20140547 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2019_20200207

ID#* 20140547 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 r- Wetlands r` Buffer r` Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Paul Wiesner
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20140547
Existing IDY
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
601 East Stream Restoration Project
Union
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: 601East _95756_MY5_2019.pdf 10.46MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Paul Wiesner
Signature:*
�X/ I �;" -;-I 1

Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 5 of 7
FINAL
601 East Stream Restoration Project
NCDMS Contract No.: 004925
NCDMS Project No.: 95756
USACE Permit Action ID: 2013-00265
DWR Project No.: 14-0547
Union County, NC
Data Collected: July/October 2019
Date Submitted: January 2020
Submitted to:
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
NCDEQ-DMS, 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1652

fires
January 24, 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: 601 East Stream Restoration Site: MY5 Monitoring Report (NCDMS ID 95756)
Listed below are comments provided by DMS on December 2, 2019 regarding the 601 East
Stream Restoration Site: Year 5 Monitoring Report and RES' responses.
Section 1.4.2: Please notify DMS when the erosional area has been fixed and the reported
beaver dams have been removed. DMS recommends removing beaver dams as soon as possible
to avoid potential project damage and additional maintenance.
RES will notify DMS when these problem areas are repaired.
Section 1.4.3: The report indicates that both crest gauges malfunctioned and no bankfull events
were recorded in MY5. Although two (2) bankfull events have been recorded in separate years,
please continue to repair equipment and document bankfull events for the remainder of the
monitoring period.
This section also reports dry channel above the crossing on Reach 1 during RES site visits in July
and October 2019. RES should consider adding a stream flow gauge (pressure transducer) or a
field camera to document at least 30 days of continuous flow on the intermittent portions of the
reach.
RES will add a flow gauge to the intermittent section of Reach 1 to document at least 30 days of
continuous flow and replace the crest gauges with pressure transducers to avoid future
maintenance.
Table 6: The table reports 100% of all projects reaches visually assessed are stable and
performing as intended. Please confirm that this is an accurate reflection of the MY5 project
conditions.
Even with the beaver dams and parrot feather in the channel, RES believes the project streams
are stable and performing as intended.
res.us

Digital Support File and General Report Comments:
1. Please provide visual assessment excel tables.
Done.
2. Please provide CVS entry tool data.
Done.
3. CCPV needs to be segmented to match asset table and restoration types need to be
symbolized in map and legend.
Done.
4. Please provide segmented GIS to match comment 3.
Segmented GIS is provided to the best of RES' ability. RES does not possess any CAD or GIS
data from the mitigation plan/design (which the asset table is based off of).
5. XS Morphology Table - The direction of change in BHR calculations were correct using the
fixed AB XSA method, but the magnitude appeared to differ in some cases from independent runs
for a subset of riffle cross sections using a modified Mecklenburg spreadsheet (see attached).
Please check. Alternatively, "<1" can be used if BHR is below 1. Calculation of XSA and Max
depth are to be completed using TOB in keeping with methods specified in the Industry Technical
Work group memorandum. Please include the Bankfull and LTOB elevations used in years 3 and
5. For clarity 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.

Prepared by:
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605

Contents
1.0
PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................................
5
1.1.
Goals and Objectives....................................................................................................................
5
1.2.
Success Criteria.............................................................................................................................
5
1.3.
Project Setting and Background....................................................................................................
7
1.4.
Project Performance......................................................................................................................
8
2.0
METHODS.......................................................................................................................................
9
3.0
REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................
10
601 East Stream Restoration Project 3 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 5 of 7 January 2020

Appendices
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. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View Map
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Figure 3. 2019 Photo Station Photos
Figure 4. 2019 Problem Area Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata
Table 9. Total Planted Stem Counts
Figure 5. Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11a. Dimensional Morphology Summary
Table 1 lb. Stream Reach Data Summary
Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
Charts 1-5. MY5 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Table 13. Bank Pin Summary
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure 7. Photo Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15. 2019 Rainfall Summary
601 East Stream Restoration Project 4 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 5 of 7 January 2020

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1. Goals and Objectives
The project goals address stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
• Reduce water quality stressors originating in and around the project area affecting the project
• reaches and downstream watercourses, which include population of the Savannah Lilliput
• (Toxolasma pullus) and the Carolina Creekshell (Vilosa vaughiana), both listed species of
concern. Specifically involving:
o Reducing turbidity and sediment loading
o Input reductions of nutrients and crop protection chemicals
o Improving thermoregulation
• Improving aquatic habitat quality and diversity within project reaches
• Improving recruitment of instream fine organic matter (FOM) in the near term and both FOM and
• large wood in the long term
• Improving terrestrial habitat diversity and quality in the vicinity of project reaches
• Establishing habitat continuity between the reach headwaters and Lanes Creek
• Improving flood flow attenuation and floodplain interaction
The project goals are addressed through the following project objectives:
• Restore or enhance reach pattern, dimension, and profile
• Stabilize eroding stream banks
• Install stream structures to maintain grade and improve bed form complexity
• Implement BMP detention devices on lateral agricultural drainages
• Install diverse native riparian buffer
• Removal of invasive exotic plant species
• Secure a protective conservation easement and establish fencing as needed
1.2. Success Criteria
The success criteria for the 601 East Stream Restoration Site follows accepted and approved success criteria
presented in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and subsequent NCDMS and agency guidance.
Specific success criteria components are presented below.
1.2.1. Stream Restoration
Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability — 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 period that follows construction and some
subsequent change/variation 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 modest or
indicate migration to another stable form. Annual variation is to be expected, but overtime this should
demonstrate equilibrium on the reach scale with the maintenance of or even a reduction in the
amplitude of variation. Lastly, all of this must be evaluated in the context of hydrologic events to
which the system is exposed and the design type/intent (i.e. threshold versus free form alluvial
channels).
Dimension — General maintenance of a stable cross-section and hydrologic access to the floodplain
features over the course of the monitoring period will generally represent success in dimensional
stability. However, some change is natural and expected and can even indicate that the design was
601 East Stream Restoration Project 5 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 5 of 7 January 2020

successful and appropriate for the hydrologic and sediment regime. Examples include depositional
processes resulting in the development of constructive features on the banks and floodplain such as
an inner berm, a slightly narrower channel, modest natural levees, and general floodplain deposition.
For stream dimension, cross -sectional overlays and key parameters such as cross -sectional area, and
the channel's width to depth ratios should demonstrate modest overall change and patterns of
variation.
Significant widening of the channel cross-section or trends of increase in the cross -sectional area
generally represent concern, although some adjustment in this direction is acceptable if the process
is arrested after a period of modest adjustment. In the case of riffle cross sections, maintenance of
depths that represent small changes to target competence (e.g. consistently low BHRs <1.2) would
also reflect stability. Although a pool cross-section may experience periodic infilling due to
watershed activity and the timing of events relative to monitoring, the majority of pools within a
project stream reach/component should demonstrate maintenance of greater depths and low water
surface slopes over time. Rates of lateral migration need to be moderate. Bank pins will be installed
to monitor rates of erosion.
Pattern and Profile — Pool depths may vary from year to year, however the majority of pools should
maintain depths that are distinct in the profile and are readily observed. Pattern measurement will not
be collected unless observations indicate a detectable change based on observations and/or dimension
measurements.
Substrate — Generally it is anticipated that the bed materials will coarsen over time. The majority of
riffle pebble counts should indicate maintenance or coarsening of the substrate. The D50 and D84 of
the substrate should show a coarser distribution of bed materials in riffles and finer size class
distribution in pools.
Sediment Transport — Depositional features should be consistent with a stable stream that is
effectively managing its sediment load. Point Bar and inner berm features should develop without
excessive encroachment of the restored channel. Trends in the development of systemic robust mid -
channel or alternating bar features will be considered a destabilizing condition and may require
intervention.
The tributaries outside of the conservation easement will be observed yearly and the monitoring
report will document the function of the upstream basins in capturing excess sediment produced by
observed degradation in the narrative. A specific performance standard has not been added.
1.2.2. Surface Water Hydrology
Monitoring of stream water stages through a staff gauge should show recurrence of bankfull flow on average
every 1 to 2 years. 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.
601 East Stream Restoration Project 6 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 5 of 7 January 2020

1.2.3. Vegetation
The vegetation monitoring will be conducted according to the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) — EEP
protocol Version 4.2 (Lee et al 2008). Vegetation monitoring plots will be 100 square meters in size and
will be conducted according to the Level I protocol which has a focus on planted stems only. The purpose
of this level of monitoring is to determine the pattern of installation of plant material with respect to species,
spacing, density, and to monitor the survival and growth of those installed species. The success criteria for
the preferred species in the restoration areas will be based on annual and cumulative survival and growth
over seven (7) years. Survival on preferred species must be at a minimum 320 stems/acre at the end of the
three years of monitoring and 260 stems/acre after five years. At year 7, density must be no less than 210
seven -year -old planted stems/acre. Level II of the CVS protocol, which includes natural stems and planted
stems, will be followed for the monitoring year 2 and subsequent years until the project close out year.
1.3. Project Setting and Background
The 601 East Stream Restoration Site is located in Union County, approximately 13 miles south of
Monroe, NC (Figure 1). The site encompasses 12.8 acres of formerly agricultural land and includes
portions of Tanyard Branch, a tributary of Lanes Creek. The Site is located within the Yadkin River
Basin, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 14-digit Hydrologic Unit 03040105081010 and the
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03-04-14. The drainage area of
Tanyard Branch at the downstream end of the site is 0.56 square mile (354 acres). Land use within the
watershed is predominately agriculture with the remaining land use composed of low density residential
and forested areas.
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
primary cause of increased baseline SMUs is survey methodology (thalweg vs. centerline). The Mitigation
Plan lengths were based on centerline. Additionally, there were likely minor field adjustments during
construction.
Reach
MtigationType*
ProposedLength
(LI+)
Mtigation
Ratio
ProposedSMUs
BaselineSMUs
Reach A
Buffer Establishment
215
5:1
43
43
Reach la
PI Restoration
350
1:1
350
350
Reach lb
Enhancement I
85
1.5:1
56
57
Reach lc
Enhancement I
155
1.5:1
103
103
Reach Id
P1 Restoration
800
1:1
800
803
Reach 2a
Enhancement I
40
1.5:1
26
30
Reach 2b
Enhancement I
120
1.5:1
80
85
Reach 2c
P1 Restoration
724
1:1
724
730
Reach 3a
PI Restoration
368
1:1
368
369
Reach 3b
P1 Restoration
650
1:1
650
649
Reach 3c
P3 Restoration
480
1:1
480
495
Total
3,987
3,680
3,714
*P1=Priority 1, P3=Priority 3
**The contracted amount of credits for this Site was 3,576 SMUs
601 East Stream Restoration Project 7 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 5 of 7 January 2020

1.4. Project Performance
Monitoring Year 5 (MY5) data was collected in July and October 2019. Monitoring activities included
visual assessment of all reaches and the surrounding easement, 10 vegetation plots, 18 cross sections, 20
permanent photo stations, nine pebble counts, and nine bankpin arrays. Summary information and data
related to the occurrence of items such as beaver activity or encroachment and statistics related to
performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report
appendices. A visual overview of the site can be seen in the Current Conditions Plan View Maps (Figure
2). Photographs taken at permanent stations throughout the project site also display general site conditions
(Figure 3). 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. All raw data supporting the tables and
figures in the appendices is available from DMS upon request.
1.4.1. Vegetation
Visual assessment of the easement (Table 5; Figure 2) indicates vegetation is well established throughout
the easement. There was no encroachment observed in MY5. The parrotfeather areas were treated in 2018
and were still present in MY5 though some were dying back with the dry conditions observed in October.
The areas of cattails are still present but only in localized wetland areas. Invasive areas will continue to be
monitored and treated as necessary throughout the monitoring period.
Monitoring of the 10 permanent vegetation plots was completed during October 2019. Summary tables and
photographs associated with MY5 monitoring are located in Appendix C. Stem densities for MY5 ranged
from 364 to 971 stems per acre with a mean of 607 stems per acre across all plots. When volunteer stems
are included, the annual mean increases to 874 stems per acre. A total of 17 species were documented within
the monitoring plots. The average planted stem height observed in the plots was 8.6 feet.
1.4.2. Stream Geomorphology
Visual assessment of the stream was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding banks,
structural instability, or excessive sedimentation (Table 6). The erosional feature noted in the right buffer
of Reach 1 is a headcut is in need of repair. RES will stabilize the headcut with rock and add coir logs along
the feature. The major stream problem areas from MY5 were two beaver dams on Reach 4 and three beaver
dams on Reach 2. These dams and beavers will be removed in 2020.
Geomorphic data for MY5 was collected during July 2019. Summary tables and cross-section plots related
to stream morphology are located in Appendix D. Baseline stream summary data for reference can be found
in Table 10. Cross -sectional overlays showed minimal dimensional change between MY3 and MY5 data
collection efforts (Table lla; Figure 6), as well as minimal change in overall reach dimensions (Table
llb). None of the riffle cross sections exceeded a 1.2 BHR.
Substrate monitoring was performed during MY5. Pebble count D50was medium gravel for Reach 1, coarse
gravel for Reach 2, medium gravel for Reach 3, and coarse gravel for Reach 4 (Table 12; Charts 1-5). The
channel substrate will be monitored in future years for shifts in particle size distributions.
The bank pin arrays indicate that no erosion is taking place in the pools at cross -sections (Table 13).
601 East Stream Restoration Project 8 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 5 of 7 January 2020

1.4.3. Stream Hydrology
During MYS, no bankfull events were documented. Both crest gauges had become infested with ants and
will be replaced in MY6. Project site precipitation data can be found in Table 15. No dry channels were
observed in April but the reaches above the crossing on Reach 1 were dry in July and October. RES plans
to add a flow gauge to the intermittent section of Reach 1 to document at least 30 days of consecutive flow.
Photo documentation of the stream is in Appendix B.
Summary information/data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements can be
found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting information
formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan)
and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly Restoration Plan) documents available on NCDMS' website. All raw
data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODS
Visual assessments of the project were performed at the beginning and end of the monitoring year.
Permanent photo station photos were collected during vegetation monitoring. Additional photos of
vegetation or stream problem areas were documented with photographs throughout the project area.
Geomorphic measurements (MYO, MY I, MY2, MY3, MYS, MY7) were taken during low flow conditions
using a Topcon GTS-312 Total Station. Three-dimensional coordinates associated with cross-section and
profile data were collected in the field and geo-referenced (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200).
Morphological data was limited to 18 cross -sections. Survey data was imported into CAD, ArcGIS, and
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 (MYO, MY1, MY 2, MY 3, MY5, MY7) is being monitored using 10 permanent
monitoring plots. Vegetation monitoring followed CVS-EEP Level 1 Protocol for MY and is following
Level 2 Protocol Version 4.2 for monitoring years 2-7 (Lee et al. 2008). Level 2 Protocol 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. The locations of the three temporary plots surveyed in Years 2 and 3
were randomly selected within the replant areas. The plots were surveyed by pulling tapes to form 10 x 10
meter plots then counting all woody stems within the plots.
Precipitation data was reported from the NCCRONOS station number 315771 in Monroe, NC. Two crest
gauges were installed on the mainstem channel, one upstream of Lansford Road in Reach 2 and another
downstream of Lansford Road in Reach 3. During quarterly visits to the site, the height of the cork -line was
recorded.
601 East Stream Restoration Project 9 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 5 of 7 January 2020

3.0 REFERENCES
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC. 2015. 601 East Stream Restoration, Baseline Monitoring
Document and As -Built Baseline Report Final, Union County, North Carolina. NCEEP Project
No. 95756
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.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm; accessed November 2008.
601 East Stream Restoration Project 10 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 5 of 7 January 2020

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 and Attributes
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View Map

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Table 1: Project Components and NI ligation Credits
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Nil it gat! on Credits
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nutrient Offset
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
3638.67
43
Project Components
Mitigation
Project Component
Restoration -or- Restoration
Ratio
Credits
or- Reach ID
Stationing/Location
Ebeling Footage/Acreage
Approach (PI, PHetc.)
Equivalent
Restoration Footage or Acreage
Buffer establishment and BM P
Reach A Ephemeral
5+45 — 7+60
215
215
1 : 5
43
sediment import reduction
Reach la
Intermittent
7+60 —11+10
336
Pi
R
350
1: 1
350
Reach lb
Intermittent
11+10
—11+95
85
Enhancement
El
85
1 :1.5
56.7
Reach l c Perennial
11+95-13+50
136
Enhancement
El
155
1:1.5
103.3
Reach 1 d Perennial
14+00 - 22+00
790
Pi
R
800
1 : 1
800
Reach 2a
Perennial
22+00-22+40
40
Enhancement
El
40
1:1.5
26.7
Reach 2b
Perennial
22+80 - 24+00
125
Enhancement
El
120
1 : 1.5
80
Reach 2c Perennial
24+00 - 31+24
669
P 1
R
724
1 : 1
724
80' active channel
Reach 3a Perennial
43+06 -46+60
112' relic channel
Pi
R
368
1 : 1
368
Reach 3b Perennial
47+20 - 53+70
502' relic channel
Pi
R
650
1 : 1
650
Reach 4 Perennial
53+70 —58+50
470' relic charnel
P3
R
480
1 : 1
480
Component S ummation
Stream
Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Restoration Level
Rip arian Wetland (scree)
Upland (acres)
Mitigation
Credits
(linear feet)
(acres)
(square feet)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
3372
3372
Enhancement
Enhancement I
400
266.6
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation/Other
215
43
HQ Preservation
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpoee/Function
Notes
Ephemeral Channel
FB, LS, S, FS
Slowing the water down for settling and filtering excess sediment
Sediment expected from future
degradation upstream
5+45-7+60
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretention cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW —
Stormwater Wetland, WDP
— Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; F S = Filter Strip; S — Grassed Swale; L S = Level Spread; NI — Natural Infiltration
Area; FB — Forested Buffer
Note: Stream credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg. Based on the April 3, 2017IRT Credit Release M eeting, these stream credits have been reverted back to the amounts in the IRT approved mitigation plan.

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
May 2013
Jan 2014
Final Design — Construction Plans
Sept 2013
Jan 2014
Construction
-
Dec 2014
Containerized, bare root and B&B plantings
-
Jan 2015
Mitigation Plan / As -built Year 0 Monitoring — baseline
Feb 2015
Feb 2015
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov 2015
Nov 2015
Supplemental Planting (Entire Site)
-
Apr 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
Sept 2016
Oct 2016
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream - July 2017
Vegetation - Oct 2017
Jan 2018
Supplemental Planting, Encroachment Blocking, Beaver Removal, Invasive
Treatment
Mar 2018
Invasive Treatment
-
Sept 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Nov 2018
Jan 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream - July 2019
Vegetation - Oct 2019
Jan 2020
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Table 3. Project Contact Table
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Designer
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. (WCE)
4805 Green Road, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27616
Primary project design POC
Becky Ward [phone]
Construction Contractor
Wright Contracting
P.O. Box 545, Siler City, NC 27344
Construction contractor POC
Joseph Wright [phone]
Planting Contractor
H & J Forest Services
1416 Ocean Boulevard, Holly Ridge, NC 28445
Planting contractor POC
[phone]
Construction Survey Contractor
Turner Land Survey, PLLC
3719 Benson Drive, Raleigh, NC 27629
Survey contractor POC
Elizabeth Turner [phone]
Seeding Contractor
Wright Contracting
P.O. Box 545, Siler City, NC 27344
Construction contractor POC
Andrew Dimmette [phone]
Seed Mx Sources
Green Resource - Raleigh, NC
As Purchased by EBX [phone] x213
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arbor Gen - Blenheim, SC
[phone]
NC Forest Service Nursery - Goldsboro, NC
[phone]
[Baseline] Monitoring Performers
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
4805 Green Road, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27616
Stream Monitoring POC
Rachael Zi ler - W CE - [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Chris Sheats - The Cantena Group - [phone]
Monitoring Performers (1\4Yl-MY2)
Equinox
2015-2016
37 Haywood Street, Suite 100
Asheville, NC 28801
Stream Monitoring POC
Drew Alderman [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Drew Alderman [phone]
Resource Environemntal Solutions (RES)
Monitoring Performers (1\4Y3+)
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Stream Monitoring POC
Ryan Medric [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Ryan Medric [phone]

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
601 Fast Stream Restoration Site
Project Information
Project Name
601 East Stream Restoration Site
County
Union County
Project Area (acres)
1278
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
34° 50' 21.62" N, 80° 25' 32.26"N
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-Digit
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 3040105081010
DWQ Sub -basin
3/4/2014
Project Drainage Area (acres)
361.33
Project drainage Area Percentage oflmpervious Area
2°/u
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01.01.07 Annual Row Crop Rotation
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Length ofreach (IF)
1,418; 1,393IF Restored
906; 902IF Restored
1,080; 1,018 LF Restored
Relic Channel, 495 LF Restored
Valley Classification
B
B
VBI
VBI
Drainage area (acres)
109
135
333
359
NCDWQ stream
Intermittent: 19.5
33.5
33.5
33.5
identification score
Perennia 1: 33.5
NCDWQ Water Quality
13-17-40-(1)
13-17-40-(1)
13-17-40-(1)
13-17-40-(1)
Clas s ifcation
Morphological
G4/B4/C4b
C4/F4/DA
C4/G4
G4
Description (streamt e)
Evolutionary trend
(reference channel
G
C/DA
G
G
evolution model used)
Intermittent: Tatum gravelly silty
Underlying mapped soils
Cid channery silt loam, Tatum
Chewacla silt loam
Chewacla silt loam
Perremal: Cid channery silt loam
gravelly silt loam
Drainage class
Well Drained
Moderately Well Drained
Somewhat Poorly Drained
Somewhat Poorly Drained
Soil H dricstatus
Non Hydric
Non Hydric
NonHydric
Non Hydric
Sloe
2%
0.84%
0.67%
1.25%
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Agriculture along upstream
Canopy species include Willow
Red Maple, Sweetgum, Eastern
Canopy species include Red
Canopy species include Red
The remaining stream buffer
Maple, Hackberry, Willow Oak,
Maple, Hackberry, Willow oak,
Native vegetation
within this reach is composed of
Wetland A is composed of
and Sweetgum. The presence of
and Sweetgum. The presence of
community
Willow Oak, Red Maple, River
Cattails, spike rush arrow -arum,
Chinese privet outcompete any
Chinese privet outcompete any
Birch, Black Willow, Elderberry,
and duckweed.
shrub and herb layer.
shrub and herb layer.
and Blackberry.
Percent composition of
0%
50% of Parrot feather
5% of Japanese stilt grass, 80%
80% Chinese privet
exotic invasive vegetation
Chinese privet, and kudzu

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Table 4 con't. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.43 ac
Wetland Type (non-
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
riparian, riparian riverine,
Mapped Soil Series
Cid channery Silt Loam
Moderately WellDrained to Somewhat Poorly
Drainage class
Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Non-H dric
Tanyard Branch headwaters, groundwater, and
Source of Hydrology
adjacent runoff
Wetland A formed from accumulating sediments
Hydrologic Impairment
filling the channel resulting in a braided channel
system through the wetland.
herbaceous -Vegetation is domninated by
herbaceous vegetation such as Cattail (Typha
latifolia), Bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus), Common
Native vegetation
Rush (Juncus effuses). Some tree species such as
community
Black Willow (Salix nigra ), and Red Maple
(Acer rubrum) are present in the wetland
margins.
95% -The invasive Parrot Feather
Percent composition of
(Miriophyllum aquaticum) is dominant
exotic invasive vegetation
throughout the wetland where there is standing
water.
Re latoiry Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United
SAW 2013-
States-Section 404
Yes
00265; EEP IMS
#95756
Waters of the United
Yes
DWR# 14-0547
States — Section 401
Endangered Species Act
No
Yes
ERTR
Historic Preservation Act
No
Yes
ERTR
Coastal Zone
Management Act
(CZMA)/Costal Area
No
N/A
Management Act
(LAMA)
FEMA Floodplain
No
N/A
Compliance
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A

Driving Directions: From Monroe drive south on Hwy.
-
�• 601. Turn left on Landsford Road. Site is loacted on the r ' ` . • __ • ; , __� ����� � �
left and right .25 miles down and accessed from a ;' �' r - ..y t �'� l � r -4
parking area on the south side of Landsford Road. CV
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site
of the NCDMS and encompassed by a recorded++!i', ) j _ 3-_v.•• • }'.
conservation easement, but is bordered by land with
private ownership. Accessing the site may require
traversing areas near or along the easement bounday and
therefore access to the general public is not permitted. ,% j {� . —•
Access by authorized personel of state and federal
agencies or their designee/contractors involved in the the
development, oversight, and stweardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined role. Any intended site visitation or activity by any Sri] ) '� I • _� } `
person outside these previously sactioned roles and
activities requires prior coordination with NCDMS.
S00
] r i
i! ��• _ _ r�J % r r� `�....� __.__. , � r� `l i M � Icy
601 East Mitigation Site
_ f sot
lidsfor�C1 KOav :,cam :'r
�BM
f lr ' � ` ��-� � l J� 11 � � 5(7 ` y I �- - 1f �. � r � � .._ _. , •• - 1 r,.� �-- I ,r o
Streams }�
'� Roads r' r �^ _ _ `'•
Mitigation Sites,
0 Water Bodies `��""� I
Figure 1
601 East Mitigation Site
pres
Project Vicinity Map Project Site
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles

Reach'3
�O
Reach 4
O �
OF
- +e rr - 'o .. _ ' - _ '(V 7k �• s.
fv-
Iwo
Yr
�
r . x }
A•
1
- Reach 2 Reach 1
Reach'A
lu 4, .�.
Y,rc_ f .
r
-�•••= 1� _--•- � '; Source: 2019 NC OneMap
fires
3
0 175 350
Feet
1 inch = 350 feet
Figure 2a
601 East Stream
Restoration Project
MY5 2019
Current Conditions
Overview Map
Date: 1/21/2020 Drawn by: RTM
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
o Vegetation Plot
= Structure
Stream Treatment
BMP (Ephemeral)
Restoration (Intermittent)
- El (Intermittent)
Restoration (Perennial)
— El (Perennial)
- Cross Section
— Structure
— Top of Bank
Beaver Dam
® Crest Gauge
t Bankpin Array
Photo Station
Vegetation Condition Assessment
H Target Community
w Present Marginal Absent
U
Q Absent E
rn
w
.N
Present
nagery

- .IMA Alt
res
0 100 200
` Feet
1 inch = 200 feet
Reach A Figure 2b
' 601 East Stream
Restoration Project
MY5 2019
Current Conditions
Reach 2 Reach 1 Plan View
h .
f s Date: 1/21/2020 Drawn by: RTM
JW
' ♦ 1
I
LEGEND
Erosional Feature i
Conservation
in - oPlot
asement
= Vegetation
7 $ �� s s o Structure
Cattails Stream Treatment
BMP (Ephemeral)
— Restoration (Intermittent)
— El (Intermittent)
— Restoration (Perennial)
Parrot Feather — El (Perennial)
(in channel) Cross Section
— Structure
Top of Bank
— Beaver Dam
_ • Crest Gauge
n g Bankpin Array
Photo Station
15: E
A Vegetation Condition Assessment
is w Target Community
.D Present Marginal Absent
Q Absent No Fill
�rPresent
2049 NC OneMap Aerial Imagery
��-'� .�

l
sY
Chinese Privet
Reach 4
fires
0 50 100
r . .
Feet
w ir' 1 inch = 100 feet
Reach 3F Figure 2c
601 East Stream
Restoration Project
- MY5 2019
OL
Current Conditions
Plan View
':f h
Date: 1/21/2020 Drawn by: RTM
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
o Vegetation Plot
Stream Treatment
BMP (Ephemeral)
Restoration (Intermittent)
El (Intermittent)
Restoration (Perennial)
El (Perennial)
Cross Section
— Structure
15 Top of Bank
Beaver Dam
• Crest Gauge
Bankpin Array
Photo Station
Veaetation Condition Assessment
r, Target Community
w Present Marginal Absent
U
o. Absent No Fill
rn
w
.N
Present
C

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Figure 3. 2019 Photo Station Photos
Figure 4. 2019 Problem Area Photos

Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Planted Acreage 12.8
Easement Acreage 12.8
Of
Vegetation Category
Definitions
CCPV Depiction
Number of
Combined
planted
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
Red Simple Hatch
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.
Orange Simple Hatch
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.
Orange Simple Hatch
0
0.00
0%
Cumulative Totals
0
0.00
0%
Of
Vegetation Category
Definitions
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).
Yellow Crosshatch
4
0.27
2%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
Red Simple Hatch
0
0.00
0%
N/A - Item does not apply.

Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 1
Assessed Len th 1,393 feet
Number
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
with
with
for
Major Channel
Channel
Stable,
Metric
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Sub -Category
Performing
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Woody
Woody
Woody
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1. Vertical Stability
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.
32
32
100%
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
33
33
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
33
33
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
33
33
100
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
33
33
100%
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
1. Scoured /Eroding
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%
N/A N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
Af
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
N/A
N/A
Pr
N/A
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
N/A
N/A
N/A
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
N/A
N/A
N/A
15 %
[4, Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining- Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull
N/A
N/A
N/A
Depth Ratio> 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.

Table 6 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 2
Assessed Len th 902 feet
Number
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
with
with
for
Major Channel
Channel
Stable,
Metric
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Sub -Category
Performing
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Woody
Woody
Woody
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1. Vertical Stability
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.
16
16
100%
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
17
17
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
17
17
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
17
17
100
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
17
17
100%
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
1. Scoured /Eroding
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%
N/A N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
N/A
N/A
Pr
N/A
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
N/A
N/A
N/A
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
N/A
N/A
N/A
15 %
[4, Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining- Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull
N/A
N/A
N/A
Depth Ratio> 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.

Table 6 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 3
Assessed Len th 1,018 feet
Number
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
with
with
for
Major Channel
Channel
Stable,
Metric
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Sub -Category
Performing
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Woody
Woody
Woody
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. AA22radation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1. Vertical Stability
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.
18
18
100%
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
18
18
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
18
18
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
18
18
100
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
18
18
100%
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
1. Scoured /Eroding
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%
N/A N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
N/A
N/A
Pr
N/A
Structures
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
N/A
N/A
N/A
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
N/A
N/A
N/A
15 %
[4, Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining- Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull
N/A
N/A
N/A
Depth Ratio> 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.

Table 6 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 4
Assessed Len th 495 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.
9
9
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
9
9
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
9
9
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
9
9
100
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
9
9
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%
N/A N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0 0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
Totals
0 0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
2
2
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
15 %
2
2
100%
[4, Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining- Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull
Depth Ratio> 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
2
2
100%

Appendix B - Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3. 2019 Photo Station Photos
Reach 1 - Permanent Photo Station 1
Top of Project- Looking Downstream
Reach 1 - Permanent Photo Station 2
Cross Section 1 - Looking Downstream

al Assessment Data
Reach 1 — Permanent Photo Station 3
Cross Section 2 — Looking Downstream
Reach 1 — Permanent Photo Station 4
Cross Section 3 — Looking Downstream

al Assessment Data
Reach 1 — Permanent Photo Station 5
Cross Section 4 — Looking Downstream
Reach 1 — Permanent Photo Station 6
Cross Section 5 — Looking Downstream

al Assessment Data
Reach 1 — Permanent Photo Station 9
Cross Section 8 — Looking Downstream
Reach 2 — Permanent Photo Station 10
Cross Section 9 — Looking Downstream

al Assessment Data
Reach 2 — Permanent Photo Station 11
Cross Section 10 —Looking Downstream
Reach 2 — Permanent Photo Station 12
Cross Section 11 — Looking Downstream

al Assessment Data
Reach 2 — Permanent Photo Station 13
Cross Section 12 — Looking Downstream
Reach 3 — Permanent Photo Station 14
Cross Section 13 — Looking Downstream

w
F
a 1
F`A- sc n
a

al Assessment Data
Reach 3 — Permanent Photo Station 17
Cross Section 16 — Looking Downstream
Reach 4 — Permanent Photo Station 18
Cross Section 17 — Looking Downstream

al Assessment Data
Reach 4 — Permanent Photo Station 19
Cross Section 18 — Looking Downstream
Reach 4 — Permanent Photo Station 20
Bottom of Project — Looking Upstream

Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data
Figure 4. 2019 Problem Area Photos
Reach 2 — Beaver Dam
Reach 4 — Beaver Dam

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. MY5 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Plot #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Success
Criteria
Met?
Average
Planted Stem
Height (ft)
1
607
647
1255
Yes
12.3
2
971
324
1295
Yes
5.5
3
567
486
1335
Yes
11.2
4
526
81
607
Yes
6.2
5
526
243
769
Yes
9.2
6
567
202
769
Yes
9.1
7
364
121
486
Yes
8.9
8
526
40
567
Yes
5.1
9
688
162
850
Yes
5.8
10
728
81
809
Yes
12.1
Project Avg
607
239
874
Yes
8.6

Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table S_ Ct'S Vegetation Plot MetedatA
601 East Stream and 11'etland Restoration Site
Re port Pre p aced By
'Rvan Medric
I)Ate Pt-epared
10/2I/Z019 25:14
database nanie
RES-MYS 2019-603East mdb
database location
C:\Users\rmedric\Dropbox (itES)\VRE5 ProjeC;S\North
CarolIna\601 EastlMonitoring/Mons toring
Data\MYS 2019\Ve etation Data
contpute r name
D4VOKGHZ
Me size
:3533SO.1
DE SCREPTION OF R"ORSSHEETS Ui THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata
Descrlptlon of database file, the report worksheets, and a
summary of project(s) and project data.
Praj. pLanted
Each project is listed with Its PLANTED Stems per acre. for each
year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total -.tents
Each project iS 11SICedwirin Its TOTAL stems per acre, for eat year.
This includes live stakes. all planted stems. and all
natural/vol unteerstems.
Plots
Ustot pots surveyed %vith locavon an summary data(live stems.
dead stems, missing, etc.).
Z i or
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots,
t3 or by
Frequency distribution ofvl or classes listed b s ties.
Datnn�e
ustof most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences
and p ercent of total stems I mp acted by each.
Daninge b%- Spp
Damage valves tallied bytype for each species.
DAtttnge by Plot
Damage values tall led by Type for each plot.
Planted Stenn by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED IivlMg Stems of each species for
each plot,• dead and mossi ng stems are excluded.
,kLL Stents by Plot and- sp p
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each speces (planted
and natural vol unteerscombined) for each plot; dead and missing
stems are excluded.
PROJECT SC NI NI.kRY
Project Cod*
9575e
ro' ct 1 ame
601 East
De sc ri Lion
River Basin
Yadkin -Fee Dee
length(R)
-.treats-to-edge width (R)
at-e A S 9 nii
Required Plots cakulnted)
SAnz led Pao"
_c

Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9. Total Planted Stem Counts
601 East
Current Plot Data (MY5 2019)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
001-01-0001
001-01-0002
001-01-0003
001-01-0004
001-01-0005
001-01-0006
001-01-0007
001-01-0008
001-01-0009
001-01-0010
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
16
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
6
6
6
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
Cephalanthus occidentalis
buttonbush
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis var. canad
eastern redbud
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1 31
3
31
2
21
8
4
4
91
3
3
3
6
6
6
8
8
8
2
2
2
Li q u i d a m b a r s ty ra ci f I u a
sweetgum
Tree
8
5
2
Liriodendron tulipifera var.
Tulip -tree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
41
4
4
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
1
3
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
Platanus occidentalis var. o
Sycamore
Tree
8
8
8
14
14
14
10
10
10
4
4
4
5
5
5
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
8
8
8
Populus deltoides var. deltc
eastern cottonwood
1
1
Quercus
oak
Tre e
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
1
1
11
2
21
2
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
21
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Quercus stellata
post oak
Tree
Quercus velutina
black oak
Tree
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
5
1
1
Rhus copallinum var. copalli
flameleaf sumac
shrub
Salix nigra
blackwillow
Tree
6
6
11
1
2
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
Ulmus rubra
Islippery elm
ITree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
151
15
31
24
24
32
14
21
33
13
13
15
13
13
19
14
14
19
t-71
12
13
13
14
17
17
21
18
18
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
5
5
6
6
6
7
4
6
10
4
4
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
6
6
8
5
5
6
5
5
6
6
6
8
607
607
1255
971
971
1295
5671
8501
13351
526
526
607
5261
5261
7691
5671
5671
7691
3641
3641
4861
5261
526
5(;71
688
6881
8501
7281
728
809

601 East
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY5 (2019)
MY3 (2017)
MY2 (2016)
MY1(2015)
MYO (2015)
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
IT
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Pnol-S
P-all
T
Acer negundo
boxelder
Tree
16
26
33
Asi mi na tri loba
pawpaw
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
23
23
23
24
24
26
33
33
33
14
14
14
24
24
24
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
2
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
6
Cephalanthus occidentalis
buttonbush
Shrub
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
6
6
6
Cercis canadensis var. canac
eastern redbud
Tree
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
28
28
39
29
29
29
27
27
29
3
3
3
3
3
3
Liquidambarstyraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
15
20
19
Liriodendron tulipifera var.
Tulip -tree
Tree
8
8
8
12
12
14
20
20
22
16
16
16
30
30
30
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
18
18
18
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
4
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
Platanus occidentalis var. o
Sycamore
Tree
55
55
55
55
55
59
59
59
59
47
47
47
58
58
58
Populus deltoides var. deltc
eastern cottonwood
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
3
3
1
8
8
Quercus
oak
Tree
9
9
9
12
12
12
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
10
10
10
20
20
20
Quercus nigra
wateroak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
131
13
13
10
10
10
8
8
8
5
5
5
26
26
26
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus stellata
post oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus veIutina
black oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
shrub
7
Rhus copallinum var. copalli
flameleaf sumac
shrub
12
11
Salix nigra
blackwillow
Tree
1
7
8
1
7
10
1
6
16
5
5
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
1
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
2
Ulmus rubra
slippery elm
iTree
2
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
1501
1571
216
1571
1641
243
178
1841
263
116
123
123
200
207
207
10
10
10
10
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
10
11
18
11
11
17
15
15
19
13
14
14
11
11
11
607
635
874
635
664
983
720
745
1064
469
498
498
809
838
838
Color Key
Exceeds requirements
Fails to meet requirements
Volunteerstems
Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data

► ,+ ' 1� —�

I�
y{■��� r `'� •fit �`
a
f► rl�r '..ram ry
01,
- 10,11 r

� r
s -
4 Y y}

'JL a�
5�j

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11a. Dimensional Morphology Summary
Table 11b. Stream Reach Data Summary
Figure 6. Cross Section Plots
Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
Charts 1-5. MY5 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Table 13. Bank Pin Array Summary

Appendix D - Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Sumary
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 1 (1,393 feet)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre- Existing Conditions
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built / Baseline
Dimension and Substrate -Riffle
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
7
21
60
7.42
9.88
11.61
10
8.82
11.45
10.77
15.13
2.23
8
Floodprone Width ft
8
60
101
1 18.51
26.43
33.59
22
28
35
40.00
74.38
69.00
154.00
35.32
8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.2
0.5
0.9
0.68
0.79
0.97
0.72
0.50
0.81
0.77
1.20
0.26
8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
1
1.4
1.28
1.78
2.16
1.2
0.87
1.53
1.54
2.07
0.49
8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
8
1
1.4
0.97
1.39
1.82
7.2
4.45
9.27
8.85
14.07
3.48
8
Width/Depth Ratio
1.1
27
47
8.14
12.95
16.82
13.9
8.56
15.45
14.89
25.33
5.40
8
Entrenchment Ratio
0.4
2.4
9.5
2.02
2.4
3.24
2.2
2.8
3.5
3.30
6.90
5.62
16.40
4.19
8
Bank Height Ratio
0.34
2
0.97
1.39
1.82
1
0.93
0.98
1.00
1.00
0.03
8
d50 mm
Profile
Riffle Length ft
2.7
24.9
107.3
5.97
11.26
26.78
14
23
90
10.04
22.09
18.54
95.26
14.52
32
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0007
1.7
40
0.015
0.031
0.05
0.021
0.036
0.046
0.015
0.034
0.032
0.064
0.012
32
Pool Length (ft)
9.03
16.89
56.86
13.6
20.13
31.74
14
22
29
13.38
24.28
21.23
65.67
11.47
33
Pool Max depth (ft)
1
2.4
3.9
1.4
1.83
2.2
1
2.2
1.16
2.19
2.17
3.15
0.38
33
Pool Spacing (ft)
15.5
50
128
23.5
36.2
57.4
24
36.7
58
31.42
44.63
40.18
116.51
16.87
32
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
10
19.6
25
13
17.33
20
13
18
21
13
18
21
Radius of Curvature ft
14.5
1 84
118
16
33
53
16
32.1
52
16
32.1
52
Re: Bankfull width (ft/ft)
L
J
1.7
4.6
11.5
4.35
6.04
8.9
4.3
6.1
8.9
4.3
6.1
8.9
Meander Wavelength (ft)
36
96
240
43
59.67
88
43
61
89
43
61
89
Meander Width Ratio
0.5
0.94
1.7
1.32
1.76
2.03
1.3
1.8
2.1
1.3
1.8
2.1
Substrate, bed and tr
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
I
45.50%/o
53.6%
0.0%
26.8%
17.2%
1 47.9% 1 8.1% 1 0.0%
44.3%1
155.7%10.0%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
4.1%
27.3%
67.6%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/dip (mm)
2.71
6.72
10.56
24.89
38.23
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f
Max part size (mm) Mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.166
0.144
Impervious cover estimate (%)
Em
EEM
Ros en Classification
G4/B4/C4b
B4/C4
B4/C4b
B4/C4b
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.2
3.2
Bankfull Discharge cfs
24
Valley length (ft)
1,425
378
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1,479
440
1,438
1,438
Sinuosity (ft)
1.04
1.16
1.17
1.17
Water Surface Slope Channel ft/ft
0.0196
0.017
0.017
BE slope (ft/ft)
0.017
0.017
Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
Proportion over wide (%)
Entenchment Class (ER Range)
Incision Class (BHR Range)
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other

Appendix D - Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 2 (902 feet)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre- Existing Conditions
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built / Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL
E .
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
7
19
21
10
12.2
14.3
12
15.50
19.73
19.63
24.18
3.56
4
Flood rove Width (ft)
40
214
60
42
77
11
48
91.5
135
62.00
108.75
102.50
168.00
50.05
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
1.33
0.5
0.92
1.12
1.34
0.9
0.61
0.93
0.90
1.31
0.32
4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
1.9
1
1.2
1.6
2.2
1.5
1.49
2.01
2.02
2.53
0.58
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
6
21
1
12.2
13
13.4
10.7
9.43
18.42
19.49
25.26
6.75
4
Width/Depth Ratio
6.1
38
27
7.7
11.3
15.6
13.3
14.64
23.00
22.13
33.10
8.07
4
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2
10
2.4
2.9
6.5
8.6
3.6
7.6
10
2.56
5.63
5.79
8.39
2.54
4
Bank Height Ratio
0.9
1.7
0.34
1.1
1.5
1.7
1
0.90
0.96
0.96
1.00
0.05
4
d50 (mm)
Ir-
Profile
-
E
Riffle Length (ft)
10.9
24.9
19.7
4.03
14.18
13.61
14
23
90
12.13
23.38
18.96
50.22
10.70
18
Riffle Sloe (ft/ft)
0.00
1.7
0.04
0.006
0.02
0.05
0.021
0.036
0.046
0.004
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.01
17
Pool Length (ft)
11.1
16.89
525.4
18.51
32.11
58.03
14
22
29
15.06
32.87
29.14
74.26
14.68
17
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.9
2.4
4.2
1.7
2.47
3.1
2.5
1.91
2.87
2.67
4.03
0.59
17
Pool Spacing (ft)
20
50
512
29
48
84
38
57
85
32.94
55.57
47.60
110.28
20.48
17
Pool Volume (ft 3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
12
32
42
25
40
65
25
40
65
25
40
65
Radius of Curvature (ft)
68
75
77
20
31
65
38
47
58
38
47
58
Re: Bankfull width (ft/ft)l
5.2
5.7
5.9
3.2
3.9
4.8
3.2
3.9
4.8
3.2
3.9
4.8
Meander Wavelength (ft)l
46
70
97
61
84
97
61
84
97
61
84
97
Meander Width Ratiol
0.9
2.4
3.2
2.1
3.3
5.4
2.1
3.3
5.4
2.1
3.3
5.4
4
Substrate, bed and tra paramete1
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
12.6%
87.4%
0.0%
27.2%
3.7% 61.5%
7.6% 0%
39.5%
60.5%
0.0%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
0.0%
33.7%
66.3%
0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/disP (mm)
0.90
4.57
8.92
24.42
47.93
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f
Max part size (mm) Mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.212
0.5
Impervious cover estimate (%)
Ros en Classification
C4/E4/DA
C4
C4/E4
C4/E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.1
2.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
27
Valle length (ft)
830
378
Channel Thahveg length (ft)
1,479
440
945
945
Sinuosity (ft)
1.01
1.1
1.34
1.34
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0069
0.0069
BF sloe (ft/ft)
0.0069
0.0069
Bankfull Flood lain Area (acres)
Proportion over wide (%)
Entenchment Class (ER Range)
Incision Class (BHR Range)
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/fi%NH%/E%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biolo ical or Other

Appendix D - Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
601 East Stream RestorationSite - Reach 3 (1,018 feet)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre- Existing Conditions
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built / Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL
E .
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
65
15.7
29
10
12.2
14.3
17
15.86
17.69
17.66
19.58
1.52
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
200
2601.26
42
77
11
150
200
300
75.00
231.25
250.00
350.00
140.50
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.9
2.1
0.92
1.12
1.34
1.18
0.79
1.26
1.21
1.84
0.54
4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.28
1.7
19.4
1.2
1.6
2.2
2
1.58
2.51
2.52
3.44
1.06
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
10.5
14.5
31
12.2
13
13.4
21
12.85
22.79
21.12
36.08
11.26
4
Width/Depth Ratio
12.8
17.5
16.5
7.7
11.3
15.6
14.4
10.62
15.88
15.27
22.36
5.98
4
Entrenchment Ratio
9.6
12.7
4
2.9
6.5
8.6
8.8
11.8
17.6
4.73
12.74
13.17
19.90
7.31
4
Bank Height Ratio
1.3
2.2
1.7
1.1
1.5
1.7
1
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.01
4
d50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
0.97
10.58
23.77
4.03
14.18
13.61
15
25
103
10.12
24.10
16.77
110.25
22.07
19
Riffle Sloe (ft/ft)
0
0.2
0.6
0.006
0.02
0.05
0.008
0.018
0.03
0.00
1 0.02
0.02
0.04
0.01
17
Pool Length (ft)
1
1
7.83
20.87
64.91
1
18.51
32.11
58.03
25
35
50
27.38
35.18
35.18
49.71
6.68
18
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.8
2.7
3.4
1.7
2.47
3.1
3.4
1.93
2.91
2.98
3.50
0.36
18
Pool Spacing (ft)
8
48
125
29
48
84
39
66
117
41.11
58.55
54.44
137.89
20.86
18
Pool Volume (ft 3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
13
41
58
25
40
65
35
56
92
35
56
92
Radius of Curvature (ft)
22.5
49.7
78
20
31
65
27
43
63
27
43
63
Re: Bankfull width (ft/ft)
1.4
3.2
4.9
3.2
3.9
4.8
1.6
2.5
3.7
1.6
2.5
3.7
Meander Wavelength (ft)
32
57
89
61
84
97
87
119
134
87
119
134
Meander Width Ratio
1.3
2.6
3.7
2.1
3.3
5.4
2.1
3.3
5.4
2.1
3.3
5.4
Substrate, bed and transport parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
38.0%
62.0%
0.0%
27.2%
3.7% 61.5%
7.6% 0.0%
43.0%
57.0%
0.0%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
4.0%
51.9%
44.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/df/di'P (mm)
0.8
3.5
5.4
12.8
19.6
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f
Max part size (mm) Mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.52
0.5
Impervious cover estimate (%)
Ros en Classification
C4-G4
E4/C4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.2
3
3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
55
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1,064
1,064
Sinuosity (ft)
1.05
1.2
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Sloe (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0056
0.0056
BF sloe (ft/ft)
0.0056
0.0056
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
Proportion over wide (%)
Entenchment Class (ER Range)
Incision Class (BHR Range)
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%NH%/E%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other

Appendix D - Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 4 (495 feet)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre- Existing Conditions
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built / Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.2
11.6
20
7.42
9.88
11.61
16
14.93
15.92
15.92
16.91
1.40
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
16
20
25
18.51
26.43
33.59
30
35
40
30.39
36.19
36.19
42.00
8.21
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.76
0.9
1.1
0.68
0.79
0.97
0.98
0.98
1.37
1.37
1.76
0.55
2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.33
1.28
1.78
2.16
1.8
1.49
2.11
2.11
2.72
0.87
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
12.3
15
16
0.97
1.39
1.82
15.7
14.70
22.25
22.25
29.81
10.68
2
Width/Depth Ratio
7
12.9
18
8.14
12.95
16.82
16.3
9.60
12.38
12.38
15.16
3.93
2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
1.7
2.2
2.02
2.4
3.24
1.9
2.2
2.5
2.04
2.26
2.26
2.48
0.32
2
Bank Height Ratio
3.3
3.5
4.2
0.97
1.39
1.82
1
1.00
1.10
1.10
1.20
0.14
2
d50 (mm)
Profile
:i�
b
I
L
::i=L::::&
Riffle Length (ft)
0.79
10.58
23.7
5.97
11.26
26.78
15
23
103
1 15.84
20.829
18.18
28.96
4.77639
9
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0
0.02
0.06
0.015
0.031
0.05
0.021
0.036
0.03
0.018
0.0274
0.0298
0.0382
0.00676
9
Pool Length (ft)
7.83
20.7
64.91
13.6
20.13
31.74
14
22
42
30.82
35.01
35.78
38.85
3.12426
9
Pool Max depth (ft)
2
2.5
3.2
1.4
1.83
2.2
1
2.2
1.997
2.8154
2.753
3.392
0.39095
9
Pool Spacing (ft)
1
1 12
29
1
55
1
23.5
36.2
1
57.4
38
59
93
49.77
56.111
54.805
69.26
6.24406
8
3Poo1 Volume (ft 3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
12
32
82
13
17.33
20
21
28
32
21
28
32
Radius of Curvature (ft)
18
34.9
61
16
33
53
26
52
84
26
52
84
Re: Bankfull width (ft/ft)
1.6
3
5.3
4.35
6.04
8.9
162
3.25
5.25
162
3.25
5.25
Meander Wavelength (ft)
30
56
113
43
59.67
88
69
97
142
69
97
142
Meander Widt101
11.76
2.03
Substrate, bed and transport parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
19.9%
80.1% 0.0%
26.8%
17.2%
47.9% 1 8.1% 1 0.00
39.1%1
165.6%10.0%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/di'/di" (mm)
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lble
Max part size (mm) Mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.56
0.144
Impervious cover estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
G4
B4/C4
B4
B4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4
3.27
3.27
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
55
Valley length (ft)
378
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
440
465
465
Sinuosity (ft)
1.04
1.16
1.13
1.13
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0114
0.0114
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0114
0.0114
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
Proportion over wide (%)
Entenchment Class (ER Range)
Incision Class (BHR Range)
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other

Table 11a. Dimensional Morphology Summary
(Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 1
Cross -Section 1
Pool
Cross -Section 2
Riffle
Cross -Section 3
Pool
Cross -Section 4
Riffle
Dimension
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASAt
544.82
544.82
544.82
544.82
N/A
540.40
540.40
540.40
540.40
541.09
537.87
537.87
537.87
537.87
N/A
533.69
533.69
533.69
533.69
533.58
Bankfull Width (ft)t
13.6
15.1
15.1
14.7
N/A
15.1
14.7
15.2
15.2
5.6
9.4
9.5
9.3
9.2
N/A
8.8
9.1
9.4
9.2
12.9
Floodprone Width (ft)t
45.0
>45.0
>45.0
>45.0
N/A
77.0
>77.0
>77.0
>77.0
>19.5
154.0
>154.0
>154.0
>154.0
N/A
75.0
>75.0
>75.0
>75.0
>22.2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1 0.9
0.9
1 0.9
1
0.6
1 0.5
0.5
1 0.6
1 ---
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
---
0.5
0.5
1 0.6
0.6
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.1
1 2.2
2.2
2.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
0.9
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.0
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
14.1
13.7
14.3
13.4
3.7
9.0
8.0
8.0
8.8
3.4
8.7
8.5
8.8
8.5
3.3
4.5
4.8
5.8
5.1
2.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.2
16.6
15.9
16.2
---
25.3
27.0
28.9
26.2
---
10.2
10.7
9.8
9.9
---
17.5
17.1
15.3
16.7
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
10.3
>3.0
>3.0
N/A
N/A
9.3
>5.2
>5.1
>5.1
>3.5
14.9
>14.6
>16.6
N/A
N/A
15.9
>8.3
>8.0
>8.2
1.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
Q
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
Q
F4-
d50 (mm)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
8.3
0.062
0.062
0.062
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
22L.0
17.0
28.0
22.0
Cross -Section 5
Pool
Cross -Section 6
Riffle
Cross -Section 7
Pool
Cross -Section 8
Riffle
Dimension
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASAt
530.49
530.49
530.49
530.49
OR N/A
528.11
528.11
528.11
528.11
528.18
525.02
525.02
525.02
525.02
N/A
522.48
522.48
522.48
522.48
522.33
Bankfull Width (ft)t
12.9
12.1
12.0
13.2
N/A
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.1
10.5
10.3
11.4
10.3
10.8
N/A
10.1
8.8
9.2
9.0
9.5
Floodprone Width (ft)t
61.0
>61.0
>61.0
>61.0
N/A
80.0
>80.0
>80.0
>80.0
>22.8
63.0
>63.0
>63.0
>63.0
N/A
40.0
>40.0
>40.0
>40.0
>21.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
---
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
---
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
2.0
2.0
2.1
1.9
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fe)2
12.8
11.0
11.2
12.8
4.2
6.6
6.6
7.2
6.9
5.6
12.3
11.2
10.4
9.9
4.7
6.2
5.6
5.8
5.9
4.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.0
13.2
12.9
13.6
---
19.3
19.5
17.9
17.9
---
8.6
11.5
10.3
11.8
---
16.6
13.9
14.7
13.7
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
17.4
>5.1
>5.1
N/A
N/A
9.7
>7.1
>7.1
>7.2
>2.2
10.7
>5.5
>6.1
N/A
N/A
10.9
>4.5
>4.3
>4.5
>2.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiot
0.9
1.0
1 1.0
N/A
N/A
1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1 0.9
Q
1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1 N/A
N/A
1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1 0.8
Q
d50 (mm)
N/A
I N/A
I N/A
I N/A
N/A
I
I
I N/A
1 26.0
1 2.6
1 4.0
1
1 0.062
6mL
I
N/A
I N/A
I N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
1 0.062
1 0.062
1 70.0
26.0
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 11a cont'd. Dimensional Morphology Summary
(Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 2
Cross -Section 9 Cross -Section 10 Cross -Section 11
Cross -Section 12
Riffle Pool Riffle
Pool
Dimension
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA'
517.50
517.50
517.50
517.50
517.63
516.22
516.22
516.22
516.22
N/A
515.16
515.16
515.16
M1 .16
514.92
1
513.68
513.68
513.68
513.68 N/A
Bankfull Width (ft)r
24.2
24.3
24.4
23.0
25.4
19.2
19.7
19.7
20.8
N/A
15.5
15.8
14.1
17.3
16.3
20.0
20.6
20.6
20.7 N/A
Floodprone Width (ft)r
62.0
>62.0
>62.0
>62.0
>29.5
132.0
>132.0
>132.0
>132.0
N/A
73.0
>73.0
>73.0
>73.0
>25.2
168.0
>168.0
>168.0
>168.0 N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.7
1 0.7
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.0
1 ---
0.6
1 0.5
0.6
1 0.6
---
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.2 ---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.8
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.0
1.9
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.5
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.8 1.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
17.7
16.5
17.5
15.2
3.8
25.3
24.4
23.1
20.1
12.1
9.4
8.6
8.3
9.8
6.7
21.3
21.4
23.1
24.5 9.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
33.1
35.6
34.2
34.8
---
14.6
16.0
16.8
21.5
---
25.5
28.9
23.8
30.5
---
18.8
19.9
18.4
17.4 ---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
5.8
>2.6
>2.5
>2.7
A.2
11.7
>6.7
>6.7
N/A
N/A
7.1
>4.6
>5.2
>4.2
A.5
7.0
>8.1
>8.2
N/A N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Q
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
Q
0.9
1.0
1.0
N/A N/A
d50 (mm)
N/A
1 0.062
1 5.8
1 2.3
1
1 N/A
I
I
I N/A
I N/A
I N/A
I N/A
I
I N/A
I
I
I N/A
1 0.062
1 0.062
1 17
16.0
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
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.

10
Table 11a cont'd. Dimensional Morphology Summary
(Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
601 East Stream Restoration Site -Reach 3
Cross -Section 13
Riffle
Cross -Section 14
Pool
Cross -Section 15
Pool
Cross -Section 16
Riffle
Dimension
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) -Based on AB-XSA'
497.88
497.88
497.88
497.88=MR
497.88
PEM495.50
495.50
495.50
495.50
N/A
494.42
494.42
494.42
494.42
N/A
493.73
493.73
493.73
493.73
493.73
Bankfull Width (ft)r
15.9
16.9
17.5
17.1
16
17.6
18.4
17.9
18.2
N/A
19.6
21.1
20.5
19.4
N/A
1 17.7
17.5
18.3
16.7
17.9
Floodprone Width (ft)r
75.0
>75.0
>75.0
>75.0
>23.3
350.0
>350.0
>350.0
>350
N/A
350.0
>350.0
>350.0
>350.0
N/A
150.0
>150.0
150.0
>150.0
>20.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.2
3.4
3.1
3.4
3.5
2.1
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.1
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
0.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
12.8
13.6
12.2
12.6
5.6
28.2
28.0
28.7
29.7
11.5
36.1
34.4
31.5
32.4
29
14.1
12.9
14.8
14.0
3.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
19.6
21.0
25.0
23.1
---
11.0
12.0
11.2
11.2
---
10.6
13.0
13.3
11.6
---
22.4
23.8
22.5
19.8
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
8.8
>4.4
>4.3
AA
>1.5
12.8
>19.1
>19.6
N/A
N/A
5.6
>16.6
>17.1
N/A
N/A
7.9
>8.5
>8.2
>9.0
>l.l
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Q
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
Q
d50 (mm)
N/A
20
9.1
85.0
10.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
31.0
3.3
62.0
9.4
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 11a cont'd. Dimensional Morphology Summary
(Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
601 East Stream Restoration Site -Reach 4
Cross -Section 17
Pool
Cross -Section 18
Riffle
Dimension A
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA'
489.11
489.11
489.11
489.11
N/A
490.01
490.01
490.01
490.01
489.99
Bankfull Width (ft)r
16.9
17.2
17.2
18.1
N/A
14.9
14.6
14.1
14.6
14.3
Floodprone Width (ft)r
42.0
>42.0
>42.0
>42.0
N/A
30.4
>31.0
>31.0
>31.0
>32.1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
1.7
1 1.7
1.7
---
I
1 1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fte)2
29.8
29.1
28.7
31.3
22.8
14.7
14.5
14.0
15
13.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.6
10.2
10.3
10.4
---
15.2
14.6
14.2
14.3
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
2.5
>2.4
>2.4
N/A
N/A
2.0
>2.1
>2.2
>2.1
>2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.2
1.1
1.1
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
0.8
1.0
d50 (mm)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
47
1 4.2
12.0
17.0
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
,I
Dimension & Substrate - Riffle
Illn
Meander Wavelength
�a��aa�������������■
a���������������������������
Meander Width
Additional Reach Parameters
N/A - Infortnatim does not apply
Ri =Rifrle / Ru =Run / P =Pool / G= Glide / S = Step
Baseline based on riffle and pool dimensions - MY1-7 based solely on riffle dimension
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with' were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the banktull elevation and the parameters denoted wit' were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the banktull elevation. These changes reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation provide

Table 11b cont'd. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
,I 9I
Dimension & Substrate - Riffle
mmm®m®mmmmm®mmmmm®mmmmm®mmmmmmaaaaaammmmmmmmmmmm
•
®mm®m®®®®®m®®®®®
®®®®®m®mmmmmmm®®®m®mmmmmmmmmmmm
®m®®®®®®®®®®®mm®®®m®®®m®mmmmmmaaaaaammmmmmmmmmmm
Entrenchment
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®mmmmmm®®®®m®mmmmmmmmmmmm
Bad, Height
mmmm
, ,
®mmmm
, ,
®mmmm
, ,
®mmmmm®mmmmmmmmmm
, ,
®mmmmmmmmmmmm
®®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm■■mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
•
®®®mm®mmmmmmmmmmmm■■mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
•
®®®mm®mmmmmmmmmmmm■■mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Charnmel Bell Width
ma
maammmmmmmmmmmm■■mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mammaammmmmmmmmmmm■■mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mammaammmmmmmmmmmm■■mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mammaammmmmmmmmmmm■■mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel Thalweg Length (fl�
mamaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm■
�mmmmmmmmmmmmm
N/A - Information does not apply.
Ri =Riffle / Ru =Run / P =Pool / G= Glide / S = Step
Baseline based on riffle and pool dimensions - MY1-7 based solely on riffle dimensions
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 wit$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 cont'd. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
,I
Dimension & Substrate - Riffle
m®®®m®mmmmm®mmmmm®mmmmm®mmmmmmaaaaaammmmmmmmmmmm
MINnUMPM1®®®®®®mmmmm®®®®®
®®®®®m®mmmmmmm®®®m®mmmmmmmmmmmm
®®®®®®®®®®m®®®®®®®®®®mm®mmmmmm®®®®®®mmmmmmmmmmmm
m®®®m®m®®®m®®®®m®®®®®®®®mmmmmmaaaaaammmmmmmmmmmm
®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®®m®®mmmmmm®®®®m®mmmmmmmmmmmm
Bank Height
mmmm
, ,
®mmmm
, ,
®mmmm
, ,
®mmmmm®mmmmmmmmmm
, ,
®mmmmmmmmmmmm
m®®m®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
•
®®m®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
•
®®®®mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Channel Bell Width
mammaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mammaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
mammaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Additional Reach Parameters
mamaammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm�
�mmmmmmmmmmmmm
N/A - Information does not apply.
Ri =Riffle / Ru =Run / P =Pool / G= Glide / S = Step
Baseline based on riffle and pool dimensions - MY1-7 based solely on riffle dimensions
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 wit$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 cont'd. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
,I
Dimension & Substrate - Riffle
Bank Height
Channel Bell Width
Additional Reach Parameters
„
r
N/A - Information does not apply
Ri =Riffle / Ru =Run / P =Pool / G= Glide / S = Step
Baseline based on riffle and pool dimensions - MY1-7 based solely on riffle dimension
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the banktull elevation and the parameters denoted withwere calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankthll elevation. These changes retlect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

546
545
544
w
543
542
0
Upstream
601 East- Reach 1 - Cross Section 1 - Pool
Downstream
3
Baseline
6 9 12 15
Distance (ft)
MY1 MY2 MY3
18
MY5
21 24
- - -Approx. Bankfull
27 30
3X Vertical Exaggeration
- --LowTOB
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
13.6
15.1
15.1
14.7
N/A
Floodprone Width (ft)'
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
---
Bankfull Max Depth 11z
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.1
1.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (112�
14.1
13.7
14.3
13.4
3.7
Width/Depth Ratio
13.2
16.6
15.9
16.2
---
Entrenchment Ratio'
10.3
3.0
1
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
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.

Upstream
Downstream
601 East- Reach 1 - Cross Section 2 - Riffle
543
542
w
540
- - -
- - - - - - 1.00-
- - -
- - -
539
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 - - • Approx. Bankfull - - - Low TOB - - - Floodprone Area
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
15.1
14.7
15.2
15.2
5.6
Floodprone Width (ft)'
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
>19.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
0.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2
9.0
8.0
8.0
8.8
3.4
Width/Depth Ratio
25.3
27.0
28.9
26.2
---
Entrenchment Ratio'
9.3
5.2
5.1
5.1
>3.5
Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
<1
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

Upstream
Downstream
601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 3 - Pool
540
539
° 538
w
537
- - - - - - - -
- - - -
- - - - - -
- - - -
536
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - -MY5 - - -Approx. Bankfull - -- Low TOB
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
9.4
9.5
9.3
9.2
N/A
Floodprone Width (ft)'
154.0
154.0
154.0
154.0
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2f
8.7
1 8.5
1 8.8
1 8.5
3.3
Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
10.7
9.8
9.9
---
Entrenchment Ratio'
14.9
14.6
16.6
1
N/A
I
N/A
Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1 1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
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

Upstream
Downstream
601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 4 - Riffle
536
535
° 534
-
-
- - -
lu-
- - - - - -
- - -
- - - - -
-
533
532
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - MY5 - - -Approx. Bankfull - - - Floodprone Area - - - Low TOB
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
8.8
9.1
9.4
9.2
12.9
Floodprone Width (ft)'
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
>22.2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.0
0.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2
4.5
4.8
5.8
5.1
2.6
Width/Depth Ratio
17.5
17.1
15.3
16.7
---
Entrenchment Ratio'
15.9
8.3
8.0
8.2
1.7
Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
<1
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

D
-`
k
= ..
.� per•
S
�
5[�
y
..
Upstream
Downstream
601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 5 - Pool
532
531
_ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
° 530
w
529
528
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 - - -Approx. Bankfull - -- Low TOB
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
12.9
12.1
12.0
13.2
N/A
Floodprone Width (ft)'
61.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2
12.8
11.0
11.2
12.8
4.2
Width/Depth Ratio
13.0
13.2
12.9
13.6
---
Entrenchment Ratio'
17.4
5.1
5.1
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
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

Upstream
Downstream
3X Vertical Exaggeration 601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 6 - Riffle
530
..........
------
....
--
....
--- ..................
529
0
° 528
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - - - -
- - -
- - - -
w
527
526
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 - - - Approx. Bankfull - - - Floodprone Area - - - Low TOB
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.1
10.5
Floodprone Width (ft)'
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
>22.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2
6.6
6.6
7.2
6.9
5.6
Width/Depth Ratio
19.3
19.5
17.9
17.9
---
Entrenchment Ratio'
9.7
7.1
7.1
7.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
<1
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

Upstream
Downstream
601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 7 - Pool
526.5
525.5
0
° 524.5
m
, - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- -
w
523.5
522.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - -MY5 - - -Approx. Bankfull - -- Low TOB
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
10.3
11.4
10.3
10.8
N/A
Floodprone Width (ft)'
63.0
63.0
63.0
63.0
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.0
2.0
2.1
1.9
1.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2
12.3
11.2
10.4
9.9
4.7
Width/Depth Ratio
8.6
11.5
10.3
11.8
---
Entrenchment Ratio'
10.7
5.5
6.1
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
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

Upstream
Downstream
601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 8 - Riffle
525
524
° 523
- - -
lift
- - - -
- - -
- -
- - -
- - -
522
- - -
- - - -
- - - -
- -
- - - -
- - -
- - -
-
521
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 - - • Approx. Bankfull - - - Floodprone Area - - - Low TO
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
10.1
8.8
9.2
9.0
9.5
Floodprone Width (ft)'
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
>21.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (112
6.2
5.6
5.8
5.9
4.6
Width/Depth Ratio
16.6
13.9
14.7
13.7
---
Entrenchment Ratio'
10.9
4.5
4.3
4.5
>2.3
Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
<1
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

601 East - Reach 2 - Cross Section 9 - Riffle
519.5
- - - - - - -
- - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - -
- - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - -
518.5
° 517.5
°
w
- - - - - - - - -
- -
- - - -
- - - -
- -
- -
- - - -
- - - -
516.5
515.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 - - - Approx. Bankfull - - - Floodprone Area - - - Low TOB
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
24.2
24.3
24.4
23.0
25.4
Floodprone Width (ft)'
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
>29.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2
17.7
16.5
17.5
15.2
3.8
Width/Depth Ratio
33.1
35.6
34.2
34.8
---
Entrenchment Ratio'
5.8
2.6
2.5
2.7
>1.2
Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1
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.

Upstream
Downstream
601 East - Reach 2 - Cross Section 10 - Pool
517.5
516.5
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
° 515.5
- - - - - - -
-
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - -
- -
-
w
514.5
513.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 - - -Approx. Bankfull - -- Low TOB
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
19.2
19.7
19.7
20.8
N/A
Floodprone Width (ft)'
132.0
132.0
132.0
132.0
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.0
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.0
1.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (112f
25.3
1 24.4
1 23.1
1 20.1
12.1
Width/Depth Ratio
14.6
16.0
16.8
21.5
Entrenchment Ratio'
11.7
6.7
6.7
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
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

Upstream
Downstream
601 East - Reach 2 - Cross Section 11 - Riffle
517
- - - - - - -
- - -
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- - - - - - - -
- -
516
515
>
- - - - - -
- - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
-
w
514
513
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 - - • Approx. Bankfull - - - Floodprone Area - - - Low TOB
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
15.5
15.8
14.1
17.3
16.3
Floodprone Width (ft)'
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
>25.2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2
9.4
8.6
8.3
9.8
6.7
Width/Depth Ratio
25.5
28.9
23.8
30.5
---
Entrenchment Ratio'
7.1
4.6
5.2
4.2
>1.5
Bank Height Ratio'
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
<1
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

Upstream
Downstream
601 East - Reach 2 - Cross Section 12 - Pool
514.5
513.5
° 512.5
- - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - -
14
/,00/
511.5
510.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 - - -Approx. Bankfull - -- Low TOB
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
20.0
20.6
20.6
20.7
N/A
Floodprone Width (ft)'
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.2
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.8
1.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2
21.3
21.4
23.1
24.5
9.4
Width/Depth Ratio
18.8
19.9
18.4
17.4
---
Entrenchment Ratio'
7.0
8.1
8.2
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio'
0.9
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
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

Upstream
Downstream
601 East - Reach 3 - Cross Section 13 - Riffle
500
-------
------- ----
---
--------
499
0
° 498
w
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- -
- - - - - - - -
497
496
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 - - -Approx. Bankfull - - - Floodprone Area - - - Low TOB
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
15.9
16.9
17.5
17.1
16.0
Floodprone Width (ft)'
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
>23.3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (112
12.8
13.6
12.2
12.6
5.6
Width/Depth Ratio
19.6
21.0
25.0
23.1
---
Entrenchment Ratio'
8.8
4.4
4.3
4.4
>1.5
Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1
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

Upstream
Downstream
601 East - Reach 3 - Cross Section 14 - Pool
496.5
495.5
-- -
-- - - - - --
--
- ---
494.5
°
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -
- -
- - - - - - - -
� 493.5
w
492.5
491.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 - - -Approx. Bankfull - -- Low TOB
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
17.5
18.4
17.9
18.2
N/A
Floodprone Width (ft)'
350.0
350.0
350.0
350.0
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.6
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
3.4
3.1
3.4
3.5
2.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2
28.2
28.0
28.7
29.7
11.5
Width/Depth Ratio
11.0
12.0
11.2
11.2
---
Entrenchment Ratio'
12.8
19.1
19.6
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
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

Upstream
Downstream
601 East - Reach 3 - Cross Section 15 - Pool
495.5
494.5
- -
- -
493.5
0
0
492.5
w
491.5
490.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 - - -Approx. Bankfull - -- Low TOB
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
19.6
21.1
20.5
19.4
N/A
Floodprone Width (ft)'
350.0
350.0
350.0
350.0
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.7
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2
36.1
34.4
31.5
32.4
29.0
Width/Depth Ratio
10.6
13.0
13.3
11.6
---
Entrenchment Ratio'
5.6
16.6
17.1
N/A
N/A
Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
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

z'... �'' '� 1-..:�, "�.
�, � �• '�+�i sir 1*'
..
i
•,5.. -
Upstream
Downstream
601 East - Reach 3 - Cross Section 16 - Riffle
495.5
-------
---
---- ----
494.5
° 493.5
- - - - - - -
- --- 4001#
w-
- - - - - -
- - -
- - - - -
- - - -
- - -
492.5
491.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 - - - Approx. Bankfull - - - Floodprone Area - - - Low TOB
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
17.7
17.5
18.3
16.7
17.9
Floodprone Width (ft)'
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
>20.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
0.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2
14.1
12.9
14.8
14.0
3.7
Width/Depth Ratio
22.4
23.8
22.5
19.8
---
Entrenchment Ratio'
7.9
8.5
8.2
9.0
>1.1
Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
<1
1Note: Starting in MY-'), the parameters denoted with -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 bankfull 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
601 East - Reach 4 - Cross Section 17 - Pool
493.5
492.5
491.5
00
490.5
0
489.5
- - - - - - -
w
- - - - - - - -
- - -
- ------
- - -
- - -
-
--
--
-- - --
488.5
487.5
486.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45
Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 - - -Approx. Bankfull - -- Low TCB
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
16.9
17.2
17.2
18.1
N/A
Floodprone Width (ft)'
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2�
29.8
29.1
28.7
31.3
1
22.8
Width/Depth Ratio
9.6
10.2
10.3
10.4
---
Entrenchment Ratio'
2.5
2.4
2.4
N/A#t:l
N/A
Bank Height Ratio'
1.2
1.1
1.1
N/A
N/A
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.

Upstream
Downstream
601 East - Reach 4 - Cross Section 18 - Riffle
494
493
492
° 491'900
w
489
488
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45
Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration
IFBaseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 - - -Approx. Bankfull - - - Floodprone Area - - - Low TOB
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankful Width (ft)'
14.9
14.6
14.1
14.6
14.3
Floodprone Width (ft)'
30.4
31.0
31.0
31.0
>32.1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2
14.7
14.5
14.0
15.0
13.7
Width/Depth Ratio
15.2
14.6
14.2
14.3
---
Entrenchment Ratio'
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.1
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
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

Appendix D - Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 12. Pebble County Data Summary
Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
601 East
MYl - 2015
MY2 - 2016
MY3 - 2017
MY4 - 2018
MY5 - 2019
MY6 - 2020
MY7 - 2021
Pebble Count
Pebble Count
Pebble Count
Pebble Count
Pebble Count
Pebble Count
Pebble Count
Stream Reach
D50 � 1�
r�
D84 �-)
D50 �-)
D84 �-)
D50 �-)
D84 �-)
D50 �-)
D84 �-)
D50 �-)
r�
D84 (-)
D50 (-)
D84 (-)
D50 (-)
D84 � 1�
Reach 1
14.1
48.8
4.9
25.6
25.5
87.3
4.8
48.3
12.0
28.8
Reach
0.062
61
2.9
34.1
9.7
20
5.5
30.9
16.0
58.0
Reach
27
79.5
6.2
39.5
73.5
140
26.5
72.0
9.7
70.5
Reach
47
110
4.2
66
12
95
12.0
95.0
17.0
63.0
Charts 1-5. MY5 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Chart 1.
601 East MY5 Substrate Composition
80%
70%
60°%
50Y 11
40%
30i'a
20%
109a
0%
Silt/Clay Sand Gravei Cobbte Boulder
X Reach 10 Reach 2 ■ Reach 3 Reach 4
Bedrock

Appendix D — Stream Geomorphology Data
Chart 2.
Chart 3.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20`O
lOR'o
0%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
601 East R-1 - Substrate Composition
1111111,
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder
■ MY1 • MY2 MY3 ■ MY4 ■ MYS
601 East R-? - Substrate Composition
111.11 1111,11, _
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder
■ MY1 ■ MY2 MY3 ■ MY4 ■ MYS
Bedrock
Bedrock

Appendix D — Stream Geomorphology Data
Chart 4.
Chart 5.
70%
60%
50°/G
40°/o
30%
20o/a
1D'/a
0%
80%
70%
50o/a
50%
401/a
3Ma
20%
10%
0%
Gil l East R-3 - Substrate Composition
1101111- 111
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel
s MY1 ■MY2
11111.- -
Cobble Boulder
MY3 ■ MY4 ■ MY5
601 East R-4 - Substrate Composition
1
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel
■ MY1 ■ MY2
III, _
Cobble Boulder
MY3 ■ MY4 ■ MYS
Bedrock
Bedrock

Table 13. Bank Pin Array Summary
601 E Stream Miti attion Site
Bank Pin Location
Position
Year 1
Reading (mm)
Year 2
Reading (mm)
Year 3
Reading (mm)
Year 4
Reading (mm)
Year 5
Reading (mm)
Upstream
0.0
35.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS-1
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS-3
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS-5
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS-7
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
12.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS-10
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS-12
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS-14
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS-15
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS-17
Upstream
0.0
0.0
50.8*
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
177.8*
0.0
0.0
*A beaver dam directly downstream caused unusually high water and localized bank erosion.

Appendix E
Hydrology Data
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15. 2019 Rainfall Summary
Figure 7. Photo Verification of Bankfull Events

Appendix E - Hydrology Data
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data Collection
Estimated Date of Occurrence
Method
Maximum Bankfull
Height ft
Photo #
Reach 2
11/1/2015
9/30/2015
Wrack Lines
Unknown
---
3/1/2016
2/16/2016
Crest Gauge
1.4
MY2
4/25/2017
4/24/2017
Crest Gauge
2.5
MY3
7/19/2017
6/20/2017
Crest Gauge
1.3
---
10/17/2017
9/12/2017
Crest Gauge
0.7
---
11/7/2018 9/16/2018 Wrack Lines 0.66 MY5
Reach 3
3/1/2016 Unknown Crest Gauge 0.2 MY2
4/25/2017
4/24/2017
Crest Gauge
0.3
---
7/19/2017
6/20/2017
Crest Gauge
1.4
MY3
10/17/2017
9/12/2017
Crest Gauge
0.9
---
11/7/2018
9/16/2018
Wrack Lines
0.79
MY5
Note: No bankfuR events were recorded in MY5 2019 due to ant infestations in the crest gauges.
Table 15. Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal
Limits
Monroe Station
Precipitation
30 Percent
70 Percent
Jan
3.90
2.68
4.65
4.59
Feb
3.29
2.45
3.85
3.70
Mar
4.22
3.02
4.98
3.94
Apr
3.29
2.01
3.98
4.84
May
3.25
1.99
3.93
3.41
Jun
4.66
2.84
5.65
4.14
Jul
4.34
2.83
5.21
1.87
Aug4.76
3.00
5.75
6.45
Sep
4.46
2.4
5.44
0.66
Oct
3.88
1.89
4.66
3.33
Nov
3.38
1.86
4.12
0.35
Dec
3.60
2.58
4.25
---
Total
47.03
29.55
56.47
37.28

Appendix E — Hydrology Data
Figure 7. Photo Verification of Bankfull Events
N/A