20140041 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report 2017_20180202

by�f.d
MONITORING YEAR 2
REPORT
Final
LITTLE PINE III STREAM AND WETLAND
RESTORATION PROJECT
Alleghany County, NC
DEQ Contract 6844
DMS Project Number 94903
DWR # 14-0041
USACE Action ID 2012-01299
Data Collection Period: May - December 2017
Final Submission Date: February 2, 2018
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
wk*
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
February 2, 2018
Mr. Harry Tsomides
Project Manager
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Response to MY2 Draft Report Comments
Little Pine Creek III Mitigation Site
DMS ID 94903
DEQ Contract Number 6844
New River Basin - #CU# 05050001 - Alleghany County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Tsomides:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments
from the Draft Monitoring Year 2 report for the Little Pine Creek III Mitigation Project. The following
Wildlands responses to DMS's report comments are noted in italics lettering.
DMS comment; Stream adaptive management actions are recommended for bank instability on UT2a
and the clogged culvert on UT2. Please indicate that a repair design is underway to address areas of
stream instability along UT2a and UT2, including the formation of head -cuts, lateral stream migration,
and excessive streambank erosion. The reach segments that will be addressed include:
• Reach UT2A: Station 426+50 (downstream end of existing stream crossing) to Station 432+17
(confluence with UT2), for a total of approximately 567 linear feet.
• Reach UT2: Station 332+00 (downstream end of existing stream crossing) to Station 340+00
(upstream end of existing stream crossing), for a total of approximately 800 linear feet.
Wildlands response, Text has been added to the Executive Summary, and Sections 1.2.4 and 1.3 to
indicate that a repair design is underway to address areas of stream instability along UT2a (Bank erosion
near STA's 427+75, 429+75,431+00, and 431+50, headcut near STA 432+00) and UT2 (Bank erosion near
STA's 330+00-332+50 and 333+70, headcut near STA 332+90).
DMS comment; Stream adaptive management actions are recommended for invasive vegetation.
Please indicate that the project vegetation maintenance contract was recently terminated due to a
contract dispute and that vegetation areas of concern will continue to be monitored and addressed as
needed in the future.
Wildlands response, Text has been added to Section 1.2.2 to indicate the status of the vegetation
maintenance contract and that vegetation areas of concern will continue to be monitored and
addressed.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

k rV
WILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R J N G
DMS comment; Wetland Assessment — It is indicated that the gage was installed to monitor the
wetland restoration area (Wetland FF). Wetland FF is a wetland enhancement area.
Wildlands response; This has been corrected in Section 1.2.6 to indicate that Wetland FF is a wetland
enhancement area.
DMS comment; A field visit by DMS staff on 9/27/17 showed that noticeable aggradation had
developed in the UT1-lower section. This included the Enhancement II section from the culvert
crossing flowing through Wetland FF to Station 202+07, and then continuing beyond the installed rock
A -vane at the downgradient end of the wetland for an additional 400 feet along the segment of UT1
that was relocated to tie in with the new Little Pine Creek alignment (see designer record drawing
Sheet 2.9). Please discuss the silted -in reach concern, and possible causes. If adaptive management is
recommended, please discuss the feasibility/ long-term viability of any recommended management
actions so DMS can make informed action decisions.
Wildlands response, Text has been added in Section 1.2.4 to discuss the aggradation that was observed
by DMS in the UT1-lower section. Wildlands agrees that UT 1 is choked with vegetation and losing its
channel form, the channel is still intact and flowing but vegetation is beginning to choke this out as it is
part of a bog -like system. We believe that as woody vegetation (mainly the live stakes) grow up and
shade the vegetation that the channel will remain and prosper. Our team will remove some of the
herbaceous vegetation in the interim and continue to monitor this channel during our monitoring period.
DMS comment; Table 6 — Please indicate LF of assessed reach.
Wildlands response; LF of assessed reach was added to the top line of Tables 6a -g.
DMS comment; If possible please reformat the asset totals to reflect the nearest tenth SMU (6,328.60
to 6,328.6 "R", and 645 to 644.8 "RE").
Wildlands response; In Table 1, these asset totals were reformatted to reflect the nearest tenth SMU.
DMS comment; It would be helpful in future reports to have a wrack line photo or two to accompany
the bankfull events table.
Wildlands response; When possible, Wildlands will include wrack line photo(s) in future reports to
accompany the bankfull event table. The bankfull photos for MY2 can be found in the electronic support
files (LittlePinelll 94903 MY2 2017�Support Files�Visual Assessment Data � Photos �Stream � BKF).
DMS comment; Data tables and graphs on opposing pages are upside down in the hard copy. Please
make sure any printed copy graphs and pages read in the same orientation when printed.
Wildlands response; Hard copies of the Final Monitoring Report will be corrected for this issue.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Four (4) hard copies of the Final Monitoring Report and a full electronic submittal has been mailed to
the DMS western field office. Please contact me at 704-332-7754 x110 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
Project Manager
kgimbert@w ildlandseng.com
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) completed design and construction management for the North
Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) as part of a design -bid -build contract at the Little Pine III
Stream and Wetland Restoration Project (Site). The Site is in Alleghany County approximately eight miles
east of the Town of Sparta, NC and approximately four miles south of the Virginia border. The Site lies
within the New River Basin; eight -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 05050001 and the 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit
Code (HUC) 05050001030030 (Figure 1). Site streams consist of Little Pine Creek, a third order stream,
as well as an unnamed second order tributary to Little Pine Creek (UT2), an unnamed first order
tributary to Little Pine Creek (UT2a), four unnamed zero order tributaries to Little Pine Creek (UT1,
UT2b, UT3, and UT4), and 2.9 acres of wetlands (Figure 2). The project design and construction restored,
enhanced, and preserved a total of 13,112 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream, and
enhanced and preserved 2.9 acres of wetlands. The Site is expected to generate 6,973 stream mitigation
units (SMUs), and 1.40 wetland mitigation units (WMUs) for the New River Basin (Table 1).
The Site is within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) identified in the New River Basin Restoration
Priority (RBRP) plan (NCDENR, 2009). The Site is also located within the Little River & Brush Creek Local
Watershed Plan (LWP). The project goals from the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2014) were established
with careful consideration of RBRP goals and objectives to address stressors identified in the LWP. The
established project goals include:
• Restore unforested buffers;
• Remove livestock from buffers;
• Remove livestock from streams;
• Repair heavily eroded stream banks and improve stream bank stability;
• Reforest steep landscape around streams; and
• Enhance wetland vegetation.
Site construction and as -built survey were completed in 2016 with planting and baseline monitoring
activities occurring between December 2015 and May 2016. The monitoring year (MY) 1 monitoring
activities were completed in October 2016. The monitoring year 2 activities occurred in April through
December 2017.
Overall, the Site is on track to meet the MY5 monitoring success criteria for vegetation, geomorphology,
and hydrology performance standards. However, adaptive management is recommended to address
areas of bank instability on UT2a, a clogged culvert on UT2, and areas of invasive plant populations. A
repair design is underway to address areas of stream instability along UT2a and UT2, including the
formation of head -cuts, lateral stream migration, and excessive streambank erosion. The vegetation
survey resulted in an average of 493 planted stems per acre, which meets the interim MY3 monitoring
requirement of 320 stems per acre with 20 of the 21 plots (95%) individually meeting this requirement.
The vegetation monitoring and visual assessment revealed few vegetation areas of concern. The
observed vegetation areas of concern include areas of invasive plant populations in the upstream
portions of UT2a, UT2, and UT4. Morphological surveys and visual assessment indicate that the channel
dimensions are stable and functioning as designed, except for a isolated areas on UT2, UT2a and Little
Pine Creek Reach 2b. Stream areas of concern identified on UT2 in MY1 were repaired in December
2016 and appear stable. At least one bankfull event occurred during MY2 data collection which was
recorded by crest gages and by visual indicators. The performance standard of two recorded bankfull
events in separate monitoring years has been met for Little Pine Creek and UT2, and partially met for
UT2b. No target performance standard was established for wetland hydrology success; however, the
groundwater gage in Wetland FF recorded 169 consecutive days of the groundwater levels at or within
12 inches of the ground surface, consisting of 100% of the growing season.
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL

LITTLE PINE III STREAM AND WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECT
Monitoring Year 2 Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW.......................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Project
Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
1.2.1
Vegetation Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-3
1.2.3
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-3
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-4
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-4
1.2.6
Wetland Assessment..........................................................................................................1-4
1.3 Monitoring Year 2 Summary......................................................................................................1-5
Section2: METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................2-1
Section3: REFERENCES
...................................................................................................................3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Tables and Figures
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 — 3.2
Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) Maps
Table 6a — g
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10a -b
Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11a -b
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12a -b
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross -Section)
Table 13a -f
Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross -Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5
Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 14
Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15
Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Groundwater Gage Plot
Monthly Rainfall Data
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report — FINAL

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site is a design -bid -build contract with DMS in Alleghany County, NC, located in the New River Basin;
eight -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 05050001 and the 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 05050001030030
(Figure 1). Located in the Blue Ridge Belt of the Blue Ridge Province (USGS, 1998), the project watershed
includes primarily managed herbaceous, mixed upland hardwoods, and other forested land. The
drainage area for the Site is 2,784 acres. Little Pine Creek flows into Brush Creek several hundred feet
downstream of the Site boundary. The land adjacent to the streams and wetlands is primarily
maintained cattle pasture and forest.
The project streams consist of Little Pine Creek, a third order stream, as well as an unnamed second
order tributary to Little Pine Creek (UT2), an unnamed first order tributary to Little Pine Creek (UT2a)
and four unnamed zero order tributaries to Little Pine Creek (UT1, UT2b, UT3, and UT4) (Figure 2).
Mitigation work within the site included restoring and enhancing 9,888 linear feet (LF) and preserving
3,224 LF of perennial stream, enhancing 2.71 acres of wetlands and preserving a 0.19 acres existing
wetland. The Site is expected to provide 6,973 SMUs, and 1.40 WMUs.
The Site is located on portions of parcels owned by Jeffery C. Anders, Eddie and Joye G. Edwards,
Frances R. Huber, and Thomas E. Rector. A conservation easement within these tracts protecting 57.3
acres in perpetuity was purchased by the State of North Carolina and recorded with Alleghany County
Register of Deeds in 2012. The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by DMS in March 2014.
Construction activities were completed in September 2015 by North State Environmental, Inc. Planting
was completed in December 2015 by Bruton Environmental, Inc. Kee Surveying, Inc. completed the as -
built survey in April 2016 and Wildlands completed the baseline monitoring activities in May 2016, and
MY1 activities in October 2016. Repairs were completed in March and December 2016. Appendix 1
includes detailed project activity, history, contact information, and background information. Directions
and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1. Site components are discussed in Table 1 and illustrated
in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, livestock had full access to most of the Site streams and used them as a
water source. The riparian buffers in areas proposed for restoration were primarily herbaceous with a
few sparse trees. Deposition of fine sediment, severe bank erosion, and trampling of banks impacted the
in -stream habitat. Channel widening and incision indicated instability. Table 4 in Appendix 1 and Table
11 in Appendix 4 provide pre -restoration condition details.
The Site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the New River Basin. While many of
these benefits are limited to the Site area, others, such as pollutant removal, reduced sediment loading,
and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have farther -reaching effects. Expected improvements to
water quality and ecological processes are outlined below as secondary goals and objectives. These
project goals were established with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in
the RBRP and to address stressors identified in the LWP.
The project specific goals of the Site address stressors identified in the LWP and include the following:
• Restore unforested buffers;
• Remove livestock from buffers;
• Remove livestock from streams;
• Repair heavily eroded stream banks and improve stream bank stability;
• Reforest steep landscape around streams; and
• Enhance wetland vegetation.
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-1

Secondary goals include the following:
• Remove harmful nutrients from creek flow;
• Reduce pollution of creek by excess sediment;
• Improve in -stream habitat; and
• Improve aesthetics.
The project objectives have been defined as follows:
• Restore 26.3 acres of forested riparian buffer;
• Fence off livestock from 57.32 acres of buffer and 14,736 LF of existing streams;
• Stream bank erosion which contributes sediment load to the creek will be greatly reduced, if not
eliminated, in the project area. Eroding stream banks will be stabilized by increased woody root
mass in banks, reducing channel incision, and by using natural channel design techniques,
grading, and planting to reduce bank angles and bank height;
• Steep, unforested landscape within the conservation easement will be reforested;
• Eight of the nine onsite wetlands will be enhanced with supplemental plantings;
• Flood flows will be filtered through restored floodplain areas, where flood flow will spread
through native vegetation. Vegetation takes up excess nutrients;
• Storm flow containing grit and fine sediment will be filtered through restored floodplain areas,
where flow will spread through native vegetation. The spreading of flood flows will reduce
velocity allowing sediment to settle out;
• In -stream structures will promote aeration of water;
• In -stream structures will be constructed to improve habitat diversity and trap detritus. Wood
structures will be incorporated into the stream as part of the restoration design. Such structures
may include log drops and rock structures that incorporate woody debris; and
• Site aesthetics will be enhanced by planting native plant species, treating invasive species, and
stabilizing eroding and unstable areas throughout the project.
1.2 Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted during MY2 to assess the condition of the project. The stream
restoration success criteria for the Site follows the approved performance standards presented in the
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project Final Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2014).
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). A total of 21
vegetation monitoring plots were established during baseline monitoring within the project easement
areas using a standard 10 by 10 meter plot. Please refer to Figures 3.0-3.2 in Appendix 2 for the
vegetation monitoring locations. The final vegetation success criterion is the survival of 260 planted
stems per acre in the riparian corridor along restored and enhanced reaches at the end of year five of
the monitoring period. The interim measure of vegetation success for the Site is the survival of at least
320 planted stems per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period.
The MY2 vegetation survey was completed in September 2017, resulting in an average planted stem
density of 493 stems per acre. The Site has met the MY3 interim requirement of 320 stems per acre,
with 20 of the 21 plots (95%) individually meeting this requirement. The planted stem mortality was
approximately 6% of the MY1 stem count (522 stems per acre). There is an average of 12 stems per plot
as compared to 13 stems per plot in MY1. Approximately 5% of the remaining planted stems scored a
vigor of 1, indicating that they are unlikely to survive. In addition, approximately 40% of the remaining
planted stems scored a vigor of 2, indicating more than minor damage to leaf material and/or bark
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-2

tissue exists. This low vigor rating is due to damage from suffocation, insects, vines, deer, saturated
soils, or other unknown factors. Please refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and
Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
The MY2 vegetation monitoring and visual assessment revealed some vegetation areas of concern. Small
patches of poor/bare herbaceous cover in the left floodplain of Little Pine Creek Reach 1 and Reach 2a
were identified in MY1. These areas were observed in MY2 and are showing growth in herbaceous
cover. Some vegetation problem areas of invasive plant populations have been identified in MY2
throughout the Site with predominant species including: European barberry (Berberis vulgaris),
Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). Areas of European barberry
and Multiflora rose are becoming prevalent especially in the upper preservation reach of UT2a,
upstream of the Wetland JJ on UT4, and UT2 Reach 1 upper riparian area. The project vegetation
maintenance contract was recently terminated and vegetation areas of concern will continue to be
monitored and addressed as needed by DMS. These vegetation areas of concern are shown in Figure 3
in Appendix 2.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY2 were conducted in May 2017. Overall, results indicate that the channel
dimensions are stable and functioning as designed, with the exception of stream areas of concern
identified section 1.2.4.
In general, the cross-sections on Little Pine Creek, UT2, and UT2b show little to no change in the bankfull
area, maximum depth ratio, or width -to -depth ratio compared to baseline. Surveyed riffle cross-sections
fell within the parameters defined for channels of the appropriate Rosgen stream type (Rosgen, 1996).
While cross-section 10 on UT2b and cross-sections 15 and 16 on UT2 vary significantly from baseline
conditions, their dimensions remain stable in MY2. In MY1, pool cross-section 10 deepened resulting in a
max depth and cross-sectional area roughly double that recorded at baseline. This is not considered
detrimental to either the stability of the channel or project goals. Cross-section 10 dimensions showed
little change between MY1 and MY2, indicating that the deepening displayed in MY1 has stabilized. In
MY1, Pool cross-section 15 filled in partially with sediment resulting in a decreased depth and cross-
sectional area. The sediment deposition within the pool was temporary and the bankfull depth has
increased in MY2. Between MYO and MY1, the channel thalweg shifted laterally due to channel erosion
within the vicinity of riffle cross-section 16. In December 2016, repairs to the Site included bank repairs
and installing new riffle materials at riffle cross-section 16. The channel appears to be stable and in good
condition with cross-section 16 dimensions similar to the baseline.
The surveyed longitudinal profile data for the project streams illustrates that bedform features are
maintaining lateral and vertical stability between MY1 and MY2, except for isolated areas on UT2
discussed below. The longitudinal profile parameters on Little Pine Creek, UT2, and UT2b showed little
change from baseline in slope (riffle, water surface, bankfull) with minor differences in pool -to -pool
spacing and pool length. Max pool depths increased in most reaches due to scour from log structures,
which enhances aquatic habitat. The overall pattern of all project streams remained the same compared
to the baseline data. Several instances of structure piping and sediment deposition were noted during
the MY2 survey and are discussed in Section 1.2.4.
In general, substrate counts in the restoration reaches indicated maintenance of coarser materials in the
riffle reaches and finer particles in the pools. The particle size distributions for MY2 resemble the as -
built data in coarseness and distribution. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment table,
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-3

Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) maps, and reference photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the
morphological summary data and plots.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
Stream areas of concern included instances of structure piping, bank scour, sediment deposition, and
clogged culverts. On Little Pine Creek Reach 1, a wedge of sediment has deposited forming a mid -
channel bar at the upstream start of the project. At the riffle located at cross-section 1 (STA 104+00),
sediment deposition was observed with some vegetation in the stream. Downstream of the confluence
with UT1, Little Pine Creek Reach 2a has one small section of erosion on the right bank (STA 121+50) and
flow piping under a log structure (STA 123+00). Little Pine Creek Reach 2b has instances of structure
piping, located at STA 124+00 and 124+50.
During a field visit on 9/27/17, DMS observed areas of sediment aggradation on UTI downstream of the
culvert crossing through Wetland FF to STA 202+07 and beyond the installed rock A -vane (approximately
400 LF). In future years as woody vegetation becomes more established and shades out the herbaceous
cover, the baseflow is expected to become stronger and transport the accumulated fine sediment in the
reach. Currently a defined baseflow channel is still present and this area will continue to be monitored
for additional sediment aggradation in future years.
UT2 Reach 1 Upper had 3 instances of structures piping (STA 303+16, 309+14, and 309+96) resulting in
the degradation of one riffle at STA 303+20. UT2 Reach 1 Lower has an area of sediment deposition (STA
325+80 to 326+50), located directly upstream of a crossing where the culvert inlet has been clogged
with debris and sediment. On UT2 Reach 2, the bank erosion from 333+75 to 334+00 was repaired in
December 2016 and appears stable. In MY1, UT2 Reach 2 had one instance of streambed erosion from
STA 338+50-339+30 resulting in riffle degradation, shifting of thalweg position, floodplain scour, and
sediment deposition. This area was also repaired in December 2016 and the channel appears stable.
UT2a has instances of localized bank erosion (STA 427+80, 431+00) along the right outer bends of the
channel. Just upstream of the confluence with UT2, UT2a is exhibiting an area of high instability with
vertical eroding right bank at the channel bend (STA 431+50). The sections of eroding banks on UT2a
and UT2 are in enhancement I and enhancement II reaches, in areas where no bank work was
performed. Adaptive management is recommended in MY3 for sections of eroding banks on UT2a.
These stream areas of concern are indicated in Table 6 and on Figure 3 in Appendix 2.
DMS has a repair design underway to address areas of stream instability along UT2a and UT2, including
the formation of head -cuts, lateral stream migration, and excessive streambank erosion.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
At least one bankfull event occurred on Little Pine and UT2 reaches during the MY2 data collection,
which was recorded by crest gages and by visual indicators. No bankfull indicators were observed for
UT2b in MY2. Two bankfull flow events occurring in separate years must be documented on the
restoration reaches within the five year monitoring period. Therefore, the performance standard has
been met in MY2 for Little Pine and UT2. One additional bankfull event verification is required for UT2b
to meet the performance standard. Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic data and graphs.
1.2.6 Wetland Assessment
One groundwater monitoring gage (GWG 1) was established during the baseline monitoring within the
Wetland FF area using logging hydrology pressure transducers. The gage was installed at an appropriate
location so that the data collected will provide an indication of groundwater levels throughout the
wetland enhancement area. No target performance standard for wetland hydrology success was
established within the Mitigation Plan (2014). Wetland hydrology attainment typically consists of
recorded groundwater levels within 12 inches of the ground surface for a consecutive period consisting
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-4

of a pre -defined percentage of the growing season. Under typical precipitation conditions, Alleghany
County's growing season extends 169 days from April 26th to October 11th. No onsite rainfall data is
available; however, daily precipitation data was collected from closest NC CRONOS Station, Glade Valley
3.0 ENE. GWG 1 recorded 169 consecutive days of the groundwater levels at or within 12 inches of the
ground surface, consisting of 100% of the growing season. The climate data from nearby NC CRONOS
station suggests that the Site received more than typical amounts of rain in 2017. The monthly rainfall in
April, May, and October exceeded the 70th percentile for the area (USDA, 2017). Please refer to
Appendix 2 for the groundwater gage location and Appendix 5 for groundwater hydrology data and
plots.
1.3 Monitoring Year 2 Summary
Overall, the Site is on track to meet the MY5 monitoring success criteria for vegetation, geomorphology,
and hydrology performance standards. However, adaptive management is recommended to address
areas of bank instability on UT2a, a clogged culvert on UT2, and areas of invasive plant populations. DMS
has a repair design underway to address areas of stream instability along UT2a and UT2, including the
formation of head -cuts, lateral stream migration, and excessive streambank erosion. The vegetation
survey resulted in an average of 493 planted stems per acre, which meets the interim MY3 monitoring
requirement of 320 stems per acre with 20 of the 21 plots (95%) individually meeting this requirement.
The vegetation monitoring and visual assessment revealed few vegetation areas of concern. The
observed vegetation areas of concern include areas of invasive plant populations in the upstream
portions of UT2a, UT2, and UT4. Morphological surveys and visual assessment indicate that the channel
dimensions are stable and functioning as designed, except for a isolated areas on UT2, UT2a and Little
Pine Creek Reach 2b. Stream areas of concern identified on UT2 in MY1 were repaired in December
2016 and appear stable. At least one bankfull event occurred during MY2 data collection which was
recorded by crest gages and by visual indicators. The performance standard of two recorded bankfull
events in separate monitoring years has been met for Little Pine Creek and UT2, and partially met for
UT2b. No target performance standard was established for wetland hydrology success; however, the
groundwater gage in Wetland FF recorded 169 consecutive days of the groundwater levels at or within
12 inches of the ground surface, consisting of 100% of the growing season.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these annual monitoring reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan
documents available on DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices
are available from DMS upon request.
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-5

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data was collected following 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. All Current Condition Plan View mapping was recorded using a
Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using was Pathfinder and ArcView. Crest
gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross-sections and monitored annually. Hydrology attainment
installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the standards published in the United
States Army Corps of Engineers Stream Mitigation Guidelines (2003). Vegetation monitoring protocols
followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-NCEEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
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, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. 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, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas 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-
2.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Surface Water Classifications. Retrieved
from http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-
standards/classifications
NCDENR. 2009. New River Basin Restoration Priorities. Retrieved from
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-
documents/new-river-basin
NCDENR. 2007. Little River & Brush Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP) Project Atlas. Retrieved from
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-
documents/new-river-basin
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1998. North Carolina Geology.
https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/north-carolina-geological-
survey/
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2014. Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project Final Mitigation
Plan. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 2016. Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project As -Built Baseline
Monitoring Report. NCDEQ-DMS, Raleigh, NC.
Little Pine Creek III Stream and Wetland Restoration Project
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Tables and Figures

eaoh o�torq c
0
lP
V I (1 G I N I Av} `c,
NORTH .AR LINA
05050001030015 �� `i. - y
5050001 d��Q4Ur
������.�.►� �� `� `' work
rAr� '4 c�ee F. nice',
03040101
eek e
ti 05050001030020 `ce �� F
r
''-• ♦ �ttleQ
♦ /
�Jd�•� �eeir ¢o ff
i 05050001030030 ♦ / ��
,o
Ir, re Glade \4wi
f
i
03040101080010
Cte
304
J
WILDLANDS 0 0.5 1 Mile
ENGINEERING rkiA - I i i i i
Alleghany County, NC

... Conservation Easement
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Stream Preservation
Non -Project Streams
0 Wetland Enhancement
® Wetland Preservation
Reach Break
Overhead Electric Easement
Internal Easement Crossing
1
7111-
O Waterers
• Well
— Water Line '*
4
� •' r > Y:r tom` r � +1 !� �'
'fin • =�,]7y
1 "0"
1
:�' �sR.. w -le � e�'� ♦ `�s � SII 1 -
� tyY � � ♦ 1
r y a
fi aa
Zip
F4�a�' A max`
- •. xr 1 .y �S i�v»� � f �r �'m' f,,.pit` :Y 1, �- � �-"�""'�' �s''t` �t"��
a �'�r►;+s'�-A�,rri _ aPrr
.I��� x�aka n ;�J"h+rR�e#g°'#✓rsu'�^.I�s"�] . "�rr�.' f •�n'r� fi�Nt�i
V
�-
�#s .
F
�vn a Mt• n � J
2015 Aerial Photography
i, ♦etfM �1F fir.. t..x '��" �.
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
WLittle Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
W I L D L A N D S , I I I 700 Feet DMS Project No. 94903
I NGINEERING
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Alleghany County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
'Restoration footage based off of the surveyed as -built thalweg alignment is greaterthan design centerline alignment, resulting in credited length greater than that reported in the Mitigation Plan.
'Unique ratio for UT2 was discussed in field with IRT members and recorded 8/15/2012 in meeting notes.
' Length not included in component summation since no credit is sought
Component Summation
Mitigation Credits
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Buffer (square feet) Upland
(acres) Wetland (acres)
Restoration
3221
Enhancement)
4474
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Phosphorous Nutrient
Offset
Type R RE R
RE R RE
Totals J116,328.6 644.8 N/A
1.40 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Project Components m1f
Reach ID
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Approach
Restoration (R) or Restoration
Equivalent (RE)
As -Built Stationing/
Location
As -Built
Footage/
Acreage
Restoration
Footage/
Acreage'
Mitigation Ratio'
Credits'
(SMU/WMU)
a
Notes
STREAMS
Little Pine Reach 1
P1/P2
Restoration (R)
100+00 to 114+44
1,444
1,417
1:1
1,417.0
Excludes one 27 foot wide ford crossing.
Little Pine Reach 2a
PS
Restoration (R)
114+44 to 125+27
1,083
1,058
1:1
1,058.0
Excludes one 25 foot wide ford crossing.
P1/P2
Restoration (R)
125+27 to 130+20
493
493
1:1
493.0
Little Pine Reach 26
4,016
Planting, fencing
Enhancement II (R)
130+20 to 135+60
540
509
2.5:1
197.0
Excludes one 31 foot wide ford crossing,
Includes 50% reduction for 33 ft overhead
electric easement crossing.
UTS
540
Planting, fencing
Enhancement II (R)
197+26 to 202+24
498
463
2.5:1
185.2
Excludes one 35 foot wide culvert crossing.
Planting, fencing, channel creation
Enhancement II (R)
202+24 to 206+26
402
402
2.5:1
160.8
UT2 Reach 1
5,270
PS/P2/P4, preservation
Enhancement I (R)
297+18-343+18
4,600
4,474
2:1
2,237.0
Excludes four constructed culvert crossings; 32,
24, 32, and 38 feet wide respectively.
UT2 Reach 2
Planting, fencing
Enhancement II (R)a
401+78 to 403+34 &
403+75 to 404+34
215'
215'
n/a
n/a
Easement Break 403+34 -403+75
UT2a
2,921
Preservation
Preservation (RE)
405+15 to 426+58
2,143
2,143
5:1
428.6
Planting, fencing
Enhancement II (R)
426+58 to 432+09
551
519
2.5:1
207.6
Excludes one 32 foot wide constructed culvert
crossing.
Planting, fencing
Enhancement II (R)
500+00 to 503+00
300
300
2.5:1
120.0
UT2b
553
P2
Restoration (R)
503+00 to 505+53
253
253
1:1
253.0
UT3
400
Preservation
Preservation (RE)
602+44 to 606+44
400
384
5:1
76.8
Excludes one 16 foot wide constructed ford
crossing.
UT4
1,036
Preservation
Preservation (RE)
701+26 to 708+23
697
697
5:1
139.4
WETLANDS
Wetland AA
0.38
Planting, fencing
Enhancement (RE)
UT2 floodplain
0.38
2:1
0.19
Wetland BB
0.16
Planting, fencing
Enhancement (RE)
UT2 floodplain
0.16
2:1
0.08
Wetland CC
0.26
Grade control, planting, fencing
Enhancement (RE)
UT2b headwaters
0.26
2:1
0.13
Wetland DD
0.12
Planting, fencing
Enhancement (RE)
North of UT2/UT2a
0.12
2:1
0.06
Wetland EE
0.28
Planting fencing
Enhancement (RE)
UT2 floodplain
0.28
2:1
0.140
Wetland FF
0.76
Outlet stabilization, planting, fencing
Enhancement (RE)
North of UT1/Little Pine
0.76
2:1
0.38
Wetland GG
1 0.33
1 Planting fencing
Enhancement (RE)
Little Pine 1
0.33
2:1
0.17
Wetland HH
0.42
Planting, grade control
Enhancement (RE)
South of UT4/ Little
Pine
0.42
2:1
0.21
Wetla ndA
0.19
Preservation
Preservation (RE)
UT4 floodplain
0.19
5:1
0.04
'Restoration footage based off of the surveyed as -built thalweg alignment is greaterthan design centerline alignment, resulting in credited length greater than that reported in the Mitigation Plan.
'Unique ratio for UT2 was discussed in field with IRT members and recorded 8/15/2012 in meeting notes.
' Length not included in component summation since no credit is sought
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream (LF)
Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Buffer (square feet) Upland
(acres) Wetland (acres)
Restoration
3221
Enhancement)
4474
Enhancement II
2193
'
Enhancement ..
-. .. ..
.. _ 2.71 .. .. _ .. .. .. _ .. - .. ..
Preservation
3224
0.19
'Restoration footage based off of the surveyed as -built thalweg alignment is greaterthan design centerline alignment, resulting in credited length greater than that reported in the Mitigation Plan.
'Unique ratio for UT2 was discussed in field with IRT members and recorded 8/15/2012 in meeting notes.
' Length not included in component summation since no credit is sought

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Activity or Report
Data
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Delivery
Mitigation Plan
1430 South Mint Street, Ste 104
March 2013
March 2014
Final Design - Construction Plans
N/A
September 2014
Construction
N/A
September 2015
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area'
2889 Lowery Street
N/A
July - September 2015
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments'
N/A
July - September 2015
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
N/A
December 2015
Repair Work
Fremont, NC 27830
N/A
March 2016 / December 2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Vegetaion Survey
May 2016
July 2016
Stream Survey April 2016
Year 1 Monitoring
Vegetaion Survey
October 2016
December 2016
Stream Survey October 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
Vegetaion Survey
September 2017
December 2017
Stream Survey May 2017
Year 3 Monitoring
Vegetaion Survey
2018
December 2018
Stream Survey 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Vegetaion Survey
2019
December 2019
Stream Survey 2019
Year 5 MonitoringDecember
Vegetaion Survey
2020
2020
Stream Survey 2020
'Seed and mulch was added as each section of construction was completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
1430 South Mint Street, Ste 104
Aaron Early, PE, CFM
Charlotte, NC 28205
704.332.7754
North State Environmental, Inc.
Construction Contractor
2889 Lowery Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
North State Environmental, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
2889 Lowery Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Live Stakes
Foggy Mountain Nursery
Plugs
Mellow Marsh Farms
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Kirsten Gimbert
Monitoring, POC
704.332.7754, ext. 110

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Project IN
= Project information
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration
County
Alleghany County
Project Area (acres)
157.32
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36" 30' 29.16" N, 81.0' 6.12"W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Blue Ridge Belt of the Blue Ridge Province
River Basin
New
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
05050001
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
05050001030030
DWR Sub -basin
05-07-03
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
2,784
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<1%
Managed Herbaceous (74%), Mixed Upland Hardwoods (201 Mixed
CGIA Land Use Classification
Hardwoods/Conifers (5%), Southern Yellow Pine (<3%), Mountain Conifers (<1%)
Summary
Parameters
Reach Information
LP Reach 1 LP Reach 2a LP2 Reach b UTI UT2 Reach 1 UT2 Reach 2 UT2 Reach 3
UT2a UT2b
UT3 UT4
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
1,444 1,083 1,033 900 4,600
2,909 553
400 697
Drainage Area (acres)
2,496 2,752 2,784 28 75 1 185 196
89 19
23 33
NCDWR Stream Identification Score - Pre -Restoration
45.5 45.5 45.5 22.25 36 36 41.5
42 28/37.5
38.5 31.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C, Tr
Morphological Desription (stream type) - Pre -Restoration
C4 C/E4 C4 N/A A4E46 E4
C4b F4b
N/A N/A
Evolutions Trend (Simon's Model) - Pre -Restoration
IV/V III/IV IV/V N/A' N/A° WA-4N/A°
V N/A'
N/A' IN /A2
Underlying Mapped Soils
Alluvial land, wet (Nikwasi); Ashe stony fine sandy loam (25-45% slopes); Chester loam (10-25% slopes); Chester clay loam (25-45% slopes), eroded
(Evard); Codorus complex (Arkaqua); Tate loam (6-10% slopes); Watauga loam (6-45% slopes).
Drainage Class
Well -drained
Soil Hydric Status
A/D (Nikwasi); B (Ashe stony fine sandy loam, Chester loam, Tate loam, Watauga loam); B/D (Codorus complex);
Slope - Pre -Restoration
0.0043 0.0059 0.0087 1 N/A21 0.047 1 0.036 1 0.028
1 0.044 1 0.064
N/A2I IN /A2
FEMA Classification
AE
Native Vegetation Community
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest, Rich Cove
Percent Composition Exotic Invasive Vegetation -Post-Restoration
0%
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
USAGE Nationwide Permit
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
No.27 and DWQ 401
Water Quality Certification
Waters of the United States -Section 401
Yes
Yes
No. 3885. Action IDtl14-
0041
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
N/A
N/A
N/A
LPIII Categorical Exclusion
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
(CE) Approved 7/6/2012
No historic resources were
found to be impacted
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
(letter from SHPO dated
5/3/2012)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area
No
N/A
N/A
Management Act (LAMA)
No impact application was
LPIII Final Mitigation Plan
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes a
prepared for local review.
(3/4/2014) and LPIII CE
No post -project activities
Approved 7/6/2012
required.
LPIII Final Mitigation Plan
Essential Fisheries Habitat
Yes
Yes
(3/4/2014) and LPIII CE
Approved 7/6/2012
1: Length includes internal easment crossings.
2: Unit is enhancement II only, and UT3 and UT4 are preservation only. Geomorphic surveys were not performed for these streams in existing conditions.
3: The downstream LF of Little Pine Creek near Big Oak Road is within
a FEMA Zone AE floodplain on Firm panel 4010. The Zone AE floodplain is due to the backwater of Brush Creek; Little Pine Creek is not a FEMA studied stream.
4: Streams do not ft into Simon Evolutionary Sequence.
t

Table 5. Monitoring Component Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
'A deviation from the vegetation plot quantity indicated in the Mitigation Plan is due to a smaller than expected planted area.
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Little Pine Reach 1
Little Pine Reach
2a
Little Pine Reach
2b
UT1
UT2 UT2a
UT2b
UT3
UT4
Wetlands
Frequency
Riffle Cross Section
2
2
2
N/A
4 N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Annual
Pool Cross Section
1
1
1
N/A
3 N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
Y
N/A
Y N/A
Y
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Substrate
Reach Wide (RW) / Riffle
(RF) 100 Pebble Count
RW -1, RF -1
RW -1, RF -1
RW -1, RF -1
N/A
RW -1, RF -3 N/A
RW -1, RF -1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stream Hydrology
Crest Gage
1
NL
1 N/A
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Annual
Wetland Hydrology
Groundwater Gages
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
Annual
Vegetation'
CVS Level 2
21
Annual
Visual Assessment
All Streams
y
Y
Y
Y
Y
y
y
y
y
Y
Annual
Exotic and nuisance
vegetation
..
.. _
..
..
_
.. ..
.. .. ..
.. ..
_
..
Project Boundary
Reference Photos
Photographs
42
Annual
'A deviation from the vegetation plot quantity indicated in the Mitigation Plan is due to a smaller than expected planted area.

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map (Key)
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
W I L D L A N D S, 0 200 400 Feet Monitoring Year 2- 2017
ENGINEERING
I I I I I
Alleghany County, NC

Multiflora rose
ff" •"fir i
I ..
i5t i
r _ r�W."r` Barberry, Chinese privet
�.�� _ f
t�+ Structure piping STA 303 16 �; I
�, s• tib. " �3 ��., ��«v�`����®��'� / I�r� �i
`*# «� d -„ r;= r Multiflora rose and ;
barberry resprouts • i
Vv
41,
:•}'day { � 'v I'` " .� r a: -.y � .,_, ' I
Structure piping STA 309+14
Yi(x
Structure piping STA 309+96
r� �� +•;
Several large -
" d
�;. � :•,� � -�� ♦ fallen trees in
f N •Y.
easement �•
kl� I
Barberry
i .. r
i
Multiflora rose 4�
ti r a
1'. Culvert partially
�! and barberry'
`t filled with sediment
1 xrr ,•. .
�•y; ! '- Conservation Easement
1 : Internal Easement Crossing
Sediment deposition 0 Waterers
STA 325+80 - 326+50 .. • Well:
.- Water Lines
Clogged culvert
21 inlet with debris Stream Restoration
i and sediment — Stream Enhancement I
_ 1 Bank trosion i / r - ' �.� Stream Enhancement II
i STA 427+80 and! -''
- .x s j •- � _ Stream Preservation k
i
431+00
Non -Project Streams
_ -'
® Wetland Enhancement
/ Undercut Bank / .• -' r r ` ® Wetland Preservation
! STA 429+60 i 2 Reach Break
y i �.
- - - - Bankfull
Crest Gage (CG)
•?�'► �'� I �iit "'
Groundwater Gage (GWG)
' , ` i ► Photo Point
►Multiflor rose '" Cross-section (XS)
Sediment deposition..
i STA 505+30 some regprouts Vegetation Monitoring Plot MY2
Bank erosion Meets Success Criteria
! STA 330+00 and 332+50 , y - Doesn't Meet Success Criteria
i j h Stream Areas of Concern - MY2
Bank mass wasting
� �; � Bank instability
STA 431+50
.iz Sediment deposition
Ir
iI ► Bank Erosion ,` '• . "" �s:" K i.
Structure piping
Ir
STA 333+70 . 'fs"s�A,.•
Headcuts
/ Scour Hole
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY2
i ❑ i STA 334+50`
15.- { rT. 1•F Bare Poor Herbaceous Cover
Multiflora rose few resp 0.ol�ts �� 6`l� Invasive Plant Population
Bank Erosion
iSTA 335+50 / • ••
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map (Sheet 1 of 2)
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
W I L D L A N D S , 0 100 200 Feet Monitoring Year 2- 2017
ENGINEERING I I I I I
Alleghany County, NC

Conservation Easement
Overhead Electric Easement
Internal Easement Crossing
O Waterers
• Well
Water Lines
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
Non -Project Streams
® Wetland Enhancement
® Wetland Preservation
Reach Break
- - - - Bankfull
� Barotroll
Crest Gage (CG)
Groundwater Gage (GWG)
♦ Photo Point
Cross -Section (XS)
Vegetation Monitoring Plot - MY2
Meets Success Criteria
- Doesn't Meet Success Criteria
Stream Areas of Concern - MY2
Bank instability
Sediment deposition
Structure piping
O Headcuts
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY2
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
Invasive Plant Population
PIP
Multiflora rose
few resprouts
Bank erosion _r Sediment deposition Multiflora rose
STA 431 +00 i % STA 505+30
i some resprouts
y 0o14 Bank erosion
Bank mass wasting % i STA 330+00 and 332+50
STA 431+50 ! i
i Bank erosion / scour hole ,
1 r 1 Bank Erosion
STA 334+50 STA 333+70 'xr
Bank Erosion01
STA 199+00 i -, �p
O ' 1 Bank scour i 16 ! f' r0Z'i ."
i STA 335+50 ! O15; O Multiflora rose`y.r
1 ! t '"�'="p; ,� _ �;" " -+► f _ MIS
few respr.C)ts
,l.1
Sediment deposition i i� �� z.."r"'Y�r°,�
STA 199+70
1y • - at
El.,
17JWr
1 1g �ser
i q ,• , sF *tea ';, .1? 7�n'yV .- - ,MIR 7
Structure piping1 _0 ♦,i ,�
C.
STA 123+00 1 6 ' _ _ _ _ - r' t r . y`.
Structure piping i
STA 124+00 � 1 _ �ffi v , �� � w �,�� ,, •.~-� � ,�" '�,
Structure piping
STA 124+50
10 _
kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
ry
10 edimer> position
M
1 0 " STA,104+00
i ♦'♦,♦ O 2
01
Sediment deposition
STA 100+00
Trash on stream bank. -.
STA 117+00 - 1
i
Bank scour 0
�! STA 108+00
Bank erosion ` ♦ i
STA 121+50 Multiflora rose `♦' i
Debris in easement
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View Map (Sheet 2 of 2)
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
0 100 200 Feet Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
1 1 1 I 1
Alleghany County, NC

Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
LILLIe rine Keacn 1 (31 A lvv+vv - 114+441 1,444 Lr assessea
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
n/a
n/a
2
50
97%
and erosion
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 10
10 100%
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
7
7
100%
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
1. Bed
Condition
7
n/a
n/a
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
Length Appropriate 7
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
9
9
9
100%
100%
providing habitat
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at downstream of 9
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
1
15
99%
n/a
n/a
n/a
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%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
1
15
99%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
3
3
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
3
3
100%
Structures)
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
3
3
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
`Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
3
3
100%
baseflow.
1F,,1i­r,n,trnrtarl rifflac
cin—thaw arm oval. iatnri in
cnrtinn 1

Table 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
LITTie rine Iteacn La t114+44-1L7+L/J 1,1081 Li- assessea
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
n/a
1. Vertical Stability
Aegradation
and erosion
0
0
100%
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 7
7
100%
3. Meander Pool
100%
Depth Sufficient 6
6
2. Undercut
1. Bed
Condition
6
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Length Appropriate 6
100%
modest, appear sustainable and are
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
7
7
7
4. Thalweg Position
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of 7
100%
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
1
25
99%
n/a
n/a
n/a
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%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
1
25
99%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
5
5
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
4
5
80%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
P g
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
4
5
80%
Structures'
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
5
5
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
`Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
5
5
100%
baseflow.
�FrrLirlec--trnrt 1riffle,
in,. they arc-1—tcri in,crti-1

Table 6c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
utile rine lteacn LD t1Ln.+L1-131J+(UJ 473 Lr assessea
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
n/a
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
and erosion
0
0
100%
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 4 4
100%
3. Meander Pool
100%
Depth Sufficient 4 4
1. Bed
Condition
Length Appropriate
4
4
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
100%
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
Thalweg centering at downstream of
4
4
4
4
4. Thalweg Position
100%
100%
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
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%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
3
5
60%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
3
5
60%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
3
5
60%
Structures)
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
5
5
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
`Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
5
5
100%
baseflow.
�FrrLirlec--trnrt 1riffle,
in,. they arc-1—tcri in,crti-1

Table 6d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
U I Z rteacn i upper in. IA LW+ia - SIU+. -)U) 1,55L Ur assessea
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
n/a
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
and erosion
0
0
100%
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
9
10
90%
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
3. Meander Pool
n/a
1. Bed
Condition
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
Length Appropriate n/a
n/a
4. Thalweg Position
n/a
Thalweg centering at upstream of n/a
meander bend (Run)
n/a
n/a
Thalweg centering at downstream of
n/a
n/a
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
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%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
F. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
21
21
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
17
21
81%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
17
21
81%
Structures)
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
21
21
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
`Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
21
21
100%
baseflow.
�FrrLirlec--trnrt 1riffle,
in,. they arc-1—tcri in,crti-1

Table 6e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
U I L tteacn 1 Lower ib I A 3Lb+b/ - 66U+UU) 433 Lr assessea
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
n/a
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
and erosion
1
80
82%
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
9
12
75%
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
3. Meander Pool
n/a
1. Bed
Condition
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
Length Appropriate n/a
n/a
4. Thalweg Position
n/a
Thalweg centering at upstream of n/a
meander bend (Run)
n/a
n/a
Thalweg centering at downstream of
n/a
n/a
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
1
10
99%
n/a
n/a
n/a
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%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
1
10
99%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
15
20
75%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
15
20
75%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
15
20
75%
Structures)
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
15
20
75%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
`Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
15
20
75%
baseflow.
�FrrLirlec--trnrt 1riffle,
in,. they arc-1—tcri in,crti-1

Table 6f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
U I L tteacn L (b I A 33U+UU - 343+15f 1,315 LY assessea
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
n/a
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
and erosion
0
0
100%
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate 14
15
93%
3. Meander Pool
80%
Depth Sufficient 4
5
2. Undercut
1. Bed
Condition
5
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Length Appropriate 4
80%
modest, appear sustainable and are
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend (Run)
5
5
5
4. Thalweg Position
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of 5
100%
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
3
50
98%
n/a
n/a
n/a
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%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
3
50
98%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
19
19
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
18
19
95%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
19
19
100%
Structures)
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
19
19
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
`Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
18
19
95%
baseflow.
�FrrLirlec--trnrt 1riffle,
in,. they arc-1—tcrf in,crti-1

Table 6g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
U I LD (b I A bUS+UU - 7Ut.+73J L73 Lr assessea
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
n/a
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
and erosion
1
20
92%
100%
(Riffle and Run units)
Degradation 0 0
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
7
9
78%
Depth Sufficient
n/a
n/a
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
3. Meander Pool
n/a
1. Bed
Condition
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
Length Appropriate n/a
n/a
4. Thalweg Position
n/a
Thalweg centering at upstream of n/a
meander bend (Run)
n/a
n/a
Thalweg centering at downstream of
n/a
n/a
meander bend (Glide)
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
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%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat
F. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
23
23
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill
23
23
100%
3. Engineered
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
23
23
100%
Structures)
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures
extent of influence does not exceed 15%.
23
23
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
`Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
23
23
100%
baseflow.
�FrrLirlec--trnrt 1riffle,
in,. they arc-1—tcri in,crti-1

Table 7. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Planted Acreage 27.8
Easement Acreage 57.3
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 13 4.3 8%
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Number of
Combined
%of Planted
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
(acres)
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
5
0.4
2%
1
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, 5, or 7 stem
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
2
0.1
0.2%
count criteria.
Total
7
0.5
2%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0
0
0.0
0%
year.
Cumulative Total
7
0.5
2%
Easement Acreage 57.3
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping Number of Combined %of Planted
Threshold (SIF) Polygons Acreage Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 13 4.3 8%
Easement Encroachment Areas Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none 0 0 0%
'Acreage calculated from permanent vegetation monitoring plots and temporary vegetation monitoring plots from current year Site Assessment Report.

Stream Photographs

Photo Point 1— Little Pine Reach 1, looking upstream (5/04/2017) 1 Photo Point 1— Little Pine Reach 1, looking downstream (5/04/2017) 1
Photo Point 2 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking upstream (5/04/2017) 1 Photo Point 2 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking downstream (5/04/2017) I
Photo Point 3 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking upstream (5/04/2017) 1 Photo Point 3 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking downstream (5/04/2017) 1

Photo Point 4 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking upstream (5/04/2017) 1 Photo Point 4 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking downstream (5/04/2017) 1
Photo Point 5 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking upstream (5/04/2017) 1 Photo Point 5 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking downstream (5/04/2017) I
Photo Point 6 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking upstream (5/04/2017) 1 Photo Point 6 — Little Pine Reach 1, looking downstream (5/04/2017) 1

u
Photo Point 10 —
Little Pine Reach 2a, looking upstream (5/04/2017)
Photo Point 10
— Little Pine Reach 2a, looking downstream (5/04/2017)
a
t 'iJ
P
�!l;
Photo Point 11—
Little Pine Reach 2a, looking upstream (5/04/2017)
Photo Point 11—
Little Pine Reach 2a, looking downstream (5/04/2017)
JAW
Photo Point 12 —
Little Pine Reach 2a, looking upstream (5/04/2017)
Photo Point 12
— Little Pine Reach 2a, looking downstream (5/04/2017)

Photo Point 13 — Little Pine Reach 2a, looking upstream (5/04/2017) 1 Photo Point 13 — Little Pine Reach 2a, looking downstream (5/04/2017) 1
Photo Point 14 — Little Pine Reach 2a, looking upstream (5/04/2017) 1 Photo Point 14 — Little Pine Reach 2a, looking downstream (5/04/2017) I
Photo Point 15 — Little Pine Reach 2a, looking upstream (5/04/2017) 1 Photo Point 15 — Little Pine Reach 2a, looking downstream (5/04/2017) 1

Photo Point 16 — Little Pine Reach 2b, looking upstream (5/04/2017) 1 Photo Point 16 — Little Pine Reach 2b, looking downstream (5/04/2017) 1
Photo Point 17 — Little Pine Reach 2b, looking upstream (5/04/2017) 1 Photo Point 17 — Little Pine Reach 2b, looking downstream (5/04/2017) I
I Photo Point 18 — Little Pine Reach 2b, looking upstream (5/04/2017) 1 Photo Point 18 — Little Pine Reach 2b, looking downstream (5/04/2017) 1

Photo Point 19 —Little Pine Reach 2b, looking upstream (5/04/2017) 1 Photo Point 19 — Little Pine Reach 2b, looking downstream (5/04/2017) 1
Photo Point 20 — UT2 Reach 1, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 20 — UT2 Reach 1, looking downstream (5/09/2017) I
Photo Point 21— UT2 Reach 1, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 21— UT2 Reach 1, looking downstream (5/09/2017) 1

Photo Point 22 — UT2 Reach 1, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 22 — UT2 Reach 1, looking downstream (5/09/2017) 1
Photo Point 23 — UT2 Reach 1, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 23 — UT2 Reach 1, looking downstream (5/09/2017) I
Photo Point 24 — UT2 Reach 1, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 24 — UT2 Reach 1, looking downstream (5/09/2017) 1

Photo Point 25 — UT2 Reach 2, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 25 — UT2 Reach 2, looking downstream (5/09/2017) 1
Photo Point 26 — UT2 Reach 2, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 26 — UT2 Reach 2, looking downstream (5/09/2017) I
Photo Point 27 — UT2 Reach 2, looking upstream (9/07/2017) 1 Photo Point 27 — UT2 Reach 2, looking downstream (9/07/2017) 1

Photo Point 28 — UT1, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 28 — UT11 looking downstream (5/09/2017) 1
Photo Point 29 — UT1, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 29 — UT1, looking downstream (5/09/2017) I
I Photo Point 30— UT1, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 30— UTI, looking downstream (5/09/2017) 1

Photo Point 31— UT2b, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 31— UT2b, looking downstream (5/09/2017) 1
Photo Point 32 — UT2b, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 32 — UT2b, looking downstream (5/09/2017) I
I Photo Point 33 — UT2, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 33 — UT2b, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1

Photo Point 33 — UT2, looking downstream (5/09/2017) 1
Photo Point 34— UT2a, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 34— UT2a, looking downstream (5/09/2017) I
I Photo Point 35 — UT2a, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 35 — UT2a, looking downstream (5/09/2017) 1

Photo Point 36 — UT2a, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 36 — looking upstream UT3 (5/09/2017) 1
Photo Point 36 — UT2a, looking downstream (5/09/2017) I
I Photo Point 37 — UT2a, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 37 — UT2a, looking downstream (5/09/2017) 1

Photo Point 38 — UT2a, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 38 — UT2a, looking downstream (5/09/2017) 1
Photo Point 39 — UT2a, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 39 — UT2a, looking downstream (5/09/2017) I
I Photo Point 40 — UT2a, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 40 — UT2a, looking downstream (5/09/2017) 1

Photo Point 41— UT3, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 41— UT31 looking downstream (5/09/2017) 1
Photo Point 42 — UT2 Reach 1, looking upstream (5/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 42 — UT2 Reach 1, looking downstream (5/09/2017) I

Vegetation Photographs

Vegetation Plot 1— (09/26/2016) 1 Vegetation Plot 2 — (09/26/2016) 1
Vegetation Plot 3 — (09/05/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 4 — (09/05/2017)
Vegetation Plot 5 — (09/05/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 6 — (09/05/2017)

i
o n::
x�
f
� 3
Vegetation Plot 15 — / / • /Plot
16 (0910612017)
/
47to-
A,
Nr

I Vegetation Plot 19 — (09/06/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 20 — (09/06/2017)
Vegetation Plot 21— (09/06/2017)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table B. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Plot MY4 Success ,ss Criteria Met
Tract Mean
1 Y
95%
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
7 Y
8 Y
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y
13 N
14 Y
15 Y
16 Y
17 Y
18 Y
19 Y
20 Y
21 Y
Table 9. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 LP III MY2.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02160 Little Pine III Monitoring\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 2\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
BULLPEN
File Size
74616832
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
94903
Project Name
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
Description
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
River Basin
Length(ft)
Stream -to -edge Width (ft)
Area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
21
Required Plots (calculated)
21
Sampled Plots
21

Table 10a. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Current Plot Data (MY2 2017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94903-WEI-0001
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0002
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0003
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0004
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0005
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0006
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0007
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
7
7
7
1
1
1
2
2
2
5
5
5
4
4
4
2
2
2
1
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
2
2
2
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
2
2
2
5
5
5
5
5
5
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1 3
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
8
8
8
3
3
3
8
8
8
1
1
1 1
3
3
3
1
1
1
5
5
5
Stem count
13
13
13
10
1 10
1 10
15
1 15
1 15
14
1 14
17
15
15
15
11
11
12
13
13
16
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
Species count
5
5
5
5
1 5
5
4
1 4
1 4
5
1 5
1 5
5
5
5
4
4
5
3
1 3
1 5
StemsperACIREJ
526
526
526
405
1 405
1 405
607
1 607
1 607
567
1 567
1 688
1 607
607
607
445
445
486
526
1 526
1 647
Current Plot Data (MY2 2017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94903-WEI-0008
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0009
Pnol-S P -all T
94903-WEI-0010
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0011
Pnol-S P -all T
94903-WEI-0012
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0013
Pnol-S P -all T
94903-WEI-0014
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
7
7
7
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
1
1
1
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
4
7
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
2
2
2
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1 1
1 1
2
2
2
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
2
2
2
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
4
4
4
1
1
1 1
3
3
3
5
5
5
Stem count
14
14
14
12
12
13
11
11
15
12
12
T 12
15
15
15
6
6
6
12
12
12
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
Species count
4
1 4
1 4
5
5
5
5
1 5
1 5
5
1 5
5
6
6
6
2 1
2
1 2
5
5
5
StemsperACREJ
567
1 S67
1 567
486
526
445
1 445
1 607
486
486
607
607
243
2431
243
486
486
486
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 reauirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

Table 10b. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Current Plot Data (MY2)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94903-WEI-0015
PnoLSFP--all T
94903-WEI-0016
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0017
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0018
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0019
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0020
PnoLS P -all T
94903-WEI-0021
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
45
45
50
5
5
5
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
2
4
4
5
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
41
41
49
49
49
Cercis canadensis
lRedbud
1Shrub Tree
35
35
37
44
44
44
46
46
46
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
61
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
3
3
3
58
58
Liriodendron tulipifera
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
33
33
30
30
30
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
47
5
5
5
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
JGreen Ash
JTree
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
Liriodendron tulipifera
ITulip Poplar
JTree
0.52
0.52
I
I
I
I
6
I
I
6
7
16
6
I
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
JSycamore
JTree
8
8
8
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
1 2
Ulmus americana
JAmerican Elm
JTree
I
1
3
1 3
1 3
1
1 1
1
2
1 2
1 2
5
5
5
Stem count
13
13
13
10
1 10
1 10
10
1 10
1 10
16
16
16
10
1 10
1 10
11
11
13
13
13
15
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
0.0247
Species count
3
3
3
3
1 3
1 3
3
1 3
1 3
5
5
5
5
1 5
1 5
4
1 4
1 5
5
1 5
1 6
StemsperACIREJ
526
526
526
405
1 405
1 405
405
405
405
W
647
1 647
405
1 405
445
1 445
1 526
526
1 526
1 607
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY2 (2017)
PnoLS P -all I T
MY1(10/2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (05/2016)
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
41
41
45
45
45
45
50
50
50
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
1
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
39
39
41
41
41
41
49
49
49
Cercis canadensis
lRedbud
1Shrub Tree
35
35
37
44
44
44
46
46
46
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
61
61
67
58
58
58
58
58
58
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
33
1 33
1 33
33
33
33
30
30
30
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
47
47
47
50
50
50
52
52
52
Stem count
256
256
272
271
271
272
285
285
285
size (ares)
21
21
21
size (ACRES)
0.52
0.52
0.52
Species count
6
6
8
6
6
7
16
6
6
StemsperACREJ
493
493
524
522
522
524
549
1 549
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%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 11a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Little Pine Reach 1, Reach 2a, Reach 2b
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
1
Little Pine Reach 2b: Calculations only include reaches with a Pl or P2 approach
Parameter
Gage
Little
Pine Reach 1
Little
Pine Reach 2a
Little
Pine Reach
2b
Meadow Fork
Little Pine Reach 1
Little
Pine Reach 2a Little Pine Reach 2b
Little Pine Reach 1
Little Pine Reach 2a
Little
Pine Reach 2b'
Min
IMax
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min I Max
Min
I
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
25.8
33.4
24.9
29.0
21.4
30.0
30.0
31.0
30.3
33.5
29.1
30.7
28.7
31.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
133
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.7
1.8
2.1
1.8
2.1
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.9
2.0
2.1
Bankfull Max Depth
3.3
3.3
3.7
2.2
3.1
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.7
3.2
2.6
3.9
3.1
3.4
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
N/A
45.5
47.5
53.3
53.3
44.0
54.5
53.0
54.9
52.2
53.5
46.6
56.9
58.8
64.2
Width/Depth Ratio
1.4
23.9
11.6
16.1
10.2
16.5
17.0
17.5
17.1
21.4
16.6
18.1
14.0
15.9
Entrenchment Ratio
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
>2.2
4.4
>6.0
>6.5
>6.9
>6.3
>7
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
10.2
1.3
18.4
---
---
---
---1
50.7
1
87.6
47.4
Riffle Length (ft)
---
--
--
---
28.4
80.5
37.8
68.3
30.44
132.29
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.012
0.019
0.0095
0.031
0.028
0.045
0.0239
0.007
0.0125
0.0098 0.0175 0.0155
0.0278
0.0040
0.0275
0.0101
0.0274
0.0055
0.0236
Pool Length (ft)
N/A
---
--
--
---
44.5
96.5
38.7
108.9
40.92
99.41
Pool Max Depth (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
3.5
5.8
4.7
5.8
2.6
5.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
38
-85----55
227
65
229
---
75
270
75
270
78
279
71
191
132
206
88
190
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)l
1 63
1
82 1
77
1
94
1
57
---
45
210
45
210
47
217
45
154
48
108
89
Radius of Curvature (ft)
1
1 25
59
39
58
34
70
---
60
210
60
120
62
124
60
96
63
77
82
124
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
1.0
1.8
1.6
2.3
1.3
2.4
---
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
2.9
2.2
2.5
2.9
3.9
Meander Length (ft)
86
140
110
186
100
134
---
210
360
210
360
217
372
207
313
288
337
334
329
Meander Width Ratio
2.4
2.5
3.1
3.8
2.0
---
1.5
7.0
1.5
7.0
1.5
7.0
1.5
4.6
1.6
3.5
3.1
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G %/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5D/d84/d95/d100
N/A
SC/4.5/10.2/61.2/143.4/>2048
SC/0.4/1.3/77.8/180.0/362
SC/0.5/18.4/79.2/143.4/256
---
0.22/0.48/2.0/88.2/146.7/362
0.22/1.0/37.9/111.8/160.7/256
0.38/21.6/47.4/122.3/208.8/362
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
0.85
0.66
2.43
0.56
0.75
1.20
0.46--T
0.51
0.69
0.74
1.21
1.23
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
134
122
289
99
123
174
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
3.9
4.3
4.4
4.4
3.9
4.3
4.4
3.9
4.3
4.4
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
C4
E/C5
C4
E4
C4
C5
C4
C4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.2
F
4.6
4.0
4.4
5.1
3.8
4.0
4.1
3.6
1
3.8
4.1
1
4.3
3.6
1
3.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
205
215
225
224
205
215
225
205
215
225
Q-NFF regression (2-Vr)
---
--
Q- NC Mountain Regional Curve (cfs)
N/A
284
306
308
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
177
191
193
Q -Mannings
199
211
213
235
---
---
--
188
204
199
231
219
232
Valley Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
1,184
876
476
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
4,016
---
1,3501
1,0251
4812
1,444
1,083
493
Sinuosity
1.2
1.7
1.1
---
1.14
1.17
1.01
1.22
1.24
1.04
Water Surface Slope
0.0048
0.0058
0.0033
0.0057
0.0049
0.0058
0.0100
0.0050
0.0070
0.0111
0.0049
0.0072
0.0118
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0057
0.0087
0.0089
---
0.0057
0.0082
0.0089
0.0051
0.0074
0.0101
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
1
Little Pine Reach 2b: Calculations only include reaches with a Pl or P2 approach

Table 11b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2. UT2b
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
FS: Fine Sand 0.125-0.250mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'entire length of UT2
UT2b: Calculations only include reach with a P2 approach
Pre -Restoration
Condition
Reference Reach Data
As-Built/Baseline
Parameter
Gage
UT2 Reach 1
UT2 Reach 2/3
UT2b
UT2a Reference
UT2 Reach 1 Lower
UT2 Reach 2
UT2b2
UT2 Reach 1 Lower
UT2 Reach 2
UT2b2
Min
Max
Reach 2
Reach 3
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
4.9
9.7
6.1 7.0
8.3
12.6
9.0
11.6
5.9
8.1
8.9
12.8
6.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
5.4 29.9 49.3 41.0 10.6 31.0 98 17 1 195 15 30 28.4 21.5 >200 15.9
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9 1.2 1.4 1.2 0.4 1.4 0.49 0.65 0.35 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.4 2.3 1.9 0.6 2.0 0.7 0.95 0.55 1.0 1.10 2.10 0.9
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ftz)
5.9 8.6 8.7 8.5 3.1 18.1 4.4 7.6 2.1 5.1 4.2 12.0 3.7
Width/Depth Ratio
4.1 11.0 4.2 5.7 22.6 8.7 18.5 17.7 16.8 13.0 13.6 20.1 12.2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.1 3.1 8.1 5.9 1.3 2.4 10.9 1.5 1 16.8 2.51 5.1 3.5 2.0 1 >22.4 2.4
Bank Height Ratio
2.6 3.2 1.0 1.2 5.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
D50 (mm)
10.7 15 16.0 --- --- --- --- 56.9 44 53 43
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
..
.. ..
..
.. ..
---
---
---
---
10.7 25.0
16.8
29.3
4.4
23.0
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.012
0.083
0.0327-0.063
0.0092-0.068
0.0178 0.081
0.0404 0.0517
0.0512 0.0681
0.026
0.046
0.0436 0.0750 0.0360 0.0853
0.0262 0.0575
0.0448
0.0659
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
5.0 22.3
13.3
46.3
3.1
14.3
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
---
---
---
2.2 2.5
---
---
--
1.9 5.0
1.6
3.2
0.6
2.1
PoolSpacing(ft)
11.6
40.5
14-68
22-63
8 34
78
6.5 41.5
19
95
5
21
7 34
24
98
3
33
Pool Volume (ft')
---
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
---
49-52
120
N/A
45
68
61
66
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
10-48
8-27
N/A
---
29
39
19
63
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
---
1.6-7.9
1.1-3.9
N/A
---
2.5
3.4
2.1
4.9
Meander Length (ft)
---
64-188
43-141
N/A
---
88
135
105
135
Meander Width Ratio
---
8.0-8.5
17.1
N/A
---
---
3.9
5.9
---
---
7
5
---
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/5.9/10.7/21.5/36.7/90.0
SC/8.0/15/55.6/84.6/180.0
SC/11/16/52.6/128/180
---
0.25/11.0/27.6/96.0/143.4/256.0
0.78/28.5/41.6/85.0/123.3/180.0
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
N/A
1.53
0.73
0.75
1.49
0.96
1.38
1.95
0.83
1 1.69
1.98
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
208
121
123-
208
148
193
-
-
-
-
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.12
0.29 0.31
0.030
0.12
0.12
0.31
0.03
0.12
0.31
0.03
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1%
Rosgen Classification
A4 E4b
E4 F4b A/134/1 134a C4b 134a 134a C4b 134a
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.3 3.4 4.0
4.1 3.2 --- 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.1 2.7 F 4.3 5.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
20 35 10 20 20 35 10 20 35 10
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
--- --
Q- NC Mountain Regional Curve (cfs)
21 44 7
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
10 21 3
Q -Mannings
35 43 8 --- --- --- 21 11.2 51.0 18.7
Valley Length (ft)
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- 3,988 231
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
5270' 553 --- 433 1264 241 433 1318 253
Sinuosity
1.1 1.3 2.1 1.1 --- 1.05 1.20 1.04 1.05 1.2 1.1
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)2
0.0436 0.0290 0.0136 0.0406 0.0433 0.0501 0.0239 0.0639 0.0560:::::J 0.0231 0.0616
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0476 0.0363 0.028 0.0667 0.0525 0.0280 0.0667 0.0563 10.0237 0.0536
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
FS: Fine Sand 0.125-0.250mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'entire length of UT2
UT2b: Calculations only include reach with a P2 approach

Table 12a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
r
Dimension
Cross
Base
-Section
MYl
1, Little Pine Reach
MY2 MY3
1 (Ri le) M-1 L Cross
MY4 MYS Base
-Section
MYl
2, Little Pine Reach
MY2 MY3
1 (Pool) WI Cross
MY4 MYS Base
-Section
MYl
3, Little Pine Reach 1 (Riffle)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
2,535.4
2,535.4
2,535.4
2,533.2
2,533.2
2,533.2
2,532.9
2,532.9
2,532.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
30.3
29.9
30.8
30.6
30.9
30.9
33.5
32.9
32.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
132.9
135.1
135.1
---
---
---
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
1.7
1.7
2.2
2.1
2.2
1.6
1.6
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.7
2.8
3.2
4.3
3.9
4.4
3.2
3.1
3.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
53.5
49.8
52.8
68.0
65.9
66.9
52.2
51.8
52.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
17.1
18.0
18.0
---
---
---
21.4
20.9
20.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
4.5
4.4---
---
---
>6.0
>6.1
>6.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dimension
1.0
Icross-Section
Base
1.0
MYl
1.0
4, Little Pine Reach
MY2 MY3
---
2a (Riffle) Cross
MY4 MYS Base
---
-Section
MY1
---
5, Little Pine Reach
MY2 MY3
1.0
2a (Riffle) Cross-section
MY4 MYS Base
1.0
MYl
0.9
6, Little Pine Reach 2a (Pool)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
2,527.4
2,527.4
2,527.4
2,525.4
2,525.4
2,525.4
2,524.8
2,524.8
2,524.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
29.1
29.3
28.5
30.7
31.3
31.0
35.4
35.5
35.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.9
2.6
2.4
2.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.6
2.6
2.9
3.9
3.6
3.5
5.7
5.1
5.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
46.6
46.4
49.8
56.9
56.7
58.2
93.4
83.6 1
86.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
18.1
18.5
16.2
16.6
17.2
16.5
---
---
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>6.9
>6.8
>7.0
>6.5
>6.4
>6.5
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dimension
1.0
Base
1.0
MYl
1.0
MY2 MY3
1.0
MY4 MYS Base
1.0
MY3
1.0
MY2 MY3
---
MY4 MYS Base
---
MYl
---
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
2,522.0
2,522.0
2,522.0
2,520.1
2,520.1
2,520.1
2,519.5
2,519.5
2,519.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
35.3
35.5
35.2
28.7
29.8
29.4
31.9
30.7
29.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
2.9
2.8
2.8
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
5.4
5.6
5.4
3.4
3.6
3.4
3.1
3.2
3.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
103.7
100.0
97.2
58.8
61.2
59.8
64.2
62.3
60.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
---
---
---
14.0
14.5
14.4
15.9
15.2
14.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
>7.0
>6.7
>6.8
>6.3
>6.5
>6.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Table 12b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Dimension
Base
MYl
iCross-Section
MY2 MY3
MY4 MYS Base
MYl
MY2 MY3
MY4 MYS Base
MYl
12, UT2 Reach 1 Lower [R ffle
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
2,570.0
2,570.0
2,570.0
2,566.4
2,566.4
2,566.4
2,573.8
2,573.8
2,573.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
S.9
6.0
6.1
6.7
6.3
6.6
8.1
8.4
8.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
15.9
17.7
17.9
28.4
30.0
30.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
2.3
2.4
0.S
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.7 1
3.4
3.3
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
5.7
14.0
14.9
3.7
4.3
4.5
5.1
5.7
5.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
---
---
---
12.2
9.1
9.6
13.0
12.5
13.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
2.4
2.8
2.7
3.5
3.6
3.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dimension
---
ifft' Cross-section
Base
MYl
1:35, LIT 2 Reachn I
MY2 MY3
Lower (Pool) F Cross-section
MY4 MYS Base
MYl
14, UT2 Reach
MY2 MY3
2 (Riffle) Cross
MY4 MYS Base
-Section
MYl
15, UT2 Reach 2 (Pool)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
2,573.3
2,573.3
2,573.3
2,547.2
2,547.2
2,547.2
2,539.1
2,539.1
2,539.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.8
10.1
10.4
10.8
8.0
9.2
12.2
11.6
12.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
21.5
23.2
23.5
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1.2
1.4
0.5
0.8
0.7
1.5
1.0
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.2
1.9
2.5
1.1
1.2
1.2
3.1
1.7
2.2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
12.8
12.5
15.0
5.9
6.6
6.6
18.7
11.9
14.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
---
---
---
20.1
9.713.0
---
---
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
---
---
---
2.0
2.9
2.5
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
---
---
1.0
1 1.0 1
0.9
---
---
---
Dimension
�oss-section
Base
MYl
16, UT2 Reach
MY2 MY3
2 (Riffle) Cross
MY4 MYS Base
-Section
MYl
17, UT2 Reach
MY2 MY3
2 (Riffle) Cross
MY4 MYS Base
-Section
MYl
18, LIT2 Reach 2 (Pool)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS
based on fixed bankfull elevation
2,535.0
2,535.0
2,535.0
2,531.2
2,531.2
2,531.2
2,530.4
2,530.4
2,530.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.9
10.0
6.9
12.8
12.9
13.6
19.3
19.5
21.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
>200
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.1
0.8
0.6
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.3
2.1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
4.2
5.0
2.8
12.0
12.0
12.0
15.8
16.3
16.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
19.2
19.9
17.1
13.6
13.8
15.4
---
---
---
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>22.4 1
>20.0 1
>28.9 1
1 1 1 >15.7
1 >15.5 1
>14.7 1 1
1 1 --- I
--- I
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiol
1.0 1
1.0 1
1.2 1
1 1 1 1.0
1 1.0 1
1.0 1 1
1 1 --- I
--- I
---

Table 13a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Little Pine Reach ]
As-Built/Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3 MY -4 MY -5
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
30.3
33.5
29.9
32.9
30.8
32.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
133
>200
135
>200
135
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth
2.7
3.2
2.8
3.1
3.0
3.2
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
52.2
53.5
49.8
51.8
52.2
52.8
Width/Depth Ratio
17.1
21.4
18
20.9
18
20
Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
>6.0
4.5
>6.1
4.4
>6.2
Bank Height Ratio
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
D50 (mm)
50.7
56.9
45.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
28
81
21
47
32
76
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0040
0.0275
0.0064
0.0283
0.0052
0.0183
Pool Length (ft)
44
96
66
176
49
177
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.5
5.8
3.0
4.7
3.9
6.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
71
191
77
224
94
210
Pool Volume (ft)
..
..
.
..
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
45
154
Radius of Curvature (ft)
60
96
..
.,
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.0
2.9
Meander Wave Length (ft)
207
313
Meander Width Ratio
1.5
4.6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,444
1,444
1,444
Sinuosity (ft)
1.22
.
.
...
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0049
0.0049
0.0050
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0051
0.0043
0.0045
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.22/0.48/2.0/88/147/362
0.22/3.4/22/81/123/362
0.13/0.38/11/789/180/1024
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 1
0%
0%
1%

Table 13b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Little Pine Reach 2a
As-Built/Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3 MY -4 MY -5
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
29.1
30.7
29.3
31.3
28.5
31.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.6
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.9
Bankfull Max Depth
2.6
3.9
2.6
3.6
2.9
3.5
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
46.6
56.9
46.4
56.7
49.8
58.2
Width/Depth Ratio
16.6
18.1
17.2
18.5
16.2
16.5
Entrenchment Ratio
>6.5
>6.9
>6.4
>6.8
>6.5
>7.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
87.6
72.4
75.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
38
68
19
49
27
55
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0101
0.0274
0.0112
0.0471
0.0143
0.0280
Pool Length (ft)
39
109
39
145
66
186
Pool Max Depth (ft)
4.7
5.8
4.3
6.6
4.0
6.7
Pool SpIcing (ft)
132
206
78
206
121
279
Pool Volume (ft)
..
..
..
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
48
108
Radius of Curvature (ft)
63
77
..
.,
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.2
2.5
Meander Wave Length (ft)
288
337
Meander Width Ratio
1.6
3.5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,083
1,083
1,083
Sinuosity (ft)
1.24
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0072
0.0073
0.0075
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0074
0.0059
0.0067
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.22/1.0/38/112/161/256
0.29/11/36/90/157/1024
0.21/12.5/523/121/168/1024
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
2%

Table 13c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Little Pine Reach 2b
As-Built/Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3 MY -4 MY -5
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
28.7
31.9
29.8
30.7
29.3
29.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
>200
>200
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.1
Bankfull Max Depth
3.1
3.4
3.2
3.6
3.0
3.4
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
58.8
64.2
61.2
62.3
59.8
60.2
Width/Depth Ratio
14.0
15.9
14.5
15.2
14.2
14.4
Entrenchment Ratio
>6.3
>7
>6.5
>6.7
>6.8
>6.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
47.4
72
70.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
30
132
26
102
26
44
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0055
0.0236
0.0169
0.0254
0.0116
0.0177
Pool Length (ft)
41
99
55
153
26
149
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.6
5.4
3.8
6.3
3.7
5.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
88
190
12
129
8
175
Pool Volume (ft)
..
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
89
Radius of Curvature (ft)
82
124
.,
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.9
3.9
Meander Wave Length (ft)
334
329
Meander Width Ratio
3.1
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
493
493
493
Sinuosity (ft)
1.04
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0118
0.0101
0.0082
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0101
0.0107
0.0103
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/c135/60/cI84/65/d100
0.38/22/47/122/209/362
0.22/10/29/111/171/362
0.3/8.0/29.0/107.3/180/362
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 1
0%
0%
0%

Table 13d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2 Reach 1 Lower
As-Built/Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3 MY -4 MY -5
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.1
8.4
8.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
28.4
30.0
30.0
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.7
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.3
1.2
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
5.1
5.7
5.4
Width/Depth Ratio
13.0
12.5
13.9
Entrenchment Ratio
3.5
3.6
3.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
0.9
D50 (mm)
56.9
39.8
38.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11
25
13
39
5
24
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0360
0.0853
0.0136
0.0730
0.0253
0.0793
Pool Length (ft)
5
22
2
15
4
17
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.9
5.0
1.0
2.9
2.0
3.8
Pool Spacing (ft)
7
34
8
52
6
53
Pool Volume (ft)
..
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
--
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
---
Meander Wave Length (ft)
---
Meander Width Ratio
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
134a
134a
134a
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
433
433
433
Sinuosity (ft)
1.05
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0560
0.0477
0.0481
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0563
0.0483
0.0485
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5o/d84/d95/dloot
0.25/11/28/96/143/256
6.1/14/23/75/153/256
0.7/11/28/76/118/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 1
0%
6%
2%

Table 13e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2 Reach 2
�VParameter
As-Built/Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3 MY -4 MY -5
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.9
12.8
8.0
12.9
6.9
13.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
21.5
>200
23.2
>200
23.5
>200
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
2.1
0.8
1.8
0.6
1.9
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
4.2
12.0
5.0
12.0
2.8
12.0
Width/Depth Ratio
13.6
20.1
9.7
19.9
13.0
17.1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.0
>22.4
2.9
>20.0
2.5
1 .9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.2
D50 (mm)
44
53
15
90
34.5
34.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17
29
10
36
5
62
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0262
0.0575
0.0141
0.0658
0.0093
0.0773
Pool Length (ft)
13
46
4
40
6
35
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.6
3.2
1.5
3.8
1.1
4.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
24
98
8
113
10
207
Pool Volume (ft)
..
..
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
61
66
Radius of Curvature (ft)
19
63
..
.,
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
2.1
4.9
Meander Wave Length (ft)
105
135
Meander Width Ratio
7
5
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
CO
CO
CO
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,318
1,318
1,318
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0231
0.0225
0.0235
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0237
0.0214
0.0245
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.25/11/28/96/143/256
6.1/14/23/75/153/256
0.7/11/28/76/118/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 1
0%
0%
4%

Table 13f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2b
Parameter
As-Built/Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY -3 MY -4 MY -5
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.7
6.3
6.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
15.9
17.7
17.9
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.7
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
1.1
1.1
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
3.7
4.3
4.5
Width/Depth Ratio
12.2
9.1
9.6
Entrenchment Ratio
2.4
2.8
2.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
0.9
D50(mm)
43
36
32
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
4
23
7
24
7
25
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0448
0.0659
0.0276
0.0451
0.0127
0.0702
Pool Length (ft)
3
14
3
8
4
15
Pool Max Depth (ft)
0.6
2.1
2.0
3.9
0.8
3.8
Pool Spacing (ft)
3
33
4
30
3
30
Pool Volume (ft)
,.
.. .
.. ..
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
--
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
---
Meander Wave Length (ft)
---
Meander Width Ratio
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
134a
134a
134a
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
253
253
253
Sinuosity (ft)
1.10
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0616
0.0614
0.0557
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0536
0.0608
0.0612
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d5o/d84/d95/dloot
0.78/29/42/85/123/180
0.28/7.4/23/82/128/362
0.5/13/26/87/143/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 1
0%
0%
0%

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Little Pine Reach 1 (STA 100+00 -114+44) and Reach 2a (114+44-125+27)
2540
254s
a 1
End Little Pine Reach 1
x 1
Begin Little Pine Reach 2a
1
2535
1
x 1
x 1
1
1
1
2540
1
1
1
•
•
1
1
1
d
2530
1
1
1
1
- I
1
1
1
e_
1
1
v
♦
___________
2535
2525
O
w
— 1
1
----------
1
2530
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2520
2525
11000 11050 11100 11150 11200 11250 11300 11350 11400 11450 11500 11550 11600 11650 11700 11750 11800 11850 11900 11950 12000
Station (feet)
— TW (MYO-04/2016) —TW(MY1-10/2016) tTW(MY2-5/2017)------- WSF (MY2-5/2017) • BKF(MY2-5/2017) 0 STRUCTURE(MY2-5/2017)
10000 10050 10100 10150 10200 10250 10300 10350 10400 10450 10500 10550 10600 10650 10700 10750 10800 10850 10900 10950 11000
Station (feet)
— TW (MYO-04/2016) — TW (MYl-10/2016) t TW (MY2-5/2017)------- WSF (MY2-5/2017) ♦ BKF (MY2-5/2017) • STRUCTURE (MY2-5/2017)
2540
a 1
End Little Pine Reach 1
x 1
Begin Little Pine Reach 2a
1
2535
1
x 1
x 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
•
1
1
1
d
2530
1
1
1
1
- I
1
1
1
e_
1
1
___________
2525
— 1
1
----------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2540
a 1
End Little Pine Reach 1
x 1
Begin Little Pine Reach 2a
1
2535
1
_
•
•
1
d
2530
- I
e_
___________
2525
1
----------
1
1
2520
11000 11050 11100 11150 11200 11250 11300 11350 11400 11450 11500 11550 11600 11650 11700 11750 11800 11850 11900 11950 12000
Station (feet)
— TW (MYO-04/2016) —TW(MY1-10/2016) tTW(MY2-5/2017)------- WSF (MY2-5/2017) • BKF(MY2-5/2017) 0 STRUCTURE(MY2-5/2017)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Little Pine Reach 2a (114+44-125+27) and Reach 2b (125+27-130+20)
2530
x 1
X 1
1
X 1
1
♦
♦
1
1
2525
♦ •
1
1
•
1
1
1
w 2520
1
1
1
•
1
1
c
O
1
1
1
W
251$
1
1
1
1
72a
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
m 1
1
2510
12000 12050 12100 12150 12200 12250 12300 12350 12400 12450 12500 12550 12600 12650 12700 12750 12800 12850 12900 12950 13000
Station (feet)
- TW (MY0-04/2016) - TW (MY1-10/2016) - TW (MY2-5/2017)------- WSF (MY2-5/2017) ♦ BKF (MY2-5/2017) • STRUCTURE (MY2-5/2017)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2 Reach 1 Uooer (STA 297+18 - 310+501
2720
2715
d
•
0
d 2710
•
z70s
30200 30215 30230 30245 30260 30275 30290 30305 30320 30335 30350 30365 30380 30395
Station (feet)
t TW (MYO-04/2016) TW (MY3-10/2016) - TW (MY2-5/2017)------- WSF (MY2-5/2017) ♦ BKF (MY2-5/2017) • STRUCTURE (MY2-5/2017)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2 Reach 1 Upper (STA 297+18 - 310+56)
2695
2
w 2690
2685
30765 30780 30795 30810 30825 30840 30855 30870 30885 30900 30915 30930 30945 30961
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-04/2016) TW (MYl-10/2016) - TW (MY2-5/2017)------- WSF (MY2-5/2017) ♦ BKF (MY2-5/2017) 0 STRUCTURE (MY2-5/2017(
2695
2690
End UT2 each 1 Upper
----------------
> 2685
30765 30780 30795 30810 30825 30840 30855 30870 30885 30900 30915 30930 30945 30961
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-04/2016) TW (MYl-10/2016) - TW (MY2-5/2017)------- WSF (MY2-5/2017) ♦ BKF (MY2-5/2017) 0 STRUCTURE (MY2-5/2017(
2695
2690
End UT2 each 1 Upper
0
> 2685
u,
♦
2680
30960 30975 30990 31005 31020 31035 31050 31065 31080 31095 31110 31125 31140 31155
Station (feet)
---� TW (MYO-04/2016) - TW (MYl-30/2016) TW (MY2-5/2017) - WSF (MY2-5/2017) • BKF (MY2-5/2017) • STRUCTURE (MY2-5/2017)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2 Reach 1 Lower (STA 325+67 - 330+00)
2586
2581
w
eBegin
UT2 Reach 1 Lower
w 2576
u�
..--
-...__......
2571
32550 32565 32580 32595 32610 32625 32640 32655 32670 32685 32700 32715 32730 32745
Station (feet)
—� TW (MYO-04/2016) TW (MY3-10/2016) TW (MY2-5/2017) WSF (MY2-5/2017) ♦ BKF (MY2-5/2017) • STRUCrURE (MY2-5/2017)
2575
i
J_
2570
O
'> 2565
A
2560
32745 32760 32775 32790 32805 32820 32835 32850 32865 32880 32895 32910 32925 32940
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-04/2016) TW (MYl-10/2016) — TW (MY2-5/2017)------- WSF (MY2-5/2017) ♦ BKF (MY2-5/2017) • STRUCrURE (MY2-5/2017)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2 Reach 2 (STA 330+00 - 343+18)
2555
2550
-
X
d
________ ____.O __ ________________
- -
2545
2540
33350 33365 33380 33395 33410 33425 33440 33455 33470 33485 33500 33515 33530 33545
Station (feet)
-TW (MYO-04/2016) TW (MYI-10/2016) TW (MY2-5/2017)------• WSF (MY2-5/2017) . BKF (MY2-5/2017) 0 STRUCTURE (MY2-5/2017)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No.94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2 Reach 2 (STA 330+00 - 343+18)
2535
2545
2540
2530
1
'm 2535
> 2525
__ ----
--•--_--------
2530
33600 33630 33660 33690 33720 33750 33780 33810 33840 33870 33900 33930 33960 33990
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-04/2016) TW (MYI-10/2016) —r TW (MY2-5/2017) WSF (MY2-5/2017) ♦ BKF (MY2-5/2017) • STRUCTURE (MY2-5/2017)
2535
2530
1
c
0
> 2525
X ;
X
2520
33990 34020 34050 34080 34110 34140 34170 34200 34230 34260 34290 34320 34350 34380
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-04/2016) TW (MYl-10/2016) t TW (MY2-5/2017)------- WSF (MY2-5/2017) ♦ BKF (MY2-5/2017) o STRUCTURE (MY2-5/2017)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2b (STA 503+00 - 505+53)
2580
.
MX
x
•
2570
2575
\i
v
v
v
•
0
Begin UT26 Restoration
'
-----------------
m
>
2560
2570
50485 50500 50515 50530 50545 50560 50575 50590 50605 50620 50635 50650 50665 50680
Station (feet)
- TW (MYO-04/2016) - TW (MYl-10/2016) t TW (MY2-5/2017) --- WSF (MY2-5/2017) . BKF (MY2-5/2017) 0 STRUCTURE (MY2-5/2017)
2565
50290 50305 50320 50335 50350 50365 50380 50395 50410 50425 50440 50455 50470 50485
Station (feet)
TW (MYO-04/2016) TW (MYl-10/2016) t TW (MY2-5/2017)------- WSF (MY2-5/2017) . BKF (MY2-5/2017) O STRUCTURE (MY2-5/2017)
2575
.
MX
x
•
2570
\i
v
v
2575
MX
2570
v
v
o`
•
W
2565
'
-----------------
m
2560
50485 50500 50515 50530 50545 50560 50575 50590 50605 50620 50635 50650 50665 50680
Station (feet)
- TW (MYO-04/2016) - TW (MYl-10/2016) t TW (MY2-5/2017) --- WSF (MY2-5/2017) . BKF (MY2-5/2017) 0 STRUCTURE (MY2-5/2017)

Cross -Section Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Cross -Section 17 - UT2
341+08 Riffle
2536
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.6
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
14.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
2534
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
14.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
2532
`o
v
2530
2528
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
--4-- MYO (5/2016) tMY1(10/2016) tMY2(5/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
12.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.6
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
14.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.4
width -depth ratio
200.0
W flood prone area (ft)
14.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 5/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Little Pine Reach 1, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool I Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
11.0
3
3
3
3
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
11
12
12
15
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
14
17
17
32
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
4
5
5
37
SPC�O
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
38
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
39
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
40
v
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
3
5
5
45
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
47
Fine
5.6
8.0
Particle Class Size (mm)
47
• MYl-10/2016 MY2-05/2017
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
2
3
3
50
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
52
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
4
4
56
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
4
4
60
Very Coarse
32
45
6
4
10
10
70
Very Coarse
45
64
7
1
8
8
78
Small
64
90
9
1
10
10
88
Small
90
128
3
2
5
5
93
`09
Large
128
180
2
2
2
95
Large
180
256
1
1
1
96
Small
256
362
3
3
3
99
pF�
V
Small
362
512
99
BOJ
Medium
512
1024
1
1
1
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.13
D35 =
0.38
D50 =
11.0
Dff0. =
78.5
D95 =
180.0
D100 =
1024.0
Little Pine Reach 1, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
a
70
60
d
N
50
m
40
u
30
v
20
a
10
0
Doti 1tih by oy ti ti tiw
oo ho oti titi ya ao ao
a o� a titi do �� 3ti ah oa -o yw 'L
1
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016
• MYl-10/2016 MY2-05/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Little Pine Reach 1, Cross -Section 3
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
45.0
D. =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
�.■.i
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
4
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
5
10
14
SQ$�0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
14
,
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
2
16
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
40
16
3
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
' ,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11�
16
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
16
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■
Fine
5.6
8.0
1111■■1111111■■1111111
16
J0S
Medium
8.0
11.0
�k
16
GAP
Medium
11.0
16.0
0
16
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2 1
4
20
MY1-10/2016 • MY2-05/2017
Coarse
22.6
32
5
10
30
Very Coarse
32
45
10
20
50
Very Coarse
45
64
8
16
66
Small
64
90
11
22
88
Ov0
Small
90
128
2
4
92
`'00
Large
128
180
1
2
94
Large
180
256
94
Small
256
362
1
2
96
QFC
Small
362
512
1
2
98
Medium 512 1024 1 2
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
100
100
Cross Section 3
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
2.00
Das =
34.85
Dso =
45.0
D. =
84.6
D95 =
304.4
D100 =
1024.0
Little Pine Reach 1, Cross -Section 3
� �
��---"7J11���■■■■11t��■■�IIII�■■■I��II���_I'llll.■111111
Individual Class Percent
100
.,
��i111�EF�llll�a■■■■■
�.■.i
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111■1111��s�r��'■■"�1
80
.,
d
60
,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111���1■■1111111■�1
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111111■■1111111■■1111111
a
v,
50
m
• ,
u
40
3
30
' ,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11�
v
5
111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■
20
1111■■1111111■■1111111
,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�
�k
1111■■1111111■■1111111
10
U J
,
0
- " " 9p ,L0 "p yO O'L - ti� 0 pO
1 'y ti '� h .yO ,LOQ` bO
Particle Class Size (mm)
,
■■1111111■■1111111■■11111111:�I.
■■1111111■■1'':!!!!�il::ilriiii;�■�iillllll■■1111111■■1111111
MY1-10/2016 • MY2-05/2017
11111■■1111111■■1111111
■■11!!!!!���IIIIII■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Little Pine Reach 1, Cross -Section 3
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
60
a
v,
50
m
u
40
3
30
v
5
=a
20
�k
10
U J
0
- " " 9p ,L0 "p yO O'L - ti� 0 pO
1 'y ti '� h .yO ,LOQ` bO
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016
MY1-10/2016 • MY2-05/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Little Pine Reach 2a, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
52.8
4
4
4
4
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
5
5
5
9
Fine
0.125
0.250
80
9
9
9
18
Medium
0.25
0.50
7
7
7
25
SPO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
2
27
m
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
u
27
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
30
v
27
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
28
Fine
4.0
5.6
10
28
-
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
2
30
b y6 W ,y'y tib tib �ti bh OU -O o Oti 1ti ,tiP p 'd
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
4
4
34
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
1
3
3
37
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
5
5
42
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
1
43
Very Coarse
32
45
1
1
2
2
45
Very Coarse
45
64
8
3
11
11
56
Small
64
90
10
2
12
12
68
Small
90
128
12
7
19
19
87
`09
Large
128
180
7
3
10
10
97
Large
180
256
1
1
1
98
Small
256
362
1
1
1
99
pF�
V
Small
362
512
99
BOJ
Medium
512
1024
1
1
1
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
1 2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.21
D35 =
12.46
D50 =
52.8
Dff4 =
121.1
D95 =
168.1
D100 =
1024.0
Little Pine Reach 2a, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
a
70
60
d
N
50
m
40
u
30
v
20
a
10
-
0
06'L 1,tih by Oh 1 'L ,tiW
b y6 W ,y'y tib tib �ti bh OU -O o Oti 1ti ,tiP p 'd
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016
• MYl-10/2016 MY2-05/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Little Pine Reach 2a, Cross -Section 5
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
75.9
D. =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
2
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
.,
2
SQ$�0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
,
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
40
2
3
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
' ,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111
2
Fine
4.0
5.6
a
2
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11
Fine
5.6
8.0
�
II■■1111111■■1111111
2
J0S
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
GAP
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
12
14
Coarse
22.6
32
2
4
18
Very Coarse
32
45
3
6
24
Very Coarse
45
64
8
16
40
Small
64
90
10
20
60
Ove
Small
90
128
3
6
66
`'00
Large
128
180
10
20
86
Large
180
256
1
2
88
Small
256
362
4
8
96
QFC
Small
362
512
96
Medium 512 1024 2 4
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
100
100
Cross Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
26.89
D35 =
57.33
Dso =
75.9
D. =
174.0
D95 =
346.7
D100 =
1024.0
Little Pine Reach 2a, Cross -Section 5
� �
��---�,JII�_....���llll�l�■,��'��-■■,��111�'�_iilll.■111111
Individual Class Percent
100
90
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111■1111h1��s�r��""'�1
80
.,
d
60
,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111►1I■1111111■�I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11111
a
v,
50
�■1111111■■1111111
• ,
u
40
3
30
' ,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111
v
'S
�■■1111111■■1111111
a
zo
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11
�
II■■1111111■■1111111
,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11,111■■1111111■■1111111
,
0
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■I�l,�lll■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■Illllllw���lllll■■1111111■■1111111
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016 MY1-10/2016 • MY2-05/2017
■■1111111■���������■�����������111111■■111111■■111111
,
Little Pine Reach 2a, Cross -Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
60
a
v,
50
m
u
40
3
30
v
'S
IL III
a
zo
�
10
0
ti� ,LOQ` 0 0�O
,yO bO
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016 MY1-10/2016 • MY2-05/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Little Pine Reach 2b, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
29.0
1
1
1
1
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
8
8
8
9
Fine
0.125
0.250
80
5
5
5
14
Medium
0.25
0.50
7
7
7
21
SPO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
22
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
23
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
30
23
v
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
a
3
3
3
26
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
1
4
4
30
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
3
5
5
35
• MYl-10/2016 MY2-05/2017
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
4
4
39
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
3
3
42
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
3
45
Coarse
22.6
32
4
3
7
7
52
Very Coarse
32
45
2
6
8
8
60
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
12
12
72
Small
64
90
4
3
7
7
79
Small
90
128
7
3
10
10
89
`09
Large
128
180
5
1
6
6
95
Large
180
256
2
2
4
4
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
pF�
V
Small
362
512
100
BOJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
40
1 60
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.30
D35 -
8.00
D50 =
29.0
Dff4 =
107.3
D95 =
180.0
D100 =
362.0
Little Pine Reach 2b, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
a
70
60
d
50
N
m
40
u
30
v
20
a
10
1'
0
o6ti 1tih by oy ti ti tiw
a 5� a titi tib �� 3ti ah oa -o yw '0 'Lye oti titi ya aw ��
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016
• MYl-10/2016 MY2-05/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Little Pine Reach 2b, Cross -Section 9
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
70.2
D. =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
2
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
2
SQ$�0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
• .
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
m
2.0
2.8
u
2
2.8
4.0
2
4
6
EFine
4.0
5.6
2
4
105.6
=a
20
8.0
1
2
12
10
8.0
11.0
1
2
14
GAP
Medium
11.0
16.0
p'L .yh .g� Oh
pO p1 p�
14
Coarse
16.0
22.6
....11111111■■1111111■■1111111
14
Coarse
22.6
32
4
8
22
Very Coarse
32
45
6
12
34
Very Coarse
45
64
5
10
44
Small
64
90
11
22
66
Ove
Small
90
128
11
22
88
`'00
Large
128
180
2
4
92
Large
180
256
3
6
98
Small
256
362
98
QFC
Small
362
512
98
Medium 512 1024 1 2
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
100
100
Cross Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
24.65
D35 =
46.61
Dso =
70.2
D. =
120.1
D95 =
214.7
D100 =
1024.0
Little Pine Reach 2b, Cross -Section 9
� �
������7JII������IIIt����������������ll�!1�_1'llll.■I�11111
Individual Class Percent
100
90
�""'�1
.
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111■1111h�1���
80
70
.
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11111��■■1111111■�1
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111�(,i■■1111111■■1111111
d
60
• .
a
50
v,
m
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■Illi►11■■1111111■■1111111
u
40
3
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111'111■■1111111■■1111111
.
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■I�i�lll■■1111111■■1111111
=a
20
10
. '
■■1111111■■1111111■■11111!!'
0
111111■■1111111■■1111111
p'L .yh .g� Oh
pO p1 p�
'
Particle Class Size (mm)
��1/,l�,__
....11111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111���!
oil
Little Pine Reach 2b, Cross -Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
60
a
50
v,
m
u
40
3
30
v
�
=a
20
10
0
p'L .yh .g� Oh
pO p1 p�
'y 1- ,ti4 b 5� 0 y'v y�o p ,�'L p5 6A 90 ,L0 �O yp b'L .y'L ,LP 0 0�O
�ti' 1 'Y 'L "� h ,yO ,LOQ` bO
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016 MY1-10/2016 • MY2-05/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
27.6
1
1
1
1
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
4
5
5
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
6
6
12
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
2
14
SPC�O
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
4
4
18
N
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
m
1
1
1
19
40
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
20
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
3
4
4
24
Fine
4.0
5.6
24
-
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
1
3
3
27
Medium
8.0
11.0
6
2
8
8
35
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
4
4
39
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
3
7
7
46
Coarse
22.6
32
5
2
7
7
53
Very Coarse
32
45
10
1
11
11
64
Very Coarse
45
64
15
1
16
16
80
Small
64
90
8
8
8
88
Small
90
128
9
9
9
97
`09
Large
128
180
1
1
1
98
Large
180
256
2
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
pF�
V
Small
362
512
100
BOJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
70
1 30 1
100 1
100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.7
D35 =
11.0
D50 =
27.6
Dff0. =
75.9
D95 =
118.4
D100 =
256.0
UT2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
a
70
60
d
50
N
m
u
40
30
v
a
20
10
0 1.-
-
p
O�ti 1tih by Oh 1 'L ,tiW
P y6 W ,y'y tib tib �ti bh OU -O ,y, 0 o Oti 1ti ,tiP p 'd
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016
• MYl-10/2016 MY2-05/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2, Cross -Section 12
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
38.7
D. =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
4
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
4
SQ$�0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111�II�■■1111111■�I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11�11�I■■1111111■■1111111
4
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
• .
4
Fine
2.0
2.8
u
4
Fine
2.8
4.0
4
7Fine
4.0
5.6
4
.
■■1111111■■1111111■■1���111�1/1111111■■1111111■■1111111
5.6
8.0
4
um
8.0
11.0
4
GAP
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
6
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
16
26
Coarse
22.6
32
7
14
40
Very Coarse
32
45
9
18
58
Very Coarse
45
64
9
18
76
Small
64
90
7
14
90
Ove
`'00
Small
90
128
2
4
94
Large 128 180 1 2
96
Large
180
256
1
2
98
Small
256
362
1
2
100
QFC
Small
362
512
100
Medium 512 1024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
100
100
Cross Section 12
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
18.21
D35 =
28.26
Dso =
38.7
D. =
77.8
D95 =
151.8
D100 =
362.0
UT2, Cross -Section 12
� �
����"`7III���..IIIIt���,��'��-��,1��11rI��_IIIIII.■111111
Individual Class Percent
100
90
�"'.I1�1
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111■1111,��
80
.
�;
70
d
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111�II�■■1111111■�I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11�11�I■■1111111■■1111111
60
a
50
• .
v,
m
u
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1�1�111■■1111111■■1111111
3
30
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■!��11111■■1111111■■1111111
v
.
■■1111111■■1111111■■1���111�1/1111111■■1111111■■1111111
�
In
LE
■■1111111■■1111111.�r.d�+Ir■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■■■��ill■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
10
0
O'L .y5 .g� Oh 'y ti ,ti4
pO p'y p
b 5� 0 y'v yO 0 ,1'L p5 Ob 90 ,L0 "p yO O- - ,LP 0 90
�ti' 1 'Y 'L "� h ,yO ,LOQ` bO
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016
MY1-10/2016 • MY2-05/2017
■■IIIIIIII//_�'!...Ill�tl.II.III�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
UT2, Cross -Section 12
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
60
a
50
v,
m
u
40
3
30
v
a
20
�
In
LE
10
0
O'L .y5 .g� Oh 'y ti ,ti4
pO p'y p
b 5� 0 y'v yO 0 ,1'L p5 Ob 90 ,L0 "p yO O- - ,LP 0 90
�ti' 1 'Y 'L "� h ,yO ,LOQ` bO
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016
MY1-10/2016 • MY2-05/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2, Cross -Section 14
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
34.5
D. =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
2
2
SQ$�0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
6
8
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
�
8
m
2.0
2.8
'
8
2.8
4.0
8
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�1A
EFine
4.0
5.6
■■1111111■■1111111
8
=a
20
5.6
8.0
2
4
12
8.0
11.0
1
2
14
GAP
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
6
20
iilllllll■■1111111■■1111111
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
12
32
MY1-10/2016 • MY2-05/2017
Coarse
22.6
32
7
14
46
Very Coarse
32
45
9
18
64
Very Coarse
45
64
4
8
72
Small
64
90
2
4
76
Ove
`'00
Small
90
128
5
10
86
Large 128 180 2 4
90
Large
180
256
5
10
100
Small
256
362
100
QFC
Small
362
512
100
Medium 512 1024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
100
100
Cross Section 14
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
12.46
D35 =
24.35
Dso =
34.5
D. =
119.3
D95 =
214.7
DI00 =
256.0
UT2, Cross -Section 14
� �
������7JII������IIIt����������������ll�/'��1�_II111I.■111111
Individual Class Percent
100
90
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111■Illlh�l���s�""'�1
80
.,
70
d
,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11�������■1111111■�1
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■I�Illllf�■1111111■■1111111
60
a
50
�
v,
m
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■/�ill�■■1111111■■1111111
3
30
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�1A
v
■■1111111■■1111111
=a
20
■■1111111■■IIIIIii�������11����111111■■1111111■■1111111
10
■■1111111■■1111111■Ii���l��
0
iilllllll■■1111111■■1111111
b 5� 0 y'v yO 0 ,1'L p5 Ob 9p ,L0 "p yO O'L - ,LP 0 90
�0'' 1 'y ti '� h .yO ,LOQ` bO
,
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016
MY1-10/2016 • MY2-05/2017
_ /_.,�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■11!!!II�"•_Islli�i�iii�llll■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
UT2, Cross -Section 14
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
60
a
50
v,
m
u
40
3
30
v
=a
20
10
0
O'L .y5 .g� Oh 'y ti ,ti4
pO p'y p
b 5� 0 y'v yO 0 ,1'L p5 Ob 9p ,L0 "p yO O'L - ,LP 0 90
�0'' 1 'y ti '� h .yO ,LOQ` bO
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016
MY1-10/2016 • MY2-05/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2, Cross -Section 17
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
34.8
D. =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
■::::°1�■!!�!�!!'•��+.�!iilllllll�■1111111
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
4
4
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
2
6
SQ$�0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
4
10
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
. ,
�,
10
m
2.0
2.8
u
10
2.8
4.0
10
■■1111111■■1111111■■IIIIIIIII���IIIII■■1111111■■1111111
EFine
4.0
5.6
1
2
12
,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111r��1111111■■1111111■■1111111
5.6
8.0
2
4
16
10
,
8.0
11.0
2
4
20
GAP
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
8
28
■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
4
32
Coarse
22.6
32
8
16
48
Very Coarse
32
45
4
8
56
Very Coarse
45
64
5
10
66
Small
64
90
3
6
72
Ov0
Small
90
128
5
10
82
`'00
Large
128
180
4
8
90
Large
180
256
2
4
94
Small
256
362
2
4
98
QFC
Small
362
512
1
2
100
Medium 512 1024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
100
100
Cross Section 17
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
8.00
D35 =
24.12
D50 =
34.8
D. =
139.4
D95 =
279.2
D100 =
512.0
UT2, Cross -Section 17
Individual Class Percent
100
�;
i���lii��:iiii=
90
■::::°1�■!!�!�!!'•��+.�!iilllllll�■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111�■Illlh�'�I���s�""'�1
80
.,
�,
70
d
■■111111■■111111■■111111■�111111P�■1111111■�I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111.■Ill�lii■■1111111■■1111111
60
a
. ,
�,
v, 50
m
u
■■1111111■■1111111■■IIIIIIIf1■1�1�III■■1111111■■1111111
3
30
■■1111111■■1111111■■IIIIIIIII���IIIII■■1111111■■1111111
v
5
,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111r��1111111■■1111111■■1111111
10
,
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111!!;
■■1111111■■IIIIII_!�i�iiM�;���■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
pO p1 p
11'L p5 6b 90 ,L0 �O yp b'L .y'L pe"0�O
�ti' 1 'y ti "� h ,ybO
■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016
MY1-10/2016 • MY2-05/2017
■■111!:Il��:�ii!!;�ilii�llll■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
UT2, Cross -Section 17
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
60
a
v, 50
m
u
40
3
30
v
5
20
10
0
pO p1 p
11'L p5 6b 90 ,L0 �O yp b'L .y'L pe"0�O
�ti' 1 'y ti "� h ,ybO
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016
MY1-10/2016 • MY2-05/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2b, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Particle Count
Riffle Pool Total
Reach Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
Dff0. =
1
1
1
D100 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
1
4
4
5
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
2
6
6
11
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
2
5
5
16
SPC�O
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
2
18
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
19
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
30
19
v
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
a
1
1
1
20
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
2
2
22
Fine
5.6
8.0
6
6
6
28
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
4
4
32
Particle Class Size (mm)
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
6
6
38
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
5
10
10
48
Coarse
22.6
32
4
1
5
5
53
Very Coarse
32
45
12
3
15
15
68
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
7
75
Small
64
90
10
10
10
85
Small
90
128
9
9
9
94
`09
Large
128
180
3
3
3
97
Large
180
256
3
3
3
100
Small
256
362
100
pF�
V
Small
362
512
100
BOJ
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
70
1 30
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.50
D35 =
13.27
D50 =
26.0
Dff0. =
87.0
D95 =
143.4
D100 =
256.0
UT2b, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
a
70
60
d
N
50
m
40
u
30
v
20
a
10
0
Opti 1tih by Oh 1 'L ,tiW
P y�o W ,y'y tib tib �ti bh OU -O ,yW $O o Oti 1ti ,tiP p 'd
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016
• MYl-10/2016 MY2-D5/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Little Pine Creek III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT2b, Cross -Section 11
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
min max
Riffle 100 -Count
Summary
Class Percent
Percentage Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
32.0
D. =
0
D95 =
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
2
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
2
SQ$�0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
4
6
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1,`��1111■■1111111■■1111111
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
6
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■��IIIIII■■1111111■■1111111
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
2
8
■■1111111■■1l��������111111�,/,�IIIIII■■1111111■■1111111
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
4
12
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
6
18
J0S
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
2
20
GAP
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
6
26
■■1111111■11�1���!!�:,;;�iill■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
14
40
Coarse
22.6
32
5
10
50
Very Coarse
32
45
2
4
54
Very Coarse
45
64
3
6
60
Small
64
90
4
8
68
Ov0
Small
90
128
5
10
78
`'00
Large
128
180
8
16
94
Large
180
256
3
6
100
Small
256
362
100
QFC
Small
362
512
100
Medium 512 1024
100
Large/Very Large 1024 2048
100
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
50 1
100
1 100
Cross Section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
7.10
D35 =
19.98
Dso =
32.0
D. =
145.5
D95 =
190.9
D100 =
256.0
UT2b, Cross -Section 11
� �
-����"7111��t1...1111!„�,��'��-��,�Alll�fl�l_11111I.■1111111
Individual Class Percent
100
90
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111■1111IM��s""'�1
�;
80
70
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111111■■1111111■�I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11-�I;i�■■1111111■■1111111
d
. ,
a
50
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1,`��1111■■1111111■■1111111
m
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■��IIIIII■■1111111■■1111111
40
3
30
■■1111111■■1l��������111111�,/,�IIIIII■■1111111■■1111111
v
,
a
20
: ,
■■1111111■■1....11_.�..�itlI�J.Jlllllll■■1111111■■1111111
■■111iiii�ir1111111■■Il�ell
J■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
10
0
,LP 0�O
,yO ,LOQ`0 bO
■■1111111■11�1���!!�:,;;�iill■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016
MY1-10/2016 • MY2-05/2017
UT2b, Cross -Section 11
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
60
a
50
v,
m
u
40
3
30
v
a
20
�
10
0
,LP 0�O
,yO ,LOQ`0 bO
Particle Class Size (mm)
• MYO-05/2016
MY1-10/2016 • MY2-05/2017

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Yearof
Occurrence
MY1
Date of Data
Collection
9/25/2016
Date of
Occurrence
unknown
Crest Gage
Little Pine
Year 2 (2017)
MY2
5/23/2017
unknown
Wrack Lines and alluvial sediment deposit
UT2
MY1
10/5/2016
unknown
Crest Gage
MY2
5/23/2017
unknown
Crest Gage
UT2B
MY1
9/27/2016
unknown
Crest Gage
Table 15. Wetland Gage Attainment Summary
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
No wetland success criteria established
'Growing season starts April 26, 2017 and ends October 11, 2017.
M AM
Gage
Success Criteria Achieved/Max Consecutive Days During Growing Season' (%)
Year 1(2016)
Year 2 (2017)
Year 3 (2018)
Year 4 (2019)
Year 5 (2020)
Wetland FF
Yes/112 Days
Yes/169 Days
(66.6%)
(100%)
No wetland success criteria established
'Growing season starts April 26, 2017 and ends October 11, 2017.

Groundwater Gage Plots
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Wetland FF
20
10
0
-10
i
� -20
`w
m
3 -30
-40
-50
-60
M ii ¢< �n O Z
Rainfall - Gage ## Criteria Level
6.0
5.0
4.0
C
3.0 A
M
2.0
1.0
0.0

Monthly Rainfall Data
Little Pine III Stream & Wetland Restoration Project
DMS Project No. 94903
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
Little Pine Creek 111 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2017 Alleghany County, NC
12.00
10.00
8.00
0
0
'a. 6.00
aT
4.00
2.00
0.00 -1).J"1117i7
Jan -17 Feb -17 Mar -17 Apr -17 May -17 Jun -17 Jul -17 Aug -17 Sep -17 Oct -17 Nov -17
IIIIIIIIIII� NC CRONOS Glade Valley 3.0 ENE Date
-30th percentile
-70th percentile
' 2017 rainfall collected from NC CRONOS Station Name: Glade Valley 3.0 ENE (NCSU, 2017)
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station Sparta, NC8158 (USDA, 2017)