20171158 Ver 1_Warren Wilson College_100019_MY4_2023_20240219

FINAL
MY4 (2023) MONITORING REPORT
WARREN WILSON COLLEGE STREAM MITIGATION SITE
Buncombe County, North Carolina
French Broad River Basin
Cataloging Unit 06010105
NCDMS Project ID No. 100019
Full Delivery Contract No. 7188
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01557
NCDWR No. 20171158
RFP No. 16-006991 (Issued: 9/16/16)
Data Collection: January - October 2023
Submission: January 2024
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
Mitigation Services
ENVIRONMENTAL OUAEITY

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
Response to DMS Comment — MY4 (2023)
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site
French Broad River Basin — CU# 06010105— Buncombe County
DMS Project ID No. 100019
Contract # 7188
Comments Received (Black Text) & Responses (Blue Text)
General:
1. General: In the report text, please confirm that RS conducted a full project site boundary inspection at the end
of the MY4 (2023) growing season. Please report the results of the boundary inspection and confirm that no
current easement encroachments were observed. Please also report the integrity of the boundary marking and
confirm that it currently meets the required DMS specifications.
Response: This information has been added to the Monitoring Summary under General Notes.
2. RS submitted the IRT 6/23/23 site visit notes to the IRT on 6/29/23. DMS does not have any record of an IRT
response. Please confirm that the IRT did not respond directly to RS. If received, please include any additional
documentation along with the IRT site visit notes in Appendix H.
Response: No direct response was received.
3. Monitoring Summary —General Notes: The IRT site visit was conducted on June 23, 2023. Please update the 3rd
bullet accordingly.
Response: This date has been updated.
4. Site Permitting/Monitoring Activity and Reporting History Table & Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History:
The IRT approved the project mitigation plan on 12/21/2018. Please update the mitigation plan completion date
accordingly. Please also consider including the June 23, 2023, IRT site visit in the tables for regulatory reference.
Response: The date of the project mitigation plan approval has been updated and the IRT site visit has been
added to both tables.
5. Monitoring Requirements Summary Table: The IRT approved mitigation plan notes 5 vegetation plots randomly
selected each year along with the 25 permanent vegetation plots. The MY4 (2023) table indicates "Number of
randomly selected plots to be determined each year, as needed." DMS recommends updating the Table, so it
matches the IRT approved mitigation plan.
Response: The monitoring requirements summary table has been updated.
6. Table 7 Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation: Please update the table name to confirm that the table represents
the initial project planting effort (MYO).
Response: The title of Table 7 has been updated to "MYO Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation".
7. Table 86 Herbaceous Vegetation Plots & CCPV Maps: Please include the species common names in the table
and define the Herbaceous Vegetation Plot "Success Criteria" in the revised report text and as a table footnote.
Only three (3) herbaceous plots are shown on Figure 2A and they are not labeled. The additional two (2) plots
should be added (with labels) to figure 2E. Please review and update the report and figures accordingly.
Response: Common names for species have been added to Table 8B. Success criteria for herbaceous plots has
been added to the vegetation summary and as a footnote to Table 8B. Herbaceous plots have been labeled, and
plots 1 and 2 have been added to Figure 2E.
Appendix D MY3 Stream Geomorphology Data: Please include the MY3 (2022) cross section graphs in the
Appendix for reference.
Response: Year 3 (2022) cross section graphs have been added to Appendix D.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

9. Appendix E Hydrology Data: Please include the date and monitoring year for all of the bankfull photos provided
in the Appendix.
Response: The date and monitoring year each photo was taken has been added to each photo caption in
Appendix E.
Digital Support File Comments:
None
Page 2 of 2

WWC Year 4, 2023 Monitoring Summary
General Notes
• An IRT site visit was conducted on June 23, 2023. Notes are included in Appendix H.
• Beaver activity was observed during Year 3 and 4. Beaver were trapped during the spring and early
summer of 2023 at the outfall of UT8 and UT7. Minimal damage to planted vegetation along the
stream corridors was noted during the IRT credit release visit on June 23, 2023. RS removed the
dams in June and continues to monitor beaver activity.
• All stream gauges were replaced with HOBO U20-001-04 loggers during Year 4.
• The entire boundary was inspected in 2023, with additional signage completed during fall 2023 to
bring the site up to the marking standard required by contract. This included a survey effort of
Easement Area 16 along L208 where minor encroachment was found by the neighboring
homeowner (0.046 acres— shown on CCPV Figure 2D). A swing set was extending about 6' into the
easement. This encroachment included an area of mowing which will be replanted and marked
with horse tape or similar in Q1 2024.
Streams
• Stream measurements were not performed in year 4 (2023), in accordance with the monitoring
schedule.
• A visual assessment indicates that across the Site, all in -stream structures are intact and
functioning as designed. Channel geometry compares favorably with the proposed conditions
outlined in the Detailed Restoration Plan and as constructed. No stream areas of concern were
identified during year 4 (2023) visual monitoring. Tables for year 3 (2022) data and annual
quantitative assessments are included in Appendix D.
• One bankfull event was documented during Year 4, making a total of 6 bankfull events
documented during the monitoring period (Table 15, Appendix E).
• Stream channel formation was evident throughout all site tributaries during year 4 (2023). Channel
formation tables and graphs are in Appendix E.
Wetlands
• All gauges were saturated/inundated for greater than 10 percent of the year 4 (2023) growing
season. Table 17A-B, Appendix E). No wetland mitigation credit is being generated.
Vegetation
• In accordance with the monitoring schedule, vegetation plot monitoring was not performed on the
permanent vegetation plots in year 4 (2023). However, as per IRT request, measurements of 5
herbaceous plots and 5 temporary plots were performed in specifically requested locations of
concern. Locations of plots are depicted on Figures 2A-2E (Appendix B), and results of the
measurements are in Tables 8A-B (Appendix Q.
• Supplemental planting is planned for the 2023-2024 dormant season. See Figures 2A-E (Appendix
B) for supplemental planting locations and table 9 (Appendix C) for supplemental planting species
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Monitoring Summary
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina December 2023

and totals. Completion dates and photography of the supplemental planting effort will be provided
in the Monitoring Year 5 report.
Site Maintenance Report (2023)
Invasive Species Work
Maintenance work
6/29/23 Parrot Feather, Multiflora rose, Privet,
Beaver trapping and dam removal completed in
Chinese Bittersweet
spring/summer 2023.
09/15/2023
Additional boundary marking and easement signage
Chinese privet, Multiflora rose, Japanese knotweed,
installed fall 2023.
Bradford pear
Site Permitting/Monitoring Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
RFP No. 16-006991 Issuance Date
-
September 16, 2016
RFP No. 16-006991 Opening Date
-
February 15, 2017
Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 100014)
-
May 22, 2017
Mitigation Plan
March 2018
December 21, 2018
Construction Plans
-
January 10, 2020
404 Permit
-
May 13, 2019
Site Construction
-
March 4, 2020
Planting
-
March 16, 2020
As -built Baseline Monitoring (MYO)
January -March 2020
AUgUSt 2020
Treatment of Kudzu, Rose, Privet, Honeysuckle, English
Ivy
--
July 27, 2020
Treatment of Kudzu, Princess Tree, Privet, Rose,
Japanese Bittersweet, Honeysuckle
-
October 8, 2020
Annual Monitoring (MY1)
November 2020
January 2021
Treatment of Japanese Bittersweet, Parrot Feather,
Privet, Multiflora Rose, Cattail, Air Potato, Honeysuckle,
Japanese Knotweed, English Ivy
-
May 24-27, 2022 &
September 29 to October 1,
2022
Annual Monitoring (MY2)
October 2021
December 2021
Treatment of Parrot Feather, Multiflora rose, Privet,
Chinese Bittersweet, Cattail, Johnson Grass, Air Potato,
Japanese Knotweed
-
June 27-28, 2022
Treatment of Chinese Bittersweet, Air Potato, Multiflora
rose, Parrot feather, Privet, Cattail
-
September 15, 2022
Annual Monitoring (MY3)
October 2022
February 2023
IRT Site Visit
-
June 23, 2023
Invasive Species Treatment
June 27-28, 2023, &
September 15, 2023
Supplemental Planting
-
Dormant Season 2024
Annual Monitoring (MY4)
October 2023
January 2024
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Executive Summary
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina December 2023

MONITORING REPORT (MY4)
WARREN WILSON COLLEGE STREAM MITIGATION SITE
Buncombe County, North Carolina
French Broad River Basin
Cataloging Unit 06010105
NCDMS Project ID No. 100019
Full Delivery Contract No. 7188
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01557
NCDWR No. 20171158
RFP No. 16-006991 (Issued: 9/16/16)
Data Collection: January - October 2023
Submission: January 2024
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Contact: Worth Creech
919-755-9490 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)
Mitigation Services
ENV IFiONMENTAL OUAL�TY
Prepared by:
And
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact: Grant Lewis
919-215-1693 (phone)

ILr-ImelIce] ►11"ZkV
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Goals & Objectives..............................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Background.........................................................................................................................3
1.3 Project Components and Structure.................................................................................................4
1.4 Success Criteria................................................................................................................................4
2.0 METHODS....................................................................................................................................5
2.1 Monitoring........................................................................................................................................6
2.2 Monitoring Results (MY4) 2023........................................................................................................7
3.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................9
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Background Map and Tables
Figure 1. Project Location
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation
Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figures 2 & 2A-2E. Current Conditions Plan
View
Tables 5A-5G. Visual Stream Morphology
Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Appendix C. Vegetation Data
Table 7. MYO Planted Bare Root Woody
Vegetation
Table 8A. MY4 Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8B. MY4 Herbaceous Vegetation Plot
Data
Table 9. Supplemental Planting Vegetation
Species and Totals
Soil Report for PVMP #25
Herbicide Logs for 2023 Treatments
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019)
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Appendix D. MY3 Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 10A-I. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11A-I. Baseline Stream Data Summary
(Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic
Containment Parameter Distributions)
Tables 12A-I. MY3 Monitoring Data - Dimensional
Morphology Summary (Dimensional
Parameters -Cross -sections)
Tables 13A-I. MY3 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach
Data Summary
MY3 Cross Section Plots
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Tables 14A-C. Channel Evidence
Stream Flow Gauge Graphs
Table 15. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 16A-B. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Appendix F. Preconstruction Wetland Hydrology Data
Figure 3. Preconstruction Gauge Locations
Table 17. Preconstruction Groundwater Gauge Data
Summary
Table 18. Preconstruction vs. Postconstruction
Gauge Analysis
Appendix G. Site Photo Log
Appendix H. 2023 IRT Site Visit Notes
page 1
Restoration Systems, LLC
January 2024

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC (RS) has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site (Site).
1.1 Project Goals & Objectives
Stressors documented in the French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report (NCEEP 2009)
include habitat degradation, poor riparian buffers, nutrient enrichment, channelization, sedimentation,
and toxicity primarily attributed to urban and residential runoff and development.
Within the Site, stressors prior to construction could further be attributed to soil instability, increased
runoff, and water quality impairments in the receiving watersheds. The project is not located in a Regional
or Local Watershed Planning Area; however, the RBRP goals outlined below are addressed by project
activities as follows (Site -specific information follows each RBRP goal in parentheses).
1. Reduce sediment inputs (based on the sediment model, Site construction eliminates
approximately 228 tons per year [tons/year] of sediment that resulted from streambank erosion,
excessive fines from channel straightening, channel incision, lack of cobble substrate in disturbed
reaches, and a narrow or absent riparian buffer)
2. Reduce nutrient inputs (based on the nutrient model, Site construction eliminates 657.4 pounds
per year [Ibs/yr] of nitrogen and 54.5 Ibs/yr of phosphorus due to the installation of marsh
treatment areas, removal of preconstruction land uses and livestock, and elimination of fertilizer
application)
3. Restore riparian buffers (removal of preconstruction land uses and livestock, control of invasive
species, and approximately 19.6 acres of woody riparian buffers were planted adjacent to
streams)
4. Stabilize streambanks (restored stable channels at the historic floodplain elevation, and enhanced
oversized and incised channels by raising the stream invert and using grade control/habitat
structures)
5. Restore and/or protect aquatic habitat (restored aquatic habitat in restoration and enhancement
[Level 1] reaches by installing grade control/habitat structures, coarsening channel bed materials,
removing nutrient inputs, and planting woody riparian buffers to provide shade and organic
matter to streams)
6. Reduce fecal coliform inputs (based on the nutrient model, Site construction eliminates 31.2 x
1011 colonies [col] of fecal coliform per day by removing preconstruction land uses and livestock
and treating agricultural runoff with marsh treatment areas)
7. Implement agricultural best management practices (BMPs) (the easement is fenced to eliminated
livestock from accessing the easement and marsh treatment areas were installed).
Site specific mitigation goals and objectives were developed through the use of North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method (NC SAM) analyses of preconstruction and reference stream systems at the Site (NC
SFAT 2015) (see table below).
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 1
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives
Targeted Functions
Goals
Objectives
Compatibility of Success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow
• Construct new channel at historic
(Floodplain Access)
• Attenuate flood
flow across the
floodplain elevation to restore overbank
flows and enhance existing jurisdictional
• BHR not to exceed 1.2
•Document four overbank
(3) Streamside Area
Attenuation
Site.
• Minimize
downstream
wetlands
• Plant wood riparian buffer
y p
• Remove livestock and cease agricultural
events in separate monitoring
years
•Livestock excluded from the
easement
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian
Buffer
flooding to the
maximum extent
practices within areas protected by the
conservation easement.
• Attain Wetland Hydrology
Success Criteria
possible.
•Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce
• Connect streams
compaction and increase soil surface
.Attain Vegetation Success
(4) Microtopography
to functioning
g
roughness
g
Criteria
wetland systems.
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual
•Conservation Easement
recorded
conservation easement
(3) Stream Stability
• Construct channels with proper pattern,
• Cross-section measurements
and visual assessments
(4) Channel Stability
• Increase stream
dimension, longitudinal profile, and
substrate
indicate stable channels and
structures
(4) Sediment
Transport
stability within
the Site so that
channels are
• Remove livestock and cease agricultural
practices within areas protected by the
conservation easement.
•BHR not to exceed 1.2
• ER of 1.4 or greater
• < 10% change in BHR and ER
(4) Thermoregulation
neither aggrading
• Construct stable channels with gravel
(4) Stream
nor degrading.
substrate
Livestock excluded from the
Geomorphology
Stabilize streambanks
easement
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Attain Vegetation Success
Criteria
(1) WATER QUALITY
(2) Streamside Area
Remove livestock and reduce agricultural
Vegetation
land/inputs
(3) Upland Pollutant
• Remove direct
• Install marsh treatment areas
Filtration
nutrient and
pollutant inputs
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent
• Livestock excluded from the
from the Site and
to Site streams
easement
reduce
• Provide surface roughness and reduce
• Attain Vegetation Success
(2) Indicators of
contributions to
compaction through deep
Criteria
Stressors
downstream
ripping/plowing
waters.
• Restore overbank flooding by
constructing channels at historic
floodplain elevation
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 2
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives (Continued)
(1) HABITAT
(2) In -stream Habitat
Construct stable channels with gravel
(3) Substrate
substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer to provide
organic matter and shade
• Cross-section measurements
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In -Stream Habitat
• Improve
• Construct new channel at historic
floodplain elevation to restore overbank
and visual assessments
indicate stable channels and
(2) Stream -side
Habitat
instream and
flows
structures.
stream side
o Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual
• Attain Vegetation Success
(3) Stream -side
Habitat
habitat.
conservation easement
• Enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent
Criteria
•Conservation Easement
recorded
to Site streams
(3) Thermoregulation
• Remove invasive plant species
• Add large woody debris to Site channels
1.2 Project Background
The Warren Wilson College Stream Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") encompasses a
25.3-acre easement along cold -water, unnamed tributaries (UTs) to the Swannanoa River. Warren Wilson
College occupies approximately 1,200 acres, and the Site is part of an actively managed farm and forest
system on the Warren Wilson College property that includes livestock management areas, pastureland,
agricultural row crops, and a sustainably managed forest. The Site is located approximately 2 miles west
of Swannanoa and 5 miles east of Asheville in Buncombe County, North Carolina (Figure 1, Appendix A).
Prior to construction, the Site consisted of agricultural and managed forest land accessible to livestock.
Site streams were part of an actively managed farm and forest system that included livestock,
pastureland, agricultural row crops, and sustainable forest management. Streams were eroded vertically
and laterally, received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs, and were dredged and straightened and/or
rerouted to the floodplain edge. Preconstruction Site conditions resulted in degraded water quality, a loss
of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient and sediment retention, and unstable channel characteristics (loss of
horizontal flow vectors that maintain pools and an increase in erosive forces to channel bed and banks).
Site restoration activities restored riffle -pool morphology, aided in energy dissipation, increased aquatic
habitat, stabilized channel banks, and greatly reduced sediment loss from channel banks.
Preconstruction Groundwater Gauges:
Preconstruction groundwater gauges were installed along UT-3 upper (Clingman's) upon the request of
IRT members to model pre -construction wetland characteristics. Data was collected for 2018 and the
beginning of 2019 within gauges nested in transects perpendicular to the existing channel. In addition, a
crest gauge along the existing incised reach was installed to measure overbank events.
Results of preconstruction gauge data, included in Table 18 (Appendix F), indicate that gauges near the
incised stream showed reduced hydroperiod as compared to those further from the channel. 2018
exhibited normal rainfall patterns, and one gauge appeared to meet jurisdictional criteria based on
groundwater level being within 12 inches of the surface for 12.5% of the growing season (26 days, based
on the NRCS growing season of April 2 to November 1). 2019 exhibited wetter than average rainfall
patterns, and six gauges appeared to meet the same jurisdictional criteria. In addition, the crest gauge
installed on UT-3 showed no overbank events during 2018 and one during 2019 after a 4.56-inch rainfall.
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 3
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

1.3 Project Components and Structure
Proposed Site restoration activities generated 10,050.933 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) as the result of
the following.
• Restored 9,220 linear feet of perennial stream channel by constructing stable streams in the
historic floodplain location and elevation.
• Enhanced (Level 1) 62 linear feet of stream by installing in -stream structures, providing proper
channel dimension and appropriate floodplain width, reducing shear on eroding banks,
controlling invasive species within the riparian area, and planting with native riparian vegetation.
• Enhanced (Level II) 1,974 linear feet of stream channel by removing current land use practices,
controlling invasive species within the riparian area, and planting native vegetation.
Additional activities that occurred at the Site included the following.
• Installation of four marsh treatment areas to treat stormwater runoff before it enters Site
streams.
• Established a minimum 30-foot-wide woody riparian buffer adjacent to Site streams,
• Fenced the conservation easement boundaries in areas used for livestock management.
• Protected the Site in perpetuity with a conservation easement.
During the initial DMS as -built review, it was discovered that several culvert pipes extend into the
recorded conservation easement. Once the encroachments were located and documented via GPS,
easement modifications were initiated to remove any crossing materials from the conservation easement.
Creditable stream removed from the easement were also removed from mitigation assets. A mitigation
plan addendum for the reduction in project credit was submitted to the IRT as part of the MYO/ As -Built
Baseline Monitoring Report review and was approved by the IRT via email on October 5, 2020.
Site design was completed on January 10, 2020. Construction started on September 1, 2019 and ended
within a final walkthrough on March 4, 2020. Site planting was completed on March 16, 2020. Completed
project activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background information are
summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A).
1.4 Success Criteria
Project success criteria were established in the IRT-approved detailed mitigation plan and in accordance
with the October 24, 2016 NC Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update. Monitoring and success criteria relate to project goals and objectives.
From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated
by restoration activities without direct measurement. Other goals and objectives will be considered
successful upon achieving success criteria. The following table summarizes Site success criteria.
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 4
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Success Criteria
Streams
•
All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
•
Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days.
•
Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section.
•
Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be >_ 2.2 for E- and C-type channels at measured riffle cross -sections.
•
BHR and ER at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10%from baseline condition
during any given monitoring period.
•
The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards shall be met through four
separate bankfull events, occurring in separate years, during the monitoring years 1-7.
Wetland Hydrology
•
Groundwater gauge data will be used to observe fluctuations in groundwater hydrology pre- and
postconstruction as the result of overbank events; however, no wetland mitigation credit is being acquired
and there are no wetland hydrology success criteria proposed at this time.
•
Jurisdictional wetland adjacent to UT-3 will demonstrate a 10 to 20% increase in wetland hydrology as
compared to pre -construction hydrology, under similar climactic conditions.
Vegetation
•
Within planted portions of the site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum
of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at
year 7.
•
Trees must average 6 feet in height at year 5, and 8 feet in height at year 7 in each plot.
•
Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved list for the site; natural
recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case -by -case basis.
•
Areas of dense river cane (Arundinaria gigantea; known as canebrakes) are a natural niche habitat within the
Swannanoa River floodplain that contribute native habitat for endangered species. River cane may
outcompete woody seedlings during the initial establishment of vegetation. Within the Swannanoa floodplain
(UT-6, UT-7, and UT-8), the presence of canebrakes may supersede the vegetative success criteria for planted
stems per acre.
2.0 METHODS
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in this plan follow the October 24, 2016 NC
Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports of the data
collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 1 of each
monitoring year data is collected. The monitoring schedule is summarized in the following table.
Monitoring Schedule
Resource
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Streams
X
X
X
X
X
Wetlands
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vegetation
X
X
X
X
X
Visual Assessment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Report Submittal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 5
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

2.1 Monitoring
The monitoring parameters were established in the IRT-approved detailed mitigation plan and are
summarized in the following table.
Monitoring Requirements Summary
Stream Parameters
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected/Reported
Stream Profile
Full longitudinal
As -built (unless
All restored stream channels
Graphic and tabular data.
survey
otherwise required)
Stream
Cross -sections
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Total of 50 cross -sections on
Graphic and tabular data.
Dimension
restored channels
Areas of concern to be
depicted on a plan view
Visual Assessments
Yearly
All restored stream channels
figure with a written
assessment and
Channel
photograph of the area
Stability
included in the report.
Additional Cross-
Only if instability is
Yearly
documented during
Graphic and tabular data.
sections
monitoring
Continuous
Continuous recording
Stream
monitoring surface
through monitoring
Total of 3 surface water
Surface water data for
Hydrology
water gauges and
period
gauges (UT3, UT6, & UT8)
each monitoring period
trail cameras
Continuous
Continuous recording
monitoring surface
through monitoring
Total of 3 surface water
Surface water data for
water gauges and
period
gauges (UT3, UT6, & UT8)
each monitoring period
Bankfull Events
trail cameras
Visual/Physical
Continuous through
Visual evidence, photo
Evidence
monitoring period
All restored stream channels
documentation, and/or
rain data.
Wetland Parameters
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected/Reported
Wetland
Groundwater
Preconstruction, As-
10 gauges in wetlands
Rehabilitation
gauges
built Years 1-7
adjacent to UT1', UT3*', &
Graphic and tabular data.
UT6'
Permanent
vegetation plots
0.0247 acre (100
square meters) in
As -built, Years 1, 2, 3,
25 plots spread across the
Species, height, planted
size; CVS-EEP
5, and 7
Site
vs. volunteer, stems/acre
Protocol for
Vegetation
Recording
establishment
Vegetation, Version
and vigor
4.2 (Lee et al. 2008)
Annual random
vegetation plots,
As -built Years 1 2 3
5 plots randomly selected
0.0247 acre (100
5, and 7
each year
Species
square meters) in
size
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 6
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Monitoring Requirements Summary Table Footnotes:
* Seven groundwater monitoring gauges were installed in jurisdictional wetland areas adjacent to UT-3 to
take measurements before and after hydrological modifications were performed at the Site. The
preconstruction condition of the upper reach of UT-3 was an incised Eg-type channel with bank -height -
ratios ranging from 1.8-2.4. The majority of UT-3 upper has been restored (priority 1) with construction of
channels at the historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows to adjacent wetlands. A stream flow
gauge and trail camera were installed on UT-3 upper to verify overbank events. Groundwater gauge data
will be used to observe fluctuations in groundwater hydrology pre- and post -construction as the result of
overbank events; however, no wetland mitigation credit is being acquired and there are no wetland
hydrology success criteria proposed at this time.
Three groundwater gauges were installed, one adjacent to UT-1, one adjacent to UT-3 lower, and one
adjacent to UT-6, in order to show no net loss in function, due to project activities, in existing wetlands
along these tributaries. In order to monitor an area of potential wetland creation associated with stream
channel restoration, two additional gauges (gauges 4 and S) were installed along the right bank of UT-3
upper. This area was previously determined non jurisdictional.
2.2 Monitoring Results (MY4) 2023
The data collected as required in 2023 is summarized below.
Stream Summary
Stream measurements were not performed in year 4 (2023), in accordance with the monitoring schedule.
A visual assessment indicates that across the Site, all in -stream structures are intact and functioning as
designed. Channel geometry compares favorably with the proposed conditions outlined in the Detailed
Restoration Plan and as constructed. No stream areas of concern were identified during year 4 (2023)
monitoring. Tables for year 3 (2022) data and annual quantitative assessments are included in Appendix
C. Stream flow gauge data show strong evidence of channel formation and water flow was observed in all
Site streams during year 4 (2023) (Tables 15A-C, Appendix Q.
Wetland Summary
Overall, based on groundwater gauge data, wetland hydrology has significantly increased from
preconstruction and year 1 (2020) conditions. All gauges were saturated/inundated for greater than 10
percent of the year 4 (2023) growing season, with gauges 3-7 and 9 inundated for approximately 90% of
the growing season (Table 17A-B, Appendix Q.
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud
Monitoring Period Used for
10 Percent of
Year
Burst Documented
Determining Success
Monitoring Period
2020 (Year 1)
March 16, 2020*
March 16-November 1
23 days
(231 days)
2021 (Year 2)
April 6, 2021**
April 6-November 12
22 days
(221 days)
2022 (Year 3)
April 2, 2022A
April 2-November 1
21 days
(214 days)
2023 (Year 4)
April 2, 2023AA
April 2-November 1
21 days
(214 days)
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 7
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year Table Footnotes:
*Based on observed/documented bud burst and data collected from a soil temperature data logger
located on the Site (Figure E-1, Appendix E).
** During year 1, the growing season was determined based the Soil Survey of Buncombe County (April 2
— November 1) and onsite bud burst documentation. However, based on a 2021 discussion with the IRT,
concern arose that the Soil Survey growing season does not accurately represent the current growing
season end date. As a result, the growing season methodology was changed to use the most current
WETS (USDA 2021) data to determine the growing season end date. After year 2 review, the IRT requested
that providers use the growing season methodology from the approved mitigation plan.
^Soil temperature of 44.27°F was documented on March 1 and remained above 41OF thereafter. However,
there was no site visit to document bud burst. Therefore, the Buncombe County soil survey start/end
dates are used for year 3 (2022).
AAUSACE noted that the growing season should remain consistent with the IRT approved mitigation plan
and is based on the NRCS growing season of April 2 to November 1.
Vegetation Summary
In accordance with the monitoring schedule, vegetation plot monitoring was not performed in year 4
(2023). Visual assessment indicates that vegetation on the Site is vigorous. However, as per IRT request,
measurements of 5 herbaceous plots and 5 temporary plots were performed in specifically requested
locations of concern. Herbaceous plots were measured to determine sufficient herbaceous diversity
within areas dominated by herbaceous species. Herbaceous success criteria is defined by the observation
of at least 4 unique herbaceous species within each plot. Locations of plots are depicted on Figure 2A-E
(Appendix B), and results of the measurements are in Tables 8A-B (Appendix C). Supplemental planting is
planned for the 2023-2024 dormant season. See Figures 2A-E (Appendix B) for supplemental planting
locations and Table 9 (Appendix C) for proposed supplemental planting species and totals.
During year 3 (2022), Parrot feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum) was treated throughout the upper reach
of UT-3. During a June 2023 IRT Site visit, it was noted that great progress had been made in controlling
this population. Treatment of the species will continue throughout the reach of UT3 as needed, however,
channel shading, combined with previous treatments, has drastically reduced the extent of Parrot feather
within the channel. General invasives treatment efforts (including Parrotfeather, Ligustrum, Multiflora
Rose, Japanese knotweed, Callery pear, Oriental bittersweet, etc) continue with sitewide treatments
made in June 2023 and September 2023. Treatments will be continued as necessary until project closeout
but have generally been considered quite effective and allowed desirable vegetation to dominate the site.
Soil testing was completed in 2023 for a small area along Lower UT-8 near PVMP#25 where herbaceous
coverage was unique. No soil amendments are warranted at this time, and test results have been included
in Appendix C.
River Cane (Arundinaria gigantea) was a significant herbaceous component in several areas before
restoration. During construction care was taken to promote the plant by minimizing removal and
transplanting when possible. Existing cane impacted by construction has rebounded in multiple locations,
particularly close to the river. The primary area of dense and sizeable canes is located at the lower end of
UT-6 and shown in Figure 2D. Other rebounding locations include lower UT-1, lower UT-5, and an outlying
section of UT-7 near XS-5. Transplanted clumps are located along UT-6, UT-7, and UT-8. These relocated
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 8
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

clumps showed some dieback in the first few years of monitoring but appear to be well established at this
time though not aggressively spreading. Ground and aerial drone photos of the river cane populations can
be seen in the Site photo log (Appendix G).
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. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation.
Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2014. Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Monitoring Guidelines. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), 2009. French Broad River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009 (online). Available at:
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fspublic/PublicFolder/Work%20With/Watershed%2OPlann
ers/French Broad RBRP 15iuly09.pdf [June 1, 2016]. North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM) User Manual. Version 2.1.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina: Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified Tennessee
Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest Hydrology and
Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Publ.167.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [August 2016].
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2009. Soil Survey for Buncombe County North Carolina.
US Department of Agriculture. Available at:
http://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE MANUSCRIPTS/north carolina/buncombeNC2009/Bun
combe NC.pdf [June 7, 2016].
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2021. Natural Resources Conservation Service National
Weather and Climate Center. AgACIS Climate Data. Asheville WETS Station (online). Available:
http://agacis.rcc-acis.org
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) page 9
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Appendix A
Background Map and Tables
Figure 1. Project Location
Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
MV4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Axiom Environmenial, Inc,
f ,r
�,; r• I _ __ � - __ __ � - - -_. _ I v ;r Prepared for:
i WIJ 22-
•'t,--...—.�= C � : ' _ .-, it ]ti `(� �yl(p/ram -- ,.
Cop yr•9,t:© 0 3N t.n
Society, -cubed . `�:- _ �•. �-- -_ -...-, -
- e-• J. ui Project:
yn _ _ ;a�;•cn%_: �. 4� a eta ��
WARREN WILSON
COLLEGE STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
Ar - ¢ cc� ll - J �• •' - r6 f 1 J �''1'y:�- ` —] -- T'�f �: T�I
,� f..e„ Buncombe County, NC
� X �� � �. � ��..', ,rr ii.i � \ _'I o. cr-.ram- ' titir.
'lNg rM l'~` i 1'
' -, 1 —'1 }' ' `_ _ + r 6 t_ • ' - Title:
�'• d q 1. • J(`f I � ij Ip`' ��i, • C •'3 N � \� y • . r-�
+ f✓ l�.c+-�:. /,�r�.. h� ' .. .. •w ; � +f �^ ~�ir� 1 jf. :r, ° l r`/ � i �� BME ]93 • 6�-,
,h;' �- - - SITE LOCATION
Iv.
x � fir;-' ::�',� _ } ''�,�.r=� - � � :'-� .- • f„ _ - . s i ' � ii
- - � ... _•.;.-�-._ � --� ,, r' � _ '4v-•.:o.}. � ' �.:' rti• _� •-�iii �,,a _ _ >=�.n Drawn by:
KRJ
�� • {- - _. - 1 � f .R i �.'. - � ' ham-- r. .�• .t I �� � _ Yu..
h:�; .�� ; .�; � �•�.? � �,. � _ Date:
• - . APR 2020
•.!,i 1 l �fy rr,r '� `� - - _ r , n' ''�1.-:ti �i'"' •_ I - Scale:
1:40000
- .� .. i `� %',,— .- , •�: Project No.:
n --
- r r 20 004
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Oteen and Craggy Pinnacle NC Quads)
Directions to the Site from Raleigh:
FIGURE
Take 1-40 West out of Raleigh and travel 229 miles,
` - y s'' `� F - Take exit 59 towards Swannanoa and turn right onto Patton Cove Road,
After 0.3 miles, turn left onto US-70 West,
A - Travel 1.9 miles, then turn right onto Warren Wilson Road,
t>t' - After 1.4 miles Riceville Road is on the left and South Lane is on the right,
Site parcels can be accessed off Warren Wilson Road, Riceville Road, and South Lane,
x ` ^�
Ctipyigh't.0 2,Q13 Na.tlon'J.
_Geogpraphi Site Latitude, Longitude 35.609817o N, 82.4435400 W (WGS84)
Society, f c}bed''. w.�

Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Warren Wilson College Stream Mitigation Site
Mitigation
Stream
Existing
Restoration
Project
Stationing/
Footage/
Plan
Restoration Level
Mitigation Ratio
Footage/
Calculated
Comment
Segment
Footage/
Credit^
Wetland Type
Acreage
Acreage^
Acreage
UT 1A
0+09-4+92
189
483
Restoration (Priority 1)
1:1
483
483.000
UT 113
1+09-1+22
13
13
Enhancement (Level 11)
2.5:1
12
4.800
584
42 If is outside of the easement and
UT 1C
1+22-7+06
554
Restoration (Priority 1)
1:1
584-42=542*
542.000
20=564*
therefore is non -credit -generating.
UT 3A
0+05-0+50
45
45
Enhancement (Level 11)
2.5:1
50
20.000
52 If is outside of the easement and 5 If
2116-20
2116-52
is located at a foot crossing within the
UT 36
0+50 21+66
1901
Restoration (Priority I/II)
1:1
2059.000
5=2091*
5=2059*
easement; therefore, are non -credit -
generating.
UT 3C
21+66-22+28
62
62
Enhancement (Level 1)
1.5:1
62
41.333
UT 3D
0+00-5+00
428
500
Restoration (Priority 1)
1:1
500
500.000
UT 3E
5+00-8+34
334
334
Enhancement (Level 11)
2.5:1
334
133.600
UT 3F
8+34-9+60
91
126
Restoration (Priority 1)
1:1
126
126.000
721
21 If is outside of the easement and
UT 3G
9+60-16+81
721
Enhancement (Level 11)
2.5:1
721-21=700*
280.000
21=700*
therefore is non -credit -generating.
UT 4A
0+00-2+33
70
233
Restoration (Priority 1)
1:1
187
187.000
242
107 If is outside of the easement and
UT 46
2+33-4+75
242
Enhancement (Level 11)
2.5:1
288-107=181*
72.400
20=222*
therefore is non -credit -generating.
UT 5A
0+00-0+48
48
48
Enhancement (Level 11)
2.5:1
47
18.800
1110-
1117-
38 If is outside of the easement and
UT 56
0+48-11+58
719
Restoration (Priority 1)
1:1
1079.000
31=1079*
38=1079*
therefore is non -credit -generating.
UT 6A
0+08-1+63
155
155
Enhancement (Level 11)
2.5:1
155
62.000
1432
1432
44 If is outside of the easement and
UT 66
2+16 16+48
713
Restoration (Priority I/II)
1:1
1388.000
20=1412*
44=1388*
therefore is non -credit -generating.
UT 6C
16+48-21+43
495
495
Enhancement (Level 11)
2.5:1
495
198.000
1985-36-20-
1940-39-
93 If is outside of the easement and
UT 7A
0+00-19+85
2426
Restoration (Priority 1)
1:1
1847.000
45=1884*
54=1847*
therefore is non -credit -generating.
1047
1047
38 If is outside of the easement and
UT 8A
0+18 10+65
957
Restoration (Priority I/II)
1:1
1009.000
38=1009*
38=1009*
therefore is non -credit -generating.
*Areas located outside of the easement or at a foot path crossing within the easement and therefore are non-credit generating.
^Several credited stream segments were reduced in length during as -built due to a modification to remove all crossing materials from the easement.
MV4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Table 1(continued). Project Credits
Warren Wilson College Stream Mitigation Site
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Rip
Coastal
Restoration Level
Warm
Cool
Cold
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Wetland
Marsh
Restoration
9,220.000
Re-establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
41.333
Enhancement 11
789.600
Creation
Preservation
TOTALS
10,050.933
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Warren Wilson College Stream Mitigation Site
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
RFP No. 16-006991 Issuance Date
-
September 16, 2016
RFP No. 16-006991 Opening Date
-
February 15, 2017
Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 100014)
-
May 22, 2017
Mitigation Plan
March 2018
December 21, 2018
Construction Plans
-
January 10, 2020
404 Permit
-
May 13, 2019
Site Construction
-
March 4, 2020
Planting
-
March 16, 2020
As -built Baseline Monitoring (MYO)
January -March 2020
AUgUSt 2020
Treatment of Kudzu, Rose, Privet, Honeysuckle, English Ivy
-
July 27, 2020
Treatment of Kudzu, Princess Tree, Privet, Rose, Japanese
Bittersweet, Honeysuckle
--
October 8, 2020
Annual Monitoring (MY1)
November 2020
January 2021
Treatment of Japanese Bittersweet, Parrot Feather, Privet,
Multiflora Rose, Cattail, Air Potato, Honeysuckle, Japanese
Knotweed, English Ivy
-
May 24-27, 2022 &
September 29 to
October 1, 2022
Annual Monitoring (MY2)
October 2021
December 2021
Treatment of Parrot Feather, Multiflora rose, Privet, Chinese
Bittersweet, Cattail, Johnson Grass, Air Potato, Japanese Knotweed
--
June 27-28, 2022
Treatment of Chinese Bittersweet, Air Potato, Multiflora rose,
Parrot feather, Privet, Cattail
-
September 15, 2022
Annual Monitoring (MY3)
October 2022
February 2023
IRT Site Visit
-
June 23, 2023
Invasive Species Treatment
June 27-28, 2023, &
September 15, 2023
Supplemental Planting
-
Dormant Season 2024
Annual Monitoring (MY4)
October 2023
January 2024
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Warren Wilson College Stream Mitigation Site
Full Delivery Provider
Monitoring Provider
Restoration Systems
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Raleigh, NC 27603
Worth Creech
Grant Lewis
919-755-9490
919-215-1693
Designer
Anchor QEA of North Carolina, PLLC
231 Haywood Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Sara Stavinoha
828-771-0279
MV4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Warren Wilson Stream Mitigation Site
Project Information
Project Name
Warren Wilson Stream Mitigation Site
Project County
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres)
25.3
Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude)
35.6098179N, 82.4435409W
Planted Area (acres)
19.64
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Blue Ridge
Project River Basin
French Broad
USGS HUC for Project (14-digit)
06010105070030
NCDWR Sub -basin for Project
04-03-02
Project Drainage Area
49.9 to 822.3 acres (0.08 to 1.28 square miles)
of Project Drainage Area that is Impervious
<5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Cultivated, Managed Herbaceous Vegetation, Unmanaged Herbaceous Vegetation, Hardwood
Swamp, Oak/Gum/Cypress
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UT1
UT 3
UT4
UT 5
UT6
UT 7
UT 8
Length of reach (linear feet)
756
3582
312
769
1363
2425
957
Valley Classification & Confinement
Moderately confined to somewhat unconfined (UT-3 & UT-5)
Drainage Area (acres and square miles)
171.3 ac.
(0.27 sq. mi.)
822.3 ac.
(1.28 sq. mi.)
153.9 ac.
(0.24 sq. mi.)
98.3 ac.
(0.15 sq. mi.)
49.9 ac.
(0.08 sq. mi.)
141.0 ac.
(0.22 sq. mi.)
64.4 ac.
(0.10 sq. mi.)
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Intermittent/
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Existing Morphological Description (Rosgen 1996)
Cg4
Eg4
G4
G3
G3
Gb4
Ego
Proposed Stream Classification (Rosgen 1996)
Cb4
Ce4
C4
Ce4
Ce4
Gb4
C4
Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon and Hupp 1986)
II/III (Channelized/Degraded)
FEMA Classification
NA
Zone AE
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Thermal Regime
Cold
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figures 2 & 2A-2E. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5G. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
MV4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

0 150
r rti" M1-\ .
N Vxr-
- W-4
a v. .! ;
All
9-4 1 r
- �Clingman's
300
12
Parrot feather observed along
reach. Spot treatment occurred
throughout the year and will
continue as needed.
1
Axiom Enwron+nenlal, inc,
Prepared for:
Project:
WARREN WILSON
..,OLLEGE STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
Buncombe County, NC
Title:
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
Little Berea - Legend
Conservation Easement Drawn by:
Surrounding Parcels KRJ
+ Stream Restoration Date:
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) NOV 2023
Stream Enhancement (Level 11)
- w Scale:
Stream Generating No Credit 1:2000
of A*�' ® Wetlands
- , = Vegetation Plots Meeting Success Criteria in MY3 Project No.:
w 20-004
Vegetation Plots Not Meeting Success Criteria in MY3
` ® MY4 (2023) 2m x 5m Herbaceous Plots
w � Cross Sections FIGURE
t _ ',`�' -� O Groundwater Gauges Meeting Success Criteria
3 Flow Gauge
Flow Camera ��
` * Photo Point Locations
600 Walking Paths
Feet Supplemental Planting Area - Live Stakes (0.33 ac)

1
BaII
.
15
S
x w 14 13
N �
X�
k
Legend
Conservation Easement
1`
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
Stream Enhancement (Level 11)
Stream Generating No Credit'' _
0 Vegetation Plots Meeting Success Criteria in MY3 _
0 Vegetation Plots Not Meeting Success Criteria in MY3 Ar
Cross Sections
* Photo Point Locations
Walking Paths
0 100 200 400
Feet _
r
Axiom Envirunwnial. Pnc,
f
�• .t } r.
Prepared for:
0
It
JL
Pr t.
Project:
Yi
WARREN WILSON
COLLEGE STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
Buncombe County, NC
Title:
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
Drawn by
KRJ
Date:
NOV 2023
Scale:
1:1200
Project No.:
20-004
FIGURE
2C

Ot
Jar l • � � .. �A � J J Axiom Envimrimenlal, Pnc.
Prepared for:
2 RESTORATION
Project:
Swim Pond `
r
F * WARREN WILSON
.+ y COLLEGE STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
_. t. _ Pig PonJr
d ,.
Buncombe County, NC
Title:
4
Hog Bottom
Legend
06-2023
Q Conservation Easement IRT SITE VISIT
Surrounding Parcels
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) 1
Stream Enhancement (Level 11) `p N
F S
Stream Generating No Credit . �,f F Drawn by:
0 Wetlands `' �� ;i ' '* KRJ
Cross Sections --
_ _ NOV 2023
MY3 (2022) Vegetation Plots Meeting Success Criteria
� Scale:
MY3 (2022) Vegetation Plots Not Meeting Success Criteria r 1:1400
MY4 (2023) Temporary Vegetation Plots Meeting Success Criteria' �� Project No.:
® MY4 (2023) 2m x 5m Herbaceous Plots` t ; 20-004
Groundwater Gauge Meeting Success Criteria
* Photo Point Locations FIGURE
Walking Paths {
Supplemental Planting Area - 3-Gallon (1.21 ac) ', +► _ 4, f Gj
Supplemental Planting Area -Live Stakes (0.33 ac) y � , r
}.
2 E
0 150 300 600 R;
Feet '

Table 5A Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Warren Wilson College UT-1
Assessed Length 756
Assessment Date 2-Oct-23
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
21
21
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
21
21
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
21
21
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
21
21
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
21
21
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
22
22
o
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
22
22
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
22
22
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
22
22
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
22
22
100%

Table 513 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Warren Wilson College UT-3
Assessed Length 3582
Assessment Date 2-Oct-23
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
44
44
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
45
45
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
45
45
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
45
45
100%
L
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
45
45
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
46
46
o
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
46
46
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
46
46
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
46
46
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
46
46
100%

Table 5C Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Warren Wilson College UT-4
Assessed Length 312
Assessment Date 2-Oct-23
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
6
6
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
6
6
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
6
6
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
6
6
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
6
6
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
7
7
o
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
7
7
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
7
7
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
7
7
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
7
7
100%

Table 5D Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Warren Wilson College UT-5
Assessed Length 769
Assessment Date 2-Oct-23
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
27
27
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
27
27
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
27
27
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
27
27
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
27
27
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
27
27
o
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
27
27
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
27
27
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
27
27
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
27
27
100%

Table 5E Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Warren Wilson College UT-6
Assessed Length 1363
Assessment Date 2-Oct-23
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
46
46
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
46
46
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
46
46
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
46
46
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
46
46
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
47
47
o
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
47
47
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
47
47
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
47
47
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
47
47
100%

Table 5F Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Warren Wilson College UT-7
Assessed Length 2425
Assessment Date 2-Oct-23
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
42
42
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
43
43
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
43
43
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
43
43
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
43
43
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
45
45
o
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
45
45
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
45
45
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
45
45
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
45
45
100%

Table 5G Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Warren Wilson College UT-8
Assessed Length 957
Assessment Date 2-Oct-23
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
30
30
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
30
30
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
30
30
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
30
30
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
30
30
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
31
31
o
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
31
31
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
31
31
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
31
31
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
31
31
100%

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Warren Wilson College
Assessment Date 2-Oct-23
Planted Acreage 19.64
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2B. Low Planted Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
None
0.25 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage 25.3
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
None
1000 SF
none
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
One small area of easement encroachment observed along UT8. Area will be planted and marked
none
Green
1
0.05
0.2 %
with horse tape in Q1 2024.
Crosshatch
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 acreac
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
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 spci
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 ov
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 w
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 need
are based on the integration of risk factors by DMS such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japane
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 t
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 w
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
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
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,
legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.

Appendix C
Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8A. Temporary Woody Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8B. Temporary Herbaceous Plot Data
Table 9. MY4 (2023/2024) Proposed Planting List
Soil Report for area near PVMP #25
Herbicide Logs for 2023 Treatments
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Table 7. MYO Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Warren Wilson College Stream Mitigation Site
Species — Scientific Name
Species —Common Name
Wetland Indicator Status
Total*
Acres
19.64
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
OBL
50
Diospyros virginiana
Common persimmon
FAC
500
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip poplar
FACU
900
Betula nigra
River birch
FACW
2800
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
FACW
3800
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
FACW
3900
Quercus alba
White oak
FACU
4200
Quercus nigra
Water oak
FAC
4200
Platanus occidentalis
American Sycamore
FACW
5600
TOTALS
25,950*
**Approximately 5000 live stakes of willow (Salix spp.), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), silky dogwood (Corpus
amomum), and ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius) were planted, but are not included in this table.
Table 8A. MY4 Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Warren Wilson College Restoration Site
Species
Common Name
T-1
T-2
T-3
T-4
T-5
Betula nigra
River birch
1
2
Cornus amomum
Silky dogwood
7
1
1
2
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip poplar
1
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
4
1
6
Quercus alba
White oak
2
5
Total Number of Stems
11
2
11
11
3
Species count
2
2
5
4
2
Stems per acre
445
81
445
445
121
Average Height (ft)
2.34
10.25
5.34
4.31
4.92
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Table 813. MY4 Herbaceous Vegetation Plot Data
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site
Success Criteria
Taxa Identified
Taxa Identified
Plot #
Species Count
Met?°
(Scientific Name)
(Common Name)
Carex sp.
Sedge
Impatiens capensis
Jewelweed
H1*
5
Yes
Polygonum spp.
Knotweed
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
Vernonia noveboracensis
Ironweed
Carexsp.
Sedge
Impatiens capensis
Jewelweed
H2*
5
Yes
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
Scirpus cyperinus
Woolgrass
Verbena spp.
Vervain
Bidens spp.
Spanish Needles
Helianthus spp.
Sunflower
Impatiens capensis
Jewelweed
H3
7
Yes
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
Symphotricium spp.
Aster
Carexsp.
Sedge
Vernonia noveboracensis
Ironweed
Bidens spp.
Spanish needles
Solidago spp.
Goldenrod
H4
5
Yes
Rudbeckia spp.
Coneflower
Juncus spp.
Rush
Vernonia novenoracensis
Ironweed
Impatiens capensis
Jewelweed
Juncus effusus
Soft rush
HS
4
Yes
Polygonum spp.
Knotweed
Symphyotrichum spp
Aster
Average
5.2
Yes
* Plot contained Sambucus conadensis and Cornus amomum
Plot meets success criteria if it contains 4 or more unique herbaceous species.
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Table 9. MY4 (2023/2024) Proposed Planting List
Warren Wilson College Stream Mitigation Site
Vegetation Association
Montane Alluvial
Forest (3 Gallon)
Live -stake Shrub
Planting
Total
Acres
1.21
0.33
1.54
Species —Scientific Name
Wetland
Indicator
#
Planted
% of
Total
#
Planted
% of
Total
# Planted
Northern red oak (Quercus rubra)
FACU
100
25.00%
100
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
FAC
75
18.75%
75
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
FACU
75
18.75%
75
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
FACW
50
12.50%
50
White oak (Quercus Alba)
FACU
50
12.50%
50
Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis)**
FACU
50
12.50%
50
Black Willow (Salix nigra)*
OBL
75
18.75%
75
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)*
OBL
75
18.75%
75
Elderberry (Sambucus spp.)*
FACW
75
18.75%
75
Ninebark (Physocarpus opulfolius)*
FAC
75
18.75%
75
Silky dogwood (Cornus amomum)*
FACW
100
25.00%
100
Total:
400
100%
400
100%
800
*Live stake material
**Possible supply shortage. If unavailable, we will supplement this species with one from the list above or the approved
Mitigation Plan planting list.
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: [phone]
Website: www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/
Report No.
FY24-SL000136
Client: Augustus Lehrman
Advisor:
,u Predictive
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, suite 211
,$
} Soil Report Mehllch-3 Extraction
Raleigh, NC27612
Links to Helpful Information
Sampled County: Buncombe
Client ID: 543891
Advisor ID:
Sampled: 07/05/2023 Received: 07/05/2023 Completed: 07/13/2023
Farm: WWC
Sample ID: sampl
Recommendations: Lime
Nutrients (lb/acre)
More
Crop (tons/acre)
N P2O5
K2O Mg S Mn
Zn
Cu
B
Information
Lime History:
1-Hardwood, E 0.0
0 60
30 0
0
0
0
Note: 11
2- Hardwood, M 0.0
80-120 60
0 0
0
0
0
Note: 11
Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm3; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm3; NO3-N in mg/dm3]:
Soil Class: Mineral
HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca% Mg%
S-1
Mn-I Mn-All Mn-Al2 Zn-I
Zn-AI
Cu-I Na
ESP
SS -I NO3-N
0.13 1.01 9.1 100 0.0 7.5 8 48
86 11
88
1053 141
141
232 0.1
1
Sample ID: samp2
Recommendations: Lime
Nutrients (lb/acre)
More
Crop (tons/acre)
N P2O5
K2O Mg S Mn
Zn
Cu
B
Information
Lime History:
1-Hardwood, E 0.0
0 60
30 0
0
0
0
Note: 11
2- Hardwood, M 0.0
80-120 60
0 0
0
0
0
Note: 11
Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm3; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm3; NO3-N in mg/dm3]:
Soil Class: Mineral
HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH P-1 K-1
Ca% Mg%
S-1
Mn-I Mn-All Mn-AI2 Zn-I
Zn-AI
Cu-I Na
ESP
SS-1 NO3-N
0.18 1.02 9.1 100 0.0 7.4 9 51
84 13
46
800 323
323
389 0.1
1
North Carolina
All!
Ta RCL, Trust Fmui ckwnmisslan
Reprogramming of the laboratory -information -management system that makes this report possible is being funded
through a grant from the North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission.
Thank you for using agronomic services to manage nutrients and safeguard environmental quality.
- Steve Troxler. Commissioner of Agriculture

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone:
[phone]
Website: www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/
Report No.
FY24-SL000136
Augustus Lehrman
Page 2 of 3
Sample ID: samp3
Recommendations:
Lime
Nutrients (lb/acre)
More
Crop
(tons/acre)
N P2O5
K2O
Mg S Mn
Zn
Cu B
Information
Lime History:
1-Hardwood, E
0.0
0 60
30
0
0
0 0
Note: 11
2- Hardwood, M
0.0
80-120 60
0
0
0
0 0
Note: 11
Test Results [units - W/V in g/cm3; CEC and Na in meq/100 cm3; NO3-N in mg/dm):
Soil Class: Mineral
HM% W/V CEC BS% Ac pH
P-1 K-I
Ca% Mg% S-1
Mn-I
Mn-All Mn-Al2 Zn-I
Zn-AI
Cu-I Na ESP
SS -I NO3-N
0.22 0.99 9.0 99 0.1 7.3
7 55
83 13 25
781
172
172
397 0.0

NCDA&CS Agronomic Division Phone: [phone] Website: www.ncagr.gov/agronomi/
Report No. FY24-SL000136
Augustus Lehrman
Page 3 of 3
Understanding the Soil Report: explanation of measurements, abbreviations and units
Recommendations
Report Abbreviations
Lime
Ac
exchangeable acidity
If testing finds that soil pH is too low for the crop(s) indicated, a lime recommendation will be given in units of either
B
boron
ton/acre or Ib/1000 sq ft. For best results, mix the lime into the top 6 to 8 inches of soil several months before planting.
BS%
% CEC occupied by basic cations
For no -till or established plantings where this is not possible, apply no more than 1 to 1.5 ton/acre (50 Ib/1000 sq ft) at on
Ca%
% CEC occupied by calcium
time, even if the report recommends more. You can apply the rest in similar increments every six months until the full rate
CEC
cation exchange capacity
is applied. If MG is recommended and lime is needed, use dolomitric lime.
Cu-I
copper index
ESP
exchangeable sodium percent
Fertilizer
HM%
percent humic matter
Recommendations for field crops or other large areas are listed separately for each nutrient to be added (in units of
K-I
potassium index
lb/acre unless otherwise specified). Recommendations for N (and sometimes for B) are based on research/field studies
K20
potash
for the crop being grown, not on soil test results. K-1 and P-1 values are based on test results and should be > 50. If they
Mg%
% CEC occupied by magnesium
are not, follow the fertilizer recommendations given. If Mg is needed and no lime is recommended, 0-0-22 (11.5% Mg) is
MIN
mineral soil class
an excellent source; 175 to 250 lb per acre alone or in a fertilizer blend will usually satisfy crop needs, SS-1 levels appear
Mn
manganese
only on reports for greenhouse soil or problem samples.
Mn-All
Mn-availability index for crop 1
Mn-Al2
Mn-availability index for crop 2
Mn-I
manganese index
Farmers and other commercial producers should pay special attention to micronutrient levels. If $, pH$, $pH, C or Z
Mn-
mineral -organic soil class
notations appear on the soil report, refer to $Note: Secondary Nutrients and Micronutrients. In general, homeowners do not
N
nitrogen
need to be concerned about micronutrients. Various crop notes also address lime fertilizer needs; visit
Na
sodium
ncagr.gov/agronomi/pubs.htm.
NO3-N
nitrate nitrogen
ORG
organic soil class
Recommendations for small areas, such as home lawns/gardens, are listed in units of Ib/1000 sq ft. If you cannot find
pH
current soil pH
the exact fertilizer grade recommended on the report, visit www.ncagr.gov/apronomi/obpart4.htn7 fsfind information that
P-1
phosphorus index
may help you choose a comparable alternate. For more information, read A Homeowner's Guide to Fertilizer.
P205
phosphate
S-1
sulfur index
Test Results
SS-1
soluble salt index
W/V
weight per volume
The first seven values [soil class, HM%, W/V, CEC, BS%, Ac and pH] describe the soil and its degree of acidity. The
Zn-AI
zinc availability index
Zn-I
zinc index
remaining 16 [P-I, K-I, Ca%, Mg%, Mn-I, Mn-All, Mn-AI2, Zn-I, Zn-AI, Cu-I, S-I, SS -I, Na, ESP, SS -I, NO3-N (not routinel
available)] indicate levels of plant nutrients or other fertility measurement. Visit www.ncapr.gov/apronomi/uyrst.htm

DAVEY*
Resource Group
Herbicide Application Record
Client, Project Name:
Restoration Systems Warren Wilson
Site Address:
701 Warren Wilson Rd.
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Category:
Riparian Habitat
Other:
PRODUCT APPLIED and SITE CONDITIONS
Date
Occurrence Site
Name
Species controlled
Mix Code
Quantity of
Mix Applied
(GAL)
End Use
Concentrate
Air Temp
Wind Speed
Wind
Direct
Start Time
End Time
Equip.
Code
MoA Code
Acres Treated &
Comments
6/29/2023
Warren Wilson
mese rive ,
Multiflora Rose,
Parrots Feather
1
24
6%
750F
3 MPH
E
8:00 AM
6:30 PM
B
i
—3 AC
6/29/2023
Warren Wilson
Chinese Privet,
Multiflora Rose,
Parrots Feather
2
24
4%
750F
3 MPH
E
8:00 AM
6:30 PM
B
i
—3 AC
6/29/2023
Warren Wilson
IParrots Feather
1 3
1 4
1 1%
1 750E
1 3 MPH
I E
1 8:00 AM
i 6:30 PM
I N/A
STAFF
Employee Name
Pesticide License #
Hours
Comments
Employee Name
Pesticide License #
Hours
Comments
Michael
C#026-38079
10.5
Ison
032-9035
10.5
MATERIAL and EQUIPMENT
Herbicide/Adjuvant Information
EPA Reg. No. Brand Name Manufacturer Mix Code Mix Description
Equipment Information
Equip. Code
Equipment Description
MoA Code
Mode of
Application (MoA)
524-343
Roundup Custom
Bayer
1
6%Solution Roundup Custom
A
Engine Sprayer
i
Foliar
81927-13
Triclopyr 3
Alligare
2
4 % Solution Triclopyr 3
B
Backpack Sprayer
ii
Basal Bark
524-343
Ecomazapyr 2SL
Alligare
3
1% Imazapyr
C
Wicking Device
III
Hack -and -Squirt
D
Injector
iv
Aerial
E v 1 stump Cut
ADDITIONAL DATA REQUESTED BY CLIENT

DAVEY -
Resource Groin
Herbicide Application Record
Client, Project Name:
Restoration Systems Warren Wilson
701 Warren Wilson Rd.
Site Address:
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Category:
Riparian Habitat
Other:
PRODUCT APPLIED
and SITE CONDITIONS
Quantity of
Occurrence Site
End Use
Wind
Equip.
Acres Treated &
Date
Species controlled
Mix Code
Mix Applied
Air Temp
Wind Speed
Start Time
End Time
MOA Code
Name
Concentrate
Direct
Code
Comments
Chinese Privet,
Multiflora Rose,
9/20/2023
Warren Wilson
Japanese Knotweed
1
12 GAL
6%
60°F
3 MPH
NW
8:00 AM
4:30 PM
B
i
—1 AC
Chinese Privet,
Multiflora Rose,
9/20/2023
Warren Wilson
Japanese Knotweed
2
12 GAL
4%
60OF
3 MPH
NW
8:00 AM
4:30 PM
B
i
—1 AC
Chinese Privet,
9/20/2023
Warren Wilson
Bradford Pear
1 3
1 32OZ
1 50%
1 60OF
1 3 MPH
I NW
1 8:00 AM
4:30 PM
D
iii
N/A
STAFF
Employee Name Pesticide License #
Hours
Comments
Employee Name
Pesticide License #
Hours
Comments
Michael Foster NC4026-38
8.5
William Bailey
8.5
MATERIAL and EQUIPMENT
Herbicide/Adjuvant Information
Equipment Information
Mode of
EPA Reg. No. Brand Name Manufacturer Mix Code Mix Description
Equip. Code
Equipment Description
MOA Code
Application (MoA)
1
A
Engine Sprayer
i
Foliar
524-343
Roundup Custom
Bayer
6% Solution Roundup Custom
81927-13
Triclopyr3
Alligare
2
4 % Solution Triclopyr 3
B
Backpack Sprayer
ii
Basal Bark
3
C
Wicking Device
iii
Hack -and -Squirt
524-343
Roundup Custom
Bayer
50%solution Roundup Custom
D
Injector
iv
Aerial
E v Stum Cut
ADDITIONAL DATA REQUESTED BY CLIENT

Appendix D
MY3 Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 10A-I. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11A-I. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment
Parameter Distributions)
Tables 12A-I. MY3 Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -
Cross -sections)
Tables 13A-I. MY3 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
MY3 Cross Section Plots
MV4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 1 Lower
572 feet
Parameter
Gauge 2
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing
Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
2.6
10.9
19.3
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
9.2
10.0
10.7
10.6
11.2
11.2
11.9
2.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
27.0
55.0
75.0
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
25.0
55.0
75.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
2.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
2.0
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.6
1.7
1
1.7
1
1.3
1 1.4
1 1.5
1
1.7
1 1.8
2.0
1 0.9
1.1
1 1.3
1.7
1 1.9
1.9
2.1
1 2.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft)
3.2
6.8
7.1
6.2
6.2
6.2
16.7
16.7
16.7
7.1
7.1
7.1
9.4
11.1
11.1
12.8
2.0
Width/Depth Ratio
2.1
17.0
53.2
5.1
7.6
11.8
8.1
12.0
14.8
12.0
14.0
16.0
11.1
11.5
11.5
11.9
2.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
6.9
21.2
2.7
2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
1.3
2.9
3.0
8.4
8.9
8.9
9.5
2.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.8
5.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
1.9
14.9
8.9
55.2
14.8
20.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0286
0.0457
0.0857
0.0055
0.0201
0.0192
0.0387
0.0095
20.0
Pool Length (ft)
2.4
10.7
11.2
19.4
4.8
20.0
Pool Max depth (ft)
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
1.0
1.4
1.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
27.3
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
29.9
39.9
69.8
6.9
30.6
28.0
66.9
16.2
19.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
56.5
2.3
19.0
15.8
63.8
2.8
25.2
13.4
14.7
16.6
15.0
29.9
39.9
15.0
29.9
39.9
29.4
0.8 2.2
3.3
19.9 29.9 39.9 15.0 29.9
39.9
76.0
59.8 96.3
117.2
59.8 84.7 119.6 59.8 84.7
119.6
3.7
1.0 1.1
1.2
1.5 3.0 4.0 1.5 3.0
4.0
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress com etenc Ib/f2
7.63
0.78
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
50.82
49.43
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C 4
Eb 4
B 4
Cb 4
Cb 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
0.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
27.7
Valley length (ft)
567.0
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
578.0
610.0
601.0
Sinuosity (ft)
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0294
0.0226
0.0167
0.0286
0.0163
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
t - 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/stops.
4 - proportion ofreach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only ifthe n exceeds 3

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 1 Upper 436 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
2.6
10.9
19.3
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
9.2
10.0
10.7
8.5
9.1
9.1
9.6
2.0
Floodprone Width ft
27.0
55.0
75.0
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
25.0
55.0
75.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
2.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
2.0
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.6
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
0.9
1.1
1.3
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.4
2.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
3.2
6.8
7.1
6.2
6.2
6.2
16.7
16.7
16.7
7.1
7.1
7.1
4.3
5.4
5.4
6.6
2.0
Width/Depth Ratio
14.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
6.9
21.2
2.7
2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
1.3
2.9
3.0
10.4
11.1
11.1
11.8
2.0
'Bank Hem ht Ratio
1.0
1.8
5.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
1.9
14.9
8.9
55.2
14.8
20.0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0286
0.0457
0.0857
0.0055
0.0201
0.0192
0.0387
0.0095
20.0
Pool Length ft
2.4
10.7
11.2
19.4
4.8
20.0
Pool Max depth ft
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
1.0
1.4
1.4
Pool Spacing ft
27.3
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
29.9
39.9
69.8
6.9
30.6
28.0
66.9
16.2
19.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th ft
Meander Width Ratio
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
56.5
2.3
19.0
15.8
63.8
2.8
25.2
29.4
76.0
1 3.7 1
13.4
0.8
59.8
1 1 1.0
14.7
2.2
96.3
1 1.1
16.6
3.3
117.2
1 1 1.2 1 1
15.0
19.9
59.8
1 1.5
29.9
29.9
84.7
1 3.0
39.9
39.9
119.E
1 4.0
15.0
15.0
59.8
1 1.5
1
29.9
29.9
84.7
1 3.0
39.9
39.9
119.6
1 4.0
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress com etenc Ib/f2
7.6
0.8
Max art size mm mobilized at Bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacityW/m2
50.8
49.4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Cg 4
Eb 4
B 4
Cb 4
Cb 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
0.6
Bankfull Discharge cfs
27.7
Valley length ft
189.0
Channel Thalweg length ft
193.0
478.0
458.0
Sinuosity ft
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0294
0.0226
0.0167
0.0286
0.0372
BF slope ft/ft
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
t - 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 hum the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 - proportion ofreach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only ifthe n exceeds 3

Table 10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 3 Lower 873 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
I SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
11.5
12.1
14.1
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
14.8
16.0
17.1
10.6
17.0
17.0
23.5
2.0
Floodprone Width ft
19.0
29.0
100.0
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
2.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.3
1.5
1.6
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.2
2.0
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.6
2.0
2.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
1.4
1.7
2.1
1.7
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
18.2
18.2
18.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
16.7
16.7
16.7
18.2
18.2
18.2
9.4
18.3
18.3
27.2
2.0
Width/Depth Ratio
.
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
2.5
8.3
2.7
2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
5.4
6.3
7.0
4.3
6.9
6.9
9.5
2.0
Bank Hei ht Ratio
1.8
2.0
2.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
16.7
35.3
33.0
65.0
13.7
15.0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0141
0.0225
0.0423
0.0081
0.0183
0.0194
0.0276
0.0055
15.0
Pool Length ft
11.3
20.4
20.3
29.2
6.5
15.0
Pool Max depth ft
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
1.6
2.2
2.3
Pool Spacing ft
27.3
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
47.9
63.8
111.7
32.2
64.0
57.0
104.0
18.9
15.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th (ffill 1 1
Meander Width Ratiol I 1
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
56.5
2.3
19.0
15.8
1 63.8
1 2.8
25.2
29.4
1 76.0
1 1 3.7 1
13.4
0.8
59.8
1 1 1.0
14.7
2.2
96.3
1 1.1
16.6
3.3
117.2
1 1 1.2 1 1
23.9
31.9
95.8
1 1.5
47.9.
47.9
135.7
1 3.0
63.8
63.8
191.5
1 4.0
23.9
31.9
95.8
1 1.5
1
47.9
47.9
165.7
1 3.0
63.8
47.9
191.5
1 4.0
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress com etenc Ib/f2
3.0
0.9
Max art size mm mobilized at Bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacityW/mZ
69.1
66.7
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Eg 4
Eb 4
B 4
Ce 4
Ce 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
1.5
4.2
960.0
Bankfull Discharge cfs
75.8
Valley length ft
1681.0
Channel Thalweg length ft
3582.0
971.0
960.0
Sinuosity ft
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0146
0.0226
0.0167
0.0155
0.0129
BF slope ft/ft
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
t - 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 hum the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 - proportion ofreach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only ifthe n exceeds 3

Table 10d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 3 Upper
1995 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
11.5
12.1
14.1
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
14.8
16.0
17.1
14.2
16.1
15.7
18.7
2.1
4.0
Floodprone Width ft
19.0
29.0
100.0
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
4.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.3
1.5
1.6
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.1
4.0
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.6
2.0
2.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
1.4
1.7
2.1
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.9
0.1
4.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
18.2
18.2
18.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
16.7
16.7
16.7
18.2
18.2
18.2
13.6
16.8
16.2
21.4
3.3
4.0
Width/Depth Ratio
.
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
2.5
8.3
2.7
2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
5.4
6.3
7.0
5.4
6.3
6.4
7.0
0.8
4.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.8
2.0
2.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
4.0
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
8.7
33.7
29.5
79.6
18.6
34.0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0141
0.0225
0.0423
0.0082
0.0183
0.0176
0.0338
0.0059
34.0
Pool Length ft
10.1
19.3
17.4
42.7
6.6
34.0
Pool Max depth ft
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
1.6
2.2
2.3
Pool Spacing ft
27.3
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
47.9
63.8
111.7
33.6
65.4
61.3
108.0
17.8
33.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th (ffill
Meander Width Ratio
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
56.5
2.3
19.0
15.8
63.8
2.8
25.2
29.4
1 1 76.0 1
1 1 3.7 1
13.4
0.8
1 1 59.8
1 1 1.0
14.7
2.2
1 96.3 1
1 1.1 1
16.6
3.3
1 117.2 1 1
1 1.2 1 1
23.9
31.9
1 95.8
1 1.5
47.9.
47.9
1 135.7
1 3.0
63.8
63.8
1 191.5
1 4.0
23.9
31.9
1 95.8
1 1.5
1
1
47.9
47.9
1 165.7
1 3.0
63.8
63.8
191.5
4.0
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress com etenc Ib/f2
3.0
0.9
Max art size mm mobilized at Bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacityW/mZ
69.1
66.7
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Eg 4
Eb 4
B 4
Ce 4
Ce 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
1.5
4.2
Bankfull Discharge cfs
75.8
Valley length ft
2223.0
Channel Thalweg length ft
3582.0
2116.0
2195.0
Sinuosity ft
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0146
0.0226
0.0167
0.0155
0.0139
BF slope ft/ft
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
t - 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/stops.
4 - proportion ofreach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only ifthe n exceeds 3

Table 10e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach:
UT 4
278 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate -Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD
n
Min
Mad
Max
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
8.6
9.3
10.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
1.0
Floodprone Width ft
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
20.0
70.0
120.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.6
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
6.2
6.2
6.2
16.7
16.7
16.7
6.2
6.2
6.2
13.3
13.3
13.3
13.3
1.0
Width/Depth Ratio
.
Entrenchment Ratio
2.7
2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
2.3
7.5
12.0
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
1.0
'Bank He ht Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
10.4
25.1
19.3
63.9
19.9
6.0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0194
0.0311
0.0583
0.0095
0.0338
0.0380
0.0619
0.0189
6.0
Pool Length ft
12.8
15.0
14.8
19.2
2.3
6.0
Pool Max depth ft
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
0.9
1.3
1.3
Pool Spacing ft
27.3
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
27.9
37.3
65.2
28.3
38.0
42.0
45.3
8.2
6.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th (ffill
Meander Width Ratiol I I 1
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
56.5
2.3
19.0
15.8
63.8
1 2.8
25.2
29.4
76.0
1 1 3.7 1
13.4
0.8
59.8
1 1 1.0
14.7
2.2
1 96.3
1 1.1
16.6
3.3
117.2 1 1
1 1 1.2 1 1
14.0
18.6
1 55.9
1 1.5
27.9
27.9
1 79.2
1 3.0
37.3
37.3
1 111.8
1 4.0
27.9
18.6
1 55.9
1 1.5
1
1
27.9
27.9
1 79.2
1 3.0
37.3
37.3
1 111.8
1 4.0
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress com etenc Ib/f2
0.7
Max art size mm mobilized at Bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacityW/mZ
28.9
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
G 4
Eb 4
B 4
C4
C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
1.2
3.9
Bankfull Discharge cfs
29.6
Valley length ft
312.0
Channel Thalweg length ft
362.0
233.0
292.0
Sinuosity ft
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Sloe Channel) (ft/ftJ
0.0226
0.0226
0.0167
0.0194
0.0235
BF slope ft/ft
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
t - 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 hum the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 - proportion ofreach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only ifthe n exceeds 3

Table 1Of. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach:
UT 5
1024 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
I SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
5.6
6.1
7.6
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
7.6
8.2
8.8
7.3
10.5
9.9
14.4
3.0
Floodprone Width ft
8.0
9.0
9.0
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
TO
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.8
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.5
3.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
4.8
4.8
4.8
6.2
6.2
6.2
16.7
16.7
16.7
4.8
4.8
4.8
4.5
7.6
7.9
10.4
3.0
Width/Depth Ratio
.
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
1.4
1.5
2.7
2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
10.5
12.2
13.7
7.0
10.3
10.1
13.7
3.0
'Bank Hei ht Ratio
2.4
4.8
5.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
9.2
17.7
15.2
36.5
7.6
31.0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0134
0.0214
0.0401
0.0111
0.0268
0.0248
0.0631
0.0105
31.0
Pool Length ft
5.5
12.1
12.5
18.2
3.0
30.0
Pool Max depth ft
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
0.8
1.1
1.2
Pool Spacing ft
27.3
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
24.6
32.8
57.4
24.0
34.6
32.5
50.2
6.8
30.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th ft
Meander Width Ratio
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
56.5
2.3
19.0
15.8
63.8
2.8
25.2
29.4
76.0
1 3.7 1
13.4
0.8
59.8
1 1 1.0
14.7
2.2
96.3
1 1.1
16.6
3.3
117.2
1 1.2 1 1
12.3
16.4
49.2
1 1.5
24.6
24.6
69.7
1 3.0
32.8
32.8
98.4
1 4.0
12.3
16.4
49.2
1 1.5
1
24.6
32.8
69.7
1 3.0
32.8
47.9
98.4
1 4.0
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress com etenc Ib/f2
7.6
0.4
Max art size mm mobilized at Bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacityW/mZ
15.8
15.1
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
G 3
Eb 4
B 4
Ce 4
Ce 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
0.3
3.8
Bankfull Discharge cfs
18.1
Valley length ft
1158.0
Channel Thalweg length ft
769.0
1076.0
1076.0
Sinuosity ft
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Sloe Channel) (ft/ftJ
0.014
0.0226
0.0167
0.0134
0.0221
BF slope ft/ft
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
t - 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 hum the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 - proportion ofreach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only ifthe n exceeds 3

Table 10g. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach:
UT 6
1265 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
I SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
I SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
4.2
5.5
6.4
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
6.1
6.6
7.0
9.5
10.4
10.1
11.7
1.0
4.0
Floodprone Width ft
8.0
9.0
9.0
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
4.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.2
4.0
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.6
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.3
0.2
4.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
3.1
3.1
3.1
6.2
6.2
6.2
16.7
16.7
16.7
3.1
3.1
3.1
5.6
7.0
7.1
8.1
1.3
4.0
Width/Depth Ratio
.
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
1.5
2.1
2.7
2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
4.1
7.6
10.6
8.5
9.7
9.9
10.5
0.9
4.0
'Bank He i ht Ratio
2.8
3.9
5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
1.0
1 1.0
1 1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 0.0
4.0
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
4.8
16.1
13.5
45.8
8.4
47.0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0042
0.0067
0.0125
0.0004
0.0085
0.0066
0.0510
0.0087
36.0
Pool Length ft
2.0
10.3
10.9
15.7
3.5
46.0
Pool Max depth ft
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
0.7
0.9
0.9
Pool Spacing ft
27.3
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
19.8
26.4
46.1
14.5
30.9
29.5
60.5
8.8
46.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th ft
Meander Width Ratiol I 1
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
56.5
2.3
19.0
15.8
1 63.8
1 2.8
25.2
29.4
1 76.0 1
1 3.7 1
13.4
0.8
59.8
1.0
14.7
2.2
1 96.3
1 1.1
16.6
3.3
1 1 117.2 1 1
1 1 1.2 1 1
9.9
13.2
1 39.5
1 1.5
19.8
19.8
1 56.0
1 3.0
26.4
26.4
1 79.1
1 4.0
9.9
13.2
39.5
1.5
1
1
19.8
19.8
56.0
3.0
26.4
26.4
1 79.1
1 4.0
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
1.1
0.1
Max part size mm mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
2.8
3.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
G 3
Eb 4
B 4
Ce 4
Ce 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
0.4
3.7
Bankfull Discharge cfs
11.5
Valley length ft
2135.0
Channel Thalweg length ft
1363.0
1455.0
1455
Sinuosity ft
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0039
0.0226
0.0167
0.0042
0.0051
BF slope fUft
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
t - 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 hum the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 - proportion ofreach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only ifthe n exceeds 3

Table 1 Oh. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach:
UT 7
1844 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
I SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
I SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
7.0
7.4
9.7
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
8.6
9.3
10.0
10.1
11.9
12.2
13.2
1.4
4:0
Floodprone Width ft
10.0
13.0
17.0
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
20.0
70.0
120.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
4.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.1
4.0
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.8
1.1
1.2
1.3
0.2
4.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2
16.7
16.7
16.7
6.2
6.2
6.2
5.2
8.3
8.6
10.7
2.5
4.0
Width/Depth Ratio
.
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
1.5
2.4
2.7
2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
2.3
7.5
12.0
7.6
8.5
8.2
9.9
1.1
4.0
'Bank He i ht Ratio
1.4
1 1.9
2.6
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1
1.0
1 1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 0.0
4.0
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
7.7
27.4
24.3
91.3
15.5
44.0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0194
0.0311
0.0583
0.0003
0.0126
0.0097
0.0396
0.0113
44.0
Pool Length ft
4.0
11.3
11.7
15.8
2.7
44.0
Pool Max depth ft
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
0.9
1.3
1.3
Pool Spacing ft
27.3
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
27.9
37.3
65.2
22.3
44.2
40.1
107.9
16.3
43.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th ft
Meander Width Ratio
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
56.5
2.3
19.0
15.8
63.8
2.8
25.2
29.4
76.0
1 3.7 1
13.4
0.8
59.8
1 1 1.0
14.7
2.2
96.3
1 1.1
16.6
3.3
117.2
1 1 1.2 1 1
14.0
18.6
55.9
1 1.5
27.9
27.9
79.2
1 3.0
37.3
37.3
111.8
1 4.0
27.9
18.6
55.9
1 1.5
1
27.9
27.9
79.2
3.0
37.3
37.3
111.8
1 4.0
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress com etenc Ib/f2
2.1
0.7
Max art size mm mobilized at Bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacityW/mZ
30.1
28.9
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Gb 4
Eb 4
B 4
Eb 4
Eb 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
1.6
3.9
Bankfull Discharge cfs
23.9
Valley length ft
1985.0
Channel Thalweg length ft
2426.0
1973.0
1973
Sinuosity ft
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0202
0.0226
0.0167
0.0194
0.0103
BF slope ft/ft
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
t - 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 hum the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 - proportion ofreach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only ifthe n exceeds 3

Table 10i. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach:
UT 8
760 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
UT4 Reference Data
Chemtronics Reference Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
I SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
I SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
5.6
6.8
9.4
5.1
6.8
9.4
11.3
14.0
15.8
6.6
7.1
7.6
10.3
12.0
12.1
13.7
3.0
Floodprone Width ft
11.0
12.0
19.0
15.0
20.0
28.0
16.5
19.0
25.0
25.0
50.0
75.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
3.0
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.4
0.6
1.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
3.0
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.8
2.0
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.4
1.4
1.7
3.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
3.6
3.6
3.6
6.2
6.2
6.2
16.7
16.7
16.7
3.6
3.6
3.6
6.4
8.3
8.3
10.2
3.0
Width/Depth Ratio
.
Entrenchment Ratio
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.7
2.9
3.0
16.5
19.0
22.0
3.8
7.0
9.9
7.3
8.4
8.2
9.7
3.0
'Bank He i ht Ratio
2.3
1 2.7
3.8
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
7.8
15.9
13.8
32.4
7.2
27.0
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0090
0.0400
0.0754
0.0156
0.0228
0.0468
0.0144
0.0231
0.0433
0.0002
0.0098
0.0101
0.0231
0.0056
27.0
Pool Length ft
6.8
12.2
12.4
19.9
2.6
27.0
Pool Max depth ft
2.0
2.3
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.3
0.7
1.0
1.0
Pool Spacing ft
27.3
37.1
45.8
28.8
50.7
70.7
21.3
28.4
49.7
24.1
32.2
30.6
48.2
6.9
26.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th (ffill
Meander Width Ratio
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to staightening activities
15.4
8.7
6.5
2.3
19.0
15.8
63.8
2.8
25.2
29.4
76.0
3.7
13.4
0.8
59.8
1.0
14.7
2.2
96.3
1.1
16.6
3.3
117.2
1.2
10.6
14.2
42.6
1.5
21.3
21.3
63.9
3.0
28.4
28.4
85.2
4.0
10.6
14.2
42.6
1.5
21.3
21.3
64.0
3.0
28.4
28.4
85.2
4.0
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress com etenc Ib/f2
1.1
0.4
Max art size mm mobilized at Bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacityW/m2
3.9
12.3
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Eg 4
Eb 4
B 4
C 4
C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
0.4
3.8
Bankfull Discharge cfs
13.5
Valley length ft
1047.0
Channel Thalweg length ft
957.0
874.0
874.0
Sinuosity ft
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0046
0.0226
0.0167
0.0144
0.0063
BF slope ft/ft
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
t - 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 hum the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 - proportion ofreach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only ifthe n exceeds 3

Table 11a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter
Distributions) Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 1 Lower (572 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
49
5
39
10
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip / di" (ni
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
Table 11b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter
Distributions) Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 1 Upper (436 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
58
5
26
7
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip / di" (mm)
Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
Table 11c. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter
Distributions) Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 3 Lower (873 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
55
3
32
10
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip / di" (ni
Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Slit/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross -sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross -sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 11d. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter
Distributions) Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 3 Upper (1995 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reaches) Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
52
6
30
12
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip /disp(ni
Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
Table 11e. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter
Distributions) Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 4 (278 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reaches) Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
RI% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
52
3
31
9
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip /disp(ni
Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
Table 11f. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter
Distributions) Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 5 (1024 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reaches) Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
RI% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
51
4
34
11
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be°/o
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip /disp(ni
Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Slit/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross -sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross -sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 11g. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter
Distributions) Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 6 (1265 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reaches) Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
50
6
31
10
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip /disp(ni
Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
Table 11h. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter
Distributions) Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 7 (1844 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reaches) Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
61
5
25
7
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be°/o
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip /disp(ni
Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
Table 11 i. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter
Distributions) Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 8 (760 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Reference Reaches) Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
RI% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
49
5
38
9
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be°/o
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip / di" (ni
Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Slit/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross -sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross -sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 12a. Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 1 Lower (572 feet)
Bankfull Entrenchment
Bankfull Bank Height
Table 12b. Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Warren 000
•
MMM®MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
M®®®=MMMMMMMMM
Mill-
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development, Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Fir 'act Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019) Segment/Reach: UT 3 Lower (873 feet)
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Pool)
Cross Section 3 (Pool)
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
ase on ixe ase me an u eeva4ol
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY,
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY,
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation datum usei
Bankfull Width (ft
23.5
31.6
31.9
32.0
13.8
11.1
10.4
9.4
14.5
21.0
21.6
17.2
17.6
23.8
18.2
26.6
Floodprone Width (ft
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
1.2
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.5
1.6
1.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.5
2.7
2.7
2.4
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
Low Bank Height (ft
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.6
2.8
2.5
2.6
2.3
2.3
2.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area 0
272
272
272
272
16.7
16.7
16.7
16.7
21.3
21.3
21.3
21.3
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
Bankfull Width/Depth RatiS
20.2
36.7
37.4
37.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.1
33.3
1 19.4
41.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratic
4.3
3.2
3.1
3.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
5.7
4.2
5.5
3.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratic
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Sectional Area between end ins f(
45.6
46.3
37.5
31.5
31.1
31.9
43.5
42.4
43.1
39.4
39.6
35.9
39.2
38
35.3
38.7
d50 hri
Cross Section 6 (Riffle)
Cross Section
7 (Pool)
Cross Section
8 (Riffle)
Cross Section
9 (Riffle)
Cross Section 10 (Pool)
Table 12d. Monitoring Data ■(Dimensional
Project N ame/N umber (Warren Wi I son/1 111 19) Segment/Reach: UT 3 Upper (1995 feet)
•• • - •
mmmm�__
111
111
111
111
�__
111
111
111
111
�__mmmm�__
111
111
111
111
�__
1
•• • • - •
mmmm�__mmmm�__
111
111
111
111
�________________
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development, Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."

Table 12e. Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/N umber (Warren Wilson/1 III
Table 12f. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Se menUReach: UT 5 1024 feet
Table 12f. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Se menUReach: UT 5 1024 feet
Cross Section 1 (Pool)
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
Cross
Section 3 (Pool)
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Cross Section 5 (Pool)
ase on ixe ase ine an u eevatioi
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation datum user
Bankfull Width (ft
11.1
11.7
11.1
12.1
9.9
10.5
10.0
9.3
8.6
9.0
9.0
12.3
21.1
21.0
21.2
21.1
7.8
8.4
7.4
5.6
Floodprone Width (ft
NA
NA
NA
NA
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.3
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.6
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.1
Low Bank Height (ft
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area f�
15.3
15.3
15.3
15.3
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.9
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Rafi
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.5
14.0
12.8
11.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
61.0
60.4
61.2
60.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Rati
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.1
9.5
10.0
10.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
4.7
4.8
4.7
4.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bankfull Bank Height Rati
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
Cross Sectional Area between end Pins fi
222
23.7
1 23.7
1 24.4
1
12.2
12.4
10.7
11.2
9.4
8.0
6.2
7.3
7.3
6.3
19.7
20.9
22.2
17.6
d50 (mm)
Cross Section
6 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation(datum) use,
Bankfull Width (ft
14.4
18.3
20.4
23.0
Floodprone Width (ft
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.5
Low Bank Height (ft
1.5
1.3
1.1
1.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ff)
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
--
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratic
19.8
32.2
39.9
51.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Rati
1.0
5.5
1 4.9
4.3
Bankfull Bank Height Rat"
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
Cross Sectional Area between end ins
20.0
18.2
17.6
14.04
d50 (mm)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."

Table 12g. ....(Dimensional
Project Name/Number (Warren 000
Mill-
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bandfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development, Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."

Table 12h. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 7 1844 feet
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Pool)
Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross Section 4 (Pool)
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
ase on Ixe ase me an u eevatloi
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY,
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation atum user
Bankfull Width (ft
12.9
15.1
14.3
13.7
14.2
18.4
18.5
18.6
13.2
14.7
14.6
13.2
11.4
12.6
11.9
12.5
11.6
12.2
12.1
11.1
Floodprone Width (ft
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
2.1
2.2
1.9
2.0
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.2
Low Bank Height (fit
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
2.1
2.2
1.8
1.9
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
18.2
18.2
18.2
18.2
9.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
13.0
12.6
13.0
13.0
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Rafi
15.5
21.3
19.0
17.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.5
21.8
1 21.5
17.5
NA
NA
NA
NA
18.5
20.7
20.2
17.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Rati
7.8
6.6
7.0
7.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
7.6
6.8
6.9
7.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.6
8.2
8.3
9.0
Bankfull Bank Height Rati
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
Cross Sectional Area between end ins f(
18.6
18.6
19.5
18.3
34.1
28.0
28.4
26.5
20.9
18.6
19.6
19.6
23.6
25.9
24.5
25.3
20.3
19.9
19.8
21.0
d50 (mm)
Cross Section
6 (Pool)
Cross
Section
7 (Pool)
Cross Section
8 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevatioA
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation atum use,
Bankfull Width (ft
8.8
10.6
10.6
175
9.1
11.4
10.0
10.2
10.1
10.1
10.5
9.5
Floodprone Width (ft
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (fl
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (h
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.3
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
Low Bank Height (ft
1.9
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.0
1.8
2.1
2.3
0.8
1.2
1.0
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area pff
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratic
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
19.6
19.6
21.2
17.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Rati
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.9
9.9
9.5
10.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratk
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.1,
1.2
1.1
0.9
Lid
Cross Sectional Area between end ins f�
17.1
16.7
15.4
15.6
21.0
18.5
20.5
20.3
11.2
15.2
13.2
14.0
d50 (mm)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."

Table 12i. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Se ment/Reach: UT 8 760 feet
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Pool)
I Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross Section 4 (Pool)
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
ase on Ixe ase lne an u eevatloi
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY,
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation atum user
Bankfull Width (ft
13.7
15.2
12.2
14.0
11.4
13.4
14.0
15.1
12.1
12.9
10.4
12.3
10.2
11.0
11.5
13.5
10.3
10.3
11.2
11.3
Floodprone Width (ft
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.7
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft
1.7
1.3
2.0
1.5
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.1
Low Bank Height (fit
1.7
1.5
1.9
1.5
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.3
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ff)
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.2
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.1
6.4
6.4
6.4
6.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Rafi
18.3
22.7
11.7
19.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.7
20.0
1 13.0
18.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.6
16.6
19.4
19.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Rati
7.3
6.6
8.2
7.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.2
7.8
9.6
8.1
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.7
9.7
8.9
8.8
Bankfull Bank Height Rati
1.0
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
Cross Sectional Area between end pins f(
31.1
30.5
29.6
30.8
38.2
32.0
35.3
36.1
18.8
19.6
18.9
19.7
19.8
20.6
19.2
19.3
13.5
12.2
12.6
14.2
d50 (mm)
Cross
Section
6 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevatioA
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation(datum) use,
Bankfull Width (ft
15.9
14.4
13.9
14.0
Floodprone Width (ft
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.9
Low Bank Height (ft
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ff
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Rati
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Rati
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bankfull Bank Height Rah
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
Cross Sectional Area between end pins if
25.0
1 24.6
1 26.6
1 25.8
d50 (mm)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary.'

Table 13a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 1 Lower 572 feet
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 5
MY- 7
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD 4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
.
Floodprone Width ft
Bankfull Mean Depth_ ft
0.888
0.981
0.981
1.075
2
0.8
0.9
0.9
1
2
0.8
0.924
0.924
1.048
2
0.7
0.85
0.85
1
2
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.703
1.895
1.895
2.087
2
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.9
2
1.741
1.893
1.893
2.044
2
1.6
1.8
1.8
2
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
9.378
11.07
11.07
12.77
2
9.4
11.1
11.1
12.8
2
9.4
11.1
11.1
12.8
2
9.4
11.1
11.1
12.8
2
Width/Depth Ratio
11.06
11.47
11.47
11.88
2
14
14.4
14.4
14.8
2
11.68
13.17
13.17
14.65
2
12.5
17.2
17.2
21.9
2
Entrenchment Ratio
8.416
8.944
8.944
9.472
2
7.5
8
8
8.5
2
8.173
8.349
8.349
8.525
2
7
7.45
7.45
7.9
2
'Bank Height Ratio_
77
TUTT
.
Profile
Riffle Length ft
1.924
14.87
8.897
55.19
14.76
20
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.006
0.020
0.019
0.039
0.010
20
Pool Length ft
2.416
10.68
11.19
19.43
4.772
20
Pool Max depth ft
Pool Spacing ft
6.911
30.62
28.03
66.88
16.18
19
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 15 29.9 39.9
Radius of Curvature ft 15 29.9 39.9
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft
Meander Wavelength ft 59.82 84.7 119.6
Meander Width Ratio 1.5 3 4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Cb 4
Channel Thalweg length ft
601
Sinuosity ft
1.05
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0163
BF slo e ft/ft
------
i o u o o a o
'SCo ao o 0 o eo
5 5 5
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
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 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 13b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 1 Upper 436 feet
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 5
MY- 7
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD 4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
8.5
9.052
9.052
9.603
2
9
9.5
9.5
10
2
8.924
9.041
9.041
9.158
2
9.6
10.1
10.1
10.6
Floodprone Width ft
100
100
100
100
2
100
100
100
100
2
100
100
100
100
2
100
100
100
100
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.503
0.593
0.593
0.684
2
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
2
0.472
0.604
0.604
0.736
2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.831
1.111
1.111
1.391
2
1
1.2
1.2
1.4
2
0.966
1.236
1.236
1.507
2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
4.276
5.421
5.421
6.566
2
4.3
5.5
5.5
6.6
2
4.3
5.45
5.45
6.6
2
4.3
5.45
5.45
6.6
Width/Depth Ratio
14.05
15.47
15.47
16.9
2
15.2
17
17
18.8
2
12.13
15.76
15.76
19.39
2
17.2
19.35
19.35
21.5
Entrenchment Ratio
10.41
11.09
11.09
11.76
2
2.8
6.4
6.4
10
2
10.92
11.06
11.06
11.21
2
9.4
9.9
9.9
10.4
'Bank Height Ratio1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
2
1
1.05
1.05
1.1
Profile
Riffle Length ft
12.63
22.14
20.55
43.08
8.919
12
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.021
0.040
0.039
0.066
0.014
12
Pool Length ft
6.968
9.924
8.689
18.48
3.385
12
Pool Max depth ft
Pool Spacing ft
26.4
37.44
34.84
52.16
8.468
11
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 15 29.9 39.9
Radius of Curvature Lt 15 29.9 39.9
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength ft 59.82 84.7 119.6
Meander Width Ratio 1.5 3 4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Cb 4
Channel Thalweg length ft
458
Sinuosity ft
1.05
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0372
BF slo e ft/ft
------
i o u o o a o
'SCo ao o 0 o eo
5 5 5
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
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 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 13c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 3 Lower 873 feet
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 5
MY- 7
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD 4
Mean
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
10.56
17.01
17.01
23.46
2
23.5
23.7
23.7
23.8
2
18.16
25.03
25.03
31.91
2
26.6
29.3
29.3
32
2
Floodprone Width ft
100
100
100
100
2
100
100
100
100
2
100
100
100
100
2
100
100
100
100
2
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.888
1.024
1.024
1.159
2
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.2
2
0.854
0.894
0.894
0.935
2
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
2
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.703
1.899
1.899
2.094
2
1.4
1.8
1.8
2.1
2
1.436
1.712
1.712
1.987
2
1.5
1.8
1.8
2.1
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
17
.
1 22.1
1 27.2
1
2
17
1 22.1
22.1
27.2
2
17
1 22.1
22.1
1 27.2
2
1 17
22.1
1 22.1
27.2
2
Width/Depth Ratio
11.88JE107
16.06
20.24
2
20.3
26.8
26.8
33.3
2
19.43
28.4
28.4
37.37
2
37.7
39.6
39.6
41.5
2
Entrenchment Ratio
4.262
6.867
9.472
2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.3
2
3.134
4.32
4.32
5.507
2
3.1
3.45
3.45
3.8
2
'Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2
1
1
1
1
2
Profile
Riffle Length ft
16.73
35.32
33.02
64.95
13.72
15
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.008
0.018
0.019
0.028
0.006
15
Pool Length ft
11.32
20.36
20.28
29.23
6.49
15
Pool Max depth ft
Pool Spacing ft
32.17
64.03
56.97
104
18.91
15
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 23.9 47.9 63.8
Radius of Curvature ft 31.9 47.9 47.9
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength ft 95.8 165.7 191.5
Meander Width Ratio 1.5 3 4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Ce 4
Channel Thalweg length ft
960
Sinuosity ft
1.1
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0129
BF slo e ft/ft
------
i o u o o a o
'SCo ao o 0 o eo
5 5 5
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
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 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 13d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 3 Upper 1995 feet
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 5
MY- 7
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD 4
in
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
14.25
16.1
15.75
18.67
2.069
4
9
11.7
11.7
27.7
6.28
4
14.12
19.93
20.65
24.39
4.3
4
16.3
21.28
19.75
29.3
5.79
4
Floodprone Width ft
100
100
100
100
0
4
100
100
100
100
0
4
100
100
100
100
0
4
100
100
100
100
0
4
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.951
1.041
1.033
1.146
0.095
4
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.2
0.35
4
0.645
0.88
0.866
1.131
0.26
4
0.6
0.85
0.9
1
0.19
4
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.611
1.793
1.83
1.903
0.131
4
1
1.5
1.5
2.5
0.5
4
1.573
1.85
1.823
2.208
0.26
4
1.6
1.9
1.9
2.2
0.26
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
13.55
16.84
16.2
21.4
3.291
4
13.6
16.2
16.2
21.4
3.28
4
13.6
16.85
16.2
21.4
3.28
4
13.6
16.85
16.2
21.4
3.28
4
Width/Depth Ratio
13.34
15.5
15.63
17.38
1.739
4
11.2
17
17
46.8
18.33
4
12.48
25.15
25.91
36.31
11.26
4
16.6
28.53
22.7
52.1
15.99
4
Entrenchment Ratio
5.356
6.286
6.384
7.02
0.783
4
2.8
5.5
5.5
10
1.75
4
4.101
5.23
4.846
7.081
1.3
4
3.4
4.93
5.1
6.1
1.19
4
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
0
4
1
1
1
1
0
4
1.0
1
1.0
1.0
0.0
4
0.9
0.975
1
1
0.05
4
Profile
Riffle Length ft
8.655
33.73
29.5
79.65
18.55
34
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.008
0.018
0.018
0.034
0.006
34
Pool Length ft
10.08
19.26
17.43
42.65
6.576
34
Pool Max depth ft
Pool Spacing ft
33.58
65.36
61.27
108
17.84
33
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 23.9 47.9 63.8
Radius of Curvature Lt 31.9 47.9 63.8
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength ft 95.8 165.7 191.5
Meander Width Ratio 1.5 3 4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Ce 4
Channel Thalweg length ft
2195
Sinuosity ft
1.1
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0139
BF slo e ft/ft
------
i o u o o a o
'SCo ao o 0 o eo
5 5 5
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
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 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 13e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 4 278 feet
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
I MY- 3
MY- 5
MY- 7
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD 4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
13.97
13.97
13.97
13.97
1
20.5
20.5
20.5
20.5
1
16.13
16.13
16.13
16.13
1
14.98
14.98
14.98
14.98
1
Floodprone Width ft
100
100
100
100
1
100
100
100
100
1
100
100
100
100
1
100
100
100
100
1
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.952
0.952
0.952
0.952
1
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1
0.824
0.824
0.824
0.824
1
0.891
0.891
0.891
0.891
1
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.613
1.613
1.613
1.613
1
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1
1.77
1.77
1.77
1.77
1
1.688
1.688
1.688
1.688
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
13.3
1 13.3
1 13.3
1 13.3
1
1 1
1 13.3
1 13.3
1 13.3
1 13.3
1
13.3
13.3
1 13.3
13.3
1
1
113.34113.34
13.34
13.34
1 1
Width/Depth Ratio
14.67
J 14.67
114.67
f14.67
1
1 1
1 31.6
1 31.6
131.6
31.6
1
19.59
19.59
19.59
19.59
1
16.83
16.83
16.83
16.83
1
Entrenchment Ratio
7.158
7.158
7.158
7.158
1 4.9
1 4.9
1 4.9
4.9
1
6.198
6.198
6.198
6.198
1
6.673
6.673
6.673
6.673
1
'Bank Height Ratio_
1
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1
Profile
Riffle Length ft
10.42
25.15
19.31
63.94
19.9
6
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.009
0.034
0.038
0.062
0.019
6
Pool Length ft
12.84
14.96
14.76
19.24
2.287
6
Pool Max depth ft
Pool Spacing ft
28.34
38
42.04
45.35
8.199
6
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 27.9 27.9 37.3
Radius of Curvature Lt 18.6 27.9 37.3
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength ft 55.9 79.2 111.8
Meander Width Ratio 1.5 3 4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
C 4
Channel Thalweg length ft
292
Sinuosity ft
1.05
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0235
BF slo e ft/ft
------
i o u o o a o
'SCo ao o 0 o eo
5 5 5
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
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 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 13f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 5 1024 feet
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 5
MY- 7
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD 4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
7.288
10.52
9.918
14.36
3
10.5
18.3
18.3
21
3
10.03
17.2
20.4
21.18
3
9.3
17.8
21.1
23
3
Floodprone Width ft
100
100
100
100
3
100
100
100
100
3
100
100
100
100
3
100
100
100
100
3
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.614
0.711
0.725
0.796
3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.8
3
0.346
0.53
0.511
0.784
3
0.3
0.53
0.5
0.8
3
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.978
1.348
1.528
1.54
3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
3
1.293
1.43
1.469
1.512
3
1.4
1.53
1.5
1.7
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
7.3
1 7.9
1 7.9
1 10.4
1
1 3
1 7.3
1 7.9
1 7.9
1 10.4
3
7.3
1 8.53
1 7.9
10.4
3
7.3
1 8.53
7.9
10.4
3
Width/Depth Ratio
11.87114.72112.47119.811
1 3
1 14
1 32.2
1 32.2
1 60.4
3
12.79
37.97
39.91
61.23
3
11
40.9
51.1
60.6
3
Entrenchment Ratio
6.966
10.26
10.08
13.72
3
1 1.9
1 2.2
1 2.2
1 3.8
3
4.721
6.53
4.902
9.968
3
4.3
6.57
4.7
10.7
3
'Bank Height Ratio_
1
1
1
1
3
1 1
0.9
0.9
1
3
0.9
0.93
0.9
1.0
3
0.9
1
1
1.1
3
Profile
Riffle Length ft
9.158
17.7
15.15
36.54
7.615
31
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.011
0.027
0.025
0.063
0.010
31
Pool Length ft
5.509
12.12
12.54
18.16
3.017
30
Pool Max depth ft
Pool Spacing ft
24.01
34.63
32.47
50.16
6.837
30
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 12.3 24.6 32.8
Radius of Curvature Lt 16.4 32.8 47.9
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength ft 49.19 69.7 98.37
Meander Width Ratio 1.5 3 4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Ce 4
Channel Thalweg length ft
1076
Sinuosity ft
1.05
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0221
BF slo e ft/ft
------
i o u o o a o
'SCo ao o 0 o eo
5 5 5
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
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 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 13g. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 6 1265 feet
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
I MY- 3
MY- 5
MY- 7
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD 4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
9.483
10.37
10.12
11.74
0.964
4
10.6
13
13
13.6
1.34
4
10.05
12.43
12.24
15.07
2.22
4
10.7
12.88
12.8
15.2
2.26
4
Floodprone Width ft
100
100
100
100
0
4
100
100
100
100
0
4
100
100
100
100
0
4
100
100
100
100
0
4
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.533
0.686
0.676
0.857
0.166
4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.06
4
0.417
0.58
0.554
0.808
0.17
4
0.4
0.55
0.5
0.8
0.17
4
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.865
1.074
1.056
1.319
0.198
4
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.3
0.17
4
0.926
1.075
1.04
1.416
0.24
4
1
1.15
1.1
1.4
0.17
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
5.639
7.015
7.145
8.131
1.26
4
5.6
7.2
7.2
8.1
1.25
4
5.6
7
7.15
8.1
1.25
4
5.6
7
7.15
8.1
1.25
4
Width/Depth Ratio
11.06
16.01
15.47
22.04
5.078
4
19.9
21.6
21.6
27.7
3.64
4
12.44
23.2
22.1
36.16
9.8
4
14.3
24.65
25.8
32.7
8.06
4
Entrenchment Ratio
8.519
9.707
9.882
10.54
0.852
4
2
7.5
7.5
9.4
0.91
4
6.637
8.25
8.233
9.946
1.48
4
6.6
7.95
7.95
9.3
1.35
4
'Bank Height Ratio1
1
1
1
0
4
1
1
1
1
0.05
4
0.9
1
1.0
1.1
0.1
4
0.9
0.925
0.9
1
0.05
4
Profile
Riffle Length ft
4.81
16.05
13.49
45.77
8.382
47
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.000
0.008
0.007
0.051
0.009
36
Pool Length ft
1.97
10.27
10.89
15.65
3.499
46
Pool Max depth ft
Pool Spacing ft
14.55
30.95
29.52
60.46
8.806
46
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 9.9 19.8 26.4
Radius of Curvature Lt 13.2 19.8 26.4
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength ft 39.5 56 79.1
Meander Width Ratio 1.5 3 4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Ce 4
Channel Thalweg length ft
1455
Sinuosity ft
1.15
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0051
BF slo e ft/ft
------
i o u o o a o
'SCo ao o 0 o eo
5 5 5
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
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 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 13h. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 7 1844 feet
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
I MY- 3
MY- 5
MY- 7
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD 4
in
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
10.09
11.92
12.22
13.15
1.402
4
10.1
13.5
13.5
15.1
2.33
4
10.48
12.88
13.18
14.58
1.936
4
9.5
11.88
12.15
13.7
1.943
4
Floodprone Width ft
100
100
100
100
0
4
100
100
100
100
0
4
100
100
100
100
0
4
100
100
100
100
0
4
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.515
0.681
0.69
0.83
0.139
4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.096
4
0.495
0.65
0.638
0.75
0.129
4
0.5
0.675
0.7
0.8
0.15
4
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.82
1.123
1.163
1.345
0.235
4
1
1.2
1.2
1.3
0.129
4
0.934
1.175
1.213
1.319
0.189
4
1
1.2
1.2
1.4
0.163
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
5.1961
8.26
8.583
10.68
2.517
4
1 5.2
1 8.6
1 8.6
1 10.7
2.525
4
5.2
8.25
1 8.55
10.7
2.525
4
5.2
1 8.25
8.55
10.7
2.53
4
Width/Depth Ratio
15.52
17.76
17.95
J 19.6111.7341
4
1 19.6
1 21
1 21
1 21.8
0.947
4
19.02
20.48
20.7
21.51
1.13
4
17.2
17.48
17.55
17.6
0.189
4
Entrenchment Ratio
7.602
8.481
8.207
9.908
11.0561
4
1 0.7
1 1.5
1 1.5
1 2
1.53
4
6.857
7.925
7.639
9.541
1.2
4
7.3
8.6
8.3
10.5
1.47
4
'Bank Height Ratio_
1
1 1
1
1
0
1 4
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1.2
10.096
4
0.9
1.025
1.0
1.1
0.096
4
0.9
0.95
0.95
1
0.058
4
Profile
Riffle Length ft
7.735
27.4
24.34
91.32
15.53
44
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.000
0.013
0.010
0.040
0.011
44
Pool Length ft
4.044
11.28
11.73
15.84
2.729
44
Pool Max depth ft
Pool Spacing ft
22.31
44.19
40.07
107.9
16.31
43
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 27.9 27.9 37.3
Radius of Curvature ft 18.6 27.9 37.3
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength ft 55.9 79.2 111.8
Meander Width Ratio 1.5 3 4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Eb 4
Channel Thalweg length ft
1973
Sinuosity ft
1.07
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0103
BF slo e ft/ft
------
i o u o o a o
'SCo ao o 0 o eo
5 5 5
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
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 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 13i. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number Warren Wilson/100019 Segment/Reach: UT 8 760 feet
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 5
MY- 7
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD 4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
10.34
12.04
12.13
13.66
3
10.3
12.9
12.9
15.2
3
10.38
11.27
11.18
14.53
3
11.3
12.53
12.3
14
3
Floodprone Width ft
100
100
100
100
3
100
100
100
100
3
100
100
100
100
3
100
100
100
100
3
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.624
0.684
0.684
0.745
3
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
3
0.576
0.8
0.702
0.799
3
0.6
0.667
0.7
0.7
3
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.197
1.433
1.426
1.677
3
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
3
1.206
1.5
1.457
1.625
3
1.1
1.33
1.4
1.5
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
6.44618.413
8.305
8.293
10.18
3
6.4
8.3
8.3
10.2
3
6.4
8.3
8.3
10.2
3
6.4
8.3
8.3
10.2
3
Width/Depth Ratio
16.577.55
17.74
18.34
3
16.6
20
20
22.7
3
12.99
14.7
19.43
20.7
3
18.4
19.13
19.1
19.9
3
Entrenchment Ratio
7.32
8.244
9.676
3
1.6
1.9
1.9
2.2
3
6.883
8.9
8.943
9.638
3
7.2
8.033
8.1
8.8
3
Bank Height Ratio1
1
1
1
3
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
3
0.9
1
1.0
1.0
3
0.9
1
1
1.1
3
Profile
Riffle Length ft
7.812
15.86
13.77
32.44
7.157
27
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.000
0.010
0.010
0.023
0.006
27
Pool Length ft
6.84
12.15
12.42
19.87
2.569
27
Pool Max depth ft
Pool Spacing ft
24.07
32.15
30.62
48.15
6.855
26
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 10.65 21.3 28.4
Radius of Curvature Lt 14.2 21.3 28.4
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength ft 42.6 64 85.2
Meander Width Ratio 1.5 3 4
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
C 4
Channel Thalweg length ft
874
Sinuosity ft
1.15
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0063
BF slo e ft/ft
------
i o u o o a o
'SCo ao o 0 o eo
5 5 5
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
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 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 1, XS -1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
6/21/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
2571.6
3.7
2570.9
6.3
2569.9
7.3
2569.3
7.9
2568.8
8.8
2568.1
10.0
2567.9
10.5
2567.9
11.0
2568.0
11.3
2568.0
11.8
2568.6
12.9
2568.8
14.9
2568.9
18.2
2569.8
22.3
2570.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2569.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
12.8
Bankfull Width:
12.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2571.8
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.0
Low Bank Height:
1.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
12.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type Cb 4
7-1
Warren Wilson, UT 1, XS - 1, Riffle
2572
......................................................
2571
- - - - Flood Prone Area
E
- - - - Bankf.0
2570
MY-00 TOB
�
MY-00 1Y21/20
2569
MY-0110/19/20
y
w
MY-02 4/8/21
t MY-03 6/21/22
2568
■ MY-03 LTOB
2566
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 2, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
6/21/2022
Field Crew:
IPerkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
-0.1
2571.0
3.5
2570.6
5.7
2570.4
6.2
2570.3
7.2
2569.9
7.7
2568.4
9.0
2568.2
9.7
2568.3
10.5
2568.4
11.5
2568.8
12.0
2568.9
12.6
2569.8
14.1
2570.0
17.1
2570.5
19.9
2570.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2570.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.3
Bankfull Width:
7.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.0
Low Bank Height:
1.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I Cb 4

7 ,
-
w
r y.
4
e E
�.
;c
Stream Type Cb 4
Warren Wilson,
UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
2578
2577
m
Bankfull
5
MY-00 TOB
0 257E
_
MY-001/21/20
MY-01 10/19/20
_
MY-02 4/8/21
w
t MY-03 6/21/22
2574
■ MY-03 LTOB
2573
0
10
20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
6/21/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
2575.9
4.6
2575.E
6.9
2575.3
8.2
2574.9
8.3
2574.7
8.8
2574.2
9.1
2574.2
9.3
2574.1
9.9
2574.0
10.7
2574.1
11.4
2574.2
12.1
2575.2
14.0
2575.5
17.2
2576.2
19.2
2576.E
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2575.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
7.4
Bankfull Width:
10.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
Low Bank Height:
1.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

kph
5
w ?
�
f4i
�.
y
r-
Fg
l.r
7-1
Stream Type Cb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 1, XS - 4, Riffle
-------------------------------------------------------------
2578
257E
- - - - - Flood Prone Area
v
- - - - Bankfull
MY-00 TOB
O
Mv-oo "um
MY-01 10/11/20
N
WMYA24/8/21
t MY-03 6/21/22
2574
■ MY-03 LTOB
2573
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 1, XS -4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
6/21/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
2576.2
4.1
2575.8
5.2
2575.5
6.1
2575.2
6.7
2575.2
7.5
2574.7
8.0
2574.E
8.5
2574.5
9.0
2574.7
9.5
2574.8
10.E
2575.2
12.E
2575.E
17.1
2576.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2576.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
9.4
Bankfull Width:
14.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2577.7
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
Low Bank Height:
1.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
21.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
6/21/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
2599.1
3.0
2598.8
4.8
2598.2
5.4
2598.2
6.3
2598.0
6.7
2597.8
7.2
2597.7
7.9
2597.3
8.3
2597.5
9.1
2597.8
9.4
2597.E
9.7
2598.0
10.E
2598.1
12.2
2598.3
14.2
2598.5
16.3
2598.E
1.i
- - _-
- .��• "
_.?
Stream Type Cb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
2600
-----------------------------------------------------------
- - - - Flood Prone Area
2599 - - - - B-MI1
MY-00 TOB
O -7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MY-001/21/20
ti
W 2598 MY-024/8/21
t MY-03 6/21/22
■ MY-03 LTOB
2597
0 10 20
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2598.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.3
Bankfull Width:
9.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2599.E
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Low Bank Height:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
21.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 6, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
6/21/2022
Field Crew:
IPerkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
-0.1
2599.5
2.7
2598.9
4.8
2598.7
5.8
2598.4
6.6
2597.9
7.4
2597.5
7.9
2597.2
8.3
2597.2
8.8
2597.1
9.2
2597.3
9.6
2597.7
10.1
2598.4
12.6
2598.5
15.9
2598.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2598.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.8
Bankfull Width:
6.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Low Bank Height:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I Cb 4

..
y .
s
!.
Stream Type Cb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 1, XS - 7, Pool
260E
2605 --- ---------
----
---- B.kfull
N
MY-00 IOB
0 2604
MY-00 1/21/20
MY-01 10/19/20
m
MY-02 a/R/21
W 2603
t MY-03 6MM
■ MY_o3 Gros
2602
0
10
20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
6/21/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
2605.2
4.0
2604.8
6.3
2604.5
7.3
2604.1
8.0
2603.E
8.4
2603.4
8.7
2603.2
9.2
2603.2
9.2
2603.2
10.0
2603.2
10.7
2603.3
11.4
2603.5
11.8
2603.8
12.4
2604.3
14.7
2604.E
17.8
2605.0
20.4
2605.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2604.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
9.0
Bankfull Width:
13.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
Low Bank Height:
1.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
6/21/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
2606.1
4.3
2605.7
6.0
2605.2
6.2
2605.0
6.8
2604.8
7.6
2604.5
7.9
2604.5
8.5
2604.E
8.7
2604.5
9.2
2604.E
9.8
2605.2
11.3
2605.2
13.5
2605.8
16.4
2606.0
18.1
2606.2
18.1
2606.2
e
r�r
d
,v
A:..a
Stream Type Cb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 1, XS - 8, Riffle
2608
2607
----------------------------------------------------
- - - - - Flood Prone Area
� - - - -Bankfull
MY-0O 1/21/20
0 260E MY-0110/19/20
MY-00 TOB
ti
w MY-0MY 4/8/21
2605 t MY-03 6/21/22
■ MY-03 LTOB
2604
0 10 20
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2605.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.6
Bankfull Width:
10.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2607.1
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Low Bank Height:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
17.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
11/6/2022
Field Crew:
lPerkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
2550.1
3.1
2550.1
6.1
2550.0
8.3
2549.5
10.4
2549.2
12.0
2548.9
13.1
2548.5
14.4
2548.0
15.3
2548.1
16.5
2547.8
17.8
2547.9
18.9
2548.0
19.7
2548.2
21.2
2548.5
22.5
2548.7
24.6
2549.1
26.9
2549.5
30.0
2549.8
34.4
2549.8
38.4
2549.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2549.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
27.2
Bankfull Width:
32.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2552.0
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Low Bank Height:
2.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
37.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I I Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS - 1, Riffle
2553
2552
- - -Flood Prone Area
2551 - - - -Ba M11
N
MY-00 LTOB
OS 2550--- - - - - -- MY-00121/20
MY-01 102020
m 2549
w MY-oza/6/z1
f MY- 3 11/6/22
2548 ■ MY-03 LTOB
2547
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)

4.
.
.. .
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS - 2, Pool
2552
2551
APO-
- - - Bankfull
2549------------------
-------------- --------------------
MY-00 TOB
O
MY-00 1/21/20
y 254p
MY-011020/20
MY-024/6/21
W
t MY-03 11/6/22
2547
■ MY-03 LTOB
2546
0
10 20
30 40
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 2, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
11/6/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
-0.3
2550.3
5.0
2550.2
7.1
2550.0
9.3
2549.7
11.3
2549.4
12.1
2548.4
13.9
2547.5
15.5
2547.0
16.8
2546.9
17.8
2547.0
18.4
2547.3
19.8
2547.4
20.1
2547.4
20.8
2549.E
21.4
2550.0
23.E
2550.4
26.9
2550.8
32.8
2550.8
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2549.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
16.7
Bankfull Width:
9.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.4
Low Bank Height:
2.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

\dy,'
«' �n
a
¢�`
r.
t
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson,
UT 3, XS - 3, Pool
2560
2559
,,��---------- ---
- - - - - - - - - -
------------------- -
---Bankfull
d
cd 2557
MY-00T0B
�C
O
MY-00 1/2l/20
y 255E
MY-01 10/20/20
MY-024/6/21
w
t MY-03 11/6/22
2555
■ MY-03 LTOB
2554
0
10
20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT3, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
11/6/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
2558.E
3.0
2558.5
5.1
2557.9
6.2
2557.3
7.1
2556.E
7.7
2556.1
8.9
2555.8
10.0
2555.5
11.4
2555.E
12.1
2555.7
13.2
2556.1
14.1
2556.3
15.1
2556.5
16.0
2556.8
16.4
2557.0
17.2
2557.1
18.7
2557.3
21.2
2557.8
23.5
2558.04
26.E
2557.81
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2557.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
21.3
Bankfull Width:
17.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.4
Low Bank Height:
2.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
11/6/2022
Field Crew:
IPerkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
2558.9
2.8
2558.4
4.1
2558.0
6.6
2558.0
8.8
2557.7
10.7
2557.4
11.8
2556.9
12.7
2556.9
13.5
2556.7
15.6
2556.6
17.0
2556.8
18.2
2556.7
19.1
2556.8
19.8
2557.2
20.5
2557.3
21.7
2557.6
23.0
2557.6
24.5
2558.0
27.3
2558.1
30.2
2558.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2558.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
17.0
Bankfull Width:
26.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2559.7
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
Low Bank Height:
1.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
41.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type d I Ce 4

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 5, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
11/6/2022
Field Crew:
IPerkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.4
2602.8
7.1
2602.4
10.4
2601.8
13.3
2601.1
14.6
2600.6
15.6
2599.0
16.5
2598.8
18.2
2598.9
19.7
2598.8
21.1
2599.4
21.8
2599.9
22.9
2600.5
25.1
2601.1
27.3
2601.7
29.6
2601.9
34.8
2601.7
40.5
2601.8
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2601.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
19.1
Bankfull Width:
13.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.6
Low Bank Height:
2.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9
Stream Type I Ce 4

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
11/6/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.1
2603.0
6.1
2603.0
9.9
2602.7
11.8
2602.3
13.7
2601.9
15.4
2601.6
17.4
2601.0
18.5
2600.8
19.6
2600.8
20.6
2600.8
21.4
2601.1
22.6
2601.4
23.6
2601.5
25.2
2602.0
27.9
2602.6
33.1
2603.3
36.4
2603.2
38.1
2603.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2602.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
21.4
Bankfull Width:
21.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2604.8
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.0
Low Bank Height:
1.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
21.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.6
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS - 6, Riffle
2606
2605------------------------------------------ •------ -- - - -.
- - - - - Flood Prone Area
2604 - - - - Bell
MY-00 TOB
.� 2603 - MY-001/21/20
_______sss
MYAI 10/20Y20
C
w 2602 MY-024/6/21
t MY-03 11/6/22
■ MY-03 LTOB
2601
2600
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)

r s„:
✓f
r
t +
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS -7 , Riffle
2612
----------------------------------------------------------
2611
- - - - - Flood Prone Area
2610
- - - -Bankfull
MY-00 TOB
�
MYA01/ 1/20
y 2609
MY-0110/20/20
wMY-02
4/6/21
t MY-03 11/6/22
2608
■ MY-03 LT
2607
0
10
20
30 40
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 7, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
11/6/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.2
2610.0
3.8
2610.0
7.4
2609.7
10.8
2609.2
12.3
2608.7
12.9
2608.4
13.E
2608.0
14.9
2607.9
16.0
2607.9
17.1
2607.9
18.5
2608.E
19.8
2608.9
21.4
26093
24.0
2609.8
28.9
2609.7
32.0
2609.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2609.E
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
13.E
Bankfull Width:
17.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2611.4
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
Low Bank Height:
1.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
23.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 8, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
11/6/2022
Field Crew:
IPerkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
2611.9
7.4
2611.9
12.3
2611.5
14.8
2610.7
15.7
2608.7
17.1
2608.4
18.5
2608.4
20.3
2608.6
21.3
2608.7
21.8
2608.9
22.6
2610.3
23.2
2610.5
24.4
2610.8
31.3
2611.7
35.8
2611.7
40.0
2611.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2611.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
20.8
Bankfull Width:
14.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.8
Low Bank Height:
2.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9
Stream Type I Ce 4

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 9, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
11/6/2022
Field Crew:
IPerkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
-0.1
2617.1
5.7
2617.0
12.2
2616.3
15.2
2615.7
16.0
2615.4
16.9
2615.4
17.7
2615.2
18.6
2615.2
19.3
2615.5
20.0
2615.8
21.3
2615.6
22.4
2616.0
24.3
2616.2
26.4
2616.8
29.8
2616.8
33.3
2616.7
36.1
2616.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2616.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
16.4
Bankfull Width:
29.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2618.5
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
Low Bank Height:
1.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
52.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I Ce 4
wpm, MR
.s

rr
r
►A ti
-'
�.;
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS - 10, Pool
2618
2617 _________
___
--I-
- - - Bankfull
N
MY-00 TOB
261E
MY-001/21/20
MY-0110 .2
My-02 a16n1
_
W
t MY-03 11/6/22
2615
■ MY-03 LTOB
2614
0
10 20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 10, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
11/6/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
2617.7
3.8
2617.5
8.2
2617.2
10.2
2616.7
11.8
2616.3
13.0
2614.5
14.4
2614.4
15.2
2614.3
16.2
2614.5
16.7
2614.E
17.5
2616.7
18.7
2617.0
21.7
2617.4
27.7
2617.8
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2617.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
16.7
Bankfull Width:
13.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
3.0
Low Bank Height:
2.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 11, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
11/6/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
1.0
2623.9
6.9
2623.2
10.6
2622.4
11.9
2622.1
13.3
2620.5
13.9
2620.5
14.8
2620.7
15.8
2620.9
16.6
2621.0
17.8
2621.5
19.1
2621.9
22.1
2622.4
26.8
2623.2
34.3
2623.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2623.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
28.8
Bankfull Width:
26.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.9
Low Bank Height:
2.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS - 11, Pool
2625
2624
N
2623
MY-00 TOB
i
0
MY-001/21/20
2622
MY-01 10/20/20
MY-02 4/6n1
W
t MY-03 11/6/22
2621
■ MY-03 LTOB
2620
0 10 20
30 40
Station (feet)

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
11/6/2022
Field Crew:
lPerkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
-0.5
2623.6
5.6
2623.1
9.1
2622.9
9.9
2622.5
10.7
2621.9
11.5
2621.4
12.6
2621.2
13.7
2621.0
15.2
2621.0
15.8
2621.3
16.5
2621.0
17.1
2622.3
18.7
2622.8
20.4
2622.9
21.4
2623.3
25.1
2623.4
28.9
2624.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2623.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
16.0
Bankfull Width:
16.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2625.4
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
Low Bank Height:
2.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
16.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 3, XS -12, Riffle
2626---------------- -----------------------------
2625
- - - -Flood Prone Area
d - - - Bankfull
t2623
O■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ MY-001/21120
? 2622 MY-01 10/20/20
,� MY-024/6/21
W ---M- MY-03 11/6/22
2621 ■ MY-03 LTOB
2620
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 1, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
11/5/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.1
2586.0
5.5
2585.8
7.3
2585.7
9.3
2585.4
11.7
2585.0
12.9
2584.5
14.0
2583.8
14.5
2583.8
15.5
2583.4
16.7
2583.3
17.3
2583.3
18.7
2584.5
20.1
2585.3
23.5
2585.8
26.4
2585.7
28.7
2585.E
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2585.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
11.8
Bankfull Width:
11.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Low Bank Height:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C 4
Warren Wilson, UT 4, XS -1, Pool
2587
2586
----------- ----
- - - - Bankfull
0
MY TOB
2585
MY-001/21/20
MY-01 1020/20
_
MY-02 4/6/21
w
t MY-03 11/5/22
2583
■ MY-03 LTOB
2582
0 10 20
30 40
Station (feet)

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
11/5/2022
Field Crew:
lPerkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
2586.9
5.0
2587.0
7.3
2586.9
10.2
2586.1
11.6
2585.7
12.9
2585.7
13.6
2585.2
14.6
2585.2
15.5
2585.0
16.5
2585.0
16.9
2585.2
17.8
2585.4
18.9
2585.7
20.0
2586.1
21.7
2586.5
24.0
2586.8
29.0
2586.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
2586.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
13.3
Bankfull Width:
15.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
2588.4
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
Low Bank Height:
1.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
16.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
F_"r 4 ,
Stream Type C 4
Warren Wilson, UT 4, XS - 2, Riffle
2589
2588
- - -Flood Prone Area
- - - - Bankfull
cd 2587 MY-00 TOB
O
11-00 111/20
2586 MY-0110/20n0
MY-02 4/6/21
W t MY-03 11/5/22
2585 ■ MY-03 LT-
2584
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)

i'
a
Stream Type
Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 5, XS -1, Pool
516
514
w
----------------- - --- -
--------- ----
- Bankfull
c�
V
\
MY-00 TOH
513
MY-001/21/20
MY-01 Ion.MY-024/N21
W
t MY-03 10/I1/M
5 12A
MY-03 LTOB
511
0
10
20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT S, XS - 1, POOI
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/11/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
-0.2
514.5
2.5
514.2
5.2
514.2
7.0
513.8
8.1
513.5
9.4
511.9
10.7
511.7
11.8
511.5
12.9
511.8
14.0
511.8
14.4
513.0
15.5
513.4
16.7
514.0
17.7
514.0
18.6
514.1
20.5
514.3
23.2
514.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
514.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
15.3
Bankfull Width:
12.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.6
Low Bank Height:
2.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 5, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/11/2022
Field Crew:
lPerkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
514.6
3.4
514.7
5.5
514.4
7.0
513.9
8.1
513.4
8.8
513.3
9.8
512.6
10.3
512.8
10.7
512.8
11.2
513.2
12.0
513.1
12.9
513.4
14.2
514.0
15.8
514.5
18.1
514.6
20.1
514.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
514.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
7.9
Bankfull Width:
9.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
516.0
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
Low Bank Height:
1.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
11.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
Stream Type I Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 5, XS - 2, Riffle
517
516
- - - - Flood Prone Area
515
- - Bankfull
M -00 T.
O
MP-oo 1/21/20
514-glop,M
-0110/19/20
_
W-.4/6121
W
t W-0310/11/22
513
■ W-03 LTOB
512
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 5, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/11/2022
Field Crew:
IPerkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.3
520.6
1.9
520.7
5.6
520.6
6.9
520.4
7.9
520.0
8.4
519.1
9.1
519.1
10.3
519.0
10.8
518.9
11.6
519.2
12.2
520.0
12.9
520.2
14.6
520.6
17.1
520.6
20.4
520.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
520.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
7.4
Bankfull Width:
12.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
Low Bank Height:
1.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I Ce 4

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 5, XS - 4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/11/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
-0.2
521.3
3.2
521.3
6.8
521.4
8.4
521.0
9.3
520.8
10.1
520.0
11.1
520.2
12.1
520.4
13.1
520.9
15.7
521.3
20.9
521.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
521.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
7.3
Bankfull Width:
21.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
522.7
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Low Bank Height:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
60.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.7
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 5, XS - 4, Riffle
523
...................................................
522
- - - - Flood Prone Area
°
------------
--- -e -00ll
MY-00 TOB
521
MY-001/21/20
MY-O] 1020/20
N
WMY-02
4/6/21
520
t M -03 10/11/22
MY-03 LTOB
519
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 5, XS - 5, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
10/11/2022
Field Crew:
IPerkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.1
531.0
3.7
530.8
6.6
530.6
8.1
530.8
9.0
530.4
10.1
528.4
11.3
528.5
12.2
528.6
13.0
528.7
13.6
528.9
14.1
530.5
14.6
530.8
16.0
530.5
18.2
530.6
20.6
530.8
22.8
531.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
530.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.7
Bankfull Width:
6.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Low Bank Height:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I I Ce 4

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 5, XS -6, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
10/11/2022
Field Crew:
IPerkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.2
531.4
5.9
531.0
9.4
530.6
11.5
530.5
12.4
529.8
13.0
529.8
13.3
529.9
14.0
530.5
15.9
530.6
19.9
530.9
25.7
531.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
531.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
10.4
Bankfull Width:
23.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
532.7
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
Low Bank Height:
1.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
51.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I I Ce 4

rSai K %
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 6, XS - 1, Pool
23
22
- - - - Bankfull
N
MY-00 TOB
O 21
MY-003/l7/20
N
MY-01 10/2m
MY-02 4/6/21
w
f MY-03 11/5/22
20
■ MY-03 LTOB
19
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 6, XS - 1, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
11/5/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
-4.2
21.6
-1.1
21.0
0.8
20.9
2.3
20.5
3.6
20.2
4.8
20.0
5.7
19.9
7.5
20.3
8.6
20.8
10.1
21.0
11.4
21.4
13.0
21.5
14.8
21.7
17.1
22.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
21.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.3
Bankfull Width:
12.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Low Bank Height:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
0.8

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 6, XS -2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
11/5/2022
Field Crew:
IPerkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
21.9
4.0
21.8
6.5
21.4
8.2
21.2
9.2
21.1
9.9
20.7
10.5
20.8
11.3
20.6
12.1
20.8
12.9
20.9
14.3
21.1
15.6
21.5
17.4
21.8
19.4
22.0
20.6
22.1
21.6
22.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
21.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.6
Bankfull Width:
11.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
22.6
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
22.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.9
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9
Stream Type d I Ce 4

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 6, XS - 3, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
11/5/2022
Field Crew:
IPerkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
-0.3
24.1
2.4
23.7
5.3
23.5
7.3
23.3
8.9
22.9
10.0
22.4
10.7
22.4
11.5
22.3
12.3
22.2
12.9
22.4
13.5
22.6
14.7
23.0
16.1
23.5
17.0
23.8
18.8
24.1
21.0
24.2
22.7
24.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
23.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
9.8
Bankfull Width:
14.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
Low Bank Height:
1.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I Ce 4

`Y .;
�'0
.M
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 6, XS - 4, Riffle
26
25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Flood Prone Area
- - - � Bankfull
�
MY-00 TOB
o 24
_ _
MY-003/17/20
a
MY-01 10/21/20
ti
MY-02 4/6/21
W 23
---D- MY-03 11/5/22
■ MY-03 LTOB
22
0
10 20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 6, XS -4, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
11/5/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.1
24.1
3.1
23.8
6.2
23.7
7.3
23.2
8.2
22.9
9.1
22.9
10.7
22.8
12.0
22.8
13.4
23.0
14.6
23.3
15.4
23.6
16.7
23.7
18.8
24.0
20.5
24.1
21.7
24.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
23.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.0
Bankfull Width:
15.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
24.9
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Low Bank Height:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
29.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.6
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9

q� a
iP ie
-'r
k
s
a
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 6, XS - 5, Riffle
28
27
- - - - -
Fbod Prone Area
�
- - - -Bankfull
MY-00 TOB
O 26
MY-00 3/17/20
MY-01 ]0/21/20
ti
w
/
MY-02 4/6/21
G
2
t
■
MY-03 11/5/22
MY-03 LTOB
24
0
10
20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 6, XS -5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
11/5/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
26.3
1.5
26.5
3.3
26.5
4.8
26.4
5.9
26.3
6.9
26.0
7.6
25.7
8.1
25.5
8.6
25.1
9.2
24.9
10.0
25.0
11.0
25.2
12.1
25.5
13.8
25.5
15.9
26.3
18.0
26.5
20.2
26.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
26.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.1
Bankfull Width:
10.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
27.8
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Low Bank Height:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
14.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 6, XS - 6, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
11/5/2022
Field Crew:
IPerkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.1
27.0
2.3
26.7
4.7
26.7
6.1
26.5
7.6
26.0
8.6
25.6
9.2
25.5
10.0
25.2
10.8
25.0
12.0
25.3
12.8
25.6
13.9
25.8
16.7
26.4
20.0
26.6
23.7
26.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
26.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.4
Bankfull Width:
12.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
Low Bank Height:
1.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I Ce 4

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad,06010105
XS ID
UT 6, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
11/5/2022
Field Crew:
IPerkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
-0.3
28.1
3.6
27.9
6.9
27.9
8.6
27.5
9.8
27.0
10.9
26.5
12.0
26.1
12.7
25.4
13.5
25.5
14.5
25.6
16.0
26.0
17.4
26.5
18.5
26.7
20.2
26.6
23.2
27.1
25.7
27.1
27.8
27.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
27.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
11.1
Bankfull Width:
16.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
Low Bank Height:
1.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type N I Ce 4

r�
Stream Type Ce 4
Warren Wilson, UT 6, XS - 8, Riffle
29
28
- - - -
--
- - - - - Food Prone Area
�
- - - -Bankfull
woos - MY-00 TOB
O 27
MYAO 3/17/20
MYAI ]0/21YL0
ti
w7N,
MY-02 4/6/21
26
t MY-03 11/5/22
MY-03 LTOB
25
0
10 20
30 40
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 6, XS -8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
11/5/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
27.5
2.0
27.2
4.9
27.1
8.6
26.9
10.6
26.7
12.1
26.6
13.2
26.2
14.1
25.9
15.3
26.2
16.0
26.2
17.1
26.4
18.3
26.5
20.2
26.9
22.1
27.2
24.2
27.1
26.3
27.3
29.4
27.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
27.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.3
Bankfull Width:
14.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
28.1
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Low Bank Height:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
32.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.0
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 7, XS -11 Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
6/22/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
25.6
4.7
25.8
6.6
25.5
7.8
25.1
9.5
24.6
11.1
24.4
12.2
24.4
13.1
24.3
14.2
24.6
15.3
24.8
16.4
25.1
18.2
25.6
20.8
26.0
23.3
26.1
24.9
26.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectiona)Area:
0.7
Bankfull Width:
3.7
Flood Prone Area Eleva
7.1
Flood Prone Width:
1[25.7
0.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
.4
Low Bank Height:
.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
.8
W / D Ratio:
17.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.3
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9
Stream Type I Eb 4

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 7, XS - 2, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
6/22/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
1.1
25.3
3.9
25.5
6.0
25.2
7.6
24.4
8.0
24.3
9.1
24.1
9.9
23.9
11.1
23.8
12.0
23.8
13.2
23.8
13.4
23.6
14.0
23.8
14.7
23.9
15.2
23.9
15.5
24.6
16.2
24.8
18.2
25.3
20.9
25.9
23.1
26.0
24.9
26.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
7W5.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:.2
Bankfull Width:
.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
IM
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
27
26
s;
25
W
24
23
Stream Type I Gh 4
Warren Wilson, UT 7, XS - 2, Pool
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 7, XS -31 Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
6/22/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.9
25.7
3.2
25.6
4.6
25.2
5.8
24.5
7.3
24.4
8.6
24.6
10.1
24.4
11.3
24.4
13.1
25.0
14.8
25.3
16.7
25.7
18.7
26.0
21.6
26.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
25.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
9.9
Bankfull Width:
13.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
26.8
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Low Bank Height:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
17.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I Eb 4

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 7, XS - 4, Pool
sPerkinson,
Feature
Pool
Date:
6/22/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.2
25.6
2.5
25.7
4.4
25.7
6.1
25.3
7.3
24.8
8.5
24.3
9.5
23.9
10.7
23.9
12.0
23.7
13.0
23.6
14.4
23.9
15.2
24.3
15.8
25.1
17.3
25.4
20.6
25.8
22.9
26.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
25.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
13.0
Bankfull Width:
12.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
Low Bank Height:
1.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I Eb 4

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 7, XS -5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
6/22/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
30.9
4.0
30.4
6.6
29.9
7.9
29.7
8.7
29.4
9.1
29.1
9.9
29.2
10.1
29.1
10.8
29.0
10.8
29.0
11.3
29.2
12.4
29.1
12.7
29.4
16.2
30.3
20.8
30.3
23.7
30.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
30.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
7.2
Bankfull Width:
11.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
31.4
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
Low Bank Height:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
17.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
9.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
32
31
s;
30
W
29
28
Stream Type Gb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 7, XS - 5, Riffle
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 7, XS - 6, Pool
sPerkinson,
Feature
Pool
Date:
6/22/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
31.3
3.5
31.0
5.6
30.5
6.9
30.1
7.9
29.5
8.2
29.2
8.7
29.2
9.5
28.9
10.0
29.1
10.7
29.2
11.1
29.4
12.4
30.6
15.9
31.2
17.7
31.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
.7
Bankfull Width:
.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
A
Flood Prone Width:
A
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1
1[3.0
Low Bank Height:
1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
9
W / D Ratio:
A
Entrenchment Ratio:
A
Bank Height Ratio:
0
Stream Type I Eb 4

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 7, XS - 7, Pool
sPerkinson,
Feature
Pool
Date:
6/22/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
37.8
4.5
37.5
6.4
37.1
7.2
36.9
7.6
36.3
8.1
35.6
8.5
35.4
9.1
35.4
9.2
35.3
9.6
35.3
10.3
35.3
10.9
35.1
11.6
35.5
12.1
35.9
13.0
37.0
14.7
37.5
16.8
37.8
19.8
38.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
37.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
11.6
Bankfull Width:
10.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.3
Low Bank Height:
2.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I Eb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 7, XS - 7, Pool
39
38
----------------------------------
-----s�
�
37
�-oa Toe
my-oo 3/17M
O
my-o� ionvzo
°
y
36
my-oz 4i6r21
W
t -03 6nz@2
My-03 rTM
35
34
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 7, XS -8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
6/22/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
-0.5
39.3
3.4
38.8
5.3
38.6
7.2
38.1
7.7
37.9
8.1
37.7
8.8
37.7
9.2
37.7
9.7
37.7
10.1
37.7
10.8
38.0
11.4
37.9
11.8
37.9
12.3
38.3
13.5
38.6
15.3
38.9
18.1
38.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
38.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
5.2
Bankfull Width:
9.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
39.7
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
17.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
10.5
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9
40
39
0
W 38
37
Stream Type & I Eb 4
Warren Wilson, UT 7, XS - 8, Riffle
0 10 20
Station (feet)

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 8, XS -1, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
6/21/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
-0.5
515.5
1.9
515.1
4.1
514.9
6.1
514.6
8.4
514.1
9.9
513.8
10.6
513.5
11.1
513.4
12.0
513.5
12.8
513.6
14.6
514.2
16.4
514.7
18.9
515.2
20.8
515.4
21.9
515.6
24.5
515.9
A t4 t " ate. ' s A-
x
1
t e f
\�
dr
r
Stream Type C 4
Warren Wilson, UT 8, XS - 1, Riffle
517
-------------------------------------------------� -----Flood Prone Area
516 ea fd
� MY-00 TOB
515 MY-001/2120
MY-01 10/2110
N
W MY 024/6/21
514
t MY-03 6/21/22
■ MY-03 LTOB
513
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
514.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
10.2
Bankfull Width:
14.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
516.4
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
Low Bank Height:
1.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
19.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

•;` ]
5
r
`
ram. T
Y`
4f
Stream -Type
C 4
Warren Wilson, UT 8, XS - 2, Pool
517
516
---- B.kfull
MY-00 TOB
MYAO IY21/20
O 514
MYA] 10/21/20
yMY-02
4/6/21
W
513
t MYA3 6/21/22
■ MY- I-
512
0
10
20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 8, XS - 2, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
6/21/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.2
515.4
2.5
515.2
6.0
515.0
7.7
514.6
9.5
514.0
10.4
513.6
11.7
513.2
12.9
513.3
14.4
513.4
15.4
513.3
15.6
513.8
16.6
514.1
18.1
514.8
20.4
515.2
23.6
515.4
26.3
516.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
515.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
13.9
Bankfull Width: 15.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
Flood Prone Width: NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
Low Bank Height:
1.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
W / D Ratio: NA
Entrenchment Ratio: NA
Bank Height Ratio: 1.0

Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 8, XS - 3, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
6/21/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
-1.5
517.5
2.6
517.0
5.0
516.8
6.0
516.5
6.6
516.4
7.3
516.2
8.0
516.2
8.5
515.9
9.2
515.5
10.0
515.5
10.4
515.6
10.5
515.6
11.5
515.7
12.7
516.1
15.3
516.8
18.8
517.2
20.1
517.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
516.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.3
Bankfull Width:
12.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
518.3
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Low Bank Height:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
18.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.1
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9
,..
�.
r
Stream Type C 4
Warren Wilson, UT 8, XS - 3, Riffle
519
- - - - Flood Prone Area
518 ----- Ba f ll
ram.• MY-00 TOB
c�N
v MY-00 12120
0 517 _
MY-01 1012120
N
WMY-02 4/6/21
516
MY-03 6/21/22
MY-03 LTOB
515
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Station (feet)

C Ld'Y�
P*�
tli11F1 Y
i
_
I
���
o - -�,C-_.ate-c•= v.
�_ _
s
i
V
r
{1
Y 1!I
Stream Type C 4
Warren Wilson, UT 8, XS - 4, Pool
518
----- B.kfull
517
------
MY-00 TOH
MY-00 IY21/20
MYAI 11/21/20
?
MY-02 4/6/21
W 516
t MY-03 6/21/22
• MYA3 LTOH
515
0
10
20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
711Perkinson,
UT 8, XS - 4, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
6/21/2022
Field Crew:
Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
517.5
2.3
517.0
5.4
516.9
7.3
516.4
9.2
516.1
10.1
515.5
10.4
515.3
10.9
515.3
11.1
515.3
11.9
515.4
12.2
515.6
13.1
516.0
14.5
516.5
15.6
516.8
17.9
517.1
21.2
517.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
tNA;
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
.
Low Bank Height:
1.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

is.
-
I
a,
Stream Type C 4
Warren Wilson, UT 8, XS - 5, Riffle
520
---------------------------------------------------
- - - - Flood Prone Area
519
����. BadcffiII
MY-00 TOB
�
O
MY-00 12L209
MY-01 1.120
Y
p
W 51 O
MY-02 4/621
MY-03 62122
517
■ MY-03 LTOB
0
10 20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 8, XS -5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
6/21/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
519.1
3.2
518.8
4.5
518.8
6.5
518.4
8.7
517.8
9.3
517.7
10.3
517.7
10.8
517.7
11.2
517.6
11.8
517.8
11.9
517.8
12.2
517.9
13.0
518.1
14.2
518.4
16.6
518.8
21.4
519.2
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
518.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.4
Bankfull Width:
11.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
519.8
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Low Bank Height:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
19.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1

711
Stream Type C 4
Warren Wilson, UT 8, XS - 6, Pool
520
519
----- HankCu11
_ MY-00 TOH
N
MY-00IY21/20
518
MY-01 10/21/20
MY-02 4/6/21
WOff
517
� MYA3 6/21/22
MYA3 LTOH
516
0
10 20
30
Station (feet)
Site
Warren Wilson
Watershed:
French Broad, 06010105
XS ID
UT 8, XS - 6, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
6/21/2022
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Adams, D. Lewis
Station
Elevation
0.0
519.4
3.8
519.1
6.0
518.7
7.2
518.2
8.3
518.1
9.5
517.9
10.1
517.5
11.3
517.3
12.1
517.1
12.7
517.0
14.0
517.2
14.5
517.4
15.7
517.6
16.9
518.3
18.4
518.7
21.0
519.1
25.3
519.5
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
518.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
13.1
Bankfull Width:
14.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
Low Bank Height:
1.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9

Appendix E
Hydrology Data
Tables 14A-C Channel Evidence
Stream Flow Gauge Graphs
Table 15. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 16A-13. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
MV4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Table 14A. UT3 Channel Evidence
UT3 Channel Evidence
Year 1
(2020)
Year 2
(2021)
Year 3
(2022)
Year 4
(2023)
Year 5
(2024)
Year 6
(2025)
Year 7
(2026)
Max consecutive days channel flow
159
173
N/A**
178
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
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)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding)
at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root systems
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
No
No
No
Other:
** All three flow gauges failed during the 2022 season, and data was not able to be recovered from them. These flow gauges were replaced prior to year 4
(2023).
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Table 1413. UT6 Channel Evidence
UT6 Channel Evidence
Year 1
(2020)
Year 2
(2021)
Year 3
(2022)
Year 4
(2023)
Year 5
(2024)
Year 6
(2025)
Year 7
(2026)
Max consecutive days channel flow
33*
198
N/A**
190
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
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)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding)
at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root systems
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
No
No
No
Other:
*The gauge was installed August 1, 2020. Based on precipitation data, adjacent groundwater gauge data (Gauge 9), and other Site stream gauge data, it is
expected to have flowed consecutively for much of the year 1 (2020) monitoring period.
** All three flow gauges failed during the 2022 season, and data was not able to be recovered from them. These flow gauges were replaced prior to year 4
(2023).
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Table 14C. UT8 Channel Evidence
UT8 Channel Evidence
Year 1
(2020)
Year 2
(2021)
Year 3
(2022)
Year 4
(2023)
Year 5
(2024)
Year 6
(2025)
Year 7
(2026)
Max consecutive days channel flow
241
161
N/A**
163
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
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)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding)
at natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant root systems
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
No
No
No
Other:
** All three flow gauges failed during the 2022 season, and data was not able to be recovered from them. These flow gauges were replaced prior to year 4
(2023).
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

c
Warren Wilson College UT3 Stream Flow Gauge
Year 4 (2023 Data)
15
13
11
9
-5
N N N W W W A A A Ln Ln lA
Un N A 4-- Ln N A 4+ N A F+ N W W N N PQ N \ \ \ \
V1 (!1 \ A A \ p1 01 \ (!1 - \ (!1 - \ A A \ A A \ W W \ N N
\ \ N \ \ N \ \ N N \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ N N \
N N W N N W N N W N N W N N W N N W N N W N N W N N N \ \ N
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N W
W W
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5 S
0
E
a
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Warren Wilson College UT6 Stream Flow Gauge
Year 4 (2023 Data)
H
3
-5
-- o 0 o N
N M N U, N Un N A I--` N A I--` N W N N N
� � N � � N � � N � � N � � N � � N � � N \ � N � � � N N �
N N W N N W N N W N N W N N W N N W N N W N N W N N N -- -- N
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N W
W W
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
2.5 S
CO
C
Q
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Warren Wilson College UT8 Stream Flow Gauge
Year 4 (2023 Data)
Ln
3
-5
N N N W W W A A A W W W M M M V V V M M M l0 l0 l0
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O N
F+ N A I--` N N (n F� N W F+ IliA I--` N A I--` N W N N N \ \ \ \
Ln \ N \ \ N N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N N \ \ N \ \ N N \
N N W N N W N N W N N W N N W N N W N N W N N W N N N \ \ N
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N W
W W
4.0
3.5
3.0
c
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Table 15. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Date of
Photo
Monitoring
Collection
Occurrence
Method
(if available)
Year
Stream gauges and trail cameras captured a bankfull
event at UT8 after 4.47 inches of rain was documented
May 20, 2020
May 20, 2020
between May 19 and 20, 2020 at a nearby weather
1
MY1
station.
Wrack and laid-back vegetation were observed
November 4,
October 27,
outside the TOB of UT3 after 4.7 inches of rain was
2020
2020
documented between October 27 and 28, 2020 at a
2
MY1
nearby weather station.
Wrack and laid-back vegetation were observed
January 26,
January 26,
outside the TOB of UT6 after 0.5 inches of rain was
3
MY2
2021
2021
documented January 26, 2021 at an onsite rain gauge.
Wrack and laid-back vegetation were observed
April 6, 2021
March 31,
outside the TOB of UT7 after 1.09 inches of rain was
4
MY2
2021
documented March 31, 2021 at an onsite rain gauge.
Wrack and laid-back vegetation were observed along
October 13,
September 6,
the TOB of UT3, UTS, and UT8 after 2.22 inches of rain
2022
2022
was documented September 5-6, 2022 at an onsite
5, 6, 7
MY3
rain gauge.
September 26,
Stream gauges on UT3, UT6, and UT8 indicated a
May 28, 2023
bankfull event occurred after 2.88 inches of rain was
-
MY4
2023
recorded at an onsite rain gauge.
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Photo 1: UT8 at bankfull stage
Photo taken 5/20/2020, MY1
R,
Y
III
Av
eJ,
T;-'?Pl
i,:1V4
A
+p A.1 g !,iTV
t .". , r : .0i. -.� .
I C, "�v A 1A, 11 1� � .1J) J'WiL .1 :e"9
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Photo 4: Wrack and laid-back vegetation
outside the TOB of UT7 after a bankfull event. +' '
fir. 5. Photo taken 4/6/21, MY2 r
iel
` FF: e', - '� _ 1 �. "��n_ J.;f�f � �—�.� - dam•.. �'• '-L.i - ..f"
of
.'
c,
y 1 C
MV4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

MV4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Table 16A. Groundwater Hydrology Data: Mitigation Success (UT-313, Little Berea/Clingman's)
Typical Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3 (2022)
Year 4 (2023)
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
(2020)
(2021)
(2024)
(2025)
(2026)
3
Yes/127 days
Yes/198 days
Yes/193 days
Yes/178 days
(55.0%)
(89.6%)
(89.8%)
(83.2%)
Yes/32 days
Yes/198 days
Yes/193 days
Yes/178 days
4
(13.9%)
(89.6%)
(89.8%)
(83.2%)
Yes/174 days
Yes/198 days
Yes/193 days
Yes/178 days
5
(75.3%)
(89.6%)
(89.8%)
(83.2%)
Yes/93 days
Yes/198 days
Yes/193 days
Yes/178 days
6
(40.3%)
(89.6%)
(89.8%)
(83.2%)
Yes/72 days
Yes/198 days
Yes/193 days
Yes/178 days
7
(31.2%)
(89.6%)
(89.8%)
(83.2%)
Yes/231 days
Yes/198 days
Yes/101 days
Yes/100 days
8
(100%)
(89.6%)
(47.0%)
(46.7%)
Table 1613. Groundwater Hydrology Data: Potential Wetland Loss Monitoring Areas
Typical Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3 (2022)
Year 4 (2023)
Year 5 (2024)
Year 6
Year 7
(2020)
(2021)
(2025)
(2026)
Yes/37 days
Yes/198 days
Yes/46 days
Yes/51 days
1
(16.0%)
(89.6%)
(21.4%)
(23.8%)
Yes/61 days
Yes/198 days
Yes/194 days
Yes/93 days
2
(26.4%)
(89.6%)
(90.2%)
(43.5%)
Yes/175 days
Yes/198 days
Yes/193 days
Yes/178 days
9
(75.8%)
(89.6%)
(89.8%)
(83.2%)
No*/9 days
Yes/61 days
Yes/26 days
Yes/34 days
10
(3.9%)
(27.6%)
(12.1%)
(15.9%)
*Gauge was not installed until August 1, 2020. It is expected to have exceeded typical wetland success criteria had
it been installed earlier in the growing season.
MV4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

c
LM
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 4 (2023 Data)
N N W W W A A A Um Un U'1 U'1 M M M V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O N
0 N W 0 N W l0 hN 00 M N \ \ \ \
\ N N N O O \ N N \ N N \ N N N O O O O \ l0 l0 \ 00 00 00
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ 00 00 \
W N N N N N W N N W N N W N N N N N N N N N W N N W N N N \ \ N
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N W
W W
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
0.5
Me
c

c
a
v
J
L
3
v
c
0
ILI
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 4 (2023 Data)
N N W W W A A A U'I Ul U'1 lJl Ol Ol M V V V W W W W W W
M kD N 00 N \ \ \ \
lO W\ 00 00 00 N N -I
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ pp pp \
W N N N N N W N N W N N W N N N N N N N N N W N N W N N N \ \ N
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N W
W W
3.0
2.5
2.0 c
1.0
0.5
0.0

c
v
v
J
L
Y
3
c
0
u
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 4 (2023 Data)
N N W W W ? A W W W W M M M -I v v M W W l0 l0 l0
W I\-� N N F\-� N I\-� I\-� N I\-� F\-� N W I\-� N W I\-� N W W I\-� N M I\-� N \ \ \ \
O O \ N N \ N N \ N N N O O O O O O \ tD tD \ m m m N N V
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ pp pp \
W N N N N N W N N W N N W N N N N N N N N N W N N W N N N \ \ N
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W NN NN W
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
0.5
M
c

c
a
J
G1
L+
f0
3
c
3
0
Mb
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 4
Year 4 (2023 Data)
N W W W A A A Ul Ul Ul Ul M M M V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 lO F- F� F� I--'
N W F\-� N N F\-� N F\-� F\-� N F\-� F\-� N W F\-� N W F\- N W 1.\0 N W F\- N \ \ \ \
N N \ F-+ F-+ \ F- F- F" O O O O O O \ to to \ W W
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ 00 00 \
W N N N N N W N N W N N W N N N N N N N N N W N N W N N N \ \ N
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N W
W W
3.0
2.5
2.0
c
1.0
0.5
0.0

c
al
v
J
L.1+
f0
3
C
c
3
0
u
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 5
Year 4 (2023 Data)
N N W W W A A A In Ln Ln In m m Ol V V V W W W l0 l0 l0
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O N
N N I--` I--` NJI--` I--` N W I--` N W I--` IliW l0 tD m
lD NJ 00 NJ0 O N \ \ \ \
\ NJ \ N N \ N N N O O O O O \ l0 \ 00 OD OD N N V
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ Qp pp \
W N N N N N W N N W N N W N N N N N N N N N W N N W N N N \ \ N
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N W
W W
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
c

c
v
v
J
i
N
f+
f9
3
c
0
0
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 6
Year 4 (2023 Data)
N W W W A A -PI Ul Ul Ul Ul m m m J -I V m m m l0 l0 l0
N W F-� N N F\-� N F-� F-� N N W F-� N W F\-� N W l0 F\-� N W F-� N \ \ \ \
\ N N N O O \ N N \ N N \ F-+ F-+ N O O O O O O \ l0 l0 \ m m W N N V
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ pp pp \
W N N N N N W N N W N N W N N N N N N N N N W N N W N N N \ \ N
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N W
W W
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
c

c
v
a
J
.1
3
c
0
0
u
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 7
Year 4 (2023 Data)
N N W W W A A A Ln Ln Ln Ln M M m V V V W m m l0 l0 l0
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O N
r,j
\ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N W \ \ \ pp pp \
W N N N N N W N N W N N W N N N N N N N N N W N N W N N N \ \ N
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W UJW W W W N N W
W W
3.0
2.5
2.0
c
1.0
0.5
0.0

c
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 8
Year 4 (2023 Data)
W ? Ln Ln Ln Ln m m m V V V m m m lO lO lO
\ \ \ \
\ N N N O O \ N N \ F-+ F-+ \ N F-+ F-+ O O O O O O \ l0 l0 \ 00 00 00 N N V
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ pp Op \
W N N N N N W N N W N N W N N N N N N N N N W N N W N N N \ N
W W W W W W N W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N W
W W
3.0
2.5
2.0
c
1.0 M
0.5
0.0

c
v
v
J
L
Y
3
0
u
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 9
Year 4 (2023 Data)
\ \ \ \
O O \ N N \ N N \ N N N O O O O O O \ lD lD \ m m m V
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ pp pp \
W N N N N N W N N W N Ni W N N N N N N N N N W N N W N N N \ \ N
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N W
W W
3.0
2.5
M
1.0
0.5
once
c

c
v
v
J
L
0
3
C
c
0
u
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
Warren Wilson Groundwater Gauge 10
Year 4 (2023 Data)
N N W W W A A A Ln U'7 U'7 Ln M M M V V V M W W l0 l0 l0
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ O O O N
N W 0 N N N) N F-' F-' N I--` I--` N W 0 N W 0 N W l0 LO N 00 m N \ \ N \
O O \ N N \ N N \ N N N O O O O O O \ �p Lp \ pp pp 00 m N V
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ p0 p0 \
W N N N N N W N N W N N W N N N N N N N N N W N N W N N N \ \ N
W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N N W
W W
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.0
0.5
Mf
c

Appendix F
Preconstruction Wetland Hydrology Data
Figure 3. Preconstruction Gauge Locations
Table 17. Preconstruction Groundwater Gauge Data Summary
Tables 18. Preconstruction vs Postconstruction Gauge Analysis
MV4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

OR
y, ter... ��• .�� .�14_• � '.., � N ^f�,.. '�: �.Y.. r. � 4, -. -
tA
may,:-" A Gi
�' !�• _ w, i
L 4
64
77
.'4. �. -f' .tY. ���• ♦ 1 7-� 4• tr^'�.�, . �i' - �- �.L r1��+��; �.L�"
.. - 4, ` -` ..I ;'R'��: "*. ` .� �� ..} � �..-ti.+a ,,� .�, � �_� + � ; :� . • •� `- y .,1'•. .. � ,r - �y�• `� b• ;': it . Y c Y -ee,
. ... �.4 - _ +r..r ;z•` ri'-rYw•L,'.� ,,,��r. W-' •� y-r �.�• }� ;h fir- �_in F,
- ICY • �� 4 -'' L'�- * .k ( .w� f �- '� 7 .� .Y • - :�: is Q' - � t ` =T
+ ,�a,• r
X
Clingman's
Legend
Conservation Easement
Preconstruction Stream Location
Preconstruction Wetlands
O Preconstruction Groundwater Gauges
A Preconstruction Crest Gauge Location
W 0 150 300
z
o3A 2A
. o3B 2B
3C 2E
01A
Little Berea _'''
� X
• ;t-� � � •� r- a ��. .i !a
' `" 1�'�Y-�-�-, • � `fit' .
6LFeet
� "- - 4
i+q r ram- �
� •�� _ark-;}4��
Axiom Ernvironwnial. Pnc•
Prepared for:
Project:
' WARREN WILSON
COLLEGE STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
Buncombe County, NC I
Title:
PRE -
CONSTRUCTION
GAUGE
LOCATIONS
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
Jul 2020
Scale:
1:2000
Project No.:
20-004
FIGURE
3

Table 17. Preconstruction Groundwater Gauge Data Summary
Success Criteria Achieved/
Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
2018 Data
2019 Data
1A
No/21 days
Yes/57 days
(9.8 percent)
(27 percent)
16
No/9 days
Yes/50 days
(4.2 percent)
(23 percent)
1C
No/3 days
No/3 days
(1.4 percent)
(1.4 percent)
2A
NA*
Yes/48 days
(22 percent)
26
No/20 days
No/0 days
(9.3 percent)
(0 percent)
2C
No/12 days
Yes/50 days
(5.6 percent)
(23 percent)
3A
No/24 days
Yes/124 days
(11.2 percent)
(58 percent)
313
Yes/117 days
Yes/140 days
(54.7 percent)
(65 percent)
3C
No/4 days
No/3 days
(1.9 percent)
(1.4 percent)
*Gauge 2A was damaged during 2018 and data was not recoverable. It was replaced in 2019.
MV4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Table 18. Groundwater Hydrology Data: Mitigation Success (UT-3B, Little Berea/ Clingman's)
Postconstruction Data
MY1-7 Gauge #
Preconstruction Data
Hydroperiod - Max Consecutive Days (%)
Hydroperiod - Max Consecutive Days (%)
(Precon Gauge
% Improvement from Preconstruction
#)*
Average
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
2018
2019
Hydroperiod %
(2020)
(2021)
(2022)
(2023)
3 (2A)
NA
48 days (22 %)
22.0%
127 days (55.0%)
198 days (89.6%)
193 days (89.8%)
178 days (83.2%)
+33.0%
+67.6%
+67.8%
+61.2%
4^ (213)
20 days (9.3 %)
0 days (0 %)
9.3%
32 days (13.9%)
198 days (89.6%)
193 days (89.8%)
178 days (83.2%)
+4.6%*
+80.3%
+80.5%
+61.2%
5^ (2C)
12 days (5.6 %)
50 days (23 %)
14.3%
174 days (75.3%)
198 days (89.6%)
193 days (89.8%)
178 days (83.2%)
+61%
+75.3%
+75.5%
+61.2%
6 (3C)
4 days (1.9 %)
3 days (1.4 %)
1.7%
93 days (40.3%)
198 days (89.6%)
193 days (89.8%)
178 days (83.2%)
+38.7%
+88.0%
+88.2%
+61.2%
7 (3B)
117 days (54.7%)
y
140 days (65 %)
y
59.9%
72 days (31.2%)
198 days (89.6%)
193 days (89.8%)
178 days (83.2%)
-28.7%*
+29.8%
+30.0%
+61.2%
8 (3A)
24 days (11.2 %)
124 days (58 %)
34.6%
231 days (100%)
198 days (89.6%)
101 days (47.0%)
100 days (46.7%)
+65.4%
+55.0%
+12.4%
+12.1%
2 (1A)
21 days (9.8 %)
57 days (27 %)
18.4%
61 days (26.4%)
198 days (89.6%)
194 days (90.2%)
93 days (43.5%)
+8.0%
+71.2%
+71.8%
+25.1%
2 (113)
9 days (4.2 %)
50 days (23 %)
13.6%
61 days (26.4%)
198 days (89.6%)
194 days (90.2%)
93 days (43.5%)
+12.8%
+76.0%
+76.6%
+29.9%
2 (1C)
3 days (1.4 %)
3 days (1.4 %)
1.4%
61 days (26.4%)
198 days (89.6%)
194 days (90.2%)
93 days (43.5%)
+25.0%
+88.2%
+88.8%
+42.1%
^ Gauges 4 and 5 were installed in areas outside of jurisdictional wetland areas delineated during site planning. These gauges demonstrated a gain of wetland
area and function when compared to preconstruction conditions.
* Hydroperiod in this area did not improve from preconstruction conditions likely because the channel was relocated closer to the gauge location, providing a
small drainage effect that did not exist prior to construction. However, the hydroperiods in these areas represent high -functioning wetland systems.
MV4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Appendix G
Site Photo Log
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Warren Wilson College
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
MY4 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
WWC Stream Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Warren Wilson College
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
MY4 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019)
WWC Stream Mitigation Site
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Warren Wilson College
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
MY4 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019)
WWC Stream Mitigation Site
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Warren Wilson College
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
MY4 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
WWC Stream Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Warren Wilson College
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
MY4 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
WWC Stream Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Warren Wilson College
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
Permanent Photo Point 12: Crossing on lower UT 6
upstream end, facing downstream (Taken 9/27/23)
MY4 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
WWC Stream Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Warren Wilson College
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
-40 4
�l
MY4 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019)
WWC Stream Mitigation Site
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Warren Wilson College
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
Permanent Photo Point 16: Crossing on lower UT 7
upstream end, facing downstream (Taken 09/27/23)
MY4 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
WWC Stream Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Warren Wilson College
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
Permanent Photo Point 18: Crossing on upper UT 7
upstream end, facing downstream (Taken 09/27/23)
MY4 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019)
WWC Stream Mitigation Site
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Warren Wilson College
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
Permanent Photo Point 20: Footbridge crossing on UT 8
upstream end, facing downstream (Taken 9/27/23)
.y ,
� - �' [
- •1
MY4 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019)
WWC Stream Mitigation Site
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

2
-:
f
IV a-

Warren Wilson College
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 25 River cane along left bank of UT6 near XS-3/XS-4 (Sept 2023) 1
MY4 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
WWC Stream Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC

Aps
Photo
..
.Sept1 -
4- A
Tz
V.
;. fir: 7 _ ` �
.��kF - ��..:.y�••.�§
.. .
ilk
Photo
and Swanannoa River (Sept 2023)
27 River cane a lower UT6
IN
y
,�
':ram •

Warren Wilson College
MY-04 (2023) Photo Log
MY4 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019)
WWC Stream Mitigation Site
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC

Appendix H
2023 IRT Site Visit Notes
MY4 Monitoring Report (Project No. 100019) Appendices
Warren Wilson College Stream Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Buncombe County, North Carolina January 2024

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
June 29, 2023 Fx: [phone]
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
NC Department of Environmental Quality - Division of Mitigation Services
[e-mail]
Subject: Warren Wilson College, MY4 (2023) IRT Site Visit Notes
DMS project # 100019
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01557 / NCDWR No. 20171158
On June 23, 2023, Restoration Systems (IRS) held an on -site meeting with regulatory agencies to review and discuss
the Warren Wilson College (WWC) Mitigation Site (Site) and the need/possibility of a supplemental/diversity
planting effort to be conducted during the dormant season of 2023/2024. Below is a list of attendees and site visit
notes, accompanied by a proposed planting effort.
Attendees:
USACE:
- Steve Kichefski
- Erin Davis
NC DWR:
- Maria Polizzi
- Mac Haupt
Site Visit Notes:
UT 1:
NC WRC
- Andrea Leslie
NC DMS:
- Paul Wiesner
- Kelly Phillips
Restoration Systems:
- Raymond Holz
- Josh Merritt
- Gus Lehrman
Axiom Environmental:
- Grant Lewis
- Phillip Perkinson
Anchor QEA of NC
- Robert Cork
• No issues with stream bank stability or formation through the former pond.
• IRT was supportive of the current vegetation condition but requested herbaceous vegetation monitoring
plots during MY4 (2023)
• IRS will perform two (2) 2-meter x 5-meter herbaceous vegetation surveys as shown in the attached figure
set.
UT1 - Lower (Permanent Vegetation Monitoring Plot # 1):
• There were no issues with vegetation in and around the permanent vegetation monitoring plot (PVMP)
#1, as both planted and natural recruits are performing well.
• Along the left easement edge under the existing tree canopy, just below PVMP #1, IRS was suggested to
conduct a random vegetation transect to determine how plant stems are doing. IRS will do so this
monitoring year, and upon review of the data, it may be appropriate to plant live -stake shrubs to improve
species diversity.
UT 8 - (Permanent Vegetation Monitoring Plot # 25):
• It was agreed by all attendees that a diversity planting with 3-gallon containers was appropriate for the
area. IRS will pre -determine where containerized pots will go and treat the herbaceous vegetation before
planting to reduce the possibility of overtopping and herbaceous competition.
• IRS has developed a proposed planting list (page 3), which consists of some species not approved in the
Mitigation Plan but included to aid in the Site's species diversity. Upon Agency review of the planting list,
IRS will secure the planting material.
Lower UT 8:
• The area has herbaceous coverage; however, the species diversity is noticeably different from the area
around PVMP #25. The IRT requested IRS perform soil samples, which IRS will do.
• Based on the soil samples, IRS may apply fertilization and/or lime to the area during the dormant season
of 2023/2024.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

Warren Wilson College, MY4 (2023) IRT Site Visit Notes
DMS project # 100019
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01557 / NCDWR No. 20171158
Page 2
It was agreed by all attendees that a diversity planting with 3-gallon containers was appropriate for the
area. RS will pre -determine where containerized pots will go and treat the herbaceous vegetation before
planting to reduce the possibility of overtopping and herbaceous competition.
RS has developed a proposed planting list (page 3), which consists of some species not approved in the
Mitigation Plan but included to aid in the Site's species diversity. Upon Agency review of the planting list,
RS will secure the planting material.
UT 3 (Little Berea)
• The IRT observed the development of riparian wetlands along UT 3, near PVMP 9, 10, and 11.
• The IRT agreed that the current scrub -shrub habitat is fine in these wet areas; however, a live -stake shrub
diversity planting was recommended.
• RS has developed a proposed planting list (page 3), which lists proposed species for planting during the
2023/2024 dormant season. Upon Agency review of the planting list, RS will secure the planting material.
• RS will also perform three (3) 2-meter x 5-meter herbaceous vegetation surveys, as shown in the attached
figure set, to supplement the vegetation monitoring effort in these areas. This data will be included in the
MY4 (2023) Monitoring Report and will be conducted again during the MY6 (2025) monitoring period.
• Before the IRT Site visit, RS walked Upper UT 3 to evaluate the current extent of Parrot -Feather
(Myriophyllum aquaticum) within the channel. Great progress has been made to control the extent of
Parrot -Feather via herbicide treatments during MY1-3. RS observed and took the IRT to a small patch
between UT 3 cross sections 9 and 10. Treatment of the species will continue throughout the reach as
needed. However, channel shading and previous treatments have drastically reduced the extent of Parrot -
Feather within the channel.
UT 3 (Stokes)
• UT 3, Stokes Field, was not visited by the IRT during the site visit. However, based on conversations with
the IRT on Lower UT 8, RS' 2023 observations, and the MY3 (2022) vegetation data, RS plans to complete
a supplemental 3-gallon container planting effort in and around PVMP #5.
• RS has developed a proposed planting list (page 3), which consists of some species not approved in the
Mitigation Plan but included to aid in the Site's species diversity. Upon Agency review of the planting list,
RS will secure the planting material.
• RS will also conduct a random vegetation transect around PVMP #5.
Rivercane:
Areas of River cane transplant were observed by the IRT around UT66.
The IRT had no issues with the amount of Rivercane nor its current potential to outcompete planted
vegetation.
RS will add a narrative to the MY4 (2023) monitoring report (and all future monitoring reports) to discuss
the Rivercane transplant effort, the current condition of the Rivercane, and lessons learned, i.e., what
worked best, what we would change, etc. In addition, RS will map the extent of Rivercane on the MY4
(2023) CCPV Figure. During future monitoring years, RS will survey the Rivercane to document its growth
and update each monitoring year's CCPV accordingly.
General Notes:
• Beaver Activity
- Beavers were trapped during the spring and early summer of 2023 at the outfall of UT8 and UT7.
The IRT reviewed these areas and noted minimal damage to planted vegetation along the stream
corridors. Trapping stopped in May 2023, and RS will remove the dams in June. RS will continue to
monitor beaver activity.
Conservation Easement Boundary
- No encroachments into the easement were observed during the site visit. RS acknowledges DMS'
current effort to provide additional easement marking on all mitigation sites. RS will complete a
total easement review and marking effort during the summer of 2023 and will notify DMS once
completed. This effort will be focused on additional signage along fencing and within forested areas.
Painting of trees along the conservation easement will also occur within forested areas.

Warren Wilson College, MY4 (2023) IRT Site Visit Notes
DMS project # 100019
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01557 / NCDWR No. 20171158
Page 3
A proposed 2023/2024 planting list and historical Site vegetation tables (approved Mitigation Plan and As Built) are
provided on the following pages.
WWC — MY4 (2023/2024) Proposed Planting List
Vegetation Association
Montane Alluvial
Forest (3 Gallon)
Live -stake Shrub
Planting
Total
Acres
1.21
0.33
1.54
Species
Wetland
Indicator
#
planted
% of
total
#
planted
% of
total
# planted
Northern red oak (Quercus rubra)
FACU
100
25.00%
100
Persimmon (Diospyros virgininia)
FAC
75
18.75%
75
Tag alder (Alnus serrulata)
FACU
75
18.75%
75
Water oak (Quercus nigra)
FACW
50
12.50%
50
White oak (Quercus Alba)
FACU
50
12.50%
50
Yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis)**
FACU
50
12.50%
50
Black Willow (Salix nigra)*
OBL
75
18.75%
75
Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)*
OBL
75
18.75%
75
Elderberry (Sambucus spp.)*
FACW
75
18.75%
75
Ninebark (Physocarpus opulfolius)*
FAC
75
18.75%
75
Silky dogwood (Corpus amomum)*
FACW
100
25.00%
100
Total:
400
100%
400
100
800
*Live stake material
**Possible supply shortage. If unavailable, we will supplement this species with one from the list above or the
approved Mitigation Plan planting list.
WWC — Mitigation Plan Planting List
Table 16
Planting Plan
Vegetation Association
Area (awes)
Species
Montane Alluvial Forest'
Stream -side Assemblage'*
Marsh Treatment wetland"
TOTAL
1 g 1;4
12.29
7.25
0.1
9 planted'
91. of total
# planted"
% of total
4 {slanted"
% of tot -,I
TM pJant�d
River birch i8etula nigra;
83E
1G
1 9"
10
' ?v3
I rorywood (Car€+Inis £aroibiiana)
418
5
__
_-
__
--
418
Buttonbush (CeMalanthas ocadentai8)
E4
_
54
Sweet pepperbush (Cle#rrc atniM a;
4
15
41
Silky dogwood iCornus amamam;
836
10
2,958
15
54
_
3,848
Persimmon (Diospyros virg rriana;
418
5
418
Green ash (Fraxinuspennsyivonica,
836
10
2,958
15
3,794
TuJip poplar (Ltriodendron top tro)
836
10
S36
Sycamofe (Ptatanus oreidentats)
1,671
20
3,944
20
5,615
61a€k'arillaw (271iK nigra)
1,972
10
1,999
'white oak (Quercus aibaj
1.234
13
2,958
'I5
4,212
Water oak (Quernosnigra)
1.254
13
2,958
'I5
4,212
Elderberry (Sarrrbucus eanodensis}
4
I5
41
Blueberry (Vaeeinium corymbosurm)
-
10
17
Possumhaw (Kbl rnum nUaUm)
-
10
27
TOTAL
gr357
100
1S,720
10G
272
100
29,349
:Vote:
* Planted zt a density of 680 sremsiazre
** Planted at a density of 2.72asterrrWaue

Warren Wilson College, MY4 (2023) IRT Site Visit Notes
DMS project # 100019
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01557 / NCDWR No. 20171158
WWC —As-Built Planting List
Table 5. Planted Bare Root Woody N-egetation
Warren Wilson College Stream Mitigation Site
Species
Total'°
Acres
19.64
cepha7anfiws acneiOltalis
0
Diosjn-r•os vhtr,iana
500
Lirioderrdm�? tulipifera
900
Benda
?&00
Fraxinus poinsy lvanica
3900
comas amomrem
3900
c2l e las alba
4200
Quercrz rri�ra
4200
P7aiarws occidentahs
5600
TOTALS
25,950"
"Approximately 5000 Eve stakes of willow (5alix spp_)_ elderberfy (Sambucus candensis),
silky domvood (Comiz arnornum)_ and nmebark (PkT-socarpw; apulifoiius) were planted_
but are not included in this table.
Attachments:
Page 4
- CCPV figure set with MY3(2022) monitoring efforts and 2024 supplemental vegetation survey efforts and
replanting areas.

f
TP
J.
v, x.
s 1� l
VIM
150
'7}: � . �,, �pY. ,«'cLs � _ _ _ � "• ` `}, '^�-�� i � 1; 1. i+;�.' . �� .. pia, � �� � ! R� ._. _ J - : �.'.
• �i:�� . ;. r � ' •, �,I� � ear.' `: '�e� ��. , -
.n'\ .r ti '.r`r'• � �.k•++f„ �* � . '�, "tip k�'R*ti - fir; �, Yr ���• ; J _
- - '`• ' • i - _ RSA.• l Y` � � Y.' �.�• �' 1.".:i ,l;LL .
IL
_Ar . . . . . .
6 5
Clingman's ► . r 3 x: • { z-
G:-linnmans � �ss�r.>tr.�_
Spot treatment of Parrot Feather 7
along UT3 to occur in 2023.
10
12 �. �I s yo��
7
y � Q
f so ,A>11 5
. cD
Axiom Environmental. mc,
Prepared for:
Project:
WARREN WILSON
COLLEGE STREAM
a"
MITIGATION SITE
Buncombe County, NC
Title:
06-2023
IRT SITE VISIT
Legend
Conservation Easement
mob. r �;r Surrounding Parcels
Little Berea M�
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) Drawn by:
Stream Enhancement (Level 11) KRJ
Stream Generating No Credit
- Date:
- ® wetlands JUN 2023
w Cross Sections
Scale:
MY3 (2022) Vegetation Plots Meeting Success Criteria 1 :2000
" MY3 2022 Vegetation Plots Not Meeting Success Criteria
Project No.:
..+ ; `r MY3 (2022) Temporary Vegetation Plots Meeting Success Criteria
20-004
MY4 (2023) Temporary Vegetation Plots
r r MY4 (2023) 2m x 5m Herbaceous Plots
s
* G Groundwater Gauges Meeting Success Criteria FIGURE
,,• A Flow Gauge
Flow Camera
* Photo Point Locations ��
Walking Paths
Supplemental Planting Area - 3-Gallon (1.21 ac)
300 600 Feet Supplemental Planting Area - Live Stakes (0.33 ac)

z sit
,.
vc
e�.ry * 7 -
rr- 1 y.
1 y y
4 "` Pig Pond -''3l
Hoa Bottom
_F- L
Legend
QConservation Easement
Surrounding Parcels
— Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
Stream Enhancement (Level 11)
Stream Generating No Credit
Wetlands
Cross Sections
C MY3 (2022) Vegetation Plots Meeting Success Criteria
C MY3 (2022) Vegetation Plots Not Meeting Success Criteria
MY4 (2023) Temporary Vegetation Plots
® MY4 (2023) 2m x 5m Herbaceous Plots
Groundwater Gauge Meeting Success Criteria
* Photo Point Locations
Walking Paths
Supplemental Planting Area - 3-Gallon (1.21 ac)
Supplemental Planting Area - Live Stakes (0.33 ac)
0 150 300
el
di
_ ::, ..'
600
Feet T
RRESTORATION
xA
i{; SYSTEMS - LLC
'_.r ­1
Project:
V
■
WARREN WILSON
COLLEGE STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
Buncombe County, NC
Title:
06-2023
IRT SITE VISIT
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
JUN 2023
Scale:
1:1400
Project No.:
20-004
FIGURE
2E