20120396 Ver 1_MooresFrk_94709_MY7_2022_20230109

ID#* 20120396 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:
Ryan Hamilton
Initial Review Completed Date 01/18/2023
Mitigation Project Submittal - 1/9/2023
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes O No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:* Email Address:*
Matthew Reid [e-mail]
Project Information
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20120396 Version:* 1
Existing ID# Existing Version
Project Type: • DMS Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
County: Surry
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Monitoring Report
File Upload: MooresFrk_94709_MY7_2022.pdf 43.91MB
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Matthew Reid
Signature:

MOORES FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
MONITORING YEAR 7
Surry County, NC
ANNUAL/CLOSEOUT
NCDEQ Contract 6500
DMS Project Number 94709
REPORT
DWR # 12-0396
USACE Action ID SAW-2011-02257
Final
Data Collection Period: April-September 2022

Draft Submission Date: November 30, 2022
Final Submission Date: January 3, 2023

PREPARED FOR:

NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

January 3, 2023
Mr. Matthew Reid
Western Project Manager
Division of Mitigation Services - Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211

RE: Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Yadkin River Basin – CU# 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina
NCEEP Project # 94709
Contract No. 6500

Dear Mr. Reid:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
comments from the Draft Monitoring Year 7/Closeout report for the Moores Fork Stream Mitigation
Project. The following Wildlands responses to DMS’s report comments are noted in italics lettering.

DMS comment: 1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment: Please note that since the project was instituted in
2010, there is no success criteria for vegetation height. Recommend revising the section and state that
although there is no MY7 height requirement for the project, the average stem height is 18.2 feet.

Wildlands response: Per correspondence with the DMS Project Manager, the MY7 height requirement is
8 feet as stated in the Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Plan. The text in section 1.2.1 was not changed.

DMS comment: 1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activities: One encroachment
was identified in 2022 near the bottom of Barn Reach 2. The landowner encroached by a few feet with
farm equipment when harvesting corn. The encroachment was discussed with the landowner and has
been resolved. Additional posts and signs were installed in the area with tall PVC and horse tape to
better demarcate the conservation easement.

Wildlands response: The text in section 1.2.2 has been updated.

DMS comment: Table 2: Please add “Site Instituted – October 2010” as the first entry on the table.

Wildlands response: The entry has been added to Table 2.

DMS comment: CCPV: Thanks for providing updated invasive species polygons. This map is a useful
tool for the contractor treating the site. DMS will continue treating invasives until the project is
closed.

Wildlands response: You’re welcome.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. phone [phone] fax [phone] 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 Charlotte, NC 28203

DMS comment: Table 6G: Two structures are noted in section 3 with integrity issues. Please label the
location of these structures on the CCPV (figure 3.6) or update as necessary.
Wildlands response:MY7 visual assessments revealed that these two structures that had previously been
identified were no longer displaying piping issues. Table 6g has been updated to indicate that all
structures are stable.
DMS comment:Digital Files: No comments
Wildlands response:Noted.
Enclosed please find two(2) hard copiesand one (1) electronic copy on USBof the Final Monitoring/
CloseoutReportand support files. Please contact me at 704-941-9093if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
Project Manager
[e-mail]
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. phone [phone] fax [phone] 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 Charlotte, NC 28203

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
restored, enhanced, and preserved approximately 19,587 linear feet (LF) of Moores Fork and 13
unnamed tributaries (UTs), provided livestock fencing and alternative water sources to exclude livestock
from streams, removed invasive plant species across the project, and established native riparian buffers.
The restoration project was developed to fulfill stream mitigation requirements accepted by the DMS
for the Upper Yadkin River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03040101). The Moores Fork Stream Mitigation
Project (Site) will net 11,587.543 stream mitigation units (SMU) through a combination of restoration,
enhancement I and II, and preservation.
The Site is within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) identified in the Upper Yadkin River Basin
Restoration Priority (RBRP) plan (NCDENR, 2009). The RBRP identified the Stewarts Creek 14-digit HUC
03040101100010 as a TLW. Agriculture is the primary land use in the watershed (36% agriculture land
cover and only 3% impervious cover), and the RBRP identified degraded riparian buffers as the major
stressor to water quality. The Site is also located within the identified RBRP as a priority subwatershed
for stream restoration and agricultural BMPs according to the initial Upper Yadkin-Ararat River local
watershed planning (LWP).
The final design was completed in June 2013. The Site was constructed in December 2014 and planted in
February 2015. An as-built survey was conducted following construction in December 2014. However,
following construction, a large flood event with an estimated return interval of 50 to 100 years occurred
at the site on April 18-19, 2015, causing damage to the main stem of Moores Fork. This damage was
repaired in March and April of 2016, and a second as-built survey was performed on the repaired areas
in April of 2016. The baseline monitoring efforts began in June of 2016 and monitoring year (MY) 1
efforts were initiated in late October of 2016. The Site has been monitored on an annual basis and MY7
activities were completed in September 2022. The following report summarizes the MY7 status of the
Site.
This is the seventh and final monitoring report (MY7) as established in the Mitigation Plan (Confluence
2012) and will also serve as the closeout report. Assessments completed over the past seven monitoring
years illustrate that most of the Site has met the success criteria as defined in the Mitigation Plan for
vegetation, stream morphology, and stream hydrology. The MY7 vegetation survey resulted in an
average stem density of 465 planted stems per acre and an average height of 18.2 feet. The Site has met
the MY7 density requirement of 210 planted stems per acre, with all 12 plots (100%) individually
exceeding this requirement. Additionally, the MY7 visual assessment revealed that invasive plant
populations have been reduced due to ongoing treatments and over 99% of the easement acreage is
unaffected by invasive populations. In 2021, DMS implemented stream repairs for nine instances of
lateral and vertical instability throughout the Site that continue to appear stable and are functioning as
designed. Visual assessments reveal that over 95% of enhanced and restored reaches are stable. Overall,
surveyed cross-sections along Moores Fork indicate the channel is supporting stable dimensions and
functioning as designed. Instances of vertical and lateral instability are represented by some cross-
section along Silage Tributary. The performance standard of two recorded bankfull events in separate
monitoring years was met for both Moores Fork and Silage Tributary in MY3. In MY7, at least one
bankfull event occurred on Moores Fork and on Silage Tributary.

Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report - FINAL i

MOORES FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
Year 7 Monitoring/Closeout Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW .....................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 7 Data Assessment .......................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment ...................................................................................................... 1-2
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity .................................................. 1-3
1.2.3 Stream Assessment ............................................................................................................ 1-3
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity ......................................................... 1-3
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment ....................................................................................................... 1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 7 Summary ...................................................................................................... 1-4
Section 2: METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................2-1
Section 3: REFERENCES .................................................................................................................3-1

APPENDICES
Appendix A General Tables and Figures
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 4a-b Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Table 5 Monitoring Component Summary
DMS Technical Workgroup Memo October 19, 2021
Pebble Count Data Requirements Correspondence M. Reid October 27, 2021
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figures 3.0-3.6 Current Condition Plan View Maps
Table 6a-j Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs MY0-MY7
Stream Repair Photographs
Vegetation Photographs MY0-MY7
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10a-c Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Table 10d Planted Stem Average Heights
Table 10e Stems Per Plot Across All Years
Appendix D Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11a-b Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12a-b Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters Cross-Section)
Cross-Section Plots with Annual Overlays

Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report - FINAL ii

Appendix E Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13 Verification of Bankfull Events
Monthly Rainfall Data

Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report - FINAL iii

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site was implemented under a design-bid-build contract with DMS in Surry County, NC. The Site is
located in the Yadkin River Basin; eight-digit HUC 03040101 and the 14-digit HUC 03040101100010
(Figure 1). Located in the Piedmont physiographic province (NCGS 2004), the project watershed
primarily includes agricultural land cover. The drainage area for the lower end of Moores Fork is 1,527
acres, and the drainage area for Silage Tributary is 156 acres. The Site is located approximately 0.25 mile
north of NC 89 on Horton Road. The project site is located on both sides of Horton Road. Latitude and
longitude for the site are 36.506671 N and -80.704115 W, respectively (Figure 1).
The NCDEQ DMS restored, enhanced, and preserved approximately 19,587 LF of Moores Fork and 13
UTs, provided livestock fencing and alternative water sources to keep livestock out of the streams,
removed invasive plant species across the project, and established native riparian buffers. The
restoration project was developed to fulfill stream mitigation requirements accepted by the DMS for the
Upper Yadkin River Basin (HUC 03040101). Mitigation work within the Site included restoring and
enhancing 15,308 LF and preserving 4,279 LF of stream. The Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project
will net 11,587.543 SMUs through a combination of restoration, enhancement I and II, and preservation.
Due to overhead utility easements that cross project streams, 7.8 SMUs were removed on Silage
Tributary Reach 2 (starting at STA 30+10.49 and ending at STA 30+33.95), 10.4 SMUs were removed on
Moores Fork (starting at STA 37+22.01 and ending at STA 37+42.79), and 4.1 SMUs were removed on
Corn Tributary (starting at STA 19+38.58 and ending at STA 19+59.15) as shown in Table 1 of Appendix
A.
The final design was completed in June 2013. The Site was constructed in December 2014 and planted in
February 2015. An as-built survey was conducted following construction in December 2014. However,
following construction, a large flood event with an estimated return interval of 50 to 100 years occurred
at the site on April 18-19, 2015, causing damage to the main stem of Moores Fork. This damage was
repaired in March and April of 2016, and a second as-built survey was performed on the repaired areas
in April of 2016. The baseline monitoring efforts began in June of 2016 and MY1 efforts were initiated in
late October of 2016. The MY7 monitoring activities were completed in September 2022. More detailed
information related to the project activity, history, and contacts can be found in Appendix A, Tables 1
and 2. Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1, and project components are illustrated
for the Site in Figure 2. Please refer to the Project Component Map (Figure 2) for the stream features
and to Table 1 for the project component and mitigation credit information for the Site. This report
documents the results of the MY7 monitoring efforts.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, dairy and farming operations on the site deforested riparian buffers and
allowed direct livestock access to the stream, leading to elevated temperatures and nutrient level.
Channel straightening and dredging throughout much of the project are also contributed to channel
degradation. Table 11 in Appendix D present the pre-restoration conditions in detail.
This mitigation site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Yadkin River Basin.
The project goals identified in the Mitigation Plan (Confluence, 2012) include:
Improve water quality in Moores Fork and the UTs through reductions in sediment and nutrient
inputs from local sources;
Create conditions for dynamic equilibrium of water and sediment movement between the
supply reaches and project reaches;

Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report - FINAL 1-1

Promote floodwater attenuation and secondary functions associated with more frequent and
extensive floodwater contact times;
Improve in-stream habitat by increasing the diversity of bedform features;
Enhance and protect native riparian vegetation communities; and
Reduce fecal, nutrient, and sediment loads to project streams by promoting and implementing
livestock best management practices.
The project objectives have been defined as follows:
Restoration of the dimension, pattern, profile of approximately 1,828 LF of Moores Fork Reach 2
and 243 LF of the Pond Tributary;
Restoration of the dimension and profile (Enhancement I) of the channel for approximately
2,832 LF of Moores Fork Reach 3, 900 LF of Silage Reach 1, 2,448 LF of Silage Reach 2, 300 LF of
Barn Reach 1 and 112 LF of Corn Reach 2;
Limited channel work coupled with livestock exclusion, gully stabilization, invasive species
control and buffer planting (Enhancement II) on approximately 761 LF of Moores Fork Reach 1,
167 LF of Cow Tributary 1, 767 LF of Cow Tributary 2, 3,134 LF of Barn Reach 2, 1,350 LF of Corn
Reach 1, and 466 LF of UT1;
Livestock exclusion fencing and other best management practice installations;
Invasive plant species control measures across the entire project wherever necessary; and
Preservation of approximately 4,279 LF of relatively un-impacted forested streams (UTs 2, 3, 6,
7, 8, 9, and 10) in a permanent conservation easement.
1.2 Monitoring Year 7 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted between April and September 2022 to assess the condition of the
project. The stream restoration success criteria for the Site follows the approved performance standards
presented in the Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project Final Mitigation Plan (Confluence, 2012).
Annual monitoring has been conducted for seven years to provide a project data chronology that
facilitates an understanding of project status and trends.
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
A total of 12 vegetation monitoring plots were established during the baseline monitoring within the
project easement areas using a standard 10 by 10-meter plot. Please refer to Figures 3.0-3.6 in Appendix
B for the vegetation monitoring locations. The final vegetation performance standard is the survival of
210 planted stems per acre and an average of 8 feet minimum in height at the end of year seven of the
monitoring period.
The MY7 vegetation survey was completed in September 2022, resulting in an average stem density of
465 planted stems per acre and an average stem height of 18.2 feet. The Site has met the MY7 density
requirement of 210 planted stems per acre, with all 12 plots (100%) individually exceeding the
requirement. Overall, the Site has met the MY7 height requirement, with 10 of 12 plots (83%)
individually exceeding the requirement. A majority (>91%) of the surviving planted stems in vegetation
plots are thriving with a health score (vigor) of 3 or 4. Approximately 8% of the surviving stems scored a
vigor of 2, indicating that they have fair plant health with some damage present. This lower vigor rating
is due to damage from storm events, vine strangulation, suffocation from dense herbaceous cover,
insects, deer, or other unknown factors. However, some planted stems previously damaged by the
aforementioned factors have continued to grow to a height where they can likely survive and
outcompete herbaceous cover, vines, and deer. In addition, desirable volunteer species such as red
maple (Acer rubrum), river birch (Betula nigra), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), flowering dogwood (Cornus

Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report - FINAL 1-2

florida), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), winged sumac (Rhus copallinum), and tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera) are present throughout the Site. Please refer to Appendix B for vegetation plot
photographs and Appendix C for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern and Management Activity
In 2022, invasive treatments occurred in May, August, and October and have successfully reduced
invasive populations throughout the Site. Currently, less than 1% of the easement acreage is mapped
with invasive species areas of concern. The remaining invasive species include kudzu (Pueraria
montana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Multiflora rose
(Rosa multiflora), and oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus). Persistent pockets of Kudzu were
observed primarily around the conservation easement boundary along the left floodplain of Moores
Fork Reach 1, Corn Tributary Reach 1, and the eastern boundary along Barn Tributary Reach 2. Invasive
treatments will continue to be treated until December 2023.
As part of the repair efforts completed in March 2021, the conservation easement was remarked by a
PLS by adding signage, posts, and fresh paint markings as needed. One encroachment was identified in
2022 near the bottom of Barn Reach 2 where the landowner had encroached by a few feet with farm
equipment when harvesting corn. The encroachment was discussed with the landowner and has been
resolved. Additional posts and signs were installed in the area with tall PVC and horse tape to better
demarcate the conservation easement. In MY7, the rest of the conservation easement appeared well
marked and no other encroachments were observed. Vegetation areas of concern are shown in Figures
3.0-3.6 in Appendix B.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY7 were conducted in May 2022. Overall, surveyed cross-sections along
Moores Fork indicate the channel is supporting stable dimensions and functioning as designed. As first
reported in MY5 at riffle cross-section M4, an increase in cross-sectional area is evident due to scour
occurring behind the stone toe boulder structure. Otherwise, riffles are maintaining appropriate width-
to-depth ratios and max pool depths are providing good aquatic habitat.
Along Silage Tributary, the surveyed cross-sections are indicative of instances of vertical and lateral
instability observed throughout Silage Tributary Reach 1 and 2. Downcutting and/or bank scour is
present at riffle cross-sections ST1, ST3, and ST6 which has caused an increase in bank height ratio. See
section 1.2.4 for further discussion about stream areas of concern along Silage Tributary. Please refer to
Appendix D for cross-section plots and morphological summary tables.
Based on a DMS Technical Workgroup memo from 10/19/21 and concurrence received on 10/27/2021
from the DMS project manager for the Site, pebble counts will not be conducted during the remaining
monitoring years unless requested by the IRT or deemed necessary by best professional judgement.
Refer to Appendix A for the DMS Technical Workgroup memo and the email confirmation from the DMS
project manager.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern and Management Activity
DMS contracted with a design firm to develop a repair plan for nine locations throughout the Site and
the repair work was completed in March 2021. Please refer to the MY6 annual report for additional
documentation and the repair as-built survey. In MY7, repair areas continue to appear stable and
functioning as designed with rock steps/sills maintaining vertical stability. In addition, herbaceous cover
and live stakes are becoming well established along the repaired banks and planted bare roots were
found to be healthy. An updated photolog of the repair work is included in Appendix B.

Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report - FINAL 1-3

The remaining stream areas of concern include localized instances of bank instability and sediment
deposition. Along Moores Fork, new or expanded areas of bank instability were noted in MY7 (STA
23+80, 39+75, 43+10, and 53+00) where woody vegetation has failed to take hold along the banks.
Areas of bank instability are isolated along Moores Fork Reach 2 and 3, with 97% and 98%, respectively,
of both banks on those reaches are performing as intended.
Along Silage Tributary, four new or expanded areas of bank instability were noted in MY7 (STA 15+00,
18+60, 21+20 and, 24+50). Several structures that were installed for grade control have been
undermined by flow piping under or around them and no longer are functioning as designed. Areas of
instability are more frequent along Silage Tributary due to the nature of this confined steep valley in
combination with flashy runoff during large precipitation events that is accelerated by the gullies
forming in sparsely vegetated pasture found directly outside of the project area. While stream stability
issues are present along Silage Tributary Reach 1 and Reach 2, 96% and 95% of both banks on those
reaches respectively remain stable and performing as intended.
Other stream areas of concern are present in some of the smaller tributaries on the Site. Minor
sedimentation continues to be observed along the project start of Pond Tributary, but well-established
willows and other woody vegetation along the banks are maintaining the as-built alignment and channel
function. At the project start of Corn Tributary, a significant headcut and erosion around the culvert
continues to worsen. Beginning in 2019, DMS contracted with a provider to control beaver and dams at
the Site. In MY7, 2 beaver dams were removed from the Moores Fork and beaver were trappedin
October 2022. Stream areas of concern and management activities are shown in Figures 3.0-3.6 in
Appendix B.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
Bankfull data collected on April 6, 2022, indicate that at least one bankfull event occurred on Moores
Fork and Silage Tributary in MY7. Monthly rainfall data indicate higher than normal rainfall amounts
occurred during the months of February, May, June, and August (NCCRONOS, 2022). The hydrologic
performance standard for the Site states that two bankfull flow events must be documented on
restoration reaches within the seven-year monitoring period and must occur in separate years. The
performance standard for the Site was met in MY3. Seven bankfull events have been documented for
Moores Fork and six bankfull events have been documented for Silage Tributary in separate years. Refer
to Appendix E for hydrologic data and graphs.
1.3 Monitoring Year 7 Summary
This is the seventh and final monitoring report (MY7) as established in the Mitigation Plan (Confluence
2012) and will also serve as the closeout report. Assessments completed over the past seven monitoring
years illustrate that most of the Site has met the success criteria as defined in the Mitigation Plan for
vegetation, stream morphology, and stream hydrology. The MY7 vegetation survey resulted in an
average stem density of 465 planted stems per acre and an average height of 18.2 feet. The Site has met
the MY7 density requirement of 210 planted stems per acre, with all 12 plots (100%) individually
exceeding this requirement. Additionally, the MY7 visual assessment revealed that invasive plant
populations have been reduced due to ongoing treatments and over 99% of the easement acreage is
unaffected by invasive populations. In 2021, DMS implemented stream repairs for nine instances of
lateral and vertical instability throughout the Site that continue to appear stable and are functioning as
designed. Visual assessments reveal that over 95% of enhanced and restored reaches are stable. Overall,
surveyed cross-sections along Moores Fork indicate the channel is supporting stable dimensions and
functioning as designed. Instances of vertical and lateral instability are represented by some cross-
section along Silage Tributary. The performance standard of two recorded bankfull events in separate

Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report - FINAL 1-4

monitoring years was met for both Moores Fork and Silage Tributary in MY3. In MY7, at least one
bankfull event occurred on Moores Fork and on Silage Tributary.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these annual monitoring reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan
documents available on the DMS website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices are available from DMS upon request.

Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report - FINAL 1-5

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
The stream monitoring methodologies utilized in 2021 are based on standard guidance and procedures
documents (Rosgen 1996 and USACE 2003). Geomorphic data were collected following the standards
outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site: An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et
al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All
accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS. Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in
accordance with the gui
semi-annually.

Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report - FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Confluence Engineering, PC. 2012. Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Plan. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003.Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-
2.pdf
North Carolina Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database (NCCRONOS).
2022. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. MT Airy 2 W. Station ID No. 315890.
Accessed October 2022.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Surface Water Classifications. Retrieved
from http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-
standards/classifications
NCDENR. 2009. Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration Priorities. Retrieved from
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-
documents/yadkin-river-basin
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS). 2004. Physiography of North Carolina. Map compiled by the
Division of Land Resources. Raleigh.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1998. North Carolina Geology.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/north-carolina-geological-
survey/

Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report - FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX A. General Tables and Figures

--
---------------
Notes
overhead powerline
Upland (acres)
overhead powerline easement
overhead powerline easement.
Reduction in 7.82 SMU because of 20'
Reduction in 10.39 SMU because of 20' Reduction in 4.114 SMU because of 20'
------
Credits
900.000
304.400111.333511.333243.000300.000535.886112.000186.400855.800
1,828.0002,821.6101,624.1801,253.600
Mitigation
--
1:11:11:11:11:11:15:1
2.5:11.5:11.5:11.5:12.5:12.5:12.5:1
Ratio
Mitigation
--
RP
EIEIEIEI
R
EIIEI EIIEIIEIIEIIEII
Buffer (Square feet)
Rest Equiv.
1
Restoration or
1
------
P2P1P3P4P4P2P3P3
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
P2/3
855.800
PreservationNon-riparian
Wetland (acres)
Restoration Level
Project Components
--
----
Length and Area Summations
761900167767243300112466
1,8282,8322,4483,1341,3504,279
2902.953
or Acreage
Non-Riverine
Enhancement II
1
Restoration Footage
-------
Riparian Wetland (acres)
761900167767194300112466
1,6362,8562,4483,1341,3504,279
Riverine
Acreage
5757.790
Footage or
Pre-project
Enhancement I
-
-
Mitigation Credit Summaries
2,0716,5926,6454,279
2071.000
Stationing
4069-4757
Restoration
STA 989-1750
STA 1750-3578STA 3578-6410STA 1000-1900STA 1900-4348STA 1219-1386STA 1331-2098STA 1000-1243STA 1000-1300STA 1000-2350STA 2350-2462STA 1000-1466
UTs 2,3,6,7,8,9,10
Stream (Linear Feet)
STA 1350-3746; STA
UT1
Total
Type
Reach ID
Pond Trib
Cow Trib 1Cow Trib 2
Barn Reach 1Barn Reach 2Corn Reach 1Corn Reach 2
Silage Reach 1Silage Reach 2
Moores Reach 1Moores Reach 2Moores Reach 3
Restoration Level
Preservation Reaches
Project Component or
Project components and mitigation credits reverted back to Mitigation Plan totals as requested by IRT.
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022 RestorationEnhancementEnhancement IEnhancement
IICreationPreservationHigh Quality PreservationN/A - Not Applicable 1

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Activity or DeliverableData Collection CompleteCompletion or Delivery
Site InstitutedN/AOctober 2010
Mitigation Plan December 2011November 2012
Final Design – Construction PlansN/AJune 2013
Construction (Repairs)N/ADecember 2014 (April 2016)
Temporary S&E Mix Applied N/ADecember 2014 (April 2016)
Permanent Seed Mix AppliedN/ADecember 2014 (April 2016)
Containerized, Bare Root and B&B Plantings For Reach/Segments N/AFebruary 2015 (April 2016)
Invasive Species Treatment May 2016May 2016
Vegetation SurveyJune 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)August 2016
Stream SurveyJune 2016
Invasive Species Treatment September 2016September 2016
Vegetation SurveyOctober 2016
Year 1 MonitoringNovember 2016
Stream SurveyNovember 2016
Vegetation SurveyAugust 2017
Year 2 MonitoringNovember 2017
Stream SurveyJuly 2017
Invasive Species Treatment
July, Aug, Sept & Nov 2018November 2018
Vegetation SurveyAugust 2018
Year 3 MonitoringNovember 2018
Stream SurveyJune 2018
Supplemental Planting
March 2019November 2019
Beaver/Dam Removal
July 2019November 2019
Invasive Species Treatment
Feb, July, & Sept 2019September 2019
Vegetation SurveyAugust 2019
Year 4 MonitoringNovember 2019
Stream SurveyN/A
Invasive Species Treatment
May, June, & July 2020July 2020
Vegetation SurveyAugust 2020
Year 5 MonitoringNovember 2020
Stream SurveyJuly 2020
Stream Repairs
March 2021March 2021
Invasive Species Treatment
Feb, Apr, May, & Sept 2021September 2021
Vegetation SurveySeptember 2021
Year 6 MonitoringNovember 2021
Stream SurveyN/A
Vegetation SurveySeptember 2022
Year 7 MonitoringNovember 2022
Stream SurveyMay 2022
Beaver/Dam Removal
October 2022October 2022
Invasive Species Treatment
May, August, October 2022October 2022
N/A - Not Applicable
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Designer Confluence Engineering, PC
16 Broad Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Primary project design POCAndrew Bick 828-606-0306
Construction Contractor Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Construction contractor POCWayne Taylor 336-341-6489
Survey Contractor Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
PO Box 41023
Raleigh, NC 27629
Survey Contractor POCDavid Turner 919-623-5095
Planting Contractor Keller Environmental, LLC
7921 Haymarket Lane
Raleigh, NC 27615
Planting Contractor POCJay Keller 919-749-8259
Seeding Contractor Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Seeding Contractor POCWayne Taylor 336-341-6489
Seed Mix Sources Green Resources 336-855-6363
Nursery Stock Suppliers Foggy Mountain Nursery 336-384-5323
Monitoring Performers Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Ste 104
Charlotte, NC 28205
704.332.7754
Monitoring POCKirsten Gimbert 704-332-7754

Table 4a. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Project Information
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Project Name
County
Surry
Project Area (acres)
~140
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36.506671 N, 80.704115 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Piedmont
Physiographic Province
Yadkin
River Basin
03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
03040101100010
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-02
DWR Sub-basin
2
Project Drainage Area (acres)
1,527 ac (2.39 mi)
<5%
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
Cropland and Pasture, Confined Animal Operations
CGIA Land Use Classification
Reach Summary Information
ParametersMoores Fork Reach 1 & 2Moores Fork Reach 3SilageCow Trib 1Cow Trib 2
2,6362,8853,348167767
Length of Reach Post Construction (LF)
Valley classification (Rosgen)VIIIII
VIIIII/IVII
Drainage area (acres)1,19316
1,5271564
NCDWQ stream identification score3523.5
34.523.520
NCDWQ Water Quality ClassificationWS-IVWS-IV
WS-IVWS-IVWS-IV
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type)C4G5
C4G4/C4G5
Evolutionary trendC-FG
C-FG-FG
Underlying mapped soilsCsA, FsEFeD2
CsA, FsEFeD2FeD2
Drainage classwell drainedwell drained
well drainedwell drainedwell drained
Soil Hydric statusnot hydricnot hydric
not hydricnot hydricnot hydric
Slope0.0080.038
0.0060.0300.056
FEMA classificationNot in SFHANot in SFHA
Not in SFHANot in SFHANot in SFHA
Native vegetation communityFelsic Mesic Forest
Felsic Mesic ForestFelsic Mesic ForestFelsic Mesic ForestFelsic Mesic Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation00
000
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1Wetland 2Wetland 3Wetland 4
0.080.15
0.490.04
Size of Wetland (acres)
Wetland Type
riparian non-riverineriparian non-riverineriparian non-riverineriparian non-riverine
Mapped Soil Series
FsEFsECsAFsE & CsA
Drainage class
well drainedwell drainedwell drainedwell drained
Soil Hydric Status
not hydricnot hydricnot hydricnot hydric
Source of Hydrology
UT9 & UT10UT8Toe seepToe seep
Hydrologic Impairment
nonenonenonenone
Dist. Small Stream/
Dist. Small Stream/ Dist. Small Stream/ Dist. Small Stream/
Native vegetation community
Narrow FP Forest
Narrow FP ForestNarrow FP ForestNarrow FP Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
0000
Regulatory Considerations
RegulationApplicable?Resolved?Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States – Section 404YYUSACE ID No. SAW-2011-02257
Waters of the United States – Section 401YYNCDWR # 12-0396
Endangered Species ActYYCE Approved 12/21/11
Historic Preservation ActNN/A-
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)NN/A-
FEMA Floodplain ComplianceNN/A-
Essential Fisheries HabitatNN/A-
N/A Not-applicable

Table 4b. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Project Information
Project Name
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
County
Surry
Project Area (acres)
~140
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36.506671 N, 80.704115 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Piedmont
Physiographic Province
Yadkin
River Basin
03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03040101100010
DWR Sub-basin
Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-02
2
Project Drainage Area (acres)
1,527 ac (2.39 mi)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Cropland and Pasture, Confined Animal Operations
Reach Summary Information
ParametersPond TribBarn Reach 1 & 2Corn Reach 1 & 2UT1
2433,4341,452466
Length of Reach Post Construction (LF)
Valley classification (Rosgen)VIII
IVIVIV
Drainage area (acres)27
184306
NCDWQ stream identification score20
36.52123
NCDWQ Water Quality ClassificationWS-IV
WS-IVWS-IVWS-IV
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type)B4/5
G4G4B4
Evolutionary trendB-C-F
G-FG-F-
Underlying mapped soilsCsA
FeD2, FsECsA, FsEFeD2
Drainage classwell drained
well drainedwell drainedwell drained
Soil Hydric statusnot hydric
not hydricnot hydricnot hydric
Slope0.029
0.0250.0570.040 +/-
FEMA classificationNot in SFHA
Not in SFHANot in SFHANot in SFHA
Native vegetation communityFelsic Mesic Forest
Felsic Mesic ForestFelsic Mesic ForestFelsic Mesic Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
0
000
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 5Wetland 6
0.030.06
Size of Wetland (acres)
Wetland Type
riparian non-riverineriparian non-riverine
Mapped Soil Series
FeD2FsE & FeD2
Drainage class
well drainedwell drained
Soil Hydric Status
not hydricnot hydric
Source of Hydrology
Toe SeepToe Seep
Hydrologic Impairment
nonenone
Dist. Small Stream/ Dist. Small Stream/
Native vegetation community
Narrow FP ForestNarrow FP Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
00
N/A Not-applicable

AnnualAnnualAnnual
Frequency
Semi-AnnualSemi-Annual
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7Years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7
Y
3
Barn 2
Y
13
Barn 1
Y
14
Cow Trib 2
Y
2
Cow Trib 1
Y
2
UT1
Y
32312
12
Silage
Reach 2
Y
11116
Silage
Reach 1
4243Y
19
Moores Reach 3
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Y
2
Corn Reach 2
Y
1
Corn Reach 1
21214Y
11
Moores
Reach 2
Y2
Pond Trib
Y
2
Moores
Reach 1
Pool XS
Riffle XS
Crest Gage
Project Site
Vegetation Plots
100 Pebble Count
Monitoring Feature
Permanent Photo Points
Substrate
Hydrology
Parameter
Dimension
Vegetation
Reference Photos
Visual Assessment
Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022

To:DMSTechnicalWorkgroup,DMSoperationsstaff
From:PeriannRussell,DivisionofMitigationServices(DMS)
RE:Pebblecountdatarequirements
Date:October19,2021
TheDMSTechnicalWorkGroupmetSeptember29,2021todiscussInteragencyReviewTeam(IRT)and
monitoring(MY0MYx).Agreementwas
DMSrequirementsforcollectingpebblecountdataaspartof
reachedbetweenallattendingpartiesthatpebblecountdatawillnotberequiredduringthemonitoring
periodforallfutureprojects.
Sedimentdataandparticledistributionwillstillberequiredforthemitigationplanaspartofthe
proposeddesignexplanationandjustification.
Pebblecountsand/orparticledistributionscurrentlybeingconductedbyprovidersforannual
monitoringmaybediscontinuedatthediscretionoftheDMSprojectmanager.Ifparticledistribution
waslistedasaperformancestandardintheprojectmitigationplan,theproviderisrequiredto
communicatetheintenttoceasedatacollectionwiththeDMSprojectmanager.Theabsenceofpebble
countdatainfuturemonitoringreportswherepebblecountdatawaslistedaspartofmonitoringinthe
mitigationplanmustbedocumentedinthemonitoringreport.TheSeptember29,2021TechnicalWork
Groupmeetingmaybecitedasthesourceofthenew
policy.
TheIRTreservestherighttorequestpebblecountdata/particledistributionsifdeemednecessary
duringthemonitoringperiod.

KristiSuggs
From:Reid,Matthew<[e-mail]>
Sent:Wednesday,October27,20211:26PM
To:KristiSuggs
Cc:MimiCaddell
Subject:
RE:\[External\]FW:PebbleCountDataRequirements
IamabsolutelyOKwithnotdoingpebblecountsanymore!
Asstatedinthememo,pleaseaddastatementinthemonitoringreportscitingthepolicy.
Thanks!
Matthew Reid
Project Manager Î Western Region
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-231-7912 Mobile
[e-mail]
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Dr
Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From:KristiSuggs\[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent:Wednesday,October27,20211:24PM
To:Reid,Matthew<[e-mail]>
Cc:MimiCaddell<[e-mail]>
Subject:\[External\]FW:PebbleCountDataRequirements
CAUTION:Externalemail.Donotclicklinksoropenattachmentsunlessyouverify.SendallsuspiciousemailasanattachmenttoReport
Spam.
Matthew,
JasonLorchinourRaleighOfficeforwardedthismeetingmemotome.ItsaysthatconductingpebblecountsforDMS
monitoring(MY0ΑMY7)projectsisnolongerneededaslongasithasbeenokayedbytheDMSPM.Movingforward,areyou
goingtoallowustostopdoingthemonyourprojects?Ifso,willDBBprojectsbetreatedthesame?Pleaseletmeknow.Thank
you!
Kristi
KristiSuggs|{ĻƓźƚƩ9ƓǝźƩƚƓƒĻƓƷğƌ{ĭźĻƓƷźƭƷ
O:704.332.7754x110 M:704.579.4828
1

WildlandsEngineering,Inc.
1430S.MintSt,Suite104
Charlotte,NC28203
From:JasonLorch<[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday,October25,20219:05AM
To:KristiSuggs<[e-mail]>
Subject:FW:PebbleCountDataRequirements
FYI!
JasonLorch,GISP|{ĻƓźƚƩ9ƓǝźƩƚƓƒĻƓƷğƌ{ĭźĻƓƷźƭƷ
O:919.851.9986x107 M:919.413.1214
WildlandsEngineering,Inc.
312WestMillbrookRoad,Suite225
Raleigh,NC27609
From:Russell,Periann<[e-mail]>
Sent:Thursday,October21,202110:05AM
To:King,Scott<[e-mail]>;CatherineManner<[e-mail]>;Tugwell,ToddJCIV
USARMYCESAW(US)<[e-mail]>;[e-mail];BradBreslow<[e-mail]>;Davis,ErinB
<[e-mail]>;[e-mail];grantlewis<[e-mail]>;JeffKeaton
<[e-mail]>;katiemckeithan<[e-mail]>;KayneVanStell
<[e-mail]>;KevinTweedy<[e-mail]>;Reid,Matthew<[e-mail]>;Ryan
Smith<[e-mail]>;Melia,Gregory<[e-mail]>;Allen,Melonie<[e-mail]>;
Famularo,JosephT<[e-mail]>;[e-mail];BryanDick<[e-mail]>;RyanMedric
<[e-mail]>;KimBrowning<[e-mail]>;KayneVanStell<[e-mail]>;
WorthCreech<[e-mail]>;JasonLorch<[e-mail]>
Cc:Crocker,Lindsay<[e-mail]>;Wiesner,Paul<[e-mail]>;Tsomides,Harry
<[e-mail]>;Reid,Matthew<[e-mail]>;Dow,JeremiahJ<[e-mail]>;
Horton,Jeffrey<[e-mail]>;Ullman,KirstenJ<[e-mail]>;Ackerman,Anjie
<[e-mail]>;Blackwell,JamieD<[e-mail]>;Xu,Lin<[e-mail]>;Mir,Danielle
<[e-mail]>;Corson,Kristie<[e-mail]>;Russell,Periann<[e-mail]>;
Sparks,KimberlyL<[e-mail]>
Subject:PebbleCountDataRequirements
Pleasereviewtheattachedmemodocumentingtheagreeduponpolicyforpebblecountdatarequirements.
Pleasereply(meonly)tothisemailifacceptthatthismemorepresents(ormisrepresents)ourdiscussiononSept29.
Thankyou.
Periann Russell
Geomorphologist
Division of Mitigation Services, Science and Analysis
NC Department of Environmental Quality
919 707 8306 office
919 208 1426 mobile
[e-mail]
Mailing: 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Physical: 217 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603
2

APPENDIX B. Visual Assessment Data

100%100%100%100%
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Adjusted % for
00
00
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Footage with
0000
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Number with
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
Intended
% Stable,
Performing as
000000
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
000000
Unstable
Segments
Number of
Totals
45555
N/AN/AN/A
N/AN/A
As-built
Total Number in
45555
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Intended
Performing as
Number Stable,
exceed
1.6)
>
not
Metric
- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
- Evidence of downcutting
- Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.
NOT
>
appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth
AggradationDegradationTexture/SubstrateDepthLength
1. flow laterally (not to include point bars)2. 1. 1. 2. upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)2. Thalweg centering
at downstream of meander (Glide)Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosionBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does and are providing habitat.Bank slumping, calving, or collapseStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance
of grade across the sill. Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does 15%. (See guidance for this table
in EEP monitoring guidance document) Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio
Channel Sub-Category
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)2. Riffle Condition3. Meander Pool Condition4.Thalweg Position1. Scoured/Eroding2. Undercut3. Mass Wasting1. Overall Integrity2. Grade Control2a.
Piping3. Bank Protection4. Habitat
1. Bed
2. Bank
Category
Structures
3. Engineered
Major Channel
Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022Date of Visual Assessments: April 2022,
September 2022Moores Fork Reach 1 (Assessed Length : 761 feet)

98%98%
100%100%
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Adjusted % for
0
0
3535
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Footage with
2002
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Number with
96%97%97%88%88%89%
100%
100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
Intended
% Stable,
Performing as
000
78
102102
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
305005
Unstable
Segments
Number of
Totals
87777592
1616
As-built
Total Number in
5
8777782
1414
Intended
Performing as
Number Stable,
exceed
1.6)
>
not
Metric
- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
- Evidence of downcutting
- Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.
NOT
>
appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth
AggradationDegradationTexture/SubstrateDepthLength
1. flow laterally (not to include point bars)2. 1. 1. 2. upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)2. Thalweg centering
at downstream of meander (Glide)Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosionBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does and are providing habitat.Bank slumping, calving, or collapseStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance
of grade across the sill. Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does 15%. (See guidance for this table
in EEP monitoring guidance document) Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio
Channel Sub-Category
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)2. Riffle Condition3. Meander Pool Condition4.Thalweg Position1. Scoured/Eroding2. Undercut3. Mass Wasting1. Overall Integrity2. Grade Control2a.
Piping3. Bank Protection4. Habitat
1. Bed
2. Bank
Category
Structures
3. Engineered
Major Channel
Table 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022Date of Visual Assessments: April 2022,
September 2022Moores Fork Reach 2 (Assessed Length : 1875 feet)

98%98%
100%100%
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Adjusted % for
00
00
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Footage with
0000
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Number with
97%98%98%93%89%
100%100%
100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
Intended
% Stable,
Performing as
000
938989
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
404004
Unstable
Segments
Number of
Totals
63
2727
131616161618
As-built
Total Number in
6
3
1316161616252716
Intended
Performing as
Number Stable,
exceed
1.6)
>
not
Metric
- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
- Evidence of downcutting
- Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.
NOT
>
appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth
AggradationDegradationTexture/SubstrateDepthLength
1. flow laterally (not to include point bars)2. 1. 1. 2. upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)2. Thalweg centering
at downstream of meander (Glide)Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosionBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does and are providing habitat.Bank slumping, calving, or collapseStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance
of grade across the sill. Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does 15%. (See guidance for this table
in EEP monitoring guidance document) Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio
Channel Sub-Category
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)2. Riffle Condition3. Meander Pool Condition4.Thalweg Position1. Scoured/Eroding2. Undercut3. Mass Wasting1. Overall Integrity2. Grade Control2a.
Piping3. Bank Protection4. Habitat
1. Bed
2. Bank
Category
Structures
3. Engineered
Major Channel
Table 6c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022Date of Visual Assessments: April 2022,
September 2022Moores Fork Reach 3 (Assessed Length : 2885 feet)

96%96%
100%100%
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Adjusted % for
00
00
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Footage with
0000
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Number with
N/AN/A
96%96%75%75%
100%
100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
Intended
% Stable,
Performing as
0000
6767
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
004004
Unstable
Segments
Number of
Totals
8881
12121212
N/AN/A
As-built
Total Number in
686
1
12121212
N/AN/A
Intended
Performing as
Number Stable,
exceed
1.6)
>
not
Metric
- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
- Evidence of downcutting
- Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.
NOT
>
appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth
AggradationDegradationTexture/SubstrateDepthLength
1. flow laterally (not to include point bars)2. 1. 1. 2. upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)2. Thalweg centering
at downstream of meander (Glide)Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosionBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does and are providing habitat.Bank slumping, calving, or collapseStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance
of grade across the sill. Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does 15%. (See guidance for this table
in EEP monitoring guidance document) Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio
Channel Sub-Category
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)2. Riffle Condition3. Meander Pool Condition4.Thalweg Position1. Scoured/Eroding2. Undercut3. Mass Wasting1. Overall Integrity2. Grade Control2a.
Piping3. Bank Protection4. Habitat
1. Bed
2. Bank
Category
Structures
3. Engineered
Major Channel
Table 6d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022Date of Visual Assessments: April 2022,
September 2022Silage Reach 1 (Assessed Length : 900 feet)

95%95%
100%100%
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Adjusted % for
0
0
1515
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Footage with
1001
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Number with
N/A
97%93%81%81%81%81%95%95%75%75%75%75%
100%100%100%
Intended
% Stable,
Performing as
000
73
225225
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
5000
1212
Unstable
Segments
Number of
Totals
4
161616
1516161616
N/A
As-built
Total Number in
3
1413131313121212
N/A
Intended
Performing as
Number Stable,
exceed
1.6)
>
not
Metric
- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
- Evidence of downcutting
- Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.
NOT
>
appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth
AggradationDegradationTexture/SubstrateDepthLength
1. flow laterally (not to include point bars)2. 1. 1. 2. upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)2. Thalweg centering
at downstream of meander (Glide)Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosionBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does and are providing habitat.Bank slumping, calving, or collapseStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance
of grade across the sill. Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does 15%. (See guidance for this table
in EEP monitoring guidance document) Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio
Channel Sub-Category
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)2. Riffle Condition3. Meander Pool Condition4.Thalweg Position1. Scoured/Eroding2. Undercut3. Mass Wasting1. Overall Integrity2. Grade Control2a.
Piping3. Bank Protection4. Habitat
1. Bed
2. Bank
Category
Structures
3. Engineered
Major Channel
Table 6e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022Date of Visual Assessments: April 2022,
September 2022Silage Reach 2 (Assessed Length : 2448 feet)

100%100%100%100%
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Adjusted % for
00
00
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Footage with
0000
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Number with
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
92%92%92%
100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
Intended
% Stable,
Performing as
000000
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
000000
Unstable
Segments
Number of
Totals
22
131313
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
As-built
Total Number in
22
121212
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Intended
Performing as
Number Stable,
exceed
1.6)
>
not
Metric
- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
- Evidence of downcutting
- Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.
NOT
>
appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth
AggradationDegradationTexture/SubstrateDepthLength
1. flow laterally (not to include point bars)2. 1. 1. 2. upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)2. Thalweg centering
at downstream of meander (Glide)Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosionBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does and are providing habitat.Bank slumping, calving, or collapseStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance
of grade across the sill. Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does 15%. (See guidance for this table
in EEP monitoring guidance document) Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio
Channel Sub-Category
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)2. Riffle Condition3. Meander Pool Condition4.Thalweg Position1. Scoured/Eroding2. Undercut3. Mass Wasting1. Overall Integrity2. Grade Control2a.
Piping3. Bank Protection4. Habitat
1. Bed
2. Bank
Category
Structures
3. Engineered
Major Channel
Table 6f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022Date of Visual Assessments: April 2022,
September 2022Cow Trib 1 (Assessed Length : 167 feet)

99%99%
100%100%
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Adjusted % for
00
00
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Footage with
0000
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Number with
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
99%99%
100%100%100%
100%100%100%100%
% Stable, Intended
Performing as
0000
2323
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
001001
Unstable
Segments
Number of
Totals
242424
N/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
As-built
Total Number in
242424
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Intended
Performing as
Number Stable,
exceed
1.6)
>
not
Metric
- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
- Evidence of downcutting
- Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.
NOT
>
appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth
AggradationDegradationTexture/SubstrateDepthLength
1. flow laterally (not to include point bars)2. 1. 1. 2. upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)2. Thalweg centering
at downstream of meander (Glide)Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosionBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does and are providing habitat.Bank slumping, calving, or collapseStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance
of grade across the sill. Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does 15%. (See guidance for this table
in EEP monitoring guidance document) Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio
Channel Sub-Category
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)2. Riffle Condition3. Meander Pool Condition4.Thalweg Position1. Scoured/Eroding2. Undercut3. Mass Wasting1. Overall Integrity2. Grade Control2a.
Piping3. Bank Protection4. Habitat
1. Bed
2. Bank
Category
Structures
3. Engineered
Major Channel
Table 6g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022Date of Visual Assessments: April 2022,
September 2022Cow Trib 2 (Assessed Length : 767 feet)

100%100%100%100%
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Adjusted % for
00
00
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Footage with
0000
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Number with
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
85%
100%100%
100%100%100%100%100%
% Stable, Intended
Performing as
00000
37
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
100000
Unstable
Segments
Number of
Totals
77
N/AN/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
As-built
Total Number in
77
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Intended
Performing as
Number Stable,
exceed
1.6)
>
not
Metric
- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
- Evidence of downcutting
- Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.
NOT
>
appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth
AggradationDegradationTexture/SubstrateDepthLength
1. flow laterally (not to include point bars)2. 1. 1. 2. upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)2. Thalweg centering
at downstream of meander (Glide)Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosionBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does and are providing habitat.Bank slumping, calving, or collapseStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance
of grade across the sill. Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does 15%. (See guidance for this table
in EEP monitoring guidance document) Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio
Channel Sub-Category
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)2. Riffle Condition3. Meander Pool Condition4.Thalweg Position1. Scoured/Eroding2. Undercut3. Mass Wasting1. Overall Integrity2. Grade Control2a.
Piping3. Bank Protection4. Habitat
1. Bed
2. Bank
Category
Structures
3. Engineered
Major Channel
Table 6h. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022Date of Visual Assessments: April 2022,
September 2022Pond Trib (Assessed Length : 243 feet)

100%100%100%100%
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Adjusted % for
00
00
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Footage with
0000
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Number with
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
100%100%100%
100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
Intended
% Stable,
Performing as
000000
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
000000
Unstable
Segments
Number of
Totals
1
151515
N/A
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
As-built
Total Number in
1
151515
N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Intended
Performing as
Number Stable,
exceed
1.6)
>
not
Metric
- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
- Evidence of downcutting
- Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.
NOT
>
appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth
AggradationDegradationTexture/SubstrateDepthLength
1. flow laterally (not to include point bars)2. 1. 1. 2. upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)2. Thalweg centering
at downstream of meander (Glide)Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosionBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does and are providing habitat.Bank slumping, calving, or collapseStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance
of grade across the sill. Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does 15%. (See guidance for this table
in EEP monitoring guidance document) Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio
Channel Sub-Category
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)2. Riffle Condition3. Meander Pool Condition4.Thalweg Position1. Scoured/Eroding2. Undercut3. Mass Wasting1. Overall Integrity2. Grade Control2a.
Piping3. Bank Protection4. Habitat
1. Bed
2. Bank
Category
Structures
3. Engineered
Major Channel
Table 6i. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022Date of Visual Assessments: April 2022,
September 2022Barn Trib Reach 1 (Assessed Length : 350 feet)

100%100%100%100%
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Adjusted % for
00
00
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Footage with
0000
Woody
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Number with
N/AN/AN/A
100%100%100%
100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%
% Stable, Intended
Performing as
000000
Footage
Unstable
Amount of
000000
Unstable
Segments
Number of
Totals
1111444
N/AN/AN/A
As-built
Total Number in
444
1111
N/AN/AN/A
Intended
Performing as
Number Stable,
exceed
1.6)
>
not
Metric
- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
- Evidence of downcutting
- Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.
NOT
>
appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth
AggradationDegradationTexture/SubstrateDepthLength
1. flow laterally (not to include point bars)2. 1. 1. 2. upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)2. Thalweg centering
at downstream of meander (Glide)Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosionBanks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does and are providing habitat.Bank slumping, calving, or collapseStructures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance
of grade across the sill. Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does 15%. (See guidance for this table
in EEP monitoring guidance document) Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth ratio
Channel Sub-Category
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run units)2. Riffle Condition3. Meander Pool Condition4.Thalweg Position1. Scoured/Eroding2. Undercut3. Mass Wasting1. Overall Integrity2. Grade Control2a.
Piping3. Bank Protection4. Habitat
1. Bed
2. Bank
Category
Structures
3. Engineered
Major Channel
Table 6j. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022Date of Visual Assessments: April 2022,
September 2022Corn Trib Reach 2 (Assessed Length : 112 feet)

0.1%0.0%0.1%0.0%0.1%0.5%0.0%
AcreageAcreage
% of Planted
% of Easement
0.8
0.010.000.010.000.010.00
AcreageAcreage
Combined Combined
101010
22
PolygonsPolygons
Number of Number of
Total
N/AN/AN/A
Yellow
species)
Cross Hatch
Cross Hatch
(Color varies by
CCPV DepictionCCPV Depiction
Cumulative Total
None
1000 SF
0.1 acres
Mapping Mapping
Threshold 0.01 acres0.25 acres Threshold
DefinitionsDefinitions
15.4 Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.Areas with woody stems of a size
class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.140 Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at
map scale).
Vegetation CategoryVegetation Category
Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022Date of Visual Assessments: April 2022, September 2022Planted
Acreage1. Bare Areas2. Low Stem Density Areas3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or VigorEasement Acreage4. Invasive Areas of Concern5. Easement Encroachment Areas

Stream Photographs
MY0 - MY7

PP1 – Moores Reach 1, looking upstream (06/15/2016) PP1– Moores Reach 1, looking upstream (04/05/2022)
PP2 – Moores Reach 1, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP2 –Moores Reach 1, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP3 – Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP3 –Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (04/05/2022)

PP4 – Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP4 –Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP5 – Moores Reach 2, looking upstream (06/15/2016)PP5– Moores Reach 2, looking upstream (04/05/2022)
PP6–Pond Tributary, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP6– Pond Tributary, looking downstream (04/05/2022)

PP7 – Pond Tributary, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP7– Pond Tributary, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP8 – Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP8 –Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP9 – Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP9 –Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (04/05/2022)

PP10– Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP10 – Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP11– Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP11 – Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP12 – Barn Reach 2, looking upstream (06/15/2016) PP12 – Barn Reach 2, looking upstream (04/05/2022)

PP13– Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP13 – Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP14 – Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP14 – Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP15 – Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP15 – Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (04/05/2022)

PP16 – Moores Reach 2, looking upstream (06/15/2016) PP16 –Moores Reach 2, looking upstream (04/05/2022)
PP17 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP17 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP18 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016)PP18 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)

PP19 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP19 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP20 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP20 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP21 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP21 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)

PP22 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP22 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP23 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP23 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP24 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP24 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)

PP25 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP25 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP26 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP26 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP27 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP27 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)

PP28 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP28 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP29 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP29 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP30 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP30 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)

PP31 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP31 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP32 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP32 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP33 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP33 – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)

PP33a – Moores Reach 3, looking upstream (06/15/2016) PP33a –Moores Reach 3, looking upstream (04/05/2022)
PP33b – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP33b – Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP34 – Corn Reach 1, looking downslope (06/15/2016) PP34 – Corn Reach 1, looking downslope (04/05/2022)

PP35 – Corn Reach 2, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP35 – Corn Reach 2, looking downstream (04/05/2022)
PP36 – Corn Reach 2, looking upstream(06/15/2016) PP36 –Corn Reach 2, looking upstream (04/05/2022)
PP37 –Silage Reach 2, looking downslope (06/15/2016) PP37 – Silage Reach 2, looking downslope (04/06/2022)

PP38 –Silage Reach 2, looking downstream(06/15/2016) PP38 – Silage Reach 2, looking downstream (04/06/2022)
PP39 – Silage Reach 2, looking upstream (06/15/2016) PP39 –Silage Reach 2, looking upstream (04/06/2022)
PP40 –Silage Reach 2, looking downstream(06/15/2016) PP40 – Silage Reach 2, looking downstream (04/06/2022)

PP41 –Silage Reach 2, looking downstream(06/15/2016) PP41 – Silage Reach 2, looking downstream (04/06/2022)
PP42 –Silage Reach 2, looking downstream(06/15/2016) PP42 – Silage Reach 2, looking downstream (04/06/2022)
PP43 –Cow Tributary 2, looking downstream(06/15/2016) PP43 – Cow Tributary 2, looking downstream (04/06/2022)

PP44 –Cow Tributary 2, looking downstream(06/15/2016) PP44 – Cow Tributary 2, looking downstream (04/06/2022)
PP45 –Cow Tributary 2, looking downstream(06/15/2016) PP45 – Cow Tributary 2, looking downstream (04/06/2022)
PP46 – Cow Tributary 2, looking upstream (06/15/2016) PP46 – Cow Tributary 2, looking upstream (04/06/2022)

PP47 –Silage Reach 2, looking downstream(06/15/2016) PP47 – Silage Reach 2, looking downstream (04/06/2022)
PP48 – Silage Reach 2, looking upstream (06/15/2016) PP48 –Silage Reach 2, looking upstream (04/06/2022)
PP49 – Cow Tributary 1, looking upstream (06/15/2016) PP49 – Cow Tributary 1, looking upstream (04/06/2022)

PP50 – Cow Tributary 1, looking upstream (06/15/2016) PP50 – Cow Tributary 1, looking upstream (04/06/2022)
PP51 –Silage Reach 2, looking downstream(06/15/2016) PP51 – Silage Reach 2, looking downstream (04/06/2022)
PP52 – Silage Reach 2, looking upstream (06/15/2016) PP52 –Silage Reach 2, looking upstream (04/06/2022)

PP53 –Silage Reach 2, looking downstream(06/15/2016) PP53 – Silage Reach 2, looking downstream (04/06/2022)
PP54 – Silage Reach 2, looking upstream (06/15/2016) PP54 –Silage Reach 2, looking upstream (04/06/2022)
PP55 – UT1, looking upstream (06/15/2016)PP55 –UT1, looking upstream (04/06/2022)

PP56 –Silage Reach 1, looking downstream(06/15/2016) PP56 – Silage Reach 1, looking downstream (04/06/2022)
PP57 – Silage Reach 1, looking upstream (06/15/2016) PP57 –Silage Reach 1, looking upstream (04/06/2022)
PP58 – Silage Reach 1, looking upstream (06/15/2016) PP58 –Silage Reach 1, looking upstream (04/06/2022)

PP59 –Silage Reach 1, looking downstream(06/15/2016) PP59 – Silage Reach 1, looking downstream (04/06/2022)
PP60 – Silage Reach 1, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP60 – Silage Reach 1, looking downstream (04/06/2022)
PP61 – Barn Reach 1, looking downslope(06/15/2016) PP61 – Barn Reach 1, looking downslope (04/06/2022)

PP62 – Barn Reach 1, looking downstream(06/15/2016) PP62 –Barn Reach 1, looking downstream (04/06/2022)
PP63 – Barn Reach 1, looking downstream(06/15/2016) PP63 –Barn Reach 1, looking downstream (04/06/2022)
PP64 – Barn Reach 2, looking downstream(06/15/2016) PP64 –Barn Reach 2, looking downstream (04/06/2022)

PP65 – Barn Reach 2, looking downslope(06/15/2016) PP65 – Barn Reach 2, looking downslope (04/06/2022)
PP66 –Silage Reach 1, looking upslope (06/15/2016) PP66 – Silage Reach 1, looking upslope(04/06/2022)
PP67 – UT1, looking downstream (06/15/2016) PP67 – UT1, looking downstream (04/06/2022)

Repair AreasPhoto Log

Moores Fork Reach 2 STA 35+40 left bank repair – 4/19/2021 Moores Fork Reach 2 STA 35+40 left bank repair – 4/05/2022

UT8/Wetland outlet repair at confluence with Moores Fork –UT8/Wetland outlet repair at confluence with Moores Fork –
4/19/2021 4/05/2022

UT10/Wetland outlet repair at confluence with Moores Fork – UT10/Wetland outlet repair at confluence with Moores Fork –
4/19/2021 4/05/2022

UT10/Wetland outlet repair – 4/19/2021UT10/Wetland outlet repair – 4/05/2022

Moores Fork Reach 3 STA 64+10 left bank repair – 4/19/2021 Moores Fork Reach 3 STA 64+10 left bank repair – 4/05/2022

Silage Reach 1 STA 10+40 gully stabilization – 4/19/2021 Silage Reach 1 STA 10+40 gully stabilization – 4/06/2022

Silage Reach 1 STA 19+00 right bank repair – 4/20/2021Silage Reach 1 STA 19+00 right bank repair – 4/06/2022

UT1 downstream repair near confluence with Silage Reach 1 – UT1 downstream repair near confluence with Silage Reach 1 –
4/20/20214/06/2022

Upper UT1 repair area gully stabilization – 4/20/2021Upper UT1 repair area gully stabilization –4/06/2022

Silage Reach 1 STA 30+30 left bank repair – 4/20/2021 Silage Reach 1 STA 30+30 left bank repair –4/06/2022

Upper Cow Trib 2 repair area gully stabilization – 4/20/2021 Upper Cow Trib2 repair area gully stabilization –4/06/2022

Upper Cow Trib 2 repair area – 4/20/2021 Upper Cow Trib 2 repair area – 4/06/2022

Vegetation Photographs
MY0 – MY7

Vegetation Plot 1 – (06/01/2016) Vegetation Plot 1– (09/26/2022)
Vegetation Plot 2 – (06/01/2016) Vegetation Plot 2– (09/26/2022)
Vegetation Plot 3 – (06/01/2016) Vegetation Plot 3– (09/26/2022)

Vegetation Plot 4 – (06/01/2016) Vegetation Plot 4– (09/26/2022)
Vegetation Plot 5 – (06/01/2016) Vegetation Plot 5– (09/26/2022)
Vegetation Plot 6 – (06/01/2016) Vegetation Plot 6– (09/26/2022)

Vegetation Plot 7 – (06/01/2016) Vegetation Plot 7– (09/26/2022)
Vegetation Plot 8 – (06/02/2016) Vegetation Plot 8– (09/26/2022)
Vegetation Plot 9 – (06/02/2016) Vegetation Plot 9– (09/26/2022)

Vegetation Plot 10 – (06/02/2016) Vegetation Plot 10 –(09/26/2022)
Vegetation Plot 11 – (06/02/2016) Vegetation Plot 11 –(09/26/2022)
Vegetation Plot 12 – (06/01/2016) Vegetation Plot 12 –(09/26/2022)

APPENDIX C. Vegetation Plot Data

100%
Tract Mean
YYYYYYYYYYYY
Met (Y/N)
MY7 Success Criteria
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 Moores MY7.mdbL:\\Active Projects\\005-02153 Moores Monitoring\\Monitoring\\Monitoring Year 7 (2022)\\Vegetation AssessmentMIMI-PC53542912Description of database
file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.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.List of plots surveyed with location and summary
data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.List of most frequent
damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.Damage values tallied by type for each species.Damage values tallied by type for each plot.A matrix
of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.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.94709Moores Fork Stream Mitigation
121212
123456789
101112
Plot
Computer Name
Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022 Table 9. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata Moores Fork Stream
Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022Database NameDatabase LocationFile SizeDESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------MetadataProj, plantedProj,
total stemsPlotsVigorVigor by SppDamageDamage by SppDamage by PlotPlanted Stems by Plot and SppALL Stems by Plot and sppPROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------Project CodeProject
NameDescriptionRiver BasinLength(ft)Stream-to-edge Width (ft)Area (sq m)Required Plots (calculated)Sampled PlotsRequired Plots (calculated)Sampled Plots

T 12121122321
1811
728
111223217
12
486
P-all
0.02471
94709-01-0006
11122327
12
486
PnoLS
T 3294126
21
850
2191215
15
607
P-all
0.02471
94709-01-0005
219125
15
607
PnoLS
T 1542116
14
567
15421116
14
567
P-all
0.02471
94709-01-0004
1542116
14
567
PnoLS
T 1311175
283
13111715
283
P-all
0.02471
94709-01-0003
1311175
283
PnoLS
T 131164
243
1311614
243
P-all
0.02471
94709-01-0002
131164
243
PnoLS
T 3533
11
445
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakesP-all: Number of planted stems including live stakesT: Total stems
Current Plot Data (MY7 2022)
35313
11
445
P-all
0.02471
94709-01-0001
3533
11
445
PnoLS
size (ares)
Stem count
size (ACRES)
Species count
Species Type
TreeTreeShrub TreeTreeShrub TreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeShrub TreeShrub TreeTree
Stems per ACRE
Common Name
Box ElderRed MapleTag AlderRiver Birch, Red BirchRedbudFlowering dogwoodAmerican PersimmonGreen Ash, Red AshBlack WalnutTulip PoplarBlack GumSycamoreBlack CherryBradford PearOvercup
OakRock Chestnut OakWater OakWillow OakNorthern Red OakWinged SumacSmooth SumacBlack Willow
Scientific Name
Table 10a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022 Acer negundoAcer rubrumAlnus serrulataBetula nigraCercis canadensisCornus floridaDiospyros virginianaFraxinus
pennsylvanicaJuglans nigraLiriodendron tulipiferaNyssa sylvaticaPlatanus occidentalisPrunus serotinaPyrus calleryanaQuercus lyrataQuercus montanaQuercus nigraQuercus phellosQuercus
rubraRhus copallinumRhus glabraSalix nigra Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10%Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to
meet requirements by more than 10%Volunteer species included in total

T 612115
11
445
6111914
364
P-all
0.02471
94709-01-0012
611194
364
PnoLS
T 935355
25
1012
153514
14
567
P-all
0.02471
94709-01-0011
15354
14
567
PnoLS
T 5442318
254084
3399
44313
11
445
P-all
0.02471
94709-01-0010
4433
11
445
PnoLS
T 1134161619
24
971
11616116
16
647
P-all
0.02471
94709-01-0009
1161616
16
647
PnoLS
T 112214198
21
850
11241915
364
P-all
0.02471
94709-01-0008
1124195
364
PnoLS
T 5473
16
647
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakesP-all: Number of planted stems including live stakesT: Total stems
Current Plot Data (MY7 2022)
52713
14
567
P-all
0.02471
94709-01-0007
5273
14
567
PnoLS
size (ares)
Stem count
size (ACRES)
Species count
Species Type
TreeTreeShrub TreeTreeShrub TreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeShrub TreeShrub TreeTree
Stems per ACRE
Common Name
Box ElderRed MapleTag AlderRiver Birch, Red BirchRedbudFlowering dogwoodAmerican PersimmonGreen Ash, Red AshBlack WalnutTulip PoplarBlack GumSycamoreBlack CherryBradford PearOvercup
OakRock Chestnut OakWater OakWillow OakNorthern Red OakWinged SumacSmooth SumacBlack Willow
Scientific Name
Table 10b. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022 Acer negundoAcer rubrumAlnus serrulataBetula nigraCercis canadensisCornus floridaDiospyros virginianaFraxinus
pennsylvanicaJuglans nigraLiriodendron tulipiferaNyssa sylvaticaPlatanus occidentalisPrunus serotinaPyrus calleryanaQuercus lyrataQuercus montanaQuercus nigraQuercus phellosQuercus
rubraRhus copallinumRhus glabraSalix nigra Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10%Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to
meet requirements by more than 10%Volunteer species included in total

T 479
14141926292214
149502
479
1414192629221412
149502
P-all
0.29653
MY0 (2016)
479
14141926292214
149502
PnoLS
T 2871
1413202628211411
154519
479
1413202528211412
146492
P-all
0.29653
MY1 (2016)
479
14132025282114
146492
PnoLS
T 7342
171670172430141712
221745
144
161517243014151210
140472
P-all
0.29653
MY2 (2017)
144
1615172430141510
140472
PnoLS
T 1145
20211748162328141513
213718
449
1715162328141512
136459
P-all
0.29653
MY3 (2018)
449
17151623281415
136459
PnoLS
T 31242
10181541162429111514
191644
144
171516242911151210
136459
P-all
0.29653
MY4 (2019)
144
1715162429111510
136459
PnoLS
T 54229421
1918551624291616
144350
1180
125941
1817162429161212
142479
P-all
0.29653
MY5 (2020)
125941
18171624291612
142479
PnoLS
T 2732234143
33181760182430101619
257867
Annual Stem Counts & Means
32541
171616242910161212
143482
P-all
0.29653
MY6 (2021)
32541
1716162429101612
143482
PnoLS
T 1252574291
37221452182427101619
258870
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakesP-all: Number of planted stems including live stakesT: Total stems
32541
171316242710161212
138465
P-all
0.29653
MY7 (2022)
32541
1713162427101612
138465
PnoLS
size (ares)
Stem count
size (ACRES)
Species count
Species Type
TreeTreeShrub TreeTreeShrub TreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeTreeShrub TreeShrub TreeTree
Stems per ACRE
Common Name
Box ElderRed MapleTag AlderRiver Birch, Red BirchRedbudFlowering dogwoodAmerican PersimmonGreen Ash, Red AshBlack WalnutTulip PoplarBlack GumSycamoreBlack CherryBradford PearOvercup
OakRock Chestnut OakWater OakWillow OakNorthern Red OakWinged SumacSmooth SumacBlack Willow
Scientific Name
Table 10c. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No. 94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022 Acer negundoAcer rubrumAlnus serrulataBetula nigraCercis canadensisCornus floridaDiospyros virginianaFraxinus
pennsylvanicaJuglans nigraLiriodendron tulipiferaNyssa sylvaticaPlatanus occidentalisPrunus serotinaPyrus calleryanaQuercus lyrataQuercus montanaQuercus nigraQuercus phellosQuercus
rubraRhus copallinumRhus glabraSalix nigra Color for Density Exceeds requirements by 10%Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%Fails to
meet requirements by more than 10%Volunteer species included in total

Table 10d. Planted Stem Average Heights
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Average Stem Height (ft) by Plot
MY2MY3MY4MY5MY6MY7
Vegetation Plot 1 5.17.39.612.918.323.2
Vegetation Plot 2 5.06.59.910.411.614.0
Vegetation Plot 3 3.46.79.19.915.919.6
Vegetation Plot 4 7.811.915.320.424.225.7
Vegetation Plot 5 8.012.615.921.224.931.6
Vegetation Plot 6 2.32.73.44.95.96.2
Vegetation Plot 7 4.97.610.115.317.522.1
Vegetation Plot 8 4.86.99.011.813.717.5
Vegetation Plot 9 4.05.98.311.815.720.5
Vegetation Plot 10 2.83.75.27.49.010.3
Vegetation Plot 11 3.23.74.45.66.07.9
Vegetation Plot 12 4.87.09.410.715.819.3
Site Average4.76.99.111.914.918.2

Table 10e. Stems Per Plot Across All Years
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
MY7 (2022)MY6 (2021)MY5 (2020)MY4 (2019)
Plot
Planted Total Total Planted Total Total Planted Total Total Planted Total Total
StemsStemsStems/AcStemsStemsStems/AcStemsStemsStems/AcStemsStemsStems/Ac
11111445121248612124861212486
266243772837728367283
377283772837728355202
41414567171768817176881717688
51521850151976914176881418728
6
1218728122080911124861313526
7
1416648131560713145671212486
8
921850915607914567712486
9
1624971161768816208091616648
10
11843,39911983,966112018,13410532,145
11
14251,012141872814187281416648
12445101248611114451010405
911
MY3 (2018)MY2 (2017)MY1 (2016)MY0 (2016)
Plot
Planted Total Total Planted Total Total Planted Total Total Planted Total Total
StemsStemsStems/AcStemsStemsStems/AcStemsStemsStems/AcStemsStemsStems/Ac
11214567121248613135261212486
277283772836624377283
366243772837728377283
41515607171768816166481717688
51416648141664813166481414567
61414567131352619197692121850
71216648121352613135261414567
861456781248681352688324
91620809161872816166481616648
1010652,63110813,2789936488324
111416648141456714145671313526
121010405101144512124861212486

APPENDIX D. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

---------
------------------
2.55.42.54.92.66.8
37.894.815.139.599.515.756.021.2
MY7MY7MY7
147.7
1149.31149.31138.41138.41132.31132.3
MY6MY6MY6
---------------------------
2.45.52.75.82.46.6
40.495.517.139.914.855.022.7
MY5MY5MY5
107.7133.3
1149.01149.01138.31138.31132.21132.2
333
MY4MY4MY4
222
---------------------------
2.25.12.45.22.56.2
38.081.817.648.119.857.923.0
MY3MY3MY3
116.7146.1
1148.41148.41138.71138.71132.11132.1
1
Cross-Section M3 (Pool)Cross-Section M6 (Pool)Cross-Section M9 (Pool)
---------------------------
2.35.22.95.22.76.5
MY2 38.987.817.2 MY2 39.313.354.320.1
MY2
115.6146.1
1148.41148.41138.61138.51132.11132.1
11
---------------------------
2.35.12.75.52.86.3
39.390.117.239.114.453.719.3
MY1
MY1MY1
106.2149.5
1148.41148.31138.61138.51132.11132.1
111
---------------------------
2.35.22.75.12.86.3
39.191.816.639.314.552.018.5
106.1146.3
BaseBaseBase
1148.41148.41138.61138.61132.11132.1
2.34.14.91.02.03.73.71.02.75.33.61.0
29.566.413.133.666.517.034.892.613.1
MY7MY7MY7
145.0124.0124.0
1149.51149.51139.51139.31132.41132.5
MY6MY6MY6
2.14.04.31.02.54.43.61.12.74.93.51.0
33.870.516.234.784.714.135.996.613.3
MY5MY5MY5
145.0124.0124.0
1149.31149.41139.51139.91132.51132.6
333
MY4MY4MY4
222
1.73.73.82.23.83.81.02.54.33.41.0
38.567.222.1<1.032.773.014.636.591.514.6
MY3MY3MY3
145.0124.0124.0
1149.11148.81139.51139.71132.41132.2
Cross-Section M2 (Riffle)Cross-Section M5 (Riffle)Cross-Section M8 (Riffle)
1.93.44.51.02.23.64.11.12.74.23.71.0
MY2 32.562.017.0 MY2 32.672.814.6 MY2 33.589.212.6
145.0124.0124.0
1139.51139.71132.41132.3
1148.71148.6
1
2.03.44.51.02.33.63.91.02.74.33.61.0
32.565.616.131.672.413.834.091.512.6
MY1MY1
MY1
145.0124.0124.0
1148.71148.71139.51139.41132.41132.3
1
2.13.54.61.02.33.53.91.02.64.13.61.0
31.867.215.032.073.014.034.691.513.1
BaseBase
145.0124.0124.0
Base
1148.71148.71139.51139.51132.41132.4
2.03.64.72.14.92.21.12.04.22.5
31.062.115.5<1.055.726.549.724.6<1.0
MY7MY7MY7
145.0124.0117.2124.0100.4
1150.91150.51142.51142.81135.41135.0
MY6MY6MY6
2.03.34.51.74.02.42.23.72.6
32.465.316.0<1.052.489.930.5<1.048.522.3<1.0
MY5MY5MY5
145.0124.0124.0105.4
1150.71150.41142.51142.31135.11134.9
333
MY4MY4MY4
222
2.13.54.01.63.22.42.34.02.4
<1.0
36.074.117.5<1.052.383.832.751.022.0<1.0
MY3MY3MY3
145.0124.0124.0118.1
1150.51150.31142.51142.21135.01134.8
Cross-Section M7 (Run)
Cross-Section M1 (Riffle)Cross-Section M4 (Riffle)
2.13.44.31.01.83.72.42.43.82.51.0
<1.0
MY2 34.171.916.1 MY2 52.395.828.6 MY2 49.620.9
145.0124.0124.0117.7
1142.31141.61134.91135.0
1150.41150.4
2.23.24.21.01.93.22.42.43.52.51.0
34.274.315.751.697.427.3<1.049.220.7
MY1MY1MY1
145.0124.0124.0117.0
1142.31141.61134.91134.9
1150.41150.5
1
2.23.34.41.01.93.32.41.02.43.52.51.0
33.274.114.952.226.949.520.7
BaseBase
145.0124.0101.1124.0118.1
Base
1142.31142.31134.91134.9
1150.41150.4
)))
222
Bankfull Width (ft)Bankfull Width (ft)Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)Floodprone Width (ft)Floodprone Width (ft)
bankfull elevation (ft)bankfull elevation (ft)bankfull elevation (ft)
low bank elevation (ft)low bank elevation (ft)low bank elevation (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)Bankfull Max Depth (ft)Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Bank Height RatioBankfull Bank Height RatioBankfull Bank Height Ratio
Bankfull Width/Depth RatioBankfull Width/Depth RatioBankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment RatioBankfull Entrenchment RatioBankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ftBankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ftBankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft
Prior to MY3, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY3-MY7, Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (Base) cross-sectional area as
described in the Standard Measurement of the MY4 and MY6 are reduced monitoring years. No geomorphic data collected.
Adjustment in survey points included in bankfull calculations resulting in change to previous monitoring year bankfull dimensions.
Table 12a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No.94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022Moores ForkDimension
and SubstrateDimension and SubstrateDimension and Substrate 2 BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension
parameters were calculated based on the low bank elevation.3
1

6.90.91.36.27.73.01.21.21.89.12.51.6
20.511.428.014.2
MY7MY7
1192.81192.91175.21175.8
MY6MY6
7.90.81.36.69.42.71.28.31.62.25.23.41.6
21.028.013.2
MY5MY5
1192.61192.91174.91175.7
33
MY4MY4
22
6.50.71.34.88.93.11.08.30.81.57.09.93.41.0
20.028.0
MY3MY3
1192.81192.71175.41175.4
1
Cross-Section ST3 (Riffle)Cross-Section ST6 (Riffle)
0.66.52.28.70.87.33.2
1.51.5
10.222.115.9<1.028.010.4<1.0
MY2
MY2
1193.01192.71175.41175.3
11
0.40.94.21.58.40.71.56.13.3
10.215.024.9<1.028.011.6<1.0
MY1MY1
1193.01192.91175.41175.3
11
9.60.54.91.61.09.60.76.82.91.0
0.91.3
15.018.728.013.5
BaseBase
1193.01193.01175.41175.4
------------------
6.61.52.34.31.21.78.2
10.210.212.6
MY7MY7
1234.11234.11185.01185.0
MY6MY6
------------------
5.71.01.75.65.81.01.49.7
10.110.5
MY5MY5
1233.61233.61185.01185.0
33
MY4MY4
22
------------------
5.10.81.24.16.48.20.91.37.19.4
MY3MY3
1233.51233.51184.71184.7
Cross-Section ST2 (Pool)Cross-Section ST5 (Pool)
------------------
5.30.63.09.28.41.08.78.1
1.11.6
MY2MY2
1233.41233.51185.11185.0
11
------------------
4.50.61.22.87.28.70.91.58.19.4
MY1MY1
1233.41233.41185.11184.9
1
------------------
5.10.63.28.07.81.07.97.7
1.21.4
Base
Base
1233.41233.41185.11185.1
---------
6.51.01.46.36.71.71.81.01.99.61.01.79.39.93.51.0
11.014.814.115.633.5
MY7MY7MY7
1234.21234.81192.51192.51164.81164.9
MY6MY6MY6
---------
5.49.70.91.35.15.81.81.60.81.71.11.99.23.21.2
13.910.817.910.534.012.0
MY5MY5MY5
1234.11234.61192.51192.51164.71165.0
333
MY4MY4MY4
222
---------
4.20.70.92.86.22.61.31.22.58.71.01.68.39.13.6
10.716.519.114.331.0<1.0
MY3MY3MY3
1234.11234.41193.11193.11164.71164.6
Cross-Section ST4 (Pool)
Cross-Section ST1 (Riffle)Cross-Section ST7 (Riffle)
---------
4.59.60.91.54.14.82.21.01.10.91.89.63.11.0
2.3
14.716.013.410.833.612.1
MY2MY2MY2
1234.61234.61193.11192.91164.71164.6
11
---------
4.09.20.61.12.36.72.31.01.32.70.91.69.33.0
14.919.411.410.531.812.0<1.0
MY1
MY1MY1
1234.61234.61193.11192.91164.71164.6
11
---------
4.29.40.71.22.86.42.21.01.10.91.58.82.91.0
2.4
13.915.512.510.329.612.0
Base
BaseBase
1234.61234.61193.11193.11164.71164.7
)))
222
Bankfull Width (ft)Bankfull Width (ft)Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)Floodprone Width (ft)Floodprone Width (ft)
bankfull elevation (ft)bankfull elevation (ft)bankfull elevation (ft)
low bank elevation (ft)low bank elevation (ft)low bank elevation (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)Bankfull Max Depth (ft)Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Bank Height RatioBankfull Bank Height RatioBankfull Bank Height Ratio
Bankfull Width/Depth RatioBankfull Width/Depth RatioBankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment RatioBankfull Entrenchment RatioBankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ftBankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ftBankfull Cross-Sectional Area (ft
Prior to MY3, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY3-MY7, Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (Base) cross-sectional area as
described in the Standard Measurement of the MY4 and MY6 are reduced monitoring years. No geomorphic data collected.
Adjustment in survey points included in bankfull calculations resulting in change to previous monitoring year bankfull dimensions.
Table 12b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross-Section)Moores Fork Stream Mitigation ProjectDMS Project No.94709 Monitoring Year 7 - 2022Silage TributaryDimension
and SubstrateDimension and SubstrateDimension and Substrate 2 BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018). The remainder of the cross-section dimension
parameters were calculated based on the low bank elevation.3
1

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross Section M1- Moores Fork
27+16 Riffle
1155
1154
1153
1152
1151
1150
1149
1148
1147
1146
010203040506070
Width (ft)
MY0 (6/2016)MY1 (11/2016)MY2 (6/2017)
MY3 (6/2018)MY5 (4/2020)MY7 (5/2022)
BankfullFloodprone AreaMY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
62.1x-section area (ft.sq.)
31.0width (ft)
2.0mean depth (ft)
3.6max depth (ft)
32.6wetted perimeter (ft)
1.9hydraulic radius (ft)
15.5width-depth ratio
145.0W flood prone area (ft)
4.7entrenchment ratio
0.9low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross Section M2- Moores Fork
29+84 Riffle
1154
1153
1152
1151
1150
1149
1148
1147
1146
1145
010203040506070
Width (ft)
MY0 (6/2016)MY1 (11/2016)MY2 (6/2017)
MY3 (6/2018)MY5 (4/2020)MY7 (5/2022)
BankfullFloodprone AreaMY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
66.4x-section area (ft.sq.)
29.5width (ft)
2.3mean depth (ft)
4.1max depth (ft)
31.6wetted perimeter (ft)
2.1hydraulic radius (ft)
13.1width-depth ratio
145.0W flood prone area (ft)
4.9entrenchment ratio
1.0low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross Section M3- Moores Fork
31+07 Pool
1151
1150
1149
1148
1147
1146
1145
1144
1143
0102030405060708090
Width (ft)
MY0 (6/2016)MY1 (11/2016)MY2 (6/2017)MY3 (6/2018)MY5 (4/2020)MY7 (5/2022)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
94.8x-section area (ft.sq.)
37.8width (ft)
2.5mean depth (ft)
5.4max depth (ft)
40.5wetted perimeter (ft)
2.3hydraulic radius (ft)
15.1width-depth ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross Section M4- Moores Fork
39+92 Riffle
1149
1147
1145
1143
1141
1139
1137
01020304050607080
Width (ft)
MY0 (6/2016)MY1 (11/2016)MY2 (6/2017)
MY3 (6/2018)MY5 (4/2020)MY7 (5/2022)
BankfullFloodprone AreaMY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
117.2x-section area (ft.sq.)
55.7width (ft)
2.1mean depth (ft)
4.9max depth (ft)
59.4wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0hydraulic radius (ft)
26.5width-depth ratio
124.0W flood prone area (ft)
2.2entrenchment ratio
1.1low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross Section M5- Moores Fork
45+02 Riffle
1145
1143
1141
1139
1137
1135
0102030405060
Width (ft)
MY0 (6/2016)MY1 (11/2016)MY2 (6/2017)
MY3 (6/2018)MY5 (4/2020)MY7 (5/2022)
BankfullFloodprone AreaMY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
66.5x-section area (ft.sq.)
33.6width (ft)
2.0mean depth (ft)
3.7max depth (ft)
35.4wetted perimeter (ft)
1.9hydraulic radius (ft)
17.0width-depth ratio
124.0W flood prone area (ft)
3.7entrenchment ratio
1.0low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Kee Mapping & Surveying
XS5 DS
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross Section M6- Moores Fork
47+34 Pool
1144
1142
1140
1138
1136
1134
1132
0102030405060708090
Width (ft)
MY0 (6/2016)MY1 (11/2016)MY2 (6/2017)MY3 (6/2018)MY5 (4/2020)MY7 (5/2022)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
99.5x-section area (ft.sq.)
39.5width (ft)
2.5mean depth (ft)
4.9max depth (ft)
42.5wetted perimeter (ft)
2.3hydraulic radius (ft)
15.7width-depth ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Kee Mapping & Surveying
XS6 DS
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross Section M7- Moores Fork
52+16 Run
1140
1138
1136
1134
1132
1130
0102030405060708090
Width (ft)
MY0 (6/2016)MY1 (11/2016)MY2 (6/2017)
MY3 (6/2018)MY5 (4/2020)MY7 (5/2022)
BankfullFloodprone AreaMY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
100.4x-section area (ft.sq.)
49.7width (ft)
2.0mean depth (ft)
4.2max depth (ft)
51.5wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0hydraulic radius (ft)
24.6width-depth ratio
124.0W flood prone area (ft)
2.5entrenchment ratio
0.9low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross Section M8- Moores Fork
56+02 Riffle
1139
1137
1135
1133
1131
1129
1127
01020304050607080
Width (ft)
MY0 (6/2016)MY1 (11/2016)MY2 (6/2017)
MY3 (6/2018)MY5 (4/2020)MY7 (5/2022)
BankfullFloodprone AreaMY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
92.6x-section area (ft.sq.)
34.8width (ft)
2.7mean depth (ft)
5.3max depth (ft)
38.0wetted perimeter (ft)
2.4hydraulic radius (ft)
13.1width-depth ratio
124.0W flood prone area (ft)
3.6entrenchment ratio
1.0low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross Section M9- Moores Fork
57+38 Pool
1137
1135
1133
1131
1129
1127
1125
01020304050607080
Width (ft)
MY0 (6/2016)MY1 (11/2016)MY2 (6/2017)MY3 (6/2018)MY5 (4/2020)MY7 (5/2022)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
147.7x-section area (ft.sq.)
56.0width (ft)
2.6mean depth (ft)
6.8max depth (ft)
60.4wetted perimeter (ft)
2.4hydraulic radius (ft)
21.2width-depth ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross Section ST1- Silage Trib
13+46 Riffle
1242
1240
1238
1236
1234
1232
10152025303540
Width (ft)
MY0 (6/2016)MY1 (11/2016)MY2 (6/2017)
MY3 (6/2018)MY5 (4/2020)MY7 (5/2022)
BankfullFloodprone AreaMY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
6.3x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.5width (ft)
1.0mean depth (ft)
1.4max depth (ft)
7.5wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8hydraulic radius (ft)
6.7width-depth ratio
11.0W flood prone area (ft)
1.7entrenchment ratio
1.8low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross Section ST2- Silage Trib
13+81 Pool
1238
1237
1236
1235
1234
1233
1232
1231
1015202530
Width (ft)
MY0 (6/2016)MY1 (11/2016)MY2 (6/2017)MY3 (6/2018)MY5 (4/2020)MY7 (5/2022)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
10.2x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.6width (ft)
1.5mean depth (ft)
2.3max depth (ft)
8.5wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2hydraulic radius (ft)
4.3width-depth ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross Section ST3 - Silage Trib
25+48 Riffle
1195
1194
1193
1192
1191
0510152025
Width (ft)
MY0 (6/2016)MY1 (11/2016)MY2 (6/2017)
MY3 (6/2018)MY5 (4/2020)MY7 (5/2022)
BankfullFloodprone AreaMY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
6.2x-section area (ft.sq.)
6.9width (ft)
0.9mean depth (ft)
1.3max depth (ft)
7.7wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8hydraulic radius (ft)
7.7width-depth ratio
20.5W flood prone area (ft)
3.0entrenchment ratio
1.2low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross Section ST4 - Silage Trib
25+70 Pool
1195
1194
1193
1192
1191
1190
05101520
Width (ft)
MY0 (6/2016)MY1 (11/2016)MY2 (6/2017)MY3 (6/2018)MY5 (4/2020)MY7 (5/2022)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
14.1x-section area (ft.sq.)
14.8width (ft)
1.0mean depth (ft)
1.9max depth (ft)
16.1wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9hydraulic radius (ft)
15.6width-depth ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross Section ST5 - Silage Trib
28+55 Pool
1188
1187
1186
1185
1184
1183
05101520
Width (ft)
MY0 (6/2016)MY1 (11/2016)MY2 (6/2017)MY3 (6/2018)MY5 (4/2020)MY7 (5/2022)Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
12.6x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.2width (ft)
1.2mean depth (ft)
1.7max depth (ft)
11.2wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1hydraulic radius (ft)
8.2width-depth ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross Section ST6 - Silage Trib
32+44 Riffle
1179
1177
1175
1173
0510152025
Width (ft)
MY0 (6/2016)MY1 (11/2016)MY2 (6/2017)
MY3 (6/2018)MY5 (4/2020)MY7 (5/2022)
BankfullFloodprone AreaMY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
14.2x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.4width (ft)
1.2mean depth (ft)
1.8max depth (ft)
12.7wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1hydraulic radius (ft)
9.1width-depth ratio
28.0W flood prone area (ft)
2.5entrenchment ratio
1.6low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Cross Section ST7- Silage Trib
36+85 Riffle
1170
1168
1166
1164
1162
010203040
Width (ft)
MY0 (6/2016)MY1 (11/2016)MY2 (6/2017)
MY3 (6/2018)MY5 (4/2020)MY7 (5/2022)
BankfullFloodprone AreaMY0 BKF XS Area Elevation
Bankfull Dimensions
9.3x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.6width (ft)
1.0mean depth (ft)
1.7max depth (ft)
10.5wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9hydraulic radius (ft)
9.9width-depth ratio
33.5W flood prone area (ft)
3.5entrenchment ratio
1.0low bank height ratio
Survey Date:5/2022
Field Crew:Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

APPENDIX E. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
ReachMonitoring YearDate of Data CollectionDate of OccurrenceMethodMeasurement (ft)
MY110/25/2016~8/4/2016Crest Gage1.30
MY27/10/2017~5/25/2017Crest Gage2.55
MY34/12/2018~3/25/2018Crest Gage2.73
3/13/2019~2/24/2019Crest Gage2.30
MY4
Moores Fork Reach 2
6/19/2019~6/18/2019Debris wracklinesN/A
2/27/2020~1/25/2020Debris wracklinesN/A
MY5
9/8/2020~9/1/2020Debris wracklinesN/A
MY6
9/7/2021~8/18/2021Debris wracklinesN/A
MY7
4/6/2022~3/24/2022Debris wracklinesN/A
MY110/25/2016~8/4/2016Crest Gage0.75
MY34/12/2018~3/25/2018Debris wracklinesN/A
MY46/19/2019~6/18/2019Crest Gage/Debris wracklinesN/A
Silage Reach 2
MY59/8/2020~9/1/2020Debris wracklinesN/A
MY69/7/2021~8/18/2021Debris wracklinesN/A
MY7
4/6/2022~3/24/2022Debris wracklinesN/A

Monthly Rainfall Data
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 7 - 2022
Moores Fork 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2022 Surry County, NC
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Jan-22Feb-22Mar-22Apr-22May-22Jun-22Jul-22Aug-22Sep-22Oct-22
Date
NC CRONOS MT Airy 2 W
70th percentile
30th percentile
1
2022 rainfall collected from NC CRONOS Station Name: MT AIRY 2 W (NCCRONOS, 2022)
2
30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station MT AIRY 2 W, NC (NCCRONOS, 2022)