20150416 Ver 1_RussellGap_100003_MY4_2023_20240118

Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
Year 4 (2023) Monitoring Report FINAL

DMS RFP No. 16-006807; Date of Issue: 2/15/2016
DMS Project ID No. 100003, DEQ Contract No. 6980
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-00826, DWR# 20150416
Alexander County, North Carolina, Catawba River Basin: 03050101-120010
MY4 Data Collection Period: January – October 2023

Submitted to/Prepared for:

NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652

Submission Date: January 2024
This document was printed using 30% recycled paper.

797 Haywood Rd. Suite 201| Asheville, NC 28806
Office: 828-412-6101| Mobile: [phone] MBAKERINTL.COM
January 15, 2024

Matt Reid, PM
NCDEQ, Division of Mitigation Services
Asheville Regional Office
2090 U.S. 70 Highway
Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211

Subject:
Response to DMS Comments (December 15, 2023) for DRAFT Monitoring Year 4 Report.
Russell Gap Mitigation Project, Alexander County
Catawba River Basin: 06010106
DMS Project #100003 DEQ Contract #6980

Dear Mr. Reid,
Please find below our responses to the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) review comments
dated December 15, 2023, in reference to the Russel Gap Mitigation Project’s DRAFT Monitoring
Year 4 Report. We have revised the Draft document in response to review comments as outlined
below.

· Please ensure the Monitoring Phase Performance Bond has been updated and approved
by Kristie Corson before invoicing for Task 10.
RESPONSE: The Bond has been submitted and approved to Kristie Corson.

· Please include “DMS RFP No. 16-006807; Date of Issue: 2/15/2016” on the title page.re
RESPONSE: This line to the title page has been added as requested.

· Report indicates that mid-channel bars were shoveled out and repaired on R1. Please
include additional information on what was repaired and how. Please include the
location of the work on the CCPV and update Table 2 to include Stream Maintenance.
RESPONSE: The information has been included in section 1.4 Monitoring Results and
Project Performance and the location of the work is shown on the CCPV. Table 2 has
been updated as requested.

· A supplemental planting occurred in 2023. Please note in the report that the three
species used were from the planting plan in the approved Mitigation Plan. Please include
location of supplemental planting on CCPV and update Table 2 to include the 2023
supplemental planting.
RESPONSE: It has been noted in the report that the planted species are from the planting
plan in the approved Mitigation Plan. The CCPV and Table 2 have been updated as
requested.

· Approximately how far is the CRONOS station TAYL located from the project site?
RESPONSE: In Section 1.5 Technical and Methodological Descriptions, it is stated that
CRONOS station TAYL is located approximately nine miles south of the project site.

· Table 5 and 6 – Please include the date of the stream and/or vegetation assessment
occurred on the table.
RESPONSE: The dates have been added as requested.

· Table 5, R1 – Table indicates 2 unstable segments totaling 220 feet. The CCPV does not
show these segments. DMS assumes this aggradation is a result of the beaver dams. Please
include these areas on the CCPV and include a .shp file in the revised submittal for the
aggrading length.
RESPONSE: These stream lengths are associated with the beaver dams and a line showing
the approximate hydrologic impact has been added to the CCPVs. A shapefile has been
added to the electronic submission files as requested.

· Table 5, R3, R4 and R9 – Same comment as above.
RESPONSE: See response above.
· Hydrology Gauge Graphs – DMS recommends downloading gauge data after the end of
the growing season so the data set includes the entire growing season.
RESPONSE: We agree with this comment, and we aim to download gauge data as close to
the end of the growing season as possible; however, in MY4 our download date of 10-19-
23 was sufficient to capture success criteria and a later download date would not have
changed the result of any gauges other than to increase the amount of days meeting
criteria both consecutively and cumulatively.

· RGAW5 Graph – Is this well functioning correctly? When compared to the other
gauge graphs, the 20” drop that occurred around May 23 may indicate gauge failure.
Please ensure all gauges are functioning correctly as the project moves into MY5.
RESPONSE: We agree that the data for RGAW5 appears unusual and we will ensure
that the gauges are functioning correctly moving into MY5.

· The abundance of juncus found along R1 has been a concern at the site. Have the planted
trees been able to out compete the juncus?
RESPONSE: In MY4 it was observed that planted stems have begun to reach a height
higher than that of the Juncus and we expect these stems to continue to perform well.
Veg plots in these areas have all met criteria in past monitoring years and we will
continue to monitor these areas in MY5.

· During the 2023 Credit Release Meeting, the IRT requested additional vegetation
transects in the juncus area in MY4. Since vegetation data is not collected in MY4, please
consider adding transects in MY5 in the requested area.
RESPONSE: We will continue to include a transect and/or a random veg plot in this area
in future monitoring years.

· The IRT requested a camera be installed on R14 during the 2023 Credit Release
Meeting. Thank you for installing the camera and providing photos.
RESPONSE: Thank you. This camera has proven helpful in supplementing our flow data.

· There was confusion with the way gauge labels are shown in the monitoring report, CCPV
and graphs. The IRT requested that labeling be reviewed in the future. The report refers
to the gauges differently in each section. Report is well 1, CCPV is MW1 and graph is
RGAW1. Please be consistent with naming convention and update report as necessary.
RESPONSE: We apologize for this confusion and have reviewed labeling to ensure
consistency between the report, the CCPVs and all tables and figures.

Electronic Deliverables:
· Please submit the location of the area of stream instability noted in the visual
assessment table and the location of the beaver dams indicated on the CCPV.
RESPONSE: Additional shapefiles including the supplemental planting area and the
stream instability areas associated with beaver dams have been added to the electronic
deliverables.

As requested, Michael Baker has provided an electronic response letter addressing the DMS comments
received and two (2) hardcopies of the FINAL report, and the updated e-submission digital files will be
sent via secure ftp link. A full final electronic copy with electronic support files have been included on a
USB drive. Please do not hesitate to contact me ([e-mail] 828-412-6101) should you
have any questions regarding our response submittal.

Sincerely,

Jason York
Environmental Scientist

Enclosure: Final MY4 Report Russell Gap Mitigation Project
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100003
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................... 3
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................................. 3
PROJECT SUCCESS CRITERIA ..................................................................................................................... 4
MONITORING RESULTS AND PROJECT PERFORMANCE ............................................................................. 4
TECHNICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................... 5
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 5

APPENDICES

Appendix A Background Tables and Figures
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Project Asset Map
Table 1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 Project Contacts
Table 4 Project Attributes

Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3 Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Stream Station Photo-Points
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos*

Monitoring Gauges and Overbank Photographs
Flow Camera Photographs
Additional Site Photographs

Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data*
Table 7 Planted Stem Counts by Plot and Species*

Appendix D Stream Geomorphology Data*
Figure 4 Cross-Sections with Annual Overlay*
Table 8 Baseline Stream Data Summary*
Table 9 Cross-Section Morphology Data Summary*

Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table 10 Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure 5 Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
Table 11 Wetland Hydrology Summary Data
Figure 6 Flow Gauge Graphs
Table 12 All Years Flow Gauge Success
Figure 7 Observed Rainfall Versus Historic Averages

MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100003
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT

*Note: Vegetation data and cross sections are not required in monitoring year 4 and 6 according to DMS
requirements. Therefore, data is intentionally left out of the monitoring report. The table of contents
remains the same to keep numbering consistent for remaining monitoring years.

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY

Project Description
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Michael Baker) restored approximately 4,209 linear feet of existing
stream, enhanced 8,857 linear feet of stream along Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) to Davis Creek, the East
Prong Lower Little River, and UTs to the East Prong Lower Little River. Michael Baker also restored
and/or enhanced approximately 7.3 acres of riparian wetland. The project is located in the Catawba River
Basin, within the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050101-120010, which is identified as a Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW) in the NC Division of Mitigation Services’(DMS) 2009 Upper Catawba River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report.
The Russell Gap Stream Mitigation project is located on an active cattle farm in Alexander County, North
Carolina, 10 miles northwest of the Town of Taylorsville as shown on the Project Vicinity Map (Figure 1).
Historic agriculture uses on the project site include cattle production, row crops, and apple orchards. These
activities had negatively impacted both water quality and streambank stability along the project streams
and their tributaries (Table 4). The project is being conducted as part of the NCDMS Full Delivery In-Lieu
Fee Program and is anticipated to generate at close-out a total of 9,166.949 stream mitigation credits
(contracted for 9,400) and up to 7.053 riparian wetland mitigation units (contracted for 4.0) (Table 1) and
is protected by a 35.97-acre permanent conservation easement.
Goals and Objectives
The goals of this project are identified below:
· Establish geomorphically stable conditions along all project reaches,
· Improvement of water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs,
· Restoration of natural stream and floodplain interactions,
· Restoration and enhancement of riparian wetland functions,
· Restoration and protection of riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat,
· Improvement of in-stream aquatic habitat, and
· Establish a permanent conservation easement on the entire project.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were identified:
· To restore appropriate bankfull dimensions, remove spoil berms, and/or raise channel beds, by
utilizing either a Priority I Restoration approach or an Enhancement Level I approach.
· To construct streams of appropriate dimensions, pattern, and profile in restored reaches, slope
stream banks and provide bankfull benches on enhanced streams and utilize bioengineering to
provide long-term stability.
· Construct the correct channel morphology on all streams increasing the number and depths of pools,
with structures including geo-lifts with brush toe, log vanes/weirs, root wads, and/or J-hooks.
· Raise ground water levels in delineated hydric soil areas through the implementation of Priority I
restoration and the filling of ditches. Wetland vegetation will also be planted.
· Establish riparian buffers at a 50-foot minimum width along all stream reaches, planted with native
tree and shrub species.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100003
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT

· Establish a permanent conservation easement restricting land use in perpetuity. This will prevent
site disturbance and allow the project to mature and stabilize.
Project Success Criteria
The success criteria and performance standards for the project will follow the North Carolina Interagency
Review Team (NCIRT) guidance document Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update dated October 24, 2016 and as described in Section 7 of the approved Mitigation Plan.
All specific monitoring activities will follow those outlined in detail in Section 8 of the approved Mitigation
Plan and will be conducted for a period of seven years unless otherwise noted. Annual monitoring reports
will follow the DMS document Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content
Guidance from April 2015. The performance standards for the riparian buffer assets will be held in
accordance with 15A NCAC 02B.0295(n)(2)(B) and 15A NCAC 02B.0295(n)(4), and annual monitoring
reports will be submitted at the end of each of the seven monitoring years.
Monitoring Results and Project Performance
During Year 4 monitoring, visual site inspections were conducted throughout the year. Small areas of
invasive species (Ligustrum sp. and Rosa multifora) were treated on R11, R13, R14, R1, R7 and R8 during
May and October 2023. Small pockets of rose are scattered throughout R1 and R4 and Michael Baker plans
on a follow up treatment in monitoring year 5. Six problem areas were noted, all to beaver dams. The dams
have impounded water along R1, R3, R4, and R9. However, the vegetation is still dense and providing
channel stability. Michael Baker is planning on hiring a licensed trapper and removing the dams during the
winter and spring of 2024. It was reported during monitoring year 3 that mid-channel bars were found on
R1. Both of these bars were shoveled out and repaired. Areas impacted by beaver can be found on the
CCPV in Appendix B. Additionally, a mixture of 35 (Betula nigra, Platanus occidentalis, and Quercus
phellos) 1-gal and 3-gal trees were supplementally planted along the right floodplain of R1 in areas of dense
Juncus. The planted area is shown on CCPV A. These species are included in the planting list of the
approved Mitigation Plan. The mid-channel bars on R1 reported during MY3 were repaired in May 2023.
Material forming the bars was shoveled out by hand and deposited along the edge of the channel. The bars
had not reformed at the time of reporting and this section of the reach appears stable.
During Year 4 monitoring, one post-construction bankfull event on R1, R4, and R6 was observed (see Table
10 in Appendix E and the Overbank Photographs in Appendix B). Bankfull events are documented using
manual cork crest gauge readings and post-flood event site inspection photographs. Rain data and
groundwater well inundation is also considered to determine the approximate date of bankfull events. A
crest gauge located on R9 did not record an overbank event during MY4.
Figure 7 in Appendix E demonstrates that rainfall since November 2022 has been within average of the
historic averages in total with the summer being wetter than average and the winter being dryer than
average. A total of 53.59 inches of rainfall was observed at the project site and the annual historic average
totals 52.47 inches. All observed project rainfall was collected from the North Carolina Climate Office
Weather Climate Database CRONOS station TAYL, located in Taylorsville, NC approximately 9 miles
south of the site.
During Year 4 monitoring, 10 of twelve automated groundwater monitoring wells (RGAWs) met or
exceeded the minimum hydroperiod performance criteria approved in the Mitigation Plan of 12% of the
227-day growing season (27 or more consecutive days). It was commented during the monitoring year 3
report to add additional monitoring wells in areas that were not preforming. We requested to wait until the
end of monitoring year 4 to see if any improvement occurred due to such a dry monitoring year 3. Michael
Baker explored other areas around RGAW 1 by auguring test holes for measuring water levels although the
test holes showed soils consistent with those soils in the area of RGAW 1, therefore RGAW 1 was not
relocated. RGAW 11 did not meet success criteria by only 3 days. The remaining wells showed a positive
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100003
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT

trend towards passing this year; along with, exceeding success criteria in both monitoring years 1 and 2
despite drought conditions late in MY4. Impacts of beaver impoundments can be seen in the data for
RGAW 7. Four of five automated flow gauges met or exceeded the minimum 30-day performance criteria
during MY4. (See Appendix E, Table 12). On June 14th an additional flow camera was installed on R14 to
capture regular flow throughout the monitoring year to support the flow gauge data. Both flow cameras on
R14 and R11 show consistent flow throughout the year. See Appendix B, Flow Camera Photographs.
Summary information/data related to the Site and statistics related to performance of various project and
monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report Appendices. Narrative background
and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report
and in the Mitigation Plan available on the DMS website. Any raw data supporting the tables and figures
in the Appendices is available from DMS upon request.
This report documents the successful completion of the Year 4 monitoring activities for the post-
construction monitoring period.
Technical and Methodological Descriptions
Stream survey data was collected to a minimum of Class C Vertical and Class A Horizontal Accuracy using
a Leica TS06 Total Station and was georeferenced to the NAD83 State Plane Coordinate System, FIPS3200
in US Survey Feet, which was derived from the MY-1 Survey. The survey data from the permanent project
cross-sections were collected and classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System to confirm
design stream type (Rosgen 1994 and 1996). Cross sections are not required in monitoring year 4 and 6
according to DMS requirements.
The twenty permanent and nine annual random vegetation-monitoring quadrants (plots) are installed across
the site in accordance with the CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (Lee 2007) and
the data collected from each was input into the CVS-DMS Data Entry Tool v. 2.3.1 (CVS 2012). Vegetation
plot monitoring is not required in monitoring year 4 and 6 according to DMS requirements.
Nine automated groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the floodplain along Reach R1 following
USACE protocols (USACE 2005). Three additional groundwater monitoring wells were installed in the
floodplain along R9. Flow gauges were installed on R11, R13, R14, R19 and R20 and additional cameras
were installed on R11 and R14 to capture pictures of flow. Collective data will document that these
intermittent streams continue to exhibit base flow for at least thirty consecutive days throughout each
monitoring year. The gauges themselves are all Van Essen DI800 BARO Diver data loggers. Four manual
cork crest gauges were installed on R1, R4, R6, and R9.
All observed project rainfall was collected from the North Carolina Climate Office Weather Climate
Database CRONOS station TAYL, located in Taylorsville, NC approximately nine miles south of the
project at 35.9139, -81.19087.
The specific locations of monitoring features, such as vegetation plots, permanent cross-sections, reference
photograph stations, and crest gauges, are shown on the CCPV map found in Appendix B.
The conservation easement has been inspected, marking is up to date, fencing is intact, and no
encroachments were observed during monitoring year 4.
References
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) and NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). CVS-DMS Data Entry
Tool v. 2.3.1. University of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. 2012.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2007. CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.1.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT, DMS NO. 100003
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT

North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2010. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities.
NC Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2016. Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities: Neuse-
01 Catalog Unit Update. NC Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2017. Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data
Requirements, and Content Guidance June 2017. NC Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh,
NC.
North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). 2016. Guidance document “Wilmington
District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update”. October 24, 2016
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildlands Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. “Technical Standard for Water-Table
Monitoring of Potential Wetland Sites,” WRAP Technical Notes Collection (ERDC TN-
WRAP-05-2), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, MS.

APPENDIX A

Background Tables and Figures

Russell G
ap Rd
03050101120010
03040101020020
0305010112003003050101120020
03040101010110
03040102010010
16
Alexander County
64
127 90
16
Figure 1Project Vicinity MapRussell Gap Project
0 1 20.5 Miles
Note: Site is located within targeted local watershed 03050101120010.
SiteLocation
Site Location
Mt Olive Church Rd
Alexander County
Wilkes County
Legend
Conservation Easement
Counties
14 Digit HUC
R4R3
Mt Olive Church Rd
R
u
s
s
ell G
a
p R
d
R20
R4a
R21
R15
R12
R13
R17
R18
R19
R11
R14
R8
R5
R2
R3
R9
R6
R1
R26
D
a
vis C
re
e
k
E a st P r o n g L ittle L o w e r R iv e r
R10a/b
R4
R27
R25
R22
R7b
R7a
±
Russell Gap Stream Centerline
St rea m App ro ach
Restoration
Enhancem ent I
Enhancem ent II
No C redit
Conser vation Easement
Russell Gap Wetland Boundaries
Wetla nd Typ e
Restoration
Enhancem ent
0 500 1,000Feet
Figure 2Project Asset MapRussell Gap Project
rev: 5Dec2016
Stream Non-ri parian Wetl and Credited Buffer Overall
(li near fee t)(acres)(square fe et)Credi ts
Riveri ne Non-Ri ve rineRestoration4,063 6.773 Stream 9166.949Enhancement0.559 RP We tland 7.053Enhancement I 5,760 NR Wetl andEnhancement II 2,684 Buffe rCreationPreservationHigh Qual ity Pres
Re storation Leve l
Ripari an Wetl and
(acres)Asset Cate gory
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100003
Existing As-Built CL As-Built CL Mitigation
Project Wetland Footage Restored w/o Xing Plan Approach Mitigation
Component Position and or Footage, Footage, Designed Restoration Priority Mitigation Plan
(reach ID, etc.) HydroType Acreage Stationing
or SF 1 or SF 2 Footage Level Level Ratio (X:1)
Credits 3
Reach R1 2,142 10+00 - 29+45.90 1,946 1,910.90 1,841.60 R PI 1.0 1,841.60
Reach R2 288 10+00 - 11+65.62 166 165.62 174.21 R P2 1.0 174.21
Reach R3 388 32+28.36 - 36+34.66 406 406.30 388.74 R P2 1.0 388.74
Reach R4a 299 10+00 - 13+00.00 300 300.00 300.00 EII - 2.5 120.00
Reach R4 2,245 10+00 - 32+28.36 2,228 2,038.36 2,063.32 EI - 1.5 1,375.55
Reach R5 256 10+00 - 12+10.00 w/o pipe 193 193.00 193.00 EII - 2.5 77.20
Reach R5 Pipe Removal 17 10+32 - 10+49 pipe 17 17.00 17.00 R P1 1.0 17.00
Reach R6 631 12+10.00 - 19+57.36 747 747.36 741.05 R P1 1.0 741.05
Reach R7a 155 19+57.36- 20+61.17 104 103.81 110.12 EII - 2.5 44.05
Reach R7b 1,170 20+61.17 - 33+51.48 1,290 1,216.31 1,202.37 EI - 1.5 801.58
Reach R8 463 33+75.40 - 38+28.55 453 453.15 455.79 EII - 2.5 182.32
Reach R9 439 38+65.34 - 43+10.91 446 445.57 445.52 R P1 1.0 445.52
Reach R10a 371 10+08.40 - 13+74.94 367 366.54 376.11 EII 2.0 188.06
Reach R10b 0 13+74.94 - 14+79.77 105 104.83 112.65 R P1 1.0 112.65
Reach R11 481 10+00 - 17+31.85 732 711.85 725.83 EI - 1.5 483.89
Reach R12 86 10+00 - 11+01.78 102 101.78 120.02 R P1 1.0 120.02
Reach R13 124 10+00 - 11+45.00 145 145.00 145.00 EI - 1.5 96.67
Reach R14 528 11+45.00 - 17+14.80 570 569.80 572.27 R P1/2 1.0 572.27
Reach R15 226 10+00 - 13+02.77 303 283.77 281.80 EII - 2.5 112.72
Reach R17 130 10+00 - 11+06.64 107 106.64 104.44 EII - 2.5 41.78
Reach R18 185 10+00 - 12+03.31 203 176.31 179.01 EII - 2.5 71.60
Reach R19 481 9+86.00 - 13+75.96 390 352.96 359.49 EI - 1.5 239.66
Reach R20 206 10+00 - 12+52.61 253 252.61 252.68 R P1 1.0 252.68
Reach R21 67 10+00 - 10+91.76 92 91.76 89.11 0.+ - 2.5 35.64
Reach R22 161 10+00 - 11+19.46 119 119.46 136.87 EII - 2.5 54.75
Reach R22a 68 10+60 - 11+28.42 68 68.42 68.42 EII - 2.5 27.37
Reach R25 422 10+00 - 14+30.52 (w/o pipe) 403 402.52 399.05 EI - 1.5 266.03
Reach R25 Pipe Removal 28 12+62 - 12+90 pipe 28 28.00 28.00 R P1 1.0 28.00
Reach R26 548 10+00 - 14+72.96 473 472.96 472.13 EII - 2.5 188.85
Reach R27 165 10+00 - 11+63.76 164 163.76 163.76 EII - 2.5 65.50
Wetland Group 1 RR 0 5.285 5.285 Restoration 1.0 5.285
Wetland Group 2 RR 0 1.488 1.488 Restoration 1.0 1.488
Wetland Group 3 RR 0.261 0.261 0.261 Enhancement 2.0 0.131
Wetland Group 4 RR 0.156 0.156 0.156 Enhancement 2.0 0.078
Wetland Group 5 RR 0.034 0.034 0.034 Enhancement 2.0 0.017
Wetland Group 6 RR 0.108 0.108 0.108 Enhancement 2.0 0.054
1 All stream stationing and restored footage numbers reported here, discussed in the report text, and shown in the as-built plan sheets use survey values.
2 The stream footage reported here uses the as-built stream centerline survey values and have all easement breaks removed from their totals. Buffer group values
reported here are the creditable areas as allowed for each group as described in detail in the mitigation plan.
3 Credits reported here are taken directly from the approved mitigation plan Table 11.1
Table 1.1 Table 1.2
As-Built Centerline Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category Overall Assets Summary
Stream
Non-riparian
Wetland Credited Buffer Overall
(linear feet) (acres) (square feet)Asset Category Credits
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration 4,063 6.773 Stream 9,166.949
Enhancement 0.559 RP Wetland 7.053
Enhancement I 5,760 NR Wetland
Enhancement II 2,684 Buffer
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Pres
Restoration Level
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Elapsed Time Since grading complete: 47 months
Elapsed Time Since planting complete: 46 months
Number of Reporting Years1:4
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or Deliverable Complete Delivery
404 permit date N/A Dec-18
Mitigation Plan N/A Sep-18
Final Design – Construction Plans N/A Sep-18
Construction Grading Completed N/A Feb-20
As-Built Survey May-20 May-20
Livestake and Bareroot Planting Completed N/A Mar-20
As-Built Baseline Monitoring Report (MY0) Mar-20 Sep-20
Year 1 Monitoring Nov-20 Dec-20
Year 2 Monitoring Oct-21 Dec-21
Vegetation Monitoring Oct-21 Dec-21
Stream Survey Oct-21 Dec-21
Bridge Replacement May-21 May-21
Maintenance, Repairs, Live Staking May and Oct-21 Dec-21
Invasive Treatment June and Oct-21 Dec-21
Year 3 Monitoring Oct and Nov-22 Feb-23
Vegetation Monitoring Aug, Oct, Nov-22 Dec-22
Stream Survey Sep-22 Sep-22
Invasive Treatment and Supplemental Planting Apr-22 Apr-22
Year 4 Monitoring Oct-23 Nov-23
Supplemental Planting N/A Apr-23
Stream Maintenance N/A May-23
Invasive Treatment May and Oct-2023 Oct-23
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
1 = The number of monitoring reports excluding the as-built/baseline report
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100003
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Designer 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.Contact:
Katie McKeithan, Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor 5616 Coble Church Rd
Julian, NC 27283
KBS Earthworks, Inc.Contact:
Kory Strader, Tel. [phone]
Survey Contractor P.O. Box 148
Swannanoa, NC 28778
Turner Land Surveying Contact:
(As-Built Only)David Turner, Tel. [phone]
88 Central Avenue
Kee Mapping and Surveying Asheville, NC 28801
(Existing Conditions and Monitoring
Survey)
Contact:
Brad Kee, Tel. [phone]
Planting Contractor 5616 Coble Church Rd
Julian, NC 27283
KBS Earthworks, Inc.Contact:
Kory Strader, Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor 5616 Coble Church Rd
Julian, NC 27283
KBS Earthworks, Inc.Contact:
Kory Strader, Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Telephone:
Green Resources 336-855-6363
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm Telephone: [phone]
ArborGen Telephone: [phone]
Monitoring Performers
797 Haywood Rd. Suite 201.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.Asheville, NC 28806
Monitoring Point of Contact Jason York, Tel. [phone]
Table 3. Project Contacts
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100003
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 3050101
Reach R3 Reach R4
388 2,245
Unconfined Unconfined
2227 806
Perennial Perennial
C C
E4 E4
C4 B4c
III - Degradation IV - Degradation
and Widening
Zone X Zone X
Reach R6 Reach R7a
631 155
Unconfined Unconfined
154 210
Perennial Perennial
C C
G4 E4b
B4 E4b
IV - Degradation
and Widening I - Stable System
Zone X Zone X
Reach R9 Reach R10(A/B)
439 371
Unconfined Unconfined
358 17
Perennial Perennial
C C
E4b E4b
B4 E4b-C4
IV - Degradation
and Widening II - Disturbance
Zone X Zone X
Stream Classification (proposed)
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Stream Classification (existing)
C C
E4b C4
E4b C4
Drainage area (Acres)
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Length of reach (linear feet)
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
1,170 463
Unconfined Unconfined
288 333
Perennial Perennial
FEMA classification
Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Stream Classification (proposed)
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
B4c C4b
I - Stable System I - Stable System
Zone X Zone X
Reach R7b Reach R8
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Stream Classification (existing) E4 C4b
Drainage area (Acres)
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
716 150
Perennial Perennial
C C
Length of reach (linear feet)
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
FEMA classification
Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Zone X Zone X
Reach R4a Reach R5
299 256
Unconfined Unconfined
Stream Classification (proposed)
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
Stream Classification (existing) E4 (incised) E4 (incised)
C C
C4 C4
IV - Degradation
and Widening III - Degradation
Drainage area (Acres)
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Length of reach (linear feet)
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
2,142 288
Unconfined Unconfined
960 1,056
Perennial Perennial
CGIA Land Use Classification 82.6% forested, 14.5% agriculture, 1.5% rural residential, 1.4% roadway
Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters
DWR Sub-basin 03-08-32
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles) 2,227 acres / 3.48 square miles (at downstream end of R3)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 0.13% impervious area
Reach R1 Reach R2
River Basin Catawba
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03050101-120010
Project Area (acres) 35.97
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 36.0091 N, -81.2139 W
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted) 29.67
Table 4. Project Attributes
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100003
Project Name Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project
County Alexander County
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Peidmont
Evolutionary trend (Simon) III - Degradation I - Stable System
FEMA classification Zone X Zone X
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Reach R13 Reach R14
124 528
Moderately
Confined
Confined (Upper)
Unconfined
(Lower)
21 22
Intermittent Perennial
C C
C4 A4
C4 E4
II - Disurbance IV - Degradation
and Widening
Zone X Zone X
Reach R18 Reach R19
185 481
Unconfined Moderately
Confined
24 22
Intermittent Perennial
C C
E4b B4a
E4b B4a
I - Stable System IV - Degradation
and Widening
Zone X Zone X
Reach R22 Reach R22a
161 68
Moderately
Confined
Moderately
Confined
3 3
Perennial Perennial
C C
B4 B4
B4 B4
II - Channelized II - Channelized
Zone X Zone X
Reach R27
165
Moderately
Confined
19
Perennial
C
E4b
E4b
I - Stable System
Zone X
Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters Reach R11 Reach R12
Length of reach (linear feet) 481 86
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)Confined Unconfined
Drainage area (Acres) 17 115
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C
Stream Classification (existing) B4a Eb
Stream Classification (proposed) B4a C4b
Evolutionary trend (Simon) III - Degradation
IV - Degradation
and Widening
FEMA classification Zone X Zone X
Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters Reach R15 Reach R17
Length of reach (linear feet) 226 130
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)Unconfined Unconfined
Drainage area (Acres) 19 26
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Intermittent Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C
Stream Classification (existing) E4b E4b
Stream Classification (proposed) E4b E4b
Evolutionary trend (Simon) I - Stable System I - Stable System
FEMA classification Zone X Zone X
Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters Reach R20 Reach R21
Length of reach (linear feet) 206 67
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)Confined Unconfined
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles) 9 33
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C
Stream Classification (existing) A4a+ B4
Stream Classification (proposed) A4a+ B4
Evolutionary trend (Simon) III - Degrading I - Stable System
FEMA classification Zone X Zone X
Existing Reach Summary Information
Parameters Reach R25 Reach R26
Length of reach (linear feet) 422 548
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)Moderately
Confined Unconfined
Drainage area (Acres and Square Miles) 33 32
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C
Stream Classification (existing) B4a E4b
Stream Classification (proposed) B4a E4b
Evolutionary trend (Simon) III - Degrading I - Stable System
FEMA classification Zone X Zone X
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Regulatory Considerations
Supporting Docs?
PCN
PCN
Categorical
Exclusion
Categorical
Exclusion
N/A
N/A
N/A
Parameters Applicable? Resolved?
Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes
Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes Yes
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA or CAMA) No N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT

APPENDIX B

Visual Assessment Data

Mt Olive Church Rd
R
u
s
s
ell G
a
p R
d
0 500 1,000Feet
Figure 3 OverviewCurrent Conditions Plan ViewRussell Gap Project
A
B
C
D
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
$1
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0^
^
"/
"/
R10A
R10B
R1
R11
R13
R14
R12
XS24
XS1
XS2
XS18
XS3 XS4
XS25
XS20
XS19
11
CG 1
2827
26
25
24
2322
21
20
19
18
16
15
14
13
12
10
9
8
7
6
543
21
17RGFL1
RGFL2 RGFL3
RGAW1
RGAW2
RGAW3
RGAW5
RGAW4
RGAW6
RGAW7
RGAW9
RGAW8
FC2
FC1
#0 Photo Points
^Beaver Dams
Aggradation Areas
Fencing
$1 Monitoring Crest Gauges
Vegetation Plots
Supplemental Planting
Cross Sections
Conser vation Easement
Monitoring Wells
!>Fail
!>Pass
Monitoring Flow Gauges
Fail
Pass
Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
No Credit
Wetland Type
Restoration
Enhancement
0 150 300Feet
Figure 3ACurrent Conditions Plan ViewRussell Gap Project
Mid-Cha nnel Ba r Repaired
Mid-Cha nnel Ba r Repaired
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
"/
"/
R15
R4
R27
R26
R4A
XS9
XS8
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
±
#0 Photo Points
Fencing
Cross Sections
Vegetation Plots
Conservation Easement
Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
No Credit
Wetland Type
Restoration
Enhancement
0 150 300Feet
Figure 3BCurrent C onditions Plan Vie wRussell Gap Project
!>
!>
!>
$1
$1
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0 #0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0#0
#0
^
^
^
^
R2
R3
R4
R9
R8
R25
R22
R22A
R7B
R21
R15
XS11
XS10
81
80
79
78
76
75
74
73
64
63
62
61
60
59
57 56 55
54
53
52
51
50
49
RGAW10
RGAW11
RGAW12
#0 Photo Points
^Beaver Dams
Aggradation Areas
$1 Monitoring Crest Gauges
Vegetation Plots
Supplemental Planting
Cross Sections
Fencing
Conser vation Easement
Monitoring Wells
!>Fail
!>Pass
Monitoring Flow Gauges
Fail
Pass
Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
No Credit
Wetland Type
Restoration
Enhancement
0 150 300Feet
Figure 3CCurrent Conditions Plan ViewRussell Gap Project
$1
#0#0
#0 #0 #0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0
#0
#0
#0
R25
R22
R22A
R7B
R20
R19
R21
R18
R7A
R6
R17
R5
59
57 56 55
54
53
52
51
50
49
4846
45
4443
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
32
31
30
29
RGFL4 RGFL5
#0 Photo Points
^Beaver Dams
Aggradation Areas
$1 Monitoring Crest Gauges
Vegetation Plots
Supplemental Planting
Cross Sections
Fencing
Conservation Easement
Monitoring Wells
!>Fail
!>Pass
Monit oring Flow Gauges
Fail
Pass
Approach
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
No Credit
Wetland Type
Restoration
Enhancement
0 150 300Feet
Figure 3DCurrent C ondit ions Plan ViewRussell Gap Project
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project -NCDMS Project No. 100003 - Assessed October 2023
Assessed Length (LF): 1,911
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)2 220 89%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 21 21
0.00 0.00 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 19 19 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)19 19
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 21 21 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 19 19 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 27 27 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 27 27 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 27 27 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 27 27 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 24 24 100%
Assessed Length (LF): 166
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 1 1
0.00 0.00 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 1 1 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)1 1
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 1 1 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 1 1 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 1 1 0 0 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 1 1 0 0 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 1 1 0 0 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 1 1 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 1 1 100%
2. Bank
Totals
2. Bank
Totals
Reach ID: Reach R2
Reach ID: Reach R1
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Table 5, continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment .
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project -NCDMS Project No. 100003 - Assessed October 2023
Assessed Length (LF): 406
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)1 50 88%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0 0 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 0
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 0 0 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 1 1 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 1 1 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 1 1 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 1 1 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 0 100%
Assessed Length (LF): 300
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 0 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 0 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 0 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 0 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 0 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 100%
2. Bank
Totals
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
Reach ID: Reach R4a
Reach ID: Reach R3
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Table 5, continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project -NCDMS Project No. 100003 - Assessed October 2023
Assessed Length (LF): 2,063
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)2 200 91%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 17 17 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 15 15 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)15 15
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 17 17 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 15 15 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 20 20 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 20 20 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 20 20 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 20 20 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 15 15 100%
Assessed Length (LF): 193
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 1 1 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 8 8 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)1 1
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 1 1 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 1 1 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 1 1 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 1 1 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 1 1 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 1 1 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 8 8 100%
2. Bank
Totals
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
Reach ID: Reach R5
Reach ID: Reach R4
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Table 5, continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project -NCDMS Project No. 100003 - Assessed October 2023
Assessed Length (LF): 747
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 9 9 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 8 8 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)8 8
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 9 9 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 8 8 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 8 8 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 8 8 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 8 8 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 8 8 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 8 8 100%
Assessed Length (LF): 104
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 0 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 0 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 0 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 0 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 0 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 100%
2. Bank
Totals
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
Reach ID: Reach R7a
Reach ID: Reach R6
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Table 5, continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project -NCDMS Project No. 100003 - Assessed October 2023
Assessed Length (LF): 1,216
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 9 9 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 7 7 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)7 7
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 9 9 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 7 7 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 100%
Assessed Length (LF): 453
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 0 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 0 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 0 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 0 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 0 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 100%
2. Bank
Totals
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
Reach ID: Reach R8
Reach ID: Reach R7b
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Table 5, continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project -NCDMS Project No. 100003 - Assessed October 2023
Assessed Length (LF): 446
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)1 50 89%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 7 7 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 6 6 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)6 6
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 7 7 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 6 6 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 6 6 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 6 6 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 6 6 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 6 6 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 6 6 100%
Assessed Length (LF): 367
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0 0 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 0
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 0 0 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 7 7 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 1 1 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 1 1 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 1 1 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 0 100%
2. Bank
Totals
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
Reach ID: Reach R10a
Reach ID: Reach R9
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Table 5, continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project -NCDMS Project No. 100003 - Assessed October 2023
Assessed Length (LF): 105
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 1 1 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 0
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 1 1 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 2 2 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 2 2 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 2 2 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 2 2 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 0 100%
Assessed Length (LF): 712
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 2 2 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 0
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 2 2 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 38 38 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 38 38 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 38 38 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 38 38 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 0 100%
2. Bank
Totals
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
Reach ID: Reach R11
Reach ID: Reach R10b
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Table 5, continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project -NCDMS Project No. 100003 - Assessed October 2023
Assessed Length (LF): 120
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 2 2 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 1 1 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)1 1
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 2 2 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 1 1 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 3 3 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 3 3 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 3 3 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 3 3 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 1 1 100%
Assessed Length (LF): 145
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0 0 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 0
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 1 1 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 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 9 9 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 9 9 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 9 9 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 0 100%
2. Bank
Totals
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
Reach ID: Reach R13
Reach ID: Reach R12
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Table 5, continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project -NCDMS Project No. 100003 - Assessed October 2023
Assessed Length (LF): 570
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 2 2 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 0
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 1 1 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 26 26 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 26 26 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 26 26 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 26 26 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 0 100%
Assessed Length (LF): 284
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0 0 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 0
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 0 0 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 8 8 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 8 8 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 8 8 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 0 0 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 0 100%
2. Bank
Totals
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
Reach ID: Reach R15
Reach ID: Reach R14
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Table 5, continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project -NCDMS Project No. 100003 - Assessed October 2023
Assessed Length (LF): 107
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 0 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 0 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 0 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 0 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 0 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 100%
Assessed Length (LF): 176
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0 0 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 0
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 0 0 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 2 2 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 2 2 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 2 2 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 2 2 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 0 100%
2. Bank
Totals
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
Reach ID: Reach R18
Reach ID: Reach R17
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Table 5, continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project -NCDMS Project No. 100003 - Assessed October 2023
Assessed Length (LF): 353
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 1 1 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 0
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 1 1 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 26 26 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 26 26 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 26 26 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 26 26 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 0 100%
Assessed Length (LF): 253
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0 0 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 0
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 0 0 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 36 36 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 36 36 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 36 36 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 36 36 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 0 100%
2. Bank
Totals
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
Reach ID: Reach R20
Reach ID: Reach R19
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Table 5, continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project -NCDMS Project No. 100003 - Assessed October 2023
Assessed Length (LF): 92
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 0 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 0 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 0 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 0 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 0 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 100%
Assessed Length (LF): 187
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 0 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 0 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 0 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 0 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 0 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 100%
2. Bank
Totals
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
Reach ID: Reach R22, R22a
Reach ID: Reach R21
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Table 5, continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project -NCDMS Project No. 100003 - Assessed October 2023
Assessed Length (LF): 402
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 6 6 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 0
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 6 6 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 13 13 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 13 13 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 13 13 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 13 13 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 0 100%
Assessed Length (LF): 473
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0 0 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 0
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 0 0 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 4 4 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 4 4 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 4 4 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 4 4 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 0 100%
2. Bank
Totals
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
2. Bank
Totals
Reach ID: Reach R26
Reach ID: Reach R25
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Table 5, continued. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project -NCDMS Project No. 100003 - Assessed October 2023
Assessed Length (LF):
Major Channel Category Channel Sub-Category Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number per
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect flow laterally (not to include point
bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 0 0 100%
1. Depth - Sufficent (Max Pool Depth/Mean Bkf Depth ≥ 1.5) 0 0 100%
2. Length - Sufficent (>30% of centerline distance between tail of upstream riffle and head of downstream
riffle)0 0
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 0 0 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide) 0 0 100%
1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover due to active scour and erosion 0 0 100%
2. Undercut Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting is expected 0 0 100%
3. Mass Wasting Banks slumping, caving or collapse 0 0 100%
0 0 100%
3. Engineering Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 7 7 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 7 7 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath or around sills or arms 7 7 100%
3. Bank Position Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15% 7 7 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth/Mean Bankfull Depth ratio ≥ 1.5. Rootwads/logs
providing some cover at low flow 0 0 100%
2. Bank
Totals
Reach ID: Reach R27
1. Bed
1.Vertical Stability
3. Meander Pool Condition
4. Thalweg Position
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Vegetation Category Defintions
Mapping Threshold
(acres)CCPV Depiction Number of Polygons Combined Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas * Very limited cover both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5
stem count criteria.0.1 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems or a size class that are obviously small given the
monitoring year.0.25 acres N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
Vegetation Category Defintions Mapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Points Combined Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale) 1000 ft² N/A 0 0.00 0.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale) 577 ft² Polygon 0 0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage: 15.8
Table 6. Vegetation Conditions Assessment - Assessed Octoberber 2023
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100003
Planted Acreage: 9.8
Total
Cumulative Total
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Russell Gap: MY4 Stream Station Photo-Points. Taken September 20, 2023.

PP-1: Reach 13, view upstream Station 10+20. PP-2: Reach 14, view upstream toward Reach 13 at Station
11+45.

PP-3: Reach 14, view upstream Station 13+00.

PP-4: Reach 14, view upstream Station 13+75.

PP-5: Reach 14, view upstream Station 15+00.

PP-6: Reach 14, end of reach Station 16+00.

Russell Gap: MY4 Stream Station Photo-Points. Taken September 20, 2023.

PP-7: Reach 1, view upstream, at Station 10+20.

PP-8: Reach 1, view upstream Reach 1 at Station 13+00.

PP-9: Reach 1, view upstream at Station 15+00.

PP-10: Reach 1, view upstream at Station 17+25.

PP-11: Reach 1, view upstream at Station 20+00.

PP-12: Reach 1, view downstream at Station 20+00.

Russell Gap: MY4 Stream Station Photo-Points. Taken September 20, 2023.

PP-13: Reach 1, view upstream at Station 20+75.

PP-14: Reach 1, view downstream at Station 20+75.

PP-15: Reach 1, view upstream at Station 21+50.

PP-16: Reach 1, confluence of Reach 1 and Reach 11 at
Station 22+75.

PP-17: Reach 1, view upstream at Station 24+20.

PP-18: Reach 1, view of upstream at Station 27+00.

Russell Gap: MY4 Stream Station Photo-Points. Taken September 20, 2023.

PP-19: Reach 1, view upstream Reach 12 at Station 29+10. PP-20: Reach 1, view upstream at Station 29+20.

PP-21: Reach 11, view upstream at Station 10+20.

PP-22: Reach 11, view upstream at Station 11+50.

PP-23: Reach 11, view upstream at Station 12+75.

PP-24: Reach 11, view upstream at Station 14+50.

Russell Gap: MY4 Stream Station Photo-Points. Taken September 20, 2023.

PP-25: Reach 10A, view upstream at Station 10+50.

PP-26: Reach 10A, view upstream at Station 12+50.

PP-27: Reach 10A, view upstream at Station 13+75.

PP-28: Reach 10B, view upstream at Station 14+50.

PP-29: Reach 5, view upstream at Station 11+00.

PP-30: Reach 6, view upstream at Station 14+50.

Russell Gap: MY4 Stream Station Photo-Points. Taken September 20, 2023.

PP-31: Reach 17, view upstream at Station 11+00.

PP-32: Reach 6, view upstream at Station 17+50.

PP-33: Reach 6, view upstream at Station 19+50.

PP-34: Reach 18, view upstream at Station 12+00.

PP-35: Reach 18, view upstream at Station 10+60.

PP-36: Reach 7A, view upstream at Station 20+00.

Russell Gap: MY4 Stream Station Photo-Points. Taken September 20, 2023.

PP-37: Reach 7B, view upstream at Station 21+75.

PP-38: Reach7B, view downstream at Station 22+00.

PP-39: Reach 7B, view upstream at Station 22+25.

PP-40: Reach 7B, view upstream at Station 23+50.

PP-41: Reach 20, view upstream at Station 10+80.

PP-42: Reach 20, view upstream at Station 11+50.

Russell Gap: MY4 Stream Station Photo-Points. Taken September 20, 2023.

PP-43: Reach 19, view upstream at Station 10+15.

PP-44: Reach 19, view upstream at Station 11+85.

PP-45: Reach 19, view upstream at Station 12+80.

PP-46: Reach 19, view upstream at Station 13+20.

PP-47: Reach 19, view upstream at Station013+80.

PP-48: Reach 7B, view upstream at Station 24+10.

Russell Gap: MY4 Stream Station Photo-Points. Taken September 20, 2023.

PP-49: Reach 7B, view downstream at Station 24+60.

PP-50: Reach 7B, view upstream at Station 25+25.

PP-51: Reach 22A, view upstream at Station 10+00.

PP-52: Reach 22A, view of upstream at Station 11+15.

PP-53: Reach 7B, view upstream at Station 32+00.

PP-54: Reach 25, view upstream at Station 10+10.

Russell Gap: MY4 Stream Station Photo-Points. Taken September 20, 2023.

PP-55: Reach 25, view upstream at Station 11+20.

PP-56: Reach 25, view upstream at Station 13+40.

PP-57: Reach 7B, view downstream at Station 33+00.

PP-58: Reach 7B, view upstream at Station 33+20.

PP-59: Reach 8, view downstream at Station 34+00.

PP-60: Reach 8, view upstream at Station 37+00.

Russell Gap: MY4 Stream Station Photo-Points. Taken September 20, 2023.

PP-61: Reach 8, view upstream at Station 38+00.

PP-62: Reach 9, view upstream at Station 39+20.

PP-63: Reach 9, view upstream at Station 41+00.

PP-64: Reach 9, view upstream at Station 42+00.

PP-65: Reach 4A, view upstream at Station 13+00.

PP-66: Reach 26, view upstream at Station 11+00.

Russell Gap: MY4 Stream Station Photo-Points. Taken September 20, 2023.

PP-67: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 11+10.

PP-68: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 12+00.

PP-69: Reach 27, view upstream at Station 11+60.

PP-70: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 15+00.

PP-71: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 16+10.

PP-72: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 19+00.

Russell Gap: MY4 Stream Station Photo-Points. Taken September 20, 2023.

PP-73: Reach 15, view upstream at Station 11+00.

PP-74: Reach 15, view upstream at Station 13+00.

PP-75: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 23+20.

PP-76: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 25+00.

PP-77: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 28+30.

PP-78: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 28+00.

Russell Gap: MY4 Stream Station Photo-Points. Taken September 20, 2023.

PP-79: Reach 4, view upstream at Station 32+00.

PP-80: Reach 3, view upstream at Station 33+00.

PP-81: Reach 3, view upstream at Station 36+40.

Russell Gap MY4 Monitoring Gauges and Overbank Photographs

Monitoring Well 1. (October 19, 2023) Monitoring Well 2. (October 19, 2023)

Monitoring Well 3. (October 19, 2023) Monitoring Well 4. (October 19, 2023)

Monitoring Well 5. (October 19, 2023) Monitoring Well 6. (October 19, 2023)
Russell Gap MY4 Monitoring Gauges and Overbank Photographs

Monitoring Well 7. (October 19, 2023) Monitoring Well 8. (October 19, 2023)

Monitoring Well 9. (October 19, 2023) Monitoring Well 10. (October 19, 2023)

Monitoring Well 11. (October 19, 2023) Monitoring Well 12. (October 19, 2023)

Russell Gap MY4 Monitoring Gauges and Overbank Photographs

Flow Gauge 1. Reach 11. (October 19, 2023) Flow Gauge 2. Reach 14. (October 19, 2023)

Flow Gauge 3. Reach 13. (October 19, 2023) Flow Gauge 4. Reach 19. (October 19, 2023)

Flow Gauge 5. Reach 20. (October 19, 2023) Crest Gauge 2 Reach 9. (October 19, 2023)

Russell Gap MY4 Monitoring Gauges and Overbank Photographs

Crest Gauge 1 R1.
BKF reading 1.5 ft. (October 19, 2023)
Crest Gauge 1 R1. (October 19, 2023)

Crest Gauge 3 R4. BKF reading at 1.5 ft
(October 19, 2023)
Crest Gauge 3 R4. (October 19, 2023)

Crest Gauge 4 R6 BKF reading at 2 ft.
(October 19, 2023) Crest Gauge 4 R6. (October 19, 2023)
Flow Camera Photographs

R11 Flow Camera. (January 5, 2023) R11 Flow Camera. (February 3, 2023)

R11 Flow Camera. (February 17, 2023) R11 Flow Camera. (March 7, 2023)

R11 Flow Camera. (March 30, 2023) R11 Flow Camera. (April 16, 2023)
Flow Camera Photographs

R14 Flow Camera. (January 5, 2023) R14 Flow Camera. (July 16, 2023)

R14 Flow Camera. (August 3, 2023) R14 Flow Camera. (August 29, 2023)

R14 Flow Camera. (September 10, 2023) R14 Flow Camera. (September 14, 2023)

Additional Site Photographs

Overbank Wrack Lines (June 14, 2023) Overbank Wrack Lines (June 14, 2023)

Beaver Dam located on R1 (September 20, 2023) Beaver Dam located on R3 (September 20, 2023)

R11 Flow Camera. (September 20, 2023) R14 Flow Camera. (June 14, 2023)
Additional Site Photographs

Invasive Treatment on R14 (June 14, 2023) Invasive Treatment on R13 (June 14, 2023)

Invasive Treatment on R1 (June 14, 2023) Invasive Treatment on R9 (June 14, 2023)

Invasive Treatment on R9 (June 14, 2023) Invasive Treatment on R7 (June 14, 2023)

APPENDIX C

Vegetation Plot Data

*No vegetation plot monitoring was required for Year 4.

APPENDIX D

Stream Geomorphology Data

*No cross-section survey was required for Year 4.

APPENDIX E

Hydrologic Data

Date of Data
Collection
R1 Manual Cork Crest
Gauge #1
R9 Manual Cork Crest
Gauge #2
R4 Manual Cork Crest
Gauge #3
R6 Manual Cork Crest
Gauge #4
Date of Bankfull
Event Occurrence
Method of Data
Collection
6/1/2020 NA NA 1.25 ft. NA 5/28/2020 Manual cork measurement
11/5/2020 1.5 ft. NA 2.5 ft NA 10/30/2020 Manual cork measurement
6/14/2021 7.5 inches and 20.5 inches 3/25/2021 and 5/3/2021 Manual cork measurement
10/19/2021 1.1 ft. 10/7/2021 Manual cork measurement
10/13/2022 8.25 inches 10/1/2022 Manual cork measurement
10/19/2023 1.5 ft. NA 1.5 ft. 2.0 ft. 7/16/2023 Manual cork measurement
Note: Manual cork crest gauge readings were corroborated with associated spikes in the automated Continuous Stage Recorder (see graph in Appendix E) and/or with photographs (Appendix B).
Year 4 Monitoring (2023)
Year 3 Monitoring (2022)
Table 10. Verification of Bankfull Events
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100003
Year 1 Monitoring (2020)
Year 2 Monitoring (2021)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS #100003)
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/24/2023 3/10/2023 4/24/2023 6/8/2023 7/23/2023 9/6/2023 10/21/2023 12/5/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #1
(Well RGAW1)
RGAW1
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
RGAW1 Longest Hydroperiod of 14 days (6%):
8/4/2023 - 8/17/2023
12% of 227 days = 27 days
GROWINGSEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023 12/1/2023
Russell Gap Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/24/2023 3/10/2023 4/24/2023 6/8/2023 7/23/2023 9/6/2023 10/21/2023 12/5/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #2
(Well RGAW2)
RGAW2
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
RGAW2 Longest Hydroperiod of 80 days (35%):
3/29/2023 - 6/16/2023
12% of 227 days = 27 days
GROWINGSEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023 12/1/2023
Russell Gap Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/24/2023 3/10/2023 4/24/2023 6/8/2023 7/23/2023 9/6/2023 10/21/2023 12/5/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #3
(Well RGAW3)
RGAW3
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
RGAW3 Longest Hydroperiod of 190 days (84%):
3/28/2023 - 10/4/2023
12% of 227 days = 27 days
GROWINGSEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023 12/1/2023
Russell Gap Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/24/2023 3/10/2023 4/24/2023 6/8/2023 7/23/2023 9/6/2023 10/21/2023 12/5/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #4
(Well RGAW4)
RGAW4
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
RGAW4 Longest Hydroperiod of days 205 (90%):
3/28/2023 - 10/19/2023
12% of 227 days = 27 days
GROWINGSEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023 12/1/2023
Russell Gap Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/24/2023 3/10/2023 4/24/2023 6/8/2023 7/23/2023 9/6/2023 10/21/2023 12/5/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #5
(Well RGAW5)
RGAW5
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
RGAW5 Longest Hydroperiod of 56 days (25%):
3/28/2023 - 5/23/2023
12% of 227 days = 27 days
GROWINGSEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023 12/1/2023
Russell Gap Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/24/2023 3/10/2023 4/24/2023 6/8/2023 7/23/2023 9/6/2023 10/21/2023 12/5/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #6
(Well RGAW6)
RGAW6
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
RGAW6 Longest Hydroperiod of 74 days (33%):
3/28/2023 - 6/10/2023
12% of 227 days = 28 days
GROWINGSEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023 12/1/2023
Russell Gap Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/24/2023 3/10/2023 4/24/2023 6/8/2023 7/23/2023 9/6/2023 10/21/2023 12/5/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #7
(Well RGAW7)
RGAW7
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
RGAW7 Longest Hydroperiod of 145 days (64%):
5/28/2023- 10/19/2023
12% of 227 days = 27 days
GROWINGSEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023 12/1/2023
Russell Gap Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/24/2023 3/10/2023 4/24/2023 6/8/2023 7/23/2023 9/6/2023 10/21/2023 12/5/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #8
(Well RGAW8)
RGAW8
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
RGAW8 Longest Hydroperiod of 40 days (18%):
9/10/2023 - 10/19/2023
12% of 227 days = 27 days
GROWINGSEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023 12/1/2023
Russell Gap Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/24/2023 3/10/2023 4/24/2023 6/8/2023 7/23/2023 9/6/2023 10/21/2023 12/5/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #9
(Well RGAW9)
RGAW9
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
RGAW9 Longest Hydroperiod of days 205 (90%):
3/28/2023 - 10/19/2023
12% of 227 days = 27 days
GROWINGSEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023 12/1/2023
Russell Gap Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/24/2023 3/10/2023 4/24/2023 6/8/2023 7/23/2023 9/6/2023 10/21/2023 12/5/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #10
(Well RGAW10)
RGAW10
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
RGAW10 Longest Hydroperiod of 205 days (90%):
3/28/2023 - 10/19/2023
12% of 227 days = 27 days
GROWINGSEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023 12/1/2023
Russell Gap Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/24/2023 3/10/2023 4/24/2023 6/8/2023 7/23/2023 9/6/2023 10/21/2023 12/5/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #11
(Well RGAW11)
RGAW11
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
RGAW11 Longest Hydroperiod of
days 24 (11%): 3/28/2023 - 4/20/2023
12% of 227 days = 27 days
GROWINGSEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023 12/1/2023
Russell Gap Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
Figure 5. Wetland Monitoring Well Graphs
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1/24/2023 3/10/2023 4/24/2023 6/8/2023 7/23/2023 9/6/2023 10/21/2023 12/5/2023
De
p
t
h

t
o

G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

(
i
n
)
Date
Russell Gap Wetland Monitoring Well #12
(Well RGAW12)
RGAW12
-12 inches
Begin Growing
Season
End Growing
Season
RGAW12 Longest Hydroperiod of 205 days (90%):
3/28/2023 - 10/19/2023
12% of 227 days = 27 days
GROWINGSEASON
(3/28 - 11/9)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023 12/1/2023
Russell Gap Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
Year 1
(2020)
Year 2
(2021)
Year 3
(2022)
Year 4
(2023)
Year 5
(2024)
Year 6
(2025)
Year 7
(2026)
Year 1
(2020)
Year 2
(2021)
Year 3
(2022)
Year 4
(2023)
Year 5
(2024)
Year 6
(2025)
Year 7
(2026)
Year 1
(2020)
Year 2
(2021)
Year 3
(2022)
Year 4
(2023)
Year 5
(2024)
Year 6
(2025)
Year 7
(2026)
Year 1
(2020)
Year 2
(2021)
Year 3
(2022)
Year 4
(2023)
Year 5
(2024)
Year 6
(2025)
Year 7
(2026)
RGAW1 16.0 10.0 4.0 6.0 59 22.0 9.0 14.0 66.4 31.0 27.0 41.0 150 71.0 63.0 93.0
RGAW2 100.0 41.0 8.0 35.0 226 93.0 18.0 80.0 100.0 55.0 29.5 69.0 226 124.0 67.0 158.0
RGAW3 100.0 49.0 36.0 84.0 226 112.0 81.0 190.0 100.0 64.0 64.0 85.0 226 145.0 146.0 194.0
RGAW4 100.0 91.0 88.0 90.0 226 206.0 200.0 205.0 100.0 91.0 88.0 90.0 226 205.0 200.0 205.0
RGAW5 38.0 24.0 0.0 25.0 87 55.0 0.0 56.0 92.0 49.0 0.0 25.0 208 111.0 0.0 56.0
RGAW6 54.8 30.0 8.0 33.0 124 69.0 19.0 74.0 100.0 41.0 20.0 55.0 226 92.0 45.0 125.0
RGAW7 100.0 57.0 1.0 64.0 226 130.0 3.0 145.0 100.0 75.0 7.0 88.0 226 169.0 15.0 199.0
RGAW8 76.5 91.0 3.0 18.0 173 206.0 6.0 40.0 91.6 91.0 13.0 35.0 207 205.0 29.0 80.0
RGAW9 100.0 56.0 8.0 90.0 226 127.0 19.0 205.0 100.0 68.0 34.0 90.0 226 154.0 77.0 205.0
RGAW10 100.0 91.0 51.0 90.0 226 206.0 116.0 205.0 100.0 91.0 71.0 90.0 226 205.0 161.0 205.0
RGAW11 100.0 58.0 6.0 11.0 226 132.0 13.0 24.0 100.0 90.0 24.0 48.0 226 203.0 54.0 109.0
RGAW12 100.0 91.0 25.0 90.0 226 206.0 56.0 205.0 100.0 91.0 70.0 90.0 226 205.0 160.0 205.0
¹Indicates the percentage of the single greatest consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
²Indicates the single greatest consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
³Indicates the total number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface.
Growing season for Alexander County is from March 28 to November 9 and is 227 days long. 12% of the growing season is 27 days.
Well ID
Percentage of Consecutive Days
<12 inches from Ground Surface¹
Most Consecutive Days
Meeting Criteria²
Table 11. Wetland Hydrology Summary Data
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100003
Percentage of Cumulative Days
<12 inches from Ground Surface
Cumulative Days Meeting
Criteria³
Wetland Monitoring Wells (Installed March 2020)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)
Figure 6. Flow Gauge Graphs
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023
Su
r
f
a
c
e

W
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
.
)
Date
Russell Gap Restoration Site
In-channel Flow Gauge RGFL1-R11
Min Flow - 0.05 feet
RGFL1
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS -
67 - CRITERIA MET
(6/17/2023 - 8/22/2023)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023 12/1/2023
Russell Gap Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 100003) MONITORING YEAR 4, 2023
Figure 6. Flow Gauge Graphs
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023
Su
r
f
a
c
e

W
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
.
)
Date
Russell Gap Restoration Site
In-channel Flow Gauge RGFL2-R14
Min Flow - 0.05 feet
RGFL2
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS -
32 - CRITERIA MET
(7/14/2023 - 8/15/2023)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023 12/1/2023
Russell Gap Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 100003) MONITORING YEAR 4, 2023
Figure 6. Flow Gauge Graphs
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023
Su
r
f
a
c
e

W
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
.
)
Date
Russell Gap Restoration Site
In-channel Flow Gauge RGFL3-R14
Min Flow - 0.05 feet
RGFL3
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS -
290 - CRITERIA MET
(1/1/2023 - 10/18/2023)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023 12/1/2023
Russell Gap Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 100003) MONITORING YEAR 4, 2023
Figure 6. Flow Gauge Graphs
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023
Su
r
f
a
c
e

W
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
.
)
Date
Russell Gap Restoration Site
In-channel Flow Gauge RGFL4-R19
Min Flow - 0.05 feet
RGFL4
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS -
171 - CRITERIA MET
(4/2/2023 - 10/18/2023)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023 12/1/2023
Russell Gap Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 100003) MONITORING YEAR 4, 2023
Figure 6. Flow Gauge Graphs
* Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1/1/2023 2/15/2023 4/1/2023 5/16/2023 6/30/2023 8/14/2023 9/28/2023 11/12/2023
Su
r
f
a
c
e

W
a
t
e
r

D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
.
)
Date
Russell Gap Restoration Site
In-channel Flow Gauge RGFL5-R20
Min Flow - 0.05 feet
RGFL5
YR4 MOST CONSECUTIVE DAYS -
22 - CRITERIA NOT MET
(7/6/2023 - 7/27/2023)
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
1/1/2023 2/1/2023 3/1/2023 4/1/2023 5/1/2023 6/1/2023 7/1/2023 8/1/2023 9/1/2023 10/1/2023 11/1/2023 12/1/2023
Russell Gap Rain 2023
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 100003) MONITORING YEAR 4, 2023
Year 1
(2020)
Year 2
(2021)
Year 3
(2022)
Year 4
(2023)
Year 5
(2024)
Year 6
(2025)
Year 7
(2026)
Year 1
(2020)
Year 2
(2021)
Year 3
(2022)
Year 4
(2023)
Year 5
(2024)
Year 6
(2025)
Year 7
(2026)
RGFL1 64.0 103.0 98.0 67.0 209.0 146.0 207.0 257.0
RGFL2 202.0 3.0 3.0 32.0 222.0 12.0 62.0 181.0
RGFL3 232.0 42.0 96.0 290.0 232.0 93.0 231.0 290.0
RGFL4 232.0 76.0 40.0 171.0 232.0 206.0 219.0 288.0
RGFL5 232.0 38.0 26.0 22.0 232.0 214.0 138.0 206.0
Success criteria will include 30 days of consecutive baseflow for monitoring gauges during a normal rainfall year.
Surface water flow is estimated to have occurred when the pressure transducer reading is equal to or above 0.05 feet in depth.
2Indicates the number of cumulative days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
¹Indicates the number of consecutive days within the monitoring year where flow was measured.
Notes:
Table 12. All Years Flow Gauge Success
Russell Gap Stream Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 100003
Flow Gauges (Installed March, 2020)
Most Consecutive Days Meeting Criteria1
Flow Gauge ID
Cumulative Days Meeting Criteria2
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
RUSSELL GAP MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. ID 100003) MONITORING YEAR 4, 2023
Figure 7. Observed Rainfall Versus Historic Averages
Note: Historic average annual rainfall for Alexander County, NC is 52.47 inches, while the observed project rainfall recorded a total of
53.59 inches over the previous 12 months (Nov. 22 - Oct. 2023). Project rainfall data was collected from the NC-CRONOS station TAYL.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Nov-22 Dec-22 Jan-23 Feb-23 Mar-23 Apr-23 May-23 Jun-23 Jul-23 Aug-23 Sep-23 Oct-23
Russell Gap Stream Mitigation Project MY4
Observed Rainfall Vs. Historic Averages
Monthly Precip. (53.59)Historic 30% Less (35.14)Historic 70% (62.66)Historic Avg. (52.47)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
YEAR 4 MONITORING REPORT
RUSSELL GAP STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT (DMS PROJECT NO. 100003)