20190495 Ver 1_Cowford_100095_MY2_2023_20240117

3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27612 Corporate Headquarters 6575 W Loop S #300 Bellaire, TX 77401 Main: 713.520.5400

res.us

January 10, 2024 Danielle Mir NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services 217 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27604

RE: Cowford, Project ID #100095, DMS Contract #0007746

Listed below are comments provided by DMS on January 10, 2024 regarding the Cowford Site:
Year 2 Monitoring Report and RES’ responses.

Comments:

Report & Field Visit
1. Table 1 - Please correct the Project Credits under Re-establishment should be listed as
"riparian wetland" not as "non-riparian". Table 1 has been updated. Digital Comments 2. Please correct the wetland data adjacent to the stream reach, listed as non-riparian instead of riparian.
Table 1 has been updated.

Year 2 Monitoring Report

FINAL

COWFORD PROJECT

NCDMS Project #100095 (Contract #0007746)
USACE Action ID: SAW-2019-00487
DWR Project #2019-0495

Onslow County, North Carolina
White Oak River Basin
HUC 03030001

Provided by:
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
for Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC

Provided for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services

January 2024

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary .................................................................................................................................. 2
1.1 Project Location and Description ......................................................................................... 2
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Project Success Criteria ......................................................................................................... 4
Stream Restoration Success Criteria .......................................................................................... 4
Headwater Stream Restoration Success Criteria ...................................................................... 5
Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria .......................................................................................... 5
Vegetation Success Criteria ......................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Project Components ............................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Stream and Wetland Design/Approach .............................................................................. 6
Streams ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Wetlands ......................................................................................................................................... 7
1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions ................................................................................. 8
1.7 Year 2 Monitoring Performance (MY2) ............................................................................... 8
Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Stream Geomorphology ............................................................................................................... 8
Stream Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 9
Wetland Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... 9
Headwater Valley .......................................................................................................................... 9
Visual Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 10
2.0 Methods .............................................................................................................................................. 10
3.0 References .......................................................................................................................................... 11

Cowford Site 1 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2024
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 Table
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photos
Monitoring Device Photos
General Site Photos Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Planted Species Summary
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 9. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Appendix D: Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11. Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Cross Section Overlay Plots
Headwater Valley Performance Table Appendix E: Hydrology Data
Table 12. 2023 Rainfall Summary
Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Table 14. 2023 Max Hydroperiod
Table 15. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Stream Overbank and Flow Hydrographs
Groundwater Hydrographs

Cowford Site 2 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2024
1.0 Project Summary

1.1 Project Location and Description
The Cowford Project (Project) is located within a rural watershed in Onslow County, North Carolina
approximately three and half miles northwest of Richlands, North Carolina. The Project lies within
the White Oak River Basin, North Carolina United States Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit
Cataloguing Unit 03030001 and 14-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) 03030001010010, a Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW) and the Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub-basin 03-05-02 (Figure
1). The Project provides 3,337 linear feet (LF) of stream as well as re-establish 2.991 acres of
wetland that will provide water quality benefit for 238 acres of drainage area.

The Project area is comprised of a 17.20-acre easement involving one unnamed tributary within
an entrenched channel between agricultural fields, totaling 2,988 existing LF, that drains into Cowford Branch, which eventually drains to the New River. The Project is accessible from U.S. route NC-258. Coordinates for the Project areas are approximately 34.9233, -77.5917, at the crossing in the middle of the project.

1.2 Project Goals and Objectives Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project’s maximum functional uplift using the Stream Functions Pyramid Framework and conclusions based on a Site Hydric Soils Detailed Study, the Project will realize specific, attainable goals and objectives. These goals clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from agricultural practices that were identified as major watershed stressors in the 2010 White Oak RBRP. The Project will address outlined RBRP Goal one and two of the TLW specific goals (listed in Section 2). The Project goals are:
• Re-establish hydrology to a historical stream/wetland complex that has been impacted by
historic channel realignment, channel entrenchment, field ditching, and field drain tiling;
• To transport water in a stable, non-erosive manner and maintain a stable water table in
riparian floodplain wetlands that will also contribute to stream baseflow;
• Improve flood flow attenuation on site and downstream by allowing for overbank flows
and connection to the floodplain;
• Create diverse bedforms and stable channels that achieve healthy dynamic equilibrium
and provide suitable in-stream habitat for aquatic organisms;
• Limit sediment and nutrient inputs into stream system;
• Re-establish wetland;
• Restore native wetland and riparian vegetation;
• Indirectly support the goals of the 2010 White Oak RBRP to improve water quality and to reduce sediment and nutrient loads; and
• To support the life histories of aquatic and riparian plants and animals through stream restoration activities.

Cowford Site 3 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2024
Functional uplift, benefits, and improvements within the Project area, as based on the Function Based Framework are outlined in the table below.
Functional Benefits and Improvements Table.
Level Function Goal Objective Measurement Method
1
Hydrology°
Transport of water
from the watershed to the channel
to transport water from the
watershed to the channel in a
non-erosive manner and
maintain a stable water table in the riparian wetland
Convert the land-use of streams and their watersheds from
cropland into riparian
forest
Maintain appropriate hydroperiod for Muckalee soil series
Percent Project drainage area
converted to riparian
forest (indirect
measurement) Groundwater wells
2
Hydraulic Transport of water in
the channel, on the
floodplain, and through the sediments
to transport water in a stable
non-erosive manner
Improve flood bank connectivity by reducing bank height ratios and increasing
entrenchment ratios
Maintain regular, seasonal flow in restored, intermittent streams
Cross sections Stage Recorders

Bank Height Ratio Entrenchment Ratio Flow gauge
3
Geomorphology
Transport of wood and sediment to create diverse bedforms and dynamic equilibrium
to create a diverse bedform
and a stable channel that achieves healthy dynamic equilibrium and provides suitable habitat for life
Limit erosion rates and
increase channel
stability to reference
reach conditions
Improve bedform diversity (pool spacing, percent riffles, etc.) Increase buffer width to
at least 50 feet
As-built stream
profile
Cross sections Visual monitoring Vegetation plots
4
Physicochemical ° Temperature and
oxygen regulation;
processing of organic
matter and nutrients
Indirectly support the goals of the 2010 White Oak RBRP to achieve appropriate levels for water temperature, dissolved oxygen concentration, and
other important nutrients
including but not limited to
Nitrogen and Phosphorus through buffer/wetland planting and wetland hydrologic restoration
Establish native
hardwood riparian buffer to provide canopy shade and absorb nutrients Install in-stream structures to created
aeration zones

Promote sediment filtration, nutrient cycling, and organic accumulation through natural wetland biogeochemical
processes

Cowford Site 4 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2024
° These are benefits that are presumed and will not be measured by the monitoring
1.3 Project Success Criteria
The success criteria for the Project will follow the 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update, the Cowford Site Final Mitigation Plan, and
subsequent agency guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented below. Cross
section and vegetation plot monitoring takes place in Years 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Hydrology and visual monitoring takes place annually. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
Stream Restoration 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 minor 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
downcutting or erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example
settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross
sections shall be classified using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross
sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream
type. Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be above 2.2 within
restored riffle cross sections (for C and E streams).

Digital images are 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. Stream restoration reaches will be monitored to document intermittent or seasonal surface flow. This will be accomplished through direct observation and the use of hydraulic pressure transducers with data loggers. Reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow. One flow gauge was installed on KJ1-A and one stage recorder was installed on KJ1-C.

5
Biology ° Biodiversity and life
histories of aquatic
life histories and
riparian life
to achieve functionality in levels 1-4 to support the life
histories of aquatic and
riparian plants and animals
through instream
Improve aquatic habitat by installing habitat features, constructing
pools of varying depths,
and planting the
riparian buffer and wetlands

Cowford Site 5 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2024
Headwater Stream Restoration Success Criteria Continuous surface water flow must be documented every year for at least 30 days. Channel
formation must be documented through consistent indicators. Monitoring years 1-4 require
evidence of scour, sediment deposition, sediment sorting, multiple observed flow events,
destruction of terrestrial vegetation, presence of litter and debris, wracking, vegetation matted
down or bet, and leaf litter disturbed. Monitoring years 5-7, the headwater valley reach must meet
the previous requirements as well as demonstrate bed and banks, natural line impressed on the
bank, shelving, water staining, change in plant community and changes in character of soil.

Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has a current WETs table (1990-2019) for Onslow County upon which to base a normal rainfall amount and average growing season. The closest comparable data station was determined to be the WETS station for New River MCAF, NC. The growing season for Onslow County is 269 days long, extending from March 10 to December 4, and is based on a daily minimum temperature greater than 28 degrees Fahrenheit occurring in five of ten years. Based upon field observation across the site the NRCS mapping units show a good correlation to actual site conditions in areas of the site. Mitigation guidance for soils in the Coastal Plain suggests a hydroperiod for the Muckalee soil of 12-16 percent of the growing season. The hydrology success criterion for the Site is to restore the water table so that it will remain continuously within 12 inches of the soil surface for 12-16 percent of the growing season (approximately 33 days) at each groundwater gauge location. Due to the extensive drainage efforts, it may take at least a
year for the site to become completely saturated and reach the target hydroperiods.

Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project
will follow IRT Guidance. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project 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 seven feet in height at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria will be
210 trees per acre with an average height of ten feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees that are listed on the approved planting list will be counted, identified to species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports, and if established for two or more years, may be counted towards the success criteria of total planted stems. Moreover, any single species can only account for up to 50 percent of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot. Any stems more than 50 percent will be shown in the monitoring table but will not be used to demonstrate success.

Cowford Site 6 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2024
1.4 Project Components The streams and wetlands provided for restoration have been significantly impacted by ditching,
drain tiling, and other agricultural practices for over 50 years. Provided improvements to the
Project will help address impacts specifically discussed as priorities in in the 2010 White Oak River
Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP).

Through stream restoration, headwater valley (HWV) restoration, and wetland restoration, the
Project presents 3,347 LF of provided stream, generating 3,538.67 Warm Stream Mitigation Units
(SMU) and 2.991 acres of provided wetland, generating 2.991 Wetland Mitigation Units (WMU).

Cowford Project Components Summary (Mitigation Plan)
Stream Mitigation
Mitigation Approach Linear Feet Ratio Warm SMU
Restoration (HWV) 923 1:1 913.000*
Restoration 2,424 1:1 2,424.000
Total 3,347 3,337
Non-standard Buffer Width Adjustment 201.670
Total Adjusted SMU’s 3,538.67
Wetland Mitigation
Mitigation Approach Area (acres) Ratio WMU
Re-establishment 2.991 1:1 2.991
Total 2.991 2.991
*Headwater valley credits are calculated from valley length, not included in NSBW calculations.
** Credit adjustment for Non-standard Buffer Width calculation using the Wilmington District Stream Buffer
Credit Calculator issued by the USACE in January 2021. See Section 6.6 for further information

1.5 Stream and Wetland Design/Approach
Streams The Project includes stream and headwater valley restoration. Stream restoration will incorporate the design of a single-thread, meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from
reference site, published empirical relationships, regional curves developed from existing project
streams, and NC Regional Curves. Analytical design techniques will also be a crucial element of
the project and will be used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design. Based on
soil type, valley slope, and drainage area headwater valley restoration was incorporated in the
design. Headwater valley restoration includes the design of a vegetated diffuse flow system that
will allow for the passive development of a headwater stream.

The Project has been broken into the following design reaches:

Reach KJ1-A (HWV)
A headwater valley restoration approach is provided for this reach to address historic ditching and
buffer impacts. Restoration activities includes:

Cowford Site 7 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2024
• Grading a headwater valley,
• Installing wood structures to provide grade control and habitat,
• Installing live stakes to stabilize the bed and banks,
• Riparian planting. Reach KJ1-B An offline restoration approach is provided for this reach to address historic ditching and buffer
impacts. Restoration activities includes:
• Grading a new, single-thread channel in the existing floodplain (Priority I Restoration),
• Installing log structures to provide grade control and habitat,
• Establishing a riffle-pool sequence throughout the new channel,
• Installing toe protection on meander bends,
• Installing live stakes to stabilize the banks and provide channel shading,
• Filling and grading the existing channel to create wetland habitat,
• Riparian planting.

Reach KJ1-C
An inline, P2 restoration approach is provided for this reach to address historic ditching,
channelization, and buffer impacts. Restoration activities includes:
• Grading a new, single-thread channel in an excavated floodplain,
• Installing rock and log structures to provide grade control and habitat,
• Establishing a riffle-pool sequence throughout the new channel,
• Installing toe protection on meander bends,
• Installing live stakes to stabilize the banks and provide channel shading,
• Filling the existing channel,
• Riparian planting, and
• Invasive vegetation treatment.
Wetlands
The Cowford Project offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity. As such, the wetland
restoration is closely tied to the stream restoration and drain tile interruption. The Project provides
2.991 WMUs through wetland re-establishment. Wetland re-establishment is only provided in
areas that have been determined appropriate for wetland restoration by a licensed soil scientist
due to the presence of hydric soils and potential hydrology. Re-establishment activities includes
a successful restoration that raises the local groundwater elevation, allows frequent flooding, the
plugging of ditches, removing all drain tiles within the easement, and creating shallow depression
features in the wetland.

A 2D model of the provided stream restoration was run in HEC-RAS to evaluate the effectiveness
of the design at increasing wetland flooding. Inundation maps from this model of the 1- and 10-
year design storms demonstrate that the provided design will function in this capacity. These activities help to raise the local groundwater and have a more natural hydrologic cycle in the riparian zone. Surface roughening through shallow soil ripping improves infiltration and slow

Cowford Site 8 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2024
runoff through the floodplain. Surface roughening also creates microtopography and shallow depressional areas, re-establishing more natural conditions and establishing habitat diversity. Historic land-use impacts will be addressed through the planting of a native hardwood wetland community.
1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions Site construction was completed on July 30th, 2021, and planting was completed on March 8th,
2022. The Cowford Site was built to design plans and guidelines, as-built stream and wetland
areas were only slightly different than proposed. Wetland Depressions were designed to be 0.3-
0.5 feet deep but As-Built Wetland Depressions were found to be slightly deeper than proposed
ranging from 0.5-1.0 feet deep. During construction additional drain tiles were found, which were
then interrupted at the easement boundary. Additionally, extra t-posts were installed around the
boundary of the easement in 100-foot intervals to reduce concerns of encroachment by farming
practices. Minor monitoring device location changes were made during as-built installation, however, the quantities remained as proposed in the Mitigation Plan.
1.7 Year 2 Monitoring Performance (MY2) The Cowford Year 2 monitoring activities were performed in June and November 2023. All Year 2 Monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. The Site is on track to meeting vegetation and stream interim success criteria. The wetland hydroperiods are below success criteria but are improving.
Vegetation
Monitoring of the nine permanent vegetation plots and five random vegetation plots were
completed on November 2nd, 2023. Vegetation data are in Appendix C, associated photos are in
Appendix B, and plot locations are in Appendix B. MY2 monitoring data indicates that all plots
are exceeding the interim success criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities
ranged from 405 to 931 planted stems per acre with a mean of 636 planted stems per acre across
all plots. A total of 13 species were documented within the plots. Volunteer species were noted in
four out of nine plots during Year 2 monitoring and are expected to increase in upcoming years.
The average stem height in the vegetation plots was 3.4 feet. Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is becoming well established throughout the project. No invasives were present during MY2 site visits.
Stream Geomorphology Cross section geomorphology data collection for MY2 was collected on June 7th, 2023. Summary tables and cross section plots are in Appendix D. Overall the baseline cross sections and profile relatively match the proposed design. The MY2 conditions show that shear stress and velocities have been reduced for all restoration/enhancement reaches.

Cowford Site 9 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2024
Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. The channel is transporting sediment as designed and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation.
Stream Hydrology
One stage recorder on KJ1-C, was installed on January 19th, 2022. One flow gauge, on KJ1-A, was installed on January 19th, 2022. The stage recorder is in place to document bankfull events, while the flow gauge is in place to track frequency and duration of stream flow events. The stage
recorder on KJ1-C measured 10 bankfull events with the highest being 1.74 feet above the top of
bank. The flow gauge on KJ1-A (HWV reach) measured 8 flow events with the longest flow event
lasting 129 days. Gauge locations can be found on Figure 2 and photos are in Appendix B.

Wetland Hydrology A total of five groundwater wells with automatic recording pressure transducers were installed throughout the wetland areas on November 2nd, 2021, and April 28th, 2022. All five groundwater wells failed to meet success of 12-16 percent of the growing season (GW1 2%, GW2 2%, GW3 6%, GW4 5%, and GW5 5%) Appendix E. It is important to note that GW5 is located outside of the wetland crediting area. Although all five groundwater wells did not meet success again in MY2, it was noted that due to historic draining efforts it may take more than a year for the site to become completely saturated and reach the target hydroperiods. Onslow county has experienced abnormally dry and moderate drought conditions in 2022 and 2023 (Appendix E). Rainfall amounts in December (2022), March, April, and October were below normal limits which could have attributed to lower hydroperiods. RES expects the hydroperiods to increase in subsequent
years as the wetlands continue to establish. In addition, RES plans to install supplemental
groundwater wells throughout the wetland crediting area to capture a more accurate
representation of the wetland hydroperiod. These wells will be installed in the upcoming dormant
season. RES has provided additional full calendar year hydroperiod data in Appendix E. Full
calendar year hydroperiods are as follows: GW1 2%, GW2 2%, GW3 12%, GW4 9%, GW5 9%.

Headwater Valley
Setup of cross sections 1, 2, and 3 in the headwater valley took place on January 19th, 2022. Overall, the baseline cross sections and profile relatively match the proposed design. The flow gauge located in the headwater valley measured 160 consecutive flow days. The live stakes are becoming established within the channel and will provide opportunities for flow paths to develop in subsequent years. Additional headwater valley channel performance criteria are listed in Appendix D. Digital images can be found in Appendix B. Visual assessments and updated images will be documented in years to follow as indicators are established.

Cowford Site 10 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2024
Visual Assessment Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank
erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. All
easement boundaries were inspected, and no major signs of encroachment were noted in MY2.
Digital images will also capture the headwater valley and culverts of the site, located in Appendix
B.

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 15 cross-sections. Survey data were imported into CAD, ArcGIS®, and Microsoft Excel® for data processing and analysis. The stage recorders include an automatic pressure transducer placed in PVC casing in a pool. The elevation of the bed and top of bank at each stage recorder are used to detect bankfull events. Vegetation success is being monitored at nine permanent vegetation plots and five random vegetation 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 are collected in the form of 100 square meter belt transects with variable dimensions. 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.

Wetland hydrology is monitored to document success in wetland restoration areas where
hydrology was affected. This is accomplished with three automatic pressure transducer gauges
(located in groundwater wells) that record daily groundwater levels. Three have been installed
within the wetland restoration crediting area and one within the adjacent upland area to
document the wetland boundary. One automatic pressure transducer is installed above ground
for use as a barometric reference. Gauges are downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods
are calculated during the growing season. Gauge installation followed current regulatory
guidance. Visual observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators are also
recorded during quarterly site visits.

Cowford Site 11 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100095 January 2024
3.0 References Griffith, G.E., J.M.Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H.McNab, D.R.Lenat, T.F.MacPherson,
J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. (2002). Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina,
(color Poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston,
Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).

Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP
Protocol
for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2

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 (2021). Cowford Site Final Mitigation Plan. Schafale, M.P. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks, and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC. USACE. (2016). Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. NC: Interagency Review Team (IRT).

Appendix A
Background Tables

Table 1. Cowford (100095) - Mitigation Assets and Components
Existing Mitigation
Footage Plan Mitigation As-Built
or Footage or Mitigation Restoration Priority Mitigation Plan Footage or
Project Segment Acreage Acreage Category Level Level Ratio (X:1)Credits Acreage Comments
KJ1-A*923 913 Warm Restoration HWV 1.00000 913.000 935 Headwater valley restoration, riparian planting
KJ1-B 647 852 Warm Restoration P1 1.00000 852.000 852 Channel restoration, riparian planting
KJ1-C 1,428 1,572 Warm Restoration P2 1.00000 1572.000 1,574 Channel restoration, riparian planting
WA 0 2.991 RR Re-establishment 1.00000 2.991 2.969 Stream restoration, drain tile interruption, native planting
*Headwater valley credits are calculated from valley length, not included in NSBW calculations.
Project Credits
Non-Rip Coastal
Warm Cool Cold Wetland Marsh
Restoration 3337.000
Re-establishment 2.991
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
NSBW Adjustment 201.670
Total 3538.670 2.991
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Elapsed Time Since grading complete:2 years 4 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete:1 year 8 months
Number of reporting Years1:2
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or Deliverable Complete Delivery
Restoration Plan NA 26-Mar-21
Final Design – Construction Plans NA 03-May-21
Stream Construction NA 30-Jul-21
Site Planting NA 08-Mar-22
Invasive Treatment NA 21-Nov-22
As-built (Year 0 Monitoring – baseline)Jan/March 2022 Apr-22
Supplemental Planting NA Apr-22
Year 1 Monitoring Nov-22 Dec-22
Year 2 Monitoring XS:Jun-23 VP:Nov-23 Nov-23
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
1 = The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Cowford Mitigation Site
Designer RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Primary project design POC Benton Carroll, PE
Construction Contractor RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Construction POC Andrew Dimmette
Survey Contractor RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Survey POC Brian Hockett
Planting Contractor Shenandoah Habitats
Planting contractor POC David Coleman
Monitoring Performers RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Monitoring POC Heath Hidlay (717& 543-7711)
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Cowford Mitigation Site
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 3020302
Reach KJ1-C
1574
Moderately
confined
238
Intermittent
None
G5 to E5
E4 / C4
III-IV
Zone X
(Minimal Risk)Zone X (Minimal Risk)Zone X (Minimal
Risk)
G5 G5
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles)
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
FEMA classification
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Stream Classification (existing)
Stream Classification (proposed)
III III
N/A E5 / C5
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Length of reach (linear feet)
None None
Unconfined Unconfined
115 181
Reach KJ1-A Reach KJ1-B
935 852
Intermittent Intermittent
H, V
GW, OL, SF
Yes (LESS)
Source of Hydrology
Restoration or enhancement method
Drainage Class
Soil Hydric Status
Wetland Type
Mapped Soil Series
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Size of Wetland (acres)
Poorly
Muckalee loam
RR
2.969
WA
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)238 ac (.37 sqmi)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1%
River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
DWR Sub-basin 03-05-02
White Oak
30203020102
Level IV Ecoregion
Table 4. Project Background Information
Project Name
County
Project Area (acres)
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)
Project Watershed Summary Information
17.20
Cowford Project
Onslow
34.92293, -77.5917
16.35
63h - Carolina Flatwoods
0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Cowford Mitigation Site
Onslow County, North Carolina
©Date: 2/17/2022
Drawn by: HRG

Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

R
:
\
R
e
s
g
i
s
\
e
n
t
g
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
1
0
0
9
0
0
_
C
o
w
f
o
r
d
\
M
X
D
\
6
_
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
M
Y
0

2
0
2
1
\
F
i
g
u
r
e

1

-

S
i
t
e

L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
p

-

C
o
w
f
o
r
d
.
m
x
d
Checked by: JRM
Legend
Easement
TLW - 03030001010010
White Oak River Basin - 03030001
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Cowford

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

!!P
!!P
!!P
!!P
!?
!?
!?!?
!?
!.
!>
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R
!R!R
kkk
XX
X
1
4
9
11
10
8
13
1
5
7 6
1
2
5
2
1
3
4
GW4 GW2
GW3GW5
GW1
8 6
4
2
1
5
3
9
7
FG1
SR1
4
2
1
3
5
4
2
1
3
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
©
0 250125
Feet
Figure 2
Current Conditions
Plan View
MY2 2023
Cowford
Mitigation Project
Onslow County, NC
LEGEND
Date: 11/21/2023 Drawn by: HKH
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

R
:
\
R
e
s
g
i
s
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
N
C
\
1
0
0
9
0
0
_
C
o
w
f
o
r
d
\
M
X
D
\
6
_
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
\
M
Y
2

2
0
2
3
\
F
i
g
u
r
e

2

-

C
C
P
V

M
Y
2

2
0
2
3

-

C
o
w
f
o
r
d
.
m
x
d
Lat: 35.671107 Long: -82.669235
Vegetation Condition Assessment
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Target Community
In
v
a
s
i
v
e

S
p
e
c
i
e
s
No Fill
Easement - 17.20 Acres
Wetland Re-establishment
X Existing Ag Ditch
k Engineered Sediment Pack
!R Drain Tile Outlet
!.Flow Gauge
!>Stage Recorder
MY2 Well Success
!?<5%
!?5-12%
Fixed Plot
Random Vegetation Plots MY2
Random Veg Plots MY1
Cross Sections
MY0 Random Veg Plot
Wetland Depressions
!!P Photo Point
Stream Restoration
HWV Restoration
Structures
Top of Bank
KJ1-A
KJ1-C
KJ1-B
Treatmen
t

P
o
o
l
Treatmen
t

P
o
o
l
Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach JK1-A
Assessed Stream Length 925
Assessed Bank Length 1850
Bank Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour 0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does
NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill. 8 8 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring
guidance document)
3 3 100%

Totals
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach JK1-B
Assessed Stream Length 850
Assessed Bank Length 1700
Bank Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour 0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does
NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill. 7 7 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring
guidance document)
16 16 100%

Totals
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Reach JK1-C
Assessed Stream Length 1572
Assessed Bank Length 3144
Bank Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour 0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does
NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill. 17 17 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring
guidance document)
28 28 100%

Totals
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage1 16.4
1. Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.1 acres Red Simple
Hatch 0 0.00 0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.0.1 acres Orange
Simple Hatch 0 0.00 0.0%
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.0.25 acres Orange
Simple Hatch 0 0.00 0.0%
0.0%
Easement Acreage2 17.2
4. Invasive Areas of Concern4 Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).1000 SF Yellow
Crosshatch 0 0.00 0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas3 Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).none Red Simple
Hatch 0 0.00 0.0%
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Total
Cumulative Total
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage, crossings or
any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment, the
associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those
with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes that are
slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be mapped, if
in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by
EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, but
potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of
ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat
level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that
was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be
symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.
Cowford MY2 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos

Vegetation Plot 1 (11/2/2023) Vegetation Plot 2 (11/2/2023)
Vegetation Plot 3 (11/2/2023) Vegetation Plot 4 (11/3/2022)

Vegetation Plot 5 (11/2/2023) Vegetation Plot 6 (11/2/2023)
Vegetation Plot 7 (11/2/2023) Vegetation Plot 8 (11/2/2023)

Vegetation Plot 9 (11/2/2023)

Cowford MY2 Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photo
Random Vegetation Plot 1 (11/2/2023)

Random Vegetation Plot 2 (11/2/2023)
Random Vegetation Plot 3 (11/2/2023) Random Vegetation Plot 4 (11/2/2023)
Random Vegetation Plot 5 (11/2/2023)

Cowford Monitoring Device Photos MY2 2023
Stage Recorder KJ1-C (6/7/2023)

Flow Gauge KJ1-A (6/7/2023)
Wetland Gauge 1 (11/2/2023) Wetland Gauge 2 (11/2/2023)
Wetland Gauge 3 (11/2/2023) Wetland Gauge 4 (11/2/2023)

Wetland Gauge 5 (11/2/2023)

Cowford General Site Photos MY2 2023
Photo Point 1: Culvert at the bottom of KJ1-B (11/2/2023) Photo Point 2: Culvert at the top of KJ1-C (11/2/2023)
Photo Point 3: Treatment pool at edge of Wetland (6/7/2023) Photo Point 4: Culvert at Kinston Highway (11/3/2022)
ESP & Treatment Pool (6/7/2023) Crossing (11/2/2023)
Headwater Valley (6/7/2023)

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Planted Species Summary

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary

Common Name Scientific Name Mit Plan % As-Built % Total Stems Planted
River Birch Betula nigra 15 15 2,000
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 15 15 2,000
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 10 10 1,300
Water Oak Quercus nigra 10 10 1,300
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 10 10 1,300
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 10 10 1,300
Swamp Tupelo Nyssa biflora 10 10 1,300
American sycamore Platanus occidentalis 10 10 1,300
Southern red oak Quercus falcata 5 5 700
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 5 700
13,200
16.35
807
Total
Planted Area
As-built Planted Stems/Acre
Bare Root Planting Tree Species
Plot #Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Success
Criteria
Met?
Average
Planted
Stem
Height (ft)
1 931 0 931 Yes 3.0
2 931 81 1012 Yes 4.3
3 688 0 688 Yes 5.3
4 567 0 567 Yes 3.7
5 850 81 931 Yes 2.7
6 607 162 769 Yes 2.2
7 486 0 486 Yes 3.2
8 769 0 769 Yes 2.7
9 607 81 688 Yes 3.2
R1 647 0 647 Yes 2.4
R2 445 0 445 Yes 4.0
R3 405 0 405 Yes 2.8
R4 526 0 526 Yes 3.2
R5 445 0 445 Yes 4.3
Project Avg 636 29 665 Yes 3.4
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 9. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species

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
Betula nigra river birch Tree 10 10 10 3 3 3 6 6 6 3 3 3 5 5 5 1 1 1
Cephalanthus occidentaliscommon buttonbush Shrub 5 5 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 1 2
Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo Tree 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 4
Pinus pine Tree 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 5 2 2 2 4 4 4
Quercus falcata southern red oak Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 1 1 1 6 6 6 7 7 7 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2
Rhus copallinum flameleaf sumac shrub 2 4
Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 5 5
23 23 23 23 23 25 17 17 17 14 14 14 21 21 23 15 15 19 12 12 12 19 19 19 15 15 17
6 6 6 8 8 10 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 6 8 8 9 5 5 5 8 8 8 7 7 8
931 931 931 931 931 1012 688 688 688 567 567 567 850 850 931 607 607 769 486 486 486 769 769 769 607 607 688
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
Betula nigra river birch Tree 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 38 38 38 49 49 49 47 47 47
Cephalanthus occidentaliscommon buttonbush Shrub 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 15 15 20 20 20 19 19 19
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 1 1 1 12 12 12 16 16 17 13 13 13
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 0 0 3
Nyssa biflora swamp tupelo Tree 2 2 2 23 23 23 31 31 31 41 41 41
Pinus pine Tree 0 0 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 26 26 26 19 19 19 32 32 32
Quercus falcata southern red oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 12 12 13 13 13 19 19 19
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 6 6 6 1 1 1 3 3 3 30 30 30 22 22 22 14 14 14
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 5 5 5 6 6 6 13 13 13
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 4 4 4 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 32 32 32 33 33 33 33 33 33
Rhus copallinum flameleaf sumac shrub 0 0 6
Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 6 6 6 27 27 27 19 19 19 28 28 28
16 16 16 11 11 11 10 10 10 13 13 13 11 11 11 220 220 230 228 228 229 259 259 259
6 6 6 4 4 4 6 6 6 7 7 7 4 4 4 13 13 13 10 10 10 10 10 10
648 648 648 445 445 445 405 405 405 526 526 526 445 445 445 636 636 665 659 659 662 749 749 749
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Current Plot Data (MY2 2023)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
1 1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.35
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
0.350.02 0.02 0.02
14
0.35
0.02
14
Annual Means
MY2 (2023)MY1 (2022)MY0 (2021)
14
Stems per ACRE
1
0.02
1
0.02
100043-01-0009
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
Cowford
Current Plot Data (MY2 2023)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
100043-01-0001 100043-01-0002 100043-01-0003 100043-01-0004 100043-01-0005 100043-01-0006
Cowford
1
0.02
100043-01-0007 100043-01-0008

Appendix D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)---------------4.9 ------1 ---------------------8.0 ---9.5 10.4 10.4 11.3 1.3 2
Floodprone Width (ft)------7.3 ------1 --------------------->50 ---48.7 49.0 49.0 49.3 0.4 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)---------------0.9 ------1 ---------------------0.6 ---0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.1 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)------1.3 ------1 ---------------------1.0 ---1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.1 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)---------------4.5 ------1 ---------------------5.0 ---6.4 6.9 6.9 7.3 0.6 2
Width/Depth Ratio ------5.3 ------1 ---------------------12.8 ---17.2 17.3 17.3 17.4 0.1 2
Entrenchment Ratio ------1.5 ------1 --------------------->2.2 ---4.3 4.8 4.8 5.2 0.6 2
1Bank Height Ratio ------3.9 ------1 ---------------------1.0 ---1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2
Riffle Length (ft)------------------------------------5 ---27 ------------------
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)---------------------------------------------------------------
Pool Length (ft)------------------------------------9 ---30 ------------------
Pool Max depth (ft)---------------------------------------------------------------
Pool Spacing (ft)------------------------------------20 ---53 ------------------
Channel Beltwidth (ft)------------------------------------4 ---27 4 ------27 ------
Radius of Curvature (ft)------------------------------------10 ---14 10 ------14 ------
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)------------------------------------1.3 ---1.8 1.3 ------1.8 ------
Meander Wavelength (ft)------------------------------------33 ---61 33 ------61 ------
Meander Width Ratio ------------------------------------4.1 ---7.6 4.1 ------7.6 ------
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)---------
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)---------
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Channel slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top 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
------
------
------
0.007 ---0.002 0.002
------------
1.01 ---1.42 1.41
------------
680 ---602 601
688 ---852 850
------------
------------
Additional Reach Parameters
G5 ---E5/C5 E4
------------
------------
Pattern
Transport parameters
------------
Profile
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Cowford Mitigation Site - Reach KJ1-B
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)---------6.6 6.7 6.7 6.7 ---2 ---------------------8.0 ---8.6 11.0 9.7 16.1 3.4 4
Floodprone Width (ft)12.5 13.4 13.4 14.3 ---2 --------------------->50 ---46.00 47.8 47.9 49.4 1.4 4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)---------1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 ---2 ---------------------0.6 ---0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 ---2 ---------------------1.0 ---0.8 1 1.1 1.1 0.1 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)---------6.5 7.4 7.4 8.2 ---2 ---------------------5.0 ---4.5 5.6 5.1 7.8 1.5 4
Width/Depth Ratio 5.4 6.1 6.1 6.8 ---2 ---------------------12.8 ---16.4 21.7 18.7 33.1 7.7 4
Entrenchment Ratio 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 ---2 --------------------->2.2 ---3.1 4.6 4.9 5.3 1.0 4
1Bank Height Ratio 1.8 3.0 3.0 4.2 ---2 ---------------------1.0 ---1.00 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4
Riffle Length (ft)------------------------------------8 ---32 ------------------
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)---------------------------------------------------------------
Pool Length (ft)------------------------------------9 ---30 ------------------
Pool Max depth (ft)---------------------------------------------------------------
Pool Spacing (ft)------------------------------------20 ---49 ------------------
Channel Beltwidth (ft)------------------------------------7 ---23 7 ------23 ------
Radius of Curvature (ft)------------------------------------11 ---24 11 ------24 ------
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)------------------------------------1.4 ---3 1.4 ------3 ------
Meander Wavelength (ft)------------------------------------38 ---77 38 ------77 ------
Meander Width Ratio ------------------------------------4.8 ---9.6 4.8 ------9.6 ------
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)---------
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)---------
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Channel slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top 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
------
------
------
0.007 ---0.003 0.003
------------
1.02 ---1.13 1.13
------------
1395 ---1392 1392
1429 ---1572 1572
------------
------------
Additional Reach Parameters
G5 to E5 ---E4/C4 E4/C4
------------
------------
Pattern
Transport parameters
------------
Profile
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Cowford Mitigation Site - Reach KJ1-C
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline
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-XSA1 65.6 65.6 65.7 65.8 65.7 65.8
Bankfull Width (ft)1 11.0 11.9 10.0 11.3 12.1 11.9
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ---49 48.7 >48.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.1 1.3
Low Bank Elevation (ft)65.6 65.5 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 8.6 8.0 8.4 7.3 6.3 7.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ---4.3 4.0 >4.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ---1.0 0.9 1.0
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-XSA1 65.1 65.0 65.1 65.0 64.9 64.9 61.0 60.9 60.9 60.8 60.8 60.8 57.9 57.9 57.9
Bankfull Width (ft)1 9.5 9.6 9.0 8.2 9.9 9.2 11.1 8.4 9.4 9.5 8.8 8.9 9.9 9.4 8.5
Floodprone Width (ft)1 49.3 49.2 >49.2 ------48.1 46.9 >47.3 48 46.6 >49.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1
Low Bank Elevation (ft)65.1 64.9 65.0 65.0 65.0 64.8 61.0 60.8 60.9 60.8 60.7 60.8 57.9 57.8 58.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.3 4.6 4.2 6.4 7.6 5.5 6.6 5.6 6.6 4.8 3.8 4.3 5.3 5.0 5.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 5.2 5.1 >5.5 ------5.0 5.3 >5.3 4.8 5.0 >5.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 0.9 0.9 ------1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
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-XSA1 57.9 57.9 58.0 54.6 54.5 54.6 54.7 54.6 54.6 48.0 47.9 48.0 47.6 47.4 47.5
Bankfull Width (ft)1 11.8 10.7 11.5 8.6 9.2 9.1 10.3 10.0 9.6 16.1 14.9 14.8 9.1 8.9 9.3
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ---46.0 45.5 >48 ---49.4 49.3 >49.7 ---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.6 1.6 1.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.1 1.2 1.1 3.4 3.4 3.2
Low Bank Elevation (ft)57.9 57.9 58.0 54.6 54.5 54.6 54.7 54.5 54.6 48.0 48.0 48.0 47.6 47.5 47.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 8.4 7.9 8.6 4.5 4.2 5.0 9.3 8.7 9.3 7.8 9.1 7.4 12.3 13.7 12.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ---5.3 4.9 >5.3 ---3.1 3.3 >3.3 ---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ---1.0 1.0 1.0 ---1.0 1.0 1.0 ---
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Cross Section 14 (Riffle)Cross Section 15 (Pool)Cross Section 11 (Pool)Cross Section 12 (Riffle)
Cross Section 6 (Riffle)Cross Section 7 (Pool)Cross Section 8 (Pool)
Cross Section 13 (Pool)
Cross Section 9 (Riffle)Cross Section 10 (Riffle)
(Headwater Valley Restoration) No Morpohological
Parameters were determined for HWV Reach A
(Headwater Valley Restoration) No Morpohological
Parameters were determined for HWV Reach A
(Headwater Valley Restoration) No Morpohological
Parameters were determined for HWV Reach A
Appendix D. Table 11 - Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)
Cowford
Cross Section 1 (Pool)Cross Section 2 (Riffle)Cross Section 3 (Riffle)Cross Section 4 (Pool)Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cowford - Reach KJ1-A - Cross Section 1 - Pool - HWV Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1
Bankfull Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1
Cross Section 1 (Pool)
(Headwater Valley Restoration) No Morpohological Parameters were determined for HWV
Reach A
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cowford - Reach KJ1-A - Cross Section 2 - Riffle - HWV Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1
Bankfull Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1
(Headwater Valley Restoration) No Morpohological Parameters were determined for HWV
Reach A
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cowford - Reach KJ1-A - Cross Section 3 - Riffle - HWV Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1
Bankfull Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1
(Headwater Valley Restoration) No Morpohological Parameters were determined for HWV
Reach A
Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cowford - Reach KJ1-B - Cross Section 4 - Pool - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023 Approx. Bankfull 3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 65.63 65.6 65.7
Bankfull Width (ft)1 11.0 11.9 10.0
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.5 1.4 1.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft)65.63 65.5 65.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 8.6 8.0 8.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ---
Cross Section 4 (Pool)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cowford - Reach KJ1-B - Cross Section 5 - Riffle - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022
MY2 2023 Approx. Bankfull
Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 65.76 65.7 65.8
Bankfull Width (ft)1 11.3 12.1 11.9
Floodprone Width (ft)1 49 48.7 >48.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.2 1.1 1.3
Low Bank Elevation (ft)65.76 65.6 65.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 7.3 6.3 7.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 4.3 4.0 >4.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 0.9 1.0
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cowford - Reach KJ1-B - Cross Section 6 - Riffle - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022
MY2 2023 Approx. Bankfull
Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 65.06 65.0 65.1
Bankfull Width (ft)1 9.5 9.6 9.0
Floodprone Width (ft)1 49.3 49.2 >49.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.0 1.0 0.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft)65.06 64.9 65.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.3 4.6 4.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 5.2 5.1 >5.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 0.9 0.9
Cross Section 6 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cowford - Reach KJ1-B - Cross Section 7 - Pool - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023 Approx. Bankfull 3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 64.99 64.9 64.9
Bankfull Width (ft)1 8.2 9.9 9.2
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.5 1.5 1.3
Low Bank Elevation (ft)64.99 65.0 64.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 6.4 7.6 5.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ---
Cross Section 7 (Pool)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cowford - Reach KJ1-C - Cross Section 8 - Pool - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023 Approx. Bankfull
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 60.97 60.9 60.9
Bankfull Width (ft)1 11.1 8.4 9.4
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.6 1.4 1.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft)60.97 60.8 60.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 6.6 5.6 6.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ---
Cross Section 8 (Pool)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cowford - Reach KJ1-C - Cross Section 9 - Riffle - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022MY2 2023 Approx. BankfullFloodprone Area Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 60.82 60.8 60.8
Bankfull Width (ft)1 9.5 8.8 8.9
Floodprone Width (ft)1 48.1 46.9 >47.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.1 0.8 0.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft)60.82 60.7 60.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 4.8 3.8 4.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 5.0 5.3 >5.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 0.9 0.9
Cross Section 9 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cowford - Reach KJ1-C - Cross Section 10 - Riffle - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023
Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 57.93 57.9 57.9
Bankfull Width (ft)1 9.9 9.4 8.5
Floodprone Width (ft)1 48 46.6 >49.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.0 1.0 1.1
Low Bank Elevation (ft)57.93 57.8 58.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.3 5.0 5.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 4.8 5.0 >5.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 1.0
Cross Section 10 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cowford - Reach KJ1-C - Cross Section 11 - Pool - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023 Approx. Bankfull
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 57.92 57.9 58.0
Bankfull Width (ft)1 11.8 10.7 11.5
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.6 1.6 1.7
Low Bank Elevation (ft)57.92 57.9 58.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 8.4 7.9 8.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ---
Cross Section 11 (Pool)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cowford - Reach KJ1-C- Cross Section 12 - Riffle - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022
MY2 2023 Approx. Bankfull
Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 54.58 54.5 54.6
Bankfull Width (ft)1 8.6 9.2 9.1
Floodprone Width (ft)1 46.0 45.5 >48
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 0.8 0.8 0.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft)54.58 54.5 54.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 4.5 4.2 5.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 5.3 4.9 >5.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 1.0
Cross Section 12 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cowford - Reach KJ1-C - Cross Section 13 - Pool - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023 Approx. Bankfull 3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 54.70 54.6 54.6
Bankfull Width (ft)1 10.3 10.0 9.6
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.9 1.7 1.8
Low Bank Elevation (ft)54.70 54.5 54.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 9.3 8.7 9.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ---
Cross Section 13 (Pool)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cowford - Reach KJ1-C - Cross Section 14 - Riffle - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022
MY2 2023 Approx. Bankfull
Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 48.03 47.9 48.0
Bankfull Width (ft)1 16.1 14.9 14.8
Floodprone Width (ft)1 49.4 49.3 >49.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.1 1.2 1.1
Low Bank Elevation (ft)48.03 48.0 48.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 7.8 9.1 7.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 3.1 3.3 >3.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 1.0
Cross Section 14 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Cowford - Reach KJ1-C - Cross Section 15 - Pool - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023 Approx. Bankfull 3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 47.59 47.4 47.5
Bankfull Width (ft)1 9.1 8.9 9.3
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 3.4 3.4 3.2
Low Bank Elevation (ft)47.59 47.5 47.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 12.3 13.7 12.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ---
Cross Section 15 (Pool)
KJ1‐A Channel Evidence Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Max consecutive days of channel flow 55 160
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)No Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away No Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) No No
Sediment depostion and/or scour indicating sediment transport No Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water*No Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks*No No
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow No No
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks*No No
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial 
vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or inundation 
for a long duration, including hydrophytes)*No No
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel 
braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant 
root systems*No No
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow*No No
Other:NA NA
*represents indicators that are required in monitoring years 5‐7
Headwater Valley Performance Table
Appendix E
Hydrology
Data
Table 12. Rainfall Summary MY2 2023

30 Percent 70 Percent
November 3.68 1.96 4.41 1.96
December 3.66 2.63 4.27 1.62
January 3.70 2.78 4.57 3.49
February 3.50 2.32 4.20 2.37
March 3.76 2.68 4.43 1.77
April 3.00 1.69 3.77 1.68
May 4.11 2.51 4.85 3.05
June 5.31 3.51 6.38 5.17
July 6.05 4.40 7.46 5.86
August 7.23 3.66 8.95 5.36
September 7.02 3.91 8.39 4.44
October 4.11 2.24 4.97 0.14
November 3.68 1.96 4.41 -
December 3.66 2.63 4.27 -
Total Annual **34.29 66.65 36.91
Above Normal
Limits
Below Normal
Limits
Total Rainfall is from November 1, 2022 - October 31,2023
**Normal Limits were determined from WETS Station New River MCAF, NC. Approximately 20 miles from the Site
Month Average Normal Limits Richland Station
Precipitation*
*Rainfall data was acquired from Richland Station which is approximately 4 miles from the Site.
Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events

Table 14. 2023 Max Hydroperiod

Year Bankfull
Events
Height Over Bankfull
(ft)
MY1 2022 2 0.38
MY2 2023 10 1.74
MY3 2024
MY4 2025
MY5 2026
MY6 2027
MY7 2028
Year Flow Events Maximum Consecutive
Flow Days
Cummlative
Flow Days
Maximum
Consecutive Date
Range
MY1 2022 11 55 160 3/9/2022 - 5/3/2023
MY2 2023 8 129 226 1/1/2023 - 5/9/2023
MY3 2024
MY4 2025
MY5 2026
MY6 2027
MY7 2028
Table 13. Documentation of Significant Flow Events
Flow Gauge KJ1-A
Estimated Date of Highest Event
Stage Recorder KJ1-C
4/5/2022
7/7/2023
Days Hydroperiod (%)Days
GW1 6 2 6
GW2 6 2 6
GW3 15 6 41
GW4 14 5 30
GW5 14 5 31
<5%5-12% >12%
2023 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 10-Mar through 2-Dec, 267 days)
Well ID Consecutive (Growing Season)Consectuive (Jan 1 - Nov 2, 2023)
Hydroperiod (%)
2
2
12
9
9

Table 15. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results

Pre Con
(2020)
Pre Con
(2021)
Year 1
(2022)
Year 2
(2023)
Year 3
(2024)
Year 4
(2025)
Year 5
(2026)
Year 6
(2027)
Year 7
(2028)
GW1 WA 1 0 0 2
GW2 WA 1 2
GW3 WA 7 6
GW4 WA 4 5
GW5 UPL 5 5
Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results (Growing Season)
Cowford
Hydroperiod (%)
Well ID Wetland
ID
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
10.000
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
St
a
g
e

(
f
t
)
Date
Cowford MY2 2023 KJ1-C Stage Recorder Graph
Daily Precip (in)SR KJ1-C Top of Bank
Max Event - 1.74 ft. above TOB
7/7/2023
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
10.000
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
St
a
g
e

(
f
t
)
Date
Cowford MY2 2023 KJ1-A Flow Gauge Graph
Daily Precip (in)FG KJ1-A Downstream Riffle Elevation
160 Days of Consecutive Flow
11/30/2022 - 5/9/2023
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
10.000
-60
-58
-56
-54
-52
-50
-48
-46
-44
-42
-40
-38
-36
-34
-32
-30
-28
-26
-24
-22
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
I
n
c
h
e
s

A
b
o
v
e
/
B
e
l
o
w

S
u
r
f
a
c
e
)
Date
Cowford MY2 2023 GW1
Daily Precip (in)GW1 Growing Season Start Growing Season End
6 Consecutive Days of Hydrology
07/05/2023 - 07/11/2023
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
10.000
-32
-30
-28
-26
-24
-22
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
I
n
c
h
e
s

A
b
o
v
e
/
B
e
l
o
w

S
u
r
f
a
c
e
)
Date
Cowford MY2 2023 GW2
Daily Precip (in)GW2 Growing Season Start Growing Season End
6 Consecutive Days of Hydrology
7/5/2023 -7/11/2023
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
10.000
-32
-30
-28
-26
-24
-22
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
I
n
c
h
e
s

A
b
o
v
e
/
B
e
l
o
w

S
u
r
f
a
c
e
)
Date
Cowford MY2 2023 GW3
Daily Precip (in)GW3 Growing Season Start Growing Season End
15 Consecutive Days of Hydrology
07/03/2023 - 07/17/2023
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
10.000
-32
-30
-28
-26
-24
-22
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
I
n
c
h
e
s

A
b
o
v
e
/
B
e
l
o
w

S
u
r
f
a
c
e
)
Date
Cowford MY2 2023 GW4
Daily Precip (in)GW4 Growing Season Start Growing Season End
14 Consecutive Days of Hydrology
07/03/2022 - 07/16/2022
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
10.000
-32
-30
-28
-26
-24
-22
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
I
n
c
h
e
s

A
b
o
v
e
/
B
e
l
o
w

S
u
r
f
a
c
e
)
Date
Cowford MY2 2023 GW5
Daily Precip (in)GW5 Growing Season Start Growing Season End
14 Consecutive Days of Hydrology
07/03/2023 - 07/17/2023