20090861 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20130312

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 1 (2012)
UT TO BALD STREAM/WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
YANCEY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(EEP Project No. 92596, Contract No. 4997)
Construction Completed December2011
oq-o�' 16",
Submitted to
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
Y �C;V 1 T
ecosystem o- osy Q�°o�'
1 2013
NR - WATER QUALITY
weslends & sw� �a� February 2013

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 1 (2012)
UT TO BALD STREAM/WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
YANCEY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(EEP Project No. 92596, Contract No. 4997)
Construction Completed December 2011
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Axiom Environmental. Inc. }ecosystem
February 2013

1 0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
20 METHODOLOGY
2 1 Vegetation Assessment
2 2 Stream Assessment
3 0 REFERENCES
Table of Contents
Appendices
APPENDIX A PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Baseline Information and Attributes
APPENDIX B VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2 Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5 1 -5 4 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Tables
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Site Fixed - Station Photos
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
APPENDIX C VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
APPENDIX D STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross - section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Substrate Plots
Table 10a - b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table l l a - b Momtoring Data
APPENDIX E HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
1
3
3
3
4
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The UT to Bald Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site ")
is situated within the US Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 06010108 of the French
Broad River Basin and is in a portion of NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Priority Sub -
basin 04 -03 -07 The Site is located in Yancey County, approximately eight miles west of the
City of Burnsville, North Carolina The Site is encompassed within a 12 74 -acre easement
located on two tracts of property Tract one is owned by Henry and Elizabeth Turner and tract
two is owned by Charles Young Jr and Deana Blanchard The Site is comprised of five
headwater tributaries originating from Mountain seeps and springs, and five adjacent streamside
wetlands (Figure 2, Appendix B) Prior to construction, upper reaches of the Site were forested
and relatively stable Downstream reaches were impacted by agriculture activities with minimal
riparian buffer This report (compiled based on the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(NCEEP) Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports Version
14 dated 11/7/11) summarizes data for Year 1 (2012) monitoring
The project goals (from approved Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream Restoration
Project, Final Restoration Plan [NC EEP 2009]) include the following
• Reduce erosion from within the Site
• Restore a channel capable of transporting watershed flows and sediment loads efficiently
• Improve wetland and stream aquatic habitat
• Enhance wildlife habitat
• Improve overall water quality
These goals will be accomplished through the implementation of the following objectives
• Exclude livestock from the stream in order to
• Reduce direct inputs of nutrients and fecal coliform bacteria into the stream
• Eliminate the stress on streambanks caused by hoof shear
• Plant a native riparian buffer in order to
o Provide woody root mass to stabilize the streambanks
o Filter sediment and nutrient pollutants from agricultural fields and prevent them from
entering the stream J
o Provide shade to the stream channel as a means of reducing water temperatures -
o Provide a source for woody debris and leaf litter that will enhance aquatic habitat
• Enhance existing wetlands by excluding livestock, managing invasive species, and plantmg
native wetland vegetation _
• Restore Site streams to a proper bankfull dimension and stabilize steep and eroding streambanks
• Provide Site streams with adequate flood -prone area
• Repair headcuts and establish a more diverse bed morphology with rile -pool sequences _
supported by in- stream structures
• Restore an impounded reach of stream by removing a small dam and culvert
• Create protected riparian corridors for wildlife passage
• Preserve high - quality forested headwater streams in the steeper reaches of the Site
Ur to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc Momtonng Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013 --
Yancey County, North Carolina page 1

Vegetation success criteria (from approved Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream
Restoration Project, Final Restoration Plan [NC EEP 2009]) consists of the following
"The success criteria for the preferred species in the restoration areas will be based on
annual and cumulative survival and growth over five years Survival of preferred species
must be at a minimum 320 stems - per -acre at the end of three years of monitoring and 260
stems - per -acre after five years "
During Year 1 (2012), six vegetation plots were established and monitored Overall, Site
vegetation averaged 358 stems - per -acre, which exceeds the minimum stem count for success
criteria of 320 stems - per -acre Four of the six plots met or exceeded the success criteria
Vegetation plots 2 and 4 were below success criteria with 243 stems - per -acre, each Low
planted stem survival in vegetation plots 2 and 4 may be attributed to competition from
herbaceous vegetation (primarily fescue [Festuca spp ] and tearthumb [Polygonum spp ]) In
addition, one problem area of easement encroachment has been identified adjacent to Tributary 2
(Figure 2) This area has been mowed to the stream edge, with piles of brush dumped adjacent to
the creek
Stream success criteria (from approved Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream Restoration
Project, Final Restoration Plan [ NCEEP 2009])]) consists of the following
"Monitoring shall consist of the collection and analysis of stream stability and riparian
vegetation survivability data to support the evaluation of the project in meeting
established restoration objectives "
A visual assessment and geomorphic survey were completed for the Site It is too early in the 5-
year annual monitoring period for Site measurements to determine if stream success criteria, in
- relation to restoration objectives, are being achieved However, Site reaches are conforming to
design criteria established in the Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream Restoration
Project, Final Restoration Plan ( NCEEP 2009) No significant bank erosion was recorded and
geomorphic measurements are within the range of the proposed design parameters Stream
I channels appear to be exhibiting aggradation of fine materials, possibly from surface flows
across the adjacent floodplain and extensive herbaceous vegetation growth within the channel
bed Currently, aggradation does not appear to present a problem, however, continued
observation throughout the monitoring period should determine if the system is able to flush
aggraded material
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment
and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in
tables and figures within this report's appendices Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report
(formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly the Restoration Plan) documents
available on NCEEPs website All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices
is available from NCEEP upon request
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Ina Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina page 2

2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Six vegetation plots were established and marked during the Year 1 (2012) monitoring period
Plots were established by installing 4 -foot, metal U -bar post at the corners and a 10 -foot, 0 75
inch PVC at the ongin The plots are 10 meters square and are located randomly within the Site
These plots were surveyed in December for the Year 1 (2012) monitoring season using methods
outlined in CTS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Levels 1 -2 Plot Sampling Only,
Version 4 2 (Lee et al 2008) (http //cvs bio unc edu /methods htm), results are included in
Appendix C The taxonomic standard for vegetation used for this document was Flora of the
Southern and Mid- Atlantic States (Weakley 2012)
2.2 Stream Assessment
Annual stream monitoring was conducted in December of 2012 with additional supplementary
measurements conducted in February of 2013 Measurements were taken using a Topcon GTS
303 total station and Recon data collector The raw total station file was processed using Carlson
Survey Software into a Computer Aided Design (CAD) file Coordinates were exported as a
text /ASCII file to Microsoft Excel for processing and presentation of data Pebble counts were
completed using the modified Wolman method (Rosgen 1993) One crest gauge (PVC with
wooden staff gauge and cork filings) was installed in the lower, downstream third of the Site
Annual stream monitoring was conducted in December 2012 and February 2013 Six permanent
cross - sections, three riffle and three pool, were established and will be used to evaluate stream
dimension, locations are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B) Cross - sections are permanently
monumented with 5 -foot metal t -posts at each end point Cross - sections will be surveyed to
provide a detailed measurement of the stream and banks including points on the adjacent
floodplain, top of bank, bankfull, breaks in slope, edge of water, and thalweg Data will be used
to calculate width -depth ratios, entrenchment ratios, and bank height ratios for each cross -
section In addition, a pebble count was completed at cross - section 2 and photographs will be
taken at each permanent cross - section location annually
Six stream monitoring reaches were established and will be used to evaluate stream pattern and
longitudinal profile, locations are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B) Measurement of channel -
pattern will include belt - width, meander length, and radius of curvature (only in year one)
Subsequently, data will be used to calculate meander -width ratios Longitudinal profile
measurements will include average water surface slopes and facet slopes and pool -to -pool
spacing Twenty two permanent photo points were established throughout the restoration reach
(12 fixed photo points, 4 cross - section photo points, and 6 vegetation plot photo points),
locations are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B) and are included in Appendix B In addition,
visual stream morphology stability assessments will be completed in four monitoring reaches
annually to assess the channel bed, banks, and in- stream structures
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Ina Monrtonng Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina page 3

3.0 REFERENCES
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) Unpublished Procedural Guidance and Content
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Projects, Version 14, dated 11/07/11 NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Available online at
http //portal ncdenr org/c/ document_ library/get_ file ?p_1_id = 1169848 &folderld = 2288101
&name =DLFE -39268 pdf
Lee, MT, R K Peet, SD Roberts, and T R Wentworth 2008 CVS -EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Levels 1 -2 Plot Sampling Only, Version 4 2 Available online at
http / /cvs bio unc edu /methods him
N C Ecosystem Enhancement Program 2009 Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream
Restoration Project, Final Restoration Plan - Yancey County, NC
Rosgen 1993 Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, Training Manual River Short Course,
Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO
Weakley, Alan S 2012 Flora of the Southern and Mid - Atlantic States Available online at
http //www herbarium unc edu /WeakleysFlora pdf [September 28, 2012] University of
North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Momtonng Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina page 4

APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES
Figure 1 Site Location Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4 Project Baseline Information and Attributes
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Ina Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012) _
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

'41
il� Ait
A
42'
Project Site V,
Access Po
43146, 35.92193
-AL26-',
V
4
-N-
Air A
U
Directions from Raleigh: A
f
-40 West about 212 miles to Marion.
Take I
Take exit 86, for US-226 North, towards Marion/Shelby.
Follow US-226 North about 23 miles to Spruce Pine, NC.
Continue onto US-19E South 21 miles, through Burnsville.
Take a right on Sweethollow Road.
J
The site is 0.5 miles • the left.
SITE LOCATION MAP
UT TO BALD STREAM RESTORATION
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Pr
fit
Dwn. by.
KRJ
Axiom Environmental
Date:
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
[phone]
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
SITE LOCATION MAP
UT TO BALD STREAM RESTORATION
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Pr
fit
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
Date:
December 20 12
Project:
12-004.15

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 92596)
Miti ation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Buffer
Type
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Totals
2770
168
0
0.62
0
Projects Com onents
Project
Existing
Restoration/
Restoration
Component/
Station Range
Linear
Priority
Restoration
Linear
Mitigation
Comment
Reach ID
Footage/
Approach
Equivalent
Footage/
Ratio
Acreage
Acreage
Mainstem
10+00 —18 +39
800
P
Preservation
839
15
Headwater channels in mature hardwood forest
Removed earthen dam and small pond.
Dayhghted culverted stream segment, tied in
Mamstem
18 +39 —20+50
250
R (P2)
Restoration
211
11
stable upstream and downstream segments, and
added grade control Pulled channel off the left
bank and graded bench, sloped back right bank,
and enhanced profile with additional pool habitat
20+50 —22+15
Enhancement
Riparian plantings to Culver under driveway and
Mainstem
(CMP 22 +15 — 22 +60)
378
EH
Level II
386
1 2 5
wetland plantings around pond
22+60 -24 +81
Mainstem
24 +81 — 25+00
71
NA
NA
19
NA
Sweet Hallow Road
Mamstem
25+00 — 26+00
NA
R (P1)
Restoration
100
11
New alignment on back side of dam/Sweet
Hallow Road
Enhanced existing vegetated swale from base of
dam to confluence with riparian plantings and
livestock exclusion Short reach of incised
Mainstem
26+00 —30+72
522
EI (P 1)
Enhancement
472
1 15
channel below headcut was graded back and
Level I
stabilized Log silles were placed at the top and
bottom of incised reach and bottom of reach
above confluence Reach has one permanent
vehicular ford crossing
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 1 (continued). Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Proiect Number 92596)
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Ina Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices
Constructed new B -type channel primarily on
existing alignment Raised channel invert to
reconnect with historical floodplam from
confluence to the stable cottonwood section,
stabilized with rock cross vanes, and added forded
Mamstem
30 +72 —36+63
587
R (P1 /P2)
Restoration
591
1 1
stream crossing below cottonwoods Transntnoned
to Priority 2 restoration below the crossing with a
step -pool and constricted riffle Restored
dimension by excavating a bankfull bench on the
right bank, restored profile with step -pool
structures This reach was limited to small
meanders due to a naturally confined valley type
Tributary 1
10 +00 —13 +21
321
Ell
Enhancement
Level II
321
12 5
Invasive species removal and planting
Installed step -pool structure to stabilized headcut
and meet pond elevation Multi- thread channel
Tributary 1
13 +21 -14 +60
220
R (PI)
Restoration
139
1 1
was graded and replaced with a single- thread
channel Log sills were added for grade control at
the to
Tributary 2
10 +00 —18+26
826
Ell
Enhancement
Level If
826
12 5
Invasive species treatment and planting
Installed step -pool system to stabilize a series of
Tributary 2
18 +26 —19 +49
123
R (P2)
Restoration
123
1 1
severe head -cuts Pulled channel off of the steep
left bank and tied in to culvert under Sweet
Hallow Road
Tributary 2
19 +49 —19 +93
51
NA
NA
44
NA
Sweet Hallow Road
Tributary 2
19 +93 — 24 +43
450
Ell
Enhancement
450
12 5
Planted and installed grade control structures near
Level II
the confluence with the Mamstem
Enhanced spring -fed swble for potential
Tributary 3
10 +00 — 12 +17
217
Ell
Enhancement
217
12 5
amphibian and reptile habitat Removed invasive
Level II
species, preserved existing trees on slope, and
planted
Constructed a new channel through pasture to
Tributary 3
12+17-14+54
NA
R (PI)
Restoration
237
1 1
reconnect Tributary 3 to the Mamstem and
provide a stable conveyance for lu her flows
Planted and excluded livestock Installed grade
Enhancement
control to stabilize tie -nn at the confluence with
Tnbutary 4
10 +00 —14 +35
428
Ell
Level II
435
12 5
the Mamstem hi addition, several log sills were
installed for grade control and habitat
enhancement
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Ina Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 1 (continued). Project Components and Mitigation Credits
U 1 to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (ELF Yroject Number 91596)
UT to Bald Stream (Final)
EEP Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc- Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012)
February 2013
Appendices
Planted wetland plants around pond
Wetland 1
0 18
Enhancement
0 18
12
frmge and littoral shelf, and riparian
plants on left embankment of pond
Wetland IA
048
Enhancement
048
12
Removed invasive species and
supplementally planted
Removed invasive species, excluded
Wetland 3
02
Enhancement
02
12
livestock, and supplementally
planted
Removed invasive species, excluded
Wetland 4
Oil
Enhancement
0 11
12
livestock, and supplenientally
planted
Removed invasive species, excluded
Wetlan d 5
026
Enhancement
026
12
livestock, and supplementally
planted
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear footage)
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Buffer (square footage)
Restoration
1401
Enhancement (Level l )
472
Enhancement Level 1I
2635
Preservation
839
Creation
Wetland Enhancement
123
Totals
5347
123
Mitigation Units
2938 SMUs
0 62 WMUs
UT to Bald Stream (Final)
EEP Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc- Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012)
February 2013
Appendices

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 92596)
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 1 year 1 month
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 0 year 10 months
Nnmher of Rennrtinu Year- 1
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan
June 2009
Final Design — Construction Plans
River Works, Inc
November 2010
Construction
September 2011
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
December 2011
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
December 2011
Containerized and B &B plantings for entire reach
David Turner 919 - 875 -1378
December 2011
As -built Construction Drawings
Years 1 -5 Monitoring Performers
March 2012
Restoration Plan
218 Snow Avenue
June 2009
Final Design — Construction Plans
November 2010
Construction
September 2011
Year 1 Monitoring (2012)
December 2012
February 2013
Year 2 Monitoring (2013)
Year 3 Monitoring (2014)
Year 4 Monitoring (2015)
Year 5 Monitoring (2016)
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
ITT to Rald Ctream and Wetland Restnration Site WVP Proiect Numher 925961
Designer
URS Corporation — North Carolina
Morrisville, NC
919- 461 -1597
Construction, Planting, and Seeding
River Works, Inc
Contractor
Cary, NC
919 - 459- 9001 - 692 -4633
Surveyor
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
3201 Glenridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
David Turner 919 - 875 -1378
Seed Mix Source
Unknown
Years 1 -5 Monitoring Performers
Axiom Environmental, Inc
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919 -215 -1693
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Proiect Number 92596)
Project Information
Project Name
UT to Balk Creek Restoration Site
Project County
Yancey
Project Area (Acres)
1274
Project Coordinates (NAD83 2007)
807,670 33, 984.247 33
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiograpluc Region
Blue Ridge
Ecoregion
Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Project River Basin
French Broad
USGS 8 -digit HUC
06010108
USGS 14 -digit HUC
06010108080020
NCDWQ Subbasm
04 -03 -07
Project Drainage Area (Sq Mi)
0 19
Project Drainage Area Impervious Surface
<5%
Watershed Type
85% wooded, 12% agriculture, 3% rural
Reach Summa Information
Parameters
Mainstem
UT 1
UT 2
UT 3
UT 4
Restored/Enhanced Length (Linear Feet)
2590
460
1392
454
435
Drainage Area (Square Miles)
0 19
003
006
001
001
NCDWQ Index Number
7 -3 -22
NCDWQ Classification
C
Valley Type/Morphological Description
II/B- and C -type
Dominant Soil Series
Saunook and Thunder - Saunook Complex
Drainage Class
Well drained
Soil Hydric Status
Nonhydric
Slope
0050-0 160
FEMA Classification
Not in a detailed FEMA flood zone
Native Vegetation Community
100%
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasives
< 5%
Regulatoryy Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Waters of the U S — Sections 404 and 401
Yes - Received Appropriate Permits
Endangered Species Act
No effect
Historic Preservation Act
No effect
CZMA/CAMA
No
FEMA Floodplam Compliance
Not in a detailed FEMA flood zone
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Ina Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices
I'
_J
i

Axiom Environmental
� �X 218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 215 -1693
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
CURRENT CONDITION PLAN VIEW
UT TO BALD STREAM RESTORATION
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Dwn. by. FIGURE
KRJ
Date:
Feb. 2013 2
Project:
12- 004.15

N
APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2 Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5 1 -5 4 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Tables
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Site Fixed - Station Photos
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 5 1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Main Tributary
Assessed Length 1487

Table 5 2 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary
Assessed Length 460
Adjusted %
Number
Number with Footage with
for
a)or
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
tannel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
ite or
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
V elation
v2setation
Bed
1 Vertical Stability
1 Aegradation -Bar formaLONgrowth sufficient to significantly deflect
1
412
10%
(Riffle and Run units)
flow laterally (not to include pant bars)
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcuttng
_
0
0
100%
z�
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture/Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
0
11
0%
3 Meander Pool
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depttr 1 6)
3
10
30%
Condition
2 Length appropriate (-30% of centerline distance between tail of
11
11
100%
upstream riffle and head of downstrem nffle)
4 Thalweg Position
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
11
11
100%
2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
10
10
100%
1
Bank
1 Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
0
0
0
100 /0
0
0
0
100 /o
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2 Undercut
likely Does OT Include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Engineered
I
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
2
2
100%
6
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
100%
i lip,
4:
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
2
2
100%
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesiot exceed
2
2
100%
of
r
15% (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pod Depth Mean Bankfull
2
1
2
100%
i
Depth ratio> 1 6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at be
,,
_

Table 5 3 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary 3
Assessed Length 317
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-Cateaory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1 Bed
1 vertical Stability
1 Aegradaton- Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
- �
- -
1
317
0%
(Riffle and Run units)
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
- -
r
2 Degradation- Evidence of downcuttng
_
0
0
100%
)
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture/Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
0
4
0%
i
3 Meander Pool
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth 1 6)
2
7
29%
Condition
2 Length appropnate ( >30 % of centerline distance between tail of
7
7
o
100 /o
Ij
upstream nffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4 Thalweg Position
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
11
11
100 %'�".-
2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
11
11
100%
2 Bank
1 Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
=
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
scour and erosion
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2 Undercut
likely Does NOT include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat
_
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving or collapse
s..
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3 Engineered
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
3
3
o
100 /o
-
j
Structures
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the ell
3
3
300%
is
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
3
3
100 %€,
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doemolexceed
3
3
100%
"`
15% (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)r
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining -Max Pod Depth Mean Bankfull
3
3
_
fi
o
100 /o
Depth ratro> 1 6 Rootwadsilogs prowdmg some cover at base -flow
^trk�'r
m

Table 5 4 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary 4
Assessed Length 224
Adjusted %
Number
Totals
0
0
100%
Number with
Footage with
for
Mayor
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or togs
3
3
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Catenory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Seaments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Veqetation
1 Bed
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesiol exceed
1 Vertical Stability
1 Aogradaton-Bar formationtgrowth sufficient to significantly deflect
0
0
100%
15% (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document
(Riffle and Run units)
flow laterally (not to include pant bars)
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pod Depth Mean Bankfull
0
0
N/A
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutkng
Depth ratio? 1 6 RootwadsAogs providing some cover at base -flow
0
0
100%
i
h i
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture /Substrate- Rifle maintains coarser substrate
5
5
!
N/A
3 Meander Pool
1 Depth Sufficient (max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth 1 6)
5
5
N/A
Condition
2 Length appropriate (-30% of centerline distance between tail of
N/A
upstream nffle and head of downstream nffle)
4 Thalvveg Positron
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
N/A
2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
N/A
r
2 Bank
1 Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
scour and erosion
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%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0 100%
3 Engineered
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or togs
3
3
N/A
Structures
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
0
0
N/A
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
0
0
N/A
3 Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesiol exceed
0
0
N/A
15% (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pod Depth Mean Bankfull
0
0
N/A
Depth ratio? 1 6 RootwadsAogs providing some cover at base -flow
i
h i

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 6.4
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
See Figure 2
0
0.00
0.1%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities dearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
See Figure 2
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
See Figure 2
0
0.00
0.0%
CumlatWeTotall
0
1 0.00
1 0.1%
Easement Acreage' 14
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
See Figure 2
2
0.04
0.3%
15. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
See Figure 2
1
0.12
= 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.
= The acreage within the easement boundaries
= 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.
= 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 EEP 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 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.

UT to Bald Creek
Site Fixed - Station Photographs
Taken December 2012
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Ina Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancev County, North Carolina Appendices

UT to Bald Creek
Site Fixed- Station Photographs
Taken December 2012
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

UT To Bald
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken December 2012
of i„7 c I
4
_Plot 6
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Crrtena Attainment
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9 Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
UT to Rald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (REP Project Number 92596)
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
1
Yes
67%
2
No
3
Yes
4
No
5
Yes
6
Yes
ITT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc.
EEP Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
I
Momtonng Year 1 of 5 (2012)
February 2013
Appendices
1

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 92596)
Report Prepared By
Com Fa uin
Date Prepared
12/13/2012 14 32
database name
Axiom -EEP- 2012- A -12 -13 mdb
database location
C \Documents and Settin s\ rkinson\Deskto
computer name
PILLIP -LT
file size
49926144
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data
Pro', planted
Each pro ect is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year This excludes live stakes
Pro' total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
natural/volunteer stems
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc )
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots
Vigor b Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by for each plot
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot, dead and missing stems are excluded
ALL Stems by Plot ands p
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot, dead
and missing stems are excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code
92596
project Name
UT to Bald
River Basin
French Broad
length(ft)
stream-to-edge width ft
Required Plots calculated
Sampled Plots
6
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
EEP Project Code 92596. Pro ect Name: UT to Bald
Current Plot Data (MYO 2012)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
Plot 5
Plot 6
MYO (2012)
PnoLS
Pall
T
PnoLS
IP -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -ail
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
Pall
IT
Acer saccharum
sugar maple
Tree
7
7
7
7
7
7
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
10
10
10
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
3
3
4
4
4
4
7
7
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub
2
2
2
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
21
21
2
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
8
8
8
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
1
1
Salix
willow
Shrub or Tree
1
1
1
2
lix nigra
Iblack willow
Tree
4
2
6
Ulmus
Jelm
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
6
61
6
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
81
81
13
6
9
11
8
8
9
6
6
7
10
10
10
151
151
15
531
561
65
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.025
0.148
31 31
5
31
41
51
31 31
41
41
41
51
61
61
61
41
41
4
111
111
14
323.71
526.1
242.81
364.21
445.2
323.71
364.21242.81
242.81
283.31404.71
404.71
404.71
6071
6071
607
357.51
377.71
438.4
Color for Density
Exceeds re ulrements by 10'6
y less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Pnol-S = Planted stems excluding livestakes
P -all = Planted stems including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruit stems

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross - section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Substrate Plots
Tables l0a -b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11 a -b Monitoring Data
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Ina Moiutonng Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

River Basin:
Banldhll Elevation:
French Broad
BanldWll Cross- Sectional Area:
3.8
Site Name
4.9
UT to Bald
I
Flood Prone Width:
!iS ID
.l'S - 1, Pool Mainstem
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
O.K
Drainage Area s ml :
0.19
Entrenchment Ratio:
- --
Date:
1.0
12/11/2012
Field Crew:
38
Perkinson. Jernigan
---- Flood Prone Area
Station
Elevation
_________________ ___ ------ ------- _
--O-MY- 0112/11/12
0.0
41.6
36
3.0
40.2
5.5
39.3
6.8
38.8
8.5
38.6
9.7
38.4
11.0
37.6
11.7
37.2
12.5
36.6
13.4
36.3
14.3
36.3
14.8
36.3
Stream T B/C
15.3
36.5
15.7
36.67
16.3
37.41
17.7
37.99
19.1
38.24
21.0
38.94
23.9
39.92
25.9
40.76
28.4
41.52
31.3
42.36
SUMMARY DA'f:1
Banldhll Elevation:
37.4
BanldWll Cross- Sectional Area:
3.8
Bankfull Width:
4.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
- --
Flood Prone Width:
- --
SUMMARY DA'f:1
Banldhll Elevation:
37.4
BanldWll Cross- Sectional Area:
3.8
Bankfull Width:
4.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
- --
Flood Prone Width:
- --
Max Depth at Bankfull:
l . l
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
O.K
W / D Ratio:
- --
Entrenchment Ratio:
- --
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
French Broad River Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 1, Pool (Mxinstem)
44
42
0 40
a
d
.�,
---- Benkfull
38
---- Flood Prone Area
_________________ ___ ------ ------- _
--O-MY- 0112/11/12
36
0 10 20 30 40
Station (Veer)

River Basin:
French Broad
Site Name
Ut to Bald
XS ID
XS - 2, Riffle Mainstetn
Drainage Area ( mi :
0.19
Date:
12/11/2012
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
54.61
3.95
54.09
7.76
53.66
9.60
53.58
11.76
53.56
13.32
53.37
14.08
52.98
15.00
52.94
17.57
53.37
19.34
53.75
22.10
53.98
25.08
54.18
27.42
54.84
29.68
55.03
32.56
55.52
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
53.4
Bankfall Cross - Sectional Area:
1.1
Bankfull Width:
4.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
53.8
Flood Prone Width:
13.0
Max De th at BankfuB:
0.4
Mean Depth at Bankf ill:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
16.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Strean► Ty B/C

River Basin:
Elevation
Prench Broad
99.04
Site Name
98.54
iT"T to Bald
0.06
XS ID
2%25/2013
ZS - 3. Riffle UT 2
Parkinson. Jernigan
Drainage
96.84
7.12
97.02
7.97
96.89
8.85
97.07
9.58
97.59
11.00
98.03
12.90
98.36
15.48
98.48
Stream T 13 C
French Broad River Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 3, Riffle (UT 2)
100
99
-- __ - - -- --
---- --- -------------------------------- - -.,..
0 98
-------------------
--- - - --- ----- ----- - - - - -- -- - - - --------------------
---- Bankfull
97
- - - -Flood Prone Area
-�- MY -01 2/25/ 13
96
0
10
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.00
99.04
1.84
98.54
Area s mi :
0.06
Date:
2%25/2013
Field Crew:
Parkinson. Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
99.04
1.84
98.54
3.74
98.07
5.12
97.93
5.76
97.66
6.37
96.84
7.12
97.02
7.97
96.89
8.85
97.07
9.58
97.59
11.00
98.03
12.90
98.36
15.48
98.48
SI�N[bIARl' UATA
Bankfull Elevation:
97.7
Banldull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.3
Bankfull Width:
4.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
98.5
Flood Prone Width:
14.0
Max Depth at Bankfoll:
0.8
Rican Depth at Bankthll:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
7.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Elevation
French Broad
57.3
Site Name
57.0
UT to Bald
56.8
NS ID
56.1
XS - 4, Pool Mair�stem
Drainage Area s mu):
0.04
12.1
Date:
13.1
12/11/2012
14.0
Field Crew:
15.3
Perkinson, Jernigan
15.9
55.1
17.2
55.5
18.6
56.1
21.3
57.36
23.3
57.65
25.3
58.04
aA
*r
Sb"In B/C
French Broad River Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 4, Pool (Mainstem)
60
58
0
W 56
---- Bankfull
_________________________
_____________ ______________
°Flood Prone Area
+MY -01 12/11/12
54
0
10 20 30
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
57.3
3.2
57.0
5.7
56.8
8.0
56.1
9.4
Station
Elevation
0.0
57.3
3.2
57.0
5.7
56.8
8.0
56.1
9.4
55.6
10.9
55.4
12.1
54.9
13.1
54.7
14.0
54.6
15.3
54.6
15.9
55.1
17.2
55.5
18.6
56.1
21.3
57.36
23.3
57.65
25.3
58.04
SUMMARY DATA
BankthD Elevation:
55.4
Banld'ull Cross - Sectional Area:
3.2
Ba�ilcfull Width:
6.1
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.5
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenclmtent Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Elevation
French Broad
99.58
Site Name
99.70
UT to Bald
99.14
XS ID
98.91
YS - 5, Riffle L?T 1
Drainage Area s mi :
0.025
9.13
Date:
9.72
2/25/2013
10.45
Field Crew:
11.88
Perkinson, Jernigan
13.65
99.40
15.44
100.12
17.24
100.31
«.'
9trcam T B/C
French Broad River Basin, LJT to Bald, XS - 5, Riffle (UT 1)
101
100
5
0 99
-------------------
------ - - - - -- ------------- -- - - -- - - -- -- ------ - - - - --
w--
-- Bankfidl
98
Flood Prone Area
�- MY -01 2/25/13
97
0
10
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.00
99.58
2.40
99.70
4.41
99.14
6.22
98.91
7.17
Station
Elevation
0.00
99.58
2.40
99.70
4.41
99.14
6.22
98.91
7.17
97.98
8.29
97.63
9.13
97.68
9.72
97.89
10.45
98.85
11.88
98.72
13.65
99.40
15.44
100.12
17.24
100.31
SUMMARY DATA
Banldall Elevation:
98.7
Banld'all Cross- Sectional Area:
3.0
Bankfull Width:
4.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
99.8
Flood Prone Width:
16.0
Max Depth at Banldull:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
5.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
BankfuB Elevation:
French Broad
Bankfi�ll Cross - Sectional Area:
3.9
Site Name
0.04
U"I'to Bald
2/25/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jerni an
RS ID
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
YS - 6, Pool Mainstem Upstream)
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Wank Height Ratio:
1.0
w,
h ,. V
t
a.
Stream T B/C
French Broad River Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 6, Pool (Mainstem Upstream)
I
144
2
d
5
0 142
-----
r
W------------- ---
--- --- ------
------ -- -__ –_ - -_–
___
j
����Bankfull
- -- -Flood Prone Area
— *- --MY -01 12/11/12
140
0
10
20
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
BankfuB Elevation:
141.6
Bankfi�ll Cross - Sectional Area:
3.9
Drains a Area s mi):
0.04
Date:
2/25/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jerni an
SUMMARY DATA
BankfuB Elevation:
141.6
Bankfi�ll Cross - Sectional Area:
3.9
BankfaR Width:
5.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankt'ull:
1.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Wank Height Ratio:
1.0

Project Name UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach Mainstem Station 00+00 - 06+00
Feature Profile
Date 12/11/12
Crew Perkinson, Jernigan
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Year 4 Monitoring \Survey Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 1(2012) Profile- Mainstem, Station 00+00 to 06+00
60
55
50 - - —
Z
{ 45 - -- -
m
Y
40
C
Q
M
°' 35
30 - -
25 _._..- .- ...._._.. -- -- - —
20 --
0 100 200 300 400
Distance (feet)
--*-Year 1 (2012) Bed - !-Year 1 (2012) Water Surface
500
600
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0558
Riffle Length
37
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0509
Pool Length
13
Pool to Pool Spacing
40
500
600

t Name UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Mainstem Station 06+00 - 11 +12
•e Profile
12/11/12
Perkinson, Jernigan
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0558
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Riffle Length
37
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0509
Pool Length
13
UT to Bald Creek Year 1(2012) Profile- Mainstem, Station 06+00 to 11 +12
95
Pool to Pool Spacing
40
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
I
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 1(2012) Profile- Mainstem, Station 06+00 to 11 +12
95
- - - - -- - - - -
85
i"
a
m
80
Y
75
C
Y
A
i
65 - -- --
- -
- ..... - -- -- -
60
55
-
600
700
800 900 1000 1100
Distance (feet)
-*-Year 1 (2012) Bed - *-Year 1 (2012) Water Surface

Name UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Mainstem Upstream Station 00+00 - 04 +00
Profile
2/25/13
Perkinsnn fe--n
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
I
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
I
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
I
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 1(2012) Profile- Mainstem Upstream, Station 00+00 to 04+00
150
140 -
130
m
120 - --
c
0
d
W
110
100 -
90 —
0 50 100 150
- 4-Year 1 (2012) Bed
200 250 300
Distance (feet)
- f-Year 1 (2012) Water Surface
350 400
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.1301
Riffle Length
16
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0750
Pool Length
5
Pool to Pool Spacing
14
200 250 300
Distance (feet)
- f-Year 1 (2012) Water Surface
350 400

Project Name
UT to BaldCreek - Profile
2013
2014
Reach
Tributary 1 Station 00+00 - 01 +00
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0674
Feature
Profile
Date
2/25/13
Crew
Perkinson, Jernigan
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0418
2012
I
2013
2014
2015
2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
I
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
I
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
I
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 1 (2012) Profile -Tributary 1, Station 00+00 to 01+00
103
102
101
100
L
R
C1
99
c
M
w 98
97
96
95
0
10 20 30
—*—Year 1 (2012) Bed
�F
Y'
40 0
Distance (feet)
60 70
—11—Year 1(2012) Water Surface
80
90
100
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0674
foe Length
7
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0418
Pool Length
6
Pool to Pool Spacing
13
80
90
100

roject Name
UT to Bald Creek - Profile
2013
2014
each
Tributary 2 Station 00+00 - 01 +50
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0814
eature
Profile
ate
2/25/13
0 20
rew
Perkinson, Jernigan
Avg. Rifle Slope
0.0542
120
Pool Length
4
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Year I Monitoring \Survey
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
I
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 1(2012) Profile - Tributary 2, Station 00+00 to 01 +50
106
104
102
i'
e 100
-
4
98
-
-
c
0
°-' 96
w
-
- ... - - -
-
94
- --
-
-
92
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0814
Riffle Length
10
0 20
40
60
Avg. Rifle Slope
0.0542
120
Pool Length
4
Pool to Pool Spacing
15
92
- - - —
0 20
40
60
80
100
120
Distance (feet)
$Year 1 (2012) Bed —Year 1 (2012) Water Surface
140

roject Name
UT to Bald Creek - Profile
each
Tributary 3 Station 00+00 - 03 +50
mture
Profile
ate
12/11/12
rew
Perkinson, Jernigan
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Riffle Length
25
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
2012
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
NA*
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Year 4 Monitoring \ Survev
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Riffle Length
25
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Avg. Riffle Slope
NA*
UT to Bald Creek Year 1(2012) Profile - Tributary 3, Station 00+00 to 03 +50
8s
Pool Length
18
80
- -_ -
7s
Pool to Pool Spacing
28
70
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Year 4 Monitoring \ Survev
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 1(2012) Profile - Tributary 3, Station 00+00 to 03 +50
8s
80
- -_ -
7s
70
_
a
m
m
65
Z
Z
w
c
60
- - -
-
m
a
W
5s
- -
45 -- - --
- -
- - --
40 --
_
0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
Distance (feet)
-4-Year 1 (2012) Bed —Year 1 (2012) Water Surface

Project Name UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach Tributary 4 Station 00+00 - 02 +50
Feature Profile
Date 12/11/12
Crew Perkinson_ Iemi¢an
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Year 2 Monitoring \Survev
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
50
UT to Bald Creek Year 1(2012) Profile - Tributary 4, Station 00+00 to 02 +50
100
-4--Year 1 (2012) Bed
150
Distance (feet)
- w-Year 1 (2012) Water Surface
60
2013
2014
55
-
Avg. Water Surface Slope
50
-
Z
Riffle Length
23
m
45
M
d
d
34
C
O
57.0
m
40
_
d
W
35
30
25
0
50
UT to Bald Creek Year 1(2012) Profile - Tributary 4, Station 00+00 to 02 +50
100
-4--Year 1 (2012) Bed
150
Distance (feet)
- w-Year 1 (2012) Water Surface
200
250
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0074
Riffle Length
23
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0118
Pool Length
34
Pool to Pool Spacing
57.0
200
250

Percent Riffle
Percent Pool
100
Percent Run
Percent Glide
Material
Size Range (mm)
Total #
silt/clay
0 0 062
51 0
# 4
very fine sanc
fine sand
medium sanc
coarse sanc
very coarse sand
0 062 013
78
# 4
# 4
##
# 4
# #
013 025
20
0 25 05
00
05 1
00
1 2
59
very fine gravel
fine grave
fine grave
medium grave
medium grave
coarse grave
coarse grave
very coarse graVE
very coarse graVE,
2 4
00
# #
# #
# 4
# 4
# 4
#
# #
# 4
# 4
4 6
00
6 8
00
8 11
00
11 16
59
16 22
00
22 32
78
32 45
98
45 64
59
small cobblE
medium cobbl
large cobbl
very large cobbl
64 90
20
# 4
# 4
# 4
# 4
90 128
20
128 180
00
180 256
00
small boulde
small bouldei
medium bouldei
large bouldei
very large boulde
256 362
00
# 4
# 4
# 4
# 4
# 4
362 512
0 0
512 1024
00
1024 2048
00
2048 4096
00
bedroc
00
#
Weighted Count
True Total Particle Count
100
®Illlll
51
Pebble
UT to E
Note lCioss Section 2 -
Pebble Count, UT to Bald Creek
100°%
90%
80% -
70%
60%
50%
H 40%
a�
6- 30% -
20%
a 10% -
0%
®■
1111111
®®
®111111
®■
1001111
®
®IA��o���
■IId1111i■I�1111111,
■11'1111
■lsllsll
®Ilolllloelllll
■■
®111111
■
■
®Illlll
■■
1118111■
■1111111
■1111111��Ilellll®
■1111111®
®111111
I
�
®a���Il����a���i
■1111111
®
®Ilelll■
®111111
®IIIB�
o'
®1111111
®1111111■
■1111111■
1111111
■
®OIIIII
®
®111111
■1111811
-
■1111111®
■1101111■
®111111
®011111'
®1011lll
■1111111
■
1111111
■■
1110111
®■
®111111
■■
®111111'.
■lvlllll®
®111111■
■1111111
®1111111®
1111111®
®1111111
®Ilillll
■
®eollll
■1111111®
■1111111®
■0111111■
111111.
■
IIIIIIIfi��91111111�
■1111111�1i
■�MiMll!�
■1111111
®41111111
001 01 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) --w—cumulative Percent • Percent Item - - -RifFle Pool —+ —Run — EGhde
Size percent less than (mm) Percent by substrate type
D16 I D35 I D50 I D84 I D95 silt/clay I sand I gravel I cobble I boulder bedrock

O
�E E
7 i
n �
a �
Jr
27 i
k
w i
p'i
_y
a
I
EL
i�
lo
I C
a

L
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled m.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile 2 =For projects vvith a proximal USGS gauge in line vnth the project reach (added bankfull venfication rare)
3 Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplam area in acres which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace nser /slope
4 = Proportion of reach exlubtting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data, 5 Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 10a.3 Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596 - Tributary 3 318 feet)
Parameter e2
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reaches) Data
Design Tributary 3 Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SDs
n
Upstream
Downstream
Tributary 2
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.5
7.1
5.8
5.1
2.7
1.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
7
9
10
9
7
10.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.3
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft
0.7
1.1
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ff)
2.7
3.9
2.9
2.6
0.4
0.54
Width /Depth Ratio
6.9
17.8
11.6
10.2
27
6
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
1.2
1.8
1.8
2.5
5.6
'Bank Height Rati
1.0
2.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope ( ft/ft)
0.048
0.144
0.0014
0.041
0.0508
0.155
Pool Length (ft)
None Distinct
Not Available
Pool Max depth (ft)
0.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
10 -100
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft 12 32 12.0-25.0 25.0-32.0 10.0-25.0 10 -20
Radius of Curvature (ft 36 134 36.0-60.0 97.0-134.0 21.0 - 31.0
Rc: Bankfull width (ft/ft 5.1 24.4 6.2-10.3 19.0-26.3 7.8 - 11.5
Meander Wavelength (ft ) 60 245 200.0 - 245.0 60.0-220.0 35.0-47.0
Meander Width Ratio 10.9 40 2.1 - 4.3 4.9 - 6.3 3.7 - 9.3 5.6 -11
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfu
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
69-217
8
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classificatio
B /G5
B5
B5
Bankfull Velocity (fps
5.9-8.9
Bankfull Discharge (cfs
23-24
Valley length (ft
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
318
Sinuosity (ft)
1.05 - 1.11
1.11
1.05
1.3
1.03
Water Surface Slope (Channel) ( ft/ft)
0.0476 - 0.1441
0.1441
0.0476
0.0508
0.1548
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
I = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross- section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfiill tloodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riserislope.
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 the n exceeds 3

Table 10b.1 Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site /92596
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 survey) 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 surveys 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
:,Parameter
Pre-Existing
Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
I-
As-built/Baseline
e- n"..
5:=
-.,
r ?-:
r ..
o
'
. • . • 0 • 8 ' 1 9 • l .is'
2 Entrenchment Class <1 511 5-1 • • t • , • •
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 survey) 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 surveys 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 11 a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Sections)
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site /92596
Cross Section 1 (Pool)
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross Section 4 (Pool)
Based onfixed 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) use
374
534
977
554
Bankfull Width (ft)
49
42
41
61
Floodprone Width (ft)
NA
130
140
NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
08
03
1
1
1
1 06
05
Bankfull Max Depth (ft
1 1
04
08
08
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (#)
38
1 1
23
32
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratic
NA
160
73
NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Rati
NA
31
34
NA
Bankfull Bank Height Rao
NA
1 0
10
NA
Cross Sectional Area between end pins f
- --
- --
- --
- --
d50 (mm)
- --
NA*
- --
--
Cross
Section
5 (Riffle)
Cross
Section
6 (Pool)
BaseCn Ceec ba es line bank'foll elevation
Record elevation (datum) usec
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
987
141 6
Bankfull Width ft
40
56
Flood prone Width ft
160
NA
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
08
07
Bankfull Max Depth ft
1 1
1 0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (fi)
30
39
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratic
53
NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratic
40
NA
Bankfull Bank Height Rao
10
NA
Cross Sectional Area between end pins 4
- --
- --
d50 mm
- --
NA-
1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurvey 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 used
If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum 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 "
* Greater than 50% of the material identified in the pebble count was characterized as silt/clay particle size

I = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys 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

I = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys 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 in exceeds 3

APPENDIX E
Table 12 Venfication of Bankfull Events
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Ina Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Proiect Number 92596)
Date of Data
Photo (if
Date of Occurrence
Method
Collection
available)
None Observed
-
-
-
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Ina Monitoring Year 1 of 5 (2012)
EEP Project Number 92596 February 2013
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices