20120396 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2020_20201204

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20120396 Version* 1
.....................................
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 12/04/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 12/4/2020
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes fJ No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
17 Stream r Wetlands r Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Matthew Reid [e-mail]
Project Information
ID#:* 20120396 Version:*1
Existing ll) Existing Version
Project Type: C' DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Moores Fork
County: Surry
Document Information
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: MooresFrk_94709_MY5_2020.pdf 85.77MB
Rease upload only one FtF of the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matthew Reid
Signature:*

f A
•
� , tir, . v.....,-. ..li ,gam s`' . 1�` ,
mid t t' ,c - ar "''" :, f � +4rtt.-
:- ;"'-' '':04--i"
� *`_t {4 l 4 r"� , 4� r t� 3- �J fi#' , r .. - A.. ''p fT T
g �v 5 sue" 'Ik 5 7,'._
yU!- S e f Tr 1*S }y`3
�~ 4a '''-a'"K _..�. .. _.-,^ . fi ,� ,- 4 .,..s yT _
J' fi r. : �. .4-; :-^�_ ,:1: < a Y ,,
1" t
'V y �"�.R,e
4.
, _o 4..,-:-""--!._"- '''.--- ---;
s' I - ?- - -"--1 ::.'--. .°1, '',-'',it,r'-'41titl'' 7,01*'.(1-t---- .4'''''-)''- *"1-%;-'.*4' .__ -- '- '-- '''-::.*-r,',' 1'1/, '-' ,,,,.: --,-,-'' -:„-2L7-
� i ' to g
, ( rank-fir ,�.--:.., ¢ h `°,:,, . 1.70-• ,,,, :w-- .
lif •
MONITORING YEAR 5 MOORES FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
Surry County, NC
ANNUAL REPORT DEQ Contract 6500
DMS Project Number 94709
DWR# 12-0396
Final USACE Action ID SAW-2011-02257
Data Collection Period: February- September 2020
Draft Submission Date: October 19, 2020
Final Submission Date: December 2, 2020
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
0*
Vh/
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

ti "41i4
WILD LANDS
C N r I I t�
December 2, 2020
Mr. Matthew Reid
Western Project Manager
Division of Mitigation Services
15 Buckhorn Gap Road
Biltmore Lake, NC 28715
RE: Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Yadkin River Basin—CU#03040101
Surry County, North Carolina
NCEEP Project#94709
Contract No. 6500
Dear Mr. Reid:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments
from the Draft Monitoring Year 5 report for the Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project. The following
Wildlands responses to DMS's report comments are noted in italics lettering.
DMS comment; 1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern:The invasive species contractor continued to treat
invasives at the site throughout the monitoring year. Treatments occurred in May,June, and July
during 2020. DMS will continue to treat invasives at the site through closeout.
Wildlands response; Text was added to section 1.2.2 to specify the months when invasive treatments
occurred in 2020.
DMS comment;Table 2: Please add the following activities:
• Invasive Species Treatment- May,June and July 2020
Wildlands response; The invasive species treatment dates have been added to Table 2.
DMS comment; Please include the attached invasive species treatment log in the appendix for the
updated final report.
Wildlands response; The invasive species treatment log has been included in Appendix F.
DMS comment;CCPV:Thanks for providing updated invasive species polygons. Please continue to
update as treatment occurs and populations are reduced. This map is a useful tool for the contractor
treating the site.
Wildlands response; You're welcome. Wildlands will continue to update the CCPV figures as treatment of
invasive species occurs, and populations are reduced.
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

bil'‘41/1111IV
WILD LANDS
ENGINEERING
DMS comment;As noted in the report, DMS has completed a repair plan for nine areas of concern on
the site.This repair will occur in January 2021. DMS will update Wildlands as the repair is completed
and provide asbuilt/info to be included in the MY6 report.
Wildlands response; Text was updated in section 1.2.4 to indicate that the repair will occur in January
2021. The repair as-bult information will be included in the MY6 report.
DMS comment; Digital Files:The Table 7 report from the CVS entry tool does not match Table 10
included in the monitoring report. Please ensure that the CVS tool includes all of the relevant data to
replicate what is being included in the monitoring report.
Wildlands response; The "Table 7"report from the CVS entry tool seems to exclude new monitored stems
(from supplemental plantings) that were added in MY5 to the "Planted woody stem entry"tab. However,
using the "Simple reports"spreadsheet generated from the CVS entry tool matches Table 10 included in
the monitoring report.
DMS comment;As Wildlands has done in the past, please include a response to the comment letter
and how/where the comments were addressed. Please insert this letter directly behind the cover
page in the final deliverables.The IRT has requested that we include this letter with the final
deliverables.The response letter will need to be included with all future monitoring deliverables.
Wildlands response; The comment response letter has been inserted behind the cover page in the final
deliverables.
Enclosed please find one (1) hard copy and one (1) electronic copy on CD of the Final Monitoring Report.
Please contact me at 704-941-9093 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
Project Manager
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality(NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
restored, enhanced, and preserved approximately 19,587 linear feet (LF) of Moores Fork and 13
unnamed tributaries (UTs), provided livestock fencing and alternative water sources to keep livestock
out of the streams, removed invasive plant species across the project, and established native riparian
buffers. The restoration project was developed to fulfill stream mitigation requirements accepted by
the DMS for the Upper Yadkin River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03040101). The Moores Fork Stream
Mitigation Project(Site)will net 11,587.543 stream mitigation units through a combination of
restoration, enhancement I and II, and preservation.
The Site is within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) identified in the Upper Yadkin River Basin
Restoration Priority(RBRP) plan (NCDENR, 2009).The RBRP identified the Stewarts Creek 14-digit HUC
03040101100010 as a TLW. Agriculture is the primary land use in the watershed (36% agriculture land
cover and only 3% impervious cover), and the RBRP identified degraded riparian buffers as the major
stressor to water quality.The Site is also located within the identified as a priority subwatershed for
stream restoration and agricultural BMPs during the initial Upper Yadkin-Ararat River local watershed
planning (LWP).
The final design was completed in June of 2013. Construction activities and as-built surveys were
completed in December of 2014. Planting of the site took place in February of 2015. A large flood event
with an estimated return interval of 50 to 100 years occurred at the site on April 18-19, 2015, causing
damage to the main stem of Moores Fork. This damage was repaired in March and April of 2016, and a
second as-built survey was performed on the repaired areas in April of 2016. The baseline monitoring
efforts began in June of 2016 and monitoring year one efforts were initiated in late October of 2016.The
Monitoring Year (MY) 5 activities were completed in September 2020.
Overall, the Site is on track to meet monitoring success criteria for MY7 vegetation, geomorphology, and
hydrology performance standards.The MY5 vegetation survey resulted in an average stem density of
479 planted stems per acre.The Site has met the MY5 density requirement of 260 planted stems per
acre, with all 12 plots (100%) individually meeting this requirement.The MY5 vegetation assessment
revealed that invasive plant populations have been significantly reduced due to ongoing treatment. A
few instances of localized bank erosion and structure instability are present on the Site and are likely to
require the implementation of maintenance measures to deter further degradation. During MY5, at
least two bankfull events occurred on Moores Fork and one bankfull event occurred on Silage Tributary.
The performance standard of two recorded bankfull events in separate monitoring years was met in
MY3 for Moores Fork and Silage Tributary.
kb*" Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report-FINAL i

MOORES FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
Year 5 Monitoring Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives 1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 5 Data Assessment 1-2
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment 1-2
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity 1-3
1.2.3 Stream Assessment 1-3
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity 1-3
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment 1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 5 Summary 1-4
Section 2: METHODOLOGY 2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES 3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A General Tables and Figures
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4a-b Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Table 5 Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figures 3.0-3.6 Current Condition Plan View Maps
Table 6a-j Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10 Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Appendix D Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11a-b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12a-b Morphology and Hydraulic Summary(Dimensional Parameters—Cross-Section)
Cross-Section Plots with Annual Overlays
Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Appendix E Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Monthly Rainfall Data
Appendix F Invasive Species Treatment Logs
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
41, Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report- FINAL ii

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site was implemented under a design-bid-build contract with DMS in Surry County, NC.The Site is
located in the Yadkin River Basin; eight-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101 and the 14-digit HUC
03040101100010 (Figure 1). Located in the Piedmont physiographic province (NCGS 2004), the project
watershed primarily includes agricultural land cover.The drainage area for the lower end of Moores
Fork is 1,527 acres, and the drainage area for Silage Tributary is 156 acres.The Site is located
approximately 0.25 mile north of NC 89 on Horton Road. The project site is located on both sides of
Horton Road. Latitude and longitude for the site are 36.506671 N and -80.704115 W, respectively
(Figure 1).
The NCDEQ DMS restored, enhanced, and preserved approximately 19,587 LF of Moores Fork and 13
unnamed tributaries (UTs), provided livestock fencing and alternative water sources to keep livestock
out of the streams, removed invasive plant species across the project, and established native riparian
buffers.The restoration project was developed to fulfill stream mitigation requirements accepted by the
DMS for the Upper Yadkin River Basin (HUC 03040101). Mitigation work within the Site included
restoring and enhancing 15,308 LF and preserving 4,279 LF of stream. The Moores Fork Stream
Restoration Project will net 11,587.543 stream mitigation units (SMUs)through a combination of
restoration, enhancement I and II, and preservation. Due to overhead utility easements that cross
project streams, 7.8 SMUs were removed on Silage Tributary Reach 2 (starting at STA 30+10.49 and
ending at STA 30+33.95), 10.4 SMUs were removed on Moores Fork(starting at STA 37+22.01 and
ending at STA 37+42.79), and 4.1 SMUs were removed on Corn Trib (starting at STA 19+38.58 and
ending at STA 19+59.15) as shown in Table 1 of Appendix A.
The final design was completed in June of 2013. Construction activities and as-built surveys were
completed in December of 2014. Planting of the site took place in March of 2015. A large flood event
with an estimated return interval of 50 to 100 years occurred at the site on April 18-19, 2015, causing
damage to the main stem of Moores Fork. This damage was repaired in March and April of 2016, and a
second as-built survey was performed on the repaired areas in April of 2016. The baseline monitoring
efforts began in June of 2016 and monitoring year one efforts were initiated in late October of 2016.The
Monitoring Year 5 monitoring activities were completed in September 2020. More detailed information
related to the project activity, history, and contacts can be found in Appendix A,Tables 1 and 2.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and, project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2. Please refer to the Project Component Map (Figure 2)for the stream features and to
Table 1 for the project component and mitigation credit information for the Site.This report documents
the results of the MY5 monitoring efforts.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, dairy and farming operations on the site had deforested riparian buffers
and allowed direct livestock access to the stream, leading to elevated temperatures and nutrients.
Channel straightening and dredging throughout much of the project had also contributed to channel
degradation.Table 11 in Appendix D present the pre-restoration conditions in detail.
This mitigation site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Yadkin River Basin.
The project goals identified in the Mitigation Plan (Confluence, 2012) include:
• Improve water quality in Moores Fork and the UTs through reductions in sediment and nutrient
inputs from local sources;
• Create conditions for dynamic equilibrium of water and sediment movement between the
supply reaches and project reaches;
WMoores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report-FINAL 1-1

• Promote floodwater attenuation and secondary functions associated with more frequent and
extensive floodwater contact times;
• Improve in-stream habitat by increasing the diversity of bedform features;
• Enhance and protect native riparian vegetation communities; and
• Reduce fecal, nutrient, and sediment loads to project streams by promoting and implementing
livestock best management practices.
The project objectives have been defined as follows:
• Restoration of the dimension, pattern, profile of approximately 1,828 LF of Moores Fork Reach 2
and 243 LF of the Pond Tributary;
• Restoration of the dimension and profile (Enhancement I) of the channel for approximately
2,832 LF of Moores Fork Reach 3, 900 LF of Silage Reach 1, 2,448 LF of Silage Reach 2, 300 LF of
Barn Reach 1 and 112 LF of Corn Reach 2;
• Limited channel work coupled with livestock exclusion, gully stabilization, invasive species
control and buffer planting(Enhancement II) on approximately 761 LF of Moores Fork Reach 1,
167 LF of Cow Tributary 1, 767 LF of Cow Tributary 2, 3,134 LF of Barn Reach 2, 1,350 LF of Corn
Reach 1, and 466 LF of UT1;
• Livestock exclusion fencing and other best management practice installations;
• Invasive plant species control measures across the entire project wherever necessary; and
• Preservation of approximately 4,279 LF of relatively un-impacted forested streams (UTs 2, 3, 6,
7, 8, 9, and 10) in a permanent conservation easement.
1.2 Monitoring Year 5 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted between February and September 2020 to assess the condition of the
project.The stream restoration success criteria for the Site follows the approved performance standards
presented in the Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project Final Mitigation Plan (Confluence, 2012).
Annual monitoring will be conducted for seven years to provide a project data chronology that will
facilitate an understanding of project status and trends.
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
A total of 12 vegetation monitoring plots were established during the baseline monitoring within the
project easement areas using a standard 10 by 10 meter plot. Please refer to Figures 3.0-3.6 in Appendix
B for the vegetation monitoring locations. At the end of year five of the monitoring period, the
vegetation success criterion is the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor along
restored and enhanced reaches.The final vegetation success criterion is the survival of 210 planted
stems per acre at the end of year seven of the monitoring period.
The MY5 vegetation survey was completed in August 2020, resulting in an average stem density of 479
planted stems per acre.The Site is exceeding the MY5 density requirement of 260 planted stems per
acre,with all 12 plots (100%) individually meeting this requirement. Vegetation plots 2 and 3 have
increased densities compared to last year due to supplemental planting and previously missing stems
that were found alive this year.Therefore,the site overall has an increased stem density of 4%.The MY5
average stem height for all plots is about 11.9 feet. Approximately 11%of the planted stems scored a
vigor of 2, indicating that they have fair plant health with some damage present. Stems with a vigor of 1
that are unlikely to survive next year accounted for roughly 2%of the monitored stems.This low vigor
rating is due to damage from storm events, vine strangulation, suffocation from dense herbaceous
cover, insects, deer, or other unknown factors. Planted black gum trees (Nyssa sylvatica), which are a
favorite among the deer, had previously been stunted and are now starting to grow to a height where
kb*" Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report-FINAL 1-2

they can survive. Desirable volunteer species such as tulip poplar, red maple, river birch, and tulip poplar
are present throughout the Site. Please refer to Appendix B for vegetation plot photographs and
Appendix C for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity
Areas of invasive plant populations were identified in MY5 throughout the Site. Species included: kudzu
(Pueraria montana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), oriental bittersweet(Celastrus orbiculatus), morning glory(Convolvulus
sp.), and English ivy(Hedera helix).The invasive treatments that occurred in 2019 and continued in 2020
have caused over a 40% reduction compared to MY4. Currently, less than 2%of the easement acreage is
mapped with some invasive species areas of concern. In 2020, invasive treatments occurred in May,
June, and July and will continue through closeout. Along the left floodplain of Moores Fork,there
continue to be some persistent areas of kudzu and additional pockets discovered in MY5 along the
stream banks.
In areas that received supplemental planting in 2019, stems were found to be healthy and stem density
appears higher. Isolated bare/poorly vegetated areas observed in MY5 continue to be approving with
herbaceous cover becoming established.These vegetation areas of concern are shown in Figures 3.0-3.6
in Appendix B.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY5 were conducted in April and June 2020. Overall, surveyed cross-sections
along Moores Fork indicate the channel is maintaining stable dimensions. At both Moores Fork riffle
cross-section M4 and pool cross-section M6, an increase in cross-sectional area is evident due to stone
toe boulder structures that are dislodged at both cross-sections. Alluvial deposition along the banks and
floodplain is present along Moores Fork and visible within most cross-sections. However, riffles are
maintaining appropriate width-to-depth ratios and pools are maintaining max depths compared to MYO.
In addition, MY5 riffle pebble counts along Moores Fork indicate coarser sediment size distribution as
compared to MYO. Therefore, Moores Fork appears to be transporting sediment efficiently and
functioning as designed.
Along Silage Tributary, the surveyed cross-sections, are representative of vertical and lateral instability
observed throughout Silage Tributary Reach 1 and 2. Downcutting present at cross-sections ST2, ST3,
and ST6, and bank scour present at cross-sections ST1 and ST5, accounts for the increased channel
dimensions as compared to MYO. In general, MY5 riffle pebble counts indicate similar or coarser
sediment size distribution as compared to MYO. See section 1.2.4 for further discussion about stream
areas of concern along Silage Tributary. Please refer to Appendix D for cross-section plots and
morphological summary tables.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity
Stream areas of concern include localized instances of bank instability and sediment deposition. Along
Moores Fork, new or expanded areas of bank instability were noted in MY5 (STA 19+10, 43+10, 44+90,
and 64+10). At both wetland outlets to Moores Fork below UT8 and UT10, the headcuts have continued
to worsen and are migrating further up into the wetlands. Along Moores Fork, a few additional boulder
toe structures have shifted resulting in bank scour behind them. However, these stream areas of
concern seem to be isolated and not prevalent along Moores Fork.
Along Silage Tributary, several new or expanded areas of bank instability were noted in MY5 (STA 13+40,
21+80, 25+70, 30+30, 32+50, and 37+60)where woody vegetation has failed to become established
along the banks. Several structures that were used for grade control along Silage Tributary have been
kb*" Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report-FINAL 1-3

undermined by flow piping under or around them.The nature of this confined steep valley in
combination with flashy runoff from recent numerous storm events has amplified areas of stream
instability, as displayed in the surveyed cross-sections along these reaches.
Other stream areas of concern are present in some of the smaller tributaries on the Site. Pond Tributary
continues to experience sedimentation along the upper portion, but well-established willows and other
woody vegetation are maintaining the channel function. At the project start of Corn Tributary, a
significant headcut and erosion around the culvert continues to downcut.These areas will continue to
be monitored in future years for signs of accelerated instability.
DMS has contracted with a design firm to develop a repair plan for approximately nine areas of
instability throughout the Site.The assessment and design occurred fall/winter 2019 followed by
construction that will occur in January 2021. Stream repairs will be captured in the MY7 (2022)
geomorphic stream assessment. DMS has also contracted with APHIS to control beaver and dams at the
Site in 2019. APHIS removed multiple beaver and dams in 2019 and will continue to monitor the Site for
beaver activity through closeout. Stream areas of concern and management activities are shown in
Figures 3.0-3.6 in Appendix B.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
Bankfull data collected on February 27 and September 8, 2020 indicate that bankfull events occurred in
MY5. At least two bankfull events on Moores Fork and one bankfull event on Silage Tributary were
documented with recent alluvial deposits and obvious wracklines in MY5. Monthly rainfall data indicate
higher than normal rainfall amounts occurred during the months of February, April, May, and August
2020(NCCRONOS, 2020). Hydrologic success criteria for the Site states that two bankfull flow events
must be documented on restoration reaches within the seven-year monitoring period and must occur in
separate years. Five bankfull events have been documented for Moores Fork and four bankfull events
have been documented for Silage Tributary in separate years.Therefore,the performance standard for
the Site was met in MY3. Refer to Appendix E for hydrologic data and graphs.
1.3 Monitoring Year 5 Summary
Overall, the Site is on track to meet monitoring success criteria for MY7 vegetation, geomorphology, and
hydrology performance standards.The MY5 vegetation survey resulted in an average stem density of
479 planted stems per acre.The Site has exceeded the MY5 density requirement of 260 planted stems
per acre,with all 12 plots (100%) individually meeting this requirement. Additionally, the MY5
vegetation assessment revealed that invasive plant populations have been significantly reduced due to
ongoing treatment.A few instances of localized bank erosion and structure instability are present on the
Site and maintenance may be warranted to prevent further degradation. At least two bankfull events
occurred on Moores Fork and one bankfull event occurred on Silage Tributary.The performance
standard of two recorded bankfull events in separate monitoring years has been met for both Moores
Fork and Silage Tributary.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these annual monitoring reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan
documents available on DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices
are available from DMS upon request.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project W
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report-FINAL 1-4

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
The stream monitoring methodologies utilized in 2020 are based on standard guidance and procedures
documents (Rosgen 1996 and USACE 2003). Geomorphic data were collected following the standards
outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et
al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook(Doll et al., 2003). All
Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub-meter
accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS. Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in
accordance with the guidelines and procedures developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level
2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). Crest gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross-sections and monitored
semi-annually.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project W
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report-FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Confluence Engineering, PC. 2012. Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Plan. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley,J., Harman, W.A.,Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy,John P. 1994.Stream Channel Reference Sites:An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen.Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D.,Wentworth,Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-
2.pdf
North Carolina Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database (NCCRONOS).
2020. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. MT Airy 2 W. Station ID No. 315890.
Accessed September 2020.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Surface Water Classifications. Retrieved
from http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-
standards/classifications
NCDENR. 2009. Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration Priorities. Retrieved from
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-
docu ments/yadki n-river-basi n
North Carolina Geological Survey(NCGS). 2004. Physiography of North Carolina. Map compiled by the
Division of Land Resources. Raleigh.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey(USGS), 1998. North Carolina Geology.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/north-carolina-geological-
survey/
WMoores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report-FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX A. General Tables and Figures

•
°u - ' ;10ti.d ry CreeRkit�'�/ x —Project Location
o- �o9Q in . ,Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
•,'6i aVIRGINIA rNIr— - — - r r-ry r+ r.+ f+-_+-• r-r-ri . r ri + f r.+ +NORTH CAROLINA +, + ...
r __ Vllr{(%INiA
le UP'
rev ,/,) ��, {
09 •
w_ 11
4? P '�'r E!
''
C
1 , ,z§ -C-h RI iiiiiikt1
• ♦� t:irtU� �'�' ,''Y(:\Ju
♦ , ,Cr
•I +l A
1 @e 'i4,
♦ SIeN �s S Cre
1 arts creq °1iC , V.
/ ♦• ^00 C�
\
\ r
•
r .<. =
ri
nl 7
,n9 Creek Ra ork•
7 f. 03040101100010
7 .ores rr,.,
11111111111.4
♦-\
il 4.....
1
-a is ♦r
O
03040101090020 t A k 1 ( , ,
`
g / 4
. _
c.
�rinh0
•
/w'^~�'y TarnersG�cek .
-c
T ♦PA'' fr
A? / 1
j I Beech : it
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of FIne1 ♦. Crce�F .7
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality uussssiic�Gol' 6 : '`,r`' .
''.nurse lire., 'er
(NCDEQ)Division of Mitigation Services(DMS)and is 4 4 r; •hand
•
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement,but is ^�
bordered by land under private ownership.Accessing the site ..,�•� -
may require traversing areas near or along the easement Directions to Site:
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not From Charlotte: Head north on Interstate 77 north of Elkin,NC,take
permitted.Access by authorized personnel of state and exit 100(North Carolina 89)toward Galax and Mt.Airy.Turn right -
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in onto North Carolina 89(West Pine Street)and travel approximately
the development,oversight,and stewardship of the restoration • 2 miles.Turn left onto Pine Ridge Road and continue 0.2 mile to a
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their left turn onto Horton Road.The project site is located on both sides
defined roles.Any intended site visitation or activity by of Horton Road.Latitude and longitude for the site are 36.506671 N
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and-80.704115 W respectively. v'R
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS. •
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
�"'/ Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Site
VVT L D L ANDS l!iiiiitl 0 0.5 1 Mile DMS Project No.94709
"`' I I 1 I N Monitoring Year 5-2020
Surry County, NC

. _ ,ems...
■■■■I Conservation Easement
"t'I —Stream Restoration
,
Stream Enhancement Level
Stream Enhancement Level I; Reduced Credit
`` Stream Enhancement Level II
r'.
Stream Enhancement Level II; Reduced Credit
to r s4 Stream Preservation
Reach Break
Non Project Streams
l Existing Wetland
�
f9J ! ' J,N{ y
4 Overhead Power Easement
1,! I
II-.. -<
I 4 II �/ a•
?a I{1 If ., ■�� re
Fs . e Orin
°fi..
,� . o i G1.8 GA
Nr6
r--
G GI>
r
gib
V
ed rye ` /ry
.. ..T"
n
is
k s - i V.
•fix ?fit 8,
"
It
1 .. 1 t Aerial Photography
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Site
0 700 Feet DMSProjectNo.94709
WTLDLANDS 1N
LNLIf+LL1..1,U
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Surry County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Mitigation Credit •
Type Restoration Enhancement I Enhancement II Preservation
Total 2071.000 5757.790 2902.953 855.800
Project Components 1
Pre-project
Project Component or Restoration Footage Restoration or Mitigation Mitigation
Stationing Footage or Restoration Level Notes
Reach ID or Acreage Rest Equiv. Ratio Credits
Acreage
Moores Reach 1 STA 989-1750 761 761 N/A ElI 2.5:1 304.400 -
Moores Reach 2 STA 1750-3578 1,636 1,828 P2 R 1:1 1,828.000 -
Reduction in 10.39 SMU because of 20'
Moores Reach 3 STA 3578-6410 2,856 2,832 P2/3 El 1:1 2,821.610 overhead powerline easement
Silage Reach 1 STA 1000-1900 900 900 P1 El 1:1 900.000 -
Reduction in 7.82 SMU because of 20'
Silage Reach 2 STA 1900-4348 2,448 2,448 P3 El 1.5:1 1,624.180 overhead powerline easement.
Cow Trib 1 STA 1219-1386 167 167 P4 ElI 1.5:1 111.333 -
Cow Trib 2 STA 1331-2098 767 767 P4 ElI 1.5:1 511.333 -
Pond Trib STA 1000-1243 194 243 P2 R 1:1 243.000 -
Barn Reach 1 STA 1000-1300 300 300 P3 El 1:1 300.000 -
Barn Reach 2 STA 1350-3746; STA 3,134 3,134 N/A ElI 2.5:1 1,253.600 -
4069-4757
Reduction in 4.114 SMU because of 20'
Corn Reach 1 STA 1000-2350 1,350 1,350 N/A ElI 2.5:1 535.886 overhead powerline
Corn Reach 2 STA 2350-2462 112 112 P3 El 1:1 112.000 -
UT1 STA1000-1466 466 466 N/A ElI 2.5:1 186.400 -
Preservation Reaches UTs 2,3,6,7,8,9,10 4,279 4,279 N/A P 5:1 855.800 -
Length and Area Summations 1Mih _ ,
Non-riparian
Restoration Level Stream(Linear Feet) Riparian Wetland(acres) Buffer(Square feet) Upland(acres)
Wetland(acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 2,071 - - - - - - -
Enhancement - - - - - - -
Enhancement I 6,592
Enhancement II 6,645
Creation - - - - -
Preservation 4,279 - - - - -
High Quality Preservation
N/A-Not Applicable
'Project components and mitigation credits reverted back to Mitigation Plan totals as requested by IRT.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery
Mitigation Plan December 2011 November 2012
Final Design—Construction Plans N/A June 2013
Construction(Repairs) N/A December 2014(April 2016)
Temporary S&E Mix Applied N/A December 2014(April 2016)
Permanent Seed Mix Applied N/A December 2014(April 2016)
Containerized,Bare Root and B&B Plantings For Reach/Segments N/A February 2015(April 2016)
Invasive Species Treatment May 2016 May 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document(Year 0) Vegetation Survey June 2016 August 2016
Stream Survey June 2016
Invasive Species Treatment September 2016 September 2016
Year 1 Monitoring Vegetation Survey October 2016 November 2016
Stream Survey November 2016
Year 2 Monitoring Vegetation Survey August 2017 November 2017
Stream Survey July 2017
Invasive Species Treatment July,Aug,Sept&Nov 2018 November 2018
Year 3 Monitoring Vegetation Survey August 2018 November 2018
Stream Survey June 2018
Supplemental Planting March 2019 November 2019
Beaver/Dam Removal July 2019 November 2019
Invasive Species Treatment Feb,July,&Sept 2019 September 2019
Year 4 Monitoring Vegetation Survey August 2019 November 2019
Stream Survey N/A
Invasive Species Treatment May,June,&July 2020 July 2020
Year 5 Monitoring Vegetation Survey August 2020 November 2020
Stream Survey July 2020
Year 6 Monitoring Vegetation Survey 2021 November 2021
Stream Survey N/A
Year 7 Monitoring Vegetation Survey 2022 November 2022
Stream Survey 2022
N/A-Not Applicable
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Designer Confluence Engineering,PC
16 Broad Street
Asheville,NC 28801
Primary project design POC Andrew Bick 828-606-0306
Construction Contractor Carolina Environmental Contracting,Inc.
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy,NC 27030
Construction contractor POC Wayne Taylor 336-341-6489
Survey Contractor Turner Land Surveying,PLLC
PO Box 41023
Raleigh,NC 27629
Survey Contractor POC David Turner 919-623-5095
Planting Contractor Keller Environmental,LLC
7921 Haymarket Lane
Raleigh,NC 27615
Planting Contractor POC Jay Keller 919-749-8259
Seeding Contractor Carolina Environmental Contracting,Inc.
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy,NC 27030
Seeding Contractor POC Wayne Taylor 336-341-6489
Seed Mix Sources Green Resources 336-855-6363
Nursery Stock Suppliers Foggy Mountain Nursery 336-384-5323
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
1430 South Mint Street,Ste 104
Charlotte,NC 28205
704.332.7754
Monitoring POC Kirsten Gimbert 704-332-7754

Table 4a. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Project Information
Project Name Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
County Surry
Project Area(acres) -140
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 36.506671 N,80.704115 W
- Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03040101100010
DWR Sub-basin Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-02
Project Drainage Area(acres) 1,527 ac(2.39 mil)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <5%
CGIA Land Use Classification Cropland and Pasture,Confined Animal Operations
Reach Summary Information -
Parameters Moores Fork Reach 1&2 Moores Fork Reach 3 Silage Cow Trib 1 Cow Trib 2
Length of Reach Post Construction(LF) 2,636 2,885 3,348 167 767
Valley classification(Rosgen) VIII VIII II/IV II II
Drainage area(acres) 1,193 1,527 156 4 16
NCDWQ stream identification score 35 34.5 23.5 20 23.5
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification WS-IV WS-IV WS-IV WS-IV WS-IV
Morphological Description(Rosgen stream type) C4 C4 G4/C4 G5 G5
Evolutionary trend C-F C-F G-F G G
Underlying mapped soils CsA,FsE CsA,FsE FeD2 FeD2 FeD2
Drainage class well drained well drained well drained well drained well drained
Soil Hydric status not hydric not hydric not hydric not hydric not hydric
Slope 0.008 0.006 0.030 0.056 0.038
FEMA classification Not in SFHA Not in SFHA Not in SFHA Not in SFHA Not in SFHA
Native vegetation community Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation 0 0 0 0 0
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters Wetland 1 Wetland 2 Wetland 3 Wetland 4
Size of Wetland(acres) 0.49 0.04 0.08 0.15
Wetland Type riparian non-riverine riparian non-riverine riparian non-riverine riparian non-riverine
Mapped Soil Series FsE FsE CsA FsE&CsA
Drainage class well drained well drained well drained well drained
Soil Hydric Status not hydric not hydric not hydric not hydric
Source of Hydrology UT9&UT10 UT8 Toe seep Toe seep
Hydrologic Impairment none none none none
Dist.Small Stream/ Dist.Small Stream/ Dist.Small Stream/ Dist.Small Stream/
Native vegetation community
Narrow FP Forest Narrow FP Forest Narrow FP Forest Narrow FP Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation 0 0 0 0
Regulatory Considerations IM A
Regulation Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States-Section 404 Y Y USACE ID No.SAW-2011-02257
Waters of the United States-Section 401 Y Y NCDWR#12-0396
Endangered Species Act Y Y CE Approved 12/21/11
Historic Preservation Act N N/A -
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act(CAMA) N N/A -
FEMA Floodplain Compliance N N/A -
Essential Fisheries Habitat N N/A -
N/A Not-applicable

Table 4b. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Project Information
Project Name Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
County Surry
Project Area(acres) '-140
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 36.506671 N,80.704115 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03040101100010
DWR Sub-basin Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-02
Project Drainage Area(acres) 1,527 ac(2.39 mi')
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <5%
CGIA Land Use Classification Cropland and Pasture,Confined Animal Operations
+ Reach Summary Information
Parameters Pond Trib Barn Reach 1&2 Corn Reach 1&2 UT1
Length of Reach Post Construction(LF) 243 3,434 1,452 466
Valley classification(Rosgen) VIII IV IV IV
Drainage area(acres) 27 184 30 6
NCDWQ stream identification score 20 36.5 21 23
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification WS-IV WS-IV WS-IV WS-IV
Morphological Description(Rosgen stream type) B4/5 G4 G4 B4
Evolutionary trend B-C-F G-F G-F -
Underlying mapped soils CsA FeD2,FsE CsA,FsE FeD2
Drainage class well drained well drained well drained well drained
Soil Hydric status not hydric not hydric not hydric not hydric
Slope 0.029 0.025 0.057 0.040+/-
FEMA classification Not in SFHA Not in SFHA Not in SFHA Not in SFHA
Native vegetation community Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation 0 0 0 0
1 Wetland Summary Information 1 ,
Parameters Wetland 5 Wetland 6
Size of Wetland(acres) 0.03 0.06
Wetland Type riparian non-riverine riparian non-riverine
Mapped Soil Series FeD2 FsE&FeD2
Drainage class well drained well drained
Soil Hydric Status not hydric not hydric
Source of Hydrology Toe Seep Toe Seep
Hydrologic Impairment none none
Native vegetation community Dist.Small Stream/ Dist.Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest Narrow FP Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation 0 0
N/A Not-applicable

Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Quantity/Length by Reach
Parameter Monitoring Feature Moores Moores Moores Silage Silage Frequency
Pond Trib Corn Reach 1 Corn Reach 2 UT1 Cow Trib 1 Cow Trib 2 Barn 1 Barn 2
Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 1 Reach 2
Dimension Riffle XS 2 4 1 3 Years 1,2,3,5,7
Pool XS 1 2 1 2 Years 1,2,3,5,7
Substrate 100 Pebble Count 2 4 1 3 Annual
Hydrology Crest Gage 1 1 Semi-Annual
Vegetation Vegetation Plots 4 3 1 2 1 1 Annual
Visual Assessment Project Site Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Semi-Annual
Reference Photos Permanent Photo Points 2 2 11 1 2 19 6 12 2 2 4 3 3 Annual

APPENDIX B. Visual Assessment Data

-•-- Conservation Easement
L-_-; Overhead Power Line Easement
Stream Restoration '` /42
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level I; Reduced Credit
Stream Enhancement Level II !
Stream Enhancement Level II; Reduced Credit i i %:'
III
Stream Preservation ! ...1.."
♦
-Reach Break . 3
♦ '%;.
Non Project Streams .♦ `•**%%%% ,.
... - `'sheet 3' 'e.
Existing Wetland - _ %Ga...
- - �� c% % * + '
-Cross-Section -.7 ,�i,s .- -�`-. I. .+ + 11.
1 , /
+ Photo Point ; + 's �• Q, + '
4.
Crest Gage ► :. . » �..
Vegetation Monitoring Plots(VP) MY5 ; .�p • . -a �►r10
_ Criteria Met ; .` ♦.'IN �•, N. -1-.-.4 G1, �♦ I
Vegetation Areas of Concern MY5 i O F :
Chinese Privet i ' ♦ ,�� 51
- , '� ;
Japanese Honeysuckle ► ', ,' I . .-♦�♦`� . ''
. �•
= Kudzu ...._�,...:.----•---- -,_ ;
ti:KMorning Glory r♦ ` S♦`
I
Multiflora Rose ♦� `N1 I
Oriental Bittersweet . - �•`�♦•` -•._
I
;;. English Ivy '' - ♦,'J. ,_ .1. ''`.`.� ±.-'''1
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover ! ; `�♦ `♦ ,
+ '• , :
, ,.
•
a
i �dc ,1- ' ' ��• {� ♦ �� j�N eat
• 7
t� , sheet 5 ; 'e I` e
0+
4 - r I ♦,�, s = -
""yeti , - + -. ♦�� ,.
f�"GiSU11�� a! a)
i _+ ; i ‘1).
'� ,t ' + .
I . co 4kb %
,. . ,v �_ .Sheet S R'°b .. +--- `f'
2014tic __ o ♦ �% i
PIP Figure 3.0 Current Condition Plan View (Key)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
te/
DMS Project No. 94709
W I L D L A N D S IT
0 300 600 Feet Monitoring Year 5 2020
ENGINEERING
1 1 1 1
Surry County, NC

Structures --•- Conservation Easement
RN Constructed Riffle "' . .- �. `
,___, Overhead Power Line Easement
Headcut/erosion at crossing
Brushmat Stream Restoration
Geolift . • Stream Enhancement Level
•
Debris Plug Stream Enhancement Level I; Reduced Credit
Bridge
%.-� Stream Enhancement Level II
---- Gully Stabilization
' ` Stream Enhancement Level II; Reduced Credit
--- Fascines
• 0 =..
Stream Preservation
Structures /
x8 t.
Reach Break
`_- Root Wad 6.c J-Hook /
iI Non Project Streams
•
Rock Vane yi` Log Vane
/ � - - - - Top of Bank
•
'' Step. / Existing Wetland
Stone Toe ... �. i,
•
rt / Photo Point(PP)
i •
- /
• + Crest Gage
Cross Section
•
+,0'9t / Vegetation Monitoring Plots(VP)- MY5
i
/ / II Criteria Met
#,, wI ', Vegetation Areas of Concern- MY5
4.
i• \�\ Chinese Privet
/ i �'
IM•:::. Japanese Honeysuckle
} %:* Kudzu
1
1 ' Morning Glory
:.., •: Multiflora Rose
& Oriental Bittersweet
.
1 +'-'? Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
i
y Stream Areas of Concern- MY5
N
Aggradation
! = Erosion
i
i '
• Headcut
1 1 .''-
--
ti - -
` • ` .
.= - - - - �. ,,irk!'•l
fffff
,
1
♦♦ ♦♦
♦• ♦ 1
4. e•\ \ i
•,,,,, %;‘, \, _ 1
♦ .♦♦ .y e 1 e e
•
•
♦ F
♦
N.♦ ♦ 1
Moores
Reach 3
1.
♦I - .f.
•
1 ♦. ♦♦ , •
21
�_�'. .T W ` �St?x C
- - , • x00 0 ,0
# ,
�� ��~ •' 4 v'�,x + +0 •
__ D ♦♦ 0
-__� OD '\} +
f ' 4.1 • a
31+1 s 15 Log vane structure piping
`,0,--- rp ''',,,.„:--•.
tc ' •♦'
♦
29+00 - `
, ...
%, .. .
kip.o,
iM
Figure 3.1 Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1 of 6)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
4O4
DMS Project No.94709
W I L D L A N D S r 0 125 250 Feet Monitoring Year 5 2020
ENGINEERING
I I I I
Surry County, NC

�,'•� .K , Upper channel choked with, I. '' - ♦♦S ♦ .` _
.` — getation _
'...,, 9. ' I Corn Reach ��♦ "Oo :
i i \• N• ..*•./ ,'./ 41'� -_- 9
•
r 11 • • 0 o\-tr- - - •- to', I' i % /I''
+ + }r it. 00 /� 16 8i:0 v'jx 0
0 �'j `. '♦
• ♦
N \.1 +00 +:: % ` • 00 •♦ ♦
0 ''-•, .." <> 0 t
•
00 0 ♦ .'�, •♦�•♦
`�. . ' 15 ', •
j O No , ,• j •, , + • sF '5.
'• N 8 31+00 r
f o + i •\N .,' lid- ' , ,; ,' - . ♦•..
Structures t ,• , •
' ,. w •, ♦ ---• •-
Constructed Riffle +0 o +
Structures o +� 751:2:;,..._,, 30+00 �, O O `Brushmat - '? .. y 0 iRoot wad ,Y.t�" J-Hook ` e OGeolift ,- ry �- t - 3 ,
Debris Plug ,; + �+ •• '\
Rock Vane ,a,'i" Log Vane 0 r cKs m
Bridge ,' 0 N� +' 29+00
us I. o �'
''z + ' o • Dislodged boulder
Gully Stabilization �% step O , * 9
�? O
Fascines 4 <,
zi, Stone Toe �, +' ~
ti + 1r3 I: _
0 IN • 1
--•- Conservation Easement Vegetation Monitoring Plots(VP) MY5 i 0 °+° •�
0 •
n Criteria Met Overhead Power Line Easement I
, 0 '
.'
i
- Stream Restoration Vegetation Areas of Concern-MY5 &_). I ,•'„ 1
Stream Enhancement Level I Chinese Privet 6
y � ' 1 y .
Stream Enhancement Level I; Reduced Credit -
1,:?: :1 Japanese Honeysuckle — s s
Stream Enhancement Level II i , ' • +
:2' Kudzu _. �, / i
Stream Enhancement Level II; Reduced Credit , / '�♦
Morning Glory ,
Stream Preservation y / / •♦
::_:: Multiflora Rose __ - - i,�, ' ' •` '
- Reach Break --'-- --'-- --•-- __._. _ • _ _ _ '
Non Project Streams Oriental Bittersweet -'- ♦♦ '; ♦`S. i
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover r- /•
�
Top of Bank • ,
�� Existing Wetland Stream Areas of Concern MY5 •, • /• ♦'. I
‘
Aggradation i ' - i♦
+ Photo Point(PP) gg .1 %
Crest Gage m Erosion ; .' ♦•, i
Cross-Section .\ i •♦'♦ I
Figure 3.2 Current Condition Plan View(Sheet 2 of 6)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Ilirk‘ip?
DMS Project No. 94709
W I L D L A N D S IT 0 150 300 Feet Monitoring Year 5 2020
ENGINEERING N
1 1 1 1 1
Surry County, NC

` T a3 '♦ III t .`.`i'I
I. •.
,I Y ...♦ Y
-,-
IY' ♦Y '
` 5❑ 22 * ' x O
♦�♦`♦ 23 '
0•`. ,b "9;.2 o .00. , 24 �4 -. . i 59+00 4
`♦ `, + ,' j ro'v � .�,
, 38 OA 9 o 1 + 58+00
o \ - - ' . 4 .
•
' ' O - 27 .y I .',a'o M9, , k Y, r
i S���♦ l' ♦♦ Headcut at wetland outlet (n • • - - • -' ' x0 �.� -_ , i ,
�.�� + �` .5+00, s cn SIrx o o 1`, F,
' O l '` Scour exposing root wad + O0O O, ,
,,\ : structure - 0
rio
1 ,
OD
+ 0 (�). Headcuts at wetland outlet
+ ♦♦
'� ♦• ♦
�} _ _ •
.32+00 49
♦. ♦
il
--•— Conservation Easement Vegetation Monitoring Plots(VP)-MY5 Structures t0
Overhead Power Line Easement n Criteria Met
pQQ Constructed Riffle
- Stream Restoration Vegetation Areas of Concern-MY5 Brushmat
:':� Geolift '�
Stream Enhancement Level I ... Chinese Privet
Stream Enhancement Level I; Reduced Credit :. Japanese Honeysuckle Debris Plug �\
Bridge
Stream Enhancement Level II Kudzu
♦ Gully Stabilization
Stream Enhancement Level II; Reduced Credit ::** Morning Glory
—..•— Fascines ♦ t`
•
Stream Preservation Multiflora Rose �_
♦ ♦ .
♦%
Structures ' `'
Top of Bank r ) Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover f, J-Hook ��. '�.. A.
Root Wad �-;.,- • _ `.
Existing Wetland Stream Areas of Concern-MY5 .�~
�. ,,.
+ Photo Point(PP) Aggradation . Rock Vane =':"' Log Vane ♦ I . .... ,'
▪ Crest Gage Erosion step ♦.♦`♦ `.. �' '...„, •
- Cross-Section • Headcut � , ♦. '`� �,.
Stone Toe ♦ ♦, -
�- i. - • • ion_
PkigV/
Figure 3.3 Current Condition Plan View(Sheet 3 of 6)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
W I L D L A N D S IT
0 250 500 Feet Monitoring Year 5-2020
ENGINEERING N
I I I
Surry County, NC

ti y, i
--•- Conservation Easement _ '/'
N �_ -.- --•- --•-- ,_ / �. I
Stream Restoration �• ! •�• 1
` '
Stream Enhancement Level I _ N� /� ; `•••
, •Stream Enhancement Level II •�.; •i / ♦• i
1 r / •.
I
Stream Preservation �• '
1
Reach Break `• 1 �•
Non Project Streams i ,••• 1
I 1 r
1
- • - - Top of Bank I y
i
VA Existing Wetland 1 ti
+ Photo Point(PP) '.
I I
+ Crest Gage
Cross-Section 1
Vegetation Monitoring Plots(VP)-MY5 / 1 Structures
i >WI Constructed Riffle
n Criteria Met / ;
I I Brushmat
Vegetation Areas of Concern-MY5 i'
Geolift
',=, Chinese Privet i
Debris Plug e-
... Japanese Honeysuckle i , Bridge
'*' Kudzu / 1 ---- Gully Stabilization
I
Morning Glory ♦ —.••— Fascines
Multiflora Rose •
•
N Oriental Bittersweet '• Structures
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover ,••. Root Wad ,ti "�- J-Hook
Stream Areas of Concern-MY5 •�• -
Aggradation 'r Rock Vane Log Vane
'Erosion •
♦ �1
• ; / Step
/ •
i ,♦
Stone Toe
•
/ .• ♦
i •.
I ♦
i
r •♦
•
i •'•
/ •� +�
� .1.
I
i
--,. ti
L ,
-... k .
` '
I
• i
44 4+00 i
�\ 7 �` 1
\ v'x '
�e
�t gyp. I
12+00`r. �.+
12
I
11+004+m
1oi-oo� r
i r
fillA• t
%4 ,Aso c VW Ridge -1, `` i
YJ•.NI _1 +
-Alink
t
`i
-ktill4111W Y
Figure 3.4 Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 4 of 6)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Lit
DMS Project No.94709
W I L D L A N D S 0 250 500 Feet Monitoring Year 5-2020
CNGINLCRING I i i i I N
Surry County, NC

I ♦• ` .
` .
Structures -' `` .. `,
i .•� ♦ s. `
Constructed Riffle �/ ♦•. . ,`
•. • O •♦ . •
Brushmat - ♦-
s.
Geolift i ♦• O El .` . .
Debris Plug ••♦ + `• _•__ .
�. ♦_
W
Bridge ♦. 6 O .` -- — .•—
♦ + O. `
Gully Stabilization ♦ % o O.ozailN `
o
�,,, ,, Fascines # - -�` -� ,+ .
• • cam_
•
.e!Ready 28 00 ,y
Structures •..a �.% i I , I�? fix
Root VVad ,>. J-Hook Gullym
�� ,, _11:1
Rock Vane e; VIIIIIIRWS.
=,, Log Vane �6+x 00
Step + • `x O0 _ '
o O ?v�x0 M O.; Log step footer exposed
,zz :• o 0 LL
� Stone Toe • • O t
Q3 ? • ructure piping
57 00 ?Ox0 +o ?x00 •
j` t ' _ ✓33 0
�i ' �r,� 7�,x �' Gully `
r
`.�� 4. -�- ' ti
1 i - z - 4.,. -,,
. •S'P2 L*SS •
x� ully -- - Conservation Easement Vegetation Monitoring Plots(VP) MY5
� •,�s� I1 ;___. Overhead Power Line Easement n Criteria Met
/ 14+�', Logstructure Stream Restoration Vegetation Areas of Concern-MY5
Qi 4 ` g
undermined
----..........,411641, ' 4)
1 Stream Enhancement Level I ::;,; Chinese Privet
y 1 , `.\ 1 t Stream Enhancement Level I; Reduced Credit f" 1 Japanese Honeysuckle
►
Se • i 1 Stream Enhancement Level II ,, Kudzu '.
` ► a
... ,
I ► Stream Preservation Morning Glory
/ t\ 59 ` . F"--yam ., Reach Break Multiflora Rose
jq Non Project Streams Oriental Bittersweet
• Fallen Tree c '.:'
- 1+00 Over Channel 1 % • - - • Top of Bank English Ivy
GOT � .
I • ,•' F7A Existing Wetland 0 Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
/ •11:1 -
/ 11.- ► .A + Photo Point(PP) Stream Areas of Concern-MY5
g ,�, 10+00 1, �
-.�� Crest Gage Aggradation
j.
11, Cross-Section ® Erosion
018 Aerial Imagery r 0 Headcut
i
Figure 3.5 Current Condition Plan View(Sheet 5 of 6)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
1 DMS Project No. 94709
te/
W I L D L A N D S 0 125 250 Feet Monitoring Year 5-2020
CNGINCCRING I i i i
Surry County, NC

r,Assr..01...sreif. _-.A .1"1.:
•
\. Structures ° -- — Conservation Easement
•• Overhead Power Line Easement
-♦ W Constructed Riffle '---'
Brushmat Stream Restoration
.�` y���n `♦-♦` Geolift Stream Preservation
•• a. .\ Debris Plug Stream Enhancement Level I
i ♦-♦ Bridge
•
.. Stream Gully Stabilization Stream Enhancement Level I; Reduced Credit
• Q �� ♦. ... Fascines
Stream Enhancement Level II
• . ♦ - Top of Bank
) ♦ ♦
` Non Project Streams
\ Structures
i 4 \ -,- J-Hook Existing Wetland
♦♦ _ Root Wad 6�''
+ Photo Point(PP)
►
i
I,., \ (` Rock Vane , Log Vane + Crest Gage
► ` ° 0, Cross-Section
'♦ 7'7' Step
o
\ \ .,. ..... Vegetation Monitoring Plots(VP)-MY5
\ `♦ �a Stone Toe n Criteria Met
\ \ Vegetation Areas of Concern-MY5
\ IA ' ` Chinese Privet
♦. . Japanese Honeysuckle
\ 40 .. • Kudzu
,;.;.; Morning Glory
. .
\� ► Multiflora Rose
.
.
. . : ► _ ,.,_ &N� Oriental Bittersweet
i II \ X Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
‘♦ Stream Areas of Concern-MY5
. ' \ Aggradation
. . ♦ 43 \ ® Erosion
. . -� x ► r I ly .
1.
-� ` Log step footer exposed - . � - .
. . ♦ . 1
` 1 Structure piping
' °ex 1 ''!' a tiNic 434 .
•
ice. \s x
„
s Ip . -ge Reach 37
,, ,,I f C �' • - `- 11
. .,; + 38 us5.
' !.
jJT2 —
If
y
W
Log step footer exposed
.
. r'
. Boulder step footers undermined
s
. . i
. . y
ktill4111W
Figure 3.6 Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 6 of 6)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
1 DMS Project No.94709
W I L D L A N D S 0 125 250 Feet Monitoring Year 5-2020
CNGINLCRING
Surry County, NC

Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Moores Fork Reach 1(Assessed Length:761 feet)
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Total Number in Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Unstable Unstable Performing as
Category As-built Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.Vertical Stability(Riffle and flow laterally(not to include point bars) 0 0 100%
Run units)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 4 4 100%
1.Bed 1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 5 5 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 5 5 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 5 5 100%
4.Thalweg Position
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 5 5 100%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Bank 2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. N/A N/A N/A
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. N/A N/A N/A
3.Engineered
Structures 2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. N/A N/A N/A
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3.Bank Protection N/A N/A N/A
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
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 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Moores Fork Reach 2(Assessed Length:1875 feet)
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Total Number in Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Unstable Unstable Performing as
Category As-built Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.Vertical Stability(Riffle and flow laterally(not to include point bars) 5 136 93%
Run units)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 8 8 100%
1.Bed 1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 6 7 86%
3.Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 6 7 86%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 6 7 86%
4.Thalweg Position
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 6 7 86%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or 4 95 97% 2 40 99%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Bank 2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 1 30 99% 0 0 99%
Totals 5 125 97% 2 40 98%
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 14 16 88%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 5 5 100%
3.Engineered
Structures 2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 14 16 88%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3.Bank Protection — 8 9 89%
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
4.Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining'-Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull 2 2 100%
Depth ratio>1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.

Table 6c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Moores Fork Reach 3(Assessed Length:2885 feet)
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Total Number in Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Unstable Unstable Performing as
Category As-built Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.Vertical Stability(Riffle and flow laterally(not to include point bars) 6 178 94%
Run units)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 13 13 100%
1.Bed 1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 16 16 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 16 16 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 16 16 100%
4.Thalweg Position
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 16 16 100%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or 4 175 97% 0 0 97%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Bank 2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 4 175 97% 0 0 97%
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 24 27 89%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 6 6 100%
3.Engineered
Structures 2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 24 27 89%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3.Bank Protection — 17 18 94%
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
4.Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining'-Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull 2 3 67%
Depth ratio>1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.

Table 6d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Silage Reach 1(Assessed Length:900 feet)
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Total Number in Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Unstable Unstable Performing as
Category As-built Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.Vertical Stability(Riffle and flow laterally(not to include point bars) 0 0 100%
Run units)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate N/A N/A N/A
1.Bed 1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 12 12 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 12 12 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 12 12 100%
4.Thalweg Position
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 12 12 100%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or 3 60 97% 0 0 97%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Bank 2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 3 60 97% 0 0 97%
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 6 8 75%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 8 8 100%
3.Engineered
Structures 2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 6 8 75%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3.Bank Protection — 1 1 100%
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
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 6e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Silage Reach 2(Assessed Length:2448 feet)
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Total Number in Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Unstable Unstable Performing as
Category As-built Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.Vertical Stability(Riffle and flow laterally(not to include point bars) 6 178 93%
Run units)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 14 15 93%
1.Bed 1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 13 16 81%
3.Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 13 16 81%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 13 16 81%
4.Thalweg Position
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 13 16 81%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or 13 240 95% 1 15 95%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Bank 2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 13 240 95% 1 15 95%
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 12 16 75%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 12 16 75%
3.Engineered
Structures 2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 12 16 75%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3.Bank Protection N/A N/A N/A
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining'Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull
4.Habitat 3 4 75%
Depth ratio>1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.

Table 6f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cow Trib 1(Assessed Length:167 feet)
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Total Number in Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Unstable Unstable Performing as
Category As-built Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.Vertical Stability(Riffle and flow laterally(not to include point bars) 0 0 100%
Run units)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate N/A N/A N/A
1.Bed 1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 2 2 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 2 2 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) N/A N/A N/A
4.Thalweg Position
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) N/A N/A N/A
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Bank 2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 12 13 92%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 12 13 92%
3.Engineered
Structures 2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 12 13 92%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3.Bank Protection N/A N/A N/A
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
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 6g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cow Trib 2(Assessed Length:767 feet)
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Total Number in Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Unstable Unstable Performing as
Category As-built Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.Vertical Stability(Riffle and flow laterally(not to include point bars) 0 0 100%
Run units)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate N/A N/A N/A
1.Bed 1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) N/A N/A N/A
3.Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of N/A N/A N/A
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) N/A N/A N/A
4.Thalweg Position
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) N/A N/A N/A
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or 1 20 99% 0 0 99%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Bank 2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 1 20 99% 0 0 99%
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 22 24 92%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 22 24 92%
3.Engineered
Structures 2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 22 24 92%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3.Bank Protection N/A N/A N/A
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
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 6h. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Pond Trib(Assessed Length:243 feet)
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Total Number in Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Unstable Unstable Performing as
Category As-built Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.Vertical Stability(Riffle and flow laterally(not to include point bars) 1 40 84%
Run units)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate N/A N/A N/A
1.Bed 1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) N/A N/A N/A
3.Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of N/A N/A N/A
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) N/A N/A N/A
4.Thalweg Position
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) N/A N/A N/A
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Bank 2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 7 7 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 7 7 100%
3.Engineered
Structures 2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. N/A N/A N/A
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3.Bank Protection N/A N/A N/A
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
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 6i. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Barn Trib Reach 1(Assessed Length:350 feet)
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Total Number in Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Unstable Unstable Performing as
Category As-built Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.Vertical Stability(Riffle and flow laterally(not to include point bars) 0 0 100%
Run units)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate N/A N/A N/A
1.Bed 1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) N/A N/A N/A
3.Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of N/A N/A N/A
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) N/A N/A N/A
4.Thalweg Position
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) N/A N/A N/A
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Bank 2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 15 15 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 15 15 100%
3.Engineered
Structures 2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 15 15 100%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3.Bank Protection N/A N/A N/A
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining'Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull
4.Habitat 1 1 100%
Depth ratio>1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.

Table 6j. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Corn Trib Reach 2(Assessed Length:112 feet)
Number Stable, Number of Amount of %Stable, Number with Footage with Adjusted%for
Major Channel Total Number in Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Sub-Category Metric Performing as Unstable Unstable Performing as
Category As-built Woody Woody Woody
Intended Segments Footage Intended
Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.Vertical Stability(Riffle and flow laterally(not to include point bars) 0 0 100%
Run units)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2.Riffle Condition 1.Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate N/A N/A N/A
1.Bed 1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 1 1 100%
3.Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 1 1 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 1 1 100%
4.Thalweg Position
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 1 1 100%
1.Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Bank 2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 4 4 100%
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 4 4 100%
3.Engineered
Structures 2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 4 4 100%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3.Bank Protection N/A N/A N/A
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
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 7. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Planted Acreage 15.4
Mapping Number of Combined %of Planted
Vegetation Category Definitions CCPV Depiction
Threshold Polygons Acreage Acreage
Cross Hatch
1. Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 acres Yellow 4 0.05 0.3%
2. Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3,4,or 5 stem count criteria. 0.1 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
Total 4 0.05 0.3%
3.Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year. 0.25 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
Cumulative Total 4 0.05 0.3%
Easement Acreage 140
Mapping Number of Combined %of Easement
Vegetation Category Definitions CCPV Depiction
Threshold Polygons Acreage Acreage
Cross Hatch
4.Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1000 SF (Color varies by 48 2.7 1.9%
species)
5.Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale). None N/A 0 0.00 0.0%

Stream Photographs

Ee.. ` R10 mow a �v
- y ' �, a+?A. ""'. , _ o .-'n' Sit y7t
. / ,tom st _ `. � 9 1 4 ' 1 � ' ,.�.
"R •bR, •� i'yw _. \ c'Y s '' 9- r. ems^"1 ". Y N• . L'91,- y ,,
'� ems �. a �`
x s ern
am. - z: .
l 'FYI" - _..,� ak
PP1—Moores Reach 1, looking upstream (06/18/2020) PP2—Moores Reach 1,looking downstream(06/18/2020)
x
s ':� - .yyam� Sr r
�`ti1 xi a -s i
`�'fF y9 yi ,A.--.... .. ---. ---.,,
.r x a �„re4r 4 ; rF as, e
,':--f- -7-0,,,,,,A.H1.14 k:41. :,; ...., .7 -,.-re--:,,,,,- r
PP3—Moores Reach 2, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP4—Moores Reach 2, looking downstream:06/::Ar:4,/,..20.:2:)..)
1.z%l - .Eij may. fyfLAt. 7 •- I YS 1 r
v.Y - _ yti n rc .\( F to "4 • - r7 y.-+t a• 4' x�y* 4-.14.� //., T �+ l. ie '' R "i°
,- ---- r j tea, {.a•
`e 7 '' �L.y �fa
. i ". �y'"w T s n° .
y ;.: .
,_
a rc ` ^-,•, ' " * `. 1
,yam* y ';&�?'i � '`t„- �.s ' - ,, - ?'L`�} . 1 " �,x,:. ( - -+^.
'7�'T t �r•R . .,¢ '"i` � � ••�'- �a:
!. .•ram''^?'�, � �Wµa zc6 ��':
, '•::,*A iv, . #. •40. ke .... r'114,
41'
y , � jag 4
PP5—Moores Reach 2, looking upstream (06/18/2020) PP6—Pond Tributary, looking downstream (06/18/2020)

Y
_. , . .L. ....::..,..:.............i..,.....::.77.4,1,....,.._..:::......s..,. •. ,
PP7—Pond Tributary, looking,,kY downstream(06/18/2020) PP8—Moores Reacha 2,looking downstream(06/18/2020)
�°s' ; �� Y4 ` a 14 x i4 r� ' /F f s �a `-
T _•�"' . 0 x S k1�, h l / 'Re-.its' 4 't
-�' ='!'a x t . �e_�a' ask' -..: yE � a sw
v._- a.g 'C' �U&rr M F
x _ /
S
y
•
•
_
•
PP9—Moores Reach 2, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP10—Moores Reach 2,looking downstream(06/18/2020)
.'y •-_,., d 'f x'' 'k. ° �' e', "'
'Z .•.. ,";:fix "j 53• R -'
F 1
i
4
Y ri5 --pia. .y. ° v y je ..y 4
J T ` ^ -.i x e ' c,," ,wi,. `J -, '`P Y ,t om
•
r -_: Y'..'` - a3/4 b .a.- ' . 4I ,1 , .3-5-- w .."z
PP11—Moores Reach 2, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP12—Barn Reach 2, looking upstream(06/18/2020)

• y Y tiI t Mh 7 �".. f,F f S_ y 1 ,t � ,4 17 - i{ L
610-
fir'.,r• 5 r tr1/4' - f tr a a r "�� c+,,
- t _ �r-, raw ',, i-3N.'.•• A
„,, 45 4F,sue 1 -m.HF•y,•*--.,�',, ''° ;t F ", �
;i Ste _ Y �' 6 t L&,�_ - ,,' f . .
j $ I
�� ��i •" .' ��� � [ -' es' � }T A "�I�•,§, �� �_ _ ..
i 111 _ t _� 'I - + ' '1 f
, -r m /'' _rR ` .. �, :. sue. _..
PP13—Moores Reach 2, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP14—Moores Reach 2, looking downstream(06/18/2020)
' 1 "t i' (
_, - i � ,,!-A +`�- ., _.x - ,�`-A NT° ''.
T Fib , 1. fE .Y
�- i,.rt yr` •s. !^ `9 +s.,. - l 1 l �/" �,.vo„ 4 _
,, - ,{�L r- � •" T tn5r_3' - ,fir+W} a
•
•
Y
PP15—Moores Reach 2, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP16—Moores Reach 2, looking upstream(06/1
8/2020)
� r
it y�,,> .{ , ;44 . ` y
.{ nt -S - , ..s i • -_.:+ r '� tee. t. " •c# .t'
,; � -'a ... xAv' - ! � a G 9x�C .eq " { xk, ,'''�- 6 �`�-.-
��T" hY F8$ eT >}A Try (�d�}"�. .'"•'a+ *' ,.�+`Z
Y �S. f's w v 1'..�3. �S g., - -'k•' - - -.r.- - - >, £' �` y
'�� w `••--- '+-`mac. '.- 3+1. s - y, � f s
1/4
14k,..., !el trk}i - ^ �,. i�r --,� (j 1 B� �•4 ..y. ''4 ''Y� ;1�'rRGI
is
•
a &" ?•L `$ter 'R'`91�, _•.... , r 'ss. r r, -
PP17—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP18—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream(06/18/2020)

3' r l a :R. ,, i:x [',r A a'.,.,' . ;A_ tom! L.. '.. ." '-.
_ _ _ ,as ?
_ z'''' 7, -Bs' 6 i t 1, 'J / .y�q. `. - , - -
, � r- s` ti ^lA'�_q,,: i+' ,fix t�� sa•.y
.-a _ - .- ' T _ y ' `r mom`,,x F 3` t f °t ro o- �r c I
'.. ,,, t--7,,Ort,,,L4;-,4'....?,.. , -'.----t.v.1-.,',„'.--car .1,A.: AtAilt.,47,,,Tin „ ,_.,•,,,,..
_ - - t ?ear ..S !�, w� � -i TR., , ro�r �'h' r % -.'ate
1 ,L-v -I,„„ a ,t .�` tr �"t -T, "a,�u Yy �T._ " - —L-.. r r - r..
g �". _4 14- ' ate. .s,.:`"„ o � ��- was s i h. d3 � i.f�
PP19—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP20—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream(06/18/2020)
ill
� � ;errfi. ws .
SP '� °i.}.�i �-tea'yysd. i«,:.bs �' . 'r +�'� - 5 '', _ ,
fit
... . .. . .. .
..„,r„.... . .,....,..„,..,.....,.........„..c,„ .,., , ,,v„...,.„0.,
4_.,..n...:,.,..„.. ._.4.... .. ,
_ ,4„,.._1 ...;,,,,_„..,..t. .:___......44. r"'t,--.„ ,-
�(n P�
z,i ' 1 '��try f ,
PP21—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP22—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream(06/18/2020)
„t &,sr 7
"vim `a s w
fir7. -A,' a > i`.6 ` •fix -k .- ty = ;
5i
. = >
_PF:''. 4pX' ',Y x c t4e, f Y'M
f
9.z,-��R� + :, .`ate " ., � �-"�g� F �,,, F- �� �- E6
PP23—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/18/2020) PP24—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream(06/18/2020)

., �,-,Ct" %•cry z� "a,ra-: -
g }R%,. e'er^
L w ',5e9v „� FAY �' Y(• W,yi,�
y a
a d F,C C ,. d
a
7.
u <. Yf 1 __ SYs 9fib 4../.6Y e?,.*.,c.;4m..a.' '� _.
PP25—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP26—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream(06/18/2020)
y a`7: 7 t, r max. 'r'z � z gam E �_ ' g
a �` 4, � k ye 3 v `r'z E n`rt�r,_ '�,2s,+ � upy : r.
si
'.' -";,--,i7eik:',4i..-k.. .;;',\:...v., ,„-,4 tioitW1-- ' r'' .. ,.. .140+,1'v
rF -- 4L ., -a .ffif '. T' fFr
" A `� °,X* �riir' mac::
PP27—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP28—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream(06/18/2020)
fit' ! +
•
+r-d ''
1 �.
saps` r -i`. - t•
r'"PP29—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/18/2020) PP30—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream(06/18/2020)

,
I6,
•
\' �\�4' •i-fi y`c14.• i " y�sT ,," ..,.`'' - _ _. a .1.», a '*
'Z � 44 -.. • - ��,:� yrw '�-.44, § cam; �• --
•
c ,c .f -;. "e••-
l' o t._ r� :. 'T- , ' c S , r +.' k "-
4.
A.
W7 v am• " a � .:� zr •hr .1,,, .r."°ram
PP31—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP32—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream(06/18/2020J
.� t .
f 4r
•
1.
•- ' f.r-O" p- 4ta r _ _^ramL ,
OK
PP33—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP33a—Moores Reach 3, looking upstream(06/18/2020)
a Jr1an., a S 5 a;r° F • ,mac, a
K
-� %
}f � (-
""V
. .
r �P
iyr A
y
::..,..„,,,..._ „.....,.,.,...
:, --
.',04,' .
�
r '+. ,ir
r
-;. :=-;,**,' -0
3y 1
3`>"> .•r r" as-y `.fat.;
�� �" • -`» p ' '"Y,�P' �,Y- �,. '� t .. kA i 4 jai
` + f..'v?°',` v„: a a ,.r R ( q a°t�.•,yy,. 7 r.-=s tl h g Y 4�(=
Yx > -' ' xr r3' C t J �x• -a-rlis 7�� jY• -r, , �4 -', 1 p•-
yyi }I`-� 6. F dY a tF' 2� '{ hhh G,�1 ,
7P' ' 1'ku'? f k E ,,rrF��.cc ^"•t - `R ;'�;ee' .f+ts AY k6 f l��� i ! w � ".` ^�^ f 3
PP33b—Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/18/2020) PP34—Corn Reach 1, looking downslope(06/18/2020)

- i - :'./:
.w_
0 4, ',,,. * /
dY •
n r tea-. " s ,,..•_ - t�
PP35—Corn Reach 2, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP36—Corn Reach• 2, looking upstream(06/18/2020J
n
arcs '
�s • :"_ A `2
j � 'w.ar _ ? y - 'a ham .a•� � ``� ,..- C_
-.� %3n ,w,{ �a� .r �^ bt '�k� 'k n r^ .. S 1 ..-'S '"• Y °;_i "'/ -
I d �v fii �°}lyt' ".', � g )%s r -z-n :. ' .[.°d- ! ` .;,''' �:S. .''. `.
J'
PP37—Silage Reach 2, looking downslope(06/18/2020) rti,PP38—Silage Reach 2, looking downstream(06/18/2020)
*4*
z c� .,��,-T.exaA'a�` � � � °A '3^.-^,t , � "9.z f �'
iy, .. '- y. k .. q j4 i�- w, rt t ! 4r�.
-
w AA e y" L
�,� ` y r" :1 - '0^ '
t Ap _
5.
•
yt., is - r ,-, j> +�_� t -. ilk.`} c.. ...
PP39—Silage Reach 2, looking upstream(06/18/2020) PP40—Silage Reach 2, looking downstream(06/18/2020)

FF
� e§ R DTI- Y , £ gc,. Ex- _ -tg•
•
_ �,,,,, �- • +ate __k. Y.' ; { �. - ili'�F ^ t
h" 1�"'�e '.. +o- -.*_-:Art �. _ `;"- "fie, _°fL7k -�.>`Y ,.'•s- s. S .Y - .
0"1
d#''sp w '' �,rt7+4,t _ �: i �t���.` ,ice { gyp, �_
c 'i�6. �-,yy ll�'�.. �r i "' . - a, 97'r-1 .,�..', : - ,4 - ,r 4
-r
•
, sty
" s ihs K:X - _,--2., ` � 3A.r.' S :'
PP41—Silage Reach 2, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP42—Silage Reach 2, looking downstream(06/18/2020)
*!{�_ I , , A
, '.;. - -�h. -�mq,wA e.:,',A, ems'.'y t" 'i�°` a+ �;
5.
r .r - �y� �m �."',eS ' .08 �ry, �''e. e.x , -', y ice ( z
�& .1
v �._ ,,,,,,Ali; "y..A F D" �'hr' - W-4 ' "F'� e� {y i lr 4 —Sr -
fig- V rC _ ra`s",': - - -- s 7 a s -,. X ...e •- .>
4
'•;,4-1 ,iJ 7-4• Y_, k• ^` .+'k� , +...`fir.. r��i '" - .
- - ,,a�N ' -- h ,•c r ' -e n+ „h"".3 -e0 �.,,-sib-., ,.....,:
1 P wa '- - •✓- Vt� V' 'i '' `�,' * J F 1. 4
X ,.— . s- _ T- > , - �. +.:�r'a _ fr y F ¢
j - ate - 7. s- ' 'as G- ,,Y -ti: , F.,rss ;w3 - -' - „fie v"r ��,� � '•
- 7 � ,. xr�r_; .f% 3 4.4 Lbw s
PP43—Cow Tributary 2, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP44—Cow Tributary 2, looking downstream (06/18/2020)
n y ',- . c E, `�•• k3t '1 :t i t
,t'. - C - -,-�n ' •' _ -''7 -.� -".s.. _ k s i rn 4- `c.dets ,i''
,fir - ', 4 ' .a "r,s ''
. R •
'47'E •_4' --54 A'rya 4 --
Inv
k_Ale
f3 - _. I '7 r ri r l ' ''"fit 1 _ '-. y h vile. ..
4.
mar p. �%_ _ i°ipa , ✓ • ;� a •._asp } _
PP45—Cow Tributary 2, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP46—Cow Tributary 2, looking upstream (06/18/2020)

.,.,N...: ,7..,7771047r.,,, •-\\.-.,;..,,',,..,,,,,i.i.,,--, '...,,,-,,' ._,,..,-4.1,0r,,,,.. \\
, ,-:0,...,-,- . F 71,1": •„'.,b,..s.4-„, --.., -. ..,',;.Th 4*.- ",=, 1 `4-,,,,,,,,-- •.-.7-- - .%..,..,,,.....- , \I
;:::..-..._,v,-1'if" ',... , '7.-v-!.: :,,,,,,•-•,-,,z:, - , _-.4. 1-4.1e...,,!-_, 7‘ '..- j.I':;-‘4,-;:.-r":`,
',,_,'E-....:"-,,,,,z„.'_•,,,,- , !,11-..-‘..,;,:_4::-4:•,„'"%.,,4p:.,70,7',-.''7„,;',7,,,,,..,,,k7,,,-.F.'-;t:..„1,,. ,,,:1`:-.-;4_,,f4.,,),,,. .,.-,,, -,,:..- :
''at,'Y‘,..,,z--", ' ? ,. -4- , *: .7''-= -,„ - •?0,!: -... ,-" ' -'44'-' ' '-' irl'''.;....'' --0, a •••••..4v.,.e•`" ''4-1, •:„ ••_`,1...44"z-,_. A-.`--VT..'''.=`,.=:- - =
,e1
"r ..' i'-iigi ,1- .',',''"';';.0--l' • = - - ..:-',-. ,.ii•-• ,7.:- .... .4..• --..41 --441,-, , --- - -..'"••••-‘-3-.'" . ---,‘ Ask, -- ' r.,.'^-,,:,z • --,. ‘r",t ' -,E.:"...'" -
-,:'-",•4.,S%- - '-Nce" =•;-.-ki,t "tt• ".„. "---4",* =•'-' "trr '' ‘-%,-1,"`-,t:',-_-".'=74'-,-, .,_ • .,.-
•••,-,--ri,..=.44
40---
.--,
'.,--71i., ,f [i'' <''''-r• ' ' -'..„ a 4.4. ,,,
' •''-‘.i.',..-: '" .' -"" -'''---t--.. -.:.: '', ,t-Al..,` '' ?' ‘-'' " -, -1-
- -..-."---4,p..- -. ', - -,-,:•;',' 1-2';.-4...- - ,..,.',. "..0
!1%..„-.1'7.1.,..; ''''''''• "L'-'4,7 ..., -`--.1 L'7„,-.. .". --A - . . -,;""AAtt"-:4'..gr: ..,.• ' .,
,'; 't'''-,-..;:k•,..- 'Is-r`l--,-,,.' ,.. - .-.Yt.".,....--,-,,,' 1;., -,.46;7*'-- - -:.,-7.1jiiii&-..r.e• ., - - ' ... '----,,,,- - . :,,,,k4,:, - ' "7- .•-•-:.-*.s ----...E'!--!-."--.; "..-,1%-:
----=4,-.,4, --7z. --„....=,,,4- ..„•:.-74.,..,7„4•,.„ - --.-...-..,.„1,. :- ._•-•.7,„:"...4.72-:-.,,-, -",4,1.-, ------,•„
=1,,4 1,t1_, •,:.,.,r ..' ""„.,-.7__ •;•• ----,,1%, ,,--,-,,,,:1,,,c, iff.,?...iy,-t.?,'- ,,-,„,."..-2:TF, •••,-,0
/- ''''=,IP let '---'--- '-'. ''''-z-'!"..., .4-2' .- --irL .•----:..7?".1.--...,-,',-',-...71,11e11-' .•,-:1-",'-. ''.4-P
..,.„rk'4,-_.:1_77, ' '''''''",".7,.•--„."-t.„--#,, --•. ,-,,.':--..:„.` .,''--'i -,,1..7.7',‘ 'kg',:'' '-'.
Z1 V 1'14'.:''' 1‘. '''*4'4' -..:'''''' ' ':4'; ''. ; '''!.. '.:..-.:4'..'' '7". -(. ..:Fc.' .., ''''. -P..:.•'; I'''r‘'-.,. . '::.tt,IP '''''-. ' .:' AL.....'-''';*...''44(*....,....,..... 'SS. ''''''''
' ,_',',"---0.4.• .....: ..„:,... • •. r-- ...,‘;'...- ---: '- -,,-- - =•,...--,...
,-...,-51±.-••••$,...- , - .'''''''`•:"..`"- ..,_.,..4.,--;:_. •,,,,, "--.. ,-!-•-A••• .. -.'Ir',, - --.:„,--"-- -
*.-.-4*"..4-r' .1:, • ' '.;:••"•:*"..,'--.1-,...r-`,i' ^4, •,... ;,;,.._-•,'';:',.--e.=,.....„t..-1,,•/...x.,../.4, -- ---` ' - :44%'--":,,,-,'-''-'...--=-41--,_ 4-",‘-••.:.--:,-...:,,Y,• *Ilk:-.4_„..,,' .'-'.-''.'.'t_.'.°.,-,_,._P-7.•-.:;.„-°t1--."1:'.5„_„",.0.....,-".'6$,.-'S,.„.,i„7.r'_-_'r:_'A__r-_t-a,--z--.r:,.'V."1.„41:fr.S s),-ri'-t-;:;>i',,,'t,.7,-t,.,',.„A.;.--.4.7
-:',-p'-..--4t-,,---•---„,:---1.j..I"4,t.-•--`-i 4-"-.-'..4.,..'.,,„'14.%,'-."L•Y.--.'!-,-.--.--‘,_;j.r.--.',,..:'...'1:e2e--,-4-:'--i•:':1„-4.-1;,'"';i
,i':..!i..,1,'.,Yr,-'e,',','-i---_-.'.-..0..•-1'-..;cO f''P''.*''t...'.t,..,,,'-------'=„...T.-.:' 7'::": '',,1-4-,•,
1'4:" 'f.1•10O—• ,r4i--i,,.i..=..',--'"k sf-k'''-•t''''`''--'''5,'!*'S4 --'4 •
4a-;.l..'::-'";-.--,--:=_=,;•"-4l,',..-.-
-v'-4a•LS-"-t'-.`,-."'-.,',•:N--r:.!..: ..,'..,-„$.W..,„;,..-.-,..r"1i•'
_ . _A.k. : . - - -
' L - '
- ....L'7*...: .;-....-
^e"64,•:----KiA--,$_3/4.;,;-..,-, -: -..,• f' . ' - ,
. . tit •
PP47-Silage Reach 2, looking downstream(06/18/2020)
-- • -.
_.., ,r, , , PP48-Silage Reach 2, looking upsreanun.f6/,,,../8/2020)
. ,- - f,: .. . ' '-..' ' l '' .• •• ' •.- *.-0 Y.,1: --'..ti 4.k.,-, ,., -.4. .., a.
, • .
., .
' - irre.x e, -4.- • #1 .1' , 1 ,:---,, , . .'!ik'• -_. -' --::: 7.-'-.--.0.7, 4.'
. t =,'ri . ..-4 .••,...-0
. , ...,
m& s •
-„..
,.,4 -
- .
• • , ., .
Ir‘i 01- . . 1 b' .• '.' '-`-''''' ':''''' '' -
'IA *4.:
•--1,9.0.
,!AI,1-
-.7 ,IP,.. -
. .,...,
-
'a. .....4406'.....4. ,- .,,,,,N...,',.;P.0.-.. •
.r--I-
..,,,.
. -.1*-i-:".„:„-..,V-7-'''''43"5013 --'-'''T.-t- •4,,,,,.4r,'-`te.4,•b;-: ,,,-",',;- '' -t--, -.-',-'-i-
'"'"464 ; .?''''.4-4'2-.Z''''':4-4 , . '""4.,0=4.--;-'6,".'' -----r.'_,„-.-•-" ,1-5.1"--"y=-..--*'•------'..-1' ''-'4f--, - ' '-'flk,-- 1
‘7••=•:::-.,,::,;', ';'------.;,,4,-,..--.",---;,4.-,.:*"-* ----,-ZV,`,••‘1-.--'-'..•?, „., „.i.-,:..._ ,,4:•,,, k-,,„.__,;;.- *.t,„,
, .
-•:::-,:,'" _ ,",,,:s."----'.7Z,„` -.,,yos-'i.,•,- -,., 1 tr'S',,„:;:_,.i- '•'''' ''5, NAL4,-, ---,*''
.E. - -f,'''''°:'- ;-- --"- ‘-.2ew-v4---,„--..,,,,. , --4,44,,,4,-,:.-...--,.1. .--: •.• -
i_.,...... ....,,,„ --..-',,,E'rr2-f. ,--,&',-4,...., ' --,,,- ' - ..„,t- *-IA,-,At,''.,,,,pi-4 '''-:-- •:-.4.--.4. ;7• ,. " - - , - ' ' '
--.:---* -...-'.....-...-‘,, ,"-?,-w--;,•••ge-a,,,,- .
'' :1'•:-,---'--,NUA, _106— 1.4.,•-,-,-,..1.,I --.
'2,, ' •'''''Aib.,,,..,..-..-,.'4A-,e..",,,t,Z.7--,*".1`
..- ..•
...:',..;ji• ''''''-' - ''
PP49-Cow Tributary 1, looking upstream(06/18/2020)
..-, --.. .•,•-r:4-1._':" '-T'-r.-.•,;-;- • , PP50:C;Tributary 1, 17(:k..,ing upstream(06/18/2020)
. 'i 1 i,s-. - ...N - .e.t.4-....,..-L.,•-'.------,-.-,-.0,..-,fr, ,... . - m..-- ..- ----, - , '-;1 0.-,.*-- , *.f., , --'--.:,-,„7 .'-ot1/4
,.....,- , . 1,, '.., IF,... . .,,,.se,:%...,a,..c• ..: ,..., 1., ,,,,, , „,....,,t . . ,,.'s.r,..,-..,_ :-'--. .---,': _ . r>.-- '-_,..„-. f,;:-.,-',?:,-.,-..', ', -.1.0;t44,Jt.' tf;\
AV..,,,,,_.. -•'...,-....\NI4N46.--_& ',1,... 174.44.'''. . - ' -,, --771,,,i lie i
;41,'.4!' ,•,- jr0 1 . • ..,,,,,,,,,..„:„.,„•.„. ••,0 . ..,„..„, .... Cit'.;* ' ' i irk',A.N4 .-- 14. - NA1 . ,-,.,‘1..<'..*-4' ' ,:" "ft. . .P.' . ;,
k. -,,, ,..r„)
i .. 't... ! 1 • -.4 k,';-,:',4,,,,,,:::.''e'..'1.„v-..:. '..„,:„,..4, ...-..:-.''- **-'.:•r"..r.'-, .
ti 4 11 ', :. 50.-I.-''' 4.'t i-vP-- ,,,,,,, ,„„--- .'*. ^v. '..• ,,, . ' ‘
• - ‘,.. , .-1'•v. -; U• 444,'.V-'''..4-4.-",:', .. " -.[.. 1.- `,- -Fr--- .1.4' .
. . ,
f*)*-4 "f.,,!,".4401.•; --` -- -' ,:-...,
',#5.,24„,...,4147,-....,, •-4:•..: ..,_,. - 7 4.7",!: -....-;_k- :;
Jr!t, - '*;•,;.2..,_.4.,-,
-..q•-_-/--• -.. *, -v,,,,'.4.-••s ...7w;i•4-• ..,,,,,,..i....„,:.: .„ 1.,-.,,s ...4.-__:4,1, .- „:„.
- . .- •:•:04.?!•.,,,-1, __ • ‘' :-"ti-;-_"1,7:
, 1 ` '1-,t•Y :-I.''- 'l'-•:•1',.,' .8:74'1";•-t:-- ,•. Sig N 4='''' lr- " - -.1 - -, _..., ,,.-,!'4,2,---'-‘,.-•: ',-;.X. ... . lik,,,_. , ,
- ' ' .a. "ISA:2.,•••--.7.;'',"•:-4.'--".-'%-- .,' •Itv- 1. 'ii., '''. -. .,#,' '--.l'-'6•• -',. .
-.-
-„,..., ,„ .
. , 7 e'''-rS:.i",.1.,,:-...-,,'-;;•4.'..-1-! 1 4 4
;:•1-:•_4-1;-Z 4,:,.-ZUn44.F-:'r.'r f.geri. ;-'-''.';. 4"--1 K-Jr','-',21•4-1M' , 14'.--:- \
.0p,'''''''":-/;.1. --'''' ;4!5',„%,44'*-1"k",";;P :',-.-., "--i!'''':',---.,'-i,,s..:,.•1.... IN '..,c., '--...,,%;'•-1" '''l''Art.,.:•07.4, ' -t,q- . - ' 4. - -
. -`,..:,,, ..- ^,--', . • .-1 - I-,.,- ,V...- , ' --' ,
:.=• "?.., ,..,44,-, 44,,,,,,„_-. ,4,-...,: . '`.",; . •• .:..,--1,..."- ••44,..-4- ; l',..- .,.. =,,`,14.:A .:,‘,...„„'-% .V•l', ."ei,: .-444. 'I' 'or1/4,4-c..-_,.....--Aiii, "'' '
,-.' ,,,,. - . ',..'":(-",`i.t-killM '*.',-,*.v.."0 *,• ,. ' ,r,'A*--,-;-".c.e.i% ,,,„....
it
,--,,,--- ,-,-N.---,, ,1 --A if--4ILs.---rirot,...„;. ----;47 - •r\, ,
-ae 1" :„4,4=•kii•;rry-e- ..074_ .f.,„0„„, ,,,;=,...,
''-',.,st.•''!"-.( 7.1.,:.,. ---,-*
'*.a&41tAakl., it•'-'!'''1' '. - . .
,,, r,,,, ,ilitoc. x.,,, # elii • . . „r. _.,,,, r ,1,...,..e..1.1.1, .,. ,_,
PP51-Silage Reach 2, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP52-Silage Reach 2, looking upstream(06/18/2020)

: ,- _-v rA -. it r y� .\f, .\ , � i b_ t 4l.,i .417.,c 1 'K6'� '4"` s� f. 9:
I sk { i ,{3yy fig§ r ags � •y '�{ '� ,_y
�re 9f w � 4 6� t3'k ial �yy> ri '� ,, 5 ti 1 t>, t. -�'`ir, i't, "gyp
r � ko,
e �, ti fie _
,..._..14,_. L.,
,.....e,_ 4010._ ,,z.-,- .., , L.,.
.,_ :,,,--...._,.
,. _. ----TA.,,,,. - ,
.L.L1,7, ,, ._. L:,
A as'5. . `'a ,- _ ry, S'1 `+{ y T k„\...., , ... . ...., ...L.Y'fah, s..
.r f y$�. {�-i,�1 'f.' '' .; el rt� �'. .ram '+
l4-. P 3 f '' F-, VF- F.- ..Y `.. .- .�` ^' a _ _ ; � , _i- U p 4 may,
iy'� { 1 'i .r,,.ue3 1: .0 . x 4 1'� a 1 "� + 8
tNit
-, - 4 t , -;.,,*Air ,,,,, ,70, . AL. '-'.' V ..r",r;.'...;b1,44.411; ,._ ".' - IP
It
t.
yrq 1. i_r , - 'r ?drip ' ,' '. 1111.
v.. ---'•i r
PP53—Silage Reach 2, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP54—Silage Reach 2, looking upstream(06/18/2020)
,i,Iv 1-. A . - . _ ,,A. ip-.1-v • . ,,-4,,, tili. t f ,L,Lioir , ,, ,.,,,: 4.*•.,..4-4.i„,-,,,:-. ,..,4,.,..-.,131.1,,--;,•04iftr.f.4.-,;•-f-r?,-„,„,'1,r;r-SI, .r. 11 '
f '',,-. .:' ;lt, . ,. 6''• 4,Wir'5.1'- 11,,,,mt 4,, •Av Pif-4 A p4 ''_ ._--•,.,:- ,7--y,,i',..,•;,..-•3.,ik...414,,%41,•4., ytt ,• , 7,..1.-r,',--;•••- ',.'''el- '',' 1,-.. ,a._ -
ii 1
ul qga Ill
k_ - ,, .`'.,LF „s 'J 7 t' i yyi� J; I M ..4' 'ems" t'�. i�, s "moo
Ltd' '' � { ram'= t s° V 4p� �� at _� 114
R �., .� -, � "4 y- - Mw s. _ .A �
4,4.1* - :- ''' -L'''''''':-.--!;•-_:":"L-r1::::-::::;14‘,‘•
:\;;;I:
-•::::7-::'''?.74:
Yx r ~ t �''t V h ,Yk kLS Sri€ _ --F .,.., .frt & V. -,�. "y i" 4. h-. ey.' ..
4.it,-_4,... -,;•X,-.„,-&--,,:5-4.1-.-..C,---', ,,, ,_, ..;,-,,„1,-,..42,,,,V.-k‘'--•_,--.4,i-,,-;:-:!..77„---'-I ---'--,.-4,7t,.._--
";Ft . '!gyp r .� s x .. ♦ r � _ ...
PP55—UT1, looking upstream(06/18/2020) PP56—Silage Reach 1, looking downstream(9/9/2020)
'R ;- _"6_ �ytt1. r y. 5 .i _ '2.4 4+ _a f� ' f
ice a' �. ' _ T�, •-, c^ -'''i' ., �S - �-E y"Pl '2''; - �.-*�s
- "�' h �.v' -°,•^a - dam.`- ' F v , i '
�' es .^ 5 tx•� ra�
. �� ra.... x a_r P 1 ,, _ , p ti h 'ry "�' -4r^r -*' I
•
-y �^ '.,._ ,4 w +� '�4 _ 3". ,,, ,#' � am.>
4 •jti a.E¢,,, ''i a-3�:'�^,„`_R. .i - �- -'`. 4 I 4 'i•u; ''4,qi
-: � -ti. 7c ` ice,•a "rM._S. :�• ` ! M"k�� i _
ga " a= . ai-' '` ♦ ';r x C. ' - M .7;� � i
-- '° . - ` ^� —`f+
�., _ Y-, _�,s' �" -gab. ♦ - �` .' 1 .roe r ,.. 1� -r,
.. may"
PP57—Silage Reach 1, looking upstream(06/18/2020) PP58—Silage Reach 1, looking upstream(06/18/2020)

•
•
4� _ - 4 �' < *.:,t X f 1' - ihv as ,. `�`.g$ 7I .-,,4 ..,..�
w yi m ;if.',. , PS_• r r qi F n'' ->• �. !� _
a :::, r s 4 `'a. v e a"" s"" �. s µ_j � _
.v H ` *�^ .i, c`k :•. -,:i.�.,.Frsi' i �`: a K- , ,
rot y, �` fe? �F ,1 -tx''4.: -,, '-.''
+.� '. "` �. f� 1, k
Ga°R'� -_ 3j �i'r:%. „ s'S`3i6 7 k �C ,�1AtC
,.. ,,yy w 4' -rf .: -n �53h'ryry yr
i� "",,�� .^I'�t k ".-Y lA....: J +t aa, a.✓+ A.. ,� .-,
R -''..:,1,!.. —:.---,.
t� t_ - 1 s �_. �`m d • d `'i�F{+r. -"�v *,: x, a y '
��' s, r t ,.� k sS v-a, i •
ram; •�✓„z 1_h i {,, 0, TY•
,s' ",'
_ s . ° �sYry .t"a r.,� 4-,�•' 4, - u # a i „ri,� R
... ,
..,...,..,...
-a' °z� d " • Y'hr -.� .. • ' y ' p# s vf -'- L g x >33 ,' ` s
T �. .w ., _ 1 " - ,�� t 4 •,�a: Oc.,- ;b'� A-a,d� ��s Ft c v endQ .
.. 1 x Y �3'. I� 1 J�+. :�ii`z • .#�:' s -' s. ;� v. ,d` i, I'
PP59—Silage Reach 1, looking downstream(06/18/2020) PP60—Silage Reach 1, looking downstream(06/18/2020)
za
y
-islsp
xa a '�, • +,urn J�..
•
. � r � F` 'j1 4.. �41 _.
•
•
•
-Fy •
� t
ii
PP61—Barn Reach 1, looking downs , :. f----.-.I..,-_.-- ,-,- -
lope(06/18/2020) PP62—Barn Reach 1, looking downstream(06/18/2020)
r
a a �4.• ° • ° ! ( cam.,
•
'• ?. ,.,,. - i ass , r A„ ' . -.' #,,
.`
17
-:� _
� -. ' E} :tea.
it '£k Y.,,r. S" {�: 'S
. Ix Yli ';a'-. c ''�°l.'r a 'i i\Y. tdr �, ,�'rp§._..".,`1,�,,eram„ - r'° A '¢ t• .S" ,; .-..° �„-.,.� E a. .. *'
-
7-'. ., -s .. r a7 -4#f Y . ' $ +`' i + «3 a y •"` cx' - - y ' + 'p g Y�R � t "'.•
{ 2� � n.j ' � sf- " a .r ; d� s _r r e �
•
s a. �'_ ' fl$.-s 4br( Reach2,� � � ` .y 1�t A , • PP64—Barn�. 7 "��..'-,,'.. r_ (06/18/2020)', r - ." . .a. m.r, - downstrea1 lookingPP63—Barn Reach ,
• looking downstream(06/18/2020)

• y y
lw
_ a ' - t
,.
5F t i" :. � ' - ..SSA t
PP65—Barn Reach 2, looking downslope(06/18/2020) PP66—Silage Reach 1, looking upslope(06/18/2020)
i e g�, .r R;` �, > ;�y lga�m,'°;g ,r'"' tea•
1�'.: yw �i � � :.
itt..',.-----,A -= -.7 .
,._,,,...--,,,,,.„.„,,,,,,,,,,..„,,,,,„.,„.... ... ..._,_.._„...„...„,t.... ..„*.--,4,s -.,......
a fC' kya d R.7 ;s ..,' ,Sx` a -fir i
j:". xa. -,Pa i. .'7.` b, d r ` k.. , y 1 r�'
PP67—UT1, looking downstream(9/9/2020)

Vegetation Photographs

•
iR [ .Y. d 1 " e+ Apr 9 / y-��, -'V�y -'K9"rk iC 5 �6
•
' ( . It 's�x`•� T +,� ; ? r�'s. P �a-v ,'.V r d 4 ;�;,7:h¢ • ._r•
t • �._� - 0'"s" E,� l s rya xl= ""4,, t 'xAc ; - ,. r-- _ n'.
•
h��,; �_,t, -x i xr ,mom ;�i�r '-it's:`,':''-.- � � _,W _* x �j�,��4
-.7:-• b
-:# --.- "-4----= --kW i'',,,,--" ;,'''-l'''' .4:',,,'*- '• ''•,,:•..i:' 17';,7''.,-.•'''''''',7-1_.....••''.."':,,,I.V74..,*,',.. 117,3i%:.:4A`,"•
:',-,..;,7'..-,.:-: -:,,.-rs•_•..,•.•- • •-•-•"----•. • .•-."'''''2. -', -.--1.f.--::--5-?. --'-fkOr.z.fv,i--7-!----L•c::._, - -;7,'7-:.*:‘,'.'-.:',...',..'...'---it-t7.,-,•*oiri,-TL44" 7-.':?,:i.i-r-4.--.4-1:40.'5.. .!;i:..ltt:A4-51.*4'°:'''. ..-':.ii''.':-:-4
•
_ - "'� r -gym. -� - „�+rxu `{ \x , • ..
s _ ', • t s` fit,, °a1- .,,*
•i - i •t Y" rr
ppi "E�"Z7f `p- ill
, � y1r +• •
•
" spa6''. - -.,A '•� ,�; a. . ' Y.F» _ i��. •.P R:k'
Vegetation Plot 1—(8/12/2020) Vegetation Plot 2—(8/12/2020)
11 .�i .. 0 3 ' :
` e '�;::
J;y - . ,� ,- • }. _V'/
• •i R3 '(-_ .tS l + `,' '4, ".
- AY xR -
:. _..,,,,.1„,%,...0.,,,:_...,,g,..,......._,.,...,..,._...,,,,,,,. . __._.: ,,..:,?_,..i. ,,,,•_,,,i44'4111.4%'.'*'''•;-•;_-%%71:A.. ''.4?.,',-.7"..--._'1!__,i1',rr4w,...,.,1,•,:,-,..4.•'-';.'
a, .:".. . ,:,;.',;..•:•.,,.,:,t.441...,:;;;A::7t0V .„,r,...,..",::1-.',,:i;:. .... .•:.. ,.,: - _.._.4.,;'''. ..;?:;.-3,-.".,A.,...,;-'4'::14r.-2'f'-:"4-Z.':4_-':::.:--'11''''...'..:_:. ; .. .. , -'.,.1.,-. .'."_:r',...-1-,',...I''':r•.:.:.,...';',...'•::,':.,,;$1,6'''''':.:.-."',.':::.',','.".?,-.'i.::'''''' -:;--...."..1:.•1;k2.7;11;441--::••-t'''':'1'.7'4:i.
\\ ,>
_¢ • • ' r +. '�
4
Y
Vegetation Plot 3—(8/12/2020) Vegetation Plot 4—(8/12/2020)
•�. c •v • E.
x
mY�L' `l a` hw'
n. ; 0...e',t -,,, - - +1'"` - 3_ r 3 ; Ga' e,rc ��a. tkf -4 JI ,.,.sa,g , r
-
. '1r rem^ ,'>a' K , 1 &ark '4.s,'r/ . k'a'k -,�": fi w,? !
_• •;:...- . • :.-' --• •r..- .. ,%- ...- .r . •:-.. - ,•• h---,4,5 i'--1-,,i,-..,-..,Ativ. -' ' '''1.':' ,...i:P•4,:,k1-i.'••,14:V.,6•11Arigiet'qt
�. ; ' { y,e-r � � -
1 . �1 ,, •-•
,,r.P 5- .i e ry
• . .:,-. 5. • • -1 , -- • • 'N.,5-4p.,...--..„let:,,i,,i,,,,..0,.:.:''•,:,`•:11,'•kii.l..._•p?A .4 0:: ',4,!...,-!,44,,,,', e.•••'•
d
& .i A - '
Vegetation Plot 5—(8/12/2020) Vegetation Plot 6—(8/12/2020)

r,}•�\ '
•
•
•
L.
•
'l " ; s� • `yh •."Aa Tp �" s - t 'i .t+i+y - � � em ,* 'k � •.9"/ a#" - .E, - ' "m. , s 4- '"' ,1. es `/'-. i° ` y � k .a _r - Nft
fi i,Z 4 - y ' C ' •
dA C R-�.. '"4 - wE.,- h~ _
y - _ d` ems- r ' •.A -\- .`„'aa` L. w -•:1.* - ' •
_ _ 3y :v ..gyres '. - ?- r`s 'r 3 - -"�''a `., :e
•• • �.4 • r- .Y F J .E'G. w ]'Q-t FL - Sc
fir, A 3' S t - - SFr. -' ''
fit l" - rI* p 1'p- r - c ! ;.,
Vegetation Plot 7—(8/12/2020) Vegetation Plot 8—(8/13/2020)
...,...rc.:„.1,......„:,..4::":
x
•
- - Y- ob�, + ." 4..` _ y d''' �:•
^. • - ..--"F,• �. � • Ew,
•
•
Vegetation Plot 9—(8/13/2020) i. Vegetation Plot 10—(8/12/2020)
b s5 k3* r a s
°c� -"' .3 yt '�i* .FM.re" a�-- 1-- `�.P,y� -F.' , ''.$ . ' - is h A.r' H , _ r
n >xS sy> M.r ""^�h ^� -r 7+' -�.- '}` v� e-J. s a -
- • P gar , r� - x7-. ""'i + NIL _ c _ °" -'' .'a
w K _ _ J. ''.
'� as ,, ,. t'°? ` • . - , • o-' • '�a ,� - ;
1.
'- r'�is h z ,r a `' - .. . 4 _ n
-�tyt;'s ice-$' ✓ ...'-•.")',•;'. ,-.A,..i.N.----'._!.:..:_.:,;•,•-,--ZA,,.,,,,,:At::-',,.,.-.,...-:.,;.-.4iM.-AyttE-•z;
. 1- .. .,w t P- yp r rr e,. y-c e,. '- 1 p Y C 'e
> Ste' w-
.p - - %,- 1 x-L try w l gl
Vegetation Plot 11—(8/13/2020) Vegetation Plot 12—(8/11/2020)

APPENDIX C. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Plot MY4 Success Criteria Tract Mean
Met(Y/N)
1 Y
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
100%
7 Y
8 Y
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y
Table 9. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Database Name cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 Moores MY5.mdb
Database Location L:\Active Projects\005-02153 Moores Monitoring\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 5(2020)\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name MIMI-PC
File Size 53542912
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata Description of database file,the report worksheets,and a summary of project(s)and project data.
Proj,planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre,for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj,total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre,for each year. This includes live stakes,all planted stems,and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data(live stems,dead stems,missing,etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot;dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species(planted and natural volunteers combined)for each plot;dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code 94709
Project Name Moores Fork Stream Mitigation
Description
River Basin
Length(ft)
Stream-to-edge Width(ft)
Area(sq m)
Required Plots(calculated)
Sampled Plots 12
Required Plots(calculated) 12
Sampled Plots 12

Table 10.Planted and Total Stem Counts
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Current Plot Data(MY5 2020)
94709-01-0001 94709-01-0002 94709-01-0003 94709-01-0004 94709-01-0005 94709-01-0006 94709-01-0007 94709-01-0008 94709-01-0009
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 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 rubrum Red Maple Tree
Betula nigra River Birch,Red Birch Tree 1 1 1 3 1
Cerciscanadensis Redbud Shrub Tree 1 1 1 1 1 3
Cornus florida Flowering dogwood Tree
Diospyros virginiona American Persimmon Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash,Red Ash Tree 8 8 8 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 5
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Nysso sylvatica Black Gum Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 1 1 1 4 4 4 9 9 9 2 2 2 7 7 7
Prunus serotina Black Cherry Tree 2
Pyrus calleryana Bradford Pear Tree
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 6 6 6 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 6 6 6
Quercus montana Rock Chestnut Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus nigra Water Oak Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 6
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree 1 1 1 1
Rhus copollinum Winged Sumac Shrub Tree 1
Rhus glabra Smooth Sumac Shrub Tree
Stem count 12 12 12 7 7 7 7 7 7 17 17 17 14 14 17 11 11 12 13 13 14 9 9 14 16 16 20
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.025
Species count 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 4 4 5 7 7 8 3 3 3 5 5 7 6 6 8
Stems per ACRE 486 486 486 283 283 283 283 283 283 688 688 688 567 567 688 445 445 486 526 526 567 364 364 567 647 647 809
Current Plot Data(MY5 2020) Annual Stem Counts&Means
94709-01-0010 94709-01-0011 94709-01-0012 MY5(2020) MY4(2019) MY3(2018) MY2(2017) MY1(2016) MYO(2016)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 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 rubrum Red Maple Tree 140 4 144 10 20 7
Betula nigra River Birch,Red Birch Tree 1 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 2
Cerciscanadensis Redbud Shrub Tree 2 2 4 1 1
Cornus florida Flowering dogwood Tree 2 2
Diospyros virginiona American Persimmon Tree 4 4 4 1 1 1 7 7 7 18 18 19 17 17 18 17 17 21 16 16 17 14 14 14 14 14 14
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash,Red Ash Tree 2 2 2 17 17 18 15 15 15 15 15 17 15 15 16 13 13 13 14 14 14
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 48 5 5 55 4 4 41 4 4 48 4 4 70 4 4 8 4 4 4
Nyssosylvatica Black Gum Tree 4 4 4 5 5 5 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 20 20 20 19 19 19
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore Tree 1 1 1 24 24 24 24 24 24 23 23 23 24 24 24 25 25 26 26 26 26
Prunus serotina Black Cherry Tree 2
Pyrus calleryana Bradford Pear Tree 2
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 29 29 29 29 29 29 28 28 28 30 30 30 28 28 28 29 29 29
Quercus montana Rock Chestnut Oak Tree 5 5 5 9 9 9 11 11 11 14 14 14 14 14 14 21 21 21 22 22 22
Quercus nigra Water Oak Tree 3 3 3 16 16 16 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 17 14 14 14 14 14 14
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 7 7 7 7 7
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree 1 1 2
Rhus copollinum Winged Sumac Shrub Tree 1
Rhus glabra Smooth Sumac Shrub Tree 2 5 2 1
Stem count 11 11 201 14 14 18 11 11 11 142 142 350 136 136 191 136 136 213 140 140 221 146 146 154 149 149 149
size(ares) 1 1 1 12 12 12 12 12 12
size(ACRES) 0.025 0.025 0.025 0.297 0.297 0.297 0.297 0.297 0.297
Species count 3 3 6 4 4 5 4 4 4 12 12 16 10 10 14 9 9 13 10 10 12 9 9 11 9 9 9
Stems per ACRE 445 445 8134 567 567 728 445 445 445 479 479 1180 459 459 644 459 459 718 472 472 745 492 492 519 502 502 502
Color for Density PnoLS:Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements by 10% P-all:Number of planted stems including live stakes
Exceeds requirements,but by less than 10% T:Total stems
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total

APPENDIX D. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table lla.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Moores Reach 1,Reach 2,&Reach 3;Silage Reach 1&Reach 2
lir PRE-RESTORATION CONDITION REFERENCE REAC r
Moores Fork Reaches Moores Fork Reaches Moores Fork Reaches
Parameter Gage 1/2 Moores Fork Reach 3 Silage Reach 1 Silage Reach 2 Mill Branch 1/2 Moores Fork Reach 3 Silage Reach 1 Silage Reach 2 1/2 Moores Fork Reach 3 Silage Reach 1 Silage Reach 2
Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 27.3 30.6 24.9 34.2 6.7 6.9 18.2 27.2 33.6 36.5 37.0 8.8 12.5 31.8 I 33.2 30.2 I 52.2 4.2 10.6 14.6
Floodprone Width(ft) 109.0 137.7 104.0 125.0 11 16.0 100.0 72.1 72.5 145 124 19 28 145 124 9.4 23 30
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.7 2.6 2.3 2.9 0.8 1.2 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.2 2.3 0.6 1.00 2.1 2.2 1.9 2.6 0.7 0.6 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth 3.0 3.4 4.0 1.2 1.7 2.3 2.4 2.7 3.5 3.6 0.8 1.50 3.3 3.5 3.3 4.1 1.2 1.3 1.5
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area(ft') N/A 46.9 78.2 73.3 77.6 5.6 8.4 31.6 50.8 72.4 82.1 85.3 5.1 13.1 67.2 74.1 72.5 101.1 2.8 6.9 9.3
Width/Depth Ratio 12.0 15.9 8.4 15.1 5.7 8.0 10.5 14.5 15.6 16.2 16.0 15.1 11.9 14.9 15 12.5 26.9 6.4 16.2 22.7
Entrenchment Ratio 4.0 4.5 3.7 4.2 1.6 2.3 5.5 2.7 5.0 4.0 2.2 2.2 4.4 4.6 2.5 4.1 4.5 1.3 2.6
Bank Height Ratio 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.9 1.0 1.6 3.1 1.0 I 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
D50(mm) 29 30 4 23 20 29 30 4 23 11 I 25 13 I 28 16 6 I 14
Riffle Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 50 70 10 195 --- 16 63 32 178 26.0 199.0 --- 13.12 55.95
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- 0.0059 0.0180 0.0038 0.02 --- 0.0492 0.0514 0.0045 0.0158 0.0027 0.0180 --- 0.0017 0.0554
Pool Length(ft) N/A --- --- --- --- --- 42 140 40 112 --- 15 35 63 170 81.0 139.0 --- 10 19
Pool Max Depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 5.0 5.5 --- --- 3.0 6.0 4.3 8.5 1.2 1.4 2.4
Pool Spacing(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 130 I 270 78 I 334 20 I 23 15 75 118 295 106 325 13.3 I 171.5 21 79
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 52 161 43 208 --- --- 86 55 165 53 267 --- --- 7 84 8 59 7 36 8 59
Radius of Curvature(ft) 65.8 102.7 41 94 -- -- 19.6 25.8 53 124 58 74 --- --- 25 58 13 24 9 25 13 24
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft) N/A 2.4 3.4 1.7 2.8 -- -- 0.7 0.9 2.0 6.0 1.7 4.0 --- --- 0.8 1.8 0.4 0.8 2.1 6.0 1.2 2.3
Meander Length(ft) N/A N/A -- -- N/A N/A N/A -- --- 123 210 63 158 61 100 63 158
Meander Width Ratio 1.9 I 5.3 1.7 I 6.1 -- -- 3.2 1.9 I 5.7 1.7 I 8.6 -- --- 3.9 6.6 2.1 5.2 14.5 23.8 5.9 14.9
Substrate,Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% IMP
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% . s
d50/d84/d95 N/A 28/67/89 and 29/43/56 --- -- -- 40/89/133 --- --- -- --- 25/58/90 and 11/38/110 8;28/62/150;13/28/51;2 16/35/61 9.8/37/64 and 6/31/72
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull I IMI
Stream Power(Capacity)W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 1.9 2.39 0.070 0.24 5 1.90 2.34 0.070 0.24 1.90 2.34 0.070 0.24
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate(%) <5% <5% <5% <5% --- <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% <5%
Rosgen Classification C4 C4 G4/B4 E4 C4 C4 C4 B4 E4 C4 C4 B4 E4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 4.1 5.3 4.6 5.2 5.4 6.6 6.3 5.0 I 5.5 5.0 4.9 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.2 5.1 5.0 4.5 5.1
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 193.9 411.4 380.1 358.4 30.2 55.1 197.5 N/A 250-260 260 24 60 297.6 340.8 348.4 468.7 13.8 31.2 44.3
0-USGS NC HR1(2-yr) N/A 237-278 278 29 63 385 237-278 278 29 63 237-278 278 29 63
Valley Length(ft) 2227 2234 1079 1200 4730 2227 2234 1079 1200 2227 2234 1079 1200
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 2393 2847 1198 1441 327 2578 2825 1198 1441 2,628 2,856 1,198 1,441
Sinuosity 1.07 1.27 1.11 1.20 1.26 1.16 1.26 1.11 1.20 1.2 1.3 1.11 1.20
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0077 0.0067 0.0357 0.0294 0.0101 0.0076 0.0064 0.0357 0.0294 0.005541 0.005511 0.0389 0.02758
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.005265 0.006112 0.0404 0.02740
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 11b.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Barn Trib,Corn Trib,Pond Trib
PRE-RESTORATION CONDITION REFERENCE REACH DATA DESIG
Parameter Gage Barn Corn Pond Barn Trib Pres Rch Corn Trib Pres Rch Barn(Reach 1) Corn Pond Barn(Reach 1) Corn(Reach 2) Pond
Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft) 1.6 4.6 16.3 7.0 4.1 6.0 6.6 8.0 --- ---
Floodprone Width(ft) 4.0 7.8 50.0 9.9 13.7 19 20 25 --- ---
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.6 0.5 1.5 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.7 --- ---
Bankfull Max Depth 0.8 0.7 2.6 1.1 0.5 0.8 0.6 1.0 --- ---
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area(ft2) N/A 0.9 2.4 24.4 4.6 1.5 3.2 2.9 5.5
Width/Depth Ratio 2.9 8.9 10.9 10.6 11.2 11.3 15.1 11.6 --- --- ---
Entrenchment Ratio 2.5 1.7 3.1 1.4 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.1 --- --- ---
Bank Height Ratio 7.6 3.8 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 --- --- ---
D50(mm) --- --- --- 46 46 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Riffle Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5 31 --- 12.0 8.4 27.3
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.02 0.0538 --- 0.0498 0.0136 0.0241
Pool Length(ft) N/A --- --- --- --- --- 8 I 13 --- 10 30 --- 17.5 32.9 27.8 37.9
Pool Max Depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.6 3.6 0.7 1.4
Pool Spacing(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 8 I 10 --- 15 I 54 6.11 I 77.7 9 56 22 43
Pool Volume(ft3) M.
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) --- -- --- --- --- --- -- --- 13 1 26 20 I 22 24 I 24
Radius of Curvature(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 12 30 12 29 15 21
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft ft) N/A --- --- ---
Meander Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 71 I 85 49 I 61 66 I 78
Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- ---
Substrate,Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d50/d84/d95 N/A
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power(Capacity)W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM) 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.040 0.01 0.05 0.040
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate(%) <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% <5% <5%
Rosgen Classification G4 G4 C4b(trampled) B4 E4b E4b B4 C4b E4b B4 C4b
Bankfull Velocity(fps) 2.70 5.01 7.4 3.84 2.7 3.31 4.7 3.93 --- ---
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) 2.5 12.0 181.4 17.7 4.0 11 --- 19 --- --- ---
Q-USGS NC HR1(2-yr) N/A 8 --- 20 --- --- 8 --- 20
Q-Mannings 11 --- 19 --- --- 11 --- 19 11 --- 19
Valley Length(ft) 622 84 187 622 --- 330 84 187 330 84 187
Channel Thalweg Length(ft) 250 97 194 84 28 350 97 243 350 112 243
Sinuosity 0.40 1.15 1.04 0.14 --- 1.06 1.15 1.30 1.06 1.3 1.3
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)2 0.0206 0.0567 0.029 0.0211 0.0243 0.0206 0.0567 0.0176 0.0478 1 0.1124 0.0425 0.0118
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.0463 0.1005 0.0478 0.0129
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 12a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross-Section)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Moores Fork
ross-Section Ml(RI Cross-Section M2(Riffle) Cross-Section M3(Pool)
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY32 MY43 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY32 MY43 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base' MY11 MY2 MY32 MY43 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation(ft) 1150.4 1150.4 1150.4 1150.5 1150.7 1148.7 1148.7 1148.7 1149.1 1149.3 1148.4 1148.4 1148.4 1148.4 1149.0
low bank elevation(ft) 1150.4 1150.5 1150.4 1150.3 1150.4 1148.7 1148.7 1148.6 1148.8 1149.4 1148.4 1148.3 1148.4 1148.4 1149.0
Bankfull Width(ft) 33.2 34.2 34.1 36.0 32.4 31.8 32.5 32.5 38.5 3 M 39.1 39.3 38.9 38.0 40.4
Floodprone Width(ft) 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 145.0 --- --- --- --- ---
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.4
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.7 4.0 5.2 5.1 5.2 5.1 5.5
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 74.1 74.3 71.9 74.1 65.3 67.2 65.6 62.0 67.2 70.5 91.8 90.1 87.8 81.8 95.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.9 15.7 16.1 17.5 16.0 15.0 16.1 17.0 22.1 16.2 16.6 17.2 17.2 17.6 17.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.0 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.5 3.8 4.3 --- --- --- --- , ---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.0 --- --- --- --- ---
Cross-Section M4(Riffle) Cross-Section M5(Riffle) oss-Section M6(Pool)1111.
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY32 MY43 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base' MY1 MY2 MY32 MY43 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base" MY1 MY2 MY32 MY43 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation(ft) 1142.3 1142.3 1142.3 1142.5 1142.5 1139.5 1139.5 1139.5 1139.5 1139.5 1138.6 1138.6 1138.6 1138.7 1138.3
low bank elevation(ft) 1142.3 1141.6 1141.6 1142.2 1142.3 1139.5 1139.4 1139.7 1139.7 1139.9 1138.6 1138.5 1138.5 1138.7 1138.3
Bankfull Width(ft) 52.2 51.6 52.3 52.3 52.4 32.0 31.6 32.6 32.7 34.7 39.3 39.1 39.3 48.1 39.9
Floodprone Width(ft) 124.0 124.0 124.0 124.0 124.0 124.0 124.0 124.0 124.0 124.0 --- --- --- ---
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.9 2.4 2.7
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 3.3 3.2 3.7 3.2 4.0 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.8 4.4 5.1 5.5 5.2 5.2 5.8
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 101.1 97.4 95.8 83.8 89.9 73.0 72.4 72.8 73.0 84.7 106.1 106.2 115.6 116.7 107.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 26.9 27.3 28.6 32.7 30.5 14.0 13.8 14.6 14.6 14.1 14.5 14.4 13.3 19.8 14.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 3.9 3.9 4.1 3.8 3.6 --- --- --- ---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 --- --- --- --- ---
Cross-Section M9(Pool)
Dimension and Substrate Basel MY1 MY2 MY32 MY43 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1' MY2 MY32 MY43 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base' MY11 MY21 MY32 MY43 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation(ft) 1134.9 1134.9 1134.9 1135.0 1135.1 1132.4 1132.4 1132.4 1132.4 1132.5 1132.1 1132.1 1132.1 1132.1 1132.2
low bank elevation(ft) 1134.9 1134.9 1135.0 1134.8 1134.9 1132.4 1132.3 1132.3 1132.2 1132.6 1132.1 1132.1 1132.1 1132.1 1132.2
Bankfull Width(ft) 49.5 49.2 49.6 51.0 48.5 34.6 34.0 33.5 36.5 35.9 52.0 53.7 54.3 57.9 55.0
Floodprone Width(ft) 124.0 124.0 124.0 124.0 124.0 124.0 124.0 124.0 124.0 124.0 --- --- --- ---
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 ® 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.4
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 3.5 3.5 3.8 4.0 ® 4.1 4.3 4.2 4.3 4.9 6.3 6.3 6.5 6.2 6.6
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 118.1 117.0 117.7 118.1 105.4 91.5 91.5 89.2 91.5 96.6 146.3 149.5 146.1 146.1 133.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 20.7 20.7 20.9 22.0 ® 13.1 12.6 12.6 14.6 13.3 18.5 19.3 20.1 23.0 22.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.6 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.4 3.5 --- --- --- --- El ___
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 --- --- --- ---
'Adjustment in survey points included in bankfull calculations resulting in change to previous monitoring year bankfull dimensions.
2Prior to MY3,bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.For MY3-MY7,Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(Base)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the
BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS(9/2018).The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the low bank elevation.
3MY4 and MY6 are reduced monitoring years.No geomorphic data collected.

Table 12b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross-Section)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Silage Tributary
Cross-Section ST1(Fa Cross-Section ST2(Poo Cross-Section ST3(Riffle
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY32 MY43 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY11 MY2 MY32 MY43 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base' MY11 MY21 MY32 MY43 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation(ft) 1234.6 1234.6 1234.6 1234.1)M1234.1 1233.4 1233.4 1233.4 1233.5 1233.6 1193.0 1193.0 1193.0 1192.8 1192.6
low bank elevation(ft) 1234.6 1234.6 1234.6 1234.4 1234.6 1233.4 1233.4 1233.5 1233.5 1233.6 1193.0 1192.9 1192.7 1192.7 1192.9
Bankfull Width(ft) 4.2 4.0 4.5 4.2 5.4 5.1 4.5 5.3 5.1 5.7 9.6 10.2 10.2 6.5 7.9
Floodprone Width(ft) 9.4 9.2 9.6 10.7 9.7 --- --- --- --- --- 15.0 15.0 22.1 20.0 21.0
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1.2 1.1 1.5 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.7 0.9 0.9 1.5 1.3 1.3
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 2.8 2.3 4.1 2.8 5.1 3.2 2.8 3.0 4.1 5.6 4.9 4.2 6.5 4.8 6.6
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 6.4 6.7 4.8 6.2 5.8 8.0 7.2 9.2 6.4 5.8 18.7 24.9 15.9 8.9 9.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.6 1.8 --- --- --- --- --- 1.6 1.5 2.2 3.1 2.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.6 --- --- --- --- --- 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.0 II 1.2
iiii Cross-Section ST4(Pool) ilh Cross-Section ST5(Pool) ss-Section ST6(Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate Base" MY11 MY2 MY32 MY43 MY5 MY6 MY7 Basel MY11 MY2 MY32 MY43 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base" MY11 MY2 MY32 MY43 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation(ft) 1193.1 1193.1 1193.1 1193.1 1192.5 1185.1 1185.1 1185.1 1184.7 1185.0 1175.4 1175.4 1175.4 1175.4 1174.9
low bank elevation(ft) 1193.1 1192.9 1192.9 1193.1 1192.5 1185.1 1184.9 1185.0 1184.7 1185.0 1175.4 1175.3 1175.3 1175.4 1175.7
Bankfull Width(ft) 13.9 14.9 14.7 16.5 13.9 7.8 8.7 8.4 8.2 10.1 9.6 8.4 8.7 8.3 8.3
Floodprone Width(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.2 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.6
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.5 1.7 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.2
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 15.5 19.4 16.0 19.1 10.8 ` 7.9 8.1 8.7 7.1 9.7 6.8 6.1 7.3 7.0 13.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.5 11.4 13.4 14.3 17.9 7.7 9.4 8.1 9.4 10.5 13.5 11.6 10.4 9.9 5.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.9 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio --- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- -- 1.0 <1.0 <1.0 1.0 1.6
Cross-Section ST7(Ri
Dimension and Substrate Base' MY11 MY2 MY32 MY43 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation(ft) 1164.7 1164.7 1164.7 1164.7 1164.7
low bank elevation(ft) 1164.7 1164.6 1164.6 1164.6 1165.0
Bankfull Width(ft) 10.3 10.5 10.8 8.7 10.5
Floodprone Width(ft) 29.6 31.8 33.6 31.0 34.0
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.9
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area(ft2) 8.8 9.3 9.6 8.3 12.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.0 12.0 12.1 9.1 9.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.6 3.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 <1.0 1.0 <1.0 1.2
'Adjustment in survey points included in bankfull calculations resulting in change to previous monitoring year bankfull dimensions.
2Prior to MY3,bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation.For MY3-MY7,Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(Base)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the
BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS(9/2018).The remainder of the cross-section dimension parameters were calculated based on the low bank elevation.
3MY4 and MY6 are reduced monitoring years.No geomorphic data collected.

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section Ml-Moores Fork
27+16 Riffle
1155 -
1154
1153
1152
K 1151 �r• --
-
-
0 1150
1149
w '\1148
1147 -
1146 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width(ft)
-MYO(6/2016) MY1(11/2016) -MY2(6/2017) -MY3(6/2018)
+MY5(4/2020) Bankfull(4/2020) Floodprone Area(4/2020) --- MYO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions` -,
65.3 x-section area(ft.sq.) X 1 d S
32.4 width(ft)
2.0 mean depth(ft)
3.3 max depth(ft)
33.6 wetted perimeter(ft) 1' "
1.9 hydraulic radius(ft) -
16.0 width-depth ratio
�� �
145.0 W flood prone area(ft)
4.5 entrenchment ratio
0.9 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020 Apr 15,2020 25 42;P1Y)'
Field Crew: Kee Mapping&Surveying s 7 Y
Nts lr:: Uk
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section M2-Moores Fork
29+84 Riffle
1154 -
1153
1152
1151
•,K 1150 - ��
- • '
0 1149
---
-
m
w 1148
1147
1146 �
1145 , 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width(ft)
-MVO(6/2016) MY1(11/2016) -MY2(6/2017) -MY3(6/2018)
+MY5(4/2020) Bankfull(4/2020) Floodprone Area(4/2020) --- MVO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions ✓'f;
70.5 x-section area(ft.sq.) ' a f :r
33.8 width(ft) 44 r ,a4wt a '', ,$,*
2.1 mean depth(ft) p "` '` is, � i > e r
4.0 max depth(ft) n� � � g ��
35.8 wetted perimeter(ft) 1"� xd� : �. C? ", ,
�,�
2.0 hydraulic radius(ft) *,. �'
16.2 width-depth ratio
145.0 W flood prone area(ft) ,, -
4.3 entrenchment ratio
��_ - Wit.
1.0 low bank height ratio /
Survey Date: 4/2020 Apr 15,2020 1:57
Field Crew: Kee Ma in &Surveying 1879 Pine Ridge t3 .
PP g Y g Mount Air
.a .-_
Surry County
North Carolin.
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section M3-Moores Fork
31+07 Pool
1151 -
1150
1149 r • •-- '.
1148 ��
1147Niiiiik /o r....--;
> 1146 �"
,
1145 1,
1144 ._
1143 ,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width(ft)
—MYO(6/2016) —MY1(11/2016) —MY2(6/2017) —MY3(6/2018) tMY5(4/2020) —Bankfull(4/2020)
Bankfull Dimensions ,. •,-1, : 4.of r.) * %$o'
a
95.5 x-section area(ft.sq.) � , �+ �'e � , �' `
40.4 width(ft) �\ �.1 J
2.4 mean depth(ft)
5.5 max depth(ft) �^
44.1 wetted perimeter(ft) - "�
2.2 hydraulic radius(ft) °i'
17.1 width-depth ratio ` f'$ ! g,
4.,6.4.,,,tr- -;i:- :14,.,„ -
Survey Date: 4/2020 Apr , 103.12 PMd 187915 2020 Pine RidgeRoa .
Field Crew: Kee Mapping&Surveying Mount For
`
Surry County.
North Carolina
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section M4-Moores Fork
39+92 Riffle
1148 -
1146
1144
F
c
o - -
.;, 1142
1140 _
lam" ��
1138 , 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width(ft)
—MVO(6/2016) —MY1(11/2016) —MY2(6/2017) —MY3(6/2018)
+MYS(4/2020) Bankfull(4/2020) Floodprone Area(4/2020) ——— MYO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions tf '
89.9 x-section area(ftsq.) �'4- -5eiti
52.4 width(ft) �•
1.7 mean depth(ft)
4.0 max depth(ft) - `' = q,
55.6 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.6. hydraulic radius(ft)
4,-
30.5 width-depth ratio ' ., '
124.0 W flood prone area(ft)
2.4 entrenchment ratio
0.95 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020 Apr 14,2020 1:5702 PM
363 Horton Road
Field Crew: Kee Mapping&Surveying0,
Mount Airy
• Surry County
` N. North Carolina
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section M5-Moores Fork
45+02 Riffle
1145 -
1144
1143
1142
1141
1140
0
";, 1139
1138
1137
1136
1135 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
—MYO(6/2016) MY1(11/2016) —MY2(6/2017) —MY3(6/2018)
+MY5(4/2020) Bankfull(4/2020) Floodprone Area(4/2020) ——— MYO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions { r
84.7 x-section area(ft.sq.) ;r *64
34.5 width(ft) £
2.5 mean depth(ft)
4.4 max depth(ft)
yy_
36.2 wetted perimeter(ft)
2.3 hydraulic radius(ft)
14.1 width-depth ratio
124.0 W flood prone area(ft)
3.6 entrenchment ratio
1.1 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Kee Mapping&Surveying
Apr 14,2020 3:06:17 PM
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section M6-Moores Fork
47+34 Pool
1144 -
1142
1140
c 1138
o r�
w 1136
1134
1132 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width(ft)
—MVO(6/2016) —MY1(11/2016) —MY2(6/2017) —MY3(6/2018) tMY5(4/2020) —Bankfull(4/2020)
Bankfull Dimensions
107.7 x-section area(ft.sq.) X6d ''r'
39.9 width(ft)
2.7 mean depth(ft) 1t+fk ,�
5.8 max depth(ft)
43.7 wetted perimeter(ft)
2.5 hydraulic radius(ft)
14.8 width-depth ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Kee Mapping&Surveying
Apr 14,2020 4:17:06 PM
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section M7-Moores Fork
52+16 Run
1140 -
1138 -
1136
0
1134
w �
1132
1130 -
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width(ft)
-MYO(6/2016) MY1(11/2016) -MY2(6/2017) -MY3(6/2018)
+MY5(4/2020) Bankfull(4/2020) Floodprone Area(4/2020) --- MYO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
109.7 x-section area(ftsq.) t ,
49.1 width(ft)
2.2 mean depth(ft) " •
3.7 max depth(ft)
50.4 wetted perimeter(ft) ;
2.2 hydraulic radius(ft)
22.0 width-depth ratio
124.0 W flood prone area(ft)
2.5 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Apr 15,"2020 8:44:38 AM
Survey Date: 4/2020 286 Maple Grove Church Road
Field Crew: Kee Mapping&Surveying Mount Airy
_Burry County
:= - North Carolina
View Downstream

Moores For o.94709
Cross-Section Plots
k Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project N
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section M8-Moores Fork
56+02 Riffle
1137
1135
1133
•
c
o �
1131 \
w
1129 -\\
1127 -
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width(ft)
-MY0(6/2016) MY1(11/2016) _MY
(6/2017) -MY3(6/2018)
+MYS(4/2020) Bankfull(4/2020) Floodprone Area(4/2020) --- MYO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions 4
96.6 x-section area(ftsq.)
35.9 width(ft) 4r ^=
2.7 mean depth(ft) _
4.9 max depth(ft)
38.2 wetted perimeter(ft) r r
� x fit
2.5 hydraulic radius(ft) qu
13.3 width-depth ratio '.'
124.0 W flood prone area(ft)
ry
3.5 entrenchment ratio 1- �"''
1.0 low bank height ratiok.K-i-`{ s
Survey Date: 4/2020 _ �� # 8:'S9 AM,
Field Crew: Kee Mapping&Surveying * ,1r aSun 7_Sb'
r ., $ �z rY�gy
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section M9-Moores Fork
57+38 Pool
1135
1133
1131
0
;, 1129
1127
1125
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width(ft)
—MVO(6/2016) —MY1(11/2016) —MY2(6/2017) —MY3(6/2018) tMY5(4/2020) —Bankfull(4/2020)
Bankfull Dimensions 1vr
133.3 x-section area(ft.sq.) X 9 d s
�yk
55.0 width(ft) �'
2.4 mean depth(ft) 1 -.
6.6 max depth(ft)
59.2 wetted perimeter(ft)
•
2.3 hydraulic radius(ft) IJ� � r ;
22.7 width-depth ratio P C n! T
Survey Date: 4/2020 „/ pr 15,2020 10:48:01 AM
?• _ 193 Rick Road
Field Crew: Kee Mapping&Surveying g` f:F, '" Mount Airy
tR' Surry County
North Carolina
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section ST1-Silage Trib
13+46 Riffle
1242 1
1240
1238
0
, 1236
1234 --- ---
1232 -
15 20 25 30 35
Width(ft)
-MYO(6/2016) -MY1(11/2016) -MY2(6/2017) -MY3(6/2018)
+MYS(4/2020) Bankfull(4/2020) Floodprone Area(4/2020) --- MYO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
5.1 x-section area(ft.sq.) X 1 d S k 1St�
5.4 width(ft) - � "f�F � E
0.9 mean depth(ft)
1.3 max depth(ft) 1
*17
6.7 wetted perimeter(ft) #
0.8 hydraulic radius(ft)
5.8 width-depth ratio rk r t;
9.7 W flood prone area(ft)
1.8 entrenchment ratio
1.6 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:4/2020 lr�p, s
Field Crew: Kee Mapping&Surveying "'� ✓� >ra
I r fi " s .P�atkt
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross Section ST2-Silage Trib
13+81 Pool
1238 -
1237 \
1236
$1235 ,
c
1234 �'
> /,
w 1233
_ 1/N � '1232
1231 -
10 15 20 25 30
Width(ft)
—MYO(6/2016) —MY1(11/2016) —MY2(6/2017) —MY3(6/2018) +MY5(4/2020) —Bankfull(4/2020)
Bankfull Dimensions , i �' ,iu r+ r .•
5.6 x-section area fts � .-
.)C2 d' �H
5.7 width(ft) , a Y ,' yr� - �:
1.0 mean depth(ft) ` tz M x": ,
1.7 max depth(ft) j V ' ' ` `€;
7.0 wetted perimeter(ft)
�� r. .'
0.8 hydraulic radius(ft) A Y
5.8 width-depth ratio
Survey Date:4/2020 Apr 16,2020 3:28:10 PM
Field Crew: Kee Mapping&Surveying148 Holder Road
PP g . Mount Airy
Surry County
North Carolina
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section ST3-Silage Trib
25+48 Riffle
1195
1194
�_
1193
o
111 1192
1191 -
0 5 10 15 20 25
Width(ft)
—MVO(6/2016) —MY1(11/2016) —MY2(6/2017) —MY3(6/2018)
+MY5(4/2020) Bankfull(4/2020) Floodprone Area(4/2020) ——— MVO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
6.6 x-section area(ft.sq.) V 3 d s
7.9 width(ft)
0.8 mean depth(ft)
13 max depth(ft) `;g ,,�._ �•�
8.6 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.8 hydraulic radius(ft)
9.4 width-depth ratio r �, 1
21.0 W flood prone area(ft)
2.7 entrenchment ratio
1.2 low bank height ratio
SurveyDate:4 2020 A r 16;2020 90 5:57`ANI
� � � pr f� �` p �48 Ho�jler Road
Field Crew: Kee Mapping&Surveying
� M nt Airy
�yy 4 dfrf 1 \�SurryyCounty
44;I 'NbbrthCarolina
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section ST4-Silage Trib
25+70 Pool
1195 I
1194 -
1193
0
1192, ��`�
/
1191 W11111110..�—i�_�
1190 ,
0 5 10 15 20
Width(ft)
—MYO(6/2016) —MY1(11/2016) —MY2(6/2017) —MY3(6/2018) +MYS(4/2020) —Bankfull(4/2020)
Bankfull Dimensions
10.8 x-section area(ft.sq.) )(/� d s
13.9 width(ft) 7�"t
0.8 mean depth(ft)
1.7 max depth(ft)
14.7 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius(ft)
17.9 width-depth ratio v
Survey Date:4/2020 18 9:40.18 AM
14B_Holder Road
Field Crew: Kee Mapping&Surveying °} x ^"'" Mount Airy
- urry County
.. ,a, North Carolina
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section ST5-Silage Trib
28+55 Pool
1187 -
1186 ---.‘
$ i
1185 //
> 1
w
,
1184 `\ _
1183 ,
0 5 10 15 20
Width(ft)
—MYO(6/2016) —MY1(11/2016) —MY2(6/2017) —MY3(6/2018) —• MY5(4/2020) —Bankfull(4/2020)
Bankfull Dimensions . , € � �q °sA a ��
9.7 x-section area(ft.sq.) �( yak F
10.1 width(ft) X 5 ( S t
1.0 mean depth(ft) �6ae; a
1.4 max depth(ft) __Kk '
10.7 wetted perimeter(ft) `'
0.9 hydraulic radius(ft)
10.5 width-depth ratio
s
f ' r 16,2020 10:15:43 AM
Survey Date:4/2020 w , P
Field Crew: Kee Mapping&Surveying t *., 148 Holder Road
PP g Y g r Mount Airy
Surr Count
; y;a ,. North Carolina
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section ST6-Silage Trib
32+44 Riffle
1179
1178
1177
F
1176
0
F., 1175
Li -- ---
1174
1173 -
0 5 10 15 20 25
Width(ft)
MVO(6/2016) -MY1(11/2016) -MY2(6/2017) -:Y3_B(
6/2018)
+MYS(4/2020) Bankfull(4/2020) Floodprone Area(4/2020) --- YO KF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions 'ss o ,4 I*. 5_�
13.2 x-section area(ft
v ! #
It
8.3 width(ft) �;, "� � 0 t �, _
1.6 mean depth(ft) a �
2.2 max depth(ft) 3}
10.6 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.2 hydraulic radius(ft) rr y
5.2 width-depth ratio `
28.0 W flood prone area(ft) -
3.4 entrenchment ratio
1.6 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:4/2020 Apr 16,2020 11 04A2 AM
r- 3239 West Pine Street
Field Crew: Kee Mapping&Surveying `„& - Mount Airy
Surry County
North Caolin.
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Cross-Section ST7-Silage Trib
36+85 Riffle
1170
1169
1168
1167
1
1166
o
w
1165
w
1164
1163
1162
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width(ft)
—MYO(6/2016) —MY1(11/2016) —MY2(6/2017) —MY3(6/2018)
+MYS(4/2020) Bankfull(4/2020) Floodprone Area(4/2020) --— MYO BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions ��xf '
12.0 x-section area fts " . -1
( 9•) • �
10.5 width(ft) ft,
,.. 'r "a
n,r
,,k.,..40„,...„,7,, ,
1.1 mean depth(ft) '� 9
1.9 max depth(ft) a; n ' , g.
11.5 wetted perimeter(ft) i � + •_ e ,
1.0 hydraulic radius(ft) l"f � ` '
9.2 width-depth ratio '
34.0 W flood prone area(ft) i s
t 1_
t
3.2 entrenchment ratio
1.2 low bank height ratio
Survey Date:4/2020 "-� Apr 1'6;2020 11 5053,. i
3239 W Pine-Street
Field Crew: Kee Mapping&Surveying ount'Pnty
,z / �� urryCounty
� �o Rh Carblina
View Downstream

Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Silage Trib Reach 1,Cross-Section ST1
Particle Class Riffle 100- Class Percent
Count Silage Trib Reach 1,Cross-Section ST1
min max Percenta:e Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 0 100
Very fine 0.062 0.125 0 90 ` k a d Silt/Clay > *4 Gravel H-
Fine 0.125 0.250 0 I_ 1 1 bblel Boulder
Bedrock
Q$\CI Medium 0.25 0.50 1 1 1 80
5 Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 1 ; 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 10 50
d
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 £
illi
u 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 -- 1
c
Fine 5.6 8.0 4 4 5 30 •
Medium 8.0 11.0 3 3 8 a 20 eefilV
Medium 11.0 16.0 7 7 15 10 _�I�
Coarse 16.0 22.6 8 8 23 0 -�� �• • • •
Coarse 22.6 32 13 13 36 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 17 17 53 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 15 15 68 —e—MYO-6/2016 —e—MY1-11/2016 —e—MY2-7/2017 —e—MY3-6/2018 —e—MY4-6/2019 —e—MY5-6/2020
Small 64 90 13 13 81
Small 90 128 10 10 91
Large 128 180 8 8 99
Large 180 256 1 1 100 Silage Trib Reach 1,Cross-Section ST1
Individual Class Percent
€'''Small 256 362 100 100
€'''small 362 512 100 90
iiiiiiiiiiii:::ii@®®® ®
80
• 2048 ••
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 -- •• c 70
rr rr hI m 60
a
Lk 50
Cross-Section ST1 v 40
Channel materials(mm) —
3 30
Die= 16.7 v
D3,= 31.2 v 20
D50= 42.4 10 ,+
Dom= 100.0 p i I. II IL,a ill L. Ji. IL��'L IIIIIIIIIL � � .i.■ J.
D95= 151.8 O6'L .tih Oet) O5 1 'L ,LW a 40 % ,y1 ,y6�,L"o ,.'L 6`� Ob 00 ,LW ,�O,�6 ,�'L,,,�'L O,Lb Oa'b OO(o
D 256.0 0 oti ti ti k
00 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-6/2016 •MY1-11/2016 •MY2-7/2017 •MY3-6/2018 •MY4-6/2019 •MY5-6/2020

Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Silage Trib Reach 2,Cross-Section ST3
Particle Class Riffle 100- Class Percent
Count Silage Trib Reach 2,Cross-Section ST3
min max Percenta:e Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 0 100 4 1 l 111 ji< •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 0 90 Silt/ClaySand Grave , //
Fine 0.125 0.250 0 Cobble
$ ) Boulder
gp _ Bedrock_
QS� Medium 0.25 0.50 0 r
5 Coarse 0.5 1.0 2 2 2 7 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 1 1 3 i 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 -- 3 10 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 -- 3 £ • • •
u 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 5 5 8 F.Fine 5.6 8.0 4 4 12
F 3Irm
8.0 11.0 6 6 18 a 2 11.0 16.0 7 7 25 1 16.0 22.6 5 5 30 0
Coarse 22.6 32 5 5 35 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 16 16 51 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 15 15 66 —op—MYO-6/2016 —e—MY1-11/2 016 —e—MY2-7/2017 —op—MY3-6/2018 —e—MY4-6/2019 —op—MY5-6/2020
Small 64 90 10 10 76
Small 90 128 13 13 89
Large 128 180 11 11 100
Large 180 256 10o Silage Trib Reach 2,Cross-Section ST3
Individual Class Percent
€'''Small 256 362 100 100
€'''small 362 512 100 90
iil • 1 11
iiiiiiiiiiii:::®®® ®
80
2048 PIM
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 PIMc 70
ti
rr rr hI m 60
a
v, 50
Cross-Section ST3 v 40
Channel materials(mm) —
3 30
Die= 9.9 v
D35= 32.0 v 20
D50= 44.1 5 10 I II
D�,= 111.8 0 I ,.i L I iI_I. .I.iI.Li iI1U.'1.W, Y,I L
D95= 154.2 O6'L .tih O,tih (:),01 '1, ,LW a 46 % ,y1 ,,!,0�,L(O ,;-1, 6`� ,b �O ,LW ,�O,�6 ,�'L,,,�'L O,Lb Oa'b O��o
D 180.0 ti k
00 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MYO-6/2016 •MY1-11/2016 •MY2-7/2017 •MY3-6/2018 •MY4-6/2019 •MY5-6/2020

Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Silage Trib Reach 2,Cross-Section ST6
Particle Class Riffle 100- Class Percent
Count Silage Trib Reach 2,Cross-Section ST6
min max Percenta:e Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 3 3 3 100 rs_--- 111MENIIIII=...,""'-■. ��Illll�■111111
Very fine 0.062 0.125 3 90 lilIIMII-7i!IIIIIMa._.n Gravel-- I ��-
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 1 4 80 ■.11I1111■.11I1111■.11I1 , }',-' ble ', Boulder �����
SP�o Coarse .2 01 00 1 1 5 70 •I1111111•I1111111•I111111 F i A/I■.111IIII■
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 5 > 60 ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111'�. III■■1111111■■11111
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 5 .11" •IIIIIIII-IIIIIIII-I11I!!���2 1111■■1111111■■11111
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 5 40 ■■IIIIII1.1111IIII•II/iIII!���AIIIII•IIIIIIII•IIIIII
Fine 4.0 5.6 1 1 6 ■■IIIIIII■■1IIIIII■1115111!5/%1111111M11111111■■11111
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2 8 `�' 30 •u1111111.I111ID�� „��J`
Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 10 a 20 ��_ li�n�-",��1IIII��111IIII��111II
Medium 11.0 16.0 8 8 18 to •I111ffi -. 77iiiii iti•dliliiiI1111111•u1111111•I11111
Coarse 16.0 22.6 10 10 28 0
Mi11I�ilintiiiiiii::::;iiii•I11IIIII•1IIIIII1.1111II
Coarse 22.6 32 12 12 40 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 14 14 54 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 15 15 69 -s-MYO-6/2016 -s-MY1-11/2016 -s-MY2-7/2017 -op-MY3-6/2018 -op-MY4-6/2019 -o-MY5-6/2020
Small 64 90 15 15 84
Small 90 128 11 11 95
Large 128 180 4 4 99
Large 180 256 1 1 100 Silage Trib Reach 2,Cross-Section ST6
Individual Class Percent
Small 256 362 100 100
BBBBBBBBigniiiiiiiiiii
€'',Small 362 512 100 90
EggiiiiMEN
80
MMMMMMMMM 11=5=1ZEIZE 2048 PIM
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 PIM c 70
It
0°2[IMOIMMEZMIIM I 60
a
vn 50
Cross-Section ST6 v 40
Channel materials(mm) -
j 30
D16= 14.6 -a
D35= 27.7 iz
5 20
D50= I.0.8 4 10: 1 I
D 0.0 rl 1■ IL,Ii ■..1J L�1�,.i,Ii,�� �4,.a la 1.. r
s,=
D95= 128.0 O6'L .tih Oet) p5 ', '1, ,LW a 46 % ,y1 ,y6�,L(O ,.,;-1, 6`� �b �O ,LW ��O��6 ,�'L,,,�'L O,Lb Oa'b 0�(0
D 256.0 ti k
00 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-6/2016 ■MY1-11/2016 •MY2-7/2017 ■MY3-6/2018 •MY4-6/2019 •MY5-6/2020

Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Silage Trib Reach 2,Cross-Section ST7
Particle Class Riffle 100- Class Percent
Count Silage Trib Reach 2,Cross-Section ST7
min max Percenta:e Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 1 1 1 100 4 1 1 1 * I I I 1,-AllPri =�
Very fine 0.062 0.125 1 Silt/Clay Sand a..
90 Gravel 11111.11=111=111.
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 1 2 Cobble Boulder >
_
Q$\� 80 Medium 0.25 0.50 1 1 3 r Bedrock_
5 Coarse 0.5 1.0 3 7 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 1 1 4 i 60 f i
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 4 10• 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 -- 4 £
u 40 i.
Fine 4.0 5.6 2 2 6
i 30
Fine 5.6 8.0 8 8 14
Medium 8.0 11.0 6 6 20 a 20
il
Medium 11.0 16.0 7 7 27 10 ''' 7
Coarse 16.0 22.6 5 5 32 0 --
Coarse 22.6 32 14 14 46 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 26 26 72 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 13 13 85 -s-MYO-6/2016 -s-MY1-11/2016 -s-MY2-7/2017 -s-MY3-6/2018 -s-MY4-6/2019 -s-MY5-6/2020
Small 64 90 7 7 92
Small 90 128 8 8 100
Large 128 180 100
Large 180 256 10o Silage Trib Reach 2,Cross-Section ST7
Individual Class Percent
€'''Smll 256 362 100 100
€'''small 362 512 100 90
iil, • 1 11
iiiiiiiiiiii:::,®®®--®
80
2048 PIM
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 PIM c 70
ii
rr rr hI m 60
X.
a, 50
Cross-Section ST7 v 40
Channel materials(mm) -
3 30
Di6= 8.9 v
D35= 24.3 v 20 II
DSc= 33.7 10 .1 IL JJ i1� . 1. L.i1 J1111III 1. .I .1 ] r I
D95= 102.7 O6'L .tih Oet) p5 1 '1, ,LW a 40 % ,y1 ,y6�,L"o ,.,;-1, 6`� �b �O ,LW ,�O,�6 ,�'L,,,�'L O,Lb Oa'b O((o
D 128.0 ti k
00 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-6/2016 •MY1-11/2016 •MY2-7/2017 •MY3-6/2018 •MY4-6/2019 •MY5-6/2020

Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Moores Fork Reach 2,Cross-Section Ml
Riffle 100-
Particle Class Class Percent Moores Fork Reach 2,Cross-Section M1
Count
min max Percenta:e Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 0 100 4 1 1
11
Very fine 0.062 0.125 0 90 Silt/Clay 'k a d *4 �Gravel
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 1 1 Cobble 14 Boulder
80 Bedrock_
Q$4° Medium 0.25 0.50 3 3 4
5 Coarse 0.5 1.0 2 2 6 7 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 6 i 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 6 10• 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 7 E
u 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 J
u 30 • • •
Fine 5.6 8.0 2 2 9 (/
Medium 8.0 11.0 5 5 14 a 20
Medium 11.0 16.0 5 5 19 10 r
Coarse 16.0 22.6 9 9 28 0 - • •
Coarse 22.6 32 12 12 40 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 23 23 63 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 17 17 80 —op—MYO-6/2016 —s—MY1-11/2016 —op—MY2-7/2017 —op—MY3-6/2018 —s—MY4-6/2019 —s—MY5-6/2020
Small 64 90 15 15 95
Small 90 128 4 4 99
Large 128 180 1 1 100
Large 180 256 -- 10o Moores Fork Reach 2,Cross-Section M1
Individual Class Percent
€'''Small 256 362 100 100
€'''small 362 512 100 90
iil • r r r
iiiiiiiiiiii:::®®® ®
80
r 2048 rr
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 -- rr c 70
rr •• rr m 60
a
v, 50
Cross-Section M1 v 40
Channel materials(mm) —
3 30
016= 12.8 v
D3,= 27.7 iz 20
Dso= 37.1 10 I
�Dom= 70.1 0 I �r. L r�ii, L .III .._��.1I■1I'i �I14 ILI
D95= 90.0 O6'L .tih Oet) (:),01 '1. ,LW a 46 % ,y1 ,,!,0�,L"o ,.,;-1, 6`� �b �O ,LW ,�O,�6 ,�'L,,,�'L O,Lb Oa'b 0�(0
D 180.0 ti k
00 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-6/2016 •MY1-11/2016 •MY2-7/2017 •MY3-6/2018 •MY4-6/2019 •MY5-6/2020

Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Moores Fork Reach 2,Cross-Section M2
Riffle 100-
Particle Class Class Percent Moores Fork Reach 2,Cross-Section M2
Count
min max Percenta:e Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 0 100 ` 1 1 -
Very fine 0.062 0.125 0 90 Silt/Clay * Sand *4 Gravel l �1�
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 1 1 ` /Cobble % Boulder
80 / Bedrock_
Q$S° Medium 0.25 0.50 2 2 3
5 Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 4 7 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 2 2 6 i 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 6 10 50 /
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 6 £ 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 6 u
c
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 1 7 30 P
Medium 8.0 11.0 5 5 12 a 20 �i
Medium 11.0 16.0 7 7 19 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 10 10 29 0 •
Coarse 22.6 32 4 4 33 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 8 8 41 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 16 16 57 -s-MYO-6/2016 -s-MY1-11/2016 -s-MY2-7/2017 -s-MY3-6/2018 -s-MY4-6/2019 -s-MY5-6/2020
Small 64 90 9 9 66
Small 90 128 10 10 76
Large 128 180 9 9 85
Large 180 256 8 8 93 Moores Fork Reach 2,Cross-Section M2
Individual Class Percent
€'''Small 256 362 4 4 97 100
€'''small 362 512 3 3 100
90
eltilliiiiiiiiiiiii:::,®®MIME--®
80
2048 PIM
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 PIM c 70
er
rr rr hI I 60
0.
Lk 50
Cross-Section M2 v 40
Channel materials(mm) -
13 30
016= 13.6 v
D3,= 34.8 v 20
Dso= 54.9 5 10 �J ,`
Dom= 173.3 0 - i 1,L.,...4, ,l Ili JI_, •i,rd,I..m 4IL,4 i iI 1 J,Jik.h..1.
D95= 304.4 O6'L .tih O,tih (:)51 '1, ,LW a 46 % ,y1 ,,!,0�,L"o ,.,;-1, 6`� �b �O ,LW ,,1O,�6 ,�'L,,,�'L O,Lb Oa'b O<<o
D 512.0 ti k
00 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-6/2016 •MY1-11/2016 •MY2-7/2017 •MY3-6/2018 •MY4-6/2019 •MY5-6/2020

Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Moores Fork Reach 3,Cross-Section M4
Riffle 100-
Particle Class Class Percent Moores Fork Reach 3,Cross-Section M4
Count
min max Percenta:e Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 0 100 F�--..1111 MENuuIII=! M'
Very fine 0.062 0.125 0 l6l1IMI111IMa._...13 I-- n01111111•.111111
Fine 0.125 0.250 0 90 ..1111111•.1111111M.1111 Gravel.r `cobble ., Boulder - docklt
Be�� Medium 0.25 0.50 1 1 1 80 •.1111111■■1111111■■1111111■!"1 I 11111111E
5P Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 2 70 r
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 1 1 2 > 60 ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■ill piN11111111•111111
' II,�■1111111■■11111
Very Fine 2.0 2.82 ; sp ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111,a
Very Fine 2.8 4.02 40 ■■IIIIIIIMIIII1111■■111111I91■.ii •.1111111•.11111
Fine 4.0 5.62 c •.1111111•.1111111•.11111 iMi�11•.1111111•.11111
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 1 3 30 ■■1111111■■1111111■■1 ►,/.,15111111■■1111111■■11111
Medium 8.0 16.0 3 3 6 a 20 MI1111111■■1111111 1"r A1111111■■1111111■■11111
Medium 16.0 22.6 6 6 12 10 ■.I' r`,�`_- .:/1
Coarse 16.0 22.6 6 6 18 p �_ .,li■1111111■■1111111■■11111
Coarse 22.6 32 6 6 24 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 7 7 31 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 15 15 46 -s-MYO-6/2016 -s-MY1-11/2 016 -e-MY2-7/2017 -s-MY3-6/2018 -s-MY4-6/2019 -s-MY5-6/2020
Small 64 90 11 11 57
Small 90 128 32 32 89
Large 128 180 4 4 93
Large 180 256 3 3 96 Moores Fork Reach 3,Cross-Section M4
Individual Class Percent
Small 256 362 3 3 99 100
BBBBBBBBiummiiiiiiii
€'',Small 362 512 1 1 100
90
iil, • 1 11
iiiiiiiiiiii:::,®®® ®
80
MMMMMMMMMM=MMIZM 2048 PIM
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 PIMc 70
133
0:1211MIIMMIZMIIMI 60
a
vn 50
Cross-Section M4 v 40
Channel materials(mm) -
3 30
Die= 20.1 v
D35= 49.4 v 20
Dom= 72.4 5 10 r i ii..1. J. 11. 11141111111111111111 la . .r it
Da,= 121.1 0
D95= 227.6 O6'L ,Lh O,Lh p5 1 'L ,LW a 46 % ,„1 y6�,L(O ,.'L 6`'-, rob 42, ,y,LW ,y'bO,L56 ,,,o'L,_,y'L,,Lb OSW ,0,(0
D 512.0 ti C.
00 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-6/2016 ■MY1-11/2016 •MY2-7/2017 ■MY3-6/2018 •MY4-6/2019 •MY5-6/2020

Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Moores Fork Reach 3,Cross-Section M5
Riffle 100-
Particle Class Class Percent Moores Fork Reach 3,Cross-Section M5
Count
min max Percenta:e Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 0 100 4 1 1 I I •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 -- 0 90 Silt/Clay * Sand ��4—
Gravel
Fine 0.125 0.250 0 Cobble Boulder
80 Bedrock_
Q$4° Medium 0.25 0.50 3 3 3
5 Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 4 7 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 4 i 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 4 10 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 4 £ I /
u 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 4
u 30
Fine 5.6 8.0 -- 4
Medium 8.0 11.0 2 2 6 a 20
Medium 11.0 16.0 4 4 10 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 3 13 0 1
Coarse 22.6 32 11 11 24 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 10 10 34 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 16 16 50 —s—MYO-6/2016 —s—MY1-11/2016 —s—MY2-7/2017 —e—MY3-6/2018 —s—MY4-6/2019 —s—MY5-6/2020
Small 64 90 16 16 66
Small 90 128 11 11 77
Large 128 180 15 15 92
Large 180 256 3 3 9s Moores Fork Reach 3,Cross-Section M5
Individual Class Percent
€'''Small 256 362 3 3 98 100
€'''small 362 512 2 2 100
90
iil • 1 11
iiiiiiiiiiii:::®®®--®
80
2048 11
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 -- 11 c 70
11 11 hI t, 60
a
Lk 50
Cross-Section M5 v 40
Channel materials(mm) —
3 30
016= 24.8 v
D35= 46.0 iz 20
Da,= 64.0 5 10
Dom= 150.50.1
D95= 256.0 Obti ,,p O,tih p5 1 '1, ,LW a 46 % ,y1 ,,!,0�,L"o ,;-1, 6`,, �b �O ,LW ,�O,,,6 ,�'L<0,�'L O,Lb Oa'b O��o
D 512.0 ti k
00 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-6/2016 •MY1-11/2016 •MY2-7/2017 •MY3-6/2018 •MY4-6/2019 •MY5-6/2020

Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Moores Fork Reach 3,Cross-Section M7
Riffle 100-
Particle Class Class Percent Moores Fork Reach 3,Cross-Section M7
Count
min max Percenta:e Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 0 100 ��---"71111M■NII111t!
Very fine 0.062 0.125 0 16111M 1111Mlammi"'--• Y..I_ _ �M1IIIII.■IIIIII
Fine 0.125 0.250 1 1 1 80 ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111 Gravel g, gi<, ble 'I Boulder rock
CO Medium 0.25 0.50 1 1 2 ■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111." G j 111111111■
5P Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 3 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 2 2 5 ; 60 ■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIII1I' ME11111111■■11111
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 5 S0 ■■IIIIIII•IIIIIIII•IIIIIIIII�I■1 11l�■■1111111■■11111
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 2 2 7 14p ■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII!1ViI1��d•IIIIIIII■■IIIII
Fine 4.0 5.6 7 ■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIII4 0AIII�III■■IIIIIII■■IIIII
Fine 5.6 8.0 1 1 8 30 •IIIIIIII•!IIIIII M.Il "n�IAiddflI•■IIIIIII■■IIIII
Medium 8.0 1ium 11.0 6.0 8 a 20 •IIIIIIII_._i_I_I_IIIIIU111raill_ .'4IIIIII•IIIIIIII•IIIIII
Coarse 16.0 22.6 3 3 13 10 ■.II11'I1r,PP-11r-=.S.EgIL
p _ _. _.._..1�■1111111■■1111111■■11111
Coarse 22.6 32 1 1 14 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 7 7 21 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 14 14 35 -op-MVO-6/2016 -s-MY1-11/2016 -s-MY2-7/2017 -s-MY3-6/2018 -s-MY4-6/2019 -s-MY5-6/2020
Small 64 90 18 18 53
Small 90 128 21 21 74
Large 128 180 23 23 97
Large 180 256 3 3 100 Moores Fork Reach 3,Cross-Section M7
Individual Class Percent
Small 256 362 100 100
€',Small 362 512 100 90
ErgiiiMMOMMI
80
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIM2048 11
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 -- 11 c 70
It
Ol21/MOIMMEZMIIM I 60
a
vn 50
Cross-Section M7 v 40
Channel materials(mm) -
' 30
Die= 35.3 -a
D35= 64.0 iz 20
l
D50= 85.0 5 10
Da,= 148.5 I L-J� s. '+ I. ��� di I ' ' 11
� t
D95= 174.7 „sal.. ,Lh O,Lh (:),0 ', "1, ,LW a 46 % ,„1 y6�,L"o ,.,;-1, 6`'-, rob 42, ,y,LW ,y'bO,L56 ,,,o'L,,,y'L�,Lb OSW ,,go
D 256.0 ti k
00 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-6/2016 ■MY1-11/2016 •MY2-7/2017 ■MY3-6/2018 •MY4-6/2019 •MY5-6/2020

Cross-Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Moores Fork Reach 3,Cross-Section M8
Riffle 100-
Particle Class Class Percent Moores Fork Reach 3,Cross-Section M8
Count
min max Percenta:e Cumulative Pebble Count Particle Distribution
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay 0.000 0.062 0 100 ` •
Very fine 0.062 0.125 -- 0 90 SiIUCIas' Sand }� Gravel ' ,
Fine 0.125 0.250 0 Cobble Boulder
80 Bedrock_
Q$4° Medium 0.25 0.50 0 • 1 •
5 Coarse 0.5 1.0 1 1 1 70
Very Coarse 1.0 2.0 1 i 60
Very Fine 2.0 2.8 1 10• 50
Very Fine 2.8 4.0 1 1 2 t
u 40
Fine 4.0 5.6 2
u 30
Fine 5.6 8.0 3 3 5
Medium 8.0 11.0 6 6 11 a 20
Medium 11.0 16.0 7 7 18 10
Coarse 16.0 22.6 13 13 31 0
Coarse 22.6 32 11 11 42 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse 32 45 9 9 51 Particle Class Size(mm)
Very Coarse 45 64 18 18 69 —•—MYO-6/2016 —•—MY1-11/2 016 —op—MY2-7/2017 —op—MY3-6/2018 —op—MY4-6/2019 —o—MY5-6/2020
Small 64 90 14 14 83
Small 90 128 12 12 95
Large 128 180 1 1 96
Large 180 256 2 2 98 Moores Fork Reach 3,Cross-Section M8
Individual Class Percent
€'''Small 256 362 1 1 99 100
€'''small 362 512 99 90
• 1
iiiiiiiiiiii:::i11®®®
80
1 2048
BEDROCK Bedrock 2048 >2048 00 11 c 70
OMI/MOIMMNIM21:1Mt, 60
a
v, 50
Cross-Section M8 v 40
Channel materials(mm) —
3 30
016= 14.4 v
D35= 25.6 v 20 `�
Osc= 43.3 5 10
I 1 + + ` )�)�lJ ii i J.
Da,= 92.7 .J II � .` li
D95= 128.0 Obti ,,p O,tih p5 1 '1, ,LW a 46 % ,y1 ,,!,0�,L"o ,;-1, a`� �b 42, ,LW ,�O,,,6 ,�'L<0,�'L O,Lb Oa'b O��o
D >2048 ti k
00 Particle Class Size(mm)
•MY0-6/2016 •MY1-11/2016 •MY2-7/2017 •MY3-6/2018 •MY4-6/2019 •MY5-6/2020

APPENDIX E. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Reach AL Monitoring Year Date of Data Collection Date of Occurrence Method ' Measurement(ft)
MY1 10/25/2016 —8/4/2016 Crest Gage 1.30
MY2 7/10/2017 —5/25/2017 Crest Gage 2.55
MY3 4/12/2018 —3/25/2018 Crest Gage 2.73
Moores Fork Reach 2 MY4 3/13/2019 —2/24/2019 Crest Gage 2.30
6/19/2019 —6/18/2019 Debris wracklines N/A
MY5 2/27/2020 —1/25/2020 Debris wracklines N/A
9/8/2020 —9/1/2020 Debris wracklines N/A
MY1 10/25/2016 —8/4/2016 Crest Gage 0.75
Silage Reach 2 MY3 4/12/2018 —3/25/2018 Debris wracklines N/A
MY4 6/19/2019 —6/18/2019 Crest Gage/Debris wracklines N/A
MY5 9/8/2020 —9/1/2020 Debris wracklines N/A

Monthly Rainfall Data
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 5-2020
Moores Fork 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020 Surry County,NC
12.00
10.00
2 8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20
NC CRONOS MT Airy 2 W Date
-70th percentile
�30th percentile
2020 rainfall collected from NC CRONOS Station Name:MT AIRY 2 W(NCCRONOS,2020)
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station MT AIRY 2 W,NC(NCCRONOS,2020)

APPENDIX F. Invasive Species Treatment Logs

MEMO
To: Matthew Reid and Kelly Phillips, NCDEQ
From: Ben Balke and Joe Secoges
Date: October 2020
Subject: Moore's Fork Mitigation Site Maintenance Report
For reporting purposes, Eastern Forest Consultants produced a map delineating five management
units. The units are labeled A through E on a map attached to the memo to help describe tasks
performed in various areas of the property.
Tasks Preformed:
• Management Area A-
o Management Area A was treated on Friday May 29, 2020. Invasive species found
in the management area include Japanese honeysuckle, Chinese privet,multi-flora
rose and oriental bittersweet. There were large amounts of bittersweet sprayed in
the cove area on the southwest side. A few Chinese privet were sporadically
scattered throughout all of the area, but populations have been significantly
reduced over the past two years. Rodeo and Vastlan were used at a rate of 4 oz per
gallon and 2 oz per gallon respectively.
o Kudzu patches in the area were treated on July 20, 2020. Kudzu located away
from the creeks was treated using the maximum rate of Transline (21 oz/ac)
while kudzu near water was treated using Vastlan at 6 oz/gallon of water. The
kudzu locator map from 2018 has been updated to show the level of infestation
found at each kudzu patch in 2020.
• Management Area B-
o Management Area B was treated on May 29, 2020. Invasive species found in the
area include Japanese honeysuckle,kudzu, Chinese privet,multi-flora rose and
oriental bittersweet. Several honeysuckle and bittersweet patches have become
established along field edges. Kudzu patches were also found to be mostly pushed
back to the higher reaches of trees. Rodeo and Vastlan were used at a rate of 4 oz
per gallon and 2 oz per gallon respectively.
o On June 2, 2020 Eastern Forest Consultants treated the eastern and southern edges
of Management Area B along field edges using the high volume ATV sprayer.
Invasive species such as oriental bittersweet, kudzu, Japanese honeysuckle, multi-
flora rose, Chinese privet and morning glory were all treated in this area. Primary

targets were kudzu and oriental bittersweet that had climbed high into the trees.
Rodeo and Vastlan were used at a rate of 4 oz per gallon and 2 oz per gallon
respectively.
o Kudzu patches in the area were treated on July 20, 2020. Kudzu located away
from the creeks was treated using the maximum rate of Transline (21 oz/ac)
while kudzu near water was treated using Vastlan at 6 oz/gallon of water. The
kudzu locator map from 2018 has been updated to show the level of infestation
found at each kudzu patch in 2020.
• Management Area C-
o Management Area C was treated May 29, 2020. Invasive species found in the
management area include Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, Chinese privet,multi-
flora rose and oriental bittersweet. The north side of the stream area was not
heavily populated with invasive species. The south side of the stream was more
heavily populated,but was still sporadic. Rodeo and Vastlan were used at a rate of
4 oz per gallon and 2 oz per gallon respectively.
o Kudzu patches in the area were treated on July 20, 2020. Kudzu located away
from the creeks was treated using the maximum rate of Transline (21 oz/ac)
while kudzu near water was treated using Vastlan at 6 oz/gallon of water. The
kudzu locator map from 2018 has been updated to show the level of infestation
found at each kudzu patch in 2020.
• Management Area D-
o Management Area D was treated May 29, 2020. Invasive species found in the
management area include Japanese honeysuckle, Chinese privet,multi-flora rose
and oriental bittersweet. Invasive species populations in this area were sporadic.
Rodeo and Vastlan were used at a rate of 4 oz per gallon and 2 oz per gallon
respectively.
o On June 2, 2020 Eastern Forest Consultants treated the area near the gravel
driveway and powerline right-of-way intersection using the high volume ATV
sprayer for kudzu, oriental bittersweet,multi-flora rose, Chinese privet, and
Japanese honeysuckle, mainly targeting vines climbing high into the trees. Rodeo
and Vastlan were used at a rate of 4 oz per gallon and 2 oz per gallon respectively.
o Kudzu patches in the area were treated on July 20, 2020. Kudzu located away
from the creeks was treated using the maximum rate of Transline (21 oz/ac)
while kudzu near water was treated using Vastlan at 6 oz/gallon of water. The
kudzu locator map from 2018 has been updated to show the level of infestation
found at each kudzu patch in 2020.

• Management Area E-
o Management Area E was treated on May 29. 2020. Invasive species found in the
management area include Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, Chinese privet, multi-
flora rose and Oriental bittersweet. The area was dense in honeysuckle, and
bittersweet. Rodeo and Vastlan were used at a rate of 4 oz per gallon and 2 oz per
gallon respectively.
o Kudzu patches in the area were treated on July 20, 2020. Kudzu located away
from the creeks was treated using the maximum rate of Transline (21 oz/ac)
while kudzu near water was treated using Vastlan at 6 oz/gallon of water. The
kudzu locator map from 2018 has been updated to show the level of infestation
found at each kudzu patch in 2020.
Other Notable Information:
o Kudzu vines property-wide that were still alive because they were too tall or got
missed on the 7/20/2020 treatment were clipped with loppers during a 9/3/2020
site visit.

PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE APPLICATION RECORD
PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER:
Name: Matthew Reid
NC DEQ DMS
Address: 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville,NC 28801
Telephone #: [phone]
ADDRESS/LOCATION OF APPLICATION SITE (if different than above):
Address/Location: Moore's Fork Mitigation Site— Surry County
CERTIFIED APPLICATOR:
Joseph M. Secoges (Applicator Cert. # 026-34911 / Consultant Cert. # 030-1312)
Eastern Forest Consultants LLC
P.O. Box 1577
Clemmons,NC 27012
240-446-1583
DATE + START/END TIME OF APPLICATION: 5/29/2020; 0900-1600
RESTRICTED ENTRY INTERVAL (REI):
DURATION (# OF HOURS): 4 Hours
EXPIRATION (DATE/TIME): 5/30/2020 @ 2000
PLANTS/SITES TREATED:Upland Area around Stream
PRINCIPLE PESTS TO BE CONTROLLED: Privet, Honeysuckle, Multi-flora
Rose, Kudzu, Bittersweet

ACREAGE, AREA, OR NUMBER OF PLANTS TREATED:
Spot Spray As Needed
IDENTIFICATION/AMOUNT OF PESTICIDES USED:
1) Brand/Common Name: Rodeo
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-324
Amount Applied to Site: 144 oz
Application Rate: 4 oz/gallon
2) Brand/Common Name: Vastlan
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-687
Amount Applied to Site: 72 oz
Application Rate: 2 oz/gallon
3) Brand/Common Name: CWC 90 Surfactant
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 36 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz/ gallon
4) Brand/Common Name: Bullseye Spray Pattern Indicator
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 36 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz/gallon
DILUENTS USED (Water, Oil, Fuel, etc.):
1) Diluent: Water
Amount Applied to Site: 36 gallons
Application Rate: As Needed
2) Diluent:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
TYPE OF APPLICATION EQUIPMENT USED: Back-pack Sprayers

WEATHER:
Temp: 65-70 deg F
Wind Speed: 0-5 mph
Wind Direction: variable
NOTES: Joe not on site. Treated by Ben Balke, Caleb Cothron, and Luke
Whiteside. All areas addressed except for spots with thick bittersweet and kudzu which
will be treated later using ATV sprayer from field edges. Light rain fell around
12:30pm...not expected to have impact of effectiveness of treatment.

PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE APPLICATION RECORD
PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER:
Name: Matthew Reid
NC DEQ DMS
Address: 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville,NC 28801
Telephone #: [phone]
ADDRESS/LOCATION OF APPLICATION SITE (if different than above):
Address/Location: Moore's Fork Mitigation Site— Surry County
CERTIFIED APPLICATOR:
Joseph M. Secoges (Applicator Cert. # 026-34911 / Consultant Cert. # 030-1312)
Eastern Forest Consultants LLC
P.O. Box 1577
Clemmons,NC 27012
240-446-1583
DATE + START/END TIME OF APPLICATION: 6/2/2020; 0930-1500
RESTRICTED ENTRY INTERVAL (REI):
DURATION (# OF HOURS): 4 Hours
EXPIRATION (DATE/TIME): 6/2/2020 @ 1900
PLANTS/SITES TREATED: Forest Edges
PRINCIPLE PESTS TO BE CONTROLLED: Privet, Honeysuckle, Multi-flora
Rose, Kudzu, Bittersweet

ACREAGE, AREA, OR NUMBER OF PLANTS TREATED:
Spot Spray As Needed
IDENTIFICATION/AMOUNT OF PESTICIDES USED:
1) Brand/Common Name: Rodeo
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-324
Amount Applied to Site: 280 oz
Application Rate: 4 oz/gallon
2) Brand/Common Name: Vastlan
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-687
Amount Applied to Site: 140 oz
Application Rate: 2 oz/gallon
3) Brand/Common Name: CWC 90 Surfactant
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 70 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz/ gallon
4) Brand/Common Name: Bullseye Spray Pattern Indicator
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 70 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz/ gallon
DILUENTS USED (Water, Oil, Fuel, etc.):
1) Diluent: Water
Amount Applied to Site: 70 gallons
Application Rate: As Needed
2) Diluent:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
TYPE OF APPLICATION EQUIPMENT USED: ATV Sprayer

WEATHER:
Temp: 70-85 deg F
Wind Speed: 5-15 mph
Wind Direction: mostly due north
NOTES: Sprayed with Ben Balke. Mostly treated wood edges on north and south
of management unit B

PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE APPLICATION RECORD
PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER:
Name: Matthew Reid
NC DEQ DMS
Address: 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville,NC 28801
Telephone #: [phone]
ADDRESS/LOCATION OF APPLICATION SITE (if different than above):
Address/Location: Moore's Fork Mitigation Site— Surry County
CERTIFIED APPLICATOR:
Joseph M. Secoges (Applicator Cert. # 026-34911 / Consultant Cert. # 030-1312)
Eastern Forest Consultants LLC
P.O. Box 1577
Clemmons,NC 27012
240-446-1583
DATE + START/END TIME OF APPLICATION: 7/20/2020; 0930-1500
RESTRICTED ENTRY INTERVAL (REI):
DURATION (# OF HOURS): 12 Hours
EXPIRATION (DATE/TIME): 7/21/2020 @ 0300
PLANTS/SITES TREATED:Upland Area around Stream
PRINCIPLE PESTS TO BE CONTROLLED: Kudzu
ACREAGE, AREA, OR NUMBER OF PLANTS TREATED:
Spot Spray As Needed

IDENTIFICATION/AMOUNT OF PESTICIDES USED:
1) Brand/Common Name: Transline
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-259
Amount Applied to Site: 21 oz
Application Rate: 21 oz/acre
2) Brand/Common Name: Vastlan
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-687
Amount Applied to Site: 18 oz
Application Rate: 6 oz/gallon
3) Brand/Common Name: CWC 90 Surfactant
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 15 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz/ gallon
4) Brand/Common Name: Bullseye Spray Pattern Indicator
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 15 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz/gallon
DILUENTS USED (Water, Oil, Fuel, etc.):
1) Diluent: Water
Amount Applied to Site: 15 gallons
Application Rate: As Needed
2) Diluent:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
TYPE OF APPLICATION EQUIPMENT USED: Back-pack Sprayers

WEATHER:
Temp: 85-95 deg F
Wind Speed: 0-5 mph
Wind Direction: variable
NOTES: Joe not on site. Treated by John Smith, Caleb Cothron, and Luke
Whiteside. Transline was used away from creek. Kudzu near creek was treated with
Vastlan.

ry . . II
E.
•
,..,1_.„.„,,,.....,-1, ,i,,,;-2 ....: 6., : ,..
,...„,
2
.. ..v.:455.,
...„.‘,„"
Z w U aQ c N a- z r'N a N xa a i; s u* . .: � a`.. r .c z ame> C � �rx�}t. T , wed- 4� �
.,
.,..c ,„,,.,,,,,,,,_. ,,
.1:,.. .,,,„. „...*„.;„0,,,
&.
t.
r fr z 4. <
% <„
o
.i. r .et
a
`# 1 ` N - `-t
a 1 Tr -'�i-' ate. /� 'I{+ •
u�`
O '�' , r Ijl4r M o- 11
X
ci a.
r , y a
�� ,� ,, r 4't� , vJ Y
i ti -?fay y 7 -F-
li
a♦
'
fig.
- „r - ,, ,' - ..
le
t sun,
yy / R
"w.y..` 2r' «.tittea -^� �, r..-
mom. M a . -
—
,4 -:: , .\,', .1,,':"\,•„,,
. ..
$ „ �`. m
cl
,�' ii
,y
_A $ 1‘ I) '''''`r.
5 i iC W w ° a ,NsiEC G c m ; ,l * :a - 'I' u ,o k 7c O `,EEE t c v N � m ' . Kl yE E E WVUV , V U yy $' P e$��. ¢fJVI N V f
Rib T. � H"v