20130250 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report_2019_20200117

ID#* 20130250 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 01/17/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal-1/17/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream r Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Matthew Reid
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20130250
Existing IW
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Norkett Branch
Union
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: NorkettBranch_95360_MY6_2019.pdf 21.78MB
Rease upload only one R7F cf the complete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matthew Reid
Signature:*

511
.1 , � r_ 'tilt'] .f; * �� ?� d riiolt
. � � �F� •.4" �"k
MONITORING YEAR 6
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
NORKETT BRANCH STREAM MITIGATION SITE
Union County, NC
DEQ Contract 004673
DMS Project Number 95360
USACE Action ID Number 2012-01082
NCDWR Project Number 13-0250
Data Collection Period: April - October 2019
Final Submission Date: January 15, 2020
PREPARED FOR:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering (Wildlands) restored and enhanced a total of 10,706 linear feet (LF) of stream on
a full -delivery mitigation site in Union County, NC. The project streams consist of Norkett Branch, a third
order stream, two unnamed first order tributaries to Norkett Branch (UT1 and UT2), and two
intermittent tributaries to Norkett Branch (UT2A and UT3). Water quality treatment Best Management
Practices (BMPs) were installed to treat water quality on the non -jurisdictional headwaters of UT3 and
an adjacent ephemeral drainage feature. The project is expected to provide 10,098 stream mitigation
units (SMUs).
The Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site (Site) is located in southeastern Union County, NC,
approximately ten miles southeast of the City of Monroe and five miles north of the South Carolina state
line. The Site is located in the Yadkin River Basin; eight -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03040105 and the 14-
digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040105081020 (Figure 1). This CU was identified as a targeted local
watershed in the 2009 Lower Yadkin- Pee Dee River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) plan. This plan
identifies agricultural practices and runoff as the probable major sources of water quality impairment in
the Middle Lanes Creek watershed. The 2008 North Carolina Division of Water Resources' (NCDWR)
Basinwide Water Quality Plan (BWQP) lists turbidity and nutrient concentrations of nitrogen and
phosphorus as specific concerns in the Rocky River watershed portion of the Yadkin- Pee Dee River
basin. Other pollutants of concern cited in this report are fecal coliform bacteria, iron, and copper. The
project reaches flow off -site, directly into Lanes Creek, which is included on the NCDWR 303d list of
impaired streams. The section of Lanes Creek downstream of the Site is listed as impaired due to
turbidity (NCDWR, 2012). The project goals established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2013) were
completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and
NCDWR BWQR and to meet the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS) mitigation needs
while maximizing the ecological and water quality uplift within the watershed.
The following project goals were established to address the watershed and project Site stressors:
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat within the riparian corridor and provide habitat
corridor extension from adjacent downstream forested habitat;
• Improve additional water quality aspects within stream channels on Site;
• Decrease sediment inputs to the stream channels and decrease turbidity in receiving Lanes
Creek; and
• Decrease phosphorus, nitrogen, and fecal coliform inputs to the stream channels.
Stream restoration and enhancement, water quality treatment BMP construction, and planting efforts
were completed between December 2013 and April 2014. Baseline as -built monitoring activities were
completed between April and May 2014. A conservation easement is in place on the 31.6 acres of
riparian corridor and stream resources to protect them in perpetuity.
Overall, the Site has met the required stream and vegetation mitigation success criteria for MY6. The
average planted stem density for the Site is 409 stems per acre and is on track to meet final density
criteria. Visual assessment revealed good herbaceous cover across the Site with only isolated spots of
invasive plant populations. Approximately 10% of the planted woody vegetation primarily along Norkett
Branch Reaches 1 and 2 are shorter than expected for six -year -old trees. Woody vegetation across the
remainder of the Site is on track to meet the MY7 height requirement. Geomorphically, the stability of
each restored and enhanced stream remains in good standing, with cross-section dimensions falling
within the range of parameters for the appropriate Rosgen (1996) stream type. Visual assessment
indicates channel beds, bank, and engineered structures are functioning as designed with little to no
sign of instability. The Site met final hydrological success criteria after MY3. During MY6, all three of the
restored reaches (Norkett Branch, UT1, and UT2) recorded at least one bankfull or greater event. Water
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL

quality results continues to indicate an overall trend of pollutant removal capacity of both storm water
BMPs. During MY6, project streams are stable, vegetation continues to grow, and the Site is tracking
towards final success criteria.
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL

NORKETT BRANCH STREAM MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW........................................................................................................1-1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives...................................................................................................................
1-1
1.2
Monitoring Year 6 Data Assessment........................................................................................................
1-3
1.2.1
Vegetative Assessment....................................................................................................................
1-3
1.2.2
Vegetation Problem Areas..............................................................................................................
1-3
1.2.3
Stream Assessment.........................................................................................................................
1-4
1.2.4
Stream Problem Areas.....................................................................................................................
1-4
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment....................................................................................................................
1-5
1.2.6
Water Quality BMPs........................................................................................................................
1-5
1.2.7
Existing Wetland Monitoring...........................................................................................................
1-6
1.3
Monitoring Year 6 Summary....................................................................................................................
1-6
Section2:
METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................
2-1
Section 3:
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................
3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Table 5
Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.6
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 6a-g
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Areas of Concern
Appendix 3
Vegetation Plot Data
Table S
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10
Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11a-c
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12a-c
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross -Section)
Table 13a-g
Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross -Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5
Hydrology Data
Table 14
Verification of Bankfull Events
Stream Flow Gage Plots
Appendix 6
Water Quality BMPs
Table 15
Water Quality Sampling Results
Table 16
Pollutant Removal Rates
Water Quality Data
Pollutant Removal Plot
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL iii

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site is located in southeastern Union County, NC, approximately ten miles southeast of the City of
Monroe and five miles north of the South Carolina state line. The Site is in the Yadkin River Basin; eight -
digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03040105 and the 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040105081020
(Figure 1). The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont physiographic province (USGS,
1998). The project watershed consists primarily of agricultural land, pasture, and forest. A conservation
easement was recorded on 31.6 acres within the seven parcels (Deed Book 06095, Pages 0530-0589).
The Site is located within the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03-07-14.
The project streams consist of Norkett Branch, a third order stream, two unnamed first order tributaries
to Norkett Branch (UT1 and UT2), and two intermittent tributaries to Norkett Branch (UT2A and UT3).
Norkett Branch (DWQ Index No. 13-17-40-8) is the main tributary of the project and is classified as WS-V
waters. Class WS-V waters are protected as water supplies draining to Class WS-IV waters or waters
used by industry to supply drinking water or waters formerly used as water supply, and are protected
for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife and aquatic life, maintenance of biotic integrity, and
agriculture. The drainage area for the project Site is 2,034 acres (3.18 sq mi) at the lower end of Norkett
Branch Reach 2.
Mitigation work at the Site included restoration on Norkett Branch, UT1, and UT2. Enhancement II was
implemented on UT2A and UT3. Water quality treatment BMPs were also implemented to treat
agricultural drainage upstream of UT3 and agricultural drainage in the right floodplain of Norkett Branch
Reach 2. All onsite riparian areas were planted with native species. Construction and planting activities
were completed in April 2014. Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project
components are illustrated in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, the streams were routinely maintained to provide drainage for
agricultural purposes. Impacts to the stream included straightening and ditching, eroding banks, and a
lack of stabilizing riparian vegetation. The streams were used as a water source for cattle in some areas,
resulting in over -widened, unstable trampled banks. Algal blooms, presumably from agricultural nutrient
loading, were observed during Site visits. Trampled stream banks, over -widened channels, and banks
illustrating signs of instability were a common occurrence throughout the Site. The alterations of the
Site to promote farming resulted in impairment of the ecological function of Site's streams. Specific
functional losses at the Site include degraded aquatic habitat, altered hydrology, and reduction of
quality of in -stream and riparian wetland habitats and related water quality benefits. Table 4 in
Appendix 1 and Tables 11 a-c in Appendix 4 present the Site's pre -restoration conditions in detail.
The mitigation project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits such as pollutant removal
and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Expected improvements to water quality and ecological
processes are outlined below as project goals and objectives. The agricultural stressors and pollutants
have been specifically addressed by the Site design. The major goals of the stream mitigation project are
to provide ecological and water quality enhancements to the Norkett Branch, Lane's Creek, Rocky River
and Yadkin River Basins while creating a functional riparian corridor at the Site level and restoring a
Piedmont Bottomland Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). These project goals were
established with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and to
meet the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS) mitigation needs while maximizing the
ecological and water quality uplift within the watershed.
The following project goals and objectives were established and listed in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands,
2013) to address the effects listed above:
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL 1-1

Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat within the riparian corridor and provide habitat corridor
extension from adjacent downstream forested habitat. By restoring appropriate channel cross
section and profile, including riffle and pool sequences, coarse substrate zones for
macroinvertebrates and deep pool habitat for fish will also be restored. Introduction of large
woody debris, rock structures, brush toe, and native stream bank vegetation will provide
additional habitat and cover for both fish and macroinvertebrates. Adjacent buffer areas will be
restored by planting native vegetation which will provide habitat and forage for terrestrial
species. These areas will be allowed to receive more regular inundating flows, and vernal pools
may develop over time increasing habitat diversity. A watershed approach, restoring riparian
corridor functions on multiple interconnected tributaries as well as treating agricultural drainage
from headwater features with Best Management Practices (BMPs), will allow for large-scale
riparian corridor connectivity.
Improve additional water quality aspects within stream channels on Site. Riffle/pool sequences
will be restored to provide re -aeration allowing for oxygen levels to be maintained in the
perennial reaches. Creation of deep pool zones will lower temperature, helping to maintain
dissolved oxygen concentrations. Establishment and maintenance of riparian buffers will create
long-term shading of the stream to minimize thermal heating. Water quality BMPs situated in
the headwaters upstream of jurisdictional streams will treat agricultural runoff before it reaches
project streams.
Decrease sediment inputs to the stream channels and decrease turbidity in receiving Lanes
Creek. Cattle will be fenced out of the riparian corridor, eliminating bank trampling. Sediment
input from eroding stream banks will be reduced by bioengineering and installing in -stream
structures while creating a stable channel form using geomorphic design principles. Sediment
from off -site sources will be captured by deposition on restored floodplain areas where native
vegetation will slow overland flow velocities. By allowing for more overbank flooding and by
increasing channel roughness, in -channel velocities can be reduced. This will lower bank shear
stress and decrease bank erosion.
Decrease phosphorus, nitrogen, and fecal coliform inputs to the stream channels. Nitrogen and
phosphorus chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and cattle waste will be decreased by buffering
adjacent agricultural operations from the restored channels. Cattle will be fenced out to
eliminate in -channel fecal pollution. Off -site nutrient input will be absorbed on -site by filtering
flood flows through restored floodplain areas, water quality BMPs, and vernal pools positioned
to treat concentrated overland flow. Flood flows will be allowed to disperse through native
vegetation across the reconnected floodplain. Increased surface water residency time will
provide contact treatment time and groundwater recharge potential.
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL 1-2

1.2 Monitoring Year 6 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted between April and October 2019 to assess the condition of the project.
The stream restoration success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria presented in the
Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2013).
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
A total of 26 vegetation plots were established during the baseline monitoring within the project
easement area using standard 10-meter by 10-meter vegetation monitoring plots. Plots were randomly
established within planted portions of the stream restoration and enhancement areas to capture the
heterogeneity of the designed vegetative communities. The plot corners were marked and are
recoverable either through field identification or with the use of a GPS unit. Reference photographs
were taken at the plot origin looking diagonally across the plot to the opposite corner to capture the
same reference photograph locations as the as -built. The final vegetative success criteria will be the
survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor along restored and enhanced reaches at
the end of the seventh year of monitoring (MY7). Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in
each plot by MY7. The interim measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least
260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring (MY5).
The MY6 vegetation survey was completed in August 2019 and resulted in all 26 vegetation plots
meeting the year seven success criteria (210 stems per acre). Overall, the Site's average planted stem
density resulted in 409 stems per acre which is on track to meet the year seven success criteria. In
addition, the average woody stem density of the Site with volunteers included is 640 stems per acre. In
MY6, planted stems heights averaged 8.8 feet which is a 33% increase in height compared to the MY5
stem height average of 6.6 feet. A majority of woody stems (87%) had a vigor rating of 3 or more
indicating that the stem is healthy and likely to survive to MY7. Approximately 10% of the planted
woody vegetation primarily along Norkett Branch Reaches 1 and 2 are shorter than expected for six -
year -old trees. The lower than expected woody growth is likely due to soil fertility and generally
correlates to previously mapped bare areas.
In February 2015 during MY2, supplemental planting added 6,000 stems (37% of the MY1 stem total) on
reaches east of Philadelphia Church Road. The supplemental planting was in response to low stem vigor
of many plots and high bare root mortality between the as -built and MY1 which was attributed to dry
site conditions, soil fertility, scouring flows shortly after installation, insects, and disease. An additional
supplemental planting in MY5 added 400 stems (3% of the MY5 stem total) on portions of Norkett
Branch and UT1 in response to low stem density. In MY6, 50 stems (less than 1% of the MY6 stem total)
were added in areas of poor woody growth documented in MY5. Some of the monitoring plots showed
an increase in planted stem densities in MY2 and MY5 because of the supplemental planting.
Refer to Appendix 3 for vegetation summary tables and raw data tables and Appendix 2 for vegetation
plot photographs, the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) maps, and the vegetation condition
assessment table.
1.2.2 Vegetation Problem Areas
Vegetation within the Site continues to grow as the native riparian buffer develops along project
streams during MY6. In the late winter/early spring of MY4, several areas previously identified as
"Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover" were addressed through a combination of reseeding and the installation
of hugelkultur (hugel) beds. The hugel beds provided additional organic matter and aid in moisture
retention to encourage herbaceous and woody vegetation growth. Hugel bed installation involved the
excavation of small floodplain trenches that were backfilled with organic matter, covered in a mixture of
soil and brush, and planted with live whips, live stakes and seeded. The live stakes and whips were
planted to anchor the beds. As the woody species establish, they help diffuse the energy of out of bank
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL 1-3

events and trap additional organic matter. During MY6, several hugel beds have slightly subsided which
is likely a result of backfilled organic matter breaking down and/or compacting. Planted whips and lives
stakes on the hugel beds were also not as vibrant as previous years.
Isolated pockets of invasive species including cattail (Typha latifolia), Chinaberry tree (Melia azedarach),
Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and parrot feather
(Myriophyllum aquaticum) were observed during MY6, however most pockets are too small to map (less
than 1,000 square feet) and are not impacting planted vegetation. Pockets of parrot feather along
Norkett Branch Reaches 1 and 2 were treated with glyphosate, however this aquatic invasive may
persist in pockets until the streambed becomes fully shaded. Areas of dense groundsel tree (eaccharis
halimifolia); an aggressive coastal plain native evergreen shrub, were mechanically and chemically
treated during MY4. This species is not typically considered a species of high concern for DIMS -required
monitoring; however, portions of the Site were infested with dense thickets of this shrub that were
competing with planted woody and herbaceous vegetation. Therefore, a cut/spray treatment was
applied to these areas with only minor pockets of groundsel re -sprouts observed in MY5 and MY6. The
cut/spray treatment has been successful with only minor pockets of groundsel re -sprouts observed
during MY5 and MY6. Re -sprouts were treated along Norkett Branch Reach 1 during MY6.
Adaptive Management - Vegetation
As warranted, future adaptive management activities may be employed to continue to improve
herbaceous vegetative cover and improve the growth rates of planted woody stems in targeted areas.
Soil amendments will be applied to areas with poor woody growth in early 2020. Areas noted with
invasive plant populations will be treated with herbicide as necessary. If necessary, cut/spray techniques
and/or application of a broadleaf -selective herbicide may be used to control groundsel tree re -sprouts.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
A total of 20 cross -sections were installed along the stream restoration reaches. One permanent cross-
section was installed per 20 bankfull widths along stream restoration reaches, with riffle and pool
sections in proportion to DIMS guidance. Each cross-section was permanently marked with pins to
establish its location. Annual cross-section survey includes points measured at all breaks in slope,
including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. Photographs were taken looking upstream
and downstream at each cross-section. Stream photographs were also taken at 51 permanent
photograph reference points throughout the project area. A reach -wide pebble count was conducted in
all restoration reaches (Norkett Branch Reach 1, Norkett Branch Reach 2, UT1, UT2 Reach 1, UT2 Reach
2, UT2 Reach 3A, and UT2 Reach 313) for classification purposes. A wetted perimeter pebble count was
conducted at each permanent riffle cross-section to characterize the pavement.
Riffle cross -sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little change in bankfull
area, maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. All riffle cross -sections should fall within the
parameters defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type. If any changes do occur, these
changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators
of instability include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding channel banks. Changes in the channel that
indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width -to -depth ratio
in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Substrate materials in the restoration reaches should
indicate a progression towards or the maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller
particles in the pool features.
Morphological surveys for MY6 were conducted in April 2019. All streams within the Site appear stable
and have met the success criteria for MY6. Riffle cross-section dimensions fell within the parameters
defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type (Rosgen 1996) and generally show little
change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, or width -to -depth ratio. During MY6 a decrease in
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL 1-4

bankfull width and area occurred at pool cross-section 10 on UT1. The decrease appears the result of
deposition and continued growth of streambank vegetation. The cross-section will be closely monitored
in subsequent monitoring years. Slight downcutting observed during MY3 on the left channel edge of
riffle cross-section 15 on UT2 Reach 2 exhibited no progression in MY4 through MY6 and appears stable.
In -stream structures used to enhance channel habitat and stability on the outside bank of meander
bends; such as brush toe, are providing stability and habitat as designed. Per the Mitigation Plan
(Wildlands 2013), pattern data will only be completed if there are indicators from the dimensions that
significant geomorphic adjustments indicating a trend toward vertical or lateral instability. No changes
were observed that indicated a change in the radius of curvature or channel belt width; therefore,
pattern data was not collected or included in the MY6 report. Visual assessment during MY6 revealed
little to no eroding banks.
In general, substrate materials in the restoration reaches indicate maintenance of coarser materials in
the riffle features and finer particles in the pool features. Increases in the silt/clay particle size class
observed during MY5 in reachwide counts for Norkett Branch Reach 1, Norkett Branch Reach 2, UT1,
and UT2 Reach 3B as well as riffle 100-counts conducted on Norkett Branch Reach 1 (Cross -sections 5
and 6), Norkett Branch Reach 2 (Cross-section 7), and UT1 (Cross-section 9) have decreased and shifted
toward previous particle size distributions. The decrease appears to be a cyclic fluctuation indicative of
stable streams capable of transporting their sediment load.
Please refer to Appendix 2 for the stream visual assessment tables, the CCPV maps, and stream
reference photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological data and plots.
1.2.4 Stream Problem Areas
In MY5, two isolated areas of bare and scoured stream bank were noted at Stations 103+00 and 132+75
of Norkett Branch. These areas remained stable during MY6 with woody and herbaceous vegetation
regeneration and are currently not considered areas of concern. Trappers with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS) addressed two beaver dams
noted on UT2 Reaches 1 and 2 in March 2019. One additional beaver dam was observed in October
2019 along Norkett Branch Reach. Trappers are in the process of removing beaver at that location. The
Site will be monitored for future beaver activity during subsequent monitoring years.
Adaptive Management - Stream
Wildlands will continue to monitor the streams for potential areas of concern in the upcoming
monitoring year and if necessary, repairs may be implemented. Refer to Appendix 2 for the stream
visual assessment tables, the CCPV maps, reference photographs, and photographs of the stream
problem areas.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
Hydrologic monitoring was accomplished using both manual crest gage readings and In -situ Rugged Troll
100 pressure transducers installed at three surveyed cross -sections throughout the Site (XS6 on Norkett
Branch Reach 2, XS9 on UT1, and XS18 on UT2 Reach 3A). The Onset HOBO rain gage located onsite
malfunctioned throughout 2019. Rainfall data was used from a nearby weather station at the Monroe
Airport (KEQY) (NCCRONOS, 2019). To meet hydrological success criteria, two or more bankfull events
must occur in separate years within the restored reaches by the end of MY7. The success criteria were
met for the project after MY3. During MY6, at least one bankfull or greater event was recorded along
Norkett Branch, UT1, and UT2. Please refer to Appendix 5 for hydrology data.
1.2.6 Water Quality BMPs
Water quality samples were collected during the monitoring period to assess the functionality of the
Step Pool Storm Conveyance BMP (SPSC BMP) and the Pocket Wetland BMP (PW BMP). This sampling is
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL 1-5

not part of the success criteria for the project. However, the following expected rates for pollutant
removal were established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2013) and in accordance with published
rates of removal from similar BMP approaches. The SPSC BMP is expected to provide similar pollutant
removal rates as the published removal rates of a bioretention area with internal water storage
(NCDWQ, 2007), which are 85% TSS removal, 40% TN removal, and 40% TP removal. The PW BMP is
expected to provide 60% TSS removal, 20% TN removal, and 45% TP removal, which is similar to
extended detention wetlands (Center for Watershed Protection, 2000 and United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 2012).
The monitoring plan calls for quarterly sampling; however, samples were unable to be obtained during
Q2 due to the timing and intensity of rain events. Inflow and outflow points were sampled at each BMP
after storm events on 3/26/2019 (Q1) and 8/5/2019 (Q3). First flush style sample bottles were used to
capture stormflow, which filled during the rain event at a pre -determined stage height and were
retrieved within 24 hours. Samples were analyzed for total suspended solids (TSS), phosphorus as total
phosphorus (TP), nitrogen as total nitrogen (TN), Nitrate/Nitrite (NOx), and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN),
by Prism Laboratories Inc. Refer to in Appendix 6 for water quality sampling results and pollutant
removal rates.
The SPSC BMP provided pollutant removal of TN in both sampling events with removal ranging from 35%
to 93%. TP removal ranged from 16% to 94%. TSS was reduced by 84% and 96% in MY6 samples.
A slight increase of 6% in TN was captured during the Q1 sample in the PW BMP and a reduction of 33%
in the Q3 sample. The PW BMP provided pollutant removal of TP in both sampling events ranging from
19% to 31%. TSS was reduced by 94% and 95%.
1.2.7 Wetland Monitoring
A permanent photo station (photo point #16) was established in the stream -to -wetland conversion area
in Norkett Branch Reach 1 near station 104+00 on the left floodplain to visually monitor the wetland.
The former channel area is maintaining wetland hydrology and supports a wetland plant community
composition. The photo point (#16) is included in the Stream Photographs section of Appendix 2.
1.3 Monitoring Year 6 Summary
Overall, the Site has met the required stream, vegetation, and hydrology mitigation success criteria for
MY6. The average planted stem density for the Site is 409 stems per acre and is on track to meet final
density criteria. The MY6 average stem height was 8.8 feet which is a 33% increase from the MY5
average stem height of 6.6 feet. Most vegetation plots already exceed or are on track to meet the 10-
foot average stem height per plot final success criteria. Morphological surveys indicate that the channel
dimensions are stable and functioning as designed. Visual assessment indicates the channels show no
sign of instability within the bed, bank, or engineered structures. All restored channels (Norkett Branch,
UT1, and UT2) each recorded at least one bankfull event during MY6. The hydrological success criteria
for the Site was achieved after MY3. Water quality monitoring results indicate continued pollutant
removal capacity of both storm water BMPs.
Summary information/data related to various project and monitoring elements can be found in the
tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting data can be found in
the Mitigation Plan documents available on the DIMS website. All raw data supporting the tables and
figures in the appendices are available upon request.
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL 1-6

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data collected followed the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). Longitudinal and cross -sectional data were collected using
a total station and were georeferenced to established benchmarks and NC State Plane coordinates.
Morphological surveys were conducted using a total station tied to these geo-referenced (control)
points. Reachwide pebble counts were conducted along each restored reach for channel classification.
Cross-section substrate analyses conducted in each surveyed riffle followed the 100 count wetted
perimeter methodology to characterize pavement. All CCPV mapping was recorded using a Trimble
handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using was Pathfinder and ArcView. Crest gauges
were installed during the baseline monitoring period in surveyed riffle cross -sections and are monitored
quarterly. Hydrology attainment installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the USACE
(2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCEEP Level
2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Center for Watershed Protection, 2000. National Pollutant Removal Performance Database for
Stormwater Treatment Practices, 2nd Edition. Elliot City, Maryland.
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, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Techniques. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf.
North Carolina Retrieval and Observations Network Of the Southeast Database (NCCRONOS), KEQY—
Monroe Airport. 10/18/2019. North Carolina Climate Office.
https://climate.ncsu.edu/cronos/?station=KEQY
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2007. Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual. Retrieved from: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/bmp-ch9
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Basinwide Planning Program, 2008. Yadkin Pee -
Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Retrieved from:
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/basin/vadkinpeedee/2008
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2012. North Carolina 303(d) List - Category 5.
August 24, 2012. Retrieved from:
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=9d45b3b4-d066-4619-82e6-
ea8ea0e01930&groupld=38364
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), 2009. Lower Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP). Retrieved from:
http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/Yadkin Pee Dee RBRP 2009 Final.pdf
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3rd
approx. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2012. Stormwater Wetland Factsheet. Retrieved
from: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/national-menu-best-management-practices-bmps-
stormwater#edu
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. North Carolina Geology. Retrieved from:
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, Northern Florida, and Surrounding Areas
(Draft April 2008). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2013. Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. DIMS, Raleigh,
NC.
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL 3-1

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2014. Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Document
and As -Built Baseline Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 6 Annual Report - FINAL 3-2

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

Fy1 �nr�
(Monroe
t
J
L•_ 1 Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
j L� DMS Targeted Local Watershed
Project Location
,sue-'� �� •!� � �� .. ..•�
Directions:
The Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site is
located in the southeastern portion of Union
County, NC. From Charlotte, NC,
take US-74 south approximately 25 miles to
US-601 in Monroe, NC. Turn right on US-601
South and continue approximately 10.5 miles
and then turn left onto Landsford Road.
Travel approximately 3 miles and take a left
onto Philadelphia Church Road. Travel 2 miles
and cross over UT2 to Norkett Branch. The
project site is located upstream and downstream
of the Philadelphia Church Road stream crossing.
qwv
WIL.TJI.E NDS nkf
ENGINEERING
/ f \
A,/ �,bnYcidam� �� 1
J i ,
03040105081020
`♦\
� 1
The subject project site is an environmental restoration
site of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
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 DMS.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
0 1 2 Mlles DMS Project No. 95360
I i i i I Monitoring Year 6- 2019
Union County, NC

Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Oft Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
0 300 600 Feet DMS Project No. 95360
WILDLANDS , I I I I I
ENGI N EER, NG Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Union County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Mitigation
Credits
Nitrogen
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nutrient
Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
9,196.000
902.000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
As -Built
Existing
Restoration or Restoration
Restoration Footage/
Mitigation
Z
Reach ID
1
Stationing
Footage/
Approach
Equivalent
Z
Acreage
Ratio
Credits (SMU)
Acreage
STREAMS
100+31-117+60
Norkett Branch Reach 1
& 118+60-
1,980 LF
P1
R
2,313
1:1
2313.000
124+00
124+00-131+84
Norkett Branch Reach 2
& 132+25-
1,505 LF
P1
R
1,513
1:1
1513.000
138+99
UT1
200+00-211+98
840 LF
P1
R
1,212
1:1
1212.000
UT2 Reach 1
300+41-310+80
820 LF
P1
R
1,033
1:1
1033.000
310+80-321+71
UT2 Reach 2
& 322+06-
1,272 LF
P1
R
1,416
1:1
1416.000
325+20
UT2 Reach 3A
325+20-335+58
923 LF
P1
R
1,041
1:1
1041.000
UT2 Reach 3B
336+90-343+48
380 LF
P1/2
R
668
1:1
668.000
401+53-411+46
UT2A
& 411+84-
1,296 LF
Ell
Ell
1,340
2.5:1
536.000
415+31
UT3
505+42-507+12
163 LF
Ell
Ell
170
2.5:1
68.000
Upstream of UT3 intermittent
Step Pool Storm
s
SPSC BMP
WQ BMP
29.7 a treated
1:8
238.000
drainage
Conveyance
non -jurisdictional drainage in
PW BMP
eastern Norkett Branch
Pocket Wetland
WQ BMP
19.9 actreated
1:3
60.000 s
floodplain
Pr
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -
Buffer
Upland
Restoration Level
Riparian
(LF)
(acres)
(square feet)
(acres)
Wetland
Restoration
9,196
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
1,510
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
Alternative Mitigation
49.6 ac treated
N/A: notapplicable
1. Stationing based off of centerline as -built alignment which matched with the design alignment.
2. Credits are based off of the as -built thalweg alignment.
3. Credits determined for the BMPs were established in the mitigation plan (2013).

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Activity or Report
Mitigation Plan
Data Collection Complete..Al
July 2012 - October 2012
Completion or Scheduled
July 2013
Final Design - Construction Plans
July 2013 - November 2013
November 2013
Construction
December 2013 -April 2014
April 2014
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal
December 2013 -April 2014
April 2014
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
December 2013 -April 2014
April 2014
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
March 2014 -April 2014
April 2014
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
April 2014 - May 2014
June 2014
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Assessment
October 2014
December 2014
Vegetation Assessment
September 2014
Maintenance and Replanting
October 2014 - February 2015
February 2015
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Assessment
April 2015
December 2015
Vegetation Assessment
September 2015
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Assessment
April 2016
December 2016
Vegetation Assessment
June 2016
Invasive Treatment
July 2016
December 2016
Bank repairs and hugel bed installation in bare areas
March 2017
Spring 2017
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Assessment
August 2017
December 2017
Vegetation Assessment
August 2017
Invasive Treatment
June -July, November 2017
N/A
Supplemental planting
January - March 2018
Spring 2018
Invasive Treatment
June 2018
N/A
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Assessment
June -August 2018
December 2018
Vegetation Assessment
August 2018
Invasive Treatment
March 2019
N/A
Supplemental seeding and planting
February- March 2019
Spring 2019
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Assessment
April -October 2019
December 2019
Vegetation Assessment
August 2019
Beaver Removal
N/A
March - December 2019
Invasive Treatment
October 2019
October 2019
Year 7 Monitoring
2020
December 2020
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
1430 S Mint St. Suite 104
Emily Reinicker, PE, CFM
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.332.7754
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Construction Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Seeding Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, Colfax, NC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Bare Roots
Dykes and Son Nursery, McMinnville, TN
Live Stakes
Foggy Bottom Nursery, Lansing, NC
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kristi Suggs
Monitoring, POC
704.332.7754, ext. 110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Project Name
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
County
Union County
Project Area (acres)
31.6
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Project
Physiographic Province
34°52147.5611N, 80°2219.1911W
Watershed Summary Informati
Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin
Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03040105
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03040105081020
DWQ Sub -basin
03-07-14
Project Drainage Area (acres)
2,034
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
43% forested, 29% managed herbaceous cover, 28% cultivated land
Parameters
Norkett
Branch Reach
1
Norkett
Branch
Reach 2
UT1
UT2
UT2A
UT3
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration'
2,369
1,499
1,198
4,175
1,378
170
Drainage area (acres)
1490
2034
48
457
72
28
Drainage area (sqmi)
2.3
1 3.2
1 0.08
0.72
0.11
0.04
NCDWQ stream identification score
43.75
41.5
32.25
35.75
23;30.75
25.75
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS-V
Morphological Desription (stream type)
P
P
P
P
I
I
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
III
III/IV
II/III
II, IV
IV
I I/ III
Underlying mapped soils
Floodplain Soil Types for Site
Badin channery silt loam
Badin channery silt clay
loam
Cid channery silt
loam
Secrest-Cid
complex
Drainage class
well -drained
well -drained
well -drained
with moderate
shrink-swell
potential
well-drained
Soil Hydric status
N
N
N
Y
Slope
2-8%
2-8%
1-5%
0-3%
FEMA classification
AE AE
N/A I N/A
N/A
N/A
Native vegetation community
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation -
Post -Restoration
­11M Regulatory
Regulation
0%
or
Considerations
Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
X
X
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water
Quality Certification No. 3885.
Waters of the United States - Section 401
X
X
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
X
X
Norkett Branch Mitigation Plan; Wildlands determined "no
effect" on Union County listed endangered species.
Historic Preservation Act
X
X
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter
from SHPO dated 8/20/2012).
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
X
X
CLOMR and LOMR Approved
Essential Fisheries Habitat
I N/A
I N/A
N/A
1. Total stream length does not exclude easement crossings.

Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Frequency
Norkett Branch
Reach 1
Norkett Branch
Reach 2
UTl
UT2 Reach 1
UT2 Reach 2
UT2 Reach 3A
Riffle Cross Section
3
2
1
1
2
1
Pool Cross Section
2
1
1
1
2
1
Annual
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
N/A
N/A
Substrate
Reach Wide (RW) / Riffle (RF)
100 Pebble Count
RW-1, RF-3
RW-1, RF-2
RW-1, RF-1
RW-1, RF-1
RW-1, RF-2
RW-1, RF-1
Annual
Stream Hydrology
Crest Gage
1
1
1 1
Quarterly
Wetland Hydrology
Groundwater Gages
N/A
N/A
Vegetation'
CVS Level 2
26 (Total)
Annual
Visual Assessment
All Streams
y
y
y
y
y
y
Annual
Exotic and nuisance vegetation
Project Boundary
Reference PhotosZ
Photographs
51(Total)
Annual
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Frequency
UT2 Reach 3B
UT3
Storm Water BMPs
Riffle Cross Section
1
N/A
N/A
Annual
Pool Cross Section
1
N/A
N/A
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
N/A
Substrate
Reach Wide (RW) / Riffle (RF)
100 Pebble Count
RW-1, RF-1
N/A
N/A
Annual
Stream Hydrology
Crest Gage
N/A
N/A
N/A
Quarterly
Wetland Hydrology
Groundwater Gages
N/A
N/A
Vegetation'
CVS Level 2
26 (Total)
Annual
Visual Assessment
All Streams
y
y
y
Annual
Exotic and nuisance vegetation
Project Boundary
Reference PhotosZ
Photographs
1 51 (Total)
Annual
'A deviation from the vegetation plot quantity indicated in the Mitigation Plan is due to a smaller than expected planted area.
2Additional reference photo locations were added for site documentation to exceed quantity indicated in the Mitigation Plan.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Key)
0 500 1,000 Feet Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
WILDLANDS , I I I I I
ENGI N EER, NG Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Union County, NC

Conservation Easement __ T� 1>.: n • �. .- yr-��+s �y�:'Csf��°�.'.. .:�.�• ,_ e.i ,� '�:Ye�,� ' .. _. -�
"
Step Pool Storm Conveyance BMP • xP• �,,;�:;%.. '�_" �♦� ,ey. ?,•�-:� t,. SI_+'. •' ?>� is •� � � _ 1
1�� •� - �• � i�` fly �YF
Pocket Wetland BMP - f '� �.,.•_;..�� -[_F' , - 'i;. p ' A b - .+ - '-.r'', }, �.
Structure or Riffle .
Existing Wetlands., r )• :} G y�. W ti P', t� i u4 y ice}`> q•- .�'
Stream Restoration i ,•r �t 'i"i -.- _ ,`ty� �. A'v- 3 �'_,:,t . "!� r'' - - `' ''f -► _ ''
t- '•K.::i:{ `.•T:! ' t •'.'� Brij. 1'
Stream Enhancement II _ _-f - i' 4
--'— Bankfull - Y. _`eNi 'S" .�.:•'••y_'{4 a7 S:'�•
Cross -Section (XS)
Photo Point sr. a I.��. ,;.� . r'�•'`-'};:i�'a. i%•5• .];r -
Z" A � 4 r� • ,
Crest Gage (CG) .t:-.....�. _ •*
y�y�
Beaver Dams Locations -MY6 .rt,; $ � ''t;!T"'.� !�..;. '• .�, `
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY6
.ems• .� ,/5
- Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met ,i,.
17
rt'_ -rToF�-"' rYl'r� .ram ^1=. •fir.'.'
'� _ti _ r•
t/ (!�fi) , ~�_.%�'� /�• T i.. `�
FL. .y � - . � • u' 1► I r k� tss - ��+ci' � � � , J � 4AL'r • .
BMW
— J r •`zfk, ! -~� - •i. may+[ �`i . `'1 .'. j.
Ij
%�,ypYti �?,' t' ,yiy4 , r ."�:.i,, >_ti } �'' ~ ✓tee , � •`�'
IN 110
77
Ir
.� - _ .• - � I.A.. •'!L - r � . 1_'•. •:A' � { r rr. - •: ' , i •� l' -
_.• J ny;: . i'-F'e .".•�- i
qbf�•T ' �i � .`'��L•, �� �ti, yes= r�;r _ k7- '�F;u.. .y: `iq, s. _v - ra• -i, .
:_L :.S' '•:�- y l�. ii r •�,:i,..sr' �.x 'r. .s : i _ L.rN ,.y;
k.
• 7 . T./ r -
_ ,fKW
{. PrI 6,
lw
F
�M
41
�' �� - r �, vy: "��.-rt;._ .y..v) tip.' . r . • ti.. - _ ;, _ '�S', t. - .:1- ;_ , "M•t
a., �,y� `'d1'= } 11. 't . � � +.i : � •�'.' `i�S+'+�. • �' .it 'j.,4 ' �i�r 7f ; � � c.1t - -�iAAr
�'� SY.., ':ti.�. '� - � �'�i .�� � k [ b + • v'�.X ���.. 3i'.�R �;ti� Y .- {- - 1 sY." y�' � L .h`•: -.. P�.il � .'h -
- -off • � c s•�!. �"='i� �h is-: cam•' - `i � "�r�-�ti:�:.,•
.�_'` �r �i'* .� 4--', "_r' ' � /'� " `•L. . �� ems. i •x i�.'.`t '. } i•
Tif
,::
•r
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1 of 6)
0 100 200 Feet Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
WILDLANDS ' I I I I I
ENGINEERING Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Union County, NC

i
1.
L Conservation Easement
Step Pool Storm Conveyance BMP
Pocket Wetland BMP
Structure or Riffle
Existing Wetlands
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement 11
Bankfull
Cross -Section (XS)
Photo Point
Crest Gage (CG)
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY6
Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met
Vegetation Problem Areas - MY6
Chinaberry
Chinese Privet
Japanese Honeysuckle
0-M
-11
.,LRPAN Row
t
sk
n
w
0 100 200 Feet
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING rk If
Ov
Ir
....... .....
zo
'0
/ YJ
­4
X00
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 2 of 6)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Union County, NC

.. '` � _ >f'•.a . :: � �� r �+ ter �•`�, y '_�.
4 _.... MAT CHLINE 130+50 •.� ; 001
i I / /X
• n Y n � � I i r.
ATCHLINE 342+00 x.
J•
_ - --. IF
•%rf 4�� �, •� ! '•-,; - - - �r Conservation Easement
_ "� �fr • . ` f r Q Step Pool Storm Conveyance BMP
m f d� e •. •. •. •:
r ♦ Pocket Wetland BMP
dr
de
Structure or Riffle
Existing Wetlands
uS:J�aJ ' • " ' • • • �. Stream Restoration
a Bankfull
d.cp�`. :Y y . — —tit. ,/' �— it ~ Cross -Section (XS)
MATCHLINE 331+50 Photo Point
Crest Gage (CG)
i 'r h r 1.
� � Rain Gage and Barotroll
i. r.- •� Beaver Dams Locations -MY6
i. • J • ••' j { '''i•a� - v - - - - Vegetation Plot Condition - MY6
i -
;' r ti . r - _ _ _,• Criteria Not Met
�
, 4 , r M .Zn-
,q ; y -'y'� -J� 'i - Criteria Met
Vegetation Problem Areas -MY6
Chinaberry
. 4' ±O ` ® Japanese Honeysuckle
�J
- _ ®Poor Woody Growth
t r ! �. • Supplemental Plantings
MY2 - 2015 (6,000 bare roots)
.f
•' i• '
MYS - 2018 (400 container trees or bare roots)
• •• -� � MY6 - 2019 (50 contatinertrees)
0 100 200 Feet
WILDLANDS
ENGINEEA,NG
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 3 of 6)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Union County, NC

- - Conservation Easement
_ .r •L
/ �,. + a •,�� • Step Pool Storm Conveyance BM P
• 7 mc-
Q�g Pocket Wetland BMP
T�,!Structure or Riffle
_ Existing Wetlands
� } ` [ N • � I `il • � ?� • �! J � ��' ih l ' j � _ •tip ■i�'..:r . tis'.. • _4,/.� g
0 , r•,� ate[ Stream Restoration
.. ~'S, ••;i" -�� !, l f;�� - A ,'-.•_ ` . •k,".� - �. - � . _ ._-y .`,}, ._ •:�;�,.�,ti- � j y _.` : Stream Enhancement II
71
• ♦ i f rxn'r' tis-' 'r �+,r E. --'- Bankfull ■
50
Lki` ` • _ `a ! " r ;�; •�..f ' y �,�C'-.'k .r " Cross -Section (XS)
i y �- � •...r1; ; !f E � • � � f J _ i - _ r_+1- r.- � `-' t; ••. w=�• .. 0 Photo Point
..LYE -.y `_ � •`=+ ��. � , � � .. r • �' _ �• ,. �} `�� � � Crest Gage (CG)
_ f •■ '�. _ _ ►a .;'.� •• Vegetation Plot Condition -MY6 r
:"vr,,,•. }x V€;F �i•__ - •.��. f. Criteria Not Met
y�� 'N _ _ �•► y r Criteria Met
='�+ \ •-Y' `'• - _ - • - �`- ♦ -- �� `� - - = - - - - Vegetation Problem Areas - MY6
'�' -{..�- ":try, =�` `•` -♦ •• _ Poor Woody Growth
11
r$Qy�J• '1 dim O \ •
,$. .y� ;.�w 1 9 wY{'y j��;'' • f � • Q i t• ,,' �\ _ Supplemental Plantings
R■�'' '�•1- c " #� I - '�-�• j ■ v i •• ��_�r _:� MY2 - 2015 (6,000 bare roots)
?• .- �._ ti 'C.•; ", r r '� s+ ��: •• •••��+ ■ � � .�-r � :•♦. •L \ ;� . _ .". �T�.Tt � MY5 - 2018 (400 container trees or bare roots)
�• + j�' � • 3�+I K -*'►" �� •, � _S2 � I - _ ��'' Nh � MY6 - 2019 (50 contatiner trees)
ry. - ::ram`' �_•.R. i... �'r^.i \ •. 7, •�: ,c.�•, t.f s`. ,ti.' -
� - - •' `� .. .ir. " gar-, �• ••4T•:• ••'•'' '•'•. _ ��� f� ♦ '4' _�
i�
• i - �'a
.'ti .�• dash:
F -
.4'.� - -.
G 7
•t - -1 h
tp
'r f`
7
- 1
`J
• �
f
FZ e.
T Y'~
" - 1, ��. "••.':'.'.".""•".'• 1".•.'.".".+'.
+ S' 1
l - -
- i r,
E_
4 _ -
4
mac': .. y .�: '�iti•• "t•..: _
L 1 " '•i• fir'' Yt- �.
-� •-� • • - �� . bra' . �.:
t
�.�'-• -ter. �.i'' ` •T NiC V.
..
� rr
l C
y.
�•.■ , _ 1. _ �.....—.�
1 r • 1
`•
Fe.
+Y•c
S
Y - • �st. •'� ! r 1 r
-
•-.
ep
�?�. y •�•^ 7 . . � • -r 1.- _ + c '' :!- A r .:+. _ r rp.'. , �i•G' .'r ■
• - • •• .• ��., R;�-:�,��_.. •tea.,-
•ti -
Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 4 of 6)
M
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
0 100 200 Feet DS Project No. 95360
WILNDS
E N G 1N EE RI NG Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Union County, NC

,•—'�"��_�/�7 ,��`•�~ r'�i;' i•'�-•�;�;; ..._ 'tea..""` :� ti.•� _ . *'''• - �• z
�-{-
�• - -re�M.,� - - e•/,,. .4.-' ^^-:fir'~ - sx"
�5..' .a - -roc;••:, '---1 r - ..��:%-
�T T rr S :'ram - �7!' .''►'r � -. rs. •'•r. • F7 '� .-� ?,r- �-. l� • r,r. .'�. .
} o-••- '1 .:RBI � } ' .. _ .�� �_ - ..c - - __ N - _ •fir✓ - .•
1 - ti' l.' _e7 r:' . � _ _ •, ..»11�+_ 1 4r ti r � ,• .; z.
k w•.Ky ti ,er:r 7: - r,- : r , �. 3y rr _.a ,G?
J.
Aft
.. ... MATCHLIfVE �� •+5rp �`' ' - - �'�_-. - - ;r �:� - -. ,;;r���;�;_.�`:'.=-'y �•� _-�-: _;w.
}�. � 3 y: - . .,, • ?' t - r�- c���.,:- . ` ram' -..;.. : ice,:. _� - �r
7� f if {'�`�r `' � . �.:'rr � -.lr. ` �' ►Y „ ' ' �;.'.i ; i^ ;�';�-•.- - ._ .A . �, ' .: Y .:� fy '•;Ir�- . - .. -
ri-Si�Y��n
a - 3
--- - - � - --•---•-'--' _+" Vic'• �
'� � Wit: �'•'� _ d;•
t
` .ram � _ _ - - +r. � - _' , • _ •, • - _ �....
103
li � ,,,� • ' r _fir ' ■ r • �....... , iis� ' 4} T ...... J r � '� - y "F • t •w� ETA L4. J
` '� � r � ��A - _ _ • _ L _ � Conservation Easement
.•■ '.` ` �' ^ 1 9 . - - Step Pool Storm Conveyance BMP
• - , -'� `�� e'�r�J `-}I ,�` - -- ;;: = Pocket Wetland BMP
■-.- • -�
■ �•�—•r Structure or Riffle
i �_.•
R1 a •� ........ Existing Wetlands
■ • •• •\ r41. Stream Restoration
,4■ - I rI r.•y '••,- _ '• - - Stream Enhancement II
... :'�� _ S ti .�: � � 0• � ��n. �.1.dd.{� I�l�• •�',. �!... y+�'�.'•.. r. --'— Bankfull
.r'.. 6- Jr►tq "�'� -yvciiu.?S'ts. - :•:�;:._;:i,ri:_vx: •>i: -
..1? - 's . ■ , �: ` ~ r~ r s .kaK .'ti �f: _ _ f'L:J1h{.`'ltr++�: r. - _i . • _ ; -i•�:• - f-;. Cross -Section (XS)
r +• Y r - .:may: E ;3.�c=Xr' .ti.;,tRSr��^.gfi'�`,!iwti Photo Point
77
- : ,. r, u•
,'� .. if j'C•rw " ;F":� `• 1' S`.• 4 Crest Gage (CG)
�k - .� 1.:-:::. ::` r * �dl:':3''=-"... =.«�;,ie'-•�- Sri:',: Vegetation Plot Condition - MY6
{: ��� :�� ' 1 � l � � �� � �. fir. _ � rti- x.. • _ �,trat:: ..j1:.; •'� :` ��d+ � � �:.
;� M1 Criteria Not Met
' �S r � • ■ , i . �^.?'�r. Ili" • •'�_ .��ty ��+• ��..�s ,k
Criteria Met
�14
- •. '; ` , _ •� • � _,- .�. -_.:,_ .. Vegetation Problem Areas -MY6
•■_ .•'.•'•, r ;i,+;- �.�-Y•-.`•'•s; Poor Woody Growth
■ �i! Y �. Supplemental Plantings
, O*x,
f _ k i
�., '� .��'• '� I �, � ` ■, MY2 - 2015 (6,000 bare roots)
r 1 1
, , rl�rrr; ■ 1 I ■ � MYS - 2018 (400 container trees or bare roots)
~ i _ • • • ATCu - MY6 - 2019 (50 contatiner trees)
7 i12+60 ► , ..;
Oft
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 5 of 6)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
0 100 200 Feet DMS Project No. 95360
i i i I Monitoring Year 6- 2019
Union County, NC

• '� �.�. �/fir 1 �`- �� �� , �,�.'• _ ��T� ;�.�
l �~411
fir- f`j• ��f ,
Af
r
t
!
�� ►`� �,_Y ,yam, r
'��� r -
F
r
. j
•mot ..-a � -.1 � � ,' f ~ • �"'
1� ; �
_
1
Oft r
0 100 200 Feet
WILDLANDS , I I I I I
ENGINEEA,NG
•r
Easement Area
Step Pool Storm Conveyance BMP
Pocket Wetland BMP
Structure or Riffle
® Existing Wetlands
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement II
— — Bank -Full
Cross -Section (XS)
Photo Point
Crest Gage (CG)
Beaver Dams Locations - MY6
Water Quality Sampling Location
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY6
- Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met
Vegetation Problem Areas - MY6
Poor Woody Growth
Supplemental Plantings
MY2 - 2015 (6,000 bare roots)
MY5 - 2018 (400 container trees or bare roots)
MY6 - 2019 (50 contatiner trees)
Figure 3.6 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 6 of 6)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Union County, NC

Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Norkett Branch Reach 1- 2,313 LF
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aegradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
17
17
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
16
16
100%
l.Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
16
16
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
17
17
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
17
17
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poorgrowth and/or scour
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
2
2
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
2
2
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Norkett Branch Reach 2 - 1,513 LF
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aegradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
10
10
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
11
11
100%
l.Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
11
11
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
12
12
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
12
12
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poorgrowth and/or scour
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, orcollapse
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
1
1
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Pi
Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
1
1
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
1
1
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT1- 1.212 LF
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aegradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
27
27
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
26
26
100%
l.Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
27
27
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
27
27
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
27
27
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poorgrowth and/or scour
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, orcollapse
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
1
1
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
1
1
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
1
1
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reach 1- 1,033 LF
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aegradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
24
24
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
24
24
100%
l.Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
24
24
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
25
25
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
25
25
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poorgrowth and/or scour
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Pi
Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
2
2
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
2
2
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reach 2 - 1.416 LF
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
31
31
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
31
31
100%
l.Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
33
33
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
34
34
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
34
34
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poorgrowth and/or scour
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, orcollapse
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
100%
100%
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
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
4
4
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
4
4
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
4
4
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reach 3A - 1,041 LF
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
25
25
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
24
24
100%
l.Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
24
24
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
25
25
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
25
25
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poorgrowth and/or scour
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
1
1
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Pi
Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
1
1
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
1
1
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reach 313 - 668 LF
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aegradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
10
10
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
10
10
100%
l.Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
10
10
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
11
11
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
11
11
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poorgrowth and/or scour
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, orcollapse
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
2
2
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
2
2
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Planted Acreage 29.9
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold (acres)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
0
0.0
0%
Low Stem Density Areas'
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, 5, or 7 stem count criteria.
0.1
0
0.0
0%
Total
0
0.0
0%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0
7
3.1
10%
Cumulative Total
7
3.1
10%
Easement Acreage 31.6
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold (SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000
4
0.1
0%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0
0%
'Acreage calculated from vegetation plots monitored for site.

Stream Photographs
Norkett Branch Reach 1
Monitoring Year 6

x 9 � y a a
a
tj
i f J
� - .. �a M_ — 1- ,� ; i.� •.,_ •�'�} � _ 1' - y "iP'- _ _ _ ��Lb„.b�r. �•?, .� � xs "., 4:_ (''�I. .",i z.� .t ,_�.,�C
��o W�'%q
A'
rs �r�.� � � ���'+' ✓A' �1'� q, "� �. "y�.'a°ey�°� a t,�l�t�u F' �Je �3"� � .� .?''
s� � x � "iE, {' fir, < �a a� �, 4 •
- �� ✓r l m �� j'pr d � �" gut 6 �*A g � w1r
_. '� r��.. �'''t. ��f�u1 . 3� :����, �,r��� �,,'.� �. ,. � .. �:{�? � r�.�/'' + •I ,� _ �� Y� �i .'�i"<:1..,., .a a .' `�:� -- �� + V�,`

� h J
• I tiJ�� Y � �� {W�,yL� fit' �' l � L'� ,� I �� �- � `� � � .•�
k 114
a
L
ti
r74
q, Yam`
y F17
d
f
�i-
IC i

Photo Point 7 — looking upstream (0610312019) 1 Photo Point 7 — looking downstream (0610312019) 1
Photo Point 8 — looking upstream (0610312019) 1 Photo Point 8 — looking downstream (0610312019) 1
Photo Point 9 — looking upstream (0610312019) 1Photo Point 9 — looking downstream (0610312019) 1

w
4 p
p. 1
1
44
x/=
t`k I

Stream Photographs
Norkett Branch Reach 2
Monitoring Year 6

i
4 Y
jjj 1
Y1
G�
5
s
S Y
$ s 4 #
A'w4.
of � 4 ��' Ia6 '✓
ic
� o-y
d iN.414 te'
r e
x.' �f1Y'`Ps
MW
L
.n
2��•-
L .... , t •4

Photo Point 14— looking upstream (0610312019) 1 Photo Point 14— looking downstream (0610312019) 1
Photo Point 15 — looking upstream (0611712019) 1 Photo Point 15 — looking downstream (0611712019) 1
Photo Point 16 —Wetland looking upstream (1011412019) 1 Photo Point 16 — Wetland looking downstream (1011412019) 1

Stream Photographs
UT1
Monitoring Year 6

Photo Point 17 — looking upstream (0610312019) 1 Photo Point 17 — looking downstream (0610312019) 1
Photo Point 18 — looking upstream (0610312019) 1 Photo Point 18 — looking downstream (0610312019) 1
Photo Point 19— looking upstream (0610312019) 1Photo Point 19 — looking downstream (0610312019) 1

COW
1
, s
I
�
y
,Y
r
rl
s
� �
'14 r '?Ojr'MF-1
46
K� :y r
v .

Stream Photographs
UT2 Reach 1
Monitoring Year 6

Photo Point 23 — looking upstream (0611712019) 1 Photo Point 23 — looking downstream (0611712019) 1
Photo Point 24— looking upstream (0611712019) 1 Photo Point 24— looking downstream (0611712019) 1
Photo Point 25 — looking upstream (0611712019) 1Photo Point 25 — looking downstream (0611712019) 1

Stream Photographs
UT2 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 6

A--ts���
S � A {� G �l

Ag
:ti
w�4
Y
_ 4
iok
'
+ .1 �� �
- *-�+��� ! 'tom:
� � - �1t __/ - • `-

Stream Photographs
UT2 Reach 3A & UT2 Reach 3B
Monitoring Year 6

Photo Point 32 — looking upstream (0612012019) Photo Point 32 — looking downstream (0612012019)
Photo Point 33 — looking upstream (0612012019) 1 Photo Point 33 — looking downstream (0612012019) 1
Photo Point 34 — looking upstream (0612012019) 1Photo Point 34 — looking downstream (0612012019) 1

um
fw
4
k
vA
r ft
+S-

Photo Point 38— looking upstream (0610312019) 1 Photo Point 38 — looking downstream (0610312019) 1
Photo Point 39 — looking upstream (0610312019) 1 Photo Point 39 — looking downstream (0610312019) 1

Stream Photographs
UT2A
Monitoring Year 6

J,�
r.�
Owl
s
-va i
i!
f
I
I
�
r
Y"
�
y

Photo Point 43 — looking upstream (0612012019) 1 Photo Point 43 — looking downstream (0612012019) 1
Photo Point 44— looking upstream (0612012019) 1 Photo Point 44 — looking downstream (0612012019) 1
Photo Point 45 — looking upstream (0612012019) 1 Photo Point 45 — looking downstream (0612012019) 1

Stream Photographs
UT3
Monitoring Year 6

i
4, AM-
_ �•" ,
ok
"W., �,Pi
4. _; r7 I� ask t r 4 /Y
X' �'l' -6, �,yf s 1 i \ l '� �''�{` t. x� 's� „• r-,_\ 4`t 'se.+ �f / y
AR"-
�- - 14 m
Nk
Photo Point 46 — looking upstream (0610312019) Photo Point 46 — looking downstream (0610312019)
41,
1.5
w
II
Photo Point 47 — looking upstream (0610312019) Photo Point 47 — looking downstream (0610312019)
s�3Er
Lr ?•, s.. r�. [�} i - Y"�yNT S
aft-
L �� �s � a ' Tom[ �D, � �'n "•d � � ' `Y � �i' ' '� � !. ,, r ? „�
J' �' �I�y�.'... �. I l I�R % = ti .._d �_. 1 ,:S'.'�''.-\_.f � ..'�"•�q r/�" �,p,�,r' _ �^ ems..,_

k « ¥:
>�.�

Stream Photographs
BMP Inlet & BMP Outlet
Monitoring Year 6

P� r
t4a, > T-w wM er -F,yam-
VR

Vegetation Photographs
Monitoring Year 6

t
_ rr
rjWC
d V i { SAIr
r r
�,
y+ t
"""A--V.N f", �
H ,
fwa
*04
IP
01
44I j � y i,� "� �. - '� •� 'fit _ !r.'b� � .
s.
J - a
b

�
0
A�FOV
a
2'
���r
Vegetation Plot 7 — (08/05/2019)
Vegetation Plot 8 — (08/05/2019)
z
w
x f.
.!ew'i _
� V
yy ft
r v� r m iy 1
a 19
�..`iYi'•i
1��.».��.P,.a..T ��
4'r9N.S9 25 �-
Vegetation Plot 9 — (08/05/2019)
Vegetation Plot 10 — (08/06/2019)
K.
� E
' u
Vegetation Plot 11— (08/06/2019)
Vegetation Plot 12 — (08/06/2019)

i Yn
tt _
r�. r
1
t IO
l
I
R-
�i� it
° -7
eif�6
r'
�+F
e
�4
+ ' _• _ •4T
s �5
f
I
JR
+� �^
e
p' r
eeY

1
`
4
�W
k
' "_-'
,.., `}<-VTR'
•..."w 7, 4UPWA.-Y,.':�
z
f
r
Al
aPi 1

Areas of Concern

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Plot
MYS Success Criteria Met
Tract Mean
1
Y
100
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y
7
Y
8
Y
9
Y
10
Y
11
Y
12
Y
13
Y
14
Y
15
Y
16
Y
17
Y
18
Y
19
Y
20
Y
21
Y
22
Y
23
Y
24
Y
25
Y
26
Y

Table 9. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Report Prepared By
Ian Eckardt
Date Prepared
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1 MY6.mdb
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02134 Norkett Branch FDP\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 6 (2019)\Vegetation Assessment
9/20/2019 10:10
database name
database location
computer name
IAN-PC
file size
52637696
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
95360
project Name
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Description
River Basin
length(ft)
10706
stream -to -edge width(ft)
50
area(sq m)
127880.66
Required Plots (calculated)
22
Sampled Plots
26

Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Current Plot Data (MY6 2019)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
95360-WEI-0001
95360-WEI-0002
95360-WEI-0003
95360-WEI-0004
95360-WEI-0005
95360-WEI-0006
95360-WEI-0007
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
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
Carya illinoinensis
pecan
Tree
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
Cornusflorida
flowering dogwood
Tree
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon
Tree
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
4
4
5
3
3
3
Hamamelisvirginiana
American witchhazel
Tree
Juniperusvirginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
Pinus rigida
pitch pine
Tree
Pinusstrobus
eastern white pine
Tree
Pinustaeda
loblolly pine
Tree
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5
1 5
5
1 6
6
6
1 7
7
8
8
8
9
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
SaIix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
2
Salixsericea
silky willow
Shrub
Sambucus canadensis
common elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
Sambucus nigra
European black elderberry
Shrub
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
1
Ulmus rubra
slippery elm
Tree
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count
12
12
1 14
13
13
1 17
12
12
16
11
11
14
8
8
8
10
10
16
6
6
6
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
4
1 5
4
4
1 5
4
4
7
3
3
5
1 5
5
5
4
4
6
3
3
3
Stems per ACRE
486
486
1 567
526
526
1 688
486
486
647
445
567
1 324
324
324
405
1 405
1 647
243
243
243
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Planted Stems excluding live stakes
P-all: All planted stems
T: Total stems including volunteers
* Supplemental planting was performed in MY2 (February 2015) included 6,000 stems or approximately 37% of MY1 stem total.
Supplemental planting performed in MY5 (January 2018) included 400 stems or approximately 3% of MY5 stem total. In MY6,
(March 2019) 50 stems or less than 1% of the MY6 stem total were planted in areas of poor woody growth.

Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Current Plot Data (MY6 2019)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
95360-WEI-0008
95360-WEI-0009
95360-WEI-0010
95360-WEI-0011
95360-WEI-0012
95360-WEI-0013
95360-WEI-0014
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
1
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Carya illinoinensis
pecan
Tree
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Cornusflorida
flowering dogwood
Tree
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
5
5
6
2
2
5
2
2
3
6
6
8
1
1
1
2
2
5
3
3
3
Hamamelisvirginiana
American witchhazel
Tree
Juniperusvirginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Pinus rigida
pitch pine
Tree
Pinusstrobus
eastern white pine
Tree
Pinustaeda
loblolly pine
Tree
2
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4
4
1 4
1 6
6
1 7
1 1
1
1 1
1 2
2
1 2
7
7
1 7
3
3
1 3
2
2
1 2
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
SaIix nigra
black willow
Tree
8
1
Salixsericea
silky willow
Shrub
3
Sambucus canadensis
common elderberry
Shrub
Sambucus nigra
European black elderberry
Shrub
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
2
2
2
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
16
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
2
Ulmus rubra
slippery elm
Tree
11
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count
17
17
24
10
1 10
1 31
6
1 6
1 7
8
8
22
10
1 10
10
6
6
23
7
7
8
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
7
7
11
3
3
1 5
5
5
5
2
2
5
4
4
4
3
3
6
4
4
4
Stems per ACRE
688
688
971
405
405
1 1255
243
243
283
324
1 890
405
405
405
243
243
931
283
283
324
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Planted Stems excluding live stakes
P-all: All planted stems
T: Total stems including volunteers
* Supplemental planting was performed in MY2 (February 2015) included 6,000 stems or approximately 37% of MY1 stem total.
Supplemental planting performed in MY5 (January 2018) included 400 stems or approximately 3% of MY5 stem total. In MY6,
(March 2019) 50 stems or less than 1% of the MY6 stem total were planted in areas of poor woody growth.

Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Current Plot Data (MY6 2019)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
95360-WEI-0015
95360-WEI-0016
95360-WEI-0017
95360-WEI-OO1S
95360-WEI-0019
95360-WEI-0020
95360-WEI-0021
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
2
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Carya illinoinensis
pecan
Tree
2
Celtislaevigata
sugarberry
Tree
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Cornus Florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
5
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
Hamamelis virginiana
American witchhazel
Tree
2
2
2
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
5
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
4
3
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
Pinus rigida
pitch pine
Tree
Pinus strobus
eastern white pine
Tree
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
3
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
1 4
1 4
4
1 4
1 4
4
1 4
4
4
4
6
6
6
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
Sambucus canadensis
common elderberry
Shrub
Sambucus nigra
European black elderberry
Shrub
I1
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
8
8
6
3
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
Ulmus rubra
slippery elm
Tree
5
3
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count
10
10
10
6
1 6
14
13
1 13
26
9
1 9
1 9
1 12
1 12
1 35W445
13
13
21
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
11
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.020.02
Species count
5
5
5
4
4
5
5
5
7
4
4
4
7
7
135
5
8
Stems per ACRE
405
405
405
243
243
567
526
526
1052
364
364
364
486
486
1416526
1 526
1 850
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Planted Stems excluding live stakes
P-all: All planted stems
T: Total stems including volunteers
* Supplemental planting was performed in MY2 (February 2015) included 6,000 stems or approximately 37%of MY1 stem total.
Supplemental planting performed in MY5 (January 2018) included 400 stems or approximately 3%of MY5 stem total. In MY6,
(March 2019) 50 stems or less than 1% of the MY6 stem total were planted in areas of poor woody growth.

Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Current Plot Data (MY6 2019)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
95360-WEI-0022
95360-WEI-0023
95360-WEI-0024
95360-WEI-0025
95360-WEI-0026
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
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Carya illinoinensis
pecan
Tree
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
Cornusflorida
flowering dogwood
Tree
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
6
6
7
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
Hamamelisvirginiana
American witchhazel
Tree
Juniperusvirginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
Pinus rigida
pitch pine
Tree
Pinus strobus
eastern white pine
Tree
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
5
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
SaIix nigra
black willow
Tree
Salixsericea
silky willow
Shrub
Sambucus canadensis
common elderberry
Shrub
Sambucus nigra
European black elderberry
Shrub
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
1
Ulmus rubra
slippery elm
Tree
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count
14
14
16
11
11
14
10
10
10
10
10
11
8
8
11
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
1 0.02
Species count
4
4
5
5
5
7
5
5
5
7
7
8
1 3
3
5
Stems per ACRE
567
567
647
445
445
567
405
405
405
405
445
324
324
445
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
Pnol-S: Planted Stems excluding live stakes
P-all: All planted stems
T: Total stems including volunteers
* Supplemental planting was performed in MY2 (February 2015) included 6,000 stems or
approximately 37% of MY1 stem total. Supplemental planting performed in MY5
(January 2018) included 400 stems or approximately 3% of MY5 stem total. In MY6,
(March 2019) 50 stems or less than 1% of the MY6 stem total were planted in areas of
poor woody growth.

Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Annual Summary
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY6 (2019)
MY5 (8/2018)
MY4 (8/2017)
MY3 (6/2016)
MY2 (9/2015)
MY1 (9/2014)
MYO (4/2014)
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
4
4
7
4
4
5
4
4
7
4
4
6
4
4
4
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
4
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
27
27
32
29
29
32
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
25
25
25
32
32
32
Carya illinoinensis
pecan
Tree
2
6
Celtislaevigata
sugarberry
Tree
6
1
1
1
7
7
7
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
6
6
6
11
11
12
10
10
10
12
12
12
14
1 14
14
25
1 25
25
42
1 42
42
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
Cornus Florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
1
1
1
8
8
8
10
10
10
48
48
48
75
75
75
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
5
5
3
2
3
Fraxinuspennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
75
75
93
74
74
83
75
75
83
76
76
82
73
73
75
63
63
63
67
67
67
Hamamelis virginiana
American witchhazel
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
7
7
8
8
8
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
1 5
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
10
10
9
1
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
4
4
4
7
7
7
6
6
6
9
9
16
11
11
11
24
24
24
59
59
59
Pinus rigida
pitch pine
Tree
7
2
Pinus strobus
eastern white pine
Tree
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
9
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
99
99
102
105
105
107
102
102
102
105
105
106
106
106
106
67
67
67
57
57
57
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
18
18
18
36
36
36
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
19
19
24
20
20
20
17
17
17
19
19
19
20
20
20
34
34
34
27
27
27
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
20
20
20
23
23
23
19
19
19
20
20
20
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
12
9
5
7
1
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
3
Sambucus canadensis
common elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1 2
2
3
2
2
2
10
10
11
13
13
13
Sambucus nigra
European black elderberry
Shrub
1
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
42
19
15
17
6
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
4
6
Ulmus rubra
slippery elm
Tree
19
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
I
1
Stem count
263
263
411
284
1 284
1 363
1 271
1 271
1 327
293
293
343
302
1 302
321
346
1 346
347
4471
447
44
size (ares)
26
26
26
26
1 26
26
1 26
size (ACRES)
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
1 0.64
1 0.64
1 0.64
Species count
12
12
25
13
13
20
11
11
21
13
13
18
14
14
19
12
1 12
1 12
1 121
121
12
Stems per ACRE
409
409
640
442
442
565
422
422
509
456
456
534
470
470
500
539
1 539
1 540
1 696
1 6961
69
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Planted Stems excluding live stakes
P-all: All planted stems
T: Total stems including volunteers
* Supplemental planting was performed in MY2 (February 2015) included 6,000 stems or
approximately 37% of MY1 stem total. Supplemental planting performed in MY5
(January 2018) included 400 stems or approximately 3% of MY5 stem total. In MY6,
(March 2019) 50 stems or less than 1% of the MY6 stem total were planted in areas of
poor woody growth.

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 11a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Norkett Branch Reaches 1 and 2
Gage
Norkett
Min
PRE -RESTORATION CONDITION
Branch Reach 1 Norkett Branch
Max Min
Reach 2
Max
I
SpencerCreek
Min
Max
REFERENCE REACHES
111LUTt. Spencer �reekJLUT
Min Max
Richland Creek
Min
ReacAff;.rkett
Max
I
Min
Branch
Rea=
Max
Min
Max
I
Norkett
Min
Branch Reach
AS-BUILT/BASELINE
1 Norkett
Max Min
Branch Rea
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.8
21.5
22.0
29.5
10.7
11.2
7.0
13.3
15.2
22.0
23.0
22.5
26.6
25.6
25.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
35
58
72
85
60
114+
>81
>50
48
>110
61
>115
>200
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.7
1.8
1.4
2.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1.1
1.3
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.8
2.0
Bankfull Max Depth
3.1
3.2
2.3
2.9
2.1
2.6
1.1
1.8
2.1
2.8
2.8
2.6
3.3
3.0
3.3
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft')
n/a
28.1
35.6
40.6
52.8
17.8
19.7
7.7
16.5
17.5
40.6
43.2
38.8
44.6
46.7
50.8
Width/Depth Ratio
5.9
13.0
9.2
21.4
5.8
7.1
6.4
10.1
13.9
11.9
12.2
13.1
16.7
13.0
14.1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.1
4.5
2.9
3.3
5.5
10.2
>11.6
>2.5
2.2
>5.0
2.2
>5.0
>2.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
8.6
0.4
18.4
59.6
7.3
9.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
14
84
19
111
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0036
0.0039
0.0032
0.0120
0.0130
0.0140
0.0183
0.0355
0.0018
0.0120
0.0023
0.0180
0.0000
0.0152
0.0009
0.0163
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
12
88
51
102
Pool Max Depth (ft)
n/a
4.0
4.0
2.9
4.0
3.3
2.5
1.8
2.8
7.8
2.8
7.9
3.3
5.1
3.5
4.8
Pool Spacing (ft)A
62
300
60
300
71.0
19
42
33.0
93.0
29
163
30
170
67
183
98
172
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
38
41
11
27
N/A
35
161
37
168
38
147
38
155
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
11
15
6
16
N/A
40
66
41
69
38
65
40
64
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
n/a
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.3
0.8
2.3
N/A
1.8
3.0
1.8
3.0
1.7
2.4
1.6
2.5
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
46
48
37.7
43
N/A
66
264
69
276
167
263
181
277
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
3.6
3.7
1.6
3.8
N/A
1.6
7.3
1.6
7.3
1.7
5.5
1.5
6.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P'Y/G,Y/S%
SC9'/Sa9l/G9'/C9'/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/4.6/8.7/28.5/64/2048
SC/SC/0.4/21.1/>2048/>2048
---
---
---
0.4/3.6/7.4/52.3/139.4/362
2.6/6.7/13.0/62.6/210.9/>2048
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft Z
n/a
0.41
0.44
0.17
0.38
0.28
0.40
0.27
0.29
0.30
0.32
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
15-25
20-35
15-25
20-35
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
2.3
3.2
0.96
0.01
0.28
2.3
3.2
2.3
3.2
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<I% 1
<I% 1
---
---
---
<1% t
<I% t
<I%'
<I% 1
Rosgen Classification
E4
C/E5
E4
E5
C4/E4
C4
C5
C4
C4/E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.5
4.0
2.5
3.5
4.9
5.4
3.2
3.5
4.1
2.8
3.3
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.9
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
110
140
97
25
29
32
110
140
105
124
130
148
Q-NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation
n/a
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
1,910
1,249
1,910
1,249
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)2
1,980
1,505
---
---
---
2,369
1,499
2,369
1,499
Sinuosity (ft)3
1.10
1.10
2.30
2.50
1.00
1.24
1.20
1.24
1.20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)Z
0.0039
0.0013
0.0046
---
0.0025
0.0036
0.0031
0.0033
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
--
0.0029
0.0034
I No impervious land use is present within the project watershed per the CGIA Land Use Classification data set.
2 Channel Length represented does not include easement breaks.
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
SC: Silt/Clay

Table 11b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT1 and UT2 Reaches 1 and 2
Gage
Min
PRE -RESTORATION CONDITION
UT2 Reach 1
Max Min Max
Min
Max
REFERENCE REACHES
See Table Ila
Min
Min
I Max
UT2
Min
DESIGN
Reach
I
1
Max
UT2 Reach
Min
I
2
Max
UT1
Min
Max
AS BUILT/ BASE'
EL UT2 Rea
Min Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
n/a
2.9
8.2
13.6
7.1
See Table 11a
7.5
8.0
8.0
10.5
9.4
9.0
9.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
6
40
29
53
16.5 >38
>40
>40
136
144
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9
1
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.2
2
1
1.5
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.2
1.1
1.2
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ftZ)
2.6
8.6
7.9
5.1
4.6
4.6
5.3
4.5
4.5
5.2
5.3
Width/Depth Ratio
2.6
8.6
23.4
9.8
12.2
13.9
12.1
24.5
19.8
15.3
17.6
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2
4.9
>7
>8
2.2 1 >5
>5
>5
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.5
2.4
1
1 1.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
Sc
7.3
7.3
20.9
19.5
20.1
27.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
n/a
See Table 11a
---
---
---
7
39
7
34
6
27
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.017
0.054
0.009
0.032
0.006
0.013 0.045
0.01 1 0.032
0.013 1 0.028
0.007
0.044
0.006
0.037
0.009
0.039
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
12
69
11
35
11
45
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.4
1.7
1.3
2.5
0.9
2.6
0.9
2.4
1.0
2.8
1.2
2.5
1.5
2.6
1.5
2.5
Pool Spacing (ft)^
61
295
190
51 F 130
10
56
10
56
10
56
30
58
21
64
22
71
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
n/a
N/A
N/A
N/A
26.9
49.5
See Table 11a
12
55
13
44
13
44
13
49
10
42
12
52
Radius ofCurvature(ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.92
33.39
12
23
13.0
24.0
13
24
14
23
15
21
14
22
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.98
4.73
1.6
3
1.6
3.0
1.6
3
1.3
2.2
1.6
2.2
1.6
2.3
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
83.5
141.4
23
90
24.0
96.0
24
96
61
88
45
92
44
83
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.8
7.01
1.6
7.3
1.6
5.5
1.6
5.5
1.2
4.7
1.0
4.4
1.3
5.4
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d10
SC/SC/SC/SC/0.77/9.38/>2048
SC/SC/7.3/47.7/85.7/>2048
SC/SC/7.3/47.7/85.7/>2048
See Table 11a
SC/1.0/12.7/55.3/90/256
SC/7.1/12.2/28.5/42.9/90
2.4/11.6/20.7/56.1/86.7/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftZ
n/a
0.57
0.82
0.14
0.42
0.38
0.18
0.27
0.27
0.16
0.21
0.23
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
20-35
10-20
15-25
15-25
10-20
15-25
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.08
0.40
0.48
See Table 5a
0.08
0.15
0.22
0.08
0.15
0.22
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1% 1
<I%'
<1% 1
<I% 1
<1% 1
<I% 1
<1% 1
<I% 1
<I% 1
Rosgen Classification
E6
C/E4
E4
C/E6
C/E4
C/E4
C4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.3 1 4.2
1.4
3.4
2.6
2.4
3.2
2.1
1.6
1.9
2.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
12
11
17
12
11
17
10
7
10
11
Q-NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation
n/a
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
840
820
1156
See Table 5a
998
866
1108
998
866
1108
Channel ThalwegLength (ft)Z
840
820
1,272
1,198
1,039
1,440
1,198
1,039
1,440
Sinuosity (ft)3
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.20
1.20
1.30
1.20
1.20
1.30
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)Z
0.15
0.004
0.012
0.010
0.005
0.007
0.011
0.006
0.007
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
i ---
i ---
i 0.011
0.006
0.007
1 No impervious land use is present within the project watershed per the CGIA Land Use Classification data set.
2 Channel Length represented does not include easement breaks.
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
SC: Silt/Clay

Table 11c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reaches 3A and 3B
RE -RESTORATION CONDITION
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
n/a
7.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
24
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth
1.6
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
8.3
Width/Depth Ratio
6.7
Entrenchment Ratio
3.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.3
1.8
D50 (mm)
7.32
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.014
0.025
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
n/a
2
Pool Spacing (ft)A
26
53
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
15
63.4
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
n/a
2
8.45
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC9'/Sa9l/G9'/C9'/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/7.3/47.7/85.7/>2048
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftZ
n/a
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
n/a
0.71
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%t
Rosgen Classification
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
26
33
Q-NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
1184
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)2
1,303
Sinuosity (ft)3
1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)Z
0.009
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
I No impervious land use is present within the project watershed per the CGIA Land Use Classification data set.
2 Channel Length represented does not include easement breaks.
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
SC: Silt/Clay
2EFERENCEREACHES
MTZN
Min Max
See Table 11a
See Table 11a
See Table 11a
See Table 11a
-2 Reach
Min
Max
DESIGN
Min
I Max
9.0
11.0
45+
55+
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.5
6.9
10.8
11.7
11.2
5.0+
5.0+
1.0
1.0
0.011
0.032
0.008
0.017
1.20
3.20
1.50
4.10
12
63
14
77
14
50
18
61
14
27
20
33
1.6
3.0
1.8
3.0
27
108
33
132
1.6
5.5
1.6
5.5
0.29 I 0.23
15 25 12 20
See Table 5a
0.46
0.46
<I% 1
<1% t
C/E4
C/E4
3.7
3.0
26
33
Min
AS BUILT/BASELINE
I Max Min
1Max
10.5
13.9
>200
130
0.7
0.8
1.2
1.6
7.2
11.8
15.3
16.5
>2.2
>2.2
1.0
1.0
32.0
33.4
8
25
13
28
0.010
0.046
0.001
0.024
10
42
32
45
1.77
2.98
2.45
3.32
26
66
38
72
8
37
20
61
14
27
24
31
1.3
2.6
1.7
2.2
58
88
87
105
0.8
3.5
1.4
4.4
22.6/27.4/32/53.7/69.7/128
SC/4.9/13.3/67.2/89.9/128
0.23
0.14
17
10
0.46
0.46
<1% t
<1% t
E4
C4
2.1
1.7
15
20
830
548
830
548
1,038
658
1,038
658
See Table 5a
1.25
1.20
1.25
1.20
0.006
0.004
0.006
0.003
---
---
0.007
0.002

Table 12a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Norkett Branch Reach 1 and 2
Dimension
Base
Cross -Section
MY1
1,
MY2
Norkett
MY3
Branch
MY4
Reach 1
MYS
(Pool)
MY6
MY7
Base
Cross -Section
MY1
2,
MY2
Norkett
MY3
Branch
MY4
Reach 1,
MYS
(Riffle)
MY6
MY7
Base
Cross -Section
MY1
3,
MY2
Norkett
MY3
Branch
MY4
Reach 1,
MYS
(Pool)
MY6
MY7
Base
Cross -Section
MY1
4,
MY2
Norkett
MY3
Branch
MY4
Reach 1,
MYS
(Riffle)
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
466.1
466.1
466.1
466.1
466.1
466.0
465.7
465.8
465.8
465.8
465.8
465.8
465.6
465.6
464.2
464.2
464.2
464.2
464.2
463.9
464.0
464.3
464.3
464.3
464.3
464.3
464.3
464.1
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
466.1
466.1
466.1
466.1
466.1
466.0
465.7
465.8
465.8
465.8
465.8
465.8
465.6
465.6
464.2
464.2
464.2
464.2
464.2
463.9
464.0
464.3
464.3
464.3
464.3
464.3
464.3
464.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
33.2
34.1
34.3
29.1
31.3
28.5
27.4
26.6
23.2
23.4
22.8
21.8
21.7
23.1
26.7
29.2
25.8
24.3
24.8
24.0
26.8
25.1
23.1
26.2
22.4
23.4
23.1
23.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>183
>173
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.6
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.7
1.7
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.7
3.0
2.5
2.6
1.8
2.1
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.6
3.7
3.8
1 3.7
3.6
1 3.6
1 3.3
2.9
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.7
3.9
4.4
1 4.6
5.0
1 5.6
1 4.8
5.2
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftZ)
58.4
68.3
68.7
64.3
61.7
58.4
49.1
42.6
45.5
48.0
44.1
42.6
36.7
38.6
60.3
67.5
62.9
64.9
74.4
60.3
69.4
44.6
47.7
48.8
44.0
45.2
45.0
41.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
18.9
17.1
17.1
13.2
15.9
13.9
15.3
16.7
11.9
11.4
11.8
11.1
12.8
13.8
11.8
12.7
10.6
9.1
8.2
9.5
10.3
14.1
11.1
14.1
11.4
12.1
11.8
13.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
>8
>12
>9
>9
>12
>9
>9
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
>8
>9
>8
>9
>9
>8
>7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio''Z
---
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dimension
Base
Cross -Section
MY1
5,
MY2
Norkett
MY3
Branch
MY4
Reach 1
MYS
(Rifi-
MY6 MY7
Base
Cross -Section
MY1
6,
MY2
Norkett
MY3
Branch
MY4
Reach 2,
MYS
(Riffle
MY6
MY7
_rMM,
Base MY1
MSM
MY2
UMW
MY3
U�
MY4
MYS
MY6 MY7
Base
Cross -Section
MYl
8,
MY2
Norkett
MY3'
Branch
MY4
Reach 2,
MYS
(Pool)
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
461.5
461.5
461.5
461.5
461.5
461.5
461.6
459.9
459.9
459.9
459.9
459.9
459.9
459.9
458.1
458.1
458.1
458.1
458.1
458.1
458.1
457.7
457.7
457.7
457.7
457.7
457.9
457.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
461.5
461.5
461.5
461.5
461.5
461.5
461.6
459.9
459.9
459.9
459.9
459.9
459.9
459.9
458.1
458.1
458.1
458.1
458.1
458.1
458.1
457.7
457.7
457.7
457.7
457.7
457.7
457.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
22.5
23.5
23.3
22.3
24.1
22.8
26.8
25.7
26.0
25.6
25.0
24.3
26.5
25.9
25.6
24.9
25.6
23.2
23.0
24.0
23.8
30.1
26.8
29.1
28.7
30.1
30.8
33.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.4
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.7
2.4
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.6
3.0
2.9
2.7
2.9
2.7
2.8
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.2
3.1
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
2.9
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftZ)
38.8
42.3
40.5
37.4
39.5
36.5
38.4
50.8
52.0
53.4
49.6
48.5
48.5
46.0
46.7
48.7
48.5
44.6
43.3
40.6
40.3
72.5
71.0
73.2
71.5
71.9
72.5
73.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
13.1
13.3
13.2
14.7
14.2
18.7
13.0
13.0
12.3
12.6
12.2
14.5
14.6
14.1
12.7
13.6
12.1
12.3
14.2
14.1
12.5
10.1
11.6
11.5
12.6
13.1
15.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>9
>9
>9
>9
>8
>9
>8
>8
>8
>8
>8
>9
>8
>8
>8
>8
>8
>9
>9
>8
>8
--
--
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio l'Z
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
--
---
---
---
---
---
Prior to MY5, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
Z MY5- MY6 Bank Height Ratio are calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension
parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height.
3 MY3 calculations were adjusted on Cross-section 8 because they were found to omit a portion of the bankfull area.
---: Not Applicable

Table 12b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT1 and UT2 Reaches 1 and 2
Cross -Section
9,
UT1, (Riffle)
Cross -Section
10,
UT1, (Pool)
Cross
-Section
11, UT2
Reach
1, (Pool)
Cross
-Section
12, UT2
Reach
1, (Riffle)
Dimension
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
-.A
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
472.0
472.0
472.0
472.0
472.0
472.0
471.9
471.7
471.7
471.7
471.7
471.7
471.5
471.1
484.1
484.1
484.1
484.1
484.1
484.0
484.0
484.0
484.0
484.0
484.0
484.0
483.7
483.8
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
472.0
472.0
472.0
472.0
472.0
472.0
471.9
471.7
471.7
471.7
471.7
471.7
471.7
471.1
484.1
484.1
484.1
484.1
484.1
484.1
484.0
484.0
484.0
484.0
484.0
484.0
483.7
483.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.5
11.6
11.1
10.2
10.2
9.3
10.9
18.1
15.9
17.3
13.5
11.7
10.4
5.0
10.6
11.1
11.3
12.1
9.1
9.5
7.4
9.4
11.1
9.5
10.8
9.9
7.1
8.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
136
136
138
131
107
130
126
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
144
151
155
147
153
145
147
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.8
2.0
2.1
1.9
2.1
1.9
1.5
1.9
2.0
0.8
1.7
1 1.9
1 1.7
1.6
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.1
0.9
0.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft')
4.5
6.2
6.7
4.0
4.4
4.5
4.6
9.8
14.0
12.7
10.3
12.2
9.8
4.4
7.5
9.4
8.8
6.7
9.1
7.5
6.4
4.5
5.6
5.5
3.9
5.8
2.9
3.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
24.5
21.7
18.5
25.7
23.6
19.1
25.9
33.3
18.0
23.5
17.7
11.2
11.0
5.8
15.2
13.2
14.6
9.0
12.0
8.4
19.8
22.0
16.4
29.6
17.1
17.6
20.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
13.0
11.7
12.4
12.9
10.6
14.0
11.5
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
------
---
---
---
15.2
13.6
16.3
13.6
15.4
20.3
17.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio"'
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
------
L21.9
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
Dimension
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7
Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
477.6
477.6
477.6
477.6
477.6
477.6
477.6
477.5
477.5
477.5
477.5
477.5
477.6
477.4
472.3
472.3
472.3
472.3
472.3
471.9
471.9
472.1
472.1
472.1
472.1
472.1
471.9
471.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
477.6
477.6
477.6
477.6
477.6
477.6
477.6
477.5
477.5
477.5
477.5
477.5
477.6
477.4
472.3
472.3
472.3
472.3
472.3
471.9
471.9
472.1
472.1
472.1
472.1
472.1
472.1
471.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.0
9.5
9.1
8.9
8.2
8.0
8.8
13.9
13.7
14.8
12.9
15.3
12.5
10.3
9.6
10.5
11.5
11.9
11.2
7.6
8.1
9.6
9.4
7.9
9.6
8.6
8.1
9.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>1033
>1083
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.2
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.6
1.5
1.1
1.3
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft')
5.3
7.1
6.4
5.6
5.5
4.8
5.6
11.7
14.1
12.0
11.3
11.6
11.7
9.9
5.2
7.6
8.7
8.8
8.7
5.2
6.4
7.0
8.1
8.1
9.2
8.8
7.0
7.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
15.3
12.8
13.0
14.1
12.4
13.3
13.8
16.4
13.2
18.2
14.7
20.1
13.4
10.8
17.6
14.5
15.4
15.9
14.5
11.0
10.2
13.3
10.9
7.7
10.1
8.4
8.6
10.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>22
>21
>22
>23
>24
>25
>22
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
>15
>19
>17
>17
>18
>14
>13
---
---
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio"'
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
---
---
---
---
---
---
Prior to MY5, Bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed Bankfull elevation.
Z MYS- MY6 Bank Height Ratio are calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters
were calculated based on the current year's low bank height.
3 Entrenchment Ratio (ER) is the floodprone width divided by the Bankfull width. ER in MY5 and MY6 is based on the width of the cross-section, in leiu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in MYO - MY4.
Not Applicable

Table 12c. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reaches 3A and 3B
i
Dimension
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bank -full Elevation (ft)
466.9
466.9
466.9
466.9
466.9
466.6
466.9
466.8
466.8
466.8
466.8
466.8
466.4
466.5
461.2
461.2
461.2
461.2
461.2
461.0
461.0
461.2
461.2
461.2
461.2
461.2
461.2
461.0
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
466.9
466.9
466.9
466.9
466.9
466.9
466.9
466.8
466.8
466.8
466.8
466.8
466.4
466.5
461.2
461.2
461.2
461.2
461.2
461.0
461.0
461.2
461.2
461.2
461.2
461.2
461.2
461.0
Bank -full Width (ft)
10.5
10.9
11.3
10.1
10.2
10.1
11.7
10.5
11.1
10.1
10.5
10.2
9.1
9.5
13.9
12.6
14.3
13.6
13.2
12.9
11.4
14.7
15.0
15.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
13.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
130
130
146
132
135
143
132
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Bank-full Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.1
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.8
1.2
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.2
Bank -full Max Depth (ft)
2.0
2.0
2.2
1 2.1
2.3
1.9
2.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.2
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.7
1 1.6
1.7
1.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.4
Bank -full Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
10.7
12.9
12.1
13.0
13.7
10.7
13.4
7.2
7.6
7.6
9.3
9.5
5.7
6.5
11.8
14.9
14.3
12.6
12.6
11.4
10.9
21.2
22.7
23.0
21.3
21.5
21.2
17.2
Bank -full Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
9.2
10.5
7.8
7.6
9.5
10.2
15.3
16.2
13.6
11.9
11.1
14.7
13.9
16.5
10.6
14.4
14.7
13.7
14.6
11.8
10.2
9.9
10.4
9.8
9.8
10.0
11.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
>19
>18
>9
>19
>16
>22
>21
9.3
10.3
10.2
9.7
10.3
11.0
11.6
--
--
---
---
---
---
---
Bank-full Bank Height Ratiol'Z
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
--
---
---
---
---
---
` Prior to MY5, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
Z MYS- MY6 Bank Height Ratio are calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters
were calculated based on the current year's low bank height.
---: Not Applicable

Table 13a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Norkett Branch Reach 1
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
22.5
26.6
23.1
23.5
23.3
26.2
22.3
22.8
21.8
24.1
21.7
23.1
23.1
26.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>183
>200
>173
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
1.8
1.8
2.1
1.7
2.0
1.7
2.0
1.6
2.0
1.6
2.0
1.4
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth
2.6
3.3
3.0
3.4
2.9
3.4
2.7
3.3
2.9
3.3
2.7
3.2
2.7
3.1
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft')
38.8
44.6
42.3
47.7
40.5
48.8
37.4
44.1
39.5
45.2
36.5
45.0
38.4
41.0
Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
16.7
11.1
13.1
11.4
14.1
11.4
13.2
11.1
14.7
11.8
14.2
13.4
18.7
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratiol"I
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
D50 (mm)
18.4
59.6
13.3
26.9
24.7
90.0
20.9
51.8
4.0
34.3
Silt/Clay
68.0
9.7
37.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
14
84
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0000
0.0152
Pool Length (ft)
12
88
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.3
5.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
67
183
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
38
147
Radius of Curvature (ft)
38
65
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.7
2.4
Meander Wave Length (ft)
167
263
Meander Width Ratio
1.7
5.5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
C5
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,369
Sinuosity (ft)
1.24
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
Ri%/Ru9l/P9'/G%/S%
SC9'/Sa9l/G9'/C9'/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
0.4/3.6/7.4/52.3/139.4/362
1.0/8.0/16.7/50.6/90/1024
0.3/11.0/29.3/121.7/180/1024
SC/0.79/18.4/132.0/214.7/>2048
SC/6.40/11.8/39.8/89.6/180
SC/SC/1.0/56.9/119.3/180
0.3/5.7/9.7/44.7/95.2/128.0
of Reach with Eroding Banks
6%
0%
6%
3%
2%
0%
Prior to MY5, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
Z MYS- MY6 Bank Height Ratio are calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters
were calculated based on the current year's low bank height.

Table 13b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Norkett Branch Reach 2
jab
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bank -full Width (ft)
25.6
25.7
24.9
26.0
25.6
25.6
23.2
25.0
23.0
24.3
24.0
26.5
23.8
25.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.1
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.7
1
1.8
1.7
1.8
Bank -full Max Depth
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.3
3.1
3.6
3.1
3.2
3.1
3.1
3.2
2.9
3.0
Bank -full Cross -sectional Area (ft)
46.7
50.8
48.7
52.0
48.5
53.4
44.6
49.6
43.3
48.5
40.6
48.5
40.3
46.0
Width/Depth Ratiol
13.0
14.1
1 12.7
13.0
12.3
13.6
12.1
12.6
12.2
12.3
14.2
14.5
14.1
14.6
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratiol,21
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
D50 (mm)
7.3
9.9
3.6
12.1
1.0
27.8
4.4
11.0
1.7
5.6
1.7
16.0
11.2
20.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
19
111
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0009
0.0163
Pool Length (ft)
51
102
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.5
4.8
Pool Spacing (ft)
98
172
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
38
155
Radius of Curvature (ft)
40
64
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.6
2.5
Meander Wave Length (ft)
181
277
Meander Width Ratio
1.5
6.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4/E4
C4/E4
C4/E4
C4/E4
C4/E4
C5/E5
C4/E4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,499
Sinuosity (ft)
1.20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
Bank -full Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
Ri%/Ru9l/P9'/G%/S%
SC9'/Sa9l/G9'/C9'/B%/Bed
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
2.6/6.7/13.0/62.6/210.9/>2048
0.3/10.4/15.3/49.1/90/362
4.2/16/24.9/83.4/151.8/362
SC/6.7/17.6/52.6/101.2/256.0
SC/2.95/11.9/56.9/90.8/180
SC/SC/0.6/64/151.8/>2048
SC/6.7/14.9/49.1/81.6/362
of Reach with Eroding Banks
7%
5%
12%
2%
1%
0%
. Prior to MY5, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
Z MYS- MY6 Bank Height Ratio are calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the
cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height.

Table 13c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UTl
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.5
11.6
11.1
10.2
10.2
9.3
10.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
136
136
138
131
107
130
126
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft)
4.5
6.2
6.7
4.0
4.4
4.5
4.6
Width/Depth Ratio
24.5
21.7
18.5
20.8
23.6
19.1
25.9
Entrenchment Ratiol
13.0
11.7
12.4
14.4
10.6
14
11.5
Bank Height Ra tiol,21
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
20.9
48.3
21.9
68.2
8.3
34.5
19.3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
39
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
0.044
Pool Length (ft)
12
69
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.2
2.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
30
58
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
13
49
Radius of Curvature (ft)
14
23
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.3
2.2
Meander Wave Length (ft)
61
88
Meander Width Ratio
1.2
4.7
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
C6
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,198
Sinuosity (ft)
1.20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.011
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.011
Ri%/Ru9l/P9'/G%/S%
SC9'/Sa9l/G9'/C9'/B%/Bed
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
SC/1.0/12.7/55.3/90/256
SC/2.4/9.4/61.2/139.4/256.0
SC/0.1/8.6/82.6/139.4/256
SC/SC/5.6/49.8/107.3/>2048
SC/1.04/8.3/69.2/143/256
SC/SC/SC/61.5/101.2/180
SC/0.5/12.2/43.6/90.0/256.0
of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
` Prior to MY5, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
Z MYS- MY6 Bank Height Ratio are calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height.

Table 13d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reach 1
Min Max
Min Max
Min___7 Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate- Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.4
11.1
9.5
10.8
9.9
7.1
8.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
144
151
155
147
152.9
144.7
147.3
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.1
0.9
0.9
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft)
4.5
5.6
5.5
3.9
5.8
2.9
3.4
Width/Depth Ratio
19.8
22.0
16.4
29.6
17.1
17.6
20.4
Entrenchment Ratio
15.2
13.6
16.3
13.6
15.4
20.3
17.5
Bank Height Ratiol'Z
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
D50 (mm)
19.5
32.0
37.9
49.8
53.7
39.4
42.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
34
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
0.037
Pool Length (ft)
11
35
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.5
2.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
21
64
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
10
42
Radius of Curvature (ft)
15
21
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.6
2.2
Meander Wave Length (ft)
45
92
Meander Width Ratio
1.0
4.4
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
C6
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,039
Sinuosity (ft)
1.20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
Ri%/Ru,Y/P9'/G%/S%
SC9'/Sa9l/G9'/C9'/B%/Bed
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
SC/7.1/12.2/28.5/42.9/90
I SC/12/20.6/58.1/111.2/256
SC/5.6/16.7/57.4/107.3/362
SC/0.25/12.9/69.7/120.7/362.0
SC/SC/SC/52.8/96.6/180
SC/SC/SC/45/103.6/180
SC/SC/1.3/62.0/95.4/128.0
of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
' Prior to MY5, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
Z MYS- MY6 Bank Height Ratio are calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height.

Table 13e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reach 2
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.0
9.6
9.5
10.5
9.1
11.5
8.9
11.9
8.2
11.2
7.6
8.0
8.1
8.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>1033
>200
>1083
>200
Bank -full Mean Depth
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
Bank -full Max Depth
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.6
1.0
1.5
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.3
Bank -full Cross -sectional Area (ft)
5.2
5.3
7.1
7.6
6.4
8.7
5.6
8.8
5.5
8.7
4.8
5.2
5.6
6.4
Width/Depth Ratio
15.3
17.6
12.8
14.5
13.0
15.4
14.1
15.9
12.4
14.5
11.0
13.3
10.2
13.8
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratiol'Z
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
D50 (mm)
20.1
27.4
41.3
50.6
39.0
39.3
35.4
51.4
53.7
68.5
49.3
69.0
54.1
68.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
6
27
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.009
0.039
Pool Length (ft)
11
45
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.5
2.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
22
71
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
12
52
Radius of Curvature (ft)
14
22
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.6
2.3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
44
83
Meander Width Ratio
1.3
5.4
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,440
Sinuosity (ft)
1.30
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
Bank -full Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
Ri%/Ru9l/P9'/G%/S%
SC9'/Sa9l/G9'/C9'/B%/Bed
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
2.4/11.6/20.7/56.1/86.7/180
8.5/20.1/32/90/160.7/512
0.3/18.4/45/119.3/196.6/1024
SC/SC/SC/73.4/118.9/180.0
SC/SC/12.5/71.7/112.2/180
SC/SC/13.3/67.2/120.7/180
SC/0.56/10.6/66.6/99.8/128.0
of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
w w Tom, UdIIK1U11 U!II1 1-11b w­ ­­U UbiIIe d 11- UdIIK1U11 ­V-1-I.
Z MYS- MY6 Bank Height Ratio are calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height.
3 Entrenchment Ratio (ER) is the floodprone width divided by the bankfull width. ER in MY5 and MY6 is based on the width of the cross-section, in leiu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in MYO - MY4.

Table 13f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reach 3A
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.5
11.1
10.1
10.5
10.2
9.1
9.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.2
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft')
7.2
7.6
7.6
9.3
9.5
5.7
6.5
Width/Depth Ratio
15.3
16.2
13.6
11.9
11.1
14.7
13.9
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio"'I
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
0.9
0.9
D50 (mm)
32.0
45.0
25.7
40.8
53.7
28.6
41.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8
25
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.010
0.046
Pool Length (ft)
10
42
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.77
2.98
Pool Spacing (ft)
26
66
Pool Volume (ft),
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
8
37
Radius of Curvature (ft)
14
27
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.3
2.6
Meander Wave Length (ft)
58
88
Meander Width Ratio
0.8
3.5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
658
Sinuosity (ft)
1.20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.002
Ri%/Ru'Y/P,Y/G%/S%
SC9'/Sa9l/G9'/C9'/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
22.6/27.4/32/53.7/69.7/128
16.0/30.3/41.5/87.0/202.4/362.0
6.7/24.8/40.6/116.3/173.3/1024
12.8/27.8/41.3/85.7/128.0/180.0
SC/11/42.5/112.6/>2048/>2048
SC/14.9/28.6/62.6/90/180
2.0/30.4/43.1/96.6/90.0/180
of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
` Prior to MY5, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
Z MYS- MY6 Bank Height Ratio are calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters
were calculated based on the current year's low bank height.

Table 13g. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reach 3B
Min Max Min Max
Min____7 Max
Min I Max
Min____F Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.9
12.6
14.3
13.6
13.2
12.9
11.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
130
130
146
132
135
143
132
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.8
1.2
1.0
0.9
1
0.9
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.6
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft)
11.8
14.9
14.3
12.6
13.2
11.4
10.9
Width/Depth Ratio
16.5
10.6
14.4
14.7
13.7
14.6
11.8
Entrenchment Ratiol
9.3
10.3
10.2
9.7
10.3
11
11.6
Bank Height Ra tiol,21
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
33.4
30.6
68.5
48.3
45
24.2
36
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
13
28
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.001
0.024
Pool Length (ft)
32
45
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.45
3.32
Pool Spacing (ft)
38
72
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
20
61
Radius of Curvature (ft)
24
31
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.7
2.2
Meander Wave Length (ft)
87
105
Meander Width Ratio
1.4
4.4
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
C6
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
658
Sinuosity (ft)
1.20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.002
Ri%/Ru9l/P9'/G%/S%
SC9'/Sa9l/G9'/C9'/B%/Bed
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
SC/4.9/13.3/67.2/89.9/128
SC/4.5/14.8/60.0/98.3/180
SC/0.7/12.7/71.7/128/362
SC/SC/SC/60.4/107.3/180
SC/6.12/19/82.6/151.8/>2048
SC/SC/SC/90/151.8/>2048
SC/11.9/24.9/53.7/107.3/180
of Reach with Eroding Banks
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
' Prior to MY5, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.
Z MYS- MY6 Bank Height Ratio are calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height.

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 1-Norkett Branch Reach 1
108+82 Pool
470
468
466
c
0
464
w
w
462
460
10
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
-MYO (04/2014) -MY1 (10/2014) -MY2 (04/2015) -MY3 (04/2016)
-MY4 (08/2017) -MY5 (07/2018) +MY6 (04/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
49.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
27.4
width (ft)
1.8
mean depth (ft)
3.3
max depth (ft)
29.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.7
hyd radi (ft)
15.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 2-Norkett Branch Reach 1
109+30 Riffle
470
468
466
— ---
———————————
- -----
———
--
c
0
464
v
462
460
30
40 50 60 70 80 90
Width ft
MYO (04/2014)
MY3 (04/2016)
Bankfull
— — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation MY1 (10/2014) MY2 (04/2015)
MY4 (08/2017) MY5 (07/2018) + MY6 (04/2019)
Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
38.6
x-section area (ft.sq.)
23.1
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
2.7
max depth (ft)
24.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.6
hyd radi (ft)
13.8
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
>8.7
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 3-Norkett Branch Reach 1
113+70 Pool
468
466
464
c
0
.01
462
w
w
460
458
-10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
-MYO (04/2014) -MY1 (10/2014) -MY2 (04/2015) -MY3 (04/2016)
-MY4 (08/2017) -MY5 (07/2018) +MY6 (04/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
69.4
x-section area (ft.sq.)
26.8
width (ft)
2.6
mean depth (ft)
5.2
max depth (ft)
29.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.3
hyd radi (ft)
10.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 4-Norkett Branch Reach 1
114+30 Riffle
468
466
c
----------------
464
w
w
462
460
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
MYO (04/2014) - - - MYO Bankful Area Elevation MY1 (10/2014) MY2 (04/2015)
MY3 (04/2016) MY4 (08/2017) MY5 (07/2018) + MY6 (04/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
41.0
x-section area (ft.sq.)
23.5
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
3.1
max depth (ft)
24.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.7
hyd radi (ft)
13.4
width -depth ratio
>173
W flood prone area (ft)
>7.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 5-Norkett Branch Reach 1
122+84 Riffle
466
464
462
c
°
460
w
w
458
456
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
MYO (4/2014) - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation MY1 (10/2014) MY2 (04/2015)
MY3 (04/2016) MY4 (08/2017) MY5 (07/2018) +MY6 (04/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
38.4
x-section area (ft.sq.)
26.8
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.8
max depth (ft)
27.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.4
hyd radi (ft)
18.7
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
>8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
I

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 6-Norkett Branch Reach 2
131+06 Riffle
464
462
-- 460
c
0
458
v
456
454
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
— MYO (04/20/14) — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation MY1 (10/2014) MY2 (04/2015)
MY3 (04/2016) MY4 (08/2017) MY5 (07/2018) + MY6 (04/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
46.0
x-section area (ft.sq.)
25.9
width (ft)
1.8
mean depth (ft)
3.0
max depth (ft)
27.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.7
hyd radi (ft)
14.6
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
>8
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 7-Norkett Branch Reach 2
135+13 Riffle
464
462
460
------- -
- - - -------------
-- - - - - --
- - - - - --
- - -- - --
0 458
w 456
454
452
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Width (ft)
MYO (04/20/14) - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation MY1 (10/2014) MY2 (04/2015)
MY3 (04/2016) MY4 (08/2017) MY5 (07/2018) + MY6 (04/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
40.3
x-section area (ft.sq.)
23.8
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
2.9
max depth (ft)
24.9
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.6
hyd radi (ft)
14.1
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
>8
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 8-Norkett Branch Reach 2
135+73 Pool
462
460
458
c
0
456
v
454
452
50
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Width (ft)
—MYO (04/20/15) MY1 (10/2014) MY2 (04/2015) —MY3 (04/2016)
—MY4 (08/2017) —MY5 (07/2018) +MY6 (04/2019) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
73.3
x-section area (ft.sq.)
33.1
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
4.6
max depth (ft)
35.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.1
hyd radi (ft)
15.0
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 9-UT1
204+08 Riffle
474
473
c 472
0
.m
v
w 471
470
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Width (ft)
MYO (04/2014) — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation MY1 (10/2014) MY2 (04/2015)
MY3 (04/2016) MY4 (08/2017) MY5 (07/2018) +MY6 (04/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.6
x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.9
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
11.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
25.9
width -depth ratio
126.1
W flood prone area (ft)
11.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 10-UT1
204+30 Pool
475
474
473
_ 472
c
0
m 471
>
_v
470
469
468
25
30 35 40 45
Width (ft)
-MYO (04/2014) -MY1 (10/2014) -MY2 (04/2015) -MY3 (04/2016)
-MY4 (08/2017) -MY5 (07/2018) tMY6 (04/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
4.4
x-section area (ft.sq.)
5.0
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
6.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
5.8
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 11-UT2 Reach 1
304+70 Pool
485
484
483
0
v
w 482
481
-20
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Width (ft)
-MYO (04/2014) -MY1 (10/2014) -MY2 (04/2015) -MY3 (04/2016)
-MY4 (08/2017) -MY5 (08/2018) tMY6 (04/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
6.4
x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.4
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
8.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8
hyd radi (ft)
8.4
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 12-UT2 Reach 1
304+92 Riffle
486
485
484
--
---
--—
—
— — — — — ——
v
w
483
482
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Width (ft)
MYO (04/2014) — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation MY1 (10/2014) MY2 (04/2015)
MY3 (04/2016) MY4 (08/2017) MY5 (08/2018) t MY6 (04/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.4
x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.4
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
8.7
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
20.4
width -depth ratio
147.3
W flood prone area (ft)
17.5
entrenchment ratio
0.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 13-UT2 Reach 2
316+66 Riffle
480
479
c 478
0
°J
w 477
-----
I -----
------------
--
----
-----
-----
----- --
476
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Width (ft)
MYO (4/2014) — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation MY1 (10/2014) MY2 (04/2015)
MY3 (04/2016) MY4 (08/2017) MY5 (08/2018) +MY6 (04/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.6
x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.8
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
9.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6
hyd radi (ft)
13.8
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
>22.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 14-UT2 Reach 2
316+98 Pool
479
478
C 477
0
v
w
476
475
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width (ft)
-MYO (04/20/15) -MY1 (10/2014) -MY2 (04/2015) -MY3 (04/2016)
-MY4 (08/2017) -MY5 (08/2018) +MY6 (04/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
9.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.3
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
11.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
10.8
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 15-UT2 Reach 2
316+98 Riffle
474
473
c 472
0
T_m
v
---------
-----
---- -----
---
-----
----------
-----
-----
-----
w 471
470
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Width (ft)
MYO (04/20/14) — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation MY1 (10/2014) MY2 (04/2015)
MY3 (04/2016) MY4 (08/2017) MY5 (08/2018) +MY6 (04/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
6.4
x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.1
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
9.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
10.2
width -depth ratio
>108
W flood prone area (ft)
>13.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 16-UT2 Reach 2
324+55 Pool
473
472
c 471
0
v
w 470
469
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Width (ft)
-MYO (04/20/15) -MY1 (10/2014) -MY2 (04/2015) -MY3 (04/2016)
-MY4 (08/2017) -MY5 (08/2018) +MY6 (04/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
7.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.0
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
10.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
10.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 17-UT2 Reach 3A
332+03 Pool
468
467
466
c
0
465
ATw
464
5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Width (ft)
-MYO (04/2014) -MY1 (10/2014) -MY2 (04/2015) -MY3 (04/2016)
-MY4 (08/2017) -MY5 (06/2018) +MY6 (04/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
13.4
x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.7
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
13.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.0
hyd radi (ft)
10.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 18-UT2 Reach 3A
332+03 Riffle
469
468
467
c
0
°
------ -
- - - --
-
---- - - -
- -- -
--
w
w
466
465
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
Width (ft)
MYO (04/2014) - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation MY1 (10/2014) MY2 (04/2015)
MY3 (04/2016) MY4 (08/2017) MY5 (06/2018) + MY6 (04/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
6.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.5
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
10.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
13.9
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
>21
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 19-UT2 Reach 3B
338+70 Riffle
464
462
------------- -- - ---
----- - - - ---
c
0
w 460
458
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
MYO (04/2014) - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation MY1 (10/2014) MY2 (04/2015)
MY3 (04/2016) MY4 (08/2017) MY5 (06/2018) +MY6 (04/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
10.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.4
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
12.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
11.8
width -depth ratio
132.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Cross -Section 20-UT2 Reach 3B
339+01 Pool
464
462
-------------
0
.@
w 460
458
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
-MYO (04/2014) -MY1 (10/2014) -MY2 (04/2015) -MY3 (04/2016)
-MY4 (08/2017) -MY5 (06/2018) +MY6 (04/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
17.2
x-section area (ft.sq.)
13.9
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
15.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.1
hyd radi (ft)
11.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
11
16
16
16
SQt��
Very fine
0.062
0.125
16
Fine
0.125
0.250
16
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
2
18
Coarse
0.5
1.0
18
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
13
13
13
31
JQ�
0�
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
31
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
31
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
4
35
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
8
10
10
45
Medium
1 8.0
11.0
2
7
9
9
53
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
7
10
10
63
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
1
6
6
69
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
1 6
75
Very Coarse
32
45
9
9
9
84
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
8
92
Small
64
90
2
2
2
94
Small
90
128
6
6
6
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
JLarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
JBeclrock
1 2048
1 >2048
100
Total
s0
51
101
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Dl6 =
0.3
D35 =
5.7
D5o =
9.7
D,, =
44.7
D95 =
95.2
D100 =
128.0
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80
Silt/Clay
( )bble
Sand
--]Gravel
Boulder
Bedrock
e 70
60
j
50
3
E
3 40
u
m 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-04/2014 - MYl-10/2014 - MY2-04/2015 -MY3-04/2016
- MY4-O8/2017 - MY5-06/2018 t MY6-04/2019
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e 70
m
60
a
� 50
R
� 40
3 30
-o
20
v
10
0
b 5p 0 y1 N16 co .�'L ph 6R �O ,yb �p 5� Oti yti .Lb kW 01
O ph p��'� h 1 'L '� 5 ,yO ,tiO �O
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014 ■ MYl-10/2014 ■ MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016 ■ MY4-O8/2017 ■ MY5-06/2018 ■ MY6-04/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
SQ$�0
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
5
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
5
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
5
Fine
4.0
5.6
5
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
8
Medium
8.0
11.0
12
12
20
(jQ'P
Medium
11.0
16.0
12
12
32
Coarse
16.0
22.6
19
19
51
Coarse
22.6
32
15
15
66
Very Coarse
32
45
11
11
77
Very Coarse
45
64
9
9
86
C0�
Small
64
90
10
10
96
Small
90
128
1
1
97
Large
128
180
2
2
99
Large
180
256
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
1 512
1 1024
100
Large/Very Large
1 1024
1 2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048
1 >2048
1
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 2
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
9.9
D35 =
16.9
D50 =
22.2
D80. =
59.2
D95 =
87.0
D100 =1
256.0
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80
0 70
> 60
5 50
E
�j 40
c
a 30
a
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014 MY2-04/2015 -MY3-04/2016
-MY4-08/2017 -MY5-06/2018 tMY6-04/2019
100
90
80
c 70
a
60
a
50
u 40
30
a
v
20
10
0
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 2
Individual Class Percent
°ti by tih o`' ti ti ti�
0 MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014
b ,,p titi ti° � 3ti �� bb oo titi� ��o ��e yeti �titi ti°�b ti°b� boo°
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016 ■ MY4-O8/2017 ■ MY5-06/2018 ■ MY6-04/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 4
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
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
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
4
SQ$YO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
9
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
3
12
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
12
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
12
Fine
4.0
5.6
12
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
16
Medium
8.0
1 11.0
11
11
27
Medium
11.0
16.0
7
7
34
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
37
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
45
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
55
Very Coarse
45
64
13
13
68
Small
64
90
13
13
81
Small
90
128
12
12
93
C0�
Large
128
180
2
2
95
Large
180
256
4
4
99
Small
256
362
99
Small
362
512
99
Medium
512
1024
1
1
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
1 100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
Cross -Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
8.0
D35 =
18.0
D50 =
37.9
D84 =
98.3
D95 =
180.0
D100 =
1024.0
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay d Gravel
abble
80
Co ulder
Bedrock
70
60
>
3
50
E
40
d
u
30
a 20
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—MYO-04/2014—MY1-10/2014 —MY2-04/2015 —MY3-04/2016
—MY4-08/2017 —MY5-06/2018 —a--MY6-04/2019
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
50
N
40
3
30
v
>
20
3
10
0
mti ti5
00 °y
by 5 ti ti o a b o titi '6 0 3ti �' �a �o - 90 5� oti titi tik �� a6
o• ° ti 5 �ti. ti ti ti 3 5 do yo �o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-04/2014
0 MYl-10/2014 0 MY2-04/2015 0 MY3-04/2016 0 MY4-08/2017 0 MY5-06/2018 0 MY6-04/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 5
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
22
22
22
Very fine
0.062
0.125
22
SQ$�0
Fine
0.125
0.250
22
Medium
0.25
0.50
22
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
26
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
28
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
28
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
28
Fine
4.0
5.6
28
Fine
5.6
8.0
28
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
30
Medium
11.0
16.0
12
12
42
Coarse
16.0
22.6
16
16
58
Coarse
22.6
32
13
13
71
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
84
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
89
C0�
Small
64
90
3
3
92
Small
90
128
3
3
95
Large
128
180
3
3
98
Large
180
256
1
1
99
Small
256
362
99
Small
362
512
1
1
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048
1 >2048
1
100
Total
1 102
100
100
Cross -Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 -
12.7
D50 =
19.0
D84 =
44.7
D95 =
126.5
D100 =1
512.0
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
gp
Silt/Clay
Bo
er
Sand
Gravel
00 Cobble
Bedrock
0 70
i 60
M
50
3
E
u 40
u 30
20
o.
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-MYO-04/2014-MY1-10/2014 -MY2-04/2015 -MY3-04/2016
-MY4-08/2017 -MY5-06/2018 tMY6-04/2019
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross -Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
60
a
50
N
m
u 40
3
30
v
20
3
10
0
";1' " .N -O ', ' '& "� '�'L 'yti O,yb Orb O�6
p. Q. y - b
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014 ■ MYl-10/2014 ■ MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016 ■ MY4-08/2017 ■ MY5-06/2018 ■ MY6-04/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
21
23
23
23
S3P
Very fine
0.062
0.125
23
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
3
26
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
1
27
Coarse
0.5
1.0
27
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
5
5
32
JQS
6,
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
32
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
32
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1
33
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
1
4
4
37
Medium
1 8.0
11.0
3
1 1
4
4
41
Medium
11.0
16.0
9
2
11
11
52
Coarse
16.0
22.6
9
1
10
10
62
Coarse
22.6
32
5
4
9
9
71
Very Coarse
32
45
8
3
11
11
82
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
8
8
90
Small
64
90
4
1 3
7
7
97
Small
90
128
1
1
2
2
99
Large
128
180
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
1
1 1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
1 >2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
6.7
D50 =
14.9
D84 =
49.1
D95 =
81.6
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
70
j 60
50
E
u 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01
100
90
80
E 70
v
60
a
� 50
m
u 40
30
v_
2 20
v
10
0
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014 MY2-04/2015 - MY3-04/2016
- MY4-08/2017 - MY5-06/2018 t MY6-04/2019 t MY5-06/2018
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
10000
OOti 1ti5 Otis Oh 1 -1 ,,� D y0 W 11 1C� �,L�o .y'L by rak 00 1.LW 1�0 �y(o ��ti y1ti O,Lb OkW OOb
O O 1 'L b
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014 MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016 ■ MY4-08/2017 ■ MY5-06/2018 ■ MY6-04/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Cross -Section 6
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
4
SQ$�0
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
7
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
15
Very Coarse
1.0
1 2.0
2
2
17
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
17
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
19
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
6
25
Fine
5.6
8.0
11
11
35
Medium
8.0
11.0
14
14
49
Medium
11.0
16.0
19
19
68
Coarse
16.0
22.6
18
18
85
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
91
Very Coarse
32
45
3
3
94
Very Coarse
45
64
3
3
97
C0�
Small
64
90
3
3
100
Small
90
128
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
N
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
102
100
100
Cross -Section 6
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
1.6
D35 =
7.9
D50 =
11.2
D84 =
22.0
D95 =
50.0
D100 =1
90.0
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Cross -Section 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80
SiltlClay
Cobble
Ad M
a d
Gravel
go
Bedrock
a 70
> 60
50
E
u 40
d 30
u
20
o.
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-MYO-04/2014-MY1-10/2014 MY2-04/2015 -MY3-04/2016
- MY4-08/2017 - MY5-06/2018 t MY6-04/2019
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Cross -Section 6
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
50
N
m
u 40
30
v
20
'v
E
10
0
o�ti titi� by oy ti ti tiro a �� w titi tie ti� 3ti a`' �o 0o ytis ycbO ��� �Oti �yti O.ya O�'b 006
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014 ■ MYl-10/2014 ■ MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016 ■ MY4-08/2017 ■ MY5-06/2018 ■MY6-04/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Cross -Section 7
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
SQ$SO
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
Fine
5.6
8.0
6
6
8
Medium
8.0
1 11.0
11
11
20
Medium
11.0
16.0
16
16
36
Coarse
16.0
22.6
21
22
58
Coarse
22.6
32
15
15
73
Very Coarse
32
45
15
15
89
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
94
C0�
Small
64
90
1
1
95
Small
90
128
4
4
99
Large
128
180
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
BEDROCK
Medium
1 512
1 1024
1
100
Large/Very Large
1 1024
1 2048
100
113edrock
1 2048
1 >2048
100
Total
97
100
100
Cross -Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D 16 =
9.9
D35=
15.6
D50=
20.0
D84=
40.6
D95=
91.2
D100 =1
362.0
100
90
80
70
> 60
M
3 50
E
u 40
r_
d 30
d
a. 20
10
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Cross -Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size I
- MYO-04/2014 - MYl-10/2014 - MY2-04/2015 - MY3-04/2016
- MY4-08/2017 - MY5-06/2018 t MY6-04/2019
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Cross -Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
d
70
60
a
�
N
50
m
u
40
3
v
30
'v
20
10
J1
.1A 1_kd.1"A4JiIidL
oyti tiy5
ye op ti ti ti� a 510 tit ti� �� 3ti �� 6a �o ti� �0 5� eti titi tia p �6
ti ti ti ti 3 5 do -p 0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014
■ MYl-10/2014 ■ MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016 ■ MY4-08/2017 ■ MY5-06/2018 ■ MY6-04/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT3, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
31
32
32
32
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
33
SQt��
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
1
34
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
1
35
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
1
3
3
38
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
5
5
43
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
43
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
43
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1
44
Fine
5.6
8.0
44
JQS
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
4
48
GQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
1
7
7
55
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
1
9
9
64
Coarse
22.6
32
8
2
10
10
74
Very Coarse
32
45
8
3
11
11
85
Very Coarse
45
64
4
3
7
7
92
Small
64
90
2
1
3
3
95
Small
90
128
3
3
3
98
Large
128
180
1
1
1
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
1 >2048
1
1
100
Totall
s0
I so
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.5
Dso =
12.2
D. =
43.6
D95 =
90.0
D100 =
256.0
UT1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
bble ) I
Gravel
80
�a�d,
7u��ler
Bedrock
70
e
j 60
3 50
E
40
�?
m 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-04/2014 - MYl-10/2014 - MY2-04/2015 - MY3-04/2016
- MY4-O8/2017 - MY5-06/2018 t MY6-04/2019 t MY6-04/2019
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
m
a
� 50
R
40
�
3
30
-o
20
v
� 10
0
oti tih ti5
5 ti ti ro a o ro titi do �ti o-y oo y� �0 50
ti ti ti
oti titi tia do k� koa,
5
� do
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014 ■ MYl-10/2014 ■ MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016 ■ MY4-O8/2017 ■ MY5-06/2018 ■ MY6-04/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT1, Cross -Section 9
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
SQ$�0
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
(jQ'P
Fine
5.6
8.0
10
10
11
Medium
8.0
11.0
11
11
22
Medium
11.0
16.0
16
16
38
Coarse
16.0
22.6
22
22
60
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
68
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
80
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
87
Small
64
90
10
10
97
C0�
Small
90
128
1
1
98
Large
128
180
98
Large
180
256
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
1
1
1100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
9.2
D35 =
14.9
D50 =
19.3
D80. =
55.0
D95 =
84.1
D100 =1
256.0
100
90
80
0 70
> 60
5 50
E
�j 40
a� 30
a 20
10
0
0.01
UT1, Cross -Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Silt/Clay-
Boulder
Sand
Gravel
obble
Bedrock
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014 MY2-04/2015 - MY3-04/2016
MY4-08/2017 - MY5-06/2018 t MY6-04/2019
UT1, Cross -Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
a
70
60
a
50
u
40
a
30
v
20
10
A
�i ii L
I I J
I I hild�L w,
0
Of.- yp by Oh 'L ti
,L4 b 5� 4 y'v y� , 6 ,y�'L �5 �b �o ,ti�b �O �'L ,1'L ,Lb 0�o
ti ti ti0 p 3 5
o. o. o
ti do -p 0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0
MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014
MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016 ■ MY4-O8/2017 ■ MY5-06/2018 ■ MY6-04/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reach 1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
45
48
48
48
Very fine
0.062
0.125
48
Fine
0.125
0.250
48
Medium
0.25
0.50
48
SQt��
Coarse
0.5
1.0
48
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
3
5
5
53
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
53
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
53
JQ�
GQP
Fine
4.0
5.6
53
Fine
5.6
8.0
53
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
2
55
Medium
11.0
16.0
55
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
2
57
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
6
63
Very Coarse
32
45
10
1
11
11
74
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
11
85
Small
64
90
8
1
9
9
94
Small
90
128
6
6
6
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
La rge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
so
so
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
1.3
D. =
62.0
D95 =
95.4
D100=
128.0
UT2 Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
gp
Silt/Clay
u
er
a
d
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
e 70
j 60
3 50
�? 40
m
30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
— MYO-04/2014 — MYl-10/2014 — MY2-04/2015 — MY3-04/2016
— MY4-O8/2017 — MYS-06/2018 --o— MY6-04/2019 --o— MY6-04/2019
UT2 Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
m
a
� 50
R
40
�
3 30
-o
20
v
10
0
4 �'L titi nti p 0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014 ■ MYl-10/2014 ■ MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016 ■ MY4-O8/2017 ■ MY5-06/2018 ■ MY6-04/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reach 1, Cross -Section 12
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
3
3
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
SQ$�0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
JF�
(jQ'P
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
6
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
14
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
7
21
Coarse
22.6
32
17
17
38
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
52
Very Coarse
45
64
17
17
69
Small
64
90
13
13
82
Small
90
128
12
12
94
C0�
Large
128
180
6
6
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
1 100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
1 >2048
1 100
Total
100
100
1 100
Cross -Section 12
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
17.7
D35 =
30.1
D50 =
42.9
D84 =
95.4
D95 =
135.5
D100 =
180.0
UT2 Reach 1, Cross -Section 12
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 SilUClay a d Gravel
80
Cobble I er
Bedrock
0
70
60
5
50
-
E
i?
40
a
u
30
a
20
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-04/2014 MY1-10/2014 MY2-04/2015 - MY3-04/2016
- MY4-08/2017 - MY5-06/2018 --e-- MY6-04/2019 } MY6-04/2019
UT2 Reach 1, Cross -Section 12
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
a
70
60
a
a
50
ij
40
30
a
>
20
v
10
LA
0
g p ti5
00 °y °• ° ti
5 �ti. ti ti ti 3 5 do do ao
Particle Class Size (mm)
0
MYO-04/2014 MY1-10/2014
MY2-04/2015 0 MY3-04/2016 0 MY4-08/2017 0 MY5-06/2018 0 MY6-04/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reach 2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
34
34
34
34
SQt��
Very fine
0.062
0.125
34
Fine
0.125
0.250
34
Medium
0.25
0.50
34
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
4
38
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
7
8
8
46
JQ�
6,
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
46
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
46
Fine
4.0
5.6
46
Fine
5.6
8.0
46
Medium
1 8.0
11.0
4
4
4
51
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
3
54
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
1
5
5
59
Coarse
22.6
32
6
1
7
7
66
Very Coarse
32
45
9
9
9
75
Very Coarse
45
64
7
1
8
1 8
83
Small
64
90
9
1
10
10
93
Small
90
128
6
1
7
7
100
Large
128
180
1
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
1 362
512
11
100
Medium
1 512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1 1024
1 2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048
1 >2048
100
Totall
50
1 49
99
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.6
1350 =
10.6
D. =
66.6
1395 =
99.8
13100 =
128.0
UT2 Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80
e 70
j 60
3 50
E
�? 40
m 30
u
a 20
10
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-04/2014 - MYl-10/2014 - MY2-04/2015 - MY3-04/2016
- MY4-O8/2017 - MY5-06/2018 � MY6-04/2019
UT2 Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
E 70
m
60
a
�n 50
R
� 40
3 30
-o
20
v
10
0
°Oeti ti5 ti5 py ti ti tiw a 5� w titi ti� �ti o- a° ti� . w° �° eti titi tia kw a°
p1 p�ti" h y ti 'h h ,LO .LO QO
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014 ■ MYl-10/2014 ■ MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016 ■ MY4-O8/2017 ■ MY5-06/2018 ■ MY6-04/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reach 2, Cross -Section 13
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
3
3
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
SQ$SO
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
7
6
9
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
9
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
9
Fine
4.0
5.6
9
Fine
5.6
8.0
9
Medium
8.0
11.0
9
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
5
14
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
5
20
Coarse
22.6
32
7
6
26
Very Coarse
32
45
16
14
40
Very Coarse
45
64
21
19
59
C0�
Small
64
90
24
21
80
Small
90
128
15
13
94
Large
128
180
5
4
98
Large
180
256
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1 1024
1 2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048
1 >2048
100
Total
112
100
100
Cross -Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
17.9
D35=
39.8
D50=
54.1
D84=
99.0
D95=
140.8
D100 =
1 256.0
UT2 Reach 2, Cross -Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay and Gravel
obble Bo I er
gp Bedrock
0 70
> 60
3 50
E
u 40
30
u
d
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-04/2014 - MYl-10/2014 - MY2-04/2015 - MY3-04/2016
- MY4-08/2017 - MY5-06/2018 t MY6-04/2019
UT2 Reach 2, Cross -Section 13
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
w
60
a
N 50
m
u 40
3
30
v
20
'v
10
0
O�ti yti5 by O� 1 'L ,L� b ��o 'b cO ,ti'b ,p 5� bti titi ,yb �°u �6
ti ti ti 3 5
do ,yo ao
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014 ■ MYl-10/2014 ■ MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016 ■ MY4-08/2017 ■ MY5-06/2018 ■ MY6-04/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reach 2, Cross -Section 15
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
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
SQ$�0
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
5
7
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
7
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
7
Fine
4.0
5.6
7
Fine
5.6
8.0
7
Medium
8.0
11.0
7
(jQ'P
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
13
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
14
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
20
Very Coarse
32
45
9
9
29
Very Coarse
45
64
16
16
45
C0�
Small
64
90
31
31
75
Small
90
128
10
10
85
Large
128
180
12
12
97
Large
180
256
3
3
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
1 512
1 1024
1
Large/Very Large
1 1024
1 2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048
1 >2048
100
Total
101
100
100
Cross -Section 15
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
25.6
D35 -
51.8
D50 =
68.0
D80. =
122.9
D95 =
169.8
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
0 70
> 60
5 50
E
�j 40
c
a 30
a
a 20
10
UT2 Reach 2, Cross -Section 15
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014 MY2-04/2015 - MY3-04/2016
- MY4-O8/2017 - MY5-06/2018 t MY6-04/2019
100
90
80
c 70
a
60
a
50
u 40
30
a
v
20
10
0
°ti by tih o`' ti ti ti�
0 MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014
UT2 Reach 2, Cross -Section 15
Individual Class Percent
b ,,p titi ti° � 3ti �� bb oo titi� ��o ��e yeti �titi ti°�b ti°b� boo°
Particle Class Size (mm)
MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016 ■ MY4-O8/2017 ■ MY5-06/2018 ■ MY6-04/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reach 3A, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
13
13
13
13
SQt��
Very fine
0.062
0.125
13
Fine
0.125
0.250
13
Medium
0.25
0.50
13
Coarse
0.5
1.0
13
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
3
3
16
JQ�
GQP
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
16
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
16
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
16
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
17
Medium
8.0
11.0
1 1
1
1
18
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
4
4
22
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
5
7
7
29
Coarse
22.6
32
2
5
7
7
36
Very Coarse
32
45
12
4
16
1 16
52
Very Coarse
45
64
11
6
17
17
69
Small
64
90
7
5
12
12
81
Small
90
128
12
3
15
15
96
Large
128
180
2
2
4
4
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
1
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
JBedrock
2048
1 >2048
100
Total
s0
so
100
1 100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D 16 =
2.0
D35 =
30.4
D50=
43.1
D,,=
96.6
D95 =
90.0
D100 =
180.0
UT2 Reach 3A, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
gp
e 70
60
Silt/Clay
Sand
avel
obble
Boulder
Bedrock
j
3 50
E
�? 40
m 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-04/2014 - MYl-10/2014 - MY2-04/2015 -MY3-04/2016
- MY4-O8/2017 - MY5-06/2018 t MY6-04/2019
UT2 Reach 3A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
w
60
a
50
�n
R
40
u
3
-o
30
>
v
20
10
0
0 oy
ti5o
otiti' ti ti 3 5 10 ,yo ao
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014
■ MYl-10/2014 ■ MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016 ■ MY4-O8/2017 ■ MY5-06/2018 ■ MY6-04/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reach 3A, Cross -Section 18
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Veryfine
0.062
0.125
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
SQ$�0
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
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
4
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
8
(jQ'P
Medium
11.0
16.0
10
10
18
Coarse
16.0
22.6
9
9
27
Coarse
22.6
32
15
15
42
Very Coarse
32
45
11
11
53
Very Coarse
45
64
17
17
70
C0�
Small
64
90
19
19
89
Small
90
128
11
11
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 18
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
14.8
D35 -
27.2
D50 =
41.0
D80. =
82.3
D95 =
109.1
D100 =
128.0
UT2 Reach 3A, Cross -Section 18
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80
70
> 60
5 50
E
ij 40
c
a 30
a
a 20
10
0 ,I 1 I i.q- I I I I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-04/2014 - MYl-10/2014 - MY2-04/2015 - MY3-04/2016
- MY4-08/2017 - MY5-06/2018 t MY6-04/2019
UT2 Reach 3A, Cross -Section 18
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c 70
v
60
a
50
N
m
u 40
30
v
20
3
10
0
o�ti titi5 tih o' ti ti ti� a 5e 1b titi do �� 3ti �� ba co ti� �0 5� eti titi ti� �w ,
'l, ti ti ti 3 5 y0 _ 01
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014 ■ MYl-10/2014 ■ MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016 ■ MY4-08/2017 ■ MY5-06/2018 ■ MY6-04/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reach 313, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
23
25
25
25
SQt��
Very fine
0.062
0.125
25
Fine
0.125
0.250
25
Medium
0.25
0.50
5
5
5
30
Coarse
0.5
1.0
30
lVery Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
2
32
JQ�
6,
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
32
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
32
Fine
4.0
5.6
32
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
33
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
34
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
1
5
5
39
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
6
45
Coarse
22.6
32
10
8
18
18
63
Very Coarse
32
45
10
7
17
17
80
Very Coarse
45
64
6
2
1 8
8
88
Small
64
90
3
2
5
5
93
Small
90
128
4
4
4
97
Large
128
180
1
2
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
1
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
1 2048
100
BEDROCK
JBedrock
1 2048
1 >2048
100
Total
SO
SO
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
11.9
D50 =
24.9
D. =
53.7
D95 =
107.3
13100 =
180.0
100
90
80
e 70
j 60
3 50
E
�? 40
m 30
u
a 20
10
0 +__
0.01
100
90
80
E 70
m
60
a
� 50
R
� 40
3 30
-o
20
v
10
0
UT2 Reach 313, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-04/2014 - MYl-10/2014 MY2-04/2015 - MY3-04/2016
- MY4-O8/2017 - MY5-06/2018 - � MY6-04/2019
UT2 Reach 313, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
�ti ti5 by pg ti ti tiro a 5� w titi ti� � �ti a`' �k �o ,yw �o �� eti titi tia kw ��
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014 ■ MYl-10/2014 ■ MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016 ■ MY4-O8/2017 ■ MY5-06/2018 ■ MY6-04/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
UT2 Reach 3B, Cross -Section 19
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
SQ$SO
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
5
5
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
5
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
5
Fine
4.0
5.6
5
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
Medium
8.0
11.0
14
13
17
fjQP
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
21
Coarse
16.0
22.6
11
10
31
Coarse
22.6
32
16
15
46
Very Coarse
32
45
13
12
58
Very Coarse
45
64
22
20
78
C0�
Small
64
90
11
10
88
Small
90
128
11
10
98
Large
128
180
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
1 512
1 1024
100
BEDROCK
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
109
100
100
Cross -Section 19
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
10.6
D35 =
24.7
D50 =
36.0
D84 =
78.4
D95 =
114.6
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
�^ 70
> 60
M
3 50
E
u 40
aa) 30
u
a 20
10
0 +_
0.01
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
50
N
m
u 40
30
v
'v
20
10
0
UT2 Reach 313, Cross -Section 19
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-04/2014 - MYl-10/2014 - MY2-04/2015 - MY3-04/2016
- MY4-08/2017 - MY5-06/2018 MY6-04/2019
UT2 Reach 313, Cross -Section 19
Individual Class Percent
10000
O�ti yy5 tit, 1 1L ,L� 11 11d 4 cO ti_b q�O 5� bti titi ,LP �°u
o5 ti ti ti 3 5 do do ao
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-04/2014 0 MYl-10/2014 0 MY2-04/2015 0 MY3-04/2016 0 MY4-08/2017 0 MY5-06/2018 0 MY6-04/2019

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Data

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Monitoring Year
Reach
Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence
Method
UT2 Reach 3A (CG #1 XS18)
6/3/2014
5/30/2014
Stream Gage
9/4/2014
7/21/2014
Stream Gage
10/17/2014
9/16/2014
Wrack Line
MY1
UT1 (CG #2 XS9)
6/3/2014
5/30/2014
Stream Gage
9/4/2014
7/21/2014
Stream Gage
Norkett Branch Reach 2 (CG #3 XS6)
6/3/2014
5/30/2014
Stream Gage
9/4/2014
7/21/2014
Stream Gage
10/17/2014
9/16/2014
Stream Gage
MY2
UT2 Reach 3A (CG #1 XS18)
1/4/2015
1/4/2015
Stream Gage
1/12/2015
1/12/2015
Stream Gage
2/26/2015
2/26/2015
Stream Gage
3/5/2015
3/5/2015
Stream Gage
4/19/2015
4/19/2015
Stream Gage
10/3/2015
10/3/2015
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
Norkett Branch Reach 2 (CG #3 XS6)
1/4/2015
1/4/2015
Stream Gage
1/12/2015
1/12/2015
Stream Gage
2/26/2015
2/26/2015
Stream Gage
3/5/2015
3/5/2015
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
4/19/2015
4/19/2015
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
10/3/2015
10/3/2015
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
MY3
UT2 Reach 3A (CG #1 XS18)
2/3/2016
2/3/2016
Stream Gage
2/16/2016
2/16/2016
Stream Gage
2/24/2016
2/24/2016
Stream Gage
3/28/2016
3/28/2016
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
10/8/2016
10/8/2016
Stream Gage
UT1 (CG #2 XS9)
4/22/2016
Unknown
Crest Gage
10/8/2016
10/8/2016
Stream Gage
Norkett Branch Reach 2 (CG #3 XS6)
2/3/2016
2/3/2016
Stream Gage
2/16/2016
2/16/2016
Stream Gage
2/24/2016
2/24/2016
Stream Gage
3/28/2016
3/28/2016
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
10/8/2016
10/8/2016
Stream Gage
MY4
UT2 Reach 3A (CG #1 XS18)
1/22/2017
1/22/2017
Stream Gage
4/24/2017
4/24/2017
Stream Gage
5/22/2017
5/22/2017
Stream Gage
5/24/2017
5/24/2017
Stream Gage
6/20/2017
6/20/2017
Stream Gage
6/29/2017
Unknown
Crest Gage
Norkett Branch Reach 2 (CG #3 XS6)
1/23/2017
1/23/2017
Stream Gage
5/24/2017
5/24/2017
Stream Gage
MY5
UT2 Reach 3A (CG #1 XS18)
2/4/2018
2/4/2018
Stream Gage
2/7/2018
2/7/2018
Stream Gage
3/12/2018
3/12/2018
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
4/24/2018
4/24/2018
Stream Gage
5/24/2018
5/24/2018
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
9/16/2018
9/16/2018
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
UT1(CG #2 XS9)
5/24/2018
5/24/2018
Stream Gage
9/16/2018'
9/16/2018'
Stream Gage
9/16/2018'
9/16/2018'
Stream Gage
Norkett Branch Reach 2 (CG #3 XS6)
2/4/2018
2/4/2018
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
4/24/2018
4/24/2018
Stream Gage
5/24/2018
5/24/2018
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
9/16/2018
9/16/2018
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
MY6
UT2 Reach 3A (CG #1 XS18)
3/7/2019
Unknown
Crest Gage
UT1 (CG #2 XS9)
3/7/2019
Unknown
Crest Gage
6/3/2019
5/4/2019
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
Norkett Branch Reach 2 (CG #3 XS6)
3/7/2019
Unknown
Crest Gage
6/3/2019
5/4/2019
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
' Two bankfull events were recorded on UT1 when the site received more than 5 inches of rain from the remnants of Hurricane Florence (9/16/18).

Recorded In -stream Flow Events
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Norkett Branch : Stream Gage for UT2 Reach 3A (XS18 - CG #1)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
2.0
4.0
3.5
1.0
3.0
0.0
2.5
No data reported before
-1.0
2.0
3/14/2019 due to
malfunctioning Baratroll. malfunctioning
3
z
1.5
-z.o
1.0
-3.0
0.5
-4.0
to CL > u
0.0
u
^
ii Q S Q v� O z
Rainfall UT2 Reach 3A (X518 - CG #1) Water Depth — • Bankfull

Recorded In -stream Flow Events
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Norkett Branch : Stream Gage for UT1 (XS9 - CG #2)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
2.0
1.0
0.0
. — . —
. —
No
data reported
before
3/14/2019 due
to
-1.0
malfunctioning
Baratroll.
d
m
3
-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
CL V
v0 O
Rainfall UT1 (XS9 - CG #2) Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — - • Bankfull
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 7
c
z
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
> u
z

Recorded In -stream Flow Events
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Norkett Branch : Stream Gage forNorkett Branch Reach 2 (XS6 - CG #3)
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
2.0
1.0
0.0
. — . — . — .
— . — . — . — .
— . —
x
d
-1.0
d
m
3
-2.0
No data reported
3/14/2019 due
before
to
malfunctioning Baratroll.
-3.0
-4.0
CL u
va) O
Rainfall Norkett Branch Reach 2 (X56 - CG #3) Water Depth — • • Bankfull
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 7
c
z
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
> u
Z �

APPENDIX 6. Water Quality BMPs

Table 15. Water Quality Sampling Results
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Monitoring Year
Location
Sample Collection
Date
TN
(mg/L)
NOx
(mg/L)
TKN
(mg/L)
TIP
(mg/L)
TSS
(mg/L)
FC
(CFU/100mL)
Conductivity
(µS/cm)
Temp°C
pH
SPSC BMP Inlet
4/22/2014
(Baseflow)
1.1
0.2
0.9
0.4
16.0
31
151.0
21.4
7.0
SPSC BMP Outlet
0.9
DL
0.9
0.5
25.0
11
127.6
23.5
7.3
PW BMP Inlet
DL
DL
0.5
0.2
11.0
68
65.0
25.3
7.4
PW BMP Outlet
DL
0.1
DL
0.3
39.0
110
69.8
26.2
7.0
SPSC BMP Inlet
5/15/2014
100.0
50.0
50.0
19.0
970.0
20000
1230.0
21.0
6.8
SPSC BMP Outlet
47.0
18.0
29.0
7.0
410.0
20000
1185.0
21.0
6.9
PW BMP Inlet
2.5
0.2
2.3
0.6
15.0
5600
95.5
22.9
6.9
PW BMP Outlet
1.8
0.2
1.6
0.5
150.0
2100
11.3
23.8
6.9
MY1
SPSC BMP Inlet
10/15/2014
5.5
1.3
4.2
5.4
27.0
490
437.0
19.8
7.1
SPSC BMP Outlet
1.8
0.2
1.7
0.7
10.0
2300
333.0
21.0
7.1
PW BMP Inlet
NF
PW BMP Outlet
SPSC BMP Inlet
11/26/2014
7.2
2.2
5.0
5.0
30.0
HT
201.1
10.1
7.2
SPSC BMP Outlet
6.5
2.0
4.6
4.9
32.0
196.2
10.0
7.2
PW BMP Inlet
2.8
1.1
1.7
0.6
6.6
57.8
11.2
6.7
PW BMP Outlet
2.6
1.0
1.7
1.0
6.3
82.0
11.1
6.8
SPSC BMP Inlet
3/30/2015
1.2
0.16
1.0
0.3
6.2
120
277.8
10.0
7.1
SPSC BMP Outlet
1.5
0.12
1.3
0.3
DL
DL
329.9
10.5
7.2
PW BMP Inlet
DL
0.12
DL
0.3
16.0
120
180.0
9.5
7.3
PW BMP Outlet
1.2
0.12
1.1
0.2
9.0
64
184.0
11.8
8.1
MY2
SPSC BMP Inlet
10/28/2015
3.8
1.3
2.5
1.2
16.0
150.0
141.9
17.5
6.6
SPSC BMP Outlet
4.5
2.4
2.1
1.0
20.0
140.0
154.8
17.0
6.4
PW BMP Inlet
2.9
1.1
1.8
0.8
48.0
DL
97.7
17.1
4.2
PW BMP Outlet
1.7
DL
1.7
0.3
7.6
DL
92.7
18.7
7.2
MY3
SPSC BMP Inlet
9/3/2016
13.0
1.6
11.0
5.2
140.0
HT
SPSC BMP Outlet
8.5
5.2
3.2
2.5
DL
PW BMP Inlet
2.3
1.0
1 1.3
0.9
6.7
PW BMP Outlet
NF
SPSC BMP Inlet
4/4/2017
5.9
0.7
5.2
0.2
480.0
---
---
---
---
SPSC BMP Outlet
3.2
1.2
2.1
---
---
---
---
---
---
PW BMP Inlet
6.1
1.4
4.7
0.3
840.0
---
---
---
---
PW BMP Outlet
5.3
0.3
5.0
DL
150.0
---
---
---
---
M Y4
SPSC BMP Inlet
5/23/2017
5.2
1.3
4.0
2.1
25.0
---
170.0
---
6.7
SPSC BMP Outlet
3.5
0.6
2.9
1.5
30.0
---
---
---
6.6
PW BMP Inlet
2.6
0.4
2.2
0.2
21.0
---
42.0
---
5.8
PW BMP Outlet
1.3
DL
1.3
0.3
3.5
---
51.0
---
6.4
SPSC BMP Inlet
3/12/2018
5.9
0.5
5.3
1.6
1700.0
---
200.0
---
7.1
SPSC BMP Outlet
3.6
DL
3.6
2.1
540.0
---
180.0
---
7.2
PW BMP Inlet
1.3
0.3
1.0
0.5
720.0
---
300.0
---
6.5
PW BMP Outlet
1.4
0.4
0.9
0.2
60.0
---
96.0
---
6.6
MY5
SPSC BMP Inlet
8/6/2018
11.0
0.4
11.0
1.7
540.0
---
96.0
---
6.2
SPSC BMP Outlet
1.9
1.0
0.9
0.2
---
---
26.0
---
6.8
PW BMP Inlet
2.5
0.8
1.8
1.2
390.0
---
61.0
---
6.2
PW BMP Outlet
17.0
0.3
17.0
0.2
---
---
22.0
---
6.5
SPSC BMP Inlet
3/26/2019
2.3
0.6
1.7
0.5
3500.0
---
160.0
---
6.6
SPSC BMP Outlet
1.5
0.4
1.0
0.4
570.0
---
200.0
---
6.8
PW BMP Inlet
5.2
0.1
5.1
0.3
2500.0
---
330.0
---
6.5
PW BMP Outlet
5.5
DL
5.5
0.3
120.0
---
85.0
---
6.0
MY6
SPSC BMP Inlet
8/5/2019
130.0
DL
130.0
37.0
SOOOA
---
340.0
---
6.3
SPSC BMP Outlet
9.5
5.1
4.3
2.1
220.0
---
140.0
---
6.2
PW BMP Inlet
6.9
3.1
3.8
1.0
630.0
---
76.0
---
5.6
PW BMP Outlet
F 4.6
1.5
3.1
0.7
1 40.0
---
1 67.0
---
5.4
DL: Parameter was below the detection limit
NF: No flow was available for sample collection/insufficient sample volume
HT: Laboratory analysis was not available due to the short holding time for this parameter
A: Sample residue exceeds detection limit. Result is an estimate.
---: Data was not provided

Table 16. Pollutant Removal Rates
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
Monitoring Year
Location
Sample Collection
Date
Percent Reduction'
TN
NO,,
TKN
TP
T55
FC
SPSC BMP
4/22/2014
18%
57%
1%
-29%
-56%
65%
(Baseflow)
PW BMP
N/A
N/A
0%
-74%
-255%
-62%
SPSC BMP
5/15/2014
53%
64%
42%
63%
58%
0%
MY1
PW BMP
28%
27%
30%
18%
-900%
63%
SPSC BMP
10/15/2014
67%
88%
60%
88%
63%
-369%
PW BMP
N/A
SPSC BMP
11/26/2014
10%
9%
8%
2%
-7%
N/A
PW BMP
7%
14%
0%
-67%
5%
MY2
SPSC BMP
3/30/2015
-25%
25%
-30%
-3%
N/A
N/A
PW BMP
N/A
0%
N/A
24%
44%
47%
SPSC BMP
10/28/2015
-18%
-85%
16%
17%
-25%
7%
PW BMP
41%
N/A
6%
57%
84%
N/A
MY3
SPSC BMP
9/3/2016
35%
-225%
71%
52%
N/A
N/A
PW BMP
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MY4
SPSC BMP
4/4/2017
46%
-67%
60%
N/A
N/A
N/A
PW BMP
13%
78%
-6%
N/A
82%
N/A
SPSC BMP
5/23/2017
33%
55%
28%
29%
-20%
N/A
PW BMP
50%
N/A
41%
-89%
83%
N/A
MY5
SPSC BMP
3/12/2018
83%
N/A
92%
87%
N/A
N/A
PW BMP
-580%
56%
-844%
83%
N/A
N/A
SPSC BMP
8/6/2018
35%
24%
41%
16%
N/A
N/A
PW BMP
-6%
N/A
-8%
19%
N/A
N/A
MY6
SPSC BMP
3/26/2019
35%
24%
41%
16%
84%
N/A
PW BMP
-6%
N/A
-8%
19%
95%
N/A
SPSC BMP
8/5/2019
93%
N/A
97%
94%
96%
N/A
PW BMP
33%
52%
18%
31%
94 0
N/A
'Positive values indicate a reduction in pollutant concentration from inlet to outlet samples, negative values indicate an increase in concentration
N/A: Metric cannot be calculated

Water Quality Data
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
20 100 47
(130)
19
SPSC BMP Inlet SPSC BMP Outlet PW BMP Inlet PW BMP Outlet — — —Detection Limit
18
17
16
15
14
13
'c
w
12
11
2
z
10
0
9
r
z
F-
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
---
o
------- --- -- -- --- ----- --- --- -- --- ---
NF NF
5/15/2014
10/15/2014 11/26/2014 3/30/2015 10/28/2015 9/3/2016 4/4/2017 5/23/2017 3/12/2018 8/6/2018 3/26/2019 8/5/2019
Q2 MY1
Q4 MY1 Qq MY1 Q1 MY2 Q4 MY2 Q3 MY3 Q2 MY4 Q2 MY4 Ql MYS Q3 MYS Ql MY6 Q3 MY6
TN (Total Nitrogen)
(19)
(37
$
7
SPSC BMP Inlet
SPSC BMP Outlet
PW BMP Inlet
PW BMP Outlet
— — —Detection Limit

Water Quality Data
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
(970) (410) (150)
(140) (480) (840) (150) (1700) (540) (720) (60) (540) (390) (3,500) (570) (2500) (120) (5,000) (220) (630)
50
45
SPSC BMP Inlet
SPSC BMP Outlet
PW BMP Inlet
40
PW BMP Outlet
- - -Detection Limit
35
E
0
.o
30
w
25
a
3
�
A
20
O
r
N
15
r
10
-
5
------------- - - - -
NF
(DL)
(DL) (NA) (NA) (NA)
0
5/15/2014
10/15/2014
11/26/2014
3/30/2015 10/28/2015
9/3/2016 4/4/2017 5/23/2017 3/12/2018 8/6/2018 3/26/2019 8/5/2019
Q2 MY1
Q4 MY1
Q4 MY1
Q1 MY2 Q4 MY2
Q3 MY3 Q2 MY4 Q2 MY4 Q1 MY5 Q3 MY5 Q1 MY6 Q3 MY6
TSS (Total Suspended Solids)

Pollutant Removal Plot
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 6 - 2019
100%
80 %
60 %
0 40%
3
v
20%
a 0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
-100%
Pollutant Removal Rates
c°� -4 1� �`
p`'eS h`'eStie�� ��'e� �e�
oti oti oti oti oti oti oti oti do do oti oti o o ti ti ,yo .yo ti ti do •yo
y y v v ey ev ti ti ti ti h
S 1 tih' tih ti ti "}� 4i 9i O O ti ti r r r r
L• o�• oy a� a� ti b"ti Q Q �� �� a� a� a�� a� Cis ��a ay ai $� °ova
d � � � O� O S '�' PQ PQ is CC CC CC P� P� is CC P� P�
1mF
,
irmi
mmmmimmimimm
ii
minnii
ii
mimmwim
�irmimimiinm
ii
minnii
i
(-900%)
■ TN ■ TP ■ TSS
DL: Parameter was below the detection limit
NF: No flow was available for sample collection/insufficient sample volume
NA: No data available at inlet and/or outlet sample for comparison
'Positive values indicate a reduction in pollutant concentration from inlet to outlet samples, negative values indicate an increase in concentration