20080913 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20150414

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 3 (2014)
MILL CREEK STREAM/WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(EEP Project No. 253, Contract No. 004803)
Construction Completed March 2011
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
!r '
,' gstem
,l ld C'.11 ent
P......
October 2014

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 3 (2014)
MILL CREEK STREAM/WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
RANDOLPH COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(EEP Project No. 253, Contract No. 004803)
Construction Completed March 2011
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Axiom Environmental Inc. l� alPA �cht
October 2014

Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... ............................... l
2.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... ............................... 3
2.1 Vegetation Assessment ......................................................................... ............................... 3
2.2 Stream Assessment ................................................................................ ............................... 3
3.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................... ............................... 4
Appendices
APPENDIX A. PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
APPENDIX B. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figures 2 and 2A -213. Monitoring Plan View
Tables 5A -5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Stream Fixed - Station Photographs
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Main Tributary Structure Photographs
APPENDIX C. VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
APPENDIX D. STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross- section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Substrate Plots
Table IOa -b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 1 la -b. Monitoring Data
APPENDIX E. HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Mill Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site ") is
situated within US Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 03040103 of the Yadkin River
Basin and NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Priority Sub -basin 03- 07 -09. The Site is
located in Randolph County, approximately 11 miles southwest of the City of Asheboro, North
Carolina. The Site is encompassed within a 129.2 -acre easement located in a 288 -acre tract
owned by Amy Grissom. Historically, the downstream portion of the Site (west of Lassiter Mill
Rd — SR 1107) was used for agriculture and livestock production. Livestock were removed and
part of the land become fallow while the remainder is used for hay production or has been
recently planted and burned by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ( NCWRC)
as part of an ecosystem restoration initiative for the entire property. Prior livestock activity had
compromised the riparian buffer along many of the project reaches. The upstream portion of the
Site (east of Lassiter Mill Rd) is primarily forested. Riparian vegetation in this area is comprised
mainly of mature deciduous trees. This report (compiled based on the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (NCEEP) Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP
Monitoring Reports Version 1.4 dated 11/7/11) summarizes data for Year 3 (2014) monitoring.
The project goals outlined in the approved Mill Creek Restoration Plan [NCEEP 2008] included
the following.
• Improve water quality within the Unnamed Tributary (UT) 2, UT 5, and Mill Creek
watersheds by reducing sediment and nutrient inputs, increasing dissolved oxygen
concentrations, improving stream stability, and wetland filtering.
• Improve water quantity within the UT2, UT 5, and Mill Creek watersheds by improving
ground water recharge, restoring hydrologic connections, and reconnecting channels with
floodplains.
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat within the UT2, UT 5, and Mill Creek watersheds
by improving substrate and in- stream cover, reducing water temperature by increasing
shading, improving terrestrial habitat, and improving overall aesthetics.
• Increase animal and vegetation biodiversity within the Site by connecting riparian buffer
improvements associated with the NCEEP's Mill Creek project with a NCWRC native
piedmont prairie grass restoration project located outside of the NCEEP's conservation
easement boundaries.
These goals were accomplished through the implementation of the following objectives as
outlined in the Mill Creek Restoration Plan [NCEEP 2008].
• Permanently protect stream channels through a conservation easement.
• Restore perennial stream channel.
• Enhance perennial and intermittent stream channel.
• Preserve perennial channel.
• Create wetland.
• Restore UT2 to its original drainage path to the Uwharrie River below the breached dam.
• Create a new channel below UT5's breached dam that flows along the fall of the valley to
reduce toe -of -slope erosion on the left bank
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina page 1

• Improve floodplain functionality by matching the floodplain elevation with bankfull stage
or by creating a bench to open the floodplain in areas where the channel is incised.
• Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation in the permanent conservation
easement.
• Improve aquatic and riparian habitat by creating deeper pools and areas of re- aeration,
planting a riparian buffer, and reducing bank erosion.
During Year 3 (2014) monitoring eight vegetation plots were monitored. Vegetation from all
eight plots averaged 369 planted stems - per -acre (excluding livestakes). Five of the eight plots
met or exceeded the success criteria of 320 planted stems - per -acre (minimum stem count after 3
years). When including naturally recruited stems of appropriate species such as winged elm
(Ulmus alata) and American elm (Ulmus americana) Plot 3 were well -above 320 stems - per -acre.
Planted woody vegetation throughout the Site is somewhat sparse due to competition from
herbaceous plants. Herbaceous vegetation has become more established along excavated
benches; however, woody stems are still minimal. In the upstream portions of UT2 and UT4,
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) saplings have established and are particularly dense. Two
areas of concern were observed. These are described in the table below and are identified on
Figures 2A and 2B (Appendix B).
Vegetation Areas of Concern
Map Identifier
Feature/Issue
Veg Area of Concern #1
Dense sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and blackberry (Rubus sp.)
Stream Area of Concern #1
community outcompeting planted stems on the upstream portion of UT2
Veg Area of Concern #2
Dense sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) population mostly between UT4
and Mill Creek
Visual assessment and geomorphic surveys completed for the Site indicate that project reaches
were performing within established success criteria ranges as shown below. No significant bank
erosion was recorded, and geomorphic measurements are within the range of the design
parameters. Two areas of concern were observed along stream monitoring reaches within the
sites. The table below describes the issues and each area is identified on Figures 2A and 2B
(Appendix B).
Stream Areas of Concern
Map Identifier
Feature/Issue
Cross vane at bottom of Mill Creek has been compromised due to high flows
Stream Area of Concern #1
of the Uwharrie River. Structure is intact but adjacent banks have been eroded
causing water to flow around arms and pipe underneath headers
Sixth upstream cross vane in series of drop structures has failed completely,
Stream Area of Concern #2
upstream and downstream structures are intact and functioning. Failure likely
due to localized heavy rain event between June and September 2014.
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina page 2

Stream Success Criteria (from approved Mill Creek Restoration Plan, Final Report [EEP 2008]):
• Success is defined as little change in as -built cross - sections. If changes do take place
they should be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more
unstable condition (e.g., down- cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased
stability.
• Cross - sections shall be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, and all
monitored cross - sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for
channels of the design stream type.
• The longitudinal profiles should show that bedform features are remaining stable (i.e.,
they are not aggrading or degrading). Pools should remain deep with flat water surface
slopes, and the riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. Bedforms
observed should be consistent with those observed for channels of the design stream type.
• A minimum of two bankfull events must occur in separate years within the five -year
monitoring.
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment
and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in
tables and figures within this report's appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report
(formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly the Restoration Plan) documents
available on NCEEPs website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices
is available from NCEEP upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Eight vegetation plots were established and marked after construction with five -foot metal t -post
demarking the corners with a ten -foot, three- quarter inch PVC at the origin. The plots are 10
meters square and are located randomly within the Site. These plots were surveyed in July for
the year 3 (2014) monitoring season using the CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Levels 1 -2 Plot Sampling Only, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008)
( http: / /cvs.bio.unc.edu /methods.htm); results are included in Appendix C. The taxonomic
standard for vegetation used for this document was Flora of the Southern and Mid - Atlantic
States (Weakley 2012).
2.2 Stream Assessment
Annual stream monitoring was conducted in July for the year 3 (2014) monitoring season.
Measurements were taken using a Topcon GTS 303 total station and Recon data collector. The
raw total station file was processed using Carlson Survey Software into a Computer Aided
Design (CAD) file. Coordinates were exported as a text /ASCII file to Microsoft Excel for
processing and presentation of data. Pebble counts were completed using the modified Wolman
method ( Rosgen 1993).
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina page 3

Eight permanent cross - sections, six riffle and two pool, were established and will be used to
evaluate stream dimension; locations are depicted on Figures 2A -2B (Appendix B). Cross -
sections are permanently monumented with 5 -foot metal t -posts at each end point. Cross -
sections were surveyed to provide a detailed measurement of the stream and banks including
points on the adjacent floodplain, top of bank, bankfull, breaks in slope, edge of water, and
thalweg. Data were used to calculate width -depth ratios, entrenchment ratios, and bank height
ratios for each cross - section. In addition, pebble counts were completed at cross - sections 3 and
6, and photographs will be taken at each permanent cross - section annually.
Three crest gauges are located within the Site monitoring reaches (on UT -2, UT -5, and Mill
Creek within the lower, downstream one third of each reach). Crest gauges are PVC with
granulated cork, mounted to a post driven into the channel. Crest gauges will be checked for
overbank events during each monitoring visit.
Three stream monitoring reaches were established and will be used to evaluate stream pattern
and longitudinal profile; locations are depicted on Figures 2A -2B (Appendix B). Measurements
of channel pattern will include belt- width, meander length, and radius of curvature (only in year
one). Subsequently, data will be used to calculate meander -width ratios. Longitudinal profile
measurements will include average water surface slopes, facet slopes, and pool -to -pool spacing.
Thirteen permanent photo points were established throughout the restoration reach; locations are
depicted on Figures 2A -2B (Appendix B). In addition, visual stream morphology stability
assessments will be completed in each of the three monitoring reaches annually to assess the
channel bed, banks, and in- stream structures.
3.0 REFERENCES
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). Unpublished. Procedural Guidance and Content
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Projects, Version 1.4, dated 11/07/11. NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Available online at
http:// portal. ncdenr .org /c /document_librgU/get_ file ?p 1 id= 1169848 &folderld = 2288101
&name = DLFE- 39268.pd£
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2008. Mill Creek Restoration Plan, Final Report - Randolph
County, NC.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS -EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Levels 1 -2 Plot Sampling Only, Version 4.2. Available online at
httD:Hcvs.bio.une.edu/methods.htm.
Rosgen. 1993. Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, Training Manual. River Short Course,
Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina page 4

Weakley, Alan S. 2012. Flora of the Southern and Mid - Atlantic States. Available online at:
http: / /www. herbarium .unc.edu /WeakleysFIora.pdf [September 28, 2012]. University of
North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Weather Underground. 2013. Station at Asheboro Airport, North Carolina (online). Available:
www.wunderground.com /history /airport/KHBI/ [October 8, 2013]. Weather
Underground.
Weather Underground. 2014. Station at Asheboro Airport, North Carolina (online). Available:
www.wunderground.com /history /airport/KHBI/ [August 18, 2014]. Weather
Underground.
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina page 5

APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes Table
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

NC -49 =r3
ti
CU
fV Project Site
CU v. �l
W.
t
4
UWHAFRI
E 4
-
J , V ?5.i z -,may F
"I : � I l ,••'fit -} � - �y � �r '� � � ,� �� -�. Y �•� � r r
)
L5 r 1
RANDOLP
*!' Lsrng 7:k31� r�: i
F
0 0.5 1 2 3 4`
Mlles
Directions from Raleigh:
Take US -64 West through Asheboro, about 62 miles.
Turn left to follow NC -49 South.
After 5.6 miles, turn right on Science Hill Road.a -
Turn left on Lassiter Mill Road.`'
Site is located on the right about 7.7 miles.
,
SITE LOCATION MAP
MILL CREEK SITE
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 253
Randolph County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
r\
Axiom Environmental
October 2012
218 Snow Avenue
12- 004.10
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 215 -1693
Axiom Environmental,
Inc.
SITE LOCATION MAP
MILL CREEK SITE
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 253
Randolph County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
Date:
October 2012
Project:
12- 004.10

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Mill Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 253)
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Type
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Buffer
Totals
3862
2970
--
0.4
--
Projects Components
Project Component/
Reach ID
Station
Range
Existing Linear
Footage/
Acreage
Priority
Approach
Restoration/
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Linear Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Comment
Mill Creek
2214
EUII
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
1460
754
1:1.5
1:2.5
UT 1
1799
EII
Enhancement II
1199
1:2.5
Upper 600 feet is an ephemeral ditch
and not counted towards credit.
UT 2
1703
R/EII
Restoration
Enhancement II
875
1012
1:1
1:2.5
UT 4
2350
EII/Pres
Enhancement II
Preservation
541
1809
1:2.5
1:5
UT 5
1289
R/EI /EII
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
108
250
842
1:1
1:1.5
1:2.5
UT 6
954
Pres
Preservation
NA
1:5
Channel is ephemeral and has not
been counted towards credit.
UT 7
2529
Pres
Preservation
2529
1:5
UT 8
2003
Pres
Preservation
2003
1:5
UT 9
5239
Pres
Preservation
5239
1:5
Mill Creek 2
998
Pres
Preservation
998
1:5
Mill Creek 3
785
Pres
Preservation
785
1:5
Mill Creek 4
1485
Pres
Preservation
1485
1:5
Wetland 1 (along UT2
0.9
Creation
0.9
1:3
Wetland 2 (along UT 5 )
1
1 0.2 1
1 Creation
1 0.2
1:3
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear footage)
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Buffer (square footage)
Restoration
983
Enhancement (Level 1)
1710
Enhancement (Level II)
4348
Preservation
14848
Creation
1.1
Totals
21889
1.1
Mitigation Units
6832 SMUs
0.4
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Mill Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 253)
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 3 years 11 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 2 years 9 months
Number of Reporting Years: 3
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan
March 2008
Final Design — Construction Plans
Wright Contracting, LLC
February 2010
Construction
October 2010
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
December 2011
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
December 2011
As -built Construction Drawings
David Turner 919 - 875 -1378
March 2011
Year 1 Monitoring (2012)
November 2012
February 2013
Year 2 Monitoring (2013)
October 2013
November 2013
Year 3 Monitoring (2014)
September 2014
September 2014
Year 4 Monitoring (2015)
Year 5 Monitoring (2016)
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Mill Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 253)
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Cary, NC
Kevin Tweedy 919- 463 -5488
Construction, Planting, and Seeding
Wright Contracting, LLC
Contractor
Lawndale, NC
704 - 692 -4633
Surveyor
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
3201 Glenridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
David Turner 919 - 875 -1378
Seed Mix Source
Unknown
Years 1 -5 Monitoring Performers
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919 - 215 -1693
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Mill Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 253)
Project Information
Project Name
Mill Creek Restoration Site
Project County
Randolph
Project Area (Acres)
29.91
Project Coordinates (NAD83 2007)
658,598.39, 1,711,005.01
Project Watershed Su ary Information
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Yadkin
USGS 8 -digit HUC
03040103
USGS 14 -digit HUC
03040103050080
NCDWQ Subbasin
03 -07 -09
Project Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.)
1.95
Project Drainage Area Impervious Surface
<5%
Watershed Type
Rural
Reach Summary
Information
Parameters
Mill Creek
UT 2
UT 5
Restored/Enhanced Length (Linear Feet)
2214
1887
1200
Drainage Area (Square Miles)
1.33
0.08
0.06
NCDWQ Index Number
13- 2 -(1.5)
NCDWQ Classification
C
Valley Type /Morphological Description
VIII /B- and E -type
Dominant Soil Series
Badin - Tarrus complex
Drainage Class
Well drained
Soil Hydric Status
Nonhydric
Slope
0.009 — 0.0432
FEMA Classification
Zone AE
Native Vegetation Community
100
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasives
< 5% much young Privet sprouting
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Waters of the U.S. — Sections 404 and 401
Yes - Received Appropriate Permits
Endangered Species Act
No effect
Historic Preservation Act
No effect
CZMA /CAMA
No
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes - Received a No Rise Certification
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figures 2 and 2A -2B. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A -5C. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Stream Fixed - Station Photographs
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Main Tributary Structure Photographs
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
MILL CREEK SITE
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
Date:
September 2014
919)9215 693603
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 253
2
` "t
Randolph County, North Carolina
Project:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
12- 004.10

a N1
Stream Area of Concern #1
i!
FIGURE
.� - ^�',,�
Axiom Environmental
2A
218 Snow Avenue
12- 004.10
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 215 -1693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
�1
Veg Area of Concern #1
F.
t
�'•'' • M Ok
N
F
4b
a
�f Legend
C3Easement Boundary
Stream Restoration /Enhancement
1 In- Stream Structures
Stream Monitoring Reach
fit .i Monitoring Cross Sections
CVS Monitoring Plots
Wetland Creation
Vegetation Areas of Concern
Dense Sweetgum Population
O Crest Gauge
Photo Points
0 125 250 500
bi
r E
grid I Feet
MONITORING PLAN VIEW
MILL CREEK SITE
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 253
Randolph County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
Date:
September 2014
2A
Project:
12- 004.10

Dwn. by.
KRJ FIGURE
1 CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
Axiom
8 Snow Avenue ntal MILL CREEK SITE Date:
F Raleigh, -1 93 September 2014 2 B
(919)215 -1693 EEP PROJECT NUMBER 253 p
Randolph County, North Carolina Project:
Axiom Environmental, Inc. 12- 004.10

Table 5A
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach 1 Mill Creek
986
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Category
Metric
as Intended
1 As -built
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
1 Vegetation
1 Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
14
14
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
17
17
100%
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
100
100
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
100
100
100%
12. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
100
100
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
°
100 /0
°
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
8
8
°
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
8
8
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
8
8
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
8
8
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -- Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
8
8
o
100 /o

Table 513
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
UT2
1065
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Category
Metric
as Intended
1 As -built
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
1 Vegetation
1 Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
19
19
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
19
19
100%
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
100
100
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
100
100
100%
12. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
100
100
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
°
100 /0
°
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
15
16
°
94%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
16
16
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
15
16
94%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
16
16
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -- Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
15
16
°
94 /o

Table 5C
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
UT5
544
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Category
Metric
as Intended
1 As -built
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
1 Vegetation
1 Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
13
13
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
25
25
100%
2. Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
100
100
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
100
100
100%
12. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
100
100
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
°
100 /0
°
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
9
10
°
90%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
9
10
90%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
9
10
90%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
10
10
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -- Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
10
10
o
100 /o

Table 6
Planted Acreage'
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Mill Creek Property
29.91
lVegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acrea a
% of
Planted
Acrea e
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of planted woody and herbaceous material on stream banks and bench.
0.1 acres
Tan
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2B. Low Planted Stem Density Areas
Low planted stem densities due to thick sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and blackberry
(Rubus sp.)
0.1 acres
none
2
2.95
9.9%
Total
2
2.95
9.9%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
None
0.25 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage
129.2
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern /interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short -term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree /shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1 -2 decades). The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration
of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of
treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular
interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons.
The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In
any case, the point or polygon /area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the
executive summary.
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern¢
None
1000 SF
none
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas3
None
none
none
0
0.00
0.0%
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern /interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short -term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree /shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1 -2 decades). The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration
of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of
treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular
interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons.
The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In
any case, the point or polygon /area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the
executive summary.

IP. FF�
Mill Creek
Stream Fixed- Station Photographs
Taken September 2014
PP1
PPS
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

Mill Creek
Stream Fixed- Station Photographs
Taken September 2014
PP11
PP12
wrl-
PP13
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

Mill Creek
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2014
�I
Plot 6
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

Mill Creek
Main Tributary Structure Photographs
Taken May 2014
4'
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Mill Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 253)
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
1
No
63
2
Yes
3
No*
4
Yes
5
Yes
6
No
7
Yes
8
Yes
*Based on planted stems alone, theis plot doesn't meet success criteria; however, when including naturally recruited stems of
appropriate species such as American elm (Ulmus americana) and winged elm (Ulmus alata) this plot was well -above 320 stems
per acre.
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Mill Creek Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 253)
Report Prepared By
Corri Faquin
Date Prepared
7/18/2014 14:28
database name
Axiom -EEP- 2014- A- v2.3.1.mdb
database location
\\ AE- SBS \RedirectedFolders \KJernigan \Desktop
computer name
KEENAN -PC
file size
41754624
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary ofproject(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems,
and all natural /volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are
excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
253
project Name
Mill Creek
Description
Stream Enhancement and Restoration
River Basin
Yadkin
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
8
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
EEP Project Code 253. Project Name: Mill Creek
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 109/c
Fails to meet requirements by more than 109/,
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MY3 2014)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
253 -01 -0001
253 -01 -0002
253 -01 -0003
253 -01 -0004
253 -01 -0005
253 -01 -0006
253 -01 -0007
253 -01 -0008
MY3 (2014)
MY2 (20 3)
MY1(2012)
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
7
7
7
15
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
3
3
3
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
2
2
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
10
10
11
9
9
9
8
8
8
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
10
1
1
11
8
27
Carya
hickory
Tree
8
8
3
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
6
6
9
4
4
6
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1 1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
21
5
51
8
21
21
4
2
2
2
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
2
11
6
1
10
13
16
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
2
2
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
8
8
9
8
8
9
7
7
10
Quercus
oak
Tree
2
2
2
1 2
21
2
21
21
2
2
2
2
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
7
7
7
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
2
1
1 2
Robinia
locust
1
1
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
31
3
3
3
Ulmus
elm
Tree
14
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
501
50
46
22
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
3
3
6
3
Viburnum dentatum
Isouthern arrowwood
IShrub
1
21
21
2
1
1
11
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
21
21
2
111
111
11
61
6
67
131
131
24
141
141
37
51
5
13
91
9
9
131
131
21
731
731
184
63
63
150
571
57
160
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
8
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.20
0.20
0.20
21
21
2
7
7
7
5
5
10
5
S
8
8
8
12
4
4
6
5
5
5
8
8
11
16
16
27
15
15
23
15
15
23
80.94
80.94
80.94
445.2
445.2
445.2
242.8
242.8
2711
526.1
526.1
971.2
566.6
566.6
1497
202.31202.31
S26.11
364.21
364.21
364.21526.11
526.11
849.81
369.31
369.31
930.8
318.71
318.7
758.8
288.31
288.31
809.4
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 109/c
Fails to meet requirements by more than 109/,
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross - section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Substrate Plots
Tables l0a -b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11 a -b. Monitoring Data
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

River Basin:
Bankfull Elevation:
Yadkin
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
Site
0.08
Mill Creek
7/7/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
XS ID
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
XS - 1, Riffle (UT 2
W / D Ratio:
23.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
Drainage
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
[
Station
Elevation
0.00
98.42
7.05
97.98
-
11.46
97.92
13.31
97.66
14.56
97.38
:., . -.,• _. . _
15.30
97.28
16.22
97.24
17.73
97.48
19.22
97.54
20.68
97.98
27.39
97.87
31.46
98.07
Stream Type B/C
36.86
98.59
Mill Creek, XS -1, Riffle (UT 2)
99
---------------------------------------------------------
- - - - --
5
0 98
v - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
- - - ------
- - - - -- - - - -
-
------- - - - - --
,r
- -- • Bwkfull
W
- -- • Flood Prone Area
t MY -01 11/9/12
MY -02 6/11/13
97
MY -03 7/7/14
0
10
20
30 10
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
97.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
Area (s mi):
0.08
Date:
7/7/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
97.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
8.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
98.6
Flood Prone Width:
35.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
23.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Elevation
Yadkin
92.97
5.18
Site
Area (s mi):
Mill Creek
Date:
7/7/2014
XS ID
Perkinson, Jernigan
XS - 2, Riffle (UT 2
91.29
12.25
Drainage
12.82
92.07
14.70
91.94
19.24
91.79
•R
91.90
27.69
92.54
o
+ +r
Stream Type B/C
Mill Creek, XS - 2, Riffle (UT 2)
94
93
- - - -- ------------------------------------------
G4 92 - - - - - - - - --- - - - - -
-� __- _-- _-- _ - -_ --
Bankfull
���• Flood Prone Area
MY -01 11/9/12
MY -02 6/11/13
91
MY -03 7/7/14
0
10 20
30
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.00
92.97
5.18
92.37
Area (s mi):
0.08
Date:
7/7/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
92.97
5.18
92.37
6.76
92.33
8.58
91.98
10.68
91.98
11.59
91.29
12.25
91.36
12.82
92.07
14.70
91.94
19.24
91.79
22.31
91.90
27.69
92.54
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
91.9
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
1.3
Bankfull Width:
9.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
92.5
Flood Prone Width:
21.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.1
W / D Ratio:
68.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Yadkin
Mill Creek
XS - 3, Riffle Mill Creek)
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
27.9
Bankfull Width:
Area (s mi):
River Basin:
Site
XS ID
Drainage
Perkinson, Jernigan
2.3
Mean at Bankfull:
Station
Elevation
Entrenchment Ratio:
�13.9
Bank Height Ratio:
0.00
93.65
4.75
92.10
8.22
90.56
9.69
89.75
12.76
89.28
14.98
89.00
16.69
88.35
Depth
- -
18.29
88.20
20.15
87.91
22.20
87.83
-
24.30
87.74
25.25
87.65
Stream Type
B
26.10
87.88
27.36
89.07
28.6
89.81
Mill Creek, XS - 3, Riffle (Mill Creek)
30.2
90.94
32.5
91.86
98
34.3
92.73
36.8
93.83
96
39.1
94.86
42.1
95.59
45.7
96.28
d 94
48.5
96.59
0 92 ---- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gj 90
88
Oeo
___- Bankfall
- Flood Prone Area
t MY -Ol 1119112
MY -02 6/11/13
86
MY -03 7/7/14
0 10
20 30
Station (feet)
50
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
90.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
27.9
Bankfull Width:
Area (s mi):
1.33
Date:
7/7/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
90.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
27.9
Bankfull Width:
19.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
92.3
Flood Prone Width:
30.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
Mean at Bankfull:
1.4
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
�13.9
Bank Height Ratio:

SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Yadkin
Mill Creek
XS - 4, Riffle Mill Creek)
Banldull Cross - Sectional Area:
26.9
Bankfull Width:
Area (s mi):
River Basin:
Site
XS ID
Drainage
Perkinson, Jernigan
2.5
Elevation
1.3
W / D Ratio:
15.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.4
Bank Height Ratio:
Station
0.00
90.52
*'
3.88
89.99
w
6.51
89.31
-
10.44
87.42
14.33
85.67
17.56
84.82
Depth
18.95
84.56
21.56
84.65
23.87
84.16
25.36
83.82
26.05
82.78
27.96
82.75
Stream Type
B
30.22
83.09
31.83
83.07
33.7
83.76
Mill Creek, XS - 4, Riffle (Mill Creek)
35.3
84.09
36.8
85.15
94
40.3
91.12
42.3
92.38
92
45.4
93.19
48.5
93.46
90
88
86
W
------------- - - - -
84
-- ---------------------
- - - - --
--- •Bankfull
--
• Flood Prone Area
t MY -o1 11/9/12
MY -02 6/11/13
82
MY -03 7/7/14
0 10
20
Station (feet)
30
50
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
85.2
Banldull Cross - Sectional Area:
26.9
Bankfull Width:
Area (s mi):
1.33
Date:
7/7/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
85.2
Banldull Cross - Sectional Area:
26.9
Bankfull Width:
20.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
87.7
Flood Prone Width:
28.0
Max at Bankfull:
2.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
W / D Ratio:
15.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
1.4
Bank Height Ratio:
2.8

SUMMARY DATA
Elevation
93.5
93.3
92.7
92.9
92.6
91.0
90.8p
90.4
90.6
90.8
91.1
95.5
96.2
96.98
97.50
Yadkin
Mill Creek
XS - 5, Pool Mill Creek)
Depth
98
96
-----------------------------------------
0 94
ti
W- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
92
90
0
4' V
_
Stream Type B/C
Mill Creek, XS - 5, Pool (Mill Creek)
- - - - --/--0
- _ _
- - - - - - - - ------------ - - - - --
10 20
Station (feet)
�.
1.
`
-
------
�� - - - --
30
- -
- - - - --
- - - • Bankfull
- -- -Flood Prone Area
t MY -01 11/9/12
MY -02 6/11/13
MY -03 7/7114
40
River Basin:
Site
XS ID
Drainage
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
0.0
4.9
7.1
11.4
13.8
15.3
17.2
18.3
20.8
22.9
25.8
29.4
32.0
34.8
37.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 9
92.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 1
19.6
Bankfull Width: 1
Area (s mi):
1.33
Date:
7/7/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 9
92.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 1
19.6
Bankfull Width: 1
12.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation: -
--
Flood Prone Width: -
- --
Max at Bankfull: 2
2.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1
1.5
W / D Ratio: -
- --
Entrenchment Ratio: -
---

SUMMARY DATA
Elevation.
91.5
89.6
87.9
87.7
87.3
87.3
87.2
86.8
86.4
86.4
86.7
87.2
87.4
87.38
87.67
87.62
87.82
88.34
88.97
89.72
91.79
Yadkin
Mill Creek
XS - 6, Riffle T 5
94
92
0 90
ti
Wgg ������������
- - - - - - -- - - - - -
&6
0
Stream Type
Mill Creek, XS - 6, Riffle (UT 5)
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
������ ������ ������������
10 20
Station (feet)
r'
B/C
--- - Bankfull
- - - - - - - �� ���. Flood Prone Area
tMY- 0111/9/12
MY -02 6/11/13
MY -03 7/7/14
30 40
River Basin:
Site
XS ID
Drainage
Flood Prone Width:
7/7/2014
Station
0.0
4.7
9.1
11.5
14.9
17.2
18.0
18.8
19.6
20.2
20.9
21.4
22.6
23.5
24.9
26.1
28.2
29.6
31.5
33.2
38.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
87.3
Banldull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.3
Bankfull Width:
Area (s mi):
0.06
Date:
Flood Prone Width:
7/7/2014
Field Crew:
0.9
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
87.3
Banldull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.3
Bankfull Width:
5.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
88.2
Flood Prone Width:
23.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
12.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Elevation
Yadkin
91.8
5.2
90.0
Site
0.06
Mill Creek
7/7/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
XS ID
88.0
XS - 7, Pool UT 5)
87.8
18.4
87.1
19.0
87.3
19.6
87.1
20.2
87.2
Drainage
87.5
21.2
87.8
A
88.13
23.9
88.14
27.1
88.33
29.8
88.98
37.5
91.63
i
Stream Type
B/C
Mill Creek, XS - 7, Pool (UT 5)
94
92
0 90
Bankfull
88
- - - - Flood Prone Area
t MY -01 11/9/12
MY -02 6/11/13
8C
MY -03 7/7/14
0
10
20
30 40
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.2
91.8
5.2
90.0
Area (s mi):
0.06
Date:
7/7/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.2
91.8
5.2
90.0
9.9
88.6
13.2
88.1
16.0
88.0
17.6
88.0
18.1
87.8
18.4
87.1
19.0
87.3
19.6
87.1
20.2
87.2
20.8
87.5
21.2
87.8
22.0
88.13
23.9
88.14
27.1
88.33
29.8
88.98
37.5
91.63
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
88.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.2
Bankfull Width:
3.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

SUMMARY DATA
Elevation
77.9
77.2
77.1
77.1
77.0
76.8
76.3
76.2
76.3
76.4
76.4
76.8
77.2
77.57
77.95
78.02
78.40
Yadkin
Mill Creek
XS - 8, Riffle T 5
80
w
0 78
,y
W
----- - - - - -- -
76
0
k. #
Stream Type CB
Mill Creek, XS - 8, Riffle (UT 5)
- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
10 20
Station (feet)
- -- • Bankfull
- -- - - - - Flood Prone Area
� MY -01 11/9/12
MY -02 6/11/13
MY -03 7/7/14
30
River Basin:
Site
XS ID
Drainage
7/7/2014
Field Crew:
Station
0.2
4.8
9.8
12.4
13.1
13.6
14.5
15.2
15.5
16.1
16.6
16.9
18.5
20.5
23.2
26.9
31.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
77.1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.3
Bankfull Width:
Area (s mi):
0.06
Date:
7/7/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
77.1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.3
Bankfull Width:
5.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
77.9
Flood Prone Width:
20.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
10.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Project Name Mill Creek - Profile
Reach Mill Creek Station 00 +00 - 10 +00
Feature Profile
Date 7/7/14
Crew Perkincnn_ .Jernigan
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
104
102
100
m
Z 98
m
v
v
96
c
0
W 94
92
90
88 +
0
100
200
-4--Year 1(2012) Bed
300
Mill Creek Year 3 (2014) Profile - Mill Creek 00 +00 to 10 +00
400
--w-Year 2 (2013) Bed
500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (feet)
—*—Year 3 (2014) Bed
--x—Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0074
0.0062
0.0072
Riffle Length
23
42
28
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0118
0.0108
0.0107
Pool Length
34
33
38
Pool to Pool Spacing
57
62
63
500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (feet)
—*—Year 3 (2014) Bed
--x—Year 3 (2014) Water Surface

Project Name Mill Creek - Profile
Reach UT 2 Station 00 +00 - 11 +00
Feature Profile
Date 7/7/14
Crew Perkinson. Jernigan
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
115
110
105
100
v
v
c
0
ca 95
v
W
90
85
80 +
0
200
Mill Creek Year 3 (2014) Profile - UT 2 00 +00 to 11 +00
400
Distance (feet)
600
800
** No water in channel during Yield measurments.
—*--Year 1(2012) Bed —41—Year 2 (2013) Bed Year 3 (2014) Bed — **-Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
1000
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
**
0.0249
0.0204
Riffle Length
20
15
20
Avg. Riffle Slope
**
0.0325
0.0239
Pool Length
15
11
14
Pool to Pool Spacing
34
23
36
** No water in channel during Yield measurments.
—*--Year 1(2012) Bed —41—Year 2 (2013) Bed Year 3 (2014) Bed — **-Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
1000

Project Name Mill Creek - Profile
Reach UT 5 Station 00 +00 - 05 +50
Feature Profile
Date 7/7/14
Crew Perkinson. Jernigan
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
125
120
115
v
!
c
0
v 110
I
100
—$—Year 1(2012) Bed
Mill Creek Year 3 (2014) Profile - UT5 00 +00 to 05 +50
200
—11--Year 2 (2013) Bed
Distance (feet)
300
Year 3 (2014) Bed
400
— )(—Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
500
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0201
0.0419
0.0397
Riffle Length
30
23
15
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0235
0.0401
0.0273
Pool Length
21
13
12
Pool to Pool Spacing
44
21
23
400
— )(—Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
500

Mill Creek
Yadkin
Note:
Cross Section 3 (Mill Creek)
Pebble Count, Mill Creek
100% T' 1 71 1 111
90% H 1 1 1 H1 11 il� 11111111 1 III
80%
70%
60%
I I I I
H
2Z 50%
I
40%
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
IT IT
1
I !F
I I (IIII
I I V I I
I;
ii 30%
I I,I
I I,I
I HIN
1
TT ----- T--T-
20%
III
III
III
III
III
IIII!
ll 10%
♦ 4M
0% 1
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) --m—Cumulative Percent ♦ Percent Item — *—Riffle --e-- Pool —x —Run --e--Glide]
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type
D16
D35
D50
D84
D95
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
0.500
5.42
26.5
90
115
8%
16%
48%
28%
0%
0%

Mill Creek
Yadkin
Note:
Cross Section 6 (UT 5)
Pebble Count, Mill Creek
100% i i i i i
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I III!
90% IIII! III! III li III IIII!
I ( I I I I
I I ( I
I I I
I I ( I I I I
I I I I I I
I I
( I I I I
I I ( I I I I
80%
I l i I IIII
I l i
I IIII
I l i I IIII
I I IIII
I
I 1 11111
I l i IIII:
70%
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
Illi
I I VIII
I I I
VIII
I I I VIII
I I VIII
I
I I VIII
I I I Illi
60%
I I I III
I I I I
III
I I I I III
I I I I III
I I
I I III
I I I I III
I
I 1 11111
I 1
11111
! ! !!!!!
! ! !!!!!
! ! !!!!!
! ! !!!!
50%
I I I I Ili
I I I
I I Ili
I I I I I Ili
� I I I I Ili
i
I I I I lli
i I! IIII;
�
40%
III
I I I III!
I I
III
I IIII
IIII
( I I I I
III
I I I IIII
III
I I I IIII
IIII:
I I I III!
ii o
30 %
�
20%
1 1 1 1 1 1
III
1 1 1 1 1
I I
1 1 1
I I III
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
III
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
III
1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
III
1 1 I I I IIII;
IIII!
v
d 10%
I I I I I III
!
I I I
l!
I
� I I I I I III
III
I ♦I I I III
I
I I I I III
III
I I I I I Ili
III
! ! ! ! I ! III ' ! ! ! Ij ! ♦I ! I ! ! !!1 ' ! ! ! ! !!i ' ! ! ! ! !!
t I ♦IIII i I I I I ITi I♦ I I ♦I III ♦ j I I III ' j I I IIII
0% i
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) --m--Cumulative Percent ♦ Percent Item — *— Riffle Pool —x —Run Glide
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type
D16
D35
D50
D84
D95
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
0.707
2.59
12.1
51
83
8%
24%
60%
8%
0%
0%

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary - Mill Creek
Mill Creek (EEP Project Number 253)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition - Mill
Creek
Reference Reach(es) Data - Mickey
Design - Mill Cr
Year 1 (2012) Monitoring - Mill Creek
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Max
Med
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width (ft)
25.3
18.2
20.3
20.7
21.5
Flood prone Width (ft)
37
25
40
22
28
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.3
BF Max Depth (fr)
1.9
1.7
2.1
2.4
2.5
BF Cross Sectional Area (f')
27.6
27.6
27.0
27.1
Width/Depth Ratio
19.8
12.0
15.0
15.8
17.1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
1.4
2.0
1.1
1.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.8
LO
1 1.1
LO
1.0
Profile
Riffle length ft
4
23
18
61
l8
Riffle slope(ft/ft )
0.0099
0.0162
10.0003
0.0132
0.0118
0.0299
0.0091
Pool length ft
17
39
34
92
21
Pool Max depth (ft)
2.8
4.5
Pool spacing (ft)
27.3
101.7
24
58
57
l48
30
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
The majority of the channel is
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Euhacnement with no design channel, or
Meander Wavelength (ft)
measurable bends.
Meander Width ratio
Transport parameters
a e e
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankful
e r (transport cal c
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
63c /1
134
133c /2
B -type
Bankfult Velocity (fps)
2.6
2.6
2.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs )
70.42
Valley Length (ft)
1460
Channel Thalweg Length ft
2214
986
Sinuosity
1.3
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope ft /ft
0.009
0.009
0.0074
BF slope ft/ft
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
- - - --
- - --
- - - --
- - --
% of Reach with Eroding Banks!-
- - --
- - - --
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biolo ical or Other
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Mill Creek (EEP Project Number 253)

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary - UT 2
Mill Creek (EEP Project Number 253)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition - UT 2
Reference Reach(es) Data - Mickey
Design - UT 2
Year 1 (2012) Monitoring - UT 2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Max
Med
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width (fr)
7.2
6.8
7.5
9.5
15.4
Flood prone Width (ft)
12
15
25
21
35
BF Mean Depth ft
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.1
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.6
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft')
3.5
3.8
3.6
3.8
Width /Depth Ratio
14.7
12.0
15.0
24.1
65.6
Entrenchment Ratio
1.7
2.2
3.3
1.4
3.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.7
LO
1 1.1
LO
1.0
Profile
Riffle length ft
3
22
20
81
20
Riffle slope (ft/ft )
0.0154
0.0252
**
Pool length 11
4
19
15
113
24
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.0
1.8
Pool spacing (fi)
10.1
37.7
7
1 37
34
139
33
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
The majority of the channel is
Rc:Bankfull width (fi/ft)
Enhacnement with no design channel, or
Meander Wavelength (fi)
measurable bends.
Meander Width ratio
Transport parameters
a e e
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankful
t c'
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B5/1
134
135 /1
B/C -type
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.4
2.2
2.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs )
8.4
Valley Length (ft)
- - - --
----
annel Thalweg Length ft
1703
875
1065
Sinuosity
1.1
1.1
1.14
Water Surface Slope (fi/ft)
0.014
0.014
No water in channel during field survey.
BF slope
(ft/ft)-
- - --
- - - --
Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
- - - --
- - --
-
- - --
90 of Reach with Eroding Banks
- - - --
-----
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biolo ical or Other
I - No Water in U'f During field Measurements
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Mill Creek (EEP Project Number 253)

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary - UT 5
Mill Creek (EEP Project Number 253)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition - UT 5
Reference Reach(es) Data - Mickey
Design - UT 5
Year 1 (2012) Monitoring - UT 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Max
Med
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width (fr)
4.9
6.8
7.5
4.5
10.3
Flood prone Width (ft)
33
15
30
18
22
BF Mean Depth ft
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.4
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.9
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft')
3.1
3.8
L6
3.5
Width /Depth Ratio
7.8
12.0
15.0
12.7
30.1
Entrenchment Ratio
4.0
2.2
4.0
2.1
4.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.5
LO
1 1.1
LO
1.0
Profile
Riffle length ft
4
18
17
33
8
Riffle slope (ft/ft )
0.0358
0.0585
0.0057
0.0424
0.0268
0.1508
0.0459
Pool length ft
4
13
12
31
6
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.0
1.8
Pool spacing (fi)
10.1
37.7
7
21
14
50
l2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
The majority of the channel is
Rc:Bankfull width (fi/ft)
Enhacnerrent with no design channel, or
Meander Wavelength (fi)
measurable bends.
Meander Width ratio
Transport parameters
a e e
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankful
(transport Stream Power c'
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B4/1
134
134 /1
E -type
Bankfull Velocity (fps
2.5
2.5
2.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs )
9.6
Valley Length (ft)
- - - --
----
Channel Thalweg Length ft
200
125
544
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.17
Water Surface Slope (fi/ft)
0.0325
0.0381
0.0424
BF slope ft/ft
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull Flood lain Area
(acres)-
- - --
- - --
-
- - --
°6 of Reach with Eroding Banks!-
- - --
- - - --
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biolo ical or Othe
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Mill Creek (EEP Project Number 253)

Table 11a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Mill Creek (EEP Proiect Number 253)
Parameter
Cross Section 1 - UT 2
Cross Section 2 - UT 2
Cross Section 3 - Mill Creek
Cross Section 4 - Mill Creek
Parameter
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
Riffle
or
Dimension
Dimension
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
BF Width ft
12.9
9.5
9.3
8.8
10.3
15.4
15.6
9.4
5.4
20.7
20.2
19.7
4.5
21.5
21.3
20.7
Flood prone Width ft a rox
Floodprone Width (ft) (approx)
NA
35.0
35.0
35.0
22.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
1
NA
22.0
30.0
30.0
1
18.0
28.0
28.0
28.0
BF Mean Depth ft
BF Mean Depth ft
1.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.5
1.3
1.2
1.4
0.4
1.3
1.2
1.3
BF Max Depth ft
BF Max Depth ft
2.1
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.6
1.1
2.5
2.3
2.3
0.6
2.4
2.3
2.5
BF Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
BF Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
20.8
3.8
3.8
3.3
3.5
3.6
3.4
1.3
2.7
27.0
25.2
27.9
1.6
27.1
26.0
1 26.9
Width/Depth Ratio
Width/Depth Ratio
NA
23.8
22.8
23.5
30.3
65.9
71.6
68.0
NA
15.9
16.2
13.9
12.7
17.1
17.4
15.9
Entrenchment Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
NA
3.7
3.8
4.0
2.1
1.4
1.3
2.2
NA
1.1
1.5
1.5
4.0
1.3
1.3
1.4
Bank Height Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.0
2.9
2.8
d50 mm
d50 mm
-
--
--
--
22.0
--
--
--
-
49.1
3.7
26.5
--
-
-
-
Parameter
Cross Section 5 - Mill Creek
Cross Section 6 - UT 5
Cross Section 7 - UT 5
Cross Section 8 - UT 5
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Dimension
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY5+
BF Width (ft)
12.9
13.3
12.9
10.3
6.7
5.3
5.4
3.7
3.8
4.5
6.6
5.0
Flood prone Width ft a rox
NA
NA
NA
22.0
23.0
23.0
1
NA
NA
NA
1
18.0
20.0
20.0
BF Mean Depth ft
1.6
1.4
1.5
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.5
BF Max Depth ft
2.1
2.0
2.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.8
BF Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
20.8
19.2
19.6
3.5
3.1
2.3
2.7
2.3
2.2
1.6
1.9
2.3
Width/Depth Ratio
NA
NA
NA
30.3
14.5
12.2
NA
NA
NA
12.7
1 22.9
10.9
Entrenchment Ratio
NA
NA
NA
2.1
3.4
4.3
NA
NA
NA
4.0
3.0
4.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
I
1.0
d50 mm
-
-
-
22.0
10.2
12.1
-
-
-
--
--
--

Table 11b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Mill Creek (EEP Proiect Number 253)
Parameter Baseline MY -1 (Mill Creek) MY -2 (Mill Creek) MY -3 (Mill Creek) MY -4 MY -5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width (11
20.7
21.5
20.2
21.3
19.7
20.7
Floodprone Width (ft
22
28
28
30
28
30
BF Mean Depth (ft
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.4
BF Max Depth (ft
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.5
BF Cross Sectional Area (d)
27.0
27.1
25.2
26.0
26.9
27.9
Width/Depth Ratic
15.8
17.1
16.2
17.5
13.9
15.9
Entrenchment Ratic
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.3
2.9
1.3
2.8
Profile - Mill Creek
Riffle length (ft
4
23
18
61
18
10
42
28
148
41
4
28
21
93
22
Riffle slope (ft/ft
0.0003
0.0132
0.0118
0.0299
0.0091
0.0000
0.0108
0.0103
0.0322
0.0103
0.0000
0.0107
0.0120
0.0272
0.0088
Pool length (ft
17
39
34
92
21
18
33
27
91
19
16
38
30
89
22
Pool Max depth (ft
Pool spacing (ft',
24
58
57
148
30
18
62
55
153
38
21
63
59
135
34
Pattern - Mill Creek
Channel Beltwidth (ft
no majority of the channel is Enhacnement with
no design channel, or measurable bends.
Radius of Curvature (ft
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft
Meander Wavelength (ft
Meander Width rati
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgcn Classificatio
B -type
B -type
B -type
Channel Thalweg Length (ft
986
1146
1070
Sinuosity
1.27
1.27
1.27
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
0.0074
0.0062
0.0072
BF slope ( ft/ft
- - --
- - --
Ri %/RU %P %G % /S°/
SC % /SA % /G % /C %B %BE°/
12
24
44
20
0
8
16
48
28
0
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
0.5
1.9
3.7
76
111
0.5
5.42
26.5
90
115
% of Reach with Eroding Bank
1
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
- - --
- - --
- - --
Biological or Othe
** No Water in UT During Field Measurements.

Table 11b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Mill Creek (EEP Proiect Number 253)
Parameter I Baseline MY -1 (UT 2) MY -2 (UT 2) MY -3 (UT 2) MY -4 MY -5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width (ft
9.5
15.4
9.3
15.6
8.8
9.4
Floodprone Width (ft
21
35
21
35
21
35
BF Mean Depth (ft
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
BF Cross Sectional Area (d)
3.6
3.8
3.4
3.8
1.3
3.3
Width/Depth Ratic
24.1
65.6
22.7
72.4
23.4
65.8
Entrenchment Ratic
1.4
3.7
1.3
3.8
2.2
4.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile - UT 2
Riffle length (ft
3
22
20
81
20
3
15
18
26
8
3
32
20
170
37
Riffle slope (ft/ft
**
**
**
**
**
0.0000
0.0325
0.0279
0.0692
0.0245
0.0000
0.0239
0.0217
0.0639
0.0194
Pool length (ft
4
19
15
113
24
4
11
13
18
5
4
21
14
168
34
Pool Max depth (ft
Pool spacing (ft
7
37
34
139
33
8
23
26
36
13
7
47
36
186
48
Pattern - UT 2
Channel Beltwidth (ft
The majority of the channel is Enhacnement with
no design channel, or measurable bends.
Radius of Curvature (ft
Rc:Bankfull width ( ft/ft
Meander Wavelength (ft
Meander Width rati
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classificatio
B/C -type
B/C -type
B/C -type
Channel Thalweg Length (ft
1065
1079
1059
Sinuosity
1.14
1.14
1.14
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
No water in channel during field survey.
0.0249
0.0204
BF slope (ft /ft
- - --
- --
Ri%/RU%P%G%/S°/
SC % /SA % /G % /C %B %BE°/
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
- - --
- - --
% of Reach with Eroding Bank
0
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
- - --
- - --
- - --
Biological or Othe
- - --
- - --
** No Water in UT During Field Measurements.

Table 11b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Mill Creek (EEP Proiect Number 253)
Parameter Baseline MY -1 (UT 5) MY -2 (UT 5) MY -3 (UT 5) MY -4 MY -5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
BF Width (ft
4.5
10.3
6.6
6.7
5.0
5.3
Floodprone Width (ft
18
22
20
23
20
23
BF Mean Depth (ft
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
BF Max Depth (ft
0.6
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.8
0.9
BF Cross Sectional Area (1C)
1.6
3.5
1.9
3.1
2.3
2.3
Width/Depth Ratic
12.7
30.1
14.1
1
1 22.8
10.7
12.0
Entrenchment Ratic
2.1
4.0
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile - UT 5
Riffle length (ft
4
18
17
33
8
7
23
20
51
13
3
16
9
76
18
Riffle slope ( ft/ft
0.0057
0.0424
0.0268
0.1508
0.0459
0.0072
0.0401
0.0336
0.1237
0.0314
0.0000
0.0289
0.0213
0.1231
0.0305
Pool length (ft
4
13
12
31
6
7
13
12
28
5
5
12
11
31
7
Pool Max depth (ft
Pool spacing (ft',
7
21
14
50
12
8
21
14
47
13
7
23
14
89
18
Pattern - UT 5
Channel Beltwidth (ft
The majority of the channel is Enhacnement with
no design channel, or measurable bends.
Radius of Curvature (ft
Rc:Bankfull width ( ft/ft
Meander Wavelength (ft
Meander Width rati
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classificatio
E -type
E -type
E -type
Channel Thalweg Length (ft
544
555
548
Sinuosity
1.17
1.17
1.17
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft
0.0424
0.0419
0.0397
BF slope (ft /ft
- - --
- - --
Ri %/RU %P %G % /S°/
SC % /SA % /G % /C %B %BE°/
8
20
56
16
0
8
24
60
8
0
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95
1
3.7
10.2
64
87
0.71
2.59
12.1
51
83
% of Reach with Eroding Bank
0
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
- - --
- - --
- - --
Biological or Othe
** No Water in UT During Field Measurements.

APPENDIX E
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Mill Creek Restoration Site (EEP Protect Number 253)
Date of Data
Photo (if
Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
available)
Crest gauge observations indicated bankfull event on UT2 and
June 10, 2013
June 7, 2013
UT5 after 3.64 inches* of rain between June 2 and 7, 2013.
Crest gauge observations indicated a bankfull event 2.06
inches* of rain fall documented between July 10 -11, 2013
November 25, 2013
July 11, 2013
following a total of 4.31 inches* of rain fall documented to
-
fall during 14 out of the proceeding 15 days (June 25 -July 8,
2013).
2.02 inches* of rain fall documented between March 6 -7,
August 18, 2014
March 7, 2014
-
2014.
August 18, 2014
May 15, 2014
2.08 inches* of rain fall documented on May 15, 2014.
Large wrack and debris piles observed on Mill Creek, UT2,
September 16, 2014
August 1, 2014
and UT5, as well as structure failures on UT2 and UT5
1 -2
indicating a bankfull event from a localized, heavy rain event.
*Weather Underground 2013, 2014
Mill Creek (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 253 October 2014
Randolph County, North Carolina Appendices