20110766 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20160224

YEAR 4 of 7 (2015)
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
HERMAN DAIRY STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Alexander County, North Carolina
DMS Project No. 94642
Full Delivery Contract No. 003271
Catawba River Basin
Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed
03050101120030
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Raleigh, North Carolina
January 2016

YEAR 4 of 7 (2015)
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
HERMAN DAIRY STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
Alexander County, North Carolina
DMS Project No. 94642
Full Delivery Contract No. 003271
Catawba River Basin
Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed
03050101120030
Prepared By:
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
and
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Submitted to:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Raleigh, North Carolina
January 2016

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..
2.0
METHODOLOGY .................
2.1
Vegetation Assessment .......
2.2
Stream Assessment .............
2.3
Wetland Assessment ...........
2.4
Biotic Community Changes
3.0
REFERENCES .......................
TABLE OF CONTENTS
........................................................................................................
........................................................................................................
I
4
........................................................................................................
4
........................................................................................................
4
........................................................................................................
4
........................................................................................................
4
........................................................................................................
5
Figure1. Site Location...................................................................................
Figures 2, 2A -2B. Consolidated Current Conditions Plan View ..................
Figure E1. Annual Climatic Data vs. 30 -year Historic Data ..........................
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. FIGURES
Figure 1. The Site Location
Figures 2, 2A -2B. Consolidated Current Conditions Plan View
APPENDIX B. GENERAL TABLES
Table 1. Project Restoration Components
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
APPENDIX C. VEGETATION ASSESSMENT DATA
Table 5. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Table 6. CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Table 7. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Vegetation Plot Photographs
APPENDIX D. STREAM ASSESSMENT DATA
Stream Station Photos
Table 8a -8d. Visual Assessment Tables
Table 9. Verification of Bankfull Events
Tables IOa- IOc. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11 a-11 e. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross-section Plots
Substrate Plots
zu is Hnnuai roionwring meport trear 4 or t)
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Appendix A
Appendix A
Appendix E
Table of Contents page i

APPENDICES (continued)
APPENDIX E. HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
2015 Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Figure E1. Annual Climatic Data vs. 30 -year Historic Data
APPENDIX F. BENTHIC DATA
2015 Benthic Data Lab Results
2015 Habitat Assessment Field Datasheets
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7)
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Table of Contents page ii

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site)
located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of Taylorsville, in central Alexander County within 14 -digit
Cataloging Unit and Targeted Local Watershed 03050101120030 of the Catawba River Basin. The Site
encompasses approximately 31.12 acres of land previously used for agricultural row crop production and
the spray application of sludge from a lagoon associated with a dairy cattle operation. The Site was
identified to assist the Department of Mitigation Services (DMS) in meeting its stream and wetland
restoration goals. This report (compiled based on DMS Guidance and Content Requirements for DMS
Monitoring Reports Version 1.2.1 dated 12/1/09) serves as the Year 4 (2015) annual monitoring report.
The primary goals and objectives of this stream and wetland restoration project focused on
improving water quality, enhancing flood attenuation, and restoring wildlife habitat and will be
accomplished by the following.
1. Removing nonpoint sources of pollution associated with agricultural production including
a) cessation of broadcasting sludge, fertilizer, pesticides, and other agricultural materials
into and adjacent to Site streams/wetlands and b) restoration of a forested riparian buffer
adjacent to streams and wetlands to treat surface runoff.
2. Reducing sedimentation within onsite and downstream receiving waters through a)
reduction of bank erosion, vegetation maintenance, and plowing to Site streams and
wetlands and b) restoration of a forested riparian buffer adjacent to Site streams and
wetlands.
3. Reestablishing stream stability and the capacity to transport watershed flows and sediment
loads by restoring stable dimension, pattern, and profile supported by natural in -stream
habitat and grade/bank stabilization structures.
4. Promoting floodwater attenuation by a) reconnecting bankfull stream flows to the
abandoned floodplain, b) restoring secondary, entrenched tributaries thereby reducing
floodwater velocities within smaller catchment basins, c) restoring depressional floodplain
wetlands to increase the floodwater storage capacity within the Site, and d) revegetating
Site floodplains to increase frictional resistance on floodwaters crossing Site floodplains.
5. Improving aquatic habitat by enhancing stream bed variability and the use of in -stream
structures.
6. Providing a terrestrial wildlife corridor and refuge in an area extensively developed for
agricultural production.
7. Restoring and reestablishing natural community structure, habitat diversity, and functional
continuity.
8. Enhancing and protecting the Site's full potential of stream and wetland functions and
values in perpetuity.
Vegetation Success Criteria: An average density of 320 stems per acre of Characteristic Tree Species must
be surviving in the first three monitoring years. Subsequently, 290 Characteristic Tree Species per acre
must be surviving in year 4, 260 Characteristic Tree Species per acre in year 5, and 210 Characteristic Tree
Species per acre in year 7. No single volunteer species (most notably red maple, loblolly pine, and sweet
gum) will comprise more than 20 percent of the total composition at years 3, 5, or 7. If this occurs,
remedial procedures/protocols outlined in the contingency plan will be implemented. During years 3, 5,
and 7, no single volunteer species, comprising over 20 percent of the total composition, may be more than
twice the height of the planted trees. If this occurs, remedial procedures outlined in the contingency plan
will be implemented. If, within the first 3 years, any species exhibits greater than 50 percent mortality, the
species will either be replanted or an acceptable replacement species will be planted in its place as specified
in the contingency plan.
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) page 1
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Vegetation Results: Vegetation sampling across the Site was above the required average density with 445
planted stems per acre surviving. In addition, 9 out of 10 individual plots exceeded success criteria, with
plot 4 being two stems shy of the required stem density. However, when including natural recruits of
American elm (Ulmus americana), plot four exceeds the required stem density. The number of native tree
and shrub species observed in plots ranged from three (Plot 3) to seven (Plot 5), with 17 total native species
observed. Treatment for invasive species, primarily Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) was initiated prior
to construction and will continue as necessary, primarily within areas denoted on Figures 2 and 2A-213
(Appendix A).
Replanting occurred during the winter of 2013/2014 in the southeastern portion of the Site between UT2
and UT3 with 3 -gallon containerized trees as follows. Overall, newly planted stems appear vigorous, and
stem counts have risen well -above success criteria in this area.
175 Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
150 Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana)
175 American elm (Ulmus americana)
500 TOTAL
Stream Success Criteria: Success criteria for stream restoration will include 1) successful classification of
the reach as a functioning stream system (Rosgen 1996) and 2) channel variables indicative of a stable
stream system. The channel profile will be measured on 3000 linear feet of stream and 20 cross-sections on
an annual basis in order to track changes in channel geometry, profile, or substrate. These data will be
utilized to determine the success in restoring stream channel stability. Specifically, the width -to -depth ratio
and bank -height ratios should be indicative of stability with minimal changes in cross-sectional area,
channel width, and/or bank erosion along the monitoring reach. In addition, channel abandonment and/or
shoot cutoffs must not occur and sinuosity values must remain relatively constant. Visual assessment of in -
stream structures will be conducted to determine if failure has occurred. Failure of a structure may be
indicated by collapse of the structure, undermining of the structure, abandonment of the channel around the
structure, and/or stream flow beneath the structure.
Stream Results: As a whole, monitoring measurements indicate there have been minimal changes in both
the longitudinal profile and cross-sections as compared to as -built data. The as -built channel geometry
compares favorably with the emulated, stable E/C type stream reach as set forth in the detailed mitigation
plan and construction plans. Current monitoring has demonstrated dimension, pattern, and profile were
stable over the course of the monitoring period. Pebble counts were performed at six cross sections (3 on
UT 1, 2 on UT2, and 1 on UT3). These pebble counts provide a representative sample of the site substrate.
Beaver activity surrounding the Site is prevalent, and a beaver dam was observed just upstream of Cross-
section 1 on UT1 during Year 4 (2015) monitoring. The dam was present for less than a few weeks and
was easily removed; no additional evidence of onsite beaver activity has been observed. Site streams and
particularly this stream reach are walked and checked monthly (during all monitoring activities including
vegetation surveys, stream surveys, and groundwater gauge downloads) for beaver activity and areas of
concern. Beaver dams have been removed, as necessary, and will continue to be removed throughout the
monitoring period. No adverse effects have resulted from beaver activity, subsequently beaver dam
locations have not been added to the Current Conditions Plan View (Figures 2, 2A-213) since no remedial
action plan is expressly needed and no stream stability or sedimentation issues have arisen as the result of
beaver activity.
Fine sediments move through the Site during high flow storm events; however, UTI receives a significant
amount of sediment deposition as the result of upstream land uses, which include livestock pastures, dairy
operations, and cleared riparian buffers. No additional stream problem areas were noted during Year 4
(2015) monitoring.
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) page 2
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Hydrology Success Criteria: According to the Soil Survey of Alexander County, the growing season for
Alexander County as recorded in Hickory, North Carolina during the period from 1951-1984 is from March
20 -November 9 (235 days) (USDA 1995). Year 1 (2012) groundwater gauge installation occurred between
March 30 and April 4, 2012; therefore, given the date of groundwater gauge installation and the initiation
of monitoring, Year 1 groundwater monitoring utilized the published growing season dates from the county
soil survey for success criteria. However, in future monitoring years, if soil temperatures and/or vegetative
growth (bud burst) is documented, project gauge hydrologic success will be determined using those dates to
more accurately represent the period of biological activity (see following "Summary of Hydrology Success
Criteria by Year" table.
Target hydrological characteristics include saturation or inundation for 8 percent of the monitored period,
during average climatic conditions. During years with atypical climatic conditions, groundwater gauges in
reference wetlands may dictate threshold hydrology success criteria (75 percent of reference). These areas
are expected to support hydrophytic vegetation. If wetland parameters are marginal as indicated by
vegetation and/or hydrology monitoring, a jurisdictional determination will be performed.
Summary of Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud
Monitoring Period Used for
8 Percent of Monitoring
Burst Documented
Determining Success
Period
March 20 -November 9
2012 (Year 1)
__
19 days
(235 days)
No bud burst during February
March 20 -November 9
2013 (Year 2)
19 days
13-14, 2013 Site visit
(235 days)
No bud burst during February
March 20 -November 9
2014 (Year 3)
site visit
(235 days)
19 Days
No bud burst during February
March 20 -November 9
2015 (Year 4)
19 days
site visit
(235 days)
2016 (Year 5)9r7nmy
awl
Hydrology Results: All ten Site groundwater monitoring gauges and the reference gauge exhibited
inundation/saturation within 12 inches of the surface for greater than 8 percent of the growing season. All
gauges were well -above success criteria for monitoring Year 4 (2015).
Benthics: Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet scores for UT 1 increased from a total score of 45 prior to
restoration to 79 after four annual monitoring years. Similarly, UT 2 improved from a score of 36 to 84
and UT3 improved from a score of 21 to 88 after four annual monitoring years. North Carolina Biotic
Index (NCBI) assigned value for UT (6.10) was lower in Year 4 (2015) than in previous monitoring years,
indicating an improvement from the range of values for Poor biotic indices to Fair (NCDWQ, 2011).
NCBI assigned value for UT2 (5.21) was significantly lower in Year 4 (2015) than in previous monitoring
years, indicating a substantial improvement from Very Poor to Good. Both Year 3 (2014) NCBI values
indicate an improvement from the preconstruction values. The habitat assessment scores have gradually
improved since construction, and therefore, the NCBI assigned values are expected to continue to improve.
No benthic samples were obtained from UT3 because the stream was dry at the time of the site visit.
Benthic results and Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheets are included in Appendix F.
In summary: Site vegetation, streams, and wetland hydrology met success criteria for Year 4 (2015)
monitoring. Based on achievement of success criteria in Years 1-4 (2012-2015), it is anticipated the project
will be present for IRT close-out after completion of Year 5 (2016) monitoring. Summary information and
data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment and statistics related to performance
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) page 3
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

of various project and monitoring elements can be found in tables and figures within this report's
appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be
found in the Baseline Monitoring Document (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan
(formerly called the Restoration Plan) documents available on the DMS website. All raw data supporting
the tables and figures in the appendices is available from DMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Monitoring of the Site's restoration efforts will be performed until agreed upon success criteria are
fulfilled. Monitoring is proposed for the stream channel, riparian vegetation, and hydrology (Figure 2,
Appendix A). Stream morphology is proposed to be monitored for a period of five years. Riparian
vegetation is proposed to be monitored for a period of seven years. Wetland hydrology is proposed to be
monitored for a period of five years; at which time a request will be made to the IRT to discontinue
groundwater hydrology monitoring. The IRT reserves the right to request additional groundwater
monitoring if it deems necessary. Monitoring reports of the data collected will be submitted to the IRT no
later than December of each monitoring year.
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
After planting was completed, an initial evaluation was performed to verify planting methods were
successful and to determine initial species composition and density. Ten sample vegetation plots (10 -meter
by 10 -meter) were installed and measured within the Site as per guidelines established in CVS -DMS
Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008). Plots were measured in July 2015 for
Year 4 monitoring. Vegetation plots are permanently monumented with 4 -foot metal garden posts at each
corner. In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and
species density. Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be
documented by photograph. Vegetation plot information can be found in Appendix C.
2.2 Stream Assessment
Restored stream reaches are proposed to be monitored for geometric activity for five years. Annual fall
monitoring will include development of 20 channel cross-sections on riffles and pools and a water surface
profile of the channel. The data will be presented in graphic and tabular format. Data to be presented will
include 1) cross-sectional area, 2) bankfull width, 3) average depth, 4) maximum depth, 5) width -to -depth
ratio, 6) water surface slope, and 7) sinuosity. The stream will subsequently be classified according to
stream geometry and substrate (Rosgen 1996). Significant changes in channel morphology will be tracked
and reported by comparing data in each successive monitoring year. Stream data can be found in Appendix
D.
2.3 Wetland Assessment
Ten groundwater monitoring gauges were installed within Site wetland restoration areas and one additional
gauge was installed in a reference wetland to monitor groundwater hydrology (Figure 2, Appendix A).
Hydrological sampling will continue for five years throughout the growing season at intervals necessary to
satisfy the hydrology success criteria within each design unit (USEPA 1990). In addition, an onsite rain
gauge will document rainfall data for comparison of groundwater conditions with extended drought
conditions. Finally, groundwater gauges located within riverine wetlands adjacent to restored stream
reaches will supplement crest gauge measurements to confirm overbank flooding events. Graphs of
groundwater hydrology and precipitation from a nearby rain station are included in Appendix E.
2.4 Biotic Community Changes
Changes in the biotic community are anticipated from a shift in habitat opportunities as tributaries are
restored. In -stream, biological monitoring is proposed to track changes during the monitoring period. The
benthic macroinvertebrate community will be sampled using North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) protocols found in the Standard Operating Procedures for Benthic Macroinvertebrates
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) page 4
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

(NCDWR 2006) and Benthic Macroinvertebrate Protocols for Compensatory Stream Restoration Projects
(NCDWR 2001).. Biological sampling of benthic macroinvertebrates will be used to compare
preconstruction baseline data with post -construction restored conditions.
Benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring locations were established within Site restoration reaches. Post -
construction collections occurred in approximately the same locations as pre -construction sampling;
however, sampling was not possible in UT 3 in Year 4 (2015) due to lack of stream flow. Benthic
macroinvertebrate samples were collected using the Qual-4 collection method. Sampling techniques of the
Qual-4 collection method consist of kick nets, sweep nets, leaf packs, and visual searches. Post -
construction biological sampling occurred on June 23, 2015 for Year 4 monitoring; post -construction
monitoring will occur in June of each monitoring year. Identification of collected organisms was
performed by Pennington and Associates, a NCDWR certified laboratory. Results and Habitat Assessment
Field Data Sheets are enclosed in Appendix F.
3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS -DMS Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. Department of Environmental Quality. Division of Mitigation Services.
Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2001. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Protocols for Compensatory Mitigation. 401/Wetlands Unit, Department of Environmental
Quality. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2011. Standard Operating Procedures for
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Version 3.0). Biological Assessment Unit,
Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO.
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 Environmental Quality. Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1995. Soil Survey of Alexander County, North
Carolina. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification
(MiST). USEPA Workshop, August 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research
Cooperative, NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Weather Underground. 2014. Station at Hickory Airport, North Carolina. (online). Available:
http://www.wunderground.com/history/aitport/KHKY/2014/10/31/DailyHistory.html [October 31,
2014]. Weather Underground.
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7)
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
page 5

Appendix A.
Figures
Figure 1. The Site Location
Figures 2, 2A -2B. Consolidated Current Conditions Plan View
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7)
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices

O.. 7 �"
r 1 N
Herman Dairy Site Location Y
-Access from Three Forks Ch. Rd. { =
Latitude 35.931617 )
Longitude -81.206949 -
h
"r a'
(NAD83/WGS84)
4 2eS
i r5 I_- .yl
0 oar
Zeb Watts.
i T
Access Site from _Three F c
Driveway ks
M on
Three Forks Rd.
fie.
US 64/NC 90
64
Reference Reach
C�
inn
From the Town of Statesville
-From Interstate 40 take exit 148 onto NC 64 north
- Travel — 17 miles on NC 64 north and turn north (right) on
NC 16 (towards Taylorsville)
- Travel — 1 mile and turn west (left) on NC 90
- Travel — 1.5 miles and turn right on
Three Forks Ch. Road 0 0.375 0.75 1.5
Miles
- Travel —2 miles and Site is on right
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
STREAM
HERMAN DAIRY
AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
DwnW6L/CLF
FIGURE
Date:
Raleigh, NC 27603
[phone]
THE SITE LOCATION
May 2012
1
Project:
10-016
a,;omb„v;ro�mm„a,,I�c
Alexander County, North Carolina

Legend
W Easement Boundary (Not Fenced)
Stream Restoration
k'
+�w• Restored Channel
Braided Stream
Enhancement (Level 1)
In -stream Structures
• Cross-sections
CVS Plots
_. -
• Groundwater Gauges
-. - Photo Points
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Stations
-
Crest Gauge
03 Invasives Treatment Area
Power Line
© Terracell
NCWAM Wetland Types
1i0
K Bottomland Hardwood Forest
9
06 Headwater Forest
Seep
8
6 •
5
3
J _
16
2
14 15 �
anti
�-,x,
12
-r
`�
Trib utary 3
Feet
2010 CGIA leaf -off aerial photography
0 150 300 600 900
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Dwn. By: FIGURE
HERMAN DAIRY KRJ
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Date:
Raleigh, NC 27603
'
CONSOLIDATED CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW Dec. 2015 2
[phone]
Alexander County, North Carolina Project:
Julom EnvXmm�eMsl, anc.
10-001

Feet 0,.4
0 100 200 400 600
P,
2010 CGIA leaf -off aerial photography
i i
1Y:f ,.
t f•
Legend
End Profile 4
Easement Boundary (Not Fenced)
C' 91
Tributary 1
-
Stream Restoration
-�^— Restored Channel
8�
Braided Stream
X10'
7
Enhancement (Level l)
Wetland Assets
6
4.
Nonriparian Wetland Enhancement'
e �'
>- 5
Nonriparian Wetland Restoration
KRiparian Wetland Enhancement
1;y,
Riparian Wetland Restoration
9 I
In -stream Structures
) 4
;*
Cross-sections
3
CVS Plots
OGroundwater Gauges
Photo Points
® Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Stations
M Pipe Crossing
Crest Gauge
•Q ��
C3 Invasives Treatment Area
Z
5�
Power Line
5
Terracell�
Start Profile
..r iF3i
Tributary 1
1 13
� �11
6
S
1
Dwn. By:
- --.
HERMAN DAIRY
KRJ/CLF
FIGURE
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE Date:
Raleigh, NC 27603
CONSOLIDATED
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW Dec. 2015
2A
[phone]
Alexander County, North Carolina
Project:
,.:..:,.
10-001

2
Legend
Easement Boundary (Not Fenced)
.101 ,4?�_- Stream Restoration
Restored Channel
Braided Stream
M
low Enhancement (Level l)
Wetland Assets
- Nonriparian Wetland Enhancement
- Nonriparian Wetland Restoration
Riparian Wetland Enhancement
Riparian Wetland Restoration
-,..0 O In -stream Structures
Cross-sections
1 CVS Plots
)r
LJ O Groundwater Gauges
LJ t
r 1
*
_ Photo Points
End Profile
:B • Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Stations
Tributar 2
Y � Crest Gauge
Pipe Crossing
Invasives Treatment Area
A6 Power Line
l A Terracell
5J16
O
Q .�
o-
15
2 t`i 14
.butary 3 End Profile
Tri 2
8 Tributary 3 _
A_ a
17
Start Profile -
Tributary 2 18,k7'`.
Start Pro;
file - -
_
Tributary 3
2010 CGIA leaf -off aerial photography Feet
y 0 125 250 500 750
Axiom Environmental
HERMAN DAIRY
Dwn By. KRJ/CLF
FIGURE
218 Snow Avenue
STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Date:
Raleigh, NC 27603
CONSOLIDATED CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
Dec. 2015
2B
[phone]
Mkm Enriranmenrer, Ine.
Alexander County, North Carolina
Project:
10-001,LJ

Appendix B.
General Project Tables
Table 1. Project Restoration Components
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attribute Table
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7)
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices

Table 1. Project Restoration Components
Herman Dairy Restoration Site
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Nonriparian Wetland
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent Restoration
Restoration Equivalent Restoration Restoration Equivalent
4780
0 7.2
1.1 1.2 0.05
Projects Com onents
Existing Linear
Restoration/
Restoration
Priority
Mitigation
Station Range
Footage/
Restoration
Linear Footage/
Comment
Acreage
Approach
Equivalent
Acreage
Ratio
UTI 10+00-31+67.8*
UT1A 10+00-10+85.71
1
Restoration
3997
1:1
Priority I stream restoration through construction of
UT2 10+00-16+69.04, 21+50.67-27+10.09
stable channel at the historic floodplain elevation.
UT3 10+00-17+28.39
4540
UT2 16+69.04-21+50.67
Braided stream restoration by redirecting diffuse flow
UT3 upper 8 1. 10 linear feet
--
Restoration
563
1:1
across riparian wetlands. Linear footage of stream is
based on a straight line valley distance.
Level I stream enhancement by altering profile and
UTI upper 330.00 linear feet
330
Level I
Enhancement
330
1.5:1
dimension, cessation of current land use practices,
removing invasive species, and planting with native
forest vegetation.
Restoration of riparian wetlands within the floodplain
Riparian Wetlands
0
--
Restoration
7.2
1:1
as the result of stream restoration activities, filling
abandoned channels and ditches, removing spoil
castings, and planting with native forest vegetation.
Enhancement of existing riparian wetlands
Riparian Wetlands
2.2
--
Enhancement
2.2
2:1
characterized by disturbed pasture by planting with
native forest vegetation.
Restoration of nonriparian wetlands by removing spoil
Nonriparian Wetlands
0
Restoration
1.2
1:1
castings, filling abandoned ditches to rehydrate hydric
soils along the slope, eliminating land use practices,
and planting with native forest vegetation.
Enhancement of existing nonriparian wetlands
Nonriparian Wetlands
0.1
--
Enhancement
0.1
2:1
characterized by disturbed pasture by planting with
native forest vegetation.
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear footage)
Riparian Wetland (acreage) Nonriparian Wetland (acreage)
Restoration
4560
7.2 1.2
Enhancement (Level 1)
330
-- --
Enhancement
--
2.2 0.05
Totals
4890
9.4 1.25
Mitigation Units
4780 SMUs
8.3 Riparian WMUs 1.25 Nonriparian WMUs
*Restoration linear footage excludes 145.76 linear feet of stream located within the utility easement and 67.79 linear feet of stream located within a culverted crossing,
which are both excluded from the easement.
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Herman Dairy Restoration Site
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal (RFP No. 16-002830)
--
March 2010
DMS Contract No. 003271
--
July 23, 2010
Restoration Plan
--
January 2011
Construction Plans
--
August 2011
Construction Earthwork
March 2012
Invasive Species Treatment
919-215-1693
Ongoing
As -Built Documentation
Erosion Control Plans
June 2012
Year 1 (2012) Annual Monitoring
September 2012
October 2012
Year 2 (2013) Annual Monitoring
October 2013
November 2013
Replanting
--
Late 2013/Early 2014
Year 3 (2014) Annual Monitoring
November 2014
January 2015
Year 4 2015) Annual Monitoring
November 2015
December 2015
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Herman Dairy Restoration Site
Full Delivery Provider
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
George Howard and John Preyer
919-755-9490
Designer
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis
919-215-1693
Construction Plans and Sediment and
Sungate Design Group, PA
Erosion Control Plans
915 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
W. Henry Wells, Jr, PE 919-859-2243
Construction and Planting Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs
780 Landmark Road
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Lloyd Glover 919-639-6132
As -built Surveyor
K2 Design Group
5688 US Highway 70 East
Goldsboro, NC 27534
John Rudolph 919-751-0075
Baseline Data Collection and Annual
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Herman Dairy Restoration Site
Project County
Alexander County, North Carolina
Physiographic Region
Northern Inner Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Catawba
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit)
03050101120030
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
03-08-32
Identify planning area (LWP, RBRP, other)?
Yes — Upper Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities
2009
WRC Class (Warm, Cool, Cold)
Warm
% of project easement fenced or demarcated
100
Beaver activity observed during design
phase?
Yes
Unnamed Tributaries to Mu dy
Fork
UT 1 UT 2
UT 3
Drainage Area
1.0
0.06
0.04
Stream Order (USGS topo)
2nd
1st
1st
Restored Length (feet)
2156
1684
760
Perennial (P) or Intermittent (1)
P
P
I
Watershed Type
Rural
Rural
Rural
Watershed impervious cover
<5%
<5%
<5%
NCDWQ AU/Index number
11-69-4
11-69-4
11-69-4
NCDWQ Classification
C
C
C
303d listed?
No
No
No
Upstream of a 303d listed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reasons for 303d listed segment
aquatic
life/sediment
aquatic
life/sediment
aquatic
life/sediment
Total acreage of easement
31.12
31.12
31.12
Total existing vegetated acreage of easement
8
8
8
Total planted restoration acreage
31.5
31.5
31.5
Rosgen Classification of preexisting
Cd5
Fc5/6
Fc5/6
Rosgen Classification of As -built
E/C 4/5
E/C 4/5
E/C 4/5
Valley type
VIII
VIII
VIII
Valley slope
0.0066
0.0052
0.0013
Cowardin classification of proposed
R3UB 1/2
R3UB 1/2
R4SB3/4
Trout waters designation
NA
NA
NA
Species of concern, endangered etc.
NA
NA
NA
Dominant Soil Series
Codorus/Hatboro
Codorus/Hatboro Codorus/Hatboro
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Appendix C.
Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 5. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Table 6. CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Table 7. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Vegetation Plot Photographs
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7)
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Appendices

Table 5. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Vegetation Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
1 Yes
90%
2 Yes
3 Yes
4 No*
5 Yes
6 Yes
7 Yes
8 Yes
9 Yes
10 Yes
*Plot 4 did not meet success criteria based on planted stems alone; however, when including natural recruits of American elm
(Ulmus americana), plot 4 exceeds the required stem density.
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 6. CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Report Prepared By
Corri Faquin
Date Prepared
7/8/2015 15:34
database name
RS-HermanDiary-2015-A-v2.3.1.mdb
database location
S:\CVS database\2015
computer name
PHILLIP-PC
file size
61227008
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.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted
stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by
each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are
excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for
each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
Herman
project Name
Herman Dairy
Description
Stream and wetland restoration Alexander County NC
River Basin
Catawba
Sampled Plots
10
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 7. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
DMS Project Code Herman. Project Name: Herman Dairy
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MY4 2015)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Herman -P-0001
PnoLS P -all T
Herman -P-0002
PnoLS P -all T
Herman -P-0003
PnoLS P -all T
Herman -P-0004
PnoLS P -all T
Herman -P-0005
PnoLS P -all T
Herman -P-0006
Pnol-S P -all T
Herman -P-0007
Pnol-S P -all T
Herman -P-0008
Pnol-S P -all T
Herman -P-0009
Pnol-S P -all T
Herman -P-0010
Pnol-S P -all T
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
19
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
18
14
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
1
1
2 2
2
Carya
hickory
Tree
1 1
1
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
5
3
3
3 1 1
1
3 3
3
5
5
5
6
6
6
9
9
9
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
4
S S
5
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
4
4
4
5 5
5
3
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1 1
1
1
1
22
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
2 2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2 2
2
3 3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1 1
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
11
1
1
2
Unknown
IShrub or Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
101
61
404.71
10 11
1
0.02
61 7
404.7 445.2
81
4
-323.71
81
1
0.02
::46,
323.71
30
12141
91
31
364.21
91
1
0.02
31
364.21
10
3
404.71242.81
61
3
61 8
1
0.02
31 41
242.81 323.71
141 141
1
0.02
71 71
566.61 S66.61
14
71
566.61
131 131
1
0.02
51 51
S26.11 526.11
32
6
1295
10
4
404.7
10
1
0.02
41
404.7
11
5
445.2
131
51
S26.11
131
1
0.02
51
526.11
13
5
526.1
16
5
647.51647.51
161
1
0.02
5
51
6
2064
111
5
445.21
111
1
0.02
51
445.21
12
6
485.6
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Table 7. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species (continued)
DMS Project Code Herman. Project Name: Herman Dairy
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY4 (20 5)
MY3 (2014)
MY2 (2013)
MY1 (2012)
MYO (2012)
PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLSIP-all T PnoLS P -all T
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
19
39
9
15
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
33
20
21
7
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
16
16
16
16
16
16
18
18
18
19
19
19
41
41
41
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Carya
hickory
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
35
35
36
341
34
34
34
34
34
33
33
33
32
32
32
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
13
13
16
14
14
20
15
15
19
17
17
18
25
25
25
Nyssa
tupelo
Tree
12
12
12
15
15
15
16
16
16
141
14
14
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
24
2
2
31
2
2
36
46
1
1
1
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
6
6
6
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
20
20
20
211
21
21
22
22
22
22
22
22
23
23
23
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
2
2
2
2
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
11
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
10
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
1101
110
192
115
115 210
1201
1201 188
118
118 187
145
1451 145
10 10 10 10 10
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25
121 121 1712 121 14 13 131 15 121 121 151 101 10 10
445.21 445.21 777 465.41 465.4 849.8 485.61485.61 760.8 477.51 477.51 756.81 586.81 586.81 586.8
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

Herman Dairy
2015 (Year 4) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2015
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Herman Dairy
2015 (Year 4) Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2015
(continued)
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Appendix D.
Stream Assessment Data
Stream Station Photos
Table 8a -8c. Visual Assessment Tables
Table 9. Verification of Bankfull Events
Tables IOa- IOc. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11 a-11 e. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross-section Plots
Substrate Plots
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Herman Dairy
Fixed Station Photographs
Taken July 1, 2015
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Herman Dairy
Fixed Station Photographs (continued)
Taken July 1, 2015
Photo Point 7
Photo Point 10
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 8A Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary 1
Assessed Length 1374
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
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footaa
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - 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
19
19
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
20
20
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
100
100
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
100
100
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
100
100
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.
2
2
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
2
2
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
2
2
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)
2
2
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
2
2
100%

Table 813 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary 2
Assessed Length 1522
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
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footaa
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - 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
39
39
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
37
37
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
100
100
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
100
100
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
100
100
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.
3
3
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
3
3
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)
3
3
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
3
3
100%

Table 8C Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary 3
Assessed Length 644
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
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footaa
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - 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)
100
100
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
100
100
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
100
100
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.
8
8
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
8
8
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
8
8
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)
8
8
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
8
8
100%

Table 9. Verification of Bankfutl Events
Date of Data
Date of
Method
Photo (if
Collection
Occurrence
available)
Bankfull event documented when sediment
May 11, 2013
May 6, 2013
deposits were observed on top of banks after
--
3.00 inches of rain was documented over a
two-day period.
Bankfull event documented after wrack was
July 18, 2013
June 6, 2013
observed on top of bank and throughout
1-2
floodplain after 4.27 inches of rain was
documented* over a two-day period.
Bankfull event likely occurred after 3.61 inches
of rain over a two-day period that was
November 19, 2014
August 11, 2014
preceeded by 0.56 inches and followed by an
--
additional 0.78 inches as documented by an
onsite rain gauge.
Bankfull Event likely occurred after 2.2 inches
July 31, 2015
April 19, 2015
of rain was documented over a one day period
by an onsite rain gauge.
Bankfull event documented after sediment
deposits were observed in floodplain of the
November 23, 2015
November 21, 2015
main tributary and 1.96 inches of rain was
3
documented over a three day period by an onsite
rain gauge.
*Weather Underground (2013)
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 10A. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Herman Dairy UT 1
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre -Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Stream UT Catawba*
Project Reference
Reach 1
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min I Max I Med
Min Max Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
USGS gage data is
unavailable for this
project
16 19 18
26 150 150
20.2
1.1 1.3 1.2
1.9 2.3 2
12 17 16
1.6 9.6 7.9
1.8 3.1 1.9
=__
___
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
9
25
1.1
1.5
8
2.7
30
12.5
25
2.9
0.30%
22
12
150
1.3
1.8
13
14.6
40
25
70
3.9
0.36%
62
10
50
10.9
1.1
1.7
10
4.9
1
___
___
35
18
45
3.4
=__
0.34%
=__
39
9
22
1.2
1.5
7.2
2.3
35
10
65
3.7
0.34%
29
10
25
1.3
1.6
8
2.7
58
32
128
6.1
4.31%
103
10
24
11.8
1.3
1.6
7.6
2.5
1
___
___
45
16
81
4.7
___
2.48%
___
60
16
36
1.1
1.4
12
8
1
50
34
101
3
1.10%
50
18
53
1.3
1.8
16
10
1.3
101
168
202
6
1.65%
134
17
150
20.2
1.2
1.6
14
9
1.1
__=
__=
67
50
143
4
__=
1.38%
===
67
15.5
14
0.9
1.2
14
15
15.9
0.9
50
34
101
3
23
0.00%
10
50
16.4
18.2
1.1
1.6
17
16
16.8
1.1
101
168
202
6
65
1.50%
54
134
16.1
250
16.4
1
1.4
16
16
1
16.7
1
67
50
143
4
36
0.640
32
67
Floodprone Width (ft)
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter ft
Hydraulic radius (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature ft
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width ratio
Profile
Riffle length ft
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
Pool length ft
Pool spacing (ft)
Substrate
d50 (mm)
___
1.1
0.62%
Cd 5
___
1.4
0.28%
E 4/5
___
1.4
1.27%
E 4/5
__=
1.2
0.55%
Ec4/5
2108
1.2
0.53%
E/C 4/5
d84 (nun)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
Channel Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
BF slope ft/ft)
Rosgen Classification
'UT to Catawba River Reference Site includes measurements from a stream measured in 2008.

Table 10B. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Herman Dairy UT 2
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre -Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Stream UT Catawba*
Project Reference
Reach 1
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min I Max I Med
Min Max Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
Hydraulic radius (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature ft
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width ratio
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle slope (ft/ft)
Pool length (ft)
Pool spacing (ft)
Substrate
d50(mm)
d84 (nun)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
BF slope
Rosgen Classification
USGS gage data is
unavailable for this
project
(ft/ft)
6 15 9
9
12
10
9
10
10
5.3
6.1
5.7
6.8
7.9
6.9
14 19 15 25 150 50 22 25 24 150
150
2.3 10.9 11.8 2.3 2.2 2.4
2.3
0.2 0.4 0.3 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3
0.3
0.4 0.8 0.5 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.5
16 76 30 8 13 10 7.2 8 7.6 12 16 14 20 27
21
1.3 2.2 1.6 2.7 14.6 4.9 2.3 2.7 2.5 14 38 26 19 22
22
5 12 7 1 1 1 1.3 1.1
1
___ ___ ___ __= 7 8
7.1
___ ___ ___ __= 0.3 0.3
0.3
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
30 40 35 35 58 45 17 34 23 17 34
23
12.5 25 18 10 32 16 11 57 17 11 57
17
25 70 45 65 128 81 34 68 49 34 68
49
2.9 3.9 3.4 3.7 6.1 4.7 3 8 4 3 8
4
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
=__ ___ __= 6 44
14
0.30% 0.36% 0.34% 0.34% 4.31 % 2.48% 0.86% 1.29% 1.08% 0.00% 1.25%
0.39%
=__ ___ __= 6 32
13
22 62 39 29 103 60 17 46 23 17 46
23
___ ___ ___ __=
1696
1.04 1.4 1.4 1.2
1.2
0.85% 0.28% 1.27% 0.43%
0.40%
Fc 5/6 E 4/5 E 4/5 Ec4/5
C 4/5
^Measured as -built numbers do not include D -type reach.
*UT to Catawba River Reference Site includes measurements from a stream measured in 2008.

Table IOC. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Herman Dairy UT 3
Parameter
USGS Gage Data
Pre -Existing
Condition
Project Reference
Stream UT Catawba*
Project Reference
Reach 1
Design
As -built
Dimension
Min I Max I Med
Min Max Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
BF Width (ft)
USGS gage data is
unavailable for this
project
6 9 7
12 13 12
3
0.3 0.5 0.4
0.6 1 0.9 1 0.7
13 31 17
1.4 1.9 1.7
4 7 6
___
___
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
No pattern of riffles
and pools due to
straightening activties
___
1.01
9
25
1.1
1.5 1
8
2.7
30
12.5
25
2.9
0.30%
22
12
150
1.3
1.8
13
14.6
40
25
70
3.9
0.36%
62
10
50
10.9
1.1
1.7
10
4.9
1
___
___
35
18
45
3.4
=__
0.34%
=__
39
___
1.4
9
22
1.2
1.5
7.2
2.3
35
10
65
3.7
0.34%
29
10
25
1.3
1.6 1
8
2.7
58
32
128
6.1
4.31%
103
10
24
11.8
1.3
1.6
7.6
2.5
1
___
___
45
16
81
4.7
___
2.48%
___
60
___
1.4
6
0.4
0.6
12
22
1
20
13
39
3
0.22%
20
7
0.6
1 0.8
16
25
1.3
39
65
78
8
0.33%
52
6.5
150
3
0.5
0.7
14
23
1.1
__=
__=
26
20
55
4
__=
0.28%
__=
26
__=
1.2
6.8
2.2
0.3
0.5
21
17
7
0.3
20
13
39
3
5
0.00%
7
20
8.5
3.1
0.4
0.5 1
23
22
8.7
1 0.4
39
65
78
8
26
1.59%
21
52
7.7
150
2.7
0.4
0.5
22
19.5
1
7.9
0.4
26
20
55
4
11
0.22%
13
26
743
1.2
Flood rove Width (ft)
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
BF Mean Depth ft
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter(ft)
Hydraulic radius (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width ratio
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle slope ft/ft)
Pool length ft
Poolspacing ft
Substrate
d50(mm)
d84 (mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope ft/ft)
0.40%
Fc 5/6
0.28%
E 4/5
1.27%
E 4/5
0.11%
Ec4/5
0.12%
C 4/5
BF slope ft/ft)
Rosgen Classification
"UT to Catawba River Reference Site includes measurements from a stream measured in 2008.

Table 11A. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Herman Dairy - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
Cross Section 1 Pool (UT 1)
Cross Section 2 Riftic (UT 1)
Cross Section 3 Riffle (UT 1)
Cross Section 4 Pool (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY 0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (11)
20.9
19.6
18.1
24.8
20.9
16.9
17.1
17.4
18.2
17.2
16.4
17
18.9
14
13
16.8
18.2
20.2
10.2
14
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
----
----
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
250
----
----
----
----
----
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2
19.9
18.9
17.4
17.4
14.8
16.3
16
14.9
14
11
16.7
17
17.5
10
7.9
14.4
14.5
13.8
10.5
10.6
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.8
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.3
2.2
2.1
1.7
1.8
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
2.1
2.1
2.3
1.5
1.7
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
17.5
18.3
20.3
23.7
26.9
16.1
17.0
20.4
19.6
21.4
----
----
----
----
----
Entrenchment Rati
----
----
----
----
----
14.8
14.6
14.4
13.7
14.5
15.2
14.7
13.2
17.9
19.2
----
----
----
----
----
Bank Height Rati
----
----
----
----
----
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
----
----
----
----
----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
21.7
20.4
18.8
25.6
21.6
17.2
17.4
17.8
18.6
17.5
16.8
17.6
19.5
14.6
13.7
17.6
19.1
21.2
10.9
14.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
1
1
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.6
1
0.7
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
----
----
----
0.4
0.4
NA
----
----
0.2
0.2
0.2
----
----
----
----
----
d84 (nun)
----
----
----
----
----
15
14
1
----
10
4
1
----
----
----
----
Parameter
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft
Radius of Curvature (ft
Meander Wavelength (ft
Meander Width Ratic
Profile
Riffle Length (11
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
Pool Length (ft
Pool Spacing (ft
MY -00 (2012)
Min Max Med
50 101 67
34 168 50
50 101 67
3 6 4
23 65 36
0.00% 1.50% 0.64%
10 54 32
50 134 67
MY -01 (2012)
Min Max Med
50 101 67
34 168 50
50 101 67
3 6 4
16 49 28
0.05% 1.05% 0.57%
18 62 35
50 134 67
MY -02 (2013)
Min Max Med
50 101 67
34 168 50
50 101 67
3 6 4
5 82 33
0.14% 1.92% 0.65%
12 63 31
50 134 67
MY -03 (2014)
Min Max Med
50 101 67
34 168 50
50 101 67
3 6 4
5 117 36
0.11% 1.13% 0.37%
7 49 30
50 134 67
MY -04 (2015)
Min Max Med
50 101 67
34 168 50
50 101 67
3 6 4
8 135 49
0.01% 1.27% 0.41%
11 56 30
50 134 67
MY -05 (2016)
Min Max Med
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft
1757
1373
1525
1513
1508
Channel Length (ft'2,108
1,648
1830
1816
1809
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft
0.0053
0.0045
0.0054
0.0051
0.005
BF Slope (ft/ft)
------
------
------
Rosgen Classificatio
C/E 4/5
C-4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5
C4/5

Table 11 B. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Herman Dairy - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
Cross Section 5 Riffle (UT 1)
Cross Section 6 Pool (UT 1)
Cross Section 7 Riffle (UT 1)
Cross Section 8 Pool (UT 1)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (11)
16.1
16.3
16.7
9.5
11
20
17.2
19.5
8.3
14.8
15.5
14.6
16.8
10.4
9.7
16.1 18.4
18.7
9.6
9.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
250
250
250
250
250
----
----
----
----
----
250
250
250
250
250
---- ----
----
----
----
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
18.2
16.6
15.2
7.5
8.9
20.3
17.7
15
7.8
8
14
14
14.5
9.3
8
15.5 16
16
11.7
10.3
BE Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9398
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0 0.9
0.9
1.2
1.1
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.1
1.4
2.3
2.2
2.2
1.5
1.5
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.9 2.1
2.3
2.1
1.8
Width/Depth Ratio
14.2
16.0
18.3
12.0
13.6
----
----
----
----
----
17.161
15.226
19.465
11.6
11.8
---- ----
----
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
15.5
15.3
15.0
26.3
22.7
----
----
----
----
----
16.129
17.123
14.881
24
25.8
---- ----
----
----
----
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
l
1
1
----
----
----
----
----
1
1
1
1
1
---- ----
----
----
----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
16.8
16.9
17.2
10
11.8
21
18.3
20.5
9.1
15.5
15.9
15.1
17.3
11.2
10.4
16.8 19.1
19.6
10.8
10.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.8
1
1
0.7
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9 0.8
0.8
1.1
1
Substrate
d50 (mm)
----
----
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---- ----
----
----
----
d84 (mm)
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
Parameter
MY -00 (2012)
MY -01 (2012)
MY -02 (2013)
MY -03 (2014)
MY -04 (2015)
MY -05 (2016)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
Radius of Curvature (ft)
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
Meander Wavelength (ft)
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (fl)
23
65
36
16
49d67
5
82
33
5
117
36
8
135
49
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.00%
1.50%
0.64% 0.05%
1.05% 0
0.14%
1.92%
0.65%
0.11%
1.13%
0.37%
0.01%
1.27%
0.41%
Pool Length (ft)
10
54
32
18
62
12
63
31
7
49
30
11
56
30
Pool Spacing (ft)
50
134
67
50
134
50
134
67
50
134
67
50
134
67
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1757
1373
1525
1513
1508
Channel Length (ft)
2,108
1,648
1830
1816
1809
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0053
1
0.0045
0.0054
0.0051
0.005
BE Slope (ft/ft)
------
------
------
Rosgen Classification
C/E 4/5
C-4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5
C4/5

Table 11 C. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Herman Dairy - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
Cross Section 9 Pool (UT 1)
Cross Section 10 Riffle (UT 1)
Cross Section 11 Riffle (UT2)
Cross Section 12 Pool (UT2)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
18.7
16.2
16.6
17.8
17.5
16
17
15.5
8.4
8.4
7.9
5.2
5.8
6.1
6
5.5 5.8
5.3
5.2
5.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
----
----
----
----
----
250
250
250
250
250
150
150
150
150
150
---- ----
----
----
----
BF Cross Sectional Area (112)
15.7
15.4
16
12.8
13
16
15.6
13.2
8.5
8.3
2.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
2.3 2.1
2
2
2
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4 0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
2
2.3
2.4
2
2.1
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.8 0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
Width/Depth Ratio
----
----
----
---
----
16.0
18.5
18.2
8.3
8.5
27.1
20.8
24.0
28.6
27.7
---- ----
----
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
15.6
14.7
16.1
29.8
29.8
19.0
28.8
25.9
24.6
25.0
---- ----
----
----
----
Bank Height Ratio
----
----
----
----
----
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
---- ----
----
----
----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
19.5
17
17.8
19
18.8
16.5
17.6
15.9
9.1
9.1
8
5.3
5.9
6.2
6.1
5.8 6
5.5
5.4
5.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.7
1
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4 0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
Substrate
---
9.8
8
0.8
d84 (mm)
----
----
---
21
17
13
----
----
----
---
Parameter
MY -00 (2012)
MY -01 (2012)
MY -02 (2 13)
MY -03 (2014)
MY -04 (2015)
MY -05 (2016)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
50
101
671
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
Radius of Curvature (ft)
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
34
168
50
Meander Wavelength (ft)
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
50
101
67
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17
111
51
16
49
28
5
82
33
5
117
36
8
135
49
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.43%
4.80%
1.54%
0.05%
1.05%
0.57%
0.14%
1.92%
0.65%
0.11%
1.13%
0.37%
0.01%
1.27%
0.41%
Pool Length (ft)
26
78
46
18
62
35
12
63
31
7
49
30
11
56
30
Pool Spacing (ft)
76
176
126
50
134
67
50
134
67
50
134
67
50
134
67
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1757
1373
1525
1513
1508
Channel Length (ft)
2,108
1,648
1830
1816
1809
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0053
0.0045
0.0054
0.0051
0.005
BE Slope (ft/ft)
------
------
------
Rosgen Classification
C/E 4/5
C-4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5
C4/5

Table 11 D. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Herman Dairy - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
Cross Section 13 Riffle (UT 2)
Cross Section 14 Pool (UT 2)
Cross Section 15 Riffle (UT2)
Cross Section 16 Pool (UT2)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY 0 MY1 MY2
MY3 MY41 MY5
BE Width (ft)
6.9
7
6.3
6.5
6.6
6.6
6.8
6
5.8
6
6.8
6.9
6.9
7.1
6.8
5.7 7.1
5.6
3.6
5.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
----
150
150
150
150
150
---- ----
----
----
----
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
2.4
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.6
2.4
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.2
2.2
2.2
1.2
1.6
2.3 2.4
2.1
1.4
1.6
BE Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4 0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
BE Max Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.8 0.8.
0.9
0.8
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
19.8
32.7
23.3
24.9
27.2
----
----
---
----
----
21.0
21.6
21.6
42.0
28.9
---- ----
----
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
21.7
21.4
23.8
23.1
22.7
----
----
----
----
----
22.1
21.7
21.7
21.1
22.1
---- ----
----
----
----
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
I
1
1
----
----
----
----
----
1
I
1
1
1
---- ----
----
----
----
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.1
7.2
6.5
6.7
6.8
6.8
7
6.3
6.1
6.2
7
7.1
7.1
7.2
7
6 7.3
6
4.1
6.3
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4 0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
Substrate
50 mm
----
---
24.6k4#8E43#
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
24.2
23.9
22
---- ----
----
----
d84 (mm)
40
----
----
----
----
----
----
45
49
45
Parameter
MY -00 (2012)
MY -01 (2012)
MY -02 (2013)
MY -03 (2014)
MY -04 (2015)
MY -05 (2016)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
17
34
23
17
34
23
17
34
23
17
34
23
17
34
23
Radius of Curvature (ft)
11
57
17
11
57
17
11
57
17
11
57
17
11
57
17
Meander Wavelength (ft)
34
68
49
34
68
49
34
68
49
34
68
49
34
68
49
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
6
44
14
6
41
11
6
28
12
6
34
12
3
24
12
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.00%
1.25%
0.39%
0
3.39
0.42
0.00%
3.33%
0.42%
0.00%
2.76%
0.39%
0.00%
2.94%
0.51%
Pool Length (ft)
6
32
13
7
21
11
6
21
11
4
20
10
5
37
13
Pool Spacing (ft)
17
46
23
17
46
23
17
46
23
17
46
23
17
46
23
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1413
1522
1298
1316
1314
Channel Length (ft)
1,696
1,827
1557
1579
1577
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft ft)
0.004
0.0041
0.0042
0.0043
0.0044
BE Slope (ft/ft)
-----
------
------
Rosgen Classification
C/E 4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5
C4/5

Table 11E. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Herman Dairy - Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Parameter
Cross Section 17 Riffle (UT 3)
Cross Section 18 Pool (UT 3)
Cross Section 19 Pool (UT3)
Cross Section 20 Riffle (UT3)
Dimension
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY 0
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY 0 MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
8.5
7.7
7.7
8.5
8
6.2
6.2
6.5
6.5
6.4
6.8
6.5
6.4
6.2 9
9.5
7.8
7.5
7.2
7.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
150
150
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---- ----
150
150
150
150
150
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
3.1
2.6
2.7
2.9
2.7
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.5
3
3
2.9
2.7 2.9
3.2
2.3
2.6
2.4
2.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4 0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
1.1
1
1
1
0.9
1
0.9
0.9 0.9
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
Width/Depth Ratio
23.3
22.8
22.0
24.9
23.7
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---- ----
28.2
26.5
21.6
21.6
20.1
Entrenchment Ratio
17.6
19.5
19.5
17.6
18.8
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---- ----
15.8
19.2
20.0
20.8
20.0
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
1
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
---- ----
1
1
t
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (R)
8.7
7.8
7.8
8.7
8.2
6.7
6.6
6.9
7
6.8
7.2
6.9
6.7
6.5 9.2
9.7
7.9
7.7
7.3
7.7
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4 0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
Substrate
---
28.2
27.7
24
----
---- ----
----
----
----
----
----
d84 (mm)
----
43
45
48
---
----
----
----
----
----
----
---
----
----
----
Parameter
MY -00 (2012)
MY -01 (2012)
MY -02 (2013)
MY -03 (2014)
MY -04 (2015)
MY -05 (2016)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min I
Max
Med
Min Max Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
20
39
26
20
39
26
20
39
26
20
39
26
20
39
26
Radius of Curvature (ft)
13
65
20
13
65
20
13
65
20
13
65
20
13
65
20
Meander Wavelength (ft)
39
78
55
39
78
55
39
78
55
39
78
55
39
78
55
Meander Width Ratio
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
3
6
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
5
26
11
5
27
9
4
27
10
5
27
11
5
19
11
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.00%
1.59%
0.22%
----
----
----
0.00%
1.43%
0.28%
0.00%
1.66%
0.26%
0.00%
2.32%
0.54%
Pool Length (ft)
8
21
13
7
24
13
7
21
13
6
21
14
7
22
13
Pool Spacing (ft)
20
52
26
20
52
26
20
52
26
20
52
26
20
52
26
Additonal Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
619
645
616
609
601
Channel Length (ft)
743
774
739
731
721
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0012
0.0015
0.0015
0.0013
BF Slope (ft/ft)
----
----
----
Rosgen Classification
C/E 4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5
C 4/5
C4/5

34.6
64.3
14 .2
113.3
33.]
38.4
1453
154.5
167.2
182.9
19ss
204.1
M'9
5.5
240.5
259.6
263.0
266.2
2698
2A
2974
303 3
331.6
338 2
1641
370,8
103.0
101.0
99.0
97.0
a
95.0
W
93.0
Tributary I
PraBle
Ar -built
2012
2013
2011
2015
Avg. Wateren Surface 51.,
00053
0.0045
0.0054
0.0051
00050
Riffle LengM
41115
28
36
38
49
Avg. Kittle Slope
0.0064
0.0057
0.0075
0.0049
0.0041
Pool LtM1
32
Perkinson, lemi an
32
30
30
2012
2012
2013
2014
2015
As -built Survey
Year 1 Monitoring vsurvey
Year 2 Monitoring 1.Survey
Year J
Monitoring 1.Survey
Year 4 Monitoring\Survey
Betl Elevation
Water Elevation
Station
Bed El -Hon
Wa[er Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
Station Bed
Elevation Water
Elevation
S[ati0n
Bed Elevation Water Ele
913
93.9
3096
97 6
98.9
216 9
97 5
98.2
287.0
98 6
98 8
287.0
913A 99.0
94.0
94.3
328.9
97.8
98.9
233.1
9].9
98.2
2922
98.6
989
3025
97.7 99.1
948
95.2
338.1
98.4
99.0
2510
97.7
98.3
298.1
98.1
989
316.7
979 992
95.1
95.4
361.2
98.6
99.1
255.4
973
98.2
323.8
98.2
99.1
3236
981 99.3
97.0
97.5
372.6
978
99.2
2586
9].3
983
3398
98.]
99.1
355.9
98.8 994
97 2
97.9
384.9
98.1
99.2
263 3
98.1
98.4
3565
98:8
99.2
3518
98 2 99.11
96 2
98 0
399.8
98 8
99.2
288.3
98 3
98.7
363 3
98 5
99.2
388.1
98 3 99.5
963
97.9
4259
98.8
99.2
295.3
9].6
98.7
174.5
98.1
99.3
3914
988 996
963
98.0
442.1
982
99.2
3072
975
98.7
381.1
98.6
99.3.
4192
98.9 997
97.5
98 0
448 ]
98.0
99.3
316.9
9].5
98 7
4024
98.8
99.4
422 9
911A 99 ]
97.5
98.1
4602
98.8
993
3260
97.6
98.7
9f18.9
98.8
99A
451.4
983 1002
976
98.1
4955
99.0
99.5
331.1
983
98.8
4162
987
99.4
4647
992 1002
9].1
98.1
505.1
98.4
99.5
358.4
98.4
990
425.2
98.9
99.4
484.6
994 1004
96.9
9$.1
51].5
985
99.5
3638
97.Y
99.1
4339
993
99.5
4934
98.7 IOV.�
97.4
98.1
534.0
986
994
368.9
97.7
99.1
438.3
48.3
99.5
509.5
990 IOV.6
978
98.2
542.1
99.2
99.5
3]88
91.9
99.1
452.1
98:6
99.5
519.5
99.0 100.1
978
98.3
5695
99.1
99.6
1869
98.0
4581
989
99.fi
S2A.7
100.0 1006
97.3
98.3
587.1
98 6
99 6
396.6
98 6
99.1
471.9
99.0
99.6
574:5
99.8 1007
97.3
9s,
599 2
Y8 6
99.6
423.5
98.8
99.1
496.2
99.1
99.7
584.0
99l 100.8
97.9
984
6154
99.0
99.6
4305
98.1
99.2
5007
98.5
99.7
6029
992 1009
98.2
98.5
620.7
994
997
43R9
97.8
99.2
5101
9R7
99.7
607.3
100.3 100.N
WA
98,7
647.1
991
999
446 6
97.8
99.2
522:8
98 5
99.8
645.9
100.3 101.0
9'7.6
987
6565
99.1
1000
412.6
983
99.1
5357
988
998
667.3
100.5 101.1
977
98.7
665.6
991
100 0
458 2
98.8
99.3
5412
992
99.8
6710
100.0 ]01.0
48.3
48:8
6720
997
1000
472.7
989
99.3
546.]
989
99.9
G962
1000 ]OI.I
98.-0
98 9
705 7
99.8
100 2
493l
989
99,5
553A
989
99.9
699A
100.6 101.2
97 9
99.0
7198
99.1
Ill
502,7
48.2
995
191
99.4
19,9
707o
1005 101.2
Herman
Dariy(Tributar)
l) Year
Profile - Reach
00+00 to 10+00
Telracell
Piped Crossing
°o
C p
0
U U
91.0
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (feet)
-Bed A5 -built 321112 Year 1 (2012) Bed -Year 2 (2013) Bed -K -Year 3 (2014) Bed -n -Year 4 (2015) Bed +Yer 4 (2015) Water Surface
Ar -built
2012
2013
2011
2015
Avg. Wateren Surface 51.,
00053
0.0045
0.0054
0.0051
00050
Riffle LengM
36
28
36
38
49
Avg. Kittle Slope
0.0064
0.0057
0.0075
0.0049
0.0041
Pool LtM1
32
35
32
30
30
Telracell
Piped Crossing
°o
C p
0
U U
91.0
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (feet)
-Bed A5 -built 321112 Year 1 (2012) Bed -Year 2 (2013) Bed -K -Year 3 (2014) Bed -n -Year 4 (2015) Bed +Yer 4 (2015) Water Surface

h
Tributary 1
2012
2013
2014
2015
Avg. W -1-1-11o,.
0.0053
0.0045
0.0054
0.0051
0.0050
Riffle Length
36
28
are
Profile
49
Avg. auto, Slope
0.0064
0.0057
0.0075
0.0049
0.0041
Pool Length
32
35
32
30
30
4/6/15
o
y
o
U
y
o
y
0
y
,
M
Perkins.., J -i a.
0
0
2012
2012
2013
2014
2015
As -built Survey
Yearl
Monitoring\Survey
Year
2 Monitoring\Survey
Year3
Monitoring\Survey
Yeer4
Monitoring\Survey
nation
Bed Elevation Water
Elevation
Station
Red Elevadon
Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevadon
Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elet
990.2
100.6
101.7
994.2
101.2
102.0
990.0
100.6
101.8
992.7
101.5
102.2
998.1
101.6
102.3
1001.8
100.7
101.7
1015.4
101 1
102.1
001.2
100.6
101.8
1002.4
101.5
102.2
1002.5
101.2
102.3
1015.7
101.4
101.7
1027.3
10L5
102.1
IOOS.fi
IOQ.9
IOI.R
1008.0
100.9
102.2
1018.4
101.6
102.3
1053.0
101.5
101.9
1056.7
101.7
102.3
020.3
101.5
101.9
1013.1
101.0
112.3
1023.6
101.8
102.4
1061.5
101.0
101.9
1069.3
101.0
102.3
0 52.0
101.8
102.3
1022.9
10 L 5
102.3
1063.3
101.8
102.5
1094.8
101.1
102.0
1085.1
101.0
1123
1066.9
101.0
102.3
1045.3
101.7
ID23
1071.0
101.5
102.5
1106. I
I U 1.6
102.2
1105.4
101.3
112.4
079.1
100.7
I U 2.3
1056.9
101.8
102.3
1092.6
101.3
102.6
1141:1
102.0
102.4
1111.8
101.8
10024
095.5
100.9
102.3
1062.7
101.3
1024
1096.7
102.1
102.1
1145.7
101.2
102.3
1139.4
102.2
102.7
106.7
101.7
102.3
1081.8
100.9
102.4
1140.7
102.2
102.9
II58.1
101.1
102.3
1151.1
100.8
102.7
1115.3
IOL9
1023
1097.5
101.6
1027
1146.3
102.0
102.9
3
'8'I
112.1
102.4
1158.5
I O l.0
102.7
1128.3
102.1
102.5
1104.2
102.4
103.0
1164.0
102.0
102.9
1183.3
102.4
102.7
1166.8
112.1
102.7
147.1
101.9
102.6
1144.4
112.5
103.2
1169.2
102.1
102.9
1197.8
102.3
102.8
1174.7
102.2
102.7
1149.9
101.3
1026
1147.7
102.0
103.2
1207.7
102.4
703.1
1214.6
102.0
102.8
1199.3
102.4
102.9
15 7.0
IOL 2
102.6
1162.6
102.0
103.2
1213.2
101.9
10031
3 A
1226.9
101.9
102.8
1207.4
L01.2
103.0
1165.6
101.3
IU26
1183.3
102.6
103.3
1238.1
102.1
103.3
1242.5
102.1
102.8
1219:3
101.9
103.0
1 170.8
102.1
102.6
1190.6
102.6
103.3
1251.2
I O I.8
103.3
1257.9
102.4
102.8
1235.6
101.9
103.0
1188.6
102.4
702.8
1211.9
102.7
103.4
1257.6
102.8
103.4
1275.5
102.6
102.8
1248.9
102.1
103.1
1202.2
102.1
102.8
1215.7
101.9
103.4
1274.8
102.7
103.4
1280.7
101.7
102.9
1258.6
102.6
103.2
208.7
00.9
1029
1221.5
101.8
103.4
1279.4
102.1
103.4
1289.3
102.0
102.9
1276.2
102.5
103.3
1226.2
101.7
102.'1
1227.7
102.8
103.5
1289.0
102.0
103.5
1300.0
1026
702.8
1285.3
101.6
103.3
1234.8
102.0
102Y
1256.2
102.8
103.6
1294.9
102.9
103.6
1321.8
102.5
102.4
1295.7
102.4
103.3
1257.0
102.4
102 9
1288.7
103.1
103.8
1329.8
103.1
103.6
1364.7
102.6
1302.3
102.6
103.4
1270.7
102.5
l0i 11
1319.8
103.1
103.9
1349.3
103.2
103.8
1376.2
102.2
103.0
1318.4
102.6
103.5
1280.9
102.2
103 U
1344.6
103.2
103.9
1367.6
703.2
103.R
1386.5
102.0
103.1
1326.0
102.7
103.5
1292.0
102.0
103.0
1348.5
102.8
104.0
1372.2
102.9
111 .
1397.1
101.4
103.1
1333.8
102.3
103.5
1304.3
102.6
103.0
7352.5
103.2
104.0
1382.7
702.7
III; y
Herman
Dairy ('hiburary 1) Year 4 Profile- Reach
10+00
to 21+08
108.0
107.0
106.0
105.0
'c
104.0
e
103.0
w
102.0
101.0
1000
•1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Distance (feet)
-Bed As built 3/21/12 - Year 1 (2012) Bed -t -Year 2 (2013) Bed -x-Year 3 (2014) Bed -t1t-Year 4 (2015) Bed Year 4 (2015) Water Surface
Aa -built
2012
2013
2014
2015
Avg. W -1-1-11o,.
0.0053
0.0045
0.0054
0.0051
0.0050
Riffle Length
36
28
3'38
49
Avg. auto, Slope
0.0064
0.0057
0.0075
0.0049
0.0041
Pool Length
32
35
32
30
30
•1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Distance (feet)
-Bed As built 3/21/12 - Year 1 (2012) Bed -t -Year 2 (2013) Bed -x-Year 3 (2014) Bed -t1t-Year 4 (2015) Bed Year 4 (2015) Water Surface
7
o
Log Vane.
n
0
o.
0
°i Log Vane
a
Remnant Beaver Dam
L
o
y
o
U
y
o
y
0
y
,
M
0
0
00
P,
m
o
v
L
o
U
a
•1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Distance (feet)
-Bed As built 3/21/12 - Year 1 (2012) Bed -t -Year 2 (2013) Bed -x-Year 3 (2014) Bed -t1t-Year 4 (2015) Bed Year 4 (2015) Water Surface

lcaeb
Feature
)ate
Tributary 2
Pro81e
4/6/15
Perkinsoq lemi an
2012
2013
2014 T
2015
Avg. Water Surf ace Slope
0.0040
0.0041
0.0042
0.0043
0.0044
Rif l Length
14
13
13
2012
12
Avg. Riffle Slope
2012
0.0042
0.0061
20132014
0.0051
Pool Length
13
12
11
2015
13
U O
Aabuat Survey
m 99.5
Yearl
Monitoring VSurvey
Year
2 Monitoring\Survey
Year
3 Monitoring VSurvey
Year
4 Monitoring S.""Station
98.0
Bed Elevation Water
Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Water EI,
0.0
97.9
98.2
53.5
98.0
91.4
20.0
97.9
98.5
40.8
97.8
96.4
40.8
97.9
98.3
11.2
97.9
98.2
56.4
97.7
91.4
33.8
97.9
98.5
48.9
96.0
98.4
58.1
98.0
91.4
14.9
97.5
98.2
62.3
97.5.
98.3
36.0
97.5
98.6
57.4
97.8
96.4
61.7
97.6
98.4
20.1
97.5
98.2
67.7
98.0
98.3
39.4
91.6
98.6
59.6
97.5
98.4
64.3
97.6
98.4
22.2
98.0
98.0
77.5
98.1
91.4
43.6
97.8
66.0
97.6'
98.4
67.4
97.9
98.4
34.9
98.0
64.1
97.6
98.4
57.3
97.9
98.6
67.6
98.1
98.4
76.7
98.0
98.4
37.6
97.6
98.1
87.5
97.7
98.4
60.4
97.5
98.6
78.2
98.2
98.5
79.3
97.8
91.4
41.7
97.7
98.1
92.2
97.9
98.4
67.4
97 7
91.6
81.4
97.7
98.5
83.3
97.6
98.3
44.1
97.9
106.8
98.0
91.4
69.4
97.9
91.6
87.5
97.7
98.5
88.5
97.8
98.3
60.6
98.0
110.6
97.8
98.3
80.5
97.9
98.6
90.9
96.0
98.5
93.8
98.0
98.3
62.3
97.4
98.1
114.0
98.1
91.2
14.1
91.7
91.7
108.0
98.2
98.6
104.9
91.1
91.4
69.1
97.8
98.1
137.1
98.1
98.4
87.7
9].6
98.1
110.9
97.9
98.5
108.6
97.8
98.4
71.7
98.0
141.4
97.7
98.4
91.8
97.8
98.6
111.5
97.A
98.5
111.7
97.8
91.4
11.1
98.0
147.7
98.2
96.3
95.9
91.0
98.7
113.6
98.2
98.6
114.1
98.1
98.4
15.9
97.7
98.3
168.6
98.2
98.5
107.8
91.1
98.7
137.1
98.1
98.6
134.0
98.1
98.5
93.8
97.9
91.3
176.9
97.9
98.5
112.1
97 7
98.7
139.6
97.8
98.6
137.6
97.8
98.5
99.3
98.0
98.3
182.9
98.2
91.4
115.2
9R.7
94.7
143.6
97.7
98.6
143.2
97.8
98.5
110.8
98.2
209.1
98.5
91.5
136.8
98.1
9fl.8
146.9
98.2
98.6
147.8
98.1
985
113.8
97.9
9R.a
223.9
98.4
98.6
142.5
97.6
9R.1
169.5
98.2
98.7
166.7
98.2
98.6
116.9
96.2
226.4
98.0
91.6
144.2
97.6
9R.8
172.8
97.9
98.7
170.7
98.0
98.5
126.7
98.1
98A
231.4
98.0
98.6
149.8
91.2
98.1
179.2
97.9
98.7
176.0
97.9
985
138.4
98.2
235.9
98.4
98.7
169.3
98.2
98.8
182.2
98.3
98.8
183.4
98.2
98.5
143.4
97.7
98A
257.1
98.5
9$.8
174.4
97.8
9R.8
209.fi
98.3
9$.8
195.7
98.2
98.6
146.8
97.7
98.5
261.1
98.1
98.8
175.4
97.7
98.8
212.1
97.9
98.8
198.5
97.9
98.6
150.8
98.3
267.6
98.5.
98.8
179.1
97.8
98.8
213.9
91.3
98.8
202.3
98.2
98.6
Herman Dariy (Tributary 2) Year 4 Profile- Reach 00+00 to 10+00
M-bu0t
2012
2013
2014 T
2015
Avg. Water Surf ace Slope
0.0040
0.0041
0.0042
0.0043
0.0044
Rif l Length
14
13
13
14
12
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0039
0.0042
0.0061
0.0057
0.0051
Pool Length
13
12
11
11
13
Herman Dariy (Tributary 2) Year 4 Profile- Reach 00+00 to 10+00
102.0
101.5
101.0
o C
,100.5
U
5100.0
U O
m 99.5
c 99.0
a
w
98.5
w
98.0
11 If
97.5
Iry vy
97.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Distance (feet)
Bed As --if 3fi-2 -Year 1 (2012) Bed -a -Year 2 (2013) Bed -Year 3 (2014) Bed -18-Year 4 (2015) Bed "y -Year 4 (2015) Water Surface

:A
Tributary 2
2012
2013
2014015
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0040
0.0041
0.0042
0.0043
0.0044
RifBe Length
1413
13
Profile
12
Avg. RM Slope
0.0039
0.0042
0.0061
0.0057
0.0051
Pool Len to
13
12
11
11
13
4/6/15
Parkinson, lemi en
2012
2012
2013
2014
2015
As -built Survey
Vear
1 Monitoring \Survey
Year
2 Monitoring \Survey
Year
3 Monitoring \Survey
Vear4
Monitoring \s
....Y
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Water ElevaRon
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elev
524.8
99.4
503.3
99.1
99.6
495.4
98.7
498.0
99.0
99.7
1043.6
101.4
101.5
041.2
100.2
100.8
1041.2
101.5
101.5
1041.2
101.4
1043.6
101.4
101.5
1052.0
101.2
101.6
1041.8
101.2
101.2
1064.1
101.3
101.6
1055.1
101.2
101.8
1063.5
101.3
101.9
1064.2
101.6
101.9
043.5
101.5
10 L 5
1072.4
101.1
101:1
1068.9
101.3
1020
1067.5
101.2
102.0
1068.5
101.3
102.0
060.7
101.4
101.7
1076.9
101.2
101.7
1071.4
101.0
1020
1079.6
101.1
102.0
1075.7
101.1
102.0
1071.8
101.3
101.7
1087.0
101.3
101.7
1076.4
101.1
102.0
1083:8
101.4
102.0
1088.6
101.4
102.1
1074.4
101.0
101.6
1094.2
101.1
101.7
1079.fi
101.3
102.0
1089.6
101.6
102.1
1096.7
101.2
102.1
1095.6
101.2
101.7
1096.1
101.6
101.9
1086.6
101.3
102.0
1094.1
101.1
102.1
1101.1
101.8
102.1
1098.7
101.7
1109.7
102.0
102.4
1090.3
101.1
1020
1096.7
101.1
102.1
1112.4
102.2
02.5
II10.0
102.2
1115.0
101.5
102.4
1093.7
101.1
1020
1098.7
101.7
LOE.1
1117.8
101.6
102.6
1116.6
101.6
102.3
1120.4
101.8
102.4
1096.8
101.7
102.2
1112.5
102.0
302.5
1123.2
101.8
102.6
122.1
101.8
102.3
1123.5
102.1
102.4
1109.1
102.0
102.6
1116.7
101.6
102.5
1129.5
102.1
102.7
1128.3
102.3
1134.2
102.4
102.8
1114.1
101.6
102.6
1124.5
301.5
102.5
1138.7
102.3
102.7
137.3
102.3
1137.5
101.9
1117.1
101.6
102.6
1130.2
1022
102:6
1141.8
101.9
102.9
139.8
102.0
102.6
1144.2
102.0
102.8
1120.4
101.7
102.6
1136.9
102.3
102.8
1147.6
101.8
102.8
146.0
102.0
102.6
1145.5
103.0
1126.1
102.2
102.7
1139.6
101.9
102.8
1149.3
103.1
03.1
1 147.4
103.1
1153.5
102.9
103.1
1134.2
102.4
103.11
1146.4
1020
102.8
1158.6
102.8
103.2
1156.8
102.8
103.1
1159.3
1024
103.1
1137.5
101.9
1030
1147.4
103.0
103.2
1162.8
102.4
103.2
1160.6
102.4
103.1
11715.4
102.5
103.1
1143.7
101.7
103 n
1158.3
102.8
103.3
:165.7
102.5
103.2
1167 7
102.5
103.1
1170.1
102.8
103.1
1145.3
103.0
103.3
1161.3
102.4
103.3
1168.7
102.6
103.3
1172.0
102.9
103.1
1188.5
102.9
103.2
1155.2
102.1
103!
1168.8
102.6
103.2
1172.4
102.8
103.3
1191.8
1029
103.2
1192.5
702.5
103.2
1158.5
102.4
1034
1172.1
102.,
103.3
1191.6
103.0
103.3
195.0
102.4
103.2
1198.5
1026
103.3
1162.1
102.3
103 4
1190.9
103.0
103.4
1195.5
102.4
103.4
1201.3
102.6
103.2
1202.8
103.0
103.3
1166.4
102.5
1034
1195.5
1025
103.3
1201.5
102.7
103.4
1205.2
103.0
103.2
1217.5
:03.0
103.4
1170.4
102.9
103 4
:201.7
102.6
103.3
1204.5
102.9
103.4
1220.4
103.1
103.3
1222.8
102.7
103.4
1190.0
103.0
103..i
1204.7
103:0
103.4
1222.2
103.1
103.5
1225.1
102.8
103.3
12262
703;7
103.5
1193.6
102.4
103.5
1222.7
703.1
103.5
1225.8
102.7
103.5
Herman Dairy
(Triburary 2) Year 4 Profile - Reach 10+00 to 16+96
106.0
105.0
104.0
4
t 103.0
t.
102.0
d
0101.0
100.0
W
99.0
98 0
Log Vane Log Vane
As -built
2012
2013
2014015
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0040
0.0041
0.0042
0.0043
0.0044
RifBe Length
1413
13
14
12
Avg. RM Slope
0.0039
0.0042
0.0061
0.0057
0.0051
Pool Len to
13
12
11
11
13
Log Vane Log Vane
Log Sill
0
0
a
^
a.
m
0 0
U U
� U7
0
U
U7
Braided Reach o 0
U U
0
U
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700
Distance feet
-Bed As -built 3/21/12 -Year 1 (2012) Bed -Year 2 (2013) Bed �Year 3 (2014) Bed -Year 4 (2015) Bed +Year 4 (2015) Water Surface

R -h
Feature
Date
Crew
Tributary 3
Profile
4/6/15
Parkinson, Jerni an
2012
2013
2014
2015
Avg. Water S -b. Slope
0.0012
NA
0.0015
0.0015
0.0013
Kittle Length
I I
10
2012
I I
I I
2012
0.0022
2013
0.0042
0.0040
2014
Pool Len tb
13
2015
I3
13
As -built Survey
❑
Oti O
Year
l Monitoring\Survey
Vear
2 Monitoring\Survey
Vear 3 Monitoring\Survey
Vear
4Moni.H.g\Survey
Station
Bed Elevation Water
Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
Station
Bed Elevation
Water Elevation
0.0
94.6
Distance feet
82.0
99.6
89.0
99.7
99.9
69.8
99.4
99.7
83.8
99.6
100.0
22.2
97.1
85.1
99.1
100.1
99.7
99.9
82.0
99.6
99.9
116.3
99.7
IOO.I
42.1
98.7
86.6
99.2
116.2
99.7
IOO.n
84.0
99.1
99.9
121.3
99.2
IOO.I
69.9
99.5
89.0
99.7
118.7
99.0
10011
87.2
99.3
99.9
123.6
99.3
IOO.I
82.7
99.6
116.0
99.6
122.8
99.2
1000
89.0
99.7
99.9
125.8
99.8
IOO.I
85.8
99.2
99.1
118.9
99.0
124.9
99.1
99.9
1160
99.5
Ig0.0
140.0
99.9
IO10
89.2
99.7
999
122.4
99.1
138.9
99.7
100.0
121.0
99.1
100.1
144.6
99.1
IOO.I
115.5
99.6
99"
125.1
94.6
142.8
99.0
111
125.1
94.6
100.0
152.8
99.3
100.2
119.0
99.0
99.9
138.8
99.7
146.9
98.9
100(1
139.9
99.6
100.7
155.8
99.1
IOO.I
122.7
99.1
99.Y
143.8
99.0
153.0
99.1
10011
145.4
99.0
100.1
172.3
99.7
Io000
125.8
99.6
99?
151.9
99.]
155.7
99.6
100.0
150.6
94.]
100.1
177.0
99.2
100.2
138.2
99.6
991
158.4
99.6
163.8
99.6
1000
156.5
99.7
100.1
183.1
99.2
100.1
142.3
99.1
991
171.8
94.6
171.9
99.5
1000
172.5
99.7
100.1
185.9
99.7
100.1
146.4
99.0
991
176.8
99.0
178.1
98.9
IOO.0
177.9
99.0
100.1
19'1.7
99.6
1000
L51.0
99.1
99.9
182.1
99.1
184.5
99.0
1000
181.6
99.0
100.1
201.1
99.2
100.1
156.1
99.6
991
165.4
99.5
187.8
99.5
look
185.6
99.6
1001
206.1
99.1
100.0
170.2
99.6
99.1
197.4
99.4
198.4
99.6
100.0
195.7
99.5
100.2
209.5
99.7
100.1
175.3
99.0
99.1
199.7
99.0
203.3
98.9
loon
201.2
94.0
100.1
216.9
99.6
100.0
182.1
99.1
99.9
204.8
96.8
2U8.4
98.9
100.11
205.5
969
L00.1
219.4
99.1
100.0
165.9
99.6
99.Y
209.1
99.6
212.7
99.7
IOU.O
210.5
99.7
100.1
223.9
99.3
100.0
196.0
99.6
99.Y
215.3
99.6
217.1
99.7
lOU.0
215.1
99.7
100.1
226.4
99.5
100.1
199.5
99.0
99.9
2I 8.7
99.0
220.5
99.1
10011
220.4
99.1
100.1
236.1
99.9
100.1
205.7
98.8
99.Y
223.9
99.1
226.5
99.1
10011
227.2
99.6
100.2
238.8
99.3
100.1
208.9
99.6
227.8
99.7
229.2
99.7
100.0
235.4
99.7
100.1
246.4
99.4
100.1
214.2
99.8
100.0
234.9
99.8
237.8
99.6
100.1
238.8
99.2
100.1
249.9
99.6
100.1
217.5
99.0
100.0
239.4
99.1
240.6
99.1
100.1
245.3
99.2
100.7
258.2
99.7
100.1
Herman Dariy (Tributary 3) Year 4 Profile- Reach 00+00 to 07+43
As -built
2012
2013
2014
2015
Avg. Water S -b. Slope
0.0012
NA
0.0015
0.0015
0.0013
Kittle Length
I I
10
II
I I
I I
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0022
NA
0.0042
0.0040
0.0054
Pool Len tb
13
I3
I3
13
13
Herman Dariy (Tributary 3) Year 4 Profile- Reach 00+00 to 07+43
102.0
101.0
100.0
`w
99.0
.`.
a
98.0
m
°0 0
c
97.D
a a
Terracell
� N
m
a)
❑
Oti O
{a
p
�
96.0
0 0 0 0
95.0
U U U U
94.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance feet
-Bed AsbuOt 3/21112 -Bed Year 1 (2012) -Year 2 (2013) Bed -Year 3 (2014) Bed -Year 4 (2015) Bed -Year 4 (2015) Wet. Snrfue

Station
Elevation
0.00
99.39
9.82
99.84
Site Name:
1.01
Herman Da' ry
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
�.r
Watershed:
98.45
30501001120030
97.95
23.85
98.02
XS ID
97.97
Tributary 1 XS - 1, Pool)
98.00
26.54
98.21
Drainage
98.49
29.16
99.22
31.99
99.28
39.50
99.74
50.17
99.72
Stream Type E
Herman Dairy Tributary
1 ( XS -1, Pool)
101
100
�
------------------�
----Bankfull
5
0 99
As-Built 4/3/12
t MY-01 2012
W
MY-02 2013
98
MY-03 2014
MY-04 2015
97
0 10
20
30 40
50 60
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.00
99.39
9.82
99.84
Area (s mi):
1.01
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
99.39
9.82
99.84
17.19
99.81
19.64
99.69
20.78
99.42
22.03
98.45
23.32
97.95
23.85
98.02
24.88
97.97
25.69
98.00
26.54
98.21
27.72
98.49
29.16
99.22
31.99
99.28
39.50
99.74
50.17
99.72
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
99.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
14.8
Bankfull Width:
20.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
-

Site Name:
Herman Dai
Watershed:
30501001120030
igan
XS ID
Tributary 1 XS - 2, Pool)
W / D Ratio:
26.9
Drainage Area (s mi):
1.01
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jern
t,
Station
Elevation
0.00
99.95
Bankfull Elevation:
100.4
11.58
100.33
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
11.0
18.80
100.38
Bankfull Width:
17.2
20.87
100.32
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
101.7
22.28
99.90
Flood Prone Width:
>80
24.08
99.85
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
25.48
99.54
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
27.00
99.06
28.23
99.06
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
28.82
99.01
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
29.76
99.35
31.47
99.56
Stream Type E
32.80
99.77
34.81
100.03
36.6
100.36
Herman Dairy Tributary
1 ( XS - 2, Riffle)
42.7
100.46
54.5
100.73
102
101
d
� _____
_________________
_ ______
___ Bankfull
0 100
----Flood Prone Area
ti
As -Built 4/3/12
W
t MY -01 2012
99
MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
98
MY -04 2015
0 10
20
30 40
50 60
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
igan
SUMMARY DATA
W / D Ratio:
26.9

Site Name:
Herman Da'
l 0
{
Area (s mi):
Watershed:
Date:
30501001120030
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
r
XS ID
Tributary 1 XS - 3, RifIle)
Drainage
4ti � S 9
ti
4 71'1�
Y
Station
Elevation
0.00
103.09
Bankfull Elevation:
102.8
13.44
102.94
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
7.9
19.79
102.74
Bankfull Width:
13.0
22.91
102.75
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
104.2
23.77
102.53
Flood Prone Width:
>80
_
24.66
101.66
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
25.56
101.43
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
26.86
101.42
W / D Ratio:
21.4
28.26
101.38
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
28.89
101.46
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
30.23
102.22
31.56
102.66
Stream Type
E/C
35.90
103.04
40.78
103.12
47.0
102.81
Herman Dairy Tributary
1 ( XS - 3, Riffle)
52.9
102.92
105
104 -----------------------------------------------------------
m
��
---• Bankfull
0 103
----Flood Prone Area
------------------
W
_ _
------
_ ----_-____
As-Built 4/3/12
102
t MY-01 2012
MY-02 2013
MY-03 2014
101
MY-04 2015
0 10
20
30
40
50 60
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Area (s mi):
1.01
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA

Site Name:
Elevation
Herman Da'
103.2
6.6
103.2
Area (s mi):
Watershed:
Date:
30501001120030
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
21.6
101.9
XS ID
101.6
Tributary 1 XS - 4, Pool
101.5
24.4
101.4
25.7
Drainage
26.3
101.7
27.5
103.0
29.1
103.2
35.1
103.2
44.4
102.96
-7
:
r
.,
r i
�..�
s
Stream Typ :
E
Herman Dairy Tributary
1 ( XS - 4, Pool)
104
103
-------------
w
----Bankf ill
0 102
- -- • Flood Prone Area
-� As -Built 4/3/12
W
MY -01 2012
101
-� MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015
100
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45 50
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
103.2
6.6
103.2
Area (s mi):
1.01
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
103.2
6.6
103.2
14.9
103.0
17.0
102.9
19.8
102.5
21.6
101.9
22.5
101.6
23.4
101.5
24.4
101.4
25.7
101.5
26.3
101.7
27.5
103.0
29.1
103.2
35.1
103.2
44.4
102.96
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
103.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
10.6
Bankfull Width:
14.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
-

Site Name:
Herman Da'
Watershed:
1.01
30501001120030
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
XS ID
Tributary 1 XS - 5, Riffle
Drainage
Station
Elevation
SUMMARY DATA
0.0
103.9
Bankfull Elevation:
104.3
12.8
104.3
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
8.9
18.6
104.4
Bankfull Width:
11.0
21.3
104.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
105.7
23.0
103.1
Flood Prone Width:
>80
24.0
103.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
25.5
102.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
26.1
102.8
W / D Ratio:
13.6
27.0
102.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
27.7
103.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
28.4
103.7
-- - --- ---
30.6
104.1
Stream Type E/C
32.4
104.3
36.9
104.14
47.1
104.04
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 (XS - 5, Riffle)
58.6
104.26
106
105
E
---- Bankfull
--------
-- -----------
104
----Flood Prone Area
0
-� As-Built 4/3/12
ti
W
MY-01 2012
103
- s MY-02 2013
MY-03 2014
MY-04 2015
102
0 10
20
30 40
50 60
Station (feet)
Area (s mi):
1.01
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary 1 XS - 6, Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.01
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
104.0
8.7
104.3
14.3
104.4
17.8
104.6
19.4
103.2
21.0
102.8
22.1
102.8
22.6
103.1
23.3
103.1
24.1
103.0
24.7
103.0
25.5
103.9
27.8
104.4
36.2
104.4
45.7
104.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
104.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.0
Bankfull Width:
14.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type I E/C

Site Name:
Herman Da'
104.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.0
Watershed:
1.01
30501001120030
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
XS ID
1.4
Tributary 1 XS - 7, Riffle)
0.8
W / D Ratio:
11.8
Drainage
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Its
Station
Elevation
-0.5
104.7
11.4
104.8
17.3
105.0
20.7
105.1
21.8
104.9
23.2
104.2
24.3
103.8
25.5
103.2
26.0
103.2
27.4
103.2
29.0
103.4
29.9
104.3
Stream Type E/C
32.0
104.6
38.1
104.72
53.9
105.23
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 (XS - 7, Riffle)
107
106
d----
Bankfull
----Flood Prone Area
0 105
As-Built 4/3/12
ti
- MY-01 2012
W
104
t MY-02 2013
MY-03 2014
MY-04 2015
103
0 10
20
30 40
50 60
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
104.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.0
Area (s mi):
1.01
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
104.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.0
Bankfull Width:
9.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
106.0
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
11.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary 1 XS - 8, Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.01
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
105.6
9.6
105.6
16.2
105.7
18.1
105.3
19.1
104.3
20.1
104.0
20.9
103.7
21.9
103.6
23.6
103.9
24.3
104.2
25.4
105.0
26.4
105.4
28.9
105.6
36.2
105.81
43.2
105.95
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
105.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
10.3
Bankfull Width:
9.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type I E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 ( XS - 8, Pool)
107
106
WWI
m
•
105
s;
0
104
W
103
102
0 5 10 15
---- Bankfull
-- • Flood Prone Area
As -Built 4/3/12
MY -01 2012
-� MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Station (feet)

Site Name:
Elevation
Herman Dairy
106.7
5.8
106.3
Watershed:
106.1
30501001120030
106.3
12.0
igan
XS ID
105.3
Tributary 1 XS - 9, Pool
105.0
14.6
104.6
Drainage Area (s mi):
1.01
16.0
104.4
16.9
Date:
17.4
4/6/2015
18.0
105.6
Y i
Field Crew:
20.4
Perkinson, Jern
24.9
106.56
29.5
106.55
7
R
r
Stream Type
E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 ( XS - 9, Pool)
107
-- -----------------------------
-----
106
----Bankfull
m
----Flood Prone Area
tt
-� As-Built 4/3/12
AMY-01 2012
W 105
� MY-02 2013
MY-03 2014
MY-04 2015
104
0 5
10
15 20
25 30 35
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
106.7
5.8
106.3
9.2
106.1
10.6
106.3
12.0
igan
Station
Elevation
0.0
106.7
5.8
106.3
9.2
106.1
10.6
106.3
12.0
106.3
12.8
105.3
13.8
105.0
14.6
104.6
15.4
104.5
16.0
104.4
16.9
104.7
17.4
105.1
18.0
105.6
19.3
106.22
20.4
106.76
24.9
106.56
29.5
106.55
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
106.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
13.0
Bankfull Width:
17.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
-

Site Name:
Elevation
Herman Dairy
106.6
----Bankfull
- - - •Flood Prone Area
-� As -Built 4/3/12
AMY-Ol 2012
� MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015
Watershed:
Area (s mi):
30501001120030
Date:
4/6/2015
XS ID
Perkinson, Jernigan
Tributary 1 XS -10, Riffle
1
Drainage
Herman Dairy Tributary 1 ( XS -10, Riffle)
109
108
108
107
0
0
a
W
106
106
105
0 5
10 15 20 25
30 35
Station (feet)
Station SUMMARY DATA
Elevation
0.0
106.6
----Bankfull
- - - •Flood Prone Area
-� As -Built 4/3/12
AMY-Ol 2012
� MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015
Area (s mi):
1.01
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station SUMMARY DATA
Elevation
0.0
106.6
----Bankfull
- - - •Flood Prone Area
-� As -Built 4/3/12
AMY-Ol 2012
� MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area: 8.3
8.9 106.8 Bankfull Width: 8.4
9.9 106.3 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 108.3
11.4 105.4 Flood Prone Width: >80
12.6 105.4 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.5
13.1 105.3 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.0
13.9 105.3 W / D Ratio: 8.5
15.0 105.5 Entrenchment Ratio: >5
16.0 105.9 Bank Height Ratio: 1.0
--------------------------------------------------------------
107
Bankfull Elevation:
106.8
----Bankfull
- - - •Flood Prone Area
-� As -Built 4/3/12
AMY-Ol 2012
� MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------
107
----Bankfull
- - - •Flood Prone Area
-� As -Built 4/3/12
AMY-Ol 2012
� MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014
MY -04 2015

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary 2 XS - 11, Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.01
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
98.6
4.6
98.4
5.6
98.3
6.5
98.2
7.1
98.0
7.8
98.0
8.6
98.0
9.3
98.2
10.3
98.1
10.9
98.2
11.6
98.5
13.5
98.5
16.0
98.5
17.9
98.58
19.3
98.59
98
-------
---------------------- - ----------------------
0
98
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.3
Bankfull Width:
6.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
98.8
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
27.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 ( XS - 11, Riffle)
99
----------------------------------------------------------------
99
99
99
w
98
-------
---------------------- - ----------------------
0
98
----Bankfull
qg
W
----Flood Prone Area
98
As -Built 4/3/12
98
98
MY -01 2012
MY -02 2013
98
0
10
MY -03 2014
20
Station (feet)
MY -04 2015

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary 2 XS - 12, Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.01
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
98.9
4.0
98.8
6.2
98.8
7.3
98.8
7.9
98.8
8.5
98.5
9.2
98.2
9.9
98.2
11.0
98.2
12.0
98.5
12.8
98.6
13.8
98.9
14.8
99.0
16.6
98.96
18.2
98.90
19.2
98.95
d
5
99
0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.0
Bankfull Width:
5.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
99
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type I E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 ( XS - 12, Pool)
99
99
99
_____________ _______________
d
5
99
0
98
----Bankfull
ti
W
----Flood Prone Area
98
As -Built 4/3/12
MY -01 2012
98
MY -02 2013
98
0
10
MY -03 2014
20
Station (feet)
MY -04 2015

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary 2 XS - 13, Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.01
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
99.4
2.4
99.3
4.5
99.3
5.9
99.6
6.5
99.6
7.2
99.4
7.8
99.0
8.5
99.0
9.6
99.0
10.0
99.0
10.9
99.1
11.9
99.0
12.9
99.3
14.9
99.42
17.2
99.39
19.5
99.33
NX------------------
-
0
99
---- Bankfull
ti
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
99.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.6
Bankfull Width:
6.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
99.6
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
27.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 (XS - 13, Riffle)
100
100 -----------------------------------------------------------------
99
w
NX------------------
-
0
99
---- Bankfull
ti
----Flood Prone Area
Rj 99
As -Built 4/3/12
MY -01 2012
99
MY -02 2013
99
0
10
MY -03 2014
20
Station (feet)
MY -04 2015

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary 2 XS - 14, Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.01
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
103.2
3.9
103.4
6.3
103.4
7.1
102.9
8.0
102.6
8.6
102.4
9.6
102.6
10.8
102.9
11.8
103.0
12.6
103.3
14.6
103.2
17.4
103.3
19.3
103.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
103.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.5
Bankfull Width:
6.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
104
Stream Type I E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 ( XS - 14, Pool)
1
.
t -
103
PV
t
103
102
102 I
0 10
Station (feet)
----Bankfull
--- Flood Prone Area
As -Built 4/3/12
MY -01 2012
MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014 F20
MY -04 2015
iia
o�
----Bankfull
--- Flood Prone Area
As -Built 4/3/12
MY -01 2012
MY -02 2013
MY -03 2014 F20
MY -04 2015

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary 2 XS - 15, Riffle
Drainage Area (sq mi):
1.01
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
104.2
4.6
104.0
6.0
104.2
7.2
103.9
7.7
103.7
8.7
103.7
9.8
103.8
10.6
103.8
11.2
103.9
11.8
104.1
13.4
104.1
15.5
104.1
19.6
104.2
104
104 ----
---------------------------
------------•
104
ti 104
--Bankfull
----Flood Prone Area
As -Built 4/3/12
MY -01 2012
MY -02 2013
W
104
104
104
SUMMARY DATA
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 (XS - 15, Riffle)
Bankfull Elevation:
104.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.6
Bankfull Width:
6.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
104.5
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
28.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 (XS - 15, Riffle)
105
105------------------------------------------------------------------
104
104
104
104 ----
---------------------------
------------•
104
ti 104
--Bankfull
----Flood Prone Area
As -Built 4/3/12
MY -01 2012
MY -02 2013
W
104
104
104
104
0
10
MY -03 2014
20
Station (feet)
MY -04 2015

Site Name:
Elevation
Herman Dairy
104.5
3.1
104.6
Watershed:
1.01
30501001120030
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
XS ID
104.2
Tributary 2 XS - 16, Pool
103.9
8.9
103.9
Drainage
103.6
9.9
103.8
10.4
104.4
11.7
104.7
13.6
104.5
16.2
104.57
18.9
104.71
Stream Type E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 2 ( XS - 16, Pool)
105
105
105
104 -----
-------------
------ -----------------
0 104
----Bankfull
104
W
----Flood Prone Area
104
As-Built 4/3/12
104
� MY-01 2012
MY-02 2013
103
0
10
MY-03 2014 20
Station (feet)
MY-04 2015
Station
Elevation
-0.3
104.5
3.1
104.6
Area (s mi):
1.01
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
-0.3
104.5
3.1
104.6
5.2
104.4
6.7
104.4
7.3
104.4
7.8
104.2
8.4
103.9
8.9
103.9
9.3
103.6
9.9
103.8
10.4
104.4
11.7
104.7
13.6
104.5
16.2
104.57
18.9
104.71
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
104.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.6
Bankfull Width:
5.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
BankHeight Ratio:
-

Site Name:
Elevation
Herman Dairy
100.2
3.3
100.0
Watershed:
0.06
30501001120030
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
XS ID
99.7
Tributary 3 XS - 17, Riffle
99.6
13.3
f
Drainage
99.6
15.4
99.6
�t
R:
99.9
17.4
100.1
19.2
100.0
w
99.95
25.2
99.91
26.9
100.02
Stream Type E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 3 (XS - 17, Riffle)
101
------------------------------------------------------------
100
w 100
5
---------------
0 100
----------------
- -
---
----Bankfull
ti
44 100
----Flood Prone Area
As-Built 4/3/12
100
MY-01 2012
MY-02 2013
99
0 5
10
15 20
MY-03 2014
30
Station (feet)
MY-04 2015
Station
Elevation
0.0
100.2
3.3
100.0
Area (s mi):
0.06
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
100.2
3.3
100.0
6.6
100.1
8.2
100.1
9.2
100.0
10.5
99.7
12.1
99.6
13.3
99.6
14.7
99.6
15.4
99.6
16.6
99.9
17.4
100.1
19.2
100.0
22.7
99.95
25.2
99.91
26.9
100.02
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
100.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.7
Bankfull Width:
8.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
100.5
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
23.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site Name:
Herman Dairy
Watershed:
30501001120030
XS ID
Tributary 3 XS - 18, Pool
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.06
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.3
100.7
3.7
100.7
6.6
100.8
7.7
100.8
8.6
100.6
9.6
100.4
10.3
100.0
10.9
99.7
11.4
99.5
12.3
99.5
13.3
99.9
14.1
100.0
15.1
100.4
16.3
100.59
17.7
100.68
20.1
100.66
23.1
100.61
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
100.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Bankfull Width:
6.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
wlfflvl')A���
;J}i✓
Stream Type I E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 3 ( XS - 18, Pool)
101
101
101
w 100
d
100 ----Bankfull
° - • Flood Prone Area
100
it 100 As -Built 4/3/12
--o-MY-01 2012
100 MY -02 2013
99 MY -03 2014
99 MY -04 2015
0 10 20
Station (feet)

Site Name:
Elevation
Herman Dairy
100.4
3.2
Watershed:
Area (s mi):
30501001120030
Date:
4/6/2015
XS ID
Perkinson, Jernigan
Tributary 3 XS - 19, Pool
100.0
z,
Drainage
13.0
99.4
14.2
99.7
15.7
100.2
16.8
--
18.3
100.5
19.9
100.7
- -
{
100.74
25.7
100.76
,'.9
,.e •i l
� ,.�;,"^fir
Stream Type E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary 3 ( XS - 19, Pool)
101
101
101
w 100
- --
----------- -------------------
d
100 ----Bankfull
° - • Flood Prone Area
100
-� As-Built 4/3/12
it 100
tMY-01 2012
100 MY-02 2013
Af
99 MY-03 2014
99 MY-04 2015
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
100.4
3.2
100.4
Area (s mi):
0.06
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
100.4
3.2
100.4
7.6
100.4
10.0
100.3
10.7
100.2
11.8
100.0
12.5
99.6
13.0
99.4
14.2
99.7
15.7
100.2
16.8
100.4
18.3
100.5
19.9
100.7
22.4
100.74
25.7
100.76
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
100.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.9
Bankfull Width:
9.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
BankHeight Ratio:
-

Site Name:
Elevation
Herman Dairy
100.6
4.5
100.9
Watershed:
0.06
30501001120030
4/6/2015
tai .
Perkinson, Jernigan
XS ID
100.3
Tributary 3 XS - 20, Riffle
100.2
11.5
100.3
Drainage
100.3
13.4
100.4
14.2
100.8
15.4
100.8
16.7
100.8
19.7
100.81
:w
r t
.Y
r,
Stream Type E/C
Herman Dairy Tributary
3 (XS - 20, Riffle)
101
101 -----------------------------------------------------------------
101
w
5 101
--------------------
-----------
101
----Bankfull
ti
W
----Flood Prone Area
100
As -Built 4/3/12
100
MY -01 2012
MY -02 2013
100
0 2
4 6 8
10 12 14
MY -03 2014
20
Station (feet)
MY -04 2015
Station
Elevation
0.5
100.6
4.5
100.9
Area (s mi):
0.06
Date:
4/6/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.5
100.6
4.5
100.9
6.3
100.8
7.5
100.5
8.3
100.2
9.1
100.3
10.4
100.2
11.5
100.3
12.7
100.3
13.4
100.4
14.2
100.8
15.4
100.8
16.7
100.8
19.7
100.81
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
100.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.8
Bankfull Width:
7.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
101.2
Flood Prone Width:
>80
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
20.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
>5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Summary Data
D50 NA
D84 I
D95 4
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
p� 60%
50%
40%
0 30%
0 20%
10%
0%
o0'LQ♦y5 oti5 �5 ♦ 'L P 5!� ♦♦'y ♦b �ry'?� cO ♦,y4 ♦�O ry5b �b'y♦'1. ♦oya ��4���b
Particle Size (mm)
■MY2-2013 ■MY3-2014 ■MY4-2015 ■MY5-2016
Feature: Riffle
2015
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total # Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
26
52%
36%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
3
6%
44%
fine sand 0.250 8 16%
48%
medium sand 0.50 5 10%
48%
coarse sand 1.00 3 6%
56%
very coarse sand 2.0 1 2%
60%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
1
2%
68%
fine gravel 5.7 3 6%
72%
fine gravel 8.0 0 0%
84%
medium gravel 11.3 0 0%
92%
medium gravel 16.0 0 0%
92%
course gravel 22.3 0 0%
96%
course gravel 32.0 0 0%
96%
very coarse gravel 45 0 0%
96%
very coarse gravel 64 0 0%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
50
100%
100%
Summary Data
D50 NA
D84 I
D95 4
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
p� 60%
50%
40%
0 30%
0 20%
10%
0%
o0'LQ♦y5 oti5 �5 ♦ 'L P 5!� ♦♦'y ♦b �ry'?� cO ♦,y4 ♦�O ry5b �b'y♦'1. ♦oya ��4���b
Particle Size (mm)
■MY2-2013 ■MY3-2014 ■MY4-2015 ■MY5-2016

Summary Data
D50 0.2
D84 I
D95 6
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
c
70
a 60%
50%
v
40%
0 30%
20%
10%
0%
oob'LQ� Q1.
Particle Size (mm)
Feature: Riffle
2015
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
12
24%
33%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
7
14%
43%
fine sand 0.250 13 26%
48%
medium sand 0.50 4 8%
52%
coarse sand 1.00 1 7 14%
62%
very coarse sand 2.0 2 4%
67%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
67%
fine gravel 5.7 3 6%
67%
fine gravel 8.0 2 4%
71%
medium gravel 11.3 0 0%
76%
medium gravel 16.0 0 0%
86%
course gravel 22.3 0 0%
90%
course gravel 32.0 0 0%
95%
very coarse gravel 45 0 0%
95%
very coarse gravel 64 0 0%
95%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
50
100%
100%
Summary Data
D50 0.2
D84 I
D95 6
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
c
70
a 60%
50%
v
40%
0 30%
20%
10%
0%
oob'LQ� Q1.
Particle Size (mm)

Project Name: Herman Dairy UTI
D50
Cross-Section: 10
D84
13
Cumulative Percent
100%
70
Feature: Riffle
2015
Description
Material Size (mm) Total # Item % Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay 0.062 11 22% 24%
Sand
very fine sand 0.125 3 6% 32%
90%
80%
6 70%
a 60%
> 50%
J 40%
9 30/
v 20%10%
0
Panicle Size (mm)
fine sand 0.250 7 14% 44%
medium sand 0.50 2 4% 48%
coarse sand 1.00 1 3 6% 56%
very coarse sand 2.0 1 2% 60%
Gravel
very fine gravel 4.0 3 6% 68%
fine gravel 5.7 12% 72%
fine gravel 8.0 3 6% 80%
medium gravel 11.3 6 12% 80%
medium gavel 16.0 4 8% 84%
course gravel 22.3 2 4% 96%
course gravel 32.0 0 0% 96%
very coarse gravel 45 0 0% 96%
-MY2-2013 -MY3-2014 -MY4-2015 --1-2016
very coarse gravel 64 1 2% 100%
4
Cobble
small cobble 90 2 4% 100%
Individual Class Percent
100
medium cobble 128 1 2% 100%
large cobble 180 0 0% 100%
very large cobble 256 0 0% 100%
Boulder
small boulder 362 0 0% 100%
90/
small boulder 512 0 0% 100%
g0%
medium boulder 1024 0 0% 100%
70%
large boulder 2048 0 0% 100%
a 60%
Bedrock
bedrock 40096 0 0% 100%
50%
TOTAL % of whole count 50 100% 100%
40%
Summary Data
0 30%
20%
r
l0%
0%
oti5 �h 1 ti A h!� 4 ��'7 tb �,L"� �ry AS b5` q0 1.1� .,40 ,L4ib �bti �titi 1O,yb �OAq ��qb
Particle Size (mm)
■MY2-2013 EMY3-2014 ■MY4-2015 ■MY5-2016
D50
0.8
D84
13
D95
70

Summary Data
D5024.6
D84 43
D95 61
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
a
50
ro
40%
E 30%
7
v 20%
10%
0%
off♦
Feature: Riffle
♦
\O
♦ 1
1
Particle Size
2015
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
I Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
4
7%
68%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
2
4%
72%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
84%
medium sand 0.50 0 0%
84%
coarse sand 1.00 1 0 0%
88%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
92%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
100%
fine gravel 5.7 0 0%
100%
fine gravel 8.0 1 2%
100%
medium gravel 11.3 3 5%
100%
medium gavel 16.0 1 2%
100%
course gravel 22.3 12 21%
100%
course gravel 32.0 17 30%
100%
very coarse gravel 45 8 14%
100%
very coarse gravel 64 6 11%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
2
4%
100%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
56
100%
100%
Summary Data
D5024.6
D84 43
D95 61
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
a
50
ro
40%
E 30%
7
v 20%
10%
0%
off♦
�♦
♦
\O
♦ 1
1
Particle Size
(mm)
-MY2-2013
-MY3-2014
-MY4-2015
-MY5-2016
4
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
Q 60%
50%
U 40%
30%
-4 20%
F 10%
0%
o�b'Lo,4y5 oy5 05 ♦ 'L b 51 4 ♦♦'7 ♦b �,L"� n�'L p5 bb cO P ry5b ��y ,�♦1, ♦oyb ryop4��gb
Particle Size (mm)

Summary Data
D50 22
D84 45
D95 73
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
a
50
ro
40%
E 30%
7
v 20%
10%
0%
off♦
Feature: Riffle
♦
111
♦ 1
1
Particle Size
2015
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
I Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
4
8%
68%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
1
2%
72%
fine sand 0.250 0 0%
84%
medium sand 0.50 2 4%
84%
coarse sand 1.00 1 1 2%
88%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
92%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
1
2%
100%
fine gravel 5.7 0 0%
100%
fine gravel 8.0 1 2%
100%
medium gravel 11.3 3 6%
100%
medium gavel 16.0 4 8%
100%
course gravel 22.3 9 17%
100%
course gravel 32.0 7 13%
100%
very coarse gravel 45 11 21%
100%
very coarse gravel 64 5 10%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
1
2%
100%
medium cobble 128 2 4%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
52
100%
100%
Summary Data
D50 22
D84 45
D95 73
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
a
50
ro
40%
E 30%
7
v 20%
10%
0%
off♦
�♦
♦
111
♦ 1
1
Particle Size
(mm)
-MY2-2013
-MY3-2014
-MY4-2015
-MY5-2016
4
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
Q 60%
50%
U 40%
30%
'd 20%
in a
F 10%
0%
o�b'Lo,4y5 oy5 05 ♦ 'L b 51 4 ♦♦'7 ♦b �,L"� n�'L p5 bb �O ♦,y4 ♦�O ry5b ��y ,�♦1, ♦oyb ryop4��gb
Particle Size (mm)

Summary Data
D50 24
D84 48
D95 58
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
a
50
ro
40%
E 30%
7
v 20%
10%
0%
off♦
Feature: Riffle
♦
111
♦ 1
1
Particle Size
2015
Description
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Item %
I Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
7
12%
68%
Sand
very fine sand
0.125
2
4%
72%
fine sand 0.250 3 5%
84%
medium sand 0.50 1 2%
84%
coarse sand 1.00 1 2 4%
88%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 0%
92%
Gravel
very fine gravel
4.0
0
0%
100%
fine gravel 5.7 2 4%
100%
fine gravel 8.0 1 2%
100%
medium gravel 11.3 0 0%
100%
medium gavel 16.0 3 5%
100%
course gravel 22.3 4 7%
100%
course gravel 32.0 16 28%
100%
very coarse gravel 45 5 9%
100%
very coarse gravel 64 11 19%
100%
Cobble
small cobble
90
0
0%
100%
medium cobble 128 0 0%
100%
large cobble 180 0 0%
100%
very large cobble 256 0 0%
100%
Boulder
small boulder
362
0
0%
100%
small boulder 512 0 0%
100%
medium boulder 1024 0 0%
100%
large boulder 2048 0 0%
100%
Bedrock
bedrock
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
57
100%
100%
Summary Data
D50 24
D84 48
D95 58
Cumulative Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
a
50
ro
40%
E 30%
7
v 20%
10%
0%
off♦
�♦
♦
111
♦ 1
1
Particle Size
(mm)
-MY2-2013
-MY3-2014
-MY4-2015
-MY5-2016
4
Individual Class Percent
100%
90%
80%
70%
Q 60%
50%
U 40%
30%
-4 20%
F 10%
0%
o�b'Lo,4y5 oy5 05 ♦ 'L b 51 4 ♦♦'7 ♦b �,L"� n�'L p5 bb �O ♦,y4 ♦�O ry5b ��y ,�♦1, ♦oyb ryop4��gb
Particle Size (mm)

Appendix E.
Hydrology Data
Table 12. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
2015 Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Figure E1. Annual Climatic Data vs. 30 -year Historic Data
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Table 12. Wetland Hydrology Criteria Attainment
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season
Gauge
(Percentage)
Year 1 (2012)
Year 2 (2013)
Year 3 (2014)
Year 4 (2015)
Year 5 (2016)
1
Yes/38 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/235 days
(16.2 percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
2
Yes/101days
Yes/235 days
Yes/39 days
Yes/235 days
(43 percent)
(100 percent)
(16.6 percent)
(100 percent)
3
Yes/226 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/130 days
Yes/89 days
(96.2 percent)
(100 percent)
(55.3 percent)
(37.8 percent)
4
Yes/226 days
Yes/46 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/235 days
(96.2 percent)
(19.6 percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
5
Yes/87 days
Yes/179 days
Yes/108 days
Yes/52 days
(37.0 percent)
(76.2 percent)
(46 percent)
(22 percent)
6
Yes/ 100 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/79 days
Yes/49 days
(42.5 percent)
(100 percent)
(33.6 percent)
(20.8 percent)
7
Yes/235 days
Yes/235days
Yes/117 days
Yes/115 days
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
(49.8 percent)
(48.9 percent)
8
Yes/178 days
Yes/193 days
Yes/119 days
Yes/81
(75.7 percent)
(82.1 percent)
(50.6 percent)
(34.4 pe
9
Yes/29 days
Yes/104 days
Yes/ 100 days
)da
Yes/49(12.3
percent)
(44.2 percent)
(42.6 percent)
(20.8 pe10
Yes/102 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/167(43.4
percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
(71 per
Ref
Yes/148 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/235 days
Yes/235 days
(62.9 percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
(100 percent)
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 4 (2015 Data)
12 2.5
10 I
8
6
4
2 2.0
0
2 March 20 November 9
-6 Growing Season End Growing Season
-8 Start End �i =
3
m -10 -12
1.5
3 a
3 14 235 Das
-16
-18
-20 1.0
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30 0.5
-32
-34
-36
-384L L -
-40 LF 0.0
W W W -P, Ul In Ln In M M M M M J V J V W W W W lD l0 1.0 l0 lD
N N W V N N N Ul N N N N l\O F\-� N W J N N N N N N N DD N N N \ \ \ \ \ \
W \ N 1.0 M \ \ M W O p. W Ln \ \ In N lO M N N N W F�
k n Ln \ \ \ \ W O V \ O
N VI tP Ul VI tP N U'i FI VI VI Ul U'i FI Fi Ln l!1 H+ In N Ul kn N Ln 1.f1 Ul kn Ln F+ kn \ \ \ Ul \
Un In In Ul V7 U7 In In U'i In In U'i Un U'i Un Ln In U't U'i In i
Un Un kn Ln

Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 4 (2015 Data)
12 2.5
10 March 20
8 November9 �
Growing Season End Growing Season
6 I— Start End
4
2 2.0
0
IF -2 WWI-jV*jlh_
Z-
@ -4
ami -6
C
a, 8 1.5 0'
3 10235 ays a
012 —
3 -14
o
-16
-18
-20 1.0
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30 0.5
-32 I
-34
-36
-38 - —
-40 ' 0.0
W W W A A A U'i In In In M M M M M J J V V 00 00 00 00 lO lO lO l0 lD
N N W J N N N Ul F-+ N N N 1.0N N W V F\-� N N A N N N N 00 N N N \ \ \ \ \ \
A N W \ N l0 O \ \ O W O W W Ul \ \ N N lO M N N W F -A
W O J \ O
In N Un In In In F -A N N In F-+ N In U7 N N I -A N \ \ \ N \
In U, In Ul In Ul U, Ul In In In In In In In In In U7 In In U, Ul N N N In N
(n U, U, Ul

Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 4 (2015 Data)
12 2.5
10 March 20 November9
8 Growing Season
6 End Growing Season
Sta rt
4
2 2.0
0 Gauge Malfunction
C _2
d -4
>
°' 6A fAc
3
v -8 1.5 °
_i� 89 Days
3
0 -14 =
-16
-18
-20 1.0
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30 I 0.5
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40 _ v.. __.- 0.0
W W W A A A A In In Ul In M M M M M V V V V 00 00 W CO ID IO ID ID ID N F.- Fi N Fi
N N Ul 1\-� N N N ID N NW V N N N A I\-� N N N 00 F\-� N N \ \ \ \ \ --
,J
V A N \ A N 0,1 \ N 1.0 Ql \ \ Ol W O \ A N 00 \ N W t o \ \ U, N IO M N N N W F,
Ul N N F\-� In f\-� F\-� I\-� Ul In F\-� F\-� N In F\-� N N Ul F\-� F\-� F\-� Ul In N F\-� F\-� f\-, \ \
Ul Ln Ln Ul Ln Ul Ln Ul Ln Ul In Ul Ul In Ln U7 Ul In U7 Ln Ul Ul F+ F+ F+ Ul F+
In Ul In Ul

Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 4
Year 4 (2015 Data)
12 2.5
10 March 20
g Novemher9
6 Growing Season End Growing Season
4 Start
2 2.0
0
C -2
ami 4 I kI
-6 =
3
m - 1.5
10
3 a
� -12
' -14 235 Das
0
-16 o"c
-18
-20 I 1.0
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30 0.5
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40 J IL L Lv 0.0
W W W A A A A In U.n Ul U.n Ol Ol Ol M M V V V V 00 00 00 00 lO lO lO l0 lO r N F" r F" F"
N W V N N N Ul F\+ N N N l0 N NW V N N N A N N N N 00 N N N \ \ \ \ \ \
V A N \ . 0o \ N to Ol \ \ Ol W O p. N 00 \ N 00 t n \ \ Ul N lO Ol N W
In F\-� F\-� F\-� Ul F\-� F\-� f\-� In Ui F\-� F\-� N In F\-� N F\-� Ul F\-� N F\-� Ul U1 F\-� F\-� F\-� N \ \ \ F\-� \
Ul Un Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln Ul Ln In U7 Ul In Ul Ul In Ul In In In Ul Ul Ul
N In (n U,

Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 5
Year 4 (2015 Data)
12 I 2.5
10March 20
6 Growing Season November 9
Start Growing Season
4 End
2 2.0
_ 0
C 2 _
CU -4
> lull
a, 6
3
v 8 1.5 °
10 a
12
c14 52 Das 46 Daysy°
c7 -16 I of6c
-18
-20 1.0
-22
-24 VI
-26
-28
-30 0.5
-32
-34
-36 -
-38 -
-40 m - 0.0
w w w � � � � to to to to rn rn rn rn rn J J J J o0 00 00 0o io � to � � N r r r� N r
W \ N ko l0 Ql \ \ Ol W O Ql N N W F�
N N N In N N N U'iUi N VI ll� Ln In In N N FIn N N N In Fn N hn In In
"i l!Fn N N N \ \ \ N \
U� l!1 l,n In In lLnl!1 In Un In Ln In Ln l!i Un l!1 In InLn Ln N In
Ui I--�
U'i In U'i

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
c 2
d -4
a, -6
J
v -8
3 -10
-12
o' -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 6
Year 4 (2015 Data)
2.5
P
c
N N Ln N I\-� N N 1.0 F\-� N W N N N N N N W F\-� N N \ \ \ \ \ \
v 4� N \ 4 N W \ N 1.0 M \ \ M W O \ 4� N W W Ln \ \ Ln N 1.0 M N N N W I--+
Ln F� F-� F-� Ln N I--+ F� Ln Ln t� F� F� Ln F� F-� N Ln F� N I--+ Ul Ln F� F-� N N \ \
Un Ui Ln Ul Ui V7 Ln Ui Ln In Ui U7 Vn Un Un Un Un U7 U7 Un Ln Vn LnLnLnLn U'i
1.0
0.5
Me

Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 7
Year 4 (2015 Data)
12 2.5
10
8
6 November9
4 End Growing Season
2 End 2.0
_ 0 -
` -2 March 20 =
4 11 v
Growing Season
_8 Start o
1.5
3 10 -12
¢£
3
14 115 Das Malfunction
O
-16 z
-18
-20 1.0
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30 0. S
-32
-34
-36
-38 -
-40 �. m .,.. A� i 0.0
W W W � 4�:- � A vn Ln Ln Ln M M M M M V v v V W W W W LO LO LO W LO F, r r r r F"
l-" N W V F, N N In F, F, N N l\O N N W V F, N N A F, F, N N N \ \ \ \ \ \
V 4� ? N W \ N l0 Ql W In Ln N LO M F" N N W N
O V \ O
F. In In In F" In In In U'i
Ul Ul Ln Ln Ln Ul Ln Ul Ln Ln U7 Ul l.n Ul Un Ul Un Ul In In Ul Ul F, Ul F,
Ul In N Ul

Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 8
Year 4 (2015 Data)
12
10
8
6
4
2
March 20
Growing Season
Start
November9
Growing Season
End
_0
C 2
Malfunction
Batter
Failure
-4
a,
J -6
p
O1 -8
3 10
12
=
57
Days
81
Days
o' -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
I
OL1
41
1_
-40
W
N
In
W
N
Un
W
W
In
A 4�
-I N
A
In
Ul
�
N
N
Ln
A
N
CO
Ul
In
U7
\
In
In
N
N
Ln
U7
N
lO
Ix
In
N
Ol
Ul
M
N
\
In
M
l\O
\
In
M
F -a
Q7
U,
M
N
W
U7
M
W
O
Ul
v
\
Ln
v
N
A
In
v
N
N
Ln
J
N
00
Un
00
-P,
\
Ul
00
F -a
F -a
Un
00
N
00
In
00
N
In
Un
lO
F -a
\
In
lD
00
\
Ln
l0
N
In
Un
lO
N
N
Un
1,0
N \
lD M
Ln Un
\
N
LnLnLnU7
\
N
\
N
\ \
W
U'I
2.5
2.0
c
1.0
0.5
M

Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 9
Year 4 (2015 Data)
12 I 2.5
10 March 20
8 Growing Season November9
6 Start Growing Season
4 End
22.0
_ 0
2
d -4 I I c
> N
CU
6 c
J
3
f6 -10 1.5
3 a
_ 12 1 49 s Da f6
o' -14 y 34 Days 47 Days 46 Day; =
-16 I I oc
-18
-20 1.0
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30 I I 0.5
-32
-34
-36
-38
I p I�
-40 — „... m 0.0
w w w -P, Ln In Ln to M M M M M v -,J -,J lD lO N r Fr F F.- N
N W �I F -A N N Un F-- N N N lD N N W v N N N A FF" F\+ N F- W F -A N N \ \ \ \ \ --
NJ
N lD M \ \ Ol W O p. F+ W \ F+ W Ln \ \ In N lO M I- N N W F"
F --FF. Ln N 1\-� F- Ln F\-� F\-� I\-� Ln In I\-� I\-� F\-� Ln F\-� N F --In N F-- F-- Ln U1 F\-� F\-- \
Ul Un Ln Un U'I Ul Ln Ui Ln In In U7 Ln Un Un Un Ui Ln In In Ln Ln Ln
In In Ul Ul

12
10
8
6
4
2
_ 0
_ -2
a, -4
a, -6
J
Herman Dairy Groundwater Gauge 10
Year 4 (2015 Data)
2.5
W
c
GJ -8
3 -10
-12
c
167
Days
45
Days
-14
-16
-18
-20
-
-22
-24
-26
28
-30
-32
-34
jj-
-36
th
-38
41
b
L
-40
w
W
W
A A
A
A
In
Ln
Ln
Ln
M
01
0)
0)
01
V
V
V
V
00
00
00
00
1.0
lD
LD
lD
1.0
\
F�
\
N
\
W
\ \
\
N
\
N
\
In
\
\
\
N
\
N
\
1.0
\
\
N
\
W
\
\
\
N
\
N
\
\
\
\
\
\
00
\
F-+
\
N
\
N
O
\
O
--
O
O
N N
\
\
\
.
p.
N \
\
00
\
\
Ln
N
\
1.0
\
Ol
\
\
N
\
N
Ol
\
W
\
\
N
p.
\
F-'
\
00
\
\
N
N
\
00
\
In
\
\
N
\
N
(n
\
N
\
lD
\
Ol
\
w
N
O
N
V
W
\ O
U'1
N
U'1
N
111
lfl
Fn
lfl
In
N
N
In
lfl
N
N
\
\
\
\
In
Ln
Ln
In
In
Ln
Ln
In
In
Ln
In
In
Ln
In
Ln
In
In
Ln
In
Ln
In
Ln
In
In
Ln
In
Ln
Ln
In
In
Ln
Ln
In
Ln
In
In
In
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
1.0
0.5

Herman Dairy Reference Groundwater Gauge
Year 4 (2015 Data)
12
—
10
March
20
8
Growing
Season
November
9
6
Start
End
Growing
Season
4
End
2
0
_
C
AM
-2
Z 4
CU 6
v
-8
3 -10
-12
235
Days
Oz -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-
-38
-
-
-40
—
W
W
W
4�
4�
4�
�
In
In
Ln
Ln
M
M
Ol
M
Ol
J
J
J
J
00
00
00
00
lO
lO
lO
LD
lD
N
W
V
N
N
N
�
h -a
F\-+
N
N
LOO
N
N
W
V
F\-�
N
N
�
F -a
F\-�
N
F'
W
F\-�
N
N
\
\
\
\
\
\
V
?
F+
\
?
F'
W
\
N
LO
M
\
\
M
W
O
\
A
N
W
\
I-�
W
In
\
\
Ln
N
LO
M
N
N
N
J
W
\
F�
O
N
Ln
U'I
N
lJ1
N
lJl
lJ1
lJ1
l!1
N
lJl
lJl
N
\
\
\
N
\
Ln
U'1
U'1
U'1
Ln
U'1
V1
Ln
U'1
V1
Ln
U'1
Ln
V1
Ln
U'1
Ln
U'1
Ln
V1
Ln
U'1
Ln
V1
Ln
U'1
V1
V1
Ln
V1
Ln
Ln
U'1
U'1
Ln
U'1
Ln
l!1
N
ll1
N
In
Ln
In
I
n Ln
In
2.5
C
1.0
0.5
is

121
14
Figure El. Annual Climatic Data Ws. 30 -year Historic Data
Month 30th %*
70th 96
2012"
2013"
2014
2015^
Jan 2.77 5.09 5.99 2:67"
2.72"
Feb 2.48 4.65 3.25 2.37"
1.64"
Mar 3.43
5.85
3.6
4.41'"
2.59"
Apr 2.02 4.52 5.21 4,05"
4.93"
May 3.118
5.31
1.22
5.29
3.36"
-1
,tune 2.89 5.74 1.03 9.74 3.71'"
4.0"
July 2.41
5.07
4,38
15.77
2.17-
0.92"
Aug 2.43 4.64 4.68 4.45 6.95""
3.36"
Sept 1.95
5.17
4.33
2.06
3.55""
Oct 1.69
4.4
2.05
2.09
3.09"
4.94"
Nau 2.49
4.34
0.491
1 3.94 1
3.54"
7.90"
Dec 2. 25 1 4.34 1 5,01" 1 5,75 1 2A&
`Hickory Regional Airport. NC 30 -year historic
data (NOAA 2004)
*'Onsite rain gauge
"HickM Airport Station KHKY (Weatherunderground 2015)
6
4 � � -
E
2
k.
I
} W 7. as 0
Q
,-42012** 1--12O13A X 2014 MEN2015A 10th %* *'70th %*
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

Appendix F.
Benthic Data
2015 Benthic Data Lab Results
2015 Habitat Assessment Field Datasheets
2015 Annual Monitoring Report (Year 4 of 7) Appendices
Herman Dairy Stream and Wetland Restoration Site

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, HERMAN DAIRY, ALEXANDER CO., NC, 6/23/2015.
SPECIES
T.V.
F.F.G.
PA47258
PA47259
UT -1
UT -2
MOLLUSCA
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Ancylidae
SC
Ferrissia SP.
6.6
SC
1
Physidae
Physella sp.
8.7
CG
3
ANNELIDA
Clitellata
Oligochaeta
CG
Tubificida
Naididae
Tubificinae w.o.h.c.
CG
1
ARTHROPODA
Insecta
Collembola
Isotomidae
CG
2
3
Hemiptera
Belostomatidae
Belostoma sp.
9.5
P
1
Megaloptera
Corydalidae
P
Chauliodes pectinicornis
7
Sialidae
P
Sialis sp.
7
P
1
3
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae
P
llybius biguttulus
1
Prodaticus biomarginatus
9.8
P
1
Hydrophilidae
P
Enochrus ochraceus
8.5
CG
8
Cymbiodyta sp.
CG
2
1
Helochares maculicollis
P
1
Scirtidae
SC
Scirtes sp.
1
32
Diptera
Chironomidae
Ablabesmyia mallochi
7.4
P
1
Alotanypus sp.
4
FC
4
Conchapelopia sp.
8.4
P
2
Heterotrissocladius sp.
CG
1
Micropsectra sp.
2.4
CG
2
Natarsia sp.
9.61
P 1
1 1
1
Prodiamesa olivacea
1 8.81
1
1
PAI, Inc. Page 1 of 2 Herman Dairy_Benthics_2015

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, HERMAN DAIRY, ALEXANDER CO., NC, 6/23/2015.
SPECIES
T.V.
F.F.G.
PA47258
PA47259
UT -1
UT -2
Stictochironomus devinctus
5.4
CG
10
1
Zavrelimyia sp.
8.6
P
1
Culicidae
FC
Culex sp.
FC
2
Ptychopteridae
Bittacomorpha sp.
3
14
Ptychoptera sp.
5
Simuliidae
FC
Simulium vittatum
9.1
1
Stratiomyidae
CG
Allognosta sp.
7
1
Tabanidae
PI
Chrysops sp.
6.7
PI
1
Tipulidae
SH
Tipula sp.
7.5
SH
1
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS
41
88
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA
18
19
EPT TAXA
0
0
BIOTIC INDEX Assigned Values
6.10
5.21
PAI, Inc. Page 2 of 2 Herman Dairy_Benthics_2015

3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet+ `
Mountain/ piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWiQ frOTAL SCORE n
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
Stream m /1" Location/road: t,', ` 't (Road Name County c�
Date 1 l lam' CCK)3O' `O � Z -Basica_
Observer(s) z ,-; r. l� ' yType of Study. ❑ Fish l'-Benthos
Latitude s5. 11410 Longitude ` 51 .7-00
Water Quality: Temperature °C DO
C CX -1 � J0 ,, Subbasin r - O - D
❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Ecoregion: © MT 1!1'P 0 Slate Belt 0 Triassic Basin
mg/1 Conductivity (torr.) µS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %oResidential � %Active Pasture � `� % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe: "
Watershed land use: ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Urban © Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg C'� `` Max
6 Width variable ❑ Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m)
Bank Angle: "' or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 0 Angles > 90" indicate slope is towards mid -channel, G 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if balk is too low for bank angle to matter.)
❑ Channelized. Ditch
❑Deeply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
0 Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures OExposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON 6Y: ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions gSediment/grade-control structure OBerm/levee
Flow conditions. ❑High [Normal ❑Low
Turbidity: ❑Clear 13 Slightly Turbid Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration project?? 0 YES ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
exposed ..
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate ex
p 'Cl
B. Water fills X75% of available chanAl, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ❑
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ❑
D. Root gnats out of water...................................................................................
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ❑
Weather Conditions:
Remarks:.
Photos: [IN UY ❑ Digital ❑35mm F F -1
39

I. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends........................................................................................................ 51
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some channelization present.............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted............................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
❑ Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal
II. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. 1f >70% of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of IT Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare, Common, or Abundant.
Rocks Macrophytes - Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score _ Score 5c re
4 or 5 types present ................. 20 16 12 ' 8
3 types present ......................... 19 15 11
2 types present ......................... 18 14 10 6
t type present ........................... 17 13 9 5
No types present ....................... 0
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks, Subtotal!
1I1. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) ........................
15
2. embeddedness 20-40%..........................................................................................................
12
3. embeddedness 40-80%..........................................................................................................
8
4, embcddedness>80%.............................................................................................................
3
B. substrate gravel and Cobble
1. embeddedness<20%............................................................................................................
14
2. embeddedness 20-40%.........................................................................................................
I I
3. embeddedness 40-80%_
4. embeddedness>80%............................................................................................................
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness<50%............................................................................................................
8
2. embeddedness>50%............................................................................................................
4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock...................................................................................................
3
2. substrate nearly all sand........................................................................................................
3
3. substrate nearly all detritus....................................................................................................
2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay.................................................................................................
1
Remarks
Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of"pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... f10,
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)............................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety ofpool sizes... ....... .................................................................................................... 6
b. pools about the same size...................................................................................................... 4
B. Pools absent..................................................................................................................... 0 ,
... ....................Subtotal
CI Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard Bottom sandy -sink as you walk ❑ Silt bottom C3 Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total`
40

V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration -can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Sore Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... 16 12.
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width ........................ I ....... .... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10 3
D. riffles absent .................................. ......... ......... ................................I.......I......1 0
r�
Channel Slope: Typical for area ❑Steep fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion5 �7
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3 3
4, mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........................................... 0 0
Total '
Remarks
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Remarks
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration .............................................
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... 7
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No canopy and no shading............................................................................................................. 0
Subtotal
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: ❑ Trees ❑ Shrubs ❑ Grasses ❑ Weeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone Intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters.....................................................................................
2. width 12-18 meters...................................................................................
3. width 6-12 meters.....................................................................................
4. width < 6 meters......................................................................................
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters.......................................................................
c, width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
2. breaks common
a. width' 18 meters.........................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters......................................................................
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
Remarks
❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn"t match subjective opinion -atypical stream.
41
5f
4
3
2
4
3
2
1
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
Total f 0
Page Total
TOTAL SCORE -7`

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:
I
900
45°
Site Sketch:
Other comments:
42
135°
"Phis side is 45° bank angle.

3106 Revision b
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet or-.
Mountain/ Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SCORE J a
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
1), r.< e47oa 1 1'
Stream. V- 1,PoiM*i Fpt 1-t- Locationhoad:Cy,wC�,�L(Road Name County_ ye)(t•'^
bate qg3bCC# OW501VTM313asin _ Co4-c, +AJC 4` Subbasin 12, ' tr}�_
Observer(sType of Study: O Fish pBenthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude `�� � j Longitude Gi d0" Ecoregion: 0 MT I`%7' P ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature OC DO mgll Conductivity (corn.) ASlcm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: f %Forest %Residential %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial r'.`_ %Other - Describe: "01q,
Watershed land use: OForest ❑Agriculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream I ''"' Channel (at top of bank) ' Stream Depth: (m) Avg 0,-L Max 0.
❑ Width variable O Large river >25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m) 3.
Bank Angle: td� ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 90°, horizontal is 6°. Angles 3 90Q indicate slope is towards mid -channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
❑ Channelized Ditch
ODeeply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend OChannel filled in with sediment
0 Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge D Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON OY: ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions 0 Sediment/grade-control structure OBerinllevee
Flow conditions: ❑High )INormal ❑Low
Turbidity: ❑Clear 75, Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid OTannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? ❑ YES ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................ El
B. Water fills >75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ❑
C. Water tills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ❑
D. hoot mats out of water................................................................................................................... ❑
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ❑
Weather Conditions:
Remarks:
Photos: ❑N 6Y ,EJ Digital 035mm r
39
e..

I. Channel Modificationcore
A. channel natural, frequent bends........................................................................................................ 't5-
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some channelization present.............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, 340%a of stream disrupted............................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
❑ Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks Subtotal
H. Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If 3709/o of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare, Common. or Abundant.
i� Rocks Macrophytes LSticks and lea(packs Snags and logs r undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
370%
40-70%
20-40%
<20%
15
Score
Sc re
Score
Scare
4 or 5 types present .................
20
_
12
8
3 types present .........................
19
15
11
7
2 types present .........................
18
14
10
6
1 type present ...........................
17
13
9
5
No types present .......................
0
2. substrate nearly all sand........................................................................................................
3
3. substrate nearly all detritus....................................................................................................
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay...................................................................................................
I
Remarks
Subtotal_
III. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud line" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
15
2. embeddedness 20-40%a..........................................................................................................
12
3. embeddedness 40-80%..........................................................................................................
8
4. embeddedness 380%.............................................................................................................
3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness<201/o ............................................................................................................
14
2. embeddedness 20-40% ............... ........................................ ..................................................
1
3. embeddedness 40-80%........................................................................................................
6
4. embeddedness 380%............................................................................................................
2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness<50%............................................................................................................
8
2. embeddedness X50%v............................................................................................................
4
D. substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock...................................................................................................
3
2. substrate nearly all sand........................................................................................................
3
3. substrate nearly all detritus....................................................................................................
2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay...................................................................................................
I
Remarks
Subtotal_r
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of"pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 10",
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)............................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools about the same size...................................................................................................... 4
B. Pools absent............................................................................................................................................ 0
Subtotal
❑ Pool bottom bouldcr-cobble=hard! Bottom sandy -sink as you walk ❑ Silt bottom ❑ Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total
40

V. Riffle Habitats
Definition; Riffle is area of reaeration -can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
amore Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... lilt 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 14 3
D. riffles absent.........................................................................................._........................ 0
Channel Slope; ❑Typical for area []Steep—fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal 3
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Leif Bank Rt. Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable f .
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion..
B. Erosion areas present Y
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5 5
3. sparse minted vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
S. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and bank failure evident ........................................... 0 0
Total
Remarks
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Remarks
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. to
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent ..................................................... 8
C. Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal...........
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas.. .................. .................................. 2
E. No canopy and no shading............................................................................................................. 0
Subtotal �
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, Atter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Bank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: [] Trees Q Shrubs ❑ Grasses 0 Weeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters.....................................................................................
5 .,
5 ;
2. width 12-18 meters............................................................................ ......
4
4
3. width 6-12 meters.....................................................................................
3
3
4. width e 6 meters......................................................................................
2
2
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
4
4
b. width 12-18 meters.......................................................................
3
3
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
2
2
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
1
l
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters.........................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters......................................................................
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
d. width e 6 meters..........................................................................
Remarks
❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't thatch subjective opinion -atypical stream.
41
3
2
1
0
Total {
Page Total
TOTAL SCORE k

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:
i 4-#
900 450
Site Sketch:
Other comments:
Typical Stream Qrass-section
l Extreme High Water
Normal High Water
Normal Fl w
..jF
42
Upper Bonk
This side is 45° bank angle.

3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain! Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit, DWQ OTAL SC RE 1T
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream, preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream. To complete the form, select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
I(- r
Stream P.1T - fA v `�' °1� Location/road: nc c� L+".,,,c" " ARoad Name )County
Date ``' , _CC# �' � aha + Basin�a �..�b Subbasin Q.? .gyp
Observer(s) rr `"' Type of Study: ❑ Fish E enthos ❑ Basinwide ❑Special Study (Describe)
Latitude s . fl �; P b Longitude
_ "' a
Ecoregion:
❑ MT ITP ❑ Slate Belt ❑ Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature
°C
DO
mg/l
Conductivity (corr.) µS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location - include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: %Forest %Residential '+1 %Active Pasture % Active Crops
%Fallow Fields % Commercial %Industrial %Other - Describe:_F_T­
Watershed land use: FIForest OAgriculture ❑Urban ❑ Animal operations upstream
Width: (meters) Stream d r='' Channel (at top of bank) Stream Depth: (m) Avg__()_i_Max
❑ Width variable ❑ Large river a25m wide
Bank Height (from deepest part of riffle to top of bank -first flat surface you stand on): (m) `
Bank Angle: ° or ❑ NA (Vertical is 9W, horizontal is 0°. Angles > 90° indicate slope is towards mid -channel, < 90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised -steep, straight banks ❑Bath banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑ Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth ❑ Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge ❑ Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON 15Y: ❑Rip -rap, cement, gabions l' Sediment/grade-control structure ❑Berm/levee
Flow conditions: ❑High ❑Normal OLow
Turbidity: ❑Clear ❑ Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored (from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands restoration Project?? C3"YES ONO Details
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A. Water reaches 'base of both lower banks, minimal channel substrate exposed ............................ El
B. Water fills X75% of available channel, or <25% of channel substrate is exposed ........................ ❑
C. Water fills 25-75% of available channel, many logs/snags exposed ............................................. ❑
D. Root mats out of water................................................................................................................... n
E. Very little water in channel, mostly present as standing pools ..................................................... ❑
Weather Conditions:1 J
Remarks; r),
Photos: ❑N ❑Y ❑ Digital 1135mm P- 5 4 `0
39

I. Channel Modification Score
A. channel natural, frequent bends...................................................................................................... (,+
B. channel natural, infrequent bends (channelization could be old) ...................................................... 4
C. some channelization present.............................................................................................................. 3
D. more extensive channelization, >40% of stream disrupted............................................................... 2
E. no bends, completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned, etc ..................................................... 0
L Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shapelheight
Remarks Subtotal
II, Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If X700/0 of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present, circle the score of 17. Definition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay (not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare. Common, or Abundant.
1i Rocks (—Macrophytes V= -Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs I'--- Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
Score
>70%
40-70%
20-40%
<20%
3, embeddedness 40-80%..........................................................................................................
Score
Score
Score
Score
4 or 5 types present .................
20
1 {
12
8
3 types present .........................
19
4. embeddedness>80%...........................................................................................................
11
7
2 types present .........................
18
14
10
6
1 type present ...........................
17
13
9
5
No types present...... .................
0
2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay...................................................................................................
I
❑ No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks
Subtotal
Subtotal 1 �j
IIl. Bottom Substrate (silt, sand, detritus, gravel, cobble, boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring, but only look at riffle
for embeddedness, and use rocks from all parts of riffle -look for "mud Eine" or difficulty extracting rocks.
A. substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders
Score
1. embeddedness <20% (very little sand, usually only behind large boulders) .........................
15
2. embeddedness 20-4O%..........................................................................................................
12
3, embeddedness 40-80%..........................................................................................................
8
4. embeddedness >80%.............................................................................................................
3
B. substrate gravel and cobble
1. embeddedness X20%............................................................................................................
14.
2. embeddedness 20-40% ...................
3. embeddedness 40-80%........................................................................................................
b
4. embeddedness>80%...........................................................................................................
2
C. substrate mostly gravel
1. embeddedness<50%......................................••...................................................................
8
2. embeddedness>50%............................................................................................................
4
D. substrate homogeneous
1, substrate nearly all bedrock...................................................................................................
3
2. substrate nearly all sand........................................................................................................
3
3. substrate nearly all detritus....................................................................................................
2
4. substrate nearly all silt/ clay...................................................................................................
I
Remarks
Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of "pocket water", small pools behind boulders or obstructions, in
large high gradient streams, or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1. Pools Frequent (>30% of 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 0
b. pools about the same size (indicates pools filling in)............................................................ 8
2. Pools Infrequent (<30% of the 200m area surveyed)
a. variety of pool sizes............................................................................................................... 6
b. pools about the same size...................................................................................................... 4
B. Pools absent............................................................................................................................................ 0
Subtotal
❑ Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard Bottom sandy -sink as you walk ❑ Silt bottom ❑ Some pools over wader depth
Remarks
Page Total_
40

1p r
V. Riffle Habitats
Definition: Riffle is area of reaeration -can be debris dam, or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score Score
A. well defined riffle and run, riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream.... �A
7 12
B. riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width .................................... 14 7
C. riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width ............................. 10 3
D. riffles absent................................................................................................................... 0
Channel Slope: ❑Typical for area ❑Steep=fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal 4 -
VI. Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt, Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
1. little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends), little potential for erosion. (7
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees, shrubs, grass; plants healthy with good root systems ..................................... 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy ........................... 5 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding ................. 3 3
4. mostly grasses, few if any trees and shrubs, high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
5. little or no bank vegetation, mass erosion and batik failure evident ........................................... 0 0
Total } �'
Remarks
VII. Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains, but not use to score this metric.
Remarks
Score
A. Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration ............................................. 10
B. Stream with full canopy - breaks for light penetration absent .....................................................
C. 'Stream with partial canopy - sunlight and shading are essentially equal .................................... , 71
D. Stream with minimal canopy - full sun in all but a few areas ....................................................... 2
E. No canopy and no shading............................................................................................................ 0
Subtotal
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition: Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream (can go beyond floodplain). Definition: A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream, such as paths
down to stream, storm drains, uprooted trees, otter slides, etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft. Sank Rt. Bank
Dominant vegetation: ❑ Trees ❑ Shrubs ❑ Grasses ❑ Weeds/old field ❑Exotics (kudzu, etc) Score Score
A. Riparian zone intact (no breaks)
1. width > 18 meters.....................................................................................
2. width 12-18 meters...................................................................................
3. width 6-12 meters.....................................................................................
4. width < 6 meters......................................................................................
B. Riparian zone not intact (breaks)
1. breaks rare
a. width > 18 meters........................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters......................................................................
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
d. width < 6 meters.........................................................................
2. breaks common
a. width > 18 meters........................................................................
b. width 12-18 meters......................................................................
c. width 6-12 meters.......................................................................
d. width e 6 meters..........................................................................
Remarks
❑ Disclaimer -form filled out, but score doesn't match subjective opinion -atypical stream.
41
S� 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
4
3
2
1
3
2
1
0
Total rv'
Page Total `'
TOTAL SCORE'?7-

Supplement for Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Diagram to determine bank angle:
LA.Aj1 � r
45°
Site Sketch:
Other comments:
42
135°
This side is 45° bank angle.