20140041 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2016_20170207

MONITORING YEAR 1
Final
LITTLE PINE III STREAM AND WETLAND
RESTORATION PROJECT
Alleghany County, NC
DEQ Contract 6844
DMS Project Number 94903
DWR # 14-0041
USACE Action ID 2012-01299
Data Collection Period: September -October 2016
Draft Submission Date: December 31, 2016
Final Submission Date: February 3, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environment Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
W
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) completed design and construction management for the North
Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) as part of a design -bid -build contract at the Little Pine III
Stream and Wetland Restoration Project (Site). The Site is in Alleghany County approximately eight miles
east of the Town of Sparta, NC and approximately four miles south of the Virginia border. The Site lies
within the New River Basin; eight -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 05050001 and the 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit
Code (HUC) 05050001030030 (Figure 1). Site streams consist of Little Pine Creek, a third order stream,
as well as an unnamed second order tributary to Little Pine Creek (UT2), an unnamed first order
tributary to Little Pine Creek (UT2a), four unnamed zero order tributaries to Little Pine Creek (UT1,
UT2b, UT3, and UT4), and 2.9 acres of wetlands (Figure 2). The project design and construction restored,
enhanced, and preserved a total of 13,112 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream, and
enhanced and preserved 2.9 acres of wetlands. The Site is expected to generate 6,973 stream mitigation
units (SMUs), and 1.40 wetland mitigation units (WMUs) for the New River Basin (Table 1).
The Site is within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) identified in the New River Basin Restoration
Priority (RBRP) plan (NCDENR, 2009). The Site is also located within the Little River & Brush Creek Local
Watershed Plan (LWP). The project goals from the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2014) were established
with careful consideration of RBRP goals and objectives to address stressors identified in the LWP. The
established project goals include:
• Restore unforested buffers;
• Remove livestock from buffers;
• Remove livestock from streams;
• Repair heavily eroded stream banks and improve stream bank stability;
• Reforest steep landscape around streams; and
• Enhance wetland vegetation.
Site construction and as -built survey were completed in 2016 with planting and baseline monitoring
activities occurring between December 2015 and May 2016. The monitoring year (MY) 1 monitoring
activities were completed in October 2016.
Overall, the Site is on track to meet the MY5 monitoring success criteria for vegetation, geomorphology,
and hydrology performance standards. The vegetation survey resulted in an average of 522 stems per
acre, which meets the interim MY3 monitoring requirement of 320 stems per acre with 20 of the 21
plots (95%) individually meeting this requirement. The vegetation monitoring and visual assessment
revealed few vegetation areas of concern. The observed vegetation areas of concern include an area of
bare/poor herbaceous cover on the left floodplain of Little Pine Creek Reach 2a and invasive plant
populations in the upstream portion of UT2a. Morphological surveys indicate that the channel
dimensions are stable and functioning as designed, except for a few problem areas on UT2 and Little
Pine Creek Reach 2b. The problem areas on UT2 were repaired in December 2016 after MY1 activities
were conducted. At least one bankfull event occurred on all reaches during the MY1 data collection,
which was recorded by crest gages and by visual indicators. This partially meets the stream hydrology
performance standard of two recorded bankfull events occurring in separate monitoring years. No
target performance standard was established for wetland hydrology success; however, the groundwater
gage in Wetland FF recorded 122 consecutive days of the groundwater levels at or within 12 inches of
the ground surface, consisting of 66.6% of the growing season.
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Of Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL

LITTLE PINE III STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
Monitoring Year 1 Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECTOVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
Figure 2
1.1 Project
Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
Project Activity and Reporting History
1.2.1
Vegetation Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
Table 4
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-3
Monitoring Component Summary
1.2.3
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-3
Figure 3.0 — 3.2
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-3
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-4
1.2.6
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-4
Vegetation Photographs
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary......................................................................................................1-4
Vegetation Plot Data
Section 2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Table 9
Section 3:
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................
3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Table 5
Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0 — 3.2
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Maps
Table 6a — 6g
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10
Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Section)
Table 13
Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5
Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 14
Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15
Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plot
Monthly Rainfall Data
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Of Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site is a design -bid -build contract with DMS in Alleghany County, NC, located in the New River Basin;
eight -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 05050001 and the 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 05050001030030
(Figure 1). Located in the Blue Ridge Belt of the Blue Ridge Province (USGS, 1998), the project watershed
includes primarily managed herbaceous, mixed upland hardwoods, and other forested land. The
drainage area for the Site is 2,784 acres. Little Pine Creek flows into Brush Creek several hundred feet
downstream of the Site boundary. The land adjacent to the streams and wetlands is primarily
maintained cattle pasture and forest.
The project streams consist of Little Pine Creek, a third order stream, as well as an unnamed second
order tributary to Little Pine Creek (UT2), an unnamed first order tributary to Little Pine Creek (UT2a)
and four unnamed zero order tributaries to Little Pine Creek (UT1, UT2b, UT3, and UT4) (Figure 2).
Mitigation work within the site included restoring and enhancing 9,888 linear feet (LF) and preserving
3,224 LF of perennial stream, enhancing 2.71 acres of wetlands and preserving a 0.19 acres existing
wetland. The Site is expected to provide 6,973 SMUs, and 1.40 WMUs.
The Site is located on portions of parcels owned by Jeffery C. Anders, Eddie and Joye G. Edwards,
Frances R. Huber, and Thomas E. Rector. A conservation easement within these tracts protecting 57.3
acres in perpetuity was purchased by the State of North Carolina and recorded with Alleghany County
Register of Deeds in 2012. The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by DMS in March 2014.
Construction activities were completed in September 2015 by North State Environmental, Inc. Planting
was completed in December 2015 by Bruton Environmental, Inc. Kee Surveying, Inc. completed the as -
built survey in April 2016 and Wildlands completed the baseline monitoring activities in May 2016, and
MY1 activities in October 2016. Repairs were completed in March and December 2016. Appendix 1
includes detailed project activity, history, contact information, and background information. Directions
and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1. Site components are discussed in Table 1 and illustrated
in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, livestock had full access to most of the Site streams and used them as a
water source. The riparian buffers in areas proposed for restoration were primarily herbaceous with a
few sparse trees. Deposition of fine sediment, severe bank erosion, and trampling of banks impacted the
in -stream habitat. Channel widening and incision indicated instability. Table 4 in Appendix 1 and Table
11 in Appendix 4 provide pre -restoration condition details.
The Site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the New River Basin. While many of
these benefits are limited to the Site area, others, such as pollutant removal, reduced sediment loading,
and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have farther -reaching effects. Expected improvements to
water quality and ecological processes are outlined below as secondary goals and objectives. These
project goals were established with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in
the RBRP and to address stressors identified in the LWP.
The project specific goals of the Site address stressors identified in the LWP and include the following:
• Restore unforested buffers;
• Remove livestock from buffers;
• Remove livestock from streams;
• Repair heavily eroded stream banks and improve stream bank stability;
• Reforest steep landscape around streams; and
• Enhance wetland vegetation.
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Of Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-1

Secondary goals include the following:
• Remove harmful nutrients from creek flow;
• Reduce pollution of creek by excess sediment;
• Improve in -stream habitat; and
• Improve aesthetics.
The project objectives have been defined as follows:
• Restore 26.3 acres of forested riparian buffer;
• Fence off livestock from 57.32 acres of buffer and 14,736 LF of existing streams;
• Stream bank erosion which contributes sediment load to the creek will be greatly reduced, if not
eliminated, in the project area. Eroding stream banks will be stabilized by increased woody root
mass in banks, reducing channel incision, and by using natural channel design techniques,
grading, and planting to reduce bank angles and bank height;
• Steep, unforested landscape within the conservation easement will be reforested;
• Eight of the nine onsite wetlands will be enhanced with supplemental plantings;
• Flood flows will be filtered through restored floodplain areas, where flood flow will spread
through native vegetation. Vegetation takes up excess nutrients;
• Storm flow containing grit and fine sediment will be filtered through restored floodplain areas,
where flow will spread through native vegetation. The spreading of flood flows will reduce
velocity allowing sediment to settle out;
• In -stream structures will promote aeration of water;
• In -stream structures will be constructed to improve habitat diversity and trap detritus. Wood
structures will be incorporated into the stream as part of the restoration design. Such structures
may include log drops and rock structures that incorporate woody debris; and
• Site aesthetics will be enhanced by planting native plant species, treating invasive species, and
stabilizing eroding and unstable areas throughout the project.
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted during MY1 to assess the condition of the project. The stream
restoration success criteria for the Site follows the approved performance standards presented in the
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project Final Mitigation Plan (2014).
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). A total of 21
vegetation monitoring plots were established during baseline monitoring within the project easement
areas using a standard 10 by 10 meter plot. Please refer to Figures 3.0-3.2 in Appendix 2 for the
vegetation monitoring locations. The final vegetation success criterion is the survival of 260 planted
stems per acre in the riparian corridor along restored and enhanced reaches at the end of year five of
the monitoring period. The interim measure of vegetation success for the Site is the survival of at least
320 planted stems per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period.
The MY1 vegetation survey was completed in October 2016, resulting in an average stem density of 522
stems per acre. The Site has met the MY3 interim requirement of 320 stems per acre, with 20 of the 21
plots (95%) individually meeting this requirement. The planted stem mortality was approximately 5% of
the baseline stem count (549 stems per acre). There is an average of 13 stems per plot as compared to
14 stems per plot in MYO. Approximately 16% of the remaining planted stems scored a vigor of 2 or less,
indicating that they are unlikely to survive. This low vigor rating is due to damage from deer, insects,
drought, or other unknown factors. The Site is scheduled to have supplemental planting installed prior
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Of Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-2

to MY2 during the dormant season, in order to address areas of low stem density. Please refer to
Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
The MY1 vegetation monitoring and visual assessment revealed few vegetation areas of concern. Small
patches of bare or poor herbaceous cover in the riparian area of Little Pine Reach 2a were observed.
Invasive areas of concern were observed along UT2a, where populations of European barberry (Berberis
vulgaris) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) are becoming prevalent. These vegetation areas of
concern are shown in Figure 3 in Appendix 2.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in September and October 2016. Results indicate that
the channel dimensions are stable and functioning as designed, with the exception of a few problem
areas discussed below.
In general, the cross sections on Little Pine Creek, UT2, and UT2b show little to no change in the bankfull
area, maximum depth ratio, or width -to -depth ratio compared to baseline. Surveyed riffle cross sections
fell within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type (Rosgen, 1996).
However, cross section 10 on UT2b and cross sections 15 and 16 on UT2 vary significantly from baseline
conditions. Pool cross section 10 has deepened resulting in a max depth and cross sectional area roughly
double that recorded at baseline. This is not considered detrimental to either the stability of the channel
or project goals. Pool cross section 15 has filled in partially with sediment resulting in a decreased depth
and cross sectional area. The sediment deposition within the pool is minor and is likely a temporary
development, however this area will be watched in future years. Riffle cross section 16 dimensions are
similar to baseline, however the channel thalweg has shifted laterally due to channel erosion in the
vicinity, which is discussed in further detail in Section 1.2.4.
The surveyed longitudinal profile data for the project streams illustrates that bedform features are
maintaining lateral and vertical stability, except for isolated areas of UT2 discussed below. The
longitudinal profiles on Little Pine and UT2, and UT2b showed little change from MYO in slope (riffle,
water surface, bankfull) with minor differences in pool -to -pool spacing and pool length. The overall
pattern of all project streams remained the same compared to the baseline data. Several instances of
structure piping, sediment deposition, and streambed scour were noted during the MY1 survey and are
discussed in Section 1.2.4 .
In general, substrate counts in the restoration reaches indicated maintenance of coarser materials in the
riffle reaches and finer particles in the pools. The particle size distributions for MY1 resemble the as -
built data; however, the reachwide count in UT2b indicates a finer distribution of particles in MY1. This
may be reflective of the increase in the pool lengths and depths observed in cross section and long
profile data in MY1. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment table, Current Condition Plan
View (CCPV) map, and reference photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological summary data
and plots.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
Stream areas of concern included instances of structure piping, bank scour, sediment deposition, and
streambed scour. Little Pine Reach 2b had one instance of structure piping, located at STA 124+50. UT2
Reach 1 Upper had 3 instances of structures piping (STA 303+16, 309+14, and 309+96) resulting in the
degradation of one riffle at STA 303+20. UT2 Reach 1 Lower had an area of sediment deposition from
STA 325+80-326+50 which buried 4 structures and 3 riffles, and an area of bank erosion from STA
333+75-334+00. The bank erosion from 333+75 to 334+00 was repaired in December 2016. UT2 Reach 2
had one instance of streambed erosion from STA 338+50-339+30 resulting in riffle degradation, shifting
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Of Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-3

of thalweg position, floodplain scour, and sediment deposition. This area was also repaired in December
2016. These stream areas of concern are indicated in Table 6 and on Figure 3 in Appendix 2.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
At least one bankfull event occurred on all reaches during the MY1 data collection, which was recorded
by crest gages and by visual indicators. Two bankfull flow events occurring in separate years must be
documented on the restoration reaches within the five year monitoring period. Therefore, the
performance standard has been partially met in MY1. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data and
graphs.
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
One groundwater monitoring gage (GWG 1) was established during the baseline monitoring within the
Wetland FF area using logging hydrology pressure transducers. The gage was installed at an appropriate
location so that the data collected will provide an indication of groundwater levels throughout the
wetland restoration area. No target performance standard for wetland hydrology success was
established within the Mitigation Plan (2014). Wetland hydrology attainment typically consists of
recorded groundwater levels within 12 inches of the ground surface for a consecutive period consisting
of a pre -defined percentage of the growing season. Under typical precipitation conditions, Alleghany
County's growing season extends 168 days from April 26th to October 11th. No onsite rainfall data is
available; however, daily precipitation data was collected from closest NC CRONOS Station, Glade Valley
3.0 ENE. GWG 1 recorded 122 consecutive days of the groundwater levels at or within 12 inches of the
ground surface, consisting of 67% of the growing season. The climate data from nearby NC CRONOS
station suggests that the Site received less than typical amounts of rain in 2016. The monthly rainfall in
January, March and April fell below the 30th percentile for the area (USDA, 2016). Please refer to
Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage location and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology data and
plots.
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
The Site is on track to meet monitoring success criteria for vegetation, geomorphology, and hydrology
performance standards. The MY1 vegetation survey resulted in an average stem density of 522 stems
per acre. The Site has met the interim requirement of 320 stems per acre, with 20 of the 21 plots (95%)
individually meeting this requirement. The MY1 vegetation monitoring and visual assessment revealed
few vegetation areas of concern, including an area of bare/poor herbaceous cover on the left floodplain
of Little Pine Creek Reach 2a, and invasive plant populations in the upstream portion of UT2a.
Morphological surveys indicate that the channel dimensions are stable and functioning as designed, with
the exception of a few problem areas on UT2 and Little Pine Creek Reach 2b. At least one bankfull event
occurred on all reaches during the MY1 data collection, which was recorded by crest gages and by visual
indicators. This partially meets the stream hydrology performance standard of two recorded bankfull
events occurring in separate monitoring years. No target performance standard was established for
wetland hydrology success; however, GWG 1 in Wetland FF recorded 122 consecutive days of the
groundwater levels at or within 12 inches of the ground surface, consisting of 67% of the growing
season.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these annual monitoring reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan
documents available on DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices
are available from DMS upon request.
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Of Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-4

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). Longitudinal and cross sectional data were collected using
a total station and were georeferenced. All Current Condition Plan View mapping was recorded using a
Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using was Pathfinder and ArcView. Crest
gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross sections and monitored annually. Hydrology attainment
installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the standards published in the United
States Army Corps of Engineers Stream Mitigation Guidelines (2003). Vegetation monitoring protocols
followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Of Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-
2.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Surface Water Classifications. Retrieved
from http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-
standards/classifications
NCDENR. 2009. New River Basin Restoration Priorities. Retrieved from
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-
documents/new-river-basin
NCDENR. 2007. Little River & Brush Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP) Project Atlas. Retrieved from
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-
documents/new-river-basin
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1998. North Carolina Geology.
https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/north-carolina-geological-
survey/
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2014. Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project Final Mitigation
Plan. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2016. Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project As -Built Baseline
Monitoring Report. NCDEQ-DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Of Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

i.-
�� - ter'------•�„-•- `1_, -
05050001030015 t` N O R T i l (A R) 7. i N A
:y
r
►OOW
MP ,t
05050001030020 f e�
05050001030030
r
GIadel
.11
lk�wv
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING rk�
0 0.5 1 Mile
I i I i I
03040101080010
Alleghany County, NC

0 t Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
W I L D L A N D S , I ' I 700 Feet DMS Project No. 94903
ENGINEERING
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Alleghany County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Stream Riparian Wetland
R RE R RE
6.328.60 645 N/A 1.40
Non -Riparian Wetland I Buffer I Nitrogen Nutrient Offset I Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A I N/A
'Restoration footage based off of the surveyed as -built thalweg alignment is greater than design centerline alignment, resulting in credited length greater than that reported in the Mitigation Plan.
'Unique ratio for UT2 was discussed infield with IRT members and recorded 8/15/2012 in meeting notes.
'Length not included in component summation since no credit is sought
Existing
Restoration (R) or Restoration
As -Built Stationing/
As -Built
Restoration
Credits'
7RP.,ach ID
Footage/
Approach
Footage/
Footage/
Mitigation Ratio
t
Notes
Acreage
Equivalent (RE)
Location
Acreage
Acrea e'
(SMU/WMU)
STREAMS
e Reac;�_
Pl/P2
Restoration (R)
100+00 to 114+44
1,444
1,417
1:1
1,417.00
Excludes one 27 foot wide ford crossing.
Little Pine Reach 2a
Pi
Restoration (R)
114+44 to 125+27
1,083
1,058
1:1
1,058.00
Excludes one 25 foot wide ford crossing.
4,016
P1/P2
Restoration (R)
125+27 to 130+20
493
493
1:1
493.00
Little Pine Reach 2b
Excludes one 31 foot wide ford crossing, Includes
Planting, fencing
Enhancement II (R)
130+20 to 135+60
540
509
2.5:1
197.00
50% reduction for 33 ft overhead electric easement
crossing.
Planting, fencing
Enhancement II (R)
197+26 to 202+24
498
463
2.5:1
185.20
Excludes one 35 foot wide culvert crossing.
UTI
540
Planting, fencing, channel creation
Enhancement II (R)
202+24 to 206+26
402
402
2.5:1
160.80
UT2 Reach 1
Excludes four constructed culvert crossings; 32, 24,
5,270
P1/P2/P4, preservation
Enhancement I (R)
297+18-343+18
4,600
4,474
2:1
2,237.00
32, and 38 feet wide respectively.
UT2 Reach 2
Planting, fencing
Enhancement II (R)3
401+78 to 403+34 &
a
215
215a
n/a
n/a
Easement Break 403+34-403+75
403+75 to 404+34
UT2a
2,921
Preservation
Preservation (RE)
405+15 to 426+58
2,143
2,143
5:1
428.60
Planting, fencing
Enhancement II (R)
426+58 to 432+09
551
519
2.5:1
207.60
Excludes one 32 foot wide constructed culvert
crossing.
Planting, fencing
Enhancement II (R)
500+00 to 503+00
300
300
2.5:1
120.00
UT2b
553
P2
Restoration (R)
503+00 to 505+53
253
253
1:1
253.00
UT3
400
Preservation
Preservation (RE)
602+44 to 606+44
400
384
5:1
76.80
Excludes one 16 foot wide constructed ford
crossing.
UT4
1,036
Preservation
Preservation (RE)
701+26 to 708+23
697
697
5:1
139.40
WETLANDS
Wetland AA
0.38
Planting, fencing
Enhancement (RE)
UT2 floodplain
0.38
2:1
0.19
Wetland BB
0.16
Planting, fencing
Enhancement (RE)
UT2 floodplain
0.16
2:1
0.08
Wetland CC
0.26
Grade control, planting, fencing
Enhancement (RE)
UT2b headwaters
0.26
2:1
0.13
Wetland DO
0.12
Planting, fencing
Enhancement (RE)
North of UT2/UT2a
0.12
2:1
0.06
Wetland EE
0.28
Planting fencing
Enhancement (RE)
UT2 floodplain
0.28
2:1
0.140
Wetland FF
0.76
Outlet stabilization, planting, fencing
Enhancement (RE)
North of UTI/Little
0.76
2:1
0.38
Pine
Wetland GG
0.33
Planting fencing
Enhancement (RE)
Little Pine
0.33
2:1
0.17
South of UT4/ Little
Wetland HH
0.42
Planting, grade control
Enhancement (RE)
0.42
2:1
0.21
Pine
Wetla ndA
0.19
Preservation
Preservation (RE)
UT4 floodplain
0.19
5:1
0.04
'Restoration footage based off of the surveyed as -built thalweg alignment is greater than design centerline alignment, resulting in credited length greater than that reported in the Mitigation Plan.
'Unique ratio for UT2 was discussed infield with IRT members and recorded 8/15/2012 in meeting notes.
'Length not included in component summation since no credit is sought

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Activity or Report
Data
Delivery
Mitigation Plan
March 2013
March 2014
Final Design - Construction Plans
N/A
September 2014
Construction
N/A
September 2015
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area'
N/A
July - September 2015
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments'
N/A
July - September 2015
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
N/A
December 2015
Repair Work
N/A
March 2016 / December 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
May 2016
July 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
Fall 2016
December 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
2017
November 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
2018
November 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
2019
November 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
2020
November 2020
'Seed and mulch was added as each section of construction was completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
1430 South Mint Street, Ste 104
Aaron Early, PE, CFM
Charlotte, NC 28205
704.332.7754
North State Environmental, Inc.
Construction Contractor
2889 Lowery Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
North State Environmental, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
2889 Lowery Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Live Stakes
Foggy Mountain Nursery
Plugs
Mellow Marsh Farms
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kirsten Gimbert
Monitoring, POC
704.332.7754, ext. 110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Project NameLittle
Project Information
Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration
County
Alleghany County
Project Area (acres)
157.32
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36° 30' 29.16" N, 81° 0' 6.12"W
Physiographic Province
Project Watershed Summary Information
Blue Ridge Belt of the Blue Ridge Province
River Basin
New
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
05050001
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
05050001030030
DAR Sub -basin
05-07-03
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
2,784
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<i%
Managed Herbaceous (74%), Mixed Upland Hardwoods (20%), Mixed
CGIA Land Use Classification
Hardwoods/Conifers (5%), Southern Yellow Pine (<S%), Mountain Conifers (<S%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
LP Reach 1 LP Reach 2a LP2 Reach b UT3 UTZ Reach 1 UTZ Reach 2 UTZ Reach 3
UT2a UT21,
UT3 UT4
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
1,444 1,083 1,033 900 4,600
1 2,909553
400 697
Drainage Area (acres)
2,496 2,752 2,784 28 75 185 196
89 19
23 33
NCDWR Stream Identification Score - Pre -Restoration
45.5 45.5 45.5 22.25 36 36 41.5
42 28/37.5
38.5 31.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C, Tr
Morphological Desription (stream type) - Pre -Restoration
C4 1 C/E4 1 C4 N/A A4 E4b E4
C4b 14b
N/A N/A
Evolutionary Trend (Simon's Model) - Pre -Restoration
IV/V III/IV IV/V N A' N A° N A° N A°
V N A°
N A' N A�
Alluvial land, wet (Nikwasi); Ashe stony fine sandy loam (25-45% slopes); Chester loam (10-25% slopes); Chester clay loam (2545% slopes), eroded
Underlying Mapped Soils
(Evard); Cedar complex (Arkaqua); Tate loam (6-10% slopes); Watauga loam (6-45% slopes).
Drainage Class
Well -drained
Soil Hydric Status
A/D (Nikwasi); B (Ashe stony fine sandy loam, Chester loam, Tate loam, Watauga loam); B/D (Codorus complex);
Slope - Pre -Restoration
0.0043 0.0059 0.0087 N/A' 0.047 0.036 0.028
0.044 0.064
N A' N/A'
FEMA Classification
AE
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont/Mountain eottomland Forest, Rich Cove
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation -Post-Restoration 0%
Regulatory Considerations
Supporting
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Documentation
USACE Nationwide Permit
Waters ofthe United States -Section 404
Yes
Yes
No.27 and DWQ401
Water Quality Certification
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
yes
No. 3885. Action ID# 14-
0041
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
LPIII Categorical Exclusion
(CE) Approved 7/6/2012
No historic resources were
found to be impacted
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
(letter from SHPO dated
5/3/2012)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
No impact application was
LPIII Final Mitigation Plan
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes'
prepared for local review.
(3/4/2014) and LPIII CE
No post -project activities
Approved 7/6/2012
required.
LPIII Final Mitigation Plan
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Yes
Yes
(3/4/2014) and LPIII CE
Approved 7/6/2012
1: Length includes internal easment crossings.
2: UT1 is enhancement 11 only, and UT3 and UT4 are preservation
only. Geomorphic surveys were not performed for these stm, existing conditions.
3: The downstream 400 LF of Little Pine Creek near Big Oak Road
is within a FEMA Zone AE Floodplain on Firm panel 4010. The Zane AE floodplain is due to the backwater of Brush Creek; Little Pine Creek is not a FEMA studied stream.
4: Streams do not fit into Simon Evolutionary Sequence.

Table S. Monitoring Component Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
'A deviation from the vegetation plot quantity indicated in the Mitigation Plan is due to a smaller than expected planted area.
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Little Pine Reach 1
Little Pine Reach
2a
Little Pine Reach
2b
UT1
UTZ UT2a
UT2b
UT3
UT4
Wetlands
Frequency
Riffle Cross Section
2
2
2
N/A
4 N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Annual
Pool Cross Section
1
1
1
N/A
3 N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
Y
N/A
Y N/A
Y
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Substrate
Reach Wide (RW) / Riffle
(RF) 100 Pebble Count
RW -1, RF -1
RW -1, RF -1
RW -1, 11-1
N/A
RW -1, RF -3 N/A
RW -1, RF -1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stream Hydrology
Crest Gage
1
N/A
1 N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Annual
Wetland H drolo
Groundwater Gages
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Annual
Vegetation'
CVS Level
21
Annual
Visual Assessment
All Streams
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Annual
Exotic and nuisance
vegetation
Pro ect Bounda
Reference Photos
Photographs
42
Annual
'A deviation from the vegetation plot quantity indicated in the Mitigation Plan is due to a smaller than expected planted area.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Little Pine Reach 1(STA 100+00 -114+44)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric Performing as
Intended
Number of
Total Number
in As -Built Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation 0
0
100%
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 10 10
100%
3. Meander Pool
100%
Depth Sufficient 7 7
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate 7 7
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 9 9
meander bend (Run)
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of 9 9
meander bend (Glide)
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
3
3
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
3
3
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
3
3
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
"Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
3
3
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Little Pine Reach 2a (114+44-125+27)
Major Channel
Category
Number
Stable,
Channel Sub -Category Metric
Performing as
Intended
Number of
Total Number
Unstable
in As -Built Segments
Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Performing as
Footage Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability Aggradation 0
0 100%
(Riffle and Run units) Degradation 0
0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 7 7 100%
3. Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 6 6 100%
1. Bed
Condition Length Appropriate 6 6 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 7 7 100%
meanderbend(Run)
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of 7 7 100%
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
5
5
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
5
5
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
5
5
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
5
5
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
`Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
5
5
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Little Pine Reach 2b (125+27-130+20)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric
Performing as
Intended
Number of
Total Number
Unstable
in As -Built
Segments
Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Performing as
Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation 0
0 100%
0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 4 4 100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient 4 4 100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate 4 4 100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of 4 4 100%
meander bend (Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of
4 4 100%
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
5
5
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
4
5
80%
3. Engineered
Piping 2a. Pi
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
4
5
80%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
5
5
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
"Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
5
5
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT2 Reach 1 Upper (STA 297+18 - 310+50)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric
Performing as
Intended
Number of
Total Number
Unstable
in As -Built
Segments
Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Performing as
Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation 0
0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0
0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 9 10 90%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient n/a n/a n/a
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate n/a n/a n/a
Thalweg centering at upstream of
n/a n/a n/a
meander bend (Run)
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of n/a n/a n/a
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
21
21
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
16
21
76%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
p g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
16
21
76%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
21
21
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
21
21
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT2 Reach 1 Lower (STA 325+67 - 330+00)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric
Performing as
Intended
Number of
Total Number
Unstable
in As -Built
Segments
Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Performing as
Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation 0
0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0
0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 9 12 75%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient n/a n/a n/a
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate n/a n/a n/a
Thalweg centering at upstream of
n/a n/a n/a
meander bend (Run)
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of n/a n/a n/a
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
15
20
75%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
1S
20
75%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
15
20
75%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
15
20
75%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
"Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
15
20
75%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT2 Reach 2 (STA 330+00 - 343+18)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric
Performing as
Intended
Number of
Total Number
Unstable
in As -Built
Segments
Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Performing as
Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation 0
0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0
0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 14 15 93%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient 4 5 80%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate 4 S 80%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 5 S 100%
meander bend (Run)
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
5 5 100%
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
19
19
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
12
19
63%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
19
19
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
19
19
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
"Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
12
19
63%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT2b (STA 503+00 - 505+53)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric
Performing as
Intended
Number of
Total Number
Unstable
in As -Built
Segments
Amount of %Stable,
Unstable Performing as
Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation 0
0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0
0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 5 9 56%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient n/a n/a n/a
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate n/a n/a n/a
Thalweg centering at upstream of
n/a n/a n/a
meander bend (Run)
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of n/a n/a n/a
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
23
23
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
23
23
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
23
23
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
23
23
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
23
23
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Planted Acreage 27.8
Easement Acreage 57.3
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 1 0.9 3%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
(acres)
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
1
0.3
1%
1
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, 5, or 7 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
3
0.1
0.3%
criteria.
Total
4
0.4
1%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0
0
0.0
0%
year.
Cumulative Total
4
0.4
1%
Easement Acreage 57.3
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping Number of Combined % of Planted
Threshold (SF) Polygons Acreage Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 1 0.9 3%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none 0 0 0%
'Acreage calculated from permanent vegetation monitoring plots and temporary vegetation monitoring plots from current year Site Assessment Report.

%�O
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map (Key)
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
7k�l DMS Project No. 94903
0 200 400 Feet Monitoring Year 1- 2016
1 1 1 I I
Alleghany County, NC

1*
AEOP -
tA I
:`
1' 71,
� 4
a,
•
F � 1 aR
1A,'
41
I
.o
o
Barberry, Chinese privet
Structure piping STA 303+16
Sediment deposition
STA 325+80 - 326+50
- - � F, ``'
1 � , `' I'� _ �� � �.t •� i' `,� y !♦ 1kYk9: � ���� � +' �. Y'1'- tr. •. R
� �- _ ♦.' � � {'r w'• fd' ,. ;' r.�ti �•r _fie moi, � -
, 01,
Bank erosion *.
iI 1 STA 333+75 - 334+00 a
1 .1P
' I _ - . �s • .��<. •t'l'' . ,rte. :l
On
16
i Streambed erosion F "a . t",a ''
i STA 338+50-3-39+3T"„•-
%�O
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
—'—'- Conservation Easement
Internal Easement Crossing
O Waterers
Well
Water Lines
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Stream Preservation
Non -Project Streams
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Preservation
Reach Break
- - - - Bankfull
4- Crest Gage (CG)
Groundwater Gage (GWG)
♦ Photo Point
Cross Section (XS)
Vegetation Monitoring Plot - MY 1
- Doesn't Meet Success Criteria
Meets Success Criteria
Stream Areas of Concern - MY1
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY1
L Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
Invasive Plant Population
Figure 3.1 Current Condition Plan View Map (Sheet 1 of 2)
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
0 100 200 Feet Monitoring Year 1- 2016
1 1 1 1 I
Alleghany County, NC

., _ •. Bank erosion
STA 333+75 - 334+00 1
1
V-16 F
Oor
4 t y r !fi
x.12
i %_,_, v
17 Stream bed e,69ion r
,• ., i 13 `` �STA 338+50 - 339+ � i- '",
y. _ w
_} 7
'e `,
6
Y 4
Rf
Structure piping iQ p i
4 STA 124+50 i `�SRO
:-10
f
- p 1
V � r
Photograph
W I L D L A N D S , 0 100 200 Feet
ENGINEERING
I I I I I
- Conservation Easement
® Overhead Electric Easement
Internal Easement Crossing
O Waterers
$ Well
Water Lines
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
Non -Project Streams
Wetland Enhancement
Wetland Preservation
Reach Break
- - - - Bankfull
Crest Gage (CG)
Groundwater Gage (GWG)
♦ Photo Point
Cross Section (XS)
Vegetation Monitoring Plot - MY1
- Doesn't Meet Success Criteria
Meets Success Criteria
Stream Areas of Concern - MY1
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY1
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
Invasive Plant Population
Figure 3.2 Current Condition Plan View Map (Sheet 2 of 2)
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Alleghany County, NC
1
*�"�'Yry* Y
11
a�_i=fit y' �.R•` #T
},4
+sr`�r,''IF
ria*Xr.`j�,c�3�,rr
i T
Figure 3.2 Current Condition Plan View Map (Sheet 2 of 2)
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Alleghany County, NC

Stream Photographs

Photo Point 1— looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 1— looking downstream (10/05/2016) 1
I Photo Point 2 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 2 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)
Photo Point 3 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 3 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)

Photo Point 4 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 4 — looking downstream (10/05/2016) 1
I Photo Point 5 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 5 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)
Photo Point 6 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 6 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)

Photo Point 7 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 7 — looking downstream (10/05/2016) 1
I Photo Point 8 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 8 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)
Photo Point 9 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 9 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)

Photo Point 10 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 10 — looking downstream (10/05/2016) 1
Photo Point 11— looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 11— looking downstream (10/05/2016)
Photo Point 12 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1Photo Point 12 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)

Photo Point 13 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 13 — looking downstream (10/05/2016) 1
Photo Point 14 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 14 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)
Photo Point 15 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1Photo Point 15 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)

Photo Point 16 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 16 — looking downstream (10/05/2016) 1
Photo Point 17 — looking upstream (10/15/2016) 1 Photo Point 17 — looking downstream (10/15/2016)
Photo Point 18 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 18 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)

Photo Point 19 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 19 — looking downstream (10/05/2016) 1
Photo Point 20 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 20 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)
Photo Point 21— looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1Photo Point 21— looking downstream (10/05/2016)

Photo Point 22 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 22 — looking downstream (10/05/2016) 1
Photo Point 23 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 23 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)
Photo Point 24 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 24 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)

Photo Point 25 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 25 — looking downstream (10/05/2016) 1
I Photo Point 26 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 26 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)
Photo Point 27 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 27 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)

Photo Point 28 — looking upstream (10/15/2016) 1 Photo Point 28 — looking downstream (10/15/2016) 1
Photo Point 29 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 29 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)
Photo Point 30 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1Photo Point 30 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)

Photo Point 31— looking upstream (10/15/2016) 1 Photo Point 31— looking downstream (10/15/2016) 1
Photo Point 32 — looking upstream (10/15/2016) 1 Photo Point 32 — looking downstream (10/15/2016)
Photo Point 33 — looking upstream UT2 (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 33 — looking upstream UT2b (10/05/2016)

'may Y4 4 F
_
W 41
`y
_
• • Point(10
10512016)
pp
0
07
mss`
F
s s -
t
ie? w
e
:t�1 �1��arrr;tk�fiie�i:�,:_.-:_
�/..,d:�ct :, 1�-•=2:� 1 w s.'a',�`' . , r =:'.li

Y...:y �`
`� W� fes, - II +„.� -'�.. �' ..Sr
--f� 4 .;..2:�Y �i
-ti t "'�
�; ,.. $� i f a.
. to _ y �' ?sa __a'�'
v.ti -y` '�� ' �'
w\ v
_
L
'
4
�:�'
_ yy
I %K��
-
_
�i�
+Ai
��
?}.
�
T.
`
y�r
r �¢
�'
�'��F
�^,Y t' � �i
�
k �
��
.�
� � # v �.�
_ �s a., .Es
� t��
x,_
�'
E- r
'`�i
�
,P �'�
^'� �
,-- �
. _ ,F
�.. a �...
�, ,� .,
W
y
!�
_+a

Photo Point 41— looking upstream (10/05/2016) 1 Photo Point 41— looking downstream (10/05/2016) 1
Photo Point 42 — looking upstream (10/05/2016) I Photo Point 42 — looking downstream (10/05/2016)

Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 1- (09/26/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 2 - (09/26/2016) 1
I Vegetation Plot 3 - (09/26/2016) I Vegetation Plot 4 - (09/26/2016) I
Vegetation Plot 5 - (09/27/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 6 - (10/04/2016)

EL
,,Zk

Vegetation Plot 19 — (10/05/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 20 — (10/05/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 21— (10/15/2016)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Plot MY4 Success Criteria Met
Tract Mean
1 Y
95%
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
7 Y
8 Y
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y
13 N
14 Y
15 Y
16 Y
17 Y
18 Y
19 Y
20 Y
21 Y

Table 9. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 LP III MY1.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02160 Little Pine III Monitoring\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 1\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
ALEA
File Size
73900032
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
94903
Project Name
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
Description
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
River Basin
Length(ft)
Stream -to -edge Width (ft)
Area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
21
Required Plots (calculated)
21
Sampled Plots
21

Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MY1 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94903-WEI-0001
PnoLSTP-all T
94903-WEI-0002
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0003
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0004
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0005
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0006
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0007
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0008
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
7
7
7
Alnus serrulate
tag alder
Shrub Tree
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
Cercis canadensis
redbud
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
5
5
5
8
8
8
3
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvonica
Igreen ash
iTree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
4
4
4
Platanus occidentalis
Isycamore
JTree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
Ulmus americana
JAmerican elm
JTree
10
10
10
4
4
4
8
1 8
8
3
3
3
1
1
1 1
Stem count
15
15
15
12
1 12
12
16
1 16
16
14
14
14
15
15
15
12
12
1 13
16
1 16
1 16
15
15
15
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
5
5
5
6
1 6
6
4
4
4
5
1 5
1 5
5
1 5
5
4
4
1 5
3
1 3
1 3
4
4
4
Stems per ACRE
1 607
1 607
1 607
1 486
1 486
1 486
1 647
1 647
1 647
1 567
1 567
1 567
607
1 607
1 607
486
486
1 526
647
1 647
1 647
607
607
1 607
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%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MY1 2016)
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%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems
94903-WEI-0009
94903-WEI-0010
94903-WEI-0011
94903-WEI-0012
94903-WEI-0013
94903-WEI-0014
94903-WEI-0015
94903-WEI-0016
94903-WEI-0017
94903-WEI-0018
94903-WEI-0019
94903-WEI-0020
94903-WEI-0021
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
PnoLSTP-all
T
PnoLS P -all
T
PnoLS P -all
T
PnoLS P -all
T
PnoLS P -all
T
PnoLS P -all
T
PnoLS P -all
T
PnoLS P -all
T
PnoLS P -all
T
PnoLS P -all
T
PnoLS P -all
T
PnoLS P -all
T
PnoLS P -all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
1
1
1
4
4
4
Alnus serrulate
tag alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
Cercis conadensis
redbud
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
iTree
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
5
5
5
3
3
3
Platonus occidentalis
isycamore
JTree
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
8
8
8
1
1
1
5
5
5
2
2
2
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
5
5
5
Stem count
13
13
13
E21t
11
14
14
14
12
12
12
5
5
5
13
13
13
13
13
13
11
11
11
10
10
10
16
16
16
10
10
10
14
1 14
1 14
14
14
14
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
3
3
3
5
5
5
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
Stems per ACRE
526
526
1 526
1 445
1 445
1 445
1 567
1 567
1 567
1 486
1 486
1 486
1 202
1 202
1 202
1 526
1 526
1 526
1 526
1 526
1 526
1 445
1 445
1 445
1 405
1 405
1 405
1 647
1 647
1 647
1 405
1 405
1 4051
5671
567
1 5671
5671
5671
567
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%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
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%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems
Annual Summary
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY1 (2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2016)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
45
45
45
50
50
50
Alnus serrulate
tag alder
Shrub Tree
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
41
41
41
49
49
49
Cercis canodensis
redbud
Shrub Tree
44
44
44
46
46
46
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
JTree
58
58
58
58
58
58
Platanus occidentalis
isycamore
iTree
33
1 33
1 33
30
30
30
Ulmus americana
JAmerican elm
JTree
50
50
1 50
52
52
52
Stem count
271
1 271
272
285
285
285
size (ares)
21
21
size (ACRES)
0.52
0.52
Species count
6
6
7
6
6
6
Stems per ACRE
522 J
522
524
549
549
549
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%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table lla. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Little Pine Reach 1, Reach 2a, Reach 2b
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
' Little Pine Reach 2b: Calculations only include reaches with a PI or P2 approach
Parameter
Gage
Little Pine Reach 1
Little
Pine Reach
2a
Little
Pine Reach
2b
Meadow Fork
Little
Pine Reach 1
Little
Pine Reach 2a
Little Pine Reach 2b
Little
Pine Reach 1
Little
Pine Reach
2a
Little
Pine Reach 2b'
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min I Max
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
25.8
33.4
24.9
29.0
21.4
30.0
30.0
31.0
30.3
33.5
29.1
30.7
28.7
31.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
133
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.7
1.8
2.1
1.8
2.1
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.9
2.0
2.1
Bankfull Max Depth
3.3
3.3
3.7
2.2
3.1
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.7
3.2
2.6
3.9
3.1
3.4
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area(ft)
N/A
45.5
47.5
53.3
53.3
44.0
54.5
53.0
54.9
52.2
53.5
46.6
56.9
58.8
64.2
Width/Depth Ratio
1.4
23.9
11.6
16.1
10.2
16.5
17.0
17.5
17.1
21.4
16.6
18.1
14.0
15.9
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
4.4
>6.0
>6.5
>6.9
>6.3
>7
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
10.2
1.3
18.4
50.7
87.6
47.4
Riffle Length (ft)
MENNEN=
---
---
---
---
28.4
80.5
37.8
68.3
30.44
132.29
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.012
0.019
0.0095
0.031
0.028
0.045
0.0239
0.007
0.0125
0.0098 F 0.0175
0.0155 1 0.0278
0.0040
0.0275
0.0101
0.0274
0.0055
0.0236
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
44.5
96.5
38.7
108.9
40.92
99.41
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/ANEENEEMENNIM
---
---
---
---
---
---
3.5
5.8
4.7
5.8
2.6
5.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
38
85
55
227
65
229
---
75
270
75
270
78
279
71
191
132
206
88
190
Pool Volume(ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
63
82
77
94
57
---
45
210
45
210
47
217
45
154
48
108
89
Radius of Curvature (ft)
25
59
39
58
34
70
---
60
210
60
120
62
124
60
96
63
77
82
124
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
1.0
1.8
1.6
2.3
1.3
2.4
---
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
2.9
2.2
2.5
2.9
3.9
Meander Length (ft)
86
140
110
186
100
134
---
210
360
210
360
217
372
207
313
288
337
334
329
Meander Width Ratio
2.4
2.5
3.1
3.8
2.0
-
1.5
7.0
1.5
7.0
1.5
7.0
1.5
4.6
1.6
3.5
3.1
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC/4.5/10.2/61.2/143.4/>2048
UNUMMUMOM
SC/0.4/1.3/77.8/180.0/362
SC/0.5/18.4/79.2/143.4/256
---
seems=
0.22/0.48/2.0/88.2/146.7/362
0.22/1.0/37.9/111.8/160.7/256
0.38/21.6/47.4/122.3/208.8/362
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
N/A
0.85
0.66
2.43
0.56
0.75
1.20
0.46
0.51
0.69
0.74
1.21
1.23
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
134
122
289
99
123
174
Stream Power Ca acit W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
3.9
4.3
4.4
4.4
3.9
4.3
4.4
3.9
4.3
4.4
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<l%
<l%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
C4
E/C5
C4
E4
C4
C5
C4
C4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.2
4.6
4.0
4.4
5.1
3.8
4.0
4.1
3.6
1
3.8
4.1
1
4.3
3.6
1
3.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
205
215
225
224
205
215
225
205
215
225
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
N/A
199
---
284
177
T
211
---
306
191
213
---
308
193
235
---
ONEEMENIMENEEMENIM
---
--
188
204
199
231
219
232
Q- NC Mountain Regional Curve (cfs)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
Q -Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
1,184
876
476
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
4,016
1,350'
1,025'
4812
1,444
1,083
493
Sinuosity
1.2
1.7
1.1
---
1.14
1.17
1.01
1.22
1.24
1.04
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0048
1
0.0058
0.0033
1
0.0057
0.0049
1
0.0058
0.0100
0.0050
0.0070
0.0111
0.0049
0.0072
0.0118
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0057
0.0087
0.0089
---
0.0057
0.0082
0.0089
0.0051
0.0074
0.0101
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
' Little Pine Reach 2b: Calculations only include reaches with a PI or P2 approach

Table 11b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT2, UT2b
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
F5: Fine Sand 0.125-0.250mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'entire length of UT2
' UT2b: Calculations only include reach with a P2 approach
Pre -Restoration
Condition
Reference Reach Data
Design
As-Built/Baseline
Gage
UT2 Reach 1
UT2 Reach 2/3UT2b
UT2a Reference
UT2 Reach 1 Lower
UT2 Reach 2
UT2b'
UT2 Reach 1 Lower
UT2 Reach 2
UT2b'
Min
Max
Reach 2
Reach 3
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
I
Max
Min
I
Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
4.9
9.7
6.1 7.0
8.3
12.6
9.0
11.6
5.9
8.1
8.9 12.8
6.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
5.4 29.9 49.3 41.0 10.6 31.0 98 17 1 195 15 30 28.4 21.5 >200 15.9
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9 1.2 1.4 1.2 0.4 1.4 0.49 0.65 0.35 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.4 2.3 1.9 0.6 2.0 0.7 0.95 0.55 1.0 1.10 2.10 0.9
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area ft'
5.9 8.6 8.7 8.5 3.1 18.1 4.4 7.6 2.1 5.1 4.2 12.0 3.7
Width/Depth Ratio
4.1 11.0 4.2 5.7 22.6 8.7 18.5 17.7 16.8 13.0 13.6 20.1 12.2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.1 3.1 8.1 5.9 1.3 2.4 10.9 1.5 1 16.8 2.5 1 5.1 3.5 2.0 >22.4 2.4
Bank Height Ratio
2.6 3.2 1.0 1.2 5.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
DSO (mm)
10.7 15 16.0 --- --- -- --- 56.9 44 53 43
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
10.7 25.0
16.8 29.3
4.4
23.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.012
0.083
0.0327-0.063
0.0092-0.068
0.0178 0.081
0.0404 0.0517
0.0512 0.0681
0.026
0.046
0.0436 1 0.0750
0.0360 0.0853
0.0262 0.0575
0.0448
0.0659
Pool Length (ft)
-
---
5.0 22.3
13.3 46.3
3.1
14.3
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
2.2 2.5
---
---
---
1.9 5.0
1.6 3.2
0.6
2.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
11.6
40.5
14-68
22-63
8 T 34
78
6.5 41.5
19
95
5
21
7 34
24 98
3
33
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
---
49-52
120
N/A
---
---
45
68
---
61 66
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
10-48
8-27
N/A
---
---
29
39
---
---
19 63
---
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
---
1.6-7.9
1.1-3.9
N/A
---
---
2.5
3.4
---
---
2.1 4.9
---
Meander Length (ft)
---
64-188
43-141
N/A
---
---
88
135
---
---
105 135
---
Meander Width Ratio
---
8.0-8.5
17.1
N/A
---
---
3.9
5.9
---
---
7 5
---
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC/5.9/10.7/21.5/36.7/90.0
SC/8.0/15/55.6/84.6/180.0
SC/11/16/52.6/128/180
---
0.25/11.0/27.6/96.0/143.4/256.0
0.78/28.5/41.6/85.0/123.3/180.0
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B9,/Be%
d16/d35/d5D/d84/d95/d1DD
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib ft
N/A
1.53
0.73
0.75
1.49
0.96
1.38
1.95
0.83 1 1.69
1.98
Max part size (mm) mobilized at Bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m'
Additional Reach Parameters
208
121
123
Moslem==208
148
193
NEENEENNEEM
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A21
0.12
0.29 0.31
0.030
0.12
0.12
0.31
0.03
0.12 0.31
0.03
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1%
Rosgen Classification
A4 E4b
I E4 F4b A/B4/1 34a C410 34a 34a C4b"B44aBankfull
Velocity (fps)
2.3 3.4 4.0
4.1 3.2 --- 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.1 2.7 4.3Bankfull
Discharge(cfs)
20 35 10 20 20 35 10 20 35Q-NFF
regression (2 -yr)
--- ---
44 7
10 21 3
35 43 8 --- --- --- 21 11.2 51.0
Q- NC Mountain Regional Curve (cfs)
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
Q -Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3,988 231
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
5270' 553 --- 433 1264 241 433 1318 253
Sinuosity
1.1 1.3 2.1 1.1 --- 1.05 1.20 1.04 1.05 1.2 1.1
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)'
0.0436 0.0290 0.0136 0.0406 0.0433 0.0501 0.0239 0.0639 0.0560 0.0231 0.0616
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0476 0.0363 0.028 0.0667 --- 0.0525 0.0280 0.0667 0.0563 0.0237 0.0536
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
F5: Fine Sand 0.125-0.250mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'entire length of UT2
' UT2b: Calculations only include reach with a P2 approach

Table 12a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Dimension
Cross
Base
Section 1, Little
MY3 MY2
Pine Reach I (Riffle) Cross
MY3 MY4 MYS Base
Section 2, Little
MY1 MY2
Pine Reach 1 (Pool) Cross
MY3 MY4 MY5 Base
Section 3, Little Pine Reach I (Riffle)
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
2,535.4 2,535.4
2,533.2 2,533.2
2,532.9 2,532.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
30.3
29.9
30.6
30.9
33.5
32.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
132.9
135.1
---
---
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
1.7
2.2
2.1
1.6
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.7
2.8
4.3
3.9
3.2
3.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
53.5
49.8
68.0
65.9
52.2
51.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
17.1 j
18.0 j i
i i i --- i
--- i i
j 21.4 j
20.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
4.5
---
---
>6.0
>6.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
Cross
Base
Section 4, Little
MY3 MY2
Pine Reach 2a (Riffle) Cross
MY3 MY4 MYS Base
Section 5, Little
MY3 MY2
1
Pine Reach 2a (Riffle) Cross
MY3 MY4 MYS Base
Section 6, Little Pine Reach 2a (Pool)
MYS MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
bankfull elevation
713ankfull
2,527.4 2,527.4
2,525.4 2,525.4
2,524.8 2,524.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
29.1
29.3
30.7
31.3
35.4
35.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
---
---
Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.8
2.6
2.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.6
2.6
3.9
3.6
5.7
5.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
46.6
46.4
56.9
56.7
93.4
83.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
18.1
18.5
16.6
17.2
---
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>6.9
>6.8
>6.5 1
>6.4
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dimension
1.0
Cross
Base
1.0
Section 7 , Little
MY3 MY2
Pine Reach 2b (Pool) Cross
MY3 MY4 MYS Base
Section 8, Little
MY1 MY2
Pine Reach 2b (Riffle) Cross
MY3 MY4 MY5 Base
---
Section 9, Little Pine Reach 2b (Riffle)
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
2,522.0 2,522.0
2,520.1 2,520.1
2,519.5 2,519.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
35.3
35.5
28.7
29.8
31.9
30.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
>200
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.9
2.8
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
5.4
5.6
3.4
3.6
3.1
3.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
103.7
100.0
58.8
61.2
64.2
62.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
---
14.0
14.5
15.9
15.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
>7.0
>6.7
>6.3
>6.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Table 12b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Dimension
Base
Cross Section 10, UT2b
MY3 MY2 MY3
(Pool)
MY4 MY5 Base
Cross Section 11,
MY1 MY2
UT2b (Riffle) Cross
MY3 MY4 MY5 Base
Section 12, LIT2 Reach I Lower (Riffle)
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
2,570.0 2,570.0
2,566.4 2,566.4
2,573.8 2,573.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.9
6.0
6.7
6.3
8.1
8.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
15.9
17.7
28.4
30.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
2.3
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.7
3.4
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
5.7
14.0
3.7
4.3
5.1
5.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
--- j
--- j i i
i j 12.2 j
9.1 j i
j 13.0 j
12.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
2.4 1
2.8
3.5
3.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
--- I I
I 1.0
1.0
1.0 1
1.0
Dimension
Cross
Base
Section 13, LIT2 Reach I
MY3 MY2 MY3
Lower (Pool) Cross
MY4 MYS Base
Section 14, UT2
MY3 MY2
Reach 2 (Riffle) Cross
MY3 MY4 MYS Base
Section 15, UT2 Reach 2 (Pool)
MYS MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
2,573.3 2,573.3
2,547.2 2,547.2
2,539.1 2,539.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.8
10.1
10.8
8.0
12.2
11.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
21.5
23.2
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1.2
0.5
0.8
1.5
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.2
1.9
1.1
1.2
3.1
1.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
12.8
12.5
5.9
6.6
18.7
11.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
---
---
20.1
9.7
---
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
--- 1---
2.0 1
2.9 1---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
---
1.0
1.0
Dimension
Cross
Base
Section 16, UT2 Reach
MY3 MY2 MY3
2 (Riffle) M�ross
MY4 MYS Base
Section 17, UT2
MY1 MY2
Reach 2 (Riffle=n Cross
MY3 MY4 MYS Base
Section 18, UT2 Reach 2 (Pool)
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
2,535.0 2,535.0
2,531.2 2,531.2
2,530.4 2,530.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.9
10.0
12.8
12.9
19.3
19.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.1
0.8
2.1
1.8
2.0
2.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
4.2
5.0
12.0
12.0
15.8
16.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
19.2 1
19.9
13.6 1
13.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio >22.4
>20.0
>15.7
>15.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Table 13a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Little Pine Reach 1
'amo
Min I Max
Min I Max Min Max
Min Max Min
Max Min Max 7
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
30.3
33.5
29.9
32.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
133
>200
135
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth
2.7
3.2
2.8
3.1
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
52.2
53.5
49.8
51.8
Width/Depth Ratio
17.1
21.4
18
20.9
Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
>6.0
4.5
>6.1
Bank Height Ratio
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
D50 (mm)
50.7
56.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
28
81
21
47
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0040
0.0275
0.0064
0.0283
Pool Length (ft)
44
96
66
176
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.5
5.8
3.0
4.7
Pool Spacing
71
191
77
224
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratiol
Additional Reach Parameters
45
60
2.0
207
1.5
154
96
2.9
313
4.6
ONESEEMSENJIMMINEM
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,444
1,444
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
1.22
0.0049
0.0049
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0051
0.0043
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.22/0.48/2.0/88/147/362
0.22/3.4/22/81/123/362
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%

Table 13b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Little Pine Reach 2a
Min Max
Min Max Min Max
Min Max Min
Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
7
Bankfull Width (ft)
29.1
30.7
29.3
31.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
1.9
1.6
1.8
Bankfull Max Depth
2.6
3.9
2.6
3.6
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
46.6
56.9
46.4
56.7
Width/Depth Ratio
16.6
18.1
17.2
18.5
Entrenchment Ratio
>6.5
>6.9
>6.4
>6.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
87.6
72.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
38
68
19
49
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0101
0.0274
0.0112
0.0471
Pool Length (ft)
39
109
39
145
Pool Max Depth (ft)
4.7
5.8
4.3
6.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
132
206
78
206
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)l
Radius of Curvature (ft)l
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)l
Meander Wave Length (ft)l
Meander Width Ratiol
Additional Reach Parameters
48
63
2.2
288
1.6
1
1
1
1
1
108
77
2.5
337
3.5
ONESEEMENNINESIMEM
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,083
1,083
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
1.24
0.0072
0.0073
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0074
0.0059
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.22/1.0/38/112/161/256
0.29/11/36/90/157/1024
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%

Table 13c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Little Pine Reach 2b
Min Max
Min Max Min Max
Min Max Min
Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
7
Bankfull Width (ft)
28.7
31.9
29.8
30.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.1
Bankfull Max Depth
3.1
3.4
3.2
3.6
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
58.8
64.2
61.2
62.3
Width/Depth Ratio
14.0
15.9
14.5
15.2
Entrenchment Ratio
>6.3
>7
>6.5
>6.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
47.4
72
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
30
132
26
102
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0055
0.0236
0.0169
0.0254
Pool Length (ft)
41
99
55
153
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.6
5.4
3.8
6.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
88
190
12
129
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)l
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
82
2.9
334
89
1
J
3.1
124
3.9
329
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
493
493
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
1.04
0.0118
0.0101
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0101
0.0107
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.38/22/47/122/209/362
0.22/10/29/111/171/362
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%

Table 13d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT2 Reach 1 Lower
and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth
Bankfull Max Depth
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
D50 (mm)
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pool Volume (ft')
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
'd16/d35/d50/
of Reach with
Min Max I Min I Max I Min I Max I Min I Max
I
433
—Min
00477
Max
Min
0.25/11/28/96/143/256
Max
0%
6%
8.1
8.4
28.4
30.0
0.6
0.7
1.0
1.3
5.1
5.7
13.0
12.5
3.5
3.6
1.0
1.0
56.9
39.8
11
25
13
39
0.0360
0.0853
0.0136
0.0730
5
22
2
15
1.9
5.0
1.0
2.9
7
34
8
52
Min Max I Min I Max I Min I Max I Min I Max
Boa
433
I
00477
0.0483
0.25/11/28/96/143/256
6.1/14/23/75/.
0%
6%
Min Max I Min I Max I Min I Max I Min I Max

Table 13e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT2 Reach 2
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.9
12.8
8.0
12.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
21.5
>200
23.2
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth
1.10
2.10
0.80
1.80
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
4.2
12.0
5.0
12.0
Width/Depth Ratio
13.6
20.1
9.7
19.9
Entrenchment Ratiol
2.0
1
>22.4
2.9
>20.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
44
53
15
90
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17
29
10
36
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0262
0.0575
0.0141
0.0658
Pool Length (ft)
13
46
4
40
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.6
3.2
1.5
3.8
Pool Spacing (ft)
24
98
8
113
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
61
19
2.1
105
7
66
63
4.9
135
5
Rosgen Classification
Cob
C4b
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,318
1,318
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
1.2
0.0231
0.0225
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0237
0.0214
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
1d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.25/11/28/96/143/256
6.1/14/23/75/153/256
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%

Table 13f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT2b
qWParameter
As-Built/Basellne
MY -1
MY -2 MY -3 MY -4 MY -5
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.7
6.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
15.9
17.7
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
1.1
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
3.7
4.3
Width/Depth Ratio
12.2
9.1
Entrenchment Ratiol
2.4
2.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
43
36
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
4
23
7
24
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0448
0.0659
0.0276
0.0451
Pool Length (ft)
3
14
3
8
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.6
2.1
2.0
3.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
3
33
4
30
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
--
--
-
---
Rosgen Classification
Boa
Boa
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
253
253
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
1.10
0.0616
0.0614
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0536
0.0608
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/dS0/d84/d95/d100
0.78/29/42/85/123/180
0.28/7.4/23/82/128/362
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0/
0%

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Little Pine Reach 1 (STA 100+00 - 114+44) and Reach 2a (114+44-125+27)
2545
2540
d
2535
c
0
m
2530
2525
10000 10050 10100 10150 10200 10250 10300 10350 10400 10450 10500 10550 10600 10650 10700 10750 10800 10850 10900 10950 11000
Station (feet)
— TW (MYl-10/2016) — TW (MYO-04/2016)------- WSF (MYl-10/2016) • BKF (MYl-10/2016) O STRUCTURE (MYl-10/2016)
2540
2535
2530
c
0
v
2525
2520
11000 11050 11100 11150 11200 11250 11300 11350 11400 11450 11500 11550 11600 11650 11700 11750 11800
Station (feet)
— TW (MYl-10/2016) — TW (MYO-04/2016)------- WSF (MYl-10/2016) • BKF (MY3-10/2016) 0 STRUCTURE (MY:
End Little Pine Reach 1
1
v, I
in 1
Begin Little Pine Reach 2a
•
1
•
1
1
I
1
1
•
1
1
1
I
---------
-
•
•
1
1
-
---------------------------
I
•
♦
1
1
1
---------
- --------
--------
- -- -
-
---------
•
---------
1
---
--------
------ --
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
2525
10000 10050 10100 10150 10200 10250 10300 10350 10400 10450 10500 10550 10600 10650 10700 10750 10800 10850 10900 10950 11000
Station (feet)
— TW (MYl-10/2016) — TW (MYO-04/2016)------- WSF (MYl-10/2016) • BKF (MYl-10/2016) O STRUCTURE (MYl-10/2016)
2540
2535
2530
c
0
v
2525
2520
11000 11050 11100 11150 11200 11250 11300 11350 11400 11450 11500 11550 11600 11650 11700 11750 11800
Station (feet)
— TW (MYl-10/2016) — TW (MYO-04/2016)------- WSF (MYl-10/2016) • BKF (MY3-10/2016) 0 STRUCTURE (MY:
End Little Pine Reach 1
Begin Little Pine Reach 2a
•
•

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Little Pine Reach 2a (114+44-125+27) and Reach 2b (125+27-130+20)
2530
2525
2515
2510
12000 12050 12100 12150 12200 12250 12300 12350 12400 12450 12500 12550 12600 12650 12700 12750 12800 12850 12900 12950 13000
Station (feet)
- TW (MYI-10/2016) - TW (MYO-04/2016(------- WSF (MYS-10/2016) • BKF (MYI-10/2016) • STRUCTURE (MYI-10/2016(
1Fw-1
l
mi
1
1
x
x
♦
1
1
1
• 1 •
I
I
-- - -
- -
-_
----------------------
1
1
•
-
--
1
1
I
•1
1
- -
----1-----
- - - -
1
• 1 ♦
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
I
X
I
End Reach 2a
1
I
1
1
I
1
X
1
1
Begin Reach 2b
I
1
I
2510
12000 12050 12100 12150 12200 12250 12300 12350 12400 12450 12500 12550 12600 12650 12700 12750 12800 12850 12900 12950 13000
Station (feet)
- TW (MYI-10/2016) - TW (MYO-04/2016(------- WSF (MYS-10/2016) • BKF (MYI-10/2016) • STRUCTURE (MYI-10/2016(

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Little Pine Reach 1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.22
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
22
3
3
3
3
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
3
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
12
12
12
18
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
10
13
13
31
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
32
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
33
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
34
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
36
Fine
4.0 1
5.6
1
1
1
1
37
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
2
39
Medium
8.0
11.0
39
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
3
3
42
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
2
9
9
51
Coarse
22.6
32
5
5
10
10
61
Very Coarse
32 1
45
5
1 1 1
6
6
67
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
8
8
75
Small
64
90
12
1
13
13
88
Small
90
128
7
1
8
8
96
Large
128
180
1
1
1
97
Large
180
256
1
1
1
98
Small
256 1
362
2
1 1
2
2
100
Small
Medium
362
5 12
512
1 24
0
100
1 00
IIIIIIIILarge/Very
:::::::::::: ..................................
... Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
s0
s0
100
100
100
Little Pine Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80 a ry
70
60
50
E
�? 40
v 30
i 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--6-- Myo -05/2016 Mn -1 a/201e
Little Pine Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.22
D35 =
3.3
D50 =
22
D80. =
81
D95 =
122
D100 =
362
Little Pine Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80 a ry
70
60
50
E
�? 40
v 30
i 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--6-- Myo -05/2016 Mn -1 a/201e
Little Pine Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
oti by -p ti titin a �� v titi tib � 3ti ay �o yw �o hb 6ti titi ya �w ��
00 oy otiti ti ti ti 3 h do ,yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-05/2016
• MYl-10/2016
90
80
c
70
v
v 60
a
50
m
� 40
3
30
v
.?
20
0
�
10
0
oti by -p ti titin a �� v titi tib � 3ti ay �o yw �o hb 6ti titi ya �w ��
00 oy otiti ti ti ti 3 h do ,yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-05/2016
• MYl-10/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Little Pine Reach 2a, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.29
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
36
4
4
4
4
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
4
4
8
Fine
0.125
0.250
7
7
7
15
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
6
6
21
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
3
24
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
25
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
25
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
26
Fine
4.0 1
5.6
1
26
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
1
3
3
29
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
6
6
35
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
4
4
39
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
3
42
Coarse
22.6
32
3
2
5
5
47
Very Coarse
32 1
45
5
1 5 1
10
10
56
Very Coarse
45
64
10
5
15
15
71
Small
64
90
12
1
13
13
84
Small
90
128
6
2
8
8
92
Large
128
180
4
1
5
5
97
Large
180
256
1
1
1
98
Small
256 1
362
1
1 1
1
1
99
Small
Medium
362
5 12
512
1 24
0
1
1
1
99
1 00
IIIIIIIILarge/Very
Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
51
101
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
v 30
i 20
10
0
0.01
Little Pine Reach 2a, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYO-05/2016 Mn -1 a/201e
Little Pine Reach 2a, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.29
D35 =
11
D50 =
36
D80. =
90
D95 =
157
D100 =
1024
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
v 30
i 20
10
0
0.01
Little Pine Reach 2a, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYO-05/2016 Mn -1 a/201e
Little Pine Reach 2a, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
otitiytiyoy ti titin a�� vtititi6 �3tiay
co yw�ohb6tititi ya �w��
00 oy otiti ti ti ti 3 h do ,yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-05/2016 • MYl-10/2016
90
80
c
70
v
v 60
a
50
m
� 40
3
30
v
.?
20
O
�
10
0
otitiytiyoy ti titin a�� vtititi6 �3tiay
co yw�ohb6tititi ya �w��
00 oy otiti ti ti ti 3 h do ,yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-05/2016 • MYl-10/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Little Pine Reach 2b, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.22
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
29
1
1
1
1
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
6
7
7
8
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
9
10
10
18
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
4
22
70
Coarse
0.5
1.0
22
v
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
23
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
24
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
24
Fine
4.0
5.6
30
1 1
1
1
25
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
2
3
3
28
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
6
9
9
37
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
4
6
6
43
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
2
45
Particle Class Size (mm)
Coarse
22.6
32
2
5
7
7
52
Very Coarse
32
45
3
3 1
6
6
58
Very Coarse
45 1
64
2
4
6
6
64
Small
64 1
90
8
5
13
13
77
Small
90
128
8
4
12
12
89
Large
128
180
5
2
7
7
96
Large
180
256
3
3
3
99
Small
256
362
1
1 1
1
1
100
......11l ::::::::
Small
Medium
362
5 12
512
1 24
0
100
100
I.....:ILarge/Very
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::........
Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
40
60
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
> 60
50
E
�? 40
v 30
i 20
10
Little Pine Reach 2b, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--&-- MYO-05/2016 Mn -10/201e
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.22
D35 =
10
D50 =
29
D80. =
111
D95 =
171
D100 =
362
100
90
80
70
> 60
50
E
�? 40
v 30
i 20
10
Little Pine Reach 2b, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--&-- MYO-05/2016 Mn -10/201e
Little Pine Reach 2b, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
v
70
v
60
a
50
m
�
40
3
v
30
O
20
�
10
0
y'L ,yh ,yh Oh
00 oy o
1 'L ,ti'b b 5� ,y1 16 ro .6'L ph rod` Co ,y4, yl0 hb bti 1ti ,yb �W 0�O
�ti. ti ti ti 3 h do ,yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-05/2016 • MYl-10/2016

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 1- Little Pine Reach 1
104+43 Riffle
2545
2540
x -section area (ft.sq.)
29.9
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
2.8
max depth (ft)
31.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.0
width -depth ratio
135.1
W flood prone area (ft)
4.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
c 2535
0
m
v
w
2530
2525
-30
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
Width (ft)
+MYO (5/2016) MY1 (10/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
49.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
29.9
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
2.8
max depth (ft)
31.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.0
width -depth ratio
135.1
W flood prone area (ft)
4.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 2 - Little Pine Reach 1
109+42 Pool
2545
2540
2535
30.9
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
3.9
max depth (ft)
32.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.5
width -depth ratio
c
0
v
w
2530
2525
-40
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Width (ft)
+MYO (5/2016) —0 MY1 (10/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
65.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
30.9
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
3.9
max depth (ft)
32.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 3 - Little Pine Reach 1
109+98 Riffle
2545
2540
x -section area (ft.sq.)
32.9
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
3.1
max depth (ft)
34.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.9
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
6.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
0 2535
-
v
w
2530
2525
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Width (ft)
+MYO (5/2016) MY1 (10/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
51.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
32.9
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
3.1
max depth (ft)
34.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.9
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
6.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Little Pine Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
27
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
57
Dm =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
6
6
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
4
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
10
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
10
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
10
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
10
Fine
4.0
5.6
10
Fine
5.6
8.0
10
Medium
8.0
11.0
10
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
12
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
2
14
Coarse
22.6
32
2
4
18
Very Coarse
32
45
8
16
34
Very Coarse
45
64
12
24
58
Small
64
90
12
24
82
Small
90
128
2
4
86
Large
128
180
1
2
88
Large
180
256
1
2
90
Small
256
362
3
6
96
IIIIIIILarge/Very
Small
Medium
Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
2
4
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
s0 1
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
Little Pine Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 iI I I IMir I I Ii i I I I I l I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I i i i i i i I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
100
90
80
70
m
60
a
50
M
40
30
v
20
v
10
0
—0— MYO-05/2016 - MVI -10/2016
Little Pine Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Individual Class Percent
o�V tiye otih oy ti ti J$ a yro % " do �ti� �ti a5 �a �o tiye 1�0 Cyd ��ti ytiti soya �OaO aO�o
0 0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -05/2016 MVI -10/2206
Cross Section 3
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
27
D35 =
46
D50 =
57
Dm =
107
D95 =
342
D100 =1
512
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
Little Pine Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 iI I I IMir I I Ii i I I I I l I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I i i i i i i I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
100
90
80
70
m
60
a
50
M
40
30
v
20
v
10
0
—0— MYO-05/2016 - MVI -10/2016
Little Pine Reach 1, Cross Section 3
Individual Class Percent
o�V tiye otih oy ti ti J$ a yro % " do �ti� �ti a5 �a �o tiye 1�0 Cyd ��ti ytiti soya �OaO aO�o
0 0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -05/2016 MVI -10/2206

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 4 - Little Pine Reach 2a
119+21 Riffle
2535
2530
0 2525
v
w
2520
2515
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Width (ft)
+MYO (5/2016) MY1 (10/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
46.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
29.3
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
2.6
max depth (ft)
30.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.5
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
6.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 5 - Little Pine Reach 2a
122+71 Riffle
2535
x -section area (ft.sq.)
31.3
width (ft)
1.8
mean depth (ft)
3.6
max depth (ft)
34.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.2
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
6.4
entrenchment ratio
2530
low bank height ratio
c 2525
0
v
w
2520
2515
-30
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
Width (ft)
+MYO (5/2016) MY1 (10/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
56.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
31.3
width (ft)
1.8
mean depth (ft)
3.6
max depth (ft)
34.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.2
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
6.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Little Pine Reach 2a, Cross Section 5
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
34
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
72
Dm =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
80
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
c
Medium
0.25
0.50
m
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
a
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0
20
Fine
4.0
5.6
0
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
2
2
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
4
6
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
4
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
Coarse
22.6
32
2
4
14
Very Coarse
32
45
5
10
24
Very Coarse
45
64
9
18
42
Small
64
90
11
22
64
Small
90
128
9
18
82
Large
128
180
5
10
92
Large
180
256
1
2
94
Small
256
362
2
4
98
IIIIIIILarge/Very
Small
Medium
Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
1
1
2
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
s0 1
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
5 50
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01
Little Pine Reach 2a, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-05/1016 _ MYl-10/2016
Cross Section S
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
34
D35 =
56
D50 =
72
Dm =
137
D95 =
279
D100 =1
512
100
90
80
70
60
5 50
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01
Little Pine Reach 2a, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-05/1016 _ MYl-10/2016
Little Pine Reach 2a, Cross Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
m
60
a
50
H
40
30
v
20
v
10
0
o�ti tiye otih oy
O O
ti ti ti$ a h� w titi ti� �ti� 3ti ay �a �o titre 1�0 Cyd ��ti ytiti soya a$ aoo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016 0 MYi-10/2016

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 6 - Little Pine Reach 2a
Bankfull Dimensions
83.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
123+56 Pool
width (ft)
2535
2530
mean depth (ft)
5.1
max depth (ft)
38.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.1
width -depth ratio
c
0
v
w
2525
2520
2515
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Width (ft)
+MYO (5/2016) --*- MY1 (10/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
83.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
35.5
width (ft)
2.4
mean depth (ft)
5.1
max depth (ft)
38.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.1
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 7 - Little Pine Reach 2b
126+72 Pool
2530
2525
35.5
width (ft)
2.8
mean depth (ft)
5.6
max depth (ft)
37.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.6
width -depth ratio
c 2520
0
v
w
2515
2510
-50
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Width (ft)
+MYO (5/2016) —0 MY1 (10/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
100.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
35.5
width (ft)
2.8
mean depth (ft)
5.6
max depth (ft)
37.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
;n
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 8 - Little Pine Reach 2b
128+34 Riffle
2530
2525
c 2520
0
v
w
2515
2510
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Width (ft)
0 MYO (5/2016) MY1 (10/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
61.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
29.8
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
3.6
max depth (ft)
31.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.5
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
6.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 9 - Little Pine Reach 2b
129+24 Riffle
2530
2525
0 2520
L
v
w
2515
2510
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Width (ft)
0 MYO (5/2016) MY1 (10/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
62.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
30.7
width (ft)
2.0
mean depth (ft)
3.2
max depth (ft)
31.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.2
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
6.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Little Pine Reach 2b, Cross Section 9
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
11
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
72
Dm =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
2
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
2
4
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
4
8
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
8
16
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
4
20
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
6
25
Coarse
22.6
32
2
4
29
Very Coarse
32
45
1
2
31
Very Coarse
45
64
4
8
39
Small
64
90
16
31
71
Small
90
128
6
12
82
Large
128
180
2
4
86
Large
180
256
7
14
100
Small
256
362
100
IIIIIIILarge/Very
Small
Medium
Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
1 1
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
51 1
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
5 50
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
Little Pine Reach 2b, Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--G-- MYO-05/2016 _ MVI -10/2016
Little Pine Reach 2b, Cross Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c 70
m
60
a
50
M
40
30
v
20
v
10
0
o�ti tiye otih oy ti ti ti$ a h6 � til ti� �ti� �ti a5 �a �o tiye 1�0 Cyd �rati yyti �O,tia �OaO aO��o
O O
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYo-05/2016 MYI-10/2206
Cross Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
11
D35 =
53
D50 =
72
Dm =
148
D95 =
225
D100 =1
256
100
90
80
70
60
5 50
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
Little Pine Reach 2b, Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--G-- MYO-05/2016 _ MVI -10/2016
Little Pine Reach 2b, Cross Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c 70
m
60
a
50
M
40
30
v
20
v
10
0
o�ti tiye otih oy ti ti ti$ a h6 � til ti� �ti� �ti a5 �a �o tiye 1�0 Cyd �rati yyti �O,tia �OaO aO��o
O O
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYo-05/2016 MYI-10/2206

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT2b (STA 503+00 - 505+53)
2580 _
2575
d
w
0
W2570
2565
50290
2575
2570
m
v
00
v 2565
W
2560
50485
50305 50320 50335 50350 50365 50380 50395 50410 50425 50440 50455 50470 50485
Station (feet)
TW (MYl-10/2016) — TW (MYO-04/2016)------- WSF (MYl-10/2016) r BKF (MYl-10/2016) • STRUCTURE (MYl-10/2016)
50500 50515 50530 50545 50560 50575 50590 50605 50620 50635 50650 50665 50680
Station (feet)
>— TW (MVI -30/2016) — , TW (MYO-04/2016)------- WSF (MVI -10/2016) BKF (MYI-10/2016) 0 STRUCTURE (MY3-10/2016)
1
X
_
•.
1
1
-
--
♦
1
1
I
1
-
Begin UT2b
Restoration
2575
2570
m
v
00
v 2565
W
2560
50485
50305 50320 50335 50350 50365 50380 50395 50410 50425 50440 50455 50470 50485
Station (feet)
TW (MYl-10/2016) — TW (MYO-04/2016)------- WSF (MYl-10/2016) r BKF (MYl-10/2016) • STRUCTURE (MYl-10/2016)
50500 50515 50530 50545 50560 50575 50590 50605 50620 50635 50650 50665 50680
Station (feet)
>— TW (MVI -30/2016) — , TW (MYO-04/2016)------- WSF (MVI -10/2016) BKF (MYI-10/2016) 0 STRUCTURE (MY3-10/2016)

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT2b, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.28
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
13
14
14
14
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
v
14
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
1
15
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
8
9
9
24
m
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
2
2
25
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
2
2
27
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
10
27
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
27
Fine
4.0 1
5.6
2
1 1
3
3
30
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
1
6
6
36
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
2
38
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
3
4
4
42
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
1
7
7
49
Coarse
22.6
32
9
2
11
11
60
Very Coarse
32 1
45
6
1 2 1
8
8
68
Very Coarse
45
64
8
3
11
11
78
Small
64
90
6
2
8
8
86
Small
90
128
8
1
9
9
95
Large
128
180
3
3
3
98
Large
180
256
1
1
1
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
Medium
362
5 12
512
1 24
0
100
1 00
IIIIIIIILarge/Very
Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
60
42
102
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
v 30
i 20
10
0
0.01
UT2b, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--6-- MYO-05/2016 MV] -10/3016
UT2b, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.28
D35 =
7.4
D50 =
23
D84 =
82
D95 =
128
D100 =
362
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
v 30
i 20
10
0
0.01
UT2b, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--6-- MYO-05/2016 MV] -10/3016
UT2b, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
otitiytiyoy ti titin a�� vtititi6 �3tiayk°`Co ob yw�ohb6tititi ya y
00 oy otiti ti ti ti 3 h do
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-05/2016 • MYl-10/2016
90
80
c
v
70
v
60
a
50
m
�
40
3
v
.?
30
'O
20
10
0
otitiytiyoy ti titin a�� vtititi6 �3tiayk°`Co ob yw�ohb6tititi ya y
00 oy otiti ti ti ti 3 h do
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-05/2016 • MYl-10/2016

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 30 - UT2b
504+34 Pool
2575
2573
2571
c
6.0
width (ft)
2.3
mean depth (ft)
3.4
max depth (ft)
10.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
2.6
width -depth ratio
0
2569
v
w
2567
2565
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
+MYO (5/2016) MY1 (10/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
14.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.0
width (ft)
2.3
mean depth (ft)
3.4
max depth (ft)
10.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
2.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 11- UT2b
505+01 Riffle
2572
2570
2568
c
0
2566
v
w
2564
2562
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
+MYO(5/2016) ——MY1(10/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
4.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.3
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
6.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.1
width -depth ratio
17.7
W flood prone area (ft)
2.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT2b, Cross Section 11
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8
16
16
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
2
18
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
2
20
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
4
24
Coarse
0.5
1.0
24
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
24
50
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
24
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
40
24
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
2
26
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
2
28
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
4
32
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
4
36
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
6
42
ti ti ti$ a h� til ti� �ti� �ti a5 �a -o tiye 'p 'p ytiti a$
Coarse
22.6
32
2
4
46
Very Coarse
32
45
6
12
58
Very Coarse
45
64
9
18
76
Small
64
90
4
8
84
Small
90
128
4
8
92
Large
128
180
4
8
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
IIIIIIILarge/Very
Small
Medium
Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Totall
s0 1
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
j 50
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT2b, Cross Section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-0- MYO-05/2016 _ MY1-10/2016
Cross Section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
15
D50 =
36
Dm =
90
D95 =
145
D100 =1
180
100
90
80
70
60
j 50
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT2b, Cross Section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-0- MYO-05/2016 _ MY1-10/2016
UT2b, Cross Section 11
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
c
m
60
a
50
H
40
30
v
20
v
10
0
o�ti tiye otih oy
ti ti ti$ a h� til ti� �ti� �ti a5 �a -o tiye 'p 'p ytiti a$
0 0
�Otia ao0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYo-05/2016 MY1-10/2206

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT2 Reach 1 Upper (STA 297+18 - 310+56)
2700
2695
0
2685
30765
2695
2690
c
0
d 2685
W
2680
30960
30780 30795 30810 30825 30840 30855 30870 30885 30900 30915 30930 30945 30960
Station (feet)
- TW (MY3-10/2016( - TW (MYO-04/2016(----- WSF (MYl-10/2016) ♦ BKF (MYl-10/2016) 0 STRUCTURE (MYl-10/2016(
30975 30990 31005 31020 31035 31050 31065 31080 31095 31110 31125 31140 31155
Station (feet)
TW (MYl-10/2016) TW (MYO-04/2016) WSF (MYl-10/2016) ♦ BKF (MYl-10/2016) • STRUCTURE (MYl-10/2016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT2 Reach 1 Lower (STA 325+67 - 330+00)
2586
2581
W
C
0
w 2576
W
2571
32550
2575
2570
w
c
0
m 2565
2560
32745
32565 32580 32595 32610 32625 32640 32655 32670 32685 32700 32715 32730 32745
Station (feet)
— TW (MYS-30/2016) — TW (MYO-04/2016)------- WSF (MYl-10/2016) • BKF (MYl-10/2016) O STRUCTURE (MY3-10/2016)
�
1
1
1
- -------
---
1
1___-_
------
I
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
32760 32775 32790 32805 32820 32835 32850 32865 32880 32895 32910 32925 32940
Station (feet)
TW (MYl-10/2016) TW (MYO-04/2016)------- WSF (MYl-10/2016) ♦ BKF (MYl-10/2016) 0 STRUCTURE (MYl-10/2016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT2 Reach 2 (STA 330+00 - 343+18)
2555
2550
a
w
0
a 2545
2540
33350
33365 33380 33395 33410 33425 33440 33455 33470 33485 33500 33515 33530 33545
Station (feet)
- TW (MYl-10/2016) - TW (MYO-04/2016)------- WSF (MYl-10/2016) • BKF (MYl-10/2016) • STRUCTURE (MYl-10/2016)
I
MX I
;
I
____
I
•
• 1
-
- - ---- -
- --
1
•
•
1
1
1
33365 33380 33395 33410 33425 33440 33455 33470 33485 33500 33515 33530 33545
Station (feet)
- TW (MYl-10/2016) - TW (MYO-04/2016)------- WSF (MYl-10/2016) • BKF (MYl-10/2016) • STRUCTURE (MYl-10/2016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
LIT2 Reach 2 (STA 330+00 - 343+18)
2545
2540
w
c
0
a 2535
2530
33600
2535
2530
m
m
0 0
m 2525
2520
33990
33630 33660 33690 33720 33750
TW (MYl-10/2016) — TW (MYO-04/2016)
33780 33810 33840 33870 33900
Station (feet)
-- WSF (MYl-10/2016) BKF (MYl-10/2016) 0 STRUCTURE (MYl-10/2016)
33930 33960 33990
34020 34050 34080 34110 34140 34170 34200 34230 34260 34290 34320 34350 34380
Station (feet)
—TW (MYS-10/2016) -- TW (MYO-04/2016) WSF (MYl-10/2016) • BKF (MYl-10/2016) 0 STRUCTURE (MYl-10/2016)
1
I
x I
N 1
x 1
•
1
•1
1
I
I
2535
2530
m
m
0 0
m 2525
2520
33990
33630 33660 33690 33720 33750
TW (MYl-10/2016) — TW (MYO-04/2016)
33780 33810 33840 33870 33900
Station (feet)
-- WSF (MYl-10/2016) BKF (MYl-10/2016) 0 STRUCTURE (MYl-10/2016)
33930 33960 33990
34020 34050 34080 34110 34140 34170 34200 34230 34260 34290 34320 34350 34380
Station (feet)
—TW (MYS-10/2016) -- TW (MYO-04/2016) WSF (MYl-10/2016) • BKF (MYl-10/2016) 0 STRUCTURE (MYl-10/2016)

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
UT2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
6.1
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
23
4
4
4
4
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
v
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
5
5
9
Medium
0.25
0.50
50
9
m
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
40
1
1
10
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
30
0
10
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
10
10
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
2
2
12
Fine
4.0 1
5.6
2
1
2
2
14
Fine
5.6
8.0
6
1
7
7
21
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
2
5
5
27
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
7
15
15
42
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
2
7
7
49
Coarse
22.6
32
13
2
15
15
64
Very Coarse
32 1
45
7
1 2 1
9
9
73
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
6
80
Small
64
90
9
9
9
89
Small
90
128
1
3
4
4
93
Large
128
180
4
4
4
97
Large
180
256
2
1
3
3
100
Small
256 1
362
1 1
100
Small
Medium
362
5 12
512
1 24
0
100
1 00
IIIIIIIILarge/Very
Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
68
30
98
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
v 30
i 20
10
0
0.01
UT2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYO-05/2016 Mn-1a/201e
UT2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
6.1
D35 =
14
D50 =
23
D80. =
75
D95 =
153
D100 =
256
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
�? 40
v 30
i 20
10
0
0.01
UT2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0-- MYO-05/2016 Mn-1a/201e
UT2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
y'L ,yh ,yh Oh 1 'L ,ti'b b 5� ,y1 16 ro .6'L ph
cO ,y0 yl0 hb bti 1ti ,yb �W 0�O
00 oy o�ti. ti ti ti 3 h do ,yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-05/2016 • MYl-10/2016
90
80
c
v
70
v
60
a
50
m
�
40
3
v
.?
30
0
20
10
0
y'L ,yh ,yh Oh 1 'L ,ti'b b 5� ,y1 16 ro .6'L ph
cO ,y0 yl0 hb bti 1ti ,yb �W 0�O
00 oy o�ti. ti ti ti 3 h do ,yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-05/2016 • MYl-10/2016

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 12 - UT2
327+69 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
2580
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
9.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
2578
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.5
width -depth ratio
30.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
2576
c
2574
2572
2570
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
+MYO(5/2016) —e MY1(10/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
5.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.4
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
9.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.5
width -depth ratio
30.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT2, Cross Section 12
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.53
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
40
Dm =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
16
16
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
16
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
4
20
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
2
22
50
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
22
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1 1
2
24
Fine
4.0
5.6
v
24
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
2
25
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
4
29
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
31
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
4
35
ti ti ti$ a h6 � titi do �ti� �ti a5 �a �o tiye 1�0 Cyd �rati yyti �O,tia �OaO aO��o
Coarse
22.6
32
3
6
41
Very Coarse
32
45
7
14
55
Very Coarse
45
64
9
18
73
Small
64
90
7
14
86
Small
90
128
4
8
94
Large
128
180
1
2
96
Large
180
256
2
4
100
Small
256
362
100
IIIIIIILarge/Very
Small
Medium
Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
51 1
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
5 50
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT2, Cross Section 12
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 iI I I Iill re.nI I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I i i i i i i I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—0— MYO-05/2016 _ MVI -10/2016
Cross Section 12
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.53
Das =
22
D50 =
40
Dm =
85
D95 =
149
D100 =1
256
100
90
80
70
60
5 50
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT2, Cross Section 12
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 iI I I Iill re.nI I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I i i i i i i I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—0— MYO-05/2016 _ MVI -10/2016
UT2, Cross Section 12
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
c
m
60
a
50
H
40
30
v
20
10
0
o�ti tiye otih oy
(ZY 0•
ti ti ti$ a h6 � titi do �ti� �ti a5 �a �o tiye 1�0 Cyd �rati yyti �O,tia �OaO aO��o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYo-05/2016 MYI-10/2206

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 13 - UT2
327+82 Pool
2580
2578
� 2576
77�c
0
2574
v
w
2572
2570
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
+MYO (5/2016) —0 MY1 (10/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
12.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.1
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
11.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.1
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 14 - UT2
334+67 Riffle
2555
2553
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.0
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
9.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
2551
9.7
width -depth ratio
23.2
W flood prone area (ft)
2.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
0
2549
v
w
2547
2545
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
tMYO(5/2016) MY1(10/2016) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
6.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.0
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
9.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.7
width -depth ratio
23.2
W flood prone area (ft)
2.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT2, Cross Section 14
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.41
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
2
2
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
4
6
Medium
0.25
0.50
7
14
20
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
2
22
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
2
24
50
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
24
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
40
24
Fine
4.0
5.6
v
24
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
6
30
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
2
32
Medium
11.0
16.0
10
32
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
4
36
Coarse
22.6
32
1
2
38
Very Coarse
32
45
2
4
42
Very Coarse
45
64
42
Small
64
90
4
8
50
Small
90
128
9
18
68
Large
128
180
12
24
92
Large
180
256
3
6
98
Small
256
362
98
IIIIIIILarge/Very
Small
Medium
Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
1
2
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
s0 1
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT2, Cross Section 14
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0! gam— I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1111
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-05/1016 _ MYI-10/2016
Cross Section 14
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.41
Das =
21
D50 =
90
Dm =
161
D95 =
215
D100 =1
512
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT2, Cross Section 14
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0! gam— I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1111
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-05/1016 _ MYI-10/2016
UT2, Cross Section 14
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
c
m
60
a
50
H
40
30
v
20
v
10
0
o�ti tiye otih oy
oo•
ti ti ti$ a h6 s til do �ti� �ti a5 �a �o tiye 1�0 Cyd ��ti ytiti soya �OaO aO�o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2016 MVI -10/2m6

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 15 - UT2
337+94 Pool
2544
11.6
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
12.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.4
2542
2540
c
0
2538
v
w
2536
2534
-20
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO (5/2016) MY1 (10/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
11.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.6
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
12.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.4
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 16 - UT2
339+14 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
2540
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
10.3
2538
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.9
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
20.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
2536
c
0
2534
v
w
2532
2530
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
+MYO(5/2016) ——MY1(10/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
5.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.0
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
10.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.9
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
20.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 17 - UT2
341+57 Riffle
2536
2534
c 2532
0
m
v
w
2530
2528
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
+MYO(5/2016) —e MY1(10/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
12.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.9
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
13.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.8
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
15.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
UT2, Cross Section 17
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
8.3
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
15
Dm =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
80
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
4
4
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
2
6
50
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
6
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
40
6
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
2
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
6
14
20
Medium
8.0
11.0
9
18
32
Medium
11.0
16.0
12
24
56
Coarse
16.0
22.6
9
18
74
Coarse
22.6
32
7
14
88
Very Coarse
32
45
1
2
90
Very Coarse
45
64
1
2
92
Small
64
90
1
2
94
Small
90
128
1
2
96
Large
128
180
1
2
98
Large
180
256
1
2
100
Small
256
362
100
IIIIIIILarge/Very
Small
Medium
Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Totall
s0 1
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT2, Cross Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i �i1 e _ J I i i i I I I I l I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I i i i i i i I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—0— MYO-05/2016 _ MVI -10/2016
Cross Section 17
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
8.3
D35 =
12
D50 =
15
Dm =
29
D95 =
107
D100 =1
256
100
90
80
70
60
3 50
40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT2, Cross Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i �i1 e _ J I i i i I I I I l I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I i i i i i i I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—0— MYO-05/2016 _ MVI -10/2016
UT2, Cross Section 17
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
c
m
60
a
50
H
40
30
v
�
v
20
10
0
o�ti tiye otih oy
ti ti ti$ a h� w til ti� �ti� �ti a5 �a �o tiye 1�0 Cyd �rati yyti
0 0
�O,tia �OaO aO��o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYo-05/2016 MYI-10/2016

Cross Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Cross Section 18 - UT2
342+03 Pool
2535
2533
19.5
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
20.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
23.3
width -depth ratio
2531
c
0
Owl
2529
v
w
2527
2525
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
+MYO (5/2016) MY1 (10/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
16.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
19.5
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
20.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
23.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
No wetland success criteria established
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (%)
Gage
Year 1(2016)
Year 2 (2017)
Year 3 (2018)
Year 4 (2019)
Year 5 (2020)
Wetland FF
Yes/112 Days
(66.6%)
No wetland success criteria established

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
Wetland FF
20
10
0
-10
ai
Y
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
Little Pine III Groundwater Gage #1
C
o
Monitoring Year 1- 2016
N
� O
QJ
N
on p
6.0
_
2
N
2
o
O
o
5.0
a
N
LU
4.0
3.0
c
2.0
1.0
0.0
c > c no n +
a `° a V) o
> u
o
z°
Rainfall
Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level

Monthly Rainfall Data
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 1 - 2016
1 2016 rainfall collected from NC CRONOS Station Name: Glade Valley 3.0 ENE (NCSU, 2016)
z 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Sparta, NC8158 (USDA, 2016)
3 Onsite rainfall gage malfunctioned. No onsite data available.
Little Pine Creek 111 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2016 Alleghany County, NC
13.00
11.00
9.00
c
r
7.00
0
ii
5.00
a`
3.00
1.00
Jan -16 Feb -16 Mar -16 Apr -16 May -16 Jun -16 Jul -16 Aug -16 Sep -16 Oct -16
-1.00
Date
NC CRONOS Glade Valley 3.0 ENE
-30th percentile
-70th percentile
1 2016 rainfall collected from NC CRONOS Station Name: Glade Valley 3.0 ENE (NCSU, 2016)
z 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Sparta, NC8158 (USDA, 2016)
3 Onsite rainfall gage malfunctioned. No onsite data available.