20140334 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20200121

ID#* 20140334 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 01/21/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/21/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
...................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20140334
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Candy Creek Mitigation Site
County: Guilford
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: CandyCreek_96315_MY3_2020-01-21.pdf 58.46MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

MONITORING YEAR 3
ANNUAL REPORT
FINAL
CANDY CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Guilford County, NC
NCDEQ Contract 5794
NCDMS Project Number 96315
USACE Action ID Number 2015-01209
DWR Project Number 14-0334
Data Collection Period: March — October 2019
Final Submission Date: January 16, 2020
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC27699-1652

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Candy Creek Mitigation
Site (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) to restore, enhance, and
preserve a total of 19,583 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent streams, in Guilford County, NC.
The Site is expected to generate approximately 15,507 stream mitigation units (SMUs) through the
restoration, enhancement, and preservation of Candy Creek and nine unnamed tributaries (Table 1).
The Site is located northeast of the Town of Brown Summit within the NCDMS targeted local watershed
for the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002010020 and NC Division of Water
Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03-06-01 (Figure 1) and is being submitted for mitigation credit in the Cape
Fear River Basin HUC 03030002. The Site is located within the Haw River Headwaters Watershed, which
is part of NCDMS' Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP). While Candy Creek is not
mentioned specifically, this document identifies a restoration goal for all streams within HUC 03030002
of reducing sediment and nutrient pollution to downstream Jordan Lake is a primary goal of the RBRP as
stated in the Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy (NCDENR, 2005). The Haw River Watershed
was also identified in the 2005 NC Wildlife Resources Commission's Wildlife Action Plan as a priority
area for freshwater habitat conservation and restoration to protect rare and endemic aquatic fauna and
enhance species diversity. No rare and endemic aquatic species have been documented onsite or are
proposed for re-establishment onsite as part of the project. The Wildlife Action Plan calls for "support of
conservation and restoration of streams and riparian zones in priority areas (acquisition, easements, and
buffer)." Restoration at the Site directly and indirectly addressed these goals by excluding cattle from
the stream, creating stable stream banks, restoring a riparian corridor, and placing land historically used
for agriculture under permanent conservation easement.
The project goals established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016) were to provide ecological
enhancement and mitigate site water quality stressors that will benefit the receiving waters in the Cape
Fear River Basin. This will primarily be achieved by creating functional and stable stream channels,
increasing and improving the interaction of stream hydrology within the riparian zone, and improving
floodplain habitat and ecological function. This will also be achieved by restoring a Piedmont
Bottomland Forest community as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) along the stream reaches
within open pastures. With careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the
RBRP, the following project goals were established:
• Reduce in -stream water quality stressors resulting in enhanced habitat and water quality in
riffles and pools.
• Construct stream channels that are laterally and vertically stable resulting in a network of
streams capable of supporting hydrologic, biologic, and water quality functions.
• Improve on -site habitat by diversifying and stabilizing the stream channel form; installing habitat
features such as undercut logs, brush toe, wood and stone -based riffles; and by establishing
native stream bank vegetation and shading where none exists.
• Exclude cattle from project streams resulting in greater treatment and reduction of overland
flow and landscape derived pollutants including fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorus.
• Increase and improve hydrologic connectivity between streams and their riparian floodplains;
promote temporary water storage and wetland and floodplain recharge during high flows;
increase groundwater connectivity within floodplains and wetlands; promote nutrient and
carbon exchange between streams and floodplains and reduce shear stress forces on channels
during larger flow events.
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL

The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed between July 2016 and March 2017,
respectively. A conservation easement was recorded on 61.74 acres to protect the restored riparian
corridor in perpetuity. Maintenance measures were implemented in 2017 and 2019. Monitoring Year
(MY) 3 assessments and site visits were completed between March and October 2019 to assess the
conditions of the project.
Overall, the majority of the Site has met the required stream, vegetation, and hydrology success criteria
for MY3, and is on track to meet in MY5 and MY7.
Morphological surveys found that the majority of the Site is stable and functioning as designed.
Fluctuations in dimensional parameters have been observed; however, a majority of the cross -sections
have remained constant or within the design parameters of the channel type. Entrenchment ratios (ER)
remain at 2.2 or greater throughout the project reaches. Bank height ratios (BHR), except for one on
UT1C, have not exceeded 1.2.
Stream problem areas throughout the Site are minimal. Erosional areas, where present, are located
along outer meander bends, behind lunker logs, at the tie-ins of in -stream structures, or as scour lines
below vegetated tops of bank. Areas of in -stream aggradation were also noted in isolated areas
throughout the project Site. Currently, remedial action is not needed for these areas; however, they will
continue to be monitored and a maintenance plan will be established if deemed necessary.
The overall average planted stem density in MY3 for the Site is 384 stems per acre. This exceeds the
MY3 requirement of an average of 320 planted stems per acre and is on track to meet the average
requirement of 260 planted stems per acre for MY5 and 210 planted stems per acre for MY7. MY3
results for individual vegetation plots noted that 32 out of 40 plots met the MY3 interim planted stem
density success criteria. Additionally, if desirable volunteers are included in the stem density counts, all
but one of the vegetation plots met the MY3 success criteria and all are on target to meet the success
criteria for MY5 and MY7.
Except for UT1D, all the restoration and enhancement I reaches documented at least one bankfull event
in MY3 and have now met the stream hydrology assessment criteria of at least two bankfull events in
separate monitoring years for each reach. The flow gage established on the upstream, intermittent
section of UT1D recorded baseflow for 280 consecutive days during the MY3 monitoring period and has
met the minimum 30 consecutive day hydrologic criteria.
Areas of invasive species were treated in 2017 and 2019 and currently make up approximately 3.2% of
the total easement area. Over seeding and soil amendments implemented in 2019 have reduced the
size of bare herbaceous areas within the planted riparian zone. During MY3, there was one small area of
mowing encroachment documented along the upstream extent of Candy Creek Reach 1. Additionally,
two beaver dams were documented on Candy Creek Reach 4.
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL

CANDY CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW .......... ..........................................................................................
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 3 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
1.2.1 Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-2
1.2.2 Stream Hydrology Assessment..........................................................................................1-3
1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-3
1.2.4 Visual Assessment..............................................................................................................1-3
1.2.5 Areas of Concern/Adaptive Management Plan.................................................................1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 3 Summary......................................................................................................1-5
Section 2: METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Components/Assets 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
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.7
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a-m
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Areas of Concern Photographs
Appendix 3
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Table 8
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9a-g
Planted and Total Stems
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a-f
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11a-c
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross -Section)
Table 12a-p
Monitoring Data —Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross -Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5
Hydrology Summary Data and Plot
Table 13
Verification of Bankfull Events
Stream Gage Plot
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report — FINAL

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site is located in northeast Guilford County approximately located northeast of the Town of Brown
Summit off of Old Reidsville Road and Hopkins Road (Figure 1). The project watershed is primarily
comprised of agricultural and forested land. The drainage area for the Site is 937 acres.
The project streams consist of Candy Creek and its unnamed tributaries (UT1, UT2, UT2A, UT213, UT3,
UT4, UT5, and UT5A). Stream restoration reaches included Candy Creek (Reach 1, 2, and 4), upper UT1C,
UT1D, UT2 (lower Reach 1), lower UT3, UT4, and lower UT5. Stream enhancement (Level I and 11)
activities were utilized for Candy Creek Reach 3, UT2 (upper Reach 1 and Reach 2), UT2A, and UT213. The
intact and functional reaches associated with lower UT1C, upper UT3, and UT5A were preserved with
the implementation of the conservation easement. The riparian areas along the restoration and
enhancement reaches were planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water
quality.
Construction activities were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in March 2017. Planting and
seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in March 2017. A conservation
easement has been recorded and is in place on 61.74 acres. The project is expected to generate
approximately 15,507 SMUs. Annual monitoring will be conducted for seven years with the close-out
anticipated to commence in 2023 given the success criteria are met. Appendix 1 provides more detailed
project activity, history, contact information, and watershed/site background information for this
project.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, stream impairments included incised and over widened channels, bank
erosion with areas of mass wasting, historic channelization, floodplain alteration, degraded in -stream
habitat, and impoundments. Riparian impairments included clearing and livestock grazing. Tables 10a-f
in Appendix 4 present the pre -restoration conditions in detail.
The overarching goals of the stream mitigation project are to provide ecological enhancement and
mitigate site water quality stressors that will benefit the receiving waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.
The Site will treat almost all the headwaters of Candy Creek and 47% of the entire 3.1-square mile Candy
Creek watershed before flowing to the Haw River. A primary goal of the RBRP is to restore and maintain
water quality as stated in the Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy (NCDENR, 2005). The project
goals established for the Site were completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that
were described in the RBRP and include the following:
Reduce in -stream water quality stressors. Reconstruct stream channels with stable dimensions.
Stabilize eroding stream banks. Add bank protection and in -stream structures to protect
restored/enhanced streams.
Construct stream channels that are laterally and vertically stable. Construct stream channels
that will maintain a stable pattern and profile considering the hydrologic and sediment inputs to
the system, the landscape setting, and the watershed conditions.
Improve on -site habitat. Construct diverse and stable channel form with varied and self -
sustainable stream bedform. Install habitat features such as undercut logs, brush toe, wood and
stone -based riffles. Establish native stream bank vegetation and shading where none exists.
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 1-1

• Exclude cattle from projectstreams. Install fencing around the conservation easement adjacent
to cattle pastures.
• Increase and improve the interaction of stream hydrology within the riparian zone to in turn
improve floodplain habitat and ecological function. Reconstruct stream channels with
appropriate bankfull dimensions and raise them to the proper depths relative to a functioning
floodplain.
• Restore and enhance native floodplain forest. Plant native trees and understory species and
treat invasive species in the riparian zone.
• Permanently protect the project Site from harmful uses. Establish a conservation easement on
the Site.
1.2 Monitoring Year 3 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted during MY3 to assess the condition of the project. The stream,
vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria presented in
the Candy Creek Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016). The stream reaches were assigned specific
performance criteria components for stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation. Performance
criteria will be evaluated throughout the seven-year post -construction monitoring period.
1.2.1 Stream Assessment
Riffle cross -sections on the restoration and enhancement I reaches should be stable and show little
change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. Per NCDMS guidance, bank
height ratios (BHR) shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios (ER) shall be at least 2.2 for restored
channels to be considered stable. All riffle cross -sections should fall within the parameters defined for
channels of the appropriate 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 trends
in vertical incision or bank erosion. 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. Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward
stability.
Morphological surveys for MY3 were conducted in May, July, and October 2019. Results from these
surveys found that the majority of the Site is stable and functioning as designed. Morphological
adjustments across much of the site tend to be minimal and primarily indicate a trend toward increased
stability with the narrowing of riffles, the deepening of pools, and the development of point bars. Minor
adjustments in channel dimension related to scour or deposition were documented on several cross -
sections. Pebble count results showed some areas of fining throughout the Site.
Cross-section survey results for MY3 indicate the majority of the Site's channel dimension is stable.
Fluctuations in cross -sectional area, bankfull widths, BHRs, ERs, and max depths for the majority of the
cross -sections have remained constant or within the design parameters of the channel type. ERs have
remained at 2.2 or greater throughout the project reaches. BHRs, except for cross-section 27 (XS27) on
UT1C, have not exceeded 1.2.
Results from the pebble counts in the restoration and El reaches show a wide variability across the site.
Though some of the pebble counts indicate a maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and
finer particles in the pool features, many of the riffle 100 counts, as well as some of reachwide counts
show an increase in fines from MY2 to MY3. A direct cause for this fining throughout the site is
unknown; however, heavy in -stream vegetation trapping fines and slowing down stream velocities
throughout project area are likely a contributing factor.
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 1-2

Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment table, Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) maps,
and reference photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological data and plots.
1.2.2 Stream Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in
separate years within the restoration and enhancement I reaches. Seasonal flow must be documented
in the intermittent stream (UT1D) at the Site. Under normal rainfall circumstances, the presence of
stream flow on intermittent channels must be documented annually for at least 30 consecutive days
during the seven-year monitoring period.
In MY3, partial attainment of the stream hydrology assessment criteria was documented. Except for
UT1D, all other restoration and enhancement I reaches have recorded at least two bankfull events in
separate monitoring years. Currently UT1D is the only stream that has not met the bankfull event
success criteria. However, results from the stream gage established on UT1D indicate the stream is
maintaining baseflow as expected for an intermittent stream. Baseflow was recorded for 100% of the
monitoring period (280 consecutive days). Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrology summary data and plot.
1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment
A total of 40 vegetation plots were established during the baseline monitoring, thirty-seven standard
plots (10-meter x 10-meter) and three non-standard plots (5-meter by 20-meter), within the project
easement area. The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in
the planted riparian and wetland corridor at the end of the required seventh monitoring period. The
interim measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per
acre at the end of MY3 and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of MY5. Planted vegetation must
average 10 feet in height in each plot at the end of the MY7.
The MY3 vegetative survey was completed in August - September 2019. The 2019 vegetation monitoring
resulted in an average stem density of 384 stems per acre for the Site, exceeding the interim
requirement of 320 stems per acre required at MY3. The stem density of 384 stems per acre recorded in
MY3 was approximately 37% less than the baseline density recorded at MYO (610 stems per acre in
March 2017). Stem densities within individual monitoring plots range from 202 to 526 planted stems per
acre with stem counts ranging from 5 to 13 stems. Currently, there is an average of 10 stems per plot,
and the average stem height is 2.6 feet.
Individually, eight vegetation plots (6, 12, 15, 17, 18, 20, 35, and 40) did not meet the MY3 interim
success criteria. Of these eight plots, four (12, 17, 35, and 40) are on track to meet the required success
criteria for MY5 (260 stems per acre) and MY7 (210 stems per acre). Three of the eight plots (6, 18, and
20) are not on track to meet the planted interim success criteria for MY5; however, they could still meet
planted criteria for MY7. Vegetation plot 15, with a planted stem density of 202 stems per acre, did not
meet MY3 planted criteria, nor is it on target to meet MY5 or MY7 planted criteria. However, if
desirable volunteers are included in the stem density counts, all of the vegetation plots are on target to
meet the success criteria for MY5 and MY7 and all but plot 35 meet the MY3 success criteria. Desirable
volunteer species that have been present for at least two concurrent years and in plots where density
rates are low will be recorded and tagged in MY4. These species will be monitored in subsequent
monitoring years (MY4 — MY7) and included in the overall density rates for the associated plots. Refer to
Appendix 2 for vegetation photographs and the vegetation condition assessment table and Appendix 3
for vegetation data tables.
1.2.4 Visual Assessment
A final Site walk was performed in October of 2019 to document field conditions.
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 1-3

Bank erosion was observed in isolated pockets along outer meander bends, behind lunker logs, at the
tie-ins of in -stream structures, or as scour lines below vegetated tops of bank. Areas of in -stream
aggradation were also noted in isolated areas throughout the project Site. Visual assessments in
subsequent monitoring years will continue to document these areas for instability issues. In the event
intervention is needed, they will be addressed with an adaptive management plan.
A variety of invasive species such as English ivy (Hedera helix), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
Asian spiderwort (Murdannia keisak), water primrose (Ludwigia hexapetala), kudzu (Pueraria montana),
multi -flora rose (Rosa multiflora), and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) have been noted within the
easement boundaries. Currently, these species make up approximately 3.2% of the easement area.
English ivy and Japanese honeysuckle persist primarily in area of mature forests, while Asian spiderwort
and water primrose are present along stream reaches and vernal pool areas where breaks in stream
shade and canopy species are common. The remainder of the invasive species types are scattered
throughout the easement.
A couple of bare/poor herbaceous cover areas along UT2 and UT2A, as well as some areas of low stem
densities were noted in MY3. Impaired herbaceous areas were over seeded and supplemented with
lime and 10-10-10 fertilization in early MY3. This application has reduced the size of bare herbaceous
areas from 2.6% of the planted acreage in MY2 to 0.8% of the planted area in MY3. Low stem density
areas have remained approximately the same with 0.5% of the planted area in MY2 versus 0.6% of the
planted area in MY3.
One area of mowing encroachment was documented in July of 2019 and reconfirmed during the
October site walk along the upstream extent of Candy Creek Reach 1. The area constitutes
approximately 0.04 acres or 0.1% of the total easement acreage. Two beaver dams were documented
on Candy Creek Reach 4 during the end of the year site walk. Locations of the mowing encroachment
area and beaver dams are included on the CCPV Figures 3.1 and 3.6, respectively. Representative
photographs are included in Appendix 2.
1.2.5 Areas of Concern/Adaptive Management Plan
As result of large storm events (precipitation greater than two inches per event) that occurred during
the fall of 2018 including the remnants of Hurricane Florence and Michael, a maintenance repair plan
was created to stabilize any significant areas of instability and to remove large fallen trees impeding
stream flow or causing erosive issues. The maintenance repair plan was conducted in March and August
of 2019. The repairs were minor and consisted of live staking stream banks, trenching live fascines along
top of bank, and rebuilding outside meander bends and replanting the banks with established
vegetation transplanted from the floodplain.
Stream reaches with dense areas of the aquatic plant species Asian spiderwort (Murdannia keisak) and
water primrose (Ludwigia hexapetala) were treated in the Fall of 2017 and 2019. Due to the dense
nature of these species, follow up treatments will be needed. Additionally, tree of heaven and kudzu
populations were treated in the Fall of 2019 across the entire project. A Site review of the invasive work
concluded these treatments were beneficial but will require follow up treatments. Lastly, isolated areas
of English ivy (Hedera helix) previously treated in 2017 continue to persist and will need to be re -treated
in upcoming monitoring years.
The mowing encroachment noted in the upstream extent of the left floodplain along Candy Creek Reach
1 will be addressed with the property owner. Vegetation growth within this area will be subsequently
monitored. If additional over -seeding or planting is needed a maintenance plan will be established. The
beaver dams will be removed, and subsequent removal and/or trapping will be implemented if deemed
necessary.
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 1-4

Refer to Appendix 2 for the vegetation condition assessment table and the CCPV.
1.3 Monitoring Year 3 Summary
The Candy Creek Mitigation Site is on track to meet monitoring success criteria for geomorphology,
hydrology, and vegetation performance standards. Morphological surveys indicate that overall the
channel dimensions are stable and functioning as designed. The bankfull success criteria has been
partially met and are expected to meet by MY7. The MY3 vegetation survey resulted in an average stem
density of 384 planted stems per acre. The Site is on track to meeting the MY7 success criteria with 32
of 40 individual vegetation plots meeting the MY3 success criteria. With the inclusion of desirable
volunteer species, all but one of the vegetation plots currently meet the MY3 vegetative success criteria
and all are on track to meet MY5 and MY7 success criteria.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on
NCDMS' website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from
NCDMS upon request.
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 1-5

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data were collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). Crest gages were
installed in surveyed riffle cross -sections and monitored quarterly. Hydrologic monitoring instrument
installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE, 2003) standards.
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994.Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245.Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.61 p.
Lee, 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 Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan. DWQ Planning Section, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities.
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=864e82e8-725c-415e-8ed9-
c72dfcb55012&grou pld=60329
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services and Interagency Review Team Technical Workgroup. 2018.
Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh, NC.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
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. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Service. 2019. USGS Station 0209553650, Buffalo Creek at SR2819 NR,
McLeansville, NC. https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/current/?type=precip&group key=county cd
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2016. Candy Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. NCDMS, Raleigh, NC.
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report— FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

.03010103240010 � 0301
= Project Location
j \ eid; vilk• i•—•—•-
03010103220060 Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
T
03010104021010
030300020, 00308- J
03030002010010
0 crk
IIA A _ 03030002010020
RkVeF
sra b&
F Iwk
i
��•,�roty ns ern i��•
r�
i
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 activates requires prior coordination with DMS.
offb for
0301010403201
-1 J
$03030002010040
� I
0
i 03030002010050
Directons to Site:
From Greensboro, NC, take US-29 North approximately 12 miles
past the communities of Brown Summit and Monticello. The north
end of the project Site including Candy Creek Reach 3, Candy
Creek Reach 4, UT1C, and UT1D may be accessed by Old
Reidsville Rd (NC SR 2514). The south end of the project Site
inlcuding Candy Creek Reach 1, Candy Creek Reach 2, UT2, UT3,
UT4, and UT5 can be accessed via Hopkins Rd (NC SR 2700).
v 03030002020060
03
t
ktvv
W I L D L A N D S , 0 1.75 3.5 Miles
E N G I N E E R I N G
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Guilford County, NC

]k_.?d
Conservation Easement
is, 0 Existing Wetlands
Internal Crossing
-Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Stream Preservation
,. QQ Reach Break
+t ,
,,i
Figure 2 Project Components/Assets Map
0 1,000 2,000 Feet Candy Creek Mitigation Site
WILDLANDS 1 I�i�� DMSProject No. 96315
ENGINEERING Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Guilford County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Mitigation Credits
Nitrogen Phosphorous Nutrient
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Nutrient Offset
Offset
Type R
RE R
RE R RE
Totals 14,975.867
530.600 N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
ComponentsProject
Reach ID
As -Built
Existing Footage/
Stationing/ Approach
Acreage
Location
Restoration or Restoration Mitigation Credits
Restoration Equivalent Footage/ Acreage Ratio (SMU/WMU)
STREAMS
Candy Creek Reach 1
100+08 - 117+19
2,885
P1
Restoration
1,711
1:1
1,711.000
117+45 - 126+27
P1
Restoration
882
1:1
882.000
Candy Creek Reach 2
126+27 - 131+80
2,398
P1
Restoration
553
1:1
553.000
132+40 - 141+17
P1
Restoration
877
1:1
877.000
141+43 - 148+42
P1
Restoration
699
1:1
699.000
Candy Creek Reach 3
149+02 - 155+05
2,333
El
Enhancement
603
1.5:1
402.000
155+05 - 155+33
Ell
Enhancement
28
2.5:1
11.200
155+62-160+35
Ell
Enhancement
473
2.5:1
189.200
160+62 - 170+37
Ell
Enhancement
975
2.5:1
390.000
Candy Creek Reach 4
170+71 - 178+74
3,386
P1
Restoration
803
1:1
803.000
179+00 - 196+47
P1
Restoration
1,747
1:1
1,747.000
196+68 - 206+35
P1
Restoration
967
1:1
967.000
UT1C
200+12 - 207+40
551
P1
Restoration
728
1:1
1 728.000
UT1C - P
207+40 - 211+38
398
Preservation
398
5:1
79.600
UT1D
250+00 - 253+79
437
P1
Restoration
379
1:1
379.000
UT2 Reach 1
300+00 - 304+24
940
El
Enhancement
424
1.5:1
282.667
304+24 - 305+01
P1
Restoration
77
1:1
77.000
305+26 - 311+88
P1
Restoration
662
1:1
662.000
UT2 Reach 2
311+88 - 318+31
746
El
Enhancement
643
1.5:1
428.667
UT2A
350+84 - 354+37
376
El
Enhancement
353
1.5:1
235.333
UT213
270+28 - 276+85
702
Ell
Enhancement
657
2.5:1
262.800
UT3 - P
400+00 - 411+50
1,150
Preservation
1,150
5:1
230.000
UT3
411+50 - 414+96
729
P1
Restoration
346
1:1
346.000
UT4
500+49 - 514+05
1,270
P1
Restoration
1,356
1:1
1,356.000
UT5-P
599+19 - 600+00
81
Preservation
81
5:1
16.200
UT5
600+00 - 607+91
1,297
P1
Restoration
791
1:1
791.000
608+16 - 610+12
Restoration
196
1:1
196.000
UTSA
650+00 - 659+70
1,056
Preservation
970
5:1
194.000
659+99 - 660+56
Preservation
54
5:1
10.800
Component
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non -Riparian
(acres)
Buffer
(square
feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine
on-Riverin
Restoration
12,774
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
2,023
Enhancement 11
2,133
Preservation
2,653
The linear feet associated with the stream crossings were excluded from the computations.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Activity or Report
Mitigation Plan
D.
November 2014
)elive
March 2016
Final Design - Construction Plans
July 2016
July 2016
Construction
July 2016 - March 2017
March 2017
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal
July 2016 - March 2017
March 2017
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
March 2017
March 2017
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
March 2017
March 2017
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey
October 2016 - March 2017
May 2017
Vegetation Survey
March 2017
Invasive Species Treatment
September / October 2017
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
October 2017
December 2017
Vegetation Survey
October 2017
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey
June 2018
November 2018
Vegetation Survey
August 2018
Live Staking and Live Facines
March 2019
Riparian Seeding
Year 3 Monitoring Stream Survey
October 2019 December 2019
Stream Maintenance
August 2019
Invasive Species Treatment
September 2019
Year 3 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
September 2019
December 2019
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2020
December 2020
Vegetation Survey
2020
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2021
December 2021
Vegetation Survey
2021
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2022
December 2022
Vegetation Survey
2022
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2023
December 2023
Vegetation Survey
2023
SSeed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Aaron Earley, PE
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
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Dykes and Son Nursery
825 Maude Etter Rd.
Nursery Stock Suppliers
McMinnville, TN 37110
Foggy Mountain Nursery
Bare Roots
Live Stakes
797 Helton Creek Rd.
Lansing, NC 28643
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring, POC
Kristi Suggs
704.332.7754 ext. 110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Project No.
96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Project Information
Project Name
ICandy Creek Mitigation Site
County
Guilford County
Project Area (acres)
61.74
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Physiographic Province
Upstream Project Limits-36"13'27.27"N, 79"39'37.79"W
Downstream Project Limits —36"14'39.74"N, 79"39'50.46"W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03030002010020
DWR Sub -basin
03-06-01
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
937
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
66%—Agriculture/Managed Herbaceous; 29%—Forested/Scrubland, 5%- Developed
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Candy Creek Reach 1
Candy Creek Reach 2 Candy Creek Reach 3 Candy Creek Reach 4
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
2,593
2,129 2,079 3,517
Drainage Area (acres)
560
694 809 937
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
40.5
40.5 45.0 45.0
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-V (NSW)
Morphological Desription (stream type)
G4c
F5
G4c
G4c
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
IV
IV
IV
III/IV
Underlying mapped soils
Clifford Sandy Clay Loam, Codorus Loam, Nathalie Sandy Loam, Poplar Forest Gravelly Sandy Loam
Drainage class
Well Drained to Somewhat Poorly Drained
Soil hydric status
Codorus Loam - Hydric
Slope
---
FEMA classification
N/A
Native vegetation community
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation -Post-
Restoration
0%
Parameters
UT1C
UT1D
UT2
UT2A
UT2B
UT3
UT4
UTS
UiSA
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
1,126
379
1,806
353
657
1,496
1,356
1,068
1,024
Drainage Area (acres)
28
6
63
15
24
79
190
137
45
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
35.0
27.5
34.5
31.5
31.5
36.5
37.5
31.5
33.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Desription (stream type)
E5b
C5
F5
G5
65c
G4
G4
F4
N/A
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
III
II/III
III/V
III
III
IV
IV
IV
N/A
Underlying mapped soils
Casville Sandy Loam, Codorus Loam, Nathalie Sandy Loam
Drainage class
Well Drained to Somewhat Poorly Drained
Soil hydric status
Codorus Loam - Hydric
Slope
---
FEMA classification
N/A
Native vegetation community
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation -Post-
Restoration
���gulatory
Regulation
Considerations
Applicable? Resolved?
0%
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 (Action ID# SAW-2015-01209) and DWR 401 Water
Quality Certification (letter from DWR dated 5/13/2015).
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
No
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Candy Creek Mitigation Plan; Wildlands determined "no effect" on Guilford County listed
endangered species. USFWS responded on April 4, 2014 and stated the "proposed action is
not likely to adversely affect any federally listed endangered or threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat or species currently proposed for listing under the Act".
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO dated 3/24/2014).
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

S,4
r— — — — — — — — — — — —
,Figure 3.7
1 �
1 �
1 U .'. ��■ d f� 1 _ 1
� I 1
C
1 1 1
t,.
40
1 1
1 1
1 1 i
1 :� 1 ♦ `♦
J
1 �ee 1 p
1 �r } I ' keach 1 ♦ J��
1Nure 3.6
i
r— — — — — —
,I
UT2B
1 m� ♦ 1 � I
G.�
1 • c 1 � �I
Gm 1
r———— - — — — ————————r-1
1 Figure 3.2 1
1 1
Figure 3.31 1
1 0 1
10 o
o 1 UT3-P 1
1 ' ` 1
1 r 1
IF
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
C?
.��IL
ri
jo
w�
2018 Ai
wrr:,

Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
W I L D L A N D S 0 150 300 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
ENGINEERING rk� I I I I I Monitoring Year 3- 2019
Guilford County, NC

Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
W I L D L A N D S
ENGINEERING Tk� I i i i I Monitoring Year
Guilford County, NC

nervation Easement
-nal Crossing
,ieated Wetlands
am Restoration
j t
am Enhancement I
fAi
7Ak,
lot
2018 Aerial Photography
0 0
20
k
4 40k.
�rklo,w- —.-
66

Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
e Candy Creek Mitigation Site
W I L D L A N D S , 0 125 250 Feet \ DMS Project No. 96315
ENGINEERING I I I I I Monitoring Year 3-2019
Guilford County, NC

�— Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
® Delineated Wetlands
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Stream Preservation
- - - - Bankfull
Cross Section
OO Reach Break
+ Barotroll
+ Crest Gage (CG)
+ Stream Gage (SG)
0 Photo Point
Vegetation Plots - MY3
- Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met
Stream Problem Areas - MY3
Bank Scour/Eroded
Beaver Dam
Sediment Deposition
Vegetation Problem Areas - MY3
® Tree of Heaven
® English Ivy
® Asiasn Spiderwort/Prim rose
® Japanese Honeysuckle
® Kudzu
® Multiflora Rose
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
Easement Encroachment
v,/v Easement Encroachment
< 50' Buffer Width
1. .-V
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
1
1
N� o0
C,
28
°O t,� '55
56
209+00 20
..... w N 210+00
f � UT1C-p
�s
go28
0
SG
57 ;ue
0
5 ?s
�.� 6
o - 40
_ o
r '.
13
All
J
�+
JV
hr
28
F__x
Figure 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
I i i i I Monitoring Year 3- 2019
Guilford County, NC

Figure 3.6 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
W I L D L A N D S Monitorin Year 3- 2019
ENGINEERING I I I I I g
Guilford County, NC

Figure 3.7 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
W I L D L A N D S Monitorin Year 3- 2019
ENGINEERING I I I I I g
Guilford County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy Creek Reach 1 (2,619 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
Aggraclation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
39
39
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
38
38
100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
38
38
100%
4. Tha lweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
38
38
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
38
38
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
1
42
99%
1
20
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%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
nrovidiniz habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
1
42
99%
1
20
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
32
32
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
8
8
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
8
8
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
27
27
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
27
27
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy Creek Reach 2 (2,215 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
24
24
100%
I.Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
Depth Sufficient
24
24
100%
Length Appropriate
24
24
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
24
24
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meanderbend Glide
24
E24
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
4
90
98%
0
0
98%
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
4
90
98%
0
0
98%
1.Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
26
29
90%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
12
12
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
11
12
92%
Structures'
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
17
17
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
17
17
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy Creek Reach 3 (2,135 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
23
23
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
17
17
100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
17
17
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meanderbend Run
17
17
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
16
16
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
5
128
97%
3
50
98%
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%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
orovidina habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
1
5
100%
Totals
5
128
97%
4
55
98%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
34
35
97%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
12
12
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
12
12
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
23
23
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
23
23
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy Creek Reach 4 (3,564 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
Y 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
42
42
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
39
39
100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
39
39
100%
4. Tha lweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
38
38
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meanderbend Glide
39
39
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
5
75
99%
5
35
99%
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%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
oroviding habitat.
3. Mass wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
5
75
99%
5
35
99%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
56
56
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
22
22
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
19
22
86%
3. Engineered
Bank erosion within the structures
Structures)
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
37
38
97%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
38
38
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT1C (728 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
32
32
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
7
7
100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
7
7
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meanderbend RunThalweg
7
7
04.ThalwegPosition
P1000:
centering at downstream of
meanderbend Glide
7
7
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
1
13
99%
0
0
99%
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%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
i)rovidina habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
1
13
99%
0
0
99%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
29
29
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
22
22
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
21
22
95%
Bank erosion within the structures
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
6
7
86%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
7
7
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 5f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT1D (379 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%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
24
24
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
2
2
100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
2
2
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
2
2
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meanderbend Glide
2
2
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
2
19
97%
0
0
97%
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%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
orovidine habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
2
19
97%
0
0
97%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
30
30
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
29
29
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
29
29
100%
3. Engineered
Bank erosion within the structures
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
1
1
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4.Habitat
"'Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
20
20
100/
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 5g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT2 Reach 1 (1,188 LF)
Major Channel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
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
Aggraclation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
32
32
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
8
8
100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
8
8
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
8
8
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meanderbend Glide
8
8
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
3
46
98%
0
0
98%
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%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
orovidina habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
3
46
98%
0
0
98%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
32
32
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
31
31
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
31
31
100%
3. Engineered
Bank erosion within the structures
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
1
1
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
22
22
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since theyare evaluated in channel category.

Table 5h. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT2 Reach 2 (643 LF)
Major Channel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
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
Aggraclation
1
49
92%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
5
6
83%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
6
7
86%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
7
7
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
7
7
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meanderbend Glide
7
7
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
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%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
orovidina habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
9
9
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
8
8
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
8
8
100%
3. Engineered
Bank erosion within the structures
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
2
2
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
3
4
75%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since theyare evaluated in channel category.

Table 5i. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT2A (353 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
Ve etation
Footage with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
11
11
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
4
4
100%
I.Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
4
4
100%
4. Tha lweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
4
4
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
4
4
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
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%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
orovidine habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1.Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
12
12
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
12
12
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
12
12
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
n/a
n/a
n/a
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
12
12
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since theyare evaluated in channel category.

Table 5j. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT213 (657 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
5
5
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
6
6
100%
I.Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
6
6
100%
4. Tha lweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meanderbend Run
6
6
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
6
6
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
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%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
orovidine habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1.Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
16
16
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
16
16
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
16
16
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
n/a
n/a
n/a
15%.
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 channel category.

Table 5k. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT3 (346 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%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
11
11
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
10
10
100%
I.Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
10
10
100%
4. Tha lweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meanderbend Run
10
10
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
10
10
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
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%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
orovidine habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1.Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
15
15
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
9
9
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
9
9
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
6
6
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
5
5
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 51. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT4 (1,356 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
Ve etation
Footage with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggraclation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
32
32
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
30
30
100%
I.Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
30
30
100%
4. Tha lweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
30
30
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
30
30
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
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%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
nrovidine habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1.Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
22
22
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
7
7
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
7
7
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
15
15
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
16
16
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 5m. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT5 (1,012 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
Ve etation
Footage with
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
1
98
90%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
21
21
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
20
21
95%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
21
21
100%
4. Tha lweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
21
21
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meanderbend Glide
21
21
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
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%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
orovidine habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
22
22
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
12
12
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
12
12
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
12
12
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
"'Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
12
12
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Planted Acreage 32
Mapping
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold (Ac)
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1
2
0.27
0.8%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
8
0.20
0.6%
MY3, 5, or 7 stem count criteria.
Total
10
0.5
1.4%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25 Ac
0
0
0%
small given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
10
0.5
1.4%
Easement Acreage 62
Mapping
Number of
Combined
% of Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold (SF)
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map
Invasive Areas of Concern
scale).
1,000
18
1.97
3.2%
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map
Easement Encroachment Areas
none
1
0.04
0.1%
scale).
1In-stream vegetation was counted as one polygon because each individual polygon would have been to small to meet the minimum mapping threshold.

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Candy Creek Reach 1
Monitoring Year 3

Photo Point 1— looking upstream (512212019) 1 Photo Point 1— looking downstream (512212019) 1
Photo Point 2 — looking upstream (512212019) 1 Photo Point 2 — looking downstream (512212019) 1
Photo Point 3 — looking upstream (512212019) 1Photo Point 3 — looking downstream (512212019)

Photo Point 4 — looking upstream (512212019) 1 Photo Point 4 — looking downstream (512212019) 1
Photo Point 5 — looking upstream (512212019) 1 Photo Point 5 — looking downstream (512212019) 1
117� IN
ISO
t
Ass
A,7,
Photo Point 6 — looking upstream (512212019) Photo Point 6 — looking downstream (512212019)

Photo Point 10 — looking upstream (512212019) 1 Photo Point 10 — looking downstream (512212019) 1
Photo Point 11— looking upstream (512912019) 1 Photo Point 11— looking downstream (512912019) 1
Photo Point 12 — looking upstream (512212019) 1Photo Point 12 — looking downstream (512212019)

�f
'Ire r l 3 b � 9��" • Y� F'��'4,-?' < , ,�
S .
1
�.

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Candy Creek Reach 2
Monitoring Year 3

.y,
,t r r
�
x
ypA
p
IN

Photo Point 17 — looking upstream (512212019) Photo Point 17 — looking downstream (512212019)
Photo Point 18 — looking upstream (512212019) Photo Point 18 — looking downstream (512212019)
Photo Point 19 — looking upstream (512212019) 1Photo Point 19 — looking downstream (512212019)

Photo Point 2 — looking upstream //22 !% Photo Point 2 — looking downstream (52 / m%
Tyis
\ ©`
I Photo Point 21— looking upstream //22 !% 1 Photo Point 21— looking downstream (52 % m% 1
I Photo Point 22— looking upstream //22 !% 1 Photo Point 22— looking downstream (52 / m% 1

Photo Point 23 — looking upstream (512212019) 1 Photo Point 23 — looking downstream (512212019) 1
Photo Point 24 — looking upstream (512212019) 1

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Candy Creek Reach 3
Monitoring Year 3

'2
1
/

\ �?\\� � .� ` \:\^ `� /\� / / .
<\��m\«<���:�x<��\�� �.
: . � +©y>��-a. , \�� .-
- , � - aw: »��».z-.,-
�� -^ «\\«§yy«S,�* �v:.
�\/\ z_� / . �� ~?\������ � \d.
. .� >. � .
. >/� /�
. «\- \ � 2 /
. � � » »`
? 22- � �
�: ������/
\/\��;»«<�§/�
���� ©�� � � � \
>� y©� © ©z �-�
\2y.,���% � .
� 2\�G�>.�:

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Candy Creek Reach 4
Monitoring Year 3

a € �
r - � t "■'c. r- v s u fir � .Fy%A � a?q� .'�-: .. 1 y�y
y _
�&� 9"� '�f rL§ f f � �` 5• a e'� �` y�. 4 �' k �4`"�T 1 ,. fit+ , r. _
�_ys
f
k� eS
=sp
let
ML
Photo '•lookingp upstream/ • • Point looking••(512912019)
jr
f E
.�q k
s�
x k3
2 r k
I
/ I
Z,3t
't jb. p��'��'i� p J1• _
�✓�' S, . Y l a} 7' e'qwy "yip f
Ae
f
� t
a �t

h
Y
� l
Eta
F J
t
f a
V
�,
�k��I

b
b
yl. �
'� gyp � Yf !
,F ~ _✓' �
, �-eaT- ` _
�:? � a•.. f1r �o lea
� .� ... ��
�'Mv - - , , , -, '.. , -
7
-
-
s• x �
x .
\
T
k
�
i
uf.
y• .

f��j r lti Rg L ; p
� Y yx a M Air—
' it •_`,�' ! ' �. �S
X
k`
rr
� ,, a '.. � ' n�:. � _ ��� T • S
s
Cr
1
i
Y' Ali 7 Y
ON
_ ".$a � i�fYo-a tom•. r _. '�� yryE -
3Zya�2, ILK
�>
« ,�tt

,ter• � ✓� �-�, �"�, �����t���
AS
e ,
,F n
t ' 41.
f� ist
1.
h
+ f'1's
r � �
zA
,�'j.^A T a,�• eJyy^��_�� - e his � r-'P"` �� i �j'4� �-. 'f�'�
✓� : P-• f
» R
N14
\ �
y
J, AP
ciHAMMa
_ _ e
1 :� 'X

�+
1 \i �fs
;A
,4
f � ./,. •k'S�
fir, - t��i
d ; �, `..+' �1; !� I"'�'
A�
F: #51 `k -
r �
- VK n
Al
AQ i-. - 4A

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT1C and UT1D
Monitoring Year 3

F
-
��.
AA
I.-
-
l' _

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT2, UT2A, and UT2B
Monitoring Year 3

Photo Point 58 — looking upstream (512212019) 1 Photo Point 58 — looking downstream (512212019) 1
Photo Point 59 — looking upstream (512212019) 1 Photo Point 59 — looking downstream (512212019) 1
Photo Point 60 — looking upstream (512212019) 1Photo Point 60 — looking downstream (512212019)

Photo Point 64 — looking upstream (512912019) 1 Photo Point 64 — looking downstream (512912019) 1
Photo Point 65 — looking upstream (512212019) 1 Photo Point 65 — looking downstream (512212019) 1
Photo Point 66 — looking upstream (512212019) 1Photo Point 66 — looking downstream (512212019)

Photo Point 67 — looking upstream (512212019) 1 Photo Point 67 — looking downstream (512212019) 1
Photo Point 68 — looking upstream (512212019) 1 Photo Point 68 — looking downstream (512212019) 1
Photo Point 69 — looking upstream (512212019) 1Photo Point 69 — looking downstream (512212019)

i ems• R
r j-
'
1 �� �-;u-J aF.eCv� z l'� � l3 •4
0.
:sue ✓.5 � k� �J,� ��� s�

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT3, UT4, and UT5
Monitoring Year 3

Photo Point 74 — looking upstream (512212019) 1 Photo Point 74 — looking downstream (512212019) 1
Photo Point 75 — looking upstream (512212019) 1 Photo Point 75 — looking downstream (512212019) 1
Photo Point 76 — looking upstream (512212019) 1Photo Point 76 — looking downstream (512212019)

Photo Point 77 — looking upstream (512212019) 1 Photo Point 77 — looking downstream (512212019) 1
Photo Point 78 — looking upstream (512212019) 1 Photo Point 78 — looking downstream (512212019) 1
Photo Point 79 — looking upstream (512212019) 1Photo Point 79 — looking downstream (512212019)

Photo Point 83 — looking upstream (512212019) 1 Photo Point 83 — looking downstream (512212019) 1
Photo Point 84 — looking upstream (512212019) 1 Photo Point 84 — looking downstream (512212019) 1
Photo Point 85 — looking upstream (512912019) 1Photo Point 85 — looking downstream (512212019)

VEGETATION PHOTOGRAPHS
Monitoring Year 3

Vegetation Plot 7 (813012019) 1 Vegetation Plot 8 (812912019) 1
Vegetation Plot 9 (812912019) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 (812912019) 1
Vegetation Plot 11 (812912019) 1 Vegetation Plot 12 (812912019) 1

Vegetation Plot 13 (812912019) 1 Vegetation Plot 14 (812812019) 1
Vegetation Plot 15 (812812019) 1 Vegetation Plot 16 (812812019) 1
Vegetation Plot 17 (812812019) 1 Vegetation Plot 18 (812812019) 1

Vegetation Plot 19 (812812019) 1 Vegetation Plot 20 (812712019) 1
Vegetation Plot 21 (812712019) 1 Vegetation Plot 22 (812712019) 1
Vegetation Plot 23 (812712019) 1 Vegetation Plot 24 (812712019) 1

Vegetation Plot 31 (812912019) 1 Vegetation Plot 32 (812912019) 1
Vegetation Plot 33 (812912019) 1 Vegetation Plot 34 (812912019) 1
Vegetation Plot 35 (812912019) 1 Vegetation Plot 36 (813012019) 1

.. � �' �•'�<.n a®. 1 ��11 Y�+rr i✓f ,r� r4 vile F
a.

AREAS OF CONCERN PHOTOGRAPHS
Monitoring Year 3

w-F
Candy Creek Reach 1 Mowing Encroachment — looking upstream
Candy Creek Reach 4 Beaver Dam — looking upstream
(0711512019)
(1010812019)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Plot
Success Criteria
Met (Y/N)
Tract Mean
1
Y
80%
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
6
N
7
Y
8
Y
9
Y
10
Y
11
Y
12
N
13
Y
14
Y
15
N
16
Y
17
N
18
N
19
Y
20
N
21
Y
22
Y
23
Y
24
Y
25
Y
26
Y
27
Y
28
Y
29
Y
30
Y
31
Y
32
Y
33
Y
34
Y
35
N
36
Y
37
Y
38
Y
39
Y
40
N

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Report Prepared By
Jeffrey Turner
Date Prepared
9/25/2019
Database Name
Candy Creek MY3 CVS-v2.5.0.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02145 Candy Creek\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 3 (2019)\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
JEFF-PC
File Size
87818240
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Project Planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project 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
96315
Project Name
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
140
Sampled Plots

Table 9a. Planted and Total Stems
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Current Plot D.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 6
Vegetation Plot 7
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
Acerrubrum
Red Maple
Tree
2
2
3
Ailanthus altissima
Tree -of -Heaven, Copal Tree, Stink -tree
Tree
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
3
3
7
2
2
2
2
2
7
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Carya
Hickory
Tree
Carya ovata
Common Shagbark Hickory
Tree
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
Fagus grandifolia
American Beech
Tree
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Hamomelis virginiana
American Witchhazel
Shrub Tree
luniperus virginiana
Eastern Redcedar
Tree
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
Liquidamborstyrociflua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
1
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
5
36
33
26
14
56
Morus rubra
Red Mulberry
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
1
3
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
2
2
5
2
2
2
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
Prunus caroliniana
Carolina Laurel Cherry
Shrub Tree
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
Shrub Tree
Quercus alba
White Oak
Tree
2
Quercus falcata
Spanish Oak, Southern Red Oak
Tree
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
Rhus copallinum
Winged Sumac
Shrub Tree
Rhus typhina
Staghorn Sumac
Shrub
Salixnigra
Black Willow
Tree
9
Salixsericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
2
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
1
3
1
Sambucus nigra
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
2
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Tree
3
14
4
4
Ulmus americans
American Elm
Tree
2
4
12
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm, Red Elm
Tree
Stem count
10
10
24
9
9
53
9
9
75
9
9
26
8
8
50
6
6
26
10
10
74
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
5
5
7
5
5
10
5
5
14
5
5
8
6
6
9
4
4
7
5
5
8
Stems per ACRE
I405
405
971
364
364
2,145
364
364
3,035
1 364
364
1,052
1 324
324
2,023
1 243
243
1,052
1 405
405
2,995
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%
Volunteers included
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

Table 9b. Planted and Total Stems
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Current Plot Data (MY3 2019)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 10
Vegetation Plot 11
Vegetation Plot 12
Vegetation Plot 13
Vegetation Plot 14
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
Acerrubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
4
12
5
5
3
Ailanthus altissima
Tree -of -Heaven, Copal Tree, Stink -tree
Tree
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
6
2
2
2
Carya
Hickory
Tree
Carya ovata
Common Shagbark Hickory
Tree
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
Fagus grandifolia
American Beech
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Hamamelis virginiana
American Witchhazel
Shrub Tree
2
luniperus virginiana
Eastern Redcedar
Tree
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
Liquidambarstyraciflua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
1
56
1
16
11
9
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
4
5
5
4
20
8
16
Morus rubra
Red Mulberry
Tree
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
3
3
6
1
1
2
3
3
7
1
1
1
1
1
6
2
2
25
3
3
7
Prunus caroliniana
Carolina Laurel Cherry
Shrub Tree
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
Shrub Tree
2
1
Quercus alba
White Oak
Tree
Quercus falcata
Spanish Oak, Southern Red Oak
Tree
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
Rhus copallinum
Winged Sumac
Shrub Tree
Rhus typhina
Staghorn Sumac
Shrub
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
1
Salixsericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
5
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
Sambucus nigra
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
1
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Tree
1
2
Ulmus americans
American Elm
Tree
20
8
5
1
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm, Red Elm
Tree
Stem count
9
9
38
11
11
77
9
9
47
12
12
42
7
7
52
10
10
56
11
11
39
Size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
1 0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
4
8
6
6
9
3
3
10
1 6
6
10
1 5
5
12
1 5
5
9
5
5
9
Stems per ACRE
1 364
364
1,538
445
445
3,116
364
364
1,902
1 486
486
1,700
1 283
283
2,104
1 405
1 405
1 2,266
1 445
445
1,578
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P-All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteers included

Table 9c. Planted and Total Stems
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Current Plot Data (MY3 2019)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 15
Vegetation Plot 16
Vegetation Plot 17
Vegetation Plot 18
Vegetation Plot 19
Vegetation Plot 20
Vegetation Plot 21
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
Acerrubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
2
3
Ailanthus altissima
Tree -of -Heaven, Copal Tree, Stink -tree
Tree
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Carya
Hickory
Tree
Carya ovata
Common Shagbark Hickory
Tree
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
Fagus grandifolia
American Beech
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Hamamelis virginiana
American Witchhazel
Shrub Tree
luniperus virginiana
Eastern Redcedar
Tree
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
Liquidambarstyraciflua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
20
2
Morus rubra
Red Mulberry
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
2
2
23
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Prunus caroliniana
Carolina Laurel Cherry
Shrub Tree
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
Shrub Tree
Quercus alba
White Oak
Tree
Quercus falcata
Spanish Oak, Southern Red Oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Rhus copallinum
Winged Sumac
Shrub Tree
1
Rhus typhina
Staghorn Sumac
Shrub
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
11
4
50
Salixsericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
1
12
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
Sambucus nigra
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
2
1
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Tree
Ulmus americans
American Elm
Tree
1
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm, Red Elm
Tree
17
2
5
3
Stem count
5
1 5
11
11
11
74
7
7
9
6
6
24
13
13
21
6
6
63
10
10
26
Size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
1 0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
3
3
6
6
6
13
4
4
5
1 4
4
8
1 6
6
9
1 3
3
6
6
6
9
Stems per ACRE
1 02
202
445
445
445
2,995
283
283
364
1 243
243
971
1 526
526
850
1 243
1 243
1 2,550
1 405
405
1,052
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P-All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteers included

Table 9d. Planted and Total Stems
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Current Plot Data (MY3 2019)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 22
Vegetation Plot 23
Vegetation Plot 24
Vegetation Plot 25
Vegetation Plot 26
Vegetation Plot 27
Vegetation Plot 28
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
Acerrubrum
Red Maple
Tree
7
5
1
7
Ailanthus altissima
Tree -of -Heaven, Copal Tree, Stink -tree
Tree
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
5
2
2
6
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
7
3
3
3
Carya
Hickory
Tree
7
Carya ovata
Common Shagbark Hickory
Tree
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
Fagus grandifolia
American Beech
Tree
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
Hamomelis virginiana
American Witchhazel
Shrub Tree
luniperus virginiana
Eastern Redcedar
Tree
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
Liquidamborstyrociflua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
26
65
9
33
12
17
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
2
37
Morus rubra
Red Mulberry
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
19
Prunus caroliniana
Carolina Laurel Cherry
Shrub Tree
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
Shrub Tree
1
1
Quercus alba
White Oak
Tree
Quercus falcata
Spanish Oak, Southern Red Oak
Tree
1
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Rhus copallinum
Winged Sumac
Shrub Tree
5
Rhus typhina
Staghorn Sumac
Shrub
1
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
1
1
Salixsericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
11
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
Sambucus nigra
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Tree
3
17
1
8
Ulmus americans
American Elm
Tree
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm, Red Elm
Tree
5
2
1
1
4
Stem count
8
8
64
13
13
88
10
10
28
10
10
64
12
12
14
11
11
33
13
13
112
Size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
1 0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
4
10
6
6
10
5
5
1 9
1 5
5
11
1 5
5
7
1 6
6
8
5
5
13
Stems per ACRE
1 324
324
2,590
526
526
3,561
405
405
1 1,133
1 405
405
2,590
1 486
486
567
1 445
1 445
1 1,335
1 526
526
4,532
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P-All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteers included

Table 9e. Planted and Total Stems
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Current Plot Data (MY3 2
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 29
Vegetation Plot 30
Vegetation Plot 31
Vegetation Plot 32
Vegetation Plot 33
Vegetation Plot 34
Vegetation Plot 35
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
Acerrubrum
Red Maple
Tree
9
4
6
1
10
Ailanthus altissima
Tree -of -Heaven, Copal Tree, Stink -tree
Tree
1
4
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Carya
Hickory
Tree
Carya ovata
Common Shagbark Hickory
Tree
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
2
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
1
Fagus grandifolia
American Beech
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
Hamamelis virginiana
American Witchhazel
Shrub Tree
luniperus virginiana
Eastern Redcedar
Tree
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
Liquidambarstyraciflua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
62
13
1
4
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
27
9
1
10
17
Morus rubra
Red Mulberry
Tree
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
1
1
17
2
2
3
3
3
12
3
3
3
2
2
5
1
1
5
3
3
3
Prunus caroliniana
Carolina Laurel Cherry
Shrub Tree
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
Shrub Tree
Quercus alba
White Oak
Tree
Quercus falcata
Spanish Oak, Southern Red Oak
Tree
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
Rhus copallinum
Winged Sumac
Shrub Tree
1
1
Rhus typhina
Staghorn Sumac
Shrub
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
2
Salixsericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
Sambucus nigra
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Tree
2
5
1
Ulmus americans
American Elm
Tree
3
70
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm, Red Elm
Tree
Stem count
10
10
69
8
8
21
11
11
106
10
10
26
11
11
27
12
12
1 117
7
7
7
Size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
1 0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
4
11
5
5
8
4
4
11
5
5
8
6
6
10
6
6
10
4
4
4
Stems per ACRE
405
405
2,792
324
324
850
445
445
4,290
1 405
405
1,052
1 445
445
1,093
1 486
486
1 4,735
1 283
283
283
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%
Volunteers included
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

Table 9f. Planted and Total Stems
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Current Plot D.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 36
Vegetation Plot 37
Vegetation Plot 38
Vegetation Plot 39
Vegetation Plot 40
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
32
4
5
Ailanthus altissima
Tree -of -Heaven, Copal Tree, Stink -tree
Tree
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Carya
Hickory
Tree
Carya ovata
Common Shagbark Hickory
Tree
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
Fagus grandifolia
American Beech
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
Hamamelis virginiana
American Witchhazel
Shrub Tree
Juniperus virginiana
Eastern Redcedar
Tree
1
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
Liquidambarstyraciflua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
7
950
6
4
7
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
45
16
17
29
50
Morus rubra
Red Mulberry
Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
3
3
12
3
3
5
2
2
3
1
1
1
3
3
4
Prunus caroliniana
Carolina Laurel Cherry
Shrub Tree
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
Shrub Tree
Quercus alba
White Oak
Tree
Quercus falcata
Spanish Oak, Southern Red Oak
Tree
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Rhus copallinum
Winged Sumac
Shrub Tree
1
Rhus typhina
Staghorn Sumac
Shrub
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
4
4
9
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
1
Sambucus nigra
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
13
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Tree
47
1
3
10
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
13
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm, Red Elm
Tree
Stem count
10
10
154
11
11
981
9
9
51
9
9
64
7
7
90
Size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
5
5
10
6
6
10
6
6
5
5
11
5
5
11
Stems per ACRE
405
405
6,232
445
445
39,700
364
364
ad
364
364
2,590
1 283
283
3,642
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%
Volunteers included
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

Table 9g. Planted and Total Stems
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Annual
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY3 (2019)
MY2 (2018)
Mea
MY1 (2017)
MYO (2017)
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
134
188
215
Ailanthus altissima
Tree -of -Heaven, Copal Tree, Stink -tree
Tree
5
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder, Smooth Alder, Hazel Alder
Shrub Tree
1
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
44
44
75
47
47
70
67
67
92
98
98
98
Carya
Hickory
Tree
7
Carya ovata
Common Shagbark Hickory
Tree
3
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
2
2
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon, Possumwood
Tree
1
1
Fagus grandifolia
American Beech
Tree
199
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
101
101
102
103
103
104
105
105
105
107
107
107
Hamamelis virginiana
American Witchhazel
Shrub Tree
2
Juniperus virginiana
Eastern Redcedar
Tree
1
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
1
Liquidambarstyraciflua
Sweet Gum, Red Gum
Tree
1,321
188
100
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
518
444
319
Morus rubra
Red Mulberry
Tree
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Sour Gum, Black Gum, Pepperidge
Tree
7
1
11
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
82
82
216
83
83
224
1 97
97
202
107
107
107
Prunus caroliniana
Carolina Laurel Cherry
Shrub Tree
1
Prunus serotina
Black Cherry
Shrub Tree
5
Quercus alba
White Oak
Tree
2
Quercus falcata
Spanish Oak, Southern Red Oak
Tree
1
1
2
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
2
Quercus michauxii
Basket Oak, Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
62
62
62
68
68
68
97
97
97
109
109
109
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak, Swamp Spanish Oak
Tree
29
29
29
36
36
37
63
63
63
75
75
75
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
61
61
63
70
70
70
93
93
93
107
107
107
Rhus copallinum
Winged Sumac
Shrub Tree
9
1
2
Rhus typhina
Staghorn Sumac
Shrub
1
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
96
8
31
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
31
35
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
6
8
Sambucus nigra
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
19
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Tree
126
238
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
139
31
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm, Red Elm
Tree
40
Stem count
380
1 380
3,023
407
407
1,726
522
522
1,530
603
603
603
Size (ares)
40
40
40
40
Size (ACRES)
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
Species count
7
7
29
6
6
23
6
6
14
6
6
6
Stems per ACRE
384
384
3,058
412
412
1,746
528
528
1,548
610
610
610
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%
Volunteers included
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy Creek Reach 1
Parameter
Gage
Pre -Restoration
Condition
Candy Creek Reach 1
Collins Creek
Reference Reach Data
Long Branch UT to Rocky Creek
Spencer Creek Reach 2
Candy Creek Reach 1
(100+08 - 118+91)
Design
Candy Creek Reach 1
(118+91 - 125+27)
Candy Creek Reach 1
(125+27 - 126+27)
Candy Creek Reach 1
(100+08 - 118+91)
Candy Creek Reach 1
(118+91 - 125+27)
Candy Creek Reach 1
(125+27 - 126+27)
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Min
I
Max
Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
8.7
9.4
11.9
20.1
14.8
18.6
12.2
10.7
11.2
10.6
13.6
16.8
11.9
12.8
16.1
17.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
11
16
60
>50
72
60
>114
23 1 53
30 68
37 1 84
53
97
164
292
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.3
1.4
1.6
2.7
1.3
2.1
1.3
1.6
1.8
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth
1.7
1.8
3.3
4.2
1.9
2.9
1.8
2.1
2.6
1.2
1.5
1.8
1.0
1.2
1.8
2.3
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area ftZ
12.1
12.3
32.9
25.0
34.6
16.3
17.8
19.7
8.2
13.2
19.9
5.7
8.9
13.9
20.3
Width/Depth Ratio
6.2
1 7.2
4.4
12.1
7.9
13.8
9.1
1 5.8
7.1
13.7
14.0
14.2
18.4
25.3
18.6
14.3
Entrenchment Ratio'
1.2
1.7
2.0
3.0
>3.4
6.0
5.5
>10.2
2.2 1 5.0
2.2 1 5.0
2.2 1 5.0
4.4
8.1
10.2
17.1
Bank Height Rati02
3.8
3.9
1.0
1.1
1.2 1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
2.4
0.9
2.8
14.6
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
11
55
7
59
17
29
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
0.031
0.003
0.008
0.012
0.013
0.061 0.089
0.013
0.005
0.078
0.007
0.047
0.007
0.023
0.002
0.055
0.006
0.017
0.007
0.017
Pool Length (ft)
N/A
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
18
70
19
57
52
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.2
3.3
0.9
2.4
1.2
3.0
1.4
3.7
2.1
3.0
3.3
3.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
20
57
32
80
50
105
26 81
71
23
85
30
106
37
118
23
102
53
110
N/A
Pool Volume(ft'),
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
---
60
---
38
41
28
94
39
121
50
150
19
47
25
58
54
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
---
16
87
---
11
15
16
34
20
44
25
54
17
38
22
44
40
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
---
1.1
4.7
---
1.3
1.4
1.5
3.2
1.5
3.2
1.5
3.2
1.6
3.0
1.4
2.6
2.4
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
---
---
---
---
53
148
68
190
84
235
32
92
65
110
160
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
---
---
---
---
5.0
14.0
5
14.0
5.0
14.0
3.1
6.4
3.6
6.2
3.2
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
0.57/1.4/2.4/15.3/26/45
---
---
---
0.6/3.0/8.8/42.0/90/---
SC/0.35/0.9/62/114/512
SC/0.34/2.8/72/168/256
0.15/0.9/15/83/129/256
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb ftZ
0.73
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.28
0.41
0.40
0.63
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.88
1.68
1.49
1.10
0.96
0.22
0.24
0.88
0.22
0.24
0.88
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
---
---
---
---
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rosgen Classification
G4c
E4
C/E4
E4b
E4
C/E
C/E
C/E
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
5.3 1 5.4
3.9
3.6
4.0
5.5
4.9 5.4
3.0
3.3
3.2
2.7 4.2
3.0
3.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
65
115 F 150
101
124
85
97
24
42
65
24
42
65
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
---
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
---
Q-Mannings
---
Valley Length (ft)
2,268
---
---
---
---
1,615
550
88
1,615
550
88
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,887
---
---
---
---
1,894
636
100
1,883
636
100
Sinuosity
1.27
---
1.30
1.10
2.30
1.17
1.16
1.14
1.17
1.16
1.14
Water Surface Slope ft ft Z
--
0.004 1 0.021
0.006 1 0.012
0.006
0.010
0.008
0.009
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.012
0.009
0.005
0.010
0.009
0.008
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy Creek Reaches 2 and 3
Parameter
Gage
Pre -Restoration
Candy Creek Reach 2
Condition
Candy Creek Reach 3
Reference Reach Data
See Table 7a
Candy Creek Reach 2
(126+27 - 143+06)
Design
Candy Creek Reach 2
(143+06 - 148+02)
Candy Creek Reach 3
(149+02 - 155+05)
Candy Creek Reach 2
(126+27 - 143+06)
Candy Creek Reach 2
(143+06 - 148+02)
Candy Creek Reach 3
(149+02 - 155+05)
Min
7
Max
Min
Max
Min I Max
Min
I
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Min
I
Max
Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
18.2
19.4
15.3
17.6
See Table 10a
17.5
17.0
20.0
16.1
19.5
16.7
19.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
27
99+
24
60
39 88
37 85
44 100
154
254
164
57
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.4
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.9
2.1
1.8
2.3
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area ftZ
23.4
27.9
25.8
27.6
21.8
20.9
28.0
16.2
23.3
20.8
28.2
Width/Depth Ratio
11.9
16.2
9.1
11.2
14.0
13.8
14.3
13.3
16.3
13.5
13.1
Entrenchment Ratio'
1.4
3.2+
1.4
3.9
2.2 1 5.0
2.2 5.0
2.2 1 5.0
9.5
15.8
9.8
3.0
Bank Height Rati02
1.3
2.4
1.8
2.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.8
N/A
0.4
0.5
1.0
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A
See Table 10a
---
---
---
24
63
14
60
10
61
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.005 0.010
N/A
0.004 0.035
0.011 1 0.035
0.006 0.013
0.001
0.019
0.001
0.019
0.001
0.035
Pool Length (ft)
---
23
101
23
58
22
53
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.7
N/A
1.5
3.9
1.5
3.8
2.1
4.2
3.3
3.5
3.9
3.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
16 68
N/A
39
124
37
119
40
130
59
146
55 136
49 97
Pool Volume(ft'),
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
See Table 10a
48
156
38
151
N/A
31
72
23
68
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
26
56
26
54
N/A
20
107
27
42
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
1.5
3.2
1.5
3.2
N/A
1.1
4.5
1.3
1.9
N/A
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
88
245
85
238
N/A
81
171
54
121
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
2.2
8.9
2.2
8.9
N/A
1.4
3.0
1.1
3.0
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
See Table 10a
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.3/0.8/9.1/13.9/23
N/A
SC/0.17/0.4/93/146/256
SC/0.21/0.5/72/117/362
SC/0.27/1.0/113/148/256
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib ft2
0.42
N/A
0.50
0.50
N/A
0.40 0.48
0.58
N/A
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
1.08
1.26
See Table 10a
0.93
1.08
1.26
0.93
1.08
1.26
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rosgen Classification
F5
G4c
C/E
C/E
C/E
C5
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.6 4.3
3.4 3.6
3.5
4.0
3.2
3.2 F 4.6
4.1
3.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
85
93
75
85
93
75
85
93
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
---
---
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
---
---
Q-M a n n i ngs
---
---
Valley Length (ft)
1,387
551
1,363
426
511
1,363
426
490
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,780
671
1,679
536
628
1,679
536
603
Sinuosity,
1.28
1.22
1.23
1.26
1.23
1.23
1.26
1.23
Water Surface Slope ft ft Z
0.004 1 0.009
0.009
0.004 1 0.005
0.008
0.004
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
0.018
_f_0.007
0.007
0.007
0.009
0.005
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy Creek Reach 4
Parameter
Gage
Pre -Restoration Condition
Candy Creek Reach 4
Reference Reach Data
See Table 7a
Design
Candy Creek Reach 4
(170+71 - 196+50)
Candy Creek Reach 4
(196+50 - 206+35)
Candy Creek Reach 4
(170+71 - 196+50)
Candy Creek Reach 4
(196+50 - 206+35)
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
11.4
14.1
See Table 10a
22.0
20.0
19.1
24.9
21.7
23.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
17
21
77 1 176
70 F 120
158
222
132
155
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.5
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.9
2.5
2.9
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area ftZ
20.4
21.5
32.1
27.2
26.9
38.1
31.6
32.8
Width/Depth Ratio
6.4
9.2
15.1
14.7
13.6
16.3
14.4
17.1
Entrenchment Ratio'
1.5
1.5
3.5 F 8.0
3.5 1 6.0
7.1
11.6
6.1
6.7
Bank Height Rati02
1.9
2.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
2.2
0.4
0.6
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A
See Table 10a
---
---
14
74
15
53
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
N/A
0.006 1 0.020
0.011 1 0.039
0.003
0.022
0.004
0.025
Pool Length (ft)
---
20
125
22
71
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.8
2.9
4.4
2.7
4.1
4.5
4.6
4.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
N/A
88
154
26
132
40
145
52
111
Pool Volume(ft'),
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
See Table 10a
66
154
30
100
66
154
30
100
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
25
55
25
50
25
55
25
50
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
1.2
2.5
1.3
2.5
1.2
2.5
1.3
2.5
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
84
220
80
220
84
220
80
220
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
3.0
7.0
1.5
5.0
3.0
7.0
1.5
5.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
See Table 10a
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.3/0.7/2.2/14/28/256
SC/0.15/0.4/64/180/256
0.09/0.26/0.6/49/111/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib ft2
0.69
0.46
0.46
0.40 T 0.44
0.85 0.83
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W mZ
---
---
---
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
1.46
See Table 10a
1.40
1.46
1.40
1.46
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rosgen Classification
G4c
C/E
C/E
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.9 1 5.2
3.3
4.0
3.3
3.2 1
3.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
105
---
105
---
105
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
---
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
---
Q-Mannings
---
Valley Length (ft)
2,847
1,976
744
1,981
745
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
3,359
2,575
983
2,579
985
Sinuosity,
1.18
1.30
1.32
1.30
1.32
Water Surface Slope ft ft Z
0.004 1 0.008
0.009 1 0.013
0.005
1 0.010
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.005
0.012
0.005
1 0.008
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 10d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT1C and UT1D
Parameter
Gage
Pre -Restoration
UT1C
Condition
UT1D
UT to Varnals Creek
Reference Reach
Spencer Creek Reach 3
Data
Acres
UT1-Reach 3
UT to Richland Creek
UT1C
Design
UT1D
UT1C
As-Built/Baseline
UT1D
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
8.7
6.4
9.3
10.5
6.3
9.3
9.1
10.4
8.8
10.4
5.8
3.7
7.8
7.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
12
34
20
64
14
125
36+
28
31
13 29
8 18
28
15
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.3
0.6
1.1
1.2
0.8
1.0
1.0 1 1.2
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.7
1.0
1.5
1.7
1.0
1.2
1.8
1.1
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area ftZ
7.2
3.7
10.3
12.3
6.6
8.7
10.7
11.3
7.8
8.5
2.1
0.8
4.0
3.8
Width/Depth Ratio
4.5
11.2
8.1
1 9.3
1 7.9
9.3
7.3
10.1
10.0
12.8
16.0
1 16.1
15.0
15.4
Entrenchment Ratio'
2.1
5.3
1.9
6.1
1.7
4.3
>3.9
2.5
4.0
2.2 1 5.0
2.2 5.0
3.6
2.0
Bank Height Rati02
3.8
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
2.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.3
0.3
12.8
31.2
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
3
43
4
62
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
0.024
0.057
0.018
0.034
N/A
0.021
0.045
0.030
0.050
0.006
0.112
0.003
0.082
0.002
0.085
Pool Length (ft)
N/A
---
---
---
---
---
---
5.0
20.0
4.0
15.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
N/A
2.5
2.6
1.2
1.8
2.5
N/A
0.7
1.3
0.5
0.8
1.7
1.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
N/A
N/A
8
82
9
46
N/A
N/A
8
29
5
26
6
51
6
T
33
Pool Volume(ft'),
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
15
45
10
50
21
93
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
8
47
12
85
14
60
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.6
3.2
1.9
9.1
1.5
5.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
---
53
178
---
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
1.0
3.0
1.6
5.4
2.3
8.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
SC/SC/0.3/9.4/30/90
SC/0.1/0.3/2.9/5.2/16
---
1.9/8.9/11/64/128/---
---
---
SC/0.39/12.8/82/117/180
0.3/6.1/31/57/78/128
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib ft2
2.70
0.39
0.31
0.50
0.84
1.48
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.04
0.01
0.41
0.37
0.30
0.28
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.01
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
<1%
---
---
---
---
1%
<1%
1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
E5b
C5
B
E4
E4
C4/E4
B/C
B/C
B/C
B/C
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
0.8
0.5
4.4 1 5.2
5 1 5.6
2.2 1 2.4
3.5
4.1
2.5
3.0
1.5
0.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
6
2
54
35
25
29
32
6
2
6
2
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
---
---
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
---
---
Q-M a n n i ngs
---
---
Valley Length (ft)
688
378
---
---
---
---
684
370
672
363
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
728
436
---
---
---
---
740
385
728
379
Sinuosity,
1.06
1.15
1.20
1.00 1.30
1.35
1.00
1.08
1.04
1.08
1.04
Water Surface Slope ft ft Z
0.028
0.006 1 0.075
0.028
0.051
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.040
0.052
0.028
0.045
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 10e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT2 and UT2A
Parameter
Gage
UT2 - Reach 1
UT2 - Reach 2
UT2A
See Table 7d
UT2 - Reach 1
UT2 - Reach 2
UT2A
UT2 - Reach 1
UT2 - Reach 2
UT2A
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
3.1
6.7
5.2
2.8
See Table 10d
6.4
7.5
4.6
4.8
7.5
7.8
7.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
4
9
7
9
19 82
16 28
10 18
22
47
60
31
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.4
1.5
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area ftZ
2.4
3.0
3.3
1.2
2.7
3.9
1.3
1.2
6.8
4.1
4.1
Width/Depth Ratio
4.0
14.9
8.3
6.6
15.1
14.4
16.3
8.3
18.5
14.9
11.9
Entrenchment Ratio'
1.1
1.3
1.4
3.1
3.0 12.8
2.1 3.7
2.2 3.9
2.9
9.8
7.7
4.4
Bank Height Rati02
4.3
4.9
3.8
5.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.1
N/A
N/A
34.6
4.5
2.5
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A
See Table 10d
---
---
---
4
68
7
80
3
102
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.003 1 0.110
N/A
N/A
0.011 0.070
0.017 0.032
0.035 0.065
0.004
0.063
0.001
0.055
0.019
0.071
Pool Length (ft)
4
18
11
62
4
12
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.9
1.0
2.0
0.6
1.0
1.7
1.5
1.5
2.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
22 116
N/A
N/A
8
42
17
53
6
30
8
13
51
7
55
Pool Volume(ft),
+_45
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
See Table 10d
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
25
N/A
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
17
54
N/A
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.7
9.2
N/A
N/A
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
21
68
N/A
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2
5.6
N/A
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
See Table 10d
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/0.1/22.6 /36.7/90
N/A
N/A
0.35/6.0/34.6/70/90/256
0.2/0.7/5/56/161/>2048
0.27/1.1/2.5/47/76/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib ftZ
1.80
N/A
N/A
0.95
---
---
0.31 1.05
0.45
1.32
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.07
0.10
0.02
See Table 10d
0.07
0.10
0.02
0.07
0.10
0.02
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
3%
3%
5%
3%
3%
5%
3%
3%
5%
Rosgen Classification
F5
G5c
G5
B
C/E
B
C4
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.0 1 3.7
3.6
3.5
3.1
3.1
2.3
1.3 1 7.5
2.9
1.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
9
12
4
9
12
4
9
12
4
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
---
--
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
---
---
---
Q-Ma n ni ngs
---
---
---
Valley Length (ft)
1,105
595
341
1,168
591
340
1,168
591
358
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,279
731
376
1,208
645
349
1,208
643
366
Sinuosity,
1.16
1.23
1.10
1.03
1.09
1.02
1.03
1.09
1.02
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)Z
---
--
0.010 1 0.035
0.014 0.016
0.032 1 0.036
0.021
0.031
0.015
0.039
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.038
0.019
0.038
0.023
1 0.032
0.014
0.040
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 10f. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT3, UT4, and UT5
Parameter
Gage
UT3
UT4
UT5
See Table 7d
UT3
UT4
UT5
UT3
UT4
UT5
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
5.8
8.5
9.5
See Table 10d
7.8
11.0
9.8
8.8
11.5
15.1
9.7
10.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
8
11
10
17 100
24 135
22 100
77
98
288
83
229
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.9
1.1
0.6
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.6
2.1
0.9
1.3
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area ftZ
3.9
7.2
6.7
4.8
9.4
7.5
5.5
11.0
15.2
6.0
8.8
Width/Depth Ratio
8.8
10.2
13.4
12.7
12.9
12.8
14.0
10.2
15.0
12.8
15.5
Entrenchment Ratio'
1.3
1.2
1.1
2.2 12.8
2.2 1 12.3
2.2 1 10.2
8.8
6.5
25.0
8.6
21.6
Bank Height Rati02
5.4
6.2
5.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
10.6
2.8
12.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A
See Table 10d
---
---
8
20
8
69
11
28
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.011 0.072
0.011 1 0.064
0.020 0.012
0.012 0.092
0.003 0.018
0.003 0.035
0.007
0.057
0.000
0.072
0.000
0.027
Pool Length (ft)
8
24
9
42
12
39
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.1
2.1
1.7
2.6
1.5
2.4
1.1
2.7
2.3
2.9
1.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
6 43
12 42
9 54
17
43
28
66
25
64
24
33
24
123
26
65
Pool Volume(ft).
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
See Table 10d
6
16
10
28
9
64
7
19
10
45
10
39
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
27
14
28
13
49
12
24
12
33
11
48
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.3
3.5
1.3
2.5
1.3
5.0
1.1
2.1
1.1
2.1
0.8
3.6
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
41
101
39
105
54
127
28
76
31
72
34
71
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.8
2.0
0.9
2.5
0.9
6.5
0.8
1.7
0.7
2.7
0.9
2.2
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
See Table 10d
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.1/10.6/22.6/41/64
0.3/0.5/2.8/28.5/40.6/64
0.3/2.8/12.5/29.7/41/90
SC/0.36/1.5/81/111/180
SC/0.16/0.6/100/161/512
SC/SC/0.6/32/143/362
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib ftZ
0.93
0.55
1.90
0.81
0.61
0.28
0.88
0.30 7 0.32
0.23 F 0.30
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W mZ
---
---
---
---
---
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.12
0.30
0.21
See Table 10d
0.12
0.30
0.21
0.12
0.30
0.21
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
Rosgen Classification
G4
G4
F4
C/E
C/E
C/E
C5
C5/E5
C5/E5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.7
4.2
3.3
2.9
3.2
2.9
2.5
2.0 2.7
2.5 1
3.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
14
30
22
14
30
22
14
30
22
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
---
--
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
---
---
---
IF
Q-Ma n ni ngs
---
---
---
Valley Length (ft)
238
1,058
732
301
1,111
845
301
1,111
845
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
346
1,270
1,012
346
1,355
1,012
346
1,356
1,012
Sinuosity,
1.45
1.20
1.38
1.15
1.22
1.20
1.15
1.22
1.20
Water Surface Slope Z
0.011
0.032
0.003 0.012
0.002 0.010
0.024
0.006
0.006
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.016
0.032
0.012
0.012
0.022
0.006
0.007
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 11a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Dimension and Substrate
Cross
Base
(10/2016)
-Section
MY1
(2017)
1, Candy Creek Reach
MY2 MY3 MY4
(2018) (2019) (2020)
1 (Riffle)
MY5 MY6
(2021) (2022)
M
MY7
(2023)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
(10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
Base
(10/2016)
MY1
(2017)
MY2 MY3 MY4
(2018) (2019) (2020)
MY5 MY6
(2021) (2022)
MY7
(2023)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
(10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
Bankfull Elevation
765.9
765.9
765.8
765.6
763.4
763.4
763.3
763.3
763.0
763.0
763.1
763.0
757.4
757.4
757.4
757.4
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
765.9
765.9
765.8
765.6
763.4
763.4
763.3
763.3
763.0
763.0
763.1
763.0
757.4
757.4
757.4
757.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.8
11.3
11.4
10.3
18.7
17.0
16.8
16.8
12.0
10.6
13.0
11.3
12.5
11.7
11.7
11.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
71.0
1 71.0
54.6
54.5
1
1
---
---
I ---
I ---
1
1
97.0
1 97.0
95.6
1 96.2
1
1
1 ---
---
I ---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.0
0.9
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.4
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.2
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
8.9
8.3
6.9
6.5
18.4
15.8
14.5
14.2
5.7
5.1
6.2
5.9
13.5
12.3
12.3
12.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
18.4
15.4
19.0
16.5
19.0
18.3
19.4
19.9
25.3
22.2
27.2
21.6
11.6
11.1
11.1
11.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratioll
5.5
6.3
1 4.8
1 5.3
1
8.1
9.1
1 7.3
8.5
1
---
---
I ---
Bankfull Bank Height RatioZ'3
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
Base
(10/2016)
•
MY1
(2017)
•
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Base
(10/2016)
•
MY1
(2017)
•
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
•••
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Base
(10/2016)
•
MY1
(2017)
•Cross-section
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Base
(10/2016)
MY1
(2017)
8,
MY2
(2018)
Candy
MY3
(2019)
Creek Reach
MY4
(2020)
1
MY5
(2021)
(Riffle)
MY6
(2022)
=
MY7
(2023)
Bankfull Elevation
757.1
757.1
757.1
757.1
749.3
749.3
749.2
748.8
748.9
748.9
748.9
748.7
747.3
747.3
747.3
747.4
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
757.1
757.1
757.1
757.1
749.3
749.3
749.2
748.8
748.9
748.9
748.9
748.7
747.3
747.3
747.3
747.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.9
12.1
12.1
13.0
19.9
19.7
20.4
15.9
16.1
14.8
13.6
11.7
17.0
15.3
15.2
15.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
53.0
1 53.0
74.8
74.8
1
1
1 ---
---
I ---
---
164.0
164.0
1 82.7
82.7
1
1
1
292.0
292.0
1 63.8
1 63.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.8
1.7
1.6
2.3
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
3.3
4.0
3.8
4.6
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.8
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
7.1
7.5
7.1
7.7
35.5
34.2
31.7
36.5
13.9
14.3
12.2
12.0
20.3
20.3
19.8
20.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
19.9
19.5
20.5
21.8
11.2
11.3
13.1
6.9
18.6
15.4
15.3
11.3
14.3
11.5
11.7
11.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratioll
4.4
4.4
1 6.2
5.8
---
---
---
10.2
1 11.1
6.1
7.1
17.1
19.1
4.2
4.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2,3
1.0
1 1.0
Dimension and Substrate
Cross
Base
(10/2016)
-Section
MYl
(2017)
9,
MY2
(2018)
Candy
MY3
(2019)
Creek Reach
MY4
(2020)
2
MY5
(2021)
(Pool)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Cross
Base
(10/2016)
-Section
MYl
(2017)
10,
MY2
(2018)
Candy
MY3
(2019)
Creek Reach
MY4
(2020)
2
MY5
(2021)
(Riffle)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Cross
Base
(10/2016)
-Sec
MY1
(2017)
Fio-n 11,
MY2
(2018)
Candy
MY3
(2019)
Creek Reach
MY4
(2020)
2
MY5
(2021)
(Riffle)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Cross
Base
(10/2016)
-Section
MY1
(2017)
12,
MY2
(2018)
Candy
MY3
(2019)
Creek
MY4
(2020)
Reach 2
MY5
(2021)
(Pool)=
MY6 MY7
(2022) (2023)
Bankfull Elevation
745.6
745.6
745.5
745.4
745.0
745.0
744.9
745.1
741.1
741.1
741.1
741.1
737.4
737.4
737.3
737.4
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
745.6
745.6
745.5
745.4
745.0
745.0
744.9
745.1
741.1
741.1
741.1
741.1
737.4
737.4
737.3
737.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
22.0
24.9
21.1
23.1
16.1
16.0
14.5
15.8
16.3
16.2
16.5
15.3
23.6
23.7
25.1
23.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
254.0
254.0
1 93.6
1 93.4
1
1
154.0
154.0
1 82.7
82.8
1
1
1
---
---
---
I ---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.5
3.9
4.0
3.5
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.4
1.9
2.3
2.3
2.2
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
40.1
42.1
38.8
36.0
16.2
16.5
14.7
19.1
19.8
21.5
21.6
19.6
44.2
40.9
38.6
36.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.0
14.7
11.5
14.9
16.0
15.5
14.3
13.1
13.3
12.2
12.7
11.9
12.6
13.7
16.3
15.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
---
---
---
---
15.8
15.9
6.5
5.9
9.5
9.5
5.0
5.4
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Rati02,3
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
---
---
Dimension and Substrate
Base
(10/2016)
MY1
(2017)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Base
(10/2016)
MY1
(2017)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Base
(10/2016)
MY1
(2017)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Bankfull Elevation
737.0
737.0
736.8
737.0
733.1
733.1
733.1
733.1
733.2
733.2
733.2
733.2
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
737.0
737.0
736.8
737.0
733.1
733.1
733.1
733.1
733.2
733.2
733.2
733.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
19.5
18.2
17.9
19.1
16.7
17.3
17.5
17.4
23.9
21.8
21.6
21.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
221.0
221.0
95.7
95.8
164.0
164.0
80.8
86.5
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.9
2.2
1.9
2.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.1
1.8
2.1
2.0
2.0
3.9
4.5
1 4.2
5.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
23.3
24.3
22.3
21.6
20.8
22.7
21.8
22.0
46.3
47.8
40.0
48.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.3
13.7
14.3
16.9
13.5
13.2
14.0
13.7
12.3
9.9
11.7
9.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
11.3
12.1
5.3
5.0
9.8
9.5
4.6
5.0
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratioz'3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
---
---
---
---
1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
z Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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 (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height.

Table 11b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Dimension and Substrate
Base
(10/2016)
MY1
(2017)
MY2 MY3
(2018) (2019)
MY4 MY5
(2020) (2021)
MY6 MY7
(2022) (2023)
Base MY1
(10/2016) (2017)
MY6 MY7
(2022) (2023)
Base
(10/2016)
MY6 MY7
(2022) (2023)
Base
(10/2016)
MY1
(2017)
MY2
(2018)
MY6 MY7
(2022) (2023)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY
(2017)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
Bankfull Elevation
729.2
729.2
729.4
729.3
729.1
729.1
729.2
729.2
720.6
720.6
720.6
720.1
720.5
720.5
720.5
720.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
729.2
729.2
729.4
729.3
729.1
729.1
729.2
729.2
720.6
720.6
720.6
720.1
720.5
720.5
720.5
720.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
26.2
25.8
27.4
23.1
19.2
18.0
20.0
19.7
26.9
26.3
25.9
22.2
19.1
19.8
20.4
19.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
57.0
57.0
53.8
53.7
---
---
---
---
222.0
222.0
85.9
85.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.5
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.5
2.2
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.5
4.2
4.3
3.9
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.4
4.5
4.8
4.6
4.1
2.2
2.1
2.3
2.4
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
50.0
54.3
54.1
57.4
28.2
25.9
26.9
29.2
58.7
55.5
54.5
42.8
26.9
23.3
28.0
27.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratiol
13.8
12.3
13.9
9.3
13.1
12.5
14.9
13.2
12.3
12.4
12.3
11.5
13.6
16.8
14.8
13.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratios
---
3.0
3.2
2.7
2.7
---
---
---
11.6
11.2
4.2
4.4
Bankfull Bank Height RatioZ'3I
--
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
Cross
Base
(10/2016)
-Section
MY1
(2017)
20,
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Base
(10/2016)
•
MY1
(2017)
•
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
•••
I MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Base
(10/2016)
•
MY1
(2017)
•(Pool)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
in
MY7
(2023)
Cross
Base
(10/2016)
-Section
MY1
(2017)
23,
MY2
(2018)
Candy
MY3
(2019)
Creek Reach
MY4
(2020)
4
MY5
(2021)
(Riffle)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Bankfull Elevation
717.8
717.8
717.7
717.7
717.7
717.7
717.9
717.6
714.0
714.0
713.8
714.0
713.9
713.9
713.8
713.7
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
717.8
717.8
717.7
717.7
717.7
717.7
717.9
717.6
714.0
714.0
713.8
714.0
713.9
713.9
713.8
713.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
22.4
22.2
22.4
21.9
29.3
30.0
32.4
28.7
23.6
23.8
25.6
28.3
24.9
22.5
23.9
24.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
158.0
158.0
100.3
1 100.4
1
---
I ---
---
I ---
I
I ---
---
I ---
---
I
1
1
180.0
180.01
90.0
1 90.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.8
2.2
2.1
1.9
2.1
1.5
1.7
1.4
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.3
4.6
4.6
5.5
6.6
1
4.6
4.0
4.3
5.5
2.9
2.8
2.6
2.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
31.0
31.7
30.6
31.7
70.1
74.0
80.2
79.3
51.1
50.2
47.7
59.2
38.1
37.4
34.2
33.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.2
15.6
16.5
15.2
12.2
12.2
13.1
10.4
10.9
11.3
13.8
13.5
16.3
13.5
16.6
17.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratios
7.1
7.1
4.5
4.6
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
7.2
8.0
Bank Height RatioZ'3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
---
---------
---
1.0
1.0
"3.83.7Bankfull
Y
Dimension and Substrate
Base
(10/2016)
MY1
(2017)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Base
(10/2016)
MY1
(2017)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Base
(10/2016)
MY1
(2017)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Base
(10/2016)
MY1
(2017)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Bankfull Elevation
707.8
707.8
707.8
707.8
702.6
702.6
702.7
702.6
702.1
702.1
702.4
702.0
752.2
752.2
752.3
752.3
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
707.8
707.8
707.8
707.8
702.6
702.6
702.7
702.6
702.1
702.1
702.4
702.0
752.2
752.2
752.3
752.3
Bankfull Width (ft)
23.2
23.5
23.6
23.6
21.7
21.6
1 22.7
23.2
23.6
24.6
24.5
23.3
7.8
7.8
10.1
11.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
155.0
155.0
1 58.7
58.8
1
11
1 132.0
132.0
85.9
85.8
---
---
---
---
28.0
28.0
1 24.6
24.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.2
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.9
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.5
4.1
4.4
4.3
4.9
0.9
0.8
1.1
1.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
31.6
32.4
31.4
29.6
32.8
32.8
33.5
33.9
51.3
52.5
52.7
50.5
4.0
3.7
5.1
6.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
17.1
17.1
17.7
18.8
14.4
14.3
15.3
15.8
10.8
11.6
11.4
10.7
15.0
16.2
19.9
19.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratioll
6.7
6.6
2.5
2.5
6.1
6.1
3.8
1 3.7
3.6
3.6
2.4
2.2
Bankfull Bank Height RatioZ'3
Dimension and Substrate
1.0
Base
(10/2016)
1.0
MY1
(2017)
1.0
•
MY2
(2018)
1.0
•(Pool)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
W
MY6
(2022)
'"P
MY7
(2023)
1.0
Base
(10/2016)
1.0
Cross
MY1
(2017)
1.0
-Section
MY2
(2018)
1.0
29,
MY3
(2019)
UT1D
MY4
(2020)
(Riffle)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Base
(10/2016)
Cross -Section
MY1
(2017)
MY2
(2018)
30, UT2
MY3
(2019)
Reach
MY4
(2020)
1 (Riffle)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
1.0
Base
(10/2016)
1.0
Cross -Section
MY1
(2017)
1.1
MY2
(2018)
1.3
31, UT2
MY3
(2019)
Reach
MY4
(2020)
1 (Riffle)
MY5
(2021)
1W
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Bankfull Elevation
752.1
752.1
752.0
751.9
742.7
742.7
742.7
742.6
771.9
771.9
771.6
771.7
763.8
763.8
763.6
764.0
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
752.1
752.1
752.0
751.9
742.7
742.7
742.7
742.6
771.9
771.9
771.6
771.7
763.8
763.8
763.6
764.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.4
9.1
5.8
6.2
7.6
7.1
8.4
7.4
7.5
7.8
7.5
7.2
4.8
4.3
3.1
3.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
15.0
15.0
18.7
17.1
22.0
22.0
21.9
21.2
47.0
47.0
42.8
48.1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.7
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
5.4
6.1
5.5
5.3
3.8
3.3
4.0
3.0
6.8
6.3
6.3
5.5
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.5
13.5
6.2
7.3
15.4
15.3
17.9
18.7
8.3
9.7
9.0
9.3
18.5
23.3
13.9
16.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratios
---
---
---
---
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.9
2.8
2.9
3.0
9.8
11.0
13.6
12.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2'3
---
---
To
To
To
0.9
To
ToI
To
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.9
1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
z Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3 MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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 (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current years low bank height.
4 Revised MYO dimensions reported for XS16 in MY1 to correct error.

Table 11c. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Dimension and Substrate
Base
(10/2016)
Cross
MYl
(2017)
-Section
MY2
(2018)
32, UT2
MY3
(2019)
Reach I
MY4
(2020)
(Pool)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Base
(10/2016)
Cross
MYl
(2017)
-Section
MY2
(2018)
33, UT2
MY3
(2019)
Reach I
MY4
(2020)
(Riffle)
MY5
(2021)
����Cross-Section
MY6 MY7
(2022) (2023)
Base MY1
(10/2016) (2017)
MY2
(2018)
34, UT2
MY3
(2019)
Reach
MY4
(2020)
2 (Pool)����
MYS
(2021)
MY6 MY7
(2022) (2023)
Cross-section
Base MY1
(10/2016) (2017)
MY2
(2018)
35, UT2
MY3
(2019)
Reach 2
MY4
(2020)
(Riffle)
MYS
(2021)
��
MY6 MY7
(2022) (2023)
Bankfull Elevation
760.4
760.4
760.1
760.2
760.0
760.0
759.8
759.9
734.8
734.8
734.8
735.0
734.6
734.6
734.6
734.7
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
760.4
760.4
760.1
760.2
760.0
760.0
759.8
759.9
734.8
734.8
734.8
735.0
734.6
734.6
734.6
734.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.1
11.3
6.3
6.3
7.8
7.0
6.7
6.6
10.2
9.6
8.1
9.1
7.8
7.8
7.0
6.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
88.0
88.0
79.4
78.1
---
---
---
---
60.0
60.0
24.8
60.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.8
0.8
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.5
0.8
1.4
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
6.2
7.2
5.7
5.7
3.5
3.2
3.6
3.4
7.9
4.5
5.8
5.3
4.1
3.0
3.0
2.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.4
17.7
6.9
6.9
17.2
15.1
12.6
12.8
13.3
20.2
11.1
15.6
14.9
20.2
16.4
14.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
---
---
---
---
11.3
12.6
11.8
11.8
---
---
---
---
7.7
7.7
3.6
9.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2'3'4
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
Dimension and Substrate
Base MY1
(10/2016) (2017)
MY5 MY6 MY7
(2021) (2022) (2023)
Base MY1
(10/2016) (2017)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY6 MY7
(2022) (2023)
Base MY1 MY2
(10/2016) (2017) (2018)
MYS MY6 MY7
(2021) (2022) (2023)
Base MY1
(10/2016) (2017)
MYS MY6 MY7
(2021) (2022) (2023)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
Bankfull Elevation
747.7
747.7
747.7
747.7
749.7
749.7
749.6
749.6
753.6
753.6
753.6
753.5
753.2
753.2
753.2
753.1
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
747.7
747.7
747.7
747.7
749.7
749.7
749.6
749.6
753.6
753.6
753.6
753.5
753.2
753.2
753.2
753.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.0
7.6
7.4
5.9
8.8
8.7
9.0
10.4
15.1
14.7
15.3
15.6
14.1
15.2
14.2
14.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
31.0
31.0
22.2
40.1
77.0
77.0
67.6
67.3
98.0
98.0
58.4
58.0
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.3
1.1
1.1
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.0
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.7
2.3
2.3
2.3
1.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
4.1
3.7
3.5
3.1
5.5
5.3
5.9
5.3
15.2
14.4
13.3
13.6
17.8
16.9
15.6
12.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.9
15.8
15.7
11.2
14.0
14.1
13.7
20.3
15.0
15.0
17.6
17.9
11.2
13.6
12.9
15.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
4.4
4.1
3.0
6.8
8.8
8.9
7.5
6.5
6.5
6.7
3.8
3.7
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2""
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
---
---
---
---
Dimension and Substrate
Base
(10/2016)
MY1
(2017)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Base
(10/2016)
MY1
(2017)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MYS
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Base
(10/2016)
MY1
(2017)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Base
(10/2016)
MY1
(2017)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Bankfull Elevation
750.3
750.3
750.3
750.3
750.2
750.2
750.2
750.2
748.3
748.3
748.3
748.3
748.0
748.0
748.0
747.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
750.3
750.3
750.3
750.3
750.2
750.2
750.2
750.2
748.3
748.3
748.3
748.3
748.0
748.0
748.0
747.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
14.5
15.0
16.3
17.0
11.8
12.3
12.4
12.9
11.5
12.3
13.0
12.3
16.9
15.0
17.7
11.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
172.0
172.0
69.1
69.1
1 288.0
288.0
49.9
49.9
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
2.9
3.1
3.1
3.0
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
18.5
16.3
15.1
15.9
11.0
11.1
10.6
10.2
13.0
12.7
12.4
12.0
20.2
18.9
18.8
15.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.4
13.8
17.6
18.2
12.7
13.7
14.6
16.1
10.2
11.9
13.6
12.5
14.2
12.0
16.7
8.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
---
---
---
---
14.6
13.9
5.6
5.4
25.0
23.5
3.8
4.1
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2""
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
11.0
Dimension and Substrate
Base MY1
(10/2016) (2017)
MY5 MY6 MY7
(2021) (2022) (2023)
Base MY1 MY2
(10/2016) (2017) (2018)
MY5 MY6 MY7
(2021) (2022) (2023)
Base MY1 MY2
(10/2016) (2017) (2018)
MY5 MY6 MY7
(2021) (2022) (2023)
Base MY1
(10/2016) (2017)
MY5 MY6 MY7
(2021) (2022) (2023)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
Bankfull Elevation
758.4
758.4
758.4
758.6
758.4
758.4
758.3
758.6
755.0
755.0
755.0
755.1
754.8
754.8
754.7
755.0
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
758.4
758.4
758.4
758.6
758.4
758.4
758.3
758.6
755.0
755.0
755.0
755.1
754.8
754.8
754.7
755.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.7
9.6
11.5
9.6
10.6
10.2
11.0
12.0
9.9
9.5
10.6
9.3
13.1
13.0
12.8
14.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
83.0
83.0
82.3
82.3
---
---
---
---
84.0
84.0
55.8
56.0
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
6.0
5.6
6.9
6.3
9.8
9.5
9.5
8.9
6.8
6.3
6.4
5.5
14.7
14.2
13.1
11.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
15.5
16.2
19.1
14.5
11.4
11.1
12.8
16.2
14.5
14.4
17.4
15.8
11.6
11.9
12.4
18.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
8.6
8.7
7.2
8.6
---
---
---
---
8.5
8.8
5.3
6.0
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio""'
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
---
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
---
---
---
---
Dimension and Substrate
Base
(10/2016)
MYl
(2017)
MY2
(2018)
MY3
(2019)
MY4
(2020)
MY5
(2021)
MY6
(2022)
MY7
(2023)
Bankfull Elevation
753.0
753.0
753.0
753.0
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
753.0
753.0
753.0
753.0
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.6
10.8
11.6
10.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
229.0
229.0
53.9
53.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
8.8
8.4
8.2
7.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.8
13.8
16.2
13.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
21.6
21.2
4.7
5.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2'3"
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
' ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the flood plain as was done in previous monitoring years.
2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
' MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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 (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current years low bank height.

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy Creek Reach 1 (Sta. 100+08 - 118+91)
f
i
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.9
12.8
10.6
12.1
11.4
13.0
10.3
13.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
53.0
97.0
53.0
97.0
54.6
95.6
54.5
96.2
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.0
1.3
0.9
1.3
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
5.7
8.9
5.1
8.3
6.2
7.1
5.9
7.7
Width/Depth Ratio
18.4
25.3
15.4
22.2
19.0
27.2
16.5
21.8
Entrenchment Ratio'
4.4
8.1
4.4
9.1
4.8
7.3
5.3
8.5
Bank Height Ratio2'3
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.0
D50 (mm)4
23.6
40.9
37.9
45.0
1.4
33.6
28.5
34.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11
55
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.002
0.055
Pool Length (ft)
18
70
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.1
3.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
23
102
Pool Volume ft3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
19
47
<1%
<1%
4%
Radius of Curvature (ft)
17
38
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.6
3.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
32
92
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
3.1 6.4
C5
1,883
1.17
0.010
0.010
---
---
SC/0.35/0.9/62/114/512
0%
(--- ): Data was not provided
' ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3 MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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
(9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height
4
All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle -only value.

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candv Creek Reach 1 (Sta. 118+91 - 125+27)
Min
Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
16.1
16.8
13.6
11.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
164.0
164.0
82.7
82.7
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
13.9
14.3
12.2
12.0
Width/Depth Ratio
18.6
15.4
15.3
11.3
Entrenchment Ratio'
10.2
11.1
6.1
7.1
Bank Height Ratio2'3
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
D50 (mm)°
46.2
35.9
68.5
49.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
59
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
0.017
Pool Length (ft)
19
57
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
53 110
Pool Volume(ft),
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
25
58
Radius of Curvature (ft)
22
44
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.4
2.6
Meander Wave Length (ft)
65
110
Meander Width Ratio
3.6
6.2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
636
Sinuosity (ft)
1.16
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.008
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.009
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
---
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100 SC/0.34/2.8/72/168/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
7%
(--- ): Data was not provided
' ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3 MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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
(9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height
4
All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle -only value.

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candv Creek Reach 1 (Sta. 125+27 - 126+27)
i
Min Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
17.0
15.3
15.2
15.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
292.0
292.0
63.8
63.8
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
20.3
20.3
19.8
20.7
Width/Depth Ratio
14.3
11.5
11.7
11.1
Entrenchment Ratio'
17.1
19.1
4.2
4.2
Bank Height Ratio2'3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)°
22.6
90
22.6
74.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17 29
0.007 0.017
52
N.
N/A
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pool Volume ft3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
54
Radius of Curvature (ft)
40
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.4
Meander Wave Length (ft)
160
Meander Width Ratio
3.2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
C4
100
1.14
0.009
0.008
---
---
0.15/0.9/15/83/129/256
0%
0%
0%
0%
(--- ): Data was not provided
' ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3 MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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
(9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height
4
All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle -only value.

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
creek Reach z (sta. 1zb+zi - 143+u
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
16.1
19.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
154.0
254.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.0
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth
1.9
2.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
16.2
23.3
Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
16.3
Entrenchment Ratio'
9.5
15.8
Bank Height Ratio2'3
1.0
DSO (mm)°
26.9 47.3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
24
63
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.001
0.019
Pool Length (ft)
23
101
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.3
3.5
Pool Soacine (ft)
59
146
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
31
72
Radius of Curvature (ft)
20
107
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.1
4.5
Meander Wave Length (ft)
81
171
Meander Width Ratio
1.4
3.0
Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft) 1,679
Sinuosity (ft)
1.23
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
---
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.17/0.4/93/146/
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
09/6
Min Max
I Min Max
Min Max
Min
16.0
18.2
14.5
17.9
15.3
19.1
154.0
254.0
82.7
95.7
82.8
95.8
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.3
2.0
2.3
1.9
2.3
2.1
2.4
16.5
24.3
14.7
22.3
19.1
21.6
12.2
13.7
12.7
14.3
11.9
16.9
9.5
15.9
5.0
6.5
5.0
5.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
16.0 1 93.6
1.0
14.6
27.4
80.7
<1% <1% 4%
Max I Min I Max I Min I Max I Min I Max
(--- ): Data was not provided
' ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3 MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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
(9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height
4
All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle -only value.

Table 12e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candv Creek Reach 2 (Sta. 143+06 - 148+02)
r
i
Min
I
Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
16.7
17.3
17.5
17.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
164
164
80.8
87
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.3
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
2.1
2.0
2.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
20.8
22.7
21.8
22.0
Width/Depth Ratio
13.5
13.2
14.0
13.7
Entrenchment Ratio'
9.8
9.5
4.6
5.0
Bank Height Ratio2'3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)°
9.4
77.2
11.0
37.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
14
60
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.001
0.019
Pool Length (ft)
23
58
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
55 136
Pool Volume ft3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
23
68
Radius of Curvature (ft)
27
42
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.3
1.9
Meander Wave Length (ft)
54
121
Meander Width Ratio
1.1
3.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
536
Sinuosity (ft)
1.26
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.008
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.009
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.21/0.5/72/117/362
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
2%
2%
5%
(--- ): Data was not provided
' ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
Z Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3 MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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
(9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height
4
All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle -only value.

Table 12f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candv Creek Reach 3 (Sta. 149+02 - 155+05)
r
Min
Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
19.2
18.0
20.0
19.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
57
57
53.8
53.7
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
28.2
25.9
26.9
29.2
Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
12.5
14.9
13.2
Entrenchment Ratio'
3.0
3.2
2.7
2.7
Bank Height Ratio2'3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)°
87.8
97.2
4.0
65.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
10
61
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.001
0.035
Pool Length (ft)
22
53
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
49 97
Pool Volume ft3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
603
Sinuosity (ft)
1.23
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.005
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.27/1.0/113/148/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
16%
(--- ): Data was not provided
' ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3 MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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
(9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height
4
All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle -only value.

Table 12g. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candv Creek Reach 4 (Sta. 170+71 - 196+50)
r
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
19.1
24.9
19.8
22.S
20.4
23.9
19.6
24.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
158.0
222.0
158.0
222.0
85.9
100.3
85.9
100.4
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth
2.1
2.9
2.1
2.8
2.3
2.6
2.3
2.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
26.9
38.1
23.3
37.4
28.0
34.2
27.9
33.9
Width/Depth Ratio
13.6
16.3
13.5
16.8
14.8
16.6
13.8
17.3
Entrenchment Ratio'
7.1
11.6
7.1
11.2
3.8
4.5
3.7
4.6
Bank Height Ratio2'3
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
D50 (mm)4
27.6
37.9
17.7
S1.8
22.6
51.1
31.4
55.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
14
74
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
0.022
Pool Length (ft)
20
12S
Pool Max Depth (ft)
4.5
4.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
40
14S
Pool Volume ft3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
66
2S
1.2
84
3.0
154
55
2.5
220
7.0
Rosgen Classification
CS
<1%
0%
<1%
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,S79
Sinuosity (ft)
1.30
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.005
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.005
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
---
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
SC/0.15/0.4/64/180/256
0%
(--- ): Data was not provided
ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
Z Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3 MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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
(9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height
4
All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle -only value.

Table 12h. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candv Creek Reach 4 (Sta. 196+50 - 206+35)
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
I Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
21.7
23.2
21.6
23.5
22.7
23.6
23.2
23.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
132.0
155.0
132.0
155.0
58.7
85.9
58.8
85.8
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
2.5
2.9
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
31.6
32.8
32.4
32.8
31.4
33.5
29.6
33.9
Width/Depth Ratio
14.4
17.1
14.3
17.1
15.3
17.7
15.8
18.8
Entrenchment Ratio]
6.1
6.7
6.1
6.6
2.5
3.8
2.5
3.7
Bank Height Ratio"'
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
D50 (mm)4
29.3
39.0
28.5
1 102.5
1.0
100.4
41.6
60.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
15
0.004
22
52
53
0.025
71
4.1
111
IL
0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pool Volume ft3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
30
100
50
2.5
220
5.0
Radius of Curvature (ft)
25
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
80
Meander Width Ratio
1.5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
C5
985
1.32
0.010
0.008
---
---
0.09/0.3/0.6/49/111/180
0%
0%
0%
7%
(--- ): Data was not provided
' ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3 MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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
(9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height
4
All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle -only value.

Table 121. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT1C
Min
Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
in Max
bstrate
7Bankfull
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.8
7.8
10.1
11.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
28.0
28.0
24.6
24.9
Mean Depth
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
0.8
1.1
1.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
4.0
3.7
5.1
6.7
Width/Depth Ratio
15.0
16.2
19.9
19.4
Entrenchment Ratio'
3.6
3.6
2.4
2.2
Bank Height Rat io2'3
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
D50 (mm)°
54.5
84.6
54.1
39.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
3
43
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
0.082
Pool Length (ft)
5
20
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
6 51
Pool Volume ft3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
B/C
728
1.08
0.028
0.028
---
---
SC/0.4/12.8/82/117/180
0%
0%
0%
0%
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
(--- ): Data was not provided
' ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3 MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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
(9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height
4
All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle -only value.

Table 12j. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT1D
Min
'
"'
Max
1, i 11
Min I Max
1 71 V
Min I Max
I I, V,
Min I Max
IZI,
Min Max
1 7, IZIA,
Min Max
I 7,IZ111i
Min Max
Min Max
bstrate
713ankfull
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.6
7.1
8.4
7.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
15.0
15.0
18.7
17.1
Mean Depth
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
3.8
3.3
4.0
3.0
Width/Depth Ratio
15.4
15.3
17.9
18.7
Entrenchment Ratio'
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
Bank Height Ratio2'3
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
D50 (mm)°
25.1
33.7
34.8
0.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
4
62
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.002
0.085
Pool Length (ft)
4
15
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
6 33
Pool Volume ft3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
B/C
379
1.04
0.051
0.045
---
---
0.3/6.1/31/57/78/128
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
5%
(--- ): Data was not provided
' ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3 MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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
(9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height
4
All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle -only value.

Table 12k. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT2 - Reach 1
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.8
7.5
4.3
7.5
3.1
7.5
3.8
7.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
22.0
47.0
22.0
47.0
21.9
79.4
21.2
78.1
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.3
0.9
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
0.4
1.5
0.3
1.4
0.3
1.4
0.4
1.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
1.2
6.8
0.8
6.3
0.7
6.3
0.9
5.5
Width/Depth Ratio
8.3
18.5
9.7
23.3
9.0
13.9
9.3
16.5
Entrenchment Ratio'
2.9
9.8
2.8
11.0
2.9
13.6
3.0
12.5
Bank Height Ratio2,3
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.9
1.0
D50 (mm)4
34.0
39.0
34.8
40.2
9.9
33.3
25.0
36.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
4
68
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
0.063
Pool Length (ft)
4
18
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
8 45
Pool Volume(ft),
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
10
25
Radius of Curvature (ft)
17
54
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
3.7
9.2
Meander Wave Length (ft)
21
68
Meander Width Ratio
2.2
5.6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,208
Sinuosity (ft)
1.03
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.021 0.031
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.023 0.032
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
---
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
0.35/6.0/34.6/70/90/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
1%
(--- ): Data was not provided
ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
Z Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3 MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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
(9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height
4
All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle -only value.

Table 121. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
LIT2 - Reach 2
r
r
Min
Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.8
7.8
7.0
6.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
60.0
60.0
24.8
60.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
4.1
3.0
3.0
2.8
Width/Depth Ratio
14.9
20.2
16.4
14.8
Entrenchment Ratio'
7.7
7.7
3.6
9.3
Bank Height Ratio2'3
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
D50 (mm)°
26.2
66.5
11.0
10.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
80
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.001
0.055
Pool Length (ft)
11
62
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
13 51
Pool Volume(ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A
AL AIL
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
A
L
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
643
Sinuosity (ft)
1.09
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.015
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.014
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
0.2/0.7/5/56/161/>2048
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
09/0
0%
0%
0%
(--- ): Data was not provided
' ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
Z Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3 MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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
(9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height
4
All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle -only value.

Table 12m. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT2A
Min
Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
r
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
bstrate
713ankfull
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.0
7.6
7.4
5.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
31.0
31.0
22.2
40.1
Mean Depth
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
4.1
3.7
3.5
3.1
Width/Depth Ratio
11.9
15.8
15.7
11.2
Entrenchment Ratio'
4.4
4.1
3.0
6.8
Bank Height Ratio2'3
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
D50 (mm)°
18.2
7.5
5.6
9.3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
3
102
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.019
0.071
Pool Length (ft)
4
12
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.5
2.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
7
55
Pool Volume(ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d 16/d 35/d 50/d 84/d 95/d 100
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
C5
366
1.02
0.039
0.040
---
---
0.27/1.1/2.5/47/76/180
0%
0%
0%
0%
(--- ): Data was not provided
' ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3 MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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
(9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height
4
All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle -only value.

Table 12n. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT3
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
bstrate
7Bankfull
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.8
8.7
9.0
10.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
77.0
77.0
67.6
67.3
Mean Depth
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
5.5
5.3
5.9
5.3
Width/Depth Ratio
14.0
14.1
13.7
20.3
Entrenchment Ratio'
8.8
8.9
7.5
6.5
Bank Height Ratio2'3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)°
74.4
96
72.7
58.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8
20
0.057
24
2.1
33
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
Pool Length (ft)
8
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
24
Pool Volume(ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
7 19
12 24
1.1 2.1
28 76
0.8 1.7
C5
346
1.15
0.024
0.022
---
---
SC/0.36/1.5/81/111/180
0%
0%
0%
0%
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
Meander Wave Length (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
(--- ): Data was not provided
' ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3 MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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
(9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height
4
All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle -only value.

Table 12o. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT4
Parameter
As-Built/Baseline
2016
MY1
2017i
i i MY5 2021 MY6 2022i
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.5
15.1
12.3
14.7
12.4
15.3
12.3
15.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
98.0
288.0
98.0
288.0
49.9
69.1
49.9
69.1
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth
1.6
2.1
1.6
2.1
1.5
1.9
1.5
1.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
11.0
15.2
11.1
14.4
10.6
13.3
10.2
13.6
Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
15.0
11.9
15.0
13.6
17.6
12.5
17.9
Entrenchment Ratio'
6.5
25.0
6.7
23.5
3.8
5.6
3.7
5.4
Bank Height Ratio2,3
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
D50 (mm)4
16.0
T
45.0
22.6
79.4
25.4
64.7
1.9
77.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8
69
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.000
0.072
Pool Length (ft)
9
42
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
24 123
Pool Volume(ft),
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
10
45
Radius of Curvature (ft)
12
33
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.1
2.1
Meander Wave Length (ft)
31
72
Meander Width Ratio
0.7
2.7
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,356
Sinuosity (ft)
1.22
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
---
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.2/0.6/100/161/512
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%
0%
(--- ): Data was not provided
ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
Z Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3 MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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
(9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height
4
All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle -only value.

Table 12p. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT5
Min
Max
Min
I Max
Min
I Max
Min
I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.7
10.6
9.6
10.8
10.6
11.6
9.3
10.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
83.0
229.0
83.0
229.0
53.9
82.3
53.8
82.3
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
1.3
0.9
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
6.0
8.8
5.6
8.4
6.4
8.2
5.5
7.6
Width/Depth Ratio
12.8
15.5
13.8
16.2
16.2
19.1
13.5
15.8
Entrenchment Ratio'
8.6
21.6
8.8
21.2
4.7
7.2
5.3
8.6
Bank Height Rat io2'3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.0
D50 (mm)4
11.0
46.2
40.6
53.0
18.0
45.0
1.0
47.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11
0.000
12
26
1.9
28
0.027
39
65
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
10
j3.6
2.2
1:
Radius of Curvature (ft)
11
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
0.8
Meander Wave Length (ft)
34
Meander Width Ratio
0.9
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5O/d84/d95/d100
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
C5/E5
1,012
1.20
0.006
0.007
---
---
SC/SC/0.6/32/143/362
0%
0%
0%
0%
(--- ): Data was not provided
' ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross-section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years.
2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation
3 MY2-MY7 Bank Height Ratio was 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
(9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year's low bank height
4
All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle -only value.

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 1 - Candy Creek Reach 1
105+85 Riffle
768
767
c 766
o—
————————————
——————— — — — — ——
————————— —
— — — —— —
——————— — — — — ——
w
w
765
764
0 10 20 Width (ft) 30 40 50
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
6.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.3
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
10.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.5
width -depth ratio
54.5
W flood prone area (ft)
5.3
entrenchment ratio
0.8
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 2 - Candy Creek Reach 1
108+94 Pool
765
764
763
c
0
m 762
w
w
761
760
20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
—MYO (10/2016) - MY1 (10/2017) —MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
14.2
x-section area (ft.sq.)
16.8
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
19.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 3 - Candy Creek Reach 1
109+19 Riffle
765
764
763
0
v
w
762
761
20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
5.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.3
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
11.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
21.6
width -depth ratio
96.2
W flood prone area (ft)
8.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross Section 4 - Candy Creek Reach 1
114+15 Pool
759
758
757
x
c
0
m 756
w
w
755
754
20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
-MYO (10/2016) -MY1 (10/2017) -MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
12.3
x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.8
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
13.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.4
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 5 - Candy Creek Reach 1
114+37 Riffle
759
758
c 757
0
w
w
756
755
10 20 30 Width (ft) 40 50 60
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
7.7
x-section area (ft.sq.)
13.0
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
13.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
21.8
width -depth ratio
74.8
W flood prone area (ft)
5.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 6 - Candy Creek Reach 1
122+41 Pool
751
750
749
748
x
c 747
0
> 746
w
w
745
744
743
10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
—MYO (10/2016) —MY1 (10/2017) —MY2 (06/2018) --o—MY3 (07/2019) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
36.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
15.9
width (ft)
2.3
mean depth (ft)
4.6
max depth (ft)
20.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
6.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 7 - Candy Creek Reach 1
122+91 Riffle
751
750
749
-------------------
-- - - - - --
----- ----
------------
--
-----
c
0
m 748
w
w
747
746
10 20 30 Width (ft) 40 50 60 70
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) +MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
12.0
x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.7
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
12.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.3
width -depth ratio
82.7
W flood prone area (ft)
7.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 8 - Candy Creek Reach 1
125+45 Riffle
750
749
748
c 747
0
w 746
w
745
744
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) + MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
20.7
x-section area (ft.sq.)
15.2
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
16.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.1
width -depth ratio
63.8
W flood prone area (ft)
4.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 9 - Candy Creek Reach 2
129+13 Pool
748
747
746
745
c
744
_w
743
742
741
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
-MYO (10/2016) -MY1 (10/2017) -MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
36.0
x-section area (ft.sq.)
23.1
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
3.5
max depth (ft)
24.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 10 - Candy Creek Reach 2
129+43 Riffle
748
747
746
c 745
0
w 744
——————————---
——————
--——--———— — — — — — — ——
----------------------
w
743
742
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) +MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
19.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
15.8
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
16.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.1
width -depth ratio
93.4
W flood prone area (ft)
5.9
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 11 - Candy Creek Reach 2
134+43 Riffle
744
743
742
741
c
0
740
w
w
739
738
20 30 40 Width (ft) 50 60 70 80
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) + MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area ----- MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
19.6
x-section area (ft.sq.)
15.3
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
16.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.9
width -depth ratio
82.8
W flood prone area (ft)
5.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 12 - Candy Creek Reach 2
139+87 Pool
739
738
737
c 736
0
w 735
w
734
733
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
—MYO (10/2016) —MY1 (10/2017) —MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
36.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
23.2
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
3.6
max depth (ft)
25.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.0
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 13 - Candy Creek Reach 2
140+26 Riffle
740
739
738
v
---------------
-----
------------------
w 736
735
734
20 30 40 Width (ft) 50 60 70 80
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) +MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area ----- MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
21.6
x-section area (ft.sq.)
19.1
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
20.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.9
width -depth ratio
95.8
W flood prone area (ft)
5.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 14 - Candy Creek Reach 2
145+46 Riffle
736
735
734
0
w 732
w
731
730
20 30 40 Width (ft) 50 60 70
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) +MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area ----- MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
22.0
x-section area (ft.sq.)
17.4
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
18.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.7
width -depth ratio
86.5
W flood prone area (ft)
5.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 15 - Candy Creek Reach 2
145+82 Pool
737
736
735
734
733
732
c
731
g
w 730
w 729
728
7*
727
726
30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
—MYO (10/2016) —MY1 (10/2017) —MY2 (06/2018) --o—MY3 (07/2019) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
48.6
x-section area (ft.sq.)
21.7
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
5.6
max depth (ft)
26.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 16 - Candy Creek Reach 3
151+71 Pool
732
730
c 728
0
w
w
726
724
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
-MYO (3/2017) -MY1 (10/2017) -MY2 (06/2018) +MY3 (07/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
57.4
x-section area (ft.sq.)
23.1
width (ft)
2.5
mean depth (ft)
3.9
max depth (ft)
26.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 17 - Candy Creek Reach 3
152+02 Riffle
732
731
730
c 729
0
w 728
w
727
726
10 20 Width (ft) 30 40 50
MYO (3/2017) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
29.2
x-section area (ft.sq.)
19.7
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
20.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.2
width -depth ratio
53.7
W flood prone area (ft)
2.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 18 - Candy Creek Reach 4
172+87 Pool
723
722
721
720
c 719
0
> 718
v
w 717
716
715
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
-MYO (3/2017) - MY1 (10/2017) -MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
42.8
x-section area (ft.sq.)
22.2
width (ft)
1.9
mean depth (ft)
4.1
max depth (ft)
24.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 19 - Candy Creek Reach 4
173+32 Riffle
723
722
721
c
w 720
w
719
718
30 40 50 Width (ft) 60 70 80
MYO (3/2017) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
27.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
19.6
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
20.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.8
width -depth ratio
85.9
W flood prone area (ft)
4.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 20 - Candy Creek Reach 4
178+99 Riffle
721
720
719
c
718
0
—
w 717
w
716
715
10 20 30 Width (ft) 40 50 60 70
MYO (3/2017) MY1 (10/2017) , MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
31.7
x-section area (ft.sq.)
21.9
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
22.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.2
width -depth ratio
100.4
W flood prone area (ft)
4.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 21 - Candy Creek Reach 4
179+39 Pool
721
719
717
c 715
0
w 713
w
711
709
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
—MYO (3/2017) —MY1 (10/2017) —MY2 (06/2018) +MY3 (07/2019) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
79.3
x-section area (ft.sq.)
28.7
width (ft)
2.8
mean depth (ft)
6.6
max depth (ft)
32.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.4
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 22 - Candy Creek Reach 4
187+21 Pool
715
714
'
713
712
c
711
_w
710
709
708
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
—MYO (3/2017) —MY1 (10/2017) —MY2 (06/2018) +MY3 (07/2019) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
59.2
x-section area (ft.sq.)
28.3
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
5.5
max depth (ft)
32.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 23 - Candy Creek Reach 4
187+59 Riffle
717
716
715
714
----
———— — — — — ——
——— — — — — ——
— ---
———— — — — — ——
713
_w
712
711
710
20 30 40 Width (ft) 50 60 70 80
MYO (3/2017) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
33.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
24.2
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.5
max depth (ft)
25.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.3
width -depth ratio
90.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.7
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 24 - Candy Creek Reach 4
197+77 Riffle
711
710
709
708
c
707
-------
--------------------------------------
_w
706
705
704
10 20 Width (ft) 30 40 50
MYO (3/2017) MY1 (10/2017) -MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
29.6
x-section area (ft.sq.)
23.6
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.5
max depth (ft)
24.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.8
width -depth ratio
58.8
W flood prone area (ft)
2.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 25 - Candy Creek Reach 4
203+63 Riffle
706
705
704
703
c
702
_w
701
700
699
20 30 40 Width (ft) 50 60 70
MYO (3/2017) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019) Bankfull - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
33.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
23.2
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.5
max depth (ft)
23.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.8
width -depth ratio
85.8
W flood prone area (ft)
3.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 26 - Candy Creek Reach 4
203+98 Pool
704
702
c 700
0
w
w
698
696
20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
—MYO (3/2017) —MY1 (10/2017) —MY2 (06/2018) +MY3 (07/2019) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
50.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
23.3
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
4.9
max depth (ft)
26.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 27 - UT1C
202+17 Riffle
755
754
x
c
° 753
w
752
751
0 10 Width (ft) 20 30
MYO (3/2017) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
6.7
x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.4
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
11.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.4
width -depth ratio
24.9
W flood prone area (ft)
2.2
entrenchment ratio
1.3
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 28 - UT1C
202+23 Pool
754
753
c 752
0
w
w
751
750
0 10 20 30
Width (ft)
—MYO (3/2017) —MY1 (10/2017) —MY2 (06/2018) +MY3 (07/2019) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.3
x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.2
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
7.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
7.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 29 - UT1D
250+84 Riffle
745
744
743
c
_w
u 742
741
0 5 10 15 20
Width (ft)
MYO (3/2017) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
3.0
x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.4
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
7.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.7
width -depth ratio
17.1
W flood prone area (ft)
2.3
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 30 - UT2 Reach 1
302+27 Riffle
774
773
772
0
--------------- ----------------
----------- - - - - -- -----
_w
771
770
10 20 30
Width (ft)
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
5.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.2
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
7.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.3
width -depth ratio
21.2
W flood prone area (ft)
3.0
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
-, _

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 31 - UT2 Reach 1
305+70 Riffle
765
x
c
0
m764 -- - ---------------------- ----- ---- --- ------------
w
w
763
25 35 45 55
Width (ft)
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
0.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
3.8
width (ft)
0.2
mean depth (ft)
0.4
max depth (ft)
4.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.5
width -depth ratio
48.1
W flood prone area (ft)
12.5
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 32 - UT2 Reach 1
307+52 Pool
762
761
c 760
0
w
w
759
758
20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
-MYO (10/2016) -MY1 (10/2017) -MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.7
x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.3
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
8.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
6.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 33 - UT2 Reach 1
307+61 Riffle
762
761
c 760
0
w
w
759
758
20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
3.4
x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.6
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
7.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.8
width -depth ratio
78.1
W flood prone area (ft)
11.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 34 - UT2 Reach 2
316+47 Pool
737
736
c 735
0
w
w
734
733
20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
-MYO (10/2016) -MY1 (10/2017) -MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.3
x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.1
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
9.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 35 - UT2 Reach 2
316+62 Riffle
737
736
c 735
o
-------------- - - ----
---------------- - - - - --
- - - - ------- - - - - --
w
w
734
733
20 30 Width (ft) 40 50
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
2.8
x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.5
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
6.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.8
width -depth ratio
37.9
W flood prone area (ft)
5.9
entrenchment ratio
0.8
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 36 - UT2A
353+06 Riffle
750
749
c 748
o-----------------—— — — — --- --——————————————————————————————
w
w
747
746
10 20 Width (ft) 30 40
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
3.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
5.9
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
6.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.2
width -depth ratio
38.2
W flood prone area (ft)
6.4
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 37 - UT3
412+91 Riffle
751
750
x
c
0
w 749
748
20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) +MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
5.3
x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.4
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
10.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.3
width -depth ratio
67.3
W flood prone area (ft)
6.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 38 - UT4
504+91 Riffle
756
755
754
- - ---------
---------- - - - ---
-------- - - - - --
c
° 753
w
w
752
751
10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
13.6
x-section area (ft.sq.)
15.6
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
16.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.9
width -depth ratio
58.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.7
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 39 - UT4
505+16 Pool
757
755
c 753
0
w
w
751
749
20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
-MYO (10/2016) -MY1 (10/2017) -MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
12.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
14.0
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
14.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 40 - UT4
508+51 Pool
752
751
Oe
750
x
c
0
m 749
w
w
748
747
10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
-MYO (10/2016) -MY1 (10/2017) -MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
15.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
17.0
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
2.6
max depth (ft)
18.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 41 - UT4
508+78 Riffle
752
751
---- ---
--------
------- - - - - -----
- - - - - --
c 750
0
w
w
749
OF
748
10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
10.2
x-section area (ft.sq.)
12.9
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
13.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.1
width -depth ratio
69.1
W flood prone area (ft)
5.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 42 - UT4
512+03 Riffle
751
750
749
x
c
m 748
w
w
747
746
10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
12.0
x-section area (ft.sq.)
12.3
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
12.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.5
width -depth ratio
49.9
W flood prone area (ft)
4.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 43 - UT4
512+35 Pool
749
748
747
x
c
0
m 746
w
w
745
744
10 20 30 40
Width (ft)
MYO (10/2016) -MY1 (10/2017) -MY2 (06/2018) +MY3 (07/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
15.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.3
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
3.0
max depth (ft)
13.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.1
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 44 - UT5
602+45 Riffle
760
759
x
c
0
w 758 - T
w
757
10 20 30 Width (ft) 40 50 60
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
6.3
x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.6
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
10.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.5
width -depth ratio
82.3
W flood prone area (ft)
8.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 45 - UT5
602+63 Pool
760
x
c
0
m 758
w
w
756
10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
-MYO (10/2016) -MY1 (10/2017) -MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
12.0
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
12.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 46 - UT5
606+10 Riffle
757
756
------- - - - - -- -------------------- - - - - -- - --------------------
c 755
0
w
w
754
753
20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
5.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.3
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
9.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.8
width -depth ratio
56.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.0
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 47 - UT5
606+34 Pool
756
755
c 754
0
w
w
753
752
10 20 30 40
Width (ft)
-MYO (10/2016) -MY1 (10/2017) -MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
11.8
x-section area (ft.sq.)
14.7
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
16.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Cross -Section 48 - UT5
755
754
c 753
0
w
w
752
751
10
609+31 Riffle
------------------------
20 Width (ft) 30
MYO (10/2016) MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)
Bankfull Floodprone Area - - - MYO Bankfull Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
7.6
x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.1
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
10.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.5
width -depth ratio
53.8
W flood prone area (ft)
5.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 07/2019
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
40

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R1 (100+08 - 118+91), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
22
25
25
25
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
4
4
29
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
31
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
9
10
10
41
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
7
9
9
50
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
3
9
9
59
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
59
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
59
Fine
4.0
5.6
59
Fine
5.6
8.0
59
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
60
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
1
1
1
61
Coarse
16.0
22.6
61
Coarse
22.6
32
4
1
5
5
66
Very Coarse
32
45
9
9
9
75
Very Coarse
45
64
16
16
16
91
Small
64
90
4
4
4
95
Small
90
128
3
3
3
98
Large
128
180
1
1
1
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
100
Total 1
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.3
D50 =
1.0
D. =
54.9
1395 =
90.0
D100 =
362.0
Candy R1 (100+08 - 118+91), Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay
and
90
Gravel
&Cobble
80
I
I 11 1
er
Bedrock
70
e
60
0 50
40
u
30
v
u
w 20
a
10
E,
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—MYO-10/2016—MY1-10/2017 —MY2-09/2018 --s.—MY3-05/2019
Candy 111(100+08 - 118+91), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
w
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
A 14
0
0 oy o o'
ti g0 5� �ti yti nL p
ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy 111, Cross -Section 1
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
SPC1O
Medium
0.25
0.50
10
10
14
Coarse
0.5
1.0
7
7
21
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
10
10
31
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
31
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
31
Fine
4.0
5.6
31
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
33
Medium
8.0
11.0
33
Medium
11.0
16.0
33
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
36
Coarse
22.6
32
21
21
57
Very Coarse
32
45
15
15
72
Very Coarse
45
64
13
13
85
Small
64
90
9
9
94
Small
90
128
4
4
98
Large
128
180
1
1
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
100
Total 1
100
100
100
Cross -Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.6
D35 =
20.1
D50 =
28.5
D84 =
62.3
D95 =
98.3
Dlm=
362.0
Candy 111, Cross -Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 SiIVCIay
III Sand I I I I I Gravel
Cobble
i er
J Bedrock
80
70
60
f0 50
3
u 40
q 30
u
d 20
--i-
a
10
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—MYO-10/2016—MY1-10/2017 —MY2-09/2018 tMY3-05/2019
Candy 111, Cross -Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
60
a
50
N
u
40
3
30
v
>
13
20
10
0
1 JU Ll
__U__UA
0
0 Im A
oyti yL5 O tih O5 1 L
O O
LW b yo W b1 6 �Lo 3ti b5 Ob �O yLW y�O ��6 4^1 ytiti yOyb �Obb bO�6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MY1-10/2017 a MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy 111, Cross -Section 3
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
20
20
20
Very fine
0.062
0.125
20
Fine
0.125
0.250
20
r1�
SP
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
23
Coarse
0.5
1.0
23
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
25
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
25
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
25
Fine
4.0
5.6
25
Fine
5.6
8.0
25
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
27
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
29
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
31
Coarse
22.6
32
14
14
45
Very Coarse
32
45
23
23
69
Very Coarse
45
64
24
24
93
Small
64
90
7
7
100
Small
90
128
100
c
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
256
362
100
362
512
100
0
m
LLarge/Very
512
1024
100
Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Totall
99
100
100
Cross -Section 3
Channel materials I
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
24.7
D50 =
34.2
Dfl0. =
56.2
D95 =
70.7
D100 =
90.0
Candy 111, Cross -Section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
I I I I
I
Gravel
Cobble
80
i
er
Bedrock
0 70
60
50
Z
40
u
a 30
u
`y 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
— MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
Candy 111, Cross -Section 3
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
y
60
a
50
u
40
m
30
v
20
v
c
10
0
0 oti °'
titi' ti ti ti 3 5 do ,yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
— MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R1, Cross -Section 5
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
12
12
12
Very fine
0.062
0.125
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
14
r1�
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
15
SP
Coarse
0.5
1.0
15
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
7
7
22
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
22
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
22
Fine
4.0
5.6
22
Fine
5.6
8.0
22
Medium
8.0
11.0
22
Medium
11.0
16.0
22
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
26
Coarse
22.6
32
20
20
46
Very Coarse
32
45
19
19
65
Very Coarse
45
64
23
23
88
Small
64
90
7
7
95
Small
90
128
95
Large
128
180
3
3
98
Large
180
256
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
Cross -Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
1.1
D35 =
26.4
D50 =
34.4
D84 =
60.2
D95 =
90.0
D100 =
256.0
Candy 111, Cross -Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
Sand I I I I IGravel
Cobble
er
Bedrock
80
70
0
60
j
50
40
u
a
30
u
a
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
Candy 111, Cross -Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yLS otih O� 1
0 0
L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 5L b5 01CO yLW y�0 ��0 4^1 yyti y�nL �o"I b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R1 (118+91 - 125+27), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
24
26
26
26
Very fine
0.062
0.125
9
9
9
35
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
37
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
6
6
43
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
4
47
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
4
7
7
54
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
54
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
54
Fine
4.0
5.6
54
Fine
5.6
8.0
54
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
55
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
57
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
7
7
64
Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
3
67
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
5
72
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
5
77
Small
64
90 1
8
8
8
85
Small
90
128
6
6
6
91
Large
128
180
4
4
4
95
Large
180
256
2
2
2
97
IfflSmall
256
362
2
1
3
3
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048 1
>2048 1
1 1
100
Total 1
50
1 50 1
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 _
0.1
D50 =
1.3
D. =
86.2
1395 =
180.0
D100 =
362.0
Candy R1 (118+91- 125+27), Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Sand
90
silt/Clay
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
80
i
er
70
e
60
0 50
E 40
u
30
r
u
w 20
a
10
0
ITII
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 - MYl-10/2017 - MY2-09/2018 MY3-05/2019
Candy 111(118+91- 125+27), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
w
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
10
0
0 oy o o'
�o .L0 p 5� �ti yti nL aO co
ti' S' titi' ti ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy 111, Cross -Section 7
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
r1�
SP
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
8
8
8
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
8
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
8
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
8
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
14
Coarse
16.0
22.6
14
14
28
Coarse
22.6
32
14
14
42
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
47
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
59
Small
64
90
15
15
74
Small
90
128
15
15
89
Large
128
180
8
8
97
Large
180
256
1
1
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
16.8
D35 =
26.9
D5o =
49.1
D80. =
113.8
D95 =
165.3
D10, =
362.0
Candy 111, Cross -Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
and Gravel
Cobble
er
Bedrock
gp
70
0
60
j
50
40
u
a
30
u
a
20
IL
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
Candy 111, Cross -Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
�
10
J La
0
oyti yLS o tih O� 1
0 0
L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 5L b5 �b CO yLW y�0 'o0 ��ti yyti y�Lb Cobb b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R1 (125+27 - 126+27), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
16
19
19
19
Very fine
0.062
0.125
19
Fine
0.125
0.250
19
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
1
20
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
2
22
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
12
12
12
34
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
34
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
34
Fine
4.0
5.6
34
Fine
5.6
8.0
34
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
35
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
3
3
6
6
41
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
1
3
3
44
Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
3
47
Very Coarse
32
45
1
1
1
48
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
6
54
Small
64
90
15
15
15
69
Small
90
128
20
20
20
89
Large
128
180
6
6
6
95
Large
180
256
4
4
4
99
IfflSmall
256
362
1
1
1
100
ffffffm
Small
362
512
100
VMedium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048
>2048
100
Total
65
35
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
11.0
D50 =
50.6
D. =
117.2
1395 =
180.0
DI00 =
362.0
Candy R1 (125+27 - 126+27), Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
and
90
Silt/Clay
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
80
er
70
e
60
0 50
07
E 40
u
30
v
u
w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 - MYl-10/2017 - MY2-09/2018 MY3-05/2019
Candy 111(125+27 - 126+27), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
w
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
10
0
0 oy o o'
gO 5� �ti yti .LDS aO
ti' S' titi' ti ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R1, Cross -Section 8
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
r1�
SP
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
2
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
5
7
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
11
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
25
Very Coarse
45
64
13
13
38
Small
64
90
28
28
66
Small
90
128
19
19
85
Large
128
180
8
8
93
Large
180
256
2
2
95
Small
256
362
5
5
100
Small
1 362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 8
Channel materials I
D16 =
36.1
D35 =
59.0
D5o =
74.1
D80. =
125.6
D95 =
256.0
Dioo =
362.0
Candy 111, Cross -Section 8
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clayand
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
er
80
70
0
60
j
50
Z
40
u
a 30
u
a 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
Candy 111, Cross -Section 8
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
�
10
0
oyti yLS o tih O� 1
0 0
L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 5L b5 �b CO s s 'o0 ��ti yyti ye Cobb "o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R2 (126+27 - 143+06), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
12
12
12
12
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
6
6
18
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
4
22
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
4
5
5
27
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
8
9
9
36
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
12
13
13
49
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
49
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
50
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
2
2
52
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
53
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
1
3
3
56
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
1
57
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
2
59
Coarse
22.6
32
59
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
5
64
Very Coarse
45
64
1
1
1
65
Small
64
90
16
1
16
16
81
Small
90
128
13
13
13
94
Large
128
180
1
1
1
95
Large
180
256
3
3
3
98
IfflSmall
256
362
1
1
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Dr6 =
0.1
D35 =
0.9
D50 =
4.0
D. =
97.6
1395 =
180.0
D100 =
362.0
Candy R2 (126+27 - 143+06), Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
and
90
Silt/Clay
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
gp
{
er
e 70
60
0 50
E 40
u
30
v
+
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 - MYl-10/2017 - MY2-09/2018 MY3-05/2019
Candy R2 (126+27 - 143+06), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
w
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
0 oy o o'
ti g0 5� �ti yti .LDS p
ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R2, Cross -Section 10
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
r1�
SP
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
4
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
7
7
11
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
11
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
7
7
18
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
19
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
23
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
24
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
30
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
31
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
32
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
34
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
38
Small
64
90
28
28
66
Small
90
128
34
34
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
113edrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 10
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
3.6
D35 =
49.1
D5o =
74.1
D80. =
108.4
D95 =
121.5
Dioo =
128.0
Candy 112, Cross -Section 10
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
I I I I
IGravel
Cobble
Bedrock
er
80
-
70
0
60
j
50
40
u
a
30
a
u
a
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
Candy 112, Cross -Section 10
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
�
10
0
oyti yLS otih O� 1
0 0
L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 5L b5 �b CO yLW y�0 'o 'g yyti y�nL mop b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R2, Cross -Section 11
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
SP`JO
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
9
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
6
15
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
15
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
17
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
19
Fine
5.6
8.0
19
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
22
Medium
11.0
16.0
7
7
29
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
31
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
33
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
35
Very Coarse
45
64
35
Small
64
90
22
22
57
Small
90
128
31
31
88
Large
128
180
3
3
91
Large
180
256
7
7
98
Small
256
362
98
Small
362
512
2
2
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
3.3
D35 =
45.0
D50 =
80.7
D80. =
122.3
D95 =
220.1
Dlm=
512.0
Candy R2, Cross -Section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
i
er
Sand
I
I
Gravel
el
80Bedrock
70
60
f0 50
3
3 40
u
q 30
-
u
d 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-MYO-10/2016-MY1-10/2017 -MY2-09/2018 tMY3-05/2019
Candy R2, Cross -Section 11
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
60
a
50
N
u
40
3
30
v
>
'v
20
10
0
IL IL
oyti yL5 Otih O5 1
O O
L LW b yo W b1 6 �Lo 3ti b5 Ob -O yLW y�O 'o6 �g ytiti yOny tiOp bO�6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MY1-10/2017 a MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R2, Cross -Section 13
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
6
8
r1�
SP
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
9
Coarse
0.5
1.0
10
10
18
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
20
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
20
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
22
Fine
4.0
5.6
22
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
5
27
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
29
Medium
11.0
16.0
13
13
41
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
45
Coarse
22.6
32
9
9
54
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
58
Very Coarse
45
64
1
1
59
Small
64
90
19
18
77
Small
90
128
7
7
84
Large
128
180
8
8
91
Large
180
256
8
8
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
100
�100�d
Totall
104
1 100
Cross -Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.8
D35 =
13.2
D5o =
27.4
D80. =
130.0
D95 =
212.8
Dioo =
512.0
Candy 112, Cross -Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
I I I I
1
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
er
80
70
0
60
j
50
40
u
a
30
u
a
IL
20
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
Candy 112, Cross -Section 13
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
�
10
0
oyti yL5 Otih O5 1
O O
L LW b yo W b1 6 �Lo 3ti b5 Ob CO yL', yp 'o, �g ytiti yOny tiOp b0�6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R2 (143+06 - 148+02), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
18
18
18
18
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
19
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
6
7
7
26
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
5
6
6
32
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
12
13
13
45
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
4
49
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
49
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
49
Fine
4.0
5.6
49
Fine
5.6
8.0
49
Medium
8.0
11.0
49
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
3
2
5
5
54
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
4
58
Coarse
22.6
32
4
3
7
7
65
Very Coarse
32
45
3
3
3
68
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
11
79
Small
64
90
13
13
13
92
Small
90
128
7
7
7
99
Large
128
180
99
Large
180
256
99
IfflSmall
256
362
99
Small
362
512
99
Medium
512
1024
1
1
1
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.6
D50 =
11.9
D. =
73.0
1395 =
104.7
D100 =
1024.0
Candy R2 (143+06 - 148+02), Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
and
90
silticlay
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
gp
er
70
e
60
0 50
40
u
30
v
w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 - MYl-10/2017 - MY2-09/2018 MY3-05/2019
Candy R2 (143+06 - 148+02), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
w
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
0 oy o o'
ti g0 5� �ti yti nL p
ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R2, Cross -Section 14
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
r1�
SP
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
4
8
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
10
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
13
Coarse
16.0
22.6
19
19
32
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
42
Very Coarse
32
45
17
17
59
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
71
Small
64
90
13
13
84
Small
90
128
16
16
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MMedium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048 1
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
100
100
Cross -Section 14
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
16.9
D35 -
25.1
D50 =
37.6
D80. =
90.0
D95 =
114.7
D100 =
128.0
Candy 112, Cross -Section 14
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
and
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
er
80
70
0
60
j
50
40
u00
a 30
u
a 20
IL
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
Candy 112, Cross -Section 14
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
v
20
10
0
oyti yLS otih O� 1
0 0
L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 5L b5 �b CO yLW yp 'o0 �g yyti y�nL mop b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R3 (149+02-155+05), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8
8
8
8
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
9
Fine
0.125
0.250
9
9
9
18
<J�
Medium
0.25
0.50
9
9
9
27
Coarse
0.5
1.0
10
10
10
37
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
9
13
13
50
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
50
Fine
4.0
5.6
50
Fine
5.6
8.0
50
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
51
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
1
3
3
54
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
1
3
3
57
Coarse
22.6
32
1
2
3
3
60
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
2
62
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
5
67
Small
64
90
14
14
14
81
Small
90
128
16
16
16
97
Large
128
180
3
3
3
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
113edrock
1 2048
>2048 1
100
Total 1
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Dr6 =
0.2
D35 =
0.9
D50 =
2.0
D. =
96.1
1395 =
122.5
D100 =
180.0
Candy R3 (149+02 - 155+05), Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
and
90
SiIt/Clay
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
80
er
70
e
60
0 50
40
u
30
v
u
w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 - MYl-10/2017 - MY2-09/2018 MY3-05/2019
Candy R3 (149+02 - 155+05), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
w
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
0 oy o o'
�o .L0 p 5� �ti yti nL p
ti' S' titi' ti ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R3, Cross -Section 17
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
r1�
SP
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
7
7
7
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
6
13
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
13
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
13
Fine
4.0
5.6
13
Fine
5.6
8.0
13
Medium
8.0
11.0
13
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
19
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
29
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
39
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
44
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
49
Small
64
90
12
12
61
Small
90
128
30
30
91
Large
128
180
7
7
98
Large
180
256
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 17
Channel materials I
D16 =
13.3
D35 -
27.8
D5o =
65.8
D80. =
117.9
D95 =
155.5
Dioo =
362.0
Candy 113, Cross -Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
Sand I I I I I Gravel
Cobble
i er
Bedrock
80
70
0
60
j
50
40
u
a
30
a
u
a
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
Candy 113, Cross -Section 17
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
v
20
10
0
oyti yLS otih O� 1
0 0
L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 5L b5 �b CO yLW yip 'o0 �g yyti y�nL mop b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R4 (170+71 - 196+50), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
22
22
22
22
Very fine
0.062
0.125
7
7
7
29
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
2
2
31
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
10
11
11
42
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
2
44
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
5
5
49
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
49
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
49
Fine
4.0
5.6
49
Fine
5.6
8.0
49
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
49
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
3
3
3
52
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
4
56
Coarse
22.6
32
6
3
9
9
65
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
12
77
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
7
84
Small
64
90
12
12
12
96
Small
90
128
3
3
3
99
Large
128
180
1
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
IfflSmall
256
362
100
ffffffm
Small
362
512
1
100
VMedium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.3
D50 =
12.5
D. =
64.0
1395 =
87.5
D100 =
180.0
Candy R4 (170+71- 196+50), Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
and
90
Silt/Clay
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
80
ao�Iiyer
T
70
e
v 60
0 50
E 40
u
30
v
u
w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—MYO-10/2016—MY1-10/2017 —MY2-09/2018 --s.—MY3-05/2019
Candy R4 (170+71- 196+50), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
w
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
0 oy o o'
�o .L0 ti p 5� �ti yti nL p co
ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R4, Cross -Section 19
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
5
r1�
SP
Medium
0.25
0.50
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
5
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
7
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
13
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
7
20
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
24
Very Coarse
32
45
17
17
41
Very Coarse
45
64
17
17
57
Small
64
90
21
21
78
Small
90
128
16
16
94
Large
128
180
4
4
98
Large
180
256
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
ffifflMediurn
512
1024
100
ffifflLarge/Very
Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Totall
101
1 100
100
Cross -Section 19
Channel materials I
D16 =
18.7
D35 =
40.2
D50 =
54.8
D80. =
102.3
D95 =
138.8
Dioo =
256.0
Candy 114, Cross -Section 19
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
Sand I I I I IGravel
Cobble
er
Bedrock
80
70
0
60
j
50
40
u
00
Or'
a
30
u
a
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
Candy 114, Cross -Section 19
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yL5 Otih O5 1
O O
L LW b yo W b1 6 �Lo 3ti b5 Ob CO yLW yp 'o, �g ytiti yOny tiOp b0�6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R4, Cross -Section 20
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
r1�
SP
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
0
Fine
5.6
8.0
0
Medium
8.0
11.0
0
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
4
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
10
Coarse
22.6
32
17
17
27
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
35
Very Coarse
45
64
26
26
61
Small
64
90
19
19
80
Small
90
128
15
15
95
Large
128
180
5
5
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 20
Channel materials I
D16 =
25.6
D35 =
45.0
D50 =
55.1
D84 =
98.9
D95 =
128.0
D100 =
180.0
Candy 114, Cross -Section 20
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
SandIIIII
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
i
er
gp
70
0
60
j
50
40
u
a 30
u
a 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
Candy 114, Cross -Section 20
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yL5 Otih O5 1
O O
L LW b yo W b1 6 �Lo 3ti b5 Ob CO yLW y�0 ��6 4^1 ytiti yOny �O"I b0�6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R4, Cross -Section 23
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
r1�
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
8
SP
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
10
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
10
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
10
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
10
Fine
4.0
5.6
10
Fine
5.6
8.0
10
Medium
8.0
11.0
10
Medium
11.0
16.0
13
13
23
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
33
Coarse
22.6
32
18
18
51
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
65
Very Coarse
45
64
15
15
80
Small
64
90
13
13
93
Small
90
128
6
6
99
Large
128
180
1
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 23
Channel materials I
D16 =
13.1
D35 =
23.5
D50 =
31.4
D80. =
71.1
D95 =
101.2
D100 =
362.0
Candy 114, Cross -Section 23
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
Sand I I I I I Gravel
Cobble
er
Bedrock
0
80
70
+i
-
60
j
50
40
u
a
30
u
a
20
TF
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
Candy 114, Cross -Section 23
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yLS otih O� 1
0 0
L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 5L b5 �b CO yLW yip �0 4^1 yyti y�nL �o"I b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R4 (196+50 - 206+35), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
5
5
5
Very fine
0.062
0.125
5
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
3
8
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
6
6
14
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
16
17
17
31
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
31
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
31
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
31
Fine
4.0
5.6
31
Fine
5.6
8.0
31
Medium
8.0
11.0
31
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
4
5
9
9
40
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
2
7
7
47
Coarse
22.6
32
5
5
5
52
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
12
12
64
Very Coarse
45
64
6
4
10
10
74
Small
64
90
10
3
13
13
87
Small
90
128
11
11
11
98
Large
128
180
2
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
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 =
0.5
D35 =
13.0
D50 =
27.8
D. =
83.2
1395 =
116.3
D100 =
180.0
Candy R4 (196+50 - 206+35), Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
and
90
Silt/Clay
Gravel
Cobble
80
er
Bedrock
70
e
60
0 50
E 40
u
30
v
u
w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 - MY1-10/2017 - MY2-09/2018 MY3-05/2019
Candy R4 (196+50 - 206+35), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
w
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
0 oy o o'
g0 5� �ti yti nL p
ti' S' titi' ti ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R4, Cross -Section 24
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
r1�
SP
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
0
Fine
5.6
8.0
0
Medium
8.0
11.0
0
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
Coarse
16.0
22.6
14
14
16
Coarse
22.6
32
17
17
33
Very Coarse
32
45
22
22
55
Very Coarse
45
64
21
21
76
Small
64
90
13
13
89
Small
90
128
6
6
95
Large
128
180
4
4
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 24
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
22.6
D35 =
33.0
D50 =
41.6
D84 =
78.9
D95 =
128.0
D100 =
362.0
Candy 114, Cross -Section 24
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
Sand I IGravel
Cobble
er
Bedrock
80
70
0
60
j
50
40
u
a
30
a
u
a
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
Candy 114, Cross -Section 24
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yL5 Otih O5 1
O O
L LW b yo W b1 6 �Lo 3ti b5 Ob CO yLW y�0 'o, �g ytiti yOny tiOp b0�6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Candy R4, Cross -Section 25
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
r1�
SP
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
8
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
17
17
27
Coarse
22.6
32
16
16
43
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
45
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
51
Small
64
90
24
24
75
Small
90
128
24
24
99
Large
128
180
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
Cross -Section 25
Channel materials I
D16 =
18.1
D35 =
26.9
D50 =
60.4
D80. =
102.7
D95 =
120.7
D100 =
362.0
Candy 114, Cross -Section 25
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
I I I I
IGravel
Cobble
Bedrock
er
80
70
0
60
j
0 50
40
u
a 30
a
i
I 20�
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
Candy 114, Cross -Section 25
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
Ll
10
0
oyti yL5 O tih O5 1
O O
L LW b yo W b1 6 �Lo 3ti b5 Ob CO yLW y�0 'o, ��ti ytiti ye "o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT1C, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
21
23
23
23
Very fine
0.062
0.125
5
5
5
28
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
5
5
33
Medium
0.25
0.50
10
10
10
43
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
6
6
49
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
49
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
49
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
49
Fine
4.0
5.6
49
Fine
5.6
8.0
49
Medium
8.0
11.0
49
Medium
11.0
16.0
49
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
2
51
Coarse
22.6
32
9
1
10
10
61
Very Coarse
32
45
14
2
16
16
77
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
10
87
Small
64
90
10
1
10
10
97
Small
90
128
3
3
3
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
IfflSmall
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
3
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100#
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.3
D50 =
19.0
D. =
57.6
1395 =
84.1
D100 =
128.0
UT1C, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
and
90
Silt/Clay
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
80
er
70
e
60
0 50
40
OJ
u
30
v
u
w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 - MY1-10/2017 - MY2-09/2018 MY3-05/2019
UT1C, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
w
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
0 oy o o'
0
ti' S' titi' ti ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT1C, Cross -Section 27
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
6
6
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
r1�
SP
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
8
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
8
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
8
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
8
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
8
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
9
Coarse
16.0
22.6
9
9
18
Coarse
22.6
32
18
18
36
Very Coarse
32
45
23
23
59
Very Coarse
45
64
18
18
77
Small
64
90
12
12
89
Small
90
128
4
4
93
Large
128
180
7
7
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 27
Channel materials I
D16 =
20.9
D35 =
31.4
D5o =
39.4
D80. =
78.1
D95 =
141.1
Dioo =
180.0
UT1C, Cross -Section 27
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
I I I I
I
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
i
er
80
70
0
60
j
50
40
u
a 30
u
a 20
IL
10
EE
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
UT1C, Cross -Section 27
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yLS o tih O� 1
0 0
L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 5L b5 �b CO yLW "p 'o0 ��ti yyti y�Lb Cobb b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT1D, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
15
17
17
17
Very fine
0.062
0.125
17
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
3
20
Medium
0.25
0.50
5
15
20
20
40
Coarse
0.5
1.0
10
12
22
22
62
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
62
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
62
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
62
Fine
4.0
5.6
62
Fine
5.6
8.0
62
Medium
8.0
11.0
62
Medium
11.0
16.0
62
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
63
Coarse
22.6
32
7
2
9
9
72
Very Coarse
32
45
11
2
13
13
85
Very Coarse
45
64
10
1
11
11
96
Small
64
90
1
1
1
97
Small
90
128
2
2
2
99
Large
128
180
1
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
IfflSmall
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
fflLarge/Very
Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Total
so
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.4
D50 =
0.7
D. =
43.8
1395 =
62.0
D100 =
180.0
UT111), Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80
e 70
60
silt/Clay
er
and
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
p�//
�f
0 50
+/
E 40
u
30
v
u
w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—MYO-10/2016—MY1-10/2017 —MY2-09/2018 --s.—MY3-05/2019
UT1D, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
w
R
40
�
3
30
v
a
20
v
10
0
0 oy o o'
�p .L0 tigO
ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT1D, Cross -Section 29
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
r1�
SP
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
6
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
52
52
62
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
62
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
62
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
62
Fine
4.0
5.6
62
Fine
5.6
8.0
62
Medium
8.0
11.0
62
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
64
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
68
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
72
Very Coarse
32
45
21
21
93
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
99
Small
64
90
99
Small
90
128
99
Large
128
180
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MMedium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 29
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.5
D35 -
0.7
D5o =
0.9
D80. =
38.9
D95 =
50.6
Dioo =
180.0
UT1D, Cross -Section 29
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
Sand Gravel
Cobble
i er
Bedrock
80
70
0
60
j
50
40
u
c
30
u
a
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
UT1D, Cross -Section 29
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
>
IL
v
20
�
10
0
blaoffill
oyti yLS o tih O� 1
0 0
L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 5L b5 �b CO yLW yp 'o0 ��ti yyti ye Cobb "o,
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT2 111A, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
4
4
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
10
13
13
17
Medium
0.25
0.50
5
12
17
17
34
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
6
7
7
41
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
7
10
10
51
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
2
53
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
4
4
57
Fine
4.0
5.6
57
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
58
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
4
7
7
65
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
3
68
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
1
7
7
75
Coarse
22.6
32
11
1
12
12
87
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
5
92
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
4
96
Small
64
90 1
2
2
2
98
Small
90
128
98
Large
128
180
1
1
1
99
Large
180
256
99
IfflSmall
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Dl6 =
0.2
D35 =
0.6
D50 =
1.9
D. =
29.3
D95 =
58.6
D10, =
362.0
UT2 111A, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay
and
90
Gravel
Cobble
80
+
er
Bedrock
70
e
60
0 50
E 40
u
30
v
u
w 20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 - MYl-10/2017 - MY2-09/2018 MY3-05/2019
UT2 111A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
w
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
0 oy o o'
tigO
ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT2 R1, Cross -Section 30
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
r1�
SP
Medium
0.25
0.50
5
5
5
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
10
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
6
16
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
18
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
18
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
20
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
24
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
26
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
29
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
35
Coarse
22.6
32
13
13
48
Very Coarse
32
45
20
20
68
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
78
Small
64
90
15
15
93
Small
90
128
3
3
96
Large
128
180
96
Large
180
256
4
4
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
1 362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 30
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
2.0
D35 =
22.6
D50 =
33.1
D80. =
73.4
D95 =
113.8
D100 =
256.0
UT2 111, Cross -Section 30
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
I I I I
I
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
gp
er
70
0
60
j
50
40
u
a 30
a 20
000
a
10
I-E,
0
M
-I_L_L__
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size I
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
UT2 111, Cross -Section 30
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
v
20
10
0
oyti yLS otih O� 1
0 0
L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 5L b5 �b CO yLW y�0 'o0 �g yyti y�nL mop b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT2 111, Cross -Section 31
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
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
r1�
SP
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
2
2
6
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
10
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
12
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
18
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
22
Coarse
16.0
22.6
19
19
41
Coarse
22.6
32
31
31
72
Very Coarse
32
45
15
15
87
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
99
Small
64
90
1
1
100
Small
90
128
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
113edrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 31
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
9.9
D35 =
20.3
D5o =
25.0
D80. =
42.0
D95 =
56.9
Dioo =
90.0
UT2 111, Cross -Section 31
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
I I I I
I
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
er
80
70
0
60
j
0 50
40
u
a 30
u
a 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
UT2 111, Cross -Section 31
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
�
10
IL
11
0
oyti yLS otih O� 1
0 0
L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 5L b5 �b CO yLW y�0 'o 'g yyti y�nL Cobb b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT2 R1, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
15
16
16
16
Very fine
0.062
0.125
5
5
5
21
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
5
6
6
27
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
4
31
Coarse
0.5
1.0
9
9
9
40
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
6
8
8
48
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
48
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
48
Fine
4.0
5.6
48
Fine
5.6
8.0
48
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
1
2
2
50
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
7
3
10
10
60
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
6
66
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
7
73
Very Coarse
32
45
11
11
11
84
Very Coarse
45
64
3
1
4
4
88
Small
64
90
5
1
6
6
94
Small
90
128
4
1
5
5
99
Large
128
180
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
IfflSmall
256
362
100
ffffffm
Small
362
512
1
100
VMedium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 _
0.7
D50 =
11.0
D. =
45.0
1395 =
96.6
D100 =
256.0
UT2 111, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
III
Sand
90
80
Slit/Clay
Cobble
+
Gravel
er
Bedrock
70
e
60
0 50
E 40
0000
u
30
v
u
w 20
a
10
t
0
__ —
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
— MYO-10/2016 — MYl-10/2017 — MY2-09/2018 MY3-05/2019
UT2 111, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
w
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
10
IL
0
91 111 ILA
hi —A 11111
Pb Ph AA
0 oy o o'
o �.L0 gO 5� �ti yti nL aO
ti' S' titi' ti ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT2 R1, Cross -Section 33
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
r1�
SP
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
4
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
7
Medium
11.0
16.0
7
7
14
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
20
Coarse
22.6
32
20
20
40
Very Coarse
32
45
25
25
65
Very Coarse
45
64
15
15
80
Small
64
90
10
10
90
Small
90
128
8
8
98
Large
128
180
1
1
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
99
Small
1 362
512
1
1
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 33
Channel materials I
D16 =
18.0
D35 =
29.3
D5o =
36.7
D80. =
73.4
D95 =
112.2
Dioo =
512.0
UT2 111, Cross -Section 33
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
I I I I
I
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
er
80
70
0
60
j
50
40
u
a 30
u
a 20
a
10
14
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
UT2 111, Cross -Section 33
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
LL
oyti yL5 O tih O5 1
O O
L LW b yo W b1 6 113ti b5 Ob CO yLW y�0 ��6 4^1 ytiti yOny �O"I b0�6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT2 R2, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
7
7
7
7
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
4
4
11
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
4
15
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
14
16
16
31
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
5
36
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
8
9
17
17
53
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
53
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
3
4
4
57
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1
58
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
59
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
1
4
4
63
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
3
66
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
67
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
4
71
Very Coarse
32
45
4
1
5
5
76
Very Coarse
45
64
2
2
2
78
Small
64
90
2
2
2
80
Small
90
128
5
5
5
85
Large
128
180
8
1
9
9
94
Large
180
256
5
5
5
99
Small
256
362
99
Small
362
512
99
512
1024
1
1
1
100
JIMMedium
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.3
D35 =
0.9
D50 =
1.8
Dfl0. =
119.3
D95 =
193.1
D100 -
1024.0
UT2 112, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
III
Sand
90
Silt/Clay
Gravel
Cobble
80
er
Bedrock
70
e
4 60
'—° 50
3
40
3
u
e 30
m
u
`m 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
— MYO-10/2016 — MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 MY3-05/2019
UT2 112, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
N
R
v
40
R
3
30
v
20
e
—
10
0
0 oti °' o'
ti' `'' titi' ti ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT2 R2, Cross -Section 35
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
r1�
SP
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
25
25
25
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
25
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
8
8
33
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
36
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
5
41
Medium
8.0
11.0
10
10
51
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
55
Coarse
16.0
22.6
55
Coarse
22.6
32
55
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
57
Very Coarse
45
64
2
2
59
Small
64
90
6
6
65
Small
90
128
17
17
82
Large
128
180
11
11
93
Large
180
256
3
3
96
Small
256
362
4
4
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 35
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
1.6
D35 -
5.0
D5o =
10.7
D80. =
136.2
D95 =
227.6
Dioo =
362.0
UT2 112, Cross -Section 35
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
and Gravel
Cobble
er
Bedrock
80
70
0
60
j
E
50
40
ulo
a
30
u
a
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
UT2 112, Cross -Section 35
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
Ll
0
oyti yL5 O tih O5 1
O O
L LW b yo W b1 6 �Lo 3ti b5 Ob CO yLW y�0 'o, ��ti ytiti ye �Obb "0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT3, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
22
23
23
23
Very fine
0.062
0.125
5
5
5
28
Fine
0.125
0.250
28
Medium
0.25
0.50
20
20
20
48
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
49
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
50
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
50
Fine
4.0
5.6
50
Fine
5.6
8.0
50
Medium
8.0
11.0
50
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
1
51
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
52
Coarse
22.6
32
5
1
6
6
58
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
6
64
Very Coarse
45
64
7
1
8
8
72
Small
64
90
12
12
12
84
Small
90
128
14
1
15
15
99
Large
128
180
1
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
IfflSmall
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.3
D50 =
2.0
D. =
90.0
1395 =
116.5
D100 =
180.0
UT3, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
silticlay
and
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
gp
er
e 70I
60
0 50
E 40
u
30
v
u
w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 - MYl-10/2017 - MY2-09/2018 MY3-05/2019
UT3, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
w
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
O 01 0 o'
aO 5� �ti yti .LDS
ti' S' titi' 1 1gO 'L '3 -0 bO
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT3, Cross -Section 37
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
r1�
SP
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
6
Medium
11.0
16.0
12
12
18
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
7
25
Coarse
22.6
32
9
9
34
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
44
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
52
Small
64
90
13
13
65
Small
90
128
34
34
99
Large
128
180
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 37
Channel materials I
D16 =
15.0
D35 =
33.1
D50 =
58.6
D80. =
109.6
D95 =
122.8
D100 =
180.0
UT3, Cross -Section 37
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
and
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
/
er
80
70
0
60
j
Z
50
40
u
It
a
30
u
a
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
UT3, Cross -Section 37
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
v
20
10
0
oyti yL5 Otih O5 1
O O
L LW b yo W b1 6 �Lo 3ti b5 Ob CO yLW y�0 'o, �g ytiti yOny tiOp b0�6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT4, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
25
27
27
27
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
2
2
29
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
1
30
Medium
0.25
0.50
9
9
9
39
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
10
11
11
50
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
9
4
13
13
63
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
63
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
63
Fine
4.0
5.6
63
Fine
5.6
8.0
63
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
64
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
66
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
67
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
2
69
Very Coarse
32
45
1
1
1
70
Very Coarse
45
64
1
1
1
71
Small
64
90
8
8
8
79
Small
90
128
11
11
11
90
Large
128
180
9
9
9
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
Small
256
362
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.4
D50 =
1.0
D. =
105.6
1395 =
154.7
D100 =
256.0
UT4, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Sand
90
silticlay
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
80
er
70
e
do
60
0 50
40
ugp-
30
v
u
w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 - MYl-10/2017 - MY2-09/2018 MY3-05/2019
UT4, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
w
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
0 oy o o'
gO 5� �ti yti nL aO
ti' S' titi' ti ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT4, Cross -Section 38
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
12
12
12
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
13
Fine
0.125
0.250
13
r1�
Medium
0.25
0.50
8
8
21
SP
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
26
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
26
26
52
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
52
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
52
Fine
4.0
5.6
52
Fine
5.6
8.0
52
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
55
Medium
11.0
16.0
55
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
57
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
58
Very Coarse
32
45
58
Very Coarse
45
64
58
Small
64
90
5
5
63
Small
90
128
7
7
70
Large
128
180
13
13
83
Large
180
256
10
10
93
Small
256
362
7
7
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 38
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.3
D35 =
1.3
D5o =
1.9
D80. =
186.5
D95 =
282.6
Dioo =
362.0
UT4, Cross -Section 38
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
Sand I I Gravel
Cobble
er
Bedrock
80
70
0
60
j
50
Z
40
a
30
IL
20
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
UT4, Cross -Section 38
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yL5 O tih O5 1 L
O O
LW b yo W b1 6 �Lo 3ti b5 Ob CO $ $ _�, 4^1 ytiti yOyb �Obb b0�6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT4, Cross -Section 41
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
5
5
Very fine
0.062
0.125
5
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
r1�
SP
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
6
11
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
13
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
8
8
21
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
21
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
21
Fine
4.0
5.6
21
Fine
5.6
8.0
21
Medium
8.0
11.0
21
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
23
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
25
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
26
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
28
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
38
Small
64
90
22
22
60
Small
90
128
34
34
94
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
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
>2048 1100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 41
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
1.3
D35 =
57.6
D5o =
77.1
D80. =
115.4
D95 =
135.5
Dioo =1
180.0
UT4, Cross -Section 41
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
and
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
er
80
70
0
60
j
0 50
Z
40
u
a 30
u
a 20
IL
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
UT4, Cross -Section 41
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
v
20
10
Lill
A I
0
io-IL-11LUal-d
I
, '- ,
oyti yLS otih O� 1
0 0
L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 5L b5 �b CO yLW yip _�, 4^1 yy y�nL �o"I b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT4, Cross -Section 42
Diameter I
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
r1�
SP
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
6
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
9
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
12
12
21
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
21
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
21
Fine
4.0
5.6
21
Fine
5.6
8.0
21
Medium
8.0
11.0
21
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
22
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
23
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
25
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
29
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
33
Small
64
90
31
31
64
Small
90
128
32
32
96
Large
128
180
4
4
100
Large
180
256
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
100
Totall
100
100
100
Cross -Section 43
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
1.5
D35 =
65.4
D5o =
77.2
D80. =
112.2
D95 =
126.6
Dioo =
180.0
UT4, Cross -Section 42
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
SiIVCIay
and
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
er
80
70
0
60
j
50
ac40
30
u
a 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
UT4, Cross -Section 42
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yLS otih O� 1
0 0
L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 5L b5 �b CO yLW y�0 'o0 �g yyti y�nL mop b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT5, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
18
20
20
20
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
7
9
9
29
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
12
15
15
44
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
9
13
13
57
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
4
5
5
62
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
4
66
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
66
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
66
Fine
4.0
5.6
66
Fine
5.6
8.0
66
Medium
8.0
11.0 1
66
Medium
11.0
16.0
66
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
2
68
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
1
69
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
6
75
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
10
85
Small
64
90
4
4
4
89
Small
90
128
10
10
10
99
Large
128
180
1
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048 1
100
Total 1
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 _
0.2
D50 =
0.3
D. =
61.8
1395 =
111.2
D100 =
180.0
UT5, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay
and
90
Gravel
Cobble
80
er
Bedrock
70
e
60
0 50
E 40
00
u
30
v
u
w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 - MY1-10/2017 - MY2-09/2018 MY3-05/2019
UTS, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
10
0
0
0 oy o o' ti' S' titi' ti ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT5, Cross -Section 44
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
11
11
11
Very fine
0.062
0.125
5
5
16
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
8
24
r1�
Medium
0.25
0.50
15
15
39
SP
Coarse
0.5
1.0
11
11
50
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
52
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
52
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
52
Fine
4.0
5.6
52
Fine
5.6
8.0
52
Medium
8.0
11.0
52
Medium
11.0
16.0
52
Coarse
16.0
22.6
52
Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
55
Very Coarse
32
45
13
13
68
Very Coarse
45
64
17
17
85
Small
64
90
6
6
91
Small
90
128
4
4
95
Large
128
180
5
5
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
1 362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 44
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.1
D35 =
0.4
D5o =
1.0
D80. =
62.7
D95 =
128.0
Dioo =
180.0
UT5, Cross -Section 44
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
I
I
er
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
80
70
> 60
50
40
u
a 30
u
a 20
IL
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
UTS, Cross -Section 44
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
v
20
10
0
1
1 Id
Ak
oyti yL5 Otih O5 1
O O
L LW b yo W b1 6 �Lo 3ti b5 Ob CO yLW y�0 'o, �g ytiti yOny _�,bb b0�6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT5, Cross -Section 46
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8
8
8
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
9
Fine
0.125
0.250
9
r1�
SP
Medium
0.25
0.50
9
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
6
15
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
16
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
16
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
16
Fine
4.0
5.6
16
Fine
5.6
8.0
16
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
18
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
22
Coarse
16.0
22.6
22
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
32
Very Coarse
32
45
21
21
53
Very Coarse
45
64
19
19
72
Small
64
90
12
12
84
Small
90
128
12
12
96
Large
128
180
2
2
98
Large
180
256
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
1 362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
1 100
100
Cross -Section 46
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
2.0
D35 =
33.6
D50 =
42.9
D80. =
90.0
D95 =
124.3
D100 =
256.0
UT5, Cross -Section 46
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
Sand I I I I I Gravel
Cobble
er
Bedrock
80
70
0
60
j
50
Z
40
u
a
30
u
a
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
UTS, Cross -Section 46
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
v
20
�
10
0
oyti yLS otih O� 1
0 0
L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 5L b5 �b CO yLW y�0 'o0 �g yyti y�nL mop b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT5, Cross -Section 48
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
17
17
17
Very fine
0.062
0.125
17
Fine
0.125
0.250
17
r1�
Medium
0.25
0.50
17
SP
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
19
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
7
7
26
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
26
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
26
Fine
4.0
5.6
26
Fine
5.6
8.0
26
Medium
8.0
11.0
26
Medium
11.0
16.0
26
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
5
31
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
38
Very Coarse
32
45
9
9
47
Very Coarse
45
64
18
18
65
Small
64
90
10
10
75
Small
90
128
18
18
93
Large
128
180
7
7
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 48
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
27.6
D5o =
47.7
D80. =
107.3
D95 =
141.1
D10, =
180.0
UT5, Cross -Section 48
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
I I I I
IGravel
er
Cobble
Bedrock
80
III
70
0
60
j
-
50
Z
40
u
a 30
u
a 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 t MY3-05/2019
UTS, Cross -Section 48
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
a
60
a
a
50
40
u
30
a
>
v
20
10
0
oyti yLS otih O� 1
0 0
L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 �Lo 5L b5 �b CO yLW y�0 'o0 �g yyti y�nL mop b��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
MY1-10/2017 MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT2A, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
20
23
23
23
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
2
25
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
4
29
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
4
33
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
8
8
41
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
7
2
9
9
50
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
50
Fine
4.0
5.6
50
Fine
5.6
8.0
50
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
3
53
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
1
3
3
56
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
1
3
3
59
Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
6
6
65
Very Coarse
32
45
7
5
12
12
77
Very Coarse
45
64
10
3
13
13
90
Small
64
90
4
4
4
94
Small
90
128
1
1
2
2
96
Large
128
180
4
4
4
100
Large
180
256
100
IfflSmall
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
JfflLarge/Very
Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.6
D50 =
2.0
D. =
54.4
1395 =
107.3
D100 =
180.0
UT2A, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
silt/Clay
Sand
90
Gravel
Cobble
80
er
Bedrock
70
e
60
i
0 50
E 40
u
30
v
u
w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-10/2016 - MY1-10/2017 - MY2-09/2018 MY3-05/2019
UT2A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
w
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
0 oy o o'
tigO
ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MY2-09/2018 ■ MYl-10/2017 0 MY3-05/2019

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
UT2A, Cross -Section 36
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
SLIT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
9
9
9
Very fine
0.062
0.125
9
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
6
15
PC1O
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
6
21
Coarse
0.5
1.0
13
13
34
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
6
40
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
40
Fine
4.0
5.6
40
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
42
Medium
8.0
11.0
17
17
59
Medium
11.0
16.0
5
5
64
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
5
69
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
77
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
81
Very Coarse
45
64
9
9
90
Small
64
90
2
2
92
Small
90
128
1
1
93
Large
128
180
5
5
98
Large
180
256
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross -Section 36
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.3
D35 =
1.1
D50 =
9.3
D84 =
50.6
D95 =
146.7
Dlm=
256.0
UT2A, Cross -Section 36
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 SiIVCIay
III Sand I I I I I Gravel
Cobble
i er
Bedrock
80
r
70
60
f0 50
00
3
3 40
u
q 30
d
u
d 20
a
10
0
FM
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-MYO-10/2016-MY1-10/2017 -MY2-09/2018 tMY3-05/2019
UT2A, Cross -Section 36
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
60
a
50
N
u
40
3
30
v
>
13
20
10
0
oyti yLS o tih O� 1 L Lb b h6 9 y1 0 11L b5 01-O $ $ �0 4^1 yyti y�Lb Cobb "Co
0 0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MY1-10/2017 a MY2-09/2018 0 MY3-05/2019

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plot

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
Reach
Candy Creek Reach 2
Monitoring Year
MY2
Date of Occurrence
10/11/2018
Automated Crest
Gage
MY3
1/21/2019
1/30/2019
2/23/2019
3/7/2019
Candy Creek Reach 4
M Y1
6/19/2017
Automated Crest
Gage
MY2
7/30/2018
9/17/2018
10/11/2018
MY3
2/23/2019
UT1C
MY2
2/9/2018
Automated Crest
Gage
3/9/2018
10/22/2018
MY3
1/10/2019
1/16/2019
1/21/2019
1/31/2019
UT2
MY2
1/27/2018
Automated Crest
Gage
7/30/2018
9/17/2018
10/11/2018
MY3
1/11/2019
1/21/2019
1/26/2019
1/30/2019
UT2A
MY2
2/9/2018
Automated Crest
Gage
MY3
1/21/2019
1/27/2019
1/30/2019
UT3
MY2
10/11/2018
Automated Crest
Gage
MY3
1/21/2019
UT4
MY2
1/31/2018
Automated Crest
Gage
7/30/2018
9/17/2018
10/11/2018
MY3
1/21/2019
2/23/2019
6/8/2019
UT5
MY1
4/24/2017
Automated Crest
Gage
6/19/2017
MY2
1/31/2018
Automated Crest
Gage
2/6/2018
3/9/2018
7/30/2018
9/17/2018
10/11/2018
MY3
1/21/2019
1/26/2019
1/30/2019
2/23/2019
8/8/2019

Stream Gage Plot
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 3 - 2019
743.0
30 days
742.5
x 742.0
3 741.5 t -
741.0
740.5 i` 'I M"r'
c a m
m ii g
Candy Creek Mitigation Site: Stream Gage for UT1D (XS 29)
DIMS Project No. 96315
u > c - nu a > u
Q 5 ¢ N o w
0
z o
Rainfall — UT1D (XS 29) Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • •Bankfull Measure Scale Bar
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0 w
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0