The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20140334 Ver 1_CandyCreek_96315_MY7_2023_20240117 MONITORING YEAR 7 ANNUAL/CLOSEOUT REPORT FINAL CANDY CREEK MITIGATION SITE Guilford County, NC NCDEQ Contract 5794 NCDMS Project Number 96315 USACE Action ID Number 2015‐01209 DWR Project Number 14‐0334 RFP Number 16‐005568 Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030002 Data Collection Period: February ‐ October 2023 Draft Submission Date: November 2023 Final Submission Date: January 2024 PREPARED FOR: NC Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699‐1652 PREPARED BY: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 Phone: 704.332.7754 Fax: 704.332.3306 Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone 704-332-7754  fax 704-332-3306  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203 January 12, 2024 Emily Dunnigan Project Manager NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services 217 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603 RE: Draft Monitoring Year 7 Report Comments Candy Creek Mitigation Site (DMS #96315) Cape Fear River Basin – CU# 03030002 ‐ Guilford County Contract # 005794 Dear Ms. Dunnigan: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services’ (DMS) comments for the Candy Creek Mitigation Project’s Draft Monitoring Year 7 Report received on December 22, 2023. The draft report has been updated to reflect those comments. DMS’ comments are listed below and noted in bold. Wildlands’ response to those comments are noted in Italics. DMS comment: Table 9g: Please ensure undesirable species (red maple, sweet gum, etc.) or species not included in the approved mitigation plan were not included in success criteria calculations. Wildlands’ response: Tables 9a through 9e were modified so that the PnoLS criteria column excludes sweet gum or red maple. Tables 9f through 9h were renamed the “Vegetation Summary Table”; these tables were modified to show planted stems, total stems, planted stems per acre, and planted stem average height. Section 1.2.3 was updated to explain that “planted” refers to either stems from the original and/or supplemental plantings or volunteers that had been incorporated in previous monitoring years, because they are in the target vegetation community and had been present for several monitoring years. “Total stems” are presented only to give a picture of how vegetation as a whole is doing across the Site; “total stems” is not a category used for the final success criteria. DMS comment: Appendix 5: Please include monthly rainfall data (compared to 30th and 70th percentiles – site data sources for percentiles) for the region/county for the entire calendar year. Wildlands’ response: The rainfall data from 2023 is summarized in Table 15 and is shown in the Monthly Rainfall Data plot. Both were added to Appendix 5. As requested, Wildlands has included one (1) pdf copy of the final report and a full electronic submittal of the support files. A copy of our responses to the DMS’s comment letter has been included after the cover pages of the report, as well. Please feel free to contact me via email at ksuggs@wildlandseng.com or by phone at (704) 332‐7754 Ext. 110 with any questions. Sincerely, Kristi Suggs Senior Environmental Scientist Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wildlands Engineering Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Candy Creek Mitigation Site (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS) to restore, enhance, and preserve a total of 19,583 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent streams in Guilford County, NC. The Site is expected to generate 15,506.467 (warm) stream credits through the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of Candy Creek and nine unnamed tributaries (Table 1). The Site is located northeast of the Town of Brown Summit within the NCDMS Targeted Local Watershed for the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002010020 and NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03-06-01 (Figure 1) and is being submitted for mitigation credit in the Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030002. The Site is located within the Haw River Headwaters Watershed, which is part of NCDMS’ Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP). While Candy Creek is not mentioned specifically, this document identifies restoration goals for all streams within HUC 03030002; reducing sediment and nutrient pollution to downstream Jordan Lake is a primary goal of the RBRP as stated in the Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy (NCDENR, 2005). The Haw River Watershed was also identified in the 2005 NC Wildlife Resources Commission’s Wildlife Action Plan as a priority area for freshwater habitat conservation and restoration to protect rare and endemic aquatic fauna and enhance species diversity. No rare and endemic aquatic species have been documented onsite or are proposed for re‐establishment onsite as part of the project. The Wildlife Action Plan calls for “support of conservation and restoration of streams and riparian zones in priority areas (acquisition, easements, and buffer).” Restoration at the Site directly and indirectly addressed these goals by excluding cattle from the stream, creating stable stream banks, restoring a riparian corridor, and placing land historically used for agriculture under permanent conservation easement. The project goals established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016) were to provide ecological enhancement and mitigate site water quality stressors that will benefit the receiving waters in the Cape Fear River Basin. This will primarily be achieved by creating functional and stable stream channels, increasing and improving the interaction of stream hydrology within the riparian zone, and improving floodplain habitat and ecological function. This will also be achieved by restoring a Piedmont Bottomland Forest community as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) along the stream reaches within open pastures. With careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP, the following project goals were established:  Reduce in‐stream water quality stressors resulting in enhanced habitat and water quality in riffles and pools.  Construct stream channels that are laterally and vertically stable resulting in a network of streams capable of supporting hydrologic, biologic, and water quality functions.  Improve on‐site habitat by diversifying and stabilizing the stream channel form; installing habitat features such as undercut logs, brush toe, wood and stone‐based riffles; and by establishing native stream bank vegetation and shading where none exists.  Exclude cattle from project streams resulting in greater treatment and reduction of overland flow and landscape derived pollutants including fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorus.  Increase and improve hydrologic connectivity between streams and their riparian floodplains; promote temporary water storage and wetland and floodplain recharge during high flows; increase groundwater connectivity within floodplains and wetlands; promote nutrient and carbon exchange between streams and floodplains and reduce shear stress forces on channels during larger flow events. Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL ii The Site construction and as‐built surveys were completed between July 2016 and March 2017, respectively. A conservation easement was recorded on 61.74 acres to protect the restored riparian corridor in perpetuity. Maintenance measures were implemented between 2017 and 2023. Monitoring Year (MY) 7 assessments and site visits were completed between March and October 2023 to assess the conditions of the project. This is the seventh and final monitoring year as established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016). The Site will be presented to the NC IRT for regulatory closeout. Overall, the Site has met the required stream, hydrology, and vegetation success criteria for MY7 or the life of the project. All restored and enhanced streams are stable and functioning as designed with cross‐section dimensions exhibiting minimal adjustments compared to as‐built. The Site met the required bankfull and stream flow criteria earlier in the life of the project, having recorded at least two bankfull events on each restored reach. The stream flow gage established on the upstream, intermittent section of UT1D exceeded the minimum 30 consecutive day hydrologic baseflow criteria. The average planted stem density for the Site is 405 stems per acre, with a total stem density of 849 stems per acre. All 40 vegetation plots met the final density criteria. The planted stem height is now 14.0 feet. Stream repairs were completed on the main stem and several side tributaries between March and October 2023. This includes rebuilding the left bank on Candy Creek Reach 3 and fixing numerous piping structures along UT1C, UT1D, and UT2. The sediment influx first reported during MY4 has moved through the system so that all streams have visible sediment sorting. Areas of invasive species were treated between 2017 and 2023 and currently make up approximately 0.3% of the total easement area. No kudzu was located this year, having been repeatedly treated for the last several years. Two areas of prior mowing encroachments were supplementally planted with herbaceous plugs, and no additional mowing has been observed this year. Several beavers were trapped, and their dams were removed. Visual assessment surveys indicate that the majority of the Site is stable and functioning as intended and the riparian buffer is well vegetated and intact. The Site will continue to be monitored through closeout. Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL iii CANDY CREEK MITIGATION SITE Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW ......................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.2 Monitoring Year 7 Data Assessment .......................................................................................... 1‐2 1.2.1 Stream Assessment ............................................................................................................ 1‐2 1.2.2 Stream Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activities ....................................... 1‐3 1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment ...................................................................................................... 1‐3 1.2.4 Vegetative Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activities ................................. 1‐4 1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment ....................................................................................................... 1‐5 1.3 Monitoring Year 7 Summary ...................................................................................................... 1‐5 Section 2: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 2‐1 Section 3: REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 3‐1 APPENDICES Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map Figure 2 Project Components/Assets Map Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 Project Contact Table Table 4 Project Information and Attributes Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data Figure 3.0‐3.7 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Table 5a‐m Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Stream Photographs MY0 ‐ MY7 Vegetation Photographs MY0 ‐ MY7 Stream Repair Status Areas of Concern Photographs Improved Areas of Concern Photographs Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata Table 9a‐e Planted and Total Stems Table 9f‐h Vegetation Summary Table Appendix 4 Morphological Summary Data and Plots Table 10a‐f Baseline Stream Data Summary Table 11a‐d Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross‐Section) Table 12a‐p Monitoring Data – Stream Reach Data Summary Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL iv APPENDICES (cont.) Appendix 5 Hydrology Summary Data and Plot Table 13a‐c Verification of Bankfull Events Table 14 Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Summary Table 15 Rainfall Summary Monthly Rainfall Data Recorded Bankfull Events Plots Appendix 6 Correspondence IRT Credit Release Site Walk (MY4) ‐ July 7, 2021 Candy Creek #96315 – Early Close‐out Request (Email, 10/04/2023) DMS Transfer Preparation Memo Updated Landowner Contacts Conservation Easement Inspection Report – MY6 Site Wildlands’ Response to the Conservation Easement Inspection Report – MY6 Site Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL 1‐1 Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW The Site is located in Guilford County, northeast of the Town of Brown Summit, off of Old Reidsville Road and Hopkins Road (Figure 1). The project watershed is primarily comprised of agricultural and forested land. The drainage area for the Site is 937 acres. The project streams consist of Candy Creek and its unnamed tributaries (UT1, UT2, UT2A, UT2B, UT3, UT4, UT5, and UT5A). Stream restoration reaches included Candy Creek (Reach 1, 2, and 4), upper UT1C, UT1D, UT2 (lower Reach 1), lower UT3, UT4, and lower UT5. Stream enhancement (Level I and II) activities were utilized for Candy Creek Reach 3, UT2 (upper Reach 1 and Reach 2), UT2A, and UT2B. The intact and functional reaches associated with lower UT1C, upper UT3, and UT5A were preserved with the implementation of the conservation easement. The riparian areas along the restoration and enhancement reaches were planted with native vegetation to improve habitat and protect water quality. Construction activities were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in March 2017. Planting and seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in March 2017. A conservation easement has been recorded and is in place on 61.74 acres. The project is expected to generate 15,506.467 (warm) stream credits. Annual monitoring has been conducted for seven years with the close‐out anticipated to commence in 2023/2024 given that the success criteria are met. Appendix 1 provides more detailed project activity, history, contact information, and watershed/site background information for this project. Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the Site in Figure 2. 1.1 Project Goals and Objectives Prior to construction activities, stream impairments included incised and over‐widened channels, bank erosion with areas of mass wasting, historic channelization, floodplain alteration, degraded in‐stream habitat, and impoundments. Riparian impairments included clearing and livestock grazing. The overarching goals of the stream mitigation project are to provide ecological enhancement and mitigate site water quality stressors that will benefit the receiving waters in the Cape Fear River Basin. The Site will treat almost all the headwaters of Candy Creek and 47% of the entire 3.1‐square mile Candy Creek watershed before flowing to the Haw River. A primary goal of the NCDMS’ Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) is to restore and maintain water quality as stated in the Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy (NCDENR, 2005). The project goals established for the Site were completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and include the following: • Reduce in‐stream water quality stressors. Reconstruct stream channels with stable dimensions. Stabilize eroding stream banks. Add bank protection and in‐stream structures to protect restored/enhanced streams. • Construct stream channels that are laterally and vertically stable. Construct stream channels that will maintain a stable pattern and profile considering the hydrologic and sediment inputs to the system, the landscape setting, and the watershed conditions. • Improve on‐site habitat. Construct diverse and stable channel form with varied and self‐ sustainable stream bedform. Install habitat features such as undercut logs, brush toe, wood and stone‐based riffles. Establish native stream bank vegetation and shading where none exists. Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL 1‐2 • Exclude cattle from project streams. Install fencing around the conservation easement adjacent to cattle pastures. • Increase and improve the interaction of stream hydrology within the riparian zone to in turn improve floodplain habitat and ecological function. Reconstruct stream channels with appropriate bankfull dimensions and raise them to the proper depths relative to a functioning floodplain. • Restore and enhance native floodplain forest. Plant native trees and understory species and treat invasive species in the riparian zone.  Permanently protect the project Site from harmful uses. Establish a conservation easement on the Site. 1.2 Monitoring Year 7 Data Assessment Annual monitoring and quarterly site visits were conducted during MY7 to assess the condition of the project. The stream, vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follow the approved success criteria presented in the Candy Creek Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016). The stream reaches were assigned specific performance criteria components for stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation. Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the seven‐year post‐construction monitoring period. See Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment tables, Integrated Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) maps, and reference photographs. 1.2.1 Stream Assessment Riffle cross sections on the restoration and enhancement (EI) reaches should be stable and should show little change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width‐to‐depth ratio. Per DMS guidance, bank height ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 for restored channels to be considered stable. All riffle cross sections should fall within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability include trends in vertical incision or bank erosion. Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease in the width‐to‐depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability. Morphological surveys for MY7 were conducted between April and May 2023. Throughout the Site, the cross‐section (XS) survey results indicate that channel dimensions are stable and continuing to perform with minimal adjustments compared to as‐built. Some erosion is present along the left bank of pool XS6 on Candy Creek Reach 1 but native stabilizing vegetation is still present. UT2, UT2A, UT4 and UT5 all experienced an influx of sediment during MY4. Sediment has continued to flush through the system. The tributaries appear to be effectively transporting the material. Cross‐section dimensions show some reduction in area and depth compared to as‐built but most riffles and pools are maintaining dimensions within or close to design parameters. All reaches are still functioning as single thread channels as shown in the Improved Areas of Concern Photographs in Appendix 2. Sediment aggradation across the project is minimal and not considered an area of concern. Refer to Appendix 4 for the cross‐section plots and morphology tables. As discussed in the MY5 report (Wildlands, 2022), based on a DMS Technical Workgroup memo from 10/19/2021 and concurrence by the DMS project manager received on 11/18/2021 (Phillips), pebble count collection is no longer required unless requested by the IRT. Therefore, pebble counts were not conducted during MY7. Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL 1‐3 1.2.2 Stream Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activities The Stream Photographs and Areas of Concern Photographs (AOC) are shown in Appendix 2. As discussed in section 1.2.1, the aggradation throughout the Site has continued to improve since the storms in MY4 deposited off‐site sediment into the system and is no longer considered an area of concern. Bank repairs along Candy Creek Reach 3 were completed in September 2022 and discussed in the MY6 monitoring report. MY7 visual assessments revealed that the bank is stable and is revegetating as documented in the Improved AOC Photographs, and in the XS16 plot. The temporary construction path was planted with live stakes, which have resprouted and are doing well, as shown in the Improved AOC Photographs. The step‐pool structures along UT1C, UT1D, and several log and rock sills along UT2 were repaired by hand between March and October 2023. Water is no longer piping under or around these structures which are shown in before and after photos in the Improved AOC Photographs. Across the site, much of the erosion previously documented is stabilizing as the woody vegetation matures along the stream banks; more than 99% of the banks are stable with only 35 feet of bank erosion documented this year along Candy Creek Reaches 1 and 2. Minor bank erosion was observed only in isolated pockets along outer meander bends and behind lunker logs. The structural issues that remain are typically lunker logs that have either eroded or dislodged from the bank. There are very few areas that indicate instability for the streams throughout the project in MY7. During MY7, several beavers colonized the upstream portion of Candy Creek Reach 1 and 2 and built several dams. A contractor trapped the beaver and removed the dam in August and October of 2023. Vegetation damage around the dams was minimal. Beaver activity will continue to be monitored until closeout. Refer to the Appendix 2 for the Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table and the CCPV Figures for the AOC locations. 1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment A total of 40 permanent vegetation plots (VPs) were established during baseline monitoring within the project easement area using standard 10 by 10‐meter plots. Vegetation plots are monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey‐EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). The final vegetative performance standard is the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the planted riparian and wetland corridor at the end of the required seven‐year monitoring period. The MY7 vegetation survey was completed in August 2023 and resulted in an average stem density of 405 stems per acre, with a total stem density of 849 stems per acre. All permanent vegetation plots (100%) exceed the final density standard of 210 stems per acre. Individual plot densities ranged from 243 – 526 planted stems per acre. The MY7 average stem height for all VPs is approximately 14.0 feet. As shown in the plot below, the average tree height across the Site continues to improve. Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL 1‐4 Please refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs, CCPV Figures 3.0‐3.7 for vegetation plot locations, and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables. A summary of the vegetation on the Site over the life of the project is summarized in Tables 9f – 9h in Appendix 3. The number of planted stems, total stems, planted stem density, and the height of the planted stems is shown per plot. Note that “planted” refers to either stems from the original planting and/or supplemental plantings or volunteers that had been incorporated in previous monitoring years, because they are in the target vegetation community and had been present for several monitoring years. “Total stems” are presented only to give a picture of how vegetation as a whole is doing across the Site; “total stems” is not a category used for the final success criteria. 1.2.4 Vegetative Areas of Concern and Adaptive Management Activities The Site consists of 61.74 acres within the conservation easement, including 32 acres of planted trees. The Site is performing well. The low stem density previously observed around vegetation plot 35 continued to improve and has been removed as an area of concern. Invasive plant populations were treated across the site this year. Along Candy Creek Reach 4, the kudzu (Pueraria montana) did not return and primrose (Ludwigia peploides) was treated in the pools along Candy Creek Reach 4, as shown in the Improved Areas of Concern Photographs; blackberry (Rubus argutus), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) have all been reduced to a small population size which does not threaten the performance of the project. The invasive species now cover less than 1% of the project area. The entire easement boundary was inspected for encroachment and boundary marking issues in MY7. Several additional signs were added at the request of DMS. One piece of old fencing and wire was removed from Candy Creek Reach 2. All of the easement corners were located and replaced with stamped aluminum caps in November 2023. Several areas where a tree or limb had fallen on the fence were cleared and repaired as needed. During a site walk by the DMS project manager in January 2023, three potential areas of mowing encroachment were observed. Two of these areas, totaling 0.002 acres, were located along Candy Creek Reach 1 and Reach 3. A third area, along UT3, was observed to be close to, but outside of the easement boundary. The boundaries were marked off with horse tape and some were planted with additional herbaceous plugs. The encroachment mowing has stopped in all locations. Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL 1‐5 These areas are considered resolved and are shown on the CCPV figures and in the Improved Areas of Concern Photographs. A deer stand was also located along Candy Creek Reach 1 and it was removed by the landowner in November 2023. Refer to Appendix 6 for the IRT site walk minutes and the Conservation Easement Inspection Report comments. 1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment At the end of the seven‐year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in separate years within the restoration reaches. The bankfull performance standard was met for the project by the end of MY3. During MY7, UT5 recorded additional bankfull events. In addition to monitoring bankfull events, intermittent streams (UT1D) must demonstrate a minimum of 30 consecutive days of flow during periods of normal rainfall. The normal rainfall is determined from the Greensboro/Piedmont Triad International Airport precipitation gage, which is approximately 18 miles from the Site. (Annual rainfall totals were retrieved from the NCAT ‐ NC A&T SU Research Farm precipitation gage, which is slightly closer to the Site at only 11.5 miles.) The streamflow criterion was exceeded every year of the project. The presence of baseflow was also observed on these reaches during site visits; thereby, confirming the recorded stream gage data. Please refer to CCPV Figures 3.0‐ 3.7 in Appendix 2 for stream gage locations and Appendix 5 for hydrology summary data and plots. 1.3 Monitoring Year 7 Summary This is the seventh and final monitoring year as established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016). The Site will be presented to the NC IRT for regulatory closeout. Overall, the Site has met the required stream, hydrology, and vegetation success criteria for MY7 or the life of the project. All restored and enhanced streams are stable and functioning as designed with cross‐section dimensions exhibiting minimal adjustments compared to as‐built. The Site met the required bankfull and stream flow criteria earlier in the life of the project, having recorded at least two bankfull events on each restored reach. The stream flow gage established on the upstream, intermittent section of UT1D exceeded the minimum 30 consecutive day hydrologic baseflow criteria. The average planted stem density for the Site is 405 stems per acre, with a total stem density of 849 stems per acre. All 40 vegetation plots met the final density criteria. The planted stem height is now 14.0 feet. Stream repairs were completed on the main stem and also several side tributaries. This includes rebuilding the left bank on Candy Creek Reach 3 and fixing numerous piping structures along UT1C, UT1D, and UT2. The sediment influx first reported during MY4 has moved through the system so that all streams have visible sediment sorting. Areas of invasive species were treated between 2017 and 2023 and currently make up approximately 0.3% of the total easement area. No kudzu was located this year, having been repeatedly treated for the last several years. Two areas of prior mowing encroachments were supplementally planted with herbaceous plugs, and no additional mowing has been observed this year. Several beavers were trapped, and their dams were removed. Visual assessment surveys indicate that the majority of the Site is stable and functioning as intended and the riparian buffer is well vegetated and intact. The Site will continue to be monitored through closeout. Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS upon request. Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 Annual/Closeout Report – FINAL 2‐1 Section 2: METHODOLOGY Geomorphic data collection follows the standards outlined in Stream Channel Reference Site: An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in Stream Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub‐meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS. Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey‐EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). Crest gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross‐sections. Hydrologic monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2003) standards. Section 3: REFERENCES Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook. Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM‐245.Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.61 p. Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS‐EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs‐eep‐protocol‐v4.2‐lev1‐5.pdf. NC State University. 2023. Cardinal: Station Scout for NCAT – NC A&T SU Research Farm. North Carolina State Climate Office. Accessed 11/02/2023 from https://products.climate.ncsu.edu/cardinal/scout/?station=NCAT. NOAA Regional Climate Centers, ACIS. 2023. AgACIS for Guilford County: WETS product for Greensboro/Piedmont Triad International Airport. Accessed 11/01/2023 from https://agacis.rcc‐ acis.org/?fips=37081. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. DWQ Planning Section, Raleigh, NC. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities. http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=864e82e8‐725c‐415e‐8ed9‐ c72dfcb55012&groupId=60329 North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services and Interagency Review Team Technical Workgroup. 2018. Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter. Raleigh, NC. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh, NC. Phillips, K. Email correspondence. 18 November 2021. Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169‐199. Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books. Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3rd approx. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR‐DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC. United States Geological Service. 2019. USGS Station 0209553650, Buffalo Creek at SR2819 NR, McLeansville, NC. https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nc/nwis/current/?type=precip&group_key=county_cd Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2016. Candy Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. NCDMS, Raleigh, NC. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2021. IRT Credit Release Site Walk (MY4) Meeting Minutes for Candy Creek Mitigation Site. Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2022. Candy Creek Mitigation Site – Monitoring Year 5 Annual Report (Final). NCDMS, Raleigh, NC. APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables 03030002010020 03030002010010 03030002020030 03010104021010 03030002020070 03030002010040 03030002020020 03030002010030 03010103220060 03030002020060 03030002010050 03010103240010 03010104021030 03030002020040 03030002030010 03010104032010 0 1.75 3.5 Miles Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 - 2023 Guilford County, NC¹ Directions to Site: From Greensboro, NC, take US-29 North approximately 12 miles past the communities of Brown Summit and Monticello. The north end of the project Site including Candy Creek Reach 3, Candy Creek Reach 4, UT1C, and UT1D may be accessed by Old Reidsville Rd (NC SR 2514). The south end of the project Site including Candy Creek Reach 1, Candy Creek Reach 2, UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT5 can be accessed via Hopkins Rd (NC SR 2700). The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed by a recorded conservation easement,but is bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site may require traversing areas near or along the easement boundary and therefore access by the general public is not permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and activities requires prior coordination with DMS. Project Location Hydrologic Unit Code (14) DMS Targeted Local Watershed !P !P !P !P !P !P !P U T 5 A C a n d y C r e e k R e a c h 1 UT5 UT3-P UT4 UT 2 - R e a c h 2 UT2B UT2 A UT1D UT1C Ca n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 4 UT 3 UT5 - P UT1 C - P Ca n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 2 Ca n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 3 U T 2 - R e a c h 1 Figure 2 Project Components/Assets Map Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 - 2023 Guilford County, NC Conservation Easement Existing Wetlands Internal Crossing Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II Stream Preservation Non Project Streams !P Reach Break 2018 Aerial Photography 0 1,000 2,000 Feet ¹ Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Type R RE R RE R RE Totals 14,975.867 530.600 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A As‐Built Stationing/ Location Existing Footage/ Acreage Approach Mitigation Ratio Credits (SMU/WMU) 100+08 ‐ 117+19 P1 1:1 1,711.000 117+45 ‐ 126+27 P1 1:1 882.000 126+27 ‐ 131+80 P1 1:1 553.000 132+40 ‐ 141+17 P1 1:1 877.000 141+43 ‐ 148+42 P1 1:1 699.000 149+02 ‐ 155+05 EI 1.5:1 402.000 155+05 ‐ 155+33 EII 2.5:1 11.200 155+62 ‐160+35 EII 2.5:1 189.200 160+62 ‐ 170+37 EII 2.5:1 390.000 170+71 ‐ 178+74 P1 1:1 803.000 179+00 ‐ 196+47 P1 1:1 1,747.000 196+68 ‐ 206+35 P1 1:1 967.000 200+12 ‐ 207+40 551 P1 1:1 728.000 207+40 ‐ 211+38 398 ‐5:1 79.600 250+00 ‐ 253+79 437 P1 1:1 379.000 300+00 ‐ 304+24 EI 1.5:1 282.667 304+24 ‐ 305+01 P1 1:1 77.000 305+26 ‐ 311+88 P1 1:1 662.000 311+88 ‐ 318+31 746 EI 1.5:1 428.667 350+84 ‐ 354+37 376 EI 1.5:1 235.333 270+28 ‐ 276+85 702 EII 2.5:1 262.800 400+00 ‐ 411+50 1,150 ‐5:1 230.000 411+50 ‐ 414+96 729 P1 1:1 346.000 500+49 ‐ 514+05 1,270 P1 1:1 1,356.000 599+19 ‐ 600+00 81 ‐5:1 16.200 600+00 ‐ 607+91 1:1 791.000 608+16 ‐ 610+12 1:1 196.000 650+00 ‐ 659+70 ‐5:1 194.000 659+99 ‐ 660+56 ‐5:1 10.800 Component Summation Riverine Non‐ Riverine ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐ ‐‐ Non‐Riparian Wetland (ac) Buffer (sqft) Upland (ac) ‐ ‐ 9701,056 Restoration 791 Preservation Preservation 54 1,297 P1 Restoration UT5A UT5 ‐ P 1,356 398 353Enhancement Enhancement UT4 940 Preservation 1,150 Restoration 346 Enhancement Enhancement UT1D 379 424 UT1C UT1C ‐ P N/A Restoration Preservation Restoration Candy Creek Reach 3 2,333 UT2A UT2B Restoration or Restoration Equivalent The linear feet associated with the stream crossings were excluded from the computations. Restoration 553 STREAMS Enhancement 603 Restoration 803 ‐ ‐ Stream (LF) Riparian Wetland (ac) Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits Stream Riparian Wetland Mitigation Credits Restoration Footage/ Acreage Restoration Non‐Riparian Wetland Preservation 2,653 ‐ Enhancement I 2,023 Restoration Phosphorous Nutrient Offset Enhancement II 2,133 12,774 Enhancement Restoration Level Reach ID Project Components Restoration 1,747 967 877 Restoration 1,711 Candy Creek Reach 2 2,398 Restoration 196 Candy Creek Reach 1 2,885 Restoration Restoration 882 UT5 Enhancement 728 662 699 Enhancement 473 Restoration Candy Creek Reach 4 77 Restoration Enhancement 28 975 81 657 UT2 Reach 2 UT2 Reach 1 3,386 643 Restoration UT3 ‐ P UT3 Preservation Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Data Collection Complete Completion or Scheduled Delivery November 2014 March 2016 July 2016 July 2016 July 2016 ‐ March 2017 March 2017 July 2016 ‐ March 2017 March 2017 March 2017 March 2017 March 2017 March 2017 Stream Survey October 2016 ‐ March 2017 Vegetation Survey March 2017 Stream Survey October 2017 Vegetation Survey October 2017 Stream Survey June 2018 Vegetation Survey August 2018 Vegetation Survey September 2019 December 2019 Stream Survey October 2019 December 2019 Stream Maintenance October 2020 December 2020 Stream Survey May 2021 Vegetation Survey September 2021 Beaver trapped, dam removed Year 6 Monitoring Encroachment Supplemental Planting Invasive Species Treatment Beaver trapped, dam removed Stream Repairs Stream Survey April ‐ May 2023 Vegetation Survey August 2023 Invasive Species Treatment Manual Stream Repairs Beaver trapped, dam removed Monuments located and stamped December 2021 April 2022 September 2022 March 2022 March ‐ October 2022 February ‐ October 2022 Final Design ‐ Construction Plans Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments Invasive Species Treatment Year 5 Monitoring 1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed. Construction Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments Year 4 Monitoring Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Activity or Report Mitigation Plan September / October 2017 Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0) November 2018 Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area 1 May 2017 November 2021 April ‐ October 2020 Year 1 Monitoring December 2017 Year 2 Monitoring November 2023 Riparian Seeding March 2019 Additional easement markings installed (horse tape) Year 7 Monitoring August 2021 September 2019 Year 3 Monitoring Invasive Species Treatment August 2019 August, October 2023 Live Staking and Live Facines March ‐ October 2023 November 2023 March ‐ October 2023 Invasive Species Treatment Additional easement marker installed Stream Maintenance Jan ‐ May 2020 September 2019 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. 825 Maude Etter Rd. Fremont, NC 27830 Willow Spring, NC 27592 Nursery Stock Suppliers Bare Roots Live Stakes McMinnville, TN 37110 Foggy Mountain Nursery 797 Helton Creek Rd. Lansing, NC 28643 Designer Aaron Earley, PE Charlotte, NC 28203 Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Dykes and Son Nursery Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. Green Resource, LLC 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 Construction Contractor 126 Circle G Lane Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. P.O. Box 1197 Seeding Contractor Willow Spring, NC 27592 Kristi Suggs 126 Circle G Lane Monitoring, POC Monitoring Performers Table 3. Project Contact Table Seed Mix Sources Wildlands Engineering, Inc. Bruton Natural Systems, Inc Planting Contractor 704.332.7754 704.332.7754 ext. 110 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 N/A N/A N/A Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation Candy Creek Mitigation Plan; Wildlands determined "no effect" on Guilford County listed endangered species. USFWS responded on April 4, 2014 and stated the “proposed action is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated critical habitat or species currently proposed for listing under the Act”. No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO dated 3/24/2014). No N/A No N/A No N/A No N/A Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A Casville Sandy Loam, Codorus Loam, Nathalie Sandy Loam Well Drained to Somewhat Poorly Drained Codorus Loam ‐ Hydric ‐‐‐ Regulatory Considerations Yes Yes Yes Yes Morphological Desription (stream type) NCDWR Water Quality Classification Underlying mapped soils 1% Well Drained to Somewhat Poorly Drained Codorus Loam ‐ Hydric 45.0 Candy Creek Reach 1 Candy Creek Reach 2 Candy Creek Reach 3 WS‐V (NSW) Clifford Sandy Clay Loam, Codorus Loam, Nathalie Sandy Loam, Poplar Forest Gravelly Sandy Loam 937 40.5 45.0 3,5172,129 2,079 40.5 G4c 03‐06‐01 03030002 03030002010020 Downstream Project Limits – 36°14'39.74"N, 79°39'50.46"W Project Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Province Cape FearRiver Basin USGS Hydrologic Unit 8‐digit DWR Sub‐basin Project Information Candy Creek Mitigation Site Guilford County Upstream Project Limits – 36°13'27.27"N, 79°39'37.79"W 61.74 Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province County Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 937 F5 G4c G4c IV IV III/IV Candy Creek Reach 4 2,593 809 N/A Piedmont Bottomland Forest 1% Piedmont Bottomland Forest UT3UT2 1,126 UT1D III 24 C IV IV IV N/A N/A II/III III/V N/A Project Drainiage Area (acres) Drainage Area (acres) Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area Reach Summary Information Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) ‐ Pre‐ Restoration CGIA Land Use Classification Length of Reach (linear feet) ‐ Post‐Restoration NCDWR Stream Identification Score NCDWR Water Quality Classification Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) ‐ Pre‐ Restoration Length of Reach (linear feet) ‐ Post‐Restoration FEMA classification Native vegetation community Soil hydric status Drainage Area (acres) 66% – Agriculture/Managed Herbaceous; 29% – Forested/Scrubland, 5% ‐ Developed 15 694 1,024 560 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area F5 28 63 Morphological Desription (stream type) Drainage class Soil hydric status Slope 0% USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 (Action ID# SAW‐2015‐01209) and DWR 401 Water Quality Certification (letter from DWR dated 5/13/2015). FEMA Floodplain Compliance FEMA classification Native vegetation community Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation ‐Post‐ Restoration Regulation Waters of the United States ‐ Section 404 Waters of the United States ‐ Section 401 Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety) Endangered Species Act Historic Preservation Act 34.5 Underlying mapped soils UT4 UT5 379 1,806 F4 31.5 19079 1,356 Essential Fisheries Habitat UT2A UT2B 31.5 E5b C5 Parameters 35.0 27.5 36.5 1,496 1,068 Drainage class Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation ‐Post‐ Restoration 45 353 657 UT5A 6 37.5 Slope UT1C 31.5 137 Table 4. Project Information and Attributes Project Name Project Area (acres) Parameters NCDWR Stream Identification Score ‐‐‐ USGS Hydrologic Unit 14‐digit 33.5 G4 IV III III G5 B5c G4 APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF !P !P !P !P !P !P !P U T 5 A C a n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 1 UT5 UT3-P UT4 UT2 - R e a c h 2 UT2B UT2 A UT1D UT1C Ca n d y C r e e k R e a c h 4 UT 3 UT5 - P UT1 C - P Ca n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 2 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Fig u r e 3 . 4 Figur e 3 . 5 Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7 Ca n d y C r e e k R e a c h 3 U T 2 - R e a c h 1 C a n d y C r e e k Can d y C r e e k Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 - 2023 Guilford County, NC 0 1,200600 Feet ¹ 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Delineated Wetlands Sheet Boundaries Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II Stream Preservation Non Project Streams Cross-Section !P Reach Break GF Photo Point Vegetation Plots - MY7 Criteria Met 10 0 + 0 0 10 1 + 0 0 10 2 + 0 0 1 0 3 + 0 0 10 4 + 0 0 10 5 + 0 0 10 6 + 0 0 10 7 + 0 0 1 0 8 + 0 0 1 0 9 + 0 0 1 1 0 + 0 0 11 1 + 0 0 11 2 + 0 0 1 1 3 + 0 0 11 4 + 0 0 11 5 + 0 0 1 1 6 + 0 0 1 1 7 + 0 0 118+ 0 0 1 1 9 + 0 0 1 2 0 + 0 0 12 1 + 0 0 405 + 0 0 406+0 0 40 7 + 0 0 4 0 8 + 0 0 4 0 9 + 0 0 610 + 1 2 599+19 600+00 601+ 0 0 60 2 + 0 0 603+ 0 0 604 + 0 0 605+00 60 6 + 0 0 60 7 + 0 0 608 + 0 0 609 + 0 0 610 + 0 0 650 + 0 0 65 1 + 0 0 6 5 2 + 0 0 65 3 + 0 0 6 5 4 + 0 0 6 5 5 + 0 0 65 6 + 0 0 657 + 0 0 6 5 8 + 0 0 6 5 9 + 0 0 66 0 + 0 0 6 6 0 + 5 6 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF !A!A !A XY !P U T 5 A C a n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 1 UT5 UT5 - P 9 8 7 5 6 3 4 1 2 82 81 10 85 84 83 Barotroll XS3 XS2 XS4 XS 5 X S 4 4 XS1 X S 4 5 XS46 XS 4 8 XS 4 7 Ca n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 1 2 3 4 1 39 40 Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 - 2023 Guilford County, NC 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Delineated Wetlands Stream Restoration Stream Preservation Non Project Streams Bankfull <50' Buffer Width Cross-Section !P Reach Break !A Barotroll !A Crest Gage GF Photo Point Vegetation Plots - MY7 Criteria Met Vegetation Problem Areas - MY7 English Ivy Supplemental Planting (3/2022) Easement Encroachment Encroachment (Resolved) XY Added Easement Sign 0 250125 Feet ¹ 11 6 + 0 0 1 1 7 + 0 0 118 + 0 0 1 1 9 + 0 0 1 2 0 + 0 0 12 1 + 0 0 122 + 0 0 123 + 0 0 1 2 4 + 0 0 1 2 5 + 0 0 12 6 + 0 0 1 2 7 + 0 0 12 8 + 0 0 400+00 4 0 1 + 0 0 4 0 2 + 0 0 403+00404+00 405+00 406 + 0 0 4 0 7 + 0 0 4 0 8 + 0 0 4 0 9 + 0 0 4 1 0 + 0 0 4 1 1 + 0 0 4 1 1 + 5 0 41 2 + 0 0 4 1 3 + 0 0 414+ 0 0 4 1 4 + 9 6 51 4 + 0 5 500+00 501+0 0 502 + 0 0 503+00 50 4 + 0 0 5 0 5 + 0 0 506+00 507 + 0 0 508+ 0 0 509+ 0 0 510 + 0 0 511 + 0 0 5 1 2 + 0 0 51 3 + 0 0 61 0 + 1 2 6 0 6 + 0 0 60 7 + 0 0 60 8 + 0 0 60 9 + 0 0 61 0 + 0 0 B B B B GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF !A!A !A!A !A!A !A !P !P UT5 UT3-P UT 4 C a n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 1 U T 3 C a n d y C r e e k R e a c h 2 9 8 11 75 74 78 77 76 10 14 13 80 79 12 85 84 XS6 XS 7 XS8 XS 4 0 XS37 XS 3 9 XS38 XS46 XS 4 8 X S 4 1 XS47 X S 4 3 XS42 6 5 4 40 37 38 36 39 Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 - 2023 Guilford County, NC 0 250125 Feet ¹ 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Delineated Wetlands Stream Restoration Stream Preservation Non Project Streams Bankfull <50' Buffer Width Cross-Section !P Reach Break !A Barotroll !A Crest Gage GF Photo Point Vegetation Plots - MY7 Criteria Met Stream Problem Areas - MY7 Bank Erosion / Scour B Beaver Dam (removed 2023) 1 2 5 + 0 0 12 6 + 0 0 1 2 7 + 0 0 12 8 + 0 0 1 2 9 + 0 0 13 0 + 0 0 131 + 0 0 13 2 + 0 0 133+00 13 4 + 0 0 13 5 + 0 0 1 3 6 + 0 0 13 7 + 0 0 138 + 0 0 13 9 + 0 0 1 4 0 + 0 0 1 4 1 + 0 0 1 4 2 + 0 0 143+ 0 0 1 4 4 + 0 0 14 5 + 0 0 14 6 + 0 0 14 7 + 0 0 1 4 8 + 0 0 4 1 3 + 0 0 414+ 0 0 4 1 4 + 9 6 51 4 + 0 5 51 3 + 0 0 318+31 31 3 + 0 0 31 4 + 0 0 315+00316+00 317+ 0 0 318 + 0 0 !( !( B B B GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF !A!A !A !P Ca n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 2 UT2 - R e a c h 2 Candy Creek - Reach 1 U T 3 UT4 XS9 XS 1 3 X S 1 0 XS12 XS15 X S 1 4 XS11 XS8 XS37 XS 3 4 X S 4 3 XS35 68 66 23 22 67 21 20 19 18 17 16 75 74 15 14 13 9 7 6 8 33 12 10 11 36 Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 - 2023 Guilford County, NC 0 250125 Feet ¹ 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Delineated Wetlands Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Non Project Streams Bankfull <50' Buffer Width Cross-Section !P Reach Break !A Crest Gage GF Photo Point Vegetation Plots - MY7 Criteria Met Stream Problem Areas - MY7 Bank Erosion / Scour B Beaver Dam (removed 2023) !(Structure Issue 1 4 8 + 4 2 1 3 9 + 0 0 14 0 + 0 0 1 4 1 + 0 0 142+ 0 0 14 3 + 0 0 1 4 4 + 0 0 1 4 5 + 0 0 1 4 6 + 0 0 1 4 7 + 0 0 14 8 + 0 0 1 4 9 + 0 0 150 + 0 0 270+0 0 271+ 0 0 272 + 0 0 273 + 0 0 27 4 + 0 0 275 + 0 0 27 6 + 0 0 276+ 8 5 318 + 3 1 3 0 0 + 0 0 301+00 302 + 0 0 303 + 0 0 3 0 4 + 0 0 3 0 5 + 0 0 3 0 6 + 0 0 30 7 + 0 0 308+00309+00 310 + 0 0 311 + 0 0 312+ 0 0 313+00314+00 315+0 0 316+0 0317+00 318+00 35 0 + 0 0 351 + 0 0 352+00 3 5 3 + 0 0 35 4 + 0 0 3 5 4 + 3 7 !( GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF GF GF !A!A !A!A !A XY !P !P UT2 - Reach 1 UT2B UT 2 A C a n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 2 UT2 - Reach 2 UT2 - Reach 1 24 23 C a n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 3 24A 24A XS 1 3 XS1 2 XS15 XS1 4 XS31 X S 3 3 XS16 X S 3 4 XS3 6 XS 1 7 XS 3 5 X S 3 0 XS 3 2 25 72 68 58 71 59 60 61 73 62 63 65 64 70 69 66 22 67 21 20 19 33 12 34 32 10 31 11 35 Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 - 2023 Guilford County, NC 0 250125 Feet ¹ 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Delineated Wetlands Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II Non Project Streams Bankfull <50' Buffer Width Cross-Section !P Reach Break !A Crest Gage GF Photo Point Vegetation Plots - MY7 Criteria Met Vegetation Problem Areas - MY7 Supplemental Planting (3/2022) XY Added Easement Sign Stream Problem Areas - MY7 !(Structure Issue 14 8 + 4 2 14 9 + 0 0 15 0 + 0 0 151+ 0 0 1 5 2 + 0 0 153 + 0 0 154+00 15 5 + 0 0 15 6 + 0 0 1 5 7 + 0 0 1 5 8 + 0 0 1 5 9 + 0 0 1 6 0 + 0 0 1 6 1 + 0 0 1 6 2 + 0 0 1 6 3 + 0 0 25 0 + 0 6 251+00 252+00 253+00 253+8 5 200+00 201+0 0 20 2 + 0 0 203+0 0 204+00205+00 206+ 0 0 207+00 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF !A !A XY XY !P !P UT1D UT1C C a n d y C r e e k - R e a c h 3 UT1C-P X S 1 6 XS 17 X S 2 8 X S 2 9 XS 2 7 57 56 55 54 53 30 29 28 27 26 25 24 24B 16 13 29 15 30 14 28 Figure 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 - 2023 Guilford County, NC 0 250125 Feet ¹ 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Delineated Wetlands Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement I Stream Enhancement II Stream Preservation Non Project Streams Bankfull <50' Buffer Width Cross-Section !P Reach Break !A Crest Gage !A Stream Gage GF Photo Point Vegetation Plots - MY7 Criteria Met Vegetation Problem Areas - MY7 Supplemental Planting (3/2022) Easement Encroachment Encroachment (Resolved) XY Added Easement Sign 1 7 0 + 3 7 160+00 16 1 + 0 0 162+ 0 0 1 6 3 + 0 0 1 6 4 + 0 0 165 + 0 0 166+00 167+00 16 8 + 0 0 16 9 + 0 0 1 7 0 + 0 0 17 1 + 0 0 17 2 + 0 0 1 7 3 + 0 0 174+ 0 0 175 + 0 0 176+ 0 0 177+00 1 7 8 + 0 0 179+0 0 180 + 0 0 181 + 0 0 18 2 + 0 0 1 8 3 + 0 0 184 + 0 0 1 8 5 + 0 0 186 + 0 0 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF XY XY !P C a n d y C r e e k R e a c h 4 Ca n d y C r e e k R e a c h 3 XS 2 0 XS 18 XS 2 1 XS 1 9 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 19 17 20 18 22 21 Figure 3.6 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 - 2023 Guilford County, NC 0 250125 Feet ¹ 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Delineated Wetlands Stream Restoration Stream Enhancement II Non Project Streams Bankfull <50' Buffer Width Cross-Section !P Reach Break GF Photo Point Vegetation Plots - MY7 Criteria Met XY Added Easement Sign 2 0 6 + 3 5 180 + 0 0 181 + 0 0 18 2 + 0 0 1 8 3 + 0 0 184 + 0 0 1 8 5 + 0 0 186 + 0 0 187+ 0 0 18 8 + 0 0 18 9 + 0 0 1 9 0 + 0 0 1 9 1 + 0 0 192+ 0 0 1 9 3 + 0 0 1 9 4 + 0 0 195+00 196 + 0 0 197+00 19 8 + 0 0 199 + 0 0 20 0 + 0 0 201 + 0 0 202+00 2 0 3 + 0 0 20 4 + 0 0 20 5 + 0 0 20 6 + 0 0 GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GF GFGF GF !A Cand y C r e e k - R e a c h 4 XS 23 XS 2 6 X S 2 5 XS 2 2 XS 24 49 47 48 50 51 52 46 45 44 43 42 41 40 27 26 24 25 22 23 Figure 3.7 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 - 2023 Guilford County, NC 0 250125 Feet ¹ 2018 Aerial Photography Conservation Easement Internal Crossing Delineated Wetlands Stream Restoration Non Project Streams Bankfull <50' Buffer Width Cross-Section !A Crest Gage GF Photo Point Vegetation Plots - MY7 Criteria Met Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 Candy Creek Reach 1 (2,619 LF) Last assessed on 10/13/2023 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 39 39 100% Depth Sufficient 38 38 100% Length Appropriate 38 38 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)38 38 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)38 38 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 1 15 >99% 0 0 >99% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 00100%0 0 100% 115>99%00>99% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.32 32 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.8 8 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.8 8 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 27 27 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 27 27 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 4. Thalweg Position 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 Candy Creek Reach 2 (2,215 LF) Last assessed on 10/13/2023 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 24 24 100% Depth Sufficient 24 24 100% Length Appropriate 24 24 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)24 24 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)24 24 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 1 20 >99% 0 0 >99% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 120>99%00>99% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.27 29 93% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.12 12 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.12 12 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 17 17 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 17 17 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 Candy Creek Reach 3 (2,135 LF) Last assessed on 10/13/2023 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 23 23 100% Depth Sufficient 17 17 100% Length Appropriate 17 17 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)17 17 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)16 16 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 >99% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.35 35 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.12 12 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.12 12 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 23 23 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 23 23 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 Candy Creek Reach 4 (3,564 LF) Last assessed on 10/13/2023 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 42 42 100% Depth Sufficient 39 39 100% Length Appropriate 39 39 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)38 38 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)39 39 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.56 56 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.22 22 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.22 22 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 38 38 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 38 38 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT1C (728 LF) Last assessed on 10/13/2023 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 32 32 100% Depth Sufficient 7 7 100% Length Appropriate 7 7 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)7 7 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)7 7 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.29 29 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.22 22 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.22 22 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 7 7 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 7 7 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT1D (379 LF) Last assessed on 10/13/2023 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 24 24 100% Depth Sufficient 2 2 100% Length Appropriate 2 2 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)2 2 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)2 2 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.30 30 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.29 29 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.29 29 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 1 1 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 20 20 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT2 Reach 1 (1,188 LF) Last assessed on 10/13/2023 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 32 32 100% Depth Sufficient 8 8 100% Length Appropriate 8 8 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)8 8 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)8 8 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.32 32 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.31 31 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.31 31 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 1 1 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 22 22 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5h. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT2 Reach 2 (643 LF) Last assessed on 10/13/2023 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 6 6 100% Depth Sufficient 7 7 100% Length Appropriate 7 7 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)7 7 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)7 7 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.9 9 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.8 8 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.8 8 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 2 2 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 4 4 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5i. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT2A (353 LF) Last assessed on 10/13/2023 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 11 11 100% Depth Sufficient 4 4 100% Length Appropriate 4 4 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)4 4 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)4 4 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.12 12 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.12 12 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.12 12 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. n/a n/a n/a 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 12 12 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5j. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT2B (657 LF) Last assessed on 10/13/2023 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 5 5 100% Depth Sufficient 6 6 100% Length Appropriate 6 6 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)6 6 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)6 6 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.16 16 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.16 16 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.16 16 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. n/a n/a n/a 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 4 4 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5k. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT3 (346 LF) Last assessed on 10/13/2023 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 11 11 100% Depth Sufficient 10 10 100% Length Appropriate 10 10 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)10 10 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)10 10 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.15 15 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.9 9 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.9 9 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 6 6 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 5 5 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5l. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT4 (1,356 LF) Last assessed on 10/13/2023 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 32 32 100% Depth Sufficient 30 30 100% Length Appropriate 30 30 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)30 30 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)30 30 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.22 22 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.7 7 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.7 7 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 15 15 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 16 16 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 5m. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table DMS Project No. 96315 UT5 (1,012 LF) Last assessed on 10/13/2023 Major Channel Category Channel Sub‐Category Metric Number Stable, Performing as Intended Total Number in As‐Built Number of Unstable Segments Amount of Unstable Footage % Stable, Performing as Intended Number with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Footage with Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Adjust % for Stabilizing Woody Vegetation Aggradation 0 0 100% Degradation 0 0 100% 2. Riffle Condition Texture/Substrate 21 21 100% Depth Sufficient 21 21 100% Length Appropriate 21 21 100% Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)21 21 100% Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide)21 21 100% 1. Scoured/Eroded Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are providing habitat. 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.22 22 100% 2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.12 12 100% 2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.12 12 100% 3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15%. 12 12 100% 4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth ≥ 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at baseflow. 12 12 100% Candy Creek Mitigation Site Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and Run Units) 3. Meander Pool Condition 4. Thalweg Position 1Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category. 2. Bank Totals 3. Engineered Structures1 Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Last assessed on 10/13/2023 Planted Acreage 32 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold (Ac) Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Planted Acreage Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 0 0.00 0.0% Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 5, or 7 stem count criteria.0.1 0 0.00 0.0% 0 0.00 0.0% Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.0.25 0 0.00 0% 0 0.00 0.0% Easement Acreage 62 Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping Threshold (SF) Number of Polygons Combined Acreage % of Easement Acreage Invasive Areas of Concern Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).1,000 2 0.19 0.3% Easement Encroachment Areas Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).none 0 0.00 0.0% Total Cumulative Total STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS Candy Creek MY0 ‐ MY7 PHOTO POINT 1 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 1 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 1 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 1 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 2 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 2 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 2 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 2 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 3 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 3 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 3 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 3 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 4 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 4 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 4 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 4 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 5 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 5 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 5 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 5 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 6 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 6 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 6 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 6 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 7 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 7 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 7 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 7 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 8 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 8 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 8 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 8 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 9 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 9 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 9 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 9 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 10 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 10 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 10 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 10 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 11 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 11 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 11 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 11 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 12 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 12 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 12 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 12 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 13 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 13 Candy Creek R1 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 13 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 13 Candy Creek R1 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 14 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 14 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 14 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 14 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 15 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 15 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 15 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 15 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 16 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 16 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 16 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 16 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 17 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 17 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 17 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 17 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 18 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 18 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 18 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 18 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 19 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 19 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 19 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 19 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 20 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 20 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 20 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 20 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 21 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 21 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 21 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 21 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 22 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 22 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 22 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 22 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 23 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 23 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 23 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 23 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 24A1 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (10/19/2021) PHOTO POINT 24A Candy Creek R2 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 24A1 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (10/19/2021) PHOTO POINT 24A Candy Creek R2 – downstream (3/30/2023) 1 Photo point added in 2021 (MY5) PHOTO POINT 24 Candy Creek R2 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 24 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 24 Candy Creek R2 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 24 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 24B1 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (10/19/2021) PHOTO POINT 24B Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/30/2023) 1 Photo point added in 2021 (MY5) PHOTO POINT 24B1 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (10/16/2021) PHOTO POINT 24B Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 25 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 25 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 25 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 25 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/30/2023) 1 Photo point added in 2021 (MY5) PHOTO POINT 26 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 26 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 26 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 26 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 27 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 27 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 27 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 27 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 28 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 28 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 28 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 28 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 29 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 29 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 29 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 29 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 30 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 30 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 30 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 30 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 31 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 31 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 31 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 31 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 32 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 32 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 32 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 32 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 33 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 33 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 33 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 33 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 34 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 34 Candy Creek R3 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 34 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 34 Candy Creek R3 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 35 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 35 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 35 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 35 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 36 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 36 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 36 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 36 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 37 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 37 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 37 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 37 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 38 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 38 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 38 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 38 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 39 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 39 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 39 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 39 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 40 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 40 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 40 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 40 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 41 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 41 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 41 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 41 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 42 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 42 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 42 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 42 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 43 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 43 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 43 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 43 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 44 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 44 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 44 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 44 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 45 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 45 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 45 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 45 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 46 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 46 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 46 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 46 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 47 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 47 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 47 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 47 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 48 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 48 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 48 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 48 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 49 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 49 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 49 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 49 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 50 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 50 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 50 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 50 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 51 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 51 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 51 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 51 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 52 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 52 Candy Creek R4 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 52 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 52 Candy Creek R4 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 53 UT1C – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 53 UT1C – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 53 UT1C – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 53 UT1C – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 54 UT1C – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 54 UT1C – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 54 UT1C – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 54 UT1C – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 55 UT1C – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 55 UT1C – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 55 UT1C – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 55 UT1C – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 56 UT1C – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 56 UT1C – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 56 UT1C – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 56 UT1C – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 57 UT1D – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 57 UT1D – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 57 UT1D – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 57 UT1D – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 58 UT2 R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 58 UT2 R1 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 58 UT2 R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 58 UT2 R1 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 59 UT2 R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 59 UT2 R1 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 59 UT2 R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 59 UT2 R1 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 60 UT2 R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 60 UT2 R1 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 60 UT2 R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 60 UT2 R1 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 61 UT2 R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 61 UT2 R1 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 61 UT2 R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 61 UT2 R1 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 62 UT2 R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 62 UT2 R1 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 62 UT2 R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 62 UT2 R1 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 63 UT2 R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 63 UT2 R1 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 63 UT2 R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 63 UT2 R1 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 64 UT2 R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 64 UT2 R1 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 64 UT2 R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 64 UT2 R1 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 65 UT2 R1 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 65 UT2 R1 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 65 UT2 R1 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 65 UT2 R1 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 66 UT2 R2 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 66 UT2 R2 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 66 UT2 R2 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 66 UT2 R2 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 67 UT2 R2 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 67 UT2 R2 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 67 UT2 R2 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 67 UT2 R2 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 68 UT2 R2 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 68 UT2 R2 – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 68 UT2 R2 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 68 UT2 R2 – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 69 UT2A – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 69 UT2A – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 69 UT2A – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 69 UT2A – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 70 UT2A – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 70 UT2A – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 70 UT2A – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 70 UT2A – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 71 UT2B – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 71 UT2B – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 71 UT2B – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 71 UT2B – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 72 UT2B – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 72 UT2B – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 72 UT2B – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 72 UT2B – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 73 UT2B – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 73 UT2B – upstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 73 UT2B – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 73 UT2B – downstream (3/30/2023) PHOTO POINT 74 UT3 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 74 UT3 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 74 UT3 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 74 UT3 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 75 UT3 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 75 UT3 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 75 UT3 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 75 UT3 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 76 UT4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 76 UT4 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 76 UT4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 76 UT4 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 77 UT4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 77 UT4 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 77 UT4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 77 UT4 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 78 UT4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 78 UT4 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 78 UT4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 78 UT4 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 79 UT4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 79 UT4 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 79 UT4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 79 UT4 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 80 UT4 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 80 UT4 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 80 UT4 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 80 UT4 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 81 UT5 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 81 UT5 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 81 UT5 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 81 UT5 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 82 UT5 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 82 UT5 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 82 UT5 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 82 UT5 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 83 UT5 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 83 UT5 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 83 UT5 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 83 UT5 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 84 UT5 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 84 UT5 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 84 UT5 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 84 UT5 – downstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 85 UT5 – upstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 85 UT5 – upstream (4/13/2023) PHOTO POINT 85 UT5 – downstream (03/06/2017) PHOTO POINT 85 UT5 – downstream (4/13/2023) VEGETATION PHOTOGRAPHS Candy Creek MY0 ‐ MY7 Vegetation Plot 1 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 1 ‐ MY7 (8/3/2023) Vegetation Plot 2 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 2 ‐ MY7 (8/3/2023) Vegetation Plot 3 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 3 ‐ MY7 (8/3/2023) Vegetation Plot 4 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 4 ‐ MY7 (8/3/2023) Vegetation Plot 5 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 5 ‐ MY7 (8/3/2023) Vegetation Plot 6 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 6 ‐ MY7 (8/3/2023) Vegetation Plot 7 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 7 ‐ MY7 (8/3/2023) Vegetation Plot 8 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 8 ‐ MY7 (8/3/2023) Vegetation Plot 9 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 9 ‐ MY7 (8/3/2023) Vegetation Plot 10 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 10 ‐ MY7 (8/3/2023) Vegetation Plot 11 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 11 ‐ MY7 (8/7/2023) Vegetation Plot 12 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 12 ‐ MY7 (8/7/2023) Vegetation Plot 13 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 13 ‐ MY7 (08/07/2023) Vegetation Plot 14 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 14 ‐ MY7 (08/07/2023) Vegetation Plot 15 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 15 ‐ MY7 (8/8/2023) Vegetation Plot 16 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 16 ‐ MY7 (8/8/2023) Vegetation Plot 17 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 17 ‐ MY7 (8/8/2023) Vegetation Plot 18 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 18 ‐ MY7 (8/8/2023) Vegetation Plot 19 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 19 ‐ MY7 (8/8/2023) Vegetation Plot 20 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 20 ‐ MY7 (8/8/2023) Vegetation Plot 21 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 21 ‐ MY7 (8/8/2023) Vegetation Plot 22 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 22 ‐ MY7 (8/8/2023) Vegetation Plot 23 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 23 ‐ MY7 (8/8/2023) Vegetation Plot 24 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 24 ‐ MY7 (8/8/2023) Vegetation Plot 25 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 25 ‐ MY7 (8/8/2023) Vegetation Plot 26 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 26 ‐ MY7 (8/8/2023) Vegetation Plot 27 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 27 ‐ MY7 (8/8/2023) Vegetation Plot 28 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 28 ‐ MY7 (8/8/2023) Vegetation Plot 29 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 29 ‐ MY7 (8/8/2023) Vegetation Plot 30 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 30 ‐ MY7 (8/8/2023) Vegetation Plot 31 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 31 ‐ MY7 (8/7/2023) Vegetation Plot 32 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 32 ‐ MY7 (8/7/2023) Vegetation Plot 33 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 33 ‐ MY7 (8/7/2023) Vegetation Plot 34 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 34 ‐ MY7 (10/31/2023) Vegetation Plot 35 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 35 ‐ MY7 (8/3/2023) Vegetation Plot 36 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 36 ‐ MY7 (8/3/2023) Vegetation Plot 37 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 37 ‐ MY7 (8/3/2023) Vegetation Plot 38 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 38 ‐ MY7 (8/3/2023) Vegetation Plot 39 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 39 ‐ MY7 (8/3/2023) Vegetation Plot 40 ‐ MY0 (03/07/2017) Vegetation Plot 40 ‐ MY7 (8/3/2023) Stream Repair Status Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Reach Station Length (LF) Year Reported ‐ Issue Description Year ‐ Management Action Year ‐ Status 100+00 130 MY4 ‐ Aggradation Minor sedimentation MY4 ‐ Monitor MY5 ‐ No longer an issue; channel mobilized sediment. 100+00 N/A MY3 ‐ Encroachment Mowing encroachment MY4 ‐ Added easement sign and horse tape. MY6 ‐ Replanted MY7 ‐ No longer an issue. 110+00 14 MY1 ‐ Bank erosion Minor bank erosion MY1 ‐ Monitor MY3 ‐ Bank is stable. 111+00 10 MY1 ‐ Bank erosion Minor bank erosion MY1 ‐ Monitor MY3 ‐ Bank is stable. 112+00 N/A MY4 ‐ Encroachment Mowing encroachment MY4 ‐ Added horse tape. MY6 ‐ Replanted MY7 ‐ Replaced horse tape. MY7 ‐ Minor mowing early in MY7; No longer an issue. 117+50 N/A MY6 ‐ Bridge issue Bridge rotting MY6 ‐ Bridge replaced MY6 ‐ No issues with the bridge. 122+50 20 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion Bank erosion behind structure MY3 ‐ Monitor MY7 ‐ Bank is revegetating, some erosion present. 122+50 N/A MY7 ‐ Beaver dam Beaver dam MY7 ‐ Beaver dam removed; beavers trapped MY7 ‐ No longer an issue. 124+25 N/A MY7 ‐ Beaver dam Beaver dam MY7 ‐ Beaver dam removed; beavers trapped MY7 ‐ No longer an issue. 125+25 N/A MY7 ‐ Beaver dam Beaver dam MY7 ‐ Beaver dam removed; beavers trapped MY7 ‐ No longer an issue. 127+50 N/A MY7 ‐ Beaver dam Beaver dam MY7 ‐ Beaver dam removed; beavers trapped MY7 ‐ No longer an issue. 128+25 N/A MY6 ‐ Beaver dam Beaver dam MY6 ‐ Beaver dam removed; beavers trapped MY6 ‐ No longer an issue. 129+25 N/A MY5 ‐ Beaver dam Beaver dam MY5 ‐ Beaver dam removed; beavers trapped MY5 ‐ No longer an issue. 130+10 N/A MY7 ‐ Beaver dam Beaver dam MY7 ‐ Beaver dam removed; beavers trapped MY7 ‐ No longer an issue. 136+00 20 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion MY4 ‐ Structure issue Minor bank erosion behind structure MY3 & MY4 ‐ Monitor MY7 ‐ Bank is revegetating, some erosion present; structure is disconnected from bank. 140+50 55 MY4 ‐ Aggradation Minor sedimentation in riffle MY4 ‐ Monitor MY5 ‐ No longer an issue; channel mobilized sediment. Candy Creek Reach 1 Candy Creek Reach 2 Stream Repair Status Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Reach Station Length (LF) Year Reported ‐ Issue Description Year ‐ Management Action Year ‐ Status 142+75 25 MY1 ‐ Bank erosion, structure issue Bank erosion behind structure MY1 ‐ Monitor MY4 ‐ Bank is revegetating and stable. MY7 ‐ Structure is disconnected from bank. Bank still stable. 145+00 5 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion Minor bank erosion MY3 ‐ Monitor MY4 ‐ Bank is revegetating and stable. 147+25 20 MY1 ‐ Bank erosion Bank erosion MY4 ‐ Repaired right bank. MY4 ‐ Bank is stable. 149+00 N/A MY4 ‐ Encroachment Mowing encroachment MY4 ‐ Added easement sign and horse tape. MY6 ‐ Replanted MY7 ‐ No longer an issue. 150+00 20 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion Minor bank erosion MY3 ‐ Monitor MY5 ‐ Bank is stable. 151+00 45 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion Minor bank erosion MY3 ‐ Monitor MY4 ‐ Bank is stable. 151+75 35 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion Bank erosion MY6 ‐ Repaired right bank MY7 ‐ Bank is stable. 156+50 5 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion Minor bank erosion MY3 ‐ Monitor MY6 ‐ Bank is stable 156+50 30 MY4 ‐ Aggradation Minor sedimentation in riffle MY4 ‐ Monitor MY5 ‐ No longer an issue; channel mobilized sediment. 159+50 15 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion Minor bank erosion MY3 ‐ Monitor MY4 ‐ Bank is stable. 165+50 10 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion Minor bank erosion MY3 ‐ Monitor MY7 ‐ Bank is stable. 173+00 N/A MY3 ‐ Beaver dam Beaver dam MY4 ‐ Beaver dam removed; beavers trapped MY4 ‐ No longer an issue. 175+50 N/A MY3 ‐ Beaver dam Beaver dam MY4 ‐ Beaver dam removed; beavers trapped MY4 ‐ No longer an issue. 180+50 15 MY1 ‐ Bank erosion Minor bank erosion MY1 ‐ Monitor MY3 ‐ Bank is stable. 188+00 N/A MY4 ‐ Structure issue Strutural integrity MY4 ‐ Monitor MY6 ‐ Structure is stable. 191+00 15 MY1 ‐ Bank erosion Minor bank erosion MY1 ‐ Monitor MY3 ‐ Bank is stable. 194+25 4 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion; structure issue Minor bank erosion around structure tie‐in MY3 ‐ Monitor MY4 ‐ Bank is revegetating and structure is stable. 196+00 4 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion; structure issue Minor bank erosion around structure tie‐in MY3 ‐ Monitor MY4 ‐ Bank is revegetating and structure is stable. 200+50 22 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion Minor bank erosion MY3 ‐ Monitor MY6 ‐ Bank is stable. 205+00 4 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion; structure issue Minor bank erosion around structure tie‐in MY3 ‐ Monitor MY4 ‐ Bank is revegetating and structure is stable. 205+50 40 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion; structure issue Minor bank erosion; bank protection.MY3 ‐ Monitor MY4 ‐ Bank is revegetating and structure is stable. Candy Creek Reach 2 (cont.) Candy Creek Reach 4 Candy Creek Reach 3 Stream Repair Status Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Reach Station Length (LF) Year Reported ‐ Issue Description Year ‐ Management Action Year ‐ Status 205+75 13 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion Minor bank erosion MY3 ‐ Monitor MY4 ‐ Bank is revegetating and stable. 205+75 N/A MY4 ‐ Structure issue Piping MY7 ‐ Plugged piping structure MY7 ‐ Water is flowing over structure. 206+00 N/A MY4 ‐ Structure issue Piping MY7 ‐ Plugged piping structure MY7 ‐ Water is flowing over structure. 207+25 N/A MY4 ‐ Structure issue Piping MY7 ‐ Plugged piping structure MY7 ‐ Water is flowing over structure. 208+00 N/A MY6 ‐ Encroachment Mowing encroachment MY6 ‐ Added horse tape. MY7 ‐ Replaced horse tape.MY7 ‐ No longer an issue. 250+25 19 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion Minor bank erosion MY3 ‐ Monitor MY4 ‐ Bank is revegetating and stable. 253+00 N/A MY4 ‐ Structure issue Piping MY7 ‐ Plugged piping structure MY7 ‐ Water is flowing over structure. 253+10 N/A MY4 ‐ Structure issue Piping MY7 ‐ Plugged piping structure MY7 ‐ Water is flowing over structure. 253+20 N/A MY4 ‐ Structure issue Piping MY7 ‐ Plugged piping structure MY7 ‐ Water is flowing over structure. 253+30 N/A MY4 ‐ Structure issue Piping MY7 ‐ Plugged piping structure MY7 ‐ Water is flowing over structure. 253+40 N/A MY4 ‐ Structure issue Piping MY7 ‐ Plugged piping structure MY7 ‐ Water is flowing over structure. UT2B 270+50 N/A MY4 ‐ Structure issue Piping MY4 ‐ Monitor MY5 ‐ Structure is stable. 302+00 15 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion Minor bank erosion MY3 ‐ Monitor MY4 ‐ Bank is revegetating and stable. 305+75 15 MY3 ‐ Aggradation Minor sedimentation MY3 ‐ Monitor MY5 ‐ No longer an issue; channel mobilized sediment. 307+40 N/A MY4 ‐ Structure issue Piping MY4 ‐ Monitor MY5 ‐ Water is flowign over structure. 307+50 10 MY3 ‐ Bank erosion Minor bank erosion MY3 ‐ Monitor MY4 ‐ Bank is revegetating and stable. 311+90 N/A MY4 ‐ Structure issue Piping MY7 ‐ Plugged piping structure MY7 ‐ Water is flowing over structure. 313+00 30 MY4 ‐ Aggradation Minor sedimentation MY4 ‐ Monitor MY7 ‐ No longer an issue; channel mobilized sediment. 316+50 50 MY3 ‐ Aggradation Minor sedimentation MY3 ‐ Monitor MY6 ‐ No longer an issue; channel mobilized sediment. UT1D UT2 Reach 1 UT2 Reach 2 UT1C Stream Repair Status Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Reach Station Length (LF) Year Reported ‐ Issue Description Year ‐ Management Action Year ‐ Status UT2A N/A N/A No issues N/A N/A N/A UT3 407+00 N/A MY1 ‐ Encroachment Mowing encroachment MY2 ‐ Replaced signs MY2 ‐ No longer an issue. 502+00 20 MY4 ‐ Aggradation Sedimentation MY4 ‐ Monitor MY6 ‐ No longer an issue; channel mobilized sediment. 504+00 50 MY4 ‐ Aggradation Sedimentation MY4 ‐ Monitor MY6 ‐ No longer an issue; channel mobilized sediment. 510+50 40 MY4 ‐ Aggradation Sedimentation MY4 ‐ Monitor MY6 ‐ No longer an issue; channel mobilized sediment. 600+00 100 MY3 ‐ Aggradation Sedimentation MY3 ‐ Monitor MY7 ‐ No longer an issue; channel mobilized sediment. 604+00 100 MY4 ‐ Aggradation Sedimentation MY4 ‐ Monitor MY5 ‐ No longer an issue; channel mobilized sediment. 607+50 30 MY4 ‐ Aggradation Sedimentation MY4 ‐ Monitor MY7 ‐ No longer an issue; channel mobilized sediment. 608+75 30 MY4 ‐ Aggradation Sedimentation MY4 ‐ Monitor MY6 ‐ No longer an issue; channel mobilized sediment. UT4 UT5 AREAS OF CONCERN PHOTOGRAPHS Monitoring Year 7 Candy Creek Reach 1 – Erosion, LB (Sta. 122+50) (10/17/2023) Candy Creek Reach 1 – Breached beaver dam (Sta. 122+50) (10/17/2023) Candy Creek Reach 2 – Beaver dam; breached in late October (Sta. 128+00) (10/17/2023) Candy Creek Reach 2 – Beaver dam; breached in late October (Sta. 130+00) (10/17/2023) IMPROVED AREAS OF CONCERN PHOTOGRAPHS Monitoring Year 7 Candy Creek Reach 3 – Bank repair, RB (Sta. 151+75) (03/31/2023) Candy Creek Reach 3 – Repair area replanting (Sta. 152+75) (03/31/2023) UT1C – Structural issues, prior to repair (Sta. 206+00) (03/31/2023) UT1C – Repaired structure (Sta. 206+00) (10/31/2023) UT1C – Structural issues, prior to repair (Sta. 207+05) (03/31/2023) UT1C – Repaired structure (Sta. 207+05) (10/17/2023) UT1D – Structural issues, prior to repair (Sta. 253+25) (10/21/2022) UT1D – Repaired structure (Sta. 253+25) (10/17/2023) UT2 Reach 2 – Improved deposition (Sta. 316+50) (03/31/2023) UT2 Reach 2 – Repaired structure (Sta. 311+88) (10/17/2023) UT2 Reach 2 – Structural issues, prior to repair (Sta. 312+50) (03/31/2023) UT2 Reach 2 – Repaired structure (Sta. 312+50) (10/17/2023) Candy Creek Reach 1 – Resolved mowing encroachment (Sta. 112+00) (10/17/2023) Candy Creek Reach 3 – Resolved mowing encroachment and a new signpost (Sta. 149+02) (10/17/2023) UT1C – Horse tape repaired on encroachment (Sta. 208+50) (10/17/2023) UT3 – Resolved mowing encroachment. The mowing was observed just outside of the boundary, as indicated by the string and flags (Sta. 408+00) (10/17/2023) Candy Creek Reach 3 – New sign installed (Sta. 164+00) (10/17/2023) Candy Creek Reach 4 – Treated primrose (Ludwigia peploides) (Sta. 188+00) (10/17/2023) APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Plot Success Criteria Met (Y/N)Tract Mean 1 Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y 6 Y 7 Y 8 Y 9 Y 10 Y 11 Y 12 Y 13 Y 14 Y 15 Y 16 Y 17 Y 18 Y 19 Y 20 Y 21 Y 22 Y 23 Y 24 Y 25 Y 26 Y 27 Y 28 Y 29 Y 30 Y 31 Y 32 Y 33 Y 34 Y 35 Y 36 Y 37 Y 38 Y 39 Y 40 Y 100% Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Report Prepared By Jeffrey Turner Date Prepared 11/1/2023 Database Name Candy Creek MY7 CVS‐v2.5.0_8.8.23.mdb Database Location C:\Users\jturner\Desktop Computer Name JEFF‐PC File Size 87818240 Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data. Project Planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes. Project Total Stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems. Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.). Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots. Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species. Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each. Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species. Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot. Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded. ALL Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded. Project Code 96315 Project Name Candy Creek Mitigation Site Sampled Plots 40 DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ PROJECT SUMMARY‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Table 9a. Planted and Total Stems Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T Acer negundo Boxelder Tree Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree Ailanthus altissima Tree‐of‐Heaven Tree Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder Shrub Tree Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 333222222222222 11111111222 Carya Hickory Tree Carya ovata Common Shagbark Hickory Tree Castanea dentata American Chestnut Tree Cercis canadensis Redbud Shrub Tree Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree Fagus grandifolia American Beech Tree Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 111222333222333334333333333 Hamamelis virginiana Witch‐hazel Shrub Tree Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar Tree Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum, Red Gum Tree 2 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 111455 Morus rubra Red Mulberry Tree Nyssa sylvatica Sour Gum, Black Gum Tree Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine Tree Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine Tree Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree 222222222111111336111333111 Prunus caroliniana Carolina Laurel Cherry Shrub Tree Prunus serotina Black Cherry Shrub Tree Quercus alba White Oak Tree Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Tree Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 111111 222111111222111222 Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 111 111 Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 222222111111222111333222222 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree Rhus copallinum Winged Sumac Shrub Tree Rhus typhina Staghorn Sumac Shrub Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 4 Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub Tree Sambucus nigra European Elder Shrub Tree Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 4 Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 10 Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm, Red Elm Tree 9999998888881111118827101025101025111111 555555444555777446557559666 364 364 364 364 364 364 324 324 324 324 324 324 445 445 445 324 324 1,093 405 405 1,012 405 405 1,012 445 445 445 Final success criteria is 210 stems per acre PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P‐All: Number of planted stems including live stakes T: Total stems Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Current Plot Data (MY7 2023) 0.0247 0.0247 Volunteers included Vegetation Plot 8 Vegetation Plot 9 11 0.0247 0.0247 Species count Stems per acre Exceeds requirements by 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Size (acres)0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 Vegetation Plot 7 Stem count Size (ares)1111111 Vegetation Plot 1 Vegetation Plot 2 Vegetation Plot 3 Vegetation Plot 4 Vegetation Plot 5 Vegetation Plot 6 Table 9b. Planted and Total Stems Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T Acer negundo Boxelder Tree Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree Ailanthus altissima Tree‐of‐Heaven Tree Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder Shrub Tree Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 1 1 1 334222333111 222 Carya Hickory Tree Carya ovata Common Shagbark Hickory Tree Castanea dentata American Chestnut Tree Cercis canadensis Redbud Shrub Tree Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 2 2 2 Fagus grandifolia American Beech Tree Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 333222222333222222333333222 Hamamelis virginiana Witch‐hazel Shrub Tree Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar Tree Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree 111 Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum, Red Gum Tree 2 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 1 1 15 5 20 1 1 1 Morus rubra Red Mulberry Tree Nyssa sylvatica Sour Gum, Black Gum Tree Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine Tree Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine Tree Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree 333111111222333 222222222 Prunus caroliniana Carolina Laurel Cherry Shrub Tree Prunus serotina Black Cherry Shrub Tree Quercus alba White Oak Tree Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Tree Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 222223222222111222111333 Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 222111111111 111111 Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 333333111112 111222 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree Rhus copallinum Winged Sumac Shrub Tree Rhus typhina Staghorn Sumac Shrub Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 1 1 1 222 Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub Tree 111 111 Sambucus nigra European Elder Shrub Tree Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 11 Ulmus americana American Elm Tree Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm, Red Elm Tree 9 9 9 11 11 11 11 11 37 12 12 21 10 10 30 9 9 9 11 11 11 9 9 9 11 11 11 333666889668556666666666555 364 364 364 445 445 445 445 445 1,497 486 486 850 405 405 1,214 364 364 364 445 445 445 364 364 364 445 445 445 Final success criteria is 210 stems per acre PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P‐All: Number of planted stems including live stakes T: Total stems Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Stem count Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Exceeds requirements by 10% Stems per acre Species count Size (acres) Size (ares) Current Plot Data (MY7 2023) Volunteers included 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.02470.0247 0.0247 0.0247 1111111 Vegetation Plot 13 Vegetation Plot 14 Vegetation Plot 15 Vegetation Plot 16 Vegetation Plot 17 Vegetation Plot 18Vegetation Plot 10 Vegetation Plot 11 Vegetation Plot 12 11 Table 9c. Planted and Total Stems Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T Acer negundo Boxelder Tree Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 1 Ailanthus altissima Tree‐of‐Heaven Tree Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder Shrub Tree Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 2 2 2 111222222222 111222 Carya Hickory Tree Carya ovata Common Shagbark Hickory Tree Castanea dentata American Chestnut Tree Cercis canadensis Redbud Shrub Tree Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree Fagus grandifolia American Beech Tree Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 222333222333333222333333222 Hamamelis virginiana Witch‐hazel Shrub Tree Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar Tree Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum, Red Gum Tree Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree Morus rubra Red Mulberry Tree Nyssa sylvatica Sour Gum, Black Gum Tree Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine Tree Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine Tree Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree 333333333111333 333333333 Prunus caroliniana Carolina Laurel Cherry Shrub Tree Prunus serotina Black Cherry Shrub Tree Quercus alba White Oak Tree Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Tree 1 1 1 Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 222111111 222222111333222 Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 222111111111111 111 Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 222111111333222333222222111 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree Rhus copallinum Winged Sumac Shrub Tree Rhus typhina Staghorn Sumac Shrub Salix nigra Black Willow Tree Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub Tree Sambucus nigra European Elder Shrub Tree Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree Ulmus americana American Elm Tree Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm, Red Elm Tree 11 11 11 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 13 13 13 10 10 10 10 10 10 12 12 12 11 11 11 555556666555666555555555666 445 445 445 364 364 405 405 405 405 405 405 405 526 526 526 405 405 405 405 405 405 486 486 486 445 445 445 Final success criteria is 210 stems per acre PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P‐All: Number of planted stems including live stakes T: Total stems Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Current Plot Data (MY7 2023) Species count Stems per acre Exceeds requirements by 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Volunteers included Stem count Size (ares) Size (acres)0.0247 0.0247 0.02470.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 111111111 Vegetation Plot 25 Vegetation Plot 26 Vegetation Plot 27Vegetation Plot 19 Vegetation Plot 20 Vegetation Plot 21 Vegetation Plot 22 Vegetation Plot 23 Vegetation Plot 24 Table 9d. Planted and Total Stems Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T Acer negundo Boxelder Tree Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 30 Ailanthus altissima Tree‐of‐Heaven Tree Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder Shrub Tree Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 3 3 3 3 3 3 222111 3330 Carya Hickory Tree Carya ovata Common Shagbark Hickory Tree Castanea dentata American Chestnut Tree Cercis canadensis Redbud Shrub Tree Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree Fagus grandifolia American Beech Tree Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 444111333333333333222112222 Hamamelis virginiana Witch‐hazel Shrub Tree Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar Tree Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum, Red Gum Tree 10 6 18 50 17 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 5 1 12 50 17 Morus rubra Red Mulberry Tree Nyssa sylvatica Sour Gum, Black Gum Tree Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine Tree Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine Tree Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree 3331112223383352221123332215 Prunus caroliniana Carolina Laurel Cherry Shrub Tree Prunus serotina Black Cherry Shrub Tree Quercus alba White Oak Tree 5 Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Tree Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 666111333111111223222 Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 111111111111111 111 Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 222222333 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree Rhus copallinum Winged Sumac Shrub Tree Rhus typhina Staghorn Sumac Shrub Salix nigra Black Willow Tree Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub Tree Sambucus nigra European Elder Shrub Tree Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 115 Ulmus americana American Elm Tree Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm, Red Elm Tree 1 111111888111111101035101019111143101012766788112 4443336664475576610669333447 445 445 445 324 324 324 445 445 445 405 405 1,416 405 405 769 445 445 1,740 405 405 5,140 243 243 283 324 324 4,532 Final success criteria is 210 stems per acre PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P‐All: Number of planted stems including live stakes T: Total stems Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Current Plot Data (MY7 2023) Stems per acre Exceeds requirements by 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Volunteers included 0.0247 0.0247 Stem count Size (ares) Size (acres) Species count 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 111111111 Vegetation Plot 31 Vegetation Plot 32 Vegetation Plot 33 Vegetation Plot 34 Vegetation Plot 35 Vegetation Plot 36Vegetation Plot 28 Vegetation Plot 29 Vegetation Plot 30 Table 9e. Planted and Total Stems Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Scientific Name Common Name Species Type PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T PnoLS P‐all T Acer negundo Boxelder Tree 33 Acer rubrum Red Maple Tree 31 1 1 23 134 188 215 Ailanthus altissima Tree‐of‐Heaven Tree 5 Alnus serrulata Tag Alder, Smooth Alder Shrub Tree 12 1 Betula nigra River Birch, Red Birch Tree 111111222 555594555578444475474770676792989898 Carya Hickory Tree 7 Carya ovata Common Shagbark Hickory Tree 3 Castanea dentata American Chestnut Tree 1 1111111 Cercis canadensis Redbud Shrub Tree 22 Diospyros virginiana American Persimmon Tree 222223 1 1 Fagus grandifolia American Beech Tree 199 Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash, Red Ash Tree 222444333111 100100102103103107101101102103103104105105105107107107 Hamamelis virginiana Witch‐hazel Shrub Tree 2 Juniperus virginiana Eastern Red Cedar Tree 11 Lindera benzoin Northern Spicebush Shrub Tree 111111 1 Liquidambar styraciflua Sweet Gum, Red Gum Tree 22 127 598 1321 188 100 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar Tree 8 222222 7715377380 518 444 319 Morus rubra Red Mulberry Tree 2 Nyssa sylvatica Sour Gum, Black Gum Tree 7111 Pinus strobus Eastern White Pine Tree 2 Pinus taeda Loblolly Pine Tree 22 Platanus occidentalis Sycamore, Plane‐tree Tree 444222111444 85851098484165828221683832249797202107107107 Prunus caroliniana Carolina Laurel Cherry Shrub Tree 1 Prunus serotina Black Cherry Shrub Tree 5 Quercus alba White Oak Tree 52 Quercus falcata Southern Red Oak Tree 111111112 Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree 2 Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak Tree 111111 111 595961595960626262686868979797109109109 Quercus pagoda Cherrybark Oak Tree 111111 111 252525252527292929363637636363757575 Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree 1 1 1 222111 575758626263616163707070939393107107107 Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree 8 Rhus copallinum Winged Sumac Shrub Tree 4912 Rhus typhina Staghorn Sumac Shrub 1 Salix nigra Black Willow Tree 111 44844135 96 8 31 Salix sericea Silky Willow Shrub Tree 731351 Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub Tree 111111 4444416 6 8 Sambucus nigra European Elder Shrub Tree 19 Ulmus alata Winged Elm Tree 15 46 215 126 238 Ulmus americana American Elm Tree 10 35 139 31 Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm, Red Elm Tree 140 10 10 55 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 400 400 839 409 409 1,997 381 381 3,024 407 407 1,726 522 522 1,530 603 603 603 669667666777 121219141425883066236614666 405 405 2,226 405 405 445 445 445 445 445 445 445 405 405 849 414 414 2,020 385 385 3,059 412 412 1,746 528 528 1,548 610 610 610 Final success criteria is 210 stems per acre PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P‐All: Number of planted stems including live stakes T: Total stems Fails to meet requirements by more than 10% Annual Means MY7 (2023) 40 0.9884 Current Plot Data (MY7 2023) 0.9884 0.9884 Exceeds requirements by 10% Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% Volunteers included Stem count Size (ares) Size (acres) Species count Stems per acre 0.0247 0.0247 0.0247 0.9884 0.9884 0.98840.0247 40 40 40 40 401111 Vegetation Plot 38 Vegetation Plot 39 Vegetation Plot 40 MY3 (2019) MY2 (2018) MY1 (2017) MY0 (2017)MY5 (2021)Vegetation Plot 37 Table 9f. Vegetation Summary Table Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Monitoring Year 7 9 9 364 18.8 Monitoring Year 7 9 9 364 11.6 Monitoring Year 7 8 8 324 13.7 Monitoring Year 7 8 8 324 12.0 Monitoring Year 5 10 17 405 12.4 Monitoring Year 5 9 30 364 7.6 Monitoring Year 5 8 49 324 8.0 Monitoring Year 5 9 23 364 7.4 Monitoring Year 3 10 24 405 6.3 Monitoring Year 3 9 53 364 3.3 Monitoring Year 3 9 75 364 3.3 Monitoring Year 3 9 26 364 4.0 Monitoring Year 2 10 43 405 4.4 Monitoring Year 2 10 46 405 3.3 Monitoring Year 2 10 43 405 2.4 Monitoring Year 2 9 26 364 2.8 Monitoring Year 1 15 21 607 2.1 Monitoring Year 1 15 65 607 1.9 Monitoring Year 1 15 56 607 1.4 Monitoring Year 1 15 55 607 2.1 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.2 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.0 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.1 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.0 Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Monitoring Year 7 11 11 445 12.8 Monitoring Year 7 8 27 324 16.8 Monitoring Year 7 10 25 405 11.8 Monitoring Year 7 10 25 405 11.7 Monitoring Year 5 10 28 405 7.8 Monitoring Year 5 8 14 324 11.5 Monitoring Year 5 10 38 405 8.7 Monitoring Year 5 10 25 405 7.5 Monitoring Year 3 8 50 324 4.4 Monitoring Year 3 6 26 243 5.4 Monitoring Year 3 10 74 405 4.7 Monitoring Year 3 9 38 364 39.0 Monitoring Year 2 10 48 405 3.1 Monitoring Year 2 7 112 283 3.8 Monitoring Year 2 10 45 405 2.9 Monitoring Year 2 12 37 486 2.3 Monitoring Year 1 12 57 486 2.0 Monitoring Year 1 8 55 324 2.2 Monitoring Year 1 12 62 486 1.6 Monitoring Year 1 13 48 526 1.7 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.1 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.2 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.2 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.3 Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Monitoring Year 7 11 11 445 12.3 Monitoring Year 7 9 9 364 12.3 Monitoring Year 7 11 11 445 13.7 Monitoring Year 7 11 37 445 17.2 Monitoring Year 5 11 37 445 6.9 Monitoring Year 5 9 38 364 8.4 Monitoring Year 5 12 45 486 7.7 Monitoring Year 5 11 45 445 8.4 Monitoring Year 3 11 77 445 34.0 Monitoring Year 3 9 47 364 4.6 Monitoring Year 3 12 42 486 3.8 Monitoring Year 3 7 52 283 4.2 Monitoring Year 2 11 26 445 2.4 Monitoring Year 2 9 30 364 3.3 Monitoring Year 2 12 23 486 2.9 Monitoring Year 2 7 19 283 2.2 Monitoring Year 1 12 32 486 2.0 Monitoring Year 1 11 38 445 2.0 Monitoring Year 1 14 24 567 1.8 Monitoring Year 1 14 17 567 2.3 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.3 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.1 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.1 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.4 Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Monitoring Year 7 12 21 486 12.1 Monitoring Year 7 10 30 405 17.2 Monitoring Year 7 9 9 364 10.0 Monitoring Year 7 11 11 445 16.8 Monitoring Year 5 12 58 486 7.5 Monitoring Year 5 10 21 405 12.0 Monitoring Year 5 10 11 405 6.5 Monitoring Year 5 11 41 445 10.9 Monitoring Year 3 10 56 405 3.8 Monitoring Year 3 11 39 445 6.3 Monitoring Year 3 5 11 202 3.9 Monitoring Year 3 11 74 445 5.4 Monitoring Year 2 12 38 486 2.5 Monitoring Year 2 11 53 445 4.3 Monitoring Year 2 7 13 283 2.4 Monitoring Year 2 11 58 445 3.4 Monitoring Year 1 13 73 526 1.8 Monitoring Year 1 12 47 486 2.3 Monitoring Year 1 9 14 364 1.4 Monitoring Year 1 12 37 486 2.1 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.2 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.5 Monitoring Year 0 18 18 728 2.2 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.1 Final success criteria is 210 stems per acre (MY7); 320 stems/acre (MY3); 260 stems/acre (MY5) "Planted" includeds only stems that count towards the final success criteria. "Total Stems" includes volunteers and species that don't count towards the final success criteria Vegetation Plot 16Vegetation Plot 13 Vegetation Plot 14 Vegetation Plot 15 Vegetation Plot 4 Vegetation Plot 8 Vegetation Plot 12Vegetation Plot 9 Vegetation Plot 10 Vegetation Plot 3 Vegetation Plot 7 Vegetation Plot 11 Vegetation Plot 1 Vegetation Plot 2 Vegetation Plot 5 Vegetation Plot 6 Table 9g. Vegetation Performance Standard Summary Table Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Monitoring Year 7 9 9 364 13.5 Monitoring Year 7 11 11 445 13.2 Monitoring Year 7 11 11 445 15.5 Monitoring Year 7 9 10 364 12.8 Monitoring Year 5 9 9 364 8.7 Monitoring Year 5 11 32 445 7.0 Monitoring Year 5 12 27 486 7.6 Monitoring Year 5 10 81 405 8.1 Monitoring Year 3 7 9 283 4.6 Monitoring Year 3 6 24 243 4.0 Monitoring Year 3 13 21 526 3.9 Monitoring Year 3 6 63 243 4.1 Monitoring Year 2 7 8 283 2.9 Monitoring Year 2 7 11 283 2.7 Monitoring Year 2 15 13 607 2.6 Monitoring Year 2 8 23 324 2.3 Monitoring Year 1 11 12 445 2.1 Monitoring Year 1 13 13 526 1.8 Monitoring Year 1 15 15 607 1.7 Monitoring Year 1 14 44 567 1.9 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 1.9 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.1 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.2 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.0 Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Monitoring Year 7 10 10 405 14.2 Monitoring Year 7 10 10 405 12.8 Monitoring Year 7 13 13 526 8.2 Monitoring Year 7 10 10 405 12.4 Monitoring Year 5 10 44 405 7.8 Monitoring Year 5 10 79 405 5.8 Monitoring Year 5 13 57 526 5.8 Monitoring Year 5 10 77 405 6.5 Monitoring Year 3 10 26 405 3.8 Monitoring Year 3 8 64 324 3.3 Monitoring Year 3 13 88 526 3.6 Monitoring Year 3 10 28 405 3.0 Monitoring Year 2 11 17 445 2.3 Monitoring Year 2 10 20 405 2.0 Monitoring Year 2 13 16 526 2.9 Monitoring Year 2 10 15 405 2.0 Monitoring Year 1 15 15 607 1.6 Monitoring Year 1 14 14 567 1.7 Monitoring Year 1 15 15 607 2.0 Monitoring Year 1 15 15 607 1.8 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.2 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.0 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.2 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.1 Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Monitoring Year 7 10 10 405 13.8 Monitoring Year 7 12 12 486 11.7 Monitoring Year 7 11 11 445 10.7 Monitoring Year 7 11 11 445 14.7 Monitoring Year 5 10 59 405 7.8 Monitoring Year 5 12 38 486 7.6 Monitoring Year 5 11 35 445 6.7 Monitoring Year 5 12 64 486 8.1 Monitoring Year 3 10 64 405 4.2 Monitoring Year 3 12 14 486 4.0 Monitoring Year 3 11 33 445 3.6 Monitoring Year 3 13 112 526 4.9 Monitoring Year 2 11 22 445 2.8 Monitoring Year 2 13 13 526 2.5 Monitoring Year 2 11 14 445 2.2 Monitoring Year 2 13 91 526 3.5 Monitoring Year 1 14 14 567 2.0 Monitoring Year 1 13 13 526 2.2 Monitoring Year 1 15 15 607 1.7 Monitoring Year 1 15 57 607 2.5 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.0 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.1 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.0 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.1 Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Monitoring Year 7 8 8 324 9.7 Monitoring Year 7 11 11 445 19.9 Monitoring Year 7 10 35 405 21.3 Monitoring Year 7 10 19 405 11.8 Monitoring Year 5 10 51 405 7.1 Monitoring Year 5 11 18 445 13.8 Monitoring Year 5 10 112 405 14.6 Monitoring Year 5 10 16 405 8.8 Monitoring Year 3 10 69 405 4.0 Monitoring Year 3 8 21 324 6.5 Monitoring Year 3 11 106 445 6.6 Monitoring Year 3 10 26 405 4.7 Monitoring Year 2 11 71 445 2.7 Monitoring Year 2 7 21 283 4.3 Monitoring Year 2 11 86 445 3.7 Monitoring Year 2 10 15 405 3.1 Monitoring Year 1 12 49 486 1.9 Monitoring Year 1 9 12 364 2.5 Monitoring Year 1 15 45 607 2.1 Monitoring Year 1 12 18 486 1.9 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 1.8 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.3 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 1.9 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.0 Final success criteria is 210 stems per acre (MY7); 320 stems/acre (MY3); 260 stems/acre (MY5) "Planted" includeds only stems that count towards the final success criteria. "Total Stems" includes volunteers and species that don't count towards the final success criteria Vegetation Plot 31 Vegetation Plot 32 Vegetation Plot 24 Vegetation Plot 25 Vegetation Plot 26 Vegetation Plot 27 Vegetation Plot 28 Vegetation Plot 19 Vegetation Plot 20 Vegetation Plot 21 Vegetation Plot 22 Vegetation Plot 23 Vegetation Plot 17 Vegetation Plot 18 Vegetation Plot 29 Vegetation Plot 30 Table 9h. Vegetation Performance Standard Summary Table Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Monitoring Year 7 11 43 445 6.0 Monitoring Year 7 10 127 405 6.7 Monitoring Year 7 6 7 243 21.4 Monitoring Year 7 8 112 324 19.9 Monitoring Year 5 11 54 445 3.0 Monitoring Year 5 11 136 445 5.0 Monitoring Year 5 5 5 202 12.6 Monitoring Year 5 8 8 324 13.8 Monitoring Year 3 11 27 445 2.2 Monitoring Year 3 12 117 486 3.0 Monitoring Year 3 7 7 283 4.3 Monitoring Year 3 10 154 405 4.6 Monitoring Year 2 11 36 445 1.8 Monitoring Year 2 12 77 486 2.1 Monitoring Year 2 7 9 283 2.6 Monitoring Year 2 10 142 405 2.9 Monitoring Year 1 14 29 567 1.8 Monitoring Year 1 15 75 607 2.0 Monitoring Year 1 11 11 445 2.1 Monitoring Year 1 11 67 445 1.8 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.3 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.2 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.2 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.0 Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Planted Stems Total Stems Planted Stems/Ac. Planted Av. Ht. (ft) Monitoring Year 7 10 55 405 12.2 Monitoring Year 7 11 11 445 12.4 Monitoring Year 7 11 11 445 20.2 Monitoring Year 7 11 11 445 24.0 Monitoring Year 5 10 229 405 7.4 Monitoring Year 5 11 32 445 6.9 Monitoring Year 5 11 140 445 12.6 Monitoring Year 5 11 74 445 11.3 Monitoring Year 3 11 981 445 3.2 Monitoring Year 3 9 51 364 3.4 Monitoring Year 3 9 64 364 5.5 Monitoring Year 3 7 90 283 4.0 Monitoring Year 2 11 76 445 2.3 Monitoring Year 2 12 60 486 2.4 Monitoring Year 2 9 110 364 3.4 Monitoring Year 2 11 98 445 2.2 Monitoring Year 1 12 72 486 1.8 Monitoring Year 1 12 49 486 1.7 Monitoring Year 1 14 54 567 1.9 Monitoring Year 1 14 106 567 1.9 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 1.9 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 1.9 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.2 Monitoring Year 0 15 15 607 2.0 Final success criteria is 210 stems per acre (MY7); 320 stems/acre (MY3); 260 stems/acre (MY5) "Planted" includeds only stems that count towards the final success criteria. "Total Stems" includes volunteers and species that don't count towards the final success criteria. Vegetation Plot 38 Vegetation Plot 39 Vegetation Plot 40 Vegetation Plot 34 Vegetation Plot 35 Vegetation Plot 36Vegetation Plot 33 Vegetation Plot 37 APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Reach 1 Parameter Gage Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Bankfull Width (ft) 8.7 9.4 11.9 20.1 14.8 18.6 10.7 11.2 11.9 12.8 Floodprone Width (ft) 11 16 60 >114 23 53 30 68 37 84 53 97 Bankfull Mean Depth 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.7 1.3 2.1 1.6 1.8 0.5 0.7 Bankfull Max Depth 1.7 1.8 3.3 4.2 1.9 2.9 2.1 2.6 1.0 1.2 Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)12.1 12.3 25.0 34.6 17.8 19.7 5.7 8.9 Width/Depth Ratio 6.2 7.2 4.4 12.1 7.9 13.8 5.8 7.1 18.4 25.3 Entrenchment Ratio1 1.2 1.7 2.0 3.0 5.5 >10.2 2.2 5.0 2.2 5.0 2.2 5.0 4.4 8.1 Bank Height Ratio2 3.8 3.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.5 D50 (mm) Riffle Length (ft)11 55 7 59 17 29 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.007 0.031 0.003 0.008 0.012 0.013 0.061 0.089 0.005 0.078 0.007 0.047 0.007 0.023 0.002 0.055 0.006 0.017 0.007 0.017 Pool Length (ft)18 70 19 57 Pool Max Depth (ft)0.9 2.4 1.2 3.0 1.4 3.7 2.1 3.0 Pool Spacing (ft) 20 57 32 80 50 105 26 81 23 85 30 106 37 118 23 102 53 110 Pool Volume (ft3) Channel Beltwidth (ft)38 41 28 94 39 121 50 150 19 47 25 58 Radius of Curvature (ft) 16 87 11 15 16 34 20 44 25 54 17 38 22 44 Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.1 4.7 1.3 1.4 1.5 3.2 1.5 3.2 1.5 3.2 1.6 3.0 1.4 2.6 Meander Length (ft)53 148 68 190 84 235 32 92 65 110 Meander Width Ratio 5.0 14.0 5 14.0 5.0 14.0 3.1 6.4 3.6 6.2 Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.28 0.41 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2 Drainage Area (SM) Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%) Rosgen Classification Bankfull Velocity (fps) 5.3 5.4 3.6 4.0 4.9 5.4 2.7 4.2 Bankfull Discharge (cfs) 115 150 101 124 Q‐NFF regression (2‐yr) Q‐USGS extrapolation (1.2‐yr) Q‐Mannings Valley Length (ft) Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2 0.004 0.021 0.006 0.012 Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles (‐‐‐): Data was not provided N/A: Not Applicable 1Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width 2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.010 0.009 0.008 SC/0.34/2.8/72/168/256 0.15/0.9/15/83/129/256 0.005 0.006 17.1 3.3 3.2 40 160 2.4 54 17.0 292 1.2 2.3 20.3 14.3 164 0.9 1.8 13.9 18.6 10.2 ‐‐‐ 550 0.9 ‐‐‐ 1% 1% 0.24 C/E 3.2 C/E 0.880.22 Additional Reach Parameters Candy Creek Reach 1 (118+91 ‐ 125+27) Candy Creek Reach 1 (125+27 ‐ 126+27) 1.01.0 ‐‐‐ 16.1 16.3 9.1 60 >50 13.2 >3.4 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Candy Creek Reach 1 (100+08 ‐ 118+91) 1% 0.22 0.24 ‐‐‐ 1.0 0.45 Candy Creek Reach 1 (125+27 ‐ 126+27) 0.45 As‐Built/Baseline ‐‐‐ 1.5 ‐‐‐ 1% 16.8 ‐‐‐ 1.0 1,615 636 1,883‐‐‐1,894 1,615 100 0.010 1.171.17 1.16 1.14 88 0.008 0.009 42 24 3.23.3 65 3.0 42 3.2 ‐‐‐ E4 E4b E4 85 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2.30 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1.30 ‐‐‐ 3.05.5 ‐‐‐ 0.96 ‐‐‐ 97 ‐‐‐ 1.10 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐0.6/3.0/8.8/42.0/90/‐‐‐ N/A 1.68 1% 0.012 3.9 1.10 N/A ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2.4 2.2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 71 2.2 N/A Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters N/A ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 0.8 Design N/A 1.2 6.0 12.2 UT to Rocky Creek 1.0 Long Branch Pre‐Restoration Condition 10.6 Reference Reach Data Collins Creek Candy Creek Reach 1 (100+08 ‐ 118+91) 14.0 Dimension and Substrate ‐ Shallow Candy Creek Reach 1 (118+91 ‐ 125+27)Spencer Creek Reach 2 1.0 Candy Creek Reach 1 72 1.3 1.2 1.8 ‐‐‐ 0.45 ‐‐‐ 13.6 19.9 14.2 1.8 1.0 SC/0.35/0.9/62/114/512 1.0 Pattern ‐‐‐ 1.49 C/E4 0.88 ‐‐‐ G4c 1% ‐‐‐0.57/1.4/2.4/15.3/26/45 ‐‐‐ N/A ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.73 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 60 2.1 N/A N/A N/A ‐‐‐ 2,887 1.27 ‐‐‐ 6565 0.009 24 2,268 13.7 8.232.9 2.4 2.8 14.6 3.3 52 N/A 1.0 0.013 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A 550 88 636 1.16 100 1.14 C4 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.40 0.63 C/E 0.88 1% Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Reaches 2 and 3 Parameter Gage Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Bankfull Width (ft) 18.2 19.4 15.3 17.6 16.1 19.5 Floodprone Width (ft) 27 99+ 24 60 39 88 37 85 44 100 154 254 Bankfull Mean Depth 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.0 1.2 Bankfull Max Depth 1.8 2.4 2.2 2.4 1.9 2.1 Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)23.4 27.9 25.8 27.6 16.2 23.3 Width/Depth Ratio 11.9 16.2 9.1 11.2 13.3 16.3 Entrenchment Ratio1 1.4 3.2+ 1.4 3.9 2.2 5.0 2.2 5.0 2.2 5.0 9.5 15.8 Bank Height Ratio2 1.3 2.4 1.8 2.3 D50 (mm) Riffle Length (ft)24 63 14 60 10 61 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.005 0.010 0.004 0.035 0.011 0.035 0.006 0.013 0.001 0.019 0.001 0.019 0.001 0.035 Pool Length (ft)23 101 23 58 22 53 Pool Max Depth (ft)1.5 3.9 1.5 3.8 2.1 4.2 3.3 3.5 Pool Spacing (ft) 16 68 39 124 37 119 40 130 59 146 55 136 49 97 Pool Volume (ft3) Channel Beltwidth (ft)48 156 38 151 31 72 23 68 Radius of Curvature (ft)26 56 26 54 20 107 27 42 Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.5 3.2 1.5 3.2 1.1 4.5 1.3 1.9 Meander Length (ft)88 245 85 238 81 171 54 121 Meander Width Ratio 2.2 8.9 2.2 8.9 1.4 3.0 1.1 3.0 Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.40 0.48 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2 Drainage Area (SM) Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%) Rosgen Classification Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.6 4.3 3.4 3.6 3.2 4.6 Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Q‐NFF regression (2‐yr) Q‐USGS extrapolation (1.2‐yr) Q‐Mannings Valley Length (ft) Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2 0.004 0.009 0.004 0.005 Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles (‐‐‐): Data was not provided N/A: Not Applicable 1Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width 2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel 3.5 3.3 19.2 57 1.5 2.3 28.2 13.1 N/A 1,679 1.23 1,363 3.9 N/A 4.1 1.26 85 93 0.007 0.007 0.009 Pattern N/A 0.007 SC/0.17/0.4/93/146/256 511 1.23 16.7 1.2 1.8 13.5 Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters N/A 2.1 28.0 14.3 1.0 20.0 1.4 0.93 ‐‐‐ N/A N/A ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2.7 N/A N/A ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A C/E 1% 1% 1.26 1.26 C5C5 C5 0.93 1.08 1.08 Candy Creek Reach 2 (126+27 ‐ 143+06) Candy Creek Reach 2 (143+06 ‐ 148+02) Candy Creek Reach 2 (143+06 ‐ 148+02) 21.8 20.9 N/A N/A Reference Reach DataPre‐Restoration Condition Candy Creek Reach 3 (149+02 ‐ 155+05) Candy Creek Reach 2 (126+27 ‐ 143+06) Candy Creek Reach 3 (149+02 ‐ 155+05)Candy Creek Reach 2 Candy Creek Reach 3 See Table 7a Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle N/A 17.5 17.0 164 1.2 1.2 1.9 1.9 1.0 1.0 20.8 14.0 13.8 9.8 1.01.0 1.0 3.0 0.5 1.0 N/A 0.8 N/A ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.42 N/A SC/0.3/0.8/9.1/13.9/23 N/A 0.50See Table 10a SC/0.21/0.5/72/117/362 SC/0.27/1.0/113/148/256 0.50 1.08 1.26 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Additional Reach Parameters N/A 1% 1% 1% 1% F5 G4c 1% 1% C/E C/E 93 75 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 85 426 490 1,780 671 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1,387 551 0.008 0.004 603 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1.23 0.009 1.22 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ See Table 10a 536 1.28 0.006 0.018 1,679 536 8593 1.23 1.26 1,363 426 3.5 4.0 N/A N/A N/A 75 3.2 N/A Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary Design As‐Built/Baseline 0.4 N/A See Table 10a See Table 10a See Table 10a N/A 0.58 0.005 628 N/A Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Reach 4 Parameter Gage Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Bankfull Width (ft) 11.4 14.1 19.1 24.9 21.7 23.2 Floodprone Width (ft) 17 21 77 176 70 120 158 222 132 155 Bankfull Mean Depth 1.5 1.8 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 Bankfull Max Depth 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.9 2.5 2.9 Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)20.4 21.5 26.9 38.1 31.6 32.8 Width/Depth Ratio 6.4 9.2 13.6 16.3 14.4 17.1 Entrenchment Ratio1 1.5 1.5 3.5 8.0 3.5 6.0 7.1 11.6 6.1 6.7 Bank Height Ratio2 1.9 2.3 D50 (mm) Riffle Length (ft)14 74 15 53 Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.006 0.020 0.011 0.039 0.003 0.022 0.004 0.025 Pool Length (ft)20 125 22 71 Pool Max Depth (ft) 2.9 4.4 2.7 4.1 4.5 4.6 Pool Spacing (ft)88 154 26 132 40 145 52 111 Pool Volume (ft3) Channel Beltwidth (ft)66 154 30 100 66 154 30 100 Radius of Curvature (ft)25 55 25 50 25 55 25 50 Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.2 2.5 1.3 2.5 1.2 2.5 1.3 2.5 Meander Length (ft)84 220 80 220 84 220 80 220 Meander Width Ratio 3.0 7.0 1.5 5.0 3.0 7.0 1.5 5.0 Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.40 0.44 0.85 0.83 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2 Drainage Area (SM) Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%) Rosgen Classification Bankfull Velocity (fps) 4.9 5.2 3.2 3.3 Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Q‐NFF regression (2‐yr) Q‐USGS extrapolation (1.2‐yr) Q‐Mannings Valley Length (ft) Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2 0.004 0.008 0.009 0.013 Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles (‐‐‐): Data was not provided N/A: Not Applicable 1Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width 2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel 1.30 C5 3.3 1.40 C/E ‐‐‐ Pre‐Restoration Condition Reference Reach Data Design Dimension and Substrate ‐ Riffle Candy Creek Reach 4 (196+50 ‐ 206+35) N/A See Table 10a Table 10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary As‐Built/Baseline Candy Creek Reach 4 See Table 7a Candy Creek Reach 4 (170+71 ‐ 196+50) Candy Creek Reach 4 (196+50 ‐ 206+35) Candy Creek Reach 4 (170+71 ‐ 196+50) 22.0 20.0 1.5 1.4 2.2 2.0 32.1 27.2 15.1 14.7 4.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 N/A 2.2 0.60.4 1.0 See Table 10a ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2.8 N/A N/A Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A See Table 10a See Table 10a N/A ‐‐‐ 0.09/0.26/0.6/49/111/180 0.46 0.46 ‐‐‐ SC/0.15/0.4/64/180/256 1.40 0.3/0.7/2.2/14/28/256 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.69 Additional Reach Parameters N/A 1.46 See Table 10a ‐‐‐ 1.46 1.46 1% 1.30 1% 1% 1% G4c C/E C5 1% ‐‐‐ 3.3 4.0 105 2,579 105 105 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.005 3,359 2,575 983 985 2,847 1,976 744 7451,981 0.008‐‐‐0.005 0.012 1.18 1.32 ‐‐‐0.010 1.32 0.005 Table 10d. Baseline Stream Data Summary Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 UT1C and UT1D Parameter Gage Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Bankfull Width (ft) 9.3 10.5 6.3 9.3 9.1 10.4 8.8 10.4 Floodprone Width (ft) 20 64 14 125 28 31 13 29 8 18 Bankfull Mean Depth 1.1 1.2 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.2 0.8 0.9 Bankfull Max Depth 1.5 1.7 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)10.3 12.3 6.6 8.7 10.7 11.3 7.8 8.5 Width/Depth Ratio 8.1 9.3 7.9 9.3 7.3 10.1 10.0 12.8 Entrenchment Ratio1 1.9 6.1 1.7 4.3 2.5 4.0 2.2 5.0 2.2 5.0 Bank Height Ratio2 0.9 1.0 1.4 2.1 D50 (mm) Riffle Length (ft)343462 Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.024 0.057 0.018 0.034 0.021 0.045 0.030 0.050 0.006 0.112 0.003 0.082 0.002 0.085 Pool Length (ft)5.0 20.0 4.0 15.0 Pool Max Depth (ft) 2.5 2.6 1.2 1.8 0.7 1.3 0.5 0.8 Pool Spacing (ft) 8 82 9 46 8 29 5 26 6 51 6 33 Pool Volume (ft3) Channel Beltwidth (ft) 15 45 10 50 21 93 Radius of Curvature (ft) 8 47 12 85 14 60 Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 0.6 3.2 1.9 9.1 1.5 5.8 Meander Length (ft)53 178 Meander Width Ratio 1.0 3.0 1.6 5.4 2.3 8.9 Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2 Drainage Area (SM) Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%) Rosgen Classification Bankfull Velocity (fps) 4.4 5.2 5 5.6 2.2 2.4 3.5 4.1 Bankfull Discharge (cfs)29 32 Q‐NFF regression (2‐yr) Q‐USGS extrapolation (1.2‐yr) Q‐Mannings Valley Length (ft) Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity 1.00 1.30 Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2 0.006 0.075 Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles (‐‐‐): Data was not provided N/A: Not Applicable 1Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width 2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel 0.0450.028 N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.5 0.84 1.48 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.0 1.7 1.1 7.8 0.5 0.9 15.0 7.6 15 0.5 0.8 3.8 15.4 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A N/A ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ 688 436 N/A N/A N/A N/A SC/0.1/0.3/2.9/5.2/16 1.15 378 <1% 3.7 11.2 5.3 1.2 2 12 1.3 1.7 7.2 2.5 54 35 1.0 C5 0.01 N/A N/A ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ‐‐‐ 0.8 Reference Reach Data Design UT1C UT to Varnals Creek Spencer Creek Reach 3 Agony Acres UT1‐Reach 3 3.8 UT to Richland Creek UT1CUT1D UT1D Dimension and Substrate ‐ Shallow UT1D N/A 5.8 3.7 36+ 8.7 UT1C 2.1 4.0 28 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.31.8 6.4 1.0 1.0 34 0.6 1.0 1.0 16.0 16.1 >3.9 3.6 2.1 1.0 0.3 1.0 0.3 12.8 31.2 N/A ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A N/A 2.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AN/A Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters N/A 0.50 SC/SC/0.3/9.4/30/90 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.9/8.9/11/64/128/‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.39 SC/0.39/12.8/82/117/180 0.3/6.1/31/57/78/128 2.70 0.31 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Additional Reach Parameters N/A 0.04 0.41 0.37 0.30 0.28 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.01 1%‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1% <1% 1% B/C <1% E5b B E4 E4 C4/E4 B/C B/C B/C 3.0 1.5 N/A 0.8 0.5 6 25 6262 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐684 ‐‐‐740 385 728 379 370 672 0.052 1.04 1.08 1.04 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐0.028 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐0.040 Pre‐Restoration Condition 1.08 728 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ As‐Built/Baseline 0.028 0.051 1.06 1.20 1.35 4.5 1.00 363 ‐‐‐ Table 10e. Baseline Stream Data Summary Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 UT2 and UT2A Parameter Gage Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Bankfull Width (ft) 3.1 6.7 4.8 7.5 Floodprone Width (ft) 4 9 19 82 16 28 10 18 22 47 Bankfull Mean Depth 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.9 Bankfull Max Depth 0.8 1.0 0.4 1.5 Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)2.4 3.0 1.2 6.8 Width/Depth Ratio 4.0 14.9 8.3 18.5 Entrenchment Ratio1 1.1 1.3 3.0 12.8 2.1 3.7 2.2 3.9 2.9 9.8 Bank Height Ratio2 4.3 4.9 D50 (mm) Riffle Length (ft)4 68 7 80 3 102 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.003 0.110 0.011 0.070 0.017 0.032 0.035 0.065 0.004 0.063 0.001 0.055 0.019 0.071 Pool Length (ft)4181162412 Pool Max Depth (ft)1.0 1.9 1.0 2.0 0.6 1.0 1.5 2.1 Pool Spacing (ft) 22 116 84217536308451351755 Pool Volume (ft3) Channel Beltwidth (ft)10 25 Radius of Curvature (ft)17 54 Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)3.7 9.2 Meander Length (ft)21 68 Meander Width Ratio 2.2 5.6 Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.31 1.05 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2 Drainage Area (SM) Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%) Rosgen Classification Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.0 3.7 1.3 7.5 Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Q‐NFF regression (2‐yr) Q‐USGS extrapolation (1.2‐yr) Q‐Mannings Valley Length (ft) Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2 0.010 0.035 0.014 0.016 0.032 0.036 0.021 0.031 Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)0.023 0.032 SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles (‐‐‐): Data was not provided N/A: Not Applicable 1Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width 2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel 591 643 4.5 ‐‐‐ 0.038 1.5 0.015 0.014 1.7 1,168 5% 2.3 0.040 4.6 0.4 0.3 16.3 1.0 1,208 0.02 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3% 0.10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.3 8.3 1.4 3.8 3.1 N/A 15.1 1.0 2.8 N/A N/A N/A0.1 5.7 N/A 0.4 Reference Reach Data 0.6 0.4 0.9 See Table 7d 79 UT2 ‐ Reach 2 Design UT2A 1.2 6.6 7.5 0.6 Dimension and Substrate ‐ Shallow As‐Built/Baseline UT2 ‐ Reach 1 14.4 UT2 ‐ Reach 1 UT2A 34.6 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 11.9 4.4 7.8 UT2A 1.0 0.5 0.6 0.8 2.7 3.9 UT2 ‐ Reach 1 UT2 ‐ Reach 2 5.2 N/A N/A 1.0 See Table 10d ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ See Table 10d 6.4 1.3 N/A N/A N/A 1.1 N/A N/A N/A Pattern N/A N/A N/A See Table 10d N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.80 See Table 10d 0.95 3% 0.27/1.1/2.5/47/76/180 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 3% See Table 10d 0.07 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 3.6 3.5 9 4 ‐‐‐ 3.1 2.9 C5G5cB 12 4 C4 C5 49 B 12 3581,168 1,279 1,208 645 366349 3401,105 595 0.039 1.23 1.10 1.021.091.03 1.03 1.09 G5 ‐‐‐ 12 C/E 341 ‐‐‐ 3.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters N/A ‐‐‐ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ‐‐‐ 0.35/6.0/34.6/70/90/256 0.2/0.7/5/56/161/>2048 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 376 F5 731 ‐‐‐ 9 SC/SC/0.1/22.6 /36.7/90 1.16 Pre‐Restoration Condition ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.10 0.02 3% 5% ‐‐‐ UT2 ‐ Reach 2 1.0 7.7 1.0 7.0 3160 0.5 0.8 4.1 14.9 0.6 1.0 0.45 1.32 4.1 2.5 N/A N/A Additional Reach Parameters N/A 0.07 ‐‐‐0.038 0.019 1.02 ‐‐‐ 1.0 591 0.07 0.10 5%3% 0.02 3% Table 10f. Baseline Stream Data Summary Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 UT3, UT4, and UT5 Parameter Gage Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Bankfull Width (ft)11.5 15.1 9.7 10.6 Floodprone Width (ft)17 100 24 135 22 100 98 288 83 229 Bankfull Mean Depth 0.9 1.1 0.6 0.8 Bankfull Max Depth 1.6 2.1 0.9 1.3 Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)11.0 15.2 6.0 8.8 Width/Depth Ratio 10.2 15.0 12.8 15.5 Entrenchment Ratio1 2.2 12.8 2.2 12.3 2.2 10.2 6.5 25.0 8.6 21.6 Bank Height Ratio2 D50 (mm) Riffle Length (ft)8 20 8 69 11 28 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.011 0.072 0.011 0.064 0.020 0.012 0.012 0.092 0.003 0.018 0.003 0.035 0.007 0.057 0.000 0.072 0.000 0.027 Pool Length (ft)8 24 9 42 12 39 Pool Max Depth (ft)1.1 2.1 1.7 2.6 1.5 2.4 1.1 2.7 2.3 2.9 Pool Spacing (ft) 6 43 12 42 9 54 17 43 28 66 25 64 24 33 24 123 26 65 Pool Volume (ft3) Channel Beltwidth (ft)6 161028 9 64 7 1910451039 Radius of Curvature (ft)10 27 14 28 13 49 12 24 12 33 11 48 Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)1.3 3.5 1.3 2.5 1.3 5.0 1.1 2.1 1.1 2.1 0.8 3.6 Meander Length (ft)41 101 39 105 54 127 28 76 31 72 34 71 Meander Width Ratio 0.8 2.0 0.9 2.5 0.9 6.5 0.8 1.7 0.7 2.7 0.9 2.2 Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft2 0.30 0.32 0.23 0.30 Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2 Drainage Area (SM) Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%) Rosgen Classification Bankfull Velocity (fps)2.0 2.7 2.5 3.7 Bankfull Discharge (cfs) Q‐NFF regression (2‐yr) Q‐USGS extrapolation (1.2‐yr) Q‐Mannings Valley Length (ft) Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2 0.011 0.032 0.003 0.012 0.002 0.010 Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)0.016 0.032 SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles (‐‐‐): Data was not provided N/A: Not Applicable 1Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width 2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel SC/SC/0.6/32/143/362 0.012 8.8 1.0 1.0 1.9 0.007 1.15 1.22 0.024 0.006 8.8 0.6 1.1 5.5 14.0 1,111 Additional Reach Parameters 5.4 1.3 1.0 77 0.022 0.006 0.006 0.12 0.30 1% 0% 301 1.15 1.22 1.20 0.93 0.55 1.90 0.28 1% 3.7 1,012 9.8 C/E 2.9 22 845 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 7.5 0.21 1.0 12.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.1 6.2 5.6 6.7 10.2 7.2 13.4 346 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ N/A See Table 10d N/A 0.30 3.2 1,356 12.9 5.8 8 0.6 0.9 3.9 8.8 8.5 9.5 11 10 UT3 1.0 UT4 UT5 Pre‐Restoration Condition Reference Reach Data Design UT3 UT4 UT5 Dimension and Substrate ‐ Shallow As‐Built/Baseline UT3 UT4 UT5 See Table 7d N/A See Table 10d 7.8 11.0 4.8 0.6 9.4 12.7 1.0 1.0 10.6 2.8 12.5 ‐‐‐ 1.1 1.4 1.2 N/A See Table 10d ‐‐‐ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters N/A See Table 10d0.3/2.8/12.5/29.7/41/90SC/0.1/10.6/22.6/41/64 0.3/0.5/2.8/28.5/40.6/64 0.81 0.61 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ N/A 0.12 0.30 0.21 See Table 10d 0.12 2.9 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.21 C/E C/E 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% C5/E5 1% 14 30 22 14 G4 G4 F4 3.34.2 30 22 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1,012 346 1,355 238 1,058 732 301 1,111 845 1,012 1.45 1.20 1.38 1.20 346 1,270 C5 C5/E5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐0.012 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SC/0.36/1.5/81/111/180 SC/0.16/0.6/100/161/512 0.61.5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 14 30 2.5 0.88 Table 11a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters ‐ Cross‐Section) Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Dimension and Substrate Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Bankfull Elevation 765.9 765.9 765.8 765.6 766.0 766.0 763.4 763.4 763.3 763.3 763.3 763.1 763.0 763.0 763.1 763.0 763.3 763.2 757.4 757.4 757.4 757.4 757.4 757.4 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 765.9 765.9 765.8 765.6 765.9 766.0 763.4 763.4 763.3 763.3 763.3 763.1 763.0 763.0 763.1 763.0 763.3 763.0 757.4 757.4 757.4 757.4 757.4 757.4 Bankfull Width (ft) 12.8 11.3 11.4 10.3 12.2 14.2 18.7 17.0 16.8 16.8 16.6 13.0 12.0 10.6 13.0 11.3 8.9 9.2 12.5 11.7 11.7 11.8 10.0 9.8 Floodprone Width (ft) 71.0 71.0 54.6 54.5 54.6 54.5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐97.0 97.0 95.6 96.2 101.7 86.1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.2 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.3 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.1 2.3 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 0.9 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.0 Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft 2)8.9 8.3 6.9 6.5 7.3 9.1 18.4 15.8 14.5 14.2 10.9 10.5 5.7 5.1 6.2 5.9 5.8 4.3 13.5 12.3 12.3 12.3 11.7 11.4 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 18.4 15.4 19.0 16.5 20.4 22.1 19.0 18.3 19.4 19.9 25.2 16.3 25.3 22.2 27.2 21.6 13.7 19.5 11.6 11.1 11.1 11.4 8.5 8.5 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 5.5 6.3 4.8 5.3 4.5 3.8 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐8.1 9.1 7.3 8.5 11.4 9.4 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2,3 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Dimension and Substrate Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Bankfull Elevation 757.1 757.1 757.1 757.1 757.2 757.2 749.3 749.3 749.2 748.8 749.1 749.2 748.9 748.9 748.9 748.7 749.0 748.9 747.3 747.3 747.3 747.4 747.3 747.3 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 757.1 757.1 757.1 757.1 757.1 757.3 749.3 749.3 749.2 748.8 749.1 749.2 748.9 748.9 748.9 748.7 749.0 749.0 747.3 747.3 747.3 747.4 747.3 747.4 Bankfull Width (ft) 11.9 12.1 12.1 13.0 11.3 13.4 19.9 19.7 20.4 15.9 18.0 20.0 16.1 14.8 13.6 11.7 14.0 14.1 17.0 15.3 15.2 15.2 15.6 16.2 Floodprone Width (ft) 53.0 53.0 74.8 74.8 74.8 74.9 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐164.0 164.0 82.7 82.7 82.7 82.6 292.0 292.0 63.8 63.8 64.0 63.9 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 1.8 1.7 1.6 2.3 2.5 2.4 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.4 3.3 4.0 3.8 4.6 4.9 5.0 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)7.1 7.5 7.1 7.7 5.7 7.6 35.5 34.2 31.7 36.5 45.4 48.8 13.9 14.3 12.2 12.0 14.4 15.0 20.3 20.3 19.8 20.7 21.9 22.0 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 19.9 19.5 20.5 21.8 22.2 23.6 11.2 11.3 13.1 6.9 7.1 8.2 18.6 15.4 15.3 11.3 13.7 13.3 14.3 11.5 11.7 11.1 11.1 11.9 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 4.4 4.4 6.2 5.8 6.6 5.6 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐10.2 11.1 6.1 7.1 5.9 5.9 17.1 19.1 4.2 4.2 4.1 3.9 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2,3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Dimension and Substrate Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Bankfull Elevation 745.6 745.6 745.5 745.4 745.5 745.5 745.0 745.0 744.9 745.1 744.9 744.7 741.1 741.1 741.1 741.1 741.0 741.0 737.4 737.4 737.3 737.4 737.5 737.4 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 745.6 745.6 745.5 745.4 745.5 745.5 745.0 745.0 744.9 745.1 745.1 745.2 741.1 741.1 741.1 741.1 741.0 741.1 737.4 737.4 737.3 737.4 737.5 737.4 Bankfull Width (ft) 22.0 24.9 21.1 23.1 21.2 20.6 16.1 16.0 14.5 15.8 15.2 15.2 16.3 16.2 16.5 15.3 15.4 15.4 23.6 23.7 25.1 23.2 24.4 25.2 Floodprone Width (ft)‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐254.0 254.0 93.6 93.4 93.3 93.2 154.0 154.0 82.7 82.8 79.0 82.9 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.6 2.0 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.9 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 3.5 3.9 4.0 3.5 4.2 3.9 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.4 1.8 2.7 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.3 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.8 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)40.1 42.1 38.8 36.0 41.8 43.8 16.2 16.5 14.7 19.1 18.2 22.5 19.8 21.5 21.6 19.6 21.6 21.2 44.2 40.9 38.6 36.1 42.1 41.9 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.0 14.7 11.5 14.9 10.6 9.7 16.0 15.5 14.3 13.1 12.6 10.3 13.3 12.2 12.7 11.9 11.0 11.2 12.6 13.7 16.3 15.0 14.1 15.1 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐15.8 15.9 6.5 5.9 6.2 6.1 9.5 9.5 5.0 5.4 5.1 5.4 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2,3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. Cross‐Section 6, Candy Creek Reach 1 (Pool) Cross‐Section 7, Candy Creek Reach 1 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 4, Candy Creek Reach 1 (Pool)Cross‐Section 1, Candy Creek Reach 1 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 2, Candy Creek Reach 1 (Pool) Cross‐Section 3, Candy Creek Reach 1 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 10, Candy Creek Reach 2 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 5, Candy Creek Reach 1 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 11, Candy Creek Reach 2 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 12, Candy Creek Reach 2 (Pool) Cross‐Section 8, Candy Creek Reach 1 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 9, Candy Creek Reach 2 (Pool) Table 11b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters ‐ Cross‐Section) Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Dimension and Substrate Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base4 (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Bankfull Elevation 737.0 737.0 736.8 737.0 737.0 736.9 733.1 733.1 733.1 733.1 733.0 733.0 733.2 733.2 733.2 733.2 733.1 732.7 729.2 729.2 729.4 729.3 729.8 729.1 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 737.0 737.0 736.8 737.0 737.0 737.1 733.1 733.1 733.1 733.1 733.0 733.0 733.2 733.2 733.2 733.2 733.1 732.7 729.2 729.2 729.4 729.3 729.8 729.1 Bankfull Width (ft) 19.5 18.2 17.9 19.1 17.7 18.6 16.7 17.3 17.5 17.4 15.7 16.1 23.9 21.8 21.6 21.7 19.5 19.4 26.2 25.8 27.4 23.1 22.5 18.5 Floodprone Width (ft) 221.0 221.0 95.7 95.8 95.8 95.8 164.0 164.0 80.8 86.5 75.0 77.4 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.8 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.5 3.1 2.0 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.5 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 3.9 4.5 4.2 5.6 4.7 5.1 3.5 4.2 4.3 3.9 5.0 4.2 Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)23.3 24.3 22.3 21.6 22.9 25.2 20.8 22.7 21.8 22.0 20.5 21.0 46.3 47.8 40.0 48.6 45.4 54.6 50.0 54.3 54.1 57.4 68.5 36.9 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.3 13.7 14.3 16.9 13.7 13.7 13.5 13.2 14.0 13.7 12.1 12.3 12.3 9.9 11.7 9.7 8.4 6.9 13.8 12.3 13.9 9.3 7.4 9.3 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 11.3 12.1 5.3 5.0 5.4 5.2 9.8 9.5 4.6 5.0 4.8 4.8 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2,3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Dimension and Substrate Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Bankfull Elevation 729.1 729.1 729.2 729.2 729.3 729.4 720.6 720.6 720.6 720.1 721.1 721.0 720.5 720.5 720.5 720.5 720.9 720.9 717.8 717.8 717.7 717.7 717.7 717.9 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 729.1 729.1 729.2 729.2 729.3 729.1 720.6 720.6 720.6 720.1 721.1 721.0 720.5 720.5 720.5 720.5 720.9 720.5 717.8 717.8 717.7 717.7 717.7 717.6 Bankfull Width (ft) 19.2 18.0 20.0 19.7 18.3 18.3 26.9 26.3 25.9 22.2 17.5 18.3 19.1 19.8 20.4 19.6 16.8 13.9 22.4 22.2 22.4 21.9 22.3 20.9 Floodprone Width (ft) 57.0 57.0 53.8 53.7 53.8 53.8 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐222.0 222.0 85.9 85.9 86.0 86.0 158.0 158.0 100.3 100.4 100.4 100.3 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.9 3.1 3.6 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.1 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.1 5.2 5.4 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.0 Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)28.2 25.9 26.9 29.2 28.1 22.5 58.7 55.5 54.5 42.8 53.6 66.1 26.9 23.3 28.0 27.9 27.5 22.1 31.0 31.7 30.6 31.7 30.8 25.9 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 13.1 12.5 14.9 13.2 12.0 14.8 12.3 12.4 12.3 11.5 5.7 5.0 13.6 16.8 14.8 13.8 10.3 8.8 16.2 15.6 16.5 15.2 16.1 16.8 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 3.0 3.2 2.7 2.7 2.9 2.9 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐11.6 11.2 4.2 4.4 5.1 6.2 7.1 7.1 4.5 4.6 4.5 4.8 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2,3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 Dimension and Substrate Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Bankfull Elevation 717.7 717.7 717.9 717.6 717.4 717.5 714.0 714.0 713.8 714.0 714.0 713.9 713.9 713.9 713.8 713.7 713.9 714.0 707.8 707.8 707.8 707.8 707.8 708.0 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 717.7 717.7 717.9 717.6 717.4 717.5 714.0 714.0 713.8 714.0 714.0 713.9 713.9 713.9 713.8 713.7 713.9 713.9 707.8 707.8 707.8 707.8 707.7 707.8 Bankfull Width (ft) 29.3 30.0 32.4 28.7 21.8 22.4 23.6 23.8 25.6 28.3 24.0 18.2 24.9 22.5 23.9 24.2 26.8 29.5 23.2 23.5 23.6 23.6 26.5 20.7 Floodprone Width (ft)‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐180.0 180.0 90.0 90.0 90.1 89.9 155.0 155.0 58.7 58.8 59.1 58.7 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.8 3.7 4.1 2.2 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.8 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.3 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 4.6 4.6 5.5 6.6 6.5 6.5 4.6 4.0 4.3 5.5 5.6 5.5 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.6 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.5 Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)70.1 74.0 80.2 79.3 81.0 91.4 51.1 50.2 47.7 59.2 54.3 51.8 38.1 37.4 34.2 33.9 38.0 33.3 31.6 32.4 31.4 29.6 29.9 27.4 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.2 12.2 13.1 10.4 5.9 5.5 10.9 11.3 13.8 13.5 10.7 6.4 16.3 13.5 16.6 17.3 18.9 26.2 17.1 17.1 17.7 18.8 23.6 15.6 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐7.2 8.0 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.0 6.7 6.6 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.8 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2,3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. Cross‐Section 23, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 24, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Riffle)Cross‐Section 21, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Pool) Cross‐Section 22, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Pool) Cross‐Section 13, Candy Creek Reach 2 (Riffle)Cross‐Section 14, Candy Creek Reach 2 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 15, Candy Creek Reach 2 (Pool) Cross‐Section 16, Candy Creek Reach 3 (Pool) Cross‐Section 17, Candy Creek Reach 3 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 19, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 20, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Riffle)Cross‐Section 18, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Pool) Table 11c. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters ‐ Cross‐Section) Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Dimension and Substrate Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Bankfull Elevation 702.6 702.6 702.7 702.6 702.5 702.6 702.1 702.1 702.4 702.0 701.8 701.9 752.2 752.2 752.3 752.3 752.2 752.0 752.1 752.1 752.0 751.9 752.0 752.0 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 702.6 702.6 702.7 702.6 702.6 702.6 702.1 702.1 702.4 702.0 701.8 701.9 752.2 752.2 752.3 752.3 752.1 752.0 752.1 752.1 752.0 751.9 752.0 752.0 Bankfull Width (ft) 21.7 21.6 22.7 23.2 21.6 21.6 23.6 24.6 24.5 23.3 23.4 23.7 7.8 7.8 10.1 11.4 7.1 7.9 6.4 9.1 5.8 6.2 6.2 6.2 Floodprone Width (ft) 132.0 132.0 85.9 85.8 85.5 85.7 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐28.0 28.0 24.6 24.9 21.1 19.7 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.5 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.6 2.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.6 4.1 4.4 4.3 4.9 5.5 5.4 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)32.8 32.8 33.5 33.9 35.2 32.8 51.3 52.5 52.7 50.5 60.2 63.7 4.0 3.7 5.1 6.7 3.2 3.5 5.4 6.1 5.5 5.3 5.6 5.2 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.4 14.3 15.3 15.8 13.3 14.2 10.8 11.6 11.4 10.7 9.1 8.8 15.0 16.2 19.9 19.4 15.7 17.9 7.5 13.5 6.2 7.3 6.8 7.5 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 6.1 6.1 3.8 3.7 4.0 4.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐3.6 3.6 2.4 2.2 3.0 2.5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2,3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.0 1.0 1.1 1.3 0.9 0.9 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Dimension and Substrate Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Bankfull Elevation 742.7 742.7 742.7 742.6 742.9 742.8 771.9 771.9 771.6 771.7 772.0 771.9 763.8 763.8 763.6 764.0 764.0 764.0 760.4 760.4 760.1 760.2 760.2 760.2 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 742.7 742.7 742.7 742.6 742.8 742.8 771.9 771.9 771.6 771.7 771.8 771.8 763.8 763.8 763.6 764.0 763.9 763.9 760.4 760.4 760.1 760.2 760.2 760.2 Bankfull Width (ft) 7.6 7.1 8.4 7.4 7.7 8.6 7.5 7.8 7.5 7.2 8.2 9.0 4.8 4.3 3.1 3.8 2.8 2.8 10.1 11.3 6.3 6.3 4.6 6.6 Floodprone Width (ft) 15.0 15.0 18.7 17.1 16.8 15.9 22.0 22.0 21.9 21.2 21.2 21.2 47.0 47.0 42.8 48.1 46.8 48.4 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.4 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.3 2.3 Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)3.8 3.3 4.0 3.0 2.6 3.2 6.8 6.3 6.3 5.5 5.5 5.7 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.8 6.2 7.2 5.7 5.7 6.2 9.0 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 15.4 15.3 17.9 18.7 22.6 23.2 8.3 9.7 9.0 9.3 12.4 14.1 18.5 23.3 13.9 16.5 8.0 9.6 16.4 17.7 6.9 6.9 3.4 4.8 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.2 1.8 2.9 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.6 2.4 9.8 11.0 13.6 12.5 16.7 17.5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2,3 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Dimension and Substrate Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Bankfull Elevation 760.0 760.0 759.8 759.9 759.9 759.9 734.8 734.8 734.8 735.0 735.0 735.1 734.6 734.6 734.6 734.7 735.3 735.3 747.7 747.7 747.7 747.7 748.0 748.0 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 760.0 760.0 759.8 759.9 759.9 759.9 734.8 734.8 734.8 735.0 735.0 735.1 734.6 734.6 734.6 734.7 735.2 735.1 747.7 747.7 747.7 747.7 747.9 747.7 Bankfull Width (ft) 7.8 7.0 6.7 6.6 5.3 8.9 10.2 9.6 8.1 9.1 8.7 4.2 7.8 7.8 7.0 6.5 7.9 5.9 7.0 7.6 7.4 5.9 10.0 3.9 Floodprone Width (ft) 88.0 88.0 79.4 78.1 78.8 78.5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐60.0 60.0 24.8 60.0 51.4 49.8 31.0 31.0 22.2 40.1 31.7 36.5 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.5 0.8 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.9 1.2 Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)3.5 3.2 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.4 7.9 4.5 5.8 5.3 2.3 1.5 4.1 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.2 2.9 4.1 3.7 3.5 3.1 2.8 2.1 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 17.2 15.1 12.6 12.8 8.1 23.5 13.3 20.2 11.1 15.6 32.8 11.6 14.9 20.2 16.4 14.8 19.2 12.3 11.9 15.8 15.7 11.2 36.1 7.3 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 11.3 12.6 11.8 11.8 14.8 8.8 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐7.7 7.7 3.6 9.3 6.5 8.4 4.4 4.1 3.0 6.8 3.2 9.5 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2,3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. Cross‐Section 29, UT1D (Riffle) Cross‐Section 31, UT2 Reach 1 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 25, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 26, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Pool) Cross‐Section 27, UT1C (Riffle) Cross‐Section 28, UT1C (Pool) Cross‐Section 32, UT2 Reach 1 (Pool) Cross‐Section 33, UT2 Reach 1 (Riffle)Cross‐Section 36, UT2A (Riffle)Cross‐Section 34, UT2 Reach 2 (Pool) Cross‐Section 30, UT2 Reach 1 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 35, UT2 Reach 2 (Riffle) Table 11d. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters ‐ Cross‐Section) Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Dimension and Substrate Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Bankfull Elevation 749.7 749.7 749.6 749.6 749.6 749.5 753.6 753.6 753.6 753.5 753.9 753.8 753.2 753.2 753.2 753.1 753.4 753.2 750.3 750.3 750.3 750.3 750.3 750.3 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 749.7 749.7 749.6 749.6 749.6 749.6 753.6 753.6 753.6 753.5 753.7 753.7 753.2 753.2 753.2 753.1 753.4 753.2 750.3 750.3 750.3 750.3 750.3 750.3 Bankfull Width (ft) 8.8 8.7 9.0 10.4 8.0 8.6 15.1 14.7 15.3 15.6 15.4 17.8 14.1 15.2 14.2 14.0 13.3 9.9 14.5 15.0 16.3 17.0 7.6 8.2 Floodprone Width (ft) 77.0 77.0 67.6 67.3 64.2 67.5 98.0 98.0 58.4 58.0 56.2 54.5 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.3 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.6 1.3 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.3 1.8 1.3 1.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.4 Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)5.5 5.3 5.9 5.3 5.5 6.1 15.2 14.4 13.3 13.6 11.5 13.5 17.8 16.9 15.6 12.5 10.2 8.3 18.5 16.3 15.1 15.9 11.8 10.9 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.0 14.1 13.7 20.3 11.6 12.0 15.0 15.0 17.6 17.9 20.7 23.3 11.2 13.6 12.9 15.7 17.4 11.9 11.4 13.8 17.6 18.2 4.9 6.2 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 8.8 8.9 7.5 6.5 8.1 7.9 6.5 6.7 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2,3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Dimension and Substrate Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Bankfull Elevation 750.2 750.2 750.2 750.2 750.4 750.5 748.3 748.3 748.3 748.3 748.5 748.5 748.0 748.0 748.0 747.9 748.0 748.0 758.4 758.4 758.4 758.6 758.4 758.8 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 750.2 750.2 750.2 750.2 750.3 750.3 748.3 748.3 748.3 748.3 748.4 748.3 748.0 748.0 748.0 747.9 748.0 748.0 758.4 758.4 758.4 758.6 758.5 758.6 Bankfull Width (ft) 11.8 12.3 12.4 12.9 10.3 10.2 11.5 12.3 13.0 12.3 12.6 12.5 16.9 15.0 17.7 11.3 10.8 10.2 9.7 9.6 11.5 9.6 8.5 9.7 Floodprone Width (ft) 172.0 172.0 69.1 69.1 69.1 68.8 288.0 288.0 49.9 49.9 49.9 47.4 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐83.0 83.0 82.3 82.3 82.1 82.2 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.6 1.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.0 Bankfull Cross‐Sectional Area (ft2)11.0 11.1 10.6 10.2 9.9 9.5 13.0 12.7 12.4 12.0 12.0 10.6 20.2 18.9 18.8 15.9 12.1 11.3 6.0 5.6 6.9 6.3 6.4 4.4 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.7 13.7 14.6 16.1 10.7 10.9 10.2 11.9 13.6 12.5 13.2 14.7 14.2 12.0 16.7 8.1 9.6 9.2 15.5 16.2 19.1 14.5 11.2 21.4 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 14.6 13.9 5.6 5.4 6.7 6.8 25.0 23.5 3.8 4.1 4.0 3.8 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐8.6 8.7 7.2 8.6 9.7 8.5 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2,3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.9 Dimension and Substrate Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Base (10/2016) MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY5 (2021) MY7 (2023) Bankfull Elevation 758.4 758.4 758.3 758.6 758.5 758.7 755.0 755.0 755.0 755.1 752.2 755.2 754.8 754.8 754.7 755.0 754.7 754.9 753.0 753.0 753.0 753.0 753.3 753.5 Low Bank Elevation (ft) 758.4 758.4 758.3 758.6 758.5 758.7 755.0 755.0 755.0 755.1 752.2 755.1 754.8 754.8 754.7 755.0 754.7 754.9 753.0 753.0 753.0 753.0 753.2 753.1 Bankfull Width (ft) 10.6 10.2 11.0 12.0 10.5 8.6 9.9 9.5 10.6 9.3 8.3 9.3 13.1 13.0 12.8 14.7 7.6 7.7 10.6 10.8 11.6 10.1 13.1 11.0 Floodprone Width (ft)‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐84.0 84.0 55.8 56.0 57.8 55.7 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐229.0 229.0 53.9 53.8 53.9 53.8 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.8 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.4 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.1 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 0.7 Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)9.8 9.5 9.5 8.9 7.7 4.8 6.8 6.3 6.4 5.5 6.6 5.5 14.7 14.2 13.1 11.8 11.0 8.0 8.8 8.4 8.2 7.6 6.6 4.9 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 11.4 11.1 12.8 16.2 14.3 15.5 14.5 14.4 17.4 15.8 10.5 15.6 11.6 11.9 12.4 18.3 5.3 7.4 12.8 13.8 16.2 13.5 25.7 24.8 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐8.5 8.8 5.3 6.0 6.9 6.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐21.6 21.2 4.7 5.3 4.1 4.9 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio2,3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. Cross‐Section 43, UT4 (Pool) Cross‐Section 44, UT5 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 45, UT5 (Pool) Cross‐Section 46, UT5 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 47, UT5 (Pool) Cross‐Section 48, UT5 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 37, UT3 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 38, UT4 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 39, UT4 (Pool) Cross‐Section 40, UT4 (Pool) Cross‐Section 41, UT4 (Riffle) Cross‐Section 42, UT4 (Riffle) Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Reach 1 (Sta. 100+08 ‐ 118+91) Parameter Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Dimension and Substrate Bankfull Width (ft) 11.9 12.8 10.6 12.1 11.4 13.0 10.3 13.0 8.9 12.2 9.2 14.2 Floodprone Width (ft) 53.0 97.0 53.0 97.0 54.6 95.6 54.5 96.2 54.6 101.7 54.5 86.1 Bankfull Mean Depth 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.6 Bankfull Max Depth 1.0 1.2 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.3 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.2 0.9 1.4 Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)5.7 8.9 5.1 8.3 6.2 7.1 5.9 7.7 5.7 7.3 4.3 9.1 Width/Depth Ratio 18.4 25.3 15.4 22.2 19.0 27.2 16.5 21.8 13.7 22.2 19.5 23.6 Entrenchment Ratio1 4.4 8.1 4.4 9.1 4.8 7.3 5.3 8.5 4.5 11.4 3.8 9.4 Bank Height Ratio2,3 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 D50 (mm)4,5 23.6 40.9 37.9 45.0 1.4 33.6 28.5 34.4 37.4 45.7 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Profile Riffle Length (ft) 11 55 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.002 0.055 Pool Length (ft) 18 70 Pool Max Depth (ft) 2.1 3.0 Pool Spacing (ft) 23 102 Pool Volume (ft3) Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) 19 47 Radius of Curvature (ft) 17 38 Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.6 3.0 Meander Wave Length (ft) 32 92 Meander Width Ratio 3.1 6.4 Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 (‐‐‐): Data was not provided 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. 4 All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle‐only value. 5 Pebble counts not conducted after MY5. 1.0 MY1 2017 Table 12a. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary As‐Built/Baseline 2016 MY3 2019 MY5 2021 1.0 MY7 2023MY2 2018 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.010 SC/0.35/0.9/62/114/512 1.17 0.010 C5 1,883 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Reach 1 (Sta. 118+91 ‐ 125+27) Parameter Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Dimension and Substrate Bankfull Width (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Mean Depth Bankfull Max Depth Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2) Width/Depth Ratio Entrenchment Ratio1 Bank Height Ratio2,3 D50 (mm)4,5 Profile Riffle Length (ft) 7 59 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.006 0.017 Pool Length (ft) 19 57 Pool Max Depth (ft) Pool Spacing (ft) 53 110 Pool Volume (ft3) Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) 25 58 Radius of Curvature (ft) 22 44 Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.4 2.6 Meander Wave Length (ft) 65 110 Meander Width Ratio 3.6 6.2 Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 (‐‐‐): Data was not provided 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation . 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. 4 All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle‐only value. 5 Pebble counts not conducted after MY5. Table 12b. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary As‐Built/Baseline 2016 MY1 2017 MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY5 2021 0.9 MY7 2023 16.8 164.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 46.2 35.9 68.5 49.1 43.3 ‐‐‐ C4 636 1.16 0.008 0.009 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SC/0.34/2.8/72/168/256 16.1 164.0 0.9 1.8 13.9 18.6 10.2 3.3 1.8 14.3 15.4 11.1 12.2 1.7 11.3 13.7 13.3 0.9 6.1 1.8 2.1 2.1 1.0 1.0 12.0 14.4 15.0 82.7 13.6 15.3 14.1 82.7 82.7 82.6 11.7 14.0 1.1 7.1 5.9 5.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Reach 1 (Sta. 125+27 ‐ 126+27) Parameter Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Dimension and Substrate Bankfull Width (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Mean Depth Bankfull Max Depth Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2) Width/Depth Ratio Entrenchment Ratio1 Bank Height Ratio2,3 D50 (mm)4,5 Profile Riffle Length (ft) 17 29 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.007 0.017 Pool Length (ft) Pool Max Depth (ft) Pool Spacing (ft) Pool Volume (ft3) Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) Radius of Curvature (ft) Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) Meander Wave Length (ft) Meander Width Ratio Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 (‐‐‐): Data was not provided 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation . 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. 4 All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle‐only value. 5 Pebble counts not conducted after MY5. Table 12c. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary As‐Built/Baseline 2016 MY1 2017 MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY5 2021 MY7 2023 17.0 292.0 1.2 2.3 20.3 14.3 17.1 1.0 1.0 22.6 90 22.6 19.1 4.2 1.0 74.1 48.1 ‐‐‐ 3.2 3.2 1.14 0.009 0.008 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 0.15/0.9/15/83/129/256 52 N/A 54 40 2.4 160 C4 100 15.3 292.0 1.3 2.3 20.3 11.5 15.2 63.8 1.3 2.2 19.8 11.7 15.2 15.6 16.2 63.8 64.0 63.9 1.4 1.4 1.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 20.7 21.9 22.0 11.1 11.1 11.9 4.2 4.1 3.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Reach 2 (Sta. 126+27 ‐ 143+06) Parameter Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Dimension and Substrate Bankfull Width (ft) 16.1 19.5 16.0 18.2 14.5 17.9 15.3 19.1 15.2 17.7 15.2 18.6 Floodprone Width (ft) 154.0 254.0 154.0 254.0 82.7 95.7 82.8 95.8 79.0 95.8 82.9 95.8 Bankfull Mean Depth 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.5 Bankfull Max Depth 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.3 1.9 2.3 2.1 2.4 1.8 2.4 2.3 2.7 Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)16.2 23.3 16.5 24.3 14.7 22.3 19.1 21.6 18.2 22.9 21.2 25.2 Width/Depth Ratio 13.3 16.3 12.2 13.7 12.7 14.3 11.9 16.9 11.0 13.7 10.3 13.7 Entrenchment Ratio1 9.5 15.8 9.5 15.9 5.0 6.5 5.0 5.9 5.1 6.2 5.2 6.1 Bank Height Ratio2,3 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.2 D50 (mm)4,5 26.9 47.3 16.0 93.6 1.0 14.6 27.4 80.7 37.9 45.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Profile Riffle Length (ft) 24 63 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.001 0.019 Pool Length (ft) 23 101 Pool Max Depth (ft) 3.3 3.5 Pool Spacing (ft) 59 146 Pool Volume (ft3) Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) 31 72 Radius of Curvature (ft) 20 107 Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.1 4.5 Meander Wave Length (ft) 81 171 Meander Width Ratio 1.4 3.0 Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 (‐‐‐): Data was not provided 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation . 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. 4 All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle‐only value. 5 Pebble counts not conducted after MY5. Table 12d. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary As‐Built/Baseline 2016 MY1 2017 MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY5 2021 MY7 2023 1.0 1.0 ‐‐‐ SC/0.17/0.4/93/146/256 C5 1,679 1.23 0.007 0.007 ‐‐‐ Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Reach 2 (Sta. 143+06 ‐ 148+02) Parameter Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Dimension and Substrate Bankfull Width (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Mean Depth Bankfull Max Depth Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2) Width/Depth Ratio Entrenchment Ratio1 Bank Height Ratio2,3 D50 (mm)4,5 Profile Riffle Length (ft) 14 60 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.001 0.019 Pool Length (ft) 23 58 Pool Max Depth (ft) Pool Spacing (ft) 55 136 Pool Volume (ft3) Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) 23 68 Radius of Curvature (ft) 27 42 Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.3 1.9 Meander Wave Length (ft) 54 121 Meander Width Ratio 1.1 3.0 Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 (‐‐‐): Data was not provided 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation . 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. 4 All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle‐only value. 5 Pebble counts not conducted after MY5. Table 12e. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary As‐Built/Baseline 2016 MY1 2017 MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY5 2021 MY7 2023 16.7 17.3 17.5 17.4 15.7 16.1 164 164 80.8 87 75 77.4 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.0 12.3 20.8 22.7 21.8 22.0 20.5 21.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 13.5 13.2 14.0 13.7 12.1 4.8 1.0 ‐‐‐ 9.8 9.5 4.6 5.0 4.8 1.0 1.0 9.4 77.2 11.0 37.6 40.2 3.9 ‐‐‐ SC/0.21/0.5/72/117/362 C5 536 1.26 0.008 0.009 ‐‐‐ Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Reach 3 (Sta. 149+02 ‐ 155+05) Parameter Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Dimension and Substrate Bankfull Width (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Mean Depth Bankfull Max Depth Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2) Width/Depth Ratio Entrenchment Ratio1 Bank Height Ratio2,3 D50 (mm)4,5 Profile Riffle Length (ft) 10 61 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.001 0.035 Pool Length (ft) 22 53 Pool Max Depth (ft) Pool Spacing (ft) 49 97 Pool Volume (ft3) Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) Radius of Curvature (ft) Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) Meander Wave Length (ft) Meander Width Ratio Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 (‐‐‐): Data was not provided 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation . 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. 4 All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle‐only value. 5 Pebble counts not conducted after MY5. Table 12f. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary As‐Built/Baseline 2016 MY1 2017 MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY5 2021 MY7 2023 19.2 18.0 20.0 19.7 18.3 18.3 57 57 53.8 53.7 53.8 53.8 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.1 14.8 28.2 25.9 26.9 29.2 28.1 22.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 13.1 12.5 14.9 13.2 12.0 2.9 0.9 ‐‐‐ 3.0 3.2 2.7 2.7 2.9 1.0 1.0 87.8 97.2 4.0 65.8 29.1 3.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ‐‐‐ SC/0.27/1.0/113/148/256 C5 603 1.23 0.004 0.005 ‐‐‐ Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Reach 4 (Sta. 170+71 ‐ 196+50) Parameter Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Dimension and Substrate Bankfull Width (ft) 19.1 24.9 19.8 22.5 20.4 23.9 19.6 24.2 16.8 26.8 13.9 29.5 Floodprone Width (ft) 158.0 222.0 158.0 222.0 85.9 100.3 85.9 100.4 86.0 100.4 86.0 100.3 Bankfull Mean Depth 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.1 1.6 Bankfull Max Depth 2.1 2.9 2.1 2.8 2.3 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.8 2.0 2.6 Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)26.9 38.1 23.3 37.4 28.0 34.2 27.9 33.9 27.5 38.0 22.1 33.3 Width/Depth Ratio 13.6 16.3 13.5 16.8 14.8 16.6 13.8 17.3 10.3 18.9 8.8 26.2 Entrenchment Ratio1 7.1 11.6 7.1 11.2 3.8 4.5 3.7 4.6 3.4 5.1 3.0 6.2 Bank Height Ratio2,3 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 D50 (mm)4,5 27.6 37.9 17.7 51.8 22.6 51.1 31.4 55.1 16.4 41.6 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Profile Riffle Length (ft) 14 74 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.003 0.022 Pool Length (ft) 20 125 Pool Max Depth (ft) 4.5 4.6 Pool Spacing (ft) 40 145 Pool Volume (ft3) Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) 66 154 Radius of Curvature (ft) 25 55 Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.2 2.5 Meander Wave Length (ft) 84 220 Meander Width Ratio 3.0 7.0 Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 (‐‐‐): Data was not provided 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation . 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. 4 All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle‐only value. 5 Pebble counts not conducted after MY5. Table 12g. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary As‐Built/Baseline 2016 MY1 2017 MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY7 2023MY5 2021 1.0 1.0 C5 SC/0.15/0.4/64/180/256 2,579 1.30 0.005 0.005 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Reach 4 (Sta. 196+50 ‐ 206+35) Parameter Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Dimension and Substrate Bankfull Width (ft) 21.7 23.2 21.6 23.5 22.7 23.6 23.2 23.6 21.6 26.5 20.7 21.6 Floodprone Width (ft) 132.0 155.0 132.0 155.0 58.7 85.9 58.8 85.8 59.1 85.5 58.7 85.7 Bankfull Mean Depth 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.6 1.3 1.5 Bankfull Max Depth 2.5 2.9 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.6 Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)31.6 32.8 32.4 32.8 31.4 33.5 29.6 33.9 29.9 35.2 27.4 32.8 Width/Depth Ratio 14.4 17.1 14.3 17.1 15.3 17.7 15.8 18.8 13.3 23.6 14.2 15.6 Entrenchment Ratio1 6.1 6.7 6.1 6.6 2.5 3.8 2.5 3.7 2.2 4.0 2.8 4.0 Bank Height Ratio2,3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 D50 (mm)4,5 29.3 39.0 28.5 102.5 1.0 100.4 41.6 60.4 41.0 92.6 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Profile Riffle Length (ft) 15 53 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.004 0.025 Pool Length (ft) 22 71 Pool Max Depth (ft) Pool Spacing (ft) 52 111 Pool Volume (ft3) Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) 30 100 Radius of Curvature (ft) 25 50 Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.3 2.5 Meander Wave Length (ft) 80 220 Meander Width Ratio 1.5 5.0 Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 (‐‐‐): Data was not provided 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation . 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. 4 All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle‐only value. 5 Pebble counts not conducted after MY5. Table 12h. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary As‐Built/Baseline 2016 MY1 2017 MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY5 2021 MY7 2023 1.0 1.0 4.1 ‐‐‐ 0.09/0.3/0.6/49/111/180 C5 985 1.32 0.010 0.008 ‐‐‐ Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 UT1C Parameter Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Dimension and Substrate Bankfull Width (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Mean Depth Bankfull Max Depth Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2) Width/Depth Ratio Entrenchment Ratio1 Bank Height Ratio2,3 D50 (mm)4,5 Profile Riffle Length (ft) 3 43 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.003 0.082 Pool Length (ft) 5 20 Pool Max Depth (ft) Pool Spacing (ft) 6 51 Pool Volume (ft3) Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) Radius of Curvature (ft) Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) Meander Wave Length (ft) Meander Width Ratio Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 (‐‐‐): Data was not provided 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation . 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. 4 All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle‐only value. 5 Pebble counts not conducted after MY5. Table 12i. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary As‐Built/Baseline 2016 MY1 2017 MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY5 2021 MY7 2023 7.8 7.8 10.1 11.4 7.1 7.9 28.0 28.0 24.6 24.9 21.1 19.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.9 17.9 4.0 3.7 5.1 6.7 3.2 3.5 1.1 1.3 0.9 15.0 16.2 19.9 19.4 15.7 2.5 0.9 ‐‐‐ 3.6 3.6 2.4 2.2 3.0 1.0 1.0 54.5 84.6 54.1 39.4 44.2 1.7 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A B/C SC/0.4/12.8/82/117/180 728 1.08 0.028 0.028 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 UT1D Parameter Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Dimension and Substrate Bankfull Width (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Mean Depth Bankfull Max Depth Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2) Width/Depth Ratio Entrenchment Ratio1 Bank Height Ratio2,3 D50 (mm)4,5 Profile Riffle Length (ft) 4 62 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.002 0.085 Pool Length (ft) 4 15 Pool Max Depth (ft) Pool Spacing (ft) 6 33 Pool Volume (ft3) Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) Radius of Curvature (ft) Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) Meander Wave Length (ft) Meander Width Ratio Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 (‐‐‐): Data was not provided 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation . 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. 4 All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle‐only value. 5 Pebble counts not conducted after MY5. Table 12j. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary As‐Built/Baseline 2016 MY1 2017 MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY5 2021 MY7 2023 7.6 7.1 8.4 7.4 7.7 8.6 15.0 15.0 18.7 17.1 16.8 15.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 23.2 3.8 3.3 4.0 3.0 2.6 3.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 15.4 15.3 17.9 18.7 22.6 1.8 0.9 ‐‐‐ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.2 1.0 1.0 25.1 33.7 34.8 0.9 0.7 1.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A B/C 0.3/6.1/31/57/78/128 379 1.04 0.051 0.045 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 UT2 ‐ Reach 1 Parameter Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Dimension and Substrate Bankfull Width (ft) 4.8 7.5 4.3 7.5 3.1 7.5 3.8 7.2 2.8 8.2 2.8 9.0 Floodprone Width (ft) 22.0 47.0 22.0 47.0 21.9 79.4 21.2 78.1 21.2 78.8 21.2 78.5 Bankfull Mean Depth 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.6 Bankfull Max Depth 0.4 1.5 0.3 1.4 0.3 1.4 0.4 1.4 0.5 1.3 0.4 1.4 Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)1.2 6.8 0.8 6.3 0.7 6.3 0.9 5.5 1.0 5.5 0.8 5.7 Width/Depth Ratio 8.3 18.5 9.7 23.3 9.0 13.9 9.3 16.5 8.0 12.4 9.6 23.5 Entrenchment Ratio1 2.9 9.8 2.8 11.0 2.9 13.6 3.0 12.5 2.6 16.7 2.4 17.5 Bank Height Ratio2,3 0.7 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.0 D50 (mm)4,5 34.0 39.0 34.8 40.2 9.9 33.3 25.0 36.7 26.4 52.2 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Profile Riffle Length (ft) 4 68 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.004 0.063 Pool Length (ft) 4 18 Pool Max Depth (ft) Pool Spacing (ft) 8 45 Pool Volume (ft3) Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) 10 25 Radius of Curvature (ft) 17 54 Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 3.7 9.2 Meander Wave Length (ft) 21 68 Meander Width Ratio 2.2 5.6 Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.021 0.031 Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) 0.023 0.032 Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 (‐‐‐): Data was not provided 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation . 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. 4 All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle‐only value. 5 Pebble counts not conducted after MY5. Table 12k. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary As‐Built/Baseline 2016 MY1 2017 MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY7 2023MY5 2021 1.01.0 1.7 ‐‐‐ 0.35/6.0/34.6/70/90/256 C4 1,208 1.03 ‐‐‐ Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 UT2 ‐ Reach 2 Parameter Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Dimension and Substrate Bankfull Width (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Mean Depth Bankfull Max Depth Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2) Width/Depth Ratio Entrenchment Ratio1 Bank Height Ratio2,3 D50 (mm)4,5 Profile Riffle Length (ft) 7 80 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.001 0.055 Pool Length (ft) 11 62 Pool Max Depth (ft) Pool Spacing (ft) 13 51 Pool Volume (ft3) Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) Radius of Curvature (ft) Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) Meander Wave Length (ft) Meander Width Ratio Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 (‐‐‐): Data was not provided 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation . 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. 4 All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle‐only value. 5 Pebble counts not conducted after MY5. Table 12l. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary As‐Built/Baseline 2016 MY1 2017 MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY5 2021 MY7 2023 7.8 7.8 7.0 6.5 7.9 5.9 60.0 60.0 24.8 60.0 51.4 49.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.1 12.3 4.1 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.2 2.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 14.9 20.2 16.4 14.8 19.2 8.4 0.9 ‐‐‐ 7.7 7.7 3.6 9.3 6.5 1.0 1.0 26.2 66.5 11.0 10.7 2.6 1.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A C5 0.2/0.7/5/56/161/>2048 643 1.09 0.015 0.014 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 UT2A Parameter Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Dimension and Substrate Bankfull Width (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Mean Depth Bankfull Max Depth Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2) Width/Depth Ratio Entrenchment Ratio1 Bank Height Ratio2,3 D50 (mm)4,5 Profile Riffle Length (ft) 3 102 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.019 0.071 Pool Length (ft) 4 12 Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.5 2.1 Pool Spacing (ft) 7 55 Pool Volume (ft3) Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) Radius of Curvature (ft) Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) Meander Wave Length (ft) Meander Width Ratio Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 (‐‐‐): Data was not provided 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation . 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. 4 All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle‐only value. 5 Pebble counts not conducted after MY5. Table 12m. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary As‐Built/Baseline 2016 MY1 2017 MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY5 2021 MY7 2023 7.0 7.6 7.4 5.9 10.0 3.9 31.0 31.0 22.2 40.1 31.7 36.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.9 1.2 7.3 4.1 3.7 3.5 3.1 2.8 2.1 0.9 0.9 0.9 11.9 15.8 15.7 11.2 36.1 9.5 0.8 ‐‐‐ 4.4 4.1 3.0 6.8 3.2 1.0 1.0 18.2 7.5 5.6 9.3 0.5 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A C5 0.27/1.1/2.5/47/76/180 366 1.02 0.039 0.040 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 UT3 Parameter Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Dimension and Substrate Bankfull Width (ft) Floodprone Width (ft) Bankfull Mean Depth Bankfull Max Depth Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2) Width/Depth Ratio Entrenchment Ratio1 Bank Height Ratio2,3 D50 (mm)4,5 Profile Riffle Length (ft) 8 20 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.007 0.057 Pool Length (ft) 8 24 Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.1 2.1 Pool Spacing (ft) 24 33 Pool Volume (ft3) Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) 7 19 Radius of Curvature (ft) 12 24 Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.1 2.1 Meander Wave Length (ft) 28 76 Meander Width Ratio 0.8 1.7 Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 (‐‐‐): Data was not provided 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation . 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. 4 All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle‐only value. 5 Pebble counts not conducted after MY5. Table 12n. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary As‐Built/Baseline 2016 MY1 2017 MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY5 2021 MY7 2023 8.8 8.7 9.0 10.4 8.0 8.6 77.0 77.0 67.6 67.3 64.2 67.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 12 5.5 5.3 5.9 5.3 5.5 6.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 14.0 14.1 13.7 20.3 11.6 7.9 1.1 ‐‐‐ 8.8 8.9 7.5 6.5 8.1 1.0 1.0 74.4 96 72.7 58.6 85.5 C5 SC/0.36/1.5/81/111/180 346 1.15 0.024 0.022 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 UT4 Parameter Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Dimension and Substrate Bankfull Width (ft) 11.5 15.1 12.3 14.7 12.4 15.3 12.3 15.6 10.3 15.4 10.2 17.8 Floodprone Width (ft) 98.0 288.0 98.0 288.0 49.9 69.1 49.9 69.1 49.9 69.1 47.4 68.8 Bankfull Mean Depth 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.9 Bankfull Max Depth 1.6 2.1 1.6 2.1 1.5 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.9 Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)11.0 15.2 11.1 14.4 10.6 13.3 10.2 13.6 9.9 12.0 9.5 13.5 Width/Depth Ratio 10.2 15.0 11.9 15.0 13.6 17.6 12.5 17.9 10.7 20.7 10.9 23.3 Entrenchment Ratio1 6.5 25.0 6.7 23.5 3.8 5.6 3.7 5.4 3.6 6.7 3.1 6.8 Bank Height Ratio2,3 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 D50 (mm)4,5 16.0 45.0 22.6 79.4 25.4 64.7 1.9 77.2 1.6 66.0 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Profile Riffle Length (ft) 8 69 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.000 0.072 Pool Length (ft) 9 42 Pool Max Depth (ft) Pool Spacing (ft) 24 123 Pool Volume (ft3) Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) 10 45 Radius of Curvature (ft) 12 33 Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.1 2.1 Meander Wave Length (ft) 31 72 Meander Width Ratio 0.7 2.7 Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 (‐‐‐): Data was not provided 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation . 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. 4 All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle‐only value. 5 Pebble counts not conducted after MY5. Table 12o. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary As‐Built/Baseline 2016 MY1 2017 MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY7 2023MY5 2021 1.01.0 2.3 C4 1,356 1.22 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ SC/0.2/0.6/100/161/512 0.006 0.006 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 UT5 Parameter Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Dimension and Substrate Bankfull Width (ft) 9.7 10.6 9.6 10.8 10.6 11.6 9.3 10.1 8.3 13.1 9.3 11.0 Floodprone Width (ft) 83.0 229.0 83.0 229.0 53.9 82.3 53.8 82.3 53.9 82.1 53.8 82.2 Bankfull Mean Depth 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.6 Bankfull Max Depth 0.9 1.3 0.9 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.5 0.7 1.1 Bankfull Cross‐sectional Area (ft2)6.0 8.8 5.6 8.4 6.4 8.2 5.5 7.6 6.4 6.6 4.4 5.5 Width/Depth Ratio 12.8 15.5 13.8 16.2 16.2 19.1 13.5 15.8 10.5 25.7 15.6 24.8 Entrenchment Ratio1 8.6 21.6 8.8 21.2 4.7 7.2 5.3 8.6 4.1 9.7 4.9 8.5 Bank Height Ratio2,3 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.9 D50 (mm)4,5 11.0 46.2 40.6 53.0 18.0 45.0 1.0 47.7 0.7 40.8 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Profile Riffle Length (ft) 11 28 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.000 0.027 Pool Length (ft) 12 39 Pool Max Depth (ft) Pool Spacing (ft) 26 65 Pool Volume (ft3) Pattern Channel Beltwidth (ft) 10 39 Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 48 Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 0.8 3.6 Meander Wave Length (ft) 34 71 Meander Width Ratio 0.9 2.2 Additional Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification Channel Thalweg Length (ft) Sinuosity (ft) Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 (‐‐‐): Data was not provided 1 ER in MY2 is based on the width of the cross‐section, in lieu of assuming the width across the floodplain as was done in previous monitoring years. 2 Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation . 3 MY2‐MY7 Bank Height Ratio was calculated based on the As‐built (MY0) cross‐sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document provided by the NCIRT (9/2018). The remainder of the cross‐section dimension parameters were calculated based on the current year’s low bank height. 4 All D50 values revised in the MY3 report (2019) to correct a previous error. Previous years reported a reachwide value rather than a riffle‐only value. 5 Pebble counts not conducted after MY5. Table 12p. Monitoring Data ‐ Stream Reach Data Summary As‐Built/Baseline 2016 MY1 2017 MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY7 2023MY5 2021 1.01.0 1.9 C5/E5 SC/SC/0.6/32/143/362 1,012 1.20 0.006 0.007 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Cross‐Section 1 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 1 Bankfull Dimensions 9.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 14.2 width (ft) 0.6 mean depth (ft) 1.3 max depth (ft) 14.7 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.6 hydraulic radius (ft) 22.1 width‐depth ratio 54.5 W flood prone area (ft) 3.8 entrenchment ratio 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 04/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Cross‐Section Plots View Downstream 764 765 766 767 768 10 20 30 40 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 105+85 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (04/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 2 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 1 Bankfull Dimensions 10.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 13.0 width (ft) 0.8 mean depth (ft) 2.3 max depth (ft) 15.5 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.7 hydraulic radius (ft) 16.3 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 04/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Cross‐Section Plots View Downstream 760 761 762 763 764 30 40 50 60 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 108+94 Pool MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (04/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 3 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 1 Bankfull Dimensions 4.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 9.2 width (ft) 0.5 mean depth (ft) 0.9 max depth (ft) 9.5 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.5 hydraulic radius (ft) 19.5 width‐depth ratio 86.1 W flood prone area (ft) 9.4 entrenchment ratio 0.9 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 04/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 761 762 763 764 765 30 40 50 60 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 109+19 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (04/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross Section 4 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 1 Bankfull Dimensions 11.4 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 9.8 width (ft) 1.2 mean depth (ft) 2.0 max depth (ft) 11.2 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.0 hydraulic radius (ft) 8.5 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 04/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 755 756 757 758 759 20 30 40 50 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 114+15 Pool MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (04/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 5 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 1 Bankfull Dimensions 7.6 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 13.4 width (ft) 0.6 mean depth (ft) 1.4 max depth (ft) 14.0 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.5 hydraulic radius (ft) 23.6 width‐depth ratio 74.9 W flood prone area (ft) 5.6 entrenchment ratio 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 04/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 755 756 757 758 759 20 30 40 50 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 114+37 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (04/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 6 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 1 Bankfull Dimensions 48.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 20.0 width (ft) 2.4 mean depth (ft) 5.0 max depth (ft) 23.8 wetted perimeter (ft) 2.1 hydraulic radius (ft) 8.2 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 04/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 10 20 30 40 50 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 122+41 Pool MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (04/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 7 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 1 Bankfull Dimensions 15.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 14.1 width (ft) 1.1 mean depth (ft) 2.1 max depth (ft) 14.9 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.0 hydraulic radius (ft) 13.3 width‐depth ratio 82.6 W flood prone area (ft) 5.9 entrenchment ratio 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 04/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 20 30 40 50 60 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 122+91 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (04/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 8 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 1 Bankfull Dimensions 22.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 16.2 width (ft) 1.4 mean depth (ft) 2.4 max depth (ft) 17.7 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.2 hydraulic radius (ft) 11.9 width‐depth ratio 63.9 W flood prone area (ft) 3.9 entrenchment ratio 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 10 20 30 40 50 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 125+45 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 9 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 2 Bankfull Dimensions 43.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 20.6 width (ft) 2.1 mean depth (ft) 3.9 max depth (ft) 23.1 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.9 hydraulic radius (ft) 9.7 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 25 35 45 55 65 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 129+13 Pool MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 10 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 2 Bankfull Dimensions 22.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 15.2 width (ft) 1.5 mean depth (ft) 2.7 max depth (ft) 17.6 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.3 hydraulic radius (ft) 10.3 width‐depth ratio 93.2 W flood prone area (ft) 6.1 entrenchment ratio 1.2 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 20 30 40 50 60 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 129+43 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 11 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 2 Bankfull Dimensions 21.2 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 15.4 width (ft) 1.4 mean depth (ft) 2.3 max depth (ft) 16.7 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.3 hydraulic radius (ft) 11.2 width‐depth ratio 82.9 W flood prone area (ft) 5.4 entrenchment ratio 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 25 35 45 55 65 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 134+43 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 12 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 2 Bankfull Dimensions 41.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 25.2 width (ft) 1.7 mean depth (ft) 3.8 max depth (ft) 29.0 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.4 hydraulic radius (ft) 15.1 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 30 40 50 60 70 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 139+87 Pool MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 13 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 2 Bankfull Dimensions 25.2 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 18.6 width (ft) 1.4 mean depth (ft) 2.5 max depth (ft) 19.5 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.3 hydraulic radius (ft) 13.7 width‐depth ratio 95.8 W flood prone area (ft) 5.2 entrenchment ratio 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 30 40 50 60 70 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 140+26 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 14 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 2 Bankfull Dimensions 21.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 16.1 width (ft) 1.3 mean depth (ft) 2.0 max depth (ft) 17.5 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.2 hydraulic radius (ft) 12.3 width‐depth ratio 77.4 W flood prone area (ft) 4.8 entrenchment ratio 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 30 40 50 60 70 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 145+46 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 15 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 2 Bankfull Dimensions 54.6 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 19.4 width (ft) 2.8 mean depth (ft) 5.1 max depth (ft) 24.6 wetted perimeter (ft) 2.2 hydraulic radius (ft) 6.9 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 35 45 55 65 75 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 145+82 Pool MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 16 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 3 Bankfull Dimensions 36.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 18.5 width (ft) 2.0 mean depth (ft) 4.2 max depth (ft) 21.5 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.7 hydraulic radius (ft) 9.3 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering *Right bank rebuilt in September 2022. View Downstream Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 10 20 30 40 50 60 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 151+71 Pool MY0 (3/2017)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 17 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 3 Bankfull Dimensions 22.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 18.3 width (ft) 1.2 mean depth (ft) 2.1 max depth (ft) 19.1 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.2 hydraulic radius (ft) 14.8 width‐depth ratio 53.8 W flood prone area (ft) 2.9 entrenchment ratio 0.9 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 0 1020304050 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 152+02 Riffle MY0 (3/2017)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 18 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 4 Bankfull Dimensions 66.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 18.3 width (ft) 3.6 mean depth (ft) 5.4 max depth (ft) 22.9 wetted perimeter (ft) 2.9 hydraulic radius (ft) 5.0 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 35 45 55 65 75 85 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 172+87 Pool MY0 (3/2017)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 19 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 4 Bankfull Dimensions 22.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 13.9 width (ft) 1.6 mean depth (ft) 2.2 max depth (ft) 15.5 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.4 hydraulic radius (ft) 8.8 width‐depth ratio 86.0 W flood prone area (ft) 6.2 entrenchment ratio 0.9 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 30 40 50 60 70 80 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 173+32 Riffle MY0 (3/2017)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 20 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 4 Bankfull Dimensions 25.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 20.9 width (ft) 1.2 mean depth (ft) 2.0 max depth (ft) 21.5 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.2 hydraulic radius (ft) 16.8 width‐depth ratio 100.3 W flood prone area (ft) 4.8 entrenchment ratio 0.9 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 15 25 35 45 55 65 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 178+99 Riffle MY0 (3/2017)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 21 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 4 Bankfull Dimensions 91.4 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 22.4 width (ft) 4.1 mean depth (ft) 6.5 max depth (ft) 27.7 wetted perimeter (ft) 3.3 hydraulic radius (ft) 5.5 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 0 1020304050 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 179+39 Pool MY0 (3/2017)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 22 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 4 Bankfull Dimensions 51.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 18.2 width (ft) 2.8 mean depth (ft) 5.5 max depth (ft) 24.1 wetted perimeter (ft) 2.2 hydraulic radius (ft) 6.4 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 20 30 40 50 60 70 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 187+21 Pool MY0 (3/2017)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 23 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 4 Bankfull Dimensions 33.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 29.5 width (ft) 1.1 mean depth (ft) 2.6 max depth (ft) 30.3 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.1 hydraulic radius (ft) 26.2 width‐depth ratio 89.9 W flood prone area (ft) 3.0 entrenchment ratio 0.9 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 20 30 40 50 60 70 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 187+59 Riffle MY0 (3/2017)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 24 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 4 Bankfull Dimensions 27.4 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 20.7 width (ft) 1.3 mean depth (ft) 2.5 max depth (ft) 21.8 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.3 hydraulic radius (ft) 15.6 width‐depth ratio 58.7 W flood prone area (ft) 2.8 entrenchment ratio 0.9 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 5 1525354555 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 197+77 Riffle MY0 (3/2017)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 25 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 4 Bankfull Dimensions 32.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 21.6 width (ft) 1.5 mean depth (ft) 2.6 max depth (ft) 23.0 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.4 hydraulic radius (ft) 14.2 width‐depth ratio 85.7 W flood prone area (ft) 4.0 entrenchment ratio 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 20 30 40 50 60 70 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 203+63 Riffle MY0 (3/2017)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull area Elevation Cross‐Section 26 ‐ Candy Creek Reach 4 Bankfull Dimensions 63.7 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 23.7 width (ft) 2.7 mean depth (ft) 5.4 max depth (ft) 29.7 wetted perimeter (ft) 2.1 hydraulic radius (ft) 8.8 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 25 35 45 55 65 75 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 203+98 Pool MY0 (3/2017)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 27 ‐ UT1C Bankfull Dimensions 3.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 7.9 width (ft) 0.4 mean depth (ft) 0.9 max depth (ft) 8.2 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.4 hydraulic radius (ft) 17.9 width‐depth ratio 19.7 W flood prone area (ft) 2.5 entrenchment ratio 0.9 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 750 751 752 753 754 01020 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 202+17 Riffle MY0 (3/2017)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 28 ‐ UT1C Bankfull Dimensions 5.2 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 6.2 width (ft) 0.8 mean depth (ft) 1.7 max depth (ft) 7.7 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.7 hydraulic radius (ft) 7.5 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 750 751 752 753 754 51525 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 202+23 Pool MY0 (3/2017)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 29 ‐ UT1D Bankfull Dimensions 3.2 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 8.6 width (ft) 0.4 mean depth (ft) 0.7 max depth (ft) 8.8 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.4 hydraulic radius (ft) 23.2 width‐depth ratio 15.9 W flood prone area (ft) 1.8 entrenchment ratio 0.9 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 741 742 743 744 745 01020 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 250+84 Riffle MY0 (3/2017)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 30 ‐ UT2 Reach 1 Bankfull Dimensions 5.7 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 9.0 width (ft) 0.6 mean depth (ft) 1.4 max depth (ft) 9.7 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.6 hydraulic radius (ft) 14.1 width‐depth ratio 21.2 W flood prone area (ft) 2.4 entrenchment ratio 0.9 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Cross‐Section Plots View Downstream 770 771 772 773 774 10 20 30 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 302+27 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 31 ‐ UT2 Reach 1 Bankfull Dimensions 0.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 2.8 width (ft) 0.3 mean depth (ft) 0.4 max depth (ft) 3.0 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.3 hydraulic radius (ft) 9.6 width‐depth ratio 48.4 W flood prone area (ft) 17.5 entrenchment ratio 0.8 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 762 763 764 765 766 35 45 55 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 305+70 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 32 ‐ UT2 Reach 1 Bankfull Dimensions 9.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 6.6 width (ft) 1.4 mean depth (ft) 2.3 max depth (ft) 9.2 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.0 hydraulic radius (ft) 4.8 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 757 758 759 760 761 30 40 50 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 307+52 Pool MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 33 ‐ UT2 Reach 1 Bankfull Dimensions 3.4 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 8.9 width (ft) 0.4 mean depth (ft) 1.1 max depth (ft) 10.0 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.3 hydraulic radius (ft) 23.5 width‐depth ratio 78.5 W flood prone area (ft) 8.8 entrenchment ratio 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 758 759 760 761 762 30 40 50 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 307+61 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 34 ‐ UT2 Reach 2 Bankfull Dimensions 1.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 4.2 width (ft) 0.4 mean depth (ft) 0.9 max depth (ft) 4.9 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.3 hydraulic radius (ft) 11.6 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 733 734 735 736 737 30 40 50 60 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 316+47 Pool MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 35 ‐ UT2 Reach 2 Bankfull Dimensions 2.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 5.9 width (ft) 0.5 mean depth (ft) 1.1 max depth (ft) 6.6 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.4 hydraulic radius (ft) 12.3 width‐depth ratio 49.8 W flood prone area (ft) 8.4 entrenchment ratio 0.9 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 733 734 735 736 737 20 30 40 50 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 316+62 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 36 ‐ UT2A Bankfull Dimensions 2.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 3.9 width (ft) 0.5 mean depth (ft) 1.2 max depth (ft) 5.4 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.4 hydraulic radius (ft) 7.3 width‐depth ratio 36.5 W flood prone area (ft) 9.5 entrenchment ratio 0.8 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 746 747 748 749 750 10 20 30 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 353+06 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 37 ‐ UT3 Bankfull Dimensions 6.1 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 8.6 width (ft) 0.7 mean depth (ft) 1.1 max depth (ft) 9.1 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.7 hydraulic radius (ft) 12.0 width‐depth ratio 67.5 W flood prone area (ft) 7.9 entrenchment ratio 1.1 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Cross‐Section Plots View Downstream 748 749 750 751 25 35 45 55 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 412+91 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 38 ‐ UT4 Bankfull Dimensions 13.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 17.8 width (ft) 0.8 mean depth (ft) 1.9 max depth (ft) 18.3 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.7 hydraulic radius (ft) 23.3 width‐depth ratio 54.5 W flood prone area (ft) 3.1 entrenchment ratio 1.0 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 04/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 751 752 753 754 755 756 20 30 40 50 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 504+91 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (04/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 39 ‐ UT4 Bankfull Dimensions 8.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 9.9 width (ft) 0.8 mean depth (ft) 1.3 max depth (ft) 10.5 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.8 hydraulic radius (ft) 11.9 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 04/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 750 751 752 753 754 755 20 30 40 50 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 505+16 Pool MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (04/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 40 ‐ UT4 Bankfull Dimensions 10.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 8.2 width (ft) 1.3 mean depth (ft) 2.4 max depth (ft) 11.3 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.0 hydraulic radius (ft) 6.2 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 04/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 747 748 749 750 751 752 15 25 35 45 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 508+51 Pool MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (04/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 41 ‐ UT4 Bankfull Dimensions 9.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 10.2 width (ft) 0.9 mean depth (ft) 1.6 max depth (ft) 11.1 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.9 hydraulic radius (ft) 10.9 width‐depth ratio 68.8 W flood prone area (ft) 6.8 entrenchment ratio 0.9 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 04/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering View Downstream Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 748 749 750 751 752 753 20 30 40 50 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 508+78 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (04/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 42 ‐ UT4 Bankfull Dimensions 10.6 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 12.5 width (ft) 0.8 mean depth (ft) 1.6 max depth (ft) 13.0 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.8 hydraulic radius (ft) 14.7 width‐depth ratio 47.4 W flood prone area (ft) 3.8 entrenchment ratio 0.9 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 746 747 748 749 750 751 20 30 40 50 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 512+03 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 43 ‐ UT4 Bankfull Dimensions 11.3 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 10.2 width (ft) 1.1 mean depth (ft) 1.9 max depth (ft) 11.5 wetted perimeter (ft) 1.0 hydraulic radius (ft) 9.2 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 05/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 744 745 746 747 748 749 10 20 30 40 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 512+35 Pool MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (05/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 44 ‐ UT5 Bankfull Dimensions 4.4 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 9.7 width (ft) 0.5 mean depth (ft) 1.0 max depth (ft) 10.1 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.4 hydraulic radius (ft) 21.4 width‐depth ratio 82.2 W flood prone area (ft) 8.5 entrenchment ratio 0.9 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 04/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 757 758 759 760 761 15 25 35 45 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 602+45 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (04/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 45 ‐ UT5 Bankfull Dimensions 4.8 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 8.6 width (ft) 0.6 mean depth (ft) 1.2 max depth (ft) 9.3 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.5 hydraulic radius (ft) 15.5 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 04/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 756 757 758 759 760 20 30 40 50 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 602+63 Pool MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (04/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 46 ‐ UT5 Bankfull Dimensions 5.5 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 9.3 width (ft) 0.6 mean depth (ft) 1.1 max depth (ft) 9.7 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.6 hydraulic radius (ft) 15.6 width‐depth ratio 55.7 W flood prone area (ft) 6.0 entrenchment ratio 0.9 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 04/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 753 754 755 756 757 20 30 40 50 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 606+10 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (04/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation Cross‐Section 47 ‐ UT5 Bankfull Dimensions 8.0 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 7.7 width (ft) 1.0 mean depth (ft) 2.0 max depth (ft) 9.4 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.9 hydraulic radius (ft) 7.4 width‐depth ratio Survey Date: 04/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 752 753 754 755 756 10 20 30 40 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 606+34 Pool MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018)MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (04/2023)Bankfull Cross‐Section 48 ‐ UT5 Bankfull Dimensions 4.9 x‐section area (ft.sq.) 11.0 width (ft) 0.4 mean depth (ft) 0.7 max depth (ft) 11.3 wetted perimeter (ft) 0.4 hydraulic radius (ft) 24.8 width‐depth ratio 53.8 W flood prone area (ft) 4.9 entrenchment ratio 0.7 low bank height ratio Survey Date: 04/2023 Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering Cross‐Section Plots Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 View Downstream 751 752 753 754 755 10 20 30 40 El e v a t i o n (f t ) Width (ft) 609+31 Riffle MY0 (10/2016)MY1 (10/2017)MY2 (06/2018) MY3 (07/2019)MY5 (05/2021)MY7 (04/2023) Bankfull Floodprone Area MY0 Bankfull Area Elevation APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plot Table 13a. Verification of Bankfull Events Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Reach Monitoring Year Date of Occurrence Method MY1 None MY2 10/11/2018 1/21/2019 1/30/2019 2/23/2019 3/7/2019 2/6/2020 5/21/2020 MY5 None MY6 8/22/2022 MY7 None MY1 6/19/2017 7/30/2018 9/17/2018 10/11/2018 MY3 2/23/2019 2/6/2020 5/21/2020 7/24/2021 8/14/2021 MY6 8/22/2022 MY7 None MY1 None 2/9/2018 3/9/2018 10/22/2018 1/10/2019 1/16/2019 1/21/2019 1/31/2019 MY4 1/22/2020 7/24/2021 8/14/2021 MY6 8/22/2022 MY7 None MY1 None 1/27/2018 7/30/2018 9/17/2018 10/11/2018 1/11/2019 1/21/2019 1/26/2019 1/30/2019 UT1C (XS27) Candy Creek Reach 4 (XS23) Candy Creek Reach 2 (XS14) MY3 MY2 MY4 UT2 (XS33) MY4 MY2 MY3 Automated Crest Gage MY5 MY5 MY3 MY2 Table 13b. Verification of Bankfull Events Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Reach Monitoring Year Date of Occurrence Method 2/6/2020 5/21/2020 7/24/2021 8/14/2021 MY6 None MY7 None MY1 None MY2 2/9/2018 1/21/2019 1/27/2019 1/30/2019 MY4 5/21/2020 MY5 7/24‐28/2021 MY6 None MY7 None MY1 None MY2 10/11/2018 MY3 1/21/2019 MY4 None MY5 10/19/2021 Manual Crest Gage & Visual Documentation MY6 None MY7 None MY1 None 1/31/2018 7/30/2018 9/17/2018 10/11/2018 1/21/2019 2/23/2019 6/8/2019 2/6/2020 2/22/2020 5/21/2020 7/24‐25/2021 8/14/2021 9/22/2021 1/3/2022 8/22‐24/2022 9/8‐13/2022 MY7 None MY4 MY5 Automated Crest Gage Automated Crest Gage MY6 MY5 UT4 (XS42) UT3 (XS37) UT2A (XS36) UT2 (XS33) (cont.) MY4 MY3 MY2 MY3 Table 13c. Verification of Bankfull Events Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Reach Monitoring Year Date of Occurrence Method 4/24/2017 6/19/2017 1/31/2018 2/6/2018 3/9/2018 7/30/2018 9/17/2018 10/11/2018 1/21/2019 1/26/2019 1/30/2019 2/23/2019 8/8/2019 10/31/2019 2/6/2020 5/20/2020 6/5/2020 6/8/2020 6/11/2020 7/19/2021 7/24/2021 8/14/2021 9/22/2021 1/3/2022 2/23‐24/2022 3/12/2022 8/22/2022 1/13/2023 1/25/2023 2/12/2023 Automated Crest Gage MY6 MY2 MY1 UT5 (XS48) MY7 MY5 MY4 MY3 Table 14. Recorded In‐Stream Flow Events Summary Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY4 (2020) MY5 (2021) MY6 (2022) MY7 (2023) UT1D 222 301 280 366 1322 272 285 1 Success criteria is 30 consecutive days of flow. 2 Gage malfunctioned; no data for part of the year. Table 15. Rainfall Summary Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 MY1 (2017) MY2 (2018) MY3 (2019) MY4 (2020) MY5 (2021) MY6 (2022) MY7 (2023) Annual Precip Total 42.83 64.11 51.98 63.37 40.65 47.79 45.82 WETS 30th Percentile 38.57 38.46 38.93 38.95 39.16 39.12 39.21 WETS 70th Percentile 45.62 45.42 46.75 46.81 47.80 47.76 47.91 Normal 42.36 42.19 43.15 43.20 43.95 43.82 43.95 WETS & Annual Precipitation Station: GREENSBORO/PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NC (313630) https://agacis.rcc‐acis.org/?fips=37081. Located approximately 18 mi. SW of the Site. WETS Percentiles are recalculated each year based on the most recent 30‐yr time period. Reach Max Consecutive Days Meeting Success Criteria1 Monthly Rainfall Data Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 WETS Station: GREENSBORO/PIEDMONT TRIAD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NC (313630) https://agacis.rcc‐acis.org/?fips=37081. Located approximately 18 mi. SW of the Site. Annual Precipitation Station: NC A&T SU Research Farm (NCAT) <https://products.climate.ncsu.edu/cardinal/scout/>. Located approximately 11.5 mi. SW of the Site. 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data based on 30‐yr climate normal (1993‐2022) Last Updated: 01/09/2024 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 January February March April May June July August September October November December Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) Month Candy Creek Rainfall 2023 Rainfall 30th Percentile 70th Percentile Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Candy Creek: Candy Reach 2 (XS 14) Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Candy Creek : Candy Reach 4 (XS 23) Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 748.5 749.5 750.5 751.5 752.5 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Candy Creek : UT1C (XS 27) Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 285 days of consecutive stream flow Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Candy Creek : UT1D (XS 29) Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 757.5 758.5 759.5 760.5 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Candy Creek: UT2 (XS 33) Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 745.0 746.0 747.0 748.0 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Candy Creek: UT2A (XS 36) Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 747 748 749 750 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Candy Creek: UT3 (XS 37) Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 745.5 746.5 747.5 748.5 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Candy Creek: UT4 (XS 42) Recorded Bankfull Events Plot Monitoring Year 7 ‐ 2023 Candy Creek Mitigation Site DMS Project No. 96315 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 7.5 9.0 751 752 753 754 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n (i n ) El e v a t i o n (f t ) Monitoring Year 7 ‐2023 Daily Precipitation Water Level Thalweg Bankfull 30‐Day Rolling Precip Total 30th & 70th Percentile Candy Creek: UT5 (XS 48) APPENDIX 6. Correspondence 1 MEETING MINUTES MEETING: IRT Credit Release Site Walk (MY4) Candy Creek Mitigation Site MEETING DATE: July 7, 2021 LOCATION: Browns Summit, NC Participants: • Aaron Earley, Wildlands Project Manager • Andrew Radecki, Wildlands Stewardship Lead • Erin Davis, NC IRT for DWR • Jeff Turner, Wildlands Monitoring Lead • John Hutton, Wildlands Principal • Kelly Phillips, NC DMS Project Manager • Kristi Suggs, Wildlands Monitoring Supervisor • Lindsay Crocker, NC DMS Eastern Regional Supervisor • Melonie Allen, NC DMS Closeout & Credit Release Coordinator • Olivia Munzer, NC IRT for WRC Western Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator 1. Met at the Hopkins Road crossing between Candy R2 and R3. 2. Introductions 3. Walked to the encroachment area of Candy R3 (~STA149+50) a. The area was evidently not being mowed as the grass was tall. b. Tree and/or shrub plantings should be scheduled for this winter. 4. Walked downstream along Candy R3 a. Erosion along the inside bend of a pool (~STA150+00) i. Well vegetated and naturally stabilized. It is developing into more of a point bar. IRT agreed that this area was no longer of concern. b. Erosion along outer bend of a pool (~STA151+50) where stream repair work is planned for the fall/winter of 2021. i. Discussed installing a brush toe and perhaps some live stakes. It was thought that this might also help allow for a better bar development on the inside bend. 5. Walked to UT1D where there are a series of failed structures that are piping underneath a. Piping structures (~STA~253+00); repair work is also planned for the same period of the fall/winter of 2021. 2 i. Suspected cause is the increased elevation change where the flatter headwaters ties into the lower elevation of the main channel. The steeper grade likely undercut the structures. ii. No main concerns were raised. 6. For #4b and #5a, IRT was concerned about access to conduct the repairs so that vegetation damage would be minimized during the repairs. a. WEI noted that the site would be accessed by the internal crossing located just downstream of UT1D. b. It was also discussed at the end of the meeting that if the repair work is completed after the current monitoring year (MY5) report has been submitted then the repair items should be highlighted in a photolog and sent to DMS for inclusion into the monitoring report prior to the credit release meeting as there will likely be a discussion about it. The work is planned for the fall/winter so would most likely occur during MY6 and be submitted with the MY6 report. 7. There is a dead snag along Candy R3 that needs to be monitored. It is somewhat near a neighbor’s structure for which it could possibly damage if it were to fall. 8. Walked upstream to Candy R2. a. Looked at manual repair area from 2019/2020. Herbaceous vegetation was well established and was obscuring any substantial view of the bank. No concerns were raised. 9. Walked to UT2. a. Looked at the bare area along UT2 R2 (~STA315+00); discussed giving one more attempted treatment to improve the bare area and keeping the lespedeza at bay but it is a minimal problem given the total area of the project and because there are still trees both along the fence line and the stream in that area. b. Looked at the area where the dam was removed (~STA310+00-311+00) i. No concerns were raised. The process of removing the dam constructing the channel in the pond muck was discussed. It is still maintaining a single-thread channel. 10. Drove upstream to Candy R1 and UT5. 11. Walked part of UT5 (~STA604+00-608+00). a. The aggradation on this channel and how to report it was discussed in detail. The main take away is that the aggradation and sedimentation in the channel that was observed was not negatively impacting the overall structure or function of the stream. b. The sedimentation was mostly within the banks, but some was also on the floodplain. Its structure was coarse sand. The source is suspected to have come from off-site as no erosive areas have been observed within the easement. There are several farm ponds upstream of the project (above UT5-preservation) that drain a large agricultural tract and could have provided the sediment load, as could have an overflowing or breached pond dam (although no direct source has been confirmed). c. For the effects on the stream, it was noted that while the pools are filling with some sand, the stream is functioning more like a sand-bed stream. The pools are present but shallow, and the sediment is not collecting or burying the riffles as noted by the macroinvertebrates present today on the riffle substrate. d. It was discussed how this stream is geographically positioned in a transitional area of the piedmont and the slate belt and that some watersheds have soils with a greater 3 sand load. The sand load in the watershed was not expected during the Mitigation Plan stage but isn’t unexpected given the geographic location. e. How to report the aggradation changes was discussed. The official DMS guidance should be followed; however, the following ideas were mentioned and could be considered if given approval: i. Getting photographs early in the year (prior to leaf-out) would be beneficial. ii. Survey is still desired later in the year to capture changes that occurred during the monitoring year, but it was noted that even if the survey occurs early, the profile will still capture 12 months of change from the last survey period. iii. Using a 360-camera is an idea to show the streams, although the vegetation would be a problem. Using a story map and drones are also ideas, but the latter are better for early projects, or showing vegetation change from year to year. This idea may not be an option for this project, especially within the next few years. 12. The general idea was that the aggradation should continue to be shown and reported, and it should be discussed in the narrative of the text. (It was noted that any area of concern should be discussed in the narrative.) However, the discussion can cover how the aggradation (or any issue) is being reported but is not a substantial cause for concern because of X, Y, or Z. 13. Walked to Candy R1 a. Encroachment area (~STA101+00) i. The area is being encroached upon by an adjacent landowner who is not part of the project. He has been contacted and asked to stop mowing the area. ii. Horse tape is being used as are additional easement markers. iii. Trees and/or shrubs should also be planted in this area. 14. Action items: a. Use the narrative portion of the report to discuss areas of concern; use the text to convey the level of concern about it and if any action is needed. For example using UT5, continue to report its presence but provide information about whether the aggradation is/is not getting worse and if any action is/is not needed. b. Continue to report the current aggradation on UT5 but currently it is not a substantial concern making sure to discuss its current state and to refer to the discussion we had on-site. Include the meeting notes in the monitoring report appendix. c. Look into giving one more attempted treatment to improve the bare area along UT2 R2 and keep the lespedeza at bay. However, don’t go overboard with trying to establish vegetation because it is a minimal problem given the total area of the project and there are still trees both along the fence line and the stream in that area. d. Repairs planned for items #4 and #5. In the MY5 report, discuss the areas of concern in the narrative, provide photos if available, and discuss the repair plan documenting if it has been completed or when it is to be completed. If the work is done prior to the submittal of the MY5 report to DMS, include photos of the repair area. If it is done after the submittal to DMS, send a photolog of the repairs to DMS for inclusion in the report prior to the credit release meeting. e. Encroachment areas should include supplemental plantings of trees/shrubs. f. The next IRT walk is not expected until the final close-out. At that point, any continuing/new encroachment areas could be an issue in getting the final credit release. From:Dunnigan, Emily To:Kristi Suggs Cc:Aaron Earley; Jeff Turner; Andrew Radecki Subject:RE: [External] RE: Candy Creek #96315 - Early Close-out request Date:Wednesday, October 4, 2023 3:34:39 PM Attachments:image001.png 96315_Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site_DMS_Memo_to_SP.pdf Candy Creek_96315_MY6_Easement Report.pdf 96315_Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site_JMH.kmz Hi Kristi, Please find the attached action item memo for transfer to long term stewardship. Also, attached is the easement report from February and a KMZ of issues found during the September site visit. Please complete the listed tasks by 2/15/2024 for the project to smoothly transition into long term stewardship when the time comes. For the project to be a candidate for early close-out, the items and documentation would need to be provided by December 1st , 2023. Please provide documentation of completed tasks (necessary photos, maps, etc.) and complete the other memo items. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Emily Emily Dunnigan Project Manager – Eastern Region Division of Mitigation Services 217 West Jones St., Raleigh, NC 27603 Cell: 919-817-6534 From: Kristi Suggs <ksuggs@wildlandseng.com> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 12:02 PM To: Dunnigan, Emily <Emily.Dunnigan@deq.nc.gov> Cc: Aaron Earley <aearley@wildlandseng.com>; Jeff Turner <jturner@wildlandseng.com>; Andrew Radecki <aradecki@wildlandseng.com> Subject: RE: [External] RE: Candy Creek #96315 - Early Close-out request CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab. Thanks, Emily! We will be looking for the Stewardship Transfer Memo and continue tying up outstanding items. Have a great weekend as well. Kristi Kristi Suggs | Senior Environmental Scientist O: 704.332.7754 x110 M: 704.579.4828 Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 From: Dunnigan, Emily <Emily.Dunnigan@deq.nc.gov> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 10:49 AM To: Kristi Suggs <ksuggs@wildlandseng.com> Cc: Aaron Earley <aearley@wildlandseng.com>; Jeff Turner <jturner@wildlandseng.com>; Andrew Radecki <aradecki@wildlandseng.com> Subject: RE: [External] RE: Candy Creek #96315 - Early Close-out request Hi Kristi, I’m glad the boundary issues will be fixed up by December 1. You can submit the draft report at any time. Please include any documentation of completed boundary items and mention in the report any that are ongoing with an estimated completion date. I will be sending a stewardship transfer memo soon that will detail the action items (many you are already working on) to be completed. Once those are all completed, and you provide documentation I think the site will be good to go. If you can turn that memo around shortly after 11/28 or by 12/1 than I get this scheduled for early close out. Have a great weekend and let me know if you have any other questions. Emily Emily Dunnigan Project Manager – Eastern Region Division of Mitigation Services 217 West Jones St., Raleigh, NC 27603 Cell: 919-817-6534 From: Kristi Suggs <ksuggs@wildlandseng.com> Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 12:32 PM To: Dunnigan, Emily <Emily.Dunnigan@deq.nc.gov> Cc: Aaron Earley <aearley@wildlandseng.com>; Jeff Turner <jturner@wildlandseng.com>; Andrew Radecki <aradecki@wildlandseng.com> Subject: [External] RE: Candy Creek #96315 - Early Close-out request CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab. Emily, Thank you for the information. Also, I spoke with Aaron about the timing for the completion of the outstanding boundary items, so that we can request an early close-out. He said that all the boundary issues, including the easement cap stamping, will be completed by 11/28/2023; therefore, we will be able to submit the MY7 report by 12/1/2023 and request an early close-out. However, I was wondering if we have everything completed prior to 11/28/2023, except for the stamping of the easement caps, should we go ahead and submit the draft MY7 report to DMS for review with the caveat in the report that the cap stamping will be completed by 11/28 or should we hold the draft report until the stamping is done? Thanks for your assistance! Kristi Kristi Suggs | Senior Environmental Scientist O: 704.332.7754 x110 M: 704.579.4828 Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 From: Dunnigan, Emily <Emily.Dunnigan@deq.nc.gov> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 10:33 AM To: Jeff Turner <jturner@wildlandseng.com> Cc: Aaron Earley <aearley@wildlandseng.com>; Kristi Suggs <ksuggs@wildlandseng.com> Subject: RE: [External] Candy Creek #96315 - Report Question Hi Jeff, I don’t think there’s anything special you need to include in the report. If repairs or any issues were addressed in MY7 they should still be in the report and on the CCPV. If any issues were resolved prior to MY7 then they don’t need to be included. This site is a good candidate for early close-out (assuming no major issues) and the boundary issues are completed. For that to work the report would need to be completed by December 1st. Thanks, Emily Emily Dunnigan Project Manager – Eastern Region Division of Mitigation Services 217 West Jones St., Raleigh, NC 27603 Cell: 919-817-6534 From: Jeff Turner <jturner@wildlandseng.com> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2023 4:16 PM To: Dunnigan, Emily <Emily.Dunnigan@deq.nc.gov> Cc: Aaron Earley <aearley@wildlandseng.com>; Kristi Suggs <ksuggs@wildlandseng.com> Subject: [External] Candy Creek #96315 - Report Question CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless verified. Report suspicious emails with the Report Message button located on your Outlook menu bar on the Home tab. Hello Ms. Dunnigan, I hope that you are doing well. We are working on the MY7 report for Candy Creek (DMS#96315) and I wanted to check that there wasn’t anything special that you wanted us report on for the final report, outside of what Wildlands typically reports on for the final report? For the MY7 reports we usually report photo points and vegetation data for the life of the project, and that will be done again. We don’t typically show resolved areas of concern on the CCPV figures. Please let me know if there are new additions or sections that you would like specifically included outside of what we normally submit. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Jeff Turner, MS | Environmental Scientist O: 704.332.7754 x118 Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104 Charlotte, NC 28203 Email correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized state official. DMS Transfer Preparation Memo: This memo documents required action items per the NC Stewardship Program that must be completed prior to issuing an Acceptance to Transfer letter for the long-term stewardship of this conservation easement. Easement violations and boundary marking issues were noted and will require action to remedy. Site Name: Candy Creek Stream Mitigation Site ID: 96315 Project Manager: Emily Dunnigan Site Visit Date: 09/12/23 Target Resolution Date: 02/15/2024 Please complete the following action items by the Target Resolution Date above: A .kmz file noting examples of action items listed below accompanies this memo. 1. Boundary Marking: • Refer to the February 21, 2023 Conservation Easement Inspection Report and complete all requested items. • See SP KML #3. Replace this sign with an approved easement holder sign. • See SP KML #5. We were unable to locate this corner and witness. Please locate and ensure it adheres to the RFP witness marking requirements. 2. Easement Violation: Refer to the February 21, 2023 Conservation Easement Inspection Report and complete all requested items. The scalloping items were also noted on this field visit. They must be addressed and all verbal or written communications with the landowners summarized and reported to the project manager. 3. Misc. • See SP KML #2. Remove tree on fence. • See SP KML #4. Remove old fencing from within CE. • See SP KML #6. Re-Install horse tape to prevent scalloping. 4. Landowner Contacts: DMS property has identified the following participating landowners. Review and correct the table for existing contact information. Provide the missing contact information for all landowners listed below. Notify each landowner of pending management transfer to Long Term Stewards. A formal letter will be sent to the participating landowner upon successful transfer to stewardship. DocuSign Envelope ID: 66CF85FA-EAA5-42FF-860A-1E3467C099C3 9/28/2023 10/4/2023 (Source online NC GIA Parcel Data) Property Owner Mailing Address Phone Number Email Address TAYLOR, DONALD E;BRAY, NANCY CARR, DARIN W;CARR, PAMELA P GRAHAM, DEVON SCOTT;GRAHAM, SHANA HOPKINS HOPKINS, HERBERT WALLACE;HOPKINS, MARJORIE HOPKINS, JEFFERSON TODD;HOPKINS, MARY ANN MAY, JUSTIN L;MAY, ALICIA S CHRISMON, BRUCE H;CHRISMON, MARGIE L CRIDER, ARTHUR WADE JR;CRIDER, STACEY SMITH TROXLER, KENNETH REID;TROXLER, RENEE BUSICK KENNEY, BRITTANI R;VAUGHN, DAVID A ANIYIKAIYE, BARBARA HOPKINS, JEFFERSON TODD;HOPKINS, MARY ANN 5. Verify that there are no unrecorded, undocumented, or verbal agreements pertaining to management of, access into or through, or subdivision of parent parcel of the conservation easement. Note any agreements here that conflict in any way with prohibited uses as specified in the recorded easement document. Provide copies of any formal correspondence with participating landowners, designated representatives, or other interested parties. DocuSign Envelope ID: 66CF85FA-EAA5-42FF-860A-1E3467C099C3 Updated Landowner Contacts Property Owner Mailing Address Phone Number Email Address ANIYIKAIYE, BARBARA 5305 Misty Way, Brown Summit, NC 27214 (336) 404‐8571 deleagnanews.com barbaraaniyikaiye@yahoo.com CARR, DARIN W; CARR, PAMELA P 7543 Friendship Church Road, Brown Summit, NC 27214 (336) 404‐0741 dcarr@cgrproducts.com CHRISMON, BRUCE H; CHRISMON, MARGIE L 5245 Hopkins Road, Brown Summit, NC 27214 (336) 656‐9220 (336) 601‐3537 bchrismon@aƩ.net CRIDER, ARTHUR WADE JR; CRIDER, STACEY SMITH 5306 Hopkins Road, Browns Summit, NC 27214 (336) 382‐1378 Acrider769@gmail.com GRAHAM, DEVON SCOTT; GRAHAM, SHANA HOPKINS 1819 Natchez Trce, Greensboro, NC 27455 N/A N/A HOPKINS, HERBERT WALLACE; HOPKINS, MARJORIE 8076 Old Reidsville Road, Brown Summit, NC 27214 (336) 656‐7663 (336) 362‐2692 wallace@hopkinspaint.com marjorie@hopkinspaint.com HOPKINS, JEFFERSON TODD; HOPKINS, MARY ANN 5315 Hopkins Road, Browns Summit, NC 27214 (336) 669‐3313 (336) 669‐3316 mahpk4@aol.com KENNEY, BRITTANI R; VAUGHN, DAVID A 5237 Hopkins Road, Brown Summit, NC 27214 N/A N/A MAY, JUSTIN L; MAY, ALICIA S 226 Somers Loop, Reidsville, NC 27320 N/A N/A TAYLOR, DONALD E; BRAY, NANCY PO Box 14323, Greensboro, NC 27415 (336) 656‐4919 N/A TROXLER, KENNETH REID; TROXLER, RENEE BUSICK 7755 Ferrin Rd, Browns Summit, NC 27214 336‐317‐4902 renee.troxler@yahoo.com WAGONER, BRIAN P; WAGONER, DAVID G JR 5123, 5141, 5159 Highway 150, Browns Summit, NC 28214 (336) 621‐4387 (336) 580‐5883 N/A 1 February 21, 2023 Emily Dunnigan Project Manager NCDEQ-DMS Green Square 217 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Cell: (919) 817-6534 Subject: Conservation Easement Inspection Report – MY6 Site Candy Creek Mitigation Site Cape Fear River Basin - CU# 03030002 - Guilford County DMS ID No.96315 - DMS Contract # 5794 Emily, The MY6 boundary field inspection was conducted by DMS on January 19, 2023. The inspection was conducted in accordance with the DMS Property Checklist which included a pre-inspection office review of the plat, aerial photographs, as-built, conservation easement and monitoring reports. The entire easement boundary was inspected to validate the easement integrity and identify any potential issues on the site. The site inspection results are shown in the attached checklist and kmz map. Office Review:  Three areas of historical mowing encroachments were identified in the MY6 report. The report indicated the total area of the encroachments was 0.07 acres and each area had been taped off and replanted.  Aerial photos show the three historical encroachments and several areas to be field check for potential row crop encroachment into the conservation easement. Field Inspection:  None of the aluminum monument caps observed onsite were stamped.  A small area of scallop mowing is continuing between the newly installed T-posts at the Hopkins Road encroachment.  A small area of scallop mowing is continuing beneath the horse tape at the encroachment at the southeast corner of the site.  Previously unidentified scallop mowing was observed on the east side of the pond located on the southeast end of the site.  Detached horse tape protecting the easement boundary was observed in two areas.  A permanent deer stand has been installed within the easement at the southwest corner of the site.  Two easement marker signs were missing from their posts.  A downed tree is across the barbed wire fence on the eastern boundary approximately 700 feet north of Hopkins Road. Action Items  The aluminum monument caps should be stamped in accordance with the boundary marking specifications.  A small area of scallop mowing is continuing between the newly installed T-posts at the Hopkins Road encroachment. This ongoing and historical encroachment needs to be corrected. Supplemental marking and communication with the landowner should be implemented to prevent future mowing within the easement. DocuSign Envelope ID: 66CF85FA-EAA5-42FF-860A-1E3467C099C3 2  A small area of scallop mowing is continuing beneath the newly installed horse tape in the southeast encroachment area. This ongoing and historical encroachment needs to be corrected. Supplemental marking and communication with the landowner should be implemented to prevent future mowing within the easement.  The newly identified scallop mowing observed on the east side of the pond located at the southeast end of the site needs to be corrected. Supplemental marking and communication with the landowner should be implemented to prevent future mowing within the easement. Supplemental planting should be considered and re-planting should be conducted in accordance with the approved mitigation plan and IRT coordination.  The two areas of detached horse tape should be repaired to prevent scallop mowing.  The permanent deer stand installed within the easement at the southwest corner of the site must be removed from the conservation easement.  Replace missing easement signs.  Remove downed tree and repair barbed wire fence north of Hopkins Road. Let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Kelly Phillips Project Manager NCDEQ-DMS 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 Cell: (919) 723-7565 cc: R:\EEP PROJECT LIBRARY FILES\PROJECT DELIVERABLES(REPORTS)\FD PROJECTS\Candy Creek Stream 005794 (#96315)\Task 02 CE\DMS Easement Inspections\January 2023 MY6 Inspection DocuSign Envelope ID: 66CF85FA-EAA5-42FF-860A-1E3467C099C3 Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone 704-332-7754  fax 704-332-3306  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203 November 30, 2023 Kelly Phillips Project Manager NCDEQ – Division of Mitigation Services 610 East Center Avenue, Suite 301 Mooresville, NC 28115 RE: Conservation Easement Inspection Report – MY6 Site Candy Creek Mitigation Site Cape Fear River Basin – CU# 03030002 ‐ Guilford County DMS ID No.96315 ‐ Contract # 5794 Dear Mr. Phillips: Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments from the Conservation Easement Inspection Report – MY6 Site for the Candy Creek Mitigation Project that conducted on January 19, 2023. The draft report has been updated to reflect those comments. DMS’ comments and observations from the report are listed below and noted in bold. Wildlands’ response to those comments are noted in Italics. Action Items: 1. DMS’ comment: The aluminum monument caps should be stamped in accordance with the boundary marking specifications. Wildlands’ response: All of the aluminum monuments were replaced with stamped monuments in November 2023. 2. DMS’ comment: A small area of scallop mowing is continuing between the newly installed T‐posts at the Hopkins Road encroachment. This ongoing and historical encroachment needs to be corrected. Supplemental marking and communication with the landowner should be implemented to prevent future mowing within the easement. Wildlands’ response: As of the last field inspection in October 2023, no additional mowing encroachment was observed, as shown in the Improved Areas of Concern Photographs. The landowner was contacted on June 29, 2023 and agreed to stop mowing the area. Additionally, herbaceous plugs, including butterfly weed (Asclepias tuberosa), were planted in a double row to help demarcate the boundary. 3. DMS’ comment: A small area of scallop mowing is continuing beneath the newly installed horse tape in the southeast encroachment area. This ongoing and historical encroachment needs to be corrected. Supplemental marking and communication with the landowner should be implemented to prevent future mowing within the easement. Wildlands’ response: The landowner was contacted on September 19, 2023 and agreed to stop mowing the area. As of the last field inspection in October 2023, the newly installed horse tape was intact and visible. Photo documentation of the easement during this field inspection shows that the landowner is using the horse tape as a guide for the easement boundary and no additional mowing encroachments have occurred. See the Improved Areas of Concern Photographs in Appendix 2 of the MY7/Closeout Report. Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone 704-332-7754  fax 704-332-3306  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203 4. DMS’ comment: The newly identified scallop mowing observed on the east side of the pond located at the southeast end of the site needs to be corrected. Supplemental marking and communication with the landowner should be implemented to prevent future mowing within the easement. Supplemental planting should be considered and re‐planting should be conducted in accordance with the approved mitigation plan and IRT coordination. Wildlands’ response: The landowner was contacted on September 19, 2023 and agreed to stop mowing the area. As of the last field inspection in October 2023, this area was observed to be close to, but outside of the easement. Therefore, it was not mapped in the MY7 CCPV figures, but it was shown in the Improved Areas of Concern Photolog. Additionally, herbaceous plugs, including butterfly weed (Asclepias tuberosa), were planted in a double row to help demarcate the boundary. 5. DMS’ comment: The two areas of detached horse tape should be repaired to prevent scallop mowing. Wildlands’ response: New horse tape was pulled in areas where the tape was broken, including in the right boundary of UT1C, as shown in the Improved Areas of Concern Photographs. 6. DMS’ comment: The permanent deer stand installed within the easement at the southwest corner of the site must be removed from the conservation easement. Wildlands’ response: The structure was removed in November 2023. 7. DMS’ comment: Replace missing easement signs. Wildlands’ response: Missing easement signs were replaced, including the area just north of the internal crossing on Candy Creek Reach 3, as shown in the Improved Areas of Concern Photographs. 8. DMS’ comment: Remove downed tree and repair barbed wire fence north of Hopkins Road. Wildlands’ response: The fallen tree was removed and the fence was repaired as needed. Additional Issues on the KMZ file: 9. DMS’ comment: #2: remove down tree on fence. Wildlands’ response: The fallen tree was removed and the fence was repaired as needed. 10. DMS’ comment: #4: Remove old fence. Wildlands’ response: The old fence located on the left floodplain of Candy Creek Reach 2, just south of Hopkins Road, was removed. 11. DMS’ comment: #5: Shed debris corner not located. Wildlands’ response: All monuments were located and replaced with stamped monuments. The landowner contacts have also been updated, as requested in the DMS Transfer Preparation Memo, and are included in Appendix 6 of the MY7 report. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kristi Suggs Senior Environmental Scientist