20130250 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_2016_20170119

MONITORING YEAR 3
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
NORKETT BRANCH STREAM MITIGATION SITE
Union County, NC
DEQ Contract 004673
DMS Project Number 95360
Data Collection Period: April -June 2016
Draft Submission Date: November 23, 2016
Final Submission Date: December 1, 2016
PREPARED FOR:
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
W
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
[e-mail]
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering (Wildlands) restored and enhanced a total of 10,706 linear feet (LF) of stream on
a full -delivery mitigation site in Union County, NC. The project streams consist of Norkett Branch, a third
order stream, two unnamed first order tributaries to Norkett Branch (UT1 and UT2), and two
intermittent tributaries to Norkett Branch (UT2A and UT3). Water quality treatment Best Management
Practices (BMPs) were installed to treat water quality on the non -jurisdictional headwaters of UT3 and
an adjacent ephemeral drainage feature. The project is expected to provide 10,098 stream mitigation
units (SMUs).
The Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site (Site) is located in southeastern Union County, NC,
approximately ten miles southeast of the City of Monroe and five miles north of the South Carolina state
line. The Site is located in the Yadkin River Basin; eight -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03040105 and the 14 -
digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040105081020 (Figure 1). This CU was identified as a targeted local
watershed in the 2009 Lower Yadkin- Pee Dee River Basin Restoration Priority (RBRP) plan. This plan
identifies agricultural practices and runoff as the probable major sources of water quality impairment in
the Middle Lanes Creek watershed. The 2008 North Carolina Division of Water Resources' (NCDWR)
Basinwide Water Quality Plan (BWQP) lists turbidity and nutrient concentrations of nitrogen and
phosphorus as specific concerns in the Rocky River watershed portion of the Yadkin- Pee Dee River
basin. Other pollutants of concern cited in this report are fecal coliform bacteria, iron, and copper. The
project reaches flow off-site, directly into Lanes Creek, which is included on the NCDWR 303d list of
impaired streams. The section of Lanes Creek downstream of the project Site is listed as impaired due to
turbidity (NCDWR, 2012). The project goals established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2013) were
completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and
NCDWR BWQR and to meet the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) mitigation needs
while maximizing the ecological and water quality uplift within the watershed.
The following project goals were established to address the watershed and project Site stressors:
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat within the riparian corridor and provide habitat
corridor extension from adjacent downstream forested habitat;
• Improve additional water quality aspects within stream channels on Site;
Decrease sediment inputs to the stream channels and decrease turbidity in receiving Lanes
Creek; and
• Decrease phosphorus, nitrogen, and fecal coliform inputs to the stream channels.
Stream restoration and enhancement, water quality treatment BMP construction, and planting efforts
were completed between November 2013 and April 2014. Baseline as -built monitoring activities were
completed between April and May 2014. A conservation easement is in place on the 31.6 acres of
riparian corridor and stream resources to protect them in perpetuity.
Overall, the Site has met the required stream and vegetation mitigation success criteria for MY3. The
average planted stem density for the site is 456 stems per acre and is on track to meet upcoming density
criteria. Visual assessment revealed vegetation problem areas with poor herbaceous cover, low vigor
and density of planted stems, bare banks, and invasive plant populations. Planned maintenance in the
upcoming monitoring year will address these areas of concern. Geomorphically, the stability of each
restored and enhanced stream remains in good standing, with cross section dimensions falling within
the range of parameters for the appropriate Rosgen (1996) stream type. Visual assessment suggests the
channels show little sign of instability within the bed, bank, or engineered structures, excepting isolated
instances of bank erosion. All restored reaches recorded at least one bankfull or greater event during
MY3 and the MY7 hydrological success criteria for the Site has been met. Water quality monitoring
results indicate improvement in the pollutant removal capacity of both storm water BMPs.
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
4
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - FINAL

NORKETT BRANCH STREAM MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
General Figures and Tables
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW........................................................................................................1-1
Figure 2
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives...................................................................................................................
1-1
1.2
Monitoring Year 3 Data Assessment........................................................................................................
1-3
1.2.1
Vegetative Assessment....................................................................................................................
1-3
1.2.2
Vegetation Problem Areas..............................................................................................................
1-3
1.2.3
Stream Assessment.........................................................................................................................
1-4
1.2.4
Stream Problem Areas.....................................................................................................................
1-5
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment....................................................................................................................
1-5
1.2.6
Water Quality BMPs........................................................................................................................
1-5
1.2.7
Existing Wetland Monitoring...........................................................................................................
1-7
1.3
Monitoring Year 3 Summary....................................................................................................................
1-7
Section 2:
METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................2-1
Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Section 3:
REFERENCES....................................................................................................................
3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Table 5
Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix 2
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.6
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 6a -g
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Areas of Concern
Appendix 3
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10
Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11a -c
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12a -c
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Section)
Table 13a -g
Monitoring Data —Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross -Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5
Hydrology Data
Table 14
Verification of Bankfull Events
Stream Flow Gage Plots
Appendix 6
Water Quality BMPs
Table 15
Water Quality Sampling Results
Table 16
Pollutant Removal Rates
Water Quality Data
Pollutant Removal Plot
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - FINAL

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site is located in southeastern Union County, NC, approximately ten miles southeast of the City of
Monroe and five miles north of the South Carolina state line. The Site is located in the Yadkin River
Basin; eight -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03040105 and the 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03040105081020 (Figure 1). The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont physiographic
province (USGS, 1998). The project watershed consists primarily of agricultural land, pasture, and forest.
The Site is located on agricultural tracts owned by Marie S. Autry (PIN 03060001A), Kay A. and Lane
Haigler (PIN 03081007C; PIN 03081013; PIN 03081014), The Cox Farms Irrevocable Trust (PIN
03081010), John H. and Peggy S. Autry (PIN 3081007D), and Marion, Delano, Ruth, and John (Sr.) Cox
(PIN 03081012). A conservation easement was recorded on 31.6 acres within the seven parcels (Deed
Book 06095, Pages 0530-0589).
The Site is located within the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03-07-14.
The project streams consist of Norkett Branch, a third order stream, two unnamed first order tributaries
to Norkett Branch (UT1 and UT2), and two intermittent tributaries to Norkett Branch (UT2A and UT3).
Norkett Branch (DWQ Index No. 13-17-40-8) is the main tributary of the project and is classified as WS -V
waters. Class WS -V waters are protected as water supplies draining to Class WS -IV waters or waters
used by industry to supply drinking water or waters formerly used as water supply, and are protected
for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife and aquatic life, maintenance of biotic integrity, and
agriculture. The drainage area for the project Site is 2,034 acres (3.18 sq mi) at the lower end of Norkett
Branch Reach 2.
Mitigation work at the Site included restoration on Norkett Branch, UT1, and UT2. Enhancement II was
implemented on UT2A and UT3. Water quality treatment BMPs were also implemented to treat
agricultural drainage upstream of UT3 and agricultural drainage in the right floodplain of Norkett Branch
Reach 2. All onsite riparian areas were planted with native species. Construction and planting activities
were completed in April 2014. Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project
components are illustrated in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, the streams were routinely maintained to provide drainage for
agricultural purposes. Impacts to the stream included straightening and ditching, eroding banks, and a
lack of stabilizing riparian vegetation. The streams were used as a water source for cattle in some areas,
resulting in over -widened, unstable trampled banks. Algal blooms, presumably from agricultural nutrient
loading, were observed during Site visits. Trampled stream banks, over -widened channels, and banks
illustrating signs of instability were a common occurrence throughout the Site. The alterations of the
Site to promote farming resulted in impairment of the ecological function of Site's streams. Specific
functional losses at the Site include degraded aquatic habitat, altered hydrology, and reduction of
quality of in -stream and riparian wetland habitats and related water quality benefits. Table 4 in
Appendix 1 and Tables 11 a -c in Appendix 4 present the Site's pre -restoration conditions in detail.
The mitigation project is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits such as pollutant removal
and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Expected improvements to water quality and ecological
processes are outlined below as project goals and objectives. The agricultural stressors and pollutants
have been specifically addressed by the Site design. The major goals of the stream mitigation project are
to provide ecological and water quality enhancements to the Norkett Branch, Lane's Creek, Rocky River
and Yadkin River Basins while creating a functional riparian corridor at the Site level and restoring a
Piedmont Bottomland Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). These project goals were
established with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in the RBRP and to
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 1-1

meet the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) mitigation needs while maximizing the
ecological and water quality uplift within the watershed.
The following project goals and objectives were established and listed in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands,
2013) to address the effects listed above:
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat within the riparian corridor and provide habitat corridor
extension from adjacent downstream forested habitat. By restoring appropriate channel cross
section and profile, including riffle and pool sequences, coarse substrate zones for
macroinvertebrates and deep pool habitat for fish will also be restored. Introduction of large
woody debris, rock structures, brush toe, and native stream bank vegetation will provide
additional habitat and cover for both fish and macroinvertebrates. Adjacent buffer areas will be
restored by planting native vegetation which will provide habitat and forage for terrestrial
species. These areas will be allowed to receive more regular inundating flows, and vernal pools
may develop over time increasing habitat diversity. A watershed approach, restoring riparian
corridor functions on multiple interconnected tributaries as well as treating agricultural drainage
from headwater features with Best Management Practices (BMPs), will allow for large-scale
riparian corridor connectivity.
Improve additional water quality aspects within stream channels on Site. Riffle/pool sequences
will be restored to provide re -aeration allowing for oxygen levels to be maintained in the
perennial reaches. Creation of deep pool zones will lower temperature, helping to maintain
dissolved oxygen concentrations. Establishment and maintenance of riparian buffers will create
long-term shading of the stream to minimize thermal heating. Water quality BMPs situated in
the headwaters upstream of jurisdictional streams will treat agricultural runoff before it reaches
project streams.
Decrease sediment inputs to the stream channels and decrease turbidity in receiving Lanes
Creek. Cattle will be fenced out of the riparian corridor, eliminating bank trampling. Sediment
input from eroding stream banks will be reduced by bioengineering and installing in -stream
structures while creating a stable channel form using geomorphic design principles. Sediment
from off-site sources will be captured by deposition on restored floodplain areas where native
vegetation will slow overland flow velocities. By allowing for more overbank flooding and by
increasing channel roughness, in -channel velocities can be reduced. This will lower bank shear
stress and decrease bank erosion.
• Decrease phosphorus, nitrogen, and fecal coliform inputs to the stream channels. Nitrogen and
phosphorus chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and cattle waste will be decreased by buffering
adjacent agricultural operations from the restored channels. Cattle will be fenced out to
eliminate in -channel fecal pollution. Off-site nutrient input will be absorbed on-site by filtering
flood flows through restored floodplain areas, water quality BMPs, and vernal pools positioned
to treat concentrated overland flow. Flood flows will be allowed to disperse through native
vegetation across the reconnected floodplain. Increased surface water residency time will
provide contact treatment time and groundwater recharge potential.
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 1-2

1.2 Monitoring Year 3 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted between April and October 2016 to assess the condition of the project.
The stream restoration success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria presented in the
Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2013).
1.2.1 Vegetative Assessment
A total of 26 vegetation plots were established during the baseline monitoring within the project
easement area using standard 10 meter by 10 -meter vegetation monitoring plots. Plots were randomly
established within planted portions of the stream restoration and enhancement areas to capture the
heterogeneity of the designed vegetative communities. The plot corners were marked and are
recoverable either through field identification or with the use of a GPS unit. Reference photographs
were taken at the plot origin looking diagonally across the plot to the opposite corner to capture the
same reference photograph locations as the as -built. The final vegetative success criteria will be the
survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor along restored and enhanced reaches at
the end of the seventh year of monitoring (MY7). Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in
each plot by MY7. The interim measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least
320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third year of monitoring (MY3) and at least 260 stems per
acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring (MY5). If this performance standard is met by MY5 and
stem density is trending towards success (i.e., no less than 260 five-year-old stems per acre), monitoring
of vegetation on the Site may be terminated provided written approval is provided by the USACE in
consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team.
The MY3 vegetation survey was completed in June 2016 and resulted in 24 out of 26 vegetation plots
meeting the year three interim success criteria (320 stems per acre). Overall, the Site's average planted
stem density resulted in 456 stems per acre which also exceeds the year three interim success criteria.
The average woody stem density of the Site with volunteers included is 534 stems per acre. A
supplemental planting occurred on all reaches east of Philadelphia Church Road in February 2015. Thus,
some species within the monitoring plots showed an increase in planted stem densities between MYO
and MY3. Although the Site meets the overall stem density requirement, one vegetation plot (plot 5) has
a stem density of 283 stems per acre and another vegetation plot (plot 7) has a stem density of 202
stems per acre. These two plots do not meet the interim success criteria for MY3 and plot 7 does not
exceed the 260 stems per acre required by MY5. The low stem survival in these plots is presumably due
to a combination of drought stress and low soil fertility, which is described in further detail in section
1.2.2.
Woody stem vigor greatly improved in MY3, with 81% of observed stems receiving a rating of three or
more (indicating that the stem is healthy or more likely to survive), and 14% of observed stems receiving
a rating of 1 or less (indicating that the stem is dead or unlikely to survive). The improvement in vigor
indicates that the drought stress and planting stress evident in MY1-MY2 is becoming less of a factor in
the survival of stems remaining in MY3.
Refer to Appendix 3 for vegetation summary tables and raw data tables and Appendix 2 for vegetation
plot photographs, the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) maps, and the vegetation condition
assessment table.
1.2.2 Vegetation Problem Areas
The MY3 vegetation monitoring and visual assessment identified areas with of "Bare/Poor Herbaceous
Cover" which are noted in the Figures 3.0-3.6 and in Table 7. Areas identified with poor establishment of
herbaceous cover in MY1 persist through MY3, but have shown signs of improvement. There are still
areas where floodplain vegetation has not become established. These areas are primarily downstream
from culvert crossings where topsoil has been lost due to overbank flow events. The total area
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 1-3

designated as "Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover" in MY3 is approximately 1.8 acres or 6% of the planted
area of the Site, which is similar to the area reported in MY2. Maintenance activities to improve soil
fertility and water infiltration in these areas are proposed for the spring of MY4.
Several vegetation problem areas of invasive plant populations have been identified in MY3, consisting
of discrete dense patches of groundsel tree (eaccharis halimifolia); an aggressive coastal plain native
shrub. This species is not typically considered a species of high concern for DMS -required monitoring,
however the high density of this shrub layer is competing with planted woody and herbaceous
vegetation in the areas of infestation, which covers approximately 9% of the planted acreage. Other
areas of undesirable species were noted on site including: cattail (Typha latifolia), parrot feather
(Myriophyllum aquaticum), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and Chinaberry tree (Melia azedarach);
however these areas did not meet the mapping threshold in MY3. Herbicide treatment of these species
were performed during MY3 and will be monitored during subsequent monitoring efforts.
Maintenance Plan
Additional maintenance activities will be employed in MY4 with the goal of improving herbaceous
vegetative cover and improving the growth rates and vigor of planted woody stems. Organic matter will
be incorporated into floodplain soils in targeted areas of the Norkett Branch Reach 2 floodplain with the
goal of increasing water infiltration in these locations, thereby encouraging more herbaceous growth in
bare areas. Supplemental planting of container plants will be installed with soil amendments over 2
acres at a density of 100 stems per acre to improve the standing stock of diverse, healthy, woody stems.
Foliar fertilization will occur in the spring to enhance the vigor and growth rates of planted woody
stems. Areas noted with invasive plant populations will be treated in accordance with recommended
maintenance guidance, not to exceed label prescribed application rates. Winter application of a
broadleaf -selective herbicide will be used to control the population of groundsel tree (an evergreen
species), which will minimize risk to planted herbaceous and woody vegetation. Vegetative problem
areas will continue to be monitored and will be addressed as needed.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY3 were conducted in April 2016. All streams within the Site appear stable
and have met the success criteria for MY3. Riffle cross-sections surveyed along the restoration reaches
appear stable and typically show little change in the bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, or width -to -
depth ratio. Riffle cross section 15 on UT2 Reach 2 has down cut slightly on the left edge of the channel.
This minor adjustment is not currently an area of concern, but it will be watched in upcoming
monitoring years for progress. All surveyed riffle cross-section dimensions fell within the parameters
defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type (Rosgen 1996). In -stream structures used to
enhance channel habitat and stability on the outside bank of meander bends; such as brush toe, are
providing stability and habitat as designed. Pattern data will only be completed in MY7 if there are
indicators from the dimensions that significant geomorphic adjustments have occurred. No changes
were observed that indicated a change in the radius of curvature or channel belt width; therefore,
pattern data is not included in the MY3 report. Visual assessment during MY3 revealed a few instances
of bank scour and eroding banks, primarily downstream from culvert structures. These are discussed in
more detail in section 1.2.4.
In general, substrate materials in the restoration reaches indicate maintenance of coarser materials in
the riffle features and finer particles in the pool features. A significant increase in the silt/clay particle
size class was observed in Norkett Branch Reach 1 reachwide count, which is possibly due to ongoing
agricultural activities in the watershed upstream and adjacent to the project area, or low flow drought
conditions reducing transport capacity during this monitoring year. A significant increase in the silt/clay
and sand particle class sizes was also observed in reachwide counts for UT2 Reach 2, and UT2 Reach 3b,
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 1-4

primarily noted in pool habitat units. Pool features are expected to be comprised of finer material, and
may not demonstrate an increase in substrate size during subsequent monitoring years.
Please refer to Appendix 2 for the stream visual assessment tables, the CCPV map, and stream reference
photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological data and plots.
1.2.4 Stream Problem Areas
There were three stream problem areas with seven instances of eroding banks identified in MY3:
Area 1 begins in the upper portion of Norkett Branch Reach 1. Eroding banks were observed on the right
bank of Norkett Branch Reach 1 at station 104+00 and continue for approximately 100 LF, after which
bare banks are observed on the left bank, continuing for approximately 53 LF.
Area 2 begins downstream of a culvert on Norkett Branch Reach 1 and continues past the reach break
with Norkett Branch Reach 2 and the confluence with UT2. Erosive flows over part of the floodplain was
observed in this area. Eroding banks were begin on the right bank of Norkett Branch Reach 1 at station
120+00 and continue for approximately 145 LF. Eroding banks begin again on the right bank at station
122+40 and continue for approximately 115 LF through the reach break with Norkett Branch Reach 2.
After this, the left bank is eroding beginning at station 124+75 and continues for approximately 80 LF.
Area 3 begins downstream of a culvert on Norkett Branch Reach 2. Eroding banks persist along Norkett
Branch Reach 2 near station 133+00 on the right bank for approximately 83 LF and 80 LF on the left
bank.
Maintenance Plan
Areas noted with eroding banks will be closely watched for advancement in the upcoming monitoring
years. Wildlands is implementing an appropriate maintenance plan to stabilize banks in the winter 2016
to spring 2017 dormant season. This is expected to include seeding, and installing matting and live
stakes. Refer to Appendix 2 for the stream visual assessment tables, the CCPV map, reference
photographs, and photographs of the stream problem areas.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
Hydrologic monitoring was accomplished using both manual crest gauge readings and In-situ Rugged
TrolI100 pressure transducers installed at three surveyed cross-sections throughout the site (XS6 on
Norkett Branch Reach 2, XS9 on UT1, and XS18 on UT2 Reach 3a). The Onset HOBO rain gauge located at
the Site was not functioning properly, so data from a nearby weather station at the Monroe, NC Airport
(KEQY) was used to supplement the rainfall record. To meet hydrological success criteria, two or more
bankfull events must occur in separate years within the restored reaches by the end of MY7. In MY2, the
success criteria had already been met for the seven-year monitoring period. During MY3, at least one
bankfull or greater event was recorded in all reaches. Please refer to Appendix 5 for hydrology data.
1.2.6 Water Quality BMPs
Water quality grab samples were collected during the monitoring period to assess the functionality of
the Step Pool Storm Conveyance BMP (SPSC BMP) and the Pocket Wetland BMP (PW BMP). This
sampling is not part of the success criteria for the project. The following expected rates for pollutant
removal were established in the Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2013) and in accordance with published
rates of removal from similar BMP approaches. The SPSC BMP is expected to provide similar pollutant
removal rates as the published removal rates of a bioretention area with internal water storage
(NCDWQ, 2007), which are 85% TSS removal, 40% TN removal, and 40% TP removal. The PW BMP is
expected to provide 60% TSS removal, 20% TN removal, and 45% TP removal, which is similar to
extended detention wetlands (Center for Watershed Protection, 2000 and United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 2012).
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 1-5

Inflow and outflow was sampled at each BMP on 9/03/2016, after hurricane Hermine dropped between
0.5 and 3 inches of rain in a 24 hour period. Very little measurable rainfall was recorded for 23 days prior
to this event. First flush style sample bottles were used to capture stormflow, which filled during the
rain event at a pre -determined stage height, and were retrieved within 24 hours. Sample volume was
insufficient to measure chemistry from the PW BMP outlet due to low outlet flow. The monitoring plan
calls for quarterly sampling, but drought conditions limited the opportunities for BMP sampling. Samples
were unable to be obtained during Q1, or Q2 due to the timing and intensity of rain events. In MY3,
samples were analyzed for total suspended solids (TSS), phosphorus as total phosphorus (TP), nitrogen
as total nitrogen (TN) Nitrate/Nitrite (NO,,), and Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN), by Prism Laboratories Inc.
Refer to in Appendix 6 for water quality sampling results and pollutant removal rates.
Total Nitrogen
Nitrogen sources in the SPSC BMP watershed fluctuate greatly by sampling date. The variation covers
two orders of magnitude with the lowest sampled value on 3/30/2015 at 1.2 mg/L and the highest
sampled values on 5/15/2014 at 100 mg/L. When inlet concentrations are above 5 mg/L, the SPSC BMP
appears to effectively reduce the concentration of TN in outlet samples. The data shows insignificant
reduction when inlet concentrations are below this value. On the 9/03/2016 sampling event, total
nitrogen concentration in the inlet sample was 13 mg/L. This was reduced by 35% to 8.5 mg/L in the
outlet sample. The proportion of nitrogen species represented by nitrate in the inlet sample tripled
(increased by 225%) in the outlet sample, while the proportion of organic nitrogen and ammonia in the
inlet sample had a 75% reduction in the outlet sample concentration. The SPSC BMP was dry prior to
this sampling event. This suggests that inlet sources of nitrogen are being transformed via nitrification in
the BMP soils during dry spells in-between rain events, which is then mobilized as the SPSC BMP fills
with water. The SPSC BMP has measured increased N concentrations in the outlet on more than one
occasion, likely because of this nitrate soil flushing effect.
Nitrogen sources from the PW BMP watershed appear to be more consistent than those sampled at the
SPSC BMP, with PW BMP inlet concentrations typically measured between 2-3 mg/L. Results show no
significant measurable reduction in the PW BMP on outflow concentrations at these lower levels. It
appears that the most consistent improvements in water quality are being achieved with the volume
attenuation of storm flows. It is important to note that the established sampling methods do not
account for mass balance of nutrient inputs and exports. While pollutant removal values cannot be
calculated due to insufficient outflow, it can be deduced that the PW BMP is effectively reducing the
export of dissolved and particulate nitrogen species through volume reduction.
Total Phosphorus
Phosphorus concentrations in the SPSC BMP outlet fluctuated greatly by sampling date, with the lowest
sampled value measured on 3/30/2015 at 0.32 mg/L and the highest sampled values on 5/15/2014 at 19
mg/L. At times, significant reductions of TP concentrations in the outlet have been observed, and on
occasion no significant measurable reduction was observed. Where significant reductions in TP were
achieved, a corresponding significant reduction in TSS was also observed on the same date. Additional
data collection may provide further insight into this correlation. No seasonal or concentration
dependent pattern of phosphorus reduction is apparent in the data at this point. On the 9/03/2016
sampling event, total phosphorus concentration in the inlet sample was 5.2 mg/L. This was reduced by
52% to 2.5 mg/L in the outlet sample.
Phosphorus sources form the PW BMP watershed appear to be minimal in comparison to the SPSC BMP,
as inlet concentrations have consistently measured lower than 1 mg/L. No observable trend in
phosphorus reduction by the BMP is apparent in the data at this time. The PW BMP produced a small
increase of phosphorus concentration in the outlet sample in comparison to the inlet sample on
11/26/2015. While TP phosphorus retention in the PW BMP is likely due to both adsorption of
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
IiW Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 1-6

orthophosphate to sediment and retention of organically bound P in TSS, there was no measurable
increase in TSS in the outlet on this date. Therefore, the increase in outlet concentration TP may have
occurred due to desorption of orthophosphate from sediment; as soil, water, pH, and anoxia can
influence P solubility in the BMP sediments. On 9/03/2016, the inlet concentration of TP was 0.9 mg/L,
which was effectively retained in the PW BMP due to the storm water volume attenuation.
Total Suspended Solids
The SPSC BMP has not been consistent in removing TSS. In the current monitoring year, the SPSC BMP
inlet TSS was 140 mg/L, which was reduced to below detection limits in the outlet in the 9/03/2016
event. Apart from the very first storm sampling on 5/15/2014 (herbaceous plants were not fully
established at that time), TSS has been consistently reduced in the PW BMP outlet concentrations. On
9/03/2016, the inlet concentration of 6.7 mg/L TSS was effectively retained in the PW BMP due to the
storm water volume attenuation.
Discussion of Monitoring Results
In the Q3 sampling event on 9/03/2016, SPSC BMP came close to meeting the expected pollutant
removal rates of TN (35% measured removal versus 40% expected). The pollutant removal standard of
TP (52% measured removal versus 40% removal) was achieved. The SPSC BMP effectively reduced TSS
beyond the 85% removal rate due to the outlet concentrations being below detection limits. Results
from the PW BMP are not provided for the outlet concentrations due to minimal outflow, so a percent
reduction cannot be calculated. However, all storm water pollutants could be considered effectively
retained due to volume attenuation.
1.2.7 Existing Wetland Monitoring
A permanent photo station (photo point #16) was established in the stream to wetland conversion area
in Norkett Branch Reach 1 near station 104+00 on the left floodplain. The former channel area appears
to be maintaining wetland hydrology and supports a wetland plant community composition. Groundsel
tree abundance is increasing in this wetland area and is visible from the photo point. The photo point
(#16) is included in the Stream Photographs section of Appendix 2.
1.3 Monitoring Year 3 Summary
Overall, the Site has met the required stream and vegetation mitigation success criteria for MY3. The
average planted stem density for the site is 456 stems per acre and is on track to meet upcoming density
criteria. Visual assessment revealed vegetation problem areas with poor herbaceous cover, low vigor
and density of planted stems, bare banks, and invasive plant populations. Planned maintenance in the
upcoming monitoring year will address these areas of concern. Geomorphically, the stability of each
restored and enhanced stream remains in good standing, with cross section dimensions falling within
the range of parameters for the appropriate Rosgen (1996) stream type. Visual assessment suggests the
channels show little sign of instability within the bed, bank, or engineered structures, excepting isolated
instances of bank erosion. All restored reaches recorded at least one bankfull or greater event during
MY3 and the MY7 hydrological success criteria for the Site has been met. Water quality monitoring
results indicate improvement in the pollutant removal capacity of both storm water BMPs. Summary
information/data related to various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and
figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting can be found in the Mitigation
Plan documents available on the DMS website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices is available upon request.
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 1-7

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data collected followed the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). Longitudinal and cross-sectional data were collected using
a total station and were georeferenced to established benchmarks and NC State Plane coordinates.
Morphological surveys were conducted using a total station tied to these geo-referenced (control)
points. Reachwide pebble counts were conducted along each restored reach for channel classification.
Cross-section substrate analyses conducted in each surveyed riffle followed the 100 count wetted
perimeter methodology to characterize pavement. All CCPV mapping was recorded using a Trimble
handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using was Pathfinder and ArcView. Crest gauges
were installed during the baseline monitoring period in surveyed riffle cross-sections and are monitored
quarterly. Hydrology attainment installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the USACE
(2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCEEP Level
2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Center for Watershed Protection, 2000. National Pollutant Removal Performance Database for
Stormwater Treatment Practices, 2nd Edition. Elliot City, Maryland.
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Techniques. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2007. Stormwater Best Management Practices
Manual. Retrieved from: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ws/su/bmp-ch9
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Basinwide Planning Program, 2008. Yadkin Pee -
Dee River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Retrieved from:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/bpu/basin/yadkinpeedee/2008
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), 2012. North Carolina 303(d) List - Category 5.
August 24, 2012. Retrieved from:
http://porta1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=9d45b3b4-d066-4619-82e6-
ea8ea0e01930&groupld=38364
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP), 2009. Lower Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP). Retrieved from:
http://www.nceep.net/services/restplans/Yadkin_Pee_Dee_RBRP_2009_Final.pdf
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3rd
approx. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2012. Stormwater Wetland Factsheet. Retrieved
from: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/national-menu-best-management-practices-bmps-
stormwater#edu
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1998. North Carolina Geology. Retrieved from:
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Weakley, A.S. 2008. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, Northern Florida, and Surrounding Areas
(Draft April 2008). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Chapel Hill, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2013. Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. DMS, Raleigh,
NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2014. Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site Baseline Monitoring Document
and As -Built Baseline Report. DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

0
I
i
r
,r
... Hydrologic Unit Code (14) _
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
0 Project Location
Directions:
The Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site is
located in the southeastern portion of Union
County, NC. From Charlotte, NC,
take US -74 south approximately 25 miles to
US -601 in Monroe, NC. Turn right on US -601
South and continue approximately 10.5 miles
and then turn left onto Landsford Road.
Travel approximately 3 miles and take a left
onto Philadelphia Church Road. Travel 2 miles
and cross over UT2 to Norkett Branch. The
project site is located upstream and downstream
of the Philadelphia Church Road stream crossing.
lk�p
WILDLANDS rkit,
ENGINEERING
i
01 TJi Cgl,P.,o 1 N)
The subject project site is an environmental restoration
site of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement,but is bordered
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
0 1 2 Miles DMS Project No. 95360
1 —J Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Union County, INC

Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
0 300 600 Feet DMS Project No. 95360
WILDLANDS -J t
ENGINEERING Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Union County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
N/A: not applicable
1. Stationing based off of centerline as -built alignment which matched with the design alignment.
2. Credits are based off of the as -built thalweg alignment.
3. Credits determined for the BMPs were established in the mitigation plan (2013).
Mitigation
Credits
Nitrogen
Stream Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Buffer Nutrient
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Offset
Type R RE R
RE
R RE
Totals 9,196 902 N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
Project•
.•
As -Built Existing
Restoration or Restoration
Restoration Footage/
Mitigation
Z
Reach ID 1 Footage/
Stationing
Approach
Equivalent
z
Acreage
Ratio
Credits (SMU)
Acreage
STREAMS
100+31-117+60
Norkett Branch Reach 1
& 118+60-
1,980 LF
P1
R
2,313
1:1
2,313
124+00
124+00-131+84
Norkett Branch Reach 2
& 132+25-
1,505 LF
P1
R
1,513
1:1
1,513
138+99
UTI
200+00-211+98
840 LF
P1
R
1,212
1:1
1,212
UT2 Reach 1
300+41-310+80
820 LF
P1
R
1,033
1:1
1,033
310+80-321+71
UT2 Reach 2
& 322+06-
1,272 LF
P1
R
1,416
1:1
1,416
325+20
UT2 Reach 3A
325+20-335+58
923 LF
P1
R
1,041
1:1
1,041
UT2 Reach 3B
336+90-343+48
380 LF
P1/2
R
668
1:1
668
401+53-411+46
UT2A
& 411+84-
1,296 LF
Ell
Ell
1,340
2.5:1
536
415+31
UT3
505+42-507+12
163 LF
Ell
Ell
170
2.5:1
68
Upstream of UT3 intermittent
Step Pool Storm
SPSC BMP
WQ BMP
29.7 ac treated
1:8
2383
drainage
Conveyance
non -jurisdictional drainage in
PW BMP
eastern Norkett Branch
Pocket Wetland
WQ BMP
19.9 ac treated
1:3
603
floodplain
Component Summation
Stream Riparian Wetland Non- Buffer Upland
Restoration Level
Riparian
(LF) (acres)
(square feet)
(acres)
Wetland
Restoration 9,196
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II 1,510
Creation
Preservation
High Quality Preservation
Alternative Mitigation 49.6 ac treated
N/A: not applicable
1. Stationing based off of centerline as -built alignment which matched with the design alignment.
2. Credits are based off of the as -built thalweg alignment.
3. Credits determined for the BMPs were established in the mitigation plan (2013).

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Activity or Report
Data Collection Complete
Completion or Scheduled
Delivery
Mitigation Plan
July 2012 - October 2012
July 2013
Final Design - Construction Plans
July 2013 - November 2013
November 2013
Construction
December 2013 - April 2014
April 2014
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal
December 2013 - April 2014
April 2014
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
December 2013 - April 2014
April 2014
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
March 2014 - April 2014
April 2014
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
April 2014 - May 2014
June 2014
Year 1 Monitoring
September 2014 - October 2014
December 2014
Maintenance and Replanting
October 2014 - January 2014
February 2015
Year 2 Monitoring
April 2015 - October 2015
December 2015
Year 3 Monitoring
April 2016 - October 2016
December 2016
Invasive Treatment
July 2016
December 2016
Year 4 Monitoring
2017
December 2017
Year 5 Monitoring
2018
December 2018
Year 6 Monitoring
2019
December 2019
Year 7 Monitoring
2020
December 2020
1Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
1430 S Mint St. Suite 104
Emily Reinicker, PE, CFM
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.332.7754
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Construction Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Seeding Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, Colfax, NC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Bare Roots
Dykes and Son Nursery, McMinnville, TN
Live Stakes
Foggy Bottom Nursery, Lansing, NC
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kirsten Gimbert
Monitoring, POC
704.332.7754, ext. 110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Project Information
Project Name Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
County lunion County
Project Area (acres) 31.6
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 34°52'47.56"N, 80°22'9.19"W
Physiographic Province Carolina Slate Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit 03040105
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit 03040105081020
DWQ Sub -basin 03-07-14
Project Drainage Area (acres) 12,034
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1%
CGIA Land Use Classification 143% forested, 29% managed herbaceous cover, 28% cultivated land
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Norkett Norkett
Branch Reach Branch
1 Reach 2
UT3 UT2 UT2A
UT3
Length of reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration'
2,369 1,499
1,198 4,175 1,378
170
Drainage area (acres)
1490 2034
48 457 72
28
Drainage area (sqmi)
2.3 1 3.2
1 0.08 1 0.72 1 0.11
0.04
NCDWQ stream identification score
43.75 41.5
32.25 1 35.75 1 23;30.75
25.75
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS -V
Morphological Desription (stream type)
P
P
P
P
I
I
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
III
III/IV
II/III
II, IV
IV
II/ III
Underlying mapped soils
Floodplain Soil Types for Site
Badin channery silt loam
Badin channery silt clay
loam
Cid channery silt
loam
Secrest-Cid
complex
Drainage class
well -drained
well -drained
well -drained
with moderate
shrink -swell
potential
well -drained
Soil Hydric status
N
N
N
Y
Slope
2-8%
2-8%
1-5%
0-3%
FEMA classification
AE AE
N/A I N/A
N/A
N/A
Native vegetation community
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation -
Post -Restoration
MMRegulatory
0�
Consideration
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
X
X
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 and DWQ 401 Water
Quality Certification No. 3885.
Waters of the United States - Section 401
X
X
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
X
X
Norkett Branch Mitigation Plan; Wildlands determined "no
effect" on Union County listed endangered species.
Historic Preservation Act
X
X
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter
from SHPO dated 8/20/2012).
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
X
X
CLOMR and LOMR Approved
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N/A
I N/A
N/A
1. Total stream length does not exclude easement crossings.

Table S. Monitoring Component Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Frequency
Norkett Branch
Reach 1
Norkett Branch
Reach 2
UTI
UT2 Reach 1
UT2 Reach 2
UT2 Reach 3A
UT2 Reach 36
UT3
Storm Water BMPs
Riffle Cross Section
3
2
1
1
2
1
1
N/A
N/A
Annual
Pool Cross Section
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
N/A
N/A
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
N/A
N/A
Substrate
Reach Wide (RW) / Riffle (RF)
100 Pebble Count
RW -1, RF -3
RW -1, RF -2 RW -1, RF -1
RW -1, RF -1
RW -1, RF -2
RW -1, RF -1
RW -1, RF -1
N/A
N/A
Annual
Stream Hydrology
Crest Gage
1 1
1
N/A
N/A
Quarterly
Wetland Hydrology
Groundwater Gages
N/A
N/A
Vegetation'
CVS Level 2
26
Annual
Visual Assessment
All Streams
Y
y
Y
y
Y
y
y
y
y
Annual
Exotic and nuisance vegetation
Project Boundary
Reference Photos2
Photographs
51
Annual
1 deviation from the vegetation plot quantity indicated in the Mitigation Plan is due to a smaller than expected planted area.
2Additional reference photo locations were added for site documentation to exceed quantity indicated in the Mitigation Plan.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Norkett Branch Reach 1- 2.313 LF
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric Performing as
Intended
Number of Amount of
Total Number
in As -Built Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation 0 0
100%
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 17 17
100%
3. Meander Pool
100%
Depth Sufficient 16 16
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate 16 16
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 17 17
meander bend (Run)
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of 17 17
meander bend (Glide)
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
3
297.5
94%
100%
100%
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
3
297.5
94%
100%
100%
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
2
2
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
2
2
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Norkett Branch Reach 2 -1.513 LF
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric
Performing as
Intended
Number of Amount of
Total Number
Unstable Unstable
in As -Built
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Ve etation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Ve etation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation 0 0
100%
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 10 10
100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient 11 11
100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate 11 11
100%
4. Thalweg Position
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 12 12
meander bend (Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of 12 12
meander bend (Glide)
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1.Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
4
357.5
88%
100%
100%
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
4
357.5
88%
100%
100%
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
1
1
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Pi
Piping
In
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
1
1
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
1
1
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT1- 1,212 LF
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric
Performing as
Intended
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Total Number
Unstable Unstable Performing as
in As -Built
Segments Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Ve elation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Ve etation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 27 27 100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient 26 26 100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate 27 27 100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
27 27 100%
meander bend (Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of 27 27 100%
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
1
1
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
1
1
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
1
1
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reach 1-1,033 LF
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric Performing as
Intended
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Total Number
in As -Built Unstable Unstable Performing as
Segments Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 24 24 100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient 24 24 100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate 24 24 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 25 25 100%
meander bend (Run)
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of 25 25 100%
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
2
2
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
"Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
2
2
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reach 2 -1,416 LF
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric
Performing as
Intended
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Total Number
Unstable Unstable Performing as
in As -Built Segments Footage Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Ve etation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Ve etation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Ve etation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 31
31 100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient 31
31 100%
1. Bed
Condition
33 100%
Length Appropriate 33
Thalweg centering at upstream of 34
meander bend (Run)
34 100%
4. Thalweg Position
34 100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of 34
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
4
4
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
4
4
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
4
4
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
4
4
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
4
4
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reach 3A -1,041 LF
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric
Performing as
Intended
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Total Number
Unstable Unstable Performing as
in As -Built Segments Footage Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Ve etation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 25 25 100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient 24 24 100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate 24 24 100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of 25 25 100%
meander bend (Run)
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of 25 25 100%
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
1
1
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
1
1
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
1
1
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
'Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
1
1
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reach 3B - 668 LF
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Number
Stable,
Metric
Performing as
Intended
Number of Amount of %Stable,
Total Number
Unstable Unstable Performing as
in As -Built
Segments Footage Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Ve elation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Ve etation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation 0 0 100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0 100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 10 10 100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient 10 10 100%
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate 10 10 100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
11 it 100%
meander bend (Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of 11 11 100%
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
2. Bank
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
100%
100%
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
2
2
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
p g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
2
2
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
-Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
2
2
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3-2016
Planted Acreage 29.9
Vegetation Category Definitions
Mapping
Threshold (acres)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
14
1.8
6%
Low Stem Density Areas' Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, 5, or 7 stem count criteria.
0.1
2
0.1
0%
Total
16
1.9
6%
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0
0
0.0
0%
Cumulative Total
16
1.9
6%
Easement Acreage 31.6
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold (SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of Planted
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000
12
2.8
9%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale). none
0
0
0%
'Acreage calculated from vegetation plots monitored for site.

Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Key)
W Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
0 500 1,000 Feet
WILD LANDS I i i i I DMS Project No. 95360
EN 1=1'. EEK1NG Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Union County, NC

�•u•i
Easement Area
Step Pool Storm Conveyance BMP
Pocket Wetland BMP
Structure or Riffle
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement II
Non Project Stream
— — — Bankfull
Cross Section (XS)
as
♦♦�V.7
•
IL
so
1
ass
as
A sale 0 -
as
as
cz/)'Sass% as
as
IF
♦� /�—'�— ter/ `" '� as,ass
•♦� ,�
W
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
100 200 Feet
w �`f
1
t C a
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1 of 6)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Union County, NC

Easement Area
Step Pool Storm Conveyance BMP.
Pocket Wetland BMP
Structure or Riffle
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement II
Non Project Stream
— — — Bankfull
Cross Section (XS)
Photo Point
Crest Gage (CG)
Vegetation Plot Condition- MY3
- Criteria Not Met
Q Criteria Met
Vegetation Problem Area- MY3
Invasive Plant Population
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
Stream Problem Area- MY3
Bank Scour/Eroded
���-��....... n . n n n ................�titi...INNER&&.
rj11...../lose..■... .■./...��,,,,, •`, �� `/^ 1
■./..///... ♦I ,,,,,•,,,,,,,,��I• 1.......................................IIII••II••.IIIIII......II.....II ••.. +
tttt /• / \ t
ytoo
$ •�'••��•i'
•' irZ41
kv��
•
'S?IA41
•
41
• 1
X0
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 2 of 6)
��r Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation SiteM
�/ , 0 100 200 Feet
w I L D L A N D s I I I I I DS Project No. 95360
ENGINEERING Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Union County, NC

iV
. .,.....&..Yi.NON mill nu...nn.....n..u.nn....nn.......j
♦ C�7 �
Cxl ;
`•fir � - � ;
f�
i
MATCHLINE 331+50
i
MATCHLINE 130+50 03
V.
� ♦a
MATCHLINE 342+00
MY3- Bare/Erodng Bank
lo 1Q, MOD
Easement Area
i/ ♦♦♦♦ Step Pool Storm Conveyance BMP
L i
• i i
i
t
:
41
gTcy I
♦
: O•
♦♦
% ♦♦� Pocket Wetland BMP
� .•����,,,,,` Structure or Riffle
Stream Restoration
/' ,,,,���••••���,,,,,,," •,, Stream Enhancement II
•••``� Non Project Stream
-- — Bankfull
Cross Section (XS)
•
: ♦ Photo Point
-0 Crest Gage (CG)
-($, Rain Gage and Barotroll
Vegetation Plot Condition- MY3
- Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met
Vegetation Problem Area- MY3
Invasive Plant Population
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
Stream Problem Area- MY3
Bank Scour/Eroded
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 3 of 6)
WNorkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
0 100 200 Feet
DMS Project No. 95360
WILDLANDs
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Union County, NC

-1111 ''♦.♦� Lkl ��\� ♦ �
❑ 111•♦ Baccharis halimifolia
.♦ �.� - i
♦ Q0.
11111 '. :� `\ • •� s♦ 'Baccharis halimifolia
all
I,I,IIII,,III ``\ ••\ _ ��_.—�` \` a 1•�O `•,•11111
•1j i,11j .^ � \ ♦�,. _ 111
K/ 1
1,1j11j1 ❑ `\' �S11 / ' ` ` 1111♦
11111111111 '. •�\` `—PD;r�'
\
111 \\ \
p 1111111111.1 \` d.dM
11 \`
r♦
11
11
1♦
11
11
i
• ,� w.. 11 ♦ � C1 ♦
y � L1
.t �,ti°iZ. 111111 �� � _ ��' —_`•� ` ♦♦
,' 1111 r Q:: \\ ♦�
� 1 ♦
y� ♦� I• 1 'i
Baccharis halimifolia 11 -
♦♦ \ �' 11,1 1 1,I
♦♦_♦♦♦♦ C � _ IIIIII111111•111
,o- I ,. .. 1111 •'•�.
11 111
:, I, �- -�� � •111
•,♦ \ '�_ — •` •1111
♦♦ , '��.�` ` 11111
x\` ♦ •. . i •.111 \ .F'�_•— i
a
a
Baccharis halimifolia •1,1.1,,1 �♦
-.u.i
Easement Area
Step Pool Storm Conveyance BMP
Pocket Wetland BMP
Structure or Riffle
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement II
Non Project Stream
-- — Bankfull
Cross Section (XS)
Photo Point
4,Crest Gage (CG)
Vegetation Plot Condition- MY3
- Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met
Vegetation Problem Area- MY3
Invasive Plant Population
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
Stream Problem Area- MY3
Bank Scour/Eroded
100 200 Feet
WILDLANDS
Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 4 of 6)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Union County, NC

1
• �-
o
o MATCHLJE1 119:5U
00
Baccharis halimifolia
10
e ;
�.
,•� , e. Baccharis halimifolia Baccharis halimifolia ee`''�+• j s ini -
ie lee
Je
♦ i �', .,.yam
;� Baccharis halimifolia
i ee cce • �
e"�5 �'� - •
e 0:n�
'i ` eeee......................... ... III ....... III III ....eeee i ,
FY gelogin
.u...u■.c::::: .........:���n�
Baccharis halimifolia
00
. me \•
•
Q p • .. .
Oe
•••'
.: i' ,eeee�eeeee..••e Baccharis halimifolia
e
MAT �` E •
• Cy
• 112
L... ■ I
�
Easement Area
going
Pool Storm Conveyance BMP
Pocket Wetland BMP
Structure or Riffle
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement II
Non Project Stream
Bankful I
Cross Section (XS)
Photo Point
Crest Gage (CG)
Vegetation Plot Condition- MY3
- Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met
Vegetation Problem Area- MY3
Invasive Plant Population
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
i Problem Area- MY3
Bank Scour/Eroded
+pp
Figure 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 5 of 6)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
♦+/ 0 100 200 Feet
w I L D L A N D S DMS Project No. 95360
Eh NE R N, Monitoring Year 3- 2016
Union County, NC

I
o
o
0�., �•�\ ♦0 ,,•, ,SIS .♦++` +`Y Jim
AV
\\0ONO
,•`\ '/i —moi — ? -^� °+♦♦♦♦♦♦+t..
W0 100 200 Feet
WILDLANDS , I 1 I 1
ENGINEERING
r
Ow IS 0 1
It
00
00
�♦• 0 i I
ISSISS
Awl IS I
e / i ^e:IS � I
�f l VV" ♦♦ . - �
• / ♦+ i I
r
00
Pocket Wetland BMP
o
/ m _....
Easement Area
(�) Step Pool Storm Conveyance BMP
a
Pocket Wetland BMP
{� �[ Structure or Riffle
Stream Restoration
•
•
�A � Stream Enhancement II
Non Project Stream
Bankfull
Cross Section (XS)
•
Photo Point
Step Pool Storm Conveyance BMP•
Crest Gage (CG)
nce BMP •
Water Quality Sampling Location
Vegetation Plot Condition- MY3
Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met
Vegetation Problem Area- MY3
ILM Invasive Plant Population
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
Stream Problem Area- MY3
Bank Scour/Eroded
Figure 3.6 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 6 of 6)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Union County, NC

Stream Photographs

Zm-
Photo Point 1— looking upstream (06/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 1— looking downstream (06/08/2016) 1
Photo Point 2 — looking upstream (06/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 2 — looking downstream (06/08/2016)
Photo Point 3 — looking upstream (06/08/2016) Photo Point 3 — looking downstream (06/08/2016)

�w
Photo Point 4 — looking upstream (06/08/2016) Photo Point 4 — looking downstream (06/08/2016)
F Am
Photo Point 5 — looking upstream (06/08/2016) Photo Point 5 — looking downstream (06/08/2016)
Photo Point 6 — looking upstream (06/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 6 — looking downstream (06/08/2016)
a t R
R� 1
i V
51 ig
_
yy
�w
Photo Point 4 — looking upstream (06/08/2016) Photo Point 4 — looking downstream (06/08/2016)
F Am
Photo Point 5 — looking upstream (06/08/2016) Photo Point 5 — looking downstream (06/08/2016)
Photo Point 6 — looking upstream (06/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 6 — looking downstream (06/08/2016)

yy
fi
t �
14
4y
b
Y
Photo Point 13 — looking upstream (06/08/2016)
Photo Point 13 — looking downstream (06/08/2016)
MWr
r
I�
jli
y+��y• F y
Photo Point 14— looking upstream (06/08/2016)
Photo Point 14— looking downstream (06/08/2016)
4
IM
Photo Point 15 — looking upstream (06/08/2016)
Photo Point 15 — looking downstream (06/08/2016)

i�
Photo Point 16 — looking upstream (06/08/2016)
Photo Point 16 — looking downstream (06/08/2016)
r ,
A
Photo Point 17 — looking upstream (04/22/2016)
Photo Point 17 — looking downstream (04/22/2016)
Photo Point 18 — looking upstream (04/22/2016)
Photo Point 18 — looking downstream (04/22/2016)

Photo Point 19 — looking upstream (04/22/2016) 1 Photo Point 19 — looking downstream (04/22/2016) 1
I Photo Point 20 — looking upstream (04/22/2016) 1 Photo Point 20 — looking downstream (04/22/2016)
Photo Point 21— looking upstream (04/22/2016) Photo Point 21— looking downstream (04/22/2016)

Photo Point 22 — looking upstream (04/22/2016) 1 Photo Point 22 — looking downstream (04/22/2016) 1
I Photo Point 23 — looking upstream (04/22/2016) 1 Photo Point 23 — looking downstream (04/22/2016)
Photo Point 24 — looking upstream (04/22/2016) Photo Point 24 — looking downstream (04/22/2016)

LL7
Photo Point 25 — looking upstream (04/22/2016) 1 Photo Point 25 — looking downstream (04/22/2016) 1
Photo Point 26 — looking upstream (04/22/2016) 1 Photo Point 26 — looking downstream (04/22/2016)
Photo Point 27 — looking upstream (04/25/2016) 1Photo Point 27 — looking downstream (04/25/2016)

Photo Point 31— looking upstream (04/25/2016) 1 Photo Point 31— looking downstream (04/25/2016) 1
I Photo Point 32 — looking upstream (04/25/2016) 1 Photo Point 32 — looking downstream (04/25/2016)
Photo Point 33 — looking upstream (04/25/2016) Photo Point 33 — looking downstream (04/25/2016)

Photo Point 34— looking upstream (04/25/2016) 1 Photo Point 34— looking downstream (04/25/2016) 1
I Photo Point 35 — looking upstream (04/25/2016) 1 Photo Point 35 — looking downstream (04/25/2016)
Photo Point 36 — looking upstream (04/25/2016) 1 Photo Point 36 — looking downstream (04/25/2016)

Photo Point 37 — looking upstream (04/25/2016) 1 Photo Point 37 — looking downstream (04/25/2016) 1
Photo Point 38 — looking upstream (04/25/2016) 1 Photo Point 38 — looking downstream (04/25/2016)
Photo Point 39 — looking upstream (04/25/2016) Photo Point 39 — looking downstream (04/25/2016)

Photo Point 40 — looking upstream (04/25/2016) 1 Photo Point 40 — looking downstream (04/25/2016) 1
I Photo Point 41— looking upstream (04/25/2016) 1 Photo Point 41— looking downstream (04/25/2016)
Photo Point 42 — looking upstream (04/25/2015) 1 Photo Point 42 — looking downstream (04/25/2016)

Photo Point 43 — looking upstream (04/25/2016) 1 Photo Point 43 — looking downstream (04/25/2016) 1
I Photo Point 44 — looking upstream (04/25/2016) Photo Point 44 — looking downstream (04/25/2016)
Photo Point 45 — looking upstream (04/25/2016) 1 Photo Point 45 — looking downstream (04/25/2016)

A"
;...
r'�" •:.:
"�;, 3,�.r�
w. I
�
_
AJC �
��'��,
Oet
��;;��'s i�"'� w� '� r:
I
4 �::-� `tet'
�• f\�
t
1
I'114,
A"
;...
r'�" •:.:
"�;, 3,�.r�
w. I
�
_
AJC �
��'��,
Oet
��;;��'s i�"'� w� '� r:
I
4 �::-� `tet'
�• f\�
t
;1r ,
A"
7
ti
w. I
Oet
G
;1r ,
A"

Photo Point 49 — looking upstream (06/08/2016) 1 Photo Point 49 — looking downstream (06/08/2016) 1
Photo Point 50 — looking downstream (06/08/2016) I Photo Point 50 — looking upstream (06/08/2016)

Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 1- (06/14/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 2 - (06/14/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 3 - (06/14/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 4 - (06/14/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 5 - (06/14/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 6 - (06/15/2016)

Vegetation Plot 7 - (06/15/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 8 - (06/15/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 9 - (06/15/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 - (06/14/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 11- (06/14/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 12 - (06/14/2016)

Vegetation Plot 19 — (06/15/2016) Vegetation Plot 20 — (06/15/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 23 — (06/15/2016) Vegetation Plot 24 — (06/15/2016) 1

Areas of Concern

Invasive Plant Population — Norkett Branch R1 (06/08/2016) 1 Bare/ Poor Herbaceous Cover— Norkett Branch R2 (06/15/2016)
Bare/ Poor Herbaceous Cover— Norkett Branch R2 (06/15/2016) 1 Bare Banks: Area 1— Norkett Branch R1 (06/08/2016) 1
Bare Banks: Area 2 — Norkett Branch R1 (06/08/2016) 1 Bare Banks: Area 3 — Norkett Branch R2 (06/08/2016) 1

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Plot MY3 Success Criteria Met
(Y/N)
Tract Mean
1 Y
92%
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 N
6 Y
7 N
8 Y
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y
13 Y
14 Y
15 Y
16 Y
17 Y
18 Y
19 Y
20 Y
21 Y
22 Y
23 Y
24 Y
25 Y
26 Y

Table 9. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Report Prepared By
Alea Tuttle
Date Prepared
11/2/2016 11:15
database name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.3.1 MY3.mdb
database location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02134 Norkett Branch FDP\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 3\Vegetation Assessment
computer name
ALEA
file size
i
46403584
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
95360
project Name
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
Description
River Basin
length(ft)
10706
stream -to -edge width (ft)
50
area (sq m)
127880.66
Required Plots (calculated)
22
Sampled Plots
26

Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3-2016
Current Plot Data (MY3 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
95360-WEI-0001
PnoLS P -all T
95360-WEI-0002
Pnol-S P -all T
95360-WEI-0003
PnoLS P -all T
95360-WEI-0004
PnoLS P -all T
95360-WEI-0005
Pnol-S P -all T
95360-WEI-0006
PnoLS P -all T
95360-WEI-0007
PnoLS P -all T
95360-WEI-0008
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
Carya sp.
hickory
Tree
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
2
1 2
2
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
2
5
5
5
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
5
5
6
Hamamelis virginiana
American witchhazel
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
I
I
1
1
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
1 3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
5
Sambucus canadensis
lCommon Elderberry
I Shrub
1
1
2
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
1
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count
12
12
12
13
13
1 15
12
12
1 13
12
12
14
7
1 7
1 7
10
1 10
16
5
5
5
15
15
16
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
5
5
5
4
4
5
4
4
F 5
4
4
1 5
4
1 4
1 4
4
4
6
3
3
1 3
6
6
1 6
Stems per ACRE
486
486
486
526
526
607
486
486
1 526
486
486
1 567
283
1 283
1 283
405
1 405
647
202
202
1 202
607
607
1 647
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Planted Stems excluding live stakes
P -all: All planted stems
T: Total stems including volunteers

Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Me
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Current Plot Data (MY3 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
95360-WEI-0009
Pnol-S P -all T
95360-WEI-0010
PnoLS P -all T
95360-WEI-0011
PnoLS P -all T
95360-WEI-0012
PnoLS P -all T
95360-WEI-0013
PnoLS P -all T
95360-WEI-0014
Pnol-S P -all T
95360-WEI-0015
Pnol-S P -all T
95360-WEI-0016
PnoLS P -all T
95360-WEI-0017
PnoLS P -all T
95360-WEI-0018
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Carya sp.
hickory
Tree
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
7
3
3
3
6
6
6
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Hamamelis virginiana
American witchhazel
Tree
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
5
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
6
6
7
1
1
1
4
4
4
7
7
7
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1 1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1 1
1 1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
2
Sambucus canadensis
lCommon Elderberry
I Shrub
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
7
1
1
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count
11
11
25
9
9
10
11
11
13
11
11
11
10
10
11
8
8
8
10
10
10
9
9
9
12
12
18
9
9
9
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
4
4
6
6
6
7
3
3
4
5
1 5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
5
5
7
4
4
4
Stems per ACRE
445
445
1012
364
364
405
445
445
526
445
1 445
445
405
405
445
324
324
324
405
405
405
364
364
364
486
486
1 728
364
364
364
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Planted Stems excluding live stakes
P -all: All planted stems
T: Total stems including volunteers

Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual ME
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3-2016
Current Plot Data (MY3 2016)
Annual Sumarry
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
95360-WEI-0019
PnoLS P -all T
95360-WEI-0020
Pnol-S P -all T
95360-WEI-0021
PnoLS P -all T
95360-WEI-0022
PnoLS P -all T
95360-WEI-0023
Pnol-S P -all T
95360-WEI-0024
PnoLS P -all T
95360-WEI-0025
PnoLS P -all T
95360-WEI-0026
Pnol-S P -all T
MY3 (20 6)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (20 5)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1 (2014)
Pnol-S P -all T
MYO (2014)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
4
4
6
4
4
4
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
27
27
27
27
27
27
25
25
25
32
32
32
Carya sp.
hickory
Tree
6
6
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
1
1
7
7
7
Cephalanthus occidentalis
common buttonbush
Shrub
I
1
1
1
1
2
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
1 12
12
1 14
1 14
14
25
25
25
42
42
42
Cornus florida
flowering dogwood
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
8
10
10
10
48
48
48
1 75
75
75
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
2
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
3
1 3
3
3
6
6
6
3
3
3
1 3
3
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
76
76
82
73
73
75
63
63
63
67
67
1 67
Hamamelis virginiana
American witchhazel
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
7
7
7
8
8
8
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
9
1 9
16
1 11
1 11
11
24
24
1 24
59
59
59
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
105
105
106
106
106
106
67
67
67
1 57
57
57
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood
Tree
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
1
1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
7
7
7
18
18
18
36
36
1 36
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
19
19
19
20
20
20
1 34
34
34
27
27
27
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
20
20
20
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
I
I
I
I
1
1
7
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
lCommon Elderberry
I Shrub
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
10
10
11
13
13
13
Taxodium distichum
bald cypress
Tree
1
1
1
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
4
2
1
a293
17
6
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Stem count
12
12
22
12
12
15
17
17
17
16
16
16
14
14
15
11
11
11
14
14
14
11
11
11
343
302
302
321
346
346
347
447
447
447
size (ares) 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
26
1
26
26
26
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
Species count
7
7
9
7
7
8
7
7
7
6
6
6
9
9
10
6
6
1 6
9
9
9
5
1 5
1 5
13
13
18
14
14
19
12
12
12
12
12
12
Stems per ACRE
486
1 486
1 890
486
486
607
688
688
688
647
647
1 647
567
1 567
1 607
445
445
1 445
567
567
567
445
1 445
1 445
456
456
534
470
470
500
539
539
540
696
696
696
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
PnoLS: Planted Stems excluding live stakes
P -all: All planted stems
T: Total stems including volunteers

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 11a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Norkett Branch Reaches 1 and 2
I em Parameter
Gage
Norkett
PRE -RESTORATION CONDITION
Branch Reach I Norkett Branch
Reach 2
Spencer
Creek
REFERENCE REACHES
UT to Spencer Creek
UT Richland
Creek
Reach 2
Norkett
Branch
Reach 1
DESIGN
Norkett
Branch
Reach 2
Norkett
Branch Reach
AS-BUILT/BASELINE
1 Norkett
Branch Reach
2
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.8
21.5
22.0
29.5
10.7
11.2
7.0
13.3
15.2
22.0
23.0
22.5
26.6
25.6
25.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
35
58
72
85
60
114+
>81
>50
48
>110
61----F-:,115
>200
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.7
1.8
1.4
2.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
1.1
1.3
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.8
2.0
Bankfull Max Depth
3.1
3.2
2.3
2.9
2.1
2.6
1.1
1.8
2.1
2.8
2.8
2.6
3.3
3.0
3.3
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
n/a
28.1
35.6
40.6
52.8
17.8
19.7
7.7
16.5
17.5
40.6
43.2
38.8
44.6
46.7
50.8
Width/Depth Ratio
5.9
13.0
9.2
21.4
5.8
7.1
6.4
10.1
13.9
11.9
12.2
13.1
16.7
13.0
14.1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.1
4.5
2.9
3.3
5.5
10.2
>11.6
>2.5
2.2
>5.0
2.2
1
>5.0
>2.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
8.6
0.4
-
18.4
59.6
7.3
9.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
14
84
19
111
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0036
0.0039
0.0032
0.0120
0.0130
0.0140
0.0183
0.0355
0.0018
0.0120
0.0023
0.0180
0.0000
0.0152
0.0009
0.0163
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
12
88
51
102
Pool Max Depth (ft)
n/a
4.0
4.0
2.9
4.0
3.3
2.5
1.8
2.8
7.8
2.8
7.9
3.3
5.1
3.5
4.8
Pool Spacing (ft)A
62
300
60
300
71.0
19
42
33.0
93.0
29
163
30
170
67
183
98
172
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
mommonoom
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
38
41
11
27
N/A
35
161
37
168
38
147
38
155
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
11
15
6
16
N/A
40
66
41
69
38
65
40
64
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
n/a
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.3
0.8
2.3
N/A
1.8
3.0
1.8
3.0
1.7
2.4
1.6
2.5
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
46
48
37.7
43
N/A
66
264
69
276
167
263
181
277
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
3.6
3.7
1.6
3.8
N/A
1.6
7.3
1.6
7.3
1.7
5.5
1.5
6.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC/4.6/8.7/28.5/64/2048
SC/SC/0.4/21.1/>2048/>2048
--
--
--
0.4/3.6/7.4/52.3/139.4/362
2.6/6.7/13.0/62.6/210.9/>2048
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/fe
n/a
0.41
0.44
0=
0.38
0.28
0.40
0.27
0.29
0.30
0.32
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
15-25
20-35
15-25
20-35
Drainage Area (SM)
2.3
3.2
0.96
0.01
0.28
2.3
3.2
2.3
3.2
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%'
<1%'
---
---
---
<1%'
<1%'
Q%'
<1%'
Rosgen Classification
E4
C/E5
E4
ES
C4/E4
C4
CS
C4
C4/E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.5
4.0
2.5
3.5
4.9
5.4
3.2
3.5
4.1
2.8
3.3
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.9
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
110
140
97
25
29
32
110
140
105
124
130
148
Q-NFF regression
n/a
---
Em
---
--
memo=
--
--
1,910
moommommoom
MEMMIMEMEME
1,249
1,910
ii
1,249
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q -Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)2
1,980
1,505
2,369
1,499
2,369
1,499
Sinuosity (ft)'
1.10
1.10
2.30
2.50
1.00
1.24
1.20
1.24
1.20
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)z
0.0039
0.0013
0.0046
--
-
---
0.0025
0.0036
0.0031
0.0033
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.0029
0.0034
'No impervious land use is present within the project watershed per the CGIA Land Use Classification data set.
2 Channel Length represented does not include easement breaks.
(--): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
SC: Silt/Clay

Table llb. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UTl and UT2 Reaches 1 and 2
Parameter
Gage
UTI
PRE -RESTORATION CONDITION
UT2 Reach I
UT2
Reach
2
REFERENCE REACHES
See Table Ila
UTI
UT2
DESIGN
Reach
I
UT2
Reach
2
UTI
AS BUILT/ BASELINE
UT2 Reach I
UT2 Reach
2
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Min
I
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
n/a
2.9
8.2
13.6
7.1
See Table 11a
7.5
8.0
8.0
10.5
9.4
9.0
9.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
6 40 29 53
16.5 >38 >40 >40 136 144 >200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9 1 0.6 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.2 2 1 1.5
0.9 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.1
1.2
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
2.6 8.6 7.9 5.1
4.6 4.6 5.3 4.5 4.5 5.2
5.3
Width/Depth Ratio
2.6 8.6 23.4 9.8
12.2 13.9 12.1 24.5 19.8 15.3
17.6
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2 4.9 >7 >8
2.2 >5 >5 >5 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.5 2.4 1 1 1 1.7
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
D50 (mm)
SC
7.3
7.3
MENOMONIE=
I
OEM
MEMENEEMEN
10000000mi
20.9
19.5
20.1
F 27.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
n/a
0.017
1.4
61
0.054
1.7
295
0.009
1.3
190
0.032
517
0.006
2.5
130
See Table Ila
---
---
---
7
39
7
34
6
27
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.013 1 0.045 0.01 1 0.032 0.013 1 0.028 0.007 0.044 0.006 0.037 0.009
0.039
Pool Length (ft)EMENEENNEEM
--- --- --- 12 69 11 35 11
45
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.9 2.6 0.9 2.4 1.0 2.8 1.2 2.5 1.5 2.6 1.5
2.5
Pool Spacing (ft)A
10 56 10 56 10 56 30 58 21 64 22
71
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
n/a
N/A
N/A
N/A
26.9
49.5
See Table Ila
12
55
13
44
13
44
13
49
10
42
12
52
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.92 33.39
12 23 13.0
24.0 13 24
14
23
15 21 14
22
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.98 4.73
1.6 3 1.6
3.0 1.6 3
1.3
2.2
1.6 2.2 1.6
2.3
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
83.5 141.4
23 90 24.0
96.0 24 96
61
88
45 92 44
83
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.8 7.01
1.6 7.3 1.6
5.5 1.6 5.5
1.2
4.7
1.0 4.4 1.3
5.4
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC/SC/SC/SC/0.77/9.38/>2048
SC/ SC/7.3/47.7/85.7/>2048
SC/SC/7.3/47.7/85.7/>2048
See Table IlaSC/1.0/12.7/55.3/90/256
SC/7.1/12.2/28.5/42.9/90
2.4/11.6/20.7/56.1/86.7/180
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/dl00
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
n/a
0.57
0.82
0.14
0.42
0.38
0.18
0.27
0,27
0.16
0.21
0.23
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
20-35
10-20
15-25
15-25
10-20
15-25
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.08
0.40
0.48
See Table 5a
0.08
0.15
0.22
0.08
0.15
0.22
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%' <1%' <1%'
<I%' <I%' <1%' <1%' <1%' <1%'
Rosgen Classification
E6 C/E4 E4
C/E6 C/E4 C/E4 C4 C4 C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.3 1 4.2 1.4 3.4
2.6 2.4 3.2 2.1 1.6 1.9
2.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
12 11 17
12 11 17 10 7 10
11
Q-NFF regression
n/a
840
mesons=
820
1156
See Table 5a
998
866
1108
MENEEMENEEMENEENEENEEM
998
MEMEM
866
1108
Q-USGS extrapolation
Q -Mannings
Valley Length (ft)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)2
840 820 1,272
1,198 1,039 1,440 1,198 1,039 1,440
Sinuosity (ft)'
1.0 1.0 1.1
1.20 1.20 1.30 1.20 1.20 1.30
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z
0.15 0.004 0.012
0.010 0.005 0.007 0.011 0.006 0.007
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.011 0.006 0.007
'No impervious land use is present within the project watershed per the CGIA Land Use Classification data set.
Channel Length represented does not include easement breaks.
(--): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
SC: Silt/Clay

Table 11c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reaches 3A and 3B
Parameter
Gage
RE -RESTORATION CONDITION
UT2 Reach 3 IN
DESIGN
UT2
Reach
Min
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Min
17
Max
Bankfull Width (ft)
n/a
7.5
>200
Floodprone Width (ft)
24
0.46
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.1
<1% t
Bankfull Max Depth
1.6
1.6
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft')
8.3
7.2
Width/Depth Ratio
6.7
3.7
Entrenchment Ratiol
1 3.2
1.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.3 1
1.8
D50 (mm)
7.32
1.0
Profile
6.9
830
32.0
10.8
Riffle Length (ft)
658
0.014
658
0.025
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
n/a
5.0+
2
0.006
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)A
Pool Volume (W
Pattern
10
26
42 32
53
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
0.002
N/A
3.32
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
66 38
15
63.4
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
n/a
2
8.45
Meander Length (ft)
14
N/A
27 24
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
1.20
N/A
3.20
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
4.10
12
0.8
63
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
4.4
SC/SC/7.3/47.7/85.7/>2048
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d 100
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
n/a
14
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
50
18
61
Drainage Area (SM)
n/a
27
0.71
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%t
Rosgen Classification
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
26
33
Q-NFF regression
1.6
Q-USGS extrapolation
Valley Length (ft) 1184
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)Z 1,303
Sinuosity (ft)a 1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z 0.009
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
'No impervious land useis present within the project watershed per the CGIA Land Use Classification data set.
Channel Length represented does not include easement breaks.
(--): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
SC: Silt/Clay
REFERENCE REACHES
Min Max
See Table 11a
See Table 11a
See Table 11a
UT2
Reach
3A
DESIGN
UT2
Reach
3B
Min
I Max
Max
Min
17
Max
10.5
13.9
>200
130
9.0
0.46
0.7
11.0
<1% t
<1%'
45+
1.6
C/E4
55+
7.2
11.8
0.8
3.7
15.3
1.0
1.7
1.2
>2.2
15
1.5
1.0
1.0
6.9
830
32.0
10.8
1,038
658
11.7
658
See Table Sa
11.2
1.20
25 13
5.0+
0.010
0.006
5.0+
0.024
10
1.0
42 32
45
1.0
0.002
2.98 2.45
3.32
26
66 38
72
0.011
0.032
0.008
0.017
61
14
27 24
31
1.3
1.20
2.6 1.7
3.20
1.50
4.10
12
0.8
63
14
4.4
77
MEMENEEM
14
50
18
61
14
27
20
33
1.6
3.0
1.8
3.0
27
108
33
132
1.6
5.5
1.6
5.5
See Table 11a
AS BUILT/BASELINE
SC/4.9/13.3/67.:
Min
I
Max Min
I Max
15 25
12 20
17
10
10.5
13.9
>200
130
0.46
0.46
0.7
0.8
<1% t
<1%'
1.2
1.6
C/E4
C/E4
7.2
11.8
3.7
15.3
16.5
1.7
>2.2
>2.2
15
20
1.0
1.0
548
830
32.0
33.4
1,038
658
1,038
658
See Table Sa
8
1.20
25 13
28
0.010
0.006
0.046 0.001
0.024
10
42 32
45
1.77
0.002
2.98 2.45
3.32
26
66 38
72
8
37 20
61
14
27 24
31
1.3
2.6 1.7
2.2
58
88 87
105
0.8
3.5 1.4
4.4
See Table 11a
22.6/27.4/32/53.7/69.7/128
SC/4.9/13.3/67.:
0.29
0.23
0.23
0.14
15 25
12 20
17
10
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
<1% t
<1% t
<1%'
<1%,
See Table Sa
C/E4
C/E4
E4
C4
3.7
3.0
2.1
1.7
26
33
15
20
MENEEM
830
548
830
548
1,038
658
1,038
658
See Table Sa
1.25
1.20
1.25
1.20
0.006
0.004
0.006
0.003
---
---
0.007
0.002

Table 12a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Norkett Branch Reach 1 and 2
Dimension
Cross -Section
Base
1,
MY3
Norkett
MY2
Branch
MY3
Reach 1 (Pool) Cross -Section
MY4 MY5 Base
2,
MY1
Norkett
MY2
Branch
MY3
Reach 1, (Riffle) Cross -Section
MY4 MY5 Base
3,
MY1
Norkett
MY2
Branch
MY3
Reach 1, (Pool) Cross -Section
MY4 MY5 Base
4,
MY3
Norkett
MY2
Branch Reach 1, (Riffle)
MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
33.2
34.1
34.3
29.1
26.6
23.2
23.4
22.8
26.7
29.2
25.8
24.3
25.1
23.1
26.2
22.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
---
>200
>200
>200
>200
---
---
---
---
>200
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.2
1.6
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.7
1.8
2.1
1.9
2.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.7
2.9
3.0
3.0
2.9
3.9
4.4
4.6
5.0
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
58.4
68.3
68.7
64.3
42.6
45.5
48.0
44.1
60.3
67.5
62.9
64.9
44.6
47.7
48.8
44.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
18.9
17.1
17.1
13.2
16.7
11.9
11.4
11.8
11.8
12.7
10.6
9.1
14.1
11.1
14.1
11.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
---
>7.5
>12
>8.5
>8.8
---
---
---
---
>8
>9
>7.6
>8.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dimension
---
Cross -Section
Base
---
5,
MY3
---
Norkett
MY2
---
Branch
MY3
1.0
Reach I (Riffle) Cross -Section
MY4 MYS Base
1.0
6,
MY1
1.0
Norkett
MY2
1.0
Branch
MY3
---
Reach 2, (Riffle) Cross -Section
MY4 MY5 Base
---
7,
MY1
---
Norkett
MY2
---
Branch
MY3
1.0
Reach 2, (Riffle) Cross -Section
MY4 MY5 Base
1.0
8,
MY3
1.0
Norkett
MY2
1.0
Branch Reach 2, (Pool)
MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
22.5
23.5
23.3
22.3
25.7
26.0
25.6
25.0
25.6
24.9
25.6
23.2
30.1
26.8
29.1
26.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.4
2.7
2.5
2.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.6
3.0
2.9
2.7
3.3
3.3
3.6
3.2
3.0
3.2
3.1
3.1
4.5
4.4
4.5
4.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area ft)
38.8
42.3
40.5
37.4
50.8
52.0
53.4
49.6
46.7
48.7
48.5
44.6
72.5
71.0
73.2
64.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
13.1
13.3
13.2
13.0
13.0
12.3
12.6
14.1
12.7
13.6
12.1
12.5
10.1
11.6
10.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>9
>9
>8.6
>9.0
>8
>8
>7.8
>8.0
>8
>8
>7.8
>8.6
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
-
---: Not Applicable

Table 12b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT1 and UTZ Reaches 1 and 2
hL
Dimension
Base
Cross -Section
MY3
MY2
9, UTI, (Riffle)
MY3
MY4 MYS Base
Cross -Section
MYl
MY2
10, UTI,
MY3
(Pool) Cross
MY4 MY5 Base
-Section
MY1
11, UTZ
MY2
Reach 1, (Pool)
MY3 MY4
Cross
MY5 Base
-Section
MY3
12, UTZ
I MY2
Reach 1, (Riffle)
I MY3 I MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.5
11.6
11.1
10.2
18.1
15.9
17.3
13.5
10.6
11.1
11.3
12.1
9.4
11.1
9.5
10.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
136
136
138
131
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
144
151
155
146.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.8
1.1
0.9
0.6
1.8
2.0
2.1
1.9
1.9
2.0
0.8
1.7
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
4.5
6.2
6.7
4.0
9.8
14.0
12.7
10.3
7.5
9.4
8.8
6.7
4.5
5.6
5.5
3.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
24.5
21.7
18.5
20.8
33.3
18.0
23.5
17.7
15.2
13.2
14.6
21.9
19.8
22.0
16.4
29.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratiol
13.0
1 11.7 1
12.4
1 14.4 1
1 ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
15.2
13.6
16.3
13.6
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dimension
1.0
Cross
Base
1.0
-Section
I MY3 I
1.0
13, UTZ
MY2
1.0
Reach
I MY3 I
---
2, (Riffle) Cross
MY4 MY5 Base
---
-Section
I MY3
I---
14,
I MY2
---
UTZ Reach
I MY3 I
---
2, (Pool) Cross
MY4 I MYS Base
---
-Section
MYl
---
15, UTZ
I MY2
---
Reach 2, (Riffle)
I MY3 I MY4
1.0
Cross
MY5 Base
1.0
-Section
MY3
1.0
16,
MY2
1.0
UTZ Reach 2, (Pool)
MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.0
9.5
9.1
8.9
13.9
13.7
14.8
12.9
9.6
10.5
11.5
11.9
9.6
9.4
7.9
9.6
F oo prone Wit
>200
>200
>200
>200
---
---
---
---
>200
>200
>200
>200
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.6
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
5.3
7.1
6.4
5.6
11.7
14.1
12.0
11.3
5.2
7.6
8.7
8.8
7.0
8.1
8.1
9.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
15.3
12.8
13.0
14.1
16.4
13.2
18.2
14.7
17.6
14.5
15.4
15.9
13.3
10.9
7.7
10.1
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>22
>21
>22
>22.5
---
---
---
---
>15
>19
>17.3
>16.9
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
---
--
--
1.0
1.0
1 1.0
1 1.0
---: Not Applicable

Table 12c. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reaches 3A and 3B
Dimension
Cross
Base
-Section
I MY3 I
17, UT2
MY2 I
Reach
MY3
3A, (Pool) Cross
MY4 MY5 Base
-Section
MY3
18, UT2
MY2
Reach 3A, (Riffle)
I MY3 I MY4 MY5
Cross
Base
-Section
MY3
19, UT2
MY2
Reach 3B, (Riffle)
MY3 MY4 I
Cross
MY5 Base I
-Section
MY3
20, UT2
I MY2
Reach 3B, (Pool)
MY3 MY4 MY5
based on fixed bankfull elevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.5
10.9
11.3
10.1
10.5
11.1
10.1
10.5
13.9
12.6
14.3
13.6
14.7
15.0
15.5
14.5
F oo prone Wit
---
---
---
---
>200
>200
>200
>200
130
130
146
131.9
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
1.2
1.0
0.9
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.7
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
10.7
12.9
12.1
13.0
7.2
7.6
7.6
9.3
11.8
14.9
14.3
12.6
21.2
22.7
23.0
21.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
9.2
10.5
7.8
15.3
16.2
13.6
11.9
16.5
10.6
14.4
14.7
10.2
9.9
10.4
9.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
---
>19
>18
>9.3
>19.0
9.3
10.3
10.2
9.7
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
---
___
--- : Not Applicable

Table 13a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Norkett Branch Reach 1
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max
MinMax
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
22.5
26.6
23.1
23.5
23.3
26.2
22.3
22.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
1.8
1.8
2.1
1.7
2.0
1.7
2.0
Bankfull Max Depth
2.6
3.3
3.0
3.4
2.9
3.4
2.7
3.3
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
38.8
44.6
42.3
47.7
40.5
48.8
37.4
44.1
Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
16.7
11.1
13.1
11.4
14.1
11,4
13.2
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
18.4
59.6
13.3
26.9
24.7
90.0
20.9
51.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
14
84
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0000
0.0152
Pool Length (ft)
12
88
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.3
5.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
67
183
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
38
147
Radius of Curvature (ft)
38
65
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.7
2.4
Meander Wave Length (ft)
167
263
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,369
Sinuosity (ft)
1.24
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d10D
0.4/3.6/7.4/52.3/139.4/362
1.0/8.0/16.7/50.6/90/1024
0.3/11.0/29.3/121.7/180/1024
SC/0.79/18.4/132.0/214.7/>2048
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
6%
0%
6%

Table 13b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Norkett Branch Reach 2
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
25.6
25.7
24.9
26.0
25.6
25.6
23.2
25.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.1
1.9
2.0
Bankfull Max Depth
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.3
3.1
3.6
3.1
3.2
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
46.7
50.8
48.7
52.0
48.5
53.4
44.6
49.6
Width/Depth Ratio
13.0
14.1
12.7
13.0
12.3
13.6
12.1
12.6
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
7.3
9.9
3.6
12.1
1.0
27.8
4.4
11.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
19
111
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0009
0.0163
Pool Length (ft)
51
102
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.5
4.8
Pool Spacing (ft)
98
172
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
38
155
Radius of Curvature (ft)
40
64
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.6
2.5
Meander Wave Length (ft)
181
277
Meander Width Ratio
1.5
6.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4/E4
C4/E4
C4/E4
C4/E4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,499
Sinuosity (ft)
1.20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 2.6/6.7/13.0/62.6/210.9/>2048
0.3/10.4/15.3/49.1/90/362
4.2/16/24.9/83.4/151.8/362
SC/6.7/17.6/52.6/101.2/256.0
%of Reach with Eroding Banks IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJIM
7%
5%
12%

Table 13c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT1
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.5
11.6
11.1
10.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
136
136
138
131
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
1.1
0.9
0.6
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
4.5
6.2
6.7
4.0
Width/Depth Ratio
24.5
21.7
18.5
20.8
Entrenchment Ratio
13.0
11.7
12.4
14.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
20.9
48.3
21.9
68.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
39
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
0.044
Pool Length (ft)
12
69
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.2
2.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
30
58
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
13
49
Radius of Curvature (ft)
14
23
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.3
2.2
Meander Wave Length (ft)
61
88
Meander Width Ratio
1.2
4.7
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,198
Sinuosity (ft)
1.20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.011
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.011
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/1.0/12.7/55.3/90/256
SC/2.4/9.4/61.2/139.4/256.0
SC/0.1/8.6/82.6/139.4/256
SC/SC/5.6/49.8/107.3/>2048
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%

Table 13d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reach 1
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.4
11.1
9.5
10.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
144
151
155
147
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.0
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
4.5
5.6
5.5
3.9
Width/Depth Ratio
19.8
22.0
16.4
29.6
Entrenchment Ratio
15.2
13.6
16.3
13.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
19.5
32.0
37.9
49.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
34
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
0.037
Pool Length (ft)
11
35
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.5
2.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
21
64
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
10
42
Radius of Curvature (ft)
15
21
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.6
2.2
Meander Wave Length (ft)
45
92
Meander Width Ratio
1.0
4.4
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,039
Sinuosity (ft)
1.20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
Is
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/7.1/12.2/28.5/42.9/90
SC/12/20.6/58.1/111.2/256
SC/5.6/16.7/57.4/107.3/362
SC/0.25/12.9/69.7/120.7/362.0
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%

Table 13e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reach 2
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.0
9.6
9.5
10.5
9.1
11.5
8.9
11.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.6
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
5.2
5.3
7.1
7.6
6.4
8.7
5.6
8.8
Width/Depth Ratio
15.3
17.6
12.8
14.5
13.0
15.4
14.1
15.9
Entrenchment Ratiol
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
20.1
27.4
41.3
50.6
39.0
39.3 1
35.4
51.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
6
27
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.009
0.039
Pool Length (ft)
11
45
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.5
2.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
22
71
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
12
52
Radius of Curvature (ft)
14
22
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.6
2.3
Meander Wave Length (ft)
44
83
Meander Width Ratio
1.3
5.4
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,440
Sinuosity (ft)
1.30
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
2.4/11.6/20.7/56.1/86.7/180
8.5/20.1/32/90/160.7/512
0.3/18.4/45/119.3/196.6/1024
SC/SC/SC/73.4/118.9/180.0
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%

Table 13f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reach 3A
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
10.5
11.1
10.1
10.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
7.2
7.6
7.6
9.3
Width/Depth Ratio
15.3
16.2
13.6
11.9
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
32.0
45.0
25.7
40.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8
25
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.010
0.046
Pool Length (ft)
10
42
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.77
2.98
Pool Spacing (ft)
26
66
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
8
37
Radius of Curvature (ft)
14
27
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.3
2.6
Meander Wave Length (ft)
58
88
Meander Width Ratio
0.8
3.5
IM
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
658
Sinuosity (ft)
1.20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.002
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
22.6/27.4/32/53.7/69.7/128
1
16.0/30.3/41.5/87.0/202.4/362.0
6.7/24.8/40.6/116.3/173.3/1024
12.8/27.8/41.3/85.7/128.0/180.0
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
0%

Table 13g. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reach 3B
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.9
12.6
14.3
13.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
130
130
146
132
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.8
1.2
1.0
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.7
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
11.8
14.9
14.3
12.6
Width/Depth Ratio
16.5
10.6
14.4
14.7
Entrenchment Ratio
9.3
10.3
10.2
9.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
33.4
30.6
68.5
48.3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
13
28
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.001
0.024
Pool Length (ft)
32
45
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.45
3.32
Pool Spacing (ft)
38
72
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
20
61
Radius of Curvature (ft)
24
31
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.7
2.2
Meander Wave Length (ft)
87
105
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
658
Sinuosity (ft)
1.20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.002
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/4.9/13.3/6Z2/89.9/128
SC/4.5/14.8/60.0/98.3/180.0
SC/0.7/12.7/71.7/128/362
SC/SC/SC/60.4/107.3/180.0
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
3%
0%
0%

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 1-Norkett Branch Reach 1
108+82 Pool
470
x -section area (ft.sq.)
29.1
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
3.7
max depth (ft)
30.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.1
hyd radi (ft)
468
466
0
0
width -depth ratio
0 464
lu
w
462
460
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Width (ft)
—MYO (04/2014) MYi (10/2014) *MY2 (04/2015) —0--MY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
64.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
29.1
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
3.7
max depth (ft)
30.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.1
hyd radi (ft)
13.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 2-Norkett Branch Reach 1
109+30 Riffle
470
44.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
22.8
width (ft)
1.9
mean depth (ft)
2.9
max depth (ft)
23.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.9
hyd radi (ft)
11.8
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
8.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
468
466
0
0
-
0 464
lu
w
462
460
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Width (ft)
�—MYO (04/2014) - MYl (10/2014) 0 MY2 (04/2015) +MY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
44.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
22.8
width (ft)
1.9
mean depth (ft)
2.9
max depth (ft)
23.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.9
hyd radi (ft)
11.8
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
8.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 3-Norkett Branch Reach 1
113+70 Pool
468
x -section area (ft.sq.)
24.3
width (ft)
2.7
mean depth (ft)
5.0
max depth (ft)
26.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.4
hyd radi (ft)
9.1
width -depth ratio
466
464
c
0
a 462
v
w
460
458
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
�—MYO (04/2014) MY1 (10/2014) *MY2 (04/2015) —0--MY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
64.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
24.3
width (ft)
2.7
mean depth (ft)
5.0
max depth (ft)
26.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.4
hyd radi (ft)
9.1
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 4-Norkett Branch Reach 1
114+30 Riffle
470
44.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
22.4
width (ft)
2.0
mean depth (ft)
3.3
max depth (ft)
23.6
468
1.9
hyd radi (ft)
11.4
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
8.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
466
0
0
m 464
>
v
w
462
460
40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
—w—MYO (04/2014) - MY1 (10/2014) MY2 (04/2015) +MY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
44.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
22.4
width (ft)
2.0
mean depth (ft)
3.3
max depth (ft)
23.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.9
hyd radi (ft)
11.4
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
8.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section S-Norkett Branch Reach 1
122+84 Riffle
466
37.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
22.3
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
2.7
max depth (ft)
23.3
464
1.6
hyd radi (ft)
13.2
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
9.0
entrenchment ratio
462
0
low bank height ratio
0 460
v
w
458
456
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Width (ft)
—®—MYO (4/2014) MYl (10/2014) +MY2 (04/20/15) +MY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
37.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
22.3
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
2.7
max depth (ft)
23.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.6
hyd radi (ft)
13.2
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
9.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 6-Norkett Branch Reach 2
131+06 Riffle
464
49.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
25.0
width (ft)
2.0
mean depth (ft)
3.2
max depth (ft)
26.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.9
hyd radi (ft)
12.6
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
8.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
462
460
c
0
m 458
lu
w
456
454
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Width (ft)
—P—MYO (04/20/14) -#--MY1 (10/2014) 4 MY2 (04/20/15) tMY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
49.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
25.0
width (ft)
2.0
mean depth (ft)
3.2
max depth (ft)
26.1
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.9
hyd radi (ft)
12.6
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
8.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 7-Norkett Branch Reach 2
135+13 Riffle
462
44.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
23.2
width (ft)
1.9
I
3.1
max depth (ft)
28.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.6
hyd radi (ft)
12.1
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
8.6
460
458
c
0
m
1.0
low bank height ratio
J
WNEMW
REEffis--*
456
v
w
454
452
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Width (ft)
--0--MYO (04/20/14) MY1 (10/2014) 4 MY2 (04/20/15) tMY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
44.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
23.2
width (ft)
1.9
mean depth (ft)
3.1
max depth (ft)
28.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.6
hyd radi (ft)
12.1
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
8.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 8-Norkett Branch Reach 2
135+73 Pool
462
x -section area (ft.sq.)
26.1
width (ft)
2.5
mean depth (ft)
4.6
max depth (ft)
27.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.4
hyd radi (ft)
10.5
width -depth ratio
460
458
c
0
m 456
v
w
454
452
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Width (ft)
�MYO (04/20/15) MYl (10/2014) 4 MY2 (04/2015) MY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
64.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
26.1
width (ft)
2.5
mean depth (ft)
4.6
max depth (ft)
27.4
wetted parimeter (ft)
2.4
hyd radi (ft)
10.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 9-UT1
204+08 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
474
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
473
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
25.7
width -depth ratio
131.2
W flood prone area (ft)
472
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
0
v
w
471
470
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Width (ft)
0 MYO (04/2014) MY1(10/2014) s MY2 (04/2015) tMY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.2
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.6
max depth (ft)
10.3
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
25.7
width -depth ratio
131.2
W flood prone area (ft)
12.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 10-UT1
204+30 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
473
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
14.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
17.7
width -depth ratio
472
471
0
v
w
470
469
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Width (ft)
tMYO (04/2014) -—MY1 (10/2014) +MY2 (04/2015) tMY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
10.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.5
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
14.5
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
17.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 11-UT2 Reach 1
304+70 Pool
485
484
483
--[-
.2
m
w 482
481
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Width (ft)
tMYO (04/2014) —MY1 (10/2014) +MY2 (04/2015) tMY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
6.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.1
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
13.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.5
hyd radi (ft)
21.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 12-UT2 Reach 1
304+92 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
486
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
11.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
29.6
width -depth ratio
146.5
W flood prone area (ft)
13.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
485
484
0
QJ
w
483
482
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Width (ft)
0 MYO (04/2014) MY1(10/2014) s MY2 (04/2015) tMY3 (04/2016) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.8
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
11.0
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.4
hyd radi (ft)
29.6
width -depth ratio
146.5
W flood prone area (ft)
13.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 13-UT2 Reach 2
316+66 Riffle
5.6
480
8.9
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.1
479
9.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6
hyd radi (ft)
14.1
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
22.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
478
0
v
w
477
476
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Width (ft)
+MYO (4/2014) MY1 (10/2014) $ MY2 (04/20/15) tMY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.9
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
9.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.6
hyd radi (ft)
14.1
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
22.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 14-UT2 Reach 2
316+98 Pool
479
478
477
0
v
w
476 Ilk
475
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Width (ft)
tMYO (04/20/15) —s—MY1 (10/2014) +MY2 (04/2015) tMY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
11.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.9
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
13.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.8
hyd radi (ft)
14.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 15-UT2 Reach 2
316+98 Riffle
8.8
474
11.9
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
12.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
15.9
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
16.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
473
–
472
0
v
w
471
470
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Width (ft)
tMYO (04/20/14) MY1(10/2014) 4 MY2 (04/20/15) tMY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
8.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.9
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
12.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.7
hyd radi (ft)
15.9
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
16.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 16-UT2 Reach 2
324+55 Pool
473
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.6
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
10.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
10.1
width -depth ratio
472
471
0
v
w
—
470
469
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Width (ft)
tMYO (04/20/15) MY1 (10/2014) +MY2 (04/2015) tMY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
9.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.6
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
10.8
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
10.1
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 17-UT2 Reach 3A
332+03 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
468
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
11.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.2
467
7.8
width -depth ratio
c 466
0
v
w
465
464
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Width (ft)
-MYO (04/2014) +MY1 (10/2014) --*--MY2 (04/2015) tMY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
13.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.1
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
11.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.2
hyd radi (ft)
7.8
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 18-UT2 Reach 3A
332+03 Riffle
469
9.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.5
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.5
468
10.9
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
11.9
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
19.0
c 467
0
1.0
low bank height ratio
v
w
466
1
or
465
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Width (ft)
-+-MYO(04/2014) e^—MY1(10/2014)—MY2(04/2015) +MY3(04/2016) —Bankfull— FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
9.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.5
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
10.9
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
11.9
width -depth ratio
>200
W flood prone area (ft)
19.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 19-UT2 Reach 3B
338+70 Riffle
464
12.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.6
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
14.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
462
c
0
U v 460
width -depth ratio
131.9
W flood prone area (ft)
9.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
458
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
-+-MYO (04/2014) 4 MY1 (10/2014) —MY2 (04/2015) +MY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
12.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.6
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
14.2
wetted parimeter (ft)
0.9
hyd radi (ft)
14.7
width -depth ratio
131.9
W flood prone area (ft)
9.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Cross Section 20-UT2 Reach 3B
339+01 Pool
464
14.5
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.8
max depth (ft)
15.6
462
1.4
hyd radi (ft)
9.8
width -depth ratio
c
0
U 460
-
458
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
-MYO (04/2014) +MY1 (10/2014) --*--MY2 (04/2015) tMY3 (04/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
21.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
14.5
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.8
max depth (ft)
15.6
wetted parimeter (ft)
1.4
hyd radi (ft)
9.8
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 04/2016
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Di5 =
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
10
20
30
30
30
>2048
Very fine
0.062
0.125
sa.
avel
le
90
30
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
1
31
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
a rock
2
2
33
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
3
36
a
h
Very Coarse
1.0
1 2.0
1
1
1
37
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
38
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
2
2
40
Fine
4.0
5.6
20
1
1
1
41
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
42
y 30
u
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
2
2
44
MYl-1a/2— 0MY2-04/2015 ■MY3-04/2016
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
4
4
48
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
2
5
5
53
Coarse
22.6
32
1
3
4
4
57
Very Coarse
32
45
4
5
9
9
66
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Very Coarse
45
64
4
1 1
5
5
71
Small
64
90
4
2
6
6
77
Small
90
128
5
1
6
6
83
Large
128
180
10
1
11
11
94
Large
180
256
2
2
2
96
Small
256
362
96
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
96
96
96
Bedrock
2048
>2048
4
4
4
100
Total
s0
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
Di5 =
0.79
D50 =
18.4
D84 =
132.0
D95 =
214.7
D100 =
>2048
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Reachwide
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90
Silt/clay
sa.
avel
le
90
80
80
c
m
er
a rock
a; 70
60
a
h
> 60
m
u
40
50
3
M
30
E
>
v
20
i? 40
E
10
0
r
y 30
u
oo
ti ti �
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-04/2014
MYl-1a/2— 0MY2-04/2015 ■MY3-04/2016
a 20
10
71 IT i
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYM4/2014 MYI-10/2014 --*-- MY2-04/2015 —0-- MY3-04/2016
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
m
70
60
a
h
50
m
u
40
3
M
30
>
v
20
E
10
0
r
oo
ti ti �
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-04/2014
MYl-1a/2— 0MY2-04/2015 ■MY3-04/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross Section 2
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
1.00
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
12
12
12
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
12
Medium
0.25
0.50
12
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
16
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
16
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
16
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
18
Fine
4.0
5.6
18
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
20
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
24
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
30
Coarse
16.0
22.6
26
26
56
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
64
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
66
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
72
Small
64
90
12
12
84
Small
90
1 128
2
2
86
Large
128
180
8
8
94
Large
180
256
2
2
96
"`
Small
256
362
2 1
2
98
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
2
2
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
ae 70
> 60
..
50
E
40
aci 30
u
a 20
10 t 0
0.01
100
90
80
70
d
d 60
a
50
N
m
u 40
3 30
a
20
= 10
0
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross Section 2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—i5 MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014 --Q MY2-04/2015 MY3-04/2016
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross Section 2
Individual Class Percent
p6ti tiy0 ye py ti titi$ a �� e titi ti� �� 3ti ah ba Co "CO
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014 MY1-10/2014 a MY2-04/2015 0 MY3-04/2016
Cross Section 2
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
1.00
Di5 =
17.10
D50 =
20.9
D80. =
90.0
D95 =
214.7
D100 =l
512.0
100
90
80
ae 70
> 60
..
50
E
40
aci 30
u
a 20
10 t 0
0.01
100
90
80
70
d
d 60
a
50
N
m
u 40
3 30
a
20
= 10
0
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross Section 2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—i5 MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014 --Q MY2-04/2015 MY3-04/2016
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross Section 2
Individual Class Percent
p6ti tiy0 ye py ti titi$ a �� e titi ti� �� 3ti ah ba Co "CO
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014 MY1-10/2014 a MY2-04/2015 0 MY3-04/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross Section 4
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
16
16
16
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
16
Fine
0.125
0.250
v
16
Medium
0.25
1 0.50
4
4
20
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
6
26
10
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
p�n, 1tih tih pg ',
p•
ti ti$ 0: ,� % " y6 ,LCA ,1�'L R" pa Cp 1 1 'L 0, p hb 3 p y'L ti� �0 A6
26
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
0 MYI-10/2014 ■ MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016
26
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
26
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
30
Fine
5.6
8.0
30
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
34
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
36
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
40
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
46
Very Coarse
32
45
46
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
56
Small
64
1 90
12
12
68
Small
90
128
18
18
86
Large
128
180
10
10
96
Large
180
256
4
4
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
F 7
j 60
50
E
40
r
y 30
u
a 20
10
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I YiW i�--�i�
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-04/2014 Y1 1012014—0—MY2-04/2015 --O--MY3-04/2016
Cross Section 4
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
13.27
D50 =
51.8
D84 =
123.1
D95 =
174.0
D100 =1
256.0
100
90
80
F 7
j 60
50
E
40
r
y 30
u
a 20
10
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross Section 4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 i I I YiW i�--�i�
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-04/2014 Y1 1012014—0—MY2-04/2015 --O--MY3-04/2016
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross Section 4
100
90
Individual Class Percent
80
70
a
60
a
n 50
m
u 40
30
v
>
20
'v
10
0I'll-
p�n, 1tih tih pg ',
p•
ti ti$ 0: ,� % " y6 ,LCA ,1�'L R" pa Cp 1 1 'L 0, p hb 3 p y'L ti� �0 A6
p. p.
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-04/2014
0 MYI-10/2014 ■ MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross Section 5
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percents a Cumulative
5.60
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8
8
8
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
8
80
Fine
0.125
0.250
Sand
8
Medium
0.25
1 0.50
a
�
M
50
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
10
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
20
10
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
obble
10
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
12
0
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
16
Fine
5.6
8.0
6
6
22
Medium
8.0
11.0
MV1-10/2014 • MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016
22
Medium
11.0
16.0
18
18
40
i 60
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
48
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
60
Very Coarse
32
45
20
20
80
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
88
Small
64
90
2
2
90
Small
90
128
6
6
96
Large
128
180
2
2
98
Large
180
256
98
Small
256
362
40
98
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
98
98
98
Bedrock
2048
>2048
2
2
100
Total
100
100
100
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross Section 5
Cross Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
5.60
D35 =
14.42
D50 =
23.9
D34 =
53.7
D95 =
120.7
D100 =1
>2048
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross Section 5
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
Silt/Clay
c
w
Sand
60
a
�
M
50
90
Gravel
30
20
V7 r
obble
10
80
0
r
a ro
o�ti 1tih tih o`' 1
,Z �• p•
ti ti� o- �� w 11 tie tib 3ti "I e° �o 0, 41 y6 4,111 y yP 4 CO
�, 1 1 'L h 11 .11 b0
70
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014
MV1-10/2014 • MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016
i 60
A
5 50
E
40
w 30
u
a 20
100-6
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-h MVO 04/2014 - MY1-10/2014 t MY2-04/2015 t MY3-04/2016
Norkett Branch Reach 1, Cross Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
w
70
60
a
�
M
50
U
40
30
20
10
0
o�ti 1tih tih o`' 1
,Z �• p•
ti ti� o- �� w 11 tie tib 3ti "I e° �o 0, 41 y6 4,111 y yP 4 CO
�, 1 1 'L h 11 .11 b0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014
MV1-10/2014 • MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
D35 =
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
7
10
17
17
17
256.0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
r
17
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
2
2
19
e rock
Boo
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
1
4
4
23
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
2
3
3
26
�
m
Very Coarse
1.0
1 2.0
1
1
1
27
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
28
E
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
2
2
30
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
3
33
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
1 1
4
4
37
0
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
4
5
5
42
•MYO-04/2014
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
3
5
5
47
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
3
11
11
58
Coarse
22.6
32
3
6
9
9
67
Very Coarse
32
45
5
8
13
13
80
Very Coarse
45
64
7
1 2
9
9
89
Small
64
90
5
5
5
94
Small
90
128
1
2
3
3
97
Large
128
180
1
1
1
98
Large
180
256
2
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
362
512
512
1024
100
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
6.69
D50 =
17.6
D80. =
52.6
D95 =
101.2
D100 =
256.0
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Claya
avel
Individual Class Percent
100
bble
90
r
gp
80
c
e rock
Boo
w
e 70
60
j 60
50
�
m
40
50
v
,3
30
E
a
20
40
10
—
y 30
u
-
0
oti tis by h ti
ti w a o w titi do 0 3ti 0 o° oo tiw �0 56 oti yti ya p.ab
,y0 10 p0
a 20
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-04/2014
MY1-10/2014 MY2-04/2015 ■MY344/2016
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
—0—MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014 ,. MY2-04/2015 —0—MY3-09/2016
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
w
70
60
0
50
�
m
40
v
,3
30
a
20
10
—
1
-
0
oti tis by h ti
ti w a o w titi do 0 3ti 0 o° oo tiw �0 56 oti yti ya p.ab
,y0 10 p0
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO-04/2014
MY1-10/2014 MY2-04/2015 ■MY344/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.71
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
14
14
14
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
14
Fine
0.125
0.250
14
Medium
0.25
1 0.50
14
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
18
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
6
24
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
14
14
38
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
10
10
48
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
8
56
Fine
5.6
8.0
10
10
66
Medium
8.0
11.0
16
16
82
Medium
11.0
16.0
10
10
92
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
100
Coarse
22.6
32
100
Very Coarse
32
45
100
Very Coarse
45
64
100
Small
64
90
100
Small
90
128
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
362
512
512
1024
100
100
::::::::Large/Very
Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
1 100
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80
2" 70
> 60
50
E
40
ami 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO 04/2014 MY1-10/2014 —*-- MY2-04/2015 tMY3-04/2016
100
90
80
c 70
0,
y 60
a
50
N
m
u 40
3 30
v
=a
20
10
0
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Individual Class Percent
op yp tip o� ti ti ti� P h� yti y0 ,ti6 .�'L ph bb �O .y� �O y6 6'L .y'L .tiP b� A6
o, o• o• ti ti ti ti 3 0 do yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014 MY1.10/2014 . MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016
Cross Section 6
Channel materials (mm)
DI6 =
0.71
D35 =
2.61
D50 =
4.4
D, =
11.9
D95 =
18.2
D100 =1
22.6
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80
2" 70
> 60
50
E
40
ami 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO 04/2014 MY1-10/2014 —*-- MY2-04/2015 tMY3-04/2016
100
90
80
c 70
0,
y 60
a
50
N
m
u 40
3 30
v
=a
20
10
0
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Cross Section 6
Individual Class Percent
op yp tip o� ti ti ti� P h� yti y0 ,ti6 .�'L ph bb �O .y� �O y6 6'L .y'L .tiP b� A6
o, o• o• ti ti ti ti 3 0 do yo bo
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014 MY1.10/2014 . MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Cross Section 7
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
0.59
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
14
14
14
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
14
Fine
0.125
0.250
14
Medium
0.25
0.50
14
Coarse
0.5
1.0
8
8
22
Very Coarse
1.0
1 2.0
22
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
24
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
26
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
30
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
32
Medium
8.0
11.0
18
18
50
Medium
11.0
16.0
12
12
62
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
64
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
74
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
86
Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
94
Small
64
90
94
Small
90
128
2
2
96
Large
128
180
96
Large
180
256
2
2
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
100
90
80
ae 70
60
50
E
J 40
w 30
V
m 20
10
0
0.01
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Cross Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80
c 70
w
w 60
a
50
M
m
u 40
30
a_
'v
20
10
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0--MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014 --4 MY2-04/2015 MY3-04/2016
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Cross Section 7
Individual Class Percent
oyti tiy0 ye Oy 1 L tiW d yco 0 y1 ti° tib _1 p1, 6p cO ''b �O hb �ti yti lP p "CO
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-04/2014 MY1-10/2014 1 MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016
Cross Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.59
Di5 =
8.44
DS0 =
11.0
D80. =
42.5
D95 =
107.3
D100 =l
362.0
100
90
80
ae 70
60
50
E
J 40
w 30
V
m 20
10
0
0.01
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Cross Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80
c 70
w
w 60
a
50
M
m
u 40
30
a_
'v
20
10
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0--MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014 --4 MY2-04/2015 MY3-04/2016
Norkett Branch Reach 2, Cross Section 7
Individual Class Percent
oyti tiy0 ye Oy 1 L tiW d yco 0 y1 ti° tib _1 p1, 6p cO ''b �O hb �ti yti lP p "CO
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-04/2014 MY1-10/2014 1 MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UTI, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
D35 =
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8
28
36
36
36
>2048
Very fine
0.062
0.125
36
Fine
0.125
0.250
bble
1
1
1
37
Medium
0.25
0.50
60
37
a ro
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
3
4
4
41
Very Coarse
1.0
1 2.0
60
1
1
1
42
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
4
1
5
5
47
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
E
c
47
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
1
3
3
50
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
4
5
5
55
Medium
8.0
11.0
5
4
9
9
64
a 20
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
3
5
5
69
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
2
2
71
Coarse
22.6
32
4
1
5
5
76
Very Coarse
32
45
5
1
6
6
82
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
7
1 89
Small
64
90
4
1
5
5
94
Small
90
128
2
2
2
96
Large
128
180
2
2
2
98
Large
180
256
98
Small
256
362
1
1
1
99
11111"
::::::::::::::::::............: ...... :::.......
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large 1
362
512
1024
512
1024
1 2048
99
99
99
Bedrock
2048
1 >2048
1
1
1
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
5.6
D84 =
49.8
D95 =
107.3
D100 =
>2048
UTI, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
UT1, Reachwide
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90
SiklClay
ill, sanaavel
80
bble
r
70
gp
60
a
a ro
70
�
m
50
40
60
30
50
v
v
20
E
c
10
u 40
Opti ytih .y5 oy 'ti ti ,yob
o. o. o
D: ��0 0 titi ,yto ,L�o ,�'y �5 ra4' �O .y4 �O hb dv titi ,yo -p 0
ti ti ti ti 3 5 do ,yo No
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-04/2014
y 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014 tMY2-04/2015 --O--MY3-04/2016
UT1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
60
a
�
m
50
40
30
v
v
20
c
10
0 R
Opti ytih .y5 oy 'ti ti ,yob
o. o. o
D: ��0 0 titi ,yto ,L�o ,�'y �5 ra4' �O .y4 �O hb dv titi ,yo -p 0
ti ti ti ti 3 5 do ,yo No
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-04/2014
MYl-10/2014 ■MY2-04/2015 ■MY3-04/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT1, Cross Section 9
Particle Class
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Fine
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
Small
Small
Large
Laree
Medium
Large/Very La
Bedrock
Diameter
min
0.000
0.062
0.125
0.25
0.5
1.0
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.0
16.0
22.6
32
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
mm)
max
Riffle 100 -Count
0.062
D16 =
0.125
D35 =
0.250
2
0.50
D80. =
1.0
D95 =
2.0
2
2.8
90
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.0
16.0
2
22.6
2
32
13
45
11
64
16
90
15
128
20
180
15
256
m
362
4
512
1024
40
2048
>2048
Total
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
aCi 30
a 20
10
0
0.01
UTI, Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-04/2014 'y MY1-10/2014 --*-- MY2-04/2015 MY3-04/2016
Cross Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
28.69
D35 =
49.14
D50 =
68.2
D80. =
134.7
D95 =
174.3
D100 =l
362.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
aCi 30
a 20
10
0
0.01
UTI, Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-04/2014 'y MY1-10/2014 --*-- MY2-04/2015 MY3-04/2016
Summary
Class Percent
centage Cumulative
0
Individual Class Percent
0
2
2
2
2
2
4
90
4
4
4
4
4
2
5
2
7
13
20
11
31
16
47
15
62
20
82
15
96
m
96
4
100
100
40
100
100
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
aCi 30
a 20
10
0
0.01
UTI, Cross Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO-04/2014 'y MY1-10/2014 --*-- MY2-04/2015 MY3-04/2016
UTI, Cross Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
U
d
60
a
N
50
m
u
40
30
v
'v
20
10
0
p6ti 1tih ti� 1P1
p• p• p'
'L ,y0 P h6 W 111 ° tib 3ti Ay 6A p0 401�0 Cyd �6ti y1ti ptiP p�91 ppro
ti 1 'L b
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014
MY1-10/2014 1 MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reach 1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
D35 =
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
27
33
33
33
362.0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
33
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
35
Medium
0.25
0.50
60
3
3
3
38
Coarse
0.5
1.0
�
m
1
1
1
39
u
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
M=
39
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
5
13
20
39
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
2
41
Fine
4.0
5.6
0
2
2
2
43
Fine
5.6
S.0
0MYO-04/2014
2
2
2
45
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
2
2
47
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
1
7
7
54
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
4
4
58
Coarse
22.6
32
6
4
10
10
68
Very Coarse
32
45
6
1
7
7
75
Very Coarse
45
64
5
2
7
7
82
Small
64
90
8
8 1
8
90
Small
90
128
6
6
6
96
Large
128
180
3
3
3
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
1
1 100
Totall
50
1 50 1
100 1
100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.25
D50 =
12.9
D84 =
69.7
D95 =
120.7
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
a^e 70
j 60
50
E
u 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
UT2 Reach 1, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0 , I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-04/2014 MYI-10/2014 --*—MYM4/2015 --0--MYM4/2016
UT2 Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
60
a
�
m
50
u
40
M=
v
30
5
13
20
10
r
0
h ti� °y ti ti ��
o• o• °'
o �� titi tio ti� 3ti �5 �� �° yti0 1�0 Cyd �6ti ytiti °yP °a0 °�0
ti ti ti a
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-04/2014
MY1-10/2014 AMY2-04/2015 ■MY3-04/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reach 1, Cross Section 12
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max.
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
14.12
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
4
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
Very Coarse
1.0
1 2.0
a
N
4
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
6
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
8
30
Fine
4.0
5.6
v
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
8
M
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
12
0
Medium
11.0
1 16.0
6
6
18
Particle Class Size (mm)
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
1 22
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
28
Very Coarse
32
45
18
18
46
Very Coarse
45
64
14
14
60
Small
64
90
20
20
80
Small
90
1 128
12
12
92
Large
128
180
8
8
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1 1024
512
1024
1 2048
1 1
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
1 >2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
j 60
50
E
i? 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01
UT2 Reach 1, Cross Section 12
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-0-MYD-04/2014 MY1-10/2014 -0- MY2-04/2015 MY3-D4/2016
Cross Section 12
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
14.12
D35 =
36.54
D50 =
49.8
D80. =
101.2
D95 =
145.5
D100 =1
180.0
100
90
80
70
j 60
50
E
i? 40
y 30
u
a 20
10
0
0.01
UT2 Reach 1, Cross Section 12
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
-0-MYD-04/2014 MY1-10/2014 -0- MY2-04/2015 MY3-D4/2016
UT2 Reach 1, Cross Section 12
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
60
a
N
50
m
�
40
30
v
M
20
10
0
O' O' O•
,1;v 'o �k CO .y92 %o y6 �'1. 5'L .yo� p 0
'L 'Y 5 'L 3 5 50 ,lo a0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO-04/2014
■MYl-10/2014 MY2-04/2015 ■MY3-04/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reach 2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Di5 =
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
47
53
52
52
180.0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
52
Fine
0.125
0.250
c
52
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
52
Coarse
0.5
1.0
60
52
a
h
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
m
52
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
30
52
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
'o
52
Fine
4.0
5.6
10
52
Fine
5.6
1 8.0
1
1
a h6 w yti tib �ry� 3ti ay oa �o yLb 1�0 �y0 �6ti ytiti gtiG O�
ti ti �Z
52
Medium
8.0
11.0
0MYl-10/2014 MV2-04/2015 ■MY3-04/2016
1
1
1
53
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
55
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
3
58
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
2
60
Very Coarse
32
45
11
1
12
12
72
Very Coarse
45
64
7
1
7 1
7
79
Small
64
90
11
1
12
12
91
Small
90
128
4
1
5
5
96
Large
128
180
4
4
4
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512 1
1024
2048
1100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
1 51
101
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
Di5 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
Silt/Clay
D84 =
73.4
D95 =
118.9
D100 =
180.0
UT2 Reach 2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
v
70
60
a
h
50
m
u
40
30
'o
20
5
10
w
0
o6ti titih otih oy ti ti ti�
oo
a h6 w yti tib �ry� 3ti ay oa �o yLb 1�0 �y0 �6ti ytiti gtiG O�
ti ti �Z
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-04/2014
0MYl-10/2014 MV2-04/2015 ■MY3-04/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reach 2, Cross Section 13
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
D35 =
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
20
20
20
116.9
Very fine
0.062
0.125
20
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
24
Medium
0.25
1 0.50
24
Coarse
0.5
1.0
24
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
24
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
24
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
24
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
25
Fine
5.6
1 8.0
2
2
27
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
29
Medium
11.0
16.0
29
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
35
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
47
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
57
Very Coarse
45
64
20
20
76
Small
64
90
10
10
86
Small
90
128
12
12
98
Large
128
180
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
IIIIIIIILarge/Very
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::........
Small
Medium
Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
Total
100
100
100
100
Cross Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
22.21
D50 =
35.4
DS4 =
83.2
D95 =
116.9
D100 =1
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
aei 30
u
d
IL 20
10
0
0.01
UT2 Reach 2, Cross Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Class Size (mm)
--4— MYO-04/2014 MY1-10/2014 t MY2-04/2015
UT2 Reach 2, Cross Section 13
Individual Class Percent
1000
--*—MY3-04/2016
10000

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reach 2, Cross Section 15
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
11.00
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
14
14
14
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
14
Fine
0.125
0.250
14
70
Medium
0.25
0.50
U
ti
60
14
Coarse
0.5
1.0
14
N
Very Coarse
1.0
1 2.0
m
14
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
14
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
14
Fine
4.0
5.6
14
Fine
5.6
8.0
14
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
16
Medium
11.0
1 16.0
2
2
18
Coarse
16.0
22.6
16
16
34
Coarse
22.6
32
34
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
44
Very Coarse
45
64
16
16
60
Small
64
90
18
18
78
Small
90
1 128
14
14
92
Large
128
180
2
2
94
Large
180
256
4
4
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
1"
IIIIIIILarge/Very
Small
Medium
Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100 1
100
100
100
90
80
ae 70
> 60
..
50
E
40
aci 30
u
a 20
10
UT2 Reach 2, Cross Section 15
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*--MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014 --Q MY2-04/2015 --*-MY3-04/2016
Cross Section 15
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
11.00
Di5 =
33.11
D50 =
51.4
D80. =
104.7
D95 =
196.6
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
ae 70
> 60
..
50
E
40
aci 30
u
a 20
10
UT2 Reach 2, Cross Section 15
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*--MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014 --Q MY2-04/2015 --*-MY3-04/2016
UT2 Reach 2, Cross Section 15
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
U
ti
60
a
50
N
m
u
40
3
30
a
20
10
0
MAX 06 .1 AL
o6ti tiye ye oy ti
o, o, o
titi$ a �� e titi ti� �� 3ti ah ba Co yro �o y� 61
yo ya w
ti ti ti ti 3 h -F? "CO
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO-04/2014
MY1-10/2014 aMY2-04/2015 ■MY3-04/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reach 3A, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
D35 =
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
6
7
7
7
180.0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
7
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
4
11
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
11
Coarse
0.5
1.0
y
60
11
a
N
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
m
11
u
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
3
11
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
12
Fine
4.0
5.6
12
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
2
2
14
I'
Medium
8.0
11.0
14
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
1
S
S
19
Particle Class Size (mm)
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
3
7
7
26
Coarse
22.6
32
4
11
15
15
41
Very Coarse
32
45
8
4
12
12
53
Very Coarse
45
64
12
7
19
19
72
Small
64
1 90
6
1 8
14 1
14
86
Small
90
128
7
2
9
9
95
Large
128
180
3
2
S
S
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
::::::::Large/Very
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::........
Small
Medium
Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
12.78
D35 =
27.84
D50 =
41.3
D84 =
85.7
D95 =
128.0
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
y 30
u
y 20
10
UT2 Reach 3A, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
O,I I I 1 Alli- I -I ITIIIIT T'I 1I IIII1 I I IIIIIII I I I IIIIII I I IIIIIIII
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--G--MYO-04/2014 -0-MYI-10/2014 --*--MY2-04/2015 --S-- Mn -N/2016
UT2 Reach 3A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
a
70
y
60
a
N
50
m
u
40
3
M
30
>
'v
20
10
I'
0
1
p0 pti O• p•�ti,
'LN 0 a <110 11 ,y1 N10 0 ,�'L b5 pA p0 ,yW 00 y0 p'L 1ti ,tiA �0 00
ti ti ti 3 h ,y0 ,ti0 a0
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO-04/2014
MYI-10/2014 •MY2-04/2015 0MY3-04/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reach 3A, Cross Section 18
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
19.02
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
40.8
D80. =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
70
Medium
0.25
0.50
d
60
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
N
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
m
0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
0
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0
Fine
4.0
5.6
0
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
2
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
6
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
10
pbti tiy0 It, pp ti
Coarse
16.0
22.6
12
12
22
MY1-10/2014 a MY2-04/2015 0 MY3-04/2016
Coarse
22.6
32
18
18
40
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
54
Very Coarse
45
64
14
14
68
Small
64
90
14
14
82
Small
90
128
8
8
90
Large
128
180
6
6
96
Large
180
256
4
4
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
Large/Very Large
362
512
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
1 >2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
ae 70
> 60
50
E
40
w 30
u
a 20
10
UT2 Reach 3A, Cross Section 18
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*-- MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014 --Q MY2-04/2015 --*—MY3-04/2016
Cross Section 18
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
19.02
Di5 =
29.05
D50 =
40.8
D80. =
98.3
D95 =
170.1
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
ae 70
> 60
50
E
40
w 30
u
a 20
10
UT2 Reach 3A, Cross Section 18
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*-- MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014 --Q MY2-04/2015 --*—MY3-04/2016
UT2 Reach 3A, Cross Section 18
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
d
70
d
60
a
50
N
m
u
40
3
30
a
20
10
0
pbti tiy0 It, pp ti
-V ti$ a �� e titi 1p �( 3ti 0 ba Co yro �o y� �ti titi ya w Sp
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014
MY1-10/2014 a MY2-04/2015 0 MY3-04/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reach 313, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Di5 =
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
15
36
51
51
51
180.0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
9
9
9
60
Fine
0.125
0.250
c
60
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
60
Coarse
0.5
1.0
60
60
a
h
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
61
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
30
1
1
1
62
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
v
20
62
C
Fine
4.0
5.6
10
0
62
p6ti yti5 ptih Oy 1 'L ,y0
O' O'
Fine
5.6
1 8.0
Particle Class Size (mm)
1
•MYl-10/2014 MY2-04/2015 ■MY3-04/2016
62
Medium
8.0
11.0
5
5
5
67
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
69
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
70
Coarse
22.6
32
3
2
5
5
75
Very Coarse
32
45
3
1
4
4
79
Very Coarse
45
64
4
2
6 1
6
85
Small
64
90
9
9
9
94
Small
90
128
2
2
2
96
Large
128
180
3
1
4
4
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::......
Small
Medium512
Large/Very Large
362
1024
512
1024
2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
Di5 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
Silt/Clay
D84 =
60.4
D95 =
107.3
D100 =
180.0
UT2 Reach 36, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
m
70
60
a
h
50
ao
30
s
v
20
C
10
0
p6ti yti5 ptih Oy 1 'L ,y0
O' O'
b 5� 'b titi tip ��d "�ti "1 01 p0 $ y�0 �y0 46ti ytiti pyd p0 p41
1 ti b1
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO-04/2014
•MYl-10/2014 MY2-04/2015 ■MY3-04/2016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
UT2 Reach 3B, Cross Section 19
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
16
16
16
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
90
16
Fine
0.125
0.250
16
70
Medium
0.25
0.50
u
y
60
16
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
20
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
20
U
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
20
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
20
Fine
4.0
5.6
20
20
Fine
5.6
8.0
20
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
8
28
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
30
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
34
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
42
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
48
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
58
Small
64
90
18
18
76
Small
90
1 128
14
14
90
Large
128
180
10
10
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
IIIIIIILarge/Very
Small
Medium
Large 1
362
512
1024
512
1024
1 2048
100
100
100
Bedrock
2048
1 >2048
1
100
Totall
100
100
100
100
90
80
a° 70
60
3 au
E
40
cD 30
u
m 20
10
UT2 Reach 3B, Cross Section 19
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*-- MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014 MY2-04/2015 --*--MY3-04/2016
Cross Section 19
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
Di5 =
23.60
D50 =
48.3
D80. =
110.1
D95 =
151.8
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
a° 70
60
3 au
E
40
cD 30
u
m 20
10
UT2 Reach 3B, Cross Section 19
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--*-- MYO-04/2014 MYl-10/2014 MY2-04/2015 --*--MY3-04/2016
UT2 Reach 3B, Cross Section 19
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
u
y
60
a
N
50
m
U
40
30
v
'v
20
10
0
pati ytiy by py 1
'L ,tiW a h6 4 y1 y�
'1. tib -V d, 61 pp NV% yip le �6ti yyti ptiP paW p�6
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-04/2014
MY1-10/2014 1MY2-04/2015 ■ MY3-04/2016

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Data

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Monitoring Year
Reach
Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence
Method
UT2 Reach 3a (CG #1 XS18)
6/3/2014
5/30/2014
Stream Gage
9/4/2014 7/21/2014
Stream Gage
10/17/2014 9/16/2014
Wrack Line
MY1
UT1 (CG #2 XS9)
6/3/2014
5/30/2014
Stream Gage
9/4/2014 7/21/2014
Stream Gage
Norkett Branch Reach 2 (CG #3 XS6)
6/3/2014
5/30/2014
Stream Gage
9/4/2014 7/21/2014
Stream Gage
10/17/2014 9/16/2014
Stream Gage
UT2 Reach 3a (CG #1 XS18)
1/4/2015
1/4/2015
Stream Gage
1/12/2015 1/12/2015
Stream Gage
2/26/2015 2/26/2015
Stream Gage
3/5/2015 3/5/2015
Stream Gage
4/19/2015 4/19/2015
Stream Gage
10/3/2015 10/3/2015
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
MY2
Norkett Branch Reach 2 (CG #3 XS6)
1/4/2015
1/4/2015
Stream Gage
1/12/2015 1/12/2015
Stream Gage
2/26/2015 2/26/2015
Stream Gage
3/5/2015 3/5/2015
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
4/19/2015 4/19/2015
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
10/3/2015 10/3/2015
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
UT2 Reach 3a (CG #1 XS18)
2/3/2016
2/3/2016
Stream Gage
2/16/2016 2/16/2016
Stream Gage
2/24/2016 2/24/2016
Stream Gage
3/28/2016 3/28/2016
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
10/8/2016 10/8/2016
Stream Gage
MY3
UT1 (CG #2 XS9)
4/22/2016
Spring 2016
Crest Gage
10/8/2016 10/8/2016
Stream Gage
Norkett Branch Reach 2 (CG #3 XS6)
2/3/2016
2/3/2016
Stream Gage
2/16/2016 2/16/2016
Stream Gage
2/24/2016 2/24/2016
Stream Gage
3/28/2016 3/28/2016
Stream Gage, Crest Gage
10/8/2016 10/8/2016
Stream Gage

Stream Flow Gage Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Norkett Branch: Stream Gage for UT2 Reach 3a (XS18- CG #1)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
2.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
2.0 w
L
K
1.5
1.0
0.5
-4.0 i i 0.0
75 1i ¢ a v01i O z 1.
Rainfall Monroe Airport (KEQY) — UT2 Reach 3a (XS18- CG #1) Water Depth — — Bankfoll

Stream Flow Gage Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Norkett Branch: Stream Gage for UT1 (XS9- CG #2)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
7
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
c
m
7
2.0
`c
1.5
7
1.0
1
0.5
0.0
75
LL 5 ¢ 5 ¢ v� O 0 o
Rainfall Monroe Airport (KEQY) — UTI (XS9- CG #2) Water Depth — Benkfd

Stream Flow Gage Plots
Norkett Branch Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Norkett Branch: Stream Gage for Norkett Branch Reach 2 (XS6- CG #3)
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
2.0 4.0
3.5
1.0
3.0
0.0
2.5
c
v -
-1.0 2.0 m
`c
M
s
3 1.5
LO
1.0
-3.0 -
0.5
4.0 0.0
i 5 ¢ s a u01i O 75 z o
Rainfall Monroe Airport (KEQY) — Norkett Branch Reach 2 (XS6- CG #3) Water Depth — BanMll

APPENDIX 6. Water Quality BMPs

Table 15. Water Quality Sampling Results
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
Monitoring Year
Location
Sample Collection
Date
TN
(mg/L)
NO,
(mg/L)
TKN
(mg/L)
TP
(mg/L)
TSS
(mg/L)
FC
(CFU/100mL)
Conductivity
(µ5/cm)
Temp °C
pH
TN
SPSC BMP Inlet
4/22/2014
(Baseflow)
1.1
0.2
0.9
0.4
16.0
31
151.0
21.4
7.0
SPSC BMP Outlet
0.9 DL 0.9 0.5 25.0 11 127.6 23.5
7.3
PW BMP Inlet
DL DL 0.5 0.2 11.0 68 65.0 25.3
7.4
PW BMP Outlet
DL 0.1 DL 0.3 39.0 110 69.8 26.2
7.0
N/A
SPSC BMP Inlet
5/15/2014
100.0
50.0
50.0
19.0
970.0
20000
1230.0
21.0
6.8
SPSC BMP Outlet
47.0 18.0 29.0 7.0 410.0 20000 1185.0 21.0
6.9
PW BMP Inlet
2.5 0.2 2.3 0.6 15.0 5600 95.5 22.9
6.9
PW BMP Outlet
1.8 0.2 1.6 0.5 150.0 2100 11.3 23.8
6.9
MY1
SPSC BMP Inlet
10/15/2014
5.5
1.3
4.2
5.4
27.0
490
437.0
19.8
7.1
SPSC BMP Outlet
1.8 0.2 1.7 1 0.7 1 1.7 2300 1 333.0 1 21.0
7.1
PW BMP Inlet
NF
PW BMP Outlet
SPSC BMP Inlet
11/26/2014
7.2
6.5
2.8
2.6
2.2
2.0
1.1
1.0
5.0
4.6
1.7
1.7
5.0
4.9
0.6
1.0
30.0
32.0
6.6
6.3
HT
201.1
196.2
57.8
82.0
10.1
10.0
11.2
11.1
7.2
7.2
6.7
6.8
SPSC BMP Outlet
PW BMP Inlet
PW BMP Outlet
SPSC BMP Inlet
3/30/2015
1.2
0.16
1.0
0.3
6.2
120
277.8
10.0
7.1
SPSC BMP Outlet
1.5 0.12 1.3 0.3 DL DL 329.9 10.5
7.2
PW BMP Inlet
DL 0.12 DL 0.3 1 16.0 120 180.0 9.5 1
7.3
PW BMP Outlet
1.2 0.12 1.1 0.2 9.0 64 184.0 11.8
8.1
MY2
SPSC BMP Inlet
10/28/2015
3.8
1.3
2.5
1.2
16.0
150.0
141.9
17.5
6.6
SPSC BMP Outlet
4.5 2.4 2.1 1.0 20.0 140.0 154.8 17.0
6.4
PW BMP Inlet
2.9 1.1 1.8 0.8 48.0 DL 97.7 17.1
4.2
PW BMP Outlet
1.7 DL 1.7 0.3 7.6 DL 92.7 18.7
7.2
MY3
SPSC BMP Inlet
9/3/2016
13.0
8.5
2 3
1.6
5.2
1.01
11.0
3.2
1.3
5.2
2.5
1 0.9 J
140.0
DL
6.7
HT
---
---
---
---
---
SPSC BMP Outlet
PW BMP Inlet
PW BMP Outlet
NF
I N/A I
DL: Parameter was below the detection limit
NF: No flow was available for sample collection/insufficient sample volume
HT: Laboratory analysis was not available due to the short holding time for this parameter
---: Data was not provided
Table 16. Pollutant Removal Rates
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 - 2016
'Positive values indicate a reduction in pollutant concentration from inlet to outlet samples, negative values indicate an increase in concentration
N/A: Metric cannot be calculated
Sample Collection
Percent
Reduction'
Monitoring Year
Location
TN
NO,
TKN
TP
TSS
FC
Date
SPSC BMP
4/22/2014
18%
57%
1%
-29%
-56%
65%
PW BMP
(Baseflow)
N/A
N/A
0%
-74%
-255%
-62%
SPSC BMP
53%
64%
42%
63%
58%
0%
5/15/2014
PW BMP
28%
27%
30%
18%
-900%
63%
MY1
SPSC BMP
10/15/2014
67%
88%
60%
88%
94% 1
-369%
PW BMP
N/A
SPSC BMP
11/26/2014
10%
9%
8%
2%
-7%
N/A
PW BMP
7%
14%
0%
-67%
5%
SPSC BMP
-25%
25%
-30%
-3%
N/A
N/A
3/30/2015
PW BMP
N/A
0%
N/A
24%
44%
47%
MY2
SPSC BMP
10/28/2015
-18%
-85%
16%
17%
-25%
7%
PW BMP
41%
N/A
6%
57%
84%
N/A
SPSC BMP
35%
-225%
71%
52%
N/A
N/A
MY3
9/3/2016
PW BMP
N/A
I N/A I
N/A
I N/A I
N/A
N/A
'Positive values indicate a reduction in pollutant concentration from inlet to outlet samples, negative values indicate an increase in concentration
N/A: Metric cannot be calculated

Water Quality Data
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 -2016
(1001 1471
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
c
m 8
0
z 7
0 6
.... 5
Z
~ 4
3
2
1
0
5/15/2014 10/15/2014 11/26/2014 3/30/2015 10/28/2015 9/3/2016
Q2 MY1 Q4 MY1 Q4 MY1 Q1 MY2 Q4 MY2 Q3 MY3
TN (Total Nitrogen)
8
7
6
1
SPSC BMP Inlet
SPSC BMP Outlet
PW BMP Inlet
v PW BMP Outlet
— — — Detection Limit
2, 1, (NF)
5/15/2014 10/15/2014 11/26/2014 3/30/2015 10/28/2015 9/3/2016
Q2 MY1 Q4 MY1 Q4 MY1 Ql MY2 Q4 MY2 Q3 MY3
TP (Total Phosphorus)
So 70) (410) (150)
45
40
- E 35
30
v
0
25
C
C
a 20
3
N
15
0
n 10
5
n
11dn1
5/15/2014 10/15/2014 11/26/2014 3/30/2015 10/28/2015 9/3/2016
Q2 MYl Q4 MY1 Q4 MY1 Ql MY2 Q4 MY2 Q3 MY3
TSS (Total Suspended Solids)
SPSC BMP Inlet
SPSC BMP Outlet
PW BMP Inlet
PW BMP Outlet
— — — Detection Limit
(DL)
(DL) (NF) DL
DL) NF
5/15/2014 10/15/2014 11/26/2014 3/30/2015 10/28/2015 9/3/2016
Q2 MYl Q4 MY1 Q4 MY1 Ql MY2 Q4 MY2 Q3 MY3
TSS (Total Suspended Solids)

Pollutant Removal Plot
Norkett Branch Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 95360
Monitoring Year 3 -2016
100%
80%
60%
0 40%
u
20%
c 0%
a -20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
-100%
Pollutant Removal Rates
May -15-2014 May -15-2014 Oct -15-2014 Oct -15-2014 Nov -26-2014 Nov -26-2014 Mar -30-2015 Mar -30-2015 Oct -28-2015 Oct -28-2015 Sept -03-2016 Sept -03-2016
SPSC BMP PW BMP SPSC BMP PW BMP SPSC BMP PW BMP SPSC BMP PW BMP SPSC BMP PW BMP SPSC BMP PW BMP
I
1
MAP
00���
r
1
1 ■■■1
1 ■ 71
®
01
1�
1■7
Ir
111
�■
■
I
1
■
�
1
I
(-900%)
TN ■ TP ■ TSS
DL: Parameter was below the detection limit
NF: No flow was available for sample collection/insufficient sample volume
Positive values indicate a reduction in pollutant concentration from inlet to outlet samples, negative values indicate an increase in concentration