}C
a
-aa E c c
o o
G V Z a N
Co
a a a cc

11
1
1
i
V
f0

v
d
C
J
N
O)
.
7?
? M N ? M M
CL
N
00 W
?
C
Z Q
d
d a 0 M
0
0
C E
m
a v1
m

N
N N
LD N 00 Ln w
N
m
OJ
p
N
'
E
O
d ?
c W m O rn ei
M 00 ri N ri r-I
a E -
Z
J
O O O O O
N N N N
-W .

m N N rI N ri
fA n n O\1 n O\1

00 00 00 00 00
N N V) N to
£ l7 C7 C7 C7 V

m m m m M m
p co 00 00 00 00
p ? 0 0 ?
a a a a a
z z z z z
a-i .-i I? r-I c-1
M W T M M Ln N
C l.n LD W LD
y
pp 0
M 0
cn 0
M oo
r'n O
Cn
C W OI OI
r- OI OI
r? 01

00 in lD I? ;t 00
C
t *

Ol M

O r,

OR rn

n Ln

LD
? t+ r-I N ri r-I ri
O m Ln Ln Ln Ln
Z 01
v 01
a of
Itt 01
? 01
--t
M m M m m

N N N N N
}

>
O
N
N
N
N
N
d J
C r1
J N
J M
J
J Ln
J
S
N
N
'u
d
a
N
a

O
to
C
•
W
All ^ N Ln ri Ln ri M N
C
L
O N ?? M
rl .--? rl
N 00 00 -t N . I N LD 0 t0
M
M e1 N co N n m N to
N
Ln Ln .-1
ri
m
V
fn
f9
Y
10
C
M :3 'A m
41 C U f0 N u
f
0
c
L
uj
u
D
4
0 u -C (U
O > E Q > c . m O

qo C
o m :3
N 3 C N L u f0 C f0 h fn
O Y F' L N v N ?? +?+ C] Y

a
'
°
Z ++
V
l m y u Li d U N u a U > > > H
a+
C
? 1? 01 00
V M .--1 111 LA O M
y m N ri N
a

C

m lD lD r I ?}
0 M N rl N
U
OA
t
0c
CO O ri N M -ct N

N

0
id
h
w
O

41 R*
mi 00
o rn
t` 01
t6

rI
0J
v
L
d
a
a+
C
0
W
N
00
I,
a-I
V
0)
m

p OD
E
f0

o
p
E
m
N

0 c
O
c
C
?i
1n
C
N
a
m
10
a
c
0

Y
C

h
W
-! ri
N
C
d
E c-I rl N N l11 111
N
10

IU
d ^ ? ?
O
d
_ £
v 00 N Ol N N M w 0 0 r-I !*l In .-I M
m
V
to
d
f0 .`

O
DA

0

M

N

I

I

i

I

n

o

W

W

M
ri

0
0 -W
Q V
f0
u

C N
-

In

E f0
>
j m
1
f0
c

u f6
+• 7
E vi
c fp
u O V

IS

L20
7

-C

O
C

w

41
> ,
V
u
L
0J
L
i In ba > 4- E a O c a I
L O E c
E
_ 2 f0
VI
7 h0 m 3
1 10 Vn m 7 C H LV. L C 7 7 C
I 7
co u u u u Il Z Q. C1 Cf In
0

7 0

4
4
a
s
1
f
1
C
D
1
d
0
r
C
C
O
C N M N s`
Y
c

N
IA

N ei rl
C
W
E 00 n l0 ri
N

tr
N

I11

rf

N

00

N
tko
C E
v

W

'N-1

N

^

e-I
f0
M
W d

O
10 ba
a-i
N
N
N
l()
V1 ei
0 a+
? Q V
I
0
41
O
a
ri
' J
N
J
M
J

J
111
J
43
{-
?
LM

J N M 01

J a I lD
?
M
J
d'
00
N
Ln 01
N
J
01
ri
to
Ln LA
J
VI
01
N M a) Ln t .r-,-? N Ln N Ln tD Ln
bo

l0
a+
Q N r-I N r-I r-I N N t-I c-I r-i e-i
ri

N
O1
N

0J
lD
01
Ln
N
Ln
w
Ln
IC
a
m
0

u
U
?
> Y

N

U
?
u m

U
Q `
° b4 M
L C
a? o u s v
,
N ?
OD > 1 Q > O Q M E
C j u l 7 D 00
(O
5 ca -LA
a'' (O
-C C
X
A C
4? U
O1 C
x -
:3 V1
7
a
+ I?. (0 f0 .
= E _E .'
0
co u U u Ll- Z a U v1 > > F
a,
CL
N
M
C
f0
O
a
T
a
r
%
.6
a,
c
f0
CL
Ln
J O

J a I LD
M

J
rl
N
Lf1
N tO
M
N

J
ri
-4
N
N
N
01
N

J
N
lD
N
Ln
N
L!1 M
N
N

'A
`--1
r-, I?
10
Ln
.r-I
N
M
N
N
N
Ql Ln
C6
11'
ID
Ln
xt N ci
Op

m
N
4.-
.0 . r-I M M N a-i N N N -4 . l "I ? l r4 "1 e 4 r4 ?
rl

H
a,
N a--I M 00 lD C1 N m N m N t7 lD Ln O
?
r0
O

m
U M
?
•
O
> U
L+
Y)
d ?
U 41 a H U O 0 N U
O1 to f6
C
5
L

"
j?
O1 ,
U
7
•C
CL 7 M f0 L U L
tA ?, ao > Q. -0 > Q m O 41
E
L
N
3 L
U
= VI
, -O_
. (d
N U C U
T C f0
L Vf
7 1n
7
Z, x 7 7 N ,x v 2
Q m m v i Z 'a d vfOi U v a v H
N
w
u
d
a
M
C
m
O
a
T
.s,
H
OJ
N
Q
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 2 (2008) Annual Monitoring
Vegetation Plot Photos
Taken September and November 2008
y J?? ? 3
VAA: T,
fAffA vi? 9 T? ; ?V9j'?? 4 3' s?.w
Al V.,
HA
?`
MW 6
MW 0
Appendices
APPENDIX B
GEOMORPHOLOGIC DATA
1. Tables B1-B3. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
' 2. Cross-section Plots and Tables
3. Longitudinal Profile Plots
' 4. Stream Fixed Station Photos
5. Stream Problem Area Photos

I

Annual Monitoring Report
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices
J
Y
y
y
.r
t?
v
•O
O
O.
L
..r
C?
as
as
F
rl
A
ci
a
b
0
a
L
_ C 'd
\
o
o
o
?LdH
a? ? o 0 0 0 o z z
C p
d
\ 0
\ 0
\ 0

0
\

\

0
\

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0
f'
° O
0 O
0 O
0 O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 O
O O
O Q
Z Q
z d
z d
z Q
z Q
z
L p
O
a V
? ;;, ? '+r' d Q d d d Q Q d Q d d Q Q d d d Q Q d
e z z z z z z z z z z z ° z z o 0 o z z z z z z
w
z =
L

F N N N N N N N N N N N z N N z z z z z z z z z

C
OA ^O
aka ?? api O Q Q d Q Q d d d Q Q
p O N N N N N N N N N N N z N N z z z z z z z z z
d
v w

a

C

cd
bq
C' f.
O?
C'
O
U

40.
?
•? ? ? , o o .b " p ? p ai a`ni

? ?
C > O b p c? O.
?? .? h b O O •b by .N+ V N b ? O "
'
?
L A v P. Q '" C v U i
.
OA G 7 y
y
L1 ti
p b Q. CIS c04 O U F"
? ? ? 'O ?
•? en $ .? c a 8 v o$ ? a ?u on ? ?
0 a ? o " ? 3 0 °' b ? o o

° c to

5
r
a b a c b ° o bo .
-0 Ed

? C
y w
o
; S.'
K'io f,
y 'O
?
: .Ci
5n N
b y
? ?„
°
' O
? N
a .U
w
c
? au N
•
?? 0
°p
ou 0 0 ,Y
, ,
. .
i
'? .
. ? .
? ? ? o
a w ? a a v? a ? A 0 0 Q r C7 U Q w x ¢ w w w
•--? N M I ?n N M cV N M I cV U N M et cV

d
?
O cC =
ea m y O

d ? y 3 p
W V
PC ?
r. d
p ,d
a a H > 3
w ? ra U A W rw G7 '?

i+
G
y
ti
v
O
O.
s,
C?
vOi N
V
as a
Ha
L

C a+
p

o
\
¢
O
Lz ? ?F
P, O
o
? O
0 O
0 0
0 0
0 O
0 z
C O

\° L
° w yam„ 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 ° 0

0 0

0 0

0

0 0

0

C) 0

Co

Co 0

, 0

0 0

l 0

O 0

O 0 0

O 0

O

0 0

O

0 ¢

z ¢

z
Ch
O - .-. .-r - - .-r ? 0
a v
w ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢

¢

¢

¢

¢

¢

¢

O

O

O

¢

¢
¢
¢

¢

¢
C
s z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
w
7

+O•+
0; 1D
N 1D
N 1D
N "D
N '*D
N
N
N 1o
N
N
N 1D
N ¢
z 1D
N 1D
N ¢
z ¢
z ¢
z ,,,,, ,? ¢
z ¢
z

O

p C N N N N N N N N N N N Z N N z z z z z
d
v a

0

C:
td bA C
pp O ^?.
O U
D

y .-. ? p ? ? sue.
cad ,? O D N ? ? ? .G C• y
CO C. b4 N
v aoi °?' °' «. o C
L °' °' A d .o Q
' ' yy..?
R
W C• Cyy7 O O ? yN U y b O ?

y
.?
A
U
?u
?Gy]"'
F,
?"
yU
U
W
L"i
rte! y
A.
of
O
C
y

g
a

0
9
y
°

°? C--
d

E

;
5
'?

o
3
8 a
jy
o
0 •? c a ? on o on o cl.
v
Q
a
°'
a
q
a
c
°
°
a
•a
o
> a
i
a
y b
a
..
U
a
U cd

O + ° C
S ° ° i C. O e? o o
7 3
d a w w ?n .a ?D A 0 0 ¢ V] ( ¢ w x ¢ w w w
.-i N M et h ri fV M ? (V .-i N M ? --? U r••i --? N M ? -•? (V
L
O ?

y
m R
y
O

d
b Q
?
3 y y

Fr, ? Oq U A fsl Fi; U' '?;
Ca
as
d
Rl
v
O
O
.C
Q.
Rl
? K
R
as
?g
F?
L
L E
w O ?' +
'

O

\

O

O

O

O

\

Q
-
y ,?, F

wa O
00
O
O
0
0

00
000

z
G
??? o o o o o a e o o a o o a o 0 0 0 0 0
e o ?? o a o 0 0 0 0 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° z z
L V1 O ? .r .r .r ? .-+ - -
py U
a Q a a d d a d Q Q Q Q d a d a a a d d
m z z z z z z z z z z z O z z O O o z z z z z z
= w C
z =
_d
w
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Z
00
00
z
z
z
N
N
N
N
z
z

e

- - - - - - - 00 t- - - - z o0 00 N N N
V z z z z z
1 =
..0-4
Z
a ?
0
1
0

C,
"0 [ 7
a
.?
C ? 3
o
C.

i

"
?
Cl.
00

.
(?

G

'

O

• n

.d
fi

.+
.
r
.-I'

U

q

•

?
V Y .
r o
o ? (d
w Q w v
L G $3
O y
t c? p 0 w
4A 9.
44.1 td ?, 'd O O p ti b 9 p +?-
L a N
° p
a Q C•' C' N W ri FFyy
7 (U ti
'v °
'
?
0 a °
? 0 ..

' c ti o
U ai ? ai a> ? ? '? A 3 ? cai t2
N 0
?
a p L3. N by
. LL ?D
°' bU 0
? ° b ° w o b U o b 0 a 0 C'•
d o > 0 ai a o b ° OG o on o
c o •p v o o a; o o
u o a? b of on o ?

w a w .a a rA .a a A 0 0 Q V] 0 a w x d w w w
?
M
/-. -'? N M h N M fV N M U cV M fV

V

L O
U d 3 e G7 d
y ? .o

W d of U A W G4 G7 ?i
0
1
1 I
1 I
1
I 1

1 1
1
. 4'ia s...... 1 1

_
? are, 1 1
?
C
A
}.
E r? vs
?? a 1

.L7 i I
_
" r ? I 1

T Sw F ,, ..r E ". W
°E
Y._ "9"eic i .. 1
1 `?
d
O j

L O
gg

V1 ?
? I
1
ra 1

•? 1

R 1
o

I
? I
I

c
o
? I
1
3 I
I d ?
?
I y O
1 y n
1
1 1
1 T
$ o 0
? ?
1 W w
I
I 1 1
1 1
1 1 ? ?
1 1
ca
y ?j 9
I
1

it.
O M N O T
O p
.
?n N

N
N
N

N
0
i
3 a c Q Oddi) uo?Jbna??
0
?n O to M ? oo N t0 O ?n
'? oo M .--? N ? N O
f l -- .--? 0 0 0 0 .----V
.d. N N N N N N N N N N
d
4
O
?
L O ? ?p l? M M 00 O? ?D N 01
R V Z
y A C ,O M N ?M M M M M M 7 In
?3?AAw ?
N

N 7

to ?D

0o N

N C

N
O

'?
?D

O
X

M
7

V
0

'?'

d' t
o d
0

N

? e

oa
pq
`Q
a

K

x w ?
? 3
y 0
a 0 ?

d d

A R

P4 ?

? .?
?
' ?
v c
a m c; w ?
.' ? 3 w
O
t 1
1 1
G 1 V
r o
r
N
?C O
-. ?nr?a?y? 1 1 1 ? I
? 0.. S.
tee, ,
al- '. ?
? I 1
,r t ?zw
1
V
? I
'C 1
a,
a
o
8 •?.ne t 1
CO I 1
? y I 1
9 1
0 1
1
L ,
d 1
n+ 1 1
U
1
I
1
1
I 1
1
1
Q 1
? 1 1
y (? 1 I
w o
?n
0. p N N N
a r E
a > r M (laaj) uw1maly
0
•r.. ? ? ? O? v? 7 7 --r In N
CL>t0
?+ at rl N N---- N N N M
N N N N N N N N N N N
m W
6
L
of Umz o 10 r o cn In ryr N --? M, a O GO .M.
A In m 7 V ?'4)
`O ?o o °°
0 N r `_° `O o
u
e S
o -

Q' o
V _
W
a 4??yy
Y w
O
.?

O
f"
C, O
'?' ar
VI a0
d ? C
R R
pp ?
^1 is
A v
' ? =' ? 3 a ? s v L
x w U 3 g g ? " •- E nc
a
` w
o
c
a
o
x
r C C G R y Q r C
f ca m w O
r? O
?, ? 5 3 :? m -iL
?V??' ?°? r ice[ L ..
J
X
E"I
? a o
? v o, cal E
a X - -
0
.? 'PrL'a o0 00 lD O? 7 r M N O?
N OO 0, w 00000, OO O
y N N N --? - N N N
m W
d
L
? L L p? O? N ?D V'f M I? V Q1 M h
R (? 'I °.. 07 t` N Vl ID 00 O1 N ? O N
L i Q q aR. .-. V ?D ?D ?O ?D ?D h l? oo W
?3kr_icaw ?
0o
O
N M
O
N M
[?
-- 7
f V N
.-.

R
L

O
O cc
d ?
Q p d

" R ? O ?
a ? O
a

a y
w O
v O
3
0
o R
?
?
•a C
e
> a` a` d a a o x
? o a a ? ? Q R a

R
R
R
o
o
`°
u .L.
e a

v?

ao

m

m

w

'w

:

5

5

w c? C?
R
ca
o
_
N
°o
N
a

M

R
O
00
v
I
Qn 1 ?

C I
?
O
?

Q
. I
I
?
R I
I
I
L I
i
a
o
R
0

3

F.
CL O
h I\
N
W f+.
I
I
I 1
I I
j I
j
I I I I T
I

N ? .?.
(?aa? uopnnal?

y
v
.

b

d

v
? o cG oo ?
0. O O
m
c i, N -o
X - - Q
0
a .o rn r rn rn rn ?n ?n ?n
8 7 0 0 O? oo ao 0o rn 0 0
Y N N ^ N N
VI W
d
C L
d
•lQ ? ? L O o0 VN oo t? O ?n O? ?
H Q V ?' -- oo O O M ?n ?D oo ?
L v A ° u 'o '? •o r o0 00 00 00 00 00 O

vl
?
V
?
O?
? •?

N O
O
V1
?
^
N
^
?
oo
?
?
O
.-.
L
°
d o
w a -
_

R F ? ? ? a A CG ?
A
a
w h
?
3

O
0

O
o

L
W
~ m

y ?
"
["
s
OD
d ?_
a ?_
o ?_
p L
0. L
0.
V 6a
A W
fx d
` Y
2

C
C
0
0
O
O
O
k
R
R
w
A a
d
i'
p
? ao m' cn ?. LZ 5 ?' 3 c? ao
0
I
1
I
1
I
?
Qy r o

o r ?
?

1

1
I
1
1 N
? O
0 4 ?

a1 w ? III
1 1
I ? 1 1 -

?
1
i, I I
I 1
?

W
f? I
4
1,
II
1
O
•? 1
I

M 1
1
1
I

?
d
?r 1
I
I
1
1
y

O
f. 1
W
8
W 1
I
1
I ?
O

O
?
O W
1
I 1
1
I

o
g
.y
LO
(?
L
a? I
I
1
1
I
1

I

1
7
W W'
I' 1
?
O I
W
!
1? I
1
1
1
?
3 II
!
I I
1
1
1 ?
1
1
1,
I
I
l 1
1
I
1
1
i
1
I 1
1
O
M N
N N
(,a O O?
N N
a? uopona/H ao
0
S? (y ? A •'Y W!i?u?
Q
U C,
z
v
a
F
b
0
a
g
O
L m
a
0
3
o U O
as ?? oa r- ?c In
(laaj) uopnnajg
o °
v? N ?
0
•.y ? O ?O .n Vl ?
M Vl [? N
8 ? O? oo ?D ?n ?n ?n ?O l? W O?
O
Vi r^
N ?1
0 00 7
L
C
3
.O L L O ?n l? M 0 co O
jz! v Vn ?o o, V M
o xw
?O
00 oo
M O,
?O N
M V
ri
? a
C r r '?
F
Q o
y
?
?
i
?
m
?
a
eFa
a
a ;
w 0
v .x
3 ¢
a 3
o
? R
?
•a° o
? a
'aea
a > > a oL. ? G OG ?
o °'
x
? a a a o ? A ? ? .L. o
? ca z? m' w w ? ? 3 w m
I
1
1
, ? o0
? o

•p O 4
' O

I ?

1
1 -
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1

i 1

v
J-2 A
X71 znti r.,?a

AV"

... •,?+.113'+.. :
n.::.
.

8
w

;wl
w Q
LL
?E U -

O c N O 6
N ,
a:
0
0
F .n ,n vi .- ?O V oo ?D ?D t?
O 06 ooro o o r- oooo
v
ti W
d
L
y ti Q 3
a
GC ? d L O O O ?n .-• oo ?O vl M o0 ?D
L y 0 G ,fl .w„ O ?C r- o0 00 00 00 00 O+ rn
z3xracw
v1
0o -•
t?1 N
N ?O
O O
?
N ,--, V
^' O
N p
^,

d F
? u
W °
? X
a o

3 E
x w
? u
;
y 0
aL. 0
a` ?
d
c
oG .=,.
C "?" Y 'C
O b
O ?
k C
C7 G
? i 1
C

0
o
o

a
a

I
•p o N
c? .
po w ?
1
1 I
1
1
00
1
1
1 1
1 1
1

I
1
N
r„ °
a
a
I
1
M 1 0
a 1 1
I 1
1
I 1
1
?
1 1
w a
1 1
1 fi
a
O
L
a, 1
I 1
1 ?
?
,fl
?, 1
1 1
1
O
a 1
a I
,
I
C °
td 9
L
?
i a
r
I i

f,
R 1
1
Q 1
yr 1
1

?
1 p
r
3 °
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I ?
N p ? oo ? ?
(?aa? uognna??
o 'z
N?
}
}
t3?? «N ?rrN
95 n MM }
g o_° g? rn o?. a. a rn w w w w a z? w w w w w r r r
_y9 _?po¢ ?aS
L Y S o.?. N^? - aNr
,s
8

tl N
O
1

W

r
t
h

r
3
u
v

d
a e "
W a
.
P4
7
O er
8
ra

r
8
0
N
O
O N O VI O h O Vl O
N N N N .Q. ti r w
N
(,C?eal?gae - laaJ) uo4ena13

!o„ass
°
1e
A
T
3 ?83d
sa?$<

C!
N i
t 5 Z

»3
a a

S N r
9
T

i

Sv

.
g
S
c*
Zs

- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- --------------? 2
?
? S
i
8
c ?

? e- ,--- -- -
rvrva??aas??aarr?a?arv?,rvrvrvrvaa

rv ° 4
5

a ° _ _ _
_ _ w&
°-T,»???--_--------rvrv«rvrvrvrvrv
N O
N o
? o
N e
N o
N O o
P-? ?
52.E (Sjeal!gj e-!»J) uogvml3
S
0
f0
g
8
'c
8 _
u Y
9
o?
o?

0
e
0
O?
Q
E
O
O
a0

.
go o g ? g
Qp
??_`Sn I

m O
,°,

ee
saZ a'a ¢'

S $ t

:3 ^ 3
ns a ?
e
a

n N
r
?
Ca
9
9
T
i
w ?

i
r
i
?
a q

---
- $

r? -
-----------
5
_:m_Nr-r?e?mah- --
-
2

5
oB $E1, =--------------------------
_
?Taoa ??
>

s
8
0 - - -
o
e
e
e
e
w

) U0
0

.,
- o
?mot, j
4 13
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 2 (2008) Annual Monitoring
Stream Fixed Photo Stations
Taken November 2008
HK

ff '?`
M
fC

-
y
1
a
0
All
b ; ?y}x i ?1 r +'f i x,47;
Annual Monitoring Report Appendices
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
dpi
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 2 (2008) Annual Monitoring
Stream Fixed Photo Stations
Taken November 2008 (continued)

OU
n n?iq
Annual Monitoring Report Appendices
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

1
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 2 (2008) Annual Monitoring
Stream Problem Area Photos
Taken November 2008
y } a x????yyy"
spd ?4? k ?5.a`..?
'? a F
NIX
a
k e'
Ford within Reach 2 that was
compromised by heavy logging
truck use.
Annual Monitoring Report
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices
APPENDIX C
HYDROLOGY DATA
2008 Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Annual Monitoring Report Appendices
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
(sayoui) uoile;idioaJd
M N N O O
C9
J
m
rn
3
d
3 "
-o ?
c G
3
O Go
C9 °o
N
O ?
r
O
H
m
O
J
- ------- ---- 9002/ti/LL
C
Vl 900Z/8Z/0 L
R
(n 9002/ L Z/0 L
O
3 900V 4/0 L
0 L 900Z/L/0 L
E o 9 900Z/0M
> -o
z 900Z/£Z/6
° w
900Z/9 L/6
900Z/6/6
900Z/Z/6
900Z/9Z/9
900Z/6 L/9
9002/Z L/9
90oz/s/9
900Z/6Z/L
d
900Z/ZZ/L
0
900Z/9 UL
90oZ/9/L
77
900Z/ UL
9002/t?Z/9
900Z/L U9
900Z/O L/9
9002/£/9
9002/LZ/9
0 900Z/OZ/9
V)
N 9002/£ U9
90OZ/9/9
o a 900Z/6Z/b
9002/ZZ/b
w
w 0
BOOM UV
a:a ?9??
a cn --- --- ------ 900Z/9/b
900Z/ N ?
OCOCDd NaW(DvNaNI(go?aNV 0waNV(D000Nq
N -- -- r N N N N N M (M cM
(sayOui) Jana-j JOIBM

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
J
m
Cf
3
ea
m
3 "
c ?
O co
C7 0
N
O }
e?
L
d
OC
.o
O
J
(sayoui) uope;idioa-ld
U? U? U?
M N N r r O O
--------- - - - - 8002/b/LL
O
m 800Z/8Z/O L
N 800Z/ L Z/O L
O
8002/b L/0 L
W) 3
? O
t7 8002/L/0 L
a? ° 800Z/0£/6
Z w 900Z/£Z/6
800Z/9 L/6
800Z/6/6
800Z/Z/6
8002/9Z/8
800Z/6 L/8
800Z/Z L/8
OOOZ/S/8
800Z/6Z/L
m
800Z/ZZ/L o
8002/9 UL
900Z191L
900Z/ L/L
800Z/bZ/9
900Z/LL/9
NOW L/9
8002/£/9
800Z/LZ/S
c
von 800Z/OZ/9
m
co 800Z/E L/S
rn ,,
3 °° a 900Z/9/9
° 8002/6Z/ti
co yo a 900Z/ZZ/b
L `
a n OOOZ/S L/t,
------ -- ----- 8oOMA?
NO MA?
N00 (coItC%'j p?NON?(9o0ON't co00ONx(0000
NNNNN(?
? i i
(sayoui) Iana-1 JOIBM
(segoui) uoge4jdi3aJd
U? U
M N N ?- T- O O
M
C7
J
m
rn
eo
L
d
3 "
?o
O 0
00
_ N
O ?
L
O
A
O
J
----__-_- 800Z/17/LL
8ooz/8Z/0 6
N
N 8ooz/ L Z/o L
.n 3 80oZ1b UO L
800Z/L/O L
E 0 SOOZ/0£/6
> "0
z w 8o0Z/£Z/6
° w
80OZ/9 U6
80OZ/6/6
800Z/Z/6
8002/9Z/8
80OZ/6 L/8
8ooz/Z U8
8ooz/S/8
80OZ/6Z/L
8002/ZZ/L
80OZ/5 UL
80OZ/8/L
90OZ/ L/L
800Z/VZ/9
8ooz/L L/9
80OZ/O L/9
800Z/£/9
800Z/LZ/5
c
N 8ooz/OZ/9
?v
? 8ooz/£ L/5
c OOOZ/9/9
0 80OZ/6Z/b
ao o m : 80oZ/ZZ/17
C a 8ooz/9 UV
CL
Q N _ _ _ __-_- 80oz/8/b
8o0Z/L/V
OOO(D N000(D NON (9o0ON?t(DwCD N'T wwCD
----- NNNNNM
(sayaui) Iana-1 JajeM
1
1
1
1
1

et
J
m
rn
V
M
C 0
O C
C7 0
r N
O
e?
U)
OC
M
0
J
(setpui) uoi;e;idPOud
U? U?
M N N - O O
------ 8002/tr/l
m 9 800Z/8Z/Ol
N
N 800Z/ 6Z/0 6
80OV I./0I.
.3 N a
a
(7 800Z/L/0 L
E 0 800Z/0£/6
> v
z w < a 800Z/£Z/6
a
800Z/9 U6
80OZ/6/6
800Z/Z/6
N A 80OZ/9Z/8
8002/6 U8
800Z/Z U8
800Z/5/8
800Z/6Z/L
d
800Z/ZZ/L C
80OZ/9 UL
800Z/8/L
800Z/ UL
800Z/bZ/9
80OZ/L U9
NOVO U9
8002/£/9
80OZ/LZ/5
0
800Z/OZ/5
R w
800Z/£ V9
Q?
= 8002/9/9
O
8002/6Z/ti
o, 0 8002/ZZ/V
Q 8002/5 Ub
a?
-- ------ 800Z/8
8 OMA,
No1C)CO?0aww tNaCV 1(poDON?(Ow(0N? CDa00N?
NNNNNMMM
(sayOui) Iana-1 Ja;eM
(sayaw) uope;idiowd
U
M N N ?- O O
CD
co
m
0
m
v
c
L
w
NNm
ti.
L
c ao
?o
0
O N
N
? L
?+ ami
c
O
?a
L
O
m
w
O
J
_ -------- ------ 800Z/P/L?
O
m 800Z/8Z/O 6
m
N 800MZ/0 6
a?
Lo 3 800Z/ti WO L
m 800Z/L/0 L
E o 8002/0£/6
> m
z 800Z/£Z/6
° w
800Z/9 L/6
800Z/6/6
800Z/Z/6
SOOZ/9Z/8
800Z/6 L/8
800Z/Z L/8
800Z/7/o
800Z/6Z/L
800Z/ZZ/L o
900M UL
800Z/81L
NOV UL
8002/bZ/9
800Z/LL/9
900Z/O W9
800Z/£/9
800Z/LZ/5
c
U) 8002/OZ/9
0
°' WOVE L/5
c 8002/9/9
O e a 800Z/6Z/t?
w
co
800Z/ZZ/b
0
800Z/5 L/ti
a ;a
a in - ---- --- ------ 8002/83F
800Z/ L/b
O O cD ? N O o0 co ? N O N ? «? oo O N ? c0 a0 O N ?t c0 00 O N ?
N r r- N N N N N CM M cM
(sayouI) Iana-1 Ja;eM

L

E

1

APPENDIX D
MONITORING PLAN VIEWS
Annual Monitoring Report
Lloyd Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices

^f
Ow r zz
:?
gy
!mm
Om m
?L?
°

Ng zz=
eO?
N ?
CC
OHN e
8
ao 0
a

Z Y' z ?

O 1 E
0 C
?
1?1

z®

z:°

tAgu
A
W ? U H ,?' ?oo
or 0

gZm

ti O PP
u m
0 0 m
m ? ?

z N
Qf
m?
ea
ro n ^ o
``? •? CN t
Lou
.;' \?' Z '1 Yb C
m 006006
Z
IJ,..?;. J 1 11 h ?? 0
_ V ? •?t., vy il. ?.. M ?.? O C
i r ` z e
8 ?? 4 a
o
I ? b
0
)5¦ °s o
s ¢U
r
so+ its
L?
( _ct m
. f ? VO3 ? Q
IM
m?
I d^
g g u?"
y? oN
gg $?
gg
v Ilk I
$ kk$ ick? skk? zkk?
•? ? :?k? s3ckg sk?? ;??i r?:? °
N
133H 3
ris
rt 9 3HS 33 ° g Z x
.. -IH- OOIOf Y ?c 7N M3 ml Q¢ 5? p p
otli
?.? eog
N OT
?Zy CC L
o?N
Xx< + `? !
i / Z 3? QaCb
1
t
1 -?
. l a
(7 Y
8 ??' ¦ 1 Z a
1 ? 1
`? / ? W
KY (f
c g ^_ v?
> b?
Ate
z ? -.oo
?( z u A v
3m
1 ? (I` °??
?? 3 ?kt? kt?? g e m s
000
F'i Pik Ilk ?1,
91
U PHI 9H.1,
4 Ilk
', rkk ?,.? rk? 5x?g
III k FP
yygg yygg iq ig yyg