20140334 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report 2017_20180110

MONITORING YEAR 1
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
CANDY CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Guilford County, NC
DEQ Contract 5794
DMS Project Number 96315
USACE Action ID Number 2015-01209
NCDWR Project Number 14-0334
Data Collection Period: October 2017
Final Submission Date: January 10, 2018
PREPARED FOR:
rk�
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC27699-1652

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

W ILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R 1 N G
January 10, 2018
Jeff Schaffer
N.C. Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
RE: Draft Monitoring Year 1 Report Comments
Candy Creek Mitigation Site (DMS #96315)
DMS Contract Number 5794
RFP Number 16-005568
Guilford County, NC
Dear Mr. Schaffer,
We have reviewed the comments on the Monitoring Year 1 Report for the above referenced project
dated January 9, 2018 and have revised the report based on these comments. The revised digital files
are submitted with this letter. Below are responses to each of your comments. For your convenience,
the comments are reprinted with our response in italics.
1. Digital files -The digital data and drawings have been reviewed. During the review, DMS received a
pop up warning that the spatial reference was missing for the Encroachment, Stream Problem Areas
and Vegetation Problem Area layers.
The layers included in the attached digital files have been updated to resolve the spatial reference
warning.
2. Add the USACE Action ID number (2015-01209) and NCDWR Project number (14-0334) to the cover
page.
The USACE Action ID and NCDWR Project numbers were added to the cover page.
3. The CCPV shows sections along Candy Creek Reach 1, UT4, UTS, Candy Creek Reach 2, UT2 Reach 1,
Candy Creek Reach 3, UT1C and Candy Creek Reach 4 where the buffer width is less than 50 feet.
Wildlands addressed this in the As -Built Baseline report and indicated that the total length of these
sections is approximately 3.1% of the total project length. Please address this in a sentence or two in
the MY1 report and include that this is less than the 5% allowed by the IRT.
An explanation was added to the end of the executive summary, page ii and section 1.2, page 1-2.
4. Appendix 4, Table 11: DMS realizes that there are various methods used to calculate Bank Height
Ratio from year to year. One of these is to hold the bankfull depth static (denominator) while
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

W ILDLANDS
E N G I N E E R 1 N G
allowing the Low Top of Bank max depth (numerator) to vary. Another method that has been
proposed and is being evaluated is to hold the As -built cross-sectional area static within each year's
new cross-section and allow that to determine the max bankfull depth for each year. However, if
there are large changes in the W/D ratio either method can make for somewhat distorted BHR
values depending upon the direction and magnitude of the change in the W/D ratio. Please update
the calculations to reflect changes observed in the overlays and explain in detail as footnote with
the tables that describes the method by which Wildlands is calculating Bank Height Ratio and
Entrenchment Ratio. In addition, please provide context to any observed changes in these calculated
ratios in the report narrative. Wildlands must be prepared to defend the method used for credit
release and justify through context whether or not any changes observed in a cross section
represent an issue.
The executive summary and section 1.2.1 have been updated to further clarify the MY1 observations
as follows.
"Minor fluctuations in channel dimensions observed in MY1 are adjustments that typically occur
following construction. Cross-section surveys show that the bank height ratios remain at 1.0.
Entrenchment ratios vary slightly from year to year due to minor changes in bankfull widths. Pools
are deepening with point bar deposition occurring. Small adjustments in riffle widths occur due to
vegetation, sediment deposition, and many other factors. These minor changes do not indicate
channel instability."
A footnote has been added to Tables 10, 11, and 12 to denote ER and BHR calculation methods.
S. As required by contract, specifically RFP#16-005568 Addendum#1, Wildlands has submitted an
updated Monitoring Phase Performance Bond (MPPB) for Monitoring Year 2 (Task 8) that has been
approved by Jeff Jurek per his 1/2/2018 email to Shawn Wilkerson with a copy to John Hutton.
Thank you. No revisions necessary.
If you have any questions, please contact me by phone [phone] x.109, or by email
([e-mail]).
Sincerely,
Aaron S. Earley, PE, CFM
Project Manager
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Candy Creek Mitigation
Site (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to restore, enhance, and preserve
a total of 19,583 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent streams, in Guilford County, NC. The Site is
expected to generate 15,507 stream mitigation units (SMUs) through the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of Candy Creek and nine unnamed tributaries (Table 1).
The Site is located northeast of the Town of Brown Summit within the DMS targeted local watershed for
the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002010020 and NCDWR Subbasin 03-06-01
(Figure 1) and is being submitted for mitigation credit in the Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030002. The
Site is located within the Haw River Headwaters Watershed, which is part of DMS' Cape Fear River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP). While Candy Creek is not mentioned specifically, this document identifies
a restoration goal for all streams within HUC 03030002 of reducing sediment and nutrient pollution to
downstream Jordan Lake. The Haw River watershed was also identified in the 2005 NC Wildlife
Resources Commission's Wildlife Action Plan as a priority area for freshwater habitat conservation and
restoration to protect rare and endemic aquatic fauna and enhance species diversity. No rare and
endemic aquatic species have been documented onsite or are proposed for re-establishment onsite as
part of the project. The Wildlife Action Plan calls for "support of conservation and restoration of streams
and riparian zones in priority areas (acquisition, easements, and buffer)." Restoration at the Site directly
and indirectly addressed these goals by excluding cattle from the stream, creating stable stream banks,
restoring a riparian corridor, and placing land historically used for agriculture under permanent
conservation easement.
The project goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2016) were to provide ecological
enhancement and mitigate site water quality stressors that will benefit the receiving waters in the Cape
Fear River Basin. This will primarily be achieved by creating functional and stable stream channels,
increasing and improving the interaction of stream hydrology within the riparian zone, and improving
floodplain habitat and ecological function. This will also be achieved by restoring a Piedmont
Bottomland Forest community as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) along the stream reaches
within open pastures. Completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described
in the RBRP and to address stressors identified in the LWP, the following project goals were established:
• Reduce in -stream water quality stressors resulting in enhanced habitat and water quality in
riffles and pools.
• Construct stream channels that are laterally and vertically stable resulting in a network of
streams capable of supporting hydrologic, biologic, and water quality functions.
• Improve on-site habitat by diversifying and stabilizing the stream channel form; installing habitat
features such as undercut logs, brush toe, wood and stone based riffles; and by establishing
native stream bank vegetation and shading where none exists.
• Exclude cattle from project streams resulting in greater treatment and reduction of overland
flow and landscape derived pollutants including fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorus.
• Increase and improve stream hydrology connectivity with riparian floodplains resulting in
temporary water storage and recharge of wetlands and floodplain pools during high flows;
increased groundwater connectivity within floodplains and wetlands; promotion of nutrient and
carbon exchange between streams and floodplains, and reduced shear stress on channels during
larger flow events.
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report— FINAL

The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed between July 2016 and March 2017. A
conservation easement was recorded on 61.74 acres to protect the restored riparian corridor in
perpetuity.
Monitoring Year 1 (MY1) assessments and site visits were completed in October 2017 to assess the
conditions of the project. Overall, the Site has met the required stream, vegetation, and hydrology
success criteria for MY1. The restored streams are stable and functioning as designed with minor
fluctuations observed that are typically following construction. The average planted stem density for the
Site is 528 stems per acre and is therefore on track to meet the MY3 requirement of 320 planted stems
per acre. Stream gages were installed on the Site to document bankfull events and to monitor the
presence of flow in the intermittent stream. Bankfull events were recorded on some of the restoration
reaches since construction completion. The flow gage was established on the upstream, intermittent
reach of UT1D to document flow during the annual monitoring period. The flow gage recorded baseflow
for 222 consecutive days during the MY1 monitoring period and therefore has met the established
hydrologic criteria.
In addition, the Site has several sections noted where the buffer width is less than 50 feet. The total
length of these sections is approximately 3.1% of the total project length, less than the 5% allowed by
the IRT. Please refer to Figures 2 and 3.
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report— FINAL ii

CANDY CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.........................................................................................................1-1
Figure 1
1.1
Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Component/Asset Map
1.2
Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
Table 2
1.2.1
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-2
Project Contact Table
1.2.2
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-2
Table 12a -p
1.2.3
Stream Hydrology Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
Cross -Section Plots
1.2.4
Vegetative Assessment......................................................................................................1-3
Appendix 5
1.2.5
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-3
Verification of Bankfull Events
1.2.6
Adaptive Management Plan...............................................................................................1-4
1.3
Monitoring Year 1 Summary......................................................................................................1-4
Section 2:
METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................................2-1
Section3:
REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................
3-1
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
General Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4
Project Information and Attributes
Appendix 2 Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.7 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 5a -m Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 3
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Table 8
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 9
Planted and Total Stems (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Appendix 4
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 10a -f
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11a -c
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross -Section)
Table 12a -p
Monitoring Data — Stream Reach Data Summary
Cross -Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix 5
Hydrology Summary Data and Plot
Table 13
Verification of Bankfull Events
Stream Flow Gage Plot
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report— FINAL

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site is located in northeast Guilford County approximately 15 miles northeast of the City of
Greensboro off of Old Reidsville Road and Hopkins Road (Figure 1). The Site is located in the Inner
Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998). The project watershed is primarily
comprised of agricultural and forested land. The drainage area for the Site is 937 acres.
The project streams consist of Candy Creek and the unnamed tributaries (UT1, UT2, UT2A, UT213, UT3,
UT4, UT5, and UT5A). Stream restoration reaches included Candy Creek (Reach 1, 2, and 4), UT1C, UT1D,
UT2 (Reach 1 Lower), UT3, UT4, and UT5. Stream enhancement (Level I and II) activities were utilized for
Candy Creek Reach 3, UT2 (Reach 1 Upper), UT2 (Reach 2), UT2A, and UT213. The intact and functional
reaches associated with UT1C, UT3, and UT5 were preserved via the project conservation easement. The
riparian areas along the restoration and enhancement reaches were planted with native vegetation to
improve habitat and protect water quality.
Construction activities were completed by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. in March 2017. Planting and
seeding activities were completed by Bruton Natural Systems, Inc. in March 2017. A conservation
easement has been recorded and is in place on 61.74 acres. The project is expected to generate 15,507
stream mitigation units (SMU's). Annual monitoring will be conducted for seven years with the close-out
anticipated to commence in 2023 given the success criteria are met. Appendix 1 provides more detailed
project activity, history, contact information, and watershed/site background information for this
project.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2.
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, stream impairments included incised and over widened channels, bank
erosion with areas of mass wasting, historic channelization, floodplain alteration, degraded in -stream
habitat, and impoundments. Riparian impairments included clearing and livestock grazing. Tables 10a -f
in Appendix 4 present the pre -restoration conditions in detail.
The overarching goals of the stream mitigation project are to provide ecological enhancement and
mitigate site water quality stressors that will benefit the receiving waters in the Cape Fear River Basin.
The Site will treat almost all the headwaters of Candy Creek and 47% of the entire 3.1 -square mile Candy
Creek watershed before flowing to the Haw River. A primary goal of the RBRP is to restore and maintain
water quality as stated in the Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy. The project goals established
for the Site were completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described in
the RBRP and include the following:
The primary objectives of the Candy Creek Mitigation Site address stressors identified in the LWP and
included the following:
• Reduce in -stream water quality stressors. Reconstruct stream channels with stable dimensions.
Stabilize eroding stream banks. Add bank protection and in -stream structures to protect
restored/enhanced streams.
• Construct stream channels that are laterally and vertical stable. Construct stream channels that
will maintain a stable pattern and profile considering the hydrologic and sediment inputs to the
system, the landscape setting, and the watershed conditions.
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report— FINAL 1-1

• Improve on-site habitat. Construct diverse and stable channel form with varied and self -
sustainable stream bedform. Install habitat features such as undercut logs, brush toe, wood and
stone -based riffles. Establish native stream bank vegetation and shading where none exists.
• Exclude cattle from project streams. Install fencing around the conservation easement adjacent
to cattle pastures
• Increase and improve the interaction of stream hydrology within the riparian zone to in turn
improve floodplain habitat and ecological function. Reconstruct stream channels with
appropriate bankfull dimensions and raise them to the proper depths relative to a functioning
floodplain.
• Restore and enhance native floodplain forest. Plant native trees and understory species, and
treat invasive species in the riparian zone.
• Permanently protect the project Site from harmful uses. Establish a conservation easement on
the Site.
1.2 Monitoring Year 1 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted during MY1 to assess the condition of the project. The stream,
vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria presented in
the Candy Creek Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016). Several sections were noted where the buffer width
is less than 50 feet. The total length of these sections is approximately 3.1% of the total project length,
less than the 5% allowed by the IRT. Please refer to Figures 2 and 3.
1.2.1 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY1 were conducted in October 2017. With the exception of some isolated
areas of bank erosion, pool deposition, and riffle scouring all streams within the Site appear stable.
Minor fluctuations in channel dimensions observed in MY1 are adjustments that typically occur
following construction. Cross-section surveys show that the bank height ratios remain at 1.0.
Entrenchment ratios vary slightly from year to year due to minor changes in bankfull widths. Pools are
deepening with point bar deposition occurring. Small adjustments in riffle widths occur due to
vegetation, sediment deposition, and many other factors. These minor changes do not indicate channel
instability.
Bank erosion was observed within some isolated outside meander bends along Candy Creek Reach 1, 2,
and 4. A limited area of riffle scour was noted at cross-section 33 on UT2 Reach 1 and an area of pool
deposition was observed at cross-section 34 on UT2 Reach 2. These areas will be monitored for
advancement in subsequent monitoring years.
Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment table, CCPV map, and reference photographs.
Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological data and plots.
1.2.2 Stream Areas of Concern
A maintenance plan is being developed to stabilize the isolated areas of bank erosion along Candy
Creek. Minor areas of riffle scour and pool deposition along UT2 will continue to be monitored and a
maintenance plan will be established if deemed necessary.
1.2.3 Stream Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in
separate years within the restoration and enhancement I (EI) reaches. Consistent flow must be
documented in the intermittent stream (UT1D) at the Site. Under normal circumstances stream flow
must be documented to occur every year for at least 30 consecutive days during the seven year
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report— FINAL 1-2

monitoring period. Stream flow must also be documented to occur intermittently in all months other
than July through September of each monitoring year.
At least one bankfull event was recorded on two of the stream restoration reaches (Candy Creek Reach
4 and UT5) during MY1 resulting in partial attainment of the stream hydrology assessment criteria.
Results from the flow gage established on UT11D indicate the stream is maintaining baseflow as expected
for an intermittent stream. Baseflow was recorded for 100% of the monitoring period (222 consecutive
days). Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic summary data and plot.
1.2.4 Vegetative Assessment
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). A total of 40
vegetation plots were established during the baseline monitoring within the project easement area. The
majority of plots (37) were installed using a standard 10 meter by 10 meter plot. The additional plots (3)
were established as 5 meter by 20 meter non-standard plots. The final vegetative success criteria will be
the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the planted riparian and wetland corridor at the end of the
required monitoring period (MY7). The interim measure of vegetative success for the Site will be the
survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third monitoring year(MY3) and at least
260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth monitoring year (MY5). Planted vegetation must average 10
feet in height in each plot at the end of the seventh year of monitoring. If this performance standard is
met by MY5 and stem density is trending towards success (i.e., no less than 260 five year old
stems/acre), monitoring of vegetation on the Site may be terminated provided written approval is
provided by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in consultation with the NC Interagency Review
Team.
The MY1 vegetative survey was completed in October 2017. The 2017 vegetation monitoring resulted in
an average stem density of 528 stems per acre, which is greater than the interim requirement of 320
stems/acre required at MY3, but approximately 18% less than the baseline density recorded at MYO, 647
stems/acre in January 2016. There is an average of 13 stems per plot as compared to 16 stems per plot
in MYO. All 40 of the plots are on track to meet the success criteria required for MY7 (Table 9, Appendix
3). Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation condition assessment table
and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.5 Vegetation Areas of Concern
The isolated areas of English ivy (Hedera helix) documented within the upper extent of Candy Creek
were treated during the Fall of 2017. Additionally, the areas of dense infestations of aquatic plant
species; including smartweed (Persicaria sp.), Asian spiderwort (Murdannia keisak), and water primrose
(Ludwigia hexapetala) were observed within some restoration reaches. An initial treatment for these
aquatic species was implemented in the Fall of 2017. These species will continue to be monitored and
controlled as necessary.
There are two, small bare areas (<1% of the planted acreage) within the floodplain valleys of UT2. In
these bare areas, the planted trees appear healthy and volunteer trees are abundant, but the
herbaceous layer is not well established. One isolated area of easement encroachment was noted along
UT3 which has impacted the establishment of the vegetative community in this location. Refer to
Appendix 2 for the vegetation condition assessment table and Integrated Current Condition Plan View
(CCPV).
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report— FINAL 1-3

1.2.6 Adaptive Management Plan
Wildlands plans to utilize a combination of live stakes and/or brush mattresses to stabilize the areas of
bank erosion along Candy Creek.
Wildlands will continue to monitor and control invasive species at the Site. Follow up treatments will be
conducted annually as necessary.
For those areas noted with poor herbaceous growth, lime will be incorporated into the soil which is
expected to increase soil pH resulting in improved herbaceous growing conditions. These areas will be
monitored and any additional actions deemed necessary to promote herbaceous plant growth will be
taken.
The landowner associated with the area of encroachment will be notified of this violation and the area
will continue to be monitored during subsequent site visits.
1.3 Monitoring Year 1 Summary
The streams within the Site are stable and functioning as designed. The average stem density for the Site
is on track to meeting the MY7 success criteria; all individual vegetation plots meet the MY1 success
criteria as noted in CCPV. Bankfull events were documented within some of the restored stream reaches
at the Site.
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 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.
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report— FINAL 1-4

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data were 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). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Crest gages were installed in surveyed riffle cross-sections and monitored quarterly. Hydrologic
monitoring instrument installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the
Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 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, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.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, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources Division of Mitigation Services, 2009. Cape Fear River
Basin Restoration Priorities. http://porta 1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=864e82e8-
725c-415e-8ed9-c72dfcb55012&groupld=60329
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh, NC
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Department of Agriculture. Lincolnton, NC Weather Station NC4996.
http://www.wcc.nres.usda.gov/climate/navigate wets.html
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2016). Candy Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. NCDMS, Raleigh, NC.
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 1 Annual Report— FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

`ha
'94h1
r y,Orks Rd
�a
0a
dead � SC
Monmelon
Golf C tub
r'
Ln K,V Penrose Jl
Park Country Club i
Jaycee
Perk D` Park II
�* 5
S '-
10010
_ w
NI eke` . 40NIP'Lak. Redsvl"e
Rrirlsriflr Park
J i
Y
van Hook It,f
03030002010020
l '
F
2
r
v
0303000202002( ®m
� � a
�t �f
grow..ns Suryniit
�a
Crooked
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
Project Location
?00020 0030
Frrew�i !;r
03010104021010
1 a
00
K e,�vejC D
c i
mpAN , F
pT:tar, _IJ,:
y;f
� <i l:iianl Rd 1
1 I 1
!' "03b30002010040
loll
Cr ♦ f
Grnlrock Ln �
pmry 0 --——-- —
f=bqs ♦� c�
a 0303000201005
^40 ff ♦ G`
TBe Goffu
course crsa 03030002020030
_
,r
The subject project site is an environmental restoration
site of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles 11�
and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
03030002020070
Directions to Site:
From Greensboro, NC, take US -29 North approximately 12 miles
past the communities of Browns Summit and Monticello. The north
end of the project Site including Candy Creek Reach 3, Candy
Creek Reach 4, UT1C, and UT1D may be accessed by Old
Reidsville Rd (NC SR 2514). The south end of the project Site
including Candy Creek Reach 1, Candy Creek Reach 2, UT2,
UT3, UT4, and UT5 can be accessed via Hopkins Rd (NC SR 2700).
ktp 0 1.5 Miles
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Country p:
HIP `�303od'62020060
Golf
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Guilford County, NC

Conservation Easement
< 50' Buffer Width
Internal Crossings
Stream Restoration
` ' �� ♦ ♦ �♦
„ ♦♦♦ ,�� Stream Enhancement I
a�.
y k,, ••. Stream Enhancement II
r"Stream Preservation
ems•
Non Project Stream
Reach Breaks
41
tzz
p i
'h Ty�r��t�•a Gj'ifijC� C: -i7 ""'�;'� ���� x�F +��`+►+'♦
* * , 1,11 1111 ♦♦� ` r, `x r
5
.. � •411 rP .• ,1
4
R • i
�'� ',tri. ' M � ♦ .
?'A�, tom,.. x •111,. '♦.++ M ; 1.11111 y: �,b"
. a.,$R v^r.
} r Y
- ., �.
f C h " •�,1 ., + a��. 1 �
j
' ♦ 111 A.xq
1
41rAw TWIT
t
• •e .+ c r
Rx 1
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
0 1,000 Feet Candy Creek Mitigation Site
WILDLANDS , I i i i I DMS Project No. 96315
ENGINEERING Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Guilford County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Offset
Type R RE R RE R RE
Totals 14,976 531 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
As -Built
Existing Footage/ Credits
Reach ID Stationing/ Approach Restoration or Restoration Equivalent Restoration Footage/ Acreage Mitigation Ratio
(S
Location Acreage MU/WMU)
STREAMS
Candy Creek Reach 1
100+08-117+19
2,885
P1
Restoration
1,711
1:1
1,711
117+45 - 126+27
P3
Restoration
882
1:1
882
Candy Creek Reach 2
126+27 - 131+80
2,398
PI
Restoration
553
1:1
553
132+40 - 141+17
P1
Restoration
877
1:1
877
141+43 - 148+42
Pi
Restoration
699
1:1
699
Candy Creek Reach 3
149+02 - 155+05
2,333
EI
Enhancement
603
1.5:1
402
155+05 - 155+33
Ell
Enhancement
28
2.5:1
11
155+62-160+35
Ell
Enhancement
473
2.5:1
189
160+62 - 170+37
Ell
Enhancement
975
2.5:1
390
Candy Creek Reach 4
170+71 - 178+74
3,386
P1
Restoration
803
1:1
803
179+00 - 196+47
Pi
Restoration
1,747
1:1
1,747
196+68-206+35
P1
Restoration
967
1:1
967
UT1C
200+12-207+40
551
P1
Restoration
728
1:1
728
UT1C - P
207+40 - 211+38
398
-
Preservation
398
5:1
80
UT1D
250+00-253+79
437
P1
Restoration
379
1:1
379
UT2 Reach 1
300+00-304+24
940
EI
Enhancement
424
1.5:1
283
304+24 - 305+01
Pi
Restoration
77
1:1
77
305+26 - 311+88
P1
Restoration
662
1:1
662
UT2 Reach
311+88-318+31
746
EI
Enhancement
643
1.5:1
429
UT2A
350+84-354+37
376
EI
Enhancement
353
1.5:1
235
UT2B
270+28-276+85
702
Ell
Enhancement
657
2.5:1
263
UT3-P
400+00-411+50
1,150
-
Preservation
1,150
5:1
230
UT3
411+50 - 414+96
729
Pi
Restoration
346
1:1
346
UT4
500+49-514+05
1,270
PI
Restoration
1,356
1:1
1,356
UT5-P
599+19-600+00
81
-
Preservation
81
5:1
16
UT5
600+00-607+91
1,297
P1
Restoration
791
1:1
791
608+16 - 610+12
Restoration
196
1:1
196
UTSA
650+00-659+70
1,056
-
Preservation
970
5:1
194
659+99-660+53
-
Preservation
54
5:1
11

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Activity or R Data Collection Complete
Completion or Scheduled Delivery
Mitigation Plan November 2014
March 2016
Final Design - Construction Plans July 2016
July 2016
Construction July 2016 - March 2017
March 2017
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project areal July 2016 - March 2017
March 2017
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments March 2017
March 2017
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments March 2017
March 2017
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey October 2016 - March 2017
May 2017
Vegetation Survey March 2017
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey October 2017
December 2017
Vegetation Survey October 2017
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2018
December 2018
Vegetation Survey 2018
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2019
December 2019
Vegetation Survey 2019
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2020
December 2020
Vegetation Survey 2020
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2021
December 2021
Vegetation Survey 2021
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2022
December 2022
Vegetation Survey 2022
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2023
December 2023
Vegetation Survey 2023
'Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year i - 2017
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Aaron Earley, PE
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.332.7754
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Construction Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Dykes and Son Nursery
Live Stakes
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc & Foggy Mountain Nursery
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Jason Lorch
Monitoring, POC
919.413.12141, ext. 107

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Project
Information
Project Name
Gandy Creek Mitigation Site
County
Guilford County
Project Area (acres)
61.74
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Upstream Project Limits — 36°13'27.27"N, 79.39'37.79"W
Downstream Project Limits -3614'39.74"N, 79"39'50.46"W
Physiographic Province
Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03030002010020
DWR Sub -basin
03-06-03
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
937
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Arez
1%
CLIA Land Use Classification
66%—Agriculture/Managed Herbaceous;
29%—Forested/Scrubland, 5%- Developed
IftfEmi
'I '1171115 11
Parameters
Candy Creek Reach 1
Candy Creek Reach 2 Candy Creek Reach 3 Candy Creek Reach 4
745.0
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
2,593
2,129 2,079 3,517
Drainage Area (acres)
560
694 809 937
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
40.5
40.5 45.0
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
WS -V (NSW)
Morphological Desription (stream type)
G4c
F5G4c G4c
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
IV
IV IV III/IV
Underlying mapped soils
Clifford Sandy Clay Loam, Codorus Loam, Nathalie Sandy Loam, Poplar Forest Gravelly Sandy Loam
Drainage class
Well Drained to Somewhat Poorly Drained
Soil hydric status
Codorus Loam - Hydric
Slope
FEMA classification
N/A
Native vegetation community
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation -Post-Restoration
0%
Parameters
UT1C UT1D
UT2
UT2A UT2B UT3 UT4 UTS
U 5
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
1,126 379
1,806
353 657 1,496 1,356 1,068
1,024
Drainage Area (acres)
28 6
63
15 24 79 190 137
45
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
35.0 27.5
34.5
31.5 31.5 36.5 37.5 31.5
33.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Desription (stream type)
E5b C5
F5
G5 BSc G4 G4 F4
N/A
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
III II/III
III/V
III III IV IV IV
N/A
Underlying mapped soils
Casville Sandy Loam, Codorus Loam, Nathalie Sandy Loam
Drainage class
Well Drained to Somewhat Poorly Drained
Soil hydric status
Codorus Loam - Hydric
Slope
FEMA classification
N/A
Native vegetation community
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation -Post-Restoration
Lg-ulatory
0%
Considerations
MN
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Waters of the United States -Section 401
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ycs
USAGE Nationwide Permit No.27 (Action IDk SAW -2015-01209) and DWR 401 Water Quality Certification (letter from DWR dated
5/13/2015).
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
No
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Candy Creek Mitigation Plan; Wildlands determined "no effect" on Guilford County listed endangered species. USFWS responded on April 4,
2014 and stated the "proposed action is not likely to
adversely affect any federally listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated
critical habitat or species currently proposed for listing under the Act".
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO dated 3/24/2014).
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management
Act (LAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
W.`` Candy Creek Mitigation Site
, 0 300 600 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
wI LD LANDS Monitoring Year 1- 2017
ENGINEERING
Guilford County, NC

English Ivy \ ,
:
1 �Q
', � Via► 6*
: - '►�*.
■ JN
English Ivy
• ' 1
` •^'N•.:
U1.Y
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
W
.`` Candy Creek Mitigation Site
, 0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
WILDLANDS I i I I I Monitoring Year 1-2017
ENGINEERING
Guilford County, NC
'
. Conservation
® Internal Cros!
'
-
\
Stream Resto
`
Stream Enhai
i � \
••
Stream Enhai
••.••-'�.'
Stream Prese
.•
1
< 50' Buffer V
��
••.`•
Reach Breaks
•x;;
- - - - Bankfull
Cross-Sectior
Barotroll
_
Stream/Crest
Photo Points
Vegetation Plot Con
,
,
Meets Criteri
•.• •.•
•.`
39 , , -' •••
;
;
Vegetation Problem
, ; : , ,' •.••
; `; .
® Bare/Poor He
••••
••
, ;
`�
Invasive Plan
•�'• ••
' '
Stream Problem Are
Bank Scour/ I
Encroachmer
• ,;
16
1,7117-7-700-1-OrM
*o
00
• ,�
♦
`, ,
♦ •
•
\ '
•
o
:
•
`
• ,
f
•
•
�
o
i I ,L
:
• ' ,
• /
•
• ♦
• I ♦
■
, \�♦�
,
•
♦
:
. .
English Ivy \ ,
:
1 �Q
', � Via► 6*
: - '►�*.
■ JN
English Ivy
• ' 1
` •^'N•.:
U1.Y
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
W
.`` Candy Creek Mitigation Site
, 0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
WILDLANDS I i I I I Monitoring Year 1-2017
ENGINEERING
Guilford County, NC

= Conservation Easement
® Internal Crossings
Primrose Stream Restoration
• _ _1 1
Stream Enhancement I
_ Stream Enhancement II
;♦ i •>♦>;«\ Stream Preservation
♦ 6 ��.\1_ --yyyy�����>>s < 50' Buffer Width
Primrose,,. 1 , , ;♦ Reach Breaks
♦ .. \' ♦♦. - - - - Bankfull
♦ _ i \�
♦ ii
♦♦ Cross -Sections
>>>> '♦' ' , i v>♦♦ 36 �� , ♦♦♦ BarOtr011
"41,; 1 1 r s•r'. '>♦♦ Stream/Crest Gage
41 5> . ♦ Photo Points
Vegetation Plot Condition- MY1
41
41.
t♦ Meets Criteria
�\ >>., �.�'� ,' , ,' >♦♦ ♦'>41.... Vegetation Problem Area MY1
. + ♦ >
37 >>• >>.��.�`� _ 38♦. : �..� ♦ r>>♦ >+♦ Invasive Plant Population (0.62 ac)
-_ - ". 1 >>..♦` �' .' ---' .• ; ' >. R(4V` P ,i (p j ;lu11' Encroachment
�>►• � - `\ ` ice' _ � �-� ♦� 3 . ♦ ♦> • ,��-. .,
`••>>>,>,>>�tz>��.�� ``\`--- � _ �,'''v�'� w .,'s♦♦♦'' '�• '�'. `;�\, ;, :� ♦>'s.. ••I �'��I' atr1�r��j-r�ll�� 1'���"f,�.,t.-
i
Q
♦ Y ♦ '
' 40
m _ ' i I ♦ u.
39
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Oft Candy Creek Mitigation Site
WILD LANDS , 0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
ENGINEERING Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Guilford County, NC

:0000.:
- Conservation Easement
-■1100;
® Internal Crossings
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
< 50' Buffer Width
Reach Breaks
---- Bankfull
Cross -Sections
Stream/Crest Gage
♦ Photo Points
Vegetation Plot Condition- MY1
= Meets Criteria
Vegetation Problem Area - MY1
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover (0.83 ac)
Invasive Plant Population (0.62 ac)
Stream Problem Areas- MY1
Bank Scour/ Eroded
e
•
•
o
•
o•
i�t
�Vmr
Primrose
%12
II
NN
r 11"i
, I ♦
I 1 •
\ r
1 \ ♦ if 4
WA's,:
I 4 ,
't1111111111.1..1...1111.11.11.1111111111111 n 111IIII:..:al.aa
4 1 ti/ 1 •
♦
•o
\ 1
' 1 I
;r'•1 I / 10
o �•�I � �� -
i/ • I 1
'.�'i' O'! l •
1 • 1 I
1 1
9
� 1 1
-An
•#
1
• f ,
� I•
i I I
y / I
♦ /
�j A ( ♦ I
JI �T7 ♦♦ 1 1 i
✓a.�� ��� �i✓r_-:jar. /� ' l��'� •�zj�.,* �' - - - - - - ♦:
1 •
` � G
1 � •
1 �
7
CYC I /
\
1 1
I /
Primrose
/
r'
I I
• / 1
• 1 1
♦ uv
� 1 1
♦ I I .,
Si rl-_' Y�4 S.A. :'�.:aai`=.lGfY:•., i _ ^ 4 :1. Jid.:, . Y•rE >� V .-
64MK
. i '.l:c....• .. ,.._ t•��_._
0 125 250 Feet
WILD LANDS I I I I I
ENGINEERING
Primrose
34
•.11..1...1...1
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Guilford County, NC

--G,4fy/
� _:a, it Y\'. \.. `.. .,�I�R v R .•. r3';,�•v .
T� r Conservation Easement Vegetation Plot Condition- MY1 l r ; ♦\ ` c
® Internal Crossings Meets Criteria
Stream Restoration Vegetation Problem Area - MY1 - g
Stream Enhancement I Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover (0.83 ac)
Stream Enhancement II Invasive Plant Population (0.62 ac)
♦♦ Stream Preservation Stream Problem Areas- MY1 a�4 ! • • '; w. ?' t _
< 50' Buffer Width Bank Scour/ Eroded ♦ a` ` r /'
Reach Breaks
- - - Bankfull
Cross-Sections��,
Stream/Crest Gage rt
♦ Photo Points ♦.♦ ;
.�♦♦ ZS:i 1 1♦ 1 ♦N.
y,If �: \ . R -1+... . i �il�' '1!',� ; ?"`- ♦♦
14 i
11,3 hall
some... 55210126
12 $19
di
is
Primrose ♦♦♦♦ ♦♦•♦ �, ti sem''' ..•♦
,r t.; ♦♦♦ ♦ ``�r • ♦ ♦♦ 1 t ..j '.i.�T:a�}CS r1" �`�':v r it ♦ ♦♦♦
♦ ♦�
fir` 1� , fy,. #, �\\- yIJ:J i—♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦■■1■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■►1♦ \♦ —♦
XIA
32
i fir: ♦ , 1:J:I ♦
♦♦ 31 ♦♦
i 1
♦
♦♦♦ T i
e ♦ j1♦ ` `I 10 ♦i
' ♦I 1 1 1
♦1 1 1 1
♦ 1 1 •
tz
WILDLANDS rk�
ENGINEERING
0
c ,
Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
i i i I Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Guilford County, NC

: :
'� • � •\•••�\,\•\\ 2829
•••••aaa\\nunaunan/utcc.n■a{naa
RID
16 \♦►l t�••auuau{naa. 3unnaun{an{a�
►11 `� 1\\\\\•s
11 • 1 _
III ` III ``%
1 `
'r 15 -'
Alt
•
• 40Rollins
>
30
Conservation Easement
Internal Crossings
`,;
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
�.� Stream Enhancement 11
�.'� \♦♦' Stream Preservation
;:♦♦� R, < 50' Buffer Width
13 ' Reach Breaks
/ • Bankfull
t y
Cross Sections
'♦ '?�`
� , rf';, � Stream/Crest Gage
♦ , y - � In -Stream Flow Gage
IV&�, r �.: *' ♦ Photo Points
y, 11, .� ♦� r * yY �� Vegetation Plot Condition- MY1
Meets Criteria
.✓, • ..... 1111 3��. �;: � `�
' Figure 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Oft Candy Creek Mitigation Site
WILDLANDS , 0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
ENGINEERING ///���jjj Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Guilford County, NC

t i
Sporadic combination of Smartweed,
Asian Spiderwort, Creeping Primrose,
t �� ♦♦:♦�. Alligthe channel
and alonthumbg
within
the channel alon Reach 4.
21
1 �'c 1 ♦♦i y•�r t �� ♦♦♦
20
i
N j z
i
It s .
♦♦� �e 18
W: VIA
i
4 �•
-
a
Arp
- Conservation Easement
-..Islip
® Internal Crossings
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
< 50' Buffer Width
Reach Breaks
---- Bankfull
Cross -Sections
♦ Photo Points
Vegetation Plot Condition- MY1
= Meets Criteria
Stream Problem Areas- MY1
_--- Bank Scour/ Eroded
r tlr -
`4_
a
Figure 3.6 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
.`` Candy Creek Mitigation Site
W, 0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
WILDLANDS i i i I Monitoring Year 1-2017
ENGINEERING
Guilford County, NC

4
a r� "00
t
♦♦♦r� ��+4'' Sporadic combination of Smartweed,
\ Asian Spiderwort, Creeping Primrose,
Alligatorweed and Tearthumb within
the channel along Reach 4.
.t
OW
)� • Y
I (tili
� I
Figure 3.7 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
WILDLANDS Monitoring Year 1-2017
ENGINEERING
Guilford County, NC
- Conservation Easement
;r
® Internal Crossings
Stream Restoration
7�
Stream Enhancement I
'
+
Stream Enhancement 11
Stream Preservation
<50' Buffer Width
Reach Breaks
- - - - Bankfull
Cross -Sections
k< Stream/Crest Gage
♦ Photo Points
Vegetation Plot condition- MY1
Meets Criteria
4
x °•
Stream Problem Areas- MYl
.
_--- Bank Scour/ Eroded
SII, 4.
LKA
4
a r� "00
t
♦♦♦r� ��+4'' Sporadic combination of Smartweed,
\ Asian Spiderwort, Creeping Primrose,
Alligatorweed and Tearthumb within
the channel along Reach 4.
.t
OW
)� • Y
I (tili
� I
Figure 3.7 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
WILDLANDS Monitoring Year 1-2017
ENGINEERING
Guilford County, NC

Table Sa. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Candv Creek Reach 112.619 LF)
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
39
39
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
38
38
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
38
38
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend,Run
38
38
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
38
38
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
2
29
99%
0
0
99%
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
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.
32
32
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
8
8
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
8
8
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
27
27
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
27
27
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Candv Creek Reach 2 12.215 LFI
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
24
24
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
24
24
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
24
24
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
24
24
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
24
24
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
2
40
98%
0
0
98%
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
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.
29
29
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
12
12
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
12
12
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
17
17
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
17
17
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sc. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Candv Creek Reach 3 12.135 LF)
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
23
23
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
17
17
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
17
17
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend,Run
17
17
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
16
16
100%
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
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
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.
35
35
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
12
12
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
12
12
100%
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 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
23
23
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Candv Creek Reach 4 13.564 LFI
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
42
42
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
39
39
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
39
39
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
38
38
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
39
39
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simply from poor growth and/or scour
2
30
99%
0
0
99%
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
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.
56
56
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
22
22
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
22
22
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
38
38
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
38
38
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Se. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
UT1C(728 LF)
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
32
32
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
7
7
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
7
7
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend,Run
7
7
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
7
7
100%
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
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
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.
29
29
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
22
22
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
22
22
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
7
7
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
7
7
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sf. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
UT1D (379 LFI
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
24
24
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
2
2
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
2
2
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend,Run
2
2
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
2
2
100%
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
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
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.
30
30
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
29
29
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
29
29
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
1
1
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
20
20
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sg. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
UT2 Reach 1 (1.188 LF)
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
32
32
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
8
8
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
8
8
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend,Run
8
8
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
8
S
100%
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
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
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.
32
32
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
31
31
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
31
31
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
1
1
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
22
22
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sh. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
UT2 Reach 2 (643 LFI
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
6
6
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
7
7
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
7
7
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend,Run
7
7
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
7
7
100%
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
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
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.
9
9
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
8
B
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
$
B
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
2
2
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
4
4
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Si. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
UT2A (353 LF)
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
11
11
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
4
4
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
4
4
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend,Run
4
4
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
4
4
100%
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
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
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.
12
12
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
12
12
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
12
12
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
12
12
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sj. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
UT2B (657 LFI
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
5
5
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
6
6
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
6
6
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend,Run
6
6
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
6
6
100%
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
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
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.
16
16
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
16
16
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
16
16
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
4
4
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sk. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
UT3 (346 LFI
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
11
11
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
10
10
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
10
10
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend,Run
10
10
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
10
10
100%
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
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
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.
15
15
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
9
9
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
9
9
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
6
6
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth 2 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
5
5
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 51. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
UT4 (1.356 LFI
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
32
32
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
30
30
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
30
30
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
30
30
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
30
30
100%
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
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
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.
22
22
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
7
7
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
7
7
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
15
15
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
16
16
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed rifFles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table Sm. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
UTS (1.012 LFI
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
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
21
21
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
21
21
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
21
21
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
21
21
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
21
21
100%
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
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
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.
22
22
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
12
12
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
12
12
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
12
12
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
12
12
100%
baseflow.
'Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in section 1.

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Planted Acreage 32
Easement Acreage 62
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
none
1
0.12
0.2%
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
(Ac)
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
2
0.83
2.6%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
0
0.0
0.0%
criteria.
Total
2
0.8
2.6%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25 Ac
0
0
0%
year.
Cumulative Total
1 2
1 0.8
1 2.6%
Easement Acreage 62
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
0
0.62
1.0%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
1
0.12
0.2%

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Candy Creek Reach 1
Monitoring Year 1

T � �
1 U
+r
lam.✓ d �-eYg _ +� .:
ti�r
y
s
� F
i
If 7.
Z4
� �� S
Yom"
�.
✓6 �
ti�r
y
s
i
If 7.
4
� L
xr
�

Photo Point 4— looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 4— looking downstream (10/09/2017) 1
I Photo Point 5 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 5 — looking downstream (10/09/2017)
Photo Point 6 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) Photo Point 6 — looking downstream (10/09/2017)

Photo Point 7 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 7 — looking downstream (10/09/2017) 1
I Photo Point 8— looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 8— looking downstream (10/09/2017)
Photo Point 9 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 9 — looking downstream (10/10/2017)

Photo Point 10 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 10 — looking downstream (10/10/2017) 1
Photo Point 11— looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 11— looking downstream (10/10/2017)
Photo Point 12 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 12 — looking downstream (10/10/2017)

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Candy Creek Reach 2
Monitoring Year 1

77
yY y W
�e r
}
Sk
66
-�'Ai
91�3�+'
e

Photo Point 20 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 20 — looking downstream (10/10/2017) 1
Photo Point 21— looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 21— looking downstream (10/10/2017)
Photo Point 22 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 22 — looking downstream (10/10/2017)

Photo Point 23 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 23 — looking downstream (10/10/2017) 1
Photo Point 24— looking upstream (10/09/2017)

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Candy Creek Reach 3
Monitoring Year 1

WO
W
-...� yt'.
� r
4
yn
u
WO
W
-...� yt'.
4
k �
- 1 . fit• '�1.��i
WO
W
-...� yt'.

r'
f
�
G
r'
f
�

g F
r
; s
r
r
- y ¢3 j A

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Candy Creek Reach 4
Monitoring Year 1

Photo Point 35 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 35 — looking downstream (10/09/2017) 1
Photo Point 36 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 36 — looking downstream (10/09/2017)
Photo Point 37 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1Photo Point 37 — looking downstream (10/09/2017)

Photo Point 38 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 38 — looking downstream (10/09/2017) 1
Photo Point 39 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 39 — looking downstream (10/09/2017)
Photo Point 40 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 40 — looking downstream (10/09/2017)

Photo Point 41— looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 41— looking downstream (10/09/2017) 1
Photo Point 42 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 42 — looking downstream (10/09/2017)
Photo Point 43 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1Photo Point 43 — looking downstream (10/09/2017)

Photo Point 44 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 44 — looking downstream (10/09/2017) 1
I Photo Point 45 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 45 — looking downstream (10/09/2017)
Photo Point 46 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) Photo Point 46 — looking downstream (10/09/2017)

Photo Point 47 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 47 — looking downstream (10/09/2017) 1
I Photo Point 48 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 48 — looking downstream (10/09/2017)
Photo Point 49 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 49 — looking downstream (10/09/2017)

Photo Point 50 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 50 — looking downstream (10/09/2017) 1
Photo Point 51— looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 51— looking downstream (10/09/2017)
Photo Point 52 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1Photo Point 52 — looking downstream (10/09/2017)

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Unnamed Tributaries 1C and 1D
Monitoring Year 1

Photo Point 53 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 53 — looking downstream (10/09/2017) 1
Photo Point 54 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 54 — looking downstream (10/09/2017)
Photo Point 55 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) Photo Point 55 — looking downstream (10/09/2017)

sin+.
� N
Iv
"0 P41
g
41
w
� �
z
sin+.
� N
Iv
"0 P41
g
w
� �
z
sin+.
� N
Iv
"0 P41

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Unnamed Tributaries 2, 2A, and 2B
Monitoring Year 1

77
7
7
i,
MR
e

Photo Point 61— looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 61— looking downstream (10/10/2017) 1
Photo Point 62 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 62 — looking downstream (10/10/2017)
Photo Point 63 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 63 — looking downstream (10/10/2017)

Photo Point 64 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) Photo Point 64 — looking downstream (10/10/2017) 1
Photo Point 65 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 65 — looking downstream (10/10/2017)
Photo Point 66 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 66 — looking downstream (10/10/2017)

Photo Point 67 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 67 — looking downstream (10/10/2017) 1
Photo Point 68 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 68 — looking downstream (10/10/2017)
Photo Point 69 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 69 — looking downstream (10/10/2017)

Photo Point 70 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 70 — looking downstream (10/10/2017) 1
Photo Point 71— looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 71— looking downstream (10/10/2017)
Photo Point 72 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 72 — looking downstream (10/10/2017)

too
�tj w
s r
-AIN
iF
.!'
A.
L
w
r+
9 d ry
as
✓ _
�
�tj w
s r
-AIN
iF
.!'
A.
ivy

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Unnamed Tributaries 3, 4, and 5
Monitoring Year 1

Photo Point 74 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 74 — looking downstream (10/10/2017) 1
Photo Point 75 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 75 — looking downstream (10/10/2017)
Photo Point 76 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1Photo Point 76 — looking downstream (10/10/2017)

Photo Point 77 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 77 — looking downstream (10/10/2017) 1
Photo Point 78 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 78 — looking downstream (10/10/2017)
Photo Point 79 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 79 — looking downstream (10/10/2017)

Photo Point 80 — looking upstream (10/10/2017) 1 Photo Point 80 — looking downstream (10/10/2017) 1
Photo Point 81— looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 81— looking downstream (10/09/2017)
Photo Point 82 — looking upstream (10/09/2017) 1 Photo Point 82 — looking downstream (10/09/2017)

VEGETATION PHOTOGRAPHS
Monitoring Year 1

Vegetation Plot 7 (10/09/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 8 (10/09/2017) 1
I Vegetation Plot 9 (10/09/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 (10/09/2017)
Vegetation Plot 11 (10/09/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 12 (10/09/2017)

t'� x.� u�:�is`.. fix• �t �.
1
i
k
-
x
Y
1
1
i�
v
w;
t'� x.� u�:�is`.. fix• �t �.
1
i
k
-
Y
1
1
i�

Vegetation Plot 19 (10/09/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 20 (10/09/2017) 1
I Vegetation Plot 21(10/09/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 22 (10/09/2017)
Vegetation Plot 23 (10/09/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 24 (10/09/2017)

Vegetation Plot 31(10/09/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 32 (10/09/2017) 1
I Vegetation Plot 33 (10/09/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 34 (10/09/2017)
Vegetation Plot 35 (10/09/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 36 (10/09/2017) 1

Vegetation Plot 37 (10/09/2017) 1 Vegetation Plot 38 (10/09/2017) 1
Vegetation Plot 39 (10/09/2017) I Vegetation Plot 40 (10/09/2017)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Plot Success Criteria
Met (Y/N)
Tract Mean
1 Y
100%
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
7 Y
8 Y
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y
13 Y
14 Y
15 Y
16 Y
17 Y
18 Y
19 Y
20 Y
21 Y
22 Y
23 Y
24 Y
25 Y
26 Y
27 Y
28 Y
29 Y
30 Y
31 Y
32 Y
33 Y
34 Y
35 Y
36 Y
37 Y
38 Y
39 Y
40 Y

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Report Prepared By
Josh Short
Date Prepared
10/12/2017 0:00
Database Name
Candy Creek MY1 CVS-v2.5.0.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02145 Candy Creek\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 1\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
File Size
JOSH
87818240
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Project Planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project 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
196315
Project Name
I Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Sampled Plots
140

Table 9. Planted and Total Stems
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnOLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P -All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than SO%
Volunteers included
Current Plot Data (MY12017)
Current Plot Data (MY3 2017)
Scientific Name
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation
Pnol-S P -all
Plot 1
T
Vegetation
Pnol-S P -all
Plot 2
T
Vegetation
Pnol-S P -all
Plot 3
T
Vegetation
Pnol-S P -all
Plot 4
T
Vegetation Plot 5
Pnol-S P -all
T
Vegetation Plot 6
Pnol-S P -all
T
Vegetation Plot 7
PnOLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Tree
15
2
10
5
15
10
20
1
10
10
River birch
Tree
Betula ni ro
10
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fa us grandifolia
Amrican beech
Tree
10
20
2
10
20
Green ash
Tree
20
10
3
25
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
20
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2 2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
Liquidambar styraciiiva
Sweetgum
Tree
10
Tulip poplar
10
10
30
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tulip poplar
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tulip poplar
Tree
10
4
10
N ssas Ivatica
20
Tree
10
1
15
10
1
12
25
N ssas Ivatica
20
N ssas Ivatica
Black um
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Americans camore
Tree
1
1
1
10
3
13
2
2
2 1 1 1
4
4
4
3
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
7
3
3
3
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3 3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus pagoda
Cherr bark oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2 2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willowoak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Rhus co allinum
Winged sumac
Shrub/Tree
30
Salix sericea
Silk willow
Shrub/Tree
Salix nigra
Blackwillow
Salix nigra
Black willow
Tree
1
Stem count
9
9
14
12
Salix sericea
Silky willow
Salix sericea
Silky willow
Shrub/Tree
15
15
15
14
14
44
15
15
15
Size
1
1
1
Stem count
13
Stem count
15
15
21
15
15
65
15
15
56
15 15
55
12
12
57
8
8
55
12
12
62
Size (ares)
Size(ares)
0.02
1
1
0.02
1
1
1
5 1
1
1
1 6 1
1
1
6
1
1
6
1
6
Size (ACRES)
6
Size (ACRES)
6
0.020.02
0.02
0.02
364
0.02
567
0.02
0.02
1,497
0.02
0.02
486 526 526 526
0.02
0.02
607
0.02
567
Species countl
5 1
Species count
6
6
8
6
6
9
6
6
11
6 6
8
6
6
9
51:::5::]-826
6
6
6
6
9
Stems per ACRE 1
526 1
Stems per ACRE
607
607
850
607
607
2,630
607
607
2,266
607 607
2,226
486
486 2,307
324
324 2,2
486
486
2,509
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnOLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P -All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than SO%
Volunteers included
Current Plot Data (MY12017)
Current Plot Data (MY3 2017)
Scientific Name
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation
PnOLS P -all
Plot 8
T
Vegetation
Pnol-S P -all
Plot 9
T
Vegetation Plot 10
Pnol-S P -all T
Vegetation
Pnol-S P -all
Plot 11
T
Vegetation Plot 12
Pnol-S P -all
T
Vegetation Plot 13
Pnol-S P -all T
Vegetation Plot 14
Pnol-S P -all T
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Tree
15
10
15
10
1
10
River birch
Tree
Betula ni ro
River birch
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
Fa us grandifolia
Amrican beech
Tree
10
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
3
10
3
3
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
Liquidambar styraciiiva
Sweetgum
Tree
10
Tulip poplar
Tree
10
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tulip poplar
Tree
10
10
N ssas Ivatica
Black um
Tree
1
10
1
25
N ssas Ivatica
Black um
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
Americans camore
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
13
2
2
2 1 1 1
4
4
4
3
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
2 2
2
3
3
4
2
2
22
3
3
3
Quercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
Tree
Quercus pagoda
Cherr bark oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
Quercus pagoda
Cherr bark oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3 3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
Rhus co allinum
Winged sumac
Shrub/Tree
30
Salix sericea
Silk willow
Shrub/Tree
Salix nigra
Blackwillow
Tree
Stem count
9
9
14
12
Salix sericea
Silky willow
Shrub/Tree
11
12 13 13 13
15
15
15
14
14
44
15
15
15
Size
1
1
1
Stem count
13
13
48
12
12
32
11
11
38
14 14
24
14
14
17
13
13
73
12
12
47
0.02
Size (ares)
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
1
5 1
5 1
1
1 6 1
6
1
6
6
1
6
6
6
Size (ACRES)
6
0.02
6
6
0.02
0.02
364
0.02
567
486
0.02
1,497
445
0.02
486 526 526 526
607
0.02
607
567
567
Species countl
5 1
5
1 8
1 6 1
6
1 8 1
5
5
8
6 1 6
1 7
6 1
6 1
8
6 1
6
1 10
6
6
8
Stems per ACRE 1
526 1
526
1 1,942
1 486 1
486
1 1,295 1
445
445
1,538
567 1 567
1 971
567 1
567 1
688
526 1
526
1 2,954
486
486
1,902
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnOLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P -All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than SO%
Volunteers included
Current Plot Data (MY12017)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 15
PnOLS P -all
T
Vegetation Plot 16
Pnol-S P -all T
Vegetation Plot 17
Pnol-S P -all
Vegetation Plot 18
T Pnol-S P -all T
Vegetation Plot 19
Pnol-S P -all
T
Vegetation Plot 20
Pnol-S P -all T
Vegetation Plot 21
Pnol-S P -all
T
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Tree
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Fa us grandifolia
Amrican beech
Tree
10
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 2 2 2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Liquidambar styraciiiuo
Sweetgum
Tree
5
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tulip poplar
Tree
5
N ssas Ivatica
Black um
Tree
1
Platanus occidentalis
Americans camore
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
13
2
2
2 1 1 1
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 4 4 4
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
Quercus pagoda
Cherr bark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2 2 2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Quercus hellos
Willowoak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1 3 3 3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
Rhus co allinum
Winged sumac
Shrub/Tree
Salix nigra
Blackwillow
Tree
30
Salix sericea
Silk willow
Shrub/Tree
Stem count
9
9
14
12
12
37
11
11
12 13 13 13
15
15
15
14
14
44
15
15
15
Size
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Size (ACHR
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species countl
5 1
5 1
6
1 6 1
6
1 8 1
6
6
7 6 6 6
6
6
6
6
6
7
6
6
6
Stems per ACRE
364
364
567
486
486
1,497
445
445
486 526 526 526
607
607
607
567
567
1,781
607
607
607
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnOLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P -All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than SO%
Volunteers included

Table 9. Planted and Total Stems
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnoLS; Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P-AII: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than SO%
Volunteers included
Current Plot Data (MY12017)
Current Plot Data (MY3 2017)
Current Plot Data (MY1 2017)
Annual Summaries
Annual Summaries
Scientific Name
Common Name
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 22
PnoLS P -all
T
Vegetation Plot 23
PnoLS P -all
T
Vegetation Plot 24
PnoLS P -all
Vegetation Plot 25
T PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 26
PnoLS I P -all
T
Vegetation Plot 27
PnoLS P -all
Vegetation
T PnoLS P -all
Plot 28
T
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Tree
Red maple
Tree
10
15
20
2
215
5
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3 1 1 1
1
1
1
2
2
2 3
3
3
Fa us grandifolia
Amrican beech
Tree
2
27
Tree
Fa us grandifolia
Amrican beech
Tree
2
20
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2 3 3 3
2
2
2
2
2
2 4
4
4
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweetgum
Tree
2 2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweetgum
Tree
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tulip poplar
Tree
20
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tulip poplar
Tree
15
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tulip poplar
20
N ssas Ivatica
Black um
Tree
50
319
5
N ssas Ivatica
IBlackgum
10
25
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2 3 3 3
3
3
3
3
3
3 3
3
23
Quercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3 2 2 2
3
3
3
3
3
3 1
1
1
Quercus pagoda
Cherr bark oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2 2 2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2
2
Quercus hellos
Willow oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3 3 3 3
2
2
2
3
3
3 2
2
2
Rhus co allinum
Winged sumac
Shrub/Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willowoak
Tree
2
2
2
1
2
Salix nigra
Black willow
Tree
2
3 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Rhus co allinum
Winged sumac
Shrub/Tree
2
Salix sericea
Silk willow
Shrub/Tree
Salix nigra
Blackwillow
Tree
Salix oigra
Blackwillow
Tree
31
Stem count
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15 14 14 14
13
13
13
15
15
15 15
15
57
Salix sericea
Size(ares)
Shrub/Tree
1
1
Stem count
1
1
67
1
1
72
1
14
1
54
14
14
Size (ACRES)
522
0.02
1,530
Stem count
0.02
12
49
0.02
0.02
12
0.02
15
45
0.02
18
0.02
14
29
15
Species count
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6 6 6 6
6
6
6
6
6
6 6
6
8
0.02
Stems per ACRE
567
567
567
607
607
607
607
607
607 567 567 567
526
526
526
1 607 1
607
607 607
607
2,307
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnoLS; Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P-AII: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than SO%
Volunteers included
Current Plot Data (MY12017)
Current Plot Data (MY1 2017)
Annual Summaries
Annual Summaries
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 36
PnoLS P -all T
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 29
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 30
PnoLS P -all
T
Vegetation Plot 31
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 32
PnoLS P -all
T
Vegetation
PnoLS P -all
Plot 33
T
Vegetation Plot 34
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 35
PnoLS P -all
T
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Tree
10
15
20
2
215
5
10
River birch
Tree
3
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
1
1
1 1 1
4
4
4
2
2
2
67
67
3
3
3
2
2
27
Tree
Fa us grandifolia
Amrican beech
Tree
2
20
199
Fraxinus enns IvanicaGreen
ash
Tree
2
2
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green ash
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2 2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweetgum
Tree
20
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tulip poplar
Tree
15
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tulip poplar
Tree
20
12
50
319
5
N ssas Ivatica
IBlackgum
10
25
N ssas Ivatica
Black um
Tree
11
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
Tree
3
3
4
2
2
2
2 2 4
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
Tree
1
1
16
2
2
3
3
3
13
3 3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Quercus michauxii
Swamp chestnut oak
Tree
7
7
7
1
1
1
3
3
3
3 3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus pagoda
Cherr bark oak
Tree
2
63
63
2
2
2
2
2
2
1 1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willowoak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Rhus co allinum
Winged sumac
Shrub/Tree
2
Salix nigra
Blackwillow
Tree
Salix oigra
Blackwillow
Tree
31
Salix sericea
Silk willow
Shrub/Tree
Salix sericea
Silky willow
Shrub/Tree
Stem count
11
11
67
12
1
72
12 12 49
14
14
54
14
14
106
522
522
1,530
Stem count
12
12
49
9
9
12
15
15
45
12 12
18
14
14
29
15
15
75
11
11
11
Size (ares)
1
Size (ACRES)
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
0.02
1
1
1
0.99
Size (ACRES)
0.02
Species count
5
0.02
8
6
0.02
9
0.02
6
6
0.02
5
5
0.02
6
6
0.02
6
6
6
Species countl
4 1
4
1 6
1 5 1
5 1
6
1 6
6
7
5 5
7
6
6
8
6
68
1 528
5
5
5
610
Stems per ACRE
486
486
1,983
364
364
486
607
607
1,821
486 486
728
567
567
1,174
607
607
3,035
445
445
445
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnoLS; Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P-AII: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than SO%
Volunteers included
Current Plot Data (MY12017)
Annual Summaries
Annual Summaries
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 36
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 37
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 38
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 39
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation
PnoLS P -all
Plot 40
T
PnoLS
MY3 (10/2017)
P -all
T
Pn.l
MYO (3/2017)
P -all
T
Acer rubrum
Red maple
Tree
20
25
15
20
2
215
Betula nigra
River birch
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1 1 1
4
4
4
67
67
92
98
98
98
Fa us grandifolia
Amrican beech
Tree
20
20
199
Fraxinus enns IvanicaGreen
ash
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
3 3 3
2
2
2
2
2
2
105
105
105
107
107
107
Liquidambar 5tyracifluo
Sweetgum
Tree
25
10
100
Liriodendron tuli i era
Tulip poplar
Tree
15
10
10
20
50
319
N ssas Ivatica
IBlackgum
Tree
11
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
Tree
3
3
4
2
2
2
2 2 4
1
1
1
4
4
24
97
97
202
107
107
107
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut oak
Tree
2
2
2
3
3
3
2 2 2
3
3
3
3
3
3
97
97
97
109
109
109
Quercus pagoda
Cherr bark oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1 1 1
2
2
2
2
2
2
63
63
63
75
75
75
Quercus hellos
Willowoak
Tree
1
1
1
3 3 3
2
2
2
3
3
3
93
93
93
107
107
107
Rhus co allinum
Winged sumac
Shrub/Tree
2
Salix nigra
Blackwillow
Tree
31
Salix sericea
Silk willow
Shrub/Tree
1
Stem count
11
11
67
12
12
72
12 12 49
14
14
54
14
14
106
522
522
1,530
603
603
603
Size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
40
40
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.99
0.99
Species count
5
5
8
6
6
9
6 6 9
6
6
8
5
5
S
6
6
6
6
6
6
Stems per ACRE
445
445
2,711
486
486
2,914
486 486 1,983
567
567
2,185
567
567
1 4,290
1 528
1 528
1,548
610
610
610
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnoLS; Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P-AII: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than SO%
Volunteers included

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
Candy Creek Reach 1
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel
Parameter
Gage
Candy Creek Reach 1
17 1
Collins Creek
Long Branch
UT to Rocky Creek
1
Spencer Creek Reach 2
1
Candy Creek Reach 1
Candy Creek Reach 1
Candy Creek Reach 1
Candy Creek Reach 1
Candy Creek Reach 1
Candy Creek Reach 1
(100+08 - 118+91)
(118+91- 125+27)
(125+27 - 126+27)
(100+08 - 118+91)
(118+91- 125+27)
(125+27 - 126+27)
Min
Max I
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
I
Max
Min I Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.7
9.4
11.9
20.1
14.8
18.6
12.2
10.7
11.2
10.6
13.6
16.8
11.9
12.8
16.1
17.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
11
16
60
>50
72
60
>114
23
1
53
30
68
37
F
84
53
97
164
292
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.3
1.4
1.6
2.7
1.3
2.1
1.3
1.6
1.8
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth
1.7
1.8
3.3
4.2
1.9
2.9
1.8
2.1
2.6
1.2
1.5
1.8
1.0
1.2
1.8
2.3
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
N/A
12.1
12.3
32.9
25.0
34.6
16.3
17.8
19.7
8.2
13.2
19.9
5.7
8.9
13.9
20.3
Width/Depth Ratio
6.2
7.2
4.4
12.1
7.9
13.8
9.1
5.8
7.1
13.7
14.0
14.2
18.4
25.3
18.6
14.3
Entrenchment Ratio'l
1.2
1
1.7
2.0
3.0
>3.4
6.0
5.5
>10.2
2.2
1
5.0
2.2
1
5.0
2.2
1
5.0
4.4
8.1
10.2
17.1
Bank Height Ratioz
3.8
1
3.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
2.4
MMEEM0.9
2.8
14.6
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
11
55
7
59
17 29
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
0.031
0.003
0.008
0.012
0.013
0.061 0.089
0.013
0.005
0.078
0.007
0.047
0.007
0.023
0.002
0.055
0.006
0.017
0.007 0.017
Pool Length (ft)
N/A
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
18
70
19
57
52
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.2
3.3
0.9
2.4
1.2
3.0
1.4
3.7
2.1
3.0
3.3
3.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
20
57
32
80
50
105
26 81
71
23
85
30
106
37
118
23
102
53
110
N/A
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
---
60
---
38
41
28
94
39
121
50
150
19
47
25
58
54
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
---
16
87
---
11
15
16
34
20
44
25
54
17
38
22
44
40
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
---
1.1
4.7
---
1.3
1.4
1.5
3.2
1.5
3.2
1.5
3.2
1.6
3.0
1.4
2.6
2.4
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
---
---
---
---
53
148
68
190
84
235
32
92
65
110
160
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
---
---
---
---
5.0
14.0
5
14.0
5.0
14.0
3.1
6.4
3.6
6.2
3.2
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.57/1.4/2.4/15.3/26/45
---
---
0.6/3.0/8.8/42.0/90/---
SC/ 0.35/0.9/62/114/512
SC/ 0.34/
2.8/72/168/256
0.15/0.9/15/83/129/256
N/A
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
0.73
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.28
0.41
0.40
0.63
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
--
---
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.88
1.68
1.49
1.10
0.96
0.22
0.24
0.88
0.22
0.24
0.88
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
---
---
---
---
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rosgen Classification
G4c
E4
C/E4
E4b
E4
C/E
C/E
C/E
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
5.3
5.4
3.9
3.6
4.0
5.5
4.9
T
5.4
3.0
3.3
3.2
2.7
4.2
3.0
3.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
65
115
150
101
124
85
97
24
42
65
24
42
65
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
--
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
N/A
---
Q-Mannings
---
affiffiffilaffiffiffiffiffi
Length (ft)
2,268
---
---
---
---
1,615
550
88
1,615
550
88
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,887
---
---
---
---
1,894
636
100
1,883
636
100
Sinuosity
1.27
---
1.30
1.10
2.30
1.17
1.16
1.14
1.17
1.16
1.14
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z
---
---
---
---
---
0.004
0.021
0.006
0.012
0.006
0.010
0.008
0.009
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
I
--
--
--
--
---
0.012
0.009
1
0.005
0.010
0.009
0.008
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Panay LreeK Keacnes t ana j
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Candy Creek Reach 2
Candy Creek Reach 2
Candy Creek Reach 3
Candy Creek Reach 2
Candy Creek Reach 2
Candy Creek Reach 3
Parameter
Gage
Candy Creek Reach 2
Candy Creek Reach 3
See Table 7a
(126+27 - 143+06)
(143+06 - 148+02)
(149+02 - 155+05)
(126+27 - 143+06)
(143+06 - 148+02)
(149+02 - 155+05)
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min F Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
I
Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.2
19.4
15.3
17.6
17.5
17.0
20.0
16.1
19.5
16.7
19.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
27
99+
24
60
39
88
37
85
44
100
154
254
164
57
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.4
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.9
2.1
1.8
2.3
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area ftz
N/A
23.4
27.9
25.8
27.6
See Table 10a
21.8
20.9
28.0
16.2
23.3
20.8
28.2
Width/Depth Ratio
11.9
16.2
9.1
11.2
14.0
13.8
14.3
13.3
16.3
13.5
13.1
Entrenchment Ratio'
1.4
3.2+
1.4
3.9
2.2
1
5.0
2.2
1
5.0
2.2
1
5.0
9.5
15.8
9.8
3.0
Bank Height Ration
1.3
2.4
1.8
2.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.8
N/A
OMEN=
0.4
0.5
1.0
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
-
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Riffle
0.005
0.010
N/A
0.004
0.035
0.011
0.035
0.006
0.013
0.001
0.019
0.001
0.019
0.001 0.035
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
23
101
23
58
22 53
N/A
See Table 10a
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.7
N/A
1.5
3.9
1.5
3.8
2.1
4.2
3.3
3.5
3.9
3.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
16
68
N/A
39
124
37
119
40
130
59
146
55
136
49 97
Pool Volume(ft),
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
48
156
38
151
N/A
31
72
23
68
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
26
56
26
54
N/A
20
107
27
42
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
See Table 10a
1.5
3.2
1.5
3.2
N/A
1.1
4.5
1.3
1.9
N/A
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
88
245
85
238
N/A
81
171
54
121
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
2.2
8.9
2.2
8.9
N/A
1.4
3.0
1.1
3.0
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.3/0.8/9.1/13.9/23
N/A
SC/0.17/0.4/93/146/256
SC/0.21/0.5/72/117/362
SC/0.27/1.0/113/148/256
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
N/A
0.42
N/A
See Table 10a
0.50
0.50
N/A
0.40
0.48
0.58
N/A
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
---
---
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
1.08
1.26
0.93
1.08
1.26
0.93
1.08
1.26
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rosgen Classification
F5
G4c
C/E
C/E
C/E
C5
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.6
4.3
3.4
3.6
3.5
4.0
3.2
3.2
4.6
4.1
3.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
85
93
75
85
93
75
85
93
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
---
---
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
N/A
---
---
See Table 10a
M
Q -Mannings
---
---
1�
Valley Length (ft)
1,387
551
1,363
426
511
1,363
426
490
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,780
671
1,679
536
628
1,679
536
603
Sinuosity
1.28
1.22
1.23
1.26
1.23
1.23
1.26
1.23
Water Surface Slope ft/ft z
0.004
0.009
0.009
0.004
0.005
0.007
0.008
0.004
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
0.018
0.007
0.007
0.009
0.005
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 30c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Candy Creek Reach 4
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 10d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
UT1C and UT1D
Pre -Restoration
Condition
Reference
Reach Data
Design
As-Built/BaselineM
Agony Acres
UT1Reach
Parameter
Gage
UT1C
UT1D
UT to Varnals Creek
Spencer
Creek Reach 3
UT to Richland Creek
UT1C
UT1D
UT1C
7
UT1D
3
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
-
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.7
6.4
9.3
10.5
6.3
9.3
9.1
1
10.4
8.8
10.4
5.8
3.7
7.8
7.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
12
34
20
64
14
125
36+
28
31
13
1
29
8
F
18
28
15
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.3
0.6
1.1
1.2
0.8
1.0
1.0
1
1.2
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.7
1.0
1.5
1.7
1.0
1.2
1.8
1.1
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area ftz
N/A
7.2
3.7
10.3
12.3
6.6
8.7
10.7
11.3
7.8
8.5
2.1
0.8
4.0
3.8
Width/Depth Ratio
4.5
11.2
8.1
9.3
7.9
9.3
7.3
10.1
10.0
12.8
16.0
16.1
15.0
15.4
Entrenchment Ratio'
2.1
5.3
1.9
6.1
1.7
4.3
>3.9
2.5
4.0
2.2
1
5.0
2.2
1
5.0
3.6
2.0
Bank Height Ration
3.8
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
2.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.3
0.3
12.8
31.2
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
3
43
4
62
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
0.024
F
0.057
0.018
0.034
N/A
0.021
0.045
0.030
0.050
0.006
1
0.112
0.003
0.082
0.002
0.085
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
5.0
20.0
4.0
15.0
N/A
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
N/A
2.5
2.6
1.2
1.8
2.5
N/A
0.7
1.3
0.5
0.8
1.7
1.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
N/A
N/A
8
82
9
46
N/A
N/A
8
5
26
6
51
6
33
Pool Volume(ft)
OJI"9
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
15
45
10
50
21
93
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
8
47
12
85
14
60
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.6
3.2
1.9
9.1
1.5
5.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
---
53
178
---
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
1.0
3.0
1.6
5.4
2.3
8.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/0.3/9.4/30/90
SC/0.1/0.3/2.9/5.2/16
---
1.9/8.9/11/64/128/---
--
---
SC/0.39/12.8/82/117/180
0.3/6.1/31/57/78/128
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
N/A
2.70
0.39
0.31
0.50
0.84
1.48
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
---
--
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.04
0.01
0.41
0.37
0.30
0.28
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.01
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
<1%
---
---
---
---
1%
<1%
1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
E5b
C5
B
E4
E4
C4/E4
B/C
B/C
B/C
B/C
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
0.8
0.5
4.4
5.2
5
5.6
2.2
2.4
3.5
4.1
2.5
3.0
1.5
0.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
6
2
54
35
25
29
32
6
2
6
2
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
---
--
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
N/A
---
---
Q-Mannings
---
---
Valley Length (ft)
688
378
---
---
---
---
684
370
672
363
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
728
436
---
---
---
---
740
385
728
379
Sinuosity.
1.06
1.15
1.20
1.00
1.30
1.35
1.00
1.08
1.04
1.08
1.04
Water Surface Slope ft/ft z
--
--
---
---
---
---
0.028
0.006
0.075
0.028
0.051
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
--
--
---
---
---
---
0.040
0.052
0.028
0.045
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
IEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel

Table 10e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
UT2 and UT2A
Pre
-Restoration Condition
Reference Reach Data
As-Built/Baseline
Parameter
Gage
UT2 - Reach
1
UT2 - Reach 2
UT2A
See Table 7d
UT2 - Reach 1
UT2 - Reach 2
UT2A
UT2 - Reach
1
UT2 - Reach 2
UT2A
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
3.1
6.7
5.2
2.8
6.4
_82-16
7.5
4.6
4.8
7.5
7.8
7.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
4
9
7
9
19
1
28
10
18
22
47
60
31
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.4
1.5
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area ftz
N/A
2.4
3.0
3.3
1.2
See Table 10d
2.7
3.9
1.3
1.2
6.8
4.1
4.1
Width/Depth Ratio
4.0
14.9
8.3
6.6
15.1
14.4
16.3
8.3
18.5
14.9
11.9
Entrenchment Ratio'
1.1
1.3
1.4
3.1
3.0
12.8
2.1
3.7
2.2
3.9
2.9
9.8
7.7
4.4
Bank Height Ration
4.3
4.9
3.8
5.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.1
N/A
N/A
34.6
4.5
2.5
Riffle Length (ft)
NEU
on
---
---
---
4
68
7
80
3
102
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
0.110
N/A
N/A
0.011
0.070
0.017
0.032
0.035
0.065
0.004
0.063
0.001
0.055
0.019
0.071
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
4
18
11
62
4
12
N/A
See Table 10d
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.9
1.0
2.0
0.6
1.0
1.7
1.5
1.5
2.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
22
116
N/A
N/A
8
42
17
53
6
30
8
45
13
51
7
55
Pool Volume(ft),
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
25
N/A
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
17
54
N/A
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
See Table 10d
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.7
9.2
N/A
N/A
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
21
68
N/A
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2
5.6
N/A
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/0.1/22.6
/36.7/90
N/A
N/A
0.35/6.0/34.6/70/90/256
0.2/0.7/5/56/161/>2048
0.27/1.1/2.5/47/76/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ft2
N/A
1.80
N/A
N/A
See Table 10d
0.95
---
---
0.31
1.05
0.45
1.32
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
--
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.07
0.10
0.02
0.07
0.10
0.02
0.07
0.10
0.02
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
3%
3%
5%
3%
3%
5%
3%
3%
5%
Rosgen Classification
F5
G5c
G5
B
C/E
B
C4
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.0
1
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.1
3.1
2.3
1.3
1
7.5
2.9
1.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
9
12
4
9
12
4
9
12
4
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
---
---
---
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
N/A
---
---
---
See Table 10d
Q -Mannings
---
---
---
Valley Length (ft)
1,105
595
341
1,168
591
340
1,168
591
358
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,279
731
376
F
1,208
645
349
1,208
643
366
Sinuosity.
1.16
1.23
1.10
1.03
1.09
1.02
1.03
1.09
1.02
Water Surface Slope ft/ft z
---
---
---
10
0.035
0.014
1
0.016
0.032
1
0.036
0.021
0.031
0.015
0.039
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.038
0.019
0.038
0.023
0.032
0.014
0.040
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel

Table 10f. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
UT3, UT4, and UT5
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel
DATA
Parameter
Gage
UT3
UT4
UT5
See Table 7d
UT3
T-
UT471
UT5
UT3
UT4
UT5
Min Max
Min --T Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.8
8.5
9.5
7.8
11.0
9.8
8.8
11.5
15.1
9.7
10.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
8
11
10
17
T
100
24
1
135
22
1
100
77
98
288
83
229
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.9
1.1
0.6
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.6
2.1
0.9
1.3
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area(ft)
N/A
3.9
7.2
6.7
See Table 10d
4.8
9.4
7.5
5.5
11.0
15.2
6.0
8.8
Width/Depth Ratio
8.8
10.2
13.4
12.7
12.9
12.8
14.0
10.2
15.0
12.8
15.5
Entrenchment Ratio'
1.3
1.2
1.1
2.2
12.8
2.2
12.3
2.2
10.2
8.8
6.5
25.0
8.6
1
21.6
Bank Height Ration
5.4
6.2
5.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
10.6
2.8
12.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
Riffle Length (ft)
8
20
8
69
11
28
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.011 0.072
0.011 0.064
0.020 0.012
0.012
0.092
0.003
0.018
0.003
0.035
0.007
0.057
0.000
0.072
0.000
0.027
Pool Length (ft)
---
8
24
9
42
12
39
N/A
See Table 10d
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.1
2.1
1.7
2.6
1.5
2.4
1.1
2.7
2.3
2.9
1.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
6 43
12 42
9 54
17
43
28
66
25
64
24
33
24
123
26
65
Pool Volume(ft),
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
6
16
10
28
9
64
7
19
10
45
10
39
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
27
14
28
13
49
12
24
12
33
11
48
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
See Table 10d
1.3
3.5
1.3
2.5
1.3
5.0
1.1
2.1
1.1
2.1
0.8
3.6
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
41
101
39
105
54
127
28
76
31
72
34
71
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.8
2.0
0.9
2.5
0.9
6.5
0.8
1.7
0.7
2.7
0.9
2.2
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.1/10.6/22.6/41/64
0.3/0.5/2.8/28.5/40.6/64
0.3/2.8/12.5/29.7/41/90
!0.61!IMO.28
SC/0.36/1.5/81/111/180
SC/0.16/0.6/100/161/512
SC/SC/0.6/32/143/362
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftZ
N/A
0.93
0.55
1.90
See Table 10d=0.81
0.88
0.30
0.32
0.23
0.30
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.12
0.30
0.21
0.12
0.30
0.21
0.12
0.30
0.21
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
Rosgen Classification
G4
G4
F4
C/E
C/E
C/E
C5
C5/E5
C5/E5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.7
4.2
3.3
2.9
3.2
2.9
2.5
2.0
1
2.7
2.5
F
3.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
14
30
22
14
30
22
14
30
22
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
---
---
---
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
N/A
---
---
---
See Table 10d
Q -Mannings
---
---
--
Valley Length (ft)
238
1,058
732
301
1,111
845
301
1,111
845
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
346
1,270
1,012
346
7
1,355
1,012
346
1,356
1,012
Sinuosity.
1.45
1.20
1.38
1.15
1.22
1.20
1.15
1.22
1.20
Water Surface Slope ft/ft z
---
0.011
0.032
0.003
0.012
0.002
0.010
0.024
0.006
0.006
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.016
0.032
0.012
0.012
0.022
0.006
0.007
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel

Table Ila. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Section)
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
Dimension and Substrate
Wross-Section
1,
Candy Creek Reach 1(Riffle) ..
Cross -Section 2, Candy Creek Reach
1 (Pool) .,
Cross
-Section 3,
Candy Creek Reach 1(Riffle) ,-
Cross -Section 4, Candy Creek Reach 1(Pool)
basedonfixedbankfullelevation
Bankfull Width (ft)
.. -
Bankfull Mean r
REM
BankfullWi. r p .
M®______MM______®®______M®______
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 2
Dimension and Substrate
Cross Section 5,
Candy Creek Reach 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 6, Candy Creek Reach
1 (Pool)
Cross
Section 7,
Candy Creek Reach 1(Ri4MMM
Creek Reach I (Riffle)
basedonfixedbankfullelevation
Flo
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
. r p .
®®______®®______m®______®®______
Cross Section 9,
Candy Creek Reach 2 (Pool) , Cross
Section 30, Candy Creek Reach
2 (Riffle)
Cross
Section 11,
Candy Creek Reach 2 (Riffle) ,
Cross Section 12, Candy Creek Reach 2 (Pool) a
basedonfixedbankfullelevation
Bankfull Width
.. -
®®______®®______®®______®®______
Depth
. r-.
BankfullWidth/DepthRatiommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Bankfull Entrenchment
BankfullBankHeightRali.'=MMMMMMMMMMMMMM==MMMMMMMM=MMMMMM
Cross
Section 13,
Candy
Creek Reach 2 (Riffle) Cross
Section 14, Candy Creek Reach
2 (Riffle) -ir
Cross
Section 15,
Candy Creek Reach 2 (Poon
basedonfixedbankfullelevation
Bankfull Mean Depth
BankfuliMaxDepth(ft)MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
•BankfullWidth/DepthRatioMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 2
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 11b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
Dimension and Substrate
Mross-Section
16, Candy Creek Reach 3 (Pool)
'M. Cross
-Section
17, Candy Creek Reach
3 (Riffle)"
Cross
-Section
18, Candy
Creek Reach 4 (Pool) 'Cross
-Section 19,
Candy Creek Reach 4 (Riffle)
Bankfull Width (ft)
Bankfull nal Area
.• r p .
m®______®®______®®______mm______
Bankfull Entrenchment
Dimension and Substrate
Cross
-Section
20, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Riffle)
Cross -Section
21, Candy Creek Reach
4 (Pool)
&ross-Section
22, Candy
Creek Reach 4 (Pool) Cross
-Section 23,
Candy Creek Reach 4 (Riffle)
bosedonfixedbankfullelevotion
Flo r
Bankfull Max Depth
m®______mm______®m______m®______
Bankfull Entrenchment
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
DimensionandSubstrate
lllllllllllllltross-Section
24, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Riffle)
Cross
-Section
25, Candy Creek Reach
4 (Riffle)
Cross
-Section
26, Candy
Creek Reach 4 (Pool)
Cross -Section
27, UT1C (Riffle)
basedonfixedbankfullelevation
.. -
r
mm______®®______®®______mm______
. r-.
®®______®m______®®______mm______
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area
•
Dimension and Substrate
�
Cross -Section 28, UT1C (Pool)
Cross
-Section 29, UT1D (Riffle)
Cross
-Section 30, UT2
Reach 1 (Riffle)
Cross -Section
31, UT2 Reach 1 (Riffle)
basedonfixedbankfullelevation
Floodprone WidthBa
Bankfull Cross -Sectional
Fy
. r-. •..®®______®®______m®______m®______
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
*Revised MYO dimensions reported for x516 in MY3 to correct error.

Table 11c. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
I`
Cross
-Section 32, UT2 Reach
1 (Pool) -_
Cross
-Section 33, UT2
Reach 1 (Riffle -_Cross
229
-Section 34,
UT2 Reach 2 (Pool) _-
Cross
-Section 35, UT2 Reach 2 (Riffle)
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2) 8.8
8.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratiol 12.8
13.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratioll 21.6
21.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0
1.0
Bankfull Bank Height
Cross
-Section 36, UT2A
(P'U'��
Cross
-Section 37, UT3
Reach 2
r,^ss-Section
38, UT4 ��ross-Section
39, UT4 (P�
Bankfull Entrenchment
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiolmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Cross -Section 40, UT4
(Pool)
Cross
-Section
41, UT4 (Riffle)
Cross
-Section
42, UT4 (Riffle) *
Cross -Section 43, UT4 (Pool)
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
Bankfull Bank Height .®®______MM______M®______®®______
�-Section
44, UTS
(��ross-Section
Cross
-Section
46,
�ross-Sectio
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull
Bankfull
Bankfull Entrenchment .®®______®®______®®______®®______
B.nkf.11 Bank Height
99
Dimension and Substrate Base
MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
based on fixed bankfull elevation 753.0
753.0
Bankfull Width (ft) 10.6
10.8
Floodprone Width (ft) 229
229
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.8
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.3
1.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2) 8.8
8.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratiol 12.8
13.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratioll 21.6
21.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio' 1.0
1.0
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
Candy Creek Reach 1 (Sta. 100+08 - 118+91)
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Min
I
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.9
12.8
10.6
12.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
53
97
53
97
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.2
0.9
1.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
5.7
8.9
5.1
8.3
Width/Depth Ratio
18.4
25.3
15.4
22.2
Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
8.1
4.4
9.1
Bank Height Ratio'l
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.9
1.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11
55
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.002
0.055
Pool Length (ft)
18
70
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.1
3.0
Pool Spacing (ft)
23
102
Pool Volume(ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
19
47
Radius of Curvature (ft)
17
38
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.6
3.0
Meander Wave Length (ft)
32
92
Meander Width Ratio
3.1
6.4
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,883
Sinuosity (ft)
1.17
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.010
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.010
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% I
---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 1 SC/0.35/0.9/62/114/512
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
<1%
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
Candy Creek Reach 1 (Sta. 118+91 - 125+27)
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Min
Max
in Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
16.1
16.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
164
164
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
1.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
13.9
14.3
Width/Depth Ratio
18.6
15.4
Entrenchment Ratio
10.2
11.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
2.8
6.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
59
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
0.017
Pool Length (ft)
19
57
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
53
110
Pool volume ki ta
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
25
58
Radius of Curvature (ft)
22
44
RC:BdnkfulI Width (ft/ft)
1.4
2.6
Meander Wave Length (ft)
65
110
Meander Width Ratio
3.6
6.2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
636
Sinuosity (ft)
1.16
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.008
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.009
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 SC/0.34/2.8/72/168/256
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
Candy Creek Reach 1 (Sta. 125+27 - 126+27)
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft) 17.0
15.3
Floodprone Width (ft) 292
292
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.2
1.3
Bankfull Max Depth 2.3
2.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2) 20.3
20.3
Width/Depth Ratio 14.3
11.5
Entrenchment Ratio 17.1
19.1
Bank Height Ratio 1.0
1.0
D50 (mm) 14.6
36.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 17 29
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.007 1 0.017
Pool Length (ft) 52
Pool Max Depth (ft) 3.2
Pool Spacing (ft) N/A
Pool Volume(ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 54
Radius of Curvature (ft) 40
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 2.4
Meander Wave Length (ft) 160
Meander Width Ratio 3.2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft) 100
Sinuosity (ft) 1.14
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.009
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) 0.008
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% ---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% I ---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 1 0.15/0.9/15/83/129/256
% of Reach with Eroding Banks 0%
0%
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
Candy Creek Reach 2 (Sta. 126+27 - 143+06)
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Min
I
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
16.1
19.5
16.0
18.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
154
254
154
254
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.3
Bankfull Max Depth
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
16.2
23.3
16.5
24.3
Width/Depth Ratio
13.3
16.3
12.2
13.7
Entrenchment Ratio
9.5
15.8
9.5
15.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.4
8.3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
24
63
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.001
0.019
Pool Length (ft)
23
101
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.3
3.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
59
146
Pool Volume(ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
31
72
Radius of Curvature (ft)
20
107
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.1
4.5
Meander Wave Length (ft)
81
171
Meander Width Ratio
1.4
3.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,679
Sinuosity (ft)
1.23
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% I---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 1 SC/0.17/0.4/93/146/256
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
<1%
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 12e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
Candy Creek Reach 2 (Sta. 143+06 - 148+02)
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Min
I
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
16.7
17.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
164
164
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.2
1.3
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
2.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
20.8
22.7
Width/Depth Ratio
13.5
13.2
Entrenchment Ratio
9.8
9.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.5
11.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
14
60
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.001
0.019
Pool Length (ft)
23
58
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
55
136
Pool Volume fta
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
23
68
Radius of Curvature (ft)
27
42
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/f, )1
1.3
1.9
Meander Wave Length (ft)
54
121
Meander Width Ratio
1.1
3.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
536
Sinuosity (ft)
1.26
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.008
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.009
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% I
---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 1 SC/0.21/0.5/72/117/362
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
1 2%
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 12f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
Candy Creek Reach 3 (Sta. 149+02 - 155+05)
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Min
Max
in Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
19.2
18.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
57
57
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.5
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth
2.3
2.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
28.2
25.9
Width/Depth Ratio
13.1
12.5
Entrenchment Ratio
3.0
3.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
1.0
1.2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
10
61
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.001
0.035
Pool Length (ft)
22
53
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
49
97
Pool Volume(ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
603
Sinuosity (ft)
1.23
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.005
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% I
---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 1 SC/0.27/1.0/113/148/256
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
1 0%
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 12g. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
Candy Creek Reach 4 (Sta. 170+71 - 196+50)
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Min
I
Max
I Min
Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
19.1
24.9
19.8
22.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
158
222
158
222
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.4
1.5
1.2
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth
2.1
2.9
2.1
2.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
26.9
38.1
23.3
37.4
Width/Depth Ratio
13.6
16.3
13.5
16.8
Entrenchment Ratio
7.1
11.6
7.1
11.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.4
0.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
14
74
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
0.022
Pool Length (ft)
20
125
Pool Max Depth (ft)
4.5
4.6
Pool Spacing (ft)
40
145
Pool Volume(ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
66
154
Radius of Curvature (ft)
25
55
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.2
2.5
Meander Wave Length (ft)
84
220
Meander Width Ratio
3.0
7.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,579
Sinuosity (ft)
1.30
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.005
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.005
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% I---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 1 SC/0.15/0.4/64/180/256
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
<1%
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 12h. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
Candy Creek Reach 4 (Sta. 196+50 - 206+35)
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
21.7
23.2
21.6
23.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
132
155
132
155
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
2.5
2.9
2.5
2.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
31.6
32.8
32.4
32.8
Width/Depth Ratio
14.4
17.1
14.3
17.1
Entrenchment Ratio
6.1
6.7
6.1
6.6
Bank Height Ratio'l
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.6
16.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
15
53
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
0.025
Pool Length (ft)
22
71
Pool Max Depth (ft)
4.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
52
111
Pool Volume fta
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
30
100
Radius of Curvature (ft)
25
50
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.3
2.5
Meander Wave Length (ft)
80
220
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
985
Sinuosity (ft)
1.32
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.010
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.008
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% I
---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 0.09/0.3/0.6/49/111/180
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
1
0%
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 12i. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
UT1C
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Min
I
Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.8
7.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
28
28
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
4.0
3.7
Width/Depth Ratio
15.0
16.2
Entrenchment Ratio
3.6
3.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
12.8
48.8
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
3
43
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
0.082
Pool Length (ft)
5
20
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
6
51
Pool Volume fta
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B/C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
728
Sinuosity (ft)
1.08
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.028
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.028
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% I
---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 1 SC/0.4/12.8/82/117/180
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 12j. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
UT1D
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.6
7.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
15
15
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
3.8
3.3
Width/Depth Ratio
15.4
15.3
Entrenchment Ratio
2.0
2.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
31.2
4.5
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
4 62
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.002 0.085
Pool Length (ft)
4 15
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
6 33IS
Pool Volume(ft')IN
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B/C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
379
Sinuosity (ft)
1.04
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.051
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.045
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% I
---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 1
0.3/6.1/31/57/78/128
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
1 0%
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 12k. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
UT2 - Reach 1
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Min
Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
4.8
7.5
4.3
7.5
Floodprone Width (ft)
22
47
22
47
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.3
0.9
0.2
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
0.4
1.5
0.3
1.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
1.2
6.8
0.8
6.3
Width/Depth Ratio
8.3
18.5
9.7
23.3
Entrenchment Ratio
2.9
9.8
2.8
11.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
34.6
27.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
4
68
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
0.063
Pool Length (ft)
4
18
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
8
45
Pool Volume ft3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
10
25INS
MEN
Radius of Curvature (ft)
17
54
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
3.7
9.2
Meander Wave Length (ft)
21
68
Meander Width Ratio
2.2
5.6
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,208
Sinuosity (ft)
1.03
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.021
0.031
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.023
0.032
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% I---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 0.35/6.0/34.6/70/90/256
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 121. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
UT2 - Reach 2
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Min
I
Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.8
7.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
60
60
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
4.1
3.0
Width/Depth Ratio
14.9
20.2
Entrenchment Ratio
7.7
Bank Height Ratio'l
Bank
0
1.0
D50 (mm)
4.5
1.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
80
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.001
0.055
Pool Length (ft)
11
62
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
13
51
Pool Volume fta
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
lig I
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
643
Sinuosity (ft)
1.09
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.015
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.014
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% I
---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 1 0.2/0.7/5/56/161/>2048
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 12m. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
UT2A
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Min
I
Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.0
7.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
31
31
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
4.1
3.7
Width/Depth Ratio
11.9
15.8
Entrenchment Ratio
4.4
4.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
2.5
1.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
3
102
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.019
0.071
Pool Length (ft)
4
12
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.5
2.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
7
55
Pool Volume(ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
366
Sinuosity (ft)
1.02
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.039
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.040
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% I
---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 1 0.27/1.1/2.5/47/76/180
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
1 0%
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 12n. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
UT3
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Min
I
Max
Min I Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.8
8.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
77
77
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
1.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
5.5
5.3
Width/Depth Ratio
14.0
14.1
Entrenchment Ratio
8.8
8.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
1.5
11.9
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8
20
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
0.057
Pool Length (ft)
8
24
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
2.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
24
33
Pool Volume(ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
7
19
Radius of Curvature (ft)
12
24
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.1
2.1
Meander Wave Length (ft)
28
76
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
346
Sinuosity (ft)
1.15
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.024
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.022
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% I
---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 1 SC/0.36/1.5/81/111/180
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
1 0%
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 12o. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
UT4
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Min
I
Max
Min
I Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.5
15.1
12.3
14.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
98
288
98
288
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth
1.6
2.1
1.6
2.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
11.0
15.2
11.1
14.4
Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
15.0
11.9
15.0
Entrenchment Ratio
6.5
25.0
6.7
1 23.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.6
12.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8
69
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.000
0.072
Pool Length (ft)
9
42
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
24
123
Pool Volume(ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
10
45
Radius of Curvature (ft)
12
33
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.1
2.1
Meander Wave Length (ft)
31
72
Meander Width Ratio
I
2.7
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,356
Sinuosity (ft)
1.22
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% I
---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 1 SC/0.2/0.6/100/161/512
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
1
0%
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 12p. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 -2017
UTS
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Min
I
Max
I Min
I Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max Min Max Min Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
9.7
10.6
9.6
10.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
83
229
83
229
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
1.3
0.9
1.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
6.0
8.8
5.6
8.4
Width/Depth Ratio
12.8
15.5
13.8
16.2
Entrenchment Ratio
8.6
21.6
8.8
1 21.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.6
1.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
11
28
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.000
0.027
Pool Length (ft)
12
39
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
26
65
Pool Volume (ft3)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
10
39
Radius of Curvature (ft)
11
48
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
0.8
3.6
Meander Wave Length (ft)
34
71
Meander Width Ratio
0.9
2.2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5/E5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,012
Sinuosity (ft)
1.20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% I
---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/0.6/32/143/362
% of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
(---): Data was not provided
lEntrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 1- Candy Creek Reach 1
105+85 Riffle
768
11.3
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
11.8
767
c
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.4
width -depth ratio
71.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
0 766
v
w
765
764
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO(10/2016) +MY1(10/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
8.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.3
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
11.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.4
width -depth ratio
71.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 2 - Candy Creek Reach 1
108+94 Pool
766
765
764
17.0
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
3.0
max depth (ft)
19.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
763
c
0
width -depth ratio
762
_v
761
760
759
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
+MYO (10/2016) t MYl (10/2017) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
15.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
17.0
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
3.0
max depth (ft)
19.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 3 - Candy Creek Reach 1
109+19 Riffle
766
765
764
10.6
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
10.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
22.2
width -depth ratio
97.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
c
0
763
v
w
762
761
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
+MYO(10/2016) +MY1(10/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
5.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.6
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
10.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
22.2
width -depth ratio
97.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross Section 4 - Candy Creek Reach 1
114+15 Pool
761
760
759
11.7
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
12.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
758
c
11.1
width -depth ratio
0
757
_v
756
755
754
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
t MYO (10/2016) t MYl (10/2017) - Bankfu I I
Bankfull Dimensions
12.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.7
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
12.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.1
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 5 - Candy Creek Reach 1
114+37 Riffle
760
759
12.1
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
12.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
758
width -depth ratio
53.0
W flood prone area (ft)
4.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
c
0
757
v
w
756
755
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO(10/2016) +MY1(10/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
7.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.1
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
12.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.5
width -depth ratio
53.0
W flood prone area (ft)
4.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 6 - Candy Creek Reach 1
122+41 Pool
752
19.7
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
4.0
max depth (ft)
21.8
751
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.3
width -depth ratio
750
w 749
c
0
748
_v
747
746
745
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
t MYO (10/2016) t MYl (10/2017) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
34.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
19.7
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
4.0
max depth (ft)
21.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 7 - Candy Creek Reach 1
122+91 Riffle
751
14.8
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
750
max depth (ft)
15.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.4
width -depth ratio
164.0
749
c
0
748
v
w
747
11.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
746
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO(10/2016) MY1(10/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
14.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
14.8
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
15.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.4
width -depth ratio
164.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 8 - Candy Creek Reach 1
125+45 Riffle
750
15.3
width (ft)
1.3
749
2.3
max depth (ft)
16.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.5
width -depth ratio
292.0
748
19.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
c
747
0
w 746
745
744
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO(10/2016) +MY1(10/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
20.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.3
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
16.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.5
width -depth ratio
292.0
W flood prone area (ft)
19.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 9 - Candy Creek Reach 2
129+13 Pool
749
748
747
24.9
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
746
max depth (ft)
26.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
c
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.7
width -depth ratio
0 745
> 744
w
743
742
741
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
tMYO (10/2016) +MYI (10/2017) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
42.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
24.9
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
3.9
max depth (ft)
26.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 10 - Candy Creek Reach 2
129+43 Riffle
746
16.0
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
16.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
747
width -depth ratio
254.0
W flood prone area (ft)
15.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
746
C 745
0
w 744
743
742
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
+MYO(10/2016) +MY1(10/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
16.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.0
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
16.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.5
width -depth ratio
254.0
W flood prone area (ft)
15.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 11- Candy Creek Reach 2
134+43 Riffle
744
16.2
width (ft)
1.3
743
2.3
max depth (ft)
17.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.2
742
c
154.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.5
741
0
1.0
low bank height ratio
w 740
739
738
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO(10/2016) +MYl(10/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
21.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.2
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
17.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.2
width -depth ratio
154.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 12 - Candy Creek Reach 2
139+87 Pool
740
739
23.7
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
3.5
max depth (ft)
25.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
738
width -depth ratio
737
c
0
736
_v
735
734
733
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
t MYO (10/2016) t MYl (10/2017) - Bankfu I I
Bankfull Dimensions
40.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
23.7
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
3.5
max depth (ft)
25.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 13 - Candy Creek Reach 2
140+26 Riffle
740
18.2
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
19.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
739
13.7
width -depth ratio
221.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
738
c
0 737
w 736
735
734
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
tMYO(10/2016) +MY1(10/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
24.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
18.2
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
19.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.7
width -depth ratio
221.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 14 - Candy Creek Reach 2
145+46 Riffle
737
17.3
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.1
736
18.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.2
735
164.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
734
c
0
733
_v
732
731
730
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO(10/2016) +MY1(10/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
22.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
17.3
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
18.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.2
width -depth ratio
164.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 15 - Candy Creek Reach 2
145+82 Pool
738
21.8
737
2.2
736
4.5
735
734
24.8
c 733
0
732
1.9
v
w
9.9
731
730
729
728
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
t MYO (10/2016) t MYl (10/2017) — Bankfu I I
Bankfull Dimensions
47.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
21.8
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
4.5
max depth (ft)
24.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 16 - Candy Creek Reach 3
151+71 Pool
733
25.8
width (ft)
2.1
732
4.2
max depth (ft)
27.8
731
2.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.3
730
to
729
c
° 728
w 727
726
725
724
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
+MYO (3/2017) +MYI (10/2017) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
54.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
25.8
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
4.2
max depth (ft)
27.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 17 - Candy Creek Reach 3
152+02 Riffle
732
18.0
width (ft)
731
mean depth (ft)
2.4
730
c
18.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
0 729
12.5
width -depth ratio
57.0
w 728
727
3.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
726
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO(3/2017) +MY1(10/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
25.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
18.0
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
18.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.5
width -depth ratio
57.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 18 - Candy Creek Reach 4
Bankfull Dimensions
55.5
172+87 Pool
724
723
722
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
721
max depth (ft)
28.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.9
720
12.4
width -depth ratio
x
c
719
0
718
v
w
717
716
715
714
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
+MYO (3/2017) * MY1 (10/2017) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
55.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
26.3
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
4.8
max depth (ft)
28.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.4
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 19 - Candy Creek Reach 4
173+32 Riffle
723
722
721
19.8
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
x
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.8
c 720
0
222.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.2
entrenchment ratio
w 719
718
low bank height ratio
717
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO(3/2017) tMY1(10/2017) -Bankfull- FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
23.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
19.8
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
20.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.8
width -depth ratio
222.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 20 - Candy Creek Reach 4
178+99 Riffle
722
721
22.2
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
720
max depth (ft)
22.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
719
x
c 718
hydraulic radius (ft)
- -
width -depth ratio
0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
w 717
w
716
715
714
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
tMYO(3/2017) tMY1(10/2017) -Bankfull- FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
31.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
22.2
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
22.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.6
width -depth ratio
158.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
W
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 21- Candy Creek Reach 4
179+39 Pool
722
721
720
719
718
30.0
width (ft)
2.5
mean depth (ft)
4.6
max depth (ft)
32.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
c
width -depth ratio
0 717
716
v
w
715
714
713
712
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO (3/2017) +MYI (10/2017) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
74.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
30.0
width (ft)
2.5
mean depth (ft)
4.6
max depth (ft)
32.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 22 - Candy Creek Reach 4
187+21 Pool
716
715
23.8
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
4.0
max depth (ft)
26.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
714
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.3
width -depth ratio
713
x
c
712
0
w 711
w
710
709
708
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO (3/2017) * MY1 (10/2017) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
50.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
23.8
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
4.0
max depth (ft)
26.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 23 - Candy Creek Reach 4
187+59 Riffle
718
717
716
22.5
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
2.8
715
x
c 714
0
>
23.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
713
w
712
width -depth ratio
180.0
W flood prone area (ft)
8.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
711
710
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO(3/2017) tMY1(10/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
37.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
22.5
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
2.8
max depth (ft)
23.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.5
width -depth ratio
180.0
W flood prone area (ft)
8.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 24 - Candy Creek Reach 4
197+77 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
712
width (ft)
711
mean depth (ft)
710
max depth (ft)
24.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
709
width -depth ratio
155.0
x
6.6
entrenchment ratio
c 708
0
low bank height ratio
w 707
w
for
706
_11110
705
704
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
tMYO(3/2017) tMY1(10/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
32.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
23.5
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.5
max depth (ft)
24.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.1
width -depth ratio
155.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 25 - Candy Creek Reach 4
203+63 Riffle
706
21.6
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.6
max depth (ft)
705
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.3
width -depth ratio
132.0
704
6.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
x 703
c
0
702
v
701
700
699
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO(3/2017) tMY1(10/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
32.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
21.6
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.6
max depth (ft)
22.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.3
width -depth ratio
132.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 26 - Candy Creek Reach 4
203+98 Pool
706
705
704
24.6
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
703
max depth (ft)
27.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
702
c
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.6
width -depth ratio
701
0
700
v
w
699
698
697
696
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
+MYO (3/2017) * MY1 (10/2017) -Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
52.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
24.6
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
4.4
max depth (ft)
27.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 27 - UT1C
202+17 Riffle
756
755
7.8
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
754
x
c
max depth (ft)
8.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
753
0
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.2
width -depth ratio
w 752
751
W flood prone area (ft)
3.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
750
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (ft)
tMYO(2/2017) tMY1(10/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
3.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.8
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
8.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.2
width -depth ratio
28.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 28 - UT1C
202+23 Pool
755
754
753
c
0
752
v
w
751 ell
750
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Width (ft)
t MYO (2/2017) t MY1 (10/2017) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
6.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.1
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
10.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 29 - UT1D
250+84 Riffle
745
744
7.1
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
c 743
0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.3
width -depth ratio
15.0
W flood prone area (ft)
2.1
w
742
1.0
low bank height ratio
741
0 5 10 15 20
Width (ft)
tMYO(3/2017) +MY1(10/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
3.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.1
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
7.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.3
width -depth ratio
15.0
W flood prone area (ft)
2.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 30 - UT2 Reach 1
302+27 Riffle
779
778
7.8
777
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.4
776
8.6
775
774
0.7
c
9.7
0 773
'w
22.0
772
w
2.8
771
1.0
low bank height ratio
770
769
768
0 10 20 30 40
Width (ft)
+MYO(10/2016) tMY1(10/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
6.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.8
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
8.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.7
width -depth ratio
22.0
W flood prone area (ft)
2.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 31- UT2 Reach 1
305+70 Riffle
769
768
4.3
width (ft)
0.2
mean depth (ft)
0.3
max depth (ft)
4.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
23.3
767
x
c
47.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
766
0
w 765
764
763
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO(10/2016) tMY1(10/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
0.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
4.3
width (ft)
0.2
mean depth (ft)
0.3
max depth (ft)
4.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
23.3
width -depth ratio
47.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 32 - UT2 Reach 1
307+52 Pool
763
762
761
0
760
v
w
759
758
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
t MYO (10/2016) t MY1 (10/2017) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
7.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.3
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
12.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 33 - UT2 Reach 1
307+61 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
762
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
7.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.1
width -depth ratio
88.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
761
x
c 760
0
v
w
759
758
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO(10/2016) tMY1(10/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
3.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.0
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
7.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.1
width -depth ratio
88.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 34 - UT2 Reach 2
316+47 Pool
738
737
9.6
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
9.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
736
x
c
20.2
width -depth ratio
735
0
w 734
733
732
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
t MYO (10/2016) t MY1 (10/2017) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
4.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.6
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
9.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 35 - UT2 Reach 2
31+62 Riffle
738
7.8
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
737
736
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.2
width -depth ratio
60.0
c
7.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
0
735
v
w
734
733
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO(10/2016) tMY1(10/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
3.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.8
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
8.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.2
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 36 - UT2A
353+06 Riffle
753
7.6
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
752
max depth (ft)
8.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
751
15.8
width -depth ratio
31.0
W flood prone area (ft)
750
c
0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
749
v
748
747
746
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
tMYO(10/2016) +MY1(10/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
3.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.6
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
8.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.8
width -depth ratio
31.0
W flood prone area (ft)
4.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 37 - UT3
412+91 Riffle
752
751
8.7
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
9.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.1
x
750
0
"
W flood prone area (ft)
8.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
/c
v
w
749
748
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
+MYO(10/2016) tMY1(10/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
5.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.7
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
9.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.1
width -depth ratio
77.0
W flood prone area (ft)
8.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 38 - UT4
504+91 Riffle
757
756
14.7
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
15.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.0
755
x
c
98.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.7
754
0
1.0
low bank height ratio
w 753
752
751
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO(10/2016) tMY1(10/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
14.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
14.7
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
15.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.0
width -depth ratio
98.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 39 - UT4
505+16 Pool
758
15.2
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
757
max depth (ft)
16.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
756
13.6
width -depth ratio
755
754
c
°
753
w 752
751
750
749
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+MYO (10/2016) t MY1 (10/2017) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
16.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.2
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
16.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 40 - UT4
508+51 Pool
753
752
15.0
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
16.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
751
x
width -depth ratio
c 750
0
w 749
748
747
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
+MYO (10/2016) t MY1 (10/2017) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
16.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.0
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
16.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.8
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 41 - UT4
508+78 Riffle
753
752
12.3
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
751
x
max depth (ft)
12.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.7
0 750
172.0
W flood prone area (ft)
13.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
w 749
748
747
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
+MYO(10/2016) tMY1(10/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
11.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.3
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
12.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.7
width -depth ratio
172.0
W flood prone area (ft)
13.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Cross -Section 42 - UT4
512+03 Riffle
752
751
12.3
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.7
750
749
c
12.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.9
0
288.0
W flood prone area (ft)
23.5
748
v
1.0
low bank height ratio
747
746
745
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
tMYO(10/2016) +MY1(10/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
12.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.3
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
12.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.9
width -depth ratio
288.0
W flood prone area (ft)
23.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 43 - UT4
512+35 Pool
750
749
748
15.0
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
3.1
max depth (ft)
17.3
x
c
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.0
width -depth ratio
0 747
w 746
745
744
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO (10/2016) t MY1 (10/2017) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
18.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.0
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
3.1
max depth (ft)
17.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.0
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 44 - UT5
602+45 Riffle
760
9.6
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
9.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.2
width -depth ratio
83.0
W flood prone area (ft)
8.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
759
x
c
0
w 758
757
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tMYO(10/2016) tMY1(10/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
5.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.6
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
9.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.2
width -depth ratio
83.0
W flood prone area (ft)
8.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 45 - UT5
602+63 Pool
761
760
759
x
10.2
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
11.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.1
width -depth ratio
c 758
0
w 757
756
755
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
t MYO (10/2016) t MY1 (10/2017) - Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
9.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.2
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
11.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.1
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 46 - UT5
606+10 Riffle
x -section area (ft.sq.)
757
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
9.8
756
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.4
width -depth ratio
84.0
W flood prone area (ft)
8.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
F
c
0 755
v
w
754
753
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
--s.— MYO (10/2016) tMY1(10/2017) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
6.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.5
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
9.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.4
width -depth ratio
84.0
W flood prone area (ft)
8.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 47 - UT5
606+34 Pool
758
757
13.0
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
14.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.9
756
x
c
755
0
w 754
753
752
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO (10/2016) t MY1 (10/2017) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
14.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.0
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
14.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1 - 2017
Cross -Section 48 - UT5
609+31 Riffle
756
755
10.8
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
11.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
754
x
c 753
0
hydraulic radius (ft)
Or
width -depth ratio
229.0
w 752
751
21.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
750
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
+MYO(10/2016) tMY1(10/2017) -Bankfull-FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
8.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
10.8
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
11.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.8
width -depth ratio
229.0
W flood prone area (ft)
21.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2017
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

APPENDIX S. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 1- 2017

Recorded In -stream Flow Events
Candy Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96315)
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
Candy Creek: In -stream Flow Gage for UT1D (XS 29)
Monitoring Year 1- 2017
745
4.0
3.5
744
3.0
743
2.5
c
>
742
�
2.0 w
c
3
1.5
741
1.0
740
IL
0.5
739
J)L]
-
0.0
c > c75 on
LL S ¢ vii
CL> u
O Z O
Rainfall UT1D (XS 29) Water Depth — Thalweg Elevation • Bankfull