20090861 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20160224

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 4 (2015)
UT TO BALD STREAM/WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
YANCEY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(DMS Project No. 92596, Contract No. 4997)
Construction Completed December 2011
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Raleigh, North Carolina
December 2015

FINAL
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT
YEAR 4 (2015)
UT TO BALD STREAM/WETLAND RESTORATION SITE
YANCEY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
(DMS Project No. 92596, Contract No. 4997)
Construction Completed December 2011
Submitted to:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27603
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
December 2015

Table of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................... 1
2.0 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Vegetation Assessment........................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Stream Assessment............................................................................................................... 4
3.0 REFERENCES........................................................................................................................ 5
Appendices
APPENDIX A. PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
APPENDIX B. VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5.1-5.4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Tables
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Site Fixed -Station Photos
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
APPENDIX C. VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
APPENDIX D. STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross-section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Substrate Plots
Table 10a - b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 a - b. Monitoring Data
APPENDIX E. HYDROLOGY DATA
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 92596 December 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The UT to Bald Creek Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (hereafter referred to as the "Site") is
situated within the US Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 06010108 of the French Broad
River Basin and NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Priority Sub -basin 04-03-07. The
Site is located in Yancey County, approximately eight miles west of the City of Burnsville, North
Carolina. The Site is encompassed within a 12.74 -acre easement located on two tracts of property.
Tract one is owned by Henry and Elizabeth Turner and tract two is owned by Charles Young Jr.
and Deana Blanchard. The Site is comprised of five headwater tributaries originating from
Mountain seeps and springs, and five adjacent streamside wetlands (Figure 2, Appendix B). Prior
to construction, upper reaches of the Site were forested and relatively stable. Downstream reaches
were impacted by agricultural activities with minimal riparian buffer. This report (compiled based
on the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) Procedural Guidance and
Content Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports Version 1.4 dated 11/7/11) summarizes data
for Year 4 (2015) monitoring.
The project goals (from the approved Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream Restoration
Project, Final Restoration Plan [NCEEP 2009]) include the following.
• Reduce erosion within the Site
• Restore a channel capable of transporting watershed flows and sediment loads efficiently
• Improve wetland and stream aquatic habitat
• Enhance wildlife habitat
• Improve overall water quality
These goals will be accomplished through the implementation of the following objectives.
• Exclude livestock from the stream in order to
o Reduce direct inputs of nutrients and fecal coliform bacteria into the stream
o Eliminate stress on streambanks caused by hoof shear
• Plant a native riparian buffer in order to
o Provide woody root mass to stabilize the streambanks
o Filter sediment and nutrient pollutants from agricultural fields and prevent them
from entering the stream
o Provide shade to the stream channel as a means of reducing water temperatures
o Provide a source for woody debris and leaf litter that will enhance aquatic habitat
• Enhance existing wetlands by excluding livestock, managing invasive species, and planting
native wetland vegetation
• Restore Site streams to a proper bankfull dimension and stabilize steep and eroding
streambanks
• Provide Site streams with adequate flood -prone area
• Repair headcuts and establish a more diverse bed morphology with riffle -pool sequences
supported by in -stream structures
• Restore an impounded reach of stream by removing a small dam and culvert
• Create protected riparian corridors for wildlife passage
• Preserve high-quality forested headwater streams in the steeper reaches of the Site
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 92596 December 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina page 1

Vegetation success criteria (from the approved Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream
Restoration Project, Final Restoration Plan [NCEEP 2009]) is as follows.
"Success criteria for the preferred species in restoration areas will be based on annual and
cumulative survival and growth over five years. Survival of preferred species must be at a
minimum of 320 stems -per -acre at the end of three years of monitoring and 260 stems -per -
acre after five years."
Six vegetation monitoring plots were monitored on October 12, 2015 for monitoring Year 4
(2015). Overall, Site vegetation averaged 391 planted stems -per -acre (excluding livestakes) in
Year 4 (2015), which exceeds the minimum stem count for success criteria of 290 stems -per -acre.
Four of the six plots met or exceeded success criteria. Vegetation plots 4 and 5 were below success
criteria with 243 planted stems -per -acre each. Low planted stem survival in vegetation plots 4 and
5 may be attributed to competition from herbaceous vegetation (primarily fescue [Festuca spp.]
and tearthumb [Polygonum sagitatum]).
Nine vegetation areas of concern were identified on the site. Planted stem densities were moderate
to poor throughout the Site. Planted stems were generally hard to locate due to the thick fescue
(Festuca spp.) in drier areas and had poor stem growth due to saturation and competition with
sedges (Carex spp.), soft rush (Juncus effusus), and tearthumb (Polygonum sagitatum) in wetter
areas. Additionally, three small patches of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and patches of dense
white poplar (Populus alba) were identified in the Site. These areas of concern are summarized
below and depicted on the attached Figure 2 (Appendix B).
Vegetation Areas of Concern
Map Identifier
Feature/Issue
VAC -1
Low stem density around Tributary 3
VAC -2
Low stem density on the right bank of the Mainstem in and around Veg Plot 5
VAC -3
Low stem density in and around Veg Plot 4
VAC -4
Low stem density on the right bank of Tributary 2 near an adjacent driveway
VAC -5 to -7
Multiflora rose
VAC -8 to -9
Dense white poplar
Stream success criteria (from the approved Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream
Restoration Project, Final Restoration Plan [NCEEP 2009]) is as follows.
"Monitoring shall consist of the collection and analysis of stream stability and riparian
vegetation survivability data to support the evaluation of the project in meeting established
restoration objectives."
A visual assessment and geomorphic survey were completed for the Site. Site reaches are
conforming to design criteria established in the Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream
Restoration Project, Final Restoration Plan (NCEEP 2009). No significant bank erosion was
recorded and geomorphic measurements are within the range of proposed design parameters.
Stream areas of concern include a headcut on Tributary 2. The headcut has migrated a short
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 92596 December 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina page 2

distance upstream since Year 3 (2014) monitoring; however, it currently poses no immediate threat
to stream stability. In addition, six areas of aggradation (SAC -2 to -7) were observed along the
mainstem, Tributary 2, Tributary 3, and Tributary 4. Several of these areas were documented
previously and conditions continue to improve. During Year 3 (2014) monitoring, it was noted
that the upper reaches of Tributary 3 and Tributary 4 have indiscernible bed and bank for varying
lengths. These tributaries exhibit intermittent flow regimes, and low flow may be responsible for
the lack of bed and bank characteristics in these reaches. These areas remained unchanged during
Year 4 (2015) monitoring. Upper reaches of the Mainstem and Tributary 2 appear to be exhibiting
aggradation of fine materials, possibly due to surface flows across the adjacent floodplain and
extensive herbaceous vegetation growth within the channel bed combined with low energy flow
in the channel. Continued observation throughout the monitoring period should determine if the
system is able to transport aggraded material. Cross-section 2, which exhibited significant down
cutting during year 3 (2014) monitoring, has aggraded slightly during year 4 (2015). This area
was previously aggraded with fine sediment that was washed out during Year 3 (2014), and now
has refilled with natural levels of sediment during year 4 (2015); it is currently not an area of
concern. Stream areas of concern are summarized in the following table and are depicted on Figure
2 (Appendix B).
Stream Areas of Concern
Map Identifier
Feature/Issue
SAC -1
Headcut on Tributary 2
SAC -2 to 7
Aggradation on Mainstem, Tributary 2, Tributary 3, and Tributary 4
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment and
statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in tables
and figures within this report's appendices. Narrative background and supporting information
formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly
Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly the Restoration Plan) documents available
on NCDMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available
from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Six vegetation plots were established and marked during the Year 1 (2012) monitoring period.
Plots were established by installing 4 -foot, metal U -bar posts at the corners and a 10 -foot, 0.75
inch PVC at the origin. The plots are 10 meters square and are located randomly within the Site.
These plots were surveyed in October 2015 for the Year 4 (2015) monitoring season using methods
outlined in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Levels 1-2 Plot Sampling Only, Version
4.2 (Lee et al. 2008)(http:Hcvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm); results are included in Appendix C.
The taxonomic standard for vegetation used for this document was Flora of the Southern and Mid -
Atlantic States (Weakley 2012).
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 92596 December 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina page 3

2.2 Stream Assessment
Annual stream monitoring was conducted in October 2015. Measurements were taken using a
Topcon GTS 303 total station and Recon data collector. The raw total station file was processed
using Carlson Survey Software into a Computer Aided Design (CAD) file. Coordinates were
exported as a text/ASCII file to Microsoft Excel for processing and presentation of data. Pebble
counts were completed using the modified Wolman method (Rosgen 1993). One crest gauge (PVC
with wooden staff gauge and cork filings) was installed in the lower, downstream third of the Site.
Six permanent cross-sections, three riffle and three pool, were established and will be used to
evaluate stream dimension annually; locations are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B). Cross-
sections are permanently monumented with 5 -foot metal t -posts at each end point. Cross-sections
will be surveyed to provide a detailed measurement of the stream and banks including points on
the adjacent floodplain, top of bank, bankfull, breaks in slope, edge of water, and thalweg. Data
will be used to calculate width -depth ratios, entrenchment ratios, and bank height ratios for each
cross-section. In addition, a pebble count was completed at cross-section 2 and photographs will
be taken at each permanent cross-section location annually.
Six stream monitoring reaches were established and will be used to evaluate stream pattern and
longitudinal profile; locations are depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B). Measurement of channel
pattern will include belt -width, meander length, and radius of curvature (only in year one).
Subsequently, data will be used to calculate meander -width ratios. Longitudinal profile
measurements will include average water surface slopes and facet slopes and pool -to -pool spacing.
Twenty-two permanent photo points were established throughout the restoration reach (12 fixed
photo points, 4 cross-section photo points, and 6 vegetation plot photo points); locations are
depicted on Figure 2 (Appendix B) and are included in Appendix B. In addition, visual stream
morphology stability assessments will be completed in four monitoring reaches annually to assess
the channel bed, banks, and in -stream structures.
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 92596 December 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina page 4

3.0 REFERENCES
Community Collaborative Rain, Hail, and Snow Network (CoCoRaHS). 2015. Station NC-YN-
7. Bald Creek 1.2 Mi NW (online). Available: http://www.cocorahs.orjzNiewData/Station
PrecipSummar.aspx [October 19, 2015]. CoCoRaHS.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation, Levels 1-2 Plot Sampling Only, Version 4.2. Available online at
htlp:Hcvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm.
N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). Unpublished. Procedural Guidance and Content
Requirements for EEP Monitoring Projects, Version 1.4, dated 11/07/11. NC Department
of Environment and Natural Resources. Available online at
http://portal.ncdenr.org/c/documentalibrary/get®file?pl id=1169848&folderld=2288101
&name=DLFE-3 9268.Ddf
N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2009. Unnamed Tributaries to Bald Creek Stream
Restoration Project, Final Restoration Plan - Yancey County, NC.
Rosgen. 1993. Applied Fluvial Geomorphology, Training Manual. River Short Course, Wildland
Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Weakley, Alan S. 2012. Flora of the Southern and Mid -Atlantic States. Available online at:
http://www.herbarium.unc.edu/WeakleysFIora.pdf [September 28, 2012]. University of
North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical Garden, University of North
Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Weather Underground. 2015. Station at Asheville Airport, North Carolina. (online). Available:
http: //www.wunderground. com/history/airport/KAVL/2014/ 1 / 1 /CustomHistory.html?day
end=18 &monthend=2 &yearend=2015 &req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=N
A [February 18, 2015]. Weather Underground.
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 92596 December 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina page 5

APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND BACKGROUND TABLES
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 92596 December 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

tpl
P o 1
v J
IA
!! hhII [�D-[T
MA, � rvuA
- Project Site
^\ �, t _
" s T Access Point:
r -
-82.43146, 35.92193 I,
Y�- :.,�r�j1• __
Burnsville
I k—A
19E_
5
-1>C0
". F'1 Bali AT[111A
e.�w,..
wi.r a . • - i - ?6+ P _ r-' 9 Yys,' vv,�� !` a,1 f.-,'-'''`�".. t_A \ Z7 S
.vR
.2 5
" it
0 1 2 4 �.. .
Miles -
'7
Directions from Raleigh:
Take 1-40 West about 212 miles to Marion.
Take exit 86, for US -226 North, towards Marion/Shelby. 3, N
Follow US -226 North about 23 miles to Spruce Pine, NC.
Continue onto US -19E South 21 miles, through Burnsville. eY
Take a right on Sweethollow Road._
The site is 0.5 miles on the left.
Copyright`© 2013 National Geographic Soie _
Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
[phone]
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
SITE LOCATION MAP
UT TO BALD STREAM RESTORATION
DMS PROJECT NUMBER 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
Date:
October 2015
Project:
12-004.15

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (DMS Project Number 92596)
Miti ation Credits
Stream Riparia Wetland
Type Restoration
Restoration Equivalent Restoration
Restoration E uivalent
Buffer
Totals 2770
168 0
0.62
0
Projects Com onents
Existing
Restoration/
Restoration
Project
Linear
Priority
Restoration
Linear
Mitigation
Component/
Station Range
Comment
Footage/
Approach
Equivalent
Footage/
Ratio
Reach ID
Acreage
Acreage
Mainstem
10+00 —18+39
800
P
Preservation
839
1:5
Headwater channels in mature hardwood forest.
Removed earthen dam and small pond.
Daylighted culverted stream segment, tied in
Mainstem
18+39 —20+50
250
R (P2)
Restoration
211
1:1
stable upstream and downstream segments, and
added grade control. Pulled channel off the left
bank and graded bench, sloped back right bank,
and enhanced profile with additional pool habitat.
20+50 — 22+15
Enhancement
Riparian plantings to culver under driveway and
Mainstem
(CMP 22+15 — 22+60)
378
EII
Level II
386
1:2.5
wetland plantings around pond.
22+60-24+81
Mainstem
24+81 —25+00
71
NA
NA
19
NA
Sweet Hallow Road
Mainstem
25+00 —26+00
NA
R (P 1)
Restoration
100
1:1
New alignment on back side of dam/Sweet
Hallow Road
Enhanced existing vegetated swale from base of
dam to confluence with riparian plantings and
livestock exclusion. Short reach of incised
Mainstem
26+00 —30+72
522
El (P 1)
Enhancement
472
1:1.5
channel below headcut was graded back and
Level I
stabilized. Log silles were placed at the top and
bottom of incised reach and bottom of reach
above confluence. Reach has one permanent
vehicular ford crossing.
UT to Bald Stream (Final)
DMS Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
December 2015
Appendices

Table 1 (continued). Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (DMS Project Number 92596)
UT to Bald Stream (Final)
DMS Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
December 2015
Appendices
Constructed new B -type channel primarily on
existing alignment. Raised channel invert to
reconnect with historical floodplain from
confluence to the stable cottonwood section,
stabilized with rock cross vanes, and added forded
Mainstem
30+72 —36+63
W
R (P 1 /P2)
Restoration
591
1:1
stream crossing below cottonwoods. Transitioned
to Priority 2 restoration below the crossing with a
step -pool and constructed riffle. Restored
dimension by excavating a bankfull bench on the
right bank, restored profile with step -pool
structures. This reach was limited to small
meanders due to a naturally confined valley type.
Tributary 1
10+00 — 13+21
321
EII
Enhancement
321
1:2.5
Invasive species removal and planting.
Level II
Installed step -pool structure to stabilized headcut
and meet pond elevation. Multi -thread channel
Tributary 1
13+21 — 14+60
220
R (PI)
Restoration
139
1:1
was graded and replaced with a single -thread
channel. Log sills were added for grade control at
the top.
Tributary 2
10+00 —18+26
826
EII
Enhancement
826
1:2.5
Invasive species treatment and planting
Level II
Installed step -pool system to stabilize a series of
Tributary 2
18+26 —19+49
123
R (P2)
Restoration
123
1:1
severe head -cuts. Pulled channel off of the steep
left bank and tied in to culvert under Sweet
Hallow Road.
Tributary 2
19+49 —19+93
51
NA
NA
44
NA
Sweet Hollow Road
Tributary 2
19+93 —24+43
450
EII
Enhancement
450
1:2.5
Planted and installed grade control structures near
Level II
the confluence with the Mainstem.
Enhanced spring -fed swale for potential
Tributary 3
10+00 — 12+17
217
Ell
Enhancement
217
1:2.5
amphibian and reptile habitat. Removed invasive
Level II
species, preserved existing trees on slope, and
planted.
Constructed a new channel through pasture to
Tributary 3
12+17-14+54
NA
R (P1)
Restoration
237
1:1
reconnect Tributary 3 to the Mainstem and
provide a stable conveyance for higher flows.
Planted and excluded livestock. Installed grade
Enhancement
control to stabilize tie-in at the confluence with
Tributary 4
10+00 —14+35
42K
Ell
Level II
435
1:2.5
the Mainstem. In addition, several log sills were
installed for grade control and habitat
enhancement.
UT to Bald Stream (Final)
DMS Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
December 2015
Appendices

Table 1 (continued). Project Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (DMS Project Number 92596)
UT to Bald Stream (Final)
DMS Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
December 2015
Appendices
Planted wetland plants around pond
Wetland 1
0.18
Enhancement
0.18
1:2
fringe and littoral shelf, and riparian
plants on left embankment of pond.
Wetland 1
0.48
Enhancement
0.48
1:2
Removed invasive species and
supplementally planted.
Removed invasive species, excluded
Wetland 3
0.2
Enhancement
0.2
1:2
livestock, and supplementally
planted.
Removed invasive species, excluded
Wetland 4
0.11
Enhancement
0.11
1:2
livestock, and supplementally
planted.
Removed invasive species, excluded
Wetland 5
0.26
Enhancement
0.26
1:2
livestock, and supplementally
planted.
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (linear footage)
Riparian Wetland (acres) Buffer (square footage)
Restoration
1401
Enhancement (Level I)
472
Enhancement (Level
II)
2635
Preservation
839
Creation
Wetland Enhancement
1.23
Totals
5347
1.23
Mitigation Units
2938 SMUs
0.62 WMUs
UT to Bald Stream (Final)
DMS Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
December 2015
Appendices

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (DMS Project Number 92596)
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 4 years 3 month
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 4 years 0 months
Number of Reporting Year: 4
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion
or Delivery
Restoration Plan
June 2009
Final Design — Construction Plans
River Works, Inc.
November 2010
Construction
September 2011
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
December 2011
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
December 2011
Containerized and B&B plantings for entire reach
David Turner 919-875-1378
December 2011
As -built Construction Drawings
Years 1-5 Monitoring Performers
March 2012
Restoration Plan
218 Snow Avenue
June 2009
Final Design — Construction Plans
November 2010
Construction
September 2011
Year 1 Monitoring (2012)
December 2012
February 2013
Year 2 Monitoring (2013)
August 2013
November 2013
Year 3 Monitoring (2014)
February 2015*
March 2015
Year 4 Monitoring (2015)
October 2015
December 2015
Year 5 Monitoring (2016)
*Year 3 (2014) monitoring was performed in February 2015 due to site access restrictions during a landowner dispute.
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (DMS Project Number 92596)
Designer
URS Corporation — North Carolina
Morrisville, NC
919-461-1597
Construction, Planting, and Seeding
River Works, Inc.
Contractor
Cary, NC
919-459-9001-692-4633
Surveyor
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
3201 Glenridge Drive
Raleigh, NC 27604
David Turner 919-875-1378
Seed Mix Source
Unknown
Years 1-5 Monitoring Performers
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
Grant Lewis 919-215-1693
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 92596 December 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (DMS Proiect Number 92596)
Project Information
Project Name
UT to Bald Creek Restoration Site
Project County
Yancey
Project Area (Acres)
12.74
Project Coordinates (NAD83 2007)
807,670.33, 984,247.33
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Region
Blue Ridge
Ecoregion
Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Project River Basin
French Broad
USGS 8 -digit HUC
06010108
USGS 14 -digit HUC
06010108080020
NCDWQ Subbasin
04-03-07
Project Drainage Area (Sq. Mi.)
0.19
Project Drainage Area Impervious Surface
<5%
Watershed Type
85% wooded, 12% agriculture, 3% rural
Reach Summa Information
Parameters
Mainstem UT 1 UT 2 UT 3 1 UT 4
Restored/Enhanced Length (Linear Feet)
2590 460 1392 454 435
Drainage Area (Square Miles)
0.19 0.03 0.06 0.01 0.01
NCDWQ Index Number
7-3-22
NCDWQ Classification
C
Valley Type/Morphological Description
IUB- and C-type
Dominant Soil Series
Saunook and Thunder-Saunook Complex
Drainage Class
Well drained
Soil Hydric Status
Nonhydric
Slope
0.050 — 0.160
FEMA Classification
Not in a detailed FEMA flood zone
Native Vegetation Community
100%
Percent Composition of Exotic Invasives
< 5%
Regulatory
Considerations
Regulation
Applicable
Waters of the U.S. —Sections 404 and 401
Yes -Received Appropriate Permits
Endangered Species Act
No effect
Historic Preservation Act
No effect
CZMA/CAMA
No
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Not in a detailed FEMA flood zone
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
UT to Bald Stream (Final)
DMS Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
December 2015
Appendices

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View
Tables 5.1-5.4. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Tables
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Site Fixed -Station Photos
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 92596 December 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Axiom Environmental
218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27603
[phone]
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW
UT TO BALD STREAM RESTORATION
DMS PROJECT NUMBER 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Dwn. by.
KRJ
FIGURE
Date:
Oct. 2015
2
Project:
12-004.15

Table 5.1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Main Tributary
Assessed Length 1487
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
2
410
72%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
10
14
71%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
8
18
44%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
14
14
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
14
14
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
10
10
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
0
0
100/o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
9
10
°
90/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
10
10
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
9
10
90%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
10
10
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
10
10
100%

Table 5.2 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary 2
Assessed Length 460
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
2
260
43%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
3
11
27%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
3
10
30%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
11
11
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
11
11
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
10
10
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
0
0
100/o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
2
2
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
2
2
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
2
2
100%

Table 5.3 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary 3
Assessed Length 317
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
1
160
50%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
4
4
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
5
7
71%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
7
7
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
11
11
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
11
11
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
0
0
100/o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
2
3
67%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
3
3
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
3
3
100%

Table 5.4 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Tributary 4
Assessed Length 224
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
1
50
78%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
2
5
40%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
—
2
5
40%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
5
5
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
5
5
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
5
5
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
o
100 /0
0
0
0
100/o
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
°
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
3
3
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
3
3
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
3
3
100%

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 6.4
Ve etation Cateqory
Mapping
Definitions Threshold
CCPV
Depiction
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% Of
Planted
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 acres
NA
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
Purple
5
0.47
7.3%
Pol ons
Acrea a
Total
5
0.47
7.3%
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
NA
0
0.00
0.0%
1000 SF
Cumulative Total
5
0.47
7.3%
polygons
Easement Acreage` 14
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, thYe associated acreagpe should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallell tally in item 5. q
thosle with the potential to dseetlYt outeompete native younlgWwolody stems In the short-terme (eogf emonitoringlaperiod or shortly thereafter)eor affectrthe community strufcture for/existing, more testablished tree/shrub sTands over timeframes
that are slight) longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacityv over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped if in the 'udgement of the observer their covesge, density or distribution is suppressingq the viability, density, or growth of glanced woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the
integration of risk fac>!ors by EEP such as species present, their coves e, distribution relative to nafive biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the
projects history will warran[ control, but potentially large coverages of crostegi.min the herb laver will not likle4y triggher control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the
are oflparticularsinteresttigqngen theirvextremenrlsk/thgreatnlevel for mapping ascpoints wherevisolatedCspdeeimens are 7ound, partic IU arly etalrevSlnaa pro�ecbts mohltoreingtohlstorbYse However areas of discreetnydense patcheshwlll of course/be
mapped as polygons. TFie symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful of r symbolzing invasiyes polygons, particulalry for situations where the condlton for an area Is somewhere between Isolated specimens and
dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolizetl 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.
`Two areas of prior encroachment are identified on Figure 2 (Appendix B), however these areas appear to have recovered and are no longer considered areas of concern.
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Cateclory
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Pol ons
Acrea a
Acrea e
Pink spotted
4. Invasive Areas of Concern'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
and yellow
3
0.17
1.2%
polygons
5. Easement Encroachment Areas3
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
NA
0'
0.00
0.0%
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, thYe associated acreagpe should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallell tally in item 5. q
thosle with the potential to dseetlYt outeompete native younlgWwolody stems In the short-terme (eogf emonitoringlaperiod or shortly thereafter)eor affectrthe community strufcture for/existing, more testablished tree/shrub sTands over timeframes
that are slight) longer (e.g. 1-2 decades). The low/moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacityv over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regularity, but can
be mapped if in the 'udgement of the observer their covesge, density or distribution is suppressingq the viability, density, or growth of glanced woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the
integration of risk fac>!ors by EEP such as species present, their coves e, distribution relative to nafive biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the
projects history will warran[ control, but potentially large coverages of crostegi.min the herb laver will not likle4y triggher control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the
are oflparticularsinteresttigqngen theirvextremenrlsk/thgreatnlevel for mapping ascpoints wherevisolatedCspdeeimens are 7ound, partic IU arly etalrevSlnaa pro�ecbts mohltoreingtohlstorbYse However areas of discreetnydense patcheshwlll of course/be
mapped as polygons. TFie symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful of r symbolzing invasiyes polygons, particulalry for situations where the condlton for an area Is somewhere between Isolated specimens and
dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolizetl 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.
`Two areas of prior encroachment are identified on Figure 2 (Appendix B), however these areas appear to have recovered and are no longer considered areas of concern.

UT to Bald Creek
Site Fixed -Station Photographs
Taken October 2015
UT to Bald Stream (Final)
DMS Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
December 2015
Appendices

UT to Bald Creek
Site Fixed -Station Photographs (continued)
Taken October 2015
UT to Bald Stream (Final)
DMS Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
December 2015
Appendices

UT To Bald
Vegetation Monitoring Photographs
Taken October 2015
UT to Bald Stream (Final)
DMS Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
December 2015
Appendices

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 92596 December 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (DIVIS Project Number 92596)
Vegetation Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met? Tract Mean
1 Yes
2 Yes
3 Yes
4 No 67%
5 No
6 Yes
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 92596 December 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (DMS Project Number 92596)
Report Prepared By
Corri Faquin
Date Prepared
10/19/2015 10:10
database name
Axiom-EEP-2015-A-v2.3.1.mdb
database location
S:\Business\Projects\12\12-004 EEP Monitoring\12-004.15 UT to Bald\2015\CVS
computer name
KEENAN-PC
Me size
53870592
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of projects) and project data.
Pro', planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Pro', total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all
natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor bSpp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead
and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------- -----
Pro'ect Code
92596
project Name
UT to Bald
River Basin
French Broad
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
6
UT to Bald Stream (Final)
DMS Project Number 92596
Yancey County, North Carolina
Axiom Environmental, Inc.
Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
December 2015
Appendices

Table 9. Total and Planted Stems by Plot and Species
DMS Project Code 92596. Project Name: UT to Bald
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits
Current Plot Data (MY4 2015)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
92596-01-0001
PnoLS P -all T
92596-01-0002
PnoLS P -all T
92596-01-0003
PnoLS P -all T
92596-01-0004
PnoLS P -all T
92596-01-0005
PnoLS P -all T
92596-01-0006
PnoLS P -all T
M (2015)
PnoLS P -all T
MY3 (2015)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (20 3)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1 (2012)
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer saccharum
sugar maple
Tree
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
Alnus serrulate
hazel alder
Shrub
2 2
3
1
1
4
3
3
7
1
1
1
1
1
3
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
10
10
10
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
4
5
4
4
5
5
8
10
5
8
8
S
8
8
4
7
7
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
2 2
2
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
3
3
3
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub
2
2
2 1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
S
5
5
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
3
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Quercus
oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
4
4
4
4 4
4
2 2
2
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
8
8
8
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
3
3
2
1
1
Salix
willow
Shrub or Tree
13
13
2
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
5
1
6
9
6
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub
1
1
26
Ulmus
Jelm
Tree
2 2
2
1 1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
Ulmus americana
JAmerican elm
Tree
4
4
4
2
2
2
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
9
4
364.2
9
1
0.02
4
364.2
26
71
1052
12
5
485.6
15 16
1
0.02
5 5
607 647.5
8 81 13
1
0.02
3 3 4
323.71 323.71 526.1
6 6 8
1
0.02
4 4 5
242.81 242.81 323.7
6
4
242.81
6 6
1
0.02
4 4
242.81 242.8
17
7
6881
17
1
0.02
7
6881
22
8
890.3
58
13
391.21
61 91
6
0.15
13 17
411.41 613.81
S9
13
397.91
621
6
0.15
13
418.2
90
15
607
63
13
424.91
66 78
6
0.15
13 15
445.21 526.1
53
11
357.SJ
56 65
6
0.15
11 14
377.71 438.4
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS = Planted excluding livestakes
P -all = Planting including livestakes
T = All planted and natural recruits including livestakes
T includes natural recruits

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA
Cross-section Plots
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Substrate Plots
Tables l0a-b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Tables 11 a -b. Monitoring Data
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 92596 December 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

River Basin:
French Broad
-W. J . 1 �eA"01
/ r }
a`
Station Elevation SUMMARY DATA
0.0 41.6 Bankfull Elevation: 37.5
1.4 40.8 Banldull Cross -Sectional Area: 3.4
5.4 39.1 Bankfull Width: 5.1
7.1 38.5 Flood Prone Area Elevation: ---
Flood Prone Width: ---
8.7 38.3 '
10.2 37.9 Max Depth at Banl�ull: 1.1
11.7 37.4 Mean Depth at Banl�ull: 0.7
12.3 37.3 W / D Ratio: ---
13.0 37.0 Entrenchment Ratio:
14.1 36.3 Bank Height Ratio:
14.5 36.4
15.0 36.4 Stream Type B/C
15.8 36.6
16.7 37.46
18.0 37.86 French Broad River Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 1, Pool (Mainstem)
19.6 38.18 Station 08+71
22.5 39.25 44
25.0 40.20
27.0 40.98
29.5 41.75 42
.0900
31.6 42.34
5
0 40
--
Bankfull
W- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---�������� Flood Prone Area
38 MY -o1 12/11/12
MY -026/20/13
MY -03 2/16/15
36 -my-04115
0 10 20 30 40
Station (feet)
Site Name UT to Bald
XS ID XS -1, Pool Mainstem
Drainage
---
1.0

River Basin:
Elevation
French Broad
54.58
5.27
53.66
Site Name
0.19
UT to Bald
10/12/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
XS ID
51.78
XS - 2, Riffle Mainstem
51.74
14.67
52.00
Drainage
52.05
16.20
51.09
16.60
52.73
17.51
53.28
19.15
i
21.82
53.78
25.38
54.40
28.16
54.73
31.52
55.35
Stream Type B/C
French Broad River Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 2, Riffle (Mainstem)
Station 05+82
56
55-----------------------------------------�
-
54
0 53
52
� � � - l3aaktutl
w
10
20 30
Flood Prone Area
51
MY -01 12/11/12
MY -02 6/20/13
50
MY -03 2/16/15
M -I 10/12/15
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
0.00
54.58
5.27
53.66
Area (s mi):
0.19
Date:
10/12/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
0.00
54.58
5.27
53.66
10.92
53.39
12.40
53.04
13.16
52.91
13.58
51.78
14.22
51.74
14.67
52.00
15.09
52.05
16.20
51.09
16.60
52.73
17.51
53.28
19.15
53.43
21.82
53.78
25.38
54.40
28.16
54.73
31.52
55.35
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
53.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
4.2
Bankfull Width:
4.6
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
54.9
Flood Prone Width:
33.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.9
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.9
W / D Ratio:
5.0
Entrenchment Ratio:
7.2
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Elevation
French Broad
99.05
2.26
98.55
Site Name
0.06
UT to Bald
10/12/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
XS ID
96.68
XS - 3, Riffle UT 2)
96.78
9.01
96.96
Drainage
97.78
11.13
t
12.60
98.50
15.12
98.49
- -'
t r
!.
,rte
Stream Type B/C
French Broad River Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 3, Riffle (UT 2)
Station 01+01
100
99 who
0 98
W
-- BankPoll
97
Flood Prone Area
MY-01 2/25/13
MY-02 6/20/13
96
MY-03 2/16/15
0
10
MY-04 l0/12/15
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
-0.30
99.05
2.26
98.55
Area (s mi):
0.06
Date:
10/12/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
-0.30
99.05
2.26
98.55
4.53
98.08
5.68
97.79
6.47
96.95
7.22
96.68
7.89
96.78
9.01
96.96
9.96
97.78
11.13
98.20
12.60
98.50
15.12
98.49
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
97.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.2
Bankfull Width:
4.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
98.9
Flood Prone Width:
16.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.1
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.7
W / D Ratio:
5.8
Entrenchment Ratio:
3.7
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Elevation
French Broad
57.8
22.9
57.1
Area (s mi):
Site Name
Date:
UT to Bald
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
14.1
55.2
XS ID
55.2
XS - 4, Pool Mainstem
55.0
12.0
s
11.1
Drainage
10.3
55.5
8.8
a
f Ir
56.1
6.8
56.40
5.8
56.77
3.2
57.07
0.0
57.26
c3iiYs.-.
a.
Stream Type
B/C
French Broad River Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 4, Pool (Mainstem)
Station 05+11
60
58
m
0
W 56
--- - Bankfull
---------------------
-----------------
----------
------------
---------� Flood Prone Area
MY -01 12/11/12
MY -02 6/20/13
54
MY -03 2/16/15
0
10
20 MY -0410/12/15
30
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
26.2
57.8
22.9
57.1
Area (s mi):
0.04
Date:
10/12/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
Station
Elevation
26.2
57.8
22.9
57.1
19.1
56.3
16.9
55.8
15.3
55.4
14.1
55.2
13.6
55.2
12.6
55.0
12.0
55.0
11.1
55.3
10.3
55.5
8.8
55.9
7.9
56.1
6.8
56.40
5.8
56.77
3.2
57.07
0.0
57.26
SUMMARY DATA
Banldull Elevation:
55.7
BanlduB Cross -Sectional Area:
3.0
Bankfull Width:
7.3
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
Elevation
French Broad
99.62
3.31
99.47
Site Name
98.91
UT to Bald
98.92
7.88
igan
XS ID
97.56
XS - 5, Riffle UT 1)
97.58
9.56
97.88
Drainage Area (s mi):
0.025
12.00
98.83
13.26
Date:
14.77
10/12/2015
17.33
100.40
Field Crew:
Pcrkinson, Jern
Stream Type B/C
French Broad River
Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 5, Riffle (UT 1)
Station 00+62
101
100 --------------------------------------------------------------------
w
-
° 99----------------------
--------------
- -
---------- -
W
-- - � Bankfull
98
----Flood Prone Area
MY-01 2/25/13
MY-02 6/20/13
97
MY-03 2/16/15
0
1 O-MY-0410/12/
15
Station (feet)
Station
Elevation
-0.11
99.62
3.31
99.47
5.47
98.91
6.46
98.92
7.88
igan
Station
Elevation
-0.11
99.62
3.31
99.47
5.47
98.91
6.46
98.92
7.88
97.62
8.44
97.56
8.80
97.58
9.56
97.88
10.42
98.86
12.00
98.83
13.26
99.23
14.77
99.89
17.33
100.40
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
98.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
3.3
Bankfull Width:
3.9
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
100.2
Flood Prone Width:
16.0
Max Depth at Bankfull:
1.3
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.8
W / D Ratio:
4.6
Entrenchment Ratio:
4.1
Bank Height Ratio:
1.0

River Basin:
French Broad
141.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.3
Site Name
0.04
UT to Bald
10/12/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
XS ID
0.6
XS - 6, Pool Mainstem Upstream)
0.4
W / D Ratio:
ti
Drainage
-
BankHeight Ratio:
1.0
Station
Elevation
-0.3
142.9`
- -
1.8
142.6
3.4
142.3
5.0
142.0
6.0
141.0
7.2
141.2Depth_-
-
8.4
141.3
9.2
141.0
10.5
141.1
11.1
141.6
12.4
141.5
14.1
141.6
Stream Type
B/C
16.4
141.7
French Broad
River Basin, UT to Bald, XS - 6, Pool
(Mainstem Upstream)
Station 00+29
144
d
0 142
Bankfull
• Flood Prone Area
MY-01 12/11/12
MY-02 6/20/13
140
MY-03 2/16/15
0
10
MY-0410/12/15 20
Station (feet)
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
141.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.3
Area (s mi):
0.04
Date:
10/12/2015
Field Crew:
Perkinson, Jernigan
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Elevation:
141.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area:
2.3
Bankfull Width:
5.7
Flood Prone Area Elevation:
-
Flood Prone Width:
-
Max at Bankfull:
0.6
Mean Depth at Bankfull:
0.4
W / D Ratio:
-
Entrenchment Ratio:
-
BankHeight Ratio:
1.0

Project Name
UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach
Mainstem Station 00+00 - 06+00
Feature
Profile
Date
10/12/15
Crew
Perkinson, Jernigan
2012I 2013 I 2014 I 2015 I 2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Year 4 Monitoring \Survey Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 4 (2015) Profile - Mainstem, Station 00+00 to 06+00
95
90
85
m 80
s
m
75
v
v
c
° 70
Z
v
W
65
60
55
50
0
100
—0 --Year 1 (2012) Bed
200
(Year 2 (2013) Bed
300
Distance (feet)
Year 3 (2014) Bed
—*(--Year 4 (2015) Bed
400
500
--*—Year 4(2015) Water Surface
600
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0558
0.0540
0.0556
0.0542
Riffle Length
37
35
27
34
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0509
0.0609
0.0715
0.0630
Pool Length
13
12
17
11
Pool to Pool Spacing
40
38
38
44
100
—0 --Year 1 (2012) Bed
200
(Year 2 (2013) Bed
300
Distance (feet)
Year 3 (2014) Bed
—*(--Year 4 (2015) Bed
400
500
--*—Year 4(2015) Water Surface
600

Project Name
UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach
Mainstem Station 06+00 - 11+12
Feature
Profile
Date
10/12/15
Crew
Perkinson, Jernigan
2012 2013I 2014 I 2015 I 2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Year 4 Monitoring \Survey Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 4 (2015) Profile - Mainstem, Station 06+00 to 11+12
55
50
A 45
Z
m
v
w 40
c
0
a
W
35
30 1
25
600
700
—$—Year 1 (2012) Bed
—41—Year 2 (2013) Bed
800
Distance (feet)
-- —Year 3 (2014) Bed
c
0
U
U
C%]
O
R
900
it—Year 4 (2015) Bed
1000
Year 4 (2015) Water Surface
1100
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0558
0.0540
0.0556
0.0542
Riffle Length
37
35
27
34
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0509
0.0609
0.0715
0.0630
Pool Length
13
12
17
11
Pool to Pool Spacing
40
38
38
44
1000
Year 4 (2015) Water Surface
1100

Project Name
UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach
Mainstem Upstream Station 00+00 - 04+00
Feature
Profile
Date
10/12/15
Crew
Perkinson, Jernigan
0.1324
2012
Riffle Length
16
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey
75
Station
Bed Elevation Water Elevation
Avg. Riffle Slope
150
140
100
90 +
0
E.
Le
50
2013I 2014 I 2015 I 2016
Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Year 4 Monitoring \Survey Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
—$—Year 1 (2012) Bed
100
—41—Year 2 (2013) Bed
UT to Bald Creek Year 4 (2015) Profile - Mainstem Upstream, Station 00+00 to 04+00
150
200
Distance (feet)
—Year 3 (2014) Bed
250 300 350 400
Year 4 (2015) Bed
—*—Year 4 (2015) Water Surface
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.1301
0.1313
0.1315
0.1324
Riffle Length
16
43
75
42
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0750
0.0846
0.0953
0.0927
Pool Length
5
2
6
4
Pool to Pool Spacing
14
46
102
59
250 300 350 400
Year 4 (2015) Bed
—*—Year 4 (2015) Water Surface

Project Name UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach Tributary 1 Station 00+00 - 01+00
Feature Profile
Date 10/12/15
Crew Perkinson, Jernigan
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Year 4 Monitoring \Survey Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 4 (2015) Profile - Tributary 1, Station 00+00 to 01+00
104 —
103
102
T
m 101
s
m
100
v
v
w
c
0 99
v
W
98
97
96
95
0
10
—$--Year 1 (2012) Bed
20
30
(Year 2 (2013) Bed
40 50
Distance (feet)
—Year 3 (2014) Bed
J
60
—Year 4 (2015) Bed
70 80
—*-Year 4 (2015) Water Surface
90
100
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0674
0.0782
0.0679
0.0766
Riffle Length
7
19
14
13
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0418
0.0777
0.0391
0.0631
Pool Length
6
6
6
6
Pool to Pool Spacing
13
24
19
19
70 80
—*-Year 4 (2015) Water Surface
90
100

Project Name UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach Tributary 2 Station 00+00 - 01+50
Feature Profile
Date 10/12/15
Crew Perkinson, Jernigan
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Year 4 Monitoring \Survey Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 4 (2015) Profile - Tributary 2, Station 00+00 to 01+50
106
104
102
m 100
s
m
98
v
v
c
° 96
v
W
94
92
90
88
0
20
—$--Year 1 (2012) Bed
40
—E—Year 2 (2013) Bed
60
Distance (feet)
—Year 3 (2014) Bed
80
100
—**--Year 4 (2015) Bed
120
--*—Year 4 (2015) Water Surface
140
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0814
0.0844
0.0823
0.0881
Riffle Length
10
32
49
39
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0542
0.0611
0.0693
0.0751
Pool Length
4
4
4
5
Pool to Pool Spacing
15
29
51
39
120
--*—Year 4 (2015) Water Surface
140

Project Name
UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach
Tributary 3 Station 00+00 - 02+50
Feature
Profile
Date
10/12/15
Crew
Perkinson, Jernigan
2012 2013I 2014 I 2015 I 2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Year 4 Monitoring \Survey Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 4 (2015) Profile -Tributary 3, Station 00+00 to 02+50
85
80
75
m 70
s
65
v
v
w
c
° 60
a
W
55
50
45
40
0
50
Year 1 (2012) Bed
100
(Year 2 (2013) Bed
Distance (feet)
150 200 250
-i—Year 3 (2014) Bed
—)-Year 4 (2015) Bed
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
Riffle Length
25
44
33
19
Avg. Riffle Slope
NA*
NA*
NA*
NA*
Pool Length
18
7
10
16
Pool to Pool Spacing
28
45
25
25
150 200 250
-i—Year 3 (2014) Bed
—)-Year 4 (2015) Bed

Project Name
UT to Bald Creek - Profile
Reach
Tributary 4 Station 00+00 - 02+50
Feature
Profile
Date
10/12/15
Crew
Perkinson, Jernigan
2012I 2013 I 2014 I 2015 I 2016
Year 1 Monitoring \Survey Year 2 Monitoring \Survey Year 3 Monitoring \Survey Year 4 Monitoring \Survey Year 5 Monitoring \Survey
Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation Station Bed Elevation Water Elevation
UT to Bald Creek Year 4 (2015) Profile -Tributary 4, Station 00+00 to 02+50
60
55 I
35 1
30 1
25 +
0
50
Year 1 (2012) Bed
(Year 2 (2013) Bed
100
Distance (feet)
Year 3 (2014) Bed
150
-r-Year 4 (2015) Bed
200
--*--Year 4 (2015) Water Surface
250
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Avg. Water Surface Slope
0.0074
0.1228
0.1147
0.1229
Riffle Length
23
22
11
24
Avg. Riffle Slope
0.0118
0.1118
0.0814
0.1008
Pool Length
34
6
5
7
Pool to Pool Spacing
57
13
13
21
200
--*--Year 4 (2015) Water Surface
250

Wei hted Pebble Count
Percent Riffle:
Percent Pool:
100
Percent Run:
Percent Glide:
Pebble Count,
Material
Size Range (mm) Total #
# #
# #
# #
#
# #
# #
#
#
# #
# #70%
#
# #
# #
#
# #
#LL
#
#
# #
#
# #
# #
# #
#
#
UT to Bald Creek
silt/clay
0 0.062 36.0
French Broad
very fine sand
fine sand
medium sand
coarse sand
very coarse sand
0.062 0.13 4.0
---
0.13 0.25 10.0
Note:
Cross Section 2 - Mainstem
0.25 0.5 4.0
00%
gp%
80%
60%
50%
40%
30%
2 20%
a 10%
p%
0.01
Pebble
Count, UT to Bald Creek
Ow
10000
0.5 1 6.0
1 2 2.0
very fine gravel
fine gravel
fine gravel
medium gravel
medium gravel
coarse gravel
coarse gravel
very coarse gravel
very coarse gravel
2 4 2.0
4 6 0.0
6 8 2.0
8 11 4.0
11 16 2.0
16 22 6.0
22 32 2.0
32 45 6.0
45 64 6.0
small cobble
medium cobble
large cobble
very large cobble
64 90 2.0
90 128 4.0
128 180 2.0
180 256 0.0
small boulder
small boulder
medium boulder
large boulder
very large boulder
256 362 0.0
362 512 0.0
Particle
Size
0.1 1
(mm) -11--Cumulative Percent
10
100
1000
512 1024 0.0
1024 2048 0.0
♦ Percent Item -
Riffle
Pool
- Run
--*-Glide
2048 4096 0.0
bedrock
0.0
Size percent less than (mm)
Percent by substrate type
IF True
00
Weighted Count:P5-0
Total Particle Count:
D16 D35 D50 D84 D95
silt/clay sand gravel cobble boulder bedrock
#N/A #N/A 0.3 1 40 98
36% 26% 30% 8% 0% 0%

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
I = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project rcach (added Bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey 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 then exceeds 3
Table 10a.1 Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596 - Mainstem (1,112 feet
Parameter
e
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design Mainstem
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL UL Eq. Min
Mean Med Max SD n
Mainstem
Upstream
Mainstem
Downstream
Tributary 2
Min
Med
Max Min Mean Med Max SID n
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.5
1 1
7.1
5.8
1
5.1
2.7
5.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
7
9
10
9
7
2.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.1
1 0.5
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
1.1
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.7
3.9
2.9
2.6
0.4
2.5
2.6
Width/Depth Ratio
6.9
17.8
11.6
10.2
27
12
Entrenchment Ratiol
I I 1 1 1.2
1 1.2 1
1.8
1.8
2.5
2.0
'Bank Height Ratiol
I I I 1 1.0
1 2.4 1 1
1 1.0
1 1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.048
0.144
0.0014
0.041
0.0508
0.0003
0.0012
Pool Length (ft)
None Distinct
Not Available
1.15
15
1
1.38
100
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)l
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
12
32
12.0-25.0
25.0-32.0
10.0-25.0
12
32
Radius of Curvature (ft)
36
134
36.0-60.0
97.0-134.0
21.0 - 31.0
36
134
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
5.1
24.4
6.2-10.3
19.0-26.3
7.8 - 11.5
6.5
24.4
Meander Wavelength (ft)
60
245
200.0 - 245.0
60.0-220.0
35.0-47.0
60
220
6� Meander Width Ratiol
Transport parameters
I I I 1 10.9
1 1 1 40 1
2.1 -4.3
4.9-6.3
3.7-9.3
10.9
44.5
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mz
69-217
46-183
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B/G5
B5
B5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
5.9-8.9
8.9-9.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
23-24
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.05 - 1.11
1.11
1.05
1.3
1.03 - 1.09
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0476 - 0.1441
0.1441
0.0476
0.0508
0.0321 - 0.1213
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
I = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project rcach (added Bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey 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 then exceeds 3

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
I - The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 - For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey 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 then exceeds 3
Table 10a.2 Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596 - Tributary 2 459 feet
Parameter
e
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design Tributary 2
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL UL Eq. Min
Mean Med Max SID n
alnstem Mainstern
Upstream Downstream
Tributary 2
Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SID n
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.5
1 1
7.1
5.8 5.1
1
2.7
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
7
9
10 9
7
6.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.8
0.5 0.5
0.1
1 0.2
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
1.1
0.6 0.8
0.2
0.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.7
3.9
2.9 2.6
0.4
0.5
Width/Depth Ratio
6.9
17.8
11.6 10.2
27
14
Entrenchment Ratiol
I I 1 1 1.2
1 1 1.2 1
1.8 1.8
2.5
2.0
'Bank Height Ratiol
I I I 1 1.0
1 2.4 1 1
1 1.0 1 1.0 1
1.0
1 1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.048
0.144
0.0014 0.041
0.0508
0.128
Pool Length (ft)
None Distinct
Not Available
Pool Max depth (ft)
0.43
Pool Spacing (ft)
10-60
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
12
32
12.0-25.0 25.0-32.0
10.0-25.0
10-25
Radius of Curvature (ft)
36
134
36.0-60.0 97.0-134.0
21.0 - 31.0
21-31
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
5.1
24.4
6.2-10.3 19.0-26.3
7.8 - 11.5
7-10.3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
60
245
200.0 - 245.0 60.0-220.0
35.0-47.0
35-50
Meander Width Ratiol
I I I 1 10.9
1 1 1 40 1
2.1 -4.3 4.9-6.3
3.7-9.3
3.3-8.3
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mz
69-217
3
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B/G5
B5
65
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
5.9-8.9
1.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
23-24
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
1.05 - 1.11
1.11 1.05
1.3
1.04
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0476 - 0.1441
0.1441 0.0476
0.0508
0.0641
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
I - The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 - For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey 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 then exceeds 3

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull. verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey 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 then exceeds 3
Table 10a.3 Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596 - Tributary 3 318 feet
Parameter
e
Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design Tributary 3
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL UL Eq. Min
Mean Med Max SID n
Mainstem Mainstem
Upstream Downstream
Tributary 2
Min Med Max
Min Mean Med Max SID n
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.5
1
7.1
5.8 5.1
2.7
1.8
Floodprone Width (ft)l
7
9
10 9
7
10.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.8
0.5 0.5
0.1
0.3
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
1.1
0.6 0.8
0.2
0.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
2.7
3.9
2.9 2.6
0.4
0.54
Width/Depth Ratio
6.9
17.8
11.6 10.2
27
6
Entrenchment Ratiol
1.2
1.2
1.8 1.8
2.5
5.6
'Bank Height Ratiol
I I I 1 1.0
1 1 1 2.4 1 1
1 1.0 1 1.0 1
1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.048
0.144
0.0014 0.041
0.0508
0.155
Pool Length (ft)
None Distinct
Not Available
0.9
10-100
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
12
32
12.0-25.0 25.0-32.0
10.0-25.0
10-20
Radius of Curvature (ft)
36
134
36.0-60.0 97.0-134.0
21.0 - 31.0
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
5.1
24.4
6.2-10.3 19.0-26.3
7.8 - 11.5
Meander Wavelength (ft)
60
245
200.0 - 245.0 60.0-220.0
35.0-47.0
Meander Width Ratiol
Transport parameters
I I I 1 10.9
1 1 40 1
2.1 -4.3 4.9-6.3 1
3.7-9.3
1 15.6-11
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mz
69-217
8
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B/G5
B5
B5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
5.9-8.9
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
23-24
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
318
Sinuosity (ft)
1.05 - 1.11
1.11 1.05
1.3
1.03
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0476 - 0.1441
0.1441 0.0476
0.0508
0.1548
BF slope (ft/ft)
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 = For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in-line with the project reach (added bankfull. verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey 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 then exceeds 3

Table 10b.1 Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design As-built/Baseline
RI% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip /disp(mm)
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross-sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross-sections as part of the design survey), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross-sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.

Table 1la.
Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596
Cross Section 1 (Pool)
Cross Section 2 (Riffle)
Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross Section 4 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Base MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
37.4
37.4
37.5
37.5
53.4 53.7 53.0 53.0
97.7
97.7
97.7
97.8
55.4
55.6
55.7
55.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.9
5.1
4.7
5.1
4.2 4.5 4.0 4.6
4.1
3.5
4.5
4.3
6.1
6.6
7.5
7.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
13.0 20.0 33.0 33.0
14.0
14.0
16.0
16.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
1 0.9
0.9 1
0.7
1 1 0.3 0.2 1 1.3 0.9 1
0.6
1 0.5
0.7 1
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.4 1
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.4 0.6 2.0 1.9
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.1
1 0.8
1 0.6
0.7
0.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft)
3.8
4.5
4.3
3.4
1.1 1.0 5.2 4.2
2.3
1.8
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
2.9
3.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
NA
NA
NA
NA
16.0 20.3 3.1 5.0
7.3
6.8
6.1
5.8
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.1 4.4 8.3 7.2
3.4
4.0
3.6
3.7
NA
NA
NA
NA
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
NA
I NA
NA
NA
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ft)
----
I ---
----
----
---- ---- ---- ----
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
d50 (mm)
----
I ----
----
----
NA' 0.2 1.0 0.3
----
----
----
----
----
----
----
Cross Section 5 (Riffle)
Cross Section 6 (Pool)
Based on fixed baseline bankfull elevation Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4 MY5
MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
98,7
98,7
98,7
98,9
141.6 141.6 141.6 141.6
Bankfull Width ft
4.0
4.2
3.8
3.9
5.6 5.4 6.4 5.7
Floodprone Width ft
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)1.1
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.0 1.1 0.6 0.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft)
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.9 3.3 2.4 2.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
5.3
5.9
4.7
4.6
NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
4.0
3.8
4.2
4.1
NA NA NA NA
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
NA NA NA NA
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ft)
----
----
----
----
---- ---- ---- ----
d50 mm
----
I ----
I ---- I
---- I
I I I ----
1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurvey will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional/depositional development. Input the elevation used as the datum, which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established. used
If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum for prior years this must be discussed with EEP. If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states: "It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been
consistent over the monitoring history, which may influence calculated values.
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation. Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary."
Greater than 50% of the material identified in the pebble count was characterized as silt/clay particle size.

Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11b.1 Monitoring Data -Stream Reach Data Summary
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596 - Mainstem Downstream 1,112 feet
Parameter Baseline
MY-1
MY-2 MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD
in Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min Mean Med Max SID in Min Mean Med Max
SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SID
n Min Mean Med Max SID n
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.2
4.5 4.0
4.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
13
20 33.0
33
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.3
0.2 1.3
0.9
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.4
0.6 2.0
1.9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2j1.1
1 5.2
4.2
Width/Depth Ratio
14
19.6 3.1
5.1
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
4.5 8.2
7.1
'Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
4.6
37.3
33
105.1
28
14
2.9 34.8 25.3 130 34.7 20 2.5 27.2 25.9 64.2
19.1 22
1.9
33.5
29.5 108.9
28.4
18
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0170
0.0508
0.0509
0.1221
0.03
14
0.018 0.061 0.051 0.116 0.028 20 0.0265 0.0715 0.0651 0.1397
0.0321 22
0.0225
0.0630
0.0607 0.1146
0.0283
18
Pool Length (ft)
5.5
12.9
12
33.8
6.2
18
4.8 12.2 10.2 32 6.4 23 5.6 16.5 12.6 45.3
10.6 24
4.1
11
9.6 24.2
5.6
17
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.1
1.1
0.6 1.1 0.7 2.0
0.6
1.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
8.9
40
39
116.5
29.2
18
8.7 37.8 22.2 162 34.2 23 8.3 37.6 30 98.2
25.7 24
8.6
43.9
37 122
32.1
19
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
25
97
17.6
60
32
134
24.4
220
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate significant shifts from
baseline
Meander Width Ratio
4.5
5.8
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
BC
Cb Cb
Cb
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1112
1102 1102
1102
Sinuosity (ft)
1.03
1.03 1.03
1.03
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0558
0.054 0.0556
0.0542
BF slope (ft/ft)
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
38 28 20 14 0 0 30 22 30 16
0 0
63
26
30 8
0
0
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 I
NA NA 0.2 57 98 NA 0.1 1 64
122
NA
NA
0.3 40
98
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
0 0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

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 surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11 b.2 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596 - Mainstem Upstream 375 feet
Parameter Baseline
MY-1
MY-2 MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SD'
n Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min Mean Med Max SID n Min Mean Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SID'
n Min Mean Med Max SID n
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ftZ
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
'Bank Height Rati
Profile
�
�
Riffle Length (ft)
4.6
17
13
66
17
11
6.6 43.3 40.3 86.7 33.5 8 47.7 82.5 74.6 133.0 41.6
4
8.3
42
39.4 134.2
44.4
7
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0102
0.0750
0.0845 0.1515
0.05
11
0.0295 0.085 0.076 0.154 0.047 8 0.0827 0.1045 0.0953 0.145 0.0276
4
0.0633
0.0927
0.9920 0.1157
0.0267
3
Pool Length (ft)
1.6
5.5
5.3
10.2
2.5
16
0.1 2.2 1.9 5.5 1.8 7 2.1 12.7 5.6 30.5 15.5
3
2.9
4.1
4.3 5.1
1.1
3
Pool Max depth (ft)
1
1
1.1 1.1 0.6 0.6
0.6
0.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
12.4
14.3
12.4
42.2
9
16
8.9 46.4 46.1 92.2 37 7 79.6 106.8 102.1 138.6 29.7
3
10.1
58.9
44.1 137.1
54.6
4
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
12
36
6.5
200
2.2
25
60
10.9
245
4.5
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate significant shifts from
baseline
Rosgen Classification
B
B B
B
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
375
361 368.1
368.1
Sinuosity (ft)
1.09
1.09 1.09
1.09
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.1301
0.1313 0.1315
0.1324
BF slope (ft/ft)
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
'
d951
t
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
0 0
0
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 surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3

Exhibit Table 11b.3 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
UT to Bald Stream Restoration Site/92596 - Tributaries 562 feet
Parameter Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only Min Mean Med Max SID °
n Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SID
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n Min Mean Med Max SID n
Bankfull Width (ft)
4
4.1
4.1
4.1
3.5
3.9
3.9 4.2
3.8
4.2
4.2 4.5
3.9
4.1
4.1
4.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
14
15
15
16
14
15
15 16
16.0
16.0
16 6.0
16
16
16
16
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
1
0.5
0.6
0.6 0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8 0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
0.8
1
1
1.1
0.9
1
1 1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1 1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)1 12.3
2.7
2.7
3
1.8
2.4
1 2.4 3
1
3.1
3.2
3.2 3.3
3.2
3.3
3.3 1
3.3
Width/Depth Ratio�-I
6
6.5
6.5 7
4.8
5.6
5.6 6.4
4.9
5.5
5.5
6.1
Entrenchment Ratio
3.4
3.7
3.7
4
3.8
3.9
3.9 4
3.6
3.9
3.9 4.2
3.7
3.9
3.9
4.1
'Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Profile - Tributary 1
Riffle Length (ft)
5.1
7.3
6.9
10.3
2.3
4
16.3
18.8
19.9 20.2
2.2
3
5.2
14.4
13.6 25.1
7.6
5
7.3
13.3
15.6
18.5
4.7
5
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0050
0.0418
0.0362
0.0896
0.0368
4
0.0712
0.0777
0.0721 0.0897
0.0104
3
0.0308
0.0391
0.0393 0.0843
0.0211
5
0.0423
0.0631
0.0518
0.0988
0.0253
5
Pool Length (ft)
3.4
6.2
7.2
8.4
2.1
5
4.2
6.3
4.2 10.6
3.7
3
4.9
5.5
5.1 6.6
0.8
4
3.1
6.3
5.1
12.1
4
4
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
7.2
12.6
12.3
18.6
5.3
4
24.1
24.3
24.3 24.4
0.2
2
11.8
18.9
14.8 30.0
8.2
4
11.5
19.1
18.6
27.7
8.2
4
Profile - Tributary 2
Riffle Length (ft)
3.6
10
9.9
17.5
4.5
7
10.5
32.3
32.6 53.5
23.5
4
9.9
49.4
54.9 83.5
37.1
3
10
39.2
38.6
69.6
27.2
4
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0117
0.0542
0.0433
0.0987
0.0352
7
0.0233
0.0611
0.0549 0.1114
0.0399
4
0.0465
0.0693
0.0657 0.0955
0.0247
3
0.0634
0.0751
0.0750
0.0870
0.0111
4
Pool Length (ft)
2.1
4.1
3.9
6.8
1.6
7
3.1
4.2
4 5.5
1
4
3.6
4.1
4.1 4.7
0.7
2
3.9
4.9
4.8
6.1
1.1
3
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
8.8
15
13.7
26.7
5.9
7
13.6
29.5
19.1 55.7
22.9
3
13.5
50.8
50.8 88.1
52.8
2
16.1
39.4
27.6
74.4
30.9
3
Profile - Tributary 3
Riffle Length (ft)
21.1
25.4
24.6
31.1
4.8
4
6.2
43.5
35.2 90.9
33.5
5
7.5
32.9
13.7 t 123.6 1
44.9
6
17.9
19.4
19.4
20.8
2
2
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
No water in channel during
field visit.
No water in channel during field visit.
No water in channel during field visit.
No water in channel duringfield
visit.
Pool Length (ft)
12.9
17.6
14.3
24.5
5.1
7
2.2
6.6
7.2 9.8
3.5
4
3.3
10.2
9 19.3
6.8
4
15.5
16.2
16.2
16.9
1
2
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
14
28.4
29.6
48.1
13.3
6
15.2
45.3
35 96.1
36
4
14.7
25.3
20.5 45.4
14.1
4
15.5
24.5
20.4
37.7
11.6
3
Profile - Tributary 4
Riffle Length (ft)
6.4
15.1
9.6
31.6
10.7
5
4.5
22.3
8 68.8
31
4
1.9
9.0
10.5 13.2
4.9
4
10.9
23.7
14.8
45.4
18.9
3
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
No water in channel during
field visit.
0.0743
0.1118
0.1097 0.1538
10.0329
4
0.0276
0.0637
0.0814 1 0.0821
0.0312
3
0.10081
10.1008
Pool Length (ft)
4.6
7.3
8.1
10.1
2.3
5
2.7
5.8
5.5 9.6
3.1
4
3.1
5.3
5.2 7.5
2.2
3
1.3
7.1
4.3
15.9
7.7
3
Pool Max depth (ft)
1
Pool Spacing (ft)
8.1
13.7
14.4
18
4.1
4
7.2
13.3
13.7 18.9
5.9
3
5.1
13.0
16.7 17.1
6.8
3
16
21.4
21.4
26.8
7.6
2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
10
88
Radius of Curvature ft
6
31
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate significant shifts from
baseline
Rc:Bankfull width ft/ft 5 1 .3
Meander Wavelength ft 25 1 1 1 50 1
Meander Width Ratiol I I I I 1
1 4
1
1
1 35
Additional Reach Parameters
Ros en Classification
B
B
B
B
Channel Thalweg length ft
562
562
562
562
Sinuosity ft
1.03 -
1.05
1.03-1.05
1,03-1.05
1.03-1.05
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0674 - 0.1301
0.0782 -.1228
0.0679 -.1147
0.0766 -.1229
BF slope ft/ft
RI% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d951
Z% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0
0
0
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric

APPENDIX E
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 92596 December 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
UT to Bald Stream and Wetland Restoration Site (DMS Project Number 92596)
Date of Data
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo (if
Collection
available)
Crest gauge observations indicated a bankfull event after
June 7, 2013
May 5, 2013
approximately 3.4 inches of rain was documented* at a
--
nearby rain station on May 5, 2013.
Crest gauge observations indicated a bankfull event after
February 10, 2015
September 7, 2014
approximately 2.04 inches of rain was documented* at a
nearby rain station on September 7, 2014 and 1.97 inches
was documented in the previous 4 days.
Crest gauge observations indicated a bankfull event after
February 10, 2015
October 14, 2014
approximately 2.41 inches of rain was documented* at a
--
nearby rain station on October 14, 2014.
Crest gauge observations indicated a bankfull event after
October 12, 2015
July 15, 2015
approximately 5.01 inches of rain was documented** at a
--
nearby rain station on July 13-15, 2015.
Crest gauge observations indicated a bankfull event after
October 12, 2015
September 30, 2015
approximately 2.51 inches of rain was documented** at a
--
nearby rain station on September 29-30, 2015.
*Asheville Airport (Weatherunderground 2015)
**Bald Creek (CoCoRaHS 2015)
UT to Bald Stream (Final) Axiom Environmental, Inc. Monitoring Year 4 of 5 (2015)
DMS Project Number 92596 December 2015
Yancey County, North Carolina Appendices