20130188 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2019_20200207

ID#* 20130188 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 02/07/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/7/2020
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:*
Paul Wiesner
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20130188
Existing IDr
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland
Restoration Site
Macon
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: CochranStr&Wetland_95720_MY5_2019.pdf 6.18MB
Rease upload only one RDFof the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Paul Wiesner
Signature:*

Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 5 of 7
FINAL
Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
NCDMS Contract No.: 004947
NCDMS Project No.: 95720
USACE Permit Action ID: SAW-2013-00280
DWR Project No.: 13-0188
Macon County, NC
Data Collection Complete: January 2020
Prepared for:
Division of Mitigation Services
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
January 2020

fires
January 27, 2020
Paul Wiesner
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
RE: Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site: MY5 Monitoring Report
(NCDMS ID 95720)
Listed below are comments provided by DMS on December 4, 2019 regarding the Cochran
Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site: Year 5 Monitoring Report and RES' responses.
Section 1.4 Project Performance: The NCDMS website project document link in the section
should be updated to: https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-projects
Done.
Section 1.4.1 Vegetation and Table 2: Were any exotic invasive treatments completed in MY5
(2019)? If so, please report the MY5 treatments in the text and update Table 2 accordingly. No
Invasive areas are shown on the CCPV map. Please confirm that current invasives on the site
are beneath the mapping threshold (1,000 SqF) or revised the CCPV map as necessary.
No invasive treatments were administered in MY5 2019. Invasives are limited to outside the
easement boundary and individual plants of multiflora rose covering less than 1000 sqft in area.
Section 1.4.1 Vegetation: In the report text, please briefly describe the buffer planting and
herbicide treatment completed in April 2019 along Parrish Branch. The rationale for the planting,
approx. number of plants installed, size of plants, etc. would be helpful to document this MY5
maintenance effort.
This was discussed in Section 1.4.2 as it was treatment used to address a stream geomorphology
problem. RES has added more details about the work to this section.
General: The MY5 (2019) report notes that groundwater monitoring well GW-1 malfunctioned
and no data was retrieved for 2019. The project crest gauges were also reported as damaged.
Please ensure that the well and crest gauges are replaced and functioning before the start of the
2020 growing season. DMS recommends regular groundwater monitoring well downloads to
ensure consist data recording and collection.
Onset was able to recover the data from the corrupt GW-1 datafile. The report has been updated
to include the results.
res.us

61
Table 5: The table indicates the entire as -built length of Parrish branch (402 If) is showing signs
of aggradation. Please confirm that this length is correct. It may be helpful to track this length in
future monitoring years to determine if the reported issue is improving.
RES believes this is correct for MY5. After the MY6 water season, it will be easier to report a new
length of aggradation for the MY6 report.
Table 11 b — Cochran 1 a: DMS recommends adding a note to this table to indicate that there are
no cross sections in this reach and accordingly no Min, Mean, Med, Max, SD, or n data is
available.
Done.
Table 14: DMS recommends adding a note indicating that MY5 crest gauge data is unavailable
due to equipment damage/ failure.
Done.
Digital Support File and General Report Comments:
1. Spatial Data — The asset table indicates that the quantities used in credit calculations are from
the mitigation plan. The spatial features DMS is in possession of are those from the AB survey
performed by Kee. Please provide the properly georeferenced GIS shapes from the design CADs
that support the quantities in the asset table.
The georeferenced GIS shapes from the design are included as well as the design CAD file.
2. Hydrology Data — Please make note of the gauge type (e.g. transducer, RDS etc.) used in the
excel data file. Please also label any probe or benchmark elevations, the raw and corrected
readings of the water elevations and any offsets applied. DMS needs to be able to clearly identify
these key elevations before incorporating these into the DMS database permitting independent
calculation/verification. None of the columns or key values have headers or are labelled. The DMS
Excel template is an example of what is needed for reference.
Done.
3. Calculation of XSA and Max depth are to completed using TOB in keeping with methods
specified in the Industry Technical Work group memorandum. Please include the Bankfull and
LTOB elevations used. For clarity, please make sure the reader is aware that these methods are
being employed. Include a footnote:
"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 provided by NCIRT
and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the bankfull dimensions are calculated based on the
current year's low bank height."
Done.

Cochran Branch
Macon County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID 95720
Little Tennessee River Basin
HUC 06010202040020
Prepared by:
fires
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
919-209-1061

Contents
1.0 Project Summary.............................................................................................................................3
1.1. Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................................... 3
1.2. Success Criteria............................................................................................................................. 3
1.3. Project Setting and Background.................................................................................................... 5
1.4. Project Performance...................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 Methods..........................................................................................................................................7
3.0 References.......................................................................................................................................8
Appendix A. General Tables and Figures
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View Map (CCPV)
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Stream Photos
Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Summary
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot)
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Morphological Parameters Summary Data
Table I Ia. Dimensional Morphology Summary
Table I lb. Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross Section Plots
Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
MY5 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Table 13. Bank Pin Array Summary Data
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 14. Documentation of Geomorphological Significant Flow Events
Table 15. Rainfall Summary
Table 16. Wetland Hydrology Attainment Data
2019 Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
Appendix E. MY4 IRT Credit Release Site Visit Memo

Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 5 Monitoring Report • Macon County, North Carolina • January 2020
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1. Goals and Objectives
The overall goals address the stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
• Improve water quality within the restored channel reaches and downstream watercourses by
reducing sediment and nutrient inputs and increasing dissolved oxygen levels
• Improve local aquatic and terrestrial ecological function through increased stream shading,
habitat complexity, and availability of organic/woody material
• Improve aquatic and benthic habitat and associated streambed form
• Improve site hydrology, wetland functions, and attenuation of flood flows
• Provide riparian area and wetland restoration with a native plant community
• Protect the site from future land impacts
The specific project objectives that are intended to target the above goals include the following:
• Implement Priority I and II restoration of 1,783 feet of stream and rehabilitation/re-
establishment of 4.35 acres of wetlands
• Implement appropriate changes in dimension, pattern and/or profile to establish
geomorphically stable conditions within the project reaches
• Modify degraded stream channels to enable proper sediment transport capacity and improved
streambed form
• Integrate in -stream structures and native bank vegetation
• Re -grade the floodplain to remove drainage ditches, spoil berms, and overburden soil
• Plant native woody and herbaceous riparian vegetation within a minimum width of 30 feet
from the edge of the restored channels and throughout the restored wetland area
• Eradicate invasive, exotic or undesirable plant species
• Install livestock exclusion fencing
• Establish a permanent conservation easement
1.2. Success Criteria
1.2.1. Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Restored and enhanced streams are in compliance with the standards set forth in the USACE 2003
Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the "Ecosystem Enhancement Program Monitoring Requirements
and Performance Standards for Stream and Wetland Mitigation" dated November 7, 2011. Restored
and enhanced streams should demonstrate morphologic stability to be considered successful. Stability
does not equate to an absence of change, but rather to sustainable rates of change or stable patterns of
variation. Restored streams often demonstrate some level of initial adjustment in the several months
that follow construction and some change/variation subsequent to that is also to be expected. However,
the observed change should not be unidirectional such that it represents a robust trend. If some trend
is evident, it should be very modest or indicate migration to a stable form.
Dimension - Cross-section measurements should indicate little change from the as -built
cross -sections. If changes do occur, they will be evaluated to determine whether the
adjustments are associated with increased stability or whether they indicate movement
towards an unstable condition.
Pattern and Profile - Visual inspection of the pattern and profile should indicate stability
with little deviation from as -built conditions for the restored stream. Pool depths may vary
from year to year, but the majority should maintain depths sufficient to be observed as
distinct features. The pools should maintain their depth with flatter water surface slopes,
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 5 Monitoring Report • Macon County, North Carolina • January 2020
while the riffles should remain shallower and steeper. Pattern and profile measurements will
not be collected unless conditions seem to indicate that a detectable and detrimental change
appears to have occurred.
Substrate - Calculated D5o and D84 values should indicate coarser size class distributions of
bed materials in riffles and finer size class distributions in pools. The majority of riffle
pebble counts should indicate maintenance or coarsening of substrate size class distributions.
Generally, it is anticipated that the bed material will coarsen over time.
Sediment Transport - Depositional features should be consistent with a stable stream that is
effectively managing its sediment load. Point bar and inner berm features, if present, should
develop without excessive encroachment of the channel. Isolated development of robust
(i.e. comprised of coarse material and/or vegetated actively diverting flow) mid -channel or
lateral bars will be acceptable. Likewise, development of a higher number of mid -channel
or lateral bars that are minor in terms of their permanency such that profile measurements do
not indicate systemic aggradation will be acceptable, but trends in the development of robust
mid -channel or alternating bar features will be considered a destabilizing condition and may
require intervention or have success implications.
1.2.2. Surface Water Hydrology
Monitoring of stream surface water stages should indicate recurrence of bankfull flow on average every
1 to 2 years. At a minimum, throughout the monitoring period, the surface water stage should achieve
bankfull or greater elevations at least twice. The bankfull events must occur during separate monitoring
years.
1.2.3. Groundwater Hydrology
The USACE defines minimum hydrology for jurisdictional wetlands to be saturation within 12 inches
of the surface for at least 5% of the growing season if soils and vegetation meet jurisdictional criteria.
Given that hydric soils are present throughout the restoration area but that wetland vegetation will be
newly established, it is reasonable to set the minimum hydrology threshold slightly above the
jurisdictional minimum threshold. As such, the minimum performance standard is set to provide
saturated soils within 12 inches of the surface for at least eight percent (8%) of the growing season
under average climatic conditions. The reference wetland site used up through 2017 was the NCDMS
Cat Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site — NCDMS Project # 71 — located east of Franklin in
Macon County, NC. In January 2018, RES made a site visit to Cat Creek to replace the wetland
reference gauge, but it was determined that it was no longer a representative reference gauge due to its
location in a beaver pond. Because of the continued success of the wetland gauges on the Cochran
Branch Site (including those gauges outside of the wetland crediting area), RES deemed it unnecessary
to find a new location for the reference gauge. The growing season for the site was based on the Natural
Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) WETS dataset for Macon County (http://agacis.rcc-
acis.org/37113/wets). The Macon County dataset is based on a site with elevations roughly the same
as the project site. According to NRCS, the growing season for Macon County is defined to be the
period with a 50% probability that the daily minimum temperature is higher than 28°F. At the project
site, this period extends from April 16th to October 19th for a total of 187 days. Based on this, wetland
hydrology success will be achieved if the water table is within 12 inches of the soil surface for one or
more periods of at least 15 consecutive days during the growing season.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 4

Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 5 Monitoring Report • Macon County, North Carolina • January 2020
1.2.4. Vegetation
Riparian vegetation monitoring shall be conducted for a minimum of seven years to ensure that success
criteria are met per USACE guidelines. Accordingly, success criteria will consist of a minimum
survival of 260 planted stems per acre by the end of the Year 5 monitoring period and a minimum of
210 planted stems per acre at the end of Year 7. If monitoring indicates either that the specified survival
rate is not being met or the development of detrimental conditions (i.e., invasive species, diseased
vegetation), appropriate corrective actions will be developed and implemented. Additionally, planted
vegetation must average 8 feet in height in each plot at year 7 (as defined in the USACE 2003). If this
performance standard is met by year 5 and stem density is trending toward success (i.e., no less than
260 five-year old stems/acre) monitoring of vegetation on the site may be terminated provided written
approval is given by the USACE in consultation with the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(NCIRT).
1.3. Project Setting and Background
The Cochran Branch Mitigation Project (The Site) is located approximately 6 miles northwest of
Franklin, North Carolina at latitude 35012'52" N and longitude 83029'20" W. The Site encompasses
approximately 10 acres of agricultural land and consists of two streams, Cochran Branch and Parrish
Branch, along with 4.35 acres of wetlands on the Cochran Branch floodplain. The Site lies within the
Little Tennessee River Watershed N.C. Division of Water Resources (DWR) sub -basin 04-04-01 and
local HUC 06010202040020. The project is located within the NCDMS Iotla Creek targeted local
watershed (TLW) and within the Franklin to Fontana local watershed plan (LWP). Cochran Branch
drains to Burningtown Creek approximately 0.5 miles downstream of the project. Burningtown Creek
is classified as B;Tr by NCDEQ.
Following 2016 monitoring the NCIRT requested a review of the differential between the Approved
Mitigation Plan and Baseline Monitoring Report. The table below details the discrepancies by reach.
The cause of increased baseline SMUs is survey methodology (thalweg vs. centerline) as well as
construction field adjustments. The Mitigation Plan lengths were based on centerline. Wetland credits
are unchanged from Mitigation Plan to Baseline Monitoring Report.
Proposed Length Mitigation
Reach Mitigation Type* �� Proposed SMUs Baseline SMUs
Ratio
Cochran Branch P1 Restoration 1,387 1:1 1,387 1,418
Parrish Branch P1 Restoration 396 1:1 396 402
Total 1,783 1,783 1,820
*P 1=Priority 1
**The contracted amount of credits for this Site was 1,756 SMUs
1.4. Project Performance
Monitoring Year 5 (MY5) data was completed in October 2019. Monitoring activities included visual
assessment of all reaches and the surrounding easement, collection of images at eight permanent photo
stations, and inventory of eight permanent vegetation monitoring plots. Monitoring activities also
included stream monitoring consisting of nine cross -sections, five pebble counts, and three bank pin
arrays. Stream monitoring was not performed in MY2; therefore, stream monitoring was completed in
MY4 as a replacement for the lack of data collection. Per the Approved Mitigation Plan, stream
monitoring will not be performed in MY6.
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment and
statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 5 Monitoring Report • Macon County, North Carolina • January 2020
and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found
in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the
Mitigation Plan (formerly Restoration Plan) documents available on the NCDMS website
(https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-projects). All raw data supporting the
tables and figures in the appendices is available from DMS upon request.
1.4.L Vegetation
Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots (Appendix B; Table 6) indicates that
the herbaceous vegetation is becoming well established throughout the project. Treatments of Chinese
privet (Ligustmin sinense) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) have been effective along the boundary
of the easement. A few multiflora rose patches are present throughout the easement so follow-up
treatments will continue as needed in future monitoring years.
Monitoring of the eight permanent vegetation plots was completed in October 2019. Summary tables
and photographs associated with MY5 monitoring are located in Appendix C. MY5 monitoring data
indicates that all plots met interim success criteria of 260 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities
among plots ranged from 283 to 688 planted stems per acre with an annual mean of 435 planted stems
per acre across all plots. A total of 11 species were documented within the plots. When volunteer stems
are included, the mean annual total stems per acre rose to 460. The average tree height observed was
4.5 feet.
1.4.2. Stream Geomorphology
Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as
eroding banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. In June 2019, RES had a site visit with
IRT and DMS to discuss the sedimentation and lack of channel defining features on Parrish Branch.
During the visit, most of the channel had concentrated flow in a single channel but the section near
cross sections 7 and 8 was more like a braided system. The IRT decided it was necessary to revisit the
site in November/December to get a more representative view of the reach. A full summary of the site
visit is included in Appendix F. In April 2019, RES treated the vegetation in Parrish Branch with aquatic
safe herbicide. The goal was to remove the wetland vegetation that was growing in the channel and
causing aggradation. During the October field work, it was apparent that the herbicidal treatment of the
vegetation in Parrish Branch was effective and will be performed again in 2020. Additionally, RES
planted 80 three -gallon container trees along both sides of the channel to start shading out in -channel
vegetation. During October field work it appeared that the planting had a high survival rate. RES plans
to also heavily livestake the banks of the reach in early 2020 to further discourage channel vegetation
growth. Except for Parrish Branch, no indication of instability was observed during visual assessment
and all structures are functioning as designed (Appendix A; Figure 2 and Appendix B; Table 5).
Geomorphic data for MY5 was collected in October 2019. Summary tables and cross-section plots
related to stream morphology are located in Appendix D. For the Cochran Branch reach, cross -
sectional overlays showed minimal dimensional change between MY4 and MY5 data collection efforts.
As for the Parrish Branch section that includes cross -sections 7, 8, and 9, aggradation is evident in MY5
when compared to MY4, but defined channels are still present on the overlay plots (Appendix B; Table
lla). The explanation for this aggradation was discussed above. In MY5, all measurements are based
on fixed baseline cross sectional area; therefore, bankfull elevation was adjusted for each cross-section
to achieve a cross -sectional area equivalent to the reported baseline cross -sectional area. None of the
riffle cross sections exceeded a 1.2 BHR.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 5 Monitoring Report • Macon County, North Carolina • January 2020
Substrate monitoring was performed during MY5. Pebble count d50 was medium gravel for Cochran
Branch, and sand for Parrish Branch. The channel substrate will be monitored again in MY7 to
document shifts in particle size distributions.
The bank pin arrays indicate that no erosion is taking place in the meanders during MY5 (Appendix
D; Table 12).
1.4.3. Groundwater and Stream Hydrology
During MY5, eight of the eight groundwater monitoring wells met the 8 percent hydroperiod success
criteria (Appendix E; Table 16). All eight of the transducers in the groundwater monitoring wells were
replaced before the start of the growing season in 2019. Hydroperiods among the monitoring wells
ranged from 56 to 100 percent of the growing season, and total number of consecutive days within 12
inches of the soil surface was 105 to 187.
No bankfull events were observed in MY5. Both crest gauges were damaged by fire ants and will be
replaced in MY6. Parrish Branch has had at least four bankfull events (at least one in MY4 and three
in MY3) while Cochran Branch has had at least four bankfull events prior to MY5.
2.0 METHODS
This report presents the results of the Monitoring Year 5 (MY5) visual, hydrologic, morphological, and
vegetation data. Permanent photo station photos were collected in October 2019. Additional photos of
vegetation or stream problem areas were taken as needed.
Geomorphic measurements were taken during low flow conditions using a Topcon GTS-312 Total
Station. Three-dimensional coordinates associated with cross-section data was collected in the field and
geo-referenced (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200). Morphological data was collected at 9 cross -
sections. Survey data was imported into CAD, ArcGIS®, and Microsoft Excel® for data processing and
analysis. Channel substrate was characterized using a Wolman Pebble Count as outlined in Harrelson
et al. (1994) and processed using Microsoft Excel.
Vegetation success is being monitored at eight permanent monitoring plots. Vegetation monitoring
follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and
includes analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data is processed using the
CVS data entry tool. In the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked with rebar and
photos of each plot taken from the origin each monitoring year.
Precipitation data was collected using an Onset HOBO Data Logging Rain Gauge. Groundwater for
hydrologic success of restored wetlands was monitored using eight HOBO U20 Water Level Loggers.
An additional logger was installed on site, above ground, for use as a barometric reference. Data loggers
collected depth to groundwater daily and all data were processed using HOBOware and analyzed using
Microsoft Excel. Bankfull events were documented with two crest gauges, one each being located on
Cochran Branch and Parrish Branch. During quarterly visits to the site, the height of the corkline was
recorded.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 5 Monitoring Report • Macon County, North Carolina • January 2020
3.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC. 2014. Cochran Branch, Final Mitigation Plan, Macon County,
North Carolina. NCEEP Project No. 95720
Harrelson, Cheryl, C. Rawlins and J. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service. Fort Collins, Colorado
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. http://cvs.blo.unc.edu/methods.htm; accessed November 2008.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of
Water Quality. Wilmington District.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Appendix A
General Tables and Figures

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Cochran Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
1,783
4.240
0.055
Project Components
Project Component -or-
Reach ID
Stationing/Location
Existing
Footage/Acreage
Approach
(PI, PII etc.)
Restoration -
or-
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage'
Mitigation
Ratio
Cochran Branch
100+60 - 115+05
1,332
PI
R
1,387
1:1
Parrish Branch
200+15 - 204+11
232
Pit
R
396
1:1
Wetland Area 1
-
Re -Est.
R
3.33
1:1
Wetland Area 1
0.88
Re -Flab.
R
0.82
1:1
Wetland Area 2
0.11
Enh.
RE
0.11
2:1
Weiland Area 3
Re -Est.
R
0.09
1:1
mm
Component Summation
JEL
0-
Restoration Level
Stream'
Riparian Wetland
Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Upland
(linear feet)
(acres)
(acres)
(square feet)
(acres)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
1,783
-
4.24
-
-
-
Enhancement
-
-
0.11
-
-
-
Enhancement I
-
-
-
-
Enhancement II
-
-
-
-
-
-
Creation
-
-
-
-
-
-
Preservation
-
-
-
-
-
-
Preservation
-
-
-
-
-
-
BMP Elements
Element2
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
FB
Entire Site
Protect Stream
'Restoration footage accounts for no credits in crossings, exclusions, and powerline ROWS.
2BR = Bioretention Cell, SF = Sand Filter, SW = Stormwater Wetland, WDP = Wet Detention Pond, DDP = Dry Detention Pond, FS = Filter Strip, S =
Grassed Swale, LS = Level Spreader, NI = Natural Infiltration Area, FB = Forested Buffer
Note: Stream credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg. Based on the April 3, 2017 IRT Credit Release Meeting, these stream
credits have been reverted back to the amounts in the IRT approved mitigation plan.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Cochran Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Mitigation Plan
Aug - 2014
Sept - 2014
Final Design - Construction Plans
Oct - 2014
Oct - 2014
Construction
N/A
May - 2015
Permanent Seed Mix Apphed
May - 2015
May - 2015
Live Stake and Bare Root Plantings
May - 2015
May - 2015
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring - Bascline)
Jun - 2015
Aug - 2015
Invasive -Exotic Vegetation Treatment
-
Jun - 2015
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec - 2015
Jan - 2016
Invasive -Exotic Vegetation Treatment
-
Feb - 2016
Invasive -Exotic Vegetation Treatment
-
Jun - 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
Mar - 2016
Nov - 2016
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream: Oct - 2017
Vegetation: Oct - 2017
Jan - 2018
Invasive -Exotic Vegetation Treatment
-
July - 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream: Oct - 2018
Vegetation: Oct - 2018
Jan - 2019
Parrish Branch Channel Vegetation Treatment & Buffer Planting
-
Aril - 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream: Oct - 2019
Vegetation: Oct - 2019
Jan - 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring

Table 3. Project Contacts
Cochran Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street; Suite 110
Prime Contractor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Daniel Ingram [phone]
Wolf Creek Engineering
12 1/2 Wall Street Suite C
Designer
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
S. Grant Ginn [phone]
Northstate Environmental
2889 Lowery Street
Construction Contractor
Winston Salem, North Carolina 27101
Darrell Westmoreland [phone]
Northstate Environmental
2889 Lowery Street
Seeding Contractor
Winston Salem, North Carolina 27101
Darrell Westmoreland [phone]
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street; Suite 110
Planting Contractor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
David Godley [phone]
Kee Mapping and Surveying
PO Box 2566
As -built Surveys
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
Phillip B. Key [phone]
Northstate Environmental
2889 Lowery Street
Seeding Mix Source
Winston Salem, North Carolina 27101
Darrell Westmoreland [phone]
Arborgen
5594 Higway 38 South
Blenheim, SC 29516
[phone]
Bare Root Seedlings
North Carolina Foresty Claridge Nursery
762 Claridge Nursery Road
Goldsboro, North Carolina 27530
[phone]
Foggy Mountain Nursery
2251 Ed Little Road
Live Stakes
Creston, North Carolina 28643
[phone]
Equinox Environmental
Monitoring Performers
37Haywood St.
(MY0-MY2)
2015 -2016
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
Drew Alderman [phone]
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Monitoring Performers
302 Jefferson Street; Suite 110
2( 01�+)
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Ryan Medric [phone]
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Exotic Invasive Vegetation
302 Jefferson Street; Suite 110
Treatment Contractor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
Brian Hockett [phone]

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Project Information
Project Name
Cochran Branch
County
Macon County
Project Area (acres)
10.06
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35012'52.03" N, 83029'20.10" W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiogmphic Province
Blue Ridge
River Basin
Little Tennessee
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 06010203
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-Digit 6010202040020
DWQ Sub -basin
40-04-01
Project Drainage Area (acres)
811
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
G5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01.03 Hay and Pasture Land
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Cochran Branch
Parrish Branch
Length ofreach(linear feet)
1332
232
Valley classification (Rosgen)
II
II
Drainage area
1.25
0.11
NCDWQ strearridentification score
48
40
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
B,Tr
B,Tr
Morphological Description(streamtype) (Rosgen)
G4
G4
Evolutionary trend (Rosgen)
G— F — C — E
G— F — B
Underlying mapped soils
NkA
NkA, ScC
Drainage class
Vent' Poorly Drained
Very Poorly Drained,
Mod Well Drained
Soil Hydric status
Hydric
Hydric, Non-Hydric
Slope
0.7%
4.2%
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
Native vegetation co ntrunity
Agricultural
Agricultural
Percent composition of —tic invasive vegetation
6%
0%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
A
B
C
D
E
Area (Acres)
4.24
0.11
Wetland Type (non -riparian, riparian riverine or riparian non-riverine)
Ripen Non-
Riverine
Riparian Non-
Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
NkA
NkA
Drainage class
Verry Poorly Drained
Verry Poorly Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Source ofHydrology
Groundwater
Groundwater
Previous Hydrologic hnpairment
Dredging/Ditching
Dredging/Ihtclung
Native vegetation co ntrunity
Montane Alluvial
Forest
Montane Alluvial
Forest
Percent composition of —tic invasive vegetation
0%
0%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resol—P
Supporting
Documentation
Waters ofthe United States — Section 404
Yes
Yes
PCN 27 (SAW-2013-
00280)
Waters ofthe United States — Section 401
Yes
Yes
401 Certification
(DWR4-13-0188)
Endangered Species Act
No
Yes
ERTR
Historic Preservation Act
No
Yes
ERTR
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coast
AreaManagement Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
N./A

IS
Reference Sites MADISON
Cold Springs
HAYWOO Creek
SWAIN 4 t
�d
28 Cochran Site � %THEN
or
fACKSON =MillsRiver
f rti- -�
MACNq ' L
TRAN§YLVANIA
CLAY 1- �•. f' ,; ;�
; / Copyright:© 2014 Esri
t ,JF .
Nantahala National '
Cochran
Forrest Site j ��
_.may, Af O
23
a
Franklin
Directions: From Asheville, take I-40 East for approximately 18
miles. Take exit 27 for US-74 toward US-19/Clyde/Waynesville.
Continue onto US-74 W/Great Stookey Mountains Expressway.
After 26 miles Take the ramp for US-23 South toward Dillsboro and r t
continue onto US-23 S. After 14 miles turn right onto Sanderstown 64
Road. After 3 miles turn left onto NC-28 S. After approximately 2
miles turn right onto Airport road. Drive 2 miles then turn left onto l� r
Olive Hill Road. After 3.5 miles trun right onto Watson Road and the
entrance to the site will be 0.3 miles away on the left I y s
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the i (/
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is + J I
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered `
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require
traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore j
access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized
personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees/
contractors involved in the development, oversight and stewardship j
of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes
of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by 23
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and
activities requires prior coordination with DMS. Copyright:©2
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
I S Cochran Branch
Project No. 95720 Notes: Conservation Easement from Key
Macon County, North Carolina Mapping & Survey, EA.
Miles
0 1.5 3

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

7i 7 1i' �.�•.N- } . � �. �:I',<. r CIF Y r, r �I . [ : 1v -
a
res
Ai
., � '��- � �• � •.. `�"�, ' , Aggradation
0 50 goo
a ►,�,,�" Parrish Branch ` , Feet
r f 1 inch 100 feet
t E`�:•; `�; ; r.- At
.. f' .. ,: Figure 2
Cochran Branch Stream
rf Restoration Project
MY5 2019
Cochran Branch 1A Current Conditions
Plan View
Y +`
Ja.. 3
.1 �% •jf'+' �'�. Date: 1/23/2020 Drawn by: RTM
LEGEND
'm s
O Conservation Easement
Wetland Mitigation
m Enhancement
7 m Re-establishment
K'r ® Re -habilitation
s Vegetation Plot
® O >260 stems/acre
�d OWs —Stream Restoration
Top of Bank
Structure
+ i 1 Cross Section
®►� Iroundwater Well Hydroperiod
Photo Station
Rain Gauge
Crest Gauge
V- ' iii, Cochran Branch 1 B - �: r
1�' .j • - i..� Ay' f tAt
r � � Vegetation Condition Assessment
• s � L~. * * � •�' i � • Target Community
!'{ w ► q `�'� w
• i - t Present Marginal Absent
_ Absent
1x•. aa2_1i` r3 :.w �' • No Fill
47
iY' r tis , i r• • + W Present
t �' ' >

Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Cochran Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Cochran Branch
Assessed Len th 1,418 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. AA22radation - 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%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
23
23
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
23
23
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
23
23
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
23
23
100
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (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
100 %
0
0 100
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%
0
0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
23
23
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
23
23
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
23
23
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
15 %
23
23
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining- Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull
Depth Ratio> 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
23
23
100%

Table 5 Cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Cochran Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Parrish Branch
Assessed Len th 402 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. AA22radation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
1
402
0%
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
22
22
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
22
22
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
22
22
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
22
22
100
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
22
22
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion.
0 0
100 %
0
0 100
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%
0
0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0 0
100%
0
0 100%
Totals
0 0
100%
0
0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
19
19
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
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 doesNOT exceed
15 %
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
100%

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Cochran Stream and Wetland Restoration Pro'ect
Planted Acrea e : 10.05
% of
Vegetation Category
DeTinitions
CCPV Depiction
Number of
Combined
Planted
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
N/A
0
0.00
0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4,
2. Low Stem Density Areas
or 5 stem count criteria.
N/A
0
0.00
0%
Totals
0
0.00
0%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
given the monitoring year.
N/A
0
0.00
0%
Cumulative Totalsl
0
1 0.00
1 0%
Easement Acreage: 10.05
% of
Vegetation Category
DeTinitions
CCPV Depiction
Number of
Combined
Easement
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
N/A
0
0.00
0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
N/A
0
0.00
0%
N/A - Item does not apply.

1�
It
Awwt
17
7ik
�. >s
c"i'iE
Jti �

S44

Cochran Branch W5 2019 Photo Station Photos
Cochran Branch — Permanent Photo Station 4
South Southeast 160'
October 23, 2019
Cochran Branch — Permanent Photo Station 5
Southeast 150'
October 23, 2019

Cochran Branch W5 2019 Photo Station Photos
Cochran Branch — Permanent Photo Station 6
Station 114+62 — Upstream 186'
October 23, 2019
Parrish Branch — Permanent Photo Station 7
Station 200+25 — Downstream
October 23, 2019

v ( P
J ram. ��._��,'. �
Y �I 8'!1
i
•_ �, r ,�
� ,
_..167
,
,Y l
au
:-71
"ak 4
,p r ns y i �l alf a

Cochran Branch MY5 2019 Vegetation Plot Photos
Cochran - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1
October 23, 2019
w w
A
7h �r a a
Cochran - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2
October 23, 2019

Cochran Branch MY5 2019 Vegetation Plot Photos
Cochran - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 3
October 23, 2019
Cochran - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 4
October 23, 2019

�� �� � &«• . _
` \�lT54% \\/
° © : ;
�
^� ©21
®\^ \\w

Cochran Branch MY5 2019 Vegetation Plot Photos
Cochran - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 7
October 23, 2019
Cochran - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 8
October 23, 2019

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Summary
Plot #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Success
Criteria
Met?
Average
Planted Stem
Height (ft)
1
283
0
283
Yes
5.2
2
688
0
688
Yes
4.8
3
324
0
324
Yes
4.9
4
445
162
607
Yes
3.7
5
526
0
526
Yes
6.1
6
445
0
445
Yes
5.5
7
364
0
364
Yes
3.0
8
405
40
445
Yes
1.8
Project Avg
435
25
460
Yes
4.5

Table 8: CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Report Prepared By
Ran Mednc
Date Prepared
10/23/2019 13:38
database name
Cochran _MY5_2019.mdb
database location
C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbox (RES)\@RES Projects\North
Carolina\Cochran Bra nch\Monitoring\Monitoring
Data\MY5 2019\Vegetation Data
computer name
D4VOKGH2
file size
61775872
DESCRIPTION
OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary
of project(s) and project data.
Pro', planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each
year. This excludes live stakes.
Pro', total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year.
This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems,
dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor bSpp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences
and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and
SPP
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for
each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted
and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing
stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code
95720
project Name
Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland
Description
River Basin
Little Tennessee
len th ft
stream -to -edge width ft
areas m
Required Plots calculated
Sampled Plots
8

Table 9. Planted Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot)
Cochran Branch
Current Plot Data (MY5 2019)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
95720-01-0001
95720-01-0002
95720-01-0003
95720-01-0004
95720-01-0005
95720-01-0006
95720-01-0007
95720-01-0008
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
Acer rubrum var. rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
1
Alnus
alder
Shrub
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
3
3
3
4
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentali
buttonbush
Shrub
1
1
1
Diospyrosvirginiana
persimmon
Tree
2
2
2
5
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera vztuliptree
Tree
3
3
3
8
8
8
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis var.
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
10
10
10
4
4
4
71
7
7
10
10
10
4
4
4
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
2
2
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
wateroak
Tree
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus rubra var. rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix nigra
blackwillow
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
elderberry
Shrub
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
7
7
7
17
171
17
8
8
8
111
111
15
13
13
13
111
111
11
9
9
9
10
10
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
5
283
283
283
688
688
688
324
324
324
445
445
607
5261
526
5261
445
4451
445
3641
364
364
4051
405
445
'PnoLS: No livestakes included in tally; P-all: All planted stems included in tally; T: Total stems including recruitment.

Table 9. Planted Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot)
Cochran Branch
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY5 (2019)
MY4 (2018)
MY3 (2017)
MY2 (2016)
MY1(2015)
MYO (2015)
PnoLS
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
3
Acer rubrum var. rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
4
4
4
Alnus
alder
Shrub
1 5
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
3
3
7
3
4
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
12
12
12
14
14
14
16
16
16
Cephalanthus occidentali
buttonbush
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
persimmon
Tree
7
7
7
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
3
Liriodendron tulipifera v
tuliptree
Tree
11
11
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
6
6
6
10
10
10
27
27
27
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis var.
American sycamore
Tree
37
37
37
38
38
38
36
36
36
39
39
39
45
45
45
48
48
48
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
23
23
23
38
38
38
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
7
7
7
9
9
9
9
9
9
13
13
13
9
9
9
11
11
11
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
7
7
7
10
10
10
13
13
13
19
19
19
9
9
9
8
8
8
Quercus rubra var. rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
blackwillow
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
7
4
Sambucus canadensis
elderberry
Shrub
2
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
Stem count
86
86
91
881
88
106
93
93
103
107
107
126
115
115
119
156
156
156
size (ares)
8
8
8
8
8
8
size (ACRES)
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
Species count
13
131
14
10
10
13
10
10
13
12
12
15
9
9
10
10
10
10
Stems per ACRE
435
435
460
445
445
536
470
470
521
541
541
637
582
582
602
789
789
789
'PnoLS: No livestakes included in tally; P-all: All planted stems included in tally; T: Total stems including recruitment.

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data

Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Cochran Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Cochran Branch la 379 feet
Parameter
Regional Cure
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach Data
Design
As -Built/ Baseline'
Dimension&Substrate - Riffle
ILL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Bankfull Width (ft)
-
-
18.9
9.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
1.4
2
23.4
24.7
-
24.7
-
-
-
14.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Floodprone Width (ft)
12.0
18.5
18.5
25.0
9.2
2
43.0
48.0
-
52.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BankfullMeanDepth(ft)
-
-
1.3
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.1
2
1.3
1.4
-
1.5
-
-
-
0.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BankfullMaxDepth(ft)
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.5
0.2
2
1.8
1.8
-
2.2
-
-
-
1.13
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
21.5
9.6
9.8
9.8
10.0
0.3
2
33.4
33.4
-
34.6
-
-
-
1=.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
Width/DepthRatio
8.4
10.3
10.3
12.1
2.6
2
15.8
18.3
-
18.4
-
-
-
17.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Entrenclunent Ratio
1.3
1.8
1.8
2.3
0.7
2
1.7
1.9
-
2.1
-
-
-
SA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BankHeightRatio
0.9
1.5
1.5
2.0
0.8
2
I.0
1.2
-
1.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
d50 (nun)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
20.0
29.0
-
40.0
-
-
-
-
-
10.9
20.4
18.8
31.7
8.6
7
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.015
0.023
-
0.028
-
-
0.009
0.017
0.025
0.007
0.017
0.021
0.025
0.007
7
Pool Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.0
18.0
-
42.0
-
-
-
-
-
5.3
10.7
8.7
21.6
5.5
7
Pool Max Depth(ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
2.3
-
2.3
-
-
-
-
-
2.0
2.4
2.4
3.1
0.4
6
Pool Spacing (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
51.0
87.0
-
113.0
-
-
34.1
45.4
56.8
36.2
48.6
47.6
62.2
9.6
6
Pattern
Channel Belt Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
43.0
-
-
-
-
18.7
24.9
31.2
17.1
27
28.7
33.4
7.4
4
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
44.0
75.0
-
103.0
-
-
25.0
31.0
37.0
24.0
37.6
43.9
44.8
11.8
3
Re : BankMI Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.6
2.6
3.0
3.0
0.8
3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
73.9
92.8
92.4
116
19.2
5
Meander Width Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
-
1.5
-
1.2
1.8
2.0
2.3
0.5
4
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri% /Ru%/P%/G%/S%
-
-
421/./281/./221/./ 71/./0%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
-/56%/-/-/-/-
1%/10%/ 48%/41%/ 0%/ 1%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/diP/di- (rrun)
3/4 /6/11/14 /-/-
5.2/22/45/130/190/-/-
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
-
1947.
0.47
-
MaxPart Size (=) Mobilized at Bankftdl
-
91
45
-
StreamPower (Transport Capacity) W/m2
-
-
1.6
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (mi)
1.11
2.77
Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
-
-
Rosgm Classification
G
134
134
B
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
-
-
4.5
3.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
-
-
123.0
66.0
Valley Length (ft)
-
380
321
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
-
400
337
379
Sinuosity
-
1.10
1.05
1.18
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
0.035
0.033
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
0.035
0.033
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-
-
-
Proportion Over Wide (%)
-
-
Entrenclunent Class (ER Range)
-
-
Incision Class (BHR Range)
-
-
BEHI
20.6
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-
-
Biological or Other
-
-
'Reach less than 500 feet and restricted to visual assessment; no cross -sections located in this reach
- Information unavailable.
Non -Applicable.

Table 10 Cont'd. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Cochran Stream and Wetland Restoration Pro'ect - Cochran Branch lb 1,101 feet
Parameter
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing ConditionReference
Reach Data
Design
As -Built / Baseline
Dimension&Substrate - Rime
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.9
7.0
7.9
7.5
9.5
1.2
4
12.0
14.4
-
16.5
-
-
-
14.7
-
14.6
16.6
17.3
17.8
1.77
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
15.0
16.8
16.0
20.0
2.2
4
60.0
72.5
-
72.5
-
-
-
-
-
135.0
168.5
173.5
197.0
31.3
3
BankfullMcanDepth (ft)
-
-
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.5
0.2
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
09
-
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.11
3
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.8
0.2
4
19
2.3
-
3.3
-
-
-
1.1,,
-
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.5
0.24
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
21.5
8.3
1 10.5
10.9
12.1
1.6
4
18.2
25.9
-
35.9
-
-
-
11 1
-
11.0
13.7
13.6
16.6
2.78
3
Width/Depth Ratio
4.7
6.0
5.6
1 8.1
1 1.5
1 4
7.1
1 8.2
-
10.0
-
-
-
11.0
-
18.1
20.3
19.2
23.4
2.8
3
Entrenchment Ratio
1.7
2.2
2.2
2.5
0.3
4
4.3
4.9
-
5.5
-
-
-
11.E
-
9.3
10.1
10.0
11.0
0.85
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.5
1.9
2.0
2.2
0.3
4
0.7
1.1
-
1.6
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 0
3
d50 (m,,)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
62.6
82.0
-
101.4
-
-
-
-
-
12.4
29.5
33.6
47.0
11.6
17
Riffle Slope(ft/ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.006
0.006
-
0.007
-
-
0.006
0.008
0.009
0.001
0.006
0.006
0.017
0.004
17
Pool Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
13.4
45.1
-
80.3
-
-
-
-
-
16.2
24.1
24.2
31.0
4.6
17
Pool Max Depth(ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.4
0.5
-
0.6
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
3.1
3.0
4.2
0.5
17
Pool Spacing (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
67.9
84.9
-
101.9
-
-
62.3
74.8
87.3
38.0
60.2
59.5
86.8
15.6
17
Pattern
Channel Belt Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
24.9
49.9
62.3
17.2
33.9
29.0
64.0
13.9
11
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19.0
25.0
31.0
22.5
29.1
27.4
36.6
5.2
7
Rc. Bankfull Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.4
1.8
1.7
2.2
0.3
7
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
38.1
130.8
136.9
249.7
58.2
12
Meander Width Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.2
-
1.0
2.0
1.7
3.9
0.8
11
S ubstrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
-
-
50% /31/./390/./80/./0%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
-/30%/-/-/-/-
-/9%/-/-/-/-/-
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/diP/diaP(mm)
4/8/11 /22 /29 /-/-
7/26/54/68/70/-/-
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
-
-
0.4'
-
M ax Part Size (mm) Mobilized at Bankfull
-
-
4
-
Stream Power (Transport Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (mi)
1.20
0.72
Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
-
-
Rosgen Classification
G
E4
Cl
C
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
-
-
-
66.0
Valley Length (ft)
-
-
989
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
-
416 J
1,088
1,101
Sinuosity
-
-
1.1
1.12
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
0.0085
0.0076
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
-
0.0068
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
-
-
-
Proportion Over Wide(%)
-
-
Entrenchment Class (F,R Range)
-
-
Incision Class (BHR Range)
-
-
BEHI
25.7
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-
-
Biological or Other
-
-
- Information unavailable.
Non-Appli

Table 10 Cont'd. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Cochran Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Parrish Branch 402 feet
Parameter
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach Data
Design
As -Built / Baseline
Dimension&Substrate -Riffle
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
N
Bankfull Width (ft)
-
-
7.4
3.5
4.1
4.1
4.7
0.8
2
23.4
24.7
-
24.7
-
-
-
5,4
-
4.4
5.2
5.2
5.9
1.06
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
0.0
2
43.0
48
-
52.0
-
-
-
-
-
14.2
19.1
19.1
24.0
6.93
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
-
-
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.1
2
1.3
1.35
-
1.5
-
-
-
0.4
-
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.03
2
Bankfull M ac Depth (ft)
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.1
2
1.8
1.8
-
2.2
-
-
-
0.57
-
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.01
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
4.0
1.4
1 1.9
1.9
2.3
0.6
2
33.4
33.4
-
34.6
-
-
-
2.2
-
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.1
0.23
2
Width/Depth Ratio
8.5
9.0
9.0
1 9.5
1 0.7
1 2
15.8
18.
-
18.4
-
-
-
13.4
-
10.9
13.8
13.8
16.6
3.99
2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
2.0
2.0
2.3
0.5
2
1.7
1.9
-
2.1
-
-
-
5.6
-
3.2
3.6
3.6
4.0
0.57
2
Bank Height Ratio
2.3
6.2
6.2
10.0
5.4
2
1.0
1.2
-
1.3
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0
d50 (mm)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
20.0
29.0
-
40.0
-
-
-
-
-
6.1
10.0
9.8
15.5
2.3
22
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.015
0.023
-
0.028
-
-
0.017
0.026
0.035
0.001
0.025
0.023
0.047
0.013
22
Pool Length (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.0
18.0
-
42.0
-
-
-
-
-
1.7
5.0
4.5
10.2
2.0
22
Pool Mac Depth(ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.3
2.3
-
2.3
-
-
-
-
-
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.9
0.2
22
Pool Spacing (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
51.0
87.0
-
113.0
-
-
1-4
16.5
20.7
13.5
17.2
15.5
25.2
3.4
21
Pattern
Channel Belt Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
43.0
-
-
-
-
6.4
8.5
10.6
6.9
9.9
9.8
12.6
1.4
14
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
44.0
75.0
-
103.0
-
-
9.0
11.0
13.0
5.8
9.5
8.9
15.3
3.2
8
Re Bankfull Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.1
1.8
1.7
2.9
0.6
8
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100.0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
29.1
32.1
31.4
39.7
2.7
15
Meander Width Ratio
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
-
-
-
2.8
-
1.3
1.9
1.9
2.4
0.3
14
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
-
-
590/,/ 00/,/ 290/,/ 50/,/ 7%
SC%/Sa1./G%1 C%/B%/Be%
-
1%/ 10% /48% /41% /0% / 1%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/diP/di- (mm)
-
5.2/ 22 / 45/ 130/ 190
Reach Shear Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
-
1.947
0.47
-
MaxPart Size (mrr) Mobilized at Bankfull
-
91
45
-
Stream Power (Transport Capacity) W/m2
-
-
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (mi)
0.10
2.77
Impervious Cover Estimate(%)
-
-
Rosgen Classification
G
B4
B4
B
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
-
-
4.5
-
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
-
-
123.0
9.0
Valley Length (ft)
-
380.0
375
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
-
400.0
394
402
Sinuosity
-
1.1
1.05
1.07
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
0.033
0.025
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
-
0.029
Bankfull Floodplam Area (acres)
-
-
-
Proportion Over Wide (%)
-
-
Entrenchment Class (ER Range)
-
-
Incision Class (BHR Range)
-
-
BEHI
26.6
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-
-
Biological or Other
-
-
- Information unavailable.
Non -Applicable.

Table lla. Baseline Morphology & Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Cochran Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Cross -Section 1 (Pool)
Cochran Banch
Cross -Section 2 (Riffle)
Cochran Branch
Cross -Section 3 (Riffle)
Cochran Branch
Cross -Section 4 (Pool)
Cochran Branch
Cross -Section 5 (Pool)
Cochran Branch
Dimension
Base
MY1
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
Base
MY1
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
Base
MY1
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
Base
MY1
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
Base
MY1
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA'
2,156.1
2,156.1
2,156.1
2,156.6
N/A
2,155.8
2,155.8
2,155.8
2,156.1
2,156.2
2,152.1
2,152.1
2,152.1
2,152.2
2,152.3
2,151.9
2,151.9
2,151.9
2,151.9
N/A
2,149.9
2,149.9
2,149.9
2,149.8
N/A
Bankfull Width (ft)'
16.7
16.8
20.6
36.3
N/A
17.3
17.1
16.9
23.4
25.4
1 14.6
15.4
15.3
19.3
19.6
1 16.2
17.4
16.8
15.3
N/A
17.0
17.3
16.8
14.0
N/A
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>217.0
>217.0
>52.5
>52.6
N/A
>173.5
>173.5
>54.7
>54.6
>54.6
>135.0
>135
>59.7
>59.6
>59.7
>217.5
>217.5
>59.0
>59.0
N/A
>236.5
>236.5
>52.9
>52.8
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.1
0.9
0.8
-
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
-
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
-
1.9
1.8
1.9
2.0
-
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
3.1
2.6
2.3
2.7
1.9
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.6
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.9
3.5
4.3
4.2
4.1
3.9
3.3
3.4
3.1
3.5
3.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
27.5
19.2
19.5
27.5
9.7
16.6
15.2
14.0
16.6
10.2
11.0
11.3
10.8
11.0
5.7
31.0
31.3
32.7
31.0
25.2
25.4
26.4
25.2
25.4
24.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
14.7
21.8
48.0
-
18.1
19.2
20.4
33.0
-
19.2
20.8
21.6
33.9
-
8.5
9.7
8.6
7.6
-
11.4
11.4
11.2
7.7
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>13
>12.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
>10
>10.2
>3.2
>2.3
>2.2
>9.3
>8.8
>3.9
>3.1
>3
>13.4
>12.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
>13.9
>13.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
0.9
Q.0
Q
1.0
1.0
1.1
Q.0
Q
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
d50 (mm)
-
N/A
N/A
N/A
I -
1.4
26
1 6.7
6.6
28.0
28
7.4
7.7
-
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cross -Section 6 (Riffle)
Cochran Branch
Cross -Section 7 (Riffle)
Parrish Branch
Cross -Section 8 (Pool)
Parrish Branch
Cross -Section 9 (Riffle)
Parrish Branch
Dimension
Base
MY1
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
Base
MY1
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
Base
MY1
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
Base
MY1
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA'
2149.7
2149.7
2149.7
2149.9
2150.0
2160.2
2160.2
2160.2
2160.7
2160.9
2159.8
2159.8
2159.8
2160.0
N/A
2154.6
2154.6
2154.6
2155.0
2155.1
Bankfull Width (ft)'
17.8
17.9
15.6
20.6
25.3
4.4
4.5
3.7
10.5
15.6
6.8
7.2
8.0
10.9
N/A
5.9
6.6
5.8
8.6
4.7
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>197.0
>197.0
>54.5
>54.5
>54.5
>14.2
>14.2
11.9
24
>26.5
>93.7
>93.7
>28.2
>28.1
N/A
>24.0
>24.0
>29.3
>31.8
>31.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
-
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
-
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
-
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1 1.5
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.3
1 0.4
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.0
0.3
0.6
0.6
1 0.6
0.8
1 0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
13.6
13.6
12.1
13.6
7.0
1.8
2.0
0.6
1.8
0.5
5.2
5.5
5.0
5.2
1.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
23.4
23.4
20.2
31.1
-
10.9
10.4
23.6
62.5
-
9.0
9.6
12.7
22.8
-
16.6
21.7
17.0
35.7
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>11.0
>11.0
>3.5
>2.7
>2.2
>3.2
>3.1
3.2
2.3
>1.7
>13.7
>12.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
>4.0
>3.7
>5.1
>3.7
>6.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
Q.0
Q
1.0
1.0
1.0
Q.0
Q
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.1
d50 (mm)
11.0
24
0.62
12
4.3
1.6
0.062
1.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.9
3.2
0.062
1.4
N/A - Item does not apply.
- Information Unavailable
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with' were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup
consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Table 11b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Cochran Stream and Wetland Restoration Pro'ect - Cochran lb (1,101 feet)
Parameter
Baseline
MY - 1
MY-2
MY-3
MY-4
MY-5
MY-6
MY-7
Dimension & Substrate- Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ff'
14.6
16.6
17.3
17.8
1.8
3
15.4
16.8
17.1
17.9
1.3
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
15.3
15.9
15.6
16.9
0.9
3
19.3
21.1
20.6
23.4
2.1
3
19.6
23.4
25.3
25.4
3.3
3
-
-
-
-
-
Floodprone Width ft'
135.0
168.5
173.5
197.0
31.3
3
135.0
168.5
173.5
197.0
31.3
3
54.5
56.3
54.7
59.7
2.9
3
>54.5
>56.2
>54.6
>59.6
2.9
3
54.5
56.3
54.6
59.7
3.0
3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.1
3
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.1
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.1
3
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.1
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth (Iff
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.5
0.2
3
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.4
0.2
3
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.4
0.2
3
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.8
0.3
3
0.7
1.1
0.9
1.6
0.5
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftT'
11.0
13.7
13.6
16.6
2.8
3
11.3
13.4
13.6
15.2
2.0
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
10.8
12.3
12.1
14.0
1.6
3
11.0
13.7
13.6
16.6
2.8
3
5.7
7.6
7.0
10.2
2.3
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Width/Depth Rati
18.1
20.3
19.2
23.4
2.8
3
19.2
21.1
20.8
23.4
2.1
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
20.2
20.7
20.4
21.6
0.8
3
31.1
32.7
33.0
33.9
1.4
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Rah
9.3
10.1
10.0
11.0
0.9
3
8.8
10.0
10.2
11.0
1.1
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.2
3.5
3.5
3.9
0.4
3
>2.3
>2.7
>2.7
>3.1
0.4
3
2.2
2.5
2.2
3.0
0.5
3
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratic'
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.1
3
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
0.0
3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
12.4
29.5
33.6
47.0
11.6
17
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.001
0.006
0.006
0.017
0.004
17
Pool Length (ft)
16.2
24.1
24.2
31.0
4.6
17
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.3
3.1
3.0
4.2
0.5
17
Pool Spacing (ft)
38.0
60.2
59.5
86.8
15.6
17
Pattern
Channel Belt Width (ft)
17.2
33.9
29.0
64.0
13.9
11
Radius of Curvature (ft)
22.5
29.1
27.4
36.6
5.217
Rc: Bankfull Width (ft/ft
1.36
1.8
1.65
2.20J8.2
7
Meander Wavelength (ft)
38.1
130.8
136.9
249.712
Meander Width Ratio
1.0
2.0
1.7
3.9
11
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classificatior
C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,101
Sinuosity (ft)
1.12
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0076
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0068
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
50% 1 3% 1 39% 1 8% 0%
- Information Unavailable
N/A - Information does not apply.
Ri = Riffle / Ru = Run / P = Pool / G = Glide / S = Step

Table 11b cont'd. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Cochran Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Parrish Branch (402 feet)
Parameter
Baseline
MY - 1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
MY- 6
MY- 7
Dimension & Substrate- Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ff'
4.4
5.2
5.2
5.9
1.1
2
4.5
5.6
5.6
6.6
1.5
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.7
4.8
4.8
5.8
1.5
2
8.6
9.6
9.6
10.5
1.3
2
4.7
10.2
10.2
15.6
7.7
2
-
-
-
-
-
Floodprone Width ft'
14.2
19.1
19.1
24.0
6.9
2
14.2
19.1
19.1
24.0
6.9
2
11.9
20.6
20.6
29.3
12.3
2
24.0
>27.9
>27.9
>31.8
5.5
2
26.5
29.0
29.0
31.5
3.5
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.0
2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.1
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth fflY
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.0
2
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.1
2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.1
2
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.4
2
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.3
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2'e
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.1
0.2
2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
1.3
1.3
2.0
1.0
2
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.1
0.2
2
0.5
1.6
1.6
2.6
1.5
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Width/Depth Ran
10.9
13.8
13.8
16.6
4.0
2
10.4
16.1
16.1
21.7
8.0
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
17.0
20.3
20.3
23.6
4.7
2
35.7
49.1
49.1
62.5
19.0
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BankfullEntienchmentRatiC'
3.2
3.6
3.6
4.0
0.6
2
3.1
3.4
3.4
3.7
0.4
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.2
4.2
4.2
5.1
1.3
2
2.3
>3
>3
>3.7
1.0
2
1.7
4.2
4.2
6.7
3.5
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Bank Height Ratic'
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
2
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.0
0.0
2
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.1
2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
6.1
10.0
9.8
15.5
2.3
22
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.00
0.025
0.023
0.047
0.013
Pool Length (ft)
1.7
5.0
4.5
10.2
2.
E
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.9
0.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
13.5
17.2
15.5
25.2
3.4
21
Pattern
Channel Belt Width (fBI
6.9
1 9.9
1 9.8
1 12.6
1 1.4
1 14
Radius of Curvature (fBI
5.8
1 9.5
1 8.9
1 15.3
1 3.2
1 8
Rc: Bankfull Width (ft/ft
1.1
1.8
1.7
2.9
0.6
8
Meander Wavelength (fB
29.1
32.1
31.4
39.7
2.7
15
-
Meander Width Ratiol
1.3
1 1.9
1 1.9
1 2.4
1 0.3
1 14
EtE
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
402
Sinuosity (ft)
1.07
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.025
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.029
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
59% 1 0% 1 29% 1 5% 1 7%
- Information Unavailable
N/A - Information does not apply.
Ri = Riffle / Ru = Run / P = Pool / G = Glide / S = Step

Upstream
Downstream
Cochran - Cochran Branch - Cross Section 1 - Pool
2158
2157
2156
2155
- -
- -
- -
-
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
w 2154
2153
2152
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Year 3 -Year 4 - Year 5 - - • Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area - - - Low TOB
Cross Section 1 (Pool)
Dimension
Base
My
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSAr
2156.1
2156.1
2156.1
2156.6
N/A
Bankfull Width (ft)'
16.7
16.8
20.6
36.3
N/A
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>217.0
>217.0
>52.5
>52.6
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.6
1.1
0.9
0.8
Bankfiill Max Depth (ft)2
3.1
2.6
2.3 1
2.7
1.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (112)2
27.5
19.2
19.5
27.5
9.7
Bankfiill Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
14.7
21.8
48.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>13.0
>12.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfiill Bank Height Ratio'l
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Note: Starting in MYS, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfall
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfall elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Cochran - Cochran Branch - Cross Section 2 - Riffle
2159
2158
2157
x
o.
m
W
w
2155
- - - -
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
2154
2153
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 - - -Approx. Bankfull - Floodprone Area - - - Low TOB
Cross Section 2
Riffle
Dimension
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
BankfullElevation ft -Based on AB-XSA'
2155.8
2155.8
2155.8
2156.1
2156.2
Bankfull Width (ft)'
17.3
17.1
16.9
23.4
25.4
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>173.5
>173.5
>54.7
>54.6
>54.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
-
BankfullMax Depth (ft)2
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.6
BankfullCross Sectional Area (ft2)2
16.6
15.2
14.0
16.6
10.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
18.1
19.2
20.4
33.0
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>10.0
>10.2
-
>3.2
>2.3
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
0.9
Q.0
Q
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfall
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfall elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Cochran - Cochran Branch - Cross Section 3 - Riffle
2156
2155
2154
2153
2152
2151
2150
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year1 Year3 Year4 - Year - - -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area - - -Low TOB
Cross Section 3
Riffle)
Dimension
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
Bankfu 11 Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSAI
2152.1
2152.1
2152.1
2152.2
2152.3
Bankfull Width (ft)'
14.6
15.4
15.3
19.3
19.6
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>135.0
>135
>59.7
>59.6
>59.7
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
-
BankfullMax Depth (ft)2
1.0
1.1
1.1 1
1.2
0.9
Bankfull Cros s Sectional Area (ft2)2
11.0
11.3
10.8
11.0
5.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
19.2
20.8
21.6
33.9
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>9.3
>8.8
>3.9
>3.1
>3
BankfullBank Height Ratior
1.0
1.0
1.1
<1.0
<1
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfall elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Cochran - Cochran Branch - Cross Section 4 - Pool
2154
2153
2152
2151
OTT
_ _
_
- -
_
_ _ _
_ _ _
_
_
- - - -
- -
- -
- -
-
- - - -
- - -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
0
>
2150
w
2149
2148
2147
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year1 Year3 _Year4 Year5 - - -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area - - -Low TOB
Cross Section 4 Pool
Dimension
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) -Based on AB-XSAr
2151.9
2151.9
2151.9
2151.9
N/A
Bankfull Width (ft)'
16.2
17.4
16.8
15.3
N/A
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>217.5
>217.5
>59.0
>59.0
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
1.9
1.8
1.9
2.0
BankfullMax Depth (ft)2
3.5
4.3
4.2
4.1
3.9
Bankfull Cros s Sectional Area (ft2)2
31.0
31.3
32.7
31.0
25.2
Bankfull W idth/Depth Ratio
8.5
9.7
8.6
7.6
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratioi
>13.4
>12.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratior
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfall
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfall elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Cochran - Cochran Branch - Cross Section 5 - Pool
2152
2151
x-
2150
- -
- - - -
- -
- -
- - -
-
- -
- - - -
- -
- -
- -
-
- - - -
2149
w
2148
2147
2146
0 5 10 15 20
25
30 35
40
45 50
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year1 Year3
Year4
Year5
- - -Approx. Bankfull
Floodprone
Area - - -Low TOB
Cross Section 5
Pool
Di
Bas e
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Bas ed on AB-XSAr
2149.9
2149.9
2149.9
2149.8
N/A
Bankfull Width (ft)'
17.0
17.3
16.8
14.0
N/A
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>236.5
>236.5
>52.9
>52.8
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.8
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
3.3
3.4
3.1
3.5
1 3.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
25.4
26.4
25.2
25.4
24.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.4
11.4
11.2
7.7
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>13.9
>13.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio]
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfall
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfall elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Cochran - Cochran Branch - Cross Section 6 - Riffle
2153
2152
2151
2150
w 2149
2148
2147
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
Baseline -Yearl Year3 Year4 Year5 - - -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area - - -Low TOB
Cross Section 6
Riffle
Di
Bas e
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
BankfaHElevation(ft)- BasedonAB-XSAr
2149.7
2149.7
2149.7
2149.9
2150.0
Bankfull Width (ft)'
17.8
17.9
15.6
20.6
25.3
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>197.0
>197.0
>54.5
>54.5
>54.5
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
Bankfull Max De th (ft)2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.5
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
13.6
13.6
12.1
13.6
7.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
23.4
23.4
20.2
31.1
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>11.0
>11.0
-
>3.5
>2.7
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiol
1.0
1.0
1.0
Q.0
Q
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfall
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfall elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
J
Cochran - Parrish Branch - Cross Section 7 - Riffle
2164
2163
2162
x
2161
w
2160
2159
2158
0
Baseline
5 10 15 20
Year 1 Year 3 Year 4
25 30 35
Distance (ft)
Year 5 - - • Approx. Bankfull
40 45 50
Floodprone Area - - - Low TOB
Cross Section 7
Riffle)
Dimension
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSAI
2160.2
2160.2
2160.2
2160.7
2160.9
Bankfu 11 Width (ft)'
4.4
4.5
3.7
10.5
15.6
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>14.2
>14.2
11.9
24.0
>26.5
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.3
1 0.4
Bankfull Cros s Sectional Area (ft2)2
1.8
2.0
0.6
1.8
0.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.9
10.4
23.6
62.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>3.2
>3.1
3.2
2.3
>1.7
BankfnHBank Height Ratior
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1.0
<1
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the banktull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfall elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Cochran - Parrish Branch - Cross Section 8 - Pool
2163
2162
2161
2160
w 2159
77
-
--
-
-
2158
2157
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year 1 Year3 - -Year4 Year5 - - •Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area - - -Low MB
Cross Section 8 (Pool)
Di
Bas e
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) -Based on AB-XSAr
2159.8
2159.8
2159.8
2160.0
N/A
Bankfull Width (ft)'
6.8
7.2
8.0
10.9
N/A
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>937
>93.7
>28.2
>28.1
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
-
BankfullMaxDepth (ft)2
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.0
1 0.3
Bankfull Cros s Sectional Area (ft2)2
5.2
5.5
5.0
5.2
1.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.0
9.6
12.7
22.8
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>13.7
>12.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'l
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the banktull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfall elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Cochran - Parrish Branch - Cross Section 9 - Riffle
2158
2157
2156
2155
-
-
w 2154
2153
2152
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
Baseline - Year 1 Year3 -Year4 Year5 - - -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area - - -Low TOB
Cross Section 9
Riffle
Dimension
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) -Based on AB-XSA'
2154.6
2154.6
2154.6
2155.0
2155.1
Bankfull Width (ft)'
5.9
6.6
5.8
8.6
4.7
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>24.0
>24.0
>29.3
>31.8
>31.5
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
BankfullMax Depth (ft)2
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
BankfullCross Sectional Area (ft2)2
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.6
21.7
17.0
35.7
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>4.0
>3.7
>5.1
>3.7
>6.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.1
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfall
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfall elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
MY - 2015
MY3 - 2017
MY4 - 2018
MY5 - 2019
Pebble Count
Pebble Count
Pebble Count
Pebble Count
Stream Reach
D50 (nun)
D84 (mm)
D50 (mm)
D84 (mm)
D50 (mm)
D84 (mm)
D50 (nun)
D84 (MM)
R-1
13.5
4.1
26.0
2.4
4.9
0.1
8.8
23.0
R-2
46.3
22.5
64.7
10.0
15.7
0.1
1.4
1.8
MY5 Stream Reach Substrate Composition
Cochran Branch MY5 Substrate Composition
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble
MR-1 ■ R-2
Boulder Bedrock

Cochran Branch R-1 - Substrate Composition
8(M
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% •
Silt/Clay
120%
100%
80%
lull
Sand Gravel Cobble
a MY1 a MY3 ■ MY4 F• MY5
Boulder Bedrock
Cochran Branch R-Z - Substrate Composition
W/o
40°/a
20%
0% E 1 I -
Sift/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble
■ MY1 ■ MY3 a MY4 : MY5
Boulder Bedrock

Table 13. Cochran Bank Pin Array Summary
Year 1 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Bank Pin Location Position Reading (mm) Reading (mm) Reading (mm) Reading (mm)
Cross Section 1
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross Section
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
Cross Section 4
Upstream
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross Section
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
Cross Section 8
Upstream
0.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross Section
0.0
7.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
8.0
0.0
0.0
- Geomorphological data was not collected in MY2

Appendix E
Hydrology Data

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data Collection
Estimated Date of Occurrence
Method
Maximum Bankfull Height (ft) Photo #
Cochran B
12/29/2015 12/24/2015
Crest Gauge
0.86 w i
3/24/2016
2/3/2016
Crest Gauge
0.68
W2
8/17/2016
7/15/2016
Crest Gauge
0.58
W2
10/3/2017 5/21/2017
Parrish
4/17/2017 4/3/2017
Crest Gauge
Crest Gauge
0.92 W3
0.6 W3
4/17/2017
2/28/2017
Crest Gauge
0.38
W3
10/3/2017
5/21/2017
Crest Gauge
0.79
W3
10/3/2018
8/1/2018
Crest Gauge
1.08
W4
Note: Crest gauges malfunctioned in MY5 2019 therefore no bankfull events were recorded
Photo Verification of Bankfull Events
N/A

Table 15. 2019 Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal Limits
Franklin
Station
30 Percent
70 Percent
January
5.18
3.78
6.10
4.95
February
4.32
2.94
5.16
8.92
March
5.05
3.60
5.97
5.38
April
4.82
3.64
5.62
7.49
May
4.19
2.90
4.99
5.43
June
4.64
3.32
5.48
6.74
July
4.61
3.33
5.44
2.73
August
4.49
3.21
5.31
3.49
September
4.37
2.74
5.28
0.26
October
2.94
1.26
3.58
7.28
November
4.26
2.70
5.13
3.13
December
5.49
4.04
6.44
5.90
Total
54.36
37.46
64.50
61.70
*On -Site rain gauge malfunctioned in 2019
Notes:
CRONOS Database - Franklin (313228)
Table 16. Wetland Hydrology Attainment Data
Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Cochran Stream & Wetland Restoration Site
Success Criteria Achieved/ Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season Percent
Year 1*
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
Gauge ID
(2015)
(2016)
(2017)
(2018)
(2019)
(2020)
(2021)
Yes/ 18
Yes/ 40
No/2
Gauge
Yes/ 104.5
10%
21.4%
1%
malfunction
56%
Yes/ 132
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 171.5
Gauge
es/ 187
GW-2
71%
100%
92%
malfunction
100%
Yes/ 132
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 171
Gauge
es/ 187
GW-3
71%
1 100%
91%
malfunction
100%
Yes/ 132
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 171.5
Yes/ 170
Yes/ 187
GW-4
71%
100%
92%
91%
100%
Yes/ 132
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 171.5
Yes/ 169.5
Yes/ 187
GW-5
71%
100%
92%
91%
100%
Yes/ 132
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 171.5
Yes/ 169.5
Yes/ 187
GW-6
71%
100%
92%
91%
100%
Yes/ 132
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 171.5
Yes/ 169.5
Yes/ 187
GW-7
71%
100%
92%
91%
100%
Yes/ 132
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 171.5
Yes/ 169.5
Yes/ 187
GW-8
°
100%
°
91°
100%
Hydrology Success Criteria = 8%; Growing season = April 16 - October 19 (187 days)
*Max consecutive days during growing season limitedto 132 days due to shortened growing season. Percent based on full 187 day growing season
**Located outside of wetland crediting area

LAC
W
61
-15
-20 -W
Jan
2019 Cochran Branch Groundwater Gauge AW1
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
Franklin Daily Rainfall -CB AW1
- 10.0
- 9.0
- 8.0
- 7.0
5.0 0
4.0 v
a
- 3.0
2.0
o
Ewe

LAC
W
61
-15
-20 -W
Jan
2019 Cochran Branch Groundwater Gauge AW2
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
Franklin Daily Rainfall -CB AW2
- 10.0
- 9.0
- 8.0
- 7.0
5.0 0
4.0 v
a
- 3.0
2.0
o
Ewe

LAC
W
61
-15
2019 Cochran Branch Groundwater Gauge AW3
Growing Season
E,
ILA 1,. .11
-20
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
Franklin Daily Rainfall -CB AW3
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
5.0 00
4.0 v
2.0
Fie,

LAC
W
61
-15
2019 Cochran Branch Groundwater Gauge AW4
Growing Season
III Aill.1, , l.,,Il 11 1 LA II
-20 as
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
Franklin Daily Rainfall -CB AW4
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
5.0 0
4.0 v
2.0
Fie,
Ewe

LAC
W
61
-15
2019 Cochran Branch Groundwater Gauge AW5
Growing Season
N Nr
k I LA 1 .11
-20
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
Franklin Daily Rainfall -CB AW5
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
5.0 0
4.0 v
2.0
Fie,

LAC
W
61
-15
2019 Cochran Branch Groundwater Gauge AW6
Growing Season
-20
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
Franklin Daily Rainfall -CB AW6
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
5.0 0
4.0 v
2.0
Fie,

LAC
W
61
-15
2019 Cochran Branch Groundwater Gauge AW7
Growing Season
m IF
ILA 1,. .11
-20
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
Franklin Daily Rainfall -CB AW7
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
5.0 0
4.0 v
2.0
Fie,

LAC
W
61
-15
2019 Cochran Branch Groundwater Gauge AW8
Growing Season
III Aill.1, , l.,,Il 11 1 LA 11 611
-20 as
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Months
Franklin Daily Rainfall -CB AW8
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
5.0 0
4.0 v
2.0
Fie,
Ewe

Appendix E
MY4 IRT Credit Release Site Visit Memo

M E M O R A N D U M
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
TO: Paul Wiesner - DMS
FROM: Ryan Medric - RES
DATE: 06/17/2019
fires
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
RE: Cochran Branch MY4 IRT Credit Release Site Visit
Attendees:
IRT: Todd Tugwell (USACE), Mac Haupt (NCDWR), Erin Davis (NCDWR), David Brown (USACE)
DMS: Paul Wiesner (DMS), Melome Allen (DMS)
RES: Brad Breslow (RES), Brian Hockett (RES), Aaron Speaks (RES), Ryan Medric (RES)
Date: June 5, 2019
The IRT, DMS, and RES had a site visit at the Cochran Branch Stream Restoration Site to discuss the
Monitoring Year 4 (MY4) credit release. The main topic of discussion was the sedimentation and lack of
channel defining features on Parrish Branch observed in monitoring reports by RES and DMS. During the
site visit, the majority of Parrish Branch had substantial flow contained in a single channel. One section
located near cross sections seven and eight, however, had characteristics more like a braided system with
water flowing in multiple locations. David Brown (USACE) commented that channelized stream flow was
typical of this type of channel during the winter months and dormant season. He suggested the IRT revisit
the site in November/December 2020 to get a more representative view of the reach. Also, it was noted
during the visit that there was gravel/cobble bed substrate in the channel, but it was buried by a few inches
of fine silt/sand.
In April 2019, RES treated the channel vegetation with an aquatic safe herbicide. The IRT was ok with this
treatment but was adamant that they did not want to see any digging or raking in the channel. Additionally,
Erin Davis (NCDWR) noted multiflora rose scattered in the easement and RES agreed to continue treating
the invasive species throughout the site for the remainder of the monitoring period.
The IRT generally agreed that the on -site wetlands and project streams (aside from Parrish Branch) were
meeting the established success criteria. They agreed to release MY4 project credits per the credit release
schedule established in the approved mitigation plan. The IRT requested that project stream credits released
on the site not exceed the stream credits associated with Parrish Branch (396 SMUs). There will be a total
of 445.75 unreleased stream credits on the site after the IRT MY4 (2018) credit release approval.