20171157 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2020_20210114

ID#* 20171157 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 r Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Matthew Reid
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20171157
Existing ID�
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Shake Rag
County: Madison
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Plans
File Upload: Shake Rag_100018_MY1_2020.pdf 16.43MB
Rease upload only one RDF of the complete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matthew Reid
Signature:*

MONITORING YEAR 1
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
hif
I''• +r
SHAKE RAG MITIGATION SITE
Madison County, NC
DEQ Contract No. 7190
DMS Project No. 100018
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01570
DWR Certification No. 17-1157
French Broad River Basin
HUC 06010105
Data Collection Period: June 2020 — October 2020
Draft Submission Date: November 25, 2020
Final Submission Date: January 8, 2021
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street; 3,a Floor
Raleigh, NC 27603

% �6_
11�0
WILDLANDS
January 8, 2021
Mr. Matthew Reid
Project Manager
NCDEQ— Division of Mitigation Services
15 Buckhorn Gap Road
Biltmore Lake, NC 28715
RE: Shake Rag Mitigation Site — Monitoring Year 1 Report Response to DMS Comments
French Broad River Basin — CU# 06010105 — Madison County
DMS Project ID No. 100018
Contract # 7190
Dear Mr. Reid:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
comments from the Draft Monitoring Year (MY) 1 report for the Shake Rag Mitigation Site. DMS'
comments are noted below in bold. Wildlands' responses to those comments are noted in italics.
DMS comment: Project Overview: Third paragraph discusses pre -construction conditions that can be
found in Table 6 of Appendix 2. Table 6 in Appendix 2 is the Visual Stream Morphology Stability
Assessment Table and represents current conditions at the site. Perhaps Table 11 in Appendix 4 was
the table WEI was referring to in the text. Please revise as necessary.
Wildlonds response: Yes, Table 11 in Appendix 4 is the correct reference. The text in Section 1 has been
updated.
DMS comment: Stream Assessment: The last sentence on page 1-3 notes that Shake Rag Reach 5 and
UT8 are expected to have wider flood prone widths and entrenchment ratios greater than 2.2. Please
add "As noted in the approved mitigation plan" or something similar to this sentence. Also, it should
be noted that only Shake Rag Reach 5 was discussed in the mitigation plan.
Wildlonds response: Text was added to Section 1.2.3 to clarify this statement.
DMS comment: Stream Areas of Concern: Please add a short discussion regarding the number of
structures and extent of the repairs that took place for both the Summer 2020 and November 2020
repairs.
Wildlonds response: Text was added to Section 1.2.5 to describe the repair activities that took place in
2020. The earlier repair occurred in the Spring of 2020 rather than the Summer of 2020 and has been
corrected in the report.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

WILDLANDS
DMS comment: Monitoring Year 1 Summary: The report indicates that there are isolated areas of
structure piping on the site. Are these new piping structures after the repairs? How many and what
locations? Please show these piping structures on the CCPV. If these problem areas do not exist
anymore, please remove statement.
Wildlonds response: Text was added to Section 1.3 discussing the few isolated areas of concern that
currently remain on the Site.
DMS comment: Table 2: Please include Stream Repair Maintenance: Summer 2020 to the table or add
Summer 2020 to existing Stream Repair Maintenance entry.
Wildlonds response: As noted above, the earlier repair occurred in the Spring of 2020, and this has been
added to Table 2.
DMS comment: CCPV: The report (section 1.2.5) indicates that the areas of concern noted on the CCPV
were repaired in November. If this is the case, please update the CCPV Legend to "Structure Issue —
Repaired Nov. 2020" or something similar. It appears to the reviewer that these are current and
ongoing problems. If there are known problem areas that developed after the repair or remain on -
site, please mark those with a different symbol.
Wildlonds response: Since these areas of concern were repaired and no longer of issue, they were
removed from the CCPV mops and associated stability tables.
DMS comment: Tables 6b, 6c and 6d: These tables should represent what is currently on the ground
and match what is shown on the CCPV. Are the numbers shown in the "Engineered Structures"
category calculated using what was repaired or are these different problem areas? Please update as
necessary along with CCPV.
Wildlonds response: Tables 6b, 6c, and 6d hove been updated to represent what is currently o known
stream stability issue. As stated above, oll repaired areas hove been removed from the CCPV mops, and
only current issues remain.
DMS comment: Cross -sections: The cross-section graphs show adjustment from MYO through MY1.
The area received several significant storms this fall and the exaggerated vertical scale can often times
be misleading with such small channels. Please be prepared to answer questions regarding the cross -
sections during the 2021 Credit Release Meeting.
Wildlonds response: Additional text has been added to Section 1.2.3 to better clarify how slight changes
in bank height on very small streams tend to exaggerate ratio comparisons. Wildlonds will be prepared
to answer questions during the 2021 Credit Release Meeting regarding the cross-section dimensions for
the Site's small channels.
Electronic Support Files:
DMS comment: The draft support files are correct. Please update the files with any changes made
while addressing comments and include with final submittal.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

k rw
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
Wildlands response: The electronic files have been updated as needed for the final submittal.
One (1) hard copy of the Final Monitoring Report and a full electronic submittal has been mailed to your
home address. Please contact me at 828-545-3865 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
#"W- A /Ax—
Jake McLean
Project Manager
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

PREPARED BY:
W
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R N G
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full -delivery stream mitigation project at the
Shake Rag Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS). The project restored, enhanced, and preserved a total of 9,273
linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream in Madison County, NC. The Site is located within
the DIMS targeted watershed for the French Broad River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
06010105110020 and the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Subbasin 04-03-04. The project is
providing 6,655.600 stream mitigation units (SMUs) for the French Broad River Basin HUC 06010105
(French Broad 05).
The watershed has a long history of agricultural activity and most of the stressors to stream functions
are related to historic and current land use practices. Prior to construction, the major stream stressors
for the Site were livestock trampling and fecal coliform inputs, stream bed incision and bank scour, a
lack of stabilizing stream bank and riparian vegetation, and ditching and/or piping from agricultural
activities. The effects of these stressors resulted in degraded water quality and habitat throughout the
Site's watershed when compared to reference conditions. The project approach for the Site focused on
evaluating the Site's existing functional condition and its potential for recovery and need for
intervention.
The project goals defined in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2019) were established with careful
consideration of 2009 French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) goals and objectives to
address stressors identified in the watershed. The established project goals include:
• Improve stream channel stability,
• Exclude livestock from stream channels,
• Reconstruct channels and flood -prone areas with appropriate geomorphology,
• Improve in -stream habitat,
• Reduce sediment and nutrient input from adjacent cattle pastures and unpaved roads,
• Restore and enhance native riparian and upland vegetation, and
• Permanently protect the Site from harmful uses.
The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed between December 2019 and February 2020.
Monitoring Year (MY) 1 assessments and site visits were completed between June and November 2020
to assess the conditions of the project.
Overall, the Site has met the required stream, vegetation, and hydrology success criteria for MY1. The
overall average planted stem density for the Site is 522 stems per acre and is on track to meet the MY3
requirement of 320 stems per acre. Geomorphic surveys indicate that cross-section bankfull dimensions
closely match the baseline monitoring with some minor adjustments, and streams are functioning as
intended. At least one bankfull event was documented on UT1 Reach 2 and UT2 Reach 2 since the
completion of construction. The MY1 visual assessment identified a few areas of concern including
populations of invasive plant species and a few isolated areas of structure piping and bank scour are still
noted on the Site. Wildlands will continue to monitor these areas, and an adaptive management plan
will be implemented as necessary throughout the seven-year monitoring period to benefit the ecological
health of the Site.
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
IiW Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report -FINAL

SHAKE RAG MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives............................................................................................1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment.................................................................................1-2
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment.............................................................................................1-2
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity.............................................1-3
1.2.3 Stream Assessment...................................................................................................1-3
1.2.4 Stream Hydrology Assessment..................................................................................1-4
1.2.5 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity...................................................1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary.............................................................................................1-5
Section 2: METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES.................................................................................................................3-1
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL ii

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Mitigation Assets and Components
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contacts Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Table 5a-b
Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0 — 3.4
Current Condition Plan View Maps (Key — Sheet 4)
Table 6
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8a-b Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9 CVS Permanent Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10a-b Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11a-b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11c Reference Reach Data Summary
Table 12a-b Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Table 13a-h Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross -Section Plots
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 14 Verification of Bankfull Events
Stream and Crest Gage Plots
Monthly Rainfall Data
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL iii

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Shake Rag Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Madison County approximately 19 miles north of
Asheville and 4 miles northeast of the town of Mars Hill in the French Broad River Basin HUC
06010105110020 and NCDWR Subbasin 04-03-04 (Figure 1). Located in the Blue Ridge belt within the
Blue Ridge physiographic province (NCGS, 1985), the project watershed is dominated by agricultural and
steep forested land.
In general, the Site encompasses three primary drainage areas that are comprised of smaller valleys. The
three primary drainage areas are Shake Rag Branch (SRB), UT1, and UT6. All project stream reaches
within these drainages originate from steep, forested headwater valleys before transitioning to open
pastureland situated in wider valley bottoms further downstream. Shake Rag Branch's valley begins as a
steep, colluvial, V-shaped valley, which gradually widens into a moderately confined alluvial bottom as it
moves downstream. UT1A, UT3, UT4, and UT8 have steep valleys with much broader valley bottoms,
while UT1, UT2, UT5, UT6, and UT7 flow through steep, colluvial, V-shaped valleys for their entire length
in the project area. Shake Rag Branch drains 163 acres, UT1 drains 70 acres, and UT6 drains 43 acres of
rural land.
Prior to construction activities, the Site was in hay production in the valley bottom, with cattle grazing
along valley side slopes and access to the steeper forested areas. Riparian buffers were absent except in
the steepest upper portions of the site. The streams throughout the Site were in various stages of
impairment related to the current and historical agricultural uses. Many of the streams were buried in
rock -lined channels or pipes approximately 50 years ago. Pre -construction conditions are outlined in
Table 4 of Appendix 1 and Table 11 of Appendix 4.
The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by DIMS in January of 2019 and the IRT in March of
2019. Construction activities were completed in January 2020 by Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc. Kee
Mapping & Surveying, PLLC. completed the as -built survey in February 2020. Planting was completed
following construction in the January 2020 by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. A conservation easement has
been recorded and is in place on 18 acres. The project is providing 6,655.600 stream mitigation units
(SMUs) for the French Broad River Basin HUC 06010105 (French Broad 05). Annual monitoring will be
conducted for seven years with close-out anticipated to commence in 2027 given the success criteria are
met.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
The Site is providing numerous ecological benefits within the French Broad River Basin. The project goals
were established with careful consideration to address stressors that were identified in the RBRP (EEP,
2009).
The following project specific goals and objectives outlined in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2019)
include:
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-1

Goals
Objectives
Reconstruct stream channels slated for restoration with stable
Improve the stability of stream channels.
dimensions and appropriate depth relative to the existing flood -
prone area. Add bank revetments and in -stream structures to
protect restored/enhanced streams.
Exclude livestock from stream channels.
Install livestock fencing and watering systems as needed to
exclude livestock from stream channels and riparian areas.
Daylight buried or piped streams, remove man-made
Reconstruct channels and flood prone areas
impoundments, and restore historic valley profiles. Reconstruct
with appropriate geomorphology.
stream channels with bankfull dimensions and construct flood -
prone areas consistent with reference reach findings.
Install habitat features such as cascading riffle -pool sequences,
Improve instream habitat.
lunker logs, and brush toes on restored reaches. Add woody
materials to channel beds. Construct pools of varying depth.
Remove online farm pond.
Construct one step -pool conveyance BMP to treat contributing
Reduce sediment and nutrient input from
17-acre drainage area that is subject to nutrient and fecal
adjacent cattle grazing areas and unpaved
coliform loading from cattle. Relocate unpaved roads outside of
roads.
riparian corridor. Grade and plant forested buffer with native
vegetation.
Convert active hay fields and cattle pasture to forested riparian
Restore and enhance native riparian and
buffers along all Site streams, which will slow and treat runoff
upland vegetation.
from adjacent agriculture before entering streams. Protect and
enhance existing forested riparian buffers. Treat invasive species.
Permanently protect the Site from harmful
Establish a conservation easement on the Site. Exclude livestock
uses.
from Site streams.
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring for MY1 was conducted between June and October 2020, with hydrology data
collected between February and October 2020, to assess the condition of the project. The stream,
vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria presented in
the Shake Rag Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2019).
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Vegetation plot monitoring is being conducted in post -construction monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7.
Permanent plots are monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures developed by the
Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008) and the 2016 USACE Stream and
Wetland Mitigation Guidance to assess the vegetation success. A total of 5 permanent vegetation plots
were established within the project easement area. All of the permanent plots were established as
either a 10 meter by 10 meter square plot or 5 meter by 20 meter rectangular plot. In addition, 4 mobile
vegetation plots were established in monitoring year 1 throughout the planted conservation easement
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-2

to evaluate the random vegetation performance for the Site. These plots will be subsequently
reestablished in different random locations in monitoring years 2, 3, 5, and 7. Mobile vegetation plot
assessments will document stems, species, and height using a circular or 100 meter square/rectangular
plot. The final vegetative performance standard will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the
planted riparian areas at the end of the required seven-year monitoring period. The interim measure of
vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of
MY3 and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of MYS.
The MY1 vegetation survey was completed in October 2020, resulting in an average planted stem
density of 522 stems per acre for all monitored permanent and mobile vegetation plots. The Site is on
track to meet the interim MY3 requirement of 320 planted stems per acre, with all plots (100%)
individually exceeding this requirement with densities ranging from 445 to 607 stems per acre. In the
permanent vegetation plots, there was a survival rate of about 93%. American beech (Fagus grandifolia)
had the highest mortality rate of the species planted in open planting areas. Approximately 76% of the
planted stems in permanent plots are thriving with a vigor of 3 or greater indicating that they have good
or better plant health and damage is rare. Only about 3% of the monitored stems were documented
with a vigor of 1 and are unlikely to survive through the following year. This low vigor rating is likely due
to damage from suffocation from dense herbaceous vegetation, dry soil conditions, deer browsing,
and/or other unknown factors. Please refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and
Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity
MY1 visual assessments indicate that some invasive plant populations are present within the
conservation easement. Invasive species found on the Site include multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and silver grass (Miscanthus
sinensis). Many of these invasive plant areas had previously been treated before construction but re -
sprouted during MY1. Adaptive management activities will occur in MY2 to treat invasive plant areas, as
needed.
Overall, the herbaceous cover is becoming well established throughout the site and wetland vegetation
has filled in nicely in wet seeps preventing the potential for rills or gullies to form. Only a couple of small
areas of poor herbaceous cover were noted on steeper slopes along UT3 and Shake Rag Branch. A few
small areas of mowing overreach were observed inside the easement. They were primarily noted at the
corners of a couple internal crossings on Shake Rag Branch Reach 5 and UT4. Wildlands has notified the
landowners of the mowing error and will install additional posts if deemed necessary to prevent any
additional encroachment.
These vegetation areas of concern are documented on Table 7 and shown on the Current Condition Plan
View (CCPV) Figures 3.0— 3.4 in Appendix 2.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Riffle cross -sections on the restoration and enhancement I reaches should be stable and show little
change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. All riffle cross -sections should
fall within the parameters defined for the designated stream type. If any changes do occur, these
changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators
of instability include a vertically incising thalweg and/or eroding channel banks. Remedial action would
not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability. As noted in the approved
Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2019), Shake Rag Reach 5 is expected to have wider flood -prone widths and
entrenchment ratios greater than 2.2. This is also evident for UT8 due to the existing landforms.
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-3

Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in October 2020. Cross-section survey results indicate
that channel dimensions are stable and functioning as designed on all restoration and enhancement I
reaches with minimal adjustments. Minor changes occurring within some cross -sections include
localized downcutting, narrowing of riffles, and alluvial deposition at the top of bank. Vegetation that
has become established and sediment deposition along the banks have raised the lower bank
elevations, thus increasing the low bank height ratio slightly at cross-section 1 along UT1 Reach 2 and
cross-section 2 along UT2 Reach 2. The difference between the low bank height and bankfull max depth
for both cross -sections is less than 0.1 feet; therefore, slight changes in bank heights on very small
streams tend to exaggerate ratio comparisons and is not a sign of instability. Cross-section 8 is
representative of a few isolated areas of riffle scour and channel downcutting along Shake Rag Branch.
See Section 1.2.5 for further discussion about stream areas of concern along Shake Rag Branch.
Reachwide pebble counts along all restoration and enhancement I reaches indicate maintenance of
coarser materials in riffle features and finer particles in the pool features. Please refer to Appendix 2 for
the visual stability assessment tables, CCPV Figures 3.0 — 3.4, and reference photographs, and Appendix
4 for the morphological tables and plots.
1.2.4 Stream Hydrology Assessment
Automated pressure transducers were installed to documenting stream hydrology and used on
mitigation reaches that implement restoration and/or enhancement level I approaches throughout the
seven-year monitoring period. Henceforth, these devices are referred to as "crest gages (CG)" for those
recording bankfull events and "stream gages (SG)" for those recording baseflow.
Bankfull Events
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, four or more bankfull flow events must have occurred
in separate years within the restoration reaches. A total of 5 CGs were installed along restoration and
enhancement I reaches. In MY1, at least one bankfull event was recorded on UT1 Reach 2 and UT2
Reach 2. At as -built, the pressure transducers in the CGs were programmed to record data every 2
hours. However, this interval was most likely too long to capture all bankfull events in the steep and
flashy project streams. Therefore, the interval that the pressure transducers record data has been
reprogrammed to 30 minutes going forward.
Baseflow Monitoring
Consistent flow must be documented in the restored intermittent channel (UT8) at the Site. Under
periods of normal rainfall, stream flow must be documented to occur every year for at least 30
consecutive days during the seven-year monitoring period. An automated SG was installed within the
upper third of UT8 to monitor baseflow. On UT8, 289 consecutive days were documented in MY1
indicating that this channel exceeded the success criteria for intermittent channels.
Please refer to Appendix 5 for hydrology summary data and plots.
1.2.5 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity
MY1 stream and visual assessments revealed stream areas of concern that include localized instances of
structure issues and stream bed instability. In February 2020, several large storm events caused some
grade control structures to experience piping around rock sills, bank scour, and riffle downcutting along
Shake Rag Branch, UT2, UT3, and UT4. The first round of repairs was completed in Spring 2020 and
addressed 3 major instances of rock step structure instability, 7 instances of bed scour, and 2 instances
of bank scour. In November 2020, a few additional repairs were completed and included 2 instances of
rock step structure piping and 5 instances of bed instability. Repair activities consisted of re -grading
bank scour, adding riffle material, reinforcing some boulder structures, and plugging piping at boulder
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-4

steps to improve the grade control in the streams. A few minor stream areas of concern remain on the
Site and are noted on the CCPV figures. Currently, these areas are not negatively impacting stream
function or stability; however, they will continue to be monitored in future years for signs of instability.
Please refer to Appendix 2 for stream stability tables and CCPV Figures 3.0 — 3.4.
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
Overall, the Site has met the required stream, vegetation, and hydrology success criteria for MY1. The
overall average planted stem density for the Site is 522 stems per acre and is on track to meet the MY3
requirement of 320 stems per acre. Geomorphic surveys indicate that cross-section bankfull dimensions
closely match the baseline monitoring with some minor adjustments, and most of the streams are
functioning as intended. At least one bankfull event was documented on UT1 Reach 2 and UT2 Reach 2
since the completion of construction. The MY1 visual assessment identified a few areas of concern
including populations of invasive plant species and a few isolated areas of structure piping and bank
scour are still noted on the Site. Wildlands will continue to monitor these areas, and an adaptive
management plan will be implemented as necessary throughout the seven-year monitoring period to
benefit the ecological health of the Site.
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 1-5

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data were collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Stream gages were installed in riffles and monitored quarterly. Hydrologic monitoring instrument
installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP
Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-
2.pdf North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2009. French Broad River Basin Restoration
Priorities.
North Carolina Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database (NCCRONOS).
2020. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. Station ID Mars Hill 2.2 SSE, NC. Accessed
October 2020.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS), June 2017. DMS Annual Monitoring and Closeout
Reporting Template.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS), June 2017. DMS Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Plan Template and Guidance.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources. 2011. French Broad Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2015. Surface Water Classifications.
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities.
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina: North Carolina Survey,
General Geologic Map, scale 1:500,000. https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-
resources/north-carolina-geological-survey/ncgs-maps/1985-geologic-map-of-nc4
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), October 2016. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE,
NCDENR-DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands), 2019. Shake Rag Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. DIMS, Raleigh,
NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (Wildlands), 2020. Shake Rag Mitigation Site As -Built Baseline Monitoring
Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report - FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

- Project Location
Hydrologic Unit Code (14-digit)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
Or
0
3�
At
P
06010105130010
MOUNTAINS ....�r��
f(C4ip
06010105110040
,r
i
WOITM
Laurel
Countr
Club
IL
l 06010105110030
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted with in the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
% 2" - lwww
W ILDLANDS
E"CCINFt RING
danI
10
a
06010108080030
�.1 06010108080020
Z�
06010105110020
060101
I
06010108080010
' {»�IV
06010105110010
Directions to Site:
From Asheville: Head north on 1-26 W towards Mars
Hill. Take exit 9 and turn right on US-19 N/US-23A N
towards Burnsville/Spruce Pine and continue for 3 miles.
Turn left onto Shake Rag Road and continue for about
1 mile onto the Site.
06010105080020
0 1 2 Miles Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
i "Alk Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Madison County, NC

0 250 500 Feet Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
I i I i I Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
W ILDLANDS rk�
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
ENC�INEER4NG
Madison County, NC

Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Project
Project Area/Reach
Existing Footage
1
(LF)or Acreage
Mitigation PlanMitigation
Footage/
Acreage
Category
Components
Restoration Level
Priority Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
As -Built Footage/
z
Acreage
Comments
Shake Rag Branch R1
312
312
Cold
Preservation
N/A
10.000
312
N/A
Shake Rag Branch R2
175
175
Cold
Enhancement II
N/A
2.500
175
N/A
Shake Rag Branch R3
1,451
1,393
Cold
Restoration
P1
1.000
1,391
N/A
Shake Rag Branch R4
385
385
Cold
Enhancement I
N/A
1.500
385
N/A
Shake Rag Branch R5
1,216
1,134
Cold
Restoration
P1, P2
1.000
1,134
N/A
UT1 R1
934
907
Cold
Enhancement 11
N/A
2.500
907
N/A
UT1 R2
255
278
Cold
Enhancement I
N/A
1.500
278
N/A
UT1A
100
100
Cold
Enhancement 11
N/A
2.500
100
N/A
UT2 R1
164
164
Cold
Enhancement 11
N/A
2.500
164
N/A
UT2 R2
296
304
Cold
Restoration
P1
1.000
304
N/A
UT3 R1
426
426
Cold
Enhancement 11
N/A
2.500
426
N/A
UT3 R2
1,387
1,019
Cold
Restoration
P1
1.000
1,019
N/A
UT4
910
930
Cold
Restoration
P1
1.000
930
N/A
UT5
483
439
Cold
Enhancement 11
N/A
2.500
444
N/A
UT6
707
673
Cold
Enhancement 11
N/A
2.500
670
N/A
UT7
428
428
Cold
Preservation
N/A
10.000
428
N/A
UT8
210
206
Cold
Restoration
P1
1.000
206
N/A
Project
Restoration Level
Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian
Wetland
Coastal Marsh
Warm
Cool
Cold
Riverine
Non-Riv
Restoration
N/A
N/A
4,986.000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Re-establishment
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rehabilitation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Enhancement
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Enhancement
N/A
N/A
442.000
Enhancement II
N/A
N/A
1,153.600
Creation
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Preservation
N/A
N/A
74.000
N/A
N/A
N/A
Totals
N/A
N/A
6,655.600
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Notes:
1. Some or all of SRB Reach 3, UT3 Reach 2, UT4, and UT8 were previously buried in rock -lined channels or pipes. Reported exiting lengths are estimates based upon land owner communication,
remote sensing, and field verification to approximate the subsurface location and alignment.
2. The Site contains 12 internal easement crossings. This value excludes the affected length of proposed stream centerline within each crossing.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
ReportActivity or
Institution Date
Data Collection Complete
N/A
Completion or Delivery
May 2017
404 Permit
June 2019
June 2019
Mitigation Plan
February- October 2018
March 2019
Final Design - Construction Plans
June 2019
June 2019
Construction
July 2019 - January 2020
January 2020
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
December 2020
December 2020
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
December 2019 - March 2020
April 2020
Stream Repair/Maintenance
Spring 2020 & November 2020
November 2020
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
October 2020
November 2020
Vegetation Survey
October 2020
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey
Vegetation Survey
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 0 - 2020
Designers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Jake McLean, PE, CFM
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.332.7754
Construction Contractors
Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc.
1000 Bat Cave Road
Old Fort, NC 28762
Planting Contractor
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
PO Box 1197
Freemont, NC 27830
Seeding Contractor
Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc.
Seed Mix Sources
Baker Grading & Landscaping, Inc.
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc.
Live Stakes
Herbaceous Plugs
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring, POC
Kristi Suggs
704.332.7754 Ext. 110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Project Name
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Madison County
rmation
Project Area (acres)
18.000
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35' 52' 41"N 82° 29' 47"W
Planted Acreage (Acre of Woody Stems Planted)
9.5
Physiographic Province
Blue Ridge
River Basin
French Broad
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
06010105
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
06010105110020
DW R Sub -basin
04-03-04
Project Drainage Area (acres)
70 (UT1), 163 (Shake Rag Branch), 43 (UT6)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1% (UT1), <1% (Shake Rag Branch), <1% (UT6)
2011 NLCD Land Use Classification
dh
Parameters
UT1: Forest (95%),Pasture/Hay (5%), Shrubland (0%), Urban (0%)
Shake Rag Branch: Forest (49%), Pasture/Hay (49%), Shrubland (1%), Urban (1%)
UT6: Forest (99%), Pasture/Hay (1%), Shrubland (0%), Urban (0%)
Reach Summary Information
Shake Rag Branch
RI R2 R3 R4 IRS
UT3 UT4 UT7
RI R2
UT8
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
312
175
1,391
385
1,134
426
1,019
930
428
206
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Confined
Moderately confined
Confined
Confined
N/A
Confined
N/A
Drainage area (acres)
10
26
76
77
163
1 12
38
1 32
1 13
19
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
P
P
P
p
p
I P
p
P
P
P
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-11; HOW
Morphological Description (stream type) - Pre -Restoration
A4a+
A4a+
A4/B4a
A4
A4a+/B4a
A4a+
Morphological Description (stream type) - Post -Restoration
A4a+
A4a+/B4a
A4/B4a
A4/B4a
A4a+/B4a
A4a+/B4a
A4a+/B4a
A4/B4a
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
I
VI
II/III
V/VI
III/IV/V
VI
II/III/IV
II
1
II
FEMA classification
None
Parameters
UTl
R1 R2
907 278
Confined Moderately
confined
38 70
P P
A4a+ A4a+
A4a+ A4a+/B4a
VI V/VI
•r1c,
Applicable?
UT1A UT2
RI
100 164
Confined Moderately
Confined
6 29
P P
WS-11; HOW
A4a+ A4a+/B4a
A4a+ A4a+/B4a
I VI
None
• •
Resolved?
R2
304
Confined
31
P
A4a+
A4a+/B4a
II/III
UT5
444
Moderately
confined
18
P
B4a
B4a
VI
UT6
670
Moderately
confined
1 25
P
B4a
B4a
VI
Supporting Documentation
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (acres)
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Morphological Description (stream type) - Pre -Restoration
Morphological Description (stream type) - Post -Restoration
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
FEMA classification
Regulation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USACE Action ID# SAW-2017-00100
Waters of the United States -Section 401
Yes
Yes
DW R# 17-1157
Division of Land Quality (Erosion and Sediment Control)
Yes
Yes
NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit NCG010000
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion Document in Mitigation Plan
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Categorical Exclusion Document in Mitigation Plan
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A

Table Sa. Monitoring Component Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Shake Rag Branch, UT3, UT4, UT8, and UT7
Quantity / Length by Reach
Shake
Shake
Shake
Shake
Shake
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
UT3
UT3
Frequency
Notes
Rag
Rag
Rag
Rag
Rag
UT4
UT8
UT7
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Dimension
Riffle Cross -Section
N/A
N/A
2
1
1
N/A
1
1
1
N/A
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
1
Pool Cross -Section
N/A
N/A
1
0
1
N/A
1
1
0
N/A
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Substrate
Reach Wide (RW)
N/A
N/A
1 RW
1 RW
1 RW
N/A
1 RW
1 RW
1 RW
N/A
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
3
Pebble Count
Hydrology
Crest Gage (CG) and
N/A
N/A
1 CG
N/A
1 CG
1 CG
1 SG
N/A
Semi -Annual
4
or/Stream Gage SG
CVS Levi Mobile
Vegetation
N/A
7 (4 permanent, 3 mobile)
N/A
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
5
Visual Assessment
Yes
Semi -Annual
Exotic and Nuisance Vegetation
A
Semi -Annual
6
Project Boundary
Semi -Annual
7
Reference Photos
Photographs
21
Annual
Notes
1. Cross -sections were permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg.
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile was collected during as -built baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations indicate widespread lack of vertical stability
(greater than 10% of reach is affected) and profile survey is warranted in additional years to monitor adjustments or survey repair work.
3. Riffle 100-count substrate sampling were collected during the baseline monitoring only. A reachwide pebble count will be performed on each restoration or enhancement I reach during subsequent monitoring years for
classification purposes only.
4. Crest gages and/or stream gages will be inspected and downloaded quarterly or semi-annually, evidence of bankfull events will be documented with a photo when possible. Transducers, if used, will be set to record stage
once every 2 hours. The proposed gage on UT8 will be used for the sole purpose of documenting consecutive flow - an alternative proven method (e.g. game camera) may be used if agreed by I RT to be sufficient to
demonstrate this requirement.
5. Both mobile and permanent vegetation plots will be utilized to evaluate the vegetation performance for 2% of the open areas planted acreage. Permanent vegetation monitoring plot assessments will follow CVS Level 2
protocols. Mobile vegetation monitoring plot assessments will document number of planted stems and species using a circular or 100 m2 square/rectangular plot. Planted shaded areas will be visually assessed.
6. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
7. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.

Table 5b. Monitoring Component Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
UT1, UT1A, UT2, UT5, and UT6
Quantity / Length by Reach
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
UT1
UT1 Reach
UT2 Reach
UT2 Reach
Frequency
Notes
UT1A
UT5
UT6
Reach 1
2
1
2
Dimension
Riffle Cross -Section
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
1
N/A
N/A
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
1
Pool Cross -Section
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Reach Wide (RW) Pebble
Substrate
N/A
1 RW
N/A
N/A
1 RW
N/A
N/A
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
3
Count
Crest Gage (CG) and/or
Stream Hydrology
N/A
1 CG
N/A
N/A
1 CG
N/A
N/A
Semi -Annual
4
Stream Gage (SG)
Vegetation
CVS Level 2/Mobile Plots
2 (1 permanent, 1 mobile)
N/A
N/A
Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
5
Visual Assessment
Yes
Semi -Annual
Exotic and Nuisance
Semi -Annual
6
Vegetation
Project Boundary
Semi -Annual
7
Reference Photos
I Photographs
1
9
Annual
Notes:
1. Cross -sections were permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and
thalweg.
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile was collected during as -built baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations
indicate widespread lack of vertical stability (greater than 10% of reach is affected) and profile survey is warranted in additional years to monitor adjustments or survey repair work.
3. Riffle 100-count substrate sampling were collected during the baseline monitoring only. A reachwide pebble count will be performed on each restoration or enhancement I reach
during subsequent monitoring years for classification purposes only.
4. Crest gages and/or stream gages will be inspected and downloaded quarterly or semi-annually, evidence of bankfull events will be documented with a photo when possible.
Transducers, if used, will be set to record stage once every 2 hours. The proposed gage on UT8 will be used for the sole purpose of documenting consecutive flow - an alternative
proven method (e.g. game camera) may be used if agreed by IRT to be sufficient to demonstrate this requirement.
5. Both mobile and permanent vegetation plots will be utilized to evaluate the vegetation performance for 2% of the open areas planted acreage. Permanent vegetation monitoring
plot assessments will follow CVS Level 2 protocols. Mobile vegetation monitoring plot assessments will document number of planted stems and species using a circular or 100 m2
square/rectangular plot. Planted shaded areas will be visually assessed with permanent vegetation photo points along UT5 and UT6.
6. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
7. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

0 300 600 Feet Figure 3.0 Current Condition Plan View Map (Key)
I i I i I Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
WILDLANDS , Monitoring Year I-2020
E�N1 N 6�RI NC
Madison County, NC

WILDLANDS
ENOI NEERING
Figure 3.1 Monitoring Plan View Map
0 100 200 Feet Shake Rag Mitigation Site
"16- DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Madison County, NC

zo
m
1• 'Conservation Easement
`--
Internal Culvert Crossing
®Existing Wetland
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Stream Preservation
Not For Credit Stream
--As-built Alignment Deviation
-- --Top of Bank
Structures
QQ Reach Break
0 Photo Point(PP)
+ Barotroll (BT)
+ Crest Gage (CG)
Cross Section (XS)
Permanent Vegetation Plots (VP) - MY1
=Criteria Met
Mobile Vegetation Plots (MP) - MY1
O Criteria Met
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY1
=Multiflora rose
=Silver grass
Tree of heaven
Bare/poor herbaceous cover
Stream Areas of Concern - MY1
• Structure issue
,%,00
a �,
12
•� how - ♦/ b
914�0
1
�,, oy �., ► �} 1
1
0
� "?;�06� �� ► �y914,501
1 +50 0 � ► 1 1
P3
•�� ice. � �- . o'` �� ► '� !
� 1
` •� 1309 A ►
1 nze A
i
` 5,310+00 ► �
1 �� ` •• • 1 '`i 00 /
1 \ I
9+51
1 `
�
:VNL/
UU ` %Z 5 ►
1
0p\
Te
2600 �2�xso
Bank instability
Figure 3.2 Monitoring Plan View Map
0 150 300 Feet Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
WILDLANDS ,
r N GI N E E R I N G
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Madison County, NC

, • s
' 'Conservation Easement
L—:
Internal Culvert Crossing
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Not For Credit Stream
Non -Project Streams
----Top of Bank
Stormwater BMP
Structures
QQ
Reach Break
0
Photo Point (PP)
+
Crest Gage (CG)
+
Stream Gage (SG)
Cross Section (XS)
`"*SO 1 1
1 Y \
1
1
1
924+0 1� 1
j � 1 0 �� \
► g24+50
�, ♦ `` � 1 ' lYlYf17 ,♦' �p
95+50 0 0
` s/
r
1 1 I
J26+00 �J 1-4807+00
'r801+54
`.� g2e±50 `' ♦ % i
+00 1
1
1 ♦ ) 1
104+00 1
1 Q 918+50
1 1 j1
1 , MP1 _+929+00 1
1 `
1-1929+50 1
`,0yx5p
%
p30+00 I
t�
j 11 I ,� 1
30+5p 11
1 '�406+501 ' 1
�' '
♦♦ 41 /
,'9 /
37%00
/
�4407+00
1 ,
♦ 4937+50 /
I :�000
41
SO
�gx5p � 1
�-L33+oo /
4l +p0 ' ' •'' � /
0 /
' ,, ,! 633+50 /
r
► ♦ 34+00 /
► r '
1
/ ♦ �3qx
► 1_�35+00
� � 1
I `•
1,h35x50 !
' 1 I
► ' "r 1
1 ,,�q36+00 ►
I 1 ; 1
►''
1 �-536+50 !
, \ 1
1 1 I
` 1 1
Permanent Vegetation Plots (VP) - MY1
'
' ' 1
=Criteria Met
9J7+00 a
Mobile Vegetation Plots (MP) - MY1
O Criteria Met937+50
/
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY1
i ,' /
Tree of heaven
; ;
Bare/poor herbaceous cover
1/B "«°o /
Easement encroachment
a3e��o
Stream Areas of Concern - MY1
• Structure issue
! ' ' ►
ON
WILDLANDS ,
ENGINEERING
Figure 3.3 Monitoring Plan View Map
0 100 200 Feet Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Madison County, NC

2-7�
1­'
L—:Conservation Easement
Internal Culvert Crossing
®Internal Waterline Crossing
® Existing Wetla nd
Stream Enhancement II
Not For Credit Stream
Non -Project Stream
----Top of Bank
0 Photo Point (PP)
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY1
Tree of heaven
ON
WILDLANDS ,
ENGINEERING
0 75 150 Feet
I i I i I
-ems
s
-�J, 4
ee*
Ise= j��t
. Q"
Figure 3.4 Monitoring Plan View Map
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Madison County, NC

Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Reach: UT1 Reach 2
Assessed Length: 278
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
I. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
Degradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
1
1
100%
1. Bed'
3. Step Pool Condition
Depth Sufficient
0
0
N/A
Length Appropriate
0
0
N/A
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
I. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Pi
Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
Structures'
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
2
2
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
1
1
100%
baseflow.
'Cascading riffle sections evaluated as one riffle under the bed category and as grade control under the engineered structures category.

Table 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Reach: UT2 Reach 2
Assessed Length: 304
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
I. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
2
2
100%
I.Bed'
3. Step Pool Condition
Depth Sufficient
2
2
100%
Length Appropriate
2
2
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
I. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
5
6
83%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
3
4
75%
3. Engineered
2a. Pi
Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
3
4
75%
Structures'
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
5
6
83%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
4
4
100%
baseflow.
'Cascading riffle sections evaluated as one riffle under the bed category and as grade control under the engineered structures category.

Table 6c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Reach: UT3 Reach 2
Assessed Length: 1,019
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
I. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
2
2
100%
I.Bed'
3. Step Pool Condition
Depth Sufficient
5
5
100%
Length Appropriate
5
5
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
I. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
8
9
89%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
6
7
86%
3. Engineered
2a. Pi
Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
6
7
86%
Structures'
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
8
9
89%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
7
7
100%
baseflow.
'Cascading riffle sections evaluated as one riffle under the bed category and as grade control under the engineered structures category.

Table 6d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Reach: UT4
Assessed Length: 930
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
I. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
3
3
100%
I.Bed'
3. Step Pool Condition
Depth Sufficient
13
13
100%
Length Appropriate
13
13
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
I. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
17
18
94%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
15
16
94%
3. Engineered
2a. Pi
Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
15
16
94%
Structures'
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
17
18
94%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
15
15
100%
baseflow.
'Cascading riffle sections evaluated as one riffle under the bed category and as grade control under the engineered structures category.

Table 6e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Reach: UT8
Assessed Length: 206
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
I. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
16
16
100%
I.Bed
3. Step Pool Condition
Depth Sufficient
16
16
100%
Length Appropriate
16
16
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
I. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
16
16
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
16
16
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Pi
Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
16
16
100%
Structures'
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
16
16
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
16
16
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Reach: Shake Rag Branch Reach 3
Assessed Length: 1,391
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
I. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
3
3
100%
1. Bed'
3. Step Pool Condition
Depth Sufficient
7
7
100%
Length Appropriate
7
7
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
1
11
99.6%
0
0
99.6%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
1
11
99.6%
0
0
99.6%
I. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
10
10
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
10
10
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Pi
Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
10
10
100%
Structures'
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
10
10
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
7
7
100%
baseflow.
'Cascading riffle sections evaluated as one riffle under the bed category and as grade control under the engineered structures category.

Table 6g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Reach: Shake Rag Branch Reach 4
Assessed Length: 385
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
I. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
1
1
100%
1. Bed'
3. Step Pool Condition
Depth Sufficient
7
7
100%
Length Appropriate
7
7
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
I. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
8
8
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
8
8
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Pi
Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
8
8
100%
Structures'
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
8
8
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
7
7
100%
baseflow.
'Cascading riffle sections evaluated as one riffle under the bed category and as grade control under the engineered structures category.

Table 6h. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Reach: Shake Rag Branch Reach 5
Assessed Length: 1,134
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
I. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
57
57
100%
I.Bed'
3. Step Pool Condition
Depth Sufficient
59
59
100%
Length Appropriate
59
59
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
I. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
59
59
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
59
59
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Pi
Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
59
59
100%
Structures'
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
59
59
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
59
59
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Planted Acreage 9.5
Mapping
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold (acres)
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Bare Areas'
Very limited cover of bath woody and herbaceous material
0.1
2
0.03
0.3%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 5, or 7 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
criteria.
Total
2
0.0
0.3%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
2
0.0
0.3%
Easement Acreage 18.0
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold (SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or paints (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000
11
0.3
1.6%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or paints (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
8
0.03
0.2%
'Areas mapped with bare area are less than 0.1 acres.

Stream Photographs
MY1

Photo Point 1— UT1 Reach 1, view upstream (1010612020) 1 Photo Point 1— UT1 Reach 1, view downstream (1010612020) 1
Photo Point 2 — UT1 Reach 1, view upstream (1010612020) 1 Photo Point 2 — UT1 Reach 1, view downstream (1010612020) 1
Photo Point 3 — UT1A, view upstream (1010612020) 1 Photo Point 3 — UT1A, view downstream (1010612020) 1

1 1ti
a k
N
V.
'Ay
P
� I
4
F
s
g�,r a � � a n i � � '_ � �, •�� a .pro`-. fi w�;. �nrH :.� ��x,t .�
Ax-��q r
�A
Pv
I -.s �'"`�''. Ssk: I,y� Ate✓ ' r.,:J .�,
. t '!- �kk}y.: f •'` ` +5., � 'M',
d
��-!;
Photo •. . 1 1. I I Photo •. .• 1 1. 1 1
5 T l
I U
r
XV
OW
', 1 — ✓a" - ! pf- mr r ,� �7 tea.: '�

Photo Point 7 — UT3 Reach 1, view upstream (1011512020) 1 Photo Point 7 — UT3 Reach 1, view downstream (1011512020) 1
E7
Photo Point 8 — UT3 Reach 2, view upstream (1011512020) 1 Photo Point 8 — UT3 Reach 2, view downstream (1011512020) 1
Photo Point 9 — UT3 Reach 2, view upstream (1011512020) 1 Photo Point 9 — UT3 Reach 2, view downstream (1011512020) 1

Photo Point 10 — UT3 Reach 2, view upstream (1011512020) 1 Photo Point 10 — UT3 Reach 2, view downstream (1011512020) 1
Photo Point 11— UT4, view upstream (1011512020) 1 Photo Point 11— UT4, view downstream (1011512020) 1
Photo Point 12 — UT4, view upstream (1011512020) 1 Photo Point 12 — UT4, view downstream (1011512020) 1

Photo Point 13 — UT4, view upstream (1011512020) 1 Photo Point 13 — UT4, view downstream (1011512020) 1
Photo Point 14 — UT8, view upstream (1011512020) 1 Photo Point 14— UT8, view downstream (1011512020) 1
Photo Point 15 — UT7, view upstream (1010612020) 1 Photo Point 15 — UT7, view downstream (1010612020) 1

Photo Point 16 — SRB Reach 1, view upstream (1010612020) 1 Photo Point 16 — SRB Reach 1, view downstream (1010612020) 1
Photo Point 17 — SRB Reach 2, view upstream (1010612020) 1 Photo Point 17 —SRB Reach 2, view downstream (1010612020) 1
Photo Point 18 — SRB Reach 3, view upstream (1010612020) 1 Photo Point 18 — SRB Reach 3, view downstream (1010612020) 1

Photo Point 19 — SRB Reach 3, view upstream (1010612020) 1 Photo Point 19 — SRB Reach 3, view downstream (1010612020) 1
Photo Point 20 — SRB Reach 3, view upstream (1011512020) 1 Photo Point 20 — SRB Reach 3, view downstream (1011512020) 1
Photo Point 21— SRB Reach 3, view upstream (1011512020) 1 Photo Point 21— SRB Reach 3, view downstream (1011512020) 1

Photo Point 22 — SRB Reach 3, view upstream (1011512020) 1 Photo Point 22 — UT3 Reach 2, view upstream (1011512020) 1
Photo Point 22 — SRB Reach 3, view downstream (1011512020) 1
Photo Point 23 — SRB Reach 4, view upstream (1011512020) 1 Photo Point 23 — SRB Reach 4, view downstream (1011512020) 1

Photo Point 27 — SRB Reach 5, view upstream (1011512020) 1 Photo Point 27 — SRB Reach 5, view downstream (1011512020) 1
Photo Point 28 — UT6, view upstream (1011512020) 1 Photo Point 28 — UT6, view downstream (1011512020) 1
Photo Point 29 — UT6, view upstream (1011512020) 1 Photo Point 29 — UT6, view downstream (1011512020) 1

Vegetation Plot Photographs
MY1

Permanent Vegetation Plot 1— (1010812020) 1 Permanent Vegetation Plot 2 — (1010812020) 1
Permanent Vegetation Plot 3 — (1010812020) 1 Permanent Vegetation Plot 4 — (1010812020) 1
Permanent Vegetation Plot 5 — (1010812020) 1

Mobile Vegetation Plot 1— North view — (1010812020) 1 Mobile Vegetation Plot 2 — North view — (1010812020) 1
Mobile Vegetation Plot 3 — North view — (1010812020) I Mobile Vegetation Plot 4 — North view — (1010812020) I

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8a. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Permanent Vegetation Plot
MY3 Success Criteria Met (Y/N)
Tract Mean
1
Y
100%
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y
5
Y
Table 8b. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Mobile Vegetation Plot
MY3 Success Criteria Met (Y/N)
Tract Mean
1
Y
100%
2
Y
3
Y
4
Y

Table 9. CVS Permanent Vegetation Plot Metadata
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 Shake Rag MY1.mdb
Database Location
L:\Active Projects\005-02164 Shake Rag\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 1\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
MIMI-PC
File Size
73781248
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
100018
Project Name
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
Description
Stream mitigation site located in Madision County, NC
River Basin
French Broad River Basin
Length(ft)
9,273 LF
Stream -to -edge Width (ft)
3-8
Area (sq m)
38445
Required Plots (calculated)
5
Sampled Plots
5
Required Plots (calculated)
5
Sampled Plots
5

Table 10a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Current Permanent
Vegetation
Plot Data (MYI 2020)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Permanent Plot 1
Permanent Plot 2
Permanent Plot 3
Permanent Plot 4
Permanent Plot S
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Boxelder
Tree
10
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
Fagus grandifolia
American Beech
Tree
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
1
6
4
4
11
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Nysso sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Platanusoccidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercusalba
White Oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercusfalcata
ISouthern Red Oak
ITree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercusrubra
I Red Oak
ITree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
Stem count
14
14
19
14
14
21
13
13
13
14
14
14
15
15
25
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
Species countl
8
1 8
1 8
7
1 7
1 7
8
1 8
1 8
7
1 7
1 7
7
7
8
Stems per ACRE
1 567
1 567
1 769
567
1 567
1 850
526
1 526
1 526
1 567
1 567
1 567
607
607
1 1012
Permanent Vegetation
Plots Annual Mean
orpmr
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY1 (2020)
MYO (2020)
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
Acernegundo
Boxelder
Tree
10
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
10
10
10
12
12
12
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
Fagus grandifolia
American Beech
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
7
7
7
7
7
7
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
12
12
24
12
12
12
Nysso sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
7
7
7
8
8
8
Platanusoccidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
10
10
10
10
10
10
Quercusalba
White Oak
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
Quercusfalcata
Southern Red Oak
Tree
6
6
6
1
1
1
Quercusrubra
Red Oak
ITree
10
10
10
15
15
15
Stem count
70
70
92
75
75
75
size (ares)
5
5
size (ACRES)
0.124
0.124
Species count
10
1 10
11
10
10
10
Stems per ACRE
567
1 567
745
607
607
607
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

Table 10b. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Current
Mobile Vegetation
Plot Data (MYI
2020)
Annual
Mean
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Mobile Plot 1
Mobile Plot 2
Mobile Plot 3
Mobile Plot 4
MY1 (2020)
MYO (2020)
PnoLS
PnoLS
PnoLS
PnoLS
PnoLS
PnoLS
Acernegundo
Boxelder
Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
2
2
2
7
6
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
3
3
Fagus grandifolia
American Beech
Tree
3
1
4
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
2
3
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
3
1
4
7
Nysso sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
2
1
3
8
Platanusoccidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
4
5
11
9
Quercusalba
White Oak
Tree
3
Quercusfalcata
ISouthern Red Oak
ITree
1
1
1
3
Quercusrubra
I Red Oak
ITree
4
1
2
1
8
17
Stem count
11
11
11
13
46
54
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
4
4
size (ACRES)
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.099
0.099
Species countl
6
7
5
6
9
8
Stems per ACRE
1 445
445
445
526
465
546
Overall Annual
Mean
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY1 (2020)
MYO (2020)
PnoLS
PnoLS
Acernegundo
Boxelder
Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
17
18
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
6
3
Fagus grandifolia
American Beech
Tree
5
6
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
10
8
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
16
19
Nysso sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
10
16
Platanusoccidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
21
19
Quercusalba
White Oak
Tree
4
7
Quercusfalcata
ISouthern Red Oak
ITree
9
1
Quercusrubra
I Red Oak
ITree
18
32
Stem count
116
129
size (ares)
9
9
size (ACRES)
0.222
0.222
Species countl
10
10
Stems per ACRE
1 522
580
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P-all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 11a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
UT1 Reach 2. UT2 Reach 2. UT3 Reach 2. UT4
Pre -Restoration
Condition
Design
As-Built/Baseline
Gage
UT1 Reach 2
UT2 Reach 2
UT3 Reach 2
UT4
UT1 Reach 2
UT2 Reach 2
UT3 Reach 2
UT4
UT1 Reach 2
UT2 Reach 2
UT3 Reach 2
UT4
Min Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
5.3
3.1
4.5
N/A'
5.5
5.5
5.9
6.1
4.7
3.2
6.0
6.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
15.7
21.6
7.2
N/A'
8 15
8 12
8 13
9 1 13
10
10
13
11
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.5
0.5
N/A'
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.3
1.0
N/A'
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
4.3
1.6
2.3
N/A'
2.0
2.0
2.3
2.4
1.2
0.6
1.9
2.3
Width/Depth Ratio
6.4
6.0
9.1
N/A'
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
18.4
16.9
18.4
19.7
Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
7.0
1.6
N/A'
1.4 1 2.2
1.4 1 2.2
1.4 1 2.2
1.4 2.2
2.1
3.1
2.1
1.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
2.7
N/A'
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
100
6
75
N/A'
---
---
---
---
64.0
67.4
61.8
71.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.096 0.252
0.063 1 0.152
0.043 0.176
0.057 0.171
0.080 0.241
0.078 0.266
0.015 1 0.339
0.037 0.292
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.4
---
1.2
N/A'
0.8
1.8
0.7
1.3
0.8
1.4
0.8
1.4
0.4
1.8
0.7
1.7
0.5
2.1
0.7
2.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
9 28
---
8 16
N/A'
8
17
6
14
6
1 15
9
18
7
20
7
22
5
36
14
34
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
Meander Length (ft)
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
Meander Width Ratio
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/l3 /Be%
Die/Das/Dso/Daa/Des/D1oo
0.5/15-20/100/
300-400/>1400
0.25/0.7/5.5/
15/250
20-25/45/75/
150/270
i
N/A
0.3/2/12.8/90/
180/512
0.4/4/25.4/99.5/
202.4/>2048
0.3/0.73/7.1/
155.5/315.2/512
0.3/1.34/20.7/
154.8/272.5/512
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftZ1
2.6
3.3
4.1
2.8
3.8
3.3
4.1
2.8
2.0
1.8
3.7
2.3
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
311
366
428
322
99
90
181
112
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.11 0.05 0.06 0.05
0.11 0.05 0.06 0.05
0.11 0.05 0.06 0.05
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
A4a+
A4a+
A4a+
N/A'
A4a+/B4a
A4a+/B4a
A4a+/B4a
A4a+/B4a
A4a+/B4a
A4a+/B4a
A4a+/B4a
A4a+/B4a
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
8.1
7.4
8.3
N/A1
6.4
7.2
8.1
6.7
5.3
4.8
7.6
5.9
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
35
12
19
N/A1
13
14
19
16
6
3
21
14
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
---
---
---
---
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
16
9
10
9
---
---
---
---
Max Q-Mannings
44
12
19
---
---
12
19
N/A1
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.1262
0.1520
0.1757
0.1102
0.1164
0.1659
0.176
0.1102
---
---
---
---
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
255
296
1,3871
9101
278
304
1,019
930
278
304
1,019
930
Sinuosity
1.05
1.01
1.03
N/A'
1.03
1.07
1.05
1.02
1.03
1.07
1.05
1.02
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.1200
0.1500
0.1700
N/A1
0.1130
0.1550
0.1650
0.1080
0.1279
0.1592
0.1643
0.1093
1. Some or all of UT3 Reach 2 and UT4 had been previous buried in rock -lined channel or pipes so cross-section data could not be collected. Reported lengths are estimates based upon land owner communiction, remote sensing, and field verification.
2. Pattern data is not applicable for A -type and 3-type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 11b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
UT8, Shake Rae Branch
Condition
DesignPre-Restoration
Parameter
Gage
UT8
Shake Rag Branch
Reach 3
Shake Rag Branch
Reach 4
Shake Rag Branch
Reach 5
UT8
Shake Rag Branch
Reach 3
Shake Rag Branch
Reach 4
Shake Rag Branch
Reach 5
UT8
Shake Rag Branch
Reach 3
Shake Rag Branch
Reach 4
Shake Rag Branch
Reach 5
Min Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
N/A'
3.3
5.1
6.7
5.2
5.8
7.2
8.8
5.3
5.2 1 5.5
7.6
8.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
N/A'
25
15
9
7 11
8 1 13
10 1 16
12 19
36
10
19
46
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
N/A'
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
N/A'
0.9
0.9
1.5
0.5
0.6
1.4
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft2)
N/A'
1.7
2.9
5.0
1.9
2.4
3.6
5.1
1.4
1.6
1.7
4.0
3.5
Width/Depth Ratio
N/A'
6.2
9.0
9.0
15.0
14.0
15.0
15.0
19.9
16.6
17.5
14.6
18.4
Entrenchment Ratio
N/A'
7.5
2.9
1.3
1.4 1 2.2
1.4 2.2
1.4 2.2
1.4 2.2
6.8
1.8
1.9
2.5
5.8
Bank Height Ratio
N/A'
1.1
1.0
3.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
N/A'
N/A'
---
10-20
---
---
---
---
24.7
75.9 84.1
72.7
101.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.045 0.161
0.064 TO.166
0.065 0.120
0.040 0.123
0.012 0.151
0.052 T 0.421
0.038 0.094
0.040 1 0.143
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A'
---
---
1.8
0.7
1.3
0.8
1.4
1.0
1.8
1.2
1 2.0
0.7
1.4
0.4
2.2
0.8
1.9
0.8
2.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
N/A'
---
---
7 1 18
8
18
9
17
11
25
11
1 31
5
18
8
51
9
86
7
47
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A'
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A'
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A'
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
Meander Length (ft)
N/A'
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
Meander Width Ratio
N/A'
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/A'
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
N/AZ
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/l3 /Be%
D16/D35/D50/D84/D95/D100
N/A1
N/A1
---
1-2/8-9/10-20/
90-100/180
0.1/0.3/5.7/
35.5/78.3/180
0.3/2/14.6/
110.1/207.2/512
0.3/1.3/14.6/
105.8/237.7/512
0.4/1.6/21.1/
157.9/243.4/512
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
---
3.2
---
2.4
---
3.2
---
2.4
1.2
2.5
1 2.6
2.4
1.8
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
357
---
288
60
122
1 126
120
86
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.03 0.06 0.12 0.24
0.03 0.06 0.12 0.25
0.03 0.06 0.12 0.25
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
N/A1
A4a+
A4/134a
A4
A4/134a
A4a+/B4a
A4/B4a
A4/B4a
A4/B4a
A4a+/B4a
A4/B4a
A4/134a
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
N/Al
9.6
8.1
6.8
5.5
7.1
6.8
6.6
4.2
6.1
1 6.2
6.6
5.4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
N/Al
16
23
34
10
17
24
34
6
10
1 11
26
19
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
---
---
---
---
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
6
10
17
29
---
---
---
---
Max Q-Mannings
---
16
24
34
N/Al
16
24
34
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.0901
0.1317
0.0976
0.0685
0.0901
0.1523
0.0832
0.0685
---
---
---
---
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2101
1,4511
385
1,216
206
1,393
385
1,134
206
1,345
385
1,134
Sinuosity
N/A1
1.03
1.07
1.04
1.06
1.03
1.08
1.01
1.06
1.03
1.08
1.01
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
N/A1
0.1275
0.0913
0.0659
0.0850
0.1360
0.0770
0.0660
0.0761
0.1341
0.0775
0.0660
1. Some or all of SRB Reach 3 and UT8 had been previous buried in rock -lined channel or pipes so cross-section data could not be collected. Reported lengths are estimates based upon land owner communiction, remote sensing, and field verification.
2. Pattern data is not applicable for A -type and 3-type channels
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 11c. Reference Reach Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Parameter
Gage
Ironwood Tributary
UT to So uth Fork
Fishing Creek
Reference
UTto Austin Branch
(upstream)
Reach Data
UT to Austin Branch
(downstream)
UT to Gap Branch
UT to Hampton Creek
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
5.0
4.1
6.7
6.2
6.2
6.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
10
7
18
27
21
12
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.2
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft)
2.7
1.8
3.6
4.4
3.8
4.6
Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
9.3
12.8
8.8
10.1
10.0
Entrenchment at
4.3
3.4
1.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50(mm)
0.9
1.2
59
59
19
Coarse gravel
Profile
Riffle Length t
---
---
---
--
---
---
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
0.0240 0.2 000
0.0810 0.2900
0.0250 0.0730
0.0110 0.1400
0.0500 0.1000
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
---
---
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
6 32
10 17
14 31
18 27
11 19
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Be twit t
--
---
---
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
Rc/Bankfull Width(ft/ft)
N/A
---
---
---
Meander Length ft
---
---
---
--
---
---
Meander Width Ratio
---
---
---
---
---
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
0.26/0.5/0.91/19/
97/128
0.1/0.3/1.2/11/
24/64
11/42/59/130/
170/256
11/42/59/130/
170/256
0.4/8/19/102.3/
257/>2048
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.03
0.02
0.12
0.12
0.04
0.25
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
---
---
---
Rosgen Classification
A5a+
B5a
A4/134a
A4/B4a
A4/B4a
A4/B4a
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.9
4.1
7.3
6.2
5.0
6.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
13
8
26
27
19
31
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
Q-USGS extrapolation(1.2-yr)
Q-Mannings
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.1418
0.1025
0.1000
0.0480
---
0.0840
Channel Thalweg Length ft
---
---
---
---
__
Sinuosity
1.2
1.25
1.00
1.20
---
1.10 1.20
Water Surface Slope ftft
---
---
---
---
__
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.1139
0.0815
0.0986
0.0400
0.0680
0.0650
SC: Silt/Clay 10.062 mm diameter particles
(---): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 12a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Dimension and Substrate
Base
UT1
MYl
Reach 2
MY2
Cross -Section
MY3
MY4
1, Riffle
MY5
MY6
MY7
Base
UT2
MYl
Reach 2
MY2
Cross -Section
MY3
MY4
2, Riffle
MYS
MY6
MY7
Base
UT3
MYl
Reach 2
MY2
Cross -Section
MY3
MY4
3, Riffle_
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation
2709.81
2709.77
2738.54
2738.65
2617.65
2617.72
Low Bank Elevation
2709.81
2709.86
2738.54
2738.74
2617.65
2617.60
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.7
5.0
3.2
3.0
6.0
3.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
10
13
10
12
13
12
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
1.2
1.6
0.6
0.8
1.9
1.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
18.4
15.4
16.9
10.7
18.4
9.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.1
2.6
3.1
4.1
2.1
3.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dimension and Substrate
1.0
Base
1.2
UT3
MY1
Reach 2
MY2
Cross -Section
MY3
MY4
4, Pool
MY5
MY6
MY7
1.0
Basel
1.3
UT4
MYl
Cross
MY2
-Section
MY3
5, Riffle
MY4
MYS
MY6
MY7
1.0
Base
0.8
MY1
UT4 Cross
MY2
-Section
MY3
6, Pool
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation
2616.07
2616.04
2503.27
2503.37
2499.51
2499.56
Low Bank Elevation
2616.07
2616.04
2503.27
2503.23
2499.51
2499.56
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.4
4.2
8.3
7.5
5.9
5.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
14
13
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
1.0
1.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
4.0
2.1
4.3
3.1
4.4
4.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.3
8.3
16.2
17.8
7.9
6.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
--
---
1.7
1.7
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
--
---
1.0
0.8
---
---
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation
2520.23
2520.23
Low Bank Elevation
2520.23
2520.23
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.3
4.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
36
37
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
1.4
1.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
19.9
12.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
6.8
8.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
"MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension
parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
2Cross-section dimensions updated in MYl.

Table 12b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Dimension and Substrate
Shake
Base
Rag Branch
MYl
Reach
MY2
3
MY3
Cross -Section
MY4
MYS
8, Riffle
MY6
MY7
Shake
Base
Rag Branch
MY3
Reach
MY2
3
MY3
Cross -Section
MY4
MY5
9, Riffle
MY6
MY7
Shake
Base
Rag Branch
MY3
Reach
MY2
3
MY3
Cross -Section
MY4
MYS
10, Pool
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation
2632.06
2631.95
2621.09
2620.96
2620.50
2620.23
Low Bank Elevation
2632.06
2631.95
2621.09
2620.96
2620.50
2620.23
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.2
3.1
5.5
4.8
4.0
4.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
10
11
10
9
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
3.0
2.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.6
5.8
17.5
13.6
5.3
5.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
1.9
3.6
1.8
1.9
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
---
Dimension and Substrate
Shake
Base
Rag Branch
MYl
Reach
MY2
4
MY3
Cross -Section
MY4
11,
MY5
Riffle
MY6
MY7
Shake
Base
Rag Branch
MYl
Reach
MY2
5
MY3
Cross -Section
MY4
MYS
12, Riffle
MY6
MY7
Shake
Base
Rag Branch
MYl
Reach
MY2
5
MY3
Cross -Section
MY4
MYS
13, Pool
MY6
MY7
Bankfull Elevation
2530.35
2530.43
2500.82
2500.82
2500.20
2500.12
Low Bank Elevation
2530.35
2530.36
2500.82
2500.82
2500.20
2500.12
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.6
7.8
8.1
8.0
7.2
7.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
19
16
46
46
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.1
1.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.9
1.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
4.0
3.4
3.5
3.5
8.1
8.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.6
18.0
18.4
18.2
6.4
5.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.5
2.1
5.8
5.7
---
--
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
---
---
'MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension
parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.

Table 13a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
LIT1 Reach 2
in Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
7(ft)
Bankfull Width4.7
5.0
Floodprone Width (ft)10
13
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.3
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.4
0.6
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft)
1.2
1.6
Width/Depth Ratio
18.4
15.4
Entrenchment Ratio
2.1
2.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.2
Dsa (mm)
64.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.080 0.241
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.4
1.8
Pool Spacing (ft)
7
20
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/Al
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/Al
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/Al
Meander Length (ft)
N/Al
Meander Width Ratio
N/Al
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
Dis/Das/Dsa/Dsa/D9s/Dion
0.3/2/12.8/90/
180/512
0.4/18.4/34.8/87.7/
143.4/512
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
2.0
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
99
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.11
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
Rosgen Classification
A4a+/B4a
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
5.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
6.4
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
---
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1 278
Sinuosityl
1.03
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1 0.1279
'Pattern data is not applicable for A -type and B-type channels
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 13b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
LIT2 Reach 2
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width7(ft)
3.2
3.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
10
12
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.2
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.3
0.4
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft)
0.6
0.8
Width/Depth Ratio
16.9
10.7
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
4.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.3
Dsa (mm)
67.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.078 0.266
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.7
1.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
7
22
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/Al
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/Al
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/Al
Meander Length (ft)
N/Al
Meander Width Ratio
N/Al
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
Dis/Das/Dsa/Dsa/D9s/Dion
0.4/4/25.4/99.5/
202.4/>2048
0.7/10.2/33.9/105.6/
158.4/512
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
1.84
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
90
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area ISM)
0.05
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
Rosgen Classification
A4a+/B4a
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
3.0
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
---
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1 304
Sinuosityl
1.07
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1 0.1592
'Pattern data is not applicable for A -type and B-type channels
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 13c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
LIT3 Reach 2
in Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
7(ft)
Bankfull Width6.0
3.7
Floodprone Width (ft)13
12
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.3
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft)
1.9
1.4
Width/Depth Ratio
18.4
9.7
Entrenchment Ratio
2.1
3.3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.8
Dsa (mm)
61.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.015 0.339
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.5
2.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
5
36
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/Al
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/Al
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/Al
Meander Length (ft)
N/Al
Meander Width Ratio
N/Al
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
Dis/Das/Dsa/Dsa/D9s/Dion
0.3/0.73/7.1/
155.5/315.2/512
1.5/10.4/35.4/121.2/
179.7/512
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
3.68
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
181
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.06
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
Rosgen Classification
A4a+/B4a
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
7.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
21.0
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
---
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1 1,019
Sin u osityl
1.05
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1 0.1643
'Pattern data is not applicable for A -type and B-type channels
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 13d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
LIT4
ir
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width7(ft)
8.3
7.5
Floodprone Width
14
13
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.7
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft)
43
3.1
Width/Depth Ratio
16.2
17.8
Entrenchment Ratio
1.7
1.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.8
Dsa (mm)
71.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.037 0.292
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.7
2.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
14
34
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/Al
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/Al
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/Al
Meander Length (ft)
N/Al
Meander Width Ratio
N/Al
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
Dis/Das/Dsa/Dsa/D9s/Dion
0.3/1.34/20.7/
154.8/272.5/512
0.4/5.0/10.7/120.7/
169.2/256
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
2.28
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
112
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.05
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
Rosgen Classification
A4a+/B4a
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
5.9
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
13.6
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
---
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1 930
Sin u osityl
1.02
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1 0.1093
'Pattern data is not applicable for A -type and B-type channels
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 13e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
LIT8
ir
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width7(ft)
5.3
4.2
Floodprone Width
36
37
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.3
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft)
1.4
1.4
Width/Depth Ratio
19.9
12.8
Entrenchment Ratio
6.8
8.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
Dsa (mm)
24.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.012 0.151
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.7
1.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
5
18
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/Al
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/Al
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/Al
Meander Length (ft)
N/Al
Meander Width Ratio
N/Al
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
Dis/Das/Dsa/Dsa/D9s/Dino
0.1/0.3/5.7/
35.5/78.3/180
SC/0.4/18.3/53.4/
79/362
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
1.23
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
60
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area ISM)
0.03
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
Rosgen Classification
A4/64a
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
6.0
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
---
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1 206
Sinuosityl
1.06
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1 0.0761
'Pattern data is not applicable for A -type and B-type channels
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 13f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Shake Rag Branch Reach 3
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width7(ft)
5.2 5.5
3.1
4.8
Floodprone Width
10
9
11
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.3
0.4
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.8
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft)
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
Width/Depth Ratio
16.6
17.5
1
5.8
13.6
Entrenchment Ratio
1.8
1.9
3.6
1.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
Dsa (mm)
75.9 84.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.052 0.421
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.4
2.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
8
51
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/Al
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/Al
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/Al
Meander Length (ft)
N/Al
Meander Width Ratio
N/Al
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
Dis/Das/Dsa/Dsa/D9s/Dino
0.3/2/14.6/
110.1/207.2/512
0.4/18.4/34.8/87.7/
143.4/1024
Reach Shear Stress (Competency)lb/ftz
2.5
2.6
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
122
1 126
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.06
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
Rosgen Classification
A4a+/B4a
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
6.1
6.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
10
11
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
---
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,345
Sinuosity
1.03
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.1341
'Pattern data is not applicable for A -type and B-type channels
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 13g. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Shake Rag Branch Reach 4
in Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
7(ft)
Bankfull Width7.6
7.8
Floodprone Width19
16
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.9
0.6
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft)
4.0
3.4
Width/Depth Ratio
14.6
18.0
Entrenchment Ratio
2.5
2.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9
Dsa (mm)
72.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.038 0.094
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.8
1.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
9
86
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/Al
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/Al
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/Al
Meander Length (ft)
N/Al
Meander Width Ratio
N/Al
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
Dis/Das/Dsa/Dsa/D9s/Dino
0.3/1.3/14.6/
105.8/237.7/512
0.7/10.2/33.9/105.6/
158.4/512
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
2.4
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
120
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area ISM)
0.12
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
Rosgen Classification
A4/64a
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
6.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
26
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
---
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1 385
Sinuosityl
1.08
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
1 0.0775
'Pattern data is not applicable for A -type and B-type channels
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 13h. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Shake Rag Branch Reach 5
I
I
I
I
I r
I
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.1
8.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
46
46
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
0.9
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft)
3.5
3.5
Width/Depth Ratio
18.4
18.2
Entrenchment Ratio
5.8
5.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
Dsa (mm)
101.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.040 0.143
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.8
2.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
7
47
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/Al
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/Al
Rc/Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/Al
Meander Length (ft)
N/Al
Meander Width Ratio
N/Al
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
Dis/Das/Dsa/Dsa/D9s/Dion
0.4/1.6/21.1/
157.9/243.4/512
0.5/3.7/11/61.2/
113.8/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
1.8
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
86
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area ISM)
0.25
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
Rosgen Classification
A4/64a
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
5.4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
19
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
---
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,134
Sinuosity
1.01
Bankfull/Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0660
'Pattern data is not applicable for A -type and B-type channels
2MY1-MY7 Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As -built (MYO) cross -sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section
dimension parameters were calculated based on the current low bank height.
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Cross -Section Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Cross -Section 1-UT1 Reach 2
111+70 Riffle
2712
2711
x
0
w 2710
2709
5 10 15 20 25
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2020) +MY1 (10/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area — — —MYO BKF Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
1.6
x-section area (ft.sq.)
5.0
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
5.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.4
width -depth ratio
12.8
W flood prone area (ft)
2.6
entrenchment ratio
1.2
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Cross -Section 2-UT2 Reach 2
203+69 Riffle
2741
2740
x
c 2739
0
m-
w
w
2738
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2737
10 15 20 25 30
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2020) +MY1 (10/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area — — — MYO BKF Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
0.8
x-section area (ft.sq.)
3.0
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.4
max depth (ft)
3.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.7
width -depth ratio
12.1
W flood prone area (ft)
4.1
entrenchment ratio
1.3
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Cross -Section 3-UT3 Reach 2
312+06 Riffle
2619
2618
x------- - - - - -- - - --------- - - - - -- - --------- - - - - --
c
0
w 2617
2616
15 20 25 30 35
Width (ft)
MYO (2/2015) +MY1 (10/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area — — —MYO BKF Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
1.4
x-section area (ft.sq.)
3.7
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
4.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.7
width -depth ratio
12.4
W flood prone area (ft)
3.3
entrenchment ratio
0.8
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Cross -Section 4-UT3 Reach 2
312+14 Pool
2619
2618
2617
c
0
2616
w
w
2615
2614
15 20 25 30 35 40
Width (ft)
-MYO (1/2020) +MY1 (10/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
2.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.2
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
5.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Cross -Section 5-UT4
405+41 Riffle
2505
2504
x
c
°---------------------------- - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - - --
w 2503
2502
20 25 30 35
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2020) +MY1 (10/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area — — —MYO BKF Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
3.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.5
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
7.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.8
width -depth ratio
13.0
W flood prone area (ft)
1.7
entrenchment ratio
0.8
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Cross -Section 6-UT4
405+74 Pool
2503
2502
2501
c
0
2500
w
w
2499
2498
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width (ft)
-MYO (1/2020) +MY1 (10/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
4.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
5.2
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
6.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
6.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Cross -Section 7-UT8
801+30 Riffle
2522
2521
x
c
0
w 2520
2519
20 25 30 35 40
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2020) +MY1 (10/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area — — —MYO BKF Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
1.4
x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.2
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.5
max depth (ft)
4.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.8
width -depth ratio
36.6
W flood prone area (ft)
8.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Cross -Section 8-Shake Rag Branch Reach 3
915+97 Riffle
2634
2633
x
c
0
w 2632
2631
15 20 25 30 35
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2020) +MY1 (10/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area — — —MYO BKF Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
1.6
x-section area (ft.sq.)
3.1
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
3.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
5.8
width -depth ratio
11.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Cross -Section 9-Shake Rag Branch Reach 3
916+73 Riffle
2623
2622
x
c
0
w 2621
2620
10 15 20 25 30
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2020) +MY1 (10/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area — — —MYO BKF Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
1.7
x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.8
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
5.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.6
width -depth ratio
9.1
W flood prone area (ft)
1.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Cross -Section 10-Shake Rag Branch Reach 3
916+79 Pool
2623
x
c 2621
0
w
w
2619
10 15 20 25 30
Width (ft)
-MYO (1/2020) +MY1 (10/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
2.8
x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.0
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
4.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
5.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Cross -Section 11-Shake Rag Branch Reach 4
924+84 Riffle
2533
2532
x
c 2531
0
w
2530
2529
15 20 25 30 35 40
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2020) +MY1 (10/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area — — —MYO BKF Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
3.4
x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.8
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
8.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.0
width -depth ratio
16.4
W flood prone area (ft)
2.1
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Cross -Section 12-Shake Rag Branch Reach 5
929+35 Riffle
2502
2501
x
c
0
w 2500
2499
25 30 35 40 45
Width (ft)
MYO (1/2020) +MY1 (10/2020) Bankfull Floodprone Area — — —MYO BKF Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
3.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.0
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
8.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.2
width -depth ratio
46.1
W flood prone area (ft)
5.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
NCDMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Cross -Section 13-Shake Rag Branch Reach 5
929+40 Pool
2502
2501
x
c 2500
0
w
w
2499
2498
20 25 30 35 40 45
Width (ft)
-MYO (1/2020) +MY1 (10/2020) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
8.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.1
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
8.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
5.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
UT1 R2, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
10
12
12
12
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
13
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
2
2
15
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
2
17
`7
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
6
7
7
24
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
3
4
4
28
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
28
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
28
Fine
4.0
5.6
28
Fine
5.6
8.0
28
JQ�
Medium
8.0
11.0
28
�jQ�P
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
3
5
5
33
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
3
5
5
38
Coarse
22.6
32
5
3
8
8
46
VeryCoarse
32
45
12
4
16
16
62
VeryCoarse
45
64
4
6
10
10
72
Small
64
90
7
6
13
13
85
Small
90
128
5
3
8
8
93
�N�
coy
Large
128
180
4
2
6
6
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
99
me
Small
362
512
1
1
1
100
11
Medium
512
1024
100
IMLarge/Very
Large
1 1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
113edrock
1 2048
>2048
100
Total
SO
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.4
D35 =
18.4
D50 =
34.8
D. =
87.7
1395 =
143.4
D100 =
512.0
UT1 R2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
Sand Gravel
Cobble
gp
er
Bedrock
70
e
60
0 50
40
u
30
u
w 20
a
�7
10
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-01/2020 f MY1-10/2020
UT1 R2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
0 oy o o'
ti g0 5� �ti yti nL p
ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-01/2020 ■ MYI-10/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
UT2 R2, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
2
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
3
5
5
11
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
3
14
`7
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
4
5
5
19
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
5
6
6
25
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
25
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
26
Fine
4.0
5.6
26
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
3
29
JQ�
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
6
8
8
37
�jQ�P
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
3
3
40
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
4
44
Coarse
22.6
32
4
1
5
5
49
VeryCoarse
32
45
6
6
6
55
VeryCoarse
45
64
8
3
11
11
66
Small
64
90
7
6
13
13
79
Small
90
128
7
4
11
11
90
�v�
coy
Large
128
180
5
3
8
8
98
Large
180
256
1
1
1
99
Small
256
362
99
Be
Small
362
512
1
1
1
100
NOEDRO!C6K
Medium
512
1024
100
IM
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
113edrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.7
D35 -
10.2
D50 =
33.9
D. =
105.6
1395 =
158.4
D100 =
512.0
UT2 R2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
TM
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
80
er
70
e
60
0 50
E 40
u
30
u
w 20
a
10
4441,
0
ITE
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-01/2020 f MY1-10/2020
UT2 R2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
10
0
0 oy o o'
tig0
ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-01/2020 ■ MYI-10/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
UT3 R2, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
5
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
1
6
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
2
3
3
9
`7
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
10
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
9
11
11
21
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
21
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
21
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
23
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
4
4
27
JQ�
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
7
10
10
37
�jQ�P
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
39
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
7
7
46
Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
3
49
VeryCoarse
32
45
3
2
5
5
53
VeryCoarse
45
64
5
1
6
6
59
Small
64
90
11
2
13
13
72
Small
90
128
9
5
14
14
86
�N�
coy
Large
128
180
7
2
9
9
95
Large
180
256
1
1
1
96
Small
256
362
3
3
3
99
Be
Small
362
512
1
1
1
100
11
JOEflRUCK
Medium
512
1024
100
IM
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
51
50
101
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
1.5
D35 =
10.4
D50 =
35.4
D. =
121.2
1395 =
179.7
D10, =
512.0
UT3 R2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
and
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
80
er
70
e
60
0 50
E 40
u
30
u
w 20
a
—
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
— MYO-01/2020 f MY1-10/2020
UT3 R2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
ti g0 5� �ti yti nL p
0 oy o o' ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-01/2020 ■ MYI-10/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
UT4, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
8
10
10
10
Very fine
0.062
0.125
10
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
12
,pC�o
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
7
8
8
20
`7
Coarse
0.5
1.0 1
1
1
2
2
22
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
6
11
11
33
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
33
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
33
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
2
3
3
36
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
1
3
3
39
JQ�
Medium
8.0
11.0
5
7
12
12
51
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
2
5
5
56
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
4
5
5
61
Coarse
22.6
32
61
Very Coarse
32
45
4
1
5
5
66
Very Coarse
45
64
1
1
1
67
Small
64
90
5
2
7
7
74
Small
90
128
9
3
12
12
86
�N�
Coe
Large
128
180
7
4
11
11
97
L a r g e
180
256
3
3
3
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
NOEDRO!C6K
Medium
512
1024
100
IM
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
JBedrock
1 2048 1
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.4
D35 =
5.0
D50 =
10.7
D. =
120.7
1395 =
169.2
D10, =
256.0
UT4, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
and Gravel
Cobble
80
er
BeI
70
e
60
0 50
E 40
u
30
u
w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-01/2020 f MY1-10/2020
UT4, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
0 oy o o'
ti g0 5� �ti yti nL p 0
ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-01/2020 ■ MYI-10/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
UT8, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
12
14
26
26
26
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
2
3
3
29
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
3
4
4
33
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
3
36
`7
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
4
40
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
41
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
41
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
41
Fine
4.0
5.6
41
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
2
43
JQ�
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
44
�jQ�P
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
1
3
3
47
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
6
9
9
55
Coarse
22.6
32
2
3
5
5
60
VeryCoarse
32
45
12
6
18
18
78
VeryCoarse
45
64
7
5
12
12
90
Small
64
90
6
2
8
8
98
Small
90
128
98
�N�
coy
Large
128 1
180
98
Large
180
256
1
1
1
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
me
Small
362
512
100
11
Medium
512
1024
100
IMLarge/Very
Large
1 1024
2048
100
$FflRUCK
Bedrock
1 2048
>2048
100
Total
50
51
101
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.4
D50 =
18.3
D. =
53.4
1395 =
79.0
D100 =
362.0
UT8, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
—
90 Silt/Clay
Sand Gravel
Cobble
gp
er
Bedrock
70
e
60
0 50
40
u
30
u
w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
— MYO-01/2020 f MY1-10/2020
UT8, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
1
0
0 oy o o'
�o .L0 ti p 5� �ti yti nL p co
ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-01/2020 ■ MYI-10/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
SRB R3, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
10
12
12
12
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
13
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
2
2
15
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
2
17
`7
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
6
7
7
24
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
3
4
4
28
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
28
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
28
Fine
4.0
5.6
28
Fine
5.6
8.0
28
JQ�
Medium
8.0
11.0
28
�jQ�P
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
3
5
5
33
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
3
5
5
38
Coarse
22.6
32
5
3
8
8
46
VeryCoarse
32
45
12
4
16
16
62
VeryCoarse
45
64
4
6
10
10
72
Small
64
90
7
6
13
13
85
Small
90
128
5
3
8
8
93
e
Large
128
180
4
2
6
6
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
99
Small
362
512
99
NOEDRO!C6K
Medium
512
1024
1
1
1
100
IM
Large/VeryLarge/Very Lar e
1024
2048
100
113edrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
so
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.4
D35 =
18.4
D50 =
34.8
D. =
87.7
1395 =
143.4
D100 =
1024.0
SRB R3, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
—
90
Silt/Clay
III
Sand
Gravel
Cobble
Bedrock
Sp
er
70
e
60
0 50
40
u
30
u
w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
— MYO-01/2020 f MY1-10/2020
SRB R3, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
0
0 oy o o' ti' S' titi' ti ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-01/2020 ■ MYI-10/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
SRB R4, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
2
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
3
5
5
11
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
3
14
`7
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
4
5
5
19
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
5
6
6
25
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
25
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
26
Fine
4.0
5.6
26
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
3
29
JQ�
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
6
8
8
37
�jQ�P
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
3
3
40
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
4
44
Coarse
22.6
32
4
1
5
5
49
VeryCoarse
32
45
6
6
6
55
VeryCoarse
45
64
8
3
11
11
66
Small
64
90
7
6
13
13
79
Small
90
128
7
4
11
11
90
�N�
coy
Large
128
180
5
3
8
8
98
Large
180
256
1
1
1
99
Small
256
362
99
Small
362
512
1
1
1
100
Medium
512
1024
100
IM
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
JBedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.7
D35 -
10.2
D50 =
33.9
D. =
105.6
1395 =
158.4
D100 =
512.0
SRB R4, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
and Gravel
Cobble
80
er
Bedrock
70
e
60
0 50
E 40
u
30
u
w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-01/2020 f MY1-10/2020
SRB R4, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
10
0
h ti ti °� A [o 'b y1 y�o C� .�'L p5 rak �o .L0 p 5� �ti yti nL p 0
0 oy o o' ti' S' titi' ti ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-01/2020 ■ MYI-10/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
SRB R5, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
1
3
3
3
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
2
2
5
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
7
Medium
0.25
0.50
5
5
10
10
17
`7
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
18
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
10
11
11
29
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
29
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
4
8
8
37
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
2
3
3
40
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
5
6
6
46
JQ�
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
4
4
50
�jQ�P
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
4
10
10
60
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
8
8
68
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
4
4
72
VeryCoarse
32
45
2
3
5
5
77
VeryCoarse
45
64
6
2
8
8
85
Small
64
90
5
1
6
6
91
Small
90
128
4
2
6
6
97
�v�
coy
Large
128
180
2
1
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
18013edrock
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/VeryLarge/Very Lar e
1024
2048
100
2048
>2048
100
Total
so
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.5
D35 =
3.7
D50 =
11.0
D. =
61.2
1395 =
113.8
D100 =
180.0
SRB R5, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
Sand Gravel
Cobble
80
er
Bedrock
70
e
60
0 50
E 40
u
30
v
u
w 20
a
10
0
11E]
11
0.01 0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
- MYO-01/2020 f MY1-10/2020
SRB R5, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
m
60
a
50
R
40
�
3
30
v
>
20
v
10
0
ti g0 5� �ti yti .LDS p
0 oy o o' ti' S' titi' ti ti 3 5 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-01/2020 ■ MYI-10/2020

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020

Monthly Rainfall Data
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
Shake Rag 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020
10
9
8
7
c 6
c
0
m 5
.n
4
a`
3
2
1
0
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Date
Mars Hill 2.2 SSE -30th Percentile -70th Percentile
2020 rainfall collected by NC CRONOS Station, Mars Hill 2.2 SSE
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from WETS station Marshall, NC

Recorded Gage Events
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
2711.0
2710.5
2710.0
x 2709.5
w
2709.0
w
m
3 2708.5
2708.0
2707.5
2707.0
Crest Gage #1- UT1 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
m m o. > c 75 on n u > u
O 0
Rainfall — Crest Gage #1- UT1 Reach 2 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • • Bankfull
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
c
4.0 w
c
oc
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

Recorded Gage Events
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
2740.0
2739.5
2739.0
2738.5
w
2738.0
w
3 2737.5
2737.0
2736.5
2736.0
Crest Gage #2 - UT2 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
a m m o. c 75 on n > u
Rainfall — Crest Gage #2 - UT2 Reach 2 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • Bankfull
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
c
4.0 w
2.0
1.0
0.0

Recorded Gage Events
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Crest Gage #3 - UT3 Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
2619.0
8.0
2618.5
7.0
2618.0
6.0
2617.5
5.0
c
w
2617.0
-
4.0
w
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
w
c
io
3 2616.5
of0[
3.0
2616.0
2.0
2615.5
1.0
2615.0
AL 11111
0.0
c a n c 75 on n > u
Rainfall — Crest Gage #3 - UT3 Reach 2 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • Bankfull

Recorded Gage Events
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Crest Gage #4 - UT4
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
2504 8.0
2504
7.0
2503
6.0
2503
5.0
a
2502
—
4.0
`w
w
c
m
3 2502
oc
3.0
2501
2.0
2501
1.0
LA
2500
IL�Aj0.0
c a n c 75 m n > u
Rainfall — Crest Gage #4 - UT4 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • Bankfull

Recorded Gage Events
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Stream Gage #5 - UT8
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
2529.0 8.0
289 days
2528.5
7.0
2528.0
6.0
2527.5
5.0
—
w
2527.0
w
4.0 w
c
io
3
of0[
2526.5
3.0
2526.0
2.0
2525.5
1.0
2525.0
Lid0.0
1 L�i
c a n c 75 on n > u
O Z
Rainfalliiiiiiiiiiiiiii— Stream Gage #5 - UT8 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • Bankfull

Recorded Gage Events
Shake Rag Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 100018
Monitoring Year 1 - 2020
Crest Gage #6 - Shake Rag Branch Reach 3
Monitoring Year 1- 2020
2622.0
8.0
2621.5
7.0
2621.0
. —. —. —. —. —. —. —. —. —. —. —. — .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .
6.0
2620.5
5.0
w
2620.0
—
4.0
w
w
c
io
3 2619.5
of0[
3.0
2619.0
2.0
2618.5
1.0
]:�A2618.0Lid
0.0
c a n c 75 on n > u
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiRainfall — Crest Gage #6 - Shake Rag Branch Reach 3 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — . • Bankfull