20140041 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_2018_20181212

MONITORING YEAR 3
ANNUAL REPORT
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: April - November 2018
Submission Date: December 12. 2018
PREPARED FOR:
Mk
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

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

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
December 12, 2018
Mr. Harry Tsomides
Project Manager
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) Report — Draft Submittal
Little Pine Creek III Mitigation Site
DMS ID 94903
DEQ Contract Number 6844
New River Basin - #CU# 05050001 - Alleghany County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Tsomides:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments
from the Draft Monitoring Year 3 report for the Little Pine Creek III Mitigation Project. The following
Wildlands responses to DMS's report comments are noted in italics lettering.
DMS comment; Section 1.2.1— It is indicated that a large storm event (Florence) occurred in the middle
of the MY03 vegetation assessment. Can you clarify if and which of the veg plot counts were done
before versus after the storm.
Wildlands response; The counts for the following nine veg plots (VP) were completed before the large
storm event (Florence): VP 1 - 4, VP 11, and VP 15 - 18. The remaining twelve veg plot counts occurred
after the storm: VP 5 - 10, VP 12 - 14, and VP 19 - 21. To clarify this, text was added in Section 1.2.1 of the
report.
DMS comment; Section 1.2.2 — Please note that two more repeat treatments will occur into 2019 to
address remaining site invasive vegetation.
Wildlands response, Text was added to Section 1.2.2 to indicate that two more repeat treatments will
occur in 2019 to address the remaining site invasive vegetation.
DMS comment; Section 1.2.4 — Please indicate the 192 linear footage you provided on 6/8/18 for the
severely aggraded section of UT1, from the lower end of the culvert (200+36) to the sill of the A -vane
to be (202+28).
Wildlands response; In Section 1.2.4, the stationing and linear footage details were added to describe the
severely aggraded section of UT1.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
DMS comment; Section 1.2.4 — Please indicate that the UT2/2A repairs are expected to occur in Spring
2019.
Wildlands response; In Section 1.2.4, the expected date of the UT2/2A repairs were added to the report
text.
DMS comment; Table 1— Wetland credits should calculate out to 1.393, not 1.400. Stream credits should
only be reported to the nearest tenth, not thousandth of an SMU.
Wildlands response; In Table 1, the wetland credits were corrected to a total of 1.393 WMUs. Stream
credits were corrected to be reported to the nearest tenth of an SMU.
DMS comment; Table 2 — Correct typos "Vegetaion".
Wildlands response, These typos were corrected in Table 2.
DMS comment; Table 6 - Please indicate if the visual assessment tables were updated to include the
Fall 2018 storm events, or were completed prior.
Wildlands response, Yes, the visual assessment tables (Tables 6a -g) were updated to include the Fall 2018
storm events.
Four (4) hard copies of the Final Monitoring Report and a full electronic submittal has been mailed to
the DMS western field office. Please contact me at 704-332-7754 x110 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
Project Manager
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

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. The monitoring year 2 activities occurred in April through
December 2017. The monitoring year 3 activities occurred in April through November 2018.
Overall, the Site is on track to meet the MY5 monitoring success criteria for vegetation, geomorphology,
and hydrology performance standards. A repair design is underway to address areas of stream instability
along UT2a and UT2, including the formation of head -cuts, lateral stream migration, and excessive
streambank erosion that were amplified by the large storm events in September and October 2018. The
vegetation survey resulted in an average of 486 planted 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 observed vegetation areas of invasive plant populations in the upstream riparian
portions of UT2 Reach 1 and Reach 2 have been significantly reduced by supplemental treatment that
occurred in summer 2018. Morphological surveys and visual assessment indicate that the channel
dimensions are stable and functioning as designed, except for isolated areas on UT2, UT2a and Little
Pine Creek Reach 2b. At least one bankfull event occurred during MY3 data collection which was
recorded by crest gages and by visual indicators. The performance standard of two recorded bankfull
events in separate monitoring years has been met for Little Pine Creek, UT2, and UT2b. No target
performance standard was established for wetland hydrology success; however, the groundwater gage
in Wetland FF recorded 169 consecutive days of the groundwater levels at or within 12 inches of the
ground surface, consisting of 100% of the growing season.
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL

LITTLE PINE III STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
Monitoring Year 3 Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
Figure 2
1.1 Project
Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
1.2 Monitoring Year 3 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
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-4
Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-4
1.2.6
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 3 Summary......................................................................................................1-5
Section 2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
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 — g 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 10a -b
Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11a -b
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12a -b
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross -Section)
Table 13a -f
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
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL ii

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site is a DMS design -bid -build project 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 (UTI, 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.
A conservation easement 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. 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.
Secondary goals include the following:
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 1-1

• 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 57.3 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 3 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted during MY3 (April to October 2018) 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 (Wildlands,
2014).
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
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 MY3 vegetation survey was completed in September 2018, resulting in an average planted stem
density of 486 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 1% of the MY2 stem count (493 stems per acre). There is an average of 12 planted stems
per plot.
In the middle of the MY3 vegetation assessment a large storm event occurred in September 2018. The
counts for the following nine vegetation plots (VP) were completed before the large storm event: VP 1-
4, VP 11, and VP 15 - 18. The remaining twelve vegetation plot counts occurred after the storm event:
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 1-2

VP 5 - 10, VP 12 - 14, and VP 19 - 21. Sediment accumulation was observed on much of the floodplain of
Little Pine Creek along with debris rack lines bending over many planted stems. Other sources of low
vigor include competition with dense herbaceous vegetation and animal herbivory. Approximately 11%
of the remaining planted stems scored a vigor of 1, indicating that they are unlikely to survive. In
addition, approximately 34% of the remaining planted stems scored a vigor of 2, indicating more than
minor damage to leaf material and/or bark tissue exists. Please refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot
photographs and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Some invasive plant populations were identified within the Site boundary in MY3 with predominant
species including: European barberry (eerberis vulgaris), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), and oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus). Areas of invasive species that had
been identified in MY2/early MY3 have been reduced by supplementary treatment that occurred in
Summer 2018. Two more repeat treatments will occur in 2019 to address the Site's remaining invasive
species.
Two large storm events occurred in September and October 2018. Visual assessment after these storm
events revealed significant areas of fine sediment accumulation on the floodplain of Little Pine Creek.
Many planted stems were observed to be bent over and herbaceous cover buried by the sandy
sediment deposited on the floodplain. These vegetation areas of concern will continue to be monitored
and addressed by DMS. Please refer to Figure 3 in Appendix 2 for vegetation areas of concern.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY3 were conducted in June 2018, before the significant storm events of
September and October 2018. Overall, results indicate that the channel dimensions are stable and
functioning as designed, with the exception of stream areas of concern identified section 1.2.4.
In general, the cross-sections on Little Pine Creek, UT2, and UT2b show little to no change in the bankfull
width, 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). While cross-section 10 on UT2b and cross-sections 15 and 16 on UT2 vary significantly from
baseline conditions, their dimensions remain stable in MY3. In MY1, pool cross-section 10 deepened
considerably however this is not considered detrimental to either the stability of the channel or the
project goals. Cross-section 10 plots show little change between MY2 and MY3, indicating that the
deepening displayed in MY1 has stabilized. In MY1, pool cross-section 15 filled in partially with sediment
causing a decreased depth and cross-sectional area, however dimensions remain stable between MY2
and MY3. Between MYO and MY1, the channel thalweg shifted laterally due to channel erosion within
the vicinity of riffle cross-section 16. In December 2016, repairs to the Site included bank repairs and
installing new riffle materials at riffle cross-section 16. At the time of survey (June 2018), the channel
appeared to be stable and in good condition with cross-section 16 dimensions similar to the baseline.
The surveyed longitudinal profile data for the project streams illustrates that bedform features are
maintaining lateral and vertical stability between MY2 and MY3, except for isolated areas on UT2
discussed below. The longitudinal profile parameters on Little Pine Creek, UT2, and UT2b showed little
change from baseline in slope (riffle, water surface, bankfull) with minor differences in pool -to -pool
spacing and pool length. Max pool depths increased in most reaches due to scour from log structures,
which enhances aquatic habitat. The overall pattern of all project streams remained the same compared
to the baseline data. Several instances of structure piping and sediment deposition were noted during
the MY3 survey and are discussed in section 1.2.4.
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 1-3

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 MY3 are similar to the as -
built data in coarseness and distribution. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment table,
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) maps, 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
clogged culverts at internal easement crossings. On Little Pine Creek, stream areas of concern noted in
MY2 persist into MY3 with new or expanded isolated areas of bank scour (STA 100+80, 121+50, 131+20,
131+60, and 132+50) observed after the storm events of fall 2018. Large established trees are
undermined by bank scour along the enhancement II section of Little Pine Creek Reach 2b.
Along UT1, several headcuts have formed as the channel slope increases above the culvert crossing. In
MY2, sediment aggradation was observed on approximately 192 linear feet of UT1 downstream of the
culvert crossing (STA 200+36) and beyond the two installed boulder sills (STA 202+28). Adaptive
management was performed in March 2018 along UT1 to improve stream function. In future years, as
woody vegetation becomes more established and shades out the herbaceous cover, the baseflow is
expected to become stronger and transport the accumulated fine sediment in the reach. Currently, a
defined baseflow channel is still present and this area will continue to be monitored for additional
sediment aggradation in future years.
Structure piping that was noted on UT2 Reach 1 Upper in MY2 persists into MY3 with an additional
structure failure at approximately STA 309+60. Furthermore, sediment deposition is noted above both
of the culvert crossings on UT2 Reach 1 (Upper and Lower). On UT2 Reach 2, new areas of bank
instability (STA 334+50, 335+50, 336+00) and additional headcuts (STA 331+90 and 336+30) were
observed in MY3 after the significant rainfall events of fall 2018. These rainfall events also caused
significant aggradation at the bottom of UT2 Reach 2, thus directing sheet flow through the left
floodplain above the culvert crossing.
Localized bank erosion is still apparent along UT2a (STA 427+80, 431+00) along the right outer bends of
the channel. Just upstream of the confluence with UT2, UT2a continues to exhibit an area of high
instability with vertical eroding right bank at the channel bend (STA 431+50). The sections of eroding
banks on UT2a and UT2 are in enhancement I and enhancement II reaches, in areas where no bank work
was performed. DMS has a repair design underway to address areas of stream instability along UT2a and
UT2, including the formation of head -cuts, lateral stream migration, and excessive streambank erosion
and are expected to occur in Spring 2019. 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 Little Pine, UT2, and UT2b reaches during the MY3 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 met in MY3 for all project reaches.
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 enhancement area. No target performance standard for wetland hydrology success was
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 1-4

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 169 days from April 26th to October 11th. No onsite rainfall data is
available; however, daily precipitation data for MY3 was collected from closest NC CRONOS Station,
Sparta 3.5 SSW. GWG 1 recorded 169 consecutive days of the groundwater levels at or within 12 inches
of the ground surface, consisting of 100% of the growing season. The climate data from nearby NC
CRONOS station suggests that the Site received more than typical amounts of rain in 2018. The monthly
rainfall in April, May, August, September, and October exceeded the 70th percentile for the area (USDA,
2018). The rainfall totals were approximately 14 inches in September and 11 inches in October which is
over double the 70th percentile for those respective months. Please refer to Appendix 2 for the
groundwater gage location and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology data and plots.
1.3 Monitoring Year 3 Summary
Overall, the Site is on track to meet the MY5 monitoring success criteria for vegetation, geomorphology,
and hydrology performance standards. A repair design is underway to address areas of stream instability
along UT2a and UT2, including the formation of head -cuts, lateral stream migration, and excessive
streambank erosion that were amplified by the large storm events in September and October 2018. The
vegetation survey resulted in an average of 486 planted 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 observed vegetation areas of invasive plant populations in the upstream riparian
portions of UT2 Reach 1 and Reach 2 have been significantly reduced by supplemental treatment that
occurred in summer 2018. Morphological surveys and visual assessment indicate that the channel
dimensions are stable and functioning as designed, except for isolated areas on UT2, UT2a and Little
Pine Creek Reach 2b. At least one bankfull event occurred during MY3 data collection which was
recorded by crest gages and by visual indicators. The performance standard of two recorded bankfull
events in separate monitoring years has been met for Little Pine Creek, UT2, and UT2b. No target
performance standard was established for wetland hydrology success; however, the groundwater gage
in Wetland FF recorded 169 consecutive days of the groundwater levels at or within 12 inches of the
ground surface, consisting of 100% 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
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 1-5

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
Monitoring Year 3 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
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

Gr�1l�n
m
ri
i
r�
A
"r
05050001030015-�� s vrk �.-IR50500010400.41
flc
r.*j f '4 Cie e F. ru,�e 1
*` �.
i
05050001030020
• _ i Y
I
41
- 03040101C
� f rllsQy {
1
K t
adv to <0�'
050500010313O(
1 ! �
Glade�Vri 4elyi t�
J
■ ti
_ `
WILDLAND5 rk� 0 0.5 1 Mile
e r: r,�eak�tic: I I I I I
03040101080010
Alleghany County, NC

... Conservation Easement Ilk s
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I�� t--;
� Stream Enhancement II
Stream PreservationAt *Nib
r R
Non -Project Streams
0 Wetland Enhancement i
® Wetland Preservation
Reach Break
® Overhead Electric Easement f ♦ �,� i i i
�1 Internal Easement Crossing
O Waterers 1
x �
• Well t x 4,1
— Water Line "nN F er A ; ;� 0
Cdr-_:-$ .. � .` 'gf♦
M OF
wV
1.0
17
41
YM
10
r.
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
L. D LA TN D S , � 0 I I I 700 Feet DMS Project No. 94903
! nf:iVCk KEN[:
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Alleghany County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
'Restoration footage based off of the surveyed as -built thalweg alignment is greaterthan design centerline alignment, resulting in credited length greater than that reported in the Mitigation Plan.
'Unique ratio for UT2 was discussed in field with IRT members and recorded 8/15/2012 in meeting notes.
' Length not included in component summation since no credit is sought
Component Summation
Mitigation Credits
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Buffer (square feet) Upland
(acres) Wetland (acres)
Restoration
3221
Enhancement
4474
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Phosphorous Nutrient
Offset
Type R RE R
RE R RE
Totals J116,328.6 644.8 N/A
1.393 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Project Components m1f
Reach ID
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Approach
Restoration (R) or Restoration
Equivalent (RE)
As -Built Stationing/
Location
As -Built
Footage/
Acreage
Restoration
Footage/
Acreage'
Mitigation Ratio'
Credits'
(SMU/WMU)
a
Notes
STREAMS
Little Pine Reach 1
P1/P2
Restoration (R)
100+00 to 114+44
1,444
1,417
1:1
1,417.0
Excludes one 27 foot wide ford crossing.
Little Pine Reach 2a
PS
Restoration (R)
114+44 to 125+27
1,083
1,058
1:1
1,058.0
Excludes one 25 foot wide ford crossing.
P1/P2
Restoration (R)
125+27 to 130+20
493
493
1:1
493.0
Little Pine Reach 26
4,016
Planting, fencing
Enhancement II (R)
130+20 to 135+60
540
509
2.5:1
197.0
Excludes one 31 foot wide ford crossing,
Includes 50% reduction for 33 ft overhead
electric easement crossing.
UTS
540
Planting, fencing
Enhancement II (R)
197+26 to 202+24
498
463
2.5:1
185.2
Excludes one 35 foot wide culvert crossing.
Planting, fencing, channel creation
Enhancement II (R)
202+24 to 206+26
402
402
2.5:1
160.8
UT2 Reach 1
5,270
PS/P2/P4, preservation
Enhancement I (R)
297+18-343+18
4,600
4,474
2:1
2,237.0
Excludes four constructed culvert crossings; 32,
24, 32, and 38 feet wide respectively.
UT2 Reach 2
Planting, fencing
Enhancement II (R)a
401+78 to 403+34 &
403+75 to 404+34
215'
215'
n/a
n/a
Easement Break 403+34 -403+75
UT2a
2,921
Preservation
Preservation (RE)
405+15 to 426+58
2,143
2,143
5:1
428.6
Planting, fencing
Enhancement II (R)
426+58 to 432+09
551
519
2.5:1
207.6
Excludes one 32 foot wide constructed culvert
crossing.
Planting, fencing
Enhancement II (R)
500+00 to 503+00
300
300
2.5:1
120.0
UT2b
553
P2
Restoration (R)
503+00 to 505+53
253
253
1:1
253.0
UT3
400
Preservation
Preservation (RE)
602+44 to 606+44
400
384
5:1
76.8
Excludes one 16 foot wide constructed ford
crossing.
UT4
1,036
Preservation
Preservation (RE)
701+26 to 708+23
697
697
5:1
139.4
WETLANDS
Wetland AA
0.38
Planting, fencing
Enhancement (RE)
UT2 floodplain
0.38
2:1
0.190
Wetland BB
0.16
Planting, fencing
Enhancement (RE)
UT2 floodplain
0.16
2:1
0.080
Wetland CC
0.26
Grade control, planting, fencing
Enhancement (RE)
UT2b headwaters
0.26
2:1
0.130
Wetland DD
0.12
Planting, fencing
Enhancement (RE)
North of UT2/UT2a
0.12
2:1
0.060
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 UT1/Little Pine
0.76
2:1
0.380
Wetland GG
1 0.33
1 Planting fencing
Enhancement (RE)
Little Pine 1
0.33
2:1
0.165
Wetland HH
0.42
Planting, grade control
Enhancement (RE)
South of UT4/ Little
Pine
0.42
2:1
0.210
Wetla ndA
0.19
Preservation
Preservation (RE)
UT4 floodplain
0.19
5:1
0.038
'Restoration footage based off of the surveyed as -built thalweg alignment is greaterthan design centerline alignment, resulting in credited length greater than that reported in the Mitigation Plan.
'Unique ratio for UT2 was discussed in field with IRT members and recorded 8/15/2012 in meeting notes.
' Length not included in component summation since no credit is sought
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Buffer (square feet) Upland
(acres) Wetland (acres)
Restoration
3221
Enhancement
4474
Enhancement 11
2193
'
Enhancement ..
-. .. ..
.. _ 2.71 .. _ .. .. .. _ .. - .. ..
Preservation
3224
0.19
'Restoration footage based off of the surveyed as -built thalweg alignment is greaterthan design centerline alignment, resulting in credited length greater than that reported in the Mitigation Plan.
'Unique ratio for UT2 was discussed in field 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 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
'Seed and mulch was added as each section of construction was completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
Mitigation Plan
1430 South Mint Street, Ste 104
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 areal
2889 Lowery Street
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
Fremont, NC 27830
N/A
March 2016 / December 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year O)
Vegetation Survey
May 2016
July 2016
Stream Survey April 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
October 2016
December 2016
Stream Survey October 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
September 2017
November 2017
Stream Survey May 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
Invasive Treatment
N/A
July 2018
Vegetation Survey September 2018
November 2018
Stream Survey June 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
2019
November 2019
Stream Survey 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
2020
November 2020
Stream Survey 2020
'Seed and mulch was added as each section of construction was completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
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 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Project IN
= Project information
Little 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
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Blue Ridge Belt of the Blue Ridge Province
River Basin
New
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
05050001
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
05050001030030
DWR Sub -basin
05-07-03
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
2,784
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1%
Managed Herbaceous (74%), Mixed Upland Hardwoods (201 Mixed
CGIA Land Use Classification
Hardwoods/Conifers (5%), Southern Yellow Pine (<3%), Mountain Conifers (<1%)
Summary
Parameters
Reach Information
LP Reach 1 LP Reach 2a LP2 Reach b UTI UT2 Reach 1 UT2 Reach 2 UT2 Reach 3
UT2a UT2b
UT3 UT4
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
1,444 1,083 1,033 900 4,600
2,909 553
400 697
Drainage Area (acres)
2,496 2,752 2,784 28 75 185196
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 C/E4 C4 N/A A4 E46 E4
C4b F4b
N/A N/A
Evolutions Trend (Simon's Model) - Pre -Restoration
IV/V III/IV IV/V N/A' N/A° WA-4N/A°
V N/A'
N/A' N/A'
Underlying Mapped Soils
Alluvial land, wet (Nikwasi); Ashe stony fine sandy loam (25-45% slopes); Chester loam (10-25% slopes); Chester clay loam (25-45% slopes), eroded
(Evard); Codorus 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 1 N/A21 0.047 1 0.036 1 0.028
1 0.044 1 0.064
IN /A2I IN /A2
FEMA Classification
AE
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest, Rich Cove
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation -Post-Restoration
0%
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
USAGE Nationwide Permit
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
No.27 and DWQ 401
Water Quality Certification
Waters of the United States -Section 401
Yes
Yes
No. 3885. Action IDtl14-
0041
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
LPIII Categorical Exclusion
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
(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
No
N/A
N/A
Management Act (LAMA)
No impact application was
LPIII Final Mitigation Plan
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes a
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: Unit is enhancement II only, and UT3 and UT4 are preservation only. Geomorphic surveys were not performed for these streams in existing conditions.
3: The downstream LF of Little Pine Creek near Big Oak Road is within
a FEMA Zone AE floodplain on Firm panel 4010. The Zone AE floodplain is due to the backwater of Brush Creek; Little Pine Creek is not a FEMA studied stream.
4: Streams do not ft into Simon Evolutionary Sequence.
t

Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
'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
UT2 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
1.000
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, RF -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
NL
1 N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Annual
Wetland Hydrology
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 2
21
Annual
Visual Assessment
All Streams
y
y
Y
Y
Y
y
y
y
Y
Y
Annual
Exotic and nuisance
vegetation
..
.. .. ., .
.. _
.. ., .. ..
..
. . ,. ..
..
-.
_
,. ., ..
..
.. . .
.. .. ..
.. -.
.. .. ..
.,
.. ..
., ..
..
,. ,.
..
..
Project Boundary
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

Figure 3.0 Current Condition Plan View Map (Key)
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
W I L D L A N D S' 0 200 400 Feet Monitoring Year 3- 2018
E N G I N EER IN G I I I I I Alleghany County, NC

j 1 �
Multiflora rose
1
Structure piping i !
STA 303+16 and 301 +00
;�} a i, i
i Barberry, Chinese privet 4 i
Bank scour STA 303+80 i
',j: k%. _lid." ►��� - 1
r
'L'r.
'� ;rte*;=� ►�����1♦ Multiflora rose and '
barberry resprouts
j i
♦��� , i
`" ►��DO�����♦ i Structure piping • i
309+14 and 309+96
i
♦�'���
i���♦���1 i
♦1 ��� 3
41
Several large _ 0
fallen trees in `
easement "` 0'
�;�, - �• Structure wash out f
STA 309+60
1
..1 Barberry t.,. ,
►�� 1
1 Multiflora rose 4.
10, z
�, 1 i� and barberry
�• i, -
♦ �'�'� Conservation Easement
Internal Easement Crossing
1 O Waterers
Sediment deposition
! STA 325+80 - 326+50 O well
!a i
Water Lines •
1 Clogged culvert
j inlet with debris �. 1 Stream Restoration
i Bank Erosion i 21,
+'
STA 426+30 +� i and sediment r Stream Enhancement I
! �,i ` �'�, Stream Enhancement II
' and 427+80 ,�'
,ate •' , '' �.��� ,.. _ i �
— Stream Preservation
Non -Project Streams
'� � Wetland Enhancement
Undercut Banki �,•`� raj �. i`. ® Wetland Preservation
1 STA 429+60 �.`���I. .♦ Reach Break
1� ,, Bankfull
Crest Gage (CG)
i `fit 'i -f Groundwater Gage (GWG)
40.
r. Photo Point
i Sediment deposition cross section (XS)
STA 505+30 `� ' f `:_ ..�•
'�� .rte.
O � , ► a� -. � `..�: .�, * .� : ' Vegetation Monitoring Plot -MY3
�• `r Meets Success Criteria
cfl r� Bank erosion = -r :' :.` r: ;x' -
1 STA 330+00 and 332+50 ;;�,, :� -.. 0
' Doesn't Meet Success Criteria
Stream Areas of Concern - MY3
Bank erosion -
i
STA 431+00 and 431+50 ;r :r Bank instability
i Sediment deposition
i BankScour .,,',..'
! STA 333+70, 3�.'a 'l `g' "' r'-i� +7 Structure piping
x
335+50,.an o Headcuts
O `�- f { i
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY3
!-Multi.fl
15 a:• "?- + Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
O� -0 few resproa: f ... t'
-'. y
`" r•.q`' "^, Invasive Plant Population
'" P`
t .ay wo - .....
Figure 3.1 Current Condition Plan View Map (Sheet 1 of 2)
Little Pine Creek III Stream 9, Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
w I L n L A N n S ' 0 100 200 Feet Monitoring Year 3- 2018
ENC IN EERINC
I i i i I Alleghany County, NC

`- 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
-0 Barotroll
-0 Crest Gage (CG)
Groundwater Gage (GWG)
♦ Photo Point
Cross -Section (XS)
Vegetation Monitoring Plot - MY3
Meets Success Criteria
Doesn't Meet Success Criteria
Stream Areas of Concern - MY3
Bank instability
Sediment deposition
Structure piping
• Headcuts
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY3
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
Invasive Plant Population
011\
17 z -
Bank scour
r STA 127+50, 131+20
^� 131+60, and 132+50
- _
10 _ _'_•_
t�
WILDLANDS '
E N[,IN E E R I NG
♦ I ! - r
Multiflora rose
7..... few resprouts,
Odeposition --_
! ; Sediment ., ' `� �: • --,
o STA 505+30
Bank erosioncP 14 Bank erosion
1 tg-," ice= ::. �'•:i.
STA 431+00 and 431+50 STA 330+00 and 332+50
Bank scour
STA 333+70, 334+50,
335+50 and 336+00 lovar
Bank Erosion ♦ j*�
STA 199+0015 0
Sediment deposition O ! ♦ " ,. r
STA 199+70
- ♦ •, 1 � `^'l I ^ .- •rpt •. }� .• -sR � -� r' - 'G_.-...�►7.• h
i 12
i $ a
% Sediment depositio
;i �,—.— —• 17 STA 338+50'
4V on
X18 @ffi ;� 0: �L'.x._- ;.V�," _..4 N.
4.4
le
..- 1 ,' •. O'er ; C7�-,-,_• ;�, y y �
Structure piping
STA 123+00, 124+00 i 5 1N
and 124+50"0,0 i ffi
,�t.r �� 4 Sediment deposition
q ,. :STA 100+00 & STA 104+00
♦ t „? +.
❑"
�,,..
Trash on stream bank. ! 1
�O ♦ y "y'+'`' STA 117+00 J11 1 i
_•-•,,_, ham•
77
, ---
� .:�.•��'• �'! +�` �`�}:-sem
)sion
STA 121+50
an scour
STA 108+00 •,� i
Multiflora rose
i.
Figure 3.2 Current Condition Plan View Map (Sheet 2 of 2)
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
0 100 200 Feet Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
1 1 1 1 I Alleghany County, NC

Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
LILLIe rine Keacn 1 (31 A lvv+vv - 114+441 1,444 Lr assessea
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
2
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
n/a
n/a
2
50
97%
and erosion
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 10
10 100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
7
7
100%
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
1. Bed
Condition
7
n/a
n/a
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
Length Appropriate 7
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
9
9
9
100%
100%
providing habitat
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of 9
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
2
45
97%
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
2
45
97%
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
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.
1F,,1i­r,n,trnrtarl rifflac
cin—thaw arm oval. iatnri in
cnrtinn 1

Table 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
LITTie rine Iteacn La t114+44-1L7+L/J 1,1081 Li- assessea
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
n/a
1. Vertical Stability
Aegradation
and erosion
0
0
100%
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 7
7
100%
3. Meander Pool
100%
Depth Sufficient 6
6
2. Undercut
1. Bed
Condition
6
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Length Appropriate 6
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
7
7
7
4. Thalweg Position
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of 7
100%
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
1
30
97%
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
1
30
97%
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
2a. Piping
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.
�FrrLirlec--trnrt 1riffle,
in,. they arc-1—tcri in,crti-1

Table 6c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
utile rine Keacn co µcg+ci-X3U+cuf vys Li- assessea
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
n/a
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
and erosion
0
0
100%
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 4 4
100%
3. Meander Pool
100%
Depth Sufficient 4 4
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
4
4
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of
4
4
4
4
4. Thalweg Position
100%
100%
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
1
15
97%
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
1
15
97%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
3
5
60%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
3
5
60%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
3
5
60%
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.
�FrrLirlec--trnrt 1riffle,
in,. they arc-1—tcri in,crti-1

Table 6d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
U I Z rteacn i upper in. IA LW+15 - SIU+. -)U) 1,55L Ur assessea
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
n/a
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
and erosion
1
40
97%
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
9
10
90%
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
3. Meander Pool
n/a
1. Bed
Condition
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
Length Appropriate n/a
n/a
4. Thalweg Position
n/a
Thalweg centering at upstream of n/a
meander bend (Run)
n/a
n/a
Thalweg centering at downstream of
n/a
n/a
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
1
15
99%
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
F. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
1
15
99%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
20
21
95%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
16
21
76%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
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.
�FrrLirlec--trnrt 1riffle,
in,. they arc-1—tcri in,crti-1

Table 6e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
U I L tteacn 1 Lower ib I A 3Lb+b/ - 66U+UU) 433 Lr assessea
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
n/a
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
and erosion
1
80
82%
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
9
12
75%
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
3. Meander Pool
n/a
1. Bed
Condition
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
Length Appropriate n/a
n/a
4. Thalweg Position
n/a
Thalweg centering at upstream of n/a
meander bend (Run)
n/a
n/a
Thalweg centering at downstream of
n/a
n/a
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
1
10
99%
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
1
10
99%
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
15
20
75%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
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.
�FrrLirlec--trnrt 1riffle,
in,. they arc-1—tcri in,crti-1

Table 6f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
U I L tteacn L (b I A 63U+UU - 343+15) 1,315 LY assessea
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
n/a
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
and erosion
1
100
92%
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 12
15
80%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
4
5
80%
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
1. Bed
Condition
5
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
Length Appropriate 4
80%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
4
5
5
providing habitat
4. Thalweg Position
80%
Thalweg centering at downstream of 4
80%
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
5
90
93%
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
5
90
93%
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
16
19
84%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
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
17
19
89%
baseflow.
�FrrLirlec--trnrt 1riffle,
in,. they arc-1—tcri in,crti-1

Table 6g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
U I LD (b I A bUS+UU - 7U�+73J L73 Lr assessea
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
n/a
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
and erosion
1
20
92%
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
7
9
78%
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
3. Meander Pool
n/a
1. Bed
Condition
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
Length Appropriate n/a
n/a
4. Thalweg Position
n/a
Thalweg centering at upstream of n/a
meander bend (Run)
n/a
n/a
Thalweg centering at downstream of
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
F. 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
21
23
91%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
21
23
91%
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.
�FrrLirlec--trnrt 1riffle,
in,. they arc-1—tcri in,crti-1

Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Planted Acreage 27.8
Mapping
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold
% of
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
(acres)
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0.1
8
0.7
3%
1 Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, 5, or 7 stem
Low Stem Density Areas 0.1
3
0.1
0.3%
count criteria.
Total
11
0.8
3%
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
11
0.8
3%
Easement Acreage 57.3
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold (SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000
11
2.1
4%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). none
0
0
0%
iAcreage calculated from permanent vegetation monitoring plots and temporary vegetation monitoring plots from current year Site Assessment Report.

Stream Photographs

Photo Point 1— Little Pine Reach 1, looking upstream (11/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 1— Little Pine Reach 1, looking downstream (11/19/2018)
Photo Point 2 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking upstream (11/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 2 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking downstream (11/19/2018)
Photo Point 3 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking upstream (11/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 3 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking downstream (11/19/2018)

Photo Point 4 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking upstream (11/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 4 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking downstream (11/19/2018) 1
Photo Point 5 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking upstream (11/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 5 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking downstream (11/19/2018) 1
Photo Point 6 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking upstream (11/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 6 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking downstream (11/19/2018)

Photo Point 7 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking upstream (11/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 7 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking downstream 11/19/2018)
Photo Point 8 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking upstream (11/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 8 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking downstream (11/19/2018) 1
Photo Point 9 — Little Pine Reach 2a, looking upstream (11/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 9 — Little Pine Reach 2a, looking downstream (11/19/2018)

Photo Point 13 — Little Pine Reach 2a, looking upstream (11/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 13— Little Pine Reach 2a, looking downstream (11/19/2018) 1
Photo Point 14— Little Pine Reach 2a, looking upstream (11/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 14— Little Pine Reach 2a, looking downstream (11/19/2018) 1
Photo Point 15 — Little Pine Reach 2a, looking upstream (11/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 15 — Little Pine Reach 2a, looking downstream (11/19/2018)

Photo Point 16 — Little Pine Reach 2b, looking upstream (11/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 16— Little Pine Reach 2b, looking downstream (11/19/2018) 1
Photo Point 17 — Little Pine Reach 2b, looking upstream (11/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 17— Little Pine Reach 2b, looking downstream (11/19/2018) 1
Photo Point 18— Little Pine Reach 2b, looking upstream (11/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 18— Little Pine Reach 2b, looking downstream (11/19/2018)

Photo Point 19 — Little Pine Reach 2b, looking upstream (11/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 19— Little Pine Reach 2b, looking downstream (11/19/2018) 1
Photo Point 20 — UT2 Reach 1, looking upstream (7/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 20 — UT2 Reach 1, looking downstream (7/25/2018)
I Photo Point 21— UT2 Reach 1, looking upstream (7/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 21— UT2 Reach 1, looking downstream (7/25/2018)

Photo Point 22 — UT2 Reach 1, looking upstream (7/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 22 — UT2 Reach 1, looking downstream (7/25/2018) 1
Photo Point 23 — UT2 Reach 1, looking upstream (7/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 23 — UT2 Reach 1, looking downstream (7/25/2018) 1
Photo Point 24— UT2 Reach 1, looking upstream (7/25/2018) 1Photo Point 24— UT2 Reach 1, looking downstream (7/25/2018)

Photo Point 25 — UT2 Reach 2, looking upstream (7/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 25 — UT2 Reach 2, looking downstream (7/25/2018)
Photo Point 26 — UT2 Reach 2, looking upstream (7/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 26 — UT2 Reach 2, looking downstream (7/25/2018)
Photo Point 27 — UT2 Reach 2, looking upstream (7/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 27 — UT2 Reach 2, looking downstream (7/25/2018)

c+r
"1— s

Photo Point 31— UT2b, looking upstream (7/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 31— UT2b, looking downstream (7/25/2018) 1
Photo Point 32 — UT2b, looking upstream (7/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 32 — UT2b, looking downstream (7/25/2018)
I Photo Point 33 — UT2, looking upstream (7/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 33 — UT2b, looking upstream (7/25/2018)

Photo Point 33 — UT2, looking downstream (7/25/2018) 1
Photo Point 34 — UT2a, looking upstream (7/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 34 — UT2a, looking downstream (7/25/2018) 1
Photo Point 35 — UT2a, looking upstream (7/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 35 — UT2a, looking downstream (7/25/2018)

Ift
�3 °�: � Y F' 1•f
OFYj
F
At
a N-
il
A ►
4 ,M4
r -� •����;�� \ �ti�~ � � 'K�t��,. `y j# �,� ' , s r� , � ,� i � fey,>. "� `, i
9 r4t1
P.
QF
07 25.2618

Photo Point 41— UT3, looking upstream (7/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 41— UT3, looking downstream (7/25/2018)
Photo Point 42 — UT2 Reach 1, looking upstream (7/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 42 — UT2 Reach 1, looking downstream (7/25/2018)

Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Photographs

" do-.s�Q;
s
9 .tT
t
I i _

,pry om w _�
Pais
,
$oil
r

P ^ �
ir
Ev
,�
a �
q 4�
t P✓+
'f
a

I Vegetation Plot 19 — (09/19/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 20 — (09/19/2018)
Vegetation Plot 21— (09/19/2018)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table B. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Plot MY4 Success ,ss 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 Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 LP III MY3.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02160 Little Pine III Monitoring\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 3\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
MIMI-PC
File Size
49389568
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 10a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Current Plot Data (MY3 20181
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94903-WEI-0001
PnoLS P -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
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
7
7
10
1
1
6
2
2
2
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
Shrub Tree
1
2
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
4
5 5
5
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
2
5
5
5
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
1
Cornus amomum
5
Shrub Tree
Cornus florida
Flowering Dogwood
Shrub Tree
Cornus florida
Flowering Dogwood
Shrub Tree
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
2
2
2
4
4
8
8
8
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
4
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3 3
3
3
3
3
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
8
8
8
3
3
3
8
8
8
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
Stem count
13
13
28
10
10
21
15
15
15
16
16
16
14
14
14
8 8
10
16
16
19
9
9
size (ares)
15
1
5
5
1
12
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
size (ACRES)
0.0247
0.02470.0247
0.0247
0.0247
1
Species count
5
5
7
5
5
7
4
4
4
5
S
5
5
5
5
2
23
5
3
3
4
5
1 5
StemsperACREJ
526
1 526
1133
405
1 405
850 1
607
1 607
1 607
1 647
1 647
1 647
567
1 567
1 567
607
324
405
647
647
769
Current Plot Data (MY3 2018)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94903-WEI-0008
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0009
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0010
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0011
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0012
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0013
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0014
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
7
7
7
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
Cornus florida
Flowering Dogwood
Shrub Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
5
5
5
Stem count
15
15
15
11
11
11
11
11
12
9
9
9
15
15
17
5
5
5
12
12
16
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
1
0.0247
1
0.0247
11
0.0247
0.0247
Species count
4
1 4
4
5
5
5
5
1 5
5
1 5
1 5
5 1
6
1 6
6 1
2
1 2
1 2
1 5
T 5
7
Stems per ACRE
607
1 607
607
445
445
445
445
1 445
486
1 364
1 364
364 1
607
1 607
688 1
202
1 202
1 202
1 486
1 486
647
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
IL'ls 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 10b. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Current Plot Data (MY31
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94903-WEI-0015
PnoLS P -all I T
94903-WEI-0016
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0017
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0018
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0019
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0020
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0021
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
41
41
10
5
5
10
50
50
50
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
1
1
6
10
2
2
17
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
39
39
39
39
39
41
41
41
41
49
49
49
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
35
35
35
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
3
3
3
46
46
46
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
58
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
4
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
Cornus florida
Flowering Dogwood
Shrub Tree
33
33
33
33
3333
30
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
44
44
44
47
47
47
50
5050
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
21
21
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree2
21
21
size (ACRES)
0.52
0.52
0.52
1
0.52
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
8
8
8
1
1
1
6
6
7
5
5
5
Stems per ACRE
486
486
1 649
2
2
2
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
549
549
549
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
5
5
5
Stem count
13
13
23
10
10
15
10
10
10
16
16
16
11
11
16
11
11
23
11
11
26
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
Species count
3
1 3
4
33
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
6
5
S
S
Stems per ACRE
526
526
931
405
405
607 1
405
405
405 1
647
1 647
647 1
445
1 445
647 1
445
1 445
931
445
1 445
1 1052
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY3 (9/2018)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (9/2017)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1(10/2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (05/2016)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
34
34
99
41
41
45
45
45
45
50
50
50
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
3
1
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
39
39
39
39
39
41
41
41
41
49
49
49
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
35
35
35
35
35
37
44
44
44
46
46
46
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
5
Cornus florida
Flowering Dogwood
Shrub Tree
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
67
1 67
1 68
61
61
67
58
58
58
58
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
4
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
33
33
35
33
33
33
33
3333
30
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
44
44
44
47
47
47
50
5050
i5V858
52
Stem count
252
252
337
256
256
272
271
271272
285
size (ares)
21
21
21
21
size (ACRES)
0.52
0.52
0.52
1
0.52
Species count
10
10
10
6
6
8
6
6
7
6
6
6
Stems per ACRE
486
486
1 649
493
1 493
524
522
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%
IL'ls 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 11a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Little Pine Reach 1, Reach 2a, Reach 2b
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
1
Little Pine Reach 2b: Calculations only include reaches with a Pl 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
I
Max
Min
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
---
---
---
---1
50.7
1
87.6
47.4
Riffle Length (ft)
---
--
--
---
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 0.0175 0.0155
0.0278
0.0040
0.0275
0.0101
0.0274
0.0055
0.0236
Pool Length (ft)
N/A
---
--
--
---
44.5
96.5
38.7
108.9
40.92
99.41
Pool Max Depth (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
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)l
1 63
1
82 1
77
1
94
1
57
---
45
210
45
210
47
217
45
154
48
108
89
Radius of Curvature (ft)
1
1 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%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5D/d84/d95/d100
N/A
SC/4.5/10.2/61.2/143.4/>2048
SC/0.4/1.3/77.8/180.0/362
SC/0.5/18.4/79.2/143.4/256
---
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
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
0.85
0.66
2.43
0.56
0.75
1.20
0.46--T
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 (Capacity) W/mz
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%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
C4
E/C5
C4
E4
C4
C5
C4
C4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.2
F
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-Vr)
---
--
Q- NC Mountain Regional Curve (cfs)
N/A
284
306
1
308
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
177
191
193
Q -Mannings
199
211
213
235
---
---
---
188
204
199
231
219
232
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1,184
876
476
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
4,016
---
1,3501
1,0251
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)
1
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
1
Little Pine Reach 2b: Calculations only include reaches with a Pl or P2 approach

Table 11b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT2. UT2b
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
FS: 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
As-Built/Baseline
Parameter
Gage
UT2 Reach 1
UT2 Reach 2/3
UT2b
UT2a Reference
UT2 Reach 1 Lower
UT2 Reach 2
UT2b2
UT2 Reach 1 Lower
UT2 Reach 2
UT2b2
Min
Max
Reach 2
Reach 3
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
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 (ftz)
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 2.51 5.1 3.5 2.0 1 >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
D50 (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 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
PoolSpacing(ft)
11.6
40.5
14-68
22-63
8 34
78
6.5 41.5
19
95
5
21
7 34
24
98
3
33
Pool Volume (ft)
---
--
Pattern
Pattern
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%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
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
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
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
208
121
123-
-
208
148
193
-
-
-
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
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
E4 F4b A/134/1 134a C4b 134a 134a C4b 134a
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.3 3.4 4.0
4.1 3.2 --- 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.1 2.7 F 4.3 5.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
20 35 10 20 20 35 10 20 35 10
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
--- --
Q- NC Mountain Regional Curve (cfs)
21 44 7
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
10 21 3
Q -Mannings
35 43 8 --- --- --- 21 11.2 51.0 18.7
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)2
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 1 0.028 1 0.0667 10.0525 0.0280 0.0667 10.0563 0.0237 10.0536
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
FS: 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 3 - 2018
Dimension
Cross
Base
-Section
MY1
1, Little Pine Reach I (Riffle)
MY2 MY3' MY4
Cross
MYS Base
-Section
MYl
2, Little Pine Reach I (Pool)
MY2 MY3' MY4
Cross
MY5 Base
-Section
MY1
3, Little Pine Reach I (Riffle)
MY2 MY3' MY4 MY5
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
2,535.4
2,535.4
2,535.4 2,535.7
2,533.2
2,533.2
2,533.2 2,533.4
2,532.9
2,532.9
2,532.9 2,533.2
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
2,535.4
2,535.4
2,535.5 2,535.7
2,533.2
2,533.2
2,533.1 2,533.2
2,532.4
2,532.2
2,532.5 2,533.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
30.3
29.9
30.8 28.4
30.6
30.9
30.9 29.5
33.5
32.9
32.3 29.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
132.9
135.1
135.1 135.1
---
---
--- ---
>200
>200
>200 >200
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
1.7
1.7 1.9
2.2
2.1
2.2 2.3
1.6
1.6
1.6 1.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.7
2.8
3.2 3.0
4.3 1
3.9
1 4.4 4.7
3.2 1
3.1
3.0 3.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
53.5
49.8
52.8 53.5
68.0
65.9
66.9 68.0
52.2
51.8
52.2 52.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
17.1
18.0
18.0 15.1
---
---
--- ---
21.4
20.9
20.0 16.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
4.5
4.4 4.8
---
---
--- ---
>6.0
>6.1
>6.2 >6.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dimension
1.0
Icross-Section
Base
1.0
MY3
1.0 1.0
4, Little Pine Reach 2a (Riffle)
MY2 MY3' MY4
---
Cross
MYS Base
---
-Section
MYl
--- ---
5, Little Pine Reach 2a (Riffle)
MY2 MY3' MY4
<1.0
Cross
MYS Base
<1.0
-Section
MYl
<1.0 <1.0
6, Little Pine Reach 2a (Pool)
MY2 MY3' MY4 MYS
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
2,527.4
2,527.4
2,527.4 2,527.3
2,525.4
2,525.4
2,525.4 2,525.2
2,524.8
2,524.8
2,524.8 2,525.1
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
2,527.4
2,527.5
2,527.5 2,527.7
2,525.4
2,525.3
2,525.4 2,525.4
2,524.8
2,524.5
2,524.7 2,524.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
29.1
29.3
28.5 26.0
30.7
31.3
31.0 28.1
35.4
35.5
35.4 39.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200 >200
>200
>200
>200 >200
---
---
--- ---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.6
1.8 1.8
1.9
1.8
1.9 2.0
2.6
2.4
2.4 2.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.6
2.6
2.9 3.5
3.9
3.6
3.5 3.4
5.7
5.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
46.6
46.4
49,8 46.6
56.9
56.7
58.2 56.9
93.4
83.6
86.5 93.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
18.1
18.5
16.2 14.5
16.6
17.2
16.5 13.9
---
---
--- ---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>6.9
>6.8
>7.0 >7.7
>6.5
>6.4
>6.5 >7.1
---
---
--- ---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.1
---
---
--- ---
Dimension
Ftross-Section
Base I
MY3
7, Little Pine Reach 2b (Pool)
MY2 MY3' MY4
Cross
MYS Base
-Section
MY3
8, Little Pine Reach 2b (Riffle)
MY2 MY3' MY4
Cross
MY5 Base
-Section
MY3
9, Little Pine Reach 2b (Riffle)
MY2 MY3' MY4 MYS
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
2,522.0
2,522.0
2,522.0 2,522.4
2,520.1
2,520.1
2,520.1 2,520.0
2,519.5
2,519.5
2,519.5 2,519.3
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
2,522.0
2,522.0
2,522.2 2,522.2
2,520.1
2,520.1
2,520.2 2,520.3
2,519.5
2,519.5
2,519.4 2,519.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
35.3
35.5
35.2 40.2
28.7
29.8
29.4 26.9
31.9
30.7
29.3 29.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
--- ---
>200
>200
>200 >200
>200
>200
>200 >200
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.9
2.8
2.8 2.6
2.1
2.1
2.0 2.2
2.0
2.0
2.1 2.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
5.4
5.6
5.4 5.6
3.4
3.6
3.4 3.9
3.1
3.2
3.0 3.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
103.7
100.0
97.2 103.7
58.8
61.2
59.8 58.8
64.2
62.3
60.2 64.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
---
---
--- ---
14.0
14.5
14.4 12.3
15.9
15.2
14.2 13.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
>7.0
>6.7
>6.8 >7.4
>6.3
>6.5
>6.9 >6.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
---
--- ---
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0
---: not applicable
'Prior to MY3, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY3 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the
BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018).

Table 12b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Dimension
�Woss-Section
Base
Myl
MY2
10, UT2b (Pool)
MY3' MY4
MYS Base
Cross -Section
MYl
11,
MY2
UT2b (Riffle)
MY3' MY4
Cross
MYS Base
-Section
MY1
12, UT2
MY2
Reach 1 Lower (Riffle)
MY31 MY4 MY5
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
2,570.0
2,570.0
2,570.0
2,568.4
2,566.4
2,566.4
2,566.4
2,566.4
2,573.8
2,573.8
2,573.8
2,573.8
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
2,570.0
2,569.7
2,570.0
2,570.1
2,566.4
2,566.4
2,566.2
2,566.3
2,573.8
2,573.7
2,573.7
2,573.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.9
6.0
6.1
4.8
6.7
6.3
6.6
6.6
8.1
8.4
8.6
8.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
15.9
17.7
17.9
16.3
28.4
30.0
30.0
30.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
2.3
2.4
1.2
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.7
3.4
3.3
1.7
0.9
1.1
1.1 1
0.9
1.0
1.3
1.2 1
1.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
5.7
14.0
14.9
5.7
3.7
4.3
4.5
3.7
5.1
5.7
5.4
5.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
---
---
---
---
12.2
9.1
9.6
11.6
13.0
12.5
13.9
13.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
---
2.4
2.8
2.7
2.5
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dimension
---
ircross-Section
Base
---
MYl
13, LIT2
MY2
Reach I Lower (Pool)
MY3' MY4
Cross
MYS Base
-Section
MYl
14, UT2
MY2
Reach 2 (Riffle)
MY3' MY4
Cross
MYS Base
-Section
MY3
15,
MY2
UT2 Reach 2 (Pool)
MY3' MY4 MYS
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
2,573.3
2,573.3
2,573.3
2,573.0
2,547.2
2,547.2
2,547.2
2,547.5
2,539.1
2,539.1
2,539.1
2,539.1
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
2,573.3
2,573.3
2,573.3
2,573.4
2,547.2
2,547.2
2,547.1
2,547.4
2,539.1
2,539.0
2,539.2
2,539.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.8
10.1
10.4
8.7
10.8
8.0
9.2
10.6
12.2
11.6
12.0
11.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
21.5
23.2
23.5
21.0
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
1.5
1.0
1.2
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.2
1.9
2.5
2.6
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
3.1
1.7
2.2
1.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
12.8
12.5
15.0
12.8
5.9
6.6
6.6
5.9
18.7
11.9
14.4
13.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
---
---
---
---
20.1
9.7
13.0
19.2
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
---
2.0
2.9
2.5
2.0
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
NOBEL
Dimension
---
=Cross
Base
---
-Section
MYl
---
16, UT2
MY2
---
Reach 2 (Riffle)
MY3' MY4
1.0
Cross
MY5 Base
1.0
-Section
MY3
<1.0 I
17, UT2
MY2
<1.0
Reach 2 (Riffle)
MY3' MY4
---
Cross
MY5 Base
---
-Section
MY3
---
18,
MY2
---
UT2 Reach 2 (Pool)
MY3' MY4 MY5
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
2,535.0
2,535.0
2,535.0
2,535.4
2,531.2
2,531.2
2,531.2
2,531.2
2,530.4
2,530.4
2,530.4
2,530.4
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
2,535.0
2,535.0
2,535.1
2,535.5
2,531.2
2,531.2
2,531.2
2,531.2
2,530.4
2,579.7
2,530.1
2,530.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.9
10.0
6.9
8.1
12.8
12.9
13.6
12.6
19.3
19.5
21.4
22.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.9
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.3
2.1
2.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
4.2
5.0
2.8
4.2
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
15.8
16.3
16.9
15.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
19.2
19.9
17.1
15.6
13.6
13.8
15.4
13.2
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>22.4
>20.0
>28.9
>24.6
>15.7
>15.5
>14.7
>15.9
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
---
---
---
--: not applicable
'Prior to MY3, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY3 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR
Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018).

Table 13a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Little Pine Reach ]
As-Built/Baseline
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)
30.3
33.5
29.9
32.9
30.8
32.3
28.4
29.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
133
>200
135
>200
135
>200
135.1
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
Bankfull Max Depth
2.7
3.2
2.8
3.1
3.0
3.2
3.0
3.4
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
52.2
53.5
49.8
51.8
52.2
52.8
52.2
53.5
Width/Depth Ratio
17.1
21.4
18
20.9
18
20
15.1
16.1
Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
>6.0
4.5
>6.1
4.4
>6.2
4.8
>6.9
Bank Height Ratio
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
D50 (mm)
50.7
56.9
45.0
48.5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
28
81
21
47
32
76
12
50
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0040
0.0275
0.0064
0.0283
0.0052
0.0183
0.0029
0.0191
Pool Length (ft)
44
96
66
176
49
177
58
176
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.5
5.8
3.0
4.7
3.9
6.2
4.2
5.8
Pool Spacing (ft)
71
191
77
224
94
210
81
225
Pool Volume (ft)
..
.
.
..
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
45
154
Radius of Curvature (ft)
60
96
..
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.0
2.9
Meander Wave Length (ft)
207
313
Meander Width Ratio 1
1.5
4.6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,444
1,444
1,444
1,444
Sinuosity (ft)
1.22
.
...
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0049
0.0049
0.0050
0.0049
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0051
0.0043
0.0045
0.0048
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
0.13/0.38/11/789/180/1024
0.35/7.45/16/90/128/180
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 1
0%
0%
1%
3%

Table 13b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Little Pine Reach 2a
As-Built/Baseline
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)
29.1
30.7
29.3
31.3
28.5
31.0
26.0
28.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.8
2.0
Bankfull Max Depth
2.6
3.9
2.6
3.6
2.9
3.5
3.4
3.5
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
46.6
56.9
46.4
56.7
49.8
58.2
46.6
56.9
Width/Depth Ratio
16.6
18.1
17.2
18.5
16.2
16.5
13.9
14.5
Entrenchment Ratio
>6.5
>6.9
>6.4
>6.8
>6.5
>7.0
>7.1
>7.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
D50 (mm)
87.6
72.4
75.9
85.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
38
68
19
49
27
55
26
54
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0101
0.0274
0.0112
0.0471
0.0143
0.0280
0.0139
0.0300
Pool Length (ft)
39
109
39
145
66
186
84
178
Pool Max Depth (ft)
4.7
5.8
4.3
6.6
4.0
6.7
4.3
6.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
132
206
78
206
121
279
57
263
Pool Volume (ft)
..
..
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
48
108
Radius of Curvature (ft)
63
77
..
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.2
2.5
Meander Wave Length (ft)
288
337
Meander Width Ratio
1.6
3.5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,083
1,083
1,083
1,083
Sinuosity (ft)
1.24
.
...
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0072
0.0073
0.0075
0.0074
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0074
0.0059
0.0067
0.0070
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
0.21/12.5/523/121/168/1024
0.32/6.7/49.8/136/274/512
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 1
0%
0%
2%
3%

Table 13c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Little Pine Reach 2b
As-Built/Baseline
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)
28.7
31.9
29.8
30.7
29.3
29.4
26.9
29.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.2
Bankfull Max Depth
3.1
3.4
3.2
3.6
3.0
3.4
3.5
3.9
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
58.8
64.2
61.2
62.3
59.8
60.2
58.8
64.2
Width/Depth Ratio
14.0
15.9
14.5
15.2
14.2
14.4
12.3
13.7
Entrenchment Ratio
>6.3
>7
>6.5
>6.7
>6.8
>6.9
>6.7
>7.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
D50 (mm)
47.4
72
70.2
62.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
30
132
26
102
26
44
35
59
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0055
0.0236
0.0169
0.0254
0.0116
0.0177
0.0040
0.0133
Pool Length (ft)
41
99
55
153
26
149
24
152
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.6
5.4
3.8
6.3
3.7
5.0
3.6
5.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
88
190
12
129
8
175
69
162
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
89
Radius of Curvature (ft)
82
124
..
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.9
3.9
Meander Wave Length (ft)
334
329
Meander Width Ratio
3.1
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
493
493
493
493
Sinuosity (ft)
1.04
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0118
0.0101
0.0082
0.0105
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0101
0.0107
0.0103
0.0102
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5D/d84/d95/d1DD
0.38/22/47/122/209/362
0.22/10/29/111/171/362
0.3/8.0/29.0/107.3/180/362
0.71/5.6/28/93/152/512
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
3%

Table 13d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT2 Reach 1 Lower
As-Built/Baseline
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)
8.1
8.4
8.6
8.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
28.4
30.0
30.0
30.4
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.3
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
5.1
5.7
5.4
5.1
Width/Depth Ratio
13.0
12.5
13.9
13.2
Entrenchment Ratio
3.5
3.6
3.5
3.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
D50 (mm)
56.9
39.8
38.7
43.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11
25
13
39
5
24
6
20
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0360
0.0853
0.0136
0.0730
0.0253
0.0793
0.0109
0.0624
Pool Length (ft)
5
22
2
15
4
17
5
21
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.9
5.0
1.0
2.9
2.0
3.8
1.1
3.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
7
34
8
52
6
53
6
34
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
134a
134a
134a
134a
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
433
433
433
433
Sinuosity (ft)
1.05
.
..
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0560
0.0477
0.0481
0.0475
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0563
0.0483
0.0485
0.0455
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5o/d84/d95/dloot
0.25/11/28/96/143/256
6.1/14/23/75/153/256
0.7/11/28/76/118/256
1.2/18/37/113/180/362
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 1
0%
6%
2%
1%

Table 13e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT2 Reach 2
�VParameter
As-Built/Baseline
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)
8.9
12.8
8.0
12.9
6.9
13.6
8.1
12.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
21.5
>200
23.2
>200
23.5
>200
21.0
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.9
0.5
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
2.1
0.8
1.8
0.6
1.9
0.9
2.1
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
4.2
12.0
5.0
12.0
2.8
12.0
4.2
12.0
Width/Depth Ratio
13.6
20.1
9.7
19.9
13.0
17.1
13.2
19.2
Entrenchment Ratio
2.0
>22.4
2.9
>20.0
2.5
>28.9
2.0
>24.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.2
0.9
1.1
D50 (mm)
44
53
15
90
34.5
34.8
45.0
48.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17
29
10
36
5
62
4
68
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0262
0.0575
0.0141
0.0658
0.0093
0.0773
0.0122
0.1161
Pool Length (ft)
13
46
4
40
6
35
4
39
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.6
3.2
1.5
3.8
1.1
4.6
1.9
4.8
Pool Spacing (ft)
24
98
8
113
10
207
7
156
Pool Volume (ft)
..
..
.
..
..
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
61
66
Radius of Curvature (ft)
19
63
..
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.1
4.9
Meander Wave Length (ft)
105
135
Meander Width Ratio
7
5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
CO
CO
CO
CO
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,318
1,318
1,318
1,318
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
.
...
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0231
0.0225
0.0235
0.0237
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0237
0.0214
0.0245
0.0247
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.25/11/28/96/143/256
6.1/14/23/75/153/256
0.7/11/28/76/118/256
1.2/18/37/113/180/362
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
1
4%
7%
1.

Table 13f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT2b
Parameter
As-Built/Baseline
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
6.6
6.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
15.9
17.7
17.9
16.3
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.9
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
3.7
4.3
4.5
3.7
Width/Depth Ratio
12.2
9.1
9.6
11.6
Entrenchment Ratio
2.4
2.8
2.7
2.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
D50(mm)
43
36
32
24
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
4
23
7
24
7
25
6
32
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0448
0.0659
0.0276
0.0451
0.0127
0.0702
0.0125
0.0494
Pool Length (ft)
3
14
3
8
4
15
3
11
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.6
2.1
2.0
3.9
0.8
3.8
0.9
4.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
3
33
4
30
3
30
2
32
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
134a
134a
134a
134a
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
253
253
253
253
Sinuosity (ft)
1.10
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0616
0.0614
0.0557
0.0608
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0536
0.0608
0.0612
0.0612
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5o/d84/d95/dloot
0.78/29/42/85/123/180
0.28/7.4/23/82/128/362
0.5/13/26/87/143/256
0.50/6.7/14/100/161/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 1
0%
0%
0%
0%

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Little Pine Reach 1 (STA 100+00 -114+44) and Reach 2a (114+44-125+27)
254s
� 1
x 1
1
1
1
End Little Pine Reach 1
1
2540
1
1
Begin Little Pine Reach 2a
1
1
2535
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
♦
♦
1
1
1
v
1
♦
1
1
•
2535
c
w
0
2530
1
_ Y
1
1
w
1
2530
0
1
1
1
1
d
1
2525
2525
ASIL
10000 10050 10100 10150 10200 10250 10300 10350 10400 10450 10500 10550 10600 10650 10700 10750 10800 10850 10900 10950 11000
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-4/2016) - TW (MYI-10/2016) t TW (MY2-5/2017) t TW (MY3-6/2018)------- WSF (MY3-6/2018) ♦ BKF (MY3-6/2018) • STRUCTURE (MY3-6/2018)
2540
� 1
x 1
1
1
1
End Little Pine Reach 1
1
1
1
Begin Little Pine Reach 2a
1
1
2535
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
♦
♦
1
1
1
1
♦
1
1
•
w
2530
1
_ Y
1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
d
1
2540
� 1
x 1
End Little Pine Reach 1
1
Begin Little Pine Reach 2a
2535
•
1
♦
•
w
2530
_ Y
1
1
0
d
2525
ASIL
2520
11000 11050 11100 11150 11200 11250 11300 11350 11400 11450 11500 11550 11600 11650 11700 11750 11800 11850 11900 11950 12000
Station (feet)
TW(MYO-4/2016)- TW (MYI-10/2016) TW(MY2-5/2017) TW(MY3-6/2018)....... WSF(MY3-6/2018) ♦ BKF(MY3-6/2018) 0 STRUCrURE(MY3-6/2018)
� 1
x 1
1
•
1
♦
•
_ Y
1
1

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Little Pine Reach 2a (114+44-125+27) and Reach 2b (125+27-130+20)
2530
2525
d
2520
`o
w
2515
2510
12000
12050 12100 12150
12200 12250 12300
12350 12400
12450 12500 12550
12600 12650
12700 12750 12800
12850 12900 12950 13000
t\ 1
Station (feet)
X I
- TW (MVO -4/2016)
- TW (MYI-10/2016) -
TW (MY2-5/2017)
t TW (MV3-6/2018)------- WSF (MY3-6/2018)
1
• STRUCTURE (MV3-6/2018)
1
K 1
1
♦
•
♦ •
1
♦ 1
1
1
1
1
1
----•-----
•- •-•-•--
-----•
1
•
1
1
1
srk�1
•
Al
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
_
1
1
1
1
1
m 1
`� 1
�
1
1
End Reach 2a
Begin Reach 26
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12050 12100 12150
12200 12250 12300
12350 12400
12450 12500 12550
12600 12650
12700 12750 12800
12850 12900 12950 13000
Station (feet)
- TW (MVO -4/2016)
- TW (MYI-10/2016) -
TW (MY2-5/2017)
t TW (MV3-6/2018)------- WSF (MY3-6/2018)
♦ BKF (MV3-6/2018)
• STRUCTURE (MV3-6/2018)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT2 Reach 1 Uooer (STA 297+18 - 310+561
2720
2715
d
.
d
0
.
u 2710
2705
30200 30215 30230 30245 30260 30275 30290 30305 30320 30335 30350 30365 30380 30395
Station (feet)
-TW(MYO-4/2016) TW(MYl-10/2016) tTW(MY2-5/2017) tTW(MY3-6/2018)....... WSF(MY3-6/2018) ♦ BKF(MY3-6/2018) • STRUCrURE(MY3-6/2018)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT2 Reach 1 Upper (STA 297+18 - 310+56)
2700
2695
c
> 2690
w
2685
30765 30780 30795 30810 30825 30840 30855 30870 30885 30900 30915 30930 30945 30960
Station (feet)
- TW (MYO-4/2016) - TW (MYI-10/2016) TW(MY2-5/2017) tTW(MV3-6/2018)------- WSF(MV3-6/2018) • BKF(MV3-6/2018) • STRUCTURE (MV3-6/2018)
2695
2690
End UT2 each 1 Upper
c
nsLwm
•
0
> 2685
w
•
•
2680
30960 30975 30990 31005 31020 31035 31050 31065 31080 31095 31110 31125 31140 31155
Station (feet)
- TW (MYO-4/2016) - TW (MYI-10/2016) t TW (MY2-5/2017) t TW (MY3-6/2018)....... WSF (MV3-6/2018) ♦ BKF (MY3-6/2018) • STRUCrURE (MY3-6/2018)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT2 Reach 1 Lower (STA 325+67 - 330+00)
2586
2581
d
e
i 2576
-.•_•............•-.
77
Begin UT2 Reach 1 Lower
d
2571
"1"
------
32550 32565 32580 32595 32610 32625 32640 32655 32670 32685 32700 32715 32730 32745
Station (feet)
�TW(MYO-4/2016)— TW (MYI-10/2016) tTW(MY2-5/2017)—f—TW(MY3-6/2018)....... WSF(MY3-6/2018) • BKF(MY3-6/2018) • STRUCfURE(MY3-6/2018)
2575
2570
w
C
r
2565
- -2570
tap-
N
•-I
� X
'
r -
w
2560
32745 32760 32775 32790 32805 32820 32835 32850 32865 32880 32895 32910 32925 32940
Station (feet)
— TW (MYO-4/2016) — TW (MYI-10/2016) tTW(MY2-5/2017) TW(MY3-6/2018)------- WSF (MY3-6/2018) ♦ BKF(MY3-6/2018) • STRUCrURE(MY3-6/2018)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT2 Reach 2 (STA 330+00 - 343+18)
2555
•
zsso
X
d
O-----------------
2545
2540
33350 33365 33380 33395 33410 33425 33440 33455 33470 33485 33500 33515 33530 33545
Station (feet)
-TW(MY0-4/2016)- TW (MYI-10/2016) TW(MY2-5/2017) � TW (MY3-6/2018) ....... WSF(MY3-6/2018) • BKF(MY3-6/2018) • STRUCrURE(MY3-6/2018)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT2 Reach 2 (STA 330+00 - 343+18)
2535
2545
X
♦
♦
♦
•
2540
2530
•
•
0
•
A
2535
.------
'
m
2530
X ;
X
2520
33600 33630 33660 33690 33720 33750 33780 33810 33840 33870 33900 33930 33960 33990
Station (feet)
+TW(MYO-4/2016)- TW (MYl-10/2016) tTW(MY2-5/2017) tTW(MY3-6/2018) ....... WSF(MY3-6/2018) ♦ BKF(MY3-6/2018) • STRUCrURE(MY3-6/2018)
2535
♦
♦
2530
•
Z7
A
c
0
> 2525
X ;
X
2520
33990 34020 34050 34080 34110 34140 34170 34200 34230 34260 34290 34320 34350 34380
Station (feet)
-TW(MYO-4/2016) TW(MYl-30/2016) tTW(MY2-5/2017) tTW(MY3-6/2018)....... WSF(MY3-6/2018) • BKF(MY3-6/2018) • STRUCrURE(MY3-6/2018)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT2b (STA 503+00 - 505+53)
2580
2575
X
♦
2570
o
i
•
♦
.
X
a
2565
2560
50485 50500 50515 50530 50545 50560 50575 50590 50605 50620 50635 50650 50665 50680
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-4/2016) - TW (MYI-10/2016) TW (MY2-5/2017) t TW (MY3-6/2018)-'--'-- WSF (MY3-6/2018) ♦ BKF (MY3-6/2018) 0 STRUCTURE (MY3-6/2018)
2575
v
.
o
Begin UT26 Restoration
♦
♦
> 2570
Mi
A
L
2565
..
50290 50305 50320 50335 50350 50365 50380 50395 50410 50425 50440 50455 50470 50485
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-4/2016) -TW (MYI-10/2016) TW (MY2-5/2017) TW (MY3-6/2018)------- WSF (MY3-6/2018) ♦ BKF (MY3-6/2018) • STRUCTURE (MY3-6/2018)
2575
X
2570
o
i
•
♦
2565
2560
50485 50500 50515 50530 50545 50560 50575 50590 50605 50620 50635 50650 50665 50680
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-4/2016) - TW (MYI-10/2016) TW (MY2-5/2017) t TW (MY3-6/2018)-'--'-- WSF (MY3-6/2018) ♦ BKF (MY3-6/2018) 0 STRUCTURE (MY3-6/2018)

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 1- Little Pine Reach 1
103+99 Riffle
2545
2540
28.4
width (ft)
1.9
mean depth (ft)
3.0
max depth (ft)
30.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.1
width -depth ratio
135.1
W flood prone area (ft)
4.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
x
c 2535
0
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)
tMYO (5/2016) —*--MYI (10/2016) tMY2 (5/2017) $ MY3 (6/2018) —Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
53.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
28.4
width (ft)
1.9
mean depth (ft)
3.0
max depth (ft)
30.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.1
width -depth ratio
135.1
W flood prone area (ft)
4.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 2- Little Pine Reach 1
108+73 Pool
2545
x -section area (ft.sq.)
29.5
width (ft)
2.3
2543
4.7
max depth (ft)
32.6
2541
2539
2.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.8
width -depth ratio
—2537
x
c 2535
0
> 2533
v
W
ilk
2531
2529
2527
2525
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Width (ft)
tMYO (5/2016) --e—MY1 (10/2016) ! MY2 (5/2017) tMY3 (6/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
68.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
29.5
width (ft)
2.3
mean depth (ft)
4.7
max depth (ft)
32.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.8
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 6/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 3- Little Pine Reach 1
109+26 Riffle
2s45
2540
29.0
width (ft)
1.8
mean depth (ft)
3.4
max depth (ft)
33.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.1
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.9
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
x
c 2535
0
v
W 2530
�t
2525
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200
Width (ft)
tMYO (5/2016) —0--MYI (10/2016) tMY2 (5/2017) $ MY3 (6/2018) —Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
52.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
29.0
width (ft)
1.8
mean depth (ft)
3.4
max depth (ft)
33.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.1
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.9
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 4 - Little Pine Reach 2a
118+14 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
2535
width (ft)
1.8
mean depth (ft)
3.5
max depth (ft)
29.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.5
width -depth ratio
200
W flood prone area (ft)
7.7
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
2530
x
c 25
0 25
a
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)
tMYO (5/2016) tMY1 (10/2016) tMY2 (5/2017) +MY3 (6/2018) —Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
46.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
26.0
width (ft)
1.8
mean depth (ft)
3.5
max depth (ft)
29.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.5
width -depth ratio
200
W flood prone area (ft)
7.7
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section S- Little Pine Reach 2a
121+50 Riffle
2535
2530
28.1
width (ft)
2.0
mean depth (ft)
3.4
max depth (ft)
32.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.9
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.1
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
x
c 2525
0
a
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)
tMYO (5/2016) tMYI (10/2016) tMY2 (5/2017) tMY3 (6/2018) -Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
56.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
28.1
width (ft)
2.0
mean depth (ft)
3.4
max depth (ft)
32.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.9
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.1
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 6- Little Pine Reach 2a
122+32 Pool
2535
2530
39.4
width (ft)
2.4
mean depth (ft)
5.4
max depth (ft)
42.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.6
width -depth ratio
x
c 2525
0
>
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)
tMYO(5/2016) tMY1(10/2016) ! MY2(5/2017) tMY3(6/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
93.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
39.4
width (ft)
2.4
mean depth (ft)
5.4
max depth (ft)
42.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 6/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 7 - Little Pine Reach 2b
125+35 Pool
2530
2525
40.2
width (ft)
2.6
mean depth (ft)
5.6
max depth (ft)
43.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.6
width -depth ratio
F
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)
tMYO (5/2016) --o—MYI (10/2016) ! MY2 (5/2017) tMY3 (6/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
103.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
40.2
width (ft)
2.6
mean depth (ft)
5.6
max depth (ft)
43.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 6/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 8 - Little Pine Reach 2b
126+94 Riffle
2530
2525
26.9
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
3.9
max depth (ft)
28.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.3
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.4
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
x
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)
tMYO (5/2016) —0--MYI (10/2016) tMY2 (5/2017) $ MY3 (6/2018) —Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
58.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
26.9
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
3.9
max depth (ft)
28.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.3
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.4
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 9 - Little Pine Reach 2b
127+80 Riffle
2530
2525
29.7
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
3.5
max depth (ft)
31.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.7
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
x
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)
tMYO (5/2016) —0--MYI (10/2016) tMY2 (5/2017) $ MY3 (6/2018) —Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
64.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
29.7
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
3.5
max depth (ft)
31.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.7
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 10 - UT2b
504+23 Pool
2577
2575
4.8
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
6.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
4.1
width -depth ratio
2573
x
c 2571
0
2569
Mw
2567
2565
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
tMYO (5/2016) --e—MY1 (10/2016) tMY2 (5/2017) tMY3 (6/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
4.8
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
6.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
4.1
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 6/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 11- UT2b
504+89 Riffle
2574
2572
6.6
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
6.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
2570
x
c 2568
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.6
width -depth ratio
16.3
0
2.5
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Mw 2566
2564
2562
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
tMYO (5/2016) —0--MYI (10/2016) tMY2 (5/2017) tIVY3 (6/2018) —Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.6
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
6.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.6
width -depth ratio
16.3
W flood prone area (ft)
2.5
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 12 - UT2
327+46 Riffle
2579
2577
8.2
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
9.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
x
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.2
width -depth ratio
30.4
W flood prone area (ft)
3.7
entrenchment ratio
1.1
c 2575
0
v
W 2573
2571
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
0 MYO (5/2016) —0--MYI (10/2016) tMY2 (5/2017) tMY3 (6/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.2
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
9.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.2
width -depth ratio
30.4
W flood prone area (ft)
3.7
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 13 - UT2
327+59 Pool
2578
2576
8.7
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.6
max depth (ft)
10.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
x
c 2574
5.9
width -depth ratio
0
v
W 2572
2570
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
tMYO (5/2016) —e.—MYI (10/2016) tMY2 (5/2017) tMY3 (6/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
12.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.7
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.6
max depth (ft)
10.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
5.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 14 - UT2
334+33 Riffle
2555
2553
10.6
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.3
2551
11.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.2
width -depth ratio
x
c
0
2549
W flood prone area (ft)
2.0
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
v
2547
2545
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
0 MYO (5/2016) —0--MYI (10/2016) tMY2 (5/2017) tMY3 (6/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.6
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
11.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.2
width -depth ratio
21.0
W flood prone area (ft)
2.0
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 15 - UT2
337+54 Pool
2543
2541
11.4
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
12.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
x
width -depth ratio
c 2539
0
v
W 2537
2535
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO (5/2016) --e—MY1 (10/2016) tMY2 (5/2017) tMY3 (6/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
13.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.4
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
12.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 6/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 16 - UT2
338+73 Riffle
2540
2538
8.1
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
F
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.6
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
c 2536
0
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
v
W 2534
2532
0 10 20 30 40 So 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
0 MYO (5/2016) —0--MYI (10/2016) tMY2 (5/2017) tMY3 (6/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.1
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
8.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.6
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
24.6
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 17 - UT2
341+08 Riffle
2536
2534
12.6
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
14.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.2
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
15.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
x
c 2532
0
v
W 2530
MAN
2528
0 10 20 30 40 5o 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
0 MYO (5/2016) —0--MYI (10/2016) tMY2 (5/2017) tMY3 (6/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
12.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.6
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
14.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.2
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
15.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 6/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section 18 - UT2
341+51 Pool
2535
2533
22.3
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
2.8
max depth (ft)
24.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
x2531
31.6
width -depth ratio
c
0
2529
v
2527
2525
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
tMYO (5/2016) --e—MY1 (10/2016) tMY2 (5/2017) tMY3 (6/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
15.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
22.3
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
2.8
max depth (ft)
24.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
31.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 6/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Little Pine Reach 1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
16.0
6
6
6
6
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
2
8
SP$yO
Fine
0.125
0.250
80
4
4
4
12
Medium 0.25 0.50 8 8 1 8
20
v
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
3
23
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 5 5 5
28
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
28
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 1
29
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
31
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 4 5 5
36
Jt�y
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
6
8
8
44
Medium 11.0 16.0 3 3 6 6
50
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
51
Coarse 22.6 32 5 1 6 6
57
'
Very Coarse
32
45
9
1
10
10
67
Very Coarse
45
64
6
2
8
8
75
�S0
Small
64
90
7
2
9
9
84
Small 90 128 10 1 11 11
95
Large
128
180
5
5
5
100
Large
180
256
100
1",
Small
256
362
100
Small 362 512
100
1
Medium
512
1024
100
�pJ
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.35
D35 =
7.45
D50 =
16.0
D84 =
90.0
D95 =
128.0
D100 =
180.0
Little Pine Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
v
a
60
a
50
m
40
�
30
v
20
v
5
10
0
O� Oti O• �'
'b ,,- ,� y�o 6ti 1ti ,yb b4 Ab
ti' y' �ti' ti 1 'L 3 h ,yO .10 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MVO -05/2016
• MYl-10/2016 MY2-05/2017 0 MY3-07/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Little Pine Reach 1, Cross -Section 3
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
48.5
D84 =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
80
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium 0.25 0.50 2 2
2
9P�o
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
5
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 7 7
12
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
13
Very Fine 2.8 4.0
13
M
Fine
4.0
5.6
40
13
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2
15
GQ� '
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
19
Medium 11.0 16.0 3 3
22
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
28
Coarse 22.6 32 6 6
34
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
46
Very Coarse 45 64 19 19
65
Particle Class Size (mm)
Small
64
90
21
21
86
Small 90 128 5 5
91
C0�
Large
128
180
S
5
96
Large 180 256 1 1
97
■■11l�����al�!!:11�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Small
256
362
1
1
98
small
362
512
98
Medium
512
024
2
2
00
Large/very Large
1024
2045
1
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
1 100 1
100
100
Cross -Section 3
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
8.66
Das =
32.92
D50 =
48.5
D84 =
87.1
D95 =
168.1
D100 =
1024.0
Little Pine Reach 1, Cross -Section 3
� �,�����71111ii�I.I.I.�R1111ii�1����m�-��,1�III�'��'"III■■1111111
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111■1111�N�li�r�tr��""'�1
70
:,
v
60
__ , ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111111■■1111111■�I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11
a
II■■1111111■■1111111
�
50
• ,
�, ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1
M
111■■1111111■■1111111
40
'
F.
30
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■
>
1111■■1111111■■1111111
°o
20
�
0
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■���
Obti ytih by Oh 'ti
o, o, o�
ti ,ti9 b h� 0 y'y y(0 ,L� �ti p�0 �A cO ,yO $O o 0ti 1ti ,tiA o A6
ti ti ti 1- 3 5 do ,yo to
1111■■1111111■■1111111
Particle Class Size (mm)
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111l��/111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1'!!!!!�=
MY1-10/2016 •MY2-05/2017 ■MY3-07/2018
::":�i���illllll■■1111111■■1111111
■■11l�����al�!!:11�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Little Pine Reach 1, Cross -Section 3
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
v
60
a
�
50
M
40
F.
30
>
°o
20
10
0
Obti ytih by Oh 'ti
o, o, o�
ti ,ti9 b h� 0 y'y y(0 ,L� �ti p�0 �A cO ,yO $O o 0ti 1ti ,tiA o A6
ti ti ti 1- 3 5 do ,yo to
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-05/2016
MY1-10/2016 •MY2-05/2017 ■MY3-07/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Little Pine Reach 2a, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
49.8
8
8
8
8
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
9
SP$yp
Fine
0.125
0.250
80
4
4
4
13
Medium 0.25 0.50 8 8 8
21
v
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
3
24
60
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
6
9
9
33
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
�
33
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
�
33
'
Fine
4.0
5.6
_ • ■■1111111■■���iii;l�_
■■1111111���IIIIII■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
..,�.I..�i�ll■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
5
33
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
3
4
4
37
, ■■111i11��■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
2
39
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
3
3
42
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
2
2
44
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
1
45
Very Coarse
32
45
1
1
1
46
Very Coarse 45 64 11 3 14 14
60
Small
64
90
9
5
14
14
74
Small 90 128 8 1 9 9
83
C0� "
Large
128
180
6
6
6
89
Large
180
256
4
1
5
5
94
Small
256
362
3
2
5
5
99
Small
362
512
1
1
1
100
V
Medium
512
1024
100
�pJ
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048
1
100
Total
So
50
100 1
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.32
D35 =
6.69
D50 =
49.8
D84 =
135.5
D95 =
274.4
D100 =
512.0
� �
�����"7�111��■■■■II����������������IIrI��_1'llll■■1111111
Individual Class Percent
100
., ��i111�E�llll�i�■■■■
�.■ri
90
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111■111111��"■""�i
.,
�,
80
c
70
__ ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111!I�■■1111111■I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11�!iii■■1111111■■1111111
v
',
a
60
• ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1�'��III■■1111111■■1111111
50
■■1111111■■1111111■�������!�'���IIIII■■1111111■■1111111
m
40
�
,
�
�_�i�+!�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
v
20
_ • ■■1111111■■���iii;l�_
■■1111111���IIIIII■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
..,�.I..�i�ll■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
5
10
0
O� Oti O• �'
yb 4 ,y'Y .y/o �o .�'L b5 6b 9� ,LO 00 h�O 6ti 1ti ,Lb b$ Ab
ti'
, ■■111i11��■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
• MYO-05/2016
• MYl-10/2016 MY2-05/2017 0 MY3-07/2018
Little Pine Reach 2a, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
v
a
60
a
50
m
40
�
30
v
20
v
5
10
0
O� Oti O• �'
yb 4 ,y'Y .y/o �o .�'L b5 6b 9� ,LO 00 h�O 6ti 1ti ,Lb b$ Ab
ti'
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016
• MYl-10/2016 MY2-05/2017 0 MY3-07/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Little Pine Reach 2a, Cross -Section 5
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
85.0
D84 =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
80
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium 0.25 0.50
0
9P�o
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 3 3
3
:;
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
�
3
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
4
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
5
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
9
GQ� '
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
12
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
15
Coarse
22.6
32
15
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
20
Very Coarse 45 64 20 20
40
Small
64
90
12
12
52
Small
90
128
14
14
66
C0� '
Large
128
180
15
15
81
Large
180
256
9
9
90
Small
256
362
5
5
95
small
362
512
4
99
�pJ�p�Q?
Medium
512
024
1
1
00
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
34.26
Di5 =
58.61
D50 =
85.0
D84 =
202.4
D95 =
362.0
D100 =
1024.0
Little Pine Reach 2a, Cross -Section 5
---�,���lii�l.....g��lll�r■■■�mi�■■■���11■!'.�liilll■■1111111
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
■�■1�111111■■1111111■�1111�■111�1'�ir�ir�i�"""1
70
v
60
:;
a
�
50
M
40
__ , ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111111111■1111111■�I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11111l�!�■1111111■■1111111
3
• ,
�, ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11111��■■1111111■■1111111
>
:o
20
10
0
O"by Oh 1
o,4ti o,O o
'L ,y9 b y 0 ,y'y ,y0 ,L� ,6'L Ay �k c§',yO $O h� bti 1ti ,tiA A6
'o ti ti ti ti 3 5 do ,yoo to
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-05/2016
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111!rll■■1111111■■1111111
, ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■IIlllll■■1111111■■1111111
_: , ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1�l,�lll■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111l���GIIIII■■1111111■■1111111
,
■■1111111■�����������■"='':�1��111111■■1111111■■1111111
. go oil
Little Pine Reach 2a, Cross -Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
v
60
a
�
50
M
40
3
30
>
:o
20
10
0
O"by Oh 1
o,4ti o,O o
'L ,y9 b y 0 ,y'y ,y0 ,L� ,6'L Ay �k c§',yO $O h� bti 1ti ,tiA A6
'o ti ti ti ti 3 5 do ,yoo to
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-05/2016
MVL-10/2016 •MY2-05/2017 11MY3-07/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Little Pine Reach 2b, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
27.8
3
3
3
3
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
Fine
0.125
0.250
80
3
3
3
6
SP$yp
Medium
0.25
0.50
7
7 1
7
13
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
6
6
19
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
6
8
8
27
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
27
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
2
3
3
30
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
3
5
5
35
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
2
37
Particle Class Size (mm)
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
3
4
4
41
Medium 11.0 16.0 2 2 2
43
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
3
4
4
47
Coarse 22.6 32 1 4 5 5
52
'
Very Coarse
32
45
3
4
7
7
59
Very Coarse 45 64 13 2 15 15
74
Small
64
90
5
4
9
9
83
Small 90 128 8 2 10 10
93
Large
128
180
2
2
4
4
97
Large 180 256 1 1 2 2
99
Small
256
362
99
Small 362 512 1 1 1
100
V
Medium
512
1024
100
�pJ
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
40
60
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
0.71
D35 =
5.60
D50 =
27.8
D84 =
93.2
D95 =
151.8
D100 =
512.0
Little Pine Reach 2b, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
v
a
60
a
50
m
40
�
30
v
20
v
5
to
0
6'L nh by 5 1
O� Oti O• �'
'L 0 b �o 'b ,,- ,� 6ti 1ti ,yb b4 Ab
ti' y' �ti' ti 1 'L 3 h ,yO .10 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016
• MYl-10/2016 MY2-05/2017 0 MY3-07/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Little Pine Reach 2b, Cross -Section 9
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
62.1
D84 =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
80
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
Medium 0.25 0.50 3 3
1 4
9P�o
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 4 4
8
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
�
8
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 2 2
10
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
11
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 1
12
GQ� '
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
16
Medium 11.0 16.0 2 2
18
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
5
23
Coarse 22.6 32 7 7
30
10
Very Coarse
32
45
9
9
39
Very Coarse 45 64 12 12
51
0
Small
64
90
19
19
70
Small 90 128 18 18
88
C0�
Large
128
180
7
7
95
Large
180
256
5
5
100
Small
256
362
100
small
362
512
100
Medium
512
024
100
Large/Very Large
1 10242048
100
B EDROCK
Bedrock
04
28
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
11.00
Di5 =
38.67
D50 =
62.1
D84 =
118.4
D95 =
180.0
D100 =
256.0
Little Pine Reach 2b, Cross -Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
v
60
a
�
50
40
3
30
>
v
20
10
0
OOti ytih Otih Oh 'ti
p• O•
ti ,ti`b b h� 0 y1 ye 19 OA 41411 �$O �yb �Oti �1ti O,tiA �0 A6
'�' 'L bO
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-05/2016
MY1-10/2016 •MY2-05/2017 0MY3-07/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
36.7
5
5
5
5
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
2
2
7
Fine
0.125
0.250
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■I/��IIIII■■1111111■■1111111
'
1
1
1
8
SP$yp
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
4
12
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
2
2
14
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
4
9
9
23
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
23
Very Fine 2.8 4.0
23
"
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
2
2
25
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2 2
27
Jt�y
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
2
6
6
33
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
Particle Class Size (mm)
1
1
34
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
1
3
3
37
Coarse 22.6 32 8 3 11 11
48
Very Coarse
32
45
3
2
5
5
53
Very Coarse 45 64 11 1 12 12
65
Small
64
90
7
1
8
8
73
�S0
Small
90
128
15
2
17
17
90
Large
128
180
4
1
5
5
95
Large 180 256 4 4 4
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small 362 512
100
V
Medium
512
1024
100
�pJ
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
70
30
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
1.2
D35 =
18.0
D50 =
36.7
D84 =
113.0
D95 =
180.0
D100 =
362.0
., ��������.�����_....
_...r�M�llllll■■1111111
Individual Class Percent
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111■1111��".""�i
100
.,
90
_ , ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1�%����■■1111111■I
-. ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■I�,'l,�lll■■1111111■■1111111
� ,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■I/��IIIII■■1111111■■1111111
'
c
70
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111�l��1111111■■1111111■■1111111
v
,
■■1111111■■11���11��111111�;..�1111111■■1111111■■1111111
a
60
a
■■1111111■■1!_..1����::.���li■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111_■!!:-::;��tII!:III■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
m
40
, ■■111'111
J���IIIII■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
UT2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
v
a
60
a
50
m
40
�
30
v
20
v
5
to
0
O� Oti O• �'
yb 4 ,y'Y .y/o �o .�'L b5 6b 9� ,LO 00 h�O 6ti 1ti ,Lb b$ Ab
ti'
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MVO -05/2016
• MYl-10/2016 MY2-05/2017 0 MY3-07/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT2, Cross -Section 12
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
2
80
Fine
0.125
0.250
■�■1�111111■■1111111■■1111■111
• • �r�rr�l
2
Medium 0.25 0.50 3 3
5
9P�o
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
6
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 7 7
13
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
�
13
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1
14
M
Fine
4.0
5.6
14
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2
16
GQ� '
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
18
Medium 11.0 16.0 6 6
24
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
30
Coarse 22.6 32 8 8
38
0
Very Coarse
32
45
13
13
51
Very Coarse 45 64 14 14
65
0MYO-05/2016
Small
64
90
12
12
77
Small
90
128
15
15
92
C0�
Large
128
180
6
6
98
�!,..Ill�tl.Y.1111�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Large
180
256
1
1
99
Small
256
362
1
1
100
small 362 512 1
1 100
Medium
512
024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
.2048
100
Total
100
100
1 100
Cross -Section 12
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
8.00
Di5 =
28.09
D50 =
43.8
D84 =
106.1
D95 =
151.8
D100 =
362.0
UT2, Cross -Section 12
� �,�����71111�1.�1...1111�1����m�—��,���III�/I��!IIIII•,1111111
Individual Class Percent
100
90
�"""1
80
■�■1�111111■■1111111■■1111■111
• • �r�rr�l
70
:,
v
60
� ;
-. - , ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11�
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■II
a
,��■■1111111■�I
D,�1■■1111111■■1111111
�
50
,
• ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1�'l�lll■■1111111■■1111111
M
40
F.
30
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■�:�11111■■1111111■■1111111
>
20
:o
,
10
0
■■1111111■■1111111■■I�Allll��illllll■■1111111■■1111111
b h� 0 y'v ye �LO " o OA cO y.10 y$O "p �Oti �1ti e 'Lp A6
'�' b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-05/2016
MVL-10/2016 •MY2-05/2017 0MY3-07/2018
■■1111111■■1111111■�iipiidl■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■■■Ilill�!_�..r1111�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111A
�!,..Ill�tl.Y.1111�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
I go oil
UT2, Cross -Section 12
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
v
60
a
�
50
M
40
F.
30
>
20
:o
10
0
OOtiytih Otih Oh 'ti ti ,ti9
p• O•
b h� 0 y'v ye �LO " o OA cO y.10 y$O "p �Oti �1ti e 'Lp A6
'�' b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-05/2016
MVL-10/2016 •MY2-05/2017 0MY3-07/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT2, Cross -Section 14
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
3
80
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
Medium 0.25 0.50 2 2
1 5
9P�o
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
6
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 4 4
10
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
�
10
Very Fine 2.8 4.0
10
M
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
11
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2
13
GQ� '
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
15
Medium 11.0 16.0 5 5
20
Coarse
16.0
22.6
9
9
29
Coarse 22.6 32 6 6
35
�
Very Coarse
32
45
13
13
48
Very Coarse 45 64 13 13
60
Small
64
90
12
12
72
Small 90 128 10 10
82
C0�
Large
128
180
8
8
90
Large
180
256
9
9
99
Small
256
362
1
1
100
small 362 512
100
Medium
512
024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
101
100
100
Cross -Section 14
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
12.00
Das =
32.30
D50 =
48.2
D84 =
138.4
D95 =
218.5
D100 =
362.0
,�---�,111��....11111111lr�■��mi��.���111��1��11111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111■1111
UT2, Cross -Section 14
Individual Class Percent
100
:,
90
.Kili�r�"'"�1
80
_ , ■■1111111■■1111111■■IIIIIII■■111�!��/I■IIIIIII■�I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■I��illf>■1111111■■1111111
70
�' ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■/��II�■■1111111■■1111111
v
60
a
�
50
M
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�J�■I■■1111111■■1111111
40
F.
30
72
>
' ■■1111111■■IIIIIiii�::11111���J111111■■1111111■■1111111
v
20
�
' ■■1111111■■1111111■■111
�II� ,�illlllll■■1111111■■1111111
,
0
Obti ytih Otis Oh 'ti ti ,ti9
o• o•
.,�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Particle Class Size (mm)
■■11!!!11-=1�,�ii�llll■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
0MYO-05/2016
MY1-10/2016 •MY2-05/2017 0MY3-07/2018
I I . go oil
UT2, Cross -Section 14
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
v
60
a
�
50
M
40
F.
30
72
>
v
20
�
10
0
Obti ytih Otis Oh 'ti ti ,ti9
o• o•
P h6 0 y1 ye �,L10 co y.1O �$1 Cyd ��ti �1ti O,tiA �0 A6
ti ti a°
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-05/2016
MY1-10/2016 •MY2-05/2017 0MY3-07/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT2, Cross -Section 17
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
45.0
D84 =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
80
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium 0.25 0.50 2 2
1 2
SP�p
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
3
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
6
9
�
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
9
Very Fine 2.8 4.0
9
40
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
10
Fine 5.6 8.0 3 3
13
GQ� '
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
19
Medium 11.0 16.0 7 7
26
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
30
Coarse 22.6 32 9 9
39
Very Coarse
32
45
11
11
50
Very Coarse 45 64 9 9
59
Small
64
90
14
14
73
Small 90 128 11 11
84
C0� '
Large
128
180
4
4
88
Large 180 256 9 9
97
Small
256
362
3
3
100
Small 362 512
100
V
OpJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 17
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
9.38
Di5 =
27.42
D50 =
45.0
D84 =
128.0
D95 =
236.7
D100 =
362.0
UT2, Cross -Section 17
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
�
50
lj
40
30
v
'5
20
5
10
0
00 O
oh
y by 'k 41411 1dy0` 6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-05/2016
MYl-10/2016 •MY2-05/2017 0MY3-07/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
UT2b, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
2
2
2
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
2
3
3
5
SP$yp
Medium
0.25
0.50
7
4
11 1
11
16
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
2
2
18
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
7
6
13
13
31
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
31
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
32
5
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
34
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
2
2
36
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
7
10
10
46
Medium
11.0
16.0
5
2
7
7
53
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
1
8
8
61
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
4
65
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
2
67
Very Coarse 45 64 6 6 6
73
Small
64
90
7
2
9
9
82
Small
90
128
5
2
7
7
89
C0� "
Large
128
180
8
1
9
9
98
Large
180
256
2
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
V
Medium
512
1024
100
�pJ
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
70
30
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.50
D35 =
6.69
D50 =
13.6
D84 =
99.5
D95 =
160.7
D100 =
256.0
UT2b, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
v
a
60
a
50
m
40
�
30
v
20
v
5
to
0
O� Oti O• �'
6ti ,y'1•
h�O h
ti' y' �ti' ti 1 'L 3 .yO .10 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MVO -05/2016
• MYl-10/2016 MY2-05/2017 0 MY3-07/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
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
23.5
D84 =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
80
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium 0.25 0.50 3 3
1 3
9P�o
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 4 4
7
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
�
7
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1
8
M
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
11
Fine 5.6 8.0 3 3
14
GQ� '
Medium
8.0
11.0
14
14
28
Medium 11.0 16.0 13 13
41
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
49
Coarse
22.6
32
9
9
58
Very Coarse
32
45
9
9
67
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
72
Small
64
90
11
11
83
Small
90
128
7
7
90
C0� '
Large
128
180
10
10
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
small
362
512
100
Medium
512
024
100
Large/Very Large
1 10242048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
8.37
Di5 =
13.46
D50 =
23.5
D84 =
94.6
D95 =
151.8
D100 =
180.0
UT2b, Cross -Section 11
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
v
60
a
�
50
M
40
3
30
>
20
v
10
0
Obti ytih Otih Oh 'ti ti ,ti9
O• O
b h� 0 y1 ye �,L� �ti Ay 'A cO 411
�1 6
OA
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-05/2016
MVL-10/2016 •MY2-05/2017 0MY3-07/2018

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 3 - 2018
Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Gage
Year
Occurrence
•. - of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence
Method go
Year 3 (2018)
MYl
9/25/2016
unknown
Crest Gage
Little Pine
MY2
5/23/2017
unknown
Wrack Lines and alluvial sediment deposit
(66.6%)
MY3
4/2/2018
unknown
Wrack Lines and alluvial sediment deposit
MY1
10/5/2016
unknown
Crest Gage
UT2
MY2
5/23/2017
unknown
Crest Gage
MY3
4/2/2018
unknown
Wrack Lines and alluvial sediment deposit
UT213
MYl
9/27/2016
unknown
Crest Gage
MY3
4/2/2018
unknown
Wrack Lines and alluvial sediment deposit
Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Gage
IlLsummary 2f Groundwater Gage Results for MY3
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season' (%)
Year 1(2016)
Year 2 (2017)
Year 3 (2018)
Year 4 (2019)
Year 5 (2020)
Wetland FF
Yes/112 Days
Yes/169 Days
Yes/169 Days
(66.6%)
(100%)
(100%)
No wetland success criteria established
'Growing season starts April 26, 2018 and ends October 11, 2018.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project (DMS Project No. 94903)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Wetland FF
Little Pine III Groundwater Gage #1 C
`o
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
00
00v
20
m
C
6.0
C
o
C N
3 \
10
�a
o ti
X70
0
0
5.0
t=
v
0
v,
c
w
4.0
-10
w
—
m
-20
w
3.0
c
'm
M
3
z
-30
2.0
-40
dL
1.0
-50
L L I
A
0.0
-60
¢<
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 3 - 2018
2018 rainfall collected from NC CRONOS Station Name: Sparta 3.5 SSW (NCSU, 2018)
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Sparta, NC8158 (USDA, 2018)
Little Pine Creek 111 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2018 Alleghany County, NC
12.00
10.00
S
8.00
e
0
'c 6.00
a
a`
4.00
2.00
0.00
Jan -18 Feb -18 Mar -18 Apr -18 May -18 Jun -18 Jul -18 Aug -18 Sep -18 Oct -18
NC CRONOS Sparta 3.5 SSW Date
—30th percentile
—70th percentile
2018 rainfall collected from NC CRONOS Station Name: Sparta 3.5 SSW (NCSU, 2018)
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Sparta, NC8158 (USDA, 2018)