20170920 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2019_20200128

ID#* 20170290 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 01/29/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/28/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Llndsay Crocker
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20170290
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Heron
County: Alamance
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Heron _100014_MY1_2019.pdf 10.06MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* lindsay crocker
Signature:*
4`-�r'er<4 helm-Ao

FINAL
MONITORING REPORT
2019 (Year 1)
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100014
Full Delivery Contract No. 7192
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01471
DWR No. 17-0290
RFP No. 16-006990
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Data Collection: January 2019 — October 2019
Submission: January 2020
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
January 2020

January 23, 2020
Lindsay Crocker
NC DEQ— Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina
27699-1652
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
Subject: Heron —Year 1 (2019) Monitoring Report
Cape Fear 02 River Basin, Contract 007192, Alamance County, DMS Project No. 100014
Ms. Crocker,
Below is the response from Restoration Systems to all comments received from DMS regarding the Year
1, 2019, Heron Monitoring Report. DMS comments are in black, and our responses are in blue. Please do
not hesitate to reach out if you would like to discuss.
Sincerely,
000r. !✓
Worth Creech
Project Manager
Comments Received & Responses
Electronic Deliverables:
1. Hydrology Data — Hydrology data ceases in August. Provide data for the rest of the growing
season. Label any probe or benchmark elevations, the raw and corrected readings of the water
elevations and any offsets applied for the groundwater data. DMS needs to be able to clearly
identify these key elevations before incorporating these into the DMS database permitting
independent calculation/verification. The DMS Excel template for groundwater hydrology
includes everything that is required.
The remaining groundwater hydrology data was included. This resulted in an extra day of meeting
success for gauge 3. Also, some of the rain data originally reported on the graphs was incorrect.
It was replaced with the correct onsite rain data. Additionally, all groundwater gauges are RDS
Ecotone gauges. As such, when installed properly with the calibration point at ground level, they
require no benchmark elevations or offsets. This was indicated in the digital dataset.
2. Morphology —Check BHR calcs between the overlays and the summary tables. They do not seem
to be matching in comes cases (e.g. XS 2).
Several of the calculations in the cross-section overlays were incorrect. Those have been
corrected, and the overlays now match the tables.
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

3. Calculation of BHR (using a fixed AB Bankfull Area), XSA, and Max depth are to completed using
TOB in keeping with methods specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup memorandum based
on the current year's low bank height. Please review morph data from compliance and
consistency with these methods.
Morph data was reviewed and is consistent with the methods outlined in the Industry Technical
Work Group Memorandum. Additionally, LTOB Elevations have been added to the summary data
in the cross-section overlays.
4. Include a footnote upon verification to the effect, "Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the
As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR
Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the
NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioner sin NC (9/2018)."
This footnote was added to tables 13A-G.
5. The other parameters can be left blank or the basis for their calculation needs to be clearly
footnoted.
In a 1/17/20 phone discussion with DMS project manager, Lindsay Crocker, it was determined
that the above footnote regarding bank height ratio would be sufficient, and that other
parameters may remain in the table.
General Report and Riparian Buffer Appendix:
1. Table 2. Be prepared to discuss exact dates of vegetation monitoring for MYO and MY1. The IRT
will be checking to ensure at least 6 months of growing season between monitoring.
Asbuilt and MY1 stream and vegetation monitoring dates were added to table 2.
2. The mitigation plan states that soil temperature data is required to use the March 1 growing
season. Please provide this data in the monitoring report to justify.
Asbuilt and MY1 stream and vegetation monitoring dates were added to table 2.
3. Add photo evidence of bankfull indicators if available.
Unfortunately, no bankfull evidence photos are available for MY1.
Page 2 of 2

FINAL
MONITORING REPORT
2019 (Year 1)
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100014
Full Delivery Contract No. 7192
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01471
DWR No. 17-0290
RFP No. 16-006990
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Data Collection: January 2019 — October 2019
Submission: January 2020
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Contact: Worth Creech
919-755-9490 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)
Prepared by:
And
January 2020
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact: Grant Lewis
919-215-1693 (phone)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY..................................................................................................................I
1.1 PROJECT GOALS & OBJECTIVES........................................................................................ 1
1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND.................................................................................................... 3
1.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND STRUCTURE......................................................................... 3
1.4 SUCCESS CRITERIA............................................................................................................4
2.0 METHODS...................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 MONITORING..................................................................................................................... 5
3.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................................8
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Background Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5H. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix C. Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 11A-G. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12A-G. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic
Containment Parameter Distributions)
Tables 13A-G. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -
Cross -sections)
Tables 14A-G. Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-section Plots
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Tables 15A-J. Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 16. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 17. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Table of Contents page i
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (Site).
1.1 Project Goals & Objectives
Project goals were based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report (NCEEP
2009) and on -site preconstruction data collection of channel morphology and function observed during field
investigations. The Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030002050050. The RBRP
report documents benthic ratings vary between "Fair" and "Good -Fair" possibly due to cattle, dairy, and
poultry operations. The project is not located in a Regional or Local Watershed Planning Area; however,
RBRP goals addressed by project activities are as follows with Site specific information following the
RBRP goals in parenthesis.
1. Reduce and control sediment inputs (sediment input reduction of 67.3 tons/year);
2. Reduce and manage nutrient inputs (livestock removed from streams, elimination of fertilizer
application, installation of marsh treatment areas; and a direct reduction of 893.2 pounds of nitrogen
and 47.0 pounds of phosphorus per year);
Site specific mitigation goals and objectives were developed through the use of North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method (NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of
preconstruction and reference stream systems at the Site (NC SFAT 2015 and NC WFAT 2010) (see Table
1).
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page I
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Cable 1. Stream/Wetland Tar eted Functions, Goals, and Objectives
Targeted Functions Goals Objectives Compatibility of Success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow (Floodplain Access)
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(1) WATER QUALITY
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
1 (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
Wetland Particulate Change
Wetland Physical Change
(1) HABITAT
(2) In -stream Habitat
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In -Stream Habitat
(2) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
Wetland Landscape Patch Structure
Wetland Vegetation Composition
• Attenuate flood flow across • Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank 0 BHR not to exceed 1.2
the Site. flows and restore jurisdictional wetlands . Document four overbank events in separate monitoring years
• Minimize downstream • Plant woody riparian buffer . Livestock excluded from the easement
flooding to the maximum • Remove livestock Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
extent possible. • Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase soil surface 0 Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Connect streams to roughness
functioning wetland systems. • Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
• Conservation Easement recorded
• Increase stream stability within •
the Site so that channels are •
neither aggrading nor •
degrading. •
• Remove direct nutrient and
pollutant inputs from the Site
and reduce contributions to
downstream waters.
• Improve instream and Stream -
side habitat.
Construct channels with proper pattern, dimension, and longitudinal profile
Remove livestock
Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate
Plant woody riparian buffer
• Cross-section measurements indicate a stable channel with cobble/gravel
substrate
• Visual documentation of stable channels and structures
• BHR not to exceed 1.2
• ER of 1.4 or greater
• < 10% change in BHR and ER in any given year
• Livestock excluded from the easement
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
Remove livestock and reduce agricultural land/inputs
Install marsh treatment areas
Plant woody riparian buffer • Livestock excluded from the easement
Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams • Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
Provide surface roughness through deep ripping/plowing • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
Restore overbank flooding by establishing proper channel dynamics
Cessation of municipal land application
Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate
Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade
Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank
flows and plant woody riparian buffer
Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams
• Cross-section measurement indicate a stable channel with cobble/gravel
substrate
• Visual documentation of stable channels and in -stream structures.
• Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Conservation Easement recorded
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 2
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

1.2 Project Background
The Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") encompasses a 17.64-
acre easement along warm water, unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch and unnamed tributaries to South
Fork Cane Creek. The Site is located approximately 4 miles southeast of Snow Camp and 4.5 miles north
of Silk Hope in southern Alamance County near the Chatham County line (Figure 1, Appendix A).
Prior to construction, Site land use consisted of disturbed forest and agricultural land used for livestock
grazing and hay production. Livestock had unrestricted access to Site streams, which had been cleared,
dredged of cobble substrate, straightened, trampled by livestock, eroded vertically and laterally, and
received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from stream banks and adjacent pastures. Approximately
62 percent of the stream channel had been degraded contributing to sediment export from the Site resulting
from mechanical processes such as livestock hoof shear. In addition, streamside wetlands were cleared and
drained by channel downcutting and land uses. Preconstruction Site conditions resulted in degraded water
quality, a loss of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient and sediment retention, and unstable channel
characteristics (loss of horizontal flow vectors that maintain pools and an increase in erosive forces to
channel bed and banks). Site restoration activities restored riffle -pool morphology, aided in energy
dissipation, increased aquatic habitat, stabilized channel banks, and greatly reduced sediment loss from
channel banks.
1.3 Project Components and Structure
Proposed Site restoration activities generated 5293 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 0.66 Wetland
Mitigation Units (WMUs) as the result of the following.
• 4068 linear feet of Priority I stream restoration
• 1184 linear feet of stream enhancement (Level 1)
• 1090 linear feet of stream enhancement (Level 11)
• 0.35 acre of riparian wetland restoration
• 0.61 acre of riparian wetland enhancement
Additional activities that occurred at the Site included the following.
• Installation of six marsh treatment areas throughout the Site.
• Fencing the entire conservation easement by leaving some pre-existing fencing, removing fencing,
and installing additional fencing.
• Planting 12.05 acres of the Site with 15,625 stems (planted species and densities by zone are
included in Table 7 [Appendix Q.
Deviations from the construction plans included realignment of UT 1B (adding 20 linear feet to the
alignment) due to conflicts with a gas line crossing. The realignment resulted in the reduction of a log vane
and alterations to pipe configurations within the crossing. Gas line realignment also affected the length of
UT 2 in its lower reaches (shortening the Restoration reach). UT 2 also has minor deviations in the
enhancement II reach due to profile elevation alterations to tie to the invert of UT 113. These profile
alterations were included in construction plans, but not included in table updates ofthe detailed plan. Profile
alterations resulted in the Enhancement (level II)/Restoration initiation point migrating upstream, and thus
the length of the Enhancement (Level 11) reach (UT 2A) decreased by 39 feet, and the length of the
restoration reach (UT 213) increased by 17 feet.
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 3
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Minor easement deviations after construction plan development resulted in some stationing changes, most
notable at the upper reaches of UT IA (adding 5 linear feet to the alignment) and UT 8A & UT813 (reducing
the alignments by a total of 4 linear feet). The easement variations also affected channel lengths across gas
lines, which do not generate mitigation credit. Eight log cross -vanes were not constructed due to contact
with bed rock, or conflicts with the gas line. In addition, a marsh treatment area was added to the right
bank of UT 6 at a draw that was concentrating surface drainage and scouring the valley walls. No other
deviations of significance occurred between construction plans and the as -built condition. In addition, no
issues have arisen since construction occurred.
Site design was completed in July 2018. Construction started on November 27, 2018 and ended within a
final walkthrough on February 11, 2019. The Site was planted on February 21, 2019. Completed project
activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background information are
summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A).
1.4 Success Criteria
Project success criteria have been established per the October 24, 2016 NC Interagency Review Team
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Monitoring and success
criteria relate to project goals and objectives. From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and
objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by restoration activities without direct measurement.
Other goals and objectives will be considered successful upon achieving success criteria. The following
table summarizes Site success criteria.
Success Criteria
Streams
•
All streams must maintain an Ordinary High -Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
•
Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days. Surface water
monitoring gauges will be installed in the upper third of all intermittent channels, unless otherwise requested
by the IRT.
•
Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section.
•
Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be no less than 2.2 for E- and C-type channels at any measured riffle cross-
section. Note: B-type channels may have an ER less than 1.4.
•
BHR and ER at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from baseline condition
during any given monitoring period.
•
The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards shall be met through four separate
bankfull events, occurring in separate years, during the monitoring ears 1-7.
Wetland Hydrology
•
Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 10 percent of the
growing season, during average climatic conditions. Note: Soil temperature for growing season establishment
will be measured daily utilizing a continuous monitoring soil probe. Soil temperature will be measured from
mid -February through the end of April at a minimum).
Vegetation
•
Within planted portions of the site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum of
260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at year 7.
•
Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5, and 10 feet in height at year 7 in each plot.
•
Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the site;
natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case -by -case basis.
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 4
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

2.0 METHODS
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in this plan follow the October 24, 2016 NC
Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports of the data
collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 31 of each
monitoring year data is collected. The monitoring schedule is summarized in the following table.
Monitoring Schedule
Resource
Year I
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Streams
Wetlands
Vegetation
Macroinvertebrates
Visual Assessment
Report Submittal
2.1 Monitoring
The monitoring parameters are summarized in the following table.
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 5
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Sum
Stream Parameters
Parameter
Method
Schedule/Frequency
Number/Extent
Data Collected/Reported
Stream Profile
Full longitudinal survey
As -built (unless otherwise
All restored stream channels
Graphic and tabular data.
required)
Stream Dimension
Cross -sections
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Total of 37 cross -sections on restored
Graphic and tabular data.
channels
Areas of concern to be depicted on a
Visual Assessments
Yearly
All restored stream channels
plan view figure with a written
Channel Stability
assessment and photograph of the area
included in the report.
Additional Cross -sections
Yearly
Only if instability is documented
Graphic and tabular data.
during monitoring
Stream Hydrology
Continuous monitoring surface water
Continuous recording through
Total of 10 surface water gauges
Surface water data for each monitoring
gauges and/or trail camera
monitoring period
period as depicted in Figures 10A-1 OD.
Total of 10 surface water gauges:
Continuous monitoring surface water
Continuous recording through
One gauge on UT 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8.
Surface water data for each monitoring
Bankfull Events
gauges and/or trail camera
monitoring period
Two gauges on UT 5.
period
Three gauges on UT 7
Visual/Physical Evidence
Continuous through
All restored stream channels
Visual evidence, photo documentation,
monitoringperiod
and/or rain data.
"Qual 4" method described in Standard
Pre -construction, Years 3, 5,
Results* will be presented on a site -by -
Benthic
Operating Procedures for Collection
and 7 during the "index
2 stations (one at the lower end
site basis and to include a list of taxa
Macroinvertebrates
and Analysis ofBenthic
period" referenced in Small
UTl and one at the lower end of UTS)
collected, an enumeration of
Macroinvertebrates, Version 5.0
Streams Biocriteria
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
(NCDWR 2016)
Development (NCDWQ 2009)
Tricopetera taxa as well as Biotic Index.
Wetland Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
As -built, Years 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Soil temperature at the beginning of
Wetland and 7 throughout the year with 6 gauges spread throughout restored each monitoring period to verify the
Restoration Groundwater gauges the growing season defined as wetlands start of the growing season, groundwater
March 1-October 22 and rain data for each monitoring period
Vegetation Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency I Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Permanent vegetation plots 0.0247 acre
Vegetation (100 square meters) in size; CVS EEP As -built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 14 plots spread across the Site Species, height, planted vs. volunteer,
establishment and Protocol for Recording Vegetation, stems/acre
Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008)
vigor Annual random vegetation plots, 0.0247
acre (100 square meters) in size As -built, Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 4 plots randomly selected each year Species and height
*Benthic Macroinvertebrate sampling data will not be tied to success criteria; however, the data may be used as a tool to observe positive gains to in -stream habitat
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 6
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Stream Summary
All streams are functioning as designed, and no stream areas of concern were observed during year 1 (2019)
monitoring. Stream morphology data is available in Appendix D.
Wetland Summary
Summary of Moni oring Period/HydrologyPeriod/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud
Monitoring Period Used for
10 Percent of
Burst Documented
Determining Success
Monitoring Period
2019 (Year 1)
March 28, 2019*
March 28-October 22
21 days
(209 days)
*Based on data collected from a soil temperature data logger located on the Site.
All groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 1 (2019) monitoring period (Appendix D).
Vegetation Summary
During quantitative vegetation sampling, 14 sample plots (I0-meterby 10-meter) were installed within the
Site as per guidelines established in CVS EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al.
2008). Measurement also included four random sample plots (10-meter by 10-meter). Measurements of
all 18 plots resulted in an average of 483 planted stems/acre excluding livestakes. Additionally, all plots
met success criteria except permanent plot 6 (Tables 8-10, Appendix Q.
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 7
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

3.0 REFERENCES
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omemik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson,
J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2014. Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Monitoring Guidelines. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. Available: https:// https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-
planning/water-resource-plans/cape-fear-2005 [December 8, 2016]. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Version 5.0). (online). Available:
https:Hfiles.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Environmental%20Sciences/BAU/NCDWRMacroin
vertebrate-SOP-February%202016 final.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2009. Small Streams Biocriteria Development.
Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_libraKy/get_file?uuid=2d54ad23-0345-4d6e-82fd-
04005f48eaa7&.group1d=38364
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009 (online) . Available
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document—library/get file ?uuid=8 64e 82e 8 -725 c-415 e-8 ed9-
c72dfcb5 5 012&groupld=60329
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM) User Manual. Version 2.1.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). N.C. Wetland Assessment
Method (NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 8
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified Tennessee
Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest Hydrology and
Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Publ.167.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [August 2016].
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 9
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Appendix A
Background Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits: Heron Restoration Site
MitigationRestoration
Stream
Existing
Restoration or
Plan
Mitigation
Mitigation
Reach ID
Stationing/
Footage/
Footage/
Restoration Level
Restoration
Comment
Footage/
Ratio
Credits
Wetland Type
Acreage
Acreage
Equivalent
Acreage
UT IA
(-)0+05 to
475
470
475
Enhancement (Level I)
475
1.5:1
317
04+70
571f of UTl is located outside of
856-57=
UT 1B
04+70 to 13+26
753
836
856
Restoration
1:1
799
the conservation easement and
799
therefore is not generating credit
UT 2A
00+00 to 03+04
304
343
304
Enhancement (Level 11)
304
2.5:1
122
UT 2B
03+04 to 03+67
19
46
63
Restoration
63
1:1
63
UT 3
00+00 to 02+79
269
279
279
Restoration
279
1:1
279
UT 4
00+00 to 04+50
485
450
450
Restoration
450
1:1
450
521f of UT5 is located outside of
UT 5A
00+00 to 09+52
422
952
952
Restoration
952-52=
1:1
900
the conservation easement and
900
therefore is not generating credit
UT 5B
09+52 to 14+90
538
538
538
Enhancement (Level 11)
538
2.5:1
215
UT 6
00+00 to 07+81
683
781
781
Restoration
781
1:1
781
41 if of the UT7 restoration reach
232-41=
is located outside of the
UT 7A
00+00 to 02+32
0
232
232
Restoration
191
1:1
191
conservation easement and
therefore is not generating credit
55 if of the UT7 enhancement
764-55=
reach is located outside of the
UT 7B
02+32 to 09+96
764
764
764
Enhancement (Level I)
1.5:1
473
709
conservation easement and
therefore is not generating credit
UT8A
00+04 to 06+09
549
607
605
Restoration
605
1:1
605
UT 8B
06+09 to 08+57
248
250
248
Enhancement (Level 11)
248
2.5:1
99
RiparianRiverine
Wetland R
--
0.35
0.35
Restoration
0.35
1:1
0.35
Wetland Restoration
RiparianRiverine
Wetland E
0.61
0.61
0.61
Enhancement
0.61
2:1
0.31
Wetland Enhancement
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 2
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits: Heron Restoration Site (continued)
Length & Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level
Stream (linear
footage)
Riparian Wetland
(acreage)
Restoration
4068*
0.35
Enhancement (Level I)
1184**
--
Enhancement (Level II)
1090
--
Enhancement
--
0.61
*An additional 150 linear feet of stream restoration is located outside of the conservation easement and is
therefore not included in this total or in mitigation credit calculations.
**An additional 55 linear feet of stream enhancement (level I) is located outside of the conservation easement and
is therefore not included in this total or in mitigation credit calculations.
Overall Assets Summary
Asset Category
Overall Credits
Stream
5293
Riparian Riverine Wetland
0.66
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History: Heron Restoration Site
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal (RFP No. 16-006990)
January 11, 2017
January 11, 2017
Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 100014)
--
May 22, 2017
404 Permit
--
October 10, 2018
Mitigation Plan
--
July 2018
Construction Plans
--
July 17, 2018
Site Construction
November 27, 2018-February
11, 2019
Planting
--
February 21, 2019
As -built Baseline Stream Data Collection
February 25-26, 2019
--
As-built Baseline Vegetation Data Collection
February 25, 2019
--
As-built Baseline Monitoring (MYO)
February -March 2019
May 2019
Monitoring Year 1 (2019) Stream Data Collection
August 13-14, 2019
--
Monitoring Year 1 (2019) Vegetation Data Collection
September 30, 2019
--
Monitoring Year 1 MY1
March -October 2019
November 2019
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 3
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 3. Project Contacts Table: Heron Restoration Site
Full Delivery Provider
Construction Contractor
Restoration Systems
Land Mechanic Designs
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
780 Landmark Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Worth Creech 919-755-9490
Lloyd Glover 919-639-6132
Designer
Planting Contractor
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Carolina Silvics, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
908 Indian Trail Road
Raleigh, NC 27603
Edenton, NC 27932
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
Mary -Margaret McKinney 252-482-8491
Construction Plans and Sediment and
As -built Surveyor
Erosion Control Plans
K2 Design Group
Sungate Design Group, PA
5688 US Highway 70 East
915 Jones Franklin Road
Goldsboro, NC 27534
Raleigh, NC 27606
John Rudolph 919-751-0075
Joshua G. Dalton, PE 919-859-2243
Baseline & Monitoring Data Collection
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
Table 4. Project Attribute Table: Heron Restoration Site
Project Information
Project Name
Heron Restoration Site
Project County
Alamance County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres)
17.64
Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude)
35.8539550N,-79.363458°W
Planted Area (acres)
12.05
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14-digit)
03030002050050
NCDWR Sub -basin for Project
03-06-04
Project Drainage Area (acres)
14 to 96
Percentage of Project Drainage Area that is
Impervious
<2%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Managed Herbaceous Cover & Mixed Upland Hardwoods
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014)
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
page 4
Restoration Systems, LLC
January 2020

Table 4. Project Attribute Table: Heron Restoration Site (Continued)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UT1
UT2
UT 3
UT4
UT 5
UT6
UT 7
UT 8
Length of reach (linear feet)
1155
363
269
485
907
683
202
1221
Valley Classification & Confinement
Alluvial, confined
Drainage Area (acres)
96.4
7.1
11.7
17.2
38.1
14.1
20.9
30.8
NCDWR Stream ID Score
30.5
22.5
28.5
33.5
27.5
23.5
24.5
27.5
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial
Intermittent
Perennial/
Intermittent
Perennial
Perennial/
Intermittent
Perennial/
Intermittent
Intermittent
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-V, NSW
Existing Morphological Description (Rosgen 1996)
Cg5
G175
Cg5
Eg5
Eg5
Cg5
Cg5
Eg5
Proposed Stream Classification (Rosgen 1996)
C/E 4
Gf 5
C/E 4
C/E 4
C/E 4
C/E 4
Eb4
C/E 4
Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon and Hupp 1986)
IIUIV
I/III/IV
IIUIV
IUIII
IUIII
IIUIV
IIUIV
II/III
Underlying Mapped Soils
Alamance silt loam, Georgeville silt loam, Goldston slaty silt loam, Herndon silt loam, Orange silt loam,
Worsham sandy loam, Local Alluvial Land,
Drainage Class
Well -drained, well -drained, well -drained, well -drained, well drained, poorly -drained, poorly -drained
Hydric Soil Status
Nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, hydric, hydric, respectively
Valley Slope
0.0074
0.0270
0.0222
0.0244
0.0358
0.0300
0.0255
0.0218
FEMA Classification
NA
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Alluvial Forest/Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Site)
43% forest,55% agricultural land, <2% low density residential/impervious surface
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Cedarock
Reference Channel
65%forest, 30%agricultural land, <5%low density residential/impervious surface
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation
<5%
MI'1 (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 5
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-51-1. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

-• _ is ' �= - � -s.:•• • ��p _ -r,�� ~ � + ' } ;� .--- -
_ �,.:• _ - - =� - , � �_ l _ �- of '- ��
- '� fi` • -.d. I I •� ��_-q � 1 f . ,Y���^---� _f f � r4'� f s
Prepared for:
p i • htr. E � N ti I • r phi � 0�;: ' >,
�.
� ci , i-cubed - xSyl i- � � ON '• 1r1 l �' - •a �6
o
X. 56i -
Oto
87
TJ
- - F
' _ • �. r d{� Greensboro u..' rt _
'r C hape7Hill Read 4" -` rr N•�
-Snow=Camp .- �.. ;_ .. �• 4: rr �•, _ I �� 1 '
JLboa'
r
o Y- F b - [ 1 ALAMANCE CO
CHATHAM CO
c + _ , - Ai /l Date:
-
- - Smrth Fork Ch
57 Scale:
Project No.:
• J• 7. •^-rr�� ifs Y fv �- � I '(
r Copyrigh @.2013 National Geographic
�rSrkiSoc�iety, i-cubed, U. S. Geological Survey -
" f• National Geospatial Program. Data
RefresYted October_2'017.L-� L.. �,,, USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Silk Hope and Crutchfield Crossroads, NC Quad)
Project:
HERON STREAM
AND WETLAND
MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, NC
Title:
PROJECT
LOCATION
Drawn by:
KRJ
DEC 2017
1:20000
17-008
FIGURE
1

[=ter a.tr ti.'
t
,. Figure 2B
lob - -
r� Legend
Easement = 17.64 ac
Ei'. F
i _= • - Stream Restoration = 4068 ft
Via.► s Stream Enhancement (Level 1) = 1184 ft
"
Stream Enhancement (Level 11) = 1090 ft
Wetland Restoration = 0.35 ac
Wetland Enhancement= 0.61 ac
� _ Lam•
250 500 1,000 1,500
Feet
Axiom Environimnial, mc.
Prepared for:
Project:
HERON STREAM
AND WETLAND
MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County,NC
Title:
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
NOV 2019
Scale:
1:4000
Project No.:
17-008
FIGURE
KA

Z
xi
mow. y, , ? f '• • k Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Prepared for:
RESTORATION
` }�_ ,+;°_9.F� _ _ e •,�� Project:
_ ��`
n <<_-_ , •':�►� •{ -.� _ , '� HERON STREAM
2 0 f. AXs %%,. _ �`` s-:may v :t�'t1�. AND WETLAND
/ _ r
4 ao ' - �e y � - '� �'�-�;;�Y,; �;�, ,� �:,•�� MITIGATION SITE
Xs-9
4 xs-�o ' _ ..'_ Alamance County,NC
�` ".� k. Title:
...tip w+� -.••r-- `- -'-
t_ CURRENT
CONDITIONS
de - •_• ..: PLAN VIEW
Legend
Easement = 17.64 ac-
3 ""�`•Y - ' • Drawn by:
Stream Restoration = 4068 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) = 1184 ft _ s d a:•s± KRJ
Stream Enhancement (Level 11) = 1090 ft ; ` 'x _ `?� Date:
---- Channel TOB f �� NOV 2019
- Wetland Restoration = 0.35 ac ; Scale:
Wetland Enhancement = 0.61 ac {" ' 7 # !E pti 1:1200
Cross Section Project No.:
0 CVS Plots Meeting Success During MY1 (2019) - ^';; 17-008
Vegetation Transects Meeting Success During MY1 (2019)
•A -e. 'fir •�, :�� ,
O Groundwater Gauge
Stream Gauge - FIGURE
❑ Benthic Sampling Location
® Marsh Treatment Area %�
L�
100 200 400 tiF
Feet # .
Sour(e: E�`sri, Di i I I,b. ,,:�oEa e E rGh r p is N '/ irbu D', D er R

r . J z
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
y r {
Prepared for:
,
RESTORATION
,� 1-• r
- .l�r x.. Project:
HERON STREAM
ALk1 _ ..r _ �. AND WETLAND
.. .-,-- ;�,�, � J ~ �'. + �iy' Y� ��4•�iS ."�.Y ��- _ MITIGATION SITE
XS_12 rwZ i r.
Alamance County, NC
�:
7_- Title:
r .• '.
CURRENT
+� CONDITIONS
;` PLAN VIEW
XS� 5 y M,
�3• r?`" Legend
Easement = 17.64 ac
Stream Restoration = 4068 ft Drawn by:
Y ! Stream Enhancement (Level 1) = 1184 ft KRJ
Stream Enhancement (Level 11) = 1090 ft Date:
z NOV 2019
jJ
�.
---- Channel TOB
XS721 5. Wetland Enhancement = 0.61 ac Scale:
.�. - 1:1200
) Cross Section
- , s F x CVS Plots Meetin Success Durin MY1 2019 Project No.:
xs,-2i
CVS Plots Not Meeting Success During MY1 (2019) 17-008
Vegetation Transects Meeting Success During MY1 (2019)
,f A :f �.;s..
i 1r_
Stream Gauge
--'` FIGURE
T.i33�{ i �� r •. -'`.t /i �,7 ❑ Benthic Sampling Location
0 Drop Structure
+�� ,t � • • . t.,�i ®Marsh Treatment Area2 B
Feet
` ��; ,i. ,i *: "�� •�, urc� Esri, Di i I I b E e Earthstar G

Legend
Easement = 17.64 ac
Stream Restoration = 4068 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) = 1184 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level 11) = 1090 ft
Channel TOB Axiom Erivironimnlal, Iric.
Wetland Restoration = 0.35 ac
Wetland Enhancement= 0.61 ac Prepared for:
Cross Section a
CVS Plots Meeting Success During MY1 (2019)
pitAN,
Vegetation Transects Meeting Success During MY1 (2019)
0 Groundwater Gauge
Stream Gauge
Rain Gauge and Soil Temperature Gauge
Drop Structure
Marsh Treatment Area
-r a •��. w7 ` ® • '{ j1r� •' �' L' :... �
- 'fs
RESTORATION
SYSTEN1SILLC
Project:
HERON STREAM
AND WETLAND
MITIGATION SITE
.i,J «J
Alarnance County, NC
4P-
Title:
rr� •
i.
.
CURRENT
CV
ONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
Drawn by:
KRJ
Date:
NOV 2019
. . . . . . . . ...
Project No.:
17-008

Table 5A Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-1
Assessed Length 1331
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
35
35
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
34
34
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
34
34
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
34
34
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
34
34
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
15
15
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
15
15
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
15
15
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
15
15
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
15
15
o
100/o

Table 513 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-2
Assessed Length 63
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
3
3
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
3
3
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
3
3
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
3
3
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
3
3
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
0
0
NA
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
0
0
NA
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
NA
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
0
0
NA
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
0
0
NA

Table 5C Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-3
Assessed Length 279
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
14
14
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
13
13
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
13
13
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
13
13
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
13
13
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
5
5
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
5
5
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
5
5
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
5
5
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
5
5
o
100/o

Table 5D Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-4
Assessed Length 450
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
22
22
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
21
21
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
21
21
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
21
21
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
21
21
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
10
10
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
10
10
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
10
10
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
10
10
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
10
10
o
100/o

Table 5E Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-5
Assessed Length 952
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
44
44
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
43
43
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
43
43
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
43
43
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
43
43
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
25
25
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
25
25
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
25
25
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
25
25
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
25
25
o
100/o

Table 5F Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-6
Assessed Length 781
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
34
34
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
33
33
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
33
33
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
33
33
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
33
33
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
$
$
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
$
$
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
$
$
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
$
$
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
$
$
o
100/o

Table 5G Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-7
Assessed Length 996
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
44
44
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
44
44
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
44
44
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
44
44
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
44
44
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
19
19
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
19
19
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
19
19
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
19
19
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
19
19
o
100/o

Table 5H Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-8
Assessed Length 605
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
24
24
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
23
23
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
23
23
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
23
23
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
23
23
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
100 /o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
9
9
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
9
9
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
9
9
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
9
9
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
9
9
o
100/o

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Heron
Planted Acreage' 12.05
Ve etation Cateciory
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
De fiction
Number of
Pol ons
Combined
Acrea a
% of
Planted
Acrea e
1. Bare Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
2B. Low Planted Stem Density Areas
None
0.1 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
None
0.25 acres
none
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage 17.64
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vecietation Cateciory
Definitions
Threshold
De fiction
Pol ons
Acrea a
Acrea e
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
None
1000 SF
none
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
None
none
none
0
0.00
0.0%
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the
integration of risk factors by DMS such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the
projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not Iikley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the
potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics
are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be
mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and
dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the
narrative section of the executive summary.

Heron Year 1 Vegetation Plots
Photos Taken September 2019
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014)
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Alamance County, North Carolina
Plot-6
r
b �
u � �
Appendices
Restoration Systems, LLC
January 2020

Heron Year 1 Vegetation Plots
Photos Taken September 2019
(continued)
Plot-10
Plot-11
r
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Appendix C
Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation: Heron Restoration Site
Species
Total*
Acres
12.05
Alnus serrulata
500
Asimina triloba
100
Betula nigra
400
Carpinus caroliniana
800
Cephalanthus occidentalis
25
Cercis canadensis
500
Cornus amomum
2500
Diospyros virginiana
350
Fraxinus americana
100
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
2500
Liriodendron tulipifera
125
Nyssa sylvatia
500
Platanus occidentalis
2400
Quercus lyrate
900
Quercus nigra
2000
Quercus phellos
1900
Sambucus canadensis
25
TOTALS
15,625*
Average Stems/Acre
1297
*Live stakes of Salix nigra were planted, but are not included in this table.
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
EEP Project Code 17.008. Project Name: Heron Stream and Wetland
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
cer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Inus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
simina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
etula nigra
river birch
Tree
arpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
ephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
ercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
ornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
iospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
raxinus americana
white ash
Tree
raxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
iquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
iriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
yssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
Iatanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
opulus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
tuercus
oak
Tree
tuercus Iyrata
overcup oak
Tree
tuercus nigra
water oak
Tree
tuercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
tuercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
ambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
lmus rubra
slippery elm
Tree
nknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count
size (ares;
size (ACRES;
Species count
Stems per ACRE
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Current Plot D.
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P445.21
0.02 0.02 F323.71
2 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
6P445.2
N445.21
4 4 5 5 6r323.71
5 5 6 6 6 4 4 4 7 7 8 7 7 7 8 8 8 7 7 7
445.2445.2 445.2 404.7 404.7 688323.7404.7 404.7 404.7 283.3 283.3 283.3 485.6 485.6 647.5 404.7 404.7 404.7 485.6 485.6 485.6 445.2 445.2 445.2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
P445.21
0.02 0.02 F323.71
2 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
6P445.2
N445.21
4 4 5 5 6r323.71
5 5 6 6 6 4 4 4 7 7 8 7 7 7 8 8 8 7 7 7
445.2445.2 445.2 404.7 404.7 688323.7404.7 404.7 404.7 283.3 283.3 283.3 485.6 485.6 647.5 404.7 404.7 404.7 485.6 485.6 485.6 445.2 445.2 445.2

Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species (continued)
EEP Project Code 17.008. Project Name: Heron Stream and Wetland
Current Plot Data MY1 2019 (continued)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
17.008-01-0011
17.008-01-0012
17.008-01-0013
17.008-01-0014
MY1 (2019)
MYO (2019)
PnoLSFP-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
4
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
1
1 3
3
3
14
14
14
21
21
21
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
1
7
7
7
13
13
13
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
10
10
10
10
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
6
6
6
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
13
13
15
19
19
19
Fraxinus americana
white ash
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
3
4
4
4
13
13
13
15
15
15
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
13
13
13
10
10
10
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2]17
1
1
1
2
2
2
15
15
17
11
11
11
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
4
4
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
13
13
13
31
31
31
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
5
8
8
8
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
18
18
18
19
19
19
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
5
5
12
12
12
11
11
11
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Ulmus rubra
slippery elm
Tree
9
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
E24
1
1
1
5
5
5
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
17
17
9
9
9
12j485.61
12
12
152
152
176
196
196
196
1
1
14
14
0.02
0.02
2
0.35
0.35
10
10
10
5
5
5
75
5
19
19
23
20
20
20
688
688
688
364.2
364.2
364.2
485.6.6
485.61439.41
439.41
508.71566.61566.61
566.6
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data: Heron Restoration Site
Species
50m x 2m Temporary Plot (Bearing)
T-1 (1400)
T-2 (1000)
T-3 (2670)
T-4 (3500)
Betula nigra
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
2
Cercis canadensis
Diospyros virginiana
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
14
9
Nyssa sylvatia
2
Platanus occidentalis
8
2
11
3
Quercus nigra
6
2
Total Stems
24
9
14
16
Total Stems/Acre
972
364
567
648
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals: Heron Restoration Site
Plot #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Success Criteria
Met?
1
445
Yes
2
445
Yes
3
407
Yes
4
323
Yes
5
404
Yes
6
283
No
7
485
Yes
8
404
Yes
9
485
Yes
10
445
Yes
11
688
Yes
12
364
Yes
13
485
Yes
14
485
Yes
T-1
972
Yes
T-2
364
Yes
T-3
567
Yes
T-4
648
Yes
Average Planted
Stems/Acre
483
Yes
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 11A-G. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12A-G. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment
Parameter Distributions)
Tables 13A-G. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross -
sections)
Tables 14A-G. Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross -Section Plots
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 1la. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 1 (856 feet)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Cedarock Park Ref
Causey Ref
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD5
n
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD5
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.7
8.5
11.1
8
8.1
12.1
10.7
11
11.3
7.8
8.4
9
8.3
11
13
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
13
20
30
15
18
25
122
131
140
10
75
100
25
100
100
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.7
1.1
0.8
0.8
1
1.3
1.4
1.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.6
4
lBankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
1.1
2
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.9
2
2
0.7
0.8
1
0.6
0.8
1.1
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
5.1
8
14.7
5.1
5.1
5.1
3.7
5.4
7.2
4
Width/Depth Ratio
4.3
14.6
22
8
10.1
15.1
8
9
9
12
14
16
17.4
18.7
36.7
4
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
2.5
4.3
1.9
2.1
2.2
11
12
13
5.1
8.9
11.1
3
8.3
9.3
4
Bank Height Ratio
1.4
1.9
2.5
1.0
1.8
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
2.7
19
16
53
11
31
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.01
0.0316
0.0576
0.002
0.01
0.012
0.007
0.009
0.01
0
0.013
0.012
0.048
0.01
31
Pool Length (ft)
6
23
20
80
12.9
34
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.5
1.8
2.1
2.7
0.8
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.6
2.1
4
Pool Spacing (ft)l
25
1 37
1 69
1 22
1 44
81
25
34
68
25
34
68
34
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 20 23 38 17 30 36 25 34 68 25 34 68
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 16 27 9 31 113 17 25 85 17 25 85
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
due to straightening activities.
Meander Wavelength (ft) 44 68 116 10 63 91 51 72 101 51 72 101
Meander Width Ratiol I I 1 1 2.4 1 2.8 1 4.7 1 1.5 1 2.7 1 3.5 1 3 1 4 1 6 1 3 1 4 1 1 6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
0.61
0.19
0.24
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Cg 5
Eb 4
E5
E/C 4
C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.8
3.8
3.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
19.3
Valley length (ft)
1067
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1433
856
856
Sinuosity (ft)
1.3
1.2
1.46
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0057
0.0258
0.0053
0.0057
0.0087
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
61
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The dishibutions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge irn-line with the project reach (added bunkfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the barnkfull floodplai n area ill acres, which should be the area from the top of bunk to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = proportion of reach exhibiting bunks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 11 b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 3 (279 feet)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Cedarock Park Ref
Causey Ref
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
3.2
4.5
5.9
8
8.1
12.1
10.7
11
11.3
4.1
4.4
4.7
7.7
7.7
7.7
1
Floodprone Width ft
9
14
21
15
18
25
122
131
140
20
40
60
18
18
18
1
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.8
1
1.3
1.4
1.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.6
1
lBankfull Max Depth ft
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.9
2
2
0.4
0.4
0.5
1
1
1
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
1.4
8
14.7
1.4
1.4
1.4
4.5
4.5
4.5
1
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
.
Bank Height Ratio
1.7
2.2
2.4
1.0
1.8
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
4
11
10
19
4.3
14
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0316
0.0576
0.002
0.01
0.012
0.023
0.031
0.035
0.011
0.029
0.027
0.736
0.017
14
Pool Length ft
F205
4
9
8
21
4.9
13
Pool Max de th ft
1.8
2.1
2.7
0.4
0.6
0.7
1
1
1
1
0
1
Pool Spacing ft
37
69
22
44
81
13
18
35
13
18
35
14
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 20 23 38 17 30 36 13 18 27 13 18 27
Radius of Curvature ft 11 16 27 9 31 113 9 13 44 9 13 44
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
Meander Wavelen th ft 44 68 116 10 63 91 26 37 53 26 37 53
®ransppWortrameters Meander Width Ration I I I 1 1 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
1.42
0.34
0.56
Max part size mm mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Cg 5
Eb 4
E5
E/C 4
C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.6
3.6
1.1
Bankfull Discharge cfs
5
Valley length. ft
229
Channel Thalweg length ft
247
279
279
Sinuosity ft
1.07
1.2
1.46
1.15
1.15
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0207
0.0258
0.0053
0.0193
0.0176
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
100
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The dishibutions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bunkfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the barnkfull floodplai n area ill acres, which should be the area from the top of bunk to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = proportion of reach exhibiting bunks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 11c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 4 (450 feet)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Cedarock Park Ref
Causey Ref
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
3.1
3.8
4.9
8
8.1
12.1
10.7
11
11.3
4.6
5
5.4
6.5
7.3
8
2
Floodprone Width ft
6
15
30
15
18
25
122
131
140
25
50
75
40
40
40
2
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.8
1
1.3
1.4
1.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
2
lBankfull Max Depth ft
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.9
2
2
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.8
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
2
8
14.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.2
3
3.7
2
Width/Depth Ratio
14
16
17.3
18.3
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratiol
I
1
1 1.3
2.3
1
4.0
1
1.0
1 1.8
1.4
1
1 1.0
1.0
1 1.3
1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1
2
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
4
9
9
20
3.5
23
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0316
0.0576
0.002
0.01
0.012
0.037
0.05
0.056
0
0.021
0.017
0.061
0.014
23
Pool Length ft
F205
4
10
10
18
3.5
22
Pool Max de th ft
1.8
2.1
2.7
0.5
0.7
0.8
1.1
1.3
1.4
2
Pool Spacing ft
37
69
22
44
81
15
20
40
15
20
40
22
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th ft
®ransppWortrameters Meander Width Ration
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
I I I 1
20
11
44
1 2.4
23
16
68
2.8
38
27
116
4.7
17
9
10
1.5
30
31
63
2.7
36
113
91
3.5
15
10
30
3
20
15
43
4
30
50
60
6
15
10
30
3
20
15
43
4
30
50
60
6
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
2.79
0.6
0.59
Max part size mm mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Eg 5
Eb 4
E5
E/C 4
C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.7
4
2.4
Bankfull Discharge cfs
7.3
Valley length. ft
391
Channel Thalweg length ft
428
450
450
Sinuosity ft
1.09
1.2
1.46
1.15
1.15
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0283
0.0258
0.0053
0.3111
0.0254
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
56
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The dishibutions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bunkfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the barnkfull floodplai n area ill acres, which should be the area from the top of bunk to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = proportion of reach exhibiting bunks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 11d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 5 (952 feet)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Cedarock Park Ref
Causey Ref
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
2.5
3.7
6
8
8.1
12.1
10.7
11
11.3
4.6
5
5.4
4.9
6.9
8.1
4
Floodprone Width ft
4
12
30
15
18
25
122
131
140
25
50
75
40
40
40
4
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.8
1
1.3
1.4
1.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
4
lBankfull Max Depth ft
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.9
2
2
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.8
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
1.6
8
14.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.9
3.7
4
Width/Depth RatioEntrenchment
RatioBank
g2.4
Hei ht Ratio
1.3
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.8
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
4
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
3
11
9
49
8.4
41
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0316
0.0576
0.002
0.01
0.012
0.037
0.05
0.056
0.004
0.028
0.027
0.051
0.01
41
Pool Length ft
F205
4
12
10
59
8.5
41
Pool Max de th ft
1.8
2.1
2.7
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.8
1
1.1
4
Pool Spacing ft
37
69
22
44
81
15
20
40
15
20
40
41
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th ft
®ransppWortrameters Meander Width Ration
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
I I I 1
20
11
44
1 2.4
23
16
68
2.8
38
27
116
4.7
17
9
10
1.5
30
31
63
2.7
36
113
91
3.5
15
10
30
3
20
15
43
4
30
50
60
6
15
10
30
3
20
15
43
4
30
50
60
6
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
2.79
0.6
0.5
Max part size mm mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Eg 5
Eb 4
E5
E/C 4
E/C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.9
4
2.3
Bankfull Discharge cfs
5.5
Valley length. ft
579
Channel Thalweg length ft
605
952
952
Sinuosity ft
1.04
1.2
1.46
1.15
1.15
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0372
0.0258
0.0053
0.3111
0.0256
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
50
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The dishibutions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bunkfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the barnkfull floodplai n area ill acres, which should be the area from the top of bunk to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = proportion of reach exhibiting bunks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 1le. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 6 (781 feet)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Cedarock Park Ref
Causey Ref
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
4.6
6.4
9.6
8
8.1
12.1
10.7
11
11.3
4.2
4.6
4.9
6.1
6.5
6.8
2
Floodprone Width ft
7
16
46
15
18
25
122
131
140
25
50
75
40
40
40
2
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.8
1
1.3
1.4
1.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
2
lBankfull Max Depth ft
0.4
0.5
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.9
2
2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
1.5
8
14.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.2
2.9
3.5
2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
3.7
5.0
7.5
1.0
1.8
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
2
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
2
10
7
47
8.8
33
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0316
0.0576
0.002
0.01
0.012
0.031
0.042
0.047
0.001
0.028
0.024
0.126
0.021
33
Pool Length ft
F205
4
12
12
18
3.7
33
Pool Max de th ft
1.8
2.1
2.7
0.4
0.6
0.7
1
1.2
1.3
2
Pool Spacing ft
37
69
22
44
81
13.7
18.3
36.7
14
18
37
33
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th ft
Meander Width Ratio
ransport parameters
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
20
11
44
2.4
23
16
68
2.8
38
27
116
4.7
17
9
10
1.5
30
31
63
2.7
36
113
91
3.5
13.7
9
27
3
18.3
14
39
4
36.7
46
55
6
14
9
27
3
18
14
39
4
37
46
55
6
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
14.18
0.47
0.56
Max part size mm mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Cg 5
Eb 4
E5
E/C 4
C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.5
3.5
1.8
Bankfull Discharge cfs
5.2
Valley length. ft
486
Channel Thalweg length ft
522
781
781
Sinuosity ft
1.07
1.2
1.46
1.15
1.15
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.028
0.0258
0.0053
0.0261
0.0225
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
68
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The dishibutions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bunkfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the barnkfull floodplai n area ill acres, which should be the area from the top of bunk to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = proportion of reach exhibiting bunks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 11f. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 7 (232 feet)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Cedarock Park Ref
Causey Ref
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate -Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
4.1
5.3
6.7
8
8.1
12.1
10.7
11
11.3
4.9
5.3
5.7
6.2
6.6
7.8
4
Floodprone Width ft
7
13
29
15
18
25
122
131
140
25
50
75
10
20
20
4
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.8
1
1.3
1.4
1.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
4
lBankfull Max Depth ft
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.9
2
2
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
2
8
14.7
2
2
2
1.8
2.7
3.3
4
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
2.8
Bank Height Ratiol
I
1
1 1.8
2.5
1
4.1
1
1.0
1 1.8
1.4
1
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
4
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
3
13
10
75
13
42
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0316
0.0576
0.002
0.01
0.012
0.027
0.036
0.04
0.006
0.029
0.029
0.056
0.011
42
Pool Length ft
F205
3
9
9
14
2.6
41
Pool Max de th ft
1.8
2.1
2.7
1.3
1.9
2.1
1
1.1
1.5
3
Pool Spacing ft
37
69
22
44
81
16
21
42
16
21
42
42
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft 20 23 38 17 30 36 16 21 32 16 21 32
Radius of Curvature ft 11 16 27 9 31 113 10 16 53 10 16 53
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
Meander Wavelen th ft 44 68 116 10 63 91 31 45 64 31 45 64
®ransppWortrameters Meander Width Ration I I I 1 1 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
2.36
0.45
0.61
Max part size mm mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Cg 5
Eb 4
E5
Eb 4
Cb 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.5
3.5
2.6
Bankfull Discharge cfs
7
Valley length. ft
755
Channel Thalweg length ft
778
232
232
Sinuosity ft
1.03
1.2
1.46
1.15
1.15
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0248
0.0258
0.0053
0.0222
0.0268
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
76
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The dishibutions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bunkfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the barnkfull floodplai n area ill acres, which should be the area from the top of bunk to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = proportion of reach exhibiting bunks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 11g. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 8 (605 feet)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Cedarock Park Ref
Causey Ref
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft
4.2
5.1
6.1
8
8.1
12.1
10.7
11
11.3
5.5
5.9
6.3
6.5
7.9
9.3
2
Floodprone Width ft
5
15
30
15
18
25
122
131
140
25
50
75
20
30
40
2
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.8
1
1.3
1.4
1.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
2
lBankfull Max Depth ft
0.6
0.8
1
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.9
2
2
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
2.5
8
14.7
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.6
3.2
3.7
2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
.
Bank Height Ratio
1.4
2.3
3.7
1.0
1.8
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
2
Profile
Riffle Length ft
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
5
11
11
19
3.4
23
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0316
0.0576
0.002
0.01
0.012
0.023
0.03
0.034
0.007
0.02
0.017
0.041
0.009
23
Pool Length ft
F205
6
15
15
24
4.8
23
Pool Max de th ft
1.8
2.1
2.7
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.3
1.6
2
Pool Spacing ft
37
69
22
44
81
17
24
47
17
24
47
23
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelen th ft
Meander Width Ratio
ransport parameters
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
20
11
44
2.4
23
16
68
2.8
38
27
116
4.7
17
9
10
1.5
30
31
63
2.7
36
113
91
3.5
17
11
35
3
24
18
50
4
36
59
71
6
17
11
35
3
24
18
50
4
36
59
71
6
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
1.85
0.44
0.32
Max part size mm mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
Eg 5
Eb 4
E5
E/C 4
C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.6
3.6
2.8
Bankfull Discharge cfs
9.1
Valley length. ft
520
Channel Thalweg length ft
543
605
605
Sinuosity ft
1.04
1.2
1.46
1.15
1.15
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0218
0.0258
0.0053
0.019
0.0138
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
80
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The dishibutions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bunkfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the barnkfull floodplai n area ill acres, which should be the area from the top of bunk to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = proportion of reach exhibiting bunks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 12a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 1 (856 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Cedarock Reference Reach Data
Causey Reference Reach Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
Ri%/ Ru%/ P%I G%I S%
60
13
14
13
43
19
19
19
SC%ISa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
9
22
39
18
11
4
54
28
11
1
2
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 I d95 I dip I dip (mm)
0.12
4.1
9.8
161
2568
0.32
0.5
0.9
24
116
nchment Class <1.5 11.5-1.99 12.0-4.9 15.0-9.9 I >10
29
71
33
66
50
50
25
75
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 11.5-1.99 I >2.0
E��
14
43
43
66
33
100
100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typical Iynot be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 -These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but —readjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross -sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distrbutions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measu rem ents and the longitudinal profile and in the caseof ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampl in of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross -sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 12b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 3 (279 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Cedarock Reference Reach Data
Causey Reference Reach Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
Ri% I Ru% / P% / G% / S%
74
8
9
8
55
15
15
15
SC%ISa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
9
22
39
18
11
4
54
28
11
1
2
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 I d95 I dip I We (mm)
0.12
4.1
9.8
161
2568
0.32
0.5
0.9
24
116
1
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 11.5-1.99 12.0-4.9 15.0-9.9 I >1 01
33
33
33
33
66
50
50
100
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 11.5-1.99 I >2.0
33
66
66
33
100
100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior subm issions as a subsample (cross -sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distrbutions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile perm its sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross -sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 12c. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 4 (450 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Cedarock Reference Reach Data
Causey Reference Reach Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
Ri%/ Ru%/ P%I G%I S%
63
12
13
12
48
17
18
17
SC%ISa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
9
22
39
18
11
4
54
28
11
1
2
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 I d95 I dip I We (mm)
0.12
4.1
9.8
161
2568
0.32
0.5
0.9
24
116
1
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 11.5-1.99 12.0-4.9 15.0-9.9 / >1 01
25
25
50
33
66
50
50
100
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 11.5-1.99 I >2.0
25
25
50
66
33
100
100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior subm issions as a subsample (cross -sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distrbutions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile perm its sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross -sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 12d. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 5 (952 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Cedarock Reference Reach Data
Causey Reference Reach Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
RM I Ru%l P%l G%l S%
58
14
14
14
50
17
17
16
SC% I Sa% I G% I C% I B% / Be%
9
22
39
18
11
4
54
28
11
1
2
d16I d35 I d50I d84 I d95 I dip I di'p (mm)
0.12
4.1
9.8
161
2568
0.32
0.5
0.9
24
116
1
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 11.5-1.99I 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / > 14
20
20
40
20
33
66
50
50
100
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.
20
20
60
66
33
1
100
M100
��J
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pod, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class- Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 -These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightlyto make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross -sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross -sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessaryto provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 12e. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 6 (781 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Cedarock Reference Reach Data
Causey Reference Reach Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
Ri%/ Ru%/ P%I G%I S%
64
12
12
12 46
18
18
18
SC% I Sa% I G% I C% I B% / Be%
9
22
39
18
11
4
54
28
1 2
d16I d35 I d50 / d84 I d95 I dip I di'p (mm
0.12
4.1
9.8
161
2568
0.32
0.5
0.9
E24
116
Entrenchment Class <1.5 /1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >1
40
20
20
20
33
66
50
100
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.
100
1
66
1 33
1 100
100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pod, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class- Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 -These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightlyto make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross -sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at rdfies beyond those subject to cross -sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 12f. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 7 (232 feet)
Parameter
P e-Existing Condition
Cedarock Reference Reach Data
Causey Reference Reach Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
Ri%/ Ru%/ P%I G%I S%
76
7
8
7
60
13
14
13
SC% I Sa% I G% I C% I B% / Be%
9
22
39
18
11
4
54
28
11
1 2
d16I d35 I d50 / d84 I d95 I dip I disp (mm)
0.12
4.1
9.8
161
2568
0.32
0.5
0.9
241
116
Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
57
29
14
33
66
50
50
L
25
75
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
29
71
T 66
33
100
100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pod, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class- Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 -These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightlyto make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross -sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross -sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessaryto provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 12g. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 8 (605 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Cedarock Reference Reach Data
Causey Reference Reach Data
Design
As-built/Baseline
Ri%/ Ru%/ P%I G%I S%
60
13
14
13
41
20
20
19
SC%ISa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
9
22
39
18
11
4
54
28
11
1
2
dl6 / d35 / d50 / d84 I d95 I dip I dip (mm)
0.12
4.1
9.8
161
2568
0.32
0.5
0.9
24
116
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 11.5-1.99 12.0-4.9 15.0-9.9 / >1 01
25
25
50
33
66
50
50
50
50
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 11.5-1.99 I >2.0
50
50
66
33
100
100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typical Iynot be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max sub pave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 -These classes are I oosleybuilt around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but —readjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a sub sampee (cross -sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measu rem ents and the longitudinal profile and in the caseof ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampl in of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross -sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 13a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number Heron/100014 Segment/Reach: UT 1 856 feet
Cross Section 1 (Pool)
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross Section 4 (Pool)
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.2
8.5
10.7
14.7
13.0
14.4
8.9
9.7
8.3
9.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
NA
NA
100
100
100
100
NA
NA
25
25
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.2
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.2
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.6
1.6
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft)
10.5
10.5
6.1
6.1
4.6
4.6
6.8
6.8
3.7
3.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
NA
NA
18.8
35.4
36.7
45.1
NA
NA
18.6
21.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
NA
NA
9.3
6.8
7.7
6.9
NA
NA
3.0
2.8
Low Bank Height (ft)
2.1
2.2
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.6
1.6
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.88
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Cross Sectional Area between end pins ft
d50 (mm)
Cross Section 6 (Pool)
Cross Section 7 (Pool)
Cross Section 8 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.8
13.2
9.6
10.4
11.2
12.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
100
100
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.1
1.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft)
9.4
9.4
8.0
8.0
7.2
7.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
NA
NA
NA
NA
17.4
20.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.9
8.3
Low Bank Height (ft)
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.1
1.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Cross Sectional Area between end pins ft
d50 (mm)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in INC (9/2018).
Table 13b. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
• • . • 111
Cross Section 9 (Pool)
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in INC (9/2018).

Table 13c. Monitoring D..Morphology
Project Name/N umber (Heron/1 iii i
Cross Section 11 (Pool)
Cross Section 13 (Riffle)
Bankfull Width (ft)
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in INC (9/2018).
Table 13d. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number Heron/100014 Segment/Reach: UT 5 952 feet
Cross Section 15 (Pool)
Cross Section 16 (Riffle)
Cross Section 17 (Pool)
Cross Section 18 (Riffle)
Cross Section 19 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) use
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.7
9.4
6.3
5.7
5.4
5.7
8.1
9.2
7.8
8.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
NA
NA
40
40
NA
NA
40
40
NA
NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.5
1
0.5
0.6
1
1 1.1
1.2
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft')
2.4
2.4
1
1
1
1.9
1.9
3.4
3.4
3.7
3.7
3.3
3.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
20.9
17.1
NA
NA
17.7
22.9
NA
NA
Bankfull Entrenchment RatioNA
6.3
7.0
NA
NA
4.9
4.3
NA
NA
Low Bank Height (ft)0.5
0.5
0.6
1.1
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*1.00
dNANA
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.86
1.00
1.00
Cross Sectional Area between end iDins ft
d50 mm
Cross Section 20 (Riffle)
Cross Section 21 (Pool)
Cross Section 22 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation a um use
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.9
6.2
5.0
5.8
7.4
7.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
40
40
NA
NA
40
40
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.0
1
1 0.7
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft')
1.9
1.9
1
1
1
3.1
3.1
2.9
2.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.6
20.2
NA
NA
18.9
17.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
8.2
6.5
NA
NA
5.4
5.6
Low Bank Height (ft)l
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*1
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Cross Sectional Area between end Dins ftz
d50 mm
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in INC (9/2018).

Table 13e. Monitoring D..Morphology
Project Name/N umber (Heron/1 iii
Cross Section 23 (Pool)
Cross Section 25 (Pool)
Bankfull Width (ft)
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in INC (9/2018).
Table 13f. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number Heron/100014 Segment/Reach: UT 7 232 feet
Cross Section 27 (Pool)
Cross Section 28 (Riffle)
Cross Section 29 (Pool)
Cross Section 30 (Riffle)
Cross Section 31 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) use
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.1
11.4
7.8
6.9
4.1
4.1
6.2
5.6
5.3
6.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
NA
NA
20
20
NA
NA
10
11
NA
NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.1
1
0.6
1.1
1
1 1.1
1.3
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft')
6.3
6.3
1
1
1
3.0
3.0
3.4
3.4
2.3
2.3
3.0
3.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
20.3
15.9
NA
NA
16.7
13.6
NA
NA
Bankfull Entrenchment RatioNA
2.6
2.9
NA
NA
1.6
2.0
NA
NA
Low Bank Height (ft)0.8
0.6
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*0.73
dNANA
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.92
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.86
Cross Sectional Area between end iDins ft
d50 mm
Cross Section 32 (Riffle)
Cross Section 33 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation a um use
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.5
7.6
6.6
5.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
20
20
20
20
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft')
3.3
3.3
1
1
1
1.8
1.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.8L26
24.2
18.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
3.0
3.4
Low Bank Height (ft)
0.7
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*
1.00
1.00
0.83
Cross Sectional Area between end Dins ftz
d50 mm
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in INC (9/2018).

Table 13g. Monitoring D.Morphology
Project Name/N umber (Heron/1 iii(605 feet)
Cross Section 34 (Riffle)
Cross Section 36 (Riffle)
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
'Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in INC (9/2018).

Exhibit Table 14a. Monitoring D. Data Summary
Project Name/Number 000
and Substrate -Riffle only
WidthDimension
Bankfull
Mean Depth (ft)
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
'Bank Height
RiffleBankfull
Length (ft)®m
m
®m
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing®�
m
Channel:- ®� m
of Curvature (ft)
Pattern data will nQUYP caliv be collected unless visual data. dimensional data or profile data
significant shifts from baseline
Re: Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
AdditionalRadius
Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope
of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel2%
Habitat Metric
Biological . Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the In exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14b. Monitoring D. Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/1 000
Dimension and Substrate -Riffle only
Bankfull Mean •-.
0
0
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional
0
0
Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
'Bank Height
RiffleWidth/Depth
Length (ft)
Length
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Pattern data will n"ically be collected unless visual data dimensional data or profile data
significant shifts from baseline
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
AdditionalPool
Reach
Rosgen Classification
Sinuosity (ft)
BF slope
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Biological Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14c. Monitoring D. Data Summary
• 000-
Dimension and Substrate -Riffle only
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
'Bank Height
Riffle Length (ft)
Pool Length=Ml
MO
�s��������������������������������
Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Pattern data will n"ically be collected unless visual data dimensional data or profile data
significant shifts from baseline
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
AdditionalPool
Reach
Rosgen Classification
Sinuosity (ft)
BF slope
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Biological Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14d. Monitoring D. Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/1 000
and Substrate -Riffle only
WidthDimension
Bankfull
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
Height
Riffle Length (ft)©�
0
Length (ft)=MM*
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Pattern data will n"ically be collected unless visual data dimensional data or profile data
significant shifts from baseline
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
AdditionalPool
Reach
Rosgen Classification
Sinuosity (ft)
BF slope
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Biological Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14e. Monitoring D. Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/1 000
and Substrate -Riffle only
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
'Bank Height
Riffle Length (ft)
Pool Length (ft)=MMMI
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
ChannelDimension
- ®�
of Curvature (ft)
Pattern data will n"ically be collected unless visual data dimensional data or profile data
significant shifts from baseline
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
AdditionalRadius
Reach
Rosgen Classification
Sinuosity (ft)
BF slope
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Biological Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14f. Monitoring D. Data Summary
• 000
and Substrate -Riffle only
WidthDimension
Bankfull
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
'Bank Height
Riffle Length (ft)
Pool LengthMMMria='�r��������������������������������
Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Pattern data will n"ically be collected unless visual data dimensional data or profile data
significant shifts from baseline
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
AdditionalPool
Reach
Rosgen Classification.-
Sinuosity (ft)
BF slope
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Biological Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14g. Monitoring D. Data Summary
• 000-(605 feet)
and Substrate -Riffle only
WidthDimension
Bankfull
Mean Depth (ft)
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
'Bank Height
Riffle Length (ft)
Pool Length (ft)M*
MMMM*
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
ChannelBankfull
-
of Curvature (ft)
Pattern data will n"ically be collected unless visual data dimensional data or profile data
significant shifts from baseline
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
AdditionalRadius
Reach
Rosgen Classification
Sinuosity (ft)
BF slope
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Biological Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 1, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Elevation
0.4
535.4
2.3
535.2
3.2
535.0
4.0
534.9
4.7
534.6
5.2
534.3
5.6
534.0
6.4
532.6
7.6
532.5
8.8
532.7
9.6
532.9
10.3
533.2
10.7
534.0
11.7
534.4
13.0
534.8
14.1
534.8
15.5
534.9
16.6
535.1
17.7
534.9
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
534.7
LTOB Elevation:
534.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
10.5
Bankfull Width:
8.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.2
Low Bank Height:
2.2
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.2
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
MW
i
Heron, UT 1, XS - 1, Pool
536
535
w
____ --------------------------- _____________
m
534
0
a
W 533
----smkfuu
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
532
0 10 20
Station (feet)

''�.
�.•zp
1F
Stream Type
C/E
Heron, UT 1,
XS - 2, Riffle
537
___________________________________________________________________
536
-------------------------------------
-
ti
W 535
B=kfull
Flood Prone Area
l"-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
534
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
-0.4
535.62
1.1
535.53
2.1
535.45
3.8
535.47
4.9
535.39
5.9
534.97
6.8
534.83
7.8
534.81
8.5
534.71
9.3
534.66
10.4
534.63
11.5
534.73
12.3
534.86
13.2
535.16
14.3
53525
15.6
535.34
16.8
535.36
17.9
535.42
18.6
535.46
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
535.5
LTOB Elevation:
535.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
61
Bankfull Width:
14.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
536.3
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
35.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.8
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9

j�.
Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT 1,
XS - 3, Riffle
539
538-----------------
------------------------------------------
0
0
ti
W 537
B=kfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
536
0
10 20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 3, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.5
537.35
2.0
53725
3.4
53719
4.7
53720
5.8
537.06
6.4
537.06
7.1
536.93
8.0
536.77
8.8
536.72
9.7
536.74
10.7
536.86
12.0
536.99
13.2
53716
15.0
537.40
16.6
537.39
17.7
537.39
18.6
537.41
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
537.4
LTOB Elevation:
537.4
Bflnkfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.6
Bflnkfull Width:
14.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
538.1
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max De that Bflnkt'ull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bflnkfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
45.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.9
Bflnk Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 4, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.2
538.6
1.3
538.5
2.6
538.5
4.2
538.6
5.6
538.5
7.1
538.2
7.9
538.0
8.8
537.5
9.5
537.0
9.5
536.8
10.6
537.0
11.7
537.2
12.4
537.4
12.8
537.7
14.0
538.0
15.2
538.3
16.5
538.5
17.8
538.5
19.0
538.5
20.3
538.6
21.9
538.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
538.4
LTOB Elevation:
538.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.8
Bankfull Width:
9.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.6
Low Bank Height:
1.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
F�.
Heron, UT 1, XS - 4, Pool
539
_____________
w 538
0
a
W 537
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 08/13/19
536
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
541.46
1.4
541.39
2.5
541.23
3.8
541.10
4.8
541.05
6.2
541.09
7.3
541.08
8.0
541.02
8.6
540.71
9.0
540.56
10.4
540.46
11.7
540.49
13.2
540.56
14.4
540.63
15.4
540.97
16.9
541.18
18.2
541.36
20.3
541.25
21.7
541.40
22.9
541.47
23.5
541.46
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
541.1
LTOB Elevation:
541.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.7
Bankfull Width:
8.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
541.7
Flood Prone Width:
25.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Low Bank Height:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
18.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
--------------
Stream Type IC/E
Heron, UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
542
---------------------------------------------------------
m
0 541
________ ____________________ ________________-
ti
W
----Bmkfull
- Flood Pane Area
MY-00 2/26/19
540
MY-01 8/13/19
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 6, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.6
541.4
2.0
541.4
2.8
541.4
3.4
541.1
4.6
541.1
5.7
541.1
6.8
540.9
7.6
540.5
8.5
540.4
8.9
540.3
9.4
539.9
10.1
539.7
11.0
539.6
11.6
539.6
12.3
539.8
13.0
540.3
14.1
540.9
15.2
541.1
16.4
541.3
18.0
541.5
19.7
541.4
20.9
541.5
22.1
541.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
541.3
LTOB Elevation:
541.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
9.4
Bankfull Width:
13.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.7
Low Bank Height:
1.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT 1, XS - 6, Pool
542
______________________ _--------
w 541
0
a
W540 _ _Bmkfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
539
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 7, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
542.8
1.1
542.6
2.4
542.5
3.5
542.6
5.5
542.6
6.8
542.4
7.8
5422
8.7
541.8
9.5
541.5
10.1
541.1
11.0
540.9
12.0
540.9
12.7
5412
13.4
541.5
14.0
542.1
14.9
542.6
16.0
542.7
17.4
542.7
18.4
542.9
19.9
543.1
21.0
543.1
`,, r•
Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT 1, XS - 7, Pool
544
543
w
0 542
W 541----s.�u
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
540
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
542.6
LTOB Elevation:
542.6
Bflnkfull Cross-Sectional'Area:
8.0
Bflnkfull Width:
10.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bflnkfull:
1.7
Low Bank Height:
1.7
Mean Depth at Bflnkt'ull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 1, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
544.79
1.6
544.58
3.6
544.52
6.1
544.47
7.9
544.16
8.8
543.92
10.0
543.54
11.0
543.43
11.9
543.32
12.9
543.18
14.1
543.16
15.2
543.12
15.9
543.20
16.7
543.58
17.5
543.78
18.4
544.02
19.3
544.09
20.7
544.23
22.2
544.21
24.2
544.24
25.2
544.18
26.3
544.3
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
544.2
LTOB Elevation:
544.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
7.2
Bankfull Width:
12.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
545.2
Flood Prone Width:
100.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Low Bank Height:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
20.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I C/E
Heron, UT 1, XS - 8, Riffle
546
545
________________ --------------------------------------
544
-------------------
2
a
ti
W
543
- Flood Pane Area
MY-00 2/26/19
542
MY-01 8/13/19
0 10 20
30
Station (feet)

Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 9, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.4
538.6
1.5
538.7
2.7
538.6
3.9
538.4
4.9
538.0
5.7
537.5
6.5
537.2
7.4
536.8
8.0
536.2
9.0
536.3
10.1
536.3
11.2
536.6
12.2
537.0
13.4
537.4
14.9
537.9
16.2
538.5
17.4
538.8
18.6
538.8
19.5
538.9
20.2
539.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
537.0
LTOB Elevation:
536.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.9
Bankfull Width:
5.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
0.4
�yj.-
� ;��':.. ,.do- ! • - - F; .
Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT 3, XS - 9, Pool
540
539
w
538
0
537
W
----smkfuu
536
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
535
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

y
Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT 3, XS - 10, Riffle
541
540
-------------------------------------
0 539
----------------
---------------------------'
W
53 8
aankfnu
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
537
0
10 20 30
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 3, XS - 10, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
20.2
539.54
18.9
539.30
17.5
53922
16.0
539.02
15.1
538.79
14.1
538.47
13.3
538.36
12.8
537.97
12.3
537.60
11.4
537.55
10.7
537.48
9.9
537.44
9.0
537.86
8.3
538.05
7.8
538.43
6.9
538.63
5.9
538.92
4.7
53925
3.3
539.62
1.7
539.67
0.8
539.89
0.0
540.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
538.5
LTOB Elevation:
538.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.5
Bankfull Width:
7.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
539.6
Flood Prone Width:
18.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Low Bank Height:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
10.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

•. a ri'•
y
r.
Stream -Type C/E
Heron, UT
4, XS - 11, Pool
518
w 517 ----------------
-------------------------
m
0
W 516
__ - _ sou
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
515
0
10 20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 11, Pool
Station
Elevation
0.0
517.6
1.3
517.6
2.6
517.5
3.9
517.3
5.3
517.1
6.4
517.0
7.3
516.8
8.1
516.7
8.8
516.8
9.6
516.6
9.9
516.6
10.4
516.9
11.0
517.1
11.9
517.3
12.9
5172
13.9
5172
15.1
517.1
16.2
5172
17.2
516.8
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
517.0
LTOB Elevation:
516.8
Bflnkfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.8
Bflnkfull Width:
7.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bflnkfull:
1.1
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bflnkfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
0.8

Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
517.63
1.3
517.65
2.6
517.49
3.9
517.27
5.3
517.14
6.4
517.04
7.3
516.78
8.1
516.74
8.8
516.76
9.6
516.63
9.9
516.61
10.4
516.89
11.0
517.12
11.9
517.25
12.9
517.21
13.9
517.21
15.1
517.12
16.2
517.25
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
517.2
LTOB Elevation:
517.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.2
Bankfull Width:
7.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
517.8
Flood Prone Width:
40.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Low Bank Height:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
24.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.4
Bank Height Ratio:
0.8
Stream Type I C/E
iy`kwsr-�y
Heron, UT 4, XS - 12, Riffle
518
----------------------------------------------------------
m
0 517
a
ti
W
B=kfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
516
MY-01 8/13/19
0 10 20
Station (feet)

Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 13, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
522.22
1.2
522.26
2.6
522.30
3.7
522.21
4.9
522.09
5.6
521.83
6.1
521.50
7.5
521.45
8.8
521.34
9.4
521.39
10.2
521.58
11.0
521.89
11.7
522.00
12.7
522.06
14.1
522.05
15.2
522.04
16.4
522.05
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
522.1
LTOB Elevation:
522.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Bankfull Width:
7.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
522.9
Flood Prone Width:
40.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
17.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
f»
Stream Type I C/E
Heron, UT 4, XS - 13, Riffle
524
523
-------------------------------------------------------------
a
522
-- ----
W
131kfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
521
MY-01 8/13/19
0 10
20
Station (feet)

i".. ..,
yy,. .K •
�`
s
.`
Stream Type
C/E
Heron, UT
4, XS -14, Pool
523
w 522
0
W 521
sou
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
520
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 4, XS - 14, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
-0.3
522.8
1.3
522.7
2.3
522.6
3.2
522.7
4.1
522.6
5.0
522.0
5.8
521.6
6.3
521.1
6.8
520.9
7.4
520.9
7.9
520.9
8.4
521.0
9.2
521.3
9.9
521.5
10.9
521.7
12.2
522.1
13.4
522.1
14.7
5222
15.6
522.3
16.4
522.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
522.3
LTOB Elevation:
522.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.8
Bankfull Width:
11.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.4
Low Bank

Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 5, XS - 15, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
518.0
1.7
517.9
3.3
517.8
4.3
517.8
5.5
517.5
6.1
517.3
6.7
516.9
7.3
516.9
8.1
516.9
9.2
516.9
9.8
517.0
10.3
517.2
11.3
517.4
13.1
517.2
14.3
517.3
15.6
517.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
517.4
LTOB Elevation:
517.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.4
Bankfull Width:
9.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Low Bank Height:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
w .
1
r F , •l'T.,
Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT 5, XS - 15, Pool
519
w 518
a
W 517 _ _
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
516
0 10 20
Station (feet)

a.
�- " ..
Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT 5, XS - 16, Riffle
522
-----------------------------------------------------
0 521
W
B=kfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
520
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 5, XS - 16, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.1
520.89
1.5
520.99
3.0
520.85
4.5
520.96
5.3
520.75
6.0
520.53
6.8
520.34
7.9
52025
8.5
520.37
9.3
520.49
9.9
520.65
10.9
520.89
11.9
520.98
13.3
521.12
14.7
52120
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
520.8
LTOB Elevation:
520.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.9
Bankfull Width:
5.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
521.4
Flood Prone Width:
40.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Low Bank Height:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
17.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

E.
i
Stream Type
C/E
Heron, UT
5, XS - 17, Pool
525
w 524
o________________
______________
W523
_ _kfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
522
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 5, XS - 17, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.1
524.0
1.5
523.9
2.7
523.9
3.6
523.8
4.8
523.5
5.5
523.4
5.7
523.3
6.3
523.0
6.7
522.4
7.2
522.3
8.6
522.5
9.1
522.7
9.8
5232
10.8
523.4
11.8
523.6
131
523.6
14.2
523.7
15.6
523.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
523.5
LTOB Elevation:
523.5
Bflnkfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.4
Bflnkfull Width:
5.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bflnkt'ull:
1.2
Low Bank Height:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bflnkt'ull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT 5, XS - 18, Riffle
526
--------------------------------------------------------
m 525
0
o---- - __
------------------------
-
ti
W 524
B=kfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
523
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 5, XS - 18, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
524.69
1.6
524.47
3.0
524.43
4.0
524.38
4.6
52422
5.2
524.06
61
523.91
6.4
523.88
6.7
523.88
7.2
523.80
8.1
523.75
8.8
523.78
9.6
523.78
10.2
523.95
10.9
524.14
11.9
524.42
13.1
524.41
15.6
524.30
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
524.4
LTOB Elevation:
524.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.7
Bankfull Width:
9.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
525.1
Flood Prone Width:
40.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
22.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.3
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9

SF
Stream Type G E
Heron, UT
5, XS - 19, Pool
530
w
-
-
0 529
W
s��u
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
528
0
10 20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 5, XS - 19, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
1.7
529.1
3.5
528.9
3.6
528.9
4.6
528.7
5.4
528.6
5.8
528.5
6.2
528.5
6.9
528.4
7.4
528.4
8.0
528.4
8.5
528.5
9.0
529.0
9.7
529.0
10.4
5292
11.6
5292
13.1
5292
13.6
5292
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
529.1
LTOB Elevation:
529.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
8.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

t
Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT 5, XS - 20, Riffle
531
530
0
0
ti
W 529
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
528
0
10 20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 5, XS - 20, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
529.59
1.7
529.51
3.7
529.32
4.2
529.37
4.7
529.32
5.1
529.13
5.6
528.82
61
528.80
6.6
528.86
7.3
528.87
8.0
528.90
8.7
52922
9.0
529.37
10.0
529.62
11.0
529.69
12.2
529.79
14.0
529.74
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
529.4
LTOB Elevation:
529.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.9
Bankfull Width:
6.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
530.0
Flood Prone Width:
40.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Low Bank Height:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
20.2
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Y
Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT
5, XS - 21, Pool
534
w 533
------------------------/77
_______
0
W532N*Vo
_ _
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
531
0
10 20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 5, XS - 21, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
533.4
1.4
533.3
2.9
533.0
3.9
532.9
4.6
532.8
5.2
532.3
61
531.8
6.7
531.8
7.4
531.9
8.0
532.0
8.3
5322
8.7
532.7
9.6
532.8
10.5
532.9
11.9
533.0
14.0
533.1
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
532.9
LTOB Elevation:
532.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
31
Bankfull Width:
5.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Low Bank Height:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 5, XS - 22, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
534.15
1.3
534.27
2.7
534.18
3.9
534.00
4.6
533.93
5.5
533.75
6.1
533.58
6.6
533.45
7.4
533.44
8.2
533.34
8.8
533.56
9.3
533.73
9.9
534.03
10.5
534.15
11.4
534.33
12.8
534.68
13.9
534.70
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
534.1
LTOB Elevation:
532.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.9
Bankfull Width:
7.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
534.9
Flood Prone Width:
40.0
Max De that Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
Ratio:
17.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
5.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
k
,i
Stream Type I C/E
Heron, UT 5, XS - 22, Riffle
535
m
________________________ _____________
0 534
ti
W
B=kfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
533
MY-01 8/13/19
0 10 20
Station (feet)

•r
j
[I
.•
Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT
6, XS - 23, Pool
507
w 506
-----------------
-------- -
0
W505
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
504
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 6, XS - 23, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/14/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
-0.1
506.1
0.9
5061
1.8
506.0
2.6
505.7
31
505.6
3.7
505.4
4.1
505.0
4.3
504.7
5.1
504.7
5.7
504.7
6.4
504.8
7.3
504.8
7.8
505.0
8.5
505.6
9.0
505.8
9.8
505.9
10.5
505.9
11.4
505.7
12.2
505.7
12.9
505.7
14.2
505.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
505.6
LTOB Elevation:
505.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.6
Bankfull Width:
5.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Low Bank Height:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

!l R
K�J4
Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT 6, XS - 24, Riffle
507
m
0 506
°-----------------
- ---------------
- _________-
ti
W
B=kfull
Flood Pane Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14.19
505
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 6, XS - 24, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/14/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
506.31
1.3
506.38
2.2
506.54
3.0
506.42
3.9
506.37
4.5
506.01
5.0
505.79
5.4
505.59
5.8
50529
6.6
505.36
7.3
505.32
7.9
505.33
8.9
505.41
9.7
505.51
10.5
505.76
11.2
505.99
12.0
506.02
12.7
50611
13.5
50617
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
505.8
LTOB Elevation:
506.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.2
Bankfull Width:
5.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
506.3
Flood Prone Width:
40.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Low Bank Height:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
15.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
6.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.4

.?:.
.{c}
r a
uF
..
Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT
6, XS - 25, Pool
513
w 512
______________
------
0
a
W511
kffill
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
510
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 6, XS - 25, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/14/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.3
511.8
1.5
511.6
2.2
511.6
3.0
511.6
3.8
511.7
4.3
511.7
4.9
511.5
5.1
5112
5.9
511.0
6.3
511.1
6.9
5112
7.5
511.3
7.7
511.5
8.6
511.6
9.5
511.8
10.4
511.8
11.5
511.9
12.8
512.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
511.8
LTOB Elevation:
511.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.2
Bankfull Width:
10.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
0.8

Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 6, XS - 26, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/14/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
516.42
1.3
516.09
2.2
516.05
3.2
516.05
4.6
516.14
5.2
515.76
5.7
515.37
5.9
514.76
6.6
514.61
7.4
514.53
8.2
514.54
9.1
514.70
9.6
515.19
10.3
515.60
11.1
515.90
12.1
516.07
13.2
516.15
14.8
516.25
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
515.5
LTOB Elevation:
515.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.5
Bankfull Width:
4.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
516.5
Flood Prone Width:
40.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Low Bank Height:
1.4
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
6.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.5
Bank Height Ratio:
1.4
Stream Type I C/E
Heron, UT 6, XS - 26, Riffle
517
516
a
ti
515
W
B'.kfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
514
MY-01 8/14/19
0 10
20
Station (feet)

Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT
7, XS - 27, Pool
505
------------------------------------------
w 504
--------
0
a
503
W
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
502
0
10 20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 7, XS - 27, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/14/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
504.1
1.5
504.1
2.9
503.9
4.1
503.9
4.7
503.8
5.5
503.6
6.0
503.4
6.3
5032
6.8
503.1
7.5
503.0
8.1
503.1
8.9
503.3
9.3
503.3
10.1
5032
10.6
503.3
111
503.6
12.1
504.0
12.9
504.1
13.9
504.3
14.9
504.3
161
504.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
504.1
LTOB Elevation:
503.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
6.3
Bankfull Width:
11.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
IA
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
0.7

&log
,ram' 'i5'
�.
Stream Type
C E
Heron, UT 7, XS - 28, Riffle
507
_________________
506
._____-------------------------------
0 505
-----------------------
0
a
ti
W
504
- - -' aankfnu
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
503
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 7, XS - 28, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/14/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
505.45
1.5
50526
3.1
505.11
4.6
505.11
5.7
504.93
7.0
504.81
7.7
504.69
8.1
504.45
8.6
504.35
91
504.11
9.5
504.04
9.8
50427
10.2
504.37
10.8
504.88
11.7
50510
12.7
50522
13.9
505.34
15.0
505.49
15.9
505.48
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
505.1
LTOB Elevation:
505.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.0
Bankfull Width:
6.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
5062
Flood Prone Width:
20.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Low Bank Height:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
15.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.9
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT
7, XS - 29, Pool
514
513
w
0 512
W
----s��u
511
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
510
0
10 20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 7, XS - 29, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/14/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
-0.1
513.2
1.3
513.0
2.2
512.8
3.0
512.7
4.1
512.5
4.9
5122
5.2
512.1
5.7
511.1
6.6
511.0
7.3
511.0
7.8
511.0
8.3
512.1
9.2
512.4
10.3
512.7
11.6
512.8
12.9
512.9
14.2
513.0
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
512.3
LTOB Elevation:
5122
Bflnkfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.4
Bflnkfull Width:
41
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bflnkfull:
1.3
Low Bank Height:
1.2
Mean Depth at Bflnkfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9

_.
p'
Stream Type
C/E
Heron, UT 7, XS - 30, Riffle
515
514
------ ---------------------------
----------------
:];�
ti
B.khll
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-0I 8/14/19
512
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 7, XS - 30, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/14/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
513.79
1.4
513.60
2.4
513.53
3.9
513.44
4.8
513.18
5.4
513.03
5.6
512.83
6.6
512.51
7.5
512.51
8.0
512.55
8.9
512.49
9.7
512.59
10.5
512.85
111
513.09
11.8
513.33
12.9
513.52
13.8
513.65
14.6
513.86
15.6
514.02
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
513.0
LTOB Elevation:
513.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.3
Bankfull Width:
5.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
513.5
Flood Prone Width:
11.0
Max De that Bankfull:
0.5
Low Bank Height:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
13.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 7, XS - 31, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/14/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
514.8
1.0
514.7
2.2
514.3
3.2
514.3
4.0
514.3
4.9
514.1
5.6
513.9
6.0
513.8
6.3
513.5
6.8
513.4
7.6
513.3
8.4
513.3
9.2
513.3
9.9
513.4
10.5
513.7
11.3
514.0
11.9
5142
13.0
514.4
13.8
514.4
14.9
514.7
16.1
514.7
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
514.0
LTOB Elevation:
513.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.0
Bankfull Width:
61
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
0.9
s ;.�
F
Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT 7, XS - 31, Pool
515
w 514Zoe-
0
W513
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
512
0 10 20
Station (feet)

Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 7, XS - 32, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/14/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.2
518.42
1.3
518.23
2.7
518.05
3.4
517.78
4.2
517.69
4.8
517.71
5.6
517.31
6.0
517.04
6.6
517.10
7.2
517.08
8.1
517.21
8.6
517.35
9.5
517.45
9.9
517.56
10.9
517.86
11.8
517.94
12.7
518.19
14.0
518.20
15.3
518.30
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
517.9
LTOB Elevation:
517.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
7.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
518.7
Flood Prone Width:
20.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
17.5
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I C/E
r s:r ter•-...
Heron, UT 7, XS - 32, Riffle
519
518
m
0
a
ti
517
W
_ B'.kfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
516
MY-01 8/14/19
0 10
20
Station (feet)

Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 7, XS - 33, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/14/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
-0.2
523.21
1.4
523.12
2.3
52322
3.3
52321
41
523.09
4.4
523.06
4.8
522.84
5.1
522.82
5.5
522.63
6.2
522.63
6.7
522.70
7.2
522.88
7.8
522.95
8.5
523.04
9.3
523.30
10.0
523.30
10.8
523.30
11.7
523.30
12.6
523.46
13.5
523.43
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
5232
LTOB Elevation:
5232
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
1.8
Bankfull Width:
5.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
523.8
Flood Prone Width:
20.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Low Bank Height:
0.5
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
18.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.4
Bank Height Ratio:
0.8
4.
.':ip • ,yam ic'• - _.�
Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT 7, XS - 33, Riffle
524
------------------------ ----------------
2 523
a
ti
W
B=kfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
522
0 10 20
Station (feet)

Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 8, XS - 34, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
-2.5
515.41
-1.3
515.36
0.4
515.46
1.6
515.39
2.7
515.42
3.8
515.28
4.7
515.03
5.4
514.78
6.0
514.45
6.7
514.40
7.6
514.44
8.2
514.39
8.9
514.49
9.3
515.05
10.1
515.30
11.6
515.26
12.8
515.25
14.3
515.32
15.5
515.37
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
515.1
LTOB Elevation:
515.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.6
Bankfull Width:
5.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
515.8
Flood Prone Width:
40.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
10.4
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.1
Stream Type I C/E
Heron, UT 8, XS - 34, Riffle
516
---------------------------------------------------------
------------
--------------------------- ______________________
0 515
ti
W
B=kfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
514
MY-01 8/13/19
0 10 20
Station (feet)

�.-..
Fr..0
W­
Stream Type
C/E
Heron, UT
8, XS - 35, Pool
517
w 516
o------------------------------
---------------
W515
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
514
0
10
20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 8, XS - 35, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
S
Elevation
0.4
515.8
1.6
515.7
2.9
515.7
4.0
515.6
5.0
515.4
5.5
515.1
6.2
514.9
7.2
514.5
8.1
514.5
9.2
514.6
10.0
514.9
10.9
515.3
11.7
515.6
12.4
515.9
13.8
516.0
15.0
516.1
16.0
5162
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
515.5
LTOB Elevation:
515.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
41
Bankfull Width:
6.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.0
Low Bank Height:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT 8, XS - 36, Riffle
522
521
14-00,
----------
0
7
ti
W 520 -
aaoldvu
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
519
0
10 20
Station (feet)
Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 8, XS - 36, Riffle
Feature
Riffle
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
0.0
521.44
1.9
521.18
3.5
520.94
4.8
520.84
5.9
520.44
7.4
520.34
8.4
520.07
9.5
520.09
10.4
520.01
11.4
520.07
12.0
520.49
12.7
520.70
13.9
520.74
15.5
520.82
16.9
520.90
18.0
52126
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
520.8
LTOB Elevation:
520.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.7
Bankfull Width:
9.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
521.5
Flood Prone Width:
20.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Low Bank Height:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
21.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
2.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Site
Heron
Watershed:
Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID
UT 8, XS - 37, Pool
Feature
Pool
Date:
8/13/2019
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Radecki
Station
Elevation
-0.2
521.3
1.9
5212
3.8
521.1
4.9
521.0
6.0
520.6
6.8
520.3
7.7
520.1
8.5
519.8
9.5
519.4
10.6
519.3
11.3
519.6
11.9
520.1
12.5
520.5
13.2
520.9
14.6
521.0
15.8
5212
17.2
521.6
18.0
521.7
i._
7-
�, s=
Stream Type C/E
Heron, UT 8, XS - 37, Pool
522
w 521
m------------ _____________-----------
0
W 520 _ _
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
519
0 10 20
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
520.9
LTOB Elevation:
520.9
Bflnkfull Cross -Sectional Area:
7.2
Bflnkfull Width:
8.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
NA
Flood Prone Width:
NA
Max Depth at Bflnkt'ull:
1.6
Low Bank Height:
1.6
Mean Depth at Bflnkt'ull:
0.8
Rfltio:
NA
Entrenchment Ratio:
NA
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

Appendix E.
Hydrology Data
Table 15A.-15J. Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 16. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 17. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 15A. UT1 Channel Evidence
UTl Channel Evidence
Year 1 (2019)
Max consecutive days channel flow
103
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including
hdroh es
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at
natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant roots stems
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
Other:
Table 15B. UT2 Channel Evidence
UT2 Channel Evidence
Year 1 (2019)
Max consecutive days channel flow
85
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including
h dro h es
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at
natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant roots stems
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
Other:
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 15C. UT3 Channel Evidence
UT3 Channel Evidence
Year 1 (2019)
Max consecutive days channel flow
142
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including
hdroh es
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at
natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant roots stems
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
Other:
Table 15D. UT5 Downstream Channel Evidence
UT5 Downstream Channel Evidence
Year 1 (2019)
Max consecutive days channel flow
134
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including
h dro h es
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at
natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant roots stems
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
Other:
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 15E. UT5 Upstream Channel Evidence
UT5 Upstream Channel Evidence
Year 1 (2019)
Max consecutive days channel flow
167
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including
hdroh es
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at
natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant roots stems
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
Other:
Table 15F. UT6 Channel Evidence
UT6 Channel Evidence
Year 1 (2019)
Max consecutive days channel flow
131
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including
hdroh es
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at
natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant roots stems
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
Other:
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 15G. UT7 Downstream Channel Evidence
UT7 Downstream Channel Evidence
Year 1 (2019)
Max consecutive days channel flow
237
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including
h dro h es
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at natural
topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant roots stems
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
Other:
Table 15H. UT7 Middle Channel Evidence
UT7 Middle Channel Evidence
Year 1 (2019)
Max consecutive days channel flow
151
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including
h dro h es
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at
natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant roots stems
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
Other:
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 15I. UT7 Upstream Channel Evidence
UT7 Upstream Channel Evidence
Year 1 (2019)
Max consecutive days channel flow
237
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including
h dro h es
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at
natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant roots stems
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
Other:
Table 15J. UT8 Channel Evidence
UT8 Downstream Channel Evidence
Year 1 (2019)
Max consecutive days channel flow
49
Presence of litter and debris (wracking)
Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away
Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise)
Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport
Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water
Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks
Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow
Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks
Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration, including
hdroh es
Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel braiding) at
natural topographic breaks, woody debris piles, or plant roots stems
Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow
No
Other:
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT1
Year 1 (2019 Data)
25.00
4.5
23.00
4.0
21.00
19.00
3.5
17.00
c
15.00
3.0
c
3
13.00
ar
E
J
2.5
Q
m 11.00
M
9.00
E
7.00
2.0
5.00
1.5
3.00
L
%\A
Al
-4
1.0
1.00
-
-1.00
103
Days
40
Days
0.5
-3.00
t IAL
IJ
d.
-5.00
j
0.0
n
L
N
N
\
00
\
lfl
N
N
N
(D
Ln
\ N
l0
N
Ol
W
\
F�
O
F� N
V A
W
V
F� N
N
00
lfl
\
N
l0
N
Ol
N
\
\
Ol
N W
W O

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT2
Year 1 (2019 Data)
4.5
23.00
21.00
4.0
19.00
17.00
3.5
c
15.00
3.0
.�-.
13.00
c
E
,o
v�
2.5
a
11.00
E
9.00
c
v�
2.0
7.00
5.00
1.5
3.00
1.00
85
Da
s
IA
A
A9
V
1.0
\-j
V I
-1.00
0.5
-3.00
-5.00
0.0
N
W
\
W
\
W W
\ \
W
\
A A A
\ \ \
A
\
Ul
\
Ul
\
Ul Ul
\ \
Ul
\
Ol
\
Ol Ol
\ \
Ol
\
V
\
V
\
V
\
V
\
00
\
00
\
00
\
00 00
\r1i \
NJ
N
\
\
ri\
Ul N
W
\ N W
Ol
\
O
V A
00
\
NJ
Ol
\
\
Ol
W O
F-�
FA

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT3
Year 1 (2019 Data)
23.00
21.00
19.00
17.00
c
-
a
15.00
a
00
13.00
11.00
N
E
9.00
7.00
5.00
3.00
1.00
-1.00
142Days
53 Days
-3.00
-5.00
N W
\ \
W W
\ \
W
\
W A A A
\ \ \ \
A
\
Ul
\
Ul Ul Ul Ul M M M M V V V V
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
00
\
00
\
00 00
\ \
00
\
W
\
W
\
W
\
N F�
N \
00 Ln N
\ Ul N
N lJl F-� W
l0 \ N l0
N
Ol
W
\
0 '1 N W V 41 N 00 lJl F-� F-� N
O V A F-� \ A F-� 00 \ N l0 Ol
N
\
l0
\
a) N
Ol W
W
O
Ol
\
W
W
N
O
FA
FA
4.5
4.0
3.5
c
3.0
c
3
0
2.5 a
C
c
2.0 Ic
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT5 Downstream
Year 1 (2019 Data)
4.5
23.00
21.00
4.0
19.00
3.5
17.00
c
- 15.00
3.0
13.00
o
N 11.00
2.5
a
E
�
a 9.00
c
N
2.0
7.00
5.00
1.5
3.00
1.00
134
Days
1.0
-1.00
0.5
-3.00
-5.00
0.0
N
\
W
\
W
\
W
\
W
\
W
\
A
\
A
\
A
\
A
\
Ul
\
Ul
\
Ul
\
Ul
\
Ul
\
Ol
\
Ol
\
Ol
\
Ol
\
V
\
V
\
V
\
V
\
00
\
00
\
00
\
00
\
00
\
N
N
\
00
\
F-i
Ul
N
N
N
W\
lJl
N
l0
W
Ol N
W
\
0
-A
V
N
A
W
F-�
V
\
F-`
A
N
F-�
00
00
lJl
\
F-�
N
l0
W
NJ
Ol
NJ
\
l0
\
Ol
G)
N
W
W
O
FA
FA
l0
FA
FA
FA

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT5 Upstream
Year 1 (2019 Data)
4.5
23.00
21.00
4.0
19.00
3.5
17.00
c
- 15.00
3.0
13.00
o
N 11.00
2.5
Q
9.00
-
c
N
2.0
7.00
5.00
1.5
3.00
1.00
167
Days
1.0
-1.00
0.5
-3.00
10
-5.00
0.0
N
W
W
W
W
W
A
A
A
A
Ul
Ul
Ul
Ul
Ul
Ol
Ol
Ol
Ol
V
V
V
V
00
00
00
00
00
\
N
N
\
F�
\
\
00
\
\
F-i
Ul
\
N
N
\
N
l0
\
lfl
\
\
F-�
N
\
l0
W
\
N
Ol
\
W
\
\
0
O
\
-4
V
\
N
A
\
W
F-�
\
V
\
\
F-`
A
\
N
F-�
\
00
00
\
lfl
\
\
F-�
N
\
l0
W
\
N
Ol
\
N
\
\
l0
\
\
G)
Ol
\
N
W
\
W
O
FA
FA
l0
FA
FA
FA

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT6
Year 1 (2019 Data)
4.5
23.00
21.00
4.0
19.00
3.5
17.00
c
- 15.00
3.0
13.00
a
00
o
N 11.00
2.5
Q
E
a 9.00
c
N
2.0
7.00
5.00
1.5
3.00
1.00
1.0
-1.00
1
Days
0.5
-3.00
-5.00
19
0.0
N
W
W
W
W
W
A
A
A
A
Ul
Ul
Ul
Ul
Ul
Ol
Ol
Ol
Ol
V
V
V
V
00
00
00
00
00
\
N
N
\
\
\
00
\
\
Ul
Ln
\
N
N
\
N
l0
\
lJl
\
\
NJ
N
\
l0
W
\
N
Ol
\
W
\
\
O
0
\
-A
V
\
N
A
\
W
F-�
\
V
\
\
F-`
A
\
N
F-�
\
00
00
\
lJl
\
\
F-�
N
\
l0
W
\
N
Ol
\
N
\
\
l0
\
\
Ol
0)
\
N
W
\
W
O
FA
FA

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT7 Downstream
Year 1 (2019 Data)
4.5
23.00
21.00
4.0
19.00
-
The remainder of Year 1(2019) gauge data was
lost due to equipment malfunction; however, two
3.5
17.00
stream flow gauges and a trail camera located
c
15.00
upstream recorded this feature flowing from
5
2/27/19 to 9/23/19 (237 days).
3.0
13.00
3
0
N 11.00
2.5
a
E
�
a 9.00
c
N
2.0
7.00
5.00
1.5
3.00
1.0
1.00
-1.00
0.5
-3.00
Li
-5.00
0.0
N
W
W
W
W
W A
A A
A
Ul
Ul
Ul
Ul Ul Ol Ol Ol Ol V V V V 00
00
00
00 00
\
N
N
\
F�
\
\
00
\
\
F-i
Ul
\
N
N
\ \ \ \
N lJl F-� W
l0 \ N l0
\
N
Ol
\
W
\
\
0
O
\
-A
V
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
N W V F-` N 00 lJl F-� W N N
A F-� \ A F-� 00 \ N l0 Ol \
F-`
\
l0
\
\
Ol
G)
\ \
N W
W O
\ \ \
F-� F-� l0 F-� F-� FA

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT7 Middle
Year 1 (2019 Data)
4.5
23.00
21.00
4.0
19.00
3.5
17.00
c
- 15.00
c
3.0
13.00
a
00
o
N 11.00
2.5
Q
E
(U a 9.00
c
N
2.0
7.00
5.00
1.5
3.00
1.00
NIL"
1.0
-1.00
51
Days
0.5
-3.00
5.00
0.0
N
\
W
\
W
\
W
\
W
\
W
\
A
\
A
\
A
\
A
\
Ul
\
Ul
\
Ul
\
Ul
\
Ul
\
Ol
\
Ol
\
Ol
\
Ol
\
V
\
V
\
V
\
V
\
00
\
00
\
00
\
00
\
00
\
N
N
F�
\
00
\
F-i
Ul
N
N
N
l0
lJl
\
F-�
N
l0
W
N
Ol
W
\
O
0
-A
V
N
A
W
F-�
V
\
F-`
A
N
F-�
00
00
\
lJl
\
F-`
F-�
N
\
l0
W
\
N
Ol
N
\
l0
\
G)
Ol
N
W
W
O
F-�
F-�
l0
F-�
F-�
FA

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT7 Upstream
Year 1 (2019 Data)
23.00
21.00
19.00
17.00
c
-
15.00
a
a
00
13.00
11.00
N
E
9.00
7.00
5.00
V
1A
3.00
AA
1.00
-1.00
237 Da
-3.00
-5.00
N W
W
W W
W A
A A A Ul Ul Ul Ul Ul 0) 0) 0) 0) V V V V 00
00
00 00
00
W
W
W
\ \
N
N \
\
00
\
\ \
Ln N
Ul N
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
N lJl F-� W N W 0 '1 N W V 41 N 00 lJl F-� W N N
l0 \ N l0 Ol \ O V A F-� \ A F-� 00 \ N l0 Ol \
\
l0
\
\ \
a) N
Ol W
\
W
O
\
Ol
\
\
W
W
\
N
O
FA FA
4.5
4.0
3.5
c
3.0
c
3
0
2.5 a
c
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

c
23
21
19
17
�r
Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT8
Year 1 (2019 Data)
N N N N N W N A Ol 00 N N N N W FA W lJl V l0 F-` F-` F-` F-` F-` N N N N N
4.5
4.0
MI
c
2.0 Ic
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Table 16. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo
(if available)
Stream gauge data indicates a bankfull event occurred
August 26, 2019
July 7, 2019
after 4.06 inches of rain was documented on July 7,
--
2019 at an onsite rain gauge
A bankfull event likely occurred after 7.16 inches of rain
August 26, 2019
August 22, 2019
was documented between August 20-22, 2019 at an
--
onsite rain gauge
MY] (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Table 17. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
(2019)
(2020)
(2021)
(2022)
(2023)
(2024)
(2025)
1
Yes
33 days (15.8%)
2
Yes
26 days (12.4%)
3
Yes
35 days (16.7%)
4
Yes
69 days (33.0%)
5
Yes
52 days (24.9%)
6
Yes
54 days (25.8%)
MYI (2019) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2020

Heron Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 1 (2019 Data)
12
10 March 28 _ - 4.5
Growing Season October 22
8 Growing Season
6 Start 4.0
4 End
2
0 3.5
IF -2
-4 I
w -6 3.0
J I C
W 8 O
m -10 E
-12 2.5 a
'0 14 33 Days
16 2.0
18
-20
-22 1.5
-24
-26
-28 1.0
-30
-32
-34 0.5
-36
-38 - - - -
-40 0.0
w w � � � � to to to to to m m m m V V V V V w w w w io io io io N N N N N
N N W I\-� F\-� N F\-� W I\-� N N Ln F-A F-A N W F-A F-A N W V h-A Ili IliA F-A F-A Ili\ \ \ \ \
O V \ O V A \ \ Ln IliW \ IliW m \ O V A h` \ h.A 00 \ h-A 00 Ln N W F-A N W
a) W O
l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 F-� F-� F-�

Heron Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 1 (2019 Data)
4.5
10
March
28
October
22
g
Growing
Season
6
Start
Growing
Season
4.0
4
End
2
p
A
3.5
c -2
-4
3.0
-6
J
�
$
N
0
Q
2.5
102
2
Da
s3
14
16
JL
2.0
18
-20
-22
1.5
-24
-26
-28
1.0
-30
-32
-34
0.5
-36
-38
-40
0.0
W
W
41
41
41
41
in
in
in
in
in
rn
rn
rn
rn
V
V
V
V
V
00
00
00
00
W
W
W
W
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
FA
N
lfl
F-�
F-�
NJ
F-A
F-A
N
W
V
F-`
N
N
A
F-�
F-�
N
\
\
\
\
\
O
\
V
\
\
N
O
\
V
\
A
\
\
N
\
N
Ul
\
N
\
W
\
\
N
N
\
W
\
Ol
\
\
N
O
\
V
\
A
\
F-`
\
\
N
A
\
F-`
\
W
\
\
N
F-A
\
00
\
lfl
\
N
\
W
\
F-A
pl
N
W
W
O
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
F-�
F-�
F-�

Heron Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 1 (2019 Data)
12
4.5
10
March
28
October
22
8
Growing
Season
6
Start
Growing
Season
4.0
4
End
2
0
3.5
-2
lilt
c
a -4
w
3.0
J -6
G1 -8
O
16
E
10
12
2.5
7
c 14
35
Days
4q
16
m
oc
2.0
-18
-20
-22
1.5
-24
-26
-28
1.0
-30
-32
-34
0.5
-36
-38
-
-40
0.0
W
W
41
41
41
41
in
in
in
in
in
rn
rn
rn
rn
'1
-A
-A
-A
-A
00
00
00
00
W
W
W
W
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
W
F-A
F-A
N
F-A
0000
F-A
N
N
Lnn
F-A
F-A
NJ
F\-�
F\-�
NJ
V
F-A
N
N
A
F-A
F-A
N
\
\
\
\
\
O
\
V
\
\
N
O
\
V
\
A
\
\
N
\
N
Ul
\
N
\
W
\
\
N
N
\
W
\
m
\
\
N
O
\
V
\
A
\
F-`
\
\
N
A
\
F-`
\
W
\
\
N
F-A
\
00
\
In
\
N
\
W
\
F-A
p)
N
W
W
O
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
l0
F-A
l0
l0
F-A
l0
F-A
l0
F-A
l0
W
F-A
l0
F-A
l0
F-A
l0
F-A
l0
F-A
l0
\
F-�
\
F-�
\
F-�

12
10
8
6
4
2
_ 0
2
a -4
-6
a -8
3 -10
-12
c -14
-16
-18
-20
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30
-32
-34
-36
-38
-40
Heron Groundwater Gauge 4
Year 1 (2019 Data)
W W I, I, I, I, I, rn rn rn rn :Z :Z :Z N N N N N
N N W F� F-� N F-A 00 F-A N N Ln F-A F-A N W F-A F-A N W V F-A N N A F-� F-� N \ \ \ \ \
O V \ O V A \ \ Ul N W \ N W 0) \ O V A F-` \ A F-` W \ 00 Ln N W F-A N W
\ I -A \ \ \ \ \ Ol W O
F-A l0 F-A F-A F-A W F-A F-A F-A F-A F-A \ \ \
l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 F-� F-� F-�
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
c

Heron Groundwater Gauge 5
Year 1 (2019 Data)
12 4.5
10 March 28
8 October 22
Growing Season Growing Season
4 Start End 4.0
2
0 3.5
� -2
c
v -4
a i -6 3.0
f N $ o
f6 -10 E
3A 2.5 Q
6 -12
3 14 52 DaVs
0
16 2.0 oc
-18
-20
-22 1.5
-24
-26
-28 1.0
-30
-32
-34 I 0.5
-36
-38 LA
-40 M 16.1 1 ml 0.0
w w -P�- -P�- -P�- -P�- cn cn cn cn cn m rn rn rn V V V V V
00\00 00 00 00 �0 �0 �0 �0
\\N \N \N \N \N N W 00 N N LnN W NJ
O V \ O V A \ \ Ul N l0 \ N l0 a) \ O V A F-� \ A F-� 00 \ I--� 00 Ln N l0 F� N W
\ \ N \ \ \ N N \ \ \ N \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ 0) W O
l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 F� F� F�

Heron Groundwater Gauge 6
Year 1 (2019 Data)
12 I 4.5
10 March 28
8 Growing Season — October 22
6 Start Growing Season 4.0
4
2
0 3.5
-2
d -4 I c
y -6 3.0 c
J
d -8 0
3 -10 E
12fill 2.5 a
' 14 54 Days
0
-16 11
2.0 oc
-18
-20
-22 1.5
-24
-26
-28 1.0
-30
-32 -
-34 0.5
-36
-38 - —
40 A MINI I -..A 1 16. —0.0
W W A A A A In In In In In m m m m V V V V V W W 00 00 l0 l0 l0 l0
F\-� \ \ \ \ \
O V \ O V A \ \ In N (D \ N l0 m \ O V F-` \ A F- Co \ F� Co In N (0 F� N W
\ \ \ F-� \ \ \ F-� \ \ \A \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ p) W O
(D LO l0 F-� F-� F� F� (O F� F� F� F� (D F� F� LO \ \ --
(D l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 l0 F, F, F,