20120396 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20191029

ID#* 20120396
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 10/29/2019
Mitigation Project Submittal - 10/29/2019
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Matthew Reid
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20120396
Existing IDY
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Moores Fork
Surry
Document Information
r Yes r No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: MooresFrk_94709_MY4_2019.pdf 18.48MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matthew Reid
Signature:*

MONITORING YEAR 4
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
MOORES FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
Surry County, NC
DEQ Contract 6500
DMS Project Number 94709
DWR # 12-0396
USACE Action ID SAW-2011-02257
Data Collection Period: April -September 2019
Final Submission Date: October 21, 2019
PREPARED FOR:
rk�
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
E N G IN E E R ING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

WILDLANDS
ENC31NELRING
October 21, 2019
Mr. Matthew Reid
Western Project Manager
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Yadkin River Basin — CU# 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina
NCEEP Project # 94709
Contract No. 6500
Dear Mr. Reid:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments
from the Draft Monitoring Year 4 report for the Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project. The following
Wildlands responses to DMS's report comments are noted in italics lettering.
DMS comment; 1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern: The invasive species contractor continued to treat
invasives at the site throughout the monitoring year. Treatments occurred in February, July and
September during 2019. DMS will continue to treat invasives at the site through closeout.
Wildlands response; Text was added to Section 1.2.2 to specify the invasive treatments dates in 2019 and
indicate that treatments will continue through closeout.
DMS comment; 1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern: The supplemental planting that was completed in
March 2019 consisted of 400 bare roots spread across four areas of the site determined to have low
stem density based on the MY3 plant warranty inspection report. A pdf of the areas has been
included. Please add these areas to the CCPV.
Wildlands response; Text was added to Section 1.2.2 to indicate that 400 bare roots were planted in
March 2019. The four areas where supplemental planting took place were added to the CCPV.
DMS comment; 1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern: DMS had an on -site meeting with the IRT on June 10,
2019 to discuss repair opportunities for Moores Fork. Following that meeting, DMS contracted with a
design firm to develop a repair plan for approximately nine areas of instability throughout the site.
The assessment and design will occur fall/winter 2019 followed by construction in fall 2020.
Wildlands response; Text was added to Section 1.2.4 to detail the repair plan timeline for the Site.
DMS comment; 1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern: DMS contracted with APHIS to control beaver and
dams at the site in 2019. APHIS removed multiple beaver and five dams in July 2019. APHIS will
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

k �W
WILDLANDS
L. fV f_ INL L6;INC_,
continue to monitor the site for beaver activity through closeout. A map is included with approximate
locations of the dams. Please add this to the CCPV.
Wildlands response; Text was added to Section 1.2.4 to detail the management of beaver activity for the
Site in 2019. The approximate locations of the dams were added to the CCPV.
DMS comment; Table 2: Please add the following activities:
o September 2019 to Invasive Species Treatment dates.
o Beaver/Dam Removal July 2019
Wildlands response; The adaptive management activities and dates were updated in Table 2.
DMS comment; CCPV: Thanks for providing updated invasive species polygons. Please continue to
update as treatment occurs and populations are reduced. This map is a useful tool for the contractor
treating the site.
Wildlands response; Wildlands will continue to update the CCPV figures as treatment of invasive species
occurs and populations are reduced.
Enclosed please find three (3) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy on CD of the Final Monitoring
Report. Please contact me at 704-941-9093 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
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS)
restored, enhanced, and preserved approximately 19,587 linear feet (LF) of Moores Fork and 13
unnamed tributaries (UTs), provided livestock fencing and alternative water sources to keep livestock
out of the streams, removed invasive plant species across the project, and established native riparian
buffers. The restoration project was developed to fulfill stream mitigation requirements accepted by
the DIMS for the Upper Yadkin River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03040101). The Moores Fork Stream
Mitigation Project (Site) will net 11,587.543 stream mitigation units through a combination of
restoration, enhancement I and 11, and preservation.
The Site is within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) identified in the Upper Yadkin River Basin
Restoration Priority (RBRP) plan (NCDENR, 2009). The RBRP identified the Stewarts Creek 14-digit HUC
03040101100010 as a TLW. Agriculture is the primary land use in the watershed (36% agriculture land
cover and only 3% impervious cover), and the RBRP identified degraded riparian buffers as the major
stressor to water quality. The Site is also located within the identified as a priority subwatershed for
stream restoration and agricultural BMPs during the initial Upper Yadkin -Ararat River local watershed
planning (LWP).
The final design was completed in June of 2013. Construction activities and as -built surveys were
completed in December of 2014. Planting of the site took place in February of 2015. A large flood event
with an estimated return interval of 50 to 100 years occurred at the site on April 18-19, 2015, causing
damage to the main stem of Moores Fork. This damage was repaired in March and April of 2016, and a
second as -built survey was performed on the repaired areas in April of 2016. The baseline monitoring
efforts began in June of 2016 and monitoring year one efforts were initiated in late October of 2016. The
Monitoring Year (MY) 4 activities were completed in September 2019.
The Site is on track to meet monitoring success criteria for MY7 vegetation, geomorphology, and
hydrology performance standards. The MY4 vegetation survey resulted in an average stem density of
459 planted stems per acre. The Site is on track to meet the MY5 density requirement of 260 planted
stems per acre, with 10 of the 12 plots (83%) individually meeting this requirement. In addition, the Site
is on track to meet the average planted stem height requirement of 8 feet by the end of MY7, with an
average stem height for all plots in MY4 of approximately 9.3 feet. The MY4 vegetation monitoring and
visual assessment revealed invasive plant populations have been reduced due to ongoing treatment.
Supplemental planting was completed in March 2019 in areas with low stem density based on the MY3
plant warranty inspection report. A few instances of localized bank erosion and structure instability are
present on the Site. During MY4, at least two bankfull events occurred on Moores Fork and one bankfull
event occurred on Silage Tributary. The performance standard of two recorded bankfull events in
separate monitoring years has been met for both Moores Fork and Silage Tributary.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL

MOORES FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
Year 4 Monitoring Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity..................................................1-3
1.2.3 Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-3
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity.........................................................1-3
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary......................................................................................................1-4
Section 2: METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES.................................................................................................................3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A 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 Contacts Table
Table 4a-b
Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Table 5
Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figures 3.0-3.6
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 6a-j
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10 Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Appendix D Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix E Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 11 Verification of Bankfull Events
Monthly Rainfall Data
Appendix F Invasive Species Treatment Logs
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL ii

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site was implemented under a design -bid -build contract with DIMS in Surry County, NC. The Site is
located in the Yadkin River Basin; eight -digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101 and the 14-digit HUC
03040101100010 (Figure 1). Located in the Piedmont physiographic province (NCGS 2004), the project
watershed primarily includes agricultural land cover. The drainage area for the lower end of Moores
Fork is 1,527 acres, and the drainage area for Silage Tributary is 156 acres. The Site is located
approximately 0.25 mile north of NC 89 on Horton Road. The project site is located on both sides of
Horton Road. Latitude and longitude for the site are 36.506671 N and-80.704115 W, respectively
(Figure 1).
The NCDEQ DIMS restored, enhanced, and preserved approximately 19,587 LF of Moores Fork and 13
unnamed tributaries (UTs), provided livestock fencing and alternative water sources to keep livestock
out of the streams, removed invasive plant species across the project, and established native riparian
buffers. The restoration project was developed to fulfill stream mitigation requirements accepted by the
DIMS for the Upper Yadkin River Basin (HUC 03040101). Mitigation work within the Site included
restoring and enhancing 15,308 LF and preserving 4,279 LF of stream. The Moores Fork Stream
Restoration Project will net 11,587.543 stream mitigation units (SMUs) through a combination of
restoration, enhancement I and II, and preservation. Due to overhead utility easements that cross
project streams, 7.8 SMUs were removed on Silage Tributary Reach 2 (starting at STA 30+10.49 and
ending at STA 30+33.95), 10.4 SMUs were removed on Moores Fork (starting at STA 37+22.01 and
ending at STA 37+42.79), and 4.1 SMUs were removed on Corn Trib (starting at STA 19+38.58 and
ending at STA 19+59.15) as shown in Table 1 of Appendix A.
The final design was completed in June of 2013. Construction activities and as -built surveys were
completed in December of 2014. Planting of the site took place in March of 2015. A large flood event
with an estimated return interval of 50 to 100 years occurred at the site on April 18-19, 2015, causing
damage to the main stem of Moores Fork. This damage was repaired in March and April of 2016, and a
second as -built survey was performed on the repaired areas in April of 2016. The baseline monitoring
efforts began in June of 2016 and monitoring year one efforts were initiated in late October of 2016. The
Monitoring Year 4 monitoring activities were completed in September 2019. More detailed information
related to the project activity, history, and contacts can be found in Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and, project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2. Please refer to the Project Component Map (Figure 2) for the stream features and to
Table 1 for the project component and mitigation credit information for the Site. This report documents
the results of the MY4 monitoring efforts.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, dairy and farming operations on the site had deforested riparian buffers
and allowed direct livestock access to the stream, leading to elevated temperatures and nutrients.
Channel straightening and dredging throughout much of the project had also contributed to channel
degradation. Table 11 in Appendix D present the pre -restoration conditions in detail.
This mitigation site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Yadkin River Basin.
The project goals identified in the Mitigation Plan (Confluence, 2012) include:
• Improve water quality in Moores Fork and the UTs through reductions in sediment and nutrient
inputs from local sources;
• Create conditions for dynamic equilibrium of water and sediment movement between the
supply reaches and project reaches;
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-1

• Promote floodwater attenuation and secondary functions associated with more frequent and
extensive floodwater contact times;
• Improve in -stream habitat by increasing the diversity of bedform features;
• Enhance and protect native riparian vegetation communities; and
• Reduce fecal, nutrient, and sediment loads to project streams by promoting and implementing
livestock best management practices.
The project objectives have been defined as follows:
• Restoration of the dimension, pattern, profile of approximately 1,828 LF of Moores Fork Reach 2
and 243 LF of the Pond Tributary;
• Restoration of the dimension and profile (Enhancement 1) of the channel for approximately
2,832 LF of Moores Fork Reach 3, 900 LF of Silage Reach 1, 2,448 LF of Silage Reach 2, 300 LF of
Barn Reach 1 and 112 LF of Corn Reach 2;
• Limited channel work coupled with livestock exclusion, gully stabilization, invasive species
control and buffer planting (Enhancement 11) on approximately 761 LF of Moores Fork Reach 1,
167 LF of Cow Tributary 1, 767 LF of Cow Tributary 2, 3,134 LF of Barn Reach 2, 1,350 LF of Corn
Reach 1, and 466 LF of UT1;
• Livestock exclusion fencing and other best management practice installations;
• Invasive plant species control measures across the entire project wherever necessary; and
• Preservation of approximately 4,279 LF of relatively un-impacted forested streams (UTs 2, 3, 6,
7, 8, 9, and 10) in a permanent conservation easement.
1.2 Monitoring Year 4 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted during MY4 (April to September 2019) to assess the condition of the
project. The stream restoration success criteria for the Site follows the approved performance standards
presented in the Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project Final Mitigation Plan (Confluence, 2012).
Annual monitoring will be conducted for seven years to provide a project data chronology that will
facilitate an understanding of project status and trends.
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
A total of 12 vegetation monitoring plots were established during the baseline monitoring within the
project easement areas using a standard 10 by 10 meter plot. Please refer to Figures 3.0-3.6 in Appendix
B for the vegetation monitoring locations. At the end of year five of the monitoring period, the
vegetation success criterion is the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor along
restored and enhanced reaches. The final vegetation success criterion is the survival of 210 planted
stems per acre at the end of year seven of the monitoring period.
The MY4 vegetation survey was completed in August 2019, resulting in an average stem density of 459
planted stems per acre. The Site is on track to meet the MY5 density requirement of 260 planted stems
per acre, with 10 of the 12 plots (83%) individually meeting this requirement. Vegetation plots 2 and 3
have densities of 243 and 202 planted stems per acre respectively and did not meet the MY5 interim
success criteria. However, vegetation plot 2 is still on track to meet the MY7 density requirement of 210
planted stems per acre. Overall, there was no net change in the planted stem density from MY3 to MY4.
There is an average of 11 stems per plot. The average stem height for all plots in MY4 is about 9.3 feet.
Approximately 10% of the planted stems scored a vigor of 2, indicating that they have fair plant health
with some damage present. This low vigor rating is due to damage from storm events, suffocation from
dense herbaceous cover, insects, vine strangulation, or other unknown factors. Please refer to Appendix
B for vegetation plot photographs and Appendix C for vegetation data tables.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-2

1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity
Some vegetation problem areas of invasive plant populations were identified MY4 throughout the Site.
Species included: kudzu (Pueraria montana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Winter Creeper (Euonymus fortunei), oriental
bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), and Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum). The invasive
treatments that occurred in 2018 and continued in February, July, and September 2019 have
significantly reduced these vegetation areas of concern. Invasive treatments at the Site will continue
through closeout. Many planted stems continue to be damaged from vine strangulation along Barn
Tributary Reach 1. Areas of invasive species that persist throughout the conservation easement are
indicated on Figures 3.0-3.6 in Appendix B.
The site has a strong herbaceous cover consisting of various species of clover, rye grass, fescue, and
sedge. Supplemental planting consisting of 400 bare roots was completed in March 2019 in areas with
low stem density based on the MY3 plant warranty inspection report. Isolated bare/poorly vegetated
areas that were observed in MY3 have herbaceous cover that is becoming established in MY4. These
vegetation areas of concern and management activities are shown in Figures 3.0-3.6 in Appendix B.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
MY4 is a reduced monitoring year that does not require morphological surveys; therefore no cross -
sectional survey was performed this year. In general, MY4 riffle pebble counts in Moores Fork indicate
coarser sediment size distribution as compared to MYO. Along Silage Tributary, MY4 riffle pebble counts
indicate similar or coarser sediment size distribution as compared to MYO. Please refer to Appendix D
for pebble count plots.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity
Stream areas of concern include localized instances of bank instability and sediment deposition. Along
Moores Fork, new or expanded areas of bank erosion was noted in MY4 (STA 21+60, 23+80, 35+40,
45+10, 64+10). The most significant erosion along Moores Fork is located just upstream of the bridge
(STA 35+40) where a point bar is re -directing flow into the left bank. Additionally, at the end of Moores
Fork Reach 3 (STA 64+10) bank erosion has continued to scour the left bank behind a log vane structure.
At both wetland outlets to Moores Fork below UT8 and UT10, the headcuts have worsened and
migrated further into the wetlands. These headcuts are likely to worsen without maintenance. Along
Silage Tributary, several new or expanded areas of bank instability were noted in MY4 (STA 23+00,
24+50, 25+60, 28+70, 31+10). Areas with rill formations (gully) were noted, especially on the left bank of
Silage Reach 1 near STA 14+30. Several structures along Silage Tributary Reach 1 and 2 have been
undermined including log structures at STA 15+80, 18+20, 26+90, 31+90, 33+10 and a boulder step
footer at STA 35+20. The Pond Tributary continues to experience sedimentation that is accumulating
within the upstream section of the tributary, resulting in channel braiding. At the project start of Corn
Tributary, a significant headcut and erosion around the culvert was observed. These areas will continue
to be monitored in future years for signs of accelerated instability.
DIMS has contracted with a design firm to develop a repair plan for approximately nine areas of
instability throughout the Site. The assessment and design will occur fall/winter 2019 followed by
construction in fall 2020. DIMS has also contracted with APHIS to control beaver and dams at the Site in
2019. APHIS removed multiple beaver and five dams in July 2019 and will continue to monitor the Site
for beaver activity through closeout. Stream areas of concern and management activities are shown in
Figures 3.0-3.6 in Appendix B.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-3

1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
Bankfull data collected on March 13 and June 19, 2019 indicate that bankfull events occurred in MY4. At
least two bankfull events on Moores Fork and one bankfull event on Silage Tributary were documented
with crest gage measurements and debris wracklines in MY4. Monthly rainfall data indicate higher than
the normal rainfall amounts occurred during the months of February and June 2019 (NCCRONOS, 2019).
Hydrologic success criteria for the Site states that two bankfull flow events must be documented on
restoration reaches within the seven-year monitoring period and must occur in separate years. Four
bankfull events have been documented for Moores Fork and three bankfull events have been
documented for Silage Tributary in separate years. Therefore, the performance standard for the Site has
been met. Refer to Appendix E for hydrologic data and graphs.
1.3 Monitoring Year 4 Summary
The Site is on track to meet monitoring success criteria for MY7 vegetation, geomorphology, and
hydrology performance standards. The MY4 vegetation survey resulted in an average stem density of
459 planted stems per acre. The Site is on track to meet the MY5 density requirement of 260 planted
stems per acre, with 10 of the 12 plots (83%) individually meeting this requirement. The MY4 vegetation
monitoring and visual assessment revealed invasive plant populations have been reduced due to
ongoing treatment. Supplemental planting was completed in March 2019 in areas with low stem density
based on the MY3 plant warranty inspection report. A few instances of localized bank erosion and
structure instability are present on the Site and are likely to require the implementation of maintenance
measures to deter further degradation. During MY4, at least two bankfull events occurred on Moores
Fork and one bankfull event occurred on Silage Tributary. The performance standard of two recorded
bankfull events in separate monitoring years has been met for both Moores Fork and Silage Tributary.
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 DIMS upon request.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 1-4

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data were 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). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). Crest gages were
installed in surveyed riffle cross -sections and monitored semi-annually.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Confluence Engineering, PC. 2012. Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Plan. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
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. RIM-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 Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database (NCCRONOS).
2019. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. MT Airy 2 W. Station ID No. 315890.
Accessed September 2019.
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. Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration Priorities. Retrieved from
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-
documents/yadkin-river-basin
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS). 2004. Physiography of North Carolina. Map compiled by the
Division of Land Resources. Raleigh.
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://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/north-carolina-geological-
survey/
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 4 Annual Report - FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX A. General Tables and Figures

�r0
^ �
••y CreR�
�s `�,� �
Project Location
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
VIRGINIA
a��•r'�~~"w.e.n�
NCIRIH CAROLINA
4
►�
,1� Invr
"}. *'p
ter
•
S1
7�
S Cr� �
Tw
~ 4
Ve
R
n9�re�k
ryrRO •
Ry 03040101100010
+
QrrsFork�
R �
11 +
03040101090020 '
r � �
pine
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site off
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is
bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with DIMS.
w
WILDLAND5 rk "
cr, n-"eaki Nc.
asic Golf
Cnuree
��rtrsh�"a
turners Wee
Qeech Cr
0+4{-
ri= �"' rhana�eiQ'�
s
Directions to Site:
From Charlotte: Head north on Interstate 77 north of Elkin, NC, take
exit 100 (North Carolina 89) toward Galax and Mt. Airy. Turn right
onto North Carolina 89 (West Pine Street) and travel approximately
2 miles. Turn left onto Pine Ridge Road and continue 0.2 mile to a
left turn onto Horton Road. The project site is located on both sides
of Horton Road. Latitude and longitude for the site are 36.506671 N
and-80.704115 W respectively.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Site
0 0.5 1 Mile DMS Project No. 94709
I i I i I Monitoring Year 4- 2019
Surry County, NC

■■■■� Conservation Easement
" —Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level 1; Reduced Credit
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Stream Enhancement Level 11; Reduced Credit
Stream Preservation
— Reach Break
Y.. i Non Project Streams
�.
Existing Wetland
Overhead Power Easement
If 11
{1.tool MEN 1{fl{1{{IjP♦
i{■!�' r:
p
rr pp4♦p ♦ aft• { •
In.
s r
it ♦L� s�y',� i!. !f!lrr.fs��{{•{ {na{a{{I�r.�•{a�{�:.r
x `
17.
� `a►� .,
ff.{fl{.{{I! ■tt
y �r
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Site
W I L D LA N D S , 0 700 Feet DMS Project No. 94709
E N G I N E k Kr NG I
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Surry County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
•
• .•
Project Component or
Reach ID
Stationing
Pre -project
Footage or
Acreage
Restoration Footage
or Acreage
Restoration Level
Restoration or
Rest Equiv.
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
Credits
Notes
Moores Reach 1
STA989-1750
761
761
N/A
Ell
2.5:1
304.400
-
Moores Reach 2
STA 1750-3578
1,636
1,828
P2
R
1:1
1,828.000
Moores Reach 3
STA 3578-6410
2,856
2,832
132/3
EI
1:1
2,821.610
Reduction in 10.39 SMU because of 20'
1 overhead powerline easement
Silage Reach 1
STA 1000-1900
900
900
P1
El
1:1
900.000
1 -
Silage Reach 2
STA 1900-4348
2,448
2,448
P3
El
1.5:1
1,624.180
Reduction in 7.82 SMU because of 20'
overhead powerline easement.
Cow Trib 1
STA1219-1386
167
167
P4
Ell
1.5:1
111.333
Cow Trib 2
STA 1331-2098
767
767
P4
Ell
1.5:1
511.333
Pond Trib
STA 1000-1243
194
243
P2
R
1:1
243.000
Barn Reach 1
STA 1000-1300
300
300
P3
El
1:1
300.000
Barn Reach 2
STA 1350-3746; STA
4069-4757
3,134
3,134
N/A
Ell
2.5:1
1,253.600
Corn Reach 1
STA 1000-2350
1,350
1,350
N/A
Ell
2.5:1
535.886
Reduction in 4.114 SMU because of 20'
overhead powerline
Corn Reach 2
STA 2350-2462
112
112
P3
EI
1:1
112.000
UT1
STA1000-1466
466
466
N/A
Ell
2.5:1
186.400
Preservation Reaches
Restoration Level
UTs 2,3,6,7,8,9,10
Stream (Linear Feet)
4,279 4,279
Length and
Riparian Wetland (acres)
N/A
Area Summations'
Non -riparian
Wetland (acres)
P 5:1
-In I
Buffer (Square feet)
855.800
I
Upland (acres)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
2,071
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
6,592
Enhancement 11
6,645
Creation
Preservation
4,279
-
-
-
-
-
High Preservation
Quality
N/A - Not Applicable
'Project components and mitigation credits reverted back to Mitigation Plan totals as requested by IRT.

Tablet. Project Activity and Reporting History
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
111mr-1-Iffifty or Deliverable
Mitigation Plan
Data Collection Complete
December 2011
Completion or Delivery
November 2012
Final Design —Construction Plans
N/A
June 2013
Construction (Repairs)
N/A
December 2014 (April 2016)
Temporary S&E Mix Applied
N/A
December 2014 (April 2016)
Permanent Seed Mix Applied
N/A
December 2014 (April 2016)
Containerized, Bare Root and B&B Plantings For Reach/Segments
N/A
February 2015 (April 2016)
Invasive Species Treatment
May 2016
May 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Vegetation Survey
June 2016
August 2016
Stream Survey
June 2016
Invasive Species Treatment
September 2016
September 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
October 2016
November 2016
Stream Survey
November 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
August 2017
November 2017
Stream Survey
July 2017
Invasive Species Treatment
July, Aug, Sept & Nov 2018
November 2018
Year 3 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
August 2018
November 2018
Stream Survey
June 2018
Supplemental Planting
March 2019
November 2019
Beaver/Dam Removal
July 2019
November 2019
Invasive Species Treatment
Feb, July, & Sept 2019
November 2019
Year 4 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
August 2019
November 2019
Stream Survey
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
2020
November 2020
Stream Survey
2020
Year 6 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
2021
November 2021
Stream Survey
N/A
Year 7 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
2022
November 2022
Stream Survey
2022
N/A - Not Applicable
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Designer
Confluence Engineering, PC
16 Broad Street
Asheville, INC 28801
Primary project design POC
Andrew Bick 828-606-0306
Construction Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, INC 27030
Construction contractor POC
Wayne Taylor 336-341-6489
Survey Contractor
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
PO Box 41023
Raleigh, INC 27629
Survey Contractor POC
David Turner 919-623-5095
Planting Contractor
Keller Environmental, LLC
7921 Haymarket Lane
Raleigh, INC 27615
Planting Contractor POC
Jay Keller 919-749-8259
Seeding Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, INC 27030
Seeding Contractor POC
Wayne Taylor 336-341-6489
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources 336-855-6363
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Foggy Mountain Nursery 336-384-5323
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Ste 104
Charlotte, INC 28205
704.332.7754
Monitoring POC
Kirsten Gimbert 704-332-7754

Table 4a. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Project
Information
Project Name
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation
Project
County
Surry
Project Area (acres)
-140
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36.506671 N, 80.704115 W
Project Watershed
Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03040101100010
DWR Sub -basin
Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-02
Project Drainage Area (acres)
1,527 ac (2.39 mil
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
6%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Parameters
lCropland and Pasture, Confined Animal Operations
Reach Summary Information
Moores Fork Reach 1 & 2 Moores Fork Reach 3
Silage
Cow Trib 1
Cow Trib 2
Length of Reach Post Construction (LF)
2,636
2,885
3,348
167
767
Valley classification (Rosgen)
VIII
VIII
II/IV
II
II
Drainage area (acres)
1,193
1,527
156
4
16
NCDWQ stream identification score
35
34.5
23.5
20
23.5
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS-IV
WS-IV
WS-IV
WS-IV
WS-IV
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type)
C4
C4
G4/C4
G5
G5
Evolutionary trend
C-F
C-F
G-F
G
G
Underlying mapped soils
CsA, FsE
CsA, FsE
FeD2
FeD2
FeD2
Drainage class
well drained
well drained
well drained
well drained
well drained
Soil Hydric status
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
Slope
0.008
0.006
0.030
0.056
0.038
FEMA classification
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Native vegetation community
Felsic Mesic Forest
Felsic Mesic Forest
Felsic
Mesic Forest
Felsic Mesic Forest
Felsic Mesic Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
Parameters
0
Wetland Summary
Wetland 1
0
Information
Wetland 2
0
0
Wetland 3
0
IL
Wetland 4
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.49
0.04
0.08
0.15
Wetland Type
riparian non-riverine
riparian non-riverine
riparian non-riverine
riparian non-riverine
Mapped Soil Series
FsE
FsE
CsA
FsE & CsA
Drainage class
well drained
well drained
well drained
well drained
Soil Hydric Status
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
Source of Hydrology
UT9 & UT10
UT8
Toe seep
Toe seep
Hydrologic Impairment
none
none
none
none
Native vegetation community
Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
I
Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
0
Regulatory
Considerations
0
0
1
0
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
A
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States -Section 404
y
y
USACE ID No. SAW-2011-02257
Waters of the United States -Section 401
y
Y
NCDWR # 12-0396
Endangered Species Act
y
Y
CE Approved 12/21/11
Historic Preservation Act
N
N/A
-
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
N
N/A
-
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
N
N/A
-
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N
N/A
-
N/A Not -applicable

Table 4b. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Project Information
Project Name
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
County
Surry
Project Area (acres)
'-140
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36.506671 N, 80.704115 W
Project. Summary
Information
Ph sio ra hic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03040101100010
DWR Sub -basin
Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-02
Project Drainage Area (acres)
1,527 ac (2.39 mil)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Cropland and Pasture, Confined Animal Operations
Reach Summary Information
is
Parameters
Pond Trib
Barn Reach 1 & 2
Corn Reach 1 & 2
UT1
Length of Reach Post Construction (LF)
243
3,434
1,452
466
Valley classification (Rosgen)
VIII
IV
IV
IV
Drainage area (acres)
27
184
30
6
NCDWQ stream identification score
20
36.5
21
23
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS-IV
WS-IV
WS-IV
WS-IV
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type)
64/5
G4
G4
64
Evolutionary trend
B-C-F
G-F
G-F
-
Underlying mapped soils
CsA
FeD2, FsE
CsA, FsE
FeD2
Drainage class
well drained
well drained
well drained
well drained
Soil Hydric status
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
Slope
0.029
0.025
1
0.057
1 0.040 +/-
FEMA classification
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Native vegetation community
Felsic Mesic Forest
Felsic Mesic Forest
Felsic Mesic Forest
Felsic Mesic Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
0
0
0
0
Parameters
Wetland 5
Wetland 6
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.03
0.06
Wetland Type
riparian non-riverine
riparian non-riverine
Mapped Soil Series
FeD2
FsE & FeD2
Drainage class
well drained
well drained
Soil Hydric Status
not hydric
not hydric
Source of Hydrology
Toe Seep
Toe Seep
Hydrologic Impairment
none
none
Native vegetation community
Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
0
0
N/A Not -applicable

Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Frequency
Moores
Reach 1
Pond Trib
Moores
Reach 2
Corn Reach 1
Corn Reach 2
Moores
Reach 3
Silage
Reach 1
Reac
SilaT!Y
Trib 1
Cow Trib 2
Barn 1
Barn 2
Dimension
Riffle XS
2
4
1
3
1 1
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7
Pool XS
1
2
1
2
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7
Substrate
100 Pebble Count
2
4
1
3
Annual
Hydrology
Crest Gage
1
1
Semi -Annual
Vegetation
Ve etation Plots
4
3
1
2
Annual
Visual Assessment
Project Site
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Semi -Annual
Reference Photos
Permanent Photo Points
2
2
11
1
2
19
6
12
2
2
4
3
3
Annual

APPENDIX B. Visual Assessment Data

— —• Conservation Easement
Overhead Power Line Easement
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level 1; Reduced Credit
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Stream Enhancement Level 11; Reduced Credit
Stream Preservation
Reach Break
Non Project Streams
u Existing Wetland
Cross -Section
Crest Gage
Vegetation Monitoring Plots (VP) - MY4
Criteria Met
- Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY4
Chinese Privet
Japanese Honeysuckle
Kudzu
Morning Glory
Multiflora Rose
Oriental Bittersweet
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
Adaptive Management - MY4
Supplemental Planting Area
Beaver Dam (removed)
V
"I
O
O`` Ai
t 1 �iY�'IJf
.r. • : � ... � 'C�r: eve
i
,
r
r -
•
ktww
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Key)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
rk� DMS Project No. 94709
0 300 600 Feet Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
I I I I I
Surry County, NC

Structures
Constructed Riffle
Brushmat
0 Geolift
Debris Plug
Bridge
- - - - Gully Stabilization
— Fascines
"• Rnot N9tl
Rock Vane - Log Vane
f/1 Step
Stone Toe
aI. 10+00
A (.0' �4 :
00 ++ 11 +00
0 0
�' •'on12+00
t �. Zv,
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
M
0 250 500 Feet
I I I I I
. s,.
35
1f ,7
--•— Conservation Easement
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY4
Overhead Power Line Easement
z'
Chinese Privet
Stream Restoration
Japanese Honeysuckle
Stream Enhancement Level 1
Kudzu
Stream Enhancement Level 1; Reduced Credit
Morning Glory
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Multiflora Rose
Stream Enhancement Level 11; Reduced Credit
\\\
Oriental Bittersweet
Stream Preservation
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
Reach Break
Stream Areas of Concern - MY4
Non Project Streams
Aggradation
- - - - Top of Bank
Erosion
Existing Wetland
®
Headcut
Photo Point
Adaptive Management - MY4
+ Crest Gage
Supplemental Planting Area
Cross -Section
Beaver Dam (removed)
Vegetation Monitoring Plots (VP) - MY4
Q Criteria Met
- Criteria Not Met
0
*� El o
'sr + rn 48+00,' -
S +
43 w
x00 + I
' 0 7
co CD
o O
Lo�
;+ o
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1 of 6)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Surry County, NC

"19
XOO
o
�. �, '0
1-0+�
+ ' 11 +00 X
00 0
Q•, o
XOO
35+00 Log vane
P.
NJ 00
AL, A6_0Wb
O
--•— Conservation Easement
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY4
Overhead Power Line Easement
Chinese Privet
Stream Restoration
Japanese Honeysuckle
Stream Enhancement Level I
Kudzu
Stream Enhancement Level 1; Reduced Credit
Morning Glory
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Multiflora Rose
Stream Enhancement Level 11; Reduced Credit
��� Oriental Bittersweet
Stream Preservation
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
— Reach Break
Stream Areas of Concern - MY4
Non Project Streams
- - - • Top of Bank
Aggradation
L— Existing Wetland
Erosion
♦ Photo Point
Adaptive Management - MY4
* Crest Gage
Supplemental Planting Area
Cross -Section
Beaver Dam (removed)
Vegetation Monitoring Plots (VP) - MY4
Q Criteria Met
CM Criteria Not Met
WiTv,
WILDLANDS rk�
ENGINEERING
30+00
O
O NJ
N
rn
29+00
LEI
..
Noc
0 250 500 Feet
I I I I I
0
O
Structures
Constructed Riffle
0 Brushmat
Geolift
Debris Plug
Bridge
---- Gully Stabilization
— ••— Fascines
Root Wad
l Rack Vane
Step
Stone Toe
J-Hook
Log Vans
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 2 of 6)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Surry County, NC

�
5
39 00 . OO48+00
A
O
N
`s0 cn +
x0 � o
.0 :r��..... x(%. O +p
O
W�.*,
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
R
CT..I:I
w
� ^ ' 6�O , � .. . .
xo
O
6'� • O 0 +,
x p O
�60+00 �0���, p
59+00
58+00
Vim
00
sQ + + w x0„O �
-- — Conservation Easement
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Non Project Streams
---- Top of Bank
Existing Wetland
Photo Point
41 Crest Gage
Cross -Section
Vegetation Monitoring Plots (VP) - MY4
Q Criteria Met
- Criteria Not Met
Structures
Constructed Riffle
0 Brushmat
Geolift
Debris Plug
Bridge
---- Gully Stabilization
— — Fascines
` Root Wad ;y : J-Hoc•,
Rock Vane - -' Lca vane
:
Step
a_
._ Stone Toe
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY4
Chinese Privet
`. Japanese Honeysuckle
Kudzu
Morning Glory
Multiflora Rose
Oriental Bittersweet
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
Stream Areas of Concern - MY4
Aggradation
Erosion
® Headcut
Adaptive Management - MY4
Beaver Dam (removed)
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 3 of 6)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
rk� DMS Project No. 94709
0 250 500 Feet Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
�I I I�
Surry County, NC

--•— Conservation Easement
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level II
Stream Preservation
Reach Break
Non Project Streams
- • - - Top of Bank
Existing Wetland
Photo Point
Crest Gage
Cross -Section
Vegetation Monitoring Plots (VP) - MY4
Q Criteria Met
- Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY4
Chinese Privet
Japanese Honeysuckle
Kudzu
Morning Glory
Multiflora Rose
Oriental Bittersweet
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
Stream Areas of Concern - MY4
Aggradation
Erosion
Adaptive Management - MY4
EM Supplemental Planting Area
Structures
Constructed Riffle
0 Brushmat
Geolift
Debris Plug
Bridge
--- Gully Gully Stabilization
­Fascines
ziru ctu res
tom, i'
Root Md , _U x y J Hook
Rock Vane ' Log Vane
Step
'zt4
,rz
Slone Toe
Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 4 of 6)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
1 DMS Project No. 94709
W I L D L A N D S 0 250 500 Feet Monitoring Year 4- 2019
L N G I N L L R I N G I I I I
Surry County, NC

0
WILDLANDS
C N G I N C C R I N G
rk�
0 250 500 Feet
I I I
Figure 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 5 of 6)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
.I-
Surry County, NC

•
i
10+1
ll �
X06'
0.
0
O
p
u'o�
J
xOO,W,
4.1
+ .
IWO
N
f
Structures
Constructed Riffle
Brushmat
Geolift
t,
Debris Plug
Bridge
- - - - Gully Stabilization
—•• — Fascines
Structures
Root Wad
{s9 J-Hook
Roak Vane
Log Vane
Step
4
Slone Toe
ffilo "
kVA
-- — Conservation Easement
Overhead Power Line Easement
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level 1; Reduced Credit
Stream Enhancement Level 11
.... Top of Bank
Non Project Streams
Existing Wetland
Photo Point
Crest Gage
Cross -Section
Vegetation Monitoring Plots (VP) - MY4
Q Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY4
Chinese Privet
Japanese Honeysuckle
Kudzu
Morning Glory
Multiflora Rose
Oriental Bittersweet
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
Stream Areas of Concern - MY4
Aggradation
® Erosion
Figure 3.6 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 6 of 6)
00 Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
1 DMS Project No. 94709
W I L D L A N D S 0 250 500 Feet Monitoring Year 4- 2019
L N G I N L L R I N G I I I I
Surry County, NC

Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Moores Fork Reach 1(Assessed Leneth : 761 feet)
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
Adjusted%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
4
4
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
5
5
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% ofcenterline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
5
5
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
5
5
100%
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
5
5
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrom poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining— Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Moores Fork Reach 2 (Assessed Leneth : 1875 feet)
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
Adjusted%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
3
100
95%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
8
8
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
6
7
86%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% ofcenterline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
6
7
86%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
6
7
86%
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
6
7
86%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrom poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
3
65
98%
1
10
99%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
1
30
99%
0
0
99%
Totals
4
95
97%
1
10
98%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
15
16
94%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
5
5
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
16
16
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
—
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
8
9
89%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining— Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
2
2
100%

Table 6c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Moores Fork Reach 3 (Assessed Leneth : 2885 feet)
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
Adjusted%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
6
175
94%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
13
13
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
16
16
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% ofcenterline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
16
16
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
16
16
100%
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
16
16
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrom poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
3
85
99%
0
0
99%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
3
85
99%
0
0
99%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
24
27
89%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
6
6
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
24
27
89%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
—
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
17
18
94%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining— Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
3
3
100%

Table 6d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Silage Reach 1(Assessed Leneth : 900 feet)
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
Adjusted%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Bed
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
12
12
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% ofcenterline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
12
12
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
12
12
100%
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
12
12
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrom poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
2
35
98%
0
0
98%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
2
35
98%
0
0
98%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
6
8
75%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
8
8
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
6
8
75%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
—
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
1
1
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining— Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 6e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Silage Reach 2 (Assessed Leneth : 2448 feet)
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
Adjusted%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
4
60
98%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
15
15
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
13
16
81%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% ofcenterline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
13
16
81%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
13
16
81%
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
13
16
81%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrom poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
10
175
96%
0
0
96%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
10
175
96%
0
0
96%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
12
16
75%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
12
16
75%
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
12
16
75%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining'- Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
3
4
75%

Table 6f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Cow Trib 1(Assessed Leneth : 167 feet)
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
Adjusted%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Bed
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
2
2
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% ofcenterline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
2
2
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrom poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
N/A
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
N/A
Totals
0
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
13
13
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
13
13
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
13
13
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
16%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining— Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 6g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Cow Trib 2 (Assessed Leneth : 767 feet)
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
Adjusted%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Bed
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% ofcenterline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrom poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
1
20
99%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
99%
Totals
1
20
99%
0
0
99%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
22
24
92%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
22
24
92%
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
22
24
92%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
16%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining— Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 6h. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Pond Trib (Assessed Length : 243 feet)
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
Adjusted%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
1
40
84%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Bed
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Meander Pool Condition
Channel largely overgrown with
vegetation. No discernible facets
in some segments of channel.
2. Length appropriate (>30%of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrom poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
7
7
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
7
7
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
16%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining— Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 61. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Barn Trib Reach 1(Assessed Leneth : 350 feet)
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
Adjusted%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Bed
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% ofcenterline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrom poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
15
15
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
15
15
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
15
15
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining'- Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
1
1
100%

Table 6j. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Corn Trib Reach 2 (Assessed Length : 112 feet)
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
Adjusted%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Bed
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
1
1
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% ofcenterline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
1
1
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
1
1
100%
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
1
1
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrom poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
4
4
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
4
4
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
4
4
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
16%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining— Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 7. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Planted Acreage 15.4
Mapping
Number of
Combined
%of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
CCPV Depiction
Threshold
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Cross HatchYellow
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
4
0.06
0.4%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
4
0.06
0.4%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
4
0.06
0.4%
Easement Acreage 140
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV Depiction
Numberof
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
Acreage
Cross Hatch
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
(Color varies by
44
4.7
3.3%
species)
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
None
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%

Stream Photographs

k x } ' � Y _ � a � •- F � .jai
i
_
3
"
PP1— Moores Reach 1, looking upstream (0611912019) PP2 — Moores Reach 1, looking downstream (0611912019)
x
�x
�u -
r
r d
PP3 — Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (0611912019) PP4— Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (0611912019)
tea'"
1� A Fi 6 r
E 1 k1
y"
r
PPS — Moores Reach 2, looking upstream (0611912019) PP6 — Pond Tributary, looking downstream (0611912019)

PP7 — Pond Tributary, looking downstream (0611912019) 1 PP8 — Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (0611912019) 1
PP9 — Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (0611912019) 1 PP10 — Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (0611912019) 1
PP11— Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (0611912019) 1 PP12 — Barn Reach 2, looking upstream (0611912019) 1

PP13 — Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (0611912019) PP14 — Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (0611912019)
PP15 — Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (0611912019) I PP16 — Moores Reach 2, looking upstream (0611912019)
PP17 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (0611912019) PP18 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (0611912019)

'i•
i`Tn
t-�
k �k 3 N z.rf
1. :..�� -- +`W'9a ��
...,
�y F
_- � �
f , .� A. £e .. � � _
VM •� �.
. 1�. •€ Y? as u A S�.,r _- 1
l ti� �i r'/ /�}�� +'.�{��� Jig �F }�� �•� � � T" ,� ��' .f•
� .yam , �a
Iz
.•nvY
�*•'.+�+G+Y.'.` _.°•':rk'`e` �'1
-
.i : ^�"r.��,i..sn ii �_FL>�* `�:L''1.vAi-v_
PP19 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (0611912019)
PP20 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (0611912019)
Nam•. {C � l'.:.. � � �� �t�����t #I`�T
�,`���+� � �
i
1 _
3�
'V
qut" .lv I w..
PP21— Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (0611912019)
PP22 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (0611912019)
wM
L .• z&
`� � `Y �
�;/
, ! } ��P�`� �N
�;
� �� �' A LLi Y} yg Y Pi'�`R
k' j✓hey,,
g�
r
9��� Ra bf � �{,� .i,:.'i
�y��y,'!, "/6ayd�, C P �"" # �d. L'w 1 �, _ J,
'''f��a.1
j n
PP23 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (0611912019)
PP24 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (0611912019)

+a
PP25 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream I • I
(0611912019)
1
a ya
ea
rV SpyK
1
L �
r
.
�+^
u
yy
downstream •
downstream

PP31— Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (0611912019) 1 PP32 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (0611912019) 1
PP33 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (0611912019) 1 PP33a — Moores Reach 3, looking upstream (0611912019) 1
I
F
,,.
u�
< F,
e�' ��" ` i�l , � hey ,•`•' _'
PP33b — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (0611912019) PP34 — Corn Reach 1, looking downslope (0611912019)

PP35 — Corn Reach 2, looking downstream (0611912019) 1 PP36 — Corn Reach 2, looking upstream (0811912019) 1
"4
g ae i�
J. 4 `^.
a:
PP37 — Silage Reach 2, looking downslope (0611912019) PP38 — Silage Reach 2, looking downstream (0611912019)
PP39 — Silage Reach 2, looking upstream (0611912019) 1 PP40 — Silage Reach 2, looking downstream (0611912019) 1

PP41— Silage Reach 2, looking downstream (0611912019) 1 PP42 — Silage Reach 2, looking downstream (0611912019) 1
PP43 — Cow Tributary 2, looking downstream (0611912019) 1 PP44 — Cow Tributary 2, looking downstream (0611912019) 1
PP45 — Cow Tributary 2, looking downstream (0611912019) 1 PP46 —Cow Tributary 2, looking upstream (0611912019) 1

PP47—Silage Reach 2, looking downstream (0611912019) 1 PP48—Silage Reach 2, looking upstream (0611912019) 1
PP49 — Cow Tributary 1, looking upstream (0611912019) 1 PP50 — Cow Tributary 1, looking upstream (0611912019) 1
PP51— Silage Reach 2, looking downstream (0611912019) 1 PP52 — Silage Reach 2, looking upstream (0611912019) 1

PP53 — Silage Reach 2, looking downstream (0611912019) 1 PP54 — Silage Reach 2, looking upstream (0611912019) 1
PP55 — UT1, looking upstream (0611912019) 1 PP56 —Silage Reach 1, looking downstream (0611912019) 1
�.�ILIAM
PP57 — Silage Reach 1, looking upstream (0611912019) 1 PP58 — Silage Reach 1, looking upstream (0611912019) 1

PP59 — Silage Reach 1, looking downstream (0611912019) 1 PP60 — Silage Reach 1, looking downstream (0611912019) 1
PP61— Barn Reach 1, looking downslope (0811912019) 1 PP62 — Barn Reach 1, looking downstream (0811912019) 1
PP63 — Barn Reach 1, looking downstream (0811912019) 1 PP64 — Barn Reach 2, looking downstream (0811912019) 1

Vegetation Photographs

lkv
WA
j v ,
y Y
c .MWf �A }i, µ� s
lim

z
J�
11 x' t k„'E
rn si77
`fit
v � �
ksli �•

APPENDIX C. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Plot
MY4 Success Criteria
Met(Y/N)
Tract Mean
1
Y
83%
2
N
3
N
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y
7
Y
8
Y
9
Y
10
Y
11
Y
12
Y
Table 9. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 Moores MY4.mdb
Database Location
L:\Active Projects\005-02153 Moores Monitoring\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 4 (2019)\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
MIMI-PC
File Size
148807936
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
JA 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
JA 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
94709
Project Name
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation
Description
River Basin
Length(ft)
Stream -to -edge Width (ft)
Area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
12
Required Plots (calculated)
12
Sampled Plots
12

Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Current Plot Data (MY4 2019)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94709-01-0001
94709-01-0002
94709-01-0003
94709-01-0004
94709-01-0005
94709-01-0006
94709-01-0007
94709-01-0008
94709-01-0009
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
no
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
Betulo nigro
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
Cercis conodensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
1
Diospyros virginiono
American Persimmon
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
8
8
8
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
Nysso sylvotico
Black Gum
Tree
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Plotonus occidentolis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
9
1 9
9
2
2
1 2
7
1 7
7
Pyrus colleryono
Bradford Pear
Tree
2
Quercus lyroto
Overcup Oak
Tree
6
6
6
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
6
6
6
Quercus montono
Rock Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus nigro
Water Oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Rhus glabro
Smooth Sumac
Shrub Tree
1
1
2
Stem count
12
12
12
6
1 6
7
5
1 5
5
17
17
17
14
14
18
13
13
13
12
12
12
7
7
12
16
16
16
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
1 0.02
0.02
Species count
3
3—F
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
4
4
6
7
7
7
4
4
4
3
3
6
6
6
6
Stems per ACRE
486
1 486
1 486
243
1 243
283
202
202
202
688
688
688
567
567
728
526
526
526
486
486
486
1 283
283
486
647
647
647
Current Plot Data (MY4 2019)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94709-01-0010
94709-01-0011
94709-01-0012
MY4 (2019)
MY3(2018)
MY2(2017)
MY1(2016)
MYO(2016)
PnoLS
P-all
I T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
8
2
10
20
7
Betulo nigro
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
2
Cercis conodensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
1
1
Diospyros virginiono
American Persimmon
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1
6
6
6
17
17
18
17
17
21
16
16
17
14
14
14
14
14
14
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
2
2
2
15
15
15
15
15
17
15
15
16
13
13
13
14
14
14
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
35
4
4
41
4
4
48
4
4
70
4
4
8
4
4
4
Nysso sylvotico
Black Gum
Tree
4
4
1 4
1 5
5
5
1
1 16
16
16
1 16
16
16
1 17
17
17
20
20
20
19
19
19
Plotonus occidentolis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
24
24
24
23
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
26
26
26
26
Pyrus colleryono
Bradford Pear
Tree
2
Quercus lyroto
Overcup Oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
29
29
29
28
28
28
30
30
30
28
28
28
29
29
29
Quercus montono
Rock Chestnut Oak
Tree
5
5
5
L10
11
11
11
14
14
14
14
14
14
21
21
21
22
22
22
Quercus nigro
Water Oak
Tree
2
2
2
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
17
14
14
14
14
14
14
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
7
7
7
7
7
7
Rhus glabro
Smooth Sumac
Shrub Tree
2
5
2
1
Stem count
10
10
53
14
14
16
10
10
136
136
191
136
136
213
140
140
221
146
146
154
149
149
149
size (ares)
1
1
1
12
12
12
12
12
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
F30
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
Species count
3
3
5
4
4
5
4
4
4
10
10
14
9
9
13
10
10
12
9
9
11
1 9
9
9
Stems per ACRE
405
405
2145
567
567
647
405
405
405
459
459
644
459
459
718
472
472
745
492
492
519
1 502
502
502
Color for Density PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements by 10% P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total

APPENDIX D. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Silage Trib Reach 1, Cross -Section ST1
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
5
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
1 4
6
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
10
10
16
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
16
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
18
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
20
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
22
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
8
29
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
37
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
45
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
51
Very Coarse
32
45
16
16
67
Very Coarse
45
64
14
14
80
Small
64
90
10
10
90
Small
90
128
6
6
96
Large
128
180
2
2
98
Large
180
256
98
Small
1 256
362
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
I 1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048 1
100
Total 1
102
100
100
Cross -Section ST1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
3.0
D35 =
14.4
D� =
30.2
D� =
72.6
D95 =
120.0
Dlca =
362.0
Silage Trib Reach 1, Cross -Section STl
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 SiIt/CIaY
gp
a d Gravel
Cobble Boulder Bedrock
� �
70
o^0
j 60
50
E
40
j
y
30
Q. 20
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--o—MYO-06/2016 --o—MYl-11/2016 --o—MY2-07/2017 --o.—MY3-06/2018 --o—MY4-06/2019
Silage Trib Reach 1, Cross -Section ST1
100
Individual Class Percent
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
v�
50
0
40
v
30
v
20
v
�
10
0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MY0-06/2016
0 MYl-11/2016 0 MY2-07/2017 0 MY3-06/2018 0 MY4-06/2019

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Silage Trib Reach 2, Cross -Section ST3
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
5
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
24
24
24
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
24
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
24
Fine
4.0
5.6
24
Fine
1 5.6
8.0 1
4
4
28
Medium
8.0
11.0
28
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
34
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
44
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
50
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
64
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
68
Small
64
90
14
14
82
Small
90
128
8
8
90
Large
128
180
8
8
98
Large
180
256
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024 1
2048 1
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
7 048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section ST3
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
1.6
D35 =
16.6
DS =
32.0
D� =
98.3
D95 =
158.4
Dlca =
362.0
Silage Trib Reach 2, Cross -Section ST3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80
70
Silt/clay
Cobble
a
d
Gravel
Boulder
Bedrock
o^0
j 60
50
E
40
j
y 30all
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--o—MYO-06/2016 --o—MYl-11/2016 --o—MY2-07/2017 --o.—MY3-06/2018 --o—MY4-06/2019
Silage Trib Reach 2, Cross -Section ST3
100
Individual Class Percent
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
v�
50
0
40
v
30
v
20
'v
10EU
r
0
A
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MY0-06/2016
0 MYl-11/2016 0 MY2-07/2017 0 MY3-06/2018 0 MY4-06/2019

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Silage Reach 2, Cross -Section ST6
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
10
10
10
Very fine
0.062
0.125
10
Fine
0.125
0.250
10
5
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
1 6
16
Coarse
0.5
1.0
16
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
18
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
18
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
18
Fine
4.0
5.6
18
Fine
5.6
8.0
18
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
22
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
26
16.0
22.6
6
6
32
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
42
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
54
Very Coarse
45
64 1
22
22
76
Small
64
90
8
8
84
Small
90
128
8
8
92
ICoarse
Large
128
180
2
2
94
Large
180
256
2
2
96
Small
256
362
4
4
100
Small
1 362
512
1
1 100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
.."C'Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
300
100
100
Cross -Section ST6
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.5
D35 _
25.1
DS =
40.2
D� =
90.0
D95 =
214.7
Dlaa =
362.0
Silage Reach 2, Cross -Section ST6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
gp
70
SiltlClay
a
d
Gravel
Cobble
Boulder
Bedrock
j 60
50
E
40
u
y
30
a 20
10
i
Lill
��w
�
� � � �
�
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--o—MYO-06/2016 --o—MYl-11/2016 --o—MY2-07/2017 --o.—MY3-06/2018 --o—MY4-06/2019
Silage Reach 2, Cross -Section ST6
100
Individual Class Percent
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
v�
50
m
40
v
30
v
20
13
�
10
0
Obti ,Lh ,�h p5
1 'L ,LW b I'6 1b ,�1 ,y6 , 1
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MY0-06/2016
0 MYl-11/2016 0 MY2-07/2017 0 MY3-06/2018 0 MY4-06/2019

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Silage Reach 2, Cross -Section ST7
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
5
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
4
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
4
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
Fine
5.6
8.0
6
6
10
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
16
Medium
11.0
16.0
10
10
26
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
34
Coarse
22.6
32
20
20
54
Very Coarse
32
45
18
18
72
Very Coarse
45
64
16
16
88
Small
64
90
6
6
94
Small
90
128
6
6
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
1 256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
I 1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048 1
100
Total 1
100
100
100
Cross -Section ST7
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
11.0
D35 =
23.0
DS =
29.8
D� =
58.6
D95 =
95.4
Dlca =
128.0
Silage Reach 2, Cross -Section ST7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
-
90 SiIt/Clay
gp
a d Gravel
Cobble Boulder
Bedrock
70
o^0
j 60
50
E
40
j
y
30
a 20
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--o—MYO-06/2016 --o—MYl-11/2016 --o—MY2-07/2017 --o.—MY3-06/2018 --o—MY4-06/2019
Silage Reach 2, Cross -Section ST7
100
Individual Class Percent
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
v�
50
m
40
v
30
v
20
v
�
10
0
Obti ,Lh ,�h p5
1 'L ,LW b I'6 W ,�1 ,y6 , 1
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MY0-06/2016
0 MYl-11/2016 0 MY2-07/2017 0 MY3-06/2018 0 MY4-06/2019

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Moores Fork Reach 2, Cross -Section M1
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
5
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
4
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
8
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
16
Coarse
16.0
22.6
18
18
34
Coarse
22.6
32
18
18
52
Very Coarse
32
45
24
24
76
Very Coarse
45
64
20
20
96
Small
64
90
2
2
98
Small
90
128
2
2
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
1 362
512
1 100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section M1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
16.0
D35 =
23.0
Ds =
30.8
D� =
51.8
D9s =
62.9
Dlca =
128.0
Moores Fork Reach 2, Cross -Section M1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Si!tlClay
gp
a d Gravel
Cobble Boulder
Bedrock
70
o^0
j 60
50
E
40
u
y
30
a 20
to
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--o—MYO-06/2016 --o—MYl-11/2016 --o—MY2-07/2017 --o.—MY3-06/2018 --o—MY4-06/2019
Moores Fork Reach 2, Cross -Section M1
100
Individual Class Percent
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
v�
50
0
40
v
30
v
20
v
�
10
0
Obti ,Lh ,�h p5
1 'L ,LW b I'6 W ,�1 ,y6 , 1
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MY0-06/2016
■ MYl-11/2016 0 MY2-07/2017 0 MY3-06/2018 0 MY4-06/2019

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Moores Fork Reach 2, Cross -Section M2
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
5
Medium
0.25
0.50
10
1 10
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
10
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
12
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
12
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
12
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
16
Fine
5.6
8.0
16
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
22
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
26
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
30
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
34
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
40
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
50
Small
64
90
8
8
58
Small
90
128
12
12
70
Large
128
180
8
8
78
Large
180
256
10
10
88
Small
1 256
362
10
10
98
Small
362
512
98
Medium
512
1024
2
2
100
Large/Very Large
I 1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048 1
100
Total 1
100
100
100
Cross -Section M2
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
5.6
D35 =
33.9
Ds =
64.0
D� =
222.4
D95 =
326.3
Dlcu =
1024.0
Moores Fork Reach 2, Cross -Section M2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
SiltlClay
a
d
Gravel
80
Cobble
Boulder
Bedrock
70
o^0
j 60
50
E
40
u
y
30
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--o—MYO-06/2016 --o—MYl-11/2016 --o—MY2-07/2017 --o.—MY3-06/2018 --o—MY4-06/2019
Moores Fork Reach 2, Cross -Section M2
100
Individual Class Percent
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
v�
50
0
40
v
30
v
20
v
�
10
0
pbti ,Lh ,�h p5
ppp
1 'L ,LW b I'6 W ,�1 ,y6 , 1
�' ti ti h
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MY0-06/2016
0 MYl-11/2016 0 MY2-07/2017 0 MY3-06/2018 0 MY4-06/2019

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M4
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
5
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
1 4
4
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
6
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
6
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
6
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
8
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
14
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
18
se
16.0
22.6
10
10
28
se
22.6
32
10
10
38
Coarse
32
45
14
14
52
Coarse
45
64
14
14
66
ll
64
90
20
20
86
l
90
128
6
6
92
Ila
e
128
180
4
4
96
e
180
256
96
l
256
362
2
2
98
2
2
100
ium
512
1024
100
e/Very Large
1024
2048
100
ock
2048
7 048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section M4
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
13.3
D35 _
28.8
DS =
42.9
D� =
87.0
D95 =
165.3
plc, =
512.0
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 SiltlClay
Sp
a d Gravel
Cobble Boulder
Bedrock
o^0 70
r
j 60
50
E
40
u
y
30
a 20
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--o—MYO-06/2016 --o—MYl-11/2016 --o—MY2-07/2017 --o.—MY3-06/2018 --o—MY4-06/2019
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M4
100
Individual Class Percent
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
v�
50
0
40
v
30
v
20
�
10
0
4r1
Particle Class Size (mm)
■Serie,2
■MYl-11/2016 0MY2-07/2017 0MY3-06/2018 0MY4-06/2019

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M5
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
5
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
4
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
8
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
14
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
16
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
28
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
42
Very Coarse
45
64 1
16
16
58
Small
64
90
6
6
64
Small
90
128
10
10
74
Large
128
180
6
6
80
Large
180
256
10
10
90
Small
256
362
8
8
98
Small
362
512
2
2
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section MS
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
22.6
D35 =
37.9
DS =
53.7
D� =
207.2
D95 =
317.9
Dlcu =
512.0
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 SiIt/Clay
80
a d Gravel
Cobble Boulder
Bedrock
70
o^0
j 60
50
E
40
j
y
30
a 20
10
0
AP]
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--o—MYO-06/2016 --o—MYl-11/2016 --o—MY2-07/2017 --o.—MY3-06/2018 --o—MY4-06/2019
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section MS
100
Individual Class Percent
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
v�
50
0
40
v
30
v
20
v
�
10
0
pbti ,Lh ,�h p5
ppp
1 'L ,LW b I'6 W ,�1 ,y6 , 1
�' ti ti h
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MY0-06/2016
0 MYl-11/2016 0 MY2-07/2017 0 MY3-06/2018 0 MY4-06/2019

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M7
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
5
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
4
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
16
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
24
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
30
Very Coarse
45
64
18
18
48
Small
64
90
24
24
72
Small
90
128
20
20
92
Large
128
180
4
4
96
Large
180
256
4
4
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1 1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section M7
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
22.6
D35 =
49.6
DS =
65.8
D� =
111.2
D95 =
165.3
Dlcu =
256.0
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silticlay
gp
a d Gravel -
Cc able Boulder
Bedrock
70
41
o^0
j 60
50
E
40
u
y
30
a 20
10
—:
;;Ie,
0
117A
IZZ
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--o—MYO-06/2016 --o—MYl-11/2016 --o—MY2-07/2017 --o.—MY3-06/2018 --o—MY4-06/2019
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M7
100
Individual Class Percent
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
v�
50
0
40
v
30
v
20
v
�
10
0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MY0-06/2016
■ MYl-11/2016 0 MY2-07/2017 0 MY3-06/2018 0 MY4-06/2019

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M8
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
5
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
8
8
8
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
8
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
8
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
8
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
Coarse
16.0
22.6
12
12
20
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
26
Very Coarse
32
45
16
16
42
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
54
Small
64
90
12
12
66
Small
90
128
6
6
72
Large
128
180
4
4
76
Large
180
256
2
2
78
Small
256
362
78
Small
362
512
78
Medium
512
1024
78
Large Very Large
1024
2048
78
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
22
22
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section M8
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
20.1
D35 =
38.8
DS =
56.9
D� =
2474.2
D95 =
3499.0
Dlca =
12048
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M8
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 SiItlCIaY
80
a d Gravel++��
able Boulder
Bedrock
70
o^0
j 60
50
E
40
u
y
30
a 20
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--o—MYO-06/2016 --o—MYl-11/2016 --o—MY2-07/2017 --o.—MY3-06/2018 --o—MY4-06/2019
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M8
100
Individual Class Percent
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
v�
50
0
40
v
30
v
20
v
�
10
0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MY0-06/2016
0 MYl-11/2016 0 MY2-07/2017 0 MY3-06/2018 0 MY4-06/2019

APPENDIX E. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 11. Verification of Bankfull Events
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Reach
Moores Fork Reach 2
Monitoring Year Date
MY1
of Data
10/25/2016
Date of Occurrence
—8/4/2016
Crest Gage
1.30
MY2 7/10/2017—5/25/2017 Crest Gage
2.55
MY3 4/12/2018—3/25/2018 Crest Gage
2.73
MY4 3/13/2019—2/24/2019 Crest Gage
2.30
MY4 6/19/2019—6/18/2019 Debris wracklines
N/A
Silage Reach 2
MYl
10/25/2016
—8/4/2016
Crest Gage
0.75
MY3 4/12/2018—3/25/2018 Debris wracklines
N/A
MY4 6/19/2019—6/18/2019 Crest Gage/Debris wracklines
N/A

Monthly Rainfall Data
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 4 - 2019
Moores Fork 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2019 Slurry County, NC
12.00
10.00
2 8.00
0
0
m
Q 6.00
a`
4.00
2.00
0.00
Jan-19 Feb-19 Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19
NC CRONOS MT Airy 2 W Date
—70th percentile
—30th percentile
t 2019 rainfall collected from NC CRONOS Station Name: MT AIRY 2 W (NCCRONOS, 2019)
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station MT AIRY 2 W, NC (NCCRONOS, 2019)

APPENDIX F. Invasive Species Treatment Logs

MEMO
To: Matthew Reid, NCDEQ
From: Joe Secoges
Date: October 2019
Subject: Moore's Fork Mitigation Site Maintenance Report
For reporting purposes, Eastern Forest Consultants produced a map delineating five management
units. The units are labeled A through E on a map attached to the memo to help describe tasks
performed in various areas of the property.
Tasks Preformed:
• Management Area A- July 5m, 6th, and 1 lm was spent spraying in Management Area A.
Invasive species found in the management area include Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu,
Chinese privet, multi -flora rose and oriental bittersweet. There were large amounts of
honeysuckle sprayed in the cove area on the south side, along with a small area of kudzu.
Chinese privet was scattered throughout all of the area, some spots being denser with the
species than others. The herbicide used to spray all species, except kudzu, was Rodeo.
Rodeo was used at a rate of 5oz per gallon. The kudzu was controlled with Transline at
an approximate rate of 10 oz per acre (half the amount allowed on a site in one year).
On August 24th, Area A was treated again. The honeysuckle, privet, rose, and bittersweet
were treated using a mix of 4 oz Rodeo and 2 oz Vastlan per gallon of water. Kudzu was
treated again using Transline at an approximate rate of 10 oz per acre.
On November 12m, privet stems from the ground to about 12-15" above ground were
treated using 25% Garlon 4 Ultra in penetrating basal oil.
On February 26th, 2019, privet stems from the ground to about 12-15" above ground were
treated using 25% Garlon 4 Ultra in penetrating basal oil.
On September 27m, 2019, the management area received a final herbicide application to
address the few remaining invasive plants that could be located. A mix of Vastlan (2 oz /
gallon water) + Rodeo (4 oz / gallon water) + surfactant + spray pattern indicator was
used to treat all species. Applicators concentrated on treating kudzu and privet that were
close to the water and difficult to treat on previous applications with herbicides not
approved for aquatic use (Transline and Garlon 4 Ultra).

Management Area B- July loth and 11th was spent treating Management Area B.
Invasive species found in the area include Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, Chinese privet,
multi -flora rose and oriental bittersweet. Honeysuckle and bittersweet had a well -
established presence in the area. There was also a small patch of kudzu that was starting
to work its way back into the forested area. Rodeo was used at a rate of 5oz per gallon.
The kudzu was controlled with Transline at an approximate rate of 10 oz per acre.
Several ailanthus and paulownia trees were treated via hack and squirt.
On August 24th, and 27th and September 3rd and 5th, Area B was treated again. The
honeysuckle, privet, rose, and bittersweet were treated using a mix of 4 oz Rodeo and 2
oz Vastlan per gallon of water. Kudzu was treated again using Transline at an
approximate rate of 10 oz per acre.
On November 28th, privet stems from the ground to about 12-15" above ground were
treated using 25% Garlon 4 Ultra in penetrating basal oil.
On February 26th, 2019, privet stems from the ground to about 12-15" above ground were
treated using 25% Garlon 4 Ultra in penetrating basal oil.
On September 27th, 2019, the management area received a final herbicide application to
address the few remaining invasive plants that could be located. A mix of Vastlan (2 oz /
gallon water) + Rodeo (4 oz / gallon water) + surfactant + spray pattern indicator was
used to treat all species. Applicators concentrated on treating kudzu and privet that were
close to the water and difficult to treat on previous applications with herbicides not
approved for aquatic use (Transline and Garlon 4 Ultra). Some kudzu in this unit also
received a small treatment with Transline. The Transline was utilized on areas away
from the water that were difficult to access earlier in the summer before kudzu received
the first treatment of 2019.
Management Area C- Management Area C was treated on July 1 lth and 12th. Invasive
species found in the management area include Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, Chinese
privet, multi -flora rose and oriental bittersweet. The area was not heavily populated with
invasive species. The south side of the stream was more heavily populated, but was still
sporadic. Rodeo was used at a rate of 5oz per gallon. The kudzu was controlled with
Transline at an approximate rate of 10 oz per acre.
On August 27th and September 5th, Area C was treated again. The honeysuckle, privet,
rose, and bittersweet were treated using a mix of 4 oz Rodeo and 2 oz Vastlan per gallon
of water. Kudzu was treated again using Transline at an approximate rate of 10 oz per
acre.
On November 29th, privet stems from the ground to about 12-15" above ground were
treated using 25% Garlon 4 Ultra in penetrating basal oil.

On February 26th, 2019, privet stems from the ground to about 12-15" above ground were
treated using 25% Garlon 4 Ultra in penetrating basal oil.
On September 27th, 2019, the management area received a final herbicide application to
address the few remaining invasive plants that could be located. A mix of Vastlan (2 oz /
gallon water) + Rodeo (4 oz / gallon water) + surfactant + spray pattern indicator was
used to treat all species. Applicators concentrated on treating kudzu and privet that were
close to the water and difficult to treat on previous applications with herbicides not
approved for aquatic use (Transline and Garlon 4 Ultra).
Management Area D- Management Area D was treated on July 11th and 12th. Invasive
species found in the management area include Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, Chinese
privet, multi -flora rose and oriental bittersweet. Invasive species populations in this area
were sporadic but dense when found. Rodeo was used at a rate of 5oz per gallon. The
kudzu was controlled with Transline at an approximate rate of 10 oz per acre. Some
ailanthus trees were flagged to be hacked and squirted on the next application.
On August 24th and 27th, Area D was treated again. The honeysuckle, privet, rose, and
bittersweet were treated using a mix of 4 oz Rodeo and 2 oz Vastlan per gallon of water.
Kudzu was treated again using Transline at an approximate rate of 10 oz per acre.
On November 29th, privet stems from the ground to about 12-15" above ground were
treated using 25% Garlon 4 Ultra in penetrating basal oil.
On February 26th, 2019, privet stems from the ground to about 12-15" above ground were
treated using 25% Garlon 4 Ultra in penetrating basal oil.
Management Area E- Management Area E was treated on the afternoon of July loth and
12th. Invasive species found in the management area include Japanese honeysuckle,
kudzu, Chinese privet, multi -flora rose and Oriental bittersweet. The area was dense in
honeysuckle, and bittersweet and had some dense areas of kudzu on the outer edges.
Rodeo was used at a rate of 5oz per gallon. The kudzu was controlled with Transline at
an approximate rate of 10 oz per acre.
On August 27th and September 5th, Area E was treated again. The honeysuckle, privet,
rose, and bittersweet were treated using a mix of 4 oz Rodeo and 2 oz Vastlan per gallon
of water. Kudzu was treated again using Transline at an approximate rate of 10 oz per
acre.
On November 29th, privet stems from the ground to about 12-15" above ground were
treated using 25% Garlon 4 Ultra in penetrating basal oil.
On February 26th, 2019, privet stems from the ground to about 12-15" above ground were
treated using 25% Garlon 4 Ultra in penetrating basal oil.

On September 27m, 2019, the management area received a final herbicide application to
address the few remaining invasive plants that could be located. A mix of Vastlan (2 oz /
gallon water) + Rodeo (4 oz / gallon water) + surfactant + spray pattern indicator was
used to treat all species. Applicators concentrated on treating kudzu and privet that were
close to the water and difficult to treat on previous applications with herbicides not
approved for aquatic use (Transline and Garlon 4 Ultra).
Other Notable Information:
• Kudzu was found to be more abundant than originally noted on the site assessment
report. A map is attached to this memo noting the kudzu that was located and treated in
the field.
• On the second round of control (late August — early September) extra care was taken
when treating kudzu along the field edges, especially in Blocks B and E, because corn
and/or sorghum was planted nearby.
• When spraying privet in November, stems that were next to surface water were not
treated.
• When spraying privet in February 2019, stems that were next to surface water were not
treated.
• All kudzu locations identified in 2018 were treated with Transline on 7/24/2019. Each
position was given a ranking with " Y' noting a heavy infestation, " 2" noting a moderate
infestation, and "1" or "0" noting a light infestation/none found. A follow-up treatment
will be conducted later in 2019 on areas ranked with a " Y' or "2".
• Eastern Forest Consultants believes that a 95% kill/control rate was achieved prior to the
application on September 27, 2019. However, the final application was beneficial for
treating new seedlings and some areas that were difficult to reach with herbicides not
approved for aquatic use. Applicators visited all kudzu areas designated with a " Y' or
" 2" after the 7/24/2019 application (see above). Unfortunately, applicators still had to
refrain from treating kudzu that was climbing out of the mitigation area and into the
neighboring corn fields out of fear of damaging crops.

PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE APPLICATION RECORD
PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER:
Name: Matthew Reid
NC DEQ DMS
Address: 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone #: [phone]
ADDRESS/LOCATION OF APPLICATION SITE (if different than above):
Address/Location: Moore's Fork Mitigation Site — Surry County
CERTIFIED APPLICATOR:
Joseph M. Secoges (Applicator Cert. # 026-34911 / Consultant Cert. # 030-1312)
Eastern Forest Consultants LLC
P.O. Box 1577
Clemmons, NC 27012
240-446-1583
DATE + START/END TIME OF APPLICATION: 9/27/2019; 0900-1630
RESTRICTED ENTRY INTERVAL (REI):
DURATION (# OF HOURS): 24 Hours
EXPIRATION (DATE/TIME): 9/28/2019 @ 1630
PLANTS/SITES TREATED: Upland Area around Stream
PRINCIPLE PESTS TO BE CONTROLLED: Kudzu, Privet, Morning Glory, Rose,
Honeysuckle, Bittersweet

ACREAGE, AREA, OR NUMBER OF PLANTS TREATED:
Spot Spray As Needed
IDENTIFICATION/AMOUNT OF PESTICIDES USED:
1) Brand/Common Name:
EPA Reg. Number:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
2) Brand/Common Name:
EPA Reg. Number:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
3) Brand/Common Name:
EPA Reg. Number:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
Vastlan
62719-687
72 oz
2 oz/Gallon
Rodeo
62719-324
144 oz
4 oz/Gallon
Spreader 90 Surfactant
N/A
39 oz
1 oz /gallon
4) Brand/Common Name: Bullseye Dye
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 39 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz/gallon
5) Brand/Common Name: Transline
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-259
Amount Applied to Site: 5 oz
Application Rate: 21 oz /ac (12 gallons water / ac)
DILUENTS USED (Water, Oil, Fuel, etc.):
1) Diluent: Water
Amount Applied to Site: 39 gallons
Application Rate: As Needed
2) Diluent:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:

TYPE OF APPLICATION EQUIPMENT USED: Back -pack Sprayers
WEATHER:
Temp: 75-90 deg F
Wind Speed: 0-10 mph
Wind Direction: variable
NOTES: Treated some kudzu away from creek on northeast side of Management
Unit B using Transline (3 gallons of mix). Conducted follow-up treatment in all
management units using vastlan and rodeo mix so that we could treat up to water's edge.

F
• * *' u
T • 1 i
b �
2
lot, a
40.
dog
Y,
b
i
Aa
C
r � b
A
Cog
znm
C
3 L
(D
` < C
rvmm
Z
Z
(D Ci
vm
m m
Z
Qp
0 Q7
Q
C) 70
S
OD
0 v
c� m3
m�
U) Q
N
C
Q N_
4
U) (D
(D 1R
O C7
(D
Q
V C
S (D
N N
e (D
�CL
a _.
CL
[I]
na @
-0
7 7
�1
'C
3
cD
N N
•
k�l
g
C
ID
a
a

•..... Conservation Easement
Stream Restoration
�— Stream Preservation
dr Sr r 9:
Stream Enhancemetn Level I
Yr �
Stream Enhancemer Level I; Reduced Credit
Stream Enhancement Level II
— Reach Breaks `-�; .' �•,`" �,.
' Existow wetland
Overhead Power Easement - • �'� r.
Cross -Section
S Crest Gage , .f
1Ja6etatlon Monitoring Plots {VP) - MY2
Criteria Met .M •Y�•• ,,, -,1. 11 aa., f "
Criteria Not Me[ #• xit 1�Y }
VeRetadon Aceas of Concern - MY3 'tJIM, `
Irwasive Plant Population
.Il.
Bare/Poor F+erbaceaus [.truer - 't
r .
P
1A, IM I
! u_
u t
.:.. -. 4w ,.. `i r'i '*r .t* y� �'?q : • .. � f - 'G �. ..�'ttf r '�r� ,se k i, •,� ,.
r- �' J,y r �,ra 3�1 Integrated Current Condition Pfan View {Keyj
1�► 0-1 •[ l l A k V J t. V � vrl a Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
�i' 1 I; i.7 1 '•: 0 300 600 Feet OMS Project No- 94709
I k I Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
JKo a*Sorry County, NC
rltk%fy tw►