20160847 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20191015

ID#* 20160847 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review 10/15/2019
Completed Date
Mitigation Project Submittal -10/15/2019
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site? *
Type of Mitigation Project:*
W Stream r Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Contact Name:*
Email Address:*
Brad Breslow
[e-mail]
Project Information
Existing 20160847
Existing
(DWR) (nunbersonly ...nodash)
Version: (nurrbersonly)
ID#:*
Project Type: r DMS f• Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Dairyland
County: Orange
Document Information
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Dairyland MY1 Report.pdf
15.29MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Ryan Medric
Signature:
. WmAlo

pres
October 15, 2019
Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: Dairyland Year 1 Monitoring Report (SAW -2016-01258)
Ms. Dailey,
302 Jefferson St. Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Please find attached the Dairyland Year 1 Monitoring Report. All 11 vegetation plots met the
320 stems per acre success criteria. There were zero stream problem areas in Year 1 and
vegetation problem areas included one low stem density area and four small areas of
encroachment.
RES is requesting a 10% (350.20 SMU) credit release.
Thank you,
674�1601 '
Ryan Medric I Ecologist

DAIRYLAND STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
YEAR I MONITORING REPORT
Provided by:
fires
Bank Sponsor: EBX, LLC,
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1056
October 2019

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location and Description.............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives..................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Success Criteria.............................................................................................................2
StreamSuccess Criteria................................................................................................................... 2
VegetationSuccess Criteria............................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Project Components.................................................................................................................. 3
1.5 Design/Approach.......................................................................................................................3
1.6 Construction and As -Built Conditions...................................................................................... 4
1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY 1)............................................................................................... 4
Vegetation........................................................................................................................................ 4
StreamGeomorphology................................................................................................................... 5
StreamHydrology............................................................................................................................ 5
2.0 Methods................................................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 References............................................................................................................................................... 6
Appendix A: Background Tables
Table 1: Project Mitigation Components
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3: Project Contacts Table
Table 4: Project Contacts Table
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2: Current Conditions Plan View
Stream and Vegetation Problem Areas
Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 5: Planted Species Summary
Table 6: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 7a. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Table 7b. Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data
Appendix D: Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Baseline Cross -Section Plots
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Table 10. Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Appendix E: Hydrology Data
Table 11. 2019 Rainfall Summary
Table 12. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Manual Bankfull Reading Photos

1.0 Proiect Summary
1.1 Project Location and Description
The Dairyland Stream Mitigation Site (the "Site") is located within a watershed dominated by agricultural
and residential land use in Orange County, North Carolina, about eight miles Southwest of Hillsborough.
The project area exhibited diminished hydrology and habitat value as a result of past and on-going
agricultural activities. The project involved the restoration, enhancement, and protection of streams in the
Cape Fear River basin.
The project lies within the Haw River Basin and Jordan Lake Watershed (8 -digit USGS HUC 03030002,
14 -digit USGS 03030002050030). The project watershed is primarily characterized by agriculture, forests,
and low -intensity residential areas.
The total easement area is 28.6 acres. Adjacent fields are dominated by corn and soybeans. Vegetation
around the ponds and the unbuffered stream reaches (HBI, HB2, and UT2) was primarily composed of
herbaceous vegetation and scattered trees. The existing farm ponds offered little habitat to support aquatic
life, and the riparian buffers were not maximizing their potential to filter nutrients.
The Site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site will be conducted at a
minimum of twice per year throughout the seven-year post -construction monitoring period, or until
performance standards are met. These site inspections will identify site components and features that require
routine maintenance. The measure of stream restoration success will be documented by bankfull flows and
no change in stream channel classification. The measure of vegetative success for the site will be the
survival of at least 210 seven-year old planted trees per acre at the end of year seven of the monitoring
period.
Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred to Unique
Places to Save (UP2S), an approved third parry long-term steward. The long-term steward will be
responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the Conservation
Easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Easements will be stewarded in general
accordance with the guidelines published by the National Land Trust Alliance. These guidelines include
annual monitoring visits to easements and related communication with the landowner(s).
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) develops River Basin Restoration Priorities
(RBRP) to guide its restoration activities within each of the state's 54 hydrologic units. The 2009 Cape
River Basin RBRP identified several restoration needs for the entire Cape River Basin, as well as for
hydrologic unit code (HUC 03030002), specifically. To satisfy these needs RES has established the RES
Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, with the first approved bank site being the Dairyland Mitigation
Site.
The Site is located within the Haw River, the major river in HUC 03030002. This river and its tributaries
flow to B. Everett Jordan Lake, a drinking water supply. This supply has been designated a Nutrient
Sensitive Water and NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) has developed a set of goals to reduce non -
point source pollution in its watershed. Goals include promoting nutrient and sediment reduction in
agricultural and urban areas by restoring and preserving streams, wetlands, and riparian buffers. The Site
provides compensatory mitigation for impacts on the Waters of the US under the Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act.
Dairyland 1 Baseline Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2019

Project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Dam breach and pond removal,
• Restoration of appropriate pattern, dimension, and profile in stream channels.
• Restoration of forested riparian stream buffers,
• Enhancement of hydrology and vegetation in existing riparian wetlands,
• Treatment and control of exotic invasive species,
• Stabilization of eroding stream banks due to lack of vegetation, and
• Addition of large woody debris, such as log vanes, log weirs, root wads.
Due to its location and improvements, the Site provides numerous ecological and water quality benefits
within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the project area, others, such
as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have farther -reaching effects. Many of
the project design goals and objectives, including restoration of riparian buffers to filter runoff from
agricultural operations, improvement of terrestrial habitat, and construction of in -stream structures, address
the degraded water quality and nutrient input stressors identified as major watershed stressors in the 2009
Cape Fear RBRP.
1.3 Project Success Criteria
The Site follows the USACE 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the "Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update" dated October 24, 2016. Cross section and vegetation plot data
will be collected in Years 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Stream hydrology data and visual monitoring will be reported
annually.
Stream Success Criteria
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.
There should be 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 less stable condition (for example down -cutting or
erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-sections shall be classified
using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross-sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 1.4 within restored reaches. Channel stability should
be demonstrated through a minimum of four bankfull events documented in the seven-year monitoring
period.
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images should
not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth.
Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A
series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Dairyland 2 Baseline Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2019

Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Site will follow
IRT Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size, and cover a minimum
of two percent of the planted area. Vegetation monitoring will occur between July 1St and leaf drop and
includes 11 permanent vegetation plots and four random vegetation plots. The interim measures of
vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at
the end of Year 3, 260 five-year old trees at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria
will be 210 trees per acre with an average height of 10 feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees will be
counted, identified to species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted
towards the success criteria of total planted stems.
1.4 Project Components
Mitigation credits presented in these tables are based upon site design in the approved final mitigation plan.
SMIJ totals were adjusted and calculated using the most recent non-standard buffer width guidance. The
stream mitigation components are summarized in Table 1, as well as Figure 2.
*SMUs are adjusted in accordance with Section XI(C)- "Procedures to Calculate Credits for Non-standard Buffer Widths",
published in the October 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. A detailed description
of the methodology and calculations is described in the Approved Mitigation Plan.
1.5 Design/Approach
The design approach for the Site was to combine the analog method of natural channel design with
analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain. The
analog method involves the use of a "template" stream adjacent to, nearby, or previously in the same
location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach are replicated to create the features
Dairyland 3 Baseline Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2019
The Dairyland Stream Mitigation Site Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Totals
3,657
N/A
N/A
Mitigation
Stationing ProposedMitigation
Base
Reach
Length
Adjusted SMUs,�
Type
(Proposed)
Ratio
SMUs
HB -1
Enhancement II
0+17 to 8+90 873
2.5:1
349
349
HB -2
P1 Restoration
9+50 to 22+69 1,319
1:1
1,319
1,452
UT -1
Enhancement III
0+15 to 9+84 969
5:1
194
194
UT -2
Enhancement I
0+0 to 2+10 210
1.5:1
140
150
UT -2
P1 Restoration
2+10 to 11+74 964
1: 1
964
1,079
WF -1
Preservation
0+20 to 15+74 1,554
10:1
155
155
WF -2
Enhancement III
16+55 to 19+10 255
5: 1
51
51
WF -2
Enhancement III
23+30 to 34+64 1,134
5: 1
227
227
Total 7,278
3,399
3,657
*SMUs are adjusted in accordance with Section XI(C)- "Procedures to Calculate Credits for Non-standard Buffer Widths",
published in the October 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. A detailed description
of the methodology and calculations is described in the Approved Mitigation Plan.
1.5 Design/Approach
The design approach for the Site was to combine the analog method of natural channel design with
analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain. The
analog method involves the use of a "template" stream adjacent to, nearby, or previously in the same
location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach are replicated to create the features
Dairyland 3 Baseline Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2019

of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and boundary conditions are similar
between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore, et al., 2001). Hydraulic geometry was developed using
analytical methods in an effort to identify the design discharge.
Priority Level I Restoration was performed on Reaches HB -2 and UT -2, both of which were farm ponds.
Restoration activities included draining and breaching the existing impoundments and constructing
channels once the ponds had been breached. A combination of Priority I Restoration and Enhancement
Level II was performed along the primary project channel (Reaches HB -1 and HB -2) to address existing
impairments, particularly impoundment, floodplain disconnection, and buffer degradation. Enhancement
III was performed on Reaches UT -1 and WF -2, as the channel is stable throughout, regularly accesses its
floodplain and provides a variety of aquatic habitats. Preservation was performed for Reach WF -1. The
channel is stable throughout, regularly accesses its floodplain and provides a variety of aquatic habitats.
1.6 Construction and As Built Conditions
Stream construction was completed in August 2018 and planting was completed in November 2018. The
Dairyland Mitigation Site was built to design plans and guidelines. Baseline channel length and stationing
is based on design centerline. The only notable change that was made during construction was changing
the crossing between HB -1 and HB -2 from a culvert to a ford. This modification, which is outside of the
conservation easement area, was made based on the large amount of bedrock unearthed after the ponds
were dewatered. The design engineer drafted and sealed a bulletin drawing to retain the bedrock features
and tie-in with the downstream stream design as shown in the Mitigation Plan. The bulletin is included in
Appendix F. Also, a few log structures were removed from the design to utilize the existing bedrock found
in the new channel location and retained the designed channel slope. Following Hurricane Florence and
Hurricane Michael, the stream construction contractor added rip rap material around the grade control
structures from 7+00 to 9+00 on UT -2. During the As -Built Site Visit with the IRT on November 29, 2018,
RES agreed that the amount of rip rap material was not appropriate for the design. Shortly after the site
visit, RES removed the rip rap from the areas not directly around structures. Two other areas that were
identified during this site visit included two small encroachment areas along WF -2 and the general comment
to treat invasive species in the WF -2 easement area.
1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY1)
The Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) activities were completed in August 2019. All monitoring data is present
below and in the appendices. The Site is on track to meet vegetation and stream interim success criteria.
Vegetation
Monitoring of the 11 permanent vegetation plots and four random vegetation plots was completed during
August 2019. Vegetation data are in Appendix C, and associated photos and plot locations are in Appendix
B. MY1 monitoring data indicates that all plots are exceeding the interim success criteria of 320 planted
stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 445 to 1,012 planted stems per acre with a mean of 736
planted stems per acre across the permanent plots. A total of 15 species were documented within the plots.
Volunteer tree species were found in over half of the plots. The average tree height observed in the
permanent vegetation plots was 2.2 feet. Data from the four random vegetation plots showed 526 stems/acre
in Random Plot 1, 324 stems/acre in Random Plot 2, 1,133 stems/acre in Random Plot 3, and 971 stems/acre
in Random Plot 4. The average height in the random vegetation plots was 3.4 feet.
Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is
becoming well established throughout the project. There is one low stem density area about 0.22 acres in
Dairyland 4 Baseline Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2019

size just south of Random Vegetation Plot 2. Additionally, there are four small areas of encroachment
totaling 0.19 acres where the easement has been moved/driven through. RES will contact the landowner
about these areas as well as install additional easement markers in MY2.
Stream Geomorphology
Geomorphology data for MY1 was collected during August 2019. Summary tables and cross section plots
are in Appendix D. Overall, the cross sections relatively match baseline condition. Minor adjustments are
expected in the first few years after construction.
Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding
banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. The channel is transporting sediment as designed
and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation.
Stream Hydrology
There are two stage recorders on site, one on Reach HB -2 and one on Reach UT -2. Automatic pressure
transducers were not added to the stage recorders until August 2019 so there are only visual bankfull
readings for MY I. There was a 1.3' wrack line at the stage recorder on HB -2 and a 2.2' corkline reading at
the stage recorder on UT -2. According to local rainfall data these bankfull events most likely occurred in
April 2019. Gauge locations are shown on Figure 2 and photos are in Appendix B.
2.0 Methods
Stream monitoring was conducted using a Topcon GTS -312 Total Station. Three-dimensional coordinates
associated with cross-section data were collected in the field (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200).
Morphological data were collected at 16 cross-sections. Survey data were imported into CAD, ArcGIS®,
and Microsoft Excel® for data processing and analysis. The stage recorders include a flow gauge and a crest
gauge. The flow gauges were installed within the channel and will record flow conditions at an hourly
interval. The crest gauges were installed on the bank at the bankfull elevation. During quarterly visits to the
Site, the height of the corkline will be recorded. HOBO data from the flow gauges will be corrected using
bankfull recordings from the crest gauges.
Vegetation success is being monitored at 11 permanent monitoring plots and four random monitoring plots.
Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2
(Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data are
processed using the CVS data entry tool. In the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked
with PVC at the origin and metal conduit at the other corners. Photos of each plot are to be taken from the
origin each monitoring year. The random plots are to be collected in locations where there are no permanent
vegetation plots. Random plots will most likely be collected in the form of a 100 square meter belt transect.
Tree species and height will be recorded for each planted stem and the transects will be mapped and new
locations will be monitored in subsequent years.
Dairyland 5 Baseline Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2019

3.0 References
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function -
Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol
for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). `Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities
2009." (September 2014).
Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274
Resource Environmental Solutions (2017). Dairyland Stream Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan.
Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W.
Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR -10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and
Development Center.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update.
Dairyland 6 Baseline Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2019

Appendix A
Background Tables

Table 1. Dairyland Stream Mitigation Site - Mitigation Assets and Components
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Overall
Pre-
Credits
Mitigation
Riparian Wetland Wetland
Restoration Level
(linear feet)
(acres) (acres)
Project
Wetland
Construction
Plan
Approach
Enhancement 1
Adjusted
Component
Position and
Footage or
Footage or
Restoration
Priority
Mitigation
Mitigation
Mitigation
(reach ID, etc.)
HydroTypez
Acreage
Stationing
Acreage
Level
Level
Ratio (X:1)
Credits
Credits°
Notes/Comments
HB -1
800
0+17 to 8+90
873
Ell
---
2.51
349
349
Planted Buffer, In -Stream Structures
HB -2
1,300
9+50 to 22+69
1,319
Restoration
P1
1:1
1319
1,452
Pond Conversion, Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer
UT -1
984
0+15 to 9+84
969
EIII
---
51
194
194
Planted Buffer, Invasive Species Treatment
UT -2
1,085
0+0 to 2+10
210
EI
---
1.51
140
150
Drainage Pipe Removal, Bank Stabilization, In -Stream Structures, Planted Buffer
UT -2
2+10 to 11+74
964
Restoration
P1
1:1
964
1,079
Pond Conversion, Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer
WF -1
1,500
0+20 to 15+74
1,554
Preservation
---
10:1
155
155
Supplemental Buffer Plantings
WF -2
1,852
16+55 to 19+10
255
EIII
---
51
51
51
Supplemental Buffer Plantings, Invasive Species Treatment
WF -2
23+30 to 34+64
1,134
EIII
---
51
227
227
Supplemental Buffer Plantings, Invasive Species Treatment
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Overall Assets Summary
Overall
on -riparian
Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland Wetland
Restoration Level
(linear feet)
(acres) (acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
2,283
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
210
Enhancement 11
873
Enhancement 111
2,358
Creation
Preservation
1,554
High Quality Pres
Overall Assets Summary
General Note - The above component table is intended to be a close complement to the asset map.
Each entry in the above table should have clear distinction and appropriate symbology in the asset map.
1 - Wetland Groups represent pooled wetland polygons in the map with the same wetland type and
restoration level. If some of the wetland polygons within a group are in meaningfully different
landscape positions, soil types or have different community targets (as examples), then further
segmentation in the table may be warranted. Wetland features impacted by credit modifiers such as
utilities shall be listed as a distinct record with the impacted acreage tallied as discreet records in the
table (See Wetland 7 above)
2 - Wetland Position and Hydro Type - Indicates Riparian Riverine, (RR) , riparinan non-riverine (RNR) or
Non-Riverine (NR)
3- Buffer Assets- duetothe complex nature of bufferand nutrient offset assets theyare not included
in this example table. Please see the DMS buffer mitigation plan template for the required asset table
information.
4 -Adjusted Mitigation Credits are based on the non-standard buffer widths.
Overall
Asset Category
Credits
Stream
3,657
RNR Wetland
NR Wetland
General Note - The above component table is intended to be a close complement to the asset map.
Each entry in the above table should have clear distinction and appropriate symbology in the asset map.
1 - Wetland Groups represent pooled wetland polygons in the map with the same wetland type and
restoration level. If some of the wetland polygons within a group are in meaningfully different
landscape positions, soil types or have different community targets (as examples), then further
segmentation in the table may be warranted. Wetland features impacted by credit modifiers such as
utilities shall be listed as a distinct record with the impacted acreage tallied as discreet records in the
table (See Wetland 7 above)
2 - Wetland Position and Hydro Type - Indicates Riparian Riverine, (RR) , riparinan non-riverine (RNR) or
Non-Riverine (NR)
3- Buffer Assets- duetothe complex nature of bufferand nutrient offset assets theyare not included
in this example table. Please see the DMS buffer mitigation plan template for the required asset table
information.
4 -Adjusted Mitigation Credits are based on the non-standard buffer widths.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Dairyland Stream Mitigation Site
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 1 year 1 month
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 11 months
Number of reporting Years :
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
NA
Nov -17
Final Design — Construction Plans
NA
Apr -18
Stream Construction
NA
Aug -18
Containerized, bare root and B&B plantings
NA
Nov -18
As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
Nov -18
Dec -18
Year 1 Monitoring
XS: Aug -19
Veg: Aug 19
Oct -19
Year 2 Monitoring
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
= The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Dairyland Stream Mitigation Site
Designer
WK Dickson and Co., Inc. / 720 Corporate Center Dr., Raleigh,
NC 27607
Primary project design POC
Ben Carroll [phone]
Construction Contractor
Wright Contracting, LLC / P.O. Box 545, Siler City, NC 27344
Construction contractor POC
Joseph Wright [phone]
Survey Contractor
Ascension Land Surveying, PC / 116 Williams Road,
Mocksville, NC 27028
Survey contractor POC
Chris Cole, PLS [phone]
Planting Contractor
H&J Forestry
Planting contractor POC
Matt Hitch
Seeding Contractor
Wright Contracting, LLC / P.O. Box 545, Siler City, NC 27344
Contractor point of contact
Joseph Wright [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Claridge Nursery 1-[phone]
Monitoring Performers
RES / 302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110, Raleigh, NC 27605
Stream Monitoring POC
Ryan Medric [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Ryan Medric [phone]
Wetland Monitoring POC
N/A

Table 4. Project Background Information
Project Name Dairyland
County Orange
Project Area (acres) 28.6
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) Latitude: 35.4754 N Longitude: -78.3117 W
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted) 17.6
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit 03020201 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit 03030002050030
DWR Sub -basin 03-06-04
Project Drainage Area (Acres) WF 674; HB 144
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1%
CGIA Land Use Classification Forest; Agricultural; Residential
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
HB1
HB2
UT1
UT2
WF1
WF2
Length of reach (linear feet)
873
1319
969
1174
1554
1389
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
___
___
___
___
___
---
Drainage area (Acres)
57
144
65
55
624
674
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
___
___
___
___
___
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS -II, HQW, NSW
---
---
WS -II, HQW, NSW
Stream Classification (existing)
E6
C4
E6
C6
E4
E4
Stream Classification (proposed)
---
E4
---
E4
---
---
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
___
___
___
FEMA classification
---
---
---
---
Zone AE
Zone AE
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
SAW -2016-
01258
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
DWR-16-
0847
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Letter from
NCWRC
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Letter from
SHPO
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
N/A
---
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
---
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A

I
Green Level .
E`
Glen Raven 2
kw
w F,Pntst Burlington Ncho moo' W Carters, Mebane
N Y',— thSr Haw River Main St
doe+ood P •
J. Graham
v_- a
I
F _ s
Alamance P
�1/o Nrr I
rrbn rAlamance 5y bM' 4
B•t'• Swepsanville I,
South
•^n
y
odsc P°` µa
°o h
't- �,damck
/ o F6rk
9�a
9'
m, 1
••,,•hero
°
Saa>P
c
�Or avnsboro ChtPol Nr11 Ro
Snow Camp
°y.
vg
s
a
Legend
HUC 03030002050030
nalus it
Efland
Hillsborough
�I�1�������
�►3���#r.ri
a a
e
•ad g�4�. 85 �h yf�s �g;BR '
m
1
F
J> I-
gG a` I
Sinar
1
r Pa
a
Whi tfi•IdP
o r
Dairyland Mitigation Site «°„ry �-11,11
Latitude: 35° 58' 30.37” N
•
Longitude:79° 11' 10.77" Wtas
y Carolina __ I A
a North N EstF cf
4
4 9d
Fo—
r
a .g K'Is
Ma,n Chapel Hill Battle
1
s,
I_IN, I 0
d � Flnl=_,� Gult
s oroR
a Old Gro•° y Cour sF f
7 I
i �° � gt,�• ac nd
`ca o
3 ,I Rd I
n6'c m
�P
6Oa/Y
I Gove mors O�
Club
hYsba kd
$ its •5 y
I on�a
Carves S
Craasd<iile tr
Country n
CId
halham
a,�ucwb
Date: 3/30/2017
FIGURE 1
0 1.5 3
Vicinity Map
Miles Dairyland Mitigation Site wE
res
1 in = 3 miles
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
�a
3`�
O�
r�
e`
I
T.
nalus it
Efland
Hillsborough
�I�1�������
�►3���#r.ri
a a
e
•ad g�4�. 85 �h yf�s �g;BR '
m
1
F
J> I-
gG a` I
Sinar
1
r Pa
a
Whi tfi•IdP
o r
Dairyland Mitigation Site «°„ry �-11,11
Latitude: 35° 58' 30.37” N
•
Longitude:79° 11' 10.77" Wtas
y Carolina __ I A
a North N EstF cf
4
4 9d
Fo—
r
a .g K'Is
Ma,n Chapel Hill Battle
1
s,
I_IN, I 0
d � Flnl=_,� Gult
s oroR
a Old Gro•° y Cour sF f
7 I
i �° � gt,�• ac nd
`ca o
3 ,I Rd I
n6'c m
�P
6Oa/Y
I Gove mors O�
Club
hYsba kd
$ its •5 y
I on�a
Carves S
Craasd<iile tr
Country n
CId
halham
a,�ucwb
Date: 3/30/2017
FIGURE 1
0 1.5 3
Vicinity Map
Miles Dairyland Mitigation Site wE
res
1 in = 3 miles
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

4*
re
4(/
LIE.
z All
j_iililt:
0 200 400
Feet
till
FIGURE 2
V Dairyland Stream
;Yr
-77Mitigation Site
-
Current Conditions
Overview Map
MY1 2019
Orange County, NC
Date 10/15/2019 Drawn by: IRTM
1 inch = 400 feet
LEGEND
JIM Conservation Easement
Seperate Easement
Vegetation Plot
F--1 Random Vegetation Plot
k
Existing Wetland
Index Sheet
Cross Section
Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Enhancement III
Preservation
Stage Recorder
LOCATION
Latitude: 35.974950
Longitude: -79.185864
Vegetation Condition Assessment
U) Target Community
W Present Marginal Absent
U
Absent No Fill
V) Present
URI; .. . . . . . .1 OnYPTAIRi

t
1
�4 t �y� '��L '1:h,1••
d
a
reb
i,
i
VPA4 r >a t' 0 100 200
Feet
— FIGURE 2
rt Dairyland Stream
Mitigation Site
Current Conditions
z Plan View
MY1 2019
rn Y Orange County, NC
_ X Date: 10/15/2019 Drawn by: RTM
i
3 -7
f 1 inch = 200 feet
LEGEND
Conservation Easement
2 .4 [:M Vegetation Plot
10 VPA1 Random Vegetation Plot
ISeperate Easement
t;� ® Existing Wetland
5
Cross Section
f? Mitigation Type
_J
9 Restoration
R.
4 Enhancement I
^k
ro 11 Enhancement 11
6 VPA3 f Enhancement III
Preservation
Top of Bank
Structure
® Stage Recorder
Rain Gauge
i - Vegetation Condition Assessment
N Target Community
Present Marginal Absent
Absent
No Fill
�, Present
N
f6
N Ce to fo Geo ph' Inf rm 1 n & A 1 i

Stream Problem Areas
Dairyland
Label / Feature Issue / Location / Size Photo
N/A N/A
Vegetation Problem Areas
Dairvland
Label / Feature Category / Location / Size I Photo
VPA1 / Low Stem Density Area / UT -2 LB / 0.22 ac
VPA2 / Encroachment / HB -2 / 0.19 ac N/A
VPA3 / Encroachment / HB -2 / 0.05 ac N/A
VPA4 / Encroachment / UT -2 / 0.04 ac N/A
VPA5 / Encroachment / WF -1 / 0.01 ac

Dairyland MY1 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 6

-f"
L
3
it
t
h
�
-f"
L
3
N��,
t
h
�

Random Plot 1
Random Plot 3
Random Plot 2
Random Plot 4

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 5. Planted Species Summary
Common Name
Scientific Name
Total Stems Planted
White Oak
Quercus alba
4000
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
3000
River Birch
Betula nigra
3000
Willow Oak
Quercus phellos
2850
Green Ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2500
Black Walnut
Juglans nigra
2170
Yellow -Poplar
briodendron tulipifera
2000
Bitternut Hickory
Carya cordiformis
1000
Mockernut Hickory
Carya tomentosa
1000
Pignut Hickory
Carya glabra
1000
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus michauxii
1000
Northern Red Oak
Quercus rubra
1000
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
960
7
Total
25,480
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Plot #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Success
Criteria
Met?
Average
Planted Stem
Height (ft)
1
486
0
486
Yes
1.5
2
526
202
728
Yes
1.4
3
688
0
688
Yes
1.9
4
890
0
890
Yes
2.6
5
1012
0
1012
Yes
2.0
6
445
40
486
Yes
1.5
7
728
0
728
Yes
1.4
8
931
0
931
Yes
2.4
9
607
0
607
Yes
1.7
10
971
809
1781
Yes
3.0
11
809
364
1174
Yes
3.9
Project Avg
736
129
865
Yes
2.2

Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 7a. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Dairyland
Current Plot Data (MY12019)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
11202018-01-0001
Species Type PnoLS P -all T
11202018-01-0002
PnoLS P -all T
11202018-01-0003
PnoLS P -all T
11202018-01-0004
PnoLS P -all T
11202018-01-0005
PnoLS P -all T
11202018-01-0006
PnoLS P -all T
11202018-01-0007
PnoLS P -all T
11202018-01-0008
PnoLS P -all T
11202018-01-0009
PnoLS P -all T
11202018-01-0010
PnoLS P -all T
11202018-01-0011
PnoLS P -all T
MY1(2019)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO(2018)
PnoLS P -all T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
8
8
8
8
8
8
5
5
5
2 2
2
6
6
6
3
3
3
8
8
8
40
40
40
69
69
69
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
6
6
6
11
11
11
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon
Tree
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
11
11
11
13
13
13
4 41
4
6
6
6
1
1
11
31
3
31
491
49
491
48
48
48
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
2
5
7
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4 4
4
3
3
7
1
1
1
14
14
18
41
411
41
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
5
5
5
9
9
9
6
6
6
14
1
1
4
28
28
45
37
37
37
Quercus
oak
Tree
I
I
I
1
11
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1 8
81
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
121
121
12
30
30
30
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
1 1
1
5
5
5
3
3
3
7
7
7
1
1
1
30
30
30
48
48
48
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
7
7
7
7
7
7
71
71
7
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
5
5
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems perACRE
121
5
486
121
1
0.02
5
486
12
5
486
131
5
526
131
1
0.02
5
526
18
6
728
17
5
688
17
1
0.02
5
688
17
5
688
22
3
890
22
1
0.02
3
890
22
3
890
25
6
1012
25
1
0.02
6
1012
25
6
1012
11 11
1
0.02
4 4
445 445
12
5
486
18
3
728
18
1
0.02
3
728
18
3
728
23
4
9311
23
1
0.02
4
9311
23
4
931
15
5
6071
15
1
0.02
5
6071
15
5
607
24
6
9711
24
1
0.02
6
9711
44
8
1781
20
5
8091
20
1
0.02
5
809
29
7
1174
200
11
736
200
11
0.27
11
7361
235
15
8651
310
12
1140
310 310
11
0.27
12 12
1140 1140

Table 7b. Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data
Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Random Plot 1
Size
25m x 4m
#
Species
Height (cm)
1
Salix nigra
182
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis
95
3
Salix nigra
195
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
92
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
105
6
Cephalanthus occidentalis
111
7
Cephalanthus occidentalis
85
8
Cephalanthus occidentalis
97
9
Platanus occidentalis
76
10
Platanus occidentalis
100
11
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
91
12
Platanus occidentalis
90
13
Platanus occidentalis
103
Stems/Acre
526
95
Average Height (cm)
109
140
Average Height (ft)
3.6
92
Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Random Plot 2
Size
25m x 4m
#
Species
Height (cm)
1
Quercus alba
35
2
Quercus phellos
45
3
Quercus alba
41
4
Juglans nigra
50
5
Quercus alba
44
6
Quercus alba
47
7
Quercus alba
37
8
Liriodendron tulipifera
58
Stems/Acre
324
141
Average Height (cm)
45
135
Average Height (ft)
1.5
110
Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Random Plot 3
Size
25m x 4m
#
Species
Height (cm)
1
Platanus occidentalis
95
2
Platanus occidentalis
135
3
Cephalanthus occidentalis
157
4
Cephalanthus occidentalis
169
5
Platanus occidentalis
119
6
Platanus occidentalis
82
7
Salix nigra
160
8
Salix nigra
141
9
Salix nigra
141
10
Salix nigra
135
11
Platanus occidentalis
110
12
Platanus occidentalis
159
13
Diospyros virginiana
22
14
Platanus occidentalis
95
15
Platanus occidentalis
140
16
Platanus occidentalis
92
17
Cephalanthus occidentalis
95
18
Cephalanthus occidentalis
107
19
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
72
20
Platanus occidentalis
120
21
Platanus occidentalis
91
22
Platanus occidentalis
110
23
Cephalanthus occidentalis
122
24
Diospyros virginiana
50
25
Salix nigra
135
26
Platanus occidentalis
119
27
Platanus occidentalis
89
28
Platanus occidentalis
141
Stems/Acre
1133
Average Height (cm)
114
Average Height (ft)
3.8
Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Random Plot 4
Size
25m x 4m
#
Species
Height (cm)
1
Platanus occidentalis
220
2
Betula nigra
78
3
Platanus occidentalis
300
4
Platanus occidentalis
215
5
Quercus michauxii
85
6
Platanus occidentalis
210
7
Quercus michauxii
77
8
Quercus michauxii
123
9
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
73
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
115
11
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
82
12
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
63
13
Liriodendron tulipifera
65
14
Platanus occidentalis
40
15
Quercus phellos
95
16
Quercus phellos
160
17
Platanus occidentalis
59
18
Quercus michauxii
43
19
Platanus occidentalis
83
20
Quercus nigra
85
21
Quercus michauxii
85
22
Platanus occidentalis
32
23
Quercus rubra
121
24
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
81
Stems/Acre
971
Average Height (cm)
108
Average Height (ft)
1 3.5

Appendix D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

Upstream
Downstream
571
Dairyland - Reach UT -1 - Cross Section 1 - Riffle
570
569
c
°
a�
LU
568
567
566
565
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 — — -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 567.93
568.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.9
11.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
>24.8
>25.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.0
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.8
1.5
Low Bank Height ft
1.8
1.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
8.7
8.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
14.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>2.8
>2.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach HB -2 - Cross Section 2 - Riffle
553
Cross Section 2 Riffle
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
549.99
550.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.5
12.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50.2
>50.3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
552
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.9
2.0
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.9
1.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
13.5
13.5
Bankfull W idth/Depth Ratio
9.8
10.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
551
>2.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9
° 550
---
--
—
----
a�NN,
LU 549
548
547
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 — — -Approx. Bankfull — Floodprone Area
Cross Section 2 Riffle
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
549.99
550.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.5
12.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
>50.2
>50.3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.9
2.0
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.9
1.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
13.5
13.5
Bankfull W idth/Depth Ratio
9.8
10.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>4.4
>2.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach 1-113-2 - Cross Section 3 - Pool
553
Cross Section 3 Pool
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
549.81
550.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.0
14.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
0.7
Bankfull MaxDepth(ft)
2.1
552
Low Bank Height (ft)
-
-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
10.4
10.4
Bankfull W idth/Depth Ratio
7.8
20.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
-
-
551
c
° 550
a�
LU 549
548
547
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 — — -Approx. Bankfull
Cross Section 3 Pool
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
549.81
550.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.0
14.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
0.7
Bankfull MaxDepth(ft)
2.1
2.3
Low Bank Height (ft)
-
-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
10.4
10.4
Bankfull W idth/Depth Ratio
7.8
20.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
-
-

Upstream
Downstream
547
Dairyland - Reach HB -2 - Cross Section 4 - Riffle
546
-
0000
c
°
545
544
w
543
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
542
541
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 — — -Approx. Bankfull — — Floodprone Area
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 543.43
543.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.5
10.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
35.4
39.1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.9
BanldullMaxDepth (ft)
1.3
1.6
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.3
1.7
Bankrull Cro s s Sectional Area (ft2 )
9.3
9.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.2
11.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 1
3.1
4.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1
1.0
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach HB -2 - Cross Section 5 - Pool
546
Cross Section 5 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
543.37
543.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.2
13.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
-
-
Banldull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.0
BanldullMaxDepth (ft)
545
2.3
Low Bank Height (ft)
-
-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
12.9
12.9
Bankfull W idth/Depth Ratio
11.6
14.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
-
-
544
=
543
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
>
LU 542
541
540
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 — — -Approx. Bankfull
Cross Section 5 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
543.37
543.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.2
13.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
-
-
Banldull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.0
BanldullMaxDepth (ft)
2.1
2.3
Low Bank Height (ft)
-
-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
12.9
12.9
Bankfull W idth/Depth Ratio
11.6
14.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
-
-

Upstream
Downstream
544
Dairyland - Reach 1-113-2 - Cross Section 6 - Riffle
543
c
°
542
541
a�
LU
540
539
538
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 — — -Approx. Bankfull— FloodproneArea
Cross Section 6 Riffle
Basedon fixedbaseline cross sectional area
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
540.49
540.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.5
11.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
>49.7
>49.7
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
Bankfull MaxDepth (ft)
1.4
1.5
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.4
1.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2 )
10.0
10.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.0
12.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>4.7
>4.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiol
1.0
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach HB -2 - Cross Section 7 - Pool
543
Cross Section 7 Pool
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
540.42
540.6
Bankfull Width ft
12.7
13.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
-
-
Banldull Mean Depth ft
1.4
1.3
Bankfull MaxDepth (ft)
2.2
542
Low Bank Height (ft)
-
-
Banldull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
17.9
17.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
10.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1
-
-
541
° 540
topc
a�
LU 539
538
537
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 — — -Approx. Bankfull
Cross Section 7 Pool
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
540.42
540.6
Bankfull Width ft
12.7
13.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
-
-
Banldull Mean Depth ft
1.4
1.3
Bankfull MaxDepth (ft)
2.2
2.3
Low Bank Height (ft)
-
-
Banldull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
17.9
17.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
10.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1
-
-

Upstream
Downstream
556
Dairyland - Reach UT -2 - Cross Section 8- Riffle
555
554
c
°
553
a�
LU
552
551
550
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 — — -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Cross Section 8 Riffle
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 552.74
552.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.2
10.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
>51.8
>51.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
BanldullMaxDepth (ft)
1.5
1.5
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.5
1.4
BanldullCross Sectional Area (ft 2
9.0
9.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.5
11.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>5.6
>5.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach UT -2 - Cross Section 9 - Pool
555
Cross Section 9 Pool
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
552.61
552.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.4
9.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.0
Bankfull Max De th (ft)
1.9
554
Low Bank Height (ft)
-
-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
9.0
9.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.9
9.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
-
-
553
c
° 552
a�
LU 551
550
549
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 — —-Approx. Bankfull
Cross Section 9 Pool
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
552.61
552.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.4
9.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.0
Bankfull Max De th (ft)
1.9
2.0
Low Bank Height (ft)
-
-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
9.0
9.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.9
9.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
-
-

Upstream
Downstream
550
Dairyland - Reach UT -2 - Cross Section 10 - Pool
549
548
0000
°
547
—
—
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
— —
—
—
a�
LU
546
545
544
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 — — -Approx. Bankfull
Cross Scction 10 Pool
Based on fixed baseline cros s sectional area
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 546.98
547.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.0
15.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.6
1.6
Low Bank Height (ft)
-
-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)
9.3
9.3
Bankfull W idth/Depth Ratio
10.8
26.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
-
-

Upstream
Downstream
550
Dairyland - Reach UT -2 - Cross Section 11 - Riffle
549
548
° 547
0000c
a�
w 546
545
V=PO
OF
544
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 — — -Approx. Bankfull — — Floodprone Area
Cross Section 11 Riffle
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
546.72
546.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.5
13.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
>43.1
42.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.5
Bankfull MaxDepth(ft)
1.1
1.2
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.1
1.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
7.0
7.0
Bankrull Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
24.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>4.5
1 3.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach UT -2 - Cross Section 12 - Riffle
544
543
Cross Section 12 Riffle
Based on fixed baseline cr s sectional area
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
540.91
541.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.6
10.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
>47.1
46.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.7
Bankfull MaxDepth(ft)
1.3
1.2
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.3
1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2 )
7.1
7.1
Bankfull W idth/Depth Ratio
10.4
15.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>5.5
5.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1
542
1.0
c
°.� 541
—
—
----
— —22�.�—
----
—
—
— —
— —
——
a�
LU 540
539
538
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 — — -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Cross Section 12 Riffle
Based on fixed baseline cr s sectional area
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
540.91
541.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.6
10.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
>47.1
46.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.7
Bankfull MaxDepth(ft)
1.3
1.2
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.3
1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2 )
7.1
7.1
Bankfull W idth/Depth Ratio
10.4
15.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>5.5
5.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1
1.0
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
544
Dairyland - Reach UT -2 - Cross Section 13 - Pool
543
542
c
°
541
a�
LU
540
539
I�j
538
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 — — -Approx. Bankfull
Cross Section 13 Pool
Based on fixed baseline crolf sectional area
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 540.69
540.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.5
8.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.7
1.7
Low Bank Height (ft)
-
-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
6.8
6.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.2
9.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
I
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
-
-

Upstream
Downstream
540
Dairyland - Reach WF -2 - Cross Section 14 - Pool
539
538
c
°
537
a�7
LU
536
_
7
r I
- -
- -
535
534
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 — — -Approx. Bankfull
Cross Section 14 Pool
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 536.73
536.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.7
10.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
1.8
BanldullMaxDepth (ft)
2.6
2.5
Low Bank Height (ft)
-
-
BanldullCross Sectional Area (ft 2
18.9
18.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
6.0
5.7
Banldull Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
Banldull Bank Height Ratio
-
-

t
J F
yq,
-
537.5
M"3fP
K;
536.5
c
°
.p)
—
-
— —
— —
—
—
— —
— —
Upstream
Downstream
538.5
Dairyland - Reach WF -2 - Cross Section 15 - Pool
537.5
536.5
c
°
535.5
—
-
— —
— —
—
—
— —
— —
—
— —
— —
— —
—
— —
— —
— -
—
a�
LU
534.5
533.5
532.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 — —-Approx. Bankfull
Cross Section 15 Pool
Basedon fixedbaseline cross sectional area=
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
536.28
536.3
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.2
12.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.6
2.5
Bankfull MaxDepth(ft)
3.3
3.3
Low Bank Height (ft)
-
-
BankrullCross Sectional Area (ft2)
31.6
31.6
Bankrull Width/Depth Ratio
4.7
5.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio I
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio I
-
-

Upstream
Downstream
539
Dairyland - Reach WF -2 - Cross Section 16 - Riffle
538
537
c
°
536
—
—
—
— —
—
— —
—
— —
—
— —
— —
— —
—
7--
— —
— —
— —
—
a�
LU
535
534
533
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 — — -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area
Cross Section 16 Riffle
Basedon fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 536.74
536.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.8
11.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
>35.0
>35.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.0
2.0
Bankfull MaxDepth (ft)
2.9
2.8
Low Bank Height (ft)
3.7
3.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft 2 )
23.9
23.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
5.8
5.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio I
>3.0
>3.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1
1.3
1.2

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1= The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 =For projects with a proximal U SGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfidl verification -rue).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankf rf floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 -Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Dairyland Mitigation Site - Reach HB2: 1,308 feet
Parameter Gauge 2 Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med
Max
SD n Min Mean Med
Max SD
n Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft --- --- --
--- 16.4
---
--- --- --- --- 15.3
--- ---
--- ---
10.9
---
10.5
11.2
11.5
11.5
0.6
3
Floodprone Width ft
--- --- >28
---
--- --- --- --- >30
--- ---
--- ---
>24
---
35.4
45.1
49.7
50.2
8.4
3
Bankfull Mean Depth ft --- --- --
--- 0.8
---
--- --- --- --- 1.6
--- ---
--- ---
1.1
---
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.2
3
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
--- --- 1.4
---
--- --- --- --- 2.0
--- ---
--- ---
1.5
---
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.9
0.3
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft) --- ---
--- --- 12.3
---
--- --- --- I --- 1 23.9 1
--- I ---
I --- I ---
12.2
---
9.3
10.9
10.0
13.5
2.3
3
Width/Depth Ratio
--- --- 21.9
---
--- --- --- --- 9.8
---
---
9.8
---
9.8
11.7
11.0
14.2
2.3
3
Entrenchment Ratio
--- --- >2.2
---
--- --- --- --- 2.0
---
>2.2
---
3.1
4.1
4.4
4.7
0.9
3
'Bank Height Ratio
--- --- ---
---
--- --- --- --- ---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
--- --- ---
---
--- --- 12 --- ---
35 ---
--- 9
---
26
3.3
11.9
9.6
33.1
8.4
26
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
--- --- ---
---
--- --- --- --- ---
--- ---
--- ---
---
---
0.00148
0.02482
0.02707 0.06412
0.0135
26
Pool Length (ft)
--- --- ---
---
--- --- 3 --- ---
18 ---
--- 2
---
13
2.2
14.9
11.9
34.3
8.7
29
Pool Max depth (ft)
--- --- ---
---
--- --- --- --- ---
--- --
--- ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pool Spacing (ft)
--- --- ---
---
--- --- 29 --- ---
62 ---
--- 21
---
46
6.3
45.1
41.5
85.0
26.0
28
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
--- --- ---
---
--- --- 36 --- ---
114 ---
--- 26
---
81
26
---
---
81
---
---
Radius of Curvature (ft)
--- --- ---
---
--- --- 14 --- ---
73 ---
--- 10
---
52
10
---
---
52
---
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
--- --- ---
---
--- --- --- --- ---
--- ---
--- ---
---
---
---
---
Meander Wavelength (ft)
--- --- ---
---
--- --- 112 --- ---
345 ---
--- 80
---
246
80
---
---
246
---
---
Meander Width Ratio
--- ---
---
--- --- 2.4
7.5 ---
--- 2.4
7.5
2.4
---
---
7.5
---
---
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
---
---
Max part size mm mobilized at bankfull
---
---
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
E4
E4
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) --- --
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) --- ---
43
87
33
Valley length (ft)
1256
1238
1256
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1300
1500
1308
1364
Sinuosity (ft)
1.04
1.21
1.04
1.04
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
---
0.011
---
---
Channel slope (ft/ft)
0.0151
0.0100
0.008
0.013
3Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
---
---
---
---
4%
of Reach with Eroding Bank
---
---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
---
---
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1= The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 =For projects with a proximal U SGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfidl verification -rue).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankf rf floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 -Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 - The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top ofbank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 - Proportion ofreach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Dairyland Mitigation Site - Reach UT2: 1,085 feet
Parameter Gauge Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.
Min Mean Med
Max SD n
Min
Mean Med
Max SD
n Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft) --- --- ---
--- --- 8.5
--- --- ---
---
--- 15.3
--- ---
--- ---
9.0
---
8.6
9.1
9.2
9.5
0.5
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
--- --- 16.0
--- --- ---
---
--- >30
--- ---
--- ---
>20
---
43.1
47.3
47.1
51.8
4.4
3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) --- --- --
--- 0.6
--- --- ---
---
--- 1.6
--- ---
--- ---
0.9
---
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.2
3
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
--- --- 0.9
--- --- ---
---
--- 2.0
--- ---
--- ---
1.3
---
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.5
0.2
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 1 -- -- ---
1 5.4
1 ---
23.9
---
8.1
---
7.0 17.7
17.1
9.0
1.1
3
Width/Depth Ratio
13.2
9.8
---
10.0
9.5
11.0
10.4
13.1
1.9
3
Ratio
EntrenEHeh
1.9
2.0
--- ---
---
>2.2
4.5
5.2
5.5
5.6
0.6
3
'Bank Rati
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
--- ---
--- --- ---
12
--- ---
35 ---
--- 7
---
22
4.6
14.3
12.9
36.3
8.9
22
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
---
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
---
---
0.00231
0.0246
0.023
0.05792
0.0152
22
Pool Length (ft)
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
3
--- ---
18 ---
--- 2
---
11
2.6
9.3
7.2
19.6
5.5
25
Pool Max depth (ft)
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
---
--- --
--- ---
--- ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pool Spacing (ft)
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
29
--- ---
62 ---
--- 18
---
38
5.2
36.1
30.2
113.6
23.5
24
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
36
--- ---
114 ---
--- 21
---
67
21
---
---
67
---
Radius of Curvature (ft)
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
14
--- ---
73 ---
--- 8
---
43
8
---
---
43
---
---
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
---
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
---
---
---
--
---
Meander Wavelength (ft)
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
112
--- ---
345 ---
--- 66
---
203
66
---
---
203
---
---
Meander Width Ratio
--- --- ---
--- --- ---
2.4
--- ---
7.5 ---
--- 2.4
---
7.5
2.4
---
---
7.5
---
---
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
---
---
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
--
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C6
E4
E4
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) --- --- ---
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) --- ---
18
87
18
Valley length (ft)
1057
1238
1057
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1085
1500
1085
986
Sinuosity (ft)
1.03
1.21
1.03
1.03
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
--
0.011
---
---
Channel slope (ft/ft)
0.0171
0.0100
0.008
0.018
3Bankfull Floodplain Area acres
---
---
---
---
4% of Reach with Eroding Bank
---
---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 - The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top ofbank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 - Proportion ofreach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Dairyland Site
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
Cross Section 3 (Pool)
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Cross Section 5 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area* Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 567.93
568.0
549.99
550.2
549.81
550.0
543.43
543.4
543.37
543.5
Bankfull Width (ft) 8.9
11.0
11.5
12.1
9.0
14.5
11.5
10.4
12.2
13.4
Floodprone Width (ft) >24.8
>25.0
>50.2
>32.1
-
-
35.4
50.2
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.0
0.8
1.2
1.1
1.2
0.7 1
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.8
1.5
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.3
1.3
1.6
2.1
2.3
Low Bank Height (ft) 1.8
1.3
1.9
1.9
-
-
1.3
1.7
-
-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe) 8.7
8.7
13.5
13.5
10.4
10.4
9.3
9.3
12.9
12.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 9.1
14.0
9.8
10.9
7.8
20.3
14.2
11.5
11.6
14.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >2.8
>2.3
>4.4
>2.6
3.1
4.8
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
Cross Section 6 (Riffle)
Cross Section 7 (Pool)
Cross Section 8 (Riffle)
Cross Section 9 (Pool)
Cross Section 10 (Pool)
Base
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area*
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 540.49
540.7
540.42
540.6
552.74
552.9
552.61
552.7
546.98
547.2
Bankfull Width (ft) 10.5
11.1
12.7
13.5
9.2
10.2
8.4
9.2
10.0
15.8
Floodprone Width (ft) >49.7
>49.7
-
-
>51.8
>51.9
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.0
0.9
1.4
1.3
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.4
1.5
2.2
2.3
1.5
1.5
1.9
2.0
1.6
1.6
Low Bank Height (ft) 1.4
1.5
-
-
1.5
1.4
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe) 10.0
10.0
17.9
17.9
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.3
9.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 11.0
12.3
9.1
10.2
9.5
11.7
7.9
9.4
10.8
26.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >4.7
>4.5
>5.6
>5.1 1
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
Cross Section 11 (Riffle)
Cross Section 12 (Riffle)
Cross Section 13 (Pool)
Cross Section 14 (Pool)
Cross Section 15 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area* Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
MY+ Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used 546.72
546.7
540.91
541.1
540.69
540.9
536.73
536.8
536.28
536.3
Bankfull Width ft9.5
13.2
8.6
10.5
7.5
8.0
10.7
10.4
12.2
12.6
Floodprone Width ft >43.1
50.1
>47.1
61.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth ft0.7
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.8
1.8
2.6
2.5
Bankfull Max Depth ft1.1
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.7
1.7
2.6
2.5
3.3
3.3
Low Bank Height ft 1.1
1.1
1.3
1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe) 7.0
7.0
7.1
7.1
6.8
6.8
18.9
18.9
31.6
31.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 13.1
24.9
10.4
15.4
8.2
9.3
6.0
5.74.7
5.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >4.5
3.8
>5.5
5.9
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
Base
Based on fixed baseline cross sectional area*
Record elevation (datum) used 536.74
Bankfull Width ft11.8
Floodprone Width ft >35.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft2.0
Bankfull Max Depth ft2.9
Low Bank Height ft 3.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe) 23.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 5.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >3.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.3
Cross Section 16 (Riffle)
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7
536.8
11.9
>35.0
2.0
2.8
3.2
23.9
5.9
>3.0
1.2
MY+

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 10. Stream Reach Data Summary
Dairyland - Reach 1-1132 (1,308 feet)
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Bank -full Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
'Bank -full Max Depth
Low Bank Height
Bank -full CrossSectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment
'Bank Height Ratis
RIffle Length (ft)
Pool LengthChannel
®�
m
Pool Maxclepth
Pool Spacing
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Beltwidth (ft)
of Curvature (ft)
widthRadius
®®®®®®
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Width Ratio
AdditionalMeander
Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length
Sinuosity (ft)
�.
Water - Slope
Channel ..-
iii 11111
2% of Reach with Eroding Bankn
ChannelI?
Habitat -
Biological Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
10. Stream Reach Data Summary
Dimension and Substrate -Riffle only
Bank -full Width (ft)
Floodprone Width
Bankfull Mean Depth
'Bank -full Max Depth
Low Bank Height
Bank -full Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
'Bank Height
RiffleTable
Length
Riffle Slope (fUft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
of Curvature (ft)
widthRadius
®®®®®®
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Width Ratio
AdditionalMeander
Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length
(ft)
WaterSinuosity
- Slope
Channel ..-
Io
2% of Reach with Eroding Bankn
Channel001111
Habitat -
Biological Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Appendix E
Hydrology Data

Table 11. 2019 Rainfall Summary
Month Average
Normal
30
Percent
Limits
70
Percent
Hillsborough Station
Precipitation
January 4.44
3.17
5.25
4.01
February 3.61
2.59
4.26
5.68
March 4.50
3.26
5.31
3.72
April 3.21
2.13
3.85
8.79
May 4.34
3.30
5.05
0.81
June 4.00
2.53
4.83
7.65
July 4.06
2.38
4.93
2.71
August 4.53
3.19
5.37
5.74
September 4.45
1.83
5.41
0.53
October 3.72
2.11
4.53
0.00
November 3.62
2.28
4.37
---
December 3.23
2.22
3.85
---
Total 47.71
30.99
57.01
39.64
Table 12. Documentation of Significant Flow Events
Year
Bankfull Events
Maximum Bankfull Height (ft)
Estimated Date of Highest Event
Stage Recorder IH132
MYl 2019* 1 1 1.30 4/14/2019
Stage Recorder UT2
MYl 2019* 1 2.20 4/14/2019
*Only manual readings were used in MYl

Manual Bankfull Reading Photos
Stage Recorder 1-1132 — 1.30 feet
Stage Recorder UT2 — 2.20 feet