20160406 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_2020_20210114

ID#* 20160406 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?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Jeremiah Dow
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20160406
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Buckwater Mitigation Site
County: Orange
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Buckwater 97084_MY2_2020.pdf 18.02MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Jeremiah Dow
Signature:*

MONITORING YEAR 2
ANNUAL REPORT
FINAL
QUCKWATER MITIGATION SITE
Orange County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 006829
DMS Project Number 97084
USACE Action ID Number 2016-00873
NCDWR Project Number 2016-0406
Data Collection Period: January — October 2020
Draft Submission Date: November 19, 2020
Final Submission Date: December 18, 2020
PREPARED FOR:
k4
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
W
WILDLANDS
E N G INFER I N G
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Jason Lorch
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project in Orange County, NC at the
Buckwater Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) to restore and enhance a total of 16,276 linear feet of perennial and
intermittent streams. The Site is expected to generate 12,621.936 stream mitigation units (SMUs) when
calculated along stream centerlines. The Site is located approximately 4.5 miles northeast of
Hillsborough, NC (Figure 1) in the Neuse River Basin 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201 and
NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Subbasin 03-04-01 and is within the DMS-targeted HUC
03020201030030. The Site contains Buckwater Creek and 14 unnamed tributaries. Buckwater Creek, T1,
T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T6A, T7, and T9 are perennial streams, while T4A, T413, T613, T7A and T8 are
intermittent streams. The Site streams drain to the Eno River, which flows to Falls Lake, and are
classified as Water Supply Waters (WS-IV) and Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW). The 51.84-acre Site is
protected with a permanent conservation easement.
The Site is located within a Targeted Local Watershed as discussed in the 2010 Neuse River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP) (Breeding, 2010), which highlights the importance of riparian buffers for
stream restoration projects. Since at least 1938, cattle have grazed on three of the Site properties. The
remainder of the Site that is not forested was used for cultivating hay.
The project goals established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2017) were developed considering the
goals and objectives listed in the Neuse River RBRP and include:
• Reconnect channels with floodplains and riparian wetlands to allow a natural flooding regime;
• Improve the stability of stream channels;
• Exclude cattle from project streams;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain and streambank vegetation;
• Improve instream habitat; and
• Permanently protect the Site from harmful land uses.
The project will contribute to achieving the goals for the watershed listed in the Neuse River RBRP and
provide ecological benefits within the Neuse River Basin. While benefits such as habitat improvement
and geomorphic stability are limited to the Site, reduced nutrient and sediment loading have farther
reaching effects. In addition, other implemented and planned projects in the same watershed and basin
as this Site will realize cumulative benefits.
Site construction and planting were completed in April 2019. As -built surveys were conducted between
January 2019 and April 2019. Monitoring Year 2 (MY2) assessments and site visits were completed
between January and October 2020 to assess the conditions of the Site. Overall, the Site has met the
required stream success criteria for MY2. The average stem density for the Site is 334 planted stems per
acre with 9 out of 19 vegetation plots on track to meet the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted
stems per acre. A supplemental planting will occur in winter 2021 to offset the mortality rates at the
Site. Two areas with poor herbaceous cover, totaling 1.4 acres, have been noted and will continue to be
addressed during MY3. Areas of concern, along Buckwater Creek Reach 7, identified by the IRT were
repaired in April 2020. In August 2020, in -stream vegetation treatment was conducted due to sediment
transport concerns. Pool cross -sections on T5 deviated from the design during MYO but have since
stabilized. Bankfull or geomorphically significant events were recorded on all stream reaches.
Additionally, all the flow gages have recorded baseflow for more than 30 consecutive days during MY2.
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final

BUCKWATER MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
1.2
Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
1.2.1
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-3
1.2.3
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-3
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-3
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-4
1.2.6
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-4
1.2.7
Adaptive Management Plan...............................................................................................1-4
1.3
Monitoring Year 2 Summary......................................................................................................1-4
Section2:
METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Section 3:
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................3-1
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 Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3-3e Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a-k Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Stream Areas of Concern Photographs
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix 3
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Table 8
CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Table 9
Planted and Total Stem Counts
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a-c
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross -Section)
Table 12a-f
Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross -Section Plots
Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final

Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Monthly Rainfall Data
30-Day Cumulative Total Rainfall Data
Groundwater Gage Plots
Table 14 Wetland Gage Summary
Recorded In -Stream Flow Events
Table 15 Recorded In -Stream Flow Events Attainment Summary
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Buckwater Mitigation Site (Site) is located in central Orange County, approximately 4.5 miles
northeast of Hillsborough, NC off of Walnut Hill Drive (Figure 1 and within the Falls Lake Water Supply
Watershed and Neuse River Basin. Both the Neuse River and Falls Lake are designated as Nutrient
Sensitive Waters. The Site streams drain to the Eno River and are within Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03020201030030, which is a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) (Figure 1). The Site lies in the Carolina
Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998). The drainage area for the Site is 2,259
acres (3.53 square miles) consists primarily of agricultural and forested land.
The project streams include Buckwater Creek and fourteen unnamed tributaries. Mitigation work within
the Site includes restoration, enhancement I, and enhancement II of 16,276 linear feet of intermittent
and perennial stream channels. The riparian areas were planted with native vegetation to improve
habitat and protect water quality. The final Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2017) was submitted to and
accepted by DMS in December 2017. Construction activities were completed by Ecotone, Inc. in April
2019. Planting and seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in April 2019.
Baseline monitoring (MYO) was conducted between January and April 2019. Annual monitoring will
occur for seven years with the close-out anticipated to commence in 2026 provided success criteria are
met. Appendix 1 provides additional details on project activity, history, contact information, and
watershed background information for the Site.
The Site is located on eleven parcels under nine different landowners. A conservation easement was
recorded on 51.84 acres. The project is expected to provide 12,621.936 SMUs at closeout. A project
vicinity map and directions are provided in Figure 1, and project components/assets are illustrated in
Figure 2.
Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, the primary causes of Site degradation were stream channelization and
livestock grazing, both of which originated prior to 1938. Agricultural activity remained intensive
through the 1990s with several thousand beef cattle and three hog houses. Currently, approximately
130 cows graze on three properties and non -forested land is used for cultivating hay. Several ponds
along Buckwater Creek, T3, and T5 were built between 1938 and 1955. According to 1955 aerial
photography, the top 1,000 feet of Buckwater Creek on the Site were channelized. Landowners
maintained lower Buckwater Creek below Walnut Hill Drive as a straightened channel until the 1990s.
Table 4 in Appendix 1 and Tables 10a through 10c in Appendix 4 present the pre -restoration conditions
data.
The project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits. While benefits such as habitat
improvement and geomorphic stability are limited to the Site, reduced nutrient and sediment loading
have farther reaching effects. The table below describes expected outcomes to water quality and
ecological processes and provides project goals and objectives. The project goals and objectives were
developed as part of the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2017) considering the goals and objectives listed in
the Neuse River RBRP plan and strive to maximize ecological and water quality uplift within the
watershed.
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 1-1

Goals
Objectives
Expected Outcomes
Reconnect channels
Raise water table and hydrate riparian wetlands.
with floodplains and
Reconstruct stream channels for
Allow more frequent flood flows to disperse on the
riparian wetlands to
bankfull dimensions and depth
floodplain. Support geomorphology and higher
allow a natural
relative to the existing floodplain,
level functions.
flooding regime.
f
Improve the
Construct stream channels that
Significantly reduce sediment inputs from bank
stability of stream
will maintain stable cross-
erosion. Reduce shear stress on channel boundary.
channels.
sections, patterns, and profiles
Support all stream functions above hydrology.
over time.
Reduce and control sediment inputs; reduce and
Install fencing around
manage nutrient inputs;
Exclude cattle from
conservation easements adjacent
reduce and manage fecal coliform inputs.
project streams.
to cattle pastures.
Contribute to protection of or improvement to a
Water Supply Waterbody. Support Falls Lake
recovery plan.
Install habitat features such as
constructed riffles, cover/lunker
Increase and diversify available habitats for
Improve instream
logs, and brush toes into
macroinvertebrates, fish, and amphibians leading
habitat.
restored/enhanced streams. Add
to colonization and increase in biodiversity over
woody materials to channel beds.
time. Add complexity including LWD to streams.
Construct pools of varying depth.
Restore and
Plant native tree and understory
Reduce sediment inputs from bank erosion and
enhance native
species in riparian zone and plant
runoff. Increase nutrient cycling and storage in
floodplain and
floodplain. Provide riparian habitat. Add a source
streambank
appropriate species on
of LWD and organic material to stream. Support all
vegetation.
streambank.
stream functions.
Permanently
Establish conservation easements
Protect Site from encroachment on the riparian
protect the Site
on the Site.
corridor and direct impact to streams and
from harmful uses.
wetlands. Support all stream functions.
1.2 Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring and site visits were conducted during MY2 to assess the condition of the project. The
vegetation and stream success criteria for the Site were presented in the approved Mitigation Plan
(Wildlands, 2017).
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). During the baseline
monitoring 19 10-meter by 10-meter vegetation plots were established.
The final vegetation success criteria at the end of MY7 are the survival of 210 planted stems per acre
averaging 10 feet in height. Interim success criteria are the survival of 320 planted stems per acre at the
end of MY3 and 260 planted stems per acre with an average stem height of 7 feet at the end of MY5.
The MY2 vegetative survey was completed in September 2020. Vegetation monitoring resulted in an
average stem density of 334 planted stems per acre, which is above the interim requirement of 320
stems per acre required at MY3 and approximately 44% less than the baseline density recorded (601
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 1-2

planted stems per acre). There is an average of 8 stems per plot as compared to 15 stems per plot in
MYO. A total of 9 of the 19 vegetation plots are on track to meet MY3 interim success criteria of 320
planted stems per acre and 15 of the 19 vegetation plots currently meet the final success criteria of 210
planted stems per acre. Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation
condition assessment table and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
A high mortality rate of planted trees was observed between MY1 and MY2 (Figures 3a-3e Current
Condition Plan View (CCPV)). The mortality rate can be attributed to competition from fescue and poor
soils. A supplemental planting plan of 10.7 acres is presented in Section 1.2.7.
A 1.4-acre area of low vegetative growth was noted along T5 (upstream of St. Mary's Rd) and T6 (Figure
3e CCPV and Table 6, Appendix 2). Grading during construction exposed rocky poor -quality subsoil near
the surface. Soil amendments including a mixture of dolomitic lime, fertilizer, and humic acid, and a seed
mix of herbaceous vegetation were applied to this area in August 2020. Amendments will continue to be
applied throughout subsequent monitoring years, as necessary.
An Adaptive Management Plan was submitted to the North Carolina Interagency Review Team (IRT) on
December 7, 2020 to address the tree mortality and low vegetative growth areas seen during MY2. The
document details contributing factors to the high mortality rate, specific trees and quantities to be
planted, and a course of action to prevent future tree loss.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY2 were conducted in April 2020. All streams within the Site are stable and
functioning as designed. Of the 36 cross -sections at the Site, 34 show little to no change in the bankfull
area and width -to -depth ratio, and bank height ratios are less than 1.2. Pool cross -sections 26 and 28,
on T5, show deviations from the as -built, but have stabilized since MY1. The changes in these two cross -
sections occurred shortly after construction due to sediment deposition before vegetation was well
established on the floodplain. The sediment deposition on the inside bend of the pools has created
point bars, which is expected in a naturally meandering channel; therefore, no remedial actions are
planned. Substrate measurements indicate the maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle reaches
and finer particles in the pools. Longitudinal profile surveys are not required on the project unless visual
inspection indicates reach wide vertical instability. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability
assessment table, CCPV maps, and stream photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological data
and plots.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
Bank erosion was identified on Buckwater Creek Reach 7 between stations 146+00 and 151+00 during
MY1. Stream bank repairs were conducted in April 2020 and are shown on Figure 3b (CCPV Map, and
Stream Areas of Concern Photographs, Appendix 2).
As discussed in Section 1.2.3 above, two pool cross -sections on T5 indicated point bar formation from
MYO to MY1. Surveys show they are currently similar to MY1 results and no remedial action will be
taken at this time.
In -stream vegetation within some of the headwater channels caused sediment transport concerns and
was therefore treated in August 2020 (Figure 3a-3e CCPV).
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 1-3

1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
By the end of MY7, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in separate years within the
restoration reaches. Also, two geomorphically significant events must be documented during the
monitoring period. Bankfull events were recorded on Buckwater Creek, T4, and T5 (upstream and
downstream of St. Mary's Road) and T7. Multiple geomorphically significant events were recorded on all
reaches except T7 during MY2. All reaches have partially fulfilled their bankfull and geomorphic
requirements for the monitoring period.
In addition, the presence of baseflow must be documented on restored intermittent reaches (T4A, T413,
T6, T7A, T7, and T8) for a minimum of 30 consecutive days during a normal precipitation year. In -stream
flow gages equipped with pressure transducers were installed to monitor continuity of baseflow. All
reaches maintained baseflow as expected for intermittent streams with maximum consecutive days
ranging from 70 to 294. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data.
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
Three groundwater gages were installed and monitored within the existing wetlands zones. All gages
were installed at locations requested by NCDWR and were downloaded and maintained quarterly. The
purpose of these gages is to assess potential effects to wetland hydrology from the construction of
restored stream channels through these areas. The results of this monitoring are not tied to a success
criterion. The measured hydroperiod ranged from 2.3% to 50.4% of the growing season consecutively.
Results from groundwater gage 1 and 3 indicate areas along Buckwater Reach 4 and T1 Reach 2 are
maintaining wetland conditions. However, groundwater gage 2 on Buckwater Reach 4 suggests slow
recharge of the groundwater table after stream construction. Per the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2017)
selected wetlands will be redelineated during MY4 or MY5. Refer to Appendix 5 for wetland data.
1.2.7 Adaptive Management Plan
In winter 2021, supplemental planting will occur in the low stem density areas (Figure 3.0 CCPV) ranging
from a rate of 200 to 300 trees per acre. Areas with tall fescue will be sprayed around the planted trees
after supplemental planting has occurred. The two low growth areas upstream of St. Mary's Road along
T5 and T6 (Figure 3.0 CCPV) totaling 1.4 acres will continue to be tested and soil amendments will be
applied accordingly. Refer to the Adaptive Management Plan document sent to the IRT on December 7,
2020 for more detail.
1.3 Monitoring Year 2 Summary
Of the 19 vegetation plots, 9 are on track to meet the MY3 interim requirement of 320 planted stems
per acre. Supplemental planting will occur in winter 2021. Wildlands will continue to monitor areas of
poor herbaceous vegetation growth and will supplement as needed. In April 2020, the eroding banks
along Buckwater Creek Reach 7 were repaired. In -stream vegetation removal was conducted on a few
tributaries in August 2020. All streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed. Pool cross -
sections on T5 deviated from as -built dimensions shortly after construction due to point bar formation.
Bankfull or geomorphically significant events were documented on all stream reaches during MY2.
Greater than 30 days of consecutive flow were recorded on all intermittent reaches with flow gauges.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2017)
available on DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are
available from DMS upon request.
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 1-4

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in 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.
Crest gages and pressure transducers were installed in riffle cross -sections and monitored throughout
the year. Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with
the United States Army Corps of Engineers standards (USACE, 2003). Vegetation monitoring protocols
followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Breeding, R. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities 2010. NCEEP, NC
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, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.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, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf.
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.
Rosgen, D.L. 1997. A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers. Proceedings of the
Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Center For
Computational Hydroscience and Bioengineering, Oxford Campus, University of Mississippi, Pages
12-22.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2017. Buckwater Mitigation Project Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report - Final 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

Project Area
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watersheds
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the
NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DIMS) 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 within 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 DIMS.
03020201020010
i/1
r
/A
t
03020201020030
�1
03020201030040
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
W I L D L A N D S Bu
0 0.5 1 Miles ckwater Buffer Mitigation Site
CNGINEERING ,
DMS Project No. 97084
i I i I Monitoring Year 2- 2020
Orange County, NC

� r
2ma1A]A� iS
- -- - --
+
- - - - ., a . a s * .a - - � '- ■ , Y� � L'�J.Sa1:�1�.r�3aS 1 � � - - - - .� ■+
um
c�a '
1
+ ■�
■ ■ 1
yy�.- � fin) 1 � ■ a ■ ■ ■
■
■ ■ � f L11-t11U U
■
L _ :Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
Existing Wetlands
-- Utility Easement
Stream Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Non -Project Streams
O Reach Breaks
1 ■
1 ■
1 �
1 r �
1 ■
r
■
Figure 2. Project Component / Asset Map
%,,,WILDLANDS Buckwater Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING DMSProject No. 97084
0 400 800 Feet Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
I I I I
Orange County, NC

Table 1. Mitigation Assets and Components
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Reach ID Existing
Footage
Mitigation
Plan
Footage
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Priority Level
Mitigation
Ratio
(X.1)
Foota le
Footage
Comments
STREAMS
Buckwater Reach 1
445
445
Warm
Ell
2.5
433
Grade Control Structures, Bank Repair, Conservation Easement
Buckwater Reach 2
160
160
Warm
El
P3
1.5
162
Grade Control Structures, Bank Repair, Planted Buffer
Buckwater Reach 3
232
232
Warm
El
P1.5*
1.5
232
Grade Control Structures, Bank Repair, Planted Buffer
2,067
Warm
R
PI
1.0
2,071
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Invasive Control
Utility Crossing
Buckwater Reach 4
2,282
206
Warm
R
PI
1.0
209
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer
Road Crossing
194
Warm
R
PI
1.0
198
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer
Buckwater Reach 5
435
486
Warm
R
P1.5*
1.0
485
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Invasive Control
379
Warm
R
P1.5*
1.0
363
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Invasive Control
Buckwater Reach 6
884
Utility Crossing
Utility Crossing
Buckwater Reach 7
941
891
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
885
Grade Control Structures, Bank Repair, Enhancement Work Was Completed
Beyond The Limits Of The Conservation Easement
Buckwater Reach 8
178
188
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
185
Bank Repair, Conservation Easement
366
Warm
El
P1.5*
1.5
375
Grade Control Structures, Planted Buffer
Tl Reach 1
501
Road Crossing
Utility Crossing
Tl Reach 2
572
485
Warm
R
PI
1.0
477
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer
Utility Crossing
T2
548
587
Warm
R
PI
1.0
592
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer
1,101
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
1,107
Livestock Exclusion, Grade Control Strucres, Planted Buffer
T3 Reach 1
1,303
Road Crossing
166
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
167
Livestock Exclusion, Grade Control Structures, Planted Buffer
658
Warm
R
PI
1.0
665
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Livestock Exclusion
T3 Reach 2
877
Road Crossing
193
Warm
R
PI
1.0
197
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Livestock Exclusion
T4
1,081
961
Warm
R
PI
1.0
956
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer
T4A Reach 1
312
311
Warm
R
PI
1.0
327
Farm Pond Drained, Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer
175
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
155
Livestock Exclusion, Grade Control Structures, Conservation Easement
T4A Reach 2
259
Road Crossing
201
Warm
R
PI
1.0
208
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer
T4A Reach 3
145
Road Crossing
T4B Reach 1
419
345
Warm
R
PI
1.0
346
Full Channel Restoration, Livestock Exclusion
548
Warm
R
PI
1.0
554
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Invasive Control
T5
1,291
Road Crossing
711
Warm
R
PI
1.0
722
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Farm Pond Drained
T6 Reach 1
697
695
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
697
Invasive Control, Bank Repair, Conservation Easement
458
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
458
Invasive Control, Bank Repair, Conservation Easement
T6 Reach 2
492
Road Crossing
T6 Reach 3
704
620
Warm
El
PI & P1.5*
1.5
623
Grade Control Structures, Planted Buffer, Invasive Control
T6A
324
311
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
313
Grade Control Structures, Bank Repair, Conservation Easement
T6B
136
136
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
136
Grade Control Structures, Bank Repair, Conservation Easement
T7 Reach 1
317
322
Warm
El
P1.5*
1.5
320
Grade Control Structures, Planted Buffer
T7 Reach 2
323
363
Warm
R
PI
1.0
367
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer
T7 Reach 3
368
356
Warm
R
P2
1.0
357
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer
T7A
227
242
Warm
EI
Pl
1.5
240
Grade Control Structures, Planted Buffer
T8
620
631
Warm
El
PI
1.5
621
Grade Control Structures, Planted Buffer
T9
73
73
Warm
Ell
N/A
2.5
73
Grade Control Structures, Conservation Easement
Priority 1.5 refers to a combination of Priority 1 and Priority 2 where the existing channel was raised and the floodplain was graded.
Restoration Level
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Coastal
Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non-Riverine Wetland Marsh
Restoration
9,051.000
Enhancement 1
1,715.336
Enhancement 11
1,855.600
Preservation
Re -Establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Creation
Totals
12,621.936

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Mitigation Plan
December 2017
December 2017
Final Design - Construction Plans
April 2018
April 2018
Construction
April 2018-April 2019
April 2019
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal
April 2018-April 2019
April 2019
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments'
April 2018-April 2019
April 2019
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
April 2019
April 2019
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey
April 2019
July 2019
Vegetation Survey
April 2019
In -stream Repairs
August 2019
Invasive Treatment
October 2019
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
October 2019
December 2019
Vegetation Survey
October 2019
Stream Bank Repairs
April 2020
Soil Amendments
August 2020
In -stream Vegetation Treatment
August 2020
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey
April 2020
December 2020
Vegetation Survey
September 2020
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2021
December 2021
•etation Surw
2021
Year 4 Monitoring
December 2022
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2023
December 2023
"^eetation Surve••
2023
Year 6 Monitoring
I December 2024
Year 7 Monitoring
stream Survey
2025
December 2025
Vegetation Survey
2025
Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Nicole Macaluso, PE
Raleigh, NC 27609
919.851.9986
Ecotone, Inc
Construction Contractor
2120 High Point Rd
Forest Hill, MD 21050
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Ecotone, Inc
Seeding Contractor
2120 High Point Rd
Forest Hill, MD 21050
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Dykes and Sons Nursery and Greenhouse
Bare Roots
Live Stakes
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Monitoring, POC
Jason Lorch
919.851.9986

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
PROJECT• •
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Fro7,e_ct1Name
unty Orange County
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 36" 6' 23.49" N, 79" 1' 29.11" W
Project Area (acres) 51.84
Planted Ace rage (acres of woody stems planted) 23.60
Physiographic Province Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin
Neuse River
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03020201
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03020201030030
DWR Sub -basin
03-04-01
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
2,259
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
3.9%
CGIA Land Use Classification
63.9%forested, 32.1% cultivated, 3.9% impervious
Reaches
Buckwater
T1
T2 & T3
T4, T4A, & T413
TS & T6
T7 & T7A
TS
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
5,223
852
2,728
1,992
3,054
1,284
621
Drainage Area (acres)
2,259
1,216
218
77
109
28
21
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
42
37.5
42
40.5
60
30
30.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS-IV
Morphological Desription (stream type)
Perennial I Perennial
I Perennial Intermittent Intermittent Intermittent Intermittent
Evolutionary Trend (Simon's Model) - Pre -Restoration
V-Aggradation and Widening
I IV- Degradation and Widening
Underlying Mapped Soils
Appling-Helena, Chewacla loam, Herndon Tarrus Series
Drainage Class
-
-
Soil Hydric Status
-
-
Slope
FEMA Classification
Zone AE Buckwater Floodplain Fringe N/A
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation - Post -Restoration
0%
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters ofthe United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USACE Nationwide Permit No. 27 and DWQ 401 Water Quality Certification No
4134.
Waters ofthe United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Buckwater Mitigation Plan; Wildlands determined "no effect" on Orange
County listed endangered species. The USFWS responded on May 5, 2016
stating that "the proposed action is not likelyto adversely affect anyfederally-
listed endangered orthreatened species, their formally designated critical
habitat, or species currently proposed for listing under the Act."
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Correspondence from SHPO on May 6, 2016 stated the project would "have no
effect on the archaeological potential of the Saint Mary's Road Rural Historic
District" and the project "will not adversely affect" the Saint Mary's Road Rural
Historic District nor the adjacent Holden -Roberts Farm (OR0673).
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
A CLOMR was approved prior to the start of construction, as well as local
floodplain development permit. A LOMR was approved by the State Floodplai
Mapping Program on September 11, 2020.
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
N/A
N/A

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

W 1 uia
Gi g W W
�a +
- - - - ;,a ""M
rML - M,
ago .
■
COD%
AMM4 6ftt,�
eac
PkN 'I -��
■
1P LB,
7..•- ■ — s
L - :Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
Existing Wetlands
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY2
0 Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Problem Area - MY2
® Low Stem Density
Low Growth Area
Stream Problem Area - MY2
Stream Bank Repairs
In -Stream Vegetation Treatment
Stream Approach
— Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
No Credit
-- Utility Easement
— Cross -Sections
Groundwater Wells (Not for Credit)
♦ Flow Gauges
+ Crest Gauges
* Photo Points
C Reach Breaks
Figure 3. Integrated Current Condition Plan View Key
W I L D L A N D S Buckwater Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING DMSProject No. 97084
0 400 800 Feet Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
I I I I I
Orange County, NC

to*
6
••'"
r
41
4' lit
41
' • L - :Conservation Easement
,
Z
'l fA
41
S
G39 ---
o, ,UD
03
Buckwater Creek
Reach 3
000 ReachM�
Internal Crossing
Structures
Existing Wetlands
Stationing
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY2
0 Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Problem Area - MY2
® Low Stem Density
Low Growth Area
Stream Problem Area - MY2
In -Stream Vegetation Treatment
Stream Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
--- As -Built Bankfull
-- Utility Easement
Cross -Sections
Groundwater Gages (Not for Credit)
♦ Flow Gauges
Photo Points
O Reach Breaks
Figure 3a. Integrated Current Condition Plan View
W I L D L A N D S Buckwater Mitigation Site
E h1 G i " E E R I N G DMS Project No. 97084
0 150 300 Feet Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
I i i i I
Orange County, NC

L - :Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
Structures
Existing Wetlands
Stationing
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY2
0 Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Problem Area - MY2
® Low Stem Density
Low Growth Area
db
Stream Approach ' Olt;'+
Restoration 0 ` l IL IP Enhancement I 9 ♦ _ ,`� �`1 �/
Enhancement II ♦`♦ . �`l ` '/ /
--- As -Built Bankfull ♦♦ `, , '` �_ /
♦ l
-- Utility Easement ♦♦ �� ` -/ _�
Cross -Sections ♦♦ 5 ,+ + ' f,fr -� -�
Groundwater Gages (Not for Credit) ♦� ` - -�
♦ �.
♦ Flow Gauges ♦♦ �.� �:j'y �-
+ Crest Gauges `•' �� ��
+ Barotroll -0
Stream Problem Area - MY2 Photo Points -��•�
Stream Bank Repairs 0 Reach Breaks
In -Stream Vegetation Treatment
�.3 ♦ y
MA f
0-1
-� �0-1�
FbYJ�z rdmrd� AL AL k!
16
46
T
L .
� � a
I
� 51
� s
fA
I
rTr2;
.`�
i4
r
_ s
Figure 3b. Integrated Current Condition Plan View
W I L D L A N D S Buckwater Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING DMSProject No. 97084
0 150 300 Feet Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
I I I I
Orange County, NC

Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
Structures
Existing Wetlands
Stationing
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY2
0 Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Problem Area - MY2
® Low Stem Density
Stream Problem Area - MY2
In -Stream Vegetation Treatment
Stream Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
- - - As -Built Bankfull
-- Utility Easement
Cross -Sections
♦
Flow Gauges
+
Crest Gauges
*
Photo Points
C
Reach Breaks
r
t f
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
i7
r
E31
E31
Reach 2
r.a
Figure 3c. Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
150 300 Feet Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
I I I I
Orange County, NC

L _ ♦ Conservation Easement
Internal Crossing
Structures
® Existing Wetlands
Stationing
Vegetation Plot Condition - MY2
Q Criteria Met
Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Problem Area - MY2
® Low Stem Density
Stream Problem Area - MY2
In -Stream Vegetation Treatment
Stream Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
--- As -Built Bankfull
-- Utility Easement
Cross -Sections
♦ Flow Gauges
Photo Points
O Reach Breaks
�WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R I N G
.«
I
A
idk, J
i
�� T3
3ps% Reach 1
0 150 300 Feet
I I I
A_j
Figure 3d. Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Orange County, NC

Figure 3e. Integrated Current Condition Plan View
*,,,,WILDLANDS Buckwater Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING DMSProject No. 97084
0 150 300 Feet Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
1 1 1 1 1
Orange County, NC

Table Sa. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Buckwater Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Buckwater Reach 2/3
Major Channel
Category
1. Bed
Number
Stable, Total Number
Channel Sub -Category Metric s.BWh
Performing as in P
Intended
1. Vertical Stability Aggradation
Numbe
N be I Amount of Stahl S. ,,rwit Footage with Adjust %for
n bl:' Unstable Pe%rforming a ell Woody Woody
Segments 60= e Intended VWoo Y
egetationj Vegetation Vegetation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation
0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 6
6
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 6
6
Condition Length Appropriate 6
100%
6
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 6
6
4. Thalweg Position meanderbend Run
6
Thalweg centering at downstream of 6
meanderbend Glide
100%
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
Structures physically intact with no
1. Overall Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs.
1
1
100%
Grade control structures exhibiting
2. Grade Control
maintenance of grade across the sill.
1
1
100%
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a. Piping
underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
0
0
N/A
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
"Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
0
0
N/A
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated In section 1.

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Buckwater Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Buckwater Reach 4
M
cil
Caterl
1. Bed
Number
hannel Sub -Category Metric . B ,
Performing as in s- uit
Intended
1. Vertical Stability Aggradation
Nu
Numbel Amountof Stabi Stri 1—tage with Adjust %for
Unstable Unstable Performing a
Woody Woody Woody
Segments ,=e Intended Vegetationj Vegetation Vegetation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation
0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 27
27
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 25
25
Condition Length Appropriate 25
100%
25
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 27
27
4. Thalweg Position mea nder bend Run
25
Thalweg centering at downstream of 25
meander bend Glide
100%
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
Structures physically intact with no
1. Overall Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs.
4
4
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
4
4
100%
maintenance of grade across the sill.
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a. Piping
underneath sills or arms.
4
4
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
11
11
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
11
11
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated In section 1.

Table Sc. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Buckwater Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Buckwater Reach 5/6
Major Channel
Category
1. Bed
Number
Stable ' Total Number
Channel Sub -Category Metric
Performing as in As -Built
Intended
1. Vertical Stability Aggradation
Numberofl Annountof Stahl NSril Footage with Adjust %for
% e. ab Ii Ing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Unstable Unstable Performing a 'di
Woo Y Woody Woody
Segments Intended Vegetationj Vegetation Vegetation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation
0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 8
8
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 8
8
Condition Length Appropriate 8
100%
8
Thalweg centering at upstream of 8
8
4. Thalweg Positionmeander bendRunThalweg
H00:1
8
centering at downstream of 8
meander bend Glide
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
Structures physically intact with no
1. Overall Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs.
1
1
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
1
1
100%
maintenance of grade across the sill.
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a. Piping
underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
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
8
8
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated In section 1.

Table Scl. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Buckwater Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Major Channel
Category
1. Bed
Number
Stab e, Total Number
Channel Sub -Category Metric s."Wh
Performing as in P
Intended
1. Vertical Stability Aggradation
N
N be Amount of % Stable, S.rrbcrwitJ I..ta ewith Adjust %for
. n .bl:' Unstable Performing as Woo , " izing Stabilizing
Segments ,=e Intended V dy I Woody V Wood
egetatiori Vegetation egetation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation
0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 15
15
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 14
14
Condition Length Appropriate 14
100%
14
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 15
15
4. Thalweg Position meander bend Run
14
Thalweg centering at downstream of 14
meander bend Glide
100%
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
0
0
N/A
dislodged boulders or logs.
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
0
0
N/A
maintenance of grade across the sill.
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
0
0
N/A
underneath sills or arms.
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
7
7
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
7
7
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated In section 1.

Table Se. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Buckwater Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T2/f3
Major Channel
Category
1. Bed
Number
Stable, Total Number
Channel Sub -Category Metric s."Wh
Performing as in P
Intended
1. Vertical Stability Aggradation
N
N be I Amount of Stahl S.rl Footage with Adjust %for
n bl:' Unstable Pe%rforming a 'di Woody Woody
Segments 60= e Intended VWoo Y
egetationj Vegetation Vegetation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation
0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 25
25
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 23
23
Condition Length Appropriate 23
100%
23
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 25
25
4. Thalweg Position meanderbend Run
23
Thalweg centering at downstream of 23
meanderbend Glide
100%
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
0
0
N/A
dislodged boulders or logs.
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
0
0
N/A
maintenance of grade across the sill.
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
0
0
N/A
underneath sills or arms.
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
17
17
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
17
17
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated In section 1.

Table 5f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Buckwater Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T4/f4A
Major Channel
Category
1. Bed
Number
Stable ' Total Number
Channel Sub -Category Metric
Performing as in As -Built
Intended
1. Vertical Stability Aggradation
Numberofl Annountof Stahl NSril Footage with Adjust %for
% e. ab Ii Ing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Unstable Unstable Performing a 'di
Woo Y Woody Woody
Segments Intended Vegetationj Vegetation Vegetation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation
0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 41
41
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 37
37
Condition Length Appropriate 37
100%
37
Thalweg centering at upstream of 41
41
4. Thalweg Position meander bendRunThalweg
HOO'/'
37
centering at downstream of 37
meander bend Glide
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
Structures physically intact with no
1. Overall Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
3
3
100%
maintenance of grade across the sill.
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a. Piping
underneath sills or arms.
3
3
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
23
23
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
23
23
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated In section 1.

Table 5g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Buckwater Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T4B
Major Channel
Category
1. Bed
Number
Stab e, Total Number
Channel Sub -Category Metric s.BWh
Performing as in P
Intended
1. Vertical Stability Aggradation
N
N be Amount of % Stable, S.rrbcrwitJ I..ta ewith Adjust %for
. n .bl:' Unstable Performing as Woo , " izing Stabilizing
Segments ,=e Intended V dy I Woody V Wood
egetatiori Vegetation egetation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation
0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 9
9
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 9
9
Condition Length Appropriate 9
100%
9
Thalweg centering at upstream of 9
9
4. Thalweg Position meanderbendRunThalwegcentering
H00:1
9
at downstream of 9
meander bend Glide
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
Structures physically intact with no
1. Overall Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
2
2
100%
maintenance of grade across the sill.
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a. Piping
underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
5
5
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
5
5
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated In section 1.

Table Sh. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Buckwater Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
TS/fb
Major Channel
Category
1. Bed
Number
Stable ' Total Number
Channel Sub -Category Metric
Performing as in As -Built
Intended
1. Vertical Stability Aggradation
Numberofl Annountof Stahl NSril Footage with Adjust %for
% e. ab Ii Ing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Unstable Unstable Performing a 'di
Woo Y Woody Woody
Segments Intended Vegetationj Vegetation Vegetation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation
0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 40
40
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 37
37
Condition Length Appropriate 37
100%
37
Thalweg centering at upstream of 40
40
4. Thalweg Position meander bendRunThalweg
HOO'/'
37
centering at downstream of 37
meander bend Glide
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
0
0
N/A
dislodged boulders or logs.
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
0
0
N/A
maintenance of grade across the sill.
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
0
0
N/A
underneath sills or arms.
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
13
13
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
13
13
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated In section 1.

Table Si Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Buckwater Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Major Channel
Category
1. Bed
Number
Stab e, Total Number
Channel Sub -Category Metric s."Wh
Performing as in P
Intended
1. Vertical Stability Aggradation
N
N be Amount of % Stable, S.rrbcrwitJ I..ta ewith Adjust %for
. n .bl:' Unstable Performing as Woo , " izing Stabilizing
Segments ,=e Intended V dy I Woody V Wood
egetatiori Vegetation egetation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation
0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 40
40
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 35
35
Condition Length Appropriate 35
100%
35
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 40
40
4. Thalweg Position meander bend Run
35
Thalweg centering at downstream of 35
meander bend Glide
100%
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
Structures physically intact with no
1. Overall Integrity
dislodged boulders or logs.
5
5
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
5
5
100%
maintenance of grade across the sill.
Structures lacking any substantial flow
2a. Piping
underneath sills or arms.
5
5
100%
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
20
20
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
20
20
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated In section 1.

Table 5j. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Buckwater Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T7A
Major Channel
Category
1. Bed
Number
Stab e, Total Number
Channel Sub -Category Metric s."Wh
Performing as in P
Intended
1. Vertical Stability Aggradation
N
N be Amount of % Stable, S.rrbcrwitJ I..ta ewith Adjust %for
. n .bl:' Unstable Performing as Woo , " izing Stabilizing
Segments ,=e Intended V dy I Woody V Wood
egetatiori Vegetation egetation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation
0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 10
10
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 9
9
Condition Length Appropriate 9
100%
9
Thalweg centering at upstream of 10
10
4. Thalweg Position meanderbendRunThalwegcentering
H00:1
9
at downstream of 9
meander bend Glide
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
0
0
N/A
dislodged boulders or logs.
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
0
0
N/A
maintenance of grade across the sill.
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
0
0
N/A
underneath sills or arms.
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
2
2
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated In section 1.

Table Sk. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Buckwater Mitigation Project
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Major Channel
Category
1. Bed
Number
Stable ' Total Number
Channel Sub -Category Metric
Performing as in As -Built
Intended
1. Vertical Stability Aggradation
Numberofl Annountof Stahl NSril Footage with Adjust %for
% e. ab Ii Ing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Unstable Unstable Performing a 'di
Woo Y Woody Woody
Segments Intended Vegetationj Vegetation Vegetation
0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run Units) Degradation
0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 25
25
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool Depth Sufficient 24
24
Condition Length Appropriate 24
100%
24
100/
Thalweg centering at upstream of 25
25
4. Thalweg Position meander bend Run
24
Thalweg centering at downstream of 24
meander bend Glide
100%
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
3. Engineered
Structures'
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
0
0
N/A
dislodged boulders or logs.
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
0
0
N/A
maintenance of grade across the sill.
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
0
0
N/A
underneath sills or arms.
Bank erosion within the structures
3. Bank Protection
extent of influence does not exceed
6
6
100%
15%.
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
6
6
100%
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated In section 1.

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Planted Acreage 23.60
W V mapping
egetation Category Definitions Threshold
be
Polygons
Acreage
.
Acreage
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
Bare Areas 0.1
2
1.4
o
6/
material
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels
Low Stem Density Areas 0.1
11
10.7
o
45/0
based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
Total
13
12.1
51%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are
0.25 Ac
0
0.0
o
0/
Vigor
obviously small given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
13
12.1
51%

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS

PHOTO POINT 1 Buckwater R1— upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 1 Buckwater R1— downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 2 Buckwater R1— upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 2 Buckwater R1— downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 3 Buckwater R3 — upstream (41712020) I PHOTO POINT 3 Buckwater R3 — downstream (41712020)
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 4 Buckwater R4 — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 4 Buckwater R4 —downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 5 Buckwater R4 — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 5 Buckwater R4 — downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 6 Buckwater R4—upstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 6 Buckwater R4 — downstream (41712020)
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 7 Buckwater R4 — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 7 Buckwater R4 — downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 8 Buckwater R4 — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 8 Buckwater R4 —downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 9 Buckwater R4— upstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 9 Buckwater R4 —downstream (41712020) 1
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 10 Buckwater R4 — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 10 Buckwater R4 — downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 11 Buckwater R4 — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 11 Buckwater R4 — downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 12 Buckwater IRS —upstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 12 Buckwater IRS — downstream (41712020)
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 13 Buckwater R6 — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 13 Buckwater R6 — downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 14 Buckwater R7 —upstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 15 Buckwater R7 —upstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 14 Buckwater R7 — downstream (41712020)
r
9 ' • �4 ^q. '-�9u-ice � .. .. .� .. _. _,:. ....
PHOTO POINT 15 Buckwater R7 — downstream (41712020) 1
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 16 Buckwater R8 — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 16 Buckwater R8 — downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 17 T1 Reach 1— upstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 18 T1 Reach 2 — upstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 17 T1 Reach 1— downstream (41712020)
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 19 T1 Reach 2 — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 19 T1 Reach 2 — downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 20 T3 Reach 1— upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 20 T3 Reach 1— downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 21 T3 Reach 1— upstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 21 T3 Reach 1— downstream (41712020)
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

`� - Y�, 1,F "d _. � 1H t •'.'� 3 aC r[ .y ry M1 , y i ��1� `f`i_a� -y; Y"
"°. � .. �k� _- �, � viz ,•aE. '�-*`'ice' � � z� a r
p' p
s _ • t �'' I � `t ` ',�� � it ,'.. - �+�� �^ � I f 'r""� �� 1�.,.,�, � a
r3, hall
I J

PHOTO POINT 25 T2 — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 25 T2 — downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 26 T2 — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 26 T2 —downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 27 T4A Reach 1— upstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 27 T4A Reach 1— downstream (41712020)
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 28 T4 — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 28 T4 —downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 29 T4 — downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 30 T4 —downstream (41712020)
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 31 T413 Reach 1— upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 31 T413 Reach 1— downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 32 T6 Reach 1— upstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 33 T6 Reach 1— upstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 32 T6 Reach 1— downstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 33 T6 Reach 1— downstream (41712020)
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 34 T6 Reach 2 — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 34 T6 Reach 2 — downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 35 T6 Reach 3 — upstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 36 T6 Reach 3 — upstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 35 T6 Reach 3 — downstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 36 T6 Reach 3 — downstream (41712020) J
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

Ail�
..... .....

PHOTO POINT 40 T5 — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 40 T5 —downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 41 T5 — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 41 T5 —downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 42 T7 Reach 1— upstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 42 T7 Reach 1— downstream (41712020)
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 43 T7 Reach 2 — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 43 T7 Reach 2 — downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 44 T7 Reach 2 — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 44 T7 Reach 2 — downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 45 T7 Reach 3 — downstream (41712020)
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

PHOTO POINT 46 WA — upstream (41712020) 1 PHOTO POINT 46 WA — downstream (41712020) 1
PHOTO POINT 47 T8 — upstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 48 T8 — upstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 47 T8 —downstream (41712020)
PHOTO POINT 48 T8 —downstream (41712020)
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

Buckwater Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Stream Photographs

Stream Areas of Concern Photographs
Buckwater Creek Reach 7

Before - Localized Erosion (10/9/2019) 1 Before - Localized Erosion (10/9/2019) 1
After —Repaired Localized Erosion (4/7/2020)
After - Repaired Localized Erosion (4/7/2020)
After —Repaired Localized Erosion (10/21/2020) 1 After - Repaired Localized Erosion (10/21/2020) 1

VEGETATION PLOT PHOTOGRAPHS

VEG PLOT 13 (0912212020) 1 VEG PLOT 14 (0912212020) 1
VEG PLOT 15 (0912212020) 1 VEG PLOT 16 (0910812020) 1
VEG PLOT 18 (0912212020)
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Plot Photographs

Buckwater Mitigation Site
Appendix 2: Visual Assessment Data —Vegetation Plot Photographs

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
1
Yes
47%
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
Yes
5
No
6
No
7
No
8
Yes
9
No
10
Yes
11
No
12
No
13
Yes
14
Yes
15
Yes
16
No
17
No
18
No
19
No
*Success Criteria Met is based on the interim success criteria for MY3 of 310 planted stems per acre

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Buckwater Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Report Prepared By
Jason Lorch
Date Prepared
9/23/2020 12:21
Database Name
Buckwater- cvs-v2.5.0- MY2.mdb
Database Location
F:\Projects\005-02157 Buckwater\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 2 - 2020\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
KAITLYN2020
File Size
77271040
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Project Planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project 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
97084
Project Name
Buckwater Mitigation Site
Description
Buffer Restoration Project
Sampled Plots
19

Table 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitorine Year 2 - 2020
Current Plot Data (MY2 2020)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
VP1
VP2
VP
VP4
VP
VP6
VP
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
esculuspovio
Red Buckeye
ShrubTree
1
1
1
Betulo nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
coryo
Hickory
Tree
1
Diospyros virginiono
Persimmon
Tree
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1 3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
uglonsnigro
Black Walnut
Tree
1
Liquidomborstyrocifluo
Sweet Gum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifero
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
1
1
Nysso bifloro
Swamp Tupelo
Tree
Plotonus occidentolis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
Quercus olbo
White Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus lyroto
Overcup Oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus michouxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus shumordii
Shumard Oak
Shrub Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
Solixnigro
Black Willow
Tree
Viburnumdentatum
Arrow -wood
Shrub Tree
Stem count
size fares)
size (ACRES)
Species coun
Stems per ACRE
10
10
12
13
13
13
13
13
14
13
13
14
7
7
8
6
6
6
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
6
6
6
5
5
5
7
7
8
5
5
5
4
4
5
2
2
2
4
4
4
05
405
486
526
526
526
526
526
567
526
526
567
283
283
324
243
243
243
162
162
1 162
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 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitorine Year 2 - 2020
Current Plot Data (MY2 2020)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
VP 8
VP 9
VP 10
VP 11
VP 12
VP 13
VP 14
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
esculuspovio
Red Buckeye
ShrubTree
Betulo nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
coryo
Hickory
Tree
Diospyros virginiono
Persimmon
Tree
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
uglonsnigro
Black Walnut
Tree
Liquidomborstyrocifluo
Sweet Gum
Tree
1
2
Liriodendron tulipifero
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
1
1
Nysso bifloro
Swamp Tupelo
Tree
1
Plotonus occidentolis
Sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
1
1
1
Quercus olbo
White Oak
Tree
Quercus lyroto
Overcup Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
Quercus michouxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus shumordii
Shumard Oak
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
Solixnigro
Black Willow
Tree
2
Viburnumdentatum
Arrow -wood
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Stem count
size fares)
size (ACRES)
Species coun
Stems per ACRE
8
8
8
5
5
5
10
10
12
2
2
2
7
7
8
12
12
14
10
10
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
5
5
5
2
2
2
4
141
5
2
2
2
4
4
5
4
4
5
5
5
6
324
324
324
202
202
202
405
1 405
1 486
81
81
81
283
283
324
486
486
567
405
405
445
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 9. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitorine Year 2 - 2020
Current Plot Data (MY2 2020)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
VP 15
VP 16
VP 17
VP 18
VP 19
MY2 (2020)
MYl (2019)
MYO (2019)
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
PnoLS
P-all
T
esculuspovio
Red Buckeye
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
9
9
9
10
10
10
Betulo nigra
River Birch
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
22
22
24
34
34
35
41
41
41
coryo
Hickory
Tree
1
Diospyros virginiono
Persimmon
Tree
1
1
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1 2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
33
33
33
34
34
34
34
34
34
uglonsnigro
Black Walnut
Tree
1
1
Liquidomborstyrocifluo
Sweet Gum
Tree
1
1
5
3
Liriodendron tulipifero
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
2
2
22
22
22
32
32
32
Nysso bifloro
Swamp Tupelo
Tree
1
Plotonus occidentolis
Sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
47
47
49
56
56
56
62
62
62
Quercus olbo
White Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
10
10
10
11
11
11
Quercus lyroto
Overcup Oak
Tree
1
1
1
13
13
13
25
25
25
22
22
22
Quercus michouxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
10
13
13
13
13
13
13
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
10
33
33
33
33
33
33
Quercus shumordii
Shumard Oak
Shrub Tree
5
5
5
8
8
8
9
9
9
Solixnigro
Black Willow
Tree
1
3
Viburnum dentatum
Arrow -wood
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
9
9
9
13
13
13
15
15
15
Stem count
size fares)
size (ACRES)i
Species counti
Stems per ACRE
12
12
12
7
7
7
6
6
8
5
5
7
7
7
8
157
157
173
257
257
262
282
282
282
1
1
1
1
1
19
19
19
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.47
0.47
0.47
5
1 5
1 5
5
5
5
5
5
7
4
4
5
5
5
6
11
11
17
11
11
13
11
11
11
86
1 486
1 486
283l
283
1 283
243
1 324
E202
202
283
283
283
324
334
334
368
547
547
558
601
601
601
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 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Buckwater R4 & 115/6
PRE -RESTORATION CONDITION REFERENCE REACH DATA DESIGN AS-BUILT/BASELINE
Parameter Gage Buckwater Creek Buckwater Creek Franklin Creek Spencer Creek 2 Foust Creek Buckwater Creek Buckwater Creek Buckwater Creek Buckwater Creek
Reach 4 Reach 5/6 Reach 4 Reach 5/6 Reach 4 Reach 5/6
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
13
15.0
18.2
10.7
11.2
18.5
19.4
17.6
19.0
13.8
17.2
20.5 21.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
17
44
20
---
60
114
49
63
38 1 87
40 91
150
200
200
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.5
1.8
1.8
1.2
1.6
1.8
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.6
0.9
1.3
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
2.1
2.2
2.3
---
2.1
2.6
1.8
2.1
1.2 1.5
1.2 1.5
1.7
2.2
2.5
2.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
N/A
20.0
24.0
28
21.7
17.8
19.7
23.9
24.1
22.5
29.7
12.5
21.9
30.6
33.6
Width/Depth Ratio
7.3
8.6
8.3
15.2
5.8
7.1
13.9
14.2
14.0
12.0
13.5
15.3
13.8
13.9
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
3.3
1.3
3.6
5.5
10.2
2.6
3.4
2.5 1 5.0
2.2 5.0
8.7
14.5
9.3
9.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.6
1.7
2.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
16.0
18.0
---
---
---
---
---
30.0 37.0
25.6 44.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
13
60
25
65
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
0.013
0.015 T 0. 335
0.009 0.022
0.005 0.015
0.001
0.025
0.003
0.016
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
46
82
54
94
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
2.9 3.1
---
---
3.3
2.5
2.9
2.6
3.8
3.1
4.7
2.6
4.9
3.6
5.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
---
---
71
49
91
69
139
40
138
51
130
83
143
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)l
1 24
1 64
1
38
1 41
1 N/A
1 53
1 150
1 57
1 162
1 53
1 150
1 57
1 162
Radius of Curvature (ft)l
1 19
1 48
1
11
1 15
I N/A
1 35
1 53
1 38
1 57
1 35
1 53
38
57
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
1.4
3.7
---
---
1.3
1.4
N/A
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
10
3.0
2.0
3.0
Meander Length (ft)
45
250
---
---
46
48
N/A
88
246
95
266
88
246
95
266
Meander Width Ratio
1.8
4.9
---
---
3.4
3.6
N/A
3.0
8.5
3.0
8.5
3.0
8.5
3.0
8.5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
N/A
0.33/1.3/4.4/47/8
5/256
.34/39/7.8/33/71/
>2048
8.8/25/68.7/>204
8/>2048/>2048
<0.063/3/8.8/42/
90/-
0.1/11/33.8/90/1
54.7/256
0.1/2.68/11.8/81.
3/214.7/>2048
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft'
0.87
0.53
0.57
0.69
0.97
0.54
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM)
N/A
1.00
1.60
2.15
0.96
1.37
1.00
1.60
1.00
1.60
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
3.9%
3.9%
---
---
---
3.9%
3.9%
3.9%
3.9%
Rosgen Classification
E4/G4c
G4c
B4
E4
C4
C4
E4
C4
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.7
4
5.4
4.9 5.4
2.9 F 3.7
3.6
3.1
3.7
4.3
3.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
80
110
120
97
88
78
91
100
53
109
Q-NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
1,928
813
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,282
1,272
---
---
---
2,467
865
2,538
979
Sinuosity
1.14
1.41
1.18
2.30
1.10
1.30
1.40
1.30
1.40
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)'
0.007
0.007
0.023
0.005
0.009
0.007
0.004 0.007
0.007
0.006
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
0.005
---
---
---
0.007
0.006
(--): Data was not provided

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T2 & T3
PRE -RESTORATION CONDITION REFERENCE REACH DATA DESIGN A
Parameter Gage T2 T3 UT to Wells Spencer Creek UT to VarnalsCreek T2 T3 T2 T3
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.8
11
7.5
13
6.2
8.6
6.3
9.3
9.3
10.5
10.6
9.6
9.1
14.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
14
49
22
26
16
22
14
125
60
100
23 1 53
21 1 48
100
300
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9
1.4
0.6
0.8
0.6
1
0.8
1
1.1
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth
1.2
1.8
1.1
1.3
0.9
1.4
1
1.2
1.5
1.7
1.2 1.3
0.9 1.1
1.2
2.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
8.3
15
6.2
7.5
3.9
6.3
6.6
8.7
10.3
12.3
8.9
7.3
6.4
15.3
Width/Depth Ratio
7.9
9.4
9.2
23
6.1
12.6
7.9
9.3
8.1
9.3
13.0
13.0
13.2
13.6
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
>5.6
1.7
>3.4
1.9
4.1
1.7
4.3
5.7
10.0
2.2 5.0
2.2 5.0
10.9
20.8
Bank Height Ratio
1.4
2.0
1.2
1.7
1.0
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
N/A
21
45
---
---
---
---
---
48.9
45.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
8
56
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
0.017 0078
0.018 0.034
0.024 0.057
0.019 0.071
0.015 0.038
0.036
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
65.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.8
1.6
1.9
1.2
1.8
2.5
2.6
1.7
2.6
1.5
2.3
Z1661
E1.7
3.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
---
17
63
9
46
8
82
23
93
33
93
81
Pool Volume (ft')
N/A
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
---
---
10
35
10
50
15
45
27
90
24
82
27
90
24
82
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
---
2.3
32
12
85
8
47
21
32
19
29
21
32
19
29
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
0.3
4.0
1.9
9.1
0.6
3.2
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
Meander Length (ft)
35
70
55.0
142.0
16.0
47.0
80
159
72
144
80
159
72
144
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
4.4
8.8
8.7
15.3
1.1
3.2
2.5
8.5
2.5
8.5
2.5
8.5
2.5
8.5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
.45/4.4/9.7/71.1/
183/>208
0.43/11.3/20.9/
55.7/110/180
0.1/0.6/4.5/53/
96/x
1.87/8.85/11/65/
128/x
0.25/16/32.7/80.3
/227.6/1024
0.28/10.32/21.5/1
03.6/193.1/512
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
1.18
1.00
---
---
---
0.8
0.6
0.8
1.1
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM)
N/A
0.34
0.22
0.13
0.37
0.41
0.34
0.22
0.34
0.22
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
0.2%
2.0%
0.2%
2.0%
0.2%
2.0%
Rosgen Classification
E4/G4c
E4/Incised B4c
C4
E4
B4/E4b
B4/C4
C4
B4/C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.1 4.3
3.5 4.2
3.8 5.3
5.0 5.6
4.4 5.2
4.0
3.6
3.1
4.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
36
26
15
35
54
36
26
20
66
Q-NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
508
729
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
543
918
---
---
---
587
851
591
903
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z
0.015
0.018
0.019
0.019
0.022
0.17
0.012 0.02
0.010 F0023
0.017
0.016
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.017
0.016
(--): Data was not provided

Table 10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T4 & TS
PRE -RESTORATION CONDITION REFERENCE REACH DATA DESIGN A
Parameter Gage T4 TS UT to Wells Spencer Creek UTto VarnalsCreek T4 TS T4 TS
Min Max Min Max Min I Max Min I Max Min I Max Min IMax
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.2
6.1
8.9
6.2
8.6
6.3
9.3
9.3
10.5
7.6
9.7
6.7
6.1
8.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
9
10
22
16
22
14
125
60
100
11 1 17
20 1 46
150
100
200
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.6
0.6
1
0.8
1
1.1
1.2
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.9
1.4
0.9
1.4
1
1.2
1.5
1.7
0.7 0.9
0.8 1.0
1.0
1.1
1.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
N/A
4.8 1 5.1
6.2
6.3
3.9
6.3
6.6
8.7
10.3
12.3
4.3
6.7
3.6
8.1
8.5
Width/Depth Ratio
11
9.7
13
6.1
12.6
7.9
9.3
8.1
9.3
13.0
14.0
12.3
4.5
8.7
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
1.6
2.3
1.9
4.1
1.7
4.3
5.7
10.0
1.4 2.2
2.2 5.0
22.3
11.7
33.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.6
2.1
4.1
1.0
1.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
54.0
8.5
---
---
---
---
---
90
37.2 50.3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
20
55
13
40
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
0.017 0.078
0.018 0.034
0.024 0.057
0.026 0.103
0.014 0.043
0.001
0.046
0.015
0.023
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
9.0
38.0
36.0
71.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
1.9
---
1.6
1.9
1.2
1.8
2.5
2.6
1.1
1.8
1.4
2.7
1.5
3.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
---
17
63
9
46
8
82
17
67
20
61
23
66
16
51
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
---
---
10
35
10
50
15
45
---
29
82
---
29
82
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
---
2.3
32
12
85
8
47
---
18
28
---
18
28
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
---
---
0.3
4.0
1.9
9.1
0.6
3.2
---
2.0
3.0
---
2.0
3.0
Meander Length (ft)
---
---
35
70
55
142
16
47
---
49
136
---
49
136
Meander Width Ratio
---
---
4.4
8.8
1 8.7
1 15.3
1 1.1
3.2
---
3.0
8.5
---
3.0
8.5
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
.05/8.0/32.0/93.6
/157/256
0.16/0.42/4.2/66.
8/107/>2048
0.1/0.6/4.5/53/
96/x
1.87/8.85/11/65/
128/x
0.16/0.55/5.6/107
.3/155.5/256
0.16/5.60/17.3/80
.3/120.1/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft'
1.09
0.24
---
---
---
0.8
0.4
1.0
0.58
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area ISM)
N/A
0.12
0.17
0.13
0.37
0.41
0.12
0.17
0.12
0.17
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate 1%)
0.0%
1.0%
---
---
---
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
Rosgen Classification
G4
Incised E4/C4
C4
E4
B4/E4b
B4/C4
B4/C4
B4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.3 3.6
3 3.4
3.8 5.3
5.0 5.6
4.4 F 5.2
3.9
3.3
3.4
2.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
17
21
15
35
54
18
22
70
12
Q-NFF regression
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q-Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
878
992
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,081
1,291
---
---
---
961
1,259
982
1,295
Sinuosity
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)'
0.027
0.015
0.020
0.019
1 0.022
0.17
0.024
0.013
0.024
0.014
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.024
0.014
(--): Data was not provided

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Buckwater Creek Reach 2
Cross -Section 1 (Riffle)
Buckwater Creek
Cross -Section 2 (Pool)
Reach 3
Cross -Section 3 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
509.51
509.51
509.61
508.12
508.03
508.22
509.71
509.65
509.85
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
509.51
509.51
509.61
508.12
508.03
508.22
509.71
509.65
509.85
Bankfull Width (ft)
20.7
20.3
21.4
19.6
19.0
18.9
23.7
22.8
24.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
200
200
200
N/A
N/A
N/A
150
150
150
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.2
2.1
2.1
3.4
3.4
1 3.6
1
3.5
3.7
3.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
31.9
31.2
32.9
49.1
45.3
48.6
55.3
54.9
61.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.5
13.2
13.9
7.9
7.9
7.4
10.1
9.5
9.6
Entrenchment Ratio'
9.6
9.8
9.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.3
6.6
6.2
Bankfull Bank Height RatioZ
1.0
<1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
Cross -Section 4 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 5 (Pool)
Cross -Section 6 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
505.91
505.93
505.88
506.10
506.05
506.10
500.92
501.01
501.00
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
505.91
505.93
505.88
506.10
506.06
506.10
500.92
501.01
501.00
Bankfull Width (ft)
17.2
17.7
16.6
24.8
24.1
24.1
16.5
14.8
16.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
N/A
N/A
N/A
200
200
200
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1.2
1.2
2.0
2.0
2.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.2
2.1
2.1
3.4
1 3.3
1 3.5
1
2.2
2.1
2.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
21.9
21.7
20.1
50.4
47.8
49.8
17.8
17.6
18.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.5
14.5
13.7
12.2
12.2
11.7
15.3
12.4
15.4
Entrenchment Ratio'
8.7
8.5
9.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
12.1
13.5
12.0
Bankfull Bank Height RatioZ
�pckwater Creek
Cross -Section 7 (Pool)
Reach 4
Cross -Section 8 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 9 (Pool)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
500.69
500.88
500.92
496.69
496.55
496.63
488.72
488.74
488.72
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
500.69
500.88
500.92
496.69
496.55
496.63
488.72
488.74
488.72
Bankfull Width (ft)
22.9
25.0
25.5
13.8
1
12.2
12.3
16.4
15.9
15.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
200
200
200
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.7
1.6
1.6
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.3
1.3
1.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.7
3.9
3.9
1.7
1.5
1 1.6
2.0
2.0
1 1.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
38.8
39.8
41.8
12.5
9.8
11.0
21.7
21.2
20.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.6
15.7
15.5
15.1
13.9
12.4
11.9
12.2
Entrenchment Ratio'
N/A
N/A
N/A
16.4
16.2
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height RatioZ
N/A
N/A
N/A
L15.3
<1.0
<1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cross -Section 10 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 11 (Pool)
Cross -Section 12 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
488.49
488.43
488.55
486.68
486.46
486.67
487.04
487.06
487.08
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
488.49
488.43
488.55
486.68
486.46
486.67
487.04
487.06
487.08
Bankfull Width (ft)
21.5
20.5
21.5
23.6
22.3
23.3
20.5
20.5
21.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
200
200
200
N/A
N/A
N/A
200
200
200
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.2
2.1
2.1
1.5
1.4
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.5
2.3
1 2.4
3.9
3.9
1 4.0
2.6
1 2.4
1 2.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
33.3
30.0
32.9
52.4
46.0
50.0
30.6
29.1
30.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.9
14.0
14.1
10.6
10.8
10.9
13.8
14.5
14.8
Entrenchment Ratio'
9.3
9.8
9.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
9.8
9.7
9.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
<1.0
<1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
<1.0
I <1.0
'Entrenchment Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum.
'Bank Height Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum.

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 13 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 14 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 15 (Pool)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
488.81
488.82
488.78
487.70
487.70
487.73
487.21
487.66
487.65
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
488.81
488.82
488.78
487.70
487.70
487.73
487.21
487.66
487.65
Bankfull Width (ft)
22.0
21.6
20.7
20.8
20.5
20.5
27.0
33.5
29.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
200
200
200
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.5
2.1
1 2.3
1
1
1
0 3.2
1 3.6
1 3.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
31.5
28.3
27.0
20.8
30.9
31.8
42.2
55.5
52.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
15.4
16.5
15.8
13.2
13.6
13.3
17.3
20.3
16.3
Entrenchment Ratio'
6.8
6.9
7.3
9.6
9.8
1 9.7
N/A
N/A
I N/A
Bankfull Bank Height RatioZ
1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Cross -Section 16 (Pool)
1.0
Cross -Section 17 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 18 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
505.82
505.97
506.03
505.31
505.32
505.28
494.17
494.19
494.21
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
505.82
505.97
506.03
505.31
505.32
505.28
494.17
494.19
494.21
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.7
12.9
13.5
14.4
14.1
13.8
9.1
9.0
9.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
300
300
300
100
100
100
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.7
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.5
2.8
2.9
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.2
1.3
1.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
17.6
19.5
19.9
15.3
15.7
14.7
6.4
6.2
6.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.1
8.5
9.2
13.6
12.6
13.0
13.2
12.9
12.8
Entrenchment Ratio'
N/A
N/A
N/A
20.8
21.3
21.7
10.9
11.2
11.1
Bankfull Bank Height RatioZ
N/A N/A N/A
Cross -Section 19 (Pool)
1.0
Cross -Section 20 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 21 (Pool)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
491.10
491.21
491.16
539.53
539.56
539.52
502.51
502.53
502.59
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
491.10
491.21
491.16
539.53
539.56
539.52
502.51
502.53
502.59
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.9
14.3
13.8
3.3
2.6
2.5
7.4
6.7
7.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
20
20
20
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.9
2.0
1.9
0.7
0.7
1 0.7
1.6
1.3
1.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
13.6
13.4
13.1
1.3
1.0
1.0
6.7
5.3
5.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.3
15.2
14.5
8.4
6.7
6.3
9.3
8.5
10.0
Entrenchment Ratio'
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.0
7.7
8.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height RatioZ
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
<1.0
<1.0
N/A
N/A
I N/A
Cross -Section 22 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 23 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 24 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
502.09
502.12
502.12
540.79
540.75
540.76
517.07
517.02
517.07
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
502.09
502.12
502.12
540.79
540.75
540.76
517.07
517.02
517.07
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.7
6.4
6.3
4.3
4.2
4.2
8.8
8.1
8.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
25
25
25
100
1
100
100
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.8
1 0.6
1 0.6
1
1
1.3
1.6
1.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
3.6
2.8
3.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
7.1
7.4
7.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.3
14.3
12.6
8.4
9.0
9.0
10.8
9.0
10.0
Entrenchment Ratio'
22.3
23.6
23.6
5.9
6.0
6.0
11.4
12.3
11.7
Bankfull Bank Height RatioZ
1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.0
<1.0
I <1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
'Entrenchment Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum.
'Bank Height Ratio is calculated usingthe method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum.

Table 11. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 25 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 26 (Pool)
Cross -Section 27 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
504.92
504.93
504.97
504.17
504.15
504.19
491.22
491.29
491.49
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
504.92
504.93
504.97
504.17
504.15
504.19
491.22
491.29
491.49
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.6
8.0
8.5
8.7
8.4
8.3
6.1
6.6
7.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
100
100
100
N/A
N/A
N/A
200
200
200
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.8
1.0
1 1.2
1
1
1
1.1
1 1.0
1.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
8.5
7.8
8.0
8.5
3.8
3.8
8.1
3.9
5.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
8.7
8.1
9.1
9.0
18.3
18.2
4.5
11.2
10.4
Entrenchment Ratio'
11.7
117
N/A
N/A
N/A
33.0
30.1
26.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
;126
1.0 .0 <1.0
Cross -Section 28 (Pool)
N/A N/A N/A
Cross -Section 29 (Riffle)
1.0 <1.0 1.1
Cross -Section 30 (Pool)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
490.75
490.78
490.77
506.31
506.29
506.41
505.68
505.88
505.96
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
490.75
490.78
490.77
506.31
506.29
506.41
505.68
505.88
505.96
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.3
9.7
9.5
10.0
9.7
10.5
8.6
9.9
10.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
100
100
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.3
1.2
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.5
2.4
2.5
1.0
1 1.5
1 1.6
1
1
1
0 1.5
1 1.7
1 1.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
15.2
12.3
11.8
7.4
7.0
7.9
7.5
8.9
9.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
5.7
7.7
7.7
13.5
13.5
13.9
9.8
11.0
10.9
Entrenchment Ratio'
N/A
N/A
N/A
10.0
10.3
9.6
r
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
N/A
N/A
N/A
L
<1.0
1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cross -Section 31 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 32 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 33 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
493.84
493.84
493.87
485.52
485.60
485.56
490.11
490.07
490.07
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
493.84
493.84
493.87
485.52
485.60
485.56
490.11
490.07
490.07
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.2
7.8
7.9
9.5
10.2
10.2
5.8
5.7
5.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
100
100
100
25
25
25
50
50
50
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1 0.9
1.0
1.0
1 1.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
4.6
4.0
4.3
5.2
5.3
4.9
3.3
3.1
3.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.8
15.0
14.6
17.6
19.6
21.1
10.2
10.5
1 9.0
Entrenchment Ratio'
12.2
12.9
12.6
2.6
2.5
2.5
8.6
8.8
9.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.0
1.0
<1.0
1.0
<1.0 i�
<1.0
Cross -Section 34 (Pool)
Cross -Section 35 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 36 (Pool)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MI
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MYS
MY7
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
489.85
489.92
489.73
529.20
529.22
529.24
528.62
528.78
528.84
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
489.85
489.92
489.73
529.20
529.22
529.24
528.62
528.78
528.84
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.5
11.6
9.8
5.1
5.1
5.4
6.1
6.4
6.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
100
100
100
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.5
1.1
0.9
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.0
1.5
1.3
0.7
1 0.8
1 0.7
1
1
1.7
1.4
1.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
9.4
8.5
6.6
2.6
2.2
2.5
6.7
6.0
6.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.6
15.9
14.5
9.8
11.4
11.7
5.5
6.7
6.2
Entrenchment Ratio'
N/A
N/A
N/A
19.8
19.8
18.7
N/A
f
N/A
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
<1.0
I <1.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
'Entrenchment Ratio is calculated using the method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum.
'Bank Height Ratio is calculated usingthe method specified in the Industry Technical Workgroup Memorandum.

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Buckwater Reach 4
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.8
17.2
12.2
17.7
12.3
16.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
200
150
200
150
200
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9
1.3
0.8
1.2
0.9
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth
1.7
2.2
1.5
2.1
1.6
2.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
12.5
21.9
9.8
21.7
11.0
20.1
Width/Depth Ratiol
13.5
1
15.3
1 12.4
1 15.1
1 13.7
1 15.4
Entrenchment Ratiol
8.7
1
14.5
1 8.5
1 16.4
1 9.0
1 16.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
<1.0
1.0
<1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
13
60
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0010
0.0250
Pool Length (ft)
46
82
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.6
4.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
51
83
Pool Volume (ft )
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
53
150
Radius of Curvature (ft)
35
53
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.0
3.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
88
246
Meander Width Ratio
3.0
8.5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
2,538
1.30
0.0071
0.007
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SO /Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.1/11/33.8/90/154.7/
256
SC/6.69/27.6/90/157.1/
256
0.71/12.46/26.5/90.0
/135.5/180
of Reach with Eroding Banks
1%
0%
0%

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Buckwater Reach 5/6
Min Max
Min__F
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
20.5 21.5
20.5
21.1 21.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
200
200
200
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.4 T 1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
2.5
2.6
2.3
2.4
2.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
30.6
33.6
29.1
30.0
30.0
32.9
Width/Depth Ratiol
13.8
13.9
1 14.0
14.5
1 14.1
14.8
Entrenchment Ratiol
9.3
9.8
9.7
9.8
9.3
9.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
25
65
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0034
0.0158
Pool Length (ft)
54
94
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.6
5.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
83
143
Pool Volume (ft )
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
57
162
Radius of Curvature (ft)
38
57
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.0
3.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
95
266
Meander Width Ratio
3.0
8.5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
E4
979
1.40
0.0060
0.00582
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.1/2.68/11.8/81.3/
214.7/>2048
.38/11/29/78.1/
128 /512
0.25/4.89/26.9/79.5
/151.8/362
of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T2
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.1
9.0
9.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
100
100
100
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth
1.2
1.3
1.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
6.4
6.2
6.3
Width/Depth Ratiol
13.2
1 12.9
1 12.8
Entrenchment Ratiol
10.9
1 11.2
11.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
16
61
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
0.073
Pool Length (ft)
12.0
55.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.6
3.8
Pool Spacing (ft)
27
71
Pool Volume (ft )
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
27
90
Radius of Curvature (ft)
21
32
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.0
3.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
80
159
Meander Width Ratio
2.5
8.5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B4/C4
591
1.2
0.0170
0.0170
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.25/16/32.7/80.3/
227.6/1024
SC/0.35/24.4/80.3/
123.1/256
0.27/7.10/25.7/75.9
/143.4/256
of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T3 Reach 2
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
14.4
14.1
13.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
300
300
300
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.1
1.1
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth
2.0
2.0
1.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
15.3
15.7
14.7
Width/Depth Ratiol
13.6
1 12.6
1 13.0
Entrenchment Ratiol
20.8
1 21.3
21.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
<1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8
56
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
0.036
Pool Length (ft)
13.0
65.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.7
3.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
30
81
Pool Volume (ft )
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
24
82
Radius of Curvature (ft)
19
29
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.0
3.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
72
144
Meander Width Ratio
2.5
8.5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
903
1.2
0.0159
0.0155
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.28/10.32/21.5/
103.6/193.1/512
SC/SC/1.7/64/128/180
SC/0.39/16.0/64.0
/113.8/180
of Reach with Eroding Banks
11%
0%
0%

Table 12e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T4
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.7
6.4
6.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
150
150
150
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
0.7
0.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
3.6
2.8
3.2
Width/Depth Ratiol
12.3
1 14.3
1 12.6
Entrenchment Ratiol
22.3
1 23.6
23.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
20
55
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.001
0.046
Pool Length (ft)
9.0
38.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.4
2.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
23
66
Pool Volume (ft )
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
---
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
---
Meander Wave Length (ft)
---
Meander Width Ratio
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B4
982
1.1
0.0239
0.0244
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.16/0.55/5.6/107.3/
155.5/256
SC/.19/1/71.7/115.7/
362
0.35/6.40/13.0/55.0
/107.3/180
of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%

Table 12f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T5
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
7
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.1
8.6
6.6
8.0
7.5
8.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
100
200
100
200
100
200
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.8
1.0
0.6
1.0
0.7
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.2
1.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
8.1
8.5
3.9
7.8
5.4
8.0
Width/Depth Ratiol
4.5
1
8.7
1 8.1
1 11.2
1 9.1
1 10.4
Entrenchment Ratiol
11.7
1
33.0
1 12.6
1 30.1
1 11.7
1 26.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
<1.0
1.0
<1.0
1.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
13
40
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.015
0.023
Pool Length (ft)
36.0
71.0
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.5
3.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
16
51
Pool Volume (ft )
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
29
82
Radius of Curvature (ft)
18
28
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.0
3.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
49
136
Meander Width Ratio
3.0
8.5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
1,295
1.3
0.0138
0.0136
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.16/5.60/17.3/80.3/
120.1/180
0.84/8.37/20.1/90/
180 />2048
0.13/2.57/7.2/56.9
/101.2/180.0
of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
1- Buckwater Creek Reach 2
105+50 Riffle
514
512
510
c
0
v
�
508
506
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
r MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019) MY2 (4/2020) - Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
32.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
21.4
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
22.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.9
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 2 - Buckwater Creek Reach 3
107+35 Pool
107+35 Pool
512
510
508
506

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
3 - Buckwater Creek Reach 3
107+62 Riffle
513
511
509
C_m---- ——
— — — — ——
------
------
------
— ----
----------
c
0
m
v
507
i
505
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
r MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019) MY2 (4/2020) — Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MYO Area) — Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
61.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
24.4
width (ft)
2.5
mean depth (ft)
3.9
max depth (ft)
26.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.6
width -depth ratio
150.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 4 - Buckwater Creek Reach 4
112+71 Riffle
112+71 Riffle
610
608
606

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 5 - Buckwater Creek Reach 4
113+24 Pool
113+24 Pool
510
508
506
0
504

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
6 - Buckwater Creek Reach 4
120+66 Riffle
506
504
502
c
0
500
498
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
r MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019) MY2 (4/2020) - Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
18.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
16.7
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
17.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.4
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
7 - Buckwater Creek Reach 4
121+17 Pool
504
502
500
c
0
v
498
496
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+ MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019) MY2 (4/2020) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
41.8
x-section area (ft.sq.)
25.5
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
3.9
max depth (ft)
27.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 8 - Buckwater Creek Reach 4
125+58 Riffle
125+58 Riffle
502
500
498
0

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
9 - Buckwater Creek Reach 5
135+73 Pool
494
492
490
c
0
v
488%V*,
�,407
486
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+ MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019) MY2 (4/2020) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
20.0
x-section area (ft.sq.)
15.6
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
16.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream
ire

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 10 - Buckwater Creek Reach 5
137+72 Riffle
492
137+72 Riffle
492
490
488

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 11- Buckwater Creek Reach 6
140+31 Pool
490
488
486
484

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
12 - Buckwater Creek Reach 6
140+78 Riffle
492
490
488
c
o
�
v
486
484
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
T MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019) MY2 (4/2020) — Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MYO Area) — Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
30.0
x-section area (ft.sq.)
21.1
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
21.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.8
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.5
entrenchment ratio
< 1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 13 - T1 Reach 1
202+12 Riffle
492
202+12 Riffle
492
490
-- — — ——
-- — — ——
--—
-- — — ——
-- ——
—————
———————
———————

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 14 - T1 Reach 2
206+71 Riffle
492
490
488
c
0
v
486
484
20 30 40
50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
T MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019) MY2 (4/2020) - Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
�
}'
31.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)
20.5 width (ft)
1.5 mean depth (ft)
2.3 max depth (ft)
?
21.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
��� _
1.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
13.3 width -depth ratio
200.0 W flood prone area (ft)
9.7 entrenchment ratio
y
< 1.0 low bank height ratio
�c.
'
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 15 - T1 Reach 2
207+37 Pool
490
488
486
0
484

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 16 - T3 Reach 2
315+82 Pool
315+82 Pool
510
508
506
0
504

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 17 - T3 Reach 2
316+24 Riffle
610
316+24 Riffle
610
608
606
0
604

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 18 - T2
323+70 Riffle
498
496
494
——————
c
0
v
492
490
0 10
20
30 40
50
Width (ft)
T MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019)
MY2 (4/2020)
— Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MYO Area)
Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
y,
6.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.0 width ft
` tt'"'4
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft)
.
9.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
f.
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft);
12.8 width -depth ratio
100.0 W flood prone area (ft)
3%y
11.1 entrenchment ratio'
�•0.
< 1.0 low bank height ratio
t
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
19-T2
325+46 Pool
496
494
492
c
0
v
490
488
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+ MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019) MY2 (4/2020) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
13.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
13.8
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
14.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
VI
View Downstream
r

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 20 - T4A Reach 1
402+14 Riff
le
644
642
640
638

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 21- T4
414+02 Pool
414+02 Pool
508
506
504
0

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 22 - T4
414+28 Riffle
414+28 Riffle
606
604

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 23 - T413 Reach 1
450+62 Riffle
546
450+62 Riffle
546
544
542
0
540

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
24 - T6 Reach 3
516+01 Riffle
522
520
518
c
O
U/
516
514
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
T MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019) MY2 (4/2020) - Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
7.3
x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.5
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
9.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.0
width -depth ratio
100.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
-Asa—
...
View
Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 25 - T5
520+75 Riffle
510
520+75 Riffle
510
508
506
0
504

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 26 - T5
521+11 Pool
521+11 Pool
508
506
504
0
502

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
27 - T5
531+59 Riffle
496
494
492
c
v
490
488
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
T MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019) MY2 (4/2020) — Bankfull — Bankfull (Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions 4` i
5.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.5 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft) 'r d'I '
1.2 max depth (ft)
8.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
10.4 width -depth ratio
200.0 W flood prone area (ft)
26.7 entrenchment ratio
1.1 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
28-T5
531+86 Pool
494
492
490
0
v
488
486
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
+ MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019) MY2 (4/2020) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
11.8
x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.5
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.5
max depth (ft)
12.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
7.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 29 - T7 Reach 1
703+39 Riffle
510
508
506
c
o
y
v
504
502
0 10 20
30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
T MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019)
MY2 (4/2020) - Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MYO Area)
Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
7.9 x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.5 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (ft)
3
1.6 max depth (ft)
11.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
13.9 width -depth ratio
100.0 W flood prone area (ft)
9.6 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
'
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
a �t
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
30 - T7 Reach 1
703+53 Pool
510
508
506
oT'
v
504
502
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
+ MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019) MY2 (4/2020) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
9.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.2
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
11.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 31- T7 Reach 2
706+59 Riffle
498
496
494
492

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
32 - T7 Reach 3
709+34 Riffle
490
488
486
c
0
v
484
482
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
T MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019) MY2 (4/2020) - Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.2
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
10.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
21.1
width -depth ratio
25.0
W flood prone area (ft)
2.5
entrenchment ratio
< 1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 33 - T7A
751+74 Riffle
494
492
490
c
0
v
488
486
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
T MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019) MY2 (4/2020) - Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
..
5.2 width (ft) •• , �•r
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.2 max depth (ft)
5.9 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
9.0 width -depth ratio
OIL
50.0 W flood prone area (ft)
9.5 entrenchment ratio
< 1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
;i
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 34 - T7A
751+86 Pool
751+86 Pool
494
492
490
0
488

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
35 - T8
801+14 Riffle
534
532
530
c
0
-
v
528
526
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
T MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019) MY2 (4/2020) - Bankfull Bankfull (Based on MYO Area) Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
2.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
5.4
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.7
max depth (ft)
5.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.7
width -depth ratio
100.0
W flood prone area (ft)
18.7
entrenchment ratio
< 1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
s
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cross -Section 36 - T8
801+26 Pool
532
530
c
0
v 528
w
526
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+ MYO (4/2019) MY1 (10/2019) MY2 (4/2020) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions c -
_
6.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.5 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
1.4 max depth (ft) = �.
7.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
6.2 width -depth ratio =�
Survey Date: 4/2020
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Buckwater Creek R4, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
14
14
14
14
SQ$�0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
14
Fine
0.125
0.250
14
Medium
0.25
0.50
14
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
4
18
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
3
3
21
JP,
6$1P
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3
3
3
24
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
26
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
28
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
29
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
4
5
5
34
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
3
3
37
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
3
8
8
45
Coarse
22.6
32
7
4
11
11
56
Very Coarse
32
45
4
2
6
6
62
Very Coarse
45
64
8
4
12
12
74
.N�
pO�
Small
64
90
10
10
10
84
Small
90
128
9
1
10
10
94
Large
128
180
5
1
6
6
100
Large
180
256
100
�QF�
�p1
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
1 100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
1 100
Total
50
50
100
100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
0.71
D35 =
12.46
D50 =
26.5
D80. =
90.0
D95 =
135.5
D100 =
180.0
Buckwater Creek 1114, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
SiIVCIay
III
Sand
Gravel
80
Cobble
er
Bedrock
70
0
60
LIP
50
40
7
U
r 30
u'
`w 20
a
-
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO-05/2019 —4—Myl-1012019 --0--MY2-04/2020
Buckwater Creek 1114, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
w
60
a
50
m
40
c�
3
30
v
2
20
v
10
AL
0
00 oti o
CO ,y'b �O p 6ti yti .Lb p o
ti ti ti ti 3 h 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2019
0 Myl-1012019 0 MY2-04/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Buckwater Creek R5, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
6
6
6
SQ$�0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
10
10
10
16
Medium
0.25
0.50
11
11
11
27
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
28
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
2
30
JF�
GQ�
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
31
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
32
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
4
5
5
37
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
3
4
4
41
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
3
44
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
46
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
47
Coarse
22.6
32
2
4
6
6
53
Very Coarse
32
45
6
3
9
9
62
Very Coarse
45
64
14
1
15
15
77
.N�
pO�
Small
64
90
9
2
11
11
88
Small
90
128
4
1
5
5
93
Large
128
180
3
1
4
4
97
Large
180
256
2
2
2
99
�pJ
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/VeryLarge/Very Lar e
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
0.25
D35 =
4.89
D50 =
26.9
D80. =
79.5
D95 =
151.8
D100 =
362.0
Buckwater Creek 115, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay
III
Sand
90
Gravel
Cobble
80
er
Bedrock
70
0
60
50
40
7
U
r 30
u
`w 20
a
-
10
L
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO-05/2019 —4—Myl-1012019 --0--MY2-04/2020
Buckwater Creek 115, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
w
60
a
50
m
40
c�
3
30
v
2
20
v
10
0
'b
00 oti o
b h� 0 ,y1 yo ,LC� .�'L p5 �P CO ,y'b �O 5� 6ti yti .Lb p o
ti ti ti ti 3 h 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2019
■ Myl-1012019 0 MY2-04/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Buckwater Creek R6, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
17
18
18
18
SQ$�0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
18
Fine
0.125
0.250
18
Medium
0.25
0.50
13
13
13
31
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
32
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
32
JF�
6911
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
32
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
32
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
32
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
6
6
38
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
3
5
5
43
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
6
8
8
51
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
4
7
7
58
Coarse
22.6
32
6
1
7
7
65
Very Coarse
32
45
5
1
6
6
71
Very Coarse
45
64
9
1
10
10
81
.N�
Small
64
90
10
10
10
91
Small
90
128
3
3
3
94
Large
128
180
5
5
5
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
�pJ
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
SO
SO
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
6.69
D50 =
15.3
D84 =
70.9
D95 =
137.0
D100 =
256.0
Buckwater Creek 1116, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
III
Sand
Gravel
80
Cobble
er
Bedrock
70
0
60
'+•
50
7 40
U
� 30
w
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO-05/2019 —4—Myl-1012019 --0--MY2-04/2020
Buckwater Creek 1116, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
w
60
a
50
m
40
c�
3
30
v
2
20
10
0
'b
00 oti o
b hb 0 ,y1 yo ,LC� .�'L p5 �P CO ,y'b �O 5� 6ti yti .Lb b4 �d
ti ti ti ti 3 h 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2019
■ Myl-1012019 0 MY2-04/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T1 R2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
17
17
17
17
SQ$�0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
17
Fine
0.125
0.250
12
12
12
29
Medium
0.25
0.50
29
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
4
5
5
34
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
34
JF�
GQ�
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
35
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
3
38
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
3
4
4
42
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
2
2
44
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
4
4
48
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
1
4
4
52
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
2
5
5
57
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
4
61
Very Coarse
32
45
7
2
9
9
70
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
8
78
.N�
Small
64
90
4
1
5
5
83
Small
90
128
6
1
7
7
90
Large
128
180
6
6
6
96
Large
180
256
3
3
3
99
�pJ
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
SO
SO
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 -
2.80
D50 =
13.3
D80. =
94.6
D95 =
170.1
D100 =
362.0
T1 1112, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
SiltIClay
III
Sand
90
Gravel
Cobble
80
er
Bedrock
0 70
60
3 50
40
7
U
r 30
u
`w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO-05/2019 —4—Myl-1012019 --0--MY2-04/2020
T1 1112, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
w
60
a
50
m
40
c�
3
30
v
2
20
10
0
'b
00 oti o
b hb 0 ,y1 yo ,LC� .b'L p5 �P CO ,y'b �O 5� 6ti yti .Lb p o
ti ti ti ti 3 h 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2019
■ Myl-1012019 0 MY2-04/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
12
15
15
15
SQ$�0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
15
Fine
0.125
0.250
15
Medium
0.25
0.50
8
8
8
23
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
3
26
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
26
JF�
6911
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
4
5
5
31
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
33
Fine
4.0
5.6
33
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
3
36
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
3
39
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
2
2
41
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
4
6
6
47
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
8
8
55
Very Coarse
32
45
7
4
11
11
66
Very Coarse
45
64
14
14
14
80
.N�
Small
64
90
5
3
8
8
88
Small
90
128
5
1
6
6
94
Large
128
180
3
3
3
97
Large
180
256
3
3
3
100
�pJ
Small
256
362
100
Small
1 362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/VeryLarge/Very Lar e
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
SO
SO
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
0.27
D35 -
7.10
D50 =
25.7
D80. =
75.9
D95 =
143.4
D100 =
256.0
T2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay
III
Sand
90
80
Gravel
Cobble
er
Bedrock
70
0
60
'+•
50
U 40
r 30
u
`w 20
a
10
77
I----
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO-05/2019 —4—Myl-1012019 --0--MY2-04/2020
T2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
w
60
a
50
m
40
c�
3
30
v
2
20
v
10
0
'b
00 oti o
b hb 0 ,y1 yo ,LC� .b'L p5 �P CO ,y'b �O 5� 6ti yti .Lb b4 �d
ti ti ti ti 3 h 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2019
■ Myl-1012019 0 MY2-04/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T3 R2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
18
21
21
21
SQ$�0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
3
24
Fine
0.125
0.250
24
Medium
0.25
0.50
17
17
17
41
Coarse
0.5
1.0
41
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
42
JF�
GQ�
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
43
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
44
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1 1
1
45
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
46
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
2
2
48
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
50
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
1
6
6
56
Coarse
22.6
32
9
2
11
11
67
Very Coarse
32
45
5
2
7
7
74
Very Coarse
45
64
9
1
10
10
84
.N�
pO�
Small
64
90
6
1
7
7
91
Small
90
128
6
6
6
97
Large
128
180
3
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
�pJ
Small
256
362
100
Small
1 362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/VeryLarge/Very Lar e
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
SO
SO
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.39
D50 =
16.0
D80. =
64.0
D95 =
113.8
D100 =
180.0
T3 R2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90 Silt/Clay
III Sand Gravel
80
Cobble i er
Bedrock
70
0
60
t
50
40
7
U
30
u
`w
20
a
10
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO-05/2019 —4—Myl-1012019 --0--MY2-04/2020
T3 R2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
w
60
a
50
m
40
c�
3
30
v
2
20
v
10
0
'I,'b
00 oti o
1- h� 0,,C .�, 0 'b CO ,y'b �O 5� 6ti yti .Lb b4 �d
ti ti ti ti 3 h 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2019
■ Myl-1012019 0 MY2-04/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T4, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
9
10
10
10
SQ$�0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
11
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
2
3
3
14
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
3
4
4
18
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
3
5
5
23
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
23
JF�
6911
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3
3
3
26
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
26
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
4
6
6
32
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
3
8
8
40
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
4
5
5
45
Medium
11.0
16.0
8
3
11
11
56
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
3
4
4
60
Coarse
22.6
32
5
3
8
8
68
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
12
12
80
Very Coarse
45
64
5
2
7
7
87
.N�
pO�
Small
64
90
6
6
6
93
Small
90
128
3
1
4
4
97
Large
128
180
3
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
�pJ
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
SO
SO
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
0.35
D35 =
6.40
D50 =
13.0
D80. =
55.0
D95 =
107.3
D100 =
180.0
T4, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay
III
Sand
90
Gravel
Cobble
80
po*er
Bedrock
70
0
60
50
40
Oeo
.10
7
U
r 30
w
u
`w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO-05/2019 -4-Myl-1012019 --0--MY2-04/2020
T4, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
w
60
a
50
m
40
c�
3
30
v
2
20
10
0
'b
00 oti o
b hb 0 ,y1 yo ,LC� .b'L p5 �P CO ,y'b �O 5� 6ti yti .Lb b4 �d
ti ti ti ti 3 h 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2019
■ Myl-1012019 0 MY2-04/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T4A 111, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
16
16
16
16
SQ$�0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
16
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
7
8
8
24
Medium
0.25
0.50
24
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
25
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
25
JF�
GQ�
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
2
2
27
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
27
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
4
5
5
32
Fine
5.6
8.0
5
5
10
10
42
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
8
8
50
Medium
11.0
16.0
5
4
9
9
59
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
1
4
4
63
Coarse
22.6
32
5
1 1
1 6
6
69
Very Coarse
32
1 45
6
3
9
9
78
Very Coarse
45
1 64
8
8
8
86
.N�
Small
64
90
4
3
7
7
93
Small
90
128
3
3
3
96
Large
128
180
2
1
3
3
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
�pJ
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
1 512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
SO
SO
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
6.23
D50 =
11.0
D80. =
58.6
D95 =
113.8
D100 =
256.0
T4A 11111, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
Gravel
gp
Cobble
er
Bedrock
0 70
60
50
3 40
U
r 301:
u
1
LLI Ili
`w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO-05/2019-Myl-1012019 --0--MY2-04/2020
T4A 11111, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
w
60
a
50
m
40
c�
3
30
v
2
20
10
0
'b
00 oti o
b hb 0 ,y1 yo ,LC� .�'L p5 �P CO ,y'b �O 5� 6ti yti .Lb b4 �d
ti ti ti ti 3 h 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2019
■ Myl-1012019 0 MY2-04/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T413 R1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
10
13
13
13
SQ$�0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
13
Fine
0.125
0.250
13
Medium
0.25
0.50
8
8
8
21
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
6
6
27
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
27
JP,
6$1P
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
3
4
4
31
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
31
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
31
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
2
33
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
6
6
39
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
7
13
13
52
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
5
6
6
58
Coarse
22.6
32
2
1
3
3
61
Very Coarse
32
45
9
1
10
10
71
Very Coarse
45
64
10
2
12
12
83
.N�
pO�
Small
64
90
8
2
10
10
93
Small
90
128
4
4
4
97
Large
128
180
3
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
110J
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
0.32
D35 =
8.90
D50 =
15.1
D80. =
66.2
D95 =
107.3
D100 =
180.0
T4113 1111, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
SiIVCIay
III
Sand
Gravel
80
Cobble
i
er
Bedrock
70
0
60
%
50
40
7
U
r 30
wAr—
`w 20I
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO-05/2019-Myl-1012019 --0--MY2-04/2020
T4113 1111, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
w
60
a
50
m
40
c�
3
30
v
2
20
10
0
'b
00 oti o
b hb 0 ,y1 yo ,LC� .�'L p5 �P CO ,10 y'b �O 5� 6ti yti .Lb
ti ti ti ti 3 h do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2019
■ Myl-1012019 0 MY2-04/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T5, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
13
15
15
15
SQ$�0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
15
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
9
10
10
25
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
2
2
27
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
2
3
3
30
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
2
32
JF�
GQ�
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
3
4
4
36
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
2
3
3
39
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
5
6
6
45
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
4
7
7
52
Medium
8.0
11.0
5
2
7
7
59
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
3
3
62
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
1
5
5
67
Coarse
22.6
32
3
2
5
5
72
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
8
80
,Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
6
86
.N�
Small
64
90
7
1
8
8
94
Small
90
128
2
1
3
3
97
Large
128
180
3
3
1 3
100
Large
180
256
100
�pJ
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
0.13
D35 -
2.57
D50 =
7.2
D80. =
56.9
D95 =
101.2
D100 =
180.0
T5, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Silt/Clay
III
Sand
TMIJ
90
Gravel
gp
JCobble
er
Bedrock
70
0
60
50
40
7
U
Oo
30
u
`w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO-05/2019 —4—Myl-1012019 --O--MY2-04/2020
T5, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
w
60
a
50
m
40
c�
3
30
v
2
20
v
10
0
'b
00 oti o
b hb 0 ,y1 yo ,LC� .b'L 0 �P CO ,y'b p p 6ti yti .Lb p 0
ti ti ti ti 3 h 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2019
■ Myl-1012019 0 MY2-04/2020

Reachwide Pebble Count Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
T7 R3, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
11
13
13
13
SQ$�0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
13
Fine
0.125
0.250
13
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
2
15
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
3
18
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
7
9
9
27
JF�
GQ�
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
4
6
6
33
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
3
2
5
5
38
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
1 4
4
42
Fine
5.6
8.0
7
7
7
49
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
50
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
1
3
3
53
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
5
11
11
64
Coarse
22.6
32
5
1
6
6
70
Very Coarse
32
45
8
1 1
1 9
9
79
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
11
90
.N�
Small
64
90
8
8
8
98
Small
90
128
1
1
2
2
100
Large
128
180
1
100
Large
180
256
100
�pJ
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
SO
SO
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi =
0.63
D35 =
3.23
D50 =
11.0
D80. =
52.8
D95 =
79.2
D100 =
128.0
17 113, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
SiltIClay
III
Sand
Gravel
80
Cobble
er
Bedrock
70
0
60
50
40
7
U
30
u
`w 20
a
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MVO-05/2019 —4—Myl-1012019 --0--MY2-04/2020
17 113, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
w
60
a
50
m
40
c�
3
30
v
2
20
v
10
r
0
'b
00 oti o
b hb 0 ,y1 yo ,LC� .�'L p5 �P CO ,y'b �O 5� 6ti yti .Lb b4 �d
ti ti ti ti 3 h 10 do bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-05/2019
■ Myl-1012019 0 MY2-04/2020

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
0uckwater Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
MYl 1 MY2
Reach
Date of
Occurrence
Date of
Occurrence
Method
Buckwater Creek
Reach 6
6/18/2019
2/6/2020*
Crest Gage/
Pressure
Transducer
5/21/2020
T1 Reach 2
4/13/2019
2/6/2020*
5/21/2020*
T2
6/18/2019*
2/6/2020*
5/21/2020*
T4
4/14/2019*
2/6/2020
6/18/2019
5/21/2020
T5: US of St.
Mary's Rd
N/A
2/6/2020
5/21/2020
TS: DS of St.
Mary's Rd
4/13/2019
2/6/2020
6/18/2019
5/21/2020
T7 Reach 3
6/18/2019*
2/6/2020
'Only a geomorphically signiticant event. Not a banktull event.
Monthly Rainfall Data
0uckwater Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
' ` ■
ff ".0-
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
. . . . . . . . . ..
2020 monthly rainfall from USDA Station Durham 11 W.
' 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Chapel HIII 2 W, NC (USDA, 2020).

30-Day Cumulative Total Rainfall Data
Buckwater Mitigation Sxite
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
10
8
E
c
0
P
m
a 6
2
-
�_�
i
�
LY
Buckwater 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020 Durham, NC
Q bIO 0-
a)
Daily Rainfall -30-Day Cumulative Total -30% Rainfall Total -70% Rainfall Total
1 2020 monthly rainfall from USDA Station Durham 11 W.
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Chapel Hill 2 W, NC (USDA, 2019).
4
3
c
2 w
c
1
0
U
O 0z

Groundwater Gage Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
20
10
0
c
- -10
w
w
J
-20
-30
-40
-50
f0
to Q > V
V) O z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #1 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
W
1.0
c

Groundwater Gage Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
20
10
0
c
- -10
w
w
J
-20
-30
-40
-50
f0
to Q > V
V) O z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #2 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
W
1.0
c

Groundwater Gage Plots
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
20
10
0
c
- -10
w
w
J
-20
-30
-40
-50
f0
to Q > V
V) O z o
Rainfall Reference Gage Depth Gage #3 — — Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
W
1.0
c

Table 14. Wetland Gage Summary
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Gage
Max Consecutive Days During Growing
Season (Percentage)
MY1(2019)
MY2 (2020)
MY3 (2021)
MY4 (2022)
MY5 (2023)
MY6 (2024)
MY7 (2025)
55 Days
34 Days
1
(20.7%)
(12.8%)
13 Days
6 Days
2
(4.9%)
(2.3%)
58 Days
135 Days
3
(21.8%)
(50.4%)
*Gage data is not tied to any success criteria.

Recorded In -Stream Flow Events
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
542
541
x
Cu
Cu
GJ
540
539
Buckwater Mitigation Site: In -Stream Flow Gage for T4A
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 w
E
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
4 O >T C 00 Q > U
Q - U
LL 5 Q S Q O z p
Rainfall T4A Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • Bankfull

Recorded In -Stream Flow Events
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
542
541
x
Cu
Cu
G1
A
540
539
Buckwater Mitigation Site: In -Stream Flow Gage for T413
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 w
E
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
4 O >T C 00 Q > U
Q - U
LL 5 Q S Q O z p
Rainfall T413 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • Bankfull

Recorded In -Stream Flow Events
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Buckwater Mitigation Site: In -Stream Flow Gage for T6
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
98
97
95
bn Q > U
LL
5 Q S Q in O z 0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 a
C
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
—Rainfall T6 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • •Bankful

Recorded In -Stream Flow Events
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
499
498
v
CU
v
J
41
497
496 41
(O
Buckwater Mitigation Site: In -Stream Flow Gage for T7
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
194 days of consecutive stream flow
C75 00 Q
U
Q N 0
Rainfall T7 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • • Bankfull
> U
Z
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 w
1.0
0.5
0.0

Recorded In -Stream Flow Events
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cu
Cu
41
507
506
505
504
Buckwater Mitigation Site: In -Stream Flow Gage for T7A
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 w
E
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
4 O >T C 00 Q > U
Q - U
LL 5 Q S Q O z p
Rainfall T7A Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • Bankfull

Recorded In -Stream Flow Events
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Cu
Cu
G1
530
529
528
527
Buckwater Mitigation Site: In -Stream Flow Gage for T8
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 w
E
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
4 O - >T C 00 Q > U
Q U
Li 5 Q S Q N 0 Z
Rainfall T8 Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • • Bankfull

Table 15. Recorded In -Stream Flow Events Attainment Summary
Buckwater Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 97084
Monitoring Year 2 - 2020
Summary of In -Stream Flow Gage Results for Monitoring Years 1 through 7
Max Consecutive Days/ Total Days Meeting
Success Criteria*
Reach
MY1 (2019)
MY2 (2020)***
MY3 (2021)
MY5 (2022)
MY5 (2023)
MY6 (2024)
MY7 (2025)
96 Days/
70 Days/
T4A
120 Days
216 Days
63 Days/
208 Days/
T413
91 Days
290 Days
73 Days/
294 Days/
T6
103 Days
294 Days
194 Days/
T7 Reach 2
Not Installed
234 Days
169 Days/
133 Days/
T7A
233 Days
281 Days
19 Days/
207 Days/
T8
21 Days**
272 Days
*Success criteria is 30 consecutive days of flow.
**Gauge Malfunctioned
***Data colleted through October 21, 2020.