20070069 Ver 1_Closeout Report_20130621

Ellington Branch Stream Restoration Site oq-00
EEP ID (IMS #) 92520
!�+ ?t33
j�
D _ NR. -_ WATER OUALITY I
FDP CONTRACT NUMBER 16- DO6045
USACE ACTION ID # 2006 -41847
DWQ 401# 07 -0069
CLOSEOUT REPORT
Stream Restoration
Project Setting & Classifications
County
Warren
General Location
Manson
Basin:
Roanoke
Ph sio ra hic Region:
Piedmont
Ecore ion:
Central Piedmont
USGS Hydro Unit:
03010106
NCDWQ Sub - basin:
03 -02 -07
Wetland Classification
N/A
Thermal Regime:
Warm
Trout Water:
No
Invasive Plant Control
February 2010
Monitoring Year 4
August 2011
Project Performers
January 2011
Source Agency:
EEP
Provider:
Sun ate Design Group
Designer:
Ecological Engineering
Monitoring Firm
Ecological Engineering
Channel Remediation
Shamrock Environmental
Plant remediation
Shamrock Environmental
Property Interest Holder
DENR Stewardship
Overall Project Activities and Timeline
Milestone
Month -Year
Project Instituted
June 2006
Permitted
Feb /March 2007
Construction Completed
May 2007
As -built survey
February 2008
Monitoring Year -1
December 2008
Monitoring Year -2
August 2009
Beaver removal
July 2009
Monitoring Year 3
July 2010
Invasive Plant Control
February 2010
Monitoring Year 4
August 2011
Invasive Plant Control
January 2011
Beaver removal
November 2011
Monitoring Year 5
August 2012
Invasive Plant Control
March 2013
Closeout Submission
I July 2013

Project Setting and Background Summary
Sungate Design Group, PA (Sungate) entered into a full delivery contract with the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) on June 21, 2006 to provide 5,000 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) in the Roanoke River Basin The Ellington Branch Stream
Restoration Site, hereinafter referred to as the "Project Site," was selected to meet these overall obligations Ecological Engineering, LLP (Ecological Engineering)
is under contract with Sungate to perform the remaining monitoring requirements The Project Site is situated in Warren County, North Carolina and includes a
portion of Ellington Branch and one of its unnamed tributaries Ellington Branch is a second order, perennial stream originating approximately one half mile
upstream (south) of the project area The unnamed tributary (UT) is a first order, perennial stream that converges with Ellington Branch from the west The project
was identified by Sungate in 2005 and selected for full delivery restoration by EEP based its location, attributes, existing condition and overall likelihood for
success
Based on the MY 5 surveys, all plots exhibited surviving planted and transplanted species in excess of 324 planted stems per acre The Project Site has met and
exceeded the established success criteria for vegetation based on the survival of the planted species for Year 5 monitoring
Stream restoration success criteria for the two restored stream reaches were also met during the MY 5 monitoring assessment No significant changes to the
dimension, pattern, and profile or bed material were observed Location surveys of the constructed features were conducted to verify the performance of both
channels Surveys were performed to compare the six previously determined stream longitudinal profiles and the 23 permanent stream cross - sections with as -built
and Year 1 through Year 4 monitoring data A modified Wolman pebble count and assessment of the constructed features was also undertaken as part of Year 5
monitoring efforts
Based on the interpreted data, both Ellington Branch and its UT remain stable All of the structures are functioning as designed and bank erosion is non - existent
Drought conditions present during 2008, 2009 and 2011 continue to be factor effecting sediment transport at the Project Site Ellington Branch was dry for the first
half of 2008 while the UT maintained only a trickle of water The same scenario occurred during the early summer months of 2009, particularly June and July
Portions of Ellington Branch were dry again during the summer of 2011 As a result, wetland and streamside vegetation became established throughout portions of
the bankfull channel area This was very beneficial to streambank stabilization although possibly detrimental to sediment transport Ecological Engineering closely
monitored the effects of vegetation throughout these areas throughout the fall and winter of 2012 No adverse effects were observed
Goals and Objectives
The goals and objectives of the project were to ultimately create a continuous wooded stream corridor by restoring and revegetating the largest reach of disturbed
channel and buffer along Ellington Branch This in turn, would also improve the overall function and habitat associated with the stream channel and riparian areas
Sungate's restoration plan included restoration (including dimension, pattern and profile) of Ellington Branch and its UT, as well as the establishment and
restoration of an active riparian buffer complex In addition, the goals and objectives were also to restore the primary stream and buffer functions and values
associated with nutrient removal and transformation, sediment reduction and retention, flood -flow attenuation, and wildlife (both aquatic and terrestrial) habitat
The Site provided an excellent opportunity to restore and preserve a substantial riparian zone on lands that were currently being utilized for pasture and cattle
grazmg
Page 2 of 40

Success Criteria
Performance criteria set forth for this project will be provided according to EEP's monitoring criteria and format, dated 2005 It covers both stream and vegetation
assessments and is based according to federal guidelines for stream mitigation, including the following main parameters no less than two bankfull events for the
five year monitoring period, reference photos, plant survival analyses, and channel stability analyses Biological data is not required as part of the contract
Photographs will depict the annual progress of the project Tables will be provided documenting stability and quantitative summary data All of this information
will be summarized and combined with the vegetation information in an annual report
Natural streams are dynamic systems that are in a constant state of change Longitudinal profile and cross section surveys may differ somewhat from year to year
Natural channel stability is achieved by allowing the stream to develop a proper dimension, pattern, and profile such that, over time, channel features are
maintained and the stream system neither aggrades nor degrades A stable stream consistently transports its sediment load, however, there may be local deposition
and scour Channel instability occurs when the scouring process leads to degradation, or excessive sediment deposition results in aggradation
Vegetation requirements for mitigation purposes state that 320 stems /acre must be viable for success after the three year monitoring period, 288 stems /acre must be
viable for the four year monitoring period and 260 stems /acre for the five year monitoring period This accounts for a ten percent yearly acceptance The vegetation
will be assessed using individual stem counts within strategically placed 10 -meter by 10 -meter plots Sungate established a total of 13 vegetation plots along
Ellington Branch and its UT The plot locations were determined prior to planting and are shown on the as -built plans Annual photographs will document growth
and succession
Page 3 of 40

ow
MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS
Stream Mitigation
Units SMU
Restoration
Segment/Reach
Pre —
Construction
(acreage/linear
feet
Mitigation
Approach
Watershed
Acreage
As -Built Linear
Footage /Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
Units
(SMU/WMU)
STREAM
; x a1-�.�
_ •� .r ,.a..*bi2^,yr� }La
_
4,
,•.. „r_w,, -t„,
. .c�'
2_ ,...F,
Reach I-
Ellington
1575.0
R
0.8 sq. mi.
1934
1.0
1934
Branch
Reach II-
Ellington
2475.9
R
1.1 sq. mi.
1801
1.0
1801
Branch
Reach III - UT
852.9
R
0.1 sq. mil
1328
1.0
1328
5.
w -WETLAND
i1`_"
'
N/A
MITIGATION UNIT TOTALS
Stream Mitigation
Units SMU
Riparian
Wetland Units
Non - riparian
Wetland Units
Total Wetland
WMU
Riparian
Buffer
Nutrient
Offset
5,062
0
0
0
0
0
Page 4 of 40

`r:' 1 7111 . —a , •; - . `.,_, 0
I L
Ellington Branch Stream 1 - v
t
Restoration Site
All
� 1 ,, � r •
,5
L}
,!� r
Prepared By: SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, PA Ellington Branch Stream Restoration
916 Jones FraNdln Road 0 1►
Ra"h,NC77906 EEP #16- DO6045
(f78)8WZ?" Vicinity Map FIGURE
Prqmea For: NCEEP r? Warren County, NC 1
m9 CapU Smdr and
Suge 1" 103 October 16, 2006
i l,r hS�ll'll l
Rahrlgh. NC 2790 4 Souce: USGS Guadrangk Maps (John N Kerr Dam and Mld Wmrg)
Page 6 of 40

M
—I-- 4
w r
70V '
ELLINGTON BRANCH STREAM
6daL ,.,q RESTORATION SITE
Page 7 of 40
SOILS LEGEND
r 506
Helena sandy loam 2 -8 Mcent slopes
.
-
SOC
Helena sandy loam, 8 -15 percent dopes
518
Helena sandy loam, 2-6 percent slopes
SIC
Helena sandy loam, 6 -10 percent slopes
_
57B
Vance sandy loam, 2.6 percent slopes
57C
Vance sandy berm, 6 -10 percent slopes
r
608
60C
Saw-Wake -Lou burg complex 2-6 percent slopes
Loulslxxg- Wake -1 shier complex 6 -10 percent dopes
600
Louisburg- Wake -AsNw 10 -15 percent slopes
60E
Louisburg-Wake- Ashlar 15 -35 pence t slopes
61B
(608) Wake -l- wsburg•Saw complex, 2.8 percent slopes, very rocky
61C
(60C) Louisburg- Wake�Asrder oomplex, 8 -15 percent slopes, very rocky
61E
(60E) ( 600) Lousburg- Wake -Ashlar cornplex, 15.30 percent slopes, very rocky
65B
Pacolet- Inez- Bethlehern rnrplax, 2 -8 percent slopes
col
1
65D
Pacoiet- Rawkngs-Bethelem, 15135 percent slopes
- 63B
Wdkes loam, 2 -8 percent slopes �laa
6 3C
0 kes loam, 8 -15 percent slopes V[
Zkes
•
• -` -
63D
708
(63E) loam, I5 -30 percent slopes
2-6 t dopes
Wedowee sandy loam r
70C
pce
(324D) Wedowee sandy loam, . 6 -10 percent slopes
v i
700
Wedowee sandy loam, 10.15 percent slopes
i
70E
Wedowee sl, 15 -30
718
Wedowee st 2 -8
71C
Wedowee sl, 8.15
glr
710
Wedowee sl , 15-30
-I
a
2128
Herndon fine sandy lorn, 2d percent slopes
212C
Hemdor fine sandy loam, 8 -15 percent slopes
212D
Hendon fine sandy loam, 15 -25 percent slopes
-V
2058
Georgewlle fine sandy kmyn, 2 -8 percent slopes
205C
Geogevllle fire sandy loam, 8.15 percent slopes
205D
Gcorgeollefst, 15 -25
251B
13018• Mattapom loamy sand, 2-6 percent slopes
2908
Turbewlle barn, 2 -9 prcent slopes
290C
Turbevdle loam, 8 -I5 percent slopes
290D
Turbewlle loam, 15.30 percent slopes
328A
(340B) State fine sandy loam, 0-3 percent slopes
5068
(638, 5018) Eno+ -Wyatt conplax, 2 -6 percent dopes
N
5060
(506D) Enon -Wyatt, 6 -10 percent slopes
S06D
Enon•Wratt, 10 -IS percent slopes
OT SCALE
v
Prepared By: SUNGATE DESIGN GROUP, PA
Ellington Branch Stream Restoration
915 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
! �
EEP # 16- DO6045
X81S)OW2 7
Soil Survey Map
FIGURE
Warren County, NC
3
Prepared For: NCEEP
27ncapttalsoulevard
Sufle 1H 103
I C I n} �Ii 1 1 1
October 16, 2006
Raleigh, NC 276"
Sotrce: Warren County Soil and Water Consrvation Dlstrkt Office
Page 7 of 40

i B MEN
!-!F!WihfHKV,
iii! Fmim
I ®R
..... . ...... ....
4 p F 1�� si
... . .........
. . .......... .. ........
.... .Y .
ip.
Tn'
— ----------
K t :2
i
w mm W
RIU- ... PRO
I NOW q!
1h # i Ti i 4 Y—ih"i
NO
...........
1 al
...... ... .................
ill ........ ... ......
m slip
.... .........
5-i HFffill
im
.110
im -F
', dtrl48fiili�i{iilc +;lF£:
p "Muim
NOW
'Imam
Page 8 of 40

Page 9 of 40
EEO
Iffil-MITA
..............
........
...
M
UH
I
M
H
..........
W44iiiiiii:
.
mus
t„mcimmsii,e�..
SHELERwel;
nn
M
:.J
M
ig
MR.
RiMifiifiiiffiW;6�i
........
.......
. ....
04.
WE
@&
Wig
; tw; 1MOT
.71MME
"M HIrl!
i hilt
f[ Lai.
"Eff
pig;
H-1 H
h
it Him
"fl,
a
I
MEMI
-
Page 9 of 40

Page 10 of 40
n�iaHaan,Rnia�
ess:•t.:::n•..
'
•
6
•' �
€ar
ntuiu...
Itimm�i:uann
ttr_•gtcpr
i�tl°suptni:'Rni�ssin'
:R�t:s:.•RSetttuT
_t..:al
ms }iaatcix
ni:aatuar.
€a
•
1�+.+-r�-
�..�n
»..tit,
€ttx
jlt�iiii
€4 !
€€
I
tensntnRn.
tiiiiiiiimnte�
et
Mill
u. wnu'
"itntyypRp}iRRSFS
h-I III
'w�iAi!niniax
_ry
- -
tnnu1t11niiniC
IiillgiitZ}i
}{
�. .��Ri�in3
}Iwo
e1�R.L
L
H!Ei
ft_�4
«••�i'.la
3El j i
Inssr��3tiiL
}a
!Na
_
Hl�4!!4!fHUlitP
gtiir!i�9?Lttrm}gg
iii;
'WHIM
..
.
•:�,
d/
FiiiiiifillHlHiii
}iuuEi
?! ^Siii3iiiifiE
�iB�€ f1
€tittti9
1��12� 11'ilfFli
€i€9 €l ! I!l
+ €iii(i!lltlft}I�E
..............
€€IIIHf
fES! 8
} i}» s1}«o}!
atanm+ai:.t
mm�m
t...ggn.
?iii}}'r'iiiiiiiiiiiiii8
s:...rtt:m:ar+fu
:r:;: e+e+eee
iiiiii....:i:H.....
:nnnssnxnttlL
.
mr.
�'`�
tas•n:,,tI:a:::.•:Itte.:.
!.•-..a
tax
'
tuna
r, ii'.'a
I nii
•�,i
tiait aii}-
Hiiiis.lyjR�Hli
„•!Itt�1Rx
:-i:'9iRS
E
RRA1II7(..
M
: --
Hltit3iilr
»iiitii
n:. gym:.
ii, iuia
�...:..
i
c'
gliist�t�
a...__.
€H£
:.._. .
NMI
'if]l
iti7iigAlii€€
€i €€
€€ R"
li€lii €liI€
alill
huH€€fi
illiii
€i m
}Iii:
MINE .,
,:1 LI }neneRtltettC•l7}
i C? iHU
Fl3l
P!€€€fRM
_41R�
HHHiFH
..........................
iN:iH .............
.....
ifl......
uU�tL
I
lElliilt
}tUlliiil
...
liiT
ii
li ..iii
-loin
...iii.....
`
�T�}`
1I :jYi�i•Un�g1}U«}�SS•i}l•UiI��P,
!041011190
i-m m
{H€M�BONNE
fluniff
�.�
RSI rURt
ili .:ORlla
4:411
aI1.'.':1i}HHHHHiiiiHtii�E
" "•'IItlUplt
11H ;:.HHHH}AliililliilitElE
taii i:881ffiilHli€ii8}illi
IIti7liilifi:
Page 10 of 40

t�
R
■
a
yi
R
9
R �R
a
R
Y
w ulp"m
i
�v
loss
loss
son
on
8
R
i
9 } �
x } R
w�..o
9
R
• QQy
A � R
t
R
�s��.rwws
9
R
A
}
R
x
1
a
:1
7
$ r
I"
R IR
R
J}
loss
In@R�■
w ulp"m
i
�v
loss
loss
son
on
8
R
i
9 } �
x } R
w�..o
9
R
• QQy
A � R
t
R
�s��.rwws
9
R
A
}
R
x
1
a
:1
7
$ r
I"
R IR
R
J}

i: A a i R i a- A i
Mu-m-0
R
2
st
a
Le
■
9

L7
w6
LO
346 0
316
3+1 s
3w
ws
3V
XSC 219 - UT 9 Elling3on W - 6
13.312(" M)
0 10 20 t0 W S
awns (0
7
8
1
3
XSC 462 - UT to El II ngron Branch
Sta. 19 -73.0 (pool)
3466
316
346 6
W
� 3n
7+aa
3az
3+16
L1
3-10 6
%M
0
6
X&C 220 . UT to EIIIngWn Branch
St.. 16.62.0 (pool )
0
l26
-
B•622 2017
i
•
1
20'S
117
0 10 20 t0 W S
awns (0
7
8
1
3
XSC 462 - UT to El II ngron Branch
Sta. 19 -73.0 (pool)
3466
316
346 6
W
� 3n
7+aa
3az
3+16
L1
3-10 6
%M
0
6
X&C 220 . UT to EIIIngWn Branch
St.. 16.62.0 (pool )
0
l26
-
B•622 2017
i
•
117
ti
11.5
$41
--
—
Brw 201
10.6
i\
$10
Mo
v\
632
--
336
� -4wa • woe [WO + [mo -. mii "-3ui[
w 0
3"
30 6
w
�3C3
3.z
3.1
LOS
uo
Mb
'a 10 30 26 30 36 b 46
OWN— In
Page 13 of 40
3a0 5 -
7+0
VaS
379
i
3305
370
3V 6
331
370, 5
)(SC Rt - UT b Elungt0n Buell
6a- W 6(r11B21
XSC 223- UT to Ellington Branch
SW 22-36 3 (nHl•)
M�w.•1Y
0 _ ,e s Y 25 30 is K• .a
0•— Vu
. a.. • :Ox :OOL 1010 . 1011 .. 1011
-
B•622 2017
i
•
0 _ ,e s Y 25 30 is K• .a
0•— Vu
. a.. • :Ox :OOL 1010 . 1011 .. 1011

350
349
348
347
340
345
344
343
342
341
340
1000
Profile Reach 1
(EB Sta. 10+20.5 to 16+75.2)
344
343
342
341
T
340
ic!
j
339
338
337
390
1850 1950 2050 7150 2790
ORION
weg Aa WM --- ��ielwep
20088sik1ul 4-2010 TMMaapp • 20108mkfi 2011 Thdweg 2011 Bslklul
— 2012Thatwae 2012WaNr8uM. 0- 2012Rokfli
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 Ie00 1700
sum" (M
-3b09 Thtiw eg 20oA 8ero�iii — - - --1'0M ep - -
2009 B"fm • 2010 Thalweg • 2010 BahkfA 2011 Thalwe0 201 t BankU
—2012 TlldwW_ _ -- W 2012 Banklul - - -- 2012 Waler Swbw
Profile Reach 2
(EB Sta. 16+62.9 to 23 +96.3)
2350

337
330
335
334
333
332
331
330
329
320
2000
Profile Reach 3
(EB Sta. 29+33.9 to 36+85.3)
330
329
328
327
326
0
325
324
323
3000 3100 3200 3300 3400 3000 3000 3700
@bo n(q
-M.Bwp TMMp • As.audt BWkNn .- 2000 Thaiwp + 2000 BmkfA 2009 TnNw eg 2009 Bank/ul . 2010 Thalwp
• 2010 BOWUN —2011 ThOweg 2011 BankNll — 2012WaW SurYn —2012 Tnaty eg • 2012 BnkW1
Profile Reach 4
(EB Sta. 43+49 to 46+96.8)
322
4300 4350 4400 4450 4500 4000 4000 4660 4700
Station (R)
as- euhTnalweg • Ae41141t8enkVS . 2MThslwp • 2009 BOOM 2009Theiwp 20090etk0A +2010Theh1eg
_CI(Juanklul —2011 • 2011Brfk1W — 2D12VVsWGurbm — 2012ThsMag • 20129sm.wM
. ...bv i.. va •v

348
347
346
345
F 344
0
:
i
> 343
w
342
34'
340
1200
Profile Reach 5
(UT Sta. 12 +03.5 to 16 +87.3)
1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700
Station (ft)
o.- Ae-BwM Thalwag • "Bult Bankful --w-2008 Thalwag a 2008 Bankfull I Ialwwg
2008 Bankfull - +-2010 Thalweg a 2010 Bankfull - x-2011 Thalweg 2011 Bankfuf
—2012 Thalweg 2x12 VVAWSuMee • - -- -2012 Benkfull
Page 16 of 40

Exhibit Table XII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Ellington Branch Stream Restoration (Project No. 16- D06045)
Reach 1- Ellington Branch Upstream of Confluence with Unnamed Tributary
Dimension
Min.
Max.
Med.
Min.
Max.
Med.
Min.
Max.
Med.
Min.
Max.
Med.
Min.
Max.
Med.
BF Width (ft)
7.4
11.5
9.5
4.1
4.1
4.1
7.7
9.3
8.9
14.5
10.1
13.4
11.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
10.5
18.6
14.6
6.5
7.9
7.2
15.8
32.5
24.2
>50.0
33.0
50.0
42.0
BF Cross -Sect. Area (ft)
10.2
10.2
10.2
2.5
2.6
2.6
9.7
9.8
9.8
18.3
7.0
12.1
10.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
1.4
1.1
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.3
0.6
1.0
0.9
BF Max. Depth (ft)
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.1
1.6
1.3
Width /Depth Ratio
5.4
12.9
8.6
6.5
6.7
6.6
6.1
10.3
8.1
11.2
11.6
20.2
13.9
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.9
1.8
1.8
3.7
2.7
>3.0
2.8
4.2
3.6
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
12.9
5.3
11.5
17.1
9.3
13.8
11.4
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
19.9
90.5
1.4
42.1
0.5
19.1
15.5
39.1
0.9
28.8
23.7
74.0
1.1
41.8
0.7
33.5
0.9
92.0
0.8
62.0
Radius of Curvature. (ft)
8.4
70.0
26.0
1.4
7.2
3.4
4.0
10.6
7.6
24.0
50.0
30.8
18.0
47.0
30.8
Meander Wavelength (ft)
21.3
87.8
41.3
2.5
10.4
5.1
10.2
23.2
15.2
68.7
164.2
104.5
74.0
150.0
102.5
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
2.1
5.3
9.5
45.8
4.4
25.5
1.6
12.2
4.7
6.3
1.8
3.1
4.4
10.6
3.3
6.1
1.6
5.1
2.9
10.0
2.8
7.8
5.3
10.0
Riffle Slope (ft)
0.007
0.049
0.022
0.009
0.088
0.035
0.011
0.018
0.014
0.015
0.012
0.039
0.028
Pool Length (ft)
11.6
85.7
25.4
3.9
4.9
27.9
15.0
13.0
45.0
26.4
13.1
39.1
23.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
Substrate
d50 (mm)
33.4
823.7
111.3
1.2
22.6
1.8
20.9
56.3
34.6
0.3
34.0
125.0
60.1
1.2
36.8
119.1
81.7
0.2
d84 (mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
10.2
1119
10.2
33
10.9
156
10.2
1586
0.8
1586
Channel Length (ftl
1560
50
-)SR
14dR
1Q -Ad
Sinuosity
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.3
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
BF Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
Rosgen Classification
G5
B4c
E5
C5
C5
Page 17 of 40

Exhibit Table XII Continued. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary Continued
Ellington Branch Stream Restoration (Project No. 16- D06045)
Reach 2 - Ellington Branch Downstream of Confluence with Unnamed Tributary
Project Reference Project
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Stream - UT Ellington Stream - Hawtree Design As-Built
Creek
Dimension Min. Max. Med. Min. Max. Med. Min. Max. Med. Min. Max. Med. Min. Max. Med.
BF Width (ft)
9.2
11.9
10.6
4.1
4.1
4.1
7.7
9.3
8.9
15.5
11.6
16.6
14.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
27.7
193.0
110.3
6.5
7.9
7.2
15.8
32.5
24.2
>50.0
40.0
58.0
47.7
BF Cross -Sect. Area (ft)
12.4
13.8
13.1
2.5
2.6
2.6
9.7
9.8
9.8
21.6
11.6
16.6
14.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.5
1.2
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.4
0.8
1.2
1.0
BF Max. Depth (ft)
2.1
2.2
2.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.8
1.7
2.0
1.6
1.9
1.7
Width /Depth Ratio
6.1
11.4
8.5
6.5
6.7
6.6
6.1
10.3
8.1
11.1
10.6
20.1
15.5
Entrenchment Ratio
2.3
20.8
10.4
1.6
1.9
1.8
1.8
3.7
2.7
>3.2
2.7
3.9
3.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
16.64
5.3
11.5
18.3
13.0
15.5
14.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Pattern
1.3
0.5
0.9
1.2
0.8
1.1
0.93
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
22.5
64.0
37.5
19.1
15.5
39.1
28.8
20.7
71.1
47.3
51.0
122.0
75.8
Radius of Curvature. (ft)
7.7
67.6
23.3
1.4
7.2
3.4
4.0
10.6
7.6
24.0
47.8
30.1
22.0
66.0
33.4
Meander Wavelength (ft)
14.0
90.2
34.9
2.5
10.4
5.1
10.2
23.2
15.2
70.5
151.9
110.0
83.8
168.0
111.4
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
2.1
4.5
6.0
47.9
3.5
25.5
1.6
12.2
4.7
6.3
1.8
3.1
4.4
10.6
3.3
6.1
1.3
4.6
3.1
10.0
3.4
10.0
8.2
10.0
5.1
10.0
Riffle Slope (ft)
0.007
0.052
0.022
0.009
0.088
0.035
0.011
0.018
0.014
0.015
0.016
0.035
0.024
Pool Length (ft)
11.6
85.7
25.4
3.9
4.9
27.9
15.0
9.0
50.0
23.1
14.3
32.2
24.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
Substrate
d50 (mm)
33.4
823.7
111.3
0.41
22.6
1.8
20.9
56.3
34.6
0.3
40.0
103.0
72.9
0.4
38.3
147.4
75.6
0.2
d84 (mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
4.0
1846
10.2
33
10.9
156
10.0
1370
4.5
1370
Channel Length (ft)
2476
50
258
1810
1801
Sinuosity
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
BF Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
0.013
0.007
0.006
0.006
Rosgen Classification
E5
64c
E5
C5
C5
Page 18 of 40

Exhibit Table XII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary Continued
Ellington Branch Stream Restoration (Project No. 16- D06045)
Reach 3 - Unnamed Tributary to Ellington Branch
Design Project Reference Project Reference
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Stream - Hawtree
Stream - UT Ellington Creek
Dimension Min. Max. Med. Min. Max. Med. Min. Max. Med. Min. Max. Med. Min. Max. Med.
BF Width (ft)
8.3
14.5 11.4
4.1
4.1
4.1
7.7
9.3
8.9
8.0
6.9
9.3
7.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
15.8
34.0 24.9
6.5
7.9
7.2
15.8
32.5
24.2
>30.0
22.0
29.0
27.0
BF Cross -Sect. Area (ft)
4.7
6.4 5.6
2.5
2.6
2.6
9.7
9.8
9.8
4.5
4.1
6.0
4.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.6 0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.3
1.1
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
BF Max. Depth (ft)
0.7
1.1 0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.8
1.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
Width /Depth Ratio
14.7
32.9 23.8
6.5
6.7
6.6
6.1
10.3
8.1
13.3
10.5
14.4
11.8
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
3.0 2.2
1.6
1.9
1.8
1.8
3.7
2.7
>3.7
2.9
3.8
3.5
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
12.4
5.3
11.5
9.2
6.5
8.4
7.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
19.8
0.5
67.0 40.0
0.5
19.1
15.5
39.1
0.9
28.8
11.4
42.5
0.5
23.3
0.4
36.7
0.6
60.0
0.53
47.7
Radius of Curvature (ft)
11.1
58.4 33.5
1.4
7.2
3.4
4.0
10.6
7.6
13.0
25.0
17.3
13.3
28.3
18.2
Meander Wavelength (ft)
23.7
87.0 44.1
2.5
10.4
5.1
10.2
23.2
15.2
29.7
97.8
61.7
44.0
95.0
56.0
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
1.7
13.8
5.9 3.5
58.0 27.4
1.6
12.2
4.7
6.3
1.8
3.1
4.4
10.6
3.3
6.1
1.4
5.3
2.9
5.0
4.8
5.0
7.8
5.0
6.2
5.0
Riffle Slope (ft)
0.005
0.029 0.019
0.009
0.088
0.035
0.011
0.018
0.014
0.02
0.012
0.039
0.025
Pool Length (ft)
17.2
3.9
4.9
27.9
15.0
10.0
21.0
14.0
9.2
36.0
15.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
Substrate
d50 (mm)
0.4
22.6
1.8
20.9
56.3
34.6
0.3
27.0
89.0
51.0
0.4
19.7
86.3
44.2
0.3
d84 (mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
11.8
702
10.2
33
10.9
156
11.8
1074
0.6
1074
Channel Length (ft)
854
50
258
1343
1328
Sinuosity
1.2
1.5
1.7
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.008
0.013
0.007
0.009
0.008
BF Slope (ft /ft)
0.008
0.013
0.007
0.009
0.008
Rosgen Classification
C5
I 134c
E5
J C5
C5
Page 19 of 40

Exhibit Table XIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Ellington Branch Stream Restoration (Project No. 16- D06045)
Cross Section 1 Cross Section 2 Cross Section 3 Cross Section
.. Pool (Ellington Branch) Riffle (Ellington Branch)
Dimension MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY3 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
12.9
12.7
7.5
7.0
7.1
8.9
7.1
8.6
8.8
8.5
15.5
14.1
14.0
14.1
12.7
10.0
11.7
11.8
11.8
10.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
33.0
31.1
37.7
37.7
37.7
50.0
52.1
51
51.0
51.0
BF Cross -Sect. Area (ft)
21.6
13.6
18.2
16.2
16.1
6.4
5.3
5.8
6.0
5.9
24.9
22.5
24.8
19.4
19.9
7.7
9.6
9.4
9.5
9.4
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.7
1.1
2.4
2.3
1.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
BF Max. Depth (ft)
3.3
2.4
4.2
3.5
3.2
1.0
1.3
1.8
1.5
1.6
3.2
3.1
3.4
2.7
2.8
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.5
Width /Depth Ratio
12.7
9.5
12.8
12.9
12.3
12.5
14.6
14.7
14.6
11.7
Entrenchment Ratio
3.7
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.4
5.0
4.5
4.3
4.3
4.9
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
15.8
15.0
12.6
11.0
12.6
9.3
7.5
9.7
9.4
9.4
16.9
15.6
15.9
15.2
14.2
10.4
12.1
12.4
12.1
11.1
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.4
0.9
1.4
1.5
1.3
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.4
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
Substrate
d50 (mm)
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
1 0.3
1 0.3
0.3
2.6
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
1 0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
d84 (mm)
Dimension
0.3
MY3
0.3 J
Cross
..
MY2
0.3
Section
MY3
1.2
5
MY4
0.3
MY5
3.6
MY1
0.8
Cross
MY2
1.0
Section
MY3
7.7
6
MY4
2.3
MYS
1.2
MY1
3.0
Cross
MY2
1.0
Section
MY3
0.4
7
MY4
1.4
MYS
MY1
Cross
Pool (Ellington
MY2
Section
MY3
8
Branch)
MY4
MYS
BF Width (ft)
22.2
22.1
19.0
18.6
28.7
11.6
11.5
11.8
11.8
101
13.4
13.2
13.9
13.4
15.4
16.6
16.5
16.3
16.0
17.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
38.0
36.2
36.7
36.8
37.2
46.0
48.5
52.5
48.6
51.6
BF Cross -Sect. Area (ft)
18.0
18.7
21.1
19.8
20.3
11.0
11.5
10.8
10.7
11.4
12.6
11.1
12.3
13.4
13.4
19.3
19.0
20.9
17.3
19.3
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.1
BF Max. Depth (ft)
2.3
2.4
3.0
2.8
2.7
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.5
1.6
2.5
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.6
Width /Depth Ratio
12.9
12.8
13.0
13.0
9.0
14.9
16.5
15.6
17.5
17.8
Entrenchment Ratio
3.3
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.7
3.4
3.7
3.8
3.6
3.3
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
23.6
23.4
20.8
21.7
30.5
12.2
12.0
12.4
12.3
11.7
13.8
13.6
14.6
17.5
15.8
18.1
18.1
17.9
17.7
20.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.0
Substrate
d50 (mm)
0.2
0.1
0.1
1.7
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.7
0.1
2.6
3.5
2.6
3.0
2.5
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
d84 (mm)
0.6
0.2
0.6
6.4
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.2
2.6
0.2
6.8
7.8
7.0
9.8
6.9
0.3
1 0.3 1
0.3
T 1.4 1
0.3
Page 20 of 40

Exhibit Table XIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary Continued
Ellington Branch Stream Restoration (Project No. 16- D06045)
Parameter Cross Section 9 Cross Section i Cross Section 11 Cross Section 12
.. ..
Dimension MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
15.2
13.3
12.9
13.0
13.7
14.9
14.8
15.9
15.5
12.5
25.5
25.6
24.7
26.7
25.3
12.0
11.3
11.9
11.8
11.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
45.0
>50
>50
>50
>50
58.0
>60
>60
>60
>60
BF Cross -Sect. Area (ft )
23.1
21.0
20.6
20.9
21.4
12.1
11.3
11.3
12.0
11.2
28.3
28.1
17.3
17.2
17.4
13.9
12.4
13.8
13.7
13.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.1
BF Max. Depth (ft)
2.8
2.6
2.9
2.7
2.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.6
2.2
3.2
3.1
2.6
2.0
2.1
2.0
1.8
2.1
2.0
2.0
Width /Depth Ratio
18.2
18.5
22.2
20.0
14.0
10.0
10.3
10.2
10.1
10.4
Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
>3.4
>3.0
>3.0
>3.0
4.8
>4.8
>5.0
>5.0
>5.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
16.6
14.6
14.3
14.6
15.3
15.5
15.6
16.4
16.2
13.7
27.8
28.4
26.5
28.3
27.1
13.0
11.9
12.7
12.6
12.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
Substrate
d50 (mm)
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
7.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
1.6
0.4
d84 (mm)
Parameter
Dimension
0.4
MY1
0.4
Cross
..
MY2
0.4
Section
MY3
0.5
13
MY4
0.4
MY5
2.0
MY3
0.4
Cross
MY2
2.0
Section
MY3
11.0
14
MY4
2.0
MY5
0.3
MY1
0.3
Cross
•..
MY2
0.4
Section
MY3
0.9
15
MY4
0.4
MY5
1.5
Pool
MY3
0.3
Cross
(Unnamed
MY2
1.0
Section
MY3
10.0
16
Tributary)
MY4
1.1
MY5
BF Width (ft)
18.3
18.1
17.7
14.4
16.8
13.9
13.7
13.2
13.4
15.4
18.9
19.1
19.2
19.0
24.5
14.9
17.6
15.3
14.8
17.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
40.0
40.4
39.4
39.3
41.8
BF Cross -Sect. Area (ft )
20.8
21.8
26.7
30.1
28.6
12.9
10.6
10.8
9.7
10.4
27.8
26.5
20.6
17.4
18.8
12.9
12.8
12.6
11.0
11.6
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.2
1.5
2.1
1.7
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.5
1.4
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
BF Max. Depth (ft)
2.6
3.1
3.4
3.8
3.5
2.2
1.9
1.9
1.8
2.0
3.7
3.2
2.3
2.1
1.7
1.9
1.2
1.6
1.3
1.3
Width /Depth Ratio
15.0
15.7
16.0
18.4
22.9
Entrenchment Ratio
2.9
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.7
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
19.3
20.3
20.5
17.8
19.8
15.0
14.7
14.1
14.6
17.1
20.8
20.5
20.2
19.9
25.1
15.9
17.9
16.0
15.2
17.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.7
1.4
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
1.3
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
Substrate
d50 (mm)
0.4
0.2
0.2
2.5
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.6
2.5
0.6
d84 (mm)
1.1
0.5
0.4
7.6
0.4
1.9
1 0.8
1 2.0
1 6.3
1.8
1 0.3
0.2
1 0.2
1 1.0
1 0.2
1.8
0.3
1.8
8.3
1 1.1
Page 21 of 40

Exhibit Table XIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary Continued
Ellington Branch Stream Restoration (Project No. 16- D06045)
Parameter Cross Section 17 Cross Section 18 Cross Section 19 Cross Section 20
Riffle (Unnamed Tributary) •• Pool (Unnamed Tributary)
Dimension MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
BF Width (ft)
6.2
6.7
6.6
7.4
9.3
9.4
8.2
7.4
7.0
8.9
6.8
7.9
7.2
7.3
8.2
9.2
8.9
9.0
8.8
10.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
22.0
19.9
16.1
17.4
18.5
29.0
27.5
28.3
26.7
33.0
BF Cross -Sect. Area (ft)
2.7
3.2
1.4
2.3
2.8
7.2
6.5
5.3
5.1
5.4
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.9
7.2
7.1
7.9
7.7
8.0
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
BF Max. Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.7
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.5
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.7
Width /Depth Ratio
14.1
13.4
30.8
23.6
31.1
11.5
15.8
13.7
14.1
17.5
Entrenchment Ratio
3.6
3.0
2.4
2.4
2.0
4.3
35
3.9
3.7
4.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
6.5
7.3
6.7
7.5
9.5
10.8
9.7
8.5
7.9
9.6
7.1
8.2
7.5
7.5
8.6
10.6
10.5
10.8
10.1
12.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
Substrate
cIS0 (mm)
0.3
0.2
0.3
1.5
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
1 0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
d84 (mm)
Parameter
Dimension
0.6
Riffle
MY1
0.3
Cross
(Unnamed
MY2
0.6
Section
MY3
5.7
21
Tributary)
MY4
0.6
MY5
0.5
Pool
MY1
0.3
Cross
(Unnamed
MY2
0.4
Section
Tributary)
MY3
0.4
22
MY4
0.6
MY5
0.4
Riffle
MY3
0.3
Cross
(Unnamed
MY2
0.4
Section
MY3
1.5
23
Tributary)
MY4
0.4
MY5
0.4
MY1
0.4
MY2
0.4
MY3
0.4
MY4
0.4
MY5
BF Width (ft)
7.9
7.8
7.2
7.0
15.2
14.5
14.3
14.4
13.4
14.7
8.0
9.4
9.3
9.9
8.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
29.0
26.5
30.2
30.6
33.9
28.0
29.0
40
>40
>40
BF Cross -Sect. Area (ft)
4.1
3.3
4.0
4.4
4.7
10.3
9.4
11.1
9.0
10.3
4.9
6.4
10.2
10.3
9.8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.1
1.0
1.2
BF Max. Depth (ft)
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.2
1.2
2.2
2.2
2.0
Width /Depth Ratio
15.8
18.3
12.8
11.0
49.6
12.9
13.4
8.5
9.5
7.4
Entrenchment Ratio
3.7
3.4
4.2
4.4
2.2
3.5
3.1
4.3
>4.0
>4.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.3
8.1
7.5
7.4
15.9
14.9
14.8
15.0
13.9
15.3
8.4
9.8
10.7
11.1
10.0
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.9
1.0
Substrate
d50 (mm)
0.3
0.30.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
d84 (mm)
1.5 1
0.4 1
1.5
1.3
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.6 1
0.6
0.4 1
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.4
Page 22 of 40

Page 23 of 40
Exhibit Table X111. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary Continued
Ellington Branch Stream Restoration (Project No. 16-
D06045)
Reach 1- Ellington Branch Upstream of Confluence with Unnamed Tributary (Profile Reaches 1 and 2)
Parameter
MY
1 11'
119
(20 10)
1
1
1
Pattern
Min
Max
Med
Min Max Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med Min Max Med
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
33.5
92.0
62.0
33.0
91.0
66.3
34.0
91.0
61.0
34.0
91.0
67.0
34.0
91.0
67.0
Radius of Curvature
18.0
47.0
30.8
19.0
45.3
29.3
18.0
47.0
31.8
18.0
47.0
29.3
18.0
47.0
29.0
(ft)
Meander Wavelength
74.0
150.0
102.5
76.0
152.0
110.7
75.0
147.0
114.5
75.0
148.0
112.2
75.0
148.0
112.0
(ft)
Meander Width Ratio
2.8
7.8
5.3
2.7
7.5
5.5
3.5
9.4
6.3
3.2
8.5
6.3
3.2
8.5
6.3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
9.5
20.0
15.8
9.5
21.8
13.5
11.4
20.3
15.2
13.0
20.9
17.1
13.0
21.0
17.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
0.028
0.01
0.004
0.020
0.009
0.005
0.020
0.013
0.008
0.032
0.014
0.008
0.032
0.014
Pool Length (ft)
11.0
67.1
23.2
12.8
57.0
24.1
15.0
50.0
29.3
12.3
37.7
23.9
12.0
38.0
24.0
Pool Slope (ft /ft)
0.000
0.006
0.001
0.000 0.007 0.002
0.000
0.006
0.002
0.000
0.005
0.002
0.000
0.005
0.002
Additional Reach
Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1586
1586
1586
1586
1586
Channel Length (ft)
1934
1934
1934
1934
1934
Sinuosity
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
1.22
Water Surface Slope
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
(ft /ft)
BF Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
C5
C5
C/E 5
Page 23 of 40

Page 24 of 40
Exhibit Table XIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary Continued
Ellington Branch Stream Restoration (Project No. 16-
D0604S)
Reach 2 - Ellington Branch Downstream of Confluence with Unnamed Tributary (Profile Reaches 3 and 4)
Parameter
MY
1 00
ti•
Pattern
Min
Max
Med
Min Max Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med Min Max Med
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
51.0
122.0
75.8
51.0
128.0
85.8
52.3
123.5
86.1
51.0
118.0
87.0
51.0
118.0
87.0
Radius of Curvature
22.0
66.0
33.4
22.7
66.0
33.0
22.6
66.0
30.7
22.0
66.0
32.5
22.0
66.0
32.0
(ft)
Meander Wavelength
83.8
168.0
111.4
80.0
135.0
100.2
81.9
160.0
101.9
81.0
155.0
106.2
81.0
155.0
106.0
(ft)
Meander Width Ratio
3.4
8.2
5.1
3.9
9.9
6.7
3.7
8.8
6.4
3.6
8.3
6.1
3.6
8.3
6.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
9.1
23.6
14.5
11.6
23.0
16.1
10.2
19.6
16.1
7.8
18.7
14.3
8.0
19.0
14.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
0.028
0.011
0.004
0.018
0.010
0.005
0.037
0.017
0.006
0.034
0.017
0.006
0.034
0.017
Pool Length (ft)
11.1
53.3
27.3
12.7
53.1
32.1
13.2
45.5
30.3
15.5
53.3
28.9
15.5
53.0
29.0
Pool Slope (ft/ft)
0.000
0.003
0.001
0.000 0.004 0.001
0.000
0.003
0.001
0.000
0.004
0.002
0.000
0.004
0.002
Additional Reach
Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1370
1370
1370
1370
1370
Channel Length (ft)
1801
1801
1801
1801
1801
Sinuosity
1.31
1.31
1.31
1.31
1.31
Water Surface Slope
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
(ft/ft)
BF Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
Rosgen Classification
C5
C5
C5
C5
C5
Page 24 of 40

Page 25 of 40
Exhibit Table XIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary Continued
Ellington Branch Stream Restoration (Project No. 16-
D06045)
Reach 3 - Unnamed Tributary to Ellington Branch (Profile Reaches 5 and 6)
Parameter
MY
1 00
00•
Pattern
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
36.7
60.0
47.7
36.0
60.0
48.6
36.0
60.0
48.3
36.0
60.0
48.4
36.0
60.0
48.0
Radius of Curvature
13.3
28.3
18.2
12.6
26.5
16.8
13.1
27.2
17.1
13.1
26.7
16.8
13.0
27.0
17.0
(ft)
Meander Wavelength
44.0
95.0
56.0
42.2
90.0
59.6
44.0
90.2
57.8
44.4
90.5
59.3
44.0
91.0
59.0
(ft)
Meander Width Ratio
4.8
7.8
6.2
4.5
7.5
6.1
5.9
9.8
7.9
5.0
8.3
6.7
5.0
8.3
6.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
4.4
13.6
10.7
7.4
14.5
10.3
6.8
20.6
12.3
5.4
16.7
12.1
5.4
16.7
12.1
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.005
0.036
0.019
0.005
0.012
0.008
0.005
0.034
0.021
0.005
0.037
0.020
0.005
0.037
0.020
Pool Length (ft)
7.5
24.9
15.4
13.0
29.5
18.8
12.7
35.1
20.1
12.1
32.4
17.7
12.0
32.0
18.0
Pool Slope (ft/ft)
0.000
0.004
0.001
0.000 0.006 0.002
0.000
0.006
0.002
0.000
0.004
0.002
0.000
0.004
0.002
Additional Reach
Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
1074
1074
1074
1074
1074
Channel Length (ft)
1328
1328
1328
1328
1328
Sinuosity
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
Water Surface Slope
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
(ft/ft)
BF Slope (ft /ft)
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
Rosgen Classification
1
CS
C5
C5
C5
C/E 5
Page 25 of 40

Exhibit Table X. Stream Problem Areas
Ellington Branch Stream Restoration (Project No. 16- D06045)
Photo Feature issue Station Numbers Suspected Cause Number
Impoundment 2009 (removed) 45 +00 to 47 +30 Beaver N/A
Impoundment 2011 (removed) 36 +00 to 38 +50 Beaver N/A
Exhibit Table VI. Vegetative Problem Areas
Exhibit Table VIII. Verification of Bankfull Events
Feature/issue
Bare Bank
Station #/ Range
N/A
Ellington Branch Stream Restoration (Project No. 16- D06045)
N/A
Date of Data
N/A
N/A
Calculated Measured High
Photo #
Collection
D. Occurrence
Method
Bankfull Water
(if available)
9/9/08
9/5/08 — 9/6/08
Crest gage
Elevation Elevation
13 inches 17 inches
Not available
1/8/09
1/6/09 — 1/9/09
Crest gage
13 inches 17 inches
Not available
3/11/09
3/1/09 — 3/2/09
Crest gage
13 inches 20 inches
Not available
9/22/09
9/7/09 - 9/8/09
Crest gage
13 inches 14 inches
Not available
11/20/09
11/11/09 - 11/14/09
Crest gage
13 inches 24 inches
Not available
3/19/10
2/5/10 - 2/6/10
Crest gage
13 inches 16 inches
Not available
Exhibit Table X. Stream Problem Areas
Ellington Branch Stream Restoration (Project No. 16- D06045)
Photo Feature issue Station Numbers Suspected Cause Number
Impoundment 2009 (removed) 45 +00 to 47 +30 Beaver N/A
Impoundment 2011 (removed) 36 +00 to 38 +50 Beaver N/A
Exhibit Table VI. Vegetative Problem Areas
Ellington Branch Stream Restoration (Project No. 16- D06045)
Feature/issue
Bare Bank
Station #/ Range
N/A
Probable
N/A
N/A
Bare Bench
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bare Floodplain
N/A
N/A
N/A
See Problem Area Plan View Drawing (p8 -10)
Fescue: Surrounding seed sources (2008, 2009,
47,48 & 49
2010, 2011 and 2012)
See Problem Area Plan View Drawing (p8 -10)
Microstegium: upstream and surrounding seed
32
Invasive /Exotic
sources (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012)
See Problem Area Plan View Drawing (p8 10)
Cattails: Surrounding seed sources (2009, 2010,
N/A
Populations
2011 and 2012)
See Problem Area Plan View Drawing (p8 -10)
Chinese Privet: Upstream and surrounding seed
N/A
sources (2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012)
Page 26 of 40

Exhibit Table VII. Planted Stem Counts For Each Species Arranged By Plot
Ellington Branch Stream Restoration (Project No. 16- DO6045)
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME (2007) (2008) (2009) (2010) (2011) (2012)
Totals PLANTED STEM COUNTS Initial Year 1 Year2 Year 3 Year4 Year 5
1 Totals
Ta alder Alnusserruloto 1 1 Totals
1 Totals Totals
1 1 Totals
1 100
Paw Paw
Asiminatriloba
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
Rive rbirch
Betula ni ro
6
7
3
1
23
7
20
13
86
84
82
81
81
80
93
Su a rbe rry
Celtisloevia oto
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
Red bud
Cercis conadensis
1
11
7
7
2
2
1
9
Flowering do woo
Cornus flonda
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Persimmon
Diospyros vir iniono
2
1
1
1
24
15
9
5
2
2
8
Green ash
Froxinus enns Ivanica
2
3
15
23
8
59
56
53
52
52
51
86
Black um
N ssos Ivatica
13
1
1
0
0
0
0
Sourwood
O endrum arboretum
4
1
15
13
13
11
5
5
33
S camore
Platanusoccidentalis
1
1
4
1
6
3
8
36
32
30
27
25
24
67
White oak
Quercus albo
4
1
1
11
7
7
7
6
6
55
Swam chestnut oa
Quercus michauxii
3
1
7
6
15
2
2
51
46
41
39
36
36
71
Willow oak
Quercus phellos
2
5
1
1
1
1
11
26
1 25
22
22
1 22
22
85
Black willow
Solixni ra
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
100
Totals
360
1 288
267
248
233
229
Total Number of Individuals Planted
26
26
30
26
26
26
30
30
30
26
28
30
26
Note: All stem counts are based on planted stems.
Required Minimum Survival per Acre is 320 Stems
Required Minimum Survival per Acre is 320 Stems
Required Minimum Survival per Acre is 320 Stems
Required Minimum Survival per Acre is 288 Stems
Required Minimum Survival per Acre is 2605tems
Plot Size (square meters
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Total Numberof Individuals Observed 2008
14
22
30
16
18
22
29
29
29
15
24
25
1 15
Total Numberof Individuals Observed 2009
13
19
28
13
17
21
29
29
26
15
24
24
14
Total Numberof Individuals Observed 2010
10
18
19
10
16
18
28
28
25
15
24
23
14
Total Numberof Individuals Observed 2011
8
16
17
9
15
16
24
28
24
15
24
23
14
Total Number of Individuals Observed 2012
8
15
17
9
is
16
24
27
24
15
23
22
14
Plot Size (square meters
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Stems Acre Initial
1053
1053
1215
1053
1053
1053
1215
1215
1215
1053
1134
1215
1053
Stems Acre 2008
567
891
1215
648
729
891
1174
1174
1174
1 607
972
1012
1 607
Stems Acre 2009
526
769
1134
526
688
850
1174
1174
1053
607
972
972
567
Stems Acre 2010
405
729
769
405
648
729
1134
1134
1012
607
972
931
567
Stems Acre 2011
324
648
688
364
607
648
972
1 1134
972
607
972
931
567
Stems /Acre 2012
324
607
688
364
1 607
648
972
1 1093
972
607
931
891
567
Page 27 of 40

2008 Rainfall Data Summary (Monthly Totals)
5
4.5 - - - - - 2008 Rainfall Data Summary
4 _ ___ -- (MonthlyTotals)
3.5
3 Henderson - Oxford Airport
2.5 - -- -- -- - - - - - -- - (inches)
1.5 ---- Historic Avg (30%)
1 - - --
0.5 _ __ _- ------- Historic Avg (70%)
0 — -- .
�ob QP
6 A e1 `,
P Q o` � e`
,o de
°,e �e
5 � O
2009 Rainfall Data Summary (Monthly Totals)
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
CSC 0 0 0 0 gyp°' gyp°' gyp°' � 0 0 0
Ib 116 4.
� °,e
5�
Page 28 of 40
John H. Kerr Dam (inches)
Henderson - Oxford Airport
(inches)
- - - - -- - Historic Avg (30%)
- - - - - -- Historic Avg (70 %)

2010 Rainfall Data Summary (Monthly Totals)
5.00 -
4.50 - - -- —
4.00 - - -- -- -- - - - - _ .- .
3.50 -- - - - - -- - - John H. Kerr Dam (inches)
3.00 A — - — -- - -- --
2.50 =- - - - -- - - --- _--------
Henderson - Oxford Airport
2.00 - (inches)
1.50 - --
---------
1.00 '- - -- -- -- - - -- Historic Avg (30 %)
0.50 - - -
0.00 - - - - - -- Historic Avg (70 %)
Q0 ,�O ,�O ,�O ,�O ,y0 ,y0 y0 ,�O
�e �c O_Sp `
,°eJY VIP e o
e Q '0wc
2011 Rainfall Data Summary (Monthly Totals)
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
�a�
,a o Q a' Qua OLco oJe era
Page 29 of 40
John H. Kerr Dam (inches)
— Henderson -Oxford Airport
(inches)
-- -- -- Historic Avg (30%)
- - - - - -- Historic Avg (70%)

2012 Rainfall Data Summary (Monthly Totals)
. 11
11
11
titi titi titi titi titi titi titi titi titi titi titi titi
J�Jy� e��e` `�o���,
�C P �eQ�' O
Page 30 of 40
2012 Rainfall Data Summary
(MonthlyTotals)
—John H. Kerr Darn (inches)
Henderson - Oxford Airport
(inches)
Historic Avg (30 %)
- --- - -- Historic Avg (70 %)

EEP Recommendation and Conclusion
The Ellington Branch Stream Restoration Project has completed 5 years of successful
monitoring. Stream dimension, pattern, and profile have remained relatively stable Vegetation
within the site has also met success criteria of 260 stems per acre at the end of 5 years of
monitoring
EEP recommends IRT closeout of the site at 5063 Stream Mitigation Unites
Contingencies
None
Page 31 of 40

Pre - Construction Photos
Page 32 of 40

Post - Construction Photos
Page 33 of 40

APPENDIX A: Watershed Summary
Ellington Branch Stream Restoration Project
The Ellington Branch stream restoration project is located in Warren County, approximately 12
miles northeast of the town of Henderson in the Roanoke River Basin It is located within HUC
03 01010603 1010, the Smith Creek watershed, which is listed as a Targeted Local Watershed
(TLW) in the 2009 Roanoke River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) plan, as well as in the
previous 2001 RBRP (http: / /portal.ncdenr org/web /eep /rbrps /roanoke) Currently, the EEP has
no other projects in this TLW
Ellington Branch flows into Smith Creek roughly 4 miles downstream of the project site, which
eventually empties into Lake Gaston just over the Virginia border The 2009 RBRP indicates
that Smith Creek is an NC 303(d) listed impaired water due to poor benthic macro - invertebrate
communities and for only partially supporting aquatic life It also states that Smith Creek has a
streambed composed almost entirely of sand and notes high turbidity and evidence of stream
scouring during high flows There was also a gradual increase in conductivity observed in the
stream during the last 15 years, and dissolved oxygen concentrations continue to be a concern.
There are no High Quality Waters (HQWs) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs) found in
this TLW, nor are there any Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHAs), Natural Heritage
Element Occurrences (NHEOs), or protected Conservation Area The TLW area is 34%
agricultural with 18 permitted animal operations present The 2009 RBRP attributed pollution to
nonpoint sources and focused restoration priorities on agricultural BMPs and riparian buffer
projects that would reduce agricultural nonpoint source impacts to the watershed
The project involves stream restoration along both Ellington Branch and one of its unnamed
tributaries This tributary connects a 2 5 acre farm pond to the main channel Prior to the
restoration, the site was an incised stream with very degraded side banks and little -to -no buffer
located within and along the pasture fields of a cattle farm. The project improves aquatic fauna
habitat through the establishment of functional riffles, rock/log vanes, and pools It also restores
stream floodplain and established cattle exclusion fencing on both sides of the entire stream
network The establishment of a riparian buffer, the exclusion of cattle, and the re- connection of
the stream to a floodplain all serve to increase stream stability and nutrient removal capacity and
reduce sediment loss, thereby reducing the volume of pollutants flowing downstream into the
designated 303(d) impaired waters of Smith Creek

Ellington State of Virginia
Branch
VAN CE
N.
Legend
♦ EEP Projects -2013 aoseouts r
• EEP Projects (Tier 1) �5 �� •_,
e 319 Projects
♦ CWMTF Sites ' +'► �/► .. �' ~'
EEP Local Watershed Plans
EEPTargeted Local Watersheds N
rI Catalog Units W - E EEP 2013 Project Closeout o , 2
Q Courty Boundaries s Ellington Branch (Roanoke 03010106)
WARREN
Warm
y
•
M de s Fri
Rev 23Apri1201-�

APPENDIX B — Land Ownership and Protection
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation
project includes a portion of the following parcel
http / /www nceep net/GIS_ DATA /PROPERTY /92520_EllingtonBranch pdf
Page 35 of 40
Site Protection
Deed Book &
Acreage
Grantor
County
Instrument
Page Number
protected
John Wilson Fleming and
Conservation
wife, Betty K Fleming
Warren
841/582
1491
Easement
http / /www nceep net/GIS_ DATA /PROPERTY /92520_EllingtonBranch pdf
Page 35 of 40

APPENDIX C — Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits
- �ction ID 2006 -41847
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
GENERAL PERMIT (NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
County Warren
Applir.ant Sungate Design Group, PA; Attn: Lane Sauls
Mailing Address 915 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 Telephone No. (919) 859 -2243
Location of property (road name/number, town, etc.) Ellington Branch Stream Restoration Mitigation Site; 14.5 acre
conservation easement on —219 acre John Wilson Fleming farm property (134 Fleming Farm Road), east of SR
1200 (Drewry Road), approx. 2,600 feet southwest of SR 1219; northwest of Norlina, North Carolina.
Site Coordinates 36.491 °N 78.299 °W USGS Quad: Middleburg
Waterway Ellington Branch River Basin. Roanoke HUC 03010106
Description of projects area and activity (see page 2 for a summary of authorized impacts) Ellington Branch Stream
Restoration Mitigation Site: Discharge of fill material for stream mitigation on Ellington Branch and an unnamed
tributary, as shown in the plans and drawings submitted on September 28, 2004.
Applicable Law- ® Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1344)
❑ Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 USC 403)
Authorization: Nationwide General Permit Number(s) 27
Your work is authorized by the above referenced permit provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the attached
,.onditions and your submitted plans Any violation of the attached conditions or deviation from your submitted plans may subject the
permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order and/or appropriate legal action
This verification will remain valid until the expiration date identified below unless the nationwide authorization is modified,
suspended or revoked. If, prior to the expiration date identified below, the nationwide permit authorization is reissued and/or
modified, this venfiaation will retrain valid until the expiration date identified below, provided it complies with all requirements of
the modified nationwide permit. If the nationwide permit authorization expires or is suspended, revoked, or is modified, such that the
activity would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit, activities which have commenced (i C, are
under construction) or are under contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit, will remain authorized provided the
activity is completed within twelve months of the date of the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case -by -case basis to modify, suspend or revoke the authorization
Activities subject to Section 404 (as indicated above) may also rcquue an individual Section 401 Water Quality Certification You
should contact the NC Division of Water Quality (telephone [phone] to determine Section 401 requirements
This Department of the Army verification does not relieve the perimttee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal,
State or local approvals/permits
If there are any questions regarding this verification, any of the conditions of the Permit, or the Corps of Engineers regulatory
program, please contact Erte Alsmeyer at telepboigc (919) 8768441, ext 23
Corps Regulatory Official liii - - , Date 2/112007 Verification Expiration Date 03/18/2007
Copy Furnished: Mr. John Wilson Fleming
134 Fleming Farm Road
Manson, NC 27553
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Attn: Guy Pearce
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
Page 1 of 2
Page 36 of 40

APPENDIX C — Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits
Sammary of Authorized Impacts and Renuired Mitianti nn
Action ID #
NWP /
GP #
Open Water ac
Weliaiid
ac
Ummpo rtant Stram
Important Stream i
Temporary
Permanent
Tempormy
Permanent
Temporary
Permanent
Temporary
Permanent
200641847
27
0
4,904
20
Impact Totals
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
4,904
Total Loss of Waters of the U S. ac 0
Total Loss of Waters of the U S.
0
Required Wedand Mitigation ac 0 1
Re umred Stream Mitigation 1 0
Additional Remarks and/or Special Permit Conditions
NOTE: This verification replaces the verification dated 12/6/2004 (AID 200520111)
No compensatory stream or wetland mitigation Is required, other than that created by the proposed stream
mitigation authorized by this permit; however, this nationwide permit verification does not imply approval of the
suitability of this property for compensatory mitigation for any other particular project.
Note: This verification does not include additional fill impacts to waters of the United States from any borrow sites
Qr spoil disposal. Impacts on additional waters of the United States would have to be permitted separately if they
become necessary.
1
Page 2 of 2
Page 37 of 40

APPENDIX C — Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits
OF )NA M4=1 F Rasley. Governor
h G Willrarn G Ross Jr, Smtclary
Nortb Carolina boparhnant of F.ovironmrnt and Natural Resources
p < Alm W xlimok, P E Jhrootor
Diviston of Watcr Quality
March 15, 2007
DWQ Project # 07-0069
Warren County
Lane Sauls
Sungate Design Group, P A
915 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
Subject Property. Ellington Branch Stream Restoration
Ut to Ellington Branch [030207,23-10-2-1, C]
Approval of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Doer Mr Sauls_
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place fill
within or otherwise impact 4,904 linear feet of perennial stream and 20 linear feet of intermittent stream
in conjunction with proposed stream restoration at the site as described within your application dated
September 11, 2006, which was received by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) on January 11,
2007 After reviewing your application, we have decided that the impacts are covered by General Water
Quality Certification Number(s) 3495 (GC3495) The Certifications) allows you to use Nationwide
Permits) NW27 when issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) In addition, you should
obtain or otherwise comply with any other required federal, state or local permits before you go ahead
with your project including (but not limited to) Erosion and Sediment Control, and Non - discharge
regulations Also, this approval to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct impacts to
waters as depicted in your application shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit.
This Certification replaces the one issued to you on April 7, 2006.
This approval is for the purpose and design that you described in your application if you change your
project, you must notify us and you maybe required to send us anew application 1f the property is sold,
the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for
complying with all conditions If total fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre of
wetland or 150 linear feet of stream, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H 0506 (h) This approval requites you to follow the conditions listed in the attached
certification
Violations of any condition herem set forth may result in revocation of this Certification and may result in
criminal and/or civil penalties. The authorization to proceed with your proposed impacts or to conduct
impacts to waters as depicted in your application and as authorized by this Certification shall expire upon
expiration of the 404 or CAMA Permit
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this Certification (associated with the approved wetland or
stream Impacts), you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing You must act within 60 days of the date that
you receive this letter To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of
the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center,
4010M3WWEaptess Revlexr Permb UII@
1650 Man 8ervbe Center. Rahilgh, NOM C&Tft ZMW1060
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, $* 250, Ralik, NOM C=ft 21609
PW* 919.733.11861 FAX 919. 733' 6MIbtlemethttoJ /h2o.enr.state.nc.uslnewetlentls
An Equal OPWunWAftrad a Acbn FmpbM- 50%RwydeMO %Post Consumer Paper
Page 38 of 40
JVutlanuy

APPENDIX C — Jurisdictional Determinations and Permits
Sungate Design Grog, P A
Page 2 of 2
March 15, 2007
Raleigh, N C 27699 -6714 This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
'Phis letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act if you have any questwns, please telephone Cyndi Karoly or Ian McMillan in the Central Office in
Raleigh at 919 -733 -1786 or Lauren Cobb in the DWQ Raleigh Regional Office at 919 - 791 -AOQf
AWK/fjm
Enclosures GC 3495
Certificate of Completion
cc, USACE Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
Lauren Cobb, DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
DLR Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Fifes
W Klimek,? E.
Rennim OMWEItuipa ft mBmnchRm mtlon(wwm)c01
Page 39 of 40

Mitigation Project Name
Ellington Branch
EEP IMS ID
92520
River Basin
ROANOKE
Cataloging Unit
03010106
Anolied Credit Ratios 1.1 1.5:1 2.5:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2:1 5:1 1:1 3:1 2 1 5:1 1:1 3:1 0.5:1 1:1 1:1
IMS Amount 5,062.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
IMS - Ledger 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(Positive = increase / Negative = decrease)
Information as of 3/17/2013
0
O
Z
A d
Z
Q
W
Z
R
UU
W
W
U W
0
d
N 2
p
« O
O
v
fA '
Q
2 O O '
O
O
O
d
O
Z O
Beginning Balance (feet and acres)
5,062.00
NCDOT Pre -EEP Debits (feet and acres): Not Applicable
EEP Debits feet and acres):
DWQ Permits
USACE Action IDs
Impact Project Name
2006 - 33143 -293
SR 1315 - Division 5
40.00
Remaining Balance (feet and acres)
5,022.00
IMS Amount 5,062.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
IMS - Ledger 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
(Positive = increase / Negative = decrease)
Information as of 3/17/2013