20160847 Ver 1_RES CF02 UMB Dairyland MY5 Report_20230823

ID#* 20160847 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:
Maria Polizzi
Initial Review Completed Date 08/25/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 8/23/2023
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* Yes No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name: * Email Address:
Ryan Medric [e-mail]
Project Information
ID#: * 20160847 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Dairyland
County: Orange
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: RES CF02 UMB Dairyland MY5 Report.pdf 25.17MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Ryan Medric
Signature:

DAIRYLAND STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
RES Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
Provided by:
Ores
Bank Sponsor: EBX, LLC,
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1055
August 2023

3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite ioo
res Raleigh, NC 2'7612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
0 Bellaire, TX 77401
August 23, 2023
Kim Isenhour
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: Dairyland Year 5 Monitoring Report (SAW-2016-01258)
Kim,
Please find attached the Dairyland Year 5 Monitoring Report. All of the 11 fixed vegetation plots met the
260 stems per acre success criteria and three out of the four random vegetation plots met the 260 stems
per acre success criteria. There were zero stream problem areas in Year 5. The average stems per acre across
the plots was 585 and the average stem height was 9.8 feet. RES plans to replant the 0.17 acres of Year 5
bare areas and low stem density areas this dormant season. During monitoring in August Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense) and a patch of Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) was noted along the edge of the
Enhancement II portion of the project. Both species will be treated during the dormant season.
Encroachment has been successfully reduced with the planting of trees to block the road running through
the preservation area. Additionally, the trash pile that was adjacent to the road has been removed, seeded
with an herbaceous mix, and planted with 3-gallon container trees. No additional areas of encroachment
were noted during MY5 monitoring events. Both woody and herbaceous vegetation are becoming well
established. Reach HB-2 had four bankfull events, Reach UT-2 had 13 bankfull events, and UT-2 documented
80 consecutive days of flow.
Year 3 credit release letter comments and responses: Comments from previous YR3 Monitoring report are
included below:
1. Regarding this report, DWR is most concerned about the new encroachment. In addition to
signage and horse tape, DWR requires raking in native seed and planting woody stems within
the cleared area to mitigate its appearance as a road.
The road has been blocked off by a row of planted trees. RES has plans to re -survey the
easement line and install additional signage. Seeding of the road will occur this Fall.
2. DWR appreciated report photos and detailed callouts on the CCPV. It would've been helpful to
also callout the headcut repair; please provide a stabilization status for this repair in the MY5
report.
The headcut repair has blown out since its installation. The damage will be repaired in the fall of
2023. See photos in Appendix B.
3. While UT-2 flow technically meets the performance standard, 59 cumulative flow days is a bit
concerning from a habitat function perspective. It would be helpful to add context in the
narrative if influencing factors have been identified (e.g., drought category).
Noted. The MY5 report goes into more detail about the gauge on UT-2.
res.us

0
4. Figure 2 shows two random Veg Plots named #1
This has been corrected in MY5.
5. The areas around RVP1 and VP2 were supplementally planted with 3-gallon container trees in
March of 2022. Please provide the percentage of the site that underwent supplemental planting
in the MY5 report.
The percentage of the site that underwent supplemental planting in 2023 has been included in
the MY5 report. Supplemental planting that occurred in MY4 covered 2.6% of the project area.
6. A beaver dam was noted on reach HB-2 in January 2022 and beaver management occurred
during the winter of 2022.
The beaver dam was not noted during 2023 monitoring events.
7. Table 10. 2022 Rainfall Summary. Please provide all rainfall observations in previous year since
last MY report and not the year to date.
This year's Table 10 is now "MY5 Rainfall Summary" and includes the rainfall from September
2022 to August 2023.
RES is requesting a 10% (350.200 SMUs) credit release for Year 5 monitoring.
Thank you,
Ryan Medric I Project Manager

Project Name:
Sponsor Name:
USACE Action ID:
NCDWQ Action ID:
EBX, LLC (RES)
SAW-2016-012SS
20160847
Wilmington District Mitigation Bank Credit Release Schedule
County:
8-Digit HUC:
Year Project Instituted:
Date Prepared:
Total Potential Credits
Non -Forested
Stream Credits
Forested Wetland Credits
Wetland
Credit Classification
Credits
Warm
Water
Cool
Water
Cold
Water
Riparian
Riverine
Riparian
Non-Riverine
Non -Riparian
Coastal
Potential Credits from Mitigation Plan
3657
Potential Credits from As -Built Survey
3657
03030003
2/9/2018
8/23/2023
Current and Future Credit Releases
Stream Credits
Forested Wetland Credits
Non -Forested Wetland
Credits
Projected
Actual Release
Credit Release Milestone
Scheduled
Releases
Warm
Water
Cool
Water
Cold
Water
Scheduled
Releases
Riparian
Riverine
Riparian
Non-Riverine
Non -Riparian
Scheduled
Releases
Coastal
Release Date
Date
1(Bank/Site Establishment)" Z
15%
680.300
15%
15%
6/25/2018
6/25/2018
2 (Year 0/As-Built)3
15%
525.300
15%
15%
12/12/2018
12/12/2018
3 (Year 1 Monitoring)
10%
350.200
10%
10%
12/15/2019
12/18/2019
4 (Year 2 Monitoring)
10%
350.200
10%
15%
12/15/2020
11/19/2020
5 (Year 3 Monitoring)
10%
350.200
15%
20%
12/15/2021
3/25/2022
6(Year 4 Monitoring)
5%
175.100
5%
10%
12/15/2022
10/25/2022
7 (Year 5 Monitoring)
10%
350.200
15%
15%
12/15/2023
8 (Year 6 Monitoring)
5%
175.100
5%
NA
NA
12/15/2024
9 (Year 7 Monitoring)
10%
350.200
10%
NA
NA
12/15/2025
Stream Bankfull Standard
10%
350.200
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
I NA
12/15/2022
10/25/2022
Total Credits Release to Date
2781.500
Contingencies (if any):100% of preservation credits were released at site establishment in addition to 15% of restoration and enhancement credits
Signature of Wilmington District Official Approving Credit Release Date
1- The first credit release milestone is based on the potential credits stated in the approved mitigation plan.
2 - The first credit release shall occur upon establishment of the mitigation bank, which includes the following criteria:
1) Execution of the MBI or UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE;
2) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan;
3) Mitigation bank site must be secured;
4) Delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan;
5) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE;
6) 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
3 - The second credit release is based on the credit totals from the as -built survey, and may differ slightly from the credit totals stated in the mitigation plan.
4 - A 15% reserve of credits to be held back until the Bankfull event performance standard has been met.

RES CAPE FEAR 02 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
DAIRYLAND STREAM CREDIT LEDGER (HUC 03030002)
3/1/2023
Transaction
Number
Credits Released
To Bank
Credits Debited
From Bank
Current
Credit Balance
Credits
Reserved Purchaser
Proiect
Permit Number
Closing Date
HUC
1
680.30
680.30
Credits Released: Task 1
6/25118
2
20.3
CRA Associates, Inc
Seaforth High School
SAW-2017-01799
11/9/18
03030002
3
525.30
Credits Released: Task 2
12/12/1 B
4
30.0
Chatham Park Investors LLC
Chatham Park,
Section 5.1, Thompson Street Subdivision
SAW-2019-01278
7119/19
03030002
5
350.20
Credits Released: Task 3
12/18/19
6
622.0
Publix Super Markets, Inc
Publix Distribution Center
SAW-2018-00240
2/11/20
03030002
GSO Rental Car Facilities Relocation, Air Cargo Site, and
7
223.5
Piedmont Triad Airport Authority
Worldwide Drive Extension
SAW-2017-00103
4/1/20
03030002
8
350.20
Credits Released: Task 4
11/19/20
9
187.0
Baker Residential of the Carolinas, LLC
Dominion Estates Subdivision
SAW-2018-00080
1127/21
03030002
10
350.20
Credits Released: Task 5
3125/22
11
118.4
Cary Creek Land, LLC c/o American Asset Corporation
Alston Town Center (phase 2)
SAW-2006-32842
8/11/22
03030002
12
525.30
Credits Released: Task 6
10/25/22
13
395.0
Goldberg Companies, Inc.
Cary -Legacy (Twyla Road)
SAW-2018-0211
11/30/22
03030002

Table of Contents
1.o Project Summary..........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Location and Description....................................................................................1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives............................................................................................1
1.3 Project Success Criteria................................................................................................... 2
Stream Success Criteria......................................................................................................... 2
VegetationSuccess Criteria................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Project Components........................................................................................................ 3
1.5 Design/Approach............................................................................................................ 4
1.6 Construction and As -Built Conditions........................................................................... 5
1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY5)..................................................................................... 5
Vegetation.............................................................................................................................. 5
StreamGeomorphology........................................................................................................ 6
StreamHydrology.................................................................................................................. 7
2.0 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 7
3.o References....................................................................................................................................8
Appendix A: Background Tables
Table 1: Project Mitigation Components
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3: Project Contacts Table
Table 4: Project Background Information
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2: Current Conditions Plan View
Stream and Vegetation Problem Areas
Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 5: Planted Species Summary
Table 6: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 7. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Appendix D: Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Cross -Section Plots
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Appendix E: Hydrology Data
Table 10. MY5 Rainfall Summary
Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Dairyland Flow Gauge UT2 Stream Flow Hydrograph

i.o Project Summary
1.1 Project Location and Description
The Dairyland Stream Mitigation Site (the "Site") is located within a watershed dominated by
agricultural and residential land use in Orange County, North Carolina, about eight miles
Southwest of Hillsborough. The project area exhibited diminished hydrology and habitat value as
a result of past and on -going agricultural activities. The project involved the restoration,
enhancement, and protection of streams in the Cape Fear River basin.
The project lies within the Haw River Basin and Jordan Lake Watershed (8-digit USGS HUC
03030002, 14-digit USGS 03030002050030). The project watershed is primarily characterized by
agriculture, forests, and low -intensity residential areas.
The total easement area is 28.6 acres. Adjacent fields are dominated by corn and soybeans.
Vegetation around the ponds and the unbuffered stream reaches (HB1, HB2, and UT2) was
primarily composed of herbaceous vegetation and scattered trees. The existing farm ponds
offered little habitat to support aquatic life, and the riparian buffers were not maximizing their
potential to filter nutrients.
The Site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site will be conducted
at a minimum of twice per year throughout the seven-year post -construction monitoring period,
or until performance standards are met. These site inspections will identify site components and
features that require routine maintenance. The measure of stream restoration success will be
documented by bankfull flows and no change in stream channel classification. The measure of
vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 210 seven-year old planted trees per
acre at the end of year seven of the monitoring period.
Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred to
Unique Places to Save (UP2S), an approved third -party long-term steward. The long-term steward
will be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
Conservation Easement, or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Easements will be
stewarded in general accordance with the guidelines published by the National Land Trust
Alliance. These guidelines include annual monitoring visits to easements and related
communication with the landowner(s).
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) develops River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRP) to guide its restoration activities within each of the state's 54 hydrologic units.
The 2009 Cape River Basin RBRP identified several restoration needs for the entire Cape River
Basin, as well as for hydrologic unit code (HUC 03030002), specifically. To satisfy these needs RES
has established the RES Cape Fear 02 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, with the first approved bank site
being the Dairyland Mitigation Site.
Dairyland i Year 5 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site August 2023

The Site is located within the Haw River, the major river in HUC 03030002. This river and its
tributaries flow to B. Everett Jordan Lake, a drinking water supply. This supply has been designated
a Nutrient Sensitive Water and NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) has developed a set of
goals to reduce non -point source pollution in its watershed. Goals include promoting nutrient and
sediment reduction in agricultural and urban areas by restoring and preserving streams, wetlands,
and riparian buffers. The Site provides compensatory mitigation for impacts on the Waters of the
US under the Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Dam breach and pond removal,
• Restoration of appropriate pattern, dimension, and profile in stream channels.
• Restoration of forested riparian stream buffers,
• Enhancement of hydrology and vegetation in existing riparian wetlands,
• Treatment and control of exotic invasive species,
• Stabilization of eroding stream banks due to lack of vegetation, and
• Addition of large woody debris, such as log vanes, log weirs, root wads.
Due to its location and improvements, the Site provides numerous ecological and water quality
benefits within the Cape Fear River Basin. While many of these benefits are limited to the project
area, others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have farther -
reaching effects. Many of the project design goals and objectives, including restoration of riparian
buffers to filter runoff from agricultural operations, improvement of terrestrial habitat, and
construction of in -stream structures, address the degraded water quality and nutrient input
stressors identified as major watershed stressors in the 2009 Cape Fear RBRP.
1.3 Project Success Criteria
The Site follows the USACE 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the "Wilmington District
Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update" dated October 24, 2016. Cross section
and vegetation plot data will be collected in Years 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Stream hydrology data and
visual monitoring will be reported annually.
Stream Success Criteria
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The
bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until
four bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
There should be little change in as -built cross -sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example
down -cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example
settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross -
sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored
Dairyland 2 Year 5 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site August 2023

cross -sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design
stream type. Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less
than 1.4 within restored reaches. Channel stability should be demonstrated through a minimum
of four bankfull events documented in the seven-year monitoring period.
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures.
Longitudinal images should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an
excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or
continuing degradation of the banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate
successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Site
will follow IRT Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size,
and cover a minimum of two percent of the planted area. Vegetation monitoring will occur
between July 1st and leaf drop and includes 11 permanent vegetation plots and four random
vegetation plots. The interim measures of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at
least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 five-year old trees at the
end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 210 trees per acre with an average
height of 10 feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to species, and
included in the yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted towards the success criteria of
total planted stems.
1.4 Project Components
Mitigation credits presented in these tables are based upon site design in the approved final
mitigation plan. SMU totals were adjusted and calculated using the most recent non-standard
buffer width guidance. The stream mitigation components are summarized in Table 1, as well as
Figure 2.
Dairyland 3 Year 5 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site August 2023

Dair
land Stream Mitigation Site Mitigation Credits
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Totals
3,657
N/A
N/A
Propose
Mitigation
Stationing d
Mitigatio
Base
Reach
Adjusted SMUs*
Type
(Proposed) Length
n Ratio
SMUs
(LF)
Enhancement
HB-1
0+17
to 8+90 873
2.5:1
349
349
P1
22+6
HB-2
9+50
to 1,319
1:1
1,319
1,452
Restoration
9
Enhanlll cement
UT-1
0+15
to 9+84 969
5:1
194
194
Enhancement
UT-2
0+0
to 2+10 210
1.5:1
140
150
P1
11+7
UT-2
2+10
to 964
1:1
964
1,079
Restoration
4
15+74
WF-1
Preservation
0+20
to 1,554
10:1
155
155
Enhancement
19+1
WF-2
16+55
to 255
5:1
51
51
III
0
Enhancement
34+6
WF-2
23+30
to 1,134
5:1
227
227
III
4
Total
7,278
3,399
3,657
*SMUs are adjusted in accordance with Section XI(C)- "Procedures to Calculate Credits for Non-
standard Buffer Widths", published in the October 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update. A detailed description of the methodology and calculations is
described in the Approved Mitigation Plan.
1.5 Design/Approach
The design approach for the Site was to combine the analog method of natural channel design
with analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and
floodplain. The analog method involves the use of a "template" stream adjacent to, nearby, or
previously in the same location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach
are replicated to create the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when
watershed and boundary conditions are similar between the design and analog reaches
(Skidmore, et al., 2001). Hydraulic geometry was developed using analytical methods in an effort
to identify the design discharge.
Dairyland 4 Year 5 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site August 2023

Priority Level I Restoration was performed on Reaches HB-2 and UT-2, both of which were farm
ponds. Restoration activities included draining and breaching the existing impoundments and
constructing channels once the ponds had been breached. A combination of Priority I Restoration
and Enhancement Level 11 was performed along the primary project channel (Reaches HB-1 and
HB-2) to address existing impairments, particularly impoundment, floodplain disconnection, and
buffer degradation. Enhancement III was performed on Reaches UT-1 and WF-2, as the channel
is stable throughout, regularly accesses its floodplain and provides a variety of aquatic habitats.
Preservation was performed for Reach WF-1. The channel is stable throughout, regularly accesses
its floodplain and provides a variety of aquatic habitats.
1.6 Construction and As -Built Conditions
Stream construction was completed in August 2018 and planting was completed in November
2018. The Dairyland Mitigation Site was built to design plans and guidelines. Baseline channel
length and stationing is based on design centerline. The only notable change that was made
during construction was changing the crossing between HB-1 and HB-2 from a culvert to a ford.
This modification, which is outside of the conservation easement area, was made based on the
large amount of bedrock unearthed after the ponds were dewatered. The design engineer drafted
and sealed a bulletin drawing to retain the bedrock features and tie-in with the downstream
stream design as shown in the Mitigation Plan. Also, a few log structures were removed from the
design to utilize the existing bedrock found in the new channel location and retained the designed
channel slope. Following Hurricane Florence and Hurricane Michael, the stream construction
contractor added rip rap material around the grade control structures from 7+00 to 9+00 on UT-
2. During the As -Built Site Visit with the IRT on November 29, 2018, RES agreed that the amount
of rip rap material was not appropriate for the design. Shortly after the site visit, RES removed the
rip rap from the areas not directly around structures. Two other areas that were identified during
this site visit included two small encroachment areas along WF-2 and the general comment to
treat invasive species in the WF-2 easement area.
1. 7 Monitoring Performance (MY5)
The Monitoring Year 5 (MY5) activities were completed in June and August 2023. All monitoring
data is present below and in the appendices. The Site is on track to meet vegetation and stream
interim success criteria.
Vegetation
Monitoring of the 11 fixed vegetation plots and four random vegetation plots was completed
during August 2023. Vegetation data are in Appendix C, and associated photos and plot locations
are in Appendix B. MY5 monitoring data indicates that all plots but one are exceeding the interim
success criteria of 260 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 162 to 1,012
planted stems per acre with a mean of 585 planted stems per acre. A total of 16 species were
documented within the plots. The average tree height observed in the permanent vegetation plots
was 9.8 feet.
Dairyland 5 Year 5 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site August 2023

Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous
vegetation is becoming well established throughout the project. There are two bare areas totaling
0.02 acres in size and one low stem density area about 0.15 acres in size. One of the bare areas
(VPA-2) is down slope of the head -cut that was repaired in 2022. The repair has been blown out
(VPA-1), and will be fixed again this fall in addition to planting 3-gallon container species and
putting down a herbaceous seed mixture for added stability in the eroded area below. The second
bare area (VPA-3) is near fixed vegetation plot 5 and the low stem area (0.15 acres, VPA-4) is
around random veg plot 4. These areas will also be supplementally planted this dormant season
with 3-gallon container species, and the bare area will be seeded with the herbaceous mix.
The road that passes through the preservation area has been blocked off with planted 3-gallon
container trees in April 2023. The trash pile that was noted adjacent to the road was removed,
filled in, and seeded with an herbaceous mixture. 0.29 acres (1% of the project area) including and
surrounding the filled trash pile was planted with 3-gallon container trees at a density of 260
stems per area (VPA-9). The area will continue to be monitored in future years to ensure no
encroachment is occurring.
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) was treated within the preservation area in April 2023. Larger
areas of privet near the Enhancement II reach will be treated this Fall (VPA-8), along with a small
grove of tree -of -heaven (Ailanthus altissima) (VPA-7). Additionally, two areas of moderately dense
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) will be removed around the downstream extent of UT-2 and HB-2 (VPA
5 & 6).
Stream Geomorphology
Geomorphology data for MY5 was collected during June 2023. Summary tables and cross section
plots are in Appendix D. Overall, the cross sections relatively match baseline condition, or
demonstrate stable conditions since expected minor adjustments during the first few years after
construction.
Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as
eroding banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. The channel is transporting
sediment as designed and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation. One
area of bank erosion was observed around a log sill at Cross Section 7. This area has repaired itself
slightly since MY3 and is not considered a problem in MY5 due to the continued presence of thick
livestake growth in the area. RES will continue to closely monitor this structure.
Geomorphology data for MY5 is included in Appendix D. No areas of concern were noted during
the site walk and the stream is transporting sediment as designed.
Dairyland 6 Year 5 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site August 2023

Stream H, d�gy
There are two stage recorders on site, one on Reach HB-2 and one on Reach UT-2. Additionally,
as requested by the IRT, RES is reporting flow data on Reach UT-2. MY5 hydrology data shows
four bankfull events on HB-2 and 13 on UT-2. The highest event on HB-2 was 0.74 feet above
bankfull and the highest event on UT-2 was 0.97 feet above bankfull. Reach UT-2 reported 80
consecutive flow days and 84 cumulative flow days. It should be noted that gauge UT-2 is located
on a riffle, so dry readings do not mean the entire stream is dry. More accurately the riffle may be
dry but there is still water located in the nearby pools. The flow chart shows very few periods of
time where there was absolutely no recording on the gauge, meaning the stream likely had some
water in its pools for most of the year. Gauge locations are shown on Figure 2 and full hydrology
data is in Appendix E.
2.0 Methods
Stream monitoring was conducted using a Topcon GTS-312 Total Station. Three-dimensional
coordinates associated with cross-section data were collected in the field (NAD83 State Plane feet
FIPS 3200). Morphological data were collected at 16 cross -sections. Survey data were imported
into CAD, ArcGIS®, and Microsoft Excel® for data processing and analysis. The stage recorders
include a flow gauge and a crest gauge. The flow gauges were installed within the channel and
will record flow conditions at an hourly interval. The crest gauges were installed on the bank at
the bankfull elevation. During quarterly visits to the Site, the height of the corkline will be
recorded. HOBO data from the flow gauges will be corrected using bankfull recordings from the
crest gauges. In result of crest gauge failure, the flow gauges will be corrected using the water
depth at the gauge and the height of the top of bank at the gauge. Additionally, flow data is
corrected using the height of the downstream riffle to detect flow.
Vegetation success is being monitored at 11 permanent monitoring plots and four random
monitoring plots. Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis of species composition and density
of planted species. Data are processed using the CVS data entry tool. In the field, the four corners
of each plot were permanently marked with PVC at the origin and metal conduit at the other
corners. Photos of each plot are to be taken from the origin each monitoring year. The random
plots are to be collected in locations where there are no permanent vegetation plots. Random
plots will most likely be collected in the form of a 100 square meter belt transect. Tree species and
height will be recorded for each planted stem and the transects will be mapped and new locations
will be monitored in subsequent years.
Dairyland 7 Year 5 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site August 2023

3.o References
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function -
Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP
Protocol
for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). "Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities
2009." (September 2014).
Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274
Resource Environmental Solutions (2017). Dairyland Stream Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan.
Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs,
CO.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S.
Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center.
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Dairyland 8 Year 5 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site August 2023

Appendix A
Background Tables

Table 1. Dairyland Stream Mitigation Site - Mitigation Assets and Components
Project
Component
(reach ID, etc.)'
Wetland
Position and
HydroType2
Pre-
Construction
Footage or
Acreage
Stationing
Mitigation
Plan
Footage or
Acreage
Restoration
Level
Approach
Priority
Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Mitigation
Credits
Adjusted
Mitigation
Credits"
Notes/Comments
HB-1
800
0+17 to 8+90
873
Ell
---
2.5:1
349
349
Planted Buffer, In -Stream Structures
HB-2
1,300
9+50 to 22+69
1,319
Restoration
P1
1:1
1319
1,452
Pond Conversion, Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer
1
984
0+15 to 9+84
969
EIII
---
5:1
194
194
Planted Buffer, Invasive Species Treatment
1
1,085
0+0 to 2+10
210
El
---
1.5:1
140
150
Drainage Pipe Removal, Bank Stabilization, In -Stream Structures, Planted Buffer
1
2+10 to 11+74
964
Restoration
P1
1:1
964
1,079
Pond Conversion, Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer
WFA
1,500
0+20 to 15+74
1,554
Preservation
---
10:1
155
155
Supplemental Buffer Plantings
WF-2
1,852
16+55 to 19+10
255
EIII
---
5:1
51
51
Supplemental Buffer Plantings, Invasive Species Treatment
WF-2
23+30 to 34+64
1,134
EIII
---
5:1
227
227
Supplemental Buffer Plantings, Invasive Species Treatment
Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category Overall Assets Summary
Restoration Level
Stream
(linear feet)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Nan -riparian
Wetland
(acres)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
Enhancement II
Enhancement III
L
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Pres
Overall
Asset Category
Credits
Stream
3,657
RNR Wetland
NR Wetland
General Note -The above component table is intended to be a close complement to the asset map.
Each entry in the above table should have clear distinction and appropriate symbology in the asset
map.
1- Wetland Groups represent pooled wetland polygons in the map with the same wetland type and
restoration level. If some of the wetland polygons within a group are in meaningfully different
landscape positions, soil types or have different community targets (as examples), then further
segmentation in the table may be warranted. Wetland features impacted by credit modifiers such as
utilities shall be listed as a distinct record with the impacted acreage tallied as discreet records in the
table (See Wetland 7 above)
2 - Wetland Position and Hydro Type - Indicates Riparian Riverine, (RR) , riparinan non-riverine (RNR)
or Non-Riverine (NR)
3- Buffer Assets - due to the complex nature of buffer and nutrient offset assets they are not
included in this example table. Please see the DMS buffer mitigation plan template for the required
asset table information.
4- Adjusted Mitigation Credits are based on the non-standard buffer widths.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Dairyland Stream Mitigation Site
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 4 years 2 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 4 years 11 months
Number of reporting Years': 5
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan
NA
Nov-17
Final Design — Construction Plans
NA
Apr-18
Stream Construction
NA
Aug-18
Bareroot plantings
NA
Nov-18
As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
Nov-18
Dec-18
Year 1 Monitoring
XS: Aug-19
Ve : Aug19
Oct-19
Year 2 Monitoring
XS: June-20
Ve : Sep-20
Sep-20
Encroachment Repair
NA
Oct-20
Supplemental Planting
NA
Jan-21
Invasive Treatment
NA
Feb-21
Year 3 Monitoring
XS: May-21
Ve : Se -21
Oct-21
Invasive Treatment
NA
Feb-22
Boundary Marking
NA
Feb & March-22
Supplemental Planting
NA
Feb & March-22
Beaver Management
NA
Mar-22
Year 4 Monitoring
Sep-22
Sep-22
Invasive Treatment
Apr-23
Encroachment Repair
Apr-23
Supplemental Planting
Apr-23
Year 5 Monitoring
XS: June-23
Ve : Au -23
Sep-23
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
1 = The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline

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

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

Sugar Ridge RdI
a
3
"titAea 1Jt
c
o
Pd
aool
2
BradshO
n
nts
/
Arthur"flnisRd /
nt°
Cane Creek Farms
QAmyGelber�ottery
I
/ -�,
j� c
nts
ArtnacMynnlsRd
Laying Hen Farm
ErgoTrack.com9
b
��✓
1
Kirk's Farm
a .
Andrews FarmQ
110
4
o`
1110
Cates Farm at Cane Creek Q
Cane Creek Baptist
Church Activity Center
Watson's
Automotive Repair
Cane Creek Church19
Woodcrest Farm Q
z
�"rk
0
V
w
c
o
H (1,
Minnis Rd
n%
FinnaearR�
Blue
o no
r nc Green Acres Farm
�erery 8 m Aiesha Lea1hQ
ILI' — —
� � Training Results
E
Rid s
Sean Murray ewooda
Grading, In
Dairyland
Mitigation Project
h
a
reensboro
° Burlington rha PO4artl Moon`etnPJ
igh Poin -
0
0
421 Chapel Hill Legend
'64
Asheboro Dairyland Bank Easement
If Dairyland Duke Easement
Service Area - 03030002
iTLW - 03030002050030
Al
Figure 1 - Site Location Map Date: 9/23/2022
w Dairyland Drawn by: GDS
spres
0 1,000 2,000 Mitigation Project Checked by: RTM
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Feet Orange County, North Carolina Res[oringaresilienr earth fora modern world

�� W_a
U U 9 \
VPA-1 and VPA-2:
Blown out head -cut
repair and —0.01
acre bare area.
VPA-3: Bare
area 7M
—0.004 acres VPA-4: Low
stem area
—0.15 acres
HIM-2
\■I
VPA-6: Pine
removal
—0.091 acres
spres
Restoring a resilient earth for a modern world
V' S
0 87.5 175
s•
Figure 2 - CCPV MY5
4 , Dairyland
o"
Mitigation Project
Orange County,
North Carolina
Date: 8/22/2023 Drawn by: KTO
1 inch = 175 feet Checked by: RTM
Legend
Q Conservation Easement
8 Separate Easement
® Existing Wetland
MYS Vegetation Plot
PIR >260 stems/acre
Random Vegetation Plot
<260 stems/acre
>260 stems/acre
0
Stream Mitigation Approach
Restoration
VPA-5: Pine Enhancement
removal Enhancement II
1■■■1
�■■� � —0.096 acres Enhancement III
■�
Preservation
Cross Section
Gauge Type
• Stage Recorder
9 • Stage Recorder/Flow Gauge
• Ambient
Replanted Area
�'' OpenStreetMap (and) contributors`. C-BY-SA AW

Owls
r •.. c
,� � is ��.T �'. 5 ,�• -'�i �' 4
7Nt
WAYNAI
SO
r `'W" :
tati. .
r Y
f ci+ • 4w -
VNA-y: l rasn pile
removed, road blocked,
and supplemental
planting of 0.29 acres
completed in April 2023.
VA-1: i ree-ot-
Heaven
—0.053 acres
1
�H-6: Mriese
Privet
—0.35 acres
�T-�tr- - M.
j6��' -.Fa-;
- res
Restoring a resilient earth for a modern world
N
2
0 100 200
Figure 2 - CCPV MY5
Dairyland
Mitigation Project
Orange County,
North Carolina
Date: 8/22/2023 Drawn by: KTO
1 inch = 175 feet Checked by: RTM
Legend
Q Conservation Easement
Separate Easement
® Existing Wetland
MYS Vegetation Plot
>260 stems/acre
Random Vegetation Plot
<260 stems/acre
>260 stems/acre
Stream Mitigation Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Enhancement III
Preservation
Cross Section
Gauge Type
• Stage Recorder
• Stage Recorder/Flow Gauge
• Ambient
Replanted Area
s.w�►_�i►��r�� :�ti. w�

Dairyland - 2023

;•� .,Ift
;.

Stream Problem Areas
Feature Issue / Location / Size Photo
N/A N/A
Encroachment Problem Areas
Feature Issue / Location / Size Photo
N/A N/A

4m
�Jl L4
07;
INA
4fl
.-A 4
.1 pi

iei
_ _ Via+ .. - }X��'9.�-.�7{ •, i,
:�, rw
,�. • �rti. I A
�:z, �:`.tr�.�•�`. S+�kl' '�`��rr��r.

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 5. Planted Species Summary
Common Name
Scientific Name
Total Stems Planted
White Oak
Quercus alba
4000
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
3000
River Birch
Betula nigra
3000
Willow Oak
Quercus phellos
2850
Green Ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2500
Black Walnut
Juglans nigra
2170
Yellow -Poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
2000
Bitternut Hickory
Carya cordiformis
1000
Mockernut Hickory
Carya tomentosa
1000
Pignut Hickory
Carya glabra
1000
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Quercus michauxii
1000
Northern Red Oak
Quercus rubra
1000
Buttonbush
Cephalanthus occidentalis
960
Total
25,480
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Plot #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Success
Criteria
Met?
Average
Planted
Stem Height
(ft)
1
405
0
405
Yes
3.43
2
405
0
405
Yes
6.89
3
567
0
567
Yes
10.73
4
890
0
890
Yes
18.83
5
1012
0
1012
Yes
14.55
6
324
81
405
Yes
8.92
7
607
0
607
Yes
7.94
8
486
0
486
Yes
16.08
9
567
81
647
Yes
6.90
10
931
1983
2914
Yes
14.55
11
607
445
1052
Yes
13.02
R1
647
0
647
Yes
5.26
R2
607
0
607
Yes
6.82
R3
567
0
567
Yes
8.34
R4
162
0
162
No
5.00
Project Avg
586
173
758
Yes
9.82

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Dairyland Bank
Current Plot Data (MYS 2023)
11202018-01-0001
11202018-01-0002
11202018-01-0003
11202018-01-0004
11202018-01-0005
11202018-01-0006
11202018-01-0007
11202018-01-0008
11202018-01-0009
11202018-01-0010
11202018-01-0011
11202018-01-R1
11202018-01-R2
11202018-01-R3
11202018-01-R4
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-
S
P-all
T
Pnol-
S
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
1
3
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
7
7
7
8
8
8
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
6 6
6 2
2
2
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2 2
2
Carya cordiformis
bitternut hickory
Tree
2
Celtislaevigata
sugarberry
Tree
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
41
41
4
1
1
1
11
11
11
13
13
13
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
1 1
1
2 2
2
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
3
3
3
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
22
7
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
11
1
1
3
4
4
4
Pinustaeda
loblolly pine
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
31
31
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
16
1
1
1
8j1E6
4 4
4 2
2
2
1 1
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
7
7
7
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
8
8
8
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1 1
1 3
3
3Quercus
rubra
northern red oak
Tree
6
6
6
1
1
1
1 1
1
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
Stem count
10
10
10
10
10
10
14
14
14
22
22
22
25
25
25
8
8
10
15
15
15
12
12
12
14
14
16
23
23
72
15
15
26
16
15
15
15
14
14
14
4 4
4
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
5
5
5
41
41
4
41
41
4
31
31
3
61
61
6
41
41
5
3
3
31
41
41
4
51
51
61
61
61
91
51
51
71
61 61
61
61 61
6
6
6
31 31
3
Stems per ACREI
4051
4051
405
4051
4051
4051
5671
5671
5671
8901
8901
8901
lQ1.1i
10121
10121
3241
3241
4051
rn7
6071
6071
4861
486
4-61
5671
5671
6471
9311
9311
29141
6071
6071
10521M
6471
647
6071
607
5671
S671
2
1621
162
Dairyland Bank
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MYS (2023)
MY3 (2021)
MY2 (2020)
MY1 (2019)
MYO (2018)
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
5
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
39
39
39
33
33
34
31
31
31
40
40
40
69
69
69
Carya
hickory
Tree
6
6
6
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
11
11
11
Carya cordiformis
bitternut hickory
Tree
2
Celtislaevigata
sugarberry
Tree
2
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
6
6
6
31
31
3
21
21
2
31
31
3
4
4
4
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon
Tree
31
31
3
16
16
26
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
491
491
49
56
56
56
44
44
45
49
49
49
481
481
48
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
29
9
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
14
14
26
10
10
11
8
8
10
14
14
19
41
41
41
Pinustaeda
loblolly pine
Tree
12
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
38
38
54
381
381
54
231
231
48
281
281
47
37
37
37
Quercus
oak
Tree
3
3
3
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
101
101
10
12
12
12
9
9
9
12
12
12
30
301
30
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
29
29
29
24
24
24
29
29
29
30
30
30
48
48
48
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
ITree
8
8
8
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Ulmus alata
I winged elm
ITree
6
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
217
217
281nO.3
169
169
198
200
200
243
310
310
310
15
11
11
11
0.37
0.27
0.27
0.27
13
13
16
11 11
12
11 11
15
12 12
585
585
758
6221
728
7361
894
1140
1140

Appendix D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach UT-1 - Enhancement III - Cross Section 1 - Riffle
571
570
569
w
...
..................
1.00
..
..................
567
566
565
0 3 6
9
12
15
18
21 24
MYO-2018 MY1-2019
MY5-2023 - - -Approx. Bankfull
MY2-2020
Floodprone Area
MY3 2121
.... Low Bank
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-
567.93
568.0
567.9
568.1
568.1
Bankfull Width fl
8.9
11.0
9.2
8.5
9.2
Floodprone Width f'
>24.8
>25.0
>24.9
>25
>24.9
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.0
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth ft 2
1.8
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.3
Low Bank Elevation
1.8
1.3
567.8
567.8
567.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 2
8.7
8.7
7.6
6.7
6.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
14.0
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'i
>2.8
>2.3
1 >2.7
1
>2.9
>2.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1
1.0
0.9
1 0.9
1
0.9
0.8
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes
reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach HB-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 2 - Riffle
553
552
551
x
c
° 550
ca
m
w 549
548
547
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 MY2-2020 -MY3-2021
MY5-2023 - - -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area • • • • Low Bank
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
XSA
549.99
550.2
550.0
550.2
550.1
Bankfull Width ft'
11.5
12.1
12.1
12.0
11.6
Floodprone Width ft'
>50.2
>50.3
>50.2
>50.3
>50.3
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.2
1.1
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth ft z
1.9
1 2.0
2.1
2.1
2.2
Low Bank Elevation
1.9
1.9
550.0
550.1
550.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ff)2
13.5
13.5
13.7
12.2
13.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.8
10.9
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>4.4
>2.6
>4.2
>4.2
>4.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

_ }•'' ,,
SYr
Fl-
�y 3,
d' 's tiZ
Upstream
2
a
59
s y.. -¢�r �4 Yr .. �l�..tl-� •3i�
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach HB-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 3 - Pool
553
552
551
x
c
°
550
m
_
. .
_ _
.
_ _
.
_ _
.
.
_ _
.
_ _
.
.
_
.
..
..
..
..
..
.
w 549
548
547
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 MY2-2020 -—MY3-2021
MY5-2023 — — -Approx. Bankfull - - - - Low Bank
Cross Section 3 (Pool)
DIMENSIONS SUMMAR11
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
XSA'
549.81
550.0
549.7
549.8
549.8
Bankfull Width ft'
9.0
14.5
10.5
10.0
8.8
Floodprone Width ft'
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.2
0.7
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth ft 2
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.1
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
549.7
549.6
549.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional ArJRatio
10.4
10.4
10.4
8.6
9.0
Bankfull Width/De
7.8
20.3
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchmen
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height
-
-
-
-
-
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect
the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
,%tom ��'�-•rt..
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach HB-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 4 - Riffle
547
546
545
C
°
544
000
aa)
543
- - - -
542
541
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21
24 27 30 33
36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019
MY2-2020
MY3-2021
MY5-2023 • Approx. Bankfull
Floodprone Area
• • • • Low Bank
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
XSA'
543.43
543.4
543.4
543.4
543.5
Bankfull Width ft 1'
11.5
10.4
10.6
10.8
10.1
Floodprone Width ft'
35.4
39.1
38.9
40.3
40.8
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.8
0.9
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth ft 2
1.3
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.4
Low Bank Elevation
1.3
1.7
543.4
543.4
543.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
9.3
9.3
9.7
9.1
7.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.2
11.5
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
3.1
4.8
1 3.7
1 3.7 1
4.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0 1
0.9
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect
the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach HB-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 5 - Pool
546
545
544
. r.
W.
V .n
c
° 543
CO
m
w 542
--
'Not
541--
540
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 MY2-2020 MY3-2021
MY5-2023 — — -Approx. Bankfull .... Low Bank
Cross Section 5 (Pool)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
XSA'
543.37
543.5
543.4
543.4
543.5
Bankfull Width ft '
12.2
13.4
13.4
13.5
14.3
Floodprone Width ft '
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.1
1.0
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth ft 2
2.1
2.3
1.5
2.2
2.2
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
542.6
543.4
543.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
12.9
12.9
5.5
13.6
12.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.6
14.0
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
-
I -
I -
1 -
1 -
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect
the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach HB-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 6 - Riffle
544
543
542
x
C
541
a�
W 540
539
538
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
Cross Section 6 (Riffle)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MYi
XSA'
540.49
540.7
540.5
540.5
540.4
Bankfull Width ft'
10.5
11.1
11.1
10.1
9.8
Floodprone Width ft '
>49.7
>49.7
>49.9
>49.6
>49.7
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.0
0.9
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth ft 2
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.8
Low Bank Elevation
1.4
1.5
540.5
540.5
540.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
10.0
10.0
10.3
10.2
12.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.0
12.3
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>4.7
>4.5
>4.5
>4.9
>5.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect
the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

a
Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach HB-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 7 - Pool
543
542
541
..
..
..
..
.. ..
..
..
..
..
..
..
° 540
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
-
- - - -
- -
-
- -
- -
- -
—
—
M
W
u' 539
538
537
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 MY2-2020 MY3-2021
MY5-2023 — -Approx. Bankfull • • • • Low Bank
Cross Section 7 (Pool)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
XSA
540.42
540.6
540.2
540.1
540.2
Bankfull Width ft'
12.7
13.5
12.4
11.9
11.9
Floodprone Width ft '
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean De th ft
1.4
1.3
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth ft 2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.7
2.4
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
540.2
540.4
540.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
17.9
17.9
17.7
22.0
19.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
10.2
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
-
-
-
-
-
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect
the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach UT-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 8- Riffle
556
555
554
c
M
W
u'
552
551
550
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21
24 27 30 33
36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018
MY1-2019 - -MY2-2020
MY3-2021
MY5-2023 - - • Approx. Bankfull
Floodprone Area • • • • Low Bank
Cross Section 8 (Riffle)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MY!
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
XSA
552.74
552.9
552.8
552.9
552.9
Bankfull Width ft'
9.2
10.2
10.6
10.9
10.6
Floodprone Width ft'
>51.8
>51.9
>51.8
>51.8
>51.7
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.0
0.9
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth ft 2
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.8
Low Bank Elevation
1.5
1.4
552.7
552.8
552.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
9.0
9.0
8.0
7.8
8.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.5
11.7
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>5.6
>5.1
>5.1
4.8
>4.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect
the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

- .a,43,. _.,(:cif-�,•'►-..r{. ! . ,N• �.�:.:: �..y� . ��, i;, •,
ry.�,: . , ....•
Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach UT-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 9 - Pool
555
554
553
-
�
. 7
. .
.
P��
.
Tom.
� .
�� .
. ..
......7
.
.
..
..
..
.
c
° 552
"Odor.
CO
m
w
551
550
549
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance ft
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 MY2-2020 MY3-2021
MY5-2023 — — • Approx. Bankfull • • • • Low Bank
Cross Section 9 (Pool)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
XSA'
552.61
552.7
552.7
552.8
552.8
Bankfull Width (ft)'
8.4
9.2
9.5
10.1
8.8
Floodprone Width (ft)'
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.1
1.0
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth ft 2
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
552.6
552.7
552.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
9.0
9.0
8.5
7.9
7.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.9
9.4
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
-I
-
I -
I -
-
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect
the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach UT-2 - Restoration Cross Section 10 - Pool
550
549
548
S
c
°
547
a�
w
546
. .
.. .
.. .
...
...
.
.. .
..
.
.. .
.
...
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.. ..
.
545
544
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 MY2-2020
MY5-2023 — — -Approx. Bankfull • • • • Low Bank
MY3-2021
Cross Section 10 (Pool)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY—
XSA'
546.98
547.2
547.3
547.2
547.3
Bankfull Width ft'
10.0
15.8
8.2
15.8
7.9
Floodprone Width (ft)'
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.9
0.6
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth ft 2
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.3
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
546.9
546.9
546.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 2
9.3
9.3
6.1
5.0
5.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.8
26.7
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
-
-
-
-
-
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect
the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
.C.
i.
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach UT-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 11 - Riffle
550
549
548
c
°
547
.
.
.
a>
u'
546
545
544
0 3 6 9 12 15
18 21
24 27 30 33
36
39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019
MY2-2020
MY3-2021
MY5-2023 - - - Approx. Bankfull
Floodprone Area - - - -
Low Bank
Cross Section 11 (Riffle)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-
546.72
546.7
546.7
546.8
546.8
Bankfull With '
9.5
13.2
11.7
14.6
12.5
Floodprone Width ft'
>43.1
42.8
>42.6
>42.6
>42.5
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.7
0.5
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.1
1.2
1 0.6
1.0
1.0
Low Bank Elevation
1.1
1.1
546.2
546.6
546.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
7.0
7.0
2.3
4.6
5.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
24.9
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>4.5
3.8
3.6
>2.9
>3.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.9
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect
the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

upstream uownstream
Dairyland - Reach UT-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 12 - Riffle
544
543
542
x
c
° 541
CO
a)
w 540
539
538 ! i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
Cross Section 12 (Riffle)
DIMENSIONS SUMM
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
XSA
540.91
541.1
541.0
541.0
541.1
Bankfull Width ft'
8.6
10.5
8.5
8.2
8.3
Floodprone Width ft'
>47.1
46.6
47.0
>47.3
>48.3
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.8
0.7
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth ft 2
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
Low Bank Elevation
1.3
1.2
540.9
540.9
540.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 2
7.1
7.1
6.4
5.6
5.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.4
15.4
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>5.5
5.9
>5.5
>5.8
>5.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect
the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

:.:H` s;:el
.',' i it
Upstream
Downstream
Dairyland - Reach UT-2 - Restoration - Cross Section 13 - Pool
544
543
542
C
° 541
@
.s.
.i:
r.r
s.i
..
.s.
M. r.
.s.
.r.s.s.i
a)
w 540
539
538
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance ft
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 MY2-2020 MY3-2021
MY5-2023 — — • Approx. Bankfull • • • • Low Bank
Cross Section 13 (Pool)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
XIft
540.69
540.9
540.7
540.9
540.9
Bankfull Width
7.5
8.0
7.8
8.1
7.6
Floodprone Width
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean De th
0.9
0.9
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth ft 2
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
540.7
540.8
540.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 2
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.5
6.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.2
9.3
-
9.6
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'1
-
-
-
- I
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' I
-
-
-
- I
-
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect
the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
540
Dairyland - Reach WF-2 - Enhancement III - Cross Section 14 - Pool
539
538
000
x
c
°
ca
>
w
537
536
535
534
_ -.-.-.-.: -.
-
. ..
.
_�_�_
. ..
-.-.—
..
:.-: .
.- .
-:.:
. ..
—.:.: .
:.7
—:
.
0 3 6 9
12
15
18 21 24 27 30
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 MY2-2020
—MY5-2023 — — -Approx. Bankfull .... Low Bank
MY3-2021
Cross Section 14 (Pool)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY ==9rr
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
XSA'
536.73
536.8
536.7
536.6
536.6
Bankfull Width ft'
10.7
10.4
10.6
10.8
10.9
Floodprone Width (ft)'
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.8
1.8
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth ft 2
2.6
2.5
3.2
4.5
2.3
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
537.4
538.7
536.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 2
18.9
18.9
26.4
48.0
17.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
6.0
5.7
-
6.2
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
-
I - I
- I
-
1 -
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect
the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
fx
i
Dairyland - Reach WF-2 - Enhancement III - Cross Section 15 - Pool
538.5
537.5
536.5
.....
..
......
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
.....
c
°535.5
CO
a�
w 534.5
533.5
532.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27
Distance (ft)
MYO-2018 MY1-2019 MY2-2020 MY3-2021
MY5-2023 - - • Approx. Bankfull • • • • Low Bank
Cross Section 15 (Pool)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY1011§r
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY-
XSA'
536.28
536.3
536.1
536.3
536.0
Bankfull Width ft'
12.2
12.6
12.7
13.1
13.3
Floodprone Width (ft)'
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
2.6
2.5
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth ft 2
3.3
3.3
4.7
4.9
3.4
Low Bank Elevation
-
-
537.5
537.7
536.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
31.6
31.6
50.9
53.1
35.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
4.7
5.0
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
-
I
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
-
-
-
-
-
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankf ll
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect
the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

. 4i
Upstream
Downstream
540
Dairyland - Reach WF-2 - Enhancement III - Cross Section 16 - Riffle
539
538
-
-
537
o
> 536
m
w
535
534
533
0 3 6 9 12 15 18
Distance (ft)
21
24 27 30 33
MYO-2018 MY1-2019
MY5-2023 - - • Approx. Bankfull
MY2-2020 MY3-2021
Floodprone Area • • • • Low Bank
Cross Section 16
Riffle
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA
536.74
536.8
536.7
536.8
536.6
Bankfull Width ft l
11.8
11.9
12.3
12.1
12.0
Floodprone Width ft l
>35.0
>35.0
>35
>35
>35
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
2.0
2.0
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.9
2.8
3.6
3.2
3.2
Low Bank Elevation
3.7
3.2
537.5
537.2
537.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
23.9
23.9
33.9
28.8
31.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
5.8
5.9
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>3.0
>3.0
>2.8
I >2.9
>2.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratioll
1.3
1 1.2
1 1.3
1 1.1
1.2
Note: Starting in MY2, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes
reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Dairyland Mitigation Site - Reach HB2: 1,308 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SIDb
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
---
---
--
---
16.4
---
---
---
---
---
15.3
---
---
---
---
10.9
---
10.5
11.2
11.5
11.5
0.6
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
>28
---
---
---
---
---
>30
---
---
---
>24
---
35.4
45.1
49.7
50.2
8.4
3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
---
---
--
---
0.8
---
---
---
---
---
1.6
---
---
---
---
1.1
---
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.2
3
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
---
---
1.4
---
---
---
---
---
2.0
---
---
---
---
1.5
---
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.9
0.3
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft)
---
---
---
---
12.3
---
---
---
---
---
23.9
--
---
---
12.2
---
9.3
10.9
10.0
13.5
2.3
3
Width/Depth Ratio
---
---
21.9
---
---
---
---
---
9.8
---
---
--
---
9.8
---
9.8
11.7
11.0
14.2
2.3
3
Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
>2.2
---
---
---
---
---
2.0
---
---
---
---
>2.2
---
3.1
4.1
4.4
4.7
0.9
3
'Bank Height Ratio
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--
---
---
---
--
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
12
---
---
35
---
---
9
---
26
3.3
11.9
9.6
33.1
8.4
26
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.00148
0.02482
0.02707
0.06412
0.0135
26
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
3
---
---
18
---
---
2
---
13
2.2
14.9
11.9
34.3
8.7
29
Pool Max depth (ft)
---
---
---
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
29
---
---
62
---
---
21
---
46
6.3
45.1
41.5
85.0
26.0
28
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
36
---
---
114
---
---
26
---
81
26
---
---
81
---
---
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
14
---
---
73
---
---
10
---
52
10
---
---
52
---
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--
---
Meander Wavelength (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
112
---
---
345
---
---
80
---
246
80
---
---
246
---
---
Meander Width Ratio
---
---
---
---
---
---
2.4
---
---
7.5
---
---
2.4
---
7.5
2.4
---
---
7.5
---
---
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
---
---
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
E4
E4
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
---
--
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
---
---
43
87
33
Valley length (ft)
1256
1238
1256
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1300
1500
1308
1364
Sinuosity (ft)
1.04
1.21
1.04
1.04
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
--
0.011
---
---
Channel slope (ft/ft)
0.0151
0.0100
0.008
0.013
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
---
---
---
---
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
---
---
Biological or Other
---
---
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
I - The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 - For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull Floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 - Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Dair land Mitigation Site - Reach UT2: 1,085 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
8.5
---
---
---
---
---
15.3
---
---
---
---
9.0
---
8.6
9.1
9.2
9.5
0.5
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
16.0
---
---
---
---
---
>30
---
---
---
---
>20
---
43.1
47.3
47.1
51.8
4.4
3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
---
---
--
---
0.6
---
---
---
---
---
1.6
---
---
---
---
0.9
---
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.2
3
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
---
0.9
---
---
---
---
---
2.0
---
---
---
---
1.3
---
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.5
0.2
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
--
---
--
--
--
5.4
1 ---
I ---
23.9
---
---
---
---
8.1
7.0
1 7.7
1 7.1
9.0
1.1
3
Width/Depth Ratio
---
13.2
9.8
---
---
---
---
10.0
9.5
11.0
10.4
13.1
1.9
3
Ratio
EntrenHHh
---
---
1.9
2.0
---
---
---
>2.2
---
4.5
5.2
5.5
5.6
0.6
3
'Bank Rati
-
--
---
--
-
--
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
12
---
---
35
---
---
7
---
22
14.3
12.9
36.3
8.9
22
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--
0.0246
0.023
0.05792
0.0152
22
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
3
---
---
18
---
---
2
---
11
!0.002]31
9.3
7.2
19.6
5.5
25
Pool Max depth ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
29
---
---
62
---
---
18
---
38
36.1
30.2
113.6
23.5
24
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
36
---
---
114
---
---
21
---
67
21
---
---
67
---
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
14
---
---
73
---
---
8
---
43
8
---
---
43
---
---
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Meander Wavelength (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
112
---
---
345
---
---
66
---
203
66
---
---
203
---
---
Meander Width Ratio
---
---
---
---
---
2.4
---
---
7.5
---
2.4
---
7.5
2.4
---
---
7.5
--
---
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
---
---
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
--
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C6
E4
E4
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
---
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
---
---
---
18
87
18
Valley length (ft)
1057
1238
1057
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1085
1500
1085
986
Sinuosity (ft)
1.03
1.21
1.03
1.03
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
---
0.011
---
---
Channel slope (ft/ft)
0.0171
0.0100
0.008
0.018
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
---
---
---
---
4% of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metrici
I-
-
-
Biological or Other!-
-
- -
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 - The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 - For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull fioodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top ofbank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 - Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Dairyland Site
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
Cross Section 3 (Pool)
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Cross Section 5 (Pool)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA
567.93
568.0
567.9
568.1
568.1
549.99
550.2
550.0
550.2
550.1
549.81
550.0
549.7
549.8
549.8
543.43
543.4
543.4
543.4
543.5
543.37
543.5
543.4
543.4
543.5
Bankfull Width ft'
8.9
11.0
9.2
8.5
9.2
11.5
12.1
12.1
12.0
11.6
9.0
14.5
10.5
10.0
8.8
11.5
10.4
10.6
10.8
10.1
12.2
13.4
13.4
13.5
14.3
Floodprone Width ft'
>24.8
>25.0
>24.9
>25
>24.9
>50.2
>32.1
>50.2
>50.3
>50.3
-
-
-
-
-
35.4
50.2
38.9
40.3
40.8
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
1.0
0.8
-
-
1.2
1.1
-
-
1.2
0.7
-
-
0.8
0.9
-
-
1.1
1.0
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth ft 2
1.8
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.3
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.1
1.3
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.4
2.1
2.3
1.5
2.2
2.2
Low Bank Elevatio
-
-
567.8
567.8
567.8
-
-
-
550.1
550.1
-
-
549.7
549.6
549.6
-
-
543.4
543.4
543.3
-
-
542.6
543.4
543.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 2
8.7
8.7
7.6
6.7
6.1
13.5
13.5
13.7
12.2
13.6
10.4
10.4
10.4
8.6
9.0
9.3
9.3
9.7
9.1
7.2
12.9
12.9
5.5
13.6
12.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
14.0
-
-
-
9.8
10.9
-
-
-
7.8
20.3
-
-
-
14.2
11.5
-
-
-
11.6
14.0
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>2.8
>2.3
>2.7
>2.9
>2.7
>4.4
>2.6
>4.2
>4.2
>4.3
-
-
3.1
4.8
3.7
3.7
4.1
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
9 0.
-
-
Cross Section 6 (Riffle)
Cross Section 7 (Pool)
Cross Section 8 (Riffle)
Cross Section 9 (Pool)
Cross Section 10
(Pool)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA
540.49
540.7
540.5
540.5
540.4
540.42
540.6
540.2
540.1
540.2
552.74
552.9
552.8
552.9
552.9
552.61
552.7
552.7
552.8
552.8
546.98
547.2
547.3
547.2
547.3
Bankfull Width ft'
10.5
11.1
11.1
10.1
9.8
12.7
13.5
12.4
11.9
11.9
9.2
10.2
10.6
10.9
10.6
8.4
9.2
9.5
10.1
8.8
10.0
15.8
8.2
15.8
7.9
Floodprone Width ft'
>49.7
>49.7
>49.9
>49.6
>49.7
-
-
-
-
-
>51.8
>51.9
>51.8
>51.8
>51.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
1.0
0.9
1.4
1.3
-
-
1.0
0.9
-
-
1.1
1.0
1 -
-
-
0.9
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
ft 2
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.7
2.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.3
Low Bank Elevatio
-
-
540.5
540.5
540.6
-
-
540.2
540.4
540.3
-
-
552.7
552.8
552.9
-
-
552.6
552.7
552.7
-
-
546.9
546.9
546.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 2
10.0
10.0
10.3
10.2
12.0
17.9
17.9
17.7
22.0
19.6
9.0
9.0
8.0
7.8
8.9
9.0
9.0
8.5
7.9
7.9
9.3
9.3
6.1
5.0
5.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.0
12.3
-
-
-
9.1
10.2
-
-
-
9.5
11.7
-
-
-
7.9
9.4
-
-
-
10.8
26.7
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>4.7
>4.5
>4.5
>4.9
>5.1
>5.6
>5.1
>5.1
4.8
>4.9
Bankfull Bank Hei ht Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1 1.1
1.0
0.9
0.9
1 0.9
1 1.0
Cross Section 11 (Riffle)
Cross Section 12 (Riffle)
Cross Section 13 (Pool)
Cross Section 14 (Pool)
Cross Section 15 (Pool)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA
546.72
546.7
546.7
546.8
546.8
540.91
541.1
541.0
541.0
541.1
540.69
540.9
540.7
540.9
540.9
536.73
536.8
536.7
536.6
536.6
536.28
536.3
536.1
536.3
536.0
Bankfull Width ft'
9.5
13.2
11.7
14.6
12.5
8.6
10.5
8.5
8.2
8.3
7.5
8.0
7.8
8.1
7.6
10.7
10.4
10.6
10.8
10.9
12.2
12.6
12.7
13.1
13.3
Floodprone Width ft'
>43.1
42.8
>42.6
>42.6
>42.5
>47.1
61.8
47.0
>47.3
>48.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.7
0.5
1 -
-
-
0.8
0.7
-
-
-
0.9
0.9
-
-
-
1.8
1.8
-
-
-
2.6
2.5
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth ft 2
1.1
1.2
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
2.6
2.5
3.2
3.3
2.3
3.3
3.3
4.7
4.9
3.4
Low Bank Elevatio
-
-
546.2
546.6
546.6
-
-
540.9
540.9
540.9
-
-
540.7
540.8
540.8
-
-
537.4
537.5
536.5
-
537.5
537.7
536.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
7.0
7.0
2.3
4.6
5.5
7.1
7.1
6.4
5.6
5.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.5
6.1
18.9
18.9
26.4
29.7
17.6
31.6
31.6
50.9
53.1
35.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
24.9
-
-
-
10.4
15.4
-
-
-
8.2
9.3
-
-
-
6.0
5.7
-
-
-
4.7
5.0
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>4.5
3.8
3.6
>2.9
>3.4
>5.5
5.9
>5.5
>5.8
>5.8
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
Cross
Section
16
(Riffle)
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY5
MY7
MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA
536.74
536.8
536.7
536.8
536.6
Bankfull Width ft'
11.8
11.9
12.3
12.1
12.0
Floodprone Width ft'
>35.0
>35.0
>35
>35
>35
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
2.0
2.0
1 -
-
Bankfull Max Depth ft 2
2.9
2.8
3.6
3.2
3.2
Low Bank Elevatio
-
-
537.5
537.2
537.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
23.9
23.9
33.9
28.8
31.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
5.8
5.9
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>3.0
>3.0
>2.8
>2.9
>2.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratioll
1.3
1 1.2
1 1.3
1.1
1.2

Appendix E
Hydrology Data

Table 10. MY5 Rainfall Summary - September 2022 to August 2023
Month
Average
Normal
Limits
Cane Creek Reservoir*
30 Percent
70 Percent
September
4.45
1.83
5.41
0.60
October
3.72
2.11
4.53
3.69
November
3.62
2.28
4.37
5.05
December
3.23
2.22
3.85
4.12
January
4.44
3.17
5.25
4.21
February
3.61
2.59
4.26
2.54
March
4.50
3.26
5.31
3.91
April
3.21
2.13
3.85
6.88
May
4.34
3.30
5.05
2.32
June
4.00
2.53
4.83
4.56
July
4.06
2.38
4.93
4.91
August
4.53
3.19
5.37
2.44
Total Annual **
47.71
30.99
57.01
31.77
Above Normal
Limits
Below Normal
Limits
*Approximately 10 miles from the site.
**Total Annual represents the average total precipitation, annually, as calculated by the 30-year period.

Table 11. Documentation of Significant Flow Events
Year
Bankfull Events
Maximum Bankfull
Height ft
Estimated Date of
Highest Event
Stage Recorder 1-1132
MY12019*
1
1.30
4/14/2019
MY2 2020
12
1.40
8/31/2020
MY3 2021
4
0.36
9/23/2021
MY4 2022
4
0.88
1/3/2022
MY5 2023
4
2.74
7/14/2023
Stage Recorder UT2
MY12019*
1
2.20
4/14/2019
MY2 2020
11
1.75
1/25/2020
MY3 2021
10
0.61
2/16/2021
MY4 2022
20
3.36
2/16/2022
MY5 2023
13
2.29
2/5/2023
*Only manual readings were used in MYl
Year
Flow Events
Maximum
Consecutive Flow
Days
Cummlative Flow Days
Flow Gauge UT2
MY2 2020
15
36
141
MY3 2021
5
209
240
MY4 2022
5
43
59
MY5 2023
2
80
84

4
3
2
I7
2023 MY5 Dairyland UT2 Flow Gauge/Stage Recorder Graph
Highest Bankful Even
2/5/2023
0.97 ft over Bankful
Days of Cons
5/14/2023 -
cutive Flow
8/2/2023
(I
1a A..J.­
LI-111-0111ill
&P-MAIN
-01040,
III
-Ill
M.
Al.
11.11
1 111 JA.
-2 Bill
tiry titi
0
80 Days Consecutive Flow
05/14/20223 - 08/02/2023
titi ti� ti� ti� ti1111 % ti113
OP
Date
Daily Precip (in) FG UT2 Downstream Riffle Elevation Top of Bank at Gauge (ft)
10.000
9.000
8.000
7.000
6.000
O
5.000
.Q
.v
O
a
4.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0.000
fires