20110766 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20130212

I I -n k/-,
YEAR 1 of 7 (2012)
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
HERMAN DAIRY STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Alexander County, North Carolina
Full Delivery Contract No. 003271
Catawba River Basin
Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed
03050101120030
V LS U
1 2 2013
C-KNft -- WATE�t1 -AL ITY
Submitted to:
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
r~
F�cOM) tem
�' ll ldl 'C111C'll
PROGRAM
FEBRUARY 2013

YEAR 1 of 7 (2012)
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
HERMAN DAIRY STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Alexander County, North Carolina
Full Delivery Contract No. 003271
Catawba River Basin
Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed
03050101120030
Prepared By:
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
and
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Submitted to:
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
r�
1,;lE�C0 l �tem�t.
PM[l(:RAM
FEBRUARY 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS
10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
20
METHODOLOGY 3
21
Vegetation Assessment 3
22
Stream Assessment 3
23
Wetland Assessment 4
24
Biotic Community Changes 4
30
REFERENCES 5
FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Location Appendix A
Figure 2 Consolidated Current Conditions Plan View Appendix A
Figure E1 Annual Climatic Data vs 30 -year Historic Data Appendix E
Figure F1 Preconstruction Benthic Station Locations Appendix F
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A FIGURES
Figure 1 The Site Location
Figure 2 Monitoring Plan View
APPENDIX B
GENERAL TABLES
Table 1
Project Restoration Components
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contacts Table
Table 4
Project Attributes Table
APPENDIX C VEGETATION ASSESSMENT DATA
Table 5 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Table 6 CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Table 7 CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Vegetation Plot Photographs
APPENDIX D STREAM ASSESSMENT DATA
Stream Station Photos
Table 8a -8c Visual Assessment Tables
Table 9 Verification of Bankfull Events
Tables 10a -10b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables l la -1 lc Monitoring Data - Dimensional Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross - section Plots
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Table of Contents page i
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

APPENDICES (continued)
APPENDIX E HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12 Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
2012 Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Figure E1 Annual Climatic Data vs 30 -year Historic Data
APPENDIX F BENTHIC DATA
Figure F1 Preconstruction Benthic Station Locations
Habitat Assessment Field Datasheets
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Table of Contents page u
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site)
located approximately 15 miles northwest of Taylorsville, in central Alexander County within 14 -digit
Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03050101120030 of the Catawba River Basin The Site
encompasses approximately 31 12 acres of land previously used for agricultural row crop production and
the spray application of sludge from a lagoon associated with a dairy cattle operation The Site was
identified to assist the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) in meeting its stream
and wetland restoration goals This report (compiled based on EEP's Guidance and Content Requirements
for EEP Monitoring Reports Version 1 2 1 dated 12/1/09) serves as the Year 1 (2012) annual monitoring
report
The primary goals and objectives of this stream and wetland restoration project focused on
improving water quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring wildlife habitat and will be
accomplished by the following
1 Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural production including
a) cessation of broadcasting sludge, fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural materials
into and adjacent to Site streams /wetlands and b) restoration of a forested riparian buffer
adjacent to streams and wetlands to treat surface runoff
2 Reducing sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters through a)
reduction of bank erosion, vegetation maintenance, and plowing to Site streams and
wetlands and b) restoration of a forested riparian buffer adjacent to Site streams and
wetlands
3 Reestablishing stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment
loads by restoring stable dimension, pattern, and profile supported by natural in- stream
habitat and grade /bank stabilization structures
4 Promoting floodwater attenuation by a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows to the
abandoned floodplain, b) restoring secondary, entrenched tributaries thereby reducing
floodwater velocities within smaller catchment basins, c) restoring depressional floodplain
wetlands to increase the floodwater storage capacity within the Site, and d) revegetating
Site floodplams to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters crossing Site floodplams
5 Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability and the use of in- stream
structures
6 Providing a terrestrial wildlife corridor and refuge in an area extensively developed for
agricultural production
7 Restoring and reestablishing natural community structure, habitat diversity, and functional
continuity
8 Enhancing and protecting the Site's full potential of stream and wetland functions and
values in perpetuity
Vegetation Success Criteria An average density of 320 stems per acre of Characteristic Tree Species must
be surviving in the first three monitoring years Subsequently, 290 Characteristic Tree Species per acre
must be surviving in year 4, 260 Characteristic Tree Species per acre in year 5, and 210 Characteristic Tree
Species per acre in year 7 No single volunteer species (most notably red maple, loblolly pine, and sweet
gum) will comprise more than 20 percent of the total composition at years 3, 5, or 7 If this occurs,
remedial procedures /protocols outlined in the contingency plan will be implemented During years 3, 5,
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) page 1
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

and 7, no single volunteer species, comprising over 20 percent of the total composition, may be more than
twice the height of the planted trees If this occurs, remedial procedures outlined in the contingency plan
will be implemented If, within the first 3 years, any species exhibits greater than 50 percent mortality, the
species will either be replanted or an acceptable replacement species will be planted in its place as specified
in the contingency plan
Vegetation Results Vegetation sampling across the Site was above the required average density with 478
planted stems per acre surviving In addition, each individual plot exceeded success criteria and no
vegetation problem areas were identified during Year I (2012) Monitoring
Stream Success Criteria Success criteria for stream restoration will include 1) successful classification of
the reach as a functioning stream system (Rosgen 1996) and 2) channel variables indicative of a stable
stream system The channel configuration will be measured on 3000 linear feet of stream and 20 cross -
sections on an annual basis in order to track changes in channel geometry, profile, or substrate These data
will be utilized to determine the success in restoring stream channel stability Specifically, the width -to-
depth ratio and bank - height ratios should be indicative of a stable or moderately unstable channel with
minimal changes in cross - sectional area, channel width, and/or bank erosion along the monitoring reach In
addition, channel abandonment and/or shoot cutoffs must not occur and sinuosity values must remain
relatively constant Visual assessment of in- stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has
occurred Failure of a structure may be indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure,
abandonment of the channel around the structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure
Stream Results As a whole, monitoring measurements indicate there have been minimal changes in both
the longitudinal profile and cross - sections as compared to as -built data The as -built channel geometry
compares favorably with the emulated, stable E/C type stream reach as set forth in the detailed mitigation
plan and construction plans Current monitoring has demonstrated dimension, pattern, and profile were
stable over the course of the monitoring period No stream problem areas were noted during Year 1 (2012)
monitoring
Hydrology Success Criteria According to the Soil Survey of Alexander County, the growing season for
Alexander County as recorded in Hickory, North Carolina during the period from 1951 -1984 is from March
20- November 9 (USDA 1995) Year 1 (2012) groundwater gauge installation occurred between March 30
and April 4, 2012 Given the date of groundwater gauge installation and the initiation of monitoring, Year
1 groundwater monitoring will utilize the published growing season dates from the county soil survey for
success criteria However, for future monitoring years, if soil temperatures and vegetative growth (bud
burst) is documented, project gauge hydrologic success will be determined using dates from February 1-
November 9 to more accurately represent the period of biological activity
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 8 percent of the monitored period
(March 20 1- November 9), during average climatic conditions During years with atypical climatic
conditions, groundwater gauges in reference wetlands may dictate threshold hydrology success criteria (75
percent of reference) These areas are expected to support hydrophyt►c vegetation If wetland parameters
are marginal as indicated by vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be
performed
Hydrology Results All ten Site groundwater monitoring gauges and the reference gauge exhibited
inundated/saturated within 12 inches of the surface for greater than 8 percent of the growing season The
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) page 2
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

majority of the gauges were well above success criteria, despite being installed after the initiation of the
growing season The only gauge close to not meeting success criteria was gauge 9, which is close to an
upland/wetland boundary This gauge had two consecutive 19 day periods of wetland hydrology separated
by only a few days
Benthics Although data from the certified laboratory concerning number of organisms and taxa is not
available at this time, field habitat assessment forms indicate that Site restoration reaches are improving for
benthic macroinvertebrates The Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet for UT 1 increased from a total
score of 45 prior to restoration to 69 in the first annual monitoring year Similarly, UT 2 improved from a
score of 36 to 72 after the first year Detailed data from the laboratory will be kept on file and included in
future annual monitoring reports
In summary, Site vegetation, streams, and wetland hydrology met success criteria for Year 1 (2012)
monitoring Summary information and data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or
encroachment and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be
found in tables and figures within this report's appendices Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Document (formerly
Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly called the Restoration Plan) documents available on
EEPs website All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from EEP upon
request
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Monitoring of the Site's restoration efforts will be performed until agreed upon success criteria are
fulfilled Monitoring is proposed for the stream channel, riparian vegetation, and hydrology (Figure 2,
Appendix A) Stream morphology is proposed to be monitored for a period of five years Riparian
vegetation is proposed to be monitored for a period of seven years Wetland hydrology is proposed to be
monitored for a period of five years, at which time a request will be made to the IRT to discontinue
groundwater hydrology monitoring The IRT reserves the right to request additional groundwater
monitoring if it deems necessary Monitoring reports of the data collected will be submitted to the IRT no
later than December of each monitoring year
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
After planting was completed, an initial evaluation was performed to verify planting methods were
successful and to determine initial species composition and density Ten sample vegetation plots (10 -meter
by 10- meter) were installed and measured within the Site as per guidelines established in CVS -EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4 0 (Lee et al 2006) Plots were measured in September 2012
for Year 1 monitioring Vegetation plots are permanently monumented with 4 -foot metal garden posts at
each corner In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and
species density Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be
documented by photograph Vegetation plot information can be found in Appendix C
2.2 Stream Assessment
Restored stream reaches are proposed to be monitored for geometric activity for five years Annual fall
monitoring will include development of 20 channel cross - sections on riffles and pools and a water surface
profile of the channel The data will be presented in graphic and tabular format Data to be presented will
include 1) cross - sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, 5) width -to -depth
ratio, 6) water surface slope, and 7) sinuosity The stream will subsequently be classified according to
stream geometry and substrate (Rosgen 1996) Significant changes in channel morphology will be tracked
and reported by comparing data in each successive monitoring year Stream data can be found in Appendix
D
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) page 3
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

2.3 Wetland Assessment
Ten groundwater monitoring gauges were installed within Site wetland restoration areas and one additional
gauge was installed in a reference wetland to monitor groundwater hydrology (Figure 2, Appendix A)
Hydrological sampling will continue for five years throughout the growing season at intervals necessary to
satisfy the hydrology success criteria within each design unit (USEPA 1990) In addition, an off -site rain
gauge will document rainfall data for comparison of groundwater conditions with extended drought
conditions Finally, groundwater gauges located within riverine wetlands adjacent to restored stream
reaches will supplement staff gauge measurements to confirm overbank flooding events Graphs of
groundwater hydrology and precipitation from a nearby rain station are included in Appendix E
2.4 Biotic Community Changes
Changes in the biotic community are anticipated from a shift in habitat opportunities as tributaries are
restored In- stream, biological monitoring is proposed to track the changes during the monitoring period
The benthic macroinvertebrate community will be sampled using North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) protocols found in the Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates
(NCDWQ 2006) and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects
(NCDWQ 2001) Biological sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates will be used to compare
preconstruction baseline data with postconstruction restored conditions
Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring locations were established within Site restoration reaches
Postrestoration collections occured in approximately the same locations as prerestoration sampling,
however, sampling was not possible in UT 3 due to lack of stream flow Benthic macroinvertebrate
samples were collected from UT 1 and UT 2 reaches using the Qual -4 collection method Sampling
techniques of the Qual -4 collection method consist of kick nets, sweep nets, leaf packs, and visual searches
Postproject biological sampling occurred on June 28, 2012 (data sheets are included in Appendix F),
postproject monitoring will occur in June of each monitoring year
Identification of collected organisms will be performed by personnel with NCDWQ or by a NCDWQ
certified laboratory Other data collected will include DSO values /NCDWQ habitat assessment forms A
detailed list of collected benthic macroi n vertebrates is not available at this time due to delays at the
certified laboratory, however, Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheets used in benthic macroinvertebrate
monitoring are enclosed in Appendix F
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) page 4
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, M T , R K Peet, S D Roberts, and T R Wentworth 2006 CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4 0 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program Raleigh, North Carolina
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2001 Benthic Macro[nvertebrate Monitoring
Protocols for Compensatory Mitigation 401 /Wetlands Unit, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources Raleigh, North Carolina
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) 2006 Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic
Macroinvertebrates Biological Assessment Unit, Department of Environment and Natural
Resources Raleigh, North Carolina
Rosgen, D L 1996 Applied River Morphology Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO
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
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 1995 Soil Survey of Alexander County, North
Carolina Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture
United States Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA) 1990 Mitigation Site Type Classification
(MiST) USEPA Workshop, August 13 -15, 1989 EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research
Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) page 5
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Appendix A.
Figures
Figure 1 The Site Location
Figure 2 Consolidated Current Conditions Plan View
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Herman Dairy Site Location
Access from Three Forks Ch. Rd. •"
si..
Latitude 35.931617
_ .... Longitude - 81.206949
(NAD83/WGS84)''
Zeb
Access Site from
z ' Q'= Trer'eF'
oaks '
Driveway on
' Three Forks Rd.
l
/r
1 1 Reference Reach 1lr
From the Town of Statesville
- From Interstate 40 take exit 148 onto NC 64 north
- Travel — 17 miles on NC 64 north and turn north (right) on + • �`
NC 16 (towards Taylorsville)
- Travel — 1 mile and turn west (left) on NC 90
- Travel -- 1.5 miles and turn right on Three Forks Ch. Road 0 0.375 0.75 1.5
Miles
- Travel —2 miles and Site is on right
Axiom Environmental
Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
HERMAN DAIRY
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
THE SITE LOCATION
DWnAL /CLF
Date:
May 2012
FIGURE
1
(919) 215 -1693
Alexander County, North Carolina
Project:
AA218
.
10 -016

N
Legend
Easement Boundary (Not Fenced)
Strearn Restoration
V -• -."�
Y� Restored Channel
Braided Stream
Enhancement (Level 1)
In- stream Structures
_ Cross - sections
-
CVS Plots
_
£ Groundwater Gauges
Photo Points
. Crest Gauge
- 12�3 Invasives Treatment Area
' Power Line
C - Terracell
NCWAM Wetland Types
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Headwater Forest
Seep
A
�a C .6
a5
e'
r 4
3
F
\
2
,1'S
14
% act
Trib uiarY 3;
Feet
2010 CG IA leaf -off aerial photography 0 150 300 600 900
_ -_
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
HERMAN DAIRY
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
CONSOLIDATED CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
Dwn. By:
KRJ
Date:
Jan 2013
FIGURE
(919) 215 -1693
Alexander County, North Carolina
Project:
Axiom Ernrtonmenlal, Inc.
1 0 -01 6

F' Axiom Environmental HERMAN DAIRY Dwn. By: KRJ FIGURE
216 snow Avenue STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Date:
Raleigh, NC 27603 CONSOLIDATED CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW Jan 2013 2A
(919) 215 -1693 Alexander County, North Carolina Project:
a m mm a 10 -016

Pipe Crossing
Start Profile
Tributary 2
2010 CG IA leaf -off aerial photography
�16
7� 15 /-J
Start Profile
Tributary 3
0
End Profile
Tributary 2
End Profile
Tributary 3
125 250
Legend
MEasement Boundary (Not Fenced)
Stream Restoration
^� Restored Channel
Braided Stream
Enhancement (Level 1)
In- stream Structures
Cross - sections
0 CVS Plots
OGroundwater Gauges
Photo Points
Crest Gauge
Invasives Treatment Area
Power Line
Terracell
NCWAM Weiland Types
K Bottomland Hardwood Forest
K Headwater Forest
K Seep
Feet
500 750
Axiom Environmental
HERMAN DAIRY Dwn KRJ
By FIGURE
218 snow Avenue STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Date:
Raleigh, NC 27603 CONSOLIDATED CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW Jan 2013 2° v
Mrom Er,vrconmental,l ,. (919) 215 -1693 Alexander County, North Carolina Project: 10-016

Appendix B.
General Project Tables
Table 1 Project Restoration Components
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 1. Project Restoration Components
Herman Dairy Restoration Site
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Nonn
arian Wetland
Restoration
Restoration E wvalent
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration
Restoration E covalent
4560
220
7.2
1.1
1.2
0.05
Projects Com onents
Existing Linear
Restoration/
Restoration
Station Range
Footage/
Priority
Restoration
Linear Footage/
Mitigation
Comment
Acreage
Approach
Equivalent
Acreage
Ratio
UT 1 10 +00 -31 +67 8*
UTIA 10 +00 -10 +85 71
1
Restoration
3997
11
Priority 1 stream restoration through construction of
UT2 10 +00 -16 +69 04,21+50 67 -27 +10 09
stable channel at the historic floodplam elevation
UT3 10 +00 -17 +28 39
4540
UT2 16+69 04 -21 +50 67
Braided stream restoration by redirecting diffuse flow
UT3 upper 81 10 linear feet
Restoration
563
11
across riparian wetlands Linear footage of stream is
based on a straight line valley distance
Level I stream enhancement through cessation of
UT1 upper 330 00 linear feet
330
Lcvcl 1
Enhancement
330
15 1
current land use practices, removing invasive species,
and planting with native forest vegetation
Restoration of riparian wetlands within the floodplam
--
0
Restoration
72
11
as the result of stream restoration activities, filling
abandoned channels and ditches, removing spoil
castin s, and planting with native forest vegetation
Enhancement of existing riparian wetlands
22
Enhancement
22
21
characterized by disturbed pasture by planting with
native forest vegetation
Restoration of nonriparian wetlands by removing spoil
0
Restoration
1 2
1 1
castings, filling abandoned ditches to rehydrate hydnc
soils along the slope, eliminating land use practices,
and planting with native forest vegetation
Enhancement of existing nonripanan wetlands
0 1
Enhancement
0 1
21
characterized by disturbed pasture by planting with
native forest vegetation
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear footage)
Riparian Wetland (acreage)
Nonripanan Wetland (acreage)
Restoration
4560
72
12
Enhancement (Level 1)
330
--
--
Enhancement
--
22
005
Totals
4890
9A
1.25
Mitigation Units
4780 SMUs
8.3 Riparian WMUs
1.25 Nonri anan WMUs
*Restoration linear footage excludes 145 76 linear feet of stream located within the utility easement and 67 79 linear feet of stream located
within a culverted crossing, which are both excluded from the easement
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Herman Dairy Restoration Site
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal (RFP No 16- 002830)
--
March 2010
EEP Contract No 003271
--
July 23, 2010
Restoration Plan
--
January 2011
Construction Plans
--
August 2011
Construction Earthwork
March 2012
As -Built Documentation
919- 215 -1693
June 2012
Year 1 (2012) Annual Monitoring
September 2012
October 2012
Table 3. Protect Contacts Table
Herman Dairy Restoration Site
Full Delivery Provider
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
George Howard and John Preyer
919 - 755 -9490
Designer
Axiom Environmental, Inc
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis
919- 215 -1693
Construction Plans and Sediment and
Sungate Design Group, PA
Erosion Control Plans
915 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
W Henry Wells, Jr, PE 919 - 859 -2243
Construction and Planting Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs
780 Landmark Road
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Lloyd Glover 919-639-6132
As -built Surveyor
K2 Design Group
5688 US Highway 70 East
Goldsboro, NC 27534
John Rudolph 919 - 751 -0075
Baseline Data Collection and Annual
Axiom Environmental, Inc
Monitoring
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919 - 215 -1693
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 4. Protect Attribute Table
Herman Dairy Restoration Site
Project County
Alexander County, North Carolina
Ph siogra hic Region
Northern Inner Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Catawba
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit)
03050101120030
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
03 -08 -32
Identify planning area (LWP, RBRP, other)9
Yes — Upper Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities
2009
WRC Class (Warm, Cool, Cold)
Warm
% of project easement fenced or demarcated
100
Beaver activity observed during design
hase9
Yes
Unnamed
Tributaries to M dy Fork
UT 1
UT 2
UT 3
Drainage Area
10
006
004
Stream Order (USGS to o)
2nd
1st
1st
Restored Length (feet)
2156
1684
760
Perennial (P) or Intermittent (I)
P
P
I
Watershed Tye
Rural
Rural
Rural
Watershed impervious cover
<5%
<5%
<5%
NCDWQ AU /Index number
11 -69-4
11 -69-4
11 -69-4
NCDWQ Classification
C
C
C
303d listed9
No
No
No
Upstream of a 303d listed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reasons for 303d listed segment
aquatic
life/sediment
aquatic
life/sediment
aquatic
life/sediment
Total acreage of easement
3112
3112
3112
Total existing vegetated acreage of easement
8
8
8
Total planted restoration acreage
315
315
315
Rosgen Classification of preexisting
Cd5
Fc5 /6
Fc5 /6
Rosgen Classification of As -built
E/C 4/5
E/C 4/5
E/C 4/5
Valley type
VIII
VIII
VIII
Valley sloe
00066
00052
00013
Cowardin classification of proposed
R3UB1 /2
R3UB1 /2
R4SB3 /4
Trout waters designation
NA
NA
NA
Species of concern, endangered etc
NA
NA
NA
Dominant Soil Series
Codorus /Hatboro
Codorus /Hatboro
Codorus /Hatboro
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Appendix C.
Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 5 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Table 6 CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Table 7 CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 5. Veutation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
1
Yes
100%
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
Yes
5
Yes
6
Yes
7
Yes
8
Yes
9
Yes
10
Yes
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 6. CVS Veeetation Metadata Table
Report Prepared By
Corn Faquln
Date Prepared
9/21/2012 8 17
database name
RestorationSystems- 2012 -A mdb
database location
C \Documents and Settings \pperkinson \Desktop
computer name
PHILLIP -LT
file size
81784832
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data
Prol, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year This excludes live stakes
Prod, total stems
Each project Is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year This includes live stakes, all planted
stems, and all natural /volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc )
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by
each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot, dead and missing stems are
excluded
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for
each plot, dead and missing stems are excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
Herman
project Name
Herman Dairy
Description
Stream and wetland restoration Alexander County NC
River Basin
Catawba
Sampled Plots
10
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 7. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Current Plot Data (MY1 2012)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Herman -P -0001
Herman -P -0002
Herman -P -0003
Herman -P -0004
Herman -P -0005
I Herman -P -0006
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
IT
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
jPnoLS
P -all
T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
15
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
11
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
6
6
6
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
6
6
6
5
5
5
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
14
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
Ulmus americans
jAmerican elm
Tree
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
9
9
9
8
8
10
12
12
12
91
91
9
16
16
16
13
13
42
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
SI
51
5
41
4
5
51
51
5
4
4
4
9
9
9
4
4
6
364.2
364.2
364.2
323.7
323.7
404.7
485.61485
6
485.6
364.2
364.2
364.2
647.5
647.51
647.51
526.11526.11
1700
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 30%
Exi ds tegull a 4, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 109/c
y more than 10%

Table 7. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species (continued)
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
I Current Plot Data (MY1 2012)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Herman -P -0007
Herman -P -0008
Herman -P -0009
Herman -P -0010
MY1(2012)
MYO(2012)
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
IT
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
I
I
15
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
6
7
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
19
19
19
41
41
41
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
Carya
hickory
Tree
1 21
2
21
4
41
4
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
2
2
21
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
6
6
6
9
9
9
21
2
2
33
33
33
32
32
32
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
17
17
18
25
25
25
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
3
3
3
14
14
14
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
32
1
46
1
1
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
21
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
22
22
221
23
23
23
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
Ulmus americans
American elm
Tree
2
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
10
;1;451;4
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species countl
Stems per ACRE
9
9
9
12
12
12
16
16
54
14
7141
14
118
118
187
145
1
1 1
1
1
10
10
0.02
0.02
1 0.02
1 0.02
0.25
1 0.25
31
31
3
41
41
41
41
4
61
7
7
7
121
121
151
10
364.2
364.2
364.2
485.6
485.6
485.6
647.5
647.5
2185
566.6
566.6
566.6
477.5
477.5
756.8
586.8
586.8
586.8
COior Tor uenslty
Exceeds requirements by 10%
ctisby less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
by more than 10%

Herman Dairy
2012 (Year 1) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken September 2012
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Herman Dairy
2012 (Year 1) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken September 2012
(continued)
Plot 9
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and W etland Restoration Site

Appendix D.
Stream Assessment Data
Stream Station Photos
Table 8a -8c Visual Assessment Tables
Table 9 Verification of Bankfull Events
Tables lOa -10c Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables l la -1 le Monitoring Data - Dimensional Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross - section Plots
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Herman Dairy
Fixed Station Photographs (continued)
Taken September 20, 2012
Photo Point 1
Photo Point 5
No photo available
Photo Point 6
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Herman Dairy
Fixed Station Photographs (continued)
Taken September 20, 2012
Photo Point 7
Photo Point 10
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table BA Visual Stream Morpholony Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary 1
Assessed Length 1374
ed %
Number
Numberwith
r
Mayor
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
izing
=ne
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
dy
Cate o
Sub -Cate o
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
tton
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1 Aegradation Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
°`,� '"
tii. " °,ih �' ^
0
0
100 %ai
` s' w* �- *" "'}` ''"
{V
i A�•+�ir
2 Degradation Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
�t s'j� °
ng`i�
�•`aY^Mr 'f jsae tr` r'f'
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture /Substrate Riffle maintains coarser substrate
19
19�
";
100%
Y -.,
3 Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1 6)
20
20
itt''
a ,� =� *� +,'- i= ,f.'iro
-
1001/1
;-
".'T" ��
2 Length appropriate (130% of centerline distance between tad of
100
100
100%
"
�� >�• f ; ;
F t rt t a
upstream nffle and head of downstrem nffle)
i
• T
4 Thalweg Position
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
100
100
100 /
•
t`a �w , -a r vVt 5r
�
2Thatwe centering at downstream of meander Glide
9 9 (Glide)
100
100
`t.
r -su i -'
100%
f`- ;Fyy�� x��=t�...r.�,�`�'.+�-
�`s�ii.�'
� � t t`
i�,��5�siabl•�4
K
'r.e'�a'
_�.2 ^...�t_J ^,Z� ..:S,Yxic� ' '.s�j�2��
�^,
2 Bank
7 Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or`
ja; m '
0
0
100%
100%
scour and erosion
� „� �� .-
kf
t'
Banks undercut/overhanging o the extent that mass wasting appears
9 9 9 PP
'� -rr.. ' � i
2 Undercut
likely Does NOT include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable
ini t _
Xe, • ,t1-, w ';
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat
a ; +,
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
a r � � �
d'2 Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
M1 @ki' kKNFM[�A.J�[/q'.:.Lr.J
�y(
�Fm a - 1.1�[.��.e:�� e{�- #�wTAiS ". ���dr'...�9:�.
3 Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
2
2
2=-y= d 'd'� *�
°
100%
'7
t
e S�.�si, �,%C; #�C• •tea ,.,f�
Kro
>. r�rF;
.n�q+',
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
4,,' %k
100%
I•y` 'ts'
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
2
2
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)
2
2
`- , �,,r"y'' r
& �✓
• �.° + ^,""'v`+, e '0Y"`" =
100%
LL` F °`:� 2t• f
��. {3
may. �• . ,, s
_,y`` s�"Z ,hi°�
Pool forming
'PS•v
c� ;
4 Habitat
structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1 6 Rootwa
p ds /logs providing some cover at base -Flow
2
2
;
t,' rye ,� t n
+a fv�'ar� +
o
100 /0
4, "= j
- ?)�' '_j' t-r r ^��'�PO
bey(`, _-
,,•

Table8B Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary 2
Assessed Length 1522
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage 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 -Cate o
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Ve etation
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1 Agoredation -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
39
39
100%
3 Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1 6)
-
37
37
100%
2 Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem nffle)
100
100
100%
4 Thalweg Position
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
100
100
100%
2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
100
100
100%
2 Bank
1 Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
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
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3 Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
3
3
100%
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
3
3
100%
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
3
3
100%
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15% (See guidance for this table in EEP monitonng guidance document)
3
3
100%
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 16 Rootwadsllogs providing some cover at base -flow
3
3
100%

Table 8C Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary 3
Assessed Length 644
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage 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 etabon
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
1 Aaaradation -Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
°
` ?�
(Riffle and Run units)
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2 Dearadation Evidence ofdowncuthng
0
0
100%
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture /Substrate Riffle maintains coarser substrate
27
27
100%
3 Meander Pool
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1 6)
27
27
100%
Condition
2 Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
100
100
100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4 Thalweg Position
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
100
100
100%
2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
100
100
100%
100%
100%
0
2 Bank
1 ScouredlErodmg
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
0
scour and erosion
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2 Undercut
likely Does NOT include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
re
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3 Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
8
8
100%
Q
I�
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
8
8
100%
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
8
8
100%
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
8
8
100%
15% (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull
8
8
100%
Depth ratio > 16 Rootwadsfiogs providing some cover at base -flow

Table 9. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Date of
Photo (if
Method
Collection
Occurrence
available)
No Bankfull Events Recorded to Date
'Weather Underground 2012
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 10A. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Herman Dairy UT I
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre - Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Stream UT Catawba *
Project Reference
Reach I
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min I Max I Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
USGS gage data is
for this
project
16
19
18
9
12
10
9
10
10
16
18
17
155
164
161
Flood prone Width (ft,
26
150
150
25
150
50
22
25
24
150
250
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2:
202
109
118
36
53
202
14
182
164
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1 1
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 3
1 1
1 2
1 3
1 3
1 1
1 3
1 2
09
1 1
1
BF Max Depth ft
1 9
23
2
1 5
1 8
1 7
1 5
1 6
16
14
1 8
16
1 2
16
14
Width/Depth Ratio
12
17
16
8
13
10
72
8
76
12
16
14
14
17
16
Entrenchment Raw
16
96
79
27
146
49
23
27
25
8
10
9
15
16
16
Bank Height Ratio
1 8
31
1 9
1
1
1
1 3
1 1
1
Wetted Perimeter ft
=__
___
___
__=
159
168
167
Hydraulic radius ft'
___
___
___
__=
09
1 1
1
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
30
40
35
35
58
45
50
101
67
50
101
67
Radius of Curvature ft
125
25
18
10
32
16
34
168
50
34
168
50
Meander Wavelength ft
25
70
45
65
128
81
101
202
143
101
202
143
Meander Width ratic
29
T9_
34
37
61
47
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle length ft
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
=__
___
__=
23
65
36
Riffle slope ft/ft
0 30%
0 36%
0 34%
0 34%
4 31%
2 48%
1 10%
1 65%
138%
000%
150%
064%
Pool length ft
=__
___
= ==
10
54
32
Poolspacing (ft)
22
62
39
29
103
60
50
134
67
50
134
67
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Length 11
=__
___
___
__=
2108
Sinuosit
1 1
14
14
12
1 2
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
062%
028%
127%
055%
053%
BF slope (ft/ft)
Rosgen Classificatio
Cd 5
E 4/5
E 4/5
Ec4 /5
E/C 4/5
U 1 w'.didwud rcivei rcererence Site incwoes measurements rrom a stream measurea in zuuts

Table IOB. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Herman Dairy UT 2
Parameter
USGS Cage Data
Pre - Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Stream UT Catawba*
Project Reference
Reach 1
Design
As -bmlt^
Dimension
Mm I Max I Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
USGS gage data is
unavailable for this
project
6
15
9
9
12
10
9
10
10
5 3
61
57
68
79
69
Flood prone Width ft
14
19
15
25
150
50
22
25
24
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2
23
109
11 8
23
22
24
23
BF Mean Depth ft
02
04
03
11
13
11
12
13
13
03
05
04
03
03
03
BF Max Depth ft
04
08
05
15
18
17
15
16
16
04
06
05
05
05
05
Width/Depth Ratio
16
76
30
8
13
10
72
8
76
12
16
14
20
27
21
Entrenchment Ratic
1 3
22
1 6
27
146
49
23
27
25
14
38
26
19
22
22
Bank Height Ratio
5
12
7
1
1
1
1 3
1 1
1
Wetted Perimeter ft
=__
___
___
__=
7
8
7 1
Hydraulic radius ft
=__
___
___
__=
03
03
03
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
30
40
35
35
58
45
17
34
23
17
34
23
Radius of Curvature ft`
125
25
18
10
32
16
11
57
17
11
57
17
Meander Wavelength ft
25
70
45
65
128
81
34
68
49
34
68
49
Meander Width ratic
29
39
34
37
61
47
3
8
4
3
8
4
Profile
Riffle length ft`
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
=__
___
__=
6
44
14
Riffle slope ft/ft
030%
036%1034%
0 34%
431%
248%
086%
129%
108%
000%
—125%
039%
Pool length ft
=__
___
= ==
1 6
32
13
Poolspacing (ft)
22
62
39
29
103
60
17
46
23
17
46
23
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
Additional Reach Parameter
Valley Length ft`
Channel Length ft
=__
___
___
__=
1696
Smuosit
1 04
14
14
1 2
12
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
085%
028%
127%
043%
040%
BF slope ft/ft
=__
___
___
___
Rosgen Classificatio
Fc 5/6
E 4/5
E 4/5
Ec4 /5
C 4/5
•, measurea as -DUin numbers ao not incivae u -type reacn
*UT to Catawba River Reference Site includes measurements from a stream measured in 2008

Table 10C Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Herman Dairy UT 3
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre - Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Stream UT Catawba*
Project Reference
Reach 1
Design
As-built
Dimension
Min I Max I Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
USGS gage data is
unavailable for this
project
6
9
7
9
12
10
9
10
10
6
7
65
68
85
77
Flood prone Width ft
12
13
12
25
150
50
22
25
24
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2:
3
109
118
3
22
31
27
BF Mean Depth ft
03
05
04
11
13
11
12
13
13
04
06
05
03
04
04
BF Max Depth ft
06
09
07
15
18
17
15
16
16
06
08
07
05
05
05
Width/Depth Ratio
13
31
17
8
13
10
72
8
76
12
16
14
21
23
22
Entrenchment Raw
14
1 9
1 7
27
146
49
23
27
25
22
25
23
17
22
195
Bank Height Ratio
4
7
6
1
1
1
1 3
1 1
1
Wetted Perimeter ft
=__
___
___
__=
7
87
79
Hydraulic radius ft'
___
___
___
__=
03
04
04
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
30
40
35
35
58
45
20
39
26
20
39
26
Radius of Curvature ft'
125
25
18
10
32
16
13
65
20
13
65
20
Meander Wavelength ft
straightening activties
25
70
45
65
128
81
39
78
55
39
78
55
Meander Width ratic
29
39
34
37
61
47
3
8
4
3
8
4
Profile
Riffle len th ft;
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
=__
___
__=
5
26
11
Riffle slope ft/ft
0 30%
0 36%
0 34%
0 34%
4 31%
2 48%
022%
033%
028%
000%
159%
022%
Pool length ft
=__
___
= ==
7
21
13
Poolspacing ft
22
62
39
29
103
60
20
52
26
20
52
26
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft`
Channel Length ft
=__
___
___
__=
743
Sinuosit
1 01
14
14
1 2
1 2
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
040%
028%
127%
011%
0120%
BF slope ft/ft)
Rosgen Classificauo
Fc 5/6
E 4/5
E 4/5
Ec4 /5
C 4/5
u i to uarawoa miver nererence cite inciucies measurements rrom a stream measured in zuuts

Table llA Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Herman Dairy - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
Cross Section 1 Pool (UT 1)
Cross Section 2 Pool (UT 1)
Cross Section 3 Riffle (UT 1)
Cross Section 4 Pool (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MYI
MY2
�MY3�
MY4
MYS
MY 0
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY 0
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
MY 0
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
BF Width (ft)
209
196
169
171
164
17
168
182
Floodprone Width (ft)
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
250
250
- - --
- - --
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
199
189
163
16
167
17
144
145
BF Mean Depth (ft)
10
10
1 0
09
10
10
09
08
BF Max Depth (ft)
23,
22
1
1
1 4
15,
14,
14
21,
2 1
Width/Depth Ratio
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
161
17
- - --
- --
Entrenchment Ratio
- - --
- - --
- - --
152
147
- - --
- - --
Bank Height Ratio
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
I
I
- - --
- - --
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
21 7
204
1 172
174
168
176
176
191
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
09
09
09
09
1
1
08
08
Substrate
d50 (mm)
- --
- - --
- - --
d84 (mm)
- --
- - --
----
Parameter
MY
-00 (2012)
MY
-01 (2012)
MY
-02 (2013)
MY
-03 (2014)
MY
-04 (2015)
MY
-05 (2016)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
50
101
67
50
101
67
Radios of Curvature (ft)
34
168
50
34
168
50
Meander Wavelength (ft)
50
101
67
50
101
67
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
23
65
36
16
49
28
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0 00 %
150%
064%
005%
105%
057%
Pool Length (ft)
10
54
32
18
62
35
Pool Spacing (ft)
50
134
67
50
134
67
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1757
1373
Channel Length (ft)
2 108
1,648
Sinuosity
12
12
Water Surface Slope (f /ft)
00053
00045
BF Slope (ft /ft)
- - - - --
- - - - --
Rosgen Classification
C/E 4/5
1 C -4/5

Table 11B Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Herman Dairy - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
Cross Section 5 Riffle (UT 1)
Cross Section 6 Pool (UT 1)
Cross Section 7 Riffle (UT 1)
Cross Section 8 Pool (UT 1)
Dimension
AMY Or
MYI
MY2
KMY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MY
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYI
MY2
MY31
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MY
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
161
163
20
172
15 5
146
161
184
Floodprone Width (ft)
250
250
- - --
- - --
250
250
- - --
- - --
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
182
166
203
177
14
14
15 5
16
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1 1
10
10
1 0
09
1 0
1 0
09
BF Max Depth (ft)
16,
14
1
23
22
1
1 2
1 4
19,
2 1
Width /Depth Ratio
1421
160
- - --
- - --
172
152
- - --
- - --
Entrenchment Ratio
15 51
153
- - --
- - --
161
17 I
- - --
- - --
Bank Height Ratio
I
1
- - --
- - --
1
I
- - --
- - --
Wetted Penmeter (ft)
168
169
21
1831
15 9
151
168
191
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1 I
I
1
11
09
09
09
08
Substrate
d50 (mm)
-- --
-- --
-- --
-
- - --
d84 (mm)
----
-- --
----
----
- - --
Parameter
MY -00 (2012)
MY-01(2012)
MY -02 (2013)
MY -03 (2014)
MY -04 (2015)
MY -05 (2016)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
50
101
67
50
101
67
Radius of Curvature (ft)
34
168
50
34
168
50
Meander Wavelen6nh (ft)
50
101
67
50
101
67
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
23
65
36
16
49
28
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
000%
1 50 %
0 64 %
005%
1 05 %
0 57 %
Pool Length (ft)
10
54
32
18
621
35
Pool Spacing (ft)
50
134
67
50
134
67
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1757
1373
Channel Length (ft)
2 108
1,648
Sinuosity
12
12
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
00053
00045
BF Slope (ft/ft)
- - - - --
- - - - --
Rosgen Classification
C/E 4/5
C -4/5

Table l lC Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Herman Dairy - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
Cross Section 9 Pool (UT 1)
Cross Section 10 Riffle (UT 1)
Cross Section 11 Riffle (UT2)
Cross Section 12 Pool (UT2)
Dimension
m MY 0
MYI
MY2
. MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0y
MYI
I MY2
MY31
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
187
162
16
1711
79
52
55
58
Floodprone Width (ft)
- - --
- - --
250
250
150
150
- - --
- - --
BF Cross Sectional Area (112)
15 7
154
16
15 6
23
1 3
23
2 l
BF Mean Depth (ft)
08
1 0
10
09
03
03
04
04
BF Max Depth (ft)
2
23
13
14
05
04
08
07
Width/Depth Ratio
- - --
- - --
160
185
27 I
208
- - --
- - --
Entrenchment Ratio
- - --
156
147
190
28 8
- - --
- - --
Bank Height Ratio
- - --
- - --
I
I
I
I
- - --
- - --
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
195
17
165
176
8
5 3
5 8
6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
08
09
1
09
03
02
04
03
Substrate
d50 (mm)
- ---
----
---
----
-- --
----
----
d84 (mm)
-- --
- ---
----
----
- - --
.—
----
Parameter
MY -00 (2012)
MY-01 (2 12)
MY -02 (2013)
MY -03 (2014)
MY -04 (2015)
MY 05 (2016)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
50
101
67
50
101
67
Radius of Curvature (ft)
34
168
50
34
168
50
Meander Wavelength (ft)
50
101
67
50
101
67
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (11)
17
111
51
16
49
28
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0 43 %
480%
1 54 %
005%
105%
0 57 %
Pool Length (ft)
26
78
46
18
62
35
Pool Spacing (ft)
76
176
126
50
134
67
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1757
1373
Channel Length (11)
2,108
1,648
Sinuosity
12
12
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
00053
00045
BF Slope (ft/ft)
- - - - --
- - - - --
Rosgen Classification
C/E 4/5
C -4/5

Table 11D Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Herman Dairy - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
Cross Section 13 Riffle (UT 2)
Cross Section 14 Pool (UT 2)
Cross Section 15 Riffle (UT2)
Cross Section 16 Pool (UT2)
Dimension
. MY 0
MYI
MY2
MY3
WMY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
•MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
69
7
66
68
68
69
57
71
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
- - --
- - --
150
150
- - --
- - --
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
24
1 5
24
26
22
22
23
24
BF Mean Depth (ft)
03
02
04
04
03
03
04
03
BF Max Depth (ft)
051
05
07
07
05
05
08
08
Width /Depth Ratio
1981
32 7
- - --
- - --
210
21 6
- - --
- - --
Entrenchment Ratio
2171
214
- - --
- - --
22 1
21 7
- - --
- - --
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
- - --
- - --
I
I
- - --
- - --
Wetted Penmeter (ft)
7 1
72
68
7
7
7 1
6
73
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
03
02
03
04
03
03
04.
03
Substrate
d50 (mm)
- --
- ---
- - --
-- --
- ---
--
d84 (mm)
----
- --
- - --
i
- - --
Parameter
MY -00 (20 2)
MY -01 (2012)
MY -02 (2013)
MY -03 (2014)
MY -04 (2015)
MY -05 (2016)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
17
34
23
17
34
23
Radius of Curvature (ft)
11
57
17
11
57
17
Meander Wavelength (ft)
34
68
49
34
68
49
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
6
44
14
6
41
11
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
000%
1 25 %
039%
0
339
042
Pool Length (ft)
6
32
13
7
21
11
Pool Spacing (ft)
17
46
23
17
46
23
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1413
1522
Channel Length (ft)
1 696
1,827
Sinuosity
12
12
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
0 004
00041
BF Slope (ft/ft)
- - - - --
- - - - --
Rosgen Classification
C/E 4/5
C 4/5

Table l lE Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Herman Dairy - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
Cross Section 17 Riffle (UT 3)
Cross Section 18 Pool (UT 3)
Cross Section 19 Pool (UT3)
Cross Section 20 Riffle (UTd3�
Dimension
MY 0
MYI
MY29
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY OK
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
BF Width (ft)
85
77
62
62
68
65
95
78
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3 1
26
3 8
3 7
3
3
32
23
BF Mean Depth (ft)
04
03
06
06
04
05
03
03
BF Max Depth (ft)
051
05
1
1
1 1
09
1
06
04
Width /Depth Ratio
23 31
228
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
282
265
Entrenchment Ratio
1761
195
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
158
192
Bank Height Ratio
I
1
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
87
78
67
66
72
69
97
79
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
04
03
06
06
04
04
03
03
Substrate
d50 (mm)
-- --
----
----
---
----
- - --
- - --
-- --
d84 (mm)
-- --
- ---
----
----
Parameter
MY -00 (2012)
MY -01 (2012)
MY-02 (2013)
MY-03 (2014)
MY -04 (2015)
MY -05 (2016)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Mi
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
20
39
26
20
39
26
Radius of Curvature (ft)
13
65
20
13
65
20
Meander Wavelength (ft)
39
78
55
39
78
55
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Len1,Rh (ft)
5
26
11
5
27
9
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
000%
159%
022%
- - --
- - --
- - --
Pool Length (ft)
8
21
13
7
24
13
Pool Spacing (ft)
20
52
26
20
52
26
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Lenlnh (ft)
619
645
Channel Length (ft)
743
774
Sinuosity
12
12
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
00012
- - --
BF Slope ( ft/ft)
- - - - --
- - --
Rosgen Classification
C/E 4/5
C 4/5

h
m
I.h- I
I'mfile
xN 12
I'nkinwn. I.cw1X
2.13
1 D13
2111 4
,\ca 1\11er 8urf.ce 81ope
V 3X153
M12
zUlz
36
2M
1
.\a -h4i11 %un'e5
\'XXr
1 3hnirvrin8 \YUnry
U 0051
JX.dn
Ihd EInX.�n
N'Xter EInX &n
Rh &n
aed Eln'X.In N11rr Elw
II.11
133
1 76 976
489
3J L
W 11
vJ.3
128 Y
47.8
YX 1
fi4.1
.9
45.2
178.1
YX.J
WII
74.2
v5,1
95.7
W1
N
1111
4711
17.5
372.6
978
1 11.7
Y] 2
17.Y
381!1
Y8 1
w. 2
118.7
W..2
YN.0
IWR
INI.M
Y'1.2
145.3
16 1
474
7259
YN 11
-2
I SJ.S
Y6.1
9811
112.1
W2
.2
16],2
97,5
9811
JJ8.7
980
Y1.3
I X2.Y
1].5
YN.I
JMI.3
9%.8
Y41
IYSM
47.6
48.1
JYS.S
YY0
9v.5
2W.1
97.1
48.1
815.1
184
44.5
2219
.."
YR.1
517.5
98.5
w.5
2253
Y7.J
4x.1
5"
9xM1
W4
24.5
'179
vx.2
SJ3.1
992
94.5
25
47.8
98..1
SIiY_5
99.1
YY.6
261,11
'17.1
W-1
5 %7.1
996
YY h
2662
03
9K3
54Y.2
4xb
In'.
264.8
w
9R.4
615.4
4411
496
2X2.4
".1
9x.5
62117
W4
Y1.7
24].7
'a1.4
98.7
617.1
0).M1
WL
31111
'17.6
41 ,]
0 5
YY.1
IIN)11
131 h
17.7
')R,7
M1M1S.M1
WU
11X1(1
31x1
4..1
91.8
67211
W 7
IINIU
367.5
W4
984
7115 ]
W P
11X1.2
370R
97Y
".0
719.x
'IC1
11X1.2
Herman Dariy(Tributary 1) Year I Profile- Reach 00+00 to 10 +00
.b -hufl
2.13
1 D13
2111 4
,\ca 1\11er 8urf.ce 81ope
V 3X153
111X/15
Wllle I-wh
36
2M
1
\vr, Wnk Nhlpr
II.UIIM
U 0051
_100.0
t
99.0
PId I-
12
35
a
Terracell
Herman Dariy(Tributary 1) Year I Profile- Reach 00+00 to 10 +00
103.0 - - - - -._ - -- - - - --
102.0
101.0
_100.0
t
99.0
a
Terracell
98.0
u
97.0
-a
a
K
96.0
N
o_
o_
95.0
y
94,0
2
93.0
U
92.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 SOD 900 1000
Distance (feet)
-Bed k"ail 3 /21/12 -*or 1 (2012) Bed + War 1(21112)WalerSurfacc

Elevation (feet -arbitrary)
o o e o 0 o b o 0
CrossSectio
13 Riffle
Cros
Sectic
n 4 Pool
g
I
Cros
Secti
5 Riffle
G
is
C
oss S
tion 6
Pool
a g
_
=
3
m
e
0
C
oss Sephon
7
kiffle E.
P
�
v
C
m
;F
_
C
oss S
tion 8
Pool '<
m
<
a
m
a�q
Cross
Sectioft
9 Po
I
a
CrossSemiom
10 Rilffle
a
f g
m
a
�
G
c
0
-------------------------
is 3n
Z:=E
J
3
C
oo = = =a.sw
S�
:J
B
s ="=
:i
i
i`
xt.N
e .59
qa
c
8''

aorh
FeNtun
Ihtr
['mr
"rnh.- 2
1'mlilc
4'1412
I'nWnwn. Jcmi Nn
2IM
2.13
21114
: \ey N'vter XUrf�rr AM�pr
U1NN11
2012
2.12
11
,1N -bulb tiurve5
1'ry
1 \funirurinA IS-,
tintMm
I d El-fi-
W,-El-dm
Xtrdm
& Flmsdtm
W1trr Eln
1111
4] Y
4N 2
51 5
4.11
'A1.4
112
474
41.2
584
477
4N4
14.Y
47.5
9N.2
11.3
475
YN..3
2..1
47.5
1
677
'1X.11
YM 1
22.2
99.1,
4X II
775
4X.1
49.4
14.4
4X11
9N.1
47n
Y9.4
17M1
47.
YN.1
.7 .5
177
YA4
417
47.7
YM_I
Y22
09
.4
♦♦.1
YI.Y
111M1.X
"11
.4
I.I.M1
49.0
Illl.h
17.9
.2.1
47.4
49.1
IIJ 11
4 %.1
4X.2
.9.1
47 9
YA.1
117.1
1%.I
4N.J
71.7
LII11
0 100
141A
W
.4
X1.1
4X11
147]
12
411.1
N$ 4
47.7
41.1
IM1X M1
'Xt.2
4X.5
Y1,N
Y1Y
YX1
1769
'17,Y
YX.S
iry 3
4A11
Y% i
I N2 Y
'1N.2
4X.J
I IU.%
4N 2
2114.1
113A
97.Y
9X4
2214
Y9.4
4X.M1
116.9
411.2
22fi4
9M0
Z.
1" M1
1267
"A
9X4
2113
4N.M1
I 139.4
4X.2
2154
4NJ
4X.7
14.i 4
977
49J
257.1
9X.5
"11
I4 RA
477
19.5
MI I
'M.I
4X.N
I "' '
"3
267.
4X.5
1612
4X.1
2N4.X
W.6
4X.M
415.5 44.1 99.1
,1a -built
2IM
2.13
21114
: \ey N'vter XUrf�rr AM�pr
U1NN11
.INVII
_
0
o
11
:N'y Ninlc X4�pe
M. Pi ,
.
01X114
n1Nf12
1'md'
11
12
M
m
o
415.5 44.1 99.1
Herman Dariy (Tributary 2) Year 1 Profile- Reach 00+00 to 10+00
100.0
99.5
N
C
_
0
o
n 99.0
,I ARA
M
m
o
v
a
U
_
98.5
Braided Reach
s
98.0
m
o
97.5
x
�
o
v
U
_
97.0
0 100
200
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance(feet)
-BedA,4I iY 3/21112 �Y- r1(2012) Bed -Y- I(2012)WNler Surface
415.5 44.1 99.1

!,
I b.- 2
rwhlr
v 912
r�,1m.=,�1.1rw1
2012
201!
21114
\I NUrlrre Nb,pr
11114
2012
z11z
IJ
13
:4 -M,ill Nurvrl
1'cv
l xllniu,rine \4un'ry
01X142
iral:lw
NM Elevrtl,w W.- M-1i, w
M.W.
and El-d-
%I.- F.In
521 N
944
51131
0
0
IIWI2
11X1.2
11111,9
IIWI2
IUI.3
IIII.S
11141.8
1012
1111 2
IINW I
IIII.)
1111.M1
IIW1.5
I'll's
101.5
111.4
101.1
1111 ]
1-1.7
1111.4
1111.7
1117X1
101.2
1017
I0]I.M
IUI.S
1017
111X7.11
1.1.1
1111.7
11174 J
111111
101.6
IIxN.2
1111.1
IIII 7
1.9511
IUI.2
1111.7
1IN6.1
IIII.,,
I'll 4
1119x.7
IU1.7
111X1.7
111211
1112.4
1111)
1112.2
1115.0
101.5
102.4
I I I6..
I.1 M1
102.1
1120 ♦
IIII.X
1112.4
I @.1
I01 .X
1.12.1
1125.6
IU2.1
1024
1 12x.1
102.1
I 1 34.2
:024
1112.M
1117.3
1111.1
1137.5
IUI.Y
IIIY.X
1021
1020
1141.2
102.0
102.9
1146..
112.1
102b
:145.5 5
1112
11.9 1
J7
103.1
IIII l
I IS6X
.
1028
103.1
1154.1
1024
111.11
11611M1
1024
1111.1
(165.4
:112.5
1111.1
1167.7
IU2,5
1113.1
II7U.1
102.P
IIII.I
1172n
11121
1113.1
IINM.s
11124
11113
:191.M
11129
101.2
11925
1112.5
1.1.2
114511
11124
113.2
I19X.$
111'.fi
111.1_1
12111 1
1112.M1
1012
12112 P
1.111
:205 2
10111
103.2
1217.5
10111
1(13 4
122114
I'll 1
10 1 1
1222.8
1112.7
101.4
1 225.1
102 8
101 1
12 M. 2
101.1
1111. s
105.0
104.0
-103.0
Al 02.0
m
,x1101.0
e
e
00.0
Lr2
99.0
98.0
1000
21n1 1114
1'crr2 M,wiu•rinR tiuney \'earl hl,wiuxinR \ti0nc5
Herman Dairy (Triburary 2) Year 1 Profile - Reach 10+00 to 16 +96
Log Van
:b -bWll
2012
201!
21114
\I NUrlrre Nb,pr
11114
01X141
.in. -,i
IJ
13
.U. PJMrn
: \vR IOfnc xMpr
01419
01X142
0
o_
F'4,d I.m h
13
12
Herman Dairy (Triburary 2) Year 1 Profile - Reach 10+00 to 16 +96
Log Van
Log Vane
Log's I I I
OIL 0
0
o_
0
0
Braided Reach
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
-Bed As- built3/21 /12 -Year 1 (2012) Bed -Year 1 (2012) WaterSurface

rnb.m 3
114al
4 27 12
2.12
:lrb ft S. I \ en 1 NmM12m e14une7 I 1'ear2111* W.
i'nR�tiun'e5 I 3earl ALoitlring tiurvn
- -2
47.1
2NA
15.1 44.1
42,1
49.7
11111 X112
Mhh YY 2
fi44
Y'J.5
lame l<nRlb
X411 44.7
927
`.Ih
116,4 Yoh
111
W2
`144
IIX4 4411
94.2
NJ.7
44.4
1224 'NA
IIS,$
4Y.h
99.4
125.1 44M1
IIY3)
YY.1)
'!•)4
13AP 44.7
122. 7
YY.I
444
1439 W3J
125.9
?l.h
97.4
151.1 w.l
1.1X.2
446
99Y
1584
142 ?
4Y.1
4Y.9
177M11 A Yo n
1464
r
1
15111
1
44.M1
4Y.Y 4
1921 .I
16.1
errace c
94Y
1854 44.5
17112
44 6
911
1471 11.4
175..1
'N 0
44 Y
149.7 4411
1X2.1
4Y,1
YY.9
.104,8 YX%
1X5.4
'N,6
44.9
2114.1 W
14h.11
Y'Jn
999
2153 .6
199.5
99.1)
449
21X.7 4Y.11
21)5.7
"a
4Y.4
2231 W.1
NIM.Y
` 6
227.9 N.7
214.2
W.X
III O
2.W Y "A
217.5
YYL
W..
2-39.4 W.i
464.1 44 h 11111.4 4M36 44.4
,1 built
2NA
2X13
2914
.1r'E 11 "alrr Xurraa Xl��pe
11111 X112
NA
100.0
lame l<nRlb
I I
11)
Ar'E Inme X41pe
11(.)22
NA
Ywi I_
13
13
98.0
464.1 44 h 11111.4 4M36 44.4
Herman Dariy (Tributary 3) AX -built Profile - Reach 00+00 to 07 +43
101.0
- ---- -- ---- - -- - -- -
- _.__
_
100.0
99.0
C
98.0
97.0
r
w
a
o
e
errace c
c
e
c
.0
m,::,O
0
0
0 0
0
o
5 .0
U
u
o u
o
U_
94.0
0 100 200
300 400 500
600 700 800
Distance (feet)
�BeJAa -b1XX l/21112 - �- &JYe.r 1 (2012)
464.1 44 h 11111.4 4M36 44.4

Site Name:
Elevation
Herman Dairy
99.»
12.84
Watershed:
17.85
30501001120030
Date:
3/3/2012
XS ID
Parkinson, Thomas
Tributar I (XS - 1, Pool)
94`
21.64
Drainage Area (s mi):
1.01
r ti-
23.91
97.71
25.11
97.41
25.88
97.55
26.70
98.11
27.73
98.17
29.72
98.51
31.64
98.85
33.32
98.98
35.1
99.22
38.05
99.40
39.79
99.76
44.63
99.87
50.01
99.75
Stream'I E
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 ( XS - 1, Pool)
101
100
y
c 99
Y
w
98
97
0 10
20 30 40
50 60
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.00
99.»
12.84
99.89
17.85
Date:
3/3/2012
Field Crew:
Parkinson, Thomas
Station
Elevation
0.00
99.»
12.84
99.89
17.85
99.77
19.16
99.72
19.93
99.62
21.15
99.09
21.64
98.93
23.18
98.03
23.91
97.71
25.11
97.41
25.88
97.55
26.70
98.11
27.73
98.17
29.72
98.51
31.64
98.85
33.32
98.98
35.1
99.22
38.05
99.40
39.79
99.76
44.63
99.87
50.01
99.75
SUMMARY DATA
Banldull Elevation:
99.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
19.6
Bankfull Width:
19.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at BanlduB:
2.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
I.0
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
- - -- Bankfull
- + -- As- Built4l3 /12
MY -01 2012
-+- MY-022013
MY -03 2014
MY- 042015

Site Name:
Elevation
Herman Dair
100.03
9.95
100.34
Wshrshed:
100.32
30501001120030
1 00.43
w:
Perkinson, Thomas
XS ID
99.40
Tributary 1 (XS - 2, Poop
99.27
24.96
99.17
Drainage Area
ad):
1.01
98.89
30.30
r
31.93
99.22
32.75
99.28
..,,�
99.55
Date:
100.06
4/3/2012
100.41
41.9
100.43
Field Cre
100.48
54.07
100.70
Stream E
Herman Dairy Tributary I ( XS - 2, Pool)
lot
101
----
-- ---- ----- -- - -- ----- --
--------------
r 100
- - - - Bankful l
c
? 100
- BAs- Built4/3 /12
-� MY -01 2012
99
- MY- 022013
MY -03 2014
99
MY- 042015
0 10
20
30 40
60
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.00
100.03
9.95
100.34
17.63
100.32
1 9.58
1 00.43
w:
Perkinson, Thomas
Station
Elevation
0.00
100.03
9.95
100.34
17.63
100.32
1 9.58
1 00.43
21.86
99.82
23.36
99.40
24.28
99.27
24.96
99.17
26.89
98.88
28.78
98.89
30.30
99.03
31.93
99.22
32.75
99.28
33.82
99.55
35.26
100.06
37.1
100.41
41.9
100.43
49.3
100.48
54.07
100.70
SUMMARY DATA
Bankflall Elevation:
100.4
Banidtdl Cross-Sectional Area:
16.0
Bankhtll Width:
17.1
Flood 1'roce Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Banldnll:
I.5
Mean De at Banldoll:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
-

Site Name:
Banldull Elevation:
Herman Dairy
BankfuUGross- Sectional Area:
17.0
Banldull Width:
Watershed:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
30501001120030
Flood Prone Width:
w:
Perkinson, Thomas
XS ID
Mean Depth at Banldull:
Tributary I (XS - 3, Riffle)
W / D Ratio:
17.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
Drainage Area ( mi :
.' 1.01
1.0
Date:
4/3 /2012
Field Cre
Station
Elevation
0.00
103 20
10.61
102.99
17.28
102.88
18.21
102.79
19.13
102.52
20.46
101.93
21.43
101.42
22.66
10133
23.46
101.37
24.79
101_68
26.03
101.75
27.57
101.43
Stream T EJC
30.10
101.41
31_61
101.66
32.2
101.83
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 (XS - 3, Riffle)
33.7
102.21
34.9
102.65
105
35.7
102.89
37.4
103.01
45.5
102.83
------------------------------------------------------------------
52.7
102.86
104
y
__ -- Baokfull
c103
-- -- ----- -- ---
---- -� ___��--
__________�_ ____- _____
_ - -- -Flood Prone Area
-� As -Built 413112
102
�� MY -01 2012
�- MY-022013
MY -03 2014
101
MY- 042015
0 10
20
30 40
50 60
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Banldull Elevation:
102.8
BankfuUGross- Sectional Area:
17.0
Banldull Width:
17.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
104.2
Flood Prone Width:
w:
Perkinson, Thomas
SUMMARY DATA
Banldull Elevation:
102.8
BankfuUGross- Sectional Area:
17.0
Banldull Width:
17.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
104.2
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Mean Depth at Banldull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
17.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

SUMMARY DATA
(sq mi):
Elevation
I(1�.1
103.0
102.8
102.6
102.1
102.0
101.8
101.7
100.9
101.0
101.8
102.1
Herman Dairy
.30501001120030
Tributary I (XS - 4, Pool)
1.01
4/3/2012
Perkinson, Thomas
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
Stream T �e F.
Ba�ild'ull Width:
Site Name:
Watershed:
XS ID
Drainage Area
Date:
.Field Crew:
Station
0.0
9.1
12.1
15.0
17.2
18.9
20.5
21.5
22.4
23.8
24.5
25.3
0.8
W / D Ratio:
104
Herman Dairy Tributary
1 ( XS - 4, Pool)
Bank Height Ratio:
103
C 102
i
ty
101
- -~�
102.3
27.5
103.1
27,9
103.13
37.2
103.21
44.0
- -�- Bankfull
- - - - Flood Prone Area
�- As -Built 4/3/12
�� MY -01 2012
-+- MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY- 042015
100
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Station (feet)
40 45 50
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
103.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
14.5
Ba�ild'ull Width:
18.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull•
2. I
Mean Depth at Banldull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
25.9
102.3
27.5
103.1
27,9
103.13
37.2
103.21
44.0
103.23
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
103.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
14.5
Ba�ild'ull Width:
18.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull•
2. I
Mean Depth at Banldull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:

Site Name:
BanitfWl Elevation:
Herman Dairy
10501001120030
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
16.6
Watershed:
XS ID
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Tributar 1 (XS - 5, Riffle)
1�y�
--
Drainage Area
(s mi):
I.O1
.
W / D Ratio:
Date:
Entrenchment Ratio:
- 1/3/2012
P -
11M, -f.�l.
Field Cre
Station
Elevation
0.0
104.0
104.3
10.5
17.3
104.2
19.1
104.2
20.7
104.
104.1
103.7
21.3
22.1
23.4
103.2
25.2
102.6
26.8
102.7
28.3
102.9
30.4
102.9
102.6
102.63
103.17
103.54
104.05
104.15
106
Stream T f t'
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 ( XS - 5, Riffle)
32.3
33.5
35.1
36.2
37.7
40.2
45.6
104.02
104.22
104.32
_____---------------------------------------------------------------------
105
53.5
58.2
Z
h
- - -- Bankful l
c104 ---------
- - - - -- - -- ------ ------------- -
- -- -Flood Prone Area
As- Built4/3 /12
4!
W
103
- •
�� MY -01 2012
+ MY- 022013
-MY-032014
MY -04 2015
102
0 10
20 30 40
50 60
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
BanitfWl Elevation:
104.1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
16.6
Bankfull Width:
16.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
105.5
Flood Prone Width:
e:
Perkinson, Thomas
SUMMARY DATA
BanitfWl Elevation:
104.1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
16.6
Bankfull Width:
16.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
105.5
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Mean Depth at Banld'ull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
16.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
I.0

Site Name:
Elevtiffon
Herman Dairy
1 04.6
37.7
104.2
Watershed:
104.1
30501001120030
103.7
I'erkinson, Thomas
XS ID
103.4
l'ributar I (XS - 6, Poo[)
103.4
�.
103.1
Drainage Area (sq mi :
1.01
25.3
102.7
24.3
Date:
22.9
4 /3/2012
21.5
101.9
20.8
Wield Crew:
19.8
103.1
18.5
103.9
to
104.2
15.9
1 04.3
0.0
103.8
Stream T 1-7('
Herman Dairy TributarN 1 ( XS - 6, Pool)
105
104
v
c 103
102
101
0 5
10 15 20
25 30 35
40 45 50
Station (feet)
Sftiiion
Elevtiffon
45.3
1 04.6
37.7
104.2
35.3
104.1
32.4
103.7
I'erkinson, Thomas
Sftiiion
Elevtiffon
45.3
1 04.6
37.7
104.2
35.3
104.1
32.4
103.7
32.0
103.7
30.7
103.4
29.0
103.4
27.6
103.1
27.1
103.0
25.3
102.7
24.3
102.7
22.9
102.1
21.5
101.9
20.8
102.0
19.8
103.1
18.5
103.9
17.9
104.2
15.9
1 04.3
0.0
103.8
SUMMARY DATA
Ban16u11 Elevation:
104.1
Banldull Cross - Sectional Area:
17.7
BanlduB Width:
17.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Banldull:
2.2
Mean Depth at Banldull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchmeat Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
-
Bankful l
Flood Prone Area
-+- As -Built 4 /3/12
MY -01 2012
-+- MY-022013
MY -03 2014
MY- 042015

Site Name:
Watershed:
XS ID
Drainage
Elevation
104.9
104.7
104.7
105.0
104.9
104.7
104.4
104.0
103.8
103.3
103.4
103.3
103.3
Herman Dairy
30501001120030
Tributary 1 (XS - 7, Riffle)
Stream'C
r-
F/C
Station
0.0
5.6
9.7
14.1
17.4
19.6
21.1
22.0
22.7
23.8
25.3
26.4
27.6
28.9
103.46
103.55
103.72
Field Crew:
107
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 ( XS - 7, Riffle)
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
I.0
30.6
31.9
33.0
103.98
104.78
104.78
105.03
105.02
34.6
Bank Height Ratio:
____________ ____________ __ ______________________________
36.9
40.1
44.3
47.9
54.0
106
y
0 105
W
104
103
105.27
- - -- Bankfull
- --- Flood Prone Area
As-Built 4/3 /12
t MY -01 2012
- �- MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY- 042015
105.27
___-
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)
40 50 60
SUMMARY DATA
Batdd'ull Elevation:
104.7
Bankfull Cross- Sectional Area:
14.0
Bankfull Width:
Area ( mi):
I.OI
Date:
4/3/2012
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Thomas
SUMMARY DATA
Batdd'ull Elevation:
104.7
Bankfull Cross- Sectional Area:
14.0
Bankfull Width:
14.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
106.1
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
I.0
W / D Ratio:
15.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
I.0

Site Name:
Ekvaflo�'�;
Herman Dairy
105.6
6.5
105.5
Watershed:
1.01
30501001120030
= 4/3/2012
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Thomas
XS ID
104.2
Tributary I (XS - 8, Pool)
103.9
20.3
103.6
Drainage Area (sq
103.4
21.7
103.2
J.
103.4
24.7
104.4
25.9
105.0
27.1
1 05.47
29.1
105.56
34.0
1 05.78
38.0
105.94
43.3
106.00
Stream T E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary
1 ( XS - 8, Pool)
107
106
0
."�
= 105
til
104
103
0 5
10 15
20 25 30 35
40 45 50
Station (feet)
Station
Ekvaflo�'�;
0.0
105.6
6.5
105.5
mi :
1.01
Date:
= 4/3/2012
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Thomas
Station
Ekvaflo�'�;
0.0
105.6
6.5
105.5
12.7
105.1
14.6
105.0
16.4
104.5
18.0
104.2
19.1
103.9
20.3
103.6
21.0
103.4
21.7
103.2
?3.1
103.4
24.7
104.4
25.9
105.0
27.1
1 05.47
29.1
105.56
34.0
1 05.78
38.0
105.94
43.3
106.00
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
105.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
16.0
BankfuB Width:
18.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2. l
Mean Depth at Banktlull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
-
__________ _______ -------------------
- - -- Bankfull
---- F1oodProneArea
-+- As-Built 4/3/12
�- MY -Ol 2012
-+- MY-0220 13
MY -03 2014
MY- 042015
i

Site Name:
Elevation
Herman Dairy
106.7
4.8
Watershed:
mi):
30501001120030
Date:
- !/3/2012
XS ID
Parkinson, Thomas
I'ributar t XS - 9, Pool)
105.6
12.6
Drainage Area (sq
13.5
104.8
14.3
104.6
15.1
104.4
15.8
104.3
17.0
105.2
18.1
105.8
$:.
106.20
21.1
106.67
25.2
106.62
29.5
1 06.62
Stream Tv FJC
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 ( XS - 9, Pool)
107
�____ __
_________________--- --- -------- - - - -__
y 106
---- Bankfull
-•�
�
�
� Flood Prone Area
- -� As -Built 4/3/12
a
�w 105
MY -01 2012
-�- MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY- 042015
104
0 5
10 15 20 25
30 35
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
106.7
4.8
106.6
mi):
1.01
Date:
- !/3/2012
Field Crew:
Parkinson, Thomas
Station
Elevation
0.0
106.7
4.8
106.6
8.0
106.1
9.3
105.9
10.8
105.7
11.5
105.6
12.6
105.3
13.5
104.8
14.3
104.6
15.1
104.4
15.8
104.3
17.0
105.2
18.1
105.8
19.3
106.20
21.1
106.67
25.2
106.62
29.5
1 06.62
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'uIl Elevation:
106.6
Banld'ull Cross - Sectional Area:
15.4
BankfuB Width:
16.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Banldull:
'.3
Mean Depth at Banld'ull:
I ��
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:

Site Name:
Elevation
Herman Dairy
106.7
4.7
Watershed:
mi):
30501001120030
Date:
4/3/2012
XS ID
Perkinson, Thomas
Tribu[ar 1 (XS - 10, Riffle)
105.5
12.9
Drainage Area (sq
13.7
105.5
14.7
105.5
15.6
105.8
16.7
105.8
18.0
105.9
19.1
105.6
20.5
105.55
21.7
105.70
23.6
106.43
25.4
106.90
27.7
106.77
32.6
106.99
Stream T E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 ( XS - 10, Riffle)
109
108
108
y
107
107
�
106
106
105
0 5
10 15 20 25
30 35
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
106.7
4.7
107.0
mi):
1.01
Date:
4/3/2012
field Crew:
Perkinson, Thomas
Station
Elevation
0.0
106.7
4.7
107.0
7.4
106.9
9.0
106.5
10.3
105.8
11.4
105.5
12.9
105.4
13.7
105.5
14.7
105.5
15.6
105.8
16.7
105.8
18.0
105.9
19.1
105.6
20.5
105.55
21.7
105.70
23.6
106.43
25.4
106.90
27.7
106.77
32.6
106.99
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
106.8
Banldull Cross - Sectional Area:
15.6
Banldull width:
17.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
108.2
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.4
Mean Depth at Banldull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
18.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Rata:
I.0
- - -- Bankfull
Hood Prone Area
-�- As -Built 4 /3/12
-*--MY -01 2012
-+- MY-022013
MY -03 2014
MY- 042015
_--- _-------------------------- __

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30-501001120030
XS ID
Tributary 2 ( XS - 11, Riffle)
Drainage Area (sq mi ):
1.01
Date:
4/3/2012
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Thomas
Station
Elevation
0.0
98.6
2.8
98.3
4.5
98.3
5.8
98.3
6.6
98.1
7.4
97.9
9.1
97.9
10.3
98.1
11.2
98.3
12.7
98.4
15.2
98.4
19.6
98.6
14.9
98.5
17.3
98.46
19.6
98.52
99
L
98
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
1.3
BanVuB Width:
5.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
98.7
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
20.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream T F/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 ( XS - 11, Riffle)
99
99
99
99
L
98
=
98
_____________ __________________ ---- _----------- __--------------
- - -- Bankfull
- - -- Flood Prone Area
i98
w
98
-t- As -Built 4/3/12
98
98
MY -01 2012
- �- MY -02 2013
98
0 10
MY -03 2014
20
Station (feel)
MY- 042015

Site Name: H
Herman Dairy
Station Elevation
0.0 98.9
Bd'
2.7 98.8
d'
5.5 98.7
7.7 98.8
8.3 98.7
9.0 98.3
10.0 98.1
10.7 98.0
11.4 983
12.2 98.5
13.4 98.7
14.7 98.9
16.7 98.9
19.2 98.87
SUMMARY DATA
anlull Elevation: 98.7
Banlull Cross - Sectional Area: 2.1
Bankfull Width: 5.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width: -
Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4
W / D Ratio: -
Entrenchment Ratio: -
Bank Height Ratio:
SUMMARY DATA
anlull Elevation: 98.7
Banlull Cross - Sectional Area: 2.1
Bankfull Width: 5.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width: -
Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4
W / D Ratio: -
Entrenchment Ratio: -
Bank Height Ratio:

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary 2 ( XS - 13, Riffle)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.01
Date:
4/3/2012
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Thomas
Station
Elevation
0.0
99.3
3.8
99.2
6.3
99.4
7.3
99.2
8.1
98.8
8.9
99.1
10.4
99.2
11.8
99.1
12.4
98.9
13.7
99.3
16.5
99.3
19.7
99.4
_
100
y
99
C
-- --- - - - - ------ ---- --- - - - - --
2
a
99
- - -- Bankfull
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
99.3
BankfuB Cross - Sectional Area:
1.5
BanWuB Width:
7.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
99.8
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at BankfuB:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bank -full:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
32.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
jStreamiT,ype I El
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 ( XS - 13, Riffle)
loo
100
_
100
y
99
C
-- --- - - - - ------ ---- --- - - - - --
2
a
99
- - -- Bankfull
w
99
- - -- Flood Prone Area
-+- As -Built 4/3/12
99
t MY -01 2012
+ MY -02 2013
99
0 10
MY -03 2014
20
Station (feet)
MY- 042015

Site Name:
Elevation
Herman Dairy
103.3
3.9
Watershed:
5.8
30501001120030
6.5
103.2
XS ID
Perkinson, Thomas
'I'ributar 2 (XS - 14, Pool)
102.7
8.4
Drainage Area (s nu):
1.01
1 02.4
9.8
Date:
10.8
- 1/3/2012
11.9
1 02.9
Field Cre
103.2
15.8
103.1
17.7
103.21
19.6
103.12
Shwm'. E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 ( XS - 14, Pool)
104
103
103 _ - --
----------------------
_ °- __-------- ------- -f -
L
`= 103 -
- -
e
c
103
y
- - -- Bankfull
w 103
- - -- Flood Prone Area
-+- As- Built4/3 /12
102
�� MY -01 2012
-�- MY -02 2013
102
0
10
MY -03 2014 20
Station (feet)
MY- 042015
Station
Elevation
0.0
103.3
3.9
103.2
5.8
103.3
6.5
103.2
w:
Perkinson, Thomas
Station
Elevation
0.0
103.3
3.9
103.2
5.8
103.3
6.5
103.2
7.1
103.0
7.7
102.7
8.4
1 02.5
9.0
1 02.4
9.8
102.5
10.8
1 02.8
11.9
1 02.9
13.6
103.2
15.8
103.1
17.7
103.21
19.6
103.12
SUMMARY DATA
Banldull Elevation:
103.2
Banldull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.6
Bankfu6 Width:
6.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Banldull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W ! D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Rata:
-

Site Name.
Elevation
"Herman Dairy
10-t_'
2.8
104?
Watershed:
L01
30501001120030
- 1/312012
1
Parkinson, Thomas
XS Ill
103.7
I "ributar 2 (XS - 15, Riffle)
103.7
i.
103.7
Drainage Area (sq
103.8
12.5
]04.1
14.1
104.2
16.3
104.3
19.4
104.2
i
Stream Type E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 ( XS - 15, Riffle)
105
105 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
104
i+
104
_ --- --- - - - - --
- - --- - ---
--
-
---------- - ----- -----------------------
104
a,
- - -- Bankfull
104
- - -- Flood Prone Area
-� As- Built4/3 /12
104
+ MY -01 2012
-�- MY -022013
103
0
10
MY -032014 20
Station (feel)
MY- 042015
Station
Elevation
0.0
10-t_'
2.8
104?
mi):
L01
Date:
- 1/312012
Field Crew:
Parkinson, Thomas
Station
Elevation
0.0
10-t_'
2.8
104?
4.4
104.1
5.6
104.2
6.6
104.0
7.3
103.7
8.7
103.7
10.4
103.7
11.6
103.8
12.5
]04.1
14.1
104.2
16.3
104.3
19.4
104.2
SUMMARY DATA
Batild'ull Elevation:
104.1
Banldull Cross - Sectional Area:
2?
Banld'u6 Width:
6.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
104.6
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
21.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
I'ributar 2 ( XS - 16, Pool)
Drainage Area mi :
1.01
Date:
4 /3/2012
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Thomas
Station
Elevation
0.0
104.5
2.7
104.6
4.5
104.5
6.0
104.4
7.2
104.2
8.3
104.0
9.4
103.7
10.2
103.8
10.9
104.2
12.0
104.6
13.2
104.7
14.8
104.5
16.6
104.6
19.1
104.69
0
104
- - -- Bankfull
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
104.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.4
Bankfull Width:
7.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
j
Bank Height Ratio:
-
FJC
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 ( XS - 16, Pool)
105
105
-+
-- -- --- -__
y
104
0
104
- - -- Bankfull
v
---- Flood Prone Area
W 104
-�- As -Built 4 /3/12
} MY -01 2012
1
--�- MY -02 2013
104
0 10
MY -03 2014
20
Station (feet)
MY- 042015

Site Name:
Elevation
Herman Dairy
100?
6.0
100.1
Watershed:
100.2
30501001120030
- l/3/2012
Field Crew:
1'erkinson, Thomas
XS ID
99.8
Tributary 3 (XS - 17, Riffle)
99.6
11.8
99.6
Drainage Area (sq mi :
0.06
14.3
99.5
15.5
Date;
17.1
100.0
19.4
100.1
r'
100.06
25.0
99.99
26.9
100.02
Sfteam T E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 3 (XS - 17, Riffle)
101
____________________________________
_____ _______ _____ ___
___________
100
100
y
e __ ____________________
c 100
____ _______
___ _ ___ _________
_ -_ Bankfull
tit 100
- -- Flood Prone Area
-�- As -Built 4/3/12
100
� MY -01 2012
-0 MY -022013
99
0 5
10
15 20
MY -032014 30
Station (feet)
MY- 042015
Station
Elevation
0.0
100?
6.0
100.1
7.8
100.2
- l/3/2012
Field Crew:
1'erkinson, Thomas
Station
Elevation
0.0
100?
6.0
100.1
7.8
100.2
8.5
100.2
9.3
100.0
10.1
99.8
10.7
99.6
11.8
99.6
13.0
99.6
14.3
99.5
15.5
99.6
17.1
100.0
19.4
100.1
22.1
100.06
25.0
99.99
26.9
100.02
SUMMARY DATA
Banldull Elevation:
100.0
Banldull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.6
Banldull Width:
7.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
100.5
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at BankfuB:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankiull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
22.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30.501001120030
XS ID
Fri butary 3 ( XS - 18, Pool)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.06
Date:
4/3/2012
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Thomas
station
Elevation
0.0
100.7
4.2
100.7
6.6
100.8
8.0
100.7
9.3
100.5
10.9
99.5
11.6
99.5
12.2
99.5
12.9
99.8
14.0
100.2
15.1
100.5
16.9
100.5
19.4
100.7
23.0
100.66
y
100
100
- - -- Bankfull
c
100
- - -- FlOOd Prone Area
y
-+ -As -Built 4/3/12
cy
100
t MY -01 2012
SUMMARY DATA
Banld'ull Elevation:
100.5
BankruH Cross - Sectional Area:
3.7
Bankfull Width:
6.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type I E
Herman Dairy Tributary 3 ( XS - 18, Pool)
101
101
101
------------------------ ----------- - - - - -- ----------------
y
100
100
- - -- Bankfull
c
100
- - -- FlOOd Prone Area
y
-+ -As -Built 4/3/12
cy
100
t MY -01 2012
100
+MY- 022013
99
MY -03 2014
99
MY- 042015
0 10 20
Station (feet)

Site Name:
Herman Dair
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary 3 XS - 19, Pool)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.06
Date:
4/3/2012
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Thomas
Station
Elevation
0.0
100.-4
4.6
100.4
7.2
100.4
9.8
100.4
11_1
100.3
11.9
99.9
12.8
99.4
13.5
99.5
14.2
99.6
15.0
99.9
16.0
100.1
17.2
100.4
20.4
100.6
23.2
100.74
25.9
100.79
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
100.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
3.0
Bankfull Width:
6.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
U.
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream TypeI7C
Herman Dairy Tributary 3 ( XS - 19, Pool)
101
101
101
y
100 ----------------------
y
= 100 ____ Bankfull
too - - -- Flood Prone Area
v -� -As -Built 413/12
y l00 -MY -0 12012
100 -+-MY -022013
99 MY -03 2014
99 MY- 042015
0 10 20
Station (feet)

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary 3 ( XS - 20, Riffle)
Drainage Area mi :
0.06
Date:
4/3/2012
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Thomas
Station
Elevation
0.0
100.7
3.7
100.7
5.2
100.8
6.9
100.7
7.6
100.4
8.3
100.3
9.0
100.4
10.4
100.3
12.3
100.2
13.9
100.6
15.6
100.8
19.4
100.8
101
101
i
101
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
100.7
Banldull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.3
Bankfull Width:
7.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
101.1
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
26.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
F!C
Herman Dairy Tributary 3 ( XS - 20, Riffle)
101
101
------------------------------------------------------------------------
101
101
i
101
101
-- _- - -_ - -_ ---- - --- -- --- ------ ------------ --- --- - _-
_- __--- -___ -_
0
'
"
101
- - -- Bankfull
- - -- Flood Prone Area
As -Built 4/3/12
t MY -01 2012
MY-022013
101
100
100
100
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
MY -03 2014
20
Station (feet)
MY- 042015

Appendix E.
Hydrology Data
Table 12 Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
2012 Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Figure E1 Annual Climatic Data vs 30 -year Historic Data
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 12. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
*Data has been collected through October 15, 2012 for the Year 1 (2012) monitoring season, data will continue to be collected
throughout the remainder of the growing season and will be available upon request
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season
Gauge
(Percentage)
Year 1 (2012)*
Year 2 (2013)
Year 3 (2014)
Year 4 (2015)
Year 5
1
Yes /38 days
(16 2 percent)
2
Yes /64 days
(27 2 percent)
3
Yes/] 82 days
4
(77 percent)
4
Yes /183 days'
(77 9 percent)
5
Yes /87 days
0
(37 perc ent)
6
Yes /86 days
6
(36 percent)
7
Yes/ 192 days
(817 percent)
8
Yes/ 178 days
7
(75 percent)
9
Yes/ 19 days
(81 percent)
10
Yes/ 102 days
4
(43 percent)
Ref
Yes/ 148 days
I
(62 9 percent)
*Data has been collected through October 15, 2012 for the Year 1 (2012) monitoring season, data will continue to be collected
throughout the remainder of the growing season and will be available upon request
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

3/15/2012
3/23/2012
3/31/2012
4/8/2012
4/16/2012
4/24/2012
5/2/2012
5/10/2012
5/18/2012
5/26/2012
6/3/2012
6/11/2012
6/19/2012
6/27/2012
7/5/2012
d 7/13/2012
�0
7/21/2012
7/29/2012
8/6/2012
8/14/2012
8/22/2012
8/30/2012
9/7/2012
9/15/2012
9/23/2012
10/1/2012
10/9/2012
10/17/2012
10/25/2012
11/2/2012
11/10/2012
Water Level (inches)
A W W W W W N N N N N 1 1 1 1 1 1
OOJOANOOOOA NO000ANO000�ANONAO�00ONA
O O O O O 1 --+ N
N A O W N A O W
Precipitation (inches)
2
fD
N `C
o�
N p
!7 =
C CL
US
v�
a,
c
U3
fD
j

3/15/2012
3/23/2012
3/31/2012
4/8/2012
4/16/2012
4/24/2012
5/2/2012
5/10/2012
5/18/2012
5/26/2012
6/3/2012
6/11/2012
6/19/2012
6/27/2012
7/5/2012
d 7/13/2012
7/21/2012
7/29/2012
8/6/2012
8/14/2012
8/22/2012
8/30/2012
9/7/2012
9/15/2012
9/23/2012
10/1/2012
10/9/2012
10/17/2012
10/25/2012
11/2/2012
11/10/2012
Water Level (inches)
A6 W W 66N NN NN 11 L 1._a , 1 --
0w W ANOOOA NOOOANOOMANONAOOONA
O O O O O N
N A O OD N A O 00
Precipitation (inches)
2
fD
3
fD �
o�
L
N O
Q.
C
v�
C
ca
M
N

Water Level (inches)
AW W W W WNNrbrbrb 1 . N -- -
OODOAN000OA NOOOOANOODAONAOODONA
3/15/2012
3/23/2012
3/31/2012
4/8/2012
4/16/2012
4/24/2012
5/2/2012
5/10/2012
5/18/2012
5/26/2012
6/3/2012
6/11/2012
6/19/2012
6/27/2012
7/5/2012
v 7/13/2012
0
7/21/2012
7/29/2012
8/6/2012
8/14/2012
8/22/2012
8/30/2012
9/7/2012
9/15/2012
9/23/2012
10/1/2012
10/9/2012
10/17/2012
10/25/2012
11/2/2012-
11/10/2012 -
O O O O O N
N A O 0o N A O 00
Precipitation (inches)
2
fD
3
(DD
�v
N
L
N^^ 0
LI �
as �
Q.
U3
CD .�.
vCD
a�
C
U3
CD
C4
Cp m
a� v
o
Co
0
cc
v
0
0
N
N
rn
v
m
a
0
0
0
�z
3
t0 <
u0
00) Cr
0
0
0 co
— — — — — — — — -- t — — — —
— —
— —
O O O O O N
N A O 0o N A O 00
Precipitation (inches)
2
fD
3
(DD
�v
N
L
N^^ 0
LI �
as �
Q.
U3
CD .�.
vCD
a�
C
U3
CD
C4

3/15/2012
3/23/2012
3/31/2012
4/8/2012
4/16/2012
4/24/2012
5/2/2012
5/10/2012
5/18/2012
5/26/2012
6/3/2012
6/11/2012
6/19/2012
6/27/2012
7/5/2012
v 7/13/2012
7/21/2012
7/29/2012
8/6/2012
8/14/2012
8/22/2012
8/30/2012
9/7/2012
9/15/2012
9/23/2012
10/1/2012
10/9/2012
10/17/2012
10/25/2012
11/2/2012
11/10/2012
Water Level (inches)
A W W W W W N N N N N L 1 1 1 1 J 1
0wm4 1 " 0 w m A "0mmA"0wm.PNONAmm0N4
O O O O O 1 N
N A 6� Oo N A O OD
Precipitation (inches)
2
cu
m �
N
o�
J �
N p
C Q
v�
a�
c
cc
�D

3/15/2012
3/23/2012
3/31/2012
4/8/2012
4/16/2012
4/24/2012
5/2/2012
5/10/2012
5/18/2012
5/26/2012
6/3/2012
6/11/2012
6/19/2012
6/27/2012
7/5/2012
d 7/13/2012
cD
7/21/2012
7/29/2012
8/6/2012
8/14/2012
8/22/2012
8/30/2012
9!7/2012
9/15/2012
9/23/2012
10/1/2012
10/9/2012
10/17/2012
10/25/2012
11/2/2012
11/10/2012
Water Level (inches)
A W W W W W N N N N N L L L 1 — 1 1
OmmANOOOmA NOOOmANOmmANON ?mOOONA
O O O O O 1 1 1 1 N
N A m oo N A m Oo
Precipitation (inches)
2
m
3
c�D 3
J
o�
N p
fii =
as �
CL
to
c
vCD
a�
C
tQ
CD
o,

3/15/2012
3/23/2012
3/31/2012
4/8/2012
4/16/2012
4/24/2012
5/2/2012
5/10/2012
5/18/2012
5/26/2012
6/3/2012
6/11/2012
6/19/2012
6/27/2012
7/5/2012
m 7/13/2012
fD 7/21/2012
7/29/2012
8/6/2012
8/14/2012
8/22/2012
8/30/2012
9!7/2012
9/15/2012
9/23/2012
10/1/2012
10/9/2012
10/17/2012
10/25/2012
11/2/2012
11/10/2012
Water Level (inches)
A W W W W W N N N N N-L 1 1L 1. 1— 1
O w O A N O w O A N O m m A N O w M? N O N A O w O MA
O O O O O 1 N
N A O OO N A O W
Precipitation (inches)
2
p
3
fD �
p
o�
N p
!7 C
� p
CL
C
CD
v(D
C
to
m
rn

3/15/2012
3/23/2012
3/31/2012
4/8/2012
4/16/2012
4/24/2012
5/2/2012
5/10/2012
5/18/2012
5/26/2012
6/3/2012
6/11/2012
6/19/2012
6/27/2012
7/5/2012
v 7/13/2012
co
7/21/2012
7/29/2012
8/6/2012
8/14/2012
8/22/2012
8/30/2012
9/7/2012
9/15/2012
9/23/2012
10/1/2012
10/9/2012
10/17/2012
10/25/2012
11/2/2012
11/10/2012
Water Level (inches)
A W W W W W N N N N N 1 -i 1 1 1 J
owM-41mommA mommAN000OANONAO00ONA
O O Q Q O 1 1 1 1 1 N
N A Q-) OO N A O OO
Precipitation (inches)
fD
3
N
o�
N p
a>
CL
c
v�
a�
c
m
�D
v

3/15/2012
3/23/2012
3/31/2012
4/8/2012
4/16/2012
4/24/2012
5/2/2012
5/10/2012
5/18/2012
5/26/2012
6/3/2012
6/11/2012
6/19/2012
6/27/2012
7/5/2012
0 7/13/2012
co
7/21/2012
7/29/2012
8/6/2012
8/14/2012
8/22/2012
8/30/2012
9/7/2012
9/15/2012
9/23/2012
10/1/2012
10/9/2012
10/17/2012
10/25/2012
11/2/2012
11/10/2012
Water Level (inches)
A W W W W W N N N N N 1 1 J 1 J, 1� J
O OD Q� A N O m m A N O m O A N O w O A N O N A O w O N A
O O O O O -+ 1 1 N
N A O OD N A O W
Precipitation (inches)
2
fD
�v
R
N
o�
J �
N p
C
O.
C
vCD
a�
cQ
m
0

3/15/2012
3/23/2012
3/31/2012
4/8/2012
4/16/2012
4/24/2012
5/2/2012
5/10/2012
5/18/2012
5/26/2012
6/3/2012
6/11/2012
6/19/2012
6/27/2012
7/5/2012
7/13/2012
7/21/2012
7/29/2012
8/6/2012
8/14/2012
8/22/2012
8/30/2012
9/7/2012
9/15/2012
9/23/2012
10/1/2012
10/9/2012
10/17/2012
10/25/2012
11/2/2012
11/10/2012
Water Level (inches)
A W W W W WNNNNN1L L. -��
O000AK)0mmA NOC m-01m0 DO�ANONAmODONA
O O O O O 1 1 J 1 J N
N A O W N A O W
Precipitation (inches)
�D
p
�v
o�
.L
N p
ci =
p �
C.
c
v�
a�
c
fD
.r, •,

3/15/2012
3/23/2012
3/31/2012
4/8/2012
4/16/2012
4/24/2012
5/2/2012
5/10/2012
5/18/2012
5/26/2012
6/3/2012
6/11/2012
6/19/2012
6/27/2012
7/5/2012
7/13/2012
fD 7/21/2012
7/29/2012
8/6/2012
8/14/2012
8/22/2012
8/30/2012
9/7/2012
9/15/2012
9/23/2012
10/1/2012
10/9/2012
10/17/2012
10/25/2012
11/2/2012
11/10/2012
Water Level (inches)
? W W W W 6 N N N N N 1 L 1 L L � J J
O W OANOODOANOOOOANOODOANONAOOOONA
O O O (D O J J J N
N A O) 0O N A O) 00
Precipitation (inches)
2
m
N
�v
y
o !7
L O
N C
O.
c �
U3
CD �+
vm
to
m
0

3/15/2012
3/23/2012
3/31/2012
4/8/2012
4/16/2012
4/24/2012
5/2/2012
5/10/2012
5/18/2012
5/26/2012
6/3/2012
6/11/2012
6/19/2012
6/27/2012
7/5/2012
v 7/13/2012
7/21/2012
7/29/2012
8/6/2012
8/14/2012
8/22/2012
8/30/2012
9/7/2012
9/15/2012
9/23/2012
10/1/2012
10/9/2012
10/17/2012
10/25/2012
11/2/2012
11/10/2012
Water Level (inches)
W W N N N N N 1 1 1 L L . . . . — 1—
Omm-D,"0wm-N NOODOI�."0wmAON AOODONA
O O O O O N
N A O 60 N A Q) Oo
Precipitation (inches)
2
fD
3
J
0
N �
o�
N =L
C
Q
m
� m
a1 fD
n
fD
a�
c
U3
m

7
6 .. - -- - ----- -.....
i
N
d
Z
V
e 4
vC
O
0.
3
C6
2
1
0
Figure E1. Annual Climatic Data vs. 30 -year Historic Data
Month
30th %*
70th%
2012^
Jan
2.77
509
Feb
2.48
465
Mar
3.43
5.85
Apr
2.02
4.52
May
3.08
5.3"
1.22
June
2.89
5.74
1.03
July
2.4'
5.07
4.38
Aug
2.43
4.64
4.68
Sept
1 98
5'7
433
Oct
165
44
2.05
Nov
2.49
4.34
Dee
2.25
4.34
Hickory Regional Airport, NC 30 -year
C t] Q. > N > pp > u
A LL Q R a o y
N Z
`2012'" 30th %` 70th %`
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Appendix F.
Benthic Data
Figure Fl Post construction Benthic Station Locations
Habitat Assessment Field Datasheets
Final 2012 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 1 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

— HERMAN DAIRY Dwn. By: FIGURE
Axiom Environmental STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE SGD
Date:
Aim, ANWk
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603 POST - CONSTRUCTION BENTHIC Oct 2012 F 1
[phone] LOCATIONS Project:
I Alexander County, North Carolina 10 -016

3106 Revision Ci
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet U7 1
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE (0
Directions fur use The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters pi eferred of stream, preferably man
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right -of -way The segment which is assessed should represent average,
smart conditions To perforni a proper habitat evaluatioti die observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the fort, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score If the observed habitat fails in between two descriptions
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is deterriuned by adding the results from the different metrics
Stream M- 44�t_Locationtroad. G�.t t � � ,(Road Name^_ —__ jCounly_��i
t,+ 2 i 03 ,D5o I� 1120° 0 03 08 3Z
Date / CC# Basin Czl� Kl�-�7 Subbasin
Obsmer(s)Rf}Li g7Mype of Study. ❑ Fish �Benthos O Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe) _
Latitude Wq3 Ill Longitude J) 1 9-0IP 9 Ecoregion• ❑ MT A P O Slate Belt O Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature "" "C DO — __mg /I Conductivity.(corr.) — pS /cm pit
Physical Chat actervation: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include What
you estimate driving, thru the watershed in watershed land use uu 1 t
Visible Land Use. %Forest %Retitdenttal f� %Active Pasture 4f ° � _ Active Crops
`
%Fallow Fields % Commercial �_ Industriai 16 %other - Describe, G� _ q Y tt�►�
5 AY-, q b r�k v; a 1� gfc.M-
Watershed land use- JXForest )]Agriculture ❑Urban 0 Animal operations upstre 4 � hs'
C�
D's-1
Width. (iiqra) Stream .I -- Channel (at top of bank) 5 Stream Depth 41 Avg_ Max 1.0
O Width variable ❑ Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest pan of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on) '
Bank Angie- _4s n or O NA (Vertical is 90 ', horizontal is 0 °. Angles > 90' indicate slope is towards mid - channel, < 90"
indicate slope is away from channel NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter)
❑ Chtuinehzed Ditch
❑Deeply incised- steep, straight batiks ❑Both bariks undercut at bend ❑Chatinel filled in with sediment
• Recent overhank deposits ❑Bar development OBuried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
• Excessive penpbyton growth ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
iVtauivade Stabilization ❑N iY ❑Rr -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sedimendgrade- control structure ❑Berm/levee
Flow conditions ❑High ❑Normal Low
Turbidity Clear ❑ Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid OTannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project ?O RYES ONO Details
Channel Flog Status
Useful eipectally under abnornial or loin flow conditions
A Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed O
B Water fills >75% of available charnel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed,
C Water fills 25 -75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed. O
D. Root mats out of water ❑
E Very little water ui channel, mostly present as standing pools ❑
Weather Conditions: hf}� �`N► 1 �5 Pho(os: ON ❑Y ❑ Digital 035mm
Remarks- SrK 1s 1`x'1 1St �c�C" or 4n O _C-oy)r cbpy1OV�.`�1�1
39

UT
I Channel Modification Score
A channel natural, frequent bendi 5
B channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) 4
C some t.hannelizauon present , 3
D more extensive channelization. >40% of stream disrupted 2
F no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc 0
0 Evidence of dredging OEvidence of desnagging= no large woody debris in stream 013anks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal S
11. Instream Habitat Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover If >70% of the
reach is rucks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17 Definition leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed togetliei and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves to pool areas) Mark as Rare, Common, or Abundant
L Rocks _Nlacrophytes R Sticks and leafpacks A Snags and logs L Undercut banks or root mats
4MOUN'r OF REACH. FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COYER
>70% 40 -70% 2040% <20`Yo
Score Score Score Score
16 12a
4 or 5 types present 20
3 types present. 19 15 11 7
2 types present Is 14 10 G
1 type present 17 13 9 5
No types present 0
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
Subtotal
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand. detritus, gravel, cobble. boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at nftle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud hue" or difficulty extracting rocks
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
I, embeddedness <20% (very tittle sand, usually only behind large boulders)
15
2. embeddedness 2040%
12
3 embeddedness 40 -80%
8
4 embeddedness >30%
3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
I embeddedness <20%
14
2 embeddedness 20 -40%
3 embeddedness 40 -30%
c
4 embeddedness >80 °l0
2
C. substrate mostly gravel
I embeddedness <50%
8
2 embeddedness >50%.
4
D. substrate homogeneous
I substrate nearly all bedrock
3
2 substrate nearly all sand
3
3 substrate nearly all detritus
2
4 substrate nearly all silt/ clay
I
Remarks
Subtotal
V. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow- Pools may take the form of "pocket water ", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams or side eddies
A Pools present Score
1 Pools Frequent ( >3061 of 200ru area surveyed)
a vanety of pool sizes
b pools about the same stye (indicates pools filling in) 8
2 Pools Infrequent (430°/6 of the 200m area surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes F
b pools about the same size 4
B Pools absent 0
Subtotal 0
D Pool bottom boulder - cobble -hard O Bottom sandy -sink as you walk 0 Silt bottom O Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
_ Page Total
40

V. Riffle Habitats UT I
Deftmtion. Riffle is area of reaeratiou -can be debris dam, or narrow channel area Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
S re Score
A well defined riffle and rim, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream . 16 12
13 riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is, not 2X stream width 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width to 3
D. riffles absent. o
Channel Slope ATypical for area OSteep =fast flow OLow -like a coastal stream Subtotal
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACF UPSTREAM Leff Bank Pt l3aiil:
Score Score
A. Banks stable
I little evidence of erosion or batik failtue(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion Q t
B Erosion areas present
I diverse trees, shrubs, grass, plants healthy with good root systems 6 6
2 few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy 5 5
3• sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding 3 3
4. mobtly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, }ugh erosion and failure potential at high Flow 2 2
5 httlo or no bank vegetation- mass erosion and bank failure evident 4 6 �j
Total 1 -1—
% -il, Light Penetration Canopy is detuied as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface Canopy would block out
sunlight when the Sun is directly o,6erhead Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric
Remarks JuSL _ j G0.Yl}t 5 V-1 `� iii _ I-C Affil— _Subtotal_ D
Vill Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition Riparian zone for this foim is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain) Definition A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks Much allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream. such as paths
down to stream storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc
FACE UPST EAtvl Lft Bank Rt Batik
Dominant vegetation. D Trees A Shrubs D Grasses PR weeds /old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
Score
A Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light pen( tradon
to
B Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent
8
C Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal,.
7
D Stream with minimal canopy - full stn in all but a few areas
o
E No canopy and no shadmg . .
Remarks JuSL _ j G0.Yl}t 5 V-1 `� iii _ I-C Affil— _Subtotal_ D
Vill Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition Riparian zone for this foim is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain) Definition A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks Much allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream. such as paths
down to stream storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc
FACE UPST EAtvl Lft Bank Rt Batik
Dominant vegetation. D Trees A Shrubs D Grasses PR weeds /old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
a
I width > 18 meters
2 width 12 -18 meters
4 4
3 width 6 -12 meters
3 3
4 width <6 meters
2 2
B Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1 breaks rare
a width > IS meters ...
4 4
b width 12 -18 meters
3 3
c width 6 -12 meters _
2 2
d width < 6 meters
1 1
2 breaks common
a width > I$ meters
3 3
b width 12 -18 meters
2 2
L width 6 -12 meters .
I I
d width < 6 meters
p o
� 0
Remarks
Total
Page Total_
D Disclaimer -toxin filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion- atypu.al stream.
l OTAL SCORE-

Diagram to determine bank angle
V&
900
Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
.a
45°
Site Sketch
Other comments
42
Uri
1350
This side is 4i° bank ankle

3106 Revision o
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet L Z
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ frOTAL SCORE y
Directions for use I In observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right- of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
Stream conditions "ro perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle Ilse score If the observed habitat falls in between 0,o descriptions.
select an intermediate score A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
ThY"f,_
Stream SIT M � `�_ oyx "Locauoalroad � }h1!, % (Road Name )County 1q J'(AaV-) ,tf- it
U 120 "05C) l 0112.oa3p �� L) 3 O� -'�Z
Date � IIZ CC# _ Basta 0.W t:C Subbasin
ttv;�
Observer(s)Vt 1`t� )Type of Study ❑ Fish Benthus ❑ Bastnwide ❑tipecial Study (Describe) _
Latitude 1'>.r1$114 Longitude - 8 I.7000 `1 fcoregion• A M-1 4 P ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Water Quality. Temperature ^ 'iC DO — mg/I Conductivity (Corr ) — pS/em pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you Lan see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use
Visible Land Use 15 %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture 15 % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields °�� Commercial %industrial I Q %Other - Describe -e,t,e_ 1� � AFC �
Watershed land use . Forest AAgnculture ❑Urban � Animal operations upstream
Width ( ) Stream Charnel (at top of bank) � Stream Depth (f) Ave 0, ��° tai, 0.2-
❑ Width variable ❑ Large river >25m wide Ff
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on) (44i) O 5
Bank Angle q� ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90 °, horizontal is 0° Angles> 90° indicate slope is towards raid- charnel, < 90"
indicate slope is away from channel NA it bank is too low for bank angle to matter )
❑ Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised - steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sedrmeni
• Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
• Fxcegsive periphyton growth ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage sinell
Manmade Stabilization ON POl' OR -rap cement, gabions ❑ Sedtnnent/grade- control structure OBerm/levee
Flow conditions ❑High ❑Normal ) Low
Turbidity Aclear ❑ SLrghtly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tann c ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project ?? YES ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions
A Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ❑
B Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of cbannel substrate is exposed.. ❑
C Water fills 2i -75% of available Lhainiel, many logsisnags exposed
L) Root mats out of water ❑
E Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ❑
1 C� o
Weather Conditions: Y}o� �!+i1M } t 0 S Photos: ON ❑Y ❑ Digital 035nim
Remarks. sib 1S 1$1 `SF �tcky 0 -qOS� Y_(Aho i_loytil-FPV pa
39

07 -2
t. Channel Niodification Score
A channel natural, frequent bends,
B channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) . 4
C some channelization present 3
U more extensive channelization >40 %n of stream disrupted 2
E no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc 0
0 Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging =no large woody debris in stream OBanks of uniform shapelheight
Remarks Subtotal 15
If. Instream Habitat Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover tt >701A of the
reach is rocks. I type is present, circle the score of 17 DeGrotion- leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas) Mark as Rare Common or Abundant
G Rocks H Macrophytes �Stieks and leafpacks "R Undercut and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION
OR COVER
>70%
40 -70 %
2040%
<20%
Score
Score
Score
Score
4 or 5 types present
20
16
12
8
3 types present
19
(W
11
7
2 types present
l8
14
l0
6
1 type present,
17
13
9
5
No types present
0
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
Ill. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring
for embeddedness, and use rocks front all parts of nftle -took for "mud hne" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate Stith good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
I embeddedness <20 %, (very little sand usually only behind large boulders)
2 embeddedness 2040%
3 embeddedness 40 -80%
4 embeddedness >80%
B substrate gravel and cobble
I embeddedness <20%
2 embeddedness 2040%
3 embeddedness 40-80%
4 embeddedness >809 ✓o
C. substrate mostly grat,ei
I embeddedness <509 ✓u „
2 embeddedness 550%
D. substrate homogeneous
1 substrate nearly all bedrock
2 substrate nearly all sand
3 substrate nearly all detritus
4 substrate nearly all silU clay
Subtotal —
Subtotal Subtotal
but only look at nfflc
Score
15
12
8
3
14
11
2
IV. Pool Varlety Pools are areas of deeper than average tnammum depths with little or no surface turbulence Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow, Pools may take the fomi of "pocket water ", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies
A Pools present Score
I Pools Frequent ( >30 % of 200m area surveyed)
a variety of pool sizes 0
b pools about the same size (indicates pools fillmg in) 8
2 Pools Infrequent ( <30% of the 200m area surtncycd)
a variety of pool sizes 6
b pools about the some size 4
B. Pools absent 0
Subtotal { U
0 Pool bottom boulder- cobble =hard O Bottom sandy -sink as you walk 0 Silt bottom 0 Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Tofz:l
40

UT?-
V Riffle Habitats
Definition: Raffle is area of reacration -can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score �Score-
A well defined riffle and non, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream 16 (M-
B riffle as wide as stream but ntlle length is not 2X stream width 14 7
C riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width 10 3
D riffles ? sent. 0
Channel Slope: grypical for area ❑Steep =i'ast flow 01- ow-=like a coastal stream Subtotal Z
V1. Bank Stability and Vegetation
i'ACL UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt Bank
c re Score
A. Banks stable
I little evidence of erosion or bank fatlure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion t
R Erosion areas present
I diverse trees, shrubs, grass, plants healthy with good root systeim 6 6
2 few trees or small tw i and shrubs, vegetation appears generally healthy 5 5
3 sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding 3 3
4 mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow 2 2
5 little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure cv ident 0 0
Total��
ViI. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is direr dy overhead Note. shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric
core
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration 10
B Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal 7
D Stream with nunimal canopy - full sun in all but a few arenas
E. No canopy and no shading l
Remarks Yx�'� a W 1 t%"t,��7 G S t-� �! 1 1 1 c1 Subtotal-0
Vill Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition Riparian Zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain) Definition A break
in the riparian cone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter die stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains uprooted trees, otter slides, etc
FACE: UPS ANN Lit Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation ❑'1 rees .Shrubs Grasses weeds /old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A Riparian zone Intact (no breaks)
0
5�
1 width > 13 meters
2 width 12.18 meters
4
4
3 width 6 -12 meters
3
3
4 width < 6 meters
2
2
B Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1 breaks rare
a width > 18 meters
4
4
b width 12 -18 meters
3
3
c width 6 -12 meters
2
2
d width < 6 meters _ .
1
1
2 breaks common
a width > 18 meters.
3
3
b width 12 -18 meters „
2
2
c width 6 -12 ureters
I
I
d width < 6 meters
0
0
i d
Rcnnarks
Total
Page Total
30
❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't thatch subjective opinion- atypical stream
TOTAL SCORE
12-
J1

Diagram to detLnivne bank angle
0
Imo,
I I_
90°
Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
r
45°
Site Sketch
Other comments _ --
a
42
U 1 2
135°
This side is 45" bank angle