20131087 Ver 1_Year 6 Monitoring Report_2020_20210119

ID#* 20131087 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/20/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal-1/19/2021
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream r Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Paul Wiesner
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20131087
Existing ID�
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Poplin Ridge Site
County: Union
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Poplin Ridge_95359_MY6_2020.pdf 12.66MB
Rease upload only one R7F of the complete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Paul Wiesner
Signature:*
C5vaell / c�c 't•

Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 6 of 7
FINAL
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project
NCDMS Contract No.: 004672
NCDMS Project No.: 95359
USACE Permit Action ID: SAW-2012-01079
DWR Project No.: 13-1087

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

Prepared by:

3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612

3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612

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: Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site: MY6 Monitoring Report (NCDMS ID
95359)

Listed below are comments provided by DMS on December 18, 2020 regarding the Poplin Ridge
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 reminded RES to make sure the easement is
properly marked due to a few small areas of easement scalloping and missing/damaged signage
observed during the site visit. 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.” In the report text, please briefly discuss how the minor encroachment issues observed
during the June 2020 IRT site visit were addressed in MY6 (2020). Please also discuss easement
marking and signage repair and updates that were conducted in MY6 (2020). Lastly, please
discuss any unresolved easement encroachment (if any) observed during the November 2020
RES site assessment.
In December 2020, RES inspected the entire easement boundary and replaced all missing
easement signage. There was no easement encroachment observed. This was added to Section
1.4.1.

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
135 days of consecutive flow reported.
Done.

Digital Support File Comments:
Last year DMS commented on the differences between the stream feature lengths and the asset
table. Shapefiles were submitted but are not able to be opened in ArcMap or ArcPro because
they are corrupted. Please re-submit these features, ensuring that they can be used in
ArcMap/Pro.
The shapefile has been repaired and is included with the digital support files.

2

It looks like the bankfull cross sectional areas that were used as the baseline for BHR calculations
(MY5) are different from what was contained in the MY5 LTOB spreadsheet. For example, XS1
had a cross sectional area of 3.7, but 4.2 is reported in the table and used in the BHR spreadsheet
for MY6. Also, the BHR calculations were done correctly, but may be inaccurate due to rounding.
Be aware that rounding baseline cross sectional area, and depths used in the BHR calculation
can produce an inaccurate BHR, so please only round the final BHR value.
XS1 and XS2 are in the pond bottom which was repaired during MY5. The 4.2 cross sectional
area was from the post-repair monitoring which is the very last cross section in the spreadsheet.
RES notes the rounding comment.

Please submit the feature that represents the flow gauge, the photo point features with unique
ID’s included in the attribute table, and updated cross section features, including unique ID’s.
Done.

Please include the photos 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.

Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project 1 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95359 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 6 of 7 January 2021

Contents
1.0 Project Summary ............................................................................................................................... 3
1.1. Goals and Objectives .................................................................................................................... 3
1.2. Success Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 3
1.3. Project Setting and Background .................................................................................................... 4
1.4. Project Performance ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 Methods............................................................................................................................................. 6
3.0 References ......................................................................................................................................... 7

Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project 2 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95359 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

Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figures 2. Current Conditions Plan View Maps
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
2020 Photo Station Photos

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata
Table 9. Total Planted Stem Counts
Vegetation Plot Photos
MY6 Pond Random Vegetation Plot Data and Photos

Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11. Dimensional Morphology Summary
Cross Section Plots
Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
Charts 1-11. MY5 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Table 13. Poplin Ridge Bank Pin Array Summary

Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events and Stream Flow Events
Table 15. 2020 Rainfall Summary
MY6 2020 Poplin Ridge UT2-A Flow Chart

Appendix F. Poplin Ridge 2020 Monitoring Adaptive Management
2020 Poplin Ridge Adaptive Management Work Completed Memo
Poplin Ridge MY5 2019 IRT Credit Release Site Visit Memo

Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project 3 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95359 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:
• Nutrient removal,
• Sediment removal,
• Reducing runoff from animal operations,
• Filtration of runoff, and
• Improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat.

The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Establishing riparian buffer areas adjacent to CAFOs.
• Converting active farm fields to forested buffers,
• Stabilization of eroding stream banks,
• Reduction in streambank slope,
• Restoration of riparian buffer bottomland hardwood habitats, and
• Construction of in-stream structures designed to improve bedform diversity and trap detritus.
1.2. Success Criteria
The success criteria for the Poplin Ridge 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.
Stream Restoration
Bankfull Events - Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring
period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, stream monitoring will
continue until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years. Bankfull events will
be documented using crest gauges, auto-logging crest gauges, photographs, and visual assessments
for evidence of debris wrack lines.

Cross-Sections - There should be little change in as-built cross-section. If changes do take place,
they should be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition,
or minor changes that represent an increase in stability.

Bank Pin Arrays - Bank pin arrays will be used as a supplemental method to monitor erosion on
selected meander bends. Bank pin exposure will be recorded at each monitoring event.

Digital Image Stations- Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation
or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control
measures. Longitudinal images should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel
or an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or
continuing degradation of banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate
successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project 4 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95359 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 6 of 7 January 2021

Vegetation
Interim measures of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 three-year-old trees
per acre at the end of Year 3 and 260 five-year old trees per acre at the end of Year-5. The final vegetative
success criteria will be the survival of 210 trees per acre at the end of Year 7.
1.3. Project Setting and Background
The Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site (Site) encompasses approximately 27.17 acres, of which 4.69
acres are wooded and the remaining 22.48 acres are agricultural fields and pastures. The western and
eastern systems, UT1 and UT2 respectively, consist of unnamed tributaries to the East Fork of Stewarts
Creek. UT1 is divided into seven reaches and UT2 is divided into five reaches. The Site is located within
the Yadkin River Watershed (NCDWR sub basin 03-07-14 and HUC 03040105070050) in Union County,
North Carolina, approximately six miles north of Monroe. The Site is located within the Stewarts Creek
Watershed, a NCDMS targeted local watershed.

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. Also, UT2-4 had a large decrease in SMUs due to loss of land
control. RES has reverted back to the Mitigation Plan (Proposed) SMUs.

On July 11, 2018, the IRT, DMS, and RES had a site visit to discuss credit release at Poplin Ridge. It was
determined that credits from UT2-1, UT2-2, and UT2-A associated with the drained pond bottom would be
withheld (812.2 SMUs). Additionally, it was requested that RES submits a Remedial Action Plan to address
the issues in the drained pond bottom and that a flow gauge is to be installed on UT2-A to document at least
intermittent flow. RES repaired this reach in September 2019 and added the flow gauge to UT2-A. NCIRT,
NCDMS, and RES, had a site visit to review the pond bottom repairs in June 2020. Flow, bed and bank,
and riffle/pool sequences were observed throughout the pond repair reach. NCIRT did not note any issue
Reach Mitigation Type Proposed Length
(LF)*
Mitigation
Ratio Proposed SMUs Baseline SMUs
UT1-1 Preservation 572 5:1 114 114
UT1-1 Enhancement I 566 1.5:1 377 377
UT1-2 P1 Restoration 1,171 1:1 1,171 1,178
UT1-3 P1 Restoration 901 1:1 901 893
UT1-4 Enhancement I 1,210 1.5:1 807 815
UT1-A Enhancement I 217 1.5:1 145 144
UT1-B Preservation 620 5:1 124 124
UT1-B Enhancement I 455 1.5:1 303 303
UT1-C Enhancement I 857 1.5:1 571 586
UT2-1 Enhancement II 490 2.5:1 196 196
UT2-2 P1 Restoration 847 1:1 847 847
UT2-3 P1 Restoration 521 1.5:1 347 347
UT2-4*P1 Restoration 257 1:1 257 257
UT2-A Enhancement II 463 2.5:1 185 184
Total 9,147 6,346 6,365
*Reach was shortened due to loss of land control.
**The contracted amount of credits for this Site was 6,944 SMUs
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project 5 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95359 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 6 of 7 January 2021

with releasing MY5 credits. The adaptive management work and site visit are further detailed in Appendix
F.
1.4. Project Performance
Monitoring Year 6 (MY6) data was collected throughout 2020 with the final field visit in November. Year
6 monitoring activities included visual assessment of all reaches and the surrounding easement, 17
permanent photo stations, 13 permanent vegetation monitoring plots, four pond bottom repair cross
sections, and two pond bottom repair random vegetation plots. Per the approved Mitigation Plan, cross
section monitoring was not collected in MY6, however MY5 data is presented below and in the appendices
for reference.

Summary information and data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver activity or easement
encroachment and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found
in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting information
formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly the Mitigation
Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly the Restoration Plan) documents available on NCDMS’ website
(https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-projects). All raw data supporting the tables
and figures in the appendices is available from NCDMS upon request.
Vegetation
Visual assessment of the site indicates that herbaceous vegetation has become well established on-site. RES
replanted the MY5 low stem density areas as well as the pond bottom in April 2020. The invasive species
treatments were performed in October and November 2020 and will continue as needed throughout the
monitoring period. In December 2020, RES inspected the entire easement boundary and replaced all
missing easement signage. There was no easement encroachment observed. RES plans to supplemental
plant the area in and around Random Plot 2 (0.20 acres) this dormant season.

Monitoring of 13 permanent vegetation plots was completed in November 2020. Summary tables and
photographs associated with MY6 monitoring can be found in Appendix C. MY6 monitoring data
indicates that all vegetation monitoring plots met the MY6 interim success criteria of 210 planted stems per
acre. Planted stem densities among the plots ranged from 243 to 890 planted stems per acre with a mean
of 607 stems per acre across all plots. When volunteer stems are included, densities ranged between 243
and 1,497 total stems per acre with a mean of 750 stems per acre across all plots. A total of 15 plant species
were documented within the monitoring plots. The average planted stem height in plots was 11.5 feet. The
data from the two random vegetation plots in the pond bottom repair area showed 283 stems per acre in
Random Plot 1 and 202 stems per acre in Random Plot 2. The average stem heights were 6.3 and 5.9 feet,
respectively.
Stream Geomorphology
Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed in order to document signs of instability, such as
eroding banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. Small areas of bank scour, bed
aggradation, and bed degradation were reported as problem areas in previous years but are no longer
problem areas MY6. RES will continue to monitor these areas during future visits to assess the stability of
the channel and the need for any repair.

Geomorphic data for MY6 was collected during November 2020 for XS1, 2, 30, and 31. Cross-section plots
and summary tables related to stream morphology are located in Appendix D. Geomorphic data collection
for XS 3-29 was not performed in MY6 per the approved Mitigation Plan. The MY6 stream morphology
data indicate that, in general, the stream is stable. A few small changes were noted in the cross-section
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project 6 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95359 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 6 of 7 January 2021

dimensions; however, these are relatively minor and do not exceed expected adjustments in channel form.
Starting in MY5, baseline cross sectional area was used to determine bankfull for riffle dimensions. No
riffle cross sections documented a BHR over 1.2.

Bank pin arrays indicate that no erosion occurred during MY5. Bank pin array data will continue to be
collected and analyzed in future monitoring years to monitor bank erosion trends.

Substrate monitoring was performed during MY5. Pebble count D50 fell into the coarse gravel range for
UT1-1, medium gravel for UT1-2, coarse gravel for UT1-3, medium gravel for UT1-4, coarse gravel for
UT1-A, coarse gravel for UT1-B, medium gravel for UT1-C, silty/clay for UT2-3, and medium gravel for
UT2-A. A pebble count was not performed on UT2-4 due to a beaver pond. The channel substrate will
continue to be monitored in future years for shifts in particle size distributions.

Overall, documented shifts in stream morphology for the repair reach show that a defined channel is
continuing to form and maintain. The project is meeting success criteria regarding stable dimension as well
as substrate and sediment transport.
Stream Hydrology
Since project completion in April 2015, 19 bankfull event have been recorded on UT1-2, 51 on UT1-4, and
45 on UT2-3. MY6 bankfull events were identified by transducer gauge readings. Stream hydrology issues
were identified and discussed with the NCIRT during a site visit in July 2018. RES installed a flow gauge
downstream of XS-3 on UT2-A in January 2019. The flow gauge recorded 135 consecutive days of flow
and 307 total days of flow in MY6.
Adaptive Management
During a site visit with NCIRT and NCDMS at the Poplin Ridge Site in July 2018, several problem areas
were identified. Per the request of NCIRT, RES provided an Adaptive Management Plan to the IRT August
2019. The work proposed in the Adaptive Management Plan was completed in September 2019. The
construction was completed as designed. The pond bottom was planted in April 2020. Additionally, RES
installed the flow gauge discussed in the Adaptive Management Plan, in January 2019.

In response to problem areas identified in the Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site Year 5 Monitoring
Report and the 2019 Adaptive Management Plan, RES completed adaptive management work in fall 2019
and spring 2020. In September 2019, RES regraded and installed structures on UT2-2 through the pond
bottom (including the lower portion of UT2-A) and replanted the pond bottom and other low stem density
areas in April 2020. RES also installed monitoring devices in the pond bottom. The devices include Cross
Sections 30 and 31 and two random vegetation plots. The cross-section data was surveyed again in
November 2020 and is included in this report. The random vegetation plots were measured in November
2020 and the results are attached. The cross sections and random plots in the pond bottom will also be
measured again during MY7 monitoring.
2.0 METHODS
Visual assessment of the project was performed at the beginning and end of the monitoring year. Permanent
photo station photos were also collected during the morphologic and vegetation data collection events.
Additionally, photos were taken of vegetation or stream problem areas not revealed in the permanent photo
station images.

Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project 7 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95359 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 6 of 7 January 2021

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 each cross-section
data were collected in the field and geo-referenced (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200). Morphological
data was limited to 29 cross-sections. Survey data were 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 is being monitored at 13 permanent monitoring plots. Vegetation monitoring follows
the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis
of species composition and density of planted specimens. 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 are
taken from the origin each monitoring year.

Precipitation data was collected using an Onset HOBO Data Logging Rain Gauge. Bankfull events were
documented with manual crest gauges, which were installed within each of the following reaches - UT1-2,
UT1-4, and UT2-3. Crest gauge data was downloaded during quarterly site visits. The flow gauge is a
pressure transducer located in a pool. Flow data is calculated by detecting pool water elevations greater
than the elevation of the downstream riffle.
3.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Banc & Exchange. 2014. Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project Final Mitigation Plan.
North Carolina Ecosystems Enhancement Program, Raleigh.

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.

Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.

Appendix A
General Tables and Figures
TypeRERETotals238.40N/ARE114R377R1,171R901R807R145RE124R303R571R196R847R347R257R185Restoration LevelRestorationEnhancement IEnhancement IICreationPreservationHigh QualityPreservationElement------------ ------BMP ElementsBR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S = GrassedSwale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer------------------BMP ElementsLocationPurpose/FunctionNotes1,1929533,3053,697Upland(acres)RiverineNon-RiverineComponent SummationStream(linear feet)Riparian Wetland(acres)Non-riparian Wetland(acres)Buffer(square feet)UT2-A 0+45 to 5+06 365 EII 463 1 : 2.5UT2-4 19+18 to 22+07 270 PI 257 1 : 1UT2-3 13+97 to 19+18 495 PI 521 1 : 1.5UT2-2 4+90 to 13+97 875 PI 847 1 : 1UT2-1 0+00 to 4+90 490 EII 490 1 : 2.5UT1-C 1+21 to 10+01 883 EI 857 1 : 1.5UT1-B 6+90 to 11+45 512 EI 455 1 : 1.5UT1-B 0+09 to 6+29 620 Preservation 620 1 : 5UT1-A 0+73 to 2+89 197 EI 217 1 : 1.5UT1-4 34+50 to 46+73 1,252 EI 1,210 1 : 1.5UT1-3 24+96 to 34+50 833 PI 901 1 : 1UT1-2 12+58 to 24+96 1,284 PI 1,171 1 : 1UT1-1 6+92 to 12+58 566 EI 566 1 : 1.5Mitigation Ratio SMUsUT1-1 1+20 to 6+92 572 Preservation 572 1 : 5Footage/AcreageApproach(PI, PII etc.)Restoration -or-Restoration EquivalentRestoration Footage or AcreageProject ComponentsProject Component -or- Reach IDAs-BuiltStationing/Location (LF)Existing6107.87N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/ARRRERNon-riparian WetlandBufferNitrogenNutrient OffsetPhosphorousNutrient OffsetTable 1. Project Components and Mitigation CreditsPoplin Ridge Stream Restoration ProjectMitigation CreditsStream*Riparian Wetland
Activity or Report Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan NA Jul-14
Final Design – Construction Plans NA Oct-14
Construction Completed Apr-15 Apr-15
Site Planting Completed Apr-15 Apr-15
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring – baseline) Apr-15 Jul-15
Year 1 Monitoring Dec-15 Jan-16
Year 2 Monitoring Sep-16 Oct-16
Invasive Species Treatment NA Aug-17
Stream: Sep-17
Vegetation: Sep-17
Invasive Species Treatment and Supplemental Planting NA Feb-18
Invasive Species Treatment NA June-18
Invasive Species Treatment NA Aug-18
Year 4 Monitoring Vegetation: Sep-18 Feb-19
Beaver Dam Removal NA Sept-19
Stream Adaptive Management (UT2-2 Pond Bottom)NA Sept-19
Stream: June/July-19
Vegetation: Aug-19
Supplemental Planting NA Apr-20
Invasive Species Treatment NA Oct-20
Invasive Species Treatment NA Nov-20
Year 6 Monitoring Vegetation: Nov-20 Dec-20
Year 7 Monitoring
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project
Year 3 Monitoring Nov-17
Year 5 Monitoring Jan-20
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
Frasier Mullen, PE
Wright Contracting
PO Box 545
Siler City, NC 27344
[phone]
Joseph Wright
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
[phone]
David Godley
Wright Contracting
PO Box 545
Siler City, NC 27344
[phone]
Joseph Wright
Seed Mix Sources Green Resource
Nursery Stock Suppliers Arbogen, NC Forestry Services Nursery
Full Delivery Provider Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Project Manager: Brad Breslow
Monitoring Performers (MY0)Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
[phone]
Project Manager: Brian Hockett, PLS
Monitoring Performers (MY1-MY2)Equinox
2015-2016 37 Haywwod Street, Suite 100
Asheville, NC 28801
Project Manager:Drew Alderman [phone]
Monitoring Performers (MY3+)Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
2017+ 3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
[phone]
Project Manager: Ryan Medric
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project
Designer
Construction Contractor
Planting Contractor
Seeding Contractor
Project Name
County
Project Area (acres)
Physiographic Province
River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
DWQ Sub-basin
CGIA Land Use Classification
Parameters UT1-R1 UT1-R2 UT1-R3 UT1-R4 UT1-A UT1-B
Length of reach (linear feet) 1,138 1,178 893 1,223 216 1,075
Valley Classification VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII
Drainage area (acres) 136 248 384 728 88 120
NCDWQ stream identification score 35 22.5 30 31 35 35
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification WS-III WS-III WS-III WS-III WS-III WS-III
Morphological Description (stream type) E4 E4 E4 C4 E4 E4/C4
Evolutionary trend Stage I Stage II Stage II Stage V Stage I Stage I/III
Underlying mapped soils CmB CmB, TbB2 CmB, TbB2 ChA CmB CmB
Drainage class mod. well
mod. well;
well
mod. well;
well
somewhat
poorly mod. well mod. well
Soil Hydric status Not Hydric Not Hydric Not Hydric
Partially
Hydric Not Hydric Not hydric
Slope 0.48% 0.70% 0.40% 0.50% 1.20% 1.80%
FEMA classification N/A N/A N/A Zone AE N/A N/A
Native vegetation community
mixed
hardwood
forest,
cultivated cultivated cultivated cultivated cultivated
mixed
hardwood
forest,
cultivated
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation 10% 0% 0% 0% 5% 15%
Parameters UT1-C UT2-R1 UT2-R2 UT2-R3 UT2-R4 UT2-A
Length of reach (linear feet) 880 490 847 521 257 461
Valley Classification VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII
Drainage area (acres) 250 631 726 792 861 49
NCDWQ stream identification score 35 33.5 33.5 22.5 33.5 33.5
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification WS-III WS-III WS-III WS-III WS-III WS-III
Morphological Description (stream type) E4 C4c N/A E4 E4 C4
Evolutionary trend Stage IV Stage VI N/A Stage II Stage II Stage IV
Underlying mapped soils TbB2 ChA ChA ChA, BaB ChA ChA, CmA
Drainage class well
somewhat
poorly
somewhat
poorly
somewhat
poorly; well
somewhat
poorly
somewhat
poorly; mod.
well
Soil Hydric status Not Hydric
Partially
Hydric
Partially
Hydric
Partially
Hydric
Partially
Hydric Not Hydric
Slope 0.80% 0.27% 0.10% 0.57% 0.31% 1.30%
FEMA classification N/A Zone AE Zone AE Zone AE Zone AE N/A
Native vegetation community cultivated
woody cover,
cultivated cultivated cultivated cultivated cultivated
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Regulation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Endangered Species Act
Historic Preservation Act
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal
Area Management Act (CAMA)
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Yes
N/A
No
Yes
No
N/A
Yes
Yes SHPO (Corr. Letter)
N/A
EEP Floodplain
Requirements Checklist
N/A
Regulatory Considerations
Applicable?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Supporting Documentation
SAW-2012-01079
DWR# 13-1087
USFWS (Corr. Letter)
Resolved?
Yes
Yes
Table 4. Project Information
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project
Reach Summary Information
Reach Summary Information
Table 4 Cont'd. Project Information
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project
Project Drainage Area (acres)UT1: 1.14 square miles (728 acres)
UT2: 1.35 square miles (861 acres)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious
Area
UT1: 8%
UT2: 5%
Piedmont
Yadkin
3040105
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project
Union
27.17
Yes
developed (open space, low density, med. density, high density), cultivated crops,
pasture/hay, deciduous forest, evergreen forest
Project Watershed Summary Information
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)UT1: 35° 03' 15.97" N 80° 34' 21.64" W
UT2: 35° 03' 17.99" N 80° 33' 46.77" W
03040105070050
03-07-14

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

^_
^_
^_
UT1-1
UT1-1
UT1-1A
109111312
6
5
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
©
0 10050
Feet
Figure 2
Poplin Ridge StreamRestoration ProjectMY6 2020
Current ConditionsPlan View
LEGENDConservation EasementVegetation Plot
>210 stems/acreRandom Vegetation Plot
>210 stems/acre
<210 stems/acre
Cross Section
BMP
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Restoration
Stream Structure
!>Crest Gauge
!>Flow Gauge
!R Rain Gauge
^_Photo Station
Top of Bank
Date: 12/4/2020 Drawn by: RTM
Document Path: R:\offices\olddropboxprojects\North Carolina\100910-Poplin Ridge\Monitoring\Monitoring Data\GIS\MY6\MXD\Figure 2_Poplin Ridge_CCPV DDP MY6.mxdSource: 2015 NC OneMap Aerial Imagery
1 inch = 100 feet
Vegetation Condition Assessment
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Target Community
Invasive SpeciesNo Fill
1
!R
!>
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
UT1-2
UT1-B11
1517191413
1612
188
7
6
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
©
0 10050
Feet
Figure 2
Poplin Ridge StreamRestoration ProjectMY6 2020
Current ConditionsPlan View
LEGENDConservation EasementVegetation Plot
>210 stems/acreRandom Vegetation Plot
>210 stems/acre
<210 stems/acre
Cross Section
BMP
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Restoration
Stream Structure
!>Crest Gauge
!>Flow Gauge
!R Rain Gauge
^_Photo Station
Top of Bank
Date: 12/4/2020 Drawn by: RTM
Document Path: R:\offices\olddropboxprojects\North Carolina\100910-Poplin Ridge\Monitoring\Monitoring Data\GIS\MY6\MXD\Figure 2_Poplin Ridge_CCPV DDP MY6.mxdSource: 2015 NC OneMap Aerial Imagery
1 inch = 100 feet
Vegetation Condition Assessment
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Target Community
Invasive SpeciesNo Fill
2
^_
^_
^_
^_
UT1-3
UT1-C 2719202
4
222623212
518
12
11
10
9
7
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
©
0 10050
Feet
Figure 2
Poplin Ridge StreamRestoration ProjectMY6 2020
Current ConditionsPlan View
LEGENDConservation EasementVegetation Plot
>210 stems/acreRandom Vegetation Plot
>210 stems/acre
<210 stems/acre
Cross Section
BMP
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Restoration
Stream Structure
!>Crest Gauge
!>Flow Gauge
!R Rain Gauge
^_Photo Station
Top of Bank
Date: 12/4/2020 Drawn by: RTM
Document Path: R:\offices\olddropboxprojects\North Carolina\100910-Poplin Ridge\Monitoring\Monitoring Data\GIS\MY6\MXD\Figure 2_Poplin Ridge_CCPV DDP MY6.mxdSource: 2015 NC OneMap Aerial Imagery
1 inch = 100 feet
Vegetation Condition Assessment
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Target Community
Invasive SpeciesNo Fill
3
!>^_UT1-4
2421
2
7
2
6
25282913
12
11
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis ©0 10050
Feet
Figure 2
Poplin Ridge StreamRestoration ProjectMY6 2020
Current ConditionsPlan View
LEGENDConservation EasementVegetation Plot
>210 stems/acreRandom Vegetation Plot
>210 stems/acre
<210 stems/acre
Cross Section
BMP
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Restoration
Stream Structure
!>Crest Gauge
!>Flow Gauge
!R Rain Gauge
^_Photo Station
Top of Bank
Date: 12/4/2020 Drawn by: RTM
Document Path: R:\offices\olddropboxprojects\North Carolina\100910-Poplin Ridge\Monitoring\Monitoring Data\GIS\MY6\MXD\Figure 2_Poplin Ridge_CCPV DDP MY6.mxdSource: 2015 NC OneMap Aerial Imagery
1 inch = 100 feet
Vegetation Condition Assessment
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Target Community
Invasive SpeciesNo Fill
4
^_
UT1-1A
UT1-B
UT1-B1213
6
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
©
0 10050
Feet
Figure 2
Poplin Ridge StreamRestoration ProjectMY6 2020
Current ConditionsPlan View
LEGENDConservation EasementVegetation Plot
>210 stems/acreRandom Vegetation Plot
>210 stems/acre
<210 stems/acre
Cross Section
BMP
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Restoration
Stream Structure
!>Crest Gauge
!>Flow Gauge
!R Rain Gauge
^_Photo Station
Top of Bank
Date: 12/4/2020 Drawn by: RTM
Document Path: R:\offices\olddropboxprojects\North Carolina\100910-Poplin Ridge\Monitoring\Monitoring Data\GIS\MY6\MXD\Figure 2_Poplin Ridge_CCPV DDP MY6.mxdSource: 2015 NC OneMap Aerial Imagery
1 inch = 100 feet
Vegetation Condition Assessment
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Target Community
Invasive SpeciesNo Fill
5
!>^_^_^_^_^_UT2-2
UT2-2
UT2-A
UT2-1
4
33031 122
1
1
2
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis ©0 10050
Feet
Figure 2
Poplin Ridge StreamRestoration ProjectMY6 2020
Current ConditionsPlan View
LEGENDConservation EasementVegetation Plot
>210 stems/acreRandom Vegetation Plot
>210 stems/acre
<210 stems/acre
Cross Section
BMP
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Restoration
Stream Structure
!>Crest Gauge
!>Flow Gauge
!R Rain Gauge
^_Photo Station
Top of Bank
Date: 12/4/2020 Drawn by: RTM
Document Path: R:\offices\olddropboxprojects\North Carolina\100910-Poplin Ridge\Monitoring\Monitoring Data\GIS\MY6\MXD\Figure 2_Poplin Ridge_CCPV DDP MY6.mxdSource: 2015 NC OneMap Aerial Imagery
1 inch = 100 feet
Vegetation Condition Assessment
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Target Community
Invasive SpeciesNo Fill
6
!>^_^_^_UT2-4
UT2-3
UT2-2
76854
3
2
1
2
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis ©0 10050
Feet
Figure 2
Poplin Ridge StreamRestoration ProjectMY6 2020
Current ConditionsPlan View
LEGENDConservation EasementVegetation Plot
>210 stems/acreRandom Vegetation Plot
>210 stems/acre
<210 stems/acre
Cross Section
BMP
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Restoration
Stream Structure
!>Crest Gauge
!>Flow Gauge
!R Rain Gauge
^_Photo Station
Top of Bank
Date: 12/4/2020 Drawn by: RTM
Document Path: R:\offices\olddropboxprojects\North Carolina\100910-Poplin Ridge\Monitoring\Monitoring Data\GIS\MY6\MXD\Figure 2_Poplin Ridge_CCPV DDP MY6.mxdSource: 2015 NC OneMap Aerial Imagery
1 inch = 100 feet
Vegetation Condition Assessment
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Target Community
Invasive SpeciesNo Fill
7
00 100%00 100%2. Riffle Condition---------------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 Integrity33100%2. Grade Control33100%2a. Piping33100%3. Bank Protection33100%4. Habitat33100%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.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 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentPoplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT1-1 - Enhancement IAssessed Length 566 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 Condition2626100%2525100%2525100%2525100%2525100%1. Scoured / Eroding18 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 Integrity33100%2. Grade Control33100%2a. Piping33100%3. Bank Protection33100%4. Habitat33100%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.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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentPoplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT1-2 - P1 RestorationAssessed Length 1,178 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 Integrity33100%2. Grade Control33100%2a. Piping33100%3. Bank Protection33100%4. Habitat33100%Table 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentPoplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT1-3 - P1 RestorationAssessed Length 893 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 Condition---------------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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentPoplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT1-4 - Enhancement IAssessed Length 1,223 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 Condition---------------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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentPoplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT1-A - Enhancement IAssessed Length 216 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 Condition1111100%1111100%1111100%1111100%1111100%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 Integrity11100%2. Grade Control11100%2a. Piping11100%3. Bank Protection11100%4. Habitat11100%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.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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentPoplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT1-B - Enhancement IAssessed Length 455 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 Condition1414100%1313100%1313100%1313100%1313100%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%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.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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentPoplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT1-C - Enhancement IAssessed Length 880 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 Condition---------------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%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.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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentPoplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT2-1 - Enhancement IIAssessed Length 490 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 Condition55100%55100%55100%55100%55100%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%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.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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentPoplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT2-2 - P1 RestorationAssessed Length 847 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 Condition88100%88100%88100%88100%88100%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 Integrity33100%2. Grade Control33100%2a. Piping33100%3. Bank Protection33100%4. Habitat33100%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.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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentPoplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT2-3 - P1 RestorationAssessed Length 521 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 Condition44100%55100%55100%55100%55100%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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentPoplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT2-4 - P1 RestorationAssessed Length 257 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 Condition1010100%1313100%1313100%1313100%1313100%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 Integrity55100%2. Grade Control55100%2a. Piping55100%3. Bank Protection55100%4. Habitat55100%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.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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability AssessmentPoplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT2-A - Enhancement IIAssessed Length 461 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
Planted Acreage : 22.5Vegetation CategoryCCPV DepictionNumber of PolygonsCombined Acreage% of Planted Acreage1. Bare AreasN/A 0 0.00 0%2. Low Stem Density AreasOrange Simple Hatch 1 0.20 1%Totals1 0.20 1%3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or VigorN/A 0 0.00 0% Cumulative Totals10.20 1%Easement Acreage : 27.1Vegetation CategoryCCPV DepictionNumber of PolygonsCombined Acreage% of Easement Acreage4. Invasive Areas of ConcernN/A 0 0.00 0%5. Easement Encroachment AreasN/A 0 0.00 0%N/A - Item does not apply.DefinitionsTable 6. Vegetation Condition AssessmentPoplin Ridge Stream Restoration SiteAreas 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.
Monitoring Year 6 – 2020 Photo Station Photos

Project Reach UT1-1 – Permanent Photo Station 1
Station 8+53 – Looking Upstream

Project Reach UT1-2 – Permanent Photo Station 2
Station 14+58 – Looking Upstream
November 11, 2020
Project Reach UT1-2 – Permanent Photo Station 3
Station 21+50 – Looking Downstream

Project Reach UT1-3 – Permanent Photo Station 4
Station 26+50 – Looking Upstream at Crossing
Project Reach UT1-3 – Permanent Photo Station 5
Station 27+50 – Looking Downstream

Project Reach UT1-4 – Permanent Photo Station 6
Station 47+20 – Looking Upstream
Project Reach UT1-A - Permanent Photo Station 7
Station 2+00 – Looking Downstream

Project Reach UT1-B – Permanent Photo Station 8
Station 9+86 – Looking Downstream
Project Reach UT1-C – Permanent Photo Station 9
Station 2+50 – Looking Upstream

Project Reach UT2-1 – Permanent Photo Station 10
Station 4+50 – Looking Upstream
Project Reach UT2-2– Permanent Photo Station 11
Station 11+00 – Looking Upstream at Pond Bottom
November 2020

Project Reach UT2-2 – Permanent Photo Station 12
Station 11+00 – Looking Downstream
Project Reach UT2-2 – Permanent Photo Station 13
Station 7+59 – Looking Upstream

Project Reach UT2-3 – Permanent Photo Station 14
Station 13+83 – Looking Downstream
Project Reach UT2-4 – Permanent Photo Station 15
Station 20+39 – Looking Downstream

Project Reach UT2-A – Permanent Photo Station 16
Station 1+22 – Looking Downstream
Project Reach UT2-A – Permanent Photo Station 17
Station 2+62 – Looking Downstream

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. MY6 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment

Plot #Planted 
Stems/Acre
Volunteer 
Stems/Acre
Total 
Stems/Acre
Success 
Criteria 
Met?
Average 
Planted 
Stem Height 
1 607 283 890 Yes  12.2
2 364 0 364 Yes  12.8
3 647 81 728 Yes  15.3
4 890 202 1093 Yes  14.2
5 890 607 1497 Yes  10.3
6 769 0 769 Yes  10.3
7 688 0 688 Yes  15.7
8 688 526 1214 Yes  8.3
9 445 0 445 Yes  6.1
10 2430243Yes  7
11 607 121 728 Yes  8.3
12 405 0 405 Yes  16.9
13 688 0 688 Yes  12.4
Project Avg 610 140 750 Yes  11.5
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site
Report Prepared By Ryan Medric
Date Prepared 11/13/2020 0:00

database name Poplin_Ridge_95359_2020_MY6_CVS_Vegetation.mdb
database location
computer name
file size

DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and
project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This
excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes
live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems,
missing, etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of
total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and
Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead
and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and
spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural
volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.

PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code 95359
project Name Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project
Description
River Basin Yadkin-Pee Dee
length(ft)
stream-to-edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots
(calculated)
Sampled Plots 13

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 T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLSP‐all T PnoLS P‐all TAcer negundo boxelder Tree7Acer rubrumred maple TreeAcer rubrum var. rubrum red maple TreeAsimina triloba pawpawTreeBaccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis ShrubBetula nigra river birch Tree 222333333111223111CaryahickoryTreeCarya albamockernut hickory TreeCarya glabrapignut hickory TreeCeltis laevigata sugarberry TreeCeltis occidentalis common hackberry TreeDiospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree21DONTKNOW: unsure recordFraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree2 2 22221112Juniperus virginiana eastern redcedar TreeLiquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree515Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptreeTree1 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 1 1222Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree4 4 4Platanus occidentalisAmerican sycamoreTree111222333333555555222333333Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood TreePyrus calleryana Callery pear ExoticQuercusoakTreeQuercus albawhite oak TreeQuercus falcata southern red oak TreeQuercus lyrata overcup oak Tree2 2 21 1 1Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree1 1 1Quercus nigra water oak Tree 121212111333888444111666333333111555333666Quercus phellos willow oak Tree1 1 18 8 8 6 6 6 7 7 7 10 10 10 2 2 2 2 2 4 8 8 8 4 4 4 3 3 3 111111Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree555111333111333222222Quercus velutina black oak Tree111222333111222111222Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry ShrubUlmus alatawinged elm Tree10Ulmus rubraslippery elm Tree15 15 22 9 9 9 16 16 18 22 22 27 22 22 37 19 19 19 17 17 17 17 17 30 11 11 11 6 6 6 15 15 18 10 1010171717334666556556667666555889222333557555777607 607 890 364 364 364 647 648 728 890 890 1093 890 890 1497 769 769 769 688 688 688 688 688 1214 445 445 445 243 243 243 607 607 728 405 405 405 688 688 688Current Plot Data (MY6 2020)Scientific Name Common Name Species Type95359‐01‐0001 95359‐01‐0002 95359‐01‐0003 95359‐01‐0004 95359‐01‐0005 95359‐01‐000610.0295359‐01‐001395359‐01‐0007 95359‐01‐0008 95359‐01‐0009 95359‐01‐0010 95359‐01‐0011 95359‐01‐001210.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.0210.02Poplin RidgeStem countsize (ares)size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACRE
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 TAcer negundo boxelder Tree 7 6 5 3Acer rubrum red maple Tree 2 3 123Acer rubrum var. rubrum red maple Tree121Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree1 1 1 4 4 4 5 5 5212121Baccharis halimifolia eastern baccharis Shrub10Betula nigra river birch Tree 121213121212121212 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 9272727Carya hickory Tree62Carya alba mockernut hickory Tree 2 5Carya glabra pignut hickory Tree 2Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 2 2Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree32 9Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 3 1 1 5 1 1 5 1 1 7 4 2DONTKNOW: unsure record777Fraxinus pennsylvanicagreen ash Tree 557446444113 3 2Juniperus virginiana eastern redcedar Tree 2Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 20 19 14 17 106 8Liriodendron tulipiferatuliptree Tree 666668666666777777343434Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 444444444444444333Platanus occidentalis American sycamoreTree 272727272727272727212121212121202020262626Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree 47Pyrus calleryana Callery pear Exotic 4Quercus oak Tree2 2 2 31 31 31 126 126 126Quercus alba white oak Tree111999Quercus falcata southern red oak Tree4 4 4101010Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 333333333333Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oakTree 111333333444555444888Quercus nigra water oak Tree 56 56 56 56 56 56 59 59 59 65 65 65 79 79 79 69 69 69 222222Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 535355414141424242454545434343464646 50 50 50Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 1717171717171818181919192121218817Quercus velutina black oak Tree 121212111111121212141414141414 6 6 6Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub 2 2Ulmus alata winged elm Tree 10 3 18Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree2196 196 241 185 185 234 191 191 226 191 191 365 209 209 495 213 213 252 340 340 34011 11 15 12 12 20 12 12 19 13 13 18 11 11 20 13 13 19 11 11 11610 610 750 576 576 728 595 595 704 595 595 1136 651 651 1541 663 663 785 1058 1058 1058130.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.3213 13 13 13 13 13Stem countsize (ares)size (ACRES)Species countStems per ACREAnnual MeansMY6 (2020) MY5 (2019) MY4 (2018) MY3 (2017)Poplin RidgeScientific Name Common Name Species TypeMY2 (2016) MY1 (2015) MY0 (2015)

November 2020 Random Vegetation Plots
#Common Name Height (cm)#Co mmon Name Height (cm)
1 Sycamore 220 1 Willow Oak 170
2 Willow Oak 145 2 Black Willow 175
3 Willow Oak 170 3 Willow Oak 160
4 River Birch 140 4 Black Willow 180
5 Willow Oak 190 5 Black Willow 220
6 Sycamore 225 Stems/Acre
7 River Birch 250 Average Height (cm)
Stems/Acre Average Height (ft)
Average Height (cm)Plot Size (m)
Average Height (ft)
Plot Size (m)25 x 4
Random Plot 1
191
6.3
283
Random Plot 2
202
181
5.9
25 x 4
Monitoring Year 6 – 2020 Vegetation Plot Photos
11/10/2020

Poplin Ridge - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1

Poplin Ridge - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2
Poplin Ridge - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 3

Poplin Ridge - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 4

Poplin Ridge - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 5

Poplin Ridge - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 6

Poplin Ridge - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 7

Poplin Ridge - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 8

Poplin Ridge - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 9

Poplin Ridge - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 10

Poplin Ridge - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 11

Poplin Ridge - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 12

Poplin Ridge - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 13

Poplin Ridge – Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1

Poplin Ridge – Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data

UT1-R1 UT1-R1 UT1-R2 UT1-R3 UT1-R4 UT1-A UT1-B UT1-B UT1-C
Pres.Enh. I Rest.Rest.Enh. I Enh. I Pres.Enh. I Enh. I
Feature Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool
Drainage Area (ac)136 136 248 384 728 88 120 120 250
NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)31 31 47 64 100 22 28 28 47
Design/Approx. Bankfull Discharge (cfs)22 22 35 55 65 20 15 30 50
BF Width (ft)7.9 7.5 9.9 12.8 17.5 6.9 11.2 6.0 10.0 11.8 12.8 13.6 14.8 12.95 14.85 15.35 15.15
Floodprone Width (ft)>50 >50 >50 >50 >50 >50 >50 >50 >40 >50 NA >50 >50 >50 >50 >50 NA
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)10.1 10.4 14.2 22.2 21.9 6.8 6.1 5.5 10.0 14.5 19.9 18.8 26.9 17.3 19.15 22.4 21.45
BF Mean Depth (ft)1.3 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.2 1.0 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.3 1.25 1.45 1.45
BF Max Depth (ft)2.0 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.3 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.8 2.4 1.9 2.8 2.1 2.35 2.25 2.55
Width/Depth Ratio 6.2 5.4 7.0 7.4 14.0 6.9 20.4 6.6 10.0 9.8 8.2 9.9 8.1 9.7 11.65 10.5 10.75
Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 NA >2.2 NA >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)10.4 9.1 11.6 14.5 19.0 8.2 11.8 7.5 11.1 12.6 14 14.7 16.2 13.9 15.95 16.35 16.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft)1.0 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.7 1.25 1.15 1.4 1.3
D16 (mm)0.062 0.062 0.062 2 3 0.062 2 3 2
D50 (mm)0.062 16.0 2 8 25 0.1 29 12 11
D84 (mm)0.062 63.0 7 25 51 0.4 60 27 45
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Channel Beltwidth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---38 57 44 65 35 60 42 65
Radius of Curvature (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---18 89 20 103 15 75 17 80
Radius of Curvature Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---1.5 7.6 1.5 7.6 1.5 7.6 1.5 7.6
Meander Wavelength (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---38 57 44 65 35 52 37 56
Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---3.2 4.8 3.2 4.8 2.7 4.0 2.7 4.3
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Riffle Length (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---5 16 6 18 6 18 7 22
Riffle Slope (%)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---1.1 3.4 1.1 3.4 1.0 3.6 1.0 3.7
Run Length (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---6 13 7 15 6 15 8.0 18.0
Run Slope (%)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---4.8 11.5 4.8 11.5 4.6 12.0 5.0 11.0
Glide Length (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---4 11 5 13 4 12 6.0 13.2
Glide Slope (%)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---4.8 9.2 4.8 9.2 4.7 10.0 5.0 10.9
Pool Length (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---4 36 5 42 6 42 8.0 50.0
Pool Slope (%)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---1.1 2.5 1.1 2.4
Pool-to-Pool Spacing (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---16 55 18 64 20 60 20 70
Valley Length (ft)622 534 1,173 731 1,294 264 573 434 908
Channel Length (ft)716 541 1,197 738 1,340 270 618 449 921
Sinuosity 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)NA NA NA 0.003 0.004 NA NA NA NA
Channel Slope (ft/ft)0.0048 0.011 0.007 0.004 0.005 0.012 0.012 0.018 0.008
Rosgen Classification E4 E4 E4 E4 C4 E5 C4 E4 E4
318
5 13 9
15
1.14
15
87
4.8
UT1-R3
7.6 3.0
>2.2
9.8
NA
69
50 35
41.2
Reference Reach
66.0 59.7
14.9
3.4
UT1-R2
Max Med
4.8 4.4
Riffle
426
Pool
E4
13.5
1.6
2.7
9.6
0.0047
5
0.0048
103.3
1.1
Existing
Rest.Rest.
47
>50
18.1
15.0
279
Min
42
18.0
11.5 8.2
9.2
---
6 18
248 384
Med
64.0 30.0
1.2
Max
2.8
23.4
55.5 37.3
Min
26.3
64
52
1.0
16.8
1.4
49.4
16.0
11.0
2.3
4.8 7.0
------
3.6
0.0046
E4
---
0.0059
E4
---
---
1.11.1
Design
8
2
8
13.7
2
1.4
1.7
NA
426
As-Built MY0
UT1-R2 UT1-R3
Rest.Rest.
248 384
64
35 52
0.062 1.7
0.062 25
47
26 60
1,070 1,115
Additional Reach Parameters
1,178 1,223
2525
9
1.1 1.1
NA NA---
------
Table 10 - Morphological Parameters Summary ( Reach UT1 )
Project Name/Number: Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project
0.0066 0.0041
E4 E4
Dimension
Substrate
Pattern
Profile

UT2-R1 UT2-R2 UT2-R3 UT2-R4 UT2-A
Enh. II Rest.Rest.Rest.Enh. II
Feature Riffle Pond Riffle Riffle Riffle Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool Riffle Pool
Drainage Area (ac)634 723 742 864 51
NC Regional Curve Discharge (cfs)
Design/Approx. Bankfull Discharge (cfs)---------------
BF Width (ft)25.6 ---16.2 12.1 6.1 17.2 18.6 18.2 19.6 21 19.6 17.4 21.1
Floodprone Width (ft)>50 --->50 >50 >50 >50 NA >50 NA >50 >50 >50 >50
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft 2)19.6 ---22.4 12.6 3.0 31.5 42 34.8 47.6 26.5 32.6 30.8 34.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)0.8 ---1.4 1.0 0.5
1.8 2.3 1.9 2.4 1.3 1.7 1.8 1.6
BF Max Depth (ft)1.7 ---2.6 1.6 1.2
2.5 3.5 2.6 3.8 2.2 3.1 2.5 3.5
Width/Depth Ratio 33.5 ---11.8 11.6 12.2
9.4 8.2 9.5 8.1 16.6 11.7 9.8 12.9
Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 --->2.2 >2.2 >2.2
>2.2 NA >2.2 NA >2.2 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)26.2 ---17.9 13.1 7.0
18.5 20.3 19.5 21.5 21.7 21.2 18.5 22.9
Hydraulic Radius (ft)0.7 ---1.3 1.0 0.4
1.7 2.1 1.8 2.2 1.2 1.5 1.7 1.5
D16 (mm)0.062 ---0.062 1.5 0.062
D50 (mm)0.062 ---0.062 7.8 0.062
D84 (mm)0.72 ---4.8 15.0 0.57
--- --- --- --- ---
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Channel Beltwidth (ft)--- --- --- --- ---
55 83 58 87 67 101 56 84
Radius of Curvature (ft)--- --- --- --- ---
26 130 27 138 32 160 26 132
Radius of Curvature Ratio --- --- --- --- ---
1.5 7.6 1.5 7.6 1.5 7.6 1.5 7.6
Meander Wavelength (ft)--- --- --- --- ---
55 83 58 87 67 101 56 84
Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- ---
3.2 4.8 3.2 4.8 3.2 4.8 3.2 4.8
--- --- --- --- ---
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Riffle Length (ft)8 23 8 24 9.0 25.0 8.2 26.5
Riffle Slope (%)--- --- --- --- ---
1.1 3.4 1.1 3.4 1.1 3.6 1.2 3.8
Run Length (ft)9 19 9 20 11.0 17.0 10.2 21.0
Run Slope (%)--- --- --- --- ---
4.8 11.5 4.8 11.5 4.2 12.0 3.8 11.2
Glide Length (ft)6 16 7 17 6.2 18.2 7.5 16.3
Glide Slope (%)--- --- --- --- ---
4.8 9.2 4.8 9.2 5.1 9.6 4.8 9.1
Pool Length (ft)6 53 7 56 7.8 47.0 8.5 60.0
Pool Slope (%)--- --- --- --- ---
--- --- --- ---3.5 10.0 4.1 10.1
Pool-to-Pool Spacing (ft)--- --- --- --- ---23 81 24 85 18.0 90.0 20.5 92.0
Valley Length (ft)410 641 779 1,015 427
Channel Length (ft)443 641 781 1,032 437
Sinuosity 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)NA NA NA 0.0027 NA
Channel Slope (ft/ft)0.0027 0.001 0.0057 0.0031 0.013
Rosgen Classification C5c NA E5 E4 C5E4
0.0048
---------
1.14
279
0.0047
318
7 15 8
4.8 9.2 7.0
Min Max Med
Profile
4.8 11.5 8.2
1.1 3.4 2.3
49 66 60
1.9 4.1 2.7
13 103 41
1.0 7.6 3.0
1.4
2.8
Min Max Med
26 56 37
426
18.1 23.4
1.4 1.6
69
50
---
11.0
16.0
13.7
1.7 2.7
9.8 9.6
16.8
1.2
6 18 9
52
100
>2.2 NA
14.9
1.5
Pattern
13 9
5 42 15
Rest.
426
15.0
>50 NA
18.0 64.0 30.0
Design
UT1-R3/R4
Rest.
864
113
70
5
7.8 7.8
15 15
E4 E4
---
---
1.1
---
0.00280.0029
---
1.1
As-Built MY0
UT1-R2 UT1-R3/R4
Rest.Rest.
1.5
Dimension
Substrate
Table 10 Cont'd - Morphological Parameters Summary ( Reach UT2 )
Project Name/Number: Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project
UT1-R2Reference Reach
Existing
723
Riffle Pool
723 864
100 113
52 70
0.0061 0.002
E4 E4
785 710
847 778
1.08 1.1
Additional Reach Parameters
------
0.062 0.062
0.062
24 61
28
---
.DimensionBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ BaseMY11MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1577.24 577.24 577.24 577.24 578.14 577.93577.10 577.10 577.10 577.10 577.99 577.72586.40 586.40 586.40 586.40 586.85 NA585.00 585.00 585.00 585.00 585.39 NA576.32 576.32 576.32 576.32 576.75 NABankfull Width (ft)13.2 5.5 5.2 4.3 10.8 5.53.0 5.6 5.3 3.9 8.0 6.38.2 8.0 7.5 7.5 10.7 NA11.0 8.8 7.5 8.5 16.7 NA21.0 19.3 18.0 17.1 28.3 NAFloodprone Width (ft)1>17.2 >17.2 >17.2 26.2 52.4 65.6>15.2 >15.2 >15.2 11.2 66.2 78.8>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 44.0 >50.5 NA>44.4 >44.4 >50.0 39.8 >49.8 NA>50 >50 >50 >50 >50.5 NABankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.3 --- ---0.4 0.5 0.4 0.1 --- ---1.0 0.8 0.8 0.6 --- NA0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 --- NA1.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 --- NABankfull Max Depth (ft)20.9 1.4 1.1 0.5 0.8 1.50.6 1.3 0.8 0.3 1.1 2.21.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1 NA1.3 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.0 NA2.2 2.2 2.4 1.8 2.0 NALow Bank Elevation (ft)----578.14 577.91----577.99 578.28----586.39 NA----584.95 NA----576.39 NABankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)20.6 3.7 3.3 1.1 4.2 4.11.1 2.7 2.2 0.5 5.8 10.37.9 6.7 5.7 4.7 7.9 NA7.4 5.0 5.7 4.1 3.0 NA26.5 25.2 22.9 19.0 17.9 NABankfull Width/Depth Ratio 6.4 8.2 8.1 16.7 --- ---7.9 11.5 12.5 28.8 --- ---8.5 9.5 9.9 11.9 --- NA16.4 15.6 9.9 17.4 --- NA16.6 14.9 14.2 15.5 --- NABankfull Entrenchment Ratio1>2.2 >3.1 >3.3 6.0 4.8 14.2>2.2 >2.7 >2.9 2.9 8.3 14.5>2.2 >6.3 >6.7 5.9 >4.7 NA>2.2 >5.0 >6.7 4.7 3.0 NA>2.2 >2.6 >2.8 >2.9 >1.8 NABankfull Bank Height Ratio11.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.01.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.31.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.7 NA1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.7 NA1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 NADimensionBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ BaseMY11MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1576.48 576.48 576.48 576.48 576.99 NA575.00 575.00 575.00 575.00 575.17 NA575.01 575.01 575.01 575.01 575.34 NA602.06 602.06 602.06 602.06 602.07 NA602.28 602.28 602.28 602.28 602.37 NABankfull Width (ft)119.6 19.1 19.4 18.7 22.3 NA21.1 18.7 18.5 18.8 19.5 NA17.4 17.1 16.9 17.2 16.2 NA11.7 11.4 11.4 11.6 14.2 NA15.2 14.7 14.6 15.5 16.9 NAFloodprone Width (ft)1>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.1 NA>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50 NA>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.2 NA>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >48.7 NA>50 >50 >50 >50 >50.0 NABankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.4 --- NA1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6 --- NA1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 --- NA1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 --- NA1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 --- NABankfull Max Depth (ft)23.1 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.1 NA3.5 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.6 NA2.5 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.8 NA1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.6 NA2.6 2.5 2.5 2.6 1.5 NALow Bank Elevation (ft)----576.14 NA----575.26 NA----575.41 NA----601.93 NA----601.18 NABankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)232.6 30.0 30.5 25.6 17.0 NA34.4 32.0 31.6 31.0 36.0 NA30.8 28.4 28.5 26.7 32.0 NA13.0 12.1 12.4 12.3 11.4 NA21.0 19.8 19.7 20.2 7.6 NABankfull Width/Depth Ratio 11.7 12.2 12.3 13.7 --- NA12.9 10.9 10.9 11.4 --- NA9.8 10.3 10.0 11.0 --- NA10.4 10.7 10.4 10.9 --- NA11.1 10.9 10.9 11.9 --- NABankfull Entrenchment Ratio1>2.2 >2.6 >2.6 N/A N/A NA>2.2 >2.7 >2.7 N/A N/A NA>2.2 >2.9 >3.0 >2.9 >3.1 NA>2.2 >4.4 >4.4 >4.3 >3.4 NA>2.2 >3.4 >3.4 N/A N/A NABankfull Bank Height Ratio11.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A NA1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A NA1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 NA1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 NA1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A NADimensionBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1599.06 599.06 599.06 599.06 599.13 NA596.26 596.26 596.26 596.26 596.61 NA595.97 595.97 595.97 595.97 596.09 NA591.21 591.21 591.21 591.21 591.22 NA591.48 591.48 591.48 591.48 591.64 NABankfull Width (ft)110.0 10.2 10.0 9.6 11.0 NA17.4 17.4 17.6 17.4 22.7 NA12.5 12.2 12.3 12.6 14.1 NA12.3 12.0 11.5 12.1 12.5 NA13.4 12.9 12.9 13.2 13.4 NAFloodprone Width (ft)1>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.1 NA>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.4 NA>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.2 NA>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.2 NA>50 >50 >50 >50 >49.8 NABankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 --- NA1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 --- NA1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 --- NA1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 --- NA1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 --- NABankfull Max Depth (ft)21.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 NA2.5 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.5 NA1.9 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.5 NA2.2 2.0 2.0 2.1 1.6 NA2.3 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.3 NALow Bank Elevation (ft)----599.12 NA----596.44 NA----596.00 NA----590.71 NA----591.64 NABankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)210.5 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.5 NA24.4 21.8 21.8 19.9 20.8 NA15.6 14.4 14.6 14.8 14.4 NA13.9 11.9 11.5 12.6 8.4 NA19.0 17.3 17.2 17.0 19.1 NABankfull Width/Depth Ratio 9.6 10.3 10.0 9.1 --- NA12.4 13.9 14.2 15.2 --- NA10.0 10.4 10.3 10.7 --- NA10.9 12.1 11.6 11.5 --- NA9.4 9.7 9.7 10.3 --- NABankfull Entrenchment Ratio1>2.2 >4.9 >5.0 >5.2 >4.6 NA>2.2 >2.9 >2.8 N/A N/A NA>2.2 >4.1 >4.1 >4.0 >3.6 NA>2.2 >4.2 >4.3 N/A N/A NA>2.2 >3.9 >3.9 >3.8 >3.7 NABankfull Bank Height Ratio11.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 NA1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A NA1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 NA1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A NA1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 NA1Calculations updated to show corrected values*Reach UT2-2 was reconstructed in September 2019 Cross Section 6 (Pool) Reach UT2-3Cross Section 7 (Pool) Reach UT2-4Cross Section 8 (Riffle) Reach UT2-4Cross Section 9 (Riffle) Reach UT1-1Cross Section 10 (Pool) Reach UT1-1Table 11a. - Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project Cross Section 1 (Run) Reach UT2-2*Cross Section 2 (Run) Reach UT2-2*Cross Section 3 (Riffle) Reach UT2-ACross Section 4 (Riffle) Reach UT2-ACross Section 5 (Run) Reach UT2-3Cross Section 12 (Pool) Reach UT1-2Cross Section 13 (Riffle) Reach UT1-2Cross Section 14 (Pool) Reach UT1-2Cross Section 15 (Riffle) Reach UT1-2Note: 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. Cross Section 11 (Riffle) Reach UT1-A
DimensionBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1591.84 591.84 591.84 591.84 592.04 NA590.93 590.93 590.93 590.93 591.07 NA588.03 588.03 588.03 588.03 588.30 NA588.19 588.19 588.19 588.19 588.38 NA586.15 586.15 586.15 586.15 586.33 NABankfull Width (ft)111.7 10.8 10.5 11.1 13.6 NA14.2 13.1 13.2 13.2 14.4 NA14.5 14.3 13.9 14.2 16.2 NA15.2 15.1 14.9 15.4 23.1 NA15.5 16.1 15.2 15.1 16.0 NAFloodprone Width (ft)1>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 NA>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 NA>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.6 NA>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.2 NA>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.2 NABankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0---NA0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7---NA1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4---NA1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4---NA1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3---NABankfull Max Depth (ft)21.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.9 NA1.4 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.5 NA2.6 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.7 NA2.4 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.1 NA2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.3 NALow Bank Elevation (ft)----591.95 NA----590.81 NA----588.20 NA----588.23 NA----586.36 NABankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)212.3 11.2 11.1 10.8 11.2 NA10.2 8.5 9.2 9.6 7.1 NA21.5 19.6 19.7 19.3 19.7 NA23.0 21.8 21.3 21.0 20.3 NA21.9 20.9 20.0 19.6 22.4 NABankfull Width/Depth Ratio 11.2 10.4 9.9 11.3---NA19.7 20.2 19.1 18.3---NA9.8 10.4 9.9 10.5---NA10.1 10.5 10.5 11.2---NA11.0 12.4 11.6 11.6---NABankfull Entrenchment Ratio1>2.2 >4.6 >4.8 >4.5 >3.7 NA>2.2 >3.8 >3.8 N/A N/A NA>2.2 >3.5 >3.6 N/A N/A NA>2.2 >3.3 >3.3 >3.3 >2.2 NA>2.2 >3.1 >3.3 >3.3 >3.1 NABankfull Bank Height Ratio11.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 NA1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A NA1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A NA1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 NA1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 NADimensionBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1585.60 585.60 585.60 585.60 585.82 NA592.04 592.04 592.04 592.04 592.33 NA591.80 591.80 591.80 591.80 592.04 NA586.30 586.30 586.30 586.30 586.69 NA585.80 585.80 585.80 585.80 586.15 NABankfull Width (ft)115.8 15.0 15.2 15.0 17.2 NA13.2 12.5 12.5 12.4 15.2 NA14.6 14.0 13.9 13.7 15.0 NA14.2 13.8 14.0 14.0 15.1 NA12.0 11.1 11.2 10.5 12.2 NAFloodprone Width (ft)1>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0>50.2 NA>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0>50.2 NA>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0>50.2 NA>46.6 >46.6 >46.6 38.0 >50.0 NA>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0>50.2 NABankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3---NA1.3 1.1 1.1 1.0---NA1.3 1.1 1.0 1.0---NA1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8---NA1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3---NABankfull Max Depth (ft)22.5 2.4 2.6 2.7 3.1 NA1.9 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.1 NA2.1 1.9 2.0 2.2 1.6 NA1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.9 NA2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.5 NALow Bank Elevation (ft)----585.95 NA----591.27 NA----591.07 NA----585.71 NA----585.48 NABankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)221.4 19.1 19.4 19.3 23.7 NA16.8 13.6 14.2 12.5 5.4 NA19.1 14.8 14.2 14.3 8.8 NA14.0 12.2 12.4 10.8 3.8 NA15.5 14.3 14.5 14.1 9.2 NABankfull Width/Depth Ratio 11.7 11.8 11.8 11.7---NA10.4 11.5 10.9 12.3---NA11.1 13.3 13.5 13.2---NA14.3 15.6 15.7 18.1---NA9.4 8.6 8.7 7.8---NABankfull Entrenchment Ratio1>2.2 >3.3 >3.3 N/A N/A NA>2.2 >4.0 >4.0 >4.0 >3.3 NA>2.2 >3.6 >3.6 N/A N/A NA>2.2 >3.4 >3.3 2.7 >3.3 NA>2.2 >4.5 >4.5 N/A N/A NABankfull Bank Height Ratio11.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A NA1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.5 NA1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A NA1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 NA1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A NADimensionBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5MY6MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5MY6MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5MY6MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5MY6MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5MY6MY7 MY+Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1581.70 581.70 581.70 581.70 581.62 NA582.15 582.15 582.15 582.15 582.52 NA579.70 579.70 579.70 579.70 579.91 NA579.80 579.80 579.80 579.80 580.04NA----578.55 578.70Bankfull Width (ft)114.8 14.1 13.0 11.2 10.3 NA16.5 15.9 15.6 15.4 17.6 NA15.9 15.4 15.3 15.0 16.0 NA20.3 20.8 20.0 19.4 21.7 NA----8.78.10Floodprone Width (ft)1>47.0 >47.0 >47.0 >50.0 >50.3 NA>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 NA>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.4 NA>50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >50.0 >42.7 NA----30.7 40.27Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.6---NA1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0---NA1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3---NA1.6 1.4 1.4 1.5---NA------- ---Bankfull Max Depth (ft)22.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 NA2.1 1.9 1.9 1.8 2.6 NA2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 NA3.1 2.9 2.9 3.02.7NA----0.50.80Low Bank Elevation (ft)----581.69 NA----582.19 NA----580.10 NA----579.60 NA----578.55 578.89Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)217.6 16.2 17.2 18.2 18.4 NA21.5 18.3 17.8 15.6 16.2 NA24.2 21.7 21.9 20.0 27.4 NA33.2 30.0 28.9 29.2 24.6 NA----3.14.90Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.5 12.3 9.7 6.9---NA12.7 13.8 13.6 15.1---NA10.4 10.9 10.8 11.2---NA12.5 14.4 13.9 12.9---NA------- ---Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1>2.2 >3.3 >3.6 N/A N/A NA>2.2 >3.1 >3.2 >3.3 >2.8 NA>2.2 >3.3 >3.3 >3.3 >3.2 NA>2.2 >2.4 >2.5 N/A N/A NA----3.56.20Bankfull Bank Height Ratio11.0 1.0 1.0 N/A N/A NA1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 NA1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 NA1.0 1.0 1.0 N/AN/ANA----1.01.30DimensionBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1----578.37 578.00Bankfull Width (ft)1----9.78.5Floodprone Width (ft)1----48.3 46.3Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)------- ---Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2----1.52.3Low Bank Elevation (ft)----578.37 578.72Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2----8.816.5Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio------- ---Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1----N/ANABankfull Bank Height Ratio1----N/ANA*Reach UT2-2 was reconstructed in September 2019 Table 11. Cont'd - Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections) Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration ProjectCross Section 21 (Pool) Reach UT1-3Cross Section 22 (Riffle) Reach UT1-CCross Section 23 (Pool) Reach UT1-CCross Section 24 (Riffle) Reach UT1-CCross Section 25 (Pool) Reach UT1-CCross Section 16 (Riffle) Reach UT1-BCross Section 17 (Pool) Reach UT1-BCross Section 18 (Pool) Reach UT1-3Cross Section 19 (Riffle) Reach UT1-3Cross Section 20 (Riffle) Reach UT1-3Note: 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. Cross Section 27 (Riffle) Reach UT1-4Cross Section 28 (Riffle) Reach UT1-4Cross Section 29 (Pool) Reach UT1-4 Cross Section 30 (Riffle) Reach UT2-2*Cross Section 31 (Pool) Reach UT2-2*Cross Section 26 (Pool) Reach UT1-4
*Reach UT2-2 was reconstructed in September 2019UpstreamDownstreamNote: 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.57557657757857958058110 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Poplin Ridge - Reach UT2-2* - Cross Section 1 - RestorationYear 5 (Pre-Con)Year 5 (Post-Con)Year 6Approx. BankfullLow TOBFloodprone AreaDimensionBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1577.24 577.24 577.24 577.24 578.14 577.93Bankfull Width (ft)13.2 5.5 5.2 4.3 10.8 5.5Floodprone Width (ft)1>17.2 >17.2 >17.2 26.2 52.4 65.6Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.3 --- ---Bankfull Max Depth (ft)20.9 1.4 1.1 0.5 0.8 1.5Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - - - 578.14 577.91Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)20.6 3.7 3.3 1.1 4.2 4.1Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 6.4 8.2 8.1 16.7 --- ---Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1>2.2 >3.1 >3.3 6.0 4.8 14.2Bankfull Bank Height Ratio11.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0Cross Section 1
*Reach UT2-2 was reconstructed in September 2019UpstreamDownstreamNote: 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.57557657757857958058120 23 26 29 32 35 38 41 44 47 50 53 56 59 62 65 68Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Poplin Ridge - Reach UT2-2* - Cross Section 2 - Restoration Year 5 (Pre-Con)Year 5 (Post-Con)Year 6Approx. BankfullLow TOBFloodprone AreaDimensionBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1577.10 577.10 577.10 577.10 577.99 577.72Bankfull Width (ft)13.0 5.6 5.3 3.9 8.0 6.3Floodprone Width (ft)1>15.2 >15.2 >15.2 11.2 66.2 78.8Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.1 --- ---Bankfull Max Depth (ft)20.6 1.3 0.8 0.3 1.1 2.2Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - - - 577.99 578.28Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)21.1 2.7 2.2 0.5 5.8 10.3Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 7.9 11.5 12.5 28.8 --- ---Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1>2.2 >2.7 >2.9 2.9 8.3 14.5Bankfull Bank Height Ratio11.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.3Cross Section 2
*Reach UT2-2 was reconstructed in September 2019UpstreamDownstreamNote: 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.5765775785795805815820 3 6 9 12151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Poplin Ridge - Reach UT2-2* - Cross Section 30 - Riffle - Restoration (Pond)Year 5Year 6Approx. BankfullLow TOBFloodprone AreaDimensionBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+XSA1----578.55578.70Bankfull Width (ft)1----8.78.10Floodprone Width (ft)1----30.740.27Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) - - - - ------Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2----0.50.80Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - - - 578.55578.89Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2----3.14.90Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio - - - - ------Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1----3.56.20Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1----1.01.30Cross Section 30 (Riffle)
*Reach UT2-2 was reconstructed in September 2019UpstreamDownstreamNote: 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.5765775785795805815820 3 6 9 12151821242730333639424548Elevation (ft)Distance (ft)Poplin Ridge - Reach UT2-2* - Cross Section 31 - Pool - Restoration (Pond)Year 5Year 6Approx. BankfullFloodprone AreaDimensionBase MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY6 MY7 MY+XSA1----578.37578.00Bankfull Width (ft)1----9.78.5Floodprone Width (ft)1----48.346.3Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) - - - - ------Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2----1.52.3Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - - - 578.37578.72Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2----8.816.5Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio - - - - ------Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1----N/ANABankfull Bank Height Ratio1----N/ANACross Section 31 (Pool)
Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary Charts 1-11. MY3 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)UT1-1 13 43 5.2 26 48 76 24 43UT1-1A 0.15 0.64 0.2 26 0.062 32 11 57UT1-B 23 42 4.9 22 27 59 20 35UT1-C 9.6 24 3.5 24 9.6 51.5 14.5 25UT1-2 0.7 12.3 4.6 25.8 7.5 26.8 10.9 20UT1-3 23.5 62.5 7.9 29.5 16.7 80.5 19.5 33.5UT1-4 4 15.5 4.2 11.8 27.1 44 10.3 35UT2-A 0.062 0.6 0.6 6.1 6.5 14 9 15UT2-3 0.062 6.4 1.4 11 0.062 12 0.062 0.062UT2-4 0.062 42 0.062 24 28 79 * *Stream ReachMY7 - 2021Pebble Count Pebble Count Pebble Count Pebble Count Pebble Count Pebble Count Pebble CountMY1 - 2015 MY2 - 2016 MY3 - 2017 MY4 - 2018 MY5 - 2019 MY6 - 2020

Chart 2.

Chart 3.

Chart 4.

Chart 5.

Chart 6.

Chart 7.

Chart 8.

Chart 9.

Chart 10.

Chart 11.

Table 13. Poplin Ridge Bank Pin Array Summary
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 5
Bank Pin Location Position Reading (mm) Reading (mm) Reading (mm) Reading (mm)
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
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31.8
0.0
Lower
Upper
Upper
Middle
0.0
44.5
92.3
Reach UT2-2
Upper
Middle
0.0
0.0
Upper 0.0
Reach UT2-3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lower 0.0
0.0
0.0
35.6
44.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
Middle 0.0 0.0 0.0
Reach UT1-2
Reach UT1-3
Reach UT1-C Middle
Lower
Upper
Middle
Lower
0.0 0.0 0.0
Lower 139.7 0.0 0.0
Reach UT1-4
Upper 0.0 31.8 0.0
Middle 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lower 108.0 0.0 0.0
Appendix E
Hydrology Data
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events and Stream Flow Events

Table 15. 2020 Rainfall Summary

Year Number of Bankfull Events
MY1 1
MY2 0
MY3 4
MY4 1
MY5 0
MY6 13
MY1 2
MY2 5
MY3 4
MY4 14
MY5 4
MY6 22
MY1 2
MY2 5
MY3 3
MY4 6
MY5 13
MY6 16
Year Consecutive Flow Days Total Flow Days Number of Flow Events
MY5 93 155 6
MY6 135 307 3
0.95
0.49
N/A
0.50
CG3 UT2-3
CG2 UT1-4
4.59
FG UT2-A
Maximum Bankfull Height (ft)
CG1 UT1-2
5.17
3.70
2.83
2.00
4.30
1.65
4.86
2.60
0.80
2.00
N/A
1.98
2.22
30
Percent
70
Percent
January 4.07 2.74 4.87 4.88
February 3.49 2.39 4.17 6.89
March 4.45 3.10 5.29 3.26
April 3.07 1.82 3.72 6.41
May 3.47 2.22 4.18 11.95
June 4.57 2.91 5.50 1.96
July 4.50 2.90 5.42 4.17
August 4.71 2.78 5.18 3.45
September 4.24 2.02 5.18 5.59
October 3.81 2.00 4.57 5.60
November 3.33 1.90 4.05 0.33
December 3.85 2.56 4.62 ---
Total 47.56 29.34 56.75 54.49
Month Average
Normal Limits Monroe Station
Precipitation
0123456789101112131415161718012301/01/20 02/01/20 03/01/20 04/01/20 05/01/20 06/01/20 07/01/20 08/01/20 09/01/20 10/01/20 11/01/20Rainfall (in)Water Depth (ftMonthsMY6 2020 Poplin Ridge UT2-A Flow GaugeRainfallBedDS Riffle ElevationUT2-A135 consecutive flow days
Appendix F
Poplin Ridge 2020 Monitoring Adaptive Management

3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612

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

res.us

April 15, 2020

Paul Wiesner
NCDEQ – DMS
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Asheville, NC 28801

RE: Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site – 2020 Monitoring Adaptive Management
Work Completed

Mr. Wiesner,

In response to problem areas identified in the Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site Year 5
Monitoring Report and the 2019 Adaptive Management Plan, RES completed adaptive
management work in fall 2019 and spring 2020. The work included regrading and installing
structures on UT2-2 through the pond bottom (including the lower portion of UT2-A) and replanting
the pond bottom and other low stem density areas. RES also installed monitoring devices in the
pond bottom. The devices include Cross Sections 30 and 31 and a random vegetation plot. The
cross section data was included in the MY5 report and will be surveyed again in MY6 and MY7.
The random vegetation plot was measured right after planting in April 2020 and results are
attached. The random plot will also be measured again during MY6 and MY7 monitoring. More
information about the adaptive management work is detailed below:

Stream Work on UT2-2 and Lower UT2-A

Dates: August and September 2019
Method: Dimension/Profile Grading and Structure Installation as proposed in the 2019 Adaptive
Management Plan. Installed structures are shown on the attached map.
Reach Length: +/- 500 linear feet

2

Constructed riffle looking upstream

Newly replaced log sill at the top of the reach (Area 1 from AMP) looking upstream

3

Lower UT2-A in the pond bottom looking upstream

UT2-2 Bank Livestaking

Date: April 6, 2020
Reach Length: +/- 500 linear feet
# of Livestakes: 800
Species: Black willow, Buttonbush, and Cottonwood

Livestakes on UT2-2 looking upstream

4
UT2-2 Container Tree Planting and Floodplain Livestaking

Date: April 6, 2020
Planting Area: +/- 0.50 acres
Stems/Acre: 1,060
# of Container Trees: 30
Species: Water Oak and Willow Oak
# of Livestakes: 500
Species: Black willow, Buttonbush, and Cottonwood

Random Vegetation Plot looking downstream

Low Stem Density Area Container Tree Planting in and around VP9 and VP10

Date: April 6, 2020
Method: Planted container trees in areas shown as low stem density areas in MY5 vegetation
plot data.
Planting Area: +/- 0.25 acres
Stems/Acre: 280
# of Container Trees: 70
Species: Water Oak and Willow Oak

A map displaying the locations of the items mentioned above and the random plot data is
attached.

Thank you,

Ryan Medric | Ecologist
!>
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
UT2-2
UT2-2
UT2-A
UT2-1
4330
31
1
2
2
1
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
©
0 10050
Feet
Poplin Ridge StreamRestoration Project
MY6 2020
Adaptive Management
LEGEND
Conservation EasementVegeation Plot
>320 stems/acre
<320 stems/acre
Supplemental Planting
Random Plot (April 2020)
New Structure
Structure
Cross Section
BMP
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Restoration
!>Crest Gauge
!>Flow Gauge
!R Rain Gauge
^_Photo Station
Top of Bank
Date: 4/15/2020 Drawn by: RTM
Document Path: R:\offices\olddropboxprojects\North Carolina\0174 - Poplin Ridge\Monitoring\Monitoring Data\GIS\MY6\MXD\Poplin Ridge_Supp Planting 2020.mxdSource: 2015 NC OneMap Aerial Imagery
1 inch = 100 feet
Vegetation Condition Assessment
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Target Community
Invasive SpeciesNo Fill
UT2-2
Repair: Fall 2019
Livestake: April 2020
Pond Bottom
500 Livestakes
30 3-gallon trees
^_
^_
^_
^_
UT1-3
UT1-C 2719202
4
222623212
518
12
11
10
9
7
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
©
0 10050
Feet
Poplin Ridge StreamRestoration Project
MY6 2020
Adaptive Management
LEGEND
Conservation EasementVegeation Plot
>320 stems/acre
<320 stems/acre
Supplemental Planting
Cross Section
BMP
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Restoration
Stream Structure
!>Crest Gauge
!>Flow Gauge
!R Rain Gauge
^_Photo Station
Top of Bank
Date: 4/13/2020 Drawn by: RTM
Document Path: R:\offices\olddropboxprojects\North Carolina\0174 - Poplin Ridge\Monitoring\Monitoring Data\GIS\MY6\MXD\Poplin Ridge_Supp Planting 2020.mxdSource: 2015 NC OneMap Aerial Imagery
1 inch = 100 feet
Vegetation Condition Assessment
AbsentPresentMarginal
Absent
Present
Target Community
Invasive SpeciesNo Fill
30 trees
40 trees
April 2020 Random Vegetation Plot
# Common Name Height (cm)
1 Cottonwood 36
2 Cottonwood 25
3 Cottonwood 37
4 Cottonwood 35
5 Cottonwood 32
6 Black Willow 60
7 Cottonwood 58
8 Black Willow 28
9 Black Willow 66
10 Water Oak 128
11 Cottonwood 22
12 Cottonwood 30
13 Cottonwood 40
14 Black Willow 69
15 Black Willow 66
16 Black Willow 60
17 Black Willow 38
18 Cottonwood 35
19 Buttonbush 38
20 Buttonbush 35
21 Willow Oak 150
22 Black Willow 38
23 Buttonbush 66
24 Willow Oak 162
25 Black Willow 65
26 Cottonwood 40
27 Cottonwood 23
28 Willow Oak 174
Stems/Acre
Average Height (cm)
Average Height (ft)
Plot Size (m)25 x 4
Random Plot 1
59
1.9
1133

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: Poplin Ridge MY5 (2019) IRT Credit Release Site Visit

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

Site Visit Date: June 3, 2020

The IRT, DMS, and RES conducted a site visit at the Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site to discuss the
Monitoring Year 5 (2019) credit release. The main topics of discussion were the pond reach repair and
supplemental plantings that were completed in October 2019 and April 2020 respectively. Details are
bulleted below:

- Flow, bed and bank, and riffle/pool sequences were observed throughout the pond reach repair
section (including Reach UT2-A). The IRT noted a small head cut forming in the middle of the
reach and commented that they would have liked to see more sills installed. RES will observe this
area and will report any issues in the MY6 (2020) report.
- Live stakes were observed sprouting along the banks and in the floodplain as well as the presence
of the container trees that were planted. The IRT, however, felt that the area was not planted
sufficiently. RES replied that the pond was planted at a stem density of 1,060 stems per acre and it
was hard to see most of the livestakes due to the herbaceous layer being matted down from a recent
storm. RES will conduct a random vegetation transect in the pond bottom this fall (as proposed in
the Adaptive Management Plan) and will plant more three-gallon container trees next winter if
necessary. RES will also take photos of this pond reach repair area at the end of the 2020 growing
season and will include the photos and a synopsis of the repair and vegetation in the MY6 (2020)
report.
- The IRT observed aquatic vegetation growing in the riffles of UT2-2 and UT2-3; however, in-
stream vegetation was not to a level where it was accumulating sediment or impeding flow. The
IRT did not feel it was necessary for RES to treat in-stream vegetation on the reach unless it
becomes more prevalent over the course of this growing season. RES and DMS believe that the in-
stream vegetation observed will shade out over time.
- The IRT reminded RES to make sure the easement is properly marked due to a few small areas of
easement scalloping and missing/damaged signage observed during the site visit. 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. DMS agreed to conduct a site visit to
confirm this work is complete before any payment is made for MY6 (2020) monitoring.

- Privet treatment was observed to be successful along UT2-1. Privet treatments will be administered
throughout the remainder of the monitoring period within the conservation easement.
- The full IRT was not able to attend the meeting, however, DWR staff did not note any issue with
releasing the 2019 project credit as proposed by DMS. DWR staff indicated that they would send
their site visit notes to the USACE IRT chair for review.