20110766 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20150414

YEAR 3 of 7 (2014)
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
HERMAN DAIRY STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Alexander County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. 94642
Full Delivery Contract No. 003271
Catawba River Basin
Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed
03050101120030
Submitted to:
NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
Irft-Imal �� eh
JANUARY 2015

YEAR 3 of 7 (2014)
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
HERMAN DAIRY STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Alexander County, North Carolina
EEP Project No. 94642
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
Ftea
O'1]1C17t
rROr ■uw
JANUARY 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................ ...............................
1
2.0
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ ...............................
4
2.1
Vegetation Assessment .................................................................................. ...............................
4
2.2
Stream Assessment ........................................................................................ ...............................
4
2.3
Wetland Assessment ...................................................................................... ...............................
4
2.4
Biotic Community Changes ........................................................................... ...............................
4
3.0
REFERENCES .................................................................................................. ...............................
6
19110111.E *%v
Figure1. Site Location ................................................................................. ............................... Appendix A
Figures 2, 2A -213. Consolidated Current Conditions Plan View ................ ............................... Appendix A
Figure E1. Annual Climatic Data vs. 30 -year Historic Data .. ............................... .......................Appendix E
Figure F 1. Preconstruction Benthic Station Locations ................................ ............................... Appendix F
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. FIGURES
Figure 1. The Site Location
Figures 2, 2A -2B. Consolidated Current Conditions 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 -8d. Visual Assessment Tables
Table 9. Verification of Bankfull Events
Tables I Oa- IOb. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11 a -11 c. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross - section Plots
Substrate Plots
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7)
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Table of Contents page i

APPENDICES (continued)
APPENDIX E. HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
2014 Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Figure E1. Annual Climatic Data vs. 30 -year Historic Data
APPENDIX F. BENTHIC DATA
2014 Benthic Data Lab Results
2014 Habitat Assessment Field Datasheets
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7)
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Table of Contents page ii

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site)
located approximately 1.5 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 3 (2014) 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 floodplains
to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters crossing Site floodplains.
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, 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
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) page 1
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

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 465
planted stems per acre surviving. In addition, 9 out of 10 individual plots exceeded success criteria, with plot
4 being only one stem shy of the required stem density. The number of native tree and shrub species observed
in plots ranged from three (Plot 4) to seven (Plot 5), with 16 total native species observed. Treatment for
invasive species, primarily Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) was initiated prior to construction and will
continue as necessary, primarily within areas denoted on Figures 2 and 2A -213 (Appendix A).
Replanting occurred during the winter of 2013/2014 in the southeastern portion of the Site between UT2 and
UT3 with 3- gallon containerized trees as follows. Newly planted stems are generally viable and vigorous in
year 3 (2014).
175 Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
150 Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
175 American elm (Ulmus americana)
500 TOTAL
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. Pebble counts were performed at six cross sections; 3 on UT1, 2
on UT2, and 1 on UT3. These pebble counts provide a representative sample of the site substrate. A small
remnant beaver dam was observed on UT 1 allowing some finer particles (sand, silt/clay) to settle and cause
slight aggradation on this reach. No evidence of long -term inundation was observed, and it is expected that
these fine particles will be moved through the site and should not pose any future problems. No stream
problem areas were noted during Year 3 (2014) 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 (235 days) (USDA 1995). Year 1 (2012) groundwater gauge installation occurred between
March 30 and April 4, 2012; therefore, given the date of groundwater gauge installation and the initiation of
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) page 2
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

monitoring, Year I groundwater monitoring utilized the published growing season dates from the county soil
survey for success criteria. However, in future monitoring years, if soil temperatures and/or vegetative
growth (bud burst) is documented, project gauge hydrologic success will be determined using dates from
February 1- November 9 (282 days) to more accurately represent the period of biological activity (see
following "Summary of Hydrology Success Criteria by Year" table.
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 8 percent of the monitored period,
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 hydrophytic vegetation. If wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by
vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be performed.
Summary of Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year
Soil Temperatures /Date Bud
Monitoring Period Used for
8 Percent of Monitoring
Burst Documented
Determining Success
Period
March 20- November 9
2012 (Year 1)
__
19 days
(235 days)
No bud burst during February
March 20- November 9
2013 (Year 2)
19 days
13 -14, 2013 Site visit
(235 days)
No bud burst during February
March 20- November 9
2014 (Year 3)
19 Days
site visit
(235 days)
2015 (Year 4)
2016 (Year 5)
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. All
gauges were well above success criteria for monitoring Year 3 (2014).
Benthics: Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet scores for UT 1 increased from a total score of 45 prior to
restoration to 76 after three annual monitoring years. Similarly, UT 2 improved from a score of 36 to 78 and
UT3 improved from a score of 21 to 81 after three annual monitoring years. North Carolina Biotic Index
(NCBI) assigned value for UT1 (7.76) was lower in Year 3 (2014) than in previous monitoring years,
indicating a slight improvement; however, the score remains in the range of values for Poor biotic indices
(NCDWQ, 2011). This Poor classification can be attributed to the increase in fine substrate between Year 2
(2013) and Year 3 (2014) due to a remnant beaver dam observed in early 2014. It is expected that these
particles will be moved through the site and should not pose further problems for benthic macroinvertebrate
communities. NCBI assigned value for UT2 (9.45) was higher in Year 3 (2014) than in previous monitoring
years, indicating a decline. This decline can be attributed to slightly below average precipitation during the
winter and spring of 2014 (Figure E1, Appendix E). Both Year 3 (2014) NCBI values indicate a decline
from the preconstruction values. This is expected just three years after channel construction. The habitat
assessment scores have gradually improved since construction, and therefore, the NCBI assigned values are
expected to improve in the future. No benthic samples were obtained from UT3 because the stream was dry
at the time of the site visit. Benthic results and Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheets are included in
Appendix F.
In summary: Site vegetation, streams, and wetland hydrology met success criteria for Year 3 (2014)
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
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) page 3
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

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 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008). Plots were measured in July 2014 for Year 3 monitoring.
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.
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 onsite 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 crest 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 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
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) page 4
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

200 1). Biological sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates will be used to compare preconstruction baseline
data with post - construction restored conditions.
Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring locations were established within Site restoration reaches. Post -
construction collections occurred in approximately the same locations as pre - construction sampling;
however, sampling was not possible in UT 3 in Year 3 (2014) due to lack of stream flow. Benthic
macroinvertebrate samples were collected 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. Post - construction
biological sampling occurred on June 27, 2014 for Year 3 monitoring; post - construction monitoring will
occur in June of each monitoring year. Identification of collected organisms was performed by Pennington
and Associates, a NCDWQ certified laboratory. Results and Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheets are
enclosed in Appendix F.
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) page 5
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2001. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Protocols for Compensatory Mitigation. 401 /Wetlands Unit, Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2011. Standard Operating Procedures for Collection
and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Version 3.0). 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.
Weather Underground. 2013. Station at Hickory Airport, North Carolina. (online). Available:
http:// www. wunderground .com/history /airport/KHKY /2013 /10/31 /Dail Hy istory html [October 31,
2013]. Weather Underground.
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) page 6
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Appendix A.
Figures
Figure 1. The Site Location
Figures 2, 2A -2B. Consolidated Current Conditions Plan View
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

�1.
fJ Herman Dairy Site Location
I, .Y,:;
-Access from Three Forks Ch. Rd.
`r ='✓ Latitude 35.931617
{ 1- Longitude - 81.206949
(NAD83 /WGS84)
r
Zeb Watts
Access Site from
Driveway on - -Three Forks
Three Forks Rd.
s
J US 64 /NC 90. NG-ov
/3
Reference Reach 1 --f -�;
r �
Li.
From the Town of Statesville
- From Interstate 40 take exit 148 onto NC 64 north s M
- Travel - 17 miles on NC 64 north and turn north (right) on r
NC 16 (towards Taylorsville) }4"
- 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
G 218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
HERMAN DAIRY
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
THE SITE LOCATION
DwnW6L /CLF
Date:
May 2012
FIGURE
1
(919) 215 -1693
w<;omklwironm„I...a,,,n7.
Alexander County, North Carolina
Project:
10 -016

Legend
C3Easement Boundary (Not Fenced)
Stream Restoration
Restored Channel
-
-
Braided Stream
Enhancement (Level 1)
OIn- stream Structures
. Cross- sections
- --
--
CVS Plots
- —
-
® Groundwater Gauges
Photo Points
-
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Stations
Crest Gauge
(� Invasives Treatment Area
Power Line
-
Terracell
NCWAM Wetland Types
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
9
Headwater Forest
Seep
8
w
t
?_ C �16
A.
11 12
2� r
3
Tributary
a
2010 CG IA leaf -off aerial photography 0 150 300 600 900
Dwn. By:
HERMAN DAIRY KRJ FIGURE
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Date:
Raleigh, NC 27603
CONSOLIDATED CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW July 2013
—
(919) 215 -1693
Alexander County, North Carolina Project:
10 -001

Feet N
100 200 400
600
F201
0 CGIA leaf -off aerial photography
£
" 10
Legend
End Profile
C3Easement Boundary (Not Fenced)
+ ® 9 Tributa ry 1
'` ❑
Stream Restoration
8
-No-- Restored Channel
_
`0-
Braided Stream
7
Enhancement (Level 1)
Wetland Assets
6
Nonriparian Wetland Enhancement
5
'
Nonriparian Wetland Restoration
- Riparian Wetland Enhancement
❑3
Riparian Wetland Restoration
O O
O In- stream Structures
4
Cross - sections
3
CVS Plots
0 Groundwater Gauges
017
Photo Points
0 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Stations Pipe Crossing
Crest Gauge
Invasives Treatment Area
� 5 q
((�*
Power Line
5
Terracell
_
000,11.
fl 14
2
r ja��
Start Profile
Tributary 1
-f
�.
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
HERMAN DAIRY
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
CONSOLIDATED CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
Dwn. By:
KRJ /CL
Date:
Nov 2014
FIGURE
/�
A
(919) 215 -1693
Alexander County, North Carolina
Project:
10 -001

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
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 1. Project Restoration Components
Herman Dairy Restoration Site
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Ri arian Wetland
Nonri
arian Wetland
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
4780
0
7.2
1.1
1.2
0.05
Pro'ects Com onents
Existing Linear
Restoration/
Restoration
Priority
Mitigation
Station Range
Footage/
Restoration
Linear Footage/
Comment
Acreage
Approach
Equivalent
Acreage
Ratio
UTl 10 +00 -31 +67.8*
UT1A 10 +00 -10 +85.71
I
Restoration
3997
1:1
Priority I stream restoration through construction of
UT2 10 +00 -16 +69.04, 21 +50.67 -27 +10.09
stable channel at the historic floodplain elevation.
UT3 10 +00 -17 +28.39
4540
UT2 16 +69.04 -21 +50.67
Braided stream restoration by redirecting diffuse flow
UT3 upper 8 1. 10 linear feet
--
Restoration
563
1:1
across riparian wetlands. Linear footage of stream is
based on a straight line valley distance.
Level I stream enhancement by altering profile and
UTl upper 330.00 linear feet
330
Level I
Enhancement
330
1.5:1
dimension, cessation of current land use practices,
removing invasive species, and planting with native
forest vegetation.
Restoration of riparian wetlands within the floodplain
Riparian Wetlands
0
--
Restoration
7.2
1:1
as the result of stream restoration activities, filling
abandoned channels and ditches, removing spoil
castings, and planting with native forest vegetation.
Enhancement of existing riparian wetlands
Riparian Wetlands
2.2
--
Enhancement
2.2
2:1
characterized by disturbed pasture by planting with
native forest vegetation.
Restoration of nonriparian wetlands by removing spoil
Nonriparian Wetlands
0
-
Restoration
1.2
1:1
castings, filling abandoned ditches to rehydrate hydric
soils along the slope, eliminating land use practices,
and planting with native forest vegetation.
Enhancement of existing nonriparian wetlands
Nonriparian Wetlands
0.1
--
Enhancement
0.1
2:1
characterized by disturbed pasture by planting with
native forest vegetation.
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear footage)
Riparian Wetland (acreage)
Nonriparian Wetland (acreage)
Restoration
4560
7.2
1.2
Enhancement (Level 1)
330
--
--
Enhancement
--
2.2
0.05
Totals
4890
9.4
1.25
Mitigation Units
4780 SMUs
8.3 Riparian WMUs
1.25 Nonriparian 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.
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 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 Deliver
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
Invasive Species Treatment
919- 215 -1693
Ongoing
As -Built Documentation
Erosion Control Plans
June 2012
Year 1 (2012) Annual Monitoring
September 2012
October 2012
Year 2 (2013 ) Annual Monitoring
October 2013
November 2013
Replanting
--
Late 2013 /Early 2014
Year 3 (2014) Annual Monitoring
November 2014
January 2015
Table 3. Project 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
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Herman Dairy Restoration Site
Project County
Alexander County, North Carolina
Physiographic 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)?
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 phase?
Yes
Unnamed
Tributaries to M dy Fork
UT 1
UT 2
UT 3
Drainage Area
1.0
0.06
0.04
Stream Order (USES topo )
2nd
1st
1st
Restored Length (feet)
2156
1684
760
Perennial (P) or Intermittent (1)
P
P
I
Watershed Type
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 listed?
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
31.12
31.12
31.12
Total existing vegetated acreage of easement
8
8
8
Total planted restoration acreage
31.5
31.5
31.5
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 slope
0.0066
0.0052
0.0013
Cowardin classification of proposed
R3UB1 /2
R3UB1 /2
R4S133 /4
Trout waters designation
NA
NA
NA
Species of concern, endangered etc.
NA
NA
NA
Dominant Soil Series
Codorus /Hatboro
Codorus /Hatboro
Codorus /Hatboro
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 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
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 5. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
1
Yes
90%
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
No
5
Yes
6
Yes
7
Yes
8
Yes
9
F--10
Yes
Yes
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 6. CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Report Prepared By
Corri Faquin
Date Prepared
7/7/2014 14:25
database name
RS- HermanDiary- 2014- A- v2.3.1.mdb
database location
\\ AE- SBS \RedirectedFolders \KJernigan \Desktop
computer name
KEENAN -PC
file size
51687424
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted
stems, and all natural /volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by
each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
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
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 7. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Project Name: Herman Dairy
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MY3 2014)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Herman -P -0001
Herman -P -0002
Herman -P -0003
Herman -P -0004
Herman -P -0005
Herman -P -0006
Herman -P -0007
Herman -P -0008
Herman -P -0009
Herman -P -0010
PnoLS
FP-all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
38
1
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
14
2
4
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Carya
hickory
Tree
2
2
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
6
6
6
9
9
9
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
7
6
6
6
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
6
6
6
6
6
6
3
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
30
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
21
21
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
21
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
10
10
10
8
8
28
12
12
12
71
7
7
16
16
16
14
14
52
9
9
11
131
131
14
161
161
49
10
10
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
6
6
61
4
4
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
7
7
7
5
5
6
4
4
5
5
5
6
5
5
6
5
5
6
404.7
404.7
404.7
323.7
323.7
1133
485.6
485.61
485.6
283.3
283.31
283.3
647.51
647.51
647.51
S66.61
566.61
21041
364.21
364.21445.21
526.11
526.11
566.61
647.51
647.51
19831404.71404.71
445.2
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Table 7. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species (continued)
Project Name: Herman Dairy
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY3 (20 4)
MY2 (2013)
MY1 (2012)
MYO (2012)
Pnol-S
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Pnol-S
P -all
T
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
39
9
15
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
20
21
7
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
16
16
16
18
18
18
19
19
19
41
41
41
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Carya
hickory
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
2
2
3
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
34
34
34
34
34
34
33
33
33
32
32
32
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
14
14
20
15
15
19
17
17
18
25
25
25
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
15
15
15
16
16
16
14
14
14
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
31
2
2
36
46
1
1
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
6
6
6
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
21
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
21
2
2
Unknown
I
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
10
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
115
115
210
120
120
188
118
118
187
1451
1451
145
10
10
10
10
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
12
12
14
13
13
15
12
12
15
10
10
10
465.4
465.4
849.8
485.6
485.6
760.8
477.5
477.5
756.8
586.8
586.8
586.8
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Herman Dairy
2014 (Year 3) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2014
Plot 4
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Herman Dairy
2014 (Year 3) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2014
(continued)
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Appendix D.
Stream Assessment Data
Stream Station Photos
Table 8a -8c. Visual Assessment Tables
Table 9. Verification of Bankfull Events
Tables 1 Oa- 1 Oc. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11 a -11 e. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross - section Plots
Substrate Plots
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Herman Dairy
Fixed Station Photographs
Taken October 8, 2014
Photo Point 5
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7)
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Photo Point 6
Appendices

Herman Dairy
Fixed Station Photographs (continued)
Taken October 8, 2014
Photo Point 7
Photo Point 10
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 8A Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary 1
Assessed Length 1374
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
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow
laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
19
19
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
20
20
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
100
100
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
100
100
100%
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 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%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
2
2
100%
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
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
2
2
100%

Table 813 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
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow
laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
39
39
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
> Depth Sufficient fficient 1. Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth 1.6
(Max ( p p - )
37
37
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
100
100
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
100
100
100%
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 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%
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 monitoring guidance document)
3
3
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs 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
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow
laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
27
27
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
27
27
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
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 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%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
8
8
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
8
8
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
8
$
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)
$
$
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
8
8
100%

Table 9. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo (if
Collection
available)
Bankfull event documented when sediment
May 11, 3013
May 6, 2013
deposits were observed on top of banks after 3.00
--
inches of rain was documented over a two -day
period.
Bankfull event documented after wrack was
July 18, 2013
June 6, 2013
observed on top of bank and throughout
1-2
floodplain after 4.27 inches of rain was
documented* over a two -day period.
Bankfull event likely occurred after 3.61 inches
November 19,
of rain over a two -day period that was preceeded
2014
August 11, 2014
by 0.56 inches and followed by an additional
--
0.78 inches as documented by an onsite rain
gauge.
*Weather Underground (2013)
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 10A. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Herman Dairy UT 1
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre - Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Stream UT Catawba*
Project Reference
Reach 1
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min 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
16
19
18
9
12
10
9
10
10
16
18
17
15.5
16.4
16.1
Floodprone Width (ft;
26
150
150
25
150
50
22
25
24
150
250
BF Cross Sectional Area (112'
20.2
10.9
11.8
36
53
20.2
14
18.2
16.4
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
0.9
1.1
1
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.9
1 2.3
1 2
1.5
1 1.8
1.7
1.5
1.6
1 1.6
1.4
1 1.8
1.6
1.2
1.6
1.4
Width /Depth Ratic
12
17
16
8
13
10
7.2
8
7.6
12
16
14
14
17
16
Entrenchment Ratic
1.6
9.6
7.9
2.7
14.6
4.9
2.3
2.7
2.5
8
10
9
15
16
16
Bank Height Ratic
1.8
3.1
1.9
1
1
1
1.3
1.1
1
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
___
___
___
= ==
15.9
16.8
16.7
Hydraulic radius ft'
___
___
___
__-
0.9
1 1.1
1
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft'
No pattern of riffles
30
40
35
35
58
45
50
101
67
50
101
67
Radius of Curvature (ft;
and pools due to
12.5
25
18
10
16
34
168
50
34
168
50
Meander Wavelength (ft;
straightening activties
25
70
45
68
81
101
202
143
101
202
143
Meander Width ratic
2.9
3.9
3.4
4.7
3
6
1 4
3
1 6
4
Profile
Riffle length (ft'
No pattern of riffles
=__
___
__=
23
65
36
Riffle slope (ft /ft )
and pools due to
0.30%
0.36%
0.34%
0.34%
4.31%
2.48%
1.10%
1.65%
1.38%
0.00%
1.50%
0.64%
Pool length (ft)
straightening activties
=__
___
= ==
10
54
32
Poolspacing (11)
22
62
39
29
103
60
50
134
67
50
134
67
Substrate
d50 (nun)
d84 (mm)
Additional Reach Parameter
Valley Length (ft;
Channel Length (ft;
___
___
___
__=
2108
Sinuosit 3
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
0.62%
0.28%
1.27%
0.55%
0.53%
BF slope (ft/ft)
Rosgen Classification
Cd 5
E 4/5
E 4/5
Ec4 /5
E/C 4/5
BUT to Catawba River Reference Site includes measurements from a stream measured in 2008

Table IOB. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Herman Dairy UT 2
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre - Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Stream UT Catawba*
Project Reference
Reach 1
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min 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
6.1
5.7
6.8
7.9
6.9
Floodprone Width (ft;
14
19
15
25
150
50
22
25
24
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2'
2.3
10.9
11.8
2.3
2.2
2.4
2.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.2
0.4
0.3
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.4
1 0.8
1 0.5
1.5
1 1.8
1.7
1.5
1.6
1 1.6
0.4
1 0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Width /Depth Ratic
16
76
30
8
13
10
7.2
8
7.6
12
16
14
20
27
21
Entrenchment Ratic
1.3
2.2
1.6
2.7
14.6
4.9
2.3
2.7
2.5
14
38
26
19
22
22
Bank Height Ratic
5
12
7
1
1
1
1.3
1.1
1
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
___
___
___
__=
7
8
7.1
Hydraulic radius (ft;
___
___
___
__=
0.3
0.3
0.3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft
No pattern of riffles
30
40
35
35
58
45
17
34
23
17
34
23
Radius of Curvature (ft;
and pools due to
12.5
25
18
10
32
16
11
57
17
11
57
17
Meander Wavelength (ft
straightening activities
25
70
45
65
128
81
34
68
49
34
68
49
Meander Width ratic
2.9
3.9
3.4
3.7
6.1
4.7
3
8
4
3
8
4
Profile
Riffle length (ft;
No pattern of riffles
=__
___
__=
6
44
14
Riffle slope (ft /ft)
and pools due to
0.30%
0.36%
0.34%
0.34%
4.31%
2.48%
0.86%
1.29%
1.08%
0.00%
1.25%
0.39%
Pool length (ft)
straightening activties
=__
___
__=
6
32
13
Poolspacing (ft)
22
62
39
29
103
60
17
46
23
17
46
23
Substrate
d50 (nun)
d84 (mm)
Additional Reach Parameter
Valley Length (ft;
Channel Length (ft
=__
___
___
__=
1696
Sinuosity
1.04
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.85%
0.28%
1.27%
0.43%
0.40%
BF slope (ft /ft)
Rosgen Classificatio
Fc 5/6
E 4/5
E 4/5
Ec4 /5
C 4/5
^Measured as -built numbers do not include D -type reach
*UT to Catawba River Reference Site includes measurements from a stream measured in 2008

Table IOC. 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 Max I Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (fi)
USGS gage data is
unavailable for this
project
6
9
7
9
12
10
9
10
10
6
7
6.5
6.8
8.5
7.7
Floodprone Width (ft'
12
13
12
25
150
50
22
25
24
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2'
3
10.9
11.8
3
2.2
3.1
2.7
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.5
0.4
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.6
1 0.9
1 0.7
1.5
1 1.8
1.7
1.5
1.6
1 1.6
0.6
1 0.8
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
Width /Depth Ratic
13
31
17
8
13
10
7.2
8
7.6
12
16
14
21
23
22
Entrenchment Ratic
1.4
1.9
1.7
2.7
14.6
4.9
2.3
2.7
2.5
22
25
23
17
22
19.5
Bank Height Ratic
4
7
6
1
1
1
1.3
1.1
1
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
___
___
___
= ==
7
8.7
7.9
Hydraulic radius (ft'
=__
___
___
__-
0.3
1 0.4
0.4
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft;
No pattern of riffles
30
40
35
35
58
45
20
39
26
20
39
26
Radius of Curvature (ff;
and pools due to
12.5
25
18
10
32
16
13
65
20
13
65
20
Meander Wavelength (ft
straightening activities
25
70
45
65
128
81
39
78
55
39
78
55
Meander Width ratic
2.9
3.9
3.4
3.7
6.1
4.7
3
8
4
3
8
4
Profile
Riffle length (ft;
No pattern of riffles
=__
___
__=
5
26
11
Riffle slope (ft /ft)
and pools due to
0.30%
0.36%
0.34%
0.34%
4.31%
2.48%
0.22%
0.33%
0.28%
0.00%
1.59%
0.22%
Pool length (ft)
straightening activties
=__
___
= ==
7
21
13
Poolspacing (ft)
22
62
39
29
103
60
20
52
26
20
52
26
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
Additional Reach Parameter
Valley Length (ff
Channel Length (ft:
___
___
___
__=
743
Sinuosit )
1.01
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft /ft)
0.40%
0.28%
1.27%
0.11%
0.12%
BF slope (ft /ti)
Rosgen Classification
Fc 5/6
E 4/5
E 4/5
Ec4 /5
"UT to Catawba River Reference Site includes measurements from a stream measured in 2008

Table 11A. 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
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
20.9
19.6
18.1
24.8
16.9
17.1
17.4
18.2
16.4
17
18.9
14
16.8
18.2
20.2
10.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
250
250
250
250
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2 )
19.9
18.9
17.4
17.4
16.3
16
14.9
14
16.7
17
17.5
10
14.4
14.5
13.8
10.5
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.7
1.0
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.3
2.2
2.1
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1
2.1
2.1
2.3
1.5
Width/Depth Ratio
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
16.11
17
20.41
19.6
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
Entrenchment Ratio
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
15.2
14.7
13.2
17.9
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
Bank Height Ratio
- - --
- - --
- ---
-- --
- - --
----
- - --
- - --
1
1
1
1
-- --
- - --
----
----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
21.7
20.4
18.8
25.6
17.2
17.4
17.8
18.6
16.8
17.6
19.5
14.6
17.6
19.1
21.2
10.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
1
1
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.6
1
Substrate
d50 (mm)
- - --
- - --
- ---
- - --
0.4
0.4
- ---
- - --
0.2
0.2
- --
- - --
----
- - --
d84 (mm)
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
15
14
- - --
- - --
10
4
- - --
- - --
- --
- - --
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
50
101
67
50
101
67
Radius of Curvature (ft)
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
Meander Wavelength (ft)
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
23
65
36
16
49
28
5
82
33
5
117
36
Riffle Slope (ft/ft )
0.00%
1.50%
0.64%
0.05%
1.05%
0.57%
0.14%
1.92%
0.65%
0.11%
1.13%
0.37%
Pool Length (ft)
10
54
32
18
62
35
12
63
31
7
49
30
Pool Spacing (ft)
50
134
67
50
134
67
50
134
67
50
134
67
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1757
1373
1525
1513
Channel Length (ft)
2,108
1,648
1830
1816
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)l
0.0053
1 0.0045
0.0054
0.0051
BF Slope (ft/ft)
- - - - --
- - - - --
- - - - --
Rosgen Classificatio
C/E 4/5
C -4/5
C 4/5
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
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
BF Width (ft)
16.1
16.3
16.7
9.5
20
17.2
19.5
8.3
15.5
14.6
16.8
10.4
16.1
18.4
18.7
9.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
250
250
250
250
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
250
250
250
250
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
EMY
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2 )
18.2
16.6
15.2
7.5
20.3
17.7
15
7.8
14
14
14.5
9.3
15.5
16
16
11.7
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
L2
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.1
2.3
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.9
2.1
2.3
2.1
Width/Depth Ratio
14.2
16.0
18.3
12.0
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
17.16
15.23
19.46
11.63
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
Entrenchment Ratio
15.5
15.3
15.0
26.3
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
16.13
17.12
14.88
24.04
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
1
1
1
1
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
16.8
16.9
17.2
10
21
18.3
20.5
9.1
15.9
15.1
17.3
11.2
16.8
19.1
19.6
10.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
1
1
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.1
Substrate
d50 (mm)
-- --
----
- --
-- --
-- --
- - --
- - --
----
----
-- --
1 -- --
I -- --
- - --
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
50
101
67
50
101
67
Radius of Curvature (ft)
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
Meander Wavelength (ft)
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
23
65
36
16
49
28
5
82
33
5
117
36
Riffle Slope (ft/ft )
0.00%
1.50%
0.64%
0.05%
1.05%
0.57%
0.14%
1.92%
0.65%
0.11%
1.13%
0.37%
Pool Length (ft)
10
54
32
18
62
35
12
63
31
7
49
30
Pool Spacing (ft)
50
134
67
50
134
67
50
134
67
50
134
67
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1757
1373
1525
1513
Channel Length (ft)
2,108
1,648
1830
1816
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0053
0.0045
0.0054
0.0051
BF Slope (ft/ft)
- - - - --
- - - - --
- - - --
- - - - --
Rosgen Classificatio
C/E 4/5
C -4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5

Table 11C. 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
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
18.7
16.2
16.6
17.8
16
17
15.5
8.4
7.9
5.2
5.8
6.1
5.5
5.8
5.3
5.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
250
250
250
250
150
150
150
150
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
BF Cross Sectional Area (112 )
15.7
15.4
16
12.8
16
15.6
13.2
8.5
2.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
2.3
2.1
2
2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
2
2.3
2.4
2
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
Width/Depth Ratio
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
16.0
18.5
18.2
8.3
27.1
20.8
24.0
28.6
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
Entrenchment Ratio
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
15.6
14.7
16.1
29.8
19.0
28.8
25.9
24.6
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
Bank Height Ratio
- --
- - --
- - --
- - --
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
- - --
- - --
- - --
----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
19.5
17
17.8
19
16.5
17.6
15.9
9.1
8
5.3
5.9
6.2
5.8
6
5.5
5.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
1
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
Substrate
d50 (mm)
- --
--
------
9.8
8
- - --
----
-- --
- --
d84 (mm)
- - --
- --
- --
- - --
21
17
- - --
-- --
-- --
---
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
50
101
67
50
101
67
Radius of Curvature (ft)
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
Meander Wavelength (ft)
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17
111
51
16
49
28
5
82
33
5
117
36
Riffle Slope ( ft/ft )
0.43%
4.80%
1.54%
0.05%
1.05%
0.57%
0.14%
1.92%
0.65%
0.11%
1.13%
0.37%
Pool Length (ft)
26
78
46
18
62
35
12
63
31
7
49
30
Pool Spacing (ft)
76
176
126
50
134
67
50
134
67
50
134
67
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1757
1373
1525
1513
Channel Length (ft)
2,108
1,648
1830
1816
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0053
0.0045
0.0054
0.0051
BF Slope ( ft/ft)
- - - ---
- - - ---
- - - - --
-- - - --
Rosgen Classificatio
C/E 4/5
C -4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5

Table 111). 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
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
6.9
7
6.3
6.5
6.6
6.8
6
5.8
6.8
6.9
6.9
7.1
5.7
7.1
5.6
3.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
150
150
150
150
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2 )
2.4
1.5
1.7
1.7
2.4
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.2
2.3
2.4
2.1
1.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
19.8
32.7
23.3
24.9
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
21.0
21.6
21.6
42.0
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
Entrenchment Ratio
21.7
21.4
23.8
23.1
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
22.1
21.7
21.7
21.1
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
1
1
1
1
- - --
- - --
- - --
----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.1
7.2
6.5
6.7
6.8
7
6.3
6.1
7
7.1
7.1
7.2
6
73
6
4.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
03
0.3
Substrate
d50 (mm)
- - --
24.6
26.5
- - --
- - --
- ---
-- --
- ---
- - --
24.2
23.9
- --
d84 (mm)
- - --
40
48
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
45
49
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)
17
34
23
17
34
23
17
34
23
17
34
23
Radius of Curvature (ft)
11
57
17
11
57
17
11
57
171
11
57
17
Meander Wavelength (ft)
34
68
49
34
68
49
34
68
49
34
68
49
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
6
44
14
6
41
11
6
28
12
6
34
12
Riffle Slope (ft/ft )
0.00%
1.25%
0.39%
0
3.39
0.42
0.00%
3.33%
0.42%
0.00%
2.76%
0.39%
Pool Length (ft)
6
32
13
7
21
11
6
21
11
4
20
10
Pool Spacing (ft)
17
46
23
17
46
23
17
461
23
50
134
67
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1413
1522
1298
1316
Channel Length (ft)
1,696
1,827
1557
1579
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
0.0041
0.0042
0.0043
BF Slope (ft/ft)
- - - - --
- - - - --
-- - - --
Rosgen Classificatio
C/E 4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5

Table 11E. 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 (UT3)
Dimension
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
8.5
7.7
7.7
8.5
6.2
6.2
6.5
6.5
6.8
6.5
6.4
6.2
9.5
7.8
7.5
7.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
150
150
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (112)
3.1
2.6
2.7
2.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.6
3
3
2.9
2.7
3.2
2.3
2.6
2.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1.1
1
1
0.9
1
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
Width/Depth Ratio
23.3
22.8
22.0
24.9
- - --
- - --
- --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
28.2
26.5
21.6
21.6
Entrenchment Ratio
17.6
19.5
19.5
17.6
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
15.8
19.2
20.0
20.8
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
1
1
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.7
7.8
7.8
8.7
6.7
6.6
6.9
7
7.2
6.9
6.7
6.5
9.7
7.9
7.7
7.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Substrate
d50 (mm)
- - --
28.2
27.7
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- --
d84 (mm)
- - --
43
45
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- --
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)
20
39
26
20
39
26
20
39
26
20
39
26
Radius of Curvature (ft)
13
65
20
13
65
20
13
65
20
13
65
20
Meander Wavelength (ft)
39
78
55
39
78
55
39
78
55
39
78
55
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
5
26
11
5
27
9
4
27
10
5
27
11
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.00%
1.59%
0.22%
- - --
- - --
- - --
0.00%
1.43%
0.28%
0.00%
1.66%
0.26%
Pool Length (ft)
8
21
13
7
24
13
7
21
13
6
21
14
Pool Spacing (ft)
20
52
26
20
52
26
20
52
26
20
52
26
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
619
645
616
609
Channel Length (ft)
743
774
739
731
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)l
0.0012
- - --
0.0015
0.0015
BF Slope ( ft/ft)
- - - - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
Rosgen Classification
C/E 4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5

h
ore
Tributary 1
Profile
3/13/14
Perhivso¢, Semi m
2012
2013
2014
Avg. Water Surtace Slope
0.0053
0.004.1
0.0054
0.0051
Riffle Length
36
28
2012
38
Avg. Riffle Slope
2012
0.0057
0.0075
2013
Pool Length
32
2014
32
30
As -built Survey
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Year
3 Monitoring \Survey
Ration
Bed ElevaBon Wa[er Elevation
Stalion
Bed ElevaBon
Water Elevation
Station
Bed ElevaROn
Water Elevation
Stalion
Bed ElevaBon
Water Elegy
0.0
93.3
93.9
309.6
97.6
98.9
216.9
97.5
98.2
287.0
98.6
98.8
34.6
94.0
94.3
328.9
97.8
98.9
233.1
97.9
98.2
2922
98.6
98.9
64.3
94.8
952
338.1
98.4
99.0
'_51.0
97.7
98.3
298.1
98.1
98.9
74.2
95.1
95.4
361.2
98.6
99.1
255A
97.3
98.2
323.8
98.2
99.1
113.3
97.0
975
372.6
97.%
99.2
'_58.6
97.3
98.3
339.8
98.7
99.1
133.7
97.2
97.9
384.9
98.1
992
263.3
98.1
98.4
356.5
98.8
99.2
138.4
96.2
98.0
399.8
98.8
99.2
'_88.3
98.3
98.7
363.3
98.5
99.2
145.3
96.3
97.9
425.9
98.8
99.2
295.3
97.6
98.7
374.5
98.1
99.3
154.5
96.3
98.0
442.1
982
99.2
307.2
97.5
98.7
381.1
98.6
99.3
167.2
97.5
98.0
448.7
98.0
99.3
316.9
97.5
98.7
402.4
98.8
99.4
182.9
97.5
98.1
460.2
98.8
99.3
326.0
97.6
98.7
408.9
98.8
99.4
195.8
97.6
98.1
495.5
99.0
99.5
331.1
98.3
98.R
416.2
98.7
99.4
204.1
97.1
98.1
505.1
98.4
99.5
358.4
98.4
99.0
425.2
98.9
99.4
221.9
96.9
98.1
517.5
98.5
99.5
363.8
97.9
99.1
433.9
99.3
99.5
225.5
97.4
98.1
534.0
98.6
99.4
368.9
97.7
99.1
438.3
98.3
99.5
240.5
97.8
98.2
542.1
992
99.5
378.8
97.9
99.1
452.1
98.6
99.5
259.8
97.8
98.3
569.5
99.1
99.6
386.9
98.0
458.1
98.9
99.6
263.0
97.3
98.3
587.1
98.6
99.6
3%.6
98.6
99.1
471.9
99.0
99.6
266.2
97.3
98.3
599.2
98.6
99.6
423.5
98.8
99.1
496.2
99.1
99.7
269.8
97.9
98A
615.4
99.0
99.6
430.5
98.1
99.2
500.7
98.5
99.7
282.4
982
985
620.7
99.4
99.7
438.9
97.8
99.2
510.7
98.7
99.7
297.4
98.4
98.7
647.1
99.6
99.9
446.6
97.8
99.2
522.8
98.5
99.8
303.3
97.6
98.7
656.5
99.1
100.0
452.6
98.3
99.1
535.7
98.8
99.8
331.6
97.7
98.7
665.6
99.0
100.0
458.2
98.8
99.3
541.2
992
99.8
338.2
98.3
98.8
672.0
99.7
100.0
472.7
98.9
99.3
546.1
98.9
99.9
364.5
98.4
98.9
705.7
99.8
100.2
493.2
98.9
99.5
S53.4
98.9
99:9
370.8
97.9
99.0
719.8
99.1
100.2
502.7
98.2
99.5
559.6
99.4
99.9
Herman Dariy (Tributary 1) Year 3 Profile - Reach 00 +00 to 10 +00
As -bvOt
2012
2013
2014
Avg. Water Surtace Slope
0.0053
0.004.1
0.0054
0.0051
Riffle Length
36
28
36
38
Avg. Riffle Slope
0 0064
0.0057
0.0075
0.0049
Pool Length
32
35
32
30
Herman Dariy (Tributary 1) Year 3 Profile - Reach 00 +00 to 10 +00
103.0
102.0
101.0
_100.0
t 99.0
Terracell
a
'98.0
v
Pipedclossing
97.0
°
e
96.0
P.
N
a°
O
O
U
v
W 95.0
94.0
t2
�
93.0
U
c„ i
92.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (feet)
-Bed As-built 3/21/12 Year 1 (2012) Bed - +-Year 2 (2013) Bed - Year 3 (2014) Bed -Year 3 (2014) Water Surface

.h
Tributary 1
Profile
3/13/14
Perkivsoq Semi m
2012
2014
2014
Avg. Water Surface Slope
Year 2 Monit_tag \Survey
Year
2012
0.0051
Bed Elevation
2012
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
As -built Surve3
100.6
Year ] Monitoring VS-y
992.7
nation
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
Station
990.2
100.6
101.7
994.2
101.2
102.0
990.0
1001.8
100.7
101.7
1015.4
101.2
102.1
1001.2
1015.7
101.4
101.7
1027.3
101.5
102.1
1005.6
1053.0
101.5
l O l.9
1056.7
101.7
102.3
1020.3
1061.5
101.0
101.9
1069.3
101.0
102.3
1052.0
1094.8
101.1
102.0
1085. l
101.0
102.3
1066.9
1106.1
101.6
102.2
1105.4
101.3
102.4
1079.1
1141.7
102.0
102.4
1111.8
101.8
102.4
1095.5
L 145.7
101.2
102.3
1139.4
102.2
102.7
106.7
1158.5
101.1
102.3
1151.1
100.8
102.7
1115.3
1163.3
102.0
102.4
1158.5
101.0
102.7
28.3
l 183.3
102.4
102.7
1 168.8
102.1
102.7
1 147. I
1197.8
102.3
102.8
l 174.7
102.2
102.7
1 149.9
1214.6
102.0
102.8
1199.3
102.4
102.9
1 57.0
1226.9
101.9
102.8
1207.4
1012
L030
1165.6
1242.5
102.1
102.8
1219.3
101.9
103.0
1170.8
1251.9
102.4
102.8
12 5.6
101.9
103.0
1188.6
1275.5
102.6
102.8
1248.9
102.1
103.1
1202.2
1280.7
101.7
102.9
1258.6
102.6
103.2
1208.7
1289.3
102.0
102.9
1276.2
102.5
103.3
1226.2
1300.0
102.6
102.8
1285.3
101.6
103.3
1234.8
1321.8
102.5
102.9
1295.7
102.4
103.3
1257.0
1364.7
102.6
1302.3
102.6
103.4
1270.7
1376.2
1022
103.0
1318.4
102.6
103.5
1280.9
1386.5
102.0
103.1
1326.0
102.7
103.5
1292.0
1397.1
l O 1.9
103.1
1333.8
102.3
1015
1304.3
108.0
107.0
106.0
t 105.0
a
a
104.0
a 103.0
W 102.0
101.0
100 0
2013
As -built
2012
2014
2014
Avg. Water Surface Slope
Year 2 Monit_tag \Survey
Year
3 Monitoring VSurvey
0.0051
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
Avg. Riffle Slope
100.6
101.8
992.7
101.5
1022
32
100.6
IOI.R
1002.4
101.5
1022
100.9
IOI.R
1008.0
100.9
102.2
101.5
L01.9
1013.1
101.0
102.3
101.8
IOZ.i
1022.9
101.5
102.3
o
.0
10 t.0
102.3
1045.3
lol.7
102.3
100.7
102.3
1056.9
IOI.8
102.3
100.9
102.3
1062.7
101.3
102.4
l Ol.l
102.3
1081.8
100.9
102.4
l Ol.9
102.3
1097.5
101.6
102.7
102.1
102.5
1104.2
102.4
103.0
x
101.9
102.6
1144.4
102.5
103.2
101.3
102.6
1147.7
102:0
103.2
101.2
102.6
1162.6
102.0
103.2
p
l Ol.3
102.6
11833.
102.6
103.3
102.1
102.6
1190.6
102.6
103.3
102A
102.8
l2 (1.9
102:7
l 03.4
102.1
102.8
1215.7
101.9
103.4
1009
102.9
1221.5
101.8
103.4
101.7
102.9
1227.7
102.8
103.5
102.0
102.9
1256.2
102.8
103.6
102.4
102.9
1288.7
103.1
103.8
102.5
103.0
1319.8
(03.1
1039
102.2
103.0
1344.6
103.2
103.9
102.0
103.0
1348.5
102.8
104.0
102.6 103.0 1352.5 1032 104.0
Herman Dairy (riburary 1) Year 3 Profile - Reach 10+00 to 21+08
As -built
2012
2013
2014
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0053
0.0045
0.0054
0.0051
Rau, Length
36
28
36
38
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0064
0.0057
0.0075
0.0049
Pool L- Oh
32
35
32
30
102.6 103.0 1352.5 1032 104.0
Herman Dairy (riburary 1) Year 3 Profile - Reach 10+00 to 21+08
1000 1200 1400 1600
Distance (feel
-Bed As-built 3/21112 -Year 1 (2012) Bed -Year 2 (2013) Bed
�-j 1800
- Year 3 (2014) Bed
2000
- Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
a
a
°
�
s
Log Vane
a
a
Log Vane
Remnant Beaver Dam
o
o
0
o
.0
c
.0
U
U
U
G
O
c
a.
x
a
U
a
0
ir
O
p
1000 1200 1400 1600
Distance (feel
-Bed As-built 3/21112 -Year 1 (2012) Bed -Year 2 (2013) Bed
�-j 1800
- Year 3 (2014) Bed
2000
- Year 3 (2014) Water Surface

Tributary 2
Profile
3/13/14
Perkinsou,I
Ma Y1
11.2
97.9
98.2
58.4
14.9
97.5
98.2
62.3
20.1
97.5
98.2
67.7
22.2
98.0
98.0
77.5
34.9
98.0
97.6
84.1
37.6
97.6
98.1
87.5
41.7
97.7
98.1
92.2
44.1
97.9
97.9
106.8
60.6
98.0
98.4
110.6
62.3
97.4
98.1
114.0
69.1
97.8
98.1
137.1
71.7
98.0
98.5
141.4
81.1
98.0
875
147.7
85.9
97.7
98.3
1686
93.8
97.9
98.3
176.9
99.3
98.0
98.3
182.9
110.8
98.2
97.6
2091 .
113.8
97.9
98.4
223.9
116.9
98.2
111.5
226.4
126.7
98.1
98.4
231.4
138.4
98.2
98.6
235.9
143.4
97.7
98.4
257.1
146.8
97.7
98.5
26'1
150.8
98.3
98.6
267.6
161.2
98.1
143.6
284.8
102.0
101.5
101.0
\00.5
w
_00.0
m
99.5
099.0
0
L
0
' 98.5
W
98.0
97.5
97.0
2012
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Bed Elevation Water Ele,
98.0 98.4
97.7 98.4
97.5 98.3
98.0 98.3
98.1 98.4
97.6 98.4
97.7 98.4
97.9 98.4
98.0 98.4
97.8 98.3
98.1 98.2
98.1 98.4
97.7 98.4
98.2 98.3
98.2 98.5
97.9 98.5
98.2 98A
98.5 98.5
98.4 98.6
98.0 98.6
98.0 98.6
98.4 98.7
98.5 98.8
98.1 98.8
98.5 98.8
98.6 98.8
33.8
36.0
39.4
43.6
57.3
60.4
67.4
69.4
80.5
84.1
87.7
91.8
95.9
07.8
12.1
115.2
136.8
142.5
144.2
49.8
169.3
174.4
175.4
9.1
183.6
2013
Year 2 Monitaring \Survey
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Year
Station
2014
3 Monitoring \Survey
Bed Elevation Water ElevaBoo
2013
97.9 98.5
40.8 97.8 98.4
97.9
98.5
48.9
98.0
98.4
14
97.5
98.0
57.4
97.8
98.4
0.0042
97.6
98.6
59.6
97.5
98.4
11
97.8
66.0
97.6
98A
97.9
98.6
67.6
98.1
98.4
97.5
98.6
78.2
98.2
98.5
97.7
98.6
81.4
97.7
98.5
97.9
98.6
875
97.7
98.5
97.9
98.6
90.9
98.0
98.5
97.7
98.7
108.0
98.2
98.6
97.6
98.7
110.9
97.9
98.5
97.8
98.6
111.5
97.9
98.5
98.0
98.7
113.6
98.2
98.6
98.1
98.7
137.1
98.1
98.6
97.7
98.7
139.6
97.8
98.6
9R.1
98.7
143.6
97.7
98.6
98.1
98.8
146.9
98.2
98.6
97.6
98.8
169.5
98.2
98.7
97.6
98.8
172.8
97.9
98.7
98.2
98.8
179.2
97.9
98.7
98.2
9R.8
1822
98.3
98.8
97.8
98.8
209.6
98.3
98.8
97.7
9R.8
212.1
97.9
98.8
97.8
98.8
213.9
98.3
98.8
98.2
98.8
224.7
98.4
98.8
Herman Dariy (Tributary 2) Year 3 Profile - Reach 00+00 to 10+00
0. 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 S00 900 1000
Distance (feet)
-Bed As -built 3/21112 +Year 1 (2012) Bed -Year 2 (2013) Bed - Year 3 (2014) Bed - w-Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
As -built
2012
2013
2014
Avg. Water Surtace Slope
0.0040
0.0041
0.0042
0.0043
Riffle Lengtb
14
13
13
14
Avg. Rime Slope
0.0039
0.0042
0.0061
0.0057
Pool Length
13
12
11
11
Herman Dariy (Tributary 2) Year 3 Profile - Reach 00+00 to 10+00
0. 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 S00 900 1000
Distance (feet)
-Bed As -built 3/21112 +Year 1 (2012) Bed -Year 2 (2013) Bed - Year 3 (2014) Bed - w-Year 3 (2014) Water Surface

1041.2
1041.8
104 .5
1060.7
1071.8
1074.4
1095.6
1098.7
1 1110.6
I 6.6
1122.1
1128.3
1137.3
1139.8
1146.0
1147.4
1156.8
60.6
167.7
1172.0
1191.8
195.0
1201.3
1205.2
1220.4
1225.1
106.0
105.0
104.0
`:,°103.0
Z
'102.0
=101.0
a
X00.0
W
99.0
98.0
Tributary 2
Profile
3/13/14
Perki.- I
2012
. -built 5
Bed El-.1
100.2
01.2
101.5
101.4
101.3
01.0
101.2
101.7
02.2
01.6
101.8
102.3
102.3
02.0
102.0
103.1
102.8
102.4
02.5
102.9
102.9
02.4
102.6
103.0
103.1
102.8
100.8
101.2
loll
101.7
01.7
101.6
101.7
102.3
102.3
102.6
102.6
103.1
103.1
03.1
103.1
103.2
103.2
103.2
03.2
103.3
103.3
1041.2
1064.1
1072.4
1078.9
087.0
1094.2
1096.1
1109.7
1115.0
1120.4
1125.5
11342
1137.5
1144.2
1145.5
1153.5
1159.3
1165.4
1170.1
1188.5
1192.5
1198.5
1202.8
1217.5
1222.8
12262
2012
Year ]Monitoring VSurvey
Bed Elevation Water Elev
99.1 99.6
101.5 101.5
1 01.3 101.6
101.1 101.7
101.2 101.7
101.3 101.7
I0I.1 101.7
101.6 101 .9
102.0 102.4
101.5 102.4
101.. 102.4
102.1 102.4
102.4 102.8
1019
102.0 102.8
103.0
102.9 103.1
102.4 103.1
102.5 103.1
102.8 103.1
102.9 103.2
102.5 103.2
102.6 103.3
103.0 1033
103.0 103.4
102.7 103.4
103.1 103.5
1041.2
1055.1
1068.9
1071.4
076.4
079.6
1086.6
1090.3
093.7
096.8
09.1
14.1
7.1
1120.4
1126.1
34.2
37.5
1143.7
1145.3
1 155.2
158.5
1162.1
1166.4
1170.4
90.0
1193.6
2013
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Year
Station
2014
3 Monitoring VSurvey
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
2013
98.7
498.0 99.0 99.7
IOl.4
0.0041
1043.6
101.4
101.5
14
l Ol
101.8
1063.5
101.3
101.9
0.0042
lot. 3
1020
1067.5
101.2
102.0
ll
101.0
102.0
1079.6
101.1
102.0
101.1
102.0
1083.8
101.4
102.0
101.3
102.0
10.9.6
101.6
102.1
101.3
1010
1094.1
101.1
102.1
tot.!
102.0
1o96.7
1001.1
102.1
101,1
102.0
1098.7
101.7
102.1
101.7
102.2
1112.5
102.0
102.5
102.0
1,02.6
1116.7
101.6
102.5
101.6
102.6
1124.5
101.8
1025
10 L 6
102.6
1130
1022
102.6
101,7
102.6
1136.9
102.3
102.8
102.2
1027
1139.6
1019
102.8
102.4
103.0
1146.4
1020
102.8
10 t 9
103.0
1147.4
103.0
103.2
101,7
103.0
1158.3.
102.8
1,03.3
3.0
103.3
1161.3
102.4
103.3
:002 .7
103.4
1168.8
102.6
103.2
102.4
103.4
1172.1
102.9
103.3
102.3
103.4
1190.9
103.0
103.4
102.5
1034
1195.5
102.5
1033
1029
1034
12015.1
102.6
103.3
103.0
103 5
1204.7
103.0
103.4
102.4
l 03.5
1222.7
103.1
103.5
Herman Dairy
(Triburary 2) Year 3 Profile
- Reacb 10 +00 to 16 +96
Log Van Log Vane
0 0
0
0 00 a Q
Braided Reach U U
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
Distance feet
-Bed As -built 3/21112 -Year 1 (2012) Bed -Year 2 (2013) Bed �Year 3 (2014) Bed -Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
As -bur7t
2012
2013
2014
Avg. Water Surtace Slope
0.0040
0.0041
0.0042
0.0043
Rifae Leng[0
14
13
l3
l4
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0039
0.0042
0.0061
0.0057
Pool Len M
13
12
ll
Il
Log Van Log Vane
0 0
0
0 00 a Q
Braided Reach U U
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
Distance feet
-Bed As -built 3/21112 -Year 1 (2012) Bed -Year 2 (2013) Bed �Year 3 (2014) Bed -Year 3 (2014) Water Surface

h
ore
Tributary 3
Profile
3/13/14
Perhivso¢, Semi m
2012
2013
2014
Avg. Water Surtace Slope
0.0012
NA
0.0015
0.0015
Bifne Length
11
2012
11
11
2012
0.0022
2013
0.0042
0.0040
2014
13
13
As -built S .... 3
13
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Year
3 Monitoring \Survey
Ration
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elev
0.0
94.6
82.0
99.6
89.0
99.7
99.9
69.8
99.4
99.7
22.2
97.1
85.1
99.1
100.1
99.7
99.9
82.0
99.6
99.9
42.1
98.7
86.6
99.2
116.2
99.7
100.0
84.0
99.1
99.9
69.9
99.5
0
890
99.7
118.7
99.0
10(1
87.2
993
99.9
82.7
99.6
116.0
99.6
122.8
99.2
100.0
89.0
99.7
99.9
85.8
99.2
99.9
118.9
99.0
124.9
99.7
99.9
116.3
99.5
100.0
89.2
99.7
99.9
122.4
99.1
138.9
99.7
100.0
121.0
94.1
100.1
115.5
99.6
99.9
125.1
99.6
142.8
99.0
100.0
125.1
99.6
100.0
119.0
99.0
99.9
138.8
99.7
146.9
98.9
100.0
139.9
99.6
100.1
122.7
99.1
99.9
143.8
99.0
153.0
99.1
100.0
145.4
99.0
100.1
125.8
99.6
99.9
151.9
99.1
155.7
99.6
100.0
150.6
99.1
100.1
138.2
99.6
99.9
158.4
99.6
163.8
99.6
100.0
156.5
99.7
100.1
142.3
99.1
99.9
171.8
99.6
171.9
99.5
100.0
172.5
99.7
100.1
146.4
99.0
99.9
176.8
99.0
178.1
98.9
100.0
177.9
99.0
100.1
151.0
991
99.9
182.1
94.1
184.5
99.0
100.0
181.6
99.0
100.1
156.1
99.6
99.9
185.4
99.5
187.8
99.5
100.0
185.6
99.6
100.1
170.2
99.6
99.9
197.4
99.4
198.4
99.6
100.0
195.7
99.5
1002
175.3
99.0
99.9
199.7
99.0
203.3
98.9
100.0
20L2
99.0
100.1
182.1
99.1
99.9
204.8
98.8
208.4
98.9
100.0
205.5
98.9
100.1
185.9
99.6
99.9
209.1
99.6
212.7
99.7
100.0
210.5
99.7
100.1
196A
99.6
99.9
215.3
99.6
217.1
99.7
100.0
215.1
99.7
100.1
199.5
99.0
99.9
218.7
99.0
220.5
99.1
100.0
220.4
99.1
100.1
205.7
9"
99.9
223.9
99.1
226.5
99.1
100.0
227.2
99.6
1002
208.9
99.6
227.8
99.7
229.2
99.7
100.0
235.4
99.7
100.1
2142
99.8
100.0
234.9
99.8
237.8
99.6
100.1
238.8
99.2
100.1
217.5
99.0
100.0
239.4
99.1
240.6
99.1
100.1
245.3
99.2
100.1
Herman Dariy (Tributary 3) Year 3 Profile - Reach 00 +00 to 07 +43
As -boil'
2012
2013
2014
Avg. Water Surtace Slope
0.0012
NA
0.0015
0.0015
Bifne Length
11
10
11
11
Avg. Rifne Slope
0.0022
NA
0.0042
0.0040
Pool Len th
13
13
13
13
Herman Dariy (Tributary 3) Year 3 Profile - Reach 00 +00 to 07 +43
102.0
101.0
100.0
399.0
99.0
w
98.0
m
c
a 97.0
Tmacell o
0
0
N
0
�
rn
rn
96.0
U
4V
U
c U
c U
95.0
94.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance feet
-Bed As -built 3/21/12 Bed Year 1 (2012) -r Year 2 (2013) Bed - Year 3 (2014) Bed -*-Y- 3 (2014) Water Surface

Site Name:
Elevation
Herman Dairy
99.50
11.90 9
Watershed:
Area (s mi):
30501001120030
Date:
3/13/2014
XS ID
Perkinson, Jernigan
Tributary 1 XS - 1, Pool
Drainage
t
t
.
x4
s�k s
Stream Type E
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 (XS -1, Pool)
101
100
- - Bankfull
_Bankfull
0 99
-� As -Built 4/3/12
t MY -O 1 2012
W 98
s MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015
97
0 10
20 30 40
50 60
Station (feet)
Station E
Elevation
0.00 9
99.50
11.90 9
99.80
Area (s mi):
1.01
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station E
Elevation
0.00 9
99.50
11.90 9
99.80
16.81 9
99.70
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 99.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 15.6
Bankull Width: 24.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation: -
Flood Prone Width: -
Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.6
W / D Ratio: -
Entrenchment Ratio: -
Bank Height Ratio: -

It
' �Ir
n �k
t i
5`t
..1,
Stream Type E
32.35 99.79
35.54 100.16
37.13 100.40
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 ( XS - 2, Pool)
43.8 100.45
50.3 100.49
101
101
-- - - - - -- -- -
------------ - - - - -- ------- - - - --
100
- - -- Bankfull
0
100 T As -Built 4/3/12
W t MY -01 2012
99 MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
99 MY -04 2015
0 10 20 30 40 60
Station (feet)
Site Name: Herman Dairy
It
Watershed: 30501001120030
XS ID Tributa 1 XS - 2, Pool
Drainage
Station E
Elevation
Area (s mi):
1.01
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station E
Elevation
54.2 1
100.68
Bankfull Elevation: 100.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 14.0
Bankfull Width: 18.2
20.72 100.15
Flood Prone Area Elevation: -
22.33 99.70
Flood Prone Width: -
23.81 99.57
Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.5
24.87 99.58
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.8
25.88 99.01
W / D Ratio:
26.69 98.98 -
Entrenchment Ratio:
28.61 98.91 -
Bank Height Ratio:
30.19 98.97
31.11 99.39 -

SUMMARY DATA
(s mi):
Elevationf
103.30
103.01
102.93
102.56
102.64
102.17
101.52
101.39
101.42
101.49
101.81
102.29
102.83
102.95
103.12
102.84
102.89
Herman Da'
30501001120030
Tributary 1 XS - 3, Riffle)
1.01
3/13/2014
Perkinson, Jern
105
............................
104
E
E
0 103
d
W
102
101
0 10
r 4
Sy'
r
Stream Type E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 ( XS - 3, Riffle)
...............................
20 30 40
Station (feet)
*'l
tl
x
,Y f
4,
d�
- - -• Bankfull
- -- -Flood Prone Area
As -Built 4/3/12
t MY -01 2012
MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015
50 60
Site Name:
Watershed:
XS ID
Drainage Area
Date:
Field Crew:
Station
0.00
9.62
17.42
19.49
22.31
23.98
25.12
26.29
27.68
28.68
29.80
30.43
31.80
35.36
38.9
44.6
53.2
SUMMARY DATA
Banldull Elevation:
102.8
Banldull Cross - Sectional Area:
10.0
Banldull Width:
14.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
104.2
Flood Prone Width:
>80
igan
SUMMARY DATA
Banldull Elevation:
102.8
Banldull Cross - Sectional Area:
10.0
Banldull Width:
14.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
104.2
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Banld'ull:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
19.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Station
Elevation
Herman Da'
30501001120030
Tributary
103.1
s
1 XS - 4, Pool
Site Name:
Watershed:
XS ID
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
19.8
102.1
22.0
101.8
23.6
101.6
24.7
101.5
25.8
101.7
26.7
r -
27.6
103.2
30.7
103.2
35.1
103.0
39.4
103.08
44.4
103.00
}
Stream Type E
Herman Dairy Tributary
1 ( XS - 4, Pool)
104
103
- -
- - - - - - - - - - -
w
- - -- Bankfull
0 102
- -- • Flood Prone Area
-� As -Built 4/3/12
W
101
MY -01 2012
-� MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015
100
0 5
10 15
20 25 30 35
40 45 50
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
103.1
6.0
1 XS - 4, Pool
Drama a Area (s mi):
1.01
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
103.1
6.0
103.0
12.8
103.0
17.3
103.1
18.7
102.5
19.8
102.1
22.0
101.8
23.6
101.6
24.7
101.5
25.8
101.7
26.7
102.2
27.6
103.2
30.7
103.2
35.1
103.0
39.4
103.08
44.4
103.00
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
103.1
Banldull Cross - Sectional Area:
10.5
Bankfull Width:
10.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
-

SUMMARY DATA
(s mi):
Herman Dairy
30501001120030
Tributary 1 XS - 5, Riffle
1.01
t�
j
Site Name:
Watershed:
XS ID
Drainage Area
Date:
Elevation
_ 3/13/2014
Perkinson, Jern
Field Crew:
Station
0.0
104.0
Bankfull Elevation:
104.2
8.8
104.2
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
7.5
16.2
104.3
Bankfull Width:
9.5
20.5
104.5
►:
21.9
104.0
Flood Prone Width:
>80
23.0
103.2
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
24.4
103.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
25.8
103.2
W / D Ratio:
12.0
26.8
103.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
28.1
103.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
28.8
103.5
29.9
103.9
Stream Type E/C
30.9
104.3
32.7
104.24
34.2
104.20
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 (XS - 5, Riffle)
37.6
104.14
46.4
104.06
106
52.8
104.17
58.8
104.32
------------------------------------------------------------
- - - -..
105
E
- - -- Bankfull
z 104
0
----Flood Prone Area
ti
W
103
102
0 10
20
30 40
Station (feet)
-� As -Built 4/3/12
t MY -01 2012
MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015
50 60
SUMMARY DATA
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
105.3
igan
SUMMARY DATA
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
105.3

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary XS - 6, Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.01
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
104.1
8.0
104.2
13.7
104.6
16.3
104.6
17.2
104.7
17.8
104.6
18.3
103.9
19.2
103.2
19.8
103.0
20.2
102.9
22.1
103.1
23.4
103.3
25.0
103.9
26.3
104.4
29.7
104.4
35.0
104.3
38.9
104.4
45.2
104.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
104.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
7.8
Bankfull Width:
8.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
105
104
m
a 103
ti
W
102
101
i 1
Sly =
r
Stream Type E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 ( XS - 6, Pool)
- -- Bankfull
-- Flood Prone Area
As -Built 4/3/12
MY -01 2012
MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (feet)

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary 1 XS - 7, Riffle)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.01
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
Station
Elevation
-0.5
104.9
11.5
104.8
17.6
105.0
21.1
104.8
23.2
103.7
24.2
103.3
25.9
103.4
27.4
103.4
28.4
103.4
29.1
104.2
30.1
104.7
32.1
104.8
35.7
104.7
43.8
104.90
53.7
105.29
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
104.8
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
9.3
Bankfull Width:
10.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
106.3
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
11.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
107
106
w
0 105
a
ti
W
104
Stream Type E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 (XS - 7, Riffle)
--------------------------------------------------------------
103 +
0
-- Bankfull
-- Flood Prone Area
-- ---- - - - - -- - - --
As-Built 4/3/12
AMY -01 2012
+ MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015
10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary XS - 8, Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.01
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
I Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
105.5
7.8
105.6
12.9
105.4
16.1
105.6
17.7
105.3
18.8
104.0
20.6
103.6
22.2
103.3
23.0
103.4
23.6
103.8
24.6
104.3
25.6
105.0
26.7
105.4
31.9
105.55
36.5
105.74
43.0
106.07
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
105.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
11.7
Bankfull Width:
9.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 ( XS - 8, Pool)
107
106
m
105
s;
0
104
W
103
102
0 5 10 15
t�
j
-- Bankfull
-- • Flood Prone Area
As -Built 4/3/12
MY -01 2012
-� MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (feet)

SUMMARY DATA
Elevation
106.7
106.4
106.1
106.3
105.2
105.2
104.7
104.6
104.5
105.1
105.5
105.9
106.3
106.69
106.63
106.55
Herman Da'
30501001120030
Tributary 1 XS - 9, Pool
Depth
107
m 106
tt
W 105
104
0 5
Stream Type
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 (XS - 9, Pool)
10 15 20
Station (feet)
s � �
•. ��
s
w ,
i' c ,
wN. 4
� .:..•
"
E/C
- - -- Bankfull
- - - • Flood Prone Area
-� As -Built 4/3/12
AMY -01 2012
� MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015
25 30 35
Site Name:
Watershed:
XS ID
Drainage
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Station
0.0
5.4
10.3
11.8
12.9
13.5
14.7
15.8
16.9
17.4
17.9
18.8
19.7
20.9
25.1
29.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
106.6
Banldull Cross - Sectional Area:
12.8
Bankfull Width:
Area (s mi):
1.01
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
106.6
Banldull Cross - Sectional Area:
12.8
Bankfull Width:
17.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max at Bankfull:
2.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
-

U
l
88
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 ( XS -10, Riffle)
109
108
108
107
0
0 107
a
W 106
106
105
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Station (feet)
Site Name: Herman Dairy
Watershed: 30501001120030
XS ID Tributary 1 XS - 10, Riffle
Drainage
Station E
Elevation S
Area (s mi):
1.01
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station E
Elevation S
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 8.5
7.1 106.9 Bankfull Width: 8.4
9.0 106.8 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 108.3
10.2 106.0 Flood Prone Width: >80
11.0 105.5 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.5
11.5 105.3 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.0
12.5 105.2 W / D Ratio: 8.3
13.9 105.3 Entrenchment Ratio: >5
14.8 105.6 Bank Height Ratio: 1.0
-------------------------------------------------------------
---- Bankfull
- - - •Flood Prone Area
-� As -Built 4/3/12
AMY -Ol 2012
� MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015
-------------------------------------------------------------
---- Bankfull
- - - •Flood Prone Area
-� As -Built 4/3/12
AMY -Ol 2012
� MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary XS -11, Riffle)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.01
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson,Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
98.6
3.2
98.4
5.3
98.3
6.0
98.3
6.4
98.1
7.5
98.1
8.7
98.1
10.0
98.1
10.8
98.1
11.6
98.5
12.8
98.5
15.1
98.5
17.1
98.5
19.5
98.56
98
w
d
s
0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
1.3
Bankfull Width:
6.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
98.7
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
28.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 ( XS -11, Riffle)
99
99
-----------------------------------------------------------------
99
98
w
d
s
0
98
----Bankfull
ti
- -- -Flood Prone Area
W 98
As -Built 4/3/12
98
98
MY -01 2012
MY -02 2013
98
MY -03 2014
0 10
20
Station (feet)
MY -04 2015

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary XS - 12, Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.01
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
98.9
4.5
98.8
6.9
98.9
8.3
98.8
9.2
98.3
10.0
98.1
10.8
98.1
11.7
98.4
13.0
98.6
14.2
98.9
16.1
99.0
19.4
98.9
99
------ -------- - - - - -- ----------------
d
5
99
s;
0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.8
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.0
Bankfull Width:
5.2
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:
Stream Type I E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 ( XS - 12, Pool)
99
99
99
------ -------- - - - - -- ----------------
d
5
99
s;
0
98
- - -- Bankfull
ti
W
- -- -Flood Prone Area
98
As -Built 4/3/12
--s---MY-01 2012
98
MY -02 2013
98
0 10
MY -03 204
20
Station (feet)
MY -04 15

Site Name:
Bankfull Elevation:
Herman Da'
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
1.7
Bankfull Width:
Watershed:
1.01
30501001120030
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
XS ID
Mean at Bankfull:
Tributary 2 XS - 13, Riffle
W / D Ratio:
24.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
Drainage
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
100
w
100
Station Elevation
0.3
99.3
0
99
3.7
99.3
_ _
----Bankfull
6.4
99.4
W
- -- -Flood Prone Area
7.5
99.1
As -Built 4/3/12
8.4
98.7
99
--*-- MY -Ol 2012
9.1
99.1,r
"`'
10.0
99.0
Depth
-` -
11.0
99.1
MY -03 2014
20
11.8
99.0
la
13.0
99.3
14.7
99.3
19.7
99.4
Stream Type E/C
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
99.3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
1.7
Bankfull Width:
Area (s mi):
1.01
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
99.3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
1.7
Bankfull Width:
6.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
99.9
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
24.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 (XS - 13, Riffle)
100
100
100
w
100
0
99
�
_ _
----Bankfull
99
W
- -- -Flood Prone Area
As -Built 4/3/12
99
99
--*-- MY -Ol 2012
� MY -02 2013
99
0 10
MY -03 2014
20
Station (feet)
MI' -04 2015

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary XS - 14, Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.01
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
103.3
4.7
103.4
6.8
103.2
7.8
102.7
8.6
102.4
9.3
102.5
10.2
102.8
11.0
102.9
11.8
103.0
12.3
103.3
13.8
103.2
16.6
103.2
19.4
103.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
103.3
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.4
Bankfull Width:
5.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
104
103
103
w
d
5 103
s;
0
103
ti
W 103
102
102
Stream Type I E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 ( XS - 14, Pool)
0 10
Station (feet)
- - -- Bankfull
- -- Flood Prone Area
As -Built 4/3/12
MY -01 2012
MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014 20
MY -04 2015

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary XS - 15, Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.01
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
104.2
4.2
104.2
6.4
104.1
7.0
104.1
7.6
103.8
8.5
103.8
9.6
103.9
10.5
103.9
11.2
104.0
12.6
104.0
15.2
104.2
19.5
104.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
104.1
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
1.2
Bankfull Width:
7.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
104.4
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
42.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I E/C

Station E
Elevation
0.0 1
104.5
i
Site Name:
Area (s mi):
Herman Da' ry
Date:
3/13/2014
Watershed:
Perkinson, Jernigan
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary 2 XS - 16, Pool
Drainage
•'
Stream Type E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 ( XS - 16, Pool)
105
105
105
w
104
0 104
104
- - -- Bankfull
W
- -- -Flood Prone Area
104
As -Built 4/3/12
104
----MY-01 2012
MY -02 2013
103
0
10 MY -03 2014 20
Station (feet) MY -04 2015
Station E
Elevation
0.0 1
104.5
Area (s mi):
1.01
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station E
Elevation
0.0 1
104.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevaon: 104.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 1.4
Bankfull Width: 3.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation: -
Flood Prone Width: -
Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4
W / D Ratio: -
Entrenchment Ratio: -
Bank Height Ratio: -

Site Name:
Elevation
Herman Dairy
100.2
6.4 1
100.1
Watershed:
0.06
30501001120030
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
XS ID
99.8
Tributary 3 XS - 17, Riffle
99.6
12.7 9
99.6
Drainage
99.6
15.2 9
99.6
16.2 9
99.7
16.9 1
100.0
�..
�.`
�.
-
�.
r
3
F[�
trea Type E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 3 (XS - 17, Riffle)
101
------------------------------------------------------------
100
w 100
5
------------
0 100
- - - - -- ----------
- - - - -- - - - --
- --
- - -- Bankfull
ti
44 100
- -- -Flood Prone Area
As -Built 4/3/12
100
MY -01 2012
MY -02 2013
99
0 5
10
15 20
MY -03 2014
30
Station (feet)
MY -04 2015
Station E
Elevation
0.0 1
100.2
6.4 1
100.1
Area (s mi):
0.06
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station E
Elevation
0.0 1
100.2
6.4 1
100.1
7.8 1
100.1
9.0 1
100.0
9.4 1
100.0
9.9 9
99.8
11.3 9
99.6
12.7 9
99.6
14.0 9
99.6
15.2 9
99.6
16.2 9
99.7
16.9 1
100.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 100.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 2.9
Bankfull Width: 8.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation: 100.5
Flood Prone Width: >80
Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.3
W / D Ratio: 24.9
Entrenchment Ratio: >5
Bank Height Ratio: 1.0

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary 3 XS - 18, Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.06
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.3
100.7
7.0
100.7
7.8
100.7
8.9
100.5
9.7
100.4
10.4
99.9
11.0
99.5
11.5
99.5
12.2
99.5
13.0
99.7
13.8
99.9
14.5
100.2
15.2
100.5
18.1
100.63
23.1
100.61
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
100.5
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
3.6
Bankfull Width:
6.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
101
101
101
w 100
d
100
0
100
W 100
100
99
99
Stream Type E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 3 ( XS - 18, Pool)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------- - - - - --
---- Bankfull
-- -Flood Prone Area
As -Built 4/3/12
tMY -01 2012
t MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015
0 10 20
Station (feet)

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary 3 XS - 19, Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.06
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
100.5
3.4
100.5
6.9
100.5
9.5
100.4
10.5
100.4
11.3
100.2
12.0
99.7
12.7
99.4
13.4
99.5
14.0
99.7
15.0
99.9
15.9
100.3
17.3
100.4
20.2
100.62
25.6
100.80
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
100.4
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.7
Bankfull Width:
6.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 3 ( XS - 19, Pool)
101
101
101
w 100
d - -- - - - - - -- ----- - - - - -- -------------------
100 Bankfull
° - -Flood Prone Area
100
it 100 As -Built 4/3/12 jOr
tMY -01 2012
100 MY-022013
99 MY -03 2014
99 MY -04 2015
0 10 20
Station (feet)

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary 3 XS - 20, Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.06
Date:
3/13/2014
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
100.7
4.2
100.7
5.3
100.8
6.2
100.8
6.8
100.7
7.2
100.4
7.8
100.3
8.7
100.4
9.4
100.4
10.3
100.3
11.0
100.3
11.9
100.3
12.9
100.4
14.1
100.82
15.4
100.80
17.4
100.72
19.1
100.83
o
-- -- - - -
-------------- - - - - --
- - -- - - - --
101
- - -- Bankfull
ti
W 100
- -- -Flood Prone Area
As -Built 4/3/12
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
100.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.4
Bankfull Width:
7.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
101.2
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
Stream Type E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 3 (XS - 20, Riffle)
101
101
----------------------------------------------------------------
101
w
d
5
101
o
-- -- - - -
-------------- - - - - --
- - -- - - - --
101
- - -- Bankfull
ti
W 100
- -- -Flood Prone Area
As -Built 4/3/12
--"- MY -01 2012
100
MY -02 2013
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
MY -03 2014
20
Station (feet)
MY -04 2015

Project Name: Herman Dairy UTl
Cross - Section: 2
Feature: Riffle
Cumulative Percent
2014
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt /Clay
silt/clay
0.062
10
20%
36%
100%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
3
6%
44%
90%
fine sand
0.250
8
16%
48%
80%
medium sand
0.50
7
14%
48%
70%
coarse sand
1.00
2
4%
56%
w 60%
very coarse sand
2.0
1
2%
60%
> 50%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
1
2%
68%
3 40%
fine gravel
5.7
3
6%
72%
30%
fine gravel
8.0
1
2%
84%
20%
medium gravel
11.3
4
8%
92%
10%
0%
Panicle Size (mm)
medium gravel
16.0
3
6%
92%
course gravel
22.3
7
14%
96%
course gravel
32.0
0
0%
96%
very coarse gravel
45
0
0%
96%
-MY2 -2013 -MY3 -2014 -MY4 -2015 -MYS -2016
very coarse gravel
64
0
0%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble
128
0
0%
100%
Individual Class Percent
100%
large cobble
180
0
0%
100%
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
90%
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
80%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
70%
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
a
60%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
50%
TOTAL % of whole count
50
100%
100%
40%
Summary Data
050 0. 2
084
D95 20
5 30%
20%
�
10%
0%
y h 5 5 1 1. a � 4 ^� b 'S �. 5 b O 4 O b 'L 'L b 4 b
00b O1'L O'L O 5' �1. �ti. q A b 9 �'Y ,v4 ti5 ,fib 0ti 'Oti �0b x009
Particle Size (mm)
■MY2 -2013 ■MY3 -2014 ■MY4 -2015 ■MY5 -2016

Project Name: Herman Dairy UTl
D50
0.2
D84
Cross - Section: 3
D95
Feature: Riffle
Cumulative Percent
2014
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
SiIVClaY
silt/clay
0.062
15
30%
33%
100%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
4
8%
43%
90%
fine sand
0.250
11
22%
48%
80%
medium sand
0.50
3
6%
52%
a 70%
coarse sand
1.00
6
12%
62%
a. 60%
very coarse sand
2.0
2
4%
67%
50%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
1
2%
67%
40
30
fine gravel
5.7
2
4%
67%
U 20%
fine gravel
8.0
1
2%
71%
10%
medium gravel
11.3
1
2%
76%
0%
o. o� o~ do 00 0
Particle Size (mm)
medium gravel
16.0
1
2%
86%
course gravel
22.3
3
6%
90%
course gravel
32.0
0
0%
95%
very coarse gravel
45
0
0%
95%
—MY2-2013 —MY3 -2014 —MY4 -2015 —MY5 -2016
very coarse gravel
64
0
0%
95%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
Individual Class Percent
medium cobble
128
0
0%
100%
large cobble
180
0
0%
100%
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
90%
80
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
70%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
a 60%
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
50%
v
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
40%
a
TOTAL % of whole count
50
100%
100%
so%
S 20%
10%
IL
0%
Oob'LOltiS oy5 �'� 1 ti b h^ 4 �,ti'y tib �,L'7 n�'L P5 b6` 90 ,ry6 �g0 ti� ,yb'L 51'L 1�,tib ��p�a�gb
Panicle Size mirm
■MY2 -2013 ■MY3 -2014 ■MY4 -2015 ■MY5 -2016
Summary Data
D50
0.2
D84
4
D95
17

Project Name: Herman Dairy UTl
D50
8
Cross - Section: 10
17
D95
Cumulative Percent
100%
Feature: Riffle
2014
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
8
16%
24%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
4
8%
32%
90%
fine sand
0.250
6
12%
44%
80%
70%
medium sand
0.50
2
4%
48%
coarse sand
1.00
1
2%
56%
60%
very coarse sand
2.0
1
2%
60%
50%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
68%
J 40%
fine gravel
5.7
2
4%
72%
v 30%
fine gravel
8.0
1
2%
80%
20%
medium gravel
11.3
1 6
12%
80%
10%
0%
* ♦ o
0 0, ti goo oo°
o Particle Size (tam) ~
medium gravel
16.0
10
20%
84%
course gravel
22.3
5
10%
96%
course gravel
32.0
2
4%
96%
very coarse gravel
45
0
0%
96%
—MY2 -2013 —MY3 -2014 —MY4 -2015 —MY5 -2016
very coarse gravel
64
0
0%
100%
4
Cobble
small cobble
90
1
2%
100%
Individual Class Percent
medium cobble
128
1
2%
100%
large cobble
180
0
0%
10O/a
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
100%
90%
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
80%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
70%
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
a 60%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
50%
TOTAL % of whole count
50
100%
100%
U 40%
v 30%
0 20%
S
10%
0%
oob'LO�.y', oti5 05 1 ti p ,'!� g �, 'S 1b ry,L", n�'L p`i b�` 90 ti,L9 ��o ti5b ,yb'L ��'L,oyb�oc, ��qb
Particle Size (tam)
■MY2 -2013 8MY3 -2014 ■MY4 -2015 ■MY5 -2016
Summary Data
D50
8
D84
17
D95
29

Project Name: Herman Dairy UT2
D50
26.5
D84
Cross - Section: 13
D95
Cumulative Percent
100%
Feature: Riffle
2014
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
2
4%
68%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
1
2%
72%
90%
fine sand
0.250
0%
84%
80%
medium sand
0.50
0%
84%
70%
coarse sand
1.00
0%
gg%
a 60%
very coarse sand
2.0
0%
92%
50%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0%
100%
40% 30%
fine gravel
5.7
0%
100%
v 20%
fine gravel
8.0
0%
100%
10%
medium gravel
11.3
3
6%
100%
0%
11�1
Particle Size (mm)
medium gravel
16.0
2
4%
100%
course avel
?�
22.3
10
20%
100%
course gravel
32.0
14
28%
100%
very coarse gravel
45
9
18%
100%
—MY2 -2013 —MY3 -2014 —MY4 -2015 —MY5 -2016
very coarse gravel
64
6
12%
100%
4
Cobble
small cobble
90
3
6%
100%
Individual Class Percent
medium cobble
128
0%
100%
large cobble
180
0
0%
100%
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
1001/.
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
90%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
80%
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
g 70%
a
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
60%
50%
TOTAL % of whole count
50
100%
100%
40%
b
30%
;5
20%
10%
0%
ootiS oti5 05 1 'L a 5^ 4 1i �b ,titi'S �'L p'� bb 10 ,,L4 X40 ti•,Jb „�C'L 5�'L 1o'LDry�4d�gb
Particle Size (mm)
■MY2 -2013 \MY3 -2014 ■MY4 -2015 ■MYS -2016
Summary Data
D50
26.5
D84
48
D95
68

Project Name: Herman Dairy UT2
D50
23.9
D84
Cross - Section: 15
D95
Cumulative Percent
100%
Feature: Riffle
2014
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
2
4%
68%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
1
2%
72%
90%
fine sand
0.250
0%
84%
80%
medium sand
0.50
0%
84%
70%
coarse sand
1.00
1
2%
88%
a 60%
very coarse sand
2.0
0%
92%
50%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0%
100%
40% 30%
fine gravel
5.7
1
2%
100%
� 20%
fine gravel
8.0
0%
100%
10%
0% aE
11�1
Particle Size (mm)
medium gravel
11.3
2
4%
100%
medium gravel
16.0
10
20%
100%
course avel
?�
22.3
6
12%
100%
course gravel
32.0
9
18%
100%
very coarse gravel
45
8
16%
100%
— MY2-2013 — MY3 -2014 —MV4 -2015 —MV5-2016
very coarse gravel
64
8
16%
100%
4
Cobble
small cobble
90
1
2%
100%
Individual Class Percent
medium cobble
128
1
2%
100%
large cobble
180
0%
100%
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
1001/.
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
90%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
80%
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
g 70%
a
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
60%
50%
TOTAL % of whole count
50
100%
100%
40%
b
30%
;5 20%
10%
J IL
IL
0%
ootio, ti5 oy5 05 ti a �� s �^, �b �,�^, �ti p5 �a q0 41 d��b
Particle Size (mm)
•MY2 -2013 8MY3 -2014 ■MY4 -2015 ■MYS -2016
Summary Data
D50
23.9
D84
49
D95
63

Project Name: Herman Dairy UT3
Cross - Section: 17
Cumulative Percent
100%
Feature: Riffle
2014
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
5
10%
68%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
1
2%
72%
90%
fine sand
0.250
2
4%
84%
80%
medium sand
0.50
0%
84%
70%
coarse sand
1.00
p%
88%
a 60%
very coarse sand
2.0
0%
92%
50%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0%
100%
40% 30%
fine gravel
5.7
0%
100%
v 20%
fine gravel
8.0
1
2%
100%
10%
medium gravel
11.3
0%
100%
0%
11�1
Particle Size (mm)
medium gravel
16.0
2
4%
100%
course gravel
?�
22.3
6
12%
100%
course gravel
32.0
13
26%
100%
very coarse gravel
45
12
24%
100%
— MS2-2013 — MY3 -2014 —MV4 -2015 —MV5-2016
very coarse gravel
64
5
10%
100%
4
Cobble
small cobble
90
3
6%
100%
Individual Class Percent
medium cobble
128
0%
100%
large cobble
180
0
0%
100%
very large cobble
256
0
0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
1001/.
small boulder
512
0
0%
100%
90%
medium boulder
1024
0
0%
100%
80%
large boulder
2048
0
0%
100%
8 70%
a
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
60%
50%
TOTAL % of whole count
50
100%
100%
40%
Summary Data
D50 27.7
D84 45
D95 68
b
30%
9 20%
10%
0%
o 'LO,lrti'� orti�i �5 1 `L D �1 6 �y? �b ,L,y'S "�'L p'� bb 10 ,,L4 14o ti•,Jb n�C'L 5�'L 1�'LDry�A4d�gb
Particle Size (mm)
■MY2 -2013 \MY3 -2014 ■MY4 -2015 ■MYS -2016

Appendix E.
Hydrology Data
Table 12. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
2014 Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Figure El. Annual Climatic Data vs. 30 -year Historic Data
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 12. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 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 (2016)
1
Yes /38 days
Yes /235 days
Yes /235 days
(16.2 percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
2
Yes /101days
Yes /235 days
Yes /39 days
(43 percent)
(100 percent)
(16.6 percent)
3
Yes /226 days
Yes /235 days
Yes /130 days
(96.2 percent)
(100 percent)
(55.3 percent)
4
Yes /226 days
Yes /46 days
Yes /235 days
(96.2 percent)
(19.6 percent)
(100 percent)
5
Yes /87 days
Yes /179 days
Yes /108 days
(37.0 percent)
(76.2 percent)
(46 percent)
6
Yes /100 days
Yes /235 days
Yes /79 days
(42.5 percent)
(100 percent)
(33.6 percent)
7
Yes /235 days
Yes /235days
Yes /117 days
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
(49.8 percent)
8
Yes /178 days
Yes /193 days
Yes /119 days
(75.7 percent)
(82.1 percent)
(50.6 percent)
9
Yes /29 days
Yes /104 days
Yes/ 100 days
(12.3 percent)
(44.2 percent)
(42.6 percent)
10
Yes /102 days
Yes /235 days
Yes /235 days
(43.4 percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
Ref
Yes /148 days
Yes /235 days
Yes /235 days
(62.9 percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
v -4
v -6
J
-8
d
-10
-12
3 -14
C7
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 3 (2014 Data)
W W W A A A A lJ1 lf� lf� lf� Q1 O1 Ol Ol Q1 V V V V 00 00 00 00 lD lD lD l0 lD N N N N N N
4 N W V 4� N N V1 t� W N N l0 M W N F+ 00 W N N \ \ \ \ W \
V A N \ A N 00 \ N l0 Ql \ \ Ol W O \ A N 00 \ N 00 Vl \ \ Vl N lD Ol N N N W N
A N N N A N N f\-+ A A N N N A N N f\-+ A
A A -Pb A A -Pb A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
2.5
2.0
c
c
7
1.5 0
Q
c
1.0
0.5
0.0

Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 3 (2014 Data)
12 2.s
10 March 20
November 9 �
8 Growing Season End Growing Season
6
4 Start End
2 Gauge Malfunction
0
Gauge Malfunction 2.0
2 ays 32 Days _
-4
6 29 Days
J �
3
v
-8
1.5 0
-10 E
-12 —_
0 -14 4
-16
-18
-20 1.0
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30 0.5
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40 0.0
W W W A A A A V1 0 W 0 M M 0) 0) 0) V V V V 00 00 00 00 ID lD lD lD lD N N N N N N
F� N W V N N N lfl N N N N lD N N W V N N A
V A N \ A N 00 \ N lD Ql \ \ O7 W O \ A N 00 \ N 00 lJl \ \ V1 N lD Ql N N N W N
A N N N A N N N A A N N N A N N N A f\-+ N N A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
-4
-6
v -8
3 -10
a -12
c
c -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 3 (2014 Data)
W W W A A A A V1 V1 In l!1 Q5 O1 Q1 Ol Ql V V V V 00 00 00 00 l0 4D lD lD l0 N N N N N N
N N W V 4- M N W V ID. N N A N W N F-� 00 W N N M W \
V A N � A N 00 � N l0 Ql � � Ol W O � A F-� 00 � N 00 l!1 � � Vl N lD Ol N N N W F-+
A A -W— N �
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
2.5
2.0
c
c
3
1.5 E
m
c
z
1.0
0.5
0.0

Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 4
Year 3 (2014 Data)
12
2.5
10
March 20
g
Growing Season
November 9
6
End Growing Season
4
Start
2
I
- 2.0
0
h
c 2
c
a -4
a
J -6
§
v 8
3 10
235 Days
1.5 E
a
-12
o -14
c
-16
18
-20
1.0
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
0.5
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
0.0
W
\
F+
W W A A A A VI W In Ol Ol M Ql Ql V V V V CO 00 00 00 l0 W to
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
N W V N N N Ln F-� N N N l0 F-� N W V I--` N N A F+ I--` N N W N
W W N N N �--+
\ \ O O O O
N N \ \ \ \
P" N
N N
\ \
V
N
A
A N \ A N 00 \ N W M \ \ M W O \ A N 00 \ N W W \ \ In
N N A N N N A N N N A A N
A A A A A A A A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A N A A A N A
N W M N N N
N A \ 4
A A A A
W N
A A

Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 5
Year 3 (2014 Data)
12
2.5
10 I
s
6
4
\1
2
A K . MA
A
Lr---%,%
I-
. A'
V V-
2.0
%ILI t IN 'IIX
Vill
\I'll AAI 7NAH
0
It
5 -2
March 20
5
z -4
Growing Season
November
9
N
-6
Start
Growing Season
c
-g
3 -10
End
o '
1.5
a -12
—
3 -14
0
108 Days
101
Days
c
Q -16
-18
-20
1.0
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
0
.5
-32
-34
khkUOL
-36
i—A
-38
-40
LLK
1
0.0
W
W W A A A A In In V1 In Ql Ol Ql Ol Ol V V V V 00 00 00 00 l0 l0 ID
N W V I--` N N In N I--` N N ISO F`+ N W V F+ N N A N F+ N I\-� 0000 N
lD l0
N N
V
N
A
A N A N 00 N ID Ol 01 W O A N 00 N 00 Ln In
�\ \ N N N A A � A A A A A A
N N
A A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
N ID Ol N N
A A A A A
N W N
A A A

12
10
8
6
4
2
_ 0
L 2
v -4
-6
J p
y -8
3 -10
a -12
L
o' -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 6
Year 3 (2014 Data)
W W W A A A A v+ v+ V1 In 01 Ol Ol rn rn V V V V 00 00 00 00 1D l0 l0 l0 tD f-+ f+ F+ f+ f-+ N
\ \ \ N \ \ \ N \ \ \ N N \ \ \ N \ \ \ N \ \ \
41 A
A 4A A A A 4A A A A A A 4A 4, 4A A A F+ \ A N \ 4A + \ N \ A N \ A W \ O \ V A \ -9A
A
A
2.5
2.0
L
3
1.5 °O
C
m
L
Fa
Oc
1.0
0.5
0.0

Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 7
Year 3 (2014 Data)
12
2.5
10
8
6
LPW
4
AAA
2
March
20
2.0
0
Growing
Season
_- -2
Start
November
9
4
End
Growing
Season
>
J 6
End
§
1.5 E
-10
3
a
-12
—
0 -14
117
Days
102
Days
c
W -16
-18
-20
1.0
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
0.5
-32
I
-34
-36
-38
-40
j
IN I
j
I djA
0.0
W
W
W
A A
A
A
Vl W
W
Vl
Cn M O
O
0)
V V
V
V
00 00
00
00
W to W
tD
tD
V 4
N
W
A
N
00
\ lf
W
lD
Q
W
00
P-
I
00
V'
N
N
lN D
\ Q
\
\
\ N
\
Uj
A
A
N
A
41 N
A
N
A
N
A
A
A
A
A
A A N
A
N
A
N
A
A N
N
A
N
A N
A
N A
N A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C)
A
A
A
A

Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 8
Year 3 (2014 Data)
12
10
March
20
November
9
Growing
Season
Growing
Season
6
6
Start
4
End
2
0
_
-2
a -4
a
� -6
-8
3 -10
v -12
0 -14
119
Days
101
Days
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
W
\
W
\
W A
\ \
A
\
A
\
A
\
Ut U,
\ \
L,
\
U,
\
0l M Ol
\ \ \
01
\
01 J
\ \
J
\
J
\
J
\
CO 00
\ \
00
\
00
\
W LO l0
\ \ \
LO
\
W
\
f+
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
f+ f+
N N
N
J
N
A
W V
I--` \
N
A
N
F-'
00
00
l!1 N
\ N
N
l0
N
01
N lD N
\ \ Ol
N
W
W V
O \
N
A
N
N
N
CO
A N
\ f-+
00
00
N
U'1
N 00 W
\ \ lA
N
N
N
l0
\
Ol
\
W
N
W
N
\ \
W F+
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
N
A
N
A
N
A
A F+
A
2.s
2.0
c
c
3
1.5 °
E
m
1.0
0.5
0.0

E
J
OJ
3
c
0
0
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 9
Year 3 (2014 Data)
W W W A A A A Ln Ln Ln W M M M °1 M V V V V 00 W 00 00 lD LD
N N W V N N N l\!t N N N N W N W W V P" W W A N F+ N N 0000 N W W \ \ \
V AAW N ID M M W O -- A I--' W F-� 00 W \ \ W N lD M F-� N N W
N A f\-+ N N A N f\-+ N A A f\-+ N N A N N N A N N f\-+ A A
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A N N F+ A N
A A A A
2.5
2.0
c
c
7
1.5 °
c
z
1.0
0.5
0.0

Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 10
Year 3 (2014 Data)
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
v -4
Growing
March
Season
Start
20
V
November
Growing
End
Season
9
?; -6
a -8
3 -10
M -12
=
235 Da
Vs
c -14
W -16
-18
-20
-22
-24
—m
-26
28
-30
-32
-�
l
-34
36
-�— -
-38
—
W W
F.j N
V A
N N
A A
W
W
V�
N
A
A
V
\
A
A
N
A
N
A
A
N
N
N
A
A
N
W
N
A
In
V1
\
A
In
N
N
N
A
Ln
N
lD
N
A
In
N
Ol
N
A
m m
N lD
\ \
A A
m
01
M
N
A
m m
N W
W O
N N
A A
V
�I
\
A
V V V
1--. N N
A N Co
N N N
A A A
co
A
\
A
co co
N W
N W
N N
A A
oo D l0
N N 00
In \ \
N A A
A
l0
Lq
In
N
A
l0
N
N
N
A
ip
N
l0
N
A
\
O�
N
A
\
N
A
\
N
~A
\ W \
N W 0
N
A A A
2.5
2.0
c
N
c
1.5
a
c
s
1.0
0.5
0.0

Herman Dairy Reference Groundwater Gauge
Year 3 (2014 Data)
12
2.5
10
March 20
8
Growing Season
6
Start
Malfunction
4
2
A f4 A
2.0
0
2
November 9
4
End Growing Season
6
3
-10
End
3
1.5 £
-12
—
3 _14
0
235 Days
-16
18
-20
1.0
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
0.5
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
EL
LLIL
0.0
W
N
W W A A A A In V, 'n W M M M M M V V V V W W W W lD W W lD LD N N N
N W V I--� N N V1 Ili N N lD
\
V
A
W M W
A N \ A N 00 \ N lD Ql \ \ D� W O \ A N 00 \ N 00 Vt \ \ � N lD Ql N N
4\ 4\ 4\ .0. A A Ip. Ip. P\. A Ip. -9- Ip. A N 4\ Ip. 4\ .0.
A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A
N W N
W
A A A

18
16
14
12
a
s
U
C
== 10
c
0
Q 8
'u
O1
L
a
0
4
2
Figure E1. Annual Climatic Data vs. 30 -year Historic Data
i�
C -0 L L T N T w +' +' > u
t0 N M Q f0 C 5 7 Q U 0 N
Q) 0 z o
Ln
1 2012 ** `12013" � 2014 =30th %* -70th %*

Appendix F.
Benthic Data
2014 Benthic Data Lab Results
2014 Habitat Assessment Field Datasheets
2014 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 3 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

AXIOM, HERMAN DAIRY YEAR 3 ANNUAL MONITORING, ALEXANDER CO., NC, 6/272014.
SPECIES
Tolerance
Values
Functional
Feeding
Groups
UT1
UT 2
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
Isopoda
Asellidae
SH
Caecidotea sp.
8.4
CG
1
Collembola
Isotomidae
1
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae
Baetis pluto
3.4
2
Odonata
Libellulidae
P
Plathemis lydia
9.8
3
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae
Hydropsyche depravata gp.
7.9
FC
9
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae
P
1
Scirtidae
SC
Scirtes sp.
5
Diptera
Chironomidae
Chironomus sp.
9.3
CG
5
Conchapelopia sp.
8.4
P
1
Polypedilum illinoense gp.
8.7
SH
1
Psectrotanypus dyari
10
P
1
Stictochironomus devinctus
5.4
CG
9
Tanytarsus sp.
6.6
FC
2
Simuliidae
FC
Simulium vittatum
9.1
7
Ptychopteridae
Bittacomorpha sp.
9
Tipulidae
SH
Tipula sp.
7.5
SH
2
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
40
19
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA
11
5
EPT
2
0
Biotic Index - Assigned Values
7.76
9.45
PAI, Inc. Page 1 of Zopy of AXIOM HERMAN DAIRY 3 ANNUAL 6 27 14cl

3/06 Revision G D &t v1
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet � /
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTA.L SCORE 0
Directions For use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 2811 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. To 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 the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediatc score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results front the different metrics.
Stream %' I- Locationlroad: (V�'-' A N . {Road dame )county A j -o a -,J e
Date U12 1 CCU 030'�OloltzoDlAosin ca�mjj)a Subbastn
Observer(s) �.. ? . Type of Study: ❑ Fish Ml enthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude " 3 Longitude : t' Eessrcgion: ❑ MT LSk3SIaleBelt ❑ `I'riassic Basin
Water Quality, Temperature °C DO mg/I Conductivity (corr.) µSian pH
Physical Characterization: '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.
Visible Land Use! %Forest %Residential 4z %Active Pasture q3 % Active Crow
%Fallon +� Fields % Corrunercial %Industrial 10 O/oOther - Describe: Nv'101V -+ 6'
Watershed land use : 12Forest Ed`.Agriculture ❑UTban ER/Animal operations upstream
Width: meters Stream Channel at to of bank Stream Depth: in Avg 0, 5 max
(meters) � ( p � p ( � g
❑ Width variable ❑ Large river >25rn wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you status on): ),
Bank Angle: 1-1 j ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 94 °, horizontal is 0. Angles > 9T indicate slope is towards mid- channel, < 90*
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is toss low for bank angle to matter.)
13 Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised - steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Chaonei filled in with sediment
• Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
• Excessive periphyton growth jj ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
m
Manade Stabilization: ON Lam: ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment/grade-control stricture ❑Berniflevee
Flow conditions: ❑liigh C iorrnal 01-0
Turbidity: ❑Cleat ❑ Slightly Turbid Uturbid ❑Tanni�c 0MiIky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project ?? II YES nNO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnomial or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............ ......
B. Water fills >75% <25%
[] ,
of available channel, or of channel substrate is exposed ........................
II'
C. Water tills 25 -75% of available channel, many logs /snags exposed .............. ...............................
D. Root mats out of water .................................................................................... ...............................
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ...................... ...............................
❑
Weather Conditions: � -��� N—f Photos: ON CQ'V Q Digital 1235m
Remarks: ti `ti ;.e- J � 0 C% C!
39

,A I
1. Channel Modification �gr
A. channel natural, frequent bends ......................................................................... ...............................
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ....................... ............................... 4
C. some channelization present ............................................................................... ............................... 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ................................ ............................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc.. ................................................... 0
0 Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagg ng=ao large woody debris in stream IJBanks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal
I1. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >7013,�a of the
reach is rocks, I type is present, circle the scare of 17. Definition: 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.
Rocks 'Macrophytes Sticks and teafparks A— Snags and .logs C, Undercut banks or root treats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
Score
>70 %
40 -70 %
2040%
<200/a
3. embeddedness 40- 8011/o ............................. ............ ........ ......... ................................................
Score
Score
Scare
Scare
4 or 5 types present .................
20
16
12
11
3 types present... ...... ...............
19
is
1.1
7
2 types present .........................
18
14
10
6
1 type present .... ....... ................
17
13
9
5
No types present... ....................
Cl No in Remarks
4
2
4. substrate: nearly all silt/ clay._ ............................................................. ......... ,........................
Subtotal
woody vegetarian riparian zone
Subtotal
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Kook at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at rifi'1e
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with Rand mix of gravel. cobble and boulders
Score
1. embeddedness <20%® (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders ) .........................
15
2. embeddedness 2040%. ........................................................................... ............
12
3. embeddedness 40- 8011/o ............................. ............ ........ ......... ................................................
8
4. cmbcddedness >80%.... ............................................................................................. ...........
3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness <201%. ............................................................. ...... .......... .......... _ ._..........
14
2. embeddedness 20A0%___ ................ ................................... ...... ....................................
11
3. embeddednm 40 -80% ..........,...................................... ........................ ...............................
M
4. embeddedness >80%. .. .......................................................................................................
2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness < 541I 4 .............................................................................. ...............................
8
2. embeddedness > 50% ............................................................................. ...............................
4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. 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
IV. 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 forma of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient stream, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Scare
1. Pools Frequent ( >30 % of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes...... .............................. ........................................................................ 1
b. pools about the sane size (indicates pools filling in) ............................. ............................... 8
2, Pools Infrequent ( <301/10 of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ................................................................................ ............................... f
h. ,pools about the same size ....................................................................... ............................... 4
B. Pools absent .........................................................................................................,.. ....,.,...,.,,................. 0
f Subtotal 10
E3 Pool bottom boulder- cobble =Bard n Bottom sandy -sink as you walk ❑ Silt bottom CI Some pools over wader depth
Rcr arks
40
Page Total a2 11

Ul I
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition- Riffle is area of reacration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... (16-) 12
B, riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width ..... ............................... 'W 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................1 10 3
I). riffles abs nt ................................................................................................................... 0
Channel Slope: ;7;ical for area ❑teep=fasi flow ❑Lom-like a coastal stream Subtotal
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion.. 70 k)
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ...... ............................... 6 6
7. 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. 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 evident ............ ............................... 0 0
Total
Remarks
VIL 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 directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Remarks
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with sorne breaks for light penetration ............... ............................... 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration .................. ......................
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal............ ..... .....
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few ........................ ............................... 2
E. No canopy and no shading ................................................................................ . ..................... 0
Subtotal-]—
Viii. 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 zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm. drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
I FACE UPST Lft. Bank R1. Bank
Dominant vegetation: 0 Trees 12 Shrubs ❑ Grasses l Weeds/old field 13Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > IS 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 meters.. ...... — ...... .......... ......... -
I
I
d. width < 6 meters .................................................. - .....................
Remarks
To
Total
Page Total
13 Disclaimer-form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream.
TOTAL SCORE 7
41

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Street
Diagram to deterniine dank angle;
� t
900 45°
jyj�jcal Stream Cross- seetton
Site Sketch:
Other comments: _ - - --
!Lr]
135"
This side is 45° bank angle.

3 /06 Revision G
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ LroTAL SCoRE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 1100 meters with 200 teeters 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. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which hest fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is detemtined by adding the results from the di#Terent metrics.
TVivr t- r
St rearm f' �'i ^i if1 — Locationlmad: '`rl r.y (Road Name County t_�
Date 2� CC# 00lb+l2003tasin C a,t.t.,,>a. Subbasin Ll
Observers) 1?k117 Type of Study: ❑ Fish eBenthos 13 Basinwide 0Special Study (Describe)
Latitude '6'� 13 1 LP Longitude— 31 .20bl Ecoregiom ❑ MT E6 ❑ Slate Bclt ❑ Trimsic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO nigh Conductivity (corn) VS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: 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.
Visible Land Use: %For+est %Residential %Active Pasture —75% Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Cotmnercial %Industrial 14 %Other - Describe: , p t o'+rr
Watershed land use : Er3`Forest "riculturc ❑Urban E} Animal operations upstream
Width: ( ") Stream Channel (at tog of bank) Stream Depth: ) Avg �. I- o
7 �Max 6.7
Width variable 0 Large river >25rn wide + _
Bank Height (front deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): {m)�.'
Bank Angle: b ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90', horizontal is 0'. Angles > 90* indicate slope is towards mid - channel, < 901
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to nastier.)
❑ Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised - steep, straight banks OBoth banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑ Recent overbank deposits Mar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton gro�tormal h 0 Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ❑N EIRip -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sediment(grade- control structure QBerm levee
Flow conditions: ©Iligh ❑i..ow
Turbidity: Ew.lear []Slightly Turbid OTurbid ❑Tannic OMilky C]Colored (front dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project ?? Q'' ES ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnortnai or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, rninirnaI channel substrate exposed ............................ ❑
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ .
C. Water tills 25 -75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed.. ............ ...... .... .........
D. Foot mats out of water ..... ........ ........... ............................ .... .... ............... .......... ............ ......... ......... ❑
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools... .................................................. ❑
Weather Conditions: Photos: ON E Y EyDigital C335tt m
39

V7 2.
1. Channel Modification Now
A. channel natural, frequent bends ........ ...............................
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old)­ ....................... ............................ 4
C, some channelization present ......... .............................................................,., ............................... 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted ................................ ............................... 2
E. no bends, completety charutetixed or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ...................... ............................... 0
❑ Evidence of dredging [Evidence of desnagging®no large woody debris in stream OBanks of uniform shapvbeight
Remarks Subtotal-5
Il. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If >70% of the
reach is rocks, I type is present, circle the :score of 17, Definition: leafpacks consist of odder 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 A Macrophytes C— Sticks and leafpacks �P- Snags and logs P- Undercut banks or rant mitts
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
Score
>70 ®/4
40 -70%
20 -40%
<200 /v
3. embeddeduess 40-80% ........................................................................... ...............................
Score
Score
Score
Score
4 or 5 types present .................
20
16
12
8
3 types present ........................
19
5)
11
7
2 types present ............, »..... »,....
18
14
10
6
1 type present.. .........................
17
13
9
S
No types present .......................
0
2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay ................ ......... ..................................... ...............................
1
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
Subtotal U
Subtotal
M. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but. only took at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all {arts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting racks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders ) .........................
15
2. embeddedness 2040% ........................................................................... ...............................
12
3. embeddeduess 40-80% ........................................................................... ...............................
8
4. embeddedness >80%...... .................................. . ..... . .............................. ...................... ......
3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness < 20%........... .....................,..........,.,.........,......,.............. ...............................
14
2, embeddedness 2040% .......................................................................... ...............................
11
3. embeddedness 40-80% ..................................................................... ................... » ».........,
0
4. embeddedness > 80%........ ....................»,,...»...»,...,.,».,,,,...,..................,.. ...............................
2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness < 50% ........................................................ ............................ ........ ».......... ...,-
8
2. embeddedr►ess > 50% ............................................................................. ...............................
4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock .................................................................... ...............................
3
2. substrate nearly all sand ... ............................... .............. ....... ....... ...... ........................ .. ...... —,
3
3. substrate nearly all detritus .........................».,.,.....,.»..,.......,....,..,,,.......... ...............................
2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay ................ ......... ..................................... ...............................
1
Rernarks
Subtotal U
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum, depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slaw. 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 ( >30% of 2000. area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ...................... ............,,.,.....»...,.,....,..,,,...,,...,..,........ ...............................
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in) .............................. ............................... 8
2. Pools Infrequent ( <30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes ..............................................................................„ ........•...................... 6
b. pools about the same size ....................................................................... ............................... 4
B. Pools absent ........................ .................................................................................. ............................... 0
❑ Pool bottom boulder - cobble hard 0 Bottom sandy -sink as you walk
Rsn-uarks
40
Subtotal —IL
❑ Silt bettom O Some pools over wavier depth
Page Total �5U

V. Riffle Habitats (-n �
Definition: Riffle is area of reacration-can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Sc re Sere A. well defined riffle and ran, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... d 6
B. 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 ............................. 10 3
D. riffles ab nt.... ................................................ ............................... ......... -- .......... 0
Channel Slope: FT;ical for area ❑Steep fast flow ❑1-ow--like a coastal suvarn. Subtotal I LP
VT. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank faikire(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion-0
H. Erosion areas present
1, diverse trees, shrubs, grass, plants healthy with good root systems ...... ............................... 6 6
2. few trees or sn-all trees 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 now.. 2 2
5, little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and batik failure evident ........................................... 0 0
Total
Remarks
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 directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Remarks
Score
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 ........................
D, Stream with adnimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ......... .............................................
E. No canopy and no shading ............................ ................................................................................. 0
Subtotal 2-
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 zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees. otter slides, etc.
FA E UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: ❑ Trees 0' hrubs
FA
ErWeeds/old field ❑Exoties (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone Intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters ..................... ......... . ..... . ......................................... . .........
/71�
QV
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)
L 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 meters ...... ................................... ............................
I
I
d, width < 6 meters .........................................................................
0
0
Remarks
-rotai
Page Total
q:7-
0 Disclaimer-form filled out, but senre doesn't match subjective opinion- atypical stream.
TOTAIL, SCORE -7D
41

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle;
� I
f �
700 450
Typical Strcam- Cross - section
r
Extreme nigh Water }
Normal High Wmtcr
.itreaeri WIdlh
Site ,ketch:
Lc+ cr
nartk
Uppertlank
1350
This side is 45° bank ankle.
42

3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ LrOTAL SCORE E I
Directions for use: The 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 -wary. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the strearn. To complete the farm, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
0fr_�
Stream � [)AAJ � 70A Location/road: TV, 4i kt W (Road Natne County A M�v At �
i # Ol Q� asit + 7 5ubbasin Da to 1 0-� `0 b - 37—
KIRTI
Observer(s),P Type of Study: ❑ Fish MBenthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude 33- �1 U Longitude � ," X ;'j Ecoregion: ❑ MT ❑ P ❑ Slate Solt El Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature "C DO rngll Conductivity (corn.) _ _ 1:Sfcm p14
Physical Characterization: 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.
Visible Land Use: %bForest %Residential %Active Pasture _�% Active Crops
%Fallow Fields %Q Commercial %Industrial { � %Other -Describe. A" e^" tS ky
1
Watershed land use: forest 19/Agriculture ❑Urban l Anirnal operations upstream
Width: (ueC s} Stream Channel (at tap of bank) Stream Depth: (ffr Avg , Max
❑ Width variable ❑ Large river >25m wide 44
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on):
Bank Angle: "1 5 ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90 °, horizontal is 0 °. Angles > 90* indicate slope is towards mid - channel, <900
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
❑ Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised - steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel Cued in with sediment
❑ Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton gro;,Uh El Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON : ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions ❑ Sedinientlgrade- control structure ❑13cmVIev�ee
Flow conditions: ❑lligh ormal ❑Low
Turbidity: ❑Clear ❑ Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project':? dYF'S ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. 'Water reaches base of both lower banks, minirnal cliannel substrate exposed ............................ ❑
13. Water tills >75% of available channel, or [25% of channel substrate is exposed .................... ❑
C. Water fills 25 -75/0 of available channel, many logs/snags exposed....... ........ ............................... ❑
D. Root gnats out of water .................................................................................... ............................... ❑
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ...................... ............................... ❑
Weather Conditions: ti. � DL Photos: ❑N E ER Digital 035rnm
Remarks: N o V_ 4c V -1) VT 51t 4 I-tw -N V-\ d -'L' 14' X -' '. ti mm . ---) o i`?t'_ 1f \ c
M

0
I. Channel modification ,�Sc��ore
A. channel. natural, frequent bends ......................................................................... ............................... ( 3
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old ).... .................................................. 4
C. some channelization present.............. ................................................................. ............................... 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrup ted ................................ ............................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ...................... ............................... 0
❑ Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height
Kc naarks� _ Subtotal
II. Instrearn Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover_ If >701/o of the
reach is rocks, I type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of alder leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not }wiles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Bare, Common, or Abundant.
Rocks (, Macrophytes Sticks and leafpacks F Snags and logs RUndercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLON17ATION OR COVER,
Score
>70%
40 -70 °lo
20 -409/o
<20 %
3. embeddedness 40- 80% ........ ................................. ............................. .... .............. ....... ...........
Score
Score
Score
Score
4 or 5 types present .................
213
1
12
8
3 types present .........................
19
4. embeddedness > 80% .............................................................................. ...............................
11
7
2 types p resent .........................
IS
14
10
6
1 type present, ..........................
17
13
9
5
No types present. .... .................
0
2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay .................................................................... ...............................
I
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
Subtotal
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, de(ritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders ) .........................
15
2, embeddedness 2Q-411° io ........................................................................... ...............................
12
3. embeddedness 40- 80% ........ ................................. ............................. .... .............. ....... ...........
8
4. embeddr c.incss >801 16 .............................................................................. ...............................
3
8. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness < 20% ............................................................................. ...............................
14
2. embeddedness 20-4 0% ................... ....... ........................................... ,... ........... ....................
.
3. embeddedness 40-80%.. .......................... . . .. ...... ............................... ...............................
6
4. embeddedness > 80% .............................................................................. ...............................
2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness < 50% ........................................................................... ...............................
8
2. embeddedness >500/o...... ....................................................................... ...............................
4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. 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 I I
IV. Fool Variety fools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slaw. Peals array take the forth of "pocket water ", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. fools present 'Score
1. Pools Frequent ( >30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety 0[pool sizes ...................................................................._........... ............................... I
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in).. .......................................................... 9
2. Pools Infrequent ( <30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes. .... - .... ...... ................................................ . .. ....................................... 6
b. pools about the some size_ ................................................................................................... 4
B. Fools absent ............................................................................................................. ............................... 0
Subtotal I o
D Pool bottom boulder - cobble =hard ❑ Bottom sandy -sink as you walk ❑ Silt bottom ❑ Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total
40

V. Riffle Habitats L)T f
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration -can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Rifles Frequent Riffles infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined rifle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... lb 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width ..... ............................... (14 71 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X strearn width .............................. 10 3
D. riffles absent ..................... ......... ..............__.. ....... 0
Channel Slope: ❑Typical for area l ❑Steep fast flow ❑Low - --like a coastal stream Subtotal l_
VL Sank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
Scare Score
A. Banks stable �-�
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion..(D
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ....... ............................... 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... S S
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 evident ............ ............................... ti U Iq
Total
Remarks
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 directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Score
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 minimal canopy - full slut in all but a few areas ......................... ............................... C
E. No canopy and no shading................. .................,..........,............,............. ...............................
Subtotal
VIII. 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 zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to streant, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: ❑ Trees ❑ Shrubs ❑ Grasses 0 Weedstold field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Scare
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters ... ...................... ....................... ...............................
D
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 c 6 meters .......................................... ...............................
1
1
2. breaks common
a. width> 19 meters... ......................................................................
3
3
b. width 12 -18 meters.............. ......................... ...............................
2
2
c. width 6-12 meters ..................................... ,...... ...........................
1
l
d. w idth <6 meters ...................... ,. ............. ............... .....................
fl
Ii
Remarks
Total
l
Page
Total 40
❑ Disclairner� -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion - atypical stream.
TOTAL SCORE
41

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to delemiine bank angle:
900 450
Typical Stream+Gross -si sin
Site Sketch:
1350
This side is 45' bank angle.
42