20120396 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_2016_20170127

Annual Monitoring Report Final
Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project Number: 94709
DEQ Contract Number: 6500
USACE Action ID: SAW -2011-02257
DWR Project Number: 12-0396
SCO# 09-08-56701
Surry County, North Carolina
Data Collected: October -November, 2016
Data Submitted: November 30, 2016
Revised: December 15, 2016
Submitted to:
rk�
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
CLearWaLer
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Prepared by:
�WILDLANDS
WV ENGINEERING
167-B Haywood Road
Asheville, NC 28806

Table of Contents
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY..........................................................................................1
1.1 Project Goals.......................................................................................................1
1.2 Project Performance Standards........................................................................1
1.3 Project Setting and Background....................................................................... 2
1.4 Project Components and Approach................................................................. 2
1.5 Project Performance.......................................................................................... 4
2.0 METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................5
3.0 REFERENCES........................................................................................................7
Appendix A. Figures and Background Tables
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Table 1: Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2: Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3: Project Contacts
Table 4 a -b: Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2: Current Condition Plan View (CCPV)
Table 5 a j: Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6: Vegetation Condition Assessment
Photo Point Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7: Vegetation Plot Results (All Stems)
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix D. Stream Survey Data
Cross -Sections with Annual Overlays
Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Table 8 a -b: Baseline Stream Summary Data
Table 9 a -b: Monitoring Data — Dimensional Morphology Summary
(Dimensional Parameters — Cross -Sections)
Appendix E. Hydrologic Data
Table 10: Verification of Bankfull Events
Monthly Precipation Graph: 30-70 Percentile Surry County, NC
I

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
The NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) restored, enhanced, and preserved
approximately 19,677 linear feet (LF) of Moores Fork and thirteen previously unnamed
tributaries (UTs), provided livestock fencing and alternative water sources to keep
livestock out of the streams, removed invasive plant species across the project, and
established native riparian buffers. The restoration project was developed to fulfill
stream mitigation requirements accepted by the DMS for the Upper Yadkin River Basin
(HUC 03040101). The Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project will net 11,736 stream
mitigation credits through a combination of restoration, enhancement I and II, and
preservation. This report documents the results of the monitoring year one efforts
(MY 1).
1.1 Project Goals
The project goals identified in the Mitigation Plan (Confluence, 2012) include:
• Improve water quality in Moores Fork and the UTs through reductions in
sediment and nutrient inputs from local sources;
• Create conditions for dynamic equilibrium of water and sediment movement
between the supply reaches and project reaches;
• Promote floodwater attenuation and secondary functions associated with more
frequent and extensive floodwater contact times;
• Improve in -stream habitat by increasing the diversity of bedform features;
• Enhance and protect native riparian vegetation communities; and
• Reduce fecal, nutrient, and sediment loads to project streams by promoting and
implementing livestock best management practices.
1.2 Project Performance Standards
The performance of the project will be evaluated in accordance with the geomorphic,
visual, hydrology, and vegetation components outlined in the Stream Mitigation
Guidelines (USACE 2003). The following are specific performance standards from the
approved Mitigation Plan (Confluence, 2012).
Performance Standards
Parameter
Metrics/Success Criteria
a. Bank height ratio for reaches where BHR is corrected through design and
construction shall not exceed 1.2.
b. Entrenchment ratio for reaches where ER is corrected through design and
Channel Stability
construction shall be no less than 2.2.
c. The stream project shall remain stable and all other performance standards
shall be met through two separate bankfull events, occurring in separate
years, during the monitoring years 1 through 7.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 1 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

a. Density of 320 live, planted stems/acre at year 3; 260 live, planted
Riparian Buffer Vegetation stems/acre at year 5; 210 live planted stems/acre at year 7.
b. Planted vegetation must average 8 feet in height at year 7.
1.3 Project Setting and Background
The site is located in the Piedmont physiographic province (NCGS 2004). The Piedmont
is characterized by gently rolling, well rounded hills and long low ridges. Moores Fork is
a tributary to Stewarts Creek in the Upper Yadkin River Basin (HUC 03040101). The
site is located approximately 0.25 mile north of NC 89 on Horton Road. The project site
is located on both sides of Horton Road. Latitude and longitude for the site are
36.506671 N and -80.704115 W, respectively. A site location map is included in
Appendix A as Figure 1.
Agriculture is the primary land use in the watershed (36% agriculture land cover).
Degraded buffers and livestock operations were identified as major stressors to water
quality within the watershed. The site assessment phase of the project identified other
stressors as well, including elevated water temperatures, excessive nutrient inputs,
channel incision, bank erosion, and sediment deposition. Dairy and farming operations
on the site have deforested riparian buffers and allowed direct livestock access to the
stream, leading to elevated temperatures and nutrients. Channel straightening and
dredging throughout much of the project has also contributed to channel degradation.
1.4 Project Components and Approach
Stream restoration was accomplished using a natural channel design approach to restore
appropriate channel dimension, pattern, and profile (Table 1; Figure 2). These improved
conditions will promote water and sediment transport equilibrium between the stream and
its watershed, reconnect the stream to its floodplain, and promote healthy in -stream and
riparian habitats. The project goals were addressed through the following project
objectives:
• Restoration of the dimension, pattern, profile of approximately 1,875 LF of
Moores Fork Reach 2 and 243 LF of the Pond Tributary;
• Restoration of the dimension and profile (Enhancement I) of the channel for
approximately 2,885 LF of Moores Fork Reach 3, 900 LF of Silage Reach 1,
2,448 LF of Silage Reach 2, 350 LF of Barn Reach 1 and 112 LF of Corn Reach
2;
• Limited channel work coupled with livestock exclusion, gully stabilization,
invasive species control and buffer planting (Enhancement Il) on approximately
761 LF of Moores Fork Reach 1, 167 LF of Cow Tributary 1, 767 LF of Cow
Tributary 2, 3,084 LF of Barn Reach 2, 1,340 LF of Corn Reach 1, and 466 LF of
UT 1;
• Livestock exclusion fencing and other best management practice installations;
• Invasive plant species control measures across the entire project wherever
necessary; and
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 2 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

• Preservation of approximately 4,279 LF of relatively un -impacted forested
streams (UTs 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) in a permanent conservation easement.
The target stream type for Moores Fork was a moderately sinuous, moderate width -depth
ratio C4, which was appropriate for the relatively flat and wide alluvial valley. Reach 2
of Moores Fork was constructed mainly off-line to position the channel in the low point
of the valley and provide much improved floodplain access on both banks. Reach 3 was
constructed largely within the existing channel with modest pattern shifts where existing
pattern was unstable. In -stream structures were incorporated in Reach 3 to promote
sediment transport equilibrium, riffle and pool formation, and enhanced bank stability.
The overall approach can be described as a hybrid Rosgen Priority 2/3 restoration.
Due to the slope and confined valley, Reach 1 of the Silage Tributary was designed as a
step -pool, B4 stream type. Because of the highly confined nature of the Silage Tributary
and the desire to preserve mature upland trees, addressing eroding banks and incised
conditions through bank sloping was not practical. The design solution was to create a
new step pool profile within the original channel and stabilize the upper banks with
facsinces, a bioengineering technique that involves placing dormant woody cuttings in
shallow, contour -line trenches.
Reach 2 of the Silage Tributary, the Corn Reach, and the Barn Reach were similar in
terms of morphology; each was a relatively steep alluvial channel with significant
incision and bank erosion problems with little length to transition to a stable profile end
point. The design approaches for these streams was also similar. The channels were
left in their current alignments, banks were graded to stable slopes, bankfull benches
were constructed, and in -stream structures were used to promote bed and bank stability.
Reference cross-sections on stable reaches of the Corn and Barn Reaches were used to
size the design cross-sections for these streams.
The target stream type for the Pond Tributary was a moderately sinuous, moderate
width -depth ratio C4. The project reach begins at the outlet of the culvert where flow
drops approximately two feet to a small plunge pool at the existing thalweg. The design
profile started at this existing thalweg elevation, taking advantage of the energy
dissipating effects of the pool, and then abandoned the badly trampled channel for a new
alignment across the floodplain to the east. The downstream end of the profile included
a 1.5 -foot high transition to the Moores Fork thalweg, which was constructed using a
grade control structure.
The project also included filling and stabilizing gullies at the headwaters of the Silage
Tributary, the Cow 1 and Cow 2 Tributaries, UTI and two runoff conveyances entering
Moores Fork Reach 3. The proposed gully stabilization included upland measures
such as temporary silt fences, swales, and vegetation to divert and/or redirect runoff
away from gullies. Check dams made from riprap, woody brush, recycled crushed
concrete, decay resistant logs, and other on-site materials were used to reduce erosive
stresses in the gullies and promote healing. Stabilized areas were planted with native
species at densities specified for buffer areas.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 3 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

The final design was completed in June of 2013. Construction activities and as -built
surveys were completed in December of 2014. Planting of the site took place in March
of 2015. A large flood event with an estimated return interval of 50 to 100 years
occurred at the site on April 18-19, 2015, causing damage to the main stem of Moores
Fork. This damage was repaired in March and April of 2016, and a second as -built
survey was performed on the repaired areas in April of 2016. The baseline monitoring
efforts began in June of 2016 and monitoring year one efforts were initiated in late
October of 2016. More detailed information related to the project activity, history, and
contacts can be found in Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2.
Monitoring will consist of collecting morphological, vegetative, and hydrological data to
assess the project success based on the restoration goals and objectives on an annual basis
for seven years or until the success criteria is met. The success of the project will be
assessed using measurements of the stream channel's dimension, substrate composition,
permanent photographs, vegetation, surface water hydrology, and visual assessments.
Monitoring requirements include:
1.5 Project Performance
The Moores Fork MYl data showed some deviation from the baseline values,
particularly for pebble counts. With the exception of the pebble count at cross section
M2, pebble counts indicate a modest fining of sediment size distributions. Cross section
data indicate that channel dimensions have changed very little since the June 2016
baseline data were collected. Riffle width to depth ratios have changed only modestly,
and pool depths are being maintained close to baseline depths. MY1 visual observations
indicate minor and localized areas of bank erosion (on the left bank near station 44+50 at
the UT8 confluence) and bed aggradation.
MY1 data from both reaches of the Silage Tributary indicate somewhat larger deviations
from the baseline data, but given the small channel dimensions, even slight variations in
measurement have significant effects on dimensionless ratios. Overall, the Silage
Tributary is stable, with only minor and localized evidence of bank erosion or thalweg
shifting noted in Reach 2. In Reach 1, the fascines on the upper slopes are robust on the
left side and less robust on the right side. There do not appear to be stability issues at this
time.
Based on visual assessments, the other enhancement reaches appear to be stable and
functioning as intended. Three of the 24 grade control structures in Cow Tributary 2 are
showing signs of piping or cutting, but the overall profile of the channel does not appear
to have been affected.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 4 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Monitoring Requirements
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Quantity Length BReach(ft)
Moores RI Pond Trib. Moores R2 Moores R3 Silage RI Silage R2 UT1 Cow 1 Cowl Barn 1 Barn 2
Frequency
Ride XS
2 4 1
3
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7
Dimension
Pool XS
1 2 1
2
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7
Substrate
100 Pebble Covert
2 4 1
3
Annual
Hydrology
Crest Gauge
1
I
Semi -Annual
Vegetation I
Vegetation Plots
4 3 1
2 1 1
Annual
Visual Assessment
Project Site
Y Y Y
Y Y Y
Semi -Annual
Reference Photos IPermanertt Photo Pointsl
2 2 12 19 8
8 2 2 4 2 2
Annual
1.5 Project Performance
The Moores Fork MYl data showed some deviation from the baseline values,
particularly for pebble counts. With the exception of the pebble count at cross section
M2, pebble counts indicate a modest fining of sediment size distributions. Cross section
data indicate that channel dimensions have changed very little since the June 2016
baseline data were collected. Riffle width to depth ratios have changed only modestly,
and pool depths are being maintained close to baseline depths. MY1 visual observations
indicate minor and localized areas of bank erosion (on the left bank near station 44+50 at
the UT8 confluence) and bed aggradation.
MY1 data from both reaches of the Silage Tributary indicate somewhat larger deviations
from the baseline data, but given the small channel dimensions, even slight variations in
measurement have significant effects on dimensionless ratios. Overall, the Silage
Tributary is stable, with only minor and localized evidence of bank erosion or thalweg
shifting noted in Reach 2. In Reach 1, the fascines on the upper slopes are robust on the
left side and less robust on the right side. There do not appear to be stability issues at this
time.
Based on visual assessments, the other enhancement reaches appear to be stable and
functioning as intended. Three of the 24 grade control structures in Cow Tributary 2 are
showing signs of piping or cutting, but the overall profile of the channel does not appear
to have been affected.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 4 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

The MY1 vegetation plot data indicate that the project is on track to meet the interim
criterion for survival and growth of 320 stems per acre at the end of the year three
monitoring period. Ten of the 12 vegetation plots have stem densities of 320 or more
stems per acre and the mean stem density for planted stems is 486 stems per acre.
Vegetation plots 2 and 3, with densities of 240 and 280 stems per acre, respectively, did
not meet the interim success criteria. The site includes a diverse assemblage of 11
species of native trees. Herbicide treatments of exotic invasive plants were originally
conducted during the initial construction phase, with a focus on the buffers along the
Barn, Corn and Silage Tributaries. Subsequent exotic invasive treatments occurred on
May 24, 2016 and September 8, 2016. Recent observations indicate that the extent of
invasive plants has been greatly reduced, but that buffer areas, including those along
Moores Fork and the Corn, Barn and Silage Tributaries and UTI, will need to be
retreated for exotic invasive plants. Invasive treatment will continue to occur in 2017.
Crest gauge data collected from Moores Fork Reach 2 and the Silage Tributary Reach 2
on October 25, 2016 indicate that a bankfull event occurred after the completion of the
June 2016 MYO fieldwork and site visit. Sediment was also visually observed during this
time within the floodplain of Moores Fork Reach 2. A nearby gauging station recorded
approximately 28 inches of rain between May and August of 2016 (NCCRONOS, 2016).
NCCRONOS daily rainfall data also suggest that these bankfull events may have
occurred around August 4, 2016. In order to meet project performance standards, one
additional bankfull event will be required during the remaining monitoring years.
Summary data related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be
found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information can be found in the mitigation plan document. All raw data
presented in the appendices are available upon request.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
The stream monitoring methodologies utilized in 2015 are based on standard guidance
and procedures documents (Rosgen 1996 and USACE 2003).
• Cross-section data were collected throughout four reaches using a total station
survey. Sixteen cross-sections were surveyed. Cross-sections were permanently
marked with capped rebar and PVC conduit.
• Sixty-seven permanent photo points were established throughout the project to
visually monitor stream stability and vegetation.
• Wolman pebble counts were conducted at ten representative riffle cross-sections
to evaluate particle size distribution over time. A minimum of 100 particles were
selected at random and measured (Harrelson 1994).
• Vegetation monitoring included documenting species composition and survival of
planted stems within twelve randomly located vegetation plots. Each 0.025 acre
vegetation plot was permanently marked with rebar and PVC conduit at all four
corners.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 5 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

• Two crest gauges were installed and will be checked during semi-annual visits to
determine if a bankfull event has occurred. The crest gauges were installed and
surveyed at riffles on Moores Fork and Silage Tributary.
• Visual assessments will be performed on all stream and buffer restoration areas on
a semi-annual basis. Problem areas will be noted, including channel instability
(lateral and/or vertical instability, structure failure/instability and/or piping,
headcuts), vegetation health (low stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive
species or encroachment), beaver activity, and livestock access. Areas of concern
will be mapped, photographed, and described in future monitoring reports.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 6 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

3.0 REFERENCES
Confluence Engineering, PC. 2012. Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Plan. NCEEP,
Raleigh, NC.
Harrelson, Cheryl, C. Rawlins and J. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service. Fort
Collins, Colorado.
NCCRONOS (North Carolina Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the
Southeast Database). 2016. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version
2.7.2. MT Airy 2 W. Station ID No. 315890. Accessed November 2016.
NCGS (North Carolina Geological Survey). 2004. Physiography of North Carolina.
Map compiled by the Division of Land Resources. Raleigh.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, and North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality.
Wilmington, North Carolina
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 7 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix A
Figures and Background Tables

Moores Fork Stream Mitigation/ DMS Project No. 94709
9 Rd
r�
e ,p
�a11
11-11
)0
C16 r ch
Ad
one
e
VV
Project Boundary
4y1A
_ `6
0
Rq
FofV Rq
QtttshY
The Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project is located
northwest of Mt. Airy in Surry County, North Carolina. To
access the site from Asheville, take 1-40 East toward
Statesville to Exit 1528. Merge onto 1-77 North toward Elkin.
Travel approximately 49 miles to Exit 100 (North Carolina 89)
toward Galax and Mt. Airy. Turn right onto North Carolina 89
(West Pine Street) and travel approximately 2 miles. Turn left
onto Pine Ridge Road and continue 0.2 mile to a left turn onto
Horton Road. The project site is located on both sides of
Horton Road. Latitude and longitude for the site are 36.506671
N and -80.704115 W respectively.
"I 11K fit C6tRC'_
@� Rd
10 It,
89
��'g�m
{i ed 0 a
wa" �d
San
Laurel g
yq Pine S, Mt Airy
52
Mt. Airy
W
�v �C"
�f)
t�
N
0.
i
M a
�lQ\0 Pwry T.
17
Legend aYf \`,.
whits @
r-------, t p 0 0.5 1 2
�_ _ Project Boundary µay 601, 71Wiles
Drawn by: KAY 7.26.16; CEC Project# 645 qtr 4��a ^
4YIL°L.e4 £N On Lear ater
Surry County, (� W Site Vicinity
North Carolina NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services 167-B Haywood Road 32 Clayton Street
1652 Mail Service Center Asheville, NC 28806 Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Figure 1
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
+64-1.
fir{
y�
�y
4
L
0
9'�r
Y01
,
4'
3
�y
c,
103
ear
'fes
Rd
yq Pine S, Mt Airy
52
Mt. Airy
W
�v �C"
�f)
t�
N
0.
i
M a
�lQ\0 Pwry T.
17
Legend aYf \`,.
whits @
r-------, t p 0 0.5 1 2
�_ _ Project Boundary µay 601, 71Wiles
Drawn by: KAY 7.26.16; CEC Project# 645 qtr 4��a ^
4YIL°L.e4 £N On Lear ater
Surry County, (� W Site Vicinity
North Carolina NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services 167-B Haywood Road 32 Clayton Street
1652 Mail Service Center Asheville, NC 28806 Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Figure 1
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
+64-1.
fir{
y�
�y
0
9'�r
,
3
103
yq Pine S, Mt Airy
52
Mt. Airy
W
�v �C"
�f)
t�
N
0.
i
M a
�lQ\0 Pwry T.
17
Legend aYf \`,.
whits @
r-------, t p 0 0.5 1 2
�_ _ Project Boundary µay 601, 71Wiles
Drawn by: KAY 7.26.16; CEC Project# 645 qtr 4��a ^
4YIL°L.e4 £N On Lear ater
Surry County, (� W Site Vicinity
North Carolina NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services 167-B Haywood Road 32 Clayton Street
1652 Mail Service Center Asheville, NC 28806 Asheville, North Carolina 28801 Figure 1
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
+64-1.
k
�a

Appendix A
Figures and Background Tables
N/A - Not Applicable
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 A-2 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation/ DMS Project No. 94709
Miti ation Credit Summaries
Type
Restoration
Enhancement I
F..nhauement
Preservation
Total
2,118
5,879
1 2,883
856
Project Components
Project Component or
Reach ID
Stationing
Pre -project
Footage or
Acreage
Restoration
Footage or Restoration
Acreage Level
Restoration or
Rest Equiv.
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation Notes
Credits
Moores Reach 1
STA 989-1750
761
761 N/A
Ell
2.5:1
304
Moores Reach 2
STA 1750-3625
1,636
1,875 P2
R
1:1
1,875
Moores Reach 3
STA 3640-6525
2,856
2,885 P2/3
EI
1:1
2,885
Silage Reach
STA 1000-1900
900
900 PI
EI
1:1
900
Silage Reach
STA 1900-4348
2,448
2,448 P3
EI
1.5:1
1,632
Cow Tnb 1
STA 1219-1386
167
167 1 P4
Ell
1.5:1
111
Cow Tnb 2
STA 1331-2098
767
767 P4
EB
1.5:1
511
Pond Tnb
STA 1000-1243
194
243 P2
R
1:1
243
Barn Reach 1
STA 1000-1350
300
350 P3
EI
1:1
350
BamReach 2
STA 1350-3746; STA
4069-4757
3,134
3,084 N/A
Ell
2.5:1
1,234 -
Com Reach 1
STA 1000-2340
1,350
1,340 N/A
Ell
2.5:1
536
Com Reachl
STA 2350-2462
112
112 P3
El
1:1
112
UTI
STA 1000-1466
466
466 N/A
EII
2.5:1
186
Preservation Reaches
UTs2,3,6,7,8,9,10
4,279
4,279 N/A
P
5:1
856
Length and Area Summations
Restoration Level
Stream (Linear Feet)
Riparian Wetland (acres) Non -riparian
Wetland (acres)
Buffer (Square feet)
Upland (acres)
Riverine
Non-Rivenne
Restoration
2,118
Enhancement
Enhancement I
6,695
Enhancement II
6,585
Creation
Preservation
4,279
fligh Quality Preservation
BMP Element
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
N/A - Not Applicable
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 A-2 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix A
Figures and Background Tables
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation// DMS Project No. 94709
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Mitigation Plan
Dec -11
Nov -12
Final Des — Construction Plans
Jun -13
Construction (Repairs)
Dec -14 (Apr- 16
Teniporary S&E Mix Applied
Dec -14 (Apr- 16
Pen-nanent Seed Mix Applied
Dec -14 (Apr -16)
Containerized, Bare Root and B&B Plantings For Reach/Segments
Feb -15 (Apr -16)
Invasive Species Treatment
May -16
May -16
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring - Baseline)
Jun -16
Aug- 16
Invasive Species Treatment
Sep- 16
Sep- 16
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov -16
Nov -16
Year 2 Monitorin
Year 3 Monitorin
Year 4 Monitorin
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring
N/A - Not Applicable
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 A-3 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix A
Figures and Background Tables
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation/ DMS Project No. 94709
Designer
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
167-B Haywood Road
Asheville, NC 28806
Primary project design POC
Andrew Bick 828-606-0306
Construction Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Construction contractor POC
Wayne Taylor 336-341-6489
Survey Contractor
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
PO Box 41023
Raleigh, NC 27629
Survey Contractor POC
David Turner 919-623-5095
Planting Contractor
Keller Environmental, LLC
7921 Haymarket Lane
Raleigh, NC 27615
Planting Contractor POC
Jay Keller 919-749-8259
Seeding Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Seeding Contractor POC
Wayne Taylor 336-341-6489
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources 336-855-6363
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Foggy Mountain Nursery 336-384-5323
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
167-B Haywood Road
Asheville, NC 28806
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Stream Monitoring POC
Andrew Bick 828-606-0306
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Andrew Bick 828-606-0306
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 A-4 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix A
Figures and Background Tables
Table 4a. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation/ DMS Project No. 94709
County
Project Area (acres)
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Surry
—140
36.506671 N, 80.704115 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
DWR Sub -basin
Project Drainage Area (acres)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area<5
CGIA Land Use Classification
Piedmont
Yadkin
03040101
03040101100010
Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-02
1,527 ac (2.39 mit)
Cro land and Pasture, Confined Animal Operations
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach 1/2 Reach 3
Silage Trib
Moores Fork Moores Fork
Cow Trib 1
Cow Trib 2
Length of Reach Post Construction (LF)
2,636 2,885 3,348
167
767
Valley classification (Ros en)
VIII VIII U/IV
B
II
Drainage area (acres)
1,193 1,527 156
4
16
NCDWQ stream identification score
35 34.5 23.5
20
23.5
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS -IV WS-rV WS -IV
WS-ry
WS -IV
Morphological Description (Ros en stream e)
C4 C4 G4/C4
G5
G5
Evolutionary trend
C -F C -F G -F
G
G
Underlying mapped soils
CsA, FsE CsA, FsE FeD2
FeD2
FeD2
Drainage class
well drained well drained well drained
well drained
well drained
Soil Hydric, status
not hydric not hydric not hydric
I not hydric
I not hydric
Slope
0.008 0.006 0.030
0.056
0.038
FEMA classification
Not in SFHA Not in SFHA Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Native vegetation community
Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
0 0 0
0
0
WetlandSimurwWrylitformation
Parameters
Wetland 1 Wetland 2
Wetland 3
Wetland 4
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.49 0.04
0.08
0.15
Wetland Type
riparian non-riverme riparian non-riverme riparian
non-rivenne
riparian non-riverine
Mapped Soil Series
FsE FsE
CsA
FsE & CsA
Drainage class
well drained well drained
well drained
well drained
Soil Hydric, Status
not hydric not h dric
not hydric
not hydric
Source ofHydrology
UT9 & UT10 UT8
Toe seep
Toe see
Hydrologic Imparmicrit
none none
none
none
Native vegetation community
Dist. Small Stream/ Dist. Small Stream/ Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest Narrow FP Forest Narrow FP Forest
Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
0 0 1
0
0
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404 Y
Y
02257
Waters of
the United States — Section 401 Y
Y NCDWR # 12-0396
Endangered Species Act Y
Y CE Approved
12/21/11
Historic Preservation Act N
N/A
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) N
N/A
FEMA Flood lain Com fiance N
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat N
N/A
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 A-5 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix A
Figures and Background Tables
Table 4b. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation/ DMS Project No. 94709
County
Project Area (acres)
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Surry
—140
36.506671 N, 80.704115 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
DWR Sub -basin
Project Drainage Area (acres)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area<5
CGIA Land Use Classification
Piedmont
Yadkin
03040101
03040101100010
Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-02
1,527 ac (2.39 mi)
Cro land and Pasture, Confined Animal Operations
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Pond Trib Barn Reach Corn Reach
UTI
Length of Reach Post Construction (LF)
243 3,434 1,452
466
Valley classification (Ros en)
VIII IV IV
IV
Drainage area (acres)
27 184 30
6
NCDWQ stream identification score
20 36.5 21
23
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS -IV WS -IV WS -IV
WS -Iv
Morphological Description (Ros en stream p e)
B4/5 G4 G4
134
Evolutionary trend
B -C -F G -F G -F
Underlying mapped soils
CsA FeD2, FsE CSA, FsE
FeD2
Drain e class
well drained well drained well drained
well drained
Soil Hydric, status
not hydric not hydric not hydric
not hydric
Slope
0.029 0.025 0.057
0.040+/ -
FEMA classification
Not in SFHA Not in SFHA Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Native vegetation community
Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest
Felsic Mesic Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
0 0 0
0
Wetland SurruwWwry Information
Parameters
Wetlands Wetland
Size ofWetland (acres)
0.03 0.06
Wetland Type
npanan non-nverme riparian non-riverme
Mapped Soil Series
FeD2 FsE & FeD2
Drain eclass
well drained well drained
Soil Hydric, Status
not h dric not hydric
Source ofHydrology
Toe Seep Toe See
Hydrologic Imparmicift
none none
Native vegetation community
Dist. Small Stream/ Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest Narrow FP Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
0 0
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 A-6 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

Moores Fork Stream Mitigation/DMS Project No. 94709
Legend
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level II
Conservation Easement
Wetland
0 250 500 1,000
Feet
Drawn by: KAY 10.27.16; CEC Project# 644;
Aerial Photograph (NCCGIA) 2015
Surry County,
North Carolina
EN GI NEE RI N C,
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services 167-B Haywood Road
1652 Mail Service Center Asheville, NC 28806
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
CLear aLer Integrated Current Condition Plan View
DMS Project No. 94709
32 Clayton Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Figure 2

Legend
Photo Point
O Crest Gauge
�- Cross -Section
Stream Restoration
Top of Bank
Stream Preservation
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level II
Conservation Easement
Erosion
Aggradation
Wetland
Vegetation Plot - Criteria Met
Vegetation Plot - Criteria Not Met
Invasives
Moores Reach 1
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation/DMS Project No. 94709
Structures
® Constructed Riffle
Brushmat
E Geolift
Debris Plug
Bridge
------ Gully Stabilization
— ... —... Facines
PP7
VP1 =
520/520 �0+00
PP4
PP3� Ja° + \ 11+00
+ o \
o�o \ /VP2
Surry County,
North Carolina
Moores Reach 2
Pond Tributary
12+00
Corn Reach 1
I�
0 125 250 500
Feet
Drawn by: KAY 11.11.16; CEC Project# 644;
Aerial Photograph (NCCGIA) 2015
Moores Reach 3
Corn Reach 2
+
� o
PP20 VP5 _ PP22 , - 7
PP21 ,,�:,
j 520/640 \�PP23
lime \=-
+ \ - + 48+00! 1760/760_ P25
PP35 xOOo PP24 Ln
i
\' 1 + — "i `sox Lno
PP36 oc c 0 + c \ jT
PP180Ox0 + 0 7L7
c
PP16_ `��x tA
PP17 00 C�
6'x00 U T8
k w i. L D L A w D S Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Mk W 1— 21 F.— DMS Project No. 94709
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services 167-B Haywood Road
1652 Mail Service Center Asheville, NC 28806
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 Figure 2 Sheet I
V P 7 a
520/520
PP26
Root Mcl H[;•:k
Rock Vane • ' Log Vane
Step
Stone Tore
PP7
VP1 =
520/520 �0+00
PP4
PP3� Ja° + \ 11+00
+ o \
o�o \ /VP2
Surry County,
North Carolina
Moores Reach 2
Pond Tributary
12+00
Corn Reach 1
I�
0 125 250 500
Feet
Drawn by: KAY 11.11.16; CEC Project# 644;
Aerial Photograph (NCCGIA) 2015
Moores Reach 3
Corn Reach 2
+
� o
PP20 VP5 _ PP22 , - 7
PP21 ,,�:,
j 520/640 \�PP23
lime \=-
+ \ - + 48+00! 1760/760_ P25
PP35 xOOo PP24 Ln
i
\' 1 + — "i `sox Lno
PP36 oc c 0 + c \ jT
PP180Ox0 + 0 7L7
c
PP16_ `��x tA
PP17 00 C�
6'x00 U T8
k w i. L D L A w D S Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Mk W 1— 21 F.— DMS Project No. 94709
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services 167-B Haywood Road
1652 Mail Service Center Asheville, NC 28806
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 Figure 2 Sheet I
V P 7 a
520/520
PP26

Structures
® Constructed Riffle
Brushmat
Geolift
Debris Plug
0 Bridge
---• Gully Stabilization
— Facines
Root Wad
Rock Vane
Step
Stone Toe
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation/DMS Project 94709
J -Hook
Log Vane
Moores Reach 1
PP2
Legend
0 Photo Point
O Crest Gauge
Cross -Section
Stream Restoration
------- Top of Bank
Stream Preservation
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level II
Conservation Easement
Erosion
Aggradation
Vegetation Plot - Criteria Met
Vegetation Plot - Criteria Not Met
_ Wetland
Invasives
Drawn by: KAY 11.11.16; CEC Project# 644;
Aerial Photograph (NCCGIA) 2015
Surry County,
North Carolina
UT6
Moores Reach 2
/ PP7 Pond Tributary
VP1 = 520/520 10+00
PP4
O + �,� 11+0
PP3 0 0 '�� '\
0 0
o t: 00 6
c _ VP2 = 240/240
0 PP5 i
0
0 PP8', \,
PP9
0
Corn
Reach 2
Buffer Clearing PP35'--`/
PP16
PP17 x00
VP4 = j 35+00
640/640 I PP15
PP13
�-----_- PP14! 34+00
+ w
30+00
o +
442 00
_ VP3 = 280/280;
NA\
29+00
a�
PP11 >�
4 PP12�
+ N
0 0
o +
0
0
R ,
ZO
Barn Reach 2
W
wILDLANIO CLearWaLer
r1ENGII�EERIING
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services 167-B Haywood Road 32 Clayton Street
1652 Mail Service Center Asheville, NC 28806 Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Moores Reach 3
~ PP20 VP5 =
�
20/640
V
P21
000 +
+ 0
c PP19 + o
+ o
0
0
UT8
N
V
0 125 250 500
-U1T7 Feet
1.
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
DMS Project No. 94709
Figure 2 Sheet 2

x00 —
+
\ P P 19 x00 O
0
0
0
Legend
0 Photo Point
O Crest Gauge
-� Cross -Section
— Top of Bank
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Conservation Easement
Erosion
Aggradation
Wetland
Vegetation Plot - Criteria Met
I
Vegetation Plot - Criteria No Met
Invasives
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation/DMS Project 94709
Moores Reach
0� PP23
� VP6 = 760/760
/+ 48+00 ! PP 4— PP25 ' .
SOx
D_ O
VP7 = 520/520
Drawn by: KAY 11.11.16; CEC Project# 644;
Aerial Photograph (NCCGIA) 2015
Surry County,
North Carolina
PP33B
Go
PP26 S +
+
w xOOo 0
0
0
UTO
\ Z
PP30 x00
60+00 x00
P,P29
59+00
\\172858+00
M9
—0
� ` •_mak
0
+ ,k
+ +
O O l
}5t k
Structures
® Constructed Riffle
Brushnnat
Geolift
Debris Plug
Bridge
------ Gully Stabilization
—, —­ Facines
rk� %�r
WILDLANDS r�e�r aLer
ENGINEERONG
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services 167-B Haywood Road 32 Clayton Street
1652 Mail Service Center Asheville, NC 28806 Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Root Wad J -Hook
Rock Vane Log Vane
Step
Stone Toe
N
0 125 250 500
Feet
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
DMS Project No. 94709
Figure 2 Sheet 3

Moores Fork Stream Mitigation/DMS Project 94709
STs k.--_ e \ �
Legend
Photo Point
O Crest Gauge
Cross -Section
Stream Enhancement Level I
Top of Bank
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Conservation Easement
Erosion
Aggradation
Wetland
Vegetation Plot - Criteria Met
�7� Vegetation Plot - Criteria Not Met
1117 //I Invasives
Drawn by: KAY 11.11.16; Project# 644;
Aerial Photograph (NCCGIA) 2015
Surry County,
North Carolina
Structures
Constructed Riffle
Brushmat
Geolift
Debris Plug
0 Bridge
-----• Gully Stabilization
—° Facines
Root Wad
{r ` Rock Vane
Step
Stone Toe
Log Vane
irn Reach 2
10+0W N
PP61 V
0 125 250 500
Feet
w i rD L v s LLearWaLer
ENGINE€RING
Mk
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services 167-B Haywood Road 32 Clayton Street
1652 Mail Service Center Asheville, NC 28806 Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Raleieh. NC 27699-1652
Integrated Current Condition
Plan View
DMS Project No. 94709
Figure 2 Sheet 4
i
Legend
Photo Point
O Crest Gauge
Cross -Section
Stream Enhancement Level I
Top of Bank
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Conservation Easement
Erosion
Aggradation
Wetland
Vegetation Plot - Criteria Met
�7� Vegetation Plot - Criteria Not Met
1117 //I Invasives
Drawn by: KAY 11.11.16; Project# 644;
Aerial Photograph (NCCGIA) 2015
Surry County,
North Carolina
Structures
Constructed Riffle
Brushmat
Geolift
Debris Plug
0 Bridge
-----• Gully Stabilization
—° Facines
Root Wad
{r ` Rock Vane
Step
Stone Toe
Log Vane
irn Reach 2
10+0W N
PP61 V
0 125 250 500
Feet
w i rD L v s LLearWaLer
ENGINE€RING
Mk
NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services 167-B Haywood Road 32 Clayton Street
1652 Mail Service Center Asheville, NC 28806 Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Raleieh. NC 27699-1652
Integrated Current Condition
Plan View
DMS Project No. 94709
Figure 2 Sheet 4

Moores Fork Stream Mitigation/DMS Project 94709
Legend
Photo Point
O Crest Gauge
Cross -Section
Top of Bank
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level II
Conservation Easement
Erosion
Drawn by: KAY 11.11.16; Project# 644;
Aerial Photograph (NCCGIA) 2015
PP56
PP57 +
xO
O
14+00
i
Slimy
°r Fallen Tre
} Over Cha
' Silay,. I k,-WAV11 1
PPo9;�
PP.
O
Structures
Aggradation
Wetland
Constructed Riffle
Vegetation Plot - Criteria Met
Brushmat
Vegetation Plot - Criteria Not Met
111/_
Invasives
Drawn by: KAY 11.11.16; Project# 644;
Aerial Photograph (NCCGIA) 2015
PP56
PP57 +
xO
O
14+00
i
Slimy
°r Fallen Tre
} Over Cha
' Silay,. I k,-WAV11 1
PPo9;�
PP.
O
Structures
Constructed Riffle
!
Brushmat
!
0 Geolift
Debris Plug
4vs
Bridge
� O VP12 = 480/480
----- Gully Stabilization
Facines
'
f Root wad J Hoak
0
x PP46
Rock Vane; -i Lag Vane
Step
Stone Toe
Cow Tributary 1
{ O PP56
28+00
PP49\`'
/- PP48
PP51
PP52
/'Xs�� x00.
PP53 �" O
VP9 = '��x0 '
640/640
�PP54
Cow Tributary 2
Silage Reach 2
r
14.3
N
0 125 250 500
Feet
w I L D L A N n Integrated Current Condition
Sur County, qWW E"G`"EER'"C' [�arl,'ater Plan View
North CCLro�InCl NCDEQ - Division of Mitigation Services 167-B Haywood Road 32 Clayton Street DMS Project 1 V o, 94709
07
1652 Mail Service Center Asheville, NC 28806 Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 Figure 2 Sheet 5

R w r- I &"%
ir'mvkw w0'% r-%
i n w --F r% 0%

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-6 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Moores Fork Reach
1
Assessed Le :761
feet
Adjusted /o
Major
Number
Total
Numberof
Amountof %Stable,
Numberwith
Footage with
for
Channel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Stable,
Number in
Unstable
Unstable Perfor®ug
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabiliio
Category
a'fotrcdad
As -built
Segments
Footage as Intended
W0000dy dy
Vegetation
Vegetation
VodyW tdon
ge
Vegetation
I Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aeetadation - Bar form W Vgowth sufficient to sigNfcatdly deflect flow laterally
0
0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
not to include point bare
2. Dee<adatnn- Eviderce ofdowunult'ing
0
0 100
2. Riffle Condition
1. Tcxbae/Subsbate - Rhe mamt im coarser substrate
4
4
100 %
I. DCpth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfuo Depth> 1.6)
5
5
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
2.L,,,Zhappnpri-(>30%ofterlerlme distance between too ofupstreamrile and
5
5
t00%
ad ff
4.Tbalweg Position
1. ThahegceuderiN at upstream ofreataler bei (Run)
5
5
t00%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream ofereader (Glide)
5
5
100%
2. Bank
I. Scoured/Eroding
Banklzckmg vegetative cover resukvug skrply5nmpoor gowf and/or scum and
0
0 100%
0 0
100%
Banks ondereWoverhangig to the extent that rens wasting appeals likely. Does NGT'
2. Undercut
0
0 100%
0 0
100
=We undercuts that are modest, appear susta nabk and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank sko pin& cahi.& or collapse
0
0 100%
0 0
100%
Totals
0
0 100%
0 0
100%
3. Engineered
Stmcrare
L OvemB Integrity
Sin luxes physically inuct with w dislodged boulders or logs.
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Grade Control
Caade t.—I structures exlubong—ittenaune ofgade across the it
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2a. Piping
Snn—es lacking arty substantial Dow uodemeath sols or oma.
N/A
N/A
Bank erosbo wM io the stmcbnes extern of infl— does n_ot exceed 15%. (See.
3. Baric Protection
gWarce for this table in EEP motoring guidance d—to)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pool fnnang sarcoses maintaining - Max Pool Depth: Mean Baokfiit Depth ratio
4. Habitat
1.6 Rootwads/logs providing sow cover at base -mow.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-6 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-7 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Moores Fork Reach
2
Assessed Lc the
1875 feet
Adjusted
Major
Number
Total
Number of Amow[of
%Stable,
Numberwith
Footage with
for
Charnel
Chonnel Subcategory
Metric
Stable,
Nurnberin
Unstable Unstable
Performing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
StabilizingCategory
performing
As -built
Segments Footage
as Intended
Woody
Woody
Woody
as [Dreaded
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aeeradation - Bar formetkNgrowlh sufficient to significantly ticket flow laterally
1 8
99%
(Rile and Run units)
rot to inchde oar bars
2. Dead Inn -Evidence oH.—r ttmg
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Te twe/Subshate - Rhe ovmtams c.arser substrate
8
8
100%
I. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean BankfW Depth> 1.6)
6
7
86%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
2. Len ah approprislc (130% f.—alinc distance between tad ofupstrearn rbc and
6
7
86%
strcm riff
4.Thalweg Position
I. Thahacg centering at upsneam of—.Mcr head (R-)
6
7
86%
2.Thalweg ccnle®g at downstream oftneander(Glide)
6
7
86%
2. Bank
LScoured/E.,E g
Bank lackhmg vegetative cover msukhgsvxply finmpoor growth and/or scour and
t 10
99%
l 10
100%
0 0
l00 %
0 0
100
Banks undercWoverhangmg to the extent that nnss wasting appears likely. Does NOT
2. Undercut
mcbde andercns that are ordeal, tamable and are habitat
appear ars providing
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slrrping calving or collapse
0 0
100%
0 0
100%
Totals
t 10
99%
0 0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Strectra. physbafty intact with no dibdged boulders or logs.
16
16
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade corsrol structures exhbimrg rmintenanec ofgrnde across the Al.
5
5
100 %
2a. piping
Strucnaes lacking any substantial flow underneath as or arm.
16
16
l00
Bank erosion within dr strucnnes exrn teofvlueree does rot exceed 15%. (See
3. Bank Protection
guidance for this table in EEP mondormg guidance don urent)
9
9
100
Pool fommrg—races maintaining – Max Pool Depth: Mean BaakfiA Depth ran. L_
4. Habitat
1.6 Rootwads/bgs pmvllbg sone cover at base-Ibw.
2
2
100°0
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-7 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-8 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Table 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Moores Fork Reach
3
Assessed Lc the
2885 feet
Adjusted
Major
N .hirer
Total
Numberot Amountof
%Stable,
Number with
uuuberwftflizin
wft
Footage with
Footage
for
Charnel
Charnel Sub -Category
Metric
Stable,
NumberN
Uastable Uestable
Perfarmiag
S.Mi
Stabilod g
Category
performing
As -built
Segments Footage
as Intended
Woody
Woody
Woody
as Intended
VWo dna
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aseradation - Bar forrretbNgrowlh suf icient to significantly deket flow laterally
2 55
99%
(Ri®e and Run units)
not to incl de point bars
2. D - Evidence oH.—offing
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Te twe/Substrate - Role maintains parser substrate
13
13
100%
I. Pot Sufficient(Max Pool Depth: Mean BankfA Depth >1.6)
16
16
100%
3. MeanderPool
Condition
2. Len rch appropri7te(>30%ofcenterlme diednce betweev tad ofupetream rhe avd
16
16
100%
head to rid
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thaheg eentervg at upsnoam ofruearder hers] (R-)
l6
16
100%
2.7holweg—te®g at downstream ofineander (Glide)
1 16
16
100%
2. Book
L Scoured/Emding
Bank Inckmg vegetative cover—,Ahgsmply finmpoor growth and/or scum and
l 5
99%
0 0
99%
0 0
l00 %
0 0
100%
Banks u dmwJovarhangmg to the extent that nnss wasting appears likely. Does NOT
2. UMercut
hrcmde u dercms that are modest, tamable and are habeaz
appear srs providing
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slmrpivg calving or collapse
0 0
10o%
0 0
100%
Totals
1 5
99%
0 0
99%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
S—tar. physbafly intact with no dibdged bonders or logs.
27
27
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade corrnol structures edubimig rmintenance fg.& across the so-
6
6
100 %
2a. Piping
Stnrcnaes lacking any subsGmial fl—rod—fl, sdk or arm.
27
27
100%
Book erosbn with, de —,extern ofmrc
8uee does not exceed 15%. (See
3. Bank Protection
mee
guidfor this table m monitoring nitoring guidance dacur ent)
18
18
100
Pool fommrg snocares maintawng– Max Pool Depth: Mean BavkfiA Depth roti, L
4. Habitat
1.6 Roctwads/bgs previimg sone cover at base -flow.
3
3
100%
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-8 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-9 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Silage Reach
1
Assessed Len the
900 feet
Adjusted
Major
N U—r
Total
Numberot
Amountof %Stable,
Number with
urberwftilizing
Footage with
for
Channel
Channel Sob -Category
Metric
Stable,
NamberN
Unstable
Unstable Performing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
performing
As -built
Segments
Footage as Intended
Woody
Woody
Woody
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aeeradation - Bar forrretbNgrowlh suf icient to significantly detkct flow laterally
0
0 100%
(Rifle and Runonus)
not to ioclde poi. bars
0
0 100%
2. Dead Inn-Eviderce oH.—offing
2. Riffle Condition
1. Textare/Substmta - Role maintains coarser substrate
N/A
N/A
N/A
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
I. Pot Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean BankfA Depth >1.6) 12 12
2. Len rch appropri7te(>30%ofcenterlme diednce between tad ofupetream rhe and
lead tr— rid
12
12
100%
4.Thalweg Position
I.Thalwcgcentering at upsneamofinearderberd(Run)
l2
12
t00%
2.7hahveg—teriag at downstream ofrneander (Glide)
1 12
12
100%
2. Bank
L Sroured/Emding
Bank Inckmg vegetative cover resvkbg smply fiempoor growth and/or scour and
0
0 100%
0 0
100
0
0 l00 %
0 0
100
Banks wdmwJovarhangbg to the extent that reass wasting appears likely. Does NOT
2. UMercut
bcmde undercuts that are modest, tamable and are habeaz
appear sus providing
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slmrymg calving or collapse
0
0 100%
0 0
l00%
Totals
0
0 100%
0 0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Stmctor. physically iNact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
8
8
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade cornnol structures exhbimsg rmintenance ofgrnde across the so-
8
8
t00%
2a. piping
Stnrcnues lacking any subk-tal flow and—ol, sdk or arm.
8
8
100%
Bank erosbn with, the structures extem ofvfluerce does not exceed 15%. (See
3. Bank Protection
guidmee for this table in EEP monitoring guidance daasrent)
I
I
100
P"'brumng—tones maintawng – Max Pool Depth: Mean BavkfA Depthrati,L
4. Habitat
1.6 Roctwads/bgs proviimg sone cover at base -lbw.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-9 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-10
Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Table Se. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Silage Reach
2
Assessed Le the
2448 feet
Adjusted
Major
Nussdrer
Total
Numberot Amountof
%Stable,
Number with
urberwftilizing
Footage with
for
Channel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Stable,
NamberN
Unstable Unstable
Perfurming
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
pe Storming
As -built
Segments Footage
as Intended
Woody
Woody
Woody
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aea,adatkn - Bar fortretbNgrowlh suf icient to sign&arty detket flow laterally
0 0
100%
(Rifle and Ronunits)
not to ioclde poi. bars
2. Dead tion- Eviderce ofdowrcottmg
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Subsbate - Rhe mamtairs coarser substrate
15
15
100%
I. Pot Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean BankfiA Depth> 1.6)
13
16
81%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
2. Len rch appropriste n30%ofcenterlme diednce betweev tad ofupetream ria avd
13
16
81%
lead hem riR
4.Thalweg Position
I.Thatwcg ecutering at upstream ofoeoslor herd(Rrm)
l3
16
81%
2.7hahveg—toriag at downstream ofsneander (Glide)
1 13
16
81%
2. Bank
L Scoored/Emding
Bank lnckmg vegetative cover msukmg smply finmpoor growth and/or scour and
2 45
98%
0 0
98%
0 0
l00%
0 0
loo
Banks wdenem/overhangmg to the extent that reass wasting appears likely. Does NOT
2. UMercut
mcmde undercuts that are modest, tamable and are habeaz
appear sus providing
3. Mass WastirSg
Bank O.Ting calving or collapse
0 0
100%
0 0
l00%
Totals
2 45
98%
0 0
98%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Stmctures physically imact with no dislodged bonders or logs.
16
16
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade comrol structures exhbimrg neisenance ofgrade across the so-
16
16
t00%
2a. piping
Stnscnnes lacking any substaodal Row underneath sdk or arm.
16
16
100%
Bank erosion with, da, structures a oam ofvfluerce does not exceed 15%. (See
3. Bank Protection
guidaee for this table in EEP monitoring guidance d-uraent)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Poolfnmmng—tones neintawng – Max Pool Depth: Mean BaakfA Depthslip?
4. Habitat
1.6 Rootwads/logs proviimg sone cover at base -Row.
3
4
75
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-10
Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-11
Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Table 5f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Cow THE,1
Assessed t. :
167 feet
Adjusted %
Major
Number
Total
Ncon rid
A --.f
%Stable,
m
Nuberwith
Footage with
for
Channel
Channel Sub -Category
MetricNumberin
Stable,
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Stabilising
Stabilising
Stabilixing
Category
Pe rforrmvg
As -built
Segments
Footage
asIntended
Woody
Woody
Woody
ae Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
V,g,t,do,
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Ae¢adation-Buf,=tbdgrowthsudisnotsignamtlyde8ectflowlmerally
had in include Dean bars
0
0
100%
(Rime and Ratrmits)
2. Degradation- Evidence ofdowncutting
0
0
100%
2. RiBle Condition
I. Testae/Substrate - Rhe maintains coarser substrate
N/A
N/A
N/A
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
I Depth SaBiccnt(Max Pool Depth: Mean Bank FA Depth >1.6)
2. Leneth appropriate (>30% ofcerderfine distance between tail ofupstream rhe awl
head o-4.Thalweg
EN
Position
I. Tbahveg centering at upsmtreaoftreander bend(Ran)
N/A
N/AE
2. Thahveg cevterbg at d—rear,
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Erorling
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting sanely fiom poor growth and/or scow and
erosion
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
0 0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0 0
N/A
2. Undercut Backs rmdercW/overinngmg m me extent that mess wasibg appeazs Brey. Does NOT
bchde undercuts that are modest, appear sastaroable and are providing hale
3. Mass Wastirrg
Book slurping, cahmg or collapse
N/A
N/A
N/A
0 0
N/A
Totals
0
0
N/A
0 0
N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structure, physically intact with no dislodged boulders or lugs.
13
13
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control stmetures exhbitingtmbtenance, ofgrade across the xd.
13
13
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath As or ams.
13
13
100%
Bank erosion within the structures extent ofmfluence does not exceed 15%. (See
3. Bank Protection
g idance for this table b EEP mondorv�g guidance docurn an
N/A
N/A
H/A4.
Pool fomting structuresm anuring– Max Pool Depth: Mean BankfJ Depth ratio >
Habitat
1.6 Roetwads/bgs providing some cover at base -flow.
N/A
N/A
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-11
Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-12
Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Table 5g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Cow Tdb 2
Assessed Len the
767 feet
Adjusted
Major
NurNrer
Total
Nn A
% Stable,
Nunderwith
Footage with
for
Charnel
Charnel Sub category
Metric
Stable,
nu ble
Unstable Unstable
stable
Pe
Stabilizing
Stabili ing
SWoodng
Category
performing
As -built
As -built
Segments Footage
Intends
as Intended
Woody
Woody
Woody
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aesradarion - Bar forrretbNgrowlh sufhcier t to significantly detket flow laterally
0 0
100%
(Ri®e and Run units)
mt to mchde poi. bars
2. Dead tnn-Eviderce oH.—otting
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Te twe/Substrate - Rhe maintains coarser substrate
N/A
N/A
N/A
I. Pot Sufficient(Max Pool Depth: Mean BankfA Depth >1.6)
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Meander Pool
Condition
2. Lenah appropn-(130%ofcer firs,diednce between tad ofupstrearn rhe and
N/A
N/A
N/A
lead hcm rid
4.Thalweg Position
I.Thatwcgcenrerbg at upstreamofineaoderberd(Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Thalweg cente®g at downstream ofineander (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Bank
LS-rued/Emding
Bank leckbg vegetative cover—kingsmply finmpoor growth and/or scorn and
0 0
100%
N/A N/A
100
0 0
l00 %
0 0
100%
Banks u dmwJovarhangmnn
g to the extent that ss wasting appears likely. Does NOT
2. UMercut
ir.ksle undercuts that are modest, tamable and are babeaz
appear srs providing
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slmrping calving or collapse
l 20
97%
0 0
97%
Totals
I 20
97%
0 0
97%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
S—W. stack wirh no dibdged boulders or logs.
24
24
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade cormol structures eshbimrg rmintenanee ofgrnde across the AL
21
24
88%
2a. piping
Stnzctmes lacking any substaotial flow underneath sdh or arm.
21
24
88%
Bank erosbn with, de structures extern ofmf woe, does not exceed 15%. (See
3. Baric Protection
Vid— for this table in EEP mondorvig guidance daasrent)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pool fnmmrg snucaaes maintaining– Max Pool Depth: Mean BaukfiA Depth roti, L
4. Habitat
1.6 Rootwads/bgs pmvllbg sone cover at base -lbw.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-12
Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-13
Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Table 5h. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Pond Trlb
Assessed Len th :
243 feet
Adjusted
Major
Nurdrer
Total
Nn A
%Stable,
Nurnberwith
Footage with
for
Charnel
Channel Sub category
Metric
Stable,
Unstable Unstable
stable nsu ble
Perforating
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
SWoodng
Category
performing
As -built
As -built
Segments Footage
IntesWoody
as Intended
Woody
Woody
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aeeradation - Bar forrretbNgrowlh sufhciertt to significantly deflect flow laterally
0 0
100%
(Rifle and Rununits)
rat to include poi. bars
2. Dead tnn- Evidence ofdowrcuttmg
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Tcx,rc/Substrata- Rre mabtai, coarser substrate
N/A
N/A
N/A
I. Pot Suflkient(Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfud Depth >1.6)
N/A
N/A
Cha—I largely overgrown
N/A
3. Meander Pool
Condition
2. Lenah appropriate(>30% fcerserfnc distance between tad ofupstream rhe and
N/A
N/A
with vegetation No
N/A
hcd rsto rid
discemble facets b s—
4.Thalweg Position
I.Thatwcgcentering at upsneamofroeanderbezd(Run)
N/A
N/A
segmcntsofch.—L
N/A
2. Thalweg—tering at downstream ofrneander (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Bank
LS-rued/Eroding
Bank Inckbg vegetative cover—Aingsbply finmpoor growth and/or scorn and
0 0
100%
0 0
100
0 0
l00 %
0 0
100
Banks u dercWoverhangbg to the extent that nnss wasting appears likely. Does NOT
2. Utulercut
hncmde undercuts that are modest, tamable and are habeaz
appear srs providing
3. Mass Wastirrg
Bank slmrpbg calving or collapse
0 0
100%
0 t
t00%
Totals
0 0
100%
0 0
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
(.Overall Integrity
Structures physbafly iNact wirh no dibdged boulders or logs.
7
7
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade connnol structures cArbimeg rmintenaurc ofgradc across the so-
7
7
100 %
2a. piping
Structures lacking any sul kaotial flow underneath sdh or arm.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Book. wdhb de strucnnes extern ofbfluerce does rat exceed I S % (See
3. Baric Protection
guidmthis
ee for table in EEP wratorbs
g guidance daarent)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Poulfnmmrg snvcnaes maintavnvng–Max Pool Depth: Mean Bavkfifl Depth ratio>
4. Habitat
1.6 Rootwads/lop pmvllbg sone cover at base -bow.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-13
Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-14
Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Table 5i. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Barn Trlb Reach 1
Assessed Len the
350 feet
Adjusted %
Major
N urNrer
Total
Numberof Amourdof
%Stable,
Number with
Footage with
for
Channel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Stable,
I,umberI.
Unstable Unstable
Performing
brwf
Stailizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
performing
As -built
Segments Footage
as Intended
Woody
Woody
Woody
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aneradatbn - Bar formatbNgrowlh suf icienr to significantly deflect flow laterally
0 0
100%
(Ri®e and Rununits)
art to ioclde poic, bars
2. Dead Inn-Eviderce ofd.—uttmg
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrafe- Rhe mamlams coarser substore
N/A
N/A
N/A
I. Pot Suflkient(Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfoll Depth >1.6)
N/A
N/A
Cho—I largely overgrown
N/A
3. Meander Pool
Cosufftioo
2. Lenah appropriate (>30% ft—firs, distance between tad ofupstreare rhe and
N/A
N/A
with vegetation No
N/A
head fd.weriff
discemdrle tutors m sorre
4.Thalweg Position
1.Tha1wcgeentering at upsueamof—.Mcrberd(Ron)
N/A
N/A
segmcntsofch.—L
N/A
2. Thalweg —tering at downstream ofereander (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Bank
L S—ted/Eun ing
Bank lacking vegetative cover resukmg smply fi-ompoor growth and/or scour and
0 0
100%
0 0
100
0 0
l00 %
0 0
100
Banks uMercWovcrhangmg to the extent that nnss wasting appears likely. Does NOT
2. Undercutmcmde
r derevas that are modest, tamable and are habeaz
appear srs providing
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slmrping calving or collapse
0 0
100%
0 t
t00%
Torah
0 0
100%
0 0
100%
3. Engineered
Strweeres
1. Overall Integrity
S—W. physically iatact wrth no dislodged booklets or logs.
IS
15
100%
2. Gmde Control
Grade e.—I structures eshibimrg rouintenance ofgade across the so.
15
15
t00%
2a. Piping
Smrcnres lacking any substantial flow oademeath silk or arm.
15
15
100%
Book. wdhm tare strucnnes extern ofmfluerce does int exceed I S % (See
3. Baric Protection
ondormg guidance dasrea[)
guidmee for 01is table in EEP ma
N/A
N/A
N/A
Poolfommrg suvcures mainta'vung–Max Pool Depth: Mean BavkfirO Depth ratio?
4. Habitat
1.6 Rootwads/lop provklmg sone cover at base -flow.
1
1
100°0
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-14
Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-15
Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Adjusted
Major
Number
Total
Numberof Amount of
%Stable,
Numberwith
Footage with
for
Charnel
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Stable,
Nrndar to
Unstable Unstable
Pd,—g
Stabilizing
Stabili Ing
Stabilizing
Category
Performing
As -built
Segments Footage
as [Mended
Woody
Woody
Woody
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
I. Aeuradatron- Bar fonretioNpowth sufficient to significantly deflect How letcu ly
0 0
100
(Riffle and Run un es)
not to mchmde oint barn
0 0
100%
2. De¢adatrn-Evideneeofdowocottmg
2. Riffle Condition
I. Texture/Subsuate- RHHe maurcains coarser substrate
N/A
N/A
N/A
100%
3. Meander Pool
Cunditian
I Depth Suffckm (Max Pool Depth: Mean BankU Depth? 1.6) 1 1
2. r-,Ih app,.pri..(>30%ofecaterlme distance between no ofp.—iffc and
he dofd Nm—rink
I
1
100%
4.Thalweg Position
I. ThAvcg ccutcrmg at upsteamofmcarder bead (Ran)
l
1
100%
2. Tlei centering at downstream ofineander (Glide)
I
1
100%
2. Bank
1. Seured/Enalag
Bank ],,king vegetative coverm Ahgsmgly from poor growth and/or scorn and
cres
0 0
100%
0 0
100%
Banks urrdemut/overhangmg to the. extent that uniss wasting appears likely. Does NOT
2. Undercut
0 0
100%
0 0
I W
incLde underMs that are modest, a taiable tad are habitat
ppear sus providing
3. Mass Wsad g
Bank slurping calving or colhpse
0 0
100%
0 0
100%
Totals
0 0
100%
0 0
100%
3. Engineered
Stmctures
1.OvoraB Integrity
Structures phyeieaHy intact with no duludged boulders or logs.
4
4
100%
2. Grade Control
Gade cormol structures-hbitzrg maintenance fgrad,, across the silL
4
4
100%
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial How umrlemeath a& m amu.
4
4
Bank erosion within dm snvcnres extentofmfluencc does not emeed 15%. (See
3. Baric Protection
guidance for Um table m EEP montortig guidance docunent)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Poo16r®g smehres maintaining–Max Pool Depth: Me-Baokfd Depth mno
I
4.Habitat
1.6 Rootwads/bgg providing some cover at base -flow.
N/A
N/A
N/A
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-15
Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-16
Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Moores Fork/94709
Planted Acreage 15.4
Mapping
CCPV
Numberof
Combined
%of Planted
Vegetation Category
DeSnitlons
Threshold
De iction
Poll am
Acrea a
Acreage
Pattern and
1. Bare Areas
Very liked cover ofboth woody and herbaceous material
0.1 acres
0.00
0.0%
Color0
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target bvels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
Pattern and
Cobr
0
0.00
0.0%
Total
0
0.00
0.0%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
Pattern and
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage
140
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Numberof
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acrea a
Acrea e
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or posts (iftoo small to render as polygons at map scalo).
I
1000 SF
Cro" tch
Pink
18
14.00
10.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (iftoo small to render as polygons at map scale).
None
Pattem and
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-16
Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

:v -
5
Wlklo/ 20 16
_ twT �.r • a y,
, y
i
r
1
A
` } L y, f - ;' "� ♦ , app \� =it, `-.

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 3 — Moores Reach 2, Downstream
Photo Point 4 — Moores Reach 2, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-18 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 5 — Moores Reach 2, Downstream
Photo Point 6 — Pond Tributary, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-19 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 7 — Pond Tributary, Downstream
Photo Point 8 — Moores Reach 2, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-20 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 9 — Moores Reach 2, Downstream
Photo Point 10 — Moores Reach 2, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-21 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 11 — Moores Reach 2, Downstream
Photo Point 12 — Barn Reach 2, Upstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-22 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 15 — Moores Reach 2, Downstream
Photo Point 16 — Moores Reach 2, Upstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-24 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 17 — Moores Reach 3, Downstream
Photo Point 18 — Moores Reach 3, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-25 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 19 — Moores Reach 3, Downstream
Photo Point 20 — Moores Reach 3, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-26 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 21 — Moores Reach 3, Downstream
Photo Point 22 — Moores Reach 3, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-27 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 23 — Moores Reach 3, Downstream
Photo Point 24 — Moores Reach 3, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-28 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 25 — Moores Reach 3, Downstream
Photo Point 26 — Moores Reach 3, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-29 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 27 — Moores Reach 3, Downstream
Photo Point 28 — Moores Reach 3, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-30 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 29 — Moores Reach 3, Downstream
Photo Point 30 — Moores Reach 3, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-31 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 31 — Moores Reach 3, Downstream
Photo Point 32 — Moores Reach 3, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-32 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 33 —Moores Reach 3, Downstream
Photo Point 33a — Moores Reach 3, Upstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-33 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

rM IT
Photo Point
34 — Corn
Reach 1, Downslope
es Fork
Stream
Mitigation Project/94709
B-34
Monitoring Year 1 of 7
al Monitoring
Report
Submitted
November 30, 2016
Revised
December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 37 — Silage Reach 2, Downslope
Photo Point 38 — Silage Reach 2, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-36 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 39 — Silage Reach 2, Upstream
Photo Point 40 — Silage Reach 2, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-37 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

1
s s
�e M ate, � ��-�'�` F ��� � �.,•� .� �.
ai
rf ex
r
oil
r ;t
�3 4�
2016

� e
-1.1/10/2+016

a

y x,
' ti �., .. .;.: .,. gam.'•-, �`
pie—
p.

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 51 — Silage Reach 2, Downstream
Photo Point 52 — Silage Reach 2, Upstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-43 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

�a4:aY�•-�, �fi � f � "'�,. -i �_ A r��+�aE a ' .. � .-fit - t.
qL
M. a 'uE "�. � • -} 4? ' J `� # �-
-
�,��
IFFf,:f 1t+.,.rte --5f.
A �
i_ - fin. •.
11r1or2o1s

1 f"
S ' _ � �r? � � 4� I SAF •�/�
_ e � I • ka f y
it
Z
• —�� 'Myr 2�" ���'�'^� *}" , N �+�

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 59 — Silage Reach 1, Downstream
Photo Point 60 — Silage Reach 1, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-47 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 61 — Barn Reach 1, Downslope
Photo Point 62 — Barn Reach 1, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-48 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 63 — Barn Reach 1, Downstream
Photo Point 64 — Barn Reach 2, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-49 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 65 — Barn Reach 2, Downslope
Photo Point 66 — Silage Reach 1, Upslope
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-50 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Photo Point 67 — UTI, Downstream
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 B-51 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation i
1 IAnnual
Means
C .
000000000000000©OOOOO©00����
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore �000000000�®®000000000000®®'
®®
• - • •
000000©©QO®®0000'
©00000©����
'i
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1 1
1 1
Species '
©©=0®®©©0®=©00®©©©©©====���®
Stems per Acre
®1
®1
�1
�1
.1
.1
•�1
•�1
®1
•�1
•1
•1
®1
®1
®1
®1
•�1
•�1
•1
•1
•1
•1
�:1
ail
'•
�•
®®
Meets Success Criteria
Fails to Meet Interim Success Criteria
Type = Tree, Shrub, Livestake
P= Planted
T =Total Planted and Volunteer
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 C-1 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1
Monitoring Year 1 — October 25, 2016
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2
Monitoring Year 1 — October 25, 2016
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 C-2 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 3
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 4
Monitoring Year 1 — October 25, 2016
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709
Annual Monitoring Report
C-3 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 5
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 6
Monitoring Year 1 — October 25, 2016
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709
Annual Monitoring Report
C-4 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 7
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 8
Monitoring Year 1 — October 25, 2016
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709
Annual Monitoring Report
C-5 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix C
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 9
Vegetation Plot Data
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 10
Monitoring Year 1 — October 25, 2016
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 C-6 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 11
Vegetation Monitoring Plot 12
Monitoring Year 1 — October 25, 2016
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709
Annual Monitoring Report
C-7 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data

Appendix D
Cross -Section Ml — Downstream
Stream Survey Data
Cross -Section M1 — Upstream
Cross -Section M1- Riffle, Moores Fork Reach 2
Station 27+16
1160
1155
x
c
0
w 1150
1145
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 SO 90
Width (ft)
—1—MYO(06/2016)MY1(11/2016)—Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-1 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Cross -Section M2 — Downstream
Stream Survey Data
Cross -Section M2 — Upstream
Cross -Section M2 - Riffle, Moores Fork Reach 2
Station 29+84
1155
1150
� y
c
0
—0
1145
1140
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO(06/2016) �MY1(11/2016)—Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-2 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Cross -Section M3 — Downstream
Stream Survey Data
Cross -Section M3 — Upstream
Cross -Section M3 - Pool, Moores Fork Reach 2
Station 31+07
11,5
1150
c
0
w 1145
1140
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
+MYO (6/2016) -4— MYl (11/2016)—Bankfull
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-3 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Cross -Section M4 — Downstream
Stream Survey Data
Cross -Section M4 — Upstream
Cross -Section M4 - Riffle, Moores Fork Reach 3
Station 39+92
1150
1145 .a
0
.,
w
1140
1135
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
–4--MYO(6/2016)MY1(11/2016)—Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-4 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Cross -Section M5 — Downstream
Stream Survey Data
Cross -Section M5 — Upstream
Cross -Section M5 - Riffle, Moores Fork Reach 3
Station 45+02
1150
1145
x
0
0
w1140
`--`;..—Ga-
_.,.,_.
w
1135
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—4--MYO(6/2016)MY1(11/2016)—Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-5 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Cross -Section M6 — Downstream
Stream Survey Data
Cross -Section M6 — Upstream
Cross -Section M6 -Pool, Moores Fork Reach 3
Station 47+34
1145
1140
x
c
1135
v
1130
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—4--MYO (6/2016) —4-- MY1 (11/2016) —Bankfull
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-6 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Cross -Section M7 — Downstream
Stream Survey Data
Cross -Section M7 — Upstream
Cross -Section M7 - Run, Moores Fork Reach 3
Station 52+16
1145
1140
c
0
- -
1135
1130
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—4--MYO (6/2016) MY1 (11/2016)—Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-7 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Cross -Section M8 — Downstream
Stream Survey Data
Cross -Section M8 — Upstream
Cross -Section M 8 - Riffle, Moores Fork Reach 3
Station 56+02
1140
1135
x
,S
1130
V
? -
1125
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—4--MYO (6/2016) MY1 (11/2016)—Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-8 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Cross -Section M9 — Downstream
Stream Survey Data
Cross -Section M9 — Upstream
Cross -Section M9 - Pool, Moores Fork Reach 3
Station 57+38
1140
1135
0
1130
1125
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—4--MYO (6/2016) MY1 (11/2016) —Bankfull
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-9 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Cross -Section STI — Downstream
Stream Survey Data
Cross -Section ST1 — Upstream
Cross -Section ST1 - Riffle, Silage Reach 1
Station 13+46
1242
1240
1238
c
0
1236
v
1234
1232
10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width (ft)
--*—MYO(06/2016)MYl(11/2016)—Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-10
Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Cross -Section ST2 — Downstream
Stream Survey Data
Cross -Section ST2 — Upstream
Cross -Section ST2 - Pool, Silage Reach 1
Station13+81
1241
1239
1237
c
0
1235
v
w
1233
1231
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (ft)
--*--MYO (6/2016) �MYI (11/2016) —Bankfull
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-11 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data
Cross -Section ST3 — Upstream
Cross -Section ST3- Riffle, Silage Reach 2
Station 25+48
1198
1196
1194
c
0
1192
v
1190
1188
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Width (ft)
+MYO(06/2016)MY1(11/2016)—Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-12 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Cross -Section ST4 — Downstream
Stream Survey Data
Cross -Section ST4 — Upstream
Cross -Section ST4 - Pool, Silage Reach 2
Station 25+70
1198
1196
1194
c
0
1192
v
1190
1188
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Width (ft)
—4--MYO (6/2016) MY1 (11/2016)—Bankfull
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-13 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Cross -Section ST5 — Downstream
Stream Survey Data
Cross -Section ST5 — Upstream
Cross -Section ST5 - Pool, Silage Reach 2
Station 28+55
1191
1189
1187
c
0
1185
v
1183
1181
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Width (ft)
—4--MYO (6/2016) MY1 (11/2016)—Bankfull
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-14 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Cross -Section ST6 — Downstream
Stream Survey Data
Cross -Section ST6 — Upstream
Cross Section ST6 - Riffle, Silage Reach 2
Station 32+44
1181
1179
1177
c
O
1175
v
1173
1171
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Width (ft)
—4--MYO(6/2016)MY1(11/2016)—Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-15 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Cross -Section ST7 — Downstream
Stream Survey Data
Cross -Section ST7 — Upstream
Cross -Section ST7 - Riffle, Silage Reach 2
Station 36+85
1172
1170
1168
x
c
0
1166
v
1164
1162
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (ft)
--*—MYO (6/2016) —+—MY1 (11/2016)—Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-16 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Summary Data
D50 13
D84 35
D95 60
120%
100
80%
-
60%
15
a
40%
20%
E
U 0%
uo 0 o a m N
4 N O M N r N N <
N O
o Particle Size (mm)
-MY06/2/16 �MY110125116
25.0
20.0%
co
15.0%
a
u 10.0%
a
5.0%
0.0%
N o 0 o a w
V c O N h N V A M
N
o Particle Size (mm)
■MY06/2/16 ■MY110/25N6
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section M1 - Riffle
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section M1 - Riffle
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-17 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Moores Fork Mitigation / 94709
Cross Section M1 - Riffle
Moores Reach 2
MY1
Material
Particle Size Class (mm)
Total
Individual Cumulative
silt/clay
<0.062
12
11.3%
11%
very fine sand
0.62-0.125
0.0%
11%
fine sand
0.125-0.25
0.0%
11%
medium sand
0.25-0.5
10
9.4%
21%
coarse sand
0.5-1.0
12
11.3%
32%
very coarse sand
1.0-2.0
0.0%
32%
very fine gravel
2.0-4.0
0.0%
32%
fine gravel
4.0-5.7
0.0%
32%
fine gravel
5.7-8.0
0.0%
32%
medium gravel
8.0-11.3
16
15.1%
47%
medium gravel
11.3-16.0
7
6.6%
54%
coarse gravel
16.0-22.6
10
9.4%
63%
coarse gravel
22.6-32.0
20
18.9%
82%
very coarse gravel
32-45
8
7.5%
90%
very coarse gravel
45-64
7
6.6%
96%
small cobble
64-90
4
3.8%
100%
medium cobble
90-128
0.0%
1000/0
large cobble
128-180
0.0%
100%
very large cobble
180-256
0.0%
100%
small boulder
256-362
0.0%
100%
small boulder
362-512
0.0%
100%
medium boulder
512-1024
0.0%
100%
large boulder
1024-2048
0.0%
1000/0
bedrock
>2048
0.0%
100%
Total
106
100.0%
100%
Summary Data
D50 13
D84 35
D95 60
120%
100
80%
-
60%
15
a
40%
20%
E
U 0%
uo 0 o a m N
4 N O M N r N N <
N O
o Particle Size (mm)
-MY06/2/16 �MY110125116
25.0
20.0%
co
15.0%
a
u 10.0%
a
5.0%
0.0%
N o 0 o a w
V c O N h N V A M
N
o Particle Size (mm)
■MY06/2/16 ■MY110/25N6
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section M1 - Riffle
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section M1 - Riffle
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-17 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Summary Data
D50 13
D84 52
D95 130
120%
100%
60
i 60%
`y 40%
a
20%
E
U 0%
O O C W M N O
' Q
M NO
Particle Size (mm)
-MYO 612116 -*-MY110125116
25.0
20.0%
co
15.0%
a
u 10.0%
a
5.0%
0.0%
O N C
6 � Iq O N N h O
C
V c O N h N q H ?
N
Particle Size (mm)
■MY06/2116 ■MY110/25/16
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section M2 - Riffle
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section M2 - Riffle
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-18 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation / 94709
Cross Section M2 - Riffle
Moores Reach 2
MYl
Material
Particle Size Class (mm)
Total
Individual Cumulative
silt/clay
<0.062
1
1.0%
1%
very fine sand
0.62-0.125
0.0%
1%
fine sand
0.125-0.25
0.0%
1%
medium sand
0.25-0.5
2
2.0%
3%
coarse sand
0.5-1.0
1
1.0%
4%
very coarse sand
1.0-2.0
1
1.0%
5%
very fine gravel
2.0-4.0
9
9.0%
14%
fine gravel
4.0-5.7
6
6.0%
20%
fine gravel
5.7-8.0
4
4.0%
24%
medium gravel
8.0-11.3
21
21.0%
45%
medium gravel
11.3-16.0
13
13.0%
58%
coarse gravel
16.0-22.6
7
7.0%
65%
coarse gravel
22.6-32.0
8
8.0%
73%
very coarse gravel
32-45
8
8.0%
81%
very coarse gravel
45-64
7
7.0%
88%
small cobble
64-90
1
1.0%
89%
medium cobble
90-128
6
6.0%
95%
large cobble
128-180
1
1.0%
96%
very large cobble
180-256
3
3.0%
99%
small boulder
256-362
1
1.0%
100%
small boulder
362-512
0.0%
100%
medium boulder
512-1024
0.0%
100%
large boulder
1 1024-2048
0.0%
1 100%
bedrock
>2048
0.0%
100%
Total
100
100.0%
100%
Summary Data
D50 13
D84 52
D95 130
120%
100%
60
i 60%
`y 40%
a
20%
E
U 0%
O O C W M N O
' Q
M NO
Particle Size (mm)
-MYO 612116 -*-MY110125116
25.0
20.0%
co
15.0%
a
u 10.0%
a
5.0%
0.0%
O N C
6 � Iq O N N h O
C
V c O N h N q H ?
N
Particle Size (mm)
■MY06/2116 ■MY110/25/16
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section M2 - Riffle
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section M2 - Riffle
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-18 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Summary Data
D50 16
D84 44
D95 60
120%
100%
t 80
LL
60%
a
40%
5 20%
U 0%
N O O O N O N
O V CC fG rN, N O
c! O N O M N r
N M N
� N O
O Particle Size mm
-MY0612116 tMY110/25116
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section M4 - Riffle
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section M4 -Riffle
18.0%
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation / 94709
Cross Section M4 - Riffle
Moores Reach 3
16.0%
MYl
Material
Particle Size Class (mm)
Total
Individual Cumulative
silt/clay
<0.062
3
3.0%
3%
very fine sand
0.62-0.125
0.0%
3%
fine sand
0.125-0.25
6.0%
0.0%
3%
medium sand
0.25-0.5
0.0%
3%
coarse sand
0.5-1.0
5
5.0%
1 8%
very coarse sand
1.0-2.0
3
3.0%
11%
very fine gravel
2.0-4.0
7
7.0%
18%
fine gravel
4.0-5.7
5
5.0%
23%
fine gravel
5.7-8.0
5
5.0%
28%
medium gravel
8.0-11.3
15
15.0%
43%
medium gravel
11.3-16.0
6
6.0%
49%
coarse gravel
16.0-22.6
14
14.0%
63%
coarse gravel
22.6-32.0
11
11.0%
74%
very coarse gravel
32-45
11
11.0%
85%
very coarse gravel
45-64
12
12.0%
97%
small cobble
64-90
3
3.0%
100%
medium cobble
90-128
0.00/0
100%
large cobble
128-180
0.0%
100%
very large cobble
180-256
0.0%
100%
small boulder
256-362
0.0%
100%
small boulder
362-512
0.0%
100%
medium boulder
512-1024
0.0%
100%
large boulder
1024-2048
0.0%
100%
bedrock
>2048
0.0%
100%
Total
100
100.0%
100%
Summary Data
D50 16
D84 44
D95 60
120%
100%
t 80
LL
60%
a
40%
5 20%
U 0%
N O O O N O N
O V CC fG rN, N O
c! O N O M N r
N M N
� N O
O Particle Size mm
-MY0612116 tMY110/25116
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section M4 - Riffle
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section M4 -Riffle
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
3
12.0%
10.0%
a
8.0%
a
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
N o 0 o a w
N O V N N
v N O N h N V A M
N
o Particle Size (mm)
■MY06/2116 ■MY110/25/16
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-19 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Summary Data
D50 21
D84 49
D95 160
120%
100%
60%
i 60%
`y 40%
a
,15
20%
E
U 0%
N O O b c O N V
M NO
o Particle Size (mm)
-MYO 612116 tMY110126/16]
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section M5 - Riffle
25.0%
20.0%
co
15.0%
a
u 10.0%
a
5.0%
0.0%
0 o
. C N N h O
C N � V N
V c O N h I
N q M V
N
O Particle Size (mm)
■MY06/2116 ■MY110125N6
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section M5 - Riffle
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-20 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation / 94709
Cross Section M5 - Riffle
Moores Reach 3
MYl
Material
Particle Size Class (mm)
Total
Individual Cumulative
silt/clay
<0.062
2
1.9%
2%
very fine sand
0.62-0.125
0.0%
2%
fine sand
0.125-0.25
0.0%
2%
medium sand
0.25-0.5
0.0%
2%
coarse sand
0.5-1.0
1
1.0%
1 3%
very coarse sand
1.0-2.0
5
4.8%
8%
very fine gravel
2.0-4.0
0.0%
8%
fine gravel
4.0-5.7
12
11.5%
19%
fine gravel
5.7-8.0
3
2.9%
22%
medium gravel
8.0-11.3
11
10.6%
33%
medium gravel
11.3-16.0
6
5.8%
38%
coarse gravel
16.0-22.6
14
13.5%
52%
coarse gravel
22.6-32.0
21
20.2%
72%
very coarse gravel
32-45
11
10.6%
83%
very coarse gravel
45-64
6
5.8%
88%
small cobble
64-90
3
2.9%
91%
medium cobble
90-128
1
1.0%
92%
large cobble
128-180
4
3.8%
96%
very large cobble
180-256
1
1.0%
97%
small boulder
256-362
3
2.9%
100%
small boulder
362-512
0.0%
100%
medium boulder
512-1024
0.0%
100%
large boulder
1024-2048
0.0%
100%
bedrock
>2048
0.0%
100%
Total
104
100.0%
100%
Summary Data
D50 21
D84 49
D95 160
120%
100%
60%
i 60%
`y 40%
a
,15
20%
E
U 0%
N O O b c O N V
M NO
o Particle Size (mm)
-MYO 612116 tMY110126/16]
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section M5 - Riffle
25.0%
20.0%
co
15.0%
a
u 10.0%
a
5.0%
0.0%
0 o
. C N N h O
C N � V N
V c O N h I
N q M V
N
O Particle Size (mm)
■MY06/2116 ■MY110125N6
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section M5 - Riffle
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-20 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Summary Data
D50 15
D84 38
D95 54
120%
100%
t 80
H
LL
60%
a
40%
5 20%
u O%
O O' V CC fG rN, N O
v
M NO
O Particle Size (mm)
-MYO 612116 tMY110125/16]
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section M7 - Run
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section M7 - Run
20.0%
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation / 94709
Cross Section M7 - Run
Moores Reach 3
18.0%
MYl
Material
Particle Size Class (mm)
Total
Individual Cumulative
Ot/clay
<0.062
8
8.0%
8%
very fine sand
0.62-0.125
0.0%
8%
fine sand
0.125-0.25
8.0%
0.0%
8%
medium sand
0.25-0.5
0.0%
8%
coarse sand
0.5-1.0
1
1.0%
1 9%
very coarse sand
1.0-2.0
1
1.0%
10%
very fine gravel
2.0-4.0
1
1.0%
11%
fine gravel
4.0-5.7
11
11.0%
22%
fine gravel
5.7-8.0
5
5.0%
27%
medium gravel
8.0-11.3
13
13.0%
40%
medium gravel
11.3-16.0
11
11.0%
51%
coarse gravel
16.0-22.6
16
16.0%
67%
coarse gravel
22.6-32.0
9
9.0%
76%
very coarse gravel
32-45
16
16.0%
92%
very coarse gravel
45-64
6
6.0%
98%
small cobble
64-90
2
2.0%
100%
medium cobble
90-128
0.0%
100%
large cobble
128-180
0.0%
100%
very large cobble
180-256
0.0%
100%
small boulder
256-362
0.0%
100%
small boulder
362-512
0.0%
100%
medium boulder
512-1024
0.0%
100%
large boulder
1024-2048
0.0%
100%
bedrock
>2048
0.0%
100%
Total
100
100.0%
100%
Summary Data
D50 15
D84 38
D95 54
120%
100%
t 80
H
LL
60%
a
40%
5 20%
u O%
O O' V CC fG rN, N O
v
M NO
O Particle Size (mm)
-MYO 612116 tMY110125/16]
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section M7 - Run
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section M7 - Run
20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
a
a 12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
n 6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
N o 0 o a
C O V N N
v O N h b V A tN0 V
N M
N
o Particle Size (mm)
■MY06/2116 ■MY110/25/16
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-21 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Summary Data
D50 15
D84 47
D95 90
120%
100%
80%
i 60%
`y 40%
a
,15
20%
E
U 0%
N O O O N O N
G V CC fG rN, N O
M NO
O Particle Size (mm)
-MY0612/16 -*-MY110126116
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section M8 - Riffle
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section M8 - Riffle
20.0%
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation/ 94709
Cross Section M8 - Riffle
Moores Reach 3
18.0%
MYl
Material
Particle Size Class (mm)
Total
Individual Cumulative
silt/clay
<0.062
1
1.0%
1%
very fine sand
0.62-0.125
0.0%
1%
fine sand
0.125-0.25
8.0%
0.0%
1%
medium sand
0.25-0.5
0.0%
1%
coarse sand
0.5-1.0
5
5.0%
6%
very coarse sand
1.0-2.0
4
4.0%
10%
very fine gravel
2.0-4.0
5
5.0%
15%
fine gravel
4.0-5.7
9
9.0%
24%
fine gravel
5.7-8.0
6
6.0%
30%
medium gavel
8.0-11.3
11
11.0%
41%
medium gravel
11.3-16.0
10
10.0%
51%
coarse gravel
16.0-22.6
10
10.0%
61%
coarse gravel
22.6-32.0
15
15.0%
76%
very coarse gravel
32-45
7
7.0%
83%
very coarse gravel
45-64
7
7.0%
90%
small cobble
64-90
5
5.0%
95%
medium cobble
90-128
2
2.0%
97%
large cobble
128-180
3
3.0%
100%
very large cobble
180-256
0.0%
100%
small boulder
256-362
0.0%
100%
small boulder
362-512
0.0%
100%
medium boulder
512-1024
0.0%
100%
large boulder
1024-2048
0.0%
100%
bedrock
>2048
0.0%
100%
Total
100
100.0%
100%
Summary Data
D50 15
D84 47
D95 90
120%
100%
80%
i 60%
`y 40%
a
,15
20%
E
U 0%
N O O O N O N
G V CC fG rN, N O
M NO
O Particle Size (mm)
-MY0612/16 -*-MY110126116
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section M8 - Riffle
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section M8 - Riffle
20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
a
a 12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
n 6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
N o 0 o a
N O V N N
V O N h c4 V A tN0 V
� N � M
N
o Particle Size (mm)
■MY06/2116 ■MY110/25/16
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-22 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Summary Data
D50 11
D84 27
D95 54
120%
100%
80%
i 60%
`y 40%
a
,15
20%
E
U 0%
N
O O C W M N O
' Q
M NO
O Particle Size (mm)
-MYO 612116 tMY110125/16
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section ST1 - Riffle
20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
a 12.0%
a
10.0%
8.0%
n 6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0 N C
6 �
N N N O
o
V c O N h N q M V
N
o Particle Size (mm)
■MY06/2116 ■MY110/25/16
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section ST1 - Riffle
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-23 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation/ 94709
Cross Section ST1 - Riffle
Silage Reach 1
MYl
Material
Particle Size Class (mm)
Total
Individual Cumulative
silt/clay
<0.062
2
2.0%
2%
very fine sand
0.62-0.125
0.0%
2%
fine sand
0.125-0.25
0.0%
2%
medium sand
0.25-0.5
0.0%
2%
coarse sand
0.5-1.0
4
4.0%
6%
very coarse sand
1.0-2.0
8
8.0%
14%
very fine gravel
2.0-4.0
6
6.0%
20%
fine gravel
4.0-5.7
16
16.0%
36%
fine gravel
5.7-8.0
2
2.0%
38%
medium gavel
8.0-11.3
12
12.0%
50%
medium gravel
11.3-16.0
18
18.0%
68%
coarse gravel
16.0-22.6
10
10.0%
78%
coarse gravel
22.6-32.0
12
12.0%
90%
very coarse gravel
32-45
4
4.0%
94%
very coarse gravel
45-64
2
2.0%
96%
small cobble
64-90
2
2.0%
98%
medium cobble
90-128
2
2.0%
100%
large cobble
128-180
0.0%
100%
very large cobble
180-256
0.0%
100%
small boulder
256-362
0.0%
100%
small boulder
362-512
0.0%
100%
medium boulder
512-1024
0.0%
100%
large boulder
1024-2048
0.0%
100%
bedrock
>2048
0.0%
100%
Total
100
100.0%
100%
Summary Data
D50 11
D84 27
D95 54
120%
100%
80%
i 60%
`y 40%
a
,15
20%
E
U 0%
N
O O C W M N O
' Q
M NO
O Particle Size (mm)
-MYO 612116 tMY110125/16
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section ST1 - Riffle
20.0%
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
a 12.0%
a
10.0%
8.0%
n 6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
0 N C
6 �
N N N O
o
V c O N h N q M V
N
o Particle Size (mm)
■MY06/2116 ■MY110/25/16
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section ST1 - Riffle
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-23 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Summary Data
D50 8.4
D84 32
D95 76
120%
100%
60
i 60%
y 40%
a
,15
20%
E
U 0%
N O O O c f0 N
fO v ao 'v n N o
M NO
O Particle Size (mm)
-MYO 612116 -*-MY110125/16
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section ST3 - Riffle
35.0%
30.0
25.0%
a
20.0%
v 15.0%
a
10.0
5.0%
0.0%
N o 0 o a w
V c O N N N V A M
N
o Particle Size (mm)
■MY06/2116 ■MY110/25/16
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section ST3 - Riffle
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-24 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation/ 94709
Cross Section ST3 - Riffle
Silage Reach 2
MYl
Material
Particle Size Class (mm)
Total
Individual Cumulative
silt/clay
<0.062
30
30.0%
30%
very fine sand
0.62-0.125
0.0%
30%
fine sand
0.125-0.25
0.0%
30%
medium sand
0.25-0.5
0.0%
30%
coarse sand
0.5-1.0
12
12.0%
42%
very coarse sand
1.0-2.0
0.0%
42%
very fine gravel
2.0-4.0
0.0%
42%
fine gravel
4.0-5.7
6
6.0%
48%
fine gravel
5.7-8.0
0.0%
48%
medium gavel
8.0-11.3
14
14.0%
62%
medium gravel
11.3-16.0
6
6.0%
68%
coarse gravel
16.0-22.6
9
9.0%
77%
coarse gravel
22.6-32.0
7
7.0%
84%
very coarse gravel
32-45
6
6.0%
90%
very coarse gravel
45-64
4
4.0%
94%
small cobble
64-90
2
2.0%
96%
medium cobble
90-128
0.0%
96%
large cobble
128-180
2
2.0%
98%
very large cobble
180-256
2
2.0%
100%
small boulder
256-362
0.0%
100%
small boulder
362-512
0.0%
100%
medium boulder
512-1024
0.0%
100%
large boulder
1024-2048
0.0%
100%
bedrock
>2048
0.0%
100%
Total
100
100.0%
100%
Summary Data
D50 8.4
D84 32
D95 76
120%
100%
60
i 60%
y 40%
a
,15
20%
E
U 0%
N O O O c f0 N
fO v ao 'v n N o
M NO
O Particle Size (mm)
-MYO 612116 -*-MY110125/16
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section ST3 - Riffle
35.0%
30.0
25.0%
a
20.0%
v 15.0%
a
10.0
5.0%
0.0%
N o 0 o a w
V c O N N N V A M
N
o Particle Size (mm)
■MY06/2116 ■MY110/25/16
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section ST3 - Riffle
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-24 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Summary Data
D50 22
D84 58
D95 85
120%
100%
60%
i 60%
d 40%
a
20%
E
0%
0 o v m m N o
4 6 o T
r q
v c o 1%i"?
i vi
M NO
O Particle Size (mm)
F ----O 612116 tMY110125116
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section ST6 - Riffle
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
a
u 10.0%
a
5.0%
0.0%
N o 0 o a
V c O N L6 N V A M
N
o Particle Size (mm)
■MY06/2116 ■MY110/25/16
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section ST6 - Riffle
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-25 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation/ 94709
Cross Section ST6 - Riffle
Silage Reach 2
MY1
Material
Particle Size Class (mm)
Total
Individual Cumulative
silt/clay
<0.062
16
16.0%
16%
very fine sand
0.62-0.125
0.0%
16%
fine sand
0.125-0.25
0.0%
16%
medium sand
0.25-0.5
0.0%
16%
coarse sand
0.5-1.0
2
2.0%
18%
very coarse sand
1.0-2.0
0.0%
18%
very fine gravel
2.0-4.0
0.0%
18%
fine gravel
4.0-5.7
8
8.0%
26%
fine gravel
5.7-8.0
0.0%
26%
medium gavel
8.0-11.3
2
2.0%
28%
medium gravel
11.3-16.0
10
10.0%
38%
coarse gravel
16.0-22.6
12
12.0%
50%
coarse gravel
22.6-32.0
6
6.0%
56%
very coarse gravel
32-45
14
14.0%
70%
very coarse gravel
45-64
20
20.0%
90%
small cobble
64-90
6
6.0%
96%
medium cobble
90-128
0.0%
96%
large cobble
128-180
4
4.0%
100%
very large cobble
180-256
0.0%
100%
small boulder
256-362
0.0% 1
100%
small boulder
362-512
0.0%
100%
medium boulder
512-1024
0.0%
100%
large boulder
1024-2048
0.0%
100%
bedrock
>2048
0.0%
100%
Total
100
100.0%
100%
Summary Data
D50 22
D84 58
D95 85
120%
100%
60%
i 60%
d 40%
a
20%
E
0%
0 o v m m N o
4 6 o T
r q
v c o 1%i"?
i vi
M NO
O Particle Size (mm)
F ----O 612116 tMY110125116
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section ST6 - Riffle
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
a
u 10.0%
a
5.0%
0.0%
N o 0 o a
V c O N L6 N V A M
N
o Particle Size (mm)
■MY06/2116 ■MY110/25/16
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section ST6 - Riffle
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-25 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Summary Data
D50 9.5
D84 18
D95 25
120
100%
t 80
LL 60%
d
a
5 20%
U 0%
O O C W to M N O
N c
M NO
O Particle Size (mm)
-MY0612116 tMY110125/16
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section ST7 - Riffle
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
a
15.0%
a 10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
N o 0 o a N
' N
v N O N L6 N V M
N
o Particle Size (mm)
■MY06/2116 ■MY110I25N6
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section ST7 - Riffle
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-26 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation/ 94709
Cross Section ST7 - Riffle
Silage Reach 2
MYl
Material
Particle Size Class (mm)
Total
Individual Cumulative
silt/clay
<0.062
4
4.0%
4%
very fine sand
0.62-0.125
0.0%
4%
fine sand
0.125-0.25
0.0%
4%
medium sand
0.25-0.5
0.0%
4%
coarse sand
0.5-1.0
0.0%
4%
very coarse sand
1.0-2.0
4
4.0%
8%
very fine gravel
2.0-4.0
0.0%
8%
fine gravel
4.0-5.7
15
15.0%
23%
fine gravel
5.7-8.0
12
12.0%
35%
medium gavel
8.0-11.3
28
28.0%
63%
medium gravel
11.3-16.0
14
14.0%
77%
coarse gravel
16.0-22.6
16
16.0%
93%
coarse gravel
22.6-32.0
6
6.0%
99%
very coarse gravel
32-45
1
1.0%
100%
very coarse gravel
45-64
0.0%
100%
small cobble
64-90
0.0%
100%
medium cobble
90-128
0.0%
100%
large cobble
128-180
0.0%
100%
very large cobble
180-256
0.0%
100%
small boulder
256-362
0.0%
100%
small boulder
362-512
0.0%
100%
medium boulder
512-1024
0.0%
100%
large boulder
1024-2048
0.0%
100%
bedrock
>2048
0.0%
100%
Total
100
100.0%
100%
Summary Data
D50 9.5
D84 18
D95 25
120
100%
t 80
LL 60%
d
a
5 20%
U 0%
O O C W to M N O
N c
M NO
O Particle Size (mm)
-MY0612116 tMY110125/16
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Cumulative Percent
Cross -Section ST7 - Riffle
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
a
15.0%
a 10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
N o 0 o a N
' N
v N O N L6 N V M
N
o Particle Size (mm)
■MY06/2116 ■MY110I25N6
Moores Fork
Pebble Count- Percent Individual
Cross -Section ST7 - Riffle
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-26 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data
(-): Data waa not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-27 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Table 8a. Baseline Stream Data Summary /Moores Fork DMS Project No. 94709
PRE -RESTORATION CONDITION
REFERENCE
REACH DATA
DESIGN
AS-BUILTBASELINE
Parameter
Gage
Moores Fork Reaches 1/2
Moores Fork Reach
3
Silage Trib Reach 1Sila9
e Trib Reach 2
Mill Branch
Moores
Fork Reaches
1/2
Moores Fork Reach 3
Silage Trib Reach 1
Silage Trib Reach 2 Moores Fork Reaches
1/2Max
Moores Fork Reach 3
Silage Trib Reach 1
Silage Trib Reach 2
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Niin
Min
Max
Min I
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfal Width (ft)
27.3
30.6
24.9
34.2
6.7
6.9
18.2
27.2 33.6
36.5
37.0
8.8
12.5
31.8 1 33.2
30.2
52.2
4.2
10.6
14.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
109.0
137.7
104.0
125.0
11
16.0
100.0
72.1 72.5
145
124
19
28
145
124
9.4
23
30
Bankfah Mean Depth
1.7
2.6
2.3
2.9
0.8
1.2
1.7
1.9 2.2
2.2
2.3
0.6
1.00
2.1 2.2
1.9
2.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
Bankfull Max De th
3.0
3.4
4.0
1.2
1.7
2.3
2.4 2.7
3.5
3.6
0.8
1.50
3.3 3.5
3.3
4.1
1.2
1.3
1.5
_A,caN/A
46.9
78.2
73.3
7Z6
5.6
8.4
31.6
50.8 72.4
82.1
85.3
5.1
13.1
67.2 74.1
72.5
101.1
2.8
6.9
9.3
Width/Depth Ratio
12.0
15.9
8.4
15.1
5.7
8.0
10.5
14.5 15.6
16.2
16.0
15.1
11.9
14.9 15
12.5
26.9
6.4
16.2
22.7
Entrenchment Ratio
4.0
4.5
3.7
4.2
1.6
2.3
5.5
2.7
5.0
4.0
2.2
2.2
4.4 4.6
2.5
4.1
4.5
1.3
2.6
Bank Hei tRatio
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.9
1.0
L6
3.1
1.0 1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
LO
1.0
D50 (mm)
29
30
4
23
20
29
30
4
23
11 25
13
28
16
6
1
14
Rifle Length ft)
---
---
---
---
---
50
1 70
1 10
1 195 1
---
1 16 1 63
1 32 1 178
1 26.0
1 199.0 1
---
1 13.12
55.95
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
0.0059
0.0180
0.0038
1 0.02
---
0.0492 0.0514
0.0045 0.0158
0.0027
0.0180
---
0.0017
0.0554
Pool Length (ft)
N/A
---
---
---
---
---
42
140
40
112---
15 35
63 170
81.0
139.0
---
10
19
Pool Max De th ft
---
---
---
---
---
5.0
5.5
---
---
3.0 6.0
4.3
8.5
L2
1.4
2.4
Pools aem (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
130
1 270
78
1 334
20 1 23
1 15 75
118 295
106
325
13.3 1
171.5
1 21
79
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
52
161
43
208
--
---
86
55
165
53
1 267
--
---
7 84
8
59
7 1
36
8
59
Radius of Curvature ft
65.8
102.7
41
1
94
---
---
19.6
25.8
53
124
58
74
---
---
25 58
13
24
9
25
13
24
RcBankfidl Width ft/ft)
N/A
2.4
3.4
1.7
1
2.8
---
---
0.7
1 0.9
2.0
6.0
1.7
4.0
---
---
0.8 1.8
0.4
0.8
2.1
6.0
1.2
2.3
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
---
---
N/A
N/A
N/A
---
---
123 210
63
158
61
100
63
158
Meander Width Ratio
1.9
5.3
L7
6.1
---
---
3.2
1.9
5.7
1.7
8.6
---
---
3.9 6.6
2.1
5.2
14.5
23.8
5.9
14.9
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
..
. .
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
SC%/Sa%/G°//C%B%Be%
. .
. . .
.
. . .
. .
. .
. . .
. .
.
. . . . . . .
. . . . .
. .
. . .
. . .
. .
. . . . .
. . .
. .
. . . . .
. . . .
. .
. . . .
. .
.
d50/d84/d95
N/A
28/67/89 and 29/43/56
---
---
---
40/89/133
---
---
---
---
25/58/90 and 11/38/110
/58; 28/62/150; 13/28/51; 21/
16/35/61
1 9.8/37/64 and 6/31/72
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankftifl
Strea P- Win'
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area SM
1.9
2.39
0.070
0.24
5
1.90
2.34
0.070
0.24
1.90
2.34
0.070
0.24
Watershed Impervious CoverEstirnate %)
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
---
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
Ros en Classification
C4
C4
G4/B4
E4
C4
C4
C4
B4
E4
C4
C4
B4
E4
Bankfull Velocity
4.1
5.3
4.6
5.2
5.4
F
6.6
6.3
5.0 1 5.5
5.0
4.9
4.5
4.5
4.4
1 4.6
4.2
1 5.1
5.0
4.5
5.1
BankfullDischarge cfs
193.9
411.4
380.1
358.4
30.2
55.1
197.5
N/A
250-260
260
24
60
297.6
340.8
348.4
468.7
13.8
31.2
44.3
Q-USGS NC HR1 (2 -yr)
N/A
237-278
278
29
63
385
237-278
278
29
63
237-278
278
29
63
Valley Length (ft)
2227
2234
1079
1200
4730
2227
2234
1079
1200
2227
2234
1079
1200
Channel Thahveg Length (ft)
2393
2847
1198
1441
327
2578
2825
1198
1441
2,628
2,856
1,198
1
1,441
Sinuosity
1.07
1.27
1.11
1.20
1.26
1.16
1.26
1.11
1.20
1.2
1.3
1.11
L20
z
0.0077
0.0067
0.0357
0.0294
0.0101
0.0076
0.0064
0.0357
0.0294
0.005541
0.005511
0.0389
0.02758
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.005265
0.006112
0.0404
0.02740
(-): Data waa not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-27 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-28 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Table 8b. Baseline Stream Data Summary/Moores Fork DMS Pro'ect No. 94709
PRE -RESTORATION CONDITION
REFERENCE REACH DATA
DESIGN
AS-BUILTBASELINE
Parameter
Gage
Barn
Corn
Pond
Barn Trib Pres Rch
Corn Trib Pres Rch
Barn (Reach 1)
Corn
Pond
Bam (Reach 1)
Corn (Reach 2)
Pond
Min
Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Min
I Max
Min
I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
1.6
4.6
16.3
7.0
4.1
6.0
6.6
8.0
---
---
---
Floodprone Width (ft)
4.0
7.8
50.0
9.9
13.7
19
20
25
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.5
1.5
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.7
---
---
---
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.7
2.6
1.1
0.5
0.8
0.6
1.0
---
---
---
Bank-fidl Cross-sectional Area (fe)
0.9
2.4
24.4
4.6
1.5
3.2
2.9
5.5
---
---
---
Width/Depth Ratiol
2.9
8.9
10.9
10.6
11.2
11.3
15.1
11.6
---
---
---
Entrenchment Ratio
2.5
1.7
3.1
1.4
3.3
3.2
3.0
3.1
---
---
---
Bank Height Ratio
7.6
3.8
1.1
1.6
1.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 mm)
---
---
46
46
Riffle Len (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
5
31
---
12.0
8.4
27.3
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.02
0.0538
0.0498
0.0136
0.0241
Pool Len ft)
8 13
10
30
17.5
32.9
27.8
37.9
Pool Max De th (ft
N/A
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
2.6
3.6
0.7
1.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
---
---
---
8 1 10
---
15
1
54
6.11
77.7
9
56
22
43
P-1 Volume ffe)
---
---
---
---
---
---
Patte rn
Channel Bekwidth (ft)
---
---
---
13
26
20
22
24
24
Radius of Curvature ft
---
---
---
12
30
12
29
15
21
Rc:Bankfull Width ft/ft
N/A
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Meander Length (ft)
---
---
---
71
85
49
61
66
78
Meander Width Ratio
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru % /P % /G % /S%
SC%/Sa%/G°//C%B%/Be%
. .
. .
.
.
.
.
.
d50/d84/d95
N/A
.
.
.
.
.
. .
. .
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power Wnnnritv) z
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.08
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.040
0.01
0.05
0.040
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
Rosgen Classification
G4
G4
C4b (trampled)
B4
E4b
E4b
B4
C4b
E4b
B4
C4b
Bankf tU Velocity s
2.70
5.01
7.4
3.84
2.7
3.31
4.7
3.93
---
---
---
BankfullDischarge (cfs)
2.5
12.0
181.4
17.7
4.0
11
---
19
---
---
---
Q-USGS NC HRl (2 -yr)
N/A
8
---
20
---
---
8
---
20
Q-Mannin
11
---
19
---
---
11
---
19
11
---
19
VaRey Length (11)
622
84
187
622
---
330
84
187
330
84
187
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
250
97
194
84
28
350
97
243
350
112
243
Sinuosity
0.40
1.15
1.04
0.14
---
1.06
1.15
1.30
1.06
1.3
1.3
0.0206
0.0567
0.029
0.0211
0.0243
0.0206
0.0567
0.0176
0.0478
0.1124
0.0425
0.0118
Bankfull Sloe (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.0463
0.1005
0.0478
0.0129
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-28 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-29 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Table 9a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section) Moores Fork DMS Project No. 94709 - Moores Fork
Cross -Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 2 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 3 (Pool)
Cross -Section 4 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 5 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
1150.4 1150.4
1148.7 1148.7
1148.4 1148.4
1142.3 1142.3
1139.5 1139.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
33.2
34.2
31.8
32.5
33.2
37.0
52.2
51.6
30.2
31.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
145.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
---
---
1 124.0
124.0
1 124.0
124.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.7
2.4
1.9
1.9 1
2.4
2.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.3
3.2
3.5
3.4
5.2
5.1
3.3
3.2
3.5
3.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
74.1
74.3
67.2
65.6
89.6
89.7
101.1
97.4
72.5
72.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.9
15.7
15.0
16.1
12.3
15.2
26.9
27.3
12.5
13.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
4.2
4.6
4.5
---
---
2.4
2.4
4.1
3.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
---
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate
Base
Cross -Section 6 (Pool)
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 Base
Cross -Section 7 (Run)
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 Base
Cross -Section 8 (Riffle)
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 Base
Cross -Section 9 (Pool)
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfiill Width (ft)
1138.6 1138.6
37.4 39.1
1134.9 1134.9
49.5 49.2
1132.4 1132.4
34.6 32.6
1132.1
30.6
1132.1
36.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
---
2.8
5.1
104.7
13.3
---
2.7
5.5
106.2
14.4
124.0
1 2.4
3.5
118.1
20.8
124.0
2.4 1
3.5
117.0
20.7
124.0
2.6
4.1
91.5
13.1
124.0
2.8 1
4.3
90.3
11.8
---
1 4.0
6.3
122.0
7.7
---
3.7
6.3
133.3
9.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
---
---
I ---
2.5
1.0
2.5
1.0
3.6
1.0
3.8
1 1.0
---
---
---
---
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-29 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix D
Stream Survey Data
Table 9b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional
Parameters - Cross -Section) Moores Fork DMS Project No. 94709 - Silage Tributary
Cross -Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 2 (Pool)
Cross -Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 4 (Pool)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
1234.6
1234.6
1233.4
1233.4
1193.4
1193.4
1193.1
1193.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.2
4.0
5.1
3.8
14.6
14.2
9.8
10.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
9.4
9.2
---
---
22.5
22.8
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
1.4
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
2.4
2.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ftp)
2.8
2.3
3.2
2.7
9.3
8.8
13.7
17.7
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
6.4
6.7
8.0
5.4
22.7
22.8
7.0
6.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
2.2
2.3
---
---
1.5
1.6
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
---
I ---
1.0
1.0
---
---
Cross-Section
5 (Pool)
Cross
-Section 6 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 7 (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
1185.1
1185.1
1175.4
1175.4
1164.7
1164.7
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.9
6.7
10.6
9.9
11.3
10.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
28.0
28.0
29.6
31.8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.1
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
7.0
7.5
6.9
6.5
8.7
9.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
5.0
6.0
16.2
15.1
14.6
13.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
2.6
2.8
2.6
2.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
I ---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 D-30 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data
Photo 1 - Crest Gauge on Moores Fork Reach 2 Station 30+00
Photo 2 Crest Gauge on Silage Tributary Reach 2 Station 25+50
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 E-1 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016
Table 10. Verification of Bankfull Events
Moores Fork Stream Miti ation / 94709
Reach
Date of Data
Collection
Date of Occurrence Method Measurement (ft)
Photo (If Available)
Moores Fork Reach 2
10/25/2016
— 8/4/2016 Crest Gauge 1.30
Photo 1
Sila e Tnb Reach 2
10/25/2016
—8/4/2016 Crest Gauge 0.75
Photo 2
Moores Fork Reach 2
10/25/2016
8/4/2016 Sediment Deposition -
Photo 3
Photo 1 - Crest Gauge on Moores Fork Reach 2 Station 30+00
Photo 2 Crest Gauge on Silage Tributary Reach 2 Station 25+50
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 E-1 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix E
Hydrologic Data
Photo 3 — Sediment deposition on left descending bank, Moores Fork Reach 2, Station
28+00
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 E-1 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016

Appendix E Hydrologic Data
i
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 E-3 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report
10.0
9.0
8.0
..
7.0
1
C
6.0
O
:p
t6
d
a
4.0
3.0
hoh
2.0
1.0
0.0
Jan -16 Feb -16 Mar -16 Apr -16 May -16 Jun -16 Jul -16 Aug -16 Sep -16 Oct -16 Nov -16
�Mt. Airy Monthly Rainfall Data 2016 30th Percentile 70th Percentile
i
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project/94709 E-3 Monitoring Year 1 of 7
Annual Monitoring Report
1
Submitted November 30, 2016
Revised December 15, 2016