20171041 Ver 1_Little Sebastian_100027_MY3_2023_20240227

Year 3 Monitoring Report
FINAL
LITTLE SEBASTIAN SITE
NCDMS Project # 100027 (Contract # 7187) | RFP 16-006993 (Issued 9/16/2016)
USACE Action ID: SAW-2017-01507 | DWR Project # 2017-1041
Surry County, North Carolina
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101
Provided by:
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
For Environmental Banc & Exchange, LLC
Provided for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
February 2024
3600 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27612
Corporate Headquarters 6575 W Loop S #300 Bellaire, TX 77401 Main: 713.520.5400
res.us
February 26, 2024
Paul Wiesner NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services Asheville Regional Office 2090 U.S. 70 Highway Swannanoa, NC 28778-8211
RE: Little Sebastian, Project ID #100027, DMS Contract #7187
Listed below are comments provided by DMS on February, 8th 2024 regarding the Little Sebastian Site: Year 3 Monitoring Report and RES’ responses.
Comments: 1.Section 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives – DMS recommends updating this section to includethe “Table 2: Summary: Goals, Performance and Results” from the current monitoring tableguidance (October 2020); this table is very helpful in showing how project performance is tyinginto the goals and summarizing cumulative monitoring results. This is available on the DMSwebsite at:https://www.deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/vendors/templates-guidelines-tools-projectsA “Summary: Goals, Performance, and Results” table has been added after Section 1.3.
2.Section 1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY3) _Vegetation: In the revised report text, pleaseadditionally include the common species names for the 3-gallon container trees planted in
March 2023 or provide a supplemental table in the report appendices with the common names,
relative quantities of each species planted, and the overall planting density.
The following statement has been added to Section 1.7 “The roughly 0.83-acre area has been
replanted with 270 native 3-gallon container trees (54 trees per species), in March 2023. The tree
species planted included willow oak (Quercus phellos), northern red oak (Quercus rubra),
sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), persimmon (Diospyros
virginiana), and American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).”
3.Section 1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY3) _Vegetation: During the November 7, 2023, DMSsite visit, Fescue was observed at the outer extent of portions of the conservation easement. Isexisting Fescue considered a project vegetation concern within the conservation easement? Areany ring sprays around planted vegetation proposed in future monitoring years? Please addressin the comment responses and update the report text accordingly.
2
RES will treat fescue accordingly if problems with tree survival am vigor arise.
4.Section 1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY3) _Vegetation: Fencing removal and boundarymarking updates are discussed in the Vegetation Section of 1.7 Monitoring Performance. DMSrecommends breaking out this discussion into a new sub-section entitled “ConservationEasement Boundary” or similar. RES should also mention the recent DMS boundary inspection
conducted with RES on 11/7/2023 and briefly summarize: A) what actions have been taken since
that meeting/s, B) the approximate timeline to rectify the rest of the action items moving
forward, and C) the survey plat and monument issues currently being resolved with RES’s
surveyor and DEQ/DMS/State Property.
A section titled “Conservation Easement Boundary” has been added to Section 1.7 that discusses
actions taken, approximate timeline, and survey plat issues.
A)RES has communicated and scoped work with Ascension Land Surveying. Our survey team
has installed more easement signage on parts of the easement boundary. RES has submitted a
maintenance request to our internal maintenance team.
B)RES plans to have maintenance and survey issues completed within 2024.C) RES has communicated and scoped the work for Ascension Land Surveying to replace all the#4 rebar with #5, 30” rebar and submit a Report of Survey documenting the work.
5.Section 1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY3) _Stream Geomorphology: Based on the report text, morphological surveys were completed in June 2023. Please consider collecting morphological data later in the growing season so it represents the full monitoring year. If collected earlier, data collection dates should be consistent each year to allow a full year between surveys.RES tries to get the survey and vegetation monitoring events as close to one full year apart as possible.
6.Section 1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY3) _Stream Geomorphology: Please correct the spelling error on page 8 – “rifle”.This spelling error has been corrected.
7.Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History: Please include all MY3 (2023) maintenance
activities in the table including any beaver dam removals and/or project invasive treatments.
Table 2 has been updated with 2023 maintenance activities.
8.Section 1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY3) _Stream Geomorphology: The text reports that
“Overall the MY3 cross sections and profile relatively match the proposed design.”. Cross Section
2 is briefly discussed. In addition, two riffle cross sections (Reach JN2-C - Cross Section 3 and Reach JN2-D - Cross Section 4) show significant downcutting. RES indicates that they will investigate potential causes of this issue in early 2024 and will report findings in the future. Please discuss/assess this area in the current report, as it occurred in MY3 (2023). If RES feels the profile matches the design, please discuss how the profile was assessed? Visually?The text in Section 1.7 has been changed to state that “Overall the MY3 cross sections relatively match the as-built conditions”. RES investigated cross section 3 and 4 (stream problem area #4

3
and #5) on February 22nd, 2024, and it appears that the downcutting seen is the riffle material moving downstream. RES will add material to lift the channel bed back to the proposed depth, the new material will be sized to be less mobile. This maintenance work will be scheduled to happen in 2024. The cross sections were accessed visually in the field and also using past monitoring data.

9. Section 1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY3) _Stream Geomorphology: An area of erosion is
noted at Right Bank Erosion BS1-C and mapped on the CCPV, and “caused by a failed log sill
causing the stream flow to erode away at the right bank”. It is noted that matting and live
staking will be completed to stabilize this area in early 2024; however, the photo shows a
vertical, eroding bank. Is RES confident that matting and staking can rectify and stabilize the
apparently actively eroding bank? Please review and discuss in the report text.
After RES investigated BS1-C on February 22nd, 2024, the plan for stream problem area #2 and #3 is to rebuild the piping log sill and add riffle material upstream of that log sill to convert the
step-pool feature into more of a cascade feature and rebuild the left bank above that sill with a
soil lift. Also, to notch the log sill above the piping log sill to give the low flow a preferential
path that isn’t under the left bank. Furthermore, RES will rebuild the right bank below the last
log sill with a stone toe.
10. Section 1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY3) _Stream Geomorphology: An area of erosion is noted at Right Bank Erosion MC1-C and mapped on the CCPV, and “caused by a brush toe failing during a major storm event”; however, a photo of this area was not included. Is this an area RES also intends to address with matting and live staking, and is RES confident that this approach will stabilize the area? Does RES have an idea which storm event caused this? Please add additional information in the report text to detail the project issue and proposed resolution. The photo of the brush toe failure was previously mislabeled with the wrong reach and has been updated. The CCPV and report now also refer to the stream problem areas by station numbers. RES can not confirm what storm event caused the brush tow to fail but feels confident that the matting, packing with coir logs, and live staking will stabilize the area. 11. Visual Stream Stability Assessment Tables: Please ensure that visual assessment tables are
updated annually to reflect problem areas as they arise; for example, the visual assessment table
for Reach BS1 reflects one grade control structure failure but does not indicate any bank failure
as shown in the report photo. Please review and update the report and table/s accordingly.
The bank failure section has been updated for MC1-C and BS1.

12. General/ Problem Area Photos/ CCPV Maps/ Visual Stream Stability Assessment Tables: It
would be helpful if RES could add station numbers to the stream problem area photos and
discuss in the report text accordingly by station numbering. Ideally, the CCPVs should show
station numbers for reference. If there are multiple areas along the same reach or if these areas
are discussed in the future, this helps guide the discussion on their exact locations. Any structure
issues reported in the Visual Stream Stability Assessment Tables, or the project photos should
be documented on the CCPV Maps. Please review and update the report and maps accordingly.

4
The photos, CCPV, visual stream stability assessment, and monitoring report have all been updated based on the comments through out this report. The stream problem areas have also been given station numbers which can be seen in the photo log, CCPV, and the monitoring report. 13. Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table & CCPV: DMS observed multiple areas of invasives during a November 11, 2023, site visit. Chinese Privet was the prevalent invasive
species observed. Please review and confirm that the invasive areas observed on the site are
below the mapping threshold (1,000 sq. ft.). Please continue to actively treat invasives on the
project site through the monitoring term and report treatments in Table 2. Project Activity and
Reporting History.
One area that is approximately 4,500 square feet has been added. The RES maintenance team
will treat this area and spot check the whole site during MY4 (2024). Areas that have been
treated will be included in the MY4 report.

14. MY3 Little Sebastian GW1 Graph: The report text indicates that GW1 recorded a consecutive
hydroperiod of 100 percent of the growing season; however, the graph shows several instances
where the water level drops below -12 inches during the growing season. Please review the data
and update the report and graph accordingly. The groundwater level does drop below the 12-inch mark during the 210-day stretch; however, the groundwater gauge reads twice a day, and each of the instances where the level drops below 12 inches, it is only for one reading that day, not both. RES determines a consecutive streak by beginning with at least two days of readings above 12 inches, and then at least one reading a day above the 12-inch mark, until there are two readings in a row under 12-inches, ending the consecutive day count. Please reference the GW1 raw data in the digital files (5. Hydrology Data) to see where the determinations come from. 15. MY3 Little Sebastian JN3-B Stage Recorder Graph: The legend for the graph is incomplete. Please update the legend accordingly. Please review and confirm that the Max Event reported is correct based on the Stage (ft) scale. It is difficult to determine with limited Stage (ft) lines shown on the graph. Please review the graph and MY3 project data in detail and confirm the reported information is accurate. The legend has been updated accordingly. JN3-B graph and data have been reviewed and
confirm that the information is accurate.

16. MY3 Little Sebastian BS1-E Stage Recorder Graph: Please review and confirm that the Max
Event reported is correct based on the Stage (ft) scale. It is difficult to determine with limited
Stage (ft) lines shown on the graph. Please review the graph and MY3 project data in detail and
confirm the reported information is accurate.
BS1-E stage recorder has been reviewed and RES confirms that the max event on June 20th,
2023, was .02 feet above the top of bank.

17. MY3 Little Sebastian Flow Gauge Graphs (all): The Longest Period of Consecutive Flow
callouts shown have numerous instances where the water line drops below the Downstream

5
Riffle Elevation Line. Please review and revise the report as necessary. Please explain why consecutive flow data reported includes instances when the waterline drops below the downstream riffle elevation. All of the flow gauges drop below the downstream riffle elevation during the longest period of consecutive flow; however, the gauge reads 24 times a day and for the instances that where the water level drops below the downstream rifle it is less than 24 hours in a row. The consecutive day count does not stop until there is 24 hours in a row where there is flow less than the
downstream rifle. Please reference the flow gauge raw data in the digital files (5.
Hydrology Data) to see where the determinations come from.

18. General: Please continue to provide photo documentation of overbank events in MY4 (2024)
and future monitoring reports.
RES will continue to provide photo documentation of overbank events in MY4 and future
monitoring reports.

19. General: While cross sections are not typically required during MY4(2024), please consider
providing cross sections for Reach JN2-C - Cross Section 3 and Reach JN2-D - Cross Section 4 in
MY4(2024), in an effort to keep tracking their trend due to the sudden changes reported in
MY3(2023). RES will provide cross section data for XS 3 and 4 for MY4 (2024). November 7, 2023: DMS Property Boundary Inspection Observations & Required Action Items: 1. Prior to moving forward, please discuss all property and survey issues with DMS, SPO and DEQ Stewardship to determine the next steps for resolution. DMS will set up a meeting for discussion. Update: Meetings were held on 1/5/2024 & 1/19/2024 with RES, DMS, and SPO staff. Meetings were held on 1/5/2024 and 1/19/2024 with RES, DMS, and SPO staff. Issues will be resolved using a combination of RES survey and maintenance teams as well as the recorded conservation easement surveyor, Ascension Land Surveying. 2. Install in-line marking at a frequency of 200’ spacing or less. Shorter segments should have the signs installed equidistant from the corners, but signs must be installed at a spacing no greater than 200’.
Our survey team is working on this issue, and it will be completed in 2024.

3. Remove fallen trees from the exclusion fencing.
Our maintenance team is working on this issue, and it will be completed in 2024.

4. Monitor the site boundary and maintain compliance throughout the monitoring period.
Continue discussions with the landowner and maintain compliance at historic encroachment
areas and monitor for any new encroachment.
The site boundary will continue to be monitored for compliance and encroachment areas.

5. Remove the tubular bull gates located within the CE area.

6
Our maintenance team is working on this issue, and it will be completed in 2024. 6.Rectify plat corner number duplications and install any missing corner monuments. Ascension Land Surveying is working on this and will have it completed in 2024. 7.Recommend replacement of all tree sign fasteners with aluminum nails. Examples were provided during recent inspections. The 3 ½ inch by 0.177 inch by 11/32-inch head aluminum
nails were purchased from Kaiser Aluminum 800-633-3156. Recommend watching this DMS
instructional video before attempting to correct the signage https://youtu.be/7dE7edd3V5M. It
is a five-minute video originally created during the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program era. It
will help them visualize what our expectation looks like.
This recommendation will be passed along to our survey team.

8.Upgrade cable tie configuration, tension, and trim. DMS is available if you have any questions.
Our maintenance team is working on this issue, and it will be completed in 2024.

9.Old fencing inside of CE needs to be removed. See the provided .KML and descriptions for
specific areas.
Our maintenance team is working on this issue, and it will be completed in 2024. 10.Determine status of the Sprint telephone utility located in the easement and rectify as appropriate. Accurate mapping of the utility and any associated easements must be described along with the proposed solution and/ or mitigation credit implications. Found documentation from 2018 that the line associated with that identified Sprint pedestal was abandoned. RES coordinated this work and the construction of a new line that goes along the driveway and up to the house. The title RES acquired during land due diligence nor the landowner were unaware of any associated easements but RES will continue to research this subject. 11. Determine the out-of-spec #4 rebar length. Replacement with #5 rebar 30” in length is required. Ascension Land Surveying is working on this issue, and it will be completed in 2024.
12. Repair damaged fencing and attend to other items as noted on the provided. KML file.
Our maintenance team is working on this issue, and it will be completed in 2024.

Electronic Comments:
1. None.
Noted, thank you.

Table of Contents 1.0 Project Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project Location and Description ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Project Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Project Success Criteria .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.4 Project Components ................................................................................................................................ 0 1.5 Stream Mitigation Approach ................................................................................................................ 0 1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions .............................................................................................. 3
1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY3) .......................................................................................................... 3
Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Stream Geomorphology ................................................................................................................................ 4
Stream Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................ 5
Wetland Hydrology ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Conservation Easement Boundary ............................................................................................................. 5
2.0 Methods ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 References .................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Appendix A: Background Tables Table 1. Project Mitigation Components Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3. Project Contacts Table Table 4. Project Background Information Table Figure 1. Site Location Map Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Vegetation Plot Photos Monitoring Device, Crossing, and General Photos Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data Table 7. Planted Species Summary Table 8. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table 9. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species Appendix D: Stream Measurement and Geomorphology Data Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary Table 11. Cross Section Morphology Data Table Cross Section Overlay Plots Appendix E: Hydrology Data Table 12. 2023 Rainfall Summary Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events Table 14. 2023 Max Hydroperiod Table 15. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results Stream Flow Hydrographs Groundwater Hydrographs
Little Sebastian Site 1 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, NC February 2024
1.0 Project Summary
1.1 Project Location and Description
The Little Sebastian Mitigation Site (“the Project”) is located in Surry County, approximately 10 miles north of Elkin. The Project presents 4,554.300 Cool Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) along Mill Creek and three unnamed tributaries.
The Project’s total easement area is approximately 25.91 acres within the overall drainage area of 3,261 acres. The Project has two separate portions and in between those portions is the Gideon Mitigation Site. The Gideon Mitigation Site has a total easement area that is approximately 11.23
ac and presents 4,782 linear feet of stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation. Therefore,
a total 37.14 ac and 12,887 LF of stream are protected in perpetuity. Grazing livestock historically
had access to all stream reaches within the Project. The lack of riparian buffer vegetation, deep-
rooted vegetation, and unstable channel characteristics contributed to the degradation of stream
banks throughout the Project area.
The Project will be monitored on a regular basis throughout the seven-year post-construction
monitoring period, or until performance standards are met. The Project will be transferred to the
NCDEQ Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-
term steward for the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the site to ensure that
restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
Through the comprehensive analysis of the Project’s maximum functional uplift using the Stream
Functions Pyramid Framework, specific, attainable goals and objectives were realized by the
Project. These goals clearly address the degraded water quality and nutrient input from farming
that were identified as major watershed stressors in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee River RBRP.
The Project will address outlined RBRP Goals 2, 4, and 6 (Mitigation Plan). Specific project goals
and objectives are presented in the project summary: goals, performance and results seen below.
1.3 Project Success Criteria
The success criteria for the Project follows the 2016 USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update, the Little Sebastian Final Mitigation Plan, and subsequent agency guidance. Cross section and vegetation plot monitoring takes place in Years 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Stream hydrology, wetland hydrology, and visual monitoring takes place annually. Specific success criteria components are presented in the project summary: goals,
performance and results seen below.
Project Summary Goals, Performance, and Results
Objective/Treatment Monitoring Metric Performance Criteria Measurement Cumulative Monitoring Results
As-built stream profile N/A N/A Survey conduced
Flow Gauges: Inspected
quarterly
Minimum of 30 consecutive
days of flow
Flow gauges on BS1-
A, JN7, and JN2-B
2/2 passed - MY1
3/3 passed - MY2
3/3 passed - MY3
Stage recorders: Inspected
quarterly
Four bankfull events
occurring in separate years
Stage recorders on
JN3-B and BS1-E
0/2 Bankfull events - MY1
1/2 Bankfull events - MY2
2/2 Bankfull events - MY3
Cross sections: Surveyed in
MY 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Bank height ratio shall not
exceed 1.2 12 Cross sections
12/12 with BHR ≤ 1.2 - MY0
10/12 with BHR ≤ 1.2 - MY1
10/12 with BHR ≤ 1.2 - MY2
11/12 with BHR ≤ 1.2 - MY3
Visual monitoring: Preformed
at least semiannually
Identify and document
significant stream problem
areas; i.e. erosion,
degradation, aggradation,
etc.
Visual assessment
conducted
No problem areas - MY0
No problem areas - MY1
No problem areas - MY2
3 stream problem areas - MY3
Vegetation plots: Surveyed in
MY 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
MY1-3: 320 trees/acre
MY5: 260 trees/acre (6ft. tall)
MY7: 210 trees/acre (8ft. tall)
Six fixed and three
random vegetation
plots
9/9 passed - MY0
9/9 passed - MY1
9/9 passed - MY2
9/9 passed - MY3
Visual assessment of fencing
and conservation signage:
Preformed at least
semiannually
Inspect fencing and signage.
Identify and document any
damaged or missing fencing
and/or signs.
Visual assessment
conducted
Fencing/signage are in place -
MY0
Fencing/signage are in place -
MY1
Encroachment/low stem density
area found - MY2
Fencing/signage needs
maintenance - MY3
Restore and enhance native
floodplain vegetation
Permanently excluded livestock from
stream channels and their associated
buffers
Treat exotic invasive species
Established a permanent conservation
easement on the Project
Increased forested riparian buffers to at
least 30 feet on both sides of the channel
along the Project reaches with a hardwood
riparian plant community
Improve water transport from
watershed to the channel in a
non-erosive manner in a stable
channel
Improve flood flow attenuation
on site and downstream by
allowing for overbanks flows
and connection to the active
floodplain
Indirectly support the goals of
the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-
Dee RBRP to improve water
quality and to reduce sediment
and nutrient loads
Improve instream habitat
Permanently excluded livestock from
stream channels and their associated
buffers
Added in-stream structures and bank
stabilization measures to protect restored
and enhanced streams
Installed habitat features such as brush
toes, constructed riffles, woody materials,
and pools of varying depths to restored
and enhanced streams
Reduced bank height ratios and increased
entrenchment ratios to reference reach
conditions
Implemented one agricultural BMP in
order to limit inputs of sediment, nutrients,
and fecal coliform to streams from
surrounding farming operations
Goal
1.4 Project Components
The project streams were significantly impacted by livestock production, agricultural practices,
and a lack of riparian buffer. Improvements to the Project help meet the river basin needs
expressed in the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) as well as
ecological improvements to riparian corridor within the easement.
Through stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation, the Project presents 4,554.300 Cool Stream Mitigation Units (SMU) (Table 1).
Mitigation Approach Linear Feet Ratio Cool Base SMU
Restoration 2,758 1 2,721
Enhancement I 597 1.5 398 Enhancement II 1,898 2.5 759.2
Enhancement II 1,372 5 274.4
Enhancement II 819 7.5 109.2 Enhancement II 243 10 24.3
Preservation 418 10 41.8
Total 8,068 4,327.9
Credit Loss in Required Buffer -278.7
Credit Gain for Additional Buffer 505.1
Total Adjusted SMUs 4,554.300
1.5 Stream Mitigation Approach
The Project includes priority I stream restoration, enhancement I, enhancement II, and preservation. Priority I stream restoration incorporates the design of a single thread meandering channel, with parameters based on data taken from reference sites, published empirical relationships, regional curves developed from existing project streams, and NC Regional Curves. Analytical design techniques also were a crucial element of the project and were used to determine the design discharge and to verify the design as a whole.
Reach JN2-A - Preservation activities included improving the existing livestock exclusion fencing and buffers greater than 30 feet. The easement was extended to provide preservation beyond the origin point of the stream as per the PJD.
Reach JN2-B - Enhancement activities included improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. Minimal bank grading and buffer re-establishment was
done along the downstream end. In-stream structures such as log sills and one log cross vane
were installed for stability and to improve habitat. The restoration of the riparian areas at the
downstream end filters runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife
corridors throughout the Project area.
3 Little Sebastian Site
Surry County, NC
Year 3 Monitoring Report
February 2024
Little Sebastian Site 4 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, NC February 2024
Reach JN2-C - Enhancement activities included improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. Minimal bank grading and buffer re-establishment were done along the downstream end. The restoration of the riparian areas at the downstream end filters runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area.
Reach JN2-D - Enhancement activities included some channel relocation, bed, and bank stabilization, removing an existing ford crossing and access road, improving habitat through
supplemental buffer plantings, and livestock exclusion fencing. The restoration of the riparian
areas at the downstream end filters runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and
provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area.
Reach JN3-A –Enhancement II activities at a 7.5:1 ratio included improving habitat through
supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration of
the riparian areas along the right bank filters runoff from adjacent pasture and reduce sediment
loads.
Reach JN3-B - Restoration activities included constructing a new channel within the natural valley
to the north with appropriate dimensions and pattern and backfilling the abandoned channel. In-
stream structures such as log sills, brush toes, and log vanes were installed for stability and to
improve habitat. Habitat was further improved through buffer plantings and livestock exclusion.
Buffer activities improved riparian areas that filter runoff from adjacent pastures, thereby reducing nutrient and sediment loads to the channel. Also, the reach was built through two small jurisdictional wetlands that are currently on the right bank floodplain and degraded from cattle access and pasture-use. While this project is not claiming any wetland credit, the raised channel bed enhances the wetlands’ hydrology by reconnecting the floodplain wetlands to the stream. Two groundwater wells were installed on the right floodplain to monitor the wetland hydrology and will be reported in the yearly monitoring reports.
Reach MC1-A - Enhancement activities included improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the right bank filters runoff from adjacent pasture and reduce sediment loads.
Reach MC1-B - Enhancement activities included improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the left bank filters runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout the Project area.
Reach MC1-C - Restoration activities included using log structures to provide vertical stability,
assist in maintaining riffle, run and pool features and to provide habitat features. Cut and fill was
balanced in an effort to raise the channel bed to provide regular inundation of the adjacent
floodplain. Habitat was improved through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion
fencing. The Gideon Mitigation Bank was constructed with the Project.
Little Sebastian Site 5 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, NC February 2024
Reach MC3-A - Enhancement activities included improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the right bank filters runoff from adjacent pasture and reduce sediment loads.
Reach MC3-B - Enhancement activities included reshaping the left bank, install coir matting and livestakes, and improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the left bank filters runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and provides wildlife corridors throughout the Project
area. A ford crossing was installed on this reach.
Reach MC3-C - Enhancement activities included reshaping the left bank, install coir matting and
livestakes, and improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion
fencing. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the left bank filters runoff from
adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout the project
area.
Reach MC3-D - Enhancement activities includes improving habitat through supplemental buffer
plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along
the left bank filters runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife
corridors throughout the Project area.
Reach BS1-A - Restoration activities included using log and rock structures to provide vertical
stability, assist in maintaining riffle, run and pool features and to provide habitat features. Cut and fill were balanced in an effort to raise the channel bed to provide small floodplain benches where topography allows. Habitat was further improved through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. An engineered sediment pack was installed at the top of this reach.
Reach BS1-B - Enhancement activities included improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along the left bank filters runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife corridors throughout the project area.
Reach BS1-C - Restoration activities included using log and rock structures to provide vertical stability, assist in maintaining riffle, run and pool features and to provide habitat features. Cut and fill was balanced in an effort to raise the channel bed to provide small floodplain benches where topography allows. Habitat was further improved through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing.
Reach BS1-D - Enhancement activities included improving habitat through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing. The widening and restoration of the riparian areas along
the left bank filters runoff from adjacent pasture, reduce sediment loads, and provide wildlife
corridors throughout the Project area.
Reach BS1-E - Restoration activities included using log structures to provide vertical stability,
assist in maintaining riffle, run and pool features and to provide habitat features. Cut and fill were
Little Sebastian Site 6 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, NC February 2024
balanced in an effort to raise the channel bed to provide small floodplain benches where topography allows. Habitat was further improved through supplemental buffer plantings and livestock exclusion fencing.
1.6 Construction and As-Built Conditions
Stream construction was completed in February 2021 and planting was completed in March 2021.
Additionally, five-strand high tensile electric fencing was installed for cattle exclusion. The Little Sebastian Site was built to design plans and guidelines. Two minor changes were made during construction: a log sill was added on JN2-B for extra grade control and log sills were removed from BS1 due to bedrock. Additionally, JN7 was added between Final Mitigation Plan approval and construction. This reach has a 30-acre drainage area and includes a pond located about 150 linear feet upstream of the easement area. Historically, this pond drained through a short ditch into JN3-B but due to the relocation of JN3-B, a channel was constructed in order to connect the pond back to JN3-B. The restored JN7 includes 37 linear feet within the easement. A photo of JN7 is in Appendix B. RES proposed the addition of JN7 for credit; however, this request was denied by IRT. A flow gauge was installed along JN7 in February 2022. RES will monitor the stability and hydrology of this reach and if back-up credits are needed at closeout there is the potential to use the 19.660 SMUs from JN7.
Planting plan changes included replacing blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica) and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) with sugarberry (Celtis laevigata) and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis). These
changes were based on bare root availability. A planted species summary is included in Appendix
C.Minor monitoring device location changes were made during as-built installation due to site
conditions. The only monitoring devices not installed were the stage recorders proposed for MC1-
C and BS1-C due to the reach being less than 1,000 linear feet and there being two stage recorders
proposed for the same reach, respectively.
1.7 Monitoring Performance (MY3)
The Little Sebastian Year 3 monitoring activities were performed in June and October 2023. All
Year 3 monitoring data is present below and in the appendices. The Project is on track to meeting
vegetation and stream interim success criteria.
Vegetation
Monitoring of six fixed vegetation plots and three random vegetation plots was completed on October 31, 2023. Vegetation data can be found in Appendix C, associated photos are in Appendix B, and plot locations are in Appendix B. MY3 data indicates that all plots are exceeding the interim success criteria of 320 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities ranged from 526 to 1,133 planted stems per acre with a mean of 796 planted stems per acre across all plots. A total of 16 species were documented within the plots. Volunteer species were noted in all of the fixed vegetation plots ranging from 81 stems to 202 volunteer stems. The average stem height in the plots was 4.2 feet.
Little Sebastian Site 7 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, NC February 2024
Visual assessment of vegetation outside of the monitoring plots indicates that the herbaceous vegetation is becoming well established throughout the project. An area of approximately 0.1 acres was found that included Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica). This area can be seen in Figure 2 as a simple yellow hatch. This area will be treated during 2024 and the site will be spot treated throughout where necessary. Two areas of mowing encroachment along the eastern boundary of the Project, adjacent to BS1, were observed
during Year 2 monitoring. The roughly 0.83-acre area has been replanted with 270 native 3-gallon
container trees (54 trees per species), in March 2023. The tree species planted included willow oak
(Quercus phellos), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), and American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis). Additional signage and horse tape (in areas where visibility between markers may
be limited) have been installed along this side of the easement to mark a clear boundary to
prevent further mowing. All areas of supplemental planting (as a result of the encroachment) can
be seen in Figure 2 as green simple hatch. The eastern parcel has been sold where the previous
encroachment took place and RES has been in communication with the new landowner.
Stream Geomorphology
Cross section and geomorphology data collection for MY3 was collected on June 27, 2023. Summary tables and cross section plots are in Appendix D. Overall the MY3 cross sections
relatively match the as-built conditions. The current conditions show that shear stress and
velocities have been reduced for all restoration/enhancement reaches. The reaches were designed
as gravel/cobble bed channels and remain classified as gravel/cobble bed channels post-
construction.
One cross section displayed notable changes for Bankfull Bank Height Ratio between MY1 and
MY3 and are discussed below.
•Cross Section 2- because this is an Enhancement I section with steeper, uneven slopes,
choosing the same location to call top of bank, year to year, is difficult; therefore, minor
changes are expected in bank height ratios.
Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation (Table 5, Appendix B). There is one erosion area on the right bank along MC1-C (stream problem area #1) and two areas on BS1-C (stream problem area #2 & #3). The erosion on MC1-C was caused by a brush toe failing during a major storm event. The area erosion on BS1-C was caused by a failed log sill causing the stream flow to erode away at the right bank. These are localized areas of erosion and not a sign of systematic failure, RES plans to stabilize stream problem area #1 with matting, coir logs, and livestakes in 2024. For stream problem area #2 RES will rebuild the right bank with a stone toe. For stream problem area #3 RES plans to rebuild the piping log sill and add riffle material upstream of that log sill to convert the step-pool feature into more of a cascade feature and rebuild the left bank above that sill with a soil lift. Also, to notch the log sill above the piping log sill to give the low flow a preferential path that isn’t under the left bank. Cross sections three (stream problem
Little Sebastian Site 8 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, NC February 2024
area #4) and four (stream problem area #5) are experiencing some unusual downcutting for a riffle, it appears that the downcutting seen is the riffle material moving downstream. RES will add material to lift the channel bed back to the proposed depth, the new material will be sized to be less mobile. This maintenance work will be scheduled to happen in 2024. Pictures of these areas can be found in Appendix B and locations can be found on Figure 2. The channel is transporting sediment as designed and will continue to be monitored for aggradation and degradation.
Stream Hydrology
Two stage recorders and two flow gauges were installed in March 2021 and document bankfull events and flow days, respectively. Both gauge types record readings at a frequency of once per hour, 24 hours per day. The stage recorder on JN3-B documented six bankfull events in total with the maximum bankfull event on June 20, 2023, measuring 0.46 feet above the top of bank. The stage recorder along BS1-E documented one bankfull event with the maximum bankfull event on June 20, 2023, measuring 0.02 feet above the top of bank. Photo documentation of an overbank event can be found in Appendix B. The flow gauge on BS1-A recorded one flow event, with the flow lasting 303 consecutive days. The gauge on JN2-B recorded 4 flow events with the maximum consecutive flow lasting 113 consecutive days. The flow gauge on JN7 recorded 3 flow events, with the maximum consecutive flow lasting 186 consecutive days. All recorded streams are on track to pass hydrology metrics. Stream hydrology data is included in Appendix E. Gauge locations can be found on Figure 2 and photos are in Appendix B.
Wetland Hydrology
Two groundwater wells with automatic recording pressure transducers were installed in March
2021. The goal of the groundwater wells is to track the hydrology of the jurisdictional wetlands
on site post-stream construction. There is no hydroperiod success criteria for these groundwater
wells. In MY3, GW1 recorded a consecutive hydroperiod of 100 percent of the growing season
and GW2 recorded a consecutive hydroperiod of 100 percent of the growing season. Wetland
hydrology data is included in Appendix E. Groundwater well locations can be found on Figure 2.
Conservation Easement Boundary
There was a recent DMS boundary inspection conducted on November 7th, 2023. Based on the boundary inspection there are several action items that are going to be addressed including one area of old fencing found along MC1-C which will be removed in early 2024. There was one area of fencing adjacent to reach MC3-D that needs to be relocated which will be done in early 2024. Along the easement near JN2-B there are a few trees that fell down on the fence which will be removed, and the fence will be fixed in 2024. Along JN3-B and MC1-C the top strand of fencing is loose and will be fixed in 2024. Additional easement signage was put along the easement boundary since the boundary inspection along reach MC1-B, JN2-A, JN2-B, and JN2-C. Additional easement signage is still needed near reach MC3-A, KN3-A, and JN2-A and will be completed in 2024. The cable tie fastening on easement boundary signs will be upgraded in 2024. There is also
Little Sebastian Site 9 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, NC February 2024
an old tubular bull gate within the easement, and it will be removed in 2024. Approximate locations of conservation easement boundary issues or completed maintenance can be found in Figure 2, Appendix B.
Ascension Land Surveying is working on rectifying plat corner number duplications and installing any missing corner monuments. As well as replacing #4 rebar length will be with #5 rebar 30” in length. These issues will be completed in 2024 and will be discussed within the MY4 report.
2.0 Methods
Stream cross section monitoring was conducted using a Topcon GTS-312 Total Station. Three-dimensional coordinates associated with cross-section data were collected in the field (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200). Morphological data were collected at 12 cross-sections. Survey data were imported into CAD, ArcGIS®, and Microsoft Excel® for data processing and analysis. The stage recorders include an automatic pressure transducer placed in PVC casing in a pool. The elevation of the bed and top of bank at each stage recorder are used to detect bankfull events.
The flow gauges also include an automatic pressure transducer placed in a PVC casing in a pool.
The elevations of the bed, water surface, and immediate downstream riffle are used to determine
stream flow.
Vegetation success is being monitored at six fixed monitoring plots and three random monitoring
plots. Vegetation plot monitoring follows the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation,
version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis of species composition and density of planted
species. Data is processed using the CVS data entry tool. In the field, the four corners of each plot
were permanently marked with PVC at the origin and metal conduit at the other corners. Photos
of each plot are to be taken from the origin each monitoring year. The random plot is to be
collected in locations where there are no permanent vegetation plots. Random plots will most
likely be collected in the form of 100 square meter belt transects with variable dimensions. Tree species and height will be recorded for each planted stem and the transects will be mapped and new locations will be monitored in subsequent years.
Wetland hydrology is monitored to track the hydrology of the jurisdictional wetlands on site post-stream construction. This is accomplished with two automatic pressure transducer gauges (located in groundwater wells) that record daily groundwater levels. One automatic pressure transducer is installed above ground for use as a barometric reference. Gauges are downloaded quarterly and wetland hydroperiods are calculated during the growing season. Gauge installation followed current regulatory guidance. Visual observations of primary and secondary wetland hydrology indicators are also recorded during quarterly site visits.
Fixed digital image locations are established at each cross section, vegetation plot, stage recorder, flow gauge, and the upstream and downstream side of each crossing.
Little Sebastian Site 10 Year 3 Monitoring Report
Surry County, NC February 2024
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. Shelburne. (2002). Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina,
(color Poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston,
Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Lee Michael T., Peet Robert K., Roberts Steven D., and Wentworth Thomas R., 2008. CVS-EEP
Protocol
for Recording Vegetation Level. Version 4.2
Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262-274
Resource Environmental Solutions (2018). Little Sebastian Final Mitigation Plan.
Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
USACE. (2016). Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. NC: Interagency Review Team (IRT).
Appendix A
Background Tables
Table 1. Little Sebastian (ID-100027) - Mitigation Assets and Components
Project Segment
Existing
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Plan
Footage or
Acreage
Migitation
Category
Restoration
Level Priority Level Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Mitigation
Plan Credits
As-Built
Footage or
Acreage
Comments
JN2-A 418 418 Cool P NA 10.00000 41.800 418 Livestock exclusion
JN2-B 187 187 Cool EI NA 1.50000 124.667 187 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
JN2-C 307 307 Cool EII NA 2.50000 122.800 307 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion; 31-foot crossing
JN2-C 837 837 Cool EII NA 2.50000 334.800 837 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
JN2-D 39 43 Cool EI NA 1.50000 28.667 43
Channel relocation, bed and bank stabilization, crossing relocation, buffer plantings, and
livestock exclusion; 62-foot crossing
JN2-D 150 153 Cool EI NA 1.50000 102.000 153
Channel relocation, bed and bank stabilization, crossing relocation, buffer plantings, and
livestock exclusion
JN3-A 350 350 Cool EII NA 7.50000 46.667 350 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
JN3-B 900 781 Cool R I 1.00000 781.000 781
Channel relocation in the natural valley, improved stream structures, buffer planting, and
livestock exclusion; 43-foot crossing
JN3-B 224 262 Cool R I 1.00000 262.000 262
Channel relocation, bed and bank stabilization, crossing relocation, buffer plantings, and
livestock exclusion
JN7*0 0 Cool R I 1.00000 0.000 37
Channel construction, bed and bank stabilization, buffer plantings, and livestock
exclusion; No Credit
MC1-A 469 469 Cool EII NA 7.50000 62.533 469 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
MC1-B 717 717 Cool EII NA 5.00000 143.400 717 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion; 41-foot utility line crossing
MC1-B 260 260 Cool EII NA 5.00000 52.000 260 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
MC1-C 545 555 Cool R I 1.00000 555.000 555 Channel bed raised, improved stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
MC3-A 243 243 Cool EII NA 10.00000 24.300 243 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
MC3-B 402 402 Cool EII NA 2.50000 160.800 402 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion; 41-foot crossing
MC3-C 214 214 Cool EI NA 1.50000 142.667 214 Bank stabilization, improved stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
MC3-D 395 395 Cool EII NA 5.00000 79.000 395 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
BS1-A 205 214 Cool R I 1.00000 214.000 214 Channel bed raised, improved stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
BS1-B 190 175 Cool EII NA 2.50000 70.000 175 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
BS1-C 580 541 Cool R I 1.00000 541.000 541 Channel bed raised, improved stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
BS1-D 185 177 Cool EII NA 2.50000 70.800 177 Buffer planting and livestock exclusion
BS1-E 278 274 Cool R I 1.00000 274.000 274
Channel bed raised, improved stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion;
45-foot crossing
BS1-E 94 94 Cool R I 1.00000 94.000 94 Channel bed raised, improved stream structures, buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
*Added between Final Mitigation Plan and Construction; no credit but potential to add credits if reach meets success criteria and back-up credits are needed
Note: all crossings and utility easements have been removed from credit calculations.
Project Credits
Warm Cool Cold
Restoration 2721.000
Re-establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Enhancement I 398.000
Enhancement II 1167.100
Creation
Preservation 41.800
NSBW 226.400
TOTALS 4,554.300
Restoration Level Stream Non-rip
Wetland
Coastal
Marsh
Riparian
Wetland
Elapsed Time Since grading complete:2 yr, 9 mo
Elapsed Time Since planting complete:2 yr, 8 mo
Number of reporting Years1:3
Data Collection Completion or
Activity or Deliverable Complete Delivery
Mitigation Plan NA Nov-18
Final Design – Construction Plans NA Sep-20
Stream Construction NA Feb-21
Site Planting NA Mar-21
Beaver Dam Removal NA NA
As-built (Year 0 Monitoring – VP, XS, Hydro, Visual)Mar-21 Oct-21
Year 1 Monitoring Stream: Nov-21
Vegetation: Nov-21 Dec-21
Initial Invasive Treatment NA Dec-21
Fence Relocation NA May-22
Year 2 Monitoring Stream: July-22
Vegetation: Nov-22 Nov-22
Supplemental Planting NA Mar-23
Year 3 Monitoring Stream: June-23
Vegetation: Oct-23
Dec-23
Additional Signage Added NA Dec-23
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
1 = The number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Little Sebastian
Designer RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Primary project design POC Frasier Mullen, PE
Construction Contractor KBS Earthwork Inc. / 5616 Coble Church Rd., Julian, NC
27283
Construction contractor POC Kory Strader
Survey Contractor Acension Land Surveying, PC / 116 Williams Road, Mocksville,
NC 27028
Survey contractor POC Chris Cole, PLS
Planting Contractor Shenandoah Habitats
Planting contractor POC David Coleman
Monitoring Performers RES / 3600 Glenwood Ave, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27612
Project Manager POC Ryan Medric [phone]
Monitoring POC Hannah Gadai (704)-516-5170
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Little Sebastian
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit 03040101
JN2-A JN2-B JN2-C JN2-D JN3-A
418 187 1114 189 350
UC MC MC MC UC
10 17 37 38 956
I P P P P
JN3-B MC1-A MC1-B MC1-C MC3-A/B/C
1043 469 977 555 859
C UC UC UC UC
999 1862 1915 2921 3225
P P P P P
MC3-D BS1-A/C/E BS1-B/D JN7
395 1029 352 37
UC C C UC
3262 12-29 14-28 30
P I/P P I
Drainage area (Acres)
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Drainage area (Acres)
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Parameters
Length of reach (linear feet)
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Length of reach (linear feet)
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (Acres)
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03040101080020
Parameters
Length of reach (linear feet)
DWR Sub-basin 03-04-01
Project Drainage Area (Acres and Square Miles)3,261 acres (5.1 sq mi)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1%
Table 4. Project Background Information
Project Name Little Sebastian
County Surry
Project Area (acres) 25.91
River Basin Yadkin
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)36.40, -80.86
Planted Acreage (Acres of Woody Stems Planted)10.7
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province 45e - Northern Inner Piedmont
0 1,000500
Feet
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
Surry County, North Carolina
©Date: 10/30/2018
Drawn by: MDE

Do
c
u
m
e
n
t

P
a
t
h
:

S
:
\
@
R
E
S

G
I
S
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
N
C
\
L
i
t
t
l
e

S
e
b
a
s
t
i
a
n
\
M
X
D
\
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

P
l
a
n
\
F
i
g
u
r
e

1

-

V
i
c
i
n
i
t
y

M
a
p
.
m
x
d
Legend
Conservation Easement
Proposed Gideon Site
Service Area - 03040101
TLW - 03040101080020
Checked by: ATP
Gideon Mitigation Site
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site
Little SebastianMitigation SiteLittle SebastianMitigation Site
Appendix B
Visual Assessment
Data
Cartographer: hgadai | Path: R:\Resgis\Projects\NC\100908_Little_Sebastian\PRO\6_MonitoringMaintenance\MY3\LittleSebastian_CCPV.aprx | Layout: Figure 2 - CCPV - Site Name
www.res.us
Reference: This information is not to be used as final
legal boundaries.
Imagery Source: Google Maps,
Spatial Reference:
NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
Date Exported: 2/26/2024
­
N
0 200100
Feet
1 in = 200 ft
when printed at 11x17"
Conservation Easement
Gideon Bank Site
Fixed Veg Plot >320 Stems/Ac.
Random Vegetation Plot
Supplemental Planting (March 2023)
Invasive Area
Existing Wetland
Cross Section
Stream Repair Needed (2023)
X Fence Maintenance Needed
Stream Mitigation
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Enhancement II (5:1)
Enhancement II (7.5:1)
Enhancement II (10:1)
Preservation
No Credit
Structure
Easement Signage
Additional Signage Added (2023)
Needs Additional Signage (2023)
!?Groundwater Well
!>Stage Recorder
!.Flow Camera
!.Flow Gauge
!R Ambient
Little Sebastian
Surry County, North Carolina
80.8623°W 36.3987°N
Figure 2
Current Conditions Plan View
MY3 2023
!?
!?
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
X
X
!>
!.
!.
!.
!R
GW2
GW1
1
2
3
4
3
1
2
4
78
6
5
4
5
1
2
1
AbsentMarginalPresent
Absent
Present
Target Community
In
v
a
s
i
v
e

S
p
e
c
i
e
s
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Old fence removal
Stream problem area #1
Fix top string of fence
Remove fallen trees & fix fence
Stream problem area #4
Stream problem area #5
X
!>
!.
5
6
11
9
10
12
2
3
3
Cartographer: hgadai | Path: R:\Resgis\Projects\NC\100908_Little_Sebastian\PRO\6_MonitoringMaintenance\MY3\LittleSebastian_CCPV.aprx | Layout: Figure 2B - CCPV - LS
www.res.us
Figure 2
Current Conditions Plan View
MY3 2023
AbsentMarginalPresent
Absent
Present
Target Community
In
v
a
s
i
v
e

S
p
e
c
i
e
s
Vegetation Condition Assessment
Fence removal needed
Conservation Easement
Gideon Bank Site
Fixed Veg Plot >320 Stems/Ac.
Random Vegetation Plot
Supplemental Planting (March 2023)
Existing Wetland
Cross Section
Stream Repair Needed (2023)
X Fence Maintenance Needed
Stream Mitigation
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Enhancement II (5:1)
Enhancement II (7.5:1)
Enhancement II (10:1)
Preservation
No Credit
Structure
Easement Signage
Additional Signage Added (2023)
Needs Additional Signage (2023)
LS Stream Gauges
!>Stage Recorder
!.Flow Camera
!.Flow Gauge
­
N
0 200100
Feet
1 in = 1,460,000 ft
when printed at 11x17"
Reference: This information is not to be used as final
legal boundaries.
Imagery Source: Google Maps,
Spatial Reference:
NAD 1983 StatePlane North Carolina FIPS 3200 Feet
Date Exported: 2/26/2024
Little Sebastian
Surry County, North Carolina
80.8523°W 36.3958°N
Supplemental planting area (May 2023)
Stream problem area #3
Stream problem area #2
Remove debris
Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Assessment Date: 10/31/2023
Reach JN3
Assessed Stream Length 1043
Assessed Bank Length 2086
Bank Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour 0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does
NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill. 10 10 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring
guidance document)
18 18 100%

Totals
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Assessment Date: 10/31/2023
Reach MC1-C
Assessed Stream Length 555
Assessed Bank Length 1110
Bank Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour 10 99%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does
NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 10 99%
20 98%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill. 2 2 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring
guidance document)
6 7 86%

Totals
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Assessment Date: 10/31/2023
Reach BS1
Assessed Stream Length 1123
Assessed Bank Length 2246
Bank Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour 10 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does
NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 10 100%
20 99%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill. 7 8 88%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring
guidance document)
3 3 100%

Totals
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Assessment Date: 10/31/2023
Reach JN2
Assessed Stream Length 383
Assessed Bank Length 766
Bank Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour 0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does
NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill. 9 9 100%
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring
guidance document)
2 2 100%

Totals
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Visual Stream Stability Assessment
Assessment Date: 10/31/2023
Reach MC3
Assessed Stream Length 214
Assessed Bank Length 428
Bank Surface Scour/Bare
Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth
and/or surface scour 0 100%
Toe Erosion
Bank toe eroding to the extent that bank failure appears likely. Does
NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
0 100%
Bank Failure Fluvial and geotechnical - rotational, slumping, calving, or collapse 0 100%
0 100%
Structure Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the
sill. 0 0 NA
Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in DMS monitoring
guidance document)
0 0 NA

Totals
Major Channel Category Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-built
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Assessment Date: 10/31/2023
Planted Acreage1 10.7
1. Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.0.1 acres Red Simple
Hatch 0 0.00 0.0%
2. Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.0.1 acres Orange
Simple Hatch 0 0.00 0.0%
0.00 0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.0.25 acres Orange
Simple Hatch 0 0.00 0.0%
0.00 0.0%
Easement Acreage2 25.91
4. Invasive Areas of Concern4 Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).1000 SF Yellow
Crosshatch 1 0.10 0.4%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas3 Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).none Red Simple
Hatch 0 0.00 0.0%
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Total
Cumulative Total
Vegetation Category Definitions Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Vegetation Category Definitions
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement.This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory,the channel acreage,crossings or
any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 =The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment,the
associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e.,item 1,2 or 3)as well as a 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 EEP
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 describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset,in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.
Little Sebastian MY3 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos

Vegetation Plot 1 (10/31/2023) Vegetation Plot 2 (10/31/2023)
Vegetation Plot 3 (10/31/2023) Vegetation Plot 4 (10/31/2023)
Vegetation Plot 5 (10/31/2023) Vegetation Plot 6 (10/31/2023)

Random Vegetation Plot 1 (10/31/2023) Random Vegetation Plot 2 (10/31/2023)
Random Vegetation Plot 3 (10/31/2023)

Little Sebastian Monitoring Device Photos - October 31, 2023
Flow Gauge JN2-B Flow Gauge JN7
Flow Gauge BS1-A Stage Recorder BS1-E
Stage Recorder JN3-B Groundwater Well 1
Groundwater Well 2 Flow Camera

Little Sebastian Crossing Photos - June 27, 2023 & October 31, 2023

JN2-C (upstream) JN2-C (downstream)
JN2-D (upstream) JN2-D (downstream)
JN3-B (upstream) JN3-B (downstream)
MC1-C (downstream) MC3-B/C

BS1-E (upstream) BS1-E (downstream)

Little Sebastian General Photos
Reach JN2-A (June 27, 2023) Reach MC3-B (October 31, 2023)
Easement Markers (June 27, 2023) Easement Markers (October 31, 2023)

Supplemental Planting (March 28, 2023) Supplemental Planting (March 28, 2023)
Bankfull Event MC1-C (June 20, 2023)

Right Bank Erosion & Brush Toe Failure
on MC1-C / Stream Problem Area #1 (10/31/2023)
Right Bank Erosion BS1-C / Stream Problem
Area #2 (11/7/2023)
Failing Log Sill BS1-C / Stream Problem
Area #3 (10/31/2023)

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot
Data
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Planted Species Summary

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary

Common Name Scientific Name Mit Plan % As-Built %Total Stems Planted
Willow Oak Quercus phellos 15 15 1,600
River Birch Betula nigra 15 15 1,600
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 10 15 1,600
Water Oak Quercus nigra 15 14 1,600
Northern Red Oak Quercus rubra 10 11 1,200
Yellow Poplar Liriodendron tulipifera 10 10 1,100
Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 5 600
Persimmon Diospyros virginiana 5 5 600
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis 0 5 600
Sugarberry Celtis laevigata 0 5 600
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 5 0 0
Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum 5 0 0
11,100
10.7
1,037
Total
Planted Area
As-built Planted Stems/Acre
Plot #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Success
Criteria
Me t?
Average
Planted
Stem
Height (ft)
1 769 162 931 Ye s 3.7
2 971 121 1093 Yes 4.5
3 1093 121 1214 Yes 5.2
4 1133 202 1335 Yes 2.1
5 769 121 890 Yes 4.9
6 607 81 688 Yes 3.1
R1 607 0 607 Yes 4.9
R2 688 0 688 Yes 5.3
R3 526 0 526 Ye s 4.2
Project Avg 796 135 886 Ye s 4.2
Wetland/Stream Vegetation Totals
(per acre)
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 9. Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot Species

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 2 2 2 1
Betula nigra river birch Tree 6 6 7 4 4 4 5 5 5 1 1 1 6 6 6
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 1 1 1
Cephalanthus occidentali common buttonbush Shrub 5 5 5 4 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 1 1 1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
Hamamelis virginiana American witchhazel Tree 1
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3
Nyssa sylvatica black tupelo Tree 2 2 2
Pinus pine Tree 2
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 3 3 3 6 6 6 15 15 15 8 8 9 5 5 5 2 2 2 7 7 7 6 6 6
Quercus alba white oak Tree 1 1 1
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 5 5 5 4 4 4 14 14 14 1 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 4
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 2 2 2 6 6 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2
Salix caroliniana black willow Tree 1 1 1
19 19 23 24 24 27 27 27 30 28 28 33 19 19 22 15 15 17 15 15 15 17 17 17 13 13 13
6 6 7 6 6 7 6 6 8 6 6 9 6 6 6 8 8 9 7 7 7 5 5 5 6 6 6
769 769 931 971 971 1093 1093 1093 1214 1133 1133 1335 769 769 890 607 607 688 607 607 607 688 688 688 526 526 526
PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T PnoLS P-all T
Acer rubrum red maple Tree 7
Betula nigra river birch Tree 22 22 23 22 22 22 22 22 22 18 18 18
Celtis laevigata sugarberry Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 4 4 4
Cephalanthus occidentali common buttonbush Shrub 12 12 13 13 13 13 12 12 12 26 26 26
Diospyros virginiana common persimmon Tree 6 6 7 4 4 4 3 3 3 7 7 7
Fraxinus pennsylvanica green ash Tree 5 5 5 3 3 3 4 4 4 9 9 9
Hamamelis virginiana American witchhazel Tree 1
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree Tree 7 7 10 10 10 10 8 8 8 11 11 11
Nyssa sylvatica black tupelo Tree 2 2 2
Pinus pine Tree 2
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore Tree 52 52 53 57 57 57 53 53 53 53 53 53
Quercus alba white oak Tree 1 1 1
Quercus nigra water oak Tree 15 15 15 15 15 15 13 13 13 29 29 29
Quercus phellos willow oak Tree 34 34 36 38 38 38 48 48 48 53 53 53
Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 37 37 37
Salix caroliniana black willow Tree 1 1 1
177 177 197 183 183 183 186 186 186 247 247 247
13 13 16 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
796 796 886 832 832 832 845 845 845 1123 1123 1123
0.22
Little Sebastian
Little Sebastian
0.22
9
0.22
9
0.22
1
0.02
1
0.02
9 9
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
1
0.02
Annual Means
MY3 (2023)MY2 (2022)MY1 (2021)MY0 (2021)
100027-01-0003 100027-01-0004 100027-01-0005 100027-01-0006
Current Plot Data (MY3 2023)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
R1 R2
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
Stem count
size (ares)
Stem count
Scientific Name Common Name Species Type
100027-01-0001 100027-01-0002 R3
1 1 1
0.02 0.02 0.02
Appendix D
Stream Measurement
and Geomorphology
Data
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)--- --- ---14.9 16.4 -- 17.9 --- 2 7.1 12.3 -- 17.5 --- 2 --- 16.0 --- --- --- 15.0 --- --- 1
Floodprone Width (ft)37.0 48.5 -- 60.0 --- 2 >30 51.3 -- 72.5 --- 2 --- >50 --- --- --- >64.4 --- --- 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)--- --- ---1.6 1.7 -- 1.6 --- 2 1.0 1.3 -- 1.6 --- 2 --- 2.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2.1 3.0 -- 3.9 --- 2 1.2 1.9 -- 2.6 --- 2 --- 2.9 --- --- --- 2.2 --- --- 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)--- --- ---26.1 27.3 -- 28.5 --- 2 6.7 17.2 -- 27.7 --- 2 --- 26.9 --- --- --- 22.8 --- --- 1
Width/Depth Ratio 8.5 9.9 -- 11.2 --- 2 7.4 9.3 -- 11.1 --- 2 --- 9.5 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Entrenchment Ratio 2.5 3.0 -- 3.4 --- 2 >4 4.2 -- 4.3 --- 2 --- >2.2 --- --- --- >4.3 --- --- 1
1Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.2 -- 1.3 --- 2 1.0 1.2 -- 1.3 --- 2 --- 1.0 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1
Riffle Length (ft)------ ------------ 5.6 --- ---17 --- ---7 --- 29 14 25 22 48 10 18
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)------ ------------ ------ --------- ------ --- --- 0.43 2.605 2.735 5.1 1.23176 18
Pool Length (ft)------ ------------ 4 --- ---16 --- ---4 --- 18 19 35 34 55 10 17
Pool Max depth (ft)--- --- --- --- ------ ------ --------- ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Pool Spacing (ft)------ ------------ 26 --- ---68 --- ---29 --- 75 38 59 59 78 11 15
Channel Beltwidth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 20 --- --- 85 --- --- 39 --- 94 39 --- --- 94 --- ---
Radius of Curvature (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 54 --- --- 14 --- 60 14 --- --- 60 --- ---
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- --- 0.9 --- 3.7 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- ---
Meander Wavelength (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- 105 --- --- 74 --- 116 74 --- --- 116 --- ---
Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.4 --- --- 5.9 --- --- 2.4 --- 5.9 2.4 --- --- 5.9 --- ---
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps) --- --- ---
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) --- --- ---
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Channel 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
Profile
Pattern
Transport parameters
Additional Reach Parameters
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site - Reach JN-3
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline
E3 E3/E4b E3 E3
------------
---------
772 189 1088 1088
602 160 945 945
1.15
------------
------
------
------
0.0125 1.85
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.0085 0.0085
------------
1.225 1.195 1.15
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)--- --- ------ --- 17.4 --- --- 1 7.1 12.3 -- 17.5 --- 2 --- 23.0 --- --- --- 21.3 --- --- 1
Floodprone Width (ft)--- --- 50.0 --- --- 1 >30 51.3 -- 72.5 --- 2 --- >50 --- --- --- >64.9 --- --- 1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)--- --- ------ --- 1.8 --- --- 1 1.0 1.3 -- 1.6 --- 2 --- 2.4 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)--- --- 2.9 --- --- 1 1.2 1.9 -- 2.6 --- 2 --- 3.2 --- --- --- 3.2 --- --- 1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)--- --- ------ --- 30.6 --- --- 1 6.7 17.2 -- 27.7 --- 2 --- 54.4 --- --- --- 49.8 --- --- 1
Width/Depth Ratio --- --- 10.0 --- --- 1 7.4 9.3 -- 11.1 --- 2 --- 9.7 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Entrenchment Ratio --- --- 2.9 --- --- 1 >4 4.2 -- 4.3 --- 2 --- >2.2 --- --- --- >3 --- --- 1
1Bank Height Ratio --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1 1.0 1.2 -- 1.3 --- 2 --- 1.0 --- --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1
Riffle Length (ft)------ --------- ---5.6 --- ---17 --- ---10 --- 41 14 25 18 61 17 7
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)------ --------- --------- --------- ------ --- --- 0.19 2.32 1.35 4.8 1.89753 7
Pool Length (ft)------ --------- ---4 --- ---16 --- ---6 --- 25 36 51 48 73 12 6
Pool Max depth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --------- --------- ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Pool Spacing (ft)------ --------- ---26 --- ---68 --- ---41 --- 108 65 81 73 109 19 5
Channel Beltwidth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 20 --- --- 85 --- --- 56 --- 135 56 --- --- 135 --- ---
Radius of Curvature (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 54 --- --- 21 --- 86 21 --- --- 86 --- ---
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- --- 1 --- 4 1 --- --- 4 --- ---
Meander Wavelength (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- 105 --- --- 106 --- 167 106 --- --- 167 --- ---
Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.4 --- --- 5.9 --- --- 2 --- 6 2 --- --- 6 --- ---
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps) --- --- ---
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) --- --- ---
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Channel 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
Profile
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site - Reach MC1-C
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Pattern
Transport parameters
------ ---
------ ---
------ ---
Additional Reach Parameters
E3 E3/E4b E3 E3
--- --- --- ---
------ ---
1288 189 542 542
1109 160 478 478
--- --- --- ---
1.16 1.195 1.13 1.13
--- ---------
0.008 1.85 0.0085 0.0085
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
Parameter Gauge2
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only LL UL Eq. Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD
5 n
Bankfull Width (ft)--- --- ------ --- 3.2 --- --- 1 7.1 12.3 -- 17.5 --- 2 --- 4.5 --- 5.7 6.0 --- 6.3 --- 2
Floodprone Width (ft)--- --- 60.0 --- --- 1 >30 51.3 -- 72.5 --- 2 --- --- --- 11.3 17.6 --- 23.8 --- 2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)--- --- ------ --- 1.6 --- --- 1 1.0 1.3 -- 1.6 --- 2 --- 0.6 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
1Bankfull Max Depth (ft)--- --- 3.9 --- --- 1 1.2 1.9 -- 2.6 --- 2 --- 0.7 --- 0.7 0.9 --- 1.1 --- 2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)--- --- ------ --- 2.4 --- --- 1 6.7 17.2 -- 27.7 --- 2 --- 2.7 --- 2.6 3.3 --- 4.0 --- 2
Width/Depth Ratio --- --- 4.2 --- --- 1 7.4 9.3 -- 11.1 --- 2 --- 7.4 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Entrenchment Ratio --- --- 3.4 --- --- 1 >4 4.2 -- 4.3 --- 2 --- >1.4 --- 2.0 2.9 --- 3.8 --- 2
1Bank Height Ratio --- --- 1.0 --- --- 1 1.0 1.2 -- 1.3 --- 2 --- 1.0 --- 1.0 1.0 --- 1.0 --- 2
Riffle Length (ft)------ --------- ---5.6 --- ---17 --- ---4.0 --- 11 4 16 16 32 8 19
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)------ --------- --------- --------- ------ --- --- 0.1 5.9 5.0 14.5 3.7 19
Pool Length (ft)------ --------- ---4 --- ---16 --- ---2.0 --- 7 11 18 15 43 8 17
Pool Max depth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --------- --------- ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Pool Spacing (ft)------ --------- ---26 --- ---68 --- ---5.0 --- 20 21 34 33 63 10 17
Channel Beltwidth (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 20 --- --- 85 --- --- 13.0 --- 19.0 13.0 --- --- 19.0 --- ---
Radius of Curvature (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 7 --- --- 54 --- --- 4.0 --- 10.0 4.0 --- --- 10.0 --- ---
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 0.9 --- --- 3.7 --- --- 1.0 --- 2.0 1.0 --- --- 2.0 --- ---
Meander Wavelength (ft)--- --- --- --- --- --- 33 --- --- 105 --- --- 21.0 --- 32.0 21.0 --- --- 32.0 --- ---
Meander Width Ratio --- --- --- --- --- --- 2.4 --- --- 5.9 --- --- 3.0 --- 4.0 3.0 --- --- 4.0 --- ---
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
Rosgen Classification
Bankfull Velocity (fps) --- --- ---
Bankfull Discharge (cfs) --- --- ---
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
Channel 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
Profile
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Sebastian Mitigation Site - Reach BS-1
Regional Curve Pre-Existing Condition Reference Reach(es) Data Design Monitoring Baseline
Pattern
Transport parameters
------ ---
------ ---
------ ---
Additional Reach Parameters
B4a E3/E4b B4/E4 B4/E4
--- --- --- ---
------ ---
1703 189 1028 1028
1508 160 1017 1017
--- --- --- ---
1.13 1.195 1.01 1.01
--- ---------
0.049 1.85 0.025-0.035 0.025-0.035
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 1214.7 1214.8 1214.8 1214.7 1211.2 1211.3 1211.4 1211.3 1170.7 1170.7 1170.7 1170.4 1165.0 1164.9 1165.0 1164.9 1150.6 1150.7 1150.8 1150.8
Bankfull Width (ft)1 5.4 5.1 5.5 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.7 5.9 5.3 5.8 5.6 4.8 9.0 8.8 8.5 4.7 21.3 21.0 21.3 21.1
Floodprone Width (ft)1 13.1 11.2 11.5 12.6 8.7 8.8 9.4 9.4 >34.8 >34.1 >33.5 34.3 >43.9 >43.2 >43.9 >49 >64.9 >65.1 >65 >65
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 0.7 1.0 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.5 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.1
Low Bank Elevation (ft)1214.74 1215.0 1215.2 1214.8 1211.2 1211.6 1211.7 1211.8 1170.7 1170.8 1170.7 1170.7 1165.0 1164.8 1164.9 1164.7 1150.6 1150.6 1150.7 1150.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 2.4 4.1 4.9 2.9 2.3 4.1 4.3 5.7 3.5 4.3 3.8 4.9 3.5 2.6 2.4 2.9 49.8 48.2 47.2 46.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.4 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 >6.6 >5.9 >5.9 7.2 >4.9 >4.9 >5.2 >10.5 >3.0 >3.1 >3.1 >3.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.0 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 1150.5 1150.6 1150.7 1150.7 1157.4 1157.3 1157.4 1157.4 1157.2 1157.2 1157.3 1157.6 1188.3 1188.4 1188.4 1188.4 1187.6 1187.6 1187.6 1187.6
Bankfull Width (ft)1 ----15.0 15.0 14.9 15.1 --------6.3 7.1 7.7 7.1
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ---->64.4 >64.7 >64.3 >64.4 --------23.8 23.5 23.3 21.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.6 4.2 4.3 4.2 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0
Low Bank Elevation (ft)----1157.4 1157.4 1157.4 1157.6 --------1187.6 1187.5 1187.6 1187.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 56.7 56.4 54.2 53.3 22.8 24.4 23.5 26.5 34.8 34.0 32.5 30.9 3.6 3.0 3.7 3.5 4.0 3.4 4.2 4.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ---->4.3 >4.3 >4.3 >4.3 --------3.8 3.3 3.0 3.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ----1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 --------1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 1136.4 1136.4 1136.5 1136.5 1136.1 1136.2 1136.3 1136.4
Bankfull Width (ft)1 5.7 6.5 6.5 6.0 ----
Floodprone Width (ft)1 11.3 11.3 11.9 12.1 ----
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.2 0.9 1.0 0.8
Low Bank Elevation (ft)1136.4 1136.5 1136.4 1136.5 ----
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 2.6 3.0 2.3 2.5 4.6 4.1 3.5 2.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 2.0 1.7 1.8 2.0 ----
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 ----
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Cross Section 9 (Pool)
Appendix D. Table 11 - Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters – Cross Sections)
Project Name/Number: Little Sebastian #100027
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)Cross Section 2 (Riffle)Cross Section 3 (Riffle)Cross Section 4 (Riffle)Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Cross Section 10 (Riffle)
Cross Section 11 (Riffle)Cross Section 12 (Pool)
Cross Section 6 (Pool)Cross Section 7 (Riffle)Cross Section 8 (Pool)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Little Sebastian - Reach JN2-B - Cross Section 1 - Riffle - Enhancement I
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 MY2 2022 MY3 2023
Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 1214.7 1214.8 1214.8 1214.7
Bankfull Width (ft)1 5.4 5.1 5.5 5.2
Floodprone Width (ft)1 13.1 11.2 11.5 12.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 0.7 1.0 1.2 0.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft)1214.74 1215.0 1215.2 1214.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2 )2 2.4 4.1 4.9 2.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.1
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Little Sebastian - Reach JN2-B - Cross Section 2 - Riffle - Enhancement I
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 MY2 2022MY3 2023 Approx. Bankfull Floodprone AreaLow Bank Height 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 1211.2 1211.3 1211.4 1211.3
Bankfull Width (ft)1 5.4 5.6 5.7 5.9
Floodprone Width (ft)1 8.7 8.8 9.4 9.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.0
Low Bank Elevation (ft)1211.2 1211.6 1211.7 1211.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 2.3 4.1 4.3 5.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.5 1.6 1.8
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Little Sebastian - Reach JN2-C - Cross Section 3 - Riffle - Enhancement II
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 MY2 2022 MY3 2023
Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Base MY1 M Y2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 1170.7 1170.7 1170.7 1170.4
Bankfull Width (ft)1 5.3 5.8 5.6 4.8
Floodprone Width (ft)1 >34.8 >34.1 >33.5 34.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft)1170.7 1170.8 1170.7 1170.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 3.5 4.3 3.8 4.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 >6.6 >5.9 >5.9 7.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2
Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Little Sebastian - Reach JN2-D - Cross Section 4 - Riffle - Enhancement I
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 MY2 2022 MY3 2023
Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low Bank Height 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 1165.0 1164.9 1165.0 1164.9
Bankfull Width (ft)1 9.0 8.8 8.5 4.7
Floodprone Width (ft)1 >43.9 >43.2 >43.9 >49
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.3
Low Bank Elevation (ft)1165.0 1164.8 1164.9 1164.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 3.5 2.6 2.4 2.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 >4.9 >4.9 >5.2 >10.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Little Sebastian- Reach MC1-C - Cross Section 5 - Riffle - Restoration
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 MY2 2022 MY3 2023
Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Base MY1 M Y2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 1150.6 1150.7 1150.8 1150.8
Bankfull Width (ft)1 21.3 21.0 21.3 21.1
Floodprone Width (ft)1 >64.9 >65.1 >65 >65
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.1
Low Bank Elevation (ft)1150.6 1150.6 1150.7 1150.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2 )2 49.8 48.2 47.2 46.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 >3.0 >3.1 >3.1 >3.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Little Sebastian - Reach MC1-C - Cross Section 6 - Pool - Restoration
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 MY2 2022 MY3 2023 Approx. Bankfull Low Bank Elevation
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 1150.5 1150.6 1150.7 1150.7
Bankfull Width (ft)1 ----
Floodprone Width (ft)1 ----
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.1
Low Bank Elevation (ft)----
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 56.7 56.4 54.2 53.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 ----
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 ----
Cross Section 6 (Pool)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Little Sebastian - Reach JN3-B - Cross Section 7 - Riffle - Restoration
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 MY2 2022 MY3 2023
Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 1157.4 1157.3 1157.4 1157.4
Bankfull Width (ft)1 15.0 15.0 14.9 15.1
Floodprone Width (ft)1 >64.4 >64.7 >64.3 >64.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.6
Low Bank Elevation (ft)1157.4 1157.4 1157.4 1157.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 22.8 24.4 23.5 26.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 >4.3 >4.3 >4.3 >4.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1
Cross Section 7 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
1152.5
1153.5
1154.5
1155.5
1156.5
1157.5
1158.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Little Sebastian - Reach JN3-B - Cross Section 8 - Pool - Restoration
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 MY2 2022 MY3 2023 Approx. Bankfull Low Bank Elevation
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 1157.2 1157.2 1157.3 1157.6
Bankfull Width (ft)1 - - - -
Floodprone Width (ft)1 - - - -
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 3.6 4.2 4.3 4.2
Low Bank Elevation (ft)- - - -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2 )2 34.8 34.0 32.5 30.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 - - - -
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 - - - -
Cross Section 8 (Pool)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
5 8 11 14 17 20 23 26 29 32 35 38 41 44 47
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Little Sebastian - Reach BS1-A - Cross Section 9 - Pool - Restoration
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 MY2 2022 MY3 2023 Approx. Bankfull Low Bank Elevation
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 1188.3 1188.4 1188.4 1188.4
Bankfull Width (ft)1 - - - -
Floodprone Width (ft)1 - - - -
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.0
Low Bank Elevation (ft)- - - -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 3.6 3.0 3.7 3.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 - - - -
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 - - - -
Cross Section 9 (Pool)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Little Sebastian - Reach BS1-A - Cross Section 10 - Riffle - Restoration
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 MY2 2022 MY3 2023
Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 1187.6 1187.6 1187.6 1187.6
Bankfull Width (ft)1 6.3 7.1 7.7 7.1
Floodprone Width (ft)1 23.8 23.5 23.3 21.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0
Low Bank Elevation (ft)1187.6 1187.5 1187.6 1187.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 4.0 3.4 4.2 4.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 3.8 3.3 3.0 3.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0
Cross Section 10 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
14 17 20 23 26 29 32 35 38 41 44 47
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Little Sebastian - Reach BS1-E - Cross Section 11 - Riffle - Restoration
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 MY2 2022 MY3 2023
Approx. Bankfull Floodprone Area Low Bank Elevation 3X Vertical Exaggeration
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 1136.4 1136.4 1136.5 1136.5
Bankfull Width (ft)1 5.7 6.5 6.5 5.9
Floodprone Width (ft)1 11.3 11.3 11.9 12.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8
Low Bank Elevation (ft)1136.4 1136.5 1136.4 1136.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 2.6 3.0 2.3 2.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 2.0 1.7 1.8 2.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0
Cross Section 11 (Riffle)
1 - Uses the as-built cross sectional area as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
2 - Uses the current years low top of bank as the basis for adjusting each subsequent years bankfull elevation
Upstream Downstream
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
f
t
)
Distance (ft)
Little Sebastian - Reach BS1-E - Cross Section 12 - Pool - Restoration
MY0 2021 MY1 2021 MY2 2022 MY3 2023 Approx. Bankfull Low Bank Elevation
3X Vertical Exaggeration
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY5 MY7 MY+
Bankfull Elevation (ft) - Based on AB-XSA1 1136.1 1136.2 1136.3 1136.4
Bankfull Width (ft)1 - - - -
Floodprone Width (ft)1 - - - -
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)2 1.2 0.9 1.0 0.8
Low Bank Elevation (ft)- - - -
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)2 4.6 4.1 3.5 2.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio1 - - - -
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio1 - - - -
Cross Section 12 (Pool)
Appendix E
Hydrology
Data
Table 12. Rainfall Summary MY3 2023

30 Percent 70 Percent
November 3.36 1.99 4.08 4.94
December 4.03 2.8 4.79 3.34
January 3.87 2.59 4.63 4.52
February 3.18 2.18 3.79 3.40
March 3.85 2.66 4.58 2.75
April 4.22 2.67 5.10 7.88
May 4.60 2.93 5.55 4.36
June 4.55 3.17 5.41 7.32
July 5.27 3.86 6.19 5.22
August 4.69 2.58 5.73 4.80
September 4.36 2.50 5.31 7.81
October 3.62 2.41 4.34 0.98
November 3.14 1.65 3.84 1.75
December 3.82 2.63 4.55 0.45
Total Annual **49.18 43.01 53.24 51.23
Above Normal
Limits
Below Normal
Limits
Month Average
Normal Limits Project Location
Precipitation*
WETS Station: Elkin CRONOS Station is approximately 13 miles south of the site
*Project Location Precipitation is a location-weighted average of surrounding gauged data retrieved by the
USACE Antecedent Precipitation Tool. Gauges used include Dobson 2.3 SE, Elkin, Hamptonvile 1.4 NNW,
Yadkinville 0.2 E, and Yadkinville 6 E
**Total Annual represents the average total precipitation, annually, as calculated by the 30-year period.
2023
2022
Table 13. Documentation of Geomorphically Significant Flow Events

Table 14. 2023 Max Hydroperiod

Table 15. Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results

Year Bankfull Events Maximum Bankfull
Height (ft)
MY1 2021 0 N/A
MY2 2022 1 0.02
MY3 2023 6 0.46
MY1 2021 0 N/A
MY2 2022 0 N/A
MY3 2023 1 0.02
Year Flow Events
Maximum
Consecutive Flow
Days
Cummlative Flow
Days Consecutive Flow Days
MY1 2021 1 243 243 3/19/2021 - 11/17/2021
MY2 2022 5 119 153 7/6/2022 - 11/2/2022
MY3 2023 1 303 303 1/1/2023 - 10/31/2023
MY1 2021 1 243 243 3/19/2021 - 11/17/2021
MY2 2022 1 305 305 1/1/2022 - 11/2/2022
MY3 2023 4 113 294 7/10/2023 - 10/31/2023
MY2 2022 1 273 273 2/1/2022 - 11/2/2022
MY3 2023 3 186 292 1/1/2023 - 7/6/2023
*Flow Gauge on JN7 was installed on February 1, 2022
Flow Gauge BS1-A
Flow Gauge JN2-B
Flow Gauge JN7*
Estimated Date of Highest Event
N/A
7/9/2022
6/20/2023
N/A
N/A
6/20/2023
Stage Recorder JN3-B
Stage Recorder BS1-E
Days Hydroperiod (%)Days Hydroperiod (%)
GW1 210 100 210 100 1
GW2 210 100 210 100 1
2023 Max Hydroperiod (Growing Season 3-Apr through 30-Oct, 210 days)
Well ID Consecutive Cumulative Occurrences
Year 1 (2021) Year 2 (2022) Year 3 (2023) Year 4 (2024) Year 5 (2025) Year 6 (2026) Year 7 (2027)
GW1 41 15 100
GW2 100 100 100
Well ID
Hydroperiod (%)
Summary of Groundwater Monitoring Results
Little Sebastian
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
-32
-30
-28
-26
-24
-22
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
I
n
c
h
e
s

A
b
o
v
e
/
B
e
l
o
w

S
u
r
f
a
c
e
)
Date
MY3 Little Sebastian GW1
Daily Precip (in)GW1 Growing Season Start Growing Season End Logger Depth210 Consecutive Days of Hydrology
04/03/2023 -10/30/2023
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
-32
-30
-28
-26
-24
-22
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
Wa
t
e
r

L
e
v
e
l

(
I
n
c
h
e
s

A
b
o
v
e
/
B
e
l
o
w

S
u
r
f
a
c
e
)
Date
MY3 Little Sebastian GW2
Daily Precip (in)GW2 Growing Season Start Growing Season End Logger Depth210 Consecutive Days of Hydrology
04/03/2023 -10/30/2023
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-1
0
1
2
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
St
a
g
e

(
f
t
)
Date
MY3 Little Sebastian JN3-B Stage Recorder Graph
Daily Precip (in)SR JN3-B Top of Bank
Max Event -.46 ft. above TOB
06/20/2023
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-1
0
1
2
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
St
a
g
e

(
f
t
)
Date
MY3 Little Sebastian BS1-E Stage Recorder Graph
Daily Precip (in)SR BS1-E Top of Bank
Max Event -.02 ft. above TOB
06/20/2023
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-2
-1
0
1
2
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
St
a
g
e

(
f
t
)
Date
MY3 Little Sebastian BS1-A Flow Gauge Graph
Daily Precip (in)FG BS1-A Downstream Riffle Elevation
303 Days of Consecutive Flow
1/1/2023 -10/31/2023
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-2
-1
0
1
2
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
St
a
g
e

(
f
t
)
Date
MY3 Little Sebastian JN7 Flow Gauge Graph
Daily Precip (in)FG-JN7 Downstream Riffle Elevation
186 Days -Longest Period of Consecutive
Flow
1/1/2023 -7/6/2023
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
-2
-1
0
1
2
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
i
n
)
St
a
g
e

(
f
t
)
Date
MY3 Little Sebastian JN2-B Flow Gauge Graph
Daily Precip (in)FG-JN2B Downstream Riffle Elevation
113 Days -Longest Period of
Consecutive Flow
7/10/2023 -10/31/2023