20071249 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20140808

Engineers, Surveyors, Planners, Scientists
January 6, 2014
Mr. Guy Pearce
Full Delivery Supervisor
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000A
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Subject: Year 5 Monitoring Report for Stream Mitigation of Thompsons Fork and UT; McDowell
County, NC; SCO# D06030 -A
Dear Guy,
On behalf of Wetlands Resource Center, EMH &T is pleased to submit the Year 5 Monitoring
Report for Thompsons Fork and UT (SCO# D06030 -A). This report contains data from the stream
(geomorphic) and vegetation monitoring conducted in May and September 2013, respectively.
Three hard copies and one electronic copy of the document are being provided in accordance
with established submission guidelines.
We understand a final close -out meeting for this project will be conducted in Spring 2014. If
there are any specific issues you wish for us to discuss prior to that meeting, please do not hesitate
to contact either Cal Miller of Wetlands Resource Center at [phone] or me at (614) 775-
4205.
Sincerely,
Miles F. Hebert, PE, CFM
Director, Water Resources Engineering
Enclosures
Copies: Cal Miller, WRC
A legacy of experlence. A reputation for excellence.
5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH 43054 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone]
Columbus Chadolte - Cincinnati - Indianapolis
emht.com

Year 5 Monitoring Report for Stream Restoration of
Thompsons Fork and Unnamed Tributary
McDowell County, NC
SCO # D06030 -A
Prepared for:
NCDENR — EEP
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh NC 27604
r, ,r
Submitted: January 6, 2014

Prepared by:
Wetlands Resource Center
3970 Bowen Road
Canal Winchester, Ohio 43110
Project Manager: Cal Miller
P: (614) 864 -7511
F: (614) 866 -3691
And
EMH &T
5500 New Albany Road
Columbus, Ohio 43054
Project Manager: Miles F. Hebert, PE
P: (614) 775 -4205
F: (614) 775 -4878
Main: (614) 775 -4500
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Engineers, Surveyors, Planners, Scientists

Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary ..................................................................................... ..............................1
II. Project Background .................................................................................... ..............................3
A. Location and Setting
B. Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives
C. Project History and Background
D. Monitoring Plan View
III. Project Condition and Monitoring Results .............................................. .............................18
A. Vegetation Assessment
1. Soil Data
2. Vegetative Problem Areas
3. Vegetative Problem Areas Plan View
4. Stem Counts
5. Vegetation Plot Photos
B. Stream Assessment
1. Hydrologic Criteria
2. Stream Problem Areas
3. Stream Problem Areas Plan View
4. Stream Problem Areas Photos
5. Fixed Station Photos
6. Stability Assessment
7. Quantitative Measures
IV. Methodology ................................................................................................ .............................32
List of Tables
Table I. Project Structure Table
Table H. Project Mitigation Objectives Table
Table III. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table IV. Project Contact Table
Table V. Project Background Table
Table V1. Preliminary Soil Data
Table VII. Vegetative Problem Areas
Table VIII. Stem Counts for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table IX. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table X. Stream Problem Areas
Table X1. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table X11. Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary
Table XIII. Baseline Geomorphic and Hydraulic Summary — All Cross - sections
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year S of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page i

List of Appendices
Appendix A Vegetation Raw Data
1. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
2. Vegetation Data Tables
Appendix B Geomorphologic Raw Data
1.
Fixed Station Photos
2.
Table B 1. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
3.
Cross Section Plots
4.
Longitudinal Plots
5.
Pebble Count Plots
6.
Bankfull Event Photos
7.
Stream Problem Areas Photos
8.
Stream Problem Area Plan View
Appendix C UT -1 Maintenance
1. Maintenance Map for the Unnamed Tributary (spring, 2011)
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page ii

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Thompsons Fork stream restoration project is located near the City of Marion, in Nebo
Township, McDowell County, North Carolina. Pre - restoration land use was primarily
agricultural, resulting in impaired, channelized, eroding, incised and entrenched stream channels.
The project reaches include the restoration of 2,727 linear feet of the Thompsons Fork main stem
and 1,948 linear feet of an unnamed tributary (UT); also included is 390 linear feet of
enhancement and 356 linear feet of preservation along the UT. Restoration of the project
streams, completed during May 2008, provided the desired habitat and stability features required
to improve and enhance the ecologic health of the streams for the long -term. The following
report documents the Year 5 Annual Monitoring for this project.
Vegetative monitoring was completed in September 2013 following the Carolina Vegetation
Survey methodology. Stem counts completed at eight vegetation plots show an average density
of 780 stems /acre. This is a decrease over the Year 4 total of 982 stems /acre; however, it is an
increase over the Year 2 total of 704 stems /acre for the site. Additionally, this density far
exceeds the success criteria of 260 stems /acre after five years of monitoring. All individual plots
had stem densities meeting the minimum requirement. Additionally, a large number of recruit
stems were found in each plot. A vegetative problem area of low concern was noted in the
project area along the riparian corridor of the UT. This problem area includes a dying back
population of a rapidly spreading vine in the pea family; most likely hog peanut vine
(Amphicarpaea bracteata). The problematic vine has been proactively managed by herbicide
treatment since 2009. As of 2011, however, the vine had continued to spread and increase in
density. An intensive herbicidal spraying effort was conducted in the fall of 2011, spring and
summer of 2012, and spring of 2013 in order to knock down the spread. During the Year 5
vegetation monitoring event, the additional treatments were observed to be effective. The spread
of the invasive vine has slowed and it's density has decreased significantly from Year 3 and 4.
Year 5 monitoring of the streams identified only minor problem areas along the project reaches,
including some bank scour along the main stem of Thompsons Fork attributed to a beaver dam
that has been removed and a small pocket of invasive species (multi -flora rose) along the
unnamed tributary (UT). There is also some evidence of in- stream vegetation along the tributary
channel, but it is not impacting stream channel stability. The visual stream stability assessments
for Year 5 revealed that the majority of in- stream structures are functioning as designed and built
on the main stem and unnamed tributary. Bed form features are evolving but are stable along the
restored reaches, as compared to as -built conditions. Dimensional measurements of the
monumented cross - sections remain stable when compared to the monitoring results from Years 1
thru 4.
The comparison of the Year 5 and Year 4 long -term stream monitoring profile and cross - section
data shows stability with no significant change from as -built conditions. For Thompsons Fork
main stem, constructed riffles and structures are stable, with the median particle distribution in
the very coarse gravel range. Aggradation on the point bars and bankfull bench is evident in a
few cross sections creating a smaller bankfull width and area. For the UT, the channel
dimensions for each of the cross - sections seems to be consistent with prior years. As noted later
in this report, previously observed aggradation within portions of the UT channel has been
alleviated via stream maintenance activities. As a result, the reach -wide particle distribution
(including pebble counts from both pool and riffle features) has improved within the past two
years and has shifted from the medium sand category to the very coarse sand category. The riffle
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page I

substrate has shifted from a gravel to cobble substrate. The channel is again classified as a Cab,
as it was in the as- built.
Based on the crest gage network installed on the project reaches, one bankfull event was
recorded along each reach during the Year 1, Year 2, and Year 5 monitoring periods. Due to
cork being washed away within the two crest gages at the site, bankfull events were not captured
in 2011 (Year 3). Again in 2012 (Year 4), bankfull events were not observed for either crest
gage. This is presumably due in large part to the exceptionally dry summer months of 2012.
This brings the total number of bankfull events for the main stem and UT to three, in three
separate years.
The tables provided below summarize the geomorphological changes along the restoration
reaches for each stream.
Thompsons Fork Main Stem
Parameter
Pre-
Restoration
As -built
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Length (ft.)
2,530
2,727
2,727
2,727
2,727
2,727
2,727
Bankfull Width
(ft.)
20.9
37.7
36.3
34.1
31.9
29.8
28.7
Bankfull Max
Depth (ft.)
5.1
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.3
Width/Depth
Ratio
7.7
27.1
28.7
26.2
25.5
24.4
22.8
Entrenchment
Ratio
1.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.7
3.4
Bank Height Ratio
2.4
1
1
1
1
1
1
Sinuosity
1.12
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.19
Unnamed Tributary to Thompsons Fork (UT)
Parameter
Pre-
Restoration
As -built
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Length (ft)
1,598
1,948
1,948
1,948
1,948
1,948
Bankfull Width
(ft.)
13.1
14.0
15.4
11.6
14.7
15.8
Bankfull Max
Depth (ft.)
1.1
1.7
1.6
1.8
2.1
2.1
Width/Depth Ratio
16
17.4
18.1
12.8
16.2
19.9
Entrenchment
Ratio
3.4
6
5.6
7.4
6.4
5.8
Bank Height Ratio
1 1.6
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
Sinuosity
1.09
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report - Thompson Fork Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 2

II. PROJECT BACKGROUND
A. Location and Setting
The project is located near the intersection of Watson Road and South Creek Road on the north
side of Interstate 40, approximately 7 miles east of the City of Marion, in Nebo Township,
McDowell County, North Carolina as shown on Figure 1. The stream channels included in this
project are the Thompsons Fork main stem and one unnamed tributary stream designated UT.
The directions to the project site are as follows:
Exit I -40 at Exit 94 and travel north on Dysartsville Road for 0.6 mile. Turn left and
travel west onto US -70 for 3.2 miles, then turn left onto Watson Road. Travel 1.1 miles
south on Watson Road to the intersection of South Creek Road. Zeb Lowdermilk's
residence (1394 South Creek Road, Nebo, NC 28761) is located on the right (south) side
of South Creek Road at the intersection of Watson Road. The project spans four tracts of
land: (Tract 1) owned by Zeb B. Lowdermilk and wife Francis M. Lowdermilk
(deceased); (Tract 2) owned by Francis McNeely Lowdermilk (Life Estate), Susan
Delene Lowdermilk, Don Lance Lowdermilk, and Dane Scott Lowdermilk; and (Tracts 3
and 4) owned by Zeb B. Lowdermilk and daughter Susan Lowdermilk Walker Icard.
B. Project Structure, Mitigation Type, Approach and Objectives
Pre - restoration land use surrounding the project streams was predominantly agricultural,
including pasture/hay land with wooded and cleared hillsides. Pre - restoration land use
surrounding the Thompsons Fork restoration reach was active cattle pasture land. The pre-
existing riparian corridor was absent to extremely narrow (5 to 10 feet wide) along the
Thompsons Fork main stem, widening for only a short distance near the downstream limits of the
main stem project reach. Streambanks were denuded and extremely unstable, with vertical to
undercut banks up to 15 feet in height from the former farm stream crossing to the bottom of the
main stem reach.
A hayland meadow was present along the UT right bank. Along the UT left bank the riparian
corridor consists of mature hardwood forested hill slope. Along the 356 linear feet of UT
preservation reach, beginning at the granite outcrop spring from which the perennial UT
emerges, the stream exists in a mature mixed hardwood and evergreen forest with diversified
herbaceous, shrub, mid -story and canopy species present. Typical species observed along the
streams and adjacent forested areas include Alnus rugosa (tag alder), Platanus occidentalis
(Eastern sycamore), Abies species (fir), Pinus taeda (loblolly pine), Pinus elliottii (slash pine),
Ostrya virginiana (Eastern hophombeam), Diospyros virginiana (persimmon), Kalmia latifolia
(mountain laurel), Cornus amomum (silky dogwood), Ilex opaca (American holly), and the
invasive species Ligustrum sinense (Chinese privet) and Lonicera japonica (Japanese
honeysuckle).
Prior to restoration, a combination of historical and recent anthropogenic factors and practices
impacted the channel along the impaired main stem reach, resulting in its unstable Rosgen G4
stream type. The deeply incised and entrenched condition of the channel prior to restoration was
attributed to management of the riparian corridor for hay production, cattle intrusion resulting in
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year S of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 3

tilt
14 A-
II, �(��y` #�^ � •fit ."q/y�( Y
E ` M1
tip
•. �', �i'.y ;,� �� It. tr Al • b F' ..
O
Ri k.1 C
\t \ OA
C::.1 4S:.,:' 4A 14 ..^3 .1�J.a. A
Lo
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Scientists
MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
THOMPSON FORK RESTORATION
FIGURE 1: SITE VICINITY MAP
N.C. ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
Date: December. 2013
Not To Scale
r�
Enha °nnt
PRMAM

Stream bank hoof shear and vegetative denuding from grazing and browsing combined with the
erosive nature of the discharge of "sediment hungry" water from the 30 -inch reinforced concrete
pipe outfall from Muddy Creek Flood Control Dam Number 8. Additionally, a shift in stream
base level occurred during the construction of Interstate 40 (I -40), when the invert of the culvert
carrying Thompsons Fork under I -40 was set 12 to 15 feet below the pre - disturbance invert of the
streambed, triggering channel incision, head cutting, floodplain abandonment, and lowering of
the water table. The Thompsons Fork main stem unstable bank height ratio, entrenchment ratio,
channel slope (0.0039 ft /ft) greater than valley slope (0.0031 ft /ft) and poorly defined bedform
features showed the instability of the deeply incised, unstable, degrading stream channel
disconnected from its floodplain. Mid - channel, lateral, and transverse sand and gravel bars were
present at locations throughout the main stem reach, demonstrating the stream lacked stable
pattern, profile, dimension, capacity and competency to entrain the high sediment load. The
locations of these depositional features in the near -bank region deflected flows from the center of
the channel toward the incised vertical to undercut, steep, denuded streambanks, resulting in
accelerated erosion rates. Utilizing the near -bank stress method algorithm, it was estimated
2,076 cubic yards per year (or 2,700 tons per year) of sediment was being eroded from the
streambanks along the main stem.
The UT channel was a classic Rosgen Type I valley confined, Al -A2 stream type transitioning to
a Type 11 colluvial valley, B3 stream type at the point where the stream emerges from its mixed
deciduous hardwood and evergreen forested corridor into an open meadow at the top of the
impaired reach. The forested reach segment has some bedrock control, in- stream boulders with
negligible instream woody debris accumulation. The indigenous, well established, healthy
riparian vegetative communities in the channel and in the overbank regions provide extremely
stable channel conditions for the forested reach, and are preserved within the conservation
easement recorded for the project. Agricultural land use adjacent to the stream corridor together
with aggressive vegetative management resulted in steep to undercut streambanks, accelerated
streambank erosion and channel incision along the Enhancement Level H and Priority Level I
Restoration reaches. The unstable streambanks were contributing large volumes of suspended
sediment and bedload material to the larger Thompsons Fork main stem. It was estimated 291
cubic yards per year (or 378 tons per year) of sediment was being eroded from streambanks along
the UT under existing conditions.
The mitigation goals and objectives for the project streams are related to restoring stable physical
and biological function of the project streams beyond pre- restoration (impaired) conditions. Pre -
restoration conditions consisted of impaired, channelized, eroding, incised and entrenched stream
channels. The specific mitigation goals for the project are listed below.
• Provide stable stream channels with features inherent of ecologically diverse
environments, including appropriate stream -bed features, such as pools and riffles, and a
riparian corridor with diverse and native vegetation. Utilize reference reach information
as the foundation of the restoration design.
• Provide stream channels with the appropriate geometry and slope to convey bankfull
flows while entraining bedload and suspended sediment readily available to the
streams.
• Provide a connection between the bankfull channel and the flood prone area, and stable
channel geometry and protective cover to prevent erosion.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompsons Fork Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 5

• Provide a minimization of future land use impacts to the streams and a perpetual stream
corridor protection via livestock exclusion fencing and restrictive conservation easement
conveyances to the State of North Carolina.
Restoration of the streams has met the objective of the project along both the main stem of
Thompsons Fork and the UT, providing the desired habitat and stability features required to
improve and enhance the ecologic health of the streams for the long -term. Specifically, the
completed restoration project has accomplished the items listed below.
Thompsons Fork Main stem:
• Reversed the effects of channelization through a combination of Priority I and
Priority 11 restoration techniques. The restoration has changed the average
width/depth ratio from 7.7 to 22.8 in Year 5.
• Restored a natural and stable sinuosity to the stream channel, increasing the
sinuosity of the channel from 1.1 to 1.2, and providing a more stable relationship
between the valley and bankfull slopes (the bankfull slope was higher than the
valley slope in the pre- restoration condition and is now less than the valley slope
with the completed restoration).
• Stabilized eroding streambanks by providing an appropriately sized channel with
stable channel bank slopes with a combination of embedded stone, natural fabrics
and hearty vegetation as protective cover. The average Bank Height Ratio has been
changed from 2.36 to 1.0.
• Provided a re- connection between the restored stream channel and the adjacent
flood prone area by both raising the stream bed and excavating the adjacent
floodplain. The completed restoration changed the average entrenchment ratio from
1.53 to 3.4 in Year 5.
• Created in stream aquatic habitat features such as deep pools supported by riffles,
including rock cross vanes with deep pools to transition the channel thalweg from
the restored reach to the downstream existing channel.
• Re- vegetated the riparian corridor with indigenous trees and shrubs and
preservation of existing riparian corridors where possible.
Unnamed Tributary (UT):
• Reversed the effects of channelization through a combination of Priority I and
Priority II restoration techniques, as well as Enhancement Level I activities and
Preservation of a short reach at the upstream end of the project. The average
width/depth ratio of the restored stream channel is 17.9 in Year 5. In the restoration
reach, stable pattern, profile and dimension were all restored to the stream channel.
In the enhancement reach, a stable profile was provided and dimension of the
stream channel was modified accordingly. The preservation reach is in a stable and
heavily wooded corridor that is protected by the conservation easement for the
project.
• Restored a natural and stable sinuosity to the stream channel, increasing the
sinuosity of the channel from 1.1 to more than 1.3, and providing a more stable
relationship between the valley and bankfull slopes (the bankfull and valley slopes
were nearly identical in the pre- restoration condition and is substantially less than
the valley slope with the completed restoration).
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompsons Fork Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 6

• Stabilized eroding streambanks by providing an appropriately sized channel with
stable channel bank slopes. The average Bank Height Ratio has been changed from
1.63 to 1.0.
• Provided a re- connection between the restored stream channel and the adjacent
flood prone area by both raising the stream bed and excavating the adjacent
floodplain. The completed restoration changed the average entrenchment ratio from
3.4 to 6.1 in Year 5.
• Created instream aquatic habitat features such as pools supported a combination of
riffles and step -log structures.
• Re- vegetated the riparian corridor with indigenous trees and shrubs and
preservation of existing riparian corridors where possible.
Information on the project structure and objectives is included in Tables I and II.
Table I. Project Structure Table
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Project Segment /Reach ID
Linear Footage or Acreage
Thompsons Fork Main stem
2,727 ft
Unnamed Tributary (UT)
2,694 ft
TOTAL
5,421 ft
Table II. Project Mitigation Objectives Table
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Project
Linear
Segment/
Mitigation
Footage or
Mitigation
Mitigation
Reach ID
Type
Acreage
Ratio
Units
Comment
Thompsons
priority Level
Restore dimension,
Fork Main
I Restoration
2,727 ft
1.0
2,727 ft
pattern, and profile
stem
UT
Preservation
356 ft
5.0
71 ft
Preserved within the
conservation easement
Enhancement
Restore profile and
UT
Level I
390 ft
1.5
260 ft
dimension, step -pool
bank stabilization
UT
Priority Level
1,948 ft
1.0
1,948 ft
Restore dimension,
II Restoration
pattern, and profile
TOTAL
5,421 ft
5,006 ft
C. Project History and Background
Project activity and reporting history are provided in Table III. The project contact information
is provided in Table IV. The project background history is provided in Table V.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 7

Table III. Project Activity and Reporting History
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
Actual
Designer
Scheduled
Completion
Activity or Report
Completion
Data Collection Complete
or Deliver
Restoration plan
Apr 2007
Aug 2006
Jun 2007
Final Design - 90 %'
--
--
--
Construction
Jan 2008
N/A
May 2008
Temporary S &E applied to
entire project areal
Jan 2008
N/A
May 2008
Permanent plantings
Mar 2008
N/A
Apr 2008
Mitigation plan/As-built
May 2008
Jun 2008
Oct 2008
Sep 2009 (vegetation)
Year 1 monitoring
2009
Jul 2009 (geomorphology)
Dec 2009
May 2010 (geomorphology)
Year 2 monitoring
2010
Sep 2010 (vegetation)
Dec 2010
May 2011 (geomorphology)
Year 3 monitoring
2011
Sep 2011 (vegetation)
Dec 2011
May 2012 (geomorphology)
Year 4 monitoring
2012
Sep 2012 (vegetation)
Dec 2012
May 2013 (geomorphology)
Year 5 monitoring
2013
Sep 2013 (vegetation)
Dec 2013
'Full- delivery project; 90% submittal not provided.
2Erosion and sediment control applied incrementally throughout the course of the project.
N /A: Data collection is not an applicable task for these project activities.
Table IV. Project Contact Table
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH
Designer
43054
South Mountain Forestry
Construction Contractor
6624 Roper Hollow, Morganton, NC 28655
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc.
5500 New Albany Road, Columbus, OH
Monitoring Performers
43054
Stream Monitoring POC
Miles Hebert, EMH &T
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Melissa Queen-Darby, EMH &T
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompsons Fork Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 8

Table V. Project Background Table
Thom sons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Project County
McDowell
Area
Main stem -7.57 sq mi
UT -0.163 sq mi
-Drainage
Drainage Impervious Cover Estimate
2.36%
Stream Order
Main stem -3rd
UT -1st
Physiographic Region
Blue Ridge
Mountains /Southern Inner
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Eastern Blue Ridge Foothills
Rosgen Classification of As -built
Main stem -C4
UT- Cab
Dominant Soil Types
Colvard loam,
Evard -Cowee complex,
Iotla sandy loam
Reference Site ID
Thompsons Fork Main stem,
Brindle Creek
USGS HUC for Project and Reference
03050101
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project and Reference
03050101040010
NCDWQ Classification for Project and Reference
C
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed?
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a
303d listed segment?
No
Reason for 303d listing or stressor
N/A
% of project easement fenced
50%
D. Monitoring Plan View
The monitoring plan view is included as Figure 2.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year S of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 9

MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2 - MONITORING PLAN VIEW
FOR
THOMPSONS FORK AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY
<ti
O�
o�
6X\
op
Zeb B. L o wdermilk &
Frances M. Lowdermilk
Db 171, Pg 129
i
Cow
i U q
/ �oyroe der�i //r
58
F �
Q \ ,
40
2013
LEGEND
E -1
E -11
Restoration
Preservation
LOCATION MAP
Scale: 1' =400'
1- 1.2 0090328�200W328onv�Drg�ExbW &1,Year 5 -Fqurr 2 - Monitoring Phn Wow 01- 05.dwg Last Saved 4r jaumer. 11312014 12.•44 PM Last Psrntod Sr. Cromer, tames, 11712014 1.34 cW
�r 61398x66
Taylor &
o
Wife Willa R.
o
Taylor
-173 -13 o 0,
j
3 3
1
Lowdermilk, Don Lance
L o wderm ilk,
and Dane Scott Lowdermilk
---- - - - - --
�\" DB 210, PG 542
LEGEND
E -1
E -11
Restoration
Preservation
LOCATION MAP
Scale: 1' =400'
1- 1.2 0090328�200W328onv�Drg�ExbW &1,Year 5 -Fqurr 2 - Monitoring Phn Wow 01- 05.dwg Last Saved 4r jaumer. 11312014 12.•44 PM Last Psrntod Sr. Cromer, tames, 11712014 1.34 cW
�r 61398x66
Q
ZFrances
McNeely Lowdermilk
J
(Life Estate), Suson Delene
1
Lowdermilk, Don Lance
L o wderm ilk,
and Dane Scott Lowdermilk
---- - - - - --
�\" DB 210, PG 542
LEGEND
E -1
E -11
Restoration
Preservation
LOCATION MAP
Scale: 1' =400'
1- 1.2 0090328�200W328onv�Drg�ExbW &1,Year 5 -Fqurr 2 - Monitoring Phn Wow 01- 05.dwg Last Saved 4r jaumer. 11312014 12.•44 PM Last Psrntod Sr. Cromer, tames, 11712014 1.34 cW
�r 61398x66
VICINITY MAP
Not To Scale
_ o\o
a�
E
O
WQ
5; Y
L om
c� LL
UH
�
'O�w
2 a<
Q
uj OZ
C)
Z
Q
f ?fig
W�
W
mC�
o
26U x
>g
WHIP,
J
WATSON
ROAD
\
b
NT
UT /
\i.
SOUTH CREEK
ROAD
HowsoNS FORK
\ y
J
Sl TE
J
4
SOUTH CREEK
ROAD
VICINITY MAP
Not To Scale
_ o\o
a�
E
O
WQ
5; Y
L om
c� LL
UH
�
'O�w
2 a<
Q
uj OZ
C)
Z
Q
f ?fig
W�
W
mC�
o
26U x
>g
WHIP,

BEGIN THOMPSON
FORK PROJECT AND
RESTORATION REACH
STA. 0 +00.00
- - -- -1101 ---- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -- �\ N w
40 0 40 N
(J�
ha�1i feet
d 20
Scale: 1" - 40'
VP -8' 'o ° V�
Limits of 2 - -- , ____= 1 � " --
9 �,_ - - -___ getwidth - ' "� �_� _ - �� C��Str) - /��� Ex. Drive
It
j_ _ � E�r�iT� _ \`- - - _105- -
---- -_ - - - --
/
-' - 1102. -' -- — -- -------------- _ �O ° — - - -__ -. - 11oe-
., _� 6 W
Ex. Fence oo -
_ — to
' - - -- - -
02 & �t - - �
1 '
ilk - - � � '-- fA
� - $Oat ' _ _ - _ _ \ ��'�
_ Z�y' B, Lowder dermilk x -sOC 12 �'�
Edsement �LOw c
Consecva - D A_ _ _ _ FIB e' P 129 Ex. Unnamed Tributary o
Recorded- eat No. Dp603 4 -969 Db 9 s� x. ream Crossing e
C EEP Prot 9 PG't �� / -
-
Dee - _91K. 15 PG 5�
Plat Oy`'1
i Zeb B. Lowdermilk & ' --
=" - -== _______
/ Frances M. Lowdermilk -%
Ob 174 �g 129
— �o x• Drive Recorded - Conservation Easement �' ' � -I ; , ,j -- ---
x sw" x -sue NC EEP Project No. D06030 -A -- --- -- -- ---- -- I
Deed BK: CRP 919, PG: 964 -969 -
'
Plat BK: PL 15, PG 5 -5 :! :'i -' _ - ___ - - - ---
i
m
m
o° v m
Y.
Limits of
�
, A �,, �� O Beltwidth
r � �
1+ M
ok
.X o c
=j L
�10
9 t PLC - - -�
90 Leo Stream -
-1 `
- --------
099 -q_
�9�� Constructed
Ex. Stream Crossing Point Bar (Typ.
(To be relocated outside
- X._,Stre -- / \ Conservation Easement) I -- -
- -- - --
L
Feet -
20 Ex. Culverts
Scale: Y - 40' ------------------- (To Be Removed) -11
v:• I10I79=,9,JZ00S=&nvJDMgJ&hWvJY— s -Rp— 2 - M-ft ft PAw Nor 01 -Mdrg Last Scrod Bp. ftmmer, 1/3/2014 12.•44 PM Last PYdrtsd Or, Cmw,, Jaffmw, 1/3/1014 1.42 PM
1 Xisf.� 61M be
°v u,
0
w Q
YH
a Om�
c�
LL o
z CHI
00ZOZ
Z O Lu
CC Q =
N G z F
W Oz
2�
H 0
z
Q
L 10(t
`+t
��
p -
�vs� x
21 5.
x T$ x
LEGEND
Vegetation Plot (VP)
©
Crest Gauge Location
Cross Section
Monument
Ex. Property Line
Recorded Conservation
Easement
As -Built Thalweg
and Stationing
As -Built Riffle
As -Built Cross Vane
As -Built J -Hook
As -Built Log Vane
Fixed Photo Locations
- - -- -1101 ---- - - - - - - - - - -
- - - -- �\ N w
40 0 40 N
(J�
ha�1i feet
d 20
Scale: 1" - 40'
VP -8' 'o ° V�
Limits of 2 - -- , ____= 1 � " --
9 �,_ - - -___ getwidth - ' "� �_� _ - �� C��Str) - /��� Ex. Drive
It
j_ _ � E�r�iT� _ \`- - - _105- -
---- -_ - - - --
/
-' - 1102. -' -- — -- -------------- _ �O ° — - - -__ -. - 11oe-
., _� 6 W
Ex. Fence oo -
_ — to
' - - -- - -
02 & �t - - �
1 '
ilk - - � � '-- fA
� - $Oat ' _ _ - _ _ \ ��'�
_ Z�y' B, Lowder dermilk x -sOC 12 �'�
Edsement �LOw c
Consecva - D A_ _ _ _ FIB e' P 129 Ex. Unnamed Tributary o
Recorded- eat No. Dp603 4 -969 Db 9 s� x. ream Crossing e
C EEP Prot 9 PG't �� / -
-
Dee - _91K. 15 PG 5�
Plat Oy`'1
i Zeb B. Lowdermilk & ' --
=" - -== _______
/ Frances M. Lowdermilk -%
Ob 174 �g 129
— �o x• Drive Recorded - Conservation Easement �' ' � -I ; , ,j -- ---
x sw" x -sue NC EEP Project No. D06030 -A -- --- -- -- ---- -- I
Deed BK: CRP 919, PG: 964 -969 -
'
Plat BK: PL 15, PG 5 -5 :! :'i -' _ - ___ - - - ---
i
m
m
o° v m
Y.
Limits of
�
, A �,, �� O Beltwidth
r � �
1+ M
ok
.X o c
=j L
�10
9 t PLC - - -�
90 Leo Stream -
-1 `
- --------
099 -q_
�9�� Constructed
Ex. Stream Crossing Point Bar (Typ.
(To be relocated outside
- X._,Stre -- / \ Conservation Easement) I -- -
- -- - --
L
Feet -
20 Ex. Culverts
Scale: Y - 40' ------------------- (To Be Removed) -11
v:• I10I79=,9,JZ00S=&nvJDMgJ&hWvJY— s -Rp— 2 - M-ft ft PAw Nor 01 -Mdrg Last Scrod Bp. ftmmer, 1/3/2014 12.•44 PM Last PYdrtsd Or, Cmw,, Jaffmw, 1/3/1014 1.42 PM
1 Xisf.� 61M be
°v u,
0
w Q
YH
a Om�
c�
LL o
z CHI
00ZOZ
Z O Lu
CC Q =
N G z F
W Oz
2�
H 0
z
Q
L 10(t
`+t
��
p -
�vs� x
21 5.
x T$ x

-1-
-- 090 - " -- " " - -_ --- - - - -- - -- --- -- ---- - - - - -- "_,_; l' P
- _ - ,- -- "- _--------- - - - - -" Q K
__- - - .________" r it
-- - ----- - - - - -- —_ 0�5" -_ — _ — — �o�deoW de 9
- — _ �

40 0 40
Feet
20
Scale: 1" = 40'
1095,
to
- - - 7095 —i!=
_ ems_,=, ��'� / - `1�
_ ,_ - -- - -- Ea
- Cn
e��tton06���� �00�s air Bon
h 00
-_ -------- - - - -/� ;- - ded ect o•19 - /. '/ 0e� �� `o
- - -- -------- - - - - -_ - -- -
'Car ESP ��� 9 p� 5,5 Wider eile it - -- 096_ _ I N
;,� ed 81�: PL 1� cNgel °n Dei Wde k.
of BKj°nce 5 a {e), °nceWderrnilk IN
— J - - -/ (Lifermilk, °Scott P� 542 og6-"
_1095 - - -- Loll. wiad Done 13 210, - - 19
/ - - - -- 22 +00
- ' - ilk
- / p 6B �oWd oWderr ilk
? e�nc es M P9 12 1gx o
,ya\
Constructed —"
Point Bar (Typ.)
SfO�
i8�S0o0` 096_ - -- -
- 109;'__-
5 -fq" 2 - Akngwft Akn Kew 01 -Mdwg Loot Smw W. J&v~. 11312014 12.44 PM Last Pthted W. Cimm JWM86 W12014 1:38 PM
CO
E
0
w �
Q
Z YH
a Om r
z tL0�OLL
~
z
0 o z 0 0
z"OW a
QU)<0
N Z I-
W Oz
_D
LL ~ D
z
Q
Eu
O
corm
W s~
W
gs.
�g X
lc < u

iU)
rt \ \
Frances McNeely Lowdermilk ° g
a n k{
(Life Estote), Susan Delene I 3 W!
Lowdermilk, Don Lance Lowdermilk,
and Done Scott Lowdermilk -
_ _ DB 210, PG 542 — \
_ I
1095 --
OM
'099
� Recorded Conservation Easement �� � '0 'Q
0g0- NC EEP Project No. D06030 —A / \ '09�
BK: CRP 919, PG: 970 -980
s.
�, -PL 15 PG 5 -5 0 'p
\ - \
_ ,
—7o 90— ------
- _- - -- —
O
h0
CV/c a 25 +00�
a, Point Bar T ����, 01 �"� Constructed �-
YP•) B Itlwsidth /I ) / oy,
Zeb B. Low dermi /k & - \ I - --
Frances M. Lowdermi /k
-- — 1o9s -_ -- Db 171, )! 129_ - -
_ _
Ex. Fence +
Recorded Conservation Easement
NC EEP Project No. D06030 —A
n,
Deed BK: CRP 919, PG: 964 -969
Plat BK: PL 15, PG 5 -5 -
END THOMPSON
FORK PROJECT AND
RESTORATION REACH
STA. 27 +42.47
✓.• l2oo9W2B12ooso32eenvlD wglExh&ftlYeor 5 —F/g— 2 — JknnorkV P1on Wow 01 -05dwg Lost Saved O.� /aver, W12014 12.•44 PM Lost Printed W. Cromer, James, W12014 1.36 PM
1 Xrefi 6139&&s
w
Lr>
40 0 40 v
Feet _ >
0
20 _
Scale: 1" = 40'
W<
� Ya
a OmK
c� LL o
(n H U)
of OozDO
ZLLOw
0-c Q =
N G z F
W Oz
_D
2 ~�
z
Q
EU
L�
o�
ME
mpg
£a6 x
3 >U
�a� F
31 u
>
LEGEND
Vegetation Plot (VP)
©
Crest Gauge Location
to be determined
Cross Section
Monument
Ex. Property Line
Recorded Conservation
Easement
As —Built Thalweg
and Stationing
As —Built Riffle
As —Built Cross Vane
As —Built J —Hook
As —Built Log Vane
7 J�
Fixed Photo Locations
W<
� Ya
a OmK
c� LL o
(n H U)
of OozDO
ZLLOw
0-c Q =
N G z F
W Oz
_D
2 ~�
z
Q
EU
L�
o�
ME
mpg
£a6 x
3 >U
�a� F
31 u
>

BEGIN E -1 REACH
STA. 0 +00.00 UT
Ex. Unnamed Tributary E— ^ AtCcOrded
'Dee !� ns
FfP Co
Zeb B. Lowdermilk & / / END E -1 REACH \ P\ gkk' CRecteNo t'on Fa
se BEGIN RESTORATION \L 1g 919 p p6p3e�ent
REACH
Susan Ob 558, Lowdermilk Pg 109 Walker cor / / \ \ STA. 3 +90.00 UT �p S 981 92
_
Constructed-------
onstructed -` -- = _
Stream -
?,A�'- Crossing - �� -- - - = 1 _ = Point Bar
��
"
"
�' - - - - - 147--_
46 - --
1745-'
9 of
_ 11 _ ; ;,�" _ f -- - -
-- -
W -��� -- ------------ - - - - -- 0
- _ -- - -
66\ _ \ \ O
- -- Zeb B. Lowdermilk & d
150__ Susan Lowdermilk Walker /card ; L
Preservation Db 558, Pg 111 40 ° 40 Feet
(356 L.F. Upstream of Sto. 0 +00) _ io \' t
Scale. t' 40' M. Z \ •U•
O
X —Sec 3
o
$ Width----
00 - 17 - - -- --
1' -- - -- 3
J VP -1
U- ------ - - - - --
a
n ►ned Tributary F
3
S�
-m ilk &�
yolker /cord
109
ls i Sa dmerl ne M ee Den
- J
116 .
0
VP-2' ;o
tp
_ , \
----------------- - -
—1125— Recorded 'Conservation Easement
- - - -- -- NC EEP Project No.-- D06030 —A,,
- -- -- Deed BK: CRP 919, PG: 970 -980
-----------------
-
'w^ w Plat BK: PL 15, PG 5 -5
40 0 40
Feet
20
Scale: 1' — 40'
a�
d od
o � N
Z
0
W �
> YH
Q
Oma
(S) LL r�
z�H S2
0,-) z0
zLLOw
LU
o Qz
N 2zz
w Oz,
�
�
LL
z
Q
-4-J 1
w
om�K
_M5 >
va; x
cE
Es�
3° 8 x
�a�^
Fmm��
w D
> F

Frances McNeely Lowdermilk
(Life Estate), Susan Delene
Lowdermilk, Don Lance Lowdermilk, a e
and Done Scott Lowdermilk �f X 5 �� 'i'/otc
DB 210, PG 542 +� / h /t` St
.00
7*4Q�See
�'%%,�reet
- ------------
- - -- ---- ------------ - - - - --
-
- - --- - - - --
1 Constructed - -- -
�' -Point Bar (Typ,) — _ _ — — — —
op Limits of 1g +pp' - - X105— — — -- - --
Beltwidth - -- - - --
-
- ---- - - - - --
'm - Unnamed Tributary_ 6--------------- / \ _ — _ -_ - -- ``- - - - -------------------------------------
e------------
__
Frances McNeely son De /e ilk
Recorded Co nservatioDno 030 A Easement (Life Estate),
NC EEP Project No. PG. 3 0_980 Lowdermilk. Don Lance Lowdermilk.
Deed BK: CRP 919, end Dane Slott Ltwderm_ilk
Plat BK: PL 1 5 PG 555
/- - ®X
-----------
-- 1103 -
- - --
-- 1099 - -# /
S`
Limits Of
AxS� �� Beltwidth
40 0 40
Feet
20
Scale: 1" = 40'
RESTORATION REACH
CONTINUES ON SHEET 8
STA. 22 +07.38 UT
ti
/4001
40 0 40 0
Feet u o
20 Scale: 1' - 40'
0
-;- Vegetation Plot (VP)
© Crest Gauge Location
Cross Section
Monument
-- Ex. Property Line
Recorded Conservation
Easement
As -Built Thalweg
and Stationing
As -Built Log
® Sill
As -Built Riffle
As -Built Cross Vane
As -Built J -Hook
As -Built Log Vane
C, , , Fixed Photo Locations
W �
Z YH
3
EL Oma
z LL 0�S
U) ~
O
zMO1w
0
cQz
N G Z z
u' oz,
5 _D
LL ~ 0
Z
Q
E^ll*J
u
�I l
C) m
C
W s~
w
ss.
io X

1:0
% -- - - - - -� y,. Co
C,e
OKN
�" - --
40 0 4
Feet g
�
, i _ _ z>
RESTORATION REACH p ' ' 20
CONTINUED FROM SHEET 7 scale: 1" = 40'
STA. 22 +07.38 UT
G / , - --
-- Recorded Conservation Easement
p�% END RESTORATION REACH __ _ _ Deed BK: CRP 919, PG: 964 NC EEP Project No. D06030 —A
—969
5 STA. 23 +48.17 UT N Plat BK: PL 15, PG 5 -5
JI
z w Q
/, ) oz Y�
-
<a
LL F-
J
Limits of x %" 3 z m
�
- o Z
- BI
e tw' o
Idth - 0 Im
-
- 1107 - -- Recorded Cor servatioh Easement
z
^1
L
NC EEP Project'No. D06030 —A � , '% � � � Q
Deed BK: CRP 919, PQ`: 970 -980 �/
/
Plot BK: PL 15, PG 5�5
Frances McNeely Lowdermi /k�''
(Life Estate), Susan Deiene
o Lowdermi /k, Don Lance Lowdermi /k,�'
and Done Scott Lowdermi /k I no
DB 210, PG 542 I f
cO�
W�
W
»o=
£a6
3 0U
LEGEND
Vegetation Plot (VP)
As -Built Riffle
© Crest Gauge Location
As -Built Cross Vane
Cross Section
Monument
Ex. Property Line
As -Built J -Hook
Recorded Conservation
Easement
As -Built Log Vane
As -Built Thalweg
and Stationing
As -Built Photo Locations
® As -Built Log
1 of Typical Structures
Sill
Fixed Photo Locations

III. PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
A. Vegetation Assessment
1. Soil Data
Soil information was obtained from the NRCS Soil Survey of McDowell County, North Carolina
(USDA NRCS, September, 1995). The soils along the main stem of Thompsons Fork and its
associated Unnamed Tributary include the Colvard Series consisting of loamy sediments ranging
from 40 to 60 inches or more in thickness over deposits of sandy, loamy gravelly to cobbly
sediments. Rock fragments range from 0 to 15 percent to a depth of 40 inches, and from 0 to 80
percent below 40 inches. Flakes of mica range from a few to common.
Data on the soils series found within and near the project site is summarized in Table VI.
Table VI. Preliminary Soil Data
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Series
Max. Depth
in.
% Clay on
Surface
K'
T2
% Organic
Matter
Colvard loam (CoA)
60
8 -18
0.15
4
1 -2
Evard -Cowee complex (EwE)
30
7 -25
0.28
2 -5
1 -5
Iotla sandy loam (IOA)
60
12 -18
0.15
5
2 -5
'Erosion Factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion, ranging from 0.05 to 0.69.
2Erosion Factor T is an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind or water that
can occur without affecting crop productivity, measured in tons per acre per year.
2. Vegetative Problem Areas
Vegetative Problem Areas are defined as areas either lacking vegetation or containing
populations of exotic vegetation. Each problem area identified during Year 5 of monitoring is
summarized in Table VII. Since no vegetation problem areas of concern were noted during the
Year 5 vegetation assessment, vegetation problem area photos are not included in Appendix A. In
addition, the Vegetation Problem Area exhibit is also not included in Appendix A.
Table VII. Vegetative Problem Areas
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Feature/Issue Station # / Range
Probable Cause
Photo #
NA NA
NA
NA
In 2010, vegetation problem areas occurred on both the right and left banks of the unnamed
tributary. In 2009, a species of pea vine had spread into the riparian corridor from the adjacent
wooded hillside, with the most dense concentration located in the area of Vegetation Plot 2. The
species is a member of the pea family, likely Amphicarpaea bracteata (hog peanut), which is
native to North Carolina. In the Year 1 monitoring report it was noted that the vine was
strangling the woody vegetation in and around monitoring plot 2, where approximately 80% of
the planted woody stems were suffering from vine strangulation. Without control of the vine,
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 18

tree mortality could be high in this area, jeopardizing the minimum stem count criteria. Because
of this, the presence of the vine within the project corridor was considered a problem area of high
priority and management with herbicide treatments were conducted in the fall of 2009. Follow -
up treatments were applied the spring of 2010 and the spring and summer of 2011 in an effort to
control the spread of this vine within the project corridor.
The herbicide treatments appeared to be working, as the vine slowed its spread and density in
Year 4. Woody plantings installed in late 2009 were no longer being impacted by the fast
growing pea vine. Although the vine cover had been much reduced, it remained a vegetation
problem area of high concern in 2012. Another round of intensive herbicide spraying was
conducted in the spring of 2013. The spread of hog peanut vine was closely monitored and
documented during the fifth and final year of monitoring. In Year 5, the herbicide treatments
were effective at reducing the spread and density of the vine. The majority of the vine had died
back; therefore, it is now a vegetation problem area of low concern in 2013.
In Year 2, several areas along the unnamed tributary were noted to have low overall herbaceous
cover along the riparian corridor on the right bank. These areas were said to be patchy in
distribution and scattered throughout the corridor, with none of the areas showing banks that are
completely bare. However, due to the threat of invasive species in the same areas along the
tributary, particularly the pea vine mentioned above, the sparse vegetation was noted as an area
of concern. The herbaceous cover has continued to increase in these areas, leaving fewer open
patches that might provide an avenue for colonization and spread of invasive or problematic
species. Areas observed to have low overall herbaceous cover in Year 2 had seen an increase in
native cover over the past three years. Due to the reason listed above, areas with lower overall
herbaceous cover were not included as vegetation problem areas in Years 4 and 5.
During 2013 vegetation monitoring, colonization by the problematic hog peanut vine was greatly
reduced due to herbicide treatments. The vine has died back along the right and left banks of the
UT. Therefore, these areas are now considered low concern and were not included as vegetation
problem areas in Year 5. For the final year of vegetation monitoring, no significant vegetation
problem areas were observed. Rosa multiflora (multiflora rose), which has the ability to grow
aggressively, is located in one very small area along the UT. Due to the limited area of this
invasive plant material and expected eradication, this was not noted as an additional problem
area.
3. Vegetation Problem Area Plan View
Due to a lack of observed vegetation problem areas, no plan view map is provided in Appendix
A.
4. Stem Counts
A summary of the stem count data for each species arranged by plot is shown in Table VIII.
Table VIIIa provides the survival information for planted species, while Table VIIIb provides the
total stem count for the plots, including all planted and recruit stems. This data was compiled
from the information collected on each plot using the CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Version 4.0. Additional data tables generated using the CVS -EEP format are
included in Appendix A. All vegetation plots are labeled as VP on Figure 2.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year S of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 19

Table VIIIa. Stem counts for each species arranged by plot -planted stems.
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Plots
Year 0
Year I
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Survival
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Species
Totals
Totals
Totals
Totals
Totals
Totals
%
S hrubs
42
42
39
42
42
38
90
Alnus serrulata
3
3
3
3
8
7
6
5
Aronia
6
6
29
26
26
15
58
arbutifolia
5
6
2
1
1
Cornus
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
amomum
2
2
2
2
2
4
200
Ilex verticillata
2
2
7
7
8
8
8
8
100
Salix exi ua
5
3
Sambucus
1
1
13
12
12
9
75
canadensis
1
1
1
1
1
4
Trees
Cercis
0
0
4
3
3
2
67
canadensis
2
Diospyros
I
1
1
1
1
0
0
vi rgi niana
Fraxinus
59
59
59
69
69
58
84
enns Ivanica
8
17
14
7
5
2
5
Platanus
12
12
12
12
12
12
100
occidentalis
2
5
1
4
Quercus
6
6
6
6
6
6
100
alustris
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
3
12
2
17
Salix ni ra
1
1
139
139
178
185
194
154
79
Year Totals
15
1 21
1 19
1 20
1 27
1 23
1 17
1 12
Live Stem
1
1
1
1
1
Density
608
851
770
810
1094
932
689
486
Average Live
Stem Density
780
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 20

Table VUlb. Stem counts for each species arranged by plot - all stems.
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Species
Plots
Year 1
Totals
Year 2
Totals
Year 3
Totals
Year 4
Totals
Year 5
Totals
1
1 2 3
4
5
6
71
8
Shrubs
Acerrubrum
1
0
0
3
3
1
Alnus serrulata
47
3
3
18
8
7
8
5
46
87
62
40
99
Aroma arb utifolia
5
8
7
1
1
6
29
27
24
22
Aronia
melanocar a
0
0
8
8
0
Corpus amomum
1
0
1
2
1
1
Ilex verticallata
2
2
1
2
2
3
2
5
Li ustrum sinense
3
0
0
0
0
3
Salix exi ua
8
9
7
10
14
7
17
Salix lucida
21
1 01
0
0
0
2
Sambucus
canadensis
2
1
2
6
3
8
11
20
17
12
22
Trees
Ailanthus altissima
1
0
0
0
0
1
Betula nigra
30
0
0
0
0
30
Cercis canadensis
2
01
4
41
3
2
Fraxinus
pens Ivanica
12
32
23
7
5
2
10
59
72
73
64
91
Ju lans ni ra
0
0
21
2
0
Liriodendron
tuli ifera
3
0
0
0
0
3
Pinus palustris
1
0
0
0
0
1
Platanus
occidentalis
2
6
1
12
12
13
15
11
21
Prunus serotina
1
0
0
0
0
1
Quercus palustris
11
1
1
11
1
1
61
6
6
7
6
Quercus s.
1
01
0
0
0
1
Rhus typhina
14
7
0
0
9
9
21
Rob inia
pseudoacacia
0
0
5
5
0
Salix ni ra
1
2
4
3
6
6
3
7
Ulmus americana
1
0
0
0
0
1
Year 5 Totals
67
37
F 28
r 37
37
43
42
67
152
251
256
201
358
Live StemDensity
2714
1499
1134
1 1499
1499
1742
1701
2714
Average Live Stem
Density
1812
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 21

The average stem density of planted species for the site exceeds the minimum criteria of 260
stems per acre after five years. Each individual plot also has a stem density above the minimum.
In addition, a large number of recruit stems (358 total) were found in all plots in Year 5. The
recruit stems increase the total stem density across the site by 132 %.
5. Vegetation Plot Photos
Vegetation plot photos are provided in Appendix A.
B. Stream Assessment
1. Hydrologic Criteria
Two crest -stage stream gages were installed on the project reaches, each of which is located at
the bankfull stage at a riffle cross - section, one along the main stem of Thompsons Fork and one
along the UT. The locations of the crest -stage stream gages are shown on the monitoring plan
view (Figure 2). In Year 3, bankfull events were not distinguishable because the cork in each
crest gage had washed away. In Year 4, no bankfull events were recorded. This is presumably
due to the exceptionally dry summer of 2012. Therefore, bankfull events were not recorded for
2011 & 2012, as documented in Table IX. Additional cork was added to each crest gage during
the spring of 2012 and again in early 2013. Bankfull events have been recorded during Years 1,
2 and 5 for both crest gages. This brings the total number of documented bankfull events to three
along each watercourse, in three separate monitoring years. The last recorded bankfull event is
from Year 5 and is described below. Photographs of the crest gages are shown in Appendix B.
Table IX. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Monitoring
Date of
Method
Photo
Collection
Year
Occurrence
#
9/21/09
1
1/6/09- 1/8/09*
Crest gage at XS -6 on UT
BF 1
9/21/09
1
1/6/09- 1/8/09*
Crest gage at XS -7 on Main stem
BF 4
5/12/10
2
1/24/10- 1/25/10
Crest gage at XS -6 on the UT
BF 2
or 3/22/10*
5/12/10
2
1/24/10 - 1/25/10
Crest gage at XS -7 on Main stem
BF 5
or 3/22/10*
5/18/11
3
NA ( Bankfull
Crest gage at XS -6 on the UT and
NA
event not
crest gage at XS -7 on Main stem
recordable)
5/30/12
4
NA ( Bankfull
Crest gage at XS -6 on the UT and
NA
event not
crest gage at XS -7 on Main stem
recordable)
5/13/13
5
5/6/13*
Crest gage at XS -6 on the UT
BF 3
3/11/13
5
1/30/13- 1/31/13*
1 Crest gage at XS -7 on Main stem
BF 6
*Date is approximate; based on a review of recorded daily discharge and gage height data
The most likely date for the monitoring year 2 bankfull event was after the rain events that
occurred on January 24 and January 25, 2010. These dates correspond to a high discharge events
and gage heights, as recorded at USGS Gage 02138500 Linville River at Nebo, NC, which lies
approximately 15 miles west of Morganton and 5 miles east of Marion, NC. Another large
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year S of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 22

precipitation event occurred on March 22, 2010. The discharge and gage height recorded at the
Nebo station are shown on the graphs below.
p 50000
0 4000
y 3000
2000
CL
1000
m
a
0
m
100
r
N
•.i
O
M 20
0
Z Call. UUMUUll evullt — r UVU1 UVU ;;a;;C U21ta
USGS 02138500 LINVILLE RIVER NEAR NEBO, NC
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010
- - -- Provisional data Subject to Revision - - --
- Daily naxinun discharge — Estinated daily nean discharge
— Daily nininun discharge • Equipnent malfunction
— Daily nean discharge
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year S of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 23
USGS 02138500
LINVILLE RIVER NEAR
NEBO, NC
6.0
5.0
–
m
m
4.0
—
4J
r
oa
r
3.0
m
as
m
�^
2.0
J
H
0
1.0
—
0.0
—
Jan
Mar
May Jul
Sep Nov
2010
2010
2010 2010
2010 2010
- - -- Provisional
Data Subject to
Revision - - --
- Daily naxinun
gage height — -Daily
nean gage height
Daily nininun
gage height
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year S of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 23

Even though crest gages for both reaches of the project were inconclusive in monitoring years 3
and 4, discharge and gage height statistics were gathered from the USGS Gage 02138500 along
the Linville River at Nebo, NC (see figure below). The purpose of this was to estimate the timing
of possible bankfull events. Gage statistics for these parameters were graphed from September
2011 through September 2012. The graphs for 2010 -2011 (Year 3) data are located above the
graphs for the 2011 -2012 (Year 4) data.
A good estimate for the timing of possible bankfull events can be made by looking at the dates
throughout late 2011 to mid -2012 where daily mean and maximum discharge and gage height
values reached very high levels. These dates correspond to 3 sets of days. September 29, 2011
saw a mean daily discharge rate and mean daily gage height of 1,410 ft3 /s and 3.35 feet,
respectively. The maximum values for these parameters on that day were 3,440ft3/s and 5.32 feet,
respectively. The next set of days that could have produced a bankfull event was December 7 and
8, 2011. On these days, mean daily discharge and mean daily gage height reached 929 ft3 /s and
3.24 feet, and 700 ft3 /s and 2.89 feet, respectively. The maximum values for these parameters on
these two days were 1,110 ft3 /s and 3.49 feet, and 1,020 ft3 /s and 3.38 feet, respectively.
The last day that could have produced a bankfull event was May 18, 2012. On this day, mean
daily discharge and mean daily gage height reached 833 ft3 /s and 3.00 feet, respectively. The
maximum values for these parameters on this day were 1,700 ft3 /s and 4.09 feet.
Y ears 1/4 Danmun events — recornea gage aara
USGS
USGS 02138500 LINVILLE RIVER NEAR NEBO, NC
7909
r
L
C
CL
0 1000
0
U
ti
as
L 100 —
r
L)
N
H
O
}
J
20
° Sep Nov Jan Mar Hay Jul Sep Hoy
2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011
— Daily naxinun discharge — Estinated daily nean discharge
— Daily nininun discharge Period of approved data
— Daily nean discharge Period of provisional data
USGS Surface -Water Daily Data for North Carolina (2010 -2011 data)
hLtp://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/dv?
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year S of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 24

r 5686
o 4666
6 3666
N
L 2666
N
CL
y 1666
0
0
U
0
as
L 166
r
°
s
J
N 26
USGS 02138500 LINVILLE RIMER NEAR NEBO, NC
Q
° Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep
2611 2611 2612 2612 2612 2612 2612
— Daily maximum discharge — Period of approved data
— Daily minimum discharge — Period of provisional data
— Daily mean discharge
USGS Surface -Water Daily Data for North Carolina (2011 -2012 data)
http: / /waterdata.us,as. aov /nc /nwis /dv?
7.6
6.6
4J
m
�« 5.6
4J
r
a�a 4.6
m
L
o 3.6
as
m
co
} 2.6
J
N
2
° 1.6
6.6 L__
Sep
2616
USGS 02138500 LINVILLE RIVER NEAR NEBO, NC
Hoy Jan Mar May Jul Sep Hoy
2616 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611 2611
— Daily maxinun gage height — Period of approved data
— Daily minimum gage height Period of provisional data
— daily mean gage height
USGS Surface -Water Daily Data for North Carolina (2010- 2011data)
hLtp://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/dv?
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year S of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 25

FWM
USGS 02138540 LINVILLE RIVER NEAR NEBO, NC
29999
0
y 19909
L
61 j
0
1000
y -
L
L
L
V
N
c 199 -
J —
40
Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep
2912 2012 2913 2013 2013 2013 2013
— Daily naxinun discharge — Estinated daily nean discharge
Daily nininun discharge ® Period of approved data
Daily mean discharge Period of provisional data
USGS Surface -Water Daily Data for North Carolina (2011 -2012 data)
http: / /waterdata.usas. aov /nc /nwis /dv?
In May 2013, the crest gage on the UT was examined and determined to have experienced a
bankfull event at a height of 1 -inch above the bottom of the crest gage. In March 2013, the crest
gage on the main stem of Thompsons Fork documented a bankfull event, at a height of 6 1/2-
inches above the bottom of the crest gage. The most likely date for the monitoring year 5
bankfull event along the main stem was in association with the rain event(s) that resulted in the
peak stage and discharge on January 30 and 31, 2013, as recorded at USGS Gage 02138500
Linville River at Nebo, NC. The most likely date for the monitoring year 5 bankfull event along
the UT was in association with the rain event(s) that resulted in the peak stage and discharge on
May 6, 2013. The discharge and gage height recorded at the Nebo station for these two events are
indicated on the graphs provided on the following page.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompsons Fork Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 26

Years 5 bankfull events — recorded gage data
USGS 02138500 LINVILLE RIDER NEAR NEBO, NC
20990
0
U
y 19999
L
N
CL
as
0
U
1999
U
N
Ol0
L
U
U
c 199
Y
J
~ 49
o Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep
2912 2912 2913 2913 2913 2913 2913
Daily naxinun discharge Estinated daily nean discharge
Daily nininun discharge Period of approved data
Daily nean discharge Period of provisional data
9.0
8.9
v 7.0
0
6.9
t
A 5.0
t
y 4.0
as
�^ 3.0
r
H 2.0
S
O
1.0
0.0
USGS 02138500 LINVILLE RIVER NEAR NEBO, NC
Sep Nov
Jan Mar
May
Jul Sep
2012 2012
2013 2013
2013
2913 2013
— Daily
naxinun gage height
— Period
of approved data
— Daily
nininun gage height
Period
of provisional data
Daily
nean gage height
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year S of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 27

2. Stream Problem Areas
A summary of the areas of concern identified during the visual assessment of the stream for Year
5 is included in Table X. Stream problem area photos and a problem area map are included in
Appendix B. In 2013, stream problem areas for Year 5 are located again at 3 different stations
along the main stem of Thompsons Fork. All problem areas for 2013 are again scour and bank
failure issues. The observed erosion and scour at stations 23 +50 and 21 +50 are the result of a
beaver dam that was constructed in the spring of 2013, respectively. Even though the dam was
again deconstructed within a few months of being built, significant scour and erosion resulted on
both the right and left banks at these stations. It is likely that high flow events created excessive
erosional flow around the sides and top of each dam.
In Year 5 bank erosion has also observed on the right bank of a meander bend at station 20 +75
on the main stem. It appeared that the sloughing in this area was also caused by a high flow
event. Pictures of the resultant erosion at these three stations are included in the stream problem
area photos located within Appendix B. At this time, they are being called stream problem areas
of low concern and are demarcated by yellow scour symbols on the Stream Problem Area Map in
Appendix B. Plantings and bank stabilization occurred at all three stations in fall 2013. It is
expected that the bank scour sloughing at these stations will be corrected once vegetation
establishes on the newly exposed soil. During Year 5 monitoring, it was also observed that a
small amount of wetland vegetation is infiltrating into the UT channel near station 8 +00.
Table X. Stream Problem Areas
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Feature
Issue
Station Numbers
Suspected Cause
Photo Number
Beaver dams caused scour and washout of
both right and left bank at stations 23 +50
23+50, 21 +50 and
and 21 +50 and the right bank at station
Bank scour
20 +75 on Main stem
20 +75.
SPA 1, 2 & 3
Stream problem areas for Year 3 were located at 3 different stations along the main stem of
Thompsons Fork. All problem areas for 2011 were scour and bank failure issues. The observed
erosion and scour at stations 24 +00 and 19 +35 were the result of beaver dams that were
constructed in the spring of 2011 and fall of 2010, respectively. Even though both dams were
deconstructed within a few months of being built, significant scour and erosion resulted on both
the right and left banks at these stations. The final area of bank erosion noted in Year 3 was
observed on the right bank of a meander bend at station 8 +25 on the main stem. At that time, it
appeared that the sloughing in this area was caused by a high flow event. These areas were
monitored closely in Year 4 in order to assess bank stability and the progression of vegetation
reestablishment. Because significant vegetation establishment had occurred between the Year 3
and Year 4 monitoring events, these stream problem areas were removed from the Stream
Problem Area Map in Appendix B.
In 2009 and 2010, it was observed that aggradation was occurring along the channel of the UT
(mostly in the upstream half of the restoration reach). This aggradation lead to the colonization
of wetland vegetation within the stream channel. It was decided there was a potential the
vegetation would decrease channel flow capacity and reduce flow velocities during times of low
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompsons Fork Monitoring Year S of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 28

flow. The reduced flow velocities could likely have lead to deposition of additional sediment and
continued aggradation within the channel. In order to deter continued sedimentation within the
channel and further colonization and growth of wetland plants that would affect channel
morphology and performance, channel maintenance was suggested in Year 2. Wetlands Resource
Center performed maintenance along the UT during the spring (late May) of 2011 in order to
clear the channel of excessive sediment and wetland vegetation and restore the channel to a more
functional channel morphology. This maintenance activity allowed the channel to sustain a
sufficient flow velocity that prevented substantial deposition and aggradation.
As depicted in the map that accompanies this report (see Appendix C), remedial stream
maintenance included proper installation of temporary aggregate check dams and a pump - around
feature for each segment of tributary for which remedial work was completed. Temporary dams
were situated at the upstream and downstream termini of each work reach. Stream maintenance
was completed in 3 large "phases "; where a "phase" constituted 2 check dams and a pre-
established length of approximately 135 linear feet of tributary channel. After each phase of
stream maintenance was completed, the upstream check dam for that phase was removed and re-
located to become the downstream check dam for the next phase. De- watering of the phases was
not necessary as a pump- around system was re- established for each phase of stream work. This
process effectively minimized erosion and sedimentation of the banks and stream channel. It
also sped up the remedial maintenance work. All erosion and sediment control practices for the
maintenance were consistent with the State's guidelines.
3. Stream Problem Areas Plan View
The location of each stream problem area is shown on the stream problem area plan view
included in Appendix B. Each problem area is color coded with yellow for areas of low concern
(areas to be watched) or red for high concern (areas where maintenance is warranted). For
monitoring year 5, there are no locations where maintenance is recommended.
4. Stream Problem Area Photos
Stream problem area photos are included in Appendix B.
5. Fixed Station Photos
Photographs were taken at each established photograph station in September 2013. These
photographs are provided in Appendix B.
6. Stability Assessment Table
The visual stream assessment was performed to determine the percentage of stream features that
remain in a state of stability after the first year of monitoring. The visual assessment for each
reach is summarized in Table XIa and Table XIb. This summary was compiled from the more
comprehensive Table B1, included in Appendix B. Only those structures included in the as -built
survey were assessed during monitoring and reported in the tables.
The visual stream stability assessment revealed that the majority of in- stream structures are
functioning as designed and built on the Thompsons Fork main stem and UT in Year 5 (Tables
XIa and XIb). This year, along the main stem, there were 2 categories of visual stability that
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year S of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 29

included features which were in a state unlike that of the as- built. Three of the forty -two total
pools of this reach were observed to be aggraded (6 -12 inches of sediment accumulation within
the past two years) when compared to Year 2 conditions. These pools are still functional,
however.
Table XIa. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Segment /Reach: Main stem
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A. Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
B. Pools
100%
100%
100%
98%
98%
98%
C.Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
99%
100%
98%
100%
100%
E. Bed General
100%
99%
99%
99%
99%
99%
F. Vanes / J Hooks etc.
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
G. Wads and Boulders
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table XIb. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Segment/Reach: UT
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A. Riffles'
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
B. Pools2
100%
96%
96%
98%
98%
98%
C. Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
E. Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
F. Vanes / J Hooks etc.3
N /A4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
G. Wads and Boulders
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
H. Log Sills
100%
95%
92%
96%
99%
99%
'Riffles are assessed using the longitudinal profile. A riffle is determined to be stable based on a comparison of
location and elevation with respect to the as -built profile.
PPools are assessed using the longitudinal profile. A pool is determined to be stable based on a comparison of
location and elevation with respect to the as -built profile and a consideration of appropriate depth.
3Physical structures such as vanes, J- hooks, and log sills are assessed using the as -built plan sheets to define the
location of such features. A structure is considered stable if the feature remains functional in the same location
as shown in the as -built plan.
4Those features not included in the stream restoration were labeled N /A. This includes structures such as
rootwads and boulders.
The second area in which structures were not performing as intended is the "bed general"
category of the visual stability assessment. It appears that narrow bars are forming along the
stream banks at various places along the main stem. These bars are becoming vegetated with
wetland species and are creating a noticeable change in the location and configuration of both the
left and right bank for cross sections 7, 8 and 9 (see Cross Section Templates, Appendix B). The
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year S of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 30

colonization of wetland plants is excellent for water quality, but these areas have been noted
under the aggradation feature category. These areas of bar formation are not causing instability at
this time. It is hypothesized that the stream is currently in a state of self - correction and is
therefore shifting and readjusting its bank configuration in the downstream half in order to find
the most natural flow path.
Aggradation (noted in Years 1 and 2) along the UT has been improved significantly due to
stream maintenance in Year 3, which was previously discussed. Sedimentation that occurred in
some of the pools located near grade- controlling log sills has been alleviated. All pools and
associated log sills are still present and functional throughout the stream channel and their
stability has increased since the conclusion of maintenance activities.
7. Quantitative Measures
Graphic interpretations of cross - sections, profiles and substrate particle distributions are
presented in Appendix B. A summary of the baseline morphology for the site is included in
Tables XII and XIII and is based on the more detailed monitoring data shown in the appendix.
Table XIII contains a summary of the geomorphic analysis of all monitoring cross - sections,
including pools and riffles. Table XII only includes a summary of riffle cross - sections, plus a
summary of the geomorphic analysis of the stream profile, stream pattern, and various reach
parameters and provides the determined Rosgen classification. These tables offer a year -to -year
comparison of the observed and calculated geomorphic data to assess the stability of the restored
stream channel. We have considered the data compiled into these tables to offer the summary
conclusions presented below.
The stream pattern data provided for Years 1 -5 is the same as the data provided from the As-
Built survey, as pattern has not changed based on the Year 5 stream surveys and visual field
assessment. Bedform features continue to evolve along the restored reaches as shown on the
long -term longitudinal profiles. Overall, comparison of the long -term stream monitoring profile
data shows stability with minor change for both reaches. Dimensional measurements of the
monumented cross - sections from year 5 remain generally stable when compared to as -built and
Year 1 thru 4 conditions.
On Thompsons Fork main stem, a number of cross sections demonstrate aggradation on the point
bar and bankfull bench areas. This aggradation seems to be a natural evolution of the stream as
the site becomes more densely vegetated; it does not appear to be causing any problems at this
time. This change has created smaller bankfull dimensions for the Year 3 thru 5 cross sections
compared to previous years; however these changes are fairly minor and fall within a level of
tolerance related to the data collection and analysis process. Riffle lengths and slopes remain
consistent with previous years while the pool length and spacing has fluctuated slightly.
For the unnamed tributary, riffle lengths and slopes are stable. The bankfull dimensions for the
UT seem to have leveled off and have been relatively stable for the last 3 years, with any
variations within a level of tolerance associated with the data collection and analysis process.
None of these changes are significant and no signs of channel instability are evident in
correlation to these changing values. Due to the Year 3 clean -out of sedimentation along the
unnamed tributary, substrate of the constructed riffles has exhibited an improvement over Year 2
and 3 conditions with a significant increase in median particle size. Median particle size fell into
the small cobble category in Year 4 and 5, as compared to a median particle distribution of
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year S of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 31

medium gravel in 2011 and very fine sand in Year 2. This D50 categorization of small cobble is
much more stable and healthy. This shift in particle size of riffle substrate illustrates the fact that
the previous maintenance activities effectively removed much of the excessive silt and sand
throughout the UT reach.
On the Thompsons Fork main stem, there was a slight shift in median particle distribution for the
substrate in constructed riffles from course gravel in Years 1 thru 3 to very course gravel in Year
4; however, the particle distribution has returned to course gravel in Year 5. The pool substrate
for the project reaches remain stable, with median particle sizes consisting of predominantly of
very fine to fine sand particles, based on the Year 5 substrate analysis.
IV. METHODOLOGY
Vegetation monitoring was conducted in September 2013 for the final monitoring event using the
CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 (Lee, M.T., Peet, RK., Roberts, S.R.,
Wentworth, T.R. 2006). Year 5, the final stream monitoring event was conducted in May 2013
to provide adequate time between the Years 4 and 5 monitoring surveys.
Evans, Mechwart, Hambleton & Tilton, Inc. December 2013
Monitoring Report — Thompson Fork Monitoring Year 5 of 5
EEP Contract # D06030 -A Page 32

Table XII: Baseline Geomorphologic and Hydraulic Summary
Thompsons Fork & Unnamed Tributary Mitigation Plan / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Station/Reach: UT Priority Level I Restoration Reach - Station 4 +00.00 to 16 +37.32 (1,237.321.f.)
Parameter
Brindle Creek Reference Reach
Pre- Existing Condition
Design
As -Built XS -4 & XS -6
Year 1 XS -4 & XS -6
Year 2 XS -4 & XS -6
Year 3 XS -4 & XS -6
Year 4 XS -4 & XS -6
Year 5 XS -4 & XS -6
Dimension
Drainage Area (mi`)
Min
Max
Mean
1.16
Min
Max Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
0.16
Min
Max
Med
Min Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
BF Width (ft)
24.02
13.10
12.00
13.94
14.08
14.01
14.03
16.67
15.35
10.94
12.21
11.58
14.51
14.85
14.68
15.42
16.12
15.77
14.98
15.06
15.02
Floodprone Width (ft)
232.00
44.80
45.00
85.00
71.50
78.48
88.08
83.28
74.03
97.32
85.68
76.72
94.68
85.70
91.06
95.33
93.20
90.62
93.09
91.86
94.10
95.82
94.96
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
30.77
10.70
11.50
11.17
11.37
11.27
11.15
14.89
13.02
9.50
11.52
10.51
12.43
14.35
13.39
11.61
13.76
12.69
11.78
13.38
12.58
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.28
0.82
0.96
0.80
0.81
0.81
0.80
0.89
0.85
0.87
0.94
0.91
0.84
0.99
0.92
0.72
0.89
0.81
0.79
0.89
0.84
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.721
1.12
1.20
1.64
1.76
1.70
1.56
1.62
1.59
1.75
1.81
1.781
1.82
2.28
2.05
1.87
2.40
2.14
1.88
2.63
2.26
Width/Depth (ft)
18.77
15.981
12.501
17.38
17.42
17.40
17.54
18.73
18.141
12.57
12.99
12.78
14.66
17.68
16.17
17.33
22.39
19.86
16.92
18.96
17.94
Entrenchment Ratio
9.66
3.42
3.75
7.08
5.96
5.63
6.26
5.95
5.28
5.84
5.56
7.01
7.76
7.39
6.27
6.42
6.35
5.78
5.88
5.83
5.88
6.28
6.08
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.63
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
26.58
14.74
13.92
14.41
14.56
14.49
14.39
17.02
15.71
11.59
12.84
12.22
15.55
16.35
15.95
16.94
17.03
16.99
16.25
16.89
16.57
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.16
0.73
0.83
0.77
0.78
0.78
0.78
0.87
0.83
0.82
0.90
0.86
0.76
0.92
0.84
0.68
0.81
0.75
0.73
0.79
0.76
BF Discharge (cfs)
98.2
54.91
54.9
54.9
54.9
54.9
54.9
54.9
54.9
54.9
54.9
54.9
54.9
54.9
54.9
54.9
54.9
54.9
54.9
54.9
54.9
BF Mean Velocity (ft/sec)
3.19
5.13
4.77
4.83
4.91
4.87
3.69
4.92
4.22
4.77
5.78
5.22
3.83
4.42
4.10
3.99
4.73
4.33
4.10
4.66
4.36
Pattern
*Channel Beltwidth (ft)
44.17
46.50
45.22
45.00
85.00
71.50
44.00
75.41
73.33
44.00
75.41
73.33
44.00
75.41
73.33
44.00
75.41
73.33
44.00
75.41
73.33
44.00
75.41
73.33
*Radius of Curvature (ft)
12.97
24.44
17.67
14.40
40.90
22.60
10.39
40.91
22.57
10.39
40.91
22.57
10.39
40.91
22.57
10.39
40.91
22.57
10.39
40.91
22.57
10.39
40.91
22.57
*Meander Wavelength (ft)
88.23
115.70
104.80
64.20
124.00
100.00
64.19
124.91
99.37
64.19
124.91
99.37
64.19
124.91
99.37
64.19
124.91
99.37
64.19
124.91
99.37
64.19
124.91
99.37
*Meander Width Ratio
1.84
1.94
1.88
3.75
7.08
5.96
3.14
5.38
5.23
3.14
4.78
4.52
3.60
6.89
6.34
2.96
5.20
5.00
2.73
4.89
4.65
2.92
5.03
4.88
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
19.0
31.0
25.7
22.60
46.60
36.40
6.08
55.10
23.40
7.57
43.62
25.79
6.39
44.28
23.15
8.84
47.61
25.69
9.51
54.14
20.82
10.00
56.00
21.00
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0125
0.0362
0.0211
0.0603
0.1215
0.0578
0.0350
0.0940
0.0595
0.0400
0.0957
0.0633
0.0103
0.1198
0.0510
0.0153
0.0984
0.0539
0.0104
0.1090
0.0488
0.0103
0.1090
0.0490
Pool Length (ft)
11.0
31.6
17.4
18.40
43.00
27.60
8.19
48.20
24.71
6.28
52.80
21.02
4.99
52.71
20.89
5.60
73.61
25.77
9.33
65.70
34.65
9.20
67.00
35.00
Pool Spacing (ft)
67.6
77.5
71.4
63.40
112.00
78.40
20.94
159.00
65.21
14.18
99.67
59.44
13.50
93.87
45.43
21.83
100.20
55.70
15.83
104.68
59.67
16.00
105.00
60.00
Substrate
D50 (mm)
38.5
37.5
37.5
7.7
37.5
16.0
18.9
20.0
19.4
10.1
10.6
10.3
8.6
13.9
11.2
54.5
82.4
68.5
60.8
88.6
74.7
D84 (mm)
60.2
73.4
73.4
68.2
73.7
71.8
53.9
71.5
62.7
42.7
49.5
46.1
22.5
47.3
34.9
145.7
154.8
150.2
133.2
260.3
196.8
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
294.00
1485
1437
1437
1437
1437
1437
1437
1437
Channel Length (ft)
353.00
1617
1966
1948
1948
1948
1948
1948
1948
Sinuosity
1.2
1.09
1.37
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.36
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.0106
0.0353
0.0353
0.0353
0.0350
0.0350
0.0350
0.0350
0.0350
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0115
0.0324
0.0258
0.0243
0.02441
0.0258
0.0253
0.0259
0.0250
Rosgen Classification
C4
C3b
C3b
Cab
CO
CO
CO
Cab
Cab
*Habitat Index
*Macrobenthos
Notes: * Inclusion will be project specific and determined primarily by As -built monitoring plan/success criteria
Blank fields = Historic project documentation necessary to provide these data were unavailable at the time of this report submission.
Where no min/max values provided, only one value was measured or computed and is presented as the median value.
Year 1, 2 and 3 Monitoring data were quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated using RiverMorph v 4.3.0.

XII: Baseline Geomorphologic and Hydraulic Summary
Thompsons Fork & Unnamed Tributary Mitigation Plan / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Station/Reach: Thompsons Fork Mainstem Priority I Restoration Reach - Station 0 +00.00 to 18 +06.42 (1,806.421.L)
Parameter
Thompsons Fork Reference Reach
Pre - Existing Condition **
Design
As -Built Riffle XSs 7, 9, 10 & 11
Year 1 Riffle XSs 7, 9, 10 & 11
Year 2 Riffle XSs 7, 9, 10 & 11
Year 3 Riffle XSs 7, 9, 10 & 11
Year 4 Riffle XSs 7, 9, 10 & 11
Year 5 Riffle XSs 7, 9, 10 & 11
Dimension A
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Med.
Min
Max
Med.
Min
Max
Med.
Min
Max
Med.
Min
Max
Med.
Min
Max
Med.
Min
Max
Med.
Drainage Area (mi`)
5.57
7.57
7.57
7.57
7.57
7.57
7.57
7.57
7.57
BF Width (ft)
15.38
20.90
21.50
34.52
39.81
37.74
35.30
38.95
36.32
28.65
38.81
34.11
27.06
38.71
31.85
20.45
37.43
29.77
20.55
37.21
28.67
Floodprone Width (ft)
18.89
32.00
39.0
100.0
90.0
89.89
143.71
113.53
86.87
146.66
109.57
87.45
146.55
94.61
88.75
146.65
103.75
83.73
146.58
88.76
61.78
146.62
94.02
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft)
23.80
56.50
52.00
48.51
59.39
52.85
39.38
54.16
47.431
36.12
53.80
43.68
35.41
54.58
40.07
22.07
47.63
36.31
23.47
51.41
34.29
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.55
2.70
2.40
1.30
1.60
1.40
1.09
1.39
1.32
1.14
1.42
1.33
1.16
1.41
1.33
1.08
1.28
1.22
1.14
1.38
1.20
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.09
5.05
3.00
2.16
2.88
2.52
2.14
2.59
2.38
2.29
2.62
2.56
2.48
2.90
2.61
2.19
2.65
2.50
2.14
3.09
2.27
Width/Depth (ft)
9.92
7.74
8.96
23.21
30.16
27.07
25.40
33.00
28.68
22.74
29.40
26.18
20.66
27.45
25.48
18.94
29.47
24.43
18.03
29.21
22.80
Entrenchment Ratio
1.23
1.53
1.81
4.65
4.19
2.30
4.16
3.00
2.31
4.15
3.00
2.31
4.23
3.01
2.32
4.50
3.53
2.38
4.57
3.65
2.51
4.82
3.38
Bank Height Ratio
1.18
2.36
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
18.50
24.77
26.30
34.91
40.28
38.84
35.70
39.27
36.73
29.28
39.17
34.62
27.91
39.94
32.89
23.04
38.27
31.13
21.75
38.26
30.05
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
12.50
2.28
1.98
1.28
1.57
1.38
1.08
1.38
1.31
1.12
1.40
1.30
1.11
1.37
1.30
0.96
1.24
1.17
1.08
1.34
1.14
BF Discharge (cfs)
64.8
285.0
285.0
149.5
149.5
149.5
149.5
149.5
149.5
149.5
149.5
149.5
149.5
149.5
149.5
149.5
149.5
149.5
149.5
149.5
149.5
BF Mean Velocity (ft/sec)
2.72
5.04
4.77
2.52
3.08
2.83
2.76
3.80
3.15
2.78
4.14
3.42
2.74
4.22
3.73
3.14
6.77
4.12
2.91
6.37
4.36
Pattern
*Channel Beltwidth (ft)
16.30
56.00
36.40
39.00
100.00
90.00
40.00
90.00
90.00
40.00
90.00
90.00
40.00
90.00
90.00
40.00
90.00
90.00
40.00
90.00
90.00
40.00
90.00
90.00
*Radius of Curvature (ft)
9.70
48.90
25.40
18.70
48.90
28.30
18.70
48.90
27.70
18.70
48.90
27.70
18.70
48.90
27.70
18.70
48.90
27.70
18.70
48.90
27.70
18.70
48.90
27.70
*Meander Wavelength (ft)
49.50
119.40
104.30
89.20
119.90
110.40
84.17
119.85
110.35
84.17
119.85
110.35
84.17
119.85
110.35
84.17
119.85
110.35
84.17
119.85
110.35
84.17
119.85
110.35
*Meander Width Ratio
1.06
3.64
2.37
4.15
5.58
5.13
1.04
2.34
2.34
1.13
2.48
2.31
1.03
3.14
2.64
1.03
3.33
2.83
1.07
4.40
3.02
1.07
4.38
3.14
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
15.0
21.6
18.3
14.3
39.4
21.8
8.6
30.6
17.2
7.2
19.6
14.7
5.8
28.1
13.3
8.8
22.8
16.9
4.8
28.8
12.8
5.0
29.0
13.0
Riffle Slope ( ft/ft)
0.0099
0.0127
0.0113
0.0099
0.0127
0.0113
0.0051
0.0571
0.0166
0.00599
0.03391
0.01832
0.00107
0.04770
0.01060
0.00327
0.02481
0.01232
0.00219
0.03327
0.02044
0.00220
0.03330
0.02040
Pool Length (ft)
17.0
32.1
24.3
28.6
105.0
42.6
21.5
82.9
39.3
18.2
60.3
32.4
15.9
68.6
37.7
23.7
90.1
49.5
23.7
100.8
52.5
22.0
96.0
58.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
73.1
77.1
75.1
42.6
83.2
61.5
25.0
145.0
63.8
31.4
113.7
55.6
31.0
137.6
66.4
34.3
132.7
66.9
37.0
115.0
68.7
37.0
115.0
68.7
Substrate
D50 (mm)
29A
13.7
13.7
5.7
10.6
9.1
23.8
32.7
29.1
28.3
67.6
33.8
19.3
65.9
32.3
37.4
79.2
63.3
17.1
42.8
30.1
D84 (mm)
50.1
26.2
26.2
35.9
66.3
43.4
60.8
87.1
73.9
77.5
130.5
104.7
53.4
140.5
58.9
117.4
233.2
173.5
111.8
548.8
144.1
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
188.00
2261
2295
2295
2295
2295
2295
2295
2295
Channel Length (ft)
140.00
2530
2799
2742
27421
2742
2742
2742
2742
Sinuosity
1.34
1.12
1.22
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.19
1.19
Valley Slope (ft/ft)
0.0031
0.0044
0.0031
0.0036
0.0036
0.0036
0.0036
0.0036
0.0036
Bankfull Slope ( ft/ft)
0.0024
0.0039
0.0024
0.0030
0.0030
0.0030
0.0030
0.0029
0.0250
Rosgen Classification
E4
G4
E4
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
C4
*Habitat Index
*Macrobenthos
Notes: * Inclusion will be project specific and determined primarily by As -built monitoring plan success criteria
* *Insufficient field indicators to estimate pattern and bedform features under impaired G4 channel conditions.
Blank fields = Historic project documentation necessary to provide these data were unavailable at the time of this report submission.
Where no min/max values are provided, only one value was measured or computed and is presented as the mean value.
Year 1, 2 and 3 Monitoring data were quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated using RiverMorph v 4.3.0.

Table XIII: Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Thompsons Fork & Unnamed Tributary Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Reach: Mainstem
Parameter
Cross Section 7
(Riffle)
Cross Section 8
(Pool)
Cross Section 9
(Riffle)
Cross Section 10
(Riffle)
Cross Section 11
(Riffle)
Cross Section 12
(Pool)
Dimension
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
MYO
My
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY
39.81
91.41
MY
MY
MY
MY
MY5
MYO
MY
MY
MY3MY4
MY 4
MY
BF Width (ft)
38.51
38.95
38.81
38.71
37.43
35.34
39.25
39.37
20.98
21.95
17.6
18.53
38.74
36.66
33.52
31.14
20.45
20.55
34.52
35.30
34.69
32.56
32.04
37.21
146.62
35.97
28.65
27.06
27.49
22
43.16
45.96
45.95
47.11
40.59
40.81
Floodprone Width (ft)
89.89
89.89
89.82
89.88
89.19
88.88
83.90
129.13
83.91
83.92
83.36
83.86
113.53
114.87
99.40
117.61
83.73
99.16
143.71
146.66
146.55
146.65
146.58
86.87
87.45
88.75
88.32
61.78
103.78
105.70
107.84
108.3
107.74
105.85
BF Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
53.71
54.16
53.80
54.58
47.63
42.71
69.91
69.72
65.41
60.38
36.4
49.74
50.20
45.81
38.27
36.12
22.07
23.47
48.51
49.04
49.09
44.02
37.41
51.41
52.43
39.38
36.12
35.41
35.21
25.87
72.70
73.87
75.05
74.89
66.08
57.01
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.39
1.39
1.39
1.41
1.27
1.21
1.78
1.77
3.12
2.75
2.07
2.68
1.30
1.25
1.14
1.16
1.08
1.14
1.41
1.39
1.42
1.35
1.17
1.38
1.32
1.09
1.26
1.31
1.28
1.18
1.68
1.61
1 1.63
1.59
1.63
1.4
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.16
2.14
2.29
2.48
2.37
2.14
3.60
4.84
5.60
5.14
4.03
5.21
2.49
2.34
2.58
2.9
2.19
2.39
2.52
2.59
2.62
2.7
2.65
1 3.09
2.88
2.42
2.54
2.52
2.63
2.15
3.69
3.80
3.89
4.15
3.89
3.76
Width/Depth Ratio
27.71
28.02
27.92
27.45
29.47
29.21
22.05
22.24
6.72
7.98
8.5
6.91
29.80
29.33
29.40
26.84
18.94
18.03
24.48
25.40
24.43
24.12
27.38
26.96
30.16
33.00
22.74
20.66
21.48
18.64
25.69
28.55
28.19
29.63
24.9
29.15
Entrenchment Ratio
2.33
2.31
2.31
2.32
2.38
2.51
2.14
3.28
4.00
3.82
4.74
4.52
2.93
3.13
2.97
3.78
4.09
4.82
4.16
4.15
4.23
4.5
4.57
3.94
2.30
2.41
3.05
3.28
3.21
2.81
2.40
2.30
2.35
2.3
2.65
2.59
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
38.84
39.27
39.17
39.94
38.27
36.98
40.02
41.03
24.10
24.46
22.21
21.78
39.10
37.00
34.06
32.6
23.04
21.75
34.91
35.70
35.18
33.18
33.39
38.26
40.28
36.46
29.28
27.91
28.87
23.12
43.94
46.84
47.73
49.12
42.33
43.55
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.38
1.38
1.37
1.37
1.24
1.16
1.75
1.70
2.71
2.47
1.64
2.28
1.28
1.24
1.12
1.11
0.96
1.08
1.39
1.37
1.40
1.33
1.12
1.34
1.30
1.08
1.23
1.27
1.22
1.12
1.65
1.58
1.57
1.52
1.56
1.31
Substrate
0.81
0.79
Substrate
D50 (mm)l
9.10
32.72
67.55
65.86
70.5
42.84
*
**
0.05
0.06
0.12
0.19
10.64
23.78
37.50
37.57
37.42
17.1
*
26.67
30.12
26.94
79.16
32.85
5.70
32.00
28.29
19.3
56.08
27.3
*
6.69
0.71
0.59
0.18
0.24
D84 mm
66.30
76.04
130.481
140.47
233.18
548.83
*
**
0.11
1 0.2
1 0.24 0.65
1 35.94
87.08
120.35
lBedrock 117.37 129.051
*
60.76
88.95
53.36
1168.02
159.181
43.37
75.74
77.53
1 58.93
178.94
111.781
43.37
26.74
1 4.26
0.89
66.61
99.87
Table XIII: Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Thompsons Fork & Unnamed Tributary Stream Restoration/ EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Reach: UT -1
Parameter
Cross Section 1
Pool
(Pool)
Cross Section 2
(Riffle)
Rie
Cross Section 3
Pool
(Pool)
Cross Section 4
Rie
(Riffle)
Cross Section 5
Pool
(Pool)
Cross Section 6
(Riffle)
Rie
Dimension
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY 5
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY 5
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY 5
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY 5
MY 0
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY 5
MY 0
MY 1
MY 21
MY 3
MY 4
MY 5
BF Width (ft)
13.31
13.20
13.24
13.04
12.43
12.17
8.35
8.67
7.30
7.18
7.88
6.48
20.72
20.53
18.13
16.97
16.23
19.97
20.74
16.67
12.21
14.51
16.12
14.98
39.81
35.97
28.65
27.06
27.49
31.42
14.38
14.03
10.94
14.85
15.42
15.06
Floodprone Width (ft)
26.08
22.94
18.94
18.61
19.18
17.98
23.46
23.67
19.41
17.32
20.98
18.83
90.10
88.25
88.09
89.47
86.88
85.98
98.92
97.32
94.68
91.06
93.09
94.1
91.41
86.87
87.45
88.75
88.32
111.91
76.11
74.03
76.72
95.33
90.62
95.82
BF Cross Sectional Area (W)
23.51
21.66
16.02
15.95
16.15
14.33
11.78
12.71
10.11
9.82
11.69
9.17
24.85
21.02
19.95
19.04
16.35
20.59
16.37
14.89
11.52
14.35
11.61
11.78
52.43
39.38
36.12
35.41
35.21
33.89
10.63
11.15
9.50
12.43
13.76
13.38
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.77
1.64
1.21
1.22
1.3
1.18
1.41
1.47
1.39
1.37
1.48
1.41
1.20
1.02
1.10
1.12
1.01
1.03
0.79
0.89
0.94
0.99
0.72
0.79
1.32
1.09
1.26
1.31
1.28
1.08
0.74
0.80
0.87
0.84
0.89
0.89
BF Max Depth (ft)
2.78
2.41
1.80
1.72
1.74
1.48
2.40
2.43
2.15
2.09
2.27
2.09
2.29
2.09
2.10
2.1
2.05
1.99
1.61
1.62
1.75
1.82
1.87
1.88
2.88
2.42
2.54
2.52
2.63
2.72
1.55
1.56
1.81
2.28
2.4
2.63
Width/Depth Ratio
7.52
8.05
10.94
10.69
9.56
10.31
5.92
5.90
5.25
5.24
5.32
4.6
17.27
20.13
16.48
15.15
16.07
19.39
26.25
18.73
12.99
14.66
22.39
18.96
30.16
33.00
22.74
20.66
21.48
29.09
19.43
17.54
12.57
17.68
17.33
16.92
Entrenchment Ratio
1.96
1.74
1.43
1.43
1.54
1.36
2.81
2.73
2.66
2.41
2.66
2.9
4.35
4.30
4.86
5.27
5.35
4.3
4.77
5.84
7.76
6.27
5.78
6.28
2.30
2.41
3.05
3.28
3.21
3.56
5.29
5.28
7.01
6.42
5.88
5.88
Bank Height Ratio
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
14.76
14.51
13.94
13.85
13.48
13.07
9.93
10.33
8.92
9.36
9.91
8.49
21.25
21.02
18.66
18.15
16.92
20.46
21.07
17.02
12.84
15.55
17.03
16.25
40.28
36.46
29.28
27.91
28.87
33.87
14.73
14.39
11.59
16.35
16.94
16.89
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.59
1.49
1.15
1.15
1.2
1.1
1.19
1.23
1.13
1.05
1.18
1.08
1.17
1.00
1.07
1.05
0.97
1.01
0.78
0.87
0.90
0.92
0.68
0.73
1.30
1.08
1.23
1.27
1.22
1
0.72
0.78
0.82
0.76
0.81
0.79
Substrate
D50 (mm)l
0.03
0.71
0.59
0.21
0.83
*
4.96
0.43
28.35
1.5
16
*
0.03
0.04
0.48
0.11
0.03
16.00
19.96
10.55
13.86
82.41
88.56
5.70
32.00
28.29
19.3
56.08
16
7.67
18.89
10.14
8.62
54.5
60.84
D84 mm
*
0.05
4.26
3.6
1 0.67
5.06
*
36.99
13.09
1 76.19
1 58.9
40.32
*
0.05
0.10
15.62
3.28
0.05
1 68.15
71.49
42.65
1 22.47
1145.69
260.27
43.37
75.74
77.53
1 58.93
1178.94
46.91
1 73.73
53.91
49.45
1 47.27
154.78
133.22
* Pebble counts were not collected for the As -Built (Year 0) stream substrate documentation
* * Pebble counts were not collected for Year 1 stream substrate documentation

APPENDIX A
Vegetation Raw Data
1. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
2. Vegetation Data Tables

Vegetation Plot 1
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 09/11/13)
Vegetation Plot 2
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 09/12/13)

Vegetation Plot 3
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 09/11/13)
Vegetation Plot 4
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 09/25/13)

Vegetation Plot 5
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 09/10/13)
Vegetation Plot 6
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 09/11/13)

Vegetation Plot 7
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 09/11/13)
Vegetation Plot 8
Monitoring Year 5
(EMH &T, 09/11/13)

Table 1. Vegetation Metadata
Report Prepared By
Marion Wells
Date Prepared
6/26/2013 11:16
database name
cvs- eep- entrytool- v2.2.6.mdb
database location
Q: \ENVIRONMENTAL \Monitoring \EEP Vegetation Database
computer name
2UA602108H
file size
53424128
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
D06030A
project Name
Thompsons Fork
Description
Stream restoration of Thompsons Fork mainstem and tributary.
River Basin
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
8

Table 2. Vegetation Vigor by Species
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Alnus serrulata
9
15
14
1
1
Aronia arbutifolia
6
9
12
Cornus amomum
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
24
21
9
4
5
4
Ilex verticillata
1
2
1
Quercus palustris
1
4
1
1
Salix nigra
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
2
3
4
2
Cercis canadensis
2
1
Platanus occidentalis
6
6
Salix exigua
5
1
2
1
TOT:
11
49
62
39
4
81
22

Table 3. Vegetation Damage by Species
a
L
O
O
M
�.i
Qi
L
M
�
f0
dp
E
WD
M
E
L
w
O
3
C
41
4
v
M
-0
>
''
4J
O
~
r_
O
t
Q.
V)
—
a
O
v
m
y
0
�^
0
O
+1
in
O
5
c
'>
++
Alnus serrulata
40
25
8
11
1
1
2
3
Aronia arbutifolia
27
27
Cercis canadensis
3
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
67
46
7
1
11
2
Ilex verticillata
4
3
1
Platanus occidentalis
12
10
1
1
Quercus palustris
7
6
1
Salix exigua
9
7
2
Salix nigra
3
3
Sambucus canadensis
11
8
1
1
1
TOT:
11
184
137
11
3
1
1
9
4
16
2

Table 4: Vegetation Damage by Plot
v
L
v
g
v
Q�
v
T
L
b
C
h0
cc E
ao
to
L
-0
to
O
p
O
�
C
L
*'
C
'O
f6
41
Vf
O
O
O
O
Y
C
L
p
Q.
a
O
m
o
vOi
o
U-
'>
+s+
D06030A -01- 0001- year:5
20
10
1
9
D06030A -01- 0002- year:5
221
16
6
D06030A -01- 0003- year:5
20
9
10
1
D06030A -01- 0004- year:5
34
26
6
2
D06030A -01- 0005- year:5
32
27
3
1
1
D06030A -01- 0006- year:5
23
191
4
D06030A -01- 0007- year:5
20
18
1
1
D06030A -01- 0008 -yea r:5
13
12
1
TOT:
8
184
137
11
3
1
1
9
4
16
2

Table 5. Stem Count by Plot and Species
- Planted
Stems
Z�
V
In
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
M
%-I
N
M
::r
V1
tD
r�
00
to
E
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
4)
N
r I
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
41 v
L
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
�
E
w
O
w
O
tD
O
w
O
tD
O
w
O
tD
O
tD
O
tD
CL
c
a
W
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V)
i—
U
M
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Alnus serrulata
38
8
4.75
3
3
3
3
8
7
6
5
Aronia arbutifolia
15
5
3
5
6
2
1
1
Cercis canadensis
2
1
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
58
7
8.29
8
17
14
7
5
2
5
Ilex verticillata
4
2
2
2
1
1
2
Platanus occidentalis
12
4
3
2
5
1
4
Quercus palustris
6
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Salix exigua
8
2
4
5
3
Salix nigra
2
2
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
9
6
1.5
1
1
1
1
1
4
TOT:
110
11541
101
1 151
211
191
201
27
23
17
12

Table 6. Stem Count by Plot and Species - All Stems
Z
L
ro
L
M
L
M
L
M
L
ro
L
M
L
ro
L
M aj
r-I
N
M
�
Ln
W
II%
00
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
^
T-q
O
�q
O
T-q
O
�q
O
T-q
O
�q
O
T-q
O
�q
O
0)
E
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Ol
Ln
-W
41
of
0
M
0
M
0
M
0
M
0
M
0
M
0
M
0
M
f0
_
Q-
CAi
H
4
>
O
O
O
O
0
O
D
O
1 O
O
1 0
O
0
Ailanthus altissima
1
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
99
8
12.38
47
3
3
18
8
7
8
5
Aronia arbutifolia
22
5
4.4
5
8
7
1
1
Cornus amomum
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
91
7
13
12
32
23
7
5
2
10
Ilex verticillata
5
3
1.67
2
2
1
Ligustrum sinense
3
1
3
3
Pinus palustris
1
1
1
1
Quercus palustris
6
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rhus typhina
21
2
10.5
14
7
Salix lucida
2
1
2
2
Salix nigra
7
3
2.33
1
2
4
Sambucus canadensis
22
6
3.67
2
1
2
6
3
8
Betula nigra
30
1
30
30
Cercis canadensis
2
1
2
2
Quercus spp.
1
11
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
3
1
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
21
4
5.25
2
6
1
12
Prunus serotina
1
1
1
1
Salix exigua
17
2
8.51
1
8
9
Acer rubrum
1
1
1
1
Ulmus americana
1
1
1
1
TOT:
23
358
23
67
37
28
37
37
43
42
67

APPENDIX B
Geomorphologic Raw Data
1. Fixed Station Photos
2. Table B1. Qualitative Visual Stability Assessment
3. Cross Section Plots
4. Longitudinal Plots
5. Pebble Count Plots
6. Bankfull Event Photos
7. Stream Problem Areas Photos
8. Stream Problem Area Plan View

Fixed Station 1
Overview of valley along UT1 near the upstream terminus of the project, approximately
Station 4 +00, facing downstream.
(EMH &T, 9/11/13)
Fixed Station 2
Overview of valley along UT1 near the midpoint of the project, approximately Station
10 +75, facing upstream.
(EMH &T, 9/11/13)

Fixed Station 3
Overview of valley along UT1 near the midpoint of the project, approximately Station
10 +75, facing downstream.
(EMH &T, 9/11/13)
Fixed Station 4
Overview of valley along UT1 near the downstream terminus of the project, just north of
South Creek Road, facing upstream.
(EMH &T, 9/11/13)

Fixed Station 5
Overview of valley along UT1 at the downstream terminus of the project, facing upstream.
(EMH &T, 9/25/13)
Fixed Station 6
Overview of valley along the mainstem near the downstream terminus of the project, facing
upstream.
(EMH &T, 9/25/13)

Fixed Station 7
Overview of valley along the mainstem near the midpoint of the project, approximately
Station 12 +00, facing downstream.
(EMH &T, 9/11/13)
Fixed Station 8
Overview of valley along the mainstem near the midpoint of the project, approximately
Station 11 +50, facing upstream.
(EMH &T, 9/11/13)

Fixed Station 9
Overview of valley along the mainstem near the upstream terminus of the project, facing
downstream.
(EMH &T, 9/11/13)

Table Bl. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Segment/Reach: Mainstem
Feature Category
Metric (per As -built and reference baselines
(# Stable)
Number
Performing
as Intended
Total
number per
As -built
Total Number/
feet in unstable
state
% Perform
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perform.
Mean or
Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
42
42
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
42
42
0
100
3. Facet grade appears stable?
42
42
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining?
42
42
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
42
42
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggrad. or migrat. ?)
39
42
0
93
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6 ?)
42
42
0
100
3. Length appropriate?
42
42
0
100
98%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of meander bend (run /inflection) centering?
42
42
0
100
2. Downstream of meander (glide /inflection) centering?
42
42
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited /controlled erosion?
42
42
10
93
2. Of those eroding, # w /concomitant point bar formation?
42
42
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
42
42
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
42
42
0
100
100%
E. Bed General
1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)
N/A
N/A
3/25 feet
99
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing downcutting
or headcutting?
N/A
N/A
0/0 feet
100
99%
F. Vanes
1. Free of back or arm scour?
10
10
0
100
2. Height appropriate?
10
10
0
100
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
10
10
0
100
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
10
10
0
100
100%
G. Wads/ Boulders
1. Free of scour?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
2. Footing stable?
I N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table Bl. Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration / EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Segment/Reach: UT
Feature Category
Metric (per As -built and reference baselines
(# Stable)
Number
Performing
as Intended
Total
number per
As -built
Total Number/
feet in unstable
state
% Perform
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Perform.
Mean or
Total
A. Riffles
1. Present?
35
35
0
100
2. Armor stable (e.g. no displacement)?
35
35
0
100
3. Facet grade appears stable?
35
35
0
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding /fining?
35
35
0
100
5. Length appropriate?
35
35
0
100
100%
B. Pools
1. Present? (e.g. not subject to severe aggrad. or migrat. ?)
35
35
0
100
2. Sufficiently deep (Max Pool D:Mean Bkf >1.6 ?)
33
35
4
94
3. Length appropriate?
35
35
0
100
98%
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of meander bend (run /inflection) centering?
38
38
0
100
2. Downstream of meander (glide /inflection) centering?
38
38
0
100
100%
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited /controlled erosion?
38
38
0
100
2. Of those eroding, # w /concomitant point bar formation?
38
38
0
100
3. Apparent Rc within spec?
38
38
0
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief?
38
38
0
100
100%
E. Bed General
1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)
N/A
N/A
0/0 feet
100
2. Channel bed degradation - areas of increasing downcutting
or headcutting?
N/A
N/A
0/0 feet
100
100%
F. Vanes
1. Free of back or arm scour?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
2. Height appropriate?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
3. Angle and geometry appear appropriate?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
4. Free of piping or other structural failures?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
G. Wads/ Boulders
1. Free of scour?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
2. Footing stable?
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
H. Log Sills
1. Maintaining grade control?
58
58
0
100
2. Minimal evidence of sedimentation in adjacent pool?
57
58
1
98
99%

PROJECT
Thompsons Fork
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06030 -A
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area
14.33 ft2
TASK
Cross- Section
Bankfull Width
12.17 ft
REACH
UT
Mean Depth
1.18 ft
DATE
05/25/2013
Maximum Depth
1.79 ft
Width/Depth Ratio
10.31
Entrenchment Ratio
1.48
CROSS SECTION:
1
term
FEATURE:
Pool
Unnamed Tributary
(to Thompsons Fork) - Pool XS1 -
Year 5 (May 25,
2013)
Cl %9, YR5 #lfM l VWahl
(pool} Imlc�ufa 5ui1:i�
Poink
LPoN U -1 TH ■ftox31 VRON x"w1 ►Foal %Y1
a m.r xlt'1
- F.1X31 YR
n
,15'1 Wbkf -12.17
Dbkf =1.18
Abkf' =14.33
:M1
1l'
1151
„
,a
"
o
w
Ir
not
-- ._.._.. _...
/
na
f
Cross- section photo —
looking downstream
o 5 10
15 20 25 35
Horizontal Distance (ft)
ao 45 5o

PROJECT Thompsons Fork
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06030 -A
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area
9.17 ft2
TASK
Cross - Section
Bankf ill Width
6.48 ft
REACH
UT
Mean Depth
1.41 ft
DATE
05/25/2013
Maximum Depth
2.09 ft
Width /Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
4.6
2.9
,
CROSS
SECTION:
z
Classification
E
S�f.111
L,I11a1
FEATURE:
Riffle
CRIC1.
Unnamed Tributary (to Thompsons Fork) - Riffle XS2 - Year
2013)
5 (May 25,
'
'+
it XQIR5 •E4DI" TWA., p Rl"x3.2
■ Rr1 x32 'J R04X$2w V RE4 x32
_ M*X32
9157
{r,el ina9�forx 5 xk9
Wkf . 8_.8
xR2 1 yrn
bbkf + IAl
TR4
kbkf + 9.17
1152
C
a
I
f
I
II
W
1144
_
._. .._.._..-
1144
1,47
1
/
- - - -I
Cross - section photo —
looking upstream
0 ,u . •I
Horizontal Distance (ft)
b 70

PROJECT Thompsons Fork
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06030 -A
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 20.59 ft'
TASK
Cross- Section
Bankfull Width 19.97 ft
REACH
UT
Mean Depth 1.03 ft
DATE
05/25/2013
Maximum Depth 1.99 ft
Width /Depth Ratio 19.39,
CROSS SECTION: 3
Entrenchment Ratio 4.3
Classification C
FEATURE: Pool
Lt go emet�
Unnamed Tributary (to Thompsons Fork) - Pool XS3 - Year 5 (May 25,
2013)
r -
� .. a' d � �
♦ WaM
fWW YIWCf i $IffdC!
'. POOI%33"o A, Pyq]L33Y11 Q rw X53 v PWX33 tl PoA,M)TR
1F9 TR7 �
x1.0
ti� IS fr* w4!
1113
rt•e j:...-
�.;SSi�
--
1,39
WA
„ar
„a�
- -
-
Cross- section photo — looking across channel, from
right bank to left bank
a r1 as
za u 5s ae n � V9 t,a
Horizontal Distance (ft)

PROJECT
Thompsons Fork
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06030 -A
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area
11.78 ft'
TASK
Cross- Section
Bankf ill Width
14.98 ft
REACH
UT
Mean Depth
0.79 ft
DATE
05/25/2013
Maximum Depth
1.88 ft
Width /Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
18.96
6.28
CROSS SECTION:
4
Classification
C
&Omfem
1{;ii lay
FEATURE:
Riffle
�iTZe��
Unnamed Tributary (to
Thompsons Fork) - Riffle XS4 - Year
2013).
5 (May 25,
wr
I l'„•s -
.r.;;: ,
X,91 OwM 11 T44'eler
mnel Imliwtacc �urtarl
voing
.'. RrRtr %:4 RMe X.`.I Yr ^. rNke k`,4 FitlRe %:.i '"
fmo 1 -rx2 ma
fMe %,^•<
rleo
k4
1115
1114
NOkf - 1S
Vkkf - .JY
Rbkf - 11.9
T
1113
C
s'
]� 3,y
Jv�
{
s
41 1130
/
W
55 d' 1 � � •. � �-
i 129
!
-
a
�1�'S+F �� � _ -•�. f
112
Y ��a -r--
�� _____ � ��_ _- __.__..____.._____....____..__
_ - _. -_ -__
912'1
116
•�
I I
Cross - section photo — looking across stream,
from right bank to
left bank
0
12 24
M 4B w T$ $4
Horizontal Distance (R)
96 105 nn

PROJECT Thompsons Fork
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06030 -A
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 33.89 ft2
TASK Cross- Section
Bankf ill Width 31.42 ft
REACH UT
Mean Depth 1.08 ft
DATE 05/25/2013
Maximum Depth 2.72 ft
Width /Depth Ratio 29.09
Entrenchment Ratio 3.56
CROSS SECTION: 5
Classification C
i'
L [lS�r t�lrl FEATURE: Pool
Unnamed Tributary (to Thomposons Fork) - Pool X55 - Year 5 (May 25,
2013)
•
-
tri xti �eanm� �ewx x_v -.era A Pom�ek.5 xr1 3 eons xs�� V eoom x35 1 P-
1Ceol! ' IM4lkn Surleu � �0 a TR2 ttLl �
t i
Pweia
Vbkf - 314 ddrf - 1.M ALkI - ]].p
,
,a•
•1-
..A
rfr'`
f
4
r
•
� �� Fri �
;
0D
W
I I
`yh �•
_
uva
i
Cross - section photo — looking across channel,
from right bank to left bank
Horizontal Distance (ft)

PROJECT
Thompsons Fork
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06030 -A
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area
13.38 ft'
TASK
Cross- Section
Bankf ill Width
15.06 ft
REACH
UT
Mean Depth
0.89 ft
DATE
05/25/2013
Maximum Depth
2.63 ft
Width /Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
16.92
6.36
CROSS SECTION:
6
Classification
C
�' System
1',llllell]C CIIiC'11
FEATURE:
Riffle
Unnamed Tributary (to
Thompsons Fork) Riffle XS6 -
2013}
Year 5 {May 25,
z
— fit.
p es ms •ea�r ■sf
lf�t1 mtllc9aas Sun
Mme ,• H .x,..•r, m s.. V kMI8e n�rae
YR4 xs , ^YR2f t M3 YR4
J •-.
W88 - 15.1
0041 -
OOk1
:, f ^•
' } R
y.0
„�
4
1148.0
.!9
13.4
-
ryry
1143.e
/
4 /
1 j �
ltoti
1M4
Cross - section photo — looking
downstream
0 21
'2 fib
04 105
Horizontal Distance (ft)

PROJECT Thompsons Fork
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06030 -A
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area
42.71 ft'
TASK
Cross- Section
Bankf ill Width
35.34 ft
REACH
Mainstem
Mean Depth
1.21 ft
DATE
05/25/2013
Maximum Depth
2.14 ft
Width /Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
29.21,_
2.51
CROSS SECTION: 7
Classification
C
Riffle
IF
lelaIr llIcIl
Thompsons Fork Mainstem
0 X37 YFG +eanl V Water ❑. RIFFLE X3 -7
{,i®a➢ Ye11c,Mr!, 9A— MR
- Riffle XS7 - Year 5 (May 25, 2013)
A FiPlle xs? L' RIMe X37 xr1 V RIM. X3 p RM X3
YR? YR6 YR3
I�
I a
rouse
to lrr µ fIS
1
i
�
F
Mkf - 35.3
DmkF - 1.21 ADkf ■2.7
4
' x 5
1093
_
F
1d9d
Cross - section photo — looking from right bank to
19
95
left bank
°
Horizontal Distance (R)

PROJECT Thompsons Fork
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06030 -A
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 49.74 ft'
TASK Cross- Section
Bankf ill Width 18.53 ft
REACH Mainstem
Mean Depth 2.68 ft
DATE 05/25/2013
Maximum Depth 5.21 ft
Width /Depth Ratio 6.91,_
Entrenchment Ratio 4.52
CROSS SECTION: 8
Classification E
FEATURE: Pool
ll� ta�1���
i �
Thompsons Fork Mainstem - Pool xS8 - Year 5 [May 25, 2013]
OXWM' *a- Wl TWA, L FO(J X" A PINA0 V P"xWvr, V PO y4M [l Pp xsall
(vp4F1 MNica,u,s 3urtace lR0 lR$ TR3 W"
mut - 1k.5 Y9kF 2.50 ktlkf %F.?
lm7a
�
F1 ...
1093--
� y
1P7Y
o
/
u
m 1771
W
1786
�
1�f
6
Cross - section photo — looking across channel,
o t7 2f n .7 57 a 70 &7 N
Horizontal Distance (ft)
from left bank to right bank
978h

PROJECT Thompsons Fork
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06030 -A
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area
23.47ft2
TASK
Cross- Section
Bankf ill Width
20.55 ft
REACH
Mainstem
Mean Depth
1.14 ft
DATE
05/25/2013
Maximum Depth
2.39 ft
Width /Depth Ratio
18.03,_
Entrenchment Ratio
4.82
CROSS SECTION:
9
Classification
C
telyl
FEATURE:
Riffle
',T1111 `C1T1C11
,F-
Thompsons Fork Mainstem - Riffle KSO
- Year 5 (May 25, 2013)
-
C,X34YR5 #Baro VV
itiei YiJei�s Sd%v
PWMs
❑ WFLE X24 A, RMX O ❑ RIM X39 T, T R X38 :] R X39
YR D ,°,2 1 M3 MA
-
I
Wkf 2e.d
kkkF 1.,i
Awf - 23 -5
--
-
d
W
iV95
°°`
i
Iry
Cross - section photo — looking across channel
from left bank
to right bank
I
wT
o as no
Horizontal Distance (ft)
a vo 15P

PROJECT Thompsons Fork
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06030 -A
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 51.41 ft2
TASK Cross- Section
Bankf ill Width 37.21 ft
REACH Mainstem
Mean Depth 1.38 ft
DATE 05/25/2013
Maximum Depth 3.09 ft
Width /Depth Ratio 26.96
Entrenchment Ratio 3.94
CROSS SECTION: 10
Classification C
FEATURE: Riffle
i] ltll �lI7+E11
Thompsons Fork Mainstem -Riffle XS10 -Year 5 (May 25, 2013)
OX310YR5 +Banktull V lWto, A RIFFLE jL RItfiEX310 17 Riffle X519 V Riffle X310 ❑ PooIX310
IrliFle) I'di -tors Surface XS -10VR0 VR2 Yr1 VR3 YR4
Points
..
1199
Wili = 37.2 Dti = 1.38 Ati = 51.4
I
/i i
7,
1099
----
/ y
I
I
1098
J
O
—
ll,
I
N 1097
19J
_.___..
1096
............... . _._' .._..' -------------------- .
Cross - section photo — looking across channel
from left bank to right bank
1094
0
I I
II I
30 fi0 9D 120 150
Horizontal Distance (ft)

PROJECT Thompsons Fork
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06030 -A
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area 25.87 ft2
TASK Cross - Section
Bankfull Width 22.0 ft
REACH Mainstem
Mean Depth 1.18 ft
DATE 05/25/2013
Maximum Depth 2.15 ft
Width/Depth Ratio 18.64
Entrenchment Ratio 2.81
CROSS SECTION: 11
Classification C
i' FEATURE: Riffle
Thom psons Fork Mai nstem - Riffle XS11 - Year 5 (May 25, 2013)
OXS11YR5 +9.nldu11 V Weter A RIFFLE A RhRe XSi1 V Rlfe X511 V RIf8 X511 ❑ Rlfile X511
(rllAe) Intic to Surface XS -11YR0 YR Yr1 YR3 YR4
'' _
PolnLS
•1 �'� rJ}
1105
Wbk4 22 8bkf 1.18 8bkf 25.9
_.__—__
I
I
I
�f- �
1103
I
I
•
I
I
�_..
1101
��.._.._..__._.__.._ --
OC
w
\ ��
VA i I i
-- - - - - -- -_� i
I V
1695
o
Cross - section photo — looking upstream
z5 w �s too tzs
Horizontal Distance (ft)

PROJECT Thompsons Fork
Summary Data
All dimensions in feet.
D06030 -A
5 -YEAR
Bankfull Area
57.01 ft'
TASK
Cross- Section
Bankf ill Width
40.81 ft
REACH
Mainstem
Mean Depth
1.4 ft
DATE
05/25/2013
Maximum Depth
3.76 ft
Width /Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
29.15
2.59
CROSS SECTION: 12
Classification
C
Stem
FEATURE: Pool
]' llll�llC'11�C11
I_P
Thompsons Fork Mainstem - Pool
X`31't YfiO +H-Mil vwm. D LX 12 �Y4oIXM2
(vad) IndcaWln °3uRace Yl 8 and
XS12 - Year 5 (May 25, 2013)
V F.WX212W V Y OIXY12 EIYOQIX212
1 Yit-0 YFii
O ! P 1
•" tl 'X�_.� �1 fir,+-
#
�y+�
( k ---,+ h �L' - + -'7`•�
1180
ghkF - YI.R QhkF
- %_Y hbkF - ST
4
Y>
nex
I•
l
�
1102
4
sf
P
%. f
.= 1100
-
'
W
1499
1468
i
1466
T
- —
$aping "awnstream
9435
14
0
u
25 so
75 100 125
Horizontal Distance (ft)

Pebble Count - Pool ear 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
8
13
13
Very Fine
Sand
0.062 -0.125
12
19
31
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
31
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
4
6
38
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
12
19
56
Very Coarse
Sand
1.0 -2.0
14
22
78
ery Fine
Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
78
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
6
9
88
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
2
3
91
Medium
Gravel
8.0 -11.3
4
6
97
Medium
Gravel
11.3 -16.0
0
0
97
oarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
0
0
97
oarse Gravel
22.6 -32
0
0
97
Very Coarse
Gravel
32 -45
0
0
97
Very Coarse
ravel
45 -64
2
3
100
Small Cobble
64 -90
0
0
100
Small Cobble
90 -128
0
0
100
Large Cobble
128 -180
0
0
100
Large Cobble
180 -256
0
0
100
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium
Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
64
100
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Reach
UT
X Sec
1
Date
05/13/13
Sta No.
1 +60
004.7
20
„15
ao
X10
e
5
0
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
Histogram
Particle Size Distribution
100
90
80
-
70
d
w
60
Yearl
50
Year
40
Year 3
0
U
30
Year4
Year 5
20
to
0
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
D50= 0.83 mm
D84 =5.06 mm

Pebble Count - Riffle Year 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
0
0
0
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
2
3
3
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
4
7
10
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
4
7
17
oarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
17
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
17
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
2
3
20
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
4
7
27
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
4
7
33
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
8
13
47
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
2
1 3
50
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
10
17
67
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
4
7
73
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
10
17
90
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
4
7
97
Small Cobble
64 -90
0
0
97
Small Cobble
90 -128
0
0
97
Large Cobble
128 -180
2
3
100
Large Cobble
180 -256
0
0
100
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
60
100
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Reach
UT
X Sec
2
Date
05/13/13
Sta No.
1 +74
18
16
14
12
o 10
a
x
8
° -6
4
2
0
0.062 0.25
Histogram
1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
Particle Size Distribution
100
90
80
70
w 60
e
50 Year 1
40 Year
a Year 3
U 30
Year 4
20 Year 5
10
0 2L
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
D50= 16.0 mm D84 =40.32 mm

ebble Count - Pool ear 5
aterial
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
ilt /Cla
<0.062
58
97
97
ery Fine
and
0.062 -0.125
0
0
97
ine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
97
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
97
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
97
Very Coarse
Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
97
Very Fine
Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
97
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
97
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
97
edium
73ravel
8.0 -11.3
0
0
97
edium
71ravel
11.3 -16.0
0
0
97
oarse
71ravel
16.0 -22.6
0
0
97
oarse
73ravel
22.6 -32
0
0
97
Very Coarse
Gravel
32 -45
0
0
97
Very Coarse
Gravel
45 -64
0
0
97
Small Cobble
64 -90
0
0
97
Small Cobble
90 -128
0
0
97
Large Cobble
128 -180
2
3
100
Large Cobble
1 180 -256
0
0
100
Small
Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
Small
Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium
Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Large
Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
60
100
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Reach
UT
X Sec
3
Date
05/13/13
Sta No.
8 +09
Histogram
120
100
80
ov
60
fY,
c
40
e
20
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 "" 1 r
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
Particle Size Distribution
100
90
0000
1000
00
.0
80
00
00
Ap
70
d
0
60
50
Year 1
8
40
Year 2
V
Year 3
30
Year 4
20
Year 5
10
� H
0
J
0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
D50= 0.03 mm
D84 =0.05 mm

Pebble Count - Riffle Year 5
Material
Particle Size
mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
2
3
3
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
3
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
3
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
3
oarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
3
Very Coarse
and
1.0 -2.0
0
0
3
Very Fine
Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
3
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
3
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
3
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
2
3
6
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
2
3
10
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
0
0
10
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
4
6
16
Very Coarse
71ravel
32 -45
2
3
19
Very Coarse
ravel
45 -64
2
3
23
Small Cobble
64 -90
18
29
52
Small Cobble
90 -128
14
23
74
Large Cobble
128 -180
2
3
77
Large Cobble
180 -256
4
6
84
Small Boulder
256 -362
2
3
87
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
87
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
4
6
94
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
94
Bedrock
<2048
4
6
100
Totals
62
100
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Reach
UT
X Sec
4
Date
05/13/13
Sta No.
8 +31
35
30
25
x,20
a15
e
10
5
0
0.062 0.25
Histogram
1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
Particle Size Distribution
100
90
/
so
70
I
A
W.
60
)
0
Year
50
Year
40
0
Year 3
Cj
30
Year 4
Year 5
20
10
0
0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
D50= 88.56 mm
D84=260.27 mm

Pebble Count - Riffle Year 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
12
20
20
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
20
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
20
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
20
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
20
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
20
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
20
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
4
7
27
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
27
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
12
20
47
edium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
2
3
50
oarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
10
17
67
oarse Gravel
22.6 -32
4
7
73
Very Coarse
Gravel
32 -45
6
10
83
Very Coarse
ravel
45 -64
4
7
90
Small Cobble
64 -90
2
3
93
Small Cobble
90 -128
2
3
97
are Cobble
128 -180
2
3
100
are Cobble
180 -256
0
0
100
mall Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
[Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
60
100
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Reach
UT
X Sec
5
Date
05/13/13
Sta No.
17 +79
`41■
20
„15
on
a
1110
e
5
Histogram
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
Particle Size Distribution
100
90
80
70
w
60
a
>
5
50
40
Year 1
Year2
Year 3
30
Year 4
Year 5
20
10
0
0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Particle Size (nun)
D50= 16.0 mm
D84 =46.91 mm

Pebble Count - Riffle ear 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
0
0
0
Very Fine Sand
0.062 - 0.125
0
0
0
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
0
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
0
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
0
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
0
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
0
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
0
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
0
edium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
6
10
10
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
2
3
13
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
4
7
20
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
4
7
27
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
4
7
33
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
12
1 20
53
Small Cobble
64 -90
8
13
67
Small Cobble
90 -128
10
17
83
Large Cobble
128 -180
4
7
90
Large Cobble
180 -256
4
1 7
97
Small Boulder
256 -362
2
3
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
:::60
100
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Reach
UT
X Sec
6
Date
05/13/13
Sta No.
17 +94
Histogram
0411
20
„15
o�
a
=10
e
5
0 ! I I I I , I I . 1 ! 1
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
100
90
80
70
w 60
0
50
7 40
a
U 30
20
10
0
0.1
Particle Size Distribution
1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
D50= 60.84 mm D84= 133.22 mm

Pebble Count - Riffle ear 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
0
0
0
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
2
3
3
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
2
3
7
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
2
3
10
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
2
3
14
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
2
3
17
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
17
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
2
3
21
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
21
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
0
0
21
edium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
6
10
31
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
2
3
34
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
4
7
41
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
6
10
52
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
0
0
52
Small Cobble
64 -90
6
10
62
mall Cobble
90 -128
4
7
69
are Cobble
128 -180
2
3
72
are Cobble
180 -256
2
3
76
Small Boulder
256 -362
4
7
83
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
83
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
10
17
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
58
100
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Reach
Main stem
X Sec
7
Date
05/13/13
Sta No.
21 +11
Histogram
LV
18
16
14
„ 12
e�
10
x 8
6
4
2
0
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
100
90
80
70
w 60
e
a 50
40
U 30
20
10
Particle Size Distribution
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
D50= 42.84 mm D84= 548.83 mm

Pebble Count - Pool Year 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
2
3
3
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
16
27
30
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
22
37
67
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
8
13
80
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
8
13
93
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
93
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
93
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
93
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
93
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
0
0
93
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
0
0
93
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
0
0
93
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
0
0
93
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
0
0
93
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
0
0
93
Small Cobble
64 -90
0
0
93
mall Cobble
90 -128
0
0
93
are Cobble
128 -180
0
0
93
are Cobble
180 -256
0
0
93
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
93
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
93
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
4
7
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
60
100
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
8
Date
05/13/13
Sta No.
20 +77
40
35
30
25
20
a
C 15
10
5
0
0.062 0.25
Histogram
1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
Particle Size Distribution
100
90
-
80
70
w
60
e
50
Year1
`d
Year
2
'g 40
�
Year
3
U
30
Year
4
20
Year
5 L.
10
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
D50= 0.19 mm D84 =0.65 mm

Pebble Count - Riffle ear 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
4
6
6
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
2
3
10
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
2
3
13
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
8
13
26
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
6
10
35
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
2
3
39
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
39
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
39
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
39
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
4
6
45
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
2
3
48
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
6
10
58
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
4
6
65
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
0
0
65
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
4
6
71
Small Cobble
64 -90
4
6
77
Small Cobble
90 -128
4
6
84
Large Cobble
128 -180
4
6
90
Large Cobble
180 -256
2
3
94
Small Boulder
256 -362
4
6
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
edrock
<2048
0
1 0
100
Totals
62
100
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
9
Date
05/13/13
Sta No.
7 +76
14
12
10
ao 8
a
x 6
e
4
2
0
0.062 0.25
Histogram
100
90
80
70
a
w 60
e
> 50
40
a
U 30
1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
!11111111
■111.1!x'''
a
Particle Size Distribution
Year1
Year
Year 3
Year4
Year 5
10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
D84= 129.05 mm

Pebble Count - Riffle ear 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
0
0
0
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
0
0
0
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
0
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
0
oarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
0
0
0
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
2
3
3
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
2
3
7
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
7
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
7
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
0
0
7
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
4
7
13
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
12
20
33
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
8
13
47
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
8
13
60
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
0
0
60
Small Cobble
64 -90
10
17
77
Small Cobble
90 -128
2
3
80
Large Cobble
128 -180
4
7
87
Large Cobble
180 -256
4
7
93
Small Boulder
256 -362
2
3
97
Small Boulder
362 -512
2
3
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
60
100
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
10
Date
05/13/13
Sta No.
7 +37
25
20
„15
o�
R
10
e 5
0
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
Histogram
Particle Size Distribution
100
90
80
70
g
w 60
0
Year
> 50
Year
40 Year 3
0
� 30 Year4
Year 5
20 lo
10 Lie, I I I'll il _d
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
D50= 32.85 mm D84= 159.18 mm

Pebble Count - Riffle Year 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
0
0
0
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
4
6
6
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
0
0
6
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
6
Coarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
2
3
9
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
9
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
9
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
2
3
12
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
12
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
6
9
21
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
10
15
36
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
6
9
45
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
6
9
55
Very Coarse Gravel
32 -45
4
6
61
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
6
9
70
Small Cobble
64 -90
6
9
79
Small Cobble
90 -128
6
9
88
Large Cobble
128 -180
0
0
88
Large Cobble
180 -256
4
6
94
Small Boulder
256 -362
2
3
97
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
97
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
2
3
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
66
100
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
11
Date
05/13/13
Sta No.
2 +81
IU
14
12
10
o�
8
rx
6
4
2
0
Histogram
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)

Pebble Count - Pool ear 5
Material
Particle Size mm
Count
% in Range
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
<0.062
0
0
0
Very Fine Sand
0.062 -0.125
18
29
29
Fine Sand
0.125 -0.25
14
23
52
Medium Sand
0.25 -0.5
0
0
52
oarse Sand
0.5 -1.0
6
10
61
Very Coarse Sand
1.0 -2.0
0
0
61
Very Fine Gravel
2.0 -4.0
0
0
61
Fine Gravel
4.0 -5.7
0
0
61
Fine Gravel
5.7 -8.0
0
0
61
Medium Gravel
8.0 -11.3
0
0
61
Medium Gravel
11.3 -16.0
0
0
61
Coarse Gravel
16.0 -22.6
0
0
61
Coarse Gravel
22.6 -32
2
3
65
ery Coarse Gravel
32 -45
2
3
68
Very Coarse Gravel
45 -64
6
10
77
Small Cobble
64 -90
2
3
81
Small Cobble
90 -128
8
13
94
Large Cobble
128 -180
4
6
100
Large Cobble
180 -256
0
0
1 100
Small Boulder
256 -362
0
0
100
Small Boulder
362 -512
0
0
100
Medium Boulder
512 -1024
0
0
100
Large Boulder
1024 -2048
0
0
100
Bedrock
<2048
0
0
100
Totals
62
100
Thompsons Fork Stream Restoration EEP Project No. D06030 -A
Reach
Mainstem
X Sec
12
Date
05/13/13
Sta No.
2 +68
Histogram
.5D
30
25
;1020
a
a 15
G
10
5 —
0
0.062 0.25 1 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 2048
Particle Size (mm)
Particle Size Distribution
100
90
III
80
70
a
60
w"
0
50
Year1
Year2
40
Year 3
a
U
30
-
Year 4
20
Year 5
10
0
0.1
1 10 100
1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
D50= 0.24 mm
D84 =99.87 mm

BF 1
Crest Gage at XS -6 on UT (Year 1).
(EMH &T, 9/21/09)
gALW to
BF 2
Crest Gage at XS -6 on UT (Year 2).
(EMH &T, 5/12/10)

BF 3
Crest Gage at XS -6 on UT (Year 5).
(EMH &T, 5/13/13)
BF 4
Crest Gage at XS -7 on Mainstem (Year 1).
(EMH &T, 9/21/09)

BF 5
Crest Gage at XS -7 on Mainstem (Year 2).
(EMH &T, 5/12/10)
BF 6
Crest Gage at XS -7 on Mainstem (Year 5).
(EMH &T, 3/11/13)

r y f
W
SPA 1
Scour along left and right bank of Thompsons Fork Mainstem at station 23 +50; caused by a
beaver dam that was created and subsequently deconstructed in early spring, 2013.
(EMH &T, 5/13/13)
SPA 2
Scour along left and right bank of Thompsons Fork Mainstem at station 21 +50; caused by a
beaver dam that was created and subsequently deconstructed in early spring, 2013.
(EMH &T, 5/13/13)

SPA 3
Scour and sloughing along the right bank of Thompsons Fork Mainstem at station 20 +75.
(EMH &T, 5/13/13)
SPA 4
Infiltrating wetland vegetation within UT at station 8 +00.
(EMH &T, 5/13/13)

UT—CI
I /
I /
/ Marion C Toylor &
\16'X Q�PO Wife Wi /la R. ToVor
' \90
I \ Frances McNeely Lowdermilk
(Lit, Estate), Susan Lowdermilk,
d
Lowdermi /k, Don Lance Lowdermi /k,
I and Done Scott Lowdermilk ,
DS 210, PG 542 /
�a 40p /
1 \ Zeb B. Lowdermilk il
1 \ \moo
Frances Db 11, ilk
, Pg 129
a"
\ \ \ \ oak
1 \ /
FS, o t
Frances McNeely Lowdermi lk
9 (Life Estate), Susan De/ene
Lowdermilk, Don Lance Lowdermilk,
and Done Scott Lowdermilk I
,Y DB 210, PG 542 I
.J
Zeb B. Lowdermilk & \
Frances M Lowdermilk -
Db 171, Pg 129
J.• �20090328�20090328env� Dwg � Exhibits Year 5 Appendix B.dwg Lost Saved By: jcramer, 11212014 9:52 AM Lost Printed By: Cromer, James, 11212014 11:04 AM (No Xrefs)
Aw
Zeb B. Lowdermi lk &
Susan Lowdermilk Walker lcord /
Db 558, Pg 111
G� �40
T �IR'
Frances McNeely Lowdermilk
(Life Estate), Susan De/ene
Lowdermilk Don Lance Lowdermilk,
and Done Scott Lowdermilk
DB 210, PG 542
40 , ____ _
■
W
0
Zeb B. Lowdermilk &
n Lowdermilk Walker lcord
Db 558, Pg 109 /
LEGEND
- - Existing Property Lines
Recorded Conservation
Easement Boundary
As —Built Thalweg
300 150 0 300
FEET
Source: Orthophotography, NC Floodplain Mapping
Program, 2005
,
M
N M
d
U
N
O � O
C YI
W_
i
z Q Q
o Y J
a m d
�0 a
LL.� mw
z <
xQ
D
zO :mow
Ov Q Q O
w�pZ d
~ Q Q
Z of
Q F--
N
Er'
b �g�
-a�
gyOb

APPENDIX C
UT -1 Maintenance
1.Maintenance Map for UT -1 (spring, 2011)

I I\
% �O // V
�\ P `00\
—1 �—
3r ma
P _ �� /
. P
0000 \\
—� �,ed
7/0
x- ��x —�x� 00�� v
"�.r� A o� Pump / vv
- - - -- _ --
Pump
P m P
UNN Z�v Ti_2 /_B{f�W-Y_
\
00 ASP OS
______
G —.� _.ice— fp _ / o
o —
0 0
cNI ________
00�
` q 9 P
Dal
T P y � / 90� tak.
0
0�
PHASE SPOJ /
Q• � � _ O A;, 15F �. \
I
0I
I
\
\
\
l\ I
\ II
v
\ I I
\ I
1 L E.acm of _o I I Rcmcdial i
Mamchao, \
\
\ \ MCDDKLL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
t v
FOR
i \ THOMPSONS FORK
_— - - — - - -- ___ — AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY (UT)
II ;a i vv v REMEDIAL MAINTENANCE
/ _ A Date: April, 2011
\
1
I
cereal rmnren nlnenlms dab NO: 2009 -0328
bGW hest of j
IN
P
I
\
O d
1
O
m
A
/
I
1 L E.acm of _o I I Rcmcdial i
Mamchao, \
\
\ \ MCDDKLL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
I STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
t v
FOR
i \ THOMPSONS FORK
_— - - — - - -- ___ — AND UNNAMED TRIBUTARY (UT)
II ;a i vv v REMEDIAL MAINTENANCE
/ _ A Date: April, 2011
\
1
I
cereal rmnren nlnenlms dab NO: 2009 -0328
bGW hest of j
IN