20120773 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report 2017_20180102

Jacob's Landing
Stream Restoration Monitoring Report
DMS Project # 95024
DMS Contract # 003984
Monitoring Year 04
Submitted to:
NCDEQ-DMS, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Construction Completed: January 2014
Data Collection: 2017
Submitted: January 2018

KCI
ASSOCIATES OF
NORTH CAROW4A, PP
ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
4505 Falls of Neuse Road Suite 400 Raleigh, NC 27609 [phone] [phone] Fax
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 22, 2018
To: Matthew Reid, DMS Project Manager
From: Adam Spiller, Project Manager
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PA
Subject: Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
MY -04 Monitoring Report Comments
Yadkin River Basin CU 03040105
Rowan County, North Carolina
NCDMS Project # 95024
Contract # 003984
Please find below our responses in italics to the MY -04 Monitoring Report comments from NCDMS
received on January 19, 2018, for the Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site.
General
• Executive summary discusses aggradation on T1. According to the profile and Table 5, there
appears to be approximately 550' of aggradation at the upstream section of T1. Please be
aware that if a stream fills in and is not f mctioning as designed, the IRT may deny credit for
this section. DMS recommends requesting site visit with IRT to discuss and develop an
adaptive management plan if necessary.
➢ KCl will request a site visit with the IRT.
• All four of the failing vegetation plots are on Reach T2. Does KCI plan to replant portions of
this reach?
➢ KCl is currently planning a supplemental planting at the site to address areas of low stem
density/majority sweetgum areas before the beginning of the next growing season. Three of
the 4 failing plots have a significant number of high quality volunteers and it is not believed
that overall the site is lacking in woody vegetation.
• The IRT has expressed concern over BHR having a measurement of 1 throughout the
monitoring period. Please update the calculations to reflect changes observed in the overlays
and explain in detail as a table footnote how the calculations were made. Be prepared to
defend the method used for credit release and justify through context whether or not any
changes observed in a cross section represent an issue.
➢ Bank height ratios have been updated throughout the report for all monitoring years. None of
the cross sections have experienced a significant change in BHR since construction.
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
www.kei.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

0 Since this project is post instrument and follows the credit release schedule, please be
prepared to discuss the two above issues during the credit release meeting in April. The IRT
will likely have questions and may request a site visit.
➢ KCl is prepared to discuss these issues with the IRT.
• As KCI has done in the past, please include a response letter that includes how/where the
comments were addressed in the report. Please insert this letter directly behind the cover
page in the final deliverables. The IRT has requested that we include this letter with the final
deliverables. The response letter will need to be included with all future monitoring
deliverables.
➢ This letter has been added to the report.
Please contact me if you have any questions or would like clarification concerning these responses.
Sincerely,
Adam Spiller
Project Manager
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A.
www.kei.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

Design and Monitoring Firm
KCI
ASSOCLATES OF NC -
4505
C
4505 Falls of Neuse Road
Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Project Manager: Tim Morris
Email: [e-mail]
Project No: 20110675
Jacob's Landing Site KCLAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 2017— MY04

Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/PROJECT ABSTRACT................................................1
2.0 METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................2
3.0 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................3
Appendix A — Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure1. Vicinity Map...................................................................................................................5
Figure2. Site Asset Map................................................................................................................6
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits...................................................................7
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History..........................................................................8
Table3. Project Contacts Table....................................................................................................9
Table 4. Project Attribute Table................................................................................................. 10
Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data
CurrentCondition Plan View....................................................................................................................12
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment..........................................................14
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment..................................................................................16
StreamStation Photos...............................................................................................................................17
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos...........................................................................................................25
Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment...............................................................................29
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata.......................................................................................30
Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species...............................................31
Appendix D — Stream Survey Data
Cross -Section Plots...................................................................................................................................34
LongitudinalProfile Plots.........................................................................................................................45
PebbleCount Plots....................................................................................................................................47
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary Table...........................................................................55
Table 11 a. Cross -Section Morphology Data Table..........................................................................59
Table l lb. Stream Reach Morphology Data Table...........................................................................60
Appendix E — Hydrologic Data
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events......................................................................................66
StreamHydrographs.................................................................................................................................67
Appendix F — Additional Information
Request for Mitigation Plan Amendment, letter dated 5/22/2014............................................................71
Reply to Request for Mitigation Plan Amendment, letter dated 9/2/2014 ................................................74
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 i 2017— MY04

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY / PROJECT ABSTRACT
The Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site is a full -delivery project that was developed for the North Carolina
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). Construction was completed in November 2013. The site includes the
restoration of 4,484 linear feet of restoration and 109 linear feet of enhancement on four tributaries to Irish
Buffalo Creek in the Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin. The project is located west of China Grove and north of
Kannapolis off of Saw Road in Rowan County (Figure 1, Appendix A). This project will expand aquatic and
terrestrial habitat in the Rocky River Watershed (03040105). The project is within the 03040105020040 Irish
Buffalo Creek Local Watershed Unit (14 -digit HUC) (NCDENR, EEP 2009). In DMS' most recent publication of
excluded and Targeted Local Watersheds/Hydrologic Units, the 03040105020040 14 -digit HUC has been
identified as a Targeted Local Watershed. The project is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province and the
project streams initiate as headwater systems out of moderately -sloped, forested hills before reaching the
floodplain of Irish Buffalo Creek. The site's 0.72 -square mile watershed is mostly pasture and mixed hardwoods
with small pockets of rural residential development. Prior to construction the site was actively used for timber and
cattle production for over five generations.
The project goals and objectives are listed below.
Project Goals
• Restore a diverse riparian corridor that connects forested stream systems upstream and downstream of the
project.
• Reduce the sediment supply entering Irish Buffalo Creek.
Project Objectives
• Restore stable channel planforms to streams that have been straightened and modified.
• Reshape and stabilize eroding stream banks.
• Plant the site with native trees to help reestablish a diverse riparian corridor.
• Install exclusion fencing and alternative watering options to keep livestock out of the project streams.
During the Proposal Stage of the project, Reach T2 -A was identified as Enhancement Level 1 at a 1.5:1 credit
ratio. During the assessment and design stage for this reach, a more aggressive restoration approach was
determined to be need, and the because of this the decision was made to completely change the stream type from a
G -type channel to a CB type channel. This required a restoration level approach during construction and because
of this KCI requested a reallocation of credit type from the IRT from 1.5:1 to 1:1. After several meetings and
discussions with the IRT, this reallocation of credit type was agreed to and resulted in an increase of 155 credits
from the credits listed in the mitigation plan. See Appendix F for more information on this change.
Vegetation success is based on the criteria established in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines (2003). This
document states that vegetation monitoring results should have the following planted stem density minimums in
the corresponding monitoring years: 320 stems/acre through Year Three, 288 stems/acre in Year Four, and 260
stems/acre in Year Five. The fourth-year vegetation monitoring was based on the Level 2 CVS-EEP vegetation
monitoring protocol. The site's average density for this monitoring period is 402 planted stems/acre, with none of
the plots having live stakes planted in them. Nine of the thirteen plots had greater than 288 planted stems/acre.
There are four monitoring plots that have calculated planted stem densities less than 288 stems/acre; (Plots 1, 3, 4,
and 6). Additionally, three small areas of low stem density were identified within the easement. These areas
collectively make up 0.23 acres or less than 2% of the total easement. This is not seen as problematic given the
high potential for desirable volunteers to become established in the plots and across the site. Like natural
vegetative communities, some areas will have slightly higher densities than others, but the data from the
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 1 2017— MY04

vegetation monitoring plots reveal that the site has an adequate average stem density. To ensure continued
vegetative success, some parts of the site received supplemental planting in early 2015. Including volunteers, the
monitoring plots averaged 931 total stems/acre. Although the overall vegetation assessment found the site to be on
track to meeting the vegetative success criterion, KCI is evaluating the need for a supplemental planting to create
more uniform vegetative cover across the site..
Fourth-year monitoring found the Jacob's Landing Site to be stable, with only minor changes from the as -built
conditions. Two small areas of bank erosion that were reported on T1 during W02 were repaired with soil lifts
in the beginning of 2016 and these have shown no signs of instability since. The monitoring components were
installed in February/March 2014. Two automatic recording gauges have been installed along TI and T2. Both
stream gauges recorded several bankfull events during 2017. The monitoring plan for each tributary is as follows:
T1 has a 1,500 foot longitudinal profile, 3 riffle cross-sections, and 1 pool cross-section; T2 has a 1,500 foot
longitudinal profile, 5 riffle cross-sections and 2 pool cross-sections; T1A and T2A are being monitored visually
since they are short reaches and small channels. Pebble counts were conducted at all eleven cross-sections. Ten
permanent photo reference points have been established with a total of twenty-two photos to be taken annually.
The fourth year of monitoring found the site to be functioning and T2 shows little change from the baseline
conditions. The two areas of deposition mentioned in last year's report have since washed out and are more
closely aligned with the baseline condition. This is representative of the natural cycle of sediment transport within
the restored system, which receives a high volume of sediment input upstream of the restored reach. Similarly,
although there are several areas of aggradation still present on T1, much of the aggradation reported last year has
washed out and the remaining instances are confined to the upper quarter of the reach. As with T2, this is not seen
as an indicator of instability in the reach, but will be monitored to ensure it does not become a problem for the
site.
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment and statistics related
to 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 reports can be found in the
Baseline Monitoring Report and in the Mitigation Plan documents available on the DMS' website. All raw data
supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The survey data were collected with a total station instrument between June 31 and July 2 for T1, and between
November 16 and December 11 for T2.
Some of the cross-sections have shown minor settling in the floodplain. The bankfull elevations at these cross-
sections have not been changed to reflect this. For calculating cross-sectional morphologic data the cross-section
width has been limited to a width that appropriately reflects the top of bank location so as not to inaccurately
skew data. Based on feedback from the IRT and DMS, the bank height ratios for the monitored cross-sections
have been updated. Bank height ratios are now being calculated by comparing the as -built max depth of the
channel to the new low bank height.
The CVS-EEP protocol, Level 2 (http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm) was used to collect vegetation data from
the site. The vegetation monitoring was completed on August 14, 2017.
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 2 2017— MY04

3.0 REFERENCES
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.2(http:Hcvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm)
NCDENR, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Lower Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin
Priorities 2009. Raleigh, NC.
http://www.nceep.net/services/resiplans/Yadkin Pee_Dee _RBRP_2009_Final.pdf
USACE. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 3 2017— MY04

Appendix A
Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Jacob's Landing Site KCl Associates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 4 2017— MY04

1
e°
152 7
w /
0
3
mm
O �
Y m
fee
A10
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 5 2017— MY04
To reach the site from Raleigh: proceed west on 1-40
for approximately 62 miles. Then travel on 1-85 south
toward High PoinUCharlotte for approximately 50
/\
miles. Take Exit 68 toward China Grove on US -29
\
south. Turn right on NC -152 on East Church Street for
approximately 5 miles and then turn left onto Saw
Y
L
Road. The site will be approximately 0.5 -mile ahead
on the right.
The subject project site is an environmental restoration
I
site of the NCDENR Division of Mitgation Services
\
r
(DMS) and is encompassed bya recorded conservation
�Y
easement, but is bordered by land under private
_
ownership. Accessing the site may require
traversing areas near or along the easement boundary
and therefore access by the general public is not
}
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state
r
and federal agencies or their designeeslcontractors
L
involved in the development, oversight and
stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within
Y�
��
the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any
\
intended site visitation or activity by any person
outside of these previously sanctioned roles and
activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
DAVIE
KANNAPOLIS
DAVIDSON
IREDELL
ROWAN
Division
SA7 `
of
Mitigation
CABARRUS STANLY
��
Services
FIGURE 1. PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP
n
0 0.75 1.�
JACOB'S LANDING STREAM RESTORATION SITE
"1°eS
DMS PROJECT # 95024, ROWAN COUNTY, NC
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 5 2017— MY04

Jacob's Landing Site KCl Associates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 6 2017— MY04

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site, DMS Project # 95024
Miti
ation Credits
Riparian
Non-
Nitrogen
Stream
Wetland
riparian
Buffer
Nutrient
Wetland
Offset
Type
R
EII
Length
4,484
109
Credits
4,484
44
TOTAL
4,528
CREDITS
Project
Components
Project
Design
Existing
Restoration -or-
Restoration
Component
Stationing/
Footage
Approach
Restoration
Footage
Mitigation
-or-
Location
(PI, PH etc.)
Equivalent
Ratio
Reach ID
T1
10+00 — 13+03
326
P2
Restoration
303
1:1
T1
13+52 —14+61
158
-
Enhancement II
109*
1:2.5
T1
14+61 —23+54
846
P2
Restoration
893
1:1
T 1 A
40+00 —41+78
294
P2
Restoration
178
1:1
T2
50+00 —77+45
2,935
P2
Restoration
2,645*
1:1
T2A
100+00 —104+65
465
P2
Restoration
465
1:1
Component Summation
Restoration
Stream
Mitigation Units (SMU)
Level
(linear feet)
Total Restoration
4,484
4,484
Total
Enhancement II
109
44
TOTAL SMU
4,528
*Mitigation units have been calculated to exclude the easement exceptions and water utility easements.
Though not formal BMPs, several small water quality detention structures were installed throughout the project to improve
water quality from the surrounding drainage area.
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 7 2017— MY04

Table 2. Project Activity & Reporting History
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site, DMS Project # 95024
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion
or Delivery
Mitigation Plan
Sept 12
Final Design - Construction Plans
Dec 12
Construction
Nov 13
Planting
Jan 14
Baseline Monitoring/Report
March 14
April 14
Vegetation Monitoring
Feb. 20, 2014
Photo Points
March 11, 2014
Stream Survey
Feb. 25, 2014
Year 1 Monitoring
Oct 14
Nov 14
Vegetation Monitoring
Oct. 1, 2014
Photo Points
Oct. 29, 2014
Stream Survey
Oct. 29, 2014
Supplemental Planting
March 15
Year 2 Monitoring
August 15
Dec 15
Vegetation Monitoring
July 28, 2015
Photo Points
Dec. 17, 2015
Stream Survey
Aug. 11, 2015
Bank erosion repair
Jan 16
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec 16
Dec 16
Vegetation Monitoring
Aug. 31, 2016
Photo Points
Nov. 15, 2016
Stream Survey
June 10, 2016 (Tl),
Dec. 8, 2016 (T2)
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec 17
Dec 17
Vegetation Monitoring
Aug. 14, 2017
Photo Points
Nov. 17, 2017
Stream Survey
June 2, 2017 (TI),
Dec. 112017 T2)
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 8 2017— MY04

Table 3. Project Contacts
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site, DMS Project # 95024
Design Firm
KCI Associates of North Carolina
4505 Falls of Neuse Road
Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27609
Contact: Mr. Tim Morris
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Construction Contractor
Wright Contracting, LLC
160 Walker Road
Lawndale, NC 28090
Contact: Mr. Stephen James
Phone: [phone]
Planting Contractor
Forestree Management Co.
1280 Maudis Road
Bailey, NC 27807
Contact: Mr. Tony Cortez
Phone: [phone]
Monitoring Performers
MY -00 - MY -04
KCI Associates of North Carolina
4505 Falls of Neuse Road
Suite 400
Raleigh, NC 27609
Contact: Mr. Adam Spiller
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 9 2017— MY04

Table 4. Project Information
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site, DMS Project # 95024
Project Name
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site
County
Rowan County
Project Area (acres)
13.9 acres
Project Coordinates (lat. and long.)
35.552956 N, 80.653116 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin -Pee Dee
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03040105
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit 03040105020040
DWQ Sub -basin
13-17-09
Project Drainage Area
459 acres/0.72 square miles
Project Drainage Area Percentage
2.3% / 6 acres
of Impervious Area
CGIA Land Use Classification
4.8% Cultivated, 60.1% Managed Herbaceous Cover, and 35.1% Mixed Upland Hardwoods.
Reach Summary Information (Post -Restoration)
Parameters
TI
T1A
T2
T2A
Length of reach (linear feet)
1,305
178
2,645
465
Valley classification
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
Drainage area (acres)
258.6 acres
136.9 acres
200.6 acres
35.7 acres
NCDWQ Water Quality
Class C, WSIII
Class C, WSIII
Class C, WSIII
Class C, WSIII
Classification
Morphological Description (stream
C4
134c/C4
C4
134c/C4
type)
Evolutionary trend
Stage II
Stage II
Stage II
Stage II
Constructed
Constructed
Constructed
Constructed
Mapped Soil Series
Chewacla loam
Chewacla loam
Pacolet sandy loam
Pacolet sandy loam
and Chewacla loam
Drainage class
Poorly drained
Well drained
Poor to Well drained
Well drained
Soil Hydric status
Non hydric
Non hydric
Non hydric
Non hydric
Sloe
0-2%
0-2%
0-2%
0-2%
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Native vegetation community
Piedmont Alluvial
Piedmont Alluvial
Piedmont Alluvial
Mesic Mixed
Forest
Forest
Forest
Hardwood Forest
Percent composition of exotic
0%
0%
0%
0%
invasive vegetation
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section
Yes
Yes, received 404 permit.
N/A
404
Waters of the United States — Section
Yes
Yes, received 401 permit.
N/A
401
Endangered Species Act
No
N/A
N/A
Historic Preservation Act
No
N/A
N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act*
N/A
(CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management
No
N/A
Act (CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Floodplain development permit obtained
N/A
through Rowan Count
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 10 2017— MY04

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Jacob's Landing Site KCl Associates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 11 2017— MY04

0
-80' -40' 0' 8 160'
GRAPHIC SCALE
I
t
EXCEPTION
WATER QUALITY
STRUCTURE
0+1
l VP9
BEGIN
REACH T1A PPll�- BEGIN • . '"
OO+OI
PROFILE Ti c
BEGIN
REACH T1
F'
7 -6
_ la,
'. . •'`--'. �`'�-far- v•�„R�
k��y�r�t,1tiT•��6 9: -
�.
VP12
PROFILE T1
Fa
8

n
- Gip
�a
-80' -40' 0' 80'
GRAPHIC SCALE
x
WATER QUALITY I x
STRUCTURE \
" BEGIN l
PROFILE T2 0
o
VP1 PP5 VP2 XS6 6800
oo* .9
O 9
Oa 51+00 0+BEGIN ops,
REACH T2 s XS5 SAkop oox \+ VP3 yox \ o0 5EASEMENT
0 FEET +
s + X03+ EXCEPTION
o/
PP6 0 + op
VP4 �x f o
�x-xx�x XS9 \ VP6
� o
WATER QUALITY
STRUCTURE X o \x o 00
X
o
6�
PP9 o sy ° o XS11 �+
oo VPS
i
50F E �+oo XSS
+ (GAUGE 2) �x
j* EASEMENT �* PP7 �x +� �x--
EXCEPTION VP7 0
ti PP10 END
XS10 0 / PROFILE T2
• ��ss ti � \ � /x
o",
END �f 'bz
PROFILE T1 ^+
93 x/ \
0
00
x
o4. XS4
oX �
(GAUGE 1) '
}; VP12
..�, � • w. L S�, - PP3
qj
'a'►, i
XS3
_ }
=: XS2 $
00.
WATER QUALITY
STRUCTURE
} VP11

Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site, DMS Project# 95024
Assessed Len th 2,389 Reach - Tl
Number
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Agaradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to
significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include
point bars)
1
550
77%
2. DeQzadation - Evidence of downcuttin
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser
substrate
21
21
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean
Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
16
16
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance
between tail of upstream riffle and head of
16
16
100%
downstrem riffle
4.Thalweg Position
(.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend
1 1
1 1
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander
(Glide)
10
10
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding0
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or scour and erosion
0
o
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass
2. Undercut
wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts
that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0
0
o
100/o
3. Mass WastingBank
,providinghabitat.
slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged
boulders or logs.
6
6
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill.
6
6
o
100/o
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath
sills or arms.
6
6
N/A
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
3. Bank Protection
influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for
6
6
100%
this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool
4. Habitat
Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6
0
0
N/A
Rootwads/logs providingsome cover at base -flow.
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 14 2017 — MY04

5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
s Landing Stream Restoration Site, DMS Project # 95024
AssessedUn2th 2.084
Major
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Channel
Channel
0
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
0
0
1. Aea-adation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to
23
1. Vertical Stability
1. Bed
(Riffle and Run units)
significantly deflect flowlaterally (not to include
100%
26
point bars
100%
2. DeVadation - Evidence of downcutting
N/A
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser
N/A
2. Riffle Condition
substrate
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean
100%
Condition
Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
0
0
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
between tail of upstream riffle and head of
15
15
downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position'
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill.
15
I S
(Run)
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander
2a. Piping
Reach - n
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing
as Intended
0
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
23
23
100%
26
26
100%
26
26
100%
providing habitat.
N/A
N/A
2. Rank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from
poor growth and/or scour and erosion
0
0
1001Y.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass
2. Undercut
wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts
that are modest, appear sustainable and are
0
0
100
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
1
Totals
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged
boulders or logs.
15
15
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of
grade across the sill.
15
I S
o
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath
sills or arms.
1
o
100/o
Bank erosion within the structures extent of
3. Bank Protection
influence does not exceed 15%. (See guidance for
6
6
100%
this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool
4. Habitat
Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6
0
0
N/A
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at ba fl
'Tine to this reach's
small size and the scale
of the pattern the exact nnsitinn of the thalamo in relation
to the meanders and morphological features is inconsistent and not practical to evaluate
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 15 2017 — MY04

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
IJacoYs Landing Stream Restoration Site, DMS Project# 95024
PlantedAcrea a 12.83 EasementAcrea a 13.9
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Ve etation Category
Definitions
Mapping Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
% of Planted Acreage
Very limited cover of both woody
Pattern and
1. Bare Areas
0.1 acre
0
0.00
°
0.0%
and herbaceous material.
Color
Woody stem densities clearly below
2. Low Stem Density
Pattern and
target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5
0.1 acre
3
0.23
1.8%
Areas
Color
stem count criteria.
Total
3
0.23
1.8%
Areas with woody stems of a size
3. Areas of Poor
Pattern and
class that are obviously small given
0.25 acre
0
0.00
0.0%
Growth Rates or Vigor
Color
the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
3
0.23
1.8%
4. Invasive Areas of Areas or points (if too small to
Pattern and
1,000 SF
0
0.00
0.0%
Concern render as polygons at ma scale).
Color
5. Easement
Areas or points (if too small to
Pattern and
Encroachment Areas
render as polygons at map scale).
none
I Color
0
0.00
0.01%
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 16 2017 — MY04

Stream Station Photos
Photo Point lu: MY -00 — 3/11/14
Photo Point In: MY -04 — 11/17/17
Photo Point Id: MY -00 — 3/11/14
Photo Point Id: MY -04 — 11/17/17
Photo Point 1 Tributary: MY -00 — 3/11/14
Photo Point 1 Tributary: MY -04 — 11/17/17
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 17 2017— MY04

Photo Point 2u: MY -00 — 3/11/14
Photo Point 2u: MY -04 — 11/17/17
Photo Point 2d: MY -00 3/11/14
Photo Point 2d: MY -04 11/17/17
Photo Point 3u: MY -00 — 3/11/14
Photo Point 3u: MY -04 — 11/17/17
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 18 2017— MY04

Photo Point 3d: MY -00 — 3/11/14
Photo Point 3d: MY -04 —11/17/17
Photo Point 4u: MY -00 — 3/11/14
Photo Point 4u: MY -04 —11/17/17
Photo Point 4d: MY -00 — 3/11/14
Photo Point 4d: MY -04 11/17/17
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 19 2017— MY04

Photo Point 5u: MY -00 — 3/11/14
Photo Point 5u: MY -04 — 11/17/17
Photo Point 5d: MY -00 — 3/11/14
Photo Point 5d: MY -04 — 11/17/17
Photo Point 6u: MY -00 — 3/11/14
Photo Point 6u: MY -04 — 11/17/17
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 20 2017— MY04

Photo Point 6d: MY -00 3/11/14
Photo Point 6d: MY -04 11/17/17
Photo Point 7u: MY -00 3/11/14
Photo Point 7u: MY -04 — 11/17/17
Photo Point 7d: MY -00 3/11/14
Photo Point 7d: MY -04 — 11/17/17
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 21 2017— MY04

Photo Point 8u: MY -00 3/11/14
Photo Point 8u: MY -04 11/17/17
Photo Point 8d: MY -00 — 3/11/14
Photo Point 8d: MY -0411/17/17
Photo Point 9u: MY -00 — 3/11/14
Photo Point 9u: MY -04 —11/17/17
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 22 2017— MY04

`��fz
777.
"' .f Ayr. _ v'fi ! _ �\ i ��.E,i ..' k / \ s � �.'h• _
� E
4
i
��IY•` ii mlisF�NY
OF
t f�
41x
Al

Photo Point 10d: MY -00 3/11/14
Photo Point 10d: MY -04 — 11/17/17
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 24 2017— MY04

Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Plot ] Photo: 8/14/17 — MY04
Plot 3 Photo: 8/14/17 — MY04
Plot 5 Photo: 8/14/17 — MY04
Plot 2 Photo: 8/14/17 — MY04
Plot 4 Photo: 8/14/17 MY04
Plot 6 Photo: 8/14/17 — MY04
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 25 2017— MY04

Plot 7 Photo: 8/14/17 — MY04
Plot 9 Photo: 8/14/17 — MY04
Plot 11 Photo: 8/14/17 — MY04
Plot 8 Photo: 8/14/17 — W04
Plot 10 Photo: 8/14/17 — MY04
Plot 12 Photo: 8/14/17 — MY04
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 26 2017— MY04

Plot 13 Photo: 8/14/17 — MY04
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 27 2017— MY04

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Jacob's Landing Site KCl Associates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 28 2017— MY04

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site, DMS Project # 95024
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold
Met?
Monitoring Year 04
Planted Stem Density
(stems/acre)
Monitoring Year 04
Total Stem Density
(stems/acre)
1
No
283
647
2
Yes
405
526
3
No
243
364
4
No
243
1,133
5
Yes
405
567
6
No
202
445
7
Yes
607
2,226
8
Yes
405
931
9
Yes
445
1,255
10
Yes
445
607
11
Yes
567
1,255
12
Yes
445
769
13
Yes
526
1,376
Jacob's Landing Site KCl Associates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 29 2017— MY04

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site DMS Project # 95024
Report Prepared By
Ben Grunwald
Date Prepared
8/15/201714:00
database name
KCI-2017-L.mdb
database location
M:\2011\20110675-Jacobs Landin \Monitorun \Ve etaton CVS Database
computer name
12-3ZV4FP1
file size
162001152
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEET'S IN THIS DOCUMENT ----
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary ofproject(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,
mus s in , etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed byspecies.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of
total stems impacted by each.
Damage by S
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 lot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-
UMMARYProject
ProjectCode
95024
project Name
Jacob's Landing
Description
Stream Restoration Site
River Basin
Yadkin-Pee Dee
length(ft)
4593
area (s m)
0.72
Required Plots calculate
13
Sam ledPlots
13
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 30 2017— MY04

Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
DMS Project Code 95024,
Project Name: Jacob's Landing
Current Plot Data (MY4 2017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
95024-01-0001
95024-01-0002
95024-01-0003
95024-01-0004
95024-01-0005
95024-01-0006
95024-01-0007
95024-01-0008
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 negundo
boxelder
Tree
Acer nigrum
black maple
Tree
1
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Baccharis
baccharis
Shrub
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
8 8
8
2
2
2
4 4
4
1
1
1
10
10
10
2
2
2
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberi
Shrub
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
4
1
1
1
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
2
1
6
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
8
3
15
3
4
30
9
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1 1
1
1
1
Nyssa biflora
swamp tupelo
Tree
1
1
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
1 1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
2 2
2
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
pin oak
Tree
7 7
7
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
8
8
8
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
3 3
3
1
1
1
Salix nigra
blackwillow
Tree
2
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
Unknown
IShrub or Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
71
71
16
10 101
13
6
61
9
61 6
28
10 101
14
51
51
11
151
151
55
101
101
23
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
0.02 0.02
4
4 6 2 2 4 3 3 4 3
3 7 2
2 4 4 4 7
4 4 9 2 2
7
283
283 647 405 405 5261 2431 2431 364 243
243 1133 405
405 567 202 202 445
607 607 2226 405 405
931
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates ofNorth Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 31 2017— MY04

Table 9. CVS Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
DMS Project Code 95024, Project Name: Jacob's Landing
Current Plot Data (MY4 2017)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
95024-01-0009
95024-01-0010
95024-01-0011
95024-01-0012
95024-01-0013
MY4 (2017)
MY3 (2016)
MY2 (2015)
MY1(2014)
MYO (2014)
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 negundo
boxelder
Tree
6
6
3
Acer nigrum
black maple
Tree
1
2
4
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
Baccharis
baccharis
Shrub
1
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
1
1
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3 3
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
40
40
40
41
41
42
43
43
45
44
44
44
44
44 44
Callicarpa americana
American beautyberry
Shrub
3
3 3
3
3
3
1
1
1
7
7
71
9
9
9
9
9
9
11
11
12
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
4
3
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4 4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
11
11
11
9
9
11
9
9
9
1
1
1
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
7
1
3
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
1
1
11
2
4
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
14
4
14
6
16
126
206
171
272
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
3
1
1
6
1
1
9
3
3
10
11
11
17
Nyssa biflora
swamp tupelo
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
12
12
18
12
12
17
16
16
19
21
21
32
3
3 3
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
11
11 11
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
2
2
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
3
3
4
1
1 1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
pin oak
Tree
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
7 7
7
5
5 5
9
9
9
9
9
9
41
41
41
43
43
43
46
46
46
41
41
41
54
54 54
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
5
5
5
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
2
3
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
1
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
6
6
6
133
133 133
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
111 111
31
11 111 15
14
141
31
11 11 19
13
13
34
129 129 299
132
132
373
144
1441
344
149
149 444
246 246 246
1 1 1 1 1 13
13
13
13
13
0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.32
0.32
0.32
0A
0.32
2 2
7 3
3 4 4
4 6 3
3 6 4
4
7 12
12 21
11
11
21
11 11 17
116
6 6
445 445
1255 445445
607 567
567 1255 445
445 769 526
526
1376 402
402 931
411
411
1161
448 448 1071
464
766 766 766
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates ofNorth Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 32 2017— MY04

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates ofNorth Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 33 2017— MY04

RiveEBasin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
Site:
Jacob's Landing
XS I
XS1
Dra:
0.37
Date
5/31/2017
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, B. Grunwald
Station
Elevation
0.00
800.51
3.42
800.05
5.65
799.67
7.71
798.79
11.49
797.44
14.94
1 796.00
18.04
795.77
20.75
795.87
22.60
795.92
24.91
795.67
25.68
795.86
25.97
795.85
26.60
795.16
27.20
794.93
28.25
794.99
29.37
794.97
30.12
795.12
30.80
795.38
32.55
795.79
34.24
796.25
35.95
796.13
38.18
795.96
40.34
795.83
44.97
796.08
49.58
796.42
53.65
798.02
57.34
799.13
59.97
799.88
62.95
799.85
64.68
799.84
64.77
799.94
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
795.83
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.0
Bankfull Width:
6.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
796.7
Flood Prone Width:
37.2
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
11.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.5
Bank Height Ratio:
0.7
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, Jacob's Landing, XS1
801
800
799
798
0
797
ti796
-----------------
------ - --- -----------------------
W
795
794
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)
----Bankfull
----Flood Prone Area -MYRl, 10/27/14 -MYR2, 8/11/15 -MYR3, 6/10/16 tMYR4, 5/31/17

RiveEBasin:
Elevation
Yadkin -Pee Dee
Site:
2.36
Jacob's Landing
XS I
793.12
XS2
Drai:
15.52
0.37
Date
5/31/2017
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, B. Grunwald
Station
Elevation
0.00
794.46
2.36
794.31
7.15
793.12
10.06
792.56
15.52
792.15
22.56
792.31
30.41
792.19
35.15
792.19
37.70
792.49
39.31
792.07
40.53
791.76
41.37
791.39
41.96
791.14
42.86
791.14
43.52
791.12
44.13
791.05
44.70
791.17
45.06
791.51
45.95
791.72
48.02
792.03
49.78
792.51
52.16
792.57
56.05
792.53
62.20
792.82
70.10
793.07
74.05
793.39
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
792.39
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area.
8.0
Bankfull Width:
11.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation.
793.7
Flood Prone Width:
69.7
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
15.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.2
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, Jacob's Landing, XS2
795
794
794
793
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- -
793
792
0
792
---------- --------- --------------------- ----------------------------
W
791
791
790
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)
----Bankfull ----Flood Prone Area -MYRl, 10/27/14 -MYR2, 8/11/15 -MYR3, 6/10/16 tMYR4, 5/31/17

RiveEBasin:
Elevation
Yadkin -Pee Dee
Site:
0.90
Jacob's Landing
XS I
792.70
XS3
Drai:
10.17
0.37
Date
5/31/2017
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, B. Grunwald
Station
Elevation
0.00
793.92
0.90
793.76
3.98
792.70
8.33
791.34
10.17
791.14
13.37
1 791.06
16.99
790.99
19.46
791.19
26.17
791.27
32.00
791.01
35.92
790.97
38.13
790.90
38.88
790.56
39.42
790.15
39.79
789.40
41.22
788.54
42.09
788.39
43.04
788.36
43.67
789.00
44.52
790.07
45.49
790.85
46.47
791.11
47.36
791.41
50.03
791.39
52.86
791.52
55.58
792.38
57.94
793.00
59.77
793.66
SUMMARY DATA
795
794
Bankfull Elevation:
791.25
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
14.0
Bankfull Width:
8.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
788
Bank Height Ratio:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, Jacob's Landing, XS3
795
794
793
792
791
0
790
W
789
788
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)
----Bankfull -MYRl, 10/27/14 -MYR2, 8/11/15 -MYR3, 6/10/16 tMYR4,5/31/17

RiveEBasin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
Site:
Jacob's Landing
XS I
XS4
Drai:
0.37
Date
5/31/2017
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, B. Grunwald
Station
Elevation
0.00
792.25
2.51
791.60
7.06
790.15
13.83
790.11
20.99
789.93
25.48
1 789.90
26.49
789.86
28.16
789.41
29.23
789.36
29.73
788.90
30.07
788.71
31.51
788.65
32.44
788.62
33.12
788.60
33.40
789.05
34.50
789.55
36.66
789.94
37.08
790.20
40.10
790.13
46.12
789.98
52.37
790.26
59.79
790.38
64.15
791.88
67.50
792.93
67.55
793.60
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
789.91
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area.
7.0
Bankfull Width:
10.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
791.2
Flood Prone Width:
58.5
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
14.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, Jacob's Landing, XS4
794
793
792
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
791
0
790
-----------
W
789
788
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (feet)
----Bankfull
----Flood Prone Area -MYRl, 10/27/14 -MYR2, 8/11/15 -MYR3, 6/10/16 tMYR4, 5/31/17

RiveEBasin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
Site:
Jacob's Landing
XS I
XS5
Drai:
0.37
Date
12/11/2017
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, J. Sullivan
Station
Elevation
0.00
818.64
9.56
813.50
12.17
813.29
14.32
813.29
16.19
812.82
17.73
812.26
18.15
812.31
18.67
812.11
19.19
812.06
19.97
811.98
20.75
811.99
21.28
812.04
22.60
812.54
24.07
812.95
25.40
813.30
26.04
813.42
27.53
813.40
30.35
813.50
31.29
813.67
33.47
815.17
35.16
815.97
37.21
816.25
39.64
817.29
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
813.33
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
8.5
Bankfull Width:
11.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
814.7
Flood Prone Width:
26.6
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
14.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, Jacob's Landing, XS5
819
818
817
816
815
°
814
813
W
812
811
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Station (feet)
----Bankfall ----Flood Prone Area MYRl, 10/27/14 -MYR2, 8/11/15 -MYR3, 6/10/16 tMYR4, 12/11/17

RiveEBasin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
Site:
Jacob's Landing
XS I
XS6
Drai:
0.37
Date
12/11/2017
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, J. Sullivan
Station
Elevation
0.00
812.24
4.95
811.73
9.79
810.93
13.78
810.11
17.50
809.74
19.33
1 809.66
21.01
809.28
21.99
809.07
23.33
808.87
23.48
808.59
24.58
808.32
25.63
808.21
26.25
808.36
27.08
808.56
28.92
808.98
31.00
809.66
32.33
810.18
34.25
810.17
38.24
810.31
41.38
810.87
46.84
812.58
46.61
813.75
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
809.52
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
7.3
Bankfull Width:
10.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
810.8
Flood Prone Width:
30.8
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
15.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, Jacob's Landing, XS6
814
813
u�
812
811
_______________ ____________________________________________ _ _________
0
810
o'
W
809
808
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Station (feet)
----Bankfull ----Flood Prone Area MYRl, 10/27/14 -MYR2, 8/11/15 -MYR3, 6/10/16 tMYR4, 12/11/17

RiveEBasin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
Site:
Jacob's Landing
XS I
XS7
Drai:
0.37
Date
12/11/2017
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, J. Sullivan
Station
Elevation
0.00
810.73
0.20
809.90
2.16
809.61
3.62
808.59
6.35
807.24
8.58
1 806.82
10.36
806.77
11.12
806.77
12.58
806.27
13.56
805.99
14.34
805.67
14.79
804.83
16.09
804.53
17.42
804.33
18.28
804.31
19.24
804.40
20.94
804.68
21.77
804.90
22.65
805.80
23.53
805.96
24.82
806.26
28.51
806.54
33.54
806.61
36.81
806.70
39.30
807.93
42.01
808.64
42.67
809.07
SUMMARY DATA
811
Bankfull Elevation:
806.39
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
16.0
Bankfull Width:
12.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
W / D Ratio.
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
W 806
805
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, Jacob's Landing, XS7
811
810
809
808
0 807
W 806
805
804
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station (feet)
----Bankfull -MYRl, 10/27/14 -MYR2, 8/11/15 -MYR3, 6/10/16 tMYR4,12/11/17

RiveEBasin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
Site:
Jacob's Landing
XS I
XS8
Drai:
0.37
Date
12/11/2017
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, J. Sullivan
Station
Elevation
0.00
805.39
0.02
804.86
2.42
804.54
5.53
803.61
7.97
802.67
10.65
1 801.84
13.28
801.66
15.44
801.55
16.24
801.39
18.23
800.68
20.30
799.84
20.18
799.91
21.00
799.79
21.88
799.58
22.79
799.57
23.96
799.93
24.65
800.13
25.59
800.67
26.92
801.19
27.56
801.38
29.71
801.30
31.11
801.25
32.66
801.19
33.77
801.67
35.86
802.84
38.25
803.93
40.88
804.55
41.47
804.73
SUMMARY DATA
806
Bankfull Elevation:
801.38
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
11.6
Bankfull Width:
11.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
803.2
Flood Prone Width:
30.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
11.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.4
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, Jacob's Landing, XS8
806
805
804
803
0 802
----------------------------- ------------------- ----------------
801
W
800
799
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Station (feet)
----Bankfall ----Flood Prone Area MYRl, 10/27/14 -MYR2, 8/11/15 -MYR3, 6/10/16 tMYR4, 12/11/17

RiveEBasin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
Site:
Jacob's Landing
XS I
XS9
Drai:
0.37
Date
12/11/2017
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, J. Sullivan
Station
Elevation
0.00
801.41
1.14
801.25
3.70
800.41
6.11
799.14
9.12
798.24
13.14
797.93
16.58
797.82
18.77
797.35
19.33
797.08
19.88
796.99
20.53
796.49
22.08
796.55
23.04
796.51
23.99
796.50
25.08
796.99
26.18
797.28
26.81
797.47
27.86
797.91
28.83
798.25
29.69
798.15
33.40
798.07
37.68
798.04
42.82
798.14
46.55
798.22
48.66
798.73
49.34
799.14
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
7.76
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:8.2
801
Bankfull Width:
0.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
99.0
Flood Prone Width:
2.7
11.1
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
3.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.0
Bank Height Ratio:
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, Jacob's Landing, XS9
802
801
800
799
________--------- ___________---------- ___________---------- _--- _______ ____
0
798
W
77777� ::�r
797
796
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)
___-Bankfall - Flood Prone Area MYRl, 10/27/14 -MYR2, 8/11/15 -MYR3, 6/10/16 tMYR4, 12/11/17

RiveEBasin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
Site:
Jacob's Landing
XS I
XS10
Drai:
0.37
Date
12/11/2017
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, J. Sullivan
Station
Elevation
0.00
797.71
0.12
796.44
5.93
796.45
12.06
796.52
16.90
796.50
19.86
1 796.08
22.90
795.96
24.72
795.96
25.01
795.37
26.52
794.89
28.14
794.51
29.55
794.47
31.07
794.69
32.13
795.03
32.79
796.43
34.54
796.60
37.58
796.84
42.96
796.64
48.53
797.04
56.50
797.81
59.81
799.22
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
796.45
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
17.2
Bankfull Width:
16.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
795
794
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, Jacob's Landing, XS10
800
799
798
797
0
796
W
795
794
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)
___-Bankfull -MYRl, 10/27/14 -MYR2, 8/11/15 -MYR3, 6/10/16 tMYR4,12/11/17

RiveEBasin:
Yadkin -Pee Dee
Site:
Jacob's Landing
XS I
XS11
Drai:
0.37
Date
12/11/2017
Field Crew:
T. Seelin er, J. Sullivan
Station
Elevation
0.00
794.30
5.10
794.09
10.77
793.95
14.49
793.70
16.65
793.68
16.79
793.49
18.15
793.14
19.68
792.92
19.66
792.65
20.16
792.57
21.53
792.18
22.04
792.05
22.53
792.32
23.16
792.59
23.16
792.83
24.52
792.76
25.48
793.21
27.26
793.61
29.38
793.67
33.29
793.62
38.25
793.41
45.67
793.61
47.78
793.88
54.79
795.81
55.97
796.07
56.08
796.56
SUMMARY DATA
797
Bankfull Elevation:
.48
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:.4
Bankfull Width:
.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
f794.9
.5
Max De th at Bankfull:
.4
Mean De th at Bankfull:
.6
W / D Ratio:
.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Hei ht Ratio:
.2
.0
Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin, Jacob's Landing, XSII
797
796
795
----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
794
--------------------- ------------ --------------------
W
793
792
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)
----Bankfull ----Flood Prone Area MYRl, 10/27/14 -MYR2, 8/11/15 -MYR3, 6/10/16 tMYR4, 12/11/17

Cross -Section 1 Riffle - MY -04
100%
Particle Size Distribution
Jacobs
LandSilt/Clay
aXS 1 Riffle g
Particle Millimeter Count
< 0.062 S/C
Very Fine .062-.125 S JL
Fine .125-.25 A 10
Medium .25-.50 N 20
Coarse .50-1 D 17
Very Coarse 1 -2 S 22
Very Fine
2 - 4
26
80%
E
�?
60%
Fine 4-5.7 G
Fine 5.7-8 R
0 As Built
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
2
tnn_ol (zola)
—A-- nn -oz (20 5)
Medium 11.3 - 16 V 1
Coarse 16-22.6
E
40%
e
nn -os (20 6)
—i.— nn-oa (2017)
Coarse 22.6-32 L
Very Coarse
32-45
S
20%
0%
0.01
0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Very Coarse 45-64
Small 64-90 C
Small 90-128 O 1
Large 128-180 B
Large 180-256 L
Small 256-362
B
Size
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
D95
2hardpan
(mm)
0.31
0.6
1.1
1.7
2.9
3.9
Size Distribution
mean 0.9
dispersion 3.1
skewness -0.07
Type
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
wood/det
artificial
0%
70%
29%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Small 362-512 L
Medium 512-1024 D
Lrg- Very Lrg 1024-2048 R
Bedrock >2048 BDRK
799
Total
Note:

Cross -Section 2 Riffle - MY -04
100%
Particle Size Distribution
Jacobs
aXS 2 Riffleng
/ __
Particle Millimeter Count
Silt/Clay < 0.062 S/C
Very Fine .062-.125 S JL
Fine .125-.25 A 15
Medium .25-.50 N 18
Coarse .50-1 D 20
Very Coarse 1 -2 S 14
Very Fine
2 - 4
18
1 80%
E
60%
Fine 4-5.7 G 3
0 As Built
Fine 5.7-8 R 1
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
C
H
�MY_ol (2014)
—�nn_oz(zols)
—� nn
Medium 11.3- 16 V
16-22.6
EllY_�(zol»
40%
e
-os (20,16)Coarse
Coarse 22.6-32 L
VeryCoarse
32-45
S
20%
0%
0.01
0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Very Coarse 45-64
Small 64-90 C 3
Small 90-128 O 3
Large 128-180 B 5
Large 180-256 L
Small 256-362
B
Size
D16
D35
4 D50
D65
D84
D95
(mm)
0.26
0.54
0.9
1.8
3.8
130
Size Distribution
mean 1.0
dispersion 3.8
skewness 0.04
Type
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
0%
67%
22%
11%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Small 362-512 L
Medium 512-1024 D
Lrg- Very Lrg 1024-2048 R
Bedrock >2048 BDRK
Total 100
Note:

Cross -Section 3 Pool - MY -04
Particle Millimeter
sand
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
Very Fine .062-.125
S
Fine
.125-.25
A
Medium
.25-.50
N
Coarse
.50-1
D
Coarse
1 - 2
S
—Very
Very Fine
2 - 4
Fine
4-5.7
G
Fine
5.7-8
R
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
Medium
11.3 - 16
V
Coarse
16-22.6
E
Coarse
22.6-32
L
Coarse
32-45
S
—Very
Very Coarse
45-64
Small
64-90
C
Small
90-128
O
Large
128-180
B
Large
180-256
L
Small
256-362
B
Small 362-512
Medium 512-1024
L
D
Lrg- Very Lrg 1024-2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
Count
10
2
10
34
29
14
13
1
1
100%
w
0
20%
0%
0.01 0.1
Size (mm)
D16 0.39
D35 0.72
D50 1
D65 1.5
114 D84 3.4
D95 5.3
Particle Size Distribution
Jacobs Landing
XS 3 Pool
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
Size Distribution
mean 1.2
dispersion 3.0
skewness 0.06
t MY -01 (2014)
MY -02 (201 s)
t MY -03 (2016)
—rte MY -04 (2017)
1000 10000
silt/clay
9%
sand
66%
gravel
25%
cobble
0%
boulder
0%
bedrock
0%
hardpan
0%
wood/det
0%
artificial
0%

Cross -Section 4 Riffle - MY -04
1%
Particle
Millimeter
A
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
1
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
41
Fine
.125-.25
A
4
Medium
.25-.50
N
12
Coarse
.50-1
D
17
Coarse
1 - 2
S
12
—Very
Very Fine
2 - 4
9
Fine
4-5.7
G
Fine
5.7-8
R
1
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
Medium
11.3 - 16
V
1
Coarse
16-22.6
E
Coarse
22.6-32
L
2
Coarse
32-45
S
8
—Very
Very Coarse
45-64
14
Small
64-90
C
11
Small
90-128
O
3
Large
128-180
B
4
Large
180-256
L
1
Small
Small
256-362
362-512
B
L
10
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024-2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
100%
w
0
20%
0% I
1%
0.01
0.1
gravel
Size (mm)
D16
0.47
D35
1.1
D50
2.7
D65
41
D84
70
D95
130
Particle Size Distribution
Jacobs Landing
XS 4 Riffle
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
Size Distribution
mean 5.7
dispersion 15.8
skewness 0.22
As Built
MY -01 (2014)
�— MY -02 (2015)
—A,— MY -03 (2016)
MY -04 (2017)
1000 10000
silt/clay
1%
sand
45%
gravel
35%
cobble
19%
boulder
0%
bedrock
0%
hardpan
0%
wood/det
0%
artificial
0%

Cross -Section 5 Riffle - MY -04
100%
Particle Size Distribution
Jacobs
aXS 5 Riffleng
Particle Millimeter Count
Silt/Clay < 0.062 S/C
Very Fine .062-.125 S
Fine .125-.25 A 6.
Medium .25-.50 N 11
Coarse
.50-1
D
15
80%
Coarse 1 - 2 S 15
–Very
Very Fine
2 - 4
1
18
Q
60%
- As Built
Fine 4-5.7 G 5
Fine 5.7-8 R 6
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
2
H
MY -01 (2014)
—A— MY -02 (2015)
Medium 11.3-16V
Coarse
16-22.6
jE
C40%
w
20%
—AMY -03 (2016)
MY -04 (2017)Ve
Coarse 22.6-32 L
Coarse
32-45
S
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
Very Coarse 45-64 4
Small 64-90 C 11
Small 90-128 O 16
Large 128-180 B 22
Large 180-256 L 1
Small
Small
256-362
362-512
B
L
Size mm
D16 0.76
D35 2.3
D50 5.5
D65 77
D84 130
D95 170
Size Distribution
mean 9.9
dispersion 15.4
skewness 0.17
Type
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
0%
33%
28%
40%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Medium 512-1024 D
Lrg- Very Lrg 1024-2048 R
Bedrock >2048
BDRK
Note:
Total 126

Cross -Section 6 Riffle -MY-04
Particle Size Distribution
Jacobs
aRS 6 Riffleng
Particle Millimeter Count
Silt/Clay < 0.062 S/C 1
Very Fine .062-.125 S 7
Fine .125-.25 A 12
Medium .25-.50 N 4
Coarse
.50-1
D
6
100%
Very Coarse 1 - 2 S 16
Very Fine
2 - 4
1
aR
E
80%
60%
Fine 4-5.7 G 2
Fine
5.7-8
R
3
a
N-o1(2ma)
- As Built
Medium 8 - 11.3 A 1
Medium 11.3-16 V 2
Coarse
16-22.6
E
Q40%
w
0
—� MY -02 (2015)
—�MY_03 (2016)
Coarse 22.6-32 L 5
32-45
S
620%
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
W-04 (2017)
1000 10000
–VeryCoarse
Very Coarse 45-64 7
Small 64-90 C 1 1
Small 90-128 O 7
Large 128-180 B 1
Large 180-256 L
Small
256-362
B
Size
D16
D35
D50
D65
D84
D95
(mm)
0.18
1.1
2
32
73
110
Size Distribution
mean 3.6
dispersion 23.8
skewness 0.16
Type
silt/clay 1%
sand 49%
gravel 29%
cobble 21%
boulder 0%
bedrock 0%
hardpan 0%
wood/det 0%
artificial 0%
Small 362-512 L
Medium 512-1024 D
Lrg- Very Lrg 1024-2048 R
Bedrock >2048 BDRK
Total 92
Note:

Cross -Section 7 Pool -MY-04
l00%
80%
Particle Size Distribution
JacobsXS 7 PoolLanding
Particle Millimeter Count
Silt/Clay < 0.062 S/C
Very Fine .062-.125 S 13
Fine .125-.25 A 14
Medium .25-.50 N 9
Coarse .50-1 D
Very Coarse 1 - 2 S
Very Fine
2 - 4
aR
I
60%
Fine 4-5.7 G 1
Fine 5.7-8 R 1
Medium
8-11.3
A
2
R
4,
t of �2ma�
—� MY -02 (2015)
Medium 11.3- 16 V 8
Coarse
16-22.6
E
5
w
0
40%
20%
—�-os (2016)
—.� MY -04 (2017)
Coarse 22.6-32 L 13
Coarse
32-45
S
13
0%
0.01 0.1
1 10 loo
Particle Size - Millimeters
1000 10000
–Very
Very Coarse 45-64 2
Small 64-90 C 1
Small 90-128 O 2
Large 128-180 B
Large 180-256 L
Small
Small
256-362
362-512
B
L
Size (mm)
D16 0.14
D35 0.45
D50 18
D65 31
D84 110
D95 3300
Size Distribution
mean 3.9
dispersion 67.3
skewness -0.39
Type
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
0%
36%
45%
3%
0%
15%
0%
0%
0%
Medium 512-1024 D
Lrg- Very Lrg 1024-2048 R
Bedrock >2048 BDRK 15
Total 99
Note: Lots of saprolite, recorded as bedrock

Cross -Section 8 Riffle -MY-04
i
Particle
Millimeter
gravel
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
1
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
2
Fine
.125-.25
A
6
Medium
.25-.50
N
5
Coarse
.50-1
D
3
Coarse
1 - 2
S
10
—Very
Very Fine
2 - 4
2
Fine
4-5.7
G
Fine
5.7-8
R
2
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
Medium
11.3-16
V
1
Coarse
16-22.6
E
1
Coarse
22.6-32
L
6
32-45
S
11
—VeryCoarse
Very Coarse
45-64
16
Small
64-90
C
21
Small
90-128
O
12
Large
128-180
B
1
Large
180-256
L
Small
Small
256-362
362-512
B
L
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024-2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
100%
w
0
20%
0% I
i
0.01
0.1
gravel
Size (mm)
D16
0.79
D35
25
D50
45
D65
63
D84
86
D95
110
Particle Size Distribution
Jacobs Landing
XS 8 Riffle
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
Size Distribution
mean 8.2
dispersion 29.4
skewness -0.52
As Built
+MY -01 (2014)
—� MY -02 (2015)
f MY -03 (2016)
—a— MY -04 (2017)
1000 10000
silt/clay
1%
sand
26%
gravel
39%
cobble
34%
boulder
0%
bedrock
0%
hardpan
0%
wood/det
0%
artificial
0%

Cross -Section 9 Riffle - MY -04
�
Particle
Millimeter
A
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
81
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
120
Fine
.125-.25
A
1
Medium
.25-.50
N
5
Coarse
.50-1
D
3
Coarse
1 - 2
S
3
—Very
Very Fine
2 - 4
2
Fine
4-5.7
G
Fine
5.7-8
R
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
1
Medium
11.3 - 16
V
Coarse
16-22.6
E
1
Coarse
22.6-32
L
4
Coarse
32-45
S
2
—Very
Very Coarse
45-64
6
Small
64-90
C
10
Small
90-128
O
38
Large
128-180
B
21
Large
180-256
L
3
Small
Small
256-362
362-512
B
L
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024-2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
100%
w
0
20%
0% I
�
0.01
0.1
Size (mm)
D16
22
D35
81
D50
100
D65
120
D84
150
D95
170
Particle Size Distribution
Jacobs Landing
XS 9 Riffle
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
Size Distribution
mean 57.4
dispersion 3.0
skewness -0.26
1000 10000
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
As Built
+MY -01 (2014)
—d— MY -02 (2015)
+MY -03 (2016)
—tw— MY -04 (2017)
0%
12%
16%
72%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

Cross -Section 10 Pool - MY -04
11F�
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
D35
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
D65
Fine
.125-.25
A
2
Medium
.25-.50
N
12
Coarse
.50-1
D
9
Coarse
1 - 2
S
7
—Very
Very Fine
2 - 4
9
Fine
4-5.7
G
3
Fine
5.7-8
R
2
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
1
Medium
11.3 - 16
V
3
Coarse
16-22.6
E
4
Coarse
22.6-32
L
11
Coarse
32-45
S
2
—Very
Very Coarse
45-64
3
Small
64-90
C
5
Small
90-128
O
17
Large
128-180B
10
Large
180-256
L
Small
Small
256-362
362-512
B
L
Medium
512-1024
D
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024-2048
R
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
Total
100
100%
w
0
20%
0% I
11F�
0.01
0.1
Size (mm)
D16
0.58
D35
2.9
D50
19
D65
45
D84
110
D95
150
Particle Size Distribution
Jacobs Landing
XS 10 Pool
1 10 100
Particle Size - Millimeters
Size Distribution
mean 8.0
dispersion 19.3
skewness -0.25
1000 10000
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
hardpan
wood/det
artificial
t MY -01 (204)
—� MY -02 (205)
t MY -03 (2016)
—M— MY -04 (2017)
0%
30%
38%
32%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

Cross -Section 11 Riffle - MY -04
Particle
Millimeter
Count
Particle Size Distribution
g
JaXS
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
11LRi fle
Very Fine
.062-.125
S
Fine
.125-.25
A
1
Medium
.25-.50
N
7
Coarse
.50-1
D
5
100%
Very Coarse
1 - 2
S
7
Very Fine
2 - 4
13
80%
Fine
4-5.7
G
2
aR
Fine
5.7-8
R
5
60%
_ As Built
Medium
8 - 11.3
A
10
r
Medium
11.3 - 16
V
7
F
—4---MY-01 (2014)
Coarse
16-22.6
E
2
Q
40%
T MY -02 (2015)
Coarse
22.6-32
L
5
w
0
—AMY -03 (2016)
VeryCoarse
32-45
S
5
20%-
MY-o4(zol�)
Very Coarse
45-64
9
Small
64-90
C
6
0%
Small
90-128
O
9
0.01
0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Large
128-180
B
6
Particle Size - Millimeters
Large
180-256
L
1
Small
256-362
B
Size (mm)
Size Distribution
Type
Small
362-512
L
D16
1.3
mean 10.8
silt/clay
0%
Medium
512-1024
D
D35
6
dispersion 8.3
sand
20%
Lrg- Very Lrg
1024-2048
R
D50
11
skewness -0.01
gravel
58%
Bedrock
>2048
BDRK
D65
34
cobble
22%
Total
100
D84
90
boulder
0%
Note:
D95
140
bedrock
0%
hardpan
0%
wood/det
0%
artificial
0%

Table 10a. Tl Baseline Stream Data Summary
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site, DMS Project # 95024
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Dimension - Riffle
Min
Mean Med
Max
n Min
Mean Med
Max
n
Min
Max
Min
Mean
Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.5
9.1
4 6.9
1
1
11.5
12.2
10.1
11.0
12.1
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
1
26
4 23
1
25
70
40
56
71
3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
1.8
4 1.1
1
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1
2.8
4 1 1.6
1
1.5
1.6
1 1.2
1.3
1.4
3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area ft2
8.6
12.1
4 7.4
1
11.2
12.6
7.9
8.8
10.0
3
Width/Depth Ratio
3.7
9.6
4 6.4
1
12.0
12.0
12.9
13.8
14.6
3
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
3.3
4 3.4
1
2.2
4.9
3.7
5.1
5.9
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.6
2.2
4 1.0
1
1.0 1
1.0
1.0 1
1.0 1
1.0
3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
13
26
2 14
26
38
2
25
50
25
38
50
Radius of Curvature (ft)
6
30
2 12
19
25
2
20
45
20
33
45
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
0.7
4.6
2 1.7
2.7
3.6
2
2.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Meander Wavelength (ft)
75
110
2 43
73
102
2
65
125
65
95
125
Meander Width Ratio
1.4
1 1 1
4.0
2 2
3.8
5.5
2
1.9
3.5
1.9
3.0
3.5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)11
22
32
21
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
0.043
2 0.011
0.025
2
0.007 0.012
0.001
0.013
0.026
21
Pool Length (ft)
16
23
12
30
6
18
38
23
Pool Spacing (ft)
28
57
20
75
30
56
79
23
Substrate and Transport Parameters
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
0%/
24% / 76%/ 0% / 0% /0%
0%/25%/52%/23%/0%/0%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95(mm)
1/5/7/10/17/25
5/15/22/38/94/143
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
1,330
1,305
1,305
Drainage Area (SM)
0.40
0.16
0.40
0.40
Rosgen Classification
G4
E4
C4
C4
Sinuosity
1.07-1.15
1.18
1.09-1.12
1.09-1.12
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.009-0.014
0.0070
0.007-0.010
0.007
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 58 2017- MY04

Table 10b. T1A Baseline Stream Data Summary
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site, DMS Pro'ect # 95024
Parameter
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As-built
Dimension - Riffle
Min
Mean Mcd
Max
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
n
Min
Max
Min Mean Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.7
1
6.9
1
8.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
15
1
23
1
19
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
1
1.1
1
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1
1.6
1
1
1
1.2
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area ft2)
6.4
1
7.4
1
6.2
Width/Depth Ratio
9.3
1
6.4
1
12.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.9
1
3.4
1
2.2
Bank Height Ratio
2.2
1
1.0
1
1.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
20
75
1
14
26
38
2
19
24
Radius of Curvature (ft)
8
24
1
12
19
25
2
10
25
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
1
3.1
1
1.7
2.7
3.6
2
1.2
2.9
Meander Wavelength (ft)
25
50
1
43
73
102
2
50
55
Meander Width Ratio
2.6
9.7
1
2
3.8
5.5
2
2.2
2.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.013
0.019
1
0.011
0.025
2
0.010 0.012
Pool Length (ft)
16
23
7
14
Pool Spacing (ft)
28
57
22
34
Substrate and Transport Parameters
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%ML-
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 (mm)
d16
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
294
178
178
Drainage Area (SM)
0.21
0.40
0.21
0.21
Rosgen Classification
E4
B4c
B4c/C4
B4c/C4
Sinuosity
2.10
1.20
1.11
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)l
0.023
0.013
0.017
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 59 2017- MY04

Table 10c. T2 Baseline Stream Summary
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site, DMS Project # 95024
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Dimension - Riffle
Min
Mean Med
Max
n Min
Mean Med
Max
n
Min
Max
Min
Mean
Max
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.8
12.3
4 6.9
1
10.4
11.6
10.4
10.9
12.0
5
Floodprone Width (ft)
17
20
4 23
1
23
50
27
32
42
5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
4 1.1
1
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
5
Bankf ill Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.8
4 1.6
1
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.4
5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area(ft)
9.2
11.7
4 7.4
1
9.1
11.1
8.8
9.2
9.7
5
Width/Depth Ratio
8.4
12.9
4 6.4
1
12.0
12.0
11.8
12.9
15.2
5
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
2.3
4 3.4
1
2.2
4.3
2.6
3.2
4.2
5
Bank Height Ratio
1.5
4.7
4 1.0
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
10
60
2 14
38
2
25
50
25
38
50
Radius of Curvature (ft)
8
35
2 12
25
2
20
45
20
33
45
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
0.9
3.9
2 1.7
g2.
3.6
2
2.0
4.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Meander Wavelength (ft)
65
130
2 43
102
2
60
130
60
95
130
Meander Width Ratio
1.1
6.8
2 2
1 3.8
5.5
2 1
2.2
4.8
2.2
4.0
4.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
14
22
36
33
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
0.011
2 0.011
0.025
2
0.006 0.017
0.004
0.016
0.041
33
Pool Length (ft)
16
LL
23
2
8
35
7
18
35
31
Pool Spacing (ft)
28
57
2
30
95
42
59
107
31
Substrate and Transport Parameters
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95(mm)
6%/25%/68%/1%/0%/0%
1/2/3/6/12/24
0% / 6%/ 58% / 32% / 3% / 0%
16/30/44/65/109/144
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
2,935
2,641
2,641
Drainage Area (SM)
0.31
0.16
0.31
0.31
Rosgen Classification
E4, F4
E4
C4
C4
Sinuosity
1.09-1.45
1.18
1.16-1.31
1.16-1.31
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.007-0.010
0.0007
0.009-0.0100
0.009
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 60 2017- MY04

Table 10d. T2A Baseline Stream Data Summary
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site, DMS Project # 95024
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Dimension - Riffle
Min
Mean Med
Max
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
n
Min
Max
Min Mean Max n
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.6
1
6.9
1
6.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
11
1
23
1
14
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
1
1.1
1
0.5
Bankf ill Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1
1.6
1
0.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area(ft)
3.4
1
7.4
1
3.5
Width/Depth Ratio
12.8
111
1
6.4
1
12.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.7
1
3.4
1
2.2
Bank Height Ratio
6.3
=A
1
1 1.0
6MEN
1
1.0
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
8
15
1
14
26
38
2
8
15
Radius of Curvature (ft)
10
12
1
12
19
25
2
10
25
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
1.5
1.8
1
1.7
2.7
3.6
2
1.5
3.8
Meander Wavelength (ft)
50
63
1
43
73
102
2
50
63
Meander Width Ratio
1.2
2.3
1
2
3.8
1
5.5
2
1.2
1
2.3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.010
0.017
1
0.011
0.025
2
0.010 0.012
Pool Length (ft)
16
23
2
4
15
Pool Spacing (ft)
28
57
2
22
42
Substrate and Transport Parameters
Be%ML-
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 (mm)
d16
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
465
465
465
Drainage Area (SM)
0.06
0.40
0.06
0.06
Rosgen Classification
G4
B4c
B4c/C4
B4c/C4
Sinuosity
1.16
1.20
1.13
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.019
0.013
0.014
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 61 2017- MY04

Table 11. Cross-Section Morphology Data Tables
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site, DMS Project # 95024
Dimension and Substrate
Cross-Section 1 (T1-Riffle)
Station 12+29
Cross-Section 2 (T1-Riffle)
Station 17+79
Cross-Section 3 (T1-Pool)
Station 19+25
Cross-Section 4 ( T1-Riffle)
Station 21+36
Cross-Section 5 (T2-Riffle)
Station 52+53
Based on fixed baseline elevation
Base
MY1
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.8
11.8
12.1 8.4 6.7
12.1
24.1
12.8
11.7
11.3
15.5
15.3
13.9
12.3
8.8
10.1
11.9
9.2
8.9
10.0 1
10.4
11.7
10.8
11.2
11.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
40.0
41.2
40.7 38.0 37.2
71.0
70.6
72.4
70.8
69.7
-
-
-
-
-
58.0
59.8
58.8
57.3
58.5 J
27.0
27.4
26.8
26.3
26.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.7 0.6 0.6
0.8
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.2
1.1
1.2
0.5
1.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.3 1
1.4
1.4 1 1.1 0.9 1 1
1.4 1
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.3
2.8
2.9
1 2.7
1.0
2.9
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.3
1 1.6
1.5
1.3
1.4
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft z)
8.5
9.0
8.7 4.7 4.0
10.0
12.5
10.3
7.7
8.0
18.1
17.2
17.3
6.5
14.0
7.9
8.6
6.3
5.1
7.0
9.0
10.5
10.0
8.1
8.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.7
15.5
16.8 15.0 11.5
14.6
46.5
15.9
17.8
15.9
-
-
-
-
-
12.9
16.7
13.4
15.5
14.3
12.0
13.0
11.8
15.5
14.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
3.7
3.5
3.4 4.5 5.5
5.9
2.9
5.7
6.1
6.2
5.7
5.0
6.4
6.4
5.9
2.6
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.0 0.8'
1.0 1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.1
d50 (mm)
2.1
1.4
27 1.1 1.1
28
12
1 11
0.8
0.9
35
44
56
27 1
2.7
47
1 63
61
3.7
5.5
Cross-Section 6 (T2-Riffle)
Station 56+18
Cross-Section 7 (T2-Pool)
Station 60+09
Cross-Section 8 (T2-Riffle)
Station 63+84
Cross-Section 9 (T2-Riffle)
Station 66+63
Cross-Section 10 (T2-Pool)
Station 68+61
Based on fixed baseline elevation
Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.6
12.5
10.5 10.2 10.6 1
13.3
13.5
14.3
12.6
12.6 1
10.7
11.4
12.5
11.0
11.3
10.8
11.8
11.1
9.8
10.7
12.5
16.5
21.2
20.7
16.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
29.0
31.9
31.0 28.4 30.8
-
-
-
-
-
30.0
30.0
31.1
29.5
30.0
42.0
43.1
42.7
39.9
42.7
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.7
0.8 0.6 0.7
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.3
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.0
0.8
1.3
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.4
1.4 1.1 1.3
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
1.3
1.8
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.8
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.1
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft 2)
8.8
8.8
7.9 6.4 7.3
13.8
16.5
13.9
13.5
16.0
9.7
11.8
12.8
10.4
11.6
9.2
8.0
7.6
6.3
8.2
14.5
17.2
17.1
17.2
17.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.8
18.6
13.8 16.3 15.5 1
-
-
-
-
-
11.8
11.0
12.2
11.6
11.0
12.7
17.8
16.2
15.2
13.8
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.7
2.5
3.0 2.8 2.9
-
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.7
2.7
3.9
3.6
3.9
4.1
4.0
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.1 0.9 1.0
-
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.1
-
d50 (mm)
49
60
4=56.9 2.0
66
40
100
61
45
41
37
29
44
100
-
Based on fixed baseline elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
d50 (mm)
Base
12.0
>50
0.8
1.4
9.5
15.2
4.2
1.0
16
Cross-Section 11 (T2-Riffle)
Station 72+48
MY1 MY2 4 MY5 MY+
11.7 11.5 10.8 9.8
>50 >50 >50 >50
0.8 1 0.8 0.7 0.6
1.5 1 1.5 1.3 1.4
9.6 9.7 8.0 6.4
14.3 13.7 14.6 15.2
4.5 4.5 4.7 5.2
1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0
3.1 14 1.8 11
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 62 2017- MY04

Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 63 2017- MY04
Table I1b. Stream Reach Morphology Data Tables
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site, DMS Project # 95024
Reach: T1(2,389 ft.)
Parameter
MY01(2014)
MY02 (2015)
MY03 (2016)
MY04 (2017)
MY05 (2018)
Dimension
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n Min Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n Min Mean Med Max SD n
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.8
15.9
11.9 24.1
7.0
3
9.2
11.3
12.1 12.8
1.9
3 8.4 9.7
8.9 11.7
1.8
3
6.7
9.3
10.0 11.3
2.3
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
41.2
57.2
59.8 70.6
14.9
3
40.7
57.3
58.8 72.4
15.9
3 38 55
57 71
16.5
3
37.2
55.1
58.5 69.7
16.5
3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.7
0.7 0.8
0.1
3
0.7
0.7
0.7 0.8
0.1
3 0.6 0.6
0.6 0.7
0.1
3
0.6
0.7
0.7 0.7
0.1
3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.4
1.4 1.4
0.1
3
1.3
1.4
1.4 1.5
0.1
3 1.1 1.2
1.1 1.3
0.1
3
0.9
1.2
1.3 1.3
0.2
3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft 2)
8.6
10.0
9.0 12.5
2.1
3
6.3
8.4
8.7 10.3
2.0
3 4.7 5.8
5.1 7.7
1.6
3
4.0
6.3
7.0 8.0
2.1
3
Width/Depth Ratio
15.5
26.2
16.7 46.5
17.6
3
13.4
15.4
15.9 16.8
1.7
3 15.0 16.1
15.5 17.8
1.5
3
11.5
13.9
14.3 15.9
2.2
3
Entrenchment Ratio
2.9
3.8
3.5 5.0
1.1
3
3.4
5.1
5.7 6.4
1.6
3 4.5 5.7
6.1 6.4
1.0
3
5.5
5.9
5.9 6.2
0.3
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.1 1.1
0.06
3
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0
0.00
3 0.8 0.9
0.9 0.9
0.06
3
0.7
0.9
0.9 1.1
0.20
3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
25.0
38.0
50.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)
20.0
33.0
45.0
Rad. of Curv.: Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.0
3.0
4.0
Meander Wavelength (ft)
65.0
95.0
125.0
Meander Width Ratio
1.9
1 3.0
1 3.5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
3,0
34.0
32.0 85.0
16.1
21.0
10.9
31.1
31.9 44.6
10.1
21 4.3 27.5
28.9 66.5
14.6
22
6.5
26.4
25.3 52.0
13.6
18
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.01
0.02
0.01 0.05
0.01
20
0.006
0.01
0.01 0.03
0.007
21 0.0002 0.01
0.01 0.04
0.009
22
0.001
0.02
0.01 0.04
0.01
18
Pool Length (ft)
4.0
13.0
10.0 27.0
7.4
14.0
4.0
9.7
8.7 21.5
4.4
17 5.3 11.3
11.0 22.8
5.1
18
5.8
13.5
10.5 31.0
8.1
18
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.9
2.9
2.9
M
1
2.7
2.7
2.7
1 1.0 1.0
1.0
1
2.9
2.9
2.9
1
Pool Spacing (ft)
41.0
83.0
62.0 233.0
60.4
13.0
36.9
74.5
56.2 231.1
51.6
16 16.1 71.6
67.6 196.6
45.7
17.0
14.4
67.8
60.0 253.8
50.5
17
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,305
1,305
1,305
1,305
Sinuosity
1.09-1.12
1.09-1.12
1.09-1.12
1.09-1.12
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0068
0.0066
0.0070
0.0072
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0068
0.0064
0.0067
0.0068
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
29%/22%/36%/14%/0%/O%
11%/22%/35%/32%/O%/0%
4%/55%/29%/12%/O%/0%
2%/62%/28%/8%/0%/0%
dl6/d35/d50 / d84 / d95
7/10/14/49/88
7/11/24/104/128
1/2/8/14/46/98
0.36/0.74/1.4/11.5/20/67
% of Reach with Eroding Banks 10%
1%
0%
0%
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 63 2017- MY04

Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 64 2017- MY04
Table Ile. Stream Reach Morphology Data Tables
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site, DMS Project # 95024
Reach: T2 (2,084 ft.)
Parameter
MY01 (2014)
MY02 (2015)
MY03 (2016)
MY04 (2017)
MY05 (2018)
Dimension
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n Min Mean Med Max SD n
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.4
11.8
11.7 12.5
0.4
5
10.5
11.3
11.1 12.5
0.8
5
9.8
10.6 10.8 11.2
0.6
5
9.8
10.7
10.7 11.3
0.6
5
Floodprone Width (ft)
27.4
36.9
31.9 52.3 10.5
5
26.8
36.7
31.1 51.9
10.4
5
26.3
35.1 29.5 51.2
10.4
5
26.6
36.3
30.8 51.5
10.4
5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.8
0.8 1.0
0.2
5
0.7
0.8
0.8 1.0
0.1
5
0.6
0.7 0.7 0.9
0.1
5
0.6
0.8
0.8 1.0
0.15
5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.5
1.5 1.8
0.2
5
1.2
1.5
1.5 2.0
0.3
5
1.0
1.3 1.3 1.7
0.2
5
1.3
1.4
1.4 1.8
0.2
5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
8.0
9.7
9.6 11.8
1.5
5
7.6
9.6
9.7 12.8
2.1
5
6.3
7.8 8.0 10.4
1.7
5
6.4
8.4
8.2 11.6
2.0
5
Width/Depth Ratio
11.0
15.0
14.3 18.6
3.2
5
11.8
13.5
13.7 16.2
1.7
5
11.6
14.6 14.6 16.3
1.8
5
11.0
14.1
14.9 15.5
1.9
5
Entrenchment Ratio
2.3
3.1
2.6 4.5
0.9
5
2.5
3.3
3.0 4.5
0.9
5
2.3
3.3 3.3 4.7
1.0
5
2.4
3.4
2.9 5.2
1.2
5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.1 1.3
0.1
5
1.0
1.2
1.1 1.5
0.2
5
0.9
1.0 0.9 1.3
0.2
5
1.0
1.1
1.1 1.4
0.2
5
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
25.0
38.0
50.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)
20.0
33.0
45.0
Rad. of Curv.: Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.0
3.0
4.0
Meander Wavelength (ft)
60.0
95.0
130.0
Meander Width Ratio
2.2
4.0
4.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
5.0
14.0
17.0 24.0
5.9
15
7.8
32.4
30.4 61.6
11.5
27
6.2
23.1 21.6 46.8
8.9
32
8.1
24.4
23.6 40.5
7.3
31
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
0.02
0.02 0.05 0.01
14
0.001
0.02
0.02 0.03
0.006
27
0.002
0.02 0.02 0.04 0.007
32
0.000
0.02
0.02 0.04
0.01
31
Pool Length (ft)
4.1
15.8
14.7 26.9
6.5
29
5
13
12 28
6
25
3.5
13.3 11.8 29.5
5.8
30
7.6
15.6
13.1 27.4
6.0
31
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.0
2.1
2.1
2
2.0
2.1
2.2
2
2.0
2.0 2.0
2
2.0
2.1
2.1
2
Pool Spacing (ft)
31.8
61.8
54.4 160.9 29.0
28
42.7
69.5
59.9 173.7
34.2
24
41.9
60.1 55.9 127.6
18.5
29
33.8
57.9
56.0 128.2
17.2
30
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,641
2641
2641
2,641
Sinuosity
1.16-1.31
1.16-1.31
1.16-1.31
1.16-1.31
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0106
0.0107
0.0104
0.0104
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0109
0.0106
0.0100
0.0103
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
29%/22%/36%/14%/0%/0%
6%/10%/46%/38%/0%/0%
7%/35%/27%/30%/0%/0%
0/%29%/36%/32%/0%/2%
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
12/21/32/46/83/127
14/26/38/105/134
0.4/6/17/45/98/140
3.7/17/29/57/107/593
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 64 2017- MY04

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data
Jacob's Landing Site KCl Associates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 65 2017— MY04

Photo 1. Bankf ill indicators T1, 12/17/2015 Photo 2. Bankfull indicators T2, 12/17/2015
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 66 2017— MY04
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Jacob's Landing Stream Restoration Site DMS Pro'ect # 95024
Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence
Method
Photo Number
4/19/2015
4/19/2015
On-site automatic gauge
N/A
10/3/2015
10/3/2015
On-site automatic gauge
N/A
11/9/2015
11/9/2015
On-site automatic gauge
N/A
Unkown
12/17/2015
Wrack lines and flattened vegetation observed at bankfull
1 - 2
12/23/2015
12/23/2015
On-site automatic gauge
N/A
12/30/2015
12/30/2015
On-site automatic gauge
N/A
2/23/2016
2/23/2016
On-site automatic gauge T1 only)
N/A
5/16/2016
5/16/2016
On-site automatic gauge T1 only)
N/A
5/25/2016
5/25/2016
On-site automatic gauge T1 only)
N/A
6/14/2016
6/14/2016
On-site automatic gauge T1 only)
N/A
10/8/2016
10/8/2016
On-site automatic gauge (T1 only)
N/A
6/5/2017
6/5/2017
On-site automatic gauge
N/A
6/13/2017
6/13/2017
On-site automatic gauge
N/A
6/19/2017
6/19/2017
On-site automatic gauge T1 only)
N/A
6/20/2017
6/20/2017
On-site automatic gauge (T1 only)
N/A
9/1/2017
6/20/2017
On-site automatic gauge T1 only)N/A
Photo 1. Bankf ill indicators T1, 12/17/2015 Photo 2. Bankfull indicators T2, 12/17/2015
Jacob's Landing Site KCIAssociates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 66 2017— MY04

792
791
Jacob's Landing Restoration Site
Stage Hydrograph
Stream Gauge 1
789
788
N 01
O Io r Y,CD CD
ti ti o Y Y Y w c c c Y Y rn �n O O o Z Z Z d C7 C7
Date
Rainfall — Stage Bankfull
M,
1.0
0.5
0.0
E

794
0 793
0
Jacob's Landing Restoration Site
Stage Hydrograph
Stream Gauge 2
792
791
N 01
O Io r Y,CD CD
ti ti o Y Y Y w c c c Y Y rn �n O O o Z Z Z d C7 C7
Date
Rainfall — Stage Bankfull
M,
1.0
0.5
0.0
E

Appendix F
Additional Information
Jacob's Landing Site KCl Associates of North Carolina
DMS Project # 95024 69 2017— MY04

KCI
ASSOCIATES OF
NORTH CAROLINA, PA
May 22, 2014
ENGINEERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS • CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
Landmark Center H, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Road Raleigh, NC 27609 [phone] [phone] Fax
Mr. Todd Tugwell
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
And:
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
Deputy Director
NC DENR
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: Jacob's Landing (95024) Stream Restoration Project
Request for Mitigation Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Tugwell and Mr. McDonald,
This letter is in response to the discussions at an Interagency Review Team (IRT) meeting attended by
KCI on May 13, 2014. During this meeting KCI presented a request to modify the allocation of stream
mitigation credits on the Jacob's Landing stream restoration project. Citing procedural reasons, the IRT
requested that KCI submit a formal request to reallocate credits. This letter will serve as that request.
Request
KCI requests the following changes to the credit table provided in the Jacob's Landing Stream
Restoration Site - Final Mitigation Plan dated September 2012 (requested changes shown in red).
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A. www.kei.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

Reach
Mitigation Type
Priority
Approach
Existing Linear
Footage
DesignedMitigation
Linear
Footage
Units
T1-1
Restoration
P2
326
303
303
T1-2
Enhancement II
158
109*
44
T1-3
Restoration
P2
846
893
893
T1A
Restoration
P2
294
178
178
T2-1
Restoration
P2
1,800
1,581*
1,581
T2-2
Restoration
P2
1,135
1,060*
1,060
T2A
Restoration
P2
465
465
465
Total Stream Enhancement I
0
0
0
Total Stream Enhancement II
158
109
44
Total Stream Restoration
4,866
4,015
4,480
Total Mitigation Units
4,524
Justification
The 465 linear feet of stream channel associated with reach T2 -A was identified during the Proposal
Stage (including an IRT site walk) as Enhancement Level 1 at a 1.5:1 ratio. As a matter of practice, KCI
attempts to be consistent with the credit -types requested in the Proposal during the assessment and the
design stages of the project. During the assessment and design stage for Reach T2 -A, a more aggressive
restoration approach was determined to be needed. This was primary due to the confinement of the
valley, the difficulty of access, the absence of a functional floodplain and the poor condition of the valley
walls leading down to the stream. These reasons and others resulted in ultimate decision to completely
change the stream type from a G -type channel to a CB -type channel. This approach was in fact a
restoration approach, although it never was properly identified as such in the Mitigation Plan. The
approach included the following restoration initiatives:
1. Channel type changed from a G4 channel to a C4/134 channel by installing a typical riffle cross
section with a 3.6' bankfull bench and a 0.9' bank height.
2. Adjusted thalweg and centerline (planform) slightly throughout the reach to allow for the
incorporation of the bankfull bench. Bench location and width varied from cross section
depending on condition of valley and the ability to accommodate the full bankfull width given the
valley condition.
3. Installed significant number of structures (5 step pools, 8 riffle grade controls, 8 riffle
enhancements) to stabilize the profile and create in -stream habitat.
4. Added bedform diversity and stabilized the planform.
5. Stabilized the valley walls and contributing drainage features.
All of the items mentioned above support the reallocation of credit type to restoration (or enhancement at
a higher ratio). KCI requests that the IRT support the correction of the 1.5:1 Enhancement I ratio
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A. www.kei.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

proposed for Reach 2A in the Final Mitigation Plan to 1:1 ratio. KCI can provide amended copies of the
Mitigation Plan, if desired.
We hope you find this information appropriate in order to move forward with your decision. If you have
further questions or comments, feel free to contact me at 919-278-2511 or tim.morris(a-)kci.com .
Sincerely,
Timothy J. Morris
Senior Environmental Scientist
cc: Joe Pfeiffer, KCI (email)
Adam Spiller (email)
Tim Baumgartner, EEP (email)
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A. www.kei.com
Employee -Owned Since 1988

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON. NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO r
ATTENTION OF: September 2, 2014
Regulatory Division
Re: Request for Modification to the Jacob's Ladder and Jacob's Landing Mitigation Sites (USACE
AIDs 2012-01007 and 2012-01006)
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Baumgartner:
Please reference the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT) meeting of May 13, 2014,
during which we discussed the Jacob's Ladder and Jacob's Landing stream mitigation projects. The
discussion dealt with a request by NCEEP to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(District) to modify a reach within each project resulting in a change in the mitigation approach and
associated credit.
During the IRT meeting, we asked that a written request be submitted to provide information on
the specifics of each project modification so that the IRT could review the requests and provide
comment back to us. Two letters dated May 22, 2014, were prepared by the project provider (KCI, Inc.)
and distributed to the IRT. The following responses were received from the IRT agency members:
Travis Wilson, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 5/29/2014:
A switch from enhancement to restoration should have been addressed earlier during design. As
I understood it during the presentation most of the design elements outlined in the modification
request were incorporated under the enhancement level and only slight changes occurred during
construction, and I don't want to establish a practice where the IRT is constantly reviewing
requests from providers on a credit hunt to cover contractual deficiencies. However, with that
said, I agree the improvements on the two subject reaches are consistent with a restoration
approach, and if successful it will provide a restoration level of uplift. WRC does not object to
the modification request.
2. Eric Kulz, North Carolina Division of Water Resources, 5/29/2014:
The approaches described in the mitigation plans for the referenced reaches were fairly non -
quantitative and appeared to represent an Enhancement I approach, which was approved by the
IRT. The activities conducted appeared consistent with the descriptions of mitigation measures
proposed in the approved mitigation plans. Again, the mitigation plans were not quantitative in
nature, and E1 spans a wide variety of mitigation treatments.

During the analysis phase of these projects, if the provider and EEP felt the initial assessment
and proposal were incorrect/inappropriate, consultation with the IRT and re -review of the project
stream conditions and mitigation approaches should have been requested and approval of
revisions sought (note process taken with the Pancho bank site).
Minor adjustments often occur during construction and are expected, and are described in the as -
built report. Linear footage/acreage of mitigation and associated credits are then normally
finalized. However, in this case changing the name of the mitigation approach and associated
credit after construction does not appear warranted as the activities conducted appear to be fairly
consistent with what was described in the approved mitigation plans.
In addition to the responses above, we conducted a review of the information submitted and
other information available regarding the two projects, including the mitigation plans for the projects. In
the May 22nd request letters for the two projects, the explanation for the additional credit request was
based on the fact that a more aggressive restoration approach was determined to be needed during the
assessment and design stages of the two projects. The new approach for the streams on both projects
was similar, in that it included such activities as adjusting the thalweg and centerline of the streams,
installing a significant number of structures, incorporating bankfull benches, and adding bedform
diversity.
In the case of both Jacob's Ladder and Jacob's Landing, the IRT reviewed the projects in the
field in August, 2011, and agreed to the mitigation approach described in the respective mitigation plans,
which were finalized in September, 2012. As noted by Mr. Kulz' comments, the work that was done
and is now the basis for the request for additional credit appears to be fairly consistent with what was
proposed in the mitigation plan. In the case of Jacob's Ladder, the mitigation plan states that for
Tributary T2-1 "Enhancement will include shaping the banks, creating a bankfull bench, creating a more
stable and heterogeneous stream bed, and replanting the riparian buffer to achieve a mix of native tree
species." For Jacob's Landing, the mitigation plan states that for Tributary T2A "This reach will be
enhanced by shaping the banks to creating a bankfull bench, and installing grade control structures to
gradually drop the bed elevation down. The reach will be stabilized by replanting the riparian buffer to
achieve a mix of native tree species." Despite this fact, if the amount of functional uplift resulting from
the work is sufficient to be credited at a 1:1 ratio, we do not want to penalize these projects for failing to
identify an appropriate credit ratio up front in the mitigation plan.
Another concern that arises from these requests is the way in which the changes to mitigation
plan and credit yield were handled. As stated in the documentation submitted to the IRT, the need for a
more aggressive approach was identified during the assessment and design stages of the mitigation
process. This implies that the need to modify the approaches and associated credit structure for these
tributaries was known well before construction yet not brought to the IRT's attention until the as -built
stage of the project. Any modification to a project that results in a change to the mitigation approach
substantial enough to warrant a different credit amount must be approved by the District prior to
implementing that modification. In this case, the IRT was not notified of the change until the as -built
stage of the project.
Lastly, the information submitted in support of the requested change is not consistent. The final
credit amounts presented during the IRT meeting do not match the credit amounts listed in the
supporting information that was submitted after the meeting. Specifically, Jacob's Landing was shown

to have 4,528 credits (SMUs) in the presentation and 4,524 credits in the supporting letter dated May 22,
2014. Similarly, Jacob's Ladder was shown to have 5,231 credits in the presentation and 5,203 credits
in the supporting letter. In order to fully resolve this issue, please explain the discrepancy and identify
the correct amount of credit to be generated by the two projects.
To conclude, it is our intention to make sure that the amount of credit generated by mitigation
projects, as expressed by the mitigation ratio, is supported by the level of uplift resulting from the work.
In the case of these two projects, we agree that the uplift provided by the mitigation activities conducted
in the two reaches in question may be credited at a 1:1 ratio. However, for future projects, changes such
as this that result in a modification to the amount of credit must be approved in advance so that the
District and IRT has the opportunity to comment and agree with the proposed approach. For all NCEEP
projects that were instituted after the approval of the Instrument on July 28, 2010, such modifications
should be approved in accordance with the streamlined review process outlined in Section 332.8(g)(2) of
the Federal Mitigation Rule, unless the district engineer determines those changes are of a significant
nature and must be processed through the normal procedures. In cases where such modifications are
time -sensitive (e.g., construction is on-going), we will endeavor to expedite the review and approval to
the extent allowable under the Rule.
Thank you for working with us to address these issues. Please contact me if you have any
questions about this letter, or if there is any additional information you need. I can be contacted at
telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Todd Tugwell
Special Projects Manager
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
Mr. Tim Morris, KCI, Inc.
NCIRT Distribution List