20080008 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20160224

Lewis Creek Stream Restoration
Henderson County, North Carolina
DMS Project #733
NCDEQ Contract #5631
MY — 05 Monitoring Report
Data Collected: September -November 2015
Submitted: December 2015
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones St. Suite 3000A
Env ronrnental
Quality
Raleigh, NC 27603
Prepared by:
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
P.O. Box 690429
Charlotte, NC 28227
DM
MOGEN5EN MITIGATIONS INC

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives......................................................3
1.2 Background..........................................................................3
1.3 Vegetative Conditions..............................................................4
1.4 Significant Flood Events...........................................................5
1.5 Stream Assessment..................................................................5
1.6 Wetland Conditions................................................................6
1.7 Problem Areas........................................................................7
Methodology
2.1 Vegetation Methodologies..........................................................8
2.2 Wetland Methodologies.............................................................8
2.3 Stream Methodologies...............................................................9
References.............................................................................................................10
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map & Background
Figure 1. Vicinity Map...................................................................... 12
Table 1. Project Components & Mitigation Credits ..................................... 13
Table 2. Project Activity & Reporting History .......................................... 14
Table 3. Project Contacts.................................................................... 15
Table 4. Project Attributes................................................................. 16
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2.0-2.4 Current Conditions Plan View ............................................ 18
Table 5. Visual Stream Assessment....................................................... 23
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment ............................................... 23
Stream Cross Section Station Photos........................................................ 24
Vegetation Plot Photos....................................................................... 26
Photo Point Photos............................................................................ 27
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criterion Attainment ........................................... 37
Table 8. CVS Stem Count Total & Planted ............................................... 37
Appendix D. Stream Survey Data
Figure 4.0-4.4 Cross Section Data ......................................................... 39
Figure 5 Longitudinal Profile Data.......................................................... 44
Figure 6.0-6.2. Pebble Count Data.......................................................... 45
Table 9.0-9.1 Baseline Stream Data Summary.............................................48

Table 10.0 Monitoring- Cross Section Morphology.....................................50
Table 10.1 Monitoring- Stream Reach Morphology ..................................... 51
Appendix E. Hydrologic Data
Table 11 Verification of Bankfull Events .................................................. 54
Figure 7.0 Rainfall Percentiles............................................................. 55
Figures 8.0-8.5 Groundwater Gauge Data ................................................ 56
Table 12. Wetland Gauge Attainment..................................................... 62
Figure 9. Wetland Delineation Data Forms ............................................... 63

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on our field observations and review of the data collected in during the fall of 2015, we
conclude that the Lewis Creek project is trending toward a successful restoration project.
1.1 Project Goals & Objectives
The Lewis Creek Stream Restoration Site (Lewis Creek Site) is located in an active agricultural
community and many of the forest lands in the area are being converted to orchards or residential
development. The Lewis Creek Site is protected in perpetuity and is located immediately
adjacent to a preserved mountain bog. The segment of Lewis Creek that underwent active
restoration is classified by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Division of Water Resources (DWR) as Class C, trout waters (NCDDWR, 2007). The following
is a list of Goals & Objectives to be gained from this project:
Goals
1. Reestablishing stream stability and capacity to transport watershed flows and
sediment load by restoring 1,750 linear feet of stable channel morphology;
2. Re -introduce a more frequent hydrologic connection between the stream and the
floodplain;
3. Establish native riparian bottomland hardwood tree and shrub community;
4. Reduce nonpoint source sediment pollution and excessive nutrient inputs;
5. Enhance the flood storage capacity of the Site by adjusting channel and/or flood plain
elevations while improving the hydrologic connection of the stream to its floodplain.
Objectives
1. Utilize natural channel design principles to create a more stable pattern, profile and
dimension morphology and improve stream habitat using grade/bank stabilization
structures;
2. Lower floodplain berms along Lewis Creek to allow more access by flood events;
3. Successfully plant riparian and flood plain areas with native woody trees and shrubs
conforming to the density requirements specified below;
4. Eliminate accelerated bank erosion, exclude livestock, and reestablish native riparian
buffers substantially greater than 50 feet in width;
5. Reestablish floodplain connectivity;
6. Preserve the entire Site with a Conservation Easement in perpetuity.
1.2 Background
The Lewis Creek Site is located in Henderson County, North Carolina, northeast of the City of
Hendersonville. The Site is located within the French Broad River Watershed (USGS HUC
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 3 of 72

06010105) and is a third order tributary to Clear Creek. A Vicinity Map is included in Appendix
A. The land use is dominated by agriculture (primarily fruit orchards and row crops) and forest.
Much of the surrounding forested land is being converted to orchards and sod farms. New
residential development is also encroaching toward the Lewis Creek Site. The project area
consists of 1,750 linear feet of stream restoration on the main channel of Lewis Creek. The Site
begins at North Ridge Road culvert crossing and continues downstream for 1,7501f to the end of
the project. Approximately 10 acres of forested wetlands are located along the south side of
Lewis Creek, most of which extends beyond the conservation easement. This area is owned by
the Carolina Mountain Land Conservancy (CMLC). CMLC is actively involved in the
management of this site and we have coordinated closely with them during the monitoring field
work. Prior to restoration activities Lewis Creek had been impacted by straightening and berm
construction. The design was done by Jordan, Jones & Goulding, Inc. (JJG) and constructed by
Carolina Environmental Contracting for the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP), now Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). The fifth year monitoring field work was
completed in September 2015 by Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. (MMI). The monitoring was done in
conformance with the NCDMS Monitoring Report Template dated February 2014.
The Lewis Creek Site was constructed in April 2011 and MY -01 was completed in 2012 by JJG.
No monitoring occurred for MY -02. Mogensen Mitigation, Inc. (MMI) conducted the monitoring
for MY -03 in October of 2013, the monitoring for MY -04 in September of 2014 and MY -05 in
September 2015. The Lewis Creek Site includes 1,7501f of stream restoration and a small area of
riparian wetlands (approximately 0. 18 ac.) on the Lewis Creek floodplain. During this fall
monitoring season (September, 2015, MY -05), in addition to the usual monitoring tasks, MMI
has delineated the wetlands and mapped the extent using GPS survey equipment. Wetland Data
Forms are included in Appendix E.
The existing stream reach that was available for restoration was 1,663 if of Lewis Creek. The
stream restoration consisted of Priority Level 2 restoration along the main channel of Lewis
Creek resulting in 1,7501f of restored stream. The restoration plan also included planting the
stream banks and riparian zones with native tree and shrub species. The designed channel
dimension was based on a combination of dimensionless ratios from the reference reach along
Raccoon Branch, NC Regional Curve for Rural mountain streams, Rosgen stable reach data
ranges (Rosgen 2004a) and existing conditions. Appendix A includes more details on the Site's
location, history and watershed background information.
1.3 Vegetative Conditions
In September 2015, each of the five pre -established 10 x 10 meter vegetation plots were re-
located, flagged and surveyed by MMI staff using Version 4.2 of the CVS-EEP Level 2
Vegetation Monitoring Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). According to this protocol, both planted and
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 4 of 72

volunteer stems were resampled. For this monitoring year (MY -05 2015), the success criterion
specified in the mitigation plan requires a minimum survival rate of 260 live stems/per acre.
In 2015 the five CVS monitoring plots had surviving planted stem densities of 81 to 364 stems
per acre (average 210 per acre), and three plots did not meet the MY -05 success criterion (260
stems per acre) based on planted stem survival. However, the total density of planted plus native
volunteer woody stems ranges from 931 to 7729, and all plots have densities far exceeding the
success criterion when volunteer stems are included (Appendix C, Table 8). Predominant
volunteer species include Salix nigra, Salix cinerea, Alnus serrulata, Betula nigra, and Cornus
amomum.
1.4 Significant Flood Events
Observations of the crest stage gauge (CSG) in September,
2015 suggest that at least one storm event did reach
overbank flooding during the winter/spring of 2015 (Table
11). This most likely occurred during June 2015 when the
NC mountains experienced two weeks of rain. MMI
noted the height of the flooding (8") and removed the
existing CSG during the site visit field work. Each
monitoring year for the last three years the site
experienced a bankfull event, therefore, this criteria has
been achieved.
1.5 Stream Assessment
Observations from this year's fall monitoring field work
indicate that the stream banks and the present stream
dimensions along the restored reach appear to be stable
and within acceptable parameters. The entire 1,7501f
reach of Lewis Creek was surveyed and assessed from the
project origin at North Ridge Road bridge to the project
terminus. This assessment included five surveyed cross-
sections (Figure 4), a longitudinal -profile survey (Figure
5) visual stability (Table 5) and field verifying the Current
Condition Plan View (Figure 2).
During our fall site visit in September, MMI observed evidence of an active beaver dam at
approximately station 7+75 just upstream from VP -03 that was backing up water for roughly half
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 5 of 72

the project. MMI staff manually removed this dam to facilitate the longitudinal survey, and
informed DMS about the presence of beaver at that time. A DMS contractor was subsequently
notified in September 2015 and is conducting monthly site visits to trap beaver and remove dams
as necessary.
Several center bars persist in the stream channel and
have been closely watched in all monitoring years.
Larger bars occur at approximately Stations 8+50 and
11+50. Smaller center bars that had been observed
downstream in past years were flooded this year due
to the beaver activity. In general, these center bars are
not a cause for concern as the streambank vegetation
along these reaches is preventing lateral migration of
the stream. The stream flows continue to be adequate
to keep most in -stream vegetation from overtaking
the stream channel even in summer months.
The sediment and substrate loads were a mix of sand in slower moving stream reaches and
cobble & gravel in the riffles (see Pebble Count data below). Based on the recent monitoring
data and our visual inspection the restored stream channel appears to be functioning as designed,
maintaining stability, and adequately passing bedload sediment. Stream bank erosion was not
observed anywhere along the restored reach. All structures appear to be functioning as designed
and are not showing any signs of erosion or piping. Cross-section survey data indicates that
channel geometry remains stable with only slight changes in channel morphology evident.
1.6 Wetland Conditions
Data from groundwater monitoring gages 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 supported by field observations suggest
that these areas are not close to meeting jurisdictional wetland hydrology (see Appendix E). It is
important to note, however, that between the fall monitoring periods of 2014 & 2015 several of
the gauges have malfunctioned at times resulting in data gaps, despite routine checks,
maintenance, recalibration, and even replacement of Gauges 1 & 6 in May 2015. We have
supplemented the incomplete gauge data with field measurements of saturation depth (manual
readings taken with a tape measure) during each site visit. We recognize these occasional data
points cannot document the duration of shallow saturation, but the limited evidence they provide
does support our opinion that the wells are probably not meeting wetland hydrology success
criteria in these areas.
Water tables at gauges 2 through 6 remained far below 12" from January through March prior to
the growing season, except for brief spikes. Thus it is unlikely that they achieved saturation for
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 6 of 72

extended periods during the growing season. For gauge 1 we do not have any January to March
data for 2015, but during Jan to Mar of the previous year there were only a few intermittent days
when it rose above the 12" depth threshold. Field observations further indicate that these areas
did not exhibit wetland indicators such as dominant wetland vegetation and/or hydric soils.
Observed trends in vegetation, surface water, and groundwater data suggest that the only
jurisdictional wetland area is in the vicinity of Gauge 3, as described below.
Field observations indicate that any wetland hydrology in the vicinity of Gauge 3 is based on
surface flows from the adjacent mountain bog. On numerous occasions during the last three
years of monitoring, we have observed standing water in this area during periods when the gauge
readings clearly showed the water table more than 12 inches below the surface. MMI staff have
repeatedly used manual measurements with a tape measure to insure that the gauge was working
correctly in these incidences. The manual measurements have confirmed that there was a
disconnect between the surface flows and the groundwater in the wetland area.
Although the jurisdictional wetland area found on the Lewis Creek site is relatively small (-0.18
acres), it contains a high diversity of native wetland shrubs and forbs. According to the Cowardin
Classification System it is considered a Palustrine Scrub -Shrub Broad -Leaved Deciduous with
Saturated Water Regime (PSS IB). The wetlands are dominated by river birch, black willow and
silky dogwood in the canopy layer and alder and grey willow in the shrub layer. The herbaceous
vegetation includes sedges, rushes, jewelweed, woolgrass, Joe-Pye weed, boneset, seedbox and
cardinal flower. The soils are mapped Codorus silt loam with inclusions of Hatboro silt loam
which is a Hydric A soil. The soils are saturated and mucky in the wetter areas. As noted in the
Methodology Section, the wetland boundaries were delineated using the latest state and federal
rules for determining jurisdictional waters of the United States. Routine Wetland Determination
Data Forms were completed for this wetland area and included in Appendix E.
1.7 Problem Areas
One new, active, beaver dam was found to be backing up water for >700 linear feet of the
project. This dam was removed by hand to the best of our abilities during the site visit and DMS
was notified at that time. A DMS contractor was subsequently notified in September 2015 and is
conducting monthly site visits to trap beaver and remove dams as necessary.
With respect to planted vegetation, the only minor problem we
observed in 2015 is the continuing sand deposition in isolated
flood plain areas, as noted in previous years. Cumulatively, these
areas represent a relatively small amount of the site area below
the mapping threshold (-0.1 acres), as noted on table 6. These
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5.
Page 7 of 72

areas of sand deposition tend to support annual herbaceous vegetation that can root quickly in the
new sand piles.
No other problems were observed to exist at this time.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Monitoring methodologies follow the CVS-EEP Level 2 Vegetation Monitoring Protocol for
Recording Vegetation (Lee et al. 2008). All photos were taken with a Cannon digital camera and
are available electronically. A Trimble Hand Held GPS unit was used to locate veg. plot corners,
groundwater gauges and problem areas.
For gauges 1 & 6 a laptop equipped with PC TRANSFER and ODYSSEY software was used to
download the data from the groundwater gauges. For gauges 2, 3, 4, 5 an HP calculator and Dell
Laptop computer were used to download the data. All graphics have been done using ArcGIS
and are available electronically.
2.1 Vegetation Methodologies
Five 10 x 10 square meter veg. plots were installed and monitored according to the CVS-EEP
Level 2 Vegetation Monitoring Protocol Version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008). The plot corners are
marked with 1" Aluminum or PVC pipe and flagged with bright red flagging tape. Data collected
from each plot is included in Appendix C. Monitoring plot locations are shown on the maps in
Appendix B. Plant identification was aided by the publication Flora of the Southern and Mid -
Atlantic States (Weakley 2012).
2.2 Wetland Methodologies
Six (6) Infinities Continuous -Read Groundwater gauges were installed by MMI in 2013
according to the Technical Note HY-IA-3.1 (USACE 1993). Three gauges (1, 2, 3) are located
on the south side of Lewis Creek and three (4, 5, 6) are located along the north side of Lewis
Creek (per directions from Mike McDonald NCDMS PM). The gauges are set to record data
every 24 hours and are downloaded at regular intervals through the year. All six (6) groundwater
Monitoring Gauges were downloaded most recently in November, 2015, and were checked
regularly throughout the growing season. Data is provided in an Excel spreadsheet and may be
supplemented with data from the NC CRONOS database, Station ID NC -HN -15 and field
observations. This year, project wetland boundaries were delineated (figure 2) using the Routine
Wetland Determination method (Level 2 -Onsite Inspection; field sheets available in Appendix E)
as defined in the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual, as required by our contract.
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 8 of 72

2.3 Stream Methodologies
Five cross-sections and 1,750 linear feet of stream long -pro were surveyed in September 2015
using a Trimble RDK survey -grade GPS unit. The survey data locations were plotted using ARC
GIS 10.0 and Excel. Cross-sectional data was based on a linear alignment between end points
marked by metal pins. Measurements at each cross-section include points at point of origin,
bankfull, top of bank, toe of slope and thalweg for each stream side supplemented with photos.
Long -pro measurements include thalweg, and water surface taken at the head of feature (i.e.
riffle, run, pool glide) in addition to pool depths. It should be noted that due to the change in
water levels resulting from beaver activity it was difficult to establish the exact location of some
features, particularly the pools. For this reason, only one pool was measured in 2015. In addition,
visual and photographic assessment of in -stream structures was conducted to determine overall
project success. Structure failures include collapse of structure, undermining, abandonment of
channel, piping around the structure. Stream assessment data are included in Appendix D with
cross-sections and monitored stream reaches indicated on maps in Appendix B. In addition, MMI
used manual crest stage gauges to verify bankfull events.
All raw data supporting the tables, figures and graphs in the appendices are available to NCDMS
upon request.
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 9 of 72

3.0 References
Doll, B. A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K. A., Halley, J., Harman, W. A. Jennings, G.D., Wise, D.E.,
(2003). Stream Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook. NC Stream Restoration
Institute, NC State University.
Lee, Michael T.; Peet, Robert K.; Roberts, Steven D.; Wentworth, Thomas R. (2008). CVS-EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.2. - Based on a (2008) publication by the same
authors - A flexible, multipurpose method for recording vegetation composition and structure.
Castanea 63:262-274.
JJG March 2013. Monitoring Report Year #1
Rosgen, D. L. (1996). Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs,
CO.
Weakley, A. S. (2012). Flora of the Southeastern and Mid -Atlantic States. Working draft of
November 2012. University of North Carolina Herbarium (NCU), NC Botanical Garden,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Miller, James H. (2003). Invasive Plants of Southern Forests. A field guide for identification and
Control. USDA Forest Service Southern Research station General Technical Report SRS -62.
Wolman, M. G. (1954). A Method of Sampling Coarse River -Bed Material. Transactions of
American Geophysical Union 35:951-956.
Dept. of the Army, Corps of Engineers (33 CFR Part 328) & US Environmental Protection
Agency (40 CFR Parts 110, 112, 116 et al). Clean Water Rule: Definition of "Waters of the
United States": Final Rule.
Various NCDMS Guideline Documents as noted.
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 10 of 72

Appendix A: Project Vicinity Map
and Background Tables

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 13 of 72
Mitigation Credits
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Phosphorus
Stream
Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland
Buffer
Offset
Nutrient Offset
Type
R RE
R RER RE
N/A
N/A
N/A
Totals
1,750 N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Project Components
Restoration
Restoration
Project
Stationing/Location
Existing Feet/Acres
Approach
or-
Footage or
Mitigation
Component
Restoration
Acres
Ratio
Equivalent
Lewis Creek
0+00— 17+50
1,6631f
PH
Restoration
1,7501f
1:1
Component Summation
Non -
Restoration
Stream (if)
Riparian Wetland (ac)
Riparian
Buffer (sq ft)
Upland (ac)
Leel
Wetland (ac)
Riverine
Non-Riwrine
Restoration
1,750
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Totals
1,750
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
BMP Elements
BR= Bioretention
Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW
= Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond;
DDP= Dry Detention Pond; FS = Filter Strip;
S= Gauss Swale;
LS = Level Spreader, NI =
Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer
SMU= Stream Mitigation Unit; WMU= Wetland Mitigation Mitigation Unit
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 13 of 72

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Activity or Report
Data Collection Completed
Actual Completion or Delivery
Mitigation Plan
September -07
December -07
Final Design - Construction Plans
August -09
August -09
Construction
September -10
April -11
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area
April -11
April -11
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
April -11
April -11
B&B plantings for reach/segments
April -11
April -11
Bare root and livestake plantings for reach/segments
April -11
April -11
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring -baseline)
July -11
December -11
Section 404 Permit
September -07
February -08
Year 1 Monitoring
June -12
November -12
Year 2 Monitoring
NA
NA
Year 3 Monitoring
October -13
February -13
Year 4 Monitoring
September -14
November -14
Year 5 Monitoring
September -15
December -15
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 14 of 72

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Designer
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
309 E. Morehead Street, Suite 110
Charlotte, NC 28202
Matthew Clabaugh, PE
704-527-4106
Construction Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
P.O. Box 1905
Mt. Airy, NC 27030
Stephen James
336-320-3849
Planting Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
P.O. Box 1905
Mt. Airy, NC 27030
Stephen James
336-320-3849
Seeding Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
P.O. Box 1905
Mt. Airy, NC 27030
Stephen James
336-320-3849
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources
Rodney Montgomery
336-215-3458
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Mellow Marsh Farm, Inc.
919-742-1200
Monitoring Performers:
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc.
Baseline -Year 1
309 E. Morehead Street, Suite 110
Charlotte, NC 28202
704-527-4106
Monitoring Performers:
Mogensen Mitigation, Inc.
Year 3-5
PO Box 690429
Charlotte, NC 28202
Stream Monitoring, POC
Rich Mogens en, 704-576-1111
Vegetation Monitoring, POC
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 15 of 72

Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Project Information
Project Name
Lewis Creek Stream Restoration
Project County
Henderson County, NC
Project Area (acres)
2.53
Project Coordinates
35022'40.5"N
82°20'56.1"W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Region
Blue Ridge
Project River Basin
French Broad
USGS HUC for Project (8 digit)
06010105
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project and Reference
04-03-02
Project Drainage Area (acres)
2,560
Project Drainage Area Percentage of hnpervious Area
0
CGIA Land Use Classification
2.01
Reach Summary Information*
Parameters
Length ofreach (linear feet)
1,750
Valley classification
VIII
Drainage area (acres)
1,856
NCDWQ stream identification score
N/A
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
N/A
Morphological Description (streamt e)
Perennial
Evolutionaly trend
Agricultural
Underlying mapped soils
Codorus and Hatboro loam
Drainage Class
moderate to por
Soil Hydric status
Hatboro - hydric
Sloe
0.0030
FEMA classification
100 year floodplain
Native vegetation community
Montane Alluvial Forest and Piedmont/Mountain Alluvial Forest
intermediate community type
Percent composition ofexotic invasive vegetation
U
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable? Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters ofthe United States - Section 404
Yes Yes
DWR#08-00008
Waters ofthe United States - Section 401
Yes Yes
SAW -2008-0072
Endangered Species Act
Yes Yes
SAW -2008-0072
Historic Preservation Act
N/A N/A
N/A
Costal Zone Managemetn Act (CZMA)/Costal Area Management Act (LAMA)
N/A N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes No
Henderson County Floodplain
Development Permit Issued 5/20/08;
LOMRA roved 11/23/11
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A N/A
N/A
*This site is within the Mud Creek LWP and is in a Targeted Local Watershed
"N/A": items do not apply / "-": items are unavailable / "U": items are unknown
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 16 of 72

Appendix B: Visual Assessment Data

Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 2.53
Mapping
Num er
% of
Num er
ootage
juste
Major
Combined
Planted
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
with
with
for
Channel
Channel
N/A
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Sub -Category
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Woody
Woody
Wood
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aagradation - Bar formation/growth suffcienito significantly
deflectflow laterally (not to Include point bars)
map scale).
0
0
100%
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate
10
10
0.0%
100%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth :Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
13
13
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of down atrem riffle)
13
13
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
12
12
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
11
11
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simplyfrom poor growth
and/or scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercutlowrhanging to the extent that mass wasting
2. Undercut
appears likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest,
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
a ear sustainable and are amending habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, caking, 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 orlogs.
13
13
100%
2. trade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across
the sill.
5
5
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
0
0
100%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not
3. Bank Protection
exceed 15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring
0
0
100%
guidance document)
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean
4. Habitat
Bankfull Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs prodding some cover at
13
13
100%
base -flow.
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 2.53
Easement Acreage 14
Mapping
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous
0.1 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
material.
2. Low Stem Density Areas*
woody stem densities clearly below target levels
0.1 acres
yellow
0
0.00
0.0%
N/A
based on MY5 criteria.
0.00
polygon
map scale).
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are
0.25 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
obviously small given the monitoring year.
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage 14
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 23 of 72
Mapping
% of
Threshold
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
SF
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at
0
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
map scale).
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at
0
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
map scale).
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 23 of 72

Cross Section 1 Upstream MY 5, 2015 Cross Section 1 Downstream MY 5, 2015
Cross Section 2 Upstream
-. _ ,•tom- --.
MY 5, 2015 Cross Section 2 Downstream MY 5, 2015
Cross Section 3 Upstream MY 5, 2015 Cross Section 3 Downstream MY 5, 2015
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 24 of 72

fy,z
. . d./vliA
. . .
Cres Section 4Upstream MY %2015 Cross Section Downstream 9Y y 2015
. ^ \ � �: • ©
Cross Section 5Upstream 2Y % 2015 Cross Sec,lon5Downstream MY y 2015
Legis Creek 783. December 2015. Monitoring Years 0 « Page 25 0 72

of 1 MY 5, 2015 Veg Plot 2 MY
Veg Plot 3
MY 5, 2015 Veg Plot 4
Veg Plot 5 MY 5, 2015
5
MY 5, 2015
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Page 26 of 72
fi
MY 5, 2015 Veg Plot 4
Veg Plot 5 MY 5, 2015
5
MY 5, 2015
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Page 26 of 72

Photo Point a1
Photo PGM 1(North) MY % 2015
%f
4.\�. .�.
Photo Point ](South) MY 5,2015 Photo Point ](We (
mI%zJIQ
Legis Creek 783. December 2015. Monitoring Years 0 5 Page 27 0 72
2Ile
Photo PGG 1(East)
MY % 2015
Photo Point ](South) MY 5,2015 Photo Point ](We (
mI%zJIQ
Legis Creek 783. December 2015. Monitoring Years 0 5 Page 27 0 72

Photo Point #2
wow
o Point 2 (North) MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 2 (East)
MY 5, 2015
Photo Point 2 (South) MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 2 (West)
MY 5, 2015
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Page 28 of 72
it
%rOf
�...
Photo Point 2 (South) MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 2 (West)
MY 5, 2015
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Page 28 of 72

Photo Point #3
Photo Point 3 (North)
MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 3 (East) MY 5, 2015
Photo Point 3 (South) MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 3 (West)
MY 5, 2015
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Page 29 of 72
r.
Ah
v
1 '• G �
w
Photo Point 3 (South) MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 3 (West)
MY 5, 2015
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Page 29 of 72

Photo Point #4
Photo Point 4 (North) MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 4 (East)
10,
wR y
b -
way
Photo Point 4 (North) MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 4 (East)
wR y
b -
way
Photo Point 4 (North) MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 4 (East)
Photo Point 4 (South) MY 5, 2015
IVI T 0, LV 10
Photo Point 4 (West) MY 5, 2015
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Page 30 of 72
wR y
Photo Point 4 (South) MY 5, 2015
IVI T 0, LV 10
Photo Point 4 (West) MY 5, 2015
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Page 30 of 72

Photo Point #5
Photo Point 5 (North)
MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 5 (East) MY 5, 2015
Photo Point 5 (South) MY 5, 2015
Photo Point 5 (West)
MY 5, 2015
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Page 31 of 72

Photo Point #6
Photo Point 6 (North)
MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 6 (East) MY 5, 2015
i
�y� ���' � �'�• 4 f / y�h� 1i e
v INN9
YY.
Photo Point 6 (South) MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 6 (West)
IVI I J, GV 1 J
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Page 32 of 72

Photo Point #7
". F
.� ,,�ti `.
■
4.
Photo Point 7 (North) MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 7 (East) MY 5, 2015
OF 063ifl:
f '4
♦J � - nr lei __{ .4i �_
[7 1
�.• - � .. d ,.: - ice. a .
r
fj
Photo Point 7 (South) MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 7 (West)
MY 5, 2015
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Page 33 of 72

Photo Point #8
Photo Point 8 (North) MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 8 (East)
a
r
J
"
40'
Photo Point 8 (North) MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 8 (East)
MY 5, 2015
r
J
"
40'
:+.
1_'0.
� F
1 '�•'� � t
� 1 *�Y ,a �x��
e�
t
MY 5, 2015
Photo Point 8 (South) MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 8 (West)
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Page 34 of 72
J
"
40'
Photo Point 8 (South) MY 5, 2015 Photo Point 8 (West)
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Page 34 of 72

Photo Point #9
Photo Point 9 (North) MY 5, 2015
Photo Point (West) MY 5, 2015
Photo Point 9 (South) MY 5, 2015
Photo Point 9 (West)
MY 5, 2015
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5 Page 35 of 72

Appendix C: Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criterion Attainment
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met (Y/N)
Plot 1
N
Plot 2
Y
Plot 3
N
Plot 4
Y
Plot 5
N
*Note that when volunteer stems are considered, each plot has met the success criteria with the site exhibiting an overall density of 3,051 stems per acre in MY5.
Table 8. CVS Stem Counts Total & Planted
_Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of S. Page 37 of 72
Current Means
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type PnoLS
Plot 1
P -all T
Pnol5
Plot 2
P -all T
Plot 3
PnoLS P -all
T PnoLS
Plot 4
P -all
T
PnoLS
Plot 5
P -all T
PnoLS
MYS (2015)
P -all T
MY4 (2014)
PnoLS P -all T
MY3 (2013)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1(2011)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2010)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
2 2
6
16
1
2 2
24 2
2
27
2 2
23
2
2
2 2
2 2
Acer saccharinum
silver maple
Tree
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub
3
6
5
5
1 1
5
1 1
24
11
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
0
8 8
33
12
12
12 12
12 12
Baccharis spp.
eastern baccharis
Shrub
01
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1 11
211
5 51
1701
91
1
1
211
5 5
111
12 12
232 12
12
2231
14 14
2241
15
15
151 15
15 15
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
0
1 11
1
2
2
2 3
3 3
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1 1
5
1
2 2
12
4
4
7
3
7 7
28 7
7
23
9 9
24
9
9
9 9
9 9
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
0
1
Ilex opaca
American holly
Tree
0
5
5
5 5
5 5
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1 1
2 1
1
1
1 1
1
4
4
4 4
4 4
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1 1
3
1
1
1 2
2 2
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1 11
1 3
3
3
3 3
3
5
5
5 5
5 5
Rhus glabra
smooth sumac
lShrub
1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
3
1 1
2
1
11
1 1
11 1
Robinia pseudoacacia
black locust
Tree
5
1
1
5
1
5
1
4
Salix cinerea
graywillow
Tree
17
3
9
14
33
1
42
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
8
4
;;;2
S
5
3
25
27
37
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species counti
Stems per ACRE
2 2
1
0.02
2 2
81
60
7
2428
7 7
1
0.02
2 2
283
191
7
7729
2 41
1
0.02
1 1 6
81 1659
91 91 62
1
0.02
6 6 10
364 2509
6 6
1
0.02
2 2
243
23
5
931
26 26
5
0.12
8 8
210
377 271
17 7
3051
5
0.12
271 368
7 13
219 2978
401 40
5
0.12
9 9
324
356
12
2881
56
5
0.12
30
561 56
10 30
453 453
58
5
0.12
30
58 58
30 10
469 469
_Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Lewis Creek -733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of S. Page 37 of 72

Appendix D: Stream Survey Data

Appendix D: Stream Survey Data
Figure 4.0 Cross-sectionwithAnnual Overlays
Lewis Creek Stream Restoration/DMS Project No. 733
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Project Name Lewis Creek
Elevation
EEP Project Number 733
0.00
Cross -Section ID XS -1, Pool,+292.52
SureeyDate 9/2015
0.43
S UN VIARY DATA
m 1
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
2152.17
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (It)
247.80
Bankfull Width ft
23.10
FloodProne Area Elevation (ft)
2154.83
Flood Prone Width (ft)
120.00
Bankfull Mean De b (ft)
1.06
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.66
W/D Ratio
21.79
Entrenchment Ratio
5.19
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Station
Elevation
Notes
0.00
2155.30
LPIN
0.43
2154.68
m 1
2.35
2154.05
x41
4.50
2153.41
xs 1
7.57
2152.02
xs I
10.01
2151.79
xs 1
15.90
2151.93
XS
21.72
2152.08
)SI
28.37
2152.70
]is 1
35.09
2153.25
xs 1
36.04
2153.32
xs 1
41.85
2153.71
LTB
46.01
2152.06
m 1
48.14
2150.80
LEW
49.44
2150.17
xs 1
50.30
2149.51
THW
52.02
2149.38
xs 1
53.96
2149.53
M 1
58.52
2150.30
xs 1
60.97
2150.57
REW
61.76
2151.25
xs 1
64.95
2152.37
RTB
69.99
2152.58
Xs 1
74.70
2153.06
14S1
81.40
2153.06
M 1
86.99
2153.27
xs 1
94.55
2153.66
Xs
102.53
2153.94
xs 1
107.97
2152.37
xs 1
111.02
2153.14
xs 1
114.53
2154.17
xs I
119.18
2154.63
NS
119.83
2154.71
RPIN
XS -1: Upstream
XS -1: Downstream
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 39 of 72
Lewis Creek Cross -Section 1- Pool
2157
2156
2155
2154
a
2153
Q
2152
2151
2150
2149
2148
0
20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)
Baukfull - Water Surface - As -Built (4/2011) MY1 (6/2012) - MY3-(10/2013) - MY44/2014) � MY5 (9/2015)
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 39 of 72

Appendix D: Stream Survey Data
Figure 4.1 Cross-section with Annual Overlays
Lewis Creek Stream Restoration/DMS Project No. 733
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Project Name Lewis Creek
2156
2155
FFP Project Number 733
Cross -Section In XS-2,Riffle +511.9
Sures Date 9/2015
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Flevetion (ft)
2151.48
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft')
330.90
Bankfull Width ft
23.93
Flood Prone Area Flevadon (ft)
2154.17
Flood Prone Width ft
120.00
Bankfull Mean De (ft)
1.68
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.69
W/D Ratio
14.24
Entrenchment Ratio
5.02
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Notes
xs2
XS -2: Upstream
XS -2: Downstream
Lewis Creek Cross -Section 2 -Riffle
2156
2155
2154
0
a 2153
0
Q
2152
2151
2150
UJ/
2149
2148
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)
Water Surface ' ' ' ' Bankfull - As -Built (4/2011) - MYl-(6/2012) - MY3-(1(k/2013) - MY4-(8/2014) 7rMYS (9/2015)
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 40 of 72

Appendix D: Stream Survey Data
Figure 4.2 Cross-section with Annual Overlays
Lewis Creek Stream Restoration/DMS Project No. 733
Monitoring Year 4 of 5
Project Name Lewis Creek
Uevation
EEP Project Number 733
0.00
Cross -Section B) XS -3, Riffle, +641.70
Surve Date 9/2015
1.64
SUMMARYDATA
xs3
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
2151.186
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area(It)
372.50
Bankfull Width ft
25.58
Flood Prone Area Elevation (R)
2154.35
Flood Prone Width (ft)
120.00
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.79
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.16
W/D Ratio
32.38
Entrenchment Ratio
4.69
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Station
Uevation
Notes
0.00
2153.35
TLP
1.64
2152.46
xs3
3.32
2152.40
-3
9.16
2150.50
-
xs3
15.94
2151.03
xs3
22.38
2150.79
xs3
29.47
2151.37
xs3
37.11
2151.29
xs3
44.69
2151.60
xs3
51.27
2151.50
TLB
54.17
2150.85
xs3
56.58
2149.82
LEW
57.94
2148.91
xs3
60.27
2148.03
THW
62.57
2148.06
xs3
64.77
2148.35
xs3
67.14
2148.52
xs3
69.17
2148.57
xs3
71.02
2149.40
REW
73.55
2150.67
xs3
76.85
2151.19
TRB
82.55
2151.01
xs3
88.64
2151.3 ]
xs3
97.18
2151.16
xs3
106.30
2151.17
-3
113.18
2151.28
-
xs3
119.28
2152.47
xs3
124.04
2154.50
TRP
XS -3: Upstream
XS -3: Downstream
Lewis Creek Cross -Section 3 - Riffle
2155
2154
2153
2152
:
\�
2151 -
2150
2149
2148
2147
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Station (ft)
Bankfull - Water SuHace -As-B uilt(4/2011) -MYI-(6/2012) -MV3-(10/2013) -MY4-(8/2014) MYS (9/2015)
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 41 of 72

Appendix D: Stream Survey Data
Figure 4.3 Cross-section with Annual Overlays
Lewis Creek StreamRestoration/DMS Project No. 733
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Project Name Lewis Creek
Elevation
EEP Project Number 733
0.00
Cross -Section ID XS4, Riffle 1+214.24
.Surve Date 9/2015
6.48
SUMMARYDATA
xs4
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
2150.16
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
62.30
Bankfull Width(ft)
279.90
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
2153.59
Flood Prone Width(ft)
150.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.58
Bankfull Max De (ft)
3.43
W/D Ratio
482.59
Entrenchment Ratio
0.54
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Station
Elevation
Notes
0.00
2151.75
TLP
6.48
2151.41
xs4
9.94
2150.40
xs4
13.51
2149.63
xs4
20.58
2150.04
xs4
27.68
2150.23
xs4
33.84
2150.10
xs4
41.74
2150.00
xs4
49.36
2150.16
TLB
53.41
2149.43
xs4
56.28
2147.17
xs4
57.26
2147.02
LEW
59.02
2146.75
xs4
60.36
2146.73
TWG
62.69
2146.59
xs4
64.21
2146.80
xs4
66.40
2147.12
REW
67.53
2148.08
xs4
69.50
2148.50
xs4
71.04
2148.98
xs4
73.49
2148.90
xs4
75.80
2149.81
TRB
80.99
2149.93
xs4
87.71
2150.11
xs4
98.88
2150.12
xs4
118.58
2150.18
xs4
133.03
2150.13
xs4
139.64
2150.21
xs4
144.15
2150.94
xs4
148.51
2151.36
TRP
XS4: Upstream
XS4: Downstream
Lewis Creek - MY4 Cross -Section 4 - Riffle
2153
2152
2151
c
0
2150
_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
2149
2148
2147
2146
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station (ft)
Bankfull Water Surface - AsBullt (4/2011) - MYl-(6/2012) - MY3-(10/2013) - MY4-(8/2014) MY5 (9/2015)
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 42 of 72

Appendix D: Stream Survey Data
Figure 4.4 Cross-section with Annual Overlays
Lewis Creek Stream Restoration/DMS Project No. 733
Monitoring Year 5 of 5
Project Name Lewis Creek
Elevation
FEP Project Number 733
0.00
Cross -Section ID XS -5, Pool, 1+564.9
Survey Date 9/2015
3.42
SUMMARYDATA
xs5
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
2148.78
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft')
210.90
Bankfull Width (ft)
24.16
Flood Prone Area Elevation (ft)
2152.13
Flood Prone Width (ft)
75.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.14
Bankfull Max Depth 1t
3.35
W/D Ratio
11.29
Entrenchment Ratio
3.10
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
Station
Elevation
Notes
0.00
2150.71
TLP
3.42
2149.30
xs5
15.49
2149.11
xs5
28.45
2148.78
TLB
31.22
2147.86
LEW
33.20
2146.50
xs5
33.84
2145.99
xs5
36.99
2146.11
xs5
40.38
2146.04
xs5
43.38
2145.43
THW
45.12
2145.34
xs5
46.45
2148.02
xs5
49.88
2149.44
xs5
52.61
2150.06
TRB
55.38
2149.95
xs5
64.65
2150.21
xs5
69.24
2151.47
xs5
73.58
2151.78
TRP
>v
XS -5: Upstream
XS -5: Downstream
Lewis Creek - MY4 Cross -Section 5 - Pool
2153
2152
2151
2150
0
0
2149
2148
s
2147
2146
2145
2144
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (ft)
80
Bankfa0 - - Water Surface - M -Built (4/2011) MYl-(6/2012) - MY3-(10/2013) - MY4-(8/2014) -6-- MY5 (9/2015)
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 43 of 72

LI] -1
2152
2151
2150
2149
2148 -
C
0
2147
W 2145
Figure 5.1. Letiv is Creek Longitudinal Profile (Sta. 0-1000)
2145
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.04 700.00 800.00 900.00 1000.00
Station (ft)
—*—T1nWMY5(9/2015)—"IHWMY4 THWMY3 THWMYI----THWAs-Built ! BIVKFL t1 Grade-coutrol Structure X WS MY5 (9/2015)
Figure 5.2. Lewis Creek Longitudinal Profile (Sta. 1000-1700)
_l ;n
2149
2143
214"i
2146
a
': 2145
L-1
•
p
•!! !
! • •
! !
•
!00
•
of
•
•
•
Cross Section 4
•
!
X
Cross Section 5
•
•
• •
• •Cross
X
•
Section
2
•
Cross Section 3
L
All
2145
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.04 700.00 800.00 900.00 1000.00
Station (ft)
—*—T1nWMY5(9/2015)—"IHWMY4 THWMY3 THWMYI----THWAs-Built ! BIVKFL t1 Grade-coutrol Structure X WS MY5 (9/2015)
Figure 5.2. Lewis Creek Longitudinal Profile (Sta. 1000-1700)
_l ;n
2149
2143
214"i
2146
a
': 2145
L-1
2144
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
Station (ft)
—FTHW MY5 (912015) —+— THW MY4 THW MY3 THW MY1----THW As -Built ! BNKFL o Grade -control Structure X WS MY5 (9/2015)
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 44 of 72
•!! !
! • •
! !
•
!00
•
!
Cross Section 4
•
!
X
Cross Section 5
X
2144
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
Station (ft)
—FTHW MY5 (912015) —+— THW MY4 THW MY3 THW MY1----THW As -Built ! BNKFL o Grade -control Structure X WS MY5 (9/2015)
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 44 of 72

Appendix D: Stream Survey Data
Figure 6.0 Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Lewis Creek Stream Restoration/DMS Project No. 733
Monitoring Year 5
Name: Lewis Creek
Reach: 1
Description
Material
Size
mm
Total #
Item
%
Cum
%
Silt/Clay
silt/clay
0.062
0
0%
0%
very fine sand
0.125
0
0%
0%
fine sand
0.250
4
4%
4%
Sand
mediumsand
0.50
3
3%
7%
coarse sand
1.00
5
5%
12%
very coarse sand
2.0
0
0%
12%
very fine gravel
4.0
1
1%
13%
fine gravel
5.7
4
4%
17%
fine gravel
8.0
5
5%
22%
medium ravel
11.3
10
10%
32%
Gravel
medium ravel
16.0
10
1 10%
42%
course gravel
22.3
10
10%
52%
course gravel
32.0
10
10%
62%
very coarse gravel
45
10
10%
72%
very coarse gravel
64
2
2%
74%
small cobble
90
3
3%
77%
niediumcobble
128
0
0%
77%
Cobble
large cobble
180
2
2%
79%
very large cobble
256
4
4%
83%
small boulder
362
1
1%
84%
smallboulder
512
9
9%
93%
Boulder
mediumboulder
1024
2
2%
95%
large boulder
2048
5
5%
100%
Bedrock
I bedrock 1
40096
0
0%
100%
TOTAL % of whole count
100
100%
100%
Smmna Data
D50 21.0
D84 362.0
D95 1024.0
�' • ■■111111■■�IIIIII■■�IIIIIIII/�
■■�IIIIII■■�IIIIII■■�IIIIIII/I
�' • • ■■111111■■�IIIIII■■�IIIIII%/I�
' • ■■�IIIIII■■�IIIIII■■�IIIII�%/�
'' • • ■■111111■■�IIIIII■■t1►11i1II►
. , • • ■■�IIIIII■■�IIIIII■■�/1►III/t
■■�IIIIII■■�111111� � IIiIIII�_
■■�IIIIII■►I��Illii�I_■i%� •���
�E-IsParticle Size (mm)
ii�r�llllll■�
MY3-(10/2013) — MY1-(6/2012)
Individual Class Percent
0111 e
'y
— MYO-(4/2011)
30%
25%
v
... 20%
u
a 15%
M
u
@ 10%
3
N.
a
M 5%
c
0%
O• O•
Particle Size (mm)
■ MY5-(9/2015) ■ MY4-(9/2014) ■ MY3-(10/2013) ■ MYl-(6/2012) ■ MYO-(4/2011)
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 45 of 72

Appendix D: Stream Survey Data
Figure 6.1 Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Lewis Creek Stream Restoration/DMS Project No. 733
Monitoring Year 5
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 46 of 72
Project Name: Lewis Creek
Cumulative Percent
1001/6
90%
80%
70%
V 60%
d 50%
a
9 40%
m
3 30%
E
20%
10%
Reach: 2
Feature: Riffle(XS3)
MY5-(9/2015)
Description
Material Size mm Total # Item % Cum %
Silt/Clay
silt/clay 0.062 0 0% 01/0
very lime sand 0.125 0 0% 0%
fine sand 0.250 1 1% 1%
Sand
mediumsand 0.50 2 2% 3%
coarse sand 1.00 16 1 16% 19%
very coarse sand 2.0 0 1 0% 19%
very fine gravel 4.0 1 1% 20%
fine gravel 5.7 6 6% 26%
fine gravel 8.0 0 0% 26%
medium ravel 1 11.3 20 20% 1 46%
Gravel
medium gravel 16.0 4 4% 50%
0%
11, o' , do yon tion
Particle Size (mm)
—MY5-(9/2015) —MY4-(9/2014) MY3-(10/2013) —MY1-(6/2012) —MYO-(4/2011)
Individual Class Percent
30%
25%
course gravel 22.3 13 13% 63%
course gravel 32.0 10 10% 73%
very coarse gravel 45 1 1% 74%
very coarse gravel 64 10 10% 84%
sma0cobble 90 4 1 4% 88%
mediumcobble 128 1 1% 89%
Cobble
large cobble 180 0 0% 89%
very large cobble 256 0 0% 89%
small boulder 362 1 1% 900/0
small boulder 512 2 2% 92%
Boulder
mediumboulder 1024 3 1 3% 95%
large boulder 2048 4 4% 99%
el
W
Bedrock
bedrock 40096 1 1% 100%
1
TOTAL % of whole count - 100 100% 1000/.
V
So ry Data
D50 16.0c
D84 64.0
D95 1024.0 64.0
m`LO%
v
— 5 % U
0% JAII ,,
O�O'L tilt' O,1� Oy 1 'L P ,'�'\ 1ti? ti° titi'? 3ti Ay 6R 00 411 y�0 ryy6 +11 ytiti
O• O•
Particle Size (mm)
■ MY5-(9/2015) ■ MY4-(9/2014) ■ MY3-(10/2013)
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 46 of 72

Appendix D: Stream Survey Data
FSgure 6.2 Pebble Count Plots with Annual Ove days
Lewis Creek Stream Restoration/DMS Project No. 733
Monitoring Year 5
Sand
Gravel
V
V
Cobble
V
Boulder
Bedrock
TOTAL. °/� of
t Name:
Reach: 3
silt/clay
rnediumboulder
0.062
very fine sand
0.125
fine sand
0.250
mediumsand
0.50
coarse sand
1.00
cry coarse sand
2.0
very fine gravel
4.0
fine gravel
5.7
fine gravel
8.0
medium ravel
11.3
medium ravel
16.0
course gravel
22.3
course gravel
32.0
cry coarse gravel
45
ety coarse gravel
64
small cobble
90
mediumcobble
128
large cobble
180
cry large cobble
256
small boulder
362
small boulder
512
11
1024
large boulder
2048
bedrock
40096
whnle rnnnt
4%
250 10.0
DE 55.0
D95 90.0
1
1%
1%
1
1%
2%
1
1%
3%
2
2%
5%
22
22%
27%
4
4%
31%
4
4%
35%
4
4%
39%
3
3%
42%
20
20%
62%
2
2%
64%
10
10%
74%
4
4%
78%
4
4%
82%
11
11%
93%
2
2%
95%
4
4%
99%
0
0%
99%
0
0%
99%
0
0%
99%
0
0%
99%
0
0%
99%
1
1%
100%
0
0%
100%
100
100%
100%
100%
90%
80%
70%
d 60%
d 50%
a
40%
m 30%
E 20%
10%
0%
ooti oy
Particle Size (mm)
—MY5-(9/2015) — MY4-(9/2014)
Cumulative Percent
MY3-(10/2013) — MY1-(6/2011
ti
MYO-(4/2011)
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 47 of 72

Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 48 of 72
Appendix D: Stream Survey Data
Table 9.0 Baseline -Stream Data Sununary Tables
Lewis Creek StreamRestoration/DMS Project: 733
Parameter
Crauge Regional Curve
Prc-Existing Condition I Reference Reach Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
1,L LI.
Min
Mean Med Max SD n MinFMcanjMcdMaxSD
n Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
221.11
- - 22.21 - 3.00 15.44 -
- -
24.71
-
22.65
23.98
23.81 25.38
1.08
5.00
Flood rove Width ft)
>100
- - - - 100.00 -
- -
60.00
-
70.91
114.25
114.93 148.86
28.02
5.00
Bankfull Mean De th (ft
- - -
2.12
- - 2.56 - 3.00 1.49 -
- -
225
-
1.60
1.96
1.89 2.60
0.39
5.00
Banldull Max De th fl
3.55
- - 4.58 - 3.00 2.40 -
- -
3.39
-
2.64
3.55
3.09 5.87
1.31
5.00
Banldull Cross -Sectional Area fta
---51.41
- - 55.22 - 3.00 23.74 -
- -
55.50
-
36.31
47.15
44.25 65.97
11.29
5.00Width/De
th Ratio
- - - -
8.25
- - 11.51 - 3.00 10.03 -
- -
11.00
-
9.76
12.56
12.36 14.62
1.94
5.00
Entrenchment Ratio
-
>2.2 - - - 6.00 6.29 -
- -
2.40
-
2.79
4.79
4.95 6.25
1.25
5.00
nkht Ratio
1.53
- - 1.79 - - 125 -
- -
1.00
-
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
0.00
5.00
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
2200
-
- 51.00126
-
52nO
-
-
- 49.42
-
98.83
49.42
-
- 98.83
-
-
Radius ofCutwature ft
14.37
-
- 69.28
8.50
-
-
15.80
-
- 49.42
-
76.60
49.42
-
- 76.60
-
-
Rc:BankfuRwidth ft/ft)
0.7
-
- 2.75
0.54
-
-
1.01
-
- 2.00
-
3.10
2.00
-
- 3.10Meander
Wavelen th (ft)
40
-
- 163
30.00
3.32
-
84.00
-
- 197.67
-
296.50
197.67
-
- 296.50MeanderWidthRatio
-
- - -
2
-
- 6.47
-
-
-
-
- 2.OU
-
4.00
2.00
-
- 4.00
-
-
Proflle
Riffle Length (ft)
7.64
-
- 21.50 - 9.00 - - - - -
- 9.70
-
121.90
11.75
34.18
- 58.75
-
-
Riffle Slope ft/ft)
0.00
-
- 0.02 - 9.00 - 1.74 - - -
- 2.40
-
2.88
0.01
0.02
- 0.05
-
-
Pool Length ft
6.90
-
- 294.11 - 19.00 - - - - -
- 30.30
-
125.40
14.92
19.39
Pool MaxDe th ft
3.5
-
- 4.7 - 3.0 - - - - -
- 4.9
-
5.4
0.5
0.8
- 12
-
-
Pool Spacing (ft)
35.60
-
- 84.58 - 16.00 42.00 - - 163.00 -
- 76.30
-
172.00
62.64
188.30
- 277.42
-
-
Trmisp,etParmneters
Reach Shear Stress (co etenc )Ib/ftp - - - -
-
0.42 - - - - - - - - -
- -
0.33
-
-
-
- -
-
-
Max art size mtn mobilized at baok.,
-
- - - - - - - - - -
- 22.16
-
79.91
-
-
- -
-
-
StreamPower(transport capacity) W/mZ - - - -
Additional Reach Parameters
-
- - - - - - - - - -
- -
-
-
-
-
- -
-
-
Ros en Classification
ES/CS E5
E5/C5
C5
Bankful Velocity s
2.63 5.50
2.52
31.46
Bankful Dischar e(cfs)
140 131
140
Valley Length (ft)
- -
1326
1379
Channel Thalweg Length ft
1750
1750
Sinuosity (ft)
1.11 1.30
1.32
1.29
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)
-
- - -
0.0030 0.0109
0.0025
0.0022
BFslo a ft/ft
Bankful Flood Iain Area acres
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 48 of 72

*2007 restoration plan did not include data for these parameters.
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 49 of 72
Appendix D. Stream Survey Data
Table 9.1 Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Lewis Creek Stream Restoration/DMS Project No. 733
Parameter
Pre -Existing Conmion Reference Reach Data Design
As-bailt/Baseline
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
*
*
*
20/25/27/22/4
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
*
*
*
0.01/0.53/0.13/0.29/0.02
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 (mm)
0.08/0.17/0.28/5.02/13.14
0.12/0.30/0.75/64.00/150.00
d50=17.65
/* /* /19.30/110.18/126.39
Entrenchment Class<1.5/1.5-1.99/2.0-
4.9/5.0-9.9/>10
2.0 > %100 < 4.9 (2.2)
5.0>%l00<9.9(6.29,6.48)
2.0>%100<4.9(2.40)
2.0 > %100 < 9.9 (2.79,6.25)
Incision Class <1.2/1.2-1.49/1.5-1.99/>2.0
1.5 > %100 < 1.99 (1.53,1.79)
1.20 > %100 < 1.49 (1.25)
%100 < 1.20 (1.0)
%100 < 1.20 (1.0)
*2007 restoration plan did not include data for these parameters.
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 49 of 72

* Data was not provided
PARAMETER
Appendix D: Stream Survey Data
Table 10.0 Monitoring - Cross -Section Morphology Data Table
Lewis Creek Stream Restoration/DMS Project Number 733
Cross -Section 5(Pool)
PARAMErE P,
Baseline
NWI-2011 NM -2012 MY3-2013 MY4-2014 MY5-2015
Cross -Section 1 (Pool)
23.3
24.0
N/A
22.6
Cross -Section 2 (Riffle)
24.16
Floodprone Width (ft)
DIMENSION
Baseline
MY1-2011 MY2-2012 MY3-2013 MY4-2014 MY5-2015
Baseline
MY1-2011 MY2-2012 MY3-2013 MY4-2014 MY5-2015
Bankfull Width ft
23.4
25.3
N/A 20.5
22.77
23.10
22.70
23.2
N/A
23.3
26.46
23.93
Flood rove Width ft
114.9
114.0
N/A 117.2
117.79
120.00
114.20
116.1
N/A
123.6
119.05
120.00
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.9
1.6
N/A 1.5
1.71
1.06
1.60
1.5
N/A
1.3
1.26
1.68
BankfullMax Depth ft
3.2
3.3
N/A 3.3
3.42
2.66 1
3.10
2.6
N/A
2.6
2.73
2.69
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
44.3
40.6
N/A 31.1
3885
36.00
36.30
34.5
N/A
29.3
33.28
28.10
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.4
15.8
N/A 1 13.5
13.35
21.79
14.20
15.5
N/A
1 18.5
21.04
14.24
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
4.9
4.5
N/A 5.7
5.17
5.19
5.0
5.0
N/A
5.3
4.50
5.02
Bankfull Bankhei ht Ratio
1.0
1.3
N/A 1.0
1.27
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
1,0
1.00
1.0
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft 2)
46.8
46.8
N/A 266.2
247.4
247.8
347.1
347.1
N/A
334.9
368.9
330.9
d50 (rmm)l
0.2
2.0
N/A N/A
N/A I
N/A 1
105.40
5.0
N/A
7.0
11.0 1
21.0
PARAMETER
Cross -Section 3(Riffle'
Cross -Section 4(Rifle)
DIMENSION
Baseline
MY1-2011 NM -2012 MY3-2013 MY4-2014 MY5-2015
Baseline
MY1-2011 MY2-2012 MY3-2013 MY4-2014 MY5-2015
Bankfull Width ft
24.7
25.8
N/A 25.0
21.07
25.58
23.80
23.4
N/A
19.3
19.78
26.44
Floodprone Width ft
122.3
120.3
N/A 99.7
119.07
120.00
148.90
147.8
N/A
130.7
143.47
150.00
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.7
1.5
N/A 1.5
1.42
0.79
2.00
1.8
N/A
0.9
1.90
0.58
BankfullMax Depth ft
2.6
2.6
N/A 2.6
2.49
3.16
3.00
2.9
N/A
2.1
3.26
3.43
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area ftZ
41.7
38.3
N/A 36.9
29.91
52.10
47.60
40.9
N/A
51.0
37.66
62.30
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.6
17.4
N/A 16.9
14.84
32.38
11.90
13.4
N/A
22.4
10.39
45.59
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
5.0
4.7
N/A 1.2
5.65
4.69
6.3
6.3
N/A
6.8
3.62
5.67
Bankfull Bankhei ht Ratio
1.0
1.0
N/A 1.0
1.24
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
1.0
1.00
1.0
Cross Sectional Area between end pins(ft Z
335.7
335.7
N/A 353.6
376.23
372.5
335.7
335.7
N/A
309.6
327.91
279.9
d50 mm
)1
32.0
14.7
N/A 10.0
12.0
16.0
19.30
7.3
N/A
8.9
16.0
10.0
* Data was not provided
PARAMETER
Cross -Section 5(Pool)
DIMINSION
Baseline
NWI-2011 NM -2012 MY3-2013 MY4-2014 MY5-2015
Bankfull Width (ft)
23.3
24.0
N/A
22.6
19.78
24.16
Floodprone Width (ft)
69.8
68.8
N/A
72.7
71.57
75.00
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.7
1.9
N/A
2.0
1.90
2.14
BankfaUMax Depth (ft)
3.3
3.6
N/A
4.0
3.26
3.35
BankfullCross-sectionalArea ftZ
40.0
45.1
N/A
1 44.7
37.66
42.40
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.5
12.8
N/A
11.4
10.39
11.29
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
2.9
N/A
3.2
3.62
3.10
Bankfull Bankhei ht Ratio
1.0
1.0
N/A
1.0
1.00
1.0
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2 )1
217.2
217.2
N/A
192.7
175.3
210.9
d50 (mm)l
0.4
0.8
N/A
N/A I
N/A
N/A
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 50 of 72

Appendix D. Stream Survey Data
Table 10.1a Monitoring - Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Lewis Creek StreamRestoration/DMS Project No. 733
Parameter
Baseline
M Y01-201 1
MY02-2012
DIMENSION
Min
Mean
Med Max SD
n
Min
Mean Med Max
SD n
Min
Mean Med
Max SD n
Bankfufl Width (ft)
22.70
2173
23.80 24.70
3
.I
I I
A
A
Flood rone Width (ft)
114.20
128.47
122.30 148.90
3
116.14
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.60
177
1.70 2.00
3
BankfullMax Depth ft
2.60
290
3.00 3.10
3
BankfuhCross Sectional Area ft2
36.30
4187
41.70 47.60
3
A
A
Width/Depth Ratio
11.90 1
13.57
1 14.20 14.60
3
Entrenchment Ratio
5.00
5 q3
5.00 6.30
3
BankHeightRatio
1.00
100
1.00 1.00
3
Bankfull Velocity s
PROFH E
Riffle Length ft
11.75
34.2
_ 58.75 _
3
30.62
51.02 - 3
N
A
Riffle Slope ft/ft
0.0100
0.0120
_ 0.0500 _
3
O.U101
Pool Length ft
14.92
19.4
_ 23.86 _
3
-
PoolMaxde th
0.5
0.8
_ 1.2
3
-
Pool Spacing ft
62.64
188.3
277.42
3
-
PATIERN
Channel Beltwidth ft
49.42
98.83
49.42
98.83
Radius of Curvature ( ft
49.42
76.60
49.42
76.60
Meander Wavelength R
197.67
296.50
197.67
296.50
jj�
Meander Width Ratio
2
4
2
4
-77-
ADDHIONAL REACH PARAMETERS
Ros en Classification
C5
C4
N/A
Channel Thalweg length ft
1750
1750
N/A
Sinuosity ft
1.29
1.29
N/A
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0022
0.00266
N/A
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0024
0.00247
N/A
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G /S%
20/25/27/22/4
20/26/28/24/4
N/A
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be %
0.01/0.53/0.13/0.29/0.02
16/185/290/9/0
d 16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
d50=19.30/d84=110.18/d95=126.39
0.46/2.76/5.98/21.70/36.73
% ofreach with erodingbanks
Channel Stabdity or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
0.01%
OREJEA
0.01%
N/A
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 51 of 72

Appendix D. Stream Survey Data
Table 10.1b Monitoring - Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Lewis Creek Stream Restoration/DMS Project No. 733
Parameter
MY03-2013
MY04-2014
MY05-2015
DIMINSION
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
❑
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
19.30
22.54
23.30 25.03
2.93
3
19.78
22.44
21.07 26.46
2.89
3
23.93
25.32
25.58 26.44
1.28
3
Flood tune Width ft
99.74
118.01
123.58 130.71
16.22
3
71.57
103.23
119.05 119.07
22.39
3
120.00
130.00
120.00 150.00
17.32
3
Bankfull Mean Depth ft
0.86
1.20
1.26 1.48
0.31
3
1.26
1.53
1.42 1.90
0.27
3
0.58
1.02
0.79 1.68
0.58
3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.12
2.43
2.58 2.60
0.27
3
2.49
2.83
2.73 3.26
0.32
3
2.69
3.09
3.16 3.43
0.38
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
29.30
39.07
36.93 50.98
11.00
3
29.91
33.62
33.28 37.66
3.17
3
28.10
47.50
52.10 62.30
17.56
3
Width/Depth Ratio
16.91
19.28
18.49 22.44
2.84
3
10.39
15.43
14.84 21.04
4.37
3
14.24
30.74
32.38 45.59
15.74
3
Entrenchment Ratio
1.14
4.40
5.30 6.77
2.92
3
3.62
4.59
4.50 5.65
0.83
3
4.69
5.13
5.02 5.67
0.50
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00 L00
3
L00
1.08
1.00 1.24
0.11
3
1.00
1.00
1.00 1.00
0.00
3
Bankfull Velocitys
1.23
1.52
1.46 1.86
0.32
3
1.36
1.45
1.45 1.54
0.07
3
0.81
1.11
1.05 1.47
0.33
3
PROFH.E
or
Riffle Length ft
30.10
59.47
94.04
18.76
50.14
98.40
18.76
50.14
98.40
Riffle Slope ft/ft)
0.0101
0.01
0.0245
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.03
Pool Length (ft)
24.39
40.51
65.72
19.72
19.72
19.72
19.72
19.72
19.72
Pool Maxde th
3.31
3.63
3.95
2.02
2.02
2.02
2.02
2.02
2.02
Pool S acro ft
24.39
93.99
- 193.21
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
PATTERN
Channel Beltwidth ft
49.42
98.83
49.42
98.83
49.42
98.83
Radius of Curvature ft
49.42
76.60
49.42
76.60
49.42
76.60
Meander Wavelength ft
197.67
296.50
197.67
296.50
197.67
296.50
Meander Width Ratio
2
-
- 4
-
-
2.00
-
- 4.00
-
-
2.00
-
- 4.00
-
-
ADEIMONAL REACH PARAMFURS
Ros en Classification
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg length ft
1750
1750
1750
Sinuosity (fl)
1.29
1.29
1.29
Water Surface Sloe Channel ft/ft
0.0017
0.00171
0.00171
BF slope(ft/ft)
0.00247
0.00308
0.00308
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S %
17/28/21/27/5
9/28/1/27/5
9/28/1/27/5
SC%/Sa % /Ci'/ /C°/ /B% /Be%
0/17.6/92.3/0/0
5 / 2.3 / 87.3 / 0 / 5.3 / 0
0.3
/ 20.3 / 63 / 6.7/ 9.3 / 0.3
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95
3.6/7.0/8.6/15.66/22.16
5.7/ 11.3/ 16/32/362
2.5/8.1/
15.7/ 160.3/712.7
% ofreach with eroding banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biolo icalorOthet
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 52 of 72

Appendix E: Hydrologic Data

Table 11. Verification of Bankf ill Events
Date of Collection Date of Occurrence Method
Photo # (if available)
Feet Above Average Bankfull Elevation
Sep -12 Unknown Crest Gauge; visual indicators
NA
1.5
Oct -13 Sping/Summer Crest Gauge; visual indicators
NA
0.8
Aug -14 Spring/Summer Crest Gauge; visual indicators
NA
1
Sep -15 Spring/Summer I Crest Gauge; visual indicators
Below
0.7
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 54 of 72

Figure 7.0 Percentile Graph for Rainfall
9
S
7
,� 6
a
z
V
c. 5
Percentile Graph for Rainfall 2015
2
1
Ct.
Jan -15 Feb -15 Mar -15 Apr -15 May -15 Jun -15 Jul -15 Aug -15 Sep -15 Oct -15 Nov -15 Dec -15
Date
Rainfall 2015 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 55 of 72

Figure 8.0 Daily Groundwater Data — Gauge 1
40
Lewis Greek Groundwater Gauge 1-MY5 (2015)
3
2.5
-40
60
Jan -15
Feb -15 Mar -15 Apr -15 May -15 Jun -15 Jul -15 Aug -15 Sep -15 Oct -15 Nov -15 Dec -15
—Groundwater Depth (in) - - - 12 Inches Below Surface USGS Stream Gauge Height (in) Precipitation (in)
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 56 of 72
Z_
0.5
9
-0.5

Figure 8.1 Daily Groundwater Data — Gauge 2
60
40
w
20
C
s
CL
CU
G 0
d
3
-20
0
0
-40
-60
Jan -15
Lewis Creek Groundwater Gauge 2 -MY5 (2015)
3
2.5
Feb -15 Mar -15 Apr -15 May -15 Jun -15
Groundwater Depth (in) — — — 12 Inches Below Surface
Jul -15 Aug -15 Sep -15
USGS Stream Gauge Height (in)
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 57 of 72
Oct -15 Nov -15 Dec -15
Precipitation (ln)
T
0.5 0
0
-0.5

Figure 8.2 Daily Groundwater Data — Gauge 3
60
40
Lewis Creek Groundwater Gauge 3 -MYS (2015)
3
2.5
U
-40
-60
Jan -15
Feb -15 Mar -15 Apr -15
May -15 Jun -15 Jul -15
Aug -15 Sep -15 Oct -15
Nov -15 Dec -15
Groundwater Depth (in)
— — — 12 Inches Below Surface
USGS Stream Gauge Height (in)
- Precipitation (in)
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 58 of 72
0.5
0
-0.5

Figure 8.3 Daily Groundwater Data — Gauge 4
60 -
40 -
LL,
-40 -
-60
Jan -15
Lewis Creek Groundwater Gauge 4 -MYS (2015)
W
N
u
o
.ju
m
T
�
E
m
'
Rug -15 Sep -15 Oct -15
C
Groundwater Depth (in)
— — — 12 Vnches Mow Surface
USGS Stream Gauge Height (in)
Precipitation (in)
O
L7
o
[�
v
c
Feb -15 Mar15Apr-15
May 15 Jun -15 Jul -15
Rug -15 Sep -15 Oct -15
Nov -15 Dec -15
Groundwater Depth (in)
— — — 12 Vnches Mow Surface
USGS Stream Gauge Height (in)
Precipitation (in)
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 59 of 72
3
2.5
m
0.5
0
-0.5

Figure 8.4 Daily Groundwater Data — Gauge 5
60
40
Q
-40
-60
Jan -15
Lewis Creek Groundwater Gauge 5 -MY5 (2015)
W m
N
L
U
l9 N
- O
0.
C
N O
� N
Qj
C
i
O
C7
0d
�
m
0
Lq
-- --- --' --
'
--- - - - - --- ----------- - ---.- - �-
O
a
.� .... ... o_.
Feb -15 Mar -15 Apr -15 May -15 Jun -15
Groundwater Depth (in) — — — 12 Inches Below Surface
Ju[ -15 Aug -15 Sep -15
USGS Stream Gauge Height (in)
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 60 of 72
Oct -15 Nov -15 Dec -15
i Precipitation (in)
3
2.5
m
0.5
0
-0.5

Figure 8.5 Daily Groundwater Data — Gauge 6
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 61 of 72
Lewis Creek Groundwater Gauge 6 -MY5 (2015)
60
3
no
N
�
U
v
40
2.5
C
ju�?
D
Ln
U
C
20
C
7
EA
C
td
C
a
2
p
o
C7
.L
m
3
----------------------------
y
------------------------------
=
1
m
CL
=�
o
-20
t�A4
0.5
n
-40
0
-60 -
-0.5
Jan -15
Feb -15 Mar -15 Apr -15 May -15 Jun -15 Jul -15 Aug -15 Sep -15 act -15
Nov -15 Dec -15
Groundwater Depth (in) — — — 12 Inches Below Surface USGS Stream Gauge Height (in) Precipitation (in)
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 61 of 72

Table 12. Wetland Gauge Attainment Data
MY4 (2014)
MY5 (2015)
Gauge
#
Max #
Conseq.
Days
%Growing
Season
Success
Criteria
Attained
%of Growing
Season
Monitored
1
0
0
NA
46%
2
0
0
NA
63%
3
0
0
NA
63%
4
2
1
NO
100%
5
2
1
NO
100%
6
2
1
NA
63%
MY4 (2014)
Max#
Conseq.
Days
�� Growing
Season
Success Criteria
Attained
% of Growing
Season
Monitored
3
1
NA
18%
0
0
NA
75%
1
1
NA
75%
0
0
NA
75%
4
2
N O
100%
2
1
N O
100%
Lewis Creek 733. December 2015. Monitoring Year 5 of 5. Page 62 of 72
MY3 (2013)
Max#
Conseq.
Days
%Growing
Season
Success
Criteria
Attained
%of Growing
Season
Monitored
0
0
NA
5%
0
0
NA
34%
0
0
NA
23%
0
0
NA
35%
0
0
NA
24%
0
0
NA
34%

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM—Eastern Mountains and Plasmon Region
Projp lite: Lewis Creek Stearn Restoration Site clry/counry: Henderson County Samplbg pate: 9-18-15
nppilcamrorm: NC DEO ONision of Mid9agon Services ems: NC sampkg Point: DP H7
meeGgeeer(a): RichandMo9ensenMeath Caldwell Sector, ToxlnMp, Range:
tanarorm %kNepe, talism. etc): Floodnain Lowl retar(cancat2, cpmreX. res): Flat Skspe(%11
Subregion(I.RR ordla ): MLRA N-1388 UL M=a[3.2T N Loon: 8221902.72-W Oelun: NAD -83
Soil Map ups Nem,: Codom4Hatbom Inclusions NWI Gaasifrcatlen: PSS1B
Are GimaYc/IlydrdeBlcmMitlore en McE101ypksl fortllis tial, of yeaR Yes X No— (Ifm.expleMln Reoprs.)
Me Veget n ,SM_,or HyNWcpy_slgndcanlly46tw M? Na-Nonml Cirevmlances'ple0,n[? Yes X NO
NeVeae4tbn_,SM_�wHytlmlOpy_nalulylty pmdanaYCP (If neepeE,arylaln dry 0rrewrsln Rema�ka.)
.. "I . , r,,.r.,..w—mmi w mW map eneynng sampling pointlocations, transacts, Important features, ste
Hydrophrlicvegelanm Paaenn Yea X No d�sampkea u.e
Hybl Sell Posn? Yea =NO wXIIIna WMantl? Yw X Xe
WeCaM Hydrology Present? Yea X NO
Remarks:
Area Is adjacent m mountain bag and is a jurisdictional Wetland.
MTUKULUUY
Weekend Hydrates [reactions:
Sispor Ind in ��numl�d
P mM k II 1
_ SuReceSd Crops (86)
X_ SURKU Warner (At) _ Tre Abse: Plants (B14)
_ Sparsdy Vegetate] Conraue SURace(88)
_ Hith Water Talaa(PQ _ Hydrogen SWfitle oder (CI)
_Dalrege Pauems(81ej
X Situation (M) _ Odtlhed RhlaoapNeres an Wag Sense (C3) _ Mos, Tom Lewis (8161
X water mass (91) _ Presence of NeWred lmn(Gq
_ DrySerson Waley Takes (C2)
_ Wheent Deposits(83) _ Respond Iron Release In Well Sees (C6)
_ CreyAah Burmvs(CB)
_ Do Deposils(63J _loin dlMC Sukece(CT)
_ Saturation Visible on Abram lmegery(C9)
_ Aytel Mat w come (M) _ other (Explain In Rentals)
_ Stores! or SVesseO Plants (01)
— Iron ceP08ke (05)
_ Geompgtle PoeNon (02)
_ Inlm]eWn Ulsible m Aellal lmagery(B7)
_ SWIlMsicSib d(W)
z_ Water-SUIred Loaves(W)
_ MiaotapogrepM1lc ReIM(OQ
_ Agwgc Fwm (613)
_ FAG-Neubat Teee N)q
Fled Obeervatlww:
Surface water Presets YnX NO Deps(BWwe): 3'
Watar Tads Present? Yen— Me NM(ildeas):
saNral Present? yeas No DepM (In des): ly
WNIend Hydmlegy Pmwm? Year X No
Iodupd a ca2allaorbi e
Describe Reported OMs (abeam assets, rroni1d61g xNl, secret pMtae, Prevpia Inspadblsl. naaailabk:
Remarks:
Surface water was present at every site visit for the last 3 years.
The surface hydrology appears to
be disconnected to groundwater as indicated by the groundwater
gauge data. Hydrology seems to
be flowing over the surface from the adjacent mountain bog.
us amycom? o(Emlmbs Finsen hamsters area Piedmont—Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four S4ata)— Use scientific names of plans. Sampling Pohi OP k1
Modern
Tree seahnn (Pbtalza: 1
1, Aoxrvnum
m
AmggN Doer Inmwmr
%Cdrcv Scetlex> Mahn
15 Y FAC
oamlmnmTedwndmn.rt
NumtergoamlmM Spedea
That We OHL. FACW. or FAC: 13 (A)
Taal Number q Dormant
spades Aams Al straw: 13 (e)
PeematgDominant sor1
s OOy
Thal Pm OHL, FACW.a FAC. (A6)
21 Debi qgm 12 Y FAM
3, Seex nigm 12 Y OBL
4, Camuearomum f0 N FACW
—
S.
--
0.
>,
Prwe10nC0In0axworkMeat
TOIN %Cecerof MUMON W'
0.
3aom/Shmbs (Plq su:e:30flPla�n f
1.AlnusserrvWa
_=Total
is
Cotter
V OHL
OHL spenes x1=
FACWspedas x2=
FAC speces x3=
FACU Seri x4=
UPL species x5=
CNumn Took; (A) (8)
Premknm More: =BIA=
2, Belt anergia 1R Y FACW
3 Amr Mori 0 Y FPC
4.
s.
0.
T,
lfydropi v.g. mal WIMCm:
_ t- RaW Test for"hiptrytic Vegewtlon
_2-13PrnelNR Ted fa 50%
_3-Prevekvlce lrol" 10'
4- Morphological AdaptaSors (ProvWa suppeNryl
tlaW in RemeMa Of On e separa@sheen
_ Problematic Hydmplybc VvjetWM'(&plain)
ifidiml0n of hydric sell ant vretland hydMegy mit
be Present, unless dieWNM wprohlemalic.
B.
p.
10. ---
=Yowl Cow
Herb Straum(Plasiore: 3gfldkm )
i Cama Intra 1a Y OaL
2, JUnws e0uws 15 Y FAM
3, Vemmb nO.eMlereK 12 Y FACW
4.ImPdwm referent 12 Y FAM
5, StlgAe0ypet lua
10
Y
FACW
OngnWansofFWrVegd nSbad:
TMO- Woody Plain. excluding view 3 lim Q 6 M) Or
MOM in dionn r M must height {Dail, rcga kasof
hegM.
aepllngl3hmb- Moi porn, exdWhit Nms. One;
Wan Sin. DSH ant greater Nen or equal 103.28 R 11
m) hill.
Nero -Al heMMOSOUGM wordy) Plants. regardless
q sire. ant w00dy Plants Jess Hot 120 h MY.
WOOD"Mo
di vim xvyvilns greala Man 3R0fl in
he M.
B. PNYgorn^ hydropipaMMes 10 OHL
LEN}rDtt�iym pwrFureym 6 N FAC
0. Euterner mpeddeWm e N FACVI
B. BolgsW mpwa 5 N FAC
1g_Lobehe mNbulls 3 N FACW
11.1ndvAgis etleanlfob 3 N FACW
12.
WoodhiWm-TotelCmer
_ m(Plq a'¢e: 'io 4i Drew. )
1. TwtiwtleNmn mdimm 10 V FAC
2. Vias sPP
6
N
WA
Hydrophygc
VpoMlwn
pm Yr % No
3, Pubus alleghanlends a N FACU
4 PdlWenedswa yuinpxfdn 5 N FACU
5. — — —
B'
_=TOIaICOw
RbNAs:(Indutle phgO numbers here er onamp0falesC )
Hydrophytic vegetation dominant in each strata.
US Amry Crops of egllgara Eaekm Mwlldlns ant Pietlmml-VamIM 20

SOIL
Senile pond: DP"
Progb DeaCIRPIR : (Malarkey is the Rapid mewed b document the mdleabr or wrMm the aEal of lnseabm.)
Depth Metro
n"meL color lmoist) fig_
ReCkW Failures
colmim ) ram, Lae Textum Rem.nu;
08 7.5 YR 314 0
samyloen
6-12 10YR311 W
Moping 20 sandy Lome law chrome will prombeld madtliN
12-24 10YR 311 95
Mottling 20 Loam
C=Conttddlraw DDuqdoaffl RM=RMIaM M", MS=MaaX¢d Send G2ilm kocoon: FL-Ivei-ed ,M=MaNa.
HyddC S011 Indicators: Imil mbrWdabmeYcHydricSeib-
_ISelosolCAI)
_Dank Swlace(Sn _tan Mud (Allo RIM 147)
_ HIMC Eplpalon(A2)
_Pul lw Balm Swlace(SIS PAM 147, 111) _ Cwst Prairie RMoz(A1th
_Sleek Move; 3)
Hydrogen Su1nM (M)
thin Dank SurMcc(53)(Ml 147, 143) RIM 147. 143)
_ LOamy Gleyed Mall (Fre) _ Piedmont FlmdpleN Sole (Fig)
_ 31236M U%ws (A5)
_ DeplNed deal (F3) RIM 136,147)
2 on Mud (Aid)(LRR M)
% OBpIMM S¢Icw DaM SurtMe (A11)
_ Pm&DeMSmmokI2)
_ Rudy DaIk SURam(F6) _ Very Sh011ow DmUSUIMre(1F12)
_ Deplaw Gary Surface (F7) _ Otlmr(F�yMin si RemeMs)
Redac Depressions dr6)
_ Sandy Mucky Mimml(St)(LRR N.
_Iron-Marganeae Planes (F12)(MR IN,
MM 147, 146)
MLM 136)
_ Sandy Glow Manuel (m)
%Sandy RMm(55)
_ UmnSudam(F13)(MLM13%IM 11MiWt=0TM1ytlbphyAcvuRetou mW
_ P¢cmom Floodgaln Sao (Fig)(MLM 143) veueM hydbbgy must � pbaee.
_ Stripped Maw(Sld
_ Rod Panama MMeMaI(F21) ryLM 1P, 147) unless alluded m pbldemetlu
RxlrMtive layer M obsama):
Type:
Depm(IMhed:
Hydde SMl Pread7 Ym Mo
RemeMa:
Mapped as Coeloms which is a Hydric B soil with inclusions of Hatboro silt loam. Hatboro is a
Hydric A soil which appears to be present at the wetland area.
US Any Cons of Engineers Entem Moumains and Medmant- Version 20

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FOM —Eactem Mountains and Piedmont Region
Prgecpsge: Lavas Creek Stream Reslorehon Site City/county: Henderson County Samp ilg Dale: 9-15-15
ApplkawOMw: NC DED Division of Mltagon Services Stare: NC SamMlm POM: DP ill
Inventoriarlq: Richard MagenemJHeaN CaldwNl Sadkn, Tosalahlp, Range:
Lanrxam (Ngslope, tensa, eta): R00dP1alA Local rel if (concave, convex. none): Nm Slope (°b): 1
supagkn(LRPor MtRA): MLRA LIB 35'2T43.27'N Lag: 8221'02.'r2'W opium: NAD -83
Soil Map unit Name: CodomBlHattsom inclusion; NWIdassmamn: PSSJB
Me GimaYc/hytlmluglcMMNammVe we lypkal krtl11E 11M1k afyea(I Ye¢ X No_(ano,egdalnln Ramarso)
MVegetalbn_.SM_,er Hydrolpgy_agnificanwdkWmetli Are•Nomul ClmumMancee'proxMi Yes X No
Pre Vegektlon_,Sell_or Hydmlcgy_Imlurelty pmliamatic9 (if ne¢tl¢d¢%plain any monis in Remans.)
chommaana ur nnulnw—^=cn aro map anngnng sampang point Ideations, trarwecb, important titanium, etc
Hytlminitc Vegetation assistant? Ya¢ X No Is tlw Sampktl Arae
Hydric SolPreaenli Yes %No armina WalNndi Yas X No
We11aM Hydrology Prea9n? Yes X No
Remarks:
Area is adjacent to mountain bog and is a jurisdictional Welland.
HYDROLOGY
WNMntl Hydrology IMkaMa:
Bryandary IMwassom loss roof Mo reolllretll
all
_ Surtaa so Cram (BB)
X_Swka Wakr(All _ Tme Aquado Plants S314)
_ S"Ohly Vegelated Cassava Surface (Be)
_ High YAW Tede(A2) _ Hydration Blxrge WOr(C1)
_ C(ainage Params(BID)
X SeWmtlon(A3) Ovdad RNzasphmes on Uying ROMs(C3)_ Mass Trim Llnas(Bta)
� Wa1tt MCAE (Bt) _pimenta MRMU NIrM (CA)
_Bry-Season Water TaOk (C2J
_ Setllment Depaene(B2) _ Ream Iron Redudgn in Tgkd SAW(Car
_ Crayfish Burtwrs ICN
DMI Connote (63) _ TMn Muck Sudan(C)
_ Saturation VlSlEk an Aerial final(Cg)
_ Agan Mat or Clust(BN _ Other (Explain fin RemMke)
_ Shinned or Spormad Plants (01)
_ Iran Comas (BS)
_ Oeomoryhic Pai (132)
_ IrvvMaXm VklNe en Asohl lmagary(B7)
_ Shallmx AqulkN(W)
% WakrSfalnedt sres(89)
_ MisoMposgrepmc RHM(D4)
Aquatic Fauna(B13)
_ FAICN%yat Taa(N
FkN Oa¢ervnaom:
Statue Wakr Preeail] Yea X No_ Laptipnoll 3'
Winner Tape Present! Yee_Nox Drops finch ):
SstureBm Present? YasX No_Deplh (IMgNe):p
WMWHydrology PMa YeaX No
mdtdescaIlls What)
Daaht Recorded Deal (stream pauge, nwwMng v JI, astral phosaa, preWwn imppappro ), Havaffirs,
Bahamas
Surface water was present at every site visit for the last 3 years.
The surface hydrology appears to
be disconnected to groundwater as indicated by the groundwater gauge data. Hydrology seems to
be flowing over the surface from the adjacent mountain bog.
US Amy Cams of Ensmoam Esskm Mowkms and Piedmont —Vomlon 7,0

VEGETATION(Four Strata)- Use scientific names of planta. SamDlino Point UP 42
Tree wmM1im (p101 ai#: 30RIBan I
1, Acer Woman
AbadNe
M_cow
15
DpNneM InOldlor
Sddu RMUS
Y FAC
Domidnd TeatrM
NumdrMncrrcnan[Spegpb
That OK. FTCW. w FAC: IS (A)
Total Number of DomiroM
gperyei Avozs All Wale: 13 (B)
ceof DorMnenl Spetie3
That Pfe 0121, FACW, w FAC: 100 0 (AB)
2_ ascii dpe 12 V FACW
3. SeLx roam t2 Y OBL
4. Cornua amamun 10 N FACW
S. —Pelnl
---
6.
2
—PMN OR; nd lMexworlWrest
Tow%Covuot MultloHbr
g,
Sadl $d (PIM sud, 300 MOM 1
1. Amue enruleta
15
•TMgC
Y 091.
0131 Merles x1=
FACWapevkM X2-
FAC apetles x3=
FACU spetiee x4=
UPLapMea x5=
CMlxm Tolas: W (9)
PrevelmdlMex =BIA=
2. Salk darns 12 Y FACW
3, Acerrukum V FAC
4.
x
_ _
8.
—WY arop yec Vegela Indedld m:
1- Rapid rest for foroplyacVegetation
=2-Dominand Tdtls, 0
_3- PmValence lMex is s30'
_4-Mosrp Biral Pdaplissrol yodi;O auppdmg
MOM in Remand; or on a separate sMen
_ Pmbkmeuc Hyernplylic Ve bon'(F len)
'IMIWM; of holne sml and vialand tryJrolegy must
to Paden(, areas iaturted orproNemaGc
3. --
8_
10, ---
eTo181CMb
HW Walum(Plut size. 30 ft clean _
)
1_Camxlwda la Y 0%
2_Junus affuaos 15 Y fzw
3. VMmnia noveboremle 12 V FACW
4 lMWOOM dpmas 13 y FpCW
5 Sdrpus oixonus
10
Y
FACW
OMnWl &Four VegoNaon Store:
Trw -MWIF NOW extlutling vines, 3 in. p.6 on)or
more M diemelef at broat legm(DBH), regaoll¢ of
dent.
Sapllnpl9mub- Woody plants, excluding vires. less
Wen 3 in 0&t and goodur Nan Or equal W 328 Rn
Nara-Mdma#PuMost)s, regamlass
ofsltt,aM xmdplants OreMOM 3.28fl iad.
wady Voda -NI moody vima pmeter Man 318 R in
hadyind.
B. Pdygotmn lrytlmpipemldes 10 Y OBL
1. Evi4rockmm FAC
g. EUPMWUM prooi&um 8 N FACW
g 6olklago mgw 5 N FAC
10. 1cidaw cmdldge 9 N FACW
I t worige allemNdiain)NO,
3 N ACW
12 ---
VdoMv Vlne9lrem 4 _•Total Cadr
(RMshe: '0O u p,'eT j
1. rdlweendmn radldd 19 v FIND
2, urns MP
a
N
wn
Hyddpbytle
vegeoulan
Pta9eM'I Yes K No
3. Radius allegbanisnsis 0 N UPI.
4 Pandrecissus OUYalUORAd 5 N FACU
5. — —
3 — — —
=TNtl CaaEr
Rmnerin: gntlWa plleb numbers bete or on eeepareRaMt)
HYCIMphytic vegetation dominant in each strata.
USAmy Cppa alEnglden F1abm MWnMbn ON Plasmas

SOIL
Sam,Rn ftim DISQ
Prollb leeusipbon:(D9 lebtlre Eeplb Sea JeXb ii; i mint aw InEkNmwcpnMrmtl S abmnm Mlndir )
Deem Mabk
M FeSSMOS
Conches) caor Imam K
corer mast %_ Isms! re R11ppp04
M 7.5 YR 3/4 0
_
tmMyL m
6-12 10 YR 3I1 66
OW no 20 __ sa�dywem (Xnv Mrom Wien pewNmrR mdtlitg
12-24 10YR3/1 95
Moairg 20 Lwm
' G=Concentratlan R k8on RM=RMuaM MatrM MS=MaNM 8eM Greene. °LGcaBon: PL =Pore Unen . M=MaMx.
Hydric Sollbgkatrs: Indkestm for Pmblemnec Hydda Sains':
_Hlslesd UI)
_ HMO EDWedEn(P2)
_asci[HMO (A3)
_ Hydmgmi Sulfide (M)
_Sbei Layers(AM
_ 2 pm MU&(AID)(MR N)
_Cepltlee Selwv polk$Vkm (A11)
_ Tnick Dare Surface (Al2)
Dare Sudune(Sn _ 2 an Mock(A10)(MUSA 141)
_ Potyvalue Bebw Sudace(S0)1MLM 147, 148) _ Caast Prairie Redox (Afb)
_Thin Dark Susece(SO)(MLRA 147,148) ROMA 147, 140)
_ LOS" GkyM Maha(F2) _ Piedmont Flrcdgain Soils(F19)
_ Destined Matte (113) (MLM 133 147)
_ RBdox DeA SuXa2(Fb) _ Very SWIM MA SuRace ff 12)
_ canteen Dark Surface(F7) _ OMn(FaWeln in Rereads)
_ RMox Depressions (FS)
_ SSMdy Mutlry Mlneml(Si)(LRR N,
_ImnMmgaresB Me%ee(F12)(LRR N,
MLIU 141,140)
MMU 1081
Sandy GkyM Mantis Re)
X Sandy Sixtus (Set
_SMppM MCMx(%)
_ UmMc Swams(F13) RIMS IN, 122) 'IMWi Of bynmary4c vegetation and
_ PIMmwt RoMptin Sinus (F19)(MLRA 148) xeband hydrology must be pmdeM,
_ RM PaRN MaIMa(F21) MLM 127,147) uNessdialur4tlwprdtktreeic
RYWdMLayn(Rob rvoM:
Type:
Depth (IMse:
Hydric SOII PmaM> Yea X Ne
Ramada;
Mapped as Codorus which is a Hydric 8 soil with inclusions of Hatboro sift loam. Hatboro is a
Hydric A soil which appears to be present at the wetiand area.
llSAmry Cwpa of Enpineem Eastm Mwnmins aM Pkdmap- V¢rsion2.0

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Prgecpc,e. Lewis Creek SVezm Restoration Site City4ounty Henderson County sampnte Dale: 12-5-15
rowiwmlDyma: NC DEO Division of Mitigation Services appor NC Series Popp. DP #3
Inwstigwor(s): Ri oM MogenaenMmffi Cakwell Sedkn. Tom p, Range:
Lentiform (nillalope.lelwce. tilt.): Floodplain Lml relkl(cwww, ounces. none). Flat slope(%): 1
Saloniam(LRRor MLRA): MLRA tp. 3522'41.94' N ping. 82'20'58.4?' W DeMm: NAD -83
sou Map Drvl Name: Codorus NYN dassilki UPL
Pre Gimakclhydrobgk wrdNwaon mesh (Wiwi Nrmis timeayeaR Yee X No_(IfnoeapWn in RemaMa.)
Pfevesunkon_, Sal �m Hydrology_ signiecenhy crimped? Pae'Nonwl Clrolanelencee'presenl? Yes X No
ANVeliplakon _, call � or Hydrolopy_money prydemekif (If needed, explain any awvaers in Reims )
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map shoving sampling point locations, transects, important features, all
HyampM1ytic Vegetation Pream? Ysa_ No In Ma s.mpkd Anna
Soil pulmonary Yes_ No within a Wetter? Yea No X
WeIIaM Hydrology Pwaem? Yes_ No
Remarks:
Area is upland floodplain adjacent W mountain bog and is not a jurisdictional Welland, too
obvious signs of surface or subsurface hydrology.
HYDROLOGY
W nd Hydrology IM"Wria:
sewndary IMMaMrs Imtrilmum oflwa regi reT
P ndlcalw m
I _ Surface Son Cracb(as
_Surtem WeM(N1)
_ Trwlpualic Plamsur l) SWMey Vegemed CmwK SUdace(BB)
_ High wafer Tape (AU
_ Hydrogen Same Color (01) _ Drainage Paaems (810)
_ expansion (A3)
_ Causal RhNosphere9 on Lane Rgda(C3)_ Moss Tem Uraan(816)
_water Marva SU)
_PMallum of RMu Vmn lG) _py-Sarson Waley TAW (U)
_Sediment claimants (82)
_ Recenllron Reduction m rapol San (M) _ Cnayfish Bunovs lees
s_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ T wi Muck SurFace(ED _ Samilun Vkibla on Amil Imagery (C9)
_ Neal Mat or Ernst all
_ Other (Explain In RemeNa) _ SWmed or ahnsM PNma(D¶
Iran Deponas (es)
_ Geomorphic position (pn
Inundinan Visile on Aerial Imagdy
(D7) _ sMllcwfurlilbm (D3)
water -Salved Leaves(B9)
_MWinmin eNo Rare (134)
_ Aqua& Fauna Ml 3)
_ FAC Heuml Test (D5)
FiNd DExrvatlpy:
Sconce Wakr Pmamd? Yes _NoX
DepOI(eMNq:
Wakr Tape Piewnl? van _No=D"impa:
Sa mbon P2wnr2 Yes_
No K Depth (IM¢s):
WetlaM Nydrology PrsineW Yea, No X
indWe3w ill
Desmibe Retarded Data (stream gauge, monXamg wee, serial proles, prenws Impecoons), g aveikba :
Remaoa:
NO signs of standing water.
Groundwater gauges and regular field measurements taken over three
years throughout the Lewis
Creek Floodplain do not indicate wetland hydrology is present.
US Anny Corps of Eglnwn Eaakm Panama ar d Piedmont— Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Four Strata) — Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Pant: OP #3
Tine Seaw (Elden¢' 3080Ym )
1 Acprubum
A4301Ne Dominant Indicator
-
15 Y FAC
Oamlmnna Tina( al:
Numbarof DonlmntSpedw
TRat Are OBL. FACW, ar FAC: B (A)
Spa NumeerM =Inmt
SPecles Agoss al Seam: 11 an
PdxM dO1,FACK or FA
TlwIAre OBL, FACW, or FAC: 72Ne (Na)
2 Basle also 8 N FACW
3 Salix en pie 20 Y FAC
q, 1pupem0aratyieonw 15 Y FAC
B Pmgiub0o benmis 5 FACW
6
J_
—
—
—
PrevakncelMazworkalweh
res %Covere NOIEde W.
B
aaplmBhrob SaaWm(Pldare:30Rtllam 1
1 LpumamberstyMAua
15
-ToNlfmvN
Y FAC
00L speriea x1=
FACWspedes x2•
FAC apeci x3-
FACU ape01s) x<=
UPLspecies x5=
WisanTorok: W er
Finaabllas Imex =BIA=
2,aeluMinorite 12 Y FACW
3.Acermbum a FAC
a. Plnus5rDbsls 5 N UPL
5.
6.
J.
HydroDhYBc VegemRan Indaslors:
_ 1 -Rape Test for HycropMc Vegapnon
_ 2 -Denial Teat k>50%
_ 3- Prevalence Index Is v.W
—s- MoNAaogkal Adaphmis1(Provke suploofling
dab in Remarks or on a sepanm man)
_Fr001artd40 HytlrapkylicvegemEon'fExPlam)
llnc a m of hydnc sail are'.MIa1M Rydrdlgy mut
W PreSem, wA066 dlsmrb al or prabkmatia.
0,
B.
10.
=TdY cove
HeN smWm(plot sRe: 00 R dam )
1. Amdoaa pallraxp 25 Y FAG
2. APks amehas1e tb Y FACW
3_Agknanla 8rypoaePak 10 Y FACU
A impedes aspirin 5 N FACW
5, Scghum hamparea
5
N
FACW
Oeflnnbns of Four Vegemibn Strain:
Trail -Macy pairs, excluding amen, 3 In. (7.6 m) or
more in diamHtt at breast hcgM(DBH). regardless of
I1e9M.
Nanli nM Ilknile excluding plants. exclung Nms. less
Maser Nen or equal m "B R (1
m)mll.
Hart -M hedAneO somas )pled, regaMless
a sire, are woody pante Was Man 3,28 Rroll.
Waetly Nne-alwoMy Area gRarartllan 3.20fl m
i-etilm
g. Pdyaaum penmyNenim N FAC
J. Sdicano ngasa 8 L_ FAC
e BMnusasmdemk a FACU
�1�_
g. Fshln Me rnnyall fT) FAC
10
— —
12
_=TaW Cpver
WPffiV VIre 9eaWm (PIW Sim: 3n Qri:iam )
1 Tovcctlentlmnratllun 10 Y FAC
2,VMxyV
S
N
WA
Hydrophytic
vegeh0on
Present? Yea No
3. Rubu afthenknsis 25 Y FACU
A. PaMvfwhms quinqueWis 5 N FACU
5 Rosa mul6aaa 10 Y FACU
—
B'
=Tomlcovx
Remedy: (Include plwto wnibert Mrearonasepable aRB01.)
Hydrophytic vegetation isnY dominant in any strata.
us amrcoma w Diglreare caatem mouimen air FiadneM-vwvon za

SOIL
Samplig Palm DPa
PmRle aooMiAlon: (DoecrlEa W No deah needed b document Me lndkator or cenAno Me absence M Indicators.)
DooM Mahe
Redox Feale
.amble)— colorlmok0 %
Color%_o_I-ve Tam Ranmrim
OJ 2.5 Y 718 100
Sand
8-10 2.5Y Sri 85
-- Loam
10-24 2.5 Y&4 95
MMIM 20 Gay Lwm Some mottling
GConxownmlon R Won. RM=Rmucsd MNdx V 9Maaked SVM GraMe. 21pce4pn: R=Pme Wing. M-MaMx.
Hyddc 8011 tlgemem:
IMlcarorarorPmbMmatic NyddC sone
_HMOM(Al)
_ peek SURace(ST) _ 2 am MU&(AIM (MLRA 147)
_ Hb110 EPiamon (q2)
_P palue Relow Sudaw(U)(ULM 147.148) _CoadP Ift Redox (AIM
_ Macc HISMc (A$)
_ Pnin Dmk Surtom (S9) (MCRA 147.148) (MLM 147,148)
Hydm9en3uMda(M)
_ Loamy Geyed MMda(F2) _ Redmmd FlocdpMin sA$(F19)
_ Stre118ed Layers(A6)
_ Eepleted Matr6(F3) (MLRA136,147)
_ 2 on Muck(A1o)(MR NI
_ RMm Gnk Saofam(F6) _ Very Sinaloa, GaM Sudem(I`12)
_ mepMled eelaw OaM SYRam(AL 1)
_ Depleted Dark Serrano (F7) _OMm(EVIaIn In Remarks)
_ ThIQ DIM Surtace (Al2)
_ RWOX Wonessions (I'M
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (81)i -W N,
_Iron-Maganese Wasm; F12)(LRR N.
PALM 147, 148)
111136)
_ Sandy Gbyod Mabd(S4)
_ HmMC Swfece(F13)(MLR413Q 1") rindiwbm of hydr hydc pinanon ant
_sandy Redox (8
_ Pkdmanl FlOWMMn Soda(F19)MLM148) wetland hydrolgy must W pmsem.
_ Stripped Matra (SM
_ Red Parent MalMa1(F21) NN -RA W.147) unless dlslubed mpmLMlmik.
RgblgNe Layer (N eburved):
Type:
DeMh (aches):
Hydric soa PnmM? Ya,_ Ne l
RmNAs:
Mapped as Codorus which is a Hydric B soil and can be a wetland or upland soil depending
on the aquic moisture regime. Not a wetland soil.
us A" Coo afErglnees EesMn MV VMMs ala, PMdmem-Vmvm 2 p