20130188 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report_2020_20210105

Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 6 of 7
FINAL
Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
NCDMS Contract No.: 004947
NCDMS Project No.: 95720
USACE Permit Action ID: SAW-2013-00280
DWR Project No.: 13-0188
Macon County, NC
Data Collection Complete: October 2020
Prepared for:
Division of Mitigation Services
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
December 2020

fires
December 15, 2020
Paul Wiesner
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400
RE: Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site: MY5 Monitoring Report
(NCDMS ID 95720)
Listed below are comments provided by DMS on November 24, 2020 regarding the Cochran
Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site: Year 6 Monitoring Report and RES' responses.
General: RES should discuss and coordinate with the IRT before completing additional
herbicidal treatment of the vegetation along Parrish Branch during monitoring year 7 (2021).
The IRT may request that the site be unmaintained in the final year of monitoring. The draft
report notes that Parrish branch is no longer considered a problem area and Table 5 currently
indicates that no significant aggradation was observed on the reach in MY6. As a reminder, at
the April 2020 IRT credit release meeting, the IRT requested a site visit in late fall/ winter 2020/
2021 to observe Parrish Branch during the dormant season.
RES plans to discuss herbicidal treatment of vegetation in Parrish Branch with the IRT during
the requested early 2020 site visit.
General: Please confirm that the conservation easement signage marking the site was assessed
and repaired as necessary during MY6 (2020). Please include report text as necessary.
Conservation easement signage was assessed during annual monitoring and no repairs were
deemed necessary. RES will assess the easement signage again in MY7 and ensure the site is
properly marked prior to closeout. This has been added to the report.
CCPV Map (Figure 2) & Table 6: No invasive areas are shown on the CCPV map or reported
in Table 6. Please confirm that current invasives on the site are beneath the mapping threshold
(1,000 SqF) or revise the CCPV map and table as necessary.
RES did not observe any areas of invasives larger than the mapping threshold.
Table 9 — Planted Stem Count Totals: The table indicates that no volunteer stems were
identified in the vegetation plots during MY6 (2020). Please confirm or update the report as
necessary.
RES did not record any volunteer species during vegetation monitoring in MY6.
Digital Support File Comments:
• Last year DMS requested shapefiles that accurately represented Cochran Branch, and the
design shapefiles were provided. However; these shapefiles characterize Cochran Branch as

0
being 1446 ft compared to the 1387 ft reported in the asset table. If possible, please provide
DMS with shapefiles that accurately represent the linear feet reported in the asset table.
The stream shapefile that has the accurate linear feet is included with the support files. The 59-
foot difference was due to a utility easement at the top of Cochran Branch where no credit is
received.
• Please include photos from permanent stations as JPEGs in the final digital submission.
Done.

Cochran Branch
Macon County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID 95720
Little Tennessee River Basin
HUC 06010202040020
Prepared by:
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1061

Contents
1.0 Project Summary.............................................................................................................................3
1.1. Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................................... 3
1.2. Success Criteria............................................................................................................................. 3
1.3. Project Setting and Background.................................................................................................... 5
1.4. Project Performance...................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 Methods..........................................................................................................................................7
3.0 References.......................................................................................................................................8
Appendix A. General Tables and Figures
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View Map (CCPV)
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Stream Photos
Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Summary
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot)
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Morphological Parameters Summary Data
Table I Ia. Dimensional Morphology Summary
Table I lb. Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross Section Plots
Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
MY5 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Table 13. Bank Pin Array Summary Data
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 14. Documentation of Geomorphological Significant Flow Events
Table 15. Rainfall Summary
Table 16. Wetland Hydrology Attainment Data
2020 Groundwater Monitoring Gauge Hydrographs
Appendix E. MY4 IRT Credit Release Site Visit Memo

Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Macon County, North Carolina • November 2020
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1. Goals and Objectives
The overall goals address the stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
• Improve water quality within the restored channel reaches and downstream watercourses by
reducing sediment and nutrient inputs and increasing dissolved oxygen levels
• Improve local aquatic and terrestrial ecological function through increased stream shading,
habitat complexity, and availability of organic/woody material
• Improve aquatic and benthic habitat and associated streambed form
• Improve site hydrology, wetland functions, and attenuation of flood flows
• Provide riparian area and wetland restoration with a native plant community
• Protect the site from future land impacts
The specific project objectives that are intended to target the above goals include the following:
• Implement Priority I and II restoration of 1,783 feet of stream and rehabilitation/re-
establishment of 4.35 acres of wetlands
• Implement appropriate changes in dimension, pattern and/or profile to establish
geomorphically stable conditions within the project reaches
• Modify degraded stream channels to enable proper sediment transport capacity and improved
streambed form
• Integrate in -stream structures and native bank vegetation
• Re -grade the floodplain to remove drainage ditches, spoil berms, and overburden soil
• Plant native woody and herbaceous riparian vegetation within a minimum width of 30 feet
from the edge of the restored channels and throughout the restored wetland area
• Eradicate invasive, exotic or undesirable plant species
• Install livestock exclusion fencing
• Establish a permanent conservation easement
1.2. Success Criteria
1.2.1. Morphological Parameters and Channel Stability
Restored and enhanced streams are in compliance with the standards set forth in the USACE 2003
Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the "Ecosystem Enhancement Program Monitoring Requirements
and Performance Standards for Stream and Wetland Mitigation" dated November 7, 2011. Restored
and enhanced streams should demonstrate morphologic stability to be considered successful. Stability
does not equate to an absence of change, but rather to sustainable rates of change or stable patterns of
variation. Restored streams often demonstrate some level of initial adjustment in the several months
that follow construction and some change/variation subsequent to that is also to be expected. However,
the observed change should not be unidirectional such that it represents a robust trend. If some trend
is evident, it should be very modest or indicate migration to a stable form.
Dimension - Cross-section measurements should indicate little change from the as -built
cross -sections. If changes do occur, they will be evaluated to determine whether the
adjustments are associated with increased stability or whether they indicate movement
towards an unstable condition.
Pattern and Profile - Visual inspection of the pattern and profile should indicate stability
with little deviation from as -built conditions for the restored stream. Pool depths may vary
from year to year, but the majority should maintain depths sufficient to be observed as
distinct features. The pools should maintain their depth with flatter water surface slopes,
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Macon County, North Carolina • November 2020
while the riffles should remain shallower and steeper. Pattern and profile measurements will
not be collected unless conditions seem to indicate that a detectable and detrimental change
appears to have occurred.
Substrate - Calculated Dso and D84 values should indicate coarser size class distributions of
bed materials in riffles and finer size class distributions in pools. The majority of riffle
pebble counts should indicate maintenance or coarsening of substrate size class distributions.
Generally, it is anticipated that the bed material will coarsen over time.
Sediment Transport - Depositional features should be consistent with a stable stream that is
effectively managing its sediment load. Point bar and inner berm features, if present, should
develop without excessive encroachment of the channel. Isolated development of robust
(i.e. comprised of coarse material and/or vegetated actively diverting flow) mid -channel or
lateral bars will be acceptable. Likewise, development of a higher number of mid -channel
or lateral bars that are minor in terms of their permanency such that profile measurements do
not indicate systemic aggradation will be acceptable, but trends in the development of robust
mid -channel or alternating bar features will be considered a destabilizing condition and may
require intervention or have success implications.
1.2.2. Surface Water Hydrology
Monitoring of stream surface water stages should indicate recurrence of bankfull flow on average every
1 to 2 years. At a minimum, throughout the monitoring period, the surface water stage should achieve
bankfull or greater elevations at least twice. The bankfull events must occur during separate monitoring
years.
1.2.3. Groundwater Hydrology
The USACE defines minimum hydrology for jurisdictional wetlands to be saturation within 12 inches
of the surface for at least 5% of the growing season if soils and vegetation meet jurisdictional criteria.
Given that hydric soils are present throughout the restoration area but that wetland vegetation will be
newly established, it is reasonable to set the minimum hydrology threshold slightly above the
jurisdictional minimum threshold. As such, the minimum performance standard is set to provide
saturated soils within 12 inches of the surface for at least eight percent (8%) of the growing season
under average climatic conditions. The reference wetland site used up through 2017 was the NCDMS
Cat Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site — NCDMS Project # 71 — located east of Franklin in
Macon County, NC. In January 2018, RES made a site visit to Cat Creek to replace the wetland
reference gauge, but it was determined that it was no longer a representative reference gauge due to its
location in a beaver pond. Because of the continued success of the wetland gauges on the Cochran
Branch Site (including those gauges outside of the wetland crediting area), RES deemed it unnecessary
to find a new location for the reference gauge. The growing season for the site was based on the Natural
Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) WETS dataset for Macon County (http://agacis.rcc-
acis.org/37113/wets). The Macon County dataset is based on a site with elevations roughly the same
as the project site. According to NRCS, the growing season for Macon County is defined to be the
period with a 50% probability that the daily minimum temperature is higher than 28°F. At the project
site, this period extends from April 16th to October 19'h for a total of 187 days. Based on this, wetland
hydrology success will be achieved if the water table is within 12 inches of the soil surface for one or
more periods of at least 15 consecutive days during the growing season.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC 4

Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Macon County, North Carolina • November 2020
1.2.4. Vegetation
Riparian vegetation monitoring shall be conducted for a minimum of seven years to ensure that success
criteria are met per USACE guidelines. Accordingly, success criteria will consist of a minimum
survival of 260 planted stems per acre by the end of the Year 5 monitoring period and a minimum of
210 planted stems per acre at the end of Year 7. If monitoring indicates either that the specified survival
rate is not being met or the development of detrimental conditions (i.e., invasive species, diseased
vegetation), appropriate corrective actions will be developed and implemented. Additionally, planted
vegetation must average 8 feet in height in each plot at year 7 (as defined in the USACE 2003). If this
performance standard is met by year 5 and stem density is trending toward success (i.e., no less than
260 five-year old stems/acre) monitoring of vegetation on the site may be terminated provided written
approval is given by the USACE in consultation with the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(NCIRT).
1.3. Project Setting and Background
The Cochran Branch Mitigation Project (The Site) is located approximately 6 miles northwest of
Franklin, North Carolina at latitude 35012'52" N and longitude 83029'20" W. The Site encompasses
approximately 10 acres of agricultural land and consists of two streams, Cochran Branch and Parrish
Branch, along with 4.35 acres of wetlands on the Cochran Branch floodplain. The Site lies within the
Little Tennessee River Watershed N.C. Division of Water Resources (DWR) sub -basin 04-04-01 and
local HUC 06010202040020. The project is located within the NCDMS Iotla Creek targeted local
watershed (TLW) and within the Franklin to Fontana local watershed plan (LWP). Cochran Branch
drains to Burningtown Creek approximately 0.5 miles downstream of the project. Burningtown Creek
is classified as B;Tr by NCDEQ.
Following 2016 monitoring the NCIRT requested a review of the differential between the Approved
Mitigation Plan and Baseline Monitoring Report. The table below details the discrepancies by reach.
The cause of increased baseline SMUs is survey methodology (thalweg vs. centerline) as well as
construction field adjustments. The Mitigation Plan lengths were based on centerline. Wetland credits
are unchanged from Mitigation Plan to Baseline Monitoring Report.
Proposed Length Mitigation
Reach Mitigation Type* �� Proposed SMUs Baseline SMUs
Ratio
Cochran Branch P1 Restoration 1,387 1:1 1,387 1,418
Parrish Branch P1 Restoration 396 1:1 396 402
Total 1,783 1,783 1,820
*P 1=Priority 1
**The contracted amount of credits for this Site was 1,756 SMUs
1.4. Project Performance
Monitoring Year 6 (MY6) data was completed in October 2020. Monitoring activities included visual
assessment of all reaches and the surrounding easement, collection of images at eight permanent photo
stations, and inventory of eight permanent vegetation monitoring plots. Monitoring activities also
included stream monitoring consisting of the three cross -sections on Parrish Branch. Per the Approved
Mitigation Plan, stream geomorphology monitoring was not required for MY6, however, RES wanted
to present any changes to Parrish Branch post channel vegetation spraying. Conservation easement
signage was assessed, and no repairs were deemed necessary. RES will assess the easement signage
again in MY7 and ensure the site is properly marked prior to closeout
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Macon County, North Carolina • November 2020
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment and
statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables
and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting information formerly found
in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the
Mitigation Plan (formerly Restoration Plan) documents available on the NCDMS website
(https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-projects). All raw data supporting the
tables and figures in the appendices is available from DMS upon request.
1.4.1. Vegetation
Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots (Appendix B; Table 6) indicates that
the herbaceous vegetation is becoming well established throughout the project. Treatments of Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) have been effective along the boundary
of the easement. A few multiflora rose patches were treated throughout the easement in July 2020.
Monitoring of the eight permanent vegetation plots was completed in October 2020. Summary tables
and photographs associated with MY6 monitoring are located in Appendix C. MY6 monitoring data
indicates that all plots met interim success criteria of 210 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities
among plots ranged from 243 to 688 planted stems per acre with an annual mean of 420 planted stems
per acre across all plots. A total of 11 species were documented within the plots. The average tree height
observed was 5.9 feet. Some of the wetland area plots (especially Plot 8) are showing below average
stem heights for MY6. RES believes this is due to the short growing season and year-round high-water
table which is more conducive to mountain bog and fen community.
1.4.2. Stream Geomorphology
Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as
eroding banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. In April 2019 and July 2020, RES
treated the vegetation in Parrish Branch with aquatic safe herbicide. The goal was to remove the wetland
vegetation that was growing in the channel and causing aggradation. During the October field work and
on the cross-section plots (Appendix D), it was apparent that the herbicidal treatment of the vegetation
in Parrish Branch was effective and will be performed again in 2021. RES also heavily livestaked the
banks of the reach in 2020 to further discourage channel vegetation growth. Parrish Branch visual
assessments and cross section plots confirm that this reach is no longer a problem area in MY6.
Additional photos of Parrish Branch were added to Appendix B.
Geomorphic data for MY6 was collected in October 2020 only on Parrish Branch. Summary tables and
cross-section plots related to stream morphology are located in Appendix D. For the Cochran Branch
reach, cross -sectional overlays showed minimal dimensional change between MY4 and MY5 data
collection efforts. As for the Parrish Branch, between MY5 and MY6, it appears aggradation and
channel formation has improved for XS7 and 8 and there was some aggradation on XS9 but a defined
channel is still present on the overlay plot (Appendix B; Table lla). RES plans to treat the aquatic
vegetation again in MY7 to continue to help move sediment properly through this reach. In MY5, all
measurements are based on fixed baseline cross sectional area; therefore, bankfull elevation was
adjusted for each cross-section to achieve a cross -sectional area equivalent to the reported baseline
cross -sectional area. None of the riffle cross sections exceeded a 1.2 BHR.
Substrate monitoring was performed during MY5. Pebble count d50 was medium gravel for Cochran
Branch, and sand for Parrish Branch. The channel substrate will be monitored again in MY7 to
document shifts in particle size distributions.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Macon County, North Carolina • November 2020
The bank pin arrays indicate that no erosion is taking place in the meanders during MY5 and will be
reported again in MY7 (Appendix D; Table 12).
1.4.3. Groundwater and Stream Hydrology
During MY6, eight of the eight groundwater monitoring wells met the 8 percent hydroperiod success
criteria (Appendix E; Table 16). All well hydroperiods were 77 percent of the growing season. Due
to barometric pressure gauge failure, data for the first 44 days of the growing season were missed.
At least two bankfull events were observed in MY6. The crest gauge on Cochran Branch had a water
mark that was 1.92 feet high and Parrish Branch had a water mark that was 1.33 feet high. Photos of
the crest gauges are in Appendix E.
2.0 METHODS
This report presents the results of the Monitoring Year 6 (MY6) visual, hydrologic, morphological, and
vegetation data. Permanent photo station photos were collected in October 2020. Additional photos of
vegetation or stream problem areas were taken as needed.
Geomorphic measurements were taken during low flow conditions using a Topcon GTS-312 Total
Station. Three-dimensional coordinates associated with cross-section data was collected in the field and
geo-referenced (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200). Morphological data was collected at 9 cross -
sections. Survey data was imported into CAD, ArcGIS®, and Microsoft Excel® for data processing and
analysis. Channel substrate was characterized using a Wolman Pebble Count as outlined in Harrelson
et al. (1994) and processed using Microsoft Excel.
Vegetation success is being monitored at eight permanent monitoring plots. Vegetation monitoring
follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and
includes analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data is processed using the
CVS data entry tool. In the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked with rebar and
photos of each plot taken from the origin each monitoring year.
Precipitation data was collected using an Onset HOBO Data Logging Rain Gauge. Groundwater for
hydrologic success of restored wetlands was monitored using eight HOBO U20 Water Level Loggers.
An additional logger was installed on site, above ground, for use as a barometric reference. Data loggers
collected depth to groundwater daily and all data were processed using HOBOware and analyzed using
Microsoft Excel. Bankfull events were documented with two crest gauges, one each being located on
Cochran Branch and Parrish Branch. During quarterly visits to the site, the height of the corkline was
recorded.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Year 6 Monitoring Report • Macon County, North Carolina • November 2020
3.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC. 2014. Cochran Branch, Final Mitigation Plan, Macon County,
North Carolina. NCEEP Project No. 95720
Harrelson, Cheryl, C. Rawlins and J. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service. Fort Collins, Colorado
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. http://cvs.blo.unc.edu/methods.htm; accessed November 2008.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of
Water Quality. Wilmington District.
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC

Appendix A
General Tables and Figures

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Cochran Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Mitigation Credits
Stream
RiparianWefland
Non -riparian Wetland
Nitrogen
Buffer Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
1,783
4.240
0.055
-
-
-
Project Components
Project Component -or- Reach
ID
Stationing/Location
Existing
Footage/Acreage
Approach
(PI, PII etc.)
Restoration -or-
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage'
Mitigation
Ratio
Cochran Branch
100+60 - 115+05
1,332
PI
R
1,387
1:1
Parrish Branch
200+15 - 204+11
232
Pit
R
396
1:1
Wed and Area I
-
Re -Est.
R
3.33
1:1
Wed and Area 1
0.88
Re-Hab.
R
0.82
1:1
Wed and Area 2
0.11
Enh.
RE
0.11
2:1
Wed and Area 3
-
Re -Est.
R
0.09
1:1
F9VComponent
Summation
Restoration Level
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non-riparianWefland
Buffer
Upland
(linear feet)
(acres)
(acres)
(square feet)
(acres)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
1,783
-
4.24
-
-
-
Enhancement
-
-
0.11
-
-
-
Enhancement I
-
-
-
-
-
Enhancement II
-
-
-
-
-
-
Creation
-
-
-
-
-
-
Preservation
-
-
-
-
-
-
Preservation
-
-
-
-
-
-
BMP Elements
Element'
Location
Parpose/Function
Notes
FB
Entire Site
Protect Stream
Restoration footage accounts for no credits in crossings, exclusions, and powerline ROWS.
2BR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S = Grassed Swale; LS = Level
Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer
Note: Stream credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg. Based on the April 3, 2017 IRT Credit Release Meeting, these stream
credits have been reverted back to the amounts in the IRT approved mitigation plan.

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

Table 3. Project Contacts
Cochran Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Prime Contractor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Daniel Ingram [phone]
Wolf Creek Engineering
12 1/2 Wall Street Suite C
Designer
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
S. Grant Ginn [phone]
Northstate Environmental
Construction Contractor
2889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem, North Carolina 27101
Darrell Westmoreland [phone]
Northstate Environmental
Seeding Contractor
2
889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem, North Carolina 27101
Darrell Westmoreland [phone]
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Planting Contractor
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
David Godley [phone]
Kee Mapping and Surveying
As -built Surveys
PO Box 2566
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
Phillip B. Key [phone]
Northstate Environmental
Seeding Mix Source
2889 Lowery Street
Winston Salem, North Carolina 27101
Darrell Westmoreland [phone]
Arborgen
5594 Higway 38 South
Blenheim, SC 29516
Bare Root Seedlings
[phone]
North Carolina Foresty Claridge Nursery
762 Claridge Nursery Road
Goldsboro, North Carolina 27530
[phone]
Foggy Mountain Nursery
Live Stakes
2251 Ed Little Road
Creston, North Carolina 28643
[phone]
Equinox Environmental
Monitoring Performers
37 Haywood St.
(MY0-MP2)
2015 - 2016
Asheville, North Carolina 28802
Drew Alderman [phone]
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Monitoring Performers
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
(MY3+)
2017+
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Ryan Medric [phone]
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
Exotic Invasive Vegetation
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Treatment Contractor
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Brian Hockett [phone]

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Project Information
Project Name
Cochran Branch
County
Macon County
Project Area (acres)
10.06
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35012'52.03" N, 83029'20.10" W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiogmphic Province
Blue Ridge
River Basin
Little Tennessee
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 06010203
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-Digit 6010202040020
DWQ Sub -basin
40-04-01
Project Drainage Area (acres)
811
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<5
CGIALand Use Classification
2.01.03 Hay andPasture Land
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Cochran Branch
Parrish Branch
Length ofreach (linear feet)
1332
232
Valley classification (Rosgen)
II
II
Drainage area
1.25
0.11
NCDWQ stream identification score
48
40
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
B, Tr
B, Tr
Morphological Description(stream type) (Rosgen)
G4
G4
Evolutionary trend (Rosgen)
G— F — C — E
G— F — B
Underlying mapped soils
NkA
NkA, ScC
Drainage class
Verry Poorly Drained
Very Poorly Drained,
Mod Well Drained
Soil Hydric status
Hydric
Hydric, Non-Hydric
Slope
0.7%
4.2%
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
Native vegetation community
Agricultural
Agricultural
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
6%
0%
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
A
B
C
D
E
Area(Acres)
4.24
0.11
Wetland Type(non-riparian, riparian riverine or riparian non-riverine)
Riparian Non-
Riverine
Riparian Non-
Riverine
Mapped Soil Series
NkA
NkA
Drainage class
Veny Poorly Drained
Veny Poorly Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Hydric
Hydric
Source of Hydrology
Groundwater
Groundwater
Previous Hydrologic Impairment
Dredging/Ditching
Dredging/Ditching
Native vegetation community
Montane Alluvial Forest
Montane Alluvial Forest
Percent composition ofexotic invasive vegetation
0%
0%
Regulatory
Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters ofthe United States —Section404
Yes
Yes
PCN 27 (SAW-2013-
00280)
Waters ofthe United States —Section401
Yes
Yes
401 Certification
DWR#-13-0188
Endangered Species Act
No
Yes
ERTR
Historic Preservation Act
No
Yes
ERTR
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal
Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
N./A

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

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

res
S t
Channel Vegetation Treatment _
•i l - •=w tB `• s - 0 50 100
`F, ; r .# + Parrish Branch Feet
y'}-
414�` 1 inch = 100 feet
'J '. % � � � _N '� �' .. Figure 2
+�. r, k y 7 y f.
5 as �0
4 sue_ ' . Cochran Branch Stream
Restoration Project
MY6 2020
,� �� _ 5 Cochran Branch 1A Current Conditions
Plan View
At s-
- i • �: �y ��• - �. Date: 11/11/2020 Drawn by: RTM
,- - _ 5 =�
tis f LEGEND
S Conservation Easement
Wetland Mitigation
o Enhancement
"�JlJ�� o Re-establishment
Y� Re -habilitation
` s Vegetation Plot
+ o >210 stems/acre
Stream Restoration
Top of Bank
-- . .` .• -
rtiStructure
2
- 7 0 - -'��"• ;--- z ® Cross Section
_ �*`{ Photo Station
-
's Rain Gauge
_ ® Crest Gauge
Well Hydroperiod
Cochran Branch 1 B `� 0>8%
<. ► - + .. ;• "L- _ _ ..•� '0 �4_1g
1 ram. �., t-
_ �a+ Veetation Condition Assessment
A . +►`
1L
r ; • A w Target Community
? y► w Present Marginal Absent
Absent No Fill
NPresent

Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Cochran Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Cochran Branch
Assessed Len th 1,418 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. AA22radation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0
0
100%
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
23
23
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
23
23
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
23
23
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
23
23
100
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
23
23
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion.
0
0
100 %
0
0 100
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
23
23
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
23
23
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
23
23
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
15 %
23
23
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining- Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull
Depth Ratio> 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
23
23
100%

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

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

Cochran Branch W6 2020 Photo Station Photos
Cochran Branch Reach la —Permanent Photo Station 1
Station 101+33 —Downstream
October 27, 2020
Cochran Branch Reach la —Permanent Photo Station 1
Station 101+33 — Upstream
October 27, 2020

Cochran Branch W6 2020 Photo Station Photos
Cochran Branch — Permanent Photo Station 2
East 95'
October 27, 2020
Cochran Branch — Permanent Photo Station 3
Station 108+87 — Upstream
October 27, 2020

i y
x a
ri �t
� S &I � IYp.y�f � Y- '
.fir l� � y$'�� fn•� �: l�
FFA
A��'
j i -r 5
Yi, �7� � �A,t, �I y�11� •� .I� �
/{{i
RA
it/,
�A%i
�� ju
a=n A *�F"•.

Cochran Branch W6 2020 Photo Station Photos
Cochran Branch — Permanent Photo Station 5
Southeast 150'
Ortnher ?7 ?n?n
Cochran Branch — Permanent Photo Station 6
Station 114+62 —Upstream 186'
October 27, 2020

4%0
T
ai
RIM

n
F
1 l j
Y S Y A

Cochran Branch W6 2020 Photo Station Photos
Parrish Branch — General Photo
October 27, 2020
Parrish Branch — General Photo
October 27, 2020

Cochran Branch MY6 2020 Vegetation Plot Photos
Cochran - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1
October 27, 2020
Cochran - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2
October 27, 2020

Cochran Branch MY6 2020 Vegetation Plot Photos
Cochran - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 3
October 27, 2020
Cochran - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 4
October 27, 2020

L
r
-
S Oki
R
i

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Summary
Plot #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Criteria
Met?
Average
verage
Planted
Stem Height
(ft)
1
283
0
283
Yes
6.0
2
688
0
688
Yes
5.1
3
324
0
324
Yes
6.0
4
445
0
445
Yes
4.0
5
526
0
526
Yes
7.8
6
445
0
445
Yes
11.3
7
243
0
243
Yes
4.4
8
405
0
405
Yes
2.0
Project Avg
420
0
420
Yes
5.9

Table 8: CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland Restoration Site
Report Prepared By
Emily Ulman
Date Prepared
10/29/2020 13:38
database name
Cochran _MY6_2020.mdb
database location
C:\Users\eulman\Dropbox (RES)\@RES Projects\North
Carolina\Cochran Branch\Monitoring\Monitoring
Data\MY6 2020\Vegetation Data
computer name
D4VOKGH2
file size
61775872
DESCRIPTION
OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary
of project(s) and project data.
Pro', planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each
year. This excludes live stakes.
Pro', total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year.
This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems,
dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor bSpp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences
and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and
SPP
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for
each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted
and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing
stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code
95720
project Name
Cochran Branch Stream and Wetland
Description
River Basin
Little Tennessee
len th ft
stream -to -edge width ft
areas m
Required Plots calculated
Sampled Plots
8

Table 9. Planted Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot)
Current Plot Data (MY6 2020)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
95720-01-0001
95720-01-0002
95720-01-0003
95720-01-0004
95720-01-0005
95720-01-0006
95720-01-0007
95720-01-0008
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
Acer rubrum var. rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
1
Alnus
alder
Shrub
Alnus serruIata
hazel alder
Shrub
3
3
3
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Cephalanthus occidentali
common buttonbus
Shrub
1
1
1
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon
Tree
11
1
11
5
51
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera vz
Tulip -tree, Yellow Pc
Tree
3
3
3
8
8
8
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis var.
Sycamore, Plane-tre
Tree
2
2
2
10
10
10
4
4
4
7
7
7
10
10
10
4
4
4
Quercus
oak
Tree
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
2
2
2
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus rubra var. rubra
northern red oak
Tree
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
71
71
7
171
171
17
81
81
8
11
11
11
13
131
13
111
111
11
61
61
6
10
101
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
5
5
5
5
5
51
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
4
283
283.3
283.3
688
688
6881
324
323.7
323.7
445
445.2
445.2
526
526.1
526.1
445
445.2
445.2
243
242.8
242.8
405
404.7
404.7
'PnoLS: No livestakes included in tally; P-all: All planted stems included in tally; T: Total stems including recruitment.

Table 9. Planted Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY6 (2020)
MY5 (2019)
MY4 (2018)
MY3 (2017)
MY2 (2016)
MY1(2015)
MYO (2015)
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
3
Acer rubrum var. rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
4
4
4
Alnus
alder
Shrub
5
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
3
3
3
3
3
8
3
4
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
12
12
12
14
14
14
16
16
16
Cephalanthus occidental
common buttonbus
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
1
11
1
Diospyrosvirginiana
common persimmon
Tree
6
6
6
7
7
7
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
Liriodendron tulipifera vz
Tulip -tree, Yellow Pc
Tree
11
11
11
11
11
11
13
13
13
13
13
13
6
6
61
10
10
10
27
27
27
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis var.
Sycamore, Plane-trei
Tree
37
37
37
37
37
37
38
38
38
36
36
36
39
39
39
45
45
45
481
48
48
Quercus
oak
Tre e
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
21
2
23
23
23
38
38
38
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
6
6
6
7
7
7
9
9
9
9
9
9
13
13
13
9
9
9
11
11
11
Quercus nigra
water oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
6
6
6
7
7
7
10
10
10
131
13
13
19
191
19
9
9
9
81
8
8
Quercus rubra var. rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
71
4
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub
2
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
831
83
83
86
86
93
88
88
106
93
93
103
107
107
126
115
115
119
156
156
156
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
13
13
13
13
13
14
10
10
13
10
10
13
12
12
15
9
9
10
10
10
10
420
419.9
419.9
435
435
470.4
445
445.2
536.2
470
470.4
521
541
541.3
637.4
582
581.7
602
789
789.1
789.1
'PnoLS: No livestakes included in tally; P-all: All planted stems included in tally; T: Total stems including recruitment.

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data

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

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

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

Table lla. Baseline Morphology & Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Cochran Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Cross -Section 1 (Pool)
Cochran Banch
Cross -Section 2 (Riffle)
Cochran Branch
Cross -Section 3 (Riffle)
Cochran Branch
Cros"ection 4 (Pool)
Cochran Branch
Cross -Section 5 (Pool)
Cochran Branch
Dimension
Base
MY1
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
nlY7
Base
MYl
MY3
MY4
MY5
I1Y6
I1Y7
Base
MYl
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)- Based onAB-XSA'
2,156.1
2,156.1
2,156.1
2,156.6
N/A
N/A
2,155.8
2,155.8
2,155.8
2,156.1
2,156.2
N/A
2,152.1
2,152.1
2,152.1
2,152.2
2,152.3
N/A
2,151.9
2,151.9
2,151.9
2,151.9
N/A
N/A
2,149.9
2,149.9
2,149.9
2,149.8
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Width (ft)'
16.7
16.8
20.6
36.3
N/A
N/A
17.3
17.1
16.9
23.4
25.4
N/A
14.6
15.4
15.3
19.3
19.6
N/A
16.2
17.4
16.8
15.3
N/A
N/A
17.0
17.3
16.8
14.0
N/A
N/A
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>217.0
>217.0
>52.5
>52.6
N/A
N/A
>173.5
>173.5
>54.7
>54.6
>54.6
N/A
>135.0
>135
>59.7
>59.6
>59.7
N/A
>217.5
>217.5
>59.0
>59.0
N/A
N/A
>236.5
>236.5
>52.9
>52.8
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.1
0.9
0.8
-
N/A
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
-
N/A
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
-
N/A
1.9
1.8
1.9
2.0
-
N/A
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.8
-
N/A
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
3.1
2.6
1 2.3
2.7
1 1.9
1 N/A
1 1.5
1.4
1 1.4
1 1.8
1.6
1 N/A
1.0
1 1.1
1.1
1.2
0.9
N/A
3.5
4.3
4.2
1 4.1
3.9
1 N/A
1 3.3
1 3.4
3.1
3.5
3.6
1 N/A
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
27.5
19.2
19.5
27.5
9.7
N/A
16.6
15.2
14.0
16.6
10.2
N/A
11.0
11.3
10.8
11.0
1 5.7
N/A
1
1 31.0
31.3
32.7
31.0
25.2
N/A
25.4
26.4
25.2
1 25.4
24.5
N/A
Bankfull Width Depth Ratio
10.2
14.7
21.8
48.0
-
N/A
18.1
19.2
20.4
33.0
-
N/A
19.2
20.8
21.6
33.9
-
N/A
8.5
9.7
8.6
7.6
-
N/A
11.4
11.4
11.2
7.7
-
N/A
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>13
>12.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
>10
>10.2
>3.2
>2.3
>2.2
N/A
>9.3
>8.8
>3.9
>3.1
>3
N/A
>13.4
>12.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
>13.9
>13.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
0.9
<1.0
<1
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.1
<1.0
<1
N/A
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
d50 (mm)
-
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
N/A
1.4
26
6.7
6.6
N/A
-
28.0
28
7.4
7.7
N/A
-
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
N/A
-
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cros"ection 6 (Riffle)
Cochran Branch
Cross -Section 7 (Riffle)
Parrish Branch
Cros"ection 8 (Pool)
Parrish Branch
Cros"ection 9 (Riffle)
Parrish Branch
Dimension
Base
MYl
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
MYl
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
_N1Y7
Base
MYl
MY3
MY4
MY5
nlY6
_N1Y7
Bankfull Elevation (11) - Based on AB-XSA'
2149.7
2149.7
2149.7
2149.9
2150.0
N/A
2160.2
2160.2
2160.2
2160.7
2160.9
2161.2
2159.8
2159.8
2159.8
2160.0
N/A
2162.3
2154.6
2154.6
2154.6
2155.0
2155.1
2155.5
Bankfull Width (ft)'
17.8
17.9
15.6
20.6
25.3
N/A
4.4
4.5
3.7
10.5
15.6
2.1
6.8
7.2
8.0
10.9
N/A
2.0
5.9
6.6
5.8
8.6
4.7
3.9
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>197.0
>197.0
>54.5
>54.5
>54.5
N/A
>14.2
>14.2
11.9
24
>26.5
>26.4
>93.7
>93.7
>28.2
>28.1
N/A
N/A
>24.0
>24.0
>29.3
>31.8
>31.5
>32.1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
-
N/A
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
-
-
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
-
-
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
1.1
1.2
1 1.2
1.5
1 0.7
N/A
0.6
0.7
1 0.4
1 0.3
0.4
1 0.6
1 1.8
1 2.0
1.9
1.0
0.3
0.7
1 0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.8
1 0.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
13.6
13.6
12.1
13.6
7.0
N/A
1.8
2.0
0.6
1.8
0.5
1.0
5.2
5.5
5.0
5.2
1.1
0.7
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.6
0.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
23.4
23.4
20.2
31.1
-
N/A
10.9
10.4
23.6
62.5
-
-
9.0
9.6
12.7
22.8
-
-
16.6
21.7
17.0
35.7
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>11.0
>11.0
>3.5
>2.7
>2.2
N/A
�, 2
>3.1
3.2
2.3
>1.7
>12.6
>13.7
>12.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
>4.0
>3.7
>5.1
>3.7
>6.7
>8.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1.0
<1
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1.0
<1
0.6
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.4
d50 (mm)
-
11.0
24
0.62
12
N/A
-
4.3
1.6
0.062
1.4
-
-
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
3.9
3.2
0.062
1.4
N/A - Item does not apply.
- Information Unavailable
Note: Starting in W 5, the parameters denoted with ' were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation
providers.

Table 11b cont'd. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Cochran Stream and Wetland Restoration Project - Parrish Branch (402 feet)
Parameter
Baseline
MY - 1
MY-2
MY - 3
MY-4
MY - 5
MY - 6
MY-7
Dimension&Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Minf49.
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width ft`'
4.4
5.2
5.2
5.9
1.1
2
4.5
5.6
5.6
6.6
1.5
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.7
4.9
4.8
5.8
1.5
9.6
9.6
10.5
13
4.7
10.2
10.2
15.6
7.7
2
2.10
3.00
3.00
3.90
1.30
2.00
Floodprone Width ft'
14.2
19.1
19.1
24.0
6.9
2
14.2
19.1
19.1
24.0
6.9
2
11.9
20.6
20.6
29.3
12.3
2
24.0
>27.9
>31.8
5.5
2
26.5
29.0
29.0
31.5
3.5
2
26.40
29.30
29.30
4.00
4.00
2.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.1
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.0
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.1
2
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.1
2
0.3
0.6
0.8
0.4
2
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.3
2
0.30
0.50
0.50
0.20
0.20
2.00
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.1
0.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6
1.3
1.3
2.0
1.0
2
1.8
2.0
2.1
0.2
2
0.5
1.6
1.6
2.6
1.5
2
0.50
0.80
0.80
0.40
0.40
2.00
Bankfull Width/Depth Rati
10.9
13.8
13.8
16.6
4.0
10.4
16.1
16.1
21.7
8.0
2
17.0
20.3
20.3
23.6
4.7
2
35.7
49.1
62.5
19.0
2Bankfull
Entrenchment Ratic'
3.2
3.6
3.6
4.0
0.6
3.1
3.4
3.4
3.7
0.4
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.2
4.2
4.2
5.1
1.3
2
2.3
>3
>3.7
1.0
2
1.7
4.2
4.2
6.7
3.5
2
8.30
]0.50
]0.50
3.00
3.00
2.00Bankfull
Bank Hei ht Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
2
<1.0
<1.0
1.0
0.0
2
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.1
2
0.40
0.50
0.50
0.60
0.10
2.00
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
6.1
10.0
9.8
15.5
2.3
22
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
0.00
0.025
0.023
0.047
0.013
Pool Length (ft)
1.7
5.0
4.5
10.2
2.
E
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.5
1.5
1.9
0.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
13.5
17.2
15.5
25.2
3.4
21
Pattern
Channel Belt Width (ft)l
6.9
1 9.9
1 9.8
1 12.6
1 1.4
1 14
Radius of Curvature (ft)
1 5.8
9.5
8.9
15.3
3.2
8
Re Bankfull Width (ft/ft
1.1
1.8
1.7
2.9
Meander Wavelength (ft)
29.1
32.1
31.4
39.7
2.7
15
Meander Width Ratiol
1.3
1 1.9
1 1.9
1 2.4
1 0.3
1 14
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
402
Sinuosity (ft)
1.07
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.025
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.029
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
59% 1 0% 1 29% 1 5% 1 7%
- Infoimation Unavailable
N/A - Information does not apply.
Ri=Riffle/Ru=Run/P-Pool/G=Glide/S=Step

Upstream
Downstream
Cochran - Parrish Branch - Cross Section 7 - Riffle
2164
2163
2162
° 2161
m
d
w
2160
- -
2159
IF
2158
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
Baseline Yearl Year3 Year4 Year5
Year6 •A rox. Bankfull Floodrone Area -Low TOB
Cross Section 7 M
Dimension
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA'
2160.2
2160.2
2160.2
2160.7
2160.9
2161.2
Bankfull Width (ft)'
4.4
4.5
3.7
10.5
15.6
2.1
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>14.2
>14.2
11.9
24.0
>26.5
>26.4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
-
-
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.3
0.4 1
0.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2
1.8
2.0
0.6
1.8
0.5
1.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.9
10.4
23.6
62.5
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>3.2
>3.1
3.2
2.3
>1.7
>12.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0
<1.0
<1
0.6
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
Downstream
Cochran - Parrish Branch - Cross Section 8 - Pool
2163
2162
2161
2160
w 2159
2158
2157
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
Baseline -Yearl Year3 Year4 Years Year6 - - -Approx. Bankfull - - -Low TOB
Cross Section 8 (Pool)
Dimension
Base
MY]
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY-5
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) -Based on AB-XSA1
2159.8
2159.8
2159.8
2160.0
N/A
2162.3
Bankfiill Width (11)1
6.8
7.2
8.0
10.9
N/A
2.0
Floodprone Width (8)1
>93.7
>93.7
>28.2
>28.1
N/A
N/A
BankfuH Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
-
-
BankfullMax Depth (11 Z
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.0
0.3 1
0.7
Bankfull Cross SectionalArea(ft2)
5.2
5.5
5.0
5.2
1.1
0.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.0
9.6
12.7
22.8
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
>13.7
>12.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank HeightRatiol
1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

Upstream
��. •. e tYl.s:
Downstream
Cochran - Parrish Branch - Cross Section 9 - Riffle
2158
2157
2156
2155
d
w 2154
2153
2152
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance (ft)
Baseline Year1 Year3 -Year4 Year
Year6 - -Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area -Low TOB
Cross Section 9 Riffie
Dimension
Base
MY]
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft) -Based on AB-XSA'
2154.6
2154.6
2154.6
2155.0
2155.1
2155.5
BankfullWidth fr'
59
6.6
5.8
8.6
4.7
3.9
Floodprone Width (ft)'
>24.0
>24.0
>29.3
>31.8
>31.5
>32.1
Bankfull Mean Depth fr
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
Bankfu H Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
1 0.8
0.8
1 0.3
BankfullCross Sectional Area (fr2)
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.6
0.5
Bankfu11 Width/Depth Ratio
16.6
21.7
17.0
35.7
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratioi
>4.0
>3.7
>5.1
>3.7
>6.7
>8.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.4
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the banldull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.

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

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

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

Appendix E
Hydrology Data

Table 15. 2020 Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal Limits
Franklin
Station
30 Percent
70 Percent
January
5.18
3.78
6.10
6.99
February
4.32
2.94
5.16
9.88
March
5.05
3.60
5.97
5.02
April
4.82
3.64
5.62
9.45
May
4.19
2.90
4.99
6.14
June
4.64
3.32
5.48
3.22
July
4.61
3.33
5.44
3.80
August
4.49
3.21
5.31
6.95
September
4.37
2.74
5.28
6.14
October
2.94
1.26
3.58
7.77
November
4.26
2.70
5.13
---
December
5.49
4.04
6.44
---
Total
54.36
37.46
64.50
65.36
Notes:
CRONOS Database - Franklin (313228)
Table 16. Wetland Hydrology Attainment Data
Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Cochran Stream & Wetland Restoration Site
Success Criteria Achieved/ Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season Percent
Year 11
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 63
Year 7
Gauge ID
(2015)
(2016)
(2017)
(2018)
(2019)
(2020)
(2021)
z
Yes/ 18
Yes/ 40
No/2
Gauge
Yes/ 104.5
Yes/ 143.
GW-1
10%
21.4%
1%
malfunction
56%
77%
Yes/ 132
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 171.5
Gauge
es/ 187
Yes/ 143.5
GW-2
71%
100%
92%
malfunction
100%
77%
Yes/ 132
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 171
Gauge
es/ 187
Yes/ 143.5
GW-3
71%
100%
91%
malfunction
100%
77%
Yes/ 132
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 171.5
Yes/ 170
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 143.5
GW-4
71%
100%
92%
91%
100%
77%
Yes/ 132
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 171.5
Yes/ 169.5
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 143.5
GW-5
71%
100%
92%
91%
100%
77%
Yes/ 132
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 171.5
Yes/ 169.5
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 143.5
GW-6
71%
100%
92%
91%
100%
77%
Yes/ 132
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 171.5
Yes/ 169.5
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 143.5
('w 7
71%
1 100%
1 92%
1 91%
1 100%
77%
Yes/ 132
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 171.5
Yes/ 169.5
Yes/ 187
Yes/ 143.5
('«�-gz
71%
100%
92%
1 91%
1 100%
77%
Hydrology Success Criteria = 8%; Growing season = April 16 - October 19 (187 days)
'Max consecutive days during growing season limited to 132 days due to shortened growing season. Percent based on full 187 day growing season
2Located outside of wetland crediting area
3Max consecutive days during growling season limited to 144 days due to barometric pressure gauge failure. Percent based on full 187 day growing season

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data Collection
Estimated Date of Occurrence
Method
Maximum Bankfull Height (ft) Photo #
Cochran B
12/29/2015 12/24/2015
Crest Gauge
0.86 w i
3/24/2016
2/3/2016
Crest Gauge
0.68
W2
8/17/2016
7/15/2016
Crest Gauge
0.58
W2
10/3/2017
5/21/2017
Crest Gauge
0.92
W3
10/27/2020
4/12/2020
Crest Gauge
1.92
1
Parrish Branch
4/17/2017
4/3/2017
Crest Gauge
0.6
W3
4/17/2017
2/28/2017
Crest Gauge
0.38
W3
10/3/2017
5/21/2017
Crest Gauge
0.79
W3
10/3/2018
8/1/2018
Crest Gauge
1.08
W4
10/27/2020
4/12/2020
Crest Gauge
1.33
2
Note: Crest gauges malfunctioned in MY5 2019 therefore no bankfull events were recorded
Photo Verification of Bankfull Events
Photo 1 — Cochran Branch — 1.92 ft

Photo 2 — Parrish Branch — 1.33 ft

2020 Cochran Branch Groundwater Gauge AW1
10 12.0
Growing Season

2020 Cochran Branch Groundwater Gauge AW2
10 12.0
Growing Season

2020 Cochran Branch Groundwater Gauge AW3
10 12.0
Growing Season

2020 Cochran Branch Groundwater Gauge AW4
10 12.0
Growing Season

2020 Cochran Branch Groundwater Gauge AW5
10 12.0
Growing Season

2020 Cochran Branch Groundwater Gauge AW6
10 12.0
Growing Season

2020 Cochran Branch Groundwater Gauge AW7
10 12.0
Growing Season

2020 Cochran Branch Groundwater Gauge AW8
10 12.0
Growing Season

Appendix E
MY4 IRT Credit Release Site Visit Memo

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