20171041 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2021_20220210

Mitigation Project Information Upload
ID#* 20171041 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 02/15/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 2/10/2022
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
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:*
Paul Wiesner [e-mail]
Project Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20171041 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Little Sebastian Site
County: Surry
Document Information
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: Little Sebastian_100027_MY1_2021.pdf 4.13MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Print Name:* Paul Wiesner
Signature:*

Year 1 Monitoring Report
FINAL
LITTLE SEBASTIAN SITE
NCDMS Project# 100027(Contract# 7187) 1 RFP 16-006993 (Issued 9/16/2016)
USACE Action ID: SAW-2017-01507 1 DWR Project#2017-1041
Surry County,North Carolina
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101
1 Vic_►, ••
•
Provided by:
res
Resource Environmental Solutions,LLC
For Environmental Banc&Exchange,LLC
Provided for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
February 2022

360o Glenwood Avenue,Suite too
Ores
Raleigh,NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 W Loop S#300
Bellaire,TX 7740t
Main:713.520.5400
February 3, 2022
Paul Wiesner
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Little Sebastian Mitigation Site:Year 1 Monitoring Report (NCDMS Project ID#100027)
Listed below are comments provided by DMS on January 18,2022 regarding the Little Sebastian Mitigation
Site:Year 1 Monitoring Report Draft and RES' responses.
General: Please confirm that the two (2) areas of fencing identified within the conservation easement at
MY0 (adjacent to MC1) have been relocated outside of the conservation easement or to the conservation
easement line. Please point out these two relocated fence areas on the CCPV map sheets and briefly
discuss in the report text.
These areas of fencing will be relocated in early 2022. Photo documentation and a call-out on the CCPV
will be provided with the 2022 MY2 report.A note has been added to Section 1.7: Monitoring
Performance in the MY1 report, regarding plans to remove the fencing from within the conservation
easement.
General:As noted in the MY0 IRT responses, please be sure to provide photo documentation of overbank
events on MC1-C in MY2 (2022) and future monitoring reports.
Photo documentation of evidence of overbank events on MC1-C will be included in future monitoring
reports.
Section 1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions: This section notes; "The record drawings
are included in Appendix E." Please delete the sentence.
This sentence has been deleted.
Appendix E—Hydrology Data (MY1 Little Sebastian GW1): In the graph, please point out the 87
consecutive days reported in Table 14.
Maximum consecutive days have been added to both GW1 and GW2 graphs,found in Appendix E.
Digital Support Files: Please include figures displaying the data for overbank stage recorders JN3-B &
BS1-E.
Figures was added to Appendix E displaying the overbank data for the stage recorders. Please note,the
stage recorder on JN3-B is installed with the sensor approximately 0.9 feet below the top of bank.All
readings when the water level is below that elevation are inaccurate.
res.us

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary 1
1.1 Project Location and Description 1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives 1
1.3 Project Success Criteria 2
Stream Restoration Success Criteria 2
Vegetation Success Criteria 2
1.4 Project Components 3
1.5 Stream Mitigation Approach 3
1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions 5
1.7 Year 1 Monitoring Performance (MY1) 6
Vegetation 6
Stream Geomorphology 6
Stream Hydrology 6
Wetland Hydrology 7
2.0 Methods 7
3.0 References 7
Appendix A: Background Tables
Table 1. Project Mitigation Components
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Background Information Table
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Vegetation Plot Photos
Monitoring Device and Crossing Photos
Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Planted Species Summary
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 9. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Appendix D: Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11. Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Cross Section Overlay Plots
Appendix E: Hydrology Data
Table 12. 2021 Rainfall Summary
Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Table 14. 2021 Max Hydroperiod
Table 15. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Stream Flow Hydrographs
Groundwater Hydrographs
Appendix F: IRT Correspondence
MYO Response to IRT Comments
USACE Addendum Email

1.0 Project Summary
1.1 Project Location and Description
The Little Sebastian Mitigation Site ("the Project") is located in Surry County, approximately 10 miles
north of Elkin. The Project presents 4,554.300 Cool Stream Mitigation Units(SMU)along Mill Creek and
three unnamed tributaries.
The Project's total easement area is approximately 25.91 acres within the overall drainage area of 3,261
acres. The Project has two separate portions and in between those portions is the Gideon Mitigation Site.
The Gideon Mitigation Site has a total easement area that is approximately 11.23 ac and presents 4,782
linear feet of stream restoration,enhancement,and preservation. Therefore,a total 37.14 ac and 12,887 LF
of stream are protected in perpetuity. Grazing livestock historically had access to all stream reaches within
the Project. The lack of riparian buffer vegetation, deep-rooted vegetation, and unstable channel
characteristics contributed to the degradation of stream banks throughout the Project area.
The Project will be monitored on a regular basis throughout the seven-year post-construction monitoring
period,or until performance standards are met. The Project will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship
Program. This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property
and will conduct periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation
easement are upheld.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project's maximum functional uplift using the Stream Functions
Pyramid Framework, specific, attainable goals and objectives were realized by the Project. These goals
clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major
watershed stressors in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee River RBRP. The Project will address outlined
RBRP Goals 2,4,and 6 (Mitigation Plan).
The Project goals are:
• Improve water transport from watershed to the channel in a non-erosive manner in a stable channel;
• Improve flood flow attenuation on site and downstream by allowing for overbanks flows and
connection to the active floodplain;
• Improve instream habitat;
• Restore and enhance native floodplain vegetation; and
• Indirectly support the goals of the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee RBRP to improve water quality
and to reduce sediment and nutrient loads.
The Project objectives to address the goals are:
• Designed and reconstructed stream channels sized to convey bankfull flows that maintain a stable
dimension, profile, and planform based on modeling, watershed conditions, and reference reach
conditions;
• Permanently excluded livestock from stream channels and their associated buffers;
• Added in-stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored and enhanced
streams;
• Installed habitat features such as brush toes, constructed riffles, woody materials, and pools of
varying depths to restored and enhanced streams;
• Reduced bank height ratios and increased entrenchment ratios to reference reach conditions;
Little Sebastian Site 1 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Surry County,NC February 2022

• Increased forested riparian buffers to at least 30 feet on both sides of the channel along the Project
reaches with a hardwood riparian plant community;
• Implemented one agricultural BMP in order to limit inputs of sediment, nutrients, and fecal
coliform to streams from surrounding farming operations;
• Treated exotic invasive species;and
• Established a permanent conservation easement on the Project.
1.3 Project Success Criteria
The success criteria for the Project follows the 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update, the Little Sebastian Final Mitigation Plan, and subsequent agency
guidance. Cross section and vegetation plot monitoring takes place in Years 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Stream
hydrology, wetland hydrology, and visual monitoring takes place annually. Specific success criteria
components are presented below.
Stream Restoration Success Criteria
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.
There should be little change in as-built cross sections. If changes do take place,they should be evaluated
to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down-cutting or
erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be classified
using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Bank height ratio shall not exceed
1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be above 1.4 within restored riffle cross sections. Channel stability
should be demonstrated through a minimum of four bankfull events documented in the seven-year
monitoring period.
Digital images are used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation,bank erosion, success
of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images should not
indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth.Lateral
images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time.A series of
images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Stream restoration reaches will be monitored to document intermittent or seasonal surface flow. This will
be accomplished through direct observation and the use of hydraulic pressure transducers with data loggers.
Reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow. Flow gauges will be installed on
JN2-A and BS1-A. The flow gauge on BS1-A will also be capable of monitoring bankfull events.
Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project follow
IRT Guidance. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project is the survival of at least 320
planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 trees per acre with an average height of six
feet at the end of Year 5,and the final vegetative success criteria is 210 trees per acre with an average height
of eight feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees are counted, identified to species, and included in the
yearly monitoring reports,but are not counted towards the success criteria of total planted stems until they
Little Sebastian Site 2 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Surry County,NC February 2022

are present in the plot for greater than two seasons. Moreover, any single species can only account for up
to 50 percent of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot.Any stems in excess of 50 percent
will be shown in the monitoring table but will not be used to demonstrate success.
1.4 Project Components
The project streams were significantly impacted by livestock production, agricultural practices,and a lack
of riparian buffer.Improvements to the Project help meet the river basin needs expressed in the 2009 Upper
Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities(RBRP)as well as ecological improvements to riparian
corridor within the easement.
Through stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation, the Project presents 4,554.300 Cool Stream
Mitigation Units(SMU)(Table 1).
Mitigation Approach Linear Feet Ratio Cool Base SMU
Restoration 2,758 1 2,721
Enhancement I 597 1.5 398
Enhancement II 1,898 2.5 759.2
Enhancement II 1,372 5 274.4
Enhancement II 819 7.5 109.2
Enhancement II 243 10 24.3
Preservation 418 10 41.8
Total 8,068 4,327.9
Credit Loss in Required Buffer -278.7
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer 505.1
Total Adjusted SMUs 4,554.300
1.5 Stream Mitigation Approach
The Project includes priority I stream restoration,enhancement I,enhancement II,and preservation.Priority
I stream restoration incorporates the design of a single thread meandering channel,with parameters based
on data taken from reference sites, published empirical relationships, regional curves developed from
existing project streams,and NC Regional Curves.Analytical design techniques also were a crucial element
of the project and were used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole.
Reach JN2-A - Preservation activities included improving the existing livestock exclusion fencing and
buffers greater than 30 feet. The easement was extended to provide preservation beyond the origin point of
the stream as per the PJD.
Reach JN2-B-Enhancement activities included improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings
and livestock exclusion fencing. Minimal bank grading and buffer re-establishment was done along the
downstream end. In-stream structures such as log sills and one log cross vane were installed for stability
and to improve habitat. The restoration of the riparian areas at the downstream end filters runoff from
adjacent pasture,reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area.
Reach JN2-C-Enhancement activities included improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings
and livestock exclusion fencing. Minimal bank grading and buffer re-establishment were done along the
downstream end. The restoration of the riparian areas at the downstream end filters runoff from adjacent
pasture,reduce sediment loads,and provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area.
Little Sebastian Site 3 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Surry County,NC February 2022

Reach JN2-D - Enhancement activities included some channel relocation, bed, and bank stabilization,
removing an existing ford crossing and access road, improving habitat through supplemental buffer
plantings, and livestock exclusion fencing. The restoration of the riparian areas at the downstream end
filters runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout the
Project area.
Reach JN3-A—Enhancement II activities at a 7.5:1 ratio included improving habitat through supplemental
buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along
the right bank filters runoff from adjacent pasture and reduce sediment loads.
Reach JN3-B- Restoration activities included constructing a new channel within the natural valley to the
north with appropriate dimensions and pattern and backfilling the abandoned channel. In-stream structures
such as log sills,brush toes, and log vanes were installed for stability and to improve habitat. Habitat was
further improved through buffer plantings and livestock exclusion.Buffer activities improved riparian areas
that filter runoff from adjacent pastures,thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel.Also,
the reach was built through two small jurisdictional wetlands that are currently on the right bank floodplain
and degraded from cattle access and pasture-use. While this project is not claiming any wetland credit,the
raised channel bed enhances the wetlands'hydrology by reconnecting the floodplain wetlands to the stream.
Two groundwater wells were installed on the right floodplain to monitor the wetland hydrology and will be
reported in the yearly monitoring reports.
Reach MC1-A-Enhancement activities included improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings
and livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the right bank
filters runoff from adjacent pasture and reduce sediment loads.
Reach MC1-B-Enhancement activities included improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings
and livestock exclusion fencing.The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the left bank filters
runoff from adjacent pasture,reduce sediment loads,and provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project
area.
Reach MC1-C - Restoration activities included using log structures to provide vertical stability, assist in
maintaining riffle, run and pool features and to provide habitat features. Cut and fill was balanced in an
effort to raise the channel bed to provide regular inundation of the adjacent floodplain. Habitat was
improved through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. The Gideon Mitigation
Bank was constructed with the Project.
Reach MC3-A-Enhancement activities included improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings
and livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the right bank
filters runoff from adjacent pasture and reduce sediment loads.
Reach MC3-B - Enhancement activities included reshaping the left bank, install coir matting and
livestakes, and improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing.
The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the left bank filters runoff from adjacent pasture,
reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area. A ford crossing was
installed on this reach.
Reach MC3-C - Enhancement activities included reshaping the left bank, install coir matting and
livestakes, and improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing.
The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the left bank filters runoff from adjacent pasture,
reduce sediment loads,and provide wildlife corridors throughout the project area.
Little Sebastian Site 4 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Surry County,NC February 2022

Reach MC3-D-Enhancement activities includes improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings
and livestock exclusion fencing.The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the left bank filters
runoff from adjacent pasture,reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project
area.
Reach BS1-A - Restoration activities included using log and rock structures to provide vertical stability,
assist in maintaining riffle,run and pool features and to provide habitat features.Cut and fill were balanced
in an effort to raise the channel bed to provide small floodplain benches where topography allows.Habitat
was further improved through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. An
engineered sediment pack was installed at the top of this reach.
Reach BS1-B-Enhancement activities included improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings
and livestock exclusion fencing.The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the left bank filters
runoff from adjacent pasture,reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout the project
area.
Reach BS1-C - Restoration activities included using log and rock structures to provide vertical stability,
assist in maintaining riffle,run and pool features and to provide habitat features. Cut and fill was balanced
in an effort to raise the channel bed to provide small floodplain benches where topography allows.Habitat
was further improved through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing.
Reach BS1-D-Enhancement activities included improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings
and livestock exclusion fencing.The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the left bank filters
runoff from adjacent pasture,reduce sediment loads,and provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project
area.
Reach BS1-E - Restoration activities included using log structures to provide vertical stability, assist in
maintaining riffle, run and pool features and to provide habitat features. Cut and fill were balanced in an
effort to raise the channel bed to provide small floodplain benches where topography allows. Habitat was
further improved through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing.
1.6 Construction and As Built Conditions
Stream construction was completed in February 2021 and planting was completed in March 2021.
Additionally,five-strand high tensile electric fencing was installed for cattle exclusion.The Little Sebastian
Site was built to design plans and guidelines.Two minor changes were made during construction: a log sill
was added on JN2-B for extra grade control and log sills were removed from BS1 due to bedrock.
Additionally, JN7 was added between Final Mitigation Plan approval and construction. This reach has a
30-acre drainage area and includes a pond located about 150 linear feet upstream of the easement area.
Historically,this pond drained through a short ditch into JN3-B but due to the relocation of JN3-B,a channel
was constructed in order to connect the pond back to JN3-B.The restored JN7 includes 37 linear feet within
the easement. A photo of JN7 is in Appendix B. RES proposed the addition of JN7 for credit; however,
this request was denied by IRT. RES will monitor the stability and hydrology of this reach and if back-up
credits are needed at closeout there is the potential to use the 19.660 SMUs from JN7.
Planting plan changes included replacing blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica) and elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis)with sugarberry(Celtis laevigata)and buttonbush(Cephalanthus occidentalis).These changes
were based on bare root availability. A planted species summary is included in Appendix C. Minor
monitoring device location changes were made during as-built installation due to site conditions. The only
monitoring devices not installed were the stage recorders proposed for MC1-C and BS1-C due to the reach
Little Sebastian Site 5 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Surry County,NC February 2022

being less than 1,000 linear feet and there being two stage recorders proposed for the same reach,
respectively.
1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY1)
The Little Sebastian Year 1 monitoring activities were performed in November 2021.All Year 1 monitoring
data is present below and in the appendices.The Project is on track to meeting vegetation and stream interim
success criteria.
In August 2021,RES submitted an Adaptive Management Plan to include JN7 as a creditable project reach.
This request was denied by the IRT. Correspondence is in Appendix F.
Two areas of pre-existing fencing,adjacent to reach MC1,will be removed from the conservation easement
in early 2022.Approximate fence locations can be found in Figure 2,Appendix B.
Vegetation
Monitoring of six fixed vegetation plots and three random vegetation plots was completed on November
17, 2021. Vegetation data can be found in Appendix C, associated photos are in Appendix B, and plot
locations are in Appendix B.MY1 monitoring data indicates that all plots are exceeding the interim success
criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 445 to 1,174 planted stems per
acre with a mean of 836 planted stems per acre across all plots. A total of 10 species were documented
within the plots. Volunteer species were not noted but are expected to establish in upcoming years. The
average stem height in the plots was 2 feet.
Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is
becoming well established throughout the project. A few small, sparse areas of Chinese privet were
observed during MY1 and were treated accordingly in December 2021.
Stream Geomorphology
Cross section and geomorphology data collection for MY1 was collected on November 17,2021. Summary
tables and cross section plots are in Appendix D. Overall the MY1 cross sections and profile relatively
match the proposed design. The current conditions show that shear stress and velocities have been reduced
for all restoration/enhancement reaches. The reaches were designed as gravel/cobble bed channels and
remain classified as gravel/cobble bed channels post-construction.
Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding
banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. The channel is transporting sediment as designed
and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation.
Stream Hydrology
Two stage recorders and two flow gauges were installed in March 2021 and document bankfull events and
flow days, respectively. Neither stage recorder documented any bankfull events during MYO and MY1;
however,RES expects to see in increase in bankfull events in future monitoring years.Photo documentation
of overbank events will be included in future monitoring reports. The flow gauges on JN2-B and BS1-A
both recorded one flow event lasting 243 consecutive days. All recorded streams are on track to pass
hydrology metrics. Stream hydrology data is included in Appendix E. Gauge locations can be found on
Figure 2 and photos are in Appendix B. RES plans to add a flow gauge on JN7 in winter 2022.
Little Sebastian Site 6 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Surry County,NC February 2022

Wetland Hydrology
Two groundwater wells with automatic recording pressure transducers were installed in March 2021. The
goal of the groundwater wells is to track the hydrology of the jurisdictional wetlands on site post-stream
construction.There is no hydroperiod success criteria for these groundwater wells.In MY1,GW1 recorded
a consecutive hydroperiod of 41 percent of the growing season and GW2 recorded a consecutive
hydroperiod of 100 percent of the growing season. Wetland hydrology data is included in Appendix E.
Groundwater well locations can be found on Figure 2.
2.0 Methods
Stream cross section monitoring was conducted using a Topcon GTS-312 Total Station.Three-dimensional
coordinates associated with cross-section data were collected in the field (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS
3200). Morphological data were collected at 12 cross-sections. Survey data were imported into CAD,
ArcGIS®,and Microsoft Excel®for data processing and analysis.The stage recorders include an automatic
pressure transducer placed in PVC casing in a pool. The elevation of the bed and top of bank at each stage
recorder are used to detect bankfull events.
Vegetation success is being monitored at six fixed monitoring plots and three random monitoring plots.
Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation,version 4.2
(Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data are
processed using the CVS data entry tool.In the field,the four corners of each plot were permanently marked
with PVC at the origin and metal conduit at the other corners. Photos of each plot are to be taken from the
origin each monitoring year. The random plot is to be collected in locations where there are no permanent
vegetation plots. Random plot will most likely be collected in the form of 100 square meter belt transects
with variable dimensions. Tree species and height will be recorded for each planted stem and the transects
will be mapped and new locations will be monitored in subsequent years.
Wetland hydrology is monitored to track the hydrology of the jurisdictional wetlands on site post-stream
construction.This is accomplished with two automatic pressure transducer gauges(located in groundwater
wells) that record daily groundwater levels. One automatic pressure transducer is installed above ground
for use as a barometric reference. Gauges are downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods are
calculated during the growing season. Gauge installation followed current regulatory guidance. Visual
observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators are also recorded during quarterly site
visits.
Fixed digital image locations are established at each cross section, vegetation plot, stage recorder, flow
gauge,and the upstream and downstream side of each crossing.
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. Shelburne. (2002). Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina,
(color Poster with map,descriptive text, summary tables,and photographs): Reston,Virginia,
U.S. Geological Survey(map scale 1:1,500,000).
Lee Michael T.,Peet Robert K.,Roberts Steven D.,and Wentworth Thomas R.,2008. CVS-EEP Protocol
for Recording Vegetation Level.Version 4.2
Little Sebastian Site 7 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Surry County,NC February 2022

Peet,R.K.,Wentworth,T.S.,and White,P.S. (1998),A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274
Resource Environmental Solutions(2018). Little Sebastian Final Mitigation Plan.
Schafale,M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina,Fourth Approximation.North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program,Division of Parks and Recreation,NCDENR,Raleigh,NC.
USACE. (2016). Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.NC:
Interagency Review Team(IRT).
Little Sebastian Site 8 Year 1 Monitoring Report
Surry County,NC February 2022

Appendix A
Background Tables

Table 1. Little Sebastian (ID-100027) -Mitigation Assets and Components
Mitigation
Existing As-Built
Plan Migitation Restoration Mitigation Mitigation
Project Segment Footage or Footage or Category Level Priority Level Ratio(X:1) Plan Credits Footage or Comments
Acreage Acreage Acreage
JN2-A 418 418 Cool P NA 10.00000 41.800 418 Livestock exclusion
JN2-B 187 187 Cool El NA 1.50000 124.667 187 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
JN2-C 307 307 Cool ElI NA 2.50000 122.800 307 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion;31-foot crossing
JN2-C 837 837 Cool ElI NA 2.50000 334.800 837 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
Channel relocation,bed and bank stabilization,crossing relocation,buffer plantings,
JN2-D 39 43 Cool El NA 1.50000 28.667 43 and livestock exclusion;62-foot crossing
Channel relocation,bed and bank stabilization,crossing relocation,buffer plantings,
JN2-D 150 153 Cool El NA 1.50000 102.000 153 and livestock exclusion
JN3-A 350 350 Cool ElI NA 7.50000 46.667 350 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
Channel relocation ini the natural valley,improved stream structures,buffer planting,
JN3-B 900 781 Cool R I 1.00000 781.000 781 and livestock exclusion;43-foot crossing
Channel relocation,bed and bank stabilization,crossing relocation,buffer plantings,
JN3-B 224 262 Cool R I 1.00000 262.000 262 and livestock exclusion
JN7* 0 0 Cool R 1.00000 0.000 Channel construction,bed and bank stabilization,buffer plantings,and livestock
37 exclusion;No Credit
MC1-A 469 469 Cool ElI NA 7.50000 62.533 469 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
MC1-B 717 717 Cool ElI NA 5.00000 143.400 717 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion;41-foot utility line crossing
MC1-B 260 260 Cool ElI NA 5.00000 52.000 260 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
MC1-C 545 555 Cool R 1.00000 555.000 Channel bed raised,improved stream structures,buffer planting,and livestock
555 exclusion
MC3-A 243 243 Cool ElI NA 10.00000 24.300 243 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
MC3-B 402 402 Cool ElI NA 2.50000 160.800 402 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion;41-foot crossing
MC3-C 214 214 Cool El NA 1.50000 142.667 214 Bank stabilization,improved stream structures,buffer planting,and livestock exclusion
MC3-D 395 395 Cool ElI NA 5.00000 79.000 395 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
BS1-A 205 214 Cool R 1.00000 214.000 Channel bed raised,improved stream structures,buffer planting,and livestock
214 exclusion
BS1-B 190 175 Cool ElI NA 2.50000 70.000 175 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
BS1-C 580 541 Cool R 1.00000 541.000 Channel bed raised,improved stream structures,buffer planting,and livestock
541 exclusion
BS1-D 185 177 Cool ElI NA 2.50000 70.800 177 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
BS1-E 278 274 Cool R 1.00000 274.000 Channel bed raised,improved stream structures,buffer planting,and livestock
274 exclusion;45-foot crossing
BS1-E 94 94 Cool R 1.00000 94.000 Channel bed raised,improved stream structures,buffer planting,and livestock
94 exclusion
*Added between Final Mitigation Plan and Construction;no credit but potential to add credits if reach meets success criteria and back-up credits are needed
Note:all crossings and utility easements have been removed from credit calculations.
Project Credits
Stream Riparian Non-rip Coastal
Restoration Level Warm Cool Cold Wetland Wetland Marsh
Restoration 2721.000
Re-establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Enhancement I 398.000
Enhancement II 1167.100
Creation
Preservation 41.800
NSBW 226.400
TOTALS 4,554.300

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Little Sebastian
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 11 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 10 months
Number of reporting Years : 1
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or Deliverable Complete Delivery
Mitigation Plan NA Nov-18
Final Design — Construction Plans NA Sep-20
Stream Construction NA Feb-21
Site Planting NA Mar-21
As-built (Year 0 Monitoring —VP, XS, Hydro, Visual) Mar-21 Oct-21
Year 1 Monitoring Stream: Nov-21 Dec-21
Vegetation: Nov-21
Invasive Treatment NA Dec-21
Year 2 Monitoring
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
= The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Little Sebastian
Designer RES/3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Primary project design POC Frasier Mullen, PE
Construction Contractor KBS Earthwork Inc. /5616 Coble Church Rd., Julian, NC
27283
Construction contractor POC Kory Strader
Survey Contractor Acension Land Surveying, PC / 116 Williams Road,
Mocksville, NC 27028
Survey contractor POC Chris Cole, PLS
Planting Contractor Shenandoah Habitats
Planting contractor POC David Coleman
Monitoring Performers RES/3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Monitoring POC Emily Ulman [phone]

Table 4.Project Background Information
Project Name Little Sebastian
County Surry
Project Area(acres) 25.91
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 36.40, -80.86
Planted Acreage(Acres of Woody Stems Planted) 10.7
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province 45e - Northern Inner Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit I 03040101 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit I 03040101080020
DWR Sub-basin 03-04-01
Project Drainage Area(Acres and Square Miles) 3,261 acres (5.1 sq mi)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1%
Reach Summary Information
Parameters JN2-A JN2-B JN2-C JN2-D JN3-A
Length of reach(linear feet) 418 187 1114 189 350
Valley confinement(Confined, moderately confined,unconfined) UC MC MC MC UC
Drainage area(Acres) 10 17 37 38 956
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral I P P P P
Parameters JN3-B MC1-A MC1-B MC1-C MC3-A/B/C
Length of reach(linear feet) 1043 469 977 555 859
Valley confinement(Confined, moderately confined,unconfined) C UC UC UC UC
Drainage area(Acres) 999 1862 1915 2921 3225
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral P P P P P
Parameters MC3-D BS1-A/C/E BS1-B/D JN7
Length of reach(linear feet) 395 1029 352 37
Valley confinement(Confined, moderately confined,unconfined) UC C C UC
Drainage area(Acres) 3262 12-29 14-28 30
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral P I/P P I

k,
•,5
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
LJ
1
q
W
EaN,.on Rq, 0
45,d wLny,
i — _ trJ
Gideon Mitigation Site
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
,s�
cp-
P ,�
d h
4r,./
Legend
r
1
� � Conservation Easement
N
Proposed Gideon Site
�ta c` II Service Area -03040101
' d'
odgd,ion Ed
TLW-03040101080020
c•-0 -n^+ri f
Figure 1 -Site Location Map Date: 10/30/2018
E. wE Drawn by: MDE
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site 0 re
I Checked by:ATP
0 500 1,000
Il Surly County, North Carolina
Feet

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

. . . ...
, _
res
. .
1 JN2-B w — E
i ] i _ - , — - JN3A I
1
--\1--- s
I 0 100 200
Il
/ I Feet
1 I
I / ' d 1 Figure 2
1 / 1 _ . . - Invasives Treated Current Conditions
/
December 2021I
\ Plan View
1 ~ I �! • Is Al l \ \ MY12021
1 / / I +� N Little Sebastian
•
1/ _ • _ ► -- ` Mitigation Site
JN2-A �w� ,__
• E \ ` Surry County, NC
\I I JN3-B Date: 1/24/2022 Drawn by:EJU
• A° \ I Lat:35.937509 Long:-81.234876
. .....•
- 1 - . tor JN7 I LEGEND
` 4. �� I O Conservation Easement
` :t - I Gideon Bank Site
Pr 1
r I I I Fixed Veg Plot
\ I I I Random Veg Plot
` . ` \ JN2-D �� I ® Existing Wetland
. \
/ 1 G — Structure
N. \ 1. / / ] s� I �� Top of Bank
. \ 3 / I 't
\ ] !� I Cross Section
MC1-A 4 I t Stream Mitigation
\ i 4 'Z‘ I — Restoration
• ti,. % ar•
I • �4 Enhancement I
N re*-s, r-r Enhancement 11
. I \J. IL.,w / — Enhancement 11 (5:1)
I \ \.\ / / \ ` : 4 ' it
— Enhancement 11 (7.5:1)
I �. / `:', - Enhancement 11 (10:1)
i // Preservation
r
I • No Credit
I - ..` / I X— Approximate Fence Location
Vegetation Condition Assessmen I I i ' - - i
1 Groundwater Well
-Target Community
I / /Present Marginal Absent ® Stage Recorder
-r ..
a Absent No Fill MC1-B • Flow Gauge
to I I
...., Present � Ambient
c

"v,""#y`
•ir-
_ 2res
s 4 ►a .t. . • ' '' t - 3
_ �r` �t • er• ,,�� '�0 '` ` N
3!' . BS1-A
- -
- W � E
y. t
Invasives Treat I
" 'f i • , +,;V c December 20"
JN3-B yra. ,' •�" • �� I} ) s
' fix. / J _ -
'l r� 1. •/'IC ' �° ire,
,• 0 100 200
Il
tir ,Y� fBS1-B � Feet
. e
- f � � Figur 2
..4 . - , a, : 'y . ; 3 . mig, , �•• Current Conditions
rf 1'' is -4►r r i... J ._i �.
,►� #�" `d �g ty �' Airjai Plan View
+ -`' , . _i _ ,r,0., ilkA •:4,- -,4 ' 7. , r \
r_ �? MY1 2021
}+ , ' /IC.,- .
BS1-C Little Sebastian
�, �,' / Mitigation Site
/ Surry County, NC
Y� ', •t / Date: 1/24/2022 Drawn by:EJU
/
. /-•� / Lat:35 937509 Long:-81.234876
r.. © I •• • /
Vr 1��. / LEGEND
/ O Conservation Easement
(\ Gideon Bank Site
/ —
I I Fixed Veg Plot
BS1 D< I I Random Veg Plot
�.
® Existing Wetland
_ — ---I BS1-E
'''''(?,
` — Structure
11 ip Top of Bank
illk
"'L
l Cross Section
►r I Stream Mitigation
.,.
MC3-B — Restoration
� MC3 A / • �ti� j Enhancement I
n / � - 'i I Enhancement II
/ \ / \ — Enhancement II (5:1)
/ / I , Enhancement II (7.5:1)
/ / \ I — Enhancement II (10:1)
sow + / ill � I Preservation
I i No Credit
)E— Approximate Fence Location
Vegetation Condition Assessmen
I Groundwater Well
w Target Community •• ® Stage Recorder
.� Present Marginal Absent
•.
a Absent No Fill • Flow Gauge
o IX .
MC3-D
> Present • Ambient
N
c

Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Assessment Date: 11/17/2021
Reach JN3
Assessed Stream Length 1043
Assessed Bank Length 2086
Number
Stable, Amount of % Stable,
Performing as Total Number Unstable Performing as
Major Channel Category Metric Intended in As-built Footage Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 0 100%
Bank and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does
Toe Erosion NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable and are 0 100%
providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational, slumping,calving,or collapse 0 100%
Totals 0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the 10 10 100%
sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
Bank Protection exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 18 18 100%
guidance document)

Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Assessment Date: 11/17/2021
Reach MC1-C
Assessed Stream Length 555
Assessed Bank Length 1110
Number
Stable, Amount of % Stable,
Performing as Total Number Unstable Performing as
Ma'or Channel Cate s or Metric Intended in As-built Footas a Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 0 100%
Bank and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does
Toe Erosion NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable and are 0 100%
providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational, slumping,calving,or collapse 0 100%
Totals 0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the 2 2 100%
sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
Bank Protection exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 7 7 100%
guidance document)

Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Assessment Date: 11/17/2021
Reach B S 1
Assessed Stream Length 1123
Assessed Bank Length 2246
Number
Stable, Amount of % Stable,
Performing as Total Number Unstable Performing as
Ma'or Channel Cate s or Metric Intended in As-built Footas a Intended
Bank Surface Scour/Bare Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth 0 100%
Bank and/or surface scour
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does
Toe Erosion NOT include undercuts that are modest,appear sustainable and are 0 100%
providing habitat.
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical-rotational, slumping,calving,or collapse 0 100%
Totals 0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the 8 8 100%
sill.
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
Bank Protection exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring 3 3 100%
guidance document)

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Assessment Date: 11/17/2021
Planted Acreage 10.7
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping CCPV Number of Combined %of Planted
Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage
1. Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 acres Red Simple 0 0.00 0.0%
Hatch
2. Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3,4,or 5 stem count criteria. 0.1 acres Orange 0 0.00 0.0%
Simple Hatch
Total 0.0%
3.Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year. 0.25 acres Orange 0 0.00 0.0%
Simple Hatch
Cumulative Total 0.0%
Easement Acreage 25.91
Mapping CCPV Number of Combined %of
Vegetation Category Definitions pp g Easement
Threshold Depiction Polygons Acreage Acreage
4.Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale). 1000 SF Yellow 0 0.00 0.0%
Crosshatch
5.Easement Encroachment Areas3 Areas or points(if too small to render as polygons at map scale). none Red ample 0 0.00 0.0%
Hatch
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 EEP
such as species present,their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, but
potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of
ground cover. Those species with the"watch list"designator in gray shade are of interest as well,but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in 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.

Little Sebastian MY1 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
J
x � w
' --:Is: .
� �
.'"4414!': - I'.'40^,,i4411.* ':,^:' -.'''.-,,i,s.:Z.7-;-'7.7,.,..'"-•"Ifr."':'-1-' '•---:-11
.'p mr,f' Z �p, a 11 `�.. .a'
] k l"��' �:+ F "L4 P 9 vim'
" - { +x' h�, s 'Si 3v, �. 3 a` .cT° .K �... ,.,�r,-. '.fi d o
Vegetation Plot 1 (11/17/2021) Vegetation Plot 2 (11/17/2021)
sl <,� r 83@€ �M1 � t;�f
g t 3Tr ...,k.f$.,r. ,.', yr 1°tom x, ry;, r xs� 3 d F§ - (} 'F
-;':.-,.i'''''',.z,',,,"..-
a'} �" 7 $ - T t x j.11" zav �}` ' 14E 1 a
,.. r.,...,,,,,..,,,,„
t � ` �.!� x a i I
.. , 0:,_„,,.,,,. ,, , _. ,, , . _
, g, :uh'-'',- '..,„., 1 .' `., 1
yr
f
3'SPY y � - a 'h'rk '.'"
y tMryvi yam �n:$ ? x s k` 9�'' A T� ��1-" �.. -.
'_ �� ,rat 33 �.}, A a � :),- ,n a g �'t e' 5„ . ,TC
,,,,.r,nr, ,,,,,tp,,,:„:„..::,,,,..4,*...4e,,,... . ,,,,..,, ,
Vegetation Plot 3 (11/17/2021) Vegetation Plot 4 (I l 17/2021)

-.-;--44.00
5 f
A- -.. ,2; . 4,...,... -,if'. ,,. .7.,.: ii\,.....-.1-,L,,...-
,-,:ic,,;,..- --,`-4,4f,:`,„ -,,-.;'-'04-frA
fro` W _
,� ''� � YYea" y -�. 2
~ } F+ .`Y�• y _ 3i'-,..�E'' ,{yY, " •d13 - fie-. p f ' 3C S;''il •
*s' 1irg
�" 3 s 'afi " - '4 c s r �- it1 { ♦ r
.47r
'� r a : wrtsr
tl,
Vegetation Plot 5 (11/17/2021) Vegetation Plot 6 (11/17/2021)
f 1 4�"t Wiz'/ am,_ ...1
r '
•
rt '`� b :,`'it.'.:::::".-€ s " lye t �p _ ,{ `,-`' . '? 1 ��: A s
r r .w�g�Ai. , ;1 'i ��... ;� '�+�. .. �s W y i� "`iy .` rr !js. §�9 �-z r
Random Vegetation Plot 1 (11/17/2021) Random Vegetation Plot 2(11/17/2021)

- C " -ce - R
C
.�§ � '� ate
x �, �,, '1,...-.--,.*:' ,,.-.,..77,,P; ,.., . .4.?..-;,',,,Yi**,:: '":- '''''''-'-.V4
� �. �„ fi '. -�
r
1 -_-,-,ity..,-1,:,, 1
U is �, * �,� „,,A
� . ..
` b - - ri^t�+'
sue°
Random Vegetation Plot 3 (ll/17/2021)

Little Sebastian Monitoring Device Photos,November 17, 2021
i•, ., - 1 r _ x t ,; ; '''' <' 4. is
,,,__
^` rY•}tr`� ••if _ F q ,may y. ,�t ,,
.7"r''' "A,,,-,,,,,r,,..;40-tf " -L.,-.7-'-- -,
'''.,'" V ''''''i e. ,„:„......, .,. , .
sc.
?ti
;,,.-1/4„-,,., , -,„..,:,
,,--. --. ,—„,-
f s - iy � 7i *� ��: 1JlJ if_
dS SS. I:... r `' r" I-.'. +`#' -¢yl fir,
fi
Iii#4.!=- 4..;..-.- 44*---: -...' --.:,1'--' - •ek,.. .,- 4iclin-
,.... ,... .. _ . il,4,.... -1. .-.. z .... ;di' 1- :I.' .2.-,4.04
,ram .• Y-' •'*•,.i • , 4 - '' Yt. • •►-*T•
ir. .. t{ ., T i�M'i ��j-y.. ' ' 0
-Al ..
' k.1�.'F • :
R.- ?:fi t,t+X` r - _4'4: - . yk,f+a'_ y rgr4-. .six
d.
Flow Gauge JN2-A :'.. Stage Recorder:6JN3-B
44 ,.
II
L �ti ' '.I
f� - k-'i. '�z.'VI#ice`
•
-.—.:x' . ._i'. .,r z::x'IP v. ,pr`. � • ,.. $ L'Z ay , LS 4 ' I�3:... + J
Flow Gauge BS1-A - ':'- '��. - � t -
Stage Recorder BSI-E

-. a . -.F.:.... ' -
• k -y -�- . :-
- mti , . ` l ,r �r., :�'` .J'1 ..{ - =`1. eY
� -_ _+ L - am
.. :: :�.+r ... . '..-...:. ._:. :.7... -,--. ' L. ,I ,-'.'- —V.r-'a 4/,''.' .. .- i.O.,:r
..)4
55 „.. `r
•
v _ ._..Ia ,
.-)• . .+. • ... ...... illiek .- .
•
` y'., r IN .. Lr;.'\��. 7 "41` r 7.v
•
w.y_ �s. sx*
,+F•ti;YA.' $t 141.� `= _ - -.ice •'�°'C � + . `- �'n
``-- ,_- ~� .-4A• . . %sue `• rt - ;,.
..
y _ •-�C:�' _ - Y - .f:4- ' ':.=e`, "•-.-kc: _
V-t
.. ; '' :tom: _ 1 !'
i'. ,. _ ti.. w xr. 1 1.. \L":'7.:.•
t _:. .ti _ ` '..fit-- ."l•- +.14`
);:-.;:.;$: ,.L....-,.-', . ... .:7_.,1, i'. , _...„': .:' .......'.-i.r.-e.:.,:er,..-,.:Kir:,...-: ..._.-[?:,. ..4_,, .
A .: "C- :. -✓fir . .� }
Groundwater Well 1
Groundwater Well 2

Little Sebastian Crossing Photos, November 17, 2021
•
f• a:
•
•
•-J•' F -1101
•
•1 /•I l:. «iri.M1lr J - • , _ f P. �,• i'�`' ,�4I,�, M
f Y y Sv - .. ~' _L ....A,.
.t r^'•per ' 7`*0.. i ''4 • 1' }{ •
I JFlt." _ :_ - ✓1i - - I" id' - '• l t'. - r-t#% +
` .«.', - '.4,'i i . - , _ ±'tee. _. - f.
JN2-C (upstream) JN2-C (downstream)
•
•
_•,41 '• _ t
. Y 1
F!' .rF' 'Fi er F ~ }•
ice ((}} f77f r • //J�+^
N • .fL..' '":I :11' t •I
JN2-D (upstream) JN2-D (downstream)

•
.. i ....4.
*t,4`" ;*', _• y , -•6:''
•
•
Hilli,
ry .... rf Otis -u• f •
•
r'± `3 ..Y - -- 'tea'r , i- _ .h*�� 4 ..
K _
�_.r �• .-a.}r L- y - �sF� _ 4 f .} rr
i WE
•
• /
JN3-B (upstream) JN3-B (downstream)
. ,_
•
! tiiY4:t i i!. iyi Y - r- 'k. 7-ir +_ N:yr _
.•:.-_:.....'...14•:1
•
•
- :•, ;- --..1.,_-._,'--.-.-T-.-:.._--4....1.1, -,__-:.1.17..'•':4-.,..„-_.- •.,..
_. - yr Y M1 '_. nslr�'1:-.s,.":,'., - ''9_ rri7r
_ .!T• �_�+r « •'� '�-,P�'; r.. �lfl'•ArC7 F . am.
•Y
MC1-C (downstream) MC3-B/D

. :-..,:• ... ' . .".' •.•"•••-. '' - _.-:.. ..,..._.7..- -7.7374 -. , -4 ,.. , . .::21,,,Imnt.-...r.,,, -.„..,%)_....,.-t. -r,-...,...,.N.. ... . _
.. ...c. :,,.....,...,.., „;. ...•...,....;,..i. i, .- . .
. .. . ,r '•
. -....... . • . . . .
- !,, . ''"•'''.. -
-..' ..-'-- '-±,e, . .:_16 .7... •,,,,,i;;•----.7.----,_.... ,r7, .j:!..,...._,-,.... ....-.._ • • •...,..,
• . .t-wr .. .
. .
. .. - . •ir. , - .A,1
. . •24.3.
. . ,:.•. ...?.,•;,... . ji: ,_-.,- • •
,.. _. * ..
. •. •
...-.- .. ...
.. -. - . ..:,' '4! • •• 1.---•
...: .
..i..; .
- •
•.•• • • • ., •. ..,i•• •,r5:Ars
,
• • • -••••. - .. •.. • r. . .:_ • 4•-•••;:••A. -7::. ..., -Ar.,• -,,
- • - '---. *4-.3,-- • -• •'- - - , _
. . • ..,,:toet •-, , '-, '
.. • •. i"- : . 'NW • •-•
.Ar........ . . . • .
• ..
_. ..-.• -.. "" - ...0, .• '.
• . ,, ,.... • , •.,..,0,- 41.--.".;•4E. • -,,'•.:_-.,4.- ..'77.T:-.0.--
. 1 .
.• . . •s.• • . -) - --.• ',.. '• .4'
..•
:- Ft. .,. : • e.0 . -t:-....41-•L• • ,-7.,.•
. .. . ei."'.1.. .. •
. .
.- . •
e• . -1,414',r- 4 ' . . - •,
VII.:. - ' '" ...1-! '-1.Q.•4.. ': . .
- . - • . .1-.:
.I-:•• .. :
-..
- '. ' .-...-..., .0..`•?i--'. -•••••,.. ':_ -.." ...-- .
B S 1-E(upstream) B S 1-E(downstream)

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Appendix C.Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Planted Species Summary
Common Name Scientific Name Mit Plan % As-Built % Total Stems Planted
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 15 15 1,600
River Birch Betula nigra 15 15 1,600
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 10 15 1,600
Water Oak Quercus nigra 15 14 1,600
Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra j 10 11 1,200
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 10 10 1,100
r Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 5 600
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 5 5 600
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 0 5 in600
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 0 5 600
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 5 0 _Allism0
Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum 5 0 0
Total 11,100
Planted Area 10.7
As-built Planted Stems/Acre 1,037
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Averaged
Planted Volunteer Total Success Planted
Plot# Criteria
Stems/Acre Stems/Acre Stems/Acre Stem
Met? Height(ft)
1 890 0 890 Yes 1.9
2 1012 0 1012 Yes 1.5
3 1093 0 1093 Yes 2.3
4 1174 0 1174 Yes 1.9
5 607 0 607 Yes 1.8
6 1012 0 1012 Yes 2.1
R1 445 0 445 Yes 1.6
R2 526 0 526 Yes 2.2
R3 769 0 769 Yes 2.1
Project Avg 836 0 836 Yes 2.0

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Little Sebastian Current Plot Data (MY1 2021)
100027-01-0001 100027-01-0002 100027-01-0003 100027-01-0004 100027-01-0005 100027-01-0006
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
Betula nigra river birch Tree 6 6 6 4 4 4 5 5 5
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub 5 5 5 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 3 3 3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 4 4 4 6 6 6 15 15 15 8 8 8 2 2 2 6 6 6
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 1 1 1 7 7 7 4 4 4 14 14 14 3 3 3 2 2 2
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 6
Stem count 22 22 22 25 25 25 27 27 27 29 29 29 15 15 15 25 25 25
size(ares) 1 1 1 1 1 1
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02
Species count 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8
Stems per ACRE 890 890 890 1012 1012 1012 1093 1093 1093 1174 1174 1174 607 607 607 1012 1012 1012
Little Sebastian Current Plot Data (MY1 2021) Annual Means
100027-01-R1 100027-01-R2 100027-01-R3 MY1(2021) MVO(2021)
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
Betula nigra river birch Tree 5 5 5 2 2 2 22 22 22 15 15 15
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 3 3 3 4 4 4
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub 1 1 1 12 12 12 13 13 13
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 3 3 3 5 5 5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 4 4 4 4 4 4
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 8 8 7 7 7
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 1 1 1 5 5 5 6 6 6 53 53 53 41 41 41
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 1 1 13 13 13 13 13 13
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 5 5 5 4 4 4 8 8 8 48 48 48 32 32 32
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 3 3 3 20 20 20 22 22 22
Stem count 11 11 11 13 13 13 19 19 19 186 186 186 156 156 156
size(ares) 1 1 1 9 6
size(ACRES) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.22 0.15
Species count 3 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 10 10 10 10 10 10
Stems per ACRE 445 445 445 526 526 526 769 769 769 836 836 836 1052 1052 1052

Appendix D
Stream Measurement and
Geomorphology Data

Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site -Reach BS-1
Parameter Gauge2 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es)Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SDb n Min Mean Med Max SDb n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SDb n
Bankfull Width(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 3.2 --- --- 1 7.1 12.3 -- 17.5 --- 2 --- 4.5 --- 5.7 6.0 --- 6.3 --- 2
Floodprone Width(ft) --- --- 60.0 --- --- 1 >30 51.3 -- 72.5 --- 2 --- --- --- 11.3 17.6 --- 23.8 --- 2
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 1.6 --- --- 1 1.0 1.3 -- 1.6 --- 2 --- 0.6 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
'Bankfull Max Depth(ft) --- --- 3.9 --- --- 1 1.2 1.9 -- 2.6 --- 2 --- 0.7 --- 0.7 0.9 --- 1.1 --- 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) --- --- --- --- --- 2.4 --- --- 1 6.7 17.2 -- 27.7 --- 2 --- 2.7 --- 2.6 3.3 --- 4.0 --- 2
Width/Depth Ratio --- --- 4.2 --- --- 1 7.4 9.3 -- 11.1 --- 2 --- 7.4 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Entrenchment Ratio --- --- 3.4 --- --- 1 >4 4.2 -- 4.3 --- 2 --- >1.4 --- 2.0 2.9 --- 3.8 --- 2
'Bank Height Ratio --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1 1.0 1.2 -- 1.3 --- 2 --- 1.0 --- 1.0 1.0 --- 1.0 --- 2
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.6 --- --- 17 --- --- 4.0 --- 11 4 16 16 32 8 19
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.1 5.9 5.0 14.5 3.7 19
Pool Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 4 --- 16 --- --- 2.0 --- 7 11 18 15 43 8 17
Pool Max depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Pool Spacing(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 26 --- --- 68 --- --- 5.0 --- 20 21 34 33 63 10 17
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 20 --- --- 85 --- --- 13.0 --- 19.0 13.0 --- --- 19.0 --- ---
Radius of Curvature(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 54 --- --- 4.0 --- 10.0 4.0 --- --- 10.0 --- ---
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- --- 1.0 --- 2.0 1.0 --- --- 2.0 --- ---
Meander Wavelength(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- 105 --- --- 21.0 --- 32.0 21.0 --- --- 32.0 --- ---
Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.4 --- --- 5.9 --- --- 3.0 --- 4.0 3.0 --- --- 4.0 --- ---
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/f2 --- --- ---
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull --
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/m2 --- --
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification B4a E3/E4b B4/E4 B4/E4
Bankfull Velocity(fps) --- --- --- --- --
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) --- --- --- --
Valley length(ft) 1508 160 1017 1017
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 1703 189 1028 1028
Sinuosity(ft) 1.13 1.195 1.01 1.01
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) --- --
Channel slope(ft/ft) 0.049 1.85 0.025-0.035 0.025-0.035
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) --- --- --
4%of Reach with Eroding Banks --- ---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric --- ---
Biological or Other --- ---
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
t=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 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site -Reach JN-3
Parameter Gauge2 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es)Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SDb n Min Mean Med Max SDb n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SDb n
Bankfull Width(ft) --- --- --- 14.9 16.4 -- 17.9 --- 2 7.1 12.3 -- 17.5 --- 2 --- 16.0 --- --- --- 15.0 --- --- 1
Floodprone Width(ft) 37.0 48.5 -- 60.0 --- 2 >30 51.3 -- 72.5 --- 2 --- >50 --- --- --- >64.4 --- --- 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) --- --- --- 1.6 1.7 -- 1.6 --- 2 1.0 1.3 -- 1.6 --- 2 --- 2.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
'Bankfull Max Depth(ft) 2.1 3.0 -- 3.9 --- 2 1.2 1.9 -- 2.6 --- 2 --- 2.9 --- --- --- 2.2 --- --- 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) --- --- --- 26.1 27.3 -- 28.5 --- 2 6.7 17.2 -- 27.7 --- 2 --- 26.9 --- --- --- 22.8 --- --- 1
Width/Depth Ratio 8.5 9.9 -- 11.2 --- 2 7.4 9.3 -- 11.1 --- 2 --- 9.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Entrenchment Ratio 2.5 3.0 -- 3.4 --- 2 >4 4.2 -- 4.3 --- 2 --- >2.2 --- --- --- >4.3 --- --- 1
'Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.2 -- 1.3 --- 2 1.0 1.2 -- 1.3 --- 2 --- 1.0 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.6 --- --- 17 --- --- 7 --- 29 14 25 22 48 10 18
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.43 2.605 2.735 5.1 1.23176 18
Pool Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 4 --- --- 16 --- --- 4 --- 18 19 35 34 55 10 17
Pool Max depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Pool Spacing(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 26 --- --- 68 --- --- 29 --- 75 38 59 59 78 11 15
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 20 --- --- 85 --- --- 39 --- 94 39 --- --- 94 --- ---
Radius of Curvature(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 54 --- --- 14 --- 60 14 --- --- 60 --- ---
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- --- 0.9 --- 3.7 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- ---
Meander Wavelength(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- 105 --- --- 74 --- 116 74 --- --- 116 --- ---
Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.4 --- --- 5.9 --- --- 2.4 --- 5.9 2.4 --- --- 5.9 --- ---
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/f2 --- --- ---
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull --
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/m2 --- --
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification E3 E3/E4b E3 E3
Bankfull Velocity(fps) --- --- --- --- --
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) --- --- --- --
Valley length(ft) 602 160 945 945
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 772 189 1088 1088
Sinuosity(ft) 1.225 1.195 1.15 1.15
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) --- --
Channel slope(ft/ft) 0.0125 1.85 0.0085 0.0085
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) --- --- --
4%of Reach with Eroding Banks --- ---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric --- ---
Biological or Other --- ---
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
t=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 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site -Reach MC1-C
Parameter Gauge2 Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es)Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate-Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SDb n Min Mean Med Max SDb n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SDb n
Bankfull Width(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 17.4 --- --- 1 7.1 12.3 -- 17.5 --- 2 --- 23.0 --- --- --- 21.3 --- --- 1
Floodprone Width(ft) --- --- 50.0 --- --- 1 >30 51.3 -- 72.5 --- 2 --- >50 --- --- --- >64.9 --- --- 1
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- 1.8 --- --- 1 1.0 1.3 -- 1.6 --- 2 --- 2.4 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
'Bankfull Max Depth(ft) --- --- 2.9 --- --- 1 1.2 1.9 -- 2.6 --- 2 --- 3.2 --- --- --- 3.2 --- --- 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2) --- --- --- --- --- 30.6 --- --- 1 6.7 17.2 -- 27.7 --- 2 --- 54.4 --- --- --- 49.8 --- --- 1
Width/Depth Ratio --- --- 10.0 --- --- 1 7.4 9.3 -- 11.1 --- 2 --- 9.7 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Entrenchment Ratio --- --- 2.9 --- --- 1 >4 4.2 -- 4.3 --- 2 --- >2.2 --- --- --- >3 --- --- 1
'Bank Height Ratio --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1 1.0 1.2 -- 1.3 --- 2 --- 1.0 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1
Profile
Riffle Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.6 --- --- 17 --- --- 10 --- 41 14 25 18 61 17 7
Riffle Slope(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.19 2.32 1.35 4.8 1.89753 7
Pool Length(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 4 --- 16 --- --- 6 --- 25 36 51 48 73 12 6
Pool Max depth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Pool Spacing(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 26 --- --- 68 --- --- 41 --- 108 65 81 73 109 19 5
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 20 --- --- 85 --- --- 56 --- 135 56 --- --- 135 --- ---
Radius of Curvature(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 54 --- --- 21 --- 86 21 --- --- 86 --- ---
Rc:Bankfull width(ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- --- 1 --- 4 1 --- --- 4 --- ---
Meander Wavelength(ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- 105 --- --- 106 --- 167 106 --- --- 167 --- ---
Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.4 --- --- 5.9 --- --- 2 --- 6 2 --- --- 6 --- ---
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress(competency)lb/f2 --- --- ---
Max part size(mm)mobilized at bankfull --
Stream Power(transport capacity) W/m2 --- --
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification E3 E3/E4b E3 E3
Bankfull Velocity(fps) --- --- --- --- --
Bankfull Discharge(cfs) --- --- --- --
Valley length(ft) 1109 160 478 478
Channel Thalweg length(ft) 1288 189 542 542
Sinuosity(ft) 1.16 1.195 1.13 1.13
Water Surface Slope(Channel)(ft/ft) --- --
Channel slope(ft/ft) 0.008 1.85 0.0085 0.0085
3Bankfull Floodplain Area(acres) --- --- --
4%of Reach with Eroding Banks --- ---
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric --- ---
Biological or Other --- ---
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
t=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

Appendix D.Table 11 -Monitoring Data-Dimensional Morphology Summary(Dimensional Parameters-Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number: Little Sebastian #100027
Cross Section 1(Riffle) Cross Section 2(Riffle) Cross Section 3(Riffle) Cross Section 4(Riffle) Cross Section 5(Riffle)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 1214.7 1214.8 1211.2 1211.3 1170.7 1170.7 1165.0 1164.9 1150.6 1150.7
Bankfull Width(ft)1 5.4 5.1 5.4 5.6 5.3 5.8 9.0 8.8 21.3 21.0
Floodprone Width(ft)1 13.1 11.2 8.7 8.8 >34.8 >34.1 >43.9 >43.2 >64.9 >65.1
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 0.7 1.0 0.5 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.8 3.2 3.1
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 1214.74 1215.0 1211.2 1211.6 1170.7 1170.8 1165.0 1164.8 1150.6 1150.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 2.4 4.1 2.3 4.1 3.5 4.3 3.5 2.6 49.8 48.2
BankfullEntrenchmentRatio1 2.4 2.2 1.6 1.6 >6.6 >5.9 >4.9 >4.9 >3.0 >3.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratios 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0
Cross Section 6(Pool) Cross Section 7(Riffle) Cross Section 8(Pool) Cross Section 9(Pool) Cross Section 10(Riffle)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 1150.5 1150.6 1157.4 1157.3 1157.2 1157.2 1188.3 1188.4 1187.6 1187.6
Bankfull Width(ft)1 - - 15.0 15.0 - - - - 6.3 7.1
Floodprone Width(ft)1 - - >64.4 >64.7 - - - - 23.8 23.5
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 4.1 4.1 2.2 2.4 3.6 4.2 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0
Low Bank Elevation(ft) - - 1157.4 1157.4 - - - - 1187.6 1187.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 56.7 56.4 22.8 24.4 34.8 34.0 3.6 3.0 4.0 3.4
BankfullEntrenchmentRatio1 - - >4.3 >4.3 - - - - 3.8 3.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratios - - 1.0 1.0 - - - - 1.0 0.9
Cross Section 11(Riffle) Cross Section 12(Pool)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 1136.4 1136.4 1136.1 1136.2
Bankfull Width(ft)1 5.7 6.5 - -
Floodprone Width(ft)1 11.3 11.3 - -
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 0.7 0.7 1.2 0.9
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 1136.4 1136.5 - -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 2.6 3.0 4.6 4.1
BankfullEntrenchmentRatio1 2.0 1.7 - -
Bankfull Bank Height Ratios 1.0 1.1 - -
1-Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2-Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation

k . i i t. - 1 _ Q
r ti::`. y r • r'
s - Ck •.. - r-
li4.
. Y . S . :12...%•
_.. +4y fir h +#x - py�
ties:,.�r� 3>• �'i`-' �� .'E�ir
Upstream Downstream
Little Sebastian -Reach JN2-B -Cross Section 1 -Riffle-Enhancement I
1219
1218
1217
.° 1216
-
d
w 1215 ......................
1214
1213 ,
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 — — —Approx.Bankfull Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation
'2X VPM,,,,Evnmeration
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA' 1214.7 1214.8
Bankfull Width(ft)' 5.4 5.1
Floodprone Width(ft)' 13.1 11.2
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 0.7 1.0
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 1214.74 1215.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 2.4 4.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' 2.4 2.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.4
1 -Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2-Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation

+'/fin ._. wr•-iG 5 • S .r'. 6m t! .,
Sim.-3, .'' ..,. '+1..-�. ^ ~ _ - 'S , �Clw }. ` -;: 1 •h•4 � „ JJ[[' �
L J• ac•
.94
.,: -•'.Y q_. .. y,F- , . __
1
A ."_ ,. „,..k.. .. .,.. ..;f,, ..... :_: . ..
: , ,,. ...4,-, ,...e-',.:".
4.
'.. R C
Upstream Downstream
Little Sebastian -Reach JN2-B -Cross Section 2 -Riffle-Enhancement I
1216
1215
1214
F.
° 1213
rz
w 1212
1211
1210
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 — — —Approx.Bankfull — —Floodprone Area Low Bank Flc, ical Exaggeration
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 1211.2 1211.3
Bankfull Width(ft)' 5.4 5.6
Floodprone Width(ft)' 8.7 8.8
BankfullMaxDepth(ft)2 0.5 0.8
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 1211.2 1211.6
Bankfull Cro s s Sectional Area(ft2)2 2.3 4.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' 1.6 1.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.5
1 -Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2-Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation

•
- . k�s_
•
•
ter, _
4.,-
•
�-i J. y ..'iR._ t a7' c
+'•f r'• '� ''v ' ' _! , } :.�3 a ,►'. - -
•
'4..it`_. -. . ;- : - 1 _, _ _ :.:5". .,
p f
Upstream Downstream
Little Sebastian - Reach JN2-C -Cross Section 3- Riffle-Enhancement II
1175
1174
1173
° 1172
d
w 1171 •••• • 71- ••••
1170
•
1169
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 — — -Approx.Bankfull Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 1170.7 1170.7
Bankfull Width(ft)1 5.3 5.8
Floodprone Width(ft)1 >34.8 >34.1
Bankfull MaxDepth(ft)2 1.0 1.1
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 1170.7 1170.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 3.5 4.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t >6.6 >5.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t 1.0 1.1
1 -Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2-Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation

:- :. - -
l' t: r',
� 3
-- .. `. .'. w. _...,.-..0,,,.....tip - -
L --
_ 4 . t .'. S ++LLw .•r '*'
11111111
Upstream Downstream
Little Sebastian -Reach JN2-D -Cross Section 4-Riffle-Enhancement I
1169
1168
1167
c
•° 1166
al
w 1165 1 _
1164
1163
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 — — A rox.Bankfull — —Flood prone Area Low Bank Hei 3x vericai
pp p 9aggeration
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 1165.0 1164.9
Bankfull Width(ft)1 9.0 8.8
Floodprone Width(ft)1 >43.9 >43.2
Bankfull MaxDepth(ft)2 0.9 0.8
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 1165.0 1164.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 3.5 2.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t >4.9 >4.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t 1.0 0.9
1 -Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2-Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation

.
;- _ ,'! its ,
y
a.. ~.#"'. ••fir k '..
.
•
i• -
a Nam: # • �'` '_
e. }
•
Upstream Downstream
Little Sebastian- Reach MC1-C -Cross Section 5- Riffle -Restoration
1155
1154
1153
1152
1151
o .r.^.-r.r.ee.-r.r.ee.-r.r.ee.-r. ee.-r.r.ee.-r.r.ee.-r.r.ee.-r.r.re
1150
w 1149
1148
1147
1146
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63
Distance (ft)
3X Verti-al
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 — — —Approx.Bankfull — —Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevati@niggeiation
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 1150.6 1150.7
Bankfull Width(ft)1 21.3 21.0
Floodprone Width(ft)1 >64.9 >65.1
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 3.2 3.1
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 1150.6 1150.6
Bankfull Cros s Sectional Area(ft2)2 49.8 48.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio i >3.0 >3.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio i 1.0 1.0
1 -Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2-Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation

fi
•
,r.
r r.-5 •
--Ste. .. - - '�• - i' ` .
Upstream Downstream
Little Sebastian -Reach MC1-C -Cross Section 6 -Pool -Restoration
1153
1152
1151
1150
c 1149
0
1148
w 1147
1146
1145
1144
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63
Distance(ft)
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 — — —Approx.Bankfull Low Bank Elevation
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Cross Section 6 (Pool)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSAl 1150.5 1150.6
Bankfull Width(ft)1 - -
Flo odprone Width(ft)1 - -
Bankfull MaxDepth(ft)2 4.1 4.1
Low Bank Elevation(ft) - -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 56.7 56.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t - -
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t - -
1 -Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2-Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation

•
-+O J •
. Rf
•
Upstream Downstream
Little Sebastian -Reach JN3-B -Cross Section 7 -Riffle-Restoration
1162
1161
1160
1159
c 1158
t1• 1*t:tt ti tl• •L tl 1.2 t1•1•L1• tilt Lt t1•t•fd 4t*1•L Ll 1•t•5/1 l.t tl•l•f1
> 1157
1156
1155
1154
1153
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63
Distance(ft)
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 — — —Approx.Bankfull Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevatk S Vert cal
Exagge-ation
Cross Section 7 (Riffle)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA' 1157.4 1157.3
Bankfull Width(ft)1 15.0 15.0
Floodprone Width(ft)i >64.4 >64.7
Bankfull MaxDepth(ft)2 2.2 2.4
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 1157.4 1157.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 22.8 24.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t >4.3 >4.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t 1.0 1.0
1 -Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2-Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation

•
i= " im r ' rr s - }.t'
,
``:' .- .Y �yY,it r' .. u:}.f ,-
'' i_ 'I
�•. ,yLt:.I'`., --"C::+- • x•X~ _. :,: r•, _ .�. qr.., •--- .% r;'cA,_L* `•.ti.' -
r �„,
r it 3' i;3>r ;�
. • r,ti.. .,, r,.
p.
V y ,-
Upstream Downstream
Little Sebastian - Reach JN3-B -Cross Section 8- Pool -Restoration
1160
1159
1158
1157 11•1•T•!1!1•1•11 •`•A 0.11.•T•11!1MI,IV!1 fl.T.1111!1 •511,511101
' 1155
'''.41111111\
0
';'s 1155 '
0
w 1154
141
1153
1152
1151
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63
Distance(ft)
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 — — —Approx.Bankfull Low Bank Elevation 3x vertical
Exaggeration
Cross Section 8 (Pool)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Bas ed on AB-XSA 1157.2 1157.2
Bankfull Width(ft)1 - -
Floodprone Width(ft)1 - -
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 3.6 4.2
Low Bank Elevation(ft) - -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 34.8 34.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 - -
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t - -
1 -Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2-Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation

•
•
- � � J - 'T IVr., Y1Y y !4. '11 - •
_ ,-�7 .L _
�� r .- : • �� .1.
; - ,�_ -. _ � -am
I z lr _-F-' Y.��. - y r-
--. rtir - -'-- - r.M• - -- - -}y rl., .k`
y_ y
rt - 't4;r..;t`fir .i f "r -.
- '', _ter "' ,; i Pd-io;"`• - `- . .?-,' {" ' =
:Lia
Upstream Downstream
Little Sebastian - Reach BS1-A -Cross Section 9 -Pool -Restoration
1193
1192
1191
c
° 1190
iil
w 1189
1188
1187
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 — — —Approx.Bankfull Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical
Exaggeration
Cross Section 9 (Pool)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 1188.3 1188.4
Bankfull Width(ft)1 - -
Floodprone Width(ft)1 - -
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 1.0 0.9
Low Bank Elevation(ft) - -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 3.6 3.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t - -
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t - -
1 -Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2-Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation

• .'? r
1 4. . � � k • ' r b 1 � � . %!I ,s � � �t ; � tii. s •oiI 4 ,- L'•y_ - ' I• _•F' r I
=.ti, _ :. !.l 'r,+,.�e . ,ii ,
i .i �a _
- - . 'r_ _ ,,.. may.-w.reg.� - ...'_ Yw..=. .
iist
_ t. r� dd 's, - •fir- .' - y r?,;,._'.: - - --,� ,...
{ -,h': •'i..v. ,rf.�', Imo. 1° „
Upstream Downstream
Little Sebastian -Reach BS1-A -Cross Section 10 -Riffle-Restoration
1192
1191
1190
c
° 1189
w 1188
1187
1186
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 — — —Approx.Bankfull — —Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevatk S Vert cal
Exagge-ation
Cross Section 10 (Riffle)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 1187.6 1187.6
Bankfull Width(ft)1 6.3 7.1
Floodprone Width(ft)1 23.8 23.5
BankfullMaxDepth(ft)2 1.1 1.0
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 1187.6 1187.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 4.0 3.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t 3.8 3.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t 1.0 0.9
1 -Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2-Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation

- . S �F a -t _:-z :;-L ,.• -,I,.;' -„, -~ ��
I ~I.ram• -Sr' ~-#� -7 _ r,.
-
•
° Win.
, . •_ s 4.:' ter'., ..�� .� �;y:: <,.
ititt.
}bw^ Z 7
r7' W; #x i'• •'l',`.:*::- ..E- �yy�l` y A s i C' .aJ, f•.
5 .--N0s i• ,:lik4 w„"tiv•i� "`. - ��`1 -'� .fir µ7': .a ,.
Upstream Downstream
Little Sebastian - Reach BS1-E -Cross Section 11 -Riffle-Restoration
1141
1140
1139
c
° 1138
w 1137
\boiti\fh.... 69810....
i
1136
1135
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 — — —Approx.Bankfull — —Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevatk S Vert cal
Exagge-ation
Cross Section 11 (Riffle)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 1136.4 1136.4
Bankfull Width(ft)1 5.7 6.5
Floodprone Width(ft)1 11.3 11.3
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 0.7 0.7
Low Bank Elevation(ft) 1136.4 1136.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 2.6 3.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t 2.0 1.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t 1.0 1.1
1 -Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2-Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation

. -'7.hki-Sri. - - : -.1'- ':.-- J.-: 1:-
:..,•-•''',':'
;,� =
Z:,.., ....,. L._ ..
�. �.•,. +.
YY r. "- .
r ..=t. •� 4=� f'.��.'Y � ti �'i-'L.y -'J'.i irs.'Arrv._,... � r' ''- ..=FA=`r:.i-£'.
Upstream Downstream
Little Sebastian -Reach BS1-E -Cross Section 12 -Pool -Restoration
1140
1139
\ ...00,----
1138
° 1137
w �
1136 ""
1135 vory
1134
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
Distance(ft)
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 — — —Approx.Bankfull Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical
Exaggeration
Cross Section 12 (Pool)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation(ft)-Based on AB-XSA1 1136.1 1136.2
Bankfull Width(ft)1 - -
Floodprone Width(ft)1 - -
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)2 1.2 0.9
Low Bank Elevation(ft) - -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft2)2 4.6 4.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio t - -
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio t - -
1 -Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2-Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation

Appendix E
Hydrology Data

Table 12. Rainfall Summary MY1 2021
Normal Limits Raven Knob Station
Month Average
30 Percent 70 Percent Precipitation
January 3.99 2.78 4.80 2.58
February 3.14 2.12 3.76 3.88
March 4.19 2.95 4.97 5.07
April 4.29 2.88 5.13 1.95
May 4.53 3.09 5.53 2.46
June 4.95 3.39 5.90 5.98
July 5.24 3.71 6.20 6.61
August 4.69 3.46 5.85 8.82
September 4.26 3.06 5.05 2.39
October 3.54 2.19 4.26 3.24
November 3.44 2.17 4.15 0.48
December 4.20 3.03 4.91 ---
Total 50.46 34.83 60.51 43.46
Above Normal Limits Below Normal Limits
Note:Raven Knob CRONOS Station is approximately 6 miles north of the site

Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Number of Bankfull Maximum Bankfull
Year Events Height(ft) Date of Maximum Bankfull Event
s -.-
Stage Recorder JN3-B
MY1 2021 0 N/A N/A
Stage Recorder BS1-E
MY1 2021 0 N/A N/A
Year Number of flow Events Maximum Consecutive Maximum Cummlative Maximum Consecutive
How Days How Days How Date Range
Flow Gauge JN2-A
MY12021 1 243 243 3/19/2021-11/17/2021
Flow Gauge BS1-A
MY12021 1 243 243 3/19/2021-11/17/2021
Table 14.2021 Max Hydroperiod
2021 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 3-Apr through 30-Oct, 210 days)
Consecutive Cumulative
Well ID Occurrences
. Da s Hydro )period Da s Hydroperiod
y y
GW1 87 41 137 65 14
GW2 210 100 210 100 1
Table 15. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Little Sebastian
Hydroperiod(%)
Well ID Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
(2021) (2022) (2023) (2024) (2025) (2026) (2027)
GW1 41
GW2 100

MY1 Little Sebastian JN2-A Flow Gauge
1 - 10
- - 9
- - 8
- - - 7
C
0T
'**IRR1► 7, ' f,., 6
c
CD CD
cc
0 - 5
- 4
- 3
- - 2
- - 1
-1 1 I I I I 0
3/19/21 4/18/21 5/18/21 6/17/21 7/17/21 8/16/21 9/15/21 10/15/21 11/14/21
Date
Rain JN2-A Depth Bed — — —JN2-A DS Riffle

MY1 Little Sebastian BS1-A Flow Gauge
1 - 10
- - 9
- — — - 8
F
- - 7
C
0 - 6 c�
—
0 0
L — — ,i I L .11 [ — — 'cv
0 a,
0 5
- - 4
- - 3
- - 2
- - 1
-1 1 I I 0
3/19/21 4/18/21 5/18/21 6/17/21 7/17/21 8/16/21 9/15/21 10/15/21 11/14/21
Date
Rain BS1-A Depth Bed — — —BS1-A DS Riffle

MY1 Little Sebastian BS1-E Stage Recorder
10
- 9
- 8
1 - 7
C
6 (7
C
� 'cv
cc
- - - 5
Whybtof4/400,1SrAvetijwirtyfitioAger 4
0 -
- 3
- 2
- 1
-1 0
3/19/21 4/18/21 5/18/21 6/17/21 7/17/21 8/16/21 9/15/21 10/15/21 11/14/21
Date
Rain —BS1-E Depth Bed — — —BS1-E TOB

MY1 Little Sebastian JN3-B Stage Recorder
1 - I 10
- 9
- - 8
- 7
C
a) - — - 6 (7
0 4-
C
a) 'cc
cc
- 5
- — - - 4
- 3
- - — - 2
- 1
0 i i. ... 0
3/19/21 4/18/21 5/18/21 6/17/21 7/17/21 8/16/21 9/15/21 10/15/21 11/14/21
Date
Rain JN3-B Depth —Sensor Elevation — — —JN3-B TOB

MY1 Little Sebastian GW1
10 _ 12
Growing Season
Apr 3-Oct 30(210 Days)
- 4/3-6/28(87 days) - 11
- Crite�a Met
0 10
_ _ � , i k
N1114N
a)
-C -10 - 8
V _- z:Vitt:3,41z iscik,
1111)111`
tilitr N
C 7 0
0 -
y.+ -
<C -
-20 - 6 0
W - :C
L - -
a) -
R _ - 5 Q
3 - d
- L
3 -30 _ 4 d
O -
,L. _
V -
- - 3
-40 - 2
1
-50 1.-I a • &0J iL1 6 Jill LI L J IikLIILJJ 1 .1 r I 1k i - 0
1/1/21 2/1/21 3/1/21 4/1/21 5/1/21 6/1/21 7/1/21 8/1/21 9/1/21 10/1/21 11/1/21 12/1/21
Date
Rain -GW1

MY1 Little Sebastian GW2
10 - 12
_ Growing Season
Apr 3 -Oct 30(210 Days)
- - 11
_ 4/3-10/30 (210 days)
- Criteria Met
0 10
- 1
- - 9
d -
-c -10 - 8
V -
-_ a)
C - - 7 0
O - C
C
d -20 - 6 CO
W - +r
1- - �i
a) -
_ - 5 Q
3 - d
- L
3 -30 _ 4 d
O -
V -
- - 3
-40 - 2
- 1
-50 .-I a . 6016. 6 Jill LI I .1. d• IIILLIIiLJJ 1 .1 r I 1 k i - 0
1/1/21 2/1/21 3/1/21 4/1/21 5/1/21 6/1/21 7/1/21 8/1/21 9/1/21 10/1/21 11/1/21 12/1/21
Date
Rain -GW2

Appendix F
IRT Correspondence

360o Glenwood Avenue,Suite too
Ores
Raleigh,NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 W Loop S#300
Bellaire,TX 7740t
Main:713.520.5400
October 5, 2021
Paul Wiesner
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Little Sebastian Mitigation Site: Mitigation Plan Addendum and Baseline Report and As-Built
Drawings (NCDMS Project ID#100027)
Listed below are comments provided by IRT on October 4, 2021 regarding the Little Sebastian Mitigation
Site: Mitigation Plan Addendum and Baseline Report and As-Built Drawings and RES' responses.
USACE Addendum Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Were stream and wetland impacts evaluated with the addition of reach JN-7, and were they
accounted for in the 404/401 permit?
This reach was not included in the PCN or 404/401 permit.
2. Is JN-7 perennial or intermittent? If flow is a concern,the IRT may request a flow gauge be
installed.
Based on drainage area (30 acres), RES believes this reach is intermittent. However, it was not
included in the JD. RES will install a flow gauge on it.
3. What was the condition of JN-7 prior to construction, and was the design incorporated into the
final design?Were there stability issues with the channel?
The condition of JN-7 prior to construction was a ditch-like channel connecting the pond outlet
to JN-3. This channel was about 75-feet long, incised, and a straight line from the pond outlet to
JN-3.A design was incorporated into the final design, after Final Mitigation Plan submittal,to
create a 150-foot stable channel from the pond outlet to the newly constructed JN3-A.
4. If JN-7 serves as an outlet for the adjacent pond, are there any concerns with stability or sediment
loads if the spillway fails or the dam breaches?
RES does not anticipate a dam failure considering the small drainage acre of the pond. However,
if it were to fail,there would likely be minor impacts, but the system should be able to handle the
relatively minor influx of sediment.
res.us

DWR MY-0 Comments, Erin Davis:
1. DWR appreciate DMS' request for crossing photos in future reports.Those photos would've been
helpful for this review.
Crossing photos will be included in future reports.
2. DWR is ok with the plant species substitutes. We were glad to see the reduction in percent green
ash planted.
3. Please confirm that all areas were planted, including any supplemental/understory planting, as
proposed in the approved mitigation plan.
Confirmed.
4. DWR is ok with the extra stage recorder not being installed on BS1-C. However,when we recently
visited the downstream Gideon Site we observed the presence of drift lines mid-slope up the
bank but not on the floodplain.Therefore, in lieu of the stage recorder being installed along
MC1-C as specified in the approved mitigation plan, DWR requests photo documentation of
evidence of overbank events be provided for this reach.
RES will provide photo documentation of overbank events on MC1-c..
USACE MY-0 Comments, Casey Haywood:
1. Concur with DWR's comments.
2. It was noted that two veg plots were moved (both on JN2); however, a random plot was also
added.

Ryan Medric
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 3:23 PM
To: Wiesner, Paul
Cc: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (USA); Haywood, Casey M CIV(USA); Davis, Erin B;Wilson,
Travis W.; Leslie,Andrea J; Bowers, Todd; Ryan Medric; Bradley Breslow; Daniel Ramsay
Subject: [EXTERNAL] As-Built & Mitigation Plan Addendum Review/NCDMS Little Sebastian Mitigation Site/
SAW-2017-01507/Surry County
Attachments: Little Sebastian_100027_Response To IRT Comments_10-5-2021.pdf; NWP27_Little
Sebastian_SAW-2017-01507_Surry Co.pdf;J N-7.J PG
Good afternoon Paul,
Thank you for sending the response to IRT comments for the proposed NCDMS Little Sebastian Addendum on October 5,
2021 (attached). Per Section 332.8(o)(9) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule,this review followed the streamlined review process.
The IRT raised several concerns during this review; outlined below. Based on these concerns,the Corps' decision is to
disapprove this addendum for the addition of reach JN-7 which proposed an upward adjustment of the project's stream
assets (+19.660 Cool SMUs) for 37 linear feet of restoration.The Corps approves the initial 30% credit release of the
approved mitigation plan project credits (4,554.300 cool SMUs), which totals 1,366.290 SMUs. Please send me the credit
ledger that reflects this amount.Additionally, please address the IRT concerns below.
1. Reach JN-7 was included on the PJD completed by William Elliott on May 22, 2018, as "JN-7, -80.855351 36.394343, 55
LF." It appears that the JN-7 that was included on the PJD was on the Gideon Mitigation Bank easement,which caused
confusion with two reaches having the same name. It appears that the restored reach JN-7 that exits the pond and ties in
with JN-3B on the Little Sebastian easement was not evaluated during the JD visit, nor was it evaluated during the IRT site
visit. For future jurisdictional determination submittals, please keep each project separate and use a consistent naming
convention for each reach/wetland.
2. Design plans submitted with the PCN as well as all special, general and regional conditions must be strictly adhered to
in order for the attached NWP-27 verification letter/authorization to remain valid.Table 1 of the NWP-27 lists all
authorized discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S., and the impacts associated with the restoration of reach JN-7
were not accounted for with this authorization. Since RES states that this reach is intermittent, impacts to this reach will
need to be accounted for. Please re-submit the 404 permit application to include any stream and wetland impacts that
were associated with the restoration of JN-7 so the Corps can re-authorize the NWP-27 and verify these additional
impacts under an After-The-Fact permit verification. (Reach photo attached.) If RES feels that JN-7 was not jurisdictional,
there will still be impacts to account for with the tie-in with JN-3B. . The IRT would not support issuing stream credit on a
non jurisdictional reach.
3. Large-scale deviations, including adding a restoration reach, from the approved final mitigation plan and design should
be proposed to the IRT PRIOR to conducting the work. The IRT did not have the opportunity to evaluate this reach to
determine the appropriate mitigation approach or potential functional uplift, and therefore do not think it is appropriate
to allow stream credit; however,we would like you to monitor flow and stability of the reach during monitoring since work
was completed on it, and if other reaches on the approved project are not meeting success standards towards the end of
monitoring,the IRT may consider allowing these credits to be potential back-up credits (assuming reach JN-7 is
successfully meeting performance standards).
4. DWR may require additional 401 permits for any additional impacts. Please contact Erin Davis to confirm.
Moving forward, please contact the IRT prior to completing any major deviations from the approved mitigation plan or
design. Feel free to reach out with any questions.