20171158 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2020_20210202

ID#* 20171158 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 02/02/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/2/2021
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:*
Paul Wiesner
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20171158
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Warren Wilson College
County: Buncombe
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Warren Wilson_ 100019_MY1_2020.pdf 8.97MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Paul Wiesner
Signature:*
�X/ I �;" -;-I 1

FINAL
MONITORING REPORT (MYI)
WARREN WILSON COLLEGE STREAM MITIGATION SITE
Buncombe County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID No. 100019
Full Delivery Contract No. 7188
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01557
NCDWR No. 20171158
RFP No. 16-006991 (Issued: 9/16/16)
French Broad River Basin
Cataloging Unit 06010105
Data Collection: January - November 2020
Submission: January 2021
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652

NCDMS Comment Responses:
• Report Cover Pages (2): Please also provide the date of issuance with the RFP#: RFP# 16-
006991 (Issued: 9116116).
The RFP date of issuance was added to the cover pages.
• General: Please include RS's comment responses to the IRT's MYO/ As -Built Baseline
Monitoring Report comments issued via email on 10/5/20. The IRT comments and IRS
comment responses should be included in the final MY1 report appendices.
. responses to the IRT's MYO comments nave been included as Appendix G.
• Site Permitting/Monitoring Activity and Reporting History Table & Table 2: Please remove
the RFP Issuance date and RFP Opening date rows from the tables. The RFP # and issuance
date are included on the report covers. The RFP opening date is not applicable.
The RFP Issuance and opening date entries were removed from table 2.
• Section 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives: #6 - 31.2 x 1011 colonies [col] should be updated to
31.2 x 1011 colonies [col].
This number was updated.
• Section 1.2 Project Background: "Creditable stream removed from the easement were also
removed from mitigation assets." In the report text, please also note that a mitigation plan
addendum for the reduction in project credit was submitted to the IRT as part of the MYO/ As -
Built Baseline Monitoring Report review and was approved by the IRT via email on 10/5/2020.
This was noted in the text.
• Section 2.0: Methods: Per RFP 16-006991, each annual monitoring report must be submitted
to the DMS by December 1st of the year during which the monitoring was conducted. Please
update the text accordingly.
The text was revised to indicate the December 1st deadline.
• Section 2.1 Monitoring/ Wetland Summary: Please include soil temperature data and bud
burst documentation (photos) in the report appendices to substantiate the growing season
start date of March 16, 2020. The location of the data should be referenced in the report text.
Bud burst photos and the soil temperature grapn (Figure t-1) were added to Appendix E and
are referenced in the footnote of the "Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success
Criteria by Year" table in section 2.1.
• Section 2.1 Monitoring/ Vegetation Summary: Please include a brief explanation of Plot 11
not meeting the established success criteria. The explanation should be similar to what is
provided in the initial monitoring summary after the first MY1 cover page. Please also report if
any supplemental planting is proposed in MY2 (2021).
An explanation for plot 11 was added to the Vegetation Summary. No supplemental planting is
planned at this time, and this is indicated in the report.

• CCPV Map (Figure 2) & Table 6: No invasive areas are shown on the CCPV map or reported in
Table 6. Please confirm that current invasives on the site are beneath the mapping threshold
(1,000 SqF) or revise the CCPV map and table as necessary.
Invasive species occurrences are scattered and are all currently below the mapping
threshold. With the 2020 invasive treatments, it is not expected that invasives will be an
issue, but if they increase in area to a point at or above mapping threshold during MY2
(2021), they will be reported in the annual monitoring report.
Appendix D — Cross Sections: The bankfull line appears to be missing on some of the cross -
sections provided. Please review and update as necessary.
When the bankfull elevations (dashed blue lines) were close to or equal to the MY-00 TOB
(solid green lines), they were covered and were not visible. The bankfull lines have been
brought to the front of the display order on the cross-section figures, so both lines are now
visible when the elevations are the same.

WWC Year 1, 2020 Monitoring Summary
General Notes
• No encroachment was identified in Year 1
• No evidence of nuisance animal activity (i.e., beaver, heavy deer browsing, etc.) was
observed.
Streams
• Stream monitoring show that all stream channels and structures are stable.
Wetlands
• Overall, based on groundwater gauge data, wetland hydrology improved from pre -
construction conditions to year 1 (2020). Nine out of ten gauges displayed hydroperiods
greater than 10% of the growing season during year 1 (2020); however, no wetland
mitigation credit is being generated by site wetlands.
Vegetation
• During quantitative vegetation sampling, 25 sample plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were
installed within the Site as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008). Year 1 (2020) vegetation measurements occurred
October 19-21, 2020 and included 4 additional random sample plots (50-meter by 2-meter).
Measurements of all 29 plots resulted in an average of 672 planted stems/acre excluding
livestakes. Additionally, all individual plots met success criteria except plot 11 (Tables 8-
10, Appendix C). Plot 11 is located in a wetland area adjacent to Gauge 8 that was meeting
wetland success 231 consecutive days. This area may need additional planting of a more
wet tolerant species.
Site Permitting/Monitoring Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
RFP No. 16-006991 Issuance Date
--
September 16, 2016
RFP No. 16-006991 Opening Date
--
February 15, 2017
Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 100014)
--
May 22, 2017
Mitigation Plan
March 2018
November 2018
Construction Plans
--
January 10, 2020
404 Permit
--
May 13, 2019
Site Construction
--
March 4, 2020
Planting
--
March 16, 2020
As -built Baseline Monitoring (MYO)
January -March 2020
August 2020
Annual Monitoring (MY I)
November 2020
January 2021
Site Maintenance Report (2020)
Invasive Species Work
Maintenance work
7-27-2020-Kudzu, Rose, Privet,
Honeysuckle, English Ivy
10-8-2020- Kudzu, Princess Tree, Privet,
N/A
Rose, Japanese Bittersweet, Honeysuckle

FINAL
MONITORING REPORT (MY1)
WARREN WILSON COLLEGE STREAM MITIGATION SITE
Buncombe County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project ID No. 100019
Full Delivery Contract No. 7188
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01557
NCDWR No. 20171158
RFP No. 16-006991 (Issued: 9/16/16)
French Broad River Basin
Cataloging Unit 06010105
Data Collection: January - November 2020
Submission: January 2021
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Contact: Worth Creech
919-755-9490 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)
Prepared by: Ak
Axiom Envimnmen#al, Inc.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact: Grant Lewis
919-215-1693 (phone)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES............................................................................................ 1
1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND........................................................................................................ 3
1.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND STRUCTURE.............................................................................. 3
1.4 SUCCESS CRITERIA................................................................................................................ 4
2.0 METHODS............................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 MONITORING......................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................8
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Background Map and Tables
Figure 1. Project Location
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figures 2 & 2A-2E. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5G. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix C. Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables I IA -I. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12A-I. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic
Containment Parameter Distributions)
Tables 13A-I. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional
Parameters -Cross -sections)
Tables 14A-I. Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-section Plots
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Tables 15A-C. Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 16. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 17A-B. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Bud Burst Documentation Photographs
Figure E-1. Year 1 (2020) Soil Temperature Data
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Table of Contents page i
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

Appendix F. Preconstruction Wetland Hydrology Data
Figure 3. Preconstruction Gauge Locations
Table 18. Preconstruction Groundwater Gauge Data Summary
Appendix G. Responses to MYO IRT Comments
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Table of Contents page ii
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site (Site).
1.1 Project Goals & Objectives
Stressors documented in the French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report
(NCEEP 2009) include habitat degradation, poor riparian buffers, nutrient enrichment,
channelization, sedimentation, and toxicity primarily attributed to urban and residential runoff and
development.
Within the Site, stressors prior to construction could further be attributed to soil instability,
increased runoff, and water quality impairments in the receiving watersheds. The project is not
located in a Regional or Local Watershed Planning Area; however, the RBRP goals outlined below
are addressed by project activities as follows (Site -specific information follows each RBRP goal
in parentheses).
1. Reduce sediment inputs (based on the sediment model, Site construction eliminates
approximately 228 tons per year [tons/year] of sediment that resulted from streambank
erosion, excessive fines from channel straightening, channel incision, lack of cobble
substrate in disturbed reaches, and a narrow or absent riparian buffer)
2. Reduce nutrient inputs (based on the nutrient model, Site construction eliminates 657.4
pounds per year [lbs/yr] of nitrogen and 54.5 lbs/yr of phosphorus due to the installation
of marsh treatment areas, removal of preconstruction land uses and livestock, and
elimination of fertilizer application)
3. Restore riparian buffers (removal of preconstruction land uses and livestock, control of
invasive species, and approximately 19.6 acres of woody riparian buffers were planted
adjacent to streams)
4. Stabilize streambanks (restored stable channels at the historic floodplain elevation, and
enhanced oversized and incised channels by raising the stream invert and using grade
control/habitat structures)
5. Restore and/or protect aquatic habitat (restored aquatic habitat in restoration and
enhancement [Level I] reaches by installing grade control/habitat structures, coarsening
channel bed materials, removing nutrient inputs, and planting woody riparian buffers to
provide shade and organic matter to streams)
6. Reduce fecal coliform inputs (based on the nutrient model, Site construction eliminates
31.2 x 1011 colonies [col] of fecal coliform per day by removing preconstruction land
uses and livestock and treating agricultural runoff with marsh treatment areas)
7. Implement agricultural best management practices (BMPs) (the easement is fenced to
eliminated livestock from accessing the easement and marsh treatment areas were
installed).
Site specific mitigation goals and objectives were developed through the use of North Carolina
Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) analyses of preconstruction and reference stream
systems at the Site (NC SFAT 2015) (see Table 1).
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page I
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives
Targeted Functions
Goals
Objectives
Compatibility of Success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow (Floodplain Access)
• Attenuate flood flow across the Site.
• Minimize downstream flooding to the
maximum extent possible.
• Connect streams to functioning wetland
•
•
•
Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows
and enhance existing jurisdictional wetlands
Plant woody riparian buffer
Remove livestock and cease agricultural practices within areas protected by the
conservation easement.
•
•
•
•
BHR not to exceed 1.2
Document four overbank events in separate monitoring years
Livestock excluded from the easement
Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
systems.
•
Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase soil surface roughness
Conservation Easement recorded
•
Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
(3) Stream Stability
•
Construct channels with proper pattern, dimension, longitudinal profile, and
•
Cross-section measurements and visual assessments indicate stable channels and
substrate
structures
(4) Channel Stability
. Increase stream stability within the Site
•
Remove livestock and cease agricultural practices within areas protected by the
•
BHR not to exceed 1.2
(4) Sediment Transport
so that channels are neither aggrading nor
degrading.
•
conservation easement.
Construct stable channels with gravel substrate
•
•
ER of 1.4 or greater
< 10% change in BHR and ER
(4) Thermoregulation
•
Stabilize streambanks
•
Livestock excluded from the easement
(4) Stream Geomorphology
•
Plant woody riparian buffer
•
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(1) WATER QUALITY
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
• Remove direct nutrient and pollutant
•
•
•
Remove livestock and reduce agricultural land/inputs
Install marsh treatment areas
Plant woody riparian buffer
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
•
Livestock excluded from the easement
inputs from the Site and reduce
•
Enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
•
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(2) Indicators of Stressors
contributions to downstream waters.
•
Provide surface roughness and reduce compaction through deep ripping/plowing
•
Restore overbank flooding by constructing channels at historic floodplain
elevation
1 HABITAT
(2) In -stream Habitat
•
•
Construct stable channels with gravel substrate
Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
•
Cross-section measurements and visual assessments indicate stable channels and
• Improve instream and stream -side
habitat.
•
•
Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows
Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
•
structures.
Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(3) In -Stream Habitat
(2) Stream -side Habitat
•
Enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
•
Remove invasive plant species
•
Conservation Easement recorded
(3) Stream -side Habitat
•
Add large woody debris to Site channels
(3) Thermore ation
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 2
Warren Wilson College Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

1.2 Project Background
The Warren Wilson College Stream Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site")
encompasses a 25.3-acre easement (pending easement modification) along cold -water, unnamed
tributaries (UTs) to the Swannanoa River. Warren Wilson College occupies approximately 1200
acres, and the Site is part of an actively managed farm and forest system on the Warren Wilson
College property that includes livestock management areas, pastureland, agricultural row crops,
and a sustainably managed forest. The Site is located approximately 2 miles west of Swannanoa
and 5 miles east of Asheville in Buncombe County, North Carolina (Figure 1, Appendix A).
Prior to construction, the Site consisted of agricultural and managed forest land accessible to
livestock. Site streams were part of an actively managed farm and forest system that included
livestock, pastureland, agricultural row crops, and sustainable forest management. Streams were
eroded vertically and laterally, received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs, and were dredged
and straightened and/or rerouted to the floodplain edge. Preconstruction Site conditions resulted
in degraded water quality, a loss of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient and sediment retention, and
unstable channel characteristics (loss of horizontal flow vectors that maintain pools and an increase
in erosive forces to channel bed and banks). Site restoration activities restored riffle -pool
morphology, aided in energy dissipation, increased aquatic habitat, stabilized channel banks, and
greatly reduced sediment loss from channel banks.
Preconstruction Groundwater Gauges:
Preconstruction groundwater gauges were installed along UT-3 upper (Clingman's) upon the
request of IRT members to model pre -construction wetland characteristics. Data was collected for
2018 and the beginning of 2019 within gauges nested in transects perpendicular to the existing
channel. In addition, a crest gauge along the existing incised reach was installed to measure
overbank events.
Results of preconstruction gauge data, included in Table 12 (Appendix F, indicate that gauges near
the incised stream showed reduced hydroperiod as compared to those further from the channel.
2018 exhibited normal rainfall patterns, and one gauge appeared to meet jurisdictional criteria
based on groundwater level being within 12 inches of the surface for 12.5% of the growing season
(26 days, based on the NRCS growing season of April 2 to November 1). 2019 exhibited wetter
than average rainfall patterns, and six gauges appeared to meet the same jurisdictional criteria. In
addition, the crest gauge installed on UT-3 showed no overbank events during 2018 and one during
2019 after a 4.56-inch rainfall.
1.3 Project Components and Structure
Proposed Site restoration activities generated 10,050.933 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs —
pending easement modification) as the result of the following.
• Restored 9220 linear feet of perennial stream channel by constructing stable streams in the
historic floodplain location and elevation.
• Enhanced (Level I) 62 linear feet of stream by installing in -stream structures, providing
proper channel dimension and appropriate floodplain width, reducing shear on eroding
MYI Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 3
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

banks, controlling invasive species within the riparian area, and planting with native
riparian vegetation.
Enhanced (Level II) 1974 linear feet of stream channel by removing current land use
practices, controlling invasive species within the riparian area, and planting native
vegetation.
Additional activities that occurred at the Site included the following.
• Installation of four marsh treatment areas to treat stormwater runoff before it enters Site
streams.
Established a minimum 30-foot-wide woody riparian buffer adjacent to Site streams,
Fenced the conservation easement boundaries in areas used for livestock management.
Protected the Site in perpetuity with a conservation easement.
Deviations from the construction plans included the modifications of two grade control structures.
A log vane structure along the lower portion of reach UT-613 was constructed with boulders in
order to accommodate the culverted crossing just upstream. Additionally, a vane arm was removed
from a log vane along the upper portion of reach UT-7A in order to avoid the destruction of a
mature black walnut tree. The log sill was constructed as designed and is holding grade. These
changes are depicted on the As -built Plan Sheets (Appendix E). Also, HDPE pipe was replaced
with corrugated metal pipe throughout the project at the request of USFWS.
Additionally, during the initial DMS as -built review, it was discovered that several culvert pipes
extend into the recorded conservation easement. Once the encroachments were located and
documented via GPS, easement modifications were initiated to remove any crossing materials
from the conservation easement. Creditable stream removed from the easement were also removed
from mitigation assets. A mitigation plan addendum for the reduction in project credit was
submitted to the IRT as part of the MYO/ As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report review and was
approved by the IRT via email on October 5, 2020.
Site design was completed on January 10, 2020. Construction started on September 1, 2019 and
ended within a final walkthrough on March 4, 2020. Site planting was completed on March 16,
2020. Completed project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and
background information are summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A).
1.4 Success Criteria
Project success criteria have been established per the October 24, 2016 NC Interagency Review
Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Monitoring
and success criteria relate to project goals and objectives. From a mitigation perspective, several
of the goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by restoration activities without
direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered successful upon achieving
success criteria. The following table summarizes Site success criteria.
MYI Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 4
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

Success Criteria
Streams
•
All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
•
Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days.
•
Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section.
•
Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be no less than 2.2 for E- and C-type channels at any measured riffle cross-
section.
•
BHR and ER at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from baseline condition
during any given monitoring period.
•
The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards shall be met through four separate
bankfull events, occurring in separate years, during the monitoring ears 1-7.
Wetland Hydrology
•
Groundwater gauge data will be used to observe fluctuations in groundwater hydrology pre- and
postconstruction as the result of overbank events; however, no wetland mitigation credit is being acquired and
there are no wetland hydrology success criteria proposed at this time.
•
Jurisdictional wetland adjacent to UT-3 will demonstrate a 10 to 20% increase in wetland hydrology as
compared to re -construction hydrology, under similar climactic conditions.
Vegetation
•
Within planted portions of the site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum of
260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at year 7.
• Areas of dense river cane (canebrakes) are a natural niche habitat within the Swannanoa River floodplain
that contribute native habitat for endangered species. River cane may outcompete woody seedlings during
the initial establishment of vegetation. Within the Swannanoa floodplain (UT-6, UT-7, and UT-8), the
presence of canebrakes may supersede the vegetative success criteria for planted stems per acre.
•
Trees must average 6 feet in height at year 5, and 8 feet in height at year 7 in each plot.
•
Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the site;
natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case -by -case basis.
2.0 METHODS
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in this plan follow the October 24, 2016 NC
Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update. Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports
of the data collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than
December 1 of each monitoring year data is collected. The monitoring schedule is summarized in
the following table.
Monitoring Schedule
Resource
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Streams
Wetlands
Vegetation
Visual Assessment
Report Submittal
2.1 Monitoring
The monitoring parameters are summarized in the following table.
MYI Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 5
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina .January 2021

Monitoring Summary
Stream Parameters
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected/Reported
Stream Profile
Full longitudinal survey
As -built (unless otherwise
required)
All restored stream channels
Graphic and tabular data.
Stream Dimension
Cross -sections
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Total of 50 cross -sections on restored
Graphic and tabular data.
channels
Areas of concern to be depicted on a plan
Visual Assessments
Yearly
All restored stream channels
view figure with a written assessment and
photograph of the area included in the
Channel Stability
report.
Additional Cross -sections
Yearly
Only if instability is documented
Graphic and tabular data.
during monitoring
Stream Hydrology
Continuous monitoring surface water
Continuous recording through
Total of 3 surface water gauges (UT3,
Surface water data for each monitoring
gauges and trail cameras
monitoring period
UT6, & UT8period
Continuous monitoring surface water
Continuous recording through
Total of 3 surface water gauges (UT3,
Surface water data for each monitoring
gauges and trail cameras
monitoring period
UT6, & UT8period
Bankfull Events
VisuaUPhysical Evidence
Continuous through
All restored stream channels
Visual evidence, photo documentation,
monitoring period
and/or rain data.
Wetland Parameters
Parameter
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected/Reported
Wetland
Groundwater gauges
Preconstruction, As -built,
10 gauges in wetlands adjacent to
Graphic and tabular data.
Rehabilitation
Years 1-7
UTl+, UT3*+, & UT6-
Vegetation Parameters
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected/Reported
Permanent vegetation plots 0.0247 acre
(100 square meters) in size; CVS-EEP
As -built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
25 plots spread across the Site
Species, height, planted vs. volunteer,
Vegetation
Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
stems/acre
establishment and
Version 4.2 Lee et al. 2008
vigor
Annual random vegetation plots, 0.0247
As-builtYears 1235and 7
Number of randomly selected plots to
Species
acre (100 square meters) in size
, , , , ,
be determined each year. as needed
* Seven groundwater monitoring gauges were installed in jurisdictional wetland areas adjacent to UT-3 to take measurements before and after hydrological modifications were
performed at the Site. The preconstruction condition of the upper reach of UT-3 was an incised Eg-type channel with bank -height -ratios ranging from 1.8-2.4. The majority of
UT-3 upper has been restored (priority I) with construction of channels at the historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows to adjacent wetlands. A stream flow gauge
and trail camera were installed on UT-3 upper to verify overbank events. Groundwater gauge data will be used to observe fluctuations in groundwater hydrology pre- and post -
construction as the result of overbank events; however, no wetland mitigation credit is being acquired and there are no wetland hydrology success criteria proposed at this time.
Three groundwater gauges were installed, one adjacent to UT-1, one adjacent to UT-3 lower, and one adjacent to UT-6, in order to show no net loss in function, due to project
activities, in existing wetlands along these tributaries. In order to monitor an area of potential wetland creation associated with stream channel restoration, two additional gauges
(gauges 4 and 5) were installed along the right bank of UT-3 upper. This area was previously determined non jurisdictional.
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 6
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

Stream Summary
All streams are functioning as designed, and no stream areas of concern were observed during year
1 (2020) monitoring. Stream morphology data is available in Appendix D.
Wetland Summary
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud
Monitoring Period Used for
10 Percent of
Burst Documented
Determining Success
Monitoring Period
2020 (Year 1)
March 16, 2020*
March 16-November 1
(231 days)
23 days
*Based on observed/documented bud burst and data collected from a soil temperature data logger located on the Site
(Figure E-1, Appendix E).
Overall, based on groundwater gauge data, wetland hydrology improved from pre -construction
conditions to year 1 (2020). Nine out of ten gauges displayed hydroperiods greater than 10% of
the growing season during year 1 (2020); however, no wetland mitigation credit is being generated
by site wetlands. Wetland habitat adjacent to reach UT-3B (Clingman's/Little Berea) experienced
increased inundation periods and improved hydrology following stream restoration. In 2019,
gauges IA, 1B, and 1C (Figure 3, Appendix F) were inundated from 1% to 27% of the growing
season; whereas, in year 1 (2020), gauges 3, 4, and 5, which were installed in approximately the
same locations (Figure 2, Appendix B), were inundated from 14% to 75%. Additionally, in 2019,
gauges 3A, 3B, and 3C (Figure 3, Appendix F) ranged from 1% to 65% inundation; whereas,
during year 1 (2020), gauges 6, 7, and 8, which were installed in approximately the same locations
(Figure 2, Appendix B), ranged from 3 1 % to 100% (Table 17, Appendix E and Table 18, Appendix
F). Although several gauge malfunctions throughout the year 1 (2020) growing season hindered
data collection, overall improvements in wetland hydrology were recorded in areas adjacent to
UT-3B.
Vegetation Summary
During quantitative vegetation sampling, 25 sample plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were installed
within the Site as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008). Year 1 (2020) vegetation measurements occurred October 19-21,
2020 and included 4 additional random sample plots (50-meter by 2-meter). Measurements of all
29 plots resulted in an average of 672 planted stems/acre excluding livestakes. Additionally, all
individual plots met success criteria except plot 11 (Tables 8-10, Appendix Q. Plot 11 is in a
wetland area adjacent to Gauge 8 that was meeting wetland success 231 consecutive days. This
area may need additional planting of a more wet tolerant species. RS will evaluate this area during
MY2 (2021) monitoring; however, no supplemental planting is currently proposed.
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 7
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

3.0 REFERENCES
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and
South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2014. Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Monitoring Guidelines. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh,
North Carolina.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), 2009. French Broad River Basin
Restoration Priorities 2009 (online). Available at:
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws. com/s3 fspublic/PublicFolder/W ork%20With/Watershed%2
OPlanners/French_ Broad _RBRP_15jul�pdf [June 1, 2016]. North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment
Method (NC SAM) User Manual. Version 2.1.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified
Tennessee Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest
Hydrology and Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Publ.167.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/Web Soil Survey. aspx [August 2016].
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2009. Soil Survey for Buncombe County North
Carolina. US Department of Agriculture. Available at:
http://www.nres.usda.gov/Intemet/FSE MANUSCRIPTS/north carolina/buncombeNC2
009/Buncombe NC.pdf [June 7, 2016].
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 8
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

Appendix A
Background Map and Tables
Figure 1. Project Location
Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
MYI Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page I
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

�1}t�
isl1
- -��� 1. •' ��. �"• _ _ �_ •..� _ �rJ -_aim- _ _ .-__ - i _. r7 � .. +, '�- .5
ILI
Axiom Envmonmenla+, mc.
Prepared for:
RESTORATION
V.
C07PWR
Society, i-cdMd- ' t ► • _ _
-V _ � - ((t/' f Project:
— -. l� '' � . -- • ��J ,- 1 •'�it F � ~ �' - I 'a�qr• c ,+r� �' �.—' ( � i may' 4-.� E ___ .+. x
WARREN WILSON
COLLEGE STREAM
- - ---. -'�' ' ,.� j�� ' - � l -_ - t ,� - - -� •� � 1 � � � MITIGATION SITE
i..�at•�l I � -- .5nv�tW -•. - - _ — �.ti � .1.t �P1. 11 { ,� �.S�L"�,��
Buncombe County,NC
��h'S � �'� k ,., . - _ .1 ■ � ,� • is ' � � �'
- r• 113` '' -- ,. 1 �'1 { 1 _ fy. ` ' + Title:
a' x .. •�,� �J„ ram.. 1
_
�
Q ��; [[��~� ,. r � .'��`,;.-�� •`� p r-."�.- �� �' •wed {i
SITE LOCATION
� -, ,� ► , JF ti � �� I ` Q'- 70 _ -ti . -emu.'" 1 : � •� ;
- iiVl1,�.� �� 70 _ r._ _ [ �• ' ems:, _ � 1 �
— - - � �. , ■y is —� I� • " ' +�.w - � . — ,� �� , ,� } .� '�..
- =4 i f P � _ - '; _ � �it'� _ -� �.; - •-. .. - Drawn by:
t J.. KRJ
'.a.' y .,- 5 �- - ` �, :. _�: P _ Date:
:ram a_ - _� °r' ,f `: � � . 1� _ '�
- APR 2020
y _ Scale:
1:40000
- _ j _ _ ;� 1 j �:•. _ - I
- _ tir« �; Project No.:
k;,"` ,.- I'' ` USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Oteen and Craggy Pinnacle, NC Quads) 20-004
ros k r R
;�. -- _ �--? �.�= �_:�. +>< ' P: � s� - � '- .F r' �;!•-N • �' ��� � �Y�" Directions to the Site from Raleigh: FIGURE
1'
' s 1 "' • - - Take I-40 West out of Raleigh and travel 229 miles,
- Take exit 59 towards Swannanoa and turn right onto Patton Cove Road,
f + - After 0.3 miles, turn left onto US-70 West,
25 r, . 1 "� :•- - Travel 1.9 miles, then turn right onto Warren Wilson Road,
+� _ ,' - • :�'� . N - After 1.4 miles Riceville Road is on the left and South Lane is on the right,
s• �„ �- V'' _ + W �r ry•M� �rAl - Site parcels can be accessed off Warren Wilson Road Riceville Road and South Lane
"^ Co ri ht:© 2013 Na.tioG�o ra~lii¢ �'• o o
py g. �� p:- - Site Latitude Longitude 35.609817 N, 82.443540 W WGS84
= Society, i-cubed aoa „tea 1 •. [�l - g ( )
. I

Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Warren Wilson Colleee Stream Mitigation Site
Mitigation
Stream
Existing
Restoration
Project
Plan
Mitigation
Calculated
Stationing/
Footage/
Restoration Level
Footage/
Comment
Segment
Footage/
FootAcreage
Ratio
Credit^
Wetland Type
Acreage
Acreage
UT IA
0+09-4+92
189
483
Restoration PrioriI
1:1
483
483.000
UT 113
1+09-1+22
13
13
Enhancement Level II
2.5:1
12
4.800
584
421f is outside of the easement and
UT 1C
1+22-7+06
554
Restoration (Priority I)
1:1
584-42=542*
542.000
20=564*
therefore is non -credit -generating.
UT 3A
0+05-0+50
45
45
Enhancement Level II
2.5:1
50
20.000
521f is outside of the easement and 5
2116-20-
Restoration (Priority
2116-52-
if is located at a foot crossing within
UT 3B
0+50-21+66
1901
5=2091 *
I/II)
1' 1
5=2059*
2059.000
the easement; therefore, are non-
credit -generating.
UT 3C
21+66-22+28
62
62
Enhancement (Level I)
1.5:1
62
41.333
UT 3D
0+00-5+00
428
500
Restoration (PrioriI)
1:1
500
500.000
UT 3E
5+00-8+34
334
334
Enhancement (Level II)
2.5:1
334
133.600
UT 3F
8+34-9+60
91
126
Restoration (PrioriI)
1:1
126
126.000
721
21 if is outside of the easement and
UT 3G
9+60-16+81
721
Enhancement (Level II)
2.5:1
721-21=700*
280.000
21=700*
therefore is non -credit -generating.
UT 4A
0+00-2+33
70
233
Restoration PrioriI
1:1
187
187.000
242
288
107 If is outside of the easement and
UT 413
2+33-4+75
242
Enhancement (Level II)
2.5:1
72.400
20=222*
107=181*
therefore is non -credit -generating.
UT 5A
0+00-0+48
48
48
Enhancement (Level II)
2.5:1
47
18.800
1110-
1117-
381f is outside of the easement and
UT 513
0+48-11+58
719
Restoration (Priority I)
1:1
1079.000
31=1079*
38=1079 *
therefore is non -credit -generating.
UT 6A
0+08-1+63
155
155
Enhancement Level II
2.5:1
155
62.000
1432-
Restoration (Priority
1432-
441f is outside of the easement and
UT 613
2+16-16+48
713
20=1412*
I/II
1:1
44=1388*
1388.000
therefore is non -credit -generating.
UT 6C
16+48-21+43
495
495
Enhancement(Level II
2.5:1
495
198.000
1985-36-
1940-39-
93 if is outside of the easement and
UT 7A
0+00-19+85
2426
20-
Restoration (Priority I)
1:1
1847.000
54=1847*
therefore is non -credit -generating.
g g'
45=1884*
1047-
Restoration (Priority
1047-
381f is outside of the easement and
UT 8A
0+18-10+65
957
1:1
1009.000
38=1009*
I/II
38=1009*
therefore is non -credit -generating.
*Areas located outside of the easement or at a foot path crossing within the easement and therefore are non-credit generating.
^Several credited stream segments were reduced in length during as -built due to a modification to remove all crossing materials from the easement.
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 3
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

Table 1 (continued). Project Credits
Warren Wilson College Stream Mitigation Site
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Rip
Wetland
Coastal
Marsh
Warm Cool
Cold
Riverine
Non-Riv
Restoration
9220.000
Re-establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Enhancement I
41.333
Enhancement II
789.600
Creation
Preservation
TOTALS
10,050.933
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Warren Wilson College Stream Mitigation Site
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 100014)
--
May 22, 2017
Mitigation Plan
March 2018
November 2018
Construction Plans
--
January 10, 2020
404 Permit
--
May 13, 2019
Site Construction
--
March 4, 2020
Planting
--
March 16, 2020
As -built Baseline Monitoring (MYO)
January -March 2020
August 2020
Annual Monitoring (MY I)
November 2020
January 2021
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Warren Wilson College Restoration Site
Full Delivery Provider
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Worth Creech
919-755-9490
Designer
Anchor QEA of North Carolina, PLLC
231 Haywood Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Sara Stavinoha
828-771-0279
As -built Monitoring Provider
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis
919-215-1693
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 4
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Warren Wilson Stream Mitigation Site
Project Information
Project Name
Warren Wilson Stream Mitigation Site
Project County
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres)
25.3(pending easement modification)
Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude)
35.609817°N, 82.443540°W
Planted Area (acres)
19.64
Project Watershed Summary Information
Ph sio ra hic Province
Blue Ridge
Pro'ect River Basin
French Broad
USGS HUC for Project 14-di it
06010105070030
NCDWR Sub -basin for Project
04-03-02
Project Drainage Area
49.9 to 822.3 acres 0.08 to 1.28 square miles
Percentage of Project Drainage Area that
is Impervious
<5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Cultivated, Managed Herbaceous Vegetation, Unmanaged Herbaceous Vegetation,
Hardwood Swamp, Oak/Gum/Cypress
Reach Su mary Information
Parameters 7
UTl
UT 3
UT4
UT 5
UT6
UT 7
UT 8
Len7ofch (linear feet)
756
3582
312
769
1363
2425
957
Valley Classification & Confinement
MO
erately confined to somewhat unconfined (UT-3 & UT-5)
Drainage Area (acres and square miles)
171.3 ac.
0.27 s . mi.
( )
822.3 ac.
1.28 s . mi.
( )
153.9 ac.
0.24 s . mi.
( )
98.3 ac.
0.15 s . mi.
( )
49.9 ac.
0.08 s . mi.
( )
141.0 ac.
0.22 s . mi.
( )
64.4 ac.
0.10 s . mi.
( )
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Intermittent/
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Existing Morphological Description
Ros en 1996
Cg4
Eg4
G4
G3
G3
Gb4
Eg4
Proposed Stream Classification
Ros en1996
Cb4
Ce4
C4
Ce4
Ce4
Gb4
C4
Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon
and Hupp 1986)
II/III (Channelized/Degraded)
FEMA Classification
NA
Zone AE
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Thermal Regime
Cold
MYI Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019)
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site
Buncombe County, North Carolina
page S
Restoration Systems, LLC
January 2021

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figures 2 & 2A-2E. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5G. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

N
I
N
-0,04" 4
tS
: AM
Legend
F—lConservation Easement
Stream
Azi= Enwonmenial, Pric.
Prepared for:
Project:
WARREN WILSON
COLLEGE STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
Buncombe County, NC
114 Title:
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
DEC 2020
Scale:
1 :10,000
Project No.:
20-004
FIGURE
2
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 L
Feet r

�a
%r._
Z
j' ' � � y/ Yam` -_�� �y�- r�` � �� .1 �R. 4 � � - �. a+�v .. •� ,
�� '.s "=�?''_'�= - � -� �:�'. ;. ti'#�� '•• -tip ��;;"
i�,:� ;�� 'y �•Y is _ _ �.� .: T.`� ?+ f� ��', : � '• -'E- ..
�`� � •v,`44L C,�j` �. . �•` ,`�. � jam' ��I ` } r
J.
.. .'r yr' ''Yi'1. • ,. ` �M1 '� �# �' �� :fir . e1`
`.Y . � •'� _ _ tie'• .ww,
A— .. '+.
Legend
Conservation Easement
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
Stream Enhancement (Level 11)
Stream Generating No Credit
® Wetlands
Vegetation Plots Meeting Success Criteria
Vegetation Plots Not Meeting Success Criteria
Cross Sections
o Groundwater Gauge
0 Flow Gauge
Flow Camera
Walking Paths
A
&Z
t
�,. . � �� '.fir., - �•r
h ♦•4f• �, - :.Y X•ram •-\ ti
Aw,
Clingman's _
,77
Azi= Enwonmenlal, PnC.
Prepared for:
Project:
WARREN WILSON
COLLEGE STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
Buncombe County, NC I
Title:
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
A Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
r•' y -' DEC 2020
Scale:
1:2000
•7r 00 .-. � � _ Project No.:
20-004
,,xs • FIGURE
2A
�600
_
r�. y .d: - �►, 1 h
Feet

N 3 E f rr -
r
-'•1!1' _ ,q� ,:Y fig. - ��� �y _ rT � Y
f' .+��"`. .,• - �... y•�� gip.
01 J!`.-tr�y...-r
r: • ' �v,"" r .vim . �1" - , 1. ' '�` - f, i-
,,
"���• --ram' 10
lit
xT
07
i�
a
�''� ` _ _ ,� , %� tea.- .:'$!• ..._
- . ,.
lei
le
f+k '� s .. •ram ;`
.J�'� .0 % l �. it .f � .r. y,.. •y fi_ ,f'h,�t^..
��. _ 3-n.._ Wit.- .. _ ;• +_� '� ., .. .
k
(i01]l Env"rimenlal, mc.
T x
Prepared for:
Legend
Conservation Easement
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
Stream Enhancement (Level 11)
Stream Generating No Credit
® Wetlands
Vegetation Plots Meeting Success Criteria
Vegetation Transects Meeting Success Criteria
Cross Sections
o Groundwater Gauges
Walking Paths
100 200 400
Feet
Project:
WARREN WILSON
COLLEGE STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
Buncombe County, NC I
Title:
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
DEC 2020
Scale:
1:1500
Project No.:
20-004
FIGURE
ZB

Legend
Q Conservation Easement
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
Stream Enhancement (Level 11)
Stream Generating No Credit
0 Vegetation Plots Meeting Success Criteria
Vegetation Transects Meeting Success Criteria
Cross Sections
Walking Paths
0 100 200
3 - -
Ball Field
A
J
4
400
w Feet
1M1101
...
7%
T t
Axiom Enwonmenla+, Pm.
Prepared for:
3._ le
.� , � .� �_ ` 1, ."-tiy� •, i- M' a ,(�, .
r tiRESTORATION
p, Ile
.
yu Project:
� - ► � lam' : •
t 'dr # W.,.
WARREN WILSON
.- �.. COLLEGE STREAM
- MITIGATION SITE
Buncombe County, NC
Title:
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
DEC 2020
Scale:
1:1200
Project No.:
20-004
FIGURE
2 C

Z
r .4 , rl
2 J
Swim on
N.
Legend _ a
Conservation Easement��
Stream Restoration
F Z,
Stream Enhancement (Level 1),
Stream Enhancement (Level 11) ''� 4 •
Stream Generating No Credit
® Wetlands t a.
0 Vegetation Plots Meeting Success Criteria
Cross Sections
Groundwater Gauge ;._ '~•
Walking Paths
0 150 300 a 600
Feet - Y
r
Axiom Enwonmenla+. Inc.
Prepared for:
' �• Project:
WARREN WILSON
COLLEGE STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
Pig Pond
" Buncombe County, NC
Title:
T CURRENT
' _ G CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
`►►/.�'. ;S Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
\•�4'. DEC 2020
--f,k Scale:
1:1400
Project No.:
•; i _ p � 20-004
FIGURE
2E
�.
w_

Table 5A
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Warren Wilson College UT-1
756
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
vegetation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
21
21
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
-
21
21
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
21
21
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
21
21
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
21
21
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100/0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
13. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
22
22
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
22
22
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
22
22
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
22
22
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
22
22
o
100/o

Table 513
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Warren Wilson College UT-3
3582
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
vegetation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
44
44
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
-
45
45
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
45
45
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
45
45
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
45
45
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100/0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
13. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
46
46
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
46
46
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
46
46
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
46
46
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
46
46
o
100/o

Table 5C
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Warren Wilson College UT-4
312
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
vegetation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
6
6
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
6
6
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
6
6
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
6
6
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
6
6
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100/0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
13. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
7
7
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
7
7
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
7
7
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
7
7
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
7
7
°
100/o

Table 5D
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Warren Wilson College UT-5
769
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
vegetation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
27
27
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
-
27
27
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
27
27
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
27
27
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
27
27
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100/0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
13. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
27
27
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
27
27
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
27
27
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
27
27
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
27
27
o
100/o

Table 5E
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Warren Wilson College UT-6
1363
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
vegetation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
46
46
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
-
46
46
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
46
46
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
46
46
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
46
46
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100/0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
13. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
47
47
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
47
47
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
47
47
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
47
47
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
47
47
o
100/o

Table 5F
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Warren Wilson College UT-7
2425
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
vegetation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
42
42
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
-
43
43
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
43
43
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
43
43
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
43
43
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100/0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
13. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
45
45
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
45
45
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
45
45
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
45
45
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
45
45
o
100/o

Table 5G
Reach ID
Assessed Length
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Warren Wilson College UT-8
957
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
vegetation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
30
30
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
-
30
30
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
30
30
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
30
30
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
30
30
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100/0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
13. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
31
31
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
31
31
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
31
31
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
31
31
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
31
31
o
100/o

Table 6
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Warren Wilson College
Planted Acreage 19.64
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
I Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
I Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% Of
Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2B. Low Planted Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
None
0.25 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage 25.3
Ve etation Cateaory
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polvaons
Combined
Acrea a
% Of
Easement
Acrea e
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
None
1000 SF
none
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
None
none
none
0
0.00
0.0%
= Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
= The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
= Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those
with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes that are
slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be
mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of
risk factors by DMS such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not Iikley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating
extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given
their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology
scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the

Warren Wilson College
MY-01 (2020) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2020
MY1 (2020) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019)
Warren Wilson College Mitigation Site
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Plot 9
Warren Wilson College
MY-01 (2020) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2020
Plot 8
MY1 (2020) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019)
Warren Wilson College Mitigation Site
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Warren Wilson College
MY-01 (2020) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2020
Plot 16
MY1 (2020) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019)
Warren Wilson College Mitigation Site
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Warren Wilson College
MY-01 (2020) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2020
MY1 (2020) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019)
Warren Wilson College Mitigation Site
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Warren Wilson College
MY-01 (2020) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2020
MY1 (2020) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Appendix C
Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Warren Wilson College Stream Mitigation Site
Species
Total*
Acres
19.64
Cephalanthus occidentalis
50
Diospyros virginiana
500
Liriodendron tulipifera
900
Betula nigra
2800
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
3800
Cornus amomum
3900
Quercus alba
4200
Quercus nigra
4200
Platanus occidentalis
5600
TOTALS
25,950*
"Approximately 5000 live stakes of willow (Salix spp.), elderberry (Sambucus candensis),
silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), and ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius) were planted,
but are not included in this table.
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

Table B. Planted Stems by Plot and Species
CVS Project Code 20004. Project Name: Warren Wilson College
Current Plot Data (MY1 2020)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
20004-01-0001
20004-01-0002
20004-01-0003
20004-01-0004
20004-01-0005
20004-01-0006
20004-01-0007
20004-01-0008
20004-01-0009
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
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
10
12
12
12
2
2
2
5
5
5
2
2
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
8
8
8
12
12
12
4
4
4
6
6
6
1
1
1
3
3
3
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
5
5
5
3
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
5
5
5
10
10
10
Quercus
oak
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
11
11
11
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
6
6
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Wisteria frutescens
American wisteria
Vine
1
1
1
Wisteria sinensis
Chinese wisteria
Exotic
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
9
9
9
16
16
16
31
31
31
23
23
23
16
16
16
19
19
19
26
26
26
14
14
14
13
13
13
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
7
7
7
4
4
4
8
8
8
364.2
364.2
364.2
647.5
647.5
647.5
1255
1255
1255
930.8
930.8
930.8
647.5
647.5
647.5
768.9
768.9
768.9
1052
1052
1052
566.6
566.6
566.6
526.1
526.1
526.1
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P-all = Planted including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Table B. Planted Stems by Plot and Species (continued)
CVS Project Code 20004. Project Name: Warren Wilson College
Current Plot Data (MY1 2020)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
20004-01-0010
20004-01-0011
20004-01-0012
20004-01-0013
20004-01-0014
20004-01-0015
20004-01-0016
20004-01-0017
20004-01-0018
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
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
6
6
6
3
3
3
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
18
16
16
16
13
13
13
9
9
9
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
5
3
3
3
11
11
11
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Wisteria frutescens
American wisteria
Vine
Wisteria sinensis
IChinese wisteria
Exotic
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
15
15
15
6
6
6
15
15
15
8
8
26
20
20
20
21
21
21
23
23
23
19
19
19
20
20
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
6
6
6
2
2
2
6
6
6
5
5
6
3
3
3
6
1849.81
6
6
5
5
5
7
7
7
6
6
6
607
607
607
242.8
242.8
242.81
6071
6071
6071323.71
323.71
10521809.41
809.41
809.4
849.81
849.8
930.81
930.81
930.81
768.91
768.91
768.9
809.41
809.41
809.4
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P-all = Planted including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Table B. Planted Stems by Plot and Species (continued)
CVS Project Code 20004. Project Name: Warren Wilson College
Current Plot Data (MY1 2020)
Annual
Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
20004-01-0019
20004-01-0020
20004-01-0021
20004-01-0022
20004-01-0023
20004-01-0024
20004-01-0025
MY1(2020)
MYO(2020)
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
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
5
5
5
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
75
75
75
77
77
77
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
7
7
7
2
2
2
70
70
70
75
75
75
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
16
16
16
22
22
22
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
16
16
18
18
18
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
11
11
11
8
8
8
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
1
1
1
8
8
8
116
116
134
115
115
115
Quercus
oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
64
64
64
93
93
93
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
37
37
37
35
35
35
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
25
25
25
29
29
29
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
2
2
2
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
5
5
5
Wisteria frutescens
American wisteria
Vine
1
1
1
Wisteria sinensis
Chinese wisteria
Exotic
2
2
2
3
31
3
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
171
17
17
15
15
15
14
14
14
13
13
13��117
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
19
427
427
445
471
471
471
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
25
25
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.62
0.62
31
31
31
61
61
61
51
51
51
51
51
51
71
71
71
71
71
7
5
51
51
13
13
13
ill
11
11
6881
6881
6881
6071
6071
6071566.61
566.61
566.61526.11
526.11
526.11
6881
6881
6881
728.41
728.41
728.41768.91
768.91
768.91
691.21
691.21
720.3
762.41
762.4
762.4
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P-all = Planted including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Table 9. MY Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Warren Wilson College Restoration Site
Species
Common Name
T-1 (216°)
T-2 (145°)
T-3 (212°)
T-4 (270°)
Betula nigra
River birch
2
2
1
Driodendron tulipifera
Tulip poplar
1
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Black gum
2
Diospyros virginiana
Common persimmon
1
Quercus alba
White oak
2
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
6
1
7
1
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
9
Quercus spp.
Oak
5
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
1
7
1
3
Total Number of Stems
Stem Count
Size (Ares)
Size (Acres)
Species count
Stems per acre
13
10
20
12
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
6
5
6
6
Stems/Acre
526
405
809
486

Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals
Warren Wilson College Stream Mitigation Site
Plot #
Planted Stems/Acre
Success Criteria Met?
1
364
Yes
2
647
Yes
3
1255
Yes
4
931
Yes
5
647
Yes
6
769
Yes
7
1052
Yes
8
567
Yes
9
526
Yes
10
607
Yes
11
243
No
12
607
Yes
13
324
Yes
14
809
Yes
15
850
Yes
16
931
Yes
17
769
Yes
18
809
Yes
19
688
Yes
20
607
Yes
21
567
Yes
22
526
Yes
23
688
Yes
24
728
Yes
25
769
Yes
T-1
526
Yes
T-2
404
Yes
T-3
809
Yes
T-4
485
Yes
Average Planted Stems/Acre Across
Permanent & Temporary Plots
672
Yes
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables I IA -I. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12A-I. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic
Containment Parameter Distributions)
Tables 13A-I. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -
Cross -sections)
Tables 14A-I. Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-section Plots
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

Table 1la. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 1 Lower
572 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing
Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference 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
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
2.6
10.9
19.3
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
9.2
10.0
10.7
10.6
11.2
11.2
11.9
2.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
27.0
55.0
75.0
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
25.0
55.0
75.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
2.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
2.0
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft
0.6
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.7
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
3.2
6.8
7.1
6.2
6.2
6.2
16.7
16.7
16.7
7.1
7.1
7.1
9.4
11.1
11.1
12.8
2.0
Width/Depth Ratio
2.1
17.0
53.2
5.1
7.6
11.8
8.1
12.0
14.8
12.0
14.0
16.0
11.1
11.5
11.5
11.9
2.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
6.9
21.2
2.7
2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
1.3
2.9
3.0
8.4
8.9
8.9
9.5
2.0
'Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.8
5.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
1.9
14.9
8.9
55.2
14.8
20.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0286
0.0457
0.0857
0.0055
0.0201
0.0192
0.0387
0.0095
20.0
Pool Length (ft)
2.4
10.7
11.2
19.4
4.8
20.0
Pool Max depth (ft)
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
1.0
1.4
1.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
27.3
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
29.9
39.9
69.8
6.9
30.6
28.0
66.9
16.2
19.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)No
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
56.5
2.3
19.0
15.8
63.8
2.8
25.2
29.4
76.0
3.7
13.4
0.8
59.8
1.0
14.7
2.2
96.3
1.1
16.6
3.3
117.2
1.2
15.0
19.9
59.8
1.5
29.9
29.9
84.7
3.0
39.9
39.9
119.6
4.0
15.0
15.0
59.8
1.5
29.9
29.9
84.7
3.0
39.9
39.9
119.6
4.0
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
7.63
0.78
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mZ
50.82
49.43
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Cg 4
Eb 4
B 4
Cb 4
Cb 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
0.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
27.7
Valley length (ft)
567.0
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
578.0
610.0
601.0
Sinuosity (ft)
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0294
0.0226
0.0167
0.0286
0.0163
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these still typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include infrnrnation from both the cross-section measnrennents and the longitudinal profile. _ -For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the pr jectreach (added bankfuill verification -rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurennent data produce an esthnate of thebankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe ofthe terraceriserAlope.
4-Prop cation of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for connparison to monitoring dam: 5. Ofvahc/needed only ifthen exceeds 3

Table 11b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 1 Upper
436 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference 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
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
2.6
10.9
19.3
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
9.2
10.0
10.7
8.5
9.1
9.1
9.6
2.0
Floodprone Width ft
27.0
55.0
75.0
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
25.0
55.0
75.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
2.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
2.0
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.6
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
0.9
1.1
1.3
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.4
2.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
3.2
1 6.8
7.1
6.2
6.2
6.2
1
16.7
16.7
1
16.7
7.1
7.1
7.1
4.3
5.4
5.4
6.6
2.0
Width/Depth Ratio
.
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
6.9
21.2
2.7
2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
1.3
2.9
3.0
10.4
11.1
11.1
11.8
2.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.8
5.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
1.9
14.9
8.9
55.2
14.8
20.0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0286
0.0457
0.0857
0.0055
0.0201
0.0192
0.0387
0.0095
20.0
Pool Length ft
3i27.3
2.4
10.7
11.2
19.4
4.8
20.0
Pool Max depth ft
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
1.0
1.4
1.4
Pool Spacing ft
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
29.9
39.9
69.8
6.9
30.6
28.0
66.9
16.2
19.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th ft
Meander Width Ratio
*ranspo
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
56.5
1 2.3
19.0
15.8
63.8
2.8
25.2
29.4
76.0
3.7
13.4
0.8
59.8
1.0
14.7
2.2
96.3
1 1.1
16.6
3.3
117.2
1.2
15.0
19.9
59.8
1.5
29.9
29.9
84.7
3.0
39.9
39.9
119.6
1 4.0
15.0
15.0
59.8
1.5
29.9
29.9
84.7
3.0
39.9
39.9
119.6
4.0
LJ
parame ers
Reach Shear Stress coin etenc Ib/f2
7.6
0.8
Max art size min mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacityW/mZ
50.8
49.4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Cg 4
Eb 4
B 4
Cb 4
Cb 4
Bankfull Velocity (fp=F=F s)
0.6
Bankfull Discharge cfs
27.7
Valley length ft
189.0
Channel Thalweg length ft
193.0
478.0
458.0
Sinuosit ft
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope Channel fUft
0.0294
0.0226
0.0167
0.0286
0.0372
BF slope (fUft)
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will nyically not be filled in
1 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measirements and the longitudinal profile. .. For project nth a proximal USGS gauge in -fine with the project reach (added bankfull verification tare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres. which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4-Prop ortion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual smt-ey for comparison to monitoring data. 5. Ofcalue/needed only ifthen exceeds 3

Table 11c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 3 Lower
873 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference 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
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
11.5
12.1
14.1
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
14.8
16.0
17.1
10.6
17.0
17.0
23.5
2.0
Floodprone Width ft
19.0
29.0
100.0
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
2.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.3
1.5
1.6
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.2
2.0
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.6
2.0
2.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
1.4
1.7
2.1
1.7
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
18.2
18.2
18.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
1
16.7
16.7
1
16.7
18.2
18.2
18.2
9.4
18.3
18.3
27.2
2.0
Width/Depth Ratio
.
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
2.5
8.3
2.7
2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
5.4
6.3
7.0
4.3
6.9
6.9
9.5
2.0
'Bank Height Ratio
1.8
2.0
2.4
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
to staightening activities
16.7
35.3
33.0
65.0
13.7
15.0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0141
0.0225
0.0423
0.0081
0.0183
0.0194
0.0276
0.0055
15.0
Pool Length ft
EEdue
11.3
20.4
20.3
29.2
6.5
15.0
Pool Max depth ft
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
1.6
2.2
2.3
Pool Spacing ft
27.3
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
47.9
63.8
111.7
32.2
64.0
57.0
104.0
18.9
15.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th ft
Meander Width Ratio
*ranspo
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
56.5
1 2.3
19.0
15.8
63.8
2.8
25.2
29.4
76.0
3.7
13.4
0.8
59.8
1.0
14.7
2.2
96.3
1 1.1
16.6
3.3
117.2
1.2
23.9
31.9
95.8
1.5
47.9.
47.9
135.7
3.0
63.8
63.8
191.5
1 4.0
23.9
31.9
95.8
1.5
47.9
47.9
165.7
3.0
63.8
47.9
191.5
1 4.0
LJ
parame ers
Reach Shear Stress coin etenc Ib/f2
3.0
0.9
Max art size min mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacityW/mZ
69.1
66.7
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Eg 4
Eb 4
B 4
Ce 4
Ce 4
Bankfull Velocity (fp=F=F s)
1.5
4.2
960.0
Bankfull Discharge cfs
75.8
Valley length ft
1681.0
Channel Thalweg length ft
3582.0
971.0
960.0
Sinuosit ft
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope Channel fUft
0.0146
0.0226
0.0167
0.0155
0.0129
BF slope (fUft)
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will nyically not be filled in
1 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measirements and the longitudinal profile. .. For project nth a proximal USGS gauge in -fine with the project reach (added bankfull verification tare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres. which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4-Prop ortion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual smt-ey for comparison to monitoring data. 5. Ofcalue/needed only ifthen exceeds 3

Table 11d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 3 Upper
1995 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference 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
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
11.5
12.1
14.1
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
14.8
16.0
17.1
14.2
16.1
15.7
18.7
2.1
4.0
Floodprone Width ft
19.0
29.0
100.0
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
4.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.3
1.5
1.6
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.1
4.0
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.6
2.0
2.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
1.4
1.7
2.1
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.9
0.1
4.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
18.2
18.2
18.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
1
16.7
16.7
1
16.7
18.2
18.2
18.2
13.6
16.8
16.2
21.4
3.3
4.0
Width/Depth Ratio
.
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
2.5
8.3
2.7
2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
5.4
6.3
7.0
5.4
6.3
6.4
7.0
0.8
4.0
'Bank Height Ratio
1.8
2.0
2.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
to staightening activities
8.7
33.7
29.5
79.6
18.6
34.0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0141
0.0225
0.0423
0.0082
0.0183
0.0176
0.0338
0.0059
34.0
Pool Length ft
EEdue
10.1
19.3
17.4
42.7
6.6
34.0
Pool Max depth ft
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
1.6
2.2
2.3
Pool Spacing ft
27.3
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
47.9
63.8
111.7
33.6
65.4
61.3
108.0
17.8
33.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th ft
Meander Width Ratio
*ranspo
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
56.5
1 2.3
19.0
15.8
63.8
2.8
25.2
29.4
76.0
3.7
13.4
0.8
59.8
1.0
14.7
2.2
96.3
1 1.1
16.6
3.3
117.2
1.2
23.9
31.9
95.8
1.5
47.9.
47.9
135.7
3.0
63.8
63.8
191.5
1 4.0
23.9
31.9
95.8
1.5
47.9
47.9
165.7
3.0
63.8
63.8
191.5
1 4.0
LJ
parame ers
Reach Shear Stress coin etenc Ib/f2
3.0
0.9
Max art size min mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacityW/mZ
69.1
66.7
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Eg 4
Eb 4
B 4
Ce 4
Ce 4
Bankfull Velocity (fp=F=F s)
1.5
4.2
Bankfull Discharge cfs
75.8
Valley length ft
2223.0
Channel Thalweg length ft
3582.0
2116.0
2195.0
Sinuosit ft
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope Channel fUft
0.0146
0.0226
0.0167
0.0155
0.0139
BF slope (fUft)
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will nyically not be filled in
1 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measirements and the longitudinal profile. .. For project, nth a proximal USGS gauge in -fine with the project reach (added bankfull verification tare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres. which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4-Prop ortion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual smt-ey for comparison to monitoring data. 5. Ofcalue/needed only ifthen exceeds 3

Table 11e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach:
UT 4
278 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference 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
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
8.6
9.3
10.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
1.0
Floodprone Width ft
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
20.0
70.0
120.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.6
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftZ
6.2
6.2
6.2
1
16.7
16.7
1
16.7
6.2
6.2
6.2
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
1.0
Width/Depth Ratio
T
Entrenchment Ratio
2.7
2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
2.3
7.5
12.0
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
1.0
'Bank Hei ht Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
1 1.0
1.0
1.3
1 1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
to staightening activities
10.4
25.1
19.3
63.9
19.9
6.0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0194
0.0311
0.0583
0.0095
0.0338
0.0380
0.0619
0.0189
6.0
Pool Length ft
Edue
12.8
15.0
14.8
19.2
2.3
6.0
Pool Max depth ft
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
0.9
1.3
1.3
Pool Spacing ft
27.3
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
27.9
37.3
65.2
28.3
38.0
42.0
45.3
8.2
6.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th ft
Meander Width Ratio
*ranspo
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
56.5
2.3
19.0
15.8
63.8
2.8
25.2
29.4
76.0
3.7
13.4
0.8
59.8
1.0
14.7
2.2
96.3
1 1.1
16.6
3.3
117.2
1.2
14.0
18.6
55.9
1.5
27.9
27.9
79.2
3.0
37.3
37.3
111.8
1 4.0
27.9
18.6
55.9
1.5
1
27.9
27.9
79.2
3.0
37.3
37.3
111.8
4.0
LJ
parame ers
Reach Shear Stress coin etenc Ib/f2
0.7
Max art size min mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacityW/mZ
28.9
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
G 4
Eb 4
B 4
C4
C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fp=F=F s)
1.2
3.9
Bankfull Discharge cfs
29.6
Valley length ft
312.0
Channel Thalweg length ft
362.0
233.0
292.0
Sinuosit ft
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope Channel fUft
0.0226
0.0226
0.0167
0.0194
0.0235
BF slope (fUft)
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will nyically not be filled in
1 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measirements and the longitudinal profile. .. For project nth a proximal USGS gauge in -fine with the project reach (added bankfull verification tare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres. which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4-Prop ortion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual smt-ey for comparison to monitoring data. 5. Ofcalue/needed only ifthen exceeds 3

Table 11f. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach:
UT 5
1024 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference 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
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
5.6
6.1
7.6
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
7.6
8.2
8.8
7.3
10.5
9.9
14.4
3.0
Floodprone Width ft
8.0
9.0
9.0
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
3.0
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.8
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.5
3.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftZ
4.8
4.8
4.8
6.2
6.2
6.2
1
16.7
16.7
1
16.7
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.5
7.6
7.9
10.4
3.0
Width/Depth Ratio.
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
1.4
1.5
2.7
2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
10.5
t4o
13.7
7.0
10.3
10.1
13.7
3.0
'Bank Hei ht Ratio
2.4
4.8
5.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
to staightening activities
9.2
17.7
15.2
36.5
7.6
31.0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0134
0.0214
0.0401
0.0111
0.0268
0.0248
0.0631
0.0105
31.0
Pool Length ft
Edue
5.5
12.1
12.5
18.2
3.0
30.0
Pool Max depth ft
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
0.8
1.1
1.2
Pool Spacing ft
27.3
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
24.6
32.8
57.4
24.0
34.6
32.5
50.2
6.8
30.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th ft
Meander Width Ratio
*ranspo
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
56.5
1 2.3
19.0
15.8
63.8
2.8
25.2
29.4
76.0
3.7
13.4
0.8
59.8
1.0
14.7
2.2
96.3
1 1.1
16.6
3.3
117.2
1 1.2
12.3
16.4
49.2
1.5
24.6
24.6
69.7
3.0
32.8
32.8
98.4
1 4.0
12.3
16.4
49.2
1.5
1
24.6
32.8
69.7
3.0
32.8
47.9
98.4
4.0
LJ
parame ers
Reach Shear Stress coin etenc Ib/f2
7.6
0.4
Max art size min mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacityW/mZ
15.8
15.1
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
G 3
Eb 4
B 4
Ce 4
Ce 4
Bankfull Velocity (fp=F=F s)
0.3
3.8
Bankfull Discharge cfs
18.1
Valley length ft
1158.0
Channel Thalweg length ft
769.0
1076.0
1076.0
Sinuosit ft
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope Channel fUft
0.014
0.0226
0.0167
0.0134
0.0221
BF slope (fUft)
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will nyically not be filled in
1 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measirements and the longitudinal profile. .. For project nth a proximal USGS gauge in -fine with the project reach (added bankfull verification tare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres. which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4-Prop ortion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual smt-ey for comparison to monitoring data. 5. Ofcalue/needed only ifthen exceeds 3

Table 11g. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach:
UT 6
1265 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference 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
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
4.2
5.5
6.4
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
6.1
6.6
7.0
9.5
10.4
10.1
11.7
1.0
4.0
Floodprone Width ft
8.0
9.0
9.0
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
4.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.2
4.0
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.6
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.3
0.2
4.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftZ
3.1
1 3.1
3.1
6.2
6.2
6.2
1
16.7
16.7
1
16.7
3.1
3.1
3.1
5.6
7.0
7.1
8.1
1.3
4.0
Width/Depth Ratio
.
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
1.5
2.1
2.7
1 2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
4.1
7.6
10.6
8.5
9.7
9.9
10.5
0.9
4.0
'Bank Hei ht Ratio
2.8
3.9
5.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
to staightening activities
4.8
16.1
13.5
45.8
8.4
47.0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0042
0.0067
0.0125
0.0004
0.0085
0.0066
0.0510
0.0087
36.0
Pool Length ft
Edue
2.0
10.3
10.9
15.7
3.5
46.0
Pool Max depth ft
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
0.7
0.9
0.9
Pool Spacing ft
27.3
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
19.8
26.4
46.1
14.5
30.9
29.5
60.5
8.8
46.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th ft
Meander Width Ratio
*ranspo
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
56.5
1 2.3
19.0
15.8
63.8
2.8
25.2
29.4
76.0
3.7
13.4
0.8
59.8
1.0
14.7
2.2
96.3
1.1
16.6
3.3
117.2
1.2
9.9
13.2
39.5
1.5
19.8
19.8
56.0
3.0
26.4
26.4
79.1
1 4.0
9.9
13.2
39.5
1.5
19.8
19.8
56.0
3.0
26.4
26.4
79.1
4.0
LJ
parame ers
Reach Shear Stress coin etenc Ib/f2
1.1
0.1
Max art size min mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacityW/mZ
2.8
3.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
G 3
Eb 4
B 4
Ce 4
Ce 4
Bankfull Velocity (fp=F=F s)
0.4
3.7
Bankfull Discharge cfs
11.5
Valley length ft
2135.0
Channel Thalweg length ft
1363.0
1455.0
1455
Sinuosit ft
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope Channel fUft
0.0039
0.0226
0.0167
0.0042
0.0051
BF slope (fUft)
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will nyically not be filled in
1 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measirements and the longitudinal profile. .. For project nth a proximal USGS gauge in -fine with the project reach (added bankfull verification tare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres. which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4-Prop ortion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual smt-ey for comparison to monitoring data. 5. Ofcalue/needed only ifthen exceeds 3

Table 11h. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach:
UT 7
1844 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference 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
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
7.0
7.4
9.7
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
8.6
9.3
10.0
10.1
11.9
12.2
13.2
1.4
4.0
Floodprone Width ft
10.0
13.0
17.0
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
20.0
70.0
120.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
4.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.1
4.0
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.8
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.2
4.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
1
16.7
16.7
1
16.7
6.2
6.2
6.2
5.2
8.3
8.6
10.7
2.5
4.0
Width/Depth Ratio
.
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
1.5
2.4
2.7
2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
2.3
7.5
12.0
7.6
8.5
8.2
9.9
1.1
4.0
'Bank Height Ratio
1.4
1.9
2.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
to staightening activities
7.7
27.4
24.3
91.3
15.5
44.0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0194
0.0311
0.0583
0.0003
0.0126
0.0097
0.0396
0.0113
44.0
Pool Length ft
Edue
4.0
11.3
11.7
15.8
2.7
44.0
Pool Max depth ft
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
0.9
1.3
1.3
Pool Spacing ft
27.3
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
27.9
37.3
65.2
22.3
44.2
40.1
107.9
16.3
43.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th ft
Meander Width Ratio
*ranspo
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
56.5
1 2.3
19.0
15.8
63.8
2.8
25.2
29.4
76.0
3.7
13.4
0.8
59.8
1.0
14.7
2.2
96.3
1 1.1
16.6
3.3
117.2
1.2
14.0
18.6
55.9
1.5
27.9
27.9
79.2
3.0
37.3
37.3
111.8
1 4.0
27.9
18.6
55.9
1.5
27.9
27.9
79.2
3.0
37.3
37.3
111.8
4.0
LJ
parame ers
Reach Shear Stress coin etenc Ib/f2
2.1
0.7
Max art size min mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacityW/mZ
30.1
28.9
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Gb 4
Eb 4
B 4
Eb 4
Eb 4
Bankfull Velocity (fp=F=F s)
1.6
3.9
Bankfull Discharge cfs
23.9
Valley length ft
1985.0
Channel Thalweg length ft
2426.0
1973.0
1973
Sinuosit ft
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope Channel fUft
0.0202
0.0226
0.0167
0.0194
0.0103
BF slope (fUft)
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will nyically not be filled in
1 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measirements and the longitudinal profile. .. For project nth a proximal USGS gauge in -fine with the project reach (added bankfull verification tare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres. which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4-Prop ortion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual smt-ey for comparison to monitoring data. 5. Ofcalue/needed only ifthen exceeds 3

Table 11i. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach:
UT 8
760 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference 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
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
5.6
6.8
9.4
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
6.6
7.1
7.6
10.3
12.0
12.1
13.7
3.0
Floodprone Width ft
11.0
12.0
19.0
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
3.0
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.7
3.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
3.6
1 3.6
3.6
6.2
6.2
6.2
1
16.7
16.7
1
16.7
3.6
3.6
3.6
6.4
8.3
8.3
10.2
3.0
Width/Depth Ratio
.
Entrenchment Ratio
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.7
1 2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
3.8
7.0
9.9
7.3
8.4
8.2
9.7
3.0
'Bank Height Ratio
2.3
2.7
3.8
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
to staightening activities
7.8
15.9
13.8
32.4
7.2
27.0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0144
0.0231
0.0433
0.0002
0.0098
0.0101
0.0231
0.0056
27.0
Pool Length ft
Edue
6.8
12.2
12.4
19.9
2.6
27.0
Pool Max depth ft
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
0.7
1.0
1.0
Pool Spacing ft
27.3
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
21.3
28.4
49.7
24.1
32.2
30.6
48.2
6.9
26.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th ft
Meander Width Ratio
*ranspo
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
56.5
1 2.3
19.0
15.8
63.8
2.8
25.2
29.4
76.0
3.7
13.4
0.8
59.8
1.0
14.7
2.2
96.3
1.1
16.6
3.3
117.2
1.2
10.6
14.2
42.6
1.5
21.3
21.3
63.9
3.0
28.4
28.4
85.2
1 4.0
10.6
14.2
42.6
1.5
1
21.3
21.3
64.0
3.0
28.4
28.4
85.2
4.0
LJ
parame ers
Reach Shear Stress coin etenc Ib/f2
1.1
0.4
Max art size min mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacityW/mZ
3.9
12.3
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Eg 4
Eb 4
B 4
C 4
C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fp=F=F s)
0.4
3.8
Bankfull Discharge cfs
13.5
Valley length ft
1047.0
Channel Thalweg length ft
957.0
874.0
874.0
Sinuosit ft
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope Channel fUft
0.0046
0.0226
0.0167
0.0144
0.0063
BF slope (fUft)
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will nyically not be filled in
1 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measirements and the longitudinal profile. .. For project nth a proximal USGS gauge in -fine with the project reach (added bankfull verification tare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres. which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4-Prop ortion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual smt-ey for comparison to monitoring data. 5. Ofcalue/needed only ifthen exceeds 3

Table 12a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 1 Lower (572 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
RI% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
49
5
39
10
SC% / Sa%/ G%I C%I B%/ Be%
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 I d95 I dip I dip (mm)
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
Table 12b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 1 Upper (436 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
RI% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
58
5
26
7
SC% / Sa%/ G%I C%I B%/ Be%
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 I d95 I dip I dip (mm)
Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
Table 12c. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 3 Lower (873 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
RI% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
55
3
32
10
SC% / Sa%/ G%I C%I B%/ Be%
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 I d95 I dip I dip (mm)
Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typical Iynot be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = maxsubpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as visual estimates
3=Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 -These classes are I oosleybuilt around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a sub sampee (cross -sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measu rem ents and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER,visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampl in of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross -sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 12d. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 3 Upper (1995 feet)
Condition
-------MMMMMMM
-------
-------
-------
_______
•
M-----M
Table 12e. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 4 (278 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
RI% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
52
3
31
9
SC% / Sa%/ G%I C%I B%/ Be%
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 I d95 I dip I dip (mm)
Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
Table 12f. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 5 (1024 feet)
.
�.
�.
Shaded cells indicate that these will typical Iynot be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = maxsubpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as visual estimates
3=Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 -These classes are I oosleybuilt around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a sub same Ie (cross -sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measu rem ents and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER,visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampl in of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross -sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 12g. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 6 (1265 feet)
Condition
-------MMMMMMM
-------
-------
-------
_______
•
M-----M
Table 12h. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 7 (1844 feet)
.
�.
111
As-built/Baseline
awnwe
Table 12i. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 8 (760 feet)
.
�.
111
As-built/Baseline
Shaded cells indicate that these will typical Iynot be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = maxsubpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as visual estimates
3=Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 -These classes are I oosleybuilt around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a sub same Ie (cross -sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measu rem ents and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER,visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampl in of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross -sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

MonitoringTable 13a. Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 1 Lower (572 feet)
Monitoring
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Hill -fl
Table 13b. D.. - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Warren l Segment/Reach: LIT 1 Upper (436 feet)
[ = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensionalldepositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which shauld be cansistent and based on the baseline data m established. If the performer has inhedted the pr ject and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary"
Monitoring
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Hill -fl
Table 13b. D.. - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Warren l Segment/Reach: LIT 1 Upper (436 feet)
[ = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensionalldepositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which shauld be cansistent and based on the baseline data m established. If the performer has inhedted the pr ject and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary"
[ = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensionalldepositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which shauld be cansistent and based on the baseline data m established. If the performer has inhedted the pr ject and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary"

MonitoringTable 13c. Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 3 Lower (873 feet)
Record elevation (datum)used
Monitoring D.. - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: LIT 3 Upper (1995 feet)
I
[=Widthsanddepthsforannualmeasurementswillbeb.sedonthebaselinebankfulldatumregardlessofdimensionalldepositionaldevelopment.Inputtheelevationusedasthedatum,whichshouldbeconsistentandb.sedonthebaselined...established iftheperformerhasinheritedtheprojest.ndcannotacquirethedatum.sed
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over them on itoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary"

MonitoringTable 13e. Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Warren l Segment/Reach: UT 4 (278 feet)
Monitoring
BankfullWidth/Depth Ratio
Table 13f. D.. - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Warren l Segment/Reach: UT 5 (1024 feet)
.ep ®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
1 - Widths antl tlepths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline b,mkf.II tlatum mgartlless of tlimensionalltlepositional d—lopmcm. Input the elevation —d as the tlatum, which should be consistent antl b—d oo the baseline data. establishetl. If the performer has ioh—d the pr ject antl cannot acquire the tlatum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary"
Monitoring
BankfullWidth/Depth Ratio
Table 13f. D.. - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Warren l Segment/Reach: UT 5 (1024 feet)
.ep ®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
1 - Widths antl tlepths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline b,mkf.II tlatum mgartlless of tlimensionalltlepositional d—lopmcm. Input the elevation —d as the tlatum, which should be consistent antl b—d oo the baseline data. establishetl. If the performer has ioh—d the pr ject antl cannot acquire the tlatum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary"
1 - Widths antl tlepths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline b,mkf.II tlatum mgartlless of tlimensionalltlepositional d—lopmcm. Input the elevation —d as the tlatum, which should be consistent antl b—d oo the baseline data. establishetl. If the performer has ioh—d the pr ject antl cannot acquire the tlatum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary"

MonitoringTable 13g. D.. - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Warren 000
Bankfull Mean Depth (fid
CrossSectionalArea between end
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurem en[s will be based on the baseline ba nkfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based an [he baseline datum established. If the performer has inhed[ed [he pr jec[ and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary"

MonitoringTable 13h. D.. - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Warren ,,,
TWIT 77
BankfullBankHeightR-.MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM®MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
®=M=MMMMMMM=M=®®M=M===MMMMM===MMMMM
1 = Widths and depths for annual mea suremer¢s will be based on the baseline ba nkfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based an the baseline datum established. If the performer has inhedwd the pr ject and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary"

MonitoringTable 13i. Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Warren 000
Bankfull Mean Depth (fid
1 = Widths and tlepths for annual measureme- will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional devebpment. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based an the baseline d—m established. if the performer has inhedwd the pr ject and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states 'it is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary"

Table 14a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 1 Lower (572 feet)
Parameter
Baseline
MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.56
11.22
11.22
11.88
2
11.8
11.1
11.1
12.8
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
100
100
100
100
2
100
100
100
100
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.888
0.981
0.981
1.075
2
0.8
0.9
0.9
1
2
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft
1.703
1.895
1.895
2.0871
2
1 1.7
1.8
1 1.8
1 1.9
1 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)
9.378
11.07
11.07
12.77
2
9.4
11.1
11.1
12.8
2
Width/Depth Ratio
11.06
11.47
11.47
11.88
2
14
14.4
14.4
14.8
2
Entrenchment Ratio
8.416
8.944
8.944
9.472
2
7.5
8
8
8.5
2
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
2
1
1.1
1.1
1.2
2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
1.924
14.87
8.897
55.19
14.76
20
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
0.020
0.019
0.039
0.010
20
Pool Length (ft)
2.416
10.68
11.19
19.43
4.772
20
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
6.911
30.62
28.03
66.88
16.18
19
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
15
29.9
39.9
Radius of Curvature (ft)
15
29.9
39.9
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
59.82
84.7
119.6
Meander Width Ratiol
1.5
3
4
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Cb 4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
601
Sinuosity (ft)
1.05
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0163
BF slope (ft/ft)
......
3Ri%/ Ru%/ P%/ G%/ S°/
3SC%/ Sa%/ G%/ C%/ B%/ Be°/
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
2% of Reach with Eroding Bank
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
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 = 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 14b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 1 Upper (436 feet)
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Bankfull Width ft
8.5
9.052
9.052
9.603
2
9
9.5
9.5
10
2
Floodprone Width ft
100
100
100
100
2
100
100
100
100
2
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.503
0.593
0.593
0.684
2
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
2
' Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.831
1.111
1.111
1.391
2
1
1.2
1.2
1.4
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
4.276
5.421
5.421
6.566
2
4.3
5.5
5.5
6.6
2
Width/Depth Ratio
14.05
15.47
15.47
16.9
2
15.2
17
17
18.8
2
Entrenchment Ratio
10.41
11.09
11.09
11.76
2
2.8
6.4
6.4
10
2
'Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
Profile
Riffle Length ft
12.63
22.14
20.55
43.08
8.919
12
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.021
0.040
0.039
0.066
0.014
12
Pool Length ft
6.968
9.924
8.689
18.48
3.385
12
Pool Max depth ft
Pool Spacing ft)
26.4
37.44
34.84
52.16
8.468
11
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 15 29.9 39.9
Radius of Curvature ft 15 29.9 39.9
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft
Meander Wavelen th ft 59.82 84.7 119.6
Meander Width Ratiol 1.5 1 1 3 1 4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Cb 4
Channel Thalweg length ft
458
Sinuosity ft
1.05
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0372
BF slope ft/ft
......
3Ri%/ Ru%/ P%/ G%/ S°/
3SC%/ Sa%/ G%/ C%/ B%/ Be°/
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
Z% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
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 = 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 14c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 3 Lower (873 feet)
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
Mean
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Bankfull Width ft
10.56
17.01
17.01
23.46
2
23.5
23.7
23.7
23.8
2
Floodprone Width ft
100
100
100
100
2
100
100
100
100
2
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.888
1.024
1.024
1.159
2
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.2
2
' Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.703
1.899
1.899
2.094
2
1.4
1.8
1.8
2.1
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
17
1 22.1
1 22.1
1 27.2
1
1 2
1 17
1 22.1
22.1
27.2
1
1 2
Width/Depth Ratio
11.88
16.06
16.06
20.24
2
1 20.3
1 26.8
1 26.8
33.3
2
Entrenchment Ratio
4.262
6.8b/
6.8b/
9.412
2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.3
1
1 2
'Bank Height Ratio_
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
Profile
Riffle Length ft
16.73
35.32
33.02
64.95
13.72
15
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.008
0.018
0.019
0.028
0.006
15
Pool Length ft
11.32
20.36
20.28
29.23
6.49
15
Pool Max depth ft
Pool Spacing ft)
32.17
64.03
56.97
104
18.91
15
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 23.9 47.9 63.8
Radius of Curvature ft 31.9 47.9 47.9
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft
Meander Wavelen th ft 95.8 165.7 191.5
Meander Width Ratiol 1.5 1 1 3 1 4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Ce 4
Channel Thalweg length ft
960
Sinuosity ft
1.1
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0129
BF slope ft/ft
------
3Ri%/ Ru%/ P%/ G%/ S°/
3SC%/ Sa%/ G%/ C%/ B%/ Be°/
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
Z% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
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 = 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 14d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 3 Upper (1995 feet)
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Bankfull Width ft
14.25
16.1
15.75
18.67
2.069
4
9
11.7
11.7
27.7
4
Floodprone Width ft
100
100
100
100
0
4
100
100
100
100
4
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.951
1.041
1.033
1.146
0.095
4
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.2
4
' Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.611
1.793
1.83
1.903
0.131
4
1
1.5
1.5
2.5
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
13.55
116.84,
16.2
1 21.4
3.291
1 4
1 13.6
1 16.2
16.2
21.4
1
1 4
Width/Depth Ratio
13.341
15.5
115.63
117.3811.7391
4
1 11.2
1 17
17
46.8
4
Entrenchment Ratio
5.356
6.286
6.384
7.02
0.783
4
2.8
5.5
5.5
1 10
1
4
'Bank Height Ratio_
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 0
4
1
1
1
1
4
Profile
Riffle Length ft
8.655
33.73
29.5
79.65
18.55
34
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.008
0.018
0.018
0.034
0.006
34
Pool Length ft
10.08
19.26
17.43
42.65
6.576
34
Pool Max depth ft
Pool Spacing ft)
33.58
65.36
61.27
108
17.84
33
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 23.9 47.9 63.8
Radius of Curvature ft 31.9 47.9 63.8
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft
Meander Wavelen th ft 95.8 165.7 191.5
Meander Width Ratiol 1.5 1 1 3 1 4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Ce 4
Channel Thalweg length ft
2195
Sinuosity ft
1.1
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0139
BF slope ft/ft
------
3Ri%/ Ru%/ P%/ G%/ S°/
3SC%/ Sa%/ G%/ C%/ B%/ Be°/
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
Z% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
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 = 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 14e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 4 (278 feet)
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Bankfull Width ft
13.97
13.97
13.97
13.97
1
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
1
Floodprone Width ft
100
100
100
100
1
100
100
100
100
1
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.952
0.952
0.952
0.952
1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1
' Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.613
1.613
1.613
1.613
1
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
13.3
1 13.3
1 13.3
1 13.3
1
1 1
1 13.3
1 13.3
13.3
13.3
1
1 1
Width/Depth Ratio
14.67
114.67114.67
114.671
1 1
1 31.6
1 31.6
31.6
31.6
1
Entrenchment Ratio
7.158
7.158
7.158
7.158
1
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.9
1
'Bank Height Ratio_
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Profile
Riffle Length ft
10.42
25.15
19.31
63.94
19.9
6
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.009
0.034
0.038
0.062
0.019
6
Pool Length ft
12.84
14.96
14.76
19.24
2.287
6
Pool Max depth ft
Pool Spacing ft)
28.34
38
42.04
45.35
8,199
6
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 27.9 27.9 37.3
Radius of Curvature ft 18.6 27.9 37.3
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft
Meander Wavelen th ft 55.9 79.2 111.8
Meander Width Ratiol 1.5 1 1 3 1 4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
C 4
Channel Thalweg length ft
292
Sinuosity ft
1.05
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0235
BF slope ft/ft
......
3Ri%/ Ru%/ P%/ G%/ S°/
3SC%/ Sa%/ G%/ C%/ B%/ Be°/
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
Z% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
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 = 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 14f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 5 (1024 feet)
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Bankfull Width ft
7.288
10.52
9.918
14.36
3
10.5
18.3
18.3
21
3
Floodprone Width ft
100
100
100
100
3
100
100
100
100
3
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.614
0.711
0.725
0.796
3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.8
3
' Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.978
1.348
1.528
1.54
3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
7.3
1 7.9
1 7.9
1 10.4
1
1 3
1 7.3
1 7.9
7.9
10.4
1
1 3
Width/Depth Ratio
11.87
114.72112.47
119.81
1
1 3
1 14
1 32.2
32.2
60.4
3
Entrenchment Ratio
6.966
10.26
10.08
13. /2
3
1.9
2.2
2.2
1 3.8
1
3
'Bank Height Ratio_
1
1
1
1
3
1
0.9
0.9
1
3
Profile
Riffle Length ft
9.158
17.7
15.15
36.54
7.615
31
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.011
0.027
0.025
0.063
0.010
31
Pool Length ft
5.509
12.12
12.54
18.16
3.017
30
Pool Max depth ft
Pool Spacing ft)
24.01
34.63
32.47
50.16
6.837
30
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 12.3 24.6 32.8
Radius of Curvature ft 16.4 32.8 47.9
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft
Meander Wavelen th ft 49.19 69.7 98.37
Meander Width Ratiol 1.5 1 1 3 1 4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Ce 4
Channel Thalweg length ft
1076
Sinuosity ft
1.05
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0221
BF slope ft/ft
......
3Ri%/ Ru%/ P%/ G%/ S°/
3SC%/ Sa%/ G%/ C%/ B%/ Be°/
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
Z% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
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 = 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 14g. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 6 (1265 feet)
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Bankfull Width ft
9.483
10.37
10.12
11.74
0.964
4
10.6
13
13
13.6
4
Floodprone Width ft
100
100
100
100
0
4
100
100
100
100
4
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.533
0.686
0.676
0.857
0.166
4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
4
Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.865
1.074
1.056
1.319
0.198
4
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.3
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
5.639
7.015
7.145
8.131
1.26
1 4
1 5.6
1 7.2
7.2
8.1
1
1 4
Width/Depth Ratio
11.06
16.01
15.47
122.0415.0781
4
1 19.9
1 21.6
1 21.6
1 27.7
1
4
Entrenchment Ratio
8.519
19.707
9.882
10.54
0.852
4
1 2
1 7.5
I 7.5
1 9.4
1
4
'Bank Height Ratio_
1
1
1
1
1 0
4
1
1
1
1
4
Profile
Riffle Length ft
4.81
16.05
13.49
45.77
8.382
47
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.000
0.008
0.007
0.051
0.009
36
Pool Length ft
1.97
10.27
10.89
15.65
3.499
46
Pool Max depth ft
Pool Spacing ft)
14.55
30.95
29.52
60.46
8.806
46
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 9.9 19.8 26.4
Radius of Curvature ft 13.2 19.8 26.4
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft
Meander Wavelen th ft 39.5 56 79.1
Meander Width Ratiol 1.5 1 1 3 1 4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Ce 4
Channel Thalweg length ft
1455
Sinuosity ft
1.15
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0051
BF slope ft/ft
......
3Ri%/ Ru%/ P%/ G%/ S°/
3SC%/ Sa%/ G%/ C%/ B%/ Be°/
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
Z% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
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 = 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 14h. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 7 (1844 feet)
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Bankfull Width ft
10.09
11.92
12.22
13.15
1.402
4
10.1
13.5
13.5
15.1
4
Floodprone Width ft
100
100
100
100
0
4
100
100
100
100
4
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.515
0.681
0.69
0.83
0.139
4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
4
Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.82
1.123
1.163
1.345
0.235
4
1
1.2
1.2
1.3
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
5.196
8.26
18.583
10.68
2.517
4
1 5.2
1 8.6
8.6
10.7
1
1 4
Width/Depth Ratio
15.52
117.76117.95
119.6111.7341
4
1 19.6
1 21
21
1 21.8
1
4
Entrenchment Ratio
7.602
8.481
8.207
9.908
1.056
1 4
1 0.7
1 1.5
1.5
1 2
1
4
'Bank Height Ratio_
1
1
1
1
0
4
1
1
1
1.2
4
Profile
Riffle Length ft
7.735
27.4
24.34
91.32
15.53
44
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.000
0.013
0.010
0.040
0.011
44
Pool Length ft
4.044
11.28
11.73
15.84
2.729
44
Pool Max depth ft
Pool Spacing ft)
22.31
44.19
40.07
107.9
16.31
43
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 27.9 27.9 37.3
Radius of Curvature ft 18.6 27.9 37.3
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft
Meander Wavelen th ft 55.9 79.2 111.8
Meander Width Ratiol 1.5 1 1 3 1 4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Eb 4
Channel Thalweg length ft
1973
Sinuosity ft
1.07
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0103
BF slope ft/ft
......
3Ri%/ Ru%/ P%/ G%/ S°/
3SC%/ Sa%/ G%/ C%/ B%/ Be°/
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
Z% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
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 = 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 14i. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 8 (760 feet)
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Bankfull Width ft
10.34
12.04
12.13
13.66
3
10.3
12.9
12.9
15.2
3
Floodprone Width ft
100
100
100
100
3
100
100
100
100
3
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.624
0.684
0.684
0.745
3
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
3
Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.197
1.433
1.426
1.677
3
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
6.446
8.305
8.293
10.18
1 3
1 6.4
1 8.3
8.3
10.2
1
1 3
Width/Depth Ratio
16.57
117.55117.74
118.341
1 3
1 16.6
1 20
20
22.7
3
Entrenchment Ratio
7.32
8.413
8.244
9.676
3
1.6
1.9
1.9
2.2
3
'Bank Height Ratio_
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
3
1 1.1
1 1.1
1.1
1 1.2
3
Profile
Riffle Length ft
7.812
15.86
13.77
32.44
7.157
27
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.023
0.006
27
Pool Length ft
6.84
12.15
12.42
19.87
2.569
27
Pool Max depth ft
Pool Spacing ft)
24.07
32.15
30.62
48.15
6.855
26
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 10.65 21.3 28.4
Radius of Curvature ft 14.2 21.3 28.4
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft
Meander Wavelen th ft 42.6 64 85.2
Meander Width Ratiol 1.5 1 1 3 1 4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
C 4
Channel Thalweg length ft
874
Sinuosity ft
1.15
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0063
BF slope ft/ft
------
3Ri%/ Ru%/ P%/ G%/ S°/
3SC%/ Sa%/ G%/ C%/ B%/ Be°/
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
Z% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
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 = 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

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 1, XS -1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/19/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.2
2571.5
4.1
2570.6
6.1
2570.0
7.4
2569.2
8.2
2568.2
8.9
2568.0
9.8
2568.0
10.3
2568.0
11.1
2567.9
11.4
2568.0
11.8
2568.4
12.3
2568.6
13.4
2568.7
14.6
2569.0
16.1
2569.4
17.7
2569.8
19.4
2569.8
22.2
2570.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2569.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
12.8
Banld'ull Width:
13.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2571.8
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.9
Low Bank Height:
1.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
14.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Cb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 1, XS -1, Riffle
2572
2571
2570
0
2569
o',
ti
w
- - - - • Flood Prone Area
MY-00 1/21/20
2568
f MY-01 10/19/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
2566
_ _ _ _. BankfWl
0
10 20 30
Station (feet)

I`
1
..._
a:
Stream Type Cb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 1, XS - 2, Pool
2572
2571
t2570
0
2569
MY-001/21/20
ti
w
--a-- MY-01 10/19/20
2568
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-oo TOB
.... • Bankfiill
2567
0
10 20 30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 2, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/19/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
2571.0
3.5
2570.E
5.4
2570.4
6.3
2570.2
7.8
2568.5
8.7
2568.4
9.7
2568.3
10.3
2568.1
11.1
2568.E
11.7
2568.E
12.2
2569.0
12.7
2569.9
14.0
2569.9
15.0
2570.2
17.2
2570.4
20.0
2570.4
13.2
2569.7
13.8
2569.9
15.0
2570.0
15.9
2570.3
17.0
2570.4
18.0
2570.3
20.1
2570.3
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
2570.0
Banld'ull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.3
Banldull Width:
7.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.9
Low Bank Height:
1.9
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
1.1
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

`
w
7
1.
w.m�r„-•-=_
''
t
1
r
;r
Stream Cb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
2578
2577
02576--------------------------
-------------
ti
W
MY-oo vzvzo
25 74
t MY-o 1 1 o/19/zo
■ MY-oI LTOB
MY-oo TOB
----• BankfWl
2573
0
10
20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/19/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
2575.9
4.6
2575.7
6.5
2575.3
7.5
2575.0
8.2
2574.7
8.9
2574.4
9.7
2574.2
10.4
2574.1
11.2
2574.1
12.0
2574.4
12.E
2574.8
13.0
2575.1
13.8
2575.2
14.5
2575.E
15.7
2575.8
17.7
2576.4
18.9
2576.5
20.3
2576.E
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2575.E
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
7.4
Bankfull Width:
9.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
Low Bank Height:
1.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 1, XS -4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/19/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
2576.3
3.2
2576.0
4.7
2575.5
5.7
2575.3
6.3
2575.2
6.8
2574.9
7.5
2574.3
8.3
2574.5
9.3
2574.4
9.9
2574.E
10.5
2575.0
11.4
2575.3
13.1
2575.9
15.1
2576.2
17.4
2576.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2576.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
9.4
Banld'ull Width:
11.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2577.8
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.7
Low Bank Height:
2.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
14.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.2
s.
r �.:::tc.•:,c..
Stream Cb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
2579
2578
2577
--------------------------------- -----------
o', 2576
ti
w - - - - • Flood Prone Area
MY-00 1/21/20
25 74 t MY-01 10/19/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
25 73 _ _ _ _- BankfWl
0 10 20
Station (feet)

Stream Cb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
2600
----------------------------------------------------------
2599
0
a
ti
w 2598
- - - -- Flood Prone Area
MY-00 1/21/20
f MY-01 10/19/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
2597
----. BankfWl
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/19/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.2
2599.0
1.5
2598.8
3.1
2598.7
4.6
2598.3
5.4
2598.2
5.9
2597.9
6.4
2597.7
7.4
2597.4
8.3
2597.4
8.8
2597.5
9.5
2597.8
10.0
2597.E
10.7
2597.9
11.4
2598.1
12.4
2598.2
13.5
2598.4
14.7
2598.3
16.3
2598.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2598.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.3
Banld'ull Width:
9.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2599.4
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.0
Low Bank Height:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
18.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
11.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

i
Stream Type Cb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 1, XS - 6, Pool
2600
2599
----------------
----------------------�.�---
w2598
MY-001/21/20
f MY-01 10/19/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
---• BankMI
2597
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS
Station
Elevation
0.0
2599.5
2.1
2599.0
4.1
2598.8
5.2
2598.5
6.0
2598.1
6.7
2597.E
7.5
2597.3
8.4
2597.2
8.9
2597.3
9.3
2597.4
9.7
2597.8
10.1
2598.3
10.8
2598.2
12.4
2598.4
14.5
2598.3
15.9
2598.5
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
2598.4
Banld'ull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.8
Banldull Width:
9.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.1
Low Bank Height:
1.1
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

r
Stream Type Cb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 1, XS - 7, Pool
2606
2605
- J
0 2604
>
MY-00 1/21/20
ti
w
2603
f MY-01 10/19/20
■ MY-o11.TOB
MY-00 TOB
-----BankMl
2602
0
10
20 30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/19/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.3
2605.2
0.0
2605.2
3.1
2604.9
5.7
2604.7
6.6
2604.4
7.2
2604.0
7.9
2603.4
8.4
2603.0
8.5
2603.0
9.1
2603.2
9.9
2603.1
10.3
2603.2
11.0
2603.2
11.2
2603.4
11.9
2604.0
12.6
2604.5
14.1
2604.8
15.8
2604.9
18.1
2605.0
20.5
2605.2
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
2604.9
Banld'ull Cross -Sectional Area:
9.0
Banld'ull Width:
11.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.8
Low Bank Height:
1.8
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

r.�
��LL'gy\���1%�.
�7
Stream
Cb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 1, XS - 8, Riffle
2608
----------------------------------------------------------------
2607
0 260E
ti
w
� - - - • Flood Prone Area
2605
MY-00 1/21/20
f MY-01 10/19/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
2604
_ _ _ _, BankfWl
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/19/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
2606.1
2.3
2606.3
3.5
2606.0
5.1
2605.5
6.0
2605.1
6.5
2605.0
7.2
2604.E
7.5
2604.5
8.1
2604.5
8.7
2604.5
9.5
2604.8
10.0
2605.1
11.3
2605.3
12.7
2605.7
14.5
2605.9
16.3
2605.9
18.0
2606.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2605.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.6
Banld'ull Width:
10.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2607.3
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.4
Low Bank Height:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
15.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/20/2020
Field Crew:
I Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
2550.3
5.1
2549.9
9.1
2549.2
10.6
2549.0
11.6
2548.6
12.5
2548.1
13.3
2548.2
14.3
2548.0
15.4
2548.0
16.4
2547.8
17.3
2547.8
18.5
2547.8
19.7
2548.0
20.1
2548.1
21.4
2548.3
22.5
2548.3
23.5
2548.5
24.0
2548.5
25.4
2548.9
27.1
2549.4
30.7
2549.7
35.8
2549.7
37.9
2549.8
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2549.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
27.2
Banld'ull Width:
31.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2551.8
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banl full:
2.0
Low Bank Height:
2.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
36.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS -1, Riffle
2552
I
I
2551
m
2550
�
'
------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2549
MY-001/21/20
'
W
--- -•Flood Prone Area
I
2548
f MY-01 10/20/20 I
■ MY-01 LTOB I
MY-00 LTOB '
1
2547
1 ----• BankfWl
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)

�.
#
f
V.6,
r
;• 8s5
Stream Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS - 2, Pool
2552
2551
a�
2549
0
ro
'm
2548
W
MY-oo vzvzo
t MY-o 1 1 o/zo/z0
2547
■ MY-o1 LTOB
MY-oo TOB
----• BankfWl
2546
0
10
20 30
40
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 2, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/20/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
2550.3
5.7
2550.1
8.9
2549.8
10.E
2549.5
11.8
2549.1
13.1
2548.3
15.0
2548.1
16.E
2547.3
17.E
2547.2
18.5
2547.0
19.1
2546.9
19.8
2547.E
20.7
2548.0
21.3
2549.7
22.8
2550.2
24.9
2550.E
29.7
2550.7
33.0
2550.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2549.E
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
16.7
Banld'ull Width:
11.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
2.7
Low Bank Height:
2.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
�i
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT3, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/20/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
2558.6
3.7
2558.2
5.2
2557.8
6.6
2557.0
7.3
2556.1
8.7
2555.6
9.9
2555.6
11.2
2555.6
12.5
2555.9
13.8
2556.3
15.1
2556.5
15.4
2556.5
16.4
2556.9
17.7
2557.2
19.4
2557.5
21.4
2557.9
27.0
2557.8
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2557.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
21.3
Bankfull Width:
21.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
2.3
Low Bank Height:
2.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS - 3, Pool
2560
2559
a�
- - - - - - - - - - -----------------------------------
2557
0
ro
2556
MY-00 1/21/20
t MY-01 10/20/20
2555
■ MY-OI LTOB
MY-00 TOB
----•BankMI
2554
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/20/2020
Field Crew:
I Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
2558.9
6.2
2558.2
7.0
2557.9
8.0
2557.6
9.1
2557.4
9.9
2557.2
11.0
2557.0
12.2
2556.9
13.8
2556.7
15.4
2556.8
16.9
2556.9
18.9
2557.0
20.1
2557.2
21.1
2557.4
22.1
2557.6
23.9
2558.1
24.5
2558.1
27.5
2558.2
29.9
2558.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2558.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
17.0
Bankfull Width:
23.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2559.6
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Low Bank Height:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
33.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS - 4, Riffle
2560
-------------------------------------------------
2559
a�
a�
0 2558
j- - - - • Flood Prone Area
ti
(� MY-00 1/21/20
2557 f MY-o110/20/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
2556 ____. BankfWl
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 5, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/20/2020
Field Crew:
I Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.2
2602.8
5.2
2602.3
7.8
2602.1
10.5
2601.6
12.6
2601.0
14.2
2600.3
14.8
2599.4
16.5
2598.8
17.6
2598.9
19.0
2598.9
20.0
2599.3
21.3
2599.5
21.7
2599.7
22.7
2600.4
23.6
2600.6
25.1
2601.1
26.6
2601.4
28.0
2601.5
30.7
2601.6
36.0
2601.5
39.6
2601.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2601.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
19.1
Bankfull Width:
13.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.4
Low Bank Height:
2.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS - 5, Pool
2604
2603
2602
IN
0
---------------- ----------------
2601NEI
ro
W 2600
MY-oo 1/21/20
f MY-ol 10/20/20
■ MY-oI LTOB
2599
MY-oo TOB
----•Ban fw
2598
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/20/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
2603.0
4.5
2603.1
8.3
2602.9
10.2
2602.7
11.9
2602.3
13.6
2601.8
14.9
2601.4
15.9
2601.2
16.5
2601.1
17.6
2601.0
18.9
2600.9
20.3
2601.0
21.6
2601.2
22.6
2601.4
23.3
2601.6
24.5
2601.7
25.5
2602.1
27.1
2602.6
28.4
2602.84
32.7
2603.11
37.7
2603.17
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2602.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
21.4
Banld'ull Width:
19.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2604.7
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.9
Low Bank Height:
1.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
W / D Ratio:
18.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS - 6, Riffle
2605
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2604
a�
�2603
----------------------------
ro
2602
j�
- - - - • Flood Prone Area
MY-00 1/21/20
2601
f MY-01 10/20/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
2600
----• BankfWl
0 10 20
30 40
Station (feet)

71
Stream Ce 4
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 7, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/20/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
2610.0
4.4
2610.0
7.8
2609.5
9.6
2609.2
11.3
2608.8
12.1
2608.4
12.7
2608.3
13.9
2608.5
15.0
2608.3
15.6
2608.3
16.5
2608.4
17.7
2608.4
18.4
2608.9
19.8
2609.1
21.1
2609.3
22.5
2609.7
27.2
2609.7
31.3
2609.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2609.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
13.6
Banld'ull Width:
24.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2611.1
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.4
Low Bank Height:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
45.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.0
Bank Height Ratio:
LO
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS -7 ,Riffle
2612
a�
2610
ro
2609
j�
- - - - •Flood Prone Area
MY-00 1/21/20
2608
f MY-01 10/20/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
2607
- - - - • Bankfiill
0 10 20
30 40
Station (feet)

ti
`s. :;
4
- a..
r
s'y
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS - 8, Pool
2613
2612
----------------
---------------
--------------
�2611
0
2610
MY-oo 1 1 0
f�
--a-- MY-oi ioizoizo
2609
■ MY-o1 LTOB
MY-oo TOB
----• BankMl
2608
0 10
20
30
40 50
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 8, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/20/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
2611.8
6.4
2612.1
113
2611.8
13.7
2611.1
152
2610.7
15.9
2609.0
17.7
2608.7
19.0
2608.E
19.8
2608.7
20.7
2609.0
21.E
26093
223
2609.9
23.0
26102
24.5
2610.E
26.0
2610.8
27.9
26113
29.7
2611.5
35.4
2611.E
40.1
2611.5
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
26113
Banld'ull Cross -Sectional Area:
20.8
Banld'ull Width:
14.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
2.7
Low Bank Height:
2.7
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
1.4
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

- `:�'_ .p
- x
{r
r:..r
L
?i
:A }
'it e
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS - 9, Riffle
2619
-----------------------
2618
-----------------
ai
02617---------
--------------------------
---- -
ti
(�
- - - - - Flood Prone Area
MY-00 1/21/20
2616
f MY-01 10/20/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
2615
- - - - - BankfWl
0
10
20 30
40
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 9, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/20/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
2617.1
6.1
2617.0
10.6
2616.7
12.8
2616.2
13.9
2615.E
14.9
2615.7
17.0
2615.E
18.3
2615.E
19.3
2615.5
19.9
2615.5
21.1
2615.4
21.9
2615.8
23.2
2616.0
24.2
2616.4
26.1
2616.9
30.3
2616.8
34.0
2616.8
35.9
2616.9
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
2616.9
Banld'ull Cross -Sectional Area:
16.4
Banld'ull Width:
27.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2618.4
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.5
Low Bank Height:
1.5
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
46.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

?�
�.. i
4i+<
...
1. "ate-••dir.a.. _.
:�
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS - 10, Pool
2618
2617
m
w
0 2616
f�
MY-oo iizvzo
2615
tMY-ol ioizoizo
■ MY-oI LTOB
MY-oo TOB
----•BankMl
2614
0
10
20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/20/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.1
2617.7
5.4
2617.5
8.3
2617.0
9.8
2616.7
11.3
2616.4
12.2
2615.8
13.2
2615.5
14.0
2615.0
14.5
2614.E
15.3
2614.E
15.7
2614.E
16.5
2614.8
16.5
2614.8
17.0
2614.9
17.3
2616.5
18.4
2616.7
20.E
2617.1
22.5
2617.3
25.2
2617.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2617.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
16.7
Banld'ull Width:
15.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
2.7
Low Bank Height:
2.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 11, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/20/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.6
2623.9
6.7
2623.0
10.3
2622.5
12.1
2621.8
12.5
2621.3
13.0
2620.5
14.2
2620.5
14.9
2620.2
16.0
2620.5
17.1
2620.8
17.9
2621.0
18.5
2621.2
19.2
2621.2
20.3
2621.6
21.7
2622.0
23.8
2622.4
26.4
2623.1
30.5
2623.4
33.7
2623.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2623.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
28.8
Banld'ull Width:
22.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
3.0
Low Bank Height:
2.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS - 11, Pool
2625
2624
a�
2623
0
ro
2622
MY-00 1/21/20
t MY-01 10/20/20
2621
■ MY-o1LTOB
MY-00 TOB
----•BankMI
2620
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)

y
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS - 12, Riffle
262E ------------------------------------------------
2625
2623
o-------
--------------------
1-----------
2622
- - - - • Flood Prone Area
W
MY-00 1/21/20
2621
t MY-01 10/20/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
2620
BankfWl
0
10
20 30 40
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/20/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-02
2623.E
4.7
2623.4
73
2623.1
8.7
2622.7
9.9
2622.1
11.0
2621.8
11.7
2621.5
12.5
2621.4
133
26212
14.1
2620.8
14.8
2620.5
153
2620.E
15.9
2620.7
16.9
2621.0
17.1
2621.1
18.1
26223
19.9
2622.8
222
26233
262
2623.7
29.4
2624.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2622.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
16.0
Banld'ull Width:
13.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2625.4
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
2.5
Low Bank Height:
2.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
12
W / D Ratio:
112
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

;�.
31
LI ::fix•. �:�::.:.
-y.
�..�k'✓,71'-.N' a
,+'
Stream C 4
Warren Wilson, UT 4, XS - 1, Pool
2587
2586
-------------------
ai
0 2585
W
MY-001/21/20
25 83
f MY-01 10/20/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
..... BankfWl
2582
0
10
20
30 40
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 1, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/20/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
2586.0
5.1
2585.8
9.2
2585.5
11.3
2585.1
12.5
2584.8
13.5
2584.0
14.6
2583.7
15.7
2583.E
16.7
2583.7
18.2
2583.7
18.8
2584.3
19.7
2585.1
20.8
2585.5
22.E
2585.9
25.9
2585.7
28.7
2585.E
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2585.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
11.8
Banld'ull Width:
11.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.9
Low Bank Height:
1.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/20/2020
Field Crew:
I Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
2586.9
4.4
2587.0
7.2
2586.9
9.6
2586.4
11.5
2585.8
12.3
2585.5
13.1
2585.3
14.3
2585.1
15.4
2585.1
16.8
2585.3
17.6
2585.3
18.9
2585.6
20.5
2586.3
21.8
2586.7
24.9
2586.7
28.7
2586.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2586.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
13.3
Bankfull Width:
20.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2588.3
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
Low Bank Height:
1.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
31.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I C 4
Warren Wilson, UT 4, XS - 2, Riffle
2589
------------------------------------------
2588
�t2587
0
2 25 86
W
- • Flood Prone Area
MY-001/21/20
2585
f MY-01 10/20/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
2584
----• BankfWI
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)

s,
•
..
. _'
•?n
�. f. •. ti..
Al
Stream
Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 5, XS - 1, Pool
516
514
a�
w
0 513
W
MY-001/21/20
5 12
t MY-01 10/19/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
----. BankfWl
511
0
10
20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 5, XS - 1, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/19/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
514.4
4.1
514.5
5.7
514.0
7.3
514.1
8.2
513.5
8.9
513.0
9.4
511.9
10.2
511.6
11.2
511.5
12.7
511.5
13.3
511.6
14.1
511.6
14.6
512.9
15.2
513.4
16.7
514.0
18.2
514.2
20.4
514.1
22.4
514.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
514.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
15.3
Banld'ull Width:
11.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
2.6
Low Bank Height:
2.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

.
�...
.:'
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren
Wilson, UT 5, XS - 2, Riffle
516
-------------------------------------------.
515
a�
0 514
ti�
� � � •Flood Prone Area
W 513
MY-001/21/20
t MY-01 10/19/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
512
_ _ _ _ • BankfWI
0
10
20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 5, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/19/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-02
514.7
3.4
514.6
5.5
514.4
6.7
514.0
7.4
513.8
7.9
5132
9.0
513.0
9.9
513.0
11.0
513.0
11.6
513.0
122
513.0
12.5
513.3
13.4
513.6
142
513.9
14.9
514.3
16.4
514.3
18.1
514.5
19.9
514.6
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
514.3
Banld'ull Cross -Sectional Area:
7.9
Banld'ull Width:
10.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
515.6
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
13
Low Bank Height:
13
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
14.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

\�.
f :k
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 5, XS - 3, Pool
521
-----------
------------------------------
520
w
0
ro
t1
MY-001/21/20
W519
t MY-01 10/19/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
----. BankfWI
518
0
10
20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 5, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/19/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
520.8
4.2
520.7
6.8
520.3
7.5
520.1
8.0
519.1
8.7
519.2
9.8
519.1
10.2
518.9
11.2
519.1
11.8
519.1
12.4
519.8
13.0
520.1
13.9
520.4
15.4
520.7
17.4
520.6
20.1
520.7
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
520.5
Banld'ull Cross -Sectional Area:
7.4
Banldull Width:
9.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.6
Low Bank Height:
1.5
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 5, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/20/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
521.3
4.2
521.4
7.8
521.1
8.8
520.8
9.4
520.7
10.1
520.3
10.7
520.1
11.1
520.2
11.9
520.3
12.4
520.4
12.8
520.8
13.2
521.0
14.6
521.1
15.5
521.3
18.2
521.4
21.0
521.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
521.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
7.3
Bankfull Width:
21.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
522.9
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.4
Low Bank Height:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
60.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Warren Wilson, UT 5, XS - 4, Riffle
523
--------------------------------------------------
522
a�
0
521
W-
- - - . Flood Prone Area
520
MY-001/21/20
f MY-01 10/20/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
- - - - - BankfWI
519
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS
k.:
y;
f.'..
+err.�r
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 5, XS - 5, Pool
532
531
.90
a�
---- ---------------- ---
0 530
ti MY-001/21/20
W t MY-01 10/20/20
529
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
-. BankfWI
528
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)
Ira
Ap
D
Station
Elevation
0.0
531.1
3.4
530.8
6.1
530.6
8.3
530.5
9.0
529.9
9.8
528.6
11.2
528.5
12.2
528.8
13.3
528.8
13.7
529.2
14.2
529.8
14.7
530.1
16.4
530.3
18.0
530.7
20.5
530.9
22.7
531.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
530.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.7
Banld'ull Width:
8.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.9
Low Bank Height:
2.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1

.,
r
..
:..
�...�
,..
..,"',.
F°
Stream Type
Ce 4
Warren
Wilson, UT 5, XS - 6, Riffle
533
----------------------
532
•----------
0531
-----------------------------
-- --
W
--- - •Flood Prone Area
MY-001/21/20
530
f MY-01 10/20/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
529
----• BankfWI
0
10
20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS
Station
Elevation
0.0
531.5
3.7
531.2
6.8
531.0
8.4
530.7
9.8
530.3
10.7
530.1
11.4
530.0
12.1
529.9
12.7
529.8
13.5
529.7
15.0
530.0
16.6
530.4
17.9
530.8
19.5
530.9
23.0
531.0
25.3
531.3
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
531.1
Banld'ull Cross -Sectional Area:
10.4
Banld'ull Width:
18.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
532.5
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.4
Low Bank Height:
1.3
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
32.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.5
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 6, XS - 1, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.4
21.3
1.9
21.3
3.1
20.9
4.0
20.5
4.9
19.7
5.6
19.7
6.4
20.0
7.0
20.1
7.8
20.3
8.3
20.5
8.9
20.6
9.9
20.8
10.9
21.1
12.0
21.5
13.2
21.6
15.6
21.8
17.8
22.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
21.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.3
Banld'ull Width:
11.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.6
Low Bank Height:
1.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 6, XS - 1, Pool
23
21
-
-
--
-------------------------------
0
W 20
MY-003/17/20
f MY-01 110/21/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
----. BankfWI
19
0 10 20
Station (feet)

7
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 6, XS - 2, Riffle
23
-------------------
22
-----
w
o------------------------------
------------
N
21
--- - •Flood Prone Area
W
MY-003/17/20
f SerieM
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
20
- - - - • BankfWI
0
10 20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS
Station
Elevation
0.2
21.9
4.6
21.7
6.8
21.4
7.9
21.1
8.9
21.0
10.0
20.8
11.1
20.7
12.4
20.7
13.3
20.8
14.5
21.0
15.1
21.2
16.2
21.6
17.3
21.8
19.5
21.8
21.9
22.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
21.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.6
Banld'ull Width:
10.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
22.4
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
19.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 6, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
24.1
3.4
23.6
5.2
23.5
6.8
23.5
8.1
23.1
9.0
22.6
9.7
22.5
10.9
22.4
11.7
22.4
12.8
22.4
14.0
22.6
14.9
23.0
16.0
23.6
17.3
23.9
18.8
24.1
22.8
24.6
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
23.7
Banld'ull Cross -Sectional Area:
9.8
Banld'ull Width:
11.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.7
Low Bank Height:
1.7
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
k
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 6, XS - 3, Pool
25
24
a�
w
0 23
ro
MY-00 3/17/20
ti
W t MY-01 10/21/20
22 ■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
-. BankfWI
21
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 6, XS -4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
I Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
24.3
3.1
23.8
6.3
23.7
6.9
23.5
7.5
23.0
8.1
22.9
9.2
22.7
10.2
22.7
11.5
22.7
13.2
22.9
14.2
23.0
15.0
23.4
16.1
23.7
17.3
23.9
19.4
24.1
21.3
24.3
-I
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
23.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.0
Bankfull Width:
13.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
24.9
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Low Bank Height:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
23.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 6, XS - 4, Riffle
26
25
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---� -- -----
a�
w
24
---- -------------------------
tiFlood
W
Prone Area
MY-00 3/17/20
23
f MY-01 10/21/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
22
• BankfWI
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

Site
�i
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 6, XS -5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
26.4
3.5
26.4
6.5
26.3
7.7
25.5
8.9
25.1
10.2
25.1
11.6
25.1
12.1
25.4
13.3
25.6
14.2
25.8
15.6
26.2
17.9
26.4
21.1
26.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
26.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.1
Bankfull Width:
12.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
27.7
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Low Bank Height:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
19.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Warren Wilson, UT 6, XS - 5, Riffle
28
--------------------------------------------------
27
a�
0
26
W-
- - - • Flood Prone Area
MY-00 3/17/20
25
f MY-01 10/21/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
----• BankfWl
24
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

;S
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 6, XS - 6, Pool
28
27
a�
0 26
ti
W
MY-00 3/17/20
t MY-01 10/21/20
25
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
----. BankfWI
24
0
10 20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 6, XS - 6, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
26.9
4.4
26.9
6.3
26.4
7.8
26.0
8.3
25.5
9.5
25.2
10.5
25.1
11.3
25.1
12.4
25.3
13.4
25.7
14.4
25.9
15.6
26.2
17.0
26.3
20.6
26.5
23.5
26.7
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
26.4
Banld'ull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.4
Banld'ull Width:
13.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.4
Low Bank Height:
1.3
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9

:.
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren
Wilson, UT 6, XS - 7, Pool
29
28
ai
a
27
j
ti
W
MY-00 3/17/20
t MY-01 10/21/20
26
■ MY-01 LT.
MY-00 T.
----- BankfWI
25
0
10
20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS
Station
Elevation
0.0
28.0
5.8
28.0
8.1
27.8
9.9
27.0
11.8
26.2
12.5
25.6
13.3
25.5
14.4
25.5
15.3
25.4
16.0
26.0
17.3
26.1
18.4
26.6
20.8
26.9
24.2
27.3
27.8
27.3
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
27.2
Banld'ull Cross -Sectional Area:
11.1
Banld'ull Width:
13.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.7
Low Bank Height:
1.6
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 6, XS -8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.1
27.4
4.9
27.1
9.8
26.8
11.8
26.6
12.8
26.1
14.4
26.0
15.8
26.0
16.9
26.2
17.9
26.5
18.8
26.8
19.9
27.1
21.5
27.3
25.4
27.2
29.2
27.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
27.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.3
Bankfull Width:
13.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
28.0
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Low Bank Height:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
27.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
Warren Wilson, UT 6, XS - 8, Riffle
29
28
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
w
0
27
W-
- - -. Flood Prone Area
26
MY-00 3/17/20
f MY-01 10/21/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
----• BankfWl
25
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)

v' k
a
Stream Type
Eb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 7, XS -1, Riffle
28
27
------------------------
0 26
W
--- - •Flood Prone Area
25
MY-00 3/17/20
t MY-01 10/21/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
24
MY-00 TOB
0
10
20 - - - - • BankfWl 3 0
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS
Station
Elevation
0.0
25.6
4.4
25.7
6.3
25.6
7.5
25.1
8.4
24.5
9.4
24.6
10.9
24.4
11.9
24.4
12.7
24.5
13.8
24.6
14.8
24.6
15.9
24.8
17.5
25.4
19.2
25.7
21.1
26.0
25.1
26.0
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
25.7
Banld'ull Cross -Sectional Area:
10.7
Banld'ull Width:
15.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
27.0
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.3
Low Bank Height:
1.3
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
21.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Stream Type Eb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 7, XS - 2, Pool
27
26
--------------------------------------
----------
0 25
W
24
MY-00 3/17/20
f MY-01 10/21/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
23
----• BankfWl
0
10 20 30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 7, XS - 2, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
1.0
25.4
4.9
25.6
6.0
25.4
7.2
24.8
8.6
24.2
10.0
23.7
11.2
23.4
12.3
23.4
13.6
23.5
14.6
23.5
15.6
24.2
16.3
24.7
17.7
25.3
18.8
25.4
20.6
25.8
21.7
26.0
25.2
26.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
25.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
18.2
Banld'ull Width:
18.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
2.1
Low Bank Height:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 7, XS -3, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
I Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
25.7
3.8
25.5
4.6
25.2
5.5
24.7
6.7
24.6
7.6
24.4
8.3
24.6
9.5
24.5
10.5
24.4
11.7
24.7
12.8
24.9
14.6
25.2
16.4
25.6
17.5
25.9
21.8
26.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
25.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
9.9
Bankfull Width:
14.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
26.8
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Low Bank Height:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
21.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I Eb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 7, XS - 3, Riffle
27
------------
26
'77N ------------------ ---- ----------
2
W25
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 3/17/20
MY-01 10/21/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
24
- MY-00 TOB
0 10 20
----•BankfW1 30
Station (feet)

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 7, XS - 4, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
I Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.5
25.7
3.9
25.7
6.4
25.2
7.6
24.7
8.2
24.5
8.8
24.0
9.8
23.8
10.9
23.8
12.8
23.6
14.0
23.7
15.0
24.7
16.2
25.1
17.7
25.5
19.7
25.9
21.2
25.9
23.3
26.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
25.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
13.0
Bankfull Width:
12.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
Low Bank Height:
1.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I Eb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 7, XS - 4, Pool
27
26
a�
0
25
4j
MY-00 3/17/20
24
f MY-01 111/21/21
■ MY-W LTOB
MY-00 TOB
23
----• BankfWI
0 10 20
30
Station (feet)

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 7, XS -5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
I Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.2
30.9
3.5
30.6
6.2
29.9
7.2
29.6
8.1
29.5
8.7
29.3
9.6
29.1
10.6
29.1
11.7
29.1
12.5
29.3
13.6
29.5
14.5
29.8
15.9
30.0
18.3
30.3
21.2
30.5
23.2
30.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
30.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
7.2
Bankfull Width:
12.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
31.2
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Low Bank Height:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
20.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
Stream Type I Eb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 7, XS - 5, Riffle
32
-------------------------------------------------------
31
0
30
-------------------------- -- - - - - - -
- - - -
W
- - - - • Flood Prone Area
29
7
MY-00 3/17/20
MY-01 10/21/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
28
MY-00 TOB
0
10 20
----. BankfWI 30
Station (feet)

,.
b- -
-.
•`'
_` ,•. . �.
Stream Type Eb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 7, XS - 6, Pool
32
31
0 30
2
j�
MY-00 3/17/20
29
f MY-0110/21/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
28
----•Bankroll
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 7, XS - 6, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.4
31.4
2.5
31.3
4.2
30.7
5.6
30.4
6.9
30.0
7.7
29.2
7.9
29.2
8.8
29.1
9.6
29.1
10.5
29.2
11.2
29.3
11.7
29.8
12.2
30.4
13.7
30.9
15.3
31.2
17.8
31.4
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
30.9
Banld'ull Cross -Sectional Area:
10.7
Banld'ull Width:
10.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.9
Low Bank Height:
1.8
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 7, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
I Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.2
37.7
3.5
37.4
5.1
37.3
6.0
37.1
7.0
36.6
7.9
36.1
8.8
35.7
10.0
35.7
10.8
35.7
11.6
35.6
12.1
35.7
12.9
36.1
13.5
36.7
14.4
37.4
15.2
37.7
18.0
37.8
19.9
37.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
37.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
11.6
Bankfull Width:
11.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
Low Bank Height:
1.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9
39
38
a�
w
0 37
2
W
36
35
oF-r
--r
_a 04
k..
Stream Type I Eb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 7, XS - 7, Pool
------------------ ff -------------
MY-00 3/17/20
f MY-01 10/21/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
- - - - • BankfWI
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

t
.r
•�7-1
Stream Type Eb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 7, XS - 8, Riffle
40
----------------------------------------------------------------
39
o------------
--------------------------------
--------------
W
38
- - - • Flood Prone Area
MY-00 3/17/20
MY-01 10/21/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
3 7
MY-00 TOB
0
10
----. BankfWl 20
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 7, XS -8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
39.3
2.9
38.8
4.6
38.4
5.9
38.2
7.1
38.1
8.0
37.8
8.5
37.8
9.9
37.6
10.8
37.9
11.9
38.0
12.4
38.3
13.7
38.6
14.9
38.8
16.5
38.8
18.0
38.8
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
38.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.2
Banld'ull Width:
10.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
39.6
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.0
Low Bank Height:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
19.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.2

,.. -.: ..
..
Stream Type C 4
Warren Wilson, UT 8, XS - 1, Riffle
517
516
m
w
0 515
j�
- - - - •Flood Prone Area
514
MY-001/21/20
MY-01 10/21/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
513
-
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 8, XS -1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.7
515.4
4.5
514.8
7.6
514.3
8.8
514.0
9.3
514.0
9.8
513.8
11.0
513.7
12.8
513.6
13.8
514.1
14.8
514.3
16.2
514.7
19.1
515.2
22.1
515.7
24.4
515.9
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
515.0
Banld'ull Cross -Sectional Area:
10.2
Banld'ull Width:
15.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
516.3
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.3
Low Bank Height:
1.5
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
22.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.2

:.
_
ar r.:=�
'r
s:
1�IQ 9raF
Stream Type C 4
Warren Wilson, UT 8, XS - 2, Pool
517
516
------ --
----------------------------
---------------
0 514
W
513
MY-001/21/20
f MY-01 10/21/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
512
----•B-kfWl
0
10
20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 8, XS - 2, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.3
515.5
5.9
515.0
7.6
514.8
9.0
514.2
9.8
514.0
10.6
513.6
11.1
513.4
11.9
513.2
12.9
513.1
14.2
513.2
15.2
513.4
15.9
513.6
16.7
514.1
18.1
514.7
19.4
515.1
21.9
515.4
24.3
515.6
26.3
515.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
515.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
13.9
Banld'ull Width:
13.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.9
Low Bank Height:
1.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

�.
t..
. .
-
' �. aye
'•F'i. r: '.a_: •�
,.rs.. -
,1`.
Stream Type C 4
Warren Wilson, UT 8, XS - 3, Riffle
519
----------------
518
m
w
0 517
--------------
WFlood
Prone Area
516
MY-001/21/20
t MY-01 10/21/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
515
MY-00 TOB
0
10
20
----• BankfWI 30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 8, XS - 3, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.1
517.3
3.5
516.8
5.1
516.8
6.2
516.4
7.0
516.0
7.5
515.9
8.3
515.6
9.4
515.6
10.5
515.5
11.3
515.9
12.1
516.1
13.2
516.4
15.4
516.8
17.5
517.0
21.1
517.5
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
516.9
Banld'ull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.3
Banld'ull Width:
12.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
518.3
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.4
Low Bank Height:
1.5
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
20.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1

. sr
�.
Stream Type C 4
Warren
Wilson, UT 8, XS - 4, Pool
518
�517 ----- ------------------------
---------
w
0
ti516
^V
MY-001/21/20
MY-01 10/21/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
515
----• BankfWl
0
10
20 30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 8, XS - 4, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.2
517.5
2.8
517.0
5.0
517.1
6.3
516.7
7.6
516.4
8.6
516.1
9.2
515.9
10.3
515.4
10.8
515.3
11.5
515.3
12.2
515.4
13.0
515.7
13.5
516.2
14.9
516.7
15.9
516.9
17.9
517.1
20.9
517.6
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
517.0
Banld'ull Cross -Sectional Area:
9.1
Banld'ull Width:
11.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Banl�ull:
1.6
Low Bank Height:
1.6
Mean Depth at Banl�ull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

k
e
Stream C 4
Warren Wilson, UT 8, XS - 5, Riffle
521
520 --------------------------------------------------
0 519
W
518
- - - - • Flood Prone Area
MY-001/21/209
MY-01 10/21/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
517
MY-00 TOB
0
10 20
----. BankfWl 30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 8, XS -5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
-0.1
519.1
3.4
518.9
5.3
518.8
6.8
518.3
6.9
518.3
8.1
518.1
8.8
517.7
10.0
517.5
10.8
517.6
11.6
517.8
12.8
518.0
13.7
518.3
16.4
518.8
19.3
519.0
21.1
519.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
518.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.4
Banld'ull Width:
10.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
519.9
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.2
Low Bank Height:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
16.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 8, XS - 6, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/21/2020
Field Crew:
I Perkinson, Keith
Station
Elevation
0.0
519.4
4.2
519.0
6.3
518.6
7.8
518.1
8.7
517.8
9.4
517.9
10.3
517.4
11.4
517.2
12.3
517.0
13.3
517.1
14.1
517.0
14.8
517.6
15.7
518.0
16.7
518.4
19.2
518.8
22.4
519.0
25.3
519.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
518.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
13.1
Bankfull Width:
14.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
Low Bank Height:
1.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I C 4
Warren Wilson, UT 8, XS - 6, Pool
520
519
m
w
0
518
2
j�
MY-001/21/20
517
---45- MY-01 10/21/20
■ MY-01 LTOB
MY-00 TOB
516
----• BankfWI
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

Appendix E
HYDROLOGY DATA
Tables 15A-C Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 16. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 17A-B. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Bud Burst Documentation Photographs
Figure E-1. Year 1 (2020) Soil Temperature Data
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

Table 15A. UT3 Channel Evidence
UT3 Channel Evidence
Year 1
(2020)
Year 2
(2021)
Year 3
(2022)
Year 4
(2023)
Year 5
(2024)
Year 6
(2025)
Year 7
(2026)
Max consecutive days channel flow
159
Presence of litter and debris(wracking)
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation herbaceous or otherwise
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial
vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or
inundation for a long duration, including h dro h tes
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel
braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or
roots stems
Yes
-plant
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
I No
Other:
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

c
7
J
w
M
V)
E
w
Warren Wilson Creek UT3 Stream Flow Gauge
Year 1 (2020 Data)
23
21
19
17
15
13
11
9
7
5
3
1
1
F-' F-' N N N W W W A A A W W VI 0) 0) 0) J V V 00 00 00 LO W LO
N A F\-' N W F\-` N A F\-' N A F\-' N W F\-' N W I\-' N N F\-` N F\-' F\-� N
\ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ Fes-` fN.. fW..
N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N
O O O
3.0
2.5
c
2.0
Y
a
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Table 1513. UT6 Channel Evidence
UT6 Channel Evidence
Year 1
2020
Year 2
2021
Year 3
(2022)
Year 4
(2023)
Year 5
(2024)
Year 6
(2025)
Year 7
(2026)
Max consecutive days channel flow
33*
Presence of litter and debris(wracking)
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation herbaceous or otherwise
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial
vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or
inundation for a long duration, including h dro h tes
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel
braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or
roots stems
Yes
-plant
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
I No
Other:
*The gauge was installed August 1, 2020. Based on precipitation data, adjacent groundwater gauge data (Gauge 9), and other Site stream gauge data, it is
expected to have flowed consecutively for much of the year 1 (2020) monitoring period.
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

Warren Wilson Creek UT6 Stream Flow Gauge
24
22
20
18
c
16
w
J 4,
14
V)
E 12
V)
10
8
6
4
2
0
W W W A A A VI VI VI 0) 0) 0) V V V 00 00 00 LD LO l0
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O O
F-' N A F-' N Ln F-' N A F+ N A F-' N W F-' N W F-' N N F-' N F-' F-' N \ \ \ \
\ \ N \ \ N \ \ N p. \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ Fes-` fN.. fW..
N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N
O O O
3.0
2.5
c
2.0
c
7
E
a
1.5
Cf
1.0
0.5
0.0

Table 15C. UT8 Channel Evidence
UT8 Channel Evidence
Year 1
2020
Year 2
2021
Year 3
(2022)
Year 4
(2023)
Year 5
(2024)
Year 6
(2025)
Year 7
(2026)
Max consecutive days channel flow
241
Presence of litter and debris(wracking)
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation herbaceous or otherwise
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial
vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or
inundation for a long duration, including h dro h tes
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel
braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or
roots stems
Yes
-plant
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
I No
Other:
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

Warren Wilson Creek UT8 Stream Flow Gauge
24
22
20
18
c
16
w
bD
J
m 14
Ln
w 12
Y
h
10
8
6
4
2
0
N N W W W A A A VI VI VI 0) 0) 0) V V V 00 00 00 LO LO l0
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O O
F-' N A F-' N VI F-' N A N A F-' N W F-' N W F-' N N F-' N
\ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ Fes-` M fW..
N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N
O O O
3.0
2.5
c
2.0
c
3
E
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Table 16. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence
Method
Photo
if available
Stream gauges and trail cameras captured a
May 20, 2020
May 20, 2020
bankfull event at UT8 after 4.47 inches of rain
1
was documented between May 19 and 20, 2020 at
a nearby weather station.
Wrack and laid-back vegetation were observed
November 4, 2020
October 27, 2020
outside the TOB of UT3 after 4.7 inches of rain
2
was documented between October 27 and 28,
2020 at a nearby weather station.
Photo 1: UT8 atbankfu11 stage.
�1
r
!
,�
��'�L� 1 ✓ r�i �- �1 Ilil �- �I 1 I;�I�lill.,�l I ...Ili iP�. ��.,
y ._ -^ _ .. {�� � � • �f i ,� � 1 �'Ijl i � '_ i it �� ' II Ili J
MYI Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

MYI Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

Table 17A. Groundwater Hydrology Data: Mitigation Success (UT-3B, Little Berea/
Clingman's)
Typical Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
(2019)
(2020)
(2021)
(2022)
(2023)
(2024)
(2025)
3
Yes
127 days (55.0%)
4
Yes
32 days (13.9%)
5
Yes
174 days (75.3%)
6
Yes
93 days (40.3%)
7
Yes
72 days (31.2%)
8
Yes
231 days (100%)
Table 17B. Groundwater Hydrology Data: Potential Wetland Loss Monitoring Areas
Typical Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
(2019)
(2020)
(2021)
(2022)
(2023)
(2024)
(2025)
I
Yes
37 days (16.0%)
2
Yes
61 days (26.4%)
9
Yes
175 days (75.8%)
10
No*
9 days (3.9%)
*Gauge was not installed until August 1, 2020. It is expected to have exceeded typical wetland success criteria had it
been installed earlier in the growing season.
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

c
u
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-2 2
-24
-2 6
-28
-30
-3 2
-34
-3 6
-38
-40
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 1 (2020 Data)
N N W W W W 4�- 4�- 4�- Ln Ln Ln M M M �I v v M M W l0 l0 lO I-- h- h-
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O N N
\ N N N O O \ N N N O O O O O O \ l0 l0 \ l0 l0 \ 00 00 \ �I v v N N M N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V V \ m
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
a, -4
-6
J
-8
3 -10
-12
o -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 1 (2020 Data)
Ul Ul Ul m m m -.I J J m m m lD lD lD
l\D F\-� N l\D F\-� N CO F\-� N J I\-� N \ \ \ \ \
O O O O O O O O \ lD lD \ lD lD \ m m \ -.I --j
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
2.5
i
3
O
E
Q
2.0
C
oc
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

c
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 1 (2020 Data)
N N N N N N W W W W 4�- 4�- 4�- Ln Ln Ln M M M �I v v M M M l0 l0 l0 I-- I-- I-- I-- I--
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O N N
I� F� N W F- N F- F- N W F- N W F- N W l0 F� N l0 F� N m F� N F� N \ \ \ \ \
\ N N N O O \ N N N O O O O O O \ l0 l0 \ l0 l0 \ m m
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V V \ m
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5 c
th
O
2.0 Q
C
m
1.5 0�
1.0
0.5
0.0

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
_ -2
-4
v -6
-8
J
a, -10
3 -12
-14
o -16
L
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 4
Year 1 (2020 Data)
N W W W W A A A LM LM U'1 F" F" F" F" F"
l0 F" N l0 F" N N m F" �I F-� N \ \ \ \ \
O O O O O O O O \ l0 l0 \ l0 l0 \ m m N m F"
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V V \
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
2.5
C
3
2.0 a
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
-4
°1 -6
-8
J
i
-10
3 -12
-14
° -16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 5
Year 1 (2020 Data)
N N N N N N W W W W 4�- 4�- 4�- Ln Ln Ln M M M I v J M M M l0 l0 l0 I-- I-- I-- I-- N
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O N N
W F- N F- F- N W F- N W F- N W l0 F� N l0 F� N m F� N F� N \ \ \ \ \
\ N N N O O \ N N N O O O O O O \ l0 l0 \ l0 l0 \ m m \ �I v v N N m N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V V \ 61
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0

c
L
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 6
Year 1 (2020 Data)
End Growing Season
N N W W W W 4�:- 4�:- 4�:- Ln Ln Ln M M M v v v M M M lD lD lD F" F"
N W F- N F- F- N W F- N W F- N W lD F- N lD F- N m F- N �I F- N \ \ \ \ \
O O \ F- F- F- O O O O O O \ lD lD \ lD lD \ m m \ �I V V N M F-
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V V \ m
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
O O O
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5 c
C
3
O
2.0 a
1.5 °C
1.0
0.5
0.0

c
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 7
Year 1 (2020 Data)
N N W W W W 4�:- 4�:- 4�:- Ln Ln Ln M M M v v v M M M lD lD lD F" F"
N W F" N F-� F-� N W F-� N W F-� N W lD F- N lD F- N M F- N �I F- N \ \ \ \ \
O O F- O O O O O O \ lD lD \ lD lD \ m m \ �I V V N Dl F-
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V V \ m
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
7
O
2.0 a
c
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

c
M
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 8
N N W W W W 4�:- 4�- -r- Ln Ln Ln M M M V V V M M M W W W F" F" I--
F"F" NJW F" N F" F" N W F" N W F\-� NJW W F" NJW F" N W F" N V F" N \ \ \ \ F"
m
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V V \
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
C
3
2.0
a
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

c
ti
IN
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 9
Year 1 (2020 Data)
N N W W W W A A A Ln Ln Ln m m m �I v v m m m lD lD lD
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O N N
N W N N W N W N W lD N lD N W N N \ \ \ \ \
\ N N N O O \ N N N O O O O O O \ lD lD \ lD lD \ W W v v N N M N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ J J \ m
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
O O O
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
N
O
2.0
a
m
c
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

c
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 10
Year 1 (2020 Data)
N N W W W W 4�- 4�- 4�- Ln Ln Ln M M M �I v v M M M l0 l0 l0 I-- I-- I-- I-- I--
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O
N W F, N F, F, N W F, N W F, N W 110 F, N l0 F, N m F, N F, N \ \ \ \ \
O O \ F, F, F, O O O O O O \ l0 l0 \ l0 l0 \ 00 00 \ �I v v F, N M F�
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V V \ m
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O N
0 0 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
C
2.0
a
c
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Warren Wilson College
MY-01 (2020) Bud Burst Documentation Photographs
Taken March 16-18, 2020
MYI Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

80
78
76
74
72
70
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
Figure E-1. Year 1 (2020) Soil Temperature Data
Logger Damaged:
Sensor Cable
Chewed Through
Logger Replaced
March 16, 2020
Temp: 51.45°F
Logger Damaged:
Sensor Cable
Chewed Through
F- N N W W W W A A A Ln Ln Ln M M M V V V 00 00 00 l0 110 l0
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O
N W F" N F" F" N W F" N W N W l0 N l0 N 00 F" N F" N \ --
F" F" F" O O O O O O O O \ l0 l0 \ l0 l0 \ 00 00 F"
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N
0

Appendix F
Preconstruction Wetland Hydrology Data
Figure 3. Preconstruction Gauge Locations
Table 18. Preconstruction Groundwater Gauge Data Summary
MYI Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

��. •1 /' r .i V.•..
Ilk
AL v
r.Ak
wk
_tyxv
Si r' \ n.}; ti r .` i �I �/ •y1.� ..Ya�i• Y bye.'. -
{ ` , } r. h '�. �- '1e�.. `'� ' .'1r�e } 'r� •j _ r � t� + �. r- � t.•r • tRe •-+�� , r'' '
ilk
A.
r -��i f -� �x - •}- .:5- - a- �*•_ �o✓Y �k '��y.. - _� - ���T�ri ���. 'w� ��y Sri ��4
V. - ' ;Clingman
O
.. �. 1§.03B
INa .,,, .
Legend
Conservation Easement
Preconstruction Stream Location
Preconstruction Wetlands
O Preconstruction Groundwater Gauges
Z\ Preconstruction Crest Gauge Location
Clingman's ;, • •~ �+
1 Bic
/
J4Vol
T
Am
,-
v it '
F, '
Axi= Enwonmenlal, rric.
Prepared for:
Project:
IWARREN WILSON
COLLEGE STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
Buncombe County, NC
Title:
PRE -
CONSTRUCTION
i sGAUGE
�r T
LOCATIONS
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
Jul 2020
Project No.:
gL''i^'�i k•'. f .
10 150 300 600
Feet

Table 18. Preconstruction Groundwater Gauge Data Summary
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During
Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
2018 Data
2019 Data
IA
No/21 days
Yes/57 days
(9.8 percent)
(27 percent)
113
No/9 days
Yes/50 days
(4.2 percent)
(23 percent)
1C
No/3 days
No/3 days
(1.4 percent)
(1.4 percent)
2A
NA*
Yes/48 days
(22 percent)
213
No/20 days
No/0 days
(9.3 percent)
(0 percent)
2C
No/12 days
Yes/50 days
(5.6 percent)
(23 percent)
3A
No/24 days
Yes/124 days
(11.2 percent)
(58 percent)
313
Yes/117 days
Yes/140 days
(54.7 percent)
(65 percent)
3C
No/4 days
No/3 days
(1.9 percent)
(1.4 percent)
*Gauge 2A was damaged during 2018 and data was not recoverable. It was replaced in 2019.
MY] Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021

Appendix G
Responses to MYO IRT Comments
MYI Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2021