20140547 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report_2020_20210119

ID#* 20140547 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/19/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/19/2021
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:*
Paul Wiesner
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20140547
Existing IDY
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
601 East Stream Restoration Project
Union
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: 601East _95756_MY6_2020.pdf 9.63MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Paul Wiesner
Signature:*
�X/ I �;" -;-I 1

Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 6 of 7
FINAL
601 East Stream Restoration Project
NCDMS Contract No.: 004925
NCDMS Project No.: 95756
USACE Permit Action ID: 2013-00265
DWR Project No.: 14-0547

Union County, NC
Data Collected: November 2020
Date Submitted: January 2021

Submitted to:
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
NCDEQ-DMS, 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1652

3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27610

Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400

res.us

January 12, 2021

Paul Wiesner
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801

RE: 601 East Stream Restoration Site: MY5 Monitoring Report (NCDMS ID 95756)

Listed below are comments provided by DMS on December 17, 2020 regarding the 601 East
Stream Restoration Site: Year 6 Monitoring Report and RES’ responses.

General/ Report Text (Section 1.4 Project Performance): As noted in the 6/11/2020 IRT site
visit meeting minutes in Appendix F; “The IRT also observed missing easement signage and small
areas of easement scalloping/encroachment. RES agreed to repair any easement
scalloping/encroachment and agreed to ensure all required easement marking and signage are
updated and present by the end of MY6 (2020) monitoring.” In the report text, please briefly
discuss how the encroachment observed during the June 2020 IRT site visit was addressed in
MY6 (2020). Please also discuss easement marking and signage repair and updates that were
conducted in MY6 (2020) as requested by the IRT. Lastly, please discuss any unresolved
easement encroachment (if any) observed during the November 2020 RES site assessment.
In January 2021, RES inspected the entire easement boundary and replaced all missing
easement signage. This was added to Section 1.4.1.

Section 1.4.1 Vegetation: This section notes that one area of encroachment was observed and
repaired in June 2020. This area is also shown on the CCPV map/s. Please briefly discuss how
this encroachment was addressed/ repaired. Was additional permanent marking and/ or signage
added to the area to avoid future encroachment? Please also indicate when this area was
replanted and approximately how many plants (include species) were installed.
The encroachment repair included installing t-posts, horse tape, and easement signage along the
easement boundary as well as planting 60 three-gallon container trees. The planting was done in
June 2020 and species included sycamore, river birch, and willow oak. This has been added to
Section 1.4.1.

Section 1.4.2 Stream Geomorphology: The report text and CCPV maps indicate that two (2)
beaver dams were removed in June 2020 and two (2) beaver dams were removed in November
2020. Beaver have been a persistent issue on the site. Were beaver also trapped as part of the
dam removal efforts? Please update the text accordingly.

In the report text, please also report how often the project site is inspected for beaver/ beaver
dams. DMS recommends removing beaver and beaver dams as soon as possible to avoid
potential irregular monitoring data, project damage and additional project maintenance.
The beaver dams were no longer active therefore beavers were not trapped in 2020. RES inspects
sites quarterly and will perform beaver management (dam removal and trapping) as necessary
throughout the remainder of the monitoring period. This was added to Section 1.4.2.

2

Table 5 - Vegetation Condition Assessment & Table 6 – Visual Stream Morphology Stability
Assessment: Please confirm that no invasive areas of concern or current easement
encroachment areas above the mapping thresholds exist and 100% of the project streams are
functioning as intended (as reported in the tables).
Confirmed.

Appendix E – Flow Gauge Graph: DMS recommends showing the start and end points of the
58 days of consecutive flow reported.
Done.

Digital Support File Comments:
Please produce features that characterize the encroachment, beaver dam, stream areas of
concern, and vegetation areas of concern. Include these in the CCPV and as part of the digital
submittal and ensure that these areas are reflected in the visual assessment tables (if applicable).
Done. Areas were not entered into the visual assessment tables because they have been
repaired.

Please include photos from photo stations as JPEGs.
Done.

Note that the data in the flow gauge figure is not plotted correctly in excel. Use the scatter plot
(x,y) chart type, then add a line, rather than selecting the line chart type.
The line chart type has been changed to the scatter plot chart type.

Prepared by:

3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605

601 East Stream Restoration Project 3 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 6 of 7 January 2021

Contents
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................... 5
1.2. Success Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 5
1.3. Project Setting and Background .................................................................................................... 7
1.4. Project Performance ...................................................................................................................... 8
2.0 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................... 9
3.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 10

601 East Stream Restoration Project 4 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 6 of 7 January 2021

Appendices

Appendix A. General Tables and Figures
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View Map

Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Figure 3. 2020 Photo Station Photos
Figure 4. 2020 Problem Area Photos

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data (MY5 2019)
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata
Table 9. Total Planted Stem Counts
Figure 5. Vegetation Plot Photos

Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data (MY5 2019)
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11a. Dimensional Morphology Summary
Table 11b. Stream Reach Data Summary
Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
Charts 1-5. MY5 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Table 13. Bank Pin Summary

Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull and Stream Flow Events
Table 15. 2020 Rainfall Summary

Appendix F. 601 East MY5 (2019) IRT Credit Release Site Visit Memo

601 East Stream Restoration Project 5 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 6 of 7 January 2021

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1. Goals and Objectives
The project goals address stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
• Reduce water quality stressors originating in and around the project area affecting the project
• reaches and downstream watercourses, which include population of the Savannah Lilliput
• (Toxolasma pullus) and the Carolina Creekshell (Vilosa vaughiana), both listed species of
concern. Specifically involving:
o Reducing turbidity and sediment loading
o Input reductions of nutrients and crop protection chemicals
o Improving thermoregulation
• Improving aquatic habitat quality and diversity within project reaches
• Improving recruitment of instream fine organic matter (FOM) in the near term and both FOM and
• large wood in the long term
• Improving terrestrial habitat diversity and quality in the vicinity of project reaches
• Establishing habitat continuity between the reach headwaters and Lanes Creek
• Improving flood flow attenuation and floodplain interaction

The project goals are addressed through the following project objectives:
• Restore or enhance reach pattern, dimension, and profile
• Stabilize eroding stream banks
• Install stream structures to maintain grade and improve bed form complexity
• Implement BMP detention devices on lateral agricultural drainages
• Install diverse native riparian buffer
• Removal of invasive exotic plant species
• Secure a protective conservation easement and establish fencing as needed
1.2. Success Criteria
The success criteria for the 601 East Stream Restoration Site follows accepted and approved success criteria presented in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and subsequent NCDMS and agency guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
1.2.1. Stream Restoration
Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability – Restored and enhanced streams should
demonstrate morphologic stability to be considered successful. Stability does not equate to an absence
of change, but rather to sustainable rates of change or stable patterns of variation. Restored streams
often demonstrate some level of initial adjustment in the period that follows construction and some
subsequent change/variation is also to be expected. However, the observed change should not be
unidirectional such that it represents a robust trend. If some trend is evident, it should be modest or
indicate migration to another stable form. Annual variation is to be expected, but over time this should
demonstrate equilibrium on the reach scale with the maintenance of or even a reduction in the
amplitude of variation. Lastly, all of this must be evaluated in the context of hydrologic events to
which the system is exposed and the design type/intent (i.e. threshold versus free form alluvial
channels).
Dimension – General maintenance of a stable cross-section and hydrologic access to the floodplain
features over the course of the monitoring period will generally represent success in dimensional
stability. However, some change is natural and expected and can even indicate that the design was
601 East Stream Restoration Project 6 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 6 of 7 January 2021

successful and appropriate for the hydrologic and sediment regime. Examples include depositional
processes resulting in the development of constructive features on the banks and floodplain such as
an inner berm, a slightly narrower channel, modest natural levees, and general floodplain deposition.

For stream dimension, cross-sectional overlays and key parameters such as cross-sectional area, and
the channel’s width to depth ratios should demonstrate modest overall change and patterns of
variation.

Significant widening of the channel cross-section or trends of increase in the cross-sectional area
generally represent concern, although some adjustment in this direction is acceptable if the process
is arrested after a period of modest adjustment. In the case of riffle cross sections, maintenance of
depths that represent small changes to target competence (e.g. consistently low BHRs <1.2) would
also reflect stability. Although a pool cross-section may experience periodic infilling due to
watershed activity and the timing of events relative to monitoring, the majority of pools within a
project stream reach/component should demonstrate maintenance of greater depths and low water
surface slopes over time. Rates of lateral migration need to be moderate. Bank pins will be installed
to monitor rates of erosion.

Pattern and Profile – Pool depths may vary from year to year, however the majority of pools should
maintain depths that are distinct in the profile and are readily observed. Pattern measurement will not
be collected unless observations indicate a detectable change based on observations and/or dimension
measurements.

Substrate – Generally it is anticipated that the bed materials will coarsen over time. The majority of
riffle pebble counts should indicate maintenance or coarsening of the substrate. The D50 and D84 of
the substrate should show a coarser distribution of bed materials in riffles and finer size class
distribution in pools.

Sediment Transport – Depositional features should be consistent with a stable stream that is
effectively managing its sediment load. Point Bar and inner berm features should develop without
excessive encroachment of the restored channel. Trends in the development of systemic robust mid-
channel or alternating bar features will be considered a destabilizing condition and may require
intervention.

The tributaries outside of the conservation easement will be observed yearly and the monitoring
report will document the function of the upstream basins in capturing excess sediment produced by
observed degradation in the narrative. A specific performance standard has not been added.

1.2.2. Surface Water Hydrology
Monitoring of stream water stages through a staff gauge should show recurrence of bankfull flow on average
every 1 to 2 years. Throughout the monitoring period, the surface water stage should achieve bankfull or
greater elevations at least twice. The bankfull events must occur during separate monitoring years.

601 East Stream Restoration Project 7 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 6 of 7 January 2021

1.2.3. Vegetation
The vegetation monitoring will be conducted according to the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) – EEP
protocol Version 4.2 (Lee et al 2008). Vegetation monitoring plots will be 100 square meters in size and
will be conducted according to the Level I protocol which has a focus on planted stems only. The purpose
of this level of monitoring is to determine the pattern of installation of plant material with respect to species,
spacing, density, and to monitor the survival and growth of those installed species. The success criteria for
the preferred species in the restoration areas will be based on annual and cumulative survival and growth
over seven (7) years. Survival on preferred species must be at a minimum 320 stems/acre at the end of the
three years of monitoring and 260 stems/acre after five years. At year 7, density must be no less than 210
seven-year-old planted stems/acre. Level II of the CVS protocol, which includes natural stems and planted
stems, will be followed for the monitoring year 2 and subsequent years until the project close out year.
1.3. Project Setting and Background
The 601 East Stream Restoration Site is located in Union County, approximately 13 miles south of Monroe,
NC (Figure 1). The site encompasses 12.8 acres of formerly agricultural land and includes portions of
Tanyard Branch, a tributary of Lanes Creek. The Site is located within the Yadkin River Basin, United
States Geological Survey (USGS) 14-digit Hydrologic Unit 03040105081010 and the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub-basin 03-04-14. The drainage area of Tanyard Branch at the
downstream end of the site is 0.56 square mile (354 acres). Land use within the watershed is predominately
agriculture with the remaining land use composed of low density residential and forested areas.

Following 2016 monitoring the NCIRT requested a review of the differential between the Approved
Mitigation Plan and Baseline Monitoring Report. The table below details the discrepancies by reach. The
primary cause of increased baseline SMUs is survey methodology (thalweg vs. centerline). The Mitigation
Plan lengths were based on centerline. Additionally, there were likely minor field adjustments during
construction.

Reach Mitigation Type*Proposed Length
(LF)
Mitigation
Ratio Proposed SMUs Baseline SMUs
Reach A Buffer Establishment 215 5:1 43 43
Reach 1a P1 Restoration 350 1:1 350 350
Reach 1b Enhancement I 85 1.5:1 56 57
Reach 1c Enhancement I 155 1.5:1 103 103
Reach 1d P1 Restoration 800 1:1 800 803
Reach 2a Enhancement I 40 1.5:1 26 30
Reach 2b Enhancement I 120 1.5:1 80 85
Reach 2c P1 Restoration 724 1:1 724 730
Reach 3a P1 Restoration 368 1:1 368 369
Reach 3b P1 Restoration 650 1:1 650 649
Reach 3c P3 Restoration 480 1:1 480 495
Total 3,987 3,680 3,714
*P1=Priority 1, P3=Priority 3
**The contracted amount of credits for this Site was 3,576 SMUs
601 East Stream Restoration Project 8 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 6 of 7 January 2021

1.4. Project Performance
Monitoring Year 6 (MY6) data was collected in November 2020. Year 6 monitoring activities included
visual assessment of all reaches and the surrounding easement and 20 permanent photo stations. Per the
approved Mitigation Plan, cross section and vegetation monitoring was not collected in MY6, however
MY5 data is presented below and in the appendices for reference.

On June 1, 2020, RES, DMS, and IRT had a site visit. The main topics of discussion were the potential
flow issues, beaver dams, and encroachment. Details regarding this site visit can be found in Appendix F.

Summary information and data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver activity or encroachment
and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables
and figures in the report appendices. A visual overview of the site can be seen in the Current Conditions
Plan View Maps (Figure 2). Photographs taken at permanent stations throughout the project site also
display general site conditions (Figure 3). Narrative background and supporting information formerly
found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in
the Mitigation Plan (formerly Restoration Plan) documents available on the NCDMS website. All raw data
supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from DMS upon request.
1.4.1. Vegetation
Visual assessment of the easement (Table 5; Figure 2) indicates vegetation is well established throughout
the easement. One area of encroachment was observed and repaired in June 2020. The encroachment repair
included installing t-posts, horse tape, and easement signage along the easement boundary as well as
planting 60 three-gallon container trees. The planting was done in June 2020 and species included
sycamore, river birch, and willow oak. In January 2021, RES inspected the entire easement boundary and
replaced all missing easement signage. Invasive species including Chinese privet and parrotfeather were
treated in August 2020. The areas of cattails are still present but only in localized wetland areas. Invasive
areas will continue to be monitored and treated as necessary throughout the monitoring period.

Monitoring of permanent vegetation plots was not performed in MY6 per the approved Mitigation Plan.
MY5 vegetation monitoring data is included in this report for reference. Monitoring of the 10 permanent
vegetation plots was completed during October 2019. Summary tables and photographs associated with
MY5 monitoring are located in Appendix C. Stem densities for MY5 ranged from 364 to 971 stems per
acre with a mean of 607 stems per acre across all plots. When volunteer stems are included, the annual
mean increases to 874 stems per acre. A total of 17 species were documented within the monitoring plots.
The average planted stem height observed in the plots was 8.6 feet.
1.4.2. Stream Geomorphology
Visual assessment of the stream was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding banks,
structural instability, or excessive sedimentation (Table 6). The erosional feature noted in the right buffer
of Reach 1 was addressed by stabilizing the headcut with rock and adding coir logs along the feature. RES
also removed remnant beaver dam on Reach 2 in June 2020 and on Reach 3 and 4 in November 2020. The
beaver dams were no longer active therefore beavers were not trapped in 2020. RES inspects sites quarterly
and will perform beaver management (dam removal and trapping) as necessary throughout the remainder
of the monitoring period.

Geomorphic data collection was not performed in MY6 per the approved Mitigation Plan. MY5 geomorphic
monitoring data is included in this report for reference. Geomorphic data for MY5 was collected during
July 2019. Summary tables and cross-section plots related to stream morphology are located in Appendix
D. Baseline stream summary data for reference can be found in Table 10. Cross-sectional overlays showed
601 East Stream Restoration Project 9 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 6 of 7 January 2021

minimal dimensional change between MY3 and MY5 data collection efforts (Table 11a; Figure 6), as well
as minimal change in overall reach dimensions (Table 11b). None of the riffle cross sections exceeded a
1.2 BHR.

Substrate monitoring was performed during MY5. Pebble count D50 was medium gravel for Reach 1, coarse
gravel for Reach 2, medium gravel for Reach 3, and coarse gravel for Reach 4 (Table 12; Charts 1-5). The
channel substrate will be monitored in future years for shifts in particle size distributions.

The bank pin arrays indicate that no erosion is taking place in the pools at cross-sections (Table 13).
1.4.3. Stream Hydrology
As of December 2020, 11 bankfull events have been recorded on Reach 2 and 13 on Reach 3. In MY5, both
crest gauges failed due to ant infestations. In MY6, HOBOs were installed and used in place of cork gauges.
Project site precipitation data can be found in Table 15. A flow gauge was installed on April 30, 2020 and
moved on June 3, 2020 upstream on Reach 1 per IRT request. The flow gauge recorded 58 days of
consecutive flow and 113 total days of flow in MY6. Photo documentation of the stream is in Appendix B.

Summary information/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 Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan)
and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly Restoration Plan) documents available on NCDMS’ website. All raw
data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODS
Visual assessments of the project were performed at the beginning and end of the monitoring year.
Permanent photo station photos were collected during vegetation monitoring. Additional photos of
vegetation or stream problem areas were documented with photographs throughout the project area.

Geomorphic measurements (MY0, MY1, MY2, MY3, MY5, MY7) were taken during low flow conditions
using a Topcon GTS-312 Total Station. Three-dimensional coordinates associated with cross-section and
profile data were collected in the field and geo-referenced (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200).
Morphological data was limited to 18 cross-sections. Survey data was imported into CAD, ArcGIS, and
Excel for data processing and analysis. Channel substrate was characterized using a Wolman Pebble Count
as outlined in Harrelson et al. (1994) and processed using Microsoft Excel.

Vegetation success (MY0, MY1, MY2, MY3, MY5, MY7) is being monitored using 10 permanent
monitoring plots. Vegetation monitoring followed CVS-EEP Level 1 Protocol for MY1 and is following
Level 2 Protocol Version 4.2 for monitoring years 2-7 (Lee et al. 2008). Level 2 Protocol includes analysis
of species composition and density of planted species. Data is processed using the CVS data entry tool. In
the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked with rebar and photos of each plot taken
from the origin each monitoring year. The locations of the three temporary plots surveyed in Years 2 and 3
were randomly selected within the replant areas. The plots were surveyed by pulling tapes to form 10 x 10
meter plots then counting all woody stems within the plots.

Precipitation data was reported from the NCCRONOS station number 315771 in Monroe, NC. Two crest
gauges were installed on the mainstem channel, one upstream of Lansford Road in Reach 2 and another
downstream of Lansford Road in Reach 3. During quarterly visits to the site, the height of the cork-line was
recorded. In MY6, RES replaced the cork-line crest gauges with HOBO stage recorde
601 East Stream Restoration Project 10 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 6 of 7 January 2021

3.0 REFERENCES

Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC. 2015. 601 East Stream Restoration, Baseline Monitoring
Document and As-Built Baseline Report Final, Union County, North Carolina. NCEEP Project
No. 95756

Harrelson, Cheryl, C. Rawlins and J. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service. Fort Collins, Colorado

Lee, M.T.,R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm; accessed November 2008.
Appendix A
General Tables and Figures
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View Map
Appendix A – General Tables and Figures  TypeRER RETotals43Credits4335056.7103.3800724650480Note: Stream credit calculations were originally calculated along the as-built thalweg. Based on the April 3, 2017 IRT Credit Release Meeting, these stream credits have been reverted back to the amounts in the IRT approved mitigation plan.BR = Bioretention cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S = Grassed Swale; LS = Level Spread; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested BufferFB, LS, S, FSEphemeral Channel 5+45 – 7+60Slowing the water down for settling and filtering excess sedimentSediment expected from future degradation upstreamBMP ElementsBMP ElementsElementLocation Purpose/Function NotesHQ PreservationPreservation/Other21543Creation266.6Enhancement IIEnhancement I4003372EnhancementRestoration3372Mitigation CreditsRiverineNon-RiverineComponent SummationRestoration LevelStream(linear feet)Riparian Wetland (acres)Non-riparian Wetland(acres)Buffer(square feet)Upland (acres)1 : 1Reach 4 Perennial53+70 – 58+50470’ relic channelP3R4801 : 13681 : 1Reach 2c Perennial368Reach 3b Perennial47+20 - 53+70502’ relic channelP1R650Reach 3a Perennial43+06 - 46+6080’ active channel112’ relic channelP1R24+00 - 31+24669P1R72426.71201 : 1.5801 : 1401 : 1.5Reach 1d PerennialReach 2bPerennial22+80 - 24+00125EnhancementE1Reach 2aPerennial22+00 - 22+4040EnhancementE114+00 - 22+00790P1R8001 :1.51 :1.51 : 1Reach 1c Perennial11+95 – 13+50136EnhancementE1155Reach 1b Intermittent11+10 – 11+9585EnhancementE1851 : 5Reach 1a Intermittent7+60 – 11+10336P1R3501 : 1Reach A Ephemeral5+45 – 7+60215Buffer establishment and BMP sediment import reduction215Project ComponentsProject Component -or- Reach IDStationing/LocationExisting Footage/AcreageApproach (PI, PII etc.)Restoration -or- Restoration EquivalentRestoration Footage or AcreageMitigation Ratio3638.67PhosphorousNutrient OffsetRRRETable 1: Project Components and Mitigation Credits601 East Stream Restoration SiteMitigation CreditsStreamRiparian WetlandNon-riparian WetlandBufferNitrogenNutrient Offset
Appendix A – General Tables and Figures

Restoration Plan May 2013 Jan 2014
Final Design – Construction Plans Sept 2013 Jan 2014
Construction -Dec 2014
Containerized, bare root and B&B plantings - Jan 2015
Mitigation Plan / As-built (Year 0 Monitoring – baseline)Feb 2015 Feb 2015
Year 1 Monitoring Nov 2015 Nov 2015
Supplemental Planting (Entire Site)-Apr 2016
Year 2 Monitoring Sept 2016 Oct 2016
Year 3 Monitoring Stream - July 2017
Vegetation - Oct 2017 Jan 2018
Supplemental Planting, Encroachment Blocking, Beaver Removal, Invasive
Treatment -Mar 2018
Invasive Treatment -Sept 2018
Year 4 Monitoring Nov 2018 Jan 2019
Year 5 Monitoring Stream - July 2019
Vegetation - Oct 2019 Jan 2020
Beaver Dam Removal, Encroachment Repair, Erosional Rill Repair -June 2020
Invasive Treatment and Beaver Dam Removal -Nov 2020
Year 6 Monitoring Nov 2020 Dec 2020
Year 7 Monitoring
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Appendix A – General Tables and Figures

Designer
Primary project design POC
Construction Contractor
Construction contractor POC
Planting Contractor
Planting contractor POC
Construction Survey Contractor
Survey contractor POC
Seeding Contractor
Construction contractor POC
Seed Mix Sources
Nursery Stock Suppliers
[Baseline] Monitoring Performers
Stream Monitoring POC
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Stream Monitoring POC
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Monitoring Performers (MY3+)
Stream Monitoring POC
Vegetation Monitoring POC Ryan Medric [phone]
Monitoring Performers (MY1-MY2)
2015-2016
Equinox
37 Haywood Street, Suite 100
Asheville, NC 28801
Ryan Medric [phone]
Resource Environemntal Solutions (RES)
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27610
Drew Alderman [phone]
Drew Alderman [phone]
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
4805 Green Road, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27616
Rachael Zigler - WCE - [phone]
[phone]
Arbor Gen - Blenheim, SC
NC Forest Service Nursery - Goldsboro, NC
[phone]
P.O. Box 545, Siler City, NC 27344
Andrew Dimmette [phone]
Green Resource - Raleigh, NC
Becky Ward [phone]
Wright Contracting
H & J Forest Services
Wright Contracting
Turner Land Survey, PLLC
P.O. Box 545, Siler City, NC 27344
Joseph Wright [phone]
Table 3. Project Contact Table
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. (WCE)
1416 Ocean Boulevard, Holly Ridge, NC 28445
As Purchased by EBX [phone] x 213
Chris Sheats - The Cantena Group - [phone]
3719 Benson Drive, Raleigh, NC 27629
[phone]
Elizabeth Turner [phone]
4805 Green Road, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27616
Appendix A – General Tables and Figures

3040105081010
Parameters Reach 3 Reach 4
Length of reach (LF) 1,080; 1,018 LF Restored Relic Channel, 495 LF Restored
Valley Classification VIII VIII
Drainage area (acres)333 359
NCDWQ Water Quality
Classification 13-17-40-(1) 13-17-40-(1)
Morphological
Description (stream type)C4/G4 G4
Evolutionary trend
(reference channel
evolution model used)
GG
Drainage class Somewhat Poorly Drained Somewhat Poorly Drained
Soil Hydric status Non Hydric Non Hydric
Slope 0.67%1.25%
FEMA classification N/A N/A
Percent composition of
exotic invasive vegetation
5% of Japanese stilt grass, 80%
Chinese privet, and kudzu 80% Chinese privet50% of Parrot feather
Native vegetation
community
Agriculture along upstream
The remaining stream buffer
within this reach is composed of
Willow Oak, Red Maple, River
Birch, Black Willow, Elderberry,
and Blackberry.
Canopy species include Willow
Red Maple, Sweetgum, Eastern
Wetland A is composed of
Cattails, spike rush arrow-arum,
and duckweed.
Non Hydric Non Hydric
2%0.84%
N/A N/A
C4/E4/DA
GC/DA
Underlying mapped soils
Intermittent: Tatum gravelly silty
Perrenial: Cid channery silt loam
Cid channery silt loam, Tatum
gravelly silt loam
109 135
NCDWQ stream
identification score
Intermittent: 19.5
Perennial: 33.5 33.5
Project Drainage Area (acres)361.33
Project drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 2%
CGIA Land Use Classification 2.01.01.07 Annual Row Crop Rotation
Yadkin River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-Digit USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
DWQ Sub-basin 3/4/2014
Project Name 601 East Stream Restoration Site
County Union County
Project Area (acres)
Canopy species include Red
Maple, Hackberry, Willow Oak,
and Sweetgum. The presence of
Chinese privet outcompete any
shrub and herb layer.
Canopy species include Red
Maple, Hackberry, Willow oak,
and Sweetgum. The presence of
Chinese privet outcompete any
shrub and herb layer.
0%
Chewacla silt loam Chewacla silt loam
Well Drained Moderately Well Drained
33.5 33.5
13-17-40-(1)13-17-40-(1)
G4/B4/C4b
1,418; 1,393 LF Restored 906; 902 LF Restored
II II
Reach Summary Information
Reach 1 Reach 2
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin
Project Information
12.78
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)34° 50’ 21.62” N, 80° 25’ 32.26”N
Appendix A – General Tables and Figures

Parameters
Size of Wetland (acres)
Mapped Soil Series
Drainage class
Soil Hydric Status
Source of Hydrology
Hydrologic Impairment
Native vegetation
community
Percent composition of
exotic invasive vegetation
Regulation Applicable? Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United
States-Section 404 Yes
SAW 2013-
00265; EEP IMS
#95756
Waters of the United
States – Section 401 Yes DWR# 14-0547
Endangered Species Act No Yes ERTR
Historic Preservation Act No Yes ERTR
Coastal Zone
Management Act
(CZMA)/Costal Area
Management Act
(CAMA)
No N/A
FEMA Floodplain
Compliance No N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A
Wetland Summary Information
Wetland Type (non-
riparian, riparian riverine, Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Regulatory Considerations
Herbaceous-Vegetation is domninated by
herbaceous vegetation such as Cattail (Typha
latifolia ), Bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus ), Common
Rush (Juncus effuses ). Some tree species such as
Black Willow (Salix nigra ), and Red Maple
(Acer rubrum ) are present in the wetland
margins.
Wetland 1
0.43 ac
95%-The invasive Parrot Feather
(Miriophyllum aquaticum ) is dominant
throughout the wetland where there is standing
water.
Non-Hydric
Tanyard Branch headwaters, groundwater, and
adjacent runoff
Wetland A formed from accumulating sediments
filling the channel resulting in a braided channel
system through the wetland.
Cid channery Silt Loam
Moderately Well Drained to Somewhat Poorly
Drained
Table 4 con't. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
601 East Stream Restoration Site
a601 East Mitigation Site
£¤601
Driving Directions: From Monroe drive south on Hwy.
601. Turn left on Landsford Road. Site is loacted on the
left and right .25 miles down and accessed from a
parking area on the south side of Landsford Road.
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site
of the NCDMS and encompassed by a recorded
conservation easement, but is bordered by land with
private ownership. Accessing the site may require
traversing areas near or along the easement bounday and
therefore access to the general public is not permitted.
Access by authorized personel of state and federal
agencies or their designee/contractors involved in the the
development, oversight, and stweardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined role. Any intended site visitation or activity by any
person outside these previously sactioned roles and
activities requires prior coordination with NCDMS.
L a n d s f o r d R o a d
Figure 1601 East Mitigation SiteProject Vicinity Map
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Project Site
Streams
Roads
Mitigation Sites
Water Bodies
Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Figure 3. 2020 Photo Station Photos
Figure 4. 2020 Problem Area Photos
!>!>nmnmnmnmnmnm^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`3
2
7
81
456111210
97
6
8 9
10 ©0 200100
Feet
Figure 2a
601 East StreamRestoration ProjectMY6 2020
Current ConditionsPlan View
LEGEND
Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plot
StructureStream Treatment
BMP (Ephemeral)
Restoration (Intermittent)
EI (Intermittent)
Restoration (Perennial)
EI (Perennial)
Cross Section
Structure
Top of Bank
Beaver Dam
nm Bankpin Array
^`Photo Station
!>Stage Recorder
!>Flow Gauge
Date: 1/12/2021 Drawn by: RTM
Document Path: R:\Archives\olddropboxprojects\North Carolina\100917-601 East\Monitoring\Monitoring Data\GIS\MY6\figure 2a_601 east_ccpv my6.mxdSource: 2019 NC OneMap Aerial Imagery
1 inch = 200 feet
Reach 2 Reach 1
Reach A
CattailsCattails
Parrot Feather
(Treated Nov 2020)
Erosional Feature
(Repaired June 2020)
Vegetation Condition Assessment
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Target Community
Invasive SpeciesNo Fill
Beaver Dam
(Removed June 2020)
!>^`^`^`^`^`^`^`nmnmnm161314
15
17185
4
3
2
1 ©0 10050
Feet
Figure 2b
601 East StreamRestoration ProjectMY6 2020
Current ConditionsPlan View
LEGEND
Conservation Easement
Vegetation PlotStream Treatment
BMP (Ephemeral)
Restoration (Intermittent)
EI (Intermittent)
Restoration (Perennial)
EI (Perennial)
Cross Section
Structure
Top of Bank
Beaver Dam
nm Bankpin Array
^`Photo Station
!>Stage Recorder
!>Flow Gauge
Date: 1/12/2021 Drawn by: RTM
Document Path: R:\Archives\olddropboxprojects\North Carolina\100917-601 East\Monitoring\Monitoring Data\GIS\MY6\Figure 2b_601 East_CCPV MY6.mxdSource: 2019 NC OneMap Aerial Imagery
1 inch = 100 feet
Reach 3
Reach 4
Chinese Privet
(Treated Nov 2020)Vegetation Condition Assessment
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Target Community
Invasive SpeciesNo Fill
Encroachment
(Repaired June 2020)
Beaver Dam
(Removed Nov 2020)
Beaver Dam
(Removed Nov 2020)
12.812.8Vegetation CategoryCCPV DepictionNumber of PolygonsCombined Acreage% of Planted Acreage1. Bare AreasRed Simple Hatch 0 0.00 0%2. Low Stem Density AreasOrange Simple Hatch 0 0.00 0%Totals0 0.00 0%3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or VigorOrange Simple Hatch 0 0.00 0% Cumulative Totals0 0.00 0%Vegetation CategoryCCPV DepictionNumber of PolygonsCombined Acreage% of Easement Acreage4. Invasive Areas of ConcernYellow Crosshatch 0 0.00 0%5. Easement Encroachment AreasRed Simple Hatch 0 0.00 0%N/A - Item does not apply..DefinitionsTable 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment601 East Stream Restoration SiteEasement AcreagePlanted AcreageAreas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).DefinitionsAreas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
00 100%00 100%2. Riffle Condition3232100%3333100%3333100%3333100%3333100%1. Scoured / Eroding00 100% 00 100%2. Undercut00 100% N/A N/A N/A3. Mass Wasting00 100% N/A N/A N/ATotals00 100% N/A N/A N/A1. Overall IntegrityN/A N/AN/A2. Grade ControlN/A N/AN/A2a. PipingN/A N/AN/A3. Bank ProtectionN/A N/AN/A4. HabitatN/A N/AN/A2. BankBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion.Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.3. Engineered StructuresStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does NOT exceed 15%.Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth Ratio ≥ 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.4. Thalweg Position1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.3. Meander Pool Condition1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6).2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).1. Bed1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units)1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars).Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 1Assessed Length 1,393 feetMajor Channel CategoryChannel Sub-CategoryMetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Number in As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable FootageFootage with Stabilizing Woody VegetationAdjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation
00 100%00 100%2. Riffle Condition1616100%1717100%1717100%1717100%1717100%1. Scoured / Eroding00 100% 00 100%2. Undercut00 100% N/A N/A N/A3. Mass Wasting00 100% N/A N/A N/ATotals00 100% N/A N/A N/A1. Overall IntegrityN/A N/AN/A2. Grade ControlN/A N/AN/A2a. PipingN/A N/AN/A3. Bank ProtectionN/A N/AN/A4. HabitatN/A N/AN/A2. BankBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion.Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.3. Engineered StructuresStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does NOT exceed 15%.Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth Ratio ≥ 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.4. Thalweg Position1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.3. Meander Pool Condition1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6).2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).1. Bed1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units)1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars).Table 6 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 2Assessed Length 902 feetMajor Channel CategoryChannel Sub-CategoryMetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Number in As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable FootageFootage with Stabilizing Woody VegetationAdjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation
00 100%00 100%2. Riffle Condition1818100%1818100%1818100%1818100%1818100%1. Scoured / Eroding00 100% 00 100%2. Undercut00 100% N/A N/A N/A3. Mass Wasting00 100% N/A N/A N/ATotals00 100% N/A N/A N/A1. Overall IntegrityN/A N/AN/A2. Grade ControlN/A N/AN/A2a. PipingN/A N/AN/A3. Bank ProtectionN/A N/AN/A4. HabitatN/A N/AN/ATable 6 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 3Assessed Length 1,018 feetMajor Channel CategoryChannel Sub-CategoryMetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Number in As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable FootageFootage with Stabilizing Woody VegetationAdjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation1. Bed1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units)1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars).4. Thalweg Position1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.3. Meander Pool Condition1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6).2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).2. BankBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion.Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.3. Engineered StructuresStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does NOT exceed 15%.Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth Ratio ≥ 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.
00 100%00 100%2. Riffle Condition99100%99100%99100%99100%99100%1. Scoured / Eroding00 100% 00 100%2. Undercut00 100% N/A N/A N/A3. Mass Wasting00 100% N/A N/A N/ATotals00 100% N/A N/A N/A1. Overall Integrity22100%2. Grade Control22100%2a. Piping22100%3. Bank Protection22100%4. Habitat22100%Table 6 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 4Assessed Length 495 feetMajor Channel CategoryChannel Sub-CategoryMetricNumber Stable, Performing as IntendedTotal Number in As-builtNumber of Unstable SegmentsAmount of Unstable FootageFootage with Stabilizing Woody VegetationAdjusted % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation1. Bed1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units)1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point bars).4. Thalweg Position1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).% Stable, Performing as IntendedNumber with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.3. Meander Pool Condition1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6).2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).2. BankBank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion.Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat.Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.3. Engineered StructuresStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does NOT exceed 15%.Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth Ratio ≥ 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.
Appendix B – Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3. 2020 Photo Station Photos

Reach 1 – Permanent Photo Station 1
Top of Project – Looking Downstream

Reach 1 – Permanent Photo Station 2
Cross Section 1 – Looking Upstream
Appendix B – Visual Assessment Data
Reach 1 – Permanent Photo Station 3
Cross Section 2 – Looking Downstream

Reach 1 – Permanent Photo Station 4
Cross Section 3 – Looking Downstream
Appendix B – Visual Assessment Data
Reach 1 – Permanent Photo Station 5
Cross Section 4 – Looking Upstream

Reach 1 – Permanent Photo Station 6
Cross Section 5 – Looking Downstream
Appendix B – Visual Assessment Data
Reach 1 – Permanent Photo Station 7
Cross Section 6 – Looking Downstream

Reach 1 – Permanent Photo Station 8
Cross Section 7 – Looking Downstream
Appendix B – Visual Assessment Data
Reach 1 – Permanent Photo Station 9
Cross Section 8 – Looking Downstream

Reach 2 – Permanent Photo Station 10
Cross Section 9 – Looking Downstream
Appendix B – Visual Assessment Data
Reach 2 – Permanent Photo Station 11
Cross Section 10 – Looking Downstream

Reach 2 – Permanent Photo Station 12
Cross Section 11 – Looking Downstream
Appendix B – Visual Assessment Data
Reach 2 – Permanent Photo Station 13
Cross Section 12 – Looking Downstream

Reach 3 – Permanent Photo Station 14
Cross Section 13 – Looking Downstream
Appendix B – Visual Assessment Data
Reach 3 – Permanent Photo Station 15
Cross Section 14 – Looking Downstream

Reach 3 – Permanent Photo Station 16
Cross Section 15 – Looking Downstream
Appendix B – Visual Assessment Data
Reach 3 – Permanent Photo Station 17
Cross Section 16 – Looking Downstream

Reach 4 – Permanent Photo Station 18
Cross Section 17 – Looking Downstream
Appendix B – Visual Assessment Data
Reach 4 – Permanent Photo Station 19
Cross Section 18 – Looking Downstream

Reach 4 – Permanent Photo Station 20
Bottom of Project – Looking Upstream

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
(MY5 2019)
Appendix C – Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. MY5 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment

Plot #Planted 
Stems/Acre
Volunteer 
Stems/Acre
Total 
Stems/Acre
Success 
Criteria 
Met?
Average 
Planted Stem 
Height (ft)
1 607 647 1255 Yes 12.3
2 971 324 1295 Yes 5.5
3 567 486 1335 Yes 11.2
4 526 81 607 Yes 6.2
5 526 243 769 Yes 9.2
6 567 202 769 Yes 9.1
7 364 121 486 Yes 8.9
8 526 40 567 Yes 5.1
9 688 162 850 Yes 5.8
10 728 81 809 Yes 12.1
Project Avg 607 239 874 Yes 8.6
Appendix C – Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Appendix C – Vegetation Plot Data Table 9. Total Planted Stem Counts PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all TAcer negundo boxelder Tree 16Asimina triloba pawpaw TreeBetula nigra river birch Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 2 6 6 6Celtis laevigatasugarberry Tree11Celtis occidentalis common hackberry TreeCephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush Shrub111111111Cercis canadensis var. canadeastern redbud TreeFraxinus pennsylvanicagreen ash Tree333228449333666888222Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree852Liriodendron tulipifera var. tTulip‐tree Tree 111111222444Nyssa sylvaticablackgum Tree111111Pinus taedaloblolly pine Tree13Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree11Platanus occidentalis var. ocSycamore Tree 888141414101010444555222333111888Populus deltoides var. deltoeastern cottonwood1 1QuercusoakTreeQuercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 111222111Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oakTree555111111222111111222Quercus nigrawater oak TreeQuercus phellos willow oak Tree 333111111111333222111111Quercus rubranorthern red oak TreeQuercus stellata post oakTreeQuercus velutina black oak TreeRhus copallinum flameleaf sumac shrub511Rhus copallinum var. copalliflameleaf sumac shrubSalix nigrablack willow Tree6 6112Ulmus alatawinged elm Tree1Ulmus americana American elm TreeUlmus rubraslippery elm Tree15 15 31 24 24 32 14 21 33 13 13 15 13 13 19 14 14 19 9 9 12 13 13 14 17 17 21 18 18 205566674610446666555668556556668607 607 1255 971 971 1295 567 850 1335 526 526 607 526 526 769 567 567 769 364 364 486 526 526 567 688 688 850 728 728 809Current Plot Data (MY5 2019)Scientific Name Common Name Species Type001‐01‐0001 001‐01‐0002 001‐01‐0003 001‐01‐0004 001‐01‐0005 001‐01‐0006 001‐01‐0007 001‐01‐0008 001‐01‐0009 001‐01‐0010size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACRE10.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.02601 East10.02Stem countsize (ares)
Appendix C – Vegetation Plot Data     PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all TAcer negundo boxelder Tree 16 26 33Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree 222111222Betula nigra river birch Tree 232323242426333333141414242424Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 2Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree 6Cephalanthus occidentalis buttonbush Shrub 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 6 6 6Cercis canadensis var. canadeastern redbud Tree2Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree28 28 39 29 29 29 27 27 29 3 3 3 3 3 3Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree152019Liriodendron tulipifera var. tTulip‐tree Tree8 8 8 12 12 14 20 20 22 16 16 16 30 30 30Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 222333333333181818Pinus taedaloblolly pine Tree4Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree2Platanus occidentalis var. ocSycamore Tree55 55 55 55 55 59 59 59 59 47 47 47 58 58 58Populus deltoides var. deltoeastern cottonwood11122122133188QuercusoakTree9 9 9121212Quercus lyrataovercup oak Tree4 4 4 4 4 4Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 10 10 1020 20 20Quercus nigrawater oak Tree2 2 2 1 1 1Quercus phellos willow oak Tree13 13 13 10 10 10 8 8 8 5 5 5 26 26 26Quercus rubranorthern red oak Tree1 1 1Quercus stellata post oakTree1 1 1Quercus velutina black oak Tree1 1 1 2 2 2Rhus copallinum flameleaf sumac shrub7Rhus copallinum var. copalliflameleaf sumac shrub1211Salix nigrablack willow Tree1 7 8 1 7 10 1 6 16 5 5Ulmus alatawinged elm Tree1Ulmus americana American elm Tree2Ulmus rubraslippery elm Tree2150 157 216 157 164 243 178 184 263 116 123 123 200 207 20710 11 18 11 11 17 15 15 19 13 14 14 11 11 11607 635 874 635 664 983 720 745 1064 469 498 498 809 838 838MY5 (2019) MY3 (2017) MY2 (2016) MY1 (2015) MY0 (2015)Annual Means100.250.25601 East100.25100.25100.25Species countStems per ACREScientific Name Common Name Species TypeStem countsize (ares)size (ACRES)Color KeyExceeds requirementsFails to meet requirementsVolunteer stems
Appendix C – Vegetation Plot Data
Figure 5. 2019 Vegetation Plot Photos

601 East - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1

601 East - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2

Appendix C – Vegetation Plot Data
601 East - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 3

601 East - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 4

Appendix C – Vegetation Plot Data
601 East - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 5

601 East - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 6

Appendix C – Vegetation Plot Data
601 East - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 7

601 East - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 8

Appendix C – Vegetation Plot Data
601 East - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 9

601 East - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 10

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
(MY5 2019)
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11a. Dimensional Morphology Summary
Table 11b. Stream Reach Data Summary
Figure 6. Cross Section Plots
Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
Charts 1-5. MY5 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Table 13. Bank Pin Array Summary
Appendix D – Stream Geomorphology Data Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Sumary ParameterGaugeDimension and Substrate - RiffleLL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SDnBankfull Width (ft)7 21607.42 9.8811.61108.82 11.45 10.77 15.13 2.23 8Floodprone Width (ft)8 6010118.51 26.4333.5922 28 35 40.00 74.38 69.00 154.00 35.32 8Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.2 0.50.90.68 0.790.970.720.50 0.81 0.77 1.20 0.26 8Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.7 11.41.28 1.782.161.20.87 1.53 1.54 2.07 0.49 8Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)8 11.40.97 1.391.827.24.45 9.27 8.85 14.07 3.48 8Width/Depth Ratio1.1 27478.14 12.9516.8213.98.56 15.45 14.89 25.33 5.40 8Entrenchment Ratio0.4 2.49.52.02 2.43.242.2 2.8 3.5 3.30 6.90 5.62 16.404.19 8Bank Height Ratio0.3420.97 1.391.8210.93 0.98 1.00 1.00 0.03 8d50 (mm)Profile Riffle Length (ft) 2.7 24.9107.35.97 11.2626.7814 23 90 10.04 22.09 18.54 95.26 14.52 32Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.0007 1.7400.015 0.0310.050.021 0.036 0.046 0.015 0.034 0.032 0.064 0.012 32Pool Length (ft)9.03 16.8956.8613.6 20.1331.7414 22 29 13.38 24.28 21.23 65.67 11.47 33Pool Max depth (ft)1 2.43.91.4 1.832.22.21.16 2.19 2.17 3.15 0.38 33Pool Spacing (ft)15.5 5012823.5 36.257.424 36.7 58 31.42 44.63 40.18 116.51 16.87 32Pool Volume (ft3)PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) 10 19.6 25 13 17.33 20 13 18 21 13 18 21Radius of Curvature (ft) 14.5 84 118 16 33 53 16 32.1 52 16 32.1 52Rc: Bankfull width (ft/ft) 1.7 4.6 11.5 4.35 6.04 8.9 4.3 6.1 8.9 4.3 6.1 8.9Meander Wavelength (ft) 36 96 240 43 59.67 88 43 61 89 43 61 89Meander Width Ratio 0.5 0.94 1.7 1.32 1.76 2.03 1.3 1.8 2.1 1.3 1.8 2.1Substrate, bed and transport parametersRi%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% 45.5% 53.6% 26.8% 17.2% 47.9% 8.1% 44.3% 55.7%SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 4.1% 27.3% 67.6% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/disp (mm)2.71 6.72 10.56 24.89 38.23Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2Max part size (mm) Mobilized at bankfullStream Power (transport capacity) W/m2Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM)Impervious cover estimate (%)Rosgen ClassificationBankfull Velocity (fps)Bankfull Discharge (cfs)Valley length (ft)Channel Thalweg length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)BF slope (ft/ft)Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)Proportion over wide (%)Entenchment Class (ER Range)Incision Class (BHR Range)BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or OtherB4/C43784401.161,4381.170.0170.0170.144B4/C4b1,4791.040.01961,4381.170.0170.017B4/C4b3.2G4/B4/C4b3.21,425240.0%Regional CurvePre- Existing ConditionsReference Reach(es) DataDesignAs-built / Baseline0.166Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 1 (1,393 feet)0.0%0.0%
Appendix D – Stream Geomorphology Data ParameterGaugeDimension and Substrate - RiffleLL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SDnBankfull Width (ft) 7 19 21 10 12.2 14.3 12 15.50 19.73 19.63 24.18 3.56 4Floodprone Width (ft) 40 214 60 42 77 11 48 91.5 135 62.00 108.75 102.50 168.00 50.05 4Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.5 1.330.50.92 1.121.340.90.61 0.93 0.90 1.31 0.32 4Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.7 1.911.2 1.62.21.51.49 2.01 2.02 2.53 0.58 4Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)6 21112.2 1313.410.79.43 18.42 19.49 25.26 6.75 4Width/Depth Ratio6.1 38277.7 11.315.613.314.64 23.00 22.13 33.10 8.074Entrenchment Ratio2.2 102.42.9 6.58.63.6 7.6 10 2.56 5.63 5.79 8.39 2.544Bank Height Ratio0.9 1.70.341.1 1.51.710.90 0.96 0.96 1.00 0.05 4d50 (mm)Profile Riffle Length (ft) 10.9 24.919.74.03 14.1813.6114 23 90 12.13 23.38 18.96 50.22 10.70 18Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.00 1.70.040.006 0.020.050.021 0.036 0.046 0.004 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 17Pool Length (ft)11.1 16.89525.418.51 32.1158.0314 22 29 15.06 32.87 29.14 74.26 14.68 17Pool Max depth (ft)1.9 2.44.21.7 2.473.12.51.91 2.87 2.67 4.03 0.59 17Pool Spacing (ft)20 5051229 488438 57 85 32.94 55.57 47.60 110.28 20.48 17Pool Volume (ft3)PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) 12 32 42 25 40 65 25 40 65 25 40 65Radius of Curvature (ft) 68 75 77 20 31 65 38 47 58 38 47 58Rc: Bankfull width (ft/ft) 5.2 5.7 5.9 3.2 3.9 4.8 3.2 3.9 4.8 3.2 3.9 4.8Meander Wavelength (ft) 4670 97 6184 97 61849761 8497Meander Width Ratio 0.9 2.4 3.2 2.1 3.3 5.4 2.1 3.3 5.4 2.1 3.3 5.42.1Substrate, bed and transport parametersRi%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% 12.6% 87.4% 27.2% 3.7% 61.5% 7.6% 39.5% 60.5%SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 0.0% 33.7% 66.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/disp (mm)0.90 4.57 8.92 24.42Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2Max part size (mm) Mobilized at bankfullStream Power (transport capacity) W/m2Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM)Impervious cover estimate (%)Rosgen ClassificationBankfull Velocity (fps)Bankfull Discharge (cfs)Valley length (ft)Channel Thalweg length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)BF slope (ft/ft)Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)Proportion over wide (%)Entenchment Class (ER Range)Incision Class (BHR Range)BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or OtherTable 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 2 (902 feet)Regional Curve Pre- Existing Conditions Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built / Baseline0.0% 0%0.0%47.930.2120.5C4/E4/DAC4C4/E4C4/E42.12.6278303781,4794409459451.011.11.341.340.00690.00690.00690.0069
Appendix D – Stream Geomorphology Data ParameterGaugeDimension and Substrate - RiffleLL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SDnBankfull Width (ft) 65 15.7 29 10 12.2 14.3 17 15.86 17.69 17.66 19.58 1.524Floodprone Width (ft) 150 200 2601.26 42 77 11 150 200 300 75.00 231.25 250.00 350.00 140.50 4Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.5 0.92.10.92 1.121.341.180.79 1.26 1.21 1.84 0.54 4Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.28 1.719.41.2 1.62.221.58 2.51 2.52 3.44 1.064Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)10.5 14.53112.2 1313.42112.85 22.79 21.12 36.08 11.26 4Width/Depth Ratio12.8 17.516.57.7 11.315.614.410.62 15.88 15.27 22.365.98 4Entrenchment Ratio9.6 12.742.9 6.58.68.8 11.8 17.6 4.73 12.74 13.17 19.90 7.31 4Bank Height Ratio1.3 2.21.71.1 1.51.710.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.01 4d50 (mm)Profile Riffle Length (ft) 0.97 10.5823.774.03 14.1813.6115 25 103 10.12 24.10 16.77 110.25 22.07 19Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0 0.20.60.006 0.020.050.008 0.018 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 17Pool Length (ft)7.83 20.8764.9118.51 32.1158.0325 35 50 27.38 35.18 35.18 49.71 6.68 18Pool Max depth (ft)1.8 2.73.41.7 2.473.13.41.93 2.91 2.98 3.50 0.36 18Pool Spacing (ft)8 4812529 488439 66 117 41.11 58.55 54.44 137.89 20.86 18Pool Volume (ft3)PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft) 13 41 58 25 40 65 35 56 92 35 56 92Radius of Curvature (ft) 22.5 49.7 78 20 31 65 27 43 63 27 43 63Rc: Bankfull width (ft/ft) 1.4 3.2 4.9 3.2 3.9 4.8 1.6 2.5 3.7 1.6 2.5 3.7Meander Wavelength (ft) 32 57 89 61 84 97 87 119 134 87 119 134Meander Width Ratio 1.3 2.6 3.7 2.1 3.3 5.4 2.1 3.3 5.4 2.1 3.3 5.42.1Substrate, bed and transport parametersRi%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% 38.0% 62.0% 27.2% 3.7% 61.5% 7.6% 43.0% 57.0%SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 4.0% 51.9% 44.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0%d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/disp (mm)0.8 3.5 5.4 12.8 19.6Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2Max part size (mm) Mobilized at bankfullStream Power (transport capacity) W/m2Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM)Impervious cover estimate (%)Rosgen ClassificationBankfull Velocity (fps)Bankfull Discharge (cfs)Valley length (ft)Channel Thalweg length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)BF slope (ft/ft)Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)Proportion over wide (%)Entenchment Class (ER Range)Incision Class (BHR Range)BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or OtherTable 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary601 East Stream RestorationSite - Reach 3 (1,018 feet)Regional Curve Pre- Existing Conditions Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built / Baseline0.0% 0.0%0.0%0.52 0.5C4-G4 E4/C4 C4 C43.233551,064 1,0641.05 1.2 1.2 1.20.0056 0.00560.0056 0.0056
Appendix D – Stream Geomorphology Data  ParameterGaugeDimension and Substrate - RiffleLL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SDnBankfull Width (ft) 5.2 11.6 20 7.42 9.88 11.61 16 14.93 15.92 15.92 16.911.40 2Floodprone Width (ft) 16 20 25 18.51 26.43 33.59 30 35 40 30.39 36.19 36.1942.00 8.21 2Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.76 0.9 1.1 0.68 0.79 0.97 0.98 0.98 1.37 1.37 1.76 0.55 2Bankfull Max Depth (ft) . 1.2 1.33 1.28 1.78 2.16 1.8 1.49 2.11 2.11 2.72 0.87 2Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)12.3 15 16 0.97 1.39 1.82 15.7 14.70 22.25 22.25 29.81 10.68 2Width/Depth Ratio 7 12.9 18 8.14 12.95 16.82 16.3 9.60 12.38 12.38 15.16 3.93 2Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 1.7 2.2 2.02 2.4 3.24 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.04 2.26 2.26 2.480.32 2Bank Height Ratio 3.3 3.5 4.2 0.97 1.39 1.82 1 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.20 0.14 2d50 (mm)Profile Riffle Length (ft) 0.79 10.58 23.7 5.97 11.26 26.78 15 23 103 15.84 20.829 18.18 28.96 4.77639 9Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0 0.02 0.06 0.015 0.031 0.05 0.021 0.036 0.03 0.018 0.0274 0.0298 0.0382 0.00676 9Pool Length (ft) 7.83 20.7 64.91 13.6 20.13 31.74 14 22 42 30.82 35.01 35.78 38.85 3.12426 9Pool Max depth (ft) 2 2.5 3.2 1.4 1.83 2.2 2.2 1.997 2.8154 2.753 3.392 0.39095 9Pool Spacing (ft) 12 29 55 23.5 36.257.4 38 59 93 49.77 56.111 54.805 69.266.24406 83Pool Volume (ft3)PatternChannel Beltwidth (ft)12 328213 17.332021 28 32 2128 32Radius of Curvature (ft)18 34.96116 335326 52 84 2652 84Rc: Bankfull width (ft/ft)1.6 35.34.35 6.048.9162 3.25 5.25 1623.25 5.25Meander Wavelength (ft)30 5611343 59.678869 97 142 6997 142Meander Width Ratio1.1 2.87.21.321.762.031.32 1.76 2.03 1.321.76 2.03Substrate, bed and transport parametersRi%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%19.9%80.1%26.8% 17.2% 47.9% 8.1%39.1% 65.6%SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/disp (mm)Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2Max part size (mm) Mobilized at bankfullStream Power (transport capacity) W/m2Additional Reach ParametersDrainage Area (SM)Impervious cover estimate (%)Rosgen ClassificationBankfull Velocity (fps)Bankfull Discharge (cfs)Valley length (ft)Channel Thalweg length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)BF slope (ft/ft)Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)Proportion over wide (%)Entenchment Class (ER Range)Incision Class (BHR Range)BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%/VH%/E%Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or OtherTable 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 4 (495 feet)Regional Curve Pre- Existing Conditions Reference Reach(es) Data Design As-built / Baseline0.0%0.0%0.0%0.56 0.144G4 B4/C4 B4 B443.27 3.2755378440 465 4651.04 1.16 1.13 1.130.0114 0.01140.0114 0.0114
DimensionBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1544.82 544.82 544.82 544.82N/A540.40 540.40 540.40 540.40 541.09537.87 537.87 537.87 537.87N/A533.69 533.69 533.69 533.69 533.58Bankfull Width (ft)113.6 15.1 15.1 14.7N/A15.1 14.7 15.2 15.25.69.4 9.5 9.3 9.2N/A8.8 9.1 9.4 9.212.9Floodprone Width (ft)145.0 >45.0 >45.0 >45.0N/A77.0 >77.0 >77.0 >77.0>19.5154.0 >154.0 >154.0 >154.0N/A75.0 >75.0 >75.0 >75.0>22.2Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9---0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6---0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9---0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6---Bankfull Max Depth (ft)22.1 2.2 2.2 2.11.11.2 1.2 1.2 1.10.91.8 1.7 1.8 1.81.10.9 0.9 1.1 1.00.7Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)214.1 13.7 14.3 13.43.79.0 8.0 8.0 8.83.48.7 8.5 8.8 8.53.34.5 4.8 5.8 5.12.6Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 13.2 16.6 15.9 16.2---25.3 27.0 28.9 26.2---10.2 10.7 9.8 9.9---17.5 17.1 15.3 16.7---Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio110.3 >3.0 >3.0 N/AN/A9.3 >5.2 >5.1 >5.1>3.514.9 >14.6 >16.6 N/AN/A15.9 >8.3 >8.0 >8.21.7Bankfull Bank Height Ratio11.0 1.0 1.0 N/AN/A1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7<11.0 1.0 1.0 N/AN/A0.9 1.0 1.0 0.7<1d50 (mm) N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/A 8.3 0.0620.0620.062N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/A 22.0 17.028.022.0DimensionBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1530.49 530.49 530.49 530.49N/A528.11 528.11 528.11 528.11 528.18525.02 525.02 525.02 525.02N/A522.48 522.48 522.48 522.48 522.33Bankfull Width (ft)112.9 12.1 12.0 13.2N/A11.3 11.3 11.3 11.110.510.3 11.4 10.3 10.8N/A10.1 8.8 9.2 9.09.5Floodprone Width (ft)161.0 >61.0 >61.0 >61.0N/A80.0 >80.0 >80.0 >80.0>22.863.0 >63.0 >63.0 >63.0N/A40.0 >40.0 >40.0 >40.0>21.6Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0---0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6---1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0---0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7---Bankfull Max Depth (ft)22.0 1.8 1.8 1.91.11.3 1.3 1.4 1.31.32.0 2.0 2.1 1.91.31.0 1.0 1.0 1.00.8Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)212.8 11.0 11.2 12.84.26.6 6.6 7.2 6.95.612.3 11.2 10.4 9.94.76.2 5.6 5.8 5.94.6Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 13.0 13.2 12.9 13.6---19.3 19.5 17.9 17.9---8.6 11.5 10.3 11.8---16.6 13.9 14.7 13.7---Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio117.4 >5.1 >5.1 N/AN/A9.7 >7.1 >7.1 >7.2>2.210.7 >5.5 >6.1 N/AN/A10.9 >4.5 >4.3 >4.5>2.3Bankfull Bank Height Ratio10.9 1.0 1.0 N/AN/A1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9<11.0 1.0 1.0 N/AN/A1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8<1d50 (mm) N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/A 26.0 2.64.00.062N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/A 0.062 0.06270.026.0601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 1PoolCross-Section 2 Cross-Section 3 Cross-Section 4Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers. Table 11a. Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)Cross-Section 1Cross-Section 7Cross-Section 5 Cross-Section 6Pool Riffle PoolCross-Section 8RiffleRiffle Pool Riffle
DimensionBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1517.50 517.50 517.50 517.50517.63516.22 516.22 516.22 516.22N/A515.16 515.16 515.16 515.16514.92513.68 513.68 513.68 513.68N/ABankfull Width (ft)124.2 24.3 24.4 23.025.419.2 19.7 19.7 20.8N/A15.5 15.8 14.1 17.316.320.0 20.6 20.6 20.7N/AFloodprone Width (ft)162.0 >62.0 >62.0 >62.0>29.5132.0 >132.0 >132.0 >132.0N/A73.0 >73.0 >73.0 >73.0>25.2168.0 >168.0 >168.0 >168.0N/ABankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7---1.3 1.2 1.2 1.0---0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6---1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2---Bankfull Max Depth (ft)21.5 1.4 1.4 1.40.82.5 2.6 2.6 2.01.91.5 1.3 1.5 1.31.52.5 2.4 2.6 2.81.9Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)217.7 16.5 17.5 15.23.825.3 24.4 23.1 20.112.19.4 8.6 8.3 9.86.721.3 21.4 23.1 24.59.4Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 33.1 35.6 34.2 34.8---14.6 16.0 16.8 21.5---25.5 28.9 23.8 30.5---18.8 19.9 18.4 17.4---Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio15.8 >2.6 >2.5 >2.7>1.211.7 >6.7 >6.7 N/AN/A7.1 >4.6 >5.2 >4.2>1.57.0 >8.1 >8.2 N/AN/ABankfull Bank Height Ratio11.0 1.0 1.0 1.0<11.0 1.0 1.0 N/AN/A0.9 1.0 1.0 0.7<10.9 1.0 1.0 N/AN/Ad50 (mm) N/A 0.062 5.82.3N/AN/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/A 0.062 0.0621716.0N/A N/A N/A N/AN/ANote: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers. Table 11a cont'd. Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 2Cross-Section 9Cross-Section 10Cross-Section 11Cross-Section 12RifflePoolRifflePool
DimensionBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1497.88 497.88 497.88 497.88 497.88495.50 495.50 495.50 495.50N/A494.42 494.42 494.42 494.42N/A493.73 493.73 493.73 493.73 493.73Bankfull Width (ft)115.9 16.9 17.5 17.11617.6 18.4 17.9 18.2N/A19.6 21.1 20.5 19.4N/A17.7 17.5 18.3 16.717.9Floodprone Width (ft)175.0 >75.0 >75.0 >75.0>23.3350.0 >350.0 >350.0 >350N/A350.0 >350.0 >350.0 >350.0N/A150.0 >150.0 150.0 >150.0>20.4Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7---1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6---1.8 1.6 1.5 1.7---0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8---Bankfull Max Depth (ft)21.6 1.7 1.8 1.81.23.4 3.1 3.4 3.52.13.4 3.3 3.3 3.33.11.6 1.6 1.7 1.60.9Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)212.8 13.6 12.2 12.65.628.2 28.0 28.7 29.711.536.1 34.4 31.5 32.42914.1 12.9 14.8 14.03.7Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 19.6 21.0 25.0 23.1---11.0 12.0 11.2 11.2---10.6 13.0 13.3 11.6---22.4 23.8 22.5 19.8---Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio18.8 >4.4 >4.3 >4.4>1.512.8 >19.1 >19.6 N/AN/A5.6 >16.6 >17.1 N/AN/A7.9 >8.5 >8.2 >9.0>1.1Bankfull Bank Height Ratio11.0 1.0 1.0 1.0<11.0 1.0 1.0 N/AN/A1.0 1.0 1.0 N/AN/A1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8<1d50 (mm) N/A 20 9.185.010.0N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/A 31.0 3.362.09.4Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers. Table 11a cont'd. Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)601 East Stream Restoration Site -Reach 3Cross-Section 13Cross-Section 14Cross-Section 15Cross-Section 16RifflePoolPoolRiffle
DimensionBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1489.11 489.11 489.11 489.11N/A490.01 490.01 490.01 490.01 489.99Bankfull Width (ft)116.9 17.2 17.2 18.1N/A14.9 14.6 14.1 14.614.3Floodprone Width (ft)142.0 >42.0 >42.0 >42.0N/A30.4 >31.0 >31.0 >31.0>32.1Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7---1.0 1.0 1.0 1---Bankfull Max Depth (ft)22.7 2.9 2.9 2.92.31.5 1.6 1.7 1.81.7Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)229.8 29.1 28.7 31.322.814.7 14.5 14.0 1513.7Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 9.6 10.2 10.3 10.4---15.2 14.6 14.2 14.3---Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio12.5 >2.4 >2.4 N/AN/A2.0 >2.1 >2.2 >2.1>2.2Bankfull Bank Height Ratio11.2 1.1 1.1 N/AN/A1.0 1.0 1.0 0.81.0d50 (mm) N/A N/A N/A N/AN/AN/A 47 4.212.017.0Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers. Table 11a cont'd. Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)601 East Stream Restoration Site -Reach 4Cross-Section 17Cross-Section 18PoolRiffle
ParameterDimension & Substrate - RiffleMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBankfull Width (ft)18.8 11.4 10.8 15.1 2.2 8 9.1 11.3 10.8 14.7 2.4 4 9.2 11.3 10.4 15.2 2.8 4 9.0 11.1 10.2 15.2 2.9 45.6 9.6 10.0 12.9 3.0 4Floodprone Width (ft)140.0 74.4 69.0 154.0 35.3 8 40.0 68.0 76.0 80.0 18.8 4 40.0 68.0 76.0 80.0 18.8 4 40.0 68.0 76.0 80.0 18.8 419.5 21.5 21.9 22.8 1.4 4Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.2 0.3 8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1 4 0.5 0.6 0.60.60.040.60.60.60.70.14------Bankfull Max Depth (ft)20.9 1.5 1.5 2.1 0.5 8 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.3 0.2 4 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.4 0.1 4 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.3 0.1 40.7 0.9 0.9 1.3 0.3 4Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)24.5 9.3 8.9 14.1 3.5 8 4.8 6.3 6.2 8.0 1.4 4 5.8 6.7 6.5 8.0 1.1 4 5.1 6.7 6.4 8.8 1.6 42.6 4.1 4.0 5.6 1.3 4Width/Depth Ratio 8.6 15.4 14.9 25.3 5.4 8 17.1 20.5 18.9 27.0 4.5 4 14.7 19.2 16.6 28.9 6.6 4 9.9 18.6 17.3 26.2 5.4 4------Entrenchment Ratio13.3 6.9 5.6 16.4 4.2 8 3.9 6.1 6.2 8.3 2.0 4 4.3 6.1 6.1 8.0 1.7 4 4.5 6.3 6.2 8.2 1.7 41.7 2.4 2.3 3.5 0.8 4Bank Height Ratio10.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.1 41.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4Riffle Length (ft) 10.0 22.1 18.5 95.3 14.5 32Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.015 0.034 0.032 0.064 0.0 32Pool Length (ft) 13.4 24.3 21.2 65.7 11.5 33Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.2 2.2 2.2 3.2 0.4 33Pool Spacing (ft) 31.4 44.6 40.2 116.5 16.9 32Channel Belt Width (ft) 13.0 - 18.0 21.0 - -Radius of Curvature (ft) 16.0 - 32.1 52.0 - -Rc: Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 4.30 - 6.10 8.90 - -Meander Wavelength (ft) 43.0 - 61.0 89.0 - -Meander Width Ratio 1.3 - 1.8 2.1 - -Rosgen ClassificationChannel Thalweg Length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% 44.3% - 55.7% - -N/A - Information does not applyRi = Riffle / Ru = Run / P = Pool / G = Glide / S = StepBaseline based on riffle and pool dimensions - MY1-7 based solely on riffle dimensionNote: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull elevation and the parameters denoted wit2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation provideMY - 61,4381.170.01700.0170B4/C4bPatternAdditional Reach ParametersMY - 7Table 11b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary601 East - Reach 1 (1393 feet) XS 2, 4, 6, 8ProfileMY - 3MY - 4MY - 5BaselineMY - 1MY - 2
ParameterDimension & Substrate - RiffleMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBankfull Width (ft)115.5 19.7 19.6 24.2 3.6 4 15.8 20.1 20.1 24.3 6.0 2 14.1 19.2 19.2 24.4 7.3 2 17.3 20.2 20.2 23.0 4.0 216.3 20.9 20.9 25.4 6.4 2Floodprone Width (ft)162.0 108.8 102.5 168.0 50.0 4 62.0 67.5 67.5 73.0 7.8 2 62.0 67.5 67.5 73.0 7.8 2 62.0 67.5 67.5 73.0 7.8 225.2 27.4 27.4 29.5 3.0 2Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.3 0.3 4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.1 2 0.6 0.7 0.70.70.120.60.70.70.70.12------Bankfull Max Depth (ft)21.5 2.0 2.0 2.5 0.6 4 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.1 2 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.0 2 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.1 20.8 1.2 1.2 1.5 0.5 2Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)29.4 18.4 19.5 25.3 6.7 4 8.6 12.6 12.6 16.5 5.6 2 8.3 12.9 12.9 17.5 6.5 2 9.8 12.5 12.5 15.2 3.8 23.8 5.3 5.3 6.7 2.1 2Width/Depth Ratio 14.6 23.0 22.1 33.1 8.1 4 28.9 32.3 32.3 35.6 4.7 2 23.8 29.0 29.0 34.2 7.4 2 30.5 32.7 32.7 34.8 3.0 2------Entrenchment Ratio12.6 5.6 5.8 8.4 2.5 4 2.6 3.6 3.6 4.6 1.4 2 2.5 3.9 3.9 5.2 1.9 2 2.7 3.5 3.5 4.2 1.1 21.2 1.4 1.4 1.5 0.2 2Bank Height Ratio10.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.2 21.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2Riffle Length (ft) 12.1 23.4 19.0 50.2 10.7 18Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.004 0.019 0.015 0.036 0.010 17Pool Length (ft) 15.1 32.9 29.1 74.3 14.7 17Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.9 2.9 2.7 4.0 0.6 17Pool Spacing (ft) 32.9 55.6 47.6 110.3 20.5 17Channel Belt Width (ft) 25.0 - 40.0 65.0 - -Radius of Curvature (ft) 38.0 - 47.0 58.0 - -Rc: Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 3.20 - 3.90 4.80 - -Meander Wavelength (ft) 61.0 - 84.0 97.0 - -Meander Width Ratio 2.1 - 3.3 5.4 - -Rosgen ClassificationChannel Thalweg Length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% 39.5% - 60.5% - -N/A - Information does not apply.Ri = Riffle / Ru = Run / P = Pool / G = Glide / S = StepBaseline based on riffle and pool dimensions - MY1-7 based solely on riffle dimensionsNote: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers. Table 11b cont'd. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary601 East - Reach 2 (902 feet) XS 9, 10ProfilePattern9450.00690.00691.34C4/E4Additional Reach ParametersBaselineMY - 1MY - 2MY - 3MY - 4MY - 5MY - 6MY - 7
ParameterDimension & Substrate - RiffleMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBankfull Width (ft)115.9 17.7 17.7 19.6 1.5 4 16.9 17.2 17.2 17.5 0.4 2 17.5 17.9 17.9 18.3 0.6 2 16.7 16.9 16.9 17.1 0.3 216.0 17.0 17.0 17.9 1.3 2Floodprone Width (ft)175.0 231.3 250.0 350.0 140.5 4 75.0 112.5 112.5 150.0 53.0 2 75.0 112.5 112.5 150.0 53.0 2 75.0 112.5 112.5 150.0 53.0 220.4 21.9 21.9 23.3 2.1 2Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.8 1.3 1.2 1.8 0.5 4 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.1 2 0.7 0.8 0.80.80.120.70.80.80.80.12------Bankfull Max Depth (ft)21.6 2.5 2.5 3.4 1.1 4 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.1 2 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.0 2 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 0.1 20.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.2 2Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)212.8 22.8 21.1 36.1 11.3 4 12.9 13.3 13.3 13.6 0.5 2 12.2 13.5 13.5 14.8 1.8 2 12.6 13.3 13.3 14.0 1.0 23.7 4.7 4.7 5.6 1.3 2Width/Depth Ratio 10.6 15.9 15.3 22.4 6.0 4 21.0 22.4 22.4 23.8 2.0 2 22.5 23.8 23.8 25.0 1.8 2 19.8 21.5 21.5 23.1 2.3 2------Entrenchment Ratio14.7 12.7 13.2 19.9 7.3 4 4.4 6.5 6.5 8.5 2.9 2 4.3 6.3 6.3 8.2 2.8 2 4.4 6.7 6.7 9.0 3.3 21.1 1.3 1.3 1.5 0.3 2Bank Height Ratio11.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.1 21.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2Riffle Length (ft) 10.1 24.1 16.8 110.3 22.1 19Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.00 0.018 0.015 0.041 0.011 17Pool Length (ft) 27.4 35.2 35.2 49.7 6.7 18Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.9 2.9 3.0 3.5 0.4 18Pool Spacing (ft) 41.1 58.5 54.4 137.9 20.9 18Channel Belt Width (ft) 35.0 - 56.0 92.0 - -Radius of Curvature (ft) 27.0 - 43.0 63.0 - -Rc: Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.6 - 2.5 3.7 - -Meander Wavelength (ft) 87.0 - 119.0 134.0 - -Meander Width Ratio 2.1 - 3.3 5.4 - -Rosgen ClassificationChannel Thalweg Length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% 43.0% - 57.0% - -N/A - Information does not apply.Ri = Riffle / Ru = Run / P = Pool / G = Glide / S = StepBaseline based on riffle and pool dimensions - MY1-7 based solely on riffle dimensionsNote: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers. Table 11b cont'd. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary601 East - Reach 3 (1018 feet) XS 13, 16ProfilePattern10640.00560.00561.2C4Additional Reach ParametersBaselineMY - 1MY - 2MY - 3MY - 4MY - 5MY - 6MY - 7
ParameterDimension & Substrate - RiffleMin Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD nBankfull Width (ft)114.9 15.9 15.9 16.9 1.4 2 - 14.6 - - N/A 1 - 14.1 - - N/A 1 - 14.6 - - N/A 1- 14.3 - - N/A 1.0Floodprone Width (ft)130.4 36.2 36.2 42.0 8.2 2 - 31.0 - - N/A 1 - 31.0 - - N/A 1 - 31.0 - - N/A 1- >32.1 - - N/A 1.0Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.8 0.5 2 - 1.0 - - N/A 1 - 1.0 - - N/A 1 - 1.0 - - N/A 1- --- - - N/A 1.0Bankfull Max Depth (ft)21.5 2.1 2.1 2.7 0.9 2 - 1.6 - - N/A 1 - 1.7 - - N/A 1 - 1.8 - - N/A 1- 1.70 - - N/A 1.0Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)214.7 22.3 22.3 29.8 10.7 2 - 14.5 - - N/A 1 - 14.0 - - N/A 1 - 15.0 - - N/A 1- 13.7 - - N/A 1.0Width/Depth Ratio 9.6 12.4 12.4 15.2 3.9 2 - 15.6 - - N/A 1 - 14.2 - - N/A 1 - 14.3 - - N/A 1- --- - - N/A 1.0Entrenchment Ratio12.0 2.3 2.3 2.5 0.3 2 - 2.1 - - N/A 1 - 2.2 - - N/A 1 - 2.1 - - N/A 1- >2.2 - - N/A 1.0Bank Height Ratio11.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.1 2 - 1.0 - - N/A 1 - 1.0 - - N/A 1 - 0.8 - - N/A 1- 1.00 - - N/A 1.0Riffle Length (ft) 15.8 20.8 18.2 29.0 4.8 9Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.018 0.027 0.030 0.038 0.007 9Pool Length (ft) 30.8 35.0 35.8 38.8 3.1 9Pool Max Depth (ft) 2.0 2.8 2.8 3.4 0.4 9Pool Spacing (ft) 49.8 56.1 54.8 69.3 6.2 8Channel Belt Width (ft) 21.0 - 28.0 32.0 - -Radius of Curvature (ft) 26.0 - 52.0 84.0 - -Rc: Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 162.0 - 3.3 5.3 - -Meander Wavelength (ft) 69.0 - 97.0 142.0 - -Meander Width Ratio 1.3 - 1.8 2.0 - -Rosgen ClassificationChannel Thalweg Length (ft)Sinuosity (ft)Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% 39.1% - 65.6% - -N/A - Information does not applyRi = Riffle / Ru = Run / P = Pool / G = Glide / S = StepBaseline based on riffle and pool dimensions - MY1-7 based solely on riffle dimensionNote: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the 2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers. Table 11b cont'd. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary601 East - Reach 4 (495 feet) XS 18ProfilePattern4650.01140.01141.13B4Additional Reach ParametersBaselineMY - 1MY - 2MY - 3MY - 4MY - 5MY - 6MY - 7
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
13.6 15.1 15.1 14.7 - N/A - -
45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 - N/A - -
1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 - --- - -
2.1 2.2 2.2 2.1 - 1.1 - -
14.1 13.7 14.3 13.4 - 3.7 - -
13.2 16.6 15.9 16.2 - --- - -
10.3 3.0 3.0 N/A - N/A - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A - N/A - -
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Entrenchment Ratio1
Upstream Downstream
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Bank Height Ratio1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
542
543
544
545
546
036912151821242730Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East- Reach 1 - Cross Section 1 - Pool
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
15.1 14.7 15.2 15.2 - 5.6 - -
77.0 77.0 77.0 77.0 - >19.5 - -
0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 - --- - -
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 - 0.9 - -
9.0 8.0 8.0 8.8 - 3.4 - -
25.3 27.0 28.9 26.2 - --- - -
9.3 5.2 5.1 5.1 - >3.5 - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 - <1 - -
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Downstream
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio1
Bank Height Ratio1
Upstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
539
540
541
542
543
0 3 6 9 12151821242730Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East- Reach 1 - Cross Section 2 - Riffle
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Low TOB Floodprone Area
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
9.4 9.5 9.3 9.2 - N/A - -
154.0 154.0 154.0 154.0 - N/A - -
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 - --- - -
1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 - 1.1 - -
8.7 8.5 8.8 8.5 - 3.3 - -
10.2 10.7 9.8 9.9 - --- - -
14.9 14.6 16.6 N/A - N/A - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A - N/A - -
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Downstream
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio1
Bank Height Ratio1
Upstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
536
537
538
539
540
0 3 6 9 12151821242730Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 3 - Pool
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
8.8 9.1 9.4 9.2 - 12.9 - -
75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 - >22.2 - -
0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 - --- - -
0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 - 0.7 - -
4.5 4.8 5.8 5.1 - 2.6 - -
17.5 17.1 15.3 16.7 - --- - -
15.9 8.3 8.0 8.2 - 1.7 - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 - <1 - -
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Downstream
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio1
Bank Height Ratio1
Upstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
532
533
534
535
536
0 3 6 9 12151821242730Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 4 - Riffle
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
12.9 12.1 12.0 13.2 - N/A - -
61.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 - N/A - -
1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 - --- - -
2.0 1.8 1.8 1.9 - 1.1 - -
12.8 11.0 11.2 12.8 - 4.2 - -
13.0 13.2 12.9 13.6 - --- - -
17.4 5.1 5.1 N/A - N/A - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A - N/A - -
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Downstream
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio1
Bank Height Ratio1
Upstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
528
529
530
531
532
0 3 6 9 12151821242730Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 5 - Pool
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
11.3 11.3 11.3 11.1 - 10.5 - -
80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0 - >22.8 - -
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 - --- - -
1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 - 1.3 - -
6.6 6.6 7.2 6.9 - 5.6 - -
19.3 19.5 17.9 17.9 - --- - -
9.7 7.1 7.1 7.2 - >2.2 - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 - <1 - -
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Downstream
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio1
Bank Height Ratio1
Upstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
526
527
528
529
530
0 3 6 9 12151821242730Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 6 - Riffle
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
10.3 11.4 10.3 10.8 - N/A - -
63.0 63.0 63.0 63.0 - N/A - -
1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 - --- - -
2.0 2.0 2.1 1.9 - 1.3 - -
12.3 11.2 10.4 9.9 - 4.7 - -
8.6 11.5 10.3 11.8 - --- - -
10.7 5.5 6.1 N/A - N/A - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A - N/A - -
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Downstream
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio1
Bank Height Ratio1
Upstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
522.5
523.5
524.5
525.5
526.5
0 3 6 9 12151821242730Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 7 - Pool
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
10.1 8.8 9.2 9.0 - 9.5 - -
40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 - >21.6 - -
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 - --- - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 0.8 - -
6.2 5.6 5.8 5.9 - 4.6 - -
16.6 13.9 14.7 13.7 - --- - -
10.9 4.5 4.3 4.5 - >2.3 - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 - <1 - -
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Downstream
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio1
Bank Height Ratio1
Upstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
521
522
523
524
525
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 8 - Riffle
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
24.2 24.3 24.4 23.0 - 25.4 - -
62.0 62.0 62.0 62.0 - >29.5 - -
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 - --- - -
1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 - 0.8 - -
17.7 16.5 17.5 15.2 - 3.8 - -
33.1 35.6 34.2 34.8 - --- - -
5.8 2.6 2.5 2.7 - >1.2 - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - <1 - -
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Bank Height Ratio1
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio1
515.5
516.5
517.5
518.5
519.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East - Reach 2 - Cross Section 9 - Riffle
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
19.2 19.7 19.7 20.8 - N/A - -
132.0 132.0 132.0 132.0 - N/A - -
1.3 1.2 1.2 1.0 - --- - -
2.5 2.6 2.6 2.0 - 1.9 - -
25.3 24.4 23.1 20.1 - 12.1 - -
14.6 16.0 16.8 21.5 - --- - -
11.7 6.7 6.7 N/A - N/A - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A - N/A - -
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Downstream
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio1
Bank Height Ratio1
Upstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
513.5
514.5
515.5
516.5
517.5
0 3 6 9 12151821242730Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East - Reach 2 - Cross Section 10 - Pool
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
15.5 15.8 14.1 17.3 - 16.3 - -
73.0 73.0 73.0 73.0 - >25.2 - -
0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 - --- - -
1.5 1.3 1.5 1.3 - 1.5 - -
9.4 8.6 8.3 9.8 - 6.7 - -
25.5 28.9 23.8 30.5 - --- - -
7.1 4.6 5.2 4.2 - >1.5 - -
0.9 1.0 1.0 0.7 - <1 - -
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Downstream
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio1
Bank Height Ratio1
Upstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
513
514
515
516
517
0 3 6 9 12151821242730Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East - Reach 2 - Cross Section 11 - Riffle
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
20.0 20.6 20.6 20.7 - N/A - -
168.0 168.0 168.0 168.0 - N/A - -
1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 - --- - -
2.5 2.4 2.6 2.8 - 1.9 - -
21.3 21.4 23.1 24.5 - 9.4 - -
18.8 19.9 18.4 17.4 - --- - -
7.0 8.1 8.2 N/A - N/A - -
0.9 1.0 1.0 N/A - N/A - -
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Downstream
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio1
Bank Height Ratio1
Upstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
510.5
511.5
512.5
513.5
514.5
0 3 6 9 12151821242730Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East - Reach 2 - Cross Section 12 - Pool
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
15.9 16.9 17.5 17.1 - 16.0 - -
75.0 75.0 75.0 75.0 - >23.3 - -
0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 - --- - -
1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 - 1.2 - -
12.8 13.6 12.2 12.6 - 5.6 - -
19.6 21.0 25.0 23.1 - --- - -
8.8 4.4 4.3 4.4 - >1.5 - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - <1 - -
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Downstream
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio1
Bank Height Ratio1
Upstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
496
497
498
499
500
0 3 6 9 12151821242730Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East - Reach 3 - Cross Section 13 - Riffle
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
17.5 18.4 17.9 18.2 - N/A - -
350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 - N/A - -
1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6 - --- - -
3.4 3.1 3.4 3.5 - 2.1 - -
28.2 28.0 28.7 29.7 - 11.5 - -
11.0 12.0 11.2 11.2 - --- - -
12.8 19.1 19.6 N/A - N/A - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A - N/A - -
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Downstream
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio1
Bank Height Ratio1
Upstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
491.5
492.5
493.5
494.5
495.5
496.5
0 3 6 9 12151821242730Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East - Reach 3 - Cross Section 14 - Pool
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
19.6 21.1 20.5 19.4 - N/A - -
350.0 350.0 350.0 350.0 - N/A - -
1.8 1.6 1.5 1.7 - --- - -
3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 - 3.1 - -
36.1 34.4 31.5 32.4 - 29.0 - -
10.6 13.0 13.3 11.6 - --- - -
5.6 16.6 17.1 N/A - N/A - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A - N/A - -
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Downstream
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio1
Bank Height Ratio1
Upstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
490.5
491.5
492.5
493.5
494.5
495.5
0 3 6 9 12151821242730Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East - Reach 3 - Cross Section 15 - Pool
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
17.7 17.5 18.3 16.7 - 17.9 - -
150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 - >20.4 - -
0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 - --- - -
1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 - 0.9 - -
14.1 12.9 14.8 14.0 - 3.7 - -
22.4 23.8 22.5 19.8 - --- - -
7.9 8.5 8.2 9.0 - >1.1 - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 - <1 - -
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Downstream
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio1
Bank Height Ratio1
Upstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
491.5
492.5
493.5
494.5
495.5
0 3 6 9 12151821242730Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East - Reach 3 - Cross Section 16 - Riffle
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
16.9 17.2 17.2 18.1 - N/A - -
42.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 - N/A - -
1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 - --- - -
2.7 2.9 2.9 2.9 - 2.3 - -
29.8 29.1 28.7 31.3 - 22.8 - -
9.6 10.2 10.3 10.4 - --- - -
2.5 2.4 2.4 N/A - N/A - -
1.2 1.1 1.1 N/A - N/A - -
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Downstream
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio1
Bank Height Ratio1
Upstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
486.5
487.5
488.5
489.5
490.5
491.5
492.5
493.5
0369121518212427303336394245Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East - Reach 4 - Cross Section 17 - Pool
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
MY0 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
14.9 14.6 14.1 14.6 - 14.3 - -
30.4 31.0 31.0 31.0 - >32.1 - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - --- - -
1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 - 1.7 - -
14.7 14.5 14.0 15.0 - 13.7 - -
15.2 14.6 14.2 14.3 - --- - -
2.1 2.1 2.2 2.1 - >2.2 - -
1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 - 1.0 - -
Note: Starting in MY5, the parameters denoted with 1 were calculated using the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting the bankfull
elevation and the parameters denoted with 2 were calculated using the current years low top of bank as the bankfull elevation. These changes reflect the
2018 guidance that arose from the mitigation technical workgroup consisting of DMS, the IRT, and industry mitigation providers.
Downstream
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft2)2
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio1
Bank Height Ratio1
Upstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
Bankful Width (ft)1
Floodprone Width (ft)1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
0369121518212427303336394245Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)
601 East - Reach 4 - Cross Section 18 - Riffle
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low TOB
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Appendix D – Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 12. Pebble County Data Summary

Charts 1-5. MY5 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Chart 1.

D50 (mm) D84 (mm) D50 (mm) D84 (mm) D50 (mm) D84 (mm) D50 (mm) D84 (mm) D50 (mm) D84 (mm) D50 (mm) D84 (mm) D50 (mm) D84 (mm)
Reach 1 14.1 48.8 4.9 25.6 25.5 87.3 4.8 48.3 12.0 28.8
Reach 2 0.062 61 2.9 34.1 9.7 20 5.5 30.9 16.0 58.0
Reach 3 27 79.5 6.2 39.5 73.5 140 26.5 72.0 9.7 70.5
Reach 4 47 110 4.2 66 12 95 12.0 95.0 17.0 63.0
Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
601 East
Stream Reach
MY1 - 2015 MY2 - 2016 MY3 - 2017 MY4 - 2018 MY5 - 2019 MY6 - 2020 MY7 - 2021
Pebble CountPebble CountPebble Count Pebble Count Pebble Count Pebble Count Pebble Count
Appendix D – Stream Geomorphology Data
Chart 2.

Chart 3.

Appendix D – Stream Geomorphology Data
Chart 4.

Chart 5.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Reading (mm) Reading (mm) Reading (mm) Reading (mm) Reading (mm)
*A beaver dam directly downstream caused unusually high water and localized bank erosion.
Table 13. Bank Pin Array Summary
601 E Stream Mitigattion Site
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS-17
Upstream 0.0 0.0 50.8*
At Cross-Section 0.0 0.0 0.0
Downstream 0.0 0.0 177.8*
XS-15
Upstream 0.0 0.0 0.0
At Cross-Section 0.0 0.0 0.0
Downstream 0.0 0.0 0.0
XS-14
Upstream 0.0 0.0 0.0
At Cross-Section 0.0 0.0 0.0
Downstream 0.0 0.0 0.0
XS-12
Upstream 0.0 0.0 0.0
At Cross-Section 0.0 0.0 0.0
Downstream 0.0 0.0 0.0
XS-10 At Cross-Section
Downstream
Upstream
At Cross-Section
Downstream
At Cross-Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Upstream
0.0 0.0 0.0
Downstream 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Bank Pin Location Position
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream 0.0
0.0
0.0
12.7
XS-5
XS-7
XS-1
Upstream
At Cross-Section
0.0
0.0
Upstream 0.0
XS-3
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
35.6 0.0
At Cross-Section 0.0 0.0 0.0
Appendix E
Hydrology Data
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull and Stream Flow Events
Table 15. 2020 Rainfall Summary
Appendix E – Hydrology Data
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull and Stream Flow Events

Table 15. Rainfall Summary

Year Number of Bankfull Events Maximum Bankfull Height (ft) Date o f Occurrence
MY1 2015 1 Unknown 9/30/2015
MY2 2016 1 1.40 2/16/2016
MY3 2017 3 2.50 4/24/2017
MY4 2018 1 0.66 9/16/2018
MY5 2019 NA NA NA
MY6 2020 5 1.82 5/27/2020
MY1 2015 0 ------
MY2 2016 1 0.20 Unknown
MY3 2017 3 1.40 6/20/2017
MY4 2018 1 0.79 9/16/2018
MY5 2019 NA NA NA
MY6 2020 8 0.95 5/27/2020
MY5 gauges failed due to ant infestations
MY6 HOBOs were installed and used in place of cork gauges
Year Consecutive Flow Days Total Flow Days Number of Flow Events
MY6 2020 58 113 7
FG installed on 6/3/2020
SR Reach 3
FG Reach 1
SR Reach 2
30
Percent
70
Percent
January 4.07 2.74 4.87 4.87
February 3.49 2.39 4.17 3.45
March 4.45 3.10 5.29 3.62
April 3.07 1.82 3.72 4.24
May 3.47 2.22 4.18 11.77
June 4.57 2.91 5.50 3.47
July 4.50 2.90 5.42 3.68
August 4.71 2.78 5.18 5.15
September 4.24 2.02 5.18 5.25
October 3.81 2.00 4.57 5.17
November 3.33 1.90 4.05 0.88
December 3.85 2.56 4.62 ---
Total 47.56 29.34 56.75 51.55
Month Average
Normal Limits Pageland Station
Precipitation
0123456789101112131415161718012306/04/2007/04/2008/03/2009/02/2010/02/2011/01/20Rainfall (in)Water Depth (ft)MonthsMY6 2020 601 East Reach 1 Flow GaugeRainfallBedDS Riffle ElevationReach 158 consecutive flow days
Appendix F
601 East MY5 (2019) IRT Credit Release Site Visit
Memo

MEMORANDUM

3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100 Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 919.209.1052 tel. [phone] fax
TO: Paul Wiesner - DMS
FROM: Ryan Medric - RES
DATE: 6/11/2020
RE: 601 East MY5 (2019) IRT Credit Release Site Visit

Attendees:
IRT: Todd Tugwell (USACE), Mac Haupt (NCDWR), Erin Davis (NCDWR)
DMS: Paul Wiesner
RES: Brad Breslow, Ryan Medric

Site Visit Date: June 1, 2020

The IRT, DMS, and RES had a site visit at the 601 East Stream Restoration Site to discuss the Monitoring
Year 5 (2019) credit release. The main topics of discussion were the potential flow issues, beaver dams,
and encroachment. Details are bulleted below:

- Flow was observed throughout all project reaches, however, the IRT requested the flow gauge on
Reach 1 be moved further upstream towards the ephemeral reach. On 6/3/2020 RES moved the
flow gauge from XS2 up to XS1.
- The IRT observed beaver dams on Reach 2 and 3 and encroachment along Reach 4. RES addressed
these items on 6/2/2020 (photos attached). The IRT noted that RES needs to be timelier when
addressing maintenance issues.
- The IRT also observed missing easement signage and small areas of easement
scalloping/encroachment. RES agreed to repair any easement scalloping/encroachment and agreed
to ensure all required easement marking and signage are updated and present by the end of MY6
(2020) monitoring.
- Reach 2 showed far less parrotfeather than previously observed. RES will continue
observing/treating the parrotfeather as necessary.
- General site vegetation was above average in height, especially along the channel. A few small bare
herbaceous areas were noted likely due to bench cutting during construction.
- At the end of the meeting, the IRT agreed to release 2019 project credit as proposed by DMS.

Beaver dam removal and livestaking

Easement marking and planting

Headcut repair with seeding and coir logs