20180063 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20201218

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20180063 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 12/18/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 12/18/2020
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
17. Stream r Wetlands r Buffer r Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Brad Breslow [e-mail]
Project Information
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20180063 Version:*1
Existing!DI Existing Version
Project Type: r DMS C•' Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Carolina Bison
County: Buncombe
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Carolina Bison Year 1 Monitoring Report.pdf 20.45MB
Rease upload only one R7Fof the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Ryan Medric
Signature:*
fa (

CAROI MINA BISON
STREAM MITIGATION SITE
BUNCOMBE COUNTY,NORTH CAROLINA
SAW-2016-02357
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
_ I rr1" Ate
_ .
t '0
a ��,, �, . ..r
;' i'15•,:,4,T",, ,' " W.—A*4-1,,'S '4,7 ,C.,''' ..iitt.„,„,,,,. ....:
£ 83e" ,f F
,,, ,,,,:,.,0
4I 1:g, ,'
Wl ) J _' av .� �c � 7r .�
e6e p t 1,
a •
'4f� /* `I.' _f v6 r' (0" , ', --111 " r , '°`�'„r''w
1( ��._ , , l ly� ��}�a s
Provided by:
ores
Bank Sponsor: EBX-Neuse I,LLC,
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh,NC 27612
919-209-1055
December 2020

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary 2
1.1 Project Location and Description 2
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives 2
1.3 Project Success Criteria 3
Stream Success Criteria 3
Vegetation Success Criteria 4
Water Quality 4
1.4 Project Components 4
1.5 Stream Design/Approach 5
1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions 6
1.7 Year 1 Monitoring Performance (MY1) 7
Vegetation 7
Stream Geomorphology 8
Stream Hydrology 8
Water Quality 8
2.0 Methods 9
3.0 References 10
Appendix A: Background Tables
Table 1: Project Mitigation Components
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3: Project Contacts Table
Table 4: Project Background Information Table
Figure 1: Site Location Map
Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2: Current Conditions Plan View
Vegetation Plot Photos
Monitoring Device Photos
Stream and Vegetation Problem Areas
Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 5: Planted Species Summary
Table 6: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 7a. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Table 7b. Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data
Appendix D: Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
MY1 Cross-Section Overlay Plots
Table 8.Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Appendix E: Hydrology Data
Table 10. 2020 Rainfall Summary
Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
MY1 Stream Flow Hydrographs
Appendix F: Water Quality Data
Table 12.Annual Data Collection(MY1)
Table 13. Physical Water Quality Data Summary
Table 14.Nutrient/Bacteria Water Quality Data Summary
Table 15.Biological Water Quality Data Summary
Carolina Bison 1 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site December 2020

1.0 Project Summary
1.1 Project Location and Description
The Carolina Bison Mitigation Site ("the Project"), a project within the RES French Broad 05 Umbrella
Mitigation Bank, is located in Buncombe County, North Carolina approximately two miles northeast of
Leicester. Water quality stressors currently affecting the Project include livestock production and lack of
riparian buffer. The Project presents 4,768 linear feet (LF) of stream restoration and enhancement,
generating 4,675 Cool Stream Mitigation Units(SMU)along Parker Branch and two unnamed tributaries,
supporting goals of the French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities(RBRP).
The Project is in the French Broad River Basin within Cataloging Unit 06010105,targeted local watershed
(TLW)Newfound Creek Watershed (14-digit HUC 06010105090020). The proposed mitigation site will
restore and protect a catchment within the Newfound watershed,which discharges directly into the French
Broad River.
The Project's total easement area is 10.92 acres within the overall drainage area of 457 acres. The Project
is currently used as a bison farm,where American Bison are raised for meat production alongside watusi,
camels,elk and white-tailed deer.Grazing livestock have had access to all stream reaches within the Project.
The lack of riparian buffer vegetation, deep-rooted vegetation, and unstable channel characteristics have
contributed to the degradation of stream banks throughout the Project area.
The stream design approach for the Project combined the analog method of natural channel design with
analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain.The
analog method involved the use of a reference reach, or "template" stream, adjacent to, nearby, or
previously in the same location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach were
replicated to create the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and
boundary conditions are similar between the design and analog reaches(Skidmore et al.,2001).Hydraulic
geometry was developed using analytical methods to identify the design discharge.
The Project will be monitored on a regular basis throughout the seven-year post-construction monitoring
period, or until performance standards are met. Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review
Team (IRT), the site will be transferred to Unique Places to Save (UP2S). This party shall serve as
conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct periodic inspection
of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld. Endowment funds
required to uphold easement and deed restrictions will be finalized prior to site transfer to the responsible
partY-
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project's maximum functional uplift using a Function Based
Framework, specific, attainable goals will be realized by the Carolina Bison Mitigation Site. These goals
clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major
watershed stressors in the 2009 French Broad RBRP.
The project goals are:
• Reduce sediment inputs into streams;
• Reduce nutrient and fecal coliform inputs into streams;
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat;
• Improve floodplain connectivity;
Carolina Bison 2 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site December 2020

• Restore and enhance appropriate riparian plant communities;
• Assess water quality benefits of stream restoration and contribute to the IRTs developing water
quality dataset.
The project goals were addressed through the following project objectives:
• Designed and reconstructed stream channels that convey bankfull flows while maintaining stable
dimension, profile, and planform based on modeling, watershed conditions, and reference reach
conditions;
• Permanently excluded livestock from stream channels and their associated buffers;
• Added in-stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored and enhanced
streams
• Installed habitat features such as brush toes, constructed riffles, woody materials, and pools of
varying depths to restored and enhanced streams;
• Reduced bank height ratios and increased entrenchment ratios to reference reach conditions;
• Increased forested riparian buffers to at least thirty feet on both sides of the channel along the
Project reaches with a hardwood riparian plant community;
• Treated exotic invasive species;
• Established a permanent conservation easement on the site;
• Performed water quality measurements/sampling and reported results.
Limitations to achieving these watershed goals arise by remaining constrained to our project boundaries.
While we restored habitat and streams to stable and effective conditions that achieve our goals within the
project parcels,we are unable to influence the effect of poor riparian buffers and livestock impact in other
areas within the watershed.
1.3 Project Success Criteria
The Site follows the USACE 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the "Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update"dated October 24,2016.Cross section and vegetation plot data
will be collected in Years 0, 1,2,3,5,and 7. Stream hydrology data and visual monitoring will be reported
annually. Physical and chemical water quality parameters will be reported annually, while biological
parameters will be reported in Years 0, 3, 5,and 7.
Stream Success Criteria
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.
There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. If changes do take place,they should be evaluated
to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down-cutting or
erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 1.4 within restored riffle cross sections. Channel
stability should be demonstrated through a minimum of four bankfull events documented in the seven-year
monitoring period.
Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion,
success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images should
not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth.
Carolina Bison 3 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site December 2020

Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A
series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the site will follow
IRT Guidance.Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size and cover a minimum
of two percent of the planted area. Vegetation monitoring will occur annually between July 15 and leaf
drop and will include a combination of fixed and random plots.The interim measures of vegetative success
for the site will be the survival of at least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3,
260 five-year old trees with an average height of six feet at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative
success criteria will be 210 trees per acre with an average height of eight feet at the end of Year 7.
Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports, but
will not be counted towards the success criteria of total planted stems.
Water Quality
Water quality and macroinvertebrate indicators will be monitored to document and measure any changes
to physical,chemical,and biological metrics within the project area.These metrics are sensitive to changes
in the project watershed(e.g.land use change and pollutant inputs)and more localized modifications,such
as in-stream habitat improvements and riparian buffer restoration. However, because results might not
demonstrate a measurable improvement over pre-construction conditions, or measurable improvements
may occur slowly,the success of the project will not be tied to these metrics.
Physical water quality sampling was conducted prior to construction and will be for the duration of the
monitoring period using a sampling probe, and will include measurements of acidity (pH), temperature,
dissolved oxygen(DO), and conductivity(EC). Specifically,these measurements will be taken four times
per monitoring year. Additionally, once per year, fecal coliform, total nitrate/nitrite, Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorus, and total ammonia samples will be collected. All these data will be
reported annually.
Macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted prior to construction and will be once per year during
monitoring Years 3, 5, and 7. A reference location was also sampled for comparison purposes,located on
a relatively stable reach in an undisturbed setting, located as close to the mitigation site as possible, and
within the same watershed. Results presented will include a list of taxa collected at each site for each
sampling event, as well as an enumeration of the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera(EPT)taxa
and a Biotic Index(see the NCDWR Standard Operating Procedures for Collection and Analysis of Benthic
Macroinvertebrates). Each report will include a summary of the current results and all past monitoring
events in tabular format.
1.4 Project Components
The Project area is comprised of perennial streams, Parker Branch and two unnamed tributaries on a
working American Bison farm and is comprised of nine fenced easement sections, separated by easement
breaks.Descriptions of easement breaks are discussed below.There are six stream reaches,including Parker
Branch (PB1-A, PB1-B, PB1-C, and PB2) and two unnamed tributaries (UT1 and UT2), divided by
treatment type and/or changes in flow. The stream mitigation components are summarized below.
Mitigation credits presented below are based upon the Approved Mitigation Plan. To account for areas of
more or less than minimum 30-foot buffer widths, credits were adjusted using the USACE Wilmington
District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator.
Carolina Bison 4 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site December 2020

Although there are no specific success criteria metrics for water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring,
both will be monitored and reported as specified in the 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update in order to generate an additional two percent credit.A proposed variation
on the protocols in the 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update
was provided to the IRT and agreed upon and was outlined in Section 1.3 above. This credit will be
generated on all restoration reaches(PB1,PB2,and UT1)and will not be generated on reach UT2.
Due to landowner and utility requirements,there are eight easement breaks within the project. One break
is for an existing utility easement; fencing will be installed across the utility easement in order to provide
contiguous livestock exclusion to the stream. The other seven are locations for current or future agricultural
crossings.These easement breaks will allow landowners to continue current land-use and access throughout
the property as needed.
Mitigation Plan Credits
Existing Proposed Mitigation
Reach Mitigation Type Proposed Stationing Length Length SMUs
Ratio
(LF) (LF)
Restoration 0+11 to 0+90 69 79 1.0:1 79
PB 1-A Restoration 1+34 to 6+54 514 520 1.0:1 520
Restoration 6+84 to 11+05 421 421 1.0:1 421
PB1-B Restoration 11+68 to 14+23 254 255 1.0:1 255
Restoration 14+23 to 20+30 552 607 1.0:1 607
PB 1-C
Restoration 20+70 to 23+55 342 285 1.0:1 285
Restoration 23+55 to 27+34 439 379 1.0:1 379
PB2
Restoration 27+74 to 33+02 498 528 1.0:1 528
Restoration 1+35 to 4+15 262 280 1.0:1 280
Restoration 4+45 to 13+14 809 869 1.0:1 869
UTI
Restoration 13+44 to 16+42 287 298 1.0:1 298
Restoration 16+83 to 18+83 157 200 1.0:1 200
UT2 Enhancement II 0+89 to 1+36 47 47 2.5:1 19
Totals 4,651 4,768 4,740
Non-Standard Buffer Width Adjustment -159*
Water Quality Monitoring Adjustment 94t
Total Adjusted SMUs 4,675
* Credit adjustment for Non-standard Buffer Width calculation using the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit
Calculator issued by the USACE in January 2018. See section 6.6 of the Carolina Bison Final Mitigation Plan for
further information.
j- Additional two percent credit on reaches conducting water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring protocols
specified in the 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. See section 6.7 of
the Carolina Bison Final Mitigation Plan for further information.
1.5 Stream Design/Approach
Stream restoration efforts at the Carolina Bison Site were accomplished through analyses of geomorphic
conditions and watershed characteristics. The design approach applied a combination of analytical and
reference reach-based design methods that meet objectives commensurate with both ecological and
geomorphic improvements. Treatment activities ranged from minor bank grading and planting to re-
establishing stable planform and hydraulic geometry. For full restoration reaches, natural design concepts
Carolina Bison 5 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site December 2020

were applied and verified through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling. The objective of this
approach was to design and construct a channel with stable geomorphology that provides habitat
improvements and ties into the existing landscape. Specifically,treatments included Priority 1 Restoration,
Priority 2 Restoration,and Enhancement Level II.
The Carolina Bison Mitigation Site has been broken into the following reaches:
Reach PB1-A/B/C—These three reaches begin on the north end of the project, flowing south to join UT1
and create PB2, downstream of their confluence. PB1-A results in 1,020 linear feet of Restoration. This
reach was incised and did not have connectivity to the floodplain. Slopes were constructed between 1%to
1.3%with offline restoration and tied back into the bedrock outcroppings within the pre-existing channel.
PB1-B is 255 linear feet and was also incised and over widened pre-construction. Design and construction
constraints within this reach included the large livestock pen on the left bank and a path that was to be
retained on the right. Within reach PB1-B, design and construction included adding appropriate meander,
raising the bed,and cutting in a floodplain bench while maintaining the 1%grade.PB1-C,like PB1-A,had
less constraints for design and similar restoration activities were performed. PC1-C is 892 linear feet,
joining UT1,and flows east as PB2.
Reach PB2 - This reach begins downstream of the confluence of UT1, flowing east, eventually off the
project site. PB2 is 907 linear feet of Restoration. Prior to construction, this reach had very low bed and
bank stability due to direct livestock access and lack of riparian understory. The larger drainage area of
Reach PB2 had resulted in a wider channel.There is a path on both sides of Parker Branch,but they are just
outside the project easement.
Reach UT! - This tributary begins just west of the project limits from a groundwater seep. Reach UT1
flows east to Parker Branch and totals 1,647 linear feet of Restoration. Sparse woodland and actively
managed pastures were located adjacent to the reach, and livestock had access to this reach. The channel
was designed and constructed to be around 2.25%grade.Additionally,there is a steep slope to the south of
the reach.
Reach UT2—This reach begins in the middle of the project,flowing northeast into UT1. This reach totals
47 linear feet of Enhancement II.Prior to Project construction,UT2 had little to no livestock access but was
still oversized and incised. Actively managed pasture was located adjacent to the reach. Enhancement
activities included stable reconnection to UT1 and buffer re-establishment, and a rock sill grade control
structure was installed at the tie-in with UT1.
1.6 Construction and As Built Conditions
Stream construction and planting was completed in March 2020 despite abnormally high rainfall that caused
delays. The Carolina Bison Mitigation Site was built to design plans and guidelines barring a few
deviations, including several crossing types changes, the substitution of riprap swales for diffused flow
structures,and the addition of stone toe bank protection.Also,notably,due to weather delays and setbacks,
the fencing is not yet complete;however,all livestock have been removed from the project area and do not
have access to the Project streams or easement area.Notable changes at the Project are discussed below.
Carolina Bison 6 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site December 2020

Easement Breaks and Crossings—Proposed vs.As-Built
Reach Stationing Proposed Mitigation Plan As-Built Condition
PB1-A 0+90 to 1+34 Utility Easement Utility Easement
PB 1-A 6+54 to 6+84 24 LF of Double 54"RCP Riffle Grade Control installed
PB 1-A 11+05 to 11+68 48 LF of 54"and 48"RCP 48 LF of Double 48"RCP
PB 1-C 20+30 to 20+70 24 LF of Double 54"RCP No crossing installed
PB2 27+34 to 27+74 Future bridge location Future bridge location
UT1 4+15 to 4+45 Remove 30"RCP Removed 30"RCP
UT1 13+15 to13+45 24 LF of Double 36"RCP Ford installed
UT1 16+42 to 16+83 24 LF of Double 54"RCP Riffle Grade Control installed
Note:Entire easement boundary will be fenced.
The Diffuse Flow Structures proposed on reaches PB1-A and UT1 were substituted for Riprap Swales to
address erosional forces in these areas. In addition, several other small riprap swales were installed
throughout the Project upon discovery of rills and erosional areas resulting from concentrated runoff during
construction.
All areas mentioned above are identified on the as-built survey, which is included along with a redline
version of the as-built survey,in the As-Built Report.Project credits are based on design centerline,but as-
built stream lengths are shown on Appendix A,Table 1.
Also, there were several bare root planting changes compared to the mitigation plan due to bare root
availability.Pawpaw(Asimina triloba)and musclewood(Carpinus carolinia)were removed,while willow
oak (Quercus phellos), black walnut (Juglans nigra), southern crabapple (Malus angustifolia), eastern
redbud (Cercis canadensis), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), American
plum(Prunus Americana),and hazel alder(Alnus serrulata)were added. See Appendix C,Table 5 for the
complete as-built planted species list.
1.7 Year 1 Monitoring Performance (MY1)
The Carolina Bison Year 1 Monitoring (MY1) activities were performed in October 2020. All MY1
Monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. The Site is on track to meeting vegetation and
stream interim success criteria.
Vegetation
Monitoring of the six permanent vegetation plots and three random plots was completed during October
2020. Vegetation data are in Appendix C, associated photos are in Appendix B, and plot locations are in
Appendix B.MY1 monitoring data indicates that all plots are exceeding the interim success criteria of 320
planted stems per acre.Planted stem densities ranged from 688 to 1,214 planted stems per acre with a mean
of 911 across the six permanent plots,while planted stem densities ranged from 405 to 688 planted stems
per acre with a mean of 567 across the three random plots.An average of 796 planted stems per acre were
recorded across both fixed and random plots. A total of 15 species were documented within the plots.
Volunteer species were not noted at Year 1 monitoring but are expected to establish in upcoming years.
The average stem height across all vegetation plots was 2.0 feet.
Carolina Bison 7 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site December 2020

Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is
becoming well established throughout the project. One area (0.16 acres) along the left bank of PB2 will
need supplemental bareroot planting this dormant season.Additionally,in MY2,RES will begin removing
black walnut and crabapple stems throughout the site. Since these species make up such a small percentage
of species composition RES does not anticipate needing replanting in areas of removal.Fencing on site was
planned to have been finished by September 2020,however, is not complete.Fence posts have been set in
all proposed areas. The fence will be completely finished after the swales are repaired(below)and prior to
livestock reintroduction in spring 2021.
Stream Geomorphology
Geomorphology data for MY1 was collected during October 2020. Summary tables and cross section plots
are in Appendix D.Overall,the Year 1 cross sections and profile on the restoration reaches relatively match
the design. The MY1 conditions show that shear stress and velocities have been reduced for all restoration
reaches.All reaches were designed as gravel bed channels and were successfully constructed as such.
Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding
banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. The channel is transporting sediment as designed
and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation. One of the rip rap swales on the left
bank of PB 1-A is not functioning as designed(Figure 2).RES plans to install check dams made of haybales,
rock, and livestakes perpendicular to the swale to slow down water and trap sediment before entering the
stream. The other dam on PB 1-A is functioning properly,however,RES plans to add haybale check dams,
matting, and livestakes to it so it can trap sediment and vegetate instead of consisting only of rock. The
swale on UT1 that was identified during the as-built site visit has been successful in trapping sediment and
growing vegetation therefore will not need to be repaired like the other two swales.
Stream Hydrology
In May 2020, one stage recorder was installed per restoration reach; PB 1-C, PB2, and UT1, for a total of
three stage recorders.There were five total bankfull events recorded in MY1.One on PB1-C,three on PB2,
and one on UT1. The stage recorder locations can be found on Figure 2,photos are in Appendix B, and
associated data is in Appendix E.
Water Quality
Physical water quality data (pH, temperature, DO, and conductivity) were collected once during MY1 in
the fall(October 29,2020)on the restored tributaries at the five sampling locations represented on Figure
2. Additional physical water quality data and nutrient/bacteria was not collected due to timing of
construction, as-built, and MY1 along with obstacles presented by the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore,
any conclusions and/or trends in water quality cannot be made in MY1.However,all data collected for the
year as well as summaries of current results and all past water quality monitoring events are presented in
tabular format in Appendix F. Furthermore, RES expects to collect a full suite of data in the coming
monitoring years in accordance with the plan outlined in Section 1.3,above.
Carolina Bison 8 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site December 2020

2.0 Methods
Stream geomorphology monitoring was conducted using a Topcon GTS-312 Total Station. Three-
dimensional coordinates associated with cross-section data were collected in the field(NAD83 State Plane
feet FIPS 3200). Morphological data were collected at 20 cross-sections. Survey data were imported into
CAD,ArcGIS®,and Microsoft Excel®for data processing and analysis.
Hydrology is being monitored using stage recorders,which utilize automatic pressure transducers,and were
installed within the channels. The pressure transducers record frequency, duration, and stage of bankfull
events and are programmed to record readings at an hourly interval. A surveyed elevation was recorded at
the bed and top of bank at the stage recorder elevation,allowing for accurate bankfull events to be recorded.
Vegetation success is being monitored at six permanent monitoring plots and three random plots for a total
of nine plots. Locations of random plots will vary from year to year and will be shown in Figure 2, and
species and height will be recorded for all woody stems.Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP
Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis of species
composition and density of planted species. Data are processed using the CVS data entry tool. In the field,
the four corners of each plot were permanently marked with PVC at the origin and metal conduit at the
other corners. Photos of each plot are to be taken from the origin each monitoring year.
For physical water quality monitoring, acidity (pH), temperature, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity is
being measured using an ExStik DO 600 dissolved oxygen meter and an ExStik EC 500
Conductivity/TDS/Salinity/Temperature meter in accordance with the devices manufacturer's
instructions/protocols.
For chemical water quality, fecal coliform, total nitrate/nitrite, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), total
phosphorus, and total ammonia is being collected by Penrose Environmental and delivered to the Pace
Laboratory in Asheville for analysis.
For macroinvertebrate monitoring, Penrose Environmental is collecting and analyzing samples. The
macroinvertebrate sampling is being conducted in accordance with the NCDWR Qual 4 macroinvertebrate
sampling protocol, which is described in the most current version of the Standard Operating Procedures
for Collection and Analysis ofBenthic Macroinvertebrates,February 2016(Version 5.0). Sampling is being
conducted during the same time of year to minimize seasonal differences in the data from year-to-year.
Additionally, sampling will be conducted at the same time as water quality monitoring (pre-construction
and years 3,5,7),and within the index period referenced in the North Carolina Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) document entitled Small Streams Biocriteria Development, dated May 29, 2009.
Macroinvertebrate samples are identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level (usually Genus) by a
qualified. Results presented include a list of taxa collected at each site for each sampling event, as well as
an enumeration of the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera(EPT)taxa and a Biotic Index(see the
NCDWR Standard Operating Procedures for Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates).Each
report includes a summary of the current results and all past monitoring events in tabular format.
Carolina Bison 9 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site December 2020

3.0 References
Harman,W., R. Starr,M. Carter,K.Tweedy,M. Clemmons,K. Suggs,C.Miller. 2012.A Function-
Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects.US Environmental Protection
Agency,Office of Wetlands,Oceans,and Watersheds,Washington,DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Lee Michael T.,Peet Robert K.,Roberts Steven D.,and Wentworth Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol
for Recording Vegetation Level.Version 4.2
North Carolina Division of Water Resources.February 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for the
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Maroinvertebrates. North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality.
Peet,R.K.,Wentworth,T.S.,and White,P.S. (1998),A flexible,multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274
Penrose Environmental.April 2019(Revised April 2020)Benthic Insect Summary. Carolina Bison
Project.
Resource Environmental Solutions. 2019. Carolina Bison Stream Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan.
Rosgen,D. 1996.Applied River Morphology,2nd edition,Wildland Hydrology,Pagosa Springs,CO.
US Army Corps of Engineers(USACE). 2003.April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
USACE. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Carolina Bison 10 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site December 2020

Appendix A
Site Location
&
Background Tables

Table 1. Carolina Bison-Mitigation Assets and Components
Existing Mitigation
Footage Plan Mitigation As-Built
or Footage or Mitigation Restoration Priority Mitigation Plan Footage or
Project Segment Acreage Acreage Category Level Level Ratio(X:1) Credits Acreage Comments
Full Channel Restoration,Planted Buffer,Exclusion of Livestock,Permanent
PB1-A 69 79 Cool R 1 1.00000 79.00000 79 Conservation Easement
Full Channel Restoration,Planted Buffer,Exclusion of Livestock,Permanent
PB1-A 514 520 Cool R 1 1.00000 520.00000 520 Conservation Easement
Full Channel Restoration,Planted Buffer,Exclusion of Livestock,Permanent
PB1-A 421 421 Cool R 1 1.00000 421.00000 421 Conservation Easement
Full Channel Restoration,Planted Buffer,Exclusion of Livestock,Permanent
PB1-B 254 255 Cool R 1 1.00000 255.00000 255 Conservation Easement
Full Channel Restoration,Planted Buffer,Exclusion of Livestock,Permanent
PB1-C 552 607 Cool R 1 1.00000 607.00000 607 Conservation Easement
Full Channel Restoration,Planted Buffer,Exclusion of Livestock,Permanent
PB1-C 342 285 Cool R 1 1.00000 285.00000 285 Conservation Easement
Full Channel Restoration,Planted Buffer,Exclusion of Livestock,Permanent
PB2 439 379 Cool R 1 1.00000 379.00000 379 Conservation Easement
Full Channel Restoration,Planted Buffer,Exclusion of Livestock,Permanent
PB2 498 528 Cool R 1 1.00000 528.00000 528 Conservation Easement
Full Channel Restoration,Planted Buffer,Exclusion of Livestock,Permanent
UT1 262 280 Cool R 1 1.00000 280.00000 280 Conservation Easement
Full Channel Restoration,Planted Buffer,Exclusion of Livestock,Permanent
UT1 809 869 Cool R 1 1.00000 869.00000 869 Conservation Easement
Full Channel Restoration,Planted Buffer,Exclusion of Livestock,Permanent
UT1 287 298 Cool R 1 1.00000 298.00000 298 Conservation Easement
Full Channel Restoration,Planted Buffer,Exclusion of Livestock,Permanent
UT1 157 200 Cool R 1 1.00000 200.00000 200 Conservation Easement
Exclusion of Livestock,Permanent Conservation Easement,Supplemental
UT2 47 47 Cool Ell NA 2.50000 18.80000 47 Planting
Project Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Rip Coastal
Restoration Level Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non-Riv Wetland Marsh
Restoration 4721
Re-establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II 19
Creation
Preservation
Total 4740
Credit Loss in Buffer -490
Credit Gain in Buffer 331
Credit Gain for Water Quality Monitoring 94
Total Adjusted SMUs 4675

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Carolina Bison Mitigation Site
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 10 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 9 months
Number of reporting Years : 1
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or Deliverable Complete Delivery
Restoration Plan NA Mar-19
Final Design—Construction Plans NA Aug-19
Stream Construction NA Feb-20
Site Planting NA Mar-20
As-built(Year 0 Monitoring— baseline) May-20 Jun-20
Year 1 Monitoring Oct-20 Dec-20
Year 2 Monitoring
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
=The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Carolina Bison Mitigation Site
Designer RES/3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27612.
Primary project design POC Frasier Mullen
Construction Contractor Wright Contracting, LLC /453 Silk Hope Liberty Rd, Siler City,
NC 27344
Construction contractor POC Joe Wright
Survey Contractor Kee Mapping & Surveying /88 Central Ave., Asheville, NC
28801
Survey contractor POC Nick Haase
Planting Contractor H&J Forestry
Planting contractor POC Matt Hitch
Monitoring Performers RES/3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27612.
Stream Monitoring POC Ryan Medric [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC Ryan Medric [phone]

Table 4.Project Background Information
Project Name Carolina Bison
County Buncombe
Project Area(acres) 10.92
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) Latitude:35.671107 N Longitude:-82.669235 W
Planted Acreage(Acres of Woody Stems Planted) 10.23
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Mountains
River Basin French Broad
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit I 6010105 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit I 06010105090020
DWR Sub-basin 04-03-02
Project Drainage Area(Acres and Square Miles) 457 ac(0.714 mi2)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 1%
CGIA Land Use Classification Agriculture(58.3%),Residential(22.4%),Forest(18.2%),Impervious(1.1%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters PB1-A PB1-B PB1-C PB2 UT1 UT2
Length of reach(linear feet)(designed) 1020 255 892 907 1647 47
Valley confinement(Confined,moderately confined,unconfined) Unconfined Unconfined Unconfined Moderately Unconfined Unconfined
Confined
Drainage area(Acres) 237 263 276 457 127 66
Perennial, Intermittent,Ephemeral P P P P P P
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C C C C C
Stream Classification(existing) C5 E5 E5 B5c E5/6b F5/6b
Stream Classification(proposed) C4 C4 B4c E4 E4
Evolutionary trend(Simon)(existing) IV IV IV III III III
FEMA classification None None None None None None
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting
Docs?
Water of the United States-Section 404 Yes Yes SAW-2016-
02357
Water of the United States-Section 401 Yes Yes DWR#18-
0063
USFWS
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes (8/2/2018
Letter)
SHPO
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes (2/28/18
Letter)
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA or CAMA) No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A

to- $
Glenfield Way 2 1sl, ;
r, 9
p ce m o
to o- 7 �(
n i. I
8
3 c
P\e*�a
Alexander Rd
�,a I
�c
Q 'r
Rid9eC
i O
Pei <n a
'''an, .,
A fy A o
Penoa,,tot c 1.•
1. m
4 %0 sS 4 \o Ra
fe-0 Pr,nys 0-
Cra'bo
ov e
Rd o <Q 1(0,00,Rd
0a1eG
n DC
lc ,
C Gillespie Way
Gr oss�\nas Or
be^ Radc°gC
0,„
Rid9ei,;r,
6 H•l-
2
0
Nwest Est
gaileY WaY 41/Z:: 1:=1t7:1� 5
Bis ~rig r,444.
a;
a
b
��
. Co
a 6 R ae, a
O
ry
o y= n �cp\ O ,,,.
3Q� z-
Vr e
m a
_ r Q Ci
O
0
4,Pebble Tr/ 0
C
N , C
St.,
Ot c
O 71 S emo\ O O
O y
se
A
each Cre'
i
s e O a
ch Ore c C, y
o eft `N•p z
Hollar ye zy •y o
ar'en Drp race Or
Legend D
g.
Conservation Easement ,D
p i
N
Date: 3/31/2020
*���� +�L� Figure 1 -Site Location Map
iti~�1i����A����;i�l w e Drawn by: MDD
%+��.~`�►;ri�;+�1��'�� 5 Carolina Bison Mitigation Site 0rPS
t�'�#` 0 500 1,000 Checked by: BPB
il
Il Buncombe County, North Carolina 1 inch=1,000 feet
Feet

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

�V�
. _� �t kt 4..
F . ; res
U `� a• k. "`,` _ t 0ay1,.• -yam .�4 �-' 't -.4"",
b
., _ . yam,{ '
it.-, Damaged Rip Rap Swale t it' . °x ti� ,
. idt X
1 N
v A
w+-E
a s
Fa - 0 100 200
04r. ^ Otik h
N" _ - Feet
?'' 'F Y ! .1'. �' rem
-, \ Figure 2
4 \ Current Conditions
,,. L< Plan View
l.
" „�� PB1-A r t+l ' L , MY1 2020
V �.
+� .,.., Carolina Bison
,'i 4 Mitigation Site
'" - `
Buncombe County, NC
- 411V �1 ��t �,' tt, �'°C�' l �y . '�`' t - Date: 12/18/2020 Drawn by:RTM
t .
a -
7 � '� Lat 35 671107
'y"�,'� V. +� -- Lon 82.669235
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
` d $' - Fixed Veg. Plot
� Y 0 Random Veg. Plot- MY1
PB1—B v Top of Bank
�6p—�— PB1-C ® Riprap Swale
r ' o e 6 _ — Structure
• �'`' y Cross Section
Mitigation Approach
O
C —Restoration
n ancemen E h tII
6 0 0 Stage Recorder
�,-'
�, ® Ambient Recorder
Sampling Location
UT1". ® • WQ
' -E^ :- O WQ and Benthic
QNrO \ et\jr h
6oc;
'48
{ ° 1q Vegetation Condition Assessment
0 •
\ , O m �' w Target Community
;.fw
y .
`3 .erAprnt° � o A P„� _ w Present Mar inal Absent
act
CPS' ��od t� Ted �o=mac�� ao� 1, PB2 Absent No Fill
Present
d p Q7QG-0gr.phi aribmatIcamaAn.lysis E

Carolina Bison MYl Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos (10/28/2020)
•
•
•
.
•
Vegetation Plot 1 JAW
Vegetation Plot 2
` _ • :,p '•r
l: r. ��
•mm:.-.Y ..r G"'-r; u—"a-'2�--` � (,'. l .f I, 1'.r' n-�1 Si.]svtfY+`}•
Vegetation Plot 3 • Vegetation Plot 4
11U-i--torgiiiiw-iim ..
poo,„rn,. ..-,.-7-1 kkiiii.zr, _ •- .
_ ° i _.�
..
,
r s h tlCy
�, . r a+x. rr r?a ; rk,�`- '; , & r .
Vegetation Plot 5 Vegetation Plot 6

::4,411
� g � �d rt �yY H i� 4f ;'Yi $ d4� �
1'w, �� i�� a , '{vim 47A-. °"- I�A�r ,
w� , \, . eke y r 1 � (��
{ I eT
:, _I Random Vegetation Plot 1 Random Vegetation Plot 2
ter
r
•
•
.G �-s Rf %i r- j
.M1 £ SWAT Jy t'' A ,i
rVJ •+ '�' ¢YET ;! :� � .I p � p,f V{ X 3RandomVegetation Plot

° ;r4Fira� y1z 1ex, f ' /41 h
F ? ° ' v I >
6 a. d rs :(10/2 8/202�0)
ACarolina Bison MY1 Monitoring
i Y J r;* r ev ce Po s � , s Y 3 } S E ° k i °� r-k—� Ai.�,� + t � ��y A te t.4, y 5 a y V F � ". a � `trir p ` 41,ay . � 15r,,�}'.( roe 1y rfi k •_ 4yL 5� a I ¢ { rA 4 y b' * ¢wT t k p� 'r 5y � y ^ - A#;}:�� ib ' ... k . %..y. pe &a c vr`Hr
tAle
:,, wn r 4p .� . � �i � i - td,,sF J `_� ti��'.£ � a" e ° ` i'� u u � yr hP P a& 4t•,:.,,:,„..,:.:'....,!wp,..kt',,,e/st.'.-t:-.:.i-...,..•i.
; � a , r - a : ( 3,7 , Aa' tr x c 7
•
ic
4.-.:„*..,,,,,..-.:,,,,,,„:.,..,,„,t,..,„...,„„..,,,..,,tp4.i.w.4,.. : .,:;,...:.;:...,..
r r 're 4 a Yi
p.,...otht_ti"t1::::tir'.::-.H.:::,:-..."1:,...-1'''"'7...' . .. -,-•1,...
..ik *41
9
4
i ' rg A++
iIr \ \ l .; L',„< . 4 .1/ {:
'
Stage Recorder(UT1)
a�-,d� A'f4. �M1 iy�ii�,,ti � � �,^r �� � � �� / r
•
.74,,,,N,4;,,::,.;./1y,..•..,.`.,...''',"..;.',Iy"A-p:4 ,-,--:::','4`...'..:',1..°!: .:1,';.1;.,-_:',,';'''-^..." ,:oti:.--.:41.V; ,
aF
.,....,;,..A.qi,...,;(.5.:,,,,,,•„,.;,,,,,...,,,,,,,,,,-,4.... ....,,..,...,,.!:1,.;.....T.u..:0...4fT.0..,:„..:.,_:.,-.-.:.,,, -......,1,:.:-....,,,,,,... ...:.:,;.4.1.t.: ...IT.
4
' ga
,...„,,,,,,,,,.-„,:,..„..-..._ .„
„.„....,,,,..... , . . ..
,,..,,,:.,„:„,,.,. .
} r Y C h
�C'y.. '�. r y!.. /i�t� , 5 r�"`� ,. �., 't �'4 , x' i'ESE°�' :?-^,� tp�.+
,,, ,,„....„...,,,,,.-....
<
-7,-2___ _„ ,,,r..,,,-,-..,,,..„4:,,,,„..„,,,-.,...:....‘,,..„,,,,..g.,
,r,'-.: , .'-'4'..'-',,,,,t-',I.t ' i'i,'-f. ' i'-'3:43%**;. '.ilt.?:'`'it
iitir7
R
` ' " ;' A.,,Stage Recorder(PB1-C)

01.2iiii, ., •,... .1, ,.........J.-?'--':;"'" . ...,......,..„,.;4.1:75.-j 1 0 ! ..1.::.. ,• ''
fix[ �. �k. 7�$` � t a � �°V4 1 �°�,-
rk " k } 7$ _ -:11 ii
•
_, 1 " � a9
c s /iT"' `gym ��r; � 3� f � �' ‘ !�
' �i': - � � y « ' ,.x. te r..z
.. • ' ..;., Nit N t•'IL
s Sf d 6" k• e ry - e
ri h '
Stage Recorder(PB2)

Stream Problem Areas
Carolina Bison
Feature Issue/Location Photo
Nt.s.
Failing Rock Swales/PB 1-A 0 7 > i.
a r . ''-'rh ,• r ,?y
, +-?,, l�i�:: i;3.... 4 ;[ .ar
Vegetation Problem Areas
Carolina Bison
Feature Category/Location I Size
Photo
1
r _ it , , ,
Low Stem Density/PB2 (LB)/0.16 acres •
� �a
� � I
w?

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 5. Planted Species Summary
Common Name Scientific Name Total Stems Planted
Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra 1,600
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 1,500
Green Ash Fraxinuss pennsylvanica 1,400
River Birch Betula nigra 1,400
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 1,400
Black Walnut Juglans nigra 1,000
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 1,000
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 1,000
Southern Crapapple Malus angustifolia 1,000
Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis 1,000
Elderberry Sambucus nigra 500
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 350
Silky Dogwood Cornus ammomum 300
American Plum Prunus americana 300
Hazel Alder Alnus serrulata 200
Total 13,950
Planted Area 10.2
As-built Planted Stems/Acre 1,368
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Average
Success
Plot# Planted Volunteer Total Criteria Planted
Stems/Acre Stems/Acre Stems/Acre Stem Height
Met?
(ft)
1 931 0 931 Yes 2.2
2 931 0 931 Yes 2.1
3 971 0 971 Yes 1.7
4 1214 0 1214 Yes 1.9
5 728 0 728 Yes 1.6
6 688 0 688 Yes 1.8
R1 405 0 405 Yes 2.4
R2 688 0 688 Yes 2.0
R3 607 0 607 Yes 2.0
Project Avg 796 0 796 Yes 2.0

Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 7a. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Carolina Bison Current Plot Data(MY1 2020) Annual Means
04082020-01-0001 04082020-01-0002 04082020-01-0003 04082020-01-0004 04082020-01-0005 04082020-01-0006 MY1(2020) MYO(2020)
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
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Betula nigra river birch Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 8 8 8 17 17 17
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 5 5 5 17 17 17
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 7
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 5 5 5 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 4 14 14 14 16 16 16
Juglans nigra black walnut Tree 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 7 16 16 16
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 4 15 15 15
Malus angustifolia southern crabapple Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Morus rubra red mulberry Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 5 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 17 17 17 10 10 10
Prunus americana American plum Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 6 6 6 3 3 3 9 9 9 7 7 7 11 11 11 36 36 36 24 24 24
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 6 6 6 11 11 11 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 26 26 26 32 32 32
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 2 2 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 1 1 1 12 12 12 17 17 17
Stem count 23 23 23 23 23 23 24 24 24 30 30 30 18 18 18 17 17 17 135 135 135 180 180 180
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.15 0.15
Species count 5 5 5 6 6 6 11 11 11 9 9 9 7 7 7 3 3 3 15 15 15 14 14 14
Stems per ACRE 931 931 931 931 931 931 971 971 971 1214 1214 1214 728 728 728 688 688 688 911 911 911 1214 1214 1214

Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Table 7b. Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data
Random Plot 1 Random Plot 2 Random Plot 3
# Species Height(cm) # Species Height(cm) # Species Height (cm)
1 Betula nigra 91 1 Platanus occidentalis 28 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 63
2 Betula nigra 103 2 Platanus occidentalis 31 2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 61
3 Betula nigra 80 3 Platanus occidentalis 52 3 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 72
4 Betula nigra 105 4 Platanus occidentalis 38 4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 40
5 Betula nigra 55 5 Platanus occidentalis 30 5 Quercus michauxii 65
6 Quercus michauxii 53 6 Platanus occidentalis 102 6 Platanus occidentalis 65
7 Quercus michauxii 55 7 Platanus occidentalis 135 7 Platanus occidentalis 58
8 Quercus rubra 61 8 Platanus occidentalis 57 8 Platanus occidentalis 49
9 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 83 9 Quercus phellos 79 9 Platanus occidentalis 92
10 Prunus americana 60 10 Quercus phellos 35 10 Platanus occidentalis 53
Stems/Acre 405 11 Quercus phellos 70 11 Platanus occidentalis 80
Average Height(cm) 75 12 Cornus amomum 72 12 Platanus occidentalis 59
Average Height(ft) 2.4 13 Cornus amomum 45 13 Platanus occidentalis 60
Plot Size (m) 25 x 4 14 Quercus rubra 48 14 Quercus rubra 49
15 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 103 15 Diospyros virginiana 55
16 Quercus michauxii 63 Stems/Acre 607
17 Quercus michauxii 71 Average Height(cm) 61
Stems/Acre 688 Average Height(ft) 2.0
Average Height(cm) 62 Plot Size (m) 25 x 4
Average Height (ft) 2.0
Plot Size (m) 25 x 4

Appendix D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

„ ,,,, , , ,,, 1, „--,....R6. ....".: 1y
'xr' mM ¢, mk � s�*' • fit` ,+ F .t,
TA
r
3 �a e', a ro” bk 5ti� xnJ v ' m� r 3 r ` e
4 4 Y srv� 4 t.' 4A C at ; h r Y .ri as"E'� p
� r +�2 sd °'.' ' ' of '�, ' ,,',
, '''-''./, 4::.'0'2''J..:4't.' ' '—.A.,--4-,--jr --.--.-`-
a
r"n r' a r .-.t �, ,r..
_ x r 5
tea:,
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bison - Reach PB1-A -Cross Section 1 - Pool -(Restoration)
2055
2054
2053
c _
0 2052
ca
m
w
2051
2050
2049 -10 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx.Bankfull MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 1 (Pool)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft)-Ban ' 2051.91 2052.2
Bankfullsedo Width (ft)' 5.5 5.9
( )2 1.5
' - -
BankfullFloodprone Max DepthWidth (ftft) 1.5
(ft) -
Bankfull Cross
Low SectionalBank AreaElevation(ft2)2 5.4 4.8
Bankfull Em -
Bankfull Bankntrench Heightent Ratio'Ratio' -

yam 1 f°z :3 a�
� � �tr "za yin
s Ya .sar ,; asp ate: p. S s';. ;fro T. ± ��-.." - h
n .g S +' -may a fi r a fit `'#1ks
3 , *i tt �� s , yes a 3i
•
.1 A';*-.-o S=, ."',..1,7 ,r.: 'tt1=74Ser 1.Y . ::'4,f..'r: '1 ' .. ' '''-
lost R
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bison - Reach PB1-A -Cross Section 2 - Riffle - (Restoration)
2055 —
2054
2053
F
c
° 2052
w 2051
2050
2049
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx.Bankfull Floodprone Area MY1-2020 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based AB ' 2052.01 2052.1
Bankfull Width (ft-XSA)' 7.5 10.2
oodprone (ft)1 >49.9 >47.5
Bankfull Max DepthWidth (ft)2 1.3 1.2
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2052.01 2052.1
Bankfull s (ft2)2 5.9 6.1
Bankfull
Cros EntrenchmentSectional Area Ratio' >6.7 >4.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.0

. r
3
VP
ftv ,1 s a x z r 'a'�i
n a = ,
h
F
''`.4‘lr'-',''',.''-'''-',.tY'V• ...'.f.. ..`k -.2.'''s.,',...t.-,`:-.•..,ez-^",,,.
-4i;
RP
,., , -'S if" •
IIII ,
_ -$Rrl t� �£' a �„ '"�'T�A ' �' t 4` -r
jii ,.A .x- �Ye` �tr::',,,,:1-0,;",i 4,_!,:"-•••,---A-4,..-4,44,w.-- ..,:'',, .,2 .. u r`� .,,,.�'��d sew '� z ta X .1� d "a a
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bison -Reach PB1-A -Cross Section 3- Pool -(Restoration)
2048
2047
2046
1
° 2045 ��
w 2044
2043
2042
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
• MYO-2019 —my-0 -Approx.Bankfull MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section
6.6
3 (Pool)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA' 2044.72 2044.7
Bankfull Width(ft)' 7.1
Floodprone Width(ft)i - -
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 2.5 2.7
Low Bank Elevation(ft)
10.5
- -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 9.0
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' - -

�� ` fi pry
rt ri 4 t
ca ,' .t s -s .' * a xr i ak +if -
^.... .,- ° 4.-- ail /0 .,i @ ., ;. .a: ,4 ' fi t ,
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bison - Reach PB1-A -Cross Section 4 -Riffle-(Restoration)
2048
2047
2046
c
° 2045
o
m
w 2044 — —
2043
2042
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance24 27(ft)
MY0-2019 — — —Approx.Bankfull Floodprone Area MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 4(Riffle)
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft) - Based on AB-XS(A' 2044.35 2044.3
Bankfull Width(ft)' 7.4 7.3
Floodprone Width(ft)1 >36.4 >36.7
Bankfull 2 0.9 0.9
Low BankMax Elevation
Depth(ft)(ft) 2044.35 2044.6
Bankfull s 2)2 3.7 4.8
Bankfull
Cros EntrenchmentSectional Area Ratio'(ft >4.9 >6.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.2

x �• "
d 4
.ter k 3€''"3 .v:p, '„ 4 .,,,r s A.4
a
-'''''''''''''''',',k's7,'''''''.4!-'•,•,IP,-: '' ' ,:`-r.. - . 2.,*.0..ir .;,.fer-r-..- 1.' ) ' .4:7 -• 'A.k.-,v-,-*.;'F1'4it-44,I:_ri,4,T.*,.Pr;:,:.,,.i,&..-.,,.i.4:.1'i'.,,.r7 5.5';67',),,-,'..',:r';,7?,,'74,1P,:..-,-e'":%-.i.4,:.„-.,,Z:„:'*i.,:,:1,-,4,,-4l1,,;,i_4,..-,,7„:P9,..-7ik..1:.,-r:4C,f1.,-rN.-.4:i•,=,6--A,Z,,er,_1:fi,.5.,*-47e.P,it-i1.1i,i4,-'.;.
7 x,,; 3 i tS.%,1t''.r-.#-0.l q.-:t„J,'.'.,d,,-.l'.,•%.'.',-i'.4--9...''—
csr
yy y6
r, :t ,.r,.r } , - en .. .w ...t`^4e'* V '`a`.'• Xicn`.. 1
gib:." . '�`,'''
Upstream Downstream
2038.5
Carolina Bison - Reach PB1-B -Cross Section 5 - Riffle - (Restoration)
2037.5
2036.5 -
c
2 2035.5
.7
>
o
w 2034.5 — —
2033.5
2032.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance24 27(ft)
FloodproneArea MYO-2019 — — —Approx.18 21Bankfull �MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 5(Riffle)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft)-Based on AB-XSA' 2034.47 2034.E
Ban W (ft)' 9.4 10.2
Floodprone Width idth (ft)1 >42.4 >42.9
(ft)2 1.8 1.8
kfull
LowBankfull BankMax Elevation
Depth (ft) 2034.47 2034.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 9.4 8.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' >4.5 >4.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.0

ittri
t. t iA -. s:., �'g�° a r « a icy A< ' � ;, i a
_ ,,- `� Yd}y.� _f 5 "n ",ice . h�`� �`i� :i::44 e.5� fie" "' e$ v�7
',:':` f Y ta',4 k 6'" ._ '' v- { •-
' fie x r ro * � Oa-' t '.`. ' _ „ss" t` ,
x' Fa rt a aT w
.''''-va' :'-'2:,'..-'---,:,1.4:::!'.:77.,:::;:,777c-,-.1.1.,.*::!"''."'I'l
�4 aka''-;. k 'Fl �. e -.
"ir 2 e _ . . ._ .. .
1pp ,
. ..,_
. .., ,
, ,
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bridge -Reach PB1-B -Cross Section 6- Pool -(Restoration)
2038
2037
2036
c
° 2035
w
2034
2033
2032
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MY1-2020
MYO-2019 — — —Approx.Bankfull
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 6(Pool)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2034.46 2034.5
Bankfull Width(ft)' 8.2 9.2
Floodprone Width(ft)' - -
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 1.6 1.4
Low Bank Elevation(ft)
6.2
-
- -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 8.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' - -

3N1
�€� � t � • s� ��i a ww .' '� ke` � y
� r
� S i' �W c3a -cri h '� x _ -r '
5
i
e , - �-" � H #1� '{,ti cam
t" S, as - ) -. e. y ,�,
W rah? L ` ey„ , ,_ • • wy
e w
,� ,T ' !'s dram' } » >'., "C, '3 '
�� i.
�i t'Mf i L ;C d �.
n2 1 4y ' k yam"" Fg
�/ fP i� Q $ p f 1
r ,fir ;a a � i . ` :
.,":4‘,,
L
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bison - Reach PB1-C -Cross Section 7 - Riffle - (Restoration)
2035 —
2034
2033
° 2032
.F
°
w
2031
2030
2029
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx.Bankfull Floodprone Area MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 7 (Riffle)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2030.98 2031.1
Bankfull Width(ft)
.1 8.2 8.6
Floodprone Width(ft)' >34.6 >35.8
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 1.0 1.2
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 2030.98 2031.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.5 6.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' >4.2 >5.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.0

r Y«. �. ' g '° >
Yea ` # rv� ti
F.
gt r y * r 'x^'g .a1 +P 1 :1 pip-z.¢.. ,
'' ✓d IDu yr' �Q '� ' t kr
-',A,,,.....,...„, • ,•,,,i.f.:,-,1.:,,, Air,., t 4.;..:-.4,' ':: vilY4114,...
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bison - Reach PB1-C -Cross Section 8 - Pool -(Restoration)
2034.5
2033.5
\
2032.5
Now-
- —
2 2031.5
c
w 2030.5
1
2029.5
2028.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx.Bankfull MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 8(Pool)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2030.82 2031.0
Bankfull Width(ft)' 7.5 8.2
Floodprone Width(ft)' -
Bankfull
Bank Elevation(ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 10.0 9.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - -
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'

P i .4" ,„%,s
1 Y P f ,„'?
fy 4 1 t
.''�Y� �'#�e` Y �`'"� '�"�ti' j'w"��"�` • ads a�4� � �.x �.k ."cis:� s�
n �� w ,' # yes .� Y e f �,��a 4 s, K 3
it'''.0
S
' 4d.fits �.r4 t 4'J. 4 y� S cw �+ V 1 3 3 dT;➢ �d ",gk y "�a,
„ . ., / : .i; 3 Esc .Y- `` i Y--
Ve
€�°� sa- t '` a.r s t-1 ��Iy'S %T'Y �-.
9' a , 4 Y'9 qR '�L Y�g� 4
. ...; :4.4 s v S� �9._ ^�i�Y '1 � ['
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bison - Reach UT1 -Cross Section 9 - Riffle-(Restoration)
2065.5 —
2064.5
2063.5
c
2062.5
.7
>
a�
w
2061.5
2060.5
2059.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx.Bankfull Floodprone Area - —MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 9 (Riffle)
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 2061.77 2061.8
Bankfull Width (ft)1
5.6 5.4
Floodprone Width (ft)1 >36.7 >34.6
1.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2061.77 2061.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.5 5.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' >6.6 >9.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.0

y _ 1 8 ',.
-, .< . as h 1
x
- , k f
- cam"' I. �drr .A# $°' x't a '1t# a,, "tla- ,A 4. Z'ii 1
, \ .. i v z .^ , r rr, -, AGE t ' s a"i, �s 4'
yY' g fi g ® p - _ '[,k "1 1 9 6 y�e '1^, K r
a . " id��� fh , N� a d' �
6T. `,a9 ;Pl.bzr�. '.a�i w hs ,.,....-,..-^A..
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bison - Reach UT1 -Cross Section 10 - Pool - (Restoration)
2065 —
,04
2064
4411441111.11\N
2063
\°"I
0 2062
ra
w
2061
2060
2059
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MY0-2019 — — —Approx.Bankfull MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 10 (Pool)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft) -Based on AB-XSA' 2061.61 2061.7
Bankfull Width(ft)' 4.9 5.5
Floodprone Width(ft)1
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)Z 1.0 0.9
Low Bank Elevation(ft) -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 3.0 2.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' -
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' -

g
�� o. E
�r Y i 4 v
! 11.,-. ..f°,,.'„ .0,,:itir.,4:-.7,:l.fge,,,i, .,,,!,r...,,V.,,'„.,...c.',4, Ve,*""4,0-„,‘, .k,f,.''''-:,", .-Ts.",A-`,,,,I,V.,f:. ;41,,,,,,,:', ',',..,1_,,.*.T;I:,,,"Z,:i :,71.:.,4.i:;',i'*'.3:e,4A,Vf--'4,---.:---q
L. L i 4:i.,-..%.4 ii rtkat4.)-;.-A-,-,3,1-9,4V.c0,..' ..4,11, ,,-,a-„.,„..
'..aV:y,.., C.'41",,:,-,,:?„,,,v.. ,
dim P ,� !.rs l'El-R;li ..i,t11.,',.:3:: 0,i«,,,-;'',.,:,..,,.rfkiiv.,,,z."0,,v9g..-. . :,-.,-, ,',-...--:. ik....4-,-1 .-.-„,y-fl..../;,,,f..*-..!41A'.'71,;.:(1'... .-,0./i '.',..-:....:.-4.--i--,:--:::::,- -'az4,,;,:i .Q
r'P
k. q�� � +ter". w a kf" y*8 � A. .,� � , r d5 �" �`
s � i .� �c� - 16 �,. fix' ` -,
r+ \,
rs ?,,, 2' - c. �`," �dir' b� `• , �fi aa'a� r'S` 0 q � a d .,�
y
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bison - Reach UT1 - Cross Section 11 -Riffle-(Restoration)
2054
2053
2052
2051 -
Ira
m
w
2050
2049
2048
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx.Bankfull Floodprone Area MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 11 (Riffle)
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft) -Based on AB-XSA' 2049.23 2049.3
' 6.2 8.8
Floodprone Width(ft), 32.3 31.5
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 1.1 1.0
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 2049.23 2049.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 4.4 3.8
Bankfull Entrenchment tio' 5.2 5.7
Bankfull Bank Height RaRatio' 1.0 0.9

S $` .,' a ' V- i ` 'r`i �fi i� a tag "4 .. i" ss ,�` si 4�
r � tom p . � �� � �� ate �' ,, t rP ,41 -a" �a. ems r x +..` � 4 .' :t� -�
-� ,1 ., is �: xL ` P , aSPOI
,
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bison -Reach UT1 -Cross Section 12 - Pool - (Restoration)
2052
2051
2050
J2049
2048
2047
2046 ,
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx.Bankfull MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 12(Pool)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2048.85 2048.9
Bankfull Width (ft)' 6.3 6.9
Floodprone Width (ft)' - -
1.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.7
Low Bank Elevation (ft) -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.6 5.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - -
' - -Bankfull Bank Height Ratio

# v'� ,{ / � ,, `^ r, t� �ki.t r' �w n`�ti e 4 .za ` 'fi r` s
F
�, aid , �� �* rs `. � � �� h / � F�.y � ���� �
I.
"� p
'4 ' PRE a� �' 6° ,6 A �, ,- - `.
�a`' ' �" `o .. ,, 'ro'ems. , 9.� «yf 't -e
Y r 1' C °� �,y w r� �E s- a r¢ -! .'
1 /.
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bison-Reach UT1 - Cross Section 13 - Riffle -(Restoration)
2029 —
2028
2027
c
. 2026
ca t�
co
w —
2025
2024
2023
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx.Bankfull Floodprone Area • —MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 13(Riffle)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2025.13 2025.2
Bankfull Width(ft)' 6.8 7.4
Floodprone Width(ft)' 31.0 36.4
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 0.7 0.7
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 2025.13 2025.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 3.2 3.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' 4.6 6.8
1.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0

r qY •
r
♦ " � ` r €°�. �� eta '�a Z�k ,F *��+ r .,
b r a t ,-&tit' y4 i ,` ? "� �k ': '.
Pii
,`°a' � i ytia- " �! mti �� ` �-y �i �_4v" 5. �� � K, ° 7f":
EM Y ...� � 3 3,.
as .t ' r,t.tir. : l N ¢ .' 3 a �t T'F ` 1: ,. '�"n t
�`a i1 ,01 �. to J " ''. r �i. t' nib .. . } gc h
is �A- a \ x � ��1 n 4�,y,'` pCe
lityr
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bridge- Reach UT1 -Cross Section 14 - (Restoration)
2029 Pool -
2028
2027
.7
2026
w
::: [
2023
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx.Bankfull MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 14(Pool)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft) - Based on AB
-XSA' 2025.24 2025.4
Bankfull Width(ft)' 7.7 8.8
Floodprone Width(ft)' - -
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 1.3 1.3
Low Bank Elevation(ft) -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.6 4.9
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'

, � 1,
r
'a E ,
"4� �'.` �.i4 °Crp-t sue a �' $ 'ti .d�e S of
ip4
j'i
�' € qn� 4 ate ", :
.+tier / _ rP14 —*.‘ x6- ,.r-tz' ,� - '� � ;z '
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bison- Reach PB2 -Cross Section 15- Riffle -(Restoration)
2025 —
2024
2023
c
O 2022
0
N
w
2021
2020
2019
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MY0-2019 — — —Approx.Bankfull Floodprone Area —MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 15 (Riffle)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft)- Based on AB-XSA1 2021.87 2022.0
Bankfull Width(ft)' 10.0 10.4
Floodprone Width(ft)' >49.7 >49.9
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 1.0 1.1
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 2021.87 2022.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)Z 6.9 7.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' >5.0 >4.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.1

t
3 i ,' ¢ r 2
t � . E il,ngi F
6
2 � � r • Y
` .'a 'L 4, s. spa j '�" 'k '
yg 3 • ;;;;;; '�
r.
;:t..4;ii,;;;lizTi'.,-;,,?.!::::-.-: .-,,,,'", ;:-,,4Att, ,..,,,.,!. '"j"'r.-:' :"..i:;.P.i.'.;":L1'.' ' j"61,2,,T474 ''''. .' "r-.' ;:--. .. —--:,;-:':.-,
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bison - Reach PB2 -Cross Section 16 - Pool -(Restoration)
2025 —
2024
2023
2022 — �' —_'
cu
w 2021
2020
2019
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx.Bankfull -MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 16(Pool)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft)- Based on AB-XSA1 2021.94 2022.1
Bankfull Width(ft)1 9.6 10.3
Floodprone Width(ft)1 - -
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 2.1 2.2
Low Bank Elevation(ft) - -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 12.5 12.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - -
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' - -

E
�0 as x
. . i v
T",-,ti,,,,i%;,:. .'"•:'''`,4,“:,;k:„. ..'i ''' '' ''' ''''' ''' '`.:;;,..i....•:,4, . ,!.,.:„..,.,._,,,,...,,,,,--.4.:-,.v,..,,, ,.. . „,i,,,:i.r2,, .,:„..,,,,,,,,,ii,,,,,,,-...,4,:.,„., ,,,,:.., ,
-.'.,':'"':;';
4,4;.,. ��,, 0k.�zt� 1';`` ga p .°' i.,a .zr �• v 8
' „ ix t a r C i7`' r� 1 ,r
$$a
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bison-Reach PB2 -Cross Section 17 -Riffle - (Restoration)
2023 —
2022
2021
0 2020
as ��trIP.°111."....1111111.
w — — —
2019
2018
2017
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx.Bankfull Floodprone Area —MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 17(Riffle)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 2019.08 2019.2
Bankfull Width (ft)1 11.6 12.3
Floodprone Width (ft)1 >49.4 >48.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.0 0.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2019.08 2019.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 8.7 7.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' >4.3 >4.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 0.9

it .a t
`-` n i, r art n,
k �i � �'� § 'r€.e a te`r•. ,,_: ua"k '. ,
g ': .+' t 'R,' am ., r{
c '�` . Via , x a a 4 : 3,a SN -' '' °i A� 4
""144 yy,J ": '.rv's � F .�.yfxi i • 5y
,. AID*.. '' 1I s kS1 z�f i! 't r4 �� � h h ,
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bison-Reach PB2 -Cross Section 18 - Pool - (Restoration)
2022
2021
2020
�.
2019 -Niv ass.----
- _ _
co"'
w
::::
2016
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 - - -Approx.Bankfull -MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 18 (Pool)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft)- Based on AB-XSA' 2018.77 2018.9
-
Bankfull Width(ft)' 7.9 8.2
Floodprone Width(ft)'
-
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)Z 2.2 2.6
Low Bank Elevation(ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 11.0 14.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' -
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' -

{ a r
,. 1 �t .. 4. ,' �_ W k'e zr ,,,, ro M 5-^fit k-
•
n �'
O
T nFp3s�
Y a
i. ▪�'� � s 3 4% - a�, , ��,* ,, �_ r" . 4 * jrn�� s. R�� - w _ _ -,a a'$"' T ,?�,�.�tt
n
▪ of Via' ('. V1' 2. , V 17 *„
, t.r'_ i ..
"5 fi _ dd..? i .. ms
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bison-Reach PB2 -Cross Section 19 - Pool - (Restoration)
2016.5
2015.5
2014.5
)7'
I
2013.5
2012.5
2011.5
2010.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 — — —Approx.Bankfull MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 19 (Pool)
MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) -Based on AB-XSA1 2013.67 2014.0
Bankfull Width(ft)' 9.3 10.7
Floodprone Width(ft)1 - -
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)Z 2.9 2.8
Low Bank Elevation(ft) - -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)Z 14.7 13.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' -
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' - -

- R - �""' ,
,ice
C 5"z'i.`r+" k y V.�%vl y "S R.v r*`S7'J� 9 r.-:,' '✓ 1 _ „�w ,a ,T
t �4:Y .,,, ,� a. �,u�1.�-zap 4, x', �, �h,. , ,
=-1"-'....7;',4.'',-..7.7.IA..:;;:;.,:1.-w. ..,"3",
.� it t �a y
ryK ti
me rP,,, -0,;',..,•,,,,H,4-tx-,-.,_,.. .„.',,..- -...#--41- , '' :4•4:-.t,,,k.vii,' {-,-7,2r.,.,.. . :.. ..t'4.,
�" d" ,r ,...
Upstream Downstream
Carolina Bison-Reach PB2 -Cross Section 20 - Riffle - (Restoration)
2017 -
2016
2015 -
c
0 2014
ca
N
w
2013
2012
2011
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 - - -Approx.Bankfull Floodprone Area MY1-2020
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 20 (Riffle)
11.6
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 2013.40 2013.E
Bankfull Width (ft)' 10.E
Floodprone Width (ft)1 >46.5 >45.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.6 1.5
Low Bank Elevation
Bankf Croa (ft2(ft))2 11.02013.40 2013.E 11.0
Bankfullss Entrenchment Ratio' >4.4 >4.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.0
ull

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Carolina Bison Mitigation Site -Reach PB1-A
Parameter Gauge2 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es)Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SDb n Min Mean Med Max SDb n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SIDS n
Bankfull Width(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 8.9 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 17.5 --- --- --- 7.5 --- 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.5 0.1 2
Floodprone Width(ft) --- --- 13.0 --- --- --- 25.0 --- --- >30 --- --- --- 30.0 --- 36.4 43.2 43.2 49.9 9.5 2
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 0.8 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1.6 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1Bankfull Max Depth(ft) --- --- 1.5 --- --- --- 1.2 --- --- 2.5 --- --- --- 1.3 --- 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.3 0.3 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) --- --- --- --- --- 6.9 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 27.7 --- --- --- 6.8 --- 3.7 4.8 4.8 5.9 1.6 2
Width/Depth Ratio --- --- 11.6 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 11.1 --- --- --- 7.3 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Entrenchment Ratio --- --- 1.5 --- --- --- 3.6 --- --- 4.3 --- --- --- 4.0 --- 4.9 5.8 5.8 6.7 1.3 2
'Bank Height Ratio --- --- 2.4 --- --- --- 1.8 --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- 1.0 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 --- --- 26 --- --- 6 --- 17 4.8 13.1 8.8 54.8 11.1 29
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.0008 0.0241 0.0211 0.0682 0.0146 29
Pool Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- 16 --- --- 3 --- 6 1.4 11.7 12.5 27.3 6.4 27
Pool Max depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- ---
Pool Spacing(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 8 --- --- 68 --- --- 8 --- 31 24.9 37.0 37.2 62.3 8.8 26
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 20 --- --- 85 --- --- 20 --- 30 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Radius of Curvature(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 54 --- --- 7 --- 15 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- --- 0.9 --- 2.2 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Meander Wavelength(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- 105 --- --- 33 --- 49 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- 4.7 --- --- 7.2 --- --- 4.7 --- 7 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/f2 --- --- ---
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull --
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/m2 --- --
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C5 E4/E4b C4 C4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) --- --- --- --- --
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) --- --- --- --
Valley length(ft) 993 118/202 993 ---
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 1079 148/230 1022 ---
Sinuosity(ft) 1.09 1.25/1.14 1.03 ---
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) --- --- --
Channel slope(ft/ft) 0.0127 0.0210/0.0120 0.013 ---
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) --- --- --
4%of Reach with Eroding Banks --- ---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric --- ---
Biological or Other --- ---
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres.which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Carolina Bison Mitigation Site -Reach PB1-B
Parameter Gauge2 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es)Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SDb n Min Mean Med Max SDb n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SDS n
Bankfull Width(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 9.0 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 17.5 --- --- --- 7.5 --- --- --- 9.4 --- --- 1
Floodprone Width(ft) --- --- 15.0 --- --- --- 25.0 --- --- >30 --- --- --- 30.0 --- --- --- 42.4 --- --- 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1.6 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1Bankfull Max Depth(ft) --- --- 1.2 --- --- --- 1.2 --- --- 2.5 --- --- --- 1.3 --- --- --- 1.8 --- --- 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) --- --- --- --- --- 9.3 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 27.7 --- --- --- 6.8 --- --- --- 9.4 --- --- 1
Width/Depth Ratio --- --- 8.6 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 11.1 --- --- --- 7.3 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Entrenchment Ratio --- --- 1.7 --- --- --- 3.6 --- --- 4.3 --- --- --- 4.0 --- --- --- 4.5 --- --- 1
'Bank Height Ratio --- --- 4.8 --- --- --- 1.8 --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 --- --- 26 --- --- 6 --- 17 6.1 9.2 7.9 14.7 3.3 6
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.0156 0.0389 0.0381 0.0740 0.0211 6
Pool Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- 16 --- --- 3 --- 6 1.5 13.1 10.7 30.9 10.6 6
Pool Max depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- ---
Pool Spacing(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 8 --- --- 68 --- --- 8 --- 31 20.5 50.0 60.9 66.8 19.5 5
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 20 --- --- 85 --- --- 20 --- 30 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Radius of Curvature(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 54 --- --- 7 --- 15 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- --- 0.9 --- 2.2 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Meander Wavelength(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- 105 --- --- 33 --- 49 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- 4.7 --- --- 7.2 --- --- 4.7 --- 7 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/f2 --- --- ---
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull --
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/m2 --- --
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification E5 E4/E4b C4 C4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) --- --- --- --- --
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) --- --- --- --
Valley length(ft) 328 118/202 993 ---
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 348 148/230 1022 ---
Sinuosity(ft) 1.06 1.25/1.14 1.03 ---
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) --- --- --
Channel slope(ft/ft) 0.0139 0.0210/0.0120 0.013 ---
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) --- --- --
4%of Reach with Eroding Banks --- ---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric --- ---
Biological or Other --- ---
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres.which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Carolina Bison Mitigation Site -Reach PB1-C
Parameter Gauge2 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es)Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SDb n Min Mean Med Max SDb n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SDS n
Bankfull Width(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 9.6 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 17.5 --- --- --- 7.5 --- --- --- 8.2 --- --- 1
Floodprone Width(ft) --- --- 15.0 --- --- --- 25.0 --- --- >30 --- --- --- 30.0 --- --- --- 34.6 --- --- 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 1.2 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1.6 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1Bankfull Max Depth(ft) --- --- 1.7 --- --- --- 1.2 --- --- 2.5 --- --- --- 1.3 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) --- --- --- --- --- 11.1 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 27.7 --- --- --- 7.7 --- --- --- 5.5 --- --- 1
Width/Depth Ratio --- --- 8.3 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 11.1 --- --- --- 7.3 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Entrenchment Ratio --- --- 1.6 --- --- --- 3.6 --- --- 4.3 --- --- --- 1.3 --- --- --- 4.2 --- --- 1
'Bank Height Ratio --- --- 3.0 --- --- --- 1.8 --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 --- --- 26 --- --- 6 --- 18 2.5 12.9 10.8 37.2 7.4 23
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.0003 0.0341 0.0257 0.0931 0.0253 23
Pool Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- 16 --- --- 3 --- 12 5.2 13.8 12.5 36.3 7.5 24
Pool Max depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- ---
Pool Spacing(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 8 --- --- 68 --- --- 8 --- 33 19.3 38.8 34.4 68.7 13.7 23
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 20 --- --- 85 --- --- 21 --- 32 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Radius of Curvature(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 54 --- --- 7 --- 16 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- --- 0.9 --- 2.1 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Meander Wavelength(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- 105 --- --- 35 --- 53 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- 4.7 --- --- 7.2 --- --- 4.4 --- 6.5 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/f2 --- --- ---
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull --
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/m2 --- --
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification E5 E4/E4b B4c B4c
Bankfull Velocity(fps) --- --- --- --- --
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) --- --- --- --
Valley length(ft) 821 118/202 821 ---
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 934 148/230 921 ---
Sinuosity(ft) 1.14 1.25/1.14 1.12 ---
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) --- --- --
Channel slope(ft/ft) 0.0094 0.0210/0.0120 0.01 ---
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) --- --- --
4%of Reach with Eroding Banks --- ---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric --- ---
Biological or Other --- ---
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres.which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Carolina Bison Mitigation Site -Reach PB2
Parameter Gauge2 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es)Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SDb n Min Mean Med Max SDb n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SIDS n
Bankfull Width(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 8.6 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 17.5 --- --- --- 10.6 --- 10.0 10.7 10.6 11.6 0.8 3
Floodprone Width(ft) --- --- 17.0 --- --- --- 25.0 --- --- >30 --- --- --- 40.0 --- 46.5 48.5 49.4 49.7 1.8 3
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 1.1 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1.6 --- --- --- 1.1 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1Bankfull Max Depth(ft) --- --- 1.6 --- --- --- 1.2 --- --- 2.5 --- --- --- 1.5 --- 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.6 0.3 3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) --- --- --- --- --- 9.4 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 27.7 --- --- --- 11.5 --- 6.9 8.9 8.7 11.0 2.1 3
Width/Depth Ratio --- --- 7.9 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 11.1 --- --- --- 9.8 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Entrenchment Ratio --- --- 2.0 --- --- --- 3.6 --- --- 4.3 --- --- --- 3.8 --- 4.3 4.6 4.4 5.0 0.4 3
'Bank Height Ratio --- --- 3.4 --- --- --- 1.8 --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- 1.0 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 --- --- 26 --- --- 4 --- 19 5.3 15.8 11.3 46.2 10.7 19
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.0025 0.0325 0.0311 0.0826 0.0192 19
Pool Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- 16 --- --- 3 --- 12 2.9 14.4 14.9 24.0 5.5 20
Pool Max depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- ---
Pool Spacing(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 8 --- --- 68 --- --- 19 --- 50 25.4 45.7 45.0 89.0 17.8 19
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 20 --- --- 85 --- --- 26 --- 62 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Radius of Curvature(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 54 --- --- 10 --- 39 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- --- 1 --- 5 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Meander Wavelength(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- 105 --- --- 49 --- 77 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- 4.7 --- --- 7.2 --- --- 6 --- 10 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress(competency)Ib/f2 --- --- ---
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull --
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/m2 --- --
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification 838 E4/E4b E4 E4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) --- --- --- --- --
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) --- --- --- --
Valley length(ft) 838 118/202 838 ---
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 979 148/230 959 ---
Sinuosity(ft) 1.17 1.25/1.14 1.14 ---
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) --- --- --
Channel slope(ft/ft) 0.0118 0.0210/0.0120 0.0100 ---
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) --- --- --
4%of Reach with Eroding Banks --- ---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric --- ---
Biological or Other --- ---
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres.which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Carolina Bison Mitigation Site -Reach UT1
Parameter Gauge2 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es)Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SDb n Min Mean Med Max SDb n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SIDS n
Bankfull Width(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 4.6 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 17.5 --- --- --- 4.6 --- 5.6 6.2 6.2 6.8 0.6 3
Floodprone Width(ft) --- --- 7.0 --- --- --- 25.0 --- --- >30 --- --- --- 30.0 --- 31.0 33.3 32.3 36.7 3.0 3
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 0.8 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1.6 --- --- --- 0.6 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1Bankfull Max Depth(ft) --- --- 0.9 --- --- --- 1.2 --- --- 2.5 --- --- --- 0.7 --- 0.7 1.2 1.1 1.9 0.6 3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) --- --- --- --- --- 3.5 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 27.7 --- --- --- 2.7 --- 3.2 4.4 4.4 5.5 1.2 3
Width/Depth Ratio --- --- 6.0 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 11.1 --- --- --- 8.0 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Entrenchment Ratio --- --- 1.5 --- --- --- 3.6 --- --- 4.3 --- --- --- 6.5 --- 4.6 5.5 5.2 6.6 1.0 3
'Bank Height Ratio --- --- 6.7 --- --- --- 1.8 --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- 1.0 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 --- --- 26 --- --- 4 --- 11 2.3 7.9 6.1 35.6 6.1 73
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.0021 0.0393 0.0335 0.1209 0.0293 73
Pool Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- 16 --- --- 2 --- 7 1.2 7.2 6.3 14.4 3.3 65
Pool Max depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- ---
Pool Spacing(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 8 --- --- 68 --- --- 5 --- 21 8.4 25.8 21.1 124.1 16.9 64
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 20 --- --- 85 --- --- 13 --- 20 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Radius of Curvature(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 54 --- --- 4 --- 10 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- --- 1 --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Meander Wavelength(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- 105 --- --- 22 --- 32 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- 4.7 --- --- 7.2 --- --- 7 --- 11 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/f2 --- --- ---
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull --
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/m2 --- --
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification E5/6b E4/E4b E4 E4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) --- --- --- --- --
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) --- --- --- --
Valley length(ft) 1535 118/202 1535 ---
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 1627 148/230 1748 ---
Sinuosity(ft) 1.06 1.25/1.14 1.14 ---
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) --- --- --
Channel slope(ft/ft) 0.0238 0.0210/0.0120 0.022 ---
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) --- --- --
4%of Reach with Eroding Banks --- ---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric --- ---
Biological or Other --- ---
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres.which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 9. - Monitoring Data- Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters-Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number: Carolina Bison
Cross Section 1(Pool) Cross Section 2(Riffle) i- Cross Section 3(Pool) AL Cross Section 4(Riffle) 9.1111M6mw Cross Section 5(Riffle)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA' 2051.91 2052.2 2052.01 2052.1 2044.72 2044.7 2044.35 2044.3 2034.47 2034.6
Bankfull Width(ft)1 5.5 5.9 7.5 10.2 7.1 6.6 7.4 7.3 9.4 10.2
Floodprone Width(ft)1 - - >49.9 >47.5 - - >36.4 >36.7 >42.4 >42.9
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.2 2.5 2.7 0.9 0.9 1.8 1.8
Low Bank Elevation(ft) - - 2052.01 2052.1 - - 2044.35 2044.6 2034.47 2034.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 5.4 4.8 5.9 6.1 9.0 10.5 3.7 4.8 9.4 8.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratios - - >6.7 >4.9 - - >4.9 >6.9 >4.5 >4.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratios - - 1.0 1.0 - - 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0
LCross Section 6(Pool) rig=Cross Section 7(Riffle) Cross Section 8(Pool) Cross Section 9(Riffle) Mr Cross Section 10(Pool)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA' 2034.46 2034.5 2030.98 2031.1 2030.82 2031.0 2061.77 2061.8 2061.61 2061.7
Bankfull Width(ft)1 8.2 9.2 8.2 8.6 7.5 8.2 5.6 5.4 4.9 5.5
Floodprone Width(ft)1 - - >34.6 >35.8 - - >36.7 >34.6 - -
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.2 2.3 2.4 1.9 1.8 1.0 0.9
Low Bank Elevation(ft) - - 2030.98 2031.2 - - 2061.77 2061.9 - -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 8.0 6.2 5.5 6.5 10.0 9.7 5.5 5.6 3.0 2.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratios - - >4.2 >5.8 - - >6.6 >9.3 - -
Bankfull Bank Height Ratios - - 1.0 1.0 - - 1.0 1.0 - -
MCross Section 11(Riffle) Cross Section 12(Pool) Cross Section 13(Riffle) 11111111, Cross Section 14(Pool) Cross Section 15(Riffle)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA' 2049.23 2049.3 2048.85 2048.9 2025.13 2025.2 2025.24 2025.4 2021.87 2022.0
Bankfull Width(ft)1 6.2 8.8 6.3 6.9 6.8 7.4 7.7 8.8 10.0 10.4
Floodprone Width(ft)1 32.3 31.5 - - 31.0 36.4 - - >49.7 >49.9
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 1.1 1.0 1.7 1.9 0.7 0.7 1.3 1.3 1.0 1.1
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 2049.23 2049.3 - - 2025.13 2025.2 - - 2021.87 2022.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 4.4 3.8 5.6 5.9 3.2 3.3 5.6 4.9 6.9 7.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratios 5.2 5.7 - - 4.6 6.8 - - >5.0 >4.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratios 1.0 0.9 - - 1.0 1.0 - 1.0 1.1
IRCross Section 16(Pool) Cross Section 17(Riffle) 1.11101Cross Section 18(Pool) Cross Section 19(Pool) Cross Section 20(Riffle)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA' 2021.94 2022.1 2019.08 2019.2 2018.77 2018.9 2013.67 2018.9 2013.40 2013.6
Bankfull Width(ft)1 9.6 10.3 11.6 12.3 7.9 8.2 9.3 8.2 10.6 11.6
Floodprone Width(ft)1 - - >49.4 >48.9 - - - - >46.5 >45.9
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 2.1 2.2 1.0 0.9 2.2 2.6 2.9 2.6 1.6 1.5
Low Bank Elevation(ft) - - 2019.08 2019.1 - - - - 2013.40 2013.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 12.5 12.2 8.7 7.5 11.0 14.8 14.7 14.8 11.0 11.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratios - - >4.3 >4.1 - - - - >4.4 >4.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratios - - 1.0 0.9 - - - - 1.0 1.0
1-Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2-Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation

Appendix E
Hydrology Data

Table 10. 2020 Rainfall Summary
Normal Limits Leicester Station
Month Average
30 Percent 70 Percent Precipitation
January 4.06 2.72 4.86 3.61
February 3.83 2.32 4.64 7.42
March 4.59 3.14 5.48 4.26
April 3.50 2.07 4.25 6.65
May 4.41 2.97 5.28 5.45
June 4.38 2.74 5.30 4.07
July 3.87 2.26 4.70 6.98
August 4.30 2.70 5.20 8.49
September 3.72 2.15 4.52 5.37
October 3.17 1.68 3.83 5.48
November 3.82 2.85 4.47 1.58
December 3.39 2.20 4.08 ---
Total 47.04 29.80 56.61 59.36
Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Number of Bankfull Maximum Bankfull Date of Maximum Bankfull
Year Events Height(ft) Event
i
Stage Recorder PB 1-C
MY1 2020 1 0.77 7/31/2020
Stage Recorder PB2
MY12020 3 1.16 7/31/2020
Stage Recorder UT1
MY1 2020 1 0.55 7/31/2020

Appendix F
Water Quality Data

Table 12.Annual Data Collection
Carolina Bison Mitigation Site
MY1(2020)Water Quality
Reach UT1(US) Reach UT1(DS)
Season Winter Spring Summer Fall Season Winter Spring Summer Fall
Sampling Date - - - 29-Oct-20 Sampling Date - - - 29-Oct-20
Physical Physical
Temperature(°F) - - - 68 Temperature(°F) - - - 66.7
Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) - - - 2.5 Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) - - - 3.8
pH - - - 7.41 pH - - - 7.85
Conductivity(µS/cm) - - - 107.4 Conductivity(µS/cm) - - - 147.4
Nutrient/Bacteria Nutrient/Bacteria
Fecal Coliform(CFU/100 ml) - Fecal Coliform(CFU/100 ml) -
Total Nitrogen(mg/L) - Total Nitrogen(mg/L) -
Total Kjeldahal Nitrogen(mg/L) - Total Kjeldahal Nitrogen(mg/L) -
Nitrogen NO2 plus NO3(mg/L) - Nitrogen NO2 plus NO3(mg/L) -
Total Phosphorus(mg/L) - Total Phosphorus(mg/L) -
Biological Biological
Total Taxa Richness - Total Taxa Richness -
EPTTaxa Richness - EPTTaxa Richness -
EPT Abundance - EPT Abundance -
Biotic Index - Biotic Index -
Seasonal Correction - Seasonal Correction -
#Taxa<_2.5(intolerant taxa) - #Taxa<_2.5(intolerant taxa) -
Bioclassification - Bioclassification -
Reach PB1-A Reach PB1-C
Season Winter Spring Summer Fall Season Winter Spring Summer Fall
Sampling Date - - - 29-Oct-20 Sampling Date - - - 29-Oct-20
Physical Physical
Temperature(°F) - - - 65.1 Temperature(°F) - - - 67.1
Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) - - - 10.1 Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) - - - 2
pH - - - 7.84 pH - - - 7.93
Conductivity(µS/cm) - - - 903 Conductivity(µS/cm) - - - 139.8
Nutrient/Bacteria Nutrient/Bacteria
Fecal Coliform(CFU/100 ml) - Fecal Coliform(CFU/100 ml) -
Total Nitrogen(mg/L) - Total Nitrogen(mg/L) -
Total Kjeldahal Nitrogen(mg/L) - Total Kjeldahal Nitrogen(mg/L) -
Nitrogen NO2 plus NO3(mg/L) - Nitrogen NO2 plus NO3(mg/L) -
Total Phosphorus(mg/L) - Total Phosphorus(mg/L) -
Biological Biological
Total Taxa Richness - Total Taxa Richness -
EPTTaxa Richness - EPTTaxa Richness -
EPT Abundance - EPT Abundance -
Biotic Index - Biotic Index -
Seasonal Correction - Seasonal Correction -
#Taxa<_2.5(intolerant taxa) - #Taxa<_2.5(intolerant taxa) -
Bioclassification - Bioclassification -
Reach PB2
Season Winter Spring Summer Fall
Sampling Date - - - 29-Oct-20
Physical
Temperature(°F) - - - 67.3
Dissolved Oxygen(mg/L) - - - 5.7
pH - - - 7.98
Conductivity(µS/cm) - - - 908
Nutrient/Bacteria
Fecal Coliform(CFU/100 ml) -
Total Nitrogen(mg/L) -
Total Kjeldahal Nitrogen(mg/L) -
Nitrogen NO2 plus NO3(mg/L) -
Total Phosphorus(mg/L) -
Biological
Total Taxa Richness -
EPTTaxa Richness -
EPT Abundance -
Biotic Index -
Seasonal Correction -
#Taxa<_2.5(intolerant taxa) -
Bioclassification -

Table 13.Physical Water Quality Summary
Carolina Bison Mitigation Site
Winter Spring Summer Fall
Temp. DO EC Temp. DO EC Temp. DO EC Temp. DO EC
Monitoring Year (°F) (mg/L) PH (µS/cm) (°F) (mg/I.) PH (µS/cm) (°F) (mg/L) PH (µS/cm) (°F) (mg/L) PH (µS/cm)
Pre-construction(2019) -
MY1(2020) 68 2.5 7.41 107.4
MY2(2021)
MY3(2022)
t
MY4(2023)
u MY5(2024)
v
cc
MY6(2025)
MY7(2026)
Pre-construction(2019) - - - - - 6.91 7.46 121.2
U,
MY1(2020) 66.7 3.8 7.85 147.4
o MY2(2021)
MY3(2022)
t
MY4(2023)
u MY5(2024)
v
cc
MY6(2025)
MY7(2026)
Pre-construction(2019) -
MY1(2020) 65.1 10.1 7.84 903
MY2(2021)
a MY3(2022)
ti
m MY4(2023)
a
MY5(2024)
MY6(2025)
MY7(2026)
Pre-construction(2019) - - - - - 7.86 7.49 122.8
MY1(2020) 67.1 2 7.93 139.8
MY2(2021)
u MY3(2022)
ti
r° MY4(2023)
a
MY5(2024)
MY6(2025)
MY7(2026)
Pre-construction(2019) - - - - - 7.46 7.71 123.5
MY1(2020) 67.3 5.7 7.98 908
MY2(2021)
m MY3(2022)
a MY4(2023)
MY5(2024)
MY6(2025)
MY7(2026)

Table 14.Nutrient/Bacteria Water Quality Summary
Carolina Bison Mitigation Site
Spring
Fecal Coliform Total Nitrogen Total Kjeldahal Nitrogen NO2 plus Total Phosphorus
Monitoring Year
(CFU/100 ml) (mg/L) Nitrogen(mg/L) NO3(mg/L) (mg/L)
Pre-construction(2019) - - -
MY1(2020) - - -
? MY2(2021)
1- MY3(2022)
s
MY4(2023)
✓ MY5(2024)
cu
cc
MY6(2025)
MY7(2026)
Pre-construction(2019) 82 0.94 - 0.52
MY1(2020) - - -
o MY2(2021)
1- MY3(2022)
s
MY4(2023)
✓ MY5(2024)
cu
cc
MY6(2025)
MY7(2026)
Pre-construction(2019) - - -
MY1(2020) - - -
MY2(2021)
a MY3(2022)
N
co MY4(2023)
a
MY5(2024)
MY6(2025)
MY7(2026)
Pre-construction(2019) 9900 2.8 1.2 1.7 0.24
MY1(2020) - - -
MY2(2021)
u MY3(2022)
N
co MY4(2023)
a
MY5(2024)
MY6(2025)
MY7(2026)
Pre-construction(2019) 7700 2.8 1.4 1.4 0.22
MY1(2020) - - -
MY2(2021)
m MY3(2022)
a MY4(2023)
MY5(2024)
MY6(2025)
MY7(2026)

Table 15.Biological Water Quality Summary
Carolina Bison Mitigation Site
Spring
Seasonal #Taxa<_2.5
Monitoring Year Total Taxa Richness EPT Taxa Richness EPT Abundance Biotic Index Bioclassification
Correction (intolerant taxa)
Pre-construction(2019) - - - - - -
r MY3(2022)
MY5(2024)
co
MY7(2026)
Pre-construction(2019) 17 5 8 5.13 5.63 1 Fair
MY3(2022)
MY5(2024)
co
MY7(2026)
Pre-construction(2019) - - - - - -
a MY3(2022)
ti
m
a MY5(2024)
MY7(2026)
Pre-construction(2019) 11 3 5 6.94 7.44 1 Poor
MY3(2022)
m
MY5(2024)
MY7(2026)
Pre-construction(2019) 19 5 16 5.63 6.13 3 Fair
m MY3(2022)
MY5(2024)
MY7(2026)