20160979 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20210107

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20160979 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/07/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/7/2021
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* C' 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:*
Jamey McEachran jmceachran©res.us
Project Information
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20160979 Version:*1
Existing ID## Existing Version
Project Type: r DMS C•' Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Poplar Creek Stream Mitigation Project
County: Johnston
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Poplar Creek MY1 Monitoring Report DWR.pdf 11.75MB
Rease upload only one R7Fof the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jamey McEachran
Signature:*
legit.

3600 Glenwood Avenue.Suite 100
r eS
Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South,Suite 300
Bellaire,TX 77401
Main:713.520.5400
October 30, 2020
Samantha Dailey
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
RE: Poplar Creek Year 1 Monitoring Report (SAW-2016-01973)
Ms. Dailey,
Please find attached the Poplar Creek Year 1 Monitoring Report. In Year 1, nine of the 10
vegetation plots met the 320 stems per acre success criteria. Vegetation Plot 4 failed to meet
success criteria with 243 stems per acre. At first glance, bankfull events were not recorded on the
stage recorder on YB2-A but determined that this data seemed inaccurate, so RES used the flow
gauge on YB2-A as a stage recorder. The stage recorder on YB2-B will be moved from the
Enhancement I area upstream to the Restoration area in order to capture a more accurate reading
of bankfull events occurring within this reach. The flow gauge on YB2-A recorded six bankfull
events and 273 consecutive flow days. The flow gauge on YB1-C measured 274 consecutive flow
days, and the flow gauge on YB3 measured 97 consecutive flow days. Groundwater Well 1
recorded an 84 percent hydroperiod, Groundwater Well 2 recorded a three percent hydroperiod,
and Groundwater Well 3 recorded a seven percent hydroperiod.
The one vegetation problem area onsite is the 0.77-acre low stem density area in and around
Vegetation Plot 4, which will be replanted this dormant season. Stream problem areas consist of
failing log toe structures on YB1-C and bank erosion on YB2-B. The failing log toes and bank
erosion areas will be replaced with a combination of minor bank grading, coir matting, livestake
installation, sod mats, coir logs, and/or brush toes. RES engineers will visit the site again this
winter when the vegetation has died back to create a detailed Adaptative Management Plan that
will be provided to the IRT for review.
RES is requesting a 10% stream credit release (392.60 SMUs) for the completion of the Year 1
report. Please see enclosed the credit release timeline and an updated credit ledger.
Thank you,
Ryan Medric I Ecologist

POPLAR CREEK STREAM
MITIGATION SITE
JOHNSTON COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
SAW-2016-01985
YEAR 1 MONITOR .' ..'. 7_' __.‘....t.;:,:;...,:...,1t-)„ -'.-'
ING REPORT
ram' . 4 p. da p h , ,
` ��" � �/gam A j" � .
i
„,-'''",:44..,. ..;_:,.,..-A-.41.-s.,\',.,;..}. .
„1'4.: ,.„4,,!)_.° ...-‘,77-;:- . :4::,,*,. -. .•.-,-e, ___-_---, -'..: 1644
�+ '" ,ram
® ' •
_g k
dllG f it ` t.
-.
.•
�1 YA '
, 1148.„,_: ,---4:004,„___' ,.,..---°v.‘,... 7.,
,,
( a
4�
Provided by:
0 res
Bank Sponsor: EBX-Neuse I, LLC,
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh,NC 27612
919-209-1055
October 2020

Table of Contents
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
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) 6
Vegetation 6
Stream Geomorphology 7
Stream Hydrology 7
Wetland Hydrology of Existing Wetlands 7
2. Methods 8
3. References 9
Appendix A: Background Tables
Table 1: Project Mitigation Components
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3: Project Contacts Table
Table 4: Project Contacts 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
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
Table 12. 2020 Max Hydroperiod
Table 13. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
MY1 Groundwater Hydrographs
Poplar Creek 1 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2020

1. Project Summary
1.1 Project Location and Description
The Poplar Creek Stream Mitigation Site(the Site)is located within a watershed dominated by agricultural
land use in Johnston County, North Carolina, approximately three miles north of Smithfield (Figure 1).
The project streams were significantly impacted by channelization and cattle access. The project involves
the restoration, enhancement, and protection of streams in the Neuse River watershed and the restoration
and enhancement of adjacent riparian buffers. The purpose of this mitigation site is to restore and enhance
streams located within the Neuse River Basin. The Site was designed in concurrence with the Poplar Creek
Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Mitigation Bank.
The Site lies within USGS Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201 (USGS, 2012) and within the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources(NCDWR)Neuse River Sub-basin 03-04-02(NCDENR,2005). The
2010 Neuse River Basin RBRP identified the Poplar Creek watershed (HUC 03020201150020) as a
Targeted Local Watershed (TLW), a watershed that exhibits both the need and opportunity for wetland,
stream,and riparian buffer restoration.
The total easement area is 23.59 acres. The wooded areas along the easement corridor designated for
restoration and enhancement activities were classified as mixed hardwoods prior to construction. Invasive
species were present throughout the wooded areas. Channels restored were degraded to a point where they
no longer access their floodplain, lack riparian buffers, allow livestock access, and aquatic life was not
supported.Additionally,the riparian buffer was in poor condition throughout the restoration reaches of the
project area where it was devoid of trees or shrubs and pasture was present up to the edge of the pre-
construction channel.
The Site includes Priority I and Priority II Restoration, Enhancement Level I, and Enhancement Level II.
Restoration reaches incorporate the design of a single-thread meandering channel, with parameters based
on data taken from the reference site described above,published empirical relationships,NC Piedmont and
Coastal Plain Regional Curves,and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses.
The Site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the Site will be conducted at a
minimum of twice per year throughout the seven-year post-construction monitoring period, or until
performance standards are met.These site inspections will identify site components and features that require
routine maintenance. The measure of stream restoration success will be documented by bankfull flows and
no change in stream channel classification. Sand bed channels are dynamic and minor adjustments to
dimension and profile are expected. The measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of
at least 210 seven-year old planted trees per acre with an average height of 10 feet at the end of year seven
of the monitoring period.
Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team(IRT),the Site will be transferred to the North
Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation(NCWHF). The NCWHF will be responsible for periodic inspection
of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the Conservation Easement or the deed restriction
document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions will be
negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The 2010 RBRP identified several restoration needs for the entire Neuse River Basin, as well as for HUC
03020201,specifically.The Project watershed(HUC 03020201100040)was identified as a Targeted Local
Poplar Creek 2 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2020

Watershed(TLW),a watershed that exhibits both the need and opportunity for wetland,stream,and riparian
buffer restoration.
The Site was identified as a stream and buffer restoration opportunity to improve water quality,habitat,and
hydrology within the Neuse River Basin. This project is intended to provide Stream Mitigation Units to be
applied as compensatory mitigation for unavoidable authorized impacts to waters of the US under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and support the overall goal of"no net loss" of aquatic
resources in the United States. The Site is located within the downstream end of HUC 03020201 and
includes streams that directly discharge into Little Poplar Creek. The overarching goal of this project is to
address major watershed stressors identified in the 2010 Neuse RBRP for this TLW by promoting nutrient
and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving streams, and riparian buffers and
improve functional uplift to the ecosystem. The project design goals and objectives, including restoration
of riparian buffers to filter runoff from agricultural operations and improve terrestrial habitat, and
construction of in-stream structures to improve habitat diversity, will address the degraded water quality
and nutrient input from farming.
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Increase forested riparian buffers to at least fifty feet on both sides of the channel along the project
reach with an appropriate riparian plant community(a Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp diverse
mix of species).
• Increase plant species diversity and reduce invasive species within the project boundaries.
• Improve flood bank connectivity by reducing bank height ratios and increase entrenchment ratios
to reference reach levels.
• Reduce sediment supply from eroding stream banks in order to restore channel stability by restoring
the stream channel pattern,dimension,and profile in stream channels to reference reach conditions.
• Reduce impact of livestock to the stream channels and runoff through the increase in the livestock
exclusion.
• Restore stable flow dynamics by improving stream velocity and shear stress to levels between the
critical shear stress(shear stress required to initiate motion)and the allowable limits
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. Hydrology data and visual monitoring will be reported
annually.
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). Cross sections shall be classified
using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross-sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 1.4 within restored reaches. Channel stability should
Poplar Creek 3 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2020

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.
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 between July Pt and leaf drop. 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 at the end of Year 5,and the final vegetative
success criteria will be 210 trees per acre with an average height of 10 feet at the end of Year 7. Height
measurement success criteria do not apply to the understory trees or shrubs. 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.
1.4 Project Components
The project area is comprised of four separate easement locations along multiple drainage features that flow
into Little Poplar Creek. The project is divided into northern and southern portions by Lee Youngblood
Road. The northern portion of the project includes Reach YB2-A; the southern portion of the project
includes Reach YB1-C,YB2-B and Reach YB3
Mitigation Plan Stream Credits
Mitigation
Proposed Stationing Existing Plan Mitigation
Reach Mitigation Type SMUs
(Mitigation Plan) Length(LF) Length Ratio
(LF)
YB1-C P1 Restoration 0+25 to 7+03 602 678 1 : 1 678
YB2-A P1 Restoration 0+17 to 8+80 0+ 863 1 : 1 863
YB2-A P2 Restoration 8+80 to 12+30 0+ 350 1 : 1 350
YB2-B P1 Restoration 13+20 to 26+70 1,358 1,350 1 : 1 1,350
YB2-B Enhancement I 26+70 to 29+42 272 272 1 : 1.5 181
YB3 Enhancement II 4+22 to 11+82 760 760 1 :2.5 304
Totals 2,992 4,273 3,726
Credit Loss in Required Buffer* -225
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer* 425
Total SMUs 3,926
'These reaches had an pre-mitigation plan length of zero; YB2-A with P1 Restoration is where the former impoundment
resided; YB2-A with P2 Restoration was confined to a pre-existing culvert from the former pond that flowed under the road to
YB2-B.
*Calculated using GIS analysis and the Non-Standard Buffer Width Calculator
Poplar Creek 4 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2020

1.5 Stream Design/Approach
Stream restoration and enhancement efforts along the tributaries at the Poplar Creek Stream Mitigation
were designed 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. For reaches requiring full
restoration, natural design concepts were applied and verified through rigorous engineering analyses and
modeling. The objective of this approach was to design a geomorphically stable channel that provided
habitat improvements and ties into the existing landscape.
The Poplar Creek Site was been broken into the following design reaches:
Reach YB1-C
Reach YB1-C, beginning at the outfall of an existing pond, flows southwest beyond the project limits
toward its confluence with Little Poplar Creek, and totals 678 linear feet of Priority I Restoration. Priority
I Restoration was conducted to address the impairments including hydrologic dislocation, floodplain
dislocation,bank erosion,nutrient input,livestock access and buffer degradation.The watershed that drains
to this reach is approximately 66 acres and the land use is primarily agricultural. The design approach
included meandering the proposed channel within the natural valley, backfilling the existing streams, and
reconnecting the channel to its floodplain. Woody debris and log grade control structures were installed
along the bed and banks to improve in-stream habitat and stability. After the proposed channel was
constructed a syphon system was installed in the upstream dam per NRCS guidelines to act as its primary
spillway and to restore flow to the channel.
Reach YB2
Reach YB2-A, beginning downstream of an existing gas easement, flows south through a former
agricultural imopoundment, under Lee Youngblood Road. Restoration was completed along this reach to
address the impairments including and an agricultural impoundment,floodplain dislocation,bank erosion,
nutrient input,livestock access and buffer degradation.YB2-A totals 863 linear feet of Priority I Restoration
and 350 linear feet of Priority II Restoration. The watershed that drains to this reach is approximately 51
acres and the land use is primarily agricultural. The design approach included breaching the dam and
meandering the channel within the natural valley of the agricultural impoundment. A minimum 50-foot
buffer was established and planted with native riparian vegetation and any invasive species located within
the conservation easement will be removed. Woody debris and log grade control structures were installed
along the bed and banks to improve in-stream habitat and stability.
YB2-B totals 1,350 linear feet of Priority I Restoration. Priority I restoration was conducted to address
impairments including floodplain dislocation, bank erosion, sediment loading, nutrient input, livestock
access and buffer degradation. The watershed at the upstream end of this reach is approximately 78 acres
and the watershed at the downstream end is approximately 102 acres. The design approach will included
meandering the propoed channel within the natural valley,backfilling the existing stream,reconnecting the
Poplar Creek 5 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2020

channel to its floodplain. Woody debris and log grade control structures were installed along the bed and
banks to improve in-stream habitat and stability.
Enhancement I was completed for 272 linear feet of YB2-B. Minor bank stabilization was installed along
this channel. Buffers were re-vegetated with native riparian species to a minimum of 50-feet from the
stream. The riparian buffer is further protected by the livestock exclusion fence that was installed around
this reach.
Reach YB3
Reach YB3 totals 760 linear feet of Enhancement II. Enhancement began at the northern portion of the
conservation easement. The drainage area for this reach is approximately 29 acres. The channel is stable
throughout and provides a variety of aquatic habitats.Open areas of the buffer were re-vegetated with native
riparian species to a minimum of 50-feet from the stream. The riparian buffer was is further protected by
the livestock exclusion fence that was installed around this reach.
1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions
Stream construction and planting was first completed in May 2019. RES setup cross sections, vegetation
plots,and stream monitoring devices in June 2019 but did not turn in an as-built report before the scheduled
July site visit with IRT due to a delay in receiving the as-built survey. On July 9,2019,the IRT visited the
site and disapproved of the stream construction. The major issue was improperly installed structures that
caused bank and bed erosion only after a few rainfall events. Additionally,the site is located in a confined
valley with an unknown influx of groundwater. Following the site visit, RES used the completed as-built
survey from July 2019 and amended the design plans to exchange most of the log toe structures with brush
toe structures and added several log sills to match the original design slope. Reaches YB1-C and YB2-B
were repaired in the fall of 2019.In December 2019,the areas affected by construction were replanted and
RES reset Cross Sections 5 and 6, reshot all cross sections, and remeasured Vegetation Plots 6, 7, 8, and
R2. The site was surveyed in January 2020 and the as-built survey and record drawings are in the Baseline
Monitoring Report.Project credits are based on design centerline,but as-built stream lengths are shown on
Table 1.
1.7 Year 1 Monitoring Performance (MY1)
The Poplar Creek Baseline Monitoring activities were performed in September 2020. All Year 1
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 eight permanent vegetation plots and two random vegetation plots was completed in
September 2020.MYO monitoring data indicates that nine of the 10 plots are exceeding the interim success
criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 243 to 1,578 planted stems per
acre with a mean of 955 planted stems per acre across all plots. VP4 did not meet success criteria and the
0.77-acre area in and around it will be replanted this dormant season.A total of 16 species were documented
within the plots and the average planted stem height was 3.9 feet.Volunteer species were noted in VP1 and
VP7.RES also performed four additional random vegetation plots in the DWR crediting area of the drained
pond and all four exceeded 320 stems per acre. Vegetation data are in Appendix C, associated photos are
in Appendix B,and plot locations are in Appendix B.
Poplar Creek 6 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2020

Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is
becoming well established throughout the project.A few small areas of re-sprouted Chinese privet observed
and treated in 2020 in the wooded sections of the easement and will continue as needed throughout the
monitoring period. Additionally,the cut privet that fell into YB3 was removed from the channel in 2020.
Visual assessments of the easement boundary found no encroachments or evidence of cattle entry.
Stream Geomorphology
Geomorphology data for MYO was collected during September 2020. Summary tables and cross section
plots are in Appendix D. Overall the MY1 cross sections relatively match the baseline conditions. Cross
Sections 5 and 6 showed some deepening and widening in MY1 and will be monitored closely over the
next couple of years. This year's conditions show that shear stress and velocities have been reduced for all
restoration/enhancement reaches.All reaches were designed as sand bed channels and remain classified as
sand bed channels post-construction.
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. In MY1, RES observed a number of
failing log toe structures on YB1-C and a few bank erosion areas on YB2-B (Appendix B). The log toes
were from the original construction and were functioning properly during the as-built repairs. The failing
log toes and bank erosion areas will be replaced with a combination of minor bank grading, coir matting,
livestake installation, sod mats, coir logs, and/or brush toes. RES engineers will visit the site again this
winter when the vegetation has died back to create a detailed Adaptative Management Plan that will be
provided to the IRT for review. Another visual observation was wetland vegetation growing in the stream
channel specifically in YB2-A. RES treated this vegetation with aquatic safe herbicide in May 2020 and
plans to continue treatments while livestakes establish.
Stream Hydrology
One stage recorder and three flow gauges were installed in June 2019: one stage recorder on Reach YB2-
B; one flow gauge on YB1-C,one flow gauge on YB2-A, and one flow gauge on YB3.Flow gauges are in
place to document at least intermittent flow and stage recorders to document out of bank events. The stage
recorder on YB2-B did not measure any bankfull events in MY1.This gauge is located in the Enhancement
I section therefore the top of bank is higher than the rest of the site. RES plans to move this stage recorder
upstream into the Restoration section of YB2-B. To supplement the stage recorder data in MY1, RES
measured the bank height at the flow gauge on YB2-A and it recorded six bankfull events with the highest
being 1.05 feet above the top of bank.The flow gauge on YB 1-C measured one flow event that lasted event
274 consecutive days. The flow gauge on YB2-A measured one flow event that lasted 273 consecutive
days. YB3 measured seven flow events with the longest lasting 97 consecutive days. Gauge locations can
be found on Figure 2 and associated data is in Appendix E.
Wetland Hydrology of Existing Wetlands
Three groundwater wells(GW1,GW2,GW3)were installed at to monitor wetland hydrology in the existing
wetlands on site, per request by the IRT. GW1 measured a consecutive hydroperiod of 84%; GW2 had a
3%hydroperiod; and GW3 had a 7%hydroperiod. Groundwater well locations can be found on Figure 2
and the associated data is in Appendix E.
Poplar Creek 7 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2020

2. Methods
Stream 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. The stage recorder includes an automatic pressure
transducer placed in PVC casing in a pool. The elevation of the bed and top of bank at the stage recorder
are used to detect bankfull events. The flow gauges were also installed in pools and record flow conditions
at an hourly interval.Water level data from the flow gauges is corrected using the height of the downstream
riffle to detect stream flow events.
Vegetation success is being monitored at eight permanent monitoring plots and two random monitoring
plots.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.The random plots are to be collected in locations where there are no permanent
vegetation plots. Random plots will most likely be collected in the form of 100 square meter belt transacts
with variable dimensions. Tree species and height will be recorded for each planted stem and the transects
will be mapped and new locations will be monitored in subsequent years.
Wetland hydrology is monitored to document wetland hydrology (as requested by the IRT). This will be
accomplished with three automatic pressure transducer gauges (located in groundwater wells)that record
daily groundwater levels. Two have been installed in Wetland F adjacent to YB1-C and one in Wetland C
adjacent to YB2-B. One automatic pressure transducer is installed above ground for use as a barometric
reference. Gauges are downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods are calculated during the growing
season. Gauge installation followed current regulatory guidance. Visual observations of primary and
secondary wetland hydrology indicators are also recorded during quarterly site visits.
Poplar Creek 8 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2020

3. References
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1.U.S.Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,Vicksburg,Mississippi.
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 Mitigation Services(NCDMS). "Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities
2010"(Amended 2018).
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
Resource Environmental Solutions(2018). Poplar Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Final
Mitigation Plan.
Rosgen,D. (1996),Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition,Wildland Hydrology,Pagosa Springs,CO.
Schafale,M.P. 2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,Third Approximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,Division of Parks and Recreation,NCDENR,Raleigh,NC.
US Army Corps of Engineers(USACE),2003.April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines.
USACE. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic
and Gulf Coastal Plain Region(Version 2.0),ed. J. S. Wakeley,R. W. Lichvar,and C.V.Noble.
ERDC/EL TR-10-20.Vicksburg,MS: U.S.Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
USACE,2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Poplar Creek 9 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Stream Mitigation Site October 2020

Appendix A
Background Tables

Table 1. Poplar Creek-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
I
Full Channel Restoration,Channel Relocation,Planted Buffer,Exclusion of
YB1-C 602 678 Warm R PI 1.00000 678.000 678 Livestock,Permanent Conservation Easement
Full Channel Restoration within former agricultural impoundment,Channel
Relocation,Planted Buffer,Exclusion of Livestock,Permanent Conservation
YB2-A 0 863 Warm R PI 1.00000 863.000 863 Easement
Full Channel Restoration through daylighting of stream,Channel Relocation,
YB2-A 0 350 Warm R PII 1.00000 350.000 350 Planted Buffer,Exclusion of Livestock,Permanent Conservation Easement
Full Channel Restoration,Channel Relocation,Planted Buffer,Exclusion of
YB2-B 1358 1350 Warm R PI 1.00000 1350.000 1350 Livestock,Permanent Conservation Easement
YB2-B 272 272 Warm El 1.50000 181.333 272 Bank Stabilization,Planted Buffer,Permanent Conservation Easement
Bank Stabilization,Invasive Treatment,Riparian Buffer Planting,Permanent
YB3 760 760 Warm Ell 2.50000 304.000 760 Conservation Easement
Project Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non-Rip Coastal
Restoration Level Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non-Riv Wetland Marsh
Restoration 3241.000
Re-establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Enhancement I 181.333
Enhancement II 304.000
Creation
Preservation
Total 3726.333
Credit Loss in Buffer -225
Credit Gain in Buffer 425
Total Adjusted SMUs 3926.333

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Poplar Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 1 year
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 10 months
Number of reporting Years : 1
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or Deliverable Complete Delivery
Restoration Plan NA Nov-18
Final Design —Construction Plans NA Mar-19
Stream Construction NA May-19
Stream Construction Repairs NA Oct-19
Bareroot root planting NA May-19
Bareroot root planting after repairs NA Dec-19
As-built (Year 0 Monitoring— baseline) Dec-19 Mar-20
Invasive Treatment NA Jan-20
Invasive Treatment NA Oct-20
Year 1 Monitoring XS: Sep-2020 Oct-20
VP: Sep-2020
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
Poplar Creek Stream Mitigation Site
Designer WK Dickson and Co., Inc. /720 Corporate Center Dr., Raleigh,
NC 27607
Primary project design POC Ben Carroll
Construction Contractor Carolina Environmental Contracting Inc.
PO Box 1905 Mount Airy, NC 27030
Construction contractor POC James Poe
Survey Contractor Matrix East, PLLC / 906 N. Queen St., Suite A, Kinston, NC
28501
Survey contractor POC James Watson, PLS
Planting Contractor H&J Forestry
Planting contractor POC Matt Hitch
Seeding Contractor Carolina Environmental Contracting Inc.
PO Box 1905 Mount Airy, NC 27030
Contractor point of contact James Poe
Seed Mix Sources Green Resource
Nursery Stock Suppliers Arborgen
Monitoring Performers RES/ 3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Stream Monitoring POC
Vegetation Monitoring POC Ryan Medric [phone]
Wetland Monitoring POC

Table 4.Project Background Information
Project Name Poplar Creek
County Johnston
Project Area(acres) 23.59
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 35.5521.N,-78.3568.W
Planted Acreage(Acres of Woody Stems Planted) -11.93 ac
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province 65m-Rolling Coastal Plain
River Basin Neuse
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit' 03020201 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 3020201100040
DWR Sub-basin 03-04-02
Project Drainage Area(Acres and Square Miles) 190.0 ac(0.3 sqmi)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <2%
CGIA Land Use Classification Agriculture(55%)Forest(36%)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters YB1-C YB2-A YB2-A YB2-B YB2-B YB3
Length of reach(linear feet) 602 0 0 1358 272 760
Valley confinement(Confined,moderately confined, Moderately Moderately Moderately
unconfined) Confined Unconfined Unconfined Unconfined Confined Confined
Drainage area(Acres and Square Miles) 66 51 51 102 102 29
Perennial,Intermittent,Ephemeral Intermittent Former Pond Former Pond Perennial Perennial Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS-IV/NSW WS-IV/NSW WS-IV/NSW WS-IV/NSW WS-IV/NSW WS-IV/NSW
Stream Classification(existing) G5 NA NA G4 G4 E5
Stream Classification(proposed) E5 E5 E5 E4 E4 E5
Evolutionary trend(Simon) NA NA NA NA NA NA
FEMA classification NA NA NA NA NA NA
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting
Docs?
Water of the United States-Section 404 Yes Yes SAW-2015-
01985
Water of the United States-Section 401 Yes Yes DWR#16-
0979
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes USFWS
(Corr.Letter)
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes SHPO(Corr.
Letter)
Coastal Zone Management Act(CZMA or CAMA) No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes N/A N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A

eL
g Q Grti 4. 2 ,,. •
fk' 43 d, D4 ss c£ Marlin in gcOc
Cae y° srdne F, ed 'apyo,� av
u
Mitchner Dr
ro
1-° x a eesr
w • Q
cp 4 a
Laocr 0,
- - Car,,„Dr.
•
•
•
Jades! •
; 1.ke Of
Cry - `r
q
il v
n
4 ee� o
.3
lire.<n a
�� 4.a
V .rQe
3 •-,N6
e Be
'op,
n
n
Y orneslead La 1dr nape Rd
C.,e
a
V
no4 e
re
B a
6o
Ro,
811, i
m C
bo Lau',
r �.
Rry
1.
wd c ps ,
n 5 ar� Vo
s[ephen son Dr
y0'
c`
°�
Lio°ker Dairy t?r,er- Dr
Oc Qc
�a ,
S'
_ Shady Lana Dr
5 Fri Ce ffi,. _ H a
O - a P w Nar[ley Dr H a SU+rrrse_ - Oda Or -- - $aoAer Dairy Rd Ear owMI 51 a =
o F v m g n 3unse'
9,9
! Se F'Le SranedDi- ri Akp r
��r
d° y Pace SE u 110 Sn4Mpld
P.[red iUn
wh i hey Dr Fierefr Ln Area
Legend
Strickland Or 3 West Casrle Dr Parkway Or
Proposed Easement an[rsr 9rr[Ithnald
Holland Llr
.
N
Date: 6/14/2019
-'�*���� +�`�, Figure 1 -Site Location
I
.-t�1w14 1�1.WR�04%. w Er �
datoairlea„�'�t,,44 Poplar Creek Mitigation Site0
g {#r S Checked by: RTM
�ryr 0 1,000 2,000
Johnston County, North Carolina 1 inch=2,000 feet
Feet

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

r '
AWBA `�
r _ 'Nit At4/.% 110;.°11°-i'lligg: res
V . 4) .0i14,_
[r
. ., ,.
r k,
,,,
,....
'.: ,.. ,,,
i ,,.„...' ,A
:..,,... ....,
. #4,01,,._,,-- ....• ,
C. -tier .,< P _ ., .
'
,,_,„,..,,,.. ,
s .
..... ..
0., „.__
.. ._, ,
,.
_ , „,......, ..,.„,_,,„_,,
,�,. `, 1 0 125 250
•
`l A. ~ © ` 6;,a., \ �,'���,+ _ - - - Feet
�,. : ` ^3 44 Figure 2-
" :.r;' • �4 Current Conditions Plan View
4.�' -', ' , j Poplar Creek
YB2-A �.; 11 Stream Mitigation Site
\\N a ji.ofe‘ .
�r �� ‘ MY12020
py
r , � �` 1� YB3 Johnston County,
t J ' r" '.• �, �� , North Carolina
F ,� + .4 ` .?,. ( Date: 10/28/2020 Drawn by: RTM
tiesr \ ?- o• Checked by:JRM 1 in=250 feet
' :if
:::,,- \, Legend
4If 7x 0 Conservation Easement
*V. , l� Vegetation Plot
YB2-B .- "
Bank Erosion >320 stems/acre
M <320 stems/acre
r = s <' _ T` Random Vegetation Plot
w
>320 stems/acre
'" Non-USAGE
Y k Existing Wetland
Q Cross Section
.- .6\
As-Built Top of Bank
- Structure
is
. ., Mitigation f P"- f •• Plan Stream
' • 1 to - P1 Restoration
... P2 Restoration
YB 1-C
Enhancement I
GW2 0 Enhancement II
wF �. 9,Js ® Stage Recorder
Vegetation Condition Assessment q0"
w Target Community W? `� •
• Flow Gauge
w Present Marginal Absent ��` ® _`
a Absent No Fill • Ambient
-
is 'andwater Hydroperiod
>i a, e' � � ® >
•N Present `` >5%
> Failing Log Toes
a ® <5%

Poplar Creek MY1 Fixed Vegetation Plot Photos
� I . s - TT 1.- ;, ,,„ra+�i6,,M'�A .
oi
.:.
9�
a-. a x ' � y1 M �' � ° � }J R4. r le."...
A' Yn �' � 4 dxx Ys'I:i
'''' :t �'r 4i. T ZE .." h,� r py I r sS3b rvh- ti as 5 ^ot$
''''Pl".A"-:1,;.; ,-,A.,..N,Lt`c#-; 4W4,'4.1V
-Ii
� J. • " bra ++ C y+# y,.s, VsegatationPlotr1 (9/3 0/2020)
Vegatation Plot 2(9/30/2020)
xi A. .�1
a e � t
Y F 4
♦ 1/
0 ._ n , Ts :.... .�yyam,., g. yy���
' Irtr 44'44 Sr...! .4''':'1,:e'"` '
< a iFl,, yr$ - r: + � i ',;i1; ` x4'� Sd' F
;_x;-''..,,,4, tq.. a �. '.ydq s1 #y -✓ :a �(' 2,p �3 �j P '- x "'i: r-•.. ----;-I .7-4 ,,,,, ,.,.,.. „ .. �� a�n 'W.,_ ��b ._ a 7rY.n} +
„--_`.j.,r . i � :� a.4r.^ Sd' : '' `.. v'-"`�t -, ,x Y 4-.,..,. C. ., ,, 'a r✓wr '� r .r 5 -.,
,,.# : *.:-. r :x; e 'b ��`„ 4�' ,�.. r,{ - Sh p t ` ;" - `
fAil.
i ,•. 4•tIA A x,�Y.x.�^ 4 � '1 -•` • a4 _-:; - v ,! a p'' - u7 : 4� . T
r$lr _ .. .;. _� ...� _ -i.� .a; s u .s nY t'# + .. . •vh_4. T�l
Vegatation Plot 3 (9/30/2020) Vegatation Plot 4 (9/30/2020),
t_ t -''''.4
` ar 1 ' 1 1 �� , -i_�r ,ma. ♦ +t 1 - a a* .r sae i
''''', � x ' 't,
( , ' 1,.- �4 pry , ^l•4�' 1 --..
i
Vegatation Plot 5 (9/30/2020) Vegatation Plot 6(9/30/2020)

•
TR .
•
W ra _ � .F'f J
g
' t�
p �' a u(y,K
1 Y" �
f • a -
,
•
F. • n,-`
� tnet % • l` s r 'j '.iYF\ ^; ..7 if,6 R �j J ;,. R �
r: a< ed ...:-...-'.-r.::...:-:iiif.',...4.4,.... ..._.- :. ' . ... . -..,,.-.Y.::• • '..".•••:',:•....'..,'"
i''.'lg .--•,i,.4.-.'''''''...-".•'-.-..ci,,.,•Ar.::41t,..'•`••':: ' '...T.,'., • ' :
''..:1.=':4,:,....-_,:. ,',,,..1.,1-4,i-*143;14•:•!.,.,::::4; ...-- -.T.,.,,:..; .,.,-,: 4,..,.-.-::..!..!:.‘,,i ..,-.--K,,i-4....,,,,.:4',N.,,=;:4.,:.-.tv,.1'..4.„''t,\',,1\.,,.,.,',...,,. ..,... .
Vegatation Plot 7 (9./30/2020) Vegatation Plot 8 (9/30/2020)
Poplar Creek MY1 Random Vegetation Plot Photos
IL � a id 3 £} y 4ta .1� },
„" , • L tW e,fill 't 'k a r`;
N s r+ n Yf
°fib.- SI f x a p 1 f
3.@wri YP
Random Plot 5 (9/30/2020) Random Plot 6(9/30/2020)

Poplar Creek Monitoring Device Photos
,„ . ,,,,,,,-:.--;;.,...;',: 'Titioi; ir....*: #,_.:---:-..,-..-:'•.:-'. -' .-,:;,-!..frno-ati.:2- 5•;:t4,441' (-.!-- ;;I:i*As!.,°i-:
hi
+�; < cap:$4,- - ,•t.1r�
� #�� 4 •
%
!s ` :' .• fib
Stage Recorder(YB2-B) Flow Gauge (YB2-A)
rSys ?
> ,� 6:t a ski
Alio
�. d`` .+ ( r: . n 4 -a w .,a , � �y s.
Flow Gauge (YB 1—C) Flow Gauge (YB3)

Stream Problem Areas
Stone Creek
Feature Issue/Location Photo
Failing Log Toe Structures/YB 1-C .. '',...:,.f,-,...,,r- -47:;,;1!"-;'Z'A i .T.t''''.'"t" -.-'
, a�
,:_i,tt,,,d,:::..„:,k,,-,,,_,,..ii,,,..4..vez,,,,„....i,.,..:._-_,...:k.,..,..,-,\:,....!-.„,..,,,,,,:"--,0„.!:,..i......,„._,..,....\--../.- �_
K -',sue •.L, a.
� x
a
Bank Erosion/YB2-B �',, ,A a 1 � g
'-f*e'- .
.. 1 i3 �'✓ $f..: F sue.4 kx. ,-,,t.'‘,..T. ti';',..4-!A:',"„'"::-.'-'''''',:..c.i..:-..-.„-:,.. /.04. 4.";.,-_."...'
�a I�.
Vegetation Problem Areas
Stone Creek
Feature Category/Location/Size Photo
a m - pia
Low Stem Density/YB2 A(VP4)/0.77 acres �, �
tom ` +T 0.
h
4

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 5. Planted Species Summary
Common Name Scientific Name Total Stems Planted
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 2,000
River Birch Betula nigra 1,500
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 1,500
Water Tupelo Nyssa aquatica 1,200
Overcup Oak Quercus lyrata 1,200
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 1,200
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 1,200
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum 1,200
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 1,000
Tuliptree Liriodendron tulipifera 1,000
Water Oak Quercus nigra 1,000
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 600
Silky Dogwood Corn us amomum 500
White Dogwood Corn us florida 400
Blackgum Nyssa sylvatica 400
American Hazelnut Corylus americana 200
Total 16,100
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Planted Volunteer Total Success Average
Plot# Criteria Planted Stem
Stems/Acre Stems/Acre Stems/Acre
Met? Height(ft)
1 850 121 971 Yes 3.7
2 809 0 809 Yes 4.2
3 728 0 728 Yes 5.2
4 r 243 1 0 243 No 4.1
5 1295 0 1295 Yes 4.6
6 850 0 850 Yes 2.6
7 1578 1416 2995 Yes 3.3
8 1295 0 1295 Yes 3.3
R1 728 0 728 Yes 3.8
R2 1,174 0 1,174 Yes 4.1
Project Avg 955 154 1,109 Yes 3.9

Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7a. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Poplar Creek Current Plot Data(MY1 2020) Annual Means
06062019-01-0001 06062019-01-0002 06062019-01-0003 06062019-01-0004 06062019-01-0005 06062019-01-0006 06062019-01-0007 06062019-01-0008 MY1(2020) MYO(2019)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Betula nigra river birch Tree 4 4 4 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 5 5 5 6 6 6 30 30 30 59 59 59
Cephalanthus occidentali common buttonbush Shrub 1 1 1
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5 8 8 8
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 9 9 9 12 12 12
Liquidambarstyraciflua sweetgum Tree 15 15
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 20 4 4 24 15 15 15
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 1 1 1 8 8 8 5 5 5 12 12 12 5 5 5 1 1 1 9 9 9 41 41 41 42 42 42
Quercus oak Tree 33 33 33
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 15 15 15 11 11 11
Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 6 6 6 5 5 5
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 6 6 6 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 27 27 27 26 26 26
Rhus copallinum flameleaf sumac shrub 3 3
Taxodium distichum bald cypress Tree 10 10 10 4 4 4 5 5 5 1 1 1 7 7 7 17 17 17 5 5 5 49 49 49 34 34 34
Stem count 21 21 24 20 20 20 18 18 18 6 6 6 32 32 32 21 21 21 39 39 74 32 32 32 189 189 227 251 251 251
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 8
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.20
Species count 7 7 8 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 8 8 8 7 7 7 7 7 9 7 7 7 11 11 13 14 14 14
Stems per ACRE 850 850 971 809 809 809 728 728 728 243 243 243 1295 1295 1295 850 850 850 1578 1578 2995 1295 1295 1295 956 956 1148 1270 1270 1270

Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7b. Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data
Random Plot 5 Random Plot 6
# Species Height(cm) # Species Height(cm)
1 Taxodium distichum 160 1 Quercus lyrata 135
2 Taxodium distichum 110 2 Quercus lyrata 155
3 Quercus michauxii 100 3 Quercus lyrata 150
4 Taxodium distichum 70 4 Quercus lyrata 170
5 Quercus michauxii 80 5 Quercus lyrata 150
6 Quercus lyrata 65 6 Quercus phellos 135
7 Betula nigra 360 7 Quercus lyrata 90
8 Taxodium distichum 75 8 Quercus michauxii 115
9 Taxodium distichum 90 9 Quercus michauxii 95
10 Betula nigra 165 10 Quercus lyrata 82
11 Corn us amomum 120 11 Taxodium distichum 170
12 Betula nigra 95 12 Quercus lyrata 75
13 Taxodium distichum 70 13 Platanus occidentalis 100
14 Taxodium distichum 80 14 Platanus occidentalis 160
15 Taxodium distichum 90 15 Platanus occidentalis 180
16 Taxodium distichum 80 16 Taxodium distichum 130
17 Taxodium distichum 155 17 Quercus lyrata 155
18 Quercus michauxii 125 18 Quercus lyrata 80
Stems/Acre 728 19 Quercus michauxii 65
Average Height(cm) 116 20 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 135
Average Height(ft) 3.8 21 Quercus lyrata 100
Plot Size(m) 25 x 4 22 Quercus michauxii 60
23 Taxodium distichum 145
24 Quercus lyrata 140
25 Quercus michauxii 80
26 Quercus lyrata 110
27 Betula nigra 130
28 Betula nigra 165
29 Betula nigra 155
Stems/Acre 1174
Average Height(cm) 125
Average Height(ft) 4.1
Plot Size(m) 25 x 4

Appendix D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

.r,
� • al WiPE y,�Act .
4 Y r' i iSr ,
♦ yy t'n b i,`ykaz'- ray '.mr` x+3 : "^R - 6'il v■ 1%. ,.'
' ^F j' c-,, 3.+ - .., 0- i E '7 '4 -° y$--. `' t y' {yam y - -
v ,y�< -;i a • 5 'L� '•� f\ `R.A .' a te'
`3y r .ga V rt ��.3 x+ fi . � Ki' jy ° -` x v g ' � �frFkrl� . a0
�'� ram,
fr�, s '! i 'R6l ~ ■ � C 1 - ▪ 4 rr 1 �A i 49-f -- !`..
Upstream Downstream
Poplar Creek-Reach YB2-A-Cross Section 1 -Riffle-P1 Restoration
178
177
176
o• 175
d
w
No.470,_ 7
173
172
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2020 — — —Approx.Bankfull Floodprone Area Low Bank
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 1
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA 173.92 173.9
Bankfull Width(ft)' 6.5 6.2
Floodprone Width(ft)' >50.1 >50.1
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 0.8 0.8
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 173.92 174.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 3.1 3.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' >7.8 >8.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 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

�.�y-.�,war b--:• _
ti r'
1. .•kL-,.7 y . - _.. 'yy
+. 'r- t -c. `¢ s P .',.. yr.
L i .N� 1r airy t ';` _ y
.- .:. . po,.- •,,.., ---."=-4',`
i ? ..>•.
Upstream Downstream
Poplar Creek-Reach YB2-A-Cross Section 2 -Pool -P1 Restoration
178
177
176
c
° 175
d
w
174
173
172 ,
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2020 — — —Approx.Bankfull Low Bank
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 2
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 173.96 174.0
Bankfull Width(ft)1 8.9 8.6
Floodprone Width(ft)1 NA NA
BankfullMaxDepth(ft)2 1.0 0.9
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 173.96 174.0
Bankfull Cros s Sectional Area(ft2)2 4.7 4.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t NA NA
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t NA NA
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

•
r.i
r7t a* � e L i f g� �gg) 14 1 ,
Upstream Downstream
Poplar Creek-Reach YB2-A-Cross Section 3 -Riffle-P2 Restoration
176
175
174
° 173
w 172 —
171
170
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2020 — — -Approx.Bankfull — —Floodprone Area Low Bank
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 3
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 172.30 172.3
Bankfull Width(ft)1 5.9 5.5
Floodprone Width(ft)1 >19.6 >19.4
BankfullMaxDepth(ft)2 0.6 0.8
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 172.30 172.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 2.2 3.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t >3.3 >3.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t 1.0 1.2
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

•
a tESQrk�`$ ,. r ,4 -".
' T 1
7 r ,
Fr
',:. 3 'Aid` �.4 ' - r /1, ,- „ ` , .: ..., $'�•F .� • ,y�f;i
� �r
Vir
/ ifs Cr � -L x tiy � w _�' di,�.'I ,� �.-i
Upstream Downstream
Poplar Creek-Reach YB2-A-Cross Section 4-Pool -P2 Restoration
176
175
174
F.
° 173
w 172
171
170 ,
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2020 — — —Approx.Bankfull Low Bank
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 4
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 172.33 172.3
Bankfull Width(ft)1 5.2 4.9
Floodprone Width(ft)1 NA NA
BankfullMaxDepth(ft)2 0.9 1.1
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 172.33 172.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 2.7 3.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 4 NA NA
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 4 NA NA
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

t �� NS5 § 4 g i� e o- i 5
$ gyp, Vittiti
g ��u
•
ko.
r� - * �s..£' { �R � P'' xp �p L am^ ' I. - tee ii• ,. E`--¢>F"-,.
xr� � g � ��1R a
Upstream Downstream
Poplar Creek- Reach YB2-B -Cross
155 Section 5- Pool -P1 Restoration
154
153
g 152
0
(0151 — — —� — — — -- -- — — — — —� — — — -- ...-
w
150 -
149
148
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 - —MY1-2020 — — —Approx.Bankfull Low Bank
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 5
Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 151.41 151.0
Bankfull Width(ft)' 10.3 8.1
Floodprone Width(ft)1 NA NA
Bankfull MaxDepth(ft)2 1.7 2.7
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 151.41 151.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft� � 9.0 12.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio)i NA NA
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio i NA NA
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

•
CiJ - - Y:-y -
---------------- A-.- - ' '
ir -1 xM y p W
,Ak
ter ` y'S�
,—nlief - ..-t .,', .., :,,,,,;.,-. ,,,-. - - - ,
_, .,,ii
T YF � y/ F_.K+_ T e '`: /fi, '+ •. iTea, ,. ,
Upstream Downstream
Poplar Creek-Reach YB2-B -Cross Section 6 -Riffle-P1 Restoration
154 -
153
152
F.
° 151 J I ""
m
d
w 150
149
148 ,
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2020 — — —Approx.Bankfull - —Floodprone Area Low Bank
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 6
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 151.06 150.7
Bankfull Width(ft)1 6.9 5.7
Floodprone Width(ft)1 >47.8 >40.7
BankfullMaxDepth(ft)2 1.5 1.8
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 151.06 151.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 5.7 8.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t >6.9 >7.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t 1.0 1.3
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

p ;�1 y s i �+
3 r r• a
r .
a TY
`''e ' ter - ! al
i
Upstream Downstream
Poplar Creek-Reach YB2-B -Cross Section 7 -Pool -Enhancement I
137
136
135
c
° 134
d
w 133
132
131
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2020 — — —Approx.Bankfull Low Bank Elevation
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 7
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA 132.49 132.4
Bankfull Width(1)1 9.2 8.8
Floodprone Width(ft)1 NA NA
BankfullMaxDepth(ft)2 0.9 2.5
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 133.71 133.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 6.3 22.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 1 NA NA
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1 NA NA
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

�. a t_
}• r, ,
ti J � 1
,ts A, x R G
d•am, te r` �,a-. F'..it �. .,': /�� wl,:
Upstream Downstream
Poplar Creek-Reach YB2-B -Cross Section 8 -Riffle-Enhancement I
136.5
135.5
134.5 _
F.
°▪ 133.5
d
w 132.5
131.5 — -
130.5 ,
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2020 — — —Approx.Bankfull — —Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 8
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA 131.67 131.5
Bankfull Width(ft)1 5.1 5.8
Floodprone Width(ft)1 8.2 7.5
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 0.9 3.1
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 133.83 133.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 2.5 23.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t 1.6 1.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t 3.3 3.9
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

1i
,$r ?; -- i � say `
ti,
' �,v �f k 1 y. y a 27`° `,..t,.� \�_ a ':r s yafy {.
Upstream Downstream
Poplar Creek- Reach YB1-C -Cross Section 9 -Pool -P1 Restoration
149
148
147
° 146
as
N
LLl 145
rs ewer.T A•r•T 7 et••P w•TI A.r•T• •T•drr r .T T•in. es-..r•R•-r•I.r%re•r•T A el.dr.r
144
143
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MYO-2019 MY1-2020 — — —Approx.Bankfull Low Bank
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 9
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 145.22 145.3
Bankfull Width(ft)1 8.7 9.2
Floodprone Width(ft)1 NA NA
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 1.4 1.4
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 145.22 145.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2
5.3 4.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t NA NA
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t NA NA
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

3.i.-..,_,-ii"li.•VAVP, -..e-,-..-.1.',*tik;;:}r. ,..,ii,,;,...,tv..-y*,.%-,,,. .',,:-::-.: - . leit*.4,-,.„;-,, ,„:..,7..,;,-.1.:::,e.,,,... .-:..-,-,0j kfqt-:•'44;;,0:":'iim,
• rs
ayr �`„,z+
� �4W r'r ten \ ,: a awn �0';e1. -Ii.'",. ...„; ' , - , -• ��' � a� r ap� �' X ��� k r�
Upstream Downstream
Poplar Creek-Reach YB1-C -Cross Section 10- Riffle-P1 Restoration
148
147
146
° 145
m
w 144
143
142 ,
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MY0-2019 MY1-2020 — — —Approx.Bankfull - —Floodprone Area Low Bank
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 10
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 144.20 144.3
Bankfull Width(ft)' 5.0 4.8
Floodprone Width(ft)1 >38.4 >37.0
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 0.8 1.1
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 144.20 144.4
Bankfull Cro ss Sectional Area(ft2)2
2.8 3.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t >7.6 >7.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t 1.0 1.2
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

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Poplar Creek Mitigation Site -Reach YB1-C
Parameter Gauge Regional Curve Pe'sx|sungoonmuon Reference meach(es)Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate'Riffle Only u uL sq. Min Mean Meu Max So° n Min Mean Meu Max So° n Min Meu Max Min Mean Meu Max So° n
oonmmn Width(ft) - - - - - 5.2 - - - - - 9.9 - - - - 4.9 - - - 5.0 - - -
Flooupmnevwum(ft) - - 6.0 - - - - - 50.0 - - - - '11 - - - 38.4 - - -
oonmmnMeonoenm(ft) - - - - - 0.5 - - - - - 1.1 - - - - 0.5 - - - - - - -
,00nmmnMaxoepth(ft) - - 0.7 - - - - - 1.7 - - - - 0.8 - - - 0.8 - - -
oonmmnomss Sectional Area(ft) - - - - - 2.4 - - - - - 11.2 - - - - 2.6 - - - 2.8 - - ---
Width/Depth Ratio - - 11.3 - - - - - 8.7 - - - - 9.1 - - - - - - ---
Entrenchment Ratio -- - 1.2 - -- - -- - "z.z - -- - -- "z.z -- - -- 7.6 -- - ---
'Bank Height Ratio -' '- 3.6 '- -' '- -' '- 1.3 '- -' '- -' 1.0 -' '- -' 1.0 __ __ ---
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) -- - -- - -- - 2.4 - -- nn -- - 1.176 - 17.15 7.4 11.1 10.4 15.5 2.8 16
Riffle Swpe(ft/ft) -- - -- - -- - 0.2 - -- 6.3 -- - 0.3 - 9.6 0.3 2.5 1.6 7.0 2.2 16
Pool Length(ft) -- - -- - -- - o - -- nn -- - 3.92 - 16.17 6.1 13.1 11.8 27.1 5.8 18
Poo/Max depth(ft) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
Pool Spacing(ft) - - - - - - zo - - 57 - - 9.8 - 27.93 19.0 33.1 30.5 55.1 10.6 18
Pattern
Channel oemwum(ft) - - 20.0 - - - - 41.2 - 43.5 - - - 13 - - - 13 - - ---
Radius of Curvature(ft) - - 10.0 - - - 13.11 - 24.6 - - - 10 - - - 10 - - -
no:oonmmnwium(ft/ft) - - 1.9 - - - 1.2 - 2.3 - - - z - - - z - - ---
Meander Wavelength(ft) - - 45.0 - - - 49.5 - 64.9 - - - no - - - no - - ---
Meander Width Ratio - - 3.8 - - - 3.8 - 4 - - - 2.7 - - - 2.7 - - ---
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress kmmpmennA|me - - --
Mox part size(mm)mobilized otuonmmn -' '- ---
Stream Power(transport capacity) vwm^ - - --
Adumona/Reach Parameters
nouoeno/ouumoouon on sn sn sn
oonmmn Velocity(fpu) '- -' '- -' -' '- -'
oonmmn o|schorge(cfs) - - - - ---
Valley length(ft) 611 zan 611 --
ohonne|Thalweo length(ft) 720 375 nn 678
Smuouuy(ft) 1.18 1.32 1.3 ---
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) - 0.0023 - ---
Channel slope(ft/ft) 0.0058 0.0025 0.0035 --
'oonmmnF|ooup|om Area(oomu) -' -' '- -'
'mmneoohwmhsmmn000nku - ---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric - ---
Biological or Other - ---
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
/-The distributions for these parameters can include information fro.both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2-For projects with"proximal��gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankftil/�fic*ion =*.
`.m/^"woo measurement data produce=estimate of the^ankfuuo..dp/ain area*acres,which should^"the area from the top of^°*w the toe of the terrace^"=uop".

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary(continued) I
Poplar Creek Mitigation Site -Reach YB2-A
Parameter Gauge2 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es)Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min I Mean I Med I Max I SD5 I n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 15.3 --- --- --- --- 5.0 --- 5.9 6.2 6.2 6.5 0.4 2
Floodprone Width(ft) --- --- >30 --- --- --- --- >11 --- 19.6 34.9 34.9 50.1 21.6 2
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 1.6 --- --- --- --- 0.5 --- 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.1 2
1Bankfull Max Depth
2.0 --- --- --- --- 0.7 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) ___ Agricultural Impoundment
23.9 2.6 2.2 2.7 2.7 3.1 0.6 2
Width/Depth Ratio --- --- 9.8 --- --- --- --- 9.7 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Entrenchment Ratio --- --- 1.2 --- --- --- --- >2.2 --- 3.3 5.6 5.6 7.8 3.2 2
'Bank Height Ratio --- --- 3.6 --- --- --- --- 1.0 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 12 --- --- 35 --- --- 4.1 --- 12 6.3 12.2 10.4 24.1 5.4 20
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 1.1 --- --- 2.7 --- --- 0.7 --- 0.7 0.1 1.3 0.9 3.9 1.2 20
Pool Length(ft) 3.2 --- --- 18 --- --- 1.1 --- 6.2 2.2 9.9 7.2 20.9 5.6 18
Pool Max depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --
--- --- --- --- --- ---
Pool Spacing(ft) 28.7 --- --- 62 --- --- 9.8 --- 21.2 27.2 65.2 66.4 108.3 23.0 18
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) --- 36 --- 114 --- --- --- 13 --- --- --- 13 --- --- ---
Radius of Curvature(ft) --- 14 --- 73 --- --- --- 11 --- --- --- 11 --- --- ---
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) --- 0.9 --- 4.8 --- --- --- 2.2 --- --- --- 2.2 --- --- ---
Meander Wavelength(ft) --- 112 --- 345 --- --- --- 43 --- --- --- 43 --- --- ---
Meander Width Ratio --- 2.4 --- 7.5 --- --- --- 2.6 --- --- --- 2.6 --- --- ---
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 E4 E5 E5
Bankfull Velocity(fps) --- --- --
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) --- --- --
Valley length(ft) 1238 1068 ---
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 1500 1246 1213
Sinuosity(ft) 1.21 1.17 ---
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.011 --- ---
Channel slope(ft/ft) 0.01 0.0035 ---
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) --- --- ---
4%of Reach with Eroding Banks I I ---
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(continued) I
Poplar Creek Mitigation Site -Reach YB2-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 SD5 n Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 6.2 --- --- --- --- --- 15.3 --- --- 1.0 5.3 --- 5.4 --- --- 6.9 --- --- ---
Floodprone Width(ft) --- --- 7.0 --- --- --- --- --- >30 --- --- 1.0 >11 --- >12 --- --- 47.8 ---
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 0.4 --- --- --- --- --- 1.6 --- --- 1.0 0.5 --- 0.5 --- --- --- --- --- ---
1Bankfull Max Depth(ft) --- --- 0.6 --- --- --- --- --- 2.0 --- --- 1.0 0.7 --- 0.7 --- --- 1.5 --- --- ---
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) --- --- --- --- --- 2.5 --- --- --- --- --- 23.9 --- --- 1.0 2.6 --- 2.7 --- --- 5.7 --- --- ---
Width/Depth Ratio --- --- 15.5 --- --- --- --- --- 9.8 --- --- 1.0 9.7 --- 10.3 --- --- --- --- --- ---
Entrenchment Ratio --- --- 1.1 --- --- --- --- --- 1.2 --- --- 1.0 >2.2 --- >2.2 --- --- 6.9 --- --- ---
'Bank Height Ratio --- --- 5.7 --- --- --- --- --- 3.6 --- --- 1.0 1.0 --- 1.0 --- --- 1.0 --- --- ---
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 12 --- --- 35 --- --- 4.1 --- 12.7 5.4 13.8 13.3 27.2 6.3 25
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 1.1 --- --- 2.7 --- --- 0.8 --- 1.96 0.0 2.3 2.1 7.3 1.9 25
Pool Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 3.2 --- --- 18 --- --- 1.1 --- 6.5 4.6 12.3 10.5 30.0 5.7 25
Pool Max depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Pool Spacing(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 28.7 --- --- 62 --- --- 9.8 --- 22.5 22.1 50.2 46.2 110.8 23.5 25
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) --- --- 20.0 --- --- --- --- 36 --- 114 --- --- 9 --- 11 9 --- 11 --- --- ---
Radius of Curvature(ft) --- --- 10.0 --- --- --- --- 14 --- 73 --- --- 12 --- 13 12 --- 13 --- --- ---
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) --- --- 1.9 --- --- --- --- 0.9 --- 4.8 --- --- 2.3 --- 2.6 2.3 --- 2.6 --- --- ---
Meander Wavelength(ft) --- --- 45.0 --- --- --- --- 112 --- 345 --- --- 36 --- 40 36 --- 40 --- --- ---
Meander Width Ratio --- --- 3.8 --- --- --- --- 2.4 --- 7.5 --- --- 1.8 --- 2.1 1.8 --- 2.1 --- --- ---
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 --- E4 E4 E4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) --- --- ---
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) --- --- ---
Valley length(ft) --- 1238 750 --- 762 ---
Channel Thalweg length(ft) --- 1500 840 --- 871 1350
Sinuosity(ft) --- 1.21 1.12 --- 1.14 ---
-- 0.011 ---
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) ---
Channel slope(ft/ft) --- 0.01 0.008 --- 0.008 ---
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

Appendix B. Table 9- Monitoring Data-Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number: Poplar Creek 11-0720v2
Cross Section 1(Riffle) Cross Section 2(Pool) Cross Section 3(Riffle) Cross Section 4(Pool) Cross Section 5(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' 173.92 173.9 173.96 174.0 172.30 172.3 172.33 172.3 151.41 151.0
Bankfull Width(ft)1 6.5 6.2 8.9 8.6 5.9 5.5 5.2 4.9 10.3 8.1
Floodprone Width(ft)1 >50.1 >50.1 NA NA >19.6 >19.4 NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.7 2.7
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 173.92 174.0 173.96 174.0 172.30 172.4 172.33 172.5 151.41 151.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 3.1 3.3 4.7 4.9 2.2 3.2 2.7 3.9 9.0 12.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratios >7.8 >8.0 NA NA >3.3 >3.5 NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Bank Height Ratios 1.0 1.0 NA NA 1.0 1.2 NA NA NA NA
Cross Section 6(Riffle) Cross Section 7(Pool)(Enhancement I) Cross Section 8(Riffle)(Enhancement I) Cross Section 9(Pool) Cross Section 10(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' 151.06 150.7 132.49 132.4 131.67 131.5 145.22 145.3 144.20 144.3
Bankfull Width(ft)1 6.9 5.7 9.2 8.8 5.1 5.8 8.7 9.2 5.0 4.8
Floodprone Width(ft)1 >47.8 >40.7 NA NA 8.2 7.5 NA NA >38.4 >37.0
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 1.5 1.8 0.9 2.5 0.9 3.1 1.4 1.4 0.8 1.1
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 151.06 151.1 133.71 133.8 133.83 133.8 145.22 145.2 144.20 144.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 5.7 8.3 6.3 22.5 2.5 23.2 5.3 4.9 2.8 3.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratios >6.9 >7.2 NA NA 1.6 1.3 NA NA >7.6 >7.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratios 1.0 1.3 NA NA 3.3 3.9 NA NA 1.0 1.2
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 Clayton Station
Month Average
30 Percent 70 Percent Precipitation
January 4.24 3.24 4.93 3.72
February 3.64 2.51 4.34 6.45
March 4.57 3.44 5.33 3.53
April 3.24 1.99 3.92 3.80
May 4.17 2.91 4.96 6.46
June 4.14 2.70 4.97 4.36
July 5.43 3.48 6.53 7.01
August 4.58 3.05 5.49 10.79
September 4.54 2.26 5.55 9.57
October 3.16 1.89 3.81 1.36
November 2.95 1.86 3.55 NA
December 3.05 2.02 3.65 NA
Total 47.71 31.35 57.03 57.05
Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Number of Bankfull Maximum Bankfull Date of Maximum Bankfull
Year Events Height(ft) Ewnt
Stage Recorder YB2-B
MY1 2020 0 NA NA
Flow Gauge YB2-A*
MY1 2020 6 1.05 9/1/2020
Year Number of Flow Events Maximum Consecutive Maximum Cummlative
Flow Days Flow Days
Flow Gauge YB1-C
MY1 2020 1 274 274
Flow Gauge YB2-A
MY1 2020 1 273 273
Flow Gauge YB3
MY1 2020 7 97 194
*Bankfull events were measured on Flow Gauge YB2-A in MY1

MY1 Poplar Creek Flow Gauge YB1-C Stream Flow Hydrograph
25 15
- 14
- - 13
I
20 - 12
- 11
c - 10
t - •--
E
—
15 - 9 o
0 _
co I cc
- 7
10 1 6
l NAfilli...ior.
�I - 5
V t
III l 4
5 1. lit 4 , 3
j -
-- 2
- 1
o , . 1 . . I 1 ._ .. I . . . 1 I I 1 , iI, I I. II .111 _ . , . . _iI .. 1 I . I. . i 1 . II 11 1 1 . .1 0
J F M A M J J A S
Months
Rainfall YB1-C Bed — — — DS Riffle Elevation

MY1 Poplar Creek Flow Gauge YB2-A Stream Flow Hydrograph
25 15
- 14
- - 13
20 - 1 12
- 11
c - 10
_a - •E
--
15 - 9 o
0 _
c
cc
co
- - 7
10 - 6
J
-
r 5
- 4
5 :14.11,j.111111111114 f_ 1
fioil.if
I r I I ri %/tit 0111 ittlitlittfili 1
3
ibilitiotiw.
', 1,,,,i,„_040 .t_init_ _ t,
- 1
07 . i . 1 , , I . J . . . 1 ii 1 , th 1 hall . , . . II .. i 1 . I. . I1I . IIi 1 IiII , .I _ 0
J F M A M J J A S
Months
Rainfall YB2-A Bed — — —DS Riffle Elevation — — —Top of Bank

MY1 Poplar Creek Flow Gauge YB3 Stream Flow Hydrograph
25 15
- 14
- - 13
20 - 12
11
- 10
.z - E
15 - 9 c�
cD
0 _
C
cD
g 8 ci
cv
- 7
10 - 6
_ - 5
Ot
t 4
,I
*11111inflitifirlFiltill-111°Ititr*ljtill 441/1/141/1111°-'$111 1711 - - illiii ilitliliiirl - - - - 2
- 1
o , . ._ .. I I I I il, I I. II .III _ . �I .. I I �. I I I . I II 1 II I I 1 .1 0
J F M A M J J A S
Months
Rainfall Bed YB3 — — —DS Riffle Elevation

Table 12.
2020 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 18-Mar through 6-Nov, 233 days)
Poplar Creek
Wetland Consecutive Cumulative
Well ID Occurrences
ID Days Hydroperiod Days
s Hydroperiod
• y (%) (%)
GW1 WC 197 84 197 84 1
GW2 WF 8 3 22 9 11
GW3 WF 17 7 35 15 13
Table 13.
Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Poplar Creek
Wetland Hydroperiod(%)
Well ID ID Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024) (2025) (2026)
GW1 WC 84
GW2 WF 3
GW3 WF 7

2020 Poplar Creek GW1
10 - 12.0
Growing Season
- - 11.0
0 - - 10.0
'\"3\414114)4(4414
444A34. 01111/2111111101111111\ - 9.0
to
d
-10 - 8.0
v
TO-
cD
- - 7.0 0
d -20 - 6.0 0
W _ ++
-
cD
_ - 5.0 ,2.
- i
-30 - - 4.00
O
- - 3.0
-40 - 2.0
- 1.0
i
-50 III II UAL ILA iii ! i .. . II 11 0.0
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
Months
Clayton Daily Rainfall -GW1

2020 Poplar Creek GW2
10 = 12.0
_ Growing Season ►
- - 11.0
0 - - 10.0
1 \,, \41
\t I I
_ 1 I I
to
i
-10 _ I so
— -- ---f - -- - - �_�
C 1 1 , i - 7.00
1;75
d20 - , I 6.0 0
W _ , I(
1 I1 L -
_ t 5.0
3 - i CD
m -30 — 4.0 a
O _ 11 \ 11
( _
- I - 3.0
-40 _ l 2.0
- I - 1.0
‘111
-50 il i 1 II U it i II JAI 1 l il r 4r i .a iJ .. Iii
1 0.0
J F M A M J J A S O N D
Months
Clayton Daily Rainfall —GW2

2020 Poplar Creek GW3
10 - - 12.0
_ Growing Seaso
- - 11.0
0 - - 10.0
- i
a)
o - I 1 'l - 7.0 v
v
GD• -20 - 6.0 p
W -
L _ V 1
c
_ - 5.0 Q
V — CD
m• -30 — i 4.0 it
_ 1
\ \ 1\\11, 1
- - 3.0
-40 - 2.0
- I - 1.0
-50ill l i t Ua L M LA i lild 4 ... 1 i 1 II 11 1 0.0
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D
Months
Clayton Daily Rainfall —GW3