20140547 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report 2017_20180102

Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 3 of 7
FINAL
601 East Stream Restoration Project
NCDMS Contract No.: 004925
NCDMS Project No.: 95756
USACE Permit Action ID: 2013-00265
DWR Project No.: 14-0547
Union County, NC
Data Collected: January — November 2017
Date Submitted: January 2018
Submitted to:
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
NCDEQ-DMS, 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1652

fires
January 31, 2018
Paul Wiesner
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
RE: 601 East Stream Restoration Site: MY3 Monitoring Report (NCDMS ID 95756)
Listed below are comments provided by DMS on January 12, 2018 regarding the 601 East
Stream Restoration Site: Year 3 Monitoring Report and RES' responses.
Cover: Please include the USACE Permit Action ID and the DWR Project Number on the report
cover page.
Done.
General: Encroachment has been an issue on the 601 East site since MY1 (2015). EBX/ RES
indicated in both 2015 and 2016 that the encroachment would be eliminated by working with the
landowner, installing additional signage, and providing an alternate tractor crossing. The
encroachment on the site needs to be resolved in 2018. In the revised report, please document
2015-2017 efforts to resolve the encroachment. Please also provide a firm 2018 date for the
installation of these additional measures on the project site. DMS property staff is willing to
provide assistance enforcing the recorded conservation easement if requested.
Done.
General: As noted in the report text; 601 East is one of the projects that the IRT has requested
be reverted to the Mitigation Plan asset totals prior to the 2018 credit release. Total stream assets
will be reduced to 3,681.67 SMUs per the approved mitigation plan. Please note that the approved
mitigation plan had a minor rounding error. The project will provide 3,638.67 Stream Mitigation
Units (SMUs) (R) and 43 SMUs (RE). Please update and QA/QC the report accordingly.
Contract 004925 stipulates a total of 3,576 SMUs so this update will not affect the current invoicing
payment schedule.
Section 1.2 — Success Criteria: The success criteria documented in the monitoring report
should be the same (verbatim) as the success criteria in the IRT approved mitigation plan.
Please update this section accordingly.
Done.
Section 1.4.1 - Vegetation: Invasive species were noted in the report verbiage and the CCPV
mapping. In the report verbiage, please indicate if an invasive treatment is planned for the site in
MY4 (2018). Cattails and Parrot Feather are reported on the site; will these species be treated
res.us

0
during the remaining monitoring efforts? Please include this information and update the report
text accordingly.
The following was added to the report: RES does not plan to treat cattails and parrot feather this
monitoring year nor in future monitoring years as long as the populations continue to decrease.
RES believes as the riparian vegetation grows, the cattails and parrot feather will be shaded
out.
As reported in Table 7, please report the MY3 (2017) estimated average planted stem tree
height observed (in feet) in the report verbiage.
Done.
Section 1.4.2 — Stream Geomorphology: Please note that beaver should be trapped and the
associated dams removed from the project site for the entirety of the monitoring term. This
should be completed as early as possible in MY4 (2018).
Beavers were trapped in May 2017 and dams will be removed in early 2018. This has been
added to the report.
Were any dry channels observed on the site in the MY3 monitoring period on Reach 1 or Reach
2? Please update the text accordingly as this is a DMS project concern.
The following was added to the report: According to notes and photos, both reaches had
seasonal flow during MY3. Both reaches had flow in April, lower Reach 1 and Reach 2 had flow
in July, but both were dry in November. Dry conditions in the fall can be attributed to drought
conditions in the area. According to rainfall data in Monroe, between August and November this
area received 9.22 inches of rain compared to the average of 16.48 inches.
Section 2 Methods — Please briefly describe the methodology for selecting the three (3)
random temporary vegetation plots and the associated data collection methods in this section.
The methodology for selecting temporary vegetation plot location and data collection was added
to this section.
Table 1: Please revert Table 1 back to the totals found in the Mitigation Plan. Please note that
the approved mitigation plan had a minor rounding error. The project will provide 3,638.67 Stream
Mitigation Units (SMUs) (R) and 43 SMUs (RE) for a total of 3,681.67 SMUs. Add a note at bottom
of the table to acknowledge communications with the IRT regarding the change. Suggested table
note: ``* Stream credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg. Based on
the April 3, 2017 IRT Credit Release Meeting, these stream credits have been reverted back to
the amounts in the IRT approved mitigation plan."
Table 2: Please list all invasive -exotic treatments and supplemental plantings in Table 2. Please
also remove the guidance notes below the table.
The guidance has been removed and the table remains the same as no invasive -exotic
treatments have occurred since construction and the only supplemental planting is listed.
Cross Sections / Cross Section Tables — A couple of methods are currently being utilized to
calculate the BHR from year to year. To compare subsequent monitoring years to the As -built
condition one can hold the bankfull depth static (denominator) while allowing the Low TOB 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

0
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 a table footnote how the calculations
were made. Be prepared to defend the method used for the 2018 credit release and justify
through context whether or not any changes observed in a cross section represent an issue.
Starting in MY3, BHR was calculated on riffles using the baseline bankfull elevation. This
method was used because the dimension of the channels has not changed enough to alter the
bankfull elevation. None of the riffle cross sections exceeded a 1.2 BHR. This has been added
to the text and to Table 11 a.
Table 14: Please provide estimated dates for the bankfull events reported in the table and
provide the data collection dates. Were the gauges checked three times during MY3 to
determine that 3 bankfull events occurred at each reach?
Done. Yes, the gauges were checked three times during MY3 showing three separate bankfull
events on each gauge.

Prepared by:
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605

Contents
1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY....................................................................................................... 5
1.1. Goals and Objectives........................................................................................................ 5
1.2. Success Criteria................................................................................................................ 5
1.3. Project Setting and Background....................................................................................... 7
1.4. Project Performance......................................................................................................... 8
2.0 METHODS....................................................................................................................................... 9
3.0 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................10
601 East Stream Restoration Project 3 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 3 of 7 January 2018

Appendices
Appendix A. General Tables and Figures
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figures 2a -d. Current Conditions Plan View Maps
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Figure 3.2017 Photo Station Photos
Figure 4. 2017 Problem Area Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata
Table 9. Total Planted Stem Counts
Figure 5. Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 a. Dimensional Morphology Summary
Table l lb. Stream Reach Data Summary
Figure 6. Cross Section Plots
Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
Charts 1-5. MY3 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Table 13. Bank Pin Array Summary
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 14. Verification of Bankf ill Events
Figure 7. Photo Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15. 2017 Rainfall Summary
Figure 8. 2017 601 East Site Precipitation Data
601 East Stream Restoration Project 4 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 3 of 7 January 2018

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1. Goals and Objectives
The project goals address stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
• Reduce water quality stressors originating in and around the project area affecting the project
• reaches and downstream watercourses, which include population of the Savannah Lilliput
• (Toxolasma pullus) and the Carolina Creekshell (Vilosa vaughiana), both listed species of
concern. Specifically involving:
o Reducing turbidity and sediment loading
o Input reductions of nutrients and crop protection chemicals
o Improving thermoregulation
• Improving aquatic habitat quality and diversity within project reaches
• Improving recruitment of instream fine organic matter (FOM) in the near term and both FOM and
• large wood in the long term
• Improving terrestrial habitat diversity and quality in the vicinity of project reaches
• Establishing habitat continuity between the reach headwaters and Lanes Creek
• Improving flood flow attenuation and floodplain interaction
The project goals are addressed through the following project objectives:
• Restore or enhance reach pattern, dimension, and profile
• Stabilize eroding stream banks
• Install stream structures to maintain grade and improve bed form complexity
• Implement BMP detention devices on lateral agricultural drainages
• Install diverse native riparian buffer
• Removal of invasive exotic plant species
• Secure a protective conservation easement and establish fencing as needed
1.2. Success Criteria
The success criteria for the 601 East Stream Restoration Site follows accepted and approved success
criteria presented in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and subsequent NCDMS and agency
guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
1.2.1. Stream Restoration
Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability — Restored and enhanced streams should
demonstrate morphologic stability to be considered successful. Stability does not equate to an
absence of change, but rather to sustainable rates of change or stable patterns of variation. Restored
streams often demonstrate some level of initial adjustment in the period that follows construction
and some subsequent change/variation is also to be expected. However, the observed change should
not be unidirectional such that it represents a robust trend. If some trend is evident, it should be
modest or indicate migration to another stable form. Annual variation is to be expected, but over
time this should demonstrate equilibrium on the reach scale with the maintenance of or even a
reduction in the amplitude of variation. Lastly, all of this must be evaluated in the context of
hydrologic events to which the system is exposed and the design type/intent (i.e. threshold versus
free form alluvial channels).
601 East Stream Restoration Project 5 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 3 of 7 January 2018

Dimension — General maintenance of a stable cross-section and hydrologic access to the floodplain
features over the course of the monitoring period will generally represent success in dimensional
stability. However, some change is natural and expected and can even indicate that the design was
successful and appropriate for the hydrologic and sediment regime. Examples include depositional
processes resulting in the development of constructive features on the banks and floodplain such as
an inner berm, a slightly narrower channel, modest natural levees, and general floodplain deposition.
For stream dimension, cross-sectional overlays and key parameters such as crosssectional area, and
the channel's width to depth ratios should demonstrate modest overall change and patterns of
variation.
Significant widening of the channel cross-section or trends of increase in the cross sectional area
generally represent concern, although some adjustment in this direction is acceptable if the process
is arrested after a period of modest adjustment. In the case of riffle cross sections, maintenance of
depths that represent small changes to target competence (e.g. consistently low BHRs <1.2) would
also reflect stability. Although a pool cross-section may experience periodic infilling due to
watershed activity and the timing of events relative to monitoring, the majority of pools within a
project stream reach/component should demonstrate maintenance of greater depths and low water
surface slopes over time. Rates of lateral migration need to be moderate. Bank pins will be installed
to monitor rates of erosion.
Pattern and Profile — Pool depths may vary from year to year, however the majority of pools should
maintain depths that are distinct in the profile and are readily observed. Pattern measurement will not
be collected unless observations indicate a detectable change based on observations and/or dimension
measurements.
Substrate — Generally it is anticipated that the bed materials will coarsen over time. The majority of
riffle pebble counts should indicate maintenance or coarsening of the substrate. The D50 and D84 of
the substrate should show a coarser distribution of bed materials in riffles and finer size class
distribution in pools.
Sediment Transport — Depositional features should be consistent with a stable stream that is
effectively managing its sediment load. Point Bar and inner berm features should develop without
excessive encroachment of the restored channel. Trends in the development of systemic robust mid -
channel or alternating bar features will be considered a destabilizing condition and may require
intervention.
The tributaries outside of the conservation easement will be observed yearly and the monitoring
report will document the function of the upstream basins in capturing excess sediment produced by
observed degradation in the narrative. A specific performance standard has not been added.
1.2.2. Surface Water Hydrology
Monitoring of stream water stages through a staff gauge should show recurrence of bankfull flow on
average every 1 to 2 years. Throughout the monitoring period, the surface water stage should achieve
bankfull or greater elevations at least twice. The bankfull events must occur during separate monitoring
years.
601 East Stream Restoration Project 6 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 3 of 7 January 2018

1.2.3. Vegetation
The vegetation monitoring will be conducted according to the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) — EEP
protocol Version 4.2 (Lee et al 2008). Vegetation monitoring plots will be 100 square meters in size and
will be conducted according to the Level I protocol which has a focus on planted stems only. The purpose
of this level of monitoring is to determine the pattern of installation of plant material with respect to
species, spacing, density, and to monitor the survival and growth of those installed species. The success
criteria for the preferred species in the restoration areas will be based on annual and cumulative survival
and growth over seven (7) years. Survival on preferred species must be at a minimum 320 stems/acre at
the end of the three years of monitoring and 260 stems/acre after five years. At year 7, density must be no
less than 210 seven-year-old planted stems/acre. Level II of the CVS protocol, which includes natural
stems and planted stems, will be followed for the monitoring year 2 and subsequent years until the project
close out year.
1.3. Project Setting and Background
The 601 East Stream Restoration Site is located in Union County, approximately 13 miles south of
Monroe, NC (Figure 1). The site encompasses 12.8 acres of formerly agricultural land and includes
portions of Tanyard Branch, a tributary of Lanes Creek. The Site is located within the Yadkin River
Basin, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit 03040105081010 and the
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03-04-14. The drainage area of
Tanyard Branch at the downstream end of the site is 0.56 square mile (354 acres). Land use within the
watershed is predominately agriculture with the remaining land use composed of low density residential
and forested areas.
Following 2016 monitoring the NCIRT requested a review of the differential between the Approved
Mitigation Plan and Baseline Monitoring Report. The table below details the discrepancies by reach. The
primary cause of increased baseline SMUs is survey methodology (thalweg vs. centerline). The
Mitigation Plan lengths were based on centerline. Additionally, there were likely minor field adjustments
during construction.
Reach
lVfitigadon Type*
Proposed Length
(LF)ProposedSMUs
Mtigation
Rati o
Baseline SMUs
Reach A
Buffer Establishment
215
5:1
43
43
Reach la
P1 Restoration
350
1:1
350
350
Reach lb
Enhancement I
85
1.5:1
56
57
Reach lc
Enhancement I
155
1.5:1
103
103
Reach ld
P1 Restoration
800
1:1
800
803
Reach 2a
Enhancement I
40
1.5:1
26
30
Reach 2b
Enhancement I
120
1.5:1
80
85
Reach 2c
P1 Restoration
724
1:1
724
730
Reach 3a
P1 Restoration
368
1:1
368
369
Reach 3b
P1 Restoration
650
1:1
650
649
Reach 3c
P3 Restoration
480
1:1
480
495
Total
3,987
3,680
3,714
*P1=Priority 1, P3=Priority 3
**The contracted amount of credits for this Site was 3,576 SMUs
601 East Stream Restoration Project 7 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 3 of 7 January 2018

1.4. Project Performance
Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) data was collected from April to October 2017. Monitoring activities included
visual assessment of all reaches and the surrounding easement, 20 permanent photo stations, 10
permanent vegetation monitoring plots, three temporary vegetation plots, 18 cross-sections, nine pebble
counts, and nine bankpin arrays. Summary information and data related to the occurrence of items such as
beaver activity or encroachment and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring
elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. A visual overview of the site can
be seen in the Current Conditions Plan View Maps (Figure 2). Photographs taken at permanent stations
throughout the project site also display general site conditions (Figure 3). Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report
(formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly Restoration Plan) documents available on
the NCDMS website (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep). All raw data supporting the tables and figures in
the appendices is available from DMS upon request.
1.4.1. Vegetation
Visual assessment of the easement (Table 5; Figure 2) indicates that with the exception of a few bare
areas, totaling 0.06 acres, vegetation is becoming well established throughout the easement. The number
and size of the bare areas has decreased as the vegetation continues to establish. These areas will be
monitored in subsequent site visits. Invasive populations have remained stable at the site. There are eight
invasive species areas on site totaling 0.44 acres. The invasive species include Chinse privet (Ligustrum
sinense), Parrot Feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum), and Cattails (Typha angustifolia). Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) was also noted on site but is not considered a problem in MY3 as it is
not hindering the growth of the trees. While no treatments were performed during MY3, treatment of
these areas will be scheduled as needed in coming monitoring years. Easement encroachment was noted
in two areas on Reach 3. The first area, near Vegetation Plot 5, appears as if a tractor has been cutting the
corner continually forming a new road as well as herbicide spraying with some drifting into the easement
and damaging the trees. The second area is at the end of Reach 3 where a thin strip has been cleared in
between easement markers. Encroachment problem area photos can be found in Figure 4. RES plans to
repair the crossing built near the first encroachment area so the farmer can access his fields without
cutting through the easement. RES will be installing additional signage marking the easement boundary
as well as replanting the affected areas. RES plans to have this work completed by the end of April 2018.
Monitoring of the 10 permanent vegetation plots was completed during October 2017. Summary tables
and photographs associated with MY3 monitoring are located in Appendix C (Table 7, 8 & 9; Figure 5).
Stem densities for MY3 ranged from 405 to 1,012 stems per acre with a mean of 635 stems per acre
across all plots. When volunteer stems are included, the annual mean increases to 919 stems per acre. A
total of 17 species were documented within the monitoring plots. The average planted stem height
observed in the plots was 141 cm (4.6 ft). Three temporary random plots were set up to monitor the
effects of the re -planting, one on Reach 1 (Plot 1), Reach 2 (Plot 2), and Reach 3 (Plot 3). In each
temporary plot, all of the woody stems located within the plot were counted to determine stem densities.
Temporary plot 1 had 33 stems, temporary plot 2 had 23 stems, and temporary plot 3 had 47 stems which
led to 1336, 931, and 1902 stems/acre, respectively in each plot.
1.4.2. Stream Geomorphology
Visual assessment of the stream was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding banks,
structural instability, or excessive sedimentation (Table 6). Previously reported stream problem areas
were visited again in MY3 and all are stable and no longer problems. The problems noted in MY3 include
an erosion feature downcutting through the floodplain near Cross-section 8 and two beaver dams on
601 East Stream Restoration Project 8 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 3 of 7 January 2018

Reach 4 (Figure 2; Figure 4). Beaver management was performed in May 2017 but did not include dam
removal. The erosional feature needs livestakes and the beaver dams will be removed in early 2018.
Geomorphic data for MY3 was collected during July 2017. Summary tables and cross-section plots
related to stream morphology are located in Appendix D. Baseline stream summary data for reference
can be found in Table 10. Cross-sectional overlays showed minimal dimensional change between MY2
and MY3 data collection efforts (Table 11a; Figure 6), as well as minimal change in overall reach
dimensions (Table 11b). Starting in MY3, BHR was calculated on riffles using the baseline bankfull
elevation. This method was used because the dimension of the channels has not changed enough to alter
the bankfull elevation. None of the riffle cross sections exceeded a 1.2 BHR.
Substrate monitoring was performed during MY3. Pebble count D5o was coarse gravel for Reach 1,
medium gravel for Reach 2, small cobble for Reach 3, and medium gravel for Reach 4 (Table 12; Charts
1-5). The channel substrate will be monitored in future years for shifts in particle size distributions.
The bank pin arrays indicate that no erosion is taking place in the pools with the exception the array at
Cross-section 17. Field observations indicated that there was localized erosion around these two pins due
to a beaver dam being built a few feet downstream and changing the hydrology in that area (Table 13).
1.4.3. Stream Hydrology
During MY3 bankfull events were documented on both the Reach 2 and Reach 3 crest gauges (Table 14;
Figure 7). Project site precipitation data can be found in Table 15 and Figure 8. Summary
information/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 Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in
the Mitigation Plan (formerly Restoration Plan) documents available on NCDMS' website. All raw data
supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODS
Visual assessments of the project were performed at the beginning and end of the monitoring year.
Permanent photo station photos were collected during vegetation monitoring. Additional photos of
vegetation or stream problem areas were documented with photographs throughout the project area.
Geomorphic measurements were taken during low flow conditions using a Topcon GTS -312 Total
Station. Three-dimensional coordinates associated with cross-section and profile data were collected in
the field and geo-referenced (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200). Morphological data was limited to 18
cross-sections. Survey data was imported into CAD, ArcGIS, and Excel for data processing and analysis.
Channel substrate was characterized using a Wolman Pebble Count as outlined in Harrelson et al. (1994)
and processed using Microsoft Excel.
Vegetation success is being monitored using 10 permanent monitoring plots. Vegetation monitoring
followed CVS-EEP Level 1 Protocol for MY and is following Level 2 Protocol Version 4.2 for
monitoring years 2-7 (Lee et al. 2008). Level 2 Protocol includes analysis of species composition and
density of planted species. Data is processed using the CVS data entry tool. In the field, the four corners
of each plot were permanently marked with rebar and photos of each plot taken from the origin each
monitoring year. The locations of the three temporary plots surveyed in Years 2 and 3 were randomly
601 East Stream Restoration Project 9 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 3 of 7 January 2018

selected within the replant areas. The plots were surveyed by pulling tapes to form 10 x 10 meter plots
then counting all woody stems within the plots.
Precipitation data was reported from the NCCRONOS station number 315771 in Monroe, NC. Two crest
gauges were installed on the mainstem channel, one upstream of Lansford Road in Reach 2 and another
downstream of Lansford Road in Reach 3. During quarterly visits to the site, the height of the cork -line
was recorded.
3.0 REFERENCES
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC. 2015. 601 East Stream Restoration, Baseline Monitoring
Document and As -Built Baseline Report Final, Union County, North Carolina. NCEEP Project
No. 95756
Harrelson, Cheryl, C. Rawlins and J. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service. Fort Collins, Colorado
Lee, M.T.,R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm; accessed November 2008.
601 East Stream Restoration Project 10 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 3 of 7 January 2018

Appendix A
General Tables and Figures
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2a -c. Current Conditions Plan View Maps

Note: Stream credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg. Based on the April 3, 2017 IRT Credit Release Meeting, these stream credits have been reverted back to the amounts in the IRT approved mitigation plan.
Table 1: Project Components and Mitigation Credits
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Wetland Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type R
RE
R RE R RE
Totals 3638.67
43
Project Components
Project Component -
or- Reach ID
Stationtng/L.ocation
Existing Footage/Acreage
Approach (PI, PH etc.)
Restoration -or- Restoration Equivalent
Restoration Footage or Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Credits
Reach A Ephemeral
5+45-7+60
2I5
Buffer establishment and BMP sediment
import reduction
215
1 : 5
43
Reach Is Intermittent
7+60-11+10
336
PI
R
350
1 :1
350
Reach l b Intermittent
11+10-11+95
85
Enhancement
El
85
1:1.5
56.7
Reach I Perennial
11+95 — 13+50
136
Enhancement
El
155
1 :1.5
103.3
Reach 1 d Perennial
14+00 - 22+00
790
PI
R
800
1 :1
800
Reach 2a
Perennial
22+00 - 22+40
40
Enhancement
El
40
11 1.5
26.7
Reach 2b
Perennial
22+80 - 24+00
125
Enhancement
El
120
11 1.5
80
Reach 2c Perennial
24+00 - 31+24
669
PI
R
724
1 : 1
724
Reach 3a Perennial
43+06 - 46+60
80' active channel112' relic channel
Pi
R
368
1 : 1
368
Reach 3b Perennial
47+20 - 53+70
502' relic channel
PI
R
650
1 :1
650
Reach 4 Perennial
53+70— 58+50
470' relic channel
P3
R
480
1 : 1
480
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream
(linen feet)
Non -riparian Wetland Buffer
Riparian Wetland (acres)
(acres) (square feet)
Upland (acres)
Mitigation Credits
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
3372
3372
Enhancement
Enhancement I
400
266.6
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation/Other
215
43
HQ Preservation
BMP Elements
Element
Location Purpose/Function
Notes
FB, LS, S, FS
Ephemeral Channel
5+45-7+60 Slowing the water down for settling and filtering excess sediment
Sediment expected from future degradation upstream
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretention cell; SF — Sand Filter;
SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP =
Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS — Filter Strip; S = Grassed Swale; LS = Level Spread; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer
Note: Stream credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg. Based on the April 3, 2017 IRT Credit Release Meeting, these stream credits have been reverted back to the amounts in the IRT approved mitigation plan.

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
May 2013
Jan 2014
Final Desi — Construction Plans
Sept 2013
Jan 2014
Construction
-
Dec 2014
Containerized, bare root and B&B plantings
-
Jan 2015
Mitigation Plan / As -built (Year 0 Monitoring
— baseline) Feb 2015
Feb 2015
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov 2015
Nov 2015
Supplemental Planting (Entire Site)
-
Apr 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
Sept 2016
Oct 2016
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream - July 2017
Vegetation - Oct 2017
Jan 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Table 3. Project Contact Table
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Designer
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. (WCE)
4805 Green Road, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27616
Primary project design POC
Becky Ward [phone]
Construction Contractor
Wright Contracting
P.O. Box 545, Siler City, NC 27344
Construction contractor POC
Joseph Wright [phone]
Planting Contractor
H & J Forest Services
1416 Ocean Boulevard, Holly Ridge, NC 28445
Planting contractor POC
910 512-6754
Construction Survey Contractor
Turner Land Survey, PLLC
3719 Benson Drive, Raleigh, NC 27629
Survey contractor POC
Elizabeth Turner 919 827-0745
Seeding Contractor
Wright Contracting
P.O. Box 545, Siler City, NC 27344
Construction contractor POC
Andrew Dimmette [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource - Raleigh, NC
As Purchased by EBX [phone] x 213
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arbor Gen - Blenheim, SC
[phone]
NC Forest Service Nursery - Goldsboro, NC
[phone]
[Baseline] Monitoring Performers
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
4805 Green Road, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27616
Stream Monitoring POC
Rachael Zi ler - WCE - 919 870-0526
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Chris Sheats - The Cantena Group - 919 732-1300
Monitoring Performers (MY 1-MY2)
Equinox
2015-2016
37 Haywood Street, Suite 100
Asheville, NC 28801
Stream Monitoring POC
Drew Alderman [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Drew Alderman [phone]
Resource Environemntal Solutions (RES)
Monitoring Performers (MY3+)
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Stream Monitoring POC
Ran Medric 919) 741-6268
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Ran Medric [phone]

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Project Information
Project Name 1601 East Stream Restoration Site
County Union County
Project Area (acres) 1 12.78
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 134o 50'21.62" N, 80° 25' 32.26"N
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -Digit USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit 3040105081010
DWQ Sub -basin 3/4/2014
Project Drainage Area (acres) 361.33
Project drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 2%
CGIA Land Use Classification 2.01.01.07 Annual Row Crop Rotation
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Length of reach LF
1,418; 1,393 LF Restored
906; 902 LF Restored
1,080; 1,018 LF Restored
Relic Channel, 495 LF Restored
Valley Classification
II
II
VIII
VIII
Drainage area acres
109
135
333
359
NCDWQ stream
Intermittent: 19.5
33.5
33.5
33.5
identification score
Perennial: 33.5
NCDWQ Water Quality
13-17-40-(1)
13-17-40-(1)
13-17-40-(1)
13-17-40-(1)
Classification
Morphological Description
G4B4/C4b
C4/E4/DA
C4/G4
G4
stream e
Evolutionary trend
(reference channel
G
C/DA
G
G
evolution model used
Intermittent: Tatum gravelly silty
Underlying mapped soils
Cid channery silt loam, Tatum
Chewacla silt loam
Chewacla silt loam
Perrenial: Cid channery silt loam
gravelly silt loam
Drainage class
Well Drained
Moderately Well Drained
Somewhat Poorly Drained
Somewhat Poorly Drained
Soil Hydric status
Non Hydric
Non Hydric
Non Hydric
Non Hydric
Sloe
2%
0.84%
0.67%
1.25%
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Agriculture along upstream portion
Canopy species include Willow
Red Maple, Sweetgum, Eastern
Canopy species include Red Maple,
Canopy species include Red Maple,
Native vegetation
The remaining stream buffer within
Hackberry, Willow Oak, and
Hackberry, Willow oak, and
community
this reach is composed of Willow
Wetland A is composed of
Sweetgum. The presence of Chinese
Sweetgum. The presence of Chinese
Oak, Red Maple, River Birch, Black
Cattails, spike rush arrow -arum,
privet outcompete any shrub and herb
privet outcompete any shrub and
Willow, Elderberry, and Blackberry.
and duckweed.
layer.
herb layer.
Percent composition of
0 %
I
50 % of Parrot feather
5% of Japanese stilt grass, 80%
80% Chinese privet
exotic invasive vegetation
Chinese privet, and kudzu

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Table 4 con't. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Table 4 con't. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1
Size of Wetland acres
0.43 ac
Wetland Type (non-
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
riparian, riparian riverine,
Mapped Soil Series
Cid channery Silt Loam
Moderately Well Drained to Somewhat Poorly
Drainage class
Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Non -Hydric
Tanyard Branch headwaters, groundwater, and
Source of Hydrology
adjacent runoff
Wetland A formed from accumulating sediments
Hydrologic Impairment
filling the channel resulting in a braided channel
system through the wetland.
Herbaceous -Vegetation is domninated by
herbaceous vegetation such as Cattail (Typha
Native vegetation
latifolia ), Bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus ), Common
community
Rush (Juncus effuses). Some tree species such as
Black Willow (Salix nigra), and Red Maple (Acer
rubrum ) are present in the wetland margins.
95% -The invasive Parrot Feather (Miriophyllum
Percent composition of
aquaticum ) is dominant throughout the wetland
exotic invasive vegetation
where there is standing water.
Regulatory
Considerations
Supporting
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Documentation
Waters of the United States
SAW 2013-
Section 404
Yes
00265; EEP IMS
#95756
Waters of the United States
— Section 401
Yes
DWR# 14-0547
Endangered Species Act
No
Yes
ERTR
Historic Preservation Act
No
Yes
ERTR
Coastal Zone Management
Act (CZMA)/Costal Area
No
N/A
Management Act (LAMA)
FEMA Floodplain
No
N/A
Compliance
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A

Driving Directions: From Monroe drive south on Hwy.
601. Turn left on Landsford Road. Site is loacted on the
left and right .25 miles down and accessed from a
parking area on the south side of Landsford Road.
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site
of the NCDMS and encompassed by a recorded
conservation easement, but is bordered by land with
private ownership. Accessing the site may require
traversing areas near or along the easement bounday and
f
therefore access to the general public is not permitted. , ! {'� �!f�l , ^r!r'-- ` t `
Access by authorized personel of state and federal
agencies or their designee/contractors involved in the the j. it
development, oversight, and stweardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined role. Any intended site visitation or activity by any
person outside these previously sactioned roles and
activities requires prior coordination with NCDMS.
v
00
P
♦601 East Mitigation Site
J I"-
601
a -T1
as
17
P 3
-7
k
J.
j/
Streams
e—\., Roads 1%
Mitigation Sites
Water Bodies
Figure 1
601 East Mitigation Site
pres Project Vicinity Map Project Site
EQUINOX 0 0.25 0.5 1
M � Miles

. . . . . . . . . . . ------
Reach `2
e_ ti' ik p
ReachI1
fires
0 175 350
Feet
Reach A 1 inch = 350 feet
Figure 2a
601 East Stream
Restoration Project
MY3 2017
s Current Conditions
Overview Map
Date: 12/8/2017 Drawn by: RTM
LEGEND
f O Conservation Easement
g Bankpin Array
Cross Section
_ • Crest Gauge
Structure
Top of Bank
Thalweg
Photo Station
=s s
Vegetation Success
E7771 Criteria Met
Temporary Plot
:.�
Source: 2013 NC OneMap Aerial Imagery
Esri,: HERE, l�o rne, ivlapmyiridia, v:v�ei.,.�ireeaura� csuni„uu,�rs
ri .•
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
a Present Mar inal Absent
w_
Absent No Fill
CL
y
i Present
Common ----

p, �•. �P%•n 4
.4i
u
:t
est
• 'r
Source: 2013.NC OneMa ,Aerial ImagqerryV
- Esri;aHERE, L)eLOillle, Ivlapmylndia, v �p_e,p reeublap cons' utC,
pros
0 100 200
Feet
1 inch = 200 feet
Figure 2b
601 East Stream
Restoration Project
MY3 2017
Current Conditions
Plan View
Date: 12/5/2017
Drawn by: RTM
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
Photo Station
— Stream
g Bankpin Array
Cross Section
• Crest Gauge
— Structure
Top of Bank
— MY3 SPAs
Vegetation Success
o Criteria Met
o Temporary Plot
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
a Present Mar inal Absent
wZ Absent No Fill
CL
(0
i Present
Common ----

::..
jp
OF
.. - .- - •..� �� - •- �- - • �� + �-� 112"' -.... ..
.r"
• �f. 46Lr
7..
rivet
fires
0 50 100
Feet
1 inch = 100 feet
Figure 2c
601 East Stream
Restoration Project
MY3 2017
Current Conditions
Plan View
Date: 12/5/2017 Drawn by: RTM
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
— Stream
Photo Station
Top of Bank
Cross Section
— Structure
— MY3 SPAs
g Bankpin Array
• Crest Gauge
Vegetation Success
E71 Criteria Met
o Temporary Plot
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
a Present Mar inal Absent
w_
'0 Absent No Fill
CLy
i Present
N
Common ----

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Figure 3. 2017 Photo Station Photos
Figure 4. 2017 Problem Area Photos

Appendix B - Visual Assessment Data
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
N/A - Item does not apply.
Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Assessed Length 1,393 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Planted Acreage 12.8
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aeeradatiou - Bar fmmatiodgrowth mfficicut to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
Easement Acreage 12.8
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2 Dt aradation - Evidence of downeuding.
0
of
Vegetation Category
Definitions
CCPV Depiction
of
Combined
Planted
100%
PolygonsNumber
Acreage
33 33
100%
Condition
Acrea e
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
Red Vertical Lines
4
0.06
0%
33 33
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4,
2. Low Stem Density Areas
or 5 stem count criteria.
N/A
0
0.00
0%
Totals
4
0.06
0%
=lack, gvegetaffw cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
and era-..
Areas with woody stems of a size class that arc obviously small
0
0
1004b
0
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
given the monitoring year.
N/A
0
0.00
0%
Cumulative Totals
4
0.06
0%
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A
N/A
of
Vegetation Category
Definitions
CCPV Depiction
Number of
Combined
Easement
3. Mass Wasting
polygons
Acreage
Acrea e
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons atmap scale).
Horizontal Lines
g
0 ;4
3
Red - Dense/Yellow - Present
Totals
0
0
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
Red Vertical Lines
2
0. 3
1%
N/A - Item does not apply.
Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 1
Assessed Length 1,393 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aeeradatiou - Bar fmmatiodgrowth mfficicut to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2 Dt aradation - Evidence of downeuding.
0
0
100%
2. Rime Condition
1. Texture/Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
32 32
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Death Snffiewnt (Mar Pool Depth: Mean Bankfall Depth z 1.6).
33 33
100%
Condition
2. Lenath appropriate (>30%of centerline distance between tail of
u stream rime and head of downstream rime).
33 33
100
1. Thalweg cantering at upstream of meander bend (Ron).
33 33
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream ofmmnder bend (Glide).
33 33
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured / Eroding
=lack, gvegetaffw cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
and era-..
0
0
1004b
0
0
100%
Banks rad atut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appear,
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A
N/A
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
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity Strueteor, physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. N/A N/A
N/A
2. Grade Control Grade control stow- exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. N/A N/A
N/A
2a. Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow andemeath sills or arms. N/A N/A
N/A
3. Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does NOT exceed N/A N/A
15%.
N/A
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull
N/A N/A
4. Habitat Depth Ratio> 1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base-flow.iL
N/A
N/A -Item does not apply.

Appendix B - Visual Assessment Data
Table 6 con't. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 2
Assessed Length 902 feet
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
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
Number
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
with
with
for
Major Channel
Channel
Stable,
Metric
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Sub -Category
Performing
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Woody
Woody
Woody
as Intended
2. Laneth appropriate (>30%of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
18 18
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
100%
1. Aeeradatiou - Bar frmation/growth sufficient to signif,,mtty dcflcet
4. Thalweg Position
1. Vertical Stability
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0
0
100
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Bank
], Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
and er
0
0
100 %
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutring.
0
U
100%
Banks unde cut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appear
2. 1Ume Condition
1, Te.tore/Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate. 16 16
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Deof Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Meso Baokfall Depth 2 1.6). 17 17
2. Undercut
100%
0
Condition
100%
N/A
2. Leneth appropriate (>30%of centerline distance between tail of
N/A
17 17
upstream rime and head of downstream riffle).
100
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander beod (Roo). 17 17
100%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
4. Thalweg Position
100%
N/A
2, Thalwegcmteringatdownstreamofineanderbmd(Glide). 17 17
100%
2. Bank
Totals
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
0
100%
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
]. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. N/A N/A
1. Scoured /Eroding
and cro
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
2a. Piping Strnc.- lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or anus. N/A N/A
N/A
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
3. Bank Protecdon Bank erosion within the stricture, extent of influence does NOT exceed N/A N/A
15%.
N/A
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include mdercuts that are modest, appear sustamable
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A
N/A
and are pvidig habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
Totals
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Engineered
]. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. N/A N/A
N/A
Structurrs
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. N/A N/A
N/A
2a. Piping Strni.- lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or amus. N/A N/A
N/A
Bank erosion within the stricture, extent of influence does NOT exceed
3. Bank Protecdon N/A N/A
15%.
N/A
Pool forming strncmres maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfll
4. Habitat Depth Ratio > 1.6. Roomads/logs providing some cover at base -Flow. N/A N/A
N A
N/A - Item does not apply.
Table 6 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 3
Assessed Length 1,018 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1.Aegradatiou-Barfrmation/growthmfficieuttosignif,,mtlydcflcet
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0
0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutring.
0
U
100%
2. Rime Condition
1. Te.tore/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
18 18
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Deof Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean BaokfuB Depth 2 1.6).
18 18
100%
Condition
2. Laneth appropriate (>30%of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
18 18
100
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Ron).
18 18
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering et downstream of meander bend(Glide).
18 18
100%
2. Bank
], Scoured /Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
and er
0
0
100 %
0
0
100%
Banks unde cut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appear
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include mdercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A
N/A
and are preofing 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
3. Engineered
Structures
]. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. N/A N/A
N/A
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. N/A N/A
N/A
2a. Piping Strnc.- lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or anus. N/A N/A
N/A
3. Bank Protecdon Bank erosion within the stricture, extent of influence does NOT exceed N/A N/A
15%.
N/A
Pool forming snucmres maintaining -Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfll
4. Habitat Depth Ratio> 1.6. Roomads/logs providing some cover at base -Flow. N/A N/A
N!n
N/A - Item does not apply.

Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data
Table 6 con't. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 4
Assessed Length 495 feet
Number
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable,
with
with
for
Major Channel
Channel
Stable,
Metric
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Category
Sub -Category
Performing
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Woody
Woody
Woody
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Aeeradatiou - Bar frmation/growth sufficient to signif,,mtty dcflcot
1. Vertical Stability
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0
0
100
(Riffle and Run Units)
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutring.
0
U
100
2. Rime Condition
1, Te.tore/Substrate- Riffle maintains coarser substrate. 9 9
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Deoth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Baokfull Depth 2 1.6). 9 9
100%
Condition
2. le., appropriate (>30%of centerline distance between tail of
9 9
upstream rime and head of downstream riffle).
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Ron). 9 9
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend(Glide). 9 9
100%
2. Bank
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
1. Scoured /Eroding
and ero
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks und—an/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include ondercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A
N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
Totals
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Engineered
1. Overall Integrity Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs. 2 2
100%
Structurrs
2. Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill. 2 2
100%
2a. Piping Stmc—s lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or 2 2
100%
Bank erosion within the stricture, extent of influence does NOT exceed
3. Bank Protecdon 2 2
15%.
100
Pool forming strncmres maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfll
4. Habitat Depth Ratio > 1.6. Roomads/logs providing some cover at base -Flow. 2 2
100
N/A - Item does not apply.

I

I
4 `jig
J
vv' rl' � 'i 4�• (( ,i
Al
TT
.\ate` �'

�..� •^q y��, �� /r ij +�� 4 � 4 .4 ! � f': `, � " it i.' ��! I►i
Ilk
L' dqb
r
- •'/fit-

Reach 2 — Permanent Photo Station 11
Cross Section 10 — Looking Downstream
July 20, 2017
Reach 2 — Permanent Photo Station 12
Cross Section 11 — Looking Downstream
July 20, 2017
al Assessment Data

Reach 2 — Permanent Photo Station 13
Cross Section 12 — Looking Downstream
July 20, 2017
Reach 3 — Permanent Photo Station 14
Cross Section 13 — Looking Downstream
July 19, 2017
al Assessment Data

t`IOV
-�3 ���-
-
,, _ �'
✓.rte -- �
j
_
d
�
r

Reach 3 Permanent Photo Station 17
Cross Section 16 — Looking Downstream
July 19, 2017
Reach 4 — Permanent Photo Station 18
Cross Section 17 — Looking Downstream
July 19, 2017
al Assessment Data

Reach 4 — Permanent Photo Station 19
Cross Section 18 — Looking Downstream
July 19, 2017
Reach 4 — Permanent Photo Station 20
Bottom of Project — Looking Upstream
October 17, 2017
al Assessment Data

Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data
Figure 4. 2017 Problem Area Photos
Reach 1 Right Bank — Bare Area
Reach 1 Right Bank — Bare Area

�.,
S � '� � �;� _ " �
\ ` �
i �r� r';
T j L yi , J �.
tR� � x '"'
4;� � � �� .
\ � ,� ' `
� 4
y
�' �� � a F ��'� ��
� , 7'
:� :,. — � �Z ' � : '-�
_V _ ` �.. i
t � 4 �^
� 4. � '� �\,r t x
� � � � i - � �� c. r '-
� y ,,,� f
� �,ti � ! yu � i s: w ! �.
r

Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data
Reach 3 — Easement Encroachment
Reach 4 — Beaver Dam

Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data
Reach 4 — Beaver Dam

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata
Table 9. Total Planted Stem Counts
Figure 5. Vegetation Plot Photos

Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. MY3 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Plot #
Planted
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
SuccessAverage
Criteria
Met?
Tree
Height (cm)*
OF 1
607
1416
2023
Yes
197
PF 2
971
283
1295
Yes
110
3
526
445
1255
Yes
212
4
607
81
688
Yes
102
5
567
0
567
Yes
176
6
567
0
567
Yes
121
7
405
0
405
Yes
131
8
526
40
567
Yes
79
9
688
162
850
Yes
96
10
850
121
971
Yes
186
Project Avg
631
255
919
Yes
141
* Only the tallest eight trees were averaged, as this is the amount that represents 320 stems/acre.

Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Talbla S: CVS Vegetatian Pkt Metadata
601 E ast Strum and Wetland ReEtarstiar► Site
Rep a 1t P»e pa»e d By
Etic Ti eiur-vac h
Dare PYe a»ed
10/213/201715:14
-databaEe name
RES-MY3 2017-601East.rndb
-databa8a lac=ian
C_ Users\eteitsworth\D nopbox (RES)\LMRES Proj erts\North
Ca no I i na\601 Ea st\Mo n itfl ri ng\Mo n itio ri ng
Data\MY3 201 V etati-on Data
camgute•r nam L-
134VOKE HZ
file aiae•
48533504
DE SCRIPII 0'-'4- OF WORK SHE E TS IIS THIS D0CU-MENT
Me radara
De.srription of database file, the report worksheets, anda
surnmary of projert(s) •and project data.
Pmj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED sterns per acre, fflr each
year. This excludes live stakes.
PMj, tatat atLIrus
Each project is listed with its TOTAL ste rns p e r acre, fur each yea r.
This includes live stakes, all planted stents, and all
naturalfvfllunteer stents.
Plata
List of plots surveyed with Incativn and surnmary data (I ive sterns,
dead sterns, rnissi ng, etc.).
rigor
Fr equencydistributi-on -of vig-or cla=-se=--for stemsforaII plats.
ikigffrhySlip
Frequency distributifln-of vigflrcla=_se=_listedbyspecies.
Damage
List -of mostfrequent damage clan=_es with nurnber-of flrrurrences
and percent of total stents irnpacted by each.
1]amageby Spp
Damage values tall i e d by type fn earh species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tall i e d by type for each plot.
Planter Stem a by Plot and Spp
A matrix -of the cc,unt -of PLANTED Iivi ng stentscif each speciesf-or
earh plflt; dead and rnissingsterns are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plfft acrd app
A matrix th e vo unt of total Ii vi ngstents of each species planted
and natural vulunteerscornbined) fflr each plot; dead and missing
sterns are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY
P'r4 ' ct Cozia 56756
t'D j�e et'ame EUI East
D es c ri ti*n
RkerBaBua Yadkin -Pee Dee
L- &
stream-ti--ea width (Ift)
n -e a m
Requit,ed PI -Du calculated
Sam l,ed Plffts -

Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9. Total Planted Stem Counts
Table 9. Planted Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot)
601E Stream Restoration Site
Current Plot Data (MY3 2017)
Species
Scientific Name Common Name Type
001-01-0001
PnoLS P -all T
001-01-0002
PnoLS P -all T
001-01-0003
PnoLS P -all T
001-01-0004
PnoLS P -all T
001-01-0005
PnoLS P -all T
001-01-0006
PnoLS P -all T
1
001-01-0007
PnoLS P -all T
001-01-0008
PnoLS P -all T
001-01-0009
PnoLS P -all T
001-01-0010
PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo Boxelder Tree
25
Asimina triloba Pawpaw Tree
Betula nigra River Birch Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
6 6
6
1 1
1
5 5
5
1
1
1
2
2
2
6 6
7
Celtis occidentalis Common Hackberry Tree
1
21
2
Cephalanthus occidental Common Buttonbush Shrub
1 1
1
1
11
11
2
2
2
Cercis canadensis var. c Eastern Redbud Tree
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash Tree
3 3
3
3 3
3
4 4
4
3
3
3
6
6
6
8 8
8
2
2
2
Liquidambar styraciva Sweetgum Tree
9
6
2
Liriodendron tulipifera v Tulip -tree, Yellow Po Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 21
21
1 1
1
1
1
1
6
6
7
Nyssa sylvatica Blackgum Tree
2 21
2
1
1
1 1
1
Platanus occidentalis va Sycamore, Plane -tree Tree
8
8
8
14
14
14
10 10
10
4 4
4
5 5
5
2 2
2
3
3
4
1 1
1
8
8
9
Populus deltoides var. d Eastern Cottonwood
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus Oak Tree
Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oat Tree
1
61
6
6
1 1
1
1
11 1
11
2 2
21
1
1
1
11
1
1
2
2
2
Quercus nigra Water Oak Tree
Quercus phellos Willow Oak Tree
3
3
3
1 1
1
2 2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak Tree
Quercus stellata Post Oak Tree
Quercus velutina Black Oak Tree
Rhus copallinum var. col Flameleaf Sumac shrub
7
1
1
Salix nigra Black Willow Tree
6
6
1 1
3
Ulmus americana I American Elm Tree
1
Ulmus rubra Slippery Elm ITree
Stem count
15
15
50
25
25
32
13 20
31
15 15
17
14 14
14
14 14
14
10
101
10
13
13
14
17 17
21
211
211
24
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
l
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
51
51
81
61
61
8
3
51
81
51
51
6
6
61
61
51
51
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
Stems per ACRE
607
607
2023
1012
1012
1295
526
809
1255
607
607
688
567
567
567
567
567
567
405
405
4051
5261
5261
5671
688
6881
850
8501
8501
971

Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Recruit Stems
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9 Cont. Planted Total Stem Count (Annual Means)
601 Stream Restoration Site
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species
Type
MY3 (2017)
MY2 (2016)
MYl (2 015)
MYO (2015)
PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLSIP-all T PnoLS P -all T
Acer negundo
Boxelder
Tree
25
31
Asimina triloba
Pawpaw
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
24
24
25
33
33
33
14
14
14
24
24
24
Celtis occidentalis
Common Hackberry
Tree
4
Cephalanthus occidental
Common Buttonbush
Shrub
4
4
4
5
5
5
4
4
4
6
6
6
Cercis canadensis var. c
Eastern Redbud
Tree
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
29
29
29
27
27
28
3
3
3
3
3
3
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweetgum
Tree
17
16
Liriodendron tulipifera v
Tulip -tree, Yellow Po
Tree
12
12
13
20
20
21
16
16
16
30
30
30
Nyssa sylvatica
Blackgum
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
18
18
18
Platanus occidentalis vaj
Sycamore, Plane -tree
Tree
55
55
57
59
59
59
47
47
47
58
58
58
Populus deltoides var. d
Eastern Cottonwood
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
3
3
1
8
8
Quercus
Oak
Tree
9
9
9
12
12
12
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
4
4
4
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oah
Tree
14
14
14
14
14
14
10
10
10
20
20
20
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
10
10
10
8
8
8
5
5
5
26
26
26
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus stellata
Post Oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus velutina
Black Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
Rhus copallinum var. col
Flameleaf Sumac
shrub
9
9
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
l
7
9
1
6
13
5
5
Ulmus americana
American Elm
Tree
1
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm
Tree
I
1
Stem count
1571
164
227
1781
1841
250
116
1231
123
200
207
207
size (ares)
10
10
10
10
size (ACRES)
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
Species count
1111
1715
15
19
131
141
141
111
11
11
Stems per ACRE
6351
6641
9191
7201
745
1012
4691
4981
4981
8001
828
828
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Recruit Stems
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data

Appendix C — Vegetation Plot Data
Figure 5. 2017 Vegetation Plot Photos
601 East - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 1
October 17, 2017
601 East - Vegetation Monitoring Plot 2
October 17, 2017

.kms
a

9
FV
�. .dam
♦. ,.
_ ' 1 -•
r
,

..�aL'. f � )i:
_ a �,.� .,.:�

Imw %, 1'

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 11 a. Dimensional Morphology Summary
Table l lb. Stream Reach Data Summary
Figure 6. Cross Section Plots
Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
Charts 1-5. MY3 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Table 13. Bank Pin Array Summary

Appendix D - Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Sumary
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 1 (1,393 feet)
Parameter Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre- Existing Conditions
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built / Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL
UL Eq. Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
7
21
60
7.42
9.88
11.61
10
8.82
11.45
10.77 15.13
2.23
8
Floodprone Width (ft)
8
60
101
18.51
26.43
33.59
22
28
35
40.00
74.38
69.00 154.00 35.32
8
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.2
0.5
0.9
0.68
0.79
0.97
0.72
0.50
0.81
0.77 1.20
0.26
8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
1
1.4
1.28
1.78
2.16
1.2
0.87
1.53
1.54 2.07
0.49
8
Bankfall Cross Sectional Area (ftp)
8
1
1.4
0.97
1.39
1.82
7.2
4.45
9.27
8.85 14.07
3.48
8
Width/Depth Ratio
1.1
27
47
8.14
12.95
16.82
13.9
8.56
15.45
14.89 25.33
5.40
8
Entrenchment Ratio
0.4
2.4
9.5
2.02
2.4
3.24
2.2
2.8
3.5
3.30
6.90
5.62 16.40
4.19
8
Bank Height Ratio
0.34
2
0.97
1.39
1.82
1
0.93
0.98
1.00 1.00
0.03
8
d50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
2.7
24.9
107.3
5.97
11.26
26.78
14
23
90
10.04
22.09
18.54 95.26
14.521
32
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0007
1.7
40
0.015
0.031
0.05
0.021
0.036
0.046
0.015
0.034
0.032 0.064
0.012
32
Pool Len (ft)
9.03
16.89
1 56.86 1
13.6
20.13 1
31.74 1
14
22 1
29
13.38
24.28
21.23 65.67
11.47
33
Pool Max depth (ft)
1
2.4
3.9
1.4
1.83
2.2
2.2
1.16
2.19
2.17 3.15
0.38
33
Pool Spacing (ft)
15.5
50
128
23.5
36.2
57.4
24
36.7
58
31.42
44.63
40.18 116.51 16.87
32
Pool Volume (ft)
Patte rn
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
l0
19.6
25
13
17.33
20
13
18
21
13
18 21
Radius of Curvature (ft)
14.5
84
118
16
33
53
16
32.1
52
16
32.1 52
Rc: Bankfull width (ft/ft)
1.7
4.6
11.5
4.35
6.04
8.9
4.3
6.1
8.9
4.3
6.1 8.9
Meander Wavelength (ft)
36
96
240
43
59.67
88
43
61
89
43
61 89
Meander Width Ratiol
Substrate, bed and transport parameters
0.5
0.94
1.7
1.32
1.76
2.03
1.3
1.8
2.1
ff
1.3
1.8 2.1
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
45.5%
53.6%
0.0%
26.8%
17.2%
47.9% 1 8.1% 1 0.0%
44.3%1
155.7% 1
0.0%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
4.1%
27.3%
67.6% 1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/df/dfp (mm)
2.71
6.72
10.56 24.89
38.23
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f
Max part size (mm) Mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/n�
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.166
0.144
Impervious cover estimate (%)
Ros en Classification
G4/B4/C4b
134/C4
B4/C4b
B4/C4b
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.2
3.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
24
Valley length (ft)
1,425
378
Channel Thalweg len (ft)
1,479
440
1,438
1,438
Sinuosity (ft)
1.04
1.16
1.17
1.17
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0196
0.017
0.017
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.017
0.017
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
Proportion over wide (%)
Entenchment Class (ER Range)
Incision Class (BHR Range)
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%NH%/E%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other

Appendix D - Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 2 (902 feet)
Parameter Gauge Regional Curve
Pre- Existing Conditions
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built / Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle LL UL Eq.
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n Min
Mean Med
Max SD n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
7
19
21
10
12.2
14.3
12
15.50
19.73
19.63 24.18
3.56
4
Floodprone Width (ft)
40
214
60
42
77
11
48
91.5
135
62.00
108.75
102.50 168.00
50.05
4
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
1.33
0.5
0.92
1.12
1.34
0.9
0.61
0.93
0.90 1.31
0.32
4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.7
1.9
1
1.2
1.6
2.2
1.5
1.49
2.01
2.02 2.53
0.58
4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (f 2)
6
21
1
12.2
13
13.4
10.7
9.43
18.42
19.49 25.26
6.75
4
Width/Depth Ratio
6.1
1 38
27
7.7
11.3
15.6
13.3
14.64
23.00
22.13 33.10
8.07
4
Entrenchment Ratio
2.2
10
2.4
2.9
6.5
8.6
3.6
7.6
10
2.56
5.63
5.79 8.39
2.54
4
Bank Height Ratio
0.9
1.7
0.34
1.1
1.5
1.7
1
0.90
0.96
0.96 1.00
0.05
4
d50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (11)
10.9
24.9
19.7
4.03
14.18
13.61
14
23
90
12.13
23.38
18.96 50.22
10.70
18
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.00
1.7
0.04
0.006
0.02
0.05
0.021
0.036
0.046
0.004
0.02
0.02 0.04
0.01
17
Pool Length (11)
11.1
16.89
525.4
18.51
32.11
58.03
14
22
29
15.06
32.87
29.14 74.26
14.68
17
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.9
2.4
4.2
1.7
2.47
3.1
2.5
1.91
2.87
2.67 4.03
0.59
17
Pool Spacing (ft)
20
50
512
29
48
84
38
57
85
32.94
55.57
47.60 110.28
20.48
17
Pool Volume (ft)Pattern
Channel Behwidth (ft)
12
32
42
25
40
65
25
40
65
25
40 65
Radius of Curvature (ft)
68
75
77
20
31
65
38
47
58
38
47 58
Re: Bankfull width (ft/ft)
5.2
5.7
5.9
3.2
3.9
4.8
3.2
3.9
4.8
3.2
3.9 4.8
Meander Wavelength (ft)l
46
70
97
61
84
97
61
84
97
61
84 97
Meander Width Ratiol
0.9
2.4
3.2
2.1
3.3
5.4
2.1
3.3
5.4
2.1
3.3 5.4
Substrate, bed and transport parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
12.6%
87.4%
0.0% 27.2%
3.7% 61.5%
7.6% 0%
39.5%
60.5%
0.0%
SC%/Sa%/G°/o/C%B%/Be%
0.0%
33.7%
66.3% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/dfp (mm)
0.90
4.57
8.92 24.42
47.93
Reach Shear Stress (competency) IbY
Max part size (mm) Mobilized at bankfull
jo
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m?
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.212
0.5
Impervious cover estimate (%)
Ros en Classification
C4/E4/DA
C4
C4/E4
C4/E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.1
2.6
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
27
Valley length (ft)
830
378
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1,479
440
945
945
Sinuosity (ft)
1.01
1.1
1.34
1.34
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0069
0.0069
BF sloe (ft/ft)
0.0069
0.0069
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
Proportion over wide (%)
Entenchment Class (ER Range)
Incision Class (BHR Range)
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%NH%/E%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other

Parameter
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftZ)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
d50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Re: Bankfull width (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, bed and transport parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%Be%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/digp (mm)
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f'
Max part size (mm) Mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
Impervious cover estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
Bankfiall Velocity (fps)
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
Sinuosity (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
BE slope (ft/ft)
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
Proportion over wide (%)
Entenchment Class (ER Range)
Incision Class (BHR Range)
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%NH%/E%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Regional Curve
LL I UL
Appendix D - Stream Geomorphology Data
Design
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
601 East Stream RestorationSite - Reach 3 (1,018 feet)
1 25
40
As -built / Baseline
Pre- Existing Conditions
Reference Reach(es) Data
1 92
35 1
56
92
22.5
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD n Min Mean Med
Max SD
65
15.7
29
10 12.2
14.3
150
200
2601.26
42 77
11
0.5
0.9
2.1
0.92 1.12
1.34
1.28
1.7
19.4
1.2 1.6
2.2
10.5
14.5
31
12.2 13
13.4
12.8
17.5
16.5
7.7 1 11.3
15.6
9.6
12.7
4
2.9 6.5
8.6
1.3
2.2
1.7
1.1 1.5
1.7
2.52
3.44
1.06
4
21
12.85
22.79
21.12
0.97
10.58
23.77
4.03 14.18
13.61
0
0.2
0.6
0.006 1 0.02
0.05
7.83
20.87
64.91
18.51 32.11
58.03
1.8
2.7
3.4
1.7 2.47
3.1
8
48
125
29 48
84
Appendix D - Stream Geomorphology Data
13
Design
58 1
1 25
40
As -built / Baseline
35
56
1 92
35 1
56
92
22.5
49.7
78
20
31
n Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
4.9
17
3.9
15.86
17.69
17.66
19.58
1.52
4
150
200
300
75.00
231.25
250.00
350.00
140.50
4
134
1.18
119
0.79
1.26
1.21
1.84
0.54
4
5.4
2
3.3
1.58
2.51
2.52
3.44
1.06
4
21
12.85
22.79
21.12
36.08
11.26
4
14.4
10.62
15.88
15.27
22.36
5.98
4
8.8
11.8
17.6
4.73
12.74
13.17
19.90
7.31
4
1
0.99
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.01
4
15
25
103
10.12
24.10
16.77
110.25
22.07
19
0.008
0.018
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.01
17
25
35
50
27.38
35.18
35.18
49.71
6.68
18
3.4
1.93
2.91
2.98
3.50
0.36
18
39
66
117
41.11
58.55
54.44
137.89
20.86
18
13
41 1
58 1
1 25
40
1 65 1
35
56
1 92
35 1
56
92
22.5
49.7
78
20
31
65
27
43
63
27
43
63
1.4
3.2
4.9
3.2
3.9
4.8
1.6
2.5
3.7
1.6
2.5
3.7
32
57
89
61
84
97
87
119
134
87
119
134
1.3
2.6
3.7
2.1
3.3
5.4
2.1
3.3
5.4
2.1
3.3
5.4
38.0% 62.0% 0.0% 1 27.2% 1 3.7% 1 61.5% 1 7.6% 1 0.0%
4.0% 51.9% 44.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0%
0.8 3.5 5.4 12.8 1 19.6
43.0% 1 1 57.0%
0.52 0.5
C4 -G4 E4/C4 C4 C4
3.2 3 3
55
1,064 1,064
1.05 1.2 1.2 1.2
0.0056 0.0056
0.0056 0.0056
0.01%

Appendix D - Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 10. Baseline Stream Data Summary
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 4 (495 feet)
Parameter Gaugc
Regional Curve
Pre- Existing Conditions
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -built / Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
LL UL Eq. Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
Min
Mean
Med Max SD n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.2
11.6
20
7.42
9.88
11.61
16
14.93
15.92
15.92 16.91
1.40
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
16
20
25
18.51
26.43
33.59
30
35
40
30.39
36.19
36.19 42.00
8.21
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.76
0.9
1.1
0.68
0.79
0.97
0.98
0.98
1.37
1.37 1.76
0.55
2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.33
1.28
1.78
2.16
1.8
1.49
2.11
2.11 2.72
0.87
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
12.3
15
16
0.97
1.39
1.82
15.7
14.70
22.25 1
22.25 29.81
10.68
2
Width/Depth Ratio
7
12.9
18
8.14
12.95
16.82
16.3
9.60
12.38
12.38 15.16
3.93
2
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
1.7
2.2
2.02
2.4
3.24
1.9
2.2
2.5
2.04
2.26
2.26 2.48
0.32
2
Bank Height Ratio
3.3
3.5
4.2
0.97
1.39
1.82
1
1.00
1.10
1.10 1.20
0.14
2
d50 (mm)
Profile
Riffle Length (11)
0.79
10.58
23.7
5.97
11.26
26.78
15
23
103
15.84
20.829
18.18 28.96
4.77639
9
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0
0.02
0.06
0.015
0.031
0.05
0.021
0.036
0.03
0.018
0.0274 0.0298 0.0382 0.00676
9
Pool Length (ft)
7.83
20.7
64.91
13.6
20.13
31.74
14
22 1
42
30.82
35.01
35.78 38.85
3.12426
9
Pool Max depth (ft)
2
2.5
3.2
1.4
1.83
2.2
2.2
1.997
2.8154
2.753 3.392
0.39095
9
Pool Spacing (ft)
12
29
55
23.5
36.2
57.4
38
59
93
49.77
56.111
54.805 69.26
6.24406
8
3Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
12
32
82
13
17.33
20
21
28
32
21
28 32
Radius of Curvature (ft)
18
34.9
61
16
33
53
26
52
84
26
52 84
Rc: Bankfull width (ft/ft)
1.6
3
5.3
4.35
6.04
8.9
162
3.25
5.25
162
3.25 5.25
Meander Wavelength (ft)
30
56
113
43
59.67
88
69
97
142
69
97 142
Meander Width Ratiol
Substrate, bed and transport parameters
2.8
7.2
1.32
1.76
2.03
1.32
1.76
2.03
1.32
1.76 2.03
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
19.9%
80.1% 0.0%
26.8%
17.2%
47.9% 1 8.1% 1 0.01/1/0
39.1%1
165.6%10.0%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%B%Be%
dl6/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip/disp (mm)
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f
Max part size (mm) Mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.56
0.144
Impervious cover estimate (%)
Rosgen Classification
G4
B4/C4
B4
B4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4
3.27
3.27
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
55
Valley length (ft)
378
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
440
465
465
Sinuosity (ft)
1.04
1.16
1.13
1.13
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0114
0.0114
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0114
0.0114
Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
Proportion over wide (%)
Entenchment Class (ER Range)
Incision Class (BHR Range)
BEHI VL%/L%/M%/H%NH%/E%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other

N/A - Information Not Available
' MYO Bankfall Entrennchment Ratios Updated to Reflect Calculated Values
Note: Starting in MY3, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio was calculated on riffles using the baseline bankfidl elevation. This method was used because the dimension of the channels has not changed enough to alter the bankfull elevation.
V4
Table Ila. Dimensional Morphology Summary
(Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 1
Cross -Section 1
Pool
Cross -Section 2
Riffle
Cross -Section 3
Pool
Cross -Section 4
Riffle
Dimension
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY6 MY7 Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY6 MY7 Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Record elevation (datum) used 544.82
544.82
544.82
544.82
540.40
540.40 540.40 540.40 537.87
537.87
537.87
537.87
533.69
533.69
533.69
533.69
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.6
15.1
15.1
14.7
15.1
14.7 15.2 15.2 9.4
9.5
9.3
9.2
8.8
9.1
9.4
9.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
45.0
>45.0
>45.0
>45.0
1 77.0
>77.0 >77.0 >77.0 154.0
>154.0
>154.0
>154.0
75.0
>75.0
>75.0
>75.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.1
1.2
1.2 1.2 1.1 1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
14.1
13.7
14.3
13.4
9.0
8.0 8.0 8.8 8.7
8.5
8.8
8.5
4.5
4.8
5.8
5.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.2
16.6
15.9
16.2
25.3
27.0 28.9 26.2 10.2
10.7
9.8
9.9
17.5
17.1
15.3
16.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
10.3
>3.0
>3.0
N/A
1 9.3
>5.2 >5.1 >5.1 14.9
>14.6
>16.6
N/A
15.9
>8.3
>8.0
>8.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
1.0
1.0 1.0 0.7 1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
d50 (mm)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
8.3 0.062 0.062 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
22.0
17.0
1 28.0
Cross -Section 5
Pool
Cross -Section 6
Riffle
Cross -Section 7
Pool
Cross -Section 8
Riffle
Dimension
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY6 MY7 Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY6 MY7 Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Record elevation (datum) used 530.49
530.49
530.49
530.49
528.11
528.11 528.11 528.11 525.02
525.02
525.02
525.02
522.48
522.48
522.48
522.48
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.9
12.1
12.0
13.2
11.3
11.3 11.3 11.1 10.3
11.4
10.3
10.8
10.1
8.8
9.2
9.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
61.0
>61.0
>61.0
>61.0
80.0
>80.0 >80.0 >80.0 63.0
>63.0
>63.0
>63.0
40.0
>40.0
>40.0
>40.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.6 0.6 0.6 1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.3
1.3 1.4 1.3 2.0
2.0
2.1
1.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
12.8
11.0
11.2
12.8
6.6
6.6 7.2 6.9 12.3
11.2
10.4
9.9
6.2
5.6
5.8
5.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.0
13.2
12.9
13.6
19.3
19.5 17.9 17.9 8.6
11.5
10.3
11.8
16.6
13.9
14.7
13.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
17.4
>5.1
>5.1
N/A
9.7
>7.1 >7.1 >7.2 10.7
>5.5
>6.1
N/A
10.9
>4.5
>4.3
>4.5
Bankfull Bank Height Ratiol
0.9
1 1.0 1
1.0
1 N/A
1.0 1
1.0 1 1.0 0.9 1.0 11.0
1.0
1N/A�l
I I 1 1.0
1 1.0
1.0
0.8
d50 (mm)
N/A
I N/A I
N/A
I N/A I I
I I I N/A 1
26.0 1 2.6 1 4.0 1 1 1 1 1 N/A I
N/A
I N/A
I N/A I I
I I I N/A
1 0.062
1 0.062
1 70.0
N/A - Information Not Available
' MYO Bankfall Entrennchment Ratios Updated to Reflect Calculated Values
Note: Starting in MY3, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio was calculated on riffles using the baseline bankfidl elevation. This method was used because the dimension of the channels has not changed enough to alter the bankfull elevation.

Note: Starting in MY3, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio was calculated on riffles using the baseline bankfull elevation. This method was used because the dimension of the channels has not changed enough to alter the bankfull elevation.
Table Ila cont'd. Dimensional Morphology Summary
(Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 2
Cross -Section 9
Riffle
Cross -Section 10
Pool
Cross -Section 11
Riffle
Cross -Section 12
Pool
Dimension Base
MY]
MY2
MY3 1N1Y4 1N1Y5
MY6 MY7 Base
MYl
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY6 MY7 Base
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Record elevation (datum) used 517.50
517.50
517.50
517.50
516.22
516.22
516.22 516.22 515.16
515.16
515.16
515.16
513.68
513.68
513.68
513.68
Bankfull Width (ft) 24.2
24.3
24.4
23.0
19.2
19.7
19.7 20.8 15.5
15.8
14.1
17.3
20.0
20.6
20.6
20.7
Floodprone Width (ft) 62.0
>62.0
>62.0
>62.0
132.0
>132.0
>132.0 >132.0 73.0
>73.0
>73.0
>73.0
168.0
>168.0
>168.0
>168.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.3
1.2
1.2 1.0 0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
2.5
2.6
2.6 2.0 1.5
1.3
1.5
1.3
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft) 17.7
16.5
17.5
15.2
25.3
24.4
23.1 20.1 9.4
8.6
8.3
9.8
21.3
21.4
23.1
24.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 33.1
35.6
34.2
34.8
14.6
16.0
16.8 21.5 25.5
28.9
23.8
30.5
18.8
19.9
18.4
17.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
5.8
>2.6
>2.5
>2.7
11.7
>6.7
>6.7 N/A 7.1
>4.6
>5.2
>4.2
7.0
>8.1
>8.2
N/A
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0 N/A 0.9
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.0
N/A
d50 (mm) N/A
1 0.062
5.8
1 2.3
N/A
I N/A
N/A I N/A N/A
1 0.062
0.062
1 17
N/A
I N/A
N/A
I N/A
Note: Starting in MY3, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio was calculated on riffles using the baseline bankfull elevation. This method was used because the dimension of the channels has not changed enough to alter the bankfull elevation.

N/A - Information Not Available
MYO Bankfull Entrennchment Ratios Updated to Reflect Calculated Values
Note: Starting in MY3, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio was calculated on riffles using the baseline bankfull elevation. This method was used because the dimension of the channels has not changed enough to alter the bankfull elevation.
Table I I a cont'd. Dimensional Morphology Summary
16 (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
601 East Stream Restoration Site -Reach 3
Cross -Section 13
Riffle
Cross -Section 14
Pool
Cross -Section 15
Pool
Cross -Section 16
Riffle
Dimension
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY6 MY7 Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
MY6 MY7 Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Record elevation (datum) used 497.88
497.88
497.88
497.88
495.50
495.50 495.50 495.50
494.42
494.42
494.42
494.42
493.73
493.73
493.73
493.73
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.9
16.9
17.5
17.1
17.6
18.4 17.9 18.2
19.6
21.1
20.5
19.4
17.7
17.5
18.3
16.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
75.0
>75.0
>75.0
>75.0
350.0
>350.0 >350.0 >350
350.0
>350.0
>350.0
>350.0
150.0
>150.0
150.0
>150.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.6
1.5 1.6 1.6
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.8
3.4
3.1 3.4 3.5
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
12.8
13.6
12.2
12.6
28.2
28.0 28.7 29.7
36.1
34.4
31.5
32.4
14.1
12.9
14.8
14.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
19.6
21.0
25.0
23.1
11.0
12.0 11.2 11.2
10.6
13.0
13.3
11.6
22.4
23.8
22.5
19.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
8.8
>4.4
>4.3
>4.4
12.8
>19.1 >19.6 N/A
5.6
>16.6
>17.1
N/A
7.9
>8.5
>8.2
>9.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0 N/A
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
d50 (mm)
N/A
20
9.1
85.0
N/A
N/A N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
31.0
3.3
62.0
N/A - Information Not Available
MYO Bankfull Entrennchment Ratios Updated to Reflect Calculated Values
Note: Starting in MY3, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio was calculated on riffles using the baseline bankfull elevation. This method was used because the dimension of the channels has not changed enough to alter the bankfull elevation.

N/A - Information Not Available
MYO Bankfull Entrennchment Ratios Updated to Reflect Calculated Values
Note: Starting in MY3, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio was calculated on riffles using the baseline bankfull elevation. This method was used because the dimension of the channels has not changed enough to alter the bankfull elevatii
Table I I a cont'd. Dimensional Morphology Summary
(Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
601 East Stream Restoration Site -Reach 4
0
Cross -Section 17
Pool
Cross -Section 18
Riffle
Dimension
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Base
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Record elevation (datum) used 489.11
489.11 489.11 489.11
490.01
490.01
490.01
490.01
Bankfull Width (ft)
16.9
17.2 17.2 18.1
14.9
14.6
14.1
14.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
42.0
>42.0 >42.0 >42.0
30.4
>31.0
>31.0
>31.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
1.7 1.7 1.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.7
2.9 2.9 2.9
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
29.8
29.1 28.7 31.3
14.7
14.5
14.0
15
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
9.6
10.2 10.3 10.4
15.2
14.6
14.2
14.3
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
2.5
>2.4 >2.4 N/A
2.0
>2.1
>2.2
>2.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.2
1.1 1.1 1 N/A
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
d50 (mm)
N/A
I N/A N/A I N/A
N/A
47
1 4.2
12.0
N/A - Information Not Available
MYO Bankfull Entrennchment Ratios Updated to Reflect Calculated Values
Note: Starting in MY3, Bankfull Bank Height Ratio was calculated on riffles using the baseline bankfull elevation. This method was used because the dimension of the channels has not changed enough to alter the bankfull elevatii

Appendix D Stream Geomorphology Data
Table I I b. Stream Reach Data Summary
N/A - Intormauon does not apply.
Ri =Riffle / Ru = Run / P =Pool / G= Glide / S - Step
Based on riffle and pool dimensions
Based solely on rime dimensions
Table llb cont'll. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
601 East - Reach 2 902 feet
Table 11b. Monitoring 1. Data Summary
601 East - Reach 1 (1393 feet)
Baseline'
MY
-1,
MY
-2 2
MY -3 2
MY -4 MY -5 MY -6 MY -7
Dimension & Substrate -Riffle
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Ba.kNE Width (ft)
n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n
Bankful] Width ft
15.5
19.7
19.6 24.2
3.6
4
15.8
20.1
20.1
24.3
6.0
2
14.1
19.2
19.2
24.4
7.3
2
17.3
20.2 20.2 23.0 4.0
2
Flood one Width ft
62.0
108.8
102.5 168.0
50.0
4
62.0
67.5
67.5
73.0
7.8
2
62.0
67.5
67.5
73.0
7.8
2
62.0
67.5 67.5 73.0 7.8
2
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft)
0.6
0.9
0.9 1.3
0.3
4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.1
2
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.1
2
0.6
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.1
2
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)
1.5
2.0
2.0 2.5
0.6
4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.1
2
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.0
2
1.3
1.4 1.4 1.4 0.1
2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area @
9.4
18.4
19.5 25.3
6.7
4
8.6
12.6
12.6
16.5
5.6
2
8.3
12.9
12.9
17.5
6.5
2
9.8
12.5 12.5 15.2 3.8
2
Width/De th Rata
14.6
23.0
22.1 33.1
8.1
4
28.9
32.3
32.3
35.6
4.7
2
23.8
29.0
29.0
34.2
7.4
2
30.5
32.7 32.7 34.8 3.0
2
Entrenchment Rata
2.6
5.6
5.8 8.4
2.5
4
2.6
3.6
3.6
4.6
1.4
2
2.5
3.9
3.9
5.2
1.9
2
2.7
3.5 3.5 4.2 1.1
2
Bank Height Ratio
0.9
1.0
1.0 1.0
0.0
4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0 1
2
1 0.7
0.9 1 0.9 1.0 0.2
2
Profile
Riffle Len fr
12.1123.41
19.01 50.21
10.71
18
Riffle S ft/ft
0.004
1 0.019
1 0.015 1 0.036 1
0.010 1
17
Pool Len fr
15.1
32.9
29.1 74.3
14.7
17
Pool Max De th ft)
1.9
2.9
2.7 4.0
0.6
17
Pcol Spacing ft
32.9
1 55.61
47.61110.31
20.5 1
17
Pattern
Channel Belt Width ft
25.0
40.01 65.0
Radius of Curvature (fr)l
38.0
1
1 47.01 58.0
Rc: Bankfull Width (ft/fr)
3.20
3.90 4.80
Meander Wavelength (ft)
61.01
84.0 1 97.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Meander Width Ratiol
2.1
1
1 3.3 1 5.4
Rosgen Classification
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel Thalweg Length (11)
Rosgen Classification
C4/E4
Channel Thahveg Len (ft)
945
tt t
Sinuosity (ft)
1.34
tt t
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0069
Bankfull Sk)pe (ft/ft)
0.0069
N/A - Intormauon does not apply.
Ri =Riffle / Ru = Run / P =Pool / G= Glide / S - Step
Based on riffle and pool dimensions
Based solely on rime dimensions
N/A-Infomration does not apply.
Ri = Riffle / Ru = Run / P = Pool/ G= Glide / S = Step
' Based on riffle and pool dimensions
2 Based solely on riffle dimensions
Table llb cont'll. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
601 East - Reach 2 902 feet
Parameter
Baseline'
MY
-1,
MY
-2 2
MY -3 2
MY -4 MY -5 MY -6 MY -7
Dimension & Substrate -Riffle
Min
Mean
Med Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean Med Max SD
n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD n
Bankful] Width ft
15.5
19.7
19.6 24.2
3.6
4
15.8
20.1
20.1
24.3
6.0
2
14.1
19.2
19.2
24.4
7.3
2
17.3
20.2 20.2 23.0 4.0
2
Flood one Width ft
62.0
108.8
102.5 168.0
50.0
4
62.0
67.5
67.5
73.0
7.8
2
62.0
67.5
67.5
73.0
7.8
2
62.0
67.5 67.5 73.0 7.8
2
Bankfull Mean Depth(ft)
0.6
0.9
0.9 1.3
0.3
4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.1
2
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.1
2
0.6
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.1
2
Bankfull Max Depth(ft)
1.5
2.0
2.0 2.5
0.6
4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.1
2
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.0
2
1.3
1.4 1.4 1.4 0.1
2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area @
9.4
18.4
19.5 25.3
6.7
4
8.6
12.6
12.6
16.5
5.6
2
8.3
12.9
12.9
17.5
6.5
2
9.8
12.5 12.5 15.2 3.8
2
Width/De th Rata
14.6
23.0
22.1 33.1
8.1
4
28.9
32.3
32.3
35.6
4.7
2
23.8
29.0
29.0
34.2
7.4
2
30.5
32.7 32.7 34.8 3.0
2
Entrenchment Rata
2.6
5.6
5.8 8.4
2.5
4
2.6
3.6
3.6
4.6
1.4
2
2.5
3.9
3.9
5.2
1.9
2
2.7
3.5 3.5 4.2 1.1
2
Bank Height Ratio
0.9
1.0
1.0 1.0
0.0
4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0 1
2
1 0.7
0.9 1 0.9 1.0 0.2
2
Profile
Riffle Len fr
12.1123.41
19.01 50.21
10.71
18
Riffle S ft/ft
0.004
1 0.019
1 0.015 1 0.036 1
0.010 1
17
Pool Len fr
15.1
32.9
29.1 74.3
14.7
17
Pool Max De th ft)
1.9
2.9
2.7 4.0
0.6
17
Pcol Spacing ft
32.9
1 55.61
47.61110.31
20.5 1
17
Pattern
Channel Belt Width ft
25.0
40.01 65.0
Radius of Curvature (fr)l
38.0
1
1 47.01 58.0
Rc: Bankfull Width (ft/fr)
3.20
3.90 4.80
Meander Wavelength (ft)
61.01
84.0 1 97.0
Meander Width Ratiol
2.1
1
1 3.3 1 5.4
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4/E4
Channel Thahveg Len (ft)
945
Sinuosity (ft)
1.34
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0069
Bankfull Sk)pe (ft/ft)
0.0069
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% 39.5%1
160.5%1
N/A-Infomration does not apply.
Ri = Riffle / Ru = Run / P = Pool/ G= Glide / S = Step
' Based on riffle and pool dimensions
2 Based solely on riffle dimensions

Appendix D Stream Geomorphology Data
Table I I b con't. Stream Reach Data Summary
N/A - Information does not apply.
Ri - Riffle / Ru - Run / P - Pool / G- Gide / S = Step
' Based on riffle and pool dimensions
2 Based solely on riffle dimensions
Table i cont'll. Monitoring 1.ta - Streaa Reach Data u
601 East - Reach 4 (495 feet)
Table 1lb cont'll. Monitoting Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
i(1018 feet)
1
1
Bankfun Width (ft)
.
Bankfull Mean
DepthBankfull
Floodprone Width
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
®®��®a�aa�aa�aa�aa�aa�a������������������������
Pool Max Depth (ft)
„'
111
1.:
.1 11•
1.
m������������������������������������������
Cha.IBcft Width
MaxPool 1
Meander Wavelength
Meander Width
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Cha.IBch Width
Channel Thahveg Length (ft)
Radius ofCurvature
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
1. .
1. .
Meander Wavelength
Meander Width
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thahveg Length (ft)
1.•
111.
111.
N/A - Information does not apply.
Ri - Riffle / Ru - Run / P - Pool / G- Gide / S = Step
' Based on riffle and pool dimensions
2 Based solely on riffle dimensions
N/A-tntormatron does not apply.
Ri = Riffle / Ru - Run / P = Pool / G= Gide / S - Step
Based on riffle and pool dir ensions
2 Based solely on riffle dimensions
Table i cont'll. Monitoring 1.ta - Streaa Reach Data u
601 East - Reach 4 (495 feet)
1
.
Bankfull Mean
DepthBankfull
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
Cross -Sectional Area (ft)
®®��®a�aa�aa�aa�aa�aa�a������������������������
Pool Max Depth (ft)
Cha.IBcft Width
Meander Wavelength
Meander Width
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
Channel Thahveg Length (ft)
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
1. .
1. .
N/A-tntormatron does not apply.
Ri = Riffle / Ru - Run / P = Pool / G= Gide / S - Step
Based on riffle and pool dir ensions
2 Based solely on riffle dimensions

Upstream
Downstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
546.5
546
601 East- Reach 1 - Cross Section 1 - Pool
MY2
545.5
545
544.5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
x
°
544
15.1
^�
543.5
45.0
w
543
14 M11111001111 Or -
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
-
0.9
0.9
542.5
542
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
541.5
2.2
2.1
0 5 10 15 20
Distance (ft)
14.1
13.7
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - - -App.. Bankfull
13.4
Width/Depth Ratio
13.2
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MY1
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 311'7
Bankful Width (ft)
13.6
15.1
15.1
14.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
45.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (112)
14.1
13.7
14.3
13.4
Width/Depth Ratio
13.2
16.6
15.9
16.2
Entrenchment Ratio
10.3
3.0
3.0
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
601 East- Reach 1 - Cross Section 2 - Riffle
MY2
542
Bankful Width (ft)
15.1
14.7
15.2
15.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
541.5
77.0
77.0
77.0
541
0.6
0.5
0.5
540.5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _
1.2
C
°
CO
540
1.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
M
539.5
8.0
8.8
Width/Depth Ratio
539
27.0
28.9
26.2
Entrenchment Ratio
9.3
5.2
5.1
5.1
538.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
538
0 5 10 15 20
Distance (ft)
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - - -Approx. Bankfull
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
15.1
14.7
15.2
15.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
9.0
8.0
8.0
8.8
Width/Depth Ratio
25.3
27.0
28.9
26.2
Entrenchment Ratio
9.3
5.2
5.1
5.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7

Upstream
Downstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 3 - Pool
MY2
540
Bankful Width (ft)
9.4
9.5
9.3
9.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
539.5
154.0
154.0
154.0
539
0.9
0.9
0.9
538.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.8
1.7
538
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
c
°
8.5
8.8
8.5
CO
537.5
10.7
9.8
9.9
14.9
14.6
Lu
537
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
536.5
536
535.5
535
0
5 10 15
Distance (ft)
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - - -Approx. Bankfull
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
9.4
9.5
9.3
9.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
154.0
154.0
154.0
154.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
8.7
8.5
8.8
8.5
Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
10.7
9.8
9.9
Entrenchment Ratio
14.9
14.6
16.6
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 4 - Riffle
535
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
534.5
9.1
9.4
9.2
534
75.0
75.0
75.0
�- 533.5
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.6
C
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.9
0.9
CO
533
1.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
4.5
4.8
5.8
5.1
Width/Depth Ratio
17.5
Lu
15.3
16.7
Entrenchment Ratio
15.9
532.5
8.0
8.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
532
531.5
0 5 10 15 20
Distance (ft)
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - - -Approx. Bankfull
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
8.8
9.1
9.4
9.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
4.5
4.8
5.8
5.1
Width/Depth Ratio
17.5
17.1
15.3
16.7
Entrenchment Ratio
15.9
8.3
8.0
8.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7

Upstream
Downstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 5 - Pool
MY2
532
Bankful Width (ft)
12.9
12.1
12.0
13.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
531.5
61.0
61.0
61.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
0.9
531
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.0
1.8
530.5
1.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
c
530
11.2
12.8
°
529.5
13.2
12.9
13.6
529
17.4
5.1
w
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
528.5
528
527.5
527
0
5 10 15 20
Distance (ft)
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - - •Approx. Bankfull
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
12.9
12.1
12.0
13.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
61.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
12.8
11.0
11.2
12.8
Width/Depth Ratio
13.0
13.2
12.9
13.6
Entrenchment Ratio
17.4
5.1
5.1
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
530
601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 6 - Riffle
°
'm
w
529.5
529
528.5
528
527.5
Bankful Width (ft)
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
80.0
80.0
527
526.5
80.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
526
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
0 5 10 15 20
Distance (ft)
6.6
6.6
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - - •Approx. Bankfull
6.9
Width/Depth Ratio
19.3
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
11.3
11.3
11.3
11.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
80.0
80.0
80.0
80.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
6.6
6.6
7.2
6.9
Width/Depth Ratio
19.3
19.5
17.9
17.9
Entrenchment Ratio
9.7
7.1
7.1
7.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9

Upstream
Downstream
601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 7 - Pool
526.5
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
526
10.3
11.4
525.5
10.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
525
- _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - - - _ _ -
63.0
c
°
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
CO 524.5
1.0
1.0
w 524
2.0
2.0
2.1
1.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
12.3
11.2
10.4
523.5
Width/Depth Ratio
8.6
523
10.3
11.8
Entrenchment Ratio
10.7
5.5
6.1
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
522.5
0 5 10 15 20
Distance (ft)
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - - -Approx. Bankfull
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
10.3
11.4
10.3
10.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
63.0
63.0
63.0
63.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.0
2.0
2.1
1.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
12.3
11.2
10.4
9.9
Width/Depth Ratio
8.6
11.5
10.3
11.8
Entrenchment Ratio
10.7
5.5
6.1
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A

-•.w. ••j�''. ZF -
�T 1 �
t -
524
523.5
523
c
522.5
0
m 522
Lu
521.5
521
520.5
Upstream
601 East - Reach 1 - Cross Section 8 - Riffle
Downstream
0 5 10 15 20
Distance (ft)
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - - •Approx. Bankfull
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
10.1
8.8
9.2
9.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
40.0
40.0
40.0
40.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
6.2
5.6
5.8
5.9
Width/Depth Ratio
16.6
13.9
14.7
13.7
Entrenchment Ratio
10.9
4.5
4.3
4.5
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8

Upstream
Downstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
519.5
601 East - Reach 2 - Cross Section 9 - Riffle
MY2
519
Bankful Width (ft)
24.2
24.3
24.4
518.5
518 -1111111116
Floodprone Width (ft)
62.0
62.0
c
CO
517.5
517
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
Lu
516.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.4
1.4
516
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
17.7
16.5
17.5
515.5
515
Width/Depth Ratio
33.1
35.6
34.2
34.8
Entrenchment Ratio
5.8
2.6
2.5
514.5
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Distance (ft)
1.0
1.0
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - - -Approx. Bankfull
1.0
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
24.2
24.3
24.4
23.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
62.0
62.0
62.0
62.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7 - - -
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
17.7
16.5
17.5
15.2
Width/Depth Ratio
33.1
35.6
34.2
34.8
Entrenchment Ratio
5.8
2.6
2.5
2.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
601 East - Reach 2 - Cross Section 10 - Pool
MY2
519
Bankful Width (ft)
19.2
19.7
19.7
20.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
518.5
132.0
132.0
132.0
518
1.3
1.2
1.2
517.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.5
2.6
517
2.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
25.3
24.4
23.1
20.1
Width/Depth Ratio
516.5
16.8
c
516
11.7
6.7
°
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
515.5
N/A
515
m
Lu
514.5
514
513.5
513
512.5
512
0
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - - -Approx. Bankfull
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
19.2
19.7
19.7
20.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
132.0
132.0
132.0
132.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.5
2.6
2.6
2.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
25.3
24.4
23.1
20.1
Width/Depth Ratio
14.6
16.0
16.8
21.5
Entrenchment Ratio
11.7
6.7
6.7
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A

518
517.5
517
516.5
516
515.5
c
° 515
CO
'm 514.5
Lu 514
513.5
513
512.5
512
0
Upstream
601 East - Reach 2 - Cross Section 11 - Riffle
Downstream
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - - -Approx. Bankfull
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
15.5
15.8
14.1
17.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
73.0
73.0
73.0
73.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6 - - -
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.3
1.5
1.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
9.4
8.6
8.3
9.8 - -
Width/Depth Ratio
25.5
28.9
23.8
30.5
Entrenchment Ratio
7.1
4.6
5.2
4.2
Bank Height Ratio
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.7

Upstream
Downstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
601 East - Reach 2 - Cross Section 12 - Pool
MY2
516
Bankful Width (ft)
20.0
20.6
20.6
20.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
515.5
168.0
168.0
168.0
515
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.5
514.5
2.6
2.8
514
21.4 1
23.1
513.5
Width/Depth Ratio
18.8
c
513
17.4
Entrenchment Ratio
°
8.1
8.2
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
512.5
1.0
1.0
CO
Lu
512
511.5
511
510.5
510
509.5
509
0
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - - -Approx. Bankfull
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
20.0
20.6
20.6
20.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
168.0
168.0
168.0
168.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.5
2.4
2.6
2.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
21.3
21.4 1
23.1
24.5
Width/Depth Ratio
18.8
19.9
18.4
17.4
Entrenchment Ratio
7.0
8.1
8.2
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
0.9
1.0
1.0
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
601 East - Reach 3 - Cross Section 13 - Riffle
MY2
500
Bankful Width (ft)
15.9
16.9
17.5
17.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
499.5
75.0
75.0
75.0
499
0.8
0.8
0.7
498.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.6
1.7
498
1.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
12.8
13.6
12.6
0
497.5
21.0
25.0
CO
m
497
8.8
4.4
Lu
4.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
496.5
1.0
496
495.5
-
495
0
5 10 15 20
Distance (ft)
Baseline MY1 - -MY2 MY3 - - -Approx. Bankfull
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
15.9
16.9
17.5
17.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
75.0
75.0
75.0
75.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7 - - -
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
12.8
13.6
12.2
12.6
Width/Depth Ratio
19.6
21.0
25.0
23.1
Entrenchment Ratio
8.8
4.4
4.3
4.4
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0

Upstream
Downstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
601 East - Reach 3 - Cross Section 14 - Pool
MY2
497.5
Bankful Width (ft)
17.5
18.4
17.9
18.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
497
350.0
350.0
350.0
496.5
1.6
1.5
1.6
496
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.4
3.1
495.5
- ------ ----
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
28.2
495
1 28.7 1
29.7
_
11.0
12.0
11.2
c
494.5
12.8
19.1
19.6
494
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
CO
Lu
493.5
493
492.5
492
491.5
491
490.5
0
5 10 15 20
Distance (ft)
Baseline MY1 - -MY2 MY3 - - •Approx.Bankfull
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
17.5
18.4
17.9
18.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
350.0
350.0
350.0
350.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.6
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.4
3.1
3.4
3.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
28.2
28.0
1 28.7 1
29.7
Width/Depth Ratio
11.0
12.0
11.2
11.2
Entrenchment Ratio
12.8
19.1
19.6
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A

s:
''ppyy��F +
t +,
16
•/P r,
Upstream
Downstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
601 East - Reach 3 - Cross Section 15 - Pool
MY2
496
Bankful Width (ft)
19.6
21.1
20.5
19.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
495.5
350.0
350.0
350.0
495
1.8
1.6
1.5
494.5
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _
3.4
3.3
494
3.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
36.1
493.5
31.5
32.4
c
0
493
13.0
13.3
11.6
Entrenchment Ratio
5.6
16.6
17.1
CO
492.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
(D
Lu
492
491.5
491
490.5
490
0
5 10 15 20 25
Distance (ft)
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - - -Approx. Bankfull
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
19.6
21.1
20.5
19.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
350.0
350.0
350.0
350.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
36.1
34.4
31.5
32.4
Width/Depth Ratio
10.6
13.0
13.3
11.6
Entrenchment Ratio
5.6
16.6
17.1
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A

��� `� ��4s'• : fit.,.
14. �F �1•�. �•„y��.�f fq .
ly-
Upstream
Downstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
601 East - Reach 3 - Cross Section 16 - Riffle
MY2
495
Bankful Width (ft)
17.7
17.5
18.3
16.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
494.5
150.0
150.0
150.0
494
0.8
0.7
0.8
493.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.6
c
0
CO
493
1.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
14.1
12.9
14.8
14.0
ai
492.5
23.8
22.5
19.8
Entrenchment Ratio
492
8.5
8.2
9.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
491.5
491
0 5 10 15 20
Distance (ft)
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - - -Approx. Bankfull
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
17.7
17.5
18.3
16.7
Floodprone Width (ft)
150.0
150.0
150.0
150.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
14.1
12.9
14.8
14.0
Width/Depth Ratio
22.4
23.8
22.5
19.8
Entrenchment Ratio
7.9
8.5
8.2
9.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8

Upstream
Downstream
601 East - Reach 4 - Cross Section 17 - Pool
494
493
492
491
c
° 490
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
16.9
17.2
>
w 489
488
18.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
42.0
42.0
42.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
487
1.7
1.7
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
486
2.9
2.9
2.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 — — •Approx. Bankfull
28.7
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
16.9
17.2
17.2
18.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
42.0
42.0
42.0
42.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
29.8
29.1
28.7
31.3
Width/Depth Ratio
9.6
10.2
10.3
10.4
Entrenchment Ratio
2.5
2.4
2.4
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
1.1
1.1
N/A

Upstream
Downstream
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
494
601 East - Reach 4 - Cross Section 18 - Riffle
MY2
493.5
493
Bankful Width (ft)
14.9
14.6
492.5
14.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
30.4
31.0
31.0
31.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
492
491.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
491
1.5
1.6
c
0490.5
1.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
14.7
CO
14.0
15.0
Width/Depth Ratio
Lu
490
489.5
14.2
14.3
Entrenchment Ratio
489
2.1
2.2
2.1
488.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
488
487.5
487
0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Distance (ft)
Baseline MY1 MY2 MY3 - - -Approx. Bankfull
DIMENSIONS SUMMARY
MYO
MYl
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
Bankful Width (ft)
14.9
14.6
14.1
14.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
30.4
31.0
31.0
31.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
14.7
14.5
14.0
15.0
Width/Depth Ratio
15.2
14.6
14.2
14.3
Entrenchment Ratio
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8

Appendix D Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 12. Pebble County Data Summary
Charts 1-5. MY3 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Chart 1.
70%
60%
50%
40%
30
20%
10%
0%
Silt/Clay
601 East MY3 Substrate Composition
i
Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder
■ R-1 ■ R-2 ■ R-3 ■ R-4
Bedrock
Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
601 East
MY 1 - 2015
MY2 - 2016
MY3 - 2017 MY4 - 2018 MY5 - 2019 MY6 - 2020 MY7 - 2021
Pebble Count
Pebble Count
Pebble Count Pebble Count Pebble Count Pebble Count Pebble Count
Stream Reach
X50 (mm) X84 (mm)
X50 (—) X84 (—)
1350 (—) X84 (—) X50 (man) X84 (—) X50 (—) X84 (—) 1350 (—) X84 (—) X50 (—) X84 � )
Reach 1
14.1 48.8
4.9 25.6
25.5 87.3
Reach 2
0.062 61
2.9 34.1
9.7 20
Reach 3
27 79.5
6.2 39.5
73.5 140
Reach 4
47 110
4.2 66
12 95 EEI
Charts 1-5. MY3 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Chart 1.
70%
60%
50%
40%
30
20%
10%
0%
Silt/Clay
601 East MY3 Substrate Composition
i
Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder
■ R-1 ■ R-2 ■ R-3 ■ R-4
Bedrock

Chart 2.
Chart 3.
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Appendix D Stream Geomorphology Data
601 East R-1 - Substrate Composition
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock
■ MY1 ■ MY2 MY3
601 East R-2 - Substrate Composition
M
Sand
Gravel
■ MY1 ■ MY2
Cobble
MY3
Boulder Bedrock

Chart 4.
Chart 5.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Appendix D Stream Geomorphology Data
601 East R-3 - Substrate Composition
Silt/Clay
1
Silt/Clay
Sand Gravel Cobble
■ MY1 ■ MY2 MY3
Boulder
601 East R-4 - Substrate Composition
Sand
Gravel Cobble
■ MY1 ■ MY2 MY3
Boulder
Bedrock
Bedrock

Appendix D Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 13. Bank Pin Array Summary
*Beaver dam directly downstream of XS -17 caused unusually high water and localized bank erosion.
Table 13. Bank Pin Array Summary
601 E Stream Miti attion Site
Bank Pin Location
Position
Year
Reading mm
Year
Reading mm
Year
Reading mm
XS -1
Upstream
0.0
35.6
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS -3
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS -5
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS -7
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
12.7
0.0
0.0
XS -10
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS -12
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS -14
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS -15
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS -17
Upstream
0.0
0.0
50.8*
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
177.8*
*Beaver dam directly downstream of XS -17 caused unusually high water and localized bank erosion.

Appendix E
Hydrology Data
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Figure 7. Photo Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15. 2017 Rainfall Summary
Figure 8. 2017 601 East Site Precipitation Data

Appendix E — Hydrology Data
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data Collection
Estimated Date of Occurrence
Method
Maximum Bankfull
Height ft
Photo #
Reach 2
11/1/2015
9/30/2015
Wrack Lines
Unknown
-
3/1/2016
2/16/2016
Crest Gauge
1.4
MY2
4/25/2017
4/24/2017
Crest Gauge
2.5
1
7/19/2017
6/20/2017
Crest Gauge
1.3
10/17/2017
9/12/2017
Crest Gauge
0.7
Reach 3
3/1/2016
Unknown
Crest Gauge
0.2
MY2
4/25/2017
4/24/2017
Crest Gauge
0.3
7/19/2017
6/20/2017
Crest Gauge
1.4
2
10/17/2017
9/12/2017
Crest Gauge
0.9
Figure 7. Photo Verification of Bankfull Events
Crest Gauge @ Reach 2 — 30 in. (2.5 ft.)
Crest Gauge @ Reach 3 — 16.75 in. (1.4 ft.)

Appendix E - Hydrology Data
Table 15. Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal Limits
Monroe Station
Precipitation
30 Percent
70 Percent
Jan
3.9
2.68
4.65
5.51
Feb
3.29
2.45
3.85
1.31
Mar
4.22
3.02
4.98
2.62
Apr
3.29
2.01
3.98
6.27
May
3.25
1.99
3.93
5.87
Jun
4.66
2.84
5.65
8.08
J u I
4.34
2.83
5.21
5.49
Aug
4.76
3
5.75
2.67
Sep
4.46
2.4
5.44
3.95
Oct
3.88
1.89
4.66
1.87
Nov
3.38
1.86
4.12
0.05
Dec
3.6
2.58
4.25
---
Total
47.03
29.55
56.47
43.69
Figure 8. 2017 Precipitation Data Compared to Average 30' and 70" Percentiles, Union County
2017 Precipitation Data for 601 East Site
to
9
8
7
6
u
O
�
Z.
3
--
1
No Data
All
Collected -�
0
I
J F Nf A M J J A S O N D
Months
Monroe Daily Rainfall MonroeMmthlyRainfall ----30th!?0th Percentile