20090861 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20150414

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 3 (2014)
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�
o tem
E alement
PROGRAM
March 2015

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 3 (2014)
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
r�
em
Axiom Environmental, Inc. ElkaWFment
PROGRAM
March 2015

Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................... ............................... 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... ............................... 3
2.1 Vegetation Assessment ......................................................................... ............................... 3
2.2 Stream Assessment ................................................................................ ............................... 3
3.0 REFERENCES ......................................................................................... ............................... 5
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 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
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 3 (2014) monitoring.
The project goals (from the approved Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream Restoration
Project, Final Restoration Plan [NCEEP 2009]) include the following.
• Reduce erosion 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 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 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina page 1

Vegetation success criteria (from the approved Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream
Restoration Project, Final Restoration Plan [NCEEP 2009]) is as follows.
"Success criteria for the preferred species in restoration areas will be based on annual and
cumulative survival and growth over five years. Survival of preferred species must be at
a minimum of 320 stems - per -acre at the end of three years of monitoring and 260 stems -
per -acre after five years."
Year 3 (2014) monitoring activities occurred during early 2015 due to site access restrictions
during a landowner dispute. Six vegetation monitoring plots were monitored on February 10,
2015 for monitoring Year 3 (2014). Overall, Site vegetation averaged 398 planted stems -per-
acre (excluding livestakes) in Year 3 (2014), which exceeds the minimum stem count for success
criteria of 320 stems - per -acre. Four of the six plots met or exceeded success criteria. Vegetation
plots 4 and 5 were below success criteria with 243 and 283 planted stems - per -acre, respectively.
Low planted stem survival in vegetation plots 4 and 5 may be attributed to competition from
herbaceous vegetation (primarily fescue [Festuca spp.] and tearthumb [Polygonum sagitatum]).
Five vegetation areas of concern were identified on the site. Planted stem densities were
moderate to poor throughout the Site. Planted stems were generally hard to locate due to the
thick fescue (Festuca spp.) in drier areas and had poor stem growth due to saturation and
competition with sedges (Carex spp.), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and tearthumb (Polygonum
sagitatum) in wetter areas. 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 the approved Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream
Restoration Project, Final Restoration Plan [NCEEP 2009])]) 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. The headcut has migrated a short
distance upstream since Year 2 (2013) monitoring; however, it currently poses no immediate
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina page 2

threat to stream stability. In addition, five areas of aggradation (SAC -2 to -7) were observed
along the mainstem, Tributary 2, Tributary 3, and Tributary 4. Several of these areas were
documented previously and conditions continue to improve since last reported in the Year 2
(2013) monitoring report. During Year 3 (2014) monitoring, it was noted that the upper reaches
of Tributary 3 and Tributary 4 have indiscernible bed and bank for varying lengths. These
tributaries exhibit intermittent flow regimes, and low flow may be responsible for the lack of bed
and bank characteristics in these reaches. Upper reaches of the Mainstem and Tributary 2 appear
to be exhibiting aggradation of fine materials, possibly due to surface flows across the adjacent
floodplain and extensive herbaceous vegetation growth within the channel bed combined with
low energy flow in the channel. Continued observation throughout the monitoring period should
determine if the system is able to transport aggraded material. Cross- section 2 exhibits
significant down cutting from previous monitoring years. This area was previously aggraded
with fine sediment that was washed out during Year 3 (2014), and is currently not an area of
concern. 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 7
Aggradation on Mainstem, Tributary 2, Tributary 3, 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 posts 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 February 2015 for the Year 3 (2014) 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 February 2015. 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
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina page 3

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
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.
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina page 4

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 /documentalibrary/get file ?pl 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.edu /WeakleysFIora.pdf [September 28, 2012]. University of
North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Weather Underground. 2015. Station at Asheville Airport, North Carolina. (online). Available:
http: / /www.wunderground. com/history /airport/KAVL /2014/ 1 / 1 /CustomHistory.html ?day
end =18 &monthend =2 &yearend =2015 &req_ city= NA &req_state =NA &req_statename =N
A [February 18, 2015]. Weather Underground.
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina page 5

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 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

1 I!
! ti
r tr
I
_
5 „
-NA ,
' l
1
19 'S Tye _�
Pay -
i I i
LW
- I�t� Project Site
C- Access Point:
- 82.43146, 35.92193
Burnsville
_'t,..'
yam_
E
-a:
t.
S
y ,
-t
// '� 1
: FL I - I ON f
Q I �,. e.. � %- '0'ti �. .)
I �`
5
, L _
,
,
y _ _
Y,.
Miles -
Directions from Raleigh:
Take 1 -40 West about 212 miles to Marion. ,x
Take exit 86, for US -226 North, towards Marion /Shelby.'
w. I
Follow US -226 North about 23 miles to Spruce Pine, NC.�°
Continue onto US -19E South 21 miles, through Burnsville. e,r =
Take a right on Sweethollow Road.`
The site is 0.5 miles on the left.
! '4L- W,
dl
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
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
19
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)
EEP Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
March 2015
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)
EEP Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
March 2015
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 type.
Tributary 1
10 +00 — 13 +21
321
Ell
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 :1
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
12 ;
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 Hollow 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
435
1:2.5
the Mainstem. In addition, several log sills were
installed for grade control and habitat
enhancement.
UT to Bald Stream (final)
EEP Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
March 2015
Appendices

Table 1 (continued). Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (EEP Proiect Number 92596)
UT to Bald Stream (final)
EEP Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
March 2015
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 IA
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
F
!WMUs
70.62
Totals
5347
Mitigation Units
2938 SMUs
UT to Bald Stream (final)
EEP Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
March 2015
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: 4 years 6 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 4 years 2 months
Number of Reporting Year: 3
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)
February 2015*
March 2015
Year 4 Monitoring (2015)
Year 5 Monitoring (2016)
*Year 3 (2014) monitoring was performed in February 2015 due to site access restrictions during a landowner dispute.
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 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
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 I
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 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
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 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
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:
Mar. 2015
2
Project:
12- 004.15

Table 5.1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Main Tributary
Assessed Length 1487
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel
Performing
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
in As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
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
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 Depth > 1.6)
-
8
18
44%
2. Length appropriate (130% 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 undercut/overhanging 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.
9
10
o
90 /o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
10
10
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
10
10
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not 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
10
100%

Table 5.2 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary 2
Assessed Length 460
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel
Performing
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
in As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
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 Depth > 1.6)
-
3
10
30%
2. Length appropriate (130% 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%
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 undercut/overhanging 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 not 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%

Table 5.3 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary 3
Assessed Length 317
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel
Performing
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
in As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
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)
1
160
50%
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 Depth > 1.6)
-
5
7
71%
2. Length appropriate (130% 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 undercut/overhanging 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
o
100 /o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
3
3
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not 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
Number with
Footage with
for
Stable,
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Major Channel
Channel
Performing
Total Number
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Cateqory
Metric
as Intended
in As -built
Se ments
Foota a
as Intended
Ve etation
Ve etation
Ve etation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
1
50
78%
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 Depth > 1.6)
-
2
5
N/A
2. Length appropriate (130% 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 undercut/overhanging 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
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
N/A
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not 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
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
De iction
Number of
Pol ons
Combined
Acrea a
% of
Planted
Acrea e
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%
Total
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
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
3
0.26
4.1%
Easement Acreage` 14
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
De iction
Number of
Pol ons
Combined
Acreage
of
Easement
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%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
Light Yellow
2
2.0%
0.28
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 paralletally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will theerefore be cgalculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those
slightly Iongqta tel to1d2 decades) m1Phe ow tmodeyate 9oneernygroup a e those spec res thai generaolyndo neot haoe this claptacltyaovet the tffmeframes discus�sedtand therefore�ar�en'ot�expectad to be mappedmt htrenqqula ity but can be mapped
if in the ludgemen of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors
by EEP suchh as species present, their coverage, distr ibution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For e xample, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control,
but potentially large coverages of Microsteggwm in the herb la er will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within the time rames discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive
amounts of ground cover. Those species wRh the "watch list" dyesignator in grayv shade are of interest as well, but have vet to be observed across the statee with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest pprven their extreme
nsk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, parFCUlarly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symborogy scheme below
was one that was found to be helpful for sym�ofz7ng mvasives polygons, particula ry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or
polygon /area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or row concern an species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary .

UT to Bald Creek
Site Fixed - Station Photographs
Taken February 2015
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

UT to Bald Creek
Site Fixed - Station Photographs
Taken February 2015
PP11
PP12
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

t
d
UT To Bald
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken February 2015
r
.,mss ^`....
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

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
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
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
67%
2
Yes
3
Yes
4
No
5
No
6
Yes
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
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
2/16/2015 12:10
database name
Axiom -EEP- 2014- B- v2.3. l.mdb
database location
S: \CVS database\2014
computer name
PHILLIP -PC
file size
49790976
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)
EEP Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
March 2015
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%
PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MY2 2015)
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
MY2 (2015)
MY1 (2013)
MYO (2012)
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
Pnol-S
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
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
10
10
10
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
21
1
1
11
6
6
6
7
7
71
7
71
7
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
4
4
4
4
41
5
8
8
5
8
8
4
7
7
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
7
7
7
6
6
6
3
3
3
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
31
2
2
2
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
8
8
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
2
2
1
1
Salix
willow
Shrub or Tree
2
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
9
6
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
13
11
1
1
26
Ulmus
Jelm
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
Ulmus americans
JAmerican elm
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
9
9
9
8
8
8
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
9
9
24
12
15
26
8
81
9
6
6
7
7
7
7
17
17
17
59
621
90
63
66
78
53
56
65
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.15
0.15
OAS
4
4
6
51
5
6
3
3
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
7
7
7
13
13
15
13
13
15
11
11
14
364.2
364.2
971.2
485.6
607
1052
323.71
323.71
364.2
242.8
242.8
283.31
283.3
283.31
283.3
688
6881
6881397.91
418.21
607
424.91
445.21
526.1
357.51
377.7
438.4
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%
PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross - section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Substrate Plots
Tables l0a -b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11 a -b. Monitoring Data
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

River Basin:
Bankfull Elevation:
French Broad
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
4.3
Bankfull Width:
Site Name
O.19
UT to Bald
2/10/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
XS ID
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
XS - 1, Pool (Mainstem
W / D Ratio:
- --
Entrenchment Rao:
Drainage
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
42
.1
m
Station
Elevation
0.0
41.5
40
8
6.8
38.7
8.4
38.5
- - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -- ----- --- ----- - - - - --
� -- .Flood Prone Area
9.8
38.3
38
10.6
37.8
0--MY-01 lznvlz
11.1
37.6
11.8
37.5
36
12.2
36.5
0 10 20 30
40
12.9
36.Ratio:
14.1
36.4
14.7
36.4
15.6
36.4
Stream Type B/C
16.6
37.6
17.9
37.92
19.8
38.25
22.6
39.42
26.5
40.78
31.7
42.34
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
37
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
4.3
Bankfull Width:
Area (s mi):
O.19
Date:
2/10/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
37
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
4.3
Bankfull Width:
4.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
- --
Flood Prone Width:
- --
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
- --
Entrenchment Rao:
- --
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
French Broad River Basin, UT to Bald, XS -1, Pool (Mainstem)
Station 08 +71
44
42
m
0
40
- -Bankfull
W-----
- - - - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -- ----- --- ----- - - - - --
� -- .Flood Prone Area
38
0--MY-01 lznvlz
MY -02 6/20/13
MY -03 2/16/15
36
0 10 20 30
40
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Elevation
French Broad
54.57
to
53.83
Site Name
53.50
UT to Bald
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
XS ID
51.75
XS - 2, Riffle Mainstem
51.20
15.37
51.14
Drainage Area s mi :
0.19
16.92
53.03
18.89
Date:
20.57
2/10/2015
22.85
53.84
24.61
54.10
27.37
54.63
31.63
55.28
iR1 - -•_
Stream Type B/C
French Broad River
Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 2, Riffle (Mainstem)
Station 05 +82
56
55
54
0 53
52
• Bankfull
W
10
20 30
• Flood Prone Area
5 1
MY -01 12/11/12
MY -02 6/20/13
50
MY -03 2/16/15
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.50
54.57
5.52
53.83
10.26
53.50
12.03
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.50
54.57
5.52
53.83
10.26
53.50
12.03
53.35
12.81
53.16
1397
51.75
14.84
51.20
15.37
51.14
16.01
50.99
16.92
53.03
18.89
53.38
20.57
53.59
22.85
53.84
24.61
54.10
27.37
54.63
31.63
55.28
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
53.0
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
5.2
Bankfull Width:
4.0
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
55.0
Flood Prone Width:
33.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
2.0
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
W / D Ratio:
3.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
8.3
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
French Broad
Site Name
UT to Bald
XS ID
XS - 3, Riffle UT 2
Drainage Area (sq mi): �_
0.06
Date:
2/10/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
- 0.30
99.15
3.02
98.41
5.03
98.01
6.11
97.32
7.11
96.57
7.82
96.69
8.73
96.83
9.55
96.87
10.22
97.98
11.68
98.20
15.34
98.49
-- ------------------------------------------------------------
0
98
o------
- -- -- .......................
------------------ -- --- -- ---- - --- --
a
ti
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
97.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
4.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
98.8
Flood Prone Width:
16.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
6.1
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.6
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I B/C
French Broad River Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 3, Riffle (UT 2)
Station 01 +01
100
99
-- ------------------------------------------------------------
0
98
o------
- -- -- .......................
------------------ -- --- -- ---- - --- --
a
ti
--- • Bankfull
W
97
•Flood Prone Area
t MY -01 2/25/13
MY -02 6/20/13
96
MY -03 2/16/15
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:
2/10/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
26.0
57.8
19.4
56.5
17.0
55.9
15.2
55.4
13.2
55.2
12.5
55.0
11.4
55.3
9.6
55.5
8.3
56.0
6.4
56.5
5.2
57.0
2.5
57.1
-0.4
57.4
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
55.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
2.9
Bankfull Width:
7.5
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
LO
•4
Stream Type B/C

River Basin:
French Broad
Site Name
UT to Bald
XS ID
XS - 5, Riffle UT 1
Drainage Area (sq mi):
98.94
0.025
Date:
8.04
2/10/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
99.57
4.65
99.03
6.34
98.94
7.18
97.94
8.04
97.62
8.93
97.62
9.83
97.91
10.46
98.90
12.00
98.86
13.40
99.31
15.44
100.00
17.33
100.40
0
99
a
ti
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.7
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area:
3.1
Bankfull Width:
3.8
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
99.8
Flood Prone Width:
16.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
4.7
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0
Stream Type I I B/C
French Broad River Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 5, Riffle (UT 1)
Station 00 +62
101
100
-------------------------------------------------------------------
0
99
a
ti
--- • Bankfull
W
9g
� - - •Flood Prone Area
t MY -01 2/25/13
MY -02 6/20/13
97
MY -03 2/16/15
0 10
Station (feet)

River Basin:
Elevation
French Broad
143.0
3.7
Site Name
Area (s mi):
UT to Bald
Date:
2/10/2015
XS ID
Perkinson, Jernigan
XS - 6, Pool Mainstem Upstream)
141.1
10.7
Drainage
12.0
141.6
14.0
141.6
... .. , ..R.,
Stream Type B/C
French Broad
River Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 6, Pool (Mainstem Upstream)
Station 00 +29
144
w
0 142
_________________
_______________
W
� � � • Bankfull
-
• Flood Prone Area
t MY -01 12/11/12
MY -02 6/20/13
140
MY -o3 2/16/1s
0
10 20
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.0
143.0
3.7
142.3
Area (s mi):
0.04
Date:
2/10/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.0
143.0
3.7
142.3
5.1
142.0
5.9
141.1
8.0
141.1
9.5
141.1
10.7
141.5
12.0
141.6
14.0
141.6
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation: 1
141.6
Bankfull Cross - Sectional Area: 2
2.4
Bankfull Width: 6
6.4
Flood Prone Area Elevation: -
-
Flood Prone Width: -
-
Max Depth at Bankfull: Q
Q6
Mean Depth at Bankfull: 0
0.4
W / D Ratio: -
-
Entrenchment Ratio:

Project Name
UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach
Mainstem Station 00 +00 - 06 +00
Feature
Profile
Date
2/16/15
Crew
Perkinson, Jernigan
2012 I 2013 I 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 Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 3 (2014) Profile - Mainstem, Station 00 +00 to 06 +00
95
90
85
m 80
a
m
75
v
v
c
° 70
v
W
65
60
55
50 +
0
100
—$—Year 1(2012) Bed
200
tYear 2 (2013) Bed
300
Distance (feet)
-,r —Year 3 (2014) Bed
400
— **—Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
500
N
600
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0558
0.0540
0.0556
Riffle Length
37
35
27
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0509
0.0609
0.0715
Pool Length
13
12
17
Pool to Pool Spacing
40
38
38
— **—Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
500
N
600

Project Name
UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach
Mainstem Station 06 +00 - 11 +12
Feature
Profile
Date
2/16/15
Crew
Perkinson, Jernigan
2012
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
55
50
m 45
a
m
v
w 40
c
0
a
W
35
30
25
600
2013 I 2014 I 2015 I 2016
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
700
Year 1(2012) Bed
UT to Bald Creek Year 3 (2014) Profile - Mainstem, Station 06 +00 to 11 +12
800
—41—Year 2 (2013) Bed
Distance (feet)
0
U
U
O
U
900
Year 3 (2014) Bed
1000
— o—Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0558
0.0540
0.0556
Riffle Length
37
35
27
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0509
0.0609
0.0715
Pool Length
13
12
17
Pool to Pool Spacing
40
38
38
1000
— o—Year 3 (2014) Water Surface

Project Name
UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach
Mainstem Upstream Station 00 +00 - 04 +00
Feature
Profile
Date
2/16/15
Crew
Perkinson, Jernigan
2012 2013 I 2014 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 Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
150
140
130
s
ca
v
w 120
c
0
v
W
110
100
90
0
UT to Bald Creek Year 3 (2014) Profile - Mainstem Upstream, Station 00 +00 to 04 +00
50
-4—Year 1(2012) Bed
100
150
—41—Year 2 (2013) Bed
200 250 300 350 400
Distance (feet)
Year 3 (2014) Bed
— **-Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.1301
0.1313
0.1315
Riffle Length
16
43
75
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0750
0.0846
0.0953
Pool Length
5
2
6
Pool to Pool Spacing
14
46
102
200 250 300 350 400
Distance (feet)
Year 3 (2014) Bed
— **-Year 3 (2014) Water Surface

Project Name
UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach
Tributary 1 Station 00 +00 - 01 +00
Feature
Profile
Date
2/16/15
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 I Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 3 (2014) Profile - Tributary 1, Station 00 +00 to 01 +00
103
102
101
m
a 100
v
w 99
c
0
98
W
97
96
95 4
0
10
20
—$--Year 1(2012) Bed
30
40
--W-Year 2 (2013) Bed
M
0
:J
U
v�
50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance (feet)
Year 3 (2014) Bed — o—Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0674
0.0782
0.0679
Riffle Length
7
19
14
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0418
0.0777
0.0391
Pool Length
6
6
6
Pool to Pool Spacing
13
24
19
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Year 4 Monitoring \Survey Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation I Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 3 (2014) Profile - Tributary 1, Station 00 +00 to 01 +00
103
102
101
m
a 100
v
w 99
c
0
98
W
97
96
95 4
0
10
20
—$--Year 1(2012) Bed
30
40
--W-Year 2 (2013) Bed
M
0
:J
U
v�
50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance (feet)
Year 3 (2014) Bed — o—Year 3 (2014) Water Surface

Project Name UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach Tributary 2 Station 00 +00 - 01 +50
Feature Profile
Date 2/16/15
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 3 (2014) Profile - Tributary 2, Station 00 +00 to 01 +50
106
104
102
m
s 100
m
v
w 98
c
0
w 96
94 -
92 -
90
0
M
Cn
O
a,
Le
20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance (feet)
-4-Year 1(2012) Bed -0-Year 2 (2013) Bed - *-Year 3 (2014) Bed - r-Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
140
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0814
0.0844
0.0823
Riffle Length
10
32
49
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0542
0.0611
0.0693
Pool Length
4
4
4
Pool to Pool Spacing
15
29
51
20 40 60 80 100 120
Distance (feet)
-4-Year 1(2012) Bed -0-Year 2 (2013) Bed - *-Year 3 (2014) Bed - r-Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
140

Project Name
UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach
Tributary 3 Station 00 +00 - 02 +50
Feature
Profile
Date
2/16/15
Crew
Perkinson, Jernigan
2012 I 2013 I 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 Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 3 (2014) Profile - Tributary 3, Station 00 +00 to 02 +50
85
so
75
m 70
65
v
v
c
° 60
v
W
55
50
45
40 +
0
50 100 150 200 250
Distance (feet)
--*.—Year 1(2012) Bed —a—Year 2 (2013) Bed Year 3 (2014) Bed --)*—Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
NA*
NA*
NA*
Riffle Length
25
44
33
Avg. Riffle Slope
NA*
NA*
NA*
Pool Length
18
7
10
Pool to Pool Spacing
28
45
25
50 100 150 200 250
Distance (feet)
--*.—Year 1(2012) Bed —a—Year 2 (2013) Bed Year 3 (2014) Bed --)*—Year 3 (2014) Water Surface

Project Name
UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach
Tributary 4 Station 00 +00 - 02 +50
Feature
Profile
Date
2/16/15
Crew
Perkinson, Jernigan
2012 I 2013 I 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 Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 3 (2014) Profile - Tributary 4, Station 00 +00 to 02 +50
60
55
50
`m
s
6 45
v
!
c
0
40
v
W
35
30 1
25 +
0
50
Year 1(2012) Bed
100
--*—Year 2 (2013) Bed
Distance (feet)
150 200 250
Year 3 (2014) Bed — 14—Year 3 (2014) Water Surface
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0074
0.1228
0.1147
Riffle Length
23
22
11
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0118
0.1118
0.0814
Pool Length
34
6
5
Pool to Pool Spacing
57
13
13
150 200 250
Year 3 (2014) Bed — 14—Year 3 (2014) Water Surface

Wei hted Pebble Count
Percent Riffle:
Percent Pool
100
Percent Run:
Percent Glide
Pebble Count,
Material
Size Range (mm)
Total #
# #
#
# #
#
# #
# #
# #
#
# #
# #
#
#
#
#
#
# #
#
# #
#
# #
#
# #
# #
# #
#
Note:
UT to Bald Creek
silt/clay
0 0.062
30.0
French Broac
very fine sanc
fine sand
medium sanc
coarse sand
very coarse sanc
0.062 0.13
6.0
- --
0.13 0.25
8.0
Cross Section 2 - Mainstem
0.25 0.5
2.0
Pebble Count, UT to Bald Creek
100%
900
0.5 1
4.0
1 2
2.0
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
2.0
6 8
4.0
80%
70%
8 11
6.0
11 16
0.0
16 22
6.0
60%
m 500
22 32
0.0
32 45
10.0
L
~
45 64
4.0
�, 40%
30%
small cobble
medium cobblE
large cobblE
very large cobbl
64 90
4.0
90 128
8.0
128 180
4.0
20%
a 10%
180 256
0.0
small boulder
small boulde
medium bouldei
large bouldei
very large boulde
256 362
0.0
362 512
0.0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm) (Cumulative Percent • Percent Item - Riffle Pool - *-Run -Glide
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 I
bedrock
50
#N /A
0.11
1.0
64
122
30%
1 22%
32%
16%
0% 1
0%

Table 10a.1 Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596 - Mainstem (1,112 feet)
Parameter
2
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
TDesign Mainstem
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Aq.Min
Mean
Med
Max
S D 5
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
0.8
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 (ft)
2.7
3.9
2.9
2.6
0.4
2.5
1
2.6
Width /Depth Ratio
6.9
1
17.8
11.6
10.2
27
12
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
1.2
1.8
1.8
2.5
2.0
'Bank Height Ratiol
1.0
2.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0476
0.1441
0.0014
0.041
0.0508
0.0003
0.0012
Pool Length (ft)
None Distinct
Not Available
1
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.15
1.38
Pool Spacing (ft)l
I
I
I
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)l
60
1
1
245
1
1
1 200.0 - 245.0
1 60.0-220.0
1 35.0-47.0
60
220
Meander 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) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
69-217
46-183
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
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 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 = 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.2 Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596 - Tributary 2 459 feet
Parameter
2
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
SD
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
0.8
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 (ft)
2.7
3.9
2.9
2.6
0.4
0.5
Width /Depth Ratio
6.9
17.8
1
1
11.6
10.2
27
14
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
1.2
1.8
1.8
2.5
2.0
Bank Height Ratiol
1.0
1
2.4
1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
1
1 1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0476
0.1441
0.0014
0.041
0.0508
0.1281
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)l
60
1
1
1 245 1
1 200.0 - 245.0
1 60.0-220.0
1 35.0-47.0 1
1 35 -50
Meander Width Ratiol I I I 1 10.9 1 1 1 40 1 1 1 2.1 -4.3 1 4.9-6.3 1 3.7-9.3 1 13.3-8.31
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
69-217
3
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B /G5
B5
B5
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 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 = 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
2
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
ainstem
Upstream
Mainstern
Downstream
Tributary 2
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
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
0.8
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 (ft)
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 Ratio
1.2
1.2
1.8
1.8
2.5
5.6
'Bank Height Ratio
1.0
2.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0476
0.1441
0.0014
0.041
0.0508
0.1548
Pool Length (ft)
None Distinct
Not Available
Pool Max depth (ft)l
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)l
60 1
1
1 245 1 1 200.0 - 245.0
1 60.0-220.0 1 35.0-47.0
Meander Width Ratiol I I I 1 10.9 1 1 1 40 1 1 1 2.1 -4.3 1 4.9-6.3 1 3.7-9.3 1 15.6-111
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
69-217
8
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B /G5
B5
B5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
5.9-8.9
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
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)
3 B nkfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be 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 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 / disp (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 field 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 11 a. 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) used
37.4
37.4
37.5
53.4
53.7
53.0
97.7
97.7
97.7
55.4
55.6
55.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.9
5.1
4.7
4.2
4.5
4.0
4.1
3.5
4.5
6.1
6.6
7.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
NA
I NA
NA
13.0
20.0
33.0
14.0
14.0
1 16.0
NA
NA
NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.2
1.3
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.4
0.6
2.0
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.8
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
3.8
4.5
4.3
1.1
1.0
5.2
2.3
1.8
3.3
3.2
3.2
2.9
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
NA
NA
NA
16.0
20.3
3.1
7.3
6.8
6.1
NA
NA
NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
NA
NA
NA
3.1
4.4
8.3
3.4
4.0
3.6
NA
NA
NA
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
NA
NA
NA
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
NA
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
- - --
-- --
- - --
----
----
-- --
-- --
----
- - --
- - --
- ---
- ---
d50 (mm)
- - --
- - --
- - --
NA*
0.2
1.0
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
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) used
98.7
98.7
98.7
141.6
141.6
141.6
Bankfull Width ft
4.0
4.2
3.8
5.6
5.4
6.4
Floodprone Width ft
16.0
16.0
16.0
NA
NA
NA
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.8
0.7
0.8
1
0.7
0.6
1 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
0.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.9
3.3
2.4
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratio
5.3
5.9
4.7
NA
NA
NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
1 4.0
3.8
1 4.2
1
1 NA
NA
NA
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
NA
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft)
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
- - --
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
4.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
13
20
33.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.2
1.3
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.4
0.6
2.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
1.1
1
5.2
Width /Depth Ratio
14
19.6
3.1
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
4.5
8.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
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
2.5
27.2
25.9
64.2
19.1
22
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0170
0.0508
0.0509
0.1221
0.028
14
0.018
0.061
0.051
0.116
0.028
20
0.0265
0.0715
0.0651
0.1397
0.0321
22
Pool Length (ft)
5.5
12.9
12
33.8
6.2
18
4.8
12.2
10.2
32
6.4
23
5.6
16.5
12.6
45.3
10.6
24
Pool Max depth (ft)l
1
1.1
1
1.1
0.6
1.1
0.7
2.0
Pool Spacing (ft)j
8.9
40
39
116.5
29.2
18
8.7
37.8
22.2
162
34.2
23
8.3
37.6
30
98.2
25.7
24
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
Cb
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1112
1102
1102
Sinuosity (ft)
1.03
1.03
1.03
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft /ft)
0.0558
0.054
0.0556
BF slope (ft /ft)
Ri % /Ru % /P % /G % /S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
38
28
20
14
0
0
30
22
30
16
0
0
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
NA
NA
0.2
57
98
NA
0.1
1
64
122
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
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 (ft2)
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
47.7
82.5
74.6
133.0
41.6
4
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0.0102
0.0750
0.0845
0.1515
0.047
11
0.0295
0.085
0.076
0.154
0.047
8
0.0827
0.1045
0.0953
0.145
0.0276
4
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
2.1
12.7
5.6
30.5
15.5
3
Pool Max depth (ft)
1
1
1.1
1.1
0.6
0.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
12.4
14.3
12.4
42.2
9
16
8.9
46.4
46.1
92.2
37
7
79.6
106.8
102.1
138.6
29.7
3
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
B
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
375
361
368.1
Sinuosity (ft)
1.09
1.09
1.09
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft /ft)
0.1301
0.1313
0.1315
BF slope (ft /ft)
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
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

Dimension and Substrate- Riffle only
Bankfull Width
•••• • - Width (ft)
_____-�
®
®�_-�
®
®�_-
• 1
• 1
• 1
_-_____---_---
Bankfull Mean Depth
IBankfull Max Depth
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
'Bank Height Ratio
Profile - Tributary 1
Riffle Length
Riffle Slope
_____-
1 1 1 1
1 1 `
11 •
1 1 :••
"If •:
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1:•
1 1 1�
©
1 1 1:
1 1 •
1 1 •
1 1:�
1 1
©_____----_--
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing
Profile - Tributary 2
Riffle Length
Riffle Slope
_____-
1 1
1 1 `
1 1�
1 1•:
1 1
1 1
1 1•
1 1 M•
1 `
11 M.
1 1`•
1 1••
1 1•
1 1•
1 1'
©_____-�____-
Pool Length
Pool Max depth (ft)
Profile - Tributary 3
Riffle Length
Riffle Slope
No water in channel during field
visit.
No
water in channel
during field visit.
No water in channel
during field visit.
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Profile - Tributary 4
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope
_____-
Nowater in channel during field visit.
1 1
1
1 1•
1
1 1 •
1 1 •
1 1.
1 1:
1 1:
1 1
©_____---___-
Pool Length
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing
Channel Beltwidth
Radius of Curvature
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate significant shifts from
baseline
Rc:Bankfull width
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional
Rosgen Classification
Channel -• length (ft)
•
•
•
Sinuosity
1 1
1 1
1 1
Surface Water Slope
0.0674 0.1301
0.0782 -.1228
1 1• •
BF slope
• • • • 1 •:4 ••
_____-_____-___________-_____-------
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel .• or .• Metric

APPENDIX E
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
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.
Crest gauge observations indicated a bankfull event after
February 10, 2015
September 7, 2014
approximately 2.04 inches of rain was documented* at a
nearby rain station on September 7, 2014 and 1.97 inches
was documented in the previous 4 days.
Crest gauge observations indicated a bankfull event after
February 10, 2015
October 14, 2014
approximately 2.41 inches of rain was documented* at a
-
nearby rain station on October 14, 2014.
*Asheville Airport (Weatherunderground 2015)
UT to Bald Stream (final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 3 of 5 (2014)
EEP Project Number 92596 March 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices