20100010 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20160224

Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Year 5 Monitoring Report
Graham County, North Carolina
MonitoringFirm: irm: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker)
Monitoring Firm POC: Micky Clemmons
Prepared for: North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
NCDMS Project Manager: Paul Wiesner
NCDMS Contract Number: 000613 NCDMS Project Number: 92764
Project Construction: 2010
Year 5 Data Collection: 2015
Report Submitted: December 2015
Report Prepared By:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
NC Engineering License F-1084
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY...............................................................................................................................................1
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
..........................................................................................2
1.1 LOCATION AND SETTING....................................................................................................................................3
Figure1
2.0 METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS..................................................................................................................3
2.1 STREAM ASSESSMENT........................................................................................................................................3
A
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability...........................................................................................
3
2.1.2 Hydrology.....................................................................................................................................................
5
2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site............................................................................................................
6
2.1.4 Stream Stability Assessment..........................................................................................................................
6
2.2 VEGETATION ASSESSMENT................................................................................................................................7
2
2.2.1 Vegetation.....................................................................................................................................................7
A
2.3 AREAS OF CONCERN...........................................................................................................................................9
3
3.0 REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................................................9
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
Tables and Exhibits Appendix
Figure1
Project Vicinity Map......................................................................................................
A
Table
IA
Project Components and Mitigation Credits (Old Format) ............................................
A
Table
IB
Alternative Project Components and Mitigation Credits (New Format) .......................
A
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History.........................................................................
A
Table
3
Project Contacts Table...................................................................................................A
Table
4
Project Background (Attribute) Table............................................................................
A
Figure
2
Restoration Summary Map...........................................................................................
B
Exhibit
I
Snowbird Creek Tribs Photo Log.................................................................................
B
Exhibit
2
Snowbird Creek Tribs Vegetation Plot Photolog..........................................................
B
Table
5
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment - Year 5................................................................
C
Table
6
Vegetation Metadata - Year 5........................................................................................
C
Table
7
Stem Count Arranged by Plot - Year 5.........................................................................
C
Table
7b
Stem Count Arranged by Plot, Annual Means - Year 5 ................................................
C
Exhibit
3
Year 5 Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays...............................................................
D
Exhibit
4
Year 5 Longitudinal Profile with Annual Overlays......................................................
D
Exhibit
5
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution (UT3)......................................................
D
Table
8
Cross -Section Morphology Data Table.........................................................................
D
Table
9
Stream Reach Morphology Data Table.........................................................................
D
Table
10
Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events ..............................................E
Figure3
Problem Areas CCPV.....................................................................................................
F
Table
II
Visual Morphological Stability Assessment Table........................................................F
Table
12
Vegetation Problem Areas Table...................................................................................F
Exhibit
6
Former Vegetation Problem Area Photos.......................................................................
F
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Snowbird Creek Tributaries site was restored through a full delivery contract with the North Carolina
Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). This report documents the completion of the project and
presents Year 5 monitoring data for the five-year monitoring period. The goals for the restoration project
were as follows:
Promote and recreate geomorphically stable conditions at the Snowbird Creek Tributaries project
site;
The reduction of sediment and nutrient inputs through restoration of riparian areas and
streambanks; and
• To improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the project corridor.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were implemented:
• Restoration of an incised, channelized, and eroding stream by creating a stable channel that has
access to its floodplain; enhancement of a previously disturbed stream reach by replanting the
riparian corridor with native woody vegetation;
• Improve water quality by establishing buffers for nutrient removal from runoff,
• Improve in -stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating
deeper pools, developing areas that increase oxygenation, providing woody debris for habitat, and
reducing bank erosion; and
• Improve terrestrial habitat by removing invasive species, planting riparian areas with native
vegetation and protecting these areas with a permanent conservation easement so that the riparian
area will increase storm water runoff filtering capacity, improve bank stability, provide shading to
decrease water temperature and improve wildlife habitat.
One vegetation monitoring plot 100 square meters (m) (I OM x 10m) in size was used to predict the
survival of woody vegetation planted on-site. The Year 5 monitoring of vegetation indicated an average
survival of 688 stems per acre. The data indicates that the Site has met both the interim stem survival
criteria for Year 3 (320 stems per acre) and has significantly exceeded the final success criteria of 260
trees per acre at the end of Year 5.
The design implemented at the Snowbird Creek Tributaries mitigation project site involved Priority Level
1 Restoration, Enhancement Level 11 and Preservation approaches. The channels on UT3 Reach 2 was
built to be consistent with, or evolve to, a stable 133 -type channel and to maintain the 134 -type channel in
the section of UT2 that was enhanced. Restoration and enhancement work were completed in accordance
with the approved design approach provided in the mitigation plan for the tributaries. Longitudinal
profile and cross-section data indicate that the project streams have remained stable since baseline
monitoring data were collected in February 2011. Multiple bankfull events have now been documented
(in separate years) over the course of the five year monitoring period, thereby satisfying the hydrologic
success criteria. Photo logs included in this report confirm that the woody and herbaceous vegetation at
the project site is flourishing, and is promoting bank and floodplain stability. Based on geomorphic and
hydrologic data presented in Appendix D and E, this Site has met the stream and hydrologic success
criteria specified in the Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Plan.
Summary information/data related to potential threats to restoration values, such as encroachment and
statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and
figures in the report appendices. There were no vegetation areas of concern identified at this site during
the Year 5 monitoring period. Photographs are included in Appendix F that show the recovery of an area
noted as being of concern in previous years.
Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the
Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly Restoration
Plan) documents available on DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices is available from DMS upon request.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 1
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT

NCDMS received comments in the past that requested the installation and monitoring of additional
vegetation plots. Baker agreed to implement one additional random temporary vegetation plot on UT2 at
the enhancement reach to document the number of live woody stems and include the results in the Year 4
& Year 5 Monitoring Report. To assist with determining vegetation success on UT2 Reach 2, two
additional photograph stations were installed to visually document changes in the riparian corridor over
the course of the monitoring period. Based on observations, woody vegetation is reestablishing where the
riparian area was disturbed on Reach 2 of UT2. During Year 4 monitoring of the UT2 enhancement reach
a temporary vegetation plot was established and all trees that appeared to be less than 4 years old were
counted. The Year 5 count indicated that the density is approximately 890 trees per acre on the UT2
enhancement reach. Woody vegetation observed within the plot included Elderberry (Sambucus nigra),
tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), Sweet birch (Betula lenta), northern red oak (Quercus rubra) and
black gum (Nyssa sylvatica).
1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND ATTRIBUTES
The Snowbird Creek Tributaries mitigation site is located approximately one and a half miles southwest
of Robbinsville in Graham County, North Carolina (Figure 1, Appendix A). The project site is situated in
the Little Tennessee River Basin, within what was formerly referred to as the North Carolina Division of
Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 04-04-04 and United States Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic
unit 06010204020010. The Snowbird Creek Tributaries mitigation project is located in a watershed that
is predominantly forested, but also contains a small number of residences near the tributaries and Hooper
Branch. The vast majority of the watershed is in forested cover, with less than one percent of land being
in agricultural use. Over the past 100 years, land within the project area has been impacted by logging
activities as well as residential and agricultural land use within the valley bottom.
Anthropogenic land use alteration and channelization of streams in the Snowbird Creek Tributaries
project watersheds have resulted in various stream corridor impairments. Incision, bank erosion, and
other ongoing stream processes typical of adjusting streams were found in various reaches of UT3 and
other tributaries within the project area. However, it was determined that the benefits of stream and
riparian enhancement further upslope in the watershed would not be significant enough to justify further
disturbance of the watershed which continues to revert to a more natural state in the absence of intensive
logging activities.
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan for the site, construction activities were conducted in
August 2010. Project activity on UT2 consisted of improving bank stability and riparian conditions along
a small section of UT2 that had been degraded by previous logging activities. An Enhancement II
approach was used to stabilize this reach; efforts included removal of debris from the channel that was
contributing to channel disturbance and planting native woody vegetation in an area previously disturbed
during logging activities. Re -vegetation of the riparian corridor will improve shading and provide high
quality biomass to the stream in addition to other habitat improvements.
A Priority I Restoration approach was used on Reach 2 of UT3 to address prior manipulation and
relocation of the reach by restoring a channel with step -pool morphology in the low part of the valley.
The restoration of this reach of UT3 eliminated bank erosion, aggradation of fines, and lack of native
riparian vegetation and rootmass that characterized the former location of Reach 2 on UT3. The new
channel has improved connectivity to its floodplain and channel bedform was improved by constructing a
series of step -pool and riffle -pool sequences using grade control structures. These grade control
structures will aid in dissipating streamflow energy, decrease pool -to -pool spacing and improve the
quality of in -stream habitat. Given the steepness of the project area, creating a step -pool channel system
was critical in achieving a more stable profile and preventing self -propagating headcuts. A vegetated
riparian buffer was also planted which will support streambank stability along the new reach while
serving a variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitat functions.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT

The project involved the restoration of 543 linear feet (LF) of UT3 (Reach 2) and the enhancement of 171
LF of UT2 (Reach 2). In addition, 7,497 LF of UTI, UT2 and UT3 were preserved with a conservation
easement deed. The restoration, enhancement, and preservation of 8,21 ILF of stream within this project
site will generate 2,035 stream mitigation units (SMUs). Other general information about the project is
located in Tables 1-4 of Appendix A.
1.1 Location and Setting
The Snowbird Creek Tributaries mitigation site is located approximately one and a half miles southwest
of Robbinsville in Graham County, North Carolina. To reach the project site from the intersection of NC
Highways 143 and 129, turn south onto N.C. Highway 129. At the first stop light past the Microtel, turn
right onto East Main Street, continue for approximately 0.3 miles, and turn left onto Atoah Street. Atoah
Street becomes Snowbird Road (both are NC Highway 143). Snowbird Road (NC 143) will come to
parallel Santeetlah Reservoir (an inundated portion of Snowbird Creek). At the intersection of IU Gap
Road and Snowbird Road, the property will be situated to the east. The last house on the left before you
get to this intersection is the property owners and just before you get to this house there is a gated dirt
road that leads to UTI and UT2. To get to UT3, turn left on IU Gap Rd., go .15 miles, the UT3 property
is on the left and the access drive is on the left just past a small rental farm house.
2.0 METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS
The five-year monitoring plan for the Snowbird Creek Tributaries mitigation project includes criteria to
evaluate the success of the geomorphic, vegetative and hydrologic components of the project. The
specific locations of the cross-sections, sediment sampling location, vegetation plot, crest gauge
installation and permanent reference photo stations, are shown on the current condition plan view
submitted with this report.
2.1 Stream Assessment
2.1.1 Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability
Geomorphic monitoring of restored stream reaches has been conducted over a five year period to
evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices installed. Monitored stream parameters
include channel dimension (cross-sections), profile (longitudinal survey), pattern (to a lesser
degree for reasons noted below), bed composition, bank stability, bankfull flows, and stability of
photo points documented by photographs (USACE 2003). A crest gauge, as well as high flow
marks, were used to document the occurrence of bankfull events. The methods used and any
related success criteria are described below for each parameter.
2.1.1.1 Dimension
Four permanent cross-sections were installed in representative riffle and pool reaches on the
restoration reach of UT3 to help evaluate the success of the mitigation project. Each cross-
section was established by installing permanent pins on each bank to establish a consistent
and repeatable transect from year-to-year. The cross-sectional surveys capture points at all
breaks in slope and includes typical features such as top of bank, bankfull (if different from
top of bank), inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg. Cross-sections are provided in Exhibit
3 of Appendix D and are depicted with an orientation looking downstream. Riffle cross-
sections are classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System. The project was built
with a larger -than -typical entrenchment ratio for B -type channels, however Baker has
determined that the B classification is still most appropriate based on other channel
characteristics, namely width -depth ratio, sinuosity, and slope.
There should be little change in the as -built cross-sections. Any changes will be evaluated to
determine their cause and whether they represent movement toward a more unstable
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT

condition (e.g., down-cutting or erosion) or movement toward increased stability (e.g.,
settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio).
2.1.1.1.1 Results
As-built cross-section data for stream stability was collected in February 2011 (for the YRO —
20 10 report). The four permanent cross-sections along UT3 were re-surveyed in October
2015 to document stream dimensions for Year 5 Monitoring. Cross-sectional data is
presented in Table 8 (Appendix D) and the location of cross-sections is shown on the CCPV
sheets submitted with this report.
The cross-sections show that there has been little to no adjustment to stream dimension on
Reach 2 of UT3 since construction. Cross-section 4 showed an increase in depth over the 5
years but the banks do not appear unstable and these changes likely represent minor, localized
changes to channel morphology. This may be due to the movement of cobble in and out of
the transect. At this time, cross-sectional measurements and photographs do not indicate any
streambank or channel stability issues.
2.1.1.2 Pattern and Longitudinal Profile
As-built profile monitoring data for stream stability was collected in February 2011. A
longitudinal profile was conducted for the entire project length on Reach 2 of UT3. This
longitudinal profile was re-surveyed during October 2015; the profile is provided in Exhibit 4
of Appendix D. This longitudinal profile has been replicated annually during the five year
monitoring period.
Measurements taken along the longitudinal profile include thalweg, water surface, and top of
left and right bank. Pools should remain relatively deep with flat water surface slopes, and
the riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. Bed form observations should
be consistent with those observed for channels of the design stream type. Profile data should
reflect stable channel bedform and a diverse range of riffle and pool complexes.
All measurements were taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, run, pool, and glide) and
the maximum pool depth. Elevations of grade control structures were also included in the
longitudinal profiles surveyed. Surveys were tied to a permanent benchmark. Although
pattern adjustments were made on Reach 2 of UT3 for channel alignment considerations,
such as following the low point of the valley, pattern adjustments were not made with the
intent to increase sinuosity. Unnamed Tributary 3 is an A/B-type stream characterized as
having a step-pool morphology. Consequently, pattern information is not provided in
Appendix D, as the parameters present are generally associated with meandering, riffle-pool
channels and not step-pool channels. However, as the site was monitored, reaches were
evaluated for significant changes in pattern.
2.1.1.2.1 Results
The longitudinal profile shows that the bed features are stable; grade control structures
continue to help maintain the overall profile desired. As noted in the Stream Reach
Morphology Data Tables in Appendix D (Table 9), riffle and pool characteristics do not
appear to have changed much since construction; the riffle slope and pool spacing
measurements obtained for Year 5 are acceptable when compared to design data provided for
Reach 2 of UT3. Channel depth does indicate minor deepening at some locations along the
profile. This likely reflects increased sediment movement with higher flows experienced
some years. Bedform diversity, particularly max pool depths and pool spacing features,
appears to have improved with the restoration of the channel; grade control structures have
helped maintain vertical stability in Reach 2 of UT3 as the channel adjusts to a more natural
B-type channel.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT

There was little to no change in the profile of Reach 2 of UT3 since construction. There is
some piping around the second step of a boulder step structure near station 0+95 when flow is
low; however, during higher discharge we flows go over this step. At this time, the structure
is not considered to be an area of concern and it has exhibited similar functioning over the
monitoring period. No other stream problem areas were observed during Monitoring Year 5.
There were no signs of bank or channel instability observed during the Monitoring Year 5
survey.
2.1.1.3 Substrate and Sediment Transport
Bed material analysis consists of a pebble count taken in the same constructed riffle during
annual geomorphic surveys of the project site. This sample, combined with evidence
provided by changes in cross-sectional and profile data will reveal changes in sediment
transport and bed gradation that occur over time as the stream adjusts to upstream sediment
loads and cross-sections evolve into a more permanent stable dimension. Significant changes
in bed load composition are evaluated with respect to stream stability and watershed changes.
2.1.1.3.1 Results
For this project, a pebble count was collected on UT3. Visual observations of UT3 and a
review of pebble count data collected during Year 5 monitoring do not yield any signs that
sediment transport functions have been impaired by the mitigation project; specifically, no
significant areas of aggradation or degradation within the project area were observed. The
pebble count data (Exhibit 5, Appendix D) indicates that the stream is moving fines through
the system and larger pebbles are making up a greater percentage of the bed material.
Between the time pebble count data was taken during the as -built and YR1 the bed material
became more course. Over the last five years bed material has remained very similar having
the bed material size that might be expected for a small, high slope stream. Year 5 showed a
slight increase in the smaller size classes but also a greater percentage of many of the larger
size classes also. This does not indicate an issue for which we need to be concerned.
2.1.2 Hydrology
2.1.2.1 Streams
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of
a crest gauge and photographs. A crest gauge was installed on the floodplain of UT3 at the
bankfull elevation. The crest gauge recorded the highest flow elevation between site visits and
was checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event had occurred. Photographs were
used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during
monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the 5 -year monitoring period. The two
bankfull events must occur in separate years; otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until
two bankfull events have been documented in separate years or we reach the end of the
monitoring period. If we reach the end of the monitoring period without two bankfull events
occurring, the IRT will decide how to proceed.
2.1.2.1.1 Results
The site was found to have at least one bankfull event over the Year 5 monitoring period
based on a crest gauge reading. A total of at least five bankfull events have now been
documented onsite within the five year monitoring period (with at least one event
documented per monitoring period). These bankfull events were documented to have
occurred in five separate years and thus fulfills the hydrology success criteria for this stream
mitigation project site. Information on these events is provided in Table E10 (Appendix E).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT

2.1.3 Photographic Documentation of Site
Photographs will be used to document restoration success visually. Photo reference point sites
were photographed during the as -built survey; photographing these sites has been repeated for the
last five years. Photographs were taken once a year, from a height of approximately five to six
feet. Permanent field markers and reference photographs for field use will ensure that the same
locations (and view) are utilized during each monitoring period. Site photo logs with photo point
photographs are shown in Appendix B.
Lateral and structure photographs are used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or
degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, structure function and stability, and
effectiveness of erosion control measures. Lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or
degradation of the banks. A series of photos over time should indicate successive maturation of
riparian vegetation and consistent structure function. Photo documentation of the site during
Year 5 monitoring reflects stable site conditions in restored and enhanced areas.
2.1.3.1 Lateral Reference Photos
Reference photos of transects were taken of the right and left banks at each permanent cross-
section. A survey tape was shown in the photographs and represents the cross-section line
located perpendicular to the channel flow. The water surface was located in the lower edge
of the frame in order to document bank and riparian conditions. Photographers will make an
effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
2.1.3.2 Structure Photos
Photographs of primary grade control structures (i.e. vanes and weirs), along the restored
streams are included within the photographs taken at reference photo stations. Photographers
will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
2.1.3.2.1 Results
Photographs of the restoration project were taken in November 2015. The photographs
illustrate stable conditions across the project site. Vegetative growth along the streambanks
and riparian buffers has become dense and improved since construction was completed in
2011. Structures are functioning as designed.
2.1.4 Stream Stability Assessment
In -stream structures installed within the restored streams consisted of boulder steps. Table 11 in
Appendix F provides a comprehensive visual assessment of morphological stability throughout the
restored area (Reach 2 of UT3). The Year 5 visual observations of these structures indicate that
little or no changes have occurred since the baseline survey was performed; structures are
functioning as designed and are holding their elevation and grade. The close spacing of grade
control structures on UT3 and favorable bank heights are allowing for both vertical and lateral
energy dissipation of the stream during flood events; no structures were found to be in need of
repair at this time. No stream problem areas were identified during MY5.
Quantitative reference reach and design data used to determine the restoration approach, as well as
the Year 5 data collected during the project's post -construction monitoring period are summarized
in Appendix D.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT

2.2 Vegetation Assessment
2.2.1 Vegetation
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, active
planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community.
The restoration plan for the Snowbird Creek Tributaries Site specifies that the number of vegetation
monitoring quadrants required will be based on the species/area curve method (Peet 1998 and Lee
2007), as described in NCDMS monitoring guidance documents. The size of individual quadrants
is 100 square meters for woody tree species, and 1 square meter for herbaceous vegetation. Level 1
CVS vegetation monitoring will occur in spring, after leaf -out has occurred, or in the fall prior to
leaf fall.
At the end of the first growing season during baseline surveys, species composition, density, and
survival were evaluated. Individual quadrant data provided during subsequent monitoring events
will include diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities. Individual stems were marked to
ensure that they could be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality was determined from
the difference between the previous year's living, planted stems and the current year's living,
planted stems.
Photographs were used to document vegetation success in sample plots. Reference photos of tree
and herbaceous condition within plots have been taken at least once per year. Photos of the plots
are included in Appendix B of this report.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site is the survival of at least 320 trees per acre at
the end of Year 3 of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success criteria is the survival of
260 planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring period.
Seeding applied to streambanks sprouted within two weeks of application and has provided
excellent ground coverage. Live stakes and bare root trees are also flourishing and increasingly
contribute to streambank stability and shading. In general, bare -root vegetation was planted at a
target density of 680 stems per acre, in an 8 -foot by 8 -foot grid pattern. Planting of bare -root trees
was completed in late March -early April 2011. Species planted are included in the proposed list
below.
Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species (may also include seed or container species)
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Plan-NCDMS Project #92764
Common Name—J. kf%1'Nifk4
WL -1 aW.i 1111
Riparian Buffer Plantings
Trees Overstory
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
8
54
FACW-
River Birch
Betula nigra
7
48
FACW
White Oak
Quercus alba
5
34
FACU
Red Maple
Acer rubrum
5
34
FAC
Tulip Poplar
Driodendron tulipifera
5
34
FAC
Yellow Birch
Betula alleghaniensis (lutea)
5
34
FACU+
Black (Sweet) Birch
Betula lenta
5
34
FACU
Northern Red Oak
Quercus rubra
5
34
FACU
Yellow Buckeye
Aesculus octandra
5
34
N/A
Mockemut Hickory
Carya alba (tomentosa)
3
20
N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT

Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species (may also include seed or container species)
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Plan-NCDMS Project #92764
Scarlet Oak
Trees Understory
Highland Doghobble
Mountain Laurel
Flame Azalea
Black Willow
Ironwood
Witch Hazel
Sourwood
Flowering Dogwood
Rhododendron
Tag Alder
Redbud
Shrubs
Rivercane (giant
cane)
Spicebush
Deerberry
Eastern Sweetshrub,
Sweetshrub
Sweetpepperbush
Winterberry
Virginia Sweetspire
Chokeberry
Alternate Species
Ninebark
Elderberry
Buttonbush
Silky Willow
Silky Dogwood
Note: Species selection
Quercus coccinea
2
14
Leucothoe fontanesiana
axilarris var. editorum)
5
34
Kalmia latifolia
5
34
Rhododendron
calendulaceum
5
34
Salix nigra
2
14
Carpinus caroliniana
3
20
Hamamelis virginiana
2
14
Oxydendrum arboreum
5
34
Cornus florida5
34
34
Rhododendron maximum
3
20
Alnus serrulata 1 5 1 34
Cercis canadensis
Arundinaria gigantea
Lindera benzoin
Vaccinium stamineum
Calycanthus floridus,
Clethra spp.
Ilex verticillata
Itea virginica
Photinia
5 1 34
N/A
N/A
FACU
N/A
OBL
FAC
FACU
FACU
FACU
FAC-
FACW+ or
OBL
FACU
15
102
FACW
15
102
FACW
15
102
FACU
10
68
FACU
15
102
N/A
10
68
FACW
15
102
FACW+
5
34
N/A
Riparian Livestake Plantings
Physocarpus opulifolius
15
102
Sambucus canadensis
20
136
Cephalanthus occidentalis
15
102
Salix sericea
25
170
Cornus amomum
25
170
lay have changed due to refinement or availability at the time of pla
FAC-
FACW-
OBL
OBL
FACW+
In order to determine if the vegetation criteria was achieved, one vegetation monitoring quadrant,
10 by 10 meters in size, was installed on Reach 2 of UT3 in April 2011 as prescribed by the DMS
monitoring guidance that was required for this project (CVS -DMS protocol dated 11/06/06). This
plot includes a 1 square meter sub -quadrant for visually documenting the success of herbaceous
vegetation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. 8
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT

2.2.1.1.1 Results
Tables 5 through 7b in Appendix C present information on vegetation success criteria,
vegetation metadata, and stem counts for the vegetation plot. Vegetation data was collected in
November 2015. Data from the Year 5 monitoring event indicates that approximately 86.1 % of
the stems surveyed were in fair to excellent condition and 86% of the stems in the plot showed
no signs of damage. The average density of planted bare root stems, based on data collected
from the plot during Year 5 monitoring is 688 stems per acre or 17 stems per plot. The site was
originally planted with approximately 1,012 bare root stems per acre after construction (as cited
in the Baseline Monitoring Document), or 25 stems per plot. Therefore, between the Baseline
and Year 5 monitoring periods, an average mortality of eight stems has been observed. An
average density of 688 stems per acre indicates that the Site has met the final success criteria of
>260 trees per acre by the end of Year 5. Additionally, six (6) volunteer Tag Alders (Alnus
serrulata) were observed within this vegetation plot. The volunteers were not included on tables
7 and 7b as a result of the vegetation analysis module in the CVS -DMS program that was
utilized. The location of the vegetation plot is shown on the Current Condition Plan View.
On Reach 2 of UT2 (the Enhancement II Reach), two additional photography points, 3a and 3b,
were established in monitoring Year 2 to help monitor the changes in the riparian buffer where
logging debris was originally removed. Photographs for these stations are displayed in Exhibit 1
of Appendix B and their locations are georeferenced in Figures 2. Photographs will be taken on
an annual basis to visually document changes in the riparian corridor over the course of the
monitoring period. Additionally in monitoring Year 4, as an alternative to establishing a
vegetation monitoring plot in this reach (due to issues associated with doing this, as recorded in
earlier reports) Baker began conducting temporary counts of young living trees. In Year 5 two
observers independently counted all trees that appeared to be less than 5 years old throughout a
10m x 10m area (temporarily marked at each corner). A total of 21 and 23 trees were counted
by the observers, respectively, resulting in an average of 22 trees. This indicates that the density
is approximately 890 trees per acre on the UT2 enhancement reach. Woody vegetation observed
within the plot included Elderberry (Sambucus nigra), tuliptree (Liriodendron tulipifera), Sweet
birch (Betula lenta), northern red oak (Quercus rubra) and black gum (Nyssa sylvatica).
2.3 Areas of Concern
There are no Areas of Concern at this time.
In the Monitoring Year 4 Report we explained that an area of concern reported in previous years, located
along the left bank floodplain of the UT3-Restoration reach (near station 0+10 to 1+40), had been
repaired. The path within the easement was approximately 15 feet wide by 130 feet long. We moved this
path outside of the easement and replanted the area with larger trees in March 2015. There have been no
further encroachments into this area and the planted vegetation is growing well. This area is no long
considered an Area of Concern.
3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. CVS-NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1, 2007.
Peet, R.K., T.R. Wentworth and P.S. White. 1998. "A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure." Castanea 63:262-274.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
SNOWBIRD CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX A
FIGURE & GENERAL TABLES
LOCATION MAP
TABLES 1-4

-TN -
The Snow birdCreekTributaries miligalion site is locoed approximalely one and a half inilessouthwest of
Robbinsville in graham County, North Carolina. To reach the project site from the intersection of V.C.
I fthway's 193 and 129 ht Robbinsville, turn south onto N.C. IIighway 129, At lite first scop light past the
tlicrotel, turn right onto End Nin in Street, continue for approximately .3 miles, amt Iurn left onto ;Voah
Street. At"It Streel becomes Snowbird Road (both are N.C. Highway 143). Snowbird Road (N.C.. highway
143) will come to parallel Sanlectlab 1(,set'vair (an inundated portion of Snowhird Creek). At lite
intersection of RJ Gap Road and Snowbird Road, the properly will be situated to the cast. The last house on
the left before you get to this intersection is the properly owner andgast before you get Io Ihis house there is a
dirt road that leads to I?T1 and 172. To get to L'T3, turn left on IL' Grap Road, as lite road bends to lire right,
the l T3 property is no the teff and lite access drive is on lite lell just past a small rented farmhouse.
l The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDLQ Division of Maigaticon Services (DMS)
and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered by land under private ownership.
Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along, the easement boundary and therefore access by the
general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of stat, and federal agencies or their
desigrtees'contractots involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted
1 within the turns and timeframes of lheit defined roles any intended site visitation a activity by any person outside
--� ^ of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination with DM3.
LITTLE TE
HU 06010204020010
-eetIah
Lake VSs; ..etlah
GRAH CO.
�l
Project Site
ill
V
LITTLE TENNESSEE
An ew , u � /`�-
usi9 19
MA CO. LITT TENNESSEE
H I WASSE E 4-04-01
04-05-02 Nantahala Lake
1 `
fi
141
ur CHER KEE CO. f HIW ` 64
64 US64
04- 5-01 CLAY CO.
Map Inset LEGEND:
North Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Carolina � NCDWR Sub -basin F ] Counties Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project
Division of +7 - Graham County, NC
D USES Hydrologic Unit
Mitigation
Services ■ Project Hydrologic Unit
L-1 Graham County
0 1 2 4
,lana n co mry, NC =Miles A I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L

Figure 1. Notes
The Snowbird Creek Tributaries mitigation site is located approximately one and a half miles
southwest of Robbinsville in Graham County, North Carolina. To reach the project site from the
intersection of N.C. Highways 143 and 129 in Robbinsville, turn south onto N.C. Highway 129.
At the first stop light past the Microtel, turn right onto East Main Street, continue for
approximately .3 miles, and turn left onto Atoah Street. Atoah Street becomes Snowbird Road
(both are N.C. Highway 143). Snowbird Road (N.C. Highway 143) will come to parallel
Santeetlah Reservoir (an inundated portion of Snowbird Creek). At the intersection of IU Gap
Road and Snowbird Road, the property will be situated to the east. The last house on the left
before you get to this intersection is the property owner and just before you get to this house
there is a dirt road that leads to UTI and UT2. To get to UT3, turn left on IU Gap Road; as the
road bends to the right, the UT3 property is on the left and the access drive is on the left just past
a small rented farm house.
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the NCDEQ Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is
bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near
or along the easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted.
Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees/contractors
involved in the development, oversight and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within
the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any
person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination with
DMS.

Table 1A. Project Components and Mitiation Credits (Old Format)
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project #92764
L
�
�
Cn
0
0
Project
c
Segment or
°
p
U
c
°
Stationing
Reach IDW
F:
�°
Comment
UTI
3,213LF
P
-
-
3,213 LF
5:1
643
-
No channel alteration (preservation).
UT2 - Reach 1
1,033 LF
P
-
-
1,033 LF
5:1
207
-
No channel alteration (preservation).
Removal of woody debris; stabilize
UT2 - Reach 2
171 LF
EII
-
B3a
171 LF
2.5:1
68
-
streambanks; replanting with native
vegetation.
UT2 - Reach 3
675 LF
P
-
675 LF
5:1
135
-
No channel alteration (preservation).
UT3 - Reach 1
2,576LF
P
-
-
2,576LF
5:1
515
-
No channel alteration (preservation).
Relocate channel in lowest point of the
valley; establish a step-pool channel
UT3 - Reach 2
543 LF
R
PH
Aa+
467 LF
1:1
467
-
with stable banks and floodplain
connectivity.
Mitigation Unit Summations
Total
Buffer
Stream (SMU)
Riparian Wetland (WMU)
Nonriparian Wetland (WMU)
Wetland
Comment
(BMU)
WMU
2,035
NA
NA
NA
NA
Notes:

Table 113. Project Components and Mitigation Credits New Format
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project #92764
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland
Nitrogen Nutrient
Buffer Offset
Phosphorous
INutrientOffset
Type R
RE R RE R RE
Totals 535
1,500 NA NA NA NA
NA
NA
NA
Project Components
Project Component or Reach ID
Existing Approach (PI,
Stationing/Location Footage/Acreage PII etc.)
Restoration or
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation Ratio
UT1
3,213 LF
P
3,213 LF
5:1
UT2 - Reach 1
1,033 LF
P
1,033 LF
5:1
UT2 - Reach 2
171 LF Bank St/plant
Ell
171 LF
2.5:1
UT2 - Reach 3
675 LF
P
675 LF
5:1
UT3 - Reach 1
2,576 LF
P
2,576 LF
5:1
UT3 - Reach 2
543 LF PII
R
467 LF
1:1
Component Summation
Non-riparian Wetland Buffer
Restoration Level Stream (linear feet) Riparian Wetland (acres) (acres) feet)
(square
Upland
(acres)
Reverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
467 NA NA NA NA
NA
Enhancement
NA NA NA NA
NA
Enhancement 1
0
Enhancement II
171
Creation
NA NA NA
NA
Preservation
7,497 NA NA NA
NA
High Quality
Preservation
0 NA NA I NA
NA
BMP Elements
Element
Location Purpose/Function Notes
NA
NA NA NA
NA
NA NA NA
NA
NA NA NA
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond: DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S = Grassed Swale; LS =
Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Snowbird Creek
Tribs Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project #92663
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete
Completion or Delivery
Restoration Plan
October 2009
Final Design -90%
November 2009
Construction
August 2010
Temporary S&E mix applied to
entire project area
August 2010
Permanent seed mix applied to
roiect site
August 2010; February 2011
Bare root plantings set out
March 2011
Installation of crest gauges
Green Resources
March 2011
Mitigation Plan / As -built (Year
0 Monitoring — baseline)
Apr -11
November 2011 (last of plantings completed in March)
Year 1 Monitoring
Jan -12
March 2012
Year 2 Monitoring
Feb -13
March 2013
Year 3 Monitoring
Jan -14
March 2014
Year 4 Monitoring
Nov -14 to Feb -15
March 2015
Supplemental Planting
March 2015
Year 5 Monitoring
Dec -15
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project-NCDMS
Project #92764
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201, Asheville, NC 28806
Contact: Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary, NC 27518
Contact: Bill Wright, Tel. [phone]
Planting & Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600, Cary, NC 27518
Contact: George Morris, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arborgen and Hillis Nursery
Monitoring
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201, Asheville, NC 28806
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Contact: Micky Clemmons, Tel. [phone]

Table 4. Project Background Table
Sink Hole Creek Mitigation Project-NCDMS Project #92663
Project County
Graham County, NC
Physiograhic Region
Blue Ridge
Ecoregion
Blue Ridge Mountains-Southern Metasedimentary
Mountains
Project River Basin
Little Tennessee
USGS HUC for Project
6010204020010
NCDWR Sub-basin for Project
04-04-04
Within extent of DMS Watershed Plan?
No local or targeted watershed plans currently available
WRC Class
Cold
NCDWR classification
C; Tr, HQW (Snowbird Cr.); C (Hooper Br.)
% of Project Easement Fenced or Demarcated
0% (post-construction)
Beaver Activity Observed During Design Phase
No
Drainage Area (Square Miles)
UTI
.13 mi'
UT2 Reach 1
.05 miz
UT2 Reach 2
.06 mit
UT2 Reach 3
.08 miz
UT3 Reach 1
.15 miz
UT3 Reach 2
.18 miz
Stream Order
UTI
1 st (Perennial)
UT2 Reach 1
lst(Perennial)
UT2 Reach 2
1 st (Perennial)
UT2 Reach 3
1st (Perennial)
UT3 Reach 1
1 st (Perennial)
UT3 Reach 2
1st (Perennial)
Restored Length
UTI
3,212 LF
UT2 Reach 1
1,033 LF
UT2 Reach 2
171 LF
UT2 Reach 3
675 LF
UT3 Reach 1
2,576 LF
UT3 Reach 2
467 LF
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Watershed Type
Rural (Predominantly Forested)
Watershed LULC Distribution (Percent area)
Deciduous Forest
80%

Evergreen Forest
8.68%
Mixed Forest
11%
Developed Open Space
<1%
Drainage Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<10%
NCDWR AU/Index #
2-190-9 (15.5)
303d Listed / Upstream of 303d Listed Segment
No/ No
Reasons for 303d Listing or Stressor
-
Total Acreage of Easement
13.1
Total Vegetated Acreage w/in Easement
100% (Easement vegetated with exception of stream
channel)
Total Planted Acreage within the Easement
—.86 Acres
Rosgen Classification (Pre-existing)/As-Built
UTI
Aa+/Aa+
UT2 Reach 1
B3a/B3a
UT2 Reach 2
B3a/B3a
UT2 Reach 3
B3aB3a
UT3 Reach 1
A4a+/A4a+
UT3 Reach 2
B/B3a
Valley Type
II
Valley Slope
.094 (UT3)
Trout Waters Designation
No
Species of Concern
No
Dominant Soil Series and Characteristics
Snowbird loam/ Thurmont-Dillard/ Soco-Stecoah/ Spivey-Whiteoak
Depth (in.)
% Clay
K Factor
T Factor
UTI
>80"
5-18/ 5-24
.10-.17/.02-.1
3 -Feb
UT2 Reach 1
—80/>60"
18 -May
.10-.17/.l
5
UT2 Reach 2
>80"
18 -May
.10-.17
5
UT2 Reach 3
>80"
5-18/ 5-24
.10-.17/.02-.1
5
UT3 Reach 1
>80"
24 -May
.02-.1/.03-.1
5
UT3 Reach 2
>60"
25 -May
.17-.24
5
*This format is the format that has been used since monitoring began on this project. It
does not conform to present guidelines but continues existing reporting formal.

APPENDIX B
FIGURE 2 PROJECT COMPONENT MAP
EXHIBIT 1-2 REFERENCE STATION AND
VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOLOGS

LEGEND:
Proposed Project Components
o Preservation
- Enhancement II
Restoration (Priority 1)
ld[C'�lle�l�
Photo Pants fa the restored reach, UT3 Reach 2,
can be fwd on the CCPV. Fig— 3 d Appendi, F.
Streams
'_ .j Easement Boundary
© • Photo Points (Ell & Preservation Reaches)*
0 200 400 800 n
Feet 1A
Figure 2. Restoration Summary
Map
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Project
Graham County, NC

Snowbird Creek
Photo Log - Reference Photo Points
Notes: Photos for Snowbird Creek were taken November 5, 2015.
1. Photo point locations are shown on the plan views in the actual location the picture was taken.
2. All points are marked with a wooden stake and flagging. For channel points, the stake is set up on an
adjacent bank.
Photo Point 1: looking downstream
Intentionally left blank
Photo Point 2: looking downstream
Photo Point 2: looking upstream

j -
a1 �� w '`+.� 't" �: � �St°�� T �L"�Y�' ✓:� � R ; .Y ��t h 7 ,% re "•� i .£.� ,
`,1�, � J � � Fh "�. � +f�M yEy�ea� + �, SA ry, s• c -a �e' �y4... ��'�t "�e�. s
.,,. ��.�`. „' ��� '� . +i � .. JM r T,f '1 �'/a �1y, qf 1. ftX•"i, � ft'�,� s'�f^s ��i;:
/ y4
f,
•rt:
o
j -
a1 �� w '`+.� 't" �: � �St°�� T �L"�Y�' ✓:� � R ; .Y ��t h 7 ,% re "•� i .£.� ,
`,1�, � J � � Fh "�. � +f�M yEy�ea� + �, SA ry, s• c -a �e' �y4... ��'�t "�e�. s
.,,. ��.�`. „' ��� '� . +i � .. JM r T,f '1 �'/a �1y, qf 1. ftX•"i, � ft'�,� s'�f^s ��i;:
/ y4
f,
•rt:

Photo Point 6: looking downstream (out of easement)
Photo Point 6: looking upstream

UTI Reach 1 (Preservation)
Photo Log - Reference Photo Points
Notes: Photos were taken November 5, 2015.
1. Photo point locations are shown on the plan sheets in the actual location the picture was taken.
2. All points are marked with flagging tape and recorded with GPS points. For channel points, the flagging is
tied on an adjacent bank.
Photo Point 1: looking downstream
Photo Point 1: looking upstream
Photo Point 2: looking downstream
Photo Point 2: looking upstream

DJ r:, � '�_ t} , • �� - °. � `b P � I i �� �f�'�" .� .Rk., � �� Ah ei �er�`�
M.
� r
f
! . ��!'F� � • ,. � a?. __ . �'y;.� '' '11/'7 -- � � -
�-
• }f
r. -r 'yam°a, Y"
n
..
a
ay s ��, 3.Vt '' ,' _ :.� tea"- Y._� T `� V a '` .►;.e
y
♦ S,
,r
-;'—"moi•. �,�� � �j` .r , � a W ' ,� .+� � \ •�. y' �, ; � _

UT2 (Preservation & Enhancement II)
Photo Log - Reference Photo Points
Notes: Photos were taken November 5, 2015.
1. Photo point locations are shown on the plan sheets in the actual location the picture was taken.
2. All points are marked with flagging tape and recorded with GPS points. For channel points, the flagging is
tied on an adjacent bank.
3. Photo point 3, 3a, and 3b are located in the Enhancement II Reach.
Photo Point 1: looking downstream
Photo Point 1: looking upstream
Photo Point 2: looking downstream
Photo Point 2: looking upstream

Photo Point 3: looking downstream
Photo Point 3: looking upstream
Photo Point 3a: looking down valley along right bank
Photo Point 3a: looking up valley along right bank
Photo Point 3b: looking down valley along right bank
Photo Point 3b: looking up valley along right bank

Y �
"7. e -
r

o?• � fit, �n„� '��� s� xw, _ � �
! r
A" �. ♦ �+ r t7�. "=,f � ..- -i fi A tr y � � �`rY Y! _ i f � -m4r k r `.
• ... i _aC Y. -t ^
`� 15t:'y 5 .ai.3!F`sW �.. _�Ct`_"- t 'ti� ''F`�•�°'

Photo Point 3: looking downstream
Photo Point 3: looking upstream

Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Photo Log - Vegetation Plot Photos
Notes: Photos for Vegetation Plots were taken November 5, 2015.
1. Vegetation plots marked by t -posts at corners; herbaceous plot marked by stake within larger plot.
2. Planted vegetation flagged and tagged for future identification.
Photo 1: Veg Plot 1
Photo 2: Veg Plot 1 -Herbaceous Plot

APPENDIX C
TABLES 5-7b

Table 5. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Snowbird Creek Mitigation Project -#92764
Vegetation Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met for YR5?
1 Y
Table 6. Vegetation Metadata
East Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project -#92763
Report Prepared By Micky Clemmons
Date Prepared 12/7/2015 12:22
database name cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1_Snowbird.mdb
database location L:\projects\113112 Snowbird Cr. FD\Monitoring\Year 5\Veg
computer name ASHELMCLEMMONS
file size 44515328
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
Proj, total stems
Plots
Vigor
Vigor by Spp
Damage
Damage by Spp
Damage by Plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
PROJECT SUMMARY ---------
Project Code
project Name
Description
River Basin
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
natural/volunteer stems.
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
92764
Snowbird Tributaries
Restoration: 466 LF, Enhancement 11:171 LF, Preservation: 7,497 LF
Little Tennessee
466
30
2597.31

Table 7. Stem Count Arranged by Plot
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project #92764
,Tree Species dL Common Name
Species Type
Plot
1
As-built
Totals
MY 1
Totals
MY 2
Totals
MY 3
Totals
MY 4
Totals
MY 5
Totals
Survival %
Probable Cause
cer rubrum Red Maple
Tree
l
1
2
2
1
1
1
100%
lnus serrulata' Hazel Alder
Tree
misidentified
Betula lenta 2 Sweet Birch
Tree
misidentified
Betula nigra River Birch
Tree
2
2
0
0
0 1
0
0
100%
Car inus caroliniana American hombeam
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
100%
Carya alba 3 Mockernut Hickory
Tree
misidentified
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash
Tree
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
100%
iriodendron tuli i era ituliptree
I Tree
l
I
1
I
I
I
1
100%
Platanus occidentalis a Sycamore
Tree
6
6
5
6
5
5
4
100%
Quercus rubra Red Oak
Tree
3
3
2
2
2 1
2
2
100%
Shrub SpecieW
Cercis canadensis Redbud
Tree
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
100%
Hamamelis vir iniana 5 Witch Hazel
Shrub
misidentified
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
100%
Stems/ lot
25
25
21
22
19
8
17
Stems/acre
11111111116L
1012
1012
850
890
76
688
1 Determined that these stems were misidentified in previous years: Both are now identified as Carpinus caroliniana - American hornbeam or Ironwood.
2 Determined that these stems were misidentified in previous years: Two are now identified as Green Ash and one was identified as American hornbeam or Ironwood.
3 Determined that these stems were misidentified in previous years: Two are now identified as Green Ash and one was identified as southern arrowwood.
4 Determined that one of these stems were misidentified in previous years: It is now identified as southern arrowwood.
5 Determined that these stem was misidentified in previous years: It is now identified as tuliptree.
Numbers per species per year was ajusted to account for corrections to species identifications

Table 7b. Stem Count Arranged by Plot
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project #92764
Current Plot Data (MY5 2015)
Annual Means
Species
Scientific Name Common Name Type
E92764-01-0001
MY5 (2015)
MY4 (2014)
MY3 (2013)
MY2 (2012)
MY1 (2011)
MYO (2010)
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all
T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Alnus serrulate 1 hazel alder Shrub
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Betula lento z sweet birch Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
Betula nigra River birch Tree
2
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
Carya alba s mockernut hickory Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Cercis canadensis Redbud Tree
1
1
1
Froxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
Hamamelis virginiona a American witchhazel Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
6
6
6
7
7
7
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Viburnum dentatum southern arrowwood Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
17
17
17
17
17
17
18
18
18
19
19
19
22
22
22
21
21
21
25
25
25
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 1 0.02
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 77 7 7 7 7 9 9
9
688 688 688 688 688 688 728 728 728 769 769 769 890 890 890 850 850 850 1012 1012
1012
1 Determined that these stems were misidentified in previous years: Both are now identified as Carpinus caroliniana - American hornbeam or Ironwood.
2 Determined that these stems were misidentified in previous years: Two are now identified as Green Ash and one was identified as American hornbeam or Ironwood.
3 Determined that these stems were misidentified in previous years: Two are now identified as Green Ash and one was identified as southern arrowwood.
4 Determined that these stem was misidentified in previous years: It is now identified as tuliptree.
Note: Changes for species misidentifications were only made in MY5 (2015).
Exceeds requirements by 10%

APPENDIX D
MORPHOLOGICAL SUMMARY DATA
EXHIBIT 3 - CROSS-SECTIONS (WITH ANNUAL OVERLAYS)
EXHIBIT 4 - LONGITUDINAL PROFILE (WITH ANNUAL OVERLAYS)
EXHIBIT 5 - RIFFLE PEBBLE COUNT SIZE CLASS DISTRIBUTION
TABLE 8 - CROSS-SECTION MORPHOLOGY DATA TABLE
TABLE 9 - STREAM REACH MORPHOLOGY DATA TABLE

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
BKF
ER Elev
TOB
Elev
Riffle
B3
3.9
7.47
0.52
0.96
14.42
1.1
5.8 2045.4
2045.52
Cross -Section X1 - Longitudinal Station 1+13 (UT3)
2047
2015 YR5
2014 YR4
2046.5
2013 YR3
2012 YR2
2011 YR1
V
2010 Asbuilt
2046
- o--- Bankfull
C
O
2045.5
w
2045
2044.5
2044
100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)
Photo 1: XS -1 facing right bank
Photo 2: XS -1 facing left bank

2031
2030.5
2030
0
2029.5
W
2029
2028.5
2028
Cross -Section X2 - Longitudinal Station 2+82 (UT3)
------------------------
2015 YR5
2014 YR4
2013 YR3
2012 YR2
2011 YR1
2010 Asbuilt
---0--- Bankfull
95 105 115 125 135 145 155
Station (ft)
Photo 3: XS -2 facing right bank Photo 4: XS -2 facing left bank
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
Elev
Elev
Riffle
B3
7.9
12.29
0.64
1.18
19.19
1
4.1
2030.02
2030.02
2031
2030.5
2030
0
2029.5
W
2029
2028.5
2028
Cross -Section X2 - Longitudinal Station 2+82 (UT3)
------------------------
2015 YR5
2014 YR4
2013 YR3
2012 YR2
2011 YR1
2010 Asbuilt
---0--- Bankfull
95 105 115 125 135 145 155
Station (ft)
Photo 3: XS -2 facing right bank Photo 4: XS -2 facing left bank

2024
2023
2022
0
> 2021
m
w
2020
2019
2018
Cross -Section X3 - Longitudinal Station 3+81 (UT3)
2015 YR5
2014 YR4
2013 YR3
2012 YR2
2011 YR1
2010 Asbuilt
---e--- Bankfull
100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)
Photo 5: XS -3 facing right bank Photo 6: XS -3 facing left bank
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
BKF TOB
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
Elev Elev
Pool
B3
7.9
12.19
0.65
1.54
18.69
1
4
2021.12 2021.12
2024
2023
2022
0
> 2021
m
w
2020
2019
2018
Cross -Section X3 - Longitudinal Station 3+81 (UT3)
2015 YR5
2014 YR4
2013 YR3
2012 YR2
2011 YR1
2010 Asbuilt
---e--- Bankfull
100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)
Photo 5: XS -3 facing right bank Photo 6: XS -3 facing left bank

2017
2016
2015
c
0
m
d 2014
W
2013
2012
Cross -Section X4 - Longitudinal Station 4+47
100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)
Photo 7: XS -4 facing right bank
Photo 8: XS -4 facing left bank
Max
Stream
BKF
BKF
BKF
BKF
BH
BKF
TOB
Feature
Type
Area
Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
Ratio
ER
Elev
Glev
Riffle
B3
14.2
15.82
0.9
2.01
17.63
1.1
4
2015.35
2015.61
2017
2016
2015
c
0
m
d 2014
W
2013
2012
Cross -Section X4 - Longitudinal Station 4+47
100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)
Photo 7: XS -4 facing right bank
Photo 8: XS -4 facing left bank

Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for Year 5 Monitoring
Sta: 0+00 - 1+00
2015 TWG Year 5 Top of Bank
—� WSF
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)
2060
2055
w
2050
C
:r
2050
c
d
W
2045
O
2040
Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for Year 5 Monitoring
Sta: 0+00 - 1+00
2015 TWG Year 5 Top of Bank
—� WSF
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)
Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for all Years
Sta: 0+00 - 1 +00
T�
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)
2055
2050
.r
c
O
O
2015 TWG Year 5
d
W
2014 TWG Year 4
2045
2013 TWG Year 3
2012 TWG Year 2
2011 TWG Year 1
2010 TWG As -built
2040
0
10 20
Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for all Years
Sta: 0+00 - 1 +00
T�
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Station (ft)

2015 TWG Year 5 Top of Bank
WSF
Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for Year 5 Monitoring
Sta: 1+00 - 2+00
Begin break in
easement
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Station (ft)
2050
2045
w
C
w
2040
cv
d
W
2035
2030
2015 TWG Year 5 Top of Bank
WSF
Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for Year 5 Monitoring
Sta: 1+00 - 2+00
Begin break in
easement
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Station (ft)
Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for all Years
Sta: 1+00 - 2+00
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Station (ft)
2050
2045
w
C
w
2040
cv
m
W
2035
2030
Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for all Years
Sta: 1+00 - 2+00
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Station (ft)

Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for Year 5 Monitoring
Sta: 2+00 - 3+00
2040
End break in easement
1
7 ..................................... .............. ...........
2035 _. _.._._._ .._._._._ _._.._.._......... __
.............. .................
C
2030 - - ---_._ .._._._._ _._.._.._ _._._ ._.._._._ ._._._.._..-- - __-- __---.._..--._.-.__--
> 2015 TWG Year 5 Top of Bank
W
WSF
2025
2020
200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300
Station (ft)
Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for all Years
Sta: 2+00 - 3+00
2040
2035
r
C
2030
2015 TWG Year 5
d
W
2014 TWG Year 4
2013 TWG Year 3
2025
2012 TWG Year 2
2011 TWG Year 1
2010 TWG As -built
2020 .
200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300
Station (ft)

2015 TWG Year 5 Top of Bank
WSF
Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for Year 5 Monitoring
Sta: 3+00 - 4+00
300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400
Station (ft)
2030
2025
w
C
2020
W
W
2015
2010
2015 TWG Year 5 Top of Bank
WSF
Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for Year 5 Monitoring
Sta: 3+00 - 4+00
300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400
Station (ft)
Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for all Years
Sta: 3+00 - 4+00
2015 TWG Year 5
2014 TWG Year 4
2013 TWG Year 3
2012 TWG Year 2
2011 TWG Year 1
2010 TWG As -built
300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400
Station (ft)
2030
2025
C
2020
d
W
2015
2010
Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for all Years
Sta: 3+00 - 4+00
2015 TWG Year 5
2014 TWG Year 4
2013 TWG Year 3
2012 TWG Year 2
2011 TWG Year 1
2010 TWG As -built
300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400
Station (ft)

2015 TWG Year 5 Top of Bank
WSF
Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for Year 5 Monitoring
Sta: 4+00 - 5+00
400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500
Station (ft)
2020
2015
C
Sta: 4+00 - 5+00
t.
2010
d
W
_..._..._
_ _...... -------
2005
2000
2015 TWG Year 5 Top of Bank
WSF
Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for Year 5 Monitoring
Sta: 4+00 - 5+00
400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500
Station (ft)
Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for all Years
Sta: 4+00 - 5+00
2020
2015
_..._..._
_ _...... -------
... _... _... ... _... _... ........ _........ ... _... _... ........ ... _.._... _ .......... _... _... _ ...._....... ... _................... ............. _... ... _... _................... _..._..._
c
2010
2015 TWG Year 5
---------------
ca
a>i
2014 TWG Year 4
W
2013 TWG Year 3
2005
2012 TWG Year 2
2011 TWG Year 1
2010 TWG As -built
2000
400
410 420
430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500
Station (ft)

2020
2015
a
C
r
2010
cc
m
W
2005
2000 +-
500
Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for Year 5 Monitoring
Sta: 5+00 - 6+00
2015 TWG Year 5 Top of Bank
WSF
510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590 600
Station (ft)
Longitudinal Profile - UT3 (Reach 2) for all Years
Sta: 5+00 - 6+00
2020
2015 TWG Year 5
2014 TWG Year 4
2013 TWG Year 3
2015
2012 TWG Year 2
_
2011 TWG Year 1
C
2010 TWG As built
2010
ca
N
W
2005
— -- ...... _ _ -
2000
500 510 520 530 540 550 560 570 580 590 600
Station (ft)

Exhibit 5. Cross -Section Pebble Count (UT3 to Hooper Branch)
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project, DMS#92764
SITE OR PROJECT:
Snowbird Creek Tributaries
REACH/LOCATION:
UT3 across from veg plot
DATE COLLECTED:
27 -Oct -15
FEATURE:
Riffle
Total I 100 I 100% I I
Channel materials
MY5 (2015)
D16 =
8.00
D. = 170.06
MATERIAL
PARTICLE
SIZE (mm)
Total
Class %
% Cum
Silt/Clay
<.063
6
6%
6%
n Po Po Po P�
Very Fine
.063-.125
6%
oP°P�Po
IN MY 3 (2013)
P�
Po P�
Fine
.125-.25
3
3%
9%
all,
o
5
Medium
.25-.50
1
1%
10%
o P
N
p
Po P�
Coarse
.50-1.0
5
5%
15%
A Po Po Po P�
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
70%
15%
OPOP�6P0�
U
0
DO
Very Fine
2.0-2.8
—MY 1 (2011)
15%
Very Fine
2.8-4.0
15%
Fine
4.0-5.6
60%
—AB (2010)
15%
G0
ytiti'e 'Lp
R
Fine
5.6-8.0
1
1%
16%
0
A
V
Medium
8.0-11.0
3
3%
19%
OQ
L n01
iJO
Medium
11.0-16.0
2
2%
21%
O
Coarse
16.0-22.6
6
6%
27%
Coarse
22.6-32
3
3%
30%
n nn(C
Very Coarse
32-45
2
2%
32%
Very Coarse
45-64
5
5%
37%
00
Small
64-90
12
12%
49%
Small
90-128
20
20%
69%
Large
128-180
18
18%
87%
`.i
Large
180-256
13
13%
100%
Small
256-362
100%
�L.E.
Small
362-512
100%
Medium
512-1024
100%
Large -Very Large
1024-2048
10%
100%
Bedrock
> 2048
100%
Total I 100 I 100% I I
Largest particles: 240 mm
(riffle)
UT3 to Hooper Branch, a Snowbird Trib.
Channel materials
UT3 to Hooper Branch, a Snowbird Trib.
D16 =
8.00
D. = 170.06
D35 =
55.59
Des = 223.57
D50 =
91.60
Dion = 180 - 256
Largest particles: 240 mm
(riffle)
UT3 to Hooper Branch, a Snowbird Trib.
Pebble Count Particle Size Distribution
UT3 to Hooper Branch, a Snowbird Trib.
100%
—MY 5 (2015)
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
AF
100%
NAB (2010)
90%
90%
—MY 4 (2014)
80%
IN MY 2 (2012)
70%
IN MY 3 (2013)
%0%
—MY 3 (2013)
60%
■ MY 4 (2014)
q 50%
INMY 5 (2015)
—MY 2 (2012)
u
d
40%
F4
70%
y 30%
R
U
20%
—MY 1 (2011)
60%
—AB (2010)
0%
ytiti'e 'Lp
Particle Size Class (mm)
C
50%
i
y 40%
ea 30%
7
7 20%
U
10%
0%
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
UT3 to Hooper Branch, a Snowbird Trib.
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
100%
NAB (2010)
90%
■MY 1 (2011)
80%
IN MY 2 (2012)
70%
IN MY 3 (2013)
60%
■ MY 4 (2014)
q 50%
INMY 5 (2015)
u
d
40%
F4
y 30%
R
U
20%
10%
0%
ytiti'e 'Lp
Particle Size Class (mm)

Table D8. Cross -Section Morphology Data Table
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project #92764
UT3
Parameter
Cross Section 1
Riffle
Cross Section 2
Riffle
Cross Section 3
Pool
Cross Section 4
Riffle
AB
MY1 I
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 --TF-FM-
_Y1 I
MY2 I
MY3 I
MY4
I MY5
AB I
MY1
I MY2
I MY3
I MY4
I MY5
AB
MY1
1 MY2
I MY3 I
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width ft
8.5
8.8
8.2
8.4
8.3
7.5
9.5
11.8
12.5
15.7
13.0
12.3
9.7
10.5
10.2
12.6
10.6
12.2
12.4
12.9
12.2
12.3
15.7
15.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
41.5
45.1
40.7
44.9
>45.7
>43.6
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
>50.0
49.1
50.4
57.2
57.0
54.7
49.2
62.5
63.1
56.7
56.5
63.0
>63
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2
4.5
5.1
4.3
4.3
4.6
3.9
6.3
7.7
8.7
9.8
8.5
7.9
8.1
8.5
9.1
9.8
8.2
7.9
10.7
11.2
9.5
8.1
14.6
14.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.53
0.58
0.53
0.51
0.56
0.52
0.66
0.65
0.70
0.62
0.65
0.64
0.84
0.81
0.89
0.78
0.77
0.65
0.87
0.87
0.77
0.66
0.93
0.90
BF Max Depth ft
0.83
0.89
0.83
0.93
1.01
0.96
1.05
1.11
1.29
1.47
1.25
1.18
1.64
1.71
1.94
1.70
1.73
1.54
1.31
1.35
1.21
1.16
2.25
2.01
Width/Depth Ratio
16.3
15.4
15.3
16.4
15.0
14.4
14.3
18.1
17.8
25.2
20.0
19.2
11.6
12.9
11.5
16.1
13.6
18.7
14.3
14.8
15.8
18.7
16.8
17.6
Entrenchment Ratio
4.9
5.1 1
5.0
5.3
5.5
5.8
5.3
1 4.2
4.0 1
3.2 1
3.8
4.1
5.1
4.8
1 5.6
4.5
5.1
4.0
5.1
4.9
4.6
4.6
4.5
4.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
9.6
10.0
9.2
9.5
9.5
8.5
10.8
13.1
13.9
17.0
14.3
13.6
11.4
12.1
12.0
14.1
12.1
13.5
14.1
1 14.6
1 13.8
13.6
17.6
17.6
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
1 0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.8
1 0.8
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.8
Substrate
d50 mm
d84 (mm)
Parameter
Min
AB 2010
Max I
Med
MY -1 2011
MY
-2 2012
MY
-3 2013
MY -4 2014
MY -5 2015)
Min I Max 1 Med
Min Max Med
Min Max Med
Min Max I Med
Min I Max I Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature ft
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle length ft 24 33 26
23 27 27
23 28 26
23 28 26
9 60 30
10 37 28
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.058 1 0.102 1 0.072
0.0441 0.120 1 0.104
0.047 0.118 0.092
0.041 0.113 0.087
O.0451 0.104 0.077
0.038 0.116 0.073
Pool Length ft 3 6 4
3 77
4 10 4
5 9 8
3.2 15.7 7.4
3.4 14.2 6.5
Pool Spacing (ft) 8 41 35
8 47 29
8 55 34
8 52 32
4.7 54.0 20.4
4.6 1 73.1 18.7
Substrate
d50 mm 28
53
64
77
65.60
91.60
d84 (mm) 78
113
143
145
120.30
170.06
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)* 538
541
538
538
538
538
Channel Length (ft)* 566
576
566
566
566
566
Sinuosity 1.05
1.07
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.089
0.087
0.088
0.090
0.090
0.091
BF Slope (ft/ft)* 0.093
0.093
0.092
1 0.094
0.094
0.096
Rosgen Classification 133a
133a
133a133a63a
Baa
Notes: 'Past reports gave these numbers based on removing channel length at crossings, this has been corrected to reflect reach VL
and CL. Corrections to BF Slope were also made.

Table D9. Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project #92764
Stream Reach Data Summary
UT3
Parameter
Regional Curve
Equation
Reference Reach(es)
Data
Design
(As-Built)
Yr 1
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 4
Yr 5
Dimension - Riffle
Eq.
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.1
7.4
17.5
27.6
-----
9.9
-----
8.5
10.1
12.4
8.8
11.2
12.9
8.2
10.9
12.5
8.4
12.2
15.7
8.3
10.9
13.0
7.5
12.0
15.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
12.2
25.4
38.6
20.0
35.0
50.0
41.5
51.4
62.5
45.1
52.7
63.1
40.7
49.1
56.7
44.9
50.5
56.5
45.7
53.4
63.0
43.6
51.5
63.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.65
0.87
0.99
1.10
-----
0.66
-----
0.53
0.69
0.87
0.58
0.70
0.87
0.53
0.67
0.77
0.51
0.60
0.66
0.56
0.70
0.8
0.52
0.68
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.09
1.35
1.60
-----
0.90
-----
0.83
1.06
1.31
0.9
1.12
1.4
0.83
1.11
1.29
0.83
1.19
1.47
1.01
1.50
2.1
0.96
1.42
2.01
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
6.7
7.0
20.0
33.0
-----
6.5
-----
4.5
7.1
10.7
5.1
8.0
11.2
4.3
7.5
9.5
4.3
7.4
9.8
4.6
8.3
11.7
3.9
8.5
14.2
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
7.6
17.3
27.0
-----
15.1
-----
14.3
14.9
16.3
14.8
16.1
18.1
15.3
16.3
17.8
16.4
19.5
25.2
13.6
16.3
20.0
14.4
17.5
19.2
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
1.3
1.6
2.0
2.0
3.5
5.0
4.9
5.1
5.3
4.2
4.7
5.1
4.0
4.5
5.0
3.2
4.4
5.3
3.8
4.7
5.5
4.0
4.5
5.8
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1.1
1.1
1.2
-----
1.0
-----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
2.1
1.0
1.1 1
1.1
1.0
1.05
1.1
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
4.6
-----
----
3.4
----
----
3.0
----
----
3.2
----
----
3.2
----
----
2.9
----
----
2.8
----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Radiusof Curvature (ft)
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
---
-----
-----
----- I------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
- -
-----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-
-- --
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Profile
Riffle Length ft
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
24
27
33
23
26
27
23
26
28
22.9
25.8
28.4
8.9
29.0
59.8
10.4
26.2
36.8
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
0.136
0.152
0.167
0.048
0.101
0.153
0.058
0.075
0.102
0.044
0.094
0.120
0.047
0.086
0.118
0.0408
0.0867
0.1127
0.0450
0.0740
0.1040
0.0377 0.0751
0.1159
Pool Length (ft)
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
3
4
6
3
7
7
4
6
10
5
7
9
3.2
7.8
15.7
3.4
7.6
14.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
----
42
99
157
5
27
48
8
27
41
8
26
47
8
29
55
8
28
52
4.7
24.2
54.0
4.6
24.7
73.1
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
5.6/9.5/11/100/200
-----
6.8/19/28/78/150
.7/39/53/113/180
6.7/43/64/143/271
29/55/77/145/220
25/53/66/120/168
8/56/92/170/224
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
-----
-----
-----
----------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
- - -
-----
-----
------
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-
- - -
-----
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
466
-----
-----
566
-----
- - -
576
-----
-----
566
-----
-----
566
----
-----
566
-----
-----
566
-----
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
0.13
0.87
1.60
-----
0.18
-----
-----
0.18
-----
-----
0.18
-----
-----
0.18
-----
- -
0.18
-----
-----
0.18
-----
-----
0.18
- - -
Rosgen Classification
----
-----
134a
-----
-----
B3
-----
-----
B3
-----
-----
B3
-----
-----
B3
-----
-----
B3
-----
-----
B3
-----
-----
B3
-----
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
27
-----
-----
-----
20
30
40
----
24
----
----
24
----
----
24
----
----
24
----
----
24
----
----
24
----
Sinuosity
-----
-----
1.10
-----
----
1.10
----
-----
1.05
-----
-----
1.07
-----
-----
1.05
-----
-----
1.05
-----
-----
1.05
-----
-----
1.05
BF slope (ft/ft)
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
----- I
-----
1 0.093
----
-----
0.093
-----
I ----
0.092
-----
-----
0.094
-----
-----
0.094
-----
-----
0.096
-----

APPENDIX E
TABLE 10 -VERIFICATION OF BANKFULL EVENTS

Table E10. Verification of Bankfull or Greater than Bankfull Events
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Miti ation Project -#92764
Gauge Watermark Height
Date of Data Collection
Date of Event
Metbod of Data Collection
(feet above bankfull)
UT3 (Reach 2)
April 8th, 2011 (crest
MY 1 (January 6, 2012
gauge installation for
asbuilt) January 6,
Gauge measurement
0.15
2012
MY 2 (February 6, 2013)
January 6, 2012 —
February 6, 2013
Gauge measurement
0.22
MY 3 (January 20, 2014)
February 6, 2013-
Gauge measurement
0.16
January 20, 2014
MY 4 (March 9, 2015)
January 20, 2014-
Gauge measurement
0.54
March 9, 2015
MY 5 (November 5, 2015)
March 9, 2015 -
November 5, 2015
Gauge measurement
0.27
Photo of cork at 3.25 inches, or 0.27 feet above the floodplain.

APPENDIX F
PROJECT PROBLEM AREAS
FIGURE 3 - VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS CCPV
TABLE 11- VISUAL MORPHOLOGICAL STABILITY ASSESSMENT
TABLE 12 - VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS
EXHIBIT 6 - VEGETATION PROBLEM AREAS PHOTOLOG

U
LEGEND PROJECT CONDITION
moos
C N W
-•-•-•-•-•-•-•- •-•-•- CONSERVATION EASEMEN VEG PLOT CRITERIA MET
DESIGNED CENTERLINE
OLL'LO�
Y�
DESIGNED STREAM BANK m $ z o;
CROSS SECTION VEG PLOT CRITERIA UNMET
F81PHOTO POINT (NO PLOTS CURRENTLY MEETING THIS CRITERIA) .2 w= °'
G z e, N L N
nQLLLL
VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA (VPA) J
(BARE FLOOD PLAIN)
1
Z
STREAM PROBLEM AREAS
(NO STREAM PROBLEM AREAS)
a ` ' Lu
pp
Z
' I—
..
xSl!i«i 0 Z W
M � ' •Tar ! t - it ••� - � = LL 1..1.
Ar 0
_ 4 0 Lu
wzZ
a r w 0 p Ln
4 i "• 0 U Q
of¢ZW
r* _ fy
o Q
U) U
�d7ppw
VEGETATION
�,�E PLOT - c4 O C7 >
l as
SMALL i W
SHEDy
DMS Project No.
92764
IMAGE SOURCE: NC STATEWIDE ORTHOIMAGERY, 2010 Baker Project No.
SNOWBIRD UT3 REACH 2 Dale: 113112
CURRENT CONDITION 12/8/2015
DESIGNED:
PLAN VIEW DRAWN: j
25 M Q 25 50 APPROVED: MMC
YEAR 5 MONITORING i4 Monitoring Year:
5 of 5

' Thalweg feature is scored according to the centering of the thalweg over inverts of drop structures above pools and through the constructed riffle below pools
since this reach is a step -pool channel without meander bends.
2 Vane feature category was replaced with rock/log drop structures since there are no vanes present on this reach.
Table 12. Vegetation Problem Areas
Table 11. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project: Project No. 92764
UT3 Reach 2
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
UT3 Reach 2 (467 LF)
No Vegetation Problem Areas in YR5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Feature
Category
Metric (per As-Built and reference baselines)
(# Stable) Number
Performing
as Intended
Total
number
per As-Built
/ feet in
unstable
state
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perfomance
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
14
14
N/A
100
project reach limits. Baker hired a contractor
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
14
14
N/A
100
Corrected
3. Facet grades appears stable?
14
14
N/A
100
Photos 1 and 2
Bare Floodplain (reported in YR4 Report)
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
14
14
N/A
100
encroachment. The impacted buffer within
5. Length appropriate?
14
14
N/A
100
100%
trees were planted and are growing in the
impacted area, as well as thick herbaceous
B. Pools
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration?)
24
24
N/A
100
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf>1.6?)
24
24
N/A
100
3. Length appropriate?
24
24
N/A
100
100%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of pool (structure) centering?
36
36
N/A
100
2. Downstream of pool (structure) centering?
36
36
N/A
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Of those eroding, # w/concomitant point bar formation?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Apparent Re within spec?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
E. Bed
1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)
N/A
N/A
0/0
100
General
2. Channel bed degradation -areas of increasing down-
cutting or head cutting?
N/A
N/A
0/0
100
100%
F. Bank
1. Actively eroding, wasting, or slumping bank
N/A
N/A
0/0
100
100%
G. Rock/Log
1. Free of back or arm scour?
24
24
N/A
100
Drop
2. Height appropriate?
24
24
WA
100
Structures2
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
24
24
N/A
100
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
23
24
N/A
96
99%
H. Wads/
11. Free of scour?
N/A
N/A
WA
N/A
Boulders
12. Footing stable?
N/A
N/A
WA
N/A
N/A
' Thalweg feature is scored according to the centering of the thalweg over inverts of drop structures above pools and through the constructed riffle below pools
since this reach is a step -pool channel without meander bends.
2 Vane feature category was replaced with rock/log drop structures since there are no vanes present on this reach.
Table 12. Vegetation Problem Areas
Snowbird Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project: Project No. 92764
UT3 Reach 2
Feature Issue
Station No.
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
No Vegetation Problem Areas in YR5
N/A
N/A
N/A
REPAIR OF THIS FORMER PROBLEM:
ISSUE: Easement encroachment by vehicles
accessing existing cistern just upstream of
project reach limits. Baker hired a contractor
who created an alternate vehicle access path
Corrected
0+10 to 1+40 (left floodplain)
located outside the easement to avoid further
Photos 1 and 2
Bare Floodplain (reported in YR4 Report)
encroachment. The impacted buffer within
the easement has been replanted. Large
trees were planted and are growing in the
impacted area, as well as thick herbaceous
vegetation.

EXHIBIT 6 — Former Vegetation Problem Area (VPA) Photos
Photo 1 — Impacted area planted with trees and shrubs in March 2015. Trees are between 5 and 10 feet
tall and spaced approximately 10 feet apart along the impacted path.
Photo 2 — The same area shown above after growing season. The planted trees have survived and are
growing in the old path area. Herbaceous vegetation has also established a good stand in this area.
Access to the well house, which is to the right of where this photo was taken, is over the rerouted path.