The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20180063 Ver 1_French_Broad_05_RES_Carolina_Bison_MY4_Monitoring_Report_20230906ID#* 20180063 Version* 1 Select Reviewer: Maria Polizzi Initial Review Completed Date 09/06/2023 Mitigation Project Submittal - 9/6/2023 Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* Yes No Type of Mitigation Project:* Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset (Select all that apply) Project Contact Information Contact Name: * Email Address: Daniel Dixon ddixon@res.us Project Information ID#: * 20180063 Version:* 1 Existing ID# Existing Version Project Type: DMS Mitigation Bank Project Name: Carolina Bison Mitigation Site County: Buncombe Document Information Mitigation Document Type:* Mitigation Monitoring Report File Upload: French Broad 05 RES Carolina Bison MY4 Mo... 17.97MB Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted... Signature Print Name:* Daniel Dixon Signature: * 3600 Glenwood Avenue. Suite ioo res Raleigh, NC 2'7612 Corporate Headquarters 6575 West Loop South, Suite 300 Bellaire, TX 77401 Main: 713.520.5400 September 5, 2023 Mr. Steve Kichefski U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Division 151 Patton Ave. Room 208 Asheville, NC 28801-5006 RE: Carolina Bison Year 4 Monitoring Report (SAW-2016-02357) Dear Mr. Kichefski, Please find attached the Carolina Bison Year 4 Monitoring Report. No monitoring of vegetation plots or cross sections occurred in the current monitoring year however the site was visually monitored three times this year. In Monitoring Year 3, all nine vegetation plots met the 320 stems per acre success criteria. The average planted stems per acre across the plots was 710 and the average planted stem height was 4.3 feet. Eleven bankfull events were recorded on the stage recorders with all three gages documenting at least one out of bank event. This year marks the fourth year in which, there have been at least one bankfull event in four separate years of monitoring. Visual assessment of the site shows no vegetation or stream problems. The channel is transporting sediment as designed after in stream vegetation treatments and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation. Comments from the Monitoring Year Three Credit Release Letter are located and italicized below with answers detailed in bold. RES is requesting a 5% stream credit release (229.050 SMUs and 4.700 WQ SMUs) for the completion of the Year 4 Monitoring Report and an additional 10% stream credit release (458.100 SMUs and 9.400 WQ SMUs) for the bankfull event performance standard being met. Please see enclosed the credit release timeline and an updated credit ledger. Thank you, Daniel Dixon I Ecologist res. us The report noted continued sediment deposition within UT1 that has resulted in the need for continual treatment of vegetation within this reach. As we are now moving into Monitoring Year 4, we believe this should be the final year for any vegetation treatment. If channel formation within this reach continues to be a persistent problem following this year, it may be necessary to address this reach through the submittal of an adaptive management approach that could include potential credit adjustments due to loss of channel jurisdiction. Please be sure to include a detailed description of this area and representative photographs in the MY4 report. RES believes this area to be returning to designed channel dimensions after the in -stream vegetative treatments of August 2022. Pictures are included in Appendix B. RES will submit an adaptive management plan if the cross -sectional dimensions do not show a return closer to design standards in MY5. 2. We appreciate your continued efforts to maintain the easement and ensure that future encroachments are avoided. Thank you. RES will continue to maintain transparency in easement issues if they arise. 3. We are pleased to see that the monitoring of water quality parameters and macroin vertebrates has demonstrated an uplift in function on the site, particularly with regard to the improved bioclassification of the upstream location. Please include the dates that sampling was conducted on Table 73 that shows the water quality monitoring parameters to aid in the interpretation of this data. Dates have been included in the seasonal columns to show when samples were taken. Project Name: Sponsor Name: USACE Action ID: NCDWQ Action ID: Wilmington District Mitigation Bank Credit Release Schedule Carolina Bison Stream Mitigation Project EBX SAW-2016-02357 County: 8-Digit HUC: Year Project Instituted Date Prepared: Total Potential Credits Non -Forested Stream Credits Forested Wetland Credits Wetland Credits Credit Classification Warm Cool Cold Riparian Riparian Non -Riparian Coastal Water Water Water Riverine Non-Riverine Potential Credits from Mitigation Plan 4,675 Potential Credits from As -Built Survey 4,675 Buncombe 6010105 2019 9/5/2023 4675.000 Current and Future Credit Releases Stream Credits Forested Wetland Credits Non -Forested Wetland Credits Projected Actual Release Credit Release Milestone Scheduled Releases Warm Water Base SMUs WQ SMUs Scheduled Releases Riparian Riverine Riparian Non-Riverine Non -Riparian Scheduled Releases Coastal Release Date Date 1 (Bank/Site Establishment)" 15% 687.150 15% 15% 10/21/2019 2 (Year O/As-Built)' 15% 687.150 15% 15% 8/15/2020 9/29/2020 3 (Year 1 Monitoring) 10% 458.100 37.600 10% 10% 3/15/2021 3/31/2021 4 (Year 2 Monitoring) 10% 458.100 9.400 10% 15% 3/15/2021 3/31/2022 5 (Year 3 Monitoring) 10% 458.100 9.400 15% 20% 3/31/2023 12/28/2022 6 (Year 4 Monitoring) 5% 229.050 4.700 5% 10% 12/1/2023 7 (Year 5 Monitoring) 10% 458.100 9.400 15% 15% 8 (Year 6 Monitoring) 5% 229.050 4.700 5% NA NA 9 (Year 7 Monitoring) 10% 458.100 9.400 10% NA NA Stream Bankfull Standard 10% 458.1 9.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA 12/1/2023 Total Credits Release to Date 1 12805.0001 Contingencies (if any): None Signature of Wilmington District Official Approving Credit Release 1- The first credit release milestone is based on the potential credits stated in the approved mitigation plan. 2 - The first credit release shall occur upon establishment of the mitigation bank, which includes the following criteria: 1) Execution of the MBI or UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE; 2) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan; 3) Mitigation bank site must be secured; 4) Delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan; 5) Recordation of the long-term protection mechanism and title opinion acceptable to the USACE; 6) 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required. 3 - The second credit release is based on the credit totals from the as -built survey, and may differ slightly from the credit totals stated in the mitigation plan. 4 - A 10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met. Date Transaction Credits Released Credits Debited Number To Bank From Bank CAROLINA BISON STREAM CREDIT LEDGER (HUC 06010105) Tuesday. August 8. 2023 Current Credits Credit Balance Reserved Purchaser Permit Number Date HUC 687.15 Credits Released: Task 1 10/21/19 687.15 Credits Released: Task 2 9/30/20 495.70 Credits Released: Task 3 3/31/21 467.50 Credits Released: Task 3/31/22 467.50 Credits Released: Task 5 12/28/22 Total 2.805.00 0.00 1 2.805.00 1 0.0 CAROLINA BISON STREAM MITIGATION SITE B UNCOMBE CO UNTY, NOR TH CAR OLINA SAW-2016-02357 RES French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT Provided by: fires Bank Sponsor: Environmental Banc and Exchange, LLC, An entity of Resource Environmental Solutions 3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27612 864-567-7761 September 2023 Table of Contents 1.0 Project Summary..................................................................................................................................... 2 1.1 Project Location and Description.............................................................................................. 2 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Project Success Criteria............................................................................................................. 3 Stream Success Criteria................................................................................................................... 3 Vegetation Success Criteria............................................................................................................. 4 WaterQuality................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Project Components.................................................................................................................. 4 1.5 Stream Design/Approach.......................................................................................................... 5 1.6 Construction and As -Built Conditions...................................................................................... 6 1.7 Year 3 Monitoring Performance(MY4).................................................................................... 7 Vegetation........................................................................................................................................ 7 StreamGeomorphology................................................................................................................... 8 StreamHydrology............................................................................................................................ 8 WaterQuality................................................................................................................................... 8 2.0 Methods.................................................................................................................................................. 9 3.0 References............................................................................................................................................. 10 Appendix A: Background Tables Table 1: Project Mitigation Components Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3: Project Contacts Table Table 4: Project Background Information Table Figure 1: Site Location Map Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data Figure 2: Current Conditions Plan View Vegetation Plot Photos Monitoring Device Photos Crossing and Swale Photos Site Assessment Photos Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data Table 5: Planted Species Summary Table 6: Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table 7a. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species Table 7b. Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Appendix D: Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data MY3 Cross -Section Overlay Plots Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Table 9. Cross Section Morphology Data Table Appendix E: Hydrology Data Table 10.2023 Rainfall Summary Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events Appendix F: Water Ouality Data Table 12. Annual Data Collection (MY4) Table 13. Physical Water Quality Data Summary Table 14. Nutrient/Bacteria Water Quality Data Summary Table 15. Biological Water Quality Data Summary Carolina Bison 1 Year 4 Monitoring Report Stream Mitigation Site September 2023 1.0 Proiect Summary 1.1 Project Location and Description The Carolina Bison Mitigation Site ("the Project"), a project within the RES French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank, is located in Buncombe County, North Carolina approximately two miles northeast of Leicester. Water quality stressors currently affecting the Project include livestock production and lack of riparian buffer. The Project presents 4,768 linear feet (LF) of stream restoration and enhancement, generating 4,675 Cool Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) along Parker Branch and two unnamed tributaries, supporting goals of the French Broad River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP). The Project is in the French Broad River Basin within Cataloging Unit 06010105, targeted local watershed (TLW) Newfound Creek Watershed (14-digit HUC 06010105090020). The proposed mitigation site will restore and protect a catchment within the Newfound watershed, which discharges directly into the French Broad River. The Project's total easement area is 10.92 acres within the overall drainage area of 457 acres. The Project is currently used as a bison farm, where American Bison are raised for meat production alongside watusi, camels, elk, and white-tailed deer. Grazing livestock have had access to all stream reaches within the Project. The lack of riparian buffer vegetation, deep-rooted vegetation, and unstable channel characteristics have contributed to the degradation of stream banks throughout the Project area. The stream design approach for the Project combined the analog method of natural channel design with analytical methods to evaluate stream flows and hydraulic performance of the channel and floodplain. The analog method involved the use of a reference reach, or "template" stream, adjacent to, nearby, or previously in the same location as the design reach. The template parameters of the analog reach were replicated to create the features of the design reach. The analog approach is useful when watershed and boundary conditions are similar between the design and analog reaches (Skidmore et al., 2001). Hydraulic geometry was developed using analytical methods to identify the design discharge. The Project will be monitored on a regular basis throughout the seven-year post -construction monitoring period, or until performance standards are met. Upon approval for closeout by the Interagency Review Team (IRT), the site will be transferred to Unique Places to Save (UP2S). This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions will be finalized prior to site transfer to the responsible party. 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project's maximum functional uplift using a Function Based Framework, specific, attainable goals will be realized by the Carolina Bison Mitigation Site. These goals clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming that were identified as major watershed stressors in the 2009 French Broad RBRP. The project goals are: • Reduce sediment inputs into streams; • Reduce nutrient and fecal coliform inputs into streams; • Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat; • Improve floodplain connectivity; Carolina Bison 2 Year 4 Monitoring Report Stream Mitigation Site September 2023 • Restore and enhance appropriate riparian plant communities; • Assess water quality benefits of stream restoration and contribute to the IRTs developing water quality dataset. The project goals were addressed through the following project objectives: • Designed and reconstructed stream channels that convey bankfull flows while maintaining stable dimension, profile, and planform based on modeling, watershed conditions, and reference reach conditions; • Permanently excluded livestock from stream channels and their associated buffers; • Added in -stream structures and bank stabilization measures to protect restored and enhanced streams • Installed habitat features such as brush toes, constructed riffles, woody materials, and pools of varying depths to restored and enhanced streams; • Reduced bank height ratios and increased entrenchment ratios to reference reach conditions; • Increased forested riparian buffers to at least thirty feet on both sides of the channel along the Project reaches with a hardwood riparian plant community; • Treated exotic invasive species; • Established a permanent conservation easement on the site; • Performed water quality measurements/sampling and reported results. Limitations to achieving these watershed goals arise by remaining constrained to our project boundaries. While we restored habitat and streams to stable and effective conditions that achieve our goals within the project parcels, we are unable to influence the effect of poor riparian buffers and livestock impact in other areas within the watershed. 1.3 Project Success Criteria The Site follows the USACE 2003 Stream Mitigation Guidelines and the "Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update" dated October 24, 2016. Cross section and vegetation plot data will be collected in Years 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Stream hydrology data and visual monitoring will be reported annually. Physical and chemical water quality parameters will be reported annually, while biological parameters will be reported in Years 0, 3, 5, and 7. Stream Success Criteria Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring period. The bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until four bankfull events have been documented in separate years. There should be little change in as -built cross -sections. If changes do take place, they should be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition (for example down -cutting or erosion), or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (for example settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Bank height ratio shall not exceed 1.2, and the entrenchment ratio shall be no less than 1.4 within restored riffle cross sections. Channel stability should be demonstrated through a minimum of four bankfull events documented in the seven-year monitoring period. Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures. Longitudinal images should not indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or an excessive increase in channel depth. Carolina Bison 3 Year 4 Monitoring Report Stream Mitigation Site September 2023 Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate successional maturation of riparian vegetation. Vegetation Success Criteria Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density within the riparian buffers on the site will follow IRT Guidance. Vegetation monitoring plots will be a minimum of 0.02 acres in size and cover a minimum of two percent of the planted area. Vegetation monitoring will occur annually between July 15 and leaf drop and will include a combination of fixed and random plots. The interim measures of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 planted three-year old trees per acre at the end of Year 3, 260 five-year old trees with an average height of six feet at the end of Year 5, and the final vegetative success criteria will be 210 trees per acre with an average height of eight feet at the end of Year 7. Volunteer trees will be counted, identified to species, and included in the yearly monitoring reports, but will not be counted towards the success criteria of total planted stems. Water Quality Water quality and macroinvertebrate indicators will be monitored to document and measure any changes to physical, chemical, and biological metrics within the project area. These metrics are sensitive to changes in the project watershed (e.g. land use change and pollutant inputs) and more localized modifications, such as in -stream habitat improvements and riparian buffer restoration. However, because results might not demonstrate a measurable improvement over pre -construction conditions, or measurable improvements may occur slowly, the success of the project will not be tied to these metrics. Physical water quality sampling was conducted prior to construction and will be for the duration of the monitoring period using a sampling probe, and will include measurements of acidity (pH), temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and conductivity (EC). Specifically, these measurements will be taken four times per monitoring year. Additionally, once per year, fecal coliform, total nitrate/nitrite, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorus, and total ammonia samples will be collected. All these data will be reported annually. Macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted prior to construction and will be once per year during monitoring Years 3, 5, and 7. A reference location was also sampled for comparison purposes, located on a relatively stable reach in an undisturbed setting, located as close to the mitigation site as possible, and within the same watershed. Results presented will include a list of taxa collected at each site for each sampling event, as well as an enumeration of the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) taxa and a Biotic Index (see the NCDWR Standard Operating Procedures for Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates). Each report will include a summary of the current results and all past monitoring events in tabular format. 1.4 Project Components The Project area is comprised of perennial streams, Parker Branch and two unnamed tributaries on a working American Bison farm and is comprised of nine fenced easement sections, separated by easement breaks. Descriptions of easement breaks are discussed below. There are six stream reaches, including Parker Branch (PB1-A, PB1-B, PB1-C, and PB2) and two unnamed tributaries (UT1 and UT2), divided by treatment type and/or changes in flow. The stream mitigation components are summarized below. Mitigation credits presented below are based upon the Approved Mitigation Plan. To account for areas of more or less than minimum 30-foot buffer widths, credits were adjusted using the USACE Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator. Carolina Bison 4 Year 4 Monitoring Report Stream Mitigation Site September 2023 Although there are no specific success criteria metrics for water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring, both will be monitored and reported as specified in the 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update in order to generate an additional two percent credit. A proposed variation on the protocols in the 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update was provided to the IRT and agreed upon and was outlined in Section 1.3 above. This credit will be generated on all restoration reaches (PB1, PB2, and UT1) and will not be generated on reach UT2. Due to landowner and utility requirements, there are eight easement breaks within the project. One break is for an existing utility easement; fencing will be installed across the utility easement in order to provide contiguous livestock exclusion to the stream. The other seven are locations for current or future agricultural crossings. These easement breaks will allow landowners to continue current land -use and access throughout the property as needed. Mitigation Plan Credits Reach Mitigation Type Proposed Stationing Existing Length (LF) Proposed Length (LF) Mitigation Ratio SMUs Restoration 0+11 to 0+90 69 79 1.0:1 79 PB1-A Restoration 1+34 to 6+54 514 520 1.0:1 520 Restoration 6+84 to 11+05 421 421 1.0:1 421 PB1-B Restoration 11+68 to 14+23 254 255 1.0:1 255 Restoration 14+23 to 20+30 552 607 1.0:1 607 PB1-C Restoration 20+70 to 23+55 342 285 1.0:1 285 Restoration 23+55 to 27+34 439 379 1.0:1 379 PB2 Restoration 27+74 to 33+02 498 528 1.0:1 528 Restoration 1+35 to 4+15 262 280 1.0:1 280 Restoration 4+45 to 13+14 809 869 1.0:1 869 UT1 Restoration 13+44 to 16+42 287 298 1.0:1 298 Restoration 16+83 to 18+83 157 200 1.0:1 200 UT2 Enhancement II 0+89 to 1+36 47 47 2.5:1 19 Totals 4,651 4,768 4,740 Non -Standard Buffer Width Adjustment -159' Water Quality Monitoring Adjustment 94t Total Adjusted SMUs 4,675 * Credit adjustment for Non-standard Buffer Width calculation using the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit Calculator issued by the USACE in January 2018. See section 6.6 of the Carolina Bison Final Mitigation Plan for further information. t Additional two percent credit on reaches conducting water quality and macroinvertebrate monitoring protocols specified in the 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. See section 6.7 of the Carolina Bison Final Mitigation Plan for further information. 1. S Stream Design/Approach Stream restoration efforts at the Carolina Bison Site were accomplished through analyses of geomorphic conditions and watershed characteristics. The design approach applied a combination of analytical and reference reach -based design methods that meet objectives commensurate with both ecological and geomorphic improvements. Treatment activities ranged from minor bank grading and planting to re- establishing stable planform and hydraulic geometry. For full restoration reaches, natural design concepts Carolina Bison 5 Year 4 Monitoring Report Stream Mitigation Site September 2023 were applied and verified through rigorous engineering analyses and modeling. The objective of this approach was to design and construct a channel with stable geomorphology that provides habitat improvements and ties into the existing landscape. Specifically, treatments included Priority 1 Restoration, Priority 2 Restoration, and Enhancement Level II. The Carolina Bison Mitigation Site has been broken into the following reaches: Reach PB1-A/B/C — These three reaches begin on the north end of the project, flowing south to join UT1 and create PB2, downstream of their confluence. PB1-A results in 1,020 linear feet of Restoration. This reach was incised and did not have connectivity to the floodplain. Slopes were constructed between 1 % to 1.3% with offline restoration and tied back into the bedrock outcroppings within the pre-existing channel. PB1-B is 255 linear feet and was also incised and over widened pre -construction. Design and construction constraints within this reach included the large livestock pen on the left bank and a path that was to be retained on the right. Within reach PB1-B, design and construction included adding appropriate meander, raising the bed, and cutting in a floodplain bench while maintaining the 1 % grade. PB 1-C, like PB 1-A, had less constraints for design and similar restoration activities were performed. PC1-C is 892 linear feet, joining UT1, and flows east as PB2. Reach PB2 - This reach begins downstream of the confluence of UT1, flowing east, eventually off the project site. PB2 is 907 linear feet of Restoration. Prior to construction, this reach had very low bed and bank stability due to direct livestock access and lack of riparian understory. The larger drainage area of Reach PB2 had resulted in a wider channel. There is a path on both sides of Parker Branch, but they are just outside the project easement. Reach UTl - This tributary begins just west of the project limits from a groundwater seep. Reach UT1 flows east to Parker Branch and totals 1,647 linear feet of Restoration. Sparse woodland and actively managed pastures were located adjacent to the reach, and livestock had access to this reach. The channel was designed and constructed to be around 2.25% grade. Additionally, there is a steep slope to the south of the reach. Reach UT2 — This reach begins in the middle of the project, flowing northeast into UT1. This reach totals 47 linear feet of Enhancement II. Prior to Project construction, UT2 had little to no livestock access but was still oversized and incised. Actively managed pasture was located adjacent to the reach. Enhancement activities included stable reconnection to UT1 and buffer re-establishment, and a rock sill grade control structure was installed at the tie-in with UTL 1.6 Construction and As -Built Conditions Stream construction and planting was completed in March 2020 despite abnormally high rainfall that caused delays. The Carolina Bison Mitigation Site was built to design plans and guidelines barring a few deviations, including several crossing types changes, the substitution of riprap swales for diffused flow structures, and the addition of stone toe bank protection. Also, notably, due to weather delays and setbacks, the fencing was not completed during construction; however, all livestock have been removed from the project area and do not have access to the Project streams or easement area. Notable changes at the Project are discussed below. Carolina Bison 6 Year 4 Monitoring Report Stream Mitigation Site September 2023 Easement Breaks and Crossings — Proposed vs. As -Built Reach Stationing Proposed Mitigation Plan As -Built Condition PB1-A 0+90 to 1+34 Utility Easement Utility Easement PB 1-A 6+54 to 6+84 24 LF of Double 54" RCP Riffle Grade Control installed PB1-A 11+05 to 11+68 48 LF of 54" and 48" RCP 48 LF of Double 48" RCP PB1-C 20+30 to 20+70 24 LF of Double 54" RCP No crossing installed PB2 27+34 to 27+74 Future bridge location Future bridge location UT1 4+15 to 4+45 Remove 30" RCP Removed 30" RCP UT1 13+15 to13+45 24 LF of Double 36" RCP Ford installed UT1 16+42 to 16+83 24 LF of Double 54" RCP Riffle Grade Control installed Note: Entire easement boundary will be fenced. The Diffuse Flow Structures proposed on reaches PB1-A and UT1 were substituted for Riprap Swales to address erosional forces in these areas. In addition, several other small riprap swales were installed throughout the Project upon discovery of rills and erosional areas resulting from concentrated runoff during construction. All areas mentioned above are identified on the as -built survey, which is included along with a redline version of the as -built survey, in the As -Built Report. Project credits are based on design centerline, but as - built stream lengths are shown on Appendix A, Table 1. Also, there were several bare root planting changes compared to the mitigation plan due to bare root availability. Pawpaw (Asimina triloba) and musclewood (Carpinus carolinia) were removed, while willow oak (Quercus phellos), black walnut (Juglans nigra), southern crabapple (Malus angustifolia), eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), American plum (Prunus Americana), and hazel alder (Alnus serrulata) were added. See Appendix C, Table 5 for the complete as -built planted species list. 1.7 Year 4 Monitoring Performance (MY4) The Carolina Bison Year 4 Monitoring (MY4) activities were performed in March and August 2023. All MY4 Monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. The Site is on track to meeting vegetation and stream interim success criteria. Vegetation Vegetation data was not required for MY4. Vegetation data from MY3 can be found in Appendix C, associated photos are in Appendix B, and plot locations are in Appendix B. MY3 monitoring data indicated that all plots are exceeding the interim success criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 324 to 1,133 planted stems per acre with a mean of 735 across the six permanent plots, while planted stem densities ranged from 526 to 769 planted stems per acre with a mean of 661 across the three random plots. An average of 710 planted stems per acre were recorded across both permanent and random plots. A total of 13 species were documented within the plots. Volunteer species were noted in six of the plots, with an average of 103 volunteer stems per acre. The average stem height across all vegetation plots was 4.3 feet. Carolina Bison 7 Year 4 Monitoring Report Stream Mitigation Site September 2023 Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is becoming well established throughout the project. Additionally, in MY4, RES continued removing black walnut and crabapple stems if found on the site. Since these species make up such a small percentage of species composition RES does not anticipate needing replanting in areas of removal. Easement encroachment has occurred on UT 1 near the confluence of UT2. RES has notified the landowner through phone messages of easement requirements and is sending a letter documenting the encroachment and RES's response to the encroachment. Easement signs and horse tape have been added in this area in addition to the communications RES has issued to the landowner. RES will replant this 0.05-acre area with container trees to encourage vegetative succession. Species composition will be based on the approved planting species list with consideration on species diversity requirements. Stream Geomorphology Geomorphology data was not required for MY4. Monitoring results from MY3 are included in Appendix D. Summary tables and cross section plots from MY3 are in Appendix D and normal monitoring activities will resume in 2024 (MY5). Overall, the baseline cross sections and profile on the restoration reach relatively match the design. Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. The channel is transporting sediment as designed and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation. The rip rap swale on the left bank of PB1-A, that was failing in MY1, has been fixed. The swale is heavily vegetated and continuing to maintain its structure and is performing properly. A structure between cross sections 18 and 19 was noticed to be piping during the March 2023 site walk, however, does not appear to be affecting stability. RES will evaluate this winter whether some light maintenance activity could block the piping and re-route the water to return to the intended design flow path. Cross sections 13 and 14 appeared to be filling in due to in - stream vegetation leading to increased deposition. As can be seen in photographs in Appendix B, the channel is still very present and although it may be shallower than the original design it is functioning and has reached stability at its current cross section. In -stream vegetation was treated in August 2022, these cross sections will be surveyed again in MY5 and will determine whether any additional actions need to occur. Stream Hydrology In May 2020, one stage recorder was installed per restoration reach; PB1-C, P132, and UT1, for a total of three stage recorders. There were seven total bankfull events recorded in MY4, one on PB 1-C, two on PB2, and four on UT1. The gage on PB2 was not downloaded in August as intended, due to a malfunction with the downloading shuttle, the stage recorder is still functioning and missing data will be included in next year's monitoring report. This year marks the fourth year in which, there have been at least one bankfull event in four separate years of monitoring. The stage recorder locations can be found on Figure 2, photos are in Appendix B, and associated data is in Appendix E. Water Quality Physical water quality data (pH, temperature, DO, and conductivity) were collected during MY4 in the winter (December 06, 2022), spring (March 28, 2023), and summer (August 15, 2023) on the restored tributaries at the five sampling locations represented on Figure 2. Additional physical water quality data for the Fall quarter will be collected before the end of 2023. Nutrient and bacteria samples were collected on August 15`h, 2023. All data collected for the year as well as summaries of current results and all past water quality monitoring events are presented in tabular format in Appendix F. Furthermore, RES expects Carolina Bison 8 Year 4 Monitoring Report Stream Mitigation Site September 2023 to collect a full suite of data in the coming monitoring years in accordance with the plan outlined in Section 1.3, above. Physical water quality data results indicate that water quality is trending towards healthier and more beneficial levels across the site as matures post construction. No correlations can be inferred based on data that vary from sampling locations taken on the same date. Nutrient and Bacteria data has been collected annually since monitoring year two, no samples were taken at As -Built and during monitoring year one due to the affect construction would have. Across the site, Total Nitrogen has decreased at all sampling stations since monitoring started, however levels have fluctuated in MY4 across all parameters. We believe the increase is due to samples being collected in August 2023. Total Kjeldahal Nitrogen, NO2 plus NO3, and Total Phosphorus have still decreased overall from pre construction (2019) to MY4 (2022). Fecal Coliform levels have varied across the site through the monitoring years. As the riparian zones continue to mature, we hope to see declines in nutrient and coliform levels. Nutrient and Bacteria sampling will be collected annually for the remainder of the monitoring period. Overall, the data clearly indicates improvements between sites located lower in the watershed versus those sites near the headwater sections and chemical water quality conditions across the site have improved post construction. Benthic macroinvertebrates have been collected from three locations as part of the Carolina Bison restoration project; preconstruction in 2019 and the first survey following construction in 2022. The stream features are small and a modification of the full scale collection protocol was used at all locations. Data from each location noted improvements in the benthic fauna following construction and wetland creation. Most significantly the data from the upstream location (PB 1 a) improved from a Poor bioclassification to a Good/Fair bioclassification resulting in ecological uplift. EPT taxa richness and abundance, as well as the number of intolerant taxa all increased at each location. No seasonal correction has been applied since collection timing has remained consistent across the monitoring period. Benthic macroinvertebrates are due to be collected again in MY5. 2.0 Methods Stream geomorphology monitoring is being conducted using a Topcon GTS-312 Total Station. Three- dimensional coordinates associated with cross-section data were collected in the field (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200). Morphological data were collected at 20 cross -sections. Survey data were imported into CAD, ArcGIS®, and Microsoft Excel® for data processing and analysis. Hydrology is being monitored using stage recorders, which utilize automatic pressure transducers, and were installed within the channels. The pressure transducers record frequency, duration, and stage of bankfull events and are programmed to record readings at an hourly interval. A surveyed elevation was recorded at the bed and top of bank at the stage recorder elevation, allowing for accurate bankfull events to be recorded. Vegetation success is being monitored at six permanent monitoring plots and three random plots for a total of nine plots. Locations of random plots will vary from year to year and will be shown in Figure 2, and species and height will be recorded for all woody stems. Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis of species composition and density of planted species. Data are processed using the CVS data entry tool. In the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked with PVC at the origin and metal conduit at the other corners. Photos of each plot are to be taken from the origin each monitoring year. For physical water quality monitoring, acidity (pH), temperature, dissolved oxygen, and conductivity is being measured using an ExStik DO 600 dissolved oxygen meter and an ExStik EC 500 Carolina Bison 9 Year 4 Monitoring Report Stream Mitigation Site September 2023 Conductivity/TDS/Salinity/Temperature meter in accordance with the devices manufacturer's instructions/protocols. For chemical water quality, fecal coliform, total nitrate/nitrite, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), total phosphorus, and total ammonia is being collected by Penrose Environmental and delivered to the Pace Laboratory in Asheville for analysis. For macroinvertebrate monitoring, Penrose Environmental is collecting and analyzing samples. The macroinvertebrate sampling is being conducted in accordance with the NCDWR Qual 4 macroinvertebrate sampling protocol, which is described in the most current version of the Standard Operating Procedures for Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates, February 2016 (Version 5.0). Sampling is being conducted during the same time of year to minimize seasonal differences in the data from year-to-year. Additionally, sampling will be conducted at the same time as water quality monitoring (pre -construction and years 3,5,7), and within the index period referenced in the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) document entitled Small Streams Biocriteria Development, dated May 29, 2009. Macroinvertebrate samples are identified to the lowest practical taxonomic level (usually Genus) by a qualified. Results presented include a list of taxa collected at each site for each sampling event, as well as an enumeration of the Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) taxa and a Biotic Index (see the NCDWR Standard Operating Procedures for Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates). Each report includes a summary of the current results and all past monitoring events in tabular format. 3.0 References Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function - Based Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006. Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2 North Carolina Division of Water Resources. February 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection and Analysis of Benthic Maroinvertebrates. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274 Penrose Environmental. April 2019 (Revised April 2020) Benthic Insect Summary. Carolina Bison Project. Resource Environmental Solutions. 2019. Carolina Bison Stream Mitigation Site Final Mitigation Plan. Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology, 2nd edition, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003. April 2003 NC Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE. 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Carolina Bison 10 Year 4 Monitoring Report Stream Mitigation Site September 2023 Appendix A Site Location Background Tables Table 1. Carolina Bison - Mitigation Assets and Components Existing Mitigation Footage Plan Mitigation As -Built or Footage or Mitigation Restoration Priority Mitigation Plan Footage or Project Segment Acreage Acreage Category Level Level Ratio (X:1) Credits Acreage Comments 3 year 9 months -01 Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent 3 year 8 months 69 79 Cool R 1 1.00000 79.000 79 Conservation Easement Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent 4 514 520 Cool R 1 1.00000 520.000 520 Conservation Easement Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent P61-A 421 421 Cool R 1 1.00000 421.000 421 Conservation Easement Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent P131-13 254 255 Cool R 1 1.00000 255.000 255 Conservation Easement Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent P61-C 552 607 Cool R 1 1.00000 607.000 607 Conservation Easement Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent P131-C 342 285 Cool R 1 1.00000 285.000 285 Conservation Easement Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent P62 439 379 Cool R 1 1.00000 379.000 379 Conservation Easement Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent P132 498 528 Cool R 1 1.00000 528.000 528 Conservation Easement Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent UT1 262 280 Cool R 1 1.00000 280.000 280 Conservation Easement Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent UT1 809 869 Cool R 1 1.00000 869.000 869 Conservation Easement Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent UT1 287 298 Cool R 1 1.00000 298.000 298 Conservation Easement Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent UT1 1571 200 Cool R 1 1.00000 200.000 200 Conservation Easement Exclusion of Livestock, Permanent Conservation Easement, Supplemental UT2 47 47 Cool Ell NA 2.50000 18.800 47 Plantin Project Credits Restoration Level Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Rip Riverine Non-Riv Wetland Coastal Marsh Warm Cool Cold Restoration 4721.000 Re-establishment Rehabilitation Enhancement I Enhancement II 18.800 Creation Preservation Total 4739.800 Credit Loss in Buffer -490 Credit Gain in Buffer 331 Credit Gain for Water Quality Monitoring 94 Total Adjusted SMUs 1 4674.800 Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Carolina Bison Mitigation Site Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 3 year 9 months Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 3 year 8 months Number of reporting Years : 4 Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery Restoration Plan NA Mar-19 Final Design — Construction Plans NA Aug-19 Stream Construction NA Feb-20 Site Planting NA Mar-20 As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline) May-20 Jun-20 Year 1 Monitoring Oct-20 Dec-20 Supplemental Planting NA Feb-21 Swale Repair NA Feb-21 Year 2 Monitoring XS: Jul-21 VP: Oct-21 Nov-21 Invasive Vegetation Treatment NA Aug-22 Year 3 Monitoring XS: Jun-22 VP: Sep-22 Oct-22 Easement Repair NA Sep-23 Year 4 Monitoring XS: NA VP: NA Sep-23 Year 5 Monitoring Year 6 Monitoring Year 7 Monitoring = The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline Table 3. Project Contacts Table Carolina Bison Mitigation Site Designer RES / 3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100, Raleigh, North Carolina 27612. Primary project design POC Frasier Mullen Construction Contractor Wright Contracting, LLC / 453 Silk Hope Liberty Rd, Siler City, NC 27344 Construction contractor POC Joe Wright Survey Contractor Kee Mapping & Surveying / 88 Central Ave., Asheville, NC 28801 Survey contractor POC Nick Haase Planting Contractor H&J Forestry Planting contractor POC Matt Hitch Monitoring Performers RES / 401 Charles Av, Charlotte, North Carolina 28205 Stream Monitoring POC Daniel Dixon (864) 567-7761 Vegetation Monitoring POC Daniel Dixon (864) 567-7761 Table 4. Project Background Information Project Name Carolina Bison County Buncombe Project Area (acres) 10.92 Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) Latitude: 35.671107 N Longitude:-82.669235 W Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted) 10.23 Project Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Province Mountains River Basin French Broad USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 6010105 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 06010105090020 DWR Sub -basin 04-03-02 Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles) 457 ac (0.714 mil) Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 1 % CGIA Land Use Classification Agriculture (58.3%), Residential (22.4%), Forest (18.2%), Impervious (1.1 %) Reach Summary Information Parameters PB7-A PB1-13 PB1-C PB2 UT1 UT2 Length of reach (linear feet) (designed) 1020 255 892 907 1647 47 Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Unconfined Unconfined Unconfined Moderately Confined Unconfined Unconfined Drainage area (Acres) 237 263 276 457 127 66 Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral P P P P P P NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C C C C C Stream Classification (existing) C5 E5 E5 B5c E5/6b F5/6b Stream Classification (proposed) C4 C4 B4c E4 E4 -- Evolutionary trend (Simon) (existing) IV IV IV III III III FEMA classification None None None None None None Regulatory Considerations Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs? Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes SAW-2016- 02357 Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes Yes DWR # 18- 0063 Endangered Species Act Yes Yes USFWS (8/2/2018 Letter) Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes SHPO (2/28/18 Letter Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA) No N/A N/A FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A N/A Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A Gl-Held Way o` x �a a P 4 AA Q Z 3 f Prn nanf Qennantt _ �0 o n �a1e C°�e Rd >r D C Gillespie Way 6P ^ Rado\\t\ O� c ep P 6 o 0 }hwest Est eis eallev N1aY A ? Is,F G,,,, 7 n � � ' � a ti, G ae � plexa°der Rd Ri d9P Pn <n z n 0 a �T Cranae to Ke°la°d Rd c 5 Pr�H r�sam a T i m b �,o m \3 C° °P, 6 O 'o r' x �raQF � 4 r O r,7 � q Pebble Trl �; a y a se 6 P'�ch Ct ea b Y Q, eee d O� P^ m P ch Cre o e y /� Hollar y eaten pio a aCe pc Q' Legend a Q Conservation Easement r ti N Date: 3/31/2020 Figure 1 - Site Location Map w e Drawn by: MDD res 5 Carolina Bison Mitigation Site Checked by: BPB 0 500 1,000 Buncombe County, North Carolina 1 inch = 1,000 feet Feet Appendix B Visual Assessment Data Carolina Bison MY3 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos (09/13/2022) Vegetation Plot 1 Vegetation Plot 3 Vegetation Plot 5 Vegetation Plot 2 Vegetation Plot 4 �21 I..Pw Vegetation Plot 6 Random Vegetation Plot 1 Random Vegetation Plot 3 Random Vegetation Plot 2 5 _ _ i x r FIL I�5 1lab— ,*l ti� ��9 •/ � err_ 1'ti� Stage Recorder (PB2) — 03/28/2023 Carolina Bison MY4 Crossing and Swale Photos (03/28/2023) Culvert Crossing Upstream (PB1) Culvert Crossing Downstream (PB1) II''YYt• yL 'y '�qr 1. '1: * _ + � �`�-�- •� � r x rM1 ; L. X., A 4� �- I •.l Ta-- � ;• � �r k• f � Carolina Bison MY4 Site Assessment Photos (03/28/2023) UT Near XS 13/14 UT Near XS 13/14 Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data MY3 (2022) Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data Table 5. Planted Species Summary Common Name Scientific Name Total Stems Planted Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra 1,600 Willow Oak Quercus phellos 1,500 Green Ash Fraxinuss pennsylvanica 1,400 River Birch Betula ni ra 1,400 Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 1,400 Black Walnut Juglans nigra 1,000 Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii 1,000 Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 1,000 Southern Crapapple Malus an usti olia 1,000 Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis 1,000 Elderberry Sambucus ni ra 500 Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 350 Siky Dogwood Cornus ammomum 300 American Plum Prunus americana 300 Hazel Alder Alnus serrulata 200 Total 13,950 Planted Area 10.2 As -built Planted Stems/Acre 1,368 Table 6. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Plot # Planted Stems/Acre Volunteer Stems/Acre Total Stems/Acre Success Criteria Met? Average Planted Stem Height (ft) 1 931 405 1335 Yes 6.2 2 809 162 971 Yes 4.0 3 324 81 405 Yes 3.5 4 1133 121 1255 Yes 3.6 5 647 81 728 Yes 4.5 6 567 81 647 Yes 3.1 R1 688 0 688 Yes 3.6 R2 1 526 0 526 Yes 6.4 R3 769 0 769 Yes 4.0 Project Avg 710 103 814 Yes 4.3 Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data Table 7a. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species Current Plot Data (MY3 2022) Scientific Name Common Name Species Type 04082020-01-0001 04082020-01-0002 04082020-01-0003 04082020-01-0004 04082020-01-0005 04082020-01-0006 R1 R2 R3 T PnoLS P-all T Pnol-S P-all T Pnol-S P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T Pnol-S P-all T Pnol-S P-all T Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub Betula nigra river birch Tree M 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1 1 2 Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 51 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 5 5 5 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 4 5 5 5 2 2 2 5 5 5 Juglans nigra black walnut Tree 1 1 1 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree Malus angustifolia southern crabapple Tree 1 1 1 Morus rubra red mulberry Tree 11 1 1 11 1 1 Plata nus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 5 5 15 1 1 4 3 3 4 4 4 6 5 5 7 2 6 6 6 7 7 7 Prunus americana American plum Tree Quercus lyrata Overcup oak 1 1 1 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 6 6 6 1 1 1 9 9 10 5 5 5 10 10 10 Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 6 6 6 9 9 10 1 1 1 1 11 1 21 2 2 31 3 3 3 3 3 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 2 2 2 4 4 4 1 1 1 Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species count Stems per ACRE 23 23 33 20 20 24 8 8 10 28 28 31 16 16 18 14 14 16 17 17 17 13 13 13 19 19 19 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 9 9 9 7 7 7 2 2 3 5 5 5 3 3 3 6 6 6 931 931 1335 809 8091 971 3241 3241 4051 11331 11331 12551 6471 647 728 5671 5671 647 6881 6881 6881 5261 5261 5261 7691 7691 769 Annual Means Scientific Name Common Name Species Type MY3 (2022) MY2 (2021) MY1(2020) MYO (2020) Pnol-S P-all T PnoLS P-all T Pnol-S P-all T Pnol-S P-all T Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub 1 1 1 2 2 2 Betula nigra river birch Tree 16 16 16 7 7 7 8 8 8 17 17 17 Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 17 17 17 Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 7 Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 13 13 13 4 4 4 Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 26 26 26 14 14 14 14 14 14 16 16 16 Juglans nigra black walnut Tree 1 1 1 3 3 5 7 7 7 16 16 16 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 2 2 2 4 4 4 15 15 15 Malus angustifolia southern crabapple Tree 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 2 2 2 Morus rubra red mulberry Tree 2 2 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 Plata nus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 31 31 51 17 17 68 17 17 17 10 10 10 Prunus americana American plum Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 Quercus lyrata Overcup oak 1 1 1 Quercus michauxii swamp chestnut oak Tree 31 31 32 33 33 33 36 36 361 24 24 24 Quercus phellos low oak Tree 25 25 26 22 22 22 26 26 26 32 32 32 Quercus rubra [northernred oak ITree 7 7 7 8 8 8 12 12 12 17 171 17 Stem count size (ares) size (ACRES) Species countl Stems per ACRE 158 158 181 118 118 171 135 135 135 180 180 180 9 6 6 6 0.22 0.15 0.15 0.15 131 131 13 141 141 141 15 15 15 141 141 14 1 7101 7101 8141 7961 7961 11531 9111 9111 911 12141 12141 1214 Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data Table 7b. Random Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data Random Plot 1 # Species Height cm 1 Betula ni ra 160 2 Betula ni ra 155 3 Platanus occidentalis 90 4 Quercus phellos 110 5 Platanus occidentalis 80 6 Platanus occidentalis 60 7 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 90 8 Quercus l rata 55 9 Platanus occidentalis 140 10 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 170 11 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 170 12 Platanus occidentalis 140 13 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 85 14 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 70 15 Quercus phellos 65 16 Quercus phellos 130 17 Betula ni ra 80 Stems/Acre 688 Average Height cm 109 Average Height ft 3.6 Plot Size m 25 x 4 Random Plot 2 # Species Height cm 1 Platanus occidentalis 260 2 Platanus occidentalis 200 3 Platanus occidentalis 270 4 Platanus occidentalis 280 5 Betula ni ra 175 6 Betula ni ra 175 7 Platanus occidentalis 170 8 Betula ni ra 170 9 Platanus occidentalis 140 10 Betula ni ra 180 11 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 240 12 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 200 13 Platanus occidentalis 80 Stems/Acre 526 Average Height cm 195 Average Height ft 6.4 Plot Size m 25 x 4 Random Plot 3 # Species Height cm 1 Betula ni ra 160 2 Diospyros vir iniana 70 3 Diospyros vir iniana 85 4 Betula ni ra 100 5 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 140 6 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 180 7 Diospyros vir iniana 120 8 Celtis laevi ata 70 9 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 250 10 Diospyros vir iniana 120 11 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 140 12 Diospyros vir iniana 110 13 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 200 14 Celtis laevi ata 60 15 Quercus phellos 70 16 Quercus phellos 110 17 Quercus phellos 120 18 Diospyros vir iniana 100 19 Morus rubra 110 Stems/Acre 769 Average Height cm 122 Average Height ft 4.0 Plot Size m 25 x 4 Appendix D Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data MY3 (2022) Upstream •_�p� e i T r Downstream Carolina Bison - Reach PB1-A - Cross Section 1 - Pool - (Restoration) 2056 2055 2054 c ° 2053 •2 L•S S •J i •J i•2 t•S i i •S • i•i i• ° LLJ 2052 i •J i • • i•2 L•S • • S 2051 2050 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 — MY1-2020 MY2-2021 MY3-2022 — — — Approx. Bankfull • • • • Low Bank Height 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 1 (Pool) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2051.91 2052.2 2052.1 2052.2 Bankfull Width (ft)' 5.5 5.9 5.3 4.8 Floodprone Width (ft)' - I - - - Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.9 Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.4 5.4 6.6 5.8 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - - - - Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' - - - Upstream Downstream Carolina Bison - Reach PB1-A - Cross Section 2 - Riffle - (Restoration) 2056 2055 2054 ° 2053 w 2052 • J V i •�• •1 �• J `• v• i �• J r• J • i J v• t• i 1�• L• J V• J 1• 2051 2050 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 - MY1-2020 MY2-2021 MY3-2022 - - - Approx. Bankfull Flo prone Area • Low Bank Hel ht 3X Vertical Exa eration Cross Section 2 (Riffle) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2052.01 2052.1 2052.2 2052.3 Bankfull Width (ft)' 7.5 10.2 8.9 8.6 Floodprone Width (ft)' >49.9 >47.5 >49.2 >49.9 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.3 1 1.2 1.4 1.5 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2052.01 2052.1 2052.3 2052.3 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.9 5.9 6.5 6.2 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' >6.7 >4.9 >5.5 >5.8 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Upstream Downstream Carolina Bison - Reach PB1-A - Cross Section 3 - Pool - (Restoration) 2048 2047 2046 c ° POW w 2045 .. .. .. .. ....... .. .. .. .. 2044 2043 2042 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 MY1-2020 MY2-2021 MY3-2022 — — -Approx. Bankfull • • • • Low Bank Height 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 3 (Pool) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2044.72 2044.7 2045.0 2044.5 Bankfull Width (ft)' 7.1 6.6 5.7 5.6 Floodprone Width (ft)' - - - - Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.6 Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 9.0 9.0 10.7 11.2 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - - - - Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' - - i - i i i Upstream Downstream Carolina Bison - Reach PB1-A - Cross Section 4 - Riffle - (Restoration) 2048 2047 2046 c ° .5 > w 2045 2044 2043 2042 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 MY3-2022 • Low Bank Height MY1-2020 - - - Approx. Bankfull MY2-2021 Floodprone Area 3X Vertical Exa eration Cross Section 4 (Riffle) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 2044.35 2044.3 2044.4 2044.4 Bankfull Width (ft)l 7.4 7.3 6.7 5.0 Floodprone Width (ft)' >36.4 >36.7 >37.0 >37.6 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.1 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2044.35 2044.6 2044.7 2044.4 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz)z 3.7 3.7 5.7 3.8 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' >4.9 >6.9 >5.5 >7.6 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.2 1.3 1 1.0 2038 2037 2036 c ° 2035 Z6 ° w 2034 2033 T yJ.M�4 Downstream Carolina Bison - Reach PB1-B - Cross Section 5 - Riffle - (Restoration) F •- -h - - I..- rl.- -.l. -.0 7\ i+ r ..# - . - 2032 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) 3X Vertical Exaggeration I Cross Section 5 (Riffle) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2034.47 2034.6 2034.5 2034.7 Bankfull Width (ft)' 9.4 10.2 9.2 10.2 Floodprone Width (ft)' >42.4 >42.9 >42.8 >43.8 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.1 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2034.47 2034.5 2034.6 2034.7 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 9.4 9.4 10.6 9.6 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' >4.5 >4.9 >4.7 >4.3 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 Upstream Downstream Carolina Bridge - Reach PB1-B - Cross Section 6 - Pool - (Restoration) 2038 2037 2036 c ° w 2035 2034 . .. :.—.:.— .: — .. :.— .. .—. — .... — .. — . —.: . :.— . .. .. 2033 oil - 2032 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 MY1-2020 MY2-2021 — MY3-2022 — — — Approx. Bankfull • • • • Low Bank Height 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 6 (Pool) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2034.46 2034.5 2034.5 2034.7 Bankfull Width (ft)' 8.2 9.2 9.1 9.6 Floodprone Width (ft)' - - - - Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.5 Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 8.0 8.0 8.5 7.1 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - - - - Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' Upstream Downstream Carolina Bison - Reach PB1-C - Cross Section 7 - Riffle - (Restoration) 2035 2034 2033 c ° 2032 ° w 2031 2030 2029 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 MY3-2022 • Low Bank Hei ht MY1-2020 - - - Approx. Bankfull MY2-2Area021 Flo prone 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 7 (Riffle) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2030.98 2031.1 2031.2 2031.1 Bankfull Width (ft)' 8.2 8.6 8.8 8.0 Floodprone Width (ft)' >34.6 >35.8 >35.8 >37.7 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2030.98 2031.2 2031.3 2031.1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.5 5.5 5.9 5.3 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' >4.2 >5.8 >4.1 >4.7 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Upstream Downstream Carolina Bison - Reach PB1-C - Cross Section 8 - Pool - (Restoration) 2034 2033 2032 c ° :. 2031 m a� w 2030 . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. ............ . . .... .. .. .. 2029 2028 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 MY1-2020 MY2-2021 MY3-2022 — — — Approx. Bankfull • • • • Low Bank Height 3X Vertical Exaqqa= Cross Section 8 (Pool) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2030.82 2031.0 2031.1 2031.0 Bankfull Width (ft)' 7.5 8.2 10.4 7.1 Floodprone Width (ft)' - - - Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 10.0 10.0 9.3 9.2 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - - - Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' - - A n WX 4 Y d % F 4 f� Upstream Downstream 2065 Carolina Bison - Reach UT1 - Cross Section 9 - Riffle - (Restoration) 2064 2063 S ° - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - :. m 2062 . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . .. .. . ... .. .. a� w 2061 2060 2059 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 MY1-2020 MY2-2021 MY3-2022 - - - Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area 3X Vertical Exa eration Cross Section 9 (Riffle) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2061.77 2061.8 2061.9 2062.2 Bankfull Width (ft)' 5.6 5.4 6.0 5.0 Floodprone Width (ft)' >36.7 >34.6 >32.2 >42.6 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.8 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2061.77 2061.9 2031.8 2061.9 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.5 5.5 5.0 4.2 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' >6.6 >9.3 >5.4 1 >8.5 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 Upstream Downstream Carolina Bison - Reach UT1 - Cross Section 10 - Pool - (Restoration) 2066 2065 2064 c ° 2063 a� w 2062 2061 2060 — — — — ............................. — — — — — — — — — — — ..... — — — — ..... — — . — .. 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 — — MY1-2020 MY2-2021 MY3-2022 — — — Approx. Bankfull • • • • Low Bank Height 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 10 (Pool) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2061.61 2061.7 2061.8 2061.9 Bankfull Width (ft)' 4.9 5.5 6.4 5.7 Floodprone Width (ft)' - - - Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.1 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - - - - Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' - Upstream Downstream 2054 Carolina Bison - Reach UT1 - Cross Section 11 - Riffle - (Restoration) 2053 2052 ° 2051 M > ° w 2050 2048 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 Distance (ft) 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 MYO-2019 MY3-2022 • Low Bank Height MY1-2020 - - - Approx. Bankfull MY2-2021 Floodprone Area 3x vertical Exa eration Cross Section 11 (Riffle) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 I MY5 MY7 MY, Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2049.23 2049.3 2049.3 2049.3 Bankfull Width (ft)' 6.2 8.8 7.6 7.1 Floodprone Width (ft)' 32.3 31.5 30.9 33.1 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.2 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2049.23 2049.3 2049.2 2049.3 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 4.4 4.4 4.0 4.2 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' 5.2 5.7 4.0 4.7 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 Upstream Downstream Carolina Bison - Reach UT1 - Cross Section 12 - Pool - (Restoration) 2053 2052 2051 c ° 2050 a� w 2049 2048 2047 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 MY1-2020 MY2-2021 MY3-2022 — — — Approx. Bankfull • • • • Low Bank Height 3X Vertical Exa eration Cross Section 12 (Pool) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2048.85 2048.9 2048.9 2049.0 Bankfull Width (ft)' 6.3 6.9 6.9 7.3 Floodprone Width (ft)' - - - - Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.3 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - - Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' - Upstream tv .�_ k - - ...r { A as Y Downstream Carolina Bison- Reach UT1 - Cross Section 13 - Riffle - (Restoration) 2029 2028 2027 c ° > a� w 2026 2025 . .. ... .. .. . .. .. .. .. 2024 2023 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 MY3-2022 L w Bank Hei ht MY1-2020 - - - Approx. Bankfull MY2-2021 Floodprone Area 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 13 (Riffle) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY, Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2025.13 2025.2 2025.47 2025.9 Bankfull Width (ft)' 6.8 7.4 8.2 10.0 Floodprone Width (ft)' 31.0 36.4 42.2 49.5 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.5 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2025.13 2025.2 2025.6 2025.8 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 3.2 3.2 4.9 1.9 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' 4.6 6.8 5.1 5.0 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.0 1.2 1 0.8 Upstream Downstream 2029 Carolina Bison- Reach UT1 - Cross Section 14 - Pool - (Restoration) 2028 2027 ° > w 2026 2025 .. 2024 2023 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 MY1-2020 MY2-2021 MY3-2022 — — — Approx. Bankfull • • • • Low Bank Height 3X Vertical Exaaaeratigj Cross Section 14 (Pool) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2025.24 2025.4 2025.635 2026.0 Bankfull Width (ft)' 7.7 8.8 12.4 11.6 Floodprone Width (ft)' - - - - Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.3 1.4 1.0 0.6 Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 5.6 5.6 4.6 2.5 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - I - - - Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' - - Upstream Downstream Carolina Bison- Reach PB2 - Cross Section 15 - Riffle - (Restoration) 2026 2025 2024 c ° 2023 w 2022 ---- --- ---- - - - -- - - -- - 2021 2020 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 MY3-2022 • Low Bank Height MY1-2020 - - - Approx. Bankfull MY2-2021 Floodprone Area 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 15 (Riffle) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 I MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2021.87 2022.0 2022.1 2022.1 Bankfull Width (ft)' 10.0 10.4 10.1 11.3 Floodprone Width (ft)' >49.7 >49.9 >50.1 >49.8 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2021.87 2022.1 2022.073 2022.0 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 6.9 6.9 6.5 5.9 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' >5.0 >4.8 >5.0 >4.4 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.9 '. M Upstream Downstream Carolina Bison - Reach PB2 - Cross Section 16 - Pool - (Restoration) 2025 2024 2023 C ° 2022 — — — — — . — — — — — — — — — — —00 w 2021 2020 2019 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 MY1-2020 MY2-2021 MY3-2022 — — — Approx. Bankfull - - - - Low Bank Height 3X Vertical L= erat Cross Section 16 (Pool) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2021.94 2022.1 2022.25 2022.3 Bankfull Width (ft)' 9.6 10.3 9.8 11.1 Floodprone Width (ft)' - - - - Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.3 Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 12.5 12.5 10.4 11.2 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - I - - Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' - - - Upstream Downstream Carolina Bison- Reach PB2 - Cross Section 17 - Riffle - (Restoration) 2023 2022 2021 c ° 2020 16 ° LLJ 2019 •�� ter• •��•��• �• �•� •ter �• 10 •��• r•�.-. �• �•��•� •� 2018 2017 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 MY1-2020 MY2-2021 MY3-2022 - - - Approx. Bankfull Flo prone Area • Low Bank Height 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 17 (Riffle) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2019.08 2019.2 2019.3 2019.3 Bankfull Width (ft)' 11.6 12.3 12.4 11.5 Floodprone Width (ft)' >49.4 >48.9 >49.7 >49.5 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2019.08 2019.1 2019.2 2019.2 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 8.7 8.7 7.7 8.4 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' >4.3 >4.1 >4.0 >4.3 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 tE �, . a Upstream Downstream Carolina Bison- Reach P132 - Cross Section 18 - Pool - (Restoration) 2022 2021 2020 c ° 2019 ... ———— ....... ———— — ........... — ——— ... ——— .......................... —— .. > ° w 2018 2017 2016 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 MY1-2020 MY2-2021 — MY3-2022 — — — Approx. Bankfull • • • • Low Bank Height 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 18 (Pool) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2018.77 2018.9 2018.9 2019.1 Bankfull Width (ft)' 7.9 8.2 8.9 10.2 Floodprone Width (ft)' - - - - Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 2.2 2.3 2.7 2.4 Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 11.0 11.0 14.1 10.7 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' - Upstream Downstream Carolina Bison- Reach PB2 - Cross Section 19 - Pool - (Restoration) 2016 2015 OWL 2014 ^ w c ° 2013 - - ... - - ...................... - - - - - - - - - - - - - ........ - - ..... ......... - - - - - .. > ° w 2012 2011 2010 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 MY1-2020 MY2-2021 MY3-2022 — — — Approx. Bankfull • • • • Low Bank Height 3X Vertical Exaggeration Cross Section 19 (Pool) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2013.67 2014.0 2014.1 2013.7 Bankfull Width (ft)' 9.3 10.7 9.5 7.6 Floodprone Width (ft)' - - - - Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 2.9 3.0 2.7 2.9 Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 14.7 14.7 11.6 13.3 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - - - - Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' - - Upstream Downstream 2017 Carolina Bison- Reach PB2 - Cross Section 20 - Riffle - (Restoration) 2016 2015 c ° 2014 M ... .................L... ... ..... ........... .. aTi - - - - - - - - - - - - -"-L- - - - - - - - - - - - - - w 2013 2012 2011 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 Distance (ft) MYO-2019 MY1-2020 MY2-2021 -MY3-2022 - - - Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area • Low Bank Height 3X Vertical Exa eration Cross Section 20 (Riffle) MYO MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA' 2013.40 2013.6 2013.525 2013.5 Bankfull Width (ft)' 10.6 11.6 12.5 10.9 Floodprone Width (ft)t >46.5 >45.9 >46.1 >47.5 Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.7 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2013.40 2013.6 2013.5 2013.6 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 11.0 11.0 10.3 11.9 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' >4.4 >4.3 >3.7 >4.4 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Carolina Bison Mitigation Site - Reach PB1-A Parameter Gauge Regional Curve Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Bankfull Width (ft) --- --- --- --- --- 8.9 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 17.5 --- --- --- 7.5 --- 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.5 0.1 2 Floodprone Width (ft) --- --- 13.0 --- --- --- 25.0 --- --- >30 --- --- --- 30.0 --- 36.4 43.2 43.2 49.9 9.5 2 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- 0.8 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1.6 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 'Bankfull Max Depth ft --- --- 1.5 --- --- --- 1.2 --- --- 2.5 --- --- --- 1.3 --- 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.3 0.3 2 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft) --- --- 6.9 --- --- 7.0 --- --- 27.7 --- --- --- 6.8 --- 3.7 4.8 1 4.8 5.9 1 1.6 2 Width/Depth Ratio 11.6 --- --- 7.0 11.1 --- 7.3 --- --- --- --- --- Entrenchment Ratio --- --- 1.5 --- --- --- 3.6 --- 4.3 --- --- 4.0 --- 4.9 5.8 5.8 6.7 1.3 2 'Bank Height Ratio 2.4 --- --- 1.8 --- --- 1.0 --- 1 1.0 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 2 Profile Riffle Length (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 --- --- 26 --- --- 6 --- 17 4.8 13.1 8.8 54.8 11.1 29 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.0008 0.0241 0.0211 0.0682 0.0146 29 Pool Length (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- 16 --- --- 3 --- 6 1.4 11.7 12.5 27.3 6.4 27 Pool Max depth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- Pool Spacing (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 8 --- --- 68 --- --- 8 --- 31 24.9 37.0 37.2 62.3 8.8 26 Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 20 --- --- 85 --- --- 20 --- 30 --- --- --- --- --- Radius of Curvature ft --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 54 --- --- 7 --- 15 --- --- --- --- --- Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- --- 0.9 --- 2.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- Meander Wavelength (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- 105 --- --- 33 --- 49 --- --- --- --- --- --- Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- -- --- --- 4.7 --- 7.2 --- --- 4.7 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- Transport parameters Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ible --- --- --- Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mZ --- --- Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification C5 E4 / E4b C4 C4 Bankfull Velocity (fps) --- --- -- Bankfull Discharge (cfs) --- --- -- Valley length (ft) 993 118 / 202 993 --- Channel Thalweg length (ft) 1079 148 / 230 1022 --- Sinuosity (ft) 1.09 1.25 / 1.14 1.03 --- Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) --- -- Channel slope (ft/ft) 0.0127 0.0210 / 0.0120 0.013 --- 3 Bankfull Flood lain Area acres --- --- --- --- 4% of Reach with Eroding Banks --- --- Channel Stability or Habitat Metric --- I --- 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 measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2= For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare). 3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankroll 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. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3 Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Carolina Bison Mitigation Site - Reach PB1-B Parameter Gauge Regional Curve Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD n Bankfull Width (ft) --- --- --- --- --- 9.0 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 17.5 --- --- --- 7.5 --- --- --- 9.4 --- --- 1 Floodprone Width (ft) --- --- 15.0 --- --- --- 25.0 --- --- >30 --- --- --- 30.0 --- --- --- 42.4 --- --- 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1.6 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 'Bankfull Max Depth ft --- --- 1.2 --- --- --- 1.2 --- --- 2.5 --- --- --- 1.3 --- --- --- 1.8 --- --- 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft) --- --- 9.3 --- --- 7.0 --- --- 27.7 --- I --- I --- 1 6.8 --- --- --- 9.4 --- I --- 1 Width/Depth Ratio 8.6 --- --- 7.0 --- --- 11.1 --- --- 7.3 --- --- --- --- --- I --- --- Entrenchment Ratio 1.7 --- --- 3.6 --- --- 4.3 --- --- 4.0 --- --- --- 4.5 --- --- 1 'Bank Height Ratio 4.8 --- --- 1.8 --- --- 1.0 --- 1.0 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1 Profile Riffle Length (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 --- --- 26 --- --- 6 --- 17 6.1 9.2 7.9 14.7 3.3 6 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.0156 0.0389 0.0381 0.0740 0.0211 6 Pool Length (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- 16 --- --- 3 --- 6 1.5 13.1 10.7 30.9 10.6 6 Pool Max depth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- Pool Spacing (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 8 --- --- 68 --- --- 8 --- 31 20.5 50.0 60.9 66.8 19.5 5 Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 20 --- --- 85 --- --- 20 --- 30 --- --- --- --- --- --- Radius of Curvature ft --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 54 --- --- 7 --- 15 --- --- --- --- --- --- Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- --- 0.9 --- 2.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- Meander Wavelength (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- 105 --- --- 33 --- 49 --- --- --- --- --- --- Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- 4.7 --- --- 7.2 --- --- 4.7 --- 7 --- --- --- --- --- --- Transport parameters Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ible --- --- Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull -- Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mZ --- --- Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification E5 E4 / E4b C4 C4 Bankfull Velocity (fps) --- --- --- -- Bankfull Discharge (cfs) --- --- -- Valley length (ft) 328 118 / 202 993 --- Channel Thalweg length (ft) 348 148 / 230 1022 --- Sinuosity (ft) 1.06 1.25 / 1.14 1.03 --- Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) --- -- Channel slope (ft/ft) 0.0139 0.0210 / 0.0120 0.013 --- 3 Bankfull Flood lain Area acres --- --- --- --- 4% of Reach with Eroding Banks --- --- Channel Stability or Habitat Metric --- I --- Biological or Other --- I --- 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 measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2= For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare). 3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankroll 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. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3 Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Carolina Bison Mitigation Site - Reach PB1-C Parameter Gauge Regional Curve Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Bankfull Width (ft) --- --- --- --- --- 9.6 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 17.5 --- --- --- 7.5 --- --- --- 8.2 --- --- 1 Floodprone Width (ft) --- --- 15.0 --- --- --- 25.0 --- --- >30 --- --- --- 30.0 --- --- --- 34.6 --- --- 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- 1.2 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1.6 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 'Bankfull Max Depth ft --- --- 1.7 --- --- --- 1.2 --- --- 2.5 --- --- --- 1.3 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft) --- --- 11.1 --- --- 7.0 --- --- 27.7 --- --- --- 7.7 --- --- --- 5.5 --- 1 Width/Depth Ratio 8.3 7.0 --- --- 11.1 --- --- 7.3 --- --- --- --- --- Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 3.6 --- 4.3 1.3 4.2 1 'Bank Height Ratio 3.0 --- --- 1.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 --- 1 Profile Riffle Length (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 --- --- 26 --- --- 6 --- 18 2.5 12.9 10.8 37.2 7.4 23 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.0003 0.0341 0.0257 0.0931 0.0253 23 Pool Length (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- 16 --- --- 3 --- 12 5.2 13.8 12.5 36.3 7.5 24 Pool Max depth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- Pool Spacing (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 8 --- --- 68 --- --- 8 --- 33 19.3 38.8 34.4 68.7 13.7 23 Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 20 --- --- 85 --- --- 21 --- 32 --- --- --- --- --- Radius of Curvature ft --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 54 --- --- 7 --- 16 --- --- --- --- --- Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- --- 0.9 --- 2.1 --- --- --- --- --- --- Meander Wavelength (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- 105 --- --- 35 --- 53 --- --- --- --- --- --- Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- -- --- --- 4.7 --- 7.2 --- --- 4.4 --- 6.5 -- --- --- --- --- --- Transport parameters Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ible --- --- --- Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mZ --- --- Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification E5 E4 / E4b B4c B4c Bankfull Velocity (fps) --- --- --- -- Bankfull Discharge (cfs) --- --- -- Valley length (ft) 821 118 / 202 821 --- Channel Thalweg length (ft) 934 148 / 230 921 --- Sinuosity (ft) 1.14 1.25 / 1.14 1.12 --- Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) --- -- Channel slope (ft/ft) 0.0094 0.0210 / 0.0120 0.01 --- 3 Bankfull Flood lain Area acres --- --- --- --- 4% of Reach with Eroding Banks --- --- Channel Stability or Habitat Metric --- I --- 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 measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2= For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare). 3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankroll 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. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3 Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Carolina Bison Mitigation Site - Reach PB2 Parameter Gauge Regional Curve Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Bankfull Width (ft) --- --- --- --- --- 8.6 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 17.5 --- --- --- 10.6 --- 10.0 10.7 10.6 11.6 0.8 3 Floodprone Width (ft) --- --- 17.0 --- --- --- 25.0 --- --- >30 --- --- --- 40.0 --- 46.5 48.5 49.4 49.7 1.8 3 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- 1.1 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1.6 --- --- --- 1.1 --- I --- --- --- --- --- --- 'Bankfull Max Depth ft --- --- 1.6 --- --- --- 1.2 --- --- 2.5 --- --- --- 1.5 --- 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.6 0.3 3 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft) --- --- 9.4 --- --- 7.0 --- --- 27.7 --- --- --- 11.5 --- 6.9 8.9 1 8.7 11.0 1 2.1 3 Width/Depth Ratio 7.9 --- --- 7.0 11.1 --- --- --- 9.8 --- --- --- --- --- Entrenchment Ratio --- --- 2.0 --- --- --- 3.6 --- 4.3 --- 3.8 --- 4.3 4.6 4.4 5.0 0.4 3 'Bank Height Ratio 3.4 --- --- 1.8 --- --- 1.0 1 1.0 --- 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 3 Profile Riffle Length (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 --- --- 26 --- --- 4 --- 19 5.3 15.8 11.3 46.2 10.7 19 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.0025 0.0325 0.0311 0.0826 0.0192 19 Pool Length (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- 16 --- --- 3 --- 12 2.9 14.4 14.9 24.0 5.5 20 Pool Max depth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- Pool Spacing (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 8 --- --- 68 --- --- 19 --- 50 25.4 45.7 45.0 89.0 17.8 19 Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 20 --- --- 85 --- --- 26 --- 62 --- --- --- --- --- --- Radius of Curvature ft --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 54 --- --- 10 --- 39 --- --- --- --- --- --- Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- --- 1 --- 5 --- --- --- --- --- --- Meander Wavelength (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- 105 --- --- 49 --- 77 --- --- --- --- --- --- Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- 4.7 --- 7.2 --- --- 6 10 --- --- -- --- --- Transport parameters Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ible --- --- Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull -- Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mZ --- --- Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification 838 E4 / E4b E4 E4 Bankfull Velocity (fps) --- --- --- -- Bankfull Discharge (cfs) --- --- -- Valley length (ft) 838 118 / 202 838 --- Channel Thalweg length (ft) 979 148 / 230 959 --- Sinuosity (ft) 1.17 1.25 / 1.14 1.14 --- Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) --- -- Channel slope (ft/ft) 0.0118 0.0210 / 0.0120 0.0100 --- 3 Bankfull Flood lain Area acres --- --- --- --- 4% of Reach with Eroding Banks --- --- Channel Stability or Habitat Metric --- Biological or Other --- I --- 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 measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2= For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare). 3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankroll 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. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3 Table 8. Baseline Stream Data Summary Carolina Bison Mitigation Site - Reach UT1 Parameter Gauge Regional Curve Pre -Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Bankfull Width (ft) --- --- --- --- --- 4.6 --- --- --- 7.0 --- --- 17.5 --- --- --- 4.6 --- 5.6 6.2 6.2 6.8 0.6 3 Floodprone Width (ft) --- --- 7.0 --- --- --- 25.0 --- --- >30 --- --- --- 30.0 --- 31.0 33.3 32.3 36.7 3.0 3 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- 0.8 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1.6 --- --- --- 0.6 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 'Bankfull Max Depth ft --- --- 0.9 --- --- --- 1.2 --- --- 2.5 --- --- --- 0.7 --- 0.7 1.2 1.1 1.9 0.6 3 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft) --- --- 3.5 --- --- 7.0 --- --- 27.7 --- --- --- 2.7 --- 3.2 4.4 1 4.4 5.5 1 1.2 3 Width/Depth Ratio 6.0 --- --- 7.0 11.1 --- 8.0 --- --- --- -- --- --- Entrenchment Ratio 1.5 --- --- 3.6 --- 4.3 --- 6.5 --- 4.6 5.2 6.6 1.0 3 'Bank Hei ht Ratio 6.7 --- --- 1.8 --- --- 1.0 1.0 --- 1.0 E5.5J 1.0 1.0 1 0.0 3 Profile Riffle Length (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 6 --- --- 26 --- --- 4 --- 11 2.3 7.9 6.1 35.6 6.1 73 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.0021 0.0393 0.0335 0.1209 0.0293 73 Pool Length (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 3 --- --- 16 --- --- 2 --- 7 1.2 7.2 6.3 14.4 3.3 65 Pool Max depth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- --- Pool Spacing (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 8 --- --- 68 --- --- 5 --- 21 8.4 25.8 21.1 124.1 16.9 64 Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 20 --- --- 85 --- --- 13 --- 20 --- --- --- --- --- --- Radius of Curvature ft --- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 54 --- --- 4 --- 10 --- --- --- --- --- --- Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- --- 1 --- 3 --- --- --- --- --- --- Meander Wavelength (ft) --- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- 105 --- --- 22 --- 32 --- --- --- --- --- --- Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- 4.7 --- --- 7.2 --- --- 7 --- 11 --- --- Transport parameters Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ible --- --- --- Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mZ --- --- Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification E5/6b E4 / E4b E4 E4 Bankfull Velocity (fps) --- --- -- Bankfull Discharge (cfs) --- --- -- Valley length (ft) 1535 118 / 202 1535 --- Channel Thalweg length (ft) 1627 148 / 230 1748 --- Sinuosity (ft) 1.06 1.25 / 1.14 1.14 --- Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) --- -- Channel slope (ft/ft) 0.0238 0.0210 / 0.0120 0.022 --- 3 Bankfull Flood lain Area acres --- --- --- --- 4% of Reach with Eroding Banks --- --- Channel Stability or Habitat Metric --- I --- 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 measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2= For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare). 3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankroll 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. Ofvalue/needed only if the n exceeds 3 Table 9. - Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections) Project Name/Number: Carolina Bison Cross Section 1 (Pool) Cross Section 2 (Riffle) I Cross Section 3 (Pool) Cross Section 4 (Riffle) Cross Section 5 (Riffle) Base MY] MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 77.1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) -Based on ABASA 2051.91 2052.17 2052.1 2052.2 2052.01 2052.1 2052.2 2052.3 44.72 2044.6 2045.0 2044.5 2044.35 2044.3 2044.4 2044.4 2034.47 2034.6 2034.5 2034.7 Bankfull Width ft' 5.5 5.9 5.3 4.8 7.5 10.2 8.9 8.6 6.6 5.7 5.6 7.4 7.3 6.7 5.0 9.4 10.2 9.2 10.2 Flood tune Width ft - - - - - - - >49.9 >47.5 >49.2 >49.9 - - - - - - - >36.4 >36.7 >37.0 >37.6 >42.4 >42.9 >42.8 >43.8 Bankfull Max Depth ft z 1.5 1.6 1.9 1 1.9 1 1 1.3 1 1.2 1.4 1.5 1 2.5 2.5 2.8 1 2.6 0.9 1 0.8 1.2 1.2 1 1.8 1.9 1 2.1 2.1 Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - - - 2052.0 2052.1 2052.3 2052.3 - - - - 2044.35 2044.6 2044.7 2044.5 2034.47 2034.5 2034.6 2034.7 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 2 5.4 5.4 6.6 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.5 6.2 9.0 9.0 10.7 11.2 3.7 3.7 5.7 4.7 9.4 9.4 10.6 9.6 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - - - - >6.7 >4.9 >5.5 >5.8 - - - - >4.9 >6.9 >5.5 >7.6 >4.5 >4.9 >4.7 >4.3 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 Cross Section 6 (Pool) Cross Section 7 (Riffle) Cross Section 8 (Pool) Cross Section 9 (Riffle) Cross Section 10 (Pool) Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA 2034.46 2034.53 2034.5 2034.7 2030.97 2031.07 2031.2 2031.1 2030.82 2030.9 2031.1 2031.0 2061.77 2061.8 2061.9 2062.2 2061.61 2061.7 2061.8 2061.9 Bankfull Width (ft)' 8.2 9.2 9.1 9.6 8.2 8.6 8.8 8.0 7.5 8.2 10.4 7.1 5.6 5.4 6.0 5.0 4.9 5.5 6.4 5.7 Flood rove Width ft ' - - - - - - >34.6 >35.8 >35.8 >37.7 - - - - >36.7 >34.6 >32.2 >42.6 - - - - Bankfull Max Depth ft z 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - - - 2030.98 2031.2 2031.3 2031.1 - - - - 2061.77 2061.86 2031.8 2061.9 - - - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 8.0 1 8.0 8.5 7.1 5.5 5.5 5.9 5.3 10.0 10.0 9.3 9.2 5.5 5.5 5.0 4.2 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.1 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' - - - - >4.2 >5.8 >4.1 >4.7 - - - - >6.6 >9.3 >5.4 >8.5 - - - - Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 Cross Section MYl MY2 11 (Riffle) MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base ross Section 12 (Pool) MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base Cross Section 13 (Riffle) MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 ross Section 14 (Pool) MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base Cross Section 15 (Riffle) MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ 123204S.34 MY+ Base Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA 2049. 2049.3 2049.3 2048.85 2048.8 2048.9 2049.0 2025.1 2025.2 2025.47 2025.9 2025.24 2025.36 2025.64 2026.0 2021.87 2021.98 2022.1 2022.1 Bankfull Width ft' 6.2 8.8 7.6 7.1 6.3 6.9 6.9 7.3 6.8 7.4 8.2 10.0 7.7 8.8 12.4 11.6 10.0 10.4 10.1 11.3 Floodprone Width ft ' 32.3 31.5 30.9 33.1 - - - - 31.0 36.4 42.2 49.5 - - - - >49.7 >49.9 >50.1 >49.8 Bankfull Max Depth ft z 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.5 1.3 1.4 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 2049.23 2049.267 2049.2 2049.3 - - - - 2025.13 2025.2 2025.6 2025.8 - - - - 2021.87 2022.1 2022.07 2022.0 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftz 2 4.4 4.4 4.0 4.2 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.3 3.2 3.2 4.9 1.9 5.6 5.6 4.6 2.5 6.9 6.9 6.5 5.9 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' S.2 5.7 4.0 4.7 - - - - 4.6 6.8 5.1 5.0 - - - >5.0 >4.8 >5.0 >4.4 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.8 - 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.9 Cross Section 16 (Pool) Cross Section 17 Riffle Cross Section 18 (Pool) Cross Section 19 (Pool) Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Cross Section 20 (Riffle) Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+ Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on ABASA 2021.94 2022.1 2022.25 2022.3 2019.08 2019.2 2019.3 2019.3 2018.77 2018.88 2018.9 2019.1 2013.67 2014.0 2014.1 2013.7 2013.4 2013.6 2013.53 2013.5 Bankfull Width ft' 9.6 10.3 9.8 11.1 11.6 12.3 12.4 11.5 7.9 8.2 8.9 10.2 9.3 10.7 9.5 7.6 10.6 11.6 12.5 10.9 Floodprone Width ft >49.4 >48.9 >49.7 >49.5 >46.5 >45.9 >46.1 >47.5 Bankfull Max Depth JL 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.3 1 1 1.0 1 1.0 1.0 1 1.2 1 1 2.2 2.3 1 2.7 2.4 2.9 3.0 1 2.7 2.9 1.6 1 1.5 1.5 1.7 Low Bank Elevation (ft) - - - - 2019.08 2019.1 2019.2 2019.2 - - - - - - - - 2013.4 2013.6 2013.5 2013.E Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 12.5 1 12.5 10.4 11.2 8.7 8.7 7.7 8.4 11.0 11.0 14.1 10.7 14.7 14.7 11.6 13.3 11.0 11.0 10.3 11.9 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio' >4.3 >4.1 >4.0 >4.3 - - - - - - - - >4.4 >4.3 >3.7 >4.4 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 - Uses the as -built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation 2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation Appendix E Hydrology Data Table 10. 2023 Rainfall Summary Month Mik Average Normal Limits Project Location Precipitation* 30 Percent 70 Percent September (2022) 3.39 2.18 4.08 3.28 October (2022) 2.37 1.30 2.89 1.39 November (2022) 2.73 1.70 3.29 2.31 December (2022) 3.26 2.23 3.89 2.63 January 3.27 2.38 3.85 3.98 February 2.95 2.21 3.46 3.70 March 3.73 2.86 4.33 4.20 April 3.60 2.71 4.20 4.06 May 3.92 3.00 4.55 4.78 June 4.19 3.26 4.84 2.59 July 4.29 3.22 5.01 4.15 August 3.72 2.40 4.47 5.00 Total Annual ** 41.42 29.45 48.86 42.06 Above Normal Limits Below Normal Limits WETS Station: Asheville, NC. Approximately 10 miles from the site. *Project Location Precipitation is a location -weighted average of surrounding gauged data retrieved by the USACE Antecedent Precipitation Tool. Gauges used include Marshall. **Total Annual represents the average total precipitation, annually, as calculated by the 30-year period. Table 11. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events Year Bankfull Events Maximum Bankfull Height (ft) Estimated Date of Highest Event PBl-C Stage Recorder MY1 2020 1 0.77 7/31/2020 MY2 2021 5 1.96 8/17/2021 MY3 2022 7 1.82 5/27/2022 MY4 2023 1 0.60 3/3/2023 PB2 Stage Recorder MY1 2020 3 1.16 7/31/2020 MY2 2021 2 1.50 8/17/2021 MY3 2022 3 1.06 5/27/2022 MY4 2023 2 0.52 3/3/2023 UT1 Stage Recorder MY1 2020 1 0.55 7/31/2020 MY2 2021 5 1.15 8/17/2021 MY3 2022 9 0.78 5/27/2022 MY4 2023 4 0.60 3/3/2023 4 K 2 1 2023 Carolina Bison PB1-C Stage Recorder Graph o`tiry o`tiry o`ti� Daily Precip (in) SR PB1-C Top of Bank �o o� Date �ryo h�ry" o�ry� ^�ryry M. 5 4 3 c 2 1 n a) ca Cn 5 4 3 FA 1 CI] 2023 Carolina Bison PB2 Stage Recorder Graph �y d` ;�CYNN o�e ag eat°t d° Gaffe I ti Daily Precip (in) — ^^`ryoryM o`�oryM Date SR PB2 Top of Bank o`�ory� ^\ryory� ^`�oryM \ryoryM 6 4 3 1 I r- r- a) c� Cn 3 2 1 0 -1 ryf ,ryti otiti Co�o Oo � Daily Precip (in) 2023 Carolina Bison UT1 Stage Recorder Graph SR UT1 Top of Bank Date `rye ev 14 If I � 5 4 3 c PAI 1 Appendix F Water Quality Data Reach 13131-A Season Winter Spring Summer Fall Sampling Date 6-Dec-22 28-Mar-23 15-Aug-23 - Physical Temperature (°F) 47.5 54.5 68.9 - Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 8.95 1.03 3.79 - pH 7.96 7.57 6.9 - Conductivity (VS/cm) 124 106.5 90.3 - Nutrient/Bacteria Fecal Coliform (CFU/100 ml) 2100 Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 1.1 Total Kjeldahal Nitrogen (mg/L) ND Nitrogen NO2 plus NO3 (mg/L) 0.84 Total Phosphorus(mg/L) 0.05 Biological Total Taxa Richness EPTTaxa Richness EPT Abundance Biotic Index Seasonal Correction # Taxa <_ 2.5 (intolerant taxa) Bioclassification Reach PB2 Season Winter Spring Summer Fall Sampling Date 6-Dec-22 28-Mar-23 15-Aug-23 - Physical Temperature (°F) 45.2 56.3 73.5 - Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 8.76 1.54 2.54 - pH 7.66 7.61 7.16 - Conductivity(µS/cm) 96.9 152.3 153.1 - Nutrient/Bacteria Fecal Coliform (CFU/100 ml) 1200 Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 1.2 Total Kjeldahal Nitrogen (mg/L) ND Nitrogen NO2 plus NO3 (mg/L) 0.75 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.061 Biological Total Taxa Richness EPTTaxa Richness EPT Abundance Biotic Index Seasonal Correction # Taxa <_ 2.5 (intolerant taxa) Bioclassification Reach PB1-C Season I Winter I Spring I Summer Fall Sampling Date I 6-Dec-22 28-Mar-23 15-Aug-23 - Physical Temperature (°F) 48.4 1 55.4 1 69.8 - Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 3.29 1 0.13 2.59 - pH 7.5 7.56 7.26 - Conductivity (VS/cm) 116.4 113.8 121.3 - Nutrient/Bacteria Fecal Coliform (CFU/100 ml) 1300 Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 1.6 Total Kjeldahal Nitrogen (mg/L) 0.54 Nitrogen NO2 plus NO3 (mg/L) 1 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.072 Biological Total Taxa Richness EPTTaxa Richness EPT Abundance Biotic Index Seasonal Correction p Taxa <_ 2.5 (intolerant taxa) Bioclassification Table 13. Physical Water Quality Summary Carolina Bison Mitigation Site Winter(12/06/2022) Spring(03/28/2023) Summer(08/15/2023) Fall Monitoring Year Temp. °F DO m L pH EC cm Temp. °F DO m L pH EC Ws/cm Temp. °F DO m L pH EC S cm Temp. °F DO m L pH EC (VS/cm) Pre -construction (2019) MY1 (2020) 68 2.5 7.41 107.4 MY2 (2021) 54.3 - 7.58 203 - - - - 76.64 3.73 6.66 250 - - - - MY3 (2022) 44.96 7.85 7.43 129.3 65.3 1.79 6.75 114.3 73.3 3.7 6.77 230 60.3 6.68 6.79 124.1 r MY4 (2023) 57.56 8.67 7.65 90.5 59 3.1 1 7.52 82.2 69.8 1.78 7.02 88.9 v MY5 (2024) MY6 (2025) MY7 (2026) Pre -construction (2019) - - - 6.91 7.46 121.2 - - - - - - - - MY1(2020) 66.7 3.8 7.85 147.4 o MY2 (2021) 56.1 7.79 156.4 - - - 75.2 3.31 6.97 240 - - - F- MY3 (2022) 66.4 8.11 7.2 109.4 74.3 3.45 6.83 199 59 6.37 6.94 244 L MY4 (2023) 51.4 6.35 7.66 123.8 54.32 8.28 7.35 95.2 73.76 2.43 6.88 114.6 m MYS (2024) MY6 (2025) MY7 (2026) Pre -construction (2019) MY1 (2020) 65.1 10.1 7.84 903 MY2 (2021) 57.7 8.08 168.2 - - - 74.66 5.1 7.2 251 - - - a MY3 (2022) 45.88 8.44 819 64.4 1.95 7.39 122.1 73.12 5.21 7 277 58.6 7.47 7.1 136.1 ma MY4 (2023) 47.5 8.95 7.96 124 54.5 1.03 7.57 106.5 68.9 3.79 6.9 90.3 MYS (2024) MY6 (2025) MY7 (2026) Pre -construction (2019) - - - 7.86 7.49 122.8 - MY1 (2020) 67.1 2 7.93 139.8 MY2 (2021) 58.4 7.85 203 - - - 73.04 3.91 7.18 794 - - - - MY3 (2022) 62.6 1.73 7.12 140.6 72.85 3.91 7.2 319 61 7.32 7.35 254 ma MY4 (2023) 48.4 3.29 7.5 116.4 55.4 0.13 7.56 113.8 69.8 2.59 7.26 121.3 MYS (2024) MY6 (2025) MY7 (2026) Pre -construction (2019) - 7.46 7.71 123.5 - - - - - - - MY1 (2020) 67.3 5.7 7.98 908 MY2 (2021) 57.3 - 8.19 148 - - 77 3.81 6.95 783 - - - - m MY3 (2022) 44.78 9.12 7.56 111.1 61.9 1.51 7.3 136.5 75.66 3.9 6.88 285 60.3 7.25 7.2 646 a MY4 (2023) 45.2 8.76 7.66 1 96.9 56.3 1.54 7.61 152.3 73.5 2.54 7.16 153.1 MY5 (2024) MY6 (2025) MY7 (2026) Table 14. Nutrient/Bacteria Water Quality Summary Carolina Bison Mitigation Site Spring Monitoring Year Fecal Coliform (CFU/100 ml) Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Kjeldahal Nitrogen (mg/L) Nitrogen NO2 plus NO3 (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Pre -construction (2019) MY1 (2020) - - ? MY2 (2021) 20 ND ND 0.35 ND MY3 (2022) 991 0.58 0.11 ND 0.24 L MY4 (08/15/2023) 410 0.99 0.65 0.34 0.083 V v MY5 (2024) MY6 (2025) MY7 (2026) Pre -construction (2019) 82 0.94 ND 0.52 ND MYl (2020) - - - G MY2 (2021) - - - MY3 (2022) 340 0.46 ND 0.23 ND L MY4 (08/15/2023) 1400 0.6 ND 0.3 ND V v MY5 (2024) MY6 (2025) MY7 (2026) Pre -construction (2019) MY1 (2020) - - - MY2 (2021) 6800 1.2 ND 1.1 ND a MY3 (2022) 1800 ND 0.93 ND a MY4 (08/15/2023) 2100 1.1 ND 0.84 0.05 MY5 (2024) MY6 (2025) MY7 (2026) Pre -construction (2019) 9900 2.8 1.2 1.7 0.24 MY1 (2020) - - - - MY2 (2021) - - - - y MY3 (2022) 764 1.2 ND 1.2 ND a MY4 (08/15/2023) 1300 1.6 0.54 1 0.072 MY5 (2024) MY6 (2025) MY7 (2026) Pre -construction (2019) 7700 2.8 1.4 1.4 0.22 MY1 (2020) - - - - - MY2 (2021) 140 6.0 ND 5.0 1.1 m MY3 (2022) 540 1 ND 0.83 ND a MY4 (08/15/2023) 1200 1.2 ND 0.75 0.061 MY5 (2024) MY6 (2025) MY7 (2026) Table 15. Biological Water Quality Summary Carolina Bison Mitigation Site Spring Seasonal # Taxa <_ 2.5 Monitoring Year Total Taxa Richness EPT Taxa Richness EPT Abundance Biotic Index Bioclassification Correction (intolerant taxa) '^ 0 Pre -construction (2019) 17 5 8 5.13 1 Fair r MY3 (2022) 27 7 22 5.58 5 Good/Fair MY5 (2024) m MY7 (2026) Pre -construction (2019) 11 3 5 6.94 1 Poor MY3 (2022) 33 17 75 5.55 6 Good/Fair m a MY5 (2024) MY7 (2026) Pre -construction (2019) 19 5 16 5.63 3 Fair m MY3 (2022) 31 10 59 5.37 4 Good/Fair a MY5 (2024) MY7 (2026)