20170920 Ver 1_Heron_100014_MY5_2023_20240129

FINAL
MY5 (2023) MONITORING REPORT

HERON STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002

DMS Project ID No. 100014
Full Delivery Contract No. 7192
RFP No. 16-006990
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01471
DWR Project No. 17-0920

Data Collection: January 2023 – October 2023
Submission: January 2024

Prepared for:

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652
Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492
Response to DMS Comments – MY 5 (2023)
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (DMS #100014)
Cape Fear River Basin 03030002, Alamance County
Contract No. 7192

Comments Received (Black Text) & Responses (Blue Text)

Report & Site Visit:
1. Appendix A – Project Activity and Reporting History Table does not match the summary Table titled “Site
Permitting/Monitoring Activity and Reporting History”.
Response: These tables have been updated to match.

2. Mature privet was observed along UT-5A, UT-5B, UT-4 and UT-6. Please continue treatment. Overall the
site looks good.
Response: RS will continue to spot treat for privet throughout the project. It should be noted that the
observed privet, though mature, is scattered in nature and does not pose a risk to planted vegetation. As
such, RS feels it does not meet the requirements to be included on the CCPV or listed in Table 6, Item 4 –
Invasive Areas of Concern.

Digital Review:
1. The digital data submission is missing summary tables 2, 15 and 16 included in the PDF report submission,
please submit missing tables and photos if dedicated photo points other than veg plots and cross sections
exist.
Response: A “Background Tables” folder was added to the digital submittal. This folder contains an excel
file with Tables 1-4. Additionally, an excel file containing tables 15 and 16 has been added to the “Hydrologic
Data” folder.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Monitoring Summary
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina November 2023
Heron Year 5, 2023 Monitoring Summary

General Notes
• No encroachment was identified in Year 5
• No evidence of nuisance animal activity (i.e., beaver, heavy deer browsing, etc.) was observed.

Streams
• Stream measurements were conducted on May 17, 2023, 37 cross sections were measured across
the site and results indicate streams are functioning as designed.

• Multiple visual assessments throughout the year indicate that across the Site, all in-stream
structures are intact and functioning as designed and that channel geometry compares favorably
with the proposed conditions outlined in the Detailed Restoration Plan and as constructed. No
stream areas of concern were identified during year 5 (2023) monitoring. Tables for year 5 (2023)
data and annual quantitative assessments are included in Appendix D.

• Two bankfull events were documented during year 5 (2023) monitoring for a total of 10 bankfull
events to-date during the monitoring period (Table 14, Appendix E).

• Channel formation was evident in all site tributaries during year 5 (2023). The UT1 streamflow
gauge captured 237 days of consecutive flow. The UT2 and UT3 stream gauges captured 110 days
and 73 days respectively. The UT5 upstream and downstream gauges captured 165 and 154 days
respectively. UT6 exhibited 282 consecutive days of flow. The upstream and downstream gauges
on UT7 captured 154 days and 141 days respectively, and the UT7 middle gauge captured 229 days
of flow. The UT8 gauge captured 250 consecutive days of flow. Channel formation tables and
graphs are in Appendix E.

• In accordance with the monitoring schedule, year 5 (2023) benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
occurred on June 13, 2023. Stream conditions were dry during the benthic macroinvertebrate
sampling. UT-1 recorded zero (0) EPT Taxa due to hydrology being isolated to pools. Samples were
not collected for UT-5 due to the lack of water in the entire stream channel. See the table below
for a summary of benthic macroinvertebrate results. Year 5 (2023) results and habitat forms are in
Appendix F.

Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data by Year
Sampling
Station
Preconstruction Year 3 (2021) Year 5 (2023)* Year 7 (2025)
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
UT-1 0 7.94 2 8.11 0 9.31
UT-5 0 7.40 0 8.85 NA NA
*Site streams were unusually dry during the year 5 (2023) sampling effort. The UT-1 sampling reach was dry except for pools, and
the UT-5 benthic sampling reach was completely dry at the time of sampling. No samples were collected in UT-5.

Wetlands
• All six groundwater gauges met success for the Year 5 (2023) monitoring period. Wetland
hydrology data and graphs are in Appendix E.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Monitoring Summary
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina November 2023
Vegetation
• Vegetation plot monitoring for monitoring year 5 (2023) was performed on September 20, 2023.
Thirteen of the 14 vegetation plots were found to be meeting success criteria with an average stem
density of 373 stems per acre. In addition, 6 temporary plots were surveyed for an average stem
density of 513 stems per acre.

• Continued treatment of invasive species and other thick herbaceous vegetation is planned for the
remainder of the projects life.

Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year Soil Temperatures/Date Bud
Burst Documented
Monitoring Period Used for
Determining Success
10 Percent of
Monitoring Period
2019 (Year 1) March 28, 2019* March 28-October 22
(209 days) 21 days
2020 (Year 2) March 2, 2020# March 2-October 22
(235 days) 23 days
2021 (Year 3) March 1, 2021^ March 1-October 22
(236 days) 24 days
2022 (Year 4) March 1, 2022% March 1-October 22
(236 days) 24 days
2023 (Year 5) March 1, 2023~ March 1-October 22
(236 Days) 24 days
*Based on documented bud burst and soil temperature of 50.06°F on March 28, 2019.
# Based on bud burst documented March 2, 2020 and soil temperature of 46.82°F on March 1, 2020.
^Based on bud burst documented on March 1, 2021. The soil temperature logger was damaged and stopped recording February
16, 2021, however at the time of the failure, the soil temperature had dropped below 41°F just twice in 2021 (January 5th and
31st) and exceeded thereafter.
%Based on bud burst documented February 28, 2022 and soil temperature of 45.97°F on March 1, 2022.
~Based on bud burst documented February 28, 2023 and soil temperature of 55.16°F on February 8, 2023

Site Maintenance Report (2023)
Invasive Species Work Maintenance work
05/16/2023
Nodding thistle, Privet, Multiflora Rose, Russian Olive
(Scattered treatment sitewide)

09/12/2023
Japanese Knotweed (UT8, see Figure 2D, Appendix B)
Privet, Multiflora rose, Russian Olive (Scattered
treatment sitewide)
6/19/2023
Fence repair, no encroachment documented

7/26/2023
Fence repair, no encroachment documented

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Monitoring Summary
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina November 2023
Groundwater Hydrology Data
Gauge
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Year 1
(2019)
Year 2
(2020)
Year 3
(2021)
Year 4
(2022)
Year 5
(2023)
Year 6
(2024)
Year 7
(2025)
1 Yes/33 days
(15.8%)
Yes/23 days
(9.8%)
Yes /46 days
(19.5%)
Yes /45 days
(19.1%)
Yes/50 days
(21.3%)
2 Yes/26 days
(12.4%)
Yes/27 days
(11.5%)
Yes/47 days
(19.9%)
Yes/66 days
(28.1%)
Yes/73 days
(31.1%)
3 Yes/35 days
(16.7%)
Yes/28 days
(12.0%)
Yes/36 days
(15.2%)
Yes/66 days
(28.1%)
Yes/71 days
(30.2%)
4 Yes/69 days
(33.0%)
Yes/51 days
(21.8%)
Yes/60 days
(25.4%)
Yes/56 days
(23.8%)
Yes/96 days
(40.9%)
5 Yes/52 days
(24.9%)
Yes/45 days
(19.2%)
Yes/50 days
(21.2%)
Yes/52 days
(22.1%)
Yes/71 days
(30.2%)
6 Yes/54 days
(25.8%)
Yes/46 days
(19.7%)
Yes/52 days
(22.0%)
No/13 days
(5.5%)
Yes/92 days
(39.1%)

Space left intentionally blank

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Monitoring Summary
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina November 2023
Site Permitting/Monitoring Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal (RFP No. 16-006990) January 11, 2017 January 11, 2017
Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 100014) -- May 22, 2017
404 Permit -- October 10, 2018
Mitigation Plan -- July 2018
Construction Plans -- July 17, 2018
Site Construction -- November 27, 2018-
February 11, 2019
Planting -- February 21, 2019
As-built Baseline Stream Data Collection February 25-26, 2019 --
As-built Baseline Vegetation Data Collection February 25, 2019 --
As-built Baseline Monitoring (MY0) February-March 2019 May 2019
Monitoring Year 1 (2019) Stream Data Collection August 13-14, 2019 --
Monitoring Year 1 (2019) Vegetation Data Collection September 30, 2019 --
Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) March-October 2019 November 2019
Invasive Species Treatment - Privet, Rose, Tree-of-
Heaven, Microstegium, Johnson Grass NA June 12, 2020
Monitoring Year 2 (2020) Stream Data Collection May 16-24, 2020 --
Monitoring Year 2 (2020) Vegetation Data Collection July 1-6, 2020 --
Monitoring Year 2 (MY2) March-October 2020 January 2021
Supplemental Planting NA April 8, 2021
Invasive Species Treatment - Johnson Grass, Privet,
Tree-of-Heaven, Multi-flora Rose, Japanese Knotweed,
Catttail and Fescue
NA September 7 - October 7,
2021
Monitoring Year 3 (2021) Stream Data Collection February 16, 2021 --
Monitoring Year 3 (2021) Vegetation Data Collection July - October, 2021 --
Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) January - October 2021 December 2021
Invasive Species Treatment - Cattail, Privet, Johnson
Grass, Multiflora Rose, Sweetgum, Tree-of-Heaven,
Princess Tree
NA June 15, 2022
Invasive Species Treatment - Japanese Knotweed
(UT8), Tree-of-Heaven, Privet, Multiflora rose NA August 29, 2022
Monitoring Year 4 (2022) Stream Data Collection NA --
Monitoring Year 4 (2022) Vegetation Data Collection NA --
Monitoring Year 4 (MY4) January - October 2022 February 2023
Invasive Species Treatment - Nodding thistle, Privet,
Multiflora Rose, Russian Olive -- May 15, 2023
Invasive Species Treatment - Japanese Knotweed
(UT8), Privet, Multiflora rose, Russian Olive -- September 12, 2023
Monitoring Year 5 (2023) Stream Data Collection May 17, 2023 --
Monitoring Year 5 (2023) Vegetation Data Collection September 20, 2023 --
Monitoring Year 5 (MY5) January - October 2023 January 2024

FINAL
MY5 (2023) MONITORING REPORT

HERON STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Alamance County, North Carolina
Cape Fear River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03030002

DMS Project ID No. 100014
Full Delivery Contract No. 7192
RFP No. 16-006990
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01471
DWR Project No. 17-0920

Data Collection: January 2023 – October 2023
Submission: January 2024

Prepared for:

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27699-1652

Prepared by:

And

Restoration Systems, LLC Axiom Environmental, Inc.
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Contact: Worth Creech Contact: Grant Lewis
919-755-9490 (phone) 919-215-1693 (phone)
919-755-9492 (fax)

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Table of Contents
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Goals & Objectives .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Background ......................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Project Components and Structure ................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Success Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 4
2.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Monitoring ...................................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 9
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Background Tables
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5H. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Appendix C. Vegetation Data
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Tables 10A-G. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11A-G. MY5 Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary
Tables 12A-G. MY5 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Table 13A-G. MY3 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross Section Report
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Tables 13A-J. Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Soil Temperature Graph
Figure E-1. 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Appendix F. Benthic Data
Benthic Results
Habitat Form
Appendix G. Site Photo Log
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Page 1
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
Restoration Systems, LLC has established the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Heron Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (Site).

1.1 Project Goals & Objectives
Project goals were based on the Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report (NCEEP 2009)
and on-site preconstruction data collection of channel morphology and function observed during field
investigations. The Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03030002050050. The RBRP
report documents benthic ratings vary between “Fair” and “Good-Fair” possibly due to cattle, dairy, and
poultry operations. The project is not located in a Regional or Local Watershed Planning Area; however,
RBRP goals addressed by project activities are as follows with Site specific information following the RBRP
goals in parenthesis.

1. Reduce and control sediment inputs (sediment input reduction of 67.3 tons/year);
2. Reduce and manage nutrient inputs (livestock removed from streams, elimination of fertilizer
application, installation of marsh treatment areas; and a direct reduction of 893.2 pounds of
nitrogen and 47.0 pounds of phosphorus per year);

Site specific mitigation goals and objectives were developed through the use of North Carolina Stream
Assessment Method (NC SAM) and North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of
preconstruction and reference stream systems at the Site (NC SFAT 2015 and NC WFAT 2010) (see Table
1).

Space left intentionally blank
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 2
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives
Targeted Functions Goals Objectives Compatibility of Success
Criteria
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Flood Flow (Floodplain Access) • Attenuate flood
flow across the
Site.
• Minimize
downstream
flooding to the
maximum
extent possible.
• Connect
streams to
functioning
wetland
systems.
• Construct new channel at historic
floodplain elevation to restore
overbank flows and restore
jurisdictional wetlands
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Remove livestock
• Deep rip floodplain soils to
reduce compaction and increase
soil surface roughness
• Protect riparian buffers with a
perpetual conservation easement
• BHR not to exceed 1.2
• Document four overbank
events in separate
monitoring years
• Livestock excluded from the
easement
• Attain Wetland Hydrology
Success Criteria
• Attain Vegetation Success
Criteria
• Conservation Easement
recorded
(3) Streamside Area
Attenuation
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
• Increase stream
stability within
the Site so that
channels are
neither
aggrading nor
degrading.
• Construct channels with proper
pattern, dimension, and
longitudinal profile
• Remove livestock
• Construct stable channels with
cobble/gravel substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer
•
• Cross-section
measurements indicate a
stable channel with
cobble/gravel substrate
• Visual documentation of
stable channels and
structures
• BHR not to exceed 1.2
• ER of 1.4 or greater
• < 10% change in BHR and ER
in any given year
• Livestock excluded from the
easement
• Attain Vegetation Success
Criteria
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(1) WATER QUALITY
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
• Remove direct
nutrient and
pollutant inputs
from the Site
and reduce
contributions to
downstream
waters.
• Remove livestock and reduce
agricultural land/inputs
• Install marsh treatment areas
• Plant woody riparian buffer
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional
wetlands adjacent to Site streams
• Provide surface roughness
through deep ripping/plowing
• Restore overbank flooding by
establishing proper channel
dynamics
• Cessation of municipal land
application
• Livestock excluded from the
easement
• Attain Wetland Hydrology
Success Criteria
• Attain Vegetation Success
Criteria
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
Wetland Particulate Change
Wetland Physical Change

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 3
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Stream/Wetland Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives (Continued)
(1) HABITAT
(2) In-stream Habitat
• Improve
instream and
stream-side
habitat.
• Construct stable channels with
cobble/gravel substrate
• Plant woody riparian buffer to
provide organic matter and shade
• Construct new channel at historic
floodplain elevation to restore
overbank flows and plant woody
riparian buffer
• Protect riparian buffers with a
perpetual conservation easement
• Restore/enhance jurisdictional
wetlands adjacent to Site streams
• Cross-section measurement
indicate a stable channel with
cobble/gravel substrate
• Visual documentation of
stable channels and in-stream
structures.
• Attain Wetland Hydrology
Success Criteria
• Attain Vegetation Success
Criteria
• Conservation Easement
recorded
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-Stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
Wetland Landscape Patch
Structure
Wetland Vegetation
Composition

1.2 Project Background
The Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (hereafter referred to as the “Site”) encompasses a 17.64-
acre easement along warm water, unnamed tributaries to Pine Hill Branch and unnamed tributaries to
South Fork Cane Creek. The Site is located approximately 4 miles southeast of Snow Camp and 4.5 miles
north of Silk Hope in southern Alamance County near the Chatham County line (Figure 1, Appendix A).

Prior to construction, Site land use consisted of disturbed forest and agricultural land used for livestock
grazing and hay production. Livestock had unrestricted access to Site streams, which had been cleared,
dredged of cobble substrate, straightened, trampled by livestock, eroded vertically and laterally, and
received extensive sediment and nutrient inputs from stream banks and adjacent pastures.
Approximately 62 percent of the stream channel had been degraded contributing to sediment export from
the Site resulting from mechanical processes such as livestock hoof shear. In addition, streamside
wetlands were cleared and drained by channel downcutting and land uses. Preconstruction Site
conditions resulted in degraded water quality, a loss of aquatic habitat, reduced nutrient and sediment
retention, and unstable channel characteristics (loss of horizontal flow vectors that maintain pools and an
increase in erosive forces to channel bed and banks). Site restoration activities restored riffle-pool
morphology, aided in energy dissipation, increased aquatic habitat, stabilized channel banks, and greatly
reduced sediment loss from channel banks.

1.3 Project Components and Structure
Proposed Site restoration activities generated 5293 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and 0.66 Wetland
Mitigation Units (WMUs) as the result of the following.

• 4068 linear feet of Priority I stream restoration
• 1184 linear feet of stream enhancement (Level I)
• 1090 linear feet of stream enhancement (Level II)
• 0.35 acre of riparian wetland restoration
• 0.61 acre of riparian wetland enhancement

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 4
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Additional activities that occurred at the Site included the following.
• Installation of six marsh treatment areas throughout the Site.
• Fencing the entire conservation easement by leaving some pre-existing fencing, removing fencing,
and installing additional fencing.
• Planting 12.05 acres of the Site with 15,625 stems (planted species and densities by zone are
included in Table 7 [Appendix C]).

Deviations from the construction plans included realignment of UT 1B (adding 20 linear feet to the
alignment) due to conflicts with a gas line crossing. The realignment resulted in the reduction of a log
vane and alterations to pipe configurations within the crossing. Gas line realignment also affected the
length of UT 2 in its lower reaches (shortening the Restoration reach). UT 2 also has minor deviations in
the enhancement II reach due to profile elevation alterations to tie to the invert of UT 1B. These profile
alterations were included in construction plans, but not included in table updates of the detailed plan.
Profile alterations resulted in the Enhancement (level II)/Restoration initiation point migrating upstream,
and thus the length of the Enhancement (Level II) reach (UT 2A) decreased by 39 feet, and the length of
the restoration reach (UT 2B) increased by 17 feet.

Minor easement deviations after construction plan development resulted in some stationing changes,
most notable at the upper reaches of UT 1A (adding 5 linear feet to the alignment) and UT 8A & UT 8B
(reducing the alignments by a total of 4 linear feet). The easement variations also affected channel lengths
across gas lines, which do not generate mitigation credit. Eight log cross-vanes were not constructed due
to contact with bed rock, or conflicts with the gas line. In addition, a marsh treatment area was added to
the right bank of UT 6 at a draw that was concentrating surface drainage and scouring the valley walls.
No other deviations of significance occurred between construction plans and the as-built condition. In
addition, no issues have arisen since construction occurred.

Site design was completed in July 2018. Construction started on November 27, 2018 and ended within a
final walkthrough on February 11, 2019. The Site was planted on February 21, 2019. Completed project
activities, reporting history, completion dates, project contacts, and background information are
summarized in Tables 1-4 (Appendix A).

1.4 Success Criteria
Project success criteria have been established per the October 24, 2016 NC Interagency Review Team
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Monitoring and success
criteria relate to project goals and objectives. From a mitigation perspective, several of the goals and
objectives are assumed to be functionally elevated by restoration activities without direct measurement.
Other goals and objectives will be considered successful upon achieving success criteria. The following
table summarizes Site success criteria.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 5
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Success Criteria
Streams
• All streams must maintain an Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM), per RGL 05-05.
• Continuous surface flow must be documented each year for at least 30 consecutive days. Surface water
monitoring gauges will be installed in the upper third of all intermittent channels, unless otherwise requested
by the IRT.
• Bank height ratio (BHR) cannot exceed 1.2 at any measured cross-section.
• Entrenchment ratio (ER) must be no less than 2.2 for E- and C-type channels at any measured riffle cross-
section. Note: B-type channels may have an ER less than 1.4.
• BHR and ER at any measure riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10% from baseline condition
during any given monitoring period.
• The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards shall be met through four separate
bankfull events, occurring in separate years, during the monitoring years 1-7.
Wetland Hydrology
• Saturation or inundation within the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for, at a minimum, 10 percent of the
growing season, during average climatic conditions. Note: Soil temperature for growing season establishment
will be measured daily utilizing a continuous monitoring soil probe. Soil temperature will be measured from
mid-February through the end of April (at a minimum).
Vegetation
• Within planted portions of the site, a minimum of 320 stems per acre must be present at year 3; a minimum
of 260 stems per acre must be present at year 5; and a minimum of 210 stems per acre must be present at
year 7.
• Trees must average 7 feet in height at year 5, and 10 feet in height at year 7 in each plot.
• Planted and volunteer stems are counted, provided they are included in the approved planting list for the site;
natural recruits not on the planting list may be considered by the IRT on a case-by-case basis.

2.0 METHODS
Monitoring requirements and success criteria outlined in this plan follow the October 24, 2016 NC
Interagency Review Team Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Monitoring will be conducted by Axiom Environmental, Inc. Annual monitoring reports of the data
collected will be submitted to the NCDMS by Restoration Systems no later than December 31 of each
monitoring year data is collected. The monitoring schedule is summarized in the following table.

Monitoring Schedule
Resource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Streams X X X X X
Wetlands X X X X X X X
Vegetation X X X X X
Macroinvertebrates X X X
Visual Assessment X X X X X X X
Report Submittal X X X X X X X

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 6
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
2.1 Monitoring
The monitoring parameters are summarized in the following table.

Monitoring Summary
Stream Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Stream Profile Full longitudinal survey As-built (unless
otherwise required)
All restored stream
channels Graphic and tabular data.
Stream Dimension Cross-sections Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Total of 37 cross-
sections on restored
channels
Graphic and tabular data.
Channel Stability
Visual Assessments Yearly All restored stream
channels
Areas of concern to be depicted on
a plan view figure with a written
assessment and photograph of the
area included in the report.
Additional Cross-
sections Yearly
Only if instability is
documented during
monitoring
Graphic and tabular data.
Stream Hydrology
Continuous monitoring
surface water gauges
and/or trail camera
Continuous recording
through monitoring
period
Total of 10 surface
water gauges
Surface water data for each
monitoring period as depicted in
Figures 10A-10D.
Bankfull Events
Continuous monitoring
surface water gauges
and/or trail camera
Continuous recording
through monitoring
period
Total of 10 surface
water gauges:
One gauge on UT1,
2, 3, 6 and 8.
Two gauges on UT
5.
Three gauges on
UT 7
Surface water data for each
monitoring period
Visual/Physical
Evidence
Continuous through
monitoring period
All restored stream
channels
Visual evidence, photo
documentation, and/or rain data.
Benthic
Macroinvertebrates
“Qual 4” method
described in Standard
Operating Procedures
for Collection and
Analysis of Benthic
Macroinvertebrates,
Version 5.0 (NCDWR
2016)
Pre-construction,
Years 3, 5, and 7
during the “index
period” referenced in
Small Streams
Biocriteria
Development
(NCDWQ 2009)
2 stations (one at the
lower end of UT1 and
one at the lower end of
UT5)
Results* will be presented on a site-
by-site basis and to include a list of
taxa collected, an enumeration of
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera taxa as well as Biotic
Index.
Wetland Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Wetland
Restoration Groundwater gauges
As-built, Years 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6, and 7
throughout the year
with the growing
season defined as
March 1-October 22
6 gauges spread
throughout restored
wetlands
Soil temperature at the beginning of
each monitoring period to verify the
start of the growing season,
groundwater and rain data for each
monitoring period

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 7
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Monitoring Summary (Continued)
Vegetation Parameters
Parameter Method Schedule/Frequency Number/Extent Data Collected/Reported
Vegetation
establishment and
vigor
Permanent vegetation
plots 0.0247 acre (100
square meters) in size;
CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation,
Version 4.2 (Lee et al.
2008)
As-built, Years 1, 2, 3,
5, and 7
14 plots spread across
the Site
Species, height, planted vs.
volunteer, stems/acre
Annual random
vegetation plots,
0.0247 acre (100
square meters) in size
As-built, Years 1, 2, 3,
5, and 7
4 plots randomly
selected each year Species and height
*Benthic Macroinvertebrate sampling data will not be tied to success criteria; however, the data may be used as a
tool to observe positive gains to in-stream habitat

Stream Summary
Stream measurements for monitoring year 5 (2023) were performed on May 17, 2023. A visual
assessment indicates that across the Site, all in-stream structures are intact and functioning as designed
and that channel geometry compares favorably with the proposed conditions outlined in the Detailed
Restoration Plan and as constructed. No stream areas of concern were identified during year 5 (2023)
monitoring. Tables for year 5 (2023) stream measurement data and annual quantitative assessments are
included in Appendix C.

Two bankfull events were documented during year 5 (2023) monitoring for a total of 10 bankfull events
to-date during the monitoring period (Table 14, Appendix E).

Channel formation was evident in all site tributaries during year 5 (2023). The UT1 streamflow gauge
captured 237 days of consecutive flow. The UT2 and UT3 stream gauges captured 110 days and 73 days
respectively. The UT5 upstream and downstream gauges captured 165 and 154 days respectively. UT6
exhibited 282 consecutive days of flow. The upstream and downstream gauges on UT7 captured 154 days
and 141 days respectively, and the UT7 middle gauge captured 229 days of flow. The UT8 gauge captured
250 consecutive days of flow. Channel formation tables and graphs are in Appendix E.

In accordance with the monitoring schedule, year 5 (2023) benthic macroinvertebrate sampling occurred
on June 13, 2023. Stream conditions were dry during the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling. UT-1
recorded zero (0) EPT Taxa due to hydrology being isolated to pools. Samples were not taken for UT-5 due
to the lack of water in the entire stream channel. See the table below for a summary of benthic
macroinvertebrate results. Year 5 (2023) results and habitat forms are in Appendix F.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 8
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Summary of Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data by Year
Sampling
Station
Preconstruction Year 3 (2021) Year 5 (2023)* Year 7 (2025)
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
# EPT
Taxa
Biotic
Index
UT-1 0 7.94 2 8.11 0 9.31
UT-5 0 7.40 0 8.85 NA NA
*Site streams were unusually dry during the year 5 (2023) sampling effort. The UT-1 sampling reach was dry except for pools, and
the UT-5 benthic sampling reach was completely dry at the time of sampling. No samples were collected in UT-5.

Wetland Summary
Summary of Monitoring Period/Hydrology Success Criteria by Year
Year Soil Temperatures/Date Bud
Burst Documented
Monitoring Period Used for
Determining Success
10 Percent of
Monitoring Period
2019 (Year 1) March 28, 2019* March 28-October 22
(209 days) 21 days
2020 (Year 2) March 2, 2020# March 2-October 22
(234 days) 23 days
2021 (Year 3) March 1, 2021^ March 1-October 22
(236 days) 24 days
2022 (Year 4) March 1, 2022% March 1-October 22
(236 days) 24 days
2023 (Year 5) March 1, 2023~ March 1-October 23
(236 days) 24 days
*Based on documented bud burst and soil temperature of 50.06°F on March 28, 2019.
# Based on bud burst documented March 2, 2020 and soil temperature of 46.82°F on March 1, 2020.
^Based on bud burst documented on March 1, 2021. The soil temperature logger was damaged and stopped recording February
16, 2021, however at the time of the failure, the soil temperature had dropped below 41°F just twice in 2021 (January 5th and
31st) and exceeded thereafter.
%Based on bud burst documented February 28, 2022 and soil temperature of 45.97°F on March 1, 2022.
~Based on bud burst documented February 28, 2023 and soil temperature of 55.16°F on March 1, 2023.

All six groundwater gauges met success for the Year 5 (2023) monitoring period. Wetland hydrology data
and graphs are in Appendix E.

Vegetation Summary
Vegetation plot monitoring for monitoring year 5 (2023) was performed on September 20, 2023. Thirteen
of the 14 vegetation plots were found to be meeting success criteria with an average stem density of 373
planted stems per acre. In addition, 6 temporary plots were surveyed for an average stem density of 513
stems per acre.

Supplemental planting of 3.87 acres was conducted in 2021 in previously identified areas of poor growth
rates or vigor using 1,290 plants to improve the Site’s overall stem density. These areas are identified on
Figures 2A, 2B, and 2C (Appendix B) and are outside vegetation plots. Planting occurred at a rate of
approximately 330 bare root stems per acre of the following species: river birch (Betula nigra), green ash
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 9
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red bud (Cercis canadensis), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), white oak (Quercus alba), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos),
and red oak (Quercus rubra).
3.0 REFERENCES
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson, J.B.
Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation.
Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2014. Stream and Wetland Mitigation
Monitoring Guidelines. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, North
Carolina.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
Available: https:// https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-
planning/water-resource-plans/cape-fear-2005 [December 8, 2016]. North Carolina Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates (Version 5.0). (online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Environmental%20Sciences/BAU/NCDWRMacroin
vertebrate-SOP-February%202016_final.pdf

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2009. Small Streams Biocriteria Development.
Available: http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2d54ad23-0345-4d6e-
82fd-04005f48eaa7&groupId=38364

North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2009. Cape Fear River Basin Restoration
Priorities 2009 (online). Available:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=864e82e8-725c-415e-8ed9-
c72dfcb55012&groupId=60329

North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team. (NC SFAT 2015). N.C. Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM) User Manual. Version 2.1.

North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. (NC WFAT 2010). N.C. Wetland Assessment
Method (NC WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.

Simon A, Hupp CR. 1986. Geomorphic and Vegetative Recovery Processes Along Modified Tennessee
Streams: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Disturbed Fluvial Systems. Forest Hydrology and
Watershed Management. IAHS-AISH Publ.167.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) page 10
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2016. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx [August 2016].

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1960. Soil Survey of Alamance County, North Carolina.
Soil Conservation Service.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Appendix A
Background Tables

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Units
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Attributes Table

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits: Heron Site
Reach ID
Stream
Stationing/
Wetland Type
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Plan
Footage/
Acreage
Restoration
Footage/
Acreage
Restoration Level
Restoration or
Restoration
Equivalent
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
Credits Comment
UT 1A (-)0+05 to 04+70 475 470 475 Enhancement (Level I) 475 1.5:1 317
UT 1B 04+70 to 13+26 753 836 856 Restoration 856-57=
799 1:1 799
57 lf of UT1 is located outside of
the conservation easement and
therefore is not generating credit
UT 2A 00+00 to 03+04 304 343 304 Enhancement (Level II) 304 2.5:1 122
UT 2B 03+04 to 03+67 19 46 63 Restoration 63 1:1 63
UT 3 00+00 to 02+79 269 279 279 Restoration 279 1:1 279
UT 4 00+00 to 04+50 485 450 450 Restoration 450 1:1 450
UT 5A 00+00 to 09+52 422 952 952 Restoration 952-52=
900 1:1 900
52 lf of UT5 is located outside of
the conservation easement and
therefore is not generating credit
UT 5B 09+52 to 14+90 538 538 538 Enhancement (Level II) 538 2.5:1 215
UT 6 00+00 to 07+81 683 781 781 Restoration 781 1:1 781
UT 7A 00+00 to 02+32 0 232 232 Restoration 232-41=
191 1:1 191
41 lf of the UT7 restoration reach
is located outside of the
conservation easement and
therefore is not generating credit
UT 7B 02+32 to 09+96 764 764 764 Enhancement (Level I) 764-55=
709 1.5:1 473
55 lf of the UT7 enhancement
reach is located outside of the
conservation easement and
therefore is not generating credit
UT8A 00+04 to 06+09 549 607 605 Restoration 605 1:1 605
UT 8B 06+09 to 08+57 248 250 248 Enhancement (Level II) 248 2.5:1 99
Wetland R Riparian
Riverine -- 0.35 0.35 Restoration 0.35 1:1 0.35 Wetland Restoration
Wetland E Riparian
Riverine 0.61 0.61 0.61 Enhancement 0.61 2:1 0.31 Wetland Enhancement

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits: Heron Site (continued)
Length & Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Restoration Level Stream (linear footage) Riparian Wetland (acreage)
Restoration 4068* 0.35
Enhancement (Level I) 1184** --
Enhancement (Level II) 1090 --
Enhancement -- 0.61
*An additional 150 linear feet of stream restoration is located outside of the conservation easement and is
therefore not included in this total or in mitigation credit calculations.
**An additional 55 linear feet of stream enhancement (level I) is located outside of the conservation easement
and is therefore not included in this total or in mitigation credit calculations.

Overall Assets Summary
Asset Category Overall Credits
Stream 5293.334
Riparian Riverine Wetland 0.655

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History: Heron Site
Activity or Deliverable Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Technical Proposal (RFP No. 16-006990) January 11, 2017 January 11, 2017
Institution Date (NCDMS Contract No. 100014) -- May 22, 2017
404 Permit -- October 10, 2018
Mitigation Plan -- July 2018
Construction Plans -- July 17, 2018
Site Construction -- November 27, 2018-
February 11, 2019
Planting -- February 21, 2019
As-built Baseline Stream Data Collection February 25-26, 2019 --
As-built Baseline Vegetation Data Collection February 25, 2019 --
As-built Baseline Monitoring (MY0) February-March 2019 May 2019
Monitoring Year 1 (2019) Stream Data Collection August 13-14, 2019 --
Monitoring Year 1 (2019) Vegetation Data Collection September 30, 2019 --
Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) March-October 2019 November 2019
Invasive Species Treatment - Privet, Rose, Tree-of-
Heaven, Microstegium, Johnson Grass NA June 12, 2020
Monitoring Year 2 (2020) Stream Data Collection May 16-24, 2020 --
Monitoring Year 2 (2020) Vegetation Data Collection July 1-6, 2020 --
Monitoring Year 2 (MY2) March-October 2020 January 2021
Supplemental Planting NA April 8, 2021
Invasive Species Treatment - Johnson Grass, Privet,
Tree-of-Heaven, Multi-flora Rose, Japanese Knotweed,
Catttail and Fescue
NA September 7 - October 7,
2021
Monitoring Year 3 (2021) Stream Data Collection February 16, 2021 --
Monitoring Year 3 (2021) Vegetation Data Collection July - October, 2021 --
Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) January - October 2021 December 2021
Invasive Species Treatment - Cattail, Privet, Johnson
Grass, Multiflora Rose, Sweetgum, Tree-of-Heaven,
Princess Tree
NA June 15, 2022
Invasive Species Treatment - Japanese Knotweed
(UT8), Tree-of-Heaven, Privet, Multiflora rose NA August 29, 2022
Monitoring Year 4 (2022) Stream Data Collection NA --
Monitoring Year 4 (2022) Vegetation Data Collection NA --
Monitoring Year 4 (MY4) January - October 2022 February 2023
Invasive Species Treatment - Nodding thistle, Privet,
Multiflora Rose, Russian Olive -- May 15, 2023
Invasive Species Treatment - Japanese Knotweed
(UT8), Privet, Multiflora rose, Russian Olive -- September 12, 2023
Monitoring Year 5 (2023) Stream Data Collection May 17, 2023 --
Monitoring Year 5 (2023) Vegetation Data Collection September 20, 2023 --
Monitoring Year 5 (MY5) January - October 2023 January 2024

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 3. Project Contacts Table: Heron Site
Full Delivery Provider
Restoration Systems
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Worth Creech 919-755-9490
Construction Contractor
Land Mechanic Designs
780 Landmark Road
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Lloyd Glover 919-639-6132
Designer
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
Planting Contractor
Carolina Silvics, Inc.
908 Indian Trail Road
Edenton, NC 27932
Mary-Margaret McKinney 252-482-8491
Construction Plans and Sediment and
Erosion Control Plans
Sungate Design Group, PA
915 Jones Franklin Road
Raleigh, NC 27606
Joshua G. Dalton, PE 919-859-2243
As-built Surveyor
K2 Design Group
5688 US Highway 70 East
Goldsboro, NC 27534
John Rudolph 919-751-0075
Baseline & Monitoring Data Collection
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693

Table 4. Project Attribute Table: Heron Site
Project Information
Project Name Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
Project County Alamance County, North Carolina
Project Area (acres) 17.64
Project Coordinates (latitude & latitude) 35.853955ºN, -79.363458ºW
Planted Area (acres) 12.05
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
Project River Basin Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14-digit) 03030002050050
NCDWR Sub-basin for Project 03-06-04
Project Drainage Area (acres) 14 to 96
Percentage of Project Drainage Area that is
Impervious <2%
CGIA Land Use Classification Managed Herbaceous Cover & Mixed Upland Hardwoods

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 4. Project Attribute Table: Heron Site (Continued)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters UT1 UT2 UT 3 UT4 UT 5 UT6 UT 7 UT 8
Length of reach (linear feet) 1155 363 269 485 907 683 202 1221
Valley Classification & Confinement Alluvial, confined
Drainage Area (acres) 96.4 7.1 11.7 17.2 38.1 14.1 20.9 30.8
NCDWR Stream ID Score 30.5 22.5 28.5 33.5 27.5 23.5 24.5 27.5
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Intermittent Perennial/
Intermittent Perennial Perennial/
Intermittent
Perennial/
Intermittent Intermittent Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification WS-V, NSW
Existing Morphological Description (Rosgen 1996) Cg5 Gf5 Cg5 Eg5 Eg5 Cg5 Cg5 Eg5
Proposed Stream Classification (Rosgen 1996) C/E 4 Gf 5 C/E 4 C/E 4 C/E 4 C/E 4 Eb4 C/E 4
Existing Evolutionary Stage (Simon and Hupp 1986) III/IV I/III/IV III/IV II/III II/III III/IV III/IV II/III
Underlying Mapped Soils Alamance silt loam, Georgeville silt loam, Goldston slaty silt loam, Herndon silt loam, Orange silt loam,
Worsham sandy loam, Local Alluvial Land,
Drainage Class Well-drained, well-drained, well-drained, well-drained, well drained, poorly-drained, poorly-drained
Hydric Soil Status Nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, nonhydric, hydric, hydric, respectively
Valley Slope 0.0074 0.0270 0.0222 0.0244 0.0358 0.0300 0.0255 0.0218
FEMA Classification NA
Native Vegetation Community Piedmont Alluvial Forest/Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Site) 43% forest,55% agricultural land, <2% low density residential/impervious surface
Watershed Land Use/Land Cover (Cedarock
Reference Channel) 65% forest, 30% agricultural land, <5% low density residential/impervious surface
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasive Vegetation <5%

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Figure 1. Project Location
Figure 2, 2A-D. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5A-5H. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ
DEC 2017
1:20000
17-008
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Alamance County, NC
HERON STREAMAND WETLANDMITIGATION SITE
PROJECTLOCATION
1
³
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic
Society, i-cubed
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic
Society, i-cubed, U. S. Geological Survey -
National Geospatial Program. Data
Refreshed October, 2017.
Directions to the Site from Raleigh:- Take US-64 West out of Raleigh and travel 25 miles,- Take exit 381 and turn right onto NC-87 N,- After 5 miles, take a left onto Castle Rock Farm Road,- After 5.8 miles, turn left onto Greenhill Road,- After 1.2 miles, turn left onto Lindley Mill Road,- After 0.5 mile, turn right onto Bethel South Fork Road,- Site can be accessed from both sides of Bethel South Fork Road.- Site Latitude, Longitude 35.853955, -79.363458 (NAD83/WGS84)
USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map (Silk Hope and Crutchfield Crossroads, NC Quad)
Snow Camp
¬«87
Lindley
Mill
Road
B
e
t
h
e
l
S
o
u
t
h
F
ork
R
o
a
d
Clark R oad
E G reensboroChap elHi l l R o a d
S
n
o
w
C
a
m
p
R
o
a
d
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ
OCT 2023
1:4000
17-008
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Alamance County, NC
HERON STREAMAND WETLANDMITIGATION SITE
CURRENTCONDITIONSPLAN VIEW
2
³
0 500 1,000 1,500250Feet
Legend
Easement = 17.64 ac
Stream Restoration = 4068 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level I) = 1184 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level II) = 1090 ft
Wetland Restoration = 0.35 ac
Wetland Enhancement = 0.61 acFigure 2A
Figure 2B
Figure 2C
Figure 2D
UT-2A
U
T-1
A
U
T
-
1
B
UT-1B
U
T-3
U T-2 B
U T -5 A
U T -5 B
UT
-
4
U T-6
U T -7 A
UT-7B
UT-8A
UT-8B
")#*
#*
#*
6
1
4
2
3
X
S
-
8
XS-5
XS-7
XS-6
XS-9
XS-
2
XS
-
4
XS-3
XS
-
1
XS-10
32
1
UT1
UT3
UT2
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ
OCT 2023
1:1200
17-008
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Alamance County, NC
HERON STREAMAND WETLANDMITIGATION SITE
CURRENTCONDITIONSPLAN VIEW
2A
³
0 200 400100Feet
Legend
Easement = 17.64 ac
Stream Restoration = 4068 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level I) = 1184 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level II) = 1090 ft
Channel TOB
Wetland Restoration = 0.35 ac
Wetland Enhancement = 0.61 ac
Temporary Vegetation Plots Meeting Success Criteria During MY5 (2023)
Cross Section
CVS Plots Meeting Success During MY5 (2023)
CVS Plots Not Meeting Success During MY5 (2023)
Groundwater Gauge
#*Stream Gauge
")Benthic Sampling Location
Marsh Treatment Area
U T-2 B
UT-
1A
UT-1B
U
T
-
3
UT-2A
U
T
-
1
B
")$
#*
#*
#*
XS-13
XS-11
X
S
-
1
5
XS-18
X
S
-
1
6
XS
-
1
7
XS-22
XS-19
XS-26
XS-21
X
S
-
2
5
XS-12
XS-14
XS-2
0
1
UT5 DS
UT5 US
9
6
7
5
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ
OCT 2023
1:1200
17-008
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Alamance County, NC
HERON STREAMAND WETLANDMITIGATION SITE
CURRENTCONDITIONSPLAN VIEW
2B
³
0 200 400100Feet
Legend
Easement = 17.64 ac
Stream Restoration = 4068 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level I) = 1184 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level II) = 1090 ft
Channel TOB
Wetland Enhancement = 0.61 ac
Cross Section
Temporary Vegetation Plots Meeting Success During MY5 (2023)
Groundwater Gauge
CVS Plots Meeting Success During MY5 (2023)
CVS Plots Not Meeting Success During MY5 (2023)
#*Stream Gauge
$Rain Gauge and Soil Temperature Gauge
")Benthic Sampling Location
Drop Structure
Marsh Treatment Area
U T-5 A
UT-4
UT-6
U T-5 A
U T -5 B
#*
#*
#*
#*
X
S
-
3
1
XS
-
2
3
XS-27
X
S
-
3
2
XS
-
3
0
XS-28
XS-29
XS
-
3
3
XS-2
6
X
S
-
2
5
XS-
2
4
3
5
4
2
6 5
4
UT6
UT7 DS
UT7 MS
UT7 US
9
8
11
12
10
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ
OCT 2023
1:1400
17-008
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Alamance County, NC
HERON STREAMAND WETLANDMITIGATION SITE
CURRENTCONDITIONSPLAN VIEW
2C
³
0 250 500125Feet
Legend
Easement = 17.64 ac
Stream Restoration = 4068 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level I) = 1184 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level II) = 1090 ft
Channel TOB
Wetland Restoration = 0.35 ac
Wetland Enhancement = 0.61 ac
Cross Section
Temporary Vegetation Plots Meeting Success During MY5 (2023)
Groundwater Gauge
#*Stream Gauge
CVS Plots Meeting Success During MY5 (2023)
CVS Plots Not Meeting Success During MY5 (2023)
$+Rain Gauge and Soil Temperature Gauge
Drop Structure
Marsh Treatment Area
UT-6UT-7 A
UT-7B
#*
XS
-
3
4
X
S
-
3
5
X
S
-
3
7
X
S
-
3
6
UT8 1413
FIGURE
Drawn by:
Date:
Scale:
Project No.:
KRJ
OCT 2023
1:1000
17-008
Title:
Project:
Prepared for:
Alamance County, NC
HERON STREAMAND WETLANDMITIGATION SITE
CURRENTCONDITIONSPLAN VIEW
2D
³
0 150 30075Feet
Legend
Easement = 17.64 ac
Stream Restoration = 4068 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level I) = 1184 ft
Stream Enhancement (Level II) = 1090 ft
Channel TOB
Cross Section
Drop Structure
CVS Plots Meeting Success During MY5 (2023)
CVS Plots Not Meeting Success During MY5 (2023)
#*Stream Gauge
2023 Japanese Knotweed Treatment Area
UT-8B
UT-8A
Table 5A Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-1
Assessed Length 1331
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 35 35 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)34 34 100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)34 34 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)34 34 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)34 34 100%
2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion 0 0 100%100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 0 100%100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.15 15 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 15 15 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.15 15 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 15 15 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.15 15 100%
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
Totals
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Table 5B Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-2
Assessed Length 63
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 3 3 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)3 3 100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)3 3 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)3 3 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)3 3 100%
2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion 0 0 100%100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 0 100%100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.0 0 NA
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 0 0 NA
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.0 0 NA
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 0 0 NA
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.0 0 NA
Totals
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Table 5C Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-3
Assessed Length 279
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 14 14 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)13 13 100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)13 13 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)13 13 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)13 13 100%
2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion 0 0 100%100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 0 100%100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.5 5 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 5 5 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.5 5 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 5 5 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.5 5 100%
Totals
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Table 5D Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-4
Assessed Length 450
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 22 22 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)21 21 100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)21 21 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)21 21 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)21 21 100%
2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion 0 0 100%100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 0 100%100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.10 10 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 10 10 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.10 10 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 10 10 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.10 10 100%
Totals
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Table 5E Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-5
Assessed Length 952
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 44 44 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)43 43 100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)43 43 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)43 43 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)43 43 100%
2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion 0 0 100%100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 0 100%100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.25 25 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 25 25 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.25 25 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 25 25 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.25 25 100%
Totals
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Table 5F Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-6
Assessed Length 781
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 34 34 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)33 33 100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)33 33 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)33 33 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)33 33 100%
2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion 0 0 100%100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 0 100%100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Engineered
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 sills or arms.8 8 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 8 8 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.8 8 100%
Totals
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Table 5G Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-7
Assessed Length 996
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 44 44 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)44 44 100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)44 44 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)44 44 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)44 44 100%
2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion 0 0 100%100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 0 100%100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Engineered
Structures 1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.19 19 100%
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 19 19 100%
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.19 19 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 19 19 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.19 19 100%
Totals
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Table 5H Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Heron UT-8
Assessed Length 605
1. Bed 1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)0 0 100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition 1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate 24 24 100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition 1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)23 23 100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)23 23 100%
4.Thalweg Position 1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)23 23 100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)23 23 100%
2. Bank 1. Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion 0 0 100%100%
2. Undercut
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
0 0 100%100%
3. Mass Wasting Bank slumping, calving, or collapse 0 0 100%100%
0 0 100%0 0 100%
3. Engineered
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 sills or arms.9 9 100%
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 9 9 100%
4. Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining ~ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.9 9 100%
Totals
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As-built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Heron
Planted Acreage1 12.05
1. Bare Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
2B. Low Planted Stem Density Areas None 0.1 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
0 0.00 0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor 0 acres none 0 0.00 0.0%
0 0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage2 17.64
4. Invasive Areas of Concern4 A patch of Japanese knotweed was observed along the left bank of UT-8. It was treated in September
2023 and will continue to be monitored for signs of vitality.1000 SF none 1 0.07 0.4%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas3 None none none 0 0.00 0.0%
% of
Planted
Acreage
Total
Cumulative Total
Vegetation Category Definitions
Number of
Polygons
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Combined
Acreage
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
AcreageVegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage, crossings
or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment, the
associatedacreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives of concern/interest are listed below. The list of high concern spcies are those
with the potential to directly outcompete native, young, woody stems in the short-term (e.g. monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing, more established tree/shrub stands over timeframes that are
slightly longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can be mapped, if
in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by
DMS such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control, but
potentially large coverages of Microstegium in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of
ground cover. Those species with the "watch list" designator in gray shade are of interest as well, but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency. Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme risk/threat
level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found, particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history. However, areas of discreet, dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons. The symbology scheme below was one
that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature
can be symbolized to describethings like high or low concern and species can be listedas a map inset, in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative sectionof the executive summary.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Appendix C
Vegetation Data

Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation
Table 8. Total stems by Plot and Species
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Data
Vegetation Plot Photographs

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 7. Planted Bare Root Woody Vegetation: Heron Site
Species Total*
Acres 12.05
Alnus serrulata 500
Asimina triloba 100
Betula nigra 400
Carpinus caroliniana 800
Cephalanthus occidentalis 25
Cercis canadensis 500
Cornus amomum 2500
Diospyros virginiana 350
Fraxinus americana 100
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 2500
Liriodendron tulipifera 125
Nyssa sylvatica 500
Platanus occidentalis 2400
Quercus lyrata 900
Quercus nigra 2000
Quercus phellos 1900
Sambucus canadensis 25
TOTALS 15,625*
Average Stems/Acre 1297
*Live stakes of Salix nigra were planted, but are not included in this table.

Table 8. Total stems by plot and species
Project Code 17.008. Project Name: Heron Stream and Wetland
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree 1 1 1
Carpinus hornbeam Tree
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 5 5 5
Carya hickory Tree
Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 1 1 1 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 7 7 7 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
Fraxinus americana white ash Tree 3 3 3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 1 1 1 5 5 5 1 1 1
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 10 3
Liriodendron tuliptree
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 5 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2
Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree
Quercus oak Tree 4 4 4 1 1 1
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 1 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1
Salix nigra black willow Tree
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub
Ulmus americana American elm Tree
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree
Unknown Shrub or Tree
13 13 13 8 8 8 9 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 10 10 10 13 13 23 8 8 11
5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 8 4 4 5
526.1 526.1 526.1 323.7 323.7 323.7 364.2 364.2 364.2 323.7 323.7 323.7 323.7 323.7 323.7 323.7 323.7 323.7 323.7 323.7 323.7 404.7 404.7 404.7 526.1 526.1 930.8 323.7 323.7 445.2
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Current Plot Data (MY5 2023)
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
1
0.02
17.008-01-0007 17.008-01-0008 17.008-01-0009 17.008-01-0010
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
17.008-01-0001 17.008-01-0002 17.008-01-0003 17.008-01-0004 17.008-01-0005 17.008-01-0006
Table 8. Total stems by plot and species
Project Code 17.008. Project Name: Heron Stream and Wetland
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree 7 4
Alnus serrulata hazel alder Shrub 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4
Asimina triloba pawpaw Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 14 14 21 21 21
Betula nigra river birch Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2
Carpinus hornbeam Tree 12 12
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam Tree 8 8 8 7 7 7 8 8 8 7 7 7 13 13 13
Carya hickory Tree 4
Celtis occidentalis common hackberry Tree 3
Cephalanthus occidentalis common buttonbush Shrub 1 1 1
Cercis canadensis eastern redbud Tree 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10
Cornus amomum silky dogwood Shrub 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 5 5 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 6 6 6
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 13 13 13 14 14 20 14 14 17 13 13 15 19 19 19
Fraxinus americana white ash Tree 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 3 3 3 5 5 5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 3 3 3 5 5 5 15 15 15 13 13 14 12 12 12 13 13 13 15 15 15
Liquidambar styraciflua sweetgum Tree 13 5 3
Liriodendron tuliptree 3 3
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Nyssa sylvatica blackgum Tree 1 1 1 3 3 3 6 6 6 8 8 8 12 12 12 13 13 13 10 10 10
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 4 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 4 20 20 22 19 19 26 17 17 18 15 15 17 11 11 11
Populus deltoides eastern cottonwood Tree 6 4
Quercus oak Tree 1 1 1 6 6 6 8 8 8 10 10 10 13 13 13 31 31 31
Quercus lyrata overcup oak Tree 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 5 5 5 8 8 8
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 15 15 10 10 10 13 13 13 18 18 18 19 19 19
Quercus pagoda cherrybark oak Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 3 3 3 14 14 14 15 15 15 13 13 13 12 12 12 11 11 11
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 1
Salix nigra black willow Tree 1
Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
Ulmus americana American elm Tree 10 11
Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree 9
Unknown Shrub or Tree 1 1 1 5 5 5
12 12 12 12 12 12 8 8 26 4 4 4 129 129 160 124 124 165 131 131 159 152 152 176 196 196 196
6 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 7 2 2 2 18 18 21 18 18 24 18 18 21 19 19 23 20 20 20
485.6 485.6 485.6 485.6 485.6 485.6 323.7 323.7 1052 161.9 161.9 161.9 372.9 372.9 462.5 358.4 358.4 477 378.7 378.7 459.6 439.4 439.4 508.7 566.6 566.6 566.6
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
14
0.35
14
0.35
14
0.35
1
0.02
14
0.35
14
0.35
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
17.008-01-0013 17.008-01-0014
Annual Means
MY5 (2023) MY3 (2021) MY2 (2020) MY1 (2019) MY0 (2019)
Current Plot Data (MY5 2023)
17.008-01-0011 17.008-01-0012
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 9. Temporary Vegetation Plot Data: Heron Site
Species 50m x 2m Temporary Plot (Bearing)
T-1 (130⁰) T-2 (319⁰) T-3 (319⁰) T-4 (285⁰) T-5 (10⁰) T-6 (344⁰)
Betula nigra 2 3
Carpinus caroliniana 5 5
Cercis canadensis 3 2
Cornus ammomum
Diospyros virginiana 3 5 6
Fraxinus pennsylvanica 3 3
Liriodendron tulipifera 1 1
Platanus occidentalis 4 4 3 1 3 0
Quercus lyrata 2 2 2
Quercus phellos 2 2 1 1 5
Quercus alba 2
Total Stems 17 12 13 10 12 12
Total Stems/Acre 688 486 526 405 486 486
MY-05 HEIGHT DATA: Stems ranged in height from 100 cm to 375 cm.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data

Tables 10A-G. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11A-G. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment
Parameter Distributions)
Table 12A-F. MY3 Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters –
Cross Sections)
Table 13A-G. MY3 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross Section Report

Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)4.7 8.5 11.1 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 7.8 8.4 9 8.3 11 13 4
Floodprone Width (ft)13 20 30 15 18 25 122 131 140 10 75 100 25 100 100 4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.5 0.7 1.1 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.8 1.1 2 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.7 0.8 1 0.6 0.8 1.1 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)5.1 8 14.7 5.1 5.1 5.1 3.7 5.4 7.2 4
Width/Depth Ratio 4.3 14.6 22 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 17.4 18.7 36.7 4
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 2.5 4.3 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 5.1 8.9 11.1 3 8.3 9.3 4
1Bank Height Ratio 1.4 1.9 2.5 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)2.7 19 16 53 11 31
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.007 0.009 0.01 0 0.013 0.012 0.048 0.01 31
Pool Length (ft)6 23 20 80 12.9 34
Pool Max depth (ft)1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.6 2.1 4
Pool Spacing (ft)25 37 69 22 44 81 25 34 68 25 34 68 34
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)20 23 38 17 30 36 25 34 68 25 34 68
Radius of Curvature (ft)11 16 27 9 31 113 17 25 85 17 25 85
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)44 68 116 10 63 91 51 72 101 51 72 101
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Monitoring BaselineRegional Curve Pre-Existing Condition DesignCedarock Park Ref Causey Ref
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
0.240.61 0.19
Cg 5 E/C 4Eb 4
3.8 3.8 3.6
19.3
C 4
0.0057 0.0087
1.3 1.31.2
0.0258
1433 856 856
1067
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 1 (856 feet)
61
1.3
0.0057
0
E5
1.46
0.0053
0
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)3.2 4.5 5.9 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 4.1 4.4 4.7 7.7 7.7 7.7 1
Floodprone Width (ft)9 14 21 15 18 25 122 131 140 20 40 60 18 18 18 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.2 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 1
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.5 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.4 0.4 0.5 1 1 1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.4 8 14.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 1
Width/Depth Ratio 8 17.4 29.5 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 13.2 13.2 13.2 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 2.2 3.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 4.9 9 12.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 1
1Bank Height Ratio 1.7 2.2 2.4 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)4 11 10 19 4.3 14
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.023 0.031 0.035 0.011 0.029 0.027 0.736 0.017 14
Pool Length (ft)4 9 8 21 4.9 13
Pool Max depth (ft)1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 0.4 0.6 0.7 1 1 1 1 0 1
Pool Spacing (ft)25 37 69 22 44 81 13 18 35 13 18 35 14
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)20 23 38 17 30 36 13 18 27 13 18 27
Radius of Curvature (ft)11 16 27 9 31 113 9 13 44 9 13 44
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)44 68 116 10 63 91 26 37 53 26 37 53
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 3 (279 feet)
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref Design Monitoring Baseline
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
1.42 0.34 0.56
Cg 5 Eb 4 E5 E/C 4 C 4
3.6 3.6 1.1
5
229
247 279 279
1.07 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
0.0207 0.0258 0.0053 0.0193 0.0176
100 0 0
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)3.1 3.8 4.9 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 4.6 5 5.4 6.5 7.3 8 2
Floodprone Width (ft)6 15 30 15 18 25 122 131 140 25 50 75 40 40 40 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 8 14.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 2.2 3 3.7 2
Width/Depth Ratio 5.2 7.7 12.3 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 17.3 18.3 19.2 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 3.9 6.1 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 5.4 10 14 5 5.6 6.2 2
1Bank Height Ratio 1.3 2.3 4.0 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)4 9 9 20 3.5 23
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.037 0.05 0.056 0 0.021 0.017 0.061 0.014 23
Pool Length (ft)4 10 10 18 3.5 22
Pool Max depth (ft)1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.4 2
Pool Spacing (ft)25 37 69 22 44 81 15 20 40 15 20 40 22
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)20 23 38 17 30 36 15 20 30 15 20 30
Radius of Curvature (ft)11 16 27 9 31 113 10 15 50 10 15 50
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)44 68 116 10 63 91 30 43 60 30 43 60
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 4 (450 feet)
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref Design Monitoring Baseline
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
2.79 0.6 0.59
Eg 5 Eb 4 E5 E/C 4 C 4
3.7 4 2.4
7.3
391
428 450 450
1.09 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
0.0283 0.0258 0.0053 0.3111 0.0254
56 0 0
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)2.5 3.7 6 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 4.6 5 5.4 4.9 6.9 8.1 4
Floodprone Width (ft)4 12 30 15 18 25 122 131 140 25 50 75 40 40 40 4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.5 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.6 8 14.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.4 3.7 4
Width/Depth Ratio 3.6 8.8 20 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 12.6 18.3 20.9 4
Entrenchment Ratio 1.4 3.1 7.3 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 5.4 10 14 4.9 5.9 8.2 4
1Bank Height Ratio 1.3 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)3 11 9 49 8.4 41
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.037 0.05 0.056 0.004 0.028 0.027 0.051 0.01 41
Pool Length (ft)4 12 10 59 8.5 41
Pool Max depth (ft)1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 1 1.1 4
Pool Spacing (ft)25 37 69 22 44 81 15 20 40 15 20 40 41
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)20 23 38 17 30 36 15 20 30 15 20 30
Radius of Curvature (ft)11 16 27 9 31 113 10 15 50 10 15 50
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)44 68 116 10 63 91 30 43 60 30 43 60
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 10d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 5 (952 feet)
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref Design Monitoring Baseline
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
2.79 0.6 0.5
Eg 5 Eb 4 E5 E/C 4 E/C 4
3.9 4 2.3
5.5
579
605 952 952
1.04 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
0.0372 0.0258 0.0053 0.3111 0.0256
50 0 0
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)4.6 6.4 9.6 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 4.2 4.6 4.9 6.1 6.5 6.8 2
Floodprone Width (ft)7 16 46 15 18 25 122 131 140 25 50 75 40 40 40 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.2 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.4 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.5 8 14.7 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.2 2.9 3.5 2
Width/Depth Ratio 15.3 26.7 48 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 13.2 15.1 16.9 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.1 2.4 4.8 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 5.9 10.9 15.3 5.9 6.2 6.6 2
1Bank Height Ratio 3.7 5.0 7.5 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)2 10 7 47 8.8 33
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.031 0.042 0.047 0.001 0.028 0.024 0.126 0.021 33
Pool Length (ft)4 12 12 18 3.7 33
Pool Max depth (ft)1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 0.4 0.6 0.7 1 1.2 1.3 2
Pool Spacing (ft)25 37 69 22 44 81 13.7 18.3 36.7 14 18 37 33
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)20 23 38 17 30 36 13.7 18.3 36.7 14 18 37
Radius of Curvature (ft)11 16 27 9 31 113 9 14 46 9 14 46
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)44 68 116 10 63 91 27 39 55 27 39 55
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 10e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 6 (781 feet)
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref Design Monitoring Baseline
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
14.18 0.47 0.56
Cg 5 Eb 4 E5 E/C 4 C 4
3.5 3.5 1.8
5.2
486
522 781 781
1.07 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
0.028 0.0258 0.0053 0.0261 0.0225
68 0 0
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)4.1 5.3 6.7 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 4.9 5.3 5.7 6.2 6.6 7.8 4
Floodprone Width (ft)7 13 29 15 18 25 122 131 140 25 50 75 10 20 20 4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.4 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 8 14.7 2 2 2 1.8 2.7 3.3 4
Width/Depth Ratio 8.2 14.5 22.3 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 12.8 18.5 24.2 4
Entrenchment Ratio 1.7 2.4 5.2 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 5 9 13 1.6 2.8 3.1 4
1Bank Height Ratio 1.8 2.5 4.1 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)3 13 10 75 13 42
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.027 0.036 0.04 0.006 0.029 0.029 0.056 0.011 42
Pool Length (ft)3 9 9 14 2.6 41
Pool Max depth (ft)1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 1.3 1.9 2.1 1 1.1 1.5 3
Pool Spacing (ft)25 37 69 22 44 81 16 21 42 16 21 42 42
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)20 23 38 17 30 36 16 21 32 16 21 32
Radius of Curvature (ft)11 16 27 9 31 113 10 16 53 10 16 53
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)44 68 116 10 63 91 31 45 64 31 45 64
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 10f. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 7 (232 feet)
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref Design Monitoring Baseline
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
2.36 0.45 0.61
Cg 5 Eb 4 E5 Eb 4 Cb 4
3.5 3.5 2.6
7
755
778 232 232
1.03 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
0.0248 0.0258 0.0053 0.0222 0.0268
76 0 0
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq.Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)4.2 5.1 6.1 8 8.1 12.1 10.7 11 11.3 5.5 5.9 6.3 6.5 7.9 9.3 2
Floodprone Width (ft)5 15 30 15 18 25 122 131 140 25 50 75 20 30 40 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 1 1.3 1.4 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.6 0.8 1 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.9 2 2 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.5 8 14.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 3.2 3.7 2
Width/Depth Ratio 7 11.3 15.3 8 10.1 15.1 8 9 9 12 14 16 16.3 19.8 23.4 2
Entrenchment Ratio 1.1 2.7 4.9 1.9 2.1 2.2 11 12 13 4.6 8.5 11.9 2.2 4.2 6.2 2
1Bank Height Ratio 1.4 2.3 3.7 1.0 1.8 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)5 11 11 19 3.4 23
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.01 0.0316 0.0576 0.002 0.01 0.012 0.023 0.03 0.034 0.007 0.02 0.017 0.041 0.009 23
Pool Length (ft)6 15 15 24 4.8 23
Pool Max depth (ft)1.5 1.8 2.1 2.7 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.6 2
Pool Spacing (ft)25 37 69 22 44 81 17 24 47 17 24 47 23
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)20 23 38 17 30 36 17 24 36 17 24 36
Radius of Curvature (ft)11 16 27 9 31 113 11 18 59 11 18 59
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)1.4 2 3.3 0.8 2.8 10.3 2 3 10 2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)44 68 116 10 63 91 35 50 71 35 50 71
Meander Width Ratio 2.4 2.8 4.7 1.5 2.7 3.5 3 4 6 3 4 6
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing XS measurement data produce an estimate of the bankfull floodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Table 10g. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 8 (605 feet)
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Park Ref Causey Ref Design Monitoring Baseline
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
No distinct repetitive pattern of riffles and pools
due to straightening activities.
1.85 0.44 0.32
Eg 5 Eb 4 E5 E/C 4 C 4
3.6 3.6 2.8
9.1
520
543 605 605
1.04 1.2 1.46 1.15 1.15
0.0218 0.0258 0.0053 0.019 0.0138
80 0 0
Parameter
1Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%60 13 14 13 43 19 19 19
1SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)0.12 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.32 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10 29 71 33 66 50 50 25 75
3Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0 14 43 43 66 33 100 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross-sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Parameter
1Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%74 8 9 8 55 15 15 15
1SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)0.12 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.32 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10 33 33 33 33 66 50 50 100
3Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0 33 66 66 33 100 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross-sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Parameter
1Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%63 12 13 12 48 17 18 17
1SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)0.12 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.32 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10 25 25 50 33 66 50 50 100
3Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0 25 25 50 66 33 100 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross-sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 11a. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 1 (856 feet)
Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Design As-built/BaselineCausey Reference Reach Data
Table 11b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 3 (279 feet)
Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Design As-built/BaselineCausey Reference Reach Data
Table 11c. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 4 (450 feet)
Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Design As-built/BaselineCausey Reference Reach Data
Parameter
1Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%58 14 14 14 50 17 17 16
1SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)0.12 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.32 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10 20 20 40 20 33 66 50 50 100
3Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0 20 20 60 66 33 100 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross-sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Parameter
1Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%64 12 12 12 46 18 18 18
1SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)0.12 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.32 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10 40 20 20 20 33 66 50 50 100
3Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0 100 66 33 100 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross-sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Parameter
1Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%76 7 8 7 60 13 14 13
1SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)0.12 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.32 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10 57 29 14 33 66 50 50 25 75
3Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0 29 71 66 33 100 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross-sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 11d. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 5 (952 feet)
Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Design As-built/BaselineCausey Reference Reach Data
Table 11e. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 6 (781 feet)
Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Design As-built/BaselineCausey Reference Reach Data
Table 11f. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 7 (232 feet)
Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Design As-built/BaselineCausey Reference Reach Data
Parameter
1Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%60 13 14 13 41 20 20 19
1SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%9 22 39 18 11 4 54 28 11 1 2
1d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip / disp (mm)0.12 4.1 9.8 161 2568 0.32 0.5 0.9 24 116
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10 25 25 50 33 66 50 50 50 50
3Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0 50 50 66 33 100 100
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross-sections as part of the design measurements), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Table 11g. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 8 (605 feet)
Pre-Existing Condition Cedarock Reference Reach Data Design As-built/BaselineCausey Reference Reach Data
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)9.2 8.5 8.5 11.5 9.7 10.7 14.7 15.3 16.0 14.1 13.0 14.4 17.7 13.0 16.2 8.9 9.7 9.1 10.0 11.5 8.3 9.0 10.7 12.4 8.3
Floodprone Width (ft)NA NA NA NA NA 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 NA NA NA NA NA 25 25 25 25 25
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)1.1 1.2 1.2 0.9 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.1 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 18.8 35.4 38.4 40.0 32.5 36.7 45.1 68.1 36.8 57.4 NA NA NA NA NA 18.6 21.9 30.9 41.9 18.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 9.3 6.8 6.5 6.3 7.1 7.7 6.9 5.6 7.7 6.2 NA NA NA NA NA 3.0 2.8 2.3 2.0 3.0
Low Bank Height (ft)2.1 2.2 2.1 2.2 1.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*1.00 1.00 0.95 0.96 0.91 1.00 0.88 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.97
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)12.8 13.2 15.7 13.1 17.1 9.6 10.4 10.5 15.4 11.2 11.2 12.0 11.4 13.8 13.5
Floodprone Width (ft)NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100 100 100 100 100
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.1 1 1.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4 8.0 8.0 8.0 8 8 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17.4 20.0 18.1 26.45 25.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 8.9 8.3 8.8 7.25 7.4
Low Bank Height (ft)1.6 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 0.96
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: “It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary.”
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)4.2 5.6 5.8 5.8 6.7 7.7 7.0 7.0 7.4 7.5
Floodprone Width (ft)NA NA NA NA NA 18 18 18 18 18
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.0 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 13.2 10.9 10.9 12.3 12.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.4
Low Bank Height (ft)1.0 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.4 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*1.00 0.38 1.00 0.79 0.63 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 0.95
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: “It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary.”
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).
Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 3 (279 feet)
Cross Section 9 (Pool)Cross Section 10 (Riffle)
Cross Section 6 (Pool)Cross Section 7 (Pool)Cross Section 8 (Riffle)
Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 1 (856 feet)
Cross Section 1 (Pool)Cross Section 2 (Riffle)Cross Section 3 (Riffle)Cross Section 4 (Pool)Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)6.0 7.9 9.4 9.6 7.9 6.5 7.4 10.6 11.2 8.2 8.0 7.9 11.3 7.8 8.0 9.1 11.0 10.9 11.3 11.7
Floodprone Width (ft)NA NA NA NA NA 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 NA NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.1 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.2 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.8 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 19.2 24.9 51.1 57.0 30.6 17.3 17.8 36.5 17.4 18.3 NA NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 6.2 5.4 3.8 3.6 4.9 5.0 5.1 3.5 5.1 5.0 NA NA NA NA NA
Low Bank Height (ft)1.1 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*1.00 0.82 1.00 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.00 0.96 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.02
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: “It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary.”
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)4.7 9.4 8.7 10.4 8.3 6.3 5.7 9.4 11.0 9.7 5.4 5.7 5.9 5.9 9.9 8.1 9.2 12.2 12.7 9.9 7.8 8.7 11.4 14.2 12.6
Floodprone Width (ft)NA NA NA NA NA 40 40 40 40 40 NA NA NA NA NA 40 40 40 40 40 NA NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 20.9 17.1 46.5 64.7 48.2 NA NA NA NA NA 17.7 22.9 40.2 42.3 24.8 NA NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 6.3 7.0 4.3 3.7 4.1 NA NA NA NA NA 4.9 4.3 3.3 3.1 4.0 NA NA NA NA NA
Low Bank Height (ft)0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.07 1.02 1.00 0.86 1.00 0.88 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)4.9 6.2 5.3 5.9 5.4 5.0 5.8 5.8 5.3 6.7 7.4 7.2 8.5 7.7 7.5
Floodprone Width (ft)40 40 40 40 40.0 NA NA NA NA NA 40 40 40 40 40
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.6 20.2 14.8 18.5 15.7 NA NA NA NA NA 18.9 17.9 24.9 20.4 19.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 8.2 6.5 7.5 6.8 7.4 NA NA NA NA NA 5.4 5.6 4.7 5.2 5.3
Low Bank Height (ft)0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*1.00 1.00 1.00 1.11 1.02 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.99
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: “It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary.”
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).
Cross Section 20 (Riffle)Cross Section 21 (Pool)Cross Section 22 (Riffle)
Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 5 (952 feet)
Cross Section 15 (Pool)Cross Section 16 (Riffle)Cross Section 17 (Pool)Cross Section 18 (Riffle)Cross Section 19 (Pool)
Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 4 (450 feet)
Cross Section 11 (Pool)Cross Section 12 (Riffle)Cross Section 13 (Riffle)Cross Section 14 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)5.6 5.7 6.4 8.8 6.7 6.1 5.8 5.7 5.4 5.8 5.2 10.0 10.3 10.8 10.6 6.8 4.7 4.8 4.3 4.7
Floodprone Width (ft)NA NA NA NA NA 40 40 40 40 40 NA NA NA NA NA 40 40 40 40 40
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.3 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 16.9 15.3 14.8 13.4 15.2 NA NA NA NA NA 13.2 6.3 6.6 5.3 6.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 6.6 6.9 7.0 7.5 7.0 NA NA NA NA NA 5.9 8.5 8.3 9.3 8.6
Low Bank Height (ft)1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.03 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.07 1.07 1.00 0.75 0.88 0.86 0.79 1.00 1.40 1.25 1.02 0.96
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: “It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary.”
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)7.1 11.4 12.4 12.5 12.6 7.8 6.9 7.5 7.0 7.6 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.8 6.2 5.6 6.3 6.2 6.2 5.3 6.1 5.8 5.8 6.4
Floodprone Width (ft)NA NA NA NA NA 20 20 20 20 20 NA NA NA NA NA 10 11 11 11 11 NA NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.5 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 20.3 15.9 18.8 16.3 19.4 NA NA NA NA NA 16.7 13.6 17.3 16.7 16.7 NA NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.6 NA NA NA NA NA 1.6 2.0 1.7 1.8 1.8 NA NA NA NA NA
Low Bank Height (ft)1.5 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.6 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*1.00 0.73 0.89 0.90 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 1.08 1.04 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.04 0.96 1.00 0.86 1.14 1.01 0.94
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)6.5 7.6 7.9 8.1 9 6.6 5.8 6.2 7.4 8.2
Floodprone Width (ft)20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.8 17.5 18.9 19.8 24.2 24.2 18.7 21.4 30.7 38.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 3.1 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.2 3.0 3.4 3.2 2.7 2.4
Low Bank Height (ft)0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.06 1.00 0.83 1.17 0.90 0.91
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: “It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary.”
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).
Cross Section 32 (Riffle)Cross Section 33 (Riffle)
Table 12f. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 7 (232 feet)
Cross Section 27 (Pool)Cross Section 28 (Riffle)Cross Section 29 (Pool)Cross Section 30 (Riffle)Cross Section 31 (Pool)
Table 12e. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 6 (781 feet)
Cross Section 23 (Pool)Cross Section 24 (Riffle)Cross Section 25 (Pool)Cross Section 26 (Riffle)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1 Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)6.5 5.2 4.8 5.3 5.9 7.5 6.9 7.1 6.4 6.0 9.3 9.0 9.3 9.7 9.9 9.5 8.7 10.5 8.6 9.7
Floodprone Width (ft)40 40 40 40 40 NA NA NA NA NA 20 20 20 20 20 NA NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.3 10.4 8.9 10.7 13.3 NA NA NA NA NA 23.4 21.9 23.4 25.5 26.4 NA NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 6.2 7.7 8.3 7.6 6.7 NA NA NA NA NA 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.0 NA NA NA NA NA
Low Bank Height (ft)0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*1.00 1.14 1.00 1.14 1.18 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.07 0.92 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.89
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation1
Record elevation (datum) used
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Low Bank Height (ft)
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio*
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
d50 (mm)
1 = Widths and depths for annual measurements will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used
for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: “It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary.”
*Bank Height Ratio is calculated based on the As-built (MY0) cross-sectional area as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter document produced by the technical industry work group consisting of the NCIRT, NCDMS, and Industry Practitioners in NC (9/2018).
Table 12g. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) Segment/Reach: UT 8 (605 feet)
Cross Section 34 (Riffle)Cross Section 35 (Pool)Cross Section 36 (Riffle)Cross Section 37 (Pool)
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft)8.3 11 13 4 9 13.2 14.7 4 10.7 13.4 17.7 4 12.4 13.4 16 4 8.3 13.8 16.2 4
Floodprone Width (ft)25 100 100 4 25 100 100 4 25 100 100 4 25 100 100 4 25.0 100.0 100.0 4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.5 0.6 4 0.3 0.4 0.6 4 0.26 0.37 0.63 4 0.30 0.41 0.52 4 0.3 0.4 0.5 4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.6 0.8 1.1 4 0.6 0.8 1 4 0.7 0.8 1.1 4 0.62 0.82 1.04 4 0.6 0.8 1.1 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)3.7 5.4 7.2 4 3.7 5.4 7.2 4 3.7 5.4 7.2 4 3.7 5.4 7.2 4 3.7 5.4 7.2 4
Width/Depth Ratio 17.4 18.7 36.7 4 20 28.7 45.1 4 18.1 34.7 68.1 4 26.7 39.3 41.9 4 18.5 28.9 57.4 4
Entrenchment Ratio 3 8.3 9.3 4 2.8 6.9 8.3 4 2.34 6.09 8.77 4 2.01 6.74 7.68 4 3.0 6.6 7.4 4
Low Bank Height (ft)0.6 0.8 1.1 4 0.6 0.7 1 4 0.7 0.8 1.1 4 0.62 0.82 1.04 4 0.6 0.8 1.0 4
1Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 0.9 1 1 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 0.9 0.9 1.0 4 0.9 1.0 1.1 4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)2.7 19 16 53 11 31
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.01 31
Pool Length (ft)6 23 20 80 12.9 34
Pool Max depth (ft)1.5 1.6 2.1 4
Pool Spacing (ft)25 34 68 34
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)25 34 68
Radius of Curvature (ft)17 25 85
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)51 72 101
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%43 19 19 19
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
0
856
0.0087
1.3
C 4
Baseline MY-1
Exhibit Table 13a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 1 (856 feet)
MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft)7.7 7.7 7.7 1 7 7 7 1 7 7 7 1 7.4 7.4 7.4 1 7.5 7.5 7.5 1
Floodprone Width (ft)18 18 18 1 18 18 18 1 18 18 18 1 18 18 18 1 18.0 18.0 18.0 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 1 0.6 0.6 0.6 1
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)4.5 4.5 4.5 1 4.5 4.5 4.5 1 4.5 4.5 4.5 1 4.5 4.5 4.5 1 4.5 4.5 4.5 1
Width/Depth Ratio 13.2 13.2 13.2 1 10.9 10.9 10.9 1 10.9 10.9 10.9 1 12.3 12.3 12.3 1 12.5 12.5 12.5 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2.3 2.3 2.3 1 2.6 2.6 2.6 1 2.6 2.6 1 2.4 2.4 2.4 1 2.4 2.4 2.4 1
Low Bank Height (ft)1 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1
1Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 1 1.0 1.0 1 1 1.0 1.0 1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1 0.9 0.9 0.9 1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)4 11 10 19 4.3 14
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.01 0.03 0.03 0.74 0.02 14
Pool Length (ft)4 9 8 21 4.9 13
Pool Max depth (ft)1 1 1 1 0 1
Pool Spacing (ft)13 18 35 14
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)13 18 27
Radius of Curvature (ft)9 13 44
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)26 37 53
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%55 15 15 15
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
0.0176
0
C 4
279
1.15
Exhibit Table 13b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 3 (279 feet)
Baseline MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft)6.5 7.3 8 2 7.4 7.7 7.9 2 10.6 11 11.3 2 7.8 7.9 7.9 2 8.0 8.1 8.2 2
Floodprone Width (ft)40 40 40 2 40 40 40 2 40 40 40 2 40 40 40 2 40.0 40.0 40.0 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.3 0.4 0.5 2 0.3 0.4 0.4 2 0.2 0.3 0.3 2 0.3 0.4 0.4 2 0.3 0.4 0.4 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.5 0.7 0.8 2 0.6 0.7 0.8 2 0.5 0.7 0.8 2 0.5 0.7 0.8 2 0.7 0.7 0.8 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.2 3 3.7 2 2.2 2.9 3.5 2 2.2 2.9 3.5 2 2.2 2.9 3.5 2 2.2 2.9 3.5 2
Width/Depth Ratio 17.3 18.3 19.2 2 17.8 21.4 24.9 2 36.5 43.8 51.1 2 17.7 23.2 28.7 2 18.3 24.4 30.6 2
Entrenchment Ratio 5 5.6 6.2 2 5.1 5.2 5.4 2 3.5 3.7 3.8 2 5 5.1 5.1 2 4.9 4.9 5.0 2
Low Bank Height (ft)0.5 0.7 0.8 2 0.5 0.7 0.8 2 0.5 0.7 0.8 2 0.5 0.6 0.7 2 0.6 0.7 0.8 2
1Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 0.8 0.9 1 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 0.9 0.9 1 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)4 9 9 20 3.5 23
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.01 23
Pool Length (ft)4 10 10 18 3.5 22
Pool Max depth (ft)1.1 1.3 1.4 2
Pool Spacing (ft)15 20 40 22
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)15 20 30
Radius of Curvature (ft)10 15 50
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)30 43 60
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%48 17 18 17
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
0.0195
0
C 4
450
1.15
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 4 (450 feet)
Baseline MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Exhibit Table 13c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft)4.9 6.9 8.1 4 5.7 6.7 9.2 4 5.3 9 12.2 4 5.9 7.5 12.7 4 5.4 8.6 9.9 4
Floodprone Width (ft)40 40 40 4 40 40 40 4 40 40 40 4 40 40 40 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.3 0.4 0.5 4 0.3 0.4 0.4 4 0.2 0.3 0.4 4 0.3 0.3 0.4 4 0.2 0.3 0.4 4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.5 0.7 0.8 4 0.6 0.7 0.8 4 0.6 0.7 0.8 4 0.6 0.7 0.8 4 0.6 0.7 0.8 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.9 2.4 3.7 4 1.9 2.4 3.7 4 1.9 2.4 3.7 4 1.9 2.4 3.7 4 1.9 2.4 3.7 4
Width/Depth Ratio 12.6 18.3 20.9 4 17.1 19.1 22.9 4 14.8 32.6 46.5 4 18.5 24.6 43.2 4 15.7 22.0 48.2 4
Entrenchment Ratio 4.9 5.9 8.2 4 4.3 6.0 7.0 4 3.3 4.5 7.5 4 3.2 5.4 6.8 4 4.0 4.7 7.4 4
Low Bank Height (ft)0.5 0.7 0.8 4 0.6 0.6 0.8 4 0.6 0.6 0.7 4 0.6 0.7 0.7 4 0.6 0.7 0.8 4
1Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 0.9 1.0 1.0 4 1 0.8 1 4 1 1 1.2 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)3 11 9 49 8.4 41
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.01 41
Pool Length (ft)4 12 10 59 8.5 41
Pool Max depth (ft)0.8 1 1.1 4
Pool Spacing (ft)15 20 40 41
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)15 20 30
Radius of Curvature (ft)10 15 50
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)30 43 60
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%50 17 17 16
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
0.0256
0
E/C 4
952
1.15
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 5 (952 feet)
Baseline MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Exhibit Table 13d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft)6.1 6.5 6.8 2 4.7 5.3 5.8 2 4.8 5.3 5.7 2 4.3 4.8 5.4 2 4.7 5.3 5.8 2
Floodprone Width (ft)40 40 40 2 40 40 40 2 40 40 40 2 40 40 40 2 40.0 40.0 40.0 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.4 0.5 2 0.4 0.6 0.7 2 0.4 0.6 0.7 2 0.4 0.6 0.8 2 0.4 0.6 0.7 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.6 0.8 0.9 2 0.5 0.8 1 2 0.6 0.9 1.2 2 0.6 0.9 1.2 2 0.6 0.9 1.2 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.2 2.9 3.5 2 2.2 2.9 3.5 2 2.2 2.9 3.5 2 2.2 2.9 3.5 2 2.2 2.9 3.5 2
Width/Depth Ratio 13.2 15.1 16.9 2 6.3 10.8 15.3 2 6.6 10.7 14.8 2 5.3 9.4 13.4 2 6.3 10.8 15.2 2
Entrenchment Ratio 5.9 6.2 6.6 2 6.9 7.7 8.5 2 7 7.7 8.3 2 7.4 8.4 9.3 2 7.0 7.8 8.6 2
Low Bank Height (ft)0.6 0.8 0.9 2 0.7 1.1 1.4 2 0.7 1.1 1.5 2 0.6 0.9 1.2 2 0.6 0.9 1.1 2
1Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1.4 1.4 1.4 2 1.1 1.2 1.3 2 1.0 1.0 1.1 2 1.0 1.0 1.1 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)2 10 7 47 8.8 33
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0 0.03 0.02 0.13 0.02 33
Pool Length (ft)4 12 12 18 3.7 33
Pool Max depth (ft)1 1.2 1.3 2
Pool Spacing (ft)14 18 37 33
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)14 18 37
Radius of Curvature (ft)9 14 46
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)27 39 55
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%46 18 18 18
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
0.0225
0
C 4
781
1.15
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 6 (781 feet)
Baseline MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Exhibit Table 13e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft)6.2 6.6 7.8 4 5.6 6.4 7.6 4 6.2 6.9 7.9 4 6.2 7.5 9.2 4 6.2 7.9 9.0 4
Floodprone Width (ft)10 20 20 4 11 20 20 4 11 20 20 4 11 20 20 4 11.0 20.0 20.0 4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.3 0.4 0.5 4 0.3 0.4 0.4 4 0.3 0.4 0.4 4 0.2 0.4 0.4 4 0.2 0.4 0.4 4
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.5 0.6 0.7 4 0.5 0.7 1.1 4 0.5 0.7 0.9 4 0.6 0.8 1.1 4 0.5 0.7 1.0 4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1.8 2.7 3.3 4 1.8 2.7 3.3 4 1.8 2.7 3.3 4 1.8 2.7 3.3 4 1.8 2.7 3.3 4
Width/Depth Ratio 12.8 18.5 24.2 4 13.6 16.7 18.7 4 17.3 18.8 21.4 4 16.3 18.3 46.4 4 16.7 21.8 38.3 4
Entrenchment Ratio 1.6 2.8 3.1 4 2 2.8 3.4 4 1.7 2.6 3.2 4 1.8 2.3 2.9 4 1.8 2.3 2.6 4
Low Bank Height (ft)0.5 0.6 0.7 4 0.5 0.7 1.1 4 0.5 0.7 0.9 4 0.5 0.8 1.1 4 0.5 0.7 0.9 4
1Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 0.8 1 1 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 4 0.9 1 1.1 4 0.9 1.0 1.1 4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)3 13 10 75 13 42
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.01 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.01 42
Pool Length (ft)3 9 9 14 2.6 41
Pool Max depth (ft)1 1.1 1.5 3
Pool Spacing (ft)16 21 42 42
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)16 21 32
Radius of Curvature (ft)10 16 53
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)31 45 64
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%60 13 14 13
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
0.0268
0
Cb 4
232
1.15
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 7 (232 feet)
Baseline MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Exhibit Table 13f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n Min Mean Med Max SD4 n
Bankfull Width (ft)6.5 7.9 9.3 2 5.2 7.1 9 2 4.8 7.1 9.3 2 5.3 7.5 9.7 2 5.9 7.9 9.9 2
Floodprone Width (ft)20 30 40 2 20 30 40 2 20 30 40 2 20 30 40 2 20.0 30.0 40.0 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)0.4 0.4 0.4 2 0.4 0.5 0.5 2 0.4 0.5 0.5 2 0.4 0.4 0.5 2 0.4 0.4 0.4 2
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)0.7 0.7 0.7 2 0.7 0.7 0.7 2 0.8 0.8 0.8 2 0.7 0.7 0.8 2 0.7 0.8 0.9 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2.6 3.2 3.7 2 2.6 3.2 3.7 2 2.6 3.2 3.7 2 2.6 3.2 3.7 2 2.6 3.2 3.7 2
Width/Depth Ratio 16.3 19.8 23.4 2 10.4 16.1 21.9 2 8.9 16.1 23.4 2 10.7 18.1 25.5 2 13.3 19.9 26.4 2
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 4.2 6.2 2 2.2 5 7.7 2 2.2 5.2 8.3 2 2.1 4.8 7.5 2 2.0 4.4 6.7 2
Low Bank Height (ft)0.7 0.7 0.7 2 0.7 0.8 0.8 2 0.8 0.8 0.8 2 0.8 0.8 0.8 2 0.8 0.8 0.8 2
1Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1 1.1 1.1 2 1.0 1.0 1.0 2 1.1 1.1 1.1 2 0.9 1.1 1.2 2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)5 11 11 19 3.4 23
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)0.01 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.01 23
Pool Length (ft)6 15 15 24 4.8 23
Pool Max depth (ft)0.9 1.3 1.6 2
Pool Spacing (ft)17 24 47 23
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)17 24 36
Radius of Curvature (ft)11 18 59
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)2 3 10
Meander Wavelength (ft)35 50 71
Meander Width Ratio 3 4 6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%41 20 20 19
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section measurements and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
0.0138
0
C 4
605
1.15
Project Name/Number (Heron/100014) - Segment/Reach: UT 8 (605 feet)
Baseline MY-1 MY-2 MY- 3 MY- 4 MY- 5
Exhibit Table 13g. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Station Elevation
-0.2 535.5 534.7
2.0 535.1 534.5
3.4 534.9 10.5
4.2 534.6 9.7
5.0 534.3 NA
5.5 534.0 NA
5.8 533.7 2.1
6.3 532.6 1.9
7.1 532.7 1.1
8.1 532.6 NA
8.5 532.6 NA
9.7 532.7 0.91
10.1 532.9 C/E
10.8 534.1
11.9 534.5
14.6 534.7
17.9 535.0
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Stream Type
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Low Bank Height:
Bankfull Elevation:
SUMMARY DATA
5/17/2023
Adams, Fleming, Perkinson, Smith
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Feature
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Date:
Field Crew:
Pool
LTOB Elevation:
Heron
Cape Fear, 0303002
UT 1, XS - 1, Pool
Site
Watershed:
XS ID
532
533
534
535
536
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 1, XS - 1, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.0 535.58 535.4
3.2 535.38 535.5
4.7 535.48 6.1
5.5 535.19 14.1
6.7 534.88 536.3
7.9 534.79 100.0
8.5 534.75 0.9
9.3 534.62 0.9
10.2 534.54 0.4
11.5 534.61 32.5
12.2 534.79 7.1
12.8 535.05 1.05
15.9 535.30 C/E
19.0 535.36
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Adams, Fleming, Perkinson, Smith
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Width:
Bank Height Ratio:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
LTOB Elevation:
SUMMARY DATA
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
534
535
536
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 1, XS - 2, Riffle
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
-0.1 537.30 537.4
3.6 537.21 537.3
5.7 537.02 4.6
6.8 537.00 16.2
7.8 537.02 538.0
8.5 536.83 100.0
9.3 536.74 0.6
10.2 536.80 0.6
11.4 536.91 0.3
12.5 537.09 57.4
14.6 537.24 6.2
16.8 537.43 0.89
16.9 537.43 C/E
18.6 537.62
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 3, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Adams, Fleming, Perkinson, Smith
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Width:
Bank Height Ratio:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
LTOB Elevation:
SUMMARY DATA
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
537
538
539
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 1, XS - 3, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/2023
Station Elevation
0.2 538.5 538.4
2.8 538.5 538.5
3.0 538.5 6.8
6.2 538.4 11.5
7.6 538.3 NA
8.1 538.0 NA
8.4 537.5 1.4
8.9 537.4 1.4
8.9 537.4 0.6
9.6 537.1 NA
10.4 537.1 NA
11.1 537.2 1.04
11.8 537.4 C/E
12.4 537.6
13.5 537.8
14.5 538.2
15.5 538.4
17.0 538.6
19.1 538.6
21.5 538.6
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 4, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Adams, Fleming, Perkinson, Smith
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Width:
Bank Height Ratio:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
LTOB Elevation:
SUMMARY DATA
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
536
537
538
539
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 1, XS - 4, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 08/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.0 541.37 541.1
3.7 541.02 541.1
6.2 541.08 3.7
7.8 541.11 8.3
9.4 540.51 541.8
10.2 540.48 25.0
11.0 540.55 0.7
11.9 540.52 0.6
12.7 540.49 0.4
13.5 540.58 18.5
14.6 540.83 3.0
15.8 541.08 0.97
17.3 541.39 C/E
18.8 541.47
21.1 541.40
22.8 541.41
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Adams, Fleming, Perkinson, Smith
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Width:
Bank Height Ratio:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
LTOB Elevation:
SUMMARY DATA
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
540
541
542
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 1, XS - 5, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.4 541.3 541.3
3.7 541.1 541.2
6.1 540.9 9.4
7.9 540.7 17.1
8.7 540.3 NA
9.5 540.0 NA
10.1 540.0 1.7
11.1 539.6 1.6
11.9 539.8 0.5
12.6 540.2 NA
13.3 540.7 NA
14.5 541.2 0.92
16.4 541.2 C/E
18.6 541.4
21.4 541.6
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 6, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Adams, Fleming, Perkinson, Smith
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Width:
Bank Height Ratio:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
LTOB Elevation:
SUMMARY DATA
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
539
540
541
542
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 1, XS - 6, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
-0.2 542.7 542.5
3.6 542.5 542.5
7.3 542.3 8.0
8.2 541.9 11.2
9.1 541.5 NA
9.7 541.2 NA
10.8 541.0 1.5
11.6 541.0 1.5
12.1 541.0 0.7
13.2 541.4 NA
13.9 541.8 NA
14.9 542.5 1.00
17.1 542.7 C/E
17.2 542.7
21.1 543.1
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 7, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Adams, Fleming, Perkinson, Smith
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Width:
Bank Height Ratio:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
LTOB Elevation:
SUMMARY DATA
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
540
541
542
543
544
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 1, XS - 7, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
-0.5 544.82 544.2
5.0 544.48 544.1
7.9 544.32 7.2
9.6 543.78 13.5
10.7 543.55 545.2
11.1 543.41 100.0
11.8 543.24 1.1
12.8 543.18 1.0
13.9 543.25 0.5
14.7 543.16 25.3
15.6 543.11 7.4
16.0 543.37 0.96
17.1 543.68 C/E
19.6 544.14
25.9 544.25
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 1, XS - 8, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Adams, Fleming, Perkinson, Smith
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Width:
Bank Height Ratio:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
LTOB Elevation:
SUMMARY DATA
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
542
543
544
545
546
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 1, XS - 8, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.5 538.5 537.1
2.1 538.6 537.2
4.1 538.2 2.9
5.7 537.8 6.7
6.1 537.3 NA
7.5 536.7 NA
8.5 536.4 0.7
9.3 536.4 0.4
10.0 536.4 0.4
10.5 536.4 NA
11.0 536.6 NA
11.7 536.6 0.63
12.2 536.8 C/E
13.8 537.2
14.5 537.5
15.5 538.1
16.7 538.5
17.7 538.7
19.3 538.8
20.5 538.9
Sediment deposition in pool is natural and is exaggerated by the small size of the channel. This is not considered an area of concern.
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 3, XS - 9, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Adams, Fleming, Perkinson, Smith
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Width:
Bank Height Ratio:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
LTOB Elevation:
SUMMARY DATA
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
535
536
537
538
539
540
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 3, XS - 9, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
1.1 539.51 538.7
3.5 539.24 538.6
5.1 539.01 4.5
7.5 538.60 7.5
8.5 538.14 539.8
9.8 537.70 18.0
10.1 537.59 1.1
10.6 537.54 1.1
11.4 537.64 0.6
12.0 537.93 12.5
12.5 537.94 2.4
13.1 538.32 0.95
14.0 538.52 C/E
15.3 538.81
17.4 539.39
19.9 539.82
20.2 539.81
21.8 539.99
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 3, XS - 10, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Adams, Fleming, Perkinson, Smith
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Width:
Bank Height Ratio:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
LTOB Elevation:
SUMMARY DATA
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
537
538
539
540
541
0 10 20 30
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 3, XS - 10, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.0 517.3 517.1
2.0 517.3 517.0
4.0 517.1 4.8
5.3 516.9 7.9
6.3 516.7 NA
6.9 516.5 NA
7.3 516.3 1.2
7.6 516.0 1.1
7.9 515.9 0.6
8.4 516.0 NA
8.9 516.0 NA
9.3 516.0 0.92
9.8 516.3 C/E
10.4 516.4
10.7 516.6
11.1 516.8
12.1 517.0
13.5 517.0
15.0 516.9
15.8 516.9
16.7 516.8
Stream Type
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
5/17/2023
Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Fleming
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Bankfull Elevation:
SUMMARY DATA
Low Bank Height:
LTOB Elevation:
Feature
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Date:
Field Crew:
Pool
Heron
Cape Fear, 0303002
UT 4, XS - 11, Pool
Site
Watershed:
XS ID
515
516
517
518
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 4, XS - 11, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.0 517.53 517.3
2.1 517.53 517.2
4.1 517.25 2.2
5.8 517.25 8.2
7.1 516.91 517.9
8.1 516.76 40.0
8.3 516.58 0.7
8.8 516.60 0.6
9.5 516.65 0.3
10.0 516.90 31.1
10.5 517.07 4.9
11.0 517.14 0.96
12.3 517.21 C/E
13.8 517.14
14.8 517.18
16.1 517.21
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 4, XS - 12, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Fleming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
516
517
518
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 4, XS - 12, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.0 522.25 522.1
2.2 522.29 522.1
4.3 522.18 3.5
5.3 521.97 8.0
6.0 521.77 522.9
7.2 521.55 40.0
7.6 521.47 0.8
8.1 521.35 0.8
8.4 521.34 0.4
9.0 521.38 18.1
9.3 521.48 5.0
10.1 521.59 0.97
10.4 521.72 C/E
11.2 521.91
12.4 522.13
14.6 522.14
16.1 522.07
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 4, XS - 13, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Fleming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
521
522
523
524
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 4, XS - 13, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.2 522.7 522.3
2.1 522.6 522.3
3.6 522.6 6.8
4.5 522.4 11.7
5.1 521.9 NA
5.9 521.4 NA
6.3 521.2 1.4
6.6 521.0 1.4
7.3 520.9 0.6
7.7 520.9 NA
8.2 521.0 NA
8.9 521.0 1.02
9.3 521.3 C/E
10.1 521.5
10.6 521.8
10.7 521.8
12.0 522.0
13.6 522.2
16.3 522.3
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 4, XS - 14, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Fleming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
520
521
522
523
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 4, XS - 14, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/14/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.4 518.0 517.5
2.5 517.8 517.6
4.3 517.9 2.4
5.4 517.6 8.3
6.4 517.1 NA
7.1 517.1 NA
8.1 517.1 0.5
8.8 517.0 0.6
9.7 517.1 0.3
10.2 517.3 NA
10.7 517.4 NA
11.9 517.4 1.05
13.0 517.4 C/E
13.9 517.6
15.6 517.5
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 5, XS - 15, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Fleming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
516
517
518
519
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 5, XS - 15, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.5 520.84 520.9
2.6 520.87 520.9
4.5 520.85 1.9
5.7 520.61 9.7
6.2 520.62 521.6
6.9 520.67 40.0
7.6 520.33 0.7
8.2 520.14 0.7
8.6 520.22 0.2
8.9 520.45 48.2
9.4 520.65 4.1
10.9 520.76 0.99
12.6 521.07 C/E
14.6 521.11
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 5, XS - 16, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Fleming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
520
521
522
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 5, XS - 16, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.1 524.1 523.4
1.9 524.1 523.4
3.5 523.9 3.4
4.5 523.7 5.3
5.7 523.4 NA
6.4 522.8 NA
6.7 522.5 1.2
7.0 522.4 1.2
7.5 522.2 0.6
8.0 522.5 NA
8.4 522.5 NA
8.6 522.5 1.02
9.0 522.5 C/E
9.0 522.6
9.2 522.7
9.6 523.0
10.2 523.3
10.9 523.4
12.1 523.6
13.7 523.7
15.5 523.7
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 5, XS - 17, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Fleming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
522
523
524
525
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 5, XS - 17, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.4 524.62 524.5
2.6 524.47 524.5
3.9 524.42 3.7
5.6 524.12 9.9
6.4 524.02 525.3
7.0 523.87 40.0
7.5 523.78 0.8
8.1 523.83 0.8
8.7 523.80 0.4
8.9 523.76 26.4
9.2 523.66 4.0
9.5 523.96 1.02
9.7 523.90 C/E
10.2 523.96
10.7 523.97
11.3 524.28
12.0 524.41
12.5 524.50
13.8 524.51
15.4 524.34
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 5, XS - 18, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Fleming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
523
524
525
526
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 5, XS - 18, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
-0.8 529.1 529.1
1.9 528.9 529.1
3.8 528.8 3.3
5.1 528.6 12.6
5.9 528.5 NA
6.4 528.5 NA
6.6 528.6 0.7
6.8 528.4 0.7
7.2 528.5 0.3
7.5 528.4 NA
7.9 528.7 NA
9.8 529.0 1.05
10.2 529.0 C/E
13.0 529.1
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 5, XS - 19, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Fleming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
528
529
530
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 5, XS - 19, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.1 529.48 529.4
3.8 529.41 529.4
4.9 529.20 1.9
5.5 528.87 5.4
6.3 528.92 530.0
6.6 528.79 40.0
7.4 528.96 0.6
8.2 528.93 0.6
8.8 529.30 0.3
10.0 529.56 15.7
13.4 529.72 7.4
1.02
C/E
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 5, XS - 20, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Fleming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
528
529
530
531
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 5, XS - 20, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.2 533.4 532.9
2.3 533.1 532.8
4.4 532.8 3.1
5.4 532.4 6.7
6.0 532.0 NA
6.5 531.8 NA
6.8 531.9 1.1
7.5 532.0 1.1
8.2 532.4 0.5
9.2 532.8 NA
11.0 533.0 NA
13.3 533.0 0.94
C/E
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 5, XS - 21, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Fleming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
531
532
533
534
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 5, XS - 21, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
-0.5 534.30 534.1
3.1 534.09 534.1
5.2 533.70 2.9
6.7 533.55 7.5
7.3 533.45 534.9
8.5 533.32 40.0
8.9 533.63 0.8
9.7 533.93 0.8
11.7 534.36 0.4
13.4 534.86 19.2
5.4
0.99
C/E
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 5, XS - 22, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Fleming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
533
534
535
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 5, XS - 22, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
-0.6 505.9 505.7
0.8 505.9 505.7
2.1 505.7 3.6
3.2 505.6 6.7
4.0 505.1 NA
4.7 505.0 NA
5.4 504.9 0.9
5.9 504.8 0.9
6.3 504.9 0.5
6.9 504.9 NA
7.5 505.0 NA
8.0 505.3 1.03
9.1 505.7 C/E
10.9 505.9
14.2 505.5
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Stream Type
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
5/17/2023
Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Flemming
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
Bank Height Ratio:
Bankfull Elevation:
SUMMARY DATA
Low Bank Height:
Feature
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Date:
Field Crew:
Pool
LTOB Elevation:
Heron
Cape Fear, 0303002
UT 6, XS - 23, Pool
Site
Watershed:
XS ID
504
505
506
507
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 6, XS - 23, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
-0.3 506.23 506.0
2.4 506.37 506.0
3.8 506.24 2.2
4.6 506.06 5.8
5.2 505.75 506.6
5.8 505.53 40.0
6.8 505.45 0.6
7.5 505.44 0.6
8.3 505.56 0.4
8.8 505.50 15.2
9.4 505.75 7.0
10.7 506.04 1.07
13.2 506.18 C/E
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 6, XS - 24, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Flemming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
505
506
507
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 6, XS - 24, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14.19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.5 511.8 511.9
2.4 511.6 511.8
4.0 511.7 3.2
4.7 511.5 10.6
5.3 511.3 NA
5.9 511.2 NA
6.3 511.2 0.7
6.9 511.4 0.6
7.3 511.4 0.3
7.9 511.7 NA
8.8 511.8 NA
10.2 511.8 0.79
12.7 512.1 C/E
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 6, XS - 25, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Flemming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
510
511
512
513
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 6, XS - 25, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
-0.1 516.48 515.5
2.7 516.09 515.4
4.6 516.19 3.5
5.1 515.87 4.7
5.4 515.66 516.7
5.7 515.14 40.0
6.0 514.64 1.2
6.3 514.53 1.1
6.9 514.37 0.7
7.3 514.31 6.3
7.6 514.30 8.6
8.1 514.42 0.96
8.4 514.61 C/E
8.8 514.93
10.0 515.44
12.4 516.08
15.0 516.27
Note: Riffle degradation is likely a result of direct, flashy flows from upstream land-use just after construction.
It appears to have stabilized during years 2-5.
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 6, XS - 26, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Flemming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
514
515
516
517
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 6, XS - 26, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.0 504.1 504.1
1.6 504.1 504.1
3.3 503.9 6.3
5.0 503.7 12.6
5.8 503.5 NA
6.2 503.2 NA
6.7 503.2 1.0
7.3 503.2 0.9
7.8 503.2 0.5
8.5 503.2 NA
9.0 503.2 NA
9.8 503.3 0.93
10.5 503.3 C/E
10.6 503.5
11.4 503.8
11.9 503.9
13.0 504.2
13.9 504.3
15.4 504.3
16.2 504.5
Note: The sediment deposition in this pool occurred shortly after construction and has stabilized during Years 1-5.
It is not expected to lead to further instability.
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 7, XS - 27, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Flemming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
502
503
504
505
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 7, XS - 27, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.0 505.57 505.1
1.5 505.06 505.1
4.0 505.08 3.0
6.3 504.85 7.6
7.7 504.66 506.0
8.0 504.46 20.0
8.5 504.33 1.0
9.1 504.33 0.9
9.5 504.13 0.4
9.8 504.23 19.4
10.4 504.43 2.6
10.5 504.74 0.99
11.1 504.99 C/E
11.5 505.08
12.5 505.21
13.2 505.21
14.5 505.43
16.0 505.43
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 7, XS - 28, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Flemming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
503
504
505
506
507
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 7, XS - 28, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
-0.1 513.1 512.4
1.2 513.0 512.5
2.7 512.8 3.4
3.7 512.6 4.8
4.6 512.3 NA
5.1 512.1 NA
5.5 511.3 1.3
6.2 511.5 1.3
6.6 511.2 0.7
7.4 511.2 NA
7.7 511.4 NA
7.9 512.0 1.04
8.4 512.1 C/E
8.8 512.3
9.7 512.6
10.6 512.8
13.0 513.0
14.2 513.0
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 7, XS - 29, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Flemming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
510
511
512
513
514
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 7, XS - 29, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.0 513.76 513.1
2.5 513.56 513.1
4.2 513.35 2.3
4.9 513.20 6.2
5.6 512.96 513.7
6.1 512.66 11.0
6.6 512.64 0.6
7.0 512.60 0.6
7.7 512.69 0.4
7.7 512.75 16.7
8.3 512.62 1.8
9.0 512.48 0.96
9.7 512.65 C/E
10.0 512.64
10.3 512.81
11.2 513.08
12.9 513.41
15.5 514.09
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 7, XS - 30, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Flemming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
512
513
514
515
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 7, XS - 30, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.0 514.8 514.1
2.5 514.3 514.1
4.3 514.2 3.0
5.4 514.1 6.4
5.8 514.0 NA
6.1 513.7 NA
6.2 513.5 0.8
6.5 513.5 0.7
7.0 513.5 0.5
7.6 513.4 NA
8.1 513.3 NA
8.7 513.4 0.94
9.4 513.5 C/E
10.2 513.7
10.5 513.9
13.1 514.4
15.8 514.8
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 7, XS - 31, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Flemming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
512
513
514
515
516
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 7, XS - 31, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.0 518.36 517.9
2.0 517.96 518.0
3.7 517.69 3.3
4.4 517.73 9.0
5.2 517.52 518.7
5.8 517.19 20.0
6.5 517.29 0.8
7.0 517.14 0.8
7.2 517.12 0.4
7.6 517.28 24.2
8.0 517.37 2.2
8.7 517.51 1.06
10.4 517.67 C/E
12.1 518.14
14.9 518.27
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 7, XS - 32, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Flemming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
516
517
518
519
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 7, XS - 32, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.2 523.21 523.2
2.8 523.19 523.2
4.5 523.12 1.8
4.8 523.04 8.2
5.1 522.92 523.8
5.6 522.76 20.0
6.4 522.70 0.5
6.9 522.79 0.5
7.4 522.86 0.2
8.0 523.00 38.3
9.0 523.16 2.4
11.4 523.26 0.91
13.7 523.39 C/E
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 7, XS - 33, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Flemming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
522
523
524
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 7, XS - 33, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/14/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
-2.9 515.42 515.1
0.6 515.45 515.2
2.9 515.34 2.6
4.2 515.03 5.9
5.1 514.90 515.8
5.7 514.52 40.0
6.4 514.42 0.7
7.0 514.41 0.8
7.4 514.42 0.4
8.0 514.49 13.3
8.5 514.54 6.7
9.3 514.67 1.18
10.0 515.21 C/E
11.6 515.26
16.2 515.28
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 8, XS - 34, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Flemming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
514
515
516
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 8, XS - 34, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.4 515.9 515.5
1.8 515.9 515.5
3.6 515.9 4.1
4.8 515.7 6.0
5.4 515.1 NA
6.1 514.8 NA
7.0 514.7 1.0
7.6 514.5 1.0
8.5 514.5 0.7
9.3 514.8 NA
10.1 514.9 NA
11.1 515.6 1.00
13.3 516.0 C/E
16.3 516.3
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 8, XS - 35, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Flemming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
514
515
516
517
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 8, XS - 35, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.2 521.38 520.8
1.6 521.23 520.7
3.6 520.97 3.7
5.6 520.52 9.9
7.1 520.54 521.6
8.1 520.37 20.0
8.7 520.12 0.9
9.3 520.11 0.8
10.0 520.01 0.4
10.6 520.04 26.4
11.3 519.92 2.0
12.0 520.48 0.96
12.7 520.67 C/E
13.5 520.72
14.4 520.74
15.6 520.74
16.5 520.84
18.0 521.04
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 8, XS - 36, Riffle
Feature Riffle
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Flemming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
519
520
521
522
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 8, XS - 36, Riffle
Bankfull
Flood Prone Area
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
Station Elevation
0.1 521.2 521.0
2.0 521.2 520.9
4.6 521.1 7.2
5.8 520.8 9.7
7.0 520.5 NA
7.8 520.2 NA
8.5 519.9 1.6
9.1 519.7 1.4
9.6 519.6 0.7
10.1 519.5 NA
10.8 519.5 NA
11.4 519.6 0.91
11.7 519.8 C/E
12.0 520.1
12.4 520.2
12.5 520.6
12.9 520.8
13.5 520.9
13.9 521.0
14.5 521.0
15.3 521.1
16.6 521.34
17.8 521.622
Site Heron
Watershed:Cape Fear, 0303002
XS ID UT 8, XS - 37, Pool
Feature Pool
Date:5/17/2023
Field Crew:Perkinson, Adams, Smith, Flemming
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
Bankfull Cross-Sectional Area:
Bankfull Width:
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
LTOB Elevation:
Bank Height Ratio:
Stream Type
Flood Prone Width:
Max Depth at Bankfull:
Low Bank Height:
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
W / D Ratio:
Entrenchment Ratio:
519
520
521
522
0 10 20
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
e
e
t
)
Station (feet)
Heron, UT 8, XS - 37, Pool
Bankfull
MY-00 2/26/19
MY-01 8/13/19
MY-02 5/26/20
MY-03 2/16/21
MY-05 5/17/23
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Appendix E.
Hydrology Data
Tables 14A-J. Channel Evidence
Stream Gauge Graphs
Table 15. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 16. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Groundwater Gauge Graphs
Soil Temperature Graph
Figure E-1. 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 14A. UT1 Channel Evidence
UT1 Channel Evidence Year 1
(2019)
Year 2
(2020)
Year 3
(2021)
Year 4
(2022)
Year 5
(2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow 103 162 289 89 237
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for
flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No No No
Other:

Table 14B. UT2 Channel Evidence
UT2 Channel Evidence Year 1
(2019)
Year 2
(2020)
Year 3
(2021)
Year 4
(2022)
Year 5
(2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow 85 126 116 61 110
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for
flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No No No
Other:

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 14C. UT3 Channel Evidence
UT3 Channel Evidence Year 1
(2019)
Year 2
(2020)
Year 3
(2021)
Year 4
(2022)
Year 5
(2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow 142 166 120 131 73
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for
flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No No No
Other:

Table 14D. UT5 Downstream Channel Evidence
UT5 Downstream Channel Evidence Year 1
(2019)
Year 2
(2020)
Year 3
(2021)
Year 4
(2022)
Year 5
(2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow 134 152 135 130 154
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for
flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No No No
Other:

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 14E. UT5 Upstream Channel Evidence
UT5 Upstream Channel Evidence Year 1
(2019)
Year 2
(2020)
Year 3
(2021)
Year 4
(2022)
Year 5
(2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow 167 158 60 201 165
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for
flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No No No
Other:

Table 14F. UT6 Channel Evidence
UT6 Channel Evidence Year 1
(2019)
Year 2
(2020)
Year 3
(2021)
Year 4
(2022)
Year 5
(2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow 131 187 288 118 282
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for
flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No No No
Other:

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 14G. UT7 Downstream Channel Evidence
UT7 Downstream Channel Evidence Year 1
(2019)
Year 2
(2020)
Year 3
(2021)
Year 4
(2022)
Year 5
(2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow 237 68 144 59 141
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for
flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No No No
Other:

Table 14H. UT7 Middle Channel Evidence
UT7 Middle Channel Evidence Year 1
(2019)
Year 2
(2020)
Year 3
(2021)
Year 4
(2022)
Year 5
(2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow 151 106 157 209 229
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for
flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No No No
Other:

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 14I. UT7 Upstream Channel Evidence
UT7 Upstream Channel Evidence Year 1
(2019)
Year 2
(2020)
Year 3
(2021)
Year 4
(2022)
Year 5
(2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow 237 248 107 36 154
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for
flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No No No
Other:

Table 14J. UT8 Channel Evidence
UT8 Downstream Channel Evidence Year 1
(2019)
Year 2
(2020)
Year 3
(2021)
Year 4
(2022)
Year 5
(2023)
Max consecutive days channel flow 49 89 69 108 250
Presence of litter and debris (wracking) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Leaf litter disturbed or washed away Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Matted, bent, or absence of vegetation (herbaceous or
otherwise) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment deposition and/or scour indicating sediment
transport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Water staining due to continual presence of water Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Formation of channel bed and banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment sorting within the primary path of flow Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sediment shelving or a natural line impressed on the banks Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Change in plant community (absence or destruction of
terrestrial vegetation and/or transition to species adapted for
flow or inundation for a long duration, including hydrophytes)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Development of channel pattern (meander bends and/or
channel braiding) at natural topographic breaks, woody debris
piles, or plant root systems
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Exposure of woody plant roots within the primary path of flow No No No No No
Other:
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
St
r
e
a
m
 St
a
g
e
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT1 
Year  5 (2023 Data)
237 Days
Total Cumulative Flow: 
267 Days
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
St
r
e
a
m
 St
a
g
e
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT2 
Year  5 (2023 Data)
110 Days
Total Cumulative Flow: 
259 Days
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
St
r
e
a
m
 St
a
g
e
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT3 
Year  5 (2023 Data)
73 Days
Total Cumulative Flow: 
259 Days
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
St
r
e
a
m
 St
a
g
e
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT5 Downstream
Year  5 (2023 Data)
154 Days
Total Cumulative Flow: 
193 Days
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
St
r
e
a
m
 St
a
g
e
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT5 Upstream
Year  5 (2023 Data)
165 Days
Total Cumulative Flow: 
185 Days
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
St
r
e
a
m
 St
a
g
e
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT6  
Year  5 (2023 Data)
282 Days
Total Cumulative Flow: 
288 Days
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
St
r
e
a
m
 St
a
g
e
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT7 Upstream  
Year  5 (2023 Data)
154 Days
Total Cumulative Flow: 
283 Days
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
St
r
e
a
m
 St
a
g
e
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT7 Middle  
Year  5 (2023 Data)
229 Days
Total Cumulative Flow: 
252 Days
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
St
r
e
a
m
 St
a
g
e
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT7 Downstream  
Year  5 (2023 Data)
141 Days
Total Cumulative Flow: 
241 Days
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
St
r
e
a
m
 St
a
g
e
 Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Heron Stream Flow Gauge UT8  
Year  5 (2023 Data)
250 Days
Total Cumulative Flow: 
262 Days

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 15. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data
Collection Date of Occurrence Method Photo
(if available)
August 26, 2019 July 7, 2019
Stream gauge data indicates a bankfull event occurred
after 4.06 inches of rain was documented on July 7, 2019
at an onsite rain gauge
--
August 26, 2019 August 22, 2019
A bankfull event likely occurred after 7.16 inches of rain
was documented between August 20-22, 2019 at an onsite
rain gauge
--
July 1, 2020 May 21, 2020
Wrack and laid-back vegetation were observed on the TOB
of UT4 after 3.03 inches of rain was documented between
May 19 and 21, 2020 at an onsite rain gauge.
1
November 16, 2020 November 12, 2020
Wrack and laid-back vegetation were observed on the TOB
of UT1 after 3.13 inches of rain was documented between
November 11 and 12, 2020 at an onsite rain gauge.
2
December 14, 2020 December 14, 2020
A bankfull event was documented on UT8 by trail camera
and stream gauge evidence after 0.82 inches of rain were
captured at an onsite rain gauge.
3
January 31. 2021 January 31. 2021
A bankfull was documented on UT3 by trail camera and
stream gauge evidence after 0.56 inches of rain were
captured by an onsite rain gauge between January 25-28.
4
February 16, 2021 February 13-16,
2021
A bankfull event was documented on UT1B during a site
visit after 1.38 inches of rain were captured by an onsite
rain gauge between February 13-16, 2021.
5
April 20, 2022 April 19, 2022
A bankfull event was documented during a site visit after
1.76 inches of rain were captured by an onsite rain gauge
on April 18-19, 2022.
6-10
May 22, 2023 March 2, 2023
A bankfull event was documented on UT5 by a trail camera
and stream gauge after 1.13 inches of rain were captured
by an onsite rain gauge.
11
May 22, 2023 April 7, 2023
A bankfull event was documented on UT5 and UT8 by a
trail camera and stream gauge after 4.1 inches of rain were
captured by an onsite rain gauge over 2 days.
12, 13

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Photo 1: Wrack and laid-back vegetation along
the TOB of UT4 after a bankfull event.
Photo 2: Wrack and laid-back vegetation
along the TOB of UT1 after a bankfull event.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Photo 3: UT8 bankfull event documented on
December 14, 2020 after 0.82 inches of rain.
Photo 4: UT3 bankfull event documented on
January 31, 2020 after 0.56 inches of rain.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Photo 5: Bankfull event on UT1B on February 16 after
1.38 inches fell between February 13 – 16, 2021.
Photo 6: Bankfull event on UT5 during 1.76 inch rain
event on April 18-19, 2022.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Photo 7: Wrack after a bankfull event on UT1
following 1.76 inch rain event on April 18-19, 2022.
Photo 8: Wrack after a bankfull event on UT4
following 1.76 inch rain event on April 18-19, 2022.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Photo 9: Wrack after a bankfull event on UT7
following 1.76 inch rain event on April 18-19, 2022.
Photo 10: Wrack after a bankfull event on UT8
following 1.76 inch rain event on April 18-19, 2022.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Photo 11: Bankfull event on UT5 documented on
March 2, 2023 after 1.13 inches of rain.
Photo 12: Bankfull event on UT5 documented on
April 7, 2023 after 4.10 inches of rain.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Photo 13: Bankfull event on UT8 documented on
April 7, 2023 after 4.10 inches of rain.

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024
Table 16. Groundwater Hydrology Data
Gauge
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season (Percentage)
Year 1
(2019)
Year 2
(2020)
Year 3
(2021)
Year 4
(2022)
Year 5
(2023)
Year 6
(2024)
Year 7
(2025)
1 Yes/33 days
(15.8%)
Yes/23 days
(9.8%)
Yes /46 days
(19.5%)
Yes /45 days
(19.1%)
Yes/50 days
(21.3%)
2 Yes/26 days
(12.4%)
Yes/27 days
(11.5%)
Yes/47 days
(19.9%)
Yes/66 days
(28.1%)
Yes/73 days
(31.1%)
3 Yes/35 days
(16.7%)
Yes/28 days
(12.0%)
Yes/36 days
(15.2%)
Yes/66 days
(28.1%)
Yes/71 days
(30.2%)
4 Yes/69 days
(33.0%)
Yes/51 days
(21.8%)
Yes/60 days
(25.4%)
Yes/56 days
(23.8%)
Yes/96 days
(40.9%)
5 Yes/52 days
(24.9%)
Yes/45 days
(19.2%)
Yes/50 days
(21.2%)
Yes/52 days
(22.1%)
Yes/71 days
(30.2%)
6 Yes/54 days
(25.8%)
Yes/46 days
(19.7%)
Yes/52 days
(22.0%)
No/13 days
(5.5%)
Yes/92 days
(39.1%)

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Heron Groundwater Gauge 1
Year  5 (2023 Data)
End Growing Season
October 22
Start Growing Season
March 1
50 Days ‐21.3%
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Heron Groundwater Gauge 2
Year  5 (2023 Data)
End Growing Season
October 22
Start Growing Season
March 1
73 Days ‐31.1%
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Heron Groundwater Gauge 3
Year  5 (2023 Data)
End Growing Season 
October 22
71 Days ‐30.2%
Start Growing Season
March 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Heron Groundwater Gauge 4
Year  5 (2023 Data)
End Growing Season
October 22
96 Days ‐40.9%
Start Growing Season
March 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s

(i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Heron Groundwater Gauge 5
Year  5 (2023 Data)
End Growing Season 
October 22
71 Days ‐30.2%
Start Growing Season
March 1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
‐40
‐38
‐36
‐34
‐32
‐30
‐28
‐26
‐24
‐22
‐20
‐18
‐16
‐14
‐12
‐10
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l
 Am
o
u
n
t
s
 (i
n
)
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r

Le
v
e
l
 (i
n
)
Heron Groundwater Gauge 6
Year  5 (2023 Data)
End Growing Season
October 22
Start Growing Season
March 1
92 Days ‐39.1%
32.00
37.00
42.00
47.00
52.00
57.00
62.00
67.00
72.00
77.00
1/
1
/
2
3
1/
1
1
/
2
3
1/
2
1
/
2
3
1/
3
1
/
2
3
2/
1
0
/
2
3
2/
2
0
/
2
3
3/
2
/
2
3
3/
1
2
/
2
3
3/
2
2
/
2
3
4/
1
/
2
3
4/
1
1
/
2
3
4/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
1
/
2
3
5/
1
1
/
2
3
5/
2
1
/
2
3
5/
3
1
/
2
3
6/
1
0
/
2
3
6/
2
0
/
2
3
6/
3
0
/
2
3
7/
1
0
/
2
3
7/
2
0
/
2
3
7/
3
0
/
2
3
8/
9
/
2
3
8/
1
9
/
2
3
8/
2
9
/
2
3
9/
8
/
2
3
9/
1
8
/
2
3
9/
2
8
/
2
3
10
/
8
/
2
3
10
/
1
8
/
2
3
10
/
2
8
/
2
3
11
/
7
/
2
3
11
/
1
7
/
2
3
11
/
2
7
/
2
3
12
/
7
/
2
3
12
/
1
7
/
2
3
12
/
2
7
/
2
3
So
i
l
 Te
m
p
 °F
Date
Heron Soil Temperature
Year  5  (2023 Data)
March 1:
54.85°F
March 15:
50.22°F
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Ra
i
n
f
a
l
l

A
m
o
u
n
t

i
n

I
n
c
h
e
s
Figure E1: Heron
30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
Current year data from onsite rain gauge
30-70th percentile data from WETS Station: Burlington Alamance Regional Airport, NC
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
30th Percentile
70th Percentile

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Appendix F.
Benthic Data

Benthic Results
Habitat Data Forms

AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, CAPE FEAR, ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC, BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED 6/13/2023.
PA ID NO 56920
STATION Heron
UT1
DATE 6/13/2023
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G.
PLATYHELMINTHES
MOLLUSCA
Bivalvia
Veneroida
Sphaeriidae FC
Musculium lacustre FC
Pisidium sp.6.6 FC 2
Gastropoda
Basommatophora
Physidae
Physella sp.8.7 CG
ANNELIDA
Clitellata
Oligochaeta CG
Lumbriculida
Lumbriculidae CG
Lumbriculus sp.CG
Hirudinea P
Arhynchobdellida
Erpobdellidae P
Rhynchobdellida
Glossiphoniidae P
Helobdella sp.P
ARTHROPODA
Cladocera
Daphnidae
Ceriodaphnia sp.1
Copepoda
Cyclopoida
Cyclopidae
Mesocyclops edax 1
Isopoda
Asellidae SH
Caecidotea sp.8.4 CG 10
Amphipoda CG
Crangonyctidae
Crangonyx sp.7.2 CG 14
Insecta
Ephemeroptera
Baetidae CG
PAI, Inc. Page 1 of 3 AxiomAlamanceCo 6 23cl
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, CAPE FEAR, ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC, BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED 6/13/2023.
PA ID NO 56920
STATION Heron
UT1
DATE 6/13/2023
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G.
Odonata
Aeshnidae P
Aeshna umbrosa P
Anax junius P 1
Coenagrionidae P 3
Corduliidae
Somatochlora sp.8.9 P
Libellulidae P
Libellula vibrans 9.4 P
Pachydiplax longipennis 9.6 3
Plecoptera
Perlidae P
Perlesta sp.2.9 P
Hemiptera
Belostomatidae
Belostoma sp.9.5 P 3
Corixidae PI
Hesperocorixa sp.PI 1
Notonectidae
Notonecta sp.P 1
Megaloptera
Corydalidae P
Chauliodes rastricornis P
Sialidae P
Sialis sp.7 P
Trichoptera
Hydropsychidae FC
Cheumatopsyche sp.6.6 FC
Limnephilidae
Pycnopsyche sp.2.5 SH
Coleoptera
Dytiscidae P
Neoporus sp.5
Thermonectus sp.P 1
Hydrophilidae P
Tropisternus sp. 9.3 P
Diptera
Chaboridae
Chaoborus albatus P 1
Chironomidae
Ablabesmyia mallochi 7.4 P
PAI, Inc. Page 2 of 3 AxiomAlamanceCo 6 23cl
AXIOM ENVIRONMENTAL, CAPE FEAR, ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC, BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES COLLECTED 6/13/2023.
PA ID NO 56920
STATION Heron
UT1
DATE 6/13/2023
SPECIES T.V. F.F.G.
Chironomus sp.9.3 CG 1
Conchapelopia sp.8.4 P
Cryptochironomus sp. 6.4 P
Microtendipes pedellus gp. 3.9 CG
Natarsia sp. 9.6 P
Paratendipes albimanus/duplicatus 5.6
Procladius sp. 8.8 P
Psectrotanypus dyari 10 P 1
Tanytarsus sp.6.6 FC
Zavrelimyia sp.8.6 P
Culicidae FC
Anopheles sp.8.6 FC 4
Culex sp.FC 13
Psychodidae CG
TOTAL NO. OF ORGANISMS 61
TOTAL NO. OF TAXA 17
EPT INDEX 0
BIOTIC INDEX Assigned Values 9.31
PAI, Inc. Page 3 of 3 AxiomAlamanceCo 6 23cl

MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100014) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Alamance County, North Carolina January 2024

Appendix G.
Site Photo Log

Heron
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 1: Easement Fencing and Buffer Vegetation along UT 2
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 2: Easement Fencing and Buffer Vegetation along UT 7
Heron
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 3: Easement Fencing along UT 5
Photo 4: Easement Fencing along UT 4
Heron
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 5: UT 1B Piped Crossing – Upstream End
Photo 6: UT 1B Piped Crossing – Downstream End
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Heron
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 7: UT 4 Piped Crossing – Upstream End
Photo 8: UT 4 Piped Crossing – Downstream End
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Heron
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 10: UT 5A Piped Crossing – Downstream End
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Photo 9: UT 5A Piped Crossing – Upstream End
Heron
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 11: UT 7A Piped Crossing – Upstream End
Photo 12: UT 7A Piped Crossing – Downstream End
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Heron
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 13: UT5A with Easement Break
Photo 14: UT 7B with Easement Break
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Heron
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 15: Bud Burst of Ulmus americana
Photo Taken 2/28/23
Photo 16: Bud Burst of Betula nigra
Photo Taken 2/28/23
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Heron
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 17: UT1 Flow 1/30/23
Photo 18: UT1 Flow 10/23/23
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Heron
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 19: UT5 Flow 3/19/23
Photo 20: UT5 Flow 10/23/23
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Heron
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 21: UT6 Flow 1/06/23
Photo 22: UT6 Flow 10/23/23
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Heron
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 23: UT7 Flow 1/15/23
Photo 24: UT7 Flow 3/29/23
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC
Heron
MY-05 (2023) Photo Log
Photo 26: UT8 Flow 4/22/23
Photo 25: UT8 Flow 1/30/2023
MY5 (2023) Monitoring Report (Project No. 100015) Appendices
Heron Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Restoration Systems, LLC