20170920 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_2021_20220103

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20170290 Version* 1
.........................................................................................................................................................................
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 01/03/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/3/2022
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Is this a Prospectus,Technical Proposal or a New Site?* 0 Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Lindsay Crocker [e-mail]
Project Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20170290 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Heron
County: Alamance
Document Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Plans
File Upload: Heron_100014_MY3_2021.pdf 10.57MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature:*

FINAL MONITORING REPORT
2021 (Year 3)
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100014
Full Delivery Contract No. 7192
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01471
DWR No. 17-0290
RFP No. 16-006990
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Data Collection: January 2021—October 2021
Submission: December 2021
°,,
.10
F E J G .. '; 1, 1_, h L.
4
,,-,vit.,,Hii; Ifv,....ti*,,',11**-4,-e.1:114,-+Ity- --:ii.,. .1.t.'.'.r.,::,--I:„.:4....w." .: '. . ,,
'° " :n c '@` t x .- � ` any+' K ' -3€ !
'44
_ �1 Ytitr
ry 4*11"'' :`7'-1;:riri' T` -. ,S ,, :1. F
c
5 �Fk ``,f. it • •etc F +r.4)4 ,,. 7«'i
q.� i� wV M
- +s' wF - .'.te ," 54V h: , 4 .FAA
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
December 2021
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Executive Summary
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St.Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone] RESTORATION
Response to Monitoring Year 2(2022) DMS Comments SYSTEMS iLLC
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (DMS#100014)
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002, Alamance County
Contract No. 7192
Comments Received (Black Text) & Responses
1. Wetland Summary, page 8.The Mitigation Plan for this project shows a 3/1-10/22 growing season
documented with soil temperature was accepted by IRT. However, there are multiple growing
seasons showing for each year of this project and the footnotes on the wetland summary table
contains conflicting information. Review, revise, and update this section and the associated
growing season dates to match mitigation plan.
The growing season for Year 3 was changed to March 1-October 22. The footnotes on the table
were updated to clarify the reasoning for different growing season start dates for each monitoring
year. Gauge graphs and groundwater hydrology summary tables were also updated to reflect the
approved growing season.
2. Vegetation Summary, page 8. Per your Mitigation Plan:'Planted and volunteer stems are counted,
provided they are included in the approved planting list for the site.' Please consider this when
documenting success for each vegetation plot. Use the planted species list to show which
volunteers are on the planting plan and update narrative, CCPV, Table 8, and Table 10 to show
success based on this.The volunteers counted for success should only come from planted species
table.
The wording in the vegetation summary section was revised to indicate that although Plot 2 has
a stem density of 445 stems/acre when including natural recruits, hickory (Carya sp.) was not
included on the approved planting list, and therefore, Plot 2 does not meet MY3 success criteria.
Table 8 indicates planted and total stem density,and Table 10 indicates"approved"stem density.
3. Table 1. Overall assets. Please update final numbers to show out 3 significant digits (5,293.334
and 0.655 WMU)to match the credit ledger on file.
The overall assets were updated to show 3 significant digits.
4. Table 2. Show supplemental plant and invasive treatment dates on this table.
Supplemental planting and invasive treatment dates were added to Table 2.
5. Table 13f. Check the W/D ratio on 33 riffle.
An error in processing was corrected on cross-section 33 riffle.
6. Cross section 9 (pool) shows BHR at 1.29 but there don't appear to be signs of degradation (it
looks like aggradation between baseline and MY1). Check that number and revise if necessary
and/or explain this in the response.
This cross-section aggraded between MYO and MY1 but appears to have stabilized since. There
was an error in processing(the wrong TOB elevation was used).This has been corrected, resulting
in a BHR of<1.
1101 Haynes St.,Suite 211 • Raleigh,NC 27604•www.restorationsystems.com• Ph 919.755.9490• Fx 919.755.9492

7. XS-26 and XS-27 footnote states that riffle degradation and pool deposition is natural, but DMS
does not agree. Some aggradation is expected from construction on riffles, and degradation in
pools as a general statement. It would be better to explain what RS thinks occurred here and/or
why.
The degradation in XS-26 is likely a result of upstream land-use causing more direct, flashy flows
during heavy rain events prior to the streambed fully settling post-construction. The majority of
the degradation occurred between MVO and MY1, and MY2 and MY3 data are virtually the same.
This indicates stability, although RS will continue to monitor this reach for additional degradation
through the remainder of the monitoring period. XS-27 aggradation occurred shortly after
construction, likely from fines being flushed out of riffle bed material upstream and settling in this
lower energy reach of stream. Virtually no additional aggradation has occurred since MY1, and
the pool appears to have stabilized. The notes on these cross-sections were revised for clarity.
8. GW gage 1 is missing the label that includes#continuous days and % hydroperiod like the other
graphs.
The label was added to the graph.
9. Provide benthic score data as compared to pre-condition benthics in a table if possible.
A benthic summary table was added in the Stream Summary section on page 8.
10. Provide soil temperature dates to show when the temperature reached 41 degrees in each
monitoring year.
The documented soil temperatures and dates were added to the footnotes on the "Summary of
Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year"table.
Digital Review-
- Please include the veg transect data used to create Table 9.
This excel sheet was added to the digital submittal.
- The figure for GWG 1 does not include the percentage growing season callout.
The label was added to the graph.
- Please include a figure displaying the 30-70th percentiles and observed precipitation and include
these data in the digital submittal.
This figure is included in Appendix E and the digital submittal.
Page 2 of 2

Heron Year 3, 2021 Executive Summary
General Notes
• No encroachment was identified in Year 3
• No evidence of nuisance animal activity (i.e., beaver, heavy deer browsing, etc.)was observed.
Site Maintenance Report(2021)
Invasive Species Work Maintenance work
9/07/2021,09/10/2021, 10/07/2021 04/08/2021
Johnson Grass, Privet,Tree-of-Heaven, Planted Bareroot Hardwoods within the
Multi-flora Rose,Japanese Knotweed,
Catttail and Fescue proposed area on the monitoring report
Streams
• All streams are functioning as designed,and no stream areas of concern were observed during
Year 3 (2021) monitoring. Stream morphology data is available in Appendix D.
• In accordance with the monitoring schedule, Year 3 (2021) benthic macroinvertebrate
sampling occurred on May 11, 2021. See the table below for a summary of benthic
macroinvertebrate results. Year 3 (2021) results and habitat forms are in Appendix F.
Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data by Year
Preconstruction Year 3(2021) Year 5(2023) Year 7(2025)
Sampling #EPT Biotic #EPT Biotic #EPT Biotic #EPT Biotic
Station Taxa Index Taxa Index Taxa Index Taxa Index
UT-1 0 7.94 2 8.11
UT-5 0 7.40 0 8.85
Wetlands
• Six of six groundwater gauges met success for the Year 3 (2021) monitoring period. Wetland
hydrology data is in Appendix E.
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year Soil Temperatures/Date Bud Monitoring Period Used for 10 Percent of
Burst Documented Determining Success Monitoring Period
2019 (Year 1) March 28,2019* March 28 October 22 21 days
(209 days)
2020(Year 2) March 2,2020# March 2-October 22 23 days
(234 days)
2021 (Year 3) March 1,2021' March 1-October 22 24 days
(236 days)
*Based on documented bud burst and soil temperature of 50.06°F on March 28,2019.
Based on bud burst documented March 2,2020 and soil temperature of 46.82°F on March 1,2020.
^Based on bud burst documented on March 1,2021.The soil temperature logger was damaged and stopped recording February
16, 2021, however at the time of the failure,the soil temperature had dropped below 41°F just twice in 2021 (January 5th and
31st)and exceeded thereafter.
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Executive Summary
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Groundwater Hydrology Data
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season(Percentage)
Gauge Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Year 1(2019) Year 2(2020) Year 3(2021)
(2022) (2023) (2024) (2025)
1 Yes/33 days Yes/23 days Yes/46 days
(15.8%) (9.8%) (19.5%)
2 Yes/26 days Yes/27 days Yes/47 days
(12.4%) (11.5%) (19.9%)
3 Yes/35 days Yes/28 days Yes/36 days
(16.7%) (12.0%) (15.2%)
4 Yes/69 days Yes/51 days Yes/60 days
(33.0%) (21.8%) (25.4%)
5 Yes/52 days Yes/45 days Yes/50 days
(24.9%) (19.2%) (21.2%)
6 Yes/54 days Yes/46 days Yes/52 days
(25.8%) (19.7%) (22.0%)
Vegetation Summary
Measurements of the 14 permanent vegetation plots resulted in an average of 411 approved stems/acre
excluding livestakes. All plots met success criteria except permanent plots 2, 10, and 14 which were each
one stem short of meeting target goals. Additionally, all six temporary transects met success criteria
resulting in an average of 445 stems/acre, including natural recruits.The sitewide average for all 20 plots,
including natural recruits for temporary transects, was 421 stems/acre. Year 3 (2021) vegetation data is
included in Tables 8-10 (Appendix C).
Site Permitting/Monitoring Activity and Reporting History
Data Collection Completion
Activity or Deliverable
Complete or Delivery
Technical Proposal (RFP No. 16-006990) January 11,2017 January 11,2017
Institution Date(NCDMS Contract No. 100014) -- May 22,2017
404 Permit -- October 10,2018
Mitigation Plan -- July 2018
Construction Plans -- July 17,2018
Site Construction November 27,2018-
February 11,2019
Planting -- February 21,2019
As-built Baseline Stream Data Collection February 25-26,2019 --
As-built Baseline Vegetation Data Collection February 25,2019 --
As-built Baseline Monitoring(MYO) February-March 2019 May 2019
Monitoring Year 1(2019) Stream Data Collection August 13-14,2019 --
Monitoring Year 1(2019)Vegetation Data Collection September 30,2019 --
Monitoring Year 1(MY1) March-October 2019 November 2019
Monitoring Year 2 (2020) Stream Data Collection May 16-24,2020 --
Monitoring Year 2 (2020)Vegetation Data Collection July 1-6,2020 --
Monitoring Year 2 (MY2) March-October 2020 January 2021
Monitoring Year 3 (2021) Stream Data Collection February 16,2021 --
Monitoring Year 3 (2021)Vegetation Data Collection July-October,2021 --
Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) January-October 2021 December 2021
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Executive Summary
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

FINAL MONITORING REPORT
2021 (Year 3)
HERON STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
DMS Project ID No. 100014
Full Delivery Contract No. 7192
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01471
DWR No. 17-0290
RFP No. 16-006990
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002
Data Collection: January 2021—October 2021
Submission: December 2021
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
Prepared by:
[Ea
And
RESTORATION
SYSTEMS I LLC
Axiom Environmental. Inc.
Restoration Systems, LLC Axiom Environmental, Inc.
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact: Worth Creech Contact: Grant Lewis
919-755-9490(phone) 919-215-1693 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)
December 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 2
1.1 Project Goals&Objectives 2
1.2 Project Background 4
1.3 Project Components and Structure 4
1.4 Success Criteria 5
2.0 METHODS 6
2.1 Monitoring 6
3.0 REFERENCES 9
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Background Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5H. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
Appendix C. Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10. Approved Vegetation Totals
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 11A-G. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12A-G. Baseline Stream Data Summary(Substrate, Bed, Bank,and Hydrologic Containment
Parameter Distributions)
Tables 13A-G. Monitoring Data-Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross-
sections)
Tables 14A-G. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-section Plots
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Tables 15A-J. Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 16. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 17. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Figure E-1.30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Appendix F. Benthic Data
Benthic Results
Habitat Dataforms
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Table of Contents
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (Site).
1.1 Project Goals&Objectives
Project goals were based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report (NCEEP 2009)
and on-site preconstruction data collection of channel morphology and function observed during field
investigations. The Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030002050050. The RBRP
report documents benthic ratings vary between "Fair" and "Good-Fair" possibly due to cattle, dairy, and
poultry operations. The project is not located in a Regional or Local Watershed Planning Area; however,
RBRP goals addressed by project activities are as follows with Site specific information following the RBRP
goals in parenthesis.
1. Reduce and control sediment inputs (sediment input reduction of 67.3 tons/year);
2. Reduce and manage nutrient inputs (livestock removed from streams, elimination of fertilizer
application, installation of marsh treatment areas; and a direct reduction of 893.2 pounds of
nitrogen and 47.0 pounds of phosphorus per year);
Site specific mitigation goals and objectives were developed through the use of North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method (NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of
preconstruction and reference stream systems at the Site (NC SFAT 2015 and NC WFAT 2010) (see Table
1).
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Table of Contents
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 1. Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives
Targeted Functions Goals Objectives Compatibility of Success Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow(Floodplain Access) • Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows
• Attenuate flood flow across the • BHR not to exceed 1.2
and restore jurisdictional wetlands
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation Site. • Document four overbank events in separate monitoring years
• Plant woody riparian buffer
Floodplain Access • Minimize downstream flooding • Livestock excluded from the easement
(4) p • Remove livestock
to the maximum extent possible. • Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer • Deep rip floodplain soils to reduce compaction and increase soil surface
• Connect streams to functioning • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
roughness
(4) Microtopography wetland systems. • Conservation Easement recorded
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement
(3)Stream Stability • Cross-section measurements indicate a stable channel with cobble/gravel
substrate
(4) Channel Stability
• Construct channels with proper pattern,dimension,and longitudinal profile • Visual documentation of stable channels and structures
• Increase stream stability within
• Remove livestock • BHR not to exceed 1.2
the Site so that channels are • Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate • ER of 1.4 or greater
Sediment Transport neither aggrading nor degrading.
(4) p • Plant woody riparian buffer • < 10%change in BHR and ER in any given year
• Livestock excluded from the easement
• Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(1)WATER QUALITY
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation • Remove livestock and reduce agricultural land/inputs
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration • Install marsh treatment areas
• Remove direct nutrient and
Thermoregulation • Plant woody riparian buffer • Livestock excluded from the easement
(3) g pollutant inputs from the Site and
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams • Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
(2) Indicators of Stressors reduce contributions to • Provide surface roughness through deep ripping/plowing • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
downstream waters.
Wetland Particulate Change • Restore overbank flooding by establishing proper channel dynamics
Wetland Physical Change • Cessation of municipal land application
(1) HABITAT
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3)Substrate
(3)Stream Stability • Construct stable channels with cobble/gravel substrate • Cross-section measurement indicate a stable channel with cobble/gravel
(3) In-Stream Habitat • Plant woody riparian buffer to provide organic matter and shade substrate
• Improve instream and stream- • Construct new channel at historic floodplain elevation to restore overbank flows • Visual documentation of stable channels and in-stream structures.
(2)Stream-side Habitat
side habitat. and plant woody riparian buffer • Attain Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
(3)Stream-side Habitat • Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation easement • Attain Vegetation Success Criteria
(3)Thermoregulation • Restore/enhance jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to Site streams • Conservation Easement recorded
Wetland Landscape Patch Structure
Wetland Vegetation Composition
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) page 3
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

1.2 Project Background
The Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site(hereafter referred to as the"Site") encompasses a 17.64-
acre easement along warm water, unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch and unnamed tributaries to
South Fork Cane Creek. The Site is located approximately 4 miles southeast of Snow Camp and 4.5 miles
north of Silk Hope in southern Alamance County near the Chatham County line (Figure 1, Appendix A).
Prior to construction, Site land use consisted of disturbed forest and agricultural land used for livestock
grazing and hay production. Livestock had unrestricted access to Site streams, which had been cleared,
dredged of cobble substrate, straightened, trampled by livestock, eroded vertically and laterally, and
received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from stream banks and adjacent pastures.
Approximately 62 percent of the stream channel had been degraded contributing to sediment export from
the Site resulting from mechanical processes such as livestock hoof shear. In addition, streamside
wetlands were cleared and drained by channel downcutting and land uses. Preconstruction Site
conditions resulted in degraded water quality, a loss of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient and sediment
retention, and unstable channel characteristics(loss of horizontal flow vectors that maintain pools and an
increase in erosive forces to channel bed and banks). Site restoration activities restored riffle-pool
morphology, aided in energy dissipation, increased aquatic habitat, stabilized channel banks, and greatly
reduced sediment loss from channel banks.
1.3 Project Components and Structure
Proposed Site restoration activities generated 5293 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 0.66 Wetland
Mitigation Units (WMUs) as the result of the following.
• 4068 linear feet of Priority I stream restoration
• 1184 linear feet of stream enhancement(Level I)
• 1090 linear feet of stream enhancement(Level II)
• 0.35 acre of riparian wetland restoration
• 0.61 acre of riparian wetland enhancement
Additional activities that occurred at the Site included the following.
• Installation of six marsh treatment areas throughout the Site.
• Fencing the entire conservation easement by leaving some pre-existing fencing, removing fencing,
and installing additional fencing.
• Planting 12.05 acres of the Site with 15,625 stems (planted species and densities by zone are
included in Table 7 [Appendix C]).
Deviations from the construction plans included realignment of UT 1B (adding 20 linear feet to the
alignment) due to conflicts with a gas line crossing. The realignment resulted in the reduction of a log
vane and alterations to pipe configurations within the crossing. Gas line realignment also affected the
length of UT 2 in its lower reaches (shortening the Restoration reach). UT 2 also has minor deviations in
the enhancement II reach due to profile elevation alterations to tie to the invert of UT 1B. These profile
alterations were included in construction plans, but not included in table updates of the detailed plan.
Profile alterations resulted in the Enhancement(level II)/Restoration initiation point migrating upstream,
and thus the length of the Enhancement (Level II) reach (UT 2A) decreased by 39 feet, and the length of
the restoration reach (UT 2B) increased by 17 feet.
Minor easement deviations after construction plan development resulted in some stationing changes,
most notable at the upper reaches of UT 1A (adding 5 linear feet to the alignment) and UT 8A & UT 8B
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) page 4
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

(reducing the alignments bya total of 4 linear feet). The easement variations also affected channel lengths
across gas lines,which do not generate mitigation credit. Eight log cross-vanes were not constructed due
to contact with bed rock, or conflicts with the gas line. In addition, a marsh treatment area was added to
the right bank of UT 6 at a draw that was concentrating surface drainage and scouring the valley walls.
No other deviations of significance occurred between construction plans and the as-built condition. In
addition, no issues have arisen since construction occurred.
Site design was completed in July 2018. Construction started on November 27, 2018 and ended within a
final walkthrough on February 11, 2019. The Site was planted on February 21, 2019. Completed project
activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background information are
summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A).
1.4 Success Criteria
Project success criteria have been established per the October 24, 2016 NC Interagency Review Team
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Monitoring and success
criteria relate to project goals and objectives. From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and
objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by restoration activities without direct measurement.
Other goals and objectives will be considered successful upon achieving success criteria. The following
table summarizes Site success criteria.
Success Criteria
Streams
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High-Water Mark(OHWM),per RGL 05-05.
• Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days. Surface water
monitoring gauges will be installed in the upper third of all intermittent channels,unless otherwise requested
by the IRT.
• Bank height ratio(BHR)cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section.
• Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be no less than 2.2 for E- and C-type channels at any measured riffle cross-
section. Note: B-type channels may have an ER less than 1.4.
• BHR and ER at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10%from baseline condition
during any given monitoring period.
• The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards shall be met through four
separate bankfull events,occurring in separate years,during the monitoring years 1-7.
Wetland Hydrology
• Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 10 percent of the
growing season, during average climatic conditions. Note: Soil temperature for growing season
establishment will be measured daily utilizing a continuous monitoring soil probe. Soil temperature will be
measured from mid-February through the end of April (at a minimum).
Vegetation
• Within planted portions of the site,a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum
of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at
year 7.
• Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5,and 10 feet in height at year 7 in each plot.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the
site; natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case-by-case basis.
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) page 5
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

2.0 METHODS
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in this plan follow the October 24, 2016 NC
Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports of the data
collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 31 of each
monitoring year data is collected. The monitoring schedule is summarized in the following table.
Monitoring Schedule
Resource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Streams X X X X X
Wetlands X X X X X X X
Vegetation X X X X X
Macroinvertebrates X X X
Visual Assessment X X X X X X X
Report Submittal X X X X X X X
2.1 Monitoring
The monitoring parameters are summarized in the following table.
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) page 6
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Monitoring Summary
Stream Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Stream Profile Full longitudinal survey As-built(unless otherwise All restored stream channels Graphic and tabular data.
required)
Total of 37 cross-sections on restored
Stream Dimension Cross-sections Years 1,2,3,5,and 7 channels Graphic and tabular data.
Areas of concern to be depicted on a plan view
Visual Assessments Yearly All restored stream channels figure with a written assessment and photograph
Channel Stability of the area included in the report.
Only if instability is documented during
Additional Cross-sections Yearly Graphic and tabular data.
monitoring
Continuous monitoring surface water gauges Continuous recording through Surface water data for each monitoring period as
Stream Hydrology Total of 10 surface water gauges
and/or trail camera monitoring period depicted in Figures 10A-10D.
Total of 10 surface water gauges:
Continuous monitoring surface water gauges Continuous recording through One gauge on UT1,2,3,6 and 8. Surface water data for each monitoring period
and/or trail camera monitoring period Two gauges on UT 5.
Bankfull Events
Three gauges on UT 7
Visual/Physical Evidence Continuous through monitoring All restored stream channels Visual evidence,photo documentation,and/or
period rain data.
Pre-construction,Years 3,5,and 7
"Qual 4"method described in Standard Results*will be presented on a site-by-site basis
Benthic Operating Procedures for Collection and during the"index period" 2 stations(one at the lower end of UT1 and to include a list of taxa collected,an
referenced in Small Streams
Macroinvertebrates Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and one at the lower end of UTS) enumeration of Ephemeroptera,Plecoptera,and
Biocriteria Development(NCDWQ
Version 5.0(NCDWR 2016) 2009) Tricopetera taxa as well as Biotic Index.
Wetland Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
As-built,Years 1,2,3,4,5,6,and Soil temperature at the beginning of each
Wetland Restoration Groundwater gauges 7 throughout the year with the 6 gauges spread throughout restored monitoring period to verify the start of the
growing season defined as March wetlands growing season,groundwater and rain data for
1-October 22 each monitoring period
Vegetation Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Permanent vegetation plots 0.0247 acre(100
Vegetation square meters)in size;CVS-EEP Protocol for As-built,Years 1,2,3,5,and 7 14 plots spread across the Site Species,height,planted vs.volunteer,
Recording Vegetation,Version 4.2(Lee et al. stems/acre
establishment and 2008)
vigor
Annual random vegetation plots,0.0247 acre
(100 square meters)in size
As-built,Years 1,2,3,5,and 7 4 plots randomly selected each year Species and height
*Benthic Macroinvertebrate sampling data will not be tied to success criteria; however,the data may be used as a tool to observe positive gains to in-stream
habitat
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) page 7
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December2021

Stream Summary
All streams are functioning as designed, and no stream areas of concern were observed during year 3
(2021) monitoring. Stream morphology data is available in Appendix D.
In accordance with the monitoring schedule, year 3 (2021) benthic macroinvertebrate sampling occurred
on May 11, 2021. See the table below for a summary of benthic macroinvertebrate results. Year 3 (2021)
results and habitat forms are in Appendix F.
Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data by Year
Preconstruction Year 3(2021) Year 5(2023) Year 7(2025)
Sampling #EPT Biotic #EPT Biotic #EPT Biotic #EPT Biotic
Station Taxa Index Taxa Index Taxa Index Taxa Index
UT-1 0 7.94 2 8.11
UT-5 0 7.40 0 8.85
Wetland Summary
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Soil Temperatures/Date Bud Monitoring Period Used for 10 Percent of
Year Burst Documented Determining Success Monitoring Period
2019(Year 1) March 28,2019* March 28 October 22 21 days
(209 days)
2020(Year 2) March 2,2020# March 2-October 22 23 days
(234 days)
2021(Year 3) March 1,2021' March 1-October 22 24 days
(236 days)
*Based on documented bud burst and soil temperature of 50.06°F on March 28,2019.
Based on bud burst documented March 2,2020 and soil temperature of 46.82°F on March 1,2020.
^Based on bud burst documented on March 1,2021.The soil temperature logger was damaged and stopped recording February
16, 2021, however at the time of the failure,the soil temperature had dropped below 41°F just twice in 2021 (January 5th and
31st)and exceeded thereafter.
All six groundwater gauges met success criteria for the year 3 (2021) monitoring period (Appendix E).
Vegetation Summary
During quantitative vegetation sampling, 14 sample plots (10-meter by 10-meter) were installed within
the Site as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2(Lee et al.
2008). Year 3 (2021) measurements also included six random sample plots (50-meter by 2-meter).
Measurements of all 20 plots resulted in an average of 421 approved stems/acre excluding livestakes.
Additionally,all plots met success criteria except permanent plots 2, 10,and 14 which were each one stem
short of meeting target goals (Tables 8-10, Appendix C). Plot 2 stem density was 445 stems/acre when
considering natural recruits, however, hickory(Carya sp.)was not included on the approved planting plan,
so therefore, Plot 2 did not meet success criteria.
Supplemental planting of 3.87 acres was conducted in 2021 in previously identified areas of poor growth
rates or vigor using 1,290 plants to improve the Site's overall stem density. These areas are identified on
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) page 8
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C (Appendix B) and are outside vegetation plots. Planting occurred at a rate of
approximately 330 bare root stems per acre of the following species: river birch (Betula nigra),green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red bud (Cercis canadensis), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis),white oak(Quercus alba),water oak(Quercus nigra),willow oak(Quercus phellos),
and red oak (Quercus rubra).
3.0 REFERENCES
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik,J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson, J.B.
Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet,S.D. Roberts,and T.R.Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation.
Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2014. Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Monitoring Guidelines. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality(NCDWQ). 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
Available: https:// https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-
planning/water-resource-plans/cape-fear-2005 [December 8, 2016]. North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Version 5.0). (online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Qua l ity/Environmental%20Sciences/BAU/NCDW RMacroi n
vertebrate-SOP-February%202016 final.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2009. Small Streams Biocriteria Development.
Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=2d54ad23-0345-4d6e-
82fd-04005f48eaa7&gro u p ld=38364
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009 (online). Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=864e82e8-725c-415e-8ed9-
c72dfcb55012&grou pld=60329
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM) User Manual.Version 2.1.
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). N.C. Wetland Assessment
Method (NC WAM) User Manual.Version 4.1.
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) page 9
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Schafale, M.P.and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified Tennessee
Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest Hydrology and
Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Pub1.167.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [August 2016].
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) page 10
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Appendix A
Background Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100015) Appendix
Major Hill Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits: Heron Site
Mitigation
Stream Existing Restoration Restoration or
Plan Mitigation Mitigation
Reach ID Stationing/ Footage/ Footage/ Footage/ Restoration Level Restoration Ratio Credits Comment
Wetland Type Acreage Acreage Equivalent
Acreage
UT 1A (-)0+05 to 04+70 475 470 475 Enhancement(Level I) 475 1.5:1 317
856 57- 57 If of UT1 is located outside of
UT 18 04+70 to 13+26 753 836 856 Restoration 799 1:1 799 the conservation easement and
therefore is not generating credit
UT 2A 00+00 to 03+04 304 343 304 Enhancement(Level II) 304 2.5:1 122
UT 2B 03+04 to 03+67 19 46 63 Restoration 63 1:1 63
UT 3 00+00 to 02+79 269 279 279 Restoration 279 1:1 279
UT 4 00+00 to 04+50 485 450 450 Restoration 450 1:1 450
952 52- 52 If of UT5 is located outside of
UT 5A 00+00 to 09+52 422 952 952 Restoration 900 1:1 900 the conservation easement and
therefore is not generating credit
UT 5B 09+52 to 14+90 538 538 538 Enhancement(Level II) 538 2.5:1 215
UT 6 00+00 to 07+81 683 781 781 Restoration 781 1:1 781
41 If of the UT7 restoration reach
UT 7A 00+00 to 02+32 0 232 232 Restoration 232-41= 1:1 191 is located outside of the
191 conservation easement and
therefore is not generating credit
55 If of the UT7 enhancement
UT 7B 02+32 to 09+96 764 764 764 Enhancement(Level I) 764-55= 1.5:1 473 reach is located outside of the
709 conservation easement and
therefore is not generating credit
UT8A 00+04 to 06+09 549 607 605 Restoration 605 1:1 605
UT 8B 06+09 to 08+57 248 250 248 Enhancement(Level II) 248 2.5:1 99
Wetland R Riparian 0.35 0.35 Restoration 0.35 1:1 0.35 Wetland Restoration
Riverine
Wetland E Riparian 0.61 0.61 0.61 Enhancement 0.61 2:1 0.31 Wetland Enhancement
Riverine
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendix
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits: Heron Site (continued)
Length&Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level Stream(linear footage) Riparian Wetland(acreage)
Restoration 4068* 0.35
Enhancement(Level I) 1184** --
Enhancement(Level II) 1090 --
Enhancement -- 0.61
*An additional 150 linear feet of stream restoration is located outside of the conservation easement and is
therefore not included in this total or in mitigation credit calculations.
**An additional 55 linear feet of stream enhancement(level I) is located outside of the conservation easement
and is therefore not included in this total or in mitigation credit calculations.
Overall Assets Summary
Asset Category Overall Credits
Stream 5293.334
Riparian Riverine Wetland 0.655
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendix
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History: Heron Site
Data Collection Completion
Activity or Deliverable
Complete or Delivery
Technical Proposal (RFP No. 16-006990) January 11,2017 January 11,2017
Institution Date(NCDMS Contract No. 100014) -- May 22,2017
404 Permit -- October 10,2018
Mitigation Plan -- July 2018
Construction Plans -- July 17,2018
Site Construction November 27,2018-February
11,2019
Planting -- February 21,2019
As-built Baseline Stream Data Collection February 25-26,2019 --
As-built Baseline Vegetation Data Collection February 25,2019 --
As-built Baseline Monitoring(MYO) February-March 2019 May 2019
Monitoring Year 1(2019)Stream Data Collection August 13-14,2019 --
Monitoring Year 1(2019)Vegetation Data Collection September 30,2019 --
Monitoring Year 1(MY1) March-October 2019 November 2019
Monitoring Year 2(2020)Stream Data Collection May 16-24,2020 --
Monitoring Year 2(2020)Vegetation Data Collection July 1-6,2020 --
Monitoring Year 2(MY2) March-October 2020 November 2020
Monitoring Year 3(2021)Stream Data Collection February 16,2021 --
Supplemental Planting -- April 8,2021
Invasive Species Treatment -- September 7—October 7,2021
Monitoring Year 3(2021)Vegetation Data Collection July-October,2021 --
Monitoring Year 3(MY3) January-October 2021 December 2021
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendix
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 3. Project Contacts Table: Heron Site
Full Delivery Provider Construction Contractor
Restoration Systems Land Mechanic Designs
1101 Haynes Street,Suite 211 780 Landmark Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Willow Spring, NC 27592
Worth Creech 919-755-9490 Lloyd Glover 919-639-6132
Designer Planting Contractor
Axiom Environmental, Inc. Carolina Silvics, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue 908 Indian Trail Road
Raleigh, NC 27603 Edenton, NC 27932
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693 Mary-Margaret McKinney 252-482-8491
Construction Plans and Sediment and As-built Surveyor
Erosion Control Plans K2 Design Group
Sungate Design Group, PA 5688 US Highway 70 East
915 Jones Franklin Road Goldsboro, NC 27534
Raleigh, NC 27606 John Rudolph 919-751-0075
Joshua G. Dalton, PE 919-859-2243
Baseline&Monitoring Data Collection
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
Table 4. Project Attribute Table: Heron Site
Project Information
Project Name Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Project County Alamance County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres) 17.64
Project Coordinates(latitude&latitude) 35.8539552N,-79.3634582w
Planted Area(acres) 12.05
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
Project River Basin Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project(14-digit) 03030002050050
NCDWR Sub-basin for Project 03-06-04
Project Drainage Area (acres) 14 to 96
Percentage of Project Drainage Area that is
Impervious <2%
CGIA Land Use Classification Managed Herbaceous Cover& Mixed Upland Hardwoods
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendix
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 4. Project Attribute Table: Heron Site(Continued)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT1 UT2 UT 3 UT4 UT 5 UT6 UT 7 UT 8
Length of reach (linear feet) 1155 363 269 485 907 683 202 1221
Valley Classification&Confinement Alluvial,confined
Drainage Area (acres) 96.4 7.1 11.7 17.2 38.1 14.1 20.9 30.8
NCDWR Stream ID Score 30.5 22.5 28.5 33.5 27.5 23.5 24.5 27.5
Perennial/ Perennial/ Perennial/
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Perennial Intermittent Perennial
Intermittent Intermittent Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS-V, NSW
Existing Morphological Description (Rosgen 1996) Cg5 Gf5 Cg5 Eg5 Eg5 Cg5 Cg5 Eg5
Proposed Stream Classification (Rosgen 1996) C/E 4 Gf 5 C/E 4 C/E 4 C/E 4 C/E 4 Eb4 C/E 4
Existing Evolutionary Stage(Simon and Hupp 1986) III/IV I/III/IV III/IV II/III II/III III/IV III/IV II/III
Alamance silt loam,Georgeville silt loam,Goldston slaty silt loam, Herndon silt loam,Orange silt loam,
Underlying Mapped Soils Worsham sandy loam, Local Alluvial Land,
Drainage Class Well-drained,well-drained,well-drained,well-drained,well drained,poorly-drained,poorly-drained
Hydric Soil Status Nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, hydric,hydric,respectively
Valley Slope 0.0074 0.0270 0.0222 0.0244 0.0358 0.0300 0.0255 0.0218
FEMA Classification NA
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont Alluvial Forest/Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover(Site) 43%forest,55%agricultural land,<2% low density residential/impervious surface
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover(Cedarock
65%forest,30%agricultural land,<5%low density residential/impervious surface
Reference Channel)
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation <5%
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendix
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2, 2A-D. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5H. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photographs
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

( _ ,. .j,_ -e ; ;,-/;;.') .44 ' - -.- . ._ ,_ !. 0 .-_.1 ji) .1 -4e.... ,-..\.7;•-:.:dtr:.'.__1 S'..5\_ 11\‘"71,..„ 1 t‘....\31 [-.. !1 ....1. "......., _ ) - _. ( '
--J,' ,.,.,,-.• ,.'•;:';,,;/:-/:, A,' ____ . ...-... ...:;" --N ' Iti:„k-,
1 t. ..-- -max
•
•
-+ ' !` -■■.OWNPit. - YS73i1 _- `- - e ` �� / y� r •G
/o,,,r,i1 p c - - -i1 --. 1.
,001i0■ � aM,ilo A v l 566 .\+ c T R a►+ ' ' Axiom Er/
YN�Jn7t5ef1181 Irrc.
/ \ . , , , • 1 \
al ter 11i ;,, \ ��
'`• � a na Prepared for:
$ - V,Milliii, I t"-----.--.,_,_..... ..- '. _ :
RS
......,r
„...._ __.
,. .,.
, ...........
_ ,,,, . .__ , ,
. , __.__ .... , __:_,„
.....„...
'._ .-J . C J� (� •'rf'y r li �� .N` , ram ` ` ' -
�`-J 5 z) ' ii °
1 {1t s L--r '`-, /i RESTORATION
�r -' / �- - �.; t . / 2 SYSTEMS I LLC
aoci ,i-cubed , r ., -. O)e.
• _ xsyi �, , 1 ' .0 Project:
al-
.,;. ...i,. . .
, . _, .K 562 ---- -',,
-,. r_
uriGaf �rc 1 - -Y 4--.' 1 - ', `� +- «','° 7 ,� �� _ I HERON STREAM
,,
y . 7 AND WETLAND
f , 4' , �,' `, r ( -- - _I MITIGATION SITE
4'.- • _4,________.:___). ,.--7,- -' N',[\ -._-, - •,..,•J t . _
'-L._.-•-'": '..-` ' \ - . .-' 1C,LI %cm/ -..--'- -I";\\1\* -'-'-----
•
CP
J :;; -}r �... �, •"�c.t, ��} 4 - I.
. Alamance County, NC
.r'�l� III it -5- -ti. :� 1 _
1. F F mail
�'� _ �� r• I Title:
�GreensboroCh ` u , rt_ ti- / �
..r._,4
•
ape/Hill R° d �`` �� . ''t \L • r ti�ddll y
-Snow�Camp - ; - , • .. �+�- ( .- \ PROJECT
j _ - maw ;- r _: , ) • i '�1 1.
\_, Y , 1 i as �+ :,- I LOCATION
_ r Cr
�l `-j 'i35; '): . l`"•.,gat :::.-i! `' r : --
f _ ; ��, .�6�'p VQ e ice- �,.
cn ▪ = /� r''Y' ' r - c / r f
\—n j; f �-7 — — — — - — e C.HATHAM CO Drawn by:
0 way•-- ▪ .- --1 , ' r-- -------- - . - . I
KRJ
'i \: . �, ,
ro j ' i - _ ' // �Q . Date:
a—, ='' , ':� soot Fork ch I DEC 2017
F3t� t ,' :3 -�y1573 Scale:
' '�,� . ' V _ . '- 1 1:20000
_ .:ram
.-• d - �-- — i / Project No.:
,1 3 • ti �- f - _ .stta: ram. / Directions to the Site from Raleigh:
n st . •. 17-008
f I - �� s , \- ),� '`� / - Take US-64 West out of Raleigh and travel 25 miles,
y; - - Take exit 381 and turn right onto NC-87 N,
) 'C J• -,,�. --('-•. y P - ���' - After 5 miles, take a left onto Castle Rock Farm Road,
• ;, �' •' =6i~ . •' " ` ' ) i .� -- - 4�. - After 5.8 miles, turn left onto Greenhill Road, FIGURE
R —�- ___7 �•� - -� .�• - �;/ - After 1.2 miles, turn left onto Lindley Mill Road,
, a. ro )• _ _ "��l Q1 - - After 0.5 mile, turn right onto Bethel South Fork Road,
_ _- j r`• -_---- � i3� �• ¢r - Site can be accessed from both sides of Bethel South Fork Road.
�}._�` I f ' �, ," - Site Latitude, Longitude 35.853955, -79.363458 (NAD83/WGS84) 1
/ Copyright:©.2013 National Geographic BM / `� j_
i 6' \ SMk!'�- . r. Q pis
_ �� Soc�rety i-cubed, U.S.Geological Survey- L7 �� � fr. ti, ►.� /
�I - f' _, \ National Geospatial Program. Data t i . • 1`'' /
Refreshed October_2'017.L-_ -L.. �',-'-, r — ,r, USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Silk Hope and Crutchfield Crossroads, NC Quad)

; }x Z - ,
•
Figure -�- - 17,- _ ,_ `
.' . - x' .• h. 4k �"..� __ -,-,+ , - . tJ, YY 1. '.Sfi j` Axiom ERVKonmenial.Pm.
' x
•
coVV. .-,``''' r. ,.*,''-4 " �s Prepared for:
4.a ,' ' �
��. �• .,~ Figure
?.-4-711.-Izt-i-:-- i72150
-.k r' { RESTORATION
. 4=41101- ` �`O •, ` =BA SYSTEMS LLC
„� iti. .. . � • - QT-8B - --
s � �' • by �� xNp: . g Project:
II% .... _
. HERON STREAM
AND WETLAND
_� , - = _ MITIGATION SITE
_ _• } -...0 :,- -.. -ri t-taiw -r k, - - 4. --: .,� -- • _,._- Alamance County, NC
_ _ ' --.- E - r. , :v:A ;, -. ,' [. - Title:
,ty...5 .. - -"'LL:. - .
triii,
.-- I".\"'''.\."\- .\:1\
• ... y_x1r-f::: :_ r {��p_ "F"=h r CURRENT
•t _ ' _ 'y +� # T CONDITIONS
\ ' IC
► `, �,- _ PLAN VIEW
. , Y . i Ftigure2B _
..-0, i '. - - . '. ,-Av-f—L.-----zi.--,-1- -,.., ' \
. :- - -4---;7•-at..1 .._:. - 7.-, 1- -AW W 10 r R..111...,;• •.-. ... -. ...-
i _-=•7- ,A -A
..
� _ 4-- e _,. . i
.., . . . .._1.
� -y. „y •'- 7. �',•,.4.;1 YK: t _ �' Drawn by:
Ar
' rl i KRJ
• :: _• - _ R ` - Date:
, •• ` . ter, ►�,78 gr .. _ .:� y � 4 � APE Scale:
. = k .
5 = = Y,: - = Legend
�; ' ,i, i ? _* s Project No.:
•`� '� 17 008
g r.w r• e 4,'' R - - . - . - Easement = 17.64 ac
- - rL,
l r'• y'• -or. • ,ti ‘ - 11 Stream Restoration = 4068 ft
N.#:: - •. �--i3- ='- ` ` -'. 4-- Stream Enhancement (Level I) = 1184 ft
" �" __ __ FIGURE
kA r Y __ ` _ Stream Enhancement (Level II) = 1090 ft
7 - iliwojt,• �.' l" 1' 1`*•+ k Wetland Restoration = 0.35 ac
.-7-_ . I 'f • s.-. A ^� t ``. T 3 ` Wetland Enhancement = 0.61 ac 2
. ..
. Figure 2A ,4 . ,.._• - r am`_= 1. `"
Y '� L- .,.':��., `�, ' _` �_2 r ;``�1r ' . 0 250 500 1,000 1,500
.� f°) _ •._ - 4. Feet

- lir [ Z --- T!!rt-Gii-i .
4 •.f ..
<< ,�!iy ,. y ,1 Axiom Enrmonmeniai.rnc,
+ r. , ;t �.T,`, �h•� � Prepared for:
Y � •lia
ors. !� f'. e ■
y. ;, _ —
'�` , ,.;" _ • .s�• .. • z, -- '� �, ti RESTORATION
' _ ,' _ '+t SYSTEMS I LI_C
:�AO. `' f` 4 f •
• % _ ,� • _ t.a� ` �*Ul' •` u,r47+ ' ' Project:
\,. . ryeti ti2. -.{+`i..,_ �ti I
— �' _ .'r UT-2-B� " ems►•'.
` �' .� _. - •_ ;- "� - HERON STREAM
2 xs3 ;; '�' _ , :'• " _ ti AND WETLAND
16 30 r
` {, wi
: _ + _ ' • MITIGATION SITE
xS=9
,, \ �5y3 y.iC 'wit�'s r�
- t \ xsoo , - ,� W s.. at� Alamance County, NC
`A \ Asst � '�, ' _ _ ^ _ _
P�+ y
Ptr.,
.
,. _ } Title:
' eh .� I ~iY2 r5
F i! CURRENT
r +; w > CONDITIONS
` Tee ==y,� :4i:4.���, PLAN VIEW
Legend • >\\ �* ig'�.• t.„ , - .'.: "" �,' ' ;Y ��
e 1.
QEasement= 17.64 ac �� ;. :� ;, fi r' " • 4�
Stream Restoration = 4068 ft ; t. :� �� + :
Stream Enhancement(Level I) = 1184 ft i ` - "sivi..,....
�k :, 1� �-+ r_3 *' Drawn b
Stream Enhancement Level II = 1090 ft �• �' y
•
•
JMH
Ap:.' , :1.-- s Date:
Channel TOB :pia \ 3, '�`
— Wetland Restoration =0.35 acII\ ' 7 `� NOV 2021
Wetland Enhancement=0.61 ac `{, _ �{{'w-0 r ,'.
I ''ti� _ ';hi, ., .�_"ti Scale:
Vegetation Transects Meeting Success During MY3 (2021) i, ) r.F _� 1:1200
Cross Section i K; ,�1', 'te=r_ -ti' '' •
CVS Plots Meeting Success During MY3 (2021) \ •r-_• - g , ti `� Project No.:
CVS Plots Not Meeting Success During MY3 (2021) , ?I' 17 008
�� Replanting Areas 2021 1. '
-
0 Groundwater Gauge *,
A Stream Gauge \ - _• • _ FIGURE
I ❑ Benthic Sampling Location .
����� .r*—....
Marsh Treatment Area 2A
0 100 200 400 '"t
Feet :,.- ' ; ;
a,a, ' �. •S�'o 1 e^Cam;Di ? =o= e�-alrt star -o o ,C�llEe7° o © ,,Lg ,Mee,A oC�[3� sl 74
+

Z
Legend
Easement = 17.64 ac
- Stream Restoration = 4068 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level I) = 1184 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level II) = 1090 ft
Channel TOB
Wetland Enhancement = 0.61 ac
- Cross Section
Vegetation Transects Meeting Success During MY3 (2021)
CVS Plots Meeting Success During MY3 (2021)
CVS Plots Not Meeting Success During MY3 (2021)
Replanting Areas 2021
Stream Gauge
Benthic Sampling Location
Drop Structure
Marsh Treatment Area
0
100
200
400
Feet
a a
Axiom Ertemonmenial. Pnc,
Prepared for:
R F STORATIoN
SYSTEMS I TIC
Project:
HERON STREAM
AND WETLAND
MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, NC
Title:
CURRENT
CONDITIONS
PLAN VIEW
Drawn by:
JMH
Date:
NOV 2021
Scale:
1:1200
Project No.:
17-008
FIGURE
2B

= r.. r �:_
Legend ": • Z .
•
= Easement= 17.64 ac =sy,1 ,�. : _' y'i °7' '' '•�• �a� _ r�
Stream Restoration = 4068 ft Iw ' I.
I '' -'ar' - -- r �f
Stream Enhancement (Level I) = 1184 ft "�i ' - ..
r
s
Stream Enhancement (Level II) = 1090 ft , '¢'' i II N _-
1 r
Channel TOB z I
Axiom EnrKarlmenia Inc,
1 Wetland Restoration =0.35 ac N _ ''r
Wetland Enhancement= 0.61 ac �� r ��, ` ' ; i LL Prepared for:
\� yea• .}'r- '
Cross Section \xs°z� " '� _
O Groundwater Gauge _ L . �� ' y .
A Stream Gauge ,„ -' ", �-�^- k. y ',FR. ��. �. ;::*; `Y :. art ' ,,
\! ..yr .,f r,-.,•'� f�'.r. �• s,s' - •.y••• 15 •,, _4,Y _~�..--t ^{��' .-1 ar"f•' .1'.
Vegetation Transects MeetingSuccess DuringMY3 (2021) . �' = }'•:-
g f, 3r- � s-WP-.•
CVS Plots Meeting Success During MY3 (2021) . _
S`Z8� I 1'. * r .� �i-' ^v �" - � ' '-A ,4{ i-4 .•. ". RESTORATION
,.,� ti. .z, SYSTEMS I LI-C;
CVS Plots Not MeetingSuccess DuringMY3 (2021) `\ r. '� ` -=` ` 4' '' -�
�� Replanting Areas 2021 ; _ n-A' # r A'• .V •-- A' 1- :.''• • '' '1,: : x• •-y .01 4 Project:
• Rain Gauge and Soil Temperature Gauge i i „p . ,,` Na',.L_ r`•
.,.,.• ,...i- � P. '4 ate' :S'-'I'.. f� ,) .:1
1 J Drop Structure N. m '-� y �•. ' '' _ _ . ..:13 +'-' • ; c `'s'f .- • .1 r 1 i '' HERON STREAM
r����� Marsh Treatment Area ^ +'' - .,,, .: '� '-°C '' �r • '�, -r' , • :� • - , .+ '.'4.. .
Ale . _ .;; II.'It '�" _ 'I. ..' I A• - 4. •;': ' � , . . .' AND WETLAND
•• , �: ¢ •.;�;�� :;Y a s. • �, MITIGATION SITE
S
. '41%- _ :/I.' -i-n: - -• '. -$;* Mt/ ' ''' ••• — . .• .•4" -
' r I �;' ' Alamance County, NC
�. lli rr r '' "':,:'. Y ►s Title:
,.\ Y�/ %/ f`-� A _ •' "- .' '' ,•It. CURRENT
� .:ems �' -A^� '.r e�4' . ,. ,� CONDITIONS
11 a - • -- :e / • r .+ . • ;a l - PLAN VIEW
A po,4 S.V. ...,-: // r•-''' • -14-lek--1.:rie iii .4- ' '
r � — . _ • .r. _
J+,, , -i- F •./ •
s� �a
*. iQ -; -'�t ►. f + ti , _
� _. a Drawn by:
d
JMH�
-16;
4:1
cor •. _ ,
,
• . .. x, -' ', ..,. . : _i T r ro-"•1.--1 Date:
m
• NOV 2021
Scale:
' 1~
.ri
- a. — 4• - • ,- ,�s --'+�4 b
_ Project No.:� �. d 17-008
Vtai — •1 4,i, ' ...
* 1' ' ..... .... r; -'
T'_`y X•-•', A.: 7 =r , ��.` � ' • �' FIGURE
�,� S- 1, .. - • z.- a .
,ram .1, _ .�' ?s y 4
7 r� •fig- h _ yr Tlf:
4 _ � � r Ir • ;� r . . 2C
�� ' a7� P. r`' •t' , Jib ' ]�'
- 1M •• .' . fir - '„ �'''�. -. - - _ • 'ti. �f• - - .,
•
.,
. _ ., .
�- =� ' ' 0 125 250 500
f Feet

• �' y k7 .. . .. {.
• S
.iii.
. ..
,.. ,
. .
-t. -- : ,
__:„.
ir
. - , a.
• t a• A, r AxiomErterorimeroar Pnc,
.it r / I + .+, ••9r i
:14,4
l.
} ;,, i ' _ :- i a►� ` , ,; Prepared for:
1 Y r a • .., • PA, 1 '
�-•••ram - 'res III._ • r
r R r
i . - 1, -i _; -•* -- { _ -' `� „ y�'�r �•i T 1+ r 'L�}�.r- RESTORATION
- - ., •-.'4- =;k- —,.- ;haw - .'y 's - ' s - ?• SYSTEMS I i.�I_C
��► , �. 1- Sas '. +-' •f •i V`• 'fir r r ti - '� y::
Jt 11► r- i r y .. •
,.+• 3 Lam .4 .'r 4r' j.••
� r.,. - -...-- .1. - -4114
.t ' -.--'_ •�:"- n • •,` i. Pro ect:
�� ,�••,- •
•�` P - -fr- -it k ` - HERON STREAM
y. - .•_ •:t o sK Y t. �'lit �' , . _ 041i .. .f _...4k, sir ■,,e• . c!-- -1 1a:'.�` r " ` AND WETLAND
�:_ � �* a te'- ;:y �,� i r �' s.: -?' - , 1j_h• MITIGATION SITE
� Q �: fir = t r 7 a . ! .�. -h � T ' ` y 1. '
:br tR M � •j PI:-r - �• A. TrY.i T _- )4..A.
.a •' � �� r� ' ��' .4 '- �+Y-7:1% i ' ,rt r. i -.s . _, ,, '`I
+ y��^'' I .- W r s L,\ \ •- sus_ _() 14)1 y i^-
f _ �_' •'ti . (T \ - ��� Jam• ,y 1- .
,ram • .i , �3 .• Fs' , _ � i+
A ITT M'Y I " 14 .y.,_r. • �•.:• Alamance County, NC
•
•
•- -r3• ` —•.+.- ,:� T• ` { ,• IW 1, .\) - {F ,x .....
. •: .� .1
_ i - ;�.� " �r l • •- ro-_ _ , *.. •'' ~ t Title:
r� ., • • 1C •�, ''AIL
..• 1. --Z.'410.- ..:1;,*i. •r- • .'"%-. -- afr • CURRENT
y . r' �� Aw�•r �"' rtr` Y•. r.r 'r^"� ' r •! t^+ a•.. .V _4. '4t'r• ,� _ CONDITIONS
•
-_ Sa;- - • .�• --. - Y' r .-" �'.n. '- ,. • �r r. •""•-.• i - PLAN VIEW
...,.. - —-. - 41 - �.• i. (-j• - , •te r
• _• Drawn by:
• ''-.`, "` Legend JMH
r
w, ,y.� r •"a�•
�: •�- Date:
= Easement= 17.64 ac
'�• ' Stream Restoration = 4068 ft NOV 2021
Scale:
• Stream Enhancement(Level I) = 1184 ft 1:1000
.,. y . . Stream Enhancement(Level II) = 1090 ft Project No.:
- ,./. y �
ri t. Channel TOB 17-008
. . :.,• • ' Cross Section
+ . +, ...+- :i., ',_ - Drop Structure Stt
�. FIGURE
'"4 — �, - '. r, CVS Plots Meeting Success During MY3 (2021)
ri.:s, _A..t • •111.. \ _ .....c ,....".r,t 4 f.-'.,' -• . _ ..'g-,_,., n,,,-,.,.-. ,.`'. •-'-, ' -:"., ,4-_....r
CVS Plots Not Meeting Success During MY3 (2021)
r , '+ t =4 ` .. •..,.,,,,.f ', . , - ': *. .• -. ••. � Stream Gauge2D
-,_,6,7_
r K -r.-.
5„ ` r Tyy.11 0 75 150 300
r" ? 1•CI `; _
`.. ‘ t. "�w .• " �• - � - 4— ` .,s y Feet
T

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Heron
Planted Acreage 12.05
% of
Mapping CCPV Number of Combined Planted
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage
1. Bare Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
2B. Low Planted Stem Density Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
Total 0 0.00 0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor 0 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
Cumulative Total 0 0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage2 17.64
% of
Mapping CCPV Number of Combined Easement
Vegetation Category Definitions Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern4 None 1000 SF none 0 0.00 0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas3 None none none 0 0.00 0.0%
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are
those with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes
that are slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be
mapped, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of
risk factors by DMS such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating
extensive amounts of ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given
their extreme risk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology
scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the
point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.

Heron
MY-03 (2021)Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2021
Plot 1 Plot 2
�' a. r .
,. ate.- ow .-- • 4.
:r.w rr i -
..
., �,,: Jf 1
. . .� ti. sue
Plot 3 • P1',i ' 0; ``T 6 Plot 4
l Y } -* k •� Rr f:1T- # ','_• ,
iilre
r , i.p0 Y`a
/_ .:?'- _,•;•,-i. ; • , , .--4,' .t.,,
,. i; C:i ;: .. yr .•
Plot 5 Plot 6
I.
„trio
•
Ill'
4
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC

Heron
MY-03 (2021)Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2021
Plot 7 Plot 8
4.
y
'k* r• i s i 4 • .
Plot 9 Plot 10 '• �'
_' ice r
.111IN
ar
11. 1:, pad _r. 4`.}:" 1 .. y,a"' "%II -a L
.1:.-C-k'''''' . '-."''::- 'f. .;-)
' •' . MWMIL.i. '.
I
i .
Plot 11 Plot 12 r
; $0 . ' .v
: , to d...; 1,-. 1
. si: . ,•,.,41%, ,..,itSt4.4... .. r tVirr:... 0, ' pr.. .. _:44
i.air
•
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC

Heron
MY-03 (2021)Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken July 2021
Plot 13 , :' . :;�: Plot 14
•
•
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site Restoration Systems,LLC

Appendix C
Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Table 10. Approved Vegetation Totals
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation: Heron Site
Species Total*
Acres 12.05
Alnus serrulata 500
Asimina triloba 100
Betula nigra 400
Carpinus caroliniana 800
Cephalanthus occidentalis 25
Cercis canadensis 500
Cornus amomum 2500
Diospyros virginiana 350
Fraxinus americana 100
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2500
Liriodendron tulipifera 125
Nyssa sylvatica 500
Platanus occidentalis 2400
Quercus lyrata 900
Quercus nigra 2000
Quercus phellos 1900
Sambucus canadensis 25
TOTALS 15,625*
Average Stems/Acre 1297
*Live stakes of Salix nigra were planted, but are not included in this table.
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species
Project Code 17.008. Project Name: Heron Stream and Wetland
Current Plot Data(MY3 2021)
17.008-01-0001 17.008-01-0002 17.008-01-0003 17.008-01-0004 17.008-01-0005 17.008-01-0006 17.008-01-0007 17.008-01-0008 17.008-01-0009 17.008-01-0010
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree 1 1 1
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 5
Carya hickory Tree 4
Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree 3
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 7 7 9 2 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
Fraxinus americana white ash Tree 3 3 3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 1 1
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 2 3
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 5 5 2 2 5 2 2 2
Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree
Quercus oak Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 1 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Salix nigra black willow Tree 1
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub
Ulmus americana American elm Tree 3
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree
Unknown Shrub or Tree
Stem count 12 12 14 7 7 11 9 9 11 10 10 10 8 8 13 8 8 11 8 8 11 9 9 12 13 13 16 7 7 7
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 6 6 6 4 4 5 5 5 6 3 3 3 4 4 5 3 3 4 6 6 8 6 6 6 8 8 9 4 4 4
Stems per ACRE 485.6 485.6 566.6 283.3 283.3 445.2 364.2 364.2 445.2 404.7 404.7 404.7 323.7 323.7 526.1 323.7 323.7 445.2 323.7 323.7 445.2 364.2 364.2 485.6 526.1 526.1 647.5 283.3 283.3 283.3
Color for Density PnoLS=Planted excluding livestakes
Exceeds requirements by 10% P-all=Planting including livestakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% T=All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10% T includes natural recruits
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

Table 8. Total Stems by Plot and Species(continued)
Project Code 17.008. Project Name: Heron Stream and Wetland
Current Plot Data(MY3 2021) Annual Means
17.008-01-0011 17.008-01-0012 17.008-01-0013 17.008 01 0014 MY3(2021) MY2(2020) MY1(2019) MVO(2019)
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree 7 4
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 14 14 21 21 21
Betula nigra river birch Tree 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 7 7 7 8 8 8 7 7 7 13 13 13
Carya hickory Tree 4
Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree 3
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub 1 1 1
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 1 1 1 14 14 20 14 14 17 13 13 15 19 19 19
Fraxinus americana white ash Tree 1 1 1 4 4 4 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 2 2 3 4 4 4 13 13 14 12 12 12 13 13 13 15 15 15
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 5 3
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 8 8 8 12 12 12 13 13 13 10 10 10
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 6 19 19 26 17 17 18 15 15 17 11 11 11
Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree 6 4
Quercus oak Tree 1 1 1 8 8 8 10 10 10 13 13 13 31 31 31
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 5 5 5 8 8 8
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 10 10 13 13 13 18 18 18 19 19 19
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 4 4 4 15 15 15 13 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 11
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1
Salix nigra black willow Tree 1
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Ulmus americana American elm Tree 7 10 11
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree 9
Unknown Shrub or Tree 1 1 1 5 5 5
Stem count 10 10 11 8 8 8 8 8 23 7 7 7 124 124 165 131 131 159 152 152 176 196 196 196
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 14 14 14 14
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
Species count 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 4 8 4 4 4 18 18 24 18 18 21 19 19 23 20 20 20
Stems per ACRE 404.7 404.7 445.2 323.7 323.7 323.7 323.7 323.7 930.8 283.3 283.3 283.3 358.4 358.4 477 378.7 378.7 459.6 439.4 439.4 508.7 567 567 567
Color for Density PnoLS=Planted excluding livestakes
Exceeds requirements by 10% P-all=Planting including livestakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% T=All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
Fails to meet requirements,by less than 10% T includes natural recruits
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%

Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data: Heron Site
Species 50m x 2m Temporary Plot(Bearing)
T-1(130°) T-2(319°) T-3(319°) T-4(285°) T-5(10°) T-6(344°)
Betula nigra 1
Carpinus caroliniana 3
Cercis canadensis 8 1 1 1 1
Cornus ammomum 2 2 2
Diospyros virginiana 1 3 3 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 4 2 2 4
Liriodendron tulipifera 1
Nyssa sylvatica 1
Platanus occidentalis 1 2 2 2
Quercus lyrata 2 8
Quercus phellos 1 1
Quercus alba 3
Total Stems 15 17 8 9 9 8
Total Stems/Acre 607 688 324 364 364 324
MY-03 HEIGHT DATA: Stems ranged in height from 40 cm to 240 cm.
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 10. Approved Vegetation Totals: Heron Site
Plot# MY3 Approved Success Criteria Met?
Stems/Acre
1 567 Yes
2 283 No
3 445 Yes
4 405 Yes
5 405 Yes
6 324 Yes
7 324 Yes
8 486 Yes
9 526 Yes
10 283 No
11 445 Yes
12 324 Yes
13 647 Yes
14 283 No
T-1 607 Yes
T-2 688 Yes
T-3 324 Yes
T-4 364 Yes
T-5 364 Yes
T-6 324 Yes
Average Approved
421 Yes
Stems/Acre
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 11A-G. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 12A-G. Baseline Stream Data Summary(Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment
Parameter Distributions)
Tables 13A-G. Monitoring Data-Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross-
sections)
Tables 14A-G. Monitoring Data-Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross-Section Plots
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

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

Table 11 b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 3 (279 feet)
Parameter Gauge2 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 3.2 4.5 5.9 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 4.1 4.4 4.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 1
Floodprone Width (ft) 9 14 21 15 18 25 122 131 140 20 40 60 18 18 18 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 1
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.4 0.4 0.5 1 1 1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 1.4 8 14.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 1
Width/Depth Ratio 8 17.4 29.5 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 13.2 13.2 13.2 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 2.2 3.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 4.9 9 12.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 1
1Bank Height Ratio 1.7 2.2 2.4 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 4 11 10 19 4.3 14
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.023 0.031 0.035 0.011 0.029 0.027 0.736 0.017 14
Pool Length (ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 4 9 8 21 4.9 13
due to straightening activities.
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 0.4 0.6 0.7 1 1 1 1 0 1
Pool Spacing (ft) 25 37 69 22 44 81 13 18 35 13 18 35 14
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 20 23 38 17 30 36 13 18 27 13 18 27
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 16 27 9 31 113 9 13 44 9 13 44
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
due to straightening activities.
Meander Wavelength (ft) 44 68 116 10 63 91 26 37 53 26 37 53
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 1.42 0.34 0.56
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification Cg 5 Eb 4 E5 E/C 4 C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.6 3.6 1.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 5
Valley length (ft) 229
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 247 279 279
Sinuosity (ft) 1.07 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0207 0.0258 0.0053 0.0193 0.0176
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks 100 0 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres,which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 11 c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 4 (450 feet)
Parameter Gauge2 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 3.1 3.8 4.9 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 4.6 5 5.4 6.5 7.3 8 2
Floodprone Width (ft) 6 15 30 15 18 25 122 131 140 25 50 75 40 40 40 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 2 8 14.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.2 3 3.7 2
Width/Depth Ratio 5.2 7.7 12.3 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 17.3 18.3 19.2 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 3.9 6.1 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 5.4 10 14 5 5.6 6.2 2
1Bank Height Ratio 1.3 2.3 4.0 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 4 9 9 20 3.5 23
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.037 0.05 0.056 0 0.021 0.017 0.061 0.014 23
Pool Length (ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 4 10 10 18 3.5 22
due to straightening activities.
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.4 2
Pool Spacing (ft) 25 37 69 22 44 81 15 20 40 15 20 40 22
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 20 23 38 17 30 36 15 20 30 15 20 30
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 16 27 9 31 113 10 15 50 10 15 50
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
due to straightening activities.
Meander Wavelength (ft) 44 68 116 10 63 91 30 43 60 30 43 60
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 2.79 0.6 0.59
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification Eg 5 Eb 4 E5 E/C 4 C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.7 4 2.4
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 7.3
Valley length (ft) 391
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 428 450 450
Sinuosity (ft) 1.09 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0283 0.0258 0.0053 0.3111 0.0254
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks 56 0 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres,which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 11 d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 5 (952 feet)
Parameter Gauge2 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 2.5 3.7 6 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 4.6 5 5.4 4.9 6.9 8.1 4
Floodprone Width (ft) 4 12 30 15 18 25 122 131 140 25 50 75 40 40 40 4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 1.6 8 14.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.4 3.7 4
Width/Depth Ratio 3.6 8.8 20 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 12.6 18.3 20.9 4
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 3.1 7.3 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 5.4 10 14 4.9 5.9 8.2 4
1Bank Height Ratio 1.3 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 3 11 9 49 8.4 41
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.037 0.05 0.056 0.004 0.028 0.027 0.051 0.01 41
Pool Length (ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 4 12 10 59 8.5 41
due to straightening activities.
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 1 1.1 4
Pool Spacing (ft) 25 37 69 22 44 81 15 20 40 15 20 40 41
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 20 23 38 17 30 36 15 20 30 15 20 30
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 16 27 9 31 113 10 15 50 10 15 50
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
due to straightening activities.
Meander Wavelength (ft) 44 68 116 10 63 91 30 43 60 30 43 60
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 2.79 0.6 0.5
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification Eg 5 Eb 4 E5 E/C 4 E/C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.9 4 2.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 5.5
Valley length (ft) 579
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 605 952 952
Sinuosity (ft) 1.04 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0372 0.0258 0.0053 0.3111 0.0256
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks 50 0 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres,which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 11 e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 6 (781 feet)
Parameter Gauge2 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 4.6 6.4 9.6 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 4.2 4.6 4.9 6.1 6.5 6.8 2
Floodprone Width (ft) 7 16 46 15 18 25 122 131 140 25 50 75 40 40 40 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 1.5 8 14.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.2 2.9 3.5 2
Width/Depth Ratio 15.3 26.7 48 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 13.2 15.1 16.9 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.1 2.4 4.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 5.9 10.9 15.3 5.9 6.2 6.6 2
1Bank Height Ratio 3.7 5.0 7.5 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 2 10 7 47 8.8 33
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.031 0.042 0.047 0.001 0.028 0.024 0.126 0.021 33
Pool Length (ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 4 12 12 18 3.7 33
due to straightening activities.
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 0.4 0.6 0.7 1 1.2 1.3 2
Pool Spacing (ft) 25 37 69 22 44 81 13.7 18.3 36.7 14 18 37 33
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 20 23 38 17 30 36 13.7 18.3 36.7 14 18 37
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 16 27 9 31 113 9 14 46 9 14 46
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
due to straightening activities.
Meander Wavelength (ft) 44 68 116 10 63 91 27 39 55 27 39 55
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 14.18 0.47 0.56
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification Cg 5 Eb 4 E5 E/C 4 C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.5 3.5 1.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 5.2
Valley length (ft) 486
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 522 781 781
Sinuosity (ft) 1.07 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.028 0.0258 0.0053 0.0261 0.0225
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks 68 0 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres,which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 11 f. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 7 (232 feet)
Parameter Gauge2 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 4.1 5.3 6.7 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 4.9 5.3 5.7 6.2 6.6 7.8 4
Floodprone Width (ft) 7 13 29 15 18 25 122 131 140 25 50 75 10 20 20 4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 2 8 14.7 2 2 2 1.8 2.7 3.3 4
Width/Depth Ratio 8.2 14.5 22.3 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 12.8 18.5 24.2 4
Entrenchment Ratio 1.7 2.4 5.2 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 5 9 13 1.6 2.8 3.1 4
1Bank Height Ratio 1.8 2.5 4.1 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 3 13 10 75 13 42
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.027 0.036 0.04 0.006 0.029 0.029 0.056 0.011 42
Pool Length (ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 3 9 9 14 2.6 41
due to straightening activities.
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 1.3 1.9 2.1 1 1.1 1.5 3
Pool Spacing (ft) 25 37 69 22 44 81 16 21 42 16 21 42 42
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 20 23 38 17 30 36 16 21 32 16 21 32
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 16 27 9 31 113 10 16 53 10 16 53
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
due to straightening activities.
Meander Wavelength (ft) 44 68 116 10 63 91 31 45 64 31 45 64
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 2.36 0.45 0.61
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification Cg 5 Eb 4 E5 Eb 4 Cb 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.5 3.5 2.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 7
Valley length (ft) 755
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 778 232 232
Sinuosity (ft) 1.03 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0248 0.0258 0.0053 0.0222 0.0268
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks 76 0 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres,which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 11g. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 8 (605 feet)
Parameter Gauge2 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 4.2 5.1 6.1 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 5.5 5.9 6.3 6.5 7.9 9.3 2
Floodprone Width (ft) 5 15 30 15 18 25 122 131 140 25 50 75 20 30 40 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.6 0.8 1 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 2.5 8 14.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 3.2 3.7 2
Width/Depth Ratio 7 11.3 15.3 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 16.3 19.8 23.4 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.1 2.7 4.9 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 4.6 8.5 11.9 2.2 4.2 6.2 2
1Bank Height Ratio 1.4 2.3 3.7 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 5 11 11 19 3.4 23
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.023 0.03 0.034 0.007 0.02 0.017 0.041 0.009 23
Pool Length (ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 6 15 15 24 4.8 23
due to straightening activities.
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.6 2
Pool Spacing (ft) 25 37 69 22 44 81 17 24 47 17 24 47 23
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 20 23 38 17 30 36 17 24 36 17 24 36
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 16 27 9 31 113 11 18 59 11 18 59
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools 1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
due to straightening activities.
Meander Wavelength (ft) 44 68 116 10 63 91 35 50 71 35 50 71
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 1.85 0.44 0.32
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification Eg 5 Eb 4 E5 E/C 4 C 4
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.6 3.6 2.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 9.1
Valley length (ft) 520
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 543 605 605
Sinuosity (ft) 1.04 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0218 0.0258 0.0053 0.019 0.0138
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks 80 0 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1=The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2=For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach(added bankfull verification-rare).
3.Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres,which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4=Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5.Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 12a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 1 (856 feet)
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Causey Reference Reach Data Design As-built/Baseline
1 RI% / Ru%/ P% / G% / S% 60 13 14 13 43 19 19 19
1SC%/ Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be% 9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16/ d35 / d50/ d84 / d95 / dip/ disp (mm) 0.116 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.318 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10 29 71 33 66 50 50 25 75
3lncision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0 14 43 43 66 33 100 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step; Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock; dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
2=Entrenchment Class-Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3=Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3-These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks,but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample(cross-sections as part of the design measurements),however,these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters,leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach.This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER,visual estimates. For example,the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters,thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 12b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 3 (279 feet)
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Causey Reference Reach Data Design As-built/Baseline
1 RI% / Ru%/ P% / G% / S% 74 8 9 8 55 15 15 15
1SC%/ Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be% 9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16/ d35 / d50/ d84 / d95 / dip/ disp (mm) 0.116 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.318 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10 33 33 33 33 66 50 50 100
3lncision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0 33 66 66 33 100 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step; Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock; dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
2=Entrenchment Class-Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3=Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3-These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks,but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample(cross-sections as part of the design measurements),however,these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters,leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach.This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER,visual estimates. For example,the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters,thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 12c. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Se ment/Reach: UT 4 (450 feet)
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Causey Reference Reach Data Design As-built/Baseline
1 RI% / Ru%/ P% / G% / S% 63 12 13 12 48 17 18 17
1 SC%/ Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be% 9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16/ d35 / d50/ d84 / d95 / dip/ disp (mm) 0.116 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.318 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10 25 25 50 33 66 50 50 100
3lncision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0 25 25 50 66 33 100 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step; Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock; dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
2=Entrenchment Class-Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3=Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3-These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks,but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample(cross-sections as part of the design measurements),however,these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters,leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach.This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER,visual estimates. For example,the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters,thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 12d. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 5 (952 feet)
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Causey Reference Reach Data Design As-built/Baseline
1 RI% / Ru%/ P% / G% / S% 58 14 14 14 50 17 17 16
1 SC%/ Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be% 9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16/ d35 / d50/ d84 / d95 / dip/ disp (mm) 0.116 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.318 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10 20 20 40 20 33 66 50 50 100
3lncision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0 20 20 60 66 33 100 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step; Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock; dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
2=Entrenchment Class-Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3=Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3-These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks,but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample(cross-sections as part of the design measurements),however,these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters,leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach.This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER,visual estimates. For example,the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters,thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 12e. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 6 (781 feet)
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Causey Reference Reach Data Design As-built/Baseline
1 RI% / Ru%/ P% / G% / S% 64 12 12 12 46 18 18 18
1 SC%/ Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be% 9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16/ d35 / d50/ d84 / d95 / dip/ disp (mm) 0.116 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.318 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10 40 20 20 20 33 66 50 50 100
3lncision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0 100 66 33 100 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step; Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock; dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
2=Entrenchment Class-Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3=Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3-These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks,but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample(cross-sections as part of the design measurements),however,these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters,leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach.This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER,visual estimates. For example,the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters,thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 12f. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 7 (232 feet)
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Causey Reference Reach Data Design As-built/Baseline
1 RI% / Ru%/ P% / G% / S% 76 7 8 7 60 13 14 13
1 SC%/ Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be% 9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16/ d35 / d50/ d84 / d95 / dip/ disp (mm) 0.116 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.318 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10 57 29 14 33 66 50 50 25 75
3lncision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0 29 71 66 33 100 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step; Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock; dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
2=Entrenchment Class-Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3=Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3-These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks,but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample(cross-sections as part of the design measurements),however,these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters,leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach.This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER,visual estimates. For example,the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters,thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 12g. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 8 (605 feet)
Parameter Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Causey Reference Reach Data Design As-built/Baseline
1 RI% / Ru%/ P% / G% / S% 60 13 14 13 41 20 20 19
1 SC%/ Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be% 9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16/ d35 / d50/ d84 / d95 / dip/ disp (mm) 0.116 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.318 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10 25 25 50 33 66 50 50 50 50
3lncision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0 50 50 66 33 100 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 =Riffle,Run,Pool,Glide,Step; Silt/Clay,Sand,Gravel,Cobble,Boulder,Bedrock; dip=max pave,disp=max subpave
2=Entrenchment Class-Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3=Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3-These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks,but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample(cross-sections as part of the design measurements),however,these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters,leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach.This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER,visual estimates. For example,the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters,thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 13a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 1 (856 feet)
Cross Section 1 (Pool) Cross Section 2 (Riffle) Cross Section 3 (Riffle) Cross Section 4 (Pool) Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft) 9.2 8.5 8.5 11.5 10.7 14.7 15.3 16.0 13.0 14.4 17.7 13.0 8.9 9.7 9.1 10.0 8.3 9.0 10.7 12.4
Floodprone Width (ft) NA NA NA NA 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA NA 25 25 25 25
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA 18.8 35.4 38.4 40.0 36.7 45.1 68.1 36.8 NA NA NA NA 18.6 21.9 30.9 41.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA 9.3 6.8 6.5 6.3 7.7 6.9 5.6 7.7 NA NA NA NA 3.0 2.8 2.3 2.0
Low Bank Height (ft) 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.2 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.96 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
Cross Section 6 (Pool) Cross Section 7 (Pool) Cross Section 8 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft) 12.8 13.2 15.7 13.1 9.6 10.4 10.5 15.4 11.2 12.0 11.4 13.8
Floodprone Width (ft) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100 100 100 100
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 8.0 8.0 8.0 8 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17.4 20.0 18.1 26.45
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8.9 8.3 8.8 7.25
Low Bank Height (ft) 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
1 =Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum,which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MYO) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).
Table 13b. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 3 (279 feet)
Cross Section 9 (Pool) Cross Section 10 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft) 4.2 5.6 5.8 5.8 7.7 7.0 7.0 7.4
Floodprone Width (ft) NA NA NA NA 18 18 18 18
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA 13.2 10.9 10.9 12.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.4
Low Bank Height (ft) 1.0 0.3 0.8 0.5 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 0.38 1.00 0.79 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
1 =Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum,which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MYO) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).

Table 13c. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 4 (450 feet)
Cross Section 11 (Pool) Cross Section 12 (Riffle) Cross Section 13 (Riffle) Cross Section 14 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft) 6.0 7.9 9.4 9.6 6.5 7.4 10.6 11.2 8.0 7.9 11.3 7.8 9.1 11.0 10.9 11.3
Floodprone Width (ft) NA NA NA NA 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.2 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.5 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA 19.2 24.9 51.1 55.8 17.3 17.8 36.5 17.7 NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA 6.2 5.4 3.8 3.6 5.0 5.1 3.5 5.1 NA NA NA NA
Low Bank Height (ft) 1.1 0.9 1.3 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 0.82 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
1 =Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum,which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MYO) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).
Table 13d. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 5 (952 feet)
Cross Section 15 (Pool) Cross Section 16 (Riffle) Cross Section 17 (Pool) Cross Section 18 (Riffle) Cross Section 19 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft) 4.7 9.4 8.7 10.4 6.3 5.7 9.4 11.0 5.4 5.7 5.9 5.9 8.1 9.2 12.2 12.7 7.8 8.7 11.4 14.2
Floodprone Width (ft) NA NA NA NA 40 40 40 40 NA NA NA NA 40 40 40 40 NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA 20.9 17.1 46.5 64.7 NA NA NA NA 17.7 22.9 40.2 43.2 NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA 6.3 7.0 4.3 3.7 NA NA NA NA 4.9 4.3 3.3 3.2 NA NA NA NA
Low Bank Height (ft) 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
Cross Section 20 (Riffle) Cross Section 21 (Pool) Cross Section 22 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft) 4.9 6.2 5.3 5.9 5.0 5.8 5.8 5.3 7.4 7.2 8.5 7.7
Floodprone Width (ft) 40 40 40 40 NA NA NA NA 40 40 40 40
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.6 20.2 14.8 18.5 NA NA NA NA 18.9 17.9 24.9 20.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 8.2 6.5 7.5 6.8 NA NA NA NA 5.4 5.6 4.7 5.2
Low Bank Height (ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.09 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
1 =Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum,which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MYO) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).

Table 13e. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 6 (781 feet)
Cross Section 23 (Pool) Cross Section 24 (Riffle) Cross Section 25 (Pool) Cross Section 26 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft) 5.6 5.7 6.4 8.8 6.1 5.8 5.7 5.4 5.2 10.0 10.3 10.8 6.8 4.7 4.8 4.3
Floodprone Width (ft) NA NA NA NA 40 40 40 40 NA NA NA NA 40 40 40 40
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA 16.9 15.3 14.8 13.4 NA NA NA NA 13.2 6.3 6.6 5.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA 6.6 6.9 7.0 7.5 NA NA NA NA 5.9 8.5 8.3 9.3
Low Bank Height (ft) 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.9 1.4 1.5 1.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.07 1.00 0.75 0.88 0.86 1.00 1.40 1.25 1.02
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
1 =Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum,which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MYO) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).
Table 13f. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 7 (232 feet)
Cross Section 27 (Pool) Cross Section 28 (Riffle) Cross Section 29 (Pool) Cross Section 30 (Riffle) Cross Section 31 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft) 7.1 11.4 12.4 12.5 7.8 6.9 7.5 7.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 6.2 5.6 6.3 6.2 5.3 6.1 5.8 5.8
Floodprone Width (ft) NA NA NA NA 20 20 20 20 NA NA NA NA 10 11 11 11 NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.5 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.6 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA 20.3 15.9 18.8 16.3 NA NA NA NA 16.7 13.6 17.3 16.7 NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.9 NA NA NA NA 1.6 2.0 1.7 1.8 NA NA NA NA
Low Bank Height (ft) 1.5 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.6 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 0.73 0.89 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.08 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 0.86 1.14 1.01
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
Cross Section 32 (Riffle) Cross Section 33 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft) 6.5 7.6 7.9 8.1 6.6 5.8 6.2 7.4
Floodprone Width (ft) 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.8 17.5 18.9 19.8 24.2 18.7 21.4 30.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 3.1 2.6 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.4 3.2 2.7
Low Bank Height (ft) 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 1.17 0.90
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
1 =Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum,which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MYO) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).

Table 13g. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 8 (605 feet)
Cross Section 34 (Riffle) Cross Section 35 (Pool) Cross Section 36 (Riffle) Cross Section 37 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft) 6.5 5.2 4.8 5.3 7.5 6.9 7.1 6.4 9.3 9.0 9.3 9.7 9.5 8.7 10.5 8.6
Floodprone Width (ft) 40 40 40 40 NA NA NA NA 20 20 20 20 NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.3 10.4 8.9 10.7 NA NA NA NA 23.4 21.9 23.4 25.5 NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 6.2 7.7 8.3 7.6 NA NA NA NA 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 NA NA NA NA
Low Bank Height (ft) 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio* 1.00 1.14 1.00 1.14 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation'
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
1 =Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum,which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MYO) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).

Exhibit Table 14a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 1 (856 feet)
Parameter Baseline I MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 8.3 11 13 4 9 13.2 14.7 4 10.7 13.4 17.7 4 12.4 13.4 16 4
Floodprone Width (ft) 25 100 100 4 25 100 100 4 25 100 100 4 25 100 100 4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.4 0.5 0.6 4 0.3 0.4 0.6 4 0.26 0.37 0.63 4 0.30 0.41 0.52 4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.6 0.8 1.1 4 0.6 0.8 1 4 0.7 0.8 1.1 4 0.62 0.82 1.04 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 3.7 5.4 7.2 4 3.7 5.4 7.2 4 3.7 5.4 7.2 4 3.7 5.4 7.2 4
Width/Depth Ratio 17.4 18.7 36.7 4 20 28.7 45.1 4 18.1 34.7 68.1 4 26.7 39.3 41.9 4
Entrenchment Ratio 3 8.3 9.3 4 2.8 6.9 8.3 4 2.34 6.09 8.77 4 2.01 6.74 7.68 4
Low Bank Height (ft) 0.6 0.8 1.1 4 0.6 0.7 1 4 0.7 0.8 1.1 4 0.62 0.82 1.04 4
1Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 0.9 1 1 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 0.9 0.9 1.0 4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 2.7 19 16 53 11 31
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 31
Pool Length (ft) 6 23 20 80 12.9 34
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.5 1.6 2.1 4
Pool Spacing (ft) 25 34 68 34
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 25 34 68
Radius of Curvature (ft) 17 25 85
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 2 3 10 indicate significant shifts from baseline
Meander Wavelength (ft) 51 72 101
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C 4
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 856
Sinuosity (ft) 1.3
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0087
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri%/ Ru% / P%/ G%/ S% 43 19 19 19
3SC%/ Sa% / G%/ C%/ B%/ Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 3 (279 feet)
Parameter Baseline I MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 7.7 7.7 7.7 1 7 7 7 1 7 7 7 1 7.4 7.4 7.4
Floodprone Width (ft) 18 18 18 1 18 18 18 1 18 18 18 1 18 18 18
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 4.5 4.5 4.5 1 4.5 4.5 4.5 1 4.5 4.5 4.5 1 4.5 4.5 4.5
Width/Depth Ratio 13.2 13.2 13.2 1 10.9 10.9 10.9 1 10.9 10.9 10.9 1 12.3 12.3 12.3
Entrenchment Ratio 2.3 2.3 2.3 1 2.6 2.6 2.6 1 2.6 2.6 1 2.4 2.4 2.4
Low Bank Height (ft) 1 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1
1Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1 1.0 1.0 1 1 1.0 1.0 1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 4 11 10 19 4.3 14
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.74 0.02 14
Pool Length (ft) 4 9 8 21 4.9 13
Pool Max depth (ft) 1 1 1 1 0 1
Pool Spacing (ft) 13 18 35 14
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 13 18 27
Radius of Curvature (ft) 9 13 44
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 2 3 10 Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data
Meander Wavelength (ft) 26 37 53 indicate significant shifts from baseline
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C 4
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 279
Sinuosity (ft) 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0176
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri%/ Ru% / P%/ G%/ S% 55 15 15 15
3SC%/ Sa% / G%/ C%/ B%/ Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 4 (450 feet)
Parameter Baseline I MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 6.5 7.3 8 2 7.4 7.7 7.9 2 10.6 11 11.3 2 7.8 7.9 7.9
Floodprone Width (ft) 40 40 40 2 40 40 40 2 40 40 40 2 40 40 40
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.3 0.4 0.5 2 0.3 0.4 0.4 2 0.2 0.3 0.3 2 0.3 0.4 0.4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.5 0.7 0.8 2 0.6 0.7 0.8 2 0.5 0.7 0.8 2 0.5 0.7 0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 2.2 3 3.7 2 2.2 2.9 3.5 2 2.2 2.9 3.5 2 2.2 2.9 3.5
Width/Depth Ratio 17.3 18.3 19.2 2 17.8 21.4 24.9 2 36.5 43.8 51.1 2 17.7 23.2 28.7
Entrenchment Ratio 5 5.6 6.2 2 5.1 5.2 5.4 2 3.5 3.7 3.8 2 5 5.1 5.1
Low Bank Height (ft) 0.5 0.7 0.8 2 0.5 0.7 0.8 2 0.5 0.7 0.8 2 0.5 0.6 0.7
1Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 0.8 0.9 1 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 0.9 0.9 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 4 9 9 20 3.5 23
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.01 23
Pool Length (ft) 4 10 10 18 3.5 22
Pool Max depth (ft) 1.1 1.3 1.4 2
Pool Spacing (ft) 15 20 40 22
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 15 20 30
Radius of Curvature (ft) 10 15 50
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 2 3 10 Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data
Meander Wavelength (ft) 30 43 60 indicate significant shifts from baseline
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C 4
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 450
Sinuosity (ft) 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0195
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri%/ Ru% / P%/ G%/ S% 48 17 18 17
3SC%/ Sa% / G%/ C%/ B%/ Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 5 (952 feet)
Parameter Baseline I MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 4.9 6.9 8.1 4 5.7 6.7 9.2 4 5.3 9 12.2 4 5.9 7.5 12.7
Floodprone Width (ft) 40 40 40 4 40 40 40 4 40 40 40 4 40 40 40
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.3 0.4 0.5 4 0.3 0.4 0.4 4 0.2 0.3 0.4 4 0.3 0.3 0.4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.5 0.7 0.8 4 0.6 0.7 0.8 4 0.6 0.7 0.8 4 0.6 0.7 0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 1.9 2.4 3.7 4 1.9 2.4 3.7 4 1.9 2.4 3.7 4 1.9 2.4 3.7
Width/Depth Ratio 12.6 18.3 20.9 4 17.1 19.1 22.9 4 14.8 32.6 46.5 4 18.5 24.6 43.2
Entrenchment Ratio 4.9 5.9 8.2 4 4.3 6.0 7.0 4 3.3 4.5 7.5 4 3.2 5.4 6.8
Low Bank Height (ft) 0.5 0.7 0.8 4 0.6 0.6 0.8 4 0.6 0.6 0.7 4 0.6 0.7 0.7
1Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 0.9 1.0 1.0 4 1 0.8 1 4 1 1 1.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 3 11 9 49 8.4 41
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.01 41
Pool Length (ft) 4 12 10 59 8.5 41
Pool Max depth (ft) 0.8 1 1.1 4
Pool Spacing (ft) 15 20 40 41
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 15 20 30
Radius of Curvature (ft) 10 15 50
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 2 3 10 Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data
Meander Wavelength (ft) 30 43 60 indicate significant shifts from baseline
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification E/C 4
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 952
Sinuosity (ft) 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0256
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri%/ Ru% / P%/ G%/ S% 50 17 17 16
3SC%/ Sa% / G%/ C%/ B%/ Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 6 (781 feet)
Parameter Baseline I MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 6.1 6.5 6.8 2 4.7 5.3 5.8 2 4.8 5.3 5.7 2 4.3 4.8 5.4
Floodprone Width (ft) 40 40 40 2 40 40 40 2 40 40 40 2 40 40 40
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.4 0.4 0.5 2 0.4 0.6 0.7 2 0.4 0.6 0.7 2 0.4 0.6 0.8
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.6 0.8 0.9 2 0.5 0.8 1 2 0.6 0.9 1.2 2 0.6 0.9 1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 2.2 2.9 3.5 2 2.2 2.9 3.5 2 2.2 2.9 3.5 2 2.2 2.9 3.5
Width/Depth Ratio 13.2 15.1 16.9 2 6.3 10.8 15.3 2 6.6 10.7 14.8 2 5.3 9.4 13.4
Entrenchment Ratio 5.9 6.2 6.6 2 6.9 7.7 8.5 2 7 7.7 8.3 2 7.4 8.4 9.3
Low Bank Height (ft) 0.6 0.8 0.9 2 0.7 1.1 1.4 2 0.7 1.1 1.5 2 0.6 0.9 1.2
1 Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1.4 1.4 1.4 2 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 1.0 1.0 1.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 2 10 7 47 8.8 33
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.02 33
Pool Length (ft) 4 12 12 18 3.7 33
Pool Max depth (ft) 1 1.2 1.3 2
Pool Spacing (ft) 14 18 37 33
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 14 18 37
Radius of Curvature (ft) 9 14 46
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 2 3 10 Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data
Meander Wavelength (ft) 27 39 55 indicate significant shifts from baseline
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C 4
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 781
Sinuosity (ft) 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0225
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri%/ Ru% / P%/ G%/ S% 46 18 18 18
3SC%/ Sa% / G%/ C%/ B%/ Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 7 (232 feet)
Parameter Baseline I MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 6.2 6.6 7.8 4 5.6 6.4 7.6 4 6.2 6.9 7.9 4 6.2 7.5 9.2
Floodprone Width (ft) 10 20 20 4 11 20 20 4 11 20 20 4 11 20 20
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.3 0.4 0.5 4 0.3 0.4 0.4 4 0.3 0.4 0.4 4 0.2 0.4 0.4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.5 0.6 0.7 4 0.5 0.7 1.1 4 0.5 0.7 0.9 4 0.6 0.8 1.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 1.8 2.7 3.3 4 1.8 2.7 3.3 4 1.8 2.7 3.3 4 1.8 2.7 3.3
Width/Depth Ratio 12.8 18.5 24.2 4 13.6 16.7 18.7 4 17.3 18.8 21.4 4 16.3 18.3 46.4
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 2.8 3.1 4 2 2.8 3.4 4 1.7 2.6 3.2 4 1.8 2.3 2.9
Low Bank Height (ft) 0.5 0.6 0.7 4 0.5 0.7 1.1 4 0.5 0.7 0.9 4 0.5 0.8 1.1
1Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 0.8 1 1 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 0.9 1 1.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 3 13 10 75 13 42
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.01 42
Pool Length (ft) 3 9 9 14 2.6 41
Pool Max depth (ft) 1 1.1 1.5 3
Pool Spacing (ft) 16 21 42 42
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 16 21 32
Radius of Curvature (ft) 10 16 53
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 2 3 10 Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data
Meander Wavelength (ft) 31 45 64 indicate significant shifts from baseline
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification Cb 4
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 232
Sinuosity (ft) 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0268
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri%/ Ru% / P%/ G%/ S% 60 13 14 13
3SC%/ Sa% / G%/ C%/ B%/ Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 14g. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 8 (605 feet)
Parameter Baseline I MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft) 6.5 7.9 9.3 2 5.2 7.1 9 2 4.8 7.1 9.3 2 5.3 7.5 9.7
Floodprone Width (ft) 20 30 40 2 20 30 40 2 20 30 40 2 20 30 40
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.4 0.4 0.4 2 0.4 0.5 0.5 2 0.4 0.5 0.5 2 0.4 0.4 0.5
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.7 0.7 0.7 2 0.7 0.7 0.7 2 0.8 0.8 0.8 2 0.7 0.7 0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) 2.6 3.2 3.7 2 2.6 3.2 3.7 2 2.6 3.2 3.7 2 2.6 3.2 3.7
Width/Depth Ratio 16.3 19.8 23.4 2 10.4 16.1 21.9 2 8.9 16.1 23.4 2 10.7 18.1 25.5
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 4.2 6.2 2 2.2 5 7.7 2 2.2 5.2 8.3 2 2.1 4.8 7.5
Low Bank Height (ft) 0.7 0.7 0.7 2 0.7 0.8 0.8 2 0.8 0.8 0.8 2 0.8 0.8 0.8
1Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 1.1 1.1 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1.1 1.1 1.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 5 11 11 19 3.4 23
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 23
Pool Length (ft) 6 15 15 24 4.8 23
Pool Max depth (ft) 0.9 1.3 1.6 2
Pool Spacing (ft) 17 24 47 23
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 17 24 36
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 18 59
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) 2 3 10 Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data
Meander Wavelength (ft) 35 50 71 indicate significant shifts from baseline
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C 4
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 605
Sinuosity (ft) 1.15
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0.0138
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri%/ Ru% / P%/ G%/ S% 41 20 20 19
3SC%/ Sa% / G%/ C%/ B%/ Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks 0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 f: .•••
XS ID UT 1,XS- 1,Pool - ASA?Opt;
-
Feature Pool - " '-
Date: 2/16/2021 ;. ;= : G~.
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris ` � +{
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA v ' y * r
-0.4 535.5 Bankfull Elevation: 534.9 =.-, 4
0.7 535.1 LTOB Elevation: 534.7 ?c ' ',%" ''':1--- r . `r'
2.1 535.0 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 10.5 .,7%7= ,; ., '�� :r = '
3.2 534.8 Bankfull Width: 11.5 _ oti. "'`
4.3 534.7 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA ' ' , ' '•
5.0 534.5 Flood Prone Width: NA _. °
5.5 534.3 Max Depth at Bankfull: 2.3 •"' r •''" _s' �' _- --r
6.2 534.0 Low Bank Height: 2.2 ��
6.5 532.7 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.9 =i '
7.2 532.5 W/D Ratio: NA " .: '°" : t .3: t T
8.6 532.6 Entrenchment Ratio: NA F,�*- .4,:/t ,K:_f-., ,� r 4;;,.4
9.5 533.0 Bank Height Ratio: 0.94
10.4 534.1 Stream Type C/E
11.5 534.4
12.2 534.6
13.2 534.8
15.2 534.9 Heron,UT 1, XS - 1, Pool
16.0 535.1
16.2 535.1 536 -
18.2 535.2
•
535 `_
'..-Nt ------
0 534
11)
Bankfull
1 ir 533 MY-002/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
- -MY-02 5/14/20
• MY 03 LTOB
532 , -MY00TOB
0 10 20
-MY-03 2/16/21
Station (feet)

Site Heron ' :
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 k' -
XS ID UT 1,XS 2,Riffle `� '
Feature Riffle
Date: 2/16/2021ik } /�}
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris "'
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA �r.-' ,.j+ .'J y i I I p+�yr*�r
0.2 535.58 Banld'u11 Elevation: - 535.5 '_ 1 i 'f ` `kd
�.•:
:; r f: 'Ise
0.3 535.51 LTOB Elevation: 535.5 �. , s AL i � �-.4, ',� ' 1ft , �'' p tt ,i
1.4 535.42 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 6.1 ' �+ ;� p�+ q�
2.3 535.47 Bankfull Width: 16.0 1 :' `` ,, , fr. . `x. iv�itivo'{ '� __
3.5 535.47 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 536.5 4` ' • ! °
4.9 535.47 Flood Prone Width: 100.0 5.,, • .' . = Y . .°. _ t:. , "+ry�
5.2 535.23 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.0 •••=F'.!. '�z`+�./' `' �''," . ,
5.9 534.94 Low Bank Height: 1.0 ='' � ,,Ai i • ' :i. r g,"' -' ''`�.JA 1 '
6.6 534.86 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4 ''a .. ,' 2.1 e,. 1I��I'r?,' i� -i '• k=' `
7.6 534.85 W/D Ratio: 41.7 fa ;� '• ,, } i,.- .c
8.1 534.75 Entrenchment Ratio: 6.3 '. .-`� rj �'.; A:...'`': ' : `. ':« k rr' '.. -
8.8 534.74 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
9.1 534.75 Stream Type C/E
9.8 534.56
10.4 534.48
11.0 534.48
12.1 534.80 Heron,UT 1,XS -2,Riffle
12.8 535.19 536 -
13.2 535.15
13.8 535.34
16.0 535.34
16.7 535.4 -- ---
19.5 535.4
535
i
--_4111eirli ""grAll;..---
Bankfull
--
MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-Ol 8/13/19
-MY-02 5/14/20
534 f • MY03LTOB i
0 10 -MY00TOB 20
Station (feet) MY-03 2/16/21

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 1,XS 3,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 2/16/2021t '
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris ~
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA �'
0.5 537.26 TiMfi ull Elevation: - 537.4 .'
1.5 537.35 LTOB Elevation: 537.4 '''
2.5 537.36 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 4.6 ; ; ,. ; ' . :'=:
.y
3.9 537.08 Bankfull Width: 13.0 ,,,' ,R �? ' "'
5.2 537.12 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 538.1 ` ) [
6.1 537.03 Flood Prone Width: 100.0 ,..t....1::. , ':
7.0 536.87 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.64: � '
7.7 536.87 Low Bank Height: 0.6 .s} ,'� '
8.9 536.77 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4 . - # j yy y , ,
9.8 536.91 W/D Ratio: 36.8 •s: -:.p. , ; -: tz•t tt.`i f :ti _fit w 4.:.71(..._
� ` '�`p �.fir' '61� .f ' ::x11.0 536.93 Entrenchment Ratio: 7.7 .. r? ;,i.rb4` '''''� tea, I, `<''•
11.9 537.12 Bank Height Ratio: 0.92
12.9 537.11 Stream Type C/E
14.3 537.26
15.1 537.41
16.2 537.41 Heron,UT 1,XS -3,Riffle
18.7 537.47
539
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
0 538 - MY-ol an3ns
11111111613 MY-02 5/14/20
0a
■ MY 03 LTOB
w \
MY 00 TOB
MY-03 2/16/21
537 ,
0 10 20
Station (feet)

Site Heron t� . - '�: = s�, , y A, m} tip.
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 'Ak $. �"= , 4='��! �, `� ='■ ` $ ..--
XS ID UT1,XS-4,Pool ,� 3n"o. � - y=r�s _�g...'' •. ;. ;�,� y q, r
ice.
Feature Pool rya; A �`�,, if ; f ' 4: =i #�''' ` #' E1°'.<
Date: 2/16/2021 ''
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA • . w - `•
0.2 538.5 Bankfull Elevation: ,4., ' - V
3.0 538.6 LTOB Elevation: 538.5
6.2 538.5 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 6.8 •.
7.0 538.4 Bankfull Width: 10.0 `., }': -
7.6 538.2 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA ±-{" n• ;1 9;y=f }
8.1 537.9 Flood Prone Width: NA pf �•,.; ;, -
8.6 537.6 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.6 : . r
8.9 537.4 Low Bank Height: 1.6 •.5 = ' . . : 3'` - �'`':
9.3 537.1 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.7 -
9.6 536.9 W/D Ratio: NA ,,
10.2 537.0 Entrenchment Ratio: NA :y - _
10.5 537.0 Bank Height Ratio: 1.01
11.2 537.2 Stream Type C/E
12.0 537.3
12.6 537.5
13.1 538.0
13.8 538.1 Heron,UT 1, XS -4, Pool
15.2 538.3
18.4 538.7 539 -
21.8 538.7
:::
o)
`
z
0
Zi
W
Bankfull
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 08/13/19
-MY-02 5/14/20
536 -t I I . MY03LTOB 1
0 10 20 -MY00TOB 30
Station (feet) - MY-032/16/21

Site Heron • ��. i .... , • •- :,-:._.1
A �:9, Gi ,a g' Y. .• :._4. te ,_
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 4f5E� � ;'" ., "
XS ID UT 1,XS, 5,Riffle `:t :-: _ { 14.41i'' ,
�, .i 11 '4�/i' ,' �'kl - ' a
Feature Riffler,
Date: 2/16/2021 �. +. - ::..: :.A.= •.. : , , .. _
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris b 3 L. r r � '
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA - = -, . . -''' "'
0.0 541.44 Banld'ull Elevation: - 541.1 ?�� �
2.5 541.19 LTOB Elevation: 541.1 <-
4.7 540.99 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.7 k, 'r' 4y e - J.- '
6.7 540.96 Bankfull Width: 12.4 W
7.6 541.06 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 541.7 `'':
8.3 540.86 Flood Prone Width: 25.0 r`r'"` -�-�
9.2 540.61 Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6 Y
10.3 540.46 Low Bank Height: 0.6 . '`i' -J., .7. p
~sr`"
11.4 540.50 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.3 - s s� �. ' '_
ti
12.5 540.51 W/D Ratio: 41.9 �; ' I,-..,,,,° ° �` 'r': �, `s
13.6 540.68 Entrenchment Ratio: 2.0 ` ' �` '` b'A -• ��'
14.2 540.91 Bank Height Ratio: 0.96
15.1 540.78 Stream Type C/E
16.0 541.03
16.6 541.27
17.7 541.44 Heron,UT 1,XS - 5,Riffle
19.2 541.44
20.4 541.46 542
23.0 541.43
o 541
o ,
Vw Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-Ol 8/13/19
540 MY-02 5/14/20
0 10 20 • MY 03 LTOB 30
MY 00 TOB
Station (feet) - MY-03 2/16/21

Site Heron y y �, r .
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 •y i,�V�' '
XS ID UT1,XS-6,Poo1 ? .; .''L, '' : i
.
Feature Pool
Date: 2/16/2021 -- _ J iici''
�`�`•'M►-=- ibi .3-•.-rate
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris _ �� , + rye, ,�
J -f ; - - -:, - '' :fir
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA .Y` ' �.
0.7 541.4 Bankfull Elevation: 541.4 =1 :f. ::_ F _�,;- =r
2.7 541.4 LTOB Elevation: 541.4 _- .1�=`% =-''" •' , F • '" ' _ _f
4.8 541.3 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 9.4 - 7 "°l � `ar.' t= ~
6.1 541.1 Bankfull Width: 13.1 s.. `�' - .,_ ..� -'t` =.__ z.
fir~ ; :. i.. •
..,
.- I
7.6 540.6 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA � •
� ,� ° _Y e,f.- -u :40t4=4
8.4 540.4 Flood Prone Width: NA ' - ii
R: :^ l., •_,;,. .-
9.1 540.2 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.7 p r �� d,•.
9.8 539.9 Low Bank Height: 1.7 ' ;',.:,,�;-j ;
10.4 539.7 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.7 ,-- •-
• 7.
11.6 539.8 W/D Ratio: NA
12.3 539.8 Entrenchment Ratio: NA .-=r
12.8 540.2 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
13.3 540.7 Stream Type C/E
13.7 540.7
14.1 541.0
14.8 541.3
16.1 541.4 Heron,UT 1, XS - 6, Pool
17.8 541.5
19.7 541.6 542 -
21.9 541.6
\ --
541
z
0
w540 Bankfull
���' -MY-00 2/26/19
- -MY-Ol 8/13/19
-MY-03 5/14/20
539 , I I I MY03LTOB 1
0 10 20 -MY00TOB 30
Station (feet) MY-03 2/16/21

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 ," •' 49t i-' z'``.
• i'‘ji .
XS ID UT 1,XS-7,Pool ' ' �4` 1 �; ;
Feature Pool .w.4,,. t " it , f
Date: 2/16/2021 "�- - w• ' -45 S '. 'C
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris ; -'may-: - g
-- - .----- --"2:.'-._--! '' ._ -''' - --T......--''.17';,,....-.-'_'*-=,,,,-, ' Le : ›,. .
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA - " _ : .6!kg y ""
-0.5 542.5 Bankfull Elevation: 542.E :s e -- - '' ?`� -�' =
. 4.._:._. 8> :-:dui
2.1 542.5 LTOB Elevation: 542.E ""- '' _ ,, ~
5.4 542.6 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 8.0 ' .�-. f. Yt t_:== r
6.9 542.5 Bankfull Width: 15.4 -7- - '
7.7 542.3 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA Y
8.3 541.9 Flood Prone Width: NA : ,_` _� , `_ '4a ,,.-Y_Y.
9.1 541.5 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.6 ._ tr„ 2. _ `t;it.
9.8 541.2 Low Bank Height: 1.6 a..'1 -__)
10.4 541.1 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.5 ,
11.1 541.0 W/D Ratio: NAL. : :-. ' �. '~ .'4' - --
12.2 541.1 Entrenchment Ratio: NA `�,�r. - -
12.9 541.4 Bank Height Ratio: 0.99 r } �
13.4 541.7 Stream Type C/E
14.1 542.1
14.6 542.5
15.4 542.7
17.4 542.8 Heron,UT 1, XS - 7, Pool
19.2 543.0
21.0 543.2 544 -
543 f-s
----
t
0 542
\ \ /
'�W / Bankfull
541 MY-ooz/zsns
-MY-Ol 8/13/19
-MY-02 5/14/20
540 7 I I ■ MY03LTOB i
0 10 20 MY00TOB 30
Station (feet) t MY-03 2/16/21

Site Heron ._,, V j ' , I:' ..:
Watershed: Cape Fear, 0303002 '�
XS ID UT 1,XS 8, Riffle ;r ti ■� .ro
Feature Riffle .=h `' E _ •
Date: 2/16/2021 "` ti:, r `� =ti;._
Field Crew: Perkinson, Adams, Lawson, Harris R. - _ -� -
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.2 544.82 Bankfull Elevation: 544.2 ,.
A6y -. , x,
3.9 544.55 LTOB Elevation: 544.2 ;y�� `y =. A
7.2 544.32 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 7.2 ='"�° •
8.8 543.92 Bankfull Width: 13.8 >. .. . -, F ,=v - ' .Y,.'\ '�f.,,. "'':' "
9.8 543.74 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 545.2 F.
,., _ ;:, +°' ?,;
10.5 543.57 Flood Prone Width: 100.0 _ ,� _ x
11.0 543.48 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.0 , j .
11.7 543.39 Low Bank Height: 1.1 '
ti "-v .i10.).,12.2 543.24 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.5fit.' •
12.9 543.18 W/D Ratio: 26.6 r
13.6 543.26 Entrenchment Ratio: 7.2 °�.
14.4 543.27 Bank Height Ratio: 1.01
15.3 543.12 Stream Type C/E
15.9 543.24
16.2 543.22
16.7 543.44 Heron,UT 1,XS - 8, Riffle
17.3 543.75
17.9 543.83 546
18.6 544.01
20.3 544.18 -
22.9 544.19
545 -
24.8 544.1
Bankfull
26.5 544.3
p1 _ ma, Flood Prone Area
N
-MY-00 2/26/19
O 544 -MY-018/13/19
-MY-02 5/14/20
I �� MY 03 LTOB
543 0 MY 00 TOB
t MY-03 2/16/21
542
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 1
XS ID UT3,XS-9,Pool I'
Feature Pool -
Date: 2/16/2021 s
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris ' •
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA yy i !r C - _
0.4 538.5 Bankfull Elevation: 537.0 ! / r,, ;'
2.9 538.5 LTOB Elevation: 538.3 jr a
4.4 538.3 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 2.9 '
.,}:'tir ,, _ rr
5.5 537.7 Bankfull Width: 5.8 3 ? R'
6.5 537.3 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA r;'l `ti _ 1
7.3 536.7 Flood Prone Width: NA 3 : ,,t : ° ,•, 't -_s:, + +; .,:
_r' . _4':a-: 4 An a
8.2 536.4 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.7 7yf �I ,' . :',
8.7 536.3 Low Bank Height: 0.5 '�•` "'•= ,, '` :.%` • `
9.5 536.3 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.5 S, % •� '
0.0 536.3 W/ Ratio: N - ' `•e
10.6 536.4 Entrenchment Ratio: NA • , ', ,`"yt,,.
11.3 536.E Bank Height Ratio: 0.79 5 - 4 + V. �' f
12.1 536.6 Stream Type C/E
12.3 536.8
13.3 537.2
14.5 537.6
16.0 538.4 Heron,UT 3,XS -9, Pool
17.8 538.8
20.3 538.9 540 -
E
milliM11.11111111111114\N
-
w / Bankfull
_
MY-00 2/26/19
536
-MY-01 8/13/19
- -MY-02 5/14/20
535 , I I . MY03LTOB 1
0 10 20 -MY00TOB 30
Station (feet) - MY-032/16/21
*Last year's error for bank height ratio was corrected on Table 13B

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 3,XS- 10,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 2/16/2021 t'' /
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris
I L rLr ,.,.: ,.
- r
i
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA = s
1.3 539.60 Banld'ull Elevation: - 538.6
4.4 539.20 LTOB Elevation: 538.7
6.5 538.74 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 4.5
ti
•
7.7 538.49 Bankfull Width: 7.4 W
fii8.4 538.30 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 539.7 '�` ' -
9.0 537.90 Flood Prone Width: 18.0 '
9.4 537.64 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.0 ,t-_}'`':;: _ � � ;r' `,,= r , :�; ".-
-3 "_ rrp ti Fir' � r r'
10.1 537.64 Low Bank Height: 1.1 .[ L.�:' t y .:It Pr t':` ' :.
10.6 537.61 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.6 ;t_
11.1 537.61 W/D Ratio: 12.2 ; �. '''-Y: ' ' >. - r
11.6 537.61 Entrenchment Ratio: 2.4 f z �'
12.2 537.97 Bank Height Ratio: 1.11
12.8 537.97 Stream Type C/E
13.3 538.25
15.1 538.84
17.4 539.41 Heron,UT 3,XS - 10, Riffle
21.3 540.00
541 -
540
Bankfull
01 _ Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
p539 -MY-018/13/19
* MY-02 5/14/20
w _----- \ ■ MY 03 LTOB
\ MY 00 TOB
538 -MY-03 2/16/21
537 - I I '
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)

Site Heron �\ ,^ k•:4':,i '-••t'- . ' I
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 • ✓s}
XS IDL UT 4,XS-11,Pool :_
Feature Pool 4 •?
•
Date: 2/16/2021 ': �'''
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris • '_" °f'
Station El SUMMARY DATA �0 i.Ni ' * °
s::•. ,--- 2q
0.0 517.2 Bankfull Elevation: 517.0 ;•'',
2.4 517.3 LTOB Elevation: 517.0 - r ; - '" a°
044-1
4.2 517.2 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 4.8 - ° - '-y k'r"-- -:''
5.1 517.1 Bankfull Width: 9.6 f -:,> "•
.
5.8 516.9 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
6.2 516.7 Flood Prone Width: NA - ~.
6.5 516.4 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.2
6.8 516.2 Low Bank Height: 1.2
7.2 515.9 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.5 a _ - _
7.6 515.8 W/D Ratio: NA lam'-- `! 7� ALT •i; "' :{-
7.9 515.7 Entrenchment Ratio: NA ;. - - .. - _
8.2 515.9 Bank Height Ratio: 1.00
8.7 516.1 Stream Type C/E
8.9 515.9
9.2 516.0
9.5 516.0
9.9 516.1
10.1 516.1 Heron,UT 4,XS-11,Pool
10.3 516.4 518 -
10.4 516.4
10.6 516.6
10.9 516.6
11.2 516.7 517 ! �,-
11.8 516.8 _
12.9 517.0 '
14.5 517.0 z `,�
16.8 516.7 - ,��
516 - x�
W N ';4111111111111. ----'MY-00l
MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
-MY-02 5/14/20
515 1 I • MY 03 LTOB
0 10 MY 00 TOB 20
Station(feet) f MY-03 2/16/21

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 '.
XS ID UT 4,XS-12,Riffle '
s
Feature Riffle ti . �' ' 1
Date: 2/16/2021 -_4- VA VS. 4/1 . : =C . -aS--r•
Field Crew: L Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris ' -• A. ;ti' 4'° .'r." *.:-• /
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA -4 j
'-
0.0 517.60 Bankfull Elevation: 517.3
1.9 517.55 LTOB Elevation: 517.2 ~� ��"
3.5 517.35 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 2.2
5.3 517.17 Bankfull Width: 11.2 - ..»
6.4 516.93 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 517.8 _
6.8 516.90 Flood Prone Width: 40.0 _ _{-
7.2 516.87 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.5 '' �' _ •
7.6 516.83 Low Bank Height: 0.5
8.2 516.72 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.2 . ,
8.5 516.74 W/DRatio: 55.8 ,
8.8 516.71 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.6 .
9.3 516.83 Bank Height Ratio: 1.01
9.7 516.85 Stream Type C/E
10.0 516.81
10.4 517.02
10.9 517.13 Heron,UT 4,XS-12,Riffle
11.4 517.20
12.3 517.25 518 -
12.3 517.25
13.1 517.20
14.4 517.14 G ,............. ttzruiser
16.0 517.2
m
517
m
W
-
---Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
516 - I -MY-02 5/14/20
0 10 • MY 03 LTOB 20
(feet) -MYOOTOB
Station
-•-MY-03 2/16/21

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 4,XS-13,Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date: 2/16/2021 ,
•
Field Crew: 11111. Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris <,, Lr. , E-
x
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA *-;N. '
• 0.0 522.25 Bankfull Elevation: 522.1
2.0 522.32 LTOB Elevation: 522.1 '�` �•'_
3.9 522.23 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.5 .: r
5.1 522.04 Bankfull Width: 7.8 . •
5.9 521.77 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 522.9
6.4 521.58 Flood Prone Width: 40.0 i .
7.0 521.48 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.8 r-
7.5 521.56 Low Bank Height: 0.7
8.1 521.35 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4 t
8.6 521.42 W/DRatio: 17.7
9.1 521.51 Entrenchment Ratio: 5.1 1 1 •
9.6 521.50 Bank Height Ratio: 0.93 '
10.4 521.60 Stream Type C/E
10.8 521.85
11.5 521.99
12.2 522.09 Heron,UT 4,XS-13,Riffle
13.0 522.06
14.1 522.07 524
15.3 522.04
16.4 522.10
16.4 522.10
16.6 522.1
523
z
c•
w▪ 522 �.
1.1
■ ■ -----Bankfull
■ -----Flood Prone Area
■ ■0, MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
521 MY-025/14/20
0 10 • MY 03 LTOB 20
(feet) -MYOOTOB
Station
-•-MY-03 2/16/21

Site Heron
Il
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 4,XS-14,Pool
Feature Pool a
Date: 2/16/2021
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris
Station Elevai SUMMARY DATA
-0.1 522.7 Bankfull Elevation: 522.3 ',
1.5 522.7 LTOB Elevation: 522.3
2.8 522.7 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 6.8 = - ;
3.8 522.6 Bankfull Width: 11.3 ;r -
•
4.8 522.2 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA '•• ' ,
5.5 521.7 Flood Prone Width: NA
5.9 521.4 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.4 ;;;-' :"'`
6.5 521.0 Low Bank Height: 1.4 ; of
7.3 520.9 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.6 " '.=r - '' j .p..��`��
8.1 521.0 W/D Ratio: NA , • • ,,
:s y-- ''' .; r ' 6..
8.6 521.1 Entrenchment Ratio: NA ��-_---_ - "",' �A.
9.1 521.3 Bank Height Ratio: 1.02
9.6 521.4 Stream Type C/E
10.5 521.7
11.2 521.8
11.9 522.0
12.9 522.0
14.3 522.2 Heron,UT 4,XS-14,Pool
16.3 522.3 523 -
522
---.11\
j521 -
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
-MY-02 5/14/20
520 1 I • MY 03 LTOB 1
0 10 MY00TOB 20
Station(feet) -MY-03 2 16/21

Site Heron •-
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 gj�
XS ID UT 5,XS-15,Pool `.. ' • .,marr.re wir,-.
Feature Pool : .. ,...
Date: 2/16/2021 "F4
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris :. ;:; ,
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA-
+1
0.0 517.9 Bankfull Elevation: 517.5 / 1• ' r
1.1 518.0 LTOB Elevation: 517.5 .
2.6 517.9 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 2.4 • -
3.9 517.8 Bankfull Width: 10.4
5.3 517.6 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA 0.___ � -* -' •- " f3; ,' _:ram a``b_5.8 517.4 Flood Prone Width: NAk.:7...:...,.,„::4;?:
'i ,y;� �f T
y r_ Y� yk
6.1 517.3 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.7 _ s.• r .t` `. h4'. I.' ' /. f' _ •
-
6.4 517.2 Low Bank Height: 0.6 •;��-,',.�',*',� ■r •:N��+�•' t •� '�+' . r ,
•
6.9 516.9 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.2 c'% 1' �� �_ i r --
7.1 516.8 W/D Ratio: NA `' "., I
7.6 516.9 Entrenchment Ratio: NA ;+i �il ,'�� A. ..-,
8.1 516.9 Bank Height Ratio: 0.95
8.6 516.9 Stream Type C/E
9.1 516.9
9.6 517.1
10.1 517.4
10.7 517.5
11.4 517.5 Heron,UT 5,XS-15,Pool
12.2 517.4 519
13.3 517.5
14.5 517.5
15.4 517.5
16.1 517.5
m
518 iiIIIIIINmwmimm
0
'm 517
W -----Bankfull
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
-MY-02 5/26/20
516 1 • MY 03 LTOB 1
0 10 MY 00 TOB 20
Station(feet) MY-03 2/16/21

•
Site Heron ';^•.,y''�•'s. `1• I.Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 " �''• "..
�;
XS ID UT 5,XS-16,Riffle A_ '
Feature Riffle -
Date: 2/16/2021 - -
Field Crew: L Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris f"• ` '
----------:
�yf
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA . :`�. `.
•
-0.1 520.76 Bankfull Elevation: 520.9
1.1 520.79 LTOB Elevation: 520.9
2.4 520.78 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 1.9 ;
3.5 520.81 Bankfull Width: 11.0 ,�<. - �, t ,-
4.5 520.90 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 521.4 % a,. .a , .�
5.5 520.71 Flood Prone Width: 40.0 •' :- fr " , �(1j ..
6.1 520.59 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.5 `-' f" Y f� s''�j; `n� 4 ��`•
6.8 520.66 Low Bank Height: 0.6 / Y \_
7.2 520.50 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.2 ' • � i ',/ s }, yTO 0 7 r
7.6 520.33 W/D Ratio: 64.7
l "
7.9 520.34 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.7 , - . ,
8.3 520.34 Bank Height Ratio: 1.07
8.6 520.36 Stream Type C/E
8.9 520.51
9.2 520.60
9.8 520.84 Heron,UT 5,XS-16,Riffle
10.3 520.71
10.9 520.83 522 -
11.6 520.86
12.1 520.97
12.9 521.06
13.4 521.0 _ -
14.7 521.0
m
521 r� -
'+ -
\���J� -----Flood MY-00 Prove Area
J Y26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
-MY-02 5/26/20
520 MY 03 LTOB
-MY 00 TOB 0 10 20
-MY-03 2/16/21
Station(feet)

Site Heron ; .
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 -� „ ,
XS ID UT 5,XS-17,Pool t ;F4 "
Feature Pool .� �v _ raw ;.? . ,'s
Date: 2/16/2021 C ti+'
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris
• !_.
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA _ _ ,
0.1 524.0-
Bankfull Elevation: 523.4 ~
.:; r
1.2 524.0 LTOB Elevation: 523.7 4. +. `. '' � -
2.0 524.0 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.4 ~}
2.8 524.0 Bankfull Width: 5.9 • y ti t= : .
3.4 524.0 Flood Prone Area Elevation. NA I It,r ?In 0.
3.8 523.8 Flood Prone Width: NAN.
rw `
4.3 523.8 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.3 . ,,� � _f
4.8 523.6 Low Bank Height:
1.4 ^
5.7 523.4 Mean Depth agBankfull: 0.6r„ . . 1"' • r` ,
6.0 523.2 W/D Ratio: NA ,,,,, ,,•.,/ :... . s' . .:• jy ;•1� ,
6.3 522.9 Entrenchment Ratio: NA `g' }�`•..'; L' F':
6.6 522.5 Bank Height Ratio: 1.07
7.0 522.3 Stream Type GE
7.5 522.2
7.8 522.2
8.3 522.4
8.7 522.7
9.2 522.9 Heron,UT 5,XS-17,Pool
9.6 523.1 525
10.0 523.1
10.4 523.3
10.9 523.38
11.3 523.4 :::
j
15.2 523.8
MY-00 2/26/19
\ MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/26/20
522 1 •■ MY 03 LTOB 1
0 10 MY00TOB 20
Station(feet) • MY-03216/21

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 5,XS-18,Riffle
Feature Riffle •
Date: 2/16/2021 a'`
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris
,41
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 524.66 Bankfull Elevation: 524.5
1.3 524.44 LTOB Elevation: 524.4 -'',Ir
'-'' "NI,c ? li
py
d
2.0 524.44 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.7 ,.�j.c . .;. ;, -,L • _ ,
3.4 524.43 Bankfull Width: 12.7 -tv,e.t 't."--+ • y ,0;1.4v' a': .. ; 3
4.7 524.26 Hood Prone Area Elevation: 525.2 = `" A'�:§' �' ,' ,,t.„ -• _ �' :�"' '^� k ,,%f
5.6 524.12 Flood Prone Width: 40.0 A;�°5 ; a "..`La+�. • �` " �' • ,.
6.3 523.93 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.8 ` <' ' ,'s ° q�• • n 3 ; F',i -y
6.9 523.94 Low Bank Height: 0.7 '.,,1,r :e. --, :,... .�, ,:. , 'sir° n,k,.: ,,(,�.;„i
7.4 523.95 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.3 •P,: ;. "ti ' ' ,, ,,6'. f
.• Sri
7.8 523.71 W/D Ratio: 43.2 1•. . . j•, .
8.3 523.76 Entrenchment Ratio: 3.2 ' _ c 2f •• '' s'�1
8.9 523.77 Bank Height Ratio: 0.96
9.3 523.78 Stream Type GE
9.8 523.99
10.6 524.09
11.2 524.26 Heron,UT 5,XS-18,Riffle
12.2 524.40
13.3 524.65
14.6 524.40 526
15.6 524.39
m 525 -
z
c.
m
W
524
-----Baakfull
--Plood Prove Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
523 -MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 • MY 03 LTOB 20
Station
- 00 TOB
S4/anon(feet) -MY-03 2/16/21

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 . ' , '���.
XS ID UT 5,XS-19,Pool t4' id
Feature Pool
Date: 2/16/2021 ;, .«,,;,
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris f +;•z:..y�,rs�JPt'x
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATAI ,
0.8 529.1 Bankfull Elevation: 529.1
-0.2 529.1 LTOB Elevation: 529.1
•-" -4"�
1.0 529.1 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.3 F� �`.
2.8 529.0 Bankfull Width: 14.2 . v a. - _ •Y
3.8 528.8 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA ; f " f
5.2 528.8 Flood Prone Width: NA ' t; ;a
5.7 528.6 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.7 f ;'"
3; t
6.2 528.5 Low Bank Height: 0.7 . Iq
7.0 528.4 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.2 _ f
7.4 528.5 W/D Ratio: NA � ; ry '"
8.2 528.7 Entrenchment Ratio: NA r ,w �_•.. ...•t._ _�%y,;• _;�
8.6 529.0 Bank Height Ratio: 0.91 f "` "' r`� L
9.6 529.0 Stream Type C/E
10.4 529.0
11.0 529.1
12.1 529.0
13.5 529.1
Heron,UT 5,XS-19,Pool
530 -
m
529
m
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
-MY-02 5/26/20
528 1 I • MY 03 LTOB
0 10 MY00TOB 20
Station(feet) -MY-03216/21

Site Heron :::
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 ,XSID UT5,XS-2O,Riffle A '"Feature Riffle 'S _' i `
Date: 2/16/2021 • ' ! r r'
Field Crew: IPerkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris '.i
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
-0.1 529.56 Bankfull Elevation: 529.4
1.4 529.53 LTOB Elevation: 529.5 4. s•---' , - 7A'' '' '. . . . • .'- . r E ,
2.6 529.52 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 1.9 w'e a.. ;,1 ae.5`
3.5 529.37 Bankfull Width: 5.9 .../'�'p � k_ -P,hFsr
4.4 529.36 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 530.0 1 • ' =i••
4.9 529.26 Flood Prone Width: 40.0 •`. d'• ;. `_ '
5.3 528.92 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.6 - `--• .-
5.3 528.92 Low Bank Height: 0.6
5.8 528.82 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.3
ram:.- : 7-
. .
6.3 528.82 W/D Ratio: 18.5 't -'
6.7 528.82 Entrenchment Ratio: 6.8 a
7.1 528.86 Bank Height Ratio: 1.11
7.6 529.03 Stream Type C/E
8.2 529.02
8.8 529.23
9.4 529.46 Heron,UT 5,XS-20,Riffle
10.0 529.67
10.6 529.71 531
11.7 529.79
12.9 529.79
14.1 529.78
m
530
z
0
11-\\ 25/11°;1151111111111111111111.11P.
ti
W 529
-----Bankfull
-
--Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
528 -, MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 -MYOOTOB 20
-MY-03 2/16/21
Station(feet)
• MY 03 LTOB

Site Heron 4, ... '".
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 ''t'::7 f•;! .:u
[.r
XS ID UT 5,XS-21,Pool fi �,lplr , . :sa
Feature Pool t..t. �{
Date: 2/16/2021 a
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris .,. ?
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA r
0.2 533.4 Bankfull Elevation: 532.9 ,
1.3 533.6 LTOB Elevation: 533.0 . .
1.8 533.2 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.1 r'
2.8 533.0 Bankfull Width: 5.3 � - ,.
3.7 533.0 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA '' '+y a - • r;i. ;•
4.6 532.8 Flood Prone Width: NA ° ' ' ` '
4.9 532.5 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.1 "� '
5.3 532.3 Low Bank Height: 1.2 ' '�.. Y`1'.;4
5.8 531.9 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.6 "r yd', --
6.1 531.8 W/D Ratio: NA ....:-r-r / _ ." :''.
6.5 531.8 Entrenchment Ratio: NA frt.� '' "` --
7.2 531.9 Bank Height Ratio: 1.14
7.6 532.0 Stream Type C/E
8.0 532.1
8.3 532.6
8.8 532.7
9.8 532.9
10.6 533.1 Heron,UT 5,XS-21,Pool
11.5 533.0 534
12.5 533.1
13.5 533.0
:::
j
il""a14IllIlIllj%\IISkg.''...'m'n'm'm'n'm'm'n'-- -.
---- B� u
MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
-MY-02 5/26/20
531 1 I • MY 03 LTOB
0 10 MY00TOB 20
Station(feet) -MY-03216/21

Site Heron . •'�'.. ' .1 'i../'%-; :fi y r:.: .
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 `� '• ;%'°Ar i'`It;}i y is,1i: �a.-r' •
XS ID UT 5,XS-22,Riffle
�� " t /�� -V.',
r4 1 ;1 Feature Riffle /
Date 2/16/2021 ..._F, '
Field Crew: L Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris ' • • - '• � -
f : ISM r.• sir +: ry•�1[ f.:i. ' -?.:_:•; • y'
• Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA - s 'v: 1• • ,.� 1":' ",� y ',( -Z.•`:. '' +''
-0.5 534.14 Bankfull Elevation: 534.2 •-: A. , -- ^y a • • ,/;� •;' l t., ,Ci
0.8 534.30 LTOB Elevation: 534.1 d ,
1.9 534.27 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 2.9 $
3.2 534.13 Bankfull Width: 7.7 • ' ' >
4.1 534.11 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 534.9 �`'
5.1 533.83 Flood Prone Width: 40.0 +
x,•
5.2 533.82 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.8
6.2 533.61 Low Bank Height: 0.7
7.1 533.60 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4 ti; ,. ` ' ' :
7.4 533.40 W/D Ratio: 20.7 1004?-1 "'
7.8 533.39 Entrenchment Ratio: 5.2
8.1 533.40 Bank Height Ratio: 0.96
8.5 533.40 Stream Type C/E
8.9 533.58
9.3 533.85
10.0 534.05 Heron,UT 5,XS-22,Riffle
10.6 534.18
11.3 534.33 536
12.0 534.52
12.7 534.67
14.0 534.64
535
z
0
e
illana'ill 534 � -ter
-----Bankfull
-----Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
533 -MY-025/26/20
0 10 • MY 03 LTOB 20
-MY 00 TOB
Station(feet) -0-
MY-03 2/16/21

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 ,
XS ID UT6,XS-23,Pool _-
Feature Pool r .
Date: 2/16/2021 - Ai.
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
-0.9 505.9 Bankfull Elevation: 505.7 _ G _;- ' $:,? }y-,•'. -
-0.3 506.1 LTOB Elevation: 505.9 _ ----T--' -
1.1 506.1 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.6 y - :`a of A ry,.....; _ i4',,,, i,. - '-`
2.1 505.8 Bankfull Width: 8.8 _ -P`�` s,:' i: : i s r �
2.9 505.7 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA , s :-Cr3,-..''N''''
�r='; ~� ;;i
Y.- `3� .` }' '7
3.3 505.5 Flood Prone Width: NA : .gin,- y� ;, i^�Pi' S � ••.�� E r1, �x'}i4 ��k��v:,�... •ter r'� 1 ���_;�.
=.'= ` i`.
3.9 505.3 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.0 = � p'�<a° ':;l�:-k., ;.,1;:r
4.4 505.0 Low Bank Height: 1.1 ',"' • t, „j,.=- ,` -
4.9 505.0 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4 : .'' ; , 3 •, c Win,
5.8 504.7 W/D Ratio: NA '
gib. }�.- �:+ ,•� , •d�-•:,�,, ,• .,� _ .. :,.� "� :r{ •
_ ...V�i'r�'r'R �' ��r}'�,A�l Y."c-y., �-i�j;{.,, .+[N� A" _�. �..�• �.r
6.7 504.8 Entrenchment Ratio: NA s r :;, �: �:: r:, Ao; �.
7.0 504.8 Bank Height Ratio: 1.14
7.4 505.2 Stream Type C/E
8.6 505.5
9.4 505.9
10.3 505.9
11.1 505.9 Heron, UT 6, XS -23, Pool
12.0 505.7
12.9 505.7 507
14.3 505.6
a 506
0
505
(� Bankfull
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-Ol 8/14/19
-MY-02 5/26/20
504 I MY03LTOB i
0 10 MY00TOB 20
Station (feet) - MY-03 2/16/21

Site Heron �� -
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 '�` 4 -
-4tiP•-'
XS ID UT 6,XS-24,Riffle � L
y I .A. ,{
Feature Riffle s '
Date: 2/16/2021 LIf
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris �!
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA 4 A�° ,or• O'''' • 4`=
0.3 506.18 Banld'ull Elevation: 505.9 - K}Y" `�= '' -
0.6 506.30 LTOB Elevation: 506.2 1 '"'�"�,.., - ..` `"- t"-' { ` r
2.0 506.36 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 2.2 �: - .
2.6 506.46 Bankfull Width: 5.4 oft - "
3.2 506.39 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 506.5 k,; . . s - .,, .• ' =x
4.0 506.21 Flood Prone Width: 40.0 � r-i ,- ,' N. _' -
4.7 505.98 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.6
5.2 505.72 Low Bank Height: 0.6 M`�i�s a ". y
5.4 505.53 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4 u. ^x' Aar, '`
5.8 505.41 W/D Ratio: 13.4 y }_ -a �• cam, {'..
yes --4,, - „i rz>.i i.„aP`:•... ,_f_:'R , .
6.3 505.56 Entrenchment Ratio: 7.5 ,e". -•.. 0: `,.. �' ,'1:s.1.. -1- , - ,_ ,,...
6.8 505.40 Bank Height Ratio: 1.07
7.4 505.35 Stream Type C/E
8.2 505.39
8.8 505.37
9.3 505.78 Heron,UT 6,XS -24,Riffle
10.1 505.93
10.5 506.03 507 -
11.5 506.13
12.4 506.20
13.8 506.19
-021100sr .b\
506
Iii
A Bankroll
Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/14.19
505 , -MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 • MY 03 LTOB 20
-MY 00 TOB
Station (feet) - MY-03 2/16/21

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 ram*
XS ID UT 6,XS 25,Pool
Feature Pool 14
Date: 2/16/2021 '
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris a :=, : 4, '' � r
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA #•=F,;;
0.2 511.8 Bankfull Elevation: 511.9 ``•'` '0.'k :• :g' • • �s
1.7 511.7 LTOB Elevation: 511.7 a ,.
2.2 511.E Bankfull Cross Sectional Area: 3.24
•'may' _f4. .1 ': . � ; -z ue. .. • 3N,- .gs.�.:�.. '3•,yJR
3.3 511.6 Bankfull Width: 10.8 x r i .�y,: ;; . _, .: . ti� r'
4.0 511.E Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
4.9 511.4 Flood Prone Width: NA '•` i • _ �`'`
5.8 511.3 Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7 '•%, " tc.'�1 � �'' ,�' ,'' ems `
H
511.2 LAt'511.2 Mll: 03 •511.3 W •511.6 En 511.7 BankHei Height Ratio: 0.79e ] '" } �" ''
g
8.9 511.8 Stream Type C/E
9.8 511.8
10.9 511.9
11.9 512.0
12.8 512.1
Heron, UT 6, XS -25, Pool
513 -
512 �l
w511 Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
MY-02 5/26/20
510 • MY 03 LTOB
0 10 MYOOTOB 20
Station (feet) - MY-03 2/16/21

Site Heron 1'{- ,1
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 i
XS ID UT 6,XS-26,Riffle -1- f _
Feature Riffle
Date: 2/16/2021 I i ',I '' _'
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA r .' - -1' ::",= -..x .. .. r. r
7
-0.1 516.52 Bankfull Elevation: 515.5 '°
1.1 516.23 LTOB Elevation: 516.1 °' r .'----.: p`
:,..,,
2.3 516.17 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.5 "' tY;..R: :::
'
3.4 516.11 Bankfull Width: 4.3 x .' "" _V^ :4 '�'�ri '
4.4 516.14 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 516.7 - ;' `- k. :: � - t .Q.,-. i
5.2 515.87 Flood Prone Width: 40.0 ` - - °` •� 'f.
., v4."y c. '`- ;\- -. `;17,. :{ti ,ram..
Max Depth Bankfull: 1 2 z1 ' ;. - - � *:,.
5.7 515.48 a ept at 5 ,s,. �..� ':t�x:'�: ..�.�: R: ;
y; ;` :; _ as �e s.';: 'r' , . = •w#�'
6.1 514.50 Low Bank Height: 1.2 '`
14 Mean!!t::hhll
5.3 - .„ . \ I * ?
9.3 ' ,, ,"_.• ,.- • -,Lti�--1Y�I,=`•: , k,Rs:_a:r: \4--- .;, ,;, ,
8.1 514.39 Bank Height Ratio: 1.02
8.5 514.71 Stream Type C/E
9.2 514.81
9.7 515.26
10.6 515.74 Heron, UT 6, XS - 26,Riffle
11.5 515.85
12.4 515.96 517 -
13.8 516.10
15.0 516.20
• 516 -
o IV
a�i
w
515
Bankfull
1 %di. Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/14/19
514 , -MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 • MY 03 LTOB 20
-MY 00 TOB
Station (feet) -MY-03 2/16/21
Note: Riffle degradation is likely a result of direct, flashy flows from upstream land-use just after construction.
It appears to have stabilized during years 2-3.

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 l
XS ID UT 7,XS-27,Pool t
Feature Pool i i
Date: 2/16/2021 .} ion !::1J'.:nA.;
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris s,V,: i -" >54041E- ��y ",
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA _ - _ yy t; "' `.'" �':,, :..i,; ,
„ ,._ 'JIB h y F :'. T,, ,li; 'c , :,..-
0"0 504.0 Bankfull Elevation: 504.1 _
0"0 504"0 LTOB Elevation: 503"9 ,'a :}. _ - ', -,izji .. - '
2"8 503"8 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 6"3 - --" , ' '' /,'.• z''-' � '4,:;x-s' )-°xi r" .. , k -µa
4"5 503"9 Bankfull Width: 12"5 • �.:- ? lok tr'• ,' 9 -"� - N' -':` ''
5"2 503"7 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA - �. �j�.
5"6 503"5 Flood Prone Width: NA . ;:- �fi ! / _ •' ' r
6.1 503.3 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.0 _11. ;.;' , ` ::-,s• ; ., ' . '�'�
6.4 503.2 Low Bank Height: 0.9 • ; �.
7.1 503.1 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.5 _ . ,' ' IT-•''� :_,, '� � •��� V��=: ,N,1. ,.• ",•
7"7 503"2 W/D Ratio: NA :ti, j i F T- �" ,,R '`Y}' . - Y '' }
8.2 503.2 Entrenchment Ratio: NA ,�,_ \, N '` y ' . 1 1.. ), • ' f', '
8.7 503.3 Bank Height Ratio: 0.93
9.0 503.3 Stream Type C/E
9.4 503.4
9.8 503.3
10.2 503.3 Heron,UT 7,XS -27,Pool
10"5 503"3
10.9 503.6 505
11.3 503.9
11"7 503"9
12"3 504"1
/� •
13.3 504.4 i
504 503
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/14/19
-MY-02 5/26/20
502 r I MY03LTOB i
0 10 —MY00TOB 20
Station (feet) �MY-032/16/21
Note: The sediment deposition in this pool occurred shortly after construction and has stabilized during Years 1-3.
It is not expected to lead to further instability.

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 \, .•
Y .
XS ID UT 7,XS-28,Riffle i• f '.
Feature Riffle 1 'i i
Date: 2/16/2021 + `
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris • \ . 'f - ` ' s ~' °,•br= d - 1 3
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 505.40 IM:fi ull Elevation: - 505.1 -
2.1 505.22 LTOB Elevation: 505.2 r'
4.3 505.12 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.0
5.3 504.99 Bankfull Width: 7.0
5.4 504.93 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 506.2
_
5.8 504.95 Flood Prone Width: 20.0 r
6.3 504.87 Max Depth at Bankfull: 1.1 . , ,- -_
6.8 504.86 Low Bank Height: 1.1 =
7.2 504.85 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4
7.7 504.69 W/D Ratio: 16.3
8.0 504.53 Entrenchment Ratio: 2.9 ' ;
8.4 504.39 Bank Height Ratio: 1.08
8.7 504.35 Stream Type C/E
9.0 504.24
9.2 504.23
9.3 504.12 Heron,UT 7,XS -28, Riffle
9.6 504.06
9.7 504.17 507
9.9 504.31
10.2 504.40 -
10.5 504.50
10.9 504.9 506
11.3 505.1 m
11.9 505.2 �-
13.4 505.3 0 505 - -
14.5 505.4 i
16.0 505.4 W
Bankfull
504
Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/14/19
503 , MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 • MY 03 LTOB 20
-MY 00 TOB
Station (feet) - MY-03 2/16/21

Site Heron .-r.
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 "s'°' . 1 i ,$r
XSID UT7,XS 29,Poo1 •:Feature Pool '� r ? ',:. ' „ .
Date: 2/16/2021 IP qj.. ^d w� 7
4 rL S Y .
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris p ;'• '= - t% ,- ; ``Wife'
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA :; = '' ,; '_� +x __' - ` 'F
0.1 513.1 Bankfull Elevation: 512.3 :-`"'< -,:. `- . _„. t si. �.
ti ,r�.� ter...
•
2.0 513.0 LTOB Elevation: 512.5 - ''-: ' ,''- `�..-`x L. ", - - ¢ " '`
3.1 512.8 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.4 = '` `+ '' • r
4.2 512.5 Bankfull Width: 4.1 /' r" : ��
4.7 512.5 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA -k .
5.4 511.2 Flood Prone Width: NA w -
�
6.2 511.2 Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.2 1,.. "
6.7 511.2 Low Bank Height: 1.3 ` ,� .,_t- �,
7.1 511.3 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.8 s ue ��`` ' �,� '"= ,�:;c"``. _;:. :• f`:'
7.7 511.4 W/D Ratio: NA • a,Rc 4 € , - :]. • `
8.0 511.4 Entrenchment Ratio: NA � . ` ' � "'_
8.4 512.1 Bank Height Ratio: 1.13
8.9 512.3 Stream Type C/E
9.3 512.5
10.0 512.7
10.7 512.8
12.0 512.9 Heron, UT 7, XS -29, Pool
13.2 513.2
14.3 513.2 514 -
513
ru
0 512
2
w
511 Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
MY-02 5/26/20
510 • MY 03 LTOB
0
10 MYOOTOB 20
Station (feet) • MY-032/16/21

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 1
XS ID UT 7,XS-30,Riffle 1
Feature Riffle -
Date: 2/16/2021 I
� A
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 513.76 Banld'ull Elevation: - 513.1
2.9 513.49 LTOB Elevation: 513.3 "' Y. ,
4.5 513.28 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 2.3
5.8 512.83 Bankfull Width: 6.2 ' ' :.
_ _
-
6.4 512.58 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 513.7 =; t
7.1 512.80 Flood Prone Width: 11.0 �''
7.8 512.62 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.6
8.5 512.56 Low Bank Height: 0.6 4k ' �x
9.4 512.60 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4 - r : _` ' _,
10.0 512.62 W/D Ratio: 16.7 •
- n` , y
10.7 512.84 Entrenchment Ratio: 1.8 -; ;:y,`: 'i+'
11.5 513.12 Bank Height Ratio: 1.04
12.4 513.45 Stream Type C/E
13.8 513.55
16.1 514.02
Heron,UT 7,XS -30, Riffle
515
-� 514 -
o
W 513
Bankfull
� Flood Prone Area
- -MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/14/19
512 1 I -MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 ■ MY 03 LTOB 20
-MY 00 TOB
Station (feet) - MY-03 2/16/21

Site Heron I T
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002r �
XS ID UT 7,XS 31,Pool
Feature Pool , =z h.
Date: 2/16/2021 " ;r .: .:
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris k' J. 6 : r §,.+''"''r` ''"' P''' :-
r :� • y. '-.
�=S Rai p':".:;N�._. .��` .I..'•r.�.'•. r
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA '4. .� - w§;"- -. = ` .,F` -`
0.2 514.9 Bankfull Elevation: 514.0 `.
.. ` ., 4 .vim` / ``;� , r "..:
2.0 514.4 LTOB Elevation: 514.2 Y f.-g f," -
2.0 514.4 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.0 �` r. - "` ' >'`
a. _ } k. .g�¢ ^�:K ..f 4q• r . Yip
3.7 514.3 Bankfull Width: 5.8 _- ` f '
5.2 514.2 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA ''
6.2 513.6 Flood Prone Width: NA �' _ .- �� : .fir �
7.0 513.4 Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7 '"'"441_ " a ''--`-'.._ r
7.9 513.3 Low Bank Height: 0.8
(
8.8 513.3 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.5 I J ' ==
9.7 513.5 W/D Ratio: NA r .C]'7:1"=u z. .c.
10.3 513.7 Entrenchment Ratio: NA
10.8 513.9 Bank Height Ratio: 1.01
11.2 514.1 Stream Type C/E
11.9 514.2
12.6 514.4
13.6 514.4
14.6 514.6 Heron, UT 7, XS -31, Pool
16.0 514.8
516 -
515
cu
514 _ -�
468
513 Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/1 9
MY-01 8/14/19
MY-02 5/26/20
512 I • MY 03 LTOB
0
10 MYOOTOB 20
Station (feet) • MY-032/16/21

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 7,XS 32,Riffle t f
Feature Riffle ! _ -
Date: 2/16/2021 ::,• . w ` ''
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris = r � �.: =
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA ' `": {° , �'' _. • t
ivp1,yy�..-Y ��_
0.2 518.32 Banld'ull Elevation: - 517.9 p; y ''
1.5 518.07 LTOB Elevation: 518.0 ;�^: _ �• T
2.8 518.02 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.3 ; _ � •y; _ --
:� i�i',$ � S,-..:-ti .f- -. - ..--may=._
4.3 517.69 Banldull Width: 8.1 s 3 k Y y� v '` -. .' .7-
5.0 517.64 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 518.8 j'. ? _ ,:: a, ;yr ,ii; ;r 1,77,1 . . . ? y, :rz f
5.3 517.50 Flood Prone Width: 20.0 " • �'
5.8 517.22 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.9 _ � 0 - " -' It • ,
6.3 517.13 Low Bank Height:
0.9 �.•ky -�'� �;
7.1 517.07 Mean De th at Bankfull: 0.4 .'8 Y `, '7 `
7.6 517.26 W/D Ratio: 19.8tiz '• `� - '' _
8.4 517.50 Entrenchment Ratio: 2.5 tit4,..
l • 9. w _ '�,l .[ ' 4
9.1 517.65 Bank Height Ratio: 1.10 - r 1
9.8 517.60 Stream Type C/E
10.5 517.74
10.9 517.87
11.8 518.01 Heron,UT 7,XS -32,Riffle
13.3 518.14
15.4 518.34 519 -
m 518
w
0
Bankfull
W 517
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
516 , MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 • MY 03 LTOB 20
MY 00 TOB
Station (feet) - MY-03 2/16/21

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 ? M'
XS ID UT 7,XS 33,Riffle ` l' 4; , ,
Feature Riffle % �" Vl , -, , ' r
Date: 2/16/2021 1 \
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris ;� - `r \ '' r°� '
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA ,, ,c+�'
-0.1 523.13 Banld'ull Elevation: - 523.2 �� ',
1.8 523.18 LTOB Elevation: 523.2 ' =.. '= "r,.M r - - .,R
3.8 523.13 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 1.8 - ,. 4 ;
4.7 523.09 Bankfull Width: 7.4 °' :; e €
5.1 522.93 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 523.8 f. ` ,''` &
5.8 522.65 Flood Prone Width: 20.0 _„ _`� :.::�j; '•.�. °`: •;7
6.4 522.69 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.6 -:::- -.. �1. ` .-.f; '` .�- �.,`
7.1 522.94 Low Bank Height: 0.5 ,. `S "'
E P a ...-.
7.8 522.95 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.2 ,�,. `� 3`
8.5 523.08 W/D Ratio: 30.7 �• ; is _ _
9.1 523.23 Entrenchment Ratio: 2.7 'AP) •
, .s'' �' `' '''
9.9 523.37 Bank Height Ratio: 0.90 i ,. .. _ .,-.: t ....:F .4
10.7 523.32 Stream Type C/E
12.0 523.29
13.6 523.43
Heron,UT 7,XS -33,Riffle
524 -
m
--- de.%
523 �` ��/
hk‘l
W
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
522 r -MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 -MYOOTOB 20
t MY-03 2/16/21
Station (feet) • MY 03 LTOB

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 a�' ;., ,, y�.
XS ID UT 8,XS 34,Riffle r \'. yy i. -; y`,''" i' t • i t
F " a r a r I
Feature Riffle 'tut'''. r
2/16/2021 , I , ' ' . jI; /
/
-�n.Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris ;� l ,r a-. '
ti. x rays
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA "'' ;+� y
-2.8 515.38 Banld'ul1 Elevation: - 515.2 - - - ; .-144t._ - -_
0.0 515.46 LTOB Elevation: 515.2 _ r• "
2.1 515.45 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 2.6 * w `�" rY �`�
3.3 515.40 Bankfull Width: 5.3 .
4.1 515.21 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 515.9 - s ` '" '
4.7 515.09 Flood Prone Width: 40.0 = _ - ='J "_ ~ `
5.2 514.73 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.7 -,��•�r-z--,._;.-;R_.:� • V•,. =
5.7 514.70 Low Bank Height: 0.8 =
6.2 514.45 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.5 _ �' -' ',''' ". -
6.7 514.56 W/DRatio: 10.7 " -- e °k r
7.3 514.56 Entrenchment Ratio: 7.6 ,' • : ,�. '
7.8 514.54 Bank Height Ratio: 1.11 � ~ .c
8.2 514.47 Stream Type C/E
8.6 514.52
9.0 514.56
9.4 514.89 Heron,UT 8,XS -34,Riffle
9.7 515.24
10.7 515.36 516 -
12.1 515.31
14.1 515.37
15.8 515.38
NI
��
�.
j
515
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
514 , -MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 • MY 03 LTOB 20
-MY 00 TOB
Station (feet) f MY-03 2/16/21

Site Heron
tie 1, ,.i .,,;,' , �:
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 4t j: ''or'` i'' o.
XS ID UT8,XS 35,Pool , i l 1 . . . ;+: . J ; �}:
Feature Pool 1sl I ; w '' L ) 1' ' i' ' • !
Date: 2/16/2021 ! rl :"'L
,'i"4'
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris 6 : �' R - ''`"' �-
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA w� � '` � .
0.4 515.9 Bankfull Elevation: 515.5 -
.• - :.,:. �'s".`' a..�' . _._-- , `° +y _
2.4 515.9 LTOB Elevation: 515.9 . ::: .'_
"'' "s![3 - _• it -
4.1 515.9 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 4.1
4.9 515.5 Bankfull Width: 6.4
5.5 514.9 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA - ='-=-= ••r ,;. •
6.1 514.9 Flood Prone Width: NA =";Rf'"
6.9 514.8 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.9 •
T' 3. 1
:. , -.�. 4. t
7.5 514.7 Low Bank Height: 0.9 ''" •
_-:, ..;"- -, ,,i`':: g.,
8.2 514.6 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.6 :, `:•:;' ,_ti`.
9.3 514.7 W/D Ratio: NA -. ,: � ;
10.1 514.9 Entrenchment Ratio: NA r r ''' it'. t. -'•' - `` }.!Ti'..-,* -`--
10.8 515.3 Bank Height Ratio: 1.01
11.4 515.6 Stream Type C/E
11.9 515.8
12.9 516.0
14.4 516.2
16.4 516.3 Heron, UT 8, XS -35, Pool
517 -
r 516 \`•mw
o -
W 515 L.
Bankfull
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
-MY-02 5/26/20
514 -t ' I ' • MY 03 LTOB '
0 10 MYOOTOB 20
Station (feet) - MY-03 2/16/21

Site Heron
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002
XS ID UT 8,XS-36,Riffle y' .A
Feature Riffle 1j i i t
Date: 2/16/2021 `'-- -
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris `�' • r �� --
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA "' _
0.0 521.43 Banld'ull Elevation: s• ;• '-'. '4e.'• '',-.''.• ,, , . -: ,r •
- 520.8 - �'
2.1 521.09 LTOB Elevation: 520.E t �-._
if r ', ..ors.-. ; 1 r' a
Y� > ',
4.4 520.92 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 3.7 �Y. '�°�. �;��' � ��`�� _ tg-' • :� �� E�
6.2 520.53 Bankfull Width: 9.7
7.2 520.47 Flood Prone Area Elevation: 521.5 y . . ,'. , ,,` • w yj.��
7.9 520.32 Flood Prone Width: 20.0 ' ° . • '
8.8 520.03 Max Depth at Bankfull: 0.8 ,,00 �' , `..,�''' r`'•.`r. _ r
9.9 520.08 Low Bank Height: 0.8 �` • • �.
11.1 520.01 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.4 �' ''�� Ir"' 9_ _ . `- " `' . ;,.'
11.5 519.99 W/D Ratio: 25.5to ".,s..''•• S , s - ;:, .;, 7 _. ..
12.0 520.43 Entrenchment Ratio: 2.1 - `' _ t `
12.8 520.63 Bank Height Ratio: 1.07
13.7 520.70 Stream Type C/E
15.9 520.82
18.0 521.15
Heron,UT 8,XS -36,Riffle
522 -
521
o
W 520 - -
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
-MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-01 8/13/19
519 , -MY-02 5/26/20
0 10 -MYOOTOB 20
MY-03 2/16/21
Station (feet) ■ MY 03 LTOB

Site Heron `; ' A .`; Fey:G' :c •,f ly
Watershed: Cape Fear,0303002 - ; t. i'` k� z ► ;,; r
XS ID UT 8,XS 37,Pool r ; } i s • •� 4,f" ]
Feature Pool I 1 .J'r ." '_� ;,i,'i �1; a .
Date: 2/16/2021 4. ' • - :.``-•{ : Y? ;,T . ._.. •-: ^-
' w
Field Crew: Perkinson,Adams,Lawson,Harris f = - r.� ..- __��
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA z .,. _
1.1,:' - :-.:" '`- "fir
0.2 521.3 Bankfull Elevation: 520.9 v . - Y \- • ' -.4:'_ 1 -. F
1.0 521.2 LTOB Elevation: 520.9 � :9=.;��; • •: � -�_
2.9 521.2 Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area: 7.2 ' ", t•` s '� " =' "`=
4.6 521.1 Bankfull Width: 8.6 - -• '''' 'V*
5.7 520.8 Flood Prone Area Elevation: NA
• ,fir. l,._
6.6 520.5 Flood Prone Width: NA - .. :; -
7.1 520.3 Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.6 y ,' -•' =tiu ~
yip -.:•.:. -, ,.,,��
8.2 519.9 Low Bank Height: 1.5 •` � .,t .•.- a °,_. .'' r4
8.7 519.7 Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0.8 • ,x'v
9.5 519.4 W/DRatio: NA .`
10.1 519.4 Entrenchment Ratio: NA ' 3•. •, �.." 9r. ~;
10.9 519.4 Bank Height Ratio: 0.97
11.9 519.9 Stream Type C/E
12.2 520.2
12.7 520.4
13.4 520.9
14.5 521.0 Heron, UT 8, XS -37, Pool
15.9 521.1
17.1 521.3 522 -
18.1 521.7
521
j
•
o
w520 Bankfull
i MY-00 2/26/19
-MY-018/13/19
��or MY-02 5/26/20
519 I • MY03LTOB
0 10 -MYOOTOB 20
Station (feet) . MY-03 2n6/21

Appendix E.
Hydrology Data
Table 15A.-15J. Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 16. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 17. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Figure E-1. 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 15A. UT1 Channel Evidence
UT1 Channel Evidence Year 1(2019) Year 2(2020) Year 3(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 103 162 289
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial
vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or Yes Yes Yes
inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel
braiding)at natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant Yes Yes Yes
root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No
Other:
Table 15B. UT2 Channel Evidence
UT2 Channel Evidence Year 1(2019) Year 2(2020) Year 3(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 85 126 116
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial
vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or Yes Yes Yes
inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel
braiding) at natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant Yes Yes Yes
root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No
Other:
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 15C. UT3 Channel Evidence
UT3 Channel Evidence Year 1(2019) Year 2(2020) Year 3(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 142 166 120
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation(herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial
vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or Yes Yes Yes
inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel
braiding)at natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant Yes Yes Yes
root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No
Other:
Table 15D. UT5 Downstream Channel Evidence
UT5 Downstream Channel Evidence Year 1(2019) Year 2(2020) Year 3(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 134 152 135
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial
vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or Yes Yes Yes
inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel
braiding) at natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant Yes Yes Yes
root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No
Other:
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 15E. UT5 Upstream Channel Evidence
UT5 Upstream Channel Evidence Year 1(2019) Year 2(2020) Year 3(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 167 158 60
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial
vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or Yes Yes Yes
inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel
braiding)at natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant Yes Yes Yes
root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No
Other:
Table 15F. UT6 Channel Evidence
UT6 Channel Evidence Year 1(2019) Year 2(2020) Year 3(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 131 187 288
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial
vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or Yes Yes Yes
inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel
braiding) at natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or plant Yes Yes Yes
root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No
Other:
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 15G. UT7 Downstream Channel Evidence
UT7 Downstream Channel Evidence Year 1(2019) Year 2(2020) Year 3(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 237 68 144
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial
vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or Yes Yes Yes
inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel
braiding)at natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or Yes Yes Yes
plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No
Other:
Table 15H. UT7 Middle Channel Evidence
UT7 Middle Channel Evidence Year 1(2019) Year 2(2020) Year 3(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 151 106 157
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial
vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or Yes Yes Yes
inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel
braiding)at natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or Yes Yes Yes
plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No
Other:
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 151. UT7 Upstream Channel Evidence
UT7 Upstream Channel Evidence Year 1(2019) Year 2(2020) Year 3(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 237 248 107
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial
vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or Yes Yes Yes
inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel
braiding) at natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or Yes Yes Yes
plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No
Other:
Table 15J. UT8 Channel Evidence
UT8 Downstream Channel Evidence Year 1(2019) Year 2(2020) Year 3(2021)
Max consecutive days channel flow 49 89 69
Presence of litter and debris(wracking) Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent,or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or otherwise) Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment transport Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community(absence or destruction of terrestrial
vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for flow or Yes Yes Yes
inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or channel
braiding) at natural topographic breaks,woody debris piles,or Yes Yes Yes
plant root systems
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No
Other:
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT1
Year 3 (2021 Data)
r 3.0
23 - -
21 -
19 - 2.5
17 I i
15
c 289 Days 2.0ul
I
w 131116)1
0
w E
w 11 Q
to ru
ru
vn 9 e 1.5
E ijj4: 1cc
7 ru
L
VI
5 ii,„ V 1.0
3 1�1
1 I
- 0.5
-1
5 ' I i I . IL__ I i Ihi1 ..
L J 0.0
i- i- i- i- N N W W W A A A l!i l!i l!i l!1 01 01 01 V V V CO CO CO l0 L0 L0 F- F- F- F- F-�
I--, I--, N W I--, N N I--, N I--, I--, N I--, I--, N W I--, N W I--, N W 1.0 I--, N CO I--, N
i i i O O > NJ NJ > F - F F - O O O O O O l0 l0 Co Co CO - N V F
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ COCO \
V
1- N N N N N 1- N N I- N N I- N N N N N N N N N I- N N I- N N N \ \ N
1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1- 1- 1- N N 1- N
1--, 1--, F,

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT2
Year 3 (2021 Data)
3.0
23 I If l21
19 - 2.5
17
c
". 15 116 Days
i 2.0
a) a
J 13 0
ar
ao
m E
I $
n 11
E 9 1.5
4.4 re
' ns
H
7
5 '14111\k"ik,rbt.,\,...„...):Niki, ivil\' 111) Iv 1,11.
1.0
fie L 0.5
-1
d !
-5 -� . L LI I I . I_ . ��_ I I I 0.0
F-. F-. i- F-. N N W W W A A A Ul Ul Ul Ul Ol al Ol V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 I- I- I- i- i-�
F-, F-, NJ W I-3 NJ NJ I-3 NJ I-3 I-3 NJ I-3 I-3 NJ W I-3 NJ W I-3 NJUJ l0 I-3 NJ 00 I-' N \ \ \ \ \
N N N O O N N \ N N \ N N N O O O O O O l0 l0 00 00 00 N N V N
N \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ 00 00 \ V
I-3 N N N N N I-3 N N I-3 N N I-3 N N N N N N N N N I-3 N N I-3 N N N \ \ N \

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT3
Year 3 (2021 Data)
3.0
23
21
19 1 2.5
17 120 Days
15 c
i 2.0
13 I 3
ar 0
to
N 11 Q
aa)
9 �, 1.5
N re
7
5 1.0
3
1 1
_ — M► 0.5
-1
11 1
LI
-5 0.0
,- ,- ,- ,- N N W W W A A A Ul Ul Ul Ul cm cm Ol V V V 00 00 00 lO lO lO F-. I- I- I- I-
---... �
1--, 1--,F\-, N W FA N N FA N I-4 I-4 N I-4 I-4 N W I-4 N W FA N W LOO FA N W I-, IV N \ \ \ \ \
F, F, F, O O N N \ F, F, \ F, F, F, O O O O O O lO lO 00 00 00 F, N V F,
F-, N N N N N F-, N N F-, N N F-, N N N N N N N N N F-, N N F-, N N N N
FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA N N F-, N
FA FA FA

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT5 Upstream
Year 3 (2021 Data)
r 3.0
23
21
19 - - 2.5
17 -
15 60 Days
/ c
2.0 .:n
13 3
c o
i 11 Q
ar
9 1.5
°p m
as re
0 7
E
as
E 5Lriji 1.0
3
04-
1
0.5
LkAl\t.A. 4.A.
-1
: l . Lui I . I I_. Its_ I I 1 ) . J_l0.0
F-� F-� F-� F-� N N W W W A A A Ul Ul Ul Ul cm cm Ol V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 F-. I— I— I— I-
-.--, �
F-, F\-, N W FA N N FA N F\-, F\-, N F\-, F\-, N W F\-, N W F\-, N W ll) FA N W F\-' N \ \ \ \ \
F-, F-, F- O O N N \ F-, F- \ I— I— I— O O O O O O l0 l0 00 00 00 I— N V I-�
I-� N N N N N I-� N N I-� N N I-� N N N N N N N N N I-� N N I-� N N N N
FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA FA N N I- N
FA FA FA

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT5 Downstream
Year 3 (2021 Data)
3.0
23
21
19 1 2.5
17
15
2.0
13 3
— o
i 11 Q
ar —
1.5 2
t 9 135 Days
re
0 7
R
3.) 5 1.0
3 ),i414uLkiu\,
114
0.5
-1
i I
3 l .� ■ k I Ihltit\ iill-5 � 0.0
F- F- F- F- N N W W W A A A Ul Ul Ul Ul cm cm Ol V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 F-. I- I
I- I-
-..-. �
F-, 1--, NJ N W FA N N FA N I-4 I-4 N I-4 I-4 N W I-4 N W FA N W l\O FA N W I-' IV N \ \ FA

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT6
Year 3 (2021 Data)
3.0
23
21
19 2.5
17
15
2.0
13
o
ar
11
J
9 1.5 c
7 JJ288DaVsLJ ,
1.0
dAIL .Mw.
Li[Ap
1
I •
= 0.5
-1
-3 l . L ■ _ I . I . It_ I IL.""".....11)111..11 1 _� J_i-50.0
N N W W UJ A A A Ul Ul Ul Ul Ol Ol Ol V V V 00 00 00 lO lO lO I-. I-.
N U.) F-� N N F-� F-� F-� N F-� F-� N.) U.) F-� N U.) F-� N.) U.) LOO F-� N W F'- \ \ \ \ \
N N N O O N N \ N N \ N N N O O O O O O lO lO 00 00 00 N N V
F-� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
N N N

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT7 Upstream
Year 3 (2021 Data)
2.0
23
21 1.8
19 —
1.6
17
c
Tv 15 1.4 c
w
a 13 1.2 o
CIA
N 11 1 - Q
E 9 107 Days 1.0 c
a113
cc
7 ( 0.8
5 '
3
0.6
IILL- / I
1 - 0.4
-1
I I
3 ILL I_ . II I � _1
-5 - 0.2
. J
0.0
I-, I-, I-, I-, NJ NJ W W W 4N 4N 4N Ul Ul Ul Ul Ol Ol O1 J .J V 00 CO 00 1..0 l0 l0 I-. I-` I-` I-` I-`
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 N N
I-, I-, NJ W I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ I-, I-, NJ I-, I-, NJ W I-, NJ W I-, NJ U) lO I-, NJ 00 I-, NJ
N N N 0 0 NJ NJ \ I- N \ N I- N 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 l0 00 00 00 N NJ V N
N \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ 00 00 - V
I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ \ \ NJ \
1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, NJ NJ 1--, NJ
I-, I-, I-

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT7 Middle
Year 3 (2021 Data)
3.0
23
21
19 1 — 2.5
17 - -
15 -
2.0
:-7- 13 — 3
ar 0
1 E
'; 11 4
ar —
9 tto 157 Days 1.5 c
N 'E
E cc
ar
7 •
`n 5 1.0
3
1 - 0.5
-1
-3 I . L IJ I_. �� 41:1----111\I1 . I _i _, . i _ J_
5 0.0
,_ F-. ,_ I-. NJ NJ W W W 4N -IN 4N Ul Ul Ul Ul 01 01 O1 V V V 00 00 00 lO lO lO I-. I- I- I- I-
----.
I--, I--, N W I--, N N I--, N I--, I--, N I--, I--, N W I--, N W I--, N W l\O I--, N 0000 I--, N \ 0 0 \ \
F, F, I-, 0 0 NJ NJ \ F, F, \ I-, I- I-, 0 0 0 0 0 0 lO lO 00 00 00 I-, NJ V F,
NJ F-, N N N N N F-,NJ N N F-,NJ N N F-,NJ N N N N N N N N N F-,NJ N N F-,NJ N N N N
F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, F-, NJ NJ I-, NJ
F-, F-, F-

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT7 Downstream
Year 3 (2021 Data)
3.0
23 —
21 —
19 — 2.5
17 —
15 —
_ 2.0
c 13 3
u
0
11 Q
J
m 1.5 w
n 9 144 Days
cc
I
7
ji4k1/1481 t 1 _
5 1.0
3
1
0.5
-1
-3 LI
_ i I . i_. 11.__ 1 I i _. . -4%1111 r
,- ,- ,- ,- N N W W W A A A Ul Ul Ul Ul cm cm Ol V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 I-. I- I
I- I-
---..
F-, F\-, N W F\-, N N F\-, N F\-, F\-, N F\-, F\-, N W F\-, N W F\-, N W l\O F\-, N W F\-' N \ \ I- N

Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT8
Year 3 (2021 Data)
23 II I- 3*()
21 -
19 — 2.5
17—c
Tv 15 69 Days
2.0
J 13 I 3
m o
N 11 Q
E 1.5 w
m g C
(0
/ 16
cr) ililliiiittlf Ji1/17
: ' ( 1
1.0
illI
111.
0.5
j_11)(11 11
1 Ii
ll
-1 I
-3I . I I I ,. ilji1
5 0.0
I- I- I- I-, NJ NJ W W W .0. .0. .0. Ul Ul Ul Ul 01 01 01 V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 I-. I-, I-, I-, I-,
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 N N
I-, I-, NJ W I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ I-, I-, NJ I-, I-, NJ W I-, NJ W I-, NJ U) l0 I-, NJ 00 I-. NJ
N N N 0 0 NJ NJ \ I— N \ N I— N 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 l0 00 00 00 N NJ V N
N \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ 00 00 \ V
I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ \ \ NJ \
1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, 1--, NJ NJ 1--, NJ
I-, I-, I-

Table 16. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data Photo
Collection Date of Occurrence Method (if available)
Stream gauge data indicates a bankfull event occurred
August 26,2019 July 7,2019 after 4.06 inches of rain was documented on July 7,2019 --
at an onsite rain gauge
A bankfull event likely occurred after 7.16 inches of rain
August 26,2019 August 22,2019 was documented between August 20 22,2019 at an onsite
rain gauge
Wrd lg wre ohe TO
July 1,2020
May 19 an
May 21,2020 of UTack4 afteran 3.03 aid-back inchesve of rain wasere documented
vd betweenB
1
d 21,2020 at etation an onsiteobse rain gauge.nt
Wrd lbco wvd e O
November 16,2020 November 12,2020 of UTack1 afteran 3.13 aid- a inchesk of rainn wasere documentedobsereon betweenth B
2
November 11 and 12vegetati,2020 at an onsite rain gauge.T
A ea y a
December 14,2020 December 14,2020 andbankfull stream ev gauge ntwas evidencedocumen after 0.82 inches oftr rainil camera were 3
captured at an onsiteed raino UT8 gauge.b
A bankfull was documenm
January 31. 2021 January 31.2021 stream gauge evidence afterted 0.56UT3 inchesby of rain were 4
captured by an onsite rain gauge
on betweentrail Januarycaera 25and-28.
February 13 16, A bmeg it visit afterankfull 1.38event incheswas documented capturedonUT1B by an onsitea se
February 16,2021 2021
rain gauge between February 13 16,2021.durin
Photo 1:Wrack and laid-back vegetation along
I ._. 4r f� �� � ram}
"z • the TOB of UT4 after a bankfull event �J
S�i �r� I �N. � ��c�%�- � s�:\��� '�q�,�i�,'���� -c.`ri1_ � �- �_� ��a�4 �S/�
,,, _.....„ , ),_____,,, , __. ,
i,, t..:4,---,i_l .0,.,,,, 4!--_ `,.: vi=„,',1% --'''''_::':-;-_-.--,..?-", '-' ' ' \\-
.� �_ �.. +,fir "�'V wmr t- 's.
....",„
. ,' s . ' - ?;''''i 41‘1'N,',- i'..,---, .
s� \ �,� I.--
Y�'It _- f I I "-i 11 �� , _
-
Appendices
r--
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014)
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Photo 2:TO
Wrack and
- o ` _` r along the B of UT1 after
laid aback bankfull event.vegetation I� �.• �' ' '
•
t y
i't
. yl 11:''',),' .'Ai \ '' .... '''t:., .N' .• ' . ;' ---..0.4%
a 1
r
* ____ok
i.
tv_, . a p p
�. 11
„ I fir` • r r' I A '� ` -- ,�
,.,„4,.,,,,_ ,....,,,,,,,„,,,,,,„ . ,,,... _ ,N'',A,
a „,
9"f
iL. ; '-.„ .-4 -,-. „�„*. s! d• [At� i.. A r , 1 « .M i�z: i �pf.. yx iyr p_ +�.
•
it
�, v
!3 r t 4 i ' ./ v ".,; -S 4,!4...- J �•.+ ~ ..__i '. �'_ \ AIL . 4 -� .r.
Nsieol
•
1.1
-
.,,a.y- J � e -_ �- i rf 4p,,,dy i4r
li.
T \ A
W; 1 erri, / �i '' ' _ 15 IAA ik -''� .' +� 11 y -
nted on
DPhoto ecemb 3:e UT8 bankfull r 14, 2020 afterevent 0.82 inchdocumees of rain.
•
�}..,-+, - I+° au =� •1`.L„ ' fin..:• f .
-i \4_
�f c�
29.29inHg + C . 41 °F. ( 12 / 14 / 2020 1 0 : 30AM HERNUT8
Appendices
Restoration Systems,LLC
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014)
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Alamance County,North Carolina December2021

Photo 4: UT3 bankfull event documented on
January 31,2020 after 0.56 inches of rain.
•t ; it`� � ' 1- t- s
S h
::, . ..,__
29.56 inHg i 8 33°F 01 1 31 12fl21 1 1 : 57AM HERON UT3
Photo 5: Bankfull event on UT1B on February 16 after
!� 1� !i 1 ti,l" 9 1
dE 1.38 inches fell between February 13 16,2021
'. 1 • ram=
VI-Ar
'�� ,n= '.u a rL � .ill .
�a
.,.E �.., t°iP.r _ -
:. J� is a= ! - *4'!
4tilk
,g is ,,.sari" ! F !�
? x f a� ,f
•
s
r _
i
i'
• F
.y
' 3 :,
•
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Table 17. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season(Percentage)
Gauge Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Year 1(2019) Year 2(2020) Year 3(2021)
(2022) (2023) (2024) (2025)
1 Yes/33 days Yes/23 days Yes/46 days
(15.8%) (9.8%) (19.5%)
2 Yes/26 days Yes/27 days Yes/47 days
(12.4%) (11.5%) (19.9%)
3 Yes/35 days Yes/28 days Yes/36 days
(16.7%) (12.0%) (15.2%)
4 Yes/69 days Yes/51 days Yes/60 days
(33.0%) (21.8%) (25.4%)
5 Yes/52 days Yes/45 days Yes/50 days
(24.9%) (19.2%) (21.2%)
6 Yes/54 days Yes/46 days Yes/52 days
(25.8%) (19.7%) (22.0%)
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December 2021

Heron Groundwater Gauge 1
Year 3 (2021 Data)
12 - 2.5
10 Start Growing Season
March 1 End Growing Season
8 October 22
6 - -I —
4
2 46 Days - 19.5% - 2.0
0 I
2-4 I � 1
-6
> -8
Ji ++
- 1.5 ,
v -10
c
o -12 0
14 Mill a
0 -16 - •i Wild-- \‘
ns
c
-20 11111111 1.0 ce
-22 - I
-24
-26
-28 i I�i I-
-30 0.5
-32
-34
-36
-38
I
_40 .1 ,l - I 1 I .I I I.. LiI 1 III J .1. . I g . . ,-400.0
, I- I- I--s NJ NJ W W W Ui Ui Ui Ui 01 01 01 V V V 00 00 00 l0 l0 l0 1-- 1--s 1--s 1--s 1--s 1--s 1--s 1--s 1-
....... \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 I- I- I- N N N
I- I- NJ W I- NJ NJ I- NJ I- I- NJ I- I- NJ W I- NJ W I- NJ W l0 I- NJ CO I- NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
I- I- I- 0 0 NJ NJ I- I- I- I- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 l0 CO CO CO I- NJ v I- NJ v I- NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ CO CO \ V V \ V V
I- NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ NJ \ \ N \ \ N \ \
I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ
I- I- I- I- I- I-

Heron Groundwater Gauge 2
Start Growing Season
March 1 Year 3 (2021 Data)
12 2.5
10 F 47 Days - 19.9%MEI/ \ 1 End Growing Season
6 �,1 . MilL I October 22
2 �I
0 2.0
c -2
a, -4
ai -6
J IA
8 1.5 c
3 -10 0
C 12 j
IjL Q
0 -14
tis
0 -16 73—
-18 \Lj 1.0 cc
-20
-22
-24 1 I I I I i I L
-26
-28
-30 I 0.5
-32
-341 I
-36-38 L
I I
- +- --E- I-40 y II I ■ - 0.0
I-, I-, I-, F, N N W W W Ul Ul Ul Ul al al al •••-.I 00 00 00 lD lD lD I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-,
I--s I--s N W I--s N N I--s N I--s I--s N I--s I--s N W I--s N W I--s N W l\D I--s N 0000 I s N 0 0 0 \ \ . NJ NJ \
I- I-, I- 0 0 NJ NJ I- I-, I- I-, I-, 0 0 0 0 0 0 lD lD 00 00 00 I- NJ I- NJ I- NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ 00 00
I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I— I-, I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ
I- I- I- I- I- I-

Heron Groundwater Gauge 3
Year 3 (2021 Data)
12 2.5
10 Start Growing Season
March 1 End Growing Season
8 October 22
6
4 36 Days - 15.2%
2 - 2.0
0
tellg.c -4
> -6
3 -8
L 1.5 •y
10 c
3 -12 oo
c -14 E
o -16 al
-18 \I \or \rr i C
Ca
-20 1.0 cc
-22
-24 I-26
-28 r
-30 0.5
-32
-34
-36
-38 � ,_ I, I I I III i 1 1 J ,
-40 0.0
F-, F-, F-, F-, N N W W W -P -P -P U"I Ul U1 Ul 01 01 01 �I V V CO CO CO l0 1.0 l0 F-‘ F-‘ F-‘ F-‘ F-‘ F-‘ F-‘ F- 1-
--..... \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 N N N N N N
I- I- NJ W I- NJ NJ I- NJ I- I- NJ I- I- NJ W I- NJ W I- NJ W l0 I- NJ CO I- NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
N N N 0 0 N N I- N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 l0 CO CO CO N N v N N v N N
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ CO CO \ V V \ V V
I- NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \
1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- NJ NJ 1- NJ NJ 1- NJ NJ
1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1-

Heron Groundwater Gauge 4
Year 3 (2021 Data)
12
10 Start Growing Season 2.5
8 March 1 End Growing Season
6 - I October 22
60 Days 25.4%
4
2 2.0
0 -
_ -2
c -4
ai -6 C
J $ 1 1.5 -
-10 a
3 -12 -
c -14 \Li a
o -16
._ C
co -18 co
-20 L E
1.0
-22
-24
-26
-28 r
-30 0.5
-32
-34 I
-36 II t
-38 �� 1 _ —� I I � IIII . I ■ 1 , .I
-40 -II—
-- - -- 0.0
I— I— I— I— N NJ W W W A A A Ui Ui Ui Ui Cr) Cr) 6l �I V V CO CO CO l0 l0 l0 1- 1- I- I- I- I- I- I- I-
......... \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 N N N N N N
I- I- NJ W I- NJ NJ I-, NJ I-, I-, NJ I-, I-, NJ W I-, NJ U) I-, NJ IN VD I- NJ CO I- NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\ N N N 0 0 \ NJ N \ N N \ N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 - l0 l0 \ CO CO CO N N v N N v N N
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ co co - V j \ V V
I- NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-, NJ NJ I- NJ NJ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \
I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, N NJ I- N NJ I- N N
1--, 1--, 1--, I--, I--, F-,

Heron Groundwater Gauge 5
Year 3 (2021 Data)
12 2.5
10 Start Growing Season
8 March 1 End Growing Season
6 I October 22
4 —
2 - 2.0
0 - I 50 Days -21.2%
-2
_c -4 . .. ii
>1:1)
6
v
1ii) 8 L ii,, , L, - 1.5 c
.., -10 v,
ra
*'
-0 -12 - o
c -14 E
0 a
-16
w
-18
-20 - 1.0
-22
-24
-26 1 r' I
-28 r
-30 - 0.5
-32
-34
-36-38 1, tiLl
-40 I I I I I I-. ��_ II I I .1 .1. - i . . I 0.0
I--� I--� I--� I--‘ N N W W W -P -P -P Ul Ul U1 Ul 01 01 01 �I V V CO CO CO l0 l0 l0 F-‘ F-‘ F-‘ F-‘ F-‘ F-‘ F-‘ F- 1-
........ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 I- I- I- N N N
I- I- NJ W I- NJ NJ I- NJ I- I- NJ I- I- NJ W I- NJ W I- NJ W lfl I- NJ CO I- NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
I- I- I- 0 0 NJ NJ I- I- I- I- I- 0 0 0 0 0 0 l0 l0 CO CO CO I- NJ v I- NJ v I- NJ
NJ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ N \ \ N \ \ \ CO CO \ V V \ V V
I- NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \
I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ
I- I- I- I- I- I-

Heron Groundwater Gauge 6
Year 3 (2021 Data)
12 2.5
10 Start Growing Season
8 March 1 — _ End Growing Season
6 I _ October 22
4 I —
2I 52 Days 22.0%
2.0
0 ,-2gip 1114!
c -6
1 c
I
8 I - 1.5
-10 -,
-12 —
-14 a
-16-18 =
131.11
co
-20 - 1.0 cc
-22I "ft..-
-24
-26
-28 r
-30 - 0.5
-32
-34
-36-38
-40 -I IL r . I I I I I I I I 1 .i. - _.i I I - . I 0.0
I-, I-, I-, I-, N N W W W . . -i. Ui Ul U'I U'I Ql Ql C v v v 00 00 00 lD lD lD I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, F-s I-
-, \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 N N N Ni N N
I- I- NJ W I- NJ NJ I-s NJ I-s I-s NJ I-, I-, NJ W I-, NJ W I-, NJ W lip I- NJ CO I- NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
N N N 0 0 - NJ N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 lD lD - CO CO CO I- NJ �I I- N �I I- N
NJ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ N \ \ NJ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NJ \ \ NJ \ \ \ 00 00 \ V V \ V V
I-s NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I-s NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ N \ \ N \ \ N \ \
I-s I-s I-, I-, I-, I-s I-s I-s I-s I-s I-s I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, I-, NJ NJ I- NJ NJ I- NJ NJ
1--, 1--, I-s 1--, 1--, F-,
L

Figure El: Heron
30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Current year data from onsite rain gauge
30-70th percentile data from WETS Station: Burlington Alamance Regional Airport,NC
8
7
up
N
0 6 2019
• 2020
g 5 .10„,,,r 4\.:1 E 2021
- 2024
T 4
2025
3
—30th Percentile
2 - Al- hittia -70th Percentile
1
0
�� ��4`e� o ��e ��,

Appendix F.
Benthic Data
Benthic Results
Habitat Dataforms
MY3(2021)Monitoring Report(Project No.100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems,LLC
Alamance County,North Carolina December2021

PAI ID NO 54830 54831
STATION Heron UT-1 Heron UT-5
DATE 5/11/2021 5/11/2021
SPECIES Tolerance Value Functional Feeding Group
PLATYHELMINTHES
Turbellaria P
Tricladida P
Planariidae 0
Phagocata sp.
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae FC
Pisidium sp. 6.6 FC
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Lymnaeidae SC
Pseudosuccinea columella 7.7 CG 2
Physidae
Physella sp. 8.7 CG 7
ANNELIDA
Oligochaeta CG
Tubificida
Naididae CG
Naidinae CG 1
Dero sp. 9.8 CG
Tubificinae w.h.c. CG
Tubificinae w.o.h.c. CG
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae CG 1
Lumbriculus sp. CG 2
Hirudinea 8
Arhynchobdellida
Erpobdellidae
ARTHROPODA
Crustacea
Ostracoda 2
Isopoda
Asellidae SH
Caecidotea sp. 8.4 CG 7 5
Amphipoda CG
Crangonyctidae
Crangonyx sp. 7.2 CG 30 6

Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae CG
Baetis intercalaris 5 CG
Baetis pluto 3.4
Baetis tricaudatus 1.5 CG
Callibaetis fluctuans 9.2 CG 2
Callibaetis sp. 9.2 CG
Diphetor hageni 1.1 CG
Labiobaetis frondalis 4.6
Labiobaetis propinquus 5.8
Baetiscidae CG
Baetisca carolina 4.2
Ephemerellidae SC
Dannella provonshai SC
Ephemerella invaria gp. 2.6 CG
Heptageniidae SC
Epeorus dispar 1 CG
Maccaffertium carlsoni 2.1 SC
Maccaffertium modestum 5.7 SC
Maccaffertium sp. SC
Stenacron interpunctatum 6.4 SC
Isonychiidae FC
Isonychia sp. 3.6 FC
Leptophlebiidae CG
Habrophlebiodes brunneipennis
Habrophlebiodes sp.
Odonata
Aeshnidae P
Boyeria vinosa 5.8 P
Calopterygidae P
Calopteryx sp. 7.5 P
Coenagrionidae P
Argia sp. 8.3 P
Ischnura sp. 9.5 3 2
Cordulegastridae P
Cordulegaster maculata 5.7
Gomphidae P
Lanthus sp. 1.6 P
Ophiogomphus sp. 5.9 P
Stylogomphus albistylus 5 P
Libellulidae P
Libellula sp. 9.4 P 1
Pachydiplax longipennis 9.6
Plecoptera
Leuctridae SH
Leuctra sp. 1.5 SH

Paraleuctra sara
Nemouridae SH
Amphinemura nigritta 3.8 SH
Perlidae P
Acroneuria cf filicis P
Eccoptura xanthenes 4.7 P
Perlesta frisoni 2.9 P
Perlesta sp. 2.9 P 1
Perlodidae P
Isoperla holochlora 0.7 P
Remensus bilobatus 0.9 -
Hemiptera
Belostomatidae
Belostoma sp. 9.5 P 3
Corixidae PI 5
Veliidae P
Microvelia sp. P 1
Megaloptera
Sialidae P
Sialis sp. 7 P
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae FC
Cheumatopsyche sp. 6.6 FC
Diplectrona modesta 2.3 FC
Hydropsyche depravata gp. 7.9 FC
Philopotamidae FC
Chimarra sp. 3.3 FC
Dolophilodes distinctus 1 FC
Coleoptera
Dryopidae
Helichus basalis 0.5 SC
Helichus fastigiatus 4.1 SC
Dytiscidae P
Laccophilus sp. 9.8 P 4
Neoporus sp. 5 2
Elmidae CG
Stenelmis sp. 5.6 SC
Haliplidae
Peltodytes muticus 8.4 SH 1
Hydrophilidae P 1
Helophorus lineatus 2
Tropisternus sp. 9.3 P 8
Psephenidae SC
Psephenus herricki 2.3 SC
Staphylinidae P 1
Diptera
Chironomidae 1

Chironomus sp. 9.3 CG 1 1
Conchapelopia sp. 8.4 P 1
Cricotopus sp.
Cryptochironomus sp. 6.4 P
Dicrotendipes neomodestus 7.9 CG
Microtendipes pedellus gp. 3.9 CG
Odontomesa fulva 4.9
Paracladopelma undine 4.5
Parametriocnemus sp. 3.9 CG
Paratendipes albimanus/duplicate: 5.6
Polypedilum aviceps 3.6 SH
Polypedilum illinoense gp. 8.7 SH 1
Procladius sp. 8.8 P 1
Psectrocladius dyari 10 15
Rheotanytarsus exiguus gp. 6.5 FC 1
Stictochironomus devinctus 5.4 CG
Tanytarsus sp. 6.6 FC 4
Zavrelia sp. 6.1 CG
Culicidae FC 1
Anopheles sp. 8.6 FC 3 5
Culex sp. FC 2 10
Dixidae CG
Dixa sp. 2.5 CG
Dixella sp. 4.9 CG
Ephydridae PI 1
Psychodidae CG
Pericoma sp. CG 1
Sciomyzidae 1
Sciaridae
Tipulidae SH
Dicranota sp. 0 P
Limnophila sp. P
Pseudolimnophila sp. 6.2 P
Tipula sp. 7.5 SH
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 72 78
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 20 22
EPT TAXA 2 0
BIOTIC INDEX ASSIGNED VALUES 8.11 8.85

140'1)V (IN(
3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit,DWQ TOTAL SCORE
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream,preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream.To complete the form,select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
r- ibl�tit l
Stream
f'1'c6/ u 7= Location/road: )Aida/lk,n, (Road Name 47647441 )County I¢I Glrr►ka.f.�.
Date V`6 05-- _ CC#O3°3 oleo _Basin (-=/I L. t lk--- Subbasin -06 -0
Observer(s) elk PP Type of Study: 0 Fish ❑Benthos 0 Basinwide ❑Special Study(Describe)
Latitude 35--SS61$O Longitude 1 G l,361•P6o Ecoregion: ❑MT gl,P Fe Slate Belt ❑Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature — °C DO mg/1 Conductivity(corr.) -- AS/cm pH
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location-include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: "ID %Forest %Residential 10 %Active Pasture %Active Crops
%Fallow Fields %Commercial %Industrial %Other-Describe:
Watershed land use: . forest Agriculture❑Urban 0 Animal operations upstream
Width:(meters) Stream j. _— Channel(at top of bank) 1 3 Stream Depth:(m) Avg .- Max ►r
0 Width variable 0 Large river>25m wide
Bank Height(from deepest part of riffle to top of bank-first flat surface you stand on):(m)
Bank Angle: 'as ° or 0 NA (Vertical is 90°,horizontal is 0°.Angles>90°indicate slope is towards mid-channel,<90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
❑Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised-steep,straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑Recent overink deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth k_Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge 0 Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON 4Y: ❑Rip-rap,cement,gabions ❑Sediment/grade-control structure❑Berm/levee
Flow conditions:❑High ONormal (R1Low
Turbidity: ❑Clear Vlightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored(from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? 11YES ONO Details ,P5V a.er).;i�PG�
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A.Water reaches base of both lower banks,minimal channel substrate exposed 0
B.Water fills>75%of available channel,or<25%of channel substrate is exposed
C.Water fills 25=75%of available channel,many logs/snags exposed
D.Root mats out of water ❑
E.Very little water in channel,mostly present as standing pools 0
r
Weather Conditions: (cd 1 — ;) a 6.44"5(1 —Photos: ACIN ❑Y 0 Digital 035mm
Remarks: /'^ PO4frean. L i�G^c••�rm� — Ly'-‘.v l c i vt.,f-5 r,�i ,r�,at
rq h � e l( y .a dvf r3 A. r1 (
39

I.Channel Modification _ore
A:channel natural,frequent bends
B.channel natural,infrequent bends(channelization could be old)
C.some channelization present 3
D.more extensive channelization,>40%of stream disrupted 2
E.no bends,completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned,etc 0
0 Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream OBanks of uniform shape/height
Remarks /"-r•f o r LA-1.t. ' Subtotal 9-
II.Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If>70%of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present,circle the score of 17.Defmition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay(not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare. Common.or Abundant.
/ Rocks ( Macrophytes ( Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present 20 16 12 8
3 types present 19 11 7
2 types present 18 14 10 6
1 type present 17 13 9 5
No types present 0
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks _ Subtotal /r
III.Bottom Substrate(silt,sand,detritus,gravel,cobble,boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring,but only look at riffle
for embeddedness,and use rocks from all parts of riffle-look for"mud line"or difficulty extracting rocks.
A.substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders Score
1.embeddedness<20%(very little sand,usually only behind large boulders) 15
2.embeddedness 20-40% 12
3.embeddedness 40-80% 8
4.embeddedness>80% 3
B.substrate gravel and cobble
1.embeddedness<20% 14
2.embeddedness 20-40% 11
3.embeddedness 40-80%
4.embeddedness>80% 2
C.substrate mostly gravel
1.embeddedness<50% 8
2.embeddedness>50% 4
D.substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock. 3
2. substrate nearly all sand 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/clay 1
Remarks Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of"pocket water",small pools behind boulders or obstructions,in
large high gradient streams,or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1.Pools Frequent(>30%of 200m area surveyed)
a.variety of pool sizes 10
b.pools about the same size(indicates pools filling in)
2.Pools Infrequent(<30%of the 200m area surveyed)
a.variety of pool sizes 6
b.pools about the same size 4
B. Pools absent 0 'O
Subtotal
Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard 0 Bottom sandy-sink as you walk ❑Silt bottom ❑Some pools over wader depth
emarks
Page Total 36
40

V.Riffle Habitats
Definition:Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam,or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score Score
A.well defined riffle and run,riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream 16 (11
B.riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width 14
C.riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width 10 3
D.riffles absent 0
Channel Slope Typical for area ❑Steep=fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal/'C
VI.Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt.Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
1.little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends),little potential for erosion.. 7 7
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees,shrubs,grass; plants healthy with good root systems
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding 3 3
4. mostly grasses,few if any trees and shrubs,high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
5. little or no bank vegetation,mass erosion and bank failure evident 0 0
Total rot..
Remarks
VII.Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains,but not use to score this metric.
Score
A.Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration 10
B.Stream with full canopy-breaks for light penetration absent 8
C.Stream with partial canopy-sunlight and shading are essentially equal
D.Stream with minimal canopy-full sun in all but a few areas 2
E.No canopy and no shading 0
Remarks Subtotal
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition:Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream(can go beyond floodplain).Defmition:A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream,such as paths
down to stream,storm drains,uprooted trees,otter slides,etc.
FACE UPSTREAM Lft.Bank Rt.Bank
Dominant vegetation: '�"I`rees nhrubs [lf Grasses 0 Weeds/old field ❑Exotics(kudzu,etc) Score Score
A.Riparian zone intact(no breaks)
1.width> 18 meters / 5
2.width 12-18 meters 4
3.width 6-12 meters 3 3
4.width<6 meters 2 2
B.Riparian zone not intact(breaks)
1.breaks rare
a.width> 18 meters 4 4
b.width 12-18 meters 3 3
c.width 6-12 meters 2 2
d.width<6 meters 1 1
2.breaks common
a.width>18 meters 3 3
b.width 12-18 meters 2 2
c.width 6-12 meters 1 1
d.width<6 meters 0 0
Remarks Total (7
Page Total
❑ Disclaimer-form filled out,but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE 7
41

\3.0-{1,,/
3/06 Revision 6
Habitat Assessment Field Data Sheet
Mountain/Piedmont Streams
Biological Assessment Unit,DWQ TOTAL SCORE 7 6
Directions for use: The observer is to survey a minimum of 100 meters with 200 meters preferred of stream,preferably in an
upstream direction starting above the bridge pool and the road right-of-way. The segment which is assessed should represent average
stream conditions. To perform a proper habitat evaluation the observer needs to get into the stream.To complete the form,select the
description which best fits the observed habitats and then circle the score. If the observed habitat falls in between two descriptions,
select an intermediate score. A final habitat score is determined by adding the results from the different metrics.
.� r� M�td N3
Stream {-'� v (
v ' Location/road: 541t/4/&uKA (Road Name f-I )County I k wt krvT
Date at o 7r`( ( CC#O3 O3 BOD Basin f-4ll a Subbasin 06`0 Cl
Observer(s) y4 4 PO Type of Study: ❑Fish 2 enthos 0 Basinwide ❑Special Study(Describe)
Latitude 351 4sa516 Longitude 1,,36 f 7? Ecoregion: ❑MT D"f 0 Slate Belt,Efi Triassic Basin
Water Quality: Temperature — °C DO -- mg/1 Conductivity(corr.) -- µS/cm pH --
Physical Characterization: Visible land use refers to immediate area that you can see from sampling location-include what
you estimate driving thru the watershed in watershed land use.
Visible Land Use: /0 %Forest %Residential go %Active Pasture %Active Crops
/O %Fallow Fields %Commercial %Industrial %Other-Describe:
Watershed land use: ❑Forest ❑Agriculture❑Urban ❑Animal operations upstream
Width:(meters) Stream ( Channel(at top of bank) ), Stream Depth:(m) Avg - I Max
❑Width variable 0 Large river>25m wide
Bank Height(from deepest part of riffle to top of bank-first flat surface you stand on):(m)
Bank Angle: I X 0 ° or ❑NA (Vertical is 90°,horizontal is 0°.Angles>90°indicate slope is towards mid-channel,<90°
indicate slope is away from channel. NA if bank is too low for bank angle to matter.)
❑Channelized Ditch
❑Deeply incised-steep,straight banks ❑Both banks undercut at bend ❑Channel filled in with sediment
❑Recent overbank deposits ❑Bar development ❑Buried structures ❑Exposed bedrock
❑ Excessive periphyton growth 0 Heavy filamentous algae growth ❑Green tinge 0 Sewage smell
Manmade Stabilization: ON RY: ❑Rip-rap,cement,gabions Sediment/grade-control structure❑Berm/levee
Flow conditions: ❑High ❑Normal INLow
Turbidity: ❑Clear ( Slightly Turbid ❑Turbid ❑Tannic ❑Milky ❑Colored(from dyes)
Good potential for Wetlands Restoration Project?? ❑YES ONO Details _
Channel Flow Status
Useful especially under abnormal or low flow conditions.
A.Water reaches base of both lower banks,minimal channel substrate exposed 0
B.Water fills>75%of available channel,or<25%of channel substrate is exposed ❑
C.Water fills 25-75%of available channel,many logs/snags exposed
D.Root mats out of water
E.Very little water in channel,mostly present as standing pools 0
Weather Conditions:_ Clot-,d f w 0 Photos: ON ❑Y 0 Digital 035mm
Remarks: - l'1!f,I'J' ', ^ Sa cf g L ( "i h tog- '4 s *n p� �.•f '�
39

14.-e/t741 4/1.(C---
I.Channel Modification Score
A.channel natural,frequent bends 5
B.channel natural,infrequent bends(channelization could be old)
C.some channelization present 3
D.more extensive channelization,>40%of stream disrupted 2
E.no bends,completely channelized or rip rapped or gabioned,etc 0
0 Evidence of dredging ❑Evidence of desnagging=no large woody debris in stream ❑Banks of uniform shape/height
Remarks_ k.eh4 a,..• r r4^,4r.-, c _,-o Subtotal j
II.Instream Habitat: Consider the percentage of the reach that is favorable for benthos colonization or fish cover. If>70%of the
reach is rocks, 1 type is present,circle the score of 17.Defmition: leafpacks consist of older leaves that are packed together and have
begun to decay(not piles of leaves in pool areas). Mark as Rare. Common.or Abundant.
mattocks 1(Macrophytes )Sticks and leafpacks Snags and logs Undercut banks or root mats
AMOUNT OF REACH FAVORABLE FOR COLONIZATION OR COVER
>70% 40-70% 20-40% <20%
Score Score Score Score
4 or 5 types present 20 16 12 8
3 types present 19 ® 11 7
2 types present 18 14 10 6
1 type present 17 13 9 5
No types present. 0
0 No woody vegetation in riparian zone Remarks __ Subtotal
III.Bottom Substrate(silt,sand,detritus,gravel,cobble,boulder) Look at entire reach for substrate scoring,but only look at riffle
for embeddedness,and use rocks from all parts of riffle-look for"mud line"or difficulty extracting rocks.
A.substrate with good mix of gravel, cobble and boulders Score
1.embeddedness<20%(very little sand,usually only behind large boulders) 15
2.embeddedness 20-40% 12
3.embeddedness 40-80% 8
4.embeddedness>80% 3
B.substrate gravel and cobble
1.embeddedness<20% 14
2.embeddedness 20-40% i 11
3.embeddedness 40-80%
4.embeddedness>80%
C.substrate mostly gravel
1.embeddedness<50% 8
2.embeddedness>50% 4
D.substrate homogeneous
1. substrate nearly all bedrock 3
2. substrate nearly all sand 3
3. substrate nearly all detritus 2
4. substrate nearly all silt/clay 1 6
Remarks _Subtotal
IV. Pool Variety Pools are areas of deeper than average maximum depths with little or no surface turbulence. Water velocities
associated with pools are always slow. Pools may take the form of"pocket water",small pools behind boulders or obstructions,in
large high gradient streams,or side eddies.
A. Pools present Score
1.Pools Frequent(>30%of 200m area surveyed)
a.variety of pool sizes 10
b.pools about the same size(indicates pools filling in)
2.Pools Infrequent(<30%of the 200m area surveyed)
a.variety of pool sizes 6
b.pools about the same size 4
B. Pools absent 0 Q
Subtotal O
Pool bottom boulder-cobble=hard ❑Bottom sandy-sink as you walk 0 Silt bottom CISome pools over wader depth
e_marks
— — — — Page Total 3 tt
40

V.Riffle Habitats
Definition:Riffle is area of reaeration-can be debris dam,or narrow channel area. Riffles Frequent Riffles Infrequent
Score Score
A.well defined riffle and run,riffle as wide as stream and extends 2X width of stream ( 12
B.riffle as wide as stream but riffle length is not 2X stream width 14 7
C.riffle not as wide as stream and riffle length is not 2X stream width 10 3
D.riffles absent 0
Channel Slope: [Typical for area ❑Steep=fast flow ❑Low=like a coastal stream Subtotal ___
VI.Bank Stability and Vegetation
FACE UPSTREAM Left Bank Rt.Bank
Score Score
A. Banks stable
1.little evidence of erosion or bank failure(except outside of bends),little potential for erosion.
B. Erosion areas present
1. diverse trees,shrubs,grass; plants healthy with good root systems 6 6
2. few trees or small trees and shrubs; vegetation appears generally healthy 5 5
3. sparse mixed vegetation; plant types and conditions suggest poorer soil binding 3 3
4. mostly grasses,few if any trees and shrubs,high erosion and failure potential at high flow.. 2 2
5. little or no bank vegetation,mass erosion and bank failure evident 0 0
Total
Remarks
VII.Light Penetration Canopy is defined as tree or vegetative cover directly above the stream's surface. Canopy would block out
sunlight when the sun is directly overhead. Note shading from mountains,but not use to score this metric.
Score
A.Stream with good canopy with some breaks for light penetration 10
B.Stream with full canopy-breaks for light penetration absent 8
C.Stream with partial canopy-sunlight and shading are essentially equal
D.Stream with minimal canopy-full sun in all but a few areas
E.No canopy and no shading 0
Remarks Subtotal .
VIII. Riparian Vegetative Zone Width
Definition:Riparian zone for this form is area of natural vegetation adjacent to stream(can go beyond floodplain).Definition:A break
in the riparian zone is any place on the stream banks which allows sediment or pollutants to directly enter the stream,such as paths
down to stream,storm drains,uprooted trees,otter slides,etc.
Z.-Grasses
UPSTREAM Lft.Bank Rt.Bank
Dominant veg�etation: ®'frees la'Shirubs fr7'Grasses 0 Weeds/old field ❑Exotics(kudzu,etc) Score Score
A.Ripariaan zone intact(no breaks)
1.width>18 meters
2.width 12-18 meters 4 4
3.width 6-12 meters 3 3
4.width<6 meters 2 2
B.Riparian zone not intact(breaks)
1.breaks rare
a.width> 18 meters 4 4
b.width 12-18 meters 3 3
c.width 6-12 meters 2 2
d.width<6 meters 1 1
2.breaks common
a.width>18 meters 3 3
b.width 12-18 meters 2 2
c.width 6-12 meters 1 1
d.width<6 meters 0 0
Remarks Total 10
Page Total
❑ Disclaimer-form filled out,but score doesn't match subjective opinion-atypical stream. TOTAL SCORE 1
41