20170920 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20210125

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20170290 Version* 1
...............................................................
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/25/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/25/2021
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes fJ No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
17 Stream r Wetlands r Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Lindsay Crocker [e-mail]
Project Information
ID#:* 20170290 Version:*1
Existing ll) Existing Version
Project Type: C' DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Heron
County: Alamance
Document Information
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Heron_100014_MY2_2020.pdf 16.42MB
Rease upload only one R7F of the corrplete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature:*
may tare

FINAL MONITORING REPORT
2020 (Year 2)
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County,North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100014
Full Delivery Contract No. 7192
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01471
DWR No. 17-0290
RFP No. 16-006990
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Data Collection: January 2020 —October 2020
Submission: January 2021
•
m t
r' iz r �
t r ?y y� 1 r'6^
4: e
611
"c. a ' x Sig =a j 6 ° '.
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
January 2021

NCDMS comment responses:
1. Please describe how RS expects to achieve vegetative success for the 3 plots that are not
currently meeting. Describe if these are isolated areas, and if RS expects volunteers to make up
for the deficiencies there. Also, the MP shows 4 random plots; please ensure that there are 4
plots in MY3 and that they located nearby the vegetation plots in that are not meeting to
demonstrate if low vigor is or is not an issue.
RS performed visual assessments of the areas surrounding the unsuccessful plots and
determined that the areas around Plots 2, 3 and 4 would benefit from a light supplemental
planting to ensure future success. Low stem density within plot 6 appears isolated, and
supplemental planting will not be necessary. The areas of poor growth rates or vigor were
added to Figure 2A and Table 6, and the 2021 supplemental planting plan is described in the
"Vegetation Summary" section of the report. Additionally, during MY3,4 transects will be
measured in the vicinities of plots that were not meeting success criteria in MY2.
2. Check BHRs on table 13 compared to summary data with picture. It appears that XS 1, 9, 25 may
not match. QAQC all BHR and other numbers here. Describe what is going on in the system
near XS 26 and 27.
All bank height ratios on Table 13 now match the cross-section plots. Notes were added to
cross-sections 26 and 27 explaining that the degradation on XS-26 (UT6) and aggradation on XS-
27 (UT7) appear stable and are not cause for concern at this time. They will be monitored
closely during subsequent years to ensure no remedial action is needed.
Digital Review-
- Please ensure that the Bank Height Ratio is being calculated using the bankfull elevation that
generates the MYO cross sectional area within the MY2 channel. It is this bankfull elevation that
is used to determine max depth at bankfull for the denominator, whereas the current MY's low
bank height is used in the numerator.
All cross-sections were double checked to ensure that bank height ratio is being calculated using
the bankfull elevation that generates the MYO cross sectional area within the MY2 channel, as
described above.

Heron Year 2, 2020 Monitoring Summary
General Notes
• No encroachment was identified in Year 2
• No evidence of nuisance animal activity (i.e., beaver, heavy deer browsing, etc.) was
observed.
Streams
• Stream monitoring show that all stream channels and structures are stable.
Wetlands
• Six of six groundwater gauges met success for the Year 2 (2020) monitoring period.
Wetland hydrology data is in Appendix E.
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season(Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024) (2025)
Yes Yes
1 33 days 23 days
(15.8%) (9.8%)
Yes Yes
2 26 days 27 days
(12.4%) (11.5%)
Yes Yes
3 35 days 28 days
(16.7%) (12.0%)
Yes Yes
4 69 days 51 days
(33.0%) (21.8%)
Yes Yes
5 52 days 45 days
(24.9%) (19.2%)
Yes Yes
6 54 days 46 days
(25.8%) (19.7%)

Vegetation Summary
Measurements of all 16 plots resulted in an average of 372 planted stems/acre excluding livestakes.
Additionally, all plots met success criteria except permanent plots 3, 4, and 6 (Tables 8-10,
Appendix C). These plots are in areas of dense fescue and will be treated.
Site Permitting/Monitoring Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Completion
Complete or Delivery
Technical Proposal(RFP No. 16-006990) January 11,2017 January 11,2017
Institution Date(NCDMS Contract No. 100014) -- May 22,2017
404 Permit -- October 10,2018
Mitigation Plan -- July 2018
Construction Plans -- July 17,2018
Site Construction -- November 27,2018-February
11,2019
Planting -- February 21,2019
As-built Baseline Stream Data Collection February 25-26,2019 --
As-built Baseline Vegetation Data Collection February 25,2019 --
As-built Baseline Monitoring(MYO) February-March 2019 May 2019
Monitoring Year 1 (2019)Stream Data Collection August 13-14,2019 --
Monitoring Year 1 (2019)Vegetation Data Collection September 30,2019 --
Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) March-October 2019 November 2019
Monitoring Year 2(2020)Stream Data Collection May 16-24,2020 --
Monitoring Year 2(2020)Vegetation Data Collection July 1-6,2020 --
Monitoring Year 2(MY2) March-October 2020 January 2021
Site Maintenance Report (2020)
Invasive Species Work Maintenance work
6-12-2020
Privet, Rose,Tree-of-Heaven, None
Microstegium,Johnson Grass

FINAL MONITORING REPORT
2020 (Year 2)
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County,North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100014
Full Delivery Contract No. 7192
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01471
DWR No. 17-0290
RFP No. 16-006990
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Data Collection: January 2020 —October 2020
Submission: January 2021
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH,NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
Prepared by:
And
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS I LLC
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
Restoration Systems,LLC Axiom Environmental,Inc.
1101 Haynes Street,Suite 211 218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh,North Carolina 27604 Raleigh,North Carolina 27603
Contact:Worth Creech Contact:Grant Lewis
919-755-9490(phone) 919-215-1693(phone)
919-755-9492(fax)
January 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 1
1.1 PROJECT GOALS&OBJECTIVES 1
1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND 3
1.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND STRUCTURE 3
1.4 SUCCESS CRITERIA 4
2.0 METHODS 5
2.1 MONITORING 5
3.0 REFERENCES 8
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Background Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5H. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix C. Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 11A-G. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12A-G. Baseline Stream Data Summary(Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic
Containment Parameter Distributions)
Tables 13A-G. Monitoring Data-Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters-
Cross-sections)
Tables 14A-G. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-section Plots
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Tables 15A-J. Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 16. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 17. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) Table of Contents page i
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site(Site).
1.1 Project Goals & Objectives
Project goals were based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report (NCEEP
2009)and on-site preconstruction data collection of channel morphology and function observed during field
investigations. The Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed(TLW)03030002050050. The RBRP
report documents benthic ratings vary between "Fair" and "Good-Fair" possibly due to cattle, dairy, and
poultry operations. The project is not located in a Regional or Local Watershed Planning Area; however,
RBRP goals addressed by project activities are as follows with Site specific information following the
RBRP goals in parenthesis.
1. Reduce and control sediment inputs(sediment input reduction of 67.3 tons/year);
2. Reduce and manage nutrient inputs (livestock removed from streams, elimination of fertilizer
application,installation of marsh treatment areas;and a direct reduction of 893.2 pounds of nitrogen
and 47.0 pounds of phosphorus per year);
Site specific mitigation goals and objectives were developed through the use of North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method(NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method(NC WAM)analyses of
preconstruction and reference stream systems at the Site(NC SFAT 2015 and NC WFAT 2010)(see Table
1).
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) page 1
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 1. Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives
Targeted Functions Goals Objectives Compatibility of Success Criteria
(1)HYDROLOGY I
(2)Flood Flow(Floodplain Access) • Attenuate flood flow across • Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank
• BHR not to exceed 1.2
the Site. flows and restore jurisdictional wetlands
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation • Minimize downstream • Plant woody riparian buffer • Document four overbank events in separate monitoring years
• Livestock excluded from the easement
(4)Floodplain Access flooding to the maximum • Remove livestock • Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
extent possible. • Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase soil surface
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer Connect streams to roughness • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(4)Microto o ra h • functioningwetland systems. • Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement • Conservation Easement recorded
pg pY Y p p1P
(3) Stream Stability • Cross-section measurements indicate a stable channel with cobble/gravel
substrate
(4)Channel Stability • Increase stream stability within • Construct channels with proper pattern,dimension,and longitudinal profile • Visual documentation of stable channels and structures
the Site so that channels are • Remove livestock • BHR not to exceed 1.2
neither aggrading nor • Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate • ER of 1.4 or greater
(4) Sediment Transport degrading. • Plant woody riparian buffer • < 10%change in BHR and ER in any given year
• Livestock excluded from the easement
_ • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(1)WATER QUALITY
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
• Remove livestock and reduce agricultural land/inputs
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration • Install marsh treatment areas
• Remove direct nutrient and • Plant woody riparian buffer • Livestock excluded from the easement
(3)Thermoregulation pollutant inputs from •the Site
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams • Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
(2)Indicators of Stressors and reduce contributions to • Provide surface roughness through deep ripping/plowing • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
downstream waters. • Restore overbank flooding by establishing proper channel dynamics
Wetland Particulate Change
• Cessation of municipal land application
Wetland Physical Change
(1)HABITAT
(2)In-stream Habitat
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
• Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate • Cross-section measurement indicate a stable channel with cobble/gravel
(3)In-Stream Habitat • Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade substrate
(2) Stream-side Habitat
• Improve instream and stream- • Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank • Visual documentation of stable channels and in-stream structures.
side habitat. flows and plant woody riparian buffer • Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
(3) Stream-side Habitat • Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams • Conservation Easement recorded
(3)Thermoregulation
Wetland Landscape Patch Structure
Wetland Vegetation Composition
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) page 2
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

1.2 Project Background
The Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") encompasses a 17.64-
acre easement along warm water,unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch and unnamed tributaries to South
Fork Cane Creek. The Site is located approximately 4 miles southeast of Snow Camp and 4.5 miles north
of Silk Hope in southern Alamance County near the Chatham County line (Figure 1,Appendix A).
Prior to construction, Site land use consisted of disturbed forest and agricultural land used for livestock
grazing and hay production. Livestock had unrestricted access to Site streams, which had been cleared,
dredged of cobble substrate, straightened, trampled by livestock, eroded vertically and laterally, and
received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from stream banks and adjacent pastures. Approximately
62 percent of the stream channel had been degraded contributing to sediment export from the Site resulting
from mechanical processes such as livestock hoof shear. In addition,streamside wetlands were cleared and
drained by channel downcutting and land uses. Preconstruction Site conditions resulted in degraded water
quality, a loss of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient and sediment retention, and unstable channel
characteristics (loss of horizontal flow vectors that maintain pools and an increase in erosive forces to
channel bed and banks). Site restoration activities restored riffle-pool morphology, aided in energy
dissipation, increased aquatic habitat, stabilized channel banks, and greatly reduced sediment loss from
channel banks.
1.3 Project Components and Structure
Proposed Site restoration activities generated 5293 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 0.66 Wetland
Mitigation Units(WMUs)as the result of the following.
• 4068 linear feet of Priority I stream restoration
• 1184 linear feet of stream enhancement(Level I)
• 1090 linear feet of stream enhancement(Level II)
• 0.35 acre of riparian wetland restoration
• 0.61 acre of riparian wetland enhancement
Additional activities that occurred at the Site included the following.
• Installation of six marsh treatment areas throughout the Site.
• Fencing the entire conservation easement by leaving some pre-existing fencing,removing fencing,
and installing additional fencing.
• Planting 12.05 acres of the Site with 15,625 stems (planted species and densities by zone are
included in Table 7 [Appendix C]).
Deviations from the construction plans included realignment of UT 1B (adding 20 linear feet to the
alignment)due to conflicts with a gas line crossing. The realignment resulted in the reduction of a log vane
and alterations to pipe configurations within the crossing. Gas line realignment also affected the length of
UT 2 in its lower reaches (shortening the Restoration reach). UT 2 also has minor deviations in the
enhancement II reach due to profile elevation alterations to tie to the invert of UT 1B. These profile
alterations were included in construction plans,but not included in table updates of the detailed plan. Profile
alterations resulted in the Enhancement(level II)/Restoration initiation point migrating upstream,and thus
the length of the Enhancement (Level II) reach (UT 2A) decreased by 39 feet, and the length of the
restoration reach(UT 2B)increased by 17 feet.
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) page 3
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Minor easement deviations after construction plan development resulted in some stationing changes,most
notable at the upper reaches of UT 1A(adding 5 linear feet to the alignment)and UT 8A&UT 8B(reducing
the alignments by a total of 4 linear feet). The easement variations also affected channel lengths across gas
lines,which do not generate mitigation credit. Eight log cross-vanes were not constructed due to contact
with bed rock, or conflicts with the gas line. In addition, a marsh treatment area was added to the right
bank of UT 6 at a draw that was concentrating surface drainage and scouring the valley walls. No other
deviations of significance occurred between construction plans and the as-built condition. In addition,no
issues have arisen since construction occurred.
Site design was completed in July 2018. Construction started on November 27, 2018 and ended within a
final walkthrough on February 11, 2019. The Site was planted on February 21, 2019. Completed project
activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background information are
summarized in Tables 1-4(Appendix A).
1.4 Success Criteria
Project success criteria have been established per the October 24, 2016 NC Interagency Review Team
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Monitoring and success
criteria relate to project goals and objectives. From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and
objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by restoration activities without direct measurement.
Other goals and objectives will be considered successful upon achieving success criteria. The following
table summarizes Site success criteria.
Success Criteria
Streams
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High-Water Mark(OHWM),per RGL 05-05.
• Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days. Surface water
monitoring gauges will be installed in the upper third of all intermittent channels,unless otherwise requested
by the IRT.
• Bank height ratio(BHR)cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section.
• Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be no less than 2.2 for E- and C-type channels at any measured riffle cross-
section. Note:B-type channels may have an ER less than 1.4.
• BHR and ER at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10%from baseline condition
during any given monitoring period.
• The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards shall be met through four separate
bankfull events,occurring in separate years,during the monitoring years 1-7.
Wetland Hydrology
• Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 10 percent of the
growing season,during average climatic conditions. Note:Soil temperature for growing season establishment
will be measured daily utilizing a continuous monitoring soil probe. Soil temperature will be measured from
mid-February through the end of April(at a minimum).
Vegetation
• Within planted portions of the site,a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3;a minimum of
260 stems per acre must be present at year 5;and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at year 7.
• Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5,and 10 feet in height at year 7 in each plot.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted,provided they are included in the approved planting list for the site;
natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case-by-case basis.
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) page 4
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

2.0 METHODS
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in this plan follow the October 24, 2016 NC
Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports of the data
collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 31 of each
monitoring year data is collected. The monitoring schedule is summarized in the following table.
Monitoring Schedule
Resource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Streams
Wetlands
Vegetation
Macroinvertebrates
Visual Assessment
Report Submittal
2.1 Monitoring
The monitoring parameters are summarized in the following table.
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) page 5
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Monitoring Summary
Stream Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent U Data Collected/Reported
Stream Profile Full longitudinal survey As-built(unless otherwise All restored stream channels Graphic and tabular data.
required)
Stream Dimension Cross-sections Years 1,2,3,5,and 7 Total of 37 cross-sections on restored Graphic and tabular data.
channels
Areas of concern to be depicted on a
Visual Assessments Yearly All restored stream channels plan view figure with a written
Channel Stability assessment and photograph of the area
included in the report.
Additional Cross-sections Yearly Only if instability is documented Graphic and tabular data.
during monitoring
Continuous monitoring surface water Continuous recording through Surface water data for each monitoring
Stream Hydrology gauges and/or trail camera monitoring period Total of 10 surface water gauges period as depicted in Figures 10A-10D.
Total of 10 surface water gauges:
Continuous monitoring surface water Continuous recording through One gauge on UT1,2,3,6 and 8. Surface water data for each monitoring
Bankfull Events gauges and/or trail camera monitoring period Two gauges on UT 5. period
Three gauges on UT 7
Continuous through Visual evidence,photo documentation,
Visual/Physical Evidence monitoring period All restored stream channels and/or rain data.
"Qual 4"method described in Standard Pre-construction,Years 3,5, Results*will be presented on a site-by-
Operating Procedures for Collection and 7 during the"index site basis and to include a list of taxa
Benthic and Analysis of Benthic period"referenced in Small 2 stations(one at the lower end of collected,an enumeration of
Macroinvertebrates Macroinvertebrates, Version 5.0 Streams Biocriteria UT1 and one at the lower end of UTS) Ephemeroptera,Plecoptera, and
(NCDWR 2016) Development(NCDWQ 2009) Tricopetera taxa as well as Biotic Index.
Wetland Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
As-built,Years 1,2,3,4,5,6, Soil temperature at the beginning of
Wetland and 7 throughout the year with 6 gauges spread throughout restored each monitoring period to verify the
Restoration Groundwater gauges the growing season defined as wetlands start of the growing season,groundwater
March 1-October 22 and rain data for each monitoring period
Vegetation Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Permanent vegetation plots 0.0247 acre
Vegetation (100 square meters)in size;CVS-EEP As-built,Years 1,2,3,5,and 7 14 plots spread across the Site Species,height,planted vs.volunteer,
establishment and Protocol for Recording Vegetation, stems/acre
Version 4.2(Lee et al.2008)
vigor Annual random vegetation plots,0.0247
acre(100 square meters)in size As-built,Years 1,2,3,5,and 7 4 plots randomly selected each year Species and height
*Benthic Macroinvertebrate sampling data will not be tied to success criteria;however,the data may be used as a tool to observe positive gains to in-stream habitat
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) page 6
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Stream Summary
All streams are functioning as designed,and no stream areas of concern were observed during year 2(2020)
monitoring. Stream morphology data is available in Appendix D.
Wetland Summary
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year Soil Temperatures/Date Bud Monitoring Period Used for 10 Percent of
Burst Documented Determining Success Monitoring Period
2019(Year 1) March 28,2019* March 28-October 22 21 days
(209 days)
2020(Year 2) March 2,2020* March 2-October 22 23 days
(234 days)
*Based on data collected from a soil temperature data logger located on the Site.
All six groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 2 (2020)monitoring period(Appendix E).
Vegetation Summary
During quantitative vegetation sampling, 14 sample plots(10-meter by 10-meter)were installed within the
Site as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee et al.
2008). Year 2 (2020) measurements also included two random sample plots (25-meter by 4-meter).
Measurements of all 16 plots resulted in an average of 372 planted stems/acre excluding livestakes.
Additionally,all plots met success criteria except permanent plots 3,4,and 6 (Tables 8-10,Appendix C).
A visual assessment of areas containing unsuccessful plots indicated two areas of poor growth rates or vigor
due to competition from dense fescue: one in the vicinity of Plots 2 and 4 (0.87 acres) and another in the
vicinity of Plot 3 (0.48 acres). These areas are depicted on Figure 2A (Appendix B). RS plans to treat
fescue and supplementally plant these areas during the 2021 dormant season. Planting will occur at a rate
of approximately 330 stems per acre and will include bare-root stems of river birch (Betula nigra), green
ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red bud (Cercis canadensis),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), white oak (Quercus alba), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak
(Quercus phellos), and red oak(Quercus rubra). Additionally,plot 6 was 3 stems shy of meeting success
criteria; however, visual assessments indicate that low stem density in this area appears isolated and a
temporary vegetation transect in its vicinity easily met success criteria.
MY2(2020) Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) page 7
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

3.0 REFERENCES
Griffith,G.E.,J.M. Omernik,J.A. Comstock,M.P. Schafale,W.H.McNab,D.R. Lenat,T.F.MacPherson,
J.B. Glover,and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey,Reston,Virginia.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh,North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2014. Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Monitoring Guidelines. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. Available: https:// https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-
planning/water-resource-plans/cape-fear-2005 [December 8,2016].North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources,Raleigh,North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Version 5.0). (online). Available:
https://file s.nc.gov/ncde q/W ater%20Quality/Environmental%20 Science s/BAU/NCD W RMacroin
vertebrate-SOP-February%202016_final.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2009. Small Streams Biocriteria Development.
Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2d54ad23-0345-4d6e-82fd-
04005 f48eaa7&groupld=38364
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009 (online). Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=864e 82e 8-725 c-415 e-8e d9-
c72dfcb55012&groupld=60329
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM)User Manual.Version 2.1.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). N.C. Wetland Assessment
Method(NC WAM)User Manual.Version 4.1.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation.North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,Division of Parks and Recreation,
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North
Carolina.
MY2(2020) Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) page 8
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified Tennessee
Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest Hydrology and
Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Pub1.167.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [August 2016].
United States Department of Agriculture(USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County,North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.
MY2(2020) Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) page 9
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Appendix A
Background Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
MY2(2020) Monitoring Report(Project No. 100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits: Heron Restoration Site
Mitigation
Stream Existing Restoration Restoration or
Plan Mitigation Mitigation
Reach ID Stationing/ Footage/ Footage/ Footage/ Restoration Level Restoration Ratio Credits Comment
Wetland Type Acreage Acreage Acreage Equivalent
UT lA (-)0+05 t0 475 470 475 Enhancement(Level I) 475 1.5:1 317
04+70
856-57—_ 571f of UT1 is located outside of
UT 1B 04+70 to 13+26 753 836 856 Restoration 799 1:1 799 the conservation easement and
therefore is not generating credit
UT 2A 00+00 to 03+04 304 343 304 Enhancement(Level II) 304 2.5:1 122
UT 2B 03+04 to 03+67 19 46 63 Restoration 63 1:1 63
UT 3 00+00 to 02+79 269 279 279 Restoration 279 1:1 279
UT 4 00+00 to 04+50 485 450 450 Restoration 450 1:1 450
952-52—_ 521f of UT5 is located outside of
UT 5A 00+00 to 09+52 422 952 952 Restoration 900 1:1 900 the conservation easement and
therefore is not generating credit
UT 5B 09+52 to 14+90 538 538 538 Enhancement(Leven') 538 2.5:1 215
UT 6 00+00 to 07+81 683 781 781 Restoration 781 1:1 781
41 if of the UT7 restoration reach
UT 7A 00+00 to 02+32 0 232 232 Restoration 232-41= 1:1 191 is located outside of the
191 conservation easement and
therefore is not generating credit
551f of the UT7 enhancement
UT 7B 02+32 to 09+96 764 764 764 Enhancement(Level I) 764-55= 1.5:1 473 reach is located outside of the
709 conservation easement and
therefore is not generating credit
UT8A 00+04 to 06+09 549 607 605 Restoration 605 1:1 605
UT 8B 06+09 to 08+57 248 250 248 Enhancement(Level II) 248 2.5:1 99
Wetland R Riparian -- 0.35 0.35 Restoration 0.35 1:1 0.35 Wetland Restoration
Riverine
Wetland E Ripanan 0.61 0.61 0.61 Enhancement 0.61 2:1 0.31 Wetland Enhancement
Riverine
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) page 2
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits: Heron Restoration Site(continued)
Length &Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level Stream (linear Riparian Wetland
footage) (acreage)
Restoration 4068* 0.35
Enhancement(Level I) 1184** --
Enhancement(Level II) 1090 --
Enhancement -- 0.61
*An additional 150 linear feet of stream restoration is located outside of the conservation easement and is
therefore not included in this total or in mitigation credit calculations.
**An additional 55 linear feet of stream enhancement(level I)is located outside of the conservation easement and
is therefore not included in this total or in mitigation credit calculations.
Overall Assets Summary
Asset Category Overall Credits
Stream 5293
Riparian Riverine Wetland 0.66
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History: Heron Restoration Site
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Completion
Complete or Delivery
Technical Proposal(RFP No. 16-006990) January 11,2017 January 11,2017
Institution Date(NCDMS Contract No. 100014) -- May 22,2017
404 Permit -- October 10,2018
Mitigation Plan -- July 2018
Construction Plans -- July 17,2018
Site Construction __ November 27,2018-February
11,2019
Planting -- February 21,2019
As-built Baseline Stream Data Collection February 25-26,2019 --
As-built Baseline Vegetation Data Collection February 25,2019 --
As-built Baseline Monitoring(MYO) February-March 2019 May 2019
Monitoring Year 1 (2019)Stream Data Collection August 13-14,2019 --
Monitoring Year 1 (2019)Vegetation Data Collection September 30,2019 --
Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) March-October 2019 November 2019
Monitoring Year 2(2020)Stream Data Collection May 16-24,2020 --
Monitoring Year 2(2020)Vegetation Data Collection July 1-6,2020 --
Monitoring Year 2(MY2) March-October 2020 November 2020
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) page 3
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 3. Project Contacts Table: Heron Restoration Site
Full Delivery Provider Construction Contractor
Restoration Systems Land Mechanic Designs
1101 Haynes Street,Suite 211 780 Landmark Road
Raleigh,North Carolina 27604 Willow Spring,NC 27592
Worth Creech 919-755-9490 Lloyd Glover 919-639-6132
Designer Planting Contractor
Axiom Environmental,Inc. Carolina Silvics,Inc.
218 Snow Avenue 908 Indian Trail Road
Raleigh,NC 27603 Edenton,NC 27932
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693 Mary-Margaret McKinney 252-482-8491
Construction Plans and Sediment and As-built Surveyor
Erosion Control Plans K2 Design Group
Sungate Design Group,PA 5688 US Highway 70 East
915 Jones Franklin Road Goldsboro,NC 27534
Raleigh,NC 27606 John Rudolph 919-751-0075
Joshua G.Dalton,PE 919-859-2243
Baseline&Monitoring Data Collection
Axiom Environmental,Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh,NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
Table 4. Project Attribute Table: Heron Restoration Site
Project Information
Project Name Heron Restoration Site
Project County Alamance County,North Carolina
Project Area(acres) 17.64
Project Coordinates(latitude&latitude) 35.853955°N,-79.363458°W
Planted Area(acres) 12.05
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
Project River Basin Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project(14-digit) 03030002050050
NCDWR Sub-basin for Project 03-06-04
Project Drainage Area(acres) 14 to 96
Percentage of Project Drainage Area that is <2%
Impervious
CGIA Land Use Classification Managed Herbaceous Cover&Mixed Upland Hardwoods
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) page 4
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 4. Project Attribute Table: Heron Restoration Site(Continued)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT1 UT2 UT 3 UT4 UT 5 UT6 UT 7 UT 8
Length of reach(linear feet) 1155 363 269 485 907 683 202 1221
Valley Classification&Confinement Alluvial,confined
Drainage Area(acres) 96.4 7.1 11.7 17.2 38.1 14.1 20.9 30.8
NCDWR Stream ID Score 30.5 22.5 28.5 33.5 27.5 23.5 24.5 27.5
Perennial/ Perennial/ Perennial/
Perennial,Intermittent,Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Perennial Intermittent Perennial
Intermittent Intermittent Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS-V,NSW
Existing Morphological Description(Rosgen 1996) Cg5 Gf5 Cg5 Eg5 Eg5 Cg5 Cg5 Eg5
Proposed Stream Classification(Rosgen 1996) C/E 4 Gf 5 C/E 4 C/E 4 C/E 4 C/E 4 Eb4 C/E 4
Existing Evolutionary Stage(Simon and Hupp 1986) III/IV I/III/IV III/IV II/III II/III III/IV III/IV II/III
Alamance silt loam,Georgeville silt loam,Goldston slaty silt loam,Herndon silt loam,Orange silt loam,
Underlying Mapped Soils
Worsham sandy loam,Local Alluvial Land,
Drainage Class Well-drained,well-drained,well-drained,well-drained,well drained,poorly-drained,poorly-drained
Hydric Soil Status Nonhydric,nonhydric,nonhydric,nonhydric,nonhydric,hydric,hydric,respectively
Valley Slope 0.0074 0.0270 0.0222 0.0244 0.0358 0.0300 0.0255 0.0218
FEMA Classification NA
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont Alluvial Forest/Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover(Site) 43%forest,55%agricultural land,<2%low density residential/impervious surface
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover(Cedarock
Reference Channel) 65%forest,30%agricultural land,<5%low density residential/impervious surface
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation <5%
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) page 5
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2,2A-D. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5H. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

, __. .. _ . -.-.../ ;J.:" -._, ;:' Itir. :
11 -—.' JI
. -s= s f !ii� xr
/- -1,---------...,,.--1.-----. .44,((:-/(1-003' 1..‘•..., .Z ' .. •
--N. ....p.,_ _ -0 of a'
, ___, ..r T3-'5ei A. o •-, •
:#.*X1Zi%
� + Ir.: ft (-,' r _., :�+ R 7_ , . .,. . �f► �• Axiom Envmonmenla+,mc.
„..._
.,..,_ . ..
,..
, , na • , , ,,, • ,
Prepared for:
•
;( r--4114T 1 -..,.... - . / . f _--.-- .. 1
y 1O
r' 1
I'' n� S �' - RESTORATION
• r - Q1 . / 2 SYSTEMS I LLC
o0 0 ® qa do IQoo -o /J �. �: .fi'
a oci i-cubed )e
• �` x57) i _ 1 ' Project:
_ T
Gal .! r ' . '-� , , q. -ii, t/ - I HERON STREAM
,of ti _ AND WETLAND
Aie,--h • . 4-., .. .. 1:' '_ .
• l - MITIGATION SITE
t _ ^,r - - ! -fir:-: cr . • \....F*._."_'__,C\,.!-\.-.--'..
J .:I, �' ,. ,_� `�: '_/ \... _-
N/; - l'.,,.'pei,` ', � Alamance County, NC
uF, + -:• . / Title:
r 1 °$Greensboro Chape' Road ` ;1 • ti ' . y
}• - - s_ \ ( ; �f l PROJECT
Snow Camp _ - /
'` r�.� LOCATION
` _ "� — . i3sz� •_�a r ; --. _•-' — — — ---
.,-k- ,�. _ _ ALAMANCE CO_ -
n` - ; '- � M1 _ �-ti—
,-- _ - - -`�- rr - C.HATHAM CO Drawn by:
0 way- KRJ
i -- -_� - ` - _.-_---- . / .
..-\,S_ . -7.
o ,- j + _, �1 /l �Q Date:
°' �`— "—` - , '_��lsoot Fork ch DEC 2017
�� I ram--— J .
�J r :3 ::::C
i. 1:20000
6 t No.:
ti s f - _ .seta ,', Directions to the Site from Raleigh:
f _ _ l;, t- f + \ • I - Take US-64 West out of Raleigh and travel 25 miles, 17-008
• '� c,,K, ,,, r � Take exit 381 and turn right onto NC-87 N,
• 1 r 11 �. . ---^ After 5 miles, take a left onto Castle Rock Farm Road,
• + ;,: �i '`� ;�' y 'v 's; _ `` ` I .� -- re' 4y. v` - After 5.8 miles, turn left onto Greenhill Road, FIGURE
f �. / 0 �j - After 1.2 miles, turn left onto Lindley Mill Road,
I �, r r _ /� I QF'/ - After 0.5 mile, turn right onto Bethel South Fork Road,
'i f I. a ' - Site can be accessed from both sides of Bethel South Fork Road.
�, 1}._�` I rI " - Site Latitude, Longitude 35.853955, -79.363458 (NAD83/WGS84) 1
Copyright:©.2013 National Geographic f �ti ' j_
•
i_`_ri ` �- So&iety i-cubed, U.S.Geological Survey- 0' 'i i�_ 4 ���
f. \ National Geospatial Program. Data i . e /
- -- i - Refreshed October_2'01-7.L-_.--L.. ',-•:-, . --.,",, USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Silk Hope and Crutchfield Crossroads, NC Quad)
■ ---• -- 1 ,4's:/ ' . }

.„.
_. . .. .
_ • _,,
.. .. .,.
. €.# . .--
. . .
_s. . ,.
. . ... . . . , _ .
.,—
..
Figure - _ _.F ., ,.
,e ie. r- .. , _ . • ,.... •
1. :..,... , : _
.; :a•. • .'; '' Axiom Environmenlai,Inc.
r.i •-:'• ,. ^;tom . N.,,,4' ..
_...4.,.
„„!m_,
A
2
m x Prepared for:
„ri. r.-
Figure
. -,...:4 .-O;;"I.'
-.c.-.IL-:i.,---.+_-.-.-...--.N.._:-,..
e 'r, RESTORATION
- Fi f{ S7 STEMS I LLC
, _ _ I -8B 4 - - r t i^
` t -+4 _ `•_ -F:r,zz. .-a Project:
,: HERON STREAM
_4` AND WETLAND
�. i ,T �. MITIGATION SITE
� `_. -v k - = ;.� '^ �- # � Alamance County, NC
4► ` _ -- .ti- ` t •_, D p- Title:
•
c i
! ._ • ,.
r •yam: • '.
� - CURRENT
rrY _ ‘\'‘:
ti" ' ,j- CONDITIONS
. �1'.- .\ \ 1 1 1 - " := PLAN VIEW
�_� Figure 2 B _ = :__ �.
Ofvtil'''' _ : ,r. 17. . ..,
. Z:
•
1• -9..}-�f y�'��[+ .{fie. . i ce _yT.,- �A a -a-..
•
\...\..
A\ \ \ \
,,: S _ �, • . - .-,-� ���. -: ,, [ �' Drawn by:
..r . _ •• :.-.- • `. =; Date:
�� • ,� . . ,� _ f b� - 1'_- JAN 2021
•
1g " a Scale:
`: 9.* „,o - f--� r It
R^ �', _ 1:4000
__, _ e` Legend
'v • ► W :. _� , �= Project No.:
4 17-008
• *� w Easement= 17.64 ac
6) o je k' j i? _ 'S' r.
- rr= - r Stream Restoration = 4068 ft
, '-- _;; ._ s,g• . -A.'' ►*., - -• _ Stream Enhancement (Level I) = 1184 ft
. FIGURE
•
q`:'. • �: ��' ' Stream Enhancement (Level II) = 1090 ft
r • - 1° --, " 1-:'4 n +. t 1' Wetland Restoration =0.35 ac
— :•`z- - .t Wetland Enhancement= 0.61 ac2
_-- Figure 2Ah. sor
:.-. . . . , . . li - �' - _ _= '= : �. - - r�
_ •
?'• ={ ; '' ?�. s 0 250 500 1,000 1,500
y, " •�Y�- Feet
L •.7"�. ?y-"- _ • _ _
l=YSRl1!-• !ti — 'CHIC.

` F`
• ,)1
Py Pi: ry .•
•li
3 .d
,,, •._ __ ..
a er • .
•'-'• - --- i- •41.- •
.. _. .
. ... . , %.., ,•• . • r.• • .
. . . .... ,. . . .. .
,ti.. • - ti _ ..: ..
..
• ei� 'y ,. Axiom Er ifOf f18 Inc.
If..-!'if. ' n.'$• • p
.4
' Prepared for:
■' +=, =x. y, 1. 9 , i745
+• 'Y r y .i
• ,: -
::4M ; �+>�,.: - r3 �. RESTORATION
n.` �" vI SYSTEMS I LLC
r; Project:
sew` ' ,1 \t ff / • � 2• AV •y; 'i,
•
•
•
•
' 'i � - - ~ WAD, F .ay4' ' L- gyp.
�; 1 CW `_' 'Nt, ',• ' •` •
HERON STREAM
.*x' �r •
•k 20 X /•r k J k °� tt . •i Its/. AND WETLAND
. _Age _
_ '` '� ` r MITIGATION SITE
_\ , .... 30
Y! • _ Y t'ham+.` •1
CO
4 1XSrio �,Acia °`' �:- ' . Alamance County, NC
.1 li \-\\-' 11\
r'' •' '` Title:
. h\.1C.shi.. IT. i'..I
/ t C.. ej .4.i t {
' r ". . t, ; ;= - ` ,, J.., = �' l� CURRENT
,,,,,-7,'.:'7...''.',''....,.-A..
f.
`\ ‘ _ .; `{ .�, - , - CONDITIONS
�\-\ -,-.- :;,�..- 1 , ' 4` PLAN VIEW
Legend } ``\\�I _ . p .., .` .� . 1 l
Easement= 17.64 ac \;\ ". .,
- Stream Restoration =4068 ft ;i ' "` .. ' • %
Stream Enhancement(Level I)= 1184 ft 3 i ( .:.t. �,.
r `\� _ •»�"-'• ., �,_' _' . : y -,-,{. _ 0,. Drawn by:
Stream Enhancement(Level II)= 1090 ft 4 `� �___ ►- -_ . •Z•
---- Channel TOB ``.___ ----`\1 °--I.
F`- - x _ •Yb + ,.,4• a '2 # i- • KRJ
,..'.1 y. �: ••„ 1.-: - -. s' Date:
— Wetland Restoration =0.35 ac '- � JAN 2021
, 1 1 • �!: •- _ �''
Wetland Enhancement=0.61 ac `\`� "' r K' �'i'
.` i ; r4 •'t- 1: 1,i.;. -fix • ,` • Scale:
-Cross Section i l ! r,s•'--_ "• •:'i --A"`� 1:1200
CVS Plots Meeting Success During MY2 (2020) ; i` x -'41 ,..; ^74,z • ' .•
•
CVS Plots Not Meeting Success During MY2 (2020) `.``\\ Project No.:\\ r ^ 17-008
Vegetation Transects Meeting Success During MY2 (2020) -� \\\ -""r
0 Groundwater Gauge r � \
- . . `\\ — r
•
A Stream Gauge _ `• -
E ❑ Benthic Sampling Location s^" _ ,* FIGURE
:: Marsh Treatment Area
/// Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor „. .- . ... .. . . r v + 2Ar.{ 4' 7 _ ,+.max. " .
_ . .- -_...- _''..\..:.
Feet r' = r ,_ r

x J- ;�•
- AO
:.'. d y = re1:. qAllilik:. .
.▪ di
-_t J r -�`�-:. _ .,w � .�xaP�� • r`" Aram Environmental,inc.
•
6 - : a. .e -V �' 'r
5.
_:.-:y` *▪ ., r _ . ,. • . , - ; :4w1 =. - Prepared for:
itt.
„cLix i'1 1 ' ' Y t .w i•. - - �._ .. 'c •:'yam .. � �~ ..it. 1315
.
•
Ujiaa
•
•
` •� YV A - r �' •- '�� ,; - - /./ `, , F y''ru. -y .#' tea' . * f ',,,-
� ,'ti. .. fir' .a• _ •
+ ,-:.-7...--,„i��i i�- ~ -• .i .l Ti}r3 _
ems+ __, / ��i N' • ''S.._i' L 3' y h. !" Z 'r. RESTORt1TIDN
.aS ti � i s�,. � . j�'ri% i'. r :: h SYSTEIISLLC
'- - - :.- •tip fir'- • '.•• T r_•'~ _
ikAu
tia. '�,� �_. ;;' `{. ; • ,. i r, tier Project:
�.
.�� 0"s a ._)
r+ , •r Y.R" ,/. ,= ". ,,_f- ..
-', r •I-'..:, '•••4..j....4T.,114'-• -.- ,- '_ ' - - ' 4g".' *':*'- •"..- , 4:- '1- 401.
•
.. t om ' _ Pe;�, . • -o'. �, •f„E.=,,,,.r� .- -_._ - ' :._- . .. Y . .'• ';;- R :' . HERON STREAM
Y �. , �,- • • .• AND WETLAND
-f f • l:n+ -f �.
� _ +s �. `+ ;�- . "4. 4i -.ram •. - • f.. MITIGATION SITE
4 . /,ems �.t !- 11 • ' - i-C_. --- - k --'• -i,: .,• ....y,
-rev '-' • • .` ,-. - �_ V; 40 - `:' `y76.r►d:;.� ,
r' is 2 XSC+ +A --. ‘ f a r i- .w
=�r:i :c. 4 S•
1, ,•..f._ •--r- . --- 1' j � y
'' r' �/ • .' - i Alamance County, NC
N �� � _ t
�... .. `'- '' y _ + r rk �1 Title:
+„ s r
} � T 7
I /„ _ yam.. '`
�� S, .: _ - _ CURRENT
- � '� t -` . " JO'r'r CONDITIONS
{ , . 4 - •�,. ,. PLAN VIEW
--- /.7 ..411ft-'-- t•lk. 5 - ' •,•,•
:e.- ;Y..- 4 - f,, - Legend
/I • _ r • - > ;- W. ..' .• �„ Easement= 17.64 ac
+�XS-19 x ,-
- ��• �; ,L.e{:� Stream Restoration =4068 ft Drawn by:
. � ' r1_ aA 2p a' . KRJ
=�? r Stream Enhancement(Level I)= 1184 ft
.11 . . Stream Enhancement(Level II)= 1090 ft Date:
�'' n'_ 1 . . . ----- JAN 2021
Channel TOB
XSS-21 r r • •'�`- Scale:
�-i `- 1y Wetland Enhancement= 0.61 ac
., 1:1200
Cross Section_ •��,.- _ _ CVS Plots MeetingSuccess DuringMY2 (2020) Project No.:
• -•,1' , .;_ . :- 17-008
7 .i - -• 3• CVS Plots Not Meeting Success During MY2 (2020)
Vegetation Transects Meeting Success During MY2(2020)
�4j, _ Y-- _ ... . Stream Gauge FIGURE
';:; r .� ' ❑ Benthic Sampling Location
4.
,fr ... ' ° : ��S Drop Structure
` ' ' Marsh Treatment Area2B
• +. • ,1 '1. 5� .. At his , .�' �-
- ;� 'x . ,.:•. •• ke! .+ .1+F ' . 0 100 200 400
_ 1^: ._ `, ry •_ ""',� Feet

' A , ..' '� : "ter '+'. s..^, ''e'r"`---' r,: v' ,.drq • _ J
Legend r�,.
f ,r� Nara ! .." ,�
� Easement= 17.64 ac "' . :a.; •i_ "i--'? I i'y , •-.4s. f i - - _ r
Stream Restoration = 4068 ft 'a r 1, �..�
Stream Enhancement (Level I) = 1184 ft • '`', i r�' " 'p r"r `. -..1
,.
Stream Enhancement (Level II) = 1090 ft /i' ,_ �+ `t ; ;� • y�"y ,,.. _ ` ' °'
Channel TOB iy( lr. `' r ,. ''` �' ' ' .
��-9 ' ;�._ Axiom Environmenlai,inc.
— Wetland Restoration =0.35 ac &\ •.--- • w 4
Wetland Enhancement= 0.61 ac . it"
'' * ,• "''
., % • ' .' Prepared for:
Cross Section x orrr ti. ..
CVS Plots Meeting Success During MY2 (2020) y ., .
_ . .: N.,s, - Rs
O :: a
water . ,.. ,., '' :Gauge �� �. Via, , :� '��� ' a�r .''l t' ; ,.t .
- XS_Za ',:�: � . 1. T;" : RESTORATION
• Rain Gauge and Soil Temperature Gauge '" . � � �,"•" � �•:
,f.'i SYSTEMS I LLC
Drop Structure � 1' - . .
►__ Marsh Treatment Area . �,i ,r/ _,,ire• ; y;:�:• ,• ; =-• :' '.::rlx• „ . Project:
'} • -'" ' ''N', t { HERON STREAM
�Lq, :a r^ -oz; _ i 0, •-' ".,- : 14 J ..b oi AND WETLAND
' '7�- �j - .i 4 ; 'Tr*.• "-• .�'', •i�i •� , �:1. ,. s' .. ,1 i fs;.',•.. ..,1
J � :,� '.4.' . '. _ � '• r _,r.:-� + -- MITIGATION SITE
pi
,,,f7 ._
.„ , ...,.. .. . ..- -,1 ,,_,,,. ..--; __,-,.- ... . ., fp ,-11-..-, -. .. -it ,.
x �� r • �. t�' �• '' f "- ..iI +'.', . • Alamance County, NC
17.9
, F rx . ;; ,-;`,T�,'. ' iw -'.. ►,,,; , • Title:
S, r r - ' `a-' j_ iV
w
CURRENT
- .. 4-. :a :±, s ', ' m CONDITIONS
g�� Kit , • '_ ,. ; -. ,�..
11 : . �"""_ '. fr
.:; ,,:�� .� _; 1;Ai1 � ` PLAN VIEW
N -. `� ;; + ' V;10. 'Alv
•
R �� �i '�� /s, `s".�: a:NEEy is' + 'r r' ', . i%• f':N• ,•-_:}"..; ."' •
10
+S _` +s2 ?' ! n �.. �is 1�y.= a ;�� Drawn by:
L . :1,7
•
a• ! .. i i rt ;,r Date:
,•er Atel:
® �� s" = ,, S" •_t,. *.• _• -"r, JAN 2021
...ir,i_,:_,:,.-_.
~ tr-6, , .r 7,r' ' ��r' ^°� ." `�'~ �- r s. ? x. �, Scale:
!Oil/ 1:1 400
- ;:s •t, • :-s r.: 1 '. ,e Project No.:
Shy _� J p ���1 "] , .• r _ ��
"i�ak�^^ lT_ �. p �. "S ' :,,� ,�4 FIGURE
•
•
40*
. ,.. • .,,,-, 2C
.... _ .,_.,-.. i - .
t ...._,0,11„.... ,, ..j...,..
• ''-'-', 4?.. * ' -4 -:
►, '." ' 0 125 250 500
-x Feet

if. . --Jr.' ,4III-!II .. AILL' , ;me.-- . -7"- -...k.ii-ilw ..."de,
rS''.41"7411(- - 4 Z ---eg-t--•=;;W It'l
4.
.. A
•
•
•
•
ti K Aram Env ronmeniai Inc.
-.4
� 11'1? :r, l Prepared for:
Rs
•
yaI . •
wl. •.�'•�,. _ .� •� r - \ � ,• � � P.
• `�
._i •- ' ' a - r�- - {# ,R-17 Y ^{G• ,
•gyp• a F � -• •• !ti " 1 - -t. �. - w -
41,- -
- • RESTORATION
�. •- y. i. SYSTEMS I LLC
.., _ ,,,,
., • ..,: ..... ,-,.._ 4,,,,,,._,•44 .4-' .
i r s . r „., Y y..4 .y. }`•--
Project:�r ,- r •,rt - .. -'^-`;''' . ' ti +M�.a _ r:. '''-- •.• 'ice
r.i
s �" v....04' _ _(- ' ��. - - z* - . �•. . - ' ' HERON STREAM
"{x z . ': - „ rF y ." e� ..-: ' '`'• ' A' 4. . — R ` �:.+4..- 7 '. `?=�., AND WETLAND
_ - A •
,p;- i k iy...„rtt„..,, , �. A t. '= - MITIGATION SITE
_ - ;*� - .: y�? i..�,� -� `�_.._.%- -'^�►�9,ice - '��iti� N+r`""r- ^y• _ •--
r v4.'44i r -j^ r� r- / - t=r, 13 \� ..- 6' v' s r.r�+ � -r •y • :' Alamance County, NC
, j�. r B- '�•, / ti( '�4iric .r. l ti Y.' _ r_ 'ems •
r-. �.< - - i- a. fr
A1� y am \.= , r„41; ` .L ,., _. - �•"`_ �w+ - _ :.. - e,.- ... -. -•T xFry • ' Title:
•
.„..• _,-_-`1....:-, 4.,,,...0.,.. r:. ?':s * �" r = ;� *41 4� t CURRENT
:�, • 7 >ww CONDITIONS
:. - -:J_ ->,, , 7: ;�',•.- Fr' `,+ _ ` ; .•:• .. .;.k,. . � '�' Y, ' _ _ PLAN VIEW
•
°his.^ �r .' r + `r+ -r. •ti ✓ r, .}' . .* �r�:
E, , x
' Drawn by:
•
KRJ
Date:
• Legend
JAN 2021
• Easement= 17.64 ac Scale:
' Stream Restoration = 4068 ft 1:1000
.a
A -,•., Stream Enhancement (Level
rtyti f3.... Eh tI) = 1184 ft Project No.:
Stream Enhancement (Level II) = 1090 ft
ate' ---- Channel TOB
Cross Section
�._ FIGURE
`," - CVS Plots Meeting Success During MY2 (2020)
• .- ,.... i- R , n
.. r r' I Drop Structure
l�... "' *`��_ l*. ; Stream Gauge 2D
1 ... L " • -, , A.
. �,,,.--•_ry - • .- �_.; �, ... A -- ,.•
-F •"/ 0 75 150 300
1 1 , �r - ve-i _. - - ` "-7i � Fi'4 .{�,'P, ^R •4 Y �Y + '.r Y"
•�� -' _ . _ 'r �.. Feet
f i..,W.. •v

Table 5A Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-1
Assessed Length 1331
Adjusted
Number Number with Footage with for
Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of %Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing Woody Woody Woody
Category Sub-Category Metric as Intended As-built Segments Footage as Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Bed 1.Vertical Stability 1. Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units) flow laterally(not to include point bars)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 1 00%
2.Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 35 35 100%
3.Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 34 34 100%
Condition 2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 34 34 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 34 34 100%
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 34 34 100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or o 100%
2.Bank 1.Scoured/Eroding scour and erosion 0 0 100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Engineered o
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 15 15 100%
Structures
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 15 15 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 15 15 100%
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15 15 100%
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining—Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull o
4.Habitat Depth ratio>1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow. 15 15 100/o

Table 5B Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-2
Assessed Length 63
Adjusted
Number Number with Footage with for
Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of %Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing Woody Woody Woody
Category Sub-Category Metric as Intended As-built Segments Footage as Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Bed 1.Vertical Stability 1. Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units) flow laterally(not to include point bars)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 1 00%
2.Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 3 3 1 00%
3.Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 3 3 100%
Condition 2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 3 3 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 3 3 100%
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 3 3 100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or o 100%
2.Bank 1.Scoured/Eroding scour and erosion 0 0 100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Engineered
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 0 0 NA
Structures
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 0 0 NA
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 0 0 NA
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 0 0 NA
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
4.Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining—Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull 0 0 NA
Depth ratio>1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.

Table 5C Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-3
Assessed Length 279
Adjusted
Number Number with Footage with for
Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of %Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing Woody Woody Woody
Category Sub-Category Metric as Intended As-built Segments Footage as Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Bed 1.Vertical Stability 1. Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units) flow laterally(not to include point bars)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 1 00%
2.Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 14 14 1 00%
3.Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 13 13 100%
Condition 2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 13 13 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 13 13 100%
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 13 13 100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or o 100%
2.Bank 1.Scoured/Eroding scour and erosion 0 0 100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Engineered o
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 5 5 1 00/o
Structures
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 5 5 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 5 5 100%
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 5 5 100%
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining—Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull o
4.Habitat Depth ratio>1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow. 5 5 100/o

Table 5D Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-4
Assessed Length 450
Adjusted
Number Number with Footage with for
Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of %Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing Woody Woody Woody
Category Sub-Category Metric as Intended As-built Segments Footage as Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Bed 1.Vertical Stability 1. Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units) flow laterally(not to include point bars)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 1 00%
2.Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 22 22 100%
3.Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 21 21 100%
Condition 2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 21 21 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 21 21 100%
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 21 21 100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or o 100%
2.Bank 1.Scoured/Eroding scour and erosion 0 0 100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Engineered o
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 10 10 100%
Structures
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 10 10 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 10 10 100%
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 10 10 100%
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining—Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull o
4.Habitat Depth ratio>1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow. 10 10 100/o

Table 5E Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-5
Assessed Length 952
Adjusted
Number Number with Footage with for
Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of %Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing Woody Woody Woody
Category Sub-Category Metric as Intended As-built Segments Footage as Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Bed 1.Vertical Stability 1. Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units) flow laterally(not to include point bars)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 1 00%
2.Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 44 44 100%
3.Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 43 43 100%
Condition 2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 43 43 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 43 43 100%
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 43 43 100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or o 100%
2.Bank 1.Scoured/Eroding scour and erosion 0 0 100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Engineered o
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 25 25 100%
Structures
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 25 25 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 25 25 100%
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 25 25 100%
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining—Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull o
4.Habitat Depth ratio>1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow. 25 25 100/o

Table 5F Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-6
Assessed Length 781
Adjusted
Number Number with Footage with for
Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of %Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing Woody Woody Woody
Category Sub-Category Metric as Intended As-built Segments Footage as Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Bed 1.Vertical Stability 1. Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units) flow laterally(not to include point bars)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 1 00%
2.Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 34 34 100%
3.Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 33 33 100%
Condition 2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 33 33 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 33 33 100%
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 33 33 100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or o 100%
2.Bank 1.Scoured/Eroding scour and erosion 0 0 100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Engineered o
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 8 8 100%
Structures
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 8 8 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 8 8 100%
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 8 8 100%
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining—Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull o
4.Habitat Depth ratio>1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow. 8 8 100/o

Table 5G Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-7
Assessed Length 996
Adjusted
Number Number with Footage with for
Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of %Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing Woody Woody Woody
Category Sub-Category Metric as Intended As-built Segments Footage as Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Bed 1.Vertical Stability 1. Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units) flow laterally(not to include point bars)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 1 00%
2.Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 44 44 100%
3.Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 44 44 100%
Condition 2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 44 44 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 44 44 100%
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 44 44 100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or o 100%
2.Bank 1.Scoured/Eroding scour and erosion 0 0 100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Engineered o
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 19 19 100%
Structures
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 19 19 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 19 19 100%
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 19 19 100%
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining—Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull o
4.Habitat Depth ratio>1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow. 19 19 100/o

Table 5H Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-8
Assessed Length 605
Adjusted
Number Number with Footage with for
Major Stable, Total Number of Amount of %Stable, Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Channel Channel Performing Number in Unstable Unstable Performing Woody Woody Woody
Category Sub-Category Metric as Intended As-built Segments Footage as Intended Vegetation Vegetation Vegetation
1.Bed 1.Vertical Stability 1. Aggradation-Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units) flow laterally(not to include point bars)
2. Degradation-Evidence of downcutting 0 0 1 00%
2.Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate-Riffle maintains coarser substrate 24 24 100%
3.Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient(Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull Depth>1.6) 23 23 100%
Condition 2. Length appropriate(>30%of centerline distance between tail of 23 23 100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4.Thalweg Position 1.Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend(Run) 23 23 100%
2.Thalweg centering at downstream of meander(Glide) 23 23 100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or o 100%
2.Bank 1.Scoured/Eroding scour and erosion 0 0 100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2.Undercut likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable 0 0 100% 100%
and are providing habitat.
3.Mass Wasting Bank slumping,calving,or collapse 0 0 100% 100%
Totals 0 0 100% 0 0 100%
3.Engineered o
1.Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 9 9 100%
Structures
2.Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 9 9 100%
2a.Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms. 9 9 100%
3.Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 9 9 100%
15%.(See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining—Max Pool Depth:Mean Bankfull o
4.Habitat Depth ratio>1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow. 9 9 100/o

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Heron
Planted Acreage' 12.05
of
Mapping CCPV Number of Combined Planted
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage
1. Bare Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
2B. Low Planted Stem Density Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
Total 0 0.00 0.0%
3.Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Planted stems appear stunted or are dying due to competition from dense fescue. 0.25 acres black hatched 2 1.35 11.2%
polygons
Cumulative Total 2 1.35 11.2%
Easement Acreage2 17.64
of
Mapping CCPV Number of Combined Easement
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage
4.Invasive Areas of Concern" None 1000 SF none 0 0.00 0.0%
5.Easement Encroachment Areas' None none none 0 0.00 0.0%
1 =Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory,the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 =The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3=Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1,2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item(i.e.,item 1,2 or 3)as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4=Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas,but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native,young,woody stems in the short-term(e.g.monitoring period or shortly thereafter)or affect the community structure for existing,more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer(e.g.1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity,but can
be mapped,if in the judgement of the observer their coverage,density or distribution is suppressing the viability,density,or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration
of risk factors by DMS such as species present,their coverage,distribution relative to native biomass,and the practicality of treatment. For example,even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of
treating extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the"watch list"designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular
interest given their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found,particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However,areas of discreet,dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons.
The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons,particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense,discreet patches. In
any case,the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset,in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the
executive summary.

Heron
MY-02 (2020)Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2020
Plot 1 Plot 2
y
.
b
Plot 3 Plot 4
iii- ••,. '- -,:. , . i ,.. t -4.1.I
Mfi ^�R;7
!;. '''';-''''''';''''. Vt-*I'Vie''',,,-..:...,',A;;-:.',..,-si:":,,,,,,,,-,,,7,,,,,',,,-,<,,,,;m-,,,,,vi ......-__.-... .. ,,,......... ..,
I 1T. f .2'r --X` r
� , �� i
Plot 5 Plot 6
if14,-.;;;;.....1;Z ",,,. s 4..
n as , s```- u E '4 4A _;`
- _
\ 11, ��1
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC

Heron
MY-02 (2020)Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2020
Plot 7 Plot 8
l'iliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
I'M 4,,.
fl 1 .w� gg vyti' I'"-1
•
i'4t �� nib r� s"� 1°■:='S-hi�r " f r 0?<r,4,' > it A'. ,
,ram ,rf '3,x ,r n d �e laid . �$b 6.,,'lp ', "tw,T'''
�", d �' i1S,\�rsr a SMi dd�dq �d any;
•
3roE'3' *m� 2020707i O1 � ' � ',� ki'' 'r'''14„k •'$'''jrk�� ��''.•.•'��`4. k° f+Y >z:
/ �t L4 of a 1�� 3 �Y^ r fin'
--� 0 i I \ cxl ��.\. �t 3h'*t I.. r'Yi° o ,o'if,Vf��.r '.1 a','^��4�W p+..4:.
Plot 9 Plot 10
til
L ,A$t .,7
t f1 ' * •* Via.t/f t s,5, ,,,t.kA 11
wfr} j dam} tS s o- dlfiy f f i %,, a r 3 Yyra.'' ,
"-• , '",'' ''',,l',.,,/ *,,,:i, ,',.,:-.,-,1,N1;,fp,„,'_-',-, '' *)
1,,, ' ' i '''1,12,-,6 'to :,..4-4-,., ,°., ,,-„„" , ,1f),I., \ / \i,° i4-- '/,i
, 1 ��i---,A r �+ ` u ,'F 201Q7/Ot'i1 : i 020�© /Q'b i:..
Plot 11 Plot 12
as�„ ..,. _
/� Jy I x c b 1
A } Jf� 4
aR F 4 '& 1 % ,i t ^f
,ar r ,v f Y ! , s 4 a ' ails 'i ,A ; " r �'', u
I ld x Q d `4. "'u ,x �,+: u. - 111 � ,,_, q� il,,,o,i as it g 4D 3 ;.ee4 Y ' t ad .014 i, A x'F f9 11 ,iu/ti h ,l' ,I
y+ � nw'S�r, f r.„,,,4,',If ty3, r', .� _ R ,. ' �.$ � �� �� A.i'� a all $'�
'^. Y'` .1 ,, ',.'n , 1�. i / �s egg�1 r 1t
1.
In! j / z. d f l ,� / ; ' F1�' i t� •! r{f�i� s �a1,;�`P �,� R K"a� `,.
1 C` 1 F ice-" i ,',, . '-i;�. ....• a Q IL a Y.rS'1�:= ��+; ' u LU' sl$y '�`'.
Appendices
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014)
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC

Heron
MY-02 (2020)Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2020
Plot 13—taken Plot 14
November 2020 e _ � ' "' .�'
�t"7 + 'a' _ .kid:. \.- "",;,>
e �
z
- { t � �
�020 . 0 .s -<�, ,,k. A( = ` Gtirra2'.020 '
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC

Appendix C
Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation: Heron Restoration Site
Species Total*
Acres 12.05
Alnus serrulata 500
Asimina triloba 100
Betula nigra 400
Carpinus caroliniana 800
Cephalanthus occidentalis 25
Cercis canadensis 500
Cornus amomum 2500
Diospyros virginiana 350
Fraxinus americana 100
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2500
Liriodendron tulipifera 125
Nyssa sylvatia 500
Platanus occidentalis 2400
Quercus lyrate 900
Quercus nigra 2000
Quercus phellos 1900
Sambucus canadensis 25
TOTALS 15,625*
Average Stems/Acre 1297
*Live stakes of Salix nigra were planted,but are not included in this table.
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Project Code 17.008. Project Name:Heron Stream and Wetland
Current Plot Data(MY2 2020)
17.008-01-0001 17.008-01-0002 17.008-01-0003 17.008-01-0004 17.008-01-0005 17.008-01-0006 17.008-01-0007 17.008-01-0008 17.008-01-0009 17.008-01-0010
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 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
Acer rubrum red maple Tree 7
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree 1 1 1
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 7 7 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1
Fraxinus americana white ash Tree 3 3 3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 5 5 5 1 1 1 2 2 2
Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree
Quercus oak Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 1 1 1
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 1 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub
Ulmus americana American elm Tree
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree
Unknown Shrub or Tree
Stem count 12 12 12 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 6 9 9 9 5 5 5 10 10 17 8 8 8 12 12 12 9 9 9
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 21 2 6 6 7 6 6 6 8 8 8 6 6 6
Stems per ACRE 485.6 485.6 485.6 323.7 323.7 323.7 283.3 283.3 283.3 242.8 242.8 242.8 364.2 364.2 364.2 202.3 202.3 202.3 404.7 404.7 688 323.7 323.7 323.7 485.6 485.6 485.6 364.2 364.2 364.2
Color for Density PnoLS=Planted excluding livestakes
Exceeds requirements by 10% P-all=Planting including livestakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% T=All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T includes natural recruits
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species(continued)
Project Code 17.008. Project Name:Heron Stream and Wetland
Current Plot Data(MY2 2020) Annual Means
17.008-01-0011 17.008-01-0012 17.008-01-0013 17.008 01 0014 MY2(2020) MY1(2019) MYO(2019)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 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
Acer rubrum red maple Tree 7 4
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree 2 2 2 14 14 14 21 21 21
Betula nigra river birch Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 2
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 1 1 1 8 8 8 7 7 7 13 13 13
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub 1 1 1
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 1 1 1 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 3 3 3 2 2 2 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 3 1 1 1 13 13 16 13 13 15 19 19 19
Fraxinus americana white ash Tree 2 2 2 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 2 2 2 4 4 4 12 12 12 13 13 13 15 15 15
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 3
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 2 2 2 4 4 4 12 12 12 13 13 13 10 10 10
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 16 16 17 15 15 17 11 11 11
Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree 6 6 4
Quercus oak Tree 2 2 2 10 10 10 13 13 13 31 31 31
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 1 1 1 5 5 5 8 8 8
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 13 13 13 18 18 18 19 19 19
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 1 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 1 1 1 5 5 5 13 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 11
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub 1 1 1 2 2 2
Ulmus americana American elm Tree 10 1 11
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree 9
Unknown Shrub or Tree 1 1 1 5 5 5
Stem count 13 13 13 10 10 10 9 9 29 10 10 11 128 128 156 152 152 176 196 196 196
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 14 14 14
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.35 0.35 0.35
Species count 7 7 7 5 5 5 4 4 7 5 5 6 18 18 21 191 191 23 20 20 20
Stems per ACRE 526.1 526.1 526.1 404.7 404.7 404.7 364.2 364.2 1174 404.7 404.7 445.2 370 370 450.9 439.4 439.4 508.7 566.6 566.6 566.6
Color for Density PnoLS=Planted excluding livestakes
Exceeds requirements by 10% P-all=Planting including livestakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% T=All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T includes natural recruits
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data: Heron Restoration Site
25m x 4m Temporary Plot(Bearing)
Species T-1 (150°) T-2(275°)
Carpinus caroliniana 3
Cercis canadensis 1
Diospyros virginiana 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 3
Liriodendron tulipifera 2
Platanus occidentalis 2 4
Quercus rubra 2
Ulmus americana 1
Total Stems 8 11
Total Stems/Acre 324 445
Table 10. Planted Vegetation Totals: Heron Restoration Site
Plot# MY2 Planted Success Criteria
Stems/Acre Met?
1 485 Yes
2 323 Yes
3 283 No
4 242 No
5 364 Yes
6 202 No
7 404 Yes
8 323 Yes
9 485 Yes
10 364 Yes
11 526 Yes
12 405 Yes
13 364 Yes
14 405 Yes
T-1 324 Yes
T-2 445 Yes
Average Planted 372 Yes
Stems/Acre
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 11A-G. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12A-G. Baseline Stream Data Summary(Substrate,Bed,Bank,and Hydrologic Containment
Parameter Distributions)
Tables 13A-G. Monitoring Data-Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross-
sections)
Tables 14A-G. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-Section Plots
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 11a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 1 (856 feet)
Parameter I Gauge2I Regional Curve I Pre-Existing Condition I Cedarock Park Ref I Causey Ref I Design I Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 4.7 8.5 11.1 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 7.8 8.4 9 8.3 11 13 4
Floodprone Width (ft) 13 20 30 15 18 25 122 131 140 10 75 100 25 100 100 4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8 1.1 2 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.7 0.8 1 0.6 0.8 1.1 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 5.1 8 14.7 5.1 5.1 5.1 3.7 5.4 7.2 4
Width/Depth Ratio 4.3 14.6 22 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 17.4 18.7 36.7 4
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 2.5 4.3 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 5.1 8.9 11.1 3 8.3 9.3 4
'Bank Height Ratio 1.4 1.9 2.5 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 2.7 19 16 53 11 31
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.007 0.009 0.01 0 0.013 0.012 0.048 0.01 31
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
Pool Length (ft) due to straightening activities. 6 23 20 80 12.9 34
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 2.1 4
Pool Spacing (ft) 25 37 69 22 44 81 25 34 68 25 34 68 34
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 20 23 38 17 30 36 25 34 68 25 34 68
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 16 27 9 31 113 17 25 85 17 25 85
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) due to straightening activities. 1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft) 44 68 116 10 63 91 51 72 101 51 72 101
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 0.61 0.19 0.24
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification Cg 5 Eb 4 E5 E/C 4 C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.8 3.8 3.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 19.3
Valley length (ft) 1067
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 1433 856 856
Sinuosity (ft) 1.3 1.2 1.46 1.3 1.3
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0057 0.0258 0.0053 0.0057 0.0087
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks 61 0 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres,which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 11 b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 3 (279 feet)
Parameter 1Gauge21 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref I Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 3.2 4.5 5.9 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 4.1 4.4 4.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 1
Floodprone Width (ft) 9 14 21 15 18 25 122 131 140 20 40 60 18 18 18 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 1
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.4 0.4 0.5 1 1 1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 1.4 8 14.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 1
Width/Depth Ratio 8 17.4 29.5 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 13.2 13.2 13.2 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 2.2 3.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 4.9 9 12.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 1
'Bank Height Ratio 1.7 2.2 2.4 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 4 11 10 19 4.3 14
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.023 0.031 0.035 0.011 0.029 0.027 0.736 0.017 14
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
Pool Length (ft) 4 9 8 21 4.9 13
due to straightening activities.
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 0.4 0.6 0.7 1 1 1 1 0 1
Pool Spacing (ft) 25 37 69 22 44 81 13 18 35 13 18 35 14
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 20 23 38 17 30 36 13 18 27 13 18 27
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 16 27 9 31 113 9 13 44 9 13 44
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
due to straightening activities.
Meander Wavelength (ft) 44 68 116 10 63 91 26 37 53 26 37 53
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
ransport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 1.42 0.34 0.56
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification Cg 5 Eb 4 E5 E/C 4 C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.6 3.6 1.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 5
Valley length (ft) 229
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 247 279 279
Sinuosity (ft) 1.07 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0207 0.0258 0.0053 0.0193 0.0176
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks 100 0 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres,which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 11c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 4 (450 feet)
Parameter 1Gauge21 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref I Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 3.1 3.8 4.9 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 4.6 5 5.4 6.5 7.3 8 2
Floodprone Width (ft) 6 15 30 15 18 25 122 131 140 25 50 75 40 40 40 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 2 8 14.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.2 3 3.7 2
Width/Depth Ratio 5.2 7.7 12.3 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 17.3 18.3 19.2 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 3.9 6.1 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 5.4 10 14 5 5.6 6.2 2
'Bank Height Ratio 1.3 2.3 4.0 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 4 9 9 20 3.5 23
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.037 0.05 0.056 0 0.021 0.017 0.061 0.014 23
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
Pool Length (ft) 4 10 10 18 3.5 22
due to straightening activities.
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.4 2
Pool Spacing (ft) 25 37 69 22 44 81 15 20 40 15 20 40 22
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 20 23 38 17 30 36 15 20 30 15 20 30
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 16 27 9 31 113 10 15 50 10 15 50
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
due to straightening activities.
Meander Wavelength (ft) 44 68 116 10 63 91 30 43 60 30 43 60
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
ransport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 2.79 0.6 0.59
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification Eg 5 Eb 4 E5 E/C 4 C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.7 4 2.4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 7.3
Valley length (ft) 391
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 428 450 450
Sinuosity (ft) 1.09 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0283 0.0258 0.0053 0.3111 0.0254
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks 56 0 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres,which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 11d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 5 (952 feet)
Parameter 1Gauge21 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref I Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 2.5 3.7 6 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 4.6 5 5.4 4.9 6.9 8.1 4
Floodprone Width (ft) 4 12 30 15 18 25 122 131 140 25 50 75 40 40 40 4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 1.6 8 14.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.4 3.7 4
Width/Depth Ratio 3.6 8.8 20 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 12.6 18.3 20.9 4
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 3.1 7.3 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 5.4 10 14 4.9 5.9 8.2 4
'Bank Height Ratio 1.3 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 3 11 9 49 8.4 41
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.037 0.05 0.056 0.004 0.028 0.027 0.051 0.01 41
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
Pool Length (ft) 4 12 10 59 8.5 41
due to straightening activities.
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 1 1.1 4
Pool Spacing (ft) 25 37 69 22 44 81 15 20 40 15 20 40 41
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 20 23 38 17 30 36 15 20 30 15 20 30
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 16 27 9 31 113 10 15 50 10 15 50
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
due to straightening activities.
Meander Wavelength (ft) 44 68 116 10 63 91 30 43 60 30 43 60
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
ransport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 2.79 0.6 0.5
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification Eg 5 Eb 4 E5 E/C 4 E/C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.9 4 2.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 5.5
Valley length (ft) 579
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 605 952 952
Sinuosity (ft) 1.04 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0372 0.0258 0.0053 0.3111 0.0256
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks 50 0 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres,which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 11e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 6 (781 feet)
Parameter 1Gauge21 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref I Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate -Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 4.6 6.4 9.6 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 4.2 4.6 4.9 6.1 6.5 6.8 2
Floodprone Width (ft) 7 16 46 15 18 25 122 131 140 25 50 75 40 40 40 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 1.5 8 14.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.2 2.9 3.5 2
Width/Depth Ratio 15.3 26.7 48 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 13.2 15.1 16.9 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.1 2.4 4.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 5.9 10.9 15.3 5.9 6.2 6.6 2
'Bank Height Ratio 3.7 5.0 7.5 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 2 10 7 47 8.8 33
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.031 0.042 0.047 0.001 0.028 0.024 0.126 0.021 33
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
Pool Length (ft) 4 12 12 18 3.7 33
due to straightening activities.
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 0.4 0.6 0.7 1 1.2 1.3 2
Pool Spacing (ft) 25 37 69 22 44 81 13.7 18.3 36.7 14 18 37 33
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 20 23 38 17 30 36 13.7 18.3 36.7 14 18 37
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 16 27 9 31 113 9 14 46 9 14 46
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
due to straightening activities.
Meander Wavelength (ft) 44 68 116 10 63 91 27 39 55 27 39 55
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
ransport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 14.18 0.47 0.56
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification Cg 5 Eb 4 E5 E/C 4 C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.5 3.5 1.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 5.2
Valley length (ft) 486
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 522 781 781
Sinuosity (ft) 1.07 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.028 0.0258 0.0053 0.0261 0.0225
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks 68 0 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres,which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 11f. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 7 (232 feet)
Parameter 1Gauge21 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref I Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 4.1 5.3 6.7 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 4.9 5.3 5.7 6.2 6.6 7.8 4
Floodprone Width (ft) 7 13 29 15 18 25 122 131 140 25 50 75 10 20 20 4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 2 8 14.7 2 2 2 1.8 2.7 3.3 4
Width/Depth Ratio 8.2 14.5 22.3 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 12.8 18.5 24.2 4
Entrenchment Ratio 1.7 2.4 5.2 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 5 9 13 1.6 2.8 3.1 4
'Bank Height Ratio 1.8 2.5 4.1 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 3 13 10 75 13 42
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.027 0.036 0.04 0.006 0.029 0.029 0.056 0.011 42
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
Pool Length (ft) 3 9 9 14 2.6 41
due to straightening activities.
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 1.3 1.9 2.1 1 1.1 1.5 3
Pool Spacing (ft) 25 37 69 22 44 81 16 21 42 16 21 42 42
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 20 23 38 17 30 36 16 21 32 16 21 32
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 16 27 9 31 113 10 16 53 10 16 53
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
due to straightening activities.
Meander Wavelength (ft) 44 68 116 10 63 91 31 45 64 31 45 64
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
ransport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 2.36 0.45 0.61
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification Cg 5 Eb 4 E5 Eb 4 Cb 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.5 3.5 2.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 7
Valley length (ft) 755
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 778 232 232
Sinuosity (ft) 1.03 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0248 0.0258 0.0053 0.0222 0.0268
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks 76 0 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres,which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 11g. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 8 (605 feet)
Parameter 1Gauge21 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref I Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate -Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 4.2 5.1 6.1 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 5.5 5.9 6.3 6.5 7.9 9.3 2
Floodprone Width (ft) 5 15 30 15 18 25 122 131 140 25 50 75 20 30 40 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.6 0.8 1 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 2.5 8 14.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 3.2 3.7 2
Width/Depth Ratio 7 11.3 15.3 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 16.3 19.8 23.4 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.1 2.7 4.9 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 4.6 8.5 11.9 2.2 4.2 6.2 2
'Bank Height Ratio 1.4 2.3 3.7 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 5 11 11 19 3.4 23
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.023 0.03 0.034 0.007 0.02 0.017 0.041 0.009 23
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
Pool Length (ft) 6 15 15 24 4.8 23
due to straightening activities.
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.6 2
Pool Spacing (ft) 25 37 69 22 44 81 17 24 47 17 24 47 23
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 20 23 38 17 30 36 17 24 36 17 24 36
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 16 27 9 31 113 11 18 59 11 18 59
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
due to straightening activities.
Meander Wavelength (ft) 44 68 116 10 63 91 35 50 71 35 50 71
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
ransport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 1.85 0.44 0.32
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification Eg 5 Eb 4 E5 E/C 4 C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.6 3.6 2.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 9.1
Valley length (ft) 520
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 543 605 605
Sinuosity (ft) 1.04 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0218 0.0258 0.0053 0.019 0.0138
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks 80 0 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres,which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 12a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate,Bed,Bank,and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project NamelNumber(Heron/100014)-Segment/Reach: UT 1 (856 feet)
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Causey Reference Reach Data Design As-built/Baseline
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% 60 13 14 13 43 19 19 19
1SC%/Sa%I G%I C%I B%/Be% 9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16/d35/d50/d84 I d95 I dip I dip(mm) 0.12 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.32 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class<1.5/1.5-1.99/2.0-4.9/5.0-9.9/>10 29 71 33 66 50 50 25 75
'Incision Class<1.2/1.2-1.49/1.5-1.99/>2.0 14 43 43 66 33 100 1.111 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step;Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock;dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
2=Entrenchment Class-Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table.This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3=Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table.This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3-These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks,but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample(cross-sections as part of the design measurements),however,these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters,leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach.This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER,visual estimates.For example,the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters,thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 12b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate,Bed,Bank,and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project NamelNumber(Heron/100014)-Segment/Reach: UT 3(279 feet)
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Causey Reference Reach Data Design As-built/Baseline
Ri%l Ru%I P%I G%I S% 74 8 9 8 55 15 15 15
1SC%/Sa%I G%I C%I B%/Be% 9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/disp(mm) 0.12 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.32 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class<1.5/1.5-1.99/2.0-4.9/5.0-9.9/>10 33 33 33 33 66 50 50 100
'Incision Class<1.2/1.2-1.49/1.5-1.99/>2.0 33 66 66 33 100 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step;Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock;dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
2=Entrenchment Class-Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table.This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3=Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table.This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3-These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks,but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample(cross-sections as part of the design measurements),however,these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters,leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach.This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER,visual estimates.For example,the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters,thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 12c. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate,Bed,Bank,and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project NamelNumber(Heron/100014)-Segment/Reach: UT 4(450 feet)
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Causey Reference Reach Data Desi n As-built/Baseline
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% 63 12 13 12 48 17 18 17
1SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/disp(mm) 0.12 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.32 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class<1.5/1.5-1.99/2.0-4.9/5.0-9.9/>10 25 25 50 33 66 50 50 100
'Incision Class<1.2/1.2-1.49/1.5-1.99/>2.0 25 25 50 66 33 100 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step;Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock;dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
2=Entrenchment Class-Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table.This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3=Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table.This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3-These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks,but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample(cross-sections as part of the design measurements),however,these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters,leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach.This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER,visual estimates.For example,the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters,thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 12d. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate,Bed,Bank,and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project NamelNumber(Heron/100014)-Segment/Reach: UT 5(952 feet)
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Causey Reference Reach Data Design As-built/Baseline
Ri%/Ru%/P%I G%I S% 58 14 14 14 50 17 17 16
1SC%/S a%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
'd16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip I di p(mm) 0.12 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.32 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class<1.5/1.5-1.99/2.0-4.9/5.0-9.9/>10 20 20 40 20 33 66 50G. 100
'Incision Class<1.2/1.2-1.49/1.5-1.99/>2.0 20 20 60 66 33 100 i 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step;Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock;dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
2=Entrenchment Class-Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table.This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3=Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table.This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3-These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks,but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample(cross-sections as part of the design measurements),however,these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters,leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach.This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER,visual estimates.For example,the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters,thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 12e. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate,Bed,Bank,and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project NamelNumber(Heron/100014)-Segment/Reach: UT 6(781 feet)
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Causey Reference Reach Data Design As-built/Baseline
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% 64 12 12 12 46 18 18 18
'SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip I disp(mm) 0.12 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.32 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class<1.5/1.5-1.99/2.0-4.9/5.0-9.9/>10 40 20 20 20 33 66 50 50 100
'Incision Class<1.2/1.2-1.49/1.5-1.99/>2.0 100 66 33 100 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step;Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock;dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
2=Entrenchment Class-Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table.This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3=Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table.This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3-These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks,but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample(cross-sections as part of the design measurements),however,these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters,leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach.This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER,visual estimates.For example,the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters,thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 12f. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate,Bed,Bank,and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project NamelNumber(Heron/100014)-Segment/Reach: UT 7(232 feet)
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Causey Reference Reach Data Design As-built/Baseline
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% 76 7 8 7 60 13 14 13
'SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/disp(mm 0.12 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.32 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class<1.5/1.5-1.99/2.0-4.9/5.0-9.9/>1 57 29 14 33 66 50 50 25 75
'Incision Class<1.2/1.2-1.49/1.5-1.99/>2. 29 71 66 33 lil 100 .1 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step;Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock;dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
2=Entrenchment Class-Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table.This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3=Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table.This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3-These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks,but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample(cross-sections as part of the design measurements),however,these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters,leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach.This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER,visual estimates.For example,the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters,thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 12g. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate,Bed,Bank,and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number(Heron/100014)-Segment/Reach: UT 8(605 feet)
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Causey Reference Reach Data Design As-built/Baseline
Ri%/Ru%IP%IG%IS% 60 13 14 13 41 20 20 19
1SC%/S a%/G%/C%/B%/Be% 9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/disp(mm) 0.12 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.32 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class<1.5/1.5-1.99/2.0-4.9/5.0-9.9/>10 25 25 50 33 66 50 50 50 50
'Incision Class<1.2/1.2-1.49/1.5-1.99/>2.0 50 50 66 33 100 j lib. 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step;Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock;dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
2=Entrenchment Class-Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in The table.This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3=Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in The table.This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as The longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3-These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks,but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in The field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide The reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and The rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to The reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample(cross-sections as part of The design measurements),however,These subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of These parameters,leaving the reader/consumer with a sample That is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach.This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in The case of ER,visual estimates.For example,The typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of The BHR at riffles beyond Those subject to cross-sections and Therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters,Thereby providing The distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 13a. Monitoring Data-Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number(Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 1 (856 feet)
Cross Section 1(Pool) Cross Section 2(Riffle) Cross Section 3(Riffle) Cross Section 4(Pool) Cross Section 5(Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'mi. Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation(datum)used
Bankfull Width(ft) 9.2 8.5 8.5 10.7 14.7 15.3 13.0 14.4 17.7 8.9 9.7 9.1 8.3 9.0 10.7
Floodprone Width(ft) NA NA NA 100 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA 25 25 25
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.3
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 2.1 2.2 2.2 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 0.6 0.6 0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 10.5 10.5 10.5 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.6 4.6 4.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 3.7 3.7 3.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA 18.8 35.4 38.4 36.7 45.1 68.1 NA NA NA 18.6 21.9 30.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA 9.3 6.8 6.5 7.7 6.9 5.6 NA NA NA 3.0 2.8 2.3
Low Bank Height(ft) 2.1 2.2 2.1 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 0.6 0.6 0.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio` 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ft2)
d50(mm)
Cross Section 6(Pool) Cross Section 7(Pool) Cross Section 8(Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'_ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation(datum)used
Bankfull Width(ft) 12.8 13.2 15.7 9.6 10.4 10.5 11.2 12.0 11.4
Floodprone Width(ft) NA NA NA NA NA NA 100 100 100
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 9.4 9.4 9.4 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.2 7.2 7.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA NA NA 17.4 20.0 18.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA NA NA 8.9 8.3 8.8
Low Bank Height(ft) 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio" 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ft2)
d50(mm)
1=Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensionaVdepositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum,which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established.lithe performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states:"It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history,which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
"Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MYO)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT,NCDMS,and Industry Practitioners in NC(9/2018).
Table 13b. Monitoring Data-Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number(Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 3(279 feet)
Cross Section 9(Pool) Cross Section 10(Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation(datum)used
Bankfull Width(ft) 4.2 5.6 5.8 7.7 7.0 7.0
Floodprone Width(ft) NA NA NA 18 18 18
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 2.9 2.9 2.9 4.5 4.5 4.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA 13.2 10.9 10.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA 2.3 2.6 2.6
Low Bank Height(ft) 1.0 0.3 0.3 1.0 1.1 1.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 0.38 0.38 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(f12)
d50(mm)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Record elevation(datum)used
Bankfull Width(ft)
Floodprone Width(ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft)
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height(ft)
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio"
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(f12)
d50(mm)
1=Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensiona Vdepositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum,which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established.If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states:"It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history,which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
"Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MYO)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT,NCDMS,and Industry Practitioners in NC(9/2018).

Table 13c. Monitoring Data- Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number(Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 4(450 feet)
Cross Section 11 (Pool) Cross Section 12(Riffle) Cross Section 13(Riffle) Cross Section 14(Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation(datum)used
Bankfull Width(ft) 6.0 7.9 9.4 6.5 7.4 10.6 8.0 7.9 11.3 9.1 11.0 10.9
Floodprone Width(ft) NA NA NA 40 40 40 40 40 40 NA NA NA
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1.1 1.1 1.3 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 4.8 4.8 4.8 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.7 3.5 3.5 6.8 6.8 6.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA 19.2 24.9 51.1 17.3 17.8 36.5 NA NA NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA 6.2 5.4 3.8 5.0 5.1 3.5 NA NA NA
Low Bank Height(ft) 1.1 0.9 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 0.82 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ft2)
d50(mm)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Record elevation(datum)used
Bankfull Width(ft)
Floodprone Width(ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft)
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height(ft)
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ft2)
d50(mm)
1=Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum,which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established.If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states:"It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history,which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MYO)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT,NCDMS,and Industry Practitioners in NC(9/2018).
Table 13d. Monitoring Data-Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number(Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 5(952 feet)
Cross Section 15(Pool) Cross Section 16(Riffle) Cross Section 17(Pool) Cross Section 18(Riffle) Cross Section 19(Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation(datum)used
Bankfull Width(ft) 4.7 9.4 8.7 6.3 5.7 9.4 5.4 5.7 5.9 8.1 9.2 12.2 7.8 8.7 11.4
Floodprone Width(ft) NA NA NA 40 40 40 NA NA NA 40 40 40 NA NA NA
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.9 1.9 1.9 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA 20.9 17.1 46.5 NA NA NA 17.7 22.9 40.2 NA NA NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA 6.3 7.0 4.3 NA NA NA 4.9 4.3 3.3 NA NA NA
Low Bank Height(ft) 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ft2)
d50(mm)
Cross Section 20(Riffle) Cross Section 21 (Pool) Cross Section 22(Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation(datum)used
Bankfull Width(ft) 4.9 6.2 5.3 5.0 5.8 5.8 7.4 7.2 8.5
Floodprone Width(ft) 40 40 40 NA NA NA 40 40 40
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 1.9 1.9 1.9 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.6 20.2 14.8 NA NA NA 18.9 17.9 24.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 8.2 6.5 7.5 NA NA NA 5.4 5.6 4.7
Low Bank Height(ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.0 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ft2)
d50(mm)
1=Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum,which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established.If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states:"It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history,which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MYO)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT,NCDMS,and Industry Practitioners in NC(9/2018).

Table 13e. Monitoring Data- Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number(Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 6(781 feet)
Cross Section 23(Pool) Cross Section 24(Riffle) Cross Section 25(Pool) Cross Section 26(Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation(datum)used
Bankfull Width(ft) 5.6 5.7 6.4 6.1 5.8 5.7 5.2 10.0 10.3 6.8 4.7 4.8
Floodprone Width(ft) NA NA NA 40 40 40 NA NA NA 40 40 40
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3.6 3.6 3.6 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.5 3.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA 16.9 15.3 14.8 NA NA NA 13.2 6.3 6.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA 6.6 6.9 7.0 NA NA NA 5.9 8.5 8.3
Low Bank Height(ft) 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.6 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio` 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.00 0.75 0.88 1.00 1.40 1.25
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ft2)
d50(mm)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Record elevation(datum)used
Bankfull Width(ft)
Floodprone Width(ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft)
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height(ft)
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio"
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ftz)
d50(mm)
1=Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum,which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established.If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states:"It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history,which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
`Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MYO)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT,NCDMS,and Industry Practitioners in NC(9/2018).
Table 13f. Monitoring Data-Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number(Heron/100014) Segment/Reach:UT 7(232 feet)
Cross Section 27(Pool) Cross Section 28(Riffle) Cross Section 29(Pool) Cross Section 30(Riffle) Cross Section 31(Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation(datum)used
Bankfull Width(ft) 7.1 11.4 12.4 7.8 6.9 7.5 4.1 4.1 4.1 6.2 5.6 6.3 5.3 6.1 5.8
Floodprone Width(ft) NA NA NA 20 20 20 NA NA NA 10 11 11 NA NA NA
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 1.5 1.1 0.9 0.6 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.7 0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 6.3 6.3 6.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA 20.3 15.9 18.8 NA NA NA 16.7 13.6 17.3 NA NA NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA 2.6 2.9 2.7 NA NA NA 1.6 2.0 1.7 NA NA NA
Low Bank Height(ft) 1.5 0.8 0.8 0.6 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.6 0.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio` 1.00 0.73 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.14
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ft2)
d50(mm)
Cross Section 32(Riffle) Cross Section 33(Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation(datum)used
Bankfull Width(ft) 6.5 7.6 7.9 6.6 5.8 6.2
Floodprone Width(ft) 20 20 20 20 20 20
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3.3 3.3 3.3 1.8 1.8 1.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.8 17.5 18.9 24.2 18.7 21.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 3.1 2.6 2.5 3.0 3.4 3.2
Low Bank Height(ft) 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio` 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.17
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ft2)
d50(mm)
1=Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensiona Vdepositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum,which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established.If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states:"It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history,which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
"Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MYO)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT,NCDMS,and Industry Practitioners in NC(9/2018).

Table 13g. Monitoring Data-Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number(Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 8(605 feet)
Cross Section 34(Riffle) Cross Section 35(Pool) Cross Section 36(Riffle) Cross Section 37(Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation(datum)used
Bankfull Width(ft) 6.5 5.2 4.8 7.5 6.9 7.1 9.3 9.0 9.3 9.5 8.7 10.5
Floodprone Width(ft) 40 40 40 NA NA NA 20 20 20 NA NA NA
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 2.6 2.6 2.6 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.7 7.2 7.2 7.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.3 10.4 8.9 NA NA NA 23.4 21.9 23.4 NA NA NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 6.2 7.7 8.3 NA NA NA 2.2 2.2 2.2 NA NA NA
Low Bank Height(ft) 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio` 1.00 1.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ft2)
d50(mm)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Record elevation(datum)used
Bankfull Width(ft)
Floodprone Width(ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft)
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height(ft)
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio"
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ftz)
d50(mm)
1=Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum,which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established.If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states:"It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history,which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
`Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built(MYO)cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT,NCDMS,and Industry Practitioners in NC(9/2018).

Exhibit Table 14a. Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
Protect Name/Number(Heron/100014) -Segment/Reach: UT 1 (856 feet)
Parameter Baseline I MY-1 MY-2 MY-3 MY-4 MY-5
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width(ft) 8.3 11 13 4 9 13.2 14.7 4 10.7 13.4 17.7 4
Floodprone Width(ft) 25 100 100 4 25 100 100 4 25 100 100 4
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.4 0.5 0.6 4 0.3 0.4 0.6 4 0.26 0.37 0.63 4
'Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.6 0.8 1.1 4 0.6 0.8 1 4 0.7 0.8 1.1 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 3.7 5.4 7.2 4 3.7 5.4 7.2 4 3.7 5.4 7.2 4
Width/Depth Ratio 17.4 18.7 36.7 4 20 28.7 45.1 4 18.1 34.7 68.1 4
Entrenchment Ratio 3 8.3 9.3 4 2.8 6.9 8.3 4 2.34 6.09 8.77 4
Low Bank Height(ft) 0.6 0.8 1.1 4 0.6 0.7 1 4 0.7 0.8 1.1 4
'Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 0.9 1 1 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 4
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 2.7 19 16 53 11 31
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 31
Pool Length(ft) 6 23 20 80 12.9 34
Pool Max depth(ft) 1.5 1.6 2.1 4
Pool Spacing(ft) 25 34 68 34
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 25 34 68
Radius of Curvature(ft) 17 25 85
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data,dimensional data or profile data indicate
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) 2 3 10 significant shifts from baseline
Meander Wavelength(ft) 51 72 101
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C 4
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 856
Sinuosity(ft) 1.3
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0087
BF slope(ft/ft)
3Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% 43 19 19 19
3SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/
2%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step; Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock; dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
4.=Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14b. Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
Protect Name/Number(Heron/100014) -Segment/Reach: UT 3 (279 feet)
Parameter Baseline I MY-1 MY-2 MY-3 MY-4 MY-5
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width(ft) 7.7 7.7 7.7 1 7 7 7 1 7 7 7 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 18 18 18 1 18 18 18 1 18 18 18 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 1
IBankfull Max Depth(ft) 1 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 4.5 4.5 4.5 1 4.5 4.5 4.5 1 4.5 4.5 4.5 1
Width/Depth Ratio 13.2 13.2 13.2 1 10.9 10.9 10.9 1 10.9 10.9 10.9 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2.3 2.3 2.3 1 2.6 2.6 2.6 1 2.6 2.6 1
Low Bank Height(ft) 1 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1
'Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1 1.0 1.0 1 1 1.0 1.0 1
Profile
Rife Length(ft) 4 11 10 19 4.3 14
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.74 0.02 14
Pool Length(ft) 4 9 8 21 4.9 13
Pool Max depth(ft) 1 1 1 1 0 1
Pool Spacing(ft) 13 18 35 14
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 13 18 27
Radius of Curvature(ft) 9 13 44
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) 2 3 10 Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data,dimensional data or profile data indicate
Meander Wavelength(ft) 26 37 53 significant shifts from baseline
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C 4
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 279
Sinuosity(ft) 1.15
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0176
BF slope(ft/ft)
3Ri%/Ru%/pox)/G%/S% 55 15 15 15
3SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/
2%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step; Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock; dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
4.=Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14c. Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
Protect Name/Number(Heron/100014) -Segment/Reach: UT 4(450 feet)
Parameter Baseline I MY-1 MY-2 MY-3 MY-4 MY-5
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width(ft) 6.5 7.3 8 2 7.4 7.7 7.9 2 10.6 11 11.3 2
Floodprone Width(ft) 40 40 40 2 40 40 40 2 40 40 40 2
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.3 0.4 0.5 2 0.3 0.4 0.4 2 0.2 0.3 0.3 2
'Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.5 0.7 0.8 2 0.6 0.7 0.8 2 0.5 0.7 0.8 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 2.2 3 3.7 2 2.2 2.9 3.5 2 2.2 2.9 3.5 2
Width/Depth Ratio 17.3 18.3 19.2 2 17.8 21.4 24.9 2 36.5 43.8 51.1 2
Entrenchment Ratio 5 5.6 6.2 2 5.1 5.2 5.4 2 3.5 3.7 3.8 2
Low Bank Height(ft) 0.5 0.7 0.8 2 0.5 0.7 0.8 2 0.5 0.7 0.8 2
'Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 0.8 0.9 1 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 4 9 9 20 3.5 23
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.01 23
Pool Length(ft) 4 10 10 18 3.5 22
Pool Max depth(ft) 1.1 1.3 1.4 2
Pool Spacing(ft) 15 20 40 22
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 15 20 30
Radius of Curvature(ft) 10 15 50
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) 2 3 10 Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data,dimensional data or profile data indicate
Meander Wavelength(ft) 30 43 60 significant shifts from baseline
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C 4
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 450
Sinuosity(ft) 1.15
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0195
BF slope(ft/ft)
3Ri%/Ru%/pox)/G%/S% 48 17 18 17
3SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/
2%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step; Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock; dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
4.=Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14d. Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
Protect Name/Number(Heron/100014) -Segment/Reach: UT 5 (952 feet)
Parameter Baseline I MY-1 MY-2 MY-3 MY-4 MY-5
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width(ft) 4.9 6.9 8.1 4 5.7 6.7 9.2 4 5.3 9 12.2 4
Floodprone Width(ft) 40 40 40 4 40 40 40 4 40 40 40 4
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.3 0.4 0.5 4 0.3 0.4 0.4 4 0.2 0.3 0.4 4
'Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.5 0.7 0.8 4 0.6 0.7 0.8 4 0.6 0.7 0.8 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 1.9 2.4 3.7 4 1.9 2.4 3.7 4 1.9 2.4 3.7 4
Width/Depth Ratio 12.6 18.3 20.9 4 17.1 19.1 22.9 4 14.8 32.6 46.5 4
Entrenchment Ratio 4.9 5.9 8.2 4 4.3 6.0 7.0 4 3.3 4.5 7.5 4
Low Bank Height(ft) 0.5 0.7 0.8 4 0.6 0.6 0.8 4 0.6 0.6 0.7 4
'Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 0.9 1.0 1.0 4 1 0.8 1 4
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 3 11 9 49 8.4 41
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.01 41
Pool Length(ft) 4 12 10 59 8.5 41
Pool Max depth(ft) 0.8 1 1.1 4
Pool Spacing(ft) 15 20 40 41
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 15 20 30
Radius of Curvature(ft) 10 15 50
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) 2 3 10 Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data,dimensional data or profile data indicate
Meander Wavelength(ft) 30 43 60 significant shifts from baseline
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification E/C 4
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 952
Sinuosity(ft) 1.15
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0256
BF slope(ft/ft)
3Ri%/Ru%/pox)/G%/S% 50 17 17 16
3SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/
2%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step; Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock; dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
4.=Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14e. Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
Protect Name/Number(Heron/100014) -Segment/Reach: UT 6 (781 feet)
Parameter Baseline I MY-1 MY-2 MY-3 MY-4 MY-5
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width(ft) 6.1 6.5 6.8 2 4.7 5.3 5.8 2 4.8 5.3 5.7 2
Floodprone Width(ft) 40 40 40 2 40 40 40 2 40 40 40 2
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.4 0.4 0.5 2 0.4 0.6 0.7 2 0.4 0.6 0.7 2
'Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.6 0.8 0.9 2 0.5 0.8 1 2 0.6 0.9 1.2 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 2.2 2.9 3.5 2 2.2 2.9 3.5 2 2.2 2.9 3.5 2
Width/Depth Ratio 13.2 15.1 16.9 2 6.3 10.8 15.3 2 6.6 10.7 14.8 2
Entrenchment Ratio 5.9 6.2 6.6 2 6.9 7.7 8.5 2 7 7.7 8.3 2
Low Bank Height(ft) 0.6 0.8 0.9 2 0.7 1.1 1.4 2 0.7 1.1 1.5 2
'Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1.4 1.4 1.4 2 1.1 1.2 1.3 2
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 2 10 7 47 8.8 33
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.02 33
Pool Length(ft) 4 12 12 18 3.7 33
Pool Max depth(ft) 1 1.2 1.3 2
Pool Spacing(ft) 14 18 37 33
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 14 18 37
Radius of Curvature(ft) 9 14 46
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) 2 3 10 Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data,dimensional data or profile data indicate
Meander Wavelength(ft) 27 39 55 significant shifts from baseline
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C 4
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 781
Sinuosity(ft) 1.15
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0225
BF slope(ft/ft)
3Ri%/Ru%/pox)/G%/S% 46 18 18 18
3SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/
2%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step; Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock; dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
4.=Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14f. Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
Protect Name/Number(Heron/100014) -Segment/Reach: UT 7 (232 feet)
Parameter Baseline I MY-1 MY-2 MY-3 MY-4 MY-5
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width(ft) 6.2 6.6 7.8 4 5.6 6.4 7.6 4 6.2 6.9 7.9 4
Floodprone Width(ft) 10 20 20 4 11 20 20 4 11 20 20 4
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.3 0.4 0.5 4 0.3 0.4 0.4 4 0.3 0.4 0.4 4
'Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.5 0.6 0.7 4 0.5 0.7 1.1 4 0.5 0.7 0.9 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 1.8 2.7 3.3 4 1.8 2.7 3.3 4 1.8 2.7 3.3 4
Width/Depth Ratio 12.8 18.5 24.2 4 13.6 16.7 18.7 4 17.3 18.8 21.4 4
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 2.8 3.1 4 2 2.8 3.4 4 1.7 2.6 3.2 4
Low Bank Height(ft) 0.5 0.6 0.7 4 0.5 0.7 1.1 4 0.5 0.7 0.9 4
'Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 0.8 1 1 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 4
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 3 13 10 75 13 42
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.01 42
Pool Length(ft) 3 9 9 14 2.6 41
Pool Max depth(ft) 1 1.1 1.5 3
Pool Spacing(ft) 16 21 42 42
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 16 21 32
Radius of Curvature(ft) 10 16 53
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) 2 3 10 Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data,dimensional data or profile data indicate
Meander Wavelength(ft) 31 45 64 significant shifts from baseline
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification Cb 4
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 232
Sinuosity(ft) 1.15
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0268
BF slope(ft/ft)
3Ri%/Ru%/pox)/G%/S% 60 13 14 13
3SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/
2%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step; Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock; dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
4.=Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14g. Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
Protect Name/Number(Heron/100014) -Segment/Reach: UT 8 (605 feet)
Parameter Baseline I MY-1 MY-2 MY-3 MY-4 MY-5
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width(ft) 6.5 7.9 9.3 2 5.2 7.1 9 2 4.8 7.1 9.3 2
Floodprone Width(ft) 20 30 40 2 20 30 40 2 20 30 40 2
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) 0.4 0.4 0.4 2 0.4 0.5 0.5 2 0.4 0.5 0.5 2
'Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 0.7 0.7 0.7 2 0.7 0.7 0.7 2 0.8 0.8 0.8 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) 2.6 3.2 3.7 2 2.6 3.2 3.7 2 2.6 3.2 3.7 2
Width/Depth Ratio 16.3 19.8 23.4 2 10.4 16.1 21.9 2 8.9 16.1 23.4 2
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 4.2 6.2 2 2.2 5 7.7 2 2.2 5.2 8.3 2
Low Bank Height(ft) 0.7 0.7 0.7 2 0.7 0.8 0.8 2 0.8 0.8 0.8 2
'Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 1.1 1.1 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) 5 11 11 19 3.4 23
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 23
Pool Length(ft) 6 15 15 24 4.8 23
Pool Max depth(ft) 0.9 1.3 1.6 2
Pool Spacing(ft) 17 24 47 23
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) 17 24 36
Radius of Curvature(ft) 11 18 59
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) 2 3 10 Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data,dimensional data or profile data indicate
Meander Wavelength(ft) 35 50 71 significant shifts from baseline
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C 4
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 605
Sinuosity(ft) 1.15
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) 0.0138
BF slope(ft/ft)
3Ri%/Ru%/pox)/G%/S% 41 20 20 19
3SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/
2%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step; Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock; dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
4.=Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 1,XS-1,Pool
Feature Pool 1
Date: 5/14/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 535.5 Bankfull Elevation: 534.7
1.7 535.2 LTOB Elevation: 534.6
2.9 535.0 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 10.5
4.6 534.5 Bankfull Width: 8.5
5.1 534.2 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
5.9 533.9 Flood Prone Width: NA
6.4 532.5 Max Depth at Bankfull: 2.2
7.5 532.5 Low Bank Height: 2.1 -
8.5 532.6 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 1.2
9.4 532.6 W/D Ratio: NA
9.9 533.0 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
10.5 533.8 Bank Height Ratio: 0.95
11.2 534.1 Stream Type C/E
11.9 534.5
13.2 534.8
14.9 534.9
16.6 535.0 Heron,UT 1,XS- 1,Pool
17.7 535.0
536 -
535
m -
t
0 534
W 533 -----Bankfull
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
532 • MY 02 LTOB 1
0 10 MY 00 TOB 20
Station(feet)

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 1,XS-2,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 5/14/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
-0.4 535.65 Bankfull Elevation: 535.5 1.9 535.39 LTOB Elevation: 535.5
4.3 535.54 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 6.1 _
5.0 535.45 Bankfull Width: 15.3
5.7 534.95 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 536.4
6.6 534.94 Flood Prone Width: 100.0
7.7 534.80 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.9
8.5 534.61 Low Bank Height: 0.9 •
9.5 534.60 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4
10.2 534.52 W/D Ratio: 38.4
10.8 534.66 Entrenchment Ratio: 6.5
11.6 534.74 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
12.4 534.73 Stream Type C/E
12.9 535.21
13.7 535.27
15.9 535.33 Heron,UT 1,XS-2,Riffle
18.4 535.47
537
m
536
t
a
ti
W 535
---- ""."141\tzzliallillli." ---11.11111111111
-----Bavkfull
-Flood Rove Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
534 I -•-MY-02 5/14/20
0 10 20
• MY 02 LTOB
Station(feet) MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 1,XS-3,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 5/14/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.5 537.40 Bankfull Elevation: 537.4
3.4 537.25 LTOB Elevation: 537.4 "
5.2 537.22 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 4.6
6.3 537.06 Bankfull Width: 17.7 -
7.0 536.91 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 538.1
8.0 536.81 Flood Prone Width: 100.0
8.6 536.71 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.7
9.8 536.80 Low Bank Height: 0.7 - ,
10.6 536.92 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.3
11.5 536.85 W/D Ratio: 68.1
12.1 537.06 Entrenchment Ratio: 5.6
12.8 537.05 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
14.1 537.14 Stream Type C/E
15.4 537.34
18.6 537.37
Heron,UT 1,XS-3,Riffle
539
m
538 --
t
z
0
A
ti
W 537
----Bankfull
-----Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
536 -, I ,
MY-02 5/14/20
0
10 20
• MY 02 LTOB
Station(feet) MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 1,XS-4,Pool
Feature Pool
Date: 5/14/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
V
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.2 538.7 Bankfull Elevation: 538.4
3.3 538.5 LTOB Elevation: 538.4 _
6.3 538.4 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 6.8
7.6 538.3 Bankfull Width: 9.1
8.4 537.6 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
8.9 537.2 Flood Prone Width: NA
9.8 536.9 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.5
10.3 537.0 Low Bank Height: 1.5
11.0 537.2 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.7
11.8 537.2 W/D Ratio: NA
12.3 537.4 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
12.9 537.7 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
13.4 537.8 Stream Type C/E
14.0 538.1
14.9 538.2
15.9 538.5
17.2 538.5 Heron,UT 1,XS-4,Pool
19.2 538.5
21.8 538.6 539 l
j
538537
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 08/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
536
• MY 02 LTOB
0 10 20 -MY 00 TOB 30
Station(feet)

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 1,XS-5,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 5/14/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 541.44 Bankfull Elevation: 541.1 =
4.3 541.07 LTOB Elevation: 541.1 _
6.9 541.12 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.7
7.8 541.05 Bankfull Width: 10.7
8.4 540.85 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 541.8
9.3 540.55 Flood Prone Width: 25.0 -•
10.5 540.48 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.7
11.7 540.45 Low Bank Height: 0.7
12.8 540.42 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.3
13.5 540.60 W/D Ratio: 30.9
14.2 540.69 Entrenchment Ratio: 2.3
15.2 540.97 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
16.3 541.17 Stream Type C/E
17.9 541.44
20.4 541.51
23.0 541.49 Heron,UT 1,XS-5,Riffle
542
m
�� _/
0 541
ti
w _ _ -----Bavkfull
-----Flood Prove Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
540 I I ,
MY-02 5/14/20
0 10 20 30
• MY 02 LTOB
Station(feet) -MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 1,XS-6,Pool
Feature Pool _.....
Date: 5/14/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.6 541.4 Bankfull Elevation: 541.3
3.8 541.2 LTOB Elevation: 541.3 % rW'4� f ,'' - c ' / t� 1
5.8 541.2 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area: 9.4 "tl ti, .4��/ /`�+ v `p, q��j 7
6.9 541.0 Bankfull Width: 15.7 ',*� 9�1,ra v ;�;' , ``. 1 a
7.5 540.6 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA ���; c ) + ��• „ y,' ,�. �''.
8.2 540.4 Flood Prone Width: NA
9.0 540.2 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.6
9.7 539.8 Low Bank Height: 1.6
10.6 539.8 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.6
11.4 539.7 W/D Ratio: NA
12.0 539.8 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
12.8 540.2 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
13.2 540.4 Stream Type C/E
13.8 540.8
14.5 540.9
15.3 541.3
16.5 541.3 Heron,UT 1,XS-6,Pool
18.6 541.4
20.5 541.6 542
21.9 541.6
j
-1111"williiiiiii\t/LIIIIIIIDg3r-lialliar- -
:::
--Bavkfull
MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
-0-MY-03 5/14/20
539 , I ,
• MY 02 LTOB
0 10 20 -MY00TOB 30
Station(feet)

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT1,XS-7,Pool
Feature Pool
Date: 5/14/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elation SUMMARY DATA
-0.3 542.7 Bankfull Elevation: 542.5
2.9 542.6 LTOB Elevation: 542.6
5.1 542.5 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 8.0
7.5 542.3 Bankfull Width: 9.7 < 'v 1 q
8.0 542.0 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA 4./ -'-',
8.9 541.5 Flood Prone Width: NA Y r :i -•,'`'
9.8 541.3 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.5
10.4 541.0 Low Bank Height: 1.5
11.2 541.0 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.8
12.6 541.0 W/D Ratio: NA
13.2 541.2 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
13.7 541.5 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
14.1 541.9 Stream Type . 1 C/E
14.5 542.4
15.3 542.6
16.6 542.8
18.7 543.0
1 Heron,UT 1,XS-7,Pool
19.9 543.1
20.8 543.1 544
543
i
t
_
0 542
MY-00 2/26/19
541
-MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
540 , I I ,
• MY 02 LTOB
0 10 20 -MYOOTOB 30
Station(feet)

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
-
XS ID UT 1,XS-8,Riffle
Feature Riffle .
Date: 5/14/2020 N. s' \ t,
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki ` kt1�r �� �- Vie,
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 544.75 Bankfull Elevation: 544.2
2.7 544.48 LTOB Elevation: 544.2
5.4 544.46 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 7.2
7.5 544.33 Bankfull Width: 11.4
9.5 543.84 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 545.3
11.0 543.49 Flood Prone Width: 100.0 '
12.1 543.31 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.1 %`
13.3 543.29 Low Bank Height: 1.1 a.
14.3 543.12 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.6
15.6 543.11 W/D Ratio: 18.1
16.3 543.33 Entrenchment Ratio: 8.8
17.2 543.60 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
18.2 544.07 Stream Type C/E
20.1 544.26
22.1 544.24
24.0 544.27 Heron,UT 1,XS-8,Riffle
26.4 544.25
546
545
m
t
71165=1611=MI"ligleiN
0 :::
-----Baak6u
-----Flood Prove Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
542 , I I ,
MY-02 5/14/20
0 10 20 30
• MY 02 LTOB
Station(feet) -MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 3,XS-9,Pool
Feature Pool
Date: 5/14/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.4 538.7 Bankfull Elevation: 536.9
2.9 538.5 LTOB Elevation: 537.0
4.1 538.3 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 2.9
5.7 537.5 Bankfull Width: 5.8 d \^ t
7.0 536.9 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
7.6 536.7 Flood Prone Width: NA
8.4 536.1 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.8
9.2 536.2 Low Bank Height: 0.3 4 r
10.2 536.2 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.5
10.7 536.2 W/D Ratio: NA
11.4 536.4 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
12.2 536.8 Bank Height Ratio: 0.38
12.7 536.8 Stream Type . 1 C/E
13.4 537.1
14.5 537.7
15.6 538.1
16.8 538.5 Heron,UT 3,XS-9,Pool
18.0 538.7
20.4 538.9 540
539
w
538 jb""g.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN
0
537
W Bavk ull
536 -MY-002/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
535
• MY 02 LTOB
0 10 20 -MY 00 TOB 70
Station(feet)

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 3,XS-10,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 5/14/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
1.3 539.51 Bankfull Elevation: 538.5
4.3 539.17 LTOB Elevation: 538.5
6.2 538.83 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 4.5
7.2 538.50 Bankfull Width: 7.5
8.5 538.10 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 539.5
9.2 537.61 Flood Prone Width: 18.0
10.1 537.55 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.0
11.2 537.53 Low Bank Height: 1.0
11.7 537.51 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.6
12.6 537.87 W/D Ratio: 12.5
13.7 538.34 Entrenchment Ratio: 2.4
15.0 538.60 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
15.9 538.92 Stream Type C/E
16.6 539.11
17.8 539.36
19.6 539.57 Heron,UT 3,XS-10,Riffle
21.5 539.88
541
540
0 539 538 -----Baak6ll
V` -----Flood Prove Area
- w`_
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
537
MY-02 5/14/20
0 10 20 30
• MY 02 LTOB
Station(feet) -MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 4,XS-11,Pool
Feature Pool �
Date: 5/14/2020 �1` •
�
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA ," �''
0.0 517.3 Bankfull Elevation: 517.0
2.7 517.3 LTOB Elevation: 517.1 e /�
4.5 517.1 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 4.8 , •' ,,. .r. "`
5.8 516.9 Bankfull Width: 9.4 t y ;
6.3 516.7 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
6.9 515.9 Flood Prone Width: NA I g� e�
7.5 515.7 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.3 1
a 4
8.2 515.8 Low Bank Height: 1.3 / "' : Id _',
8.9 516.0 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.5
9.7 516.2 W/D Ratio: NA
10.5 516.5 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
11.5 516.7 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
12.8 517.0 Stream Type C/E
14.3 517.1
15.5 517.0
16.9 516.9
Heron,UT 4,XS- 11,Pool
518 -
II
j517 -- --
516
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
515 I • MY 02 LTOB
0 10 MY 00 TOB 20
Station(feet)

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 4,XS-12,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 5/14/2020 t„-.
" _
�
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 517.60 Bankfull Elevation: 517.3
3.3 517.36 LTOB Elevation: 517.3
5.4 517.10 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 2.2
6.5 517.06 Bankfull Width: 10.6
6.9 516.93 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 517.8
7.5 516.87 Flood Prone Width: 40.0
7.9 516.77 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.5
8.5 516.76 Low Bank Height: 0.5
9.1 516.85 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.2
10.1 516.82 W/D Ratio: 51.1
10.7 517.03 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.8
11.4 517.29 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
12.8 517.25 Stream Type C/E
14.5 517.19
15.8 517.26
Heron,UT 4,XS-12,Riffle
518 -
0 517
ti
W
-----Bavkfull
-----Flood Prove Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
516 ,
MY-02 5/14/20
0 10 • MY 02 LTOB 20
Station(feet) MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 4,XS-13,Riffle
Feature Riffle °`.'C. � f.
Date: 5/14/2020 ..
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki r r.' ,
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA "�5'
0.0 522.17 Bankfull Elevation: 522.1
2.0 522.32 LTOB Elevation: 522.1
3.5 522.35 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.5 - 1
4.6 522.19 Bankfull Width: 11.3
5.1 521.98 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 522.9
5.5 521.72 Flood Prone Width: 40.0
6.2 521.49 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.8
6.5 521.47 Low Bank Height: 0.8
7.3 521.44 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.3
8.1 521.34 W/D Ratio: 36.5
9.0 521.55 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.5
10.0 521.62 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
10.5 521.86 Stream Type C/E
11.8 522.10
14.1 522.08
16.2 522.14 Heron,UT 4,XS- 13,Riffle
524
523
t
z
2
ti
W 522
-----Bavkfull
-----Flood Rove Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
521
I -•-MY-02 snano ,
0 10 • MY 02 LTOB 20
Station(feet) MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 4,XS-14,Pool
Feature Pool 44, is,:.
Date: 5/14/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki ' ^Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA '
-0.3 522.8 Bankfull Elevation: 522.3
1.8 522.8 LTOB Elevation: 522.3
3.1 522.7 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 6.8
4.3 522.5 Bankfull Width: 10.9
4.7 522.2 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA \ ,
5.3 521.7 Flood Prone Width: NA c.
6.1 521.2 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.4 _ '„
6.5 521.0 Low Bank Height: 1.4 yt�
7.2 520.9 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.6
7.6 520.9 W/D Ratio: NA
8.3 521.0 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
8.9 521.3 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
9.5 521.5 Stream Type C/E
10.1 521.6
10.9 521.8
11.6 522.0
12.7 522.1 Heron,UT 4,XS- 14,Pool
14.5 522.2
16.2 522.4 523
j
522 521
--Bavkfull
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
520 , I • MY 02 LTOB
0 10 20
-MY 00 TOB
Station(feet)

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 5,XS-15,Pool
Feature Pool
Date: 5/26/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki a,
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 518.1 Bankfull Elevation: 517.6
1.7 518.0 LTOB Elevation: 517.6
3.7 518.0 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 2.4
4.8 517.8 Bankfull Width: 8.7
5.4 517.6 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
5.9 517.4 Flood Prone Width: NA
6.6 517.0 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.6
7.3 517.0 Low Bank Height: 0.6
7.7 517.0 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.3
8.6 517.0 W/D Ratio: NA
9.4 517.1 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
9.9 517.3 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
10.4 517.4 Stream Type C/E
11.2 517.4
12.3 517.5
13.3 517.6
14.4 517.5 Heron,UT 5,XS- 15,Pool
15.5 517.6
519
m
518
z
_ - Jc
2
a
W 517 -
--Bavkfull
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
f MY-02 5/26/20
516 • MY 02 LTOB
0 10 -MY 00 TOB 20
Station(feet)

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 5,XS-16,Riffle
Feature Riffle `�'
Date: 5/26/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.1 520.79 Bankfull Elevation: 520.8 \*
2.4 520.73 LTOB Elevation: 520.9 -.' A'
4.5 520.90 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 2.1
5.5 520.88 Bankfull Width: 9.4
5.9 520.60 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 521.4
6.5 520.48 Flood Prone Width: 40.0 4� 1, . tea.; ,i- r
7.2 520.31 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.6ki '' .� �� ,, , ,-
k, ,
7.8 520.38 Low Bank Height: 0.6 , � N �`
8.4 520.27 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.2
8.7 520.27 W/D Ratio: 42.1
9.1 520.40 Entrenchment Ratio: 4.3
9.6 520.66 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
10.7 520.67 Stream Type C/E
11.8 520.91
12.9 521.12
14.7 521.14 Heron,UT 5,XS-16,Riffle
522 -
m
t
mq . 417 .---
0 521
W
-----Bavkfull
-----Flood Rove Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
520
MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 • MY 02 LTOB 20
Station(feet) MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 5,XS-17,Pool
Feature Pool a
Date: 5/26/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.1 524.0 Bankfull Elevation: 523.5
1.7 524.0 LTOB Elevation: 523.5
3.0 523.9 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.4
4.8 523.5 Bankfull Width: 5.9
5.6 523.4 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
Y
6.0 523.1 Flood Prone Width: NA , ���
6.4 522.6 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.3 h r `Y ' 302j
7.1 522.4 Low Bank Height: 1.3 r
7.7 522.2 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.6
8.0 522.5 W/D Ratio: NA
8.5 522.7 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
9.3 522.9 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
9.9 523.2 Stream Type C/E
10.8 523.5
12.3 523.5
14.1 523.6
15.6 523.7 Heron,UT 5,XS- 17,Pool
525
j
:::
--Bavkfull
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/26/20
522 I • MY 02 LTOB
0 10 -MY 00 TOB 20
Station(feet)

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 5,XS-18,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 5/26/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 524.66 Bankfull Elevation: 524.4
2.3 524.37 LTOB Elevation: 524.4
4.1 524.37 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.7
4.7 524.16 Bankfull Width: 12.2
5.5 524.02 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 525.2
6.5 523.83 Flood Prone Width: 40.0
7.1 523.70 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.8
7.5 523.60 Low Bank Height: 0.8
7.7 523.85 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.3
8.9 523.85 W/D Ratio: 40.2
9.5 523.74 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.3
10.4 523.99 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
11.1 524.16 Stream Type C/E
12.8 524.46
15.3 524.31
Heron,UT 5,XS-18,Riffle
526 -
a 525 -
t
z
0
�F
W
524
-----Bavkfull
-----Flood Rove Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
523 f MY-02 5/2620
0 10 • MY 02 LTOB 20
Station(feet) MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 5,XS-19,Pool
Feature Pool id
Date: 5/26/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Stoma. Elevation SUMMARY DATA
-1.0 529.2 Bankfull Elevation: 529.1
1.1 529.0 LTOB Elevation: 529.0 j
3.2 528.9 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.3
3.8 528.8 Bankfull Width: 11.4 -
4.7 528.6 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
5.7 528.5 Flood Prone Width: NA
6.7 528.4 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.7
7.0 528.4 Low Bank Height: 0.7
7.7 528.3 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.3
8.4 528.7 W/D Ratio: NA
8.9 528.8 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
10.1 529.0 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
11.7 528.9 Stream Type C/E
13.1 529.2
Heron,UT 5,XS- 19,Pool
530 -
m
t
0 529 '- - __ '
W
MY-01 /1/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/26/20
528 • MY02LTOB
0 l O MY 00 TOB 20
Station(feet)

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 5,XS-20,Riffle
Feature Riffle 5
Date: 5/26/2020J
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 529.61 Bankfull Elevation: 529.4
1.7 529.48 LTOB Elevation: 529.4 -- _
3.7 529.36 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 1.9 �%_ �' _
4.7 529.28 Bankfull Width: 5.3 '
5.2 528.73 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 530.0 ��� �°
5.7 528.84 Flood Prone Width: 40.0 -
6.4 528.79 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.6 2020/O /26
7.1 528.90 Low Bank Height: 0.6
7.2 528.90 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4
7.8 528.89 W/D Ratio: 14.8
8.3 528.91 Entrenchment Ratio: 7.5
8.7 529.26 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
9.6 529.65 Stream Type C/E
11.3 529.80
13.9 529.70
Heron,UT 5,XS-20,Riffle
531
530
t
z
0
ti
W 529
----Bankfull
-----Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
528 , I
MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 • MY 02 LTOB 20
Station(feet) MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 5,XS-21,Pool
Feature Pool
Date: 5/26/2020 _ - -- '
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA r
0.0 533.3 Bankfull Elevation: 532.9
1.7 533.3 LTOB Elevation: 532.9
3.5 533.1 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.1
4.6 532.8 Bankfull Width: 5.8
5.0 532.5 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
5.6 532.0 Flood Prone Width: NA
6.1 531.8 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.1
6.6 531.9 Low Bank Height: 1.1
7.1 531.9 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.5
7.8 532.0 W/D Ratio: NA
8.1 532.4 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
8.6 532.7 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
9.3 532.8 Stream Type il C/E
10.6 532.9
12.3 533.0
13.5 533.1
Heron,UT 5,XS-21,Pool
534
t
:::
\;"111. ___
--Bankfull
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/26/20
531 • MY 02 LTOB
0 l O 20
-MY 00 TOB
Station(feet)

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 5,XS-22,Riffle
Feature Riffle j---
Date: 5/26/2020 i',
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki ' `' <%� '
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA --"--
-0.1 534.21 Bankfull Elevation: 534.1
1.6 534.15 LTOB Elevation: 534.2
3.8 534.01 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 2.9
4.8 533.98 Bankfull Width: 8.5
5.3 533.65 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 534.8
6.7 533.53 Flood Prone Width: 40.0
7.3 533.51 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.7
8.3 533.41 Low Bank Height: 0.7
8.8 533.47 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.3
9.5 533.82 W/D Ratio: 24.9
9.9 534.06 Entrenchment Ratio: 4.7
11.1 534.15 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
12.3 534.53 Stream Type C/E
13.8 534.72
Heron,UT 5,XS-22,Riffle
535 -
m
.z::. 1;;ttaiii.,41410001,911117
0 534
a
ti
W
-----Bavkfull
-----Flood Rove Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
533 , ,
�MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 • MY 02 LTOB 20
Station(feet) MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 6,XS-23,Pool
Feature Pool Pr
Date: 5/26/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.4 506.0 Bankfull Elevation: 505.7
1.6 506.0 LTOB Elevation: 505.7
2.2 505.9 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.6
3.0 505.7 Bankfull Width: 6.4
3.6 505.6 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
4.2 504.8 Flood Prone Width: NA
5.1 504.7 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.0 2020/05/26
5.6 504.8 Low Bank Height: 1.0
5.7 504.8 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.6
6.4 504.9 W/D Ratio: NA
7.0 504.9 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
7.7 505.0 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
8.1 505.4 Stream Type il C/E
8.6 505.7
9.3 505.9
10.9 505.9
12.1 505.9 Heron,UT 6,XS-23,Pool
14.2 505.6
507
Ti.,,,
:::
IliNts
-
Nidaii --Bankfuu
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/14/19
-MY-03 5/26/20
504 , I
• MY02LTOB
0 10 20
-MY 00 TOB
Station(feet)

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT6,XS-24,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 5/26/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
-0.3 506.30 Bankfull Elevation: 505.9
1.9 506.43 LTOB Elevation: 505.9
3.4 506.42 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 2.2
4.0 506.29 Bankfull Width: 5.7
4.5 506.04 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 506.5 a
5.0 505.85 Flood Prone Width: 40.0
5.5 505.58 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.6
6.3 505.45 Low Bank Height: 0.6
6.6 505.33 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4
7.3 505.41 W/D Ratio: 14.8
7.8 505.32 Entrenchment Ratio: 7.0
8.4 505.48 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
8.8 505.40 Stream Type C/E
9.2 505.61
9.7 505.61
10.5 505.89 Heron,UT 6,XS-24,Riffle
11.5 506.11
13.5 506.16 507
m
t
0 506 Lii."111111°11toei.p.:, :I
ti
W
___:Bankfull
.Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/14.19
505 , I
-MY-03 5/26/20
0 10 20
• MY02LTOB
Station(feet) -MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 6,XS-25,Pool
Feature Pool • '! 1 a'' ''' ''<rt -'
Date: 5/26/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA 4 t/ a r ;rd se I;
0.3 511.7 Bankfull Elevation: 511.9 ����
2.7 511.6 LTOB Elevation: 511.8
3.8 511.7 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.2
4.8 511.7 Bankfull Width: 10.3 ��, ,) „4 -- ��'
5.1 511.2 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA ��� � ��' `
5.7 511.1 Flood Prone Width: NA
6.2 511.1 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.8 'zaz4`/Rs%z
6.9 511.2 Low Bank Height: 0.7
8.3 511.6 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.3
9.0 511.7 W/D Ratio: NA
10.4 511.8 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
12.5 512.2 Bank Height Ratio: 0.88
Stream Type il C/E
Heron,UT 6,XS-25,Pool
513 -
m
512
t k°"INIPEllrh\ fooll0. °1
2
511
W ----Banu
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/14/19
510 -MY-025/26/20
0 10 •
MY02LTOB 20
-MY OO TOB
Station(feet)

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 6,XS-26,Riffle
Feature Riffle `ry
Date: 5/26/2020 - t l..-fr
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.2 516.39 Bankfull Elevation: 515.4
2.1 516.13 LTOB Elevation: 515.7
4.4 516.06 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.5
5.1 515.92 Bankfull Width: 4.8 "
5.9 514.51 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 516.6
6.7 514.40 Flood Prone Width: 40.0
7.1 514.22 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.2
7.6 514.36 Low Bank Height: 1.5 a
8.1 514.36 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.7
8.6 514.64 W/D Ratio: 6.6
9.3 515.04 Entrenchment Ratio: 8.3
10.0 515.33 Bank Height Ratio: 1.25
10.7 515.68 Stream Type C/E
12.2 515.87
13.2 515.97
15.1 516.32 Heron,UT 6,XS-26,Riffle
517
t516 :
1\ (
W 515
/ --Bankf dl
----Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/14/19
514 MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 20
• MY 02 LTOB
Station(feet) -MY 00 TOB
Note: Riffle degradation is natural and does not appear to pose a threat to overall stream stability.This area will be closely
monitored during subsequent monitoring years.

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT7,XS-27,Pool
Feature Pool
IF
Date: 5/26/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA __-,/ _.
0.0 503.9 Bankfull Elevation: 504.1 /
1.4 504.0 LTOB Elevation: 504.0 _
3.6 503.9 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 6.3
4.3 503.8 Bankfull Width: 12.4 ,- 1i'-'1l►-•'
4.4 503.8 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA °k
5.5 503.6 Flood Prone Width: NA
6.1 503.4 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.9 2020/05/26
6.9 503.2 Low Bank Height: 0.8
7.5 503.2 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.5
8.2 503.2 W/D Ratio: NA
9.0 503.3 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
9.8 503.3 Bank Height Ratio: 0.89
10.8 503.2 Stream Type . 1 C/E
11.6 503.6
12.0 504.0
12.7 504.2
14.3 504.4 Heron,UT 7,XS-27,Pool
16.4 504.5
505 -
j
504 ■503
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/14/19
-MY-02 5/26/20
502 , I • MY02LTOB
0 10 MY OO TOB 20
Station(feet)
Note: Sediment deposition in pool appears natural and is not expected to lead to instability.

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 7,XS-28,Riffle
Feature Riffle '`
Date: 5/26/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 505.50 Bankfull Elevation: 505.1 ,
2.0 505.29 LTOB Elevation: 505.1
4.1 505.13 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.0
6.2 504.87 Bankfull Width: 7.5 ,
7.1 504.87 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 506.0
7.7 504.72 Flood Prone Width: 20.0
8.2 504.58 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.9 'M);
8.6 504.39 Low Bank Height: 0.9 �n
9.1 504.20 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4
9.3 504.20 W/D Ratio: 18.8
9.9 504.33 Entrenchment Ratio: 2.7
10.2 504.34 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
10.6 504.72 Stream Type C/E
11.0 505.01
11.8 505.21
13.1 505.31 Heron,UT 7,XS-28,Riffle
14.3 505.42
15.9 505.47 507
506 -
t
0 505
ti
W
504 ----Bankf l
----Flood Prone Area
- -MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/14/19
503 - I
-MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 • MY02LTOB 20
Station(feet) -MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 7,XS-29,Pool
Feature Pool
1
Date: 5/26/2020 - . k
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elation SUMMARY DATA
-0.1 513.2 Bankfull Elevation: 512.3
2.2 513.0 LTOB Elevation: 512.2
3.6 512.5 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.4
4.7 512.4 Bankfull Width: 4.0
5.5 511.1 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
6.2 511.1 Flood Prone Width: NA
6.8 511.1 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.2
7.1 511.1 Low Bank Height: 1.2
7.8 511.4 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.9
8.4 512.2 W/D Ratio: NA
8.9 512.3 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
10.1 512.7 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
11.2 512.8 Stream Type il C/E
12.6 513.0
14.2 513.2
Heron,UT 7,XS-29,Pool
514
513
i
tems.
0 512
W 511 ----B� u
-MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
510 -MY-025/26/20
• MY02LTOB
0 10 20
MY OO TOB
Station(feet)

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT7,XS-30,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 5/26/2020 �•
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki ,.
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 513.76 Bankfull Elevation: 513.1
2.9 513.49 LTOB Elevation: 513.0
4.5 513.28 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 2.3
5.8 512.83 Bankfull Width: 6.3
6.4 512.58 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 513.6 _
7.1 512.80 Flood Prone Width: 11.0
7.8 512.62 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.5
8.5 512.56 Low Bank Height: 0.5
9.4 512.60 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4
10.0 512.62 W/D Ratio: 17.3
10.7 512.84 Entrenchment Ratio: 1.7
11.5 513.12 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
12.4 513.45 Stream Type C/E
13.8 513.55
16.1 514.02
Heron,UT 7,XS-30,Riffle
515
t
514 -____513
- _Bankfull
- .Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/14/19
512 , I
-MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 20
• MY02LTOB
Station(feet) -MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT7,XS-31,Pool
Feature Pool
Date: 5/26/2020 e �'
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA -"___
0.0 514.9 Bankfull Elevation: 514.0
3.3 514.4 LTOB Elevation: 514.1 -
5.2 514.1 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.0
5.6 513.8 Bankfull Width: 5.8
6.4 513.4 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
7.0 513.4 Flood Prone Width: NA
7.8 513.3 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.7
8.9 513.3 Low Bank Height: 0.8 i[S,,c"
9.8 513.4 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.5
10.5 513.8 W/D Ratio: NA
11.3 514.1 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
12.4 514.4 Bank Height Ratio: 1.14
14.1 514.6 Stream Type C/E
16.0 514.7
Heron,UT 7,XS-31,Pool
516 -
515
i i
0 514 --
W 513 B� u
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/14/19
512 , I +MY-025/26/20
0 10 • MY02LTOB 20
MY OO TOB
Station(feet)

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT7,XS-32,Riffle
Feature Riffle `,
Date: 5/26/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.2 518.32 Bankfull Elevation: 518.0
2.7 518.20 LTOB Elevation: 517.9
4.0 517.80 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.3
4.8 517.72 Bankfull Width: 7.9
5.1 517.55 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 518.8
5.7 517.22 Flood Prone Width: 20.0 -
r
6.6 517.22 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.8 .,
7.3 517.17 Low Bank Height: 0.8 „`
8.0 517.31 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4
8.6 517.51 W/D Ratio: 18.9
10.0 517.64 Entrenchment Ratio: 2.5
11.1 517.92 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
13.4 518.10 Stream Type C/E
15.2 518.35
Heron,UT 7,XS-32,Riffle
519 -
i518
517 -
----Bankfull
- Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
516 - I
-MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 • MY02LTOB 20
Station(feet) -MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 7,XS-33,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 5/26/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki J
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
-0.2 523.39 Bankfull Elevation: 523.2
-0.2 523.39 LTOB Elevation: 523.3
2.4 523.27 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 1.8
3.5 523.11 Bankfull Width: 6.2
4.3 523.07 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 523.8
5.0 522.90 Flood Prone Width: 20.0
5.9 522.60 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.6
6.7 522.78 Low Bank Height: 0.7
7.4 522.87 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.3
8.4 523.11 W/D Ratio: 21.4
9.3 523.33 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.2
11.0 523.31 Bank Height Ratio: 1.17
13.3 523.38 Stream Type C/E
Heron,UT 7,XS-33,Riffle
524
m
0 523
ti
W i
___-BankF.11
.Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/14/19
522 , I ,
-MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 20
• MY02LTOB
Station(feet) -MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 8,XS-34,Riffle yy
Feature Riffle j �. a'" I 1I
Date: 5/26/2020 '
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki i'I'
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA i s
1.2 515.45 Bankfull Elevation: 515.2
1.0 515.45 LTOB Elevation: 515.2
2.9 515.46 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 2.6 4
4.0 515.29 Bankfull Width: 4.8
4.6 515.14 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 516.0 -_
5.3 514.85 Flood Prone Width: 40.0
5.8 514.54 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.8
6.3 514.37 Low Bank Height: 0.8 ' .44 ,, . .r.tdA 7, . z
6.9 514.38 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.5
7.3 514.51 W/D Ratio: 8.9
7.9 514.52 Entrenchment Ratio: 8.3
8.4 514.52 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
8.9 514.57 Stream Type C/E
9.3 515.17
9.7 515.26
10.8 515.26 Heron,UT 8,XS-34,Riffle
12.7 515.27
14.4 515.38 517
516 ti
t
z
W 515
- Bankfull
- Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
514 -MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 20
• MY02LTOB
Station(feet) -MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT8,XS-35,Pool
Feature Pool s +�
Date: 5/26/2020 i
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA '
0.0 515.9 Bankfull Elevation: 515.4
0.3 515.8 LTOB Elevation: 515.5
2.2 515.8 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 4.1
4.5 515.7 Bankfull Width: 7.1
4.8 515.6 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
5.3 515.0 Flood Prone Width: NA
5.4 514.9 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.9
6.3 514.8 Low Bank Height: 0.9
6.3 514.6 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.6
9.3 514.6 W/D Ratio: NA
9.4 514.7 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
10.1 514.9 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
11.6 515.4 Stream Type C/E
12.0 515.4
12.1 515.5
13.1 515.7
13.8 515.9 Heron,UT 8,XS-35,Pool
517
Ti.,,,
516
515 ___-Bankfuu
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
514 -MY-03 5/26/20
• MY02LTOB
0 10 20
-MY 00 TOB
Station(feet)

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 8,XS-36,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 5/26/2020
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki - . ""= "°4,'°
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 521.40 Bankfull Elevation: 520.8
2.0 521.11 LTOB Elevation: 520.8
3.9 520.94 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.7
3i
5.5 520.60 Bankfull Width: 9.3
6.4 520.46 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 521.6
7.1 520.45 Flood Prone Width: 20.0
7.7 520.36 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.8
8.2 520.12 Low Bank Height: 0.8 ;;;..
8.8 520.12 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4
9.6 520.00 W/D Ratio: 23.4
10.2 520.06 Entrenchment Ratio: 2.2
11.1 520.00 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
11.3 520.00 Stream Type C/E
11.6 520.27
11.9 520.50
13.0 520.69 Heron,UT 8,XS-36,Riffle
14.0 520.75
14.5 520.86 522
16.4 520.90
18.0 521.21
m
521
t
z
2
ti
W 520
----Bankfull
- Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
519 , I ,
-MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 20
• MY02LTOB
Station(feet) -MY 00 TOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 8,XS-37,Pool
Feature Pool
Date: 5/26/2020 y'
Field Crew: Perkinson,Radecki �� �`
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 521.2 Bankfull Elevation: 521.1
2.5 521.2 LTOB Elevation: 521.0
4.4 521.1 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 7.2
5.9 520.9 Bankfull Width: 10.5
6.9 520.6 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
7.3 520.2 Flood Prone Width: NA
8.0 520.0 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.6
9.1 519.9 Low Bank Height: 1.6
9.8 519.6 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.7
10.5 519.4 W/D Ratio: NA
11.0 519.5 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
11.4 519.8 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
12.1 520.3 Stream Type C/E
12.5 520.6
13.2 521.0
14.9 521.0
16.1 521.4 Heron,UT 8,XS-37,Pool
18.0 521.7
522
I
j521520 ----Banu
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
519 -MY-025/26/20
• MYo2LTOB
0 10 20
-MY 00 TOB
Station(feet)

Appendix E.
Hydrology Data
Table 15A.-15J. Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 16. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 17. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 15A. UT1 Channel Evidence
UT! Channel Evidence Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020)
Max consecutive days channel flow 103 162
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes
Matted,bent,or absence of vegetation(herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,including Yes Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern(meander bends and/or channel braiding)at Yes Yes
natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No
Other:
Table 15B. UT2 Channel Evidence
UT2 Channel Evidence Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020)
Max consecutive days channel flow 85 126
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes
Matted,bent,or absence of vegetation(herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,including Yes Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern(meander bends and/or channel braiding) at Yes Yes
natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No
Other:
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 15C. UT3 Channel Evidence
UT3 Channel Evidence Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020)
Max consecutive days channel flow 142 166
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes
Matted,bent,or absence of vegetation(herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,including Yes Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern(meander bends and/or channel braiding)at Yes Yes
natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No
Other:
Table 15D. UT5 Downstream Channel Evidence
UT5 Downstream Channel Evidence Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020)
Max consecutive days channel flow 134 152
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes
Matted,bent,or absence of vegetation(herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,including Yes Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern(meander bends and/or channel braiding) at Yes Yes
natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No
Other:
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 15E. UT5 Upstream Channel Evidence
UT5 Upstream Channel Evidence Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020)
Max consecutive days channel flow 167 158
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes
Matted,bent,or absence of vegetation(herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,including Yes Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern(meander bends and/or channel braiding)at Yes Yes
natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No
Other:
Table 15F. UT6 Channel Evidence
UT6 Channel Evidence Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020)
Max consecutive days channel flow 131 187
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes
Matted,bent,or absence of vegetation(herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,including Yes Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern(meander bends and/or channel braiding)at Yes Yes
natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No
Other:
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 15G. UT7 Downstream Channel Evidence
UT7 Downstream Channel Evidence Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020)
Max consecutive days channel flow 237 68
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes
Matted,bent,or absence of vegetation(herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,including Yes Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern(meander bends and/or channel braiding)at natural Yes Yes
topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No
Other:
Table 15H. UT7 Middle Channel Evidence
UT7 Middle Channel Evidence Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020)
Max consecutive days channel flow 151 106
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes
Matted,bent,or absence of vegetation(herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,including Yes Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern(meander bends and/or channel braiding)at Yes Yes
natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No
Other:
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Table 15I. UT7 Upstream Channel Evidence
UT7 Upstream Channel Evidence Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020)
Max consecutive days channel flow 237 248
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes
Matted,bent,or absence of vegetation(herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,including Yes Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern(meander bends and/or channel braiding)at Yes Yes
natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No
Other:
Table 15J. UT8 Channel Evidence
UT8 Downstream Channel Evidence Year 1 (2019) Year 2 (2020)
Max consecutive days channel flow 49 89
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes
Matted,bent,or absence of vegetation(herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial vegetation and/or
transition to species adapted for flow or inundation for a long duration,including Yes Yes
hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern(meander bends and/or channel braiding)at Yes Yes
natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No
Other:
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT1
Year 2 (2020 Data)
25 2.5
23
21
19 2.0
17
c
15 ' ul
c
w 13 1.5 E
a
11 =
ru.., c
£ 9 I I 1 ' s
m
1
4 7 I I ii 1.0
tfl
5 I ► LI1 �11 , ,.I
3 jOki_i__ it 11 ir
1 ' 1 IiijIL
1 0.5
1 ~.I + II162 Days '` I3 LL �L L _J Ji J _ J1 i_ ._LL L . 1l1 1.1 II1_ A LY ._-50.0
F--, F--, F--, F--, N N W W W W A A A l l l l l l 01 01 01 V V V 00 CO CO l0 1.0 l0 F--, F--, F--, F--, F--,
F--, F--, N W F--, N F--, F--, N W F--, N W F--, N W l0 F--, N l0 F--, N CO F--, N V F--, N
1-s 1-s 1-s O O I-, I-, I-, O O O O O O l0 l0 l0 l0 00 00 V V V I, N 01 I,
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V V \ 01
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \ N
00000 000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 NNJONJ
0 0 0

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT2
Year 2 (2020 Data)
- 4.5-
23 -
21 - 4.0
19 -
17 - 3.5
c
15 ��—
Tu ,co
co
a)
-
a 13 0
m E
n 11 2.5 4
E co
a i 9 _
co
n 2.0 1
7 iiiiI i
5 I 1.5
lijiiiti
tiejkLillitw
NI\
3
1 , V VU 1.0
1 1 110-
I
Lit
Days - 0.5
IJ Y
-5 I. ` L i .1111 . i J IL . .I II I _ l 1 I . I I 1.. I 1■ a
,- ,- ,- ,- N N W W W UJ A A A Ul Ul Ul 01 01 01 V V V 00 00 00 lO lO lO I-. I-. I-.
F-, F-, N W F-, N F-, F-, N W F-, N W F-, N UJ lO F-, N lO F-, N 00 F-, N V F-` N \ \ \
N N N O O N N N O O O O O O lO lO lO lO 00 00 \ V V V N N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V V
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NJ NJ
0 0

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT3
Year 2 (2020 Data)
V - 4.5
23
21 - 4.0
19 —
_ 17 3.5
Tu I
15
i 3.0
13 3
m o
11 4 # -t2.54E
E m
m 9 c
a
, 2.0 ce
753
ti\W
I
ükWt4wfIJ
!tit - 1.0
1 1
.I 166 Days I - 0.5
3 i I. I r 1 .1� . I J . J I I � _ I I I . I' I �.. II
-5 0.0
,-� ,-� ,- ,- N N W W W UJ A A A Ul Ul Ul 01 O1 O1 V V V CO CO CO lO lO lO F-, F-, F-,
I--� I--� N W I--� N I--� I--� N W 1--� N W 1--� N W LOO 1--� N LOO F\-, N W F\-, N V F-` N \ \ \
N N N O O N N N O O O O O O lO lO lO lO 00 00 \ V V V N N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V V
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NJ NJ
0 0

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT5 Downstream
Year 2 (2020 Data)
r 4.5
23 21 — — II"1 4.0
19
_ 17 1111
3.5
c
a
15
3.0
13 :us
a
to
40
191 II I cz
[ 1JiI1 I 2.5
‘')I. 7 I �I I I 2.0
5
1.5
I !!
3 I 1
1 1.0
1 4 ► 4
.I + 95 Days y 0.5
-5 I. Id II. I .�� J Iii 11 I L� I ■I 0.0
I— I-. I-. I-. NJ NJ W W W UJ 4N 4N 4N Ul Ul Ul 01 O1 Ol V V V CO CO CO lO lO lO I-% I-% I-%
I--• I--• N W I--• N I--s I--• N W I--• N W I--• N W LOO I--• N LOO I--• N 0000 I--• N V I-` N 0 0 \
N N N 0 0 - N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 lO lO lO lO 00 00 \ V V V N NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ . NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ V V
0 NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ NJ
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NJ NJ
0 0

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT5 Upstream
Year 2 (2020 Data)
- 4.5
23 -
21LI - 4.0
19 -
17 - - 3.5
c
15
i - 3.0 4.2
13 3
ar 0
N 11 2.5 to Q
E3.as 9 I C
E
N 2.0
7 1
5 - 1.5
3
1 - b PITIA AL At UPAlilik
I - 1.0
‘Aw kill If( '
1 1 I 0,
11.
158 Days - 0.5
-3 d I .I `
+ I y
-5 I L J .�I. J ._ . A F _ I I I . i 1 ii.� I-III 0.0
I- F- NJ NJ W W . -P Ul Ul 0) D7 V V V 00 00 l0 l0 I- I-
,...,..- - \ \ \ \ .- \ - - - - - \ \ \ \ - .- \
I- I--, N I- N I" N CO N Ol N W I" F- I- N I" N l0 N
Ui l0 N (7) I" Ui - N 0 - V - Ui l0 N 0l W V NJ
N \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ N \ N \ N \ \ \ \ N \ \ I"
0 N N N NJ NJ NJ O N O N O NJ O N N N N O N NJ
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O NJ
0

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT6
Year 2 (2020 Data)
4.5
23
21 4.0
19
17 3.5
c
15
i 3.0
13 3
ar 0
to N 11 2.5 Q
E m
ns ar
9 c
n 2.0
7
5 1.5
3 JALAA.....vr-AkioL
1 - 1.0
1 4 ► ►
I I ■1 J . .I187 ays - 0.5
3 JI. Y ` r . .ii . . J I1 1 _ ' II . , L� I■-50.0
F. F-. F-. F-. N N W W W UJ A A A Ul Ul Ul 01 01 01 V V V 00 00 00 lO lO lO F-• F-• F-s
I--� I--� N W 1--, NJ N 1--, 1--,F\-, N W 1--, IV N W 1--, IV N W LOO 1--, NJ N LOO 1--, NJ N W 1--, NJ N V 1--, IV N \ \ \
• N N N O O N N N O O O O O O lO lO lO lO 00 00 \ V V V N N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V V
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N
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

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT7 Downstream
Year 2 (2020 Data)
4.5
23
21 4.0
19 -
17 - 3.5
c
15 Tu -
i 3.0
13 3
ar p
to
N 11 T =
2.5 Q
E m
as g I
a
N 2.0
7 ' I
5 - 1.5
3 k
.14, .L....„\IA
1A.,......."_ 1.0
._EA„...._,„LAilk„ iiiii 14%,_ t....k 1
68 Days 1 L ji 4 D ys - 0.5
-5 I. Yl r I ill . 1 J II . . II I _ I I I . III L.. 1■ 0.0
F. F-. F-. F-. N N W W W UJ A A A Ul Ul Ul Ol Ol Ol V V V 00 00 00 lO lO lO F-• F-• F-•
I--� I--� N W I-4 N I-4 I-4 N W I-4 N W I-4 N W LOO I-4 N LOO I-4 N W I-4 N V F-` N \ \ \
• N N N O O N N N O O O O O O lO lO lO lO 00 00 \ V V V N N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V V
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N
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

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT7 Middle
Year 2 (2020 Data)
4.5
23
21 4.0
19
17 3.5
c
151 t.7...
Tu
3.0
13 - 3
ar 0
Nto
11 - 2.5 Q
E
ns 9 c
ar
n 2.0
7
5 1.5
3
1 Gauge alfunctionjiLL--"°\Ake
- 1.0
-1 t i ►
81
+
Days 106 Days - 0.5
-5 I I. IY l r 1 Al . 1 J II . . II I _ III . II L.. I 1■ 0.0
F. F-. F-. F-. N N W W W UJ A A A Ul Ul Ul Ol Ol Ol V V V 00 00 00 lO lO lO F-• F-• F-•
I--� I--� N W I-4 N I-4 I-4 N W I-4 N W I-4 N W LOO I-4 N LOO I-4 N W I-4 N V F-` N \ \ \
• N N N O O N N N O O O O O O lO lO lO lO 00 00 \ V V V N N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V V
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N
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

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT7 Upstream
Year 2 (2020 Data)
- 4.5
23
21 - 4.0
19
17ll 3.5
c
u
15
3.0
13 I 3
ar o
to
N 11 2.5 Q
as 9 c
ll w
N , 73
I r 1 I 1 I 2.0 ce
5 Llll111•1�1,I1 ■ I IliI►■IIII L'1Ii1II'1 Ill1111l 111E11 1.5
3 Ili it 1,111111w1111�1 II1�aIIIJ ��II1�11�11•111I�II
1
r 111 g 1.0
I.
1
.I 248 Days 0.5
3 I I. LI i t i . i
1� . . J . IL I _ I I I . . 1 L.� II I
-5 0.0
,- ,- ,- ,- N N W W W UJ A A A Ul Ul Ul O1 01 01 V V V CO CO CO 1.0 1.0 1.0 F-, F-, F-,
I- I- N W I- N I- I- N W I- N W I- N U) l0 I- N l0 I- N 00 I- N V I- N
• N N N O O N N N O O O O O O l0 l0 l0 l0 00 00 \ V V V N N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ V V
O N N N N N O N N N N N N N N N O N N O N N O N N O N N N \ \
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NJ NJ
0 0

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT8
Year 2 (2020 Data)
4.5
23
21 4.0
19
17 3.5
c
15
i 3.0
13 3
ar o
to N 11 2.5 4
E m
ns 9 c
ar
HLAJ4&JV
2.0
1.5
Gauge
MlfunctionGauge
1.0
►
Malfupctior
-1 f ►,
89 Days I _83 Days I . - 0.5
I
3 �LI I �. Lit F1 .1111 . 1 J . 1 II I I I L. IIY
-50.0
1--, 1--, 1-4 1--, NJ NJ W W W UJ 43. 43. 43. Ul Ul Ul 01 01 01 V V V 00 00 00 1..0 1.0 1.0 I-• I-• I-•
\ \ 00 \ \ \I-, I-, N W I-4 N I-4 I-4 N W I-4 N W I-4 N W lO I-4 N lO I-4 N 00 I-4 N V I-` N
N N N 0 0 - N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 l0 l0 l0 00 00 \ V V V N NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ . NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ V V
0 NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ 0 NJ NJ NJ
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NJ NJ
0 0

Table 16. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data Photo
Collection Date of Occurrence Method (if available)
Stream gauge data indicates a bankfull event occurred after
August 26,2019 July 7,2019 4.06 inches of rain was documented on July 7,2019 at an --
onsite rain gauge
A bankfull event likely occurred after 7.16 inches of rain
August 26,2019 August 22,2019 was documented between August 20-22,2019 at an onsite --
rain gauge
Wrack and laid-back vegetation were observed on the TOB
July 1,2020 May 21,2020 of UT4 after 3.03 inches of rain was documented between 1
May 19 and 21,2020 at an onsite rain gauge.
Wrack and laid-back vegetation were observed on the TOB
November 16,2020 November 12,2020 of UT 1 after 3.13 inches of rain was documented between 2
November 11 and 12,2020 at an onsite rain gauge.
Photo 1:Wrack and laid-back vegetation along
vitthe TOB of UT4 after a bankfull event. 1
9.
R, ,
�:
r
,: ?"4
4
„ ,
.„..., _.;,,',.*&i,,,,_ 1:::-L-.N.„... _,..
N.may_ 'n- 1. 0.r. \�='4 .may �, t, - ; a 7
,o,
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

��� 1 b Photo 2:Wrack and laid-back vegetation along ,
w. w��Y �' the TOB of UT1 after a banlf'ull event. [f s
z '(� �
kb
�4 j �� yx, � /�+�� ` to / N• ; `r
r1 ! /_ ,
*1,*,.;,.
``q1 'L Itb Z'' '' --- '''' !‘,' '�y � t a,4� -�
C �pp rn.,k r ,. fig ., z 4[. i
d" '', ; /! Cl' .
t .. . �� ; .- Q
,k4 m " 1 ,
- '- T Tt * Y4, (mil .Y
•4.;/ rt.., •-,1 - ,,,,,r, .\--- ,,,-..; - • , ' ; '1,, .1•,•4,,i1,-,„*:,,;‘-t --, , - , ,
Ili
#p� �, �1N j.� ` , '.�r�,, �1, 1.,.;,ran ,_`. ---, r,�,} .. ,, +_ titiat,,
�,
�a, ti,, �� c,1 _ A 11 ." ,,,i `�� '� •_. 'V IA .
":, C „t I i ''"1 7 _ , . yy g� ��.
1
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina 7anuary 2021

Table 17. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season(Percentage)
Gauge
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (2024) (2025)
Yes Yes
1 33 days 23 days
(15.8%) (9.8%)
Yes Yes
2 26 days 27 days
(12.4%) (11.5%)
Yes Yes
3 35 days 28 days
(16.7%) (12.0%)
Yes Yes
4 69 days 51 days
(33.0%) (21.8%)
Yes Yes
5 52 days 45 days
(24.9%) (19.2%)
Yes Yes
6 54 days 46 days
(25.8%) (19.7%)
MY2(2020)Monitoring Report(Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina January 2021

Heron Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 2 (2020 Data)
12 — March 2 October 22 2.5
10 — Growing Season
8 — Start Growing Season In
6 _ End
4
2 2.0
0 i
c 2
.= 4
w
w -6 c
`w -8 1.5 «
m -10 C
¶11
-124 0
I E
-16 20 Days 4
w C
18
-20 1.0 La
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30 - 0.5
-32
-34 '' II
-36
L
-38 • I A [ A �I 1 J . t L ■ _I I I. . I I I 1 1_I IIII. Li
-40 . 0.0
I- I F-+ N N W W A -i. U'I Ul C a V V V 00 CO lD lD I- I-
\ \ \ \ \ .- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
I" I" NJ I" NJ I-+ N CO NJ Ol NJ W I" I" I" NJ I" NJ lD NJ
U'I lD NJ 6) I- Ul NJ O V U'I lD NJ Ol W V NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ NJ \ NJ \ NJ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ I"
O NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ O NJ O NJ O NJ O NJ NJ NJ NJ O NJ N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O NJ
0

Heron Groundwater Gauge 2
Year 2 (2020 Data)
12 March 2 October 22 2.5
10 Growing Season
8 Growing Season
Start
6 End
4 W‘ I
2 kit Iq\rf.N4r1411- 2.0
0 II •
c -2
w -4
J 6 VI =
`w -8 I - 1.5 0
m -10 E
3 ► 1 ► 4
O• -14 14 Da s 14 Da s 27 Days ,To—
o
-16 i N. Le.N. cc
-18
-20 - 1.0
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30 - 0.5
-32
--36 34 I I-38 I.Li
I A I I J I J . t 1 . ■ _IJ i I I 11_I L A I_i
-40 0.0
1- 1-, 1— N N W W A A U"i Ul cn V V J 00 CO lD lD F- I"
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
I- I- NJ I- NJ I" N CO NJ Ol NJ W I" I" I" NJ I- NJ lD NJ
Uf lD NJ Ol I" Ul NJ O V Uf lD NJ Ol W V NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ NJ \ NJ \ NJ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ I"
O NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ O NJ O NJ O NJ O NJ NJ NJ NJ O NJ NJ
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O NJ
0

Heron Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 2 (2020 Data)
12 — March 2 I October 22 2.5
10 — Growing Season Growing Season
8 Start End
I
4 I
2 w - '...MF-- 2.0
AMI
2' 0 • , I I '2'a -4 -
I
6 e
a -8 1.5 0
10 Q
-g -121\.\\V �� _
' 14 13D.,s 3Da 28 Days4-73
0
-16 cc
-18
-20 1.0
-22
-24 r
-26
-28
-30 - 0.5
-32
-34
-36 . Li 1 1 _II . 1 ! � II I _h_11_]_ ■1�
40 'r I L 1` - •
0.0
I F-, I-, NJ NJ W W A A Lf1 lf'I 01 C V V V CO CO lD lD I--+ I-�
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
I-, I--, NJ I-, NJ I-, NJ CO NJ Ol NJ W I-, I--, I NJ I--, NJ (ID NJ
Lf1 lD NJ Ol I-, Lfl NJ O V Lfl lD NJ Ol W V NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ NJ \ NJ \ NJ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ F-+
O NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ O NJ O NJ O NJ O NJ NJ NJ NJ O NJ NJ
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O NJ
0

Heron Groundwater Gauge 4
Year 2 (2020 Data)
12 , March 2 I October 22 E- 2.5
10 , Growing Season I Growing Season M
6 , Start I End EM
4 I I
0 =w► ��OiL J 2.0
c 1TII E
a -4
VI U
ar -6 c
J
7
a -8 1.5 o
16 -10 Q
12 i �� _
o -14 36 Days !lir 51 Days 27 Days c
c7 -16 cc
-18
-20 1.0
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30 0.5
-32
-34
-36
38 !I■_ �■11 �I ii _ �1��l1 _ ■1 I
40 ' •
I _ 1 _ 1 1 0.0
p F-, F- NJ N W W A A U"i U'i Ol C On V V 00 CO lO l0 I" I"
v \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0
I" N F-� N I--� N V N U'i I" N F" W I" N F" N 00 N \ .7 A CO F" VI O A \ I--' \ lD \ O A CO F" U"i \ N CT NJ
\ \ \ \ \ \ N \ N \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ O
N N N N N N O N O N O N N N N N N O N N \
O O O O O O N O N O N O O O O O O N O O N
N N N N N N O N O N O N N N N N N O N N O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N
0

Heron Groundwater Gauge 5
Year 2 (2020 Data)
12 March 2 October 22 2.5
10 Growing Season Growing Season
8 Start End
6
4
2 - 2.0
0
-2 c
v -4
ar -6 c
J
7
-8 .f\a"-‘ - 1.5 £
,,,,,IN,j
3 -10 Q
-14 45 Days
o
0 -16 cc
-18
20 - 1.0
-22
-24
-26
-28
-30 - 0.5
-32
--36
34 ''II I-38ILL IJ JJ 1 J _ J I L iL I. . I I I ILI J A Lli
-40 0.0
I--+ i- F-. N N W W A A U'i U'I Ol a) V V V 00 00 l0 l0 I-. 1-s
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
I- I- N I- N I- N 00 N.) Ol N W I" I" I- N I- N l0 N
Uf l0 NJ Ol I- Ul \ NJ O V Uf l0 NJ CT W V NJ
N \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ N \ N \ N \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ I"
O N N N N NJ N O N O N O N O N N N N O N N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O NJ
0

Heron Groundwater Gauge 6
Year 2 (2020 Data)
12 March 2 I 2.5
10 Growing Season October 22
68 Start Growing Season
4 -
2 -I - 2.0
�
ar -4
N
6 c
ao
, 84' - 1.5E
3 -102 \It%
i 4 1 Q
14 46 Daysw -16 ' s
-18
20 - 1.0
-22
I
-24
-26
-28
30 - 0.5
-32
-34
-36-38 I
40 ' Jdi. _� J 1 _ L A di 0.0
F-� i-A i- NJ N W W . . Ui Ui Ol Ol ,l V V co co lO lO I-� I-�
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
F� i-A NJI-� NJI-� NJ00 NJOl NJW I-� F-� I-� NJI-� NJl0 NJ Ul l0 NJOl I-� U1 \ N \ O \ V \ Ui lO NJOl \ W V NJNJ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ Ni \ NJ \ NJ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \
O N N N N NJ NJ 0 NJ O N O N O N N N N O N N
O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O NO