20150416 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2020_20210114

ID#* 20150416 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/14/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal-1/14/2021
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream rJ Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Matthew Reid
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20150416
Existing IDt
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Russell Gap
County: Alexander
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Russell_Gap_100003_MY1_2020.pdf 16.13MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the complete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matthew Reid
Signature:*

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Year 1 (2020) Monitoring Report FINAL
DMS Project ID No. 100003, DEQ Contract No. 6980
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-00826, DWR4 20150416
Alexander County, North Carolina, Catawba River Basin: 03050101-120010
MY Data Collection Period: September —November 2020
Submitted to/Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
INTERNATIONAL
Submission Date: December 2020
4,
''• a This document was printed using 30% recycled paper.

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd. Suite 2011 Asheville, North Carolina 28806
INTERNATIONAL
January 7, 2021
Matthew Reid, Project Manager
NCDEQ, Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Response to DMS Comments for DRAFT MY1 Report
Russell Gap Mitigation Project, Alexander County
DMS Project # 100003, DEQ Contract #6980, Catawba River Basin
Mr. Reid:
Office: 828.412.6101
Please find enclosed our responses to the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) review comments dated
December 11, 2020 in reference to the Russell Gap Mitigation Project - DRAFT MY1 Report. We have revised
the draft document in response to the review comments as outlined below.
Report Comments/Questions:
• Please include discussion regarding wetland performance and flow gauge performance in Section
1.4 Monitoring Results and Project Performance.
Response: Revision made as requested.
• While no vegetation problem areas were identified, please acknowledge this and include short
discussion of VPA including invasive species, bare areas, areas of poor growth, etc. in section 1.4.
Response: Revision made as requested.
• A total of 81.4 inches of rainfall was observed for the project. Please include what station was used
for this measurement and also add in Section 1.5 Technical and Methodological Descriptions.
Response: Revision made as requested.
• CCPV: Previous Random Veg Plots are shown on the CCPV. Please turn off and only show the
Random Plots from MY1.
Response: Revision made as requested.
• Table 5: All streams are functioning at 100% based on the metrics measured by Table 5. This is
impressive for a site of this size and considering the numerous storm events the region experienced
this year. This will likely raise questions during the 2021 Credit Release Meeting. Please be
prepared to discuss this at the meeting.
Response: At the time of monitoring no Stream Problem Areas were documented. We will be
prepared to discuss this at the 2021 Credit Release Meeting.
• Table 6: Please fill out the top of the table. It is currently blank and appears that it may have been
neglected. NA, 0 and 0.0% is adequate if there is nothing to note.
Response: Revision made as requested.

INTERNATIONAL
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Rd. Suite 2011 Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Office: 828.412.6101
• Cross-section plots: Please turn off markers for Asbuilt data and only show markers for current
monitoring year data.
Response: Revision made as requested.
• Table 8: Please add grid lines to aid in reviewing report.
Response: Revision made as requested.
• Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs: Consider adding a note indicating the hydroperiod performance
criteria that was approved in the Mitigation plan of "12% of 234 is 28 days" or something similar.
Response: Revision made as requested.
• Flow Gauge Graphs: The note for the Daily Rain portion indicates data is from onsite gauge from the
Browns Summit site. Please revise.
Response: Revision made as requested.
• Figure 7: Please use bars for the "Observed Project Rainfall".
Response: Revision made as requested.
• Figure 7: Please specify what weather station(s) was used to compile data.
Response: Revision made as requested.
Electronic Deliverables:
• Please submit random veg plots as polygons.
Response: Random veg plots have been included as polygons.
• Please include photos as jpegs in the final submittal.
Response: Microsoft Word versions of photo logs containing jpeg files have been included.
• Please submit the data that supports the groundwater gauge and surface water gauge figures,
including the precipitation data.
Response: Raw data from groundwater, flow gauges, and rain data have been included.
• If available, please submit features that characterize the mitigation plan design lengths.
Response: Mitigation plan design lengths were derived from AUTO CADD provided when the
mitigation plan was submitted.
As requested, Michael Baker has provided one (1) hardcopy of the FINAL report, and the updated e-submission
digital files will be sent via secure ftp link. A full final electronic copy with electronic support files have been
included on a USB drive. Please do not hesitate to contact me ([e-mail] 828-412-6101)
should you have any questions regarding our response submittal.
Sincerely,
Jason York
Environmental Scientist
/-- Z&Z�
Enclosure: Final MY1 Report Russell Gap Mitigation Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................... 3
1.1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................................................3
1.2
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................................................3
1.3
PROJECT SUCCESS CRITERIA.....................................................................................................................4
1.4
MONITORING RESULTS AND PROJECT PERFORMANCE.............................................................................4
1.5
TECHNICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL DESCRIPTIONS...............................................................................5
L6REFERENCES
................................................................................................................................................5
APPENDICES
Appendix A Background Tables and Figures
Figure
1
Vicinity Map
Figure
2
Project Asset Map
Table
1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table
2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table
3
Project Contacts
Table
4
Project Attributes
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Map
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Stream Station Photo -Points
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Monitoring Gauges and Overbank Photographs
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 Planted Stem Counts by Plot and Species
Appendix D Stream Geomorphology Data
Figure 4 Cross -Sections with Annual Overlay
Table 8 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9 Cross -Section Morphology Data Summary
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table
10
Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure
5
Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
Table
11
Wetland Hydrology Summary Data
Figure
6
Flow Gauge Graphs
Table
12
All Years Flow Gauge Success
Figure
7
Observed Rainfall Versus Historic Averages
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100003
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1 Project Description
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Michael Baker) restored approximately 4,209 linear feet of existing
stream, enhanced 8,857 linear feet of stream along Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) to Davis Creek, the East
Prong Lower Little River, and UTs to the East Prong Lower Little River. Michael Baker also restored
and/or enhance approximately 7.3 acres of riparian wetland in the Catawba River Watershed. The project
is located in the Catawba River Basin, within the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050101-120010, which
is identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) in the NC Division of Mitigation Services'(DMS) 2009
Upper Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report.
The Russell Gap Stream Mitigation project is located on an active cattle farm in Alexander County, North
Carolina, 10 miles northwest of the Town of Taylorsville as shown on the Project Vicinity Map (Figure 1).
Historic agriculture uses on the project site include cattle production, row crops, and apple orchards. These
activities had negatively impacted both water quality and streambank stability along the project streams
and their tributaries (Table 4). The project is being conducted as part of the NCDMS Full Delivery In -Lieu
Fee Program and is anticipated to generate at close-out a total of 9,166.949 stream mitigation credits
(contracted for 9,400) and up to 7.053 riparian wetland mitigation units (contracted for 4.0) (Table 1) and
is protected by a 35.97-acre permanent conservation easement.
1.2 Goals and Objectives
The goals of this project are identified below:
• Establishment of geomorphically stable conditions along all project reaches,
• Improvement of water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restoration of natural stream and floodplain interactions,
• Restoration and enhancement of riparian wetland functions,
• Restoration and protection of riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat,
• Improvement of in -stream aquatic habitat, and
• Establishment of a permanent conservation easement on the entire project.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
• To restore appropriate bankfull dimensions, remove spoil berms, and/or raise channel beds, by
utilizing either a Priority I Restoration approach or an Enhancement Level I approach.
• To construct streams of appropriate dimensions, pattern, and profile in restored reaches, slope
stream banks and provide bankfull benches on enhanced streams and utilize bioengineering to
provide long-term stability.
• Construct a correct channel morphology to all streams increasing the number and depths of pools,
with structures including geo-lifts with brush toe, log vanes/weirs, root wads, and/or J-hooks.
• Raise ground water levels in delineated hydric soils areas through the implementation of Priority I
restoration and the filling of ditches. Wetland vegetation will also be planted.
• Establish riparian buffers at a 50-foot minimum width along all stream reaches, planted with native
tree and shrub species.
• Establish a permanent conservation easement restricting land use in perpetuity. This will prevent
site disturbance and allow the project to mature and stabilize.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100003
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

1.3 Project Success Criteria
The success criteria and performance standards for the project will follow the North Carolina Interagency
Review Team (NCIRT) guidance document Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update dated October 24, 2016 and as described in Section 7 of the approved Mitigation Plan.
All specific monitoring activities will follow those outlined in detail in Section 8 of the approved Mitigation
Plan and will be conducted for a period of seven years unless otherwise noted. Annual monitoring reports
will follow the DMS document Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content
Guidance from April 2015. The performance standards for the riparian buffer assets will be held in
accordance with 15A NCAC 02B.0295(n)(2)(B) and 15A NCAC 02B.0295(n)(4), and annual monitoring
reports will be submitted at the end of each of the seven monitoring years.
1.4 Monitoring Results and Project Performance
The Year 1 monitoring survey data of the twenty-six permanent cross -sections indicates that these stream
sections are geomorphically stable and are within the lateral/vertical stability and in -stream structure
performance categories. All reaches are stable and performing as designed and are rated at 100 percent for
all the parameters evaluated (Table 5 in Appendix B). There were no Stream Problem Areas (SPAS)
identified.
During Year 1 monitoring, the planted acreage performance categories were functioning well overall. The
planted stems endured longer than usual saturated growing conditions in their first year, with multiple heavy
rain events throughout the spring, summer, and fall. However, the average density of total planted stems,
based on data collected from the 20 permanent and 9 random monitoring plots for the Year 1 monitoring
conducted in October and November 2020 was 621 stems per acre (Table 7 in Appendix Q. Thus, the Year
1 vegetation data demonstrate that the Site is on track to meet the minimum success interim criteria of 320
trees per acre by the end of Year 3. No vegetation problem areas (VPAs) were identified as exceeding the
reportable mapping threshold of 0.1 acres. Minor areas of poor growth will be supplemental planted and
seeded where needed during MY2 at a rate of 200 stems per acre. Scattered stems of privet (Ligustrum spp)
and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) are located throughout the site and will be mechanically removed
and/or treated with herbicide during MY2 and future monitoring years.
During Year 1 monitoring, two separate post -construction bankfull events were observed (see Table 10 in
Appendix E and the Overbank Photographs in Appendix B). The first occurred on 5/28/20 as documented
through photographs of the manual cork crest gauge located on Reach 4 along with post -flood visual
evidence such as debris jams, flow scour, and wrack lines in the floodplain. The second event, Hurricane
Zeta, occurred on 10/29/20 and 10/30/20 as documented through photographs of the manual cork crest
gauges located on Reach 1 and Reach 4, and from visual evidence in the floodplain. Crest gauges located
on R6 and R9 did not record an overbank event during MY1.
As the observed monthly rainfall data for the project presented in Figure 6 in Appendix E demonstrates, the
past 12 months have varied dramatically as compared to historic average precipitation. A total of 81.4
inches of rainfall was observed for the project, while Alexander County averages 47.2 inches of annual
rainfall, an excess of 34.2 inches. All observed project rainfall was collected from the North Carolina
Climate Office Weather Climate Database CRONOS station TAYL, located in Taylorsville, NC.
During Year 1 monitoring, the twelve automated groundwater monitoring wells met or exceeded the
minimum hydroperiod performance criteria approved in the Mitigation Plan of 12% of the 234-day growing
season (28 or more consecutive days). The five automated flow gauges met or exceeded the minimum 30-
day performance criteria during MY1.
Summary information/data related to the Site 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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100003
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

and in the Mitigation Plan available on the DMS website. Any raw data supporting the tables and figures
in the Appendices is available from DMS upon request.
This report documents the successful completion of the Year 1 monitoring activities for the post -
construction monitoring period.
1.5 Technical and Methodological Descriptions
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using
a Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200
in US Survey Feet, which was derived from the MY-1 Survey. The survey data from the permanent project
cross -sections were collected and classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System to confirm
design stream type (Rosgen 1994 and 1996).
The twenty permanent and nine annual random vegetation -monitoring quadrants (plots) were installed
across the site in accordance with the CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (Lee
2007) and the data collected from each was input into the CVS-DMS Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1 (CVS 2012).
Nine automated groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the floodplain along Reach RI following
USACE protocols (USACE 2005).Three additional groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the
floodplain along R9. Flow gauges were installed on R11, R13, R14, R19 and R20. Collective data will
document that these intermittent streams continue to exhibit base flow for at least thirty consecutive day
throughout each monitoring year. The gauges themselves are all Van Essen DI800 BARO Diver data
loggers. Four manual cork crest gauges were installed on RI, R4, R6, and R9.
All observed project rainfall was collected from the North Carolina Climate Office Weather Climate
Database CRONOS station TAYL, located in Taylorsville, NC approximately nine miles south of the
project at 35.9139,-81.19087.
The specific locations of monitoring features, such as vegetation plots, permanent cross -sections, reference
photograph stations, and crest gauges, are shown on the CCPV map found in Appendix B.
1.6 References
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). CVS-DMS Data Entry
Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. 2012.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities.
NC Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2016. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities: Neuse-
01 Catalog Unit Update. NC Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2017. Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data
Requirements, and Content Guidance June 2017. NC Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh,
NC.
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). 2016. Guidance document "Wilmington
District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update ". October 24, 2016
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildlands Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100003
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. "Technical Standard for Water -Table
Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites," WRAP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-
WRAP-05-2), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100003
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX A
Background Tables and Figures

401010101
Wilkes County
Alexander County
Site Location
50101120010
030501\01120020
dw
Alexander County
Gr
e
03040101
Site
I nnntinn
1
Legend
CConservation Easement
Counties
14 Digit HUC
Note: Site is located within targeted local
watershed 03050101120010.
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Russell Gap Project
INTERNATIONAL
0 0.5 1 2
Miles

N
R12
R4a
R14 `
R13 "
�{=' �, R26
Owl
w ld ti / r
7 Y
R15 _
r
R22 • ..
'kry yR21_
Approach R19 `
- s'
` Restoration R18 *}
R7
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11 R17
No Credit a R6
Conservation Easement;
Wetland Type
Restoration �£ R5
Enhancement
s
i •H.�
Restoration Level Stream (linearft) Wetland (Acres) Assest Overall
Category Credits
Restoration 4063 6.773 Stream 9166.949
Enhancement 0.559 RP Wetland 7.053
Enhancement 1 5760 NR Wetland
Enhancement 11 2684 Buffer
Michael Bakerl Figure 2
0 500 1,000
et Project Asset Map
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Russell Gap Project
rev: 5Dec2016

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Proiect - NCDMS Proiect No. 100003
1 All stream stationing and restored footage numbers reported here, discussed in the report text, and shown in the as -built plan sheets use survey values.
2 The stream Footage reported here uses the as -built streancenterlme survey values and have all easement breaks removed from their totals. Buffer group values
reported here are the creditable areas as allowed for each group as described in detail in the mitigation plan.
3 Credits reported here are taken directly from the approved mitigation plan Table 11.1
Table 1.1 Table 1.2
As -Built Centerline Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category Overall Assets Summary
M, MM
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
Asset Category
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
Asset Category
Overall
Credits
Stream
9,166.949
RP Wetland
7.053
NR Wetland
Buffer

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100003
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 10 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 9 months
Number of Reporting Years: 1
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
404 permit date
N/A
Dec-18
Mitigation Plan
N/A
Sep-18
Final Design — Construction Plans
N/A
Sep-18
Construction Grading Completed
N/A
Feb-20
As -Built Survey
May-20
May-20
Livestake and Bareroot Planting Completed
N/A
Mar-20
As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report (MYO)
Mar-20
Sep-20
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov-20
Dec-20
Year 2 Monitoring
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
1 — The number of monitoring reports excluding the as-built/baseline report
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 3. Project Contacts
Russell GaD Stream Mitieation Proiect - NCDMS Proiect No. 100003
Designer
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Contact:
Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
5616 Coble Church Rd
Julian, NC 27283
KBS Earthworks, Inc.
Contact:
Kory Strader, Tel. [phone]
Survey Contractor
P.O. Box 148
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Turner Land Surveying
Contact:
(As -Built Only)
David Turner, Tel. [phone]
88 Central Avenue
Kee Mapping and Surveying
Asheville, NC 28801
(MYl Survey)
Contact:
Brad Kee, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor
5616 Coble Church Rd
Julian, NC 27283
KBS Earthworks, Inc.
Contact:
Kory Strader, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
5616 Coble Church Rd
Julian, NC 27283
KBS Earthworks, Inc.
Contact:
Kory Strader, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Telephone:
Green Resources
336-855-6363
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Telephone: [phone]
Mellow Marsh Farm
ArborGen
Telephone: [phone]
Monitoring Performers
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Cary, NC 27518
Stream Monitoring POC
Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 4. Project Attributes
Russell Gan Stream Mitigation Proiect - NCDMS Proiect No. 100003
Project Name
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
County
Alexander County
Project Area (acres)
35.97
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36.0091 N,-81.2139 W
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)
29.67
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Peidmont
River Basin
Catawba
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
3050101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03050101-120010
DWR Sub -basin
03-08-32
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)
2,227 acres / 3.48 square miles (at downstream end of R3)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
0.13% impervious area
CGIA Land Use Classification
82.6% forested, 14.5% agriculture, 1.5% rural residential, 1.4% roadway
Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach R1
Reach R2
Reach R3
Reach R4
Length of reach (linear feet)
2,142
288
388
2,245
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Drainage area (Acres)
960
1,056
2227
806
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
C
Stream Classification (existing)
E4 (incised)
E4 (incised)
E4
E4
Stream Classification (proposed)
C4
C4
C4
134c
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
IV - Degradation
and Wideningand
III -Degradation
III -Degradation
IV - Degradation
Widenin
FEMA classification
Zone X
one X
Zone X
Zone X
Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach R4a
Reach R5
Reach R6
Reach R7a
Length of reach (linear feet)
299
256
631
155
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Drainage area (Acres)
716
150
154
210
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
C
Stream Classification (existing)
E4
C41i
G4
E4b
Stream Classification (proposed)
134c
C41i
B4
E4b
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
I - Stable System
I - Stable System
I - Stable System
FEMA classification
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach R7b
Reach R8
Reach R9
Reach R10(A/13)
Length of reach (linear feet)
1,170
463
439
371
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Drainage area (Acres)
288
333
358
17
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
C
Stream Classification (existing)
E4b
C4
E4b
E4b
Stream Classification (proposed)
E4b
C4
B4
E4b-C4
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
III - Degradation
I - Stable System
IV - Degradation
and Widenin
II - Disturbance
FEMA classification
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach Rll
Reach R12
Reach R13
Reach R14
Length of reach (linear feet)
481
86
124
528
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Confined
Unconfined
Moderately Confined
Confined (Upper)
Unconfined
(Lower)
Drainage area (Acres)
17
115
21
22
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Intermittent
Perennial
Intermittent
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
C
Stream Classification (existing)
134a
Eli
C4
A4
Stream Classification (proposed)
134a
C41i
C4
E4
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
III -Degradation
IV - Degradation
and Widening
II - Disurbance
IV - Degradation
and Widening
FEMA classification
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach R15
Reach R17
Reach R18
Reach R19
Length of reach (linear feet)
226
130
185
481
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Unconfined
Unconfined
Unconfined
Moderately
Confined
Drainage area (Acres)
19
26
24
22
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Intermittent
Intermittent
Intermittent
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
C
Stream Classification (existing)
E4b
E4b
E4b
134a
Stream Classification (proposed)
E4b
E4b
E4b
134a
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
I - Stable System
I - Stable System
I - Stable System
IV - Degradation
and Widenin
FEMA classification
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach R20
Reach R21
Reach R22
Reach R22a
Length of reach (linear feet)
206
67
161
68
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Confined
Unconfined
Moderately
Confined
Moderately
Confined
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles)
9
33
3
3
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
C
Stream Classification (existing)
A4a+
134
134
134
Stream Classification (proposed)
A4a+
134
134
134
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
III - Degrading
I - Stable System
II - Channelized
II - Channelized
FEMA classification
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach R25
Reach R26
Reach R27
Length of reach (linear feet)
422
548
165
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Moderately
Confined
Unconfined
Moderately
Confined
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles)
33
32
19
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
Stream Classification (existing)
134a
E4b
E4b
Stream Classification (proposed)
134a
E4b
E4b
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
III - Degrading
I - Stable System
I - Stable System
FEMA classification
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Does?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
PCN
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
PCN
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical
Exclusion
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical
Exclusion
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX B
Visual Assessment Data

f.
�¢
r ♦ L
HAM a -
, Tq
Al T 0 d AI A Y 1 f% AI A

i,
R10A }
TM" : 7:
MW1_ MY1 RVP 7
728 stems/ac z'
26 xS
24
-. 27
28Tr
18 stems VP 1 ""'" �'• '' °~''`i'i- -
8 526 stemslac
MY1 RVP 8 9 ,�*-, ',� •�''. a� :��ir.
n
485 stemslac - '" "%!� '' �+►�.r'
a
XS 74 MW4 }
728 stemslac 10
OMW5 R1
tF# M W61-2
WW-
' 809 stemslac .
15 n '
0 16 C
R11
18 MW7 17'
" - a FG1 XS
® 24 3
Ty3:,.:' c ti. ',y} ,� . t►�t 22
23
4S-
4
MY1 RVP 9 !r
21 - ,,� 566 stemslac MW8* R12
� VP 17 ter, �•
'ti - •�'.�: '. 890 stems/ac MW9 18
XS
VP 4
18 slac 566 stemslac 1,g
R13 .� 5 22 =} .
'
Monitoring Wells _
® Monitoring Flow Gauges
Monitoring Crest Gauges
Photo Points
Random Veg. Plots MY1
Vegetation Plots
Cross Sections
Conservation Easement
Approach
Restorations
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
,.r.
No Credit
Wetland Type
Restoration s
Enhancement
7.
Michael Baker 0 150 300 Figure 3A
Feet Current Conditions Plan View
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Russell Gap Project

t
T
RM
VP 7
647 stems/ac
777wt 4� 7.
At
-J#
7t
f
A!
Monitoring Wells
EE) Monitoring Flow Gauges
Monitoring Crest Gauges
A Photo Points
Random Veg. Plots MY1
OC
it
Vegetation Plots
Cross Sections
conservation Easement
k; Approach
P*V Restoration
Enhancement I
01
Enhancement 11
f No Credit
Wetiand Type
Restoration
Enhancement
AX
Michael Baker
np 4 .
• S4.
4 N A T I n N A L I I Russell Uap F

VP 8
N526 stems/ac
A:.�. I.
75
u E `•::... MY1 RVP 4 k>�' R15
r 647 stems/ac 4� r
73
3r �' CG 3 �'
=�uaF-Ti e+.•.'., �ry17�•;�_ ._.fin - R2 �,r �78 _ - -
t
.1,.,. .... ..,.. J
stems/ac
ks'ls �► �:.
. 2s ,
81
.R
Ik" Z-1 �Rj
i make—
Z.
*&e
ihl�
V'
MY1 RVP 3 *.
80 323 stems/ac;.`:`
MW11 VP 5
64 MW12 485 stems/ac
63 CG 2'
VP 15
526 stems/ac
R22 57.
53
Monitoring Wells; y'
® Monitoring Flow Gauges R22A
Monitoring Crest Gauges
A Photo Points
Random Veg. Plots MY1
Vegetation Plots
Cross Sections
Conservation Easement
Approach
Restoration
— Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
No Credit
Wetland Type
` F17A Restoration
M Enhancement
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
24 stems
VP 13
19 stems
I I
VP 19
18 stems
R21
R25
0 150 300 Figure 3C
Feet Current Conditions Plan View
Russell Gap Project

it
•_ . - :. A i
*+f
AV,
47, 49
41 46 ._ 48
42 FG4 45 :•
FG5 XS 21
XS 22 a
43 44 40
L . VP 12
39 849 stems/ac
R20
` 37
•; r
R19
i R18 36 ' R7A
34
MY1 RVP 2 -
647 stems/ac 33
566 stems/ac
32 -
R6
R17 31
MY1 RVP 1 "30
526 stemslac
Monitoring Wells �d .
j Monitoring Flow Gauges
Monitoring Crest Gauges
VP 10 R5
Photo Points 566 stems/ac
Russel_ Gap_ RVP _MY1_2020 L
Random Veg. Plots MY1
Cross Sections
�?29
Conservation Easement
proach
Restoration
— Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
— No Credit
Aland Type
7 Restoration '
Enhancement'ic t. .
�iael Baker o 150 soo Figure 3D
Feet Current Conditions Plan View
r r Q m e r i n tie I Russell Gap Project

Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
nussen s-ap o-ulgatoll
Reach ID: Reach RI
Assessed Length (LF):
Major Channel Category
1. Bed
2. Bank
ID: Reach R2
ed Length (LF):
Major Channel Category
1. Bed
Channel Sub -Category
Vertical Stability
RiMe Condition
Meander Pool Condition
Thalweg Position
Undercut
Mass Wa!
4. Habitat
166
Channel Sub -Category
1.Vertical Stability
2. Ri1Re Condition
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
3. Mass Wasting
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integri
2. Grade Conh of
2a. Piping
3. Bank Position
4. Habitat
M ICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
Metric
1. Aggra lation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include
point bars)
2. Degradation -Evidence ofdowncuttmg
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth 11.5)
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head ofdownstream
riffle)
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Ron)
2. Thatweg centering at downstream ofrneander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
Banks slumping, caving or collapse
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance ofgrade across the sill
Structures lacking any substantial flow undemeath or around sills or arms
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15
Pool f mg structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfall Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow
Metric
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include
point bars)
2. Degradation -Evidence ofdowncuttmg
1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth 11.5)
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between Will of upstream riffle and head ofdownstream
riffle)
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
2. Thalweg centering at downstream o£meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active seem and erosion
Banks undercun/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
Banks slumoine. caviue or collapse
Structures physically intact with no dislodged bordders or logs
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance ofgrade across the sill
Structures lacking any substantial flow undemeath or around sills or arms
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15
Pool f mg structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfall Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow
1

Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100003
Reach ID: Reach R3
Assessed length (LF): 406
Number Stable,
Number of
Stable,
Major Charnel Category
Charnel Sub -Category
Metric Performing as
Total Number per
Amount of
Performing as
Intended
As-bulks
S meats
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not b include
LVertical Stability
point bars
0
0
100%
2. Degradation -Evidence ofdowncuttmg
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate -Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0
0
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent ax Pool D th/Mean BkfDcpth 11.5) 0
0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle) 0
0
100%
4. Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centerma at upstream ofineander bend an 0
0
100%
2. Thadwee cemermg at downstream ofinemder bend Glide 0
0
100%
1. Scorn ed/Erodio
Bank lackin ve etative cover due to active seem' and erosion
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhangmg to the extent that mass wasting is expected
0
1 0
100%
2. Bank
3. Mass Wasting
JBanks slumping, caving or collapse
n11111111111
1 0
1 0
100%
Tm.I'J
0
1 0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
LOce 11Integrity
Structures physica0y intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
1
1
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance ofgrade across the sill
1
1
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow undemeath or around sills or arms
1
1
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
1
1
100%
Pool f mg structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mem Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
providing some cover at low flow
0
0
100%
Reach ID: Reach R4a
Assessed Length 300
Number Stable,
Number o[
%Stable,
Major Channel Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric Performing as
Am -at of
Unstable
Performing as
Intended
Unstable Footage
S meats
71;
Intended
ten
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include
LVertical Stability
point bars
0 0
2. Degradation -Evidence ofdowncuttm
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
0
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent ax Pool D th/Mean BkfD th > 1.
0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head ofdownstream
riffle
0
100�
1. Thalwe centering at stream ofineander bend(Ran)0
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. That -center[- at downstream ofineander bead Glide
0
100%
1. Scorn ed/Erodin
Bank lackin ve etative cove' due to active seem' and erosion
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks rmdercuUoverhenging to the extent that mass wasting is expected
0
0
100N
2. Bank
3. Mass Wasting
JBanks slunping, caving or collapse
0
0
100° o
Totals
0
0
107
3. Engineering Structures
1. Over all Integi IN
Structures physicafy intact with no distorled boulders or togs
0
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibitingmaintenance of Wade across the sill
0
100%
2a. Pi in
Structures lackm a substantial flow underneath or around sills or arm
0
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
0
100%
Pool tormmg structures maramming -Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfall Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
ovidin s ver m low flow
0
100%
M ICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gan Stream Mitinathm Proieat - N(F)MS Prnieat No. 100003
Reach ID: Reach R4
Assessed Length 2,063
Number Stable, Number of
% Stable,
Major Channel Cat
] agony
Channel Sub -Cat agony
Metric Performing Total Number per
gas Unstable
Amount of
Performing as
As -built
Intended S ments
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not fi include
1.Vertical Stability
0
point bars
0
100%
2. Degradation -Evidence ofdmncutting 0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate 17 17
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent ax Pool D th/Mean BkfD th 11.5) 15 15
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head ofdownstream
riffle 15 15
100%
1. Thalwe centeringat stream o£meauder bend as 17 17
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thahve centeringat downstream ofineander bend Glide 15 15
100%
in
Bank lackingve etative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0
100°5
Banks undercuf/overhan in to the extent thtmass wastinis ected 00
100° o
2. Bank
WMaa
Barks slmnping, caving or collapse 0
0
100a-a
T otnl s
0
100
3. Engineei IngStructures
1. Overall Inte i
Structures h sica0 intact with ao dislod eel boulders or to s
20
20
100 %
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibitingmaintenance ofgrade across the sill
20
20
100%
2a. Pi ina
Structures lackin a substantial flow aademeath cr around sills or arm
20
20
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of infuerce does not exceed 15%
20
20
1002
Pool f mg structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfall Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
Providing some cover at low flow
15
15
100%
Reach ID: Reach R5
Assessed Length 193
Number Stable,
Number of
% Stable,
Major Channel Cat
] Category
Channel Sub -Category
g Y
Metric Performing
gas
Total Number per
Unstable
Amount of
Performing as
Intended
As built
S meats
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradatiw -Bar formative/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include
1.Vertical Stability
point bars
0
0
100%
2. De radative -Evidence ofdowncuttin
0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texlm'e Substrate -Riffle maintains coarser substrate 1
1
100%
1. Bed
1. D [h - Sufficent ax Pool D [h/Mean BkfD [h >_ 1. 8
8
100
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head ofdownstream
riffle 1
1
100�
1. Thalwe centerin at stream ofmeander bend m 1
1
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2.Thalwe ceaterinatdownstream o£meaaderbead Glide 1
1
100%
1. ScouiedfEiodinz
nk lackinve etative cover dnu to active scour' and erosion
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/over'hve into the extent that mass wastia is acted
0
0
100%
2.Bank
3. Mass Wasting
0
0
100°ou
Totalsl
0
1 0
100°lb
3. Engineering Sh uctm es
1. Over all Integrity
Stuctres physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
1
1
100°'b
2. Grade Control
Glade conn'ol structures exhibitin maintenance of 'ade across the sill
1
1
100%
2a. Pi in
Structures lacking a substantial flow mdemeath or aromd sills or arm
1
1
71
100%
3. Bank Position
IBankerosionwidiindiestructuresestent of influence does not exceed 15%
1
1
100%
Pool firming structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfall Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
providing some cover at low flow
8
S
1
100
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gan Stream Mitinathm Protect - N(DMS Pr tdect No. 100003
Reach ID: Reach R6
Assessed Length 747
Number Stable, Number of
% Stable,
Major Channel Cat
] agony
Channel Sub -Cat agony
Metric Performing Total Number per
gas Unstable
Amount of
Performing as
As -built
Intended S ments
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not fi include
1.Vertical Stability
0
point bars
0
100%
2. Degradation -Evidence ofdmncutting 0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate 9 9
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent Miac Pool Depth/Mean BkfDepth 11.5) 8 8
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head ofdownstream
riffle) 8 8
100%
1. Thatweg centerita, at upstream o£meauder bend un 9 9
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2.Thahve ceirterur atdon sheamofineanderbend Glide 8 8
100%
1. Scoured/Erodin
Bank lackingvegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0
100"
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhan in to the extent thatmasswastin is ected 0
0
100°o
2 Bank
3. Mass Wasting
JBanks slurnping, caving or collapse 0
0
1 100a-a
T.td,J
0
100
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures h sica0 intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
8
8
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibitor maintenance of ade across the sill
8
8
100%
2a. Pi in
Structures lackinga substantial flow underneath or around sills or arm
8
8
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
8
8
100%
Pool intoning structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfall Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
Providing some cover at low flow
8
8
100%
Reach ID: Reach R7a
Assessed Length 104
Number Stable,
Number of
% Stable,
] agony
Major Channel Cat
agony
Channel Sub -Category
Metric Performin gas
Total Number per
Unstable
Amount of
Performing as
Intended
As built
Seaments
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradatiw -Bar formative/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include
1.Vertical Stability
point barn
0
0
100
2. De radative -Evidence ofdowacuttm
0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate -Riffle maintains coarser substrate
0
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent ax Pool D th/Mean BkfDcpth 11.5)
0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between tail of upstream ri4andheaddowastream
riffle
0
100%
1. Thalwe ceateria at stream ofinemder bend un
of
0
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalwe cemer. at douvstre o£meander bend Glide
0
100%
1. Scoured/Erodin
Bank lackin ve etative cover dnu to active scorn' and erosion
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Bveks undercut/over'hve in to the extent that mass wastin is ected
0
0
100%
2. Bank
3. Mass Wasting
Banks shomping, caving or collapse
0
0
1 100°/o
Tolals
0
0
100°lb
3. Engineering Sh uctm es
11. Over all Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
0
loll°'b
2. Grade Control
1Gi'ade of structures exhibitia maiatenvece of ade across the sill
0
100%
2a. Pi in
r
Structures lackia a substantial flow underneath or around sills or arm
0
loll 71.
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
0
100%
Pool f i g structures maimaming -Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfall Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
9
4. Habitat
providings cover at low flow
0
0
loll%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gan Stream Mttinathm Protect - N('HMS Prntect No. 100003
Reach ID: Reach R7b
Assessed Length 1,216
Number Stable, Number of
% Stable,
] agony
Major Channel Cat
Channel Sub -Cat agony
Metric Performing Total Number per
gas Unstable
Amount of
Performing as
As -built
Intended S ments
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not fi include
1.Vertical Stability
0
point bars
0
100%
2. Degradation -Evidence ofdowncuttm 0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate 9 9
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Suffrcent Mac Pool D th/Mean BkfD th 11.5) 7 7
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head ofdownstrei m
riffle
1 W
1. Thalwe ceuteriu at stream o£meauder bead ua 9 9
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thaive centerin at downstream ofineander bend Glide 7 7
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Baak lackingvegetative cover due inactive scourand erosion 0 0
100°5
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhangingto the extent that mass wastingis ected 0
0
100° o
2. Bank
3. Mass Wasting
Barks slunpirg, caving or collapse 0
0
100a-a
ToOls
0
100%
3. Engineei ingStructures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physicauy intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
100%
2. Grade Control
IGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance ofgrade across the sill
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms
100
3. Bank Position
I Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
100%
Pool f mg structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfall Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
Providing some cover at low flow
100%
Reach ID: Reach IRS
Assessed Length 453
Number Stable,
Number of
%Stable,
Major Channel Cat
] Category
Channel Sub -Category
g Y
Metric Per.'an gas
Total Number per
Unstable
Amount of
Performing as
Intended
As built
Seaments
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradatiw -Bar formative/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include
1.Vertical Stability
point barn
0
0
100
2. De radative -Evidence ofdowncuttm
0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate -Riffle maintains coarser substrate
0
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Suffrcent ax Pool D th/Mean BkfDcpth 11.5)
0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between taijexpecti
riffle
0
100%
1. Thalwe centerin at stream ofineander bend m
0
100%
4. Thalweg Position
4andheaddownstream
2.Thalwe center. at downstream o£meander bend Glide
0
100%
1. Scouied/Erodin
Bank lackin ve etative cover dnu to active scour and erosion
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercuVover'hve in to the extent that mass wastingis
0
0
100%
2. Bank
3. Mass Wasting
Banks stun in collapse
0
0
100°/o
Totalsl
0
0
100°lb
3. Engineering Sh uctm es
11. Over all Integrity
I Structues physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
0
10W1b
2. Grade Control
Gn'ade conhnl structures exhibitin mainteavece of 'ade across the sill
0
100%
2a. Pi in
Structures lackin a substantial flow mdemeath or around sills or -a
0
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
0
100%
Pool tormmg structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfall Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
ovidin s ver at low flow
0
100%
MICHAELBAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS 8100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gan Stream Mitinatina Proiect - N(7)MS Prniect No. 100003
Reach ID: Reach R9
Assessed Length 446
Number Stable, Number of
% Stable,
] Category
Major Channel Cat
Channel Sub -Cat
Sub -Category
Metric Performing Total Number per
gas Unstable
Amount of
Performing as
As -built
Intended S meats
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not fi include
1.Vertical Stability
0
point bars
0
100%
2. Degradation -Evidence ofdowncuttm 0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate 7 7
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Suffrcent tax Pool D th/Mean BkfD th 11.5) 6 6
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head ofdownst-m
riffle)6 6
100%
1. Thalwe centerit at stream o£meander bend an 7 7
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thahve centerin at downstream ofineander bend Glide 6 6
100%
1. Scoured/Erodin
Bank lackingvegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhangingto the extent that mass wastingis expected 0
0
g.°
100°,
2 Bank
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slurnping, caving m' collapse 0
0
100a-a
Tot.,],
0
100
3. EngineeringStructures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
6
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibitor maintenance ofgrade across the sill
6
100%
2a. Pi in
Structures lackinga substantial flow underneath or around sills or arm
6
100
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within die structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
6
100%
Pool f mg structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
Providings cover at low flow
6
6
t00%
Reach ID: Reach Rion
Assessed Length 367
Number Stable,
Number of
% Stable,
Major Channel Cat
] Category
Sub -Category
Channel Sub -Cat
Metric Pet min gas
Total Number per
Unstable
Amount of
Per forming as
Intended
As built
Segments
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include
1.Vertical Stability
point bars
0
0
100
2. Degradation -Evidence ofdowacuttm
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture Substrate -Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0
0
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Suffrcent ax Pool D th/Mean BkfD th > 1. 0
0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of dowast-m
riffle 0
0
100
1. Thalwe center' at stream ofineander bend (Run)0
0
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2.Thalwe centerin m downstream o£meander bend Glide 0
0
100%
1. Scomied/Erodin
Bank lackin ve etative cover dtu to active scorn' and erosion
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging in to the extent that mass wastingis expected
11111v,
0
0
100%
2.Bank
3, Mass Wasting
Banks slumping,collapse
1 0
0
100°/o
Totalsl
0
0
100°1a
3. Engineering Sh uctm es
1. Over all Integrity
St -=es physically uttact with no dislodged boulders or logs
7
7
100°,b
2. Grade Control
Cn'ade jot structw'es exhibitin maintenance of ade access the sill
1
1
100%
2a. Pi in
r
Structures lackia a substantial flow mdemeath or around sills or arm
1
1
100 1.
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within (be structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
1
1
100%
Pool tormmg structures maiaaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
ovidia s ver m low flow
0
0
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gan Stream Mitinathm Protect - N(F)MS Prniect No. 100003
Reach ID: Reach R10b
Assessed Length
Number Stable, Number of
% Stable,
Major Channel Cat
] Category
Channel Sub -Category
g Y
Metric Performing Total Number per
gas Unstable
Amount of
Performing as
As -built
Intended S meats
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not fi include
1.Vertical Stability
0
point bars
0
100%
2. Degradation -Evidence ofdowncutting 0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate 1 1
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent ax Pool Depth/Mean BkfDepth 11.5) 0 0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between tail of upstream riffle riffle and head ofdownstream
riffle) 0 0
100%
1. Thatweg centering at upstream o£meander bead ua 1 1
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2.Thatve ceirterur atdon sheamofineanderbend Glide 0 0
100%
1. Scoured/Erodin
Bank lackingvegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0
100"
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhan in to the extent that mass wastin is ected 0
0
100° o
2 Bank
3. Mass Wasting
JBanks slurnping, caving or collapse 0
0
1 100a-a
T.td,J
0
100
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures h sicall intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibitor maintenance of ade across the sill
2
2
100%
2a. Pi in
Structures lackinga substantial flow underneath or around sills or arm
2
2
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
2
2
100%
Pool f mg structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfall Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
Providing some cover at low flow
0
0
100%
Reach ID: Reach Rll
Assessed Length 712
Number Stable,
Number of
%Stable,
] agony
Major Channel Cat
Chanel Sub -Cat agony
Metric Performin gas
Total Number per
Unstable
Amount of
Performing as
Intended
As built
S ments
Unstable Footage
Intended
L Aggradation - Bar formation/growtb sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include
1.Vertical Stability
point barn
0
0
100
2. Degradation -Evidence ofdowncuttin
0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate -Riffle maintains coarser substrate 2
2
100%
1. Bed
1. D tb - Sufficent ax Pool D [h/Mean BkfD th >_ 1. 0
0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail ofupstream ri4andheaddownstream
riffle 0
0
100%
1. Thalwe centerin at stream ofineander bend on 2
of
2
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalwe center. at douvstre o£meander bend Glide 0
0
100%
1. Scoured/Erodin
Bank lackingvegetative cover dnu to active scorn' and erosion
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging in to the extcut that mass Wastingis ected
0
0
100%
2. Bank
3. Mass Wastin
Banks slum tng, caving or collapse
0
0
100°/o
Totalsl
0
1 0
1 100°lb
3. Engineering Sh uctm es
11. Over all Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
38
38
100°/o
2. Grade Control
Glade control structures exhibitin maintenance of grade across the sill
38
38
110%
1; -piping
Structureslackin a substantial flow underneath or around sills or arm
38
38
100 %
3. Bank P
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
38
38
100%
Pool f mg structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfall Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
providing some cover at low flow
0
0
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gan Stream Mitinathm Protect - N(7)MS Prntect No. 100003
Reach ID: Reach R12
Assessed Length 120
Number Stable, Number of
% Stable,
Major Charnel Cat
] agony
agony
Channel Sub -Category
Metric Performing Total Number per
gas Unstable
Amount of
Performing as
As -built
Intended S meats
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not fi include
1.Vertical Stability
0
point bars)
0
100%
2. Degradation -Evidence ofdowncuttm 0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate 2 2
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent ax Pool D th/Mean BkfD th 11.5) 1 1
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head ofdownstream
riffle 1 1
1 W
1. Thalwe centerni at stream o£meaader bead (Ran)2 2
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thaive centerin at downstream ofineander bend Glide 1 1
100%
1. Scoured/ErodingBaak
lackingvegetative cover due inactive scourand erosion 0 0
100°5
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhangingto the extent that mass wastingis expected 0
0
100° °
2 Bank
3. Mass Wasting
Barks slmnpirg, caving or collapse 0
0
100a-a
Totals
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physical[y physical[intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
3
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance ofgrade across the sill
3
100%
2a. Pi in
Structures lacking a rm substantial flow underneath or around sills or a
3
1.
3. Bank Positon
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
3
100%
Pool Intoning structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfall Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
Providing some cover at low flow
1
1
t00%
Reach ID: Reach R13
Assessed Length 145
Number Stable,
Number of
% Stable,
] agony
Major Channel Cat
Channel Sub -Cat agony
Metric Per fat min gas
Total Number per
Unstable
Amount of
Per forming as
Intended
As built
S meats
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include
1.Vertical Stability
point bars
0
0
100
2. Degradation - Evidence ofdowncuttm
0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Sub maintains maintains coarser substrate 0
0
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent Mas, Pool D th/Mean BkfD th > 1. 0
0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head ofdownstream
riffle 0
0
100
1. Thalweg centering at stream ofineander bend ca) 1
1
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thatweg centering at downstream o£memder bend Glide 0
0
100%
1. Scoui edfEi odin
Bank lackin ve etative cover dnu to active scorn' and erosim
0
0
100%
2.Undercut
Banks undercut/over'han in to the exleat that mass wastia is acted
0
0
100%
2. Bank
3. Mass Wastin
Banks slum in collapse
0
0
100°/o
Totalsl
0
1 0
1 100°la
3. Engineering Sh uctm es
11. Over all Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
9
9
100°/o
2. Grade Control
Glade conn'ol structures exhibitu maintenance of ade across the sill
9
9
100%
2a. Pi in
Structures lackinga substantial flow underneath or aromit sills or arm
9
9
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
9
9
100%
Pool f mg structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfall Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
tarmiding some cover at low flow
0
0
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gan Stream Mitinatina Protect - N(F)MS Protect No. 100003
Reach ID: Reach R14
Assessed Length 570
Number Stable, Number of
% Stable,
Major Charnel Cat
] agony
Channel Sub -Category
agony
Metric Performing Total Number per
gas Unstable
Amount of
Performing as
As -built
Intended S ments
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not fi include
1.Vertical Stability
0
point bars
0
100%
2. Degradation -Evidence ofdowncuttm 0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate 2 2
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Suffrcent ax Pool D th/Mean BkfD th 11.5) 0 0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcentedine distance between tail of upstream riffle and head ofdownstream
riffle) 0 0
100%
1. Thatweg centerita, at upstream o£meauder bead ua 1 1
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thadivea centering at downstream ofineander bend Glide 0 0
100%
1. Scoured/Erodin
Bank lackingvegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks wdercuUoverhan in to We extent that mass wastin is acted 0
0
100° °
2 Bank
3. Mass Wasting
Banks 'I. a,caving m' collapse 0
0
100°o
Totas
0
100%
3. Engineering Structures
1. Overall Irate i
Structures h sica0 intact with ao dislod ed boulders or log,,
26
26
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control s[mclures exhrbitm maintenance ofgrade across the sill
26
26
100%
2a. Pi in
Stnrtures lackin a substantial flow mdmneath or around sills or arm
26
26
100
3. Bank Positon
Bank erosion within the stmctmes extent of influence does not exceed 15%
26
26
100%
Pool f mg structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
Providing some cover at low flow
0
1 0
t00%
Reach ID: Reach R15
Assessed Length 284
Number Stable,
Number of
%Stable,
] agony
Major Channel Cat
Channel Sub -Cat agony
Metric Perfmmin gas
Total Number per
Unstable
Amount of
Per forming as
Intended
As built
S ments
Unstable Pbotage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include
1.Vertical Stability
om[bam
0
0
100
2. De radatiw -Evidence ofdowccuttm
0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate-Rifllemaintamscoarser substrate 0
0
100%
1. Bed
1. D [h - Sufficent ax Pool D [h/Mean BkfD [h > 1. 0
0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle 0
0
1 W
1. Thalwe centerin at stream ofineander bead m 0
0
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2.Thalwe ceaterin atdownstream o£meaaderbead Glide 0
0
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lackingve etative cover due to active scorn' and erosion
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Bank s undercut/ovmhan in to the extent that mass wastingis expected
0
0
100%
2.Bank
3. Mass Wasting
slumping,colla se
0
0
100°/o
Total sl
0
0
100°la
3. Engineering Sh uctm es
1. Oven all Iotegrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
8
8
100°,b
2. Grade Control
Glade conhol structures exhibitin maintenance of grade amass the sill
8
8
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lackm a substantial flow underneath or around sills or arm
8
8
100 71.
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the stmctmes extent of influence does not exceed 15%
0
0
100%
Pool f mg structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfall Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
ovidin s ver at low flow
0
0
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gan Stream Mtltnathm Protect - N(7)MS Prntect No. 100003
Reach ID: Reach R17
Assessed Length 107
Number Stable,
% Stable,
Ma'or Charnel Cat agony
Chauud SubLat agony
gas
Me[ric Performin Total NumkL;
ountof]
Performing as
Abule
Intended
Ybotage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not fi include
1.Vertical Stability
omt bars2.
0
100%
De radatiw -Evidence ofdowncuttm
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent ax Pool D th/Mean BkfD th 11.5) 0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head ofdownstream
riffle 0
1 W
1. Thatweir centernig at upstream o£meander bend(Ran) 0
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thadivea centerine at downstream ofineander bend Glide 0
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank hickimi vegetative cover due to active scorn and erosion 0 0
111"
2. Undercut
IBanks undercut/overhangingundercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0
0
100°,
2 Bank
3.Mass Wasting
Barks slmnpirg, caving or collapse 0
0
100°b
Totals
0
100
3. Engineering Structures
I.Overall Inte i
Structures h sica0 intact with nod ed boulders or logs
0
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibitor maintenance ofgrade across the sill
0
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or annes
0
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
0
100%
Pool Intoning structures maintaining - Max Pool DepdaMean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
Providing some cover at low flow
0
100%
Reach ID: Reach RIS
Assessed Length 176
Number Stable,
Number of
% Stable,
] agony
Major Channel Cat
Channel Sub -Cat agony
Metric Per fat min gas
Total Number per
Unstable
Amount of
Per forming as
Intended
As built
Segments
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include
1.Vertical Stability
point bars
0
0
100
2. Degradation - Evidence ofdowncuttm
0
0
100%
2.Ritfle Condition
1. Texture Sub maintains maintains coarser substrate 0
0
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent Mas, Pool D th/Mean BkfD th > 1. 0
0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head ofdownstream
riffle 0
0
1 W
1. Thalwe center- at stream ofineander bend un 0
0
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2.Thalwe centeri at downstream o£meander bend Glide 0
0
100%
1. Scomied/Erodin
Bank lackin ve etative cover dnu to active scorn' and erosim
0
0
100%
2. Under t
Barks undercut/over'har in to the extent that mass wastingis expected
0
0
100%
2. Bank
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slum in collapse
0
0
100°/o
Totalsl
0
1 0
1 100°lb
3. Engineering Sh uctm es
11. Over all Integrity
Structures physica0y intact with nodislodged boulders or to
2
2
100°,b
2. Grade Control
Cn'ade conhnl shnctm'es exhibitin maintenance of 'ade across the sill
2
2
100%
2a. Pi in
Structures lackin a substantial flow mdemeath or aromd sills or arm
2
2
100
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
2
2
100%
Pool f mg structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfall Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
ovidin s cover at low flow
0
0
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gan Stream Mtltnathm Protect - N(F)MS Prniect No. 100003
Reach ID: Reach R19
Assessed Length 353
Number Stable, Number of
% Stable,
Major Charnel Cat
] Category
Channel Sub -Category
egory
Metric Performing Total Number per
gas Unstable
Amount of
Performing as
As -built
Intended S ments
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not fi include
1.Vertical Stability
0
point bars
0
100%
2. Degradation -Evidence ofdowncuttm 0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate 1 1
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Suffrcent ax Pool D th/Mean BkfD th 11.5) 0 0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head ofdownstream
riffle) 0 0
100%
1. Thatweg ceuteritq, at upstream o£meander bend(Ran) 1 1
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thadivea centerine at donnsheam ofineander bend Glide 0 0
100%
1. Scoured/Erodin
Bank lackingvegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks wdercuUoverhan in to We extent that mass wastin is expected 0
0
100° °
2. Bank
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slurnping, caving m' collapse 0
0
100°o
T otnl s
0
100%
3. Engineei IngStructures
1. Overall Irate i
Structures h sicall intact with no dislod ed boulders or to s
26
26
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhrbitm maintenance ofgrade across the sill
26
26
100%
2a. Pi in
Structures lackinga substantial flow underneath or around sills or arm
26
26
100
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
26
26
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
Providing some cover at low flow
0
0
100%
Reach ID: Reach R20
Assessed Length 253
Number Stable,
Number of
%Stable,
] Category
Major Channel Cat
Sub -Category
Channel Sub -Cat
Metric Perfmmin gas
Total Number per
Unstable
Amount of
Per forming as
Intended
As built
S ments
Unstable Pbotage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include
1.Vertical Stability
om[bars
0
0
100
2. De radatiw -Evidence ofdowncuttm
0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate-Rifllemaintamscoarser substrate 0
0
100%
1. Bed
1. D ih - Sufficent ax Pool D [h/Mean BkfD ih > 1. 0
0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle 0
0
100%
1. Thalwe centerin at stream of meander bend un 0
0
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalwe centeringat do aystream o£me_ er bend Glide 0
0
100%
1. ScouiedfEiodinz
nk ta ckina ve etative cover due to active scorn' and erosion
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks wdercuVova'han in to the extent that mass wastin is ected
0
0
100%
2. Bank
3. Mass Wastin
Banks slum in colla se
01
0
100°/o
Totalsl
0
1 0
100°la
3. Engineering Sh net es
1. Overall Integrih
Shuctmes physically urtactwith no dislodged boulders or logs
36
36
100°/o
2. Grade Control
Cn'ade control sh'uctur'es exhibitin maintenance of 'ade ara'oss the sill
36
36
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lackin a substantial flow mderneath or around sills or arms
36
36
100%
3. Bank Position
IBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
36
36
100%
Pool tormmg structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
ovidin s ver at low flow
0
0
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gan Stream Mtltnathm Protect - N(F)MS Prniect No. 100003
Reach ID: Reach R21
Assessed Length 92
Number Stable,
% Stable,
Ma'or Charnel Cat agony
Chauud Su6Lat agony
gas
Me[ric Performin Total NumkL;
ountof]
Performing as
Abule
Intended
Ybotage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not fi include
1.Vertical Stability
oint bars2.
0
100%
De radatiw -Evidence ofdowncuttm
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Suffrcent ax Pool D th/Mean BkfD th 11.5) 0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head ofdownstream
riffle 0
100�
1. Thatweir centernig at upstream o£meaader bead ua 0
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thadivea centerine at downstream ofineander bend Glide 0
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank hickimi vegetative cover due to active scorn and erosion 0 0
111"
2. Undercut
IBanks undercut/overhangingundercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0
0
100° o
2 Bank
3. Mass Wasting
Barks slmnpirg, caving or collapse 0
0
100°b
Totals
0
100
3. Engineering Structures
L Overall Inte i
Structures h sicall intact with nod eel boulders or logs
0
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibitor maintenance ofgrade across the sill
0
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or annes
0
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
0
100%
Pool f mg structures maintaining - Max Pool Dep[h/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
Providing some cover at low flow
0
100%
Reach ID: Reach R22, R22a
Assessed Length 187
Number Stable,
Number of
% Stable,
] agony
Major Channel Cat
agony
Channel Sub -Category
Metric Performin gas
Total Number per
Unstable
Amount of
Performing as
Intended
As built
S ments
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include
1.Vertical Stability
point barn
0
0
100
2. De radatiw -Evidence ofdowncuttm
0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate -Riffle maintains coarser substrate
0
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Suffrcent Mas, Pool D th/Mean BkfDcpth 11.5)
0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between tail of upstream ri4andheaddownstream
riffle
0
100%
1. Thalwe centerin at stream ofineander bend m
0
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2.Thalwe center. at downstream o£meander bend Glide
0
100%
1. Scomied/Erodin
Bank lackin ve etative cover dnu to active scorn' and erosim
0
0
100%
2. Undercot
Banks undercut/over'har in to the extent that mass wastin is ected
0
0
100%
2. Bank
3. Mass Wasting
Banks shomping, caving or collapse
0
0
100°/o
Tolals
0
0
100°lb
3. Engineering Sh uctm es
11. Over all Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
0
low'b
2. Grade Control
1Gi'ade control shnctm'es exhibitui mainteaaace of ade across the sill
0
100%
2a. Pi in
Structures lackin a substantial flow mdemeath or around sills or arm
0
100 71.
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
0
100%
Pool f mg structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfall Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Hobitot
prmiding some cover at low flow
0
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gan Stream Mdldnathm Prniect - N(F)MS Prniect No. 100003
Reach ID: Reach R25
Assessed Length 402
Number Stable, Number of
% Stable,
Major Charnel Cat
] Category
Channel Sub -Category
egory
Metric Performing Total Number per
gas Unstable
Amount of
Performing as
As -built
Intended S ments
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow homily (not fi include
1.Vertical Stability
0
point bars
0
100%
2. Degradation -Evidence ofdowncuttm 0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate 6 6
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Suffrcent ax Pool D th/Mean BkfD th 11.5) 0 0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head ofdownstream
riffle) 0 0
100%
1. Thatweg ceuteritq, at upstream o£meander bend(Ran) 6 6
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thadivea centerine at donnsheam ofineander bend Glide 0 0
100%
1. Scoured/Erodin
Bank lackingvegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks wdercuUoverhan in to We extent that mass wastin is expected 0
0
100° °
2. Bank
3. Mass Wasting
Banks slurnping, caving m' collapse 0
0
100°o
T otnl s
0
100%
3. Engineei ingStructures
1. Overall Irate i
Structures h sica0 intact with no dislod ed boulders or to s
13
13
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhrbitm maintenance ofgrade across the sill
13
13
100%
2a. Pi in
Structures lackinga substantial flow underneath or around sills or arm
13
13
100
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
13
13
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
Providing some cover at low flow
0
0
100%
Reach ID: Reach R26
Assessed Length 473
Number Stable,
Number of
%Stable,
] Category
Major Channel Cat
Sub -Category
Channel Sub -Cat
Metric Perfmmio gas
Total Number per
Unstable
Amount of
Per forming as
Intended
As built
S ments
Unstable Pbotage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include
1.Vertical Stability
om[bars
0
0
100
2. De radatiw -Evidence ofdowncuttm
0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate-Rifllemaintamscoarser substrate 0
0
100%
1. Bed
1. D ih - Sufficent ax Pool D [h/Mean BkfD ih > 1. 0
0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle 0
0
100%
1. Thalwe centerin at stream of meander bend un 0
0
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalwe centeringat do aystream o£me_ er bend Glide 0
0
100%
1. ScouiedfEiodinz
nk ta ckina ve etative cover due to active scorn' and erosion
0
0
100%
2. Undercut
Banks wdercuVova'han in to the extent that mass wastin is ected
0
0
100%
2. Bank
3. Mass Wastin
Banks slum in colla se
01
0
100°/o
Totalsl
0
1 0
100°la
3. Engineering Sh net es
1. Overall Integrih
Shuctmes physically urtactwith no dislodged boulders or logs
4
4
100°/o
2. Grade Control
Cn'ade control sh'uctur'es exhibitin maintenance of 'ade ara'oss the sill
4
4
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lackin a substantial flow mderneath or around sills or arms
4
4
100%
3. Bank Position
IBank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%
4
4
100%
Pool tormmg structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
ovidin s ver at low flow
0
0
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 5. Visual Steam Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gan Ste— Mifiaafinn Pradecf -N"MS PAmdecf No 100003
Reach ID: Reach R27
Assessed Length
Number Stable,
Number of
% Stable,
Major Channel Cat
] Category
Channel Sub -Category
g Y
Metric
gas
Performing
Total Number per
Unstable
Amount of
Performing as
Intended
As -built
S meats
Unstable Footage
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not fi include
1.Vertical Stability
point bars
0
0
100%
2. Degradation -Evidence ofdowncutting
0
0
100%
2.RiMeCondition
1. Texture Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
0
0
100%
1. Bed
1. Depth - Sufficent ax Pool Depth/Mean BkfDepth 11.5)
0
0
100%
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length - Sufficent (>30%ofcenterline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head ofdownstreem
riffle)
0
0
100%
1. Thatweg centermi, at upstream o£meander bend(Ran)
0
0
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2.Thahve ceirterur aldonmsheamofineanderbend Glide
0
0
100%
1. Scoured/Erodin
Bank lackingvegetative cover due to active scour and erosion
0
0
100"
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhan in to the extent that mass wastin is ected
0
0
100° o
2. Bank
3. Mass Wasting
JBanks slurnping, caving m collapse
0
0
1 100a-a
T.td,J
0
100
3. Engineei IngStructures
1. Over Inte i
Structures h sicall intact with no dislodged boulders m logs
7
7
too %
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exb ibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
7
7
t00%
2E. Pi in
Structures lackinga substantial flow underneath orrm around sills or a
7
7
100%
3. Bank Position
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15 %
7
7
100
Pool intoning tain structures maining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.5. Rootwads/logs
4. Habitat
ovddin s cover at low flow
0
0
100%
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 6. Vegetation Conditions Assessment
Russell Gap Stream Mitieation Proiect - NCDMS Proiect No. 100003
Planted Acreage: 9.8
Mapping Threshold
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Defintions
(acres)
CCPV Depiction
Number of Polygons
Combined Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas *
Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5
0.1 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
stem count criteria.
Total
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small given the
0.25 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
Easement Acreage: 15.8
of Planted
Vegetation Category
Defintions
Mapping Threshold
CCPV Depiction
Number of Points
Combined Acreage
Acrea e
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
1000 W
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
* The bare areas reported here for MYl do have woody stems growing in them but have sparse/scattered herbaceous cover only.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Russell Gap: MYl Stream Station Photo -Points
PP-1: Reach 13, view upstream Station 10+20.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-3: Reach 14, view upstream Station 13+00.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-5: Reach 14, view upstream Station 15+00.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-2: Reach 14, view upstream toward Reach 13 at Station
11+45. (November 5, 2020)
PP-4: Reach 14, view upstream Station 13+75.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-6: Reach 14, end of reach Station 16+00.
(November 5, 2020)

Russell Gap: MYl Stream Station Photo -Points
PP-7: Reach 1, view upstream, at Station 10+20.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-9: Reach 1, view upstream at Station 15+00.
PP-11: Reach 1, view upstream at Station 20+00.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-8: Reach 1, view upstream Reach 1 at Station 13+00.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-10: Reach 1, view upstream at Station 17+25.
PP-12: Reach 1, view downstream at Station 20+00.
(November 5, 2020)

Russell Gap: MYl Stream Station Photo -Points
PP-13: Reach 1, view upstream at Station 20+75.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-15: Reach 1, view upstream at Station 21+50.
PP-17: Reach 1, view upstream at Station 24+20.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-14: Reach 1, view downstream at Station 20+75.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-16: Reach 1, confluence of Reach 1 and Reach 11 at
PP-18: Reach 1, view of upstream at Station 27+00.
(November 5, 2020)

Russell Gap: MYl Stream Station Photo -Points
PP-19: Reach 1, view upstream Reach 12 at Station 29+10.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-2 1: Reach 11, view upstream at Station 10+20.
PP-23: Reach 11, view upstream at Station 12+75.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-20: Reach 1, view upstream at Station 29+20.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-22: Reach 11, view upstream at Station 11+50.
PP-24: Reach 11, view upstream at Station 14+50.
(November 5, 2020)

Russell Gap: MYl Stream Station Photo -Points
PP-25: Reach 10A, view upstream at Station 10+50.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-27: Reach 10A, view upstream at Station 13+75.
PP-29: Reach 5, view upstream at Station 11+00.
(October 21, 2020)
PP-26: Reach 10A, view upstream at Station 12+50.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-28: Reach 10B, view upstream at Station 14+50.
PP-30: Reach 6, view upstream at Station 14+50.
(October 21, 2020)

Russell Gap: MYl Stream Station Photo -Points
PP-31: Reach 17, view upstream at Station 11+00.
(October 21, 2020)
PP-33: Reach 6, view upstream at Station 19+50.
PP-35: Reach 18, view upstream at Station 10+60.
(October 21, 2020)
PP-32: Reach 6, view upstream at Station 17+50.
(October 21, 2020)
PP-34: Reach 18, view upstream at Station 12+00.
PP-36: Reach 7A, view upstream at Station 20+00.
(November 10, 2020)

Russell Gap: MYl Stream Station Photo -Points
PP-37: Reach 7B, view upstream at Station 21+75.
(November 10, 2020)
PP-39: Reach 7B, view upstream at Station 22+25.
PP-41: Reach 20, view upstream at Station 10+80.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-38: Reach7B, view downstream at Station 22+00.
(October 21, 2020)
PP-40: Reach 7B, view upstream at Station 23+50.
PP-42: Reach 20, view upstream at Station 11+50.
(October 21, 2020)

Russell Gap: MYl Stream Station Photo -Points
PP-43: Reach 19, view upstream at Station 10+15.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-45: Reach 19, view upstream at Station 12+80.
PP-47: Reach 19, view upstream at Station013+80.
(November 10, 2020)
PP-44: Reach 19, view upstream at Station 11+85.
(November 5, 2020)
PP-46: Reach 19, view upstream at Station 13+20.
PP-48: Reach 7B, view upstream at Station 24+10.
(November 10, 2020)

Russell Gap: MYl Stream Station Photo -Points
PP-49: Reach 7B, view downstream at Station 24+60.
(November 10, 2020)
PP-51: Reach 22A, view upstream at Station 10+00.
PP-53: Reach 7B, view upstream at Station 32+00.
(October 21, 2020)
PP-50: Reach 7B, view upstream at Station 25+25.
(November 10, 2020)
PP-52: Reach 22A, view of upstream at Station 11+15.
PP-54: Reach 25, view upstream at Station 10+10.
(October 21, 2020)

Russell Gap: MYl Stream Station Photo -Points
PP-55: Reach 25, view upstream at Station 11+20.
(October 21, 2020)
PP-57: Reach 7B, view downstream at Station 33+00.
PP-59: Reach 8, view downstream at Station 34+00.
(October 21, 2020)
PP-56: Reach 25, view upstream at Station 13+40.
(October 21, 2020)
PP-58: Reach 7B, view upstream at Station 33+20.
PP-60: Reach 8, view upstream at Station 37+00.
(October 21, 2020)

Russell Gap: MYl Stream Station Photo -Points
PP-61: Reach 8, view upstream at Station 38+00.
PP-63: Reach 9, view upstream at Station 41+00.
PP-65: Reach 4A, view upstream at Station 13+00
(November 10, 2020)
PP-62: Reach 9, view upstream at Station 39+20.
PP-64: Reach 9, view upstream at Station 42+00.
PP-66: Reach 26, view upstream at Station 11+00.
(October 21, 2020)

Russell Gap: MYl Stream Station Photo -Points
PP-67: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 11+10. PP-68: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 12+00.
PP-69: Reach 27, view upstream at Station 11+60
PP-70: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 15+00.
PP-71: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 16+10. PP-72: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 19+00.
(November 10, 2020) (November 10, 2020)

Russell Gap: MYl Stream Station Photo -Points
PP-73: Reach 15, view upstream at Station 11+00.
PP-75: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 23+20.
PP-77: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 28+30.
(October 21, 2020)
PP-74: Reach 15, view upstream at Station 13+00.
11
PP-76: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 25+00.
PP-78: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 28+00.
(November 10, 2020)

Russell Gap: MYl Stream Station Photo -Points
PP-79: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 32+00.
PP-81: Reach 3, view upstream at Station 36+40.
(October 21, 2020)
PP-80: Reach 3, view upstream at Station 33+00.
(October 21, 2020)

MYl Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Russell Gap - DMS Project #100003
Photo 1. Vegetation Plot 1 — (October 7, 2020).
Photo 3. Vegetation Plot 3 — (October 7, 2020).
Photo 2. Vegetation Plot 2 — (October 7, 2020).
Photo 4. Vegetation Plot 4 — (October 8, 2020).
Photo 5. Vegetation Plot 5- (October 21, 2020). Photo 6. Vegetation Plot 6- (October 8, 2020).

Photo 7. Vegetation Plot 7 — (October 8, 2020).
Photo 9. Vegetation Plot 9 — (September 2, 2020)
Photo 8. Vegetation Plot 8 — (October 8, 2020).
Photo 10. Vegetation Plot 10 — (October 8, 2020).
Photo 11. Vegetation Plot 11 — (October 8, 2020). Photo 12. Vegetation Plot 12 — (October 21, 2020).

Photo 13. Vegetation Plot 13 — (October 21, 2020).
Photo 15. Vegetation Plot 15 — (October 21, 2020).
Photo 14. Vegetation Plot 14 — (October 21, 2020).
Photo 16. Vegetation Plot 16 — (October 7, 2020).
Photo 17. Vegetation Plot 17 — (October 7, 2020). Photo 18. Vegetation Plot 18 — (October 8, 2020).

Photo 19. Vegetation Plot 19 — (October 21, 2020). Photo 20. Vegetation Plot 20 — (October 21, 2020).
Photo 21. Random Vegetation Plot 1- (November 10, 2020). Photo 22. Random Vegetation Plot 2 — (November 10, 2020).
Photo 23. Random Vegetation Plot 3 — (November 10, 2020). Photo 24. Random Vegetation Plot 4 — (November 10, 2020).

Photo 25. Random Vegetation Plot 5 — (November 10, 2020). Photo 26. Random Vegetation Plot 6 — (November 10, 2020).
Photo 27. Random Vegetation Plot 7 — (November 10, 2020). Photo 28. Random Vegetation Plot 8 — (November 10, 2020).
Photo 29. Random Vegetation Plot 9 — (November 10, 2020).

Russell Gap MY1 Monitoring Gauges and Overbank Photographs
Monitoring Well 1. (November 5, 2020)
Monitoring Well 3. (November 5, 2020)
Monitoring Well 5. (November 5, 2020)
�e
a
fie
—44
N
f
Monitoring Well 2. (November 5, 2020)
Monitoring Well 4. (November 5, 2020)
Monitoring Well 6. (November 5, 2020)

Russell Gap MY1 Monitoring Gauges and Overbank Photographs
Monitoring Well 7. (November 5, 2020) Monitoring Well 8. (November 5, 2020)
Monitoring Well 9. (November 5, 2020)
Monitoring Well 5. (November 5, 2020)
Monitoring Well 10. (November 5, 2020)
Monitoring Well 12. (November 5, 2020)

L41/TT � n
fie. 4 i2020. 11_ 5 13-41

Russell Gap MYl Monitoring Gauges and Overbank Photographs
Crest Gauge 1 RI.
Crest Gauge 3 R4. Wrack lines. (November 5, 2020)
Crest Gauge 4 R6. (November 5, 2020)
Crest Gauge 2 R9. (November 5, 2020)
Crest Gauge 3 R4. BKF reading at 26" and 30."
(November 5, 2020)

APPENDIX C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7: Planted Stem Counts by Plot and Species
DMS Project Code 100003. Project Name: Russell Gap Mitigation Project
Current Plot Data (MY1 2020)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
157329-01-0001
157329-01-0002
157329-01-0003
157329-01-0004
157329-01-0005
157329-01-0006
157329-01-0007
157329-01-0008
157329-01-0009
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
Acer negundo
Box Elder
Tree
5
5
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
1
1
3
3
Asimina triloba
Common Pawpaw
Shrub Tree
1
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
6
6
3
3
12
12
2
2
1 4
4
1
1
1
1
Carpinuscaroliniana
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
Cerciscanadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
3
3
5
5
Corpus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
1
1
4
4
Cornusflorida
Flowering Dogwood
Shrub Tree
Corylusamericana
American Hazelnut
Shrub
Crataegus
Hawthorn
Shrub Tree
Diospyrosvirginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
4
4
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
3
3
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
1
1
1
1
2
2
Liriodendrontulipifera
Tulip Popolar
Tree
4
4
4
4
7
7
4
4
3
3
1
1
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
Platanusoccidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
6
6
3
3
Quercus alba
White Oak
Tree
Quercus falcata
Southern Red Oak
Tree
1
1
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
2
2
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
ITree
4
4
5
5
4
4
5
5
1
1
2
2
4
4
Unknown
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
13
0
13
18
0
18
20
0
20
14
0
14
12
0
12
11
0
11
16
1 0
16
13
5
1 18
15
0
15
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
1 0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
3
0
3
1 7
10
7
1 3
1 0
1 3
1 5
1 0
1 5
5
1 0
1 5
1 3
1 0
1 3
6
1 0
1 6
1 4
1 1
1 5
1 7
1 0
1 7
526.09131
0
1 526.0913
728.4342
1 0
1 728.4342
1809.3713
1 0
1 809.37131
566.55991
0
1 566.5599
485.6228
1 0
1485.6228
1445.1542
1 0
1 445.15421
647.497
1 0
1 647.497
1526.09131
202.34281
728.43421
607.02851
0
1 607.0285
Current Plot Data (MY1 2020)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
157329-01-0010
157329-01-0011
157329-01-0012
157329-01-0013
157329-01-0014
157329-01-0015
157329-01-0016
157329-01-0017
157329-01-0018
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
Acer negundo
Box Elder
Tree
1
1
Acerrubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
1
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
10
10
Asimina triloba
Common Pawpaw
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
3
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
Carpinuscaroliniana
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
1
1
6
1 6
1
4
1 4
Cerciscanadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
3
3
3
3
Corpus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
8
8
Cornusflorida
Flowering Dogwood
Shrub Tree
Corylusamericana
American Hazelnut
Shrub
Crataegus
Hawthorn
Shrub Tree
Diospyrosvirginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
2
2
1
1
5
5
1
1
6
6
7
7
5
5
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
2
2
3
3
1
1
3
3
Liriodendrontulipifera
Tulip Popolar
Tree
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
2
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
Platanusoccidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
10
13
1
1
3
3
Quercus alba
White Oak
Tree
3
3
2
2
4
4
Quercus falcata
Southern Red Oak
Tree
3
3
4
4
1
1
1
1
6
6
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
Quercus phellos
WillowOak
ITree
I
I
1
1
1
2
2
1
1 2
2
2
3
3
Unknown
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACREJ
14
0
14
14
0
14
21
10
31
17
0
17
16
0
16
13
1 10
23
13
0
13
22
0
22
16
0
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
6
0
6
7
0
7
9
1
1 9
8
0
8
7
0
7
5
1
6
5
0
5
1 4 0
4
3
0
3
566.55991
0
1566.55991566.5599
1 0
1566.5599
1849.8398
1 404.6856
11254.5251687.9656
1 0
1687.96561
647.497
1 0
1 647.497
1526.0913
404.6856
930.777
526.0913
0
526.0913
0
1 890.3084
647.497
0
647.497
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS#100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 7: CVS Density Per Plot
DMS Project Code 100003. Project Name: Russell Gap Mitigation Project
Current Plot Data (MY1 2020)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
157329-01-0019
157329-01-0020
157329-01-RV1_MY1
157329-01-RV2_MY1
157329-01-RV3_MY1
157329-01-RV4_MY1
157329-01-RV5_MY1
157329-01-RV6_MY1
157329-01-RV7_MY1
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
Acer negundo
Box Elder
Tree
8
8
5
5
1
1
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
2
2
2
2
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
Asiminatriloba
Common Pawpaw
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
2
2
1
1
3
3
1
2
2
Carpinuscaroliniana
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
1
1
Cerciscanadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
5
5
1
1
1
1
2
2
Corpus amomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
1
1
2
2
4
4
3
3
4
4
Cornusflorida
Flowering Dogwood
Shrub Tree
1
1
Corylusamericana
American Hazelnut
Shrub
1
1
Crataegus
Hawthorn
Shrub Tree
1
1
Diospyrosvirginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
2
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
1
1
3
3
1
1
3
3
1
1
4
4
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
2
2
6
6
Liriodendrontulipifera
Tulip Popolar
Tree
5
5
1
1
6
6
1
1
1
1
5
5
2
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
Platanusoccidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
6
6
1
1
1
1
5
5
Quercus alba
White Oak
Tree
Quercus falcata
Southern Red Oak
Tree
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
3
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
2
2
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
4
4
7
7
Unknown
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
16
0
16
19
0
19
13
0
13
16
0
16
8
0
8
16
0
16
17
0
17
18
0
18
18
0
18
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
6
0
6
9
0
9
7
0
7
5
0
5
3
0
3
7
0
7
6
0
6
8
0
8
6
0
6
647.497
0
647.497
768.9027
0
768.9027
526.0913
0
526.0913
647.497
0
647.497
323.7485
0
323.7485
647.497
0
647.497
687.9656
0
1 687.96561728.43421
0
1 728.4342
1728.4342
1 0
728.4342
Current
Plot Data
(MY1 2020)
Annual
Means
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Failsto meet requirements by more than 10%
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
157329-01-RV8_MY1
157329-01-RV9_MY1
MY1 (2020)
MYO (2020)
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
P
V
T
Acer negundo
Box Elder
Tree
15
5
20
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
1
1
6
6
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
4
10
14
Asimina triloba
Common Pawpaw
Shrub Tree
1
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
4
4
1
54
54
Carpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
Shrub Tree
11
11
Cerciscanadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
1
1
26
26
Cornusamomum
Silky Dogwood
Shrub Tree
2
2
38
38
Cornusflorida
Flowering Dogwood
Shrub Tree
1
1
2
2
Corylusamericana
American Hazelnut
Shrub
1
1
Crataegus
Hawthorn
Shrub Tree
1
1
Diospyrosvirginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
12
12
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
6
6
49
49
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
Tree
21
21
Liriodendrontulipifera
Tulip Popolar
Tree
2
2
62
62
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
7
7
Platanusoccidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
44
10
54
Quercus alba
White Oak
Tree
9
9
Quercus falcata
Southern Red Oak
Tree
2
2
25
25
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
5
5
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
ITree
4
4
1
1
52
52
Unknown
388
388
388
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACREJ
12
0
12
14
0
14
445
25
470
388
388
388
1
1
29
20
0.02
0.02
0.72
0.49
5
0
5
7
0
7
21
3
21
1
1
1
485.6228
1 0
1 485.6228
566.5599
0
566.5599
620.98311
34.88669
1655.86981
785.0901
785.0901
785.0901
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS#100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX D
Stream Geomorphology Data

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 1
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream I BKF Max BKF
Feature I Type BKF Area I BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev LTOB Elev
Riffle C 1 18.4 1 15.8 1 1.2 1.7 13.6 1.1 4.8 1282.60 1282.72
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 1, Cross -Section 1
1285
1284
> - -
w 1282
1281
As -built
t MY1
--o-- BKF
IVIY1 BKF
1280 '
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 2
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
I BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
LTOB Elev
Pool
23.6
18.6
1 1.3
2.3
1 14.7
1282.20
1282.26
1285
1284
Z 1283
r_
0
0 1282
m
w
1281
1280
1279
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 1, Cross -Section 2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 3
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
I Type
BKF Area
I BKF Width
I BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
LTOB Elev
Riffle
C
20.6
16.3
1.3
2.0
12.9
1.0
5.0
1274.60
1274.58
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 1, Cross -Section 3
1277
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
1276
1275
0
M
As -built
w
1274
t MY1
--o-- BKF
1273
IVIY1 BKF
--o-- Floodprone
1272
0.00
10.00 20.00
30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
Station (ft)
Note: Per UMS/IH I request, hank neignt ratio for MY1 nas seen Calculated using the oanktull elevation as determined trom the as-butlt banktull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 4
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Stream I BKF Max BKF
Feature I Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev I LTOB Elev
Pool 24.4 16.6 1 1.5 2.7 11.3 1274.00 1274.20
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 1, Cross -Section 4
1277
1276
w 1275
c
0
m 1274
m
w
1273
1272
1271
0.00
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 5
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
LTOB
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
I Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
Elev
Riffle
C
40.6
23.7
1 1.7
2.7
1 13.8
0.9
2.5
1223.70
1223.45
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 3, Cross -Section 5
1229
—
1228
1227
Z 1226
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.21225
M
m 1224
W-----------
As-built
1223
t MY1
1222
--o-- BKF
1221
--o-- MY1 BKF
--o-- Floodprone
1220
0 10
20 30 40 50
60 70 80
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 6
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Stream I BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev LTOB Elev
Riffle B 23.3 13.5 1 1.7 2.8 7.8 0.8 1.6 1248.70 1248.10
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 4, Cross -Section 6
1256
1255
1254
1253
1252
c
.2 1251
M
1250
w
1249
1248
1247
1246
1245
As -built
t MY1
--o-- BKF
IVIY1 BKF
--o-- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 7
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
BKF
Feature Stream
IBKF Area I BKF Width I D p h Max
I W/D I BH Ratio I ER I BKF Elev I LTOB Elev
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 4, Cross -Section 7
1249
1248
1247
1246
IZ45
0
M 1244
m
w 1243
1242
1241
1240
1239
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 8
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
I Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
LTOB Elev
Riffle
B
21.4
14.6
1 1.5
2.8
9.9
1.0
2.2
1238.50
1238.50
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 4, Cross -Section 8
1245
1244
1243
., 1242
1241
0
0 1240
As -built
MY1
w 1239
.......................
--o-- Bankfull
1238
--o-- MY1 BKF
1237
--o-- Floodprone
1236
1235
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 9
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Feature I Stream
IBKF Area I BKF Width I Depth I Max
W/D I BH Ratio I ER I BKF Elev I LTOB Elev
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 4, Cross -Section 9
1243
1242
1241
1240
� 1239
0
0 1238
w 1237
1236
1235
1234
1233
As -built
t MY1
o- BKF
MY1 BKF
o- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 10
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
ax BKF I
Feature Stream
IBKF Area BKF Width I Depth MDepthF I W/D I BH Ratio I ER BKF Elev I LTOB Elev
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 4, Cross -Section 10
1237
1236
1235
1234
c
0
01233
m
w 1232
1231
1230
1229
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 11
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream I BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev LTOB Elev
Riffle B 13.6 10.3 1 1.3 2.1 7.9 1.1 2.3 1229.43 1229.70
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 4, Cross -Section 11
1234
1233
1232
1231
0
> 1230
0
w
1229
1228
1227
1226
As -built
t MY1
--o-- BKF
MY1 BKF
--o-- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 12
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Stream I BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev LTOB Elev
Pool 7.9 9.2 1 0.9 1.9 1 10.8 1 1300.30 1300.30
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 6, Cross -Section 12
1304
1303
Z 1302
r_
0
M 1301
m
w
1300
1299
1298
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 13
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Stream I BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev LTOB Elev
Riffle B 7.1 8.2 1 0.9 1.5 9.4 1.0 5.5 1292.40 1292.40
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 6, Cross -Section 13
iM9116
1295
Z 1294
r_
0
M 1293
m
w
1292
1291
1290 1 '
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 14
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
LTOB
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
Elev
Riffle
B
14.6
11.7
1.3
2.2
9.3
1.1
3.9
1259.00
1259.30
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 7b, Cross -Section 14
1264
1263
1262
1261
M 1260
m
As -built
w 1 259
----------------------
tMY1
1258
--4-- BKF
o-- MY1 BKF
1257
Floodprone
1256
0 10
20 30 40
50 60
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 15
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Stream I BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev LTOB Elev
Pool 13.2 14.3 1 0.9 1.7 1 15.5 1 1252.08 1254.40
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 7b, Cross -Section 15
1256
1255
Z 1254
r_
0
M 1253
m
w
1252
1251
1250
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 16
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Stream I BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev LTOB Elev
Pool 7.1 9.0 1 0.8 1.8 11.4 1231.10 1231.10
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 9, Cross -Section 16
1233
1232
0
0 1231
m
w
1230
1229
0.00
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00
Station (ft)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 17
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Feature Stream
IBKF Area BKF Width I Depth I Max
I W/D I BH Ratio I ER BKF Elev I LTOB Elev
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 9, Cross -Section 17
1233
1232
c
0
0 1231
m
w
1230
1229 ' I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 18
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Looking at the Left Bank
Stream I BKF Max BKF
Feature T e BKF Area BKF Width De th De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev LTOB Elev
Riffle E 1 5.2 1 7.1 1 0.7 1.4 1 9.8 1 1.2 2.1 1301.10 1301.50
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 11, Cross -Section 18
1308
1307
1306
Z 1305
0 1304
1303
w
1302
1301
1300
1299
0.00
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 19
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Stream I BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev LTOB Elev
Riffle B 1.5 3.8 1 0.4 0.7 9.7 1.1 2.9 1309.18 1309.40
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 13, Cross -Section 19
1315
1314
1313
c 1312
M
m 1311
w
1310
1309
1308 1 1 1 1 1 '
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 20
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Looking at the Left Bank
Stream I BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev LTOB Elev
Riffle B 1.0 3.3 1 0.3 0.5 11.0 1.0 9.6 1272.03 1272.20
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 14, Cross -Section 20
1275
1274
1273
0
M
m
w 1272
1271
1270
0 10 20 30 40
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
�A
'W
Looking at the Left Bank
Permanent Cross -Section 21
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Stream I BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev LTOB Elev
Riffle E 6.6 8.5 1 0.8 1.5 1 11.1 1 1.1 3.1 1281.40 1281.60
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 19, Cross -Section 21
1286
1285
1284
c 1283
.2
M
m 1282
w
1281
1280
1279
0.00
10.00 20.00 30.00
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 22
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream I BKF Max BKF
Feature I Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev LTOB Elev
Riffle E 1.9 4.5 1 0.4 0.7 10.2 1.0 2.8 1298.30 1298.30
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 20, Cross -Section 22
1304
1303
1302
c 1301
m 1300
w
1299
1298
1297
0
10 20 30
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 23
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Xs23 rtb
Looking at the Left Bank
Stream I BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev LTOB Elev
Riffle B 2.7 4.7 1 0.6 0.9 1 8.2 1 0.9 1.7 1260.44 1260.44
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 25, Cross -Section 23
1267
1266
1265
1264
0
0 1263
m
w 1262
1261
1260
1259 1 1 1 1'
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT
Looking at the Left Bank
Stream I BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev LTOB Elev
Riffle B 2.7 4.7 1 0.6 0.9 1 8.2 1 0.9 1.7 1260.44 1260.44
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 25, Cross -Section 23
1267
1266
1265
1264
0
0 1263
m
w 1262
1261
1260
1259 1 1 1 1'
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 24
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Stream I BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area BKF Width Depth De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev LTOB Elev
Riffle C 3.0 5.5 1 0.5 1.0 1 10.1 1 1.0 8.2 1287.10 1287.10
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 10b, Cross -Section 24
1289
1288
0
0 1287
m
w
1286
1285
0
10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 25
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature Stream
IBKF Area BKF Width I Depth MaxBKF
I W/D I BH Ratio I ER I BKF Elev I LTOB Elev
1275
1274
c
0
m 1273
m
w
1272
1271
As -built
t MY1
o- BKF
o- MY1 BKF
o- Floodprone
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 12, Cross -Section 25
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area. All
other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Figure 4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlay
Permanent Cross -Section 26
Year 1 Survey Collected: October 2020
..,.. a.,.
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature I Stream
IBKF Area I BKF Width Depth I Max
I W/D I BH Ratio I ER I BKF LTOB Elev
Russell Gap Mitigation Site
Reach 2, Cross -Section 26
1231
1230
1229
y 1228
0 1227
1226
w
1225
1224
1223
1222
As -built
MY1
Bankfull
MY1 BKF
o Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (ft)
Note: Per DMS/IRT request, bank height ratio for MY1 has been calculated using the bankfull elevation as determined from the as -built bankfull area.
All other values were calculated using the as -built bankfull elevation.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSEL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
MY1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100003
Reach R1 - (Restoration XS 1-4)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
BF Width (ft)
15.52
16.59
-----
17.65
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
16.90
-----
-----
16.10
16.15
16.15
16.20
Floodprone Width (ft)
71.92
74.43
-----
76.94
-----
-----
-----
-----
75.00
137.50
-----
200.00
75.30
78.85
78.85
82.40
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.05
1.25
-----
1.44
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.3
-----
-----
1.20
1.25
1.25
1.30
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.64
2.97
-----
3.30
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.60
-----
-----
1.60
1.70
1.70
1.80
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
22.35
23.43
-----
24.5
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
22.0
-----
-----
18.80
19.70
19.70
20.60
Width/Depth Ratio
10.78
13.80
-----
16.81
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
12.50
13.20
13.20
13.90
Entrenchment Ratio
4.36
4.50
-----
4.64
-----
-----
-----
-----
4.40
8.10
-----
11.80
4.70
4.90
4.90
5.10
Bank Height Ratio
1.20
1.33
-----
1.46
1.00
1.05
-----
1.10
-----
1.00
-----
-----
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
d50 (mm)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
33.00
73.50
-----
114.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
60.00
97.50
-----
135.00
53.11
73.15
72.84
89.22
Radius of Curvature (ft)
21.00
39.50
-----
58.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
34.00
41.50
-----
49.00
19.00
41.88
39.50
78.00
Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft)
17.65
10.70
-----
3.74
2.00
2.50
-----
1 3.00
2.00
2.45
-----
2.90
1.18
2.59
2.45
4.81
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
142.35
192.15
163.81
303.38
Meander Width Ratio
1.87
4.61
-----
7.35
3.50
5.75
-----
8.00
3.60
5.80
-----
8.00
3.30
4.53
4.51
5.51
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
33.61
50.90
49.22
64.82
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0120
0.04
-----
0.0600
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0110
0.0118
-----
0.0125
0.0029
0.0111
0.0098
0.0168
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
16.67
26.35
29.91
43.15
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
23.00
123.50
-----
224.00
60.00
89.50
-----
119.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
84.80
101.00
98.09
111.38
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.60
2.30
-----
3.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
3.50
-----
-----
1.16
1.77
1.85
2.54
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / Bo%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
d16d35 d50 d84 d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
1.50
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.50
-----
-----
----
1.50
----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Rosgen Classification
-----
C4/E4
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
----
C4
----
----
BF Velocity (fps)
3.67
3.85
-----
4.03
3.50
4.25
-----
5.00
-----
4.10
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
90.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
90.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
Valley Length
-----
1,756
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1,535
-----
-----
----
1,593
----
----
Channel Length (ft)
-----
2,142
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1,842
-----
-----
----
1,911
----
----
Sinuosity
-----
1.22
-----
-----
1.20
1.30
-----
1.40
-----
1.20
-----
-----
----
1.20
----
----
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100003
Reach R2 - (Restoration XS-26)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
BF Width (ft)
-----
15.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
18.00
-----
-----
----
18.50
----
----
Floodprone Width (ft)
22.00
26.00
-----
30.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
42.00
-----
-----
----
38.00
----
----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
1.60
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.4
-----
-----
----
1.80
----
----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
2.90
----
----
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
- - - - -
25.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
25.0
-----
-----
----
33.60
----
----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
9.40
-----
-----
10.00
12.50
-----
15.00
-----
13.00
-----
-----
----
10.20
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
1.50
1.75
-----
2.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.30
-----
-----
----
2.10
----
----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
2.30
-----
-----
1.00
1.05
-----
1.10
-----
1.00
-----
-----
----
1.00
----
----
d50 (mm)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
24.78
----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
N/A
----
----
Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
2.00
2.50
-----
3.00
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
N/A
----
----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
N/A
----
----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
N/A
-----
-----
3.50
5.75
-----
8.00
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
N/A
----
----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
32.58
48.51
48.51
64.43
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
0.0179
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0179
-----
-----
0.0058
0.0113
0.0113
0.0167
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
13.55
18.57
20.90
28.24
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
20.00
47.50
-----
75.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
65.00
95.00
-----
125.00
32.00
53.25
53.26
74.51
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
2.50
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
3.50
-----
-----
0.43
0.95
1.05
1.66
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / Bo%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
1.65
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.65
-----
-----
----
1.65
----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Rosgen Classification
-----
E4
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
----
C4
----
----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
4.00
-----
-----
3.50
-----
-----
5.00
-----
4.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
100.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
100.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Valley Length
-----
288
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
174
-----
-----
----
166
----
----
Channel Length (ft)
-----
288
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
174
-----
-----
----
166
----
----
Sinuosity
Sinuosity
-----
1.00
-----
-----
1.20
1.30
-----
1.40
-----
1.00
-----
-----
----
1.00
----
BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100003
Reach R3 - (Restoration XS-5)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
BF Width (ft)
-----
21.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
23.70
-----
-----
----
23.80
----
----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
71.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
71.00
-----
-----
----
46.50
----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
2.23
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.0
-----
-----
----
1.70
----
----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
3.40
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.50
-----
-----
----
2.70
----
----
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
- - - - -
46.87
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
47.0
-----
-----
----
40.90
----
----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
9.42
-----
-----
10.00
12.50
-----
15.00
-----
11.90
-----
-----
----
13.80
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
3.38
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
3.00
-----
-----
----
2.00
----
----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1.20
-----
-----
1.00
1.05
-----
1.10
-----
1.00
-----
-----
----
1.00
----
----
d50 (mm)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
22.67
----
----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
N/A
----
----
Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
2.00
2.50
-----
3.00
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
N/A
----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
N/A
----
----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
N/A
-----
-----
3.50
5.75
-----
8.00
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
N/A
----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
29.93
47.57
51.32
72.70
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
1 0.0075
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0075
-----
-----
0.0044
0.0158
0.0138
0.0233
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
4.28
26.01
29.94
55.59
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
18.00
26.00
-----
34.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
85.00
100.00
-----
115.00
47.04
86.95
85.53
124.01
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.60
3.70
-----
3.80
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
4.00
-----
-----
0.57
1.27
1.24
1.90
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / Bo%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
d1 d d d 4 d
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
3.48
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
3.48
-----
-----
----
3.48
----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Rosgen Classification
-----
E4 (Incised)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
----
C4
----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
5.00
-----
-----
3.50
4.25
-----
5.00
-----
5.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
235.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
235.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Valley Length
-----
350
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
350
-----
-----
----
366
----
----
Channel Length (ft)
-----
388
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
389
-----
-----
----
406
----
----
Sinuosity
-----
1.11
1 -----
-----
1 1.20
1.30
-----
1.40
-----
1.11
-----
-----
----
1.11
----
----
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100003
Reach R4 - (Enhancement I XS 6-11)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
BF Width (ft)
-----
16.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
16.90
-----
-----
13.30
15.84
14.30
22.60
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
22.82
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
37.00
-----
-----
24.00
29.58
31.70
34.30
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
1.54
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.3
-----
-----
0.90
1.38
1.50
1.70
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
2.72
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.60
-----
-----
2.00
2.46
2.30
3.00
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
- - - - -
24.5
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
22.0
-----
-----
15.50
20.64
22.10
23.10
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
10.36
-----
-----
12.00
15.00
-----
18.00
-----
13.00
-----
-----
8.40
13.04
10.30
26.10
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
1.62
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.20
-----
-----
1.40
1.90
1.90
2.30
Bank Height Ratio
-----
2.32
-----
-----
1.00
1.05
-----
1.10
-----
1.00
-----
-----
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
d50 (ram)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Pattern
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
----
----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Profile
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
33.46
58.40
68.03
102.60
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0150
0.0250
-----
0.0350
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0110
0.0140
-----
0.0170
0.0102
0.0178
0.0195
0.0289
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.23
14.40
20.08
37.92
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
55.00
167.50
-----
280.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
85.00
100.00
-----
115.00
33.46
103.56
113.76
194.05
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.10
-----
-----
2.40
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
3.00
-----
-----
1.09
1.66
1.71
2.32
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / Bo%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
1.26
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.26
-----
-----
----
----
1.26
----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Rosgen Classification
-----
E4 (Incised)
-----
-----
-----
B4c
-----
-----
-----
B4c
-----
-----
----
----
134c
----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
4.01
-----
-----
4.00
5.00
-----
6.00
-----
4.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
87.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
87.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Valley Length
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Channel Length (ft)
-----
2,245
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2,063
-----
-----
----
2,038
----
----
inuosity
-----
7. OTI
-----
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100003
Reach R6,R7b - (Restoration, Enhancement I XS 12-15)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
BF Width (ft)
-----
8.44
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
10.20
-----
-----
11.00
12.40
12.40
13.80
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
17.64
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
22.00
-----
-----
45.00
45.45
45.00
45.90
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
0.94
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.8
-----
-----
0.80
1.05
1.05
1.30
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.27
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.10
-----
-----
1.30
1.65
1.65
2.00
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
- - - - -
7.9
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
8.0
-----
-----
7.20
10.80
10.80
14.40
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
8.98
-----
-----
12.00
15.00
-----
18.00
-----
12.80
-----
-----
8.40
9.65
9.65
10.90
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
2.09
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.20
-----
-----
4.20
4.65
4.65
5.10
Bank Height Ratio
-----
3.10
-----
-----
1.00
1.05
-----
1.10
-----
1.00
-----
-----
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
d50 (mm)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
13.95
40.15
33.06
58.59
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
20.00
46.82
43.00
86.00
Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
1.82
3.78
3.47
6.23
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
58.19
108.11
113.28
170.29
Meander Width Ratio
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
1.27
3.24
2.67
4.25
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
34.21
91.23
89.80
145.39
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0260
0.0430
-----
0.0600
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0310
0.0375
-----
0.0440
0.0202
0.0384
0.0435
0.0667
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
17.11
20.53
21.39
25.66
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
53.00
159.00
-----
265.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
25.00
37.50
-----
50.00
31.36
90.16
138.27
245.18
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.50
2.05
-----
2.60
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.80
-----
-----
2.28
2.58
2.66
3.04
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / Bo%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
0.29
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.29
-----
-----
----
0.2900
----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Rosgen Classification
-----
E4
-----
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
----
B4
----
----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
4.41
-----
-----
4.00
-----
-----
6.00
-----
4.40
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
35.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
35.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Valley Length
-----
1,783
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1,816
-----
-----
----
1,793
----
----
Channel Length (ft)
-----
1,801
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1,943
-----
-----
----
1,919
----
----
Sinuosity
-----
1.01
-----
-----
1 1.10
1.15
-----
1.20
-----
1.07
-----
-----
----
1.07
----
----
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100003
Reach 9 - (Restoration XS 16-17)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
BF Width (ft)
-----
10.40
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
12.70
-----
-----
----
12.10
----
----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
45.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
60.00
-----
-----
----
18.70
----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
1.15
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.9
-----
-----
----
1.00
----
----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
2.25
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.20
-----
-----
----
1.40
----
----
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
- - - - -
12.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
12.0
-----
-----
----
11.90
----
----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
9.04
-----
-----
12.00
15.00
-----
18.00
-----
13.50
-----
-----
----
12.20
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
4.33
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
4.70
-----
-----
----
1.60
----
----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1.19
-----
-----
1.00
1.05
-----
1.10
-----
1.00
-----
-----
----
1.00
----
----
d50 (mm)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
20.86
24.81
22.89
30.60
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
41.00
73.83
56.00
176.00
Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
3.39
6.10
4.63
2.53
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
105.77
121.47
117.31
146.34
Meander Width Ratio
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
1.72
2.05
1.89
2.53
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
31.00
41.69
42.23
53.45
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0410
0.0480
-----
0.0550
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.2600
0.1505
-----
0.0410
0.0065
0.0218
0.0199
0.0332
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
10.49
19.56
20.03
29.57
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
29.00
47.50
-----
66.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
15.00
38.50
-----
62.00
45.71
62.03
62.51
79.31
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.30
2.70
-----
3.10
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.50
-----
-----
0.52
1.62
1.55
2.58
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / Bo%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
0.56
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.56
-----
-----
----
0.5600
----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Rosgen Classification
-----
E4b
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
----
B4
----
----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
4.00
-----
-----
4.00
5.00
-----
6.00
-----
4.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
48.0
-----
-----
I -----
B4
-----
-----
-----
48.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Valley Length
-----
422
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
I -----
-----
429
-----
-----
----
429
----
----
Channel Length (ft)
-----
439
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
446
-----
-----
----
446
----
----
Sinuosity
-----
1.04
-----
-----
1.10
1.15
-----
1.20
-----
1.04
-----
-----
----
1.04
----
----
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100003
Reach lob - (Restoration XS-24)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
BF Width (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
4.90
-----
-----
----
6.20
----
----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
115.00
-----
-----
----
32.00
----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.4
-----
-----
----
0.50
----
----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.50
-----
-----
----
1.00
----
----
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
- - - - -
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.0
-----
-----
----
3.50
----
----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
N/A
-----
-----
10.00
12.50
-----
15.00
-----
12.30
-----
-----
----
11.00
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
23.50
-----
-----
----
8.70
----
----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
N/A
-----
-----
1.00
1.05
-----
1.10
-----
1.00
-----
-----
----
1.00
----
----
d50(mm)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
10.37
13.70
11.86
18.87
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
34.00
66.67
82.00
84.00
Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
2.00
2.50
-----
3.00
-----
N/A
-----
-----
5.48
10.75
1 1.91
13.55
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
29.79
49.56
59.44
59.44
Meander Width Ratio
-----
N/A
-----
-----
3.50
5.75
-----
8.00
-----
N/A
-----
-----
1.67
2.21
1.91
3.04
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
107.07
----
----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0142
-----
-----
----
0.0196
----
----
Pool Length (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
38.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / Bo%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
0.26
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.26
-----
-----
----
0.2600
----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Rosgen Classification
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
----
C4
----
----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
-----
-----
-----
3.50
4.25
-----
5.00
-----
3.50
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
7.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Valley Length
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Channel Length (ft)
-----
0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
113
-----
-----
----
105
----
----
Sinuosity
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.20
1.30
-----
1.40
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
I ----
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100003
Reach 12 - (Restoration XS-25)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
BF Width (ft)
-----
7.97
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
8.80
-----
-----
----
9.10
----
----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
41.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
20.00
-----
-----
----
38.20
----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
0.91
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.7
-----
-----
----
0.60
----
----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.84
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.80
-----
-----
----
1.00
----
----
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
- - - - -
7.3
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
6.0
-----
-----
----
5.20
----
----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
8.75
-----
-----
12.00
13.50
-----
15.00
-----
12.60
-----
-----
----
16.20
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
5.14
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.30
-----
-----
----
4.20
----
----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1.63
-----
-----
1.00
1.05
-----
1.10
-----
1.00
-----
-----
----
1.00
----
----
d50 (mm)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Pattern
*Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
14.22
18.28
18.28
22.33
*Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
40.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
*Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
4.40
4.40
4.40
4.40
*Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
61.50
68.17
68.17
74.84
*Meander Width Ratio
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
1.56
2.01
2.01
2.45
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
16.04
25.93
25.93
35.81
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0350
0.0365
-----
0.0380
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0150
0.0160
-----
0.0170
0.0123
0.1365
0.1123
0.2123
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
5.88
7.24
7.24
8.59
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
24.00
32.00
-----
40.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
35.00
40.00
-----
45.00
10.16
49.98
49.98
89.80
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.80
2.00
-----
2.20
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.50
-----
-----
0.61
0.78
0.82
1.03
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
I -----
----
----
----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
0.18
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.18
-----
-----
----
0.1800
----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
*Rosgen Classification
-----
E4
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
-----
C4
-----
-----
----
C4
----
----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
4.13
-----
-----
3.50
-----
-----
5.00
-----
5.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
30.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
30.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Valley Length
-----
83
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
115
-----
-----
----
98
----
----
Channel Length (ft)
-----
86
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
120
-----
-----
----
102
----
----
Sinuosity
-----
1.03
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.04
-----
-----
----
1.04
----
----
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100003
Reach 14 - (Restoration XS 19-20)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design Values Upper
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
BF Width (ft)
-----
3.85
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
5.10
-----
-----
3.70
4.10
4.10
4.50
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
5.82
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
10.00
-----
-----
11.10
21.55
21.55
32.00
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
0.51
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.4
-----
-----
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
0.70
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.50
-----
-----
0.80
0.90
0.90
1.00
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
- - - - -
2.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.0
-----
-----
2.00
2.10
2.10
2.20
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
7.55
-----
-----
12.00
15.00
-----
18.00
-----
12.80
-----
-----
6.80
7.95
7.95
9.10
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
1.51
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.00
-----
-----
2.50
5.60
5.60
8.70
Bank Height Ratio
-----
9.60
-----
-----
1.00
1.05
-----
1.10
-----
1.00
-----
-----
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
d50 (mm)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Pattern
*Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
24.51
40.15
33.06
58.59
*Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
21.00
72.88
56.00
178.00
*Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
5.68
17.78
13.66
39.56
*Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
62.14
95.04
83.77
56.00
*Meander Width Ratio
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
6.62
9.79
8.06
13.02
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
4.19
15.81
25.68
47.17
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.1000
0.1400
-----
0.1800
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0850
0.1075
-----
0.1300
0.0108
0.0398
0.0518
0.0928
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.17
2.00
1.87
2.57
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
24.00
37.00
-----
50.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
5.00
12.50
-----
20.00
5.84
14.71
14.13
22.41
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.50
0.65
-----
0.80
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.70
-----
-----
0.69
1.10
1.15
1.60
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B%
-----
-----
-----
-----
I -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
0.02
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.02
-----
-----
----
0.0180
----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
*Rosgen Classification
-----
A4
-----
-----
-----
B4a
-----
-----
-----
B4a
-----
-----
----
B4a
----
----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
4.10
-----
-----
4.00
-----
-----
6.00
-----
4.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
8.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
8.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Valley Length
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Channel Length (ft)
-----
528
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
572
-----
-----
----
570
----
----
Sinuosity
-----
I N/A
-----
-----
1.10
-----
-----
1.20
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
N/A
----
----
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100003
Reach 19 - (Enhancement I XS-21)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
BF Width (ft)
-----
4.31
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
5.40
-----
-----
----
8.80
----
----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
8.84
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
10.00
-----
-----
----
26.30
----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
0.45
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.4
-----
-----
----
0.90
----
----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
0.91
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.50
-----
-----
----
1.50
----
----
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
- - - - -
1.9
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.0
-----
-----
----
7.60
----
----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
9.58
-----
-----
12.00
15.00
-----
18.00
-----
13.50
-----
-----
----
10.20
----
----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
2.05
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.90
-----
-----
----
3.00
----
----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
1.10
-----
-----
1.00
1.05
-----
1.10
-----
1.00
-----
-----
----
1.00
----
----
d50 (mm)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Pattern
*Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
*Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
*Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
*Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
*Meander Width Ratio
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.14
19.69
40.27
78.40
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0800
0.0950
-----
0.1100
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0800
0.0950
-----
0.1100
0.0260
0.0561
0.0515
0.0771
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.27
2.01
2.06
2.85
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
7.00
31.50
-----
56.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
4.00
12.00
-----
20.00
6.35
9.34
9.34
12.33
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
0.95
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.00
-----
-----
0.89
1.24
1.28
1.66
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
0.03
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.03
-----
-----
----
0.0300
----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
*Rosgen Classification
-----
B4a
-----
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
-----
B4a
-----
-----
----
B4a
----
----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
4.12
-----
-----
4.00
-----
-----
6.00
-----
4.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
8.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
8.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Valley Length
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Channel Length (ft)
-----
481
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
359
-----
-----
----
352
----
----
Sinuosity
-----
1.08
-----
-----
1.10
-----
-----
1.20
-----
1.08
1 -----
-----
----
1.08
----
----
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project: DMS Project No ID. 100003
Reach 25 - (Enhancement I XS-23)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built
Composite
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
BF Width (ft)
-----
5.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
5.40
-----
-----
----
5.10
----
----
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
12.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
12.00
-----
-----
----
11.10
----
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
0.40
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.4
-----
-----
----
0.50
----
----
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
0.50
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.50
-----
-----
----
0.80
----
----
BF Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
- - - - -
1.9
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.0
-----
-----
----
2.20
----
----
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
12.50
-----
-----
12.00
15.00
-----
18.00
-----
13.50
-----
-----
----
9.10
----
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
2.40
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.20
-----
-----
----
2.50
----
----
Bank Height Ratio
-----
2.00
-----
-----
1.00
1.05
-----
1.10
-----
1.00
-----
-----
----
1.00
----
----
d50 (mm)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Pattern
*Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
*Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
*Rc/Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
*Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
*Meander Width Ratio
-----
N/A
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
N/A
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
6.68
17.65
18.60
30.52
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0800
0.0950
-----
0.1100
1.1000
1.4500
-----
1.8000
0.0950
0.1025
-----
0.1100
0.0165
0.0591
0.0564
0.0962
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
2.23
5.21
5.41
8.59
Pool to Pool Spacing (ft)
7.00
31.50
-----
56.00
-----
-----
-----
-----
7.00
13.50
-----
20.00
7.63
16.24
23.05
38.47
Pool Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.20
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.20
-----
-----
1.16
1.75
1.68
2.19
Substrate and Transport Parameters
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B%
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
0.30
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.30
-----
-----
----
0.3000
----
Impervious cover estimate (%)
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
*Rosgen Classification
-----
B4a
-----
-----
-----
B4
-----
-----
-----
B4a
-----
-----
----
B4a
----
----
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
4.64
-----
-----
4.00
-----
-----
6.00
-----
4.50
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
9.0
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
9.00
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Valley Length
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
----
----
----
----
Channel Length (ft)
-----
422
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
427
-----
-----
----
431
----
----
Sinuosity
-----
1.09
-----
-----
1.10
-----
-----
1.20
-----
1.08
-----
-----
----
1 1.08
----
----
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 9. Crosa-Smfion Morphology Data Sucamory
0000
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY� NIY+
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross -sectional Arm
Width ofFloodprone Area (11)
Entrenchment Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (11)
Stream Reach
BF Width (ft)
BF Mean Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
BF Cross -sectional Arm (ft')
Width ofFloodprone Area (11)
Entrenchment Ratio
B — Height Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (11)
Stream Reach
Cross-section X 9 (Pool)
io „
URRVP
BF Mean Depth (ft)
De
�=������®�������������������
Width ofFloodprone Area (11)
®M�����
�®�����
�®�����
®������
Wetted Perimeter (11)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

Table 9. Cross-Sec0ou lYlosphology Dafa Summary
Russell Ga Restoration Pro'ecl: DMS rio'ect No ID. 100003
MorphologyTable 9. Cross -Section Data Sun—ary
R�toration Project: DMS Project No ID.100
1
BF e
BF Me -Depth
®�-----®®-----��-----��-----
Width/Depth
®-----®-----®®-----®®-----
BF Cr­sectional J
BF Max Depth
®®-----®-----®'
®-----®®-----
Width ofFloodprone Area (fl)
Entrenchment Ratij
BankHeight Ratio
Hydraulic Radius
Cross-section X-17 (Riffle)ii
1 i i ' ii
1 ii
BF Width
d1e'.
®=-----®®-----®®-----®®-----
BF
,'
BF Depth
�®'
-----®®-----®®-----®®-----
Width ofFloodprone Area (fl)
Hydraulic Radius1
d
—_-----
-------
-------
-------
Reach 25
Reach 1
1
BF e
BF Mean Depth
��-----��-----��-----��-----
Ratio
Cross-sectionalWidth/Depth
BF J
BF • 1
®®-----��-----��-----��-----
Width ofFloodprone Area (fl)
Entrenchment Ratij
B — Height Ratio
Hydraulic Radius
—_--------------------------
Reach 12
Reach 2
BF Mean Depth Ht)
Width/DepthWidth/Depth Ratio
BF ,=-----
MaxBF ' Depth
Width ood .. .•
BanIcHeight Ratio
Hydraulic Radius
®®-----®®-----
®®---
—
��-----®®-----
®=-----®®-----
®=-----
®®-----
—_------------
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX E
Hydrologic Data

Table 10. Verification of Bankfull Events
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100003
Date of Data
Collection
R1 Manual Cork Crest
Gauge #1
R9 Manual Cork Crest
Gauge #2
R4 Manual Cork Crest
Gauge #3
R6 Manual Cork Crest
Gauge #4
Date of Bankfull
Event Occurrence
Method of Data
Collection
Year 1 Monitoring (2020)
6/l/2020
NA
NA
1.25 ft.
NA
5/28/2020
Manual cork ni—oremeat
11/5/2020
1.5 ft.
NA
2.5 ft
NA
10/30/2020
Manual cork measurement
Note: Mavuak cork crest gauge readivgs were cormborated with associated spdces iv the automated Corti —ma Stage Recorder (see graph iv Appeadix E) and/or with photographs (Appeudhc B).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)

Figure S. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
Russell Gap Rain (2020)
1 /1 /2020
2/15/2020 3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020
11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0
1.0
2.0
m
3.0
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #1
(Well RGAW1)
20
RGAW1 Longest Hydroperiod of 37 days (16%):
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)

Figure S. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
Russell Gap Rain (2020)
1 /1 /2020 2/15/2020 3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0
1.0
2.0
m
X
3.0
20
15
10
a�
5
C
0 0
0
O
t -5
...
a
0
-10
-15
-20
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #2
(Well RGAW2)
RGAW2 Longest Hydroperiod of 226 days (100%):
3/28/2020 - 11/5/2020
12% of 234 days = 28 days
I I
RR A f% M A N A, I
I I
I I
1, \kf\.A
I I
GROWING SEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
11112020 2/15/2020 3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
RGAW2
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

Figure S. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
Russell Gap Rain (2020)
1 /1 /2020 2/15/2020
3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020
11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0
1.0
2.0
m
3.0
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #3
(Well RGAW3)
20
RGAW3 Longest Hydroperiod of 226 days (100%):
RGAW3
15
3/28/2020 - 11/5/2020
I 12% of 234 days = 28 days
10
-12 inches
I
I
5
— Begin Growing
Season
0
0
—01
0
I
I
— — End Growing
Season
t
...
-5
CL
I
I
0
-10
-15 GROWING SEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
-20
11112020 2/15/2020
3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020
11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)

Figure S. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
Russell Gap Rain (2020)
1 /1 /2020 2/15/2020 3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0
1.0
2.0
m
3.0
20
15
10
a�
5
C
0 0
0
O
t -5
...
a
0
-10
-15
-20
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #4
(Well RGAW4)
RGAW4 Longest Hydroperiod of 226 days (100%):
3/28/2020 - 11/5/2020
12% of 234 days = 28 days
I I
I
I I
I I
GROWING SEASON
(3/28
11112020 2/15/2020 3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
RGAW4
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

Figure S. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
Russell Gap Rain (2020)
1 /1 /2020 2/15/2020 3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0
1.0
2.0
m
X
3.0
20
15
10
a�
5
C
0 0
0
O
t -5
...
a
0
-10
-15
-20
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #5
(Well RGAW5)
RGAW5 Longest Hydroperiod of 87 days (38%):
3/28/2020 - 11/5/2020
12% of 234 days = 28 days
I I
vv P
I I
I I
I
I I
GROWING SEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
11112020 2/15/2020 3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
RGAW5
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

Figure S. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
Russell Gap Rain (2020)
1 /1 /2020 2/15/2020 3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0
1.0
2.0
m
X
3.0
20
15
10
a�
5
C
0 0
0
O
t -5
...
a
0
-10
-15
-20
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #6
(Well RGAW6)
RGAW6 Longest Hydroperiod of 226 days (100%):
3/28/2020 - 11/5/2020
12% of 234 days = 28 days
I I
I
I I
I I
GROWING SEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
11112020 2/15/2020 3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
RGAW6
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

Figure S. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
Russell Gap Rain (2020)
1 /1 /2020 2/15/2020 3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0
1.0
2.0
m
3.0
20
15
10
a�
5
C
0 0
0
O
t -5
...
a
0
-10
-15
-20
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #7
(Well RGAW7)
RGAW7 Longest Hydroperiod of 226 days (100%):
3/28/2020 - 11/5/2020
12% of 234 days = 28 days
I I
I
N�:
I AAk
�jI
GROWING SEASON
(3/28
11112020 2/15/2020 3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
RGAW7
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

Figure S. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
Russell Gap Rain (2020)
1 /1 /2020
2/15/2020
3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020
11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0
1.0
2.0
m
3.0
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #8
(Well RGAW8)
20
RGAW8 Longest Hydroperiod of 173 days (76.5%):
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)

Figure S. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
Russell Gap Rain (2020)
1 /1 /2020 2/15/2020
3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020
11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0
1.0
2.0
m
3.0
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #9
(Well RGAW9)
20
RGAW9 Longest Hydroperiod of 226 days (100%):
3/28/2020 - 11/5/2020
RGAW9
15
12% of 234 days = 28 days
10
1 -12 inches
5
— Begin Growing
Season
0
0
0
— — End Growing
Season
t
...
-5
a
0
-10
-15 GROWING SEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
-20
11112020 2/15/2020
3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020
11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)

Figure S. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
Russell Gap Rain (2020)
1 /1 /2020 2/15/2020
3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020
11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0
1.0
2.0
m
3.0
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #10
(Well RGAW10)
20
RGAW10 Longest Hydroperiod of 59 days (25.7%):
RGAW10
3/28/2020 - 11/5/2020
15
12% of 234 days = 28 days
I
I
10
-12 inches
I
I
5
— — Begin Growing
Season
0
0A
A A A -M-A -A
0
I
1
— — End Growing
Season
t
...
-5
CL
I
I
0
-10
-15 GROWING SEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
1
1
-20
11112020 2/15/2020
3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020
11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)

Figure S. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
Russell Gap Rain (2020)
1 /1 /2020 2/15/2020 3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0
1.0
2.0
m
3.0
20
15
10
a�
5
C
0 0
0
O
t -5
...
a
0
-10
-15
-20
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #11
(Well RGAW11)
RGAW11 Longest Hydroperiod of 223 days (100%):
3/28/2020 - 11/5/2020
12% of 234 days = 28 days
I I
la INA I III v iRd V�l
IV
I I
I I
I
I I
GROWING SEASON
(3/28
11112020 2/15/2020 3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
RGAW11
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

Figure S. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
Russell Gap Rain (2020)
1 /1 /2020 2/15/2020 3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0
1.0
2.0
m
3.0
20
15
10
a�
5
C
0 0
0
O
t -5
...
a
0
-10
-15
-20
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #12
(Well RGAW12)
RGAW12 Longest Hydroperiod of 226 days (100%):
3/28/2020 - 11/5/2020
12% of 234 days = 28 days
I I
AAA
I I
I
I I
GROWING SEASON
(3/28
11112020 2/15/2020 3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
RGAW12
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season

Table 11. Wetland Hydrology Summary Data
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100003
Well ID
Percentage of Consecutive Days
<12 inches from Ground Surface'
Most Consecutive Days
Meeting Criteria
Percentage of Cumulative Days
<12 inches from Ground Surface
Cumulative Days Meeting
Criteria3
Year 1
2020
Year 2
2021
Year 3
2022
Year 4
2023
Year 5
2024
Year 6
2025
Year 7
2026
Year 1
2020
Year 2
2021
Year 3
2022
Year 4
2023
Year 5
2024
Year 6
2025
Year 7
2026
Year 1
2020
Year 2
2021
Year 3
2022
Year 4
2023
Year 5
2024
Year 6
2025
Year 7
2026
Year 1
2020
Year 2
2021
Year 3
2022
Year 4
2023
Year 5
2024
Year 6
2025
Year 7
2026
Wetland Monitoring Wells (Installed March 2020)
RGAW 1
16.0
59
66.4
150
RGAW2
100.0
226
100.0
226
RGAW3
100.0
226
100.0
226
RGAW4
100.0
226
100.0
226
RGAWS
38.0
87
92.0
208
RGAW6
54.8
124
100.0
226
RGAW7
100.0
226
100.0
226
RGAW8
76.5
173
91.6
207
RGAW9
100.0
226
100.0
226
RGAW10
100.0
226
100.0
226
RGAW 11
100.0
226
100.0
226
RGAW12
100.0
226
100.0
226
Ell
'Indicates the percentage of the single greatest consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
'Indicates the single greatest consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
'Indicates the total number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
Growing season for Alexander County is from March 28 to November 8 and is 226 days long. 12% of the growing season is 27 days.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 1 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DIMS PROJECT NO. 100003)

ti. r low
11112020
0.0
0.5
Zr_
1.0 -
1.5 -
w 2.0 -
M
2.5
3.0
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
w 0.70
0.65
Q 0.60
0 0.55
i 0.50
R 0.45
0.40
cD 0.35
R 0.30
i 0.25
7
N 0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Daily Rain
2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
- Station: TAYL
Russell Gap Restoration Site
In -channel Flow Gauge RGFL1-R11
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET- 140
(8/29/2020 - 11/1/2020)
Min Flow - 0.05 feet
—RGFL1
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 100003) MONITORING YEAR 1, 2020

N igure 6. r low l
11112020
0.0
0.5
Zr_
1.0
1.5 -
w 2.0 -
M
2.5
3.0
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
w 0.70
0.65
Q 0.60
0 0.55
i 0.50
R 0.45
0.40
cD 0.35
R 0.30
i 0.25
7
N 0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Daily Rain
2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
- Station: TAYL
Russell Gap Restoration Site
In -channel Flow Gauge RGFL2-R14
Min Flow - 0.05 feet
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS -RGFL2
CRITERIA MET- 202
(3/18/2020 - 10/6/2020)
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11 /11 /2020 12/26/2020
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 100003) MONITORING YEAR 1, 2020

ti. r low
11112020
0.0
0.5
Zr_
1.0 -
1.5 -
w 2.0 -
M
2.5
3.0
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
w 0.70
0.65
Q 0.60
0 0.55
i 0.50
R 0.45
0.40
cD 0.35
R 0.30
i 0.25
7
N 0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Daily Rain
2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET- 232
(3/18/2020 - 11/5/2020)
- Station: TAYL
Russell Gap Restoration Site
In -channel Flow Gauge RGFL3-R14
Min Flow - 0.05 feet
—RGFL3
11112020 2/15/2020 3/31 /2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11 /11 /2020 12/26/2020
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 100003) MONITORING YEAR 1, 2020

b. r low
Daily Rain
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
w 2.0
2.5
� 3.0
Rain data from NC CRONOS Database T
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.75
w 0.70
0.65
Q 0.60
0 0.55
i 0.50
R 0.45
0.40
a) 0.35
R 0.30
i 0.25
7
N 0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
CRITERIA MET- 232
(3/18/2020 - 11/5/2020)
Ile Tower - Station: TAYL
Russell Gap Restoration Site
In -channel Flow Gauge RGFL4-R19
Min Flow - 0.05 feet
—RGFL4
1/1/2020 2/15/2020 3/31/2020 5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020 9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 100003) MONITORING YEAR 1, 2020

Figure 6. Flow Gauge Graphs
Daily Rain
1/1/2020 2/15/2020
3/31/2020
5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020
9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
0.0
,.,
0.5
Zr_
1.0
1.5
w
2.0
2.5
�
3.0
Rain data from NC CRONOS Database Ta lorsville Tower - Station: TAYL
Russell Gap Restoration Site
In -channel Flow Gauge RGFL5-R20
1.00
0.95
Min Flow - 0.05 feet
0.90
0.85
YR1 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS
-RGFL5
0.80
CRITERIA MET- 232
0.75
(3/18/2020- 11/5/2020)
w
0.70
0.65
0.60
0.55
0
0.50
0.40
0.4540
-IgINFIR
0.35
1-111'
0.30
i
0.25
7
N
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
1/1/2020 2/15/2020
3/31/2020
5/15/2020 6/29/2020 8/13/2020
9/27/2020 11/11/2020 12/26/2020
Date
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 100003) MONITORING YEAR 1, 2020

Table 12. All Years Flow Gauge Success
Russell Gap Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 100003
Flow Gauge ID
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria'
Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria
Year 1
2020
Year 2
2021
Year 3
2022
Year 4
2023
Year 5
2024
Year 6
2025
1 Year 7
2026
Year 1
2020
Year 2
2021
Year 3
2022
Year 4
2023
Year 5
2024
Year 6
2025
Year 7
2026
Flow Gauges (Installed March, 2020)
RGFL 1
64.0
209.0
RGFL2
202.0
222.0
RGFL3
232.0
232.0
RGFL4
232.0
232.0
RGFLS
232.0
232.0
Notes:
'Indicates the number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Indicates the number of cumulative days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Success criteria will include 30 days of consecutive baseflow for monitoring gauges during a normal rainfall year.
Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 100003) MONITORING YEAR 1, 2020

Figure 7. Observed Rainfall Versus Historic Averages
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project MY1
Observed Rainfall versus Historic Averages
10.0
8.0
6.0
c r
0
n 4.0
V
cam.
a
2.0
0.0
■Alexander County Historic Average (51.3)
■ Historic 30% Probable (34.76)
■Historic 70% Probable (61.1)
■Observed Project Rainfall (81.4 in)
Note: Historic average annual rainfall for Alexander County, NC is 51.3 inches, while the observed project rainfall recorded a total of 81.4
inches over the previous 12 months (Dec. 2019 - Nov. 2020). Project rainfall data was collected from the NC-CRONOS station TAYL.