20181029 Ver 1_Monkey Wall_100069_MY2_2023_20240131

Year 2 Monitoring Report

FINAL

MONKEY WALL PROJECT

NCDMS Project #100069 (Contract #7536)
USACE Action ID: 2018-01162
DWR Project #20181029

Mitchell County, North Carolina
French Broad River Basin
HUC 06010108
Provided by:
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
For Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Provided for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services

January 2024

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 26, 2024

Harry Tsomides
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
2090 US 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211

RE: Monkey Wall Site: Year 2 Monitoring Report (NCDMS ID 100069)

Listed below are comments provided by DMS on January 5, 2024 regarding the Monkey Wall
Site: Year 2 Report and RES’ responses.

Comments:
 If possible, can the project performance table (page 4) be updated to include cumulative 
monitoring results (to match the current guidance/standard)? 
The project performance table has been updated to include the site’s cumulative monitoring 
metrics, this data can also be found in Table 2 of Appendix A.  
 DMS recommends additional random plots to the northwest of tributary G1. This area has look 
like a large area with low stem density as distance from the stream channel increases on recent 
site visits. 
RES will conduct their MY3 random vegetation monitoring plots in this area to ensure the site is 
on track to meet vegetation success criteria.  
 Some boundary marking adjustments/ improvements were requested following a DMS site visit 
for the MY0 baseline field review in July 2022; can RES verify that the additional marking and 
fence/gate alignments concerns were addressed, and if not, what is their current status? 
o The sitewide action items resulting from DMS’s 10/23/2023 boundary inspection are as 
follows (as related by email on 10/27/2023); please provide a response and status 
update for each item: 

1. The rebar appears to be #4 which is ½ inch diameter, 18” long, and is causing the 
monument caps to be loose and easily dislodged.  The RFP indicates “The Vendor 
shall set 5/8” rebar 30” in length with 3‐1/4" aluminum caps on all easement 
corners. Caps shall meet DMS specifications (Berntsen RBD5325, imprinted with NC 
State Logo # B9087 or equivalent). After installation, caps shall be stamped with the 
corresponding number from the table of coordinates on the survey.”  Please rectify 
this. 
RES is currently scheduling the originally hired licensed surveyor to rectify this 
situation. 
2. Some of the numbering on the monument caps was not legible due to faint strike 
marks.  Numbering on the monument caps needs to be made legible. 
RES is currently scheduling the originally hired licensed surveyor to rectify this 
situation. 

2

3. In‐line marking (maximum spacing of 200 feet) was absent along many of the longer 
line segments.  Install in‐line marking at each of these segments. 
RES will add additional signage where required, and in areas where even further 
signage would be beneficial.  

4. Signs attached to trees must be fastened with 16d aluminum nails and the steel 
fasteners must be replaced. 
RES will switch signs to t‐posts where possible; for signs that need to be attached to 
trees due to poor field conditions, RES will follow NCDMS long term easement 
marking guidance.  

5. Signs at corners must be located near the monuments.  Signs positioned too far 
from the corners were discussed during the site walk and must be addressed. 
Signs will be moved within the appropriate distance of the monumented corners. 

6. One corner cap was missing, that is located within a large boulder. DMS can provide 
information for installing corner monuments located on bedrock, if needed. 
RES is currently scheduling the originally hired licensed surveyor to go through all 
corner caps and bring them up to standard. 

Digital Support Files 

 No comments, looks good. 

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location and Description ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Success Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 2
Stream Restoration Success Criteria ......................................................................................................... 2
Vegetation Success Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Project Components ................................................................................................................................ 5
1.5 Stream Design/Approach ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions .............................................................................................. 7
1.7 Year 2 Monitoring Performance (MY2) ............................................................................................ 7
Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
Stream Geomorphology ................................................................................................................................ 8
Stream Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................ 8
Wetland Hydrology ......................................................................................................................................... 9
2.0 Methods ...................................................................................................................................................................... 9
3.0 References ................................................................................................................................................................ 10 Appendix A: Background Tables Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components Table 2. Summary: Goals, Performance, and Results Table 3. Project Background Information Table 4. Project Timeline and Contacts 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 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 MY2 Cross Section Overlay Plots 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 Flow Hydrographs Groundwater Hydrographs

Monkey Wall Project 1 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100069 January 2024

1.0 Project Summary

1.1 Project Location and Description

The Monkey Wall Project (“Project”) is located within a rural watershed in Mitchell County, North
Carolina approximately two miles northwest of Bakersville, NC. Water quality stressors affecting
the Project included livestock production, agricultural practices, and lack of riparian buffer. The
Project presents stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation generating 4,115.930 Cold
Stream Mitigation Units (SMU).

The Project’s total easement area is 25.28 acres within the overall drainage area of 87 acres.
Grazing livestock historically had complete access to both the stream reaches, resulting in bank
erosion, sediment deposition, and channel incision. The lack of riparian buffer vegetation, deep-
rooted vegetation, and unstable channel characteristics contributed to the degradation of stream
banks and surrounding floodplain area.

The stream design approach for the Project 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 involved the use of a reference reach, or “template” stream,
adjacent to, nearby, or previously in the same location as the design reach. The template
parameters of the analog reach were 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. Hydraulic geometry was developed using analytical methods to
identify the design discharge. The wetland approach was closely tied to the stream restoration in
that wetland hydrology and vegetation have been re-established as a product of restoring the
natural stream system and riparian area along with other hydrologic improvement activities.

The Project has been constructed and planted and will be monitored on a regular basis
throughout the seven-year post-construction monitoring period, or until performance standards
are met. The Project will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program. This party shall serve
as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct
periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement
are upheld. Funding will be supplied by the responsible party on a yearly basis until such time an
endowment is established.

1.2 Project Goals and Objectives

Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project’s maximum functional uplift using the Stream
Functions Pyramid Framework, specific, attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the
Project. These goals clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming
that were identified as major watershed stressors in the 2009 French Broad River RBRP. These
goals and objectives reflect those stated in the Monkey Wall Project Final Mitigation Plan.

Monkey Wall Project 2 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100069 January 2024

The Project goals are:
 Improve water transport from watershed to the channel in a non-erosive manner in a
stable channel;
 Improve flood flow attenuation on-site and downstream by allowing for overbank flows
and connection to the floodplain;
 Restore native floodplain and riparian vegetation; and
 Improve instream habitat;
 Reduce sediment, nutrient, and fecal coliform inputs into stream system;
 Indirectly support the goals of the 2009 French Broad RBRP to improve water quality and
to reduce sediment and nutrient loads, especially in the Big Rock Creek watershed.

The Project goals were addressed through the following project objectives:

 Designed and reconstructed the stream channel to convey bankfull flows while
maintaining stable dimension, profile, and planform;
 Added in-stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect the restored
stream;
 Installed habitat features such as brush toes, woody materials, and pools of varying depths
to the restored stream;
 Removed the 268-linear foot rock wall located on the most upstream portion of G2 which
daylighted the existing stream and restored the natural profile of the channel;
 Increased forested riparian buffers to at least 30 feet on both sides of the channel along
the Project reach with a hardwood riparian plant community;
 Treated exotic invasive species; and
 Established a permanent conservation easement on the Project that excludes future
livestock from the stream channel and its associated buffers and prevent future land-use
changes.

Functional uplift, benefits, and improvements within the Project area, as based on the Function
Based Framework, are outlined in the Final Mitigation Plan.

1.3 Project Success Criteria

The success criteria for the Project follows the 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update, the Monkey Wall Project Final Mitigation Plan, and
subsequent agency guidance. Cross section and vegetation plot monitoring takes place in Years
0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Stream hydrology and visual monitoring takes place annually. Specific success
criteria components are presented below.

Stream Restoration Success Criteria

Monkey Wall Project 3 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100069 January 2024
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 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. Channel stability should be demonstrated through a minimum of
four bankfull events documented in the seven-year monitoring period.

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.

Vegetation Success Criteria

Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project
follow IRT Guidance. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project is the survival of
at least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 trees per acre with an
average height of six feet at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria is 210 trees
per acre with an average height of eight feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees are counted,
identified to species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports, but are not included in the
success criteria of total planted stems until they are present in the plot for greater than two
seasons. Moreover, any single species can only account for up to 50 percent of the required
number of stems within any vegetation plot. Any stems in excess of 50 percent will be shown in
the monitoring table but will not be used to demonstrate success. The target natural community
for this Project is a montane oak-hickory forest.

Monkey Wall Project 4 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100069 January 2024
Level Treatment Objective Monitoring
Metric Performance Standard
Cumulative
Monitoring
Results

1
Hy
d
r
o
l
o
g
y

Convert the land-
use of
streams and their
watersheds
from pasture to
riparian forest
To transport water
from the
watershed to the
channel in a
non-erosive manner
Percent Project
drainage area
converted to
riparian forest
(indirect
measurement)
NA

47 flow days
- MY1
93 flow days
- MY2
2
Hy
d
r
a
u
l
i
c

Reduce bank
height ratios and
increase
entrenchment
ratios by
reconstructing the
channel to mimic
reference reach
conditions
Improve flood bank
connectivity by
reducing bank
height ratios and
increasing
entrenchment ratios
Pressure
transducer flow
and bankfull
monitoring
gauge:
Inspected
quarterly
Four bankfull events occurring in
separate years

4 BF - MY1
2 BF - MY2
Cross sections:
Surveyed in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5
and 7
Entrenchment ratio shall be above
2.2 within the restored reach
Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2
3
Ge
o
m
o
r
p
h
o
l
o
g
y

Establish a riparian
buffer to reduce
erosion and
sediment transport
into the project
stream. Establish
stable banks with
livestakes, erosion
control matting,
and other in
stream structures.
Reduce erosion rates
and channel stability
to reference reach
conditions Improve
bedform diversity
(pool spacing,
percent riffles, etc.)
Increase buffer width
to a minimum 30 feet
As-built stream
profile NA

12/12 with
BHR<1.2 -
MY1
12/12 with
BHR<1.2 -
MY2

Cross sections:
Surveyed in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5
and 7

Entrenchment ratio shall be no
less than 2.2 within restored the
reach
Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2
Visual
monitoring:
Performed at
least
semiannually
Identify and document significant
stream problem areas; i.e.
erosion, degradation,
aggradation, etc.
Vegetation
plots: Surveyed
in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5
and 7
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (6 ft tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (8 ft tall)
4
Ph
y
s
i
c
o
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l

Exclude livestock
from riparian areas
with exclusion
fence or
conservation
easement, and
plant a riparian
buffer
Unmeasurable
Objective/Expected
Benefit
Establish native
hardwood riparian
buffer and exclude
livestock.
To achieve
appropriate levels for
water temperature,
dissolved
oxygen
concentration, and
other important
nutrients including
but not limited to
nitrogen and
Phosphorus through
buffer planting
Vegetation
plots: Surveyed
in
Years 1, 2, 3, 5
and 7
(indirect
measurement)
MY 1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY 5: 260 trees/acre (6 ft tall)
MY 7: 210 trees/acre (8 ft tall)

15/16 
passed ‐ 
MY1 
16/16 
passed ‐ 
MY2 

Visual
assessment of
established
fencing and
conservation
signage:
Performed at
least
semiannually
(indirect
measurement)
Inspect fencing and signage.
Identify and document any
damaged or missing fencing
and/or signs

Monkey Wall Project 5 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100069 January 2024
1.4 Project Components

The Project area is comprised of a contiguous 25.28-acre easement involving two unnamed
tributaries (G1 and G2) totaling 3,384 existing linear feet (LF), which drain into Big Rock Creek, a
tributary of the French Broad River. There are also three existing wetlands within the easement
area: Wetland A, Wetland B, and Wetland C (WA, WB, and WC, respectively); no wetland mitigation
work was completed at the Monkey Wall site.

The Project presents 3,227 LF of stream restoration, 120 LF of stream enhancement, and 278 LF of
stream preservation, generating 4,115.930 Cold SMUs. To account for areas of more or less than
minimum 30-foot buffer widths, credits were adjusted using the USACE Wilmington District
Stream Buffer Credit Calculator. The stream mitigation components are summarized below.
Mitigation credits are based on the Mitigation Plan Addendum.

Stream Mitigation
Reach Treatment Linear Feet Ratio Cold SMU
G1-A Preservation 278 10 27.800
G1-B Enhancement II 120 5 24.000
G1-C Restoration 1,517 1 1,517.000
G2 Restoration 1,710 1 1,710.000
Total - 3,625 - 3,278.800
Non-standard Buffer Width Adjustment 837.130*
Total Adjusted SMUs 4,115.930
* Credit adjustment for Non-standard Buffer Width calculation using the Wilmington District Stream
Buffer Credit Calculator issued by the USACE in January 2018.

1.5 Stream Design/Approach

The stream component of the Project included a combination of priority I and priority II
restoration, enhancement II, and preservation. Stream restoration incorporated the design of a
single-thread, high gradient, cascade and step-pool channel system, with parameters based on
cascade and step-pool morphology and reference conditions along the representative reaches
within the Monkey Wall site. A combination of analog, empirical, and analytical design techniques
were used to determine the design discharge and to verify design stability.

Reaches G1 and G2 were designed specific to cascade and step-pool systems for treatment
mitigation goals for the site and include a series of cascades and pools connected by riffles and/or
boulder and log steps that restore floodplain connectivity to the site. The riffles, steps, and pools
provide grade control, energy dissipation and bedform diversity to restore high gradient systems.

The following stream treatment was performed on the Project reaches:

Monkey Wall Project 6 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100069 January 2024
Reach G1-A
A Preservation approach was used for this reach, due to its high quality, wide riparian buffers, and
terrain. Preservation activities included:
• Minimal buffer planting on the right bank, to increase riparian buffer beyond 75
feet;
• Livestock exclusion; and
• Establishing a conservation easement to be protected in perpetuity.

Reach G1-B
An Enhancement II approach was used for the reach to address eroding banks and channel
entrenchment. Enhancement activities included:
• Livestock exclusion; and
• Riparian buffer planting to 150-feet.

Reach G1-C
A combination of Priority I and Priority II restoration was used for this reach to address eroding
banks, channel incision, bed degradation and floodplain connectivity.
Restoration activities included:
• Constructing a new single thread channel and floodplain benches in the existing
floodplain;
• Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control with drops no greater
than 1.25 feet;
• Establishing a cascade, step-pool or riffle-pool sequence throughout the reach;
• Filling the existing channel;
• Creating floodplain to reduce shear stresses at higher flows;
• Livestock exclusion; and
• Riparian buffer planting to a minimum of 30-feet at the downstream end and out
to 150-feet everywhere else
Reach G2
A combination of Priority I and Priority II restoration was used for this reach to address eroding
banks, channel incision, bed degradation, and floodplain connectivity.
Restoration activities included:
• Removing the culvert and associated road at the upstream portion of the reach
and tying the channel into a seep located above the culvert;
• Removing the rock wall, and daylighting the channel, present on the upper portion
of the reach;
• Constructing a new single thread channel and floodplain benches in the existing
floodplain;
• Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control with drops no greater
than 1.25 feet;
• Establishing a cascade, step-pool or riffle-pool sequence throughout the reach;
• Filling the existing channel;
• Creating floodplain to reduce shear stresses at higher flows;
• Livestock exclusion; and

Monkey Wall Project 7 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100069 January 2024
• Riparian buffer planting to 150-feet on both sides of the stream.

One wetland gauge was installed on the right floodplain of G1-C in WA to monitor wetland
hydrology. This data will be reported in yearly monitoring reports. No wetland credits are to be
generated on WA; thus, wetland success criteria will not need to be met during the monitoring
period.

1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions

Stream construction was completed in October 2021 and planting was completed on March 10,
2022. The Monkey Wall Project was built to design plans and guidelines. The as-built stream
length was exactly the same as proposed in the mitigation plan plus the stream length that was
originally removed under the utility lines; however, the total SMUs for the project increased from
3,874.469 SMUs to 4,115.930 SMUs. This change was due to the relocation of utility lines that were
previously within the conservation easement. French Broad Electric relocated the powerline in
April 2022 and Country Cable (Zito Media) moved the fiberoptic cable line in October 2022. RES
also took down the old utility poles in October 2022. More information regarding this is included
in the Mitigation Plan Addendum. Swales were added to address small erosional areas that formed
as a result of stormwater runoff and seeps encountered during construction. Swale locations are
shown on the record drawings included in the As-Built Monitoring Report.

Minor monitoring device location changes were made during as-built installation; however, the
quantities remained as proposed in the Final Mitigation Plan. Vegetation Plot 10 was moved
downslope due to slippery, steep conditions during installation; vegetation plot 8 was also moved
slightly downslope, due to extremely steep conditions, but is still very much on the slope. The
original installation of two fixed vegetation plots, 6 and 7, interfered with the relocated powerline
easement and were therefore shifted outside of the right-of-way on May 3, 2022. There were no
changes made to the planting plan between Final Mitigation Plan and planting. However, in
response to IRT comments on the Draft Mitigation Plan, understory species were added to the
proposed planting plan.

1.7 Year 2 Monitoring Performance (MY2)

The Monkey Wall Year 2 monitoring activities were performed in July and October 2023. All MY2
data is present below and in the appendices. The Project is on track to meet interim success criteria
and the easement boundary has been walked in it’s entirety and no known encroachments are
present.

Vegetation

Monitoring of 13 fixed vegetation plots and three random vegetation plots was completed on
October 11th, 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 16 out of 16 plots are
exceeding the interim success criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. In MY2, RVP2 was placed in

Monkey Wall Project 8 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100069 January 2024
the vicinity of MY1 random plot one (RVP1) to determine whether needed supplemental planting
was warranted. With the higher detection rate of trees beginning to outgrow herbaceous cover
of RVP2, RES is not currently scheduling supplemental planting in this area, however will continue
to monitor vegetative succession and implement additional plantings when found beneficial.
Planted stem densities ranged from 405 to 688 planted stems per acre with an average of 483
planted stems per acre across all plots. A total of 12 species were documented within the plots.
Volunteer species were not noted during MY2 but are expected to establish in upcoming years.
The average stem height in the plots was 1.9 feet.

Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous
vegetation is becoming well established throughout most of the Project. The two bare areas were
noted during MY1, along the floodplain, and were reseeded with a riparian seed mix during MY2
in February 2023. Invasive species, mainly multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and autumn olive
(Elaeagnus umbellata), were treated, via foliar spray, in February 2023. A few remaining small,
isolated individuals of invasive species were observed throughout the site in October 2023. These
areas will be treated, both manually and with chemical herbicide during 2024.

No boundary encroachments were noted during MY2, and an additional gate was added to an
access road adjacent to the easement to prevent future encroachments. There are several places
along the boundary of the easement that will need further marking and boundary work to make
sure the easements integrity is up to standards.

Stream Geomorphology

Cross section and geomorphology data collection for MY2 was collected in July 2023. Summary
tables and cross section plots are in Appendix D. Overall the MY2 sections and profile relatively
match the proposed design. The current conditions indicate that shear stress and velocities have
been reduced for the restoration reaches. The reaches were designed as a natural mountain
cobble-bed channel and remain classified as a mountain cobble-bed channel post-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. Both
channels exhibited visible flow throughout the Project. Previously, in MY1, monitoring in
December 2022 noted two areas where flow had temporarily disappeared, presumably moving
subterranean, and then reemerging further downstream. One area was near the flow gauge on
G2 and the other was just downstream of cross section 10 on G1-C. There are still no signs of
piping or erosion. We believe this is contributing to the low flow data on G2, this will be
investigated, and solutions taken to ensure accurate data.

Stream Hydrology

Two stage recorders and two flow gauges were installed on March 24, 2022 to document bankfull
events and flow days, respectively. The stage recorder on G2 documented one bankfull event in

Monkey Wall Project 9 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100069 January 2024
MY2; however the stage recorder on G1 did not experience any out of bank events. Reaches G1
and G2, above the confluence, have slopes between 12-14%. Overbank events at these slopes are
far more likely to cause significant erosion due to increased flow velocities. With this in mind,
these reaches were not designed to reach bankfull stage as often as below the confluence (8%
slope). This is particularly true in the early stages of the Project where channel roughness is lower
and floodplain vegetation/stability has not fully developed. RES has installed an additional stage
recorder below the confluence to support evidence of out of bank events, however, does not have
enough data to present yet. The flow gauge on G1-C recorded one event, which lasted 278 days.
The flow gauge on G2 recorded 2 events, lasting three days. We believe this level of flow tracking
is due to the subsurface flow path and will be investigated and remedied. Stream hydrology data
is included in Appendix E. Gauge locations can be found on Figure 2 and photos are in Appendix
B.

Wetland Hydrology

One groundwater well was installed on the right floodplain of G1-C in Wetland A (WA) to monitor
wetland hydrology and will record water table depths at a frequency of twice per day. The goal of
this well is to track the hydrology of this jurisdictional wetland on site post-stream construction.
No wetland credits are to be generated on WA; thus, there is no hydroperiod success criteria for
this groundwater well. In MY2, GW1 recorded a consecutive hydroperiod of 93 percent of the
growing season. Wetland hydrology data is included in Appendix E and GW1’s location can be
found on Figure 2.

2.0 Methods

Stream cross section 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 eight 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 at the
downstream end of each reach. The elevation of the bed and top of bank at each stage recorder
are used to detect bankfull events. The flow gauges also include an automatic pressure transducer
placed in a PVC casing in a pool, at the upstream end of each reach. The elevations of the bed,
water surface, and immediate downstream riffle are used to determine stream flow.

Vegetation success is being monitored at 13 fixed monitoring plots and three 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 100 square meter belt transects with variable dimensions.

Monkey Wall Project 10 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Project #100069 January 2024
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 track the hydrology of the jurisdictional wetland (WA) on site
post-stream construction. This is accomplished with one automatic pressure transducer gauge
(located in the groundwater well) that will record daily groundwater levels. One automatic
pressure transducer is installed above ground for use as a barometric reference. The gauge is
downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiod is 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.

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 (2020). Monkey Wall Project Final Mitigation Plan.

Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR,
Raleigh, NC.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2016). Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update. NC: Interagency Review Team (IRT).

Appendix A
Background Tables

Table 1.  Monkey Wall Project (ID‐100069)  ‐ Mitigation Assets and Components
Project Segment
Existing
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Plan
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Plan
Addendum
Footage or
Acreage
Migitation
Category
Restoration
Level
Priority
Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Mitigation
Plan Credits
Mitigation
Plan
Addendum
Credits
As-Built
Footage or
Acreage
Comments
G1-A 278 278 278 Cold P - 10.00000 27.800 27.800 278
Extend riparian buffer to at least 30-
feet, livestock exclusion, and
conservation easement establishment
G1-B 120 120 120 Cold EII - 5.00000 24.000 24.000 120
Extend riparian buffer to at least 30-
feet, minor bank stability work,
livestock exclusion, and conservation
easement establishment
G1-C 1,521 1,453 1,517 Cold R 1 1.00000 1,453.000 1,517.000 1,517
Full channel restoration, establish a
riparian buffer to at least 30-feet,
livestock exclusion, and conservation
easement establishment
G2 1,595 1,663 1,710 Cold R 1 1.00000 1,663.000 1,710.000 1,710
Full channel restoration, establish a
riparian buffer to at least 30-feet,
livestock exclusion, and conservation
easement establishment
Note: Project credits were recalculated in a Mitigation Plan Addendum submitted with the As-Built Report; stream length differences are due to the relocation of the utility line that intersected the easement
Project Credits
Warm Cool Cold
Restoration 3,227.000
Re-establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II 24.000
Creation
Preservation 27.800
Base Credits 3278.800
NSBW 837.130
TOTALS 4,115.930
Restoration Level
Stream Non-rip
Wetland
Coastal
Marsh
Riparian
Wetland
Goal Objective/Treatment
Likely Functional
Uplift Performance Criteria Measurement
Cumulative Monitoring
Results
Reconnect channels
with floodplains and
riparian wetlands to
allow a natural
flooding regime and
mimic reference reach
conditions.
Reconstruct stream
channels with appropriate
bankfull dimensions and
depth relative to the
existing floodplain.
Remove overburden to
reconnect with adjacent
wetlands.
Dispersion of high
flows on the
floodplain, increase in
biogeochemical
cycling within the
system, and
recharging of riparian
wetlands.
Four bankfull events and
within monitoring period.
At least 30 days of
continuous flow each
year
Two Flow Gauges
at upstream ends
of G1-C and G2.
Two Stage
Recorders at
downstream ends
of G1-C and G2.
4 BF ‐ MY1
2 BF ‐ MY2
47 flow days ‐ MY1
93 flow days ‐ MY2
Improve water
transport from
watershed to the
channel in a non-
erosive manner in a
stable channel
Construct stream channels
that will maintain stable
cross- sections, patterns,
and profiles over time.
Reduction in
sediment inputs from
bank erosion,
reduction of shear
stress, and improved
overall hydraulic
function.
Bank height ratios remain
below 1.2 over the
monitoring period.
Entrenchment ratio shall be
no less than
1.4 within restored B
channels, and 2.2 for
C/E channels. Visual
assessments showing
progression
towards stability.
Cross Sections
surveyed in years
1, 2, 3, 5 and 7
12/12 with BHR<1.2 ‐ MY1
12/12 with BHR<1.2 ‐ MY2
Restore and enhance
native floodplain and
streambank
vegetation.
Plant native tree and
understory species in
riparian zones and plant
appropriate species on
streambanks.
Reduction in
floodplain sediment
inputs from runoff,
increased bank
stability, increased
LWD and organic
material in streams,
increased
Survival rate of 320 stems
per acre at MY3, 260
planted stems per acre at
MY5, and 210 stems per
acre at MY7.
13 Fixed
Vegetation Plots
and three random
Vegetation Plots.
15/16 passed ‐ MY1
16/16 passed ‐ MY2
Table 2: Summary: Goals, Performance, and Results
24.42
36.0559, -82.2067
19.05
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 06010108
G1-C G2
1517 1710
Confined Confined
86.60 55.09
Intermittent Intermittent
C, Tr C, Tr
AA
BB
II II
Zone X Zone X
Wetland C
0.01
Riparian riverine
TsD
Well Drained
Non-hydric
Groundwater
NA
Source of Hydrology Groundwater, surface hydrology Groundwater
Restoration or enhancement method (hydrologic, vegetative etc.) NA NA
Drainage class Well Drained Well Drained
Soil Hydric Status Non-hydric Non-hydric
Wetland Type (non-riparian, riparian riverine or riparian non-riverine) Riparian riverine Riparian riverine
Mapped Soil Series TsC BtF
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetland A Wetland B
Size of Wetland (acres) 0.24 0.02
Evolutionary trend (Simon) II II
FEMA classification Zone X Zone X
Stream Classification (existing) A A
Stream Classification (proposed) B B
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Intermittent Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C, Tr C, Tr
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Confined Confined
Drainage area (Acres) 11.83 14.23
Reach Summary Information
Parameters G1-A G1-B
Length of reach (linear feet) 278 120
Project Drainage Area (Acres)86.6
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1%
CGIA Land Use Classification Mixed hardwoods/Conifers, Managed Herbaceous Cover, Unmanaged Herbaceous Cover-Upland, & Mixed
Upland Hardwoods
River Basin French Broad
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 06010108060010
DWR Sub-basin 04-03-06
Physiographic Province 66d - Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Table 3. Project Background Information
Project Name Monkey Wall Project
County Mitchell
Project Area (acres)
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)
Project Watershed Summary Information
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery
Mitigation Plan NA Jun-20
Final Design – Construction Plans NA Jun-21
Stream Construction NA Oct-21
Site Planting NA Mar-22
As-built (Year 0 Monitoring – baseline) Apr-22 Oct-22
Invasive Treatment NA Jun-22
Year 1 Monitoring Dec-22 Dec-22
Invasive Species Treatment NA Feb-23
Gate Installation NA Feb-23
XS - July 2023
VP - October 2023
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
Designer
Primary project design POC
Construction Contractor
Construction contractor POC
Survey Contractor
Survey contractor POC
Planting Contractor
Planting contractor POC
Monitoring Performers
Monitoring POC
Table 4. Project Timeline and Contacts Table
Monkey Wall Project
Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc. / 1000 Bat Cave Road,
Old Fort, NC 28762
RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Frasier Mullen, PE
Daniel Dixon [phone]
RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Brian Hockett, PLS
Charles Baker
RES / 401 Charles Avenue, Charlotte NC 28205
Shenandoah Habitats
David Coleman
Year 2 Monitoring Dec-23
0 2,0001,000
Feet
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Monkey Wall Mitigation Project
Mitchell County, North Carolina
Legend
Proposed Easement
TLW - 06010108060010
Service Area - HUC 06010108
Federal Land
Pisgah National Forest
©Date: 2/27/2020
Drawn by: EJU
Checked by: MDE
Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

R
:
\
R
e
s
g
i
s
\
d
r
o
p
b
o
x
g
i
s
\
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
N
C
\
M
o
n
k
e
y

W
a
l
l
\
M
X
D
\
4
_
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

P
l
a
n
\
F
i
g
u
r
e

1

-

V
i
c
i
n
i
t
y

M
a
p

-

M
o
n
k
e
y

W
a
l
l
_
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
.
m
x
d
1 inch = 2,000 feet
Monkey Wall Project
36.0569, -82.2062

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

!?
!>!>
!.
!.
!>
X
WB
WC
WA
1
0
8
3
12
7
6 5
4
9
2
1
G1-B
G1-A
G 1 -C
G 2
8
2
4
5
13
7
3
11 10
912
6
1
23
1
©
0 15075
Feet
Date: 12/18/2023 Drawn by: DGD
Checked by: RTM
Document Path: R:\Resgis\Projects\NC\100918_Monkey_Wall\MXD\7_Monitoring\MY1\Figure 2 - CCPV - Monkey Wall - MY2.mxd
LegendConservationEasementExistingInstalled_Gate_...Surveyed Top ofBankStreamRestoration (1:1)Enhancement II(5:1)Preservation (10:1)TypeFixed VegetationPlot (>320Stems/Acre)RandomVegetation Plot(>320 Stems/Acre)CrossRelocated UtilityLinetype
!.Flow Gauge
!?Groundwater
!>StageX
Figure 2 - Current ConditionsPlan View
MY2 2023
Monkey Wall Project
Mitchell County, North Carolina
1 in = 200 feet
Installed Stage RecorderDownstream of the Confluence in MY2
Installed Gate/Fencing at Entranceto Prevent Trespassing
Table 5. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Assessment Date: 10/11/2023
Reach G1-C
Assessed Stream Length 1517
Assessed Bank Length 3034
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. 95 95 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring
guidance document)
NA NA NA

Totals
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Table 5. Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Assessment Date: 10/11/2023
Reach G2
Assessed Stream Length 1710
Assessed Bank Length 3420
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. 106 106 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring
guidance document)
NA NA NA

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
Assessment Date: 10/11/2023
Planted Acreage1 19.85
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 0.00 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 24.28
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%
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
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
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.
Monkey Wall MY2 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos – October 2023

Vegetation Plot 1

Vegetation Plot 2

Vegetation Plot 3

Vegetation Plot 4

Vegetation Plot 5

Vegetation Plot 6

Vegetation Plot 7

Vegetation Plot 8

Vegetation Plot 9

Vegetation Plot 10

Vegetation Plot 11

Vegetation Plot 12

Vegetation Plot 13

Random Vegetation Plot 1

Random Vegetation Plot 2

Random Vegetation Plot 3

Monkey Wall Monitoring Device Photos – October 2023

Flow Gauge G1-C

Flow Gauge G2

Stage Recorder G1-C
Stage Recorder G2

Groundwater Well 1

Culvert Looking Downstream

Stage Recorder G1C (Below Confluence)

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 Mitigation Plan % As-Built % Total Stems Planted
River Birch Betula nigra 15 15 2,300
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 15 15 2,300
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 15 15 2,300
Shagbark Hickory Carya ovata 10 10 1,500
White Oak Quercus alba 10 10 1,500
Chestnut Oak Quercus montana 10 10 1,500
Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra 55800
Red Mulberry Morus rubra 55800
Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis 55800
Flowering Dogwood Cornus florida 55800
Tag Alder Alnus serrulata 55800
15,400
19.85
776
Total
Planted Area
As-built Planted Stems/Acre
  Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 9. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species

Appendix D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

Parameter Gauge
2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)--- --- ---6.0 6.9 6.9 7.8 1.3 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 9.9 --- 8.4 8.8 8.8 9.3 0.5 3
Floodprone Width (ft)12.0 13.6 13.6 15.2 2.3 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 35.0 --- 43.2 46.1 44.8 50.4 3.8 3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)--- --- ---1.3 1.5 1.5 1.7 0.3 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.7 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.3 1.5 1.5 1.7 0.3 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.1 --- 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.1 3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)--- --- ---4.0 6.1 6.1 8.1 2.9 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6.5 --- 5.1 6.0 6.3 6.5 0.8 3
Width/Depth Ratio 7.6 8.2 8.2 8.7 0.8 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 15.0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Entrenchment Ratio 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.3 0.6 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3.5 --- 5.3 5.7 5.8 5.9 0.3 3
1Bank Height Ratio 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.6 0.4 2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.0 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3
Riffle Length (ft)------ ---
------ ---
--- --- --- --- ------5 --- 12 5 --- --- 12 --- ---
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)------ --------- ------ --- --- --- --------- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Pool Length (ft)------ --------- ------ --- --- --- ------8 --- 16 8 --- --- 16 --- ---
Pool Max depth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --------- --------- ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Pool Spacing (ft)------ --------- --------- --------- ---10 --- 21 10 --- --- 21 --- ---
Channel Beltwidth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ --------- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Radius of Curvature (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ --------- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ ---
------ --- --- --- --- --- ---
Meander Wavelength (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- ------ --------- --- --------- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ --------- --- --------- --- --- --- --- --- ---
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
Profile
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Monkey Wall Mitigation Site - Reach G1-C
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Pattern
Transport parameters
------ ---
------ ---
------ ---
Additional Reach Parameters
A/B3 moving to G4 --- E4a, C4b E4a, C4b
--- --- --- ---
--- --- --- ---
1996 --- 1529 1529
1908 --- 1525 1525
--- --- --- ---
--- --- --- ---
------ ------
0.14 --- 0.12 0.12
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
Parameter Gauge
2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)--- --- ---5.4 6.6 6.6 7.8 ---2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 9.4 --- 8.3 8.8 9.0 9.1 0.4 3
Floodprone Width (ft)9.9 11.0 11.0 12.0 ---2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 45.0 --- 40.9 44.4 43.2 49.1 4.2 3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)--- --- ---0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 ---2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.7 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.4 1.6 1.6 1.7 ---2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.1 --- 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 0.1 3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)--- --- ---3.7 5.9 5.9 8.1 ---2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 6.5 --- 5.6 6.2 5.8 7.1 0.8 3
Width/Depth Ratio 7.7 7.7 7.7 0.1 ---2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 13.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Entrenchment Ratio 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.3 ---2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.1 --- 5.6 5.8 5.6 6.1 0.3 3
1Bank Height Ratio 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.7 ---2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.0 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3
Riffle Length (ft)------ ---
------ ---
--- --- --- --- ------5 --- 14 5 --- ---
14 --- ---
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)------ --------- ------ --- --- --- --------- --- --- ------ --------- ---
Pool Length (ft)------ --------- ------ --- --- --- ------8 --- 14 8 --- ---14 --- ---
Pool Max depth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --------- --------- ------ --- --- ------ --------- ---
Pool Spacing (ft)------ --------- --------- --------- ---9 --- 21 9 --- ---21 --- ---
Channel Beltwidth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ --------- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Radius of Curvature (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ --------- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ ---
------ --- --- --- --- --- ---
Meander Wavelength (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- ------ --------- --- --------- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- ------ --------- --- --------- --- --- --- --- --- ---
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
Profile
Pattern
Transport parameters
Additional Reach Parameters
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Monkey Wall Mitigation Site - Reach G2
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline
G4 --- E4a E4a
--- --- --- ---
------ ---
1890 --- 1710 1710
1800 --- 1702 1702
---
--- --- --- ---
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
0.14 ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.14 0.14
--- ---------
--- --- ---
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 2635.1 2635.1 2635.1 2634.0 2633.9 2633.9 2548.3 2548.4 2548.4 2547.7 2547.6 2547.7 2519.0 2518.9 2519.0
Bankfull Width (ft)1 9.1 9.5 9.3 - - - - - - 8.3 8.3 8.4 - - -
Floodprone Width (ft)1 49.1 44.8 46.2 - - - - - - 40.9 40.1 39.8 - - -
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.1 1.1 0.9 1.7 1.6 1.6
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2635.1 2635.1 2635.2 2634.0 2633.7 2633.8 2548.3 2548.3 2548.2 2547.7 2547.7 2547.6 2519.0 2518.9 2519.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 7.1 7.9 7.9 5.6 4.5 4.7 8.6 8.6 7.4 5.6 5.9 5.0 6.7 6.8 6.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 5.6 4.7 5.0 - - - - - - 6.1 4.9 4.7 - - -
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.1 1.1 - - - - - - 1.0 1.0 0.9 - - -
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 2518.5 2518.5 2518.5 2694.3 2694.2 2694.4 2691.0 2690.9 2691.1 2614.6 2614.5 2614.5 2612.4 2612.3 2612.3
Bankfull Width (ft)1 9.0 8.5 8.6 - - - 8.4 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.9 9.2 - - -
Floodprone Width (ft)1 >43.2 >42.8 >43.4 - - - >44.8 >43.7 >46 >50.4 >50.4 >50.4 - - -
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.9 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.7 1.4 1.3
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2518.5 2518.4 2518.4 2694.3 2694.2 2694.2 2691.0 2690.9 2691.0 2614.6 2614.4 2614.6 2612.4 2612.3 2612.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.8 5.5 5.2 9.1 8.6 6.7 5.1 5.3 4.0 6.5 5.7 7.1 7.9 7.5 5.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 >5.6 >5 >5 - - - >5.9 >4.9 >5.2 >5.8 >5.7 >5.5 - - -
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 0.9 - - - 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1 - - -
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 2539.2 2539.2 2539.2 2537.7 2537.7 2537.7
Bankfull Width (ft)1 9.3 9.2 9.0 - - -
Floodprone Width (ft)1 43.2 43.1 42.8 - - -
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.5 1.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2539.2 2539.2 2539.2 2537.7 2537.8 2537.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 6.3 5.9 5.8 7.3 8.3 7.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 5.3 4.7 4.7 - - -
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 0.9 - - -
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 11 (Riffle) Cross Section 12 (Pool)
Cross Section 6 (Riffle) Cross Section 7 (Pool) Cross Section 8 (Riffle) Cross Section 9 (Riffle) Cross Section 10 (Pool)
Appendix D. Table 11 - Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number: Monkey Wall #100069
Cross Section 1 (Riffle) Cross Section 2 (Pool) Cross Section 3 (Pool) Cross Section 4 (Riffle) Cross Section 5 (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
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
036912151821242730333639424548
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Monkey Wall -Reach G2 - Cross Section 1 -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 2635.1 2635.1 2635.1
Bankfull Width (ft)1 9.1 9.5 9.3
Floodprone Width (ft)1 49.1 44.8 46.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.3 1.3 1.4
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2635.1 2635.1 2635.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 7.1 7.9 7.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 5.6 4.7 5.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.1 1.1
Cross Section 1 (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
2632
2633
2634
2635
2636
2637
2638
036912151821242730333639424548
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Monkey Wall -Reach G2 - Cross Section 2 -Pool - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023 Approx. Bankfull Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical
Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 2634.0 2633.9 2633.9
Bankfull Width (ft)1 ---
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.4 1.2 1.2
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2634.0 2633.7 2633.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.6 4.5 4.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ---
Cross Section 2 (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
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
036912151821242730333639424548
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Monkey Wall -Reach G2 - Cross Section 3 -Pool - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023 Approx. Bankfull Low Bank Elevation
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 2548.3 2548.4 2548.4
Bankfull Width (ft)1 ---
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.6 1.7 1.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2548.3 2548.3 2548.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 8.6 8.6 7.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ---
Cross Section 3 (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
2546
2547
2548
2549
2550
2551
2552
0 3 6 9 12151821242730333639424548
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Monkey Wall -Reach G2 - Cross Section 4 -Riffle - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023
Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 2547.7 2547.6 2547.7
Bankfull Width (ft)1 8.3 8.3 8.4
Floodprone Width (ft)1 40.9 40.1 39.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.1 1.1 0.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2547.7 2547.7 2547.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.6 5.9 5.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 6.1 4.9 4.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 0.9
Cross Section 4 (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
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
2523
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)
Monkey Wall -Reach G2 - Cross Section 5 -Pool - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023 Approx. Bankfull Low Bank Elevation
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 2519.0 2518.9 2519.0
Bankfull Width (ft)1 ---
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.7 1.6 1.6
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2519.0 2518.9 2519.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 6.7 6.8 6.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ---
Cross Section 5 (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
2517
2518
2519
2520
2521
2522
036912151821242730333639424548
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Monkey Wall -Reach G2 - Cross Section 6 -Riffle - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023
Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 2518.5 2518.5 2518.5
Bankfull Width (ft)1 9.0 8.5 8.6
Floodprone Width (ft)1 >43.2 >42.8 >43.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.2 1.0 1.0
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2518.5 2518.4 2518.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.8 5.5 5.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 >5.6 >5 >5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 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
2692
2693
2694
2695
2696
2697
2698
0 3 6 9 12151821242730333639424548
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Monkey Wall -Reach G1-C - Cross Section 7 -Pool - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023 Approx. Bankfull Low Bank Elevation
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 2694.3 2694.2 2694.4
Bankfull Width (ft)1 ---
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.9 1.5 1.3
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2694.3 2694.2 2694.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 9.1 8.6 6.7
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
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
036912151821242730333639424548
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Monkey Wall -Reach G1-C - Cross Section 8 -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 2691.0 2690.9 2691.1
Bankfull Width (ft)1 8.4 8.9 8.9
Floodprone Width (ft)1 >44.8 >43.7 >46
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.0 0.9 0.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2691.0 2690.9 2691.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.1 5.3 4.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 >5.9 >4.9 >5.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 0.9
Cross Section 8 (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
2613
2614
2615
2616
2617
2618
2619
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)
Monkey Wall -Reach G1-C - Cross Section 9 -Riffle - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023
Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0MY1MY2MY3MY5MY7MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 2519.0 2518.9 2519.0
Bankfull Width (ft)1 ---
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.7 1.6 1.6
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2519.0 2518.9 2519.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 6.7 6.8 6.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ---
Cross Section 5 (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
2610
2611
2612
2613
2614
2615
2616
036912151821242730333639424548
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Monkey Wall -Reach G1-C - Cross Section 10 -Pool - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023 Approx. Bankfull Low Bank Elevation
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 2518.5 2518.5 2518.5
Bankfull Width (ft)1 9.0 8.5 8.6
Floodprone Width (ft)1 >43.2 >42.8 >43.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.2 1.0 1.0
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2518.5 2518.4 2518.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.8 5.5 5.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 >5.6 >5 >5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 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
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
2542
2543
0 3 6 9 12151821242730333639424548
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Monkey Wall -Reach G1-C - Cross Section 11 -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 2694.3 2694.2 2694.4
Bankfull Width (ft)1 ---
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.9 1.5 1.3
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2694.3 2694.2 2694.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 9.1 8.6 6.7
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
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
2540
2541
036912151821242730333639424548
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Monkey Wall -Reach G1-C - Cross Section 12 -Pool - Restoration
MY0 2022 MY1 2022 MY2 2023 Approx. Bankfull Low Bank Elevation
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 2691.0 2690.9 2691.1
Bankfull Width (ft)1 8.4 8.9 8.9
Floodprone Width (ft)1 >44.8 >43.7 >46
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.0 0.9 0.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2691.0 2690.9 2691.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.1 5.3 4.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 >5.9 >4.9 >5.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 0.9
Cross Section 8 (Riffle)
Appendix E
Hydrology Data
Table 12. 2023 Rainfall Summary

Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events

30 Percent 70 Percent
January 5.97 3.44 7.26 4.65
February 4.86 3.36 5.79 3.94
March 5.79 4.47 6.71 4.41
April 5.43 3.86 6.43 6.43
May 5.48 3.39 6.63 5.32
June 5.83 4.01 6.95 8.27
July 5.29 3.39 6.37 3.51
August 5.43 3.01 6.62 7.60
September 5.55 2.67 6.78 2.82
October 3.99 2.28 4.81 1.14
November 4.21 2.66 5.09 1.49
December 4.33 3.31 5.02 -
Total Annual **5.18 3.32 6.21 4.51
Above Normal
Limits
Below Normal
Limits
Month Average Normal Limits Project Location
Precipitation*
*The Jessen Station is approximately 9.5 miles west of the Monkey Wall Site
**Total Annual represents the average total precipitation, annually, as calculated by the 30-year period.
MY1 2022 0 NA NA
MY2 2023 0 NA NA
MY1 2022 0 NA NA
MY2 2023 1 0.03 7/10/2023
MY1 2022 151 153 2
MY2 2023 278 278 1
MY1 2022 258 258 1
MY2 2023 3 4 2
Flow Gauge G2
Year Number of Bankfull Events Maximum Bankfull Height (ft)Date of Maximum Bankfull Event
Stage Recorder G1-C
Stage Recorder G2
Year Consecutive Flow Days Cummlative Flow Days Number of Flow Events
Flow Gauge G1-C
Table 14.

Table 15.

Days Hydroperiod (%)Days Hydroperiod (%)
GW1 185 93%185 93%1
2023 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 8-Apr through 25-Oct, 200 days)
Well ID Consecutive Cumulative Occurrences
Year 1 (2022)Year 2 (2023) Year 3 (2024)Year 4 (2025)Year 5 (2026)Year 6 (2027)Year 7 (2028)
GW1 WA 100 93
Well ID Wetland ID Hydroperiod (%)
Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results Monkey Wall
0.000
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
10.000
-24
-22
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
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
MY2 Monkey Wall GW1
Daily Precip (in)GW196 Consecutive Days of Hydrology
07/11/23‐10/10/23
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
St
a
g
e

(
f
t
)
Date
2023 Monkey Wall G1 Stage Recorder Graph
Daily Precip (in.)SR G1-C Top of Bank
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
St
a
g
e

(
f
t
)
Date
2023 Monkey Wall G2 Stage Recorder Graph
Daily Precip (in)
Max Event ‐0.03 ft. above TOB
7/10/2023
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
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
St
a
g
e

(
f
t
)
Date
2023 Monkey Wall G1 Flow Gauge Graph
Daily Precip (in)FG G1-C Downstream Riffle Elevation
Days of Consecutive Flow
1/4/2023 ‐10/11/2023
278 Consecutive Days Consecutive Flow
01/04/2023 ‐10/11/2023
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
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
St
a
g
e

(
f
t
)
Date
2023 Monkey Wall G2 Flow Gauge Graph
Daily Precip (in)FG G2 Downstream Riffle Elevation03 Consecutive Days of Hydrology
08/03/2023‐08/06/2023
Days of 
Consecutive 
Flow
08/03/2023 ‐
08/06/2023