20171291 Ver 1_RES Yadkin 01 UMB Gideon MY2 Report_20221004

ID#* 20171291
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 10/05/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 10/4/2022
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Ryan Medric
Project Information
ID#:* 20171291
Existing ID#
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
DMS • Mitigation Bank
Gideon Mitigation Site
Surry
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address-*
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: RES Yadkin 01 UMB Gideon MY2 Report.pdf 15.28MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Ryan Medric
Signature: *
91P��

YEAR 2 MONITORING REPORT
GIDEON
MITIGATION SITE
SURRY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
USACE Action ID: SAW-2017-01462 | DWR Project #17-1291 v1
RES YADKIN 01 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK

-
Provided by:

Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions
3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
919-209-1056
October 2022

3600 Glenwood Avenue. Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters
6575 West Loop South, Suite 300
Bellaire, TX 77401
Main: 713.520.5400

Table of Contents
1.0 Project Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location and Description ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Success Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 2
Stream Restoration Success Criteria ......................................................................................................... 2
Vegetation Success Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Project Components ................................................................................................................................ 3
1.5 Stream Design/Approach ...................................................................................................................... 3
1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions .............................................................................................. 5
1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY2) .......................................................................................................... 5
Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Stream Geomorphology ................................................................................................................................ 6
Stream Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................ 6
Wetland Hydrology ......................................................................................................................................... 6
2.0 Methods ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7

3.0 References .................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Appendix A: Background Tables
Table 1. Project Mitigation Components
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Background Information Table
Figure 1. Site Location Map

Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Vegetation Plot Photos
Monitoring Device Photos

Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data
Table 5. Planted Species Summary
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 7. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species
Appendix D: Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data
Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Data Table
Cross Section Overlay Plots

Appendix E: Hydrology
Table 10. Rainfall Summary
Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Stream Flow Hydrographs
Table 12. 2022 Max Hydroperiod
Table 13. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Groundwater Hydrographs

1.0 Project Summary
1.1 Project Location and Description
The Gideon Project (“Project”) is located within a rural watershed in Surry County, North Carolina
approximately 10 miles north of Elkin. Water quality stressors affecting the Project included livestock
production, agricultural practices, and lack of riparian buffer. The Project presents stream restoration,
enhancement, and preservation, generating 2,962.067 Cool Stream Mitigation Units (SMU).

The Project’s total easement area is 11.23 acres within the overall drainage area of 3,225 acres. The Project
is between two separate portions of the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Little Sebastian Site. While
each site could be developed independently of the other, the combined easements will result in a much
larger contiguous protected corridor and high-quality aquatic habitat. The Little Sebastian Site has a total
easement area that is approximately 25.90 acres and presents 8,068 LF of stream restoration, enhancement,
and preservation. Therefore, a total of 37.13 acres and 12,850 LF of stream will be protected in perpetuity
when combining the totals on Little Sebastian and Gideon. Grazing livestock have historically had access to
most stream reaches within the Project. The lack of riparian buffer vegetation, deep-rooted vegetation, and
unstable channel characteristics have contributed to the degradation of stream banks throughout the
Project area.

The stream design approach for the Project was to combine the analog method of natural channel design
with analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain.
The analog method involved the use of a reference reach, or “template” stream, adjacent to, nearby, or
previously in the same location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach were
replicated to create the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and
boundary conditions are similar between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001). Hydraulic
geometry was developed using analytical methods to identify the design discharge.

The Project has been constructed and planted and will be monitored on a regular basis throughout the
seven-year post-construction monitoring period, or until performance standards are met. The Project will
be transferred to Unique Places to Save (UP2S). This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and
long-term steward for the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions
required in the conservation easement are upheld. Funding will be supplied by the responsible party on a
yearly basis until such time an endowment is established.

1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project’s maximum functional uplift using the Stream Functions
Pyramid Framework, specific, attainable goals and objectives will be realized by the Project. These goals
clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major
watershed stressors in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee River RBRP. These goals and objectives reflect those
stated in the Gideon Project Final Mitigation Plan.

The Project goals are:

Improve water transport from watershed to the channel in a non-erosive manner in a stable channel;
Improve flood flow attenuation on site and downstream by allowing for overbanks flows and
connection to the active floodplain;
Gideon Mitigation Site 1 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Surry County, NC October 2022

Improve instream habitat;
Restore and enhance native floodplain vegetation; and
Indirectly support the goals of the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee RBRP to improve water quality and
to reduce sediment and nutrient loads.

The Project goals were addressed through the following project objectives:

Designed and reconstructed stream channels sized to convey bankfull flows that maintain a stable
dimension, profile, and planform based on modeling, watershed conditions, and reference reach
conditions;
Permanently excluded livestock from stream channels and their associated buffers;
Added in-stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored and enhanced
streams;
Installed habitat features such as brush toes, constructed riffles, woody materials, and pools of
varying depths to restored and enhanced streams;
Reduced bank height ratios and increased entrenchment ratios to reference reach conditions;
Increased forested riparian buffers to at least 30 feet on both sides of the channel along the Project
reaches with a hardwood riparian plant community;
Treated exotic invasive species; and
Established a permanent conservation easement on the Project.

Functional uplift, benefits, and improvements within the Project area, as based on the Function Based
Framework, are outlined in the Final Mitigation Plan.

1.3 Project Success Criteria
The success criteria for the Project follows the 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland
Compensatory Mitigation Update, the Gideon Final Mitigation Plan, and subsequent agency guidance. Cross
section and vegetation plot monitoring takes place in Years 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Stream hydrology and visual
monitoring takes place annually. Specific success criteria components are presented below.

Stream Restoration Success Criteria
Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull
events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull
events have been documented in separate years.
There should be little change in as-built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated
to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down-cutting or
erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections shall be classified
using the Rosgen stream classification method, and all monitored cross sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. For C/E channels, bank height ratio
shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within restored reaches. For B
channels, bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 1.4 within
restored reaches. Channel stability should be demonstrated through a minimum of four bankfull events
documented in the seven-year monitoring period.

Gideon Mitigation Site 2 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Surry County, NC October 2022

Digital images are used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success
of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images should not
indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral
images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A series of
images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation.

Stream restoration reaches will be monitored to document intermittent or seasonal surface flow. This will
be accomplished through direct observation and the use of stream gauge transducers with data loggers.
Reaches must demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow.

Vegetation Success Criteria
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the Project will
follow IRT Guidance. The interim measures of vegetative success for the Project will be the survival of at
least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, five-year old trees at six feet in
height at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 210 trees per acre with an
average height of eight feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to species,
and included in the yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted towards the success criteria of
total planted stems. Moreover, any single species can only account for up to 50 percent of the required
number of stems within any vegetation plot. Any stems in excess of 50 percent will be shown in the
monitoring table but will not be used to demonstrate success.
1.4 Project Components
The Project area is comprised of a single 11.23-acre easement location along Mill Creek and three unnamed
tributaries, totaling 4,782 LF, which eventually drain into the Yadkin River.

Through stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation, the Project presents 4,782 LF of proposed
stream, generating 2,962.067 Cool SMUs. The stream mitigation components are summarized below.
Mitigation credits presented below are based upon the Approved Mitigation Plan.

Mitigation Approach Linear Feet RatioBase Cool SMU
Restoration 2,283 1 2,283.000
Enhancement I 493 1.5328.667
Enhancement III1,498 5 299.600
Preservation 508 10 50.800

Total 4,782 2,962.067
1.5 Stream Design/Approach
The stream component of the Project included priority I stream restoration, enhancement I, enhancement
III, and preservation. Stream restoration incorporated the design of a single-thread meandering channel,
with parameters based on data taken from reference sites, published empirical relationships, regional curves
developed from existing project streams, and NC Regional Curves. Analytical design techniques were also
a crucial element of the project and were used to determine the design discharge and to verify design
stability.
Gideon Mitigation Site 3 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Surry County, NC October 2022

The following stream treatment was performed on the Project reach:

Reach JN4-A
An enhancement III approach was used for the reach to address eroded banks and channel entrenchment.
Enhancement activities included:
- Livestock exclusion; and
- Riparian planting.

Reach JN4-B
An enhancement I approach was used for the reach to address eroded banks and channel entrenchment.
Enhancement activities included:
- Removal of pipe in channel and fixing of current culvert;
- Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control and habitat;
- Establishing a riffle-pool sequence throughout the reach;
- Installing brush toe protection on meander bends;
- Livestock exclusion; and
- Riparian planting.

Reach JN5
An enhancement I approach was used for the reach to address eroded banks and channel entrenchment.
Enhancement activities included:
- Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control and habitat;
- Establishing a riffle-pool sequence throughout the reach;
- Installing brush toe protection on meander bends;
- Livestock exclusion; and
- Riparian planting.

Reach JN6-A
A preservation approach was used for the reach to address eroded banks and channel entrenchment.
Preservation activities included:
- Livestock exclusion; and
- Riparian planting.

Reach JN6-B
An enhancement III approach was used for the reach to address eroded banks and channel entrenchment.
Enhancement activities included:
- Livestock exclusion; and
- Riparian planting.

Reach JN6-C
An offline priority I restoration approach was used for the reach to address eroded banks and channel
entrenchment. Restoration activities included:
- Re-grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain;
- Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control and habitat;
- Establishing a riffle-pool sequence throughout the reach;
- Installing brush toe protection on meander bends;
- Filling the existing channel;
- Livestock exclusion; and
Gideon Mitigation Site 4 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Surry County, NC October 2022

- Riparian planting.

Reach MC2-A
An offline priority I restoration approach was used for the reach to address eroded banks and channel
entrenchment. Restoration activities included:
- Re-grading a new single thread channel in the existing floodplain;
- Installing log and rock structures to provide grade control and habitat;
- Establishing a riffle-pool sequence throughout the reach;
- Installing brush toe protection on meander bends;
- Filling the existing channel;
- Livestock exclusion; and
- Riparian planting.

Reach MC2-B
An enhancement III approach was used for the reach to address eroded banks and channel entrenchment.
Enhancement activities included:
- Livestock exclusion; and
- Riparian planting.

1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions
Stream construction was completed in February 2021 and planting was completed in March 2021. The
Gideon Project was built to design plans and guidelines with no significant changes during construction.
The as-built survey and record drawings are included in Appendix E.

Planting plan changes included replacing blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica) and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
with sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). These changes were based
on bare root availability. A planted species summary is included in Appendix C.

1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY2)
The Gideon Year 2 monitoring activities were performed in July and September 2022. All year two
monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. The Project is on track to meeting vegetation,
stream, and wetland interim success criteria.

Vegetation
Monitoring of four fixed vegetation plots was completed in September 2022. Vegetation data are in
Appendix C, associated photos are in Appendix B, and plot locations are in Appendix B. MY2 monitoring
data indicates that all plots are exceeding the interim success criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted
stem densities ranged from 405 to 1,376 planted stems per acre with a mean of 971 planted stems per acre
across all plots. A total of 11 planted species were documented within the plots. Volunteer species were
noted in all plots, bringing the total species count throughout the plots to 15, and are expected to establish
further in upcoming years. The average stem height in the plots was 3.4 feet.

Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation
is becoming well established throughout the project. One small bare area along the banks of MC2-A where
stream maintenance was completed in 2021 will be re-seeded in the dormant season. During MY1, it was
Gideon Mitigation Site 5 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Surry County, NC October 2022

noted that the stream banks along JN6-C displayed low livestake vigor; however, during MY2, healthy
livestakes and native recruits, mainly tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and black willow (Salix nigra) were observed
along this reach and therefore supplemental livestaking will not be needed. This specific area will be
monitored in coming years to determine whether or not additional planting will be necessary. A few small,
sparse areas of Chinese privet were treated along JN6-C and JN4-B in December 2021; no additional areas
of invasive species were observed during MY2 monitoring.

Stream Geomorphology
Geomorphology data for MY2 was collected in July 2022. Summary tables and cross section plots are in
Appendix D. Overall, the Year 2 cross sections and profile relatively match the proposed design. The MY2
conditions show that shear stress and velocities have been reduced for the restoration reaches. A comment
was made regarding the increased bank height ratio on cross section nine (1.3) compared to as-built (1.0);
during MY2 the bank height ratio for this cross section was back down to 0.9. This could have been due to
a more appropriate top of bank being chosen in the field during monitoring, or it could have been natural
channel adjustments post-construction. These reaches were designed as coarse gravel to cobble bed
channel and remain classified as a coarse gravel to cobble bed channel post-construction.

Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding
banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. A few areas of bank erosion along MC2-A were
repaired in November 2021; however, headcuts along the top of banks near cross section three and four
were observed during MY2, most likely a result of overland flow.These areas will be amended using
haybales, coir matting, and will be re-seeded in the dormant season prior to MY3. Documentation of the
problem area can be found in Appendix B. The channel is transporting sediment as designed and will
continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation.

Stream Hydrology
Two stage recorders (on MC2-A and JN6-C) and one flow gauge (on JN6-B) were installed in March 2021
and document bankfull events and flow days, respectively. Both stage recorders documented two bankfull
events each during MY2; the highest event on JN6-C was 0.377 feet above the top of bank and the highest
event on MC2-A was 0.125 feet above the top of bank. The flow gauge documented one flow event, lasting
262 days. All recorded streams are on track to pass hydrology metrics. Stream hydrology data is included
in Appendix E. Gauge locations can be found on Figure 2 and photos are in Appendix B.

Wetland Hydrology
Three groundwater wells with automatic recording pressure transducers were installed in March 2021. The
goal of the groundwater wells is to track the hydrology of the jurisdictional wetlands on site post-
construction. There is no hydroperiod success criteria for these groundwater wells. During MY2 groundwater
th
well 1 (GW1) had a 5% hydroperiod; however, the well itself snapped in half sometime between July 12
th
and September 20, 2022, and will need to be reinstalled during a follow up visit; MY2 and MY3 hydrology
data will reflect this malfunction. Groundwater well 2 (GW2) had a 23% hydroperiod, and groundwater well
3 (GW3) had a 39% hydroperiod. Wetland hydrology data can be found in Appendix E and gauge locations
can be found on Figure 2.

Gideon Mitigation Site 6 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Surry County, NC October 2022

2.0 Methods
Stream cross section monitoring was conducted using a Topcon GTS-312 Total Station. Three-dimensional
coordinates associated with cross-section data were collected in the field (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS
3200). Morphological data were collected at 10 cross-sections. Survey data were imported into CAD,
ArcGIS®, and Microsoft Excel® for data processing and analysis. The stage recorders include an automatic
pressure transducer placed in PVC casing in a pool. The elevation of the bed and top of bank at each stage
recorder are used to detect bankfull events.

Vegetation success is being monitored at four fixed monitoring plots. Vegetation plot monitoring follows
the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis
of species composition and density of planted species. Data are processed using the CVS data entry tool.
In the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked with PVC at the origin and metal conduit
at the other corners. Photos of each plot are to be taken from the origin each monitoring year.

Wetland hydrology is monitored to track the hydrology of the jurisdictional wetlands on site post-
construction. This is accomplished with three automatic pressure transducer gauges (located in
groundwater wells) that record daily groundwater levels. One automatic pressure transducer is installed
above ground for use as a barometric reference. Gauges are downloaded quarterly and wetland
hydroperiods are calculated during the growing season. Gauge installation followed current regulatory
guidance. Visual observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators are also recorded
during quarterly site visits.

3.0 References
Griffith, G.E., J.M.Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H.McNab, D.R.Lenat, T.F.MacPherson, J.B.
Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. (2002). Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina, (color Poster
with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological
Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).

Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol
for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2

Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording vegetation
composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274

Resource Environmental Solutions (2019). Gideon Final Mitigation Plan.

Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.

USACE. (2016). Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. NC:
Interagency Review Team (IRT).

Gideon Mitigation Site 7 Year 2 Monitoring Report
Surry County, NC October 2022

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Gideon Mitigation Project
Elapsed Time Since grading complete:1 Yr., 6 Mo.
Elapsed Time Since planting complete:1 Yr., 6 Mo.
1
Number of reporting Years:
2
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or DeliverableCompleteDelivery
Restoration PlanNAJun-19
Final Design – Construction PlansNASep-20
Stream ConstructionNAMar-21
Site PlantingNAMar-21
As-built (Year 0 Monitoring – baseline)Jan-21Jun-21
Year 1 MonitoringNov-21Jan-22
Stream Bank Repairs (MC2-A)-Nov-21
Invasive Treatment-Dec-21
XS: July-22
Year 2 MonitoringOct-22
Veg: Sept-22
Year 3 Monitoring
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
1 = The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Gideon Mitigation Project
RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Designer
Primary project design POCA. Frasier Mullen, PE
KBS Earthwork Inc. / 5616 Coble Church Rd., Julian, NC
Construction Contractor
27283
Construction contractor POCKory Strader
Ascension Land Surveying, PC /116 Williams Road,
Survey Contractor
Mocksville, NC 27028
Survey contractor POCChris Cole, PLS
Shenandoah Habitats
Planting Contractor
Planting contractor POCDavid Coleman
RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Monitoring Performers
Project Manager POCRyan Medric [phone]
Monitoring POCEmily Ulman [phone]

Table 4. Project Background Information
Project Name
Gideon
County
Surry
Project Area (acres)
11.23
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36.39659. -80.85833
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)
4.26
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
45e - Northern Inner Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03040101080020
03040101
DWR Sub-basin
03-04-01
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)
3,191
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1%
Reach Summary Information
ParametersJN4-AJN4-B
JN5
Length of reach (linear feet)
244
213249
Drainage area (Acres)
37
39
198
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
PP
P

Little Sebastian
Little Sebastian
Mitigation Site
Mitigation Site
Legend
Easement
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
Service Area - 03040101
Gideon Mitigation Site
TLW - 03040101080020
Date: 5/31/
Figure 1 - Map
Drawn by:
©
Gideon Mitigation Site
Checked by: BPB

05001,000
Surry County, North Carolina
1 inch = 1,000 feet
Feet

seicepS evisavnI
dxm.2202 2YM VPCC noediG\\2YM\\ecnanetniaMgnirotinoM_6\\DXM\\noediG_051001\\stcejorP\\sigtne\\sigseR\\:R :htaP tnemucoD

))
9/20/20229/20/2022
(
(
Vegetation Plot 2 Vegetation Plot 4

))
9/20/20229/20/2022
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Vegetation Plot 1 (Vegetation Plot 3 (
Fixed

2
MY

Gideon

C
-
Stage Recorder JN6

)

A

-
B
-
7/12/2022
(

s
Photo

Flow Gauge JN6
Stage Recorder MC2
Monitoring Device

Gideon

2

Groundwater Well

)

3
7/12/2022

Groundwater Well 1Groundwater Well
Gideon Monitoring Device Photos (

C (Looking Downstream)
-
Crossing on JN6

)

(Looking Upstream)

C (Looking Upstream)
A
--
9/20/2022
(
MC2
Crossing on JN6
Crossing on
Gideon Crossing Photos

A (right bank near XS 3&4) (7/12/2022)
-
MC2

)
2
/202
12
/
7
(

A (left bank near XS 3&4)
-
Erosion
MC2

Gideon Bank

Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 5. Planted Species Summary
Common NameScientific NameMit Plan %As-Built %Total Stems Planted
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 1515700
River Birch Betula nigra 1515700
Water Oak Quercus nigra 1514700
Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra 1010500
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 1010500
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 1010500
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 010500
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 06300
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 56300
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 104200
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 500
Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum 500
Total 4,900
Planted Area4.26
As-built Planted Stems/Acre1,150
Table 6. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Averaged
Success
Planted Volunteer Total Planted
Plot #Criteria
Stems/AcreStems/AcreStems/AcreStem Height
Met?
(ft)
1 10936881781Yes5.0
2 1376811457Yes3.0
3 10122431255Yes2.8
4 405202607Yes2.3
Project Avg9713041275Yes3.4

Table 10. 2022 Rainfall Summary
Normal Limits
Raven Knob Station
MonthAverage
Precipitation
30 Percent70 Percent
January3.982.774.742.67
February3.302.203.955.04
March4.072.924.803.82
April4.192.835.012.31
May 4.593.065.505.91
June4.763.245.691.76
July 5.323.786.3011.22
August4.973.515.904.76
September4.383.195.151.48
October3.562.294.29
November3.361.994.08
December4.032.804.79---
Total50.5134.5860.2038.97
Above Normal LimitsBelow Normal LimitsBetween Normal Limits
Note: Raven Knob CRONOS Station is approximately 6 miles north of the site

Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events
Number of Bankfull Maximum Bankfull Height
YearDate of Maximum Bankfull Event
Events(ft)
Stage Recorder JN6-C
-
MY1 20210-
7/9/2022
MY2 202221.84
Stage Recorder MC2-A
-
MY1 20210-
4/5/2022
MY2 202220.13
Maximum Consecutive Maximum Cummlative Maximum Consecutive
YearNumber of Flow Events
Flow DaysFlow DaysFlow Date Range
Flow Gauge JN6-B
MY1 202112442443/19/2021 - 11/18/2021
MY2 202212622621/1/2022 - 9/20/2022

Rainfall (in)
Water Depth (ft)

Table 12.
2022 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 3-Apr through 30-Oct, 210 days)
ConsecutiveCumulative
Well IDOccurrences
Hydroperiod Hydroperiod
DaysDays
(%)(%)
GW1*105411911
GW2 4823154734
GW3 39191326311
*Groundwater well snapped sometime between 7/12/22 and 9/20/22; therefore, data is skewed slightly

Table 13.
Gideon
Hydroperiod (%)
Well ID
Year 1 (2021) Year 2 (2022)Year 3 (2023)Year 4 (2024)Year 5 (2025)Year 6 (2026)Year 7 (2027)
GW1 55
GW2 9723
GW3 4019

Precipitation (inches)
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
Groundwater Elevation (inches)

Precipitation (inches)
Groundwater Elevation (inches)