20090861 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20150414 (2)

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 2 (2013)
UT TO BALD STREAM/WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
YANCEY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(EEP Project No. 92596, Contract No. 4997)
Construction Completed December 2011
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
r';J
�
°�11'Ia 1�1t
Pk0opAM
January 2014

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 2 (2013)
UT TO BALD STREAM/WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
YANCEY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(EEP Project No. 92596, Contract No. 4997)
Construction Completed December 2011
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Axiom Environmental, Inc. f"'
PRdn .tM
January 2014

Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... ............................... l
2.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... ............................... 3
2.1 Vegetation Assessment ......................................................................... ............................... 3
2.2 Stream Assessment ................................................................................ ............................... 3
3.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................... ............................... 4
Appendices
APPENDIX A. PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
APPENDIX B. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5.1 -5.4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Tables
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Site Fixed - Station Photos
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
APPENDIX C. VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
APPENDIX D. STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross - section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Substrate Plots
Table 10a - b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 a - b. Monitoring Data
APPENDIX E. HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The UT to Bald Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site ")
is situated within the US Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 06010108 of the French
Broad River Basin and is in a portion of NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) Priority Sub -
basin 04- 03 -07. The Site is located in Yancey County, approximately eight miles west of the
City of Burnsville, North Carolina. The Site is encompassed within a 12.74 -acre easement
located on two tracts of property. Tract one is owned by Henry and Elizabeth Turner and tract
two is owned by Charles Young Jr. and Deana Blanchard. The Site is comprised of five
headwater tributaries originating from Mountain seeps and springs, and five adjacent streamside
wetlands (Figure 2, Appendix B). Prior to construction, upper reaches of the Site were forested
and relatively stable. Downstream reaches were impacted by agriculture activities with minimal
riparian buffer. This report (compiled based on the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP) Procedural Guidance and Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring
Reports Version 1.4 dated 11/7/11) summarizes data for Year 2 (2013) monitoring.
The project goals (from approved Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream Restoration
Project, Final Restoration Plan [NCEEP 2009]) include the following.
• Reduce erosion from within the Site
• Restore a channel capable of transporting watershed flows and sediment loads efficiently
• Improve wetland and stream aquatic habitat
• Enhance wildlife habitat
• Improve overall water quality
These goals will be accomplished through the implementation of the following objectives:
• Exclude livestock from the stream in order to
• Reduce direct inputs of nutrients and fecal coliform bacteria into the stream
• Eliminate the stress on streambanks caused by hoof shear
• Plant a native riparian buffer in order to
• Provide woody root mass to stabilize the streambanks
• Filter sediment and nutrient pollutants from agricultural fields and prevent them
from entering the stream
• Provide shade to the stream channel as a means of reducing water temperatures
• Provide a source for woody debris and leaf litter that will enhance aquatic habitat
• Enhance existing wetlands by excluding livestock, managing invasive species, and
planting native wetland vegetation
• Restore Site streams to a proper bankfull dimension and stabilize steep and eroding
streambanks
• Provide Site streams with adequate flood -prone area
• Repair headcuts and establish a more diverse bed morphology with riffle -pool sequences
supported by in- stream structures
• Restore an impounded reach of stream by removing a small dam and culvert
• Create protected riparian corridors for wildlife passage
• Preserve high - quality forested headwater streams in the steeper reaches of the Site
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina page 1

Vegetation success criteria (from approved Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream
Restoration Project, Final Restoration Plan [NC EEP 2009]) is as follows.
"The success criteria for the preferred species in the restoration areas will be based on
annual and cumulative survival and growth over five years. Survival of preferred species
must be at a minimum 320 stems - per -acre at the end of three years of monitoring and 260
stems - per -acre after five years."
Six vegetation monitoring plots were monitored on August 12, 2013 for monitoring year 2
(2013). Overall, Site vegetation averaged 425 planted stems - per -acre (excluding livestakes) in
year 2 (2013), which exceeds the minimum stem count for success criteria of 320 stems - per -acre.
Five of the six plots met or exceeded the success criteria. Vegetation plot 4 was below success
criteria with 202 planted stems - per -acre. Low planted stem survival in vegetation plot 4 may be
attributed to competition from herbaceous vegetation (primarily fescue [Festuca spp.] and
tearthumb [Polygonum spp.]).
Five vegetation areas of concern were identified on the site. Planted stem density was moderate
to poor throughout the site. Planted stems in the drier portions of the site were generally hard to
locate due to the thick fescue. Wetter areas in the site had poor stem growth due to saturation
and competition with sedges and soft rush (Carex spp. and Juncus effusus). Additionally, three
small patches of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) were identified in the site. These areas of
concern are summarized below and depicted on the attached Figure 2 (Appendix B).
Vegetation Areas of Concern
Map Identifier
Feature/Issue
VAC -1
Low stem density around tributary 3
VAC -2
Low stem density in and around Veg Plot 4
VAC -3 to 5
Multiflora Rose
Stream success criteria (from approved Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream Restoration
Project, Final Restoration Plan [NCEEP 2009])]) consists is as follows.
"Monitoring shall consist of the collection and analysis of stream stability and riparian
vegetation survivability data to support the evaluation of the project in meeting
established restoration objectives."
A visual assessment and geomorphic survey were completed for the Site. Site reaches are
conforming to design criteria established in the Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream
Restoration Project, Final Restoration Plan (NCEEP 2009). No significant bank erosion was
recorded and geomorphic measurements are within the range of proposed design parameters.
Stream areas of concern include a headcut on Tributary 2 that currently poses no immediate
threat to stream stability. In addition, five areas of aggradation (SAC -2 to 6) were observed
along the mainstem, Tributary 2, and Tributary 4. These areas were documented previously and
conditions have improved since last reported in the year 1 (2012) monitoring report. Stream
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina page 2

channels appear to be exhibiting aggradation of fine materials, possibly from surface flows
across the adjacent floodplain and extensive herbaceous vegetation growth within the channel
bed. Currently, aggradation does not appear to present a problem; however, continued
observation throughout the monitoring period should determine if the system is able to flush
aggraded material. Stream areas of concern are summarized in the following table and are
depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B).
Stream Areas of Concern
Map Identifier
Feature/Issue
SAC -1
Headcut on Tributary 2
SAC -2 to 6
Aggradation on Mainstem, Tributary 2, and Tributary 4
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment
and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in
tables and figures within this report's appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report
(formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly the Restoration Plan) documents
available on NCEEPs website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices
is available from NCEEP upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Six vegetation plots were established and marked during the Year 1 (2012) monitoring period.
Plots were established by installing 4 -foot, metal U -bar post at the corners and a 10 -foot, 0.75
inch PVC at the origin. The plots are 10 meters square and are located randomly within the Site.
These plots were surveyed in August for the Year 2 (2013) monitoring season using methods
outlined in CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Levels 1 -2 Plot Sampling Only,
Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) ( http: / /cvs.bio.unc.edu /methods.htm); results are included in
Appendix C. The taxonomic standard for vegetation used for this document was Flora of the
Southern and Mid Atlantic States (Weakley 2012).
2.2 Stream Assessment
Annual stream monitoring was conducted in April 2013. Measurements were taken using a
Topcon GTS 303 total station and Recon data collector. The raw total station file was processed
using Carlson Survey Software into a Computer Aided Design (CAD) file. Coordinates were
exported as a text /ASCII file to Microsoft Excel for processing and presentation of data. Pebble
counts were completed using the modified Wolman method (Rosgen 1993). One crest gauge
(PVC with wooden staff gauge and cork filings) was installed in the lower, downstream third of
the Site.
Six permanent cross - sections, three riffle and three pool, were established and will be used to
evaluate stream dimension annually; locations are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B). Cross -
sections are permanently monumented with 5 -foot metal t -posts at each end point. Cross -
sections will be surveyed to provide a detailed measurement of the stream and banks including
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina page 3

points on the adjacent floodplain, top of bank, bankfull, breaks in slope, edge of water, and
thalweg. Data will be used to calculate width -depth ratios, entrenchment ratios, and bank height
ratios for each cross - section. In addition, a pebble count was completed at cross - section 2 and
photographs will be taken at each permanent cross - section location annually.
Six stream monitoring reaches were established and will be used to evaluate stream pattern and
longitudinal profile; locations are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B). Measurement of channel
pattern will include belt- width, meander length, and radius of curvature (only in year one).
Subsequently, data will be used to calculate meander -width ratios. Longitudinal profile
measurements will include average water surface slopes and facet slopes and pool -to -pool
spacing. Twenty -two permanent photo points were established throughout the restoration reach
(12 fixed photo points, 4 cross - section photo points, and 6 vegetation plot photo points);
locations are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B) and are included in Appendix B. In addition,
visual stream morphology stability assessments will be completed in four monitoring reaches
annually to assess the channel bed, banks, and in- stream structures.
3.0 REFERENCES
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). Unpublished. Procedural Guidance and Content
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Projects, Version 1.4, dated 11/07/11. NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Available online at
http: // portal. ncdenr .org /c /document_library/get file ?p_l_id = 1169848 &folderld = 2288101
&name = DLFE -3 926 8 . ndf
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS -EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Levels 1 -2 Plot Sampling Only, Version 4.2. Available online at
http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm.
N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream
Restoration Project, Final Restoration Plan - Yancey County, NC.
Rosgen. 1993. Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, Training Manual. River Short Course,
Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Weakley, Alan S. 2012. Flora of the Southern and Mid - Atlantic States. Available online at:
http: / /www. herbarium .unc.cdu /WeakleysFIora.pdf [September 28, 2012]. University of
North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Weather Underground. 2013. Station at Asheville Airport, North Carolina. (online). Available:
http: / /www.wunderground. com/history /airport/KAVL /2013 /4 /7 /CustomHistory.html ?day
end =7 &monthend =6 &yearend =2013 &req_ city =NA &req_state= NA &req_statename =NA
[June 7, 2013]. Weather Underground.
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina page 4

APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

1.. _ '� "� �. ' •ff' L �5 °'R' ?� j Ass 5 +� �. J" .'ti1�[ "', ", f 4w �... ` "
_ I
CO
ON Z
f�
'r
Project Site
s
Access Point:
- 82.43146, 35.92193 1..
y
t
i
o .
' O t
i }
r
. f C
41 `11
0 1 2 4
Miles
Directions from Raleigh:
Take 1 -40 West about 212 miles to Marion.
Take exit 86, for US -226 North, towards Marion /Shelby. ]�
Follow US -226 North about 23 miles to Spruce Pine, NC.a
Continue onto US -19E South 21 miles, through Burnsville.
Take a right on Sweethollow Road.
The site is 0.5 miles on the left.
SITE LOCATION MAP
UT TO BALD STREAM RESTORATION
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
r\
Axiom Environmental
December 2012
218 Snow Avenue
12- 004.15
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 215 -1693
Axiom Environmental,
Inc.
SITE LOCATION MAP
UT TO BALD STREAM RESTORATION
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
Date:
December 2012
Project:
12- 004.15

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 92596)
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Type
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration
Restoration Equivalent
Buffer
Totals
2770
168
0
0.62
0
Projects Co m onents
Existing
Restoration/
Restoration
Project
Linear
Priority
Restoration
Linear
Mitigation
Component/
Station Range
Comment
Footage/
Approach
Equivalent
Footage/
Ratio
Reach ID
Acreage
Acreage
Mainstem
10 +00 —18+39
800
P
Preservation
839
1:5
Headwater channels in mature hardwood forest.
Removed earthen dam and small pond.
Daylighted culverted stream segment, tied in
Mainstem
18 +39 —20+50
250
R (P2)
Restoration
211
1:1
stable upstream and downstream segments, and
added grade control. Pulled channel off the left
bank and graded bench, sloped back right bank,
and enhanced profile with additional pool habitat.
20 +50 —22+15
Enhancement
Riparian plantings to culver under driveway and
Mainstem
(CMP 22 +15 — 22 +60)
378
Ell
Level II
386
1:2.5
wetland plantings around pond.
22 +60 -24 +81
Mainstem
24 +81 —25+00
71
NA
NA
1
NA
Sweet Hallow Road
Mainstem
25 +00 —26+00
NA
R (P1)
Restoration
100
1:1
New alignment on back side of dam/Sweet
Hallow Road
Enhanced existing vegetated swale from base of
dam to confluence with riparian plantings and
livestock exclusion. Short reach of incised
Mainstem
26 +00 —30+72
522
EI (P1)
Enhancement
4%2
1:1.5
channel below headcut was graded back and
Level I
stabilized. Log silles were placed at the top and
bottom of incised reach and bottom of reach
above confluence. Reach has one permanent
vehicular ford crossing.
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 1 (continued). Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 92596)
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices
Constructed new B -type channel primarily on
existing alignment. Raised channel invert to
reconnect with historical floodplain from
confluence to the stable cottonwood section,
stabilized with rock cross vanes, and added forded
Mainstem
30 +72 —36+63
587
R (P1/P2)
Restoration
591
1:1
stream crossing below cottonwoods. Transitioned
to Priority 2 restoration below the crossing with a
step -pool and constructed riffle. Restored
dimension by excavating a bankfull bench on the
right bank, restored profile with step -pool
structures. This reach was limited to small
meanders due to a naturally confined valley e.
Tributary 1
10 +00 — 13 +21
321
EII
Enhancement
321
1:2.5
Invasive species removal and planting.
Level II
Installed step -pool structure to stabilized headcut
and meet pond elevation. Multi- thread channel
Tributary 1
13 +21 —14 +60
220
R (P1)
Restoration
139
1 : I
was graded and replaced with a single - thread
channel. Log sills were added for grade control at
the top.
Tributary 2
10 +00 —18+26
826
EII
Enhancement
826
1:2.5
Invasive species treatment and planting
Level II
Installed step -pool system to stabilize a series of
Tributary 2
18 +26 —19+49
123
R (P2)
Restoration
123
1:1
severe head -cuts. Pulled channel off of the steep
left bank and tied in to culvert under Sweet
Hallow Road.
Tributary 2
19 +49 —19+93
51
NA
NA
44
NA
Sweet Hallow Road
Tributary 2
19 +93 —24+43
450
EII
Enhancement
450
1:2.5
Planted and installed grade control structures near
Level II
the confluence with the Mainstem.
Enhanced spring -fed swale for potential
Tributary 3
10 +00 — 12 +17
217
Ell
Enhancement
217
1:2.5
amphibian and reptile habitat. Removed invasive
Level II
species, preserved existing trees on slope, and
planted.
Constructed a new channel through pasture to
Tributary 3
12+17-14+54
NA
R (P1)
Restoration
237
1:1
reconnect Tributary 3 to the Mainstem and
provide a stable conveyance for higher flows.
Planted and excluded livestock. Installed grade
Enhancement
control to stabilize tie -in at the confluence with
Tributary 4
10 +00 —14 +35
428
EII
Level II
43,5
1:21.5
the Mainstem. In addition, several log sills were
installed for grade control and habitat
enhancement.
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 1 (continued). Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 92596)
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices
Planted wetland plants around pond
Wetland 1
0.18
Enhancement
0.18
1:2
fringe and littoral shelf, and riparian
plants on left embankment of pond.
Wetland 1A
0.48
Enhancement
0.48
1:2
Removed invasive species and
supplementally planted.
Removed invasive species, excluded
Wetland 3
0.2
Enhancement
0.2
1:2
livestock, and supplementally
planted.
Removed invasive species, excluded
Wetland 4
0.11
Enhancement
0.11
1:2
livestock, and supplementally
planted.
Removed invasive species, excluded
Wetland 5
0.26
Enhancement
0.26
1:2
livestock, and supplementally
planted.
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear footage)
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Buffer (square footage)
Restoration
1401
Enhancement (Level I)
472
Enhancement (Level II)
2635
Preservation
839
Creation
Wetland Enhancement
1.23
Totals
5347
1.23
Mitigation Units
2938 SMUs
0.62 WMUs
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 92596)
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 2 years 1 month
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 1 year 10 months
Number of Reporting Year: 2
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan
June 2009
Final Design — Construction Plans
River Works, Inc.
November 2010
Construction
September 2011
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
December 2011
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
December 2011
Containerized and B &B plantings for entire reach
David Turner 919 - 875 -1378
December 2011
As -built Construction Drawings
Years 1 -5 Monitoring Performers
March 2012
Restoration Plan
218 Snow Avenue
June 2009
Final Design — Construction Plans
November 2010
Construction
September 2011
Year 1 Monitoring (2012)
December 2012
February 2013
Year 2 Monitoring (2013)
August 2013
November 2013
Year 3 Monitoring (2014)
Year 4 Monitoring (2015)
Year 5 Monitoring (2016)
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 92596)
Designer
URS Corporation — North Carolina
Morrisville, NC
919- 461 -1597
Construction, Planting, and Seeding
River Works, Inc.
Contractor
Cary, NC
919- 459- 9001 - 692 -4633
Surveyor
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
3201 Glenridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
David Turner 919 - 875 -1378
Seed Mix Source
Unknown
Years 1 -5 Monitoring Performers
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919- 215 -1693
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Proiect Number 92596)
Project Information
Project Name
UT to Balk Creek Restoration Site
Project County
Yancey
Project Area (Acres)
12.74
Project Coordinates (NAD83 2007)
807,670.33, 984,247.33
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Region
Blue Ridge
Ecoregion
Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Project River Basin
French Broad
USGS 8 -digit HUC
06010108
USGS 14 -digit HUC
06010108080020
NCDWQ Subbasin
04 -03 -07
Project Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.)
0.19
Project Drainage Area Impervious Surface
<5%
Watershed Type
85% wooded, 12% agriculture, 3% rural
Reach Summa Information
Parameters
Mainstem
UT 1
UT 2
UT 3
UT 4
Restored/Enhanced Length (Linear Feet)
2590
460
1392
454
435
Drainage Area (Square Miles)
0.19
0.03
0.06
0.01
0.01
NCDWQ Index Number
7 -3 -22
NCDWQ Classification
C
Valley Type /Morphological Description
II/B- and C -type
Dominant Soil Series
Saunook and Thunder - Saunook Complex
Drainage Class
Well drained
Soil Hydric Status
Nonhydric
Slope
0.050 — 0.160
FEMA Classification
Not in a detailed FEMA flood zone
Native Vegetation Community
100%
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasives
< 5%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Waters of the U.S. — Sections 404 and 401
Yes - Received Appropriate Permits
Endangered Species Act
No effect
Historic Preservation Act
No effect
CZMA /CAMA
No
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Not in a detailed FEMA flood zone
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5.1 -5.4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Tables
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Site Fixed - Station Photos
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 215 -1693
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
UT TO BALD STREAM RESTORATION
EEP PROJECT NUMBER 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
Date:
October 2013
2
Project:
12- 004.15

Table 5.1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Main Tributary
Assessed Length 1487
Adjusted %
Number
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
°% Stable,
izing
=nVe
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
dy
Woody
Category
Sub-Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
tion
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aaaradation- Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
2
410
72%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
10
14
71%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Deptty_ 1.6)
8
18
44%
2. Lenoth appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
14
14
100%
4 Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
14
14
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
10
10
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100% 0 0 100%
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100% 0 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100% 0 0 100%
Totals
0
0
100°% 0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
10
10
°
100 /°
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
10
10
100%
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
10
10
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesiot exceed
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document
10
10
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
10
I
10
I
�J&ii
100%

Table 5.2 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary 2
Assessed Length 460
Adjusted °%
Number
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
izing
=nVe
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
dy
Woody
Category
Sub-Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
tion
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation- Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
2
260
43%
2. Degradation -Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
3
11
27%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Deptt 1.6)
3
10
30%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
11
11
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
11
11
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
10
10
100%
0
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100 ° /0
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100°%
0
0
100°%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
°
100 /o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
2
2
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does-ot exceed
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
2
2
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
2
2
°
100 /o

Table 5.3 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary 3
Assessed Length 317
Adjusted %
Number
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
izing
=nVe
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
dy
Woody
Category
Sub-Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
tion
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aaaradation- Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
4
4
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Deptty_ 1.6)
7
7
100%
2. Lenoth appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
7
7
100%
4 Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
11
11
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
11
11
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100% 0 0 100%
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100% 0 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100% 0 0 100%
Totals
0
0
100°% 0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
°
100 /°
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
100%
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
3
3
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doemot exceed
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document
3
3
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
3
3
100%

Table 5.4 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary 4
Assessed Length 224
Adjusted %
Number
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
izing
=nVe
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
dy
Woody
Category
Sub-Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
tion
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aaaradation- Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
1
100
55%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
2
5
N/A
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Deptty_ 1.6)
2
5
N/A
2. Lenoth appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
N/A
4 Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
N/A
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
N/A
2. Bank
1. Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
0
0
100% 0 0 100%
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100% 0 0 100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100% 0 0 100%
Totals
0
0
100% 0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
N/A
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
0
0
N/A
N/A
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doemot exceed
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document
0
0
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio> 1.6 Rootwads /logs providing some cover at base -flow.
0
0
N/A

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 6.4
Vegetation Category
Mapping
Definitions Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 acres
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria. 0.1 acres
Purple
3
0.26
4.1%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year. 0.25 acres
Total
NA
3
0
0.26
0.00
4.1%
0.0%
Pink, Spotted
3
Cumulative Total
3
0.26
4.1%
none
Light Yellow
2
0.13
Easement Acreage` 14
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel
acreage, crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
spciesvare thoseawith the potential to danecQtlyaootgcomueteiInativein toonegaseno�nyetstems will Chersfbottterm (e g �emonTOring the overall thereafter)gor affect the community structure forlexsdinel more established tree /shrub
s apped with)regularity that can begmappeQ, if in.t7le judgement of theeobserrvvertheircoverarge, density are those is suppressinlg the viability dencapacity i irowth tofeplanted woodiscussed t. Decisions as torwhetherPemedlation
will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by EEP such as species present, tsieir coverage, distribution relative to nafoive biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or
Japanese Knotweed early in the projects. history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Nlicrostegium in the herb layer will not Iikley.trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within
With lany frezgUrdlcy °Thosein red italics are impacts Interest given their amounts grisk/threat leveThose o apping as with where ilsolated pYecimens are found, particcularly early in but monitoring history tl However, areas
is snhleWllere betwpeenhisolated specimens andpdpenses discreet patchesymbology I cse, the point below feafound
ure can be symbolized to describe things like hlg7loor )ow concern land situations where be listed as a map insetf area
legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern`
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Pink, Spotted
3
0.10
0.7%
15. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
Light Yellow
2
0.13
2.0%
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel
acreage, crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
spciesvare thoseawith the potential to danecQtlyaootgcomueteiInativein toonegaseno�nyetstems will Chersfbottterm (e g �emonTOring the overall thereafter)gor affect the community structure forlexsdinel more established tree /shrub
s apped with)regularity that can begmappeQ, if in.t7le judgement of theeobserrvvertheircoverarge, density are those is suppressinlg the viability dencapacity i irowth tofeplanted woodiscussed t. Decisions as torwhetherPemedlation
will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by EEP such as species present, tsieir coverage, distribution relative to nafoive biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or
Japanese Knotweed early in the projects. history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of Nlicrostegium in the herb layer will not Iikley.trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within
With lany frezgUrdlcy °Thosein red italics are impacts Interest given their amounts grisk/threat leveThose o apping as with where ilsolated pYecimens are found, particcularly early in but monitoring history tl However, areas
is snhleWllere betwpeenhisolated specimens andpdpenses discreet patchesymbology I cse, the point below feafound
ure can be symbolized to describe things like hlg7loor )ow concern land situations where be listed as a map insetf area
legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.

UT to Bald Creek
Site Fixed - Station Photographs
Taken August 2013
q k
41-
�Tl
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

UT to Bald Creek
Site Fixed - Station Photographs
Taken August 2013
,�
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

UT To Bald
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken August 2013
Plot 3
Plot 6
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

F.119=4101
VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 92596)
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
1
Yes
83%
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
No
5
Yes
6
Yes
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Proiect Number 92596)
Report Prepared By
Corri Faquin
Date Prepared
8/21/2013 16:12
database name
Axiom -EEP- 2013- A- v2.3. l.mdb
database location
\\ AE- SBS \RedirectedFolders \pperkinson \Desktop
computer name
PHILLIP -LT
file size
62394368
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Pro', planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Pro', total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
natural /volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor b SPP
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead
and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY-------------------------------------
Project Code
92596
project Name
UT to Bald
River Basin
French Broad
length(ft)
stream-to-edge width (ft)
Required Plots calculated
Sampled Plots
6
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 9: Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
EEP Project Code 92596. Project Name: UT to Bald
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%
Pnol-S = Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all = Planted stems including live stakes
T = Planted stems and natural recruits
Total includes stems of natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MY1 2013)
Annual
Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
92596 -01 -0001
92596 -01 -0002
92596 -01 -0003
92596 -01 -0004
92596 -01 -0005
92596 -01 -0006
MY1 (2013)
MYO (2012)
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acer saccharum
sugar maple
Tree
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
10
10
10
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
7
7
7
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
4
4
1
1
4
4
4
5
8
8
4
7
7
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
6
6
6
3
3
3
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub
I
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
5
5
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
10
10
10
8
8
8
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
1
1
1
Salix
willow
Shrub or Tree
2
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
2
7
9
6
Ulmus
elm
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
6
6
6
Ulmus americana
American elm
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
8
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
9
9
13
ill
141
21
91
9
9
5'1
51
6
10
10
10
191
19
19
631
661
531
561
65
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.15
0.15
4
4
7
5
5
6
4
4
4
4
4
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
13
13
15
11
11
14
364
364
526
445
567
850
364
364
364
202
202
243
405
405
405
769
769
769
425
445
526
357
378
438
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%
Pnol-S = Planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all = Planted stems including live stakes
T = Planted stems and natural recruits
Total includes stems of natural recruits

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross - section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Substrate Plots
Tables l0a -b. Baseline Stream Data Surnmary
Tables 11 a -b. Monitoring Data
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Basin:
Elevation
41.5
40.3
38.9
38.7
38.3
37.9
37.5
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.3
36.5
37.2
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
37.4
4.5
5.1
- --
I . I
0.
- --
- --
f
,,..',.
„ {. .:•a., _ , ,..;
midm
ilim
Stream Type B/C
,i
River
0.19
Date:
6/20/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
0.0
2.9
6.2
8.4
9.8
11.0
11.5
12.4
13.2
14.4
15.2
15.8
16.3
17.3
37.93
38.04
I .0
44
French Broad River
Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 1, Pool (Mainstem)
18.3
19.4
20.5
21.6
22.8
38.16
38.53
39.10
42
39.46
40.41
41.17
41.76
42.38
25.3
27.7
14)
29.5
31.6
0 40
W---------
38
36
- - - - -- -------- --------- ---------------------
- - -- Bankfull
- - -- Flood Prone Area
tMY- 0112/11/12
MY -02 6/20/13
-------------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- ---------------------- - - - - --
0 10 20 30
Station (feet)
40
Basin:
French Broad
Site Name
UT to Bald
XS ID
XS - 1, Pool Mainstem)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.19
Date:
6/20/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
- --
9
Bank Ratio:
I .0

River Basin:
French Broad
Site Name
UT to Bald
XS ID
XS - 2, Riffle (Mainstem)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.19
Date:
6/20/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.50
54.57
4.09
54.16
8.08
53.60
11.06
53.72
12.06
53.76
13.38
53.56
14.17
53.50
14.64
53.21
15.33
53.10
16.04
53.43
17.22
53.65
19.14
53.54
21.05
53.73
23.00
53.90
24.46
54.21
25.73
54.76
28.08
54.89
29.66
55.21
31.77
55.52
52
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
53.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
1.0
Bankfull Width:
4.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
54.3
Flood Prone Width:
20.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean De that Bankfull:
0.2
W / D Ratio:
20.3
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.4
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type JU I B/C
French Broad River Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 2, Riffle (Mainstem)
56
55
d
-- ----------------------------- - - -- -- ------ - - - - --
- -- --
0 54
,r
- ------ - ---- Bankfull
W
53
- - - - Flood Prone Area
MY -01 12/11/12
MY -02 6/20/13
52
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)

River Basin:
French Broad
Site Name
UT to Bald
XS ID
XS - 3, Riffle UT 2)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.06
Date:
6/20/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson,Jernigan
Station
Elevation
-0.30
99.04
2.48
98.49
5.01
98.19
6.50
97.17
7.23
96.74
8.01
96.85
8.50
97.35
9.89
97.90
12.06
98.27
13.71
98.44
15.42
98.49
ti
- - - - Bankfull
W
97
- - - - Flood Prone Area
MY -01 7/25/13
MY -02 6/20/13
96
0 10
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
97.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
1.8
Bankfull Width:
3.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
98.6
Flood Prone Width:
14.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull-
0.5
W / D Ratio:
6.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.0
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I B/C
French Broad River Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 3, Riffle (UT 2)
100
99
ti
98
0
ti
- - - - Bankfull
W
97
- - - - Flood Prone Area
MY -01 7/25/13
MY -02 6/20/13
96
0 10
Station (feet)

River Basin:
French Broad
Site Name
UT to Bald
XS ID
XS - 4, Pool Mainstem)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.04
Date:
6/20/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
15.9
55.6
14.2
55.3
12.9
55.2
12.5
55.1
11.8
55.1
10.9
55.3
9.8
55.5
7.7
56.2
5.5
56.90
.f.,. .
57.18
1.2
57.26
��..
57.30
1
�..
r
_
n rI
Stream Type B/C
French Broad River Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 4, Pool (Mainstem)
60
58
.ham
0
56
- - -- Bankfull
----------------
- - - - -- ------- - - - - -- -- ---- --- - - - - -- ---- Flood Prone Area
�� MY -01 12/11/12
MY -02 6/20/13
54
0
10 20 30
Station (feet)
River Basin:
French Broad
Site Name
UT to Bald
XS ID
XS - 4, Pool Mainstem)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.04
Date:
6/20/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
26.0
58.0
23.2
57.5
22.0
57.3
20.1
56.6
17.9
56.1
15.9
55.6
14.2
55.3
12.9
55.2
12.5
55.1
11.8
55.1
10.9
55.3
9.8
55.5
7.7
56.2
5.5
56.90
3.4
57.18
1.2
57.26
-0.4
57.30
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
55.6
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.1
Bankfull Width:
6.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.3
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
French Broad
Site Name
UT to Bald
XS ID
XS - 5, Riffle UT 1)
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.025
Date:
6/20/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson,Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
99.58
2.92
99.44
4.35
99.07
5.81
98.84
6.80
98.25
7.51
97.83
8.11
97.59
8.70
97.59
9.29
97.79
10.34
98.84
11.82
98.76
13.63
99.41
15.52
100.09
17.20
100.42
- - -- ankfull
B
W
98
- - -- Flood Prone Area
MY -01 7/25/13
MY -02 6/20/13
97
0 10
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
3.0
Bankfull Width:
4.2
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
99.8
Flood Prone Width:
16.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
5.9
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.8
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I B/C
French Broad River Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 5, Riffle (UT 1)
101
100
ti-------------------------------------------------------------------------
d
5
0 99
- - - - --
----------------------- - - - - -- - ---------- - - - - -- - - -- --------
ti
- - -- ankfull
B
W
98
- - -- Flood Prone Area
MY -01 7/25/13
MY -02 6/20/13
97
0 10
Station (feet)

Station Elevation
-0.5 143.0 t
1.4 142.8
3.9 142.2
5.2 142.0 E ,
5.6 141.7
5.9 140.6 + `sr
7.1 140.9
9'. z ,;
8.1 141.0 r1 rr`�a
9.3 140.9
11.0 141.6
13.4 141.7 r/Gryi`K Sfl t.e. .1� TY.r.
16.4 141.8 Stream Type B/C
River Basin: French Broad
Site Name UT to Bald
XS ID XS - 6, Pool Mainstem Upstream)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
141.6
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
3.3
Drainage Area (sq mi):
0.04
Date:
6/20/2013
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station Elevation
-0.5 143.0 t
1.4 142.8
3.9 142.2
5.2 142.0 E ,
5.6 141.7
5.9 140.6 + `sr
7.1 140.9
9'. z ,;
8.1 141.0 r1 rr`�a
9.3 140.9
11.0 141.6
13.4 141.7 r/Gryi`K Sfl t.e. .1� TY.r.
16.4 141.8 Stream Type B/C
River Basin: French Broad
Site Name UT to Bald
XS ID XS - 6, Pool Mainstem Upstream)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
141.6
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
5.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
I .l
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.6
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
BankHeight Ratio:
1.0
French Broad River Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 6, Pool (Mainstem Upstream)
144
0 142
W
- - - - Bankfull
- -- -Flood Prone Area
MY -01 12/11/12
MI -02 6/20/13
140
0 10 20
Station (feet)

Project Name UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach Mainstem Station 00 +00 - 06 +00
Feature Profile
Date 6/20/13
Crew Perkinson..Iernigan
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
60
55
50
45
a
w 40
c
0
35
W
30
25
20
UT to Bald Creek Year 2 (2013) Profile - Mainstem, Station 00 +00 to 06 +00
0 100 200 300
Distance (feet)
—*—Yearag2012)Med tYearr242013)Med
400
—+—Yea r[242013)Wateau rfa ce
500
600
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0558
0.0540
Riffle Length
37
35
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0509
0.0609
Pool Length
13
12
Pool to Pool Spacing
40
38
—+—Yea r[242013)Wateau rfa ce
500
600

Project Name UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach Mainstem Station 06 +00 - 11 +12
Feature Profile
Date 6/20/13
Crew Perkinson..Iernigan
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
95
90
85
s 80
m
a
75
c
0
M
w 70
65
60
55 1r
600
700
tYearaJ2012)Med
UT to Bald Creek Year 2 (2013) Profile - Mainstem, Station 06 +00 to 11 +12
800
Distance (feet)
tYea r[212013)[Bed
900
Yea r[2g2013)[&/ater[Su rfa cc
1000
1100
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0558
0.0540
Riffle Length
37
35
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0509
0.0609
Pool Length
13
12
Pool to Pool Spacing
40
38
1000
1100

Project Name UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach Mainstem Upstream Station 00 +00 - 04 +00
Feature Profile
Date 6/20/13
Crew Perkinson. Jernigan
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey
Year 3 Monitoring \Survey
Year 4 Monitoring \Survey
Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
150
140
`m 130
a
m
v
w 120
c
0
v
W
110
100
90
0
50
100
tYearR g2012)Med
UT to Bald Creek Year 2 (2013) Profile - Mainstem Upstream, Station 00 +00 to 04 +00
150
200
Distance (feet)
tYearCZR2013)Med
250 300
--A,-- Yea r[t2gI20l3)[&Vater[Su rfa ce
350
400
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.1301
0.1313
Riffle Length
16
43
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0750
0.0846
Pool Length
5
2
Pool to Pool Spacing
14
46
250 300
--A,-- Yea r[t2gI20l3)[&Vater[Su rfa ce
350
400

Project Name UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach Tributary 1 Station 00 +00 - 01 +00
Feature Profile
Date 6/20/13
Crew Perkinson, Jernigan
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Year 4 Monitoring \Survey Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 2 (2013) Profile -Tributary 1, Station 00 +00 to 01 +00
103
102
97
96
95 +
0
10 20
tYearag2012)Med
30
40 50
Distance (feet)
Year[242013)Med
60
70
101
`m
2014
2015
2016
a
100
0.0782
m
v
7
w
99
c
0
0.0418
m
W
98
97
96
95 +
0
10 20
tYearag2012)Med
30
40 50
Distance (feet)
Year[242013)Med
60
70
— YearMg2013)Wateri3urface
80
90
100
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0674
0.0782
Riffle Length
7
19
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0418
0.0777
Pool Length
6
6
Pool to Pool Spacing
13
24
— YearMg2013)Wateri3urface
80
90
100

Project Name UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach Tributary 2 Station 00 +00 - 01 +50
Feature Profile
Date 6/20/13
Crew Perkinson, Jernigan
2012 I Elevation 2013 I Station 2014 I 2015 I 2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Year 4 Monitoring \Survey Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 2 (2013) Profile -Tributary 2, Station 00 +00 to 01 +50
106
104 I
102
`m
s 100
a
98
c
0
w 96
94 1
92 1
90 +
0
20
40
tYearaJ2012)Med
60
Distance (feet)
tYearM12013)Med
80
100
Yea r[232013)Water[Su rfa ce
120
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0814
0.0844
Riffle Length
10
32
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0542
0.0611
Pool Length
4
4
Pool to Pool Spacing
15
29
120

Project Name
UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach
Tributary 3 Station 00 +00 - 03 +50
Feature
Profile
Date
6/20/13
Crew
Perkinson, Jernigan
2012 2013 I 2014 I 2015 2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Year 4 Monitoring \Survey Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation I Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 2 (2013) Profile -Tributary 3, Station 00 +00 to 03 +50
85
so
75 -
m 70
65
v
v
c
°- 60
a
W
55
50
45
40 +
0
50
100
150 200 250 300 350
Distance (feet)
tYear1!Lg2012)Med Yea r[3232013)Med —Year[232013)Wateaurface
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
NA*
NA*
Riffle Length
25
44
Avg. Riffle Slope
NA*
NA*
Pool Length
18
7
Pool to Pool Spacing
28
45
150 200 250 300 350
Distance (feet)
tYear1!Lg2012)Med Yea r[3232013)Med —Year[232013)Wateaurface

Project Name
UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach
Tributary 4 Station 00 +00 - 02 +50
Feature
Profile
Date
6/20/13
Crew
Perkinson, Jernigan
2012 2013 I 2014 I 2015 2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Year 4 Monitoring \Survey Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 2 (2013) Profile -Tributary 4, Station 00 +00 to 02 +50
60 ,
55 1
50
`m
s
6 45
v
v
c
0
40
v
W
35
30 1
25r
0
50
Yearag2012)Med
100
Distance (feet)
fYear[232013)Med
150
—+—Yea rMg2013)[3Vater15u rfa ce
200
250
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0074
0.1228
Riffle Length
23
22
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0118
0.1118
Pool Length
34
6
Pool to Pool Spacing
57.0
13.0000
—+—Yea rMg2013)[3Vater15u rfa ce
200
250

Weighted Pebble Count
Percent Riffle:
Percent Pool
100
Percent Run:
Percent Glide
Pebble Count,
Material
Size Range (mm)
Total #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
# #
#
UT to Bald Creek
silt/clay
0 0.062
38.0
French Broad
very fine sanc
fine sand
medium sand
coarse sand
very coarse san
0.062 0.13
8.0
- --
0.13 0.25
10.0
Note:
Cross Section 2 - Mainstem
0.25 0.5
0.0
Pebble Count, UT to Bald Creek
100%
90%
0.5 1
4.0
1 2
6.0
very fine grave
fine grave
fine grave
medium grave
medium grave
coarse grave
coarse grave
very coarse graVE
very coarse graVE
2 4
0.0
4 6
0.0
80%
70%
6 8
4.0
8 11
6.0
11 16
0.0
16 22
2.0
60%
50%
22 32
0.0
32 45
2.0
L
45 64
6.0
400
c
E 30%
small cobble
medium cobblE
large cobblE
very large cobbl
64 90
8.0
90 128
4.0
128 180
2.0
20%
a 10%
180 256
0.0
small boulder
small boulde
medium bouldei
large bouldei
very large boulde
256 362
0.0
000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
article Size (mm) t Cumulative Percent • Percentltem -Riffle Pool -Run Glide
362 512
0.0
512 1024
0.0
1024 2048
0.0
2048 4096
0.0
bedrock
0.0
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type
True
Weighted Count:
Total Particle Count
100
D16
D35
D50
D84
D95
silt/clay
sand
gravel
cobble
boulder
bedrock
50
#N /A
#N /A
0.2
57
98
38%
28%
20%
14%
0%
0%

Table 10a.1 Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596 - Mainstem 1,112 feet
Parameter
e2
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design Mainstem
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Mainstem
Upstream
Mainstem
Downstream
Tributary 2
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.5
7.1
5.8
5.1
2.7
5.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
7
9
10
9
7
2.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
1
0.8
1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.5
' Bankfull Max Depth (ft
0.7
1.1
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ff)
2.7
3.9
2.9
2.6
0.4
2.5
2.6
Width /Depth Ratio
6.9
17.8
11.6
10.2
27
12
Entrenchment Ratiol
I
I
1
1 1.2
1.2
1.8
1 1.8
1 2.5
1
1 2.0
'Bank Height Ratiol
I
I
I
1 1.0
2.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
0.048
0.144
0.0014
0.041
0.0508
0.0003
0.0012
Pool Length (ft)
None Distinct
Not Available
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.15
1.38
Pool Spacing (ft)i
1
15
100
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
12
32
12.0-25.0 25.0-32.0 10.0-25.0
12 32
Radius of Curvature (ft)
36
134
36.0-60.0 97.0-134.0 21.0-31.0
36 134
Rc:Bankfull width (ft /ft)
5.1
24.4
6.2-10.3 19.0-26.3 7.8 - 11.5
6.5 24.4
Meander Wavelength (ft)
60
245
200.0 - 245.0 60.0-220.0 35.0-47.0
60 220
6momMeander Width Ratiol
10.9
40
2.1 - 4.3 4.9-6.3 3.7-9.3
10.9 44.5
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib /t?
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankful
1
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
69-217
46-183
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classificatio
B /G5
B5
B5
Bankfull Velocity (fps
5.9-8.9
8.9-9.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs
23-24
Valley length (ft
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.05 - 1.11
1.11
1.05
1.3
1.03 - 1.09
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft )
0.0476 - 0.1441
0.1441
0.0476
0.0508
0.0321 - 0.1213
BF slope (ft /ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser /slope.
4 -Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value /needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 10a.2 Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596 - Tributary 2 459 feet
Parameter
e2
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design Tributary 2
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Mainstem
Upstream
Mainstem
Downstream
Tributary 2
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.5
7.1
5.8
5.1
2.7
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
7
9
10
9
7
6.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
1
0.8
1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.2
' Bankfull Max Depth (ft
0.7
1.1
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ff)
2.7
3.9
2.9
2.6
0.4
0.5
Width /Depth Ratio
6.9
17.8
11.6
10.2
27
14
Entrenchment Ratiol
I
I
1
1 1.2
1.2
1.8
1 1.8
1 2.5
2.0
'Bank Height Rati
1.0
2.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
0.048
0.144
0.0014
0.041
0.0508
0.128
Pool Length (ft)
None Distinct
Not Available
Pool Max depth (ft)
0.43
Pool Spacing (ft)
10 -60
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
12
32
12.0-25.0
25.0-32.0 10.0-25.0 10 -25
Radius of Curvature (ft)
36
134
36.0-60.0
97.0-134.0 21.0-31.0 21 -31
Rc:Bankfull width (ft /ft)
5.1
24.4
6.2-10.3
19.0-26.3 7.8 - 11.5 7 -10.3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
60
245
200.0 - 245.0
60.0-220.0 35.0-47.0 35 -50
Meander Width Ratiol
I I
I 1 10.9 1
1 1 40
1
2.1 -4.3
4.9-6.3 3.7-9.3 13.3-8.31
1
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib /f
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankful
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
69-217
3
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classificatio
B /G5
65
65
Bankfull Velocity (fps
5.9-8.9
1.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs
23-24
Valley length (ft
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.05 - 1.11
1.11
1.05
1.3
1.04
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft )
0.0476 - 0.1441
0.1441
0.0476
0.0508
0.0641
BF slope (ft /ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser /slope.
4 -Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Table 10a.3 Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596 - Tributary 3 318 feet
Parameter
e2
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design Tributary 3
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Mainstem
Upstream
Mainstem
Downstream
Tributary 2
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.5
7.1
5.8
5.1
2.7
1.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
7
9
10
9
7
10.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
1
0.8
1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.3
' Bankfull Max Depth (ft
0.7
1.1
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ff)
2.7
3.9
2.9
2.6
0.4
0.54
Width /Depth Ratio
6.9
17.8
11.6
10.2
27
6
Entrenchment Ratiol
1
1
1.2
1.2
1
1.8
1 1.8
1 2.5
5.6
'Bank Height RatiA
I
I
I
1 1.0
1
1
2.4
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft
0.048
0.144
0.0014
0.041
0.0508
0.155
Pool Length (ft)
None Distinct
Not Available
Pool Max depth (ft)
0.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
10 -100
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
12
32
12.0-25.0
25.0-32.0 10.0-25.0
10 -20
Radius of Curvature (ft)
36
134
36.0-60.0
97.0-134.0 21.0-31.0
Rc:Bankfull width (ft /ft)
5.1
24.4
6.2-10.3
19.0-26.3 7.8 - 11.5
Meander Wavelength (ft)
60
245
200.0 - 245.0
60.0-220.0 35.0-47.0
Meander Width Ratiol
I
I
I
1 10.9
1
1
1 40
1
2.1 -4.3
4.9-6.3 3.7-9.3
5.6 -11
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib /f
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfu
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/n­?J
69-217
8
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classificatio
B /G5
B5
B5
Bankfull Velocity (fps
5.9-8.9
Bankfull Discharge (cfs
I
I
1
23-24
Valley length (ft
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
318
Sinuosity (ft)
1.05 - 1.11
1.11
1.05
1.3
1.03
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft )
0.0476 - 0.1441
0.1441
0.0476
0.0508
0.1548
BF slope (ft /ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metri
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser /slope.
4 -Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value /needed only if then exceeds 3

Table 10b.1 Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596
Parameter
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As- built/Baseline
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / di" (mm)
2Entrenchment Class <1.5/ 1.5 -1.99 / 2.0 -4.9 / 5.0 -9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2/ 1.2 -1.49 / 1.5 -1.99 / >2.0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign /bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross - sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the Feld such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader /consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre- existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross- sections as part of the design survey), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre - constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader /consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross - sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution /coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 11a. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters- Cross Sections)
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596
Cross Section 1 (Pool)
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross Section 4 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) usec
37.4
37.4
53.4
53.7
97.7
97.7
55.4
55.6
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.9
5.1
4.2
4.5
4.1
3.5
6.1
6.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
NA
NA
13.0
20.0
14.0
14.0
NA
NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
0.8
0.9
0.3
1 0.2
1
1
0.6
0.5
1
1
1 0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft
1.1
1.1
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
3.8
4.5
1.1
1.0
2.3
1.8
3.2
3.2
Bankfull Width /Depth Rati
NA
NA
16.0
20.3
7.3
6.8
NA
NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Rati
NA
NA
3.1
4.4
3.4
4.0
NA
NA
Bankfull Bank Height Rati
NA
NA
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (fit)
-
d50 (mm)
- - --
- - --
NA`
0.2
-
Cross
Section
5 (Riffle)
Cross
Section
6 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) usec
98.7
98.7
141.6
141.6
Bankfull Width ft
4.0
4.2
5.6
5.4
Floodprone Width ft
16.0
16.0
NA
NA
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area A
3.0
3.0
3.9
3.3
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratic
5.3
5.9
NA
NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Rati
4.0
3.8
NA
NA
Bankfull Bank Height Ratic
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
Cross Sectional Area between end pins t
-
-
d50 (mm)
1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurvey will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional /depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. used
If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been
consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
Greater than 50% of the material identified in the pebble count was characterized as silt /clay particle size.

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11b.1 Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596 - Mainstem Downstream 1,112 feet
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.2
4.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
13
20
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.2
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.4
0.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
1.1
1
Width /Depth Ratio
14
19.6
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
4.5
'Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
4.6
37.3
33
105.1
28
14
2.9
34.8
25.3
130
34.7
20
Riffle Slope ( ft/ft)
0.0170
0.0508
0.0509
0.1221
0.03
14
0.018
0.061
0.051
0.116
0.028
20
Pool Length (ft)
5.5
12.9
12
33.8
6.2
18
4.8
12.2
10.2
32
6.4
23
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.1
1.1
0.6
1.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
8.9
40
39
116.5
29.2
18
8.7
37.8
22.2
162
34.2
23
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
25
32
Radius of Curvature (ft)
97
134
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate significant
shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width ( ft/ft)
17.6
24.4
Meander Wavelength (ft)
60
220
Meander Width Ratio
4.5
5.8
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
BC
Cb
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1112
1102
Sinuosity (ft)
1.03
1.03
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0558
0.054
BF slope ( ft/ft)
'Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
'SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
38
28
20
14
0
0
'd16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 I
NA
N8
A]
0.2
57
98
z% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11 b.2 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596 - Mainstem Upstream (375 feet
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD °
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
Width /Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
'Bank Height Ratio
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
4.6
17
13
66
17
11
6.6
43.3
40.3
86.7
33.5
8
Riffle Slope ( ft/ft)
0.0102
0.0750
0.0845
0.1515
0.05
11
0.0295
0.085
0.076
0.154
0.047
8
Pool Length (ft)
1.6
5.5
5.3
10.2
2.5
16
0.1
2.2
1.9
5.5
1.8
7
Pool Max depth (ft)
1
1
1.1
1.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
12.4
14.3
12.4
42.2
9
16
8.9
46.4
46.1
92.2
37
7
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
12
25
Radius of Curvature (ft)
36
60
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate significant
shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width ( ft/ft)
6.5
10.9
Meander Wavelength (ft)
200
245
Meander Width Ratio
2.2
4.5
Additional Reach Parameters
-
Rosgen Classification
B
B
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
375
361
Sinuosity (ft)
1.09
1.09
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.1301
0.1313
BF slope ( ft/ft)
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d951
z% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 11 b.3 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596 - Tributaries (562 feet)
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
4
4.1
4.1
4.1
3.5
3.9
3.9
4.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
14
15
15
16
14
15
15
16
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
1
1 1
1.1
1
1
0.9
1 1
1
1 1.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
2.3
2.7
2.7
3
1.8
1 2.4
2.4
1 3
Width /Depth Ratio
5
5.9
5.9
6.8
6
6.5
6.5
7
Entrenchment Ratio
3.4
3.7
3.7
4
3.8
3.9
3.9
4
'Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile - Tributary 1
Riffle Length (ft)
5.1
7.3
6.9
10.3
2.3
4
16.3
18.8
19.9
20.2
2.2
3
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0050
0.0418
0.0362
0.0896
0.0368
4
0.0712
0.0777
0.0721
0.0897
0.0104
3
Pool Length (ft)
3.4
6.2
7.2
8.4
2.1
5
4.2
6.3
4.2
10.6
3.7
3
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
7.2
12.6
12.3
18.6
5.3
4
24.1
24.3
24.3
24.4
0.2
2
Profile - Tributary 2
Riffle Length (ft)
3.6
10
9.9
17.5
4.5
7
10.5
32.3
32.6
53.5
23.5
4
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0117
0.0542
0.0433
0.0987
0.0352
7
0.0233
0.0611
0.0549
0.1114
0.0399
4
Pool Length (ft)
2.1
4.1
3.9
6.8
1.6
7
3.1
4.2
4
5.5
1
4
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
8.8
15
13.7
26.7
5.9
7
116
29.5
19.1
553
22.9
3
Profile - Tributary 3
Riffle Length (ft)
21.1 1 25.4 1 24.6 1 31.1 4.87 4
6.2
1 43.5
35.2
1 90.9
33.5
5
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
No water in channel during field visit.
No water in channel during field visit.
Pool Length (ft)
12.9
17.6
14.3
24.5
5.1
7
2.2
6.6
7.2
1 9.8
3.5
4
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
14
28.4
29.6
48.1
13.3
6
15.2
45.3
35
96.1
36
4
Profile - Tributary 4
Riffle Length (ft)
6.4 1 15.1 9.6 1 31.6 1 10.7 5
4.5
22.3
8
68.8
31
4
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
No water in channel during field visit.
0.0743
0.1118
0.1097
0.1538
0.0329
4
Pool Length (ft)
4.6
7.3
8.1
10.1
2.3
5
2.7
5.8
5.5
1 9.6
3.1
4
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
8.1
13.7
1 14.4
18
1 4.1
4
7.2
13.3
13.7
18.9
5.9
3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
10 88
Radius of Curvature (ft)
6 31
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate significant shifts
from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
2.5 10.3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
25 50
Meander Width Ratio
4 35
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B
B
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
562
562
Sinuosity (ft)
1.03 - 1.05
1.03- 1.05
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft /ft)
0.0674 - 0.1301
0.0782 -.1228
BF slope (ft /ft)
3Ri% IRu% /P% /G% /S%
3SC % / Sa% G% I C% B% Be %
3d161 d351 d50 l d84 l d951
'% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric

APPENDIX E
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Project Number 92596)
Date of Data
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo (if
Collection
available)
Crest gauge observations indicated a bankfull event after
June 7, 2013
May 5, 2013
approximately 3.4 inches of rain was documented* at a
--
nearby rain station on May 5, 2013.
*Asheville Airport (Weatherunderground 2013)
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 2 of 5 (2013)
EEP Project Number 92596 January 2014
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices