20160847 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20201001

ID#* 20160847 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 10/01/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 10/1/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Matt Butler
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20160847
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Dairyland
County: Orange
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Dairyland MY2 Report.pdf 10.77MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matt Butler
Signature:*

DAIRYLAND STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
Provided by:
fires
Bank Sponsor: EBX, LLC,
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1055
September 2020

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary..............................................................
1.1 Project Location and Description .......................
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives .............................
1.3 Pro_ject Success Criteria ......................................
Stream Success Criteria ............................................
Vegetation Success Criteria ......................................
1.4 Project Components ...........................................
1.5 Design/Approach................................................
1.6 Construction and As -Built Conditions ...............
1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY1) ........................
Vegetation.................................................................
Stream Geomorphology ............................................
StreamHydrology.....................................................
2.0 Methods...........................................................................
3.0 References........................................................................
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
ADUendix C: VeLyetation Plot Data
.................................................................... 1
.................................................................... 1
.................................................................... 1
.................................................................... 2
.................................................................... 2
.................................................................... 3
.................................................................... 3
.................................................................... 3
.................................................................... 4
.................................................................... 4
.................................................................... 4
.................................................................... 5
.................................................................... 5
.................................................................... 5
.................................................................... 6
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
Appendix E: Hydrolo2y Data
Table 10. 2020 Rainfall Summary
Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Chart 1. Dairyland Flow Gauge UT2 Stream Flow Hydrograph

1.0 Proiect Summary
L I 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 (HB1, 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 party 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 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2020

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 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2020

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.
The Dairyland Stream Mitigation Site Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Totals
3,657
N/A
N/A
Mitigation
Proposed
Stationing
Mitigation Base
Reach
Type
(Proposed) L(LF�h
Ratio
SMUs
Adjusted 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 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2020

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-I. 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)AT-2 and the general comment
to treat invasive species in the )AT-2 easement area.
1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY2)
The Monitoring Year 2 (MY2) activities were completed in June and September 2020. 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
mid -September 2020. Vegetation data are in Appendix C, and associated photos and plot locations are in
Appendix B. MY2 monitoring data indicates that all plots but two are exceeding the interim success criteria
of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 283 to 1,214 planted stems per acre with
a mean of 656 planted stems per acre across the permanent plots. A total of 12 species were documented
within the plots. The average tree height observed in the permanent vegetation plots was 4.9 feet.
Vegetation Plot 6 and Random Vegetation Plot 3 failed to meet success criteria each by one tree. The areas
in and around these plots will be supplemental planted this dormant season.
Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is
becoming well established throughout the project. There are two low stem density areas totaling about 1.04
Dairyland 4 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2020

acres in size. VPA1 is in and around Random Vegetation Plot 3 and VPA4 is in and around Vegetation Plot
6. RES performed a supplemental planting in VPA1 last dormant season however the area is still in need
of trees. Additionally, there are two small areas of encroachment remaining, totaling 0.05 acres. RES
addressed two of the four encroachment areas in early 2020. RES will contact the landowner again about
these areas as well as install additional easement markers at the end of MY2 or in MY3.
Stream Geomorphology
Geomorphology data for MY2 was collected during June 2020. 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. Additionally, as
requested by the IRT, RES is now reporting flow data on Reach UT-2. MY2 hydrology data shows 12
bankfull events on HB-2 and 11 on UT-2. The highest event on HB-2 was 1.4 feet above bankfull and the
highest event on HB-2 was 1.75 feet above bankfull. Reach UT-2 reported 36 consecutive flow days and
141 cumulative flow days. Gauge locations are shown on Figure 2 and full hydrology data is in Appendix
E.
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. In result of crest gauge failure, the flow gauges will be corrected
using the water depth at the gauge and the height of the top of bank at the gauge. Additionally, flow data is
corrected using the height of the downstream riffle to detect flow.
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 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2020

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 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site September 2020

Appendix A
Background Tables

Table 1. Dairyland Stream Mitigation Site - Mitigation Assets and Components
Pre-
Mitigation
Project
Wetland
Construction
Plan
Approach
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+50to 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
El
---
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+30to34+64
1,134
EIII
---
51
227
227
Supplemental Buffer Plantings, Invasive Species Treatment
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level
Restoration
Stream
(linear feet)
2,283
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
on -riparian
Wetland
(acres)
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
210
Enhancement 11
873
Enhancement 111
2,358
Creation
Preservation
1,554
High Quality Pres
Overall Assets Summary
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 DIMS 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: 2 years 1 month
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 1 year 10 months
Number of reporting Years : 2
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
XS: June-20
Ve : Se -20
Sep-20
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

a o,
9 C/or
sya
a'K�
az�
0<a
�i
aro
e�
�o
y
i
e�
i
thunder M
OV'
�a
0
0
Not to Scale
f i—bar Rd
()avyl\and
a
\acaR
Dodsons o'<y
o / / Crossroads
3
WO
tall l'!il ES In
son 9ba�r
< o
Rambtewood� }
C�' OON
C
1
C
7
Le
penPickard 00O
QConservation Easement
0 Seperate Easement saes°
CCPV Index Sheets
a<�
t�
oQ
Date: 9/28/2020
FIGURE 1
0 1,000 2,000
Site Location Map
46
Feet Dairyland Mitigation Site
rec
1 in = 2,000 feet
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

F
fires
VPA2 0 100 200
Feet
�.+ FIGURE 2
1
Dairyland Stream
Mitigation Site
Current Conditions
1 Plan View
►� MY2 2020
GUM
�l.
co-
�, Orange County, NC
9/28/2020 Drawn by: RTM
A A T 1 1 inch = 200 feet
4*4 ' LEGEND
i ' t; VPAA Conservation Easement
N� 7a �� 2 3 Seperate Easement
MY2 Vegetation Plot
�.
- >320 stems/acre
s �!`' tir►� ..; _ - <320 stems/acre
'
5 MY2 Random Vegetation Plot
#6# y t' ` .. — �2 12 >320 stems/acre
Y Y
y,�a iii ► � <320 stems/acre
4 ® Existing Wetland
cn
6�1 Cross Section
6 VPA4 Mitigation Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Enhancement III
Qr Preservation
Vegetation Condition Assessmer._ Top of Bank
H Target Community ® Stage Recorder
w Present Marginal Absent
aAbsent No Fill Rain Gauge
w
Present
N
f6
C

res
N,
0 100 200
'r' • } ••. Feet
FIGURE 2
L _'•�• 2
Dairyland Stream
•7 Mitigation Site
Current Conditions
16
-� Plan View
,.- ._"�' • �k MY2 2020
Ate. +, t s•w. VPA3 Orange County, NC
i
�" Date: 9/28/2020 Drawn by: RTM
�-
• � < 1 inch = 200 feet
LEGEND
- Conservation Easement
Seperate Easement
�'"'• MY2 Vegetation Plot
w >320 stems/acre
10
<320 stems/acre
MY2 Random Vegetation Plot
>320 stems/acre
y
<320 stems/acre
.• ® Existing Wetland
- Cross Section
\v � Mitigation Type
` 4� Restoration
Enhancement I
11 y Enhancement 11
Enhancement 111
i�
Preservation
15
Vegetation Condition Assessment -0• 4_
Top of Bank
w Target Community - , f - ® Stage Recorder
w Present Marginal Absent
aAbsent No Fill . �` Rain Gauge
Present
U) ♦ 4p,
Sur- : E-sri, Di i IGI b , G E E hs r G r phi s, CNES/Airbus

Stream Problem Areas
Dairyland
Label / Feature Issue / Location / Size
Photo
N/A
N/A
Vegetation Problem Areas
Label / Feature Category / Location / Size I Photo
VPA1 / Low Stem Density Area / UT-2 LB / 0.45 ac
I VPA2 / Encroachment / UT-2 / 0.04 ac I N/A I
VPA3 / Encroachment / WF-1 / 0.01 ac
VPA4 / Low Stem Density Area / HB-2 / 0.60 ac

Dairyland MY2 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos (9/10/2020)
4
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 5
s
5
E4
AW
3S m
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 6

Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 11
Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 10

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

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot 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
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
1 364
40
405
Yes
2.1
2
324
0
324
Yes,
2.5
3
607
0
607
Yes
3.9
4
890
0
890
Yes
6.7
5
1012
0
1012
Yes
4.6
6
283
0
283
No
3.4
7
728
0
728
Yes
2.9
8
405
0
405
Yes
7.5
9
567
0
567
Yes
3.6
10
971
1052
2023
Yes
6.0
11
688
81
769
Yes
7.7
R1
850
0
850
Yes
4.7
R2
647
0
647
Yes
4.0
R3
283
0
283
No
3.9
R4
1214
0
1214
Yes
5.9
Project Avg
656
107
728
Yes
4.9

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7a. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Dairyland
Current Plot Data (MY2 2020)
Annual Means
11202018-01-0001
11202018-01-0002
11202018-01-0003
11202018-01-0004
11202018-01-0005
11202018-01-0006
11202018-01-0007
11202018-01-0008
11202018-01-0009
11202018-01-0010
11202018-01-0011
MY2(2020)
MY1(2019)
MYO(2018)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
PnoLS
Pall
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
1
1
1
Betulanigra
riverbirch
Tree
7
7
7
8
8
8
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
5
5
5
31
31
31
40
40
40
69
69
69
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
11
11
11
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
2
Cephalanthus occidentali
common buttonbush
Shrub
I
11
1
11
11
1
1
2
2
21
3
3
31
4
4
4
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon
Tree
2
Fraxinuspennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
5
4
4
4
1
1
1
11
11
11
13
13
13
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
44
44
45
49
49
49
48
48
48
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
9
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
5
1
1
1
8
8
10
14
14
19
41
41
41
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
23
1
1
3
23
23
48
28
28
47
37
37
37
Quercus
oak
Tree
3
3
3
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
8
8
8
1
1
1
9
9
9
12
12
12
30
30
30
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
3
3
3
7
7
7
1
1
1
29
29
29
30
30
30
48
48
48
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
6
Stem count
9
9
10
8
8
8
15
15
15
22
22
22
25
25
25
7
7
7
18
18
18
10
10
10
14
141
14
241
241
50
17
17
19
169
169
198
2001
2001
243
310
310
310
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
11
11
11
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.27
0.27
0.27
Species count
4
4
4
41
41
4
41
41
4
31
31
3
6
6
6
31
31
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
51
51
5
6
6
8
5
5
5
11
11
12
11
11
15
12
12
12
Stems per ACRE
364
364
405
324
324
324
607
607
607
890
890
890
1012
1012
1012
283
283
283
728
728
728
405
405
405
567
567
567
971
971
2023
688
688
769
622
622
728
736
736
894
1140
1140
1140

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7b. Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data
Random Plot 1
Size
25m x 4m
#
Species
Height (cm)
1
Platanus occidentalis
120
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
125
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
115
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
140
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
155
6
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
160
7
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
160
8
Platanus occidentalis
300
9
Betula nigra
160
10
Betula nigra
105
11
Platanus occidentalis
230
12
Platanus occidentalis
115
13
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
105
14
Platanus occidentalis
160
15
Platanus occidentalis
160
16
Platanus occidentalis
140
17
Diospyros virginiana
105
18
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
105
19
Betula nigra
105
20
Betula nigra
105
21
Platanus occidentalis
125
Stems/Acre
850
Average Height (cm)
143
Average Height (ft)
4.7
Random Plot 2
Size
25m x 4m
#
Species
Height (cm)
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
160
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis
140
3
Betula nigra
130
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
150
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
155
6
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
165
7
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
100
8
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
130
9
Betula nigra
150
10
Betula nigra
60
11
Liriodendron tulipifera
35
12
Platanus occidentalis
170
13
Platanus occidentalis
145
14
Quercus alba
40
15
Betula nigra
55
16
Platanus occidentalis
150
Stems/Acre
647
Average Height (cm)
121
Average Height (ft)
4.0
Random Plot 3
Size
25m x 4m
#
Species
Height (cm)
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
85
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
120
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
150
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
100
5
Betula nigra
125
6
Betula nigra
120
7
Betula nigra
135
Stems/Acre
283
Average Height (cm)
119
Average Height (ft)
3.9
Random Plot 4
Size
25m x 4m
#
Species
Height (cm)
1
Platanus occidentalis
155
2
Platanus occidentalis
165
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
155
4
Platanus occidentalis
155
5
Quercus phellos
160
6
Betula nigra
250
7
Liriodendron tulipifera
200
8
Betula nigra
200
9
Betula nigra
220
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
160
11
Liriodendron tulipifera
65
12
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
90
13
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
100
14
Platanus occidentalis
415
15
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
150
16
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
70
17
Platanus occidentalis
16
18
Platanus occidentalis
140
19
Quercus michauxii
150
20
Liriodendron tulipifera
130
21
Diospyros virginiana
145
22
Platanus occidentalis
110
23
Platanus occidentalis
180
24
Platanus occidentalis
120
25
Liriodendron tulipifera
175
26
Platanus occidentalis
185
27
Liriodendron tulipifera
400
28
Liriodendron tulipifera
385
29
Platanus occidentalis
225
30
Liriodendron tulipifera
300
Stems/Acre
1214
Average Height (cm)
179
Average Height (ft)
5.9

Appendix D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach UT-1 - Enhancement III - Cross Section 1 - Riffle
571
570
569
° 568
d
w 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
MY2-2020 — — -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ------ Low Bank
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
banKTU11 Elevation
- Based on AM=
567.93
568.0
567.9
Bankfull Width ft'
8.9
11.0
9.2
Floodprone Width ft'
>24.8
>25.0
>24.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.8
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.8
1.5
1.6
Low Bank Elevation
1.8
1.3
567.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
8.7
8.7
7.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
14.0
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>2.8
>2.3
>2.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratioll
1.0
0.9
0.9
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect
the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

•"'. �. i.i4'4. RNe — ..
fi•1�. L
Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach HB-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 2 - Riffle
553
552
551
pro—
9
°
OZZO
550
2
d
w 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 MY2-2020 — — -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ------ Low Bank
Cross Section 2
Riffle
DDdELVSIONS SUMLVIARY
Base
MYI
1\4Y2
1\4Y3
1\4Y5
1\4Y7
MY+
XSA
549.99
550.2
550.0
Bankfull Width (ft)l
11.5
12.1
12.1
Floodprone Width (ft)l
>50.2
>50.3
>50.2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.1
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.9
2.0
2.1
Low Bank Elevation
1.9
1.9
550.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
13.5
13.5
13.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Hatiol
9.8
10.9
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>4.4
>2.6
>4.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9
1.0
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

ter_;•- -' � � �-
'i{..•
Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach HB-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 3 - Pool
553
552
551
0
° 550
m�.
d
w 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 MY2-2020 — — -Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 3 Pool
DMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY-1-
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-
XSA'
549.81
550.0
549.7
Bankfull Width (ft)l
9.0
14.5
10.5
Floodprone Width (ft)l
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
0.7
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.1
2.3
2.3
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
549.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
10.4
10.4
10.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.8
20.3
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
-
I -
I-
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach HB-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 4 - Riffle
547
546
545
0
°
544
>
N
w
543
•Y•
�i
•Y Y
i�i•
•Y
•i•
•iYY
iI
•Y•
i
•iY
Y�
•Y•
iI
•YY
iI
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
MY2-2020 — — • Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 4 Riffle
DINIELVSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY-1-
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-
XSA'
543.43
543.4
543.4
Bankfull Width (ft)l
11.5
10.4
10.6
Floodprone Width (ft)l
35.4
39.1
38.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.9
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.3
1.6
1.7
Low Bank Elevation
1.3
1.7
543.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
9.3
9.3
9.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.2
11.5
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
3.1
4.8
3.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratioll
1.0
1 1-0
1.0
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Awl,
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach HB-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 5 - Pool
546
545
544
g 543
d
w 542
.
..
.. .
. .
...
....
....
... .
. .
...
...
. .
. .
..................
..................................
.
541
540
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY 1-2019 MY2-2020 — — -Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 5 Pool
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
XSA1
543.37
543.5
543.4
Bankfull Width (ft)l
12.2
13.4
13.4
Floodprone Width (ft)l
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.0
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.1
2.3
1.5
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
542.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
12.9
12.9
5.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.6
14.0
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
-
I -
I -
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach HB-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 6 - Riffle
544
543
°
542
541
2
w
540
•V•
��
•y��y�1
Y•
•V
y
•y
��yVy
•y•
YV
�I ti
•y•
y
•yV
y
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
MY2-2020 — — -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 6 Riffle
DDdENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYI
1\4Y2
1\4Y3
1\4Y5
1\4Y7
MY+
XSA1
540.49
540.7
540.5
Bankfull Width (ft)l
10.5
11.1
11.1
Floodprone Width (ft)l
>49.7
>49.7
>49.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.4
1.5
1.6
Low Bank Elevation
1.4
1.5
540.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
10.0
10.0
10.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.0
12.3
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>4.7
>4.5
>4.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
1�J'
y� 1
'a. ;� +,'yam :"' ��a�..4. _ . .� . ►..�
r
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach HB-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 7 - Pool
543
542
541
011111111111ft
e;l
° 540
d
w 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
MY2-2020
— — • Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 7 Pool
DINIENS IONS SUMMARY
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
XSA
540.42
540.6
540.2
Bankfull Width (ft)l
12.7
13.5
12.4
Floodprone Width (ft)l
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
1.3
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.2
2.3
2.3
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
540.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
17.9
17.9
17.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
10.2
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
-
-
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

�Fr
i
6p1*1
� rp
Upstream
r
�1 n t- kii
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach UT-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 8- Riffle
556
555
554
°
553
d
w
552
..............................
......
_
_�_
7. _
..
...............
�_
_�_
_
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
MY2-2020 — — -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 8
Riffle)
DD ELISIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYI
7772
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
XSA
552.74
552.9
552.8
Bankfull Width (ft)'
9.2
10.2
10.6
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>51.8
>51.9
>51.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.5
1.5
1.5
Low Bank Elevation
1.5
1.4
552.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz)z
9.0
9.0
8.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.5
11.7
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>5.6
>5.1
>5.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratioll
1.0
1 0.9
0.9
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
r YF e'
*-
S.
Dairyland - Reach UT-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 9 - Pool
555
554
553
ftmwm
C
°
552
•V% A
T. 89•T{
T%Or.
er•
•T►•
•IT•
IT1 rr.
Ti.'Rdr.
T%er
JV. T7
'R
N
w
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
MY2-2020
— — • Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 9 (Pool)
DD4ELVSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYI
1\4Y2
1\4Y3
1\4Y5
1\4Y7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-
XSA1
552.61
552.7
552.7
Bankfull Width (ft)l
8.4
9.2
9.5
Floodprone Width (ft)l
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.0
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.9
2.0
2.0
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
552.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
9.0
9.0
8.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.9
9.4
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
-
-
-
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach UT-2 - Restoration Cross Section 10 - Pool
550
549
548
547
(
a)w
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
MY2-2020
— — -Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 10 (Pool)
DI 4ENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYl
1\4Y2
1\4Y3
1\4Y5
1\4Y7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-
XSA1
546.98
547.2
547.3
Bankfull Width (ft)l
10.0
15.8
8.2
Floodprone Width (ft)l
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.6
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.6
1.6
1.4
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
546.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
9.3
9.3
6.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.8
26.7
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
-I
-
L-
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
550
Dairyland - Reach UT-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 11 - Riffle
549
548
547
-.0000
00000
m
d
w.....
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
MY2-2020 — — -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 11 (Riffle)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
XSA
546.72
546.7
546.7
Bankfull Width ft l
9.5
13.2
11.7
Floodprone Width ft l
>43.1
42.8
>42.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.5
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.1
1.2
1 0.6
Low Bank Elevation
1.1
1.1
546.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz)z
7.0
7.0
2.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
24.9
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>4.5
3.8
3.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
0.9
0.6
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach UT-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 12 - Riffle
544
543
542
-
541
Nunn
CU
d
w 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 MY2-2020 — — -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 12 (Riffle)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
XSA
540.91
541.1
541.0
Bankfull Width (ft)l
8.6
10.5
8.5
Floodprone Width (ft)l
>47.1
46.6
47.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.7
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.3
1.2
1.2
Low Bank Elevation
1.3
1.2
540.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
7.1
7.1
6.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.4
15.4
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>5.5
5.9
1 >5.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratioll
1.0
1.0
1 0.9
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
H
Downstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach UT-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 13 - Pool
544
543
542
°
541
d
w
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
MY2-2020
— — -Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank
Cross Section I3 Pool
DINIELVSIONS SUMNIARY
Base
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-
XSA1
540.69
540.9
540.7
Bankfull Width (ft)l
7.5
8.0
7.8
Floodprone Width (ft)l
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.9
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.7
1.7
1.8
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
540.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
6.8
6.8
6.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.2
9.3
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
-
-
-
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach WF-2 - Enhancement III - Cross Section 14 - Pool
540
539
538
°
537
..................
.. .
...
. .
. ...
.
......................
. ..
...
. .
........................
. .
d
w
536
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
MY2-2020
— — • Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 14 (Pool)
DD4ELVSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYl
1\4Y2
1\4Y3
1\4Y5
1\4Y7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-
XSA'
536.73
536.8
536.7
Bankfull Width (ft)l
10.7
10.4
10.6
Floodprone Width (ft)l
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
1.8
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.6
2.5
3.2
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
537.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
18.9
18.9
26.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
6.0
5.7
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
-
- I
I-
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
538.5
Dairyland - Reach WF-2 - Enhancement III - Cross Section 15 - Pool
537.5
536.5
°
535.5
d
w
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
MY2-2020
— — • Approx. Bankfull ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 15(Pool)
DINIENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
XSA1
536.28
536.3
536.1
Bankfull Width (ft)'
12.2
12.6
12.7
Floodprone Width (ft)'
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.6
2.5
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
3.3
3.3
4.7
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
537.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz)z
31.6
31.6
50.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
4.7
5.0
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
-
-
-
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
540
Dairyland - Reach WF-2 - Enhancement III - Cross Section 16 - Riffle
539
538
537
.....
...
..........
.....
.....
.....
.............................................
536
w
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
MY2-2020 — — -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area ...... Low Bank
Cross Section 16 (Riffle)
DEVIENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYI
1\4Y2
1\4Y3
1\4Y5
1\4Y7
MY+
XSA1
536.74
536.8
536.7
Bankfull Width (ft)l
11.8
11.9
12.3
Floodprone Width (ft)l
>35.0
>35.0
>35
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.0
2.0
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.9
2.8
3.6
Low Bank Elevation
3.7
3.2
537.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
23.9
23.9
33.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
5.8
5.9
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>3.0
>3.0
>2.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.3
1.2
1.3
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

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) Ib/fz
---
---
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 Flood lain 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 fioodplain 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 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 ftZ
--
--
---
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 Flood lain 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)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
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+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA
567.93
568.0
567.9
549.99
550.2
550.0
549.81
550.0
549.7
543.43
543.4
543.4
543.37
543.5
543.4
Bankfull Width (ft)l
8.9
11.0
9.2
11.5
12.1
12.1
9.0
14.5
10.5
11.5
10.4
10.6
12.2
13.4
13.4
Floodprone Width (ft)l
>24.8
>25.0
>24.9
>50.2
>32.1
>50.2
-
-
-
35.4
50.2
38.9
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.8
1.2
1.1
-
1.2
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.0
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.8
1.5
1.6
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.3
1.3
1.6
1.7
2.1
2.3
1.5
Low Bank Elevation
1.8
1.3
567.8
1.9
1.9
550.0
-
-
549.7
1.3
1.7
543.4
-
-
542.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz)z
8.7
8.7
7.6
13.5
13.5
13.7
10.4
10.4
10.4
9.3
9.3
9.7
12.9
12.9
5.5
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
>2.7
>4.4
>2.6
>4.2
-
-
3.1
4.8
3.7
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9
r 0.9
1.0
0.9
1 1.0
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Section 6 (Riffle)
Cross Section 7 (Pool)
Cross Section 8 (Riffle)
Cross Section 9 (Pool)
Cross Section 10
(Pool)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
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+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA
540.49
540.7
540.5
540.42
540.6
540.2
552.74
552.9
552.8
552.61
552.7
552.7
546.98
547.2
547.3
Bankfull Width (ft)l
10.5
11.1
11.1
12.7
13.5
12.4
9.2
10.2
10.6
8.4
9.2
9.5
10.0
15.8
8.2
Floodprone Width (ft)l
>49.7
>49.7
>49.9
-
-
-
>51.8
>51.9
>51.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
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)2
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.2
2.3
2.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.6
1.6
1.4
Low Bank Elevation1.4
1.5
540.5
-
-
540.2
1.5
1.4
552.7
-
552.6
-
-
546.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz)z
10.0
10.0
10.3
17.9
17.9
17.7
9.0
9.0
8.0
9.0
9.0
8.5
9.3
9.3
6.1
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
>4.5
>5.6
>5.1
>5.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
Cross Section 11 (Riffle)
Cross Section 12 (Riffle)
Cross Section 13
(Pool)
Cross Section 14
(Pool)
Cross Section 15
(Pool)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
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+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA
546.72
546.7
546.7
540.91
541.1
541.0
540.69
540.9
540.7
536.73
536.8
536.7
536.28
536.3
536.1
Bankfull Width (ft)l
9.5
13.2
11.7
8.6
10.5
8.5
7.5
8.0
7.8
10.7
10.4
10.6
12.2
12.6
12.7
Floodprone Width (ft)l
>43.1
42.8
>42.6
>47.1
61.8
47.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.7
0.5
-
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.9
-
1.8
1.8
-
2.6
2.5
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.1
1.2
0.6
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.7
1.7
1.8
2.6
2.5
3.2
3.3
3.3
4.7
Low Bank Elevation
1.1
1.1
546.2
1.3
1.2
540.9
540.7
537.4
537.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftz 2
7.0
7.0
2.3
7.1
7.1
6.4
6.8
6.8
6.7
18.9
18.9
26.4
31.6
31.6
50.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
24.9
-
10.4
15.4
-
8.2
9.3
-
6.0
5.7
-
4.7
5.0
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>4.5
3.8
3.6
>5.5
5.9
>5.5
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9
1 0.6
1.0
1.0
0.9
Cross
Section
16
(Riffle)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA
536.74
536.8
536.7
Bankfull Width (ft)l
11.8
11.9
12.3
Floodprone Width (ft)l
>35.0
>35.0
>35
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
2.0
2.0
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.9
2.8
3.6
Low Bank Elevation
3.7
3.2
537.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftz z
23.9
23.9
33.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
5.8
5.9
-
Bankfull Entrenchment RatioI
>3.0
>3.0
>2.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratioll
1.3
1 1.2
1.3

Appendix E
Hydrology Data

Table 10. 2020 Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal
30
Percent
Limits
70
Percent
Hillsborough Station
Precipitation
January
4.44
3.17
5.25
5.42
February
3.61
2.59
4.26
7.06
March
4.50
3.26
5.31
2.55
April
3.21
2.13
3.85
4.98
May
4.34
3.30
5.05
7.75
June
4.00
2.53
4.83
8.69
July
4.06
2.38
4.93
2.80
August
4.53
3.19
5.37
4.48
September
4.45
1.83
5.41
2.16
October
3.72
2.11
4.53
---
November
3.62
2.28
4.37
---
December
3.23
2.22
3.85
---
Total
47.71
30.99
57.01
45.89
Table 11. Documentation of Significant Flow Events
Year
Bankfull Events
Maximum Bankfull Height (ft)
Estimated Date of Highest Event
Stage Recorder HB2
MYl 2019*
1
1.30
4/14/2019
MY2 2020
12
1.40
8/31/2020
Stage Recorder UT2
MYl 2019*
1
2.20
4/14/2019
MY2 2020
11
1.75
1/25/2020
*Only manual readings were used in MY1
Year 7 Flow Ewnts NEximum Consecutive Flow Days Cumulative Flow Days
Flow Gauge UT2
MY2 2020 1 15 36 141

Chart 1.
MY2 Dairyland Flow Gauge UT2 Stream Flow Hydrograph
40 18
17
35
16
15
30
14
38 days
32 days
13
= 25
l
v
L
12
a
a 20
11
10
�
8 �
15
$
7
10
6
5
5
4
- -
------- ----- - -
- -
--
-
---
3
1
-5 0
VV20 211120 311120 411120 511120 611120 711120 a11120 911120
Months
oay nanrau —tlT eee — — — D5 RMI.-