20140334 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_2018_20181205

[i Eel 0lkLei .1,10Bla-111.IN
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
CANDY CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Guilford County, NC
DEQ Contract 5794
DMS Project Number 96315
USACE Action ID Number 2015-01209
NCDWR Project Number 14-0334
Data Collection Period: March — October 2018
Submission Date: December 5, 2018
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC27699-1652

Mitigation Project Name Cantly Creek Stream Mitigation Site
DMS ID 96315
River Basin Cape Fear
Cataloging Unit 03030002
County Guilford USACE Action ID 201641209
Date Project Instituted 2121/2014 NCDWR Permit No 2014-0334
Date Prepared 512212018
Credit Release Milestone
Potential Credits Miti ation Plan
Potentbl Cred'ds(As-Built Survvey)
scheduled
Releases
(Stream)15.532590
Warm
15,906A6]
S¢eam±0:E41ts_ - ___..
Cool Cold Anticipated AM.[
Release Year Release Date
(Stream) (Stream)
BcheEule4
Releases
(Forested)
Mused Credits
frRdnn RsuJan Non Non -d ran
Rivedne nverne P° Scheduled
Releases
tCoasM)
COadaI Anticipated Actual
Release Year Release Date
(Wetland) (Wetland)
1(Site Establishment
WA
ASBuilt Amounts(mitigaGoncredhs)
N/A
N/A
NIA
NIA
NIA
N/A
2 ear 0IASBul11
30%
4.851.940
2017
W=17
30%
30%
WA
NIA
a earl Mondtoringi
10%
1.550.647
2018
4Y252018
10%
10%
N/A
WA
4 ffear 2 Monitoring)
1O%
341.280
2019
10%
1P%
N/A
WA
5(Year3MeniMdn)
10%
2020
1 P
20%
NIA
WA
6(Year 4 MDnitodn
5'6
2021
P6
106
N/A
WA
] ear 5 Monitorin
10%
2022
NCWT TIP LL2524CM A dl -
20130223 2001-21125 Greensboro Outer Ldop
15%
IPA
NIA
WA
8Y.,6 MenRedn
5-A
2023
3639.000
V.
NIA
N/A
WA
9 Year>MO hodn
10%
NCOOT MP U2525B/C-
2013-0910 2605.21386 Geanslo m Eastern Loop
2024
203300
10%
NIA
WA
N/A
6peamB R2, 6tandaM
10%
NIA
WA
Total Credits Released to Data
6,203.58]
DEBITS (released credits only)
Rates 1 15 2.5 5 1 3 2 5 t 3 2 5 1 3 2 5
As-BuiRAmounts(fee and acres)
12,]]4.000
3.023.000
2,133.000
2,653.000
2C 2V 2w 2p`
Y
VC VU
ASBuilt Amounts(mitigaGoncredhs)
12.]]4.000
1,348.667
853.200
930.600
Percentage Released
40%
40%
40%
40%
Released Amountsrleetlacres)
5,109.600
809.200
853200
1,061.200
Released Amounts(credhs)
5,109.600
539667
341.280
212.240
NCDWR Permit USAGE Action ID Pr0)e3 Name
SR 2158 -Bdtlge 85-Dlvision
2015-0019 2015017917
64.010
SR 2383 -Bdtlge 140 -
201&02553 Dlviei0r7
82000
NCWT TIP LL2524CM A dl -
20130223 2001-21125 Greensboro Outer Ldop
37.000
NCDOT TIP U-2525B/C-
20130818 2005,21306 Gnansbom Eastem Loop
3639.000
606.900
039.900
NCOOT MP U2525B/C-
2013-0910 2605.21386 Geanslo m Eastern Loop
127/.580
203300
213.300
NCDOT MP U3734-DIvIslon
2017-0466 2009.02019 9
11061200
Remaining Amnets(feet l acres)
0.000
OA00
0.000
0.000
Remaining Amounts,(eredbs)
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
g�,c,(IS)
D to
1 - For NCDMS, no credits are released during the first milestone

2- For NCDMS projects, the second credit release milestone occurs automatically when the as-built report (baseline monitoring report) has been made available to the NCIRT by posting it to the NCDMS Portal, provided the following criteria have
been met
1) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE covering the property
3) Completion of all physical and biological improvements to the mitigation site pursuant to the mitigation plan
4) Reciept of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for porjects where DA permit issuance is not required
3 - A 10% reserve of credits is to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met

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

kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
December 5, 2018
Jeff Schaffer
N.C. Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
RE: Draft Monitoring Year 2 Report Comments
Candy Creek Mitigation Site (DMS #96315)
DMS Contract Number 5794
RFP Number 16-005568
Guilford County, NC
Dear Mr. Schaffer:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments
from the Draft Monitoring Year 2 report for the Candy Creek Mitigation Project. The following Wildlands
responses to DMS's report comments are noted in italics lettering.
DMS comment; The digital data and drawings have been reviewed and DMS had the following
comments:
a. No GIS shapefiles were in the CCPV GIS Data folder. In MY1, this folder contained shapefiles
for problem areas. Given that there are still stream and vegetation problem areas as well as
areas of invasive vegetation, please provide MY2 shapefiles for these areas to verify no
changes have occurred.
b. There are no Stream or Vegetation Photos included in the electronic files. Please include.
Wildlands response; The CCPV GIS layers and the Stream and Vegetation Photos are located in the
following folder of the electronic files from the draft submittal and are included on the final CD.
support ->visual assessment data ->CCPV GIS data.
DMS comment; Section 1.2.3, Page 1-3: DMS suggests adding verbiage to this section explaining that
when including the desirable volunteers all vegetation plots meet success criteria except for plot 35.
Wildlands response; Verbiage was referenced in Section 1.2.3 to state all vegetation plots, except plot
35, would meet success criteria if desirable volunteers were included.
DMS comment; Appendix 4, Table 11— Based upon the guidance prepared by the Technical
Workgroup sent out by the IRT regarding the method to be used to calculate Bank Height Ratio (BHR),
DMS had the following comments:
a. Cross-section 1: It seems like the cross-section either enlarged some or at a minimum stayed
the same. Please verify.
b. Cross-section 3: It seems like the cross-section may stayed the same and not decreased. Please
verify.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

kt�
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
c. Cross-section 7: This one seems more like a candidate for a BHR less than 1. Please verify.
d. Cross-section 14: This one seems like it should be greater than 1.0. Please verify.
e. Cross-section 20: This one seems like it should be greater than 1.0. Please verify.
f. Cross-sections 23, 24, and 25: There are some changes to cross-sectional area but looks like
they offset each other from year to year.
g. Cross-section 33: Given the level of down -cutting, BHR needs to be re -calculated for this cross-
section.
h. Cross-section 36: This one seems more like a candidate for a BHR less than 1. Please verify.
L Cross-section 41: This one seems more like a candidate for a BHR less than 1. Please verify.
Wildlands response; Wildlands has verified the above cross-sections and updated Table 11 accordingly.
DMS comment; As required by contract, specifically RFP#16-005568 Addendum #1, Wildlands must
submit an updated Monitoring Phase Performance Bon (MPPB) for Monitoring Year 3 (Task 9) to Jeff
Jurek for his approval before DMS approves this deliverable and the associated payment.
Wildlands response; Wildlands has prepared and submitted a decrease rider and continuation certificate
for MY3 (Task 9) to Jeff Jurek for approval.
DMS comment; As Wildlands has done in the past, please include a response to the comment letter
and how/where the comments were addressed. Please insert this letter directly behind the cover
page in the final deliverables. The IRT has requested that we include this letter with the final
deliverables. The response letter will need to be included with all future monitoring deliverables.
Wildlands response; Wildlands has included this response letter as part of the final report deliverable to
DMS and the IRT.
Enclosed please find three (3) hard copies and one (1) electronic copy on CD of the Final Monitoring
Report. Please contact me at 704-332-7754 x110 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
Environmental Scientist
kgimbert@w ildlandseng.com
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering Inc. (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Candy Creek Mitigation
Site (Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to restore, enhance, and preserve
a total of 19,583 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent streams, in Guilford County, NC. The Site is
expected to generate 15,507 stream mitigation units (SMUs) through the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of Candy Creek and nine unnamed tributaries (Table 1).
The Site is located northeast of the Town of Brown Summit within the DMS targeted local watershed for
the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002010020 and NCDWR Subbasin 03-06-01
(Figure 1) and is being submitted for mitigation credit in the Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030002. The
Site is located within the Haw River Headwaters Watershed, which is part of DMS' Cape Fear River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP). While Candy Creek is not mentioned specifically, this document identifies
a restoration goal for all streams within HUC 03030002 of reducing sediment and nutrient pollution to
downstream Jordan Lake. The Haw River watershed was also identified in the 2005 NC Wildlife
Resources Commission's Wildlife Action Plan as a priority area for freshwater habitat conservation and
restoration to protect rare and endemic aquatic fauna and enhance species diversity. No rare and
endemic aquatic species have been documented onsite or are proposed for re-establishment onsite as
part of the project. The Wildlife Action Plan calls for "support of conservation and restoration of streams
and riparian zones in priority areas (acquisition, easements, and buffer)." Restoration at the Site directly
and indirectly addressed these goals by excluding cattle from the stream, creating stable stream banks,
restoring a riparian corridor, and placing land historically used for agriculture under permanent
conservation easement.
The project goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2016) were to provide ecological
enhancement and mitigate site water quality stressors that will benefit the receiving waters in the Cape
Fear River Basin. This will primarily be achieved by creating functional and stable stream channels,
increasing and improving the interaction of stream hydrology within the riparian zone, and improving
floodplain habitat and ecological function. This will also be achieved by restoring a Piedmont
Bottomland Forest community as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) along the stream reaches
within open pastures. Completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described
in the RBRP and to address stressors identified in the LWP, the following project goals were established:
• Reduce in -stream water quality stressors resulting in enhanced habitat and water quality in
riffles and pools.
• Construct stream channels that are laterally and vertically stable resulting in a network of
streams capable of supporting hydrologic, biologic, and water quality functions.
• Improve on-site habitat by diversifying and stabilizing the stream channel form; installing habitat
features such as undercut logs, brush toe, wood and stone based riffles; and by establishing
native stream bank vegetation and shading where none exists.
• Exclude cattle from project streams resulting in greater treatment and reduction of overland
flow and landscape derived pollutants including fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorus.
• Increase and improve stream hydrology connectivity with riparian floodplains resulting in
temporary water storage and recharge of wetlands and floodplain pools during high flows;
increased groundwater connectivity within floodplains and wetlands; promotion of nutrient and
carbon exchange between streams and floodplains, and reduced shear stress on channels during
larger flow events.
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —FINAL

The Site construction and as -built surveys were completed between July 2016 and March 2017. A
conservation easement was recorded on 61.74 acres to protect the restored riparian corridor in
perpetuity.
Monitoring Year (MY) 2 assessments and site visits were completed between March and October 2018
to assess the conditions of the project. Overall, the Site has met the required stream, vegetation, and
hydrology success criteria for MY2. The restored streams are stable and functioning as designed with
minor adjustments observed. The average planted stem density for the Site is 412 stems per acre and is
therefore on track to meet the MY3 requirement of 320 planted stems per acre. Crest and stream gages
installed on the Site to document bankfull events and to monitor the presence of water in the
intermittent stream recorded at least one bankfull event or greater on almost of the streams (except for
UT1D) during MY2. The stream gage was established on the upstream, intermittent reach of UT11D to
document baseflow during the annual monitoring period. The stream gage recorded baseflow for 301
consecutive days during the MY2 monitoring period and therefore has met the established hydrologic
criteria.
In addition, the Site has several sections noted where the buffer width is less than 50 feet. The total
length of these sections is approximately 3.1% of the total project length, less than the 5% allowed by
the IRT. Please refer to Figures 2 and 3.
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report —FINAL

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

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

• Improve on-site habitat. Construct diverse and stable channel form with varied and self -
sustainable stream bedform. Install habitat features such as undercut logs, brush toe, wood and
stone -based riffles. Establish native stream bank vegetation and shading where none exists.
• Exclude cattle from project streams. Install fencing around the conservation easement adjacent
to cattle pastures
• Increase and improve the interaction of stream hydrology within the riparian zone to in turn
improve floodplain habitat and ecological function. Reconstruct stream channels with
appropriate bankfull dimensions and raise them to the proper depths relative to a functioning
floodplain.
• Restore and enhance native floodplain forest. Plant native trees and understory species, and
treat invasive species in the riparian zone.
• Permanently protect the project Site from harmful uses. Establish a conservation easement on
the Site.
1.2 Monitoring Year 2 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted during MY2 to assess the condition of the project. The stream,
vegetation, and hydrologic success criteria for the Site follows the approved success criteria presented in
the Candy Creek Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016). Several sections were noted where the buffer width
is less than 50 feet. The total length of these sections is approximately 3.1% of the total project length,
less than the 5% allowed by the IRT. Please refer to Figures 2 and 3.
1.2.1 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY2 were conducted in June 2018. Bank erosion was observed within some
isolated outside meander bends along Candy Creek Reach 1, 3 and 4, and slight scouring was also noted
at cross-sections 32 and 33 on UT2 Reach 1; however, none of these areas are significant and the
streams are functioning as designed. The remainder of the cross-sections appear consistent and all
streams appear stable. Entrenchment ratios vary slightly from year to year due to minor changes in
bankfull widths. Pools are deepening with point bar deposition occurring. Small adjustments in riffle
widths occur due to vegetation, sediment deposition, and many other factors. These minor changes do
not indicate channel instability. Refer to Appendix 2 for the visual stability assessment table, CCPV map,
and reference photographs. Refer to Appendix 4 for the morphological data and plots.
1.2.2 Stream Hydrology Assessment
At the end of the seven-year monitoring period, two or more bankfull events must have occurred in
separate years within the restoration and enhancement I (EI) reaches. Consistent flow must be
documented in the intermittent stream (UT1D) at the Site. Under normal rainfall circumstances, the
presence of stream flow on intermittent channels must be documented to occur every year for at least
30 consecutive days during the seven year monitoring period. The presence of stream flow must also be
documented to occur intermittently in all months other than July through September of each
monitoring year.
At least one bankfull event was recorded on each of the streams (except for UT11)) during MY2 resulting
in partial attainment of the stream hydrology assessment criteria. There was a bankfull event recorded
during MY1 and MY2 for UT5 and Candy Creek Reach 4; therefore, the success criteria have been met in
MY2 for these restoration streams. Results from the stream gage established on UT11D indicate the
stream is maintaining baseflow as expected for an intermittent stream. Baseflow was recorded for 100%
of the monitoring period (301 consecutive days). Refer to Appendix 5 for hydrologic summary data and
plot.
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-2

1.2.3 Vegetative Assessment
A total of 40 vegetation plots were established during the baseline monitoring within the project
easement area. The majority of plots (37) were installed using a standard 10 meter by 10 meter plot.
The additional plots (3) were established as 5 meter by 20 meter non-standard plots. The final
vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the planted riparian and
wetland corridor at the end of the required monitoring period (MY7). The interim measure of vegetative
success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third
monitoring year(MY3) and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth monitoring year (MY5).
Planted vegetation must average 10 feet in height in each plot at the end of the seventh year of
monitoring. If this performance standard is met by MY5 and stem density is trending towards success
(i.e., no less than 260 five year old stems/acre), monitoring of vegetation on the Site may be terminated
provided written approval is provided by the United States Army Corps of Engineers in consultation with
the NC Interagency Review Team.
The MY2 vegetative survey was completed in August 2018. The 2018 vegetation monitoring resulted in
an average stem density of 412 stems per acre for the Site. This density is greater than the interim
requirement of 320 stems/acre required at MY3, but approximately 32% less than the baseline density
recorded at MYO (610 stems/acre in March 2017). The average stem height is 2.8 feet for the Site.
There is an average of 10 stems per plot as compared to 13 stems per plot in MY1. Seven vegetation
plots (6, 12, 15, 17, 18, 30, and 35) did not meet the interim success criteria but are on track to meet the
success criteria required for MY5 (260 stems/acre) and MY7 (210 stems/acre). Furthermore, if the
desirable volunteers are included, each of these vegetation plots, except vegetation plot 35, meet
success criteria. Refer to Appendix 2 for vegetation plot photographs and the vegetation condition
assessment table and Appendix 3 for vegetation data tables.
1.2.4 Visual Assessment
Due to the recent hurricane events, Candy Creek was subjected to disturbances, which include multiple
fallen trees throughout the site, sediment aggradation and bank erosion. All in -stream structures appear
to be intact and functioning properly. The fallen trees over the streams are not impeding water flow.
1.2.5 Areas of Concern/Adaptive Management Plan
Stream areas of concern include minor instances of bank erosion and sediment deposition. A
maintenance repair was implemented to stabilize the isolated areas of bank erosion along Candy Creek.
The minor repairs consisted of both brush mattress and live stake installation. The minor areas of scour
along UT2 will continue to be monitored and a maintenance plan will be established if deemed
necessary. All fallen trees over the streams will be removed and dispersed within the site to create
additional habitat.
Vegetation areas of concerned included the isolated areas of English ivy (Hedera helix) documented
within the upper extent of Candy Creek. These areas were treated during the Fall of 2017 and will
continue to be treated as necessary. Several riffles and a few pools contain dense infestations of the
aquatic plant species Asian spiderwort (Murdannia keisak) and water primrose (Ludwigia hexapetala).
An initial treatment for these aquatic species was implemented in the Fall of 2017; however, due to the
dense nature of these species, continual treatment will be required.
The two small bare areas (<1% combined acreage and <3% of the planted acreage) within the floodplain
valleys of UT2 were treated with lime, 10-10 fertilization and seeding, which are reflecting
improvement; however, another application of seeding will take place during the appropriate season to
maximize the potential growth. The planted stems remain healthy and volunteers remain abundant.
The Site contains 3.1% of bare areas, low stem density areas and areas of poor growth rates, which is
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-3

less than 5% of the planted area. Refer to Appendix 2 for the vegetation condition assessment table and
Integrated Current Condition Plan View (CCPV).
1.3 Monitoring Year 2 Summary
The Candy Creek Mitigation Site is on track to meet monitoring success criteria for vegetation,
geomorphology, and hydrology performance standards. Morphological surveys indicate that the
channel dimensions are stable and functioning as designed. The MY2 vegetation survey resulted in an
average stem density of 412 planted stems per acre. The Site is on track to meeting the MY7 success
criteria with 33 of 40 individual vegetation plots meeting the MY3 success criteria. The bankfull success
criteria has been partially met and are expected to meet by MY7.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan documents available on
DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from DMS
upon request.
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 1-4

Section 2: METHODOLOGY
Geomorphic data were collected following the standards outlined in The Stream Channel Reference Site:
An Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994) and in the Stream Restoration: A Natural
Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al., 2003). All Integrated Current Condition Mapping was recorded
using a Trimble handheld GPS with sub -meter accuracy and processed using Pathfinder and ArcGIS.
Planted woody vegetation is being monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). Crest gages were
installed in surveyed riffle cross-sections and monitored quarterly. Hydrologic monitoring instrument
installation and monitoring methods are in accordance with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE, 2003) standards. Vegetation monitoring protocols followed the Carolina Vegetation Survey-EEP
Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008).
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., Potyondy, J.P. 1994.Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated Guide
to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245.Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.61 p.
Lee, M.T., Peet, R.K., S.D., Wentworth, T.R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version
4.2. Retrieved from http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-5.pdf.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources Division of Mitigation Services, 2009. Cape Fear River
Basin Restoration Priorities. http://porta 1.ncdenr.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=864e82e8-
725c-415e-8ed9-c72dfcb55012&groupld=60329
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh, NC
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D. L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-DWQ,
USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. Email 2018. Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring
Parameter.
United States Department of Agriculture. Lincolnton, NC Weather Station NC4996.
http://www.wcc.nres.usda.gov/climate/navigate wets.html
United States Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/carolina.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2016). Candy Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. NCDMS, Raleigh, NC.
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Monitoring Year 2 Annual Report— FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

perk devnlrr Cue T
p3rAp. L Prk II
r a s
r
030300 2010010
Q w �
�,,ynrks Rd
LA�m wx
R�ga+IM
krrd.i rIt.
WIP CIrb
r�
'liq v S
Van No,& 1!q
03030002010020
- - - - - - -- --
000 #
Ti
90020 0030
e
i
Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
DMS Targeted Local Watershed
Project Location
03010104021010 ,
9 Q
°a
ergo �
o� a
■ r rt1` 7y+nn Gam'
■ A
Gnfi�ll Rd f
f
■
■
■
00030002010040 s
S1a`
1 ` � Cu,1ioG try f
a
i
s 03030@0201005
I t 4
03030002020020 ��� a•%
R ► r od,
19 4%, 03030002020070
03030002020030 4^ice
The subject project site is an environmental restoration
site of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
w
WIT-D1,ANDS nkf L
Ery GINLERING
�a
a
Directions to Site:
From Greensboro, NC, take US -29 North approximately 12 miles
past the communities of Browns Summit and Monticello. The north
end of the project Site including Candy Creek Reach 3, Candy
Creek Reach 4, UT1C, and UT1D may be accessed by Old
Reidsville Rd (NC SR 2514). The south end of the project Site
including Candy Creek Reach 1, Candy Creek Reach 2, UT2,
UT3, UT4, and UT5 can be accessed via Hopkins Rd (NC SR 2700).
Wool
t {N j
cry
C u �Ib303o&62020060
carr.. f -
x
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
1.5 Miles Candy Creek Mitigation Site
J DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Guilford County, NC

:■■■■Ll
=
... r Conservation Easement
< 50' Buffer Width
Internal Crossing
5` Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Stream Preservation
Reach Break
.i•. jFr 'Y9• ♦.
•A .. A
r 111 t.
• • � 1.11 .i 1.
i 11 11 t �
l
iE.■E Y A. .., x., •y
♦F�,
. _
111111 .It'''.4 X111♦1.11 t �' MtM e J�._ • '&c
91
PO4,
i• �=r: r1
Oft
WILDLANDS nL�
ENGINEERING
4.
10 .... 1 r
10
V -LA
0 500 1,000 Feet
I i i I
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset map
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Guilford County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2015
I
Mitigation Credits
Stream Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Phosphorous Nutrient Offset
Offset
Type R RE R RE R
RE
Totals 14,975.867 530.600 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Project Components
As -Built
Existing Footage/
Reach ID Stationing/ Credits
Approach Restoration or Restoration Equivalent Restoration Footage/ Acreage Mitigation Ratio
Acreage (SMU/WMU)
Location
STREAMS
Candy Creek Reach 1
100+08-117+19
2,885
P
Restoration
1,711
1:1
1,711.000
117+45 - 126+27
Pi
Restoration
882
1:1
882.000
Candy Creek Reach 2
126+27 - 131+80
2,398
Pi
Restoration
553
1:1
553.000
132+40 - 141+17
Pi
Restoration
877
1:1
877.000
141+43-148+42
Pi
Restoration
699
1:1
699.000
Candy Creek Reach 3
149+02-155+05
2,333
EI
Enhancement
603
1.5:1
402.000
155+05-155+33
Ell
Enhancement
28
2.5:1
11.200
155+62 -160+35
Ell
Enhancement
473
2.5:1
189.200
160+62-170+37
Ell
Enhancement
975
2.5:1
390.000
Candy Creek Reach 4
170+71- 178+74
3,386
P1
Restoration
803
1:1
803.000
179+00 - 196+47
Pi
Restoration
1,747
1:1
1,747.000
196+68-206+35
P1
Restoration
967
1:1
967.000
UT1C
200+12-207+40
551
P1
Restoration
728
1:1
728.000
UT1C - P
207+40 - 211+38
398
-
Preservation
398
5:1
79.600
UT1D
250+00-253+79
437
P1
Restoration
379
1:1
379.000
UT2 Reach
300+00-304+24
940
EI
Enhancement
424
1.5:1
282.667
304+24-305+01
P1
Restoration
77
1:1
77.000
305+26-311+88
PS
Restoration
662
1:1
662.000
UT2 Reach
311+88-318+31
746
EI
Enhancement
643
1.5:1
428.667
UT2A
350+84-354+37
376
EI
Enhancement
353
1.5:1
235.333
UT2B
270+28-276+85
702
Ell
Enhancement
657
2.5:1
262.800
UT3-P
400+00-411+50
1,150
-
Preservation
1,150
5:1
230.000
UT3
411+50-414+96
729
Pi
Restoration
346
1:1
346.000
UT4
500+49 - 514+OS
1,270
Pi
Restoration
1,356
1:1
1,356.000
UT5-P
599+19-600+00
81
-
Preservation
81
5:1
16.200
UT5
600+00 - 607+91
1,297
Pi
Restoration
791
1:1
791.000
608+16 - 610+12
Restoration
196
1:1
196.000
UTSA
650+00-659+70
1,056
-
Preservation
970
5:1
194.000
659+99-660+53
-
Preservation
54
5:1
10.800

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Delivery111M.-plete Completion or Scheduled
Mitigation Plan November 2014
March 2016
Final Design - Construction Plans July 2016
July 2016
Construction July 2016 - March 2017
March 2017
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area 1 July 2016 - March 2017
March 2017
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments March 2017
March 2017
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments March 2017
March 2017
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey October 2016 - March 2017
May 2017
Vegetation Survey March 2017
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey October 2017
December 2017
Vegetation Survey October 2017
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey June 2018
November 2018
Vegetation Survey August 2018
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2019
December 2019
Vegetation Survey 2019
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2020
December 2020
Vegetation Survey 2020
Year 5 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2021
December 2021
Vegetation Survey 2021
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2022
December 2022
Vegetation Survey 2022
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey 2023
December 2023
Vegetation Survey 2023
Seed and mulch is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Aaron Earley, PE
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.332.7754
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Construction Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Dykes and Son Nursery
Live Stakes
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc & Foggy Mountain Nursery
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Ruby Davis
Monitoring, POC
704.332.7754 ext. 119

Table 4. Project Information and Attributes
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Project
Information
Project Name
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
County
Guilford County
Project Area (acres)
61.74
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
Upstream Project Limits -36°13'27.27"N, 79'39'37.79"W
Downstream Project Limits -3614'39.74"N, 79"39'50.46"W
46
Physiographic Province
Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
0303000201002C
DWR Sub -basin
03-06-01
Project Drainiage Area (acres)
937
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
1%
CGIA Land Use Classification
66%—Agriculture/Managed Herbaceous;
29%— Forested/Scrubland, 5%- Developed
Parameters
Candy Creek Reach 1
Candy Creek Reach 2 Candy Creek Reach 3 Candy Creek Reach
4
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
2,593
2,129 2,079 3,517
Drainage Area (acres)
560
694 809 937
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
40.5
40.5 45.0 45.0
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
W S -V (NSW)
Morphological Desription (stream type)
G4c
F5 G4c G4c
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
IV
IV IV III/IV
Underlying mapped soils
Clifford Sandy Clay Loam, Codorus Loam, Nathalie Sandy Loam, Poplar Forest Gravelly Sandy Loam
Drainage class
Well Drained to Somewhat Poorly Drained
Soil hydric status
Codorus Loam - Hydric
Slope
FEMA classification
N/A
Native vegetation community
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation -Post-Restoration
0%
Parameters
Uric UT1D
UT2
UT2A UT213 UT3 UT4 UTS
UTSA
Length of Reach (linear feet) - Post -Restoration
1,126 379
1,806
353 657 1,496 1,356 1,068
1,024
Drainage Area (acres)
28 6
63
15 24 79 190 137
45
NCDWR Stream Identification Score
35.0 27.5
34.5
31.5 31.5 36.5 37.5 31.5
33.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
Morphological Desription (stream type)
E5b C5
F5
G5 BSc G4 G4 F4
N/A
Evolutionary trend (Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
III II/III
III/V
III IIII IV IV IV
N/A
Underlying mapped soils
Casville Sandy Loam, Codorus Loam, Nathalie Sandy Loam
Drainage class
Well Drained to Somewhat Poorly Drained
Soil hydric status
Codorus Loam - Hydric
Slope
FEMA classification
N/A
Native vegetation community
Piedmont Bottomland Forest
Percent composition exotic invasive vegetation -Post-Restoration
1
Regulatory
0%
Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
USACE Nationwide Permit No.27 (Action ID# SAW -2015-01209) and DWR 401 Water Quality Certification (letter from DWR dated 5/13/2015).
Division of Land Quality (Dam Safety)
No
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Candy Creek Mitigation Plan; Wildlands determined "no effect" on Guilford County listed endangered species. USFWS responded on April 4,
2014 and stated the "proposed action is not likely to
adversely affect any federally listed endangered or threatened species, their formally designated
critical habitat or species currently proposed for listing under the Act".
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
No historic resources were found to be impacted (letter from SHPO dated 3/24/2014).
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
No
N/A
N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A

APPENDIX 2. Visual Assessment Data

Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
., Candy Creek Mitigation Site
4, 0 300 600 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
WILD LAN D s Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
ENGINEER4hlG I � � � I
Guilford County, NC

I
' Conservation Easement
' ® Internal Crossing
Stream Restoration
' Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
.` '
�. Stream Preservation
— < 50' Buffer Width
''�,•`� - - - Bankfull
Cross -Section
Reach Break
0.
Barotroll
Crest Gage (CG)
.` - - - - ♦ Photo Point
��•`� ,'� = _ ; ,' 40 Vegetation Plots - MY2
!
,.'• - Criteria Not Met
39 �.` Criteria Met
1
�•`�� Vegetation Problem Areas - MY2
`� , ` •` %Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover (approx. 0.83 ac.)
Invasive Plant (approx. 0.84 ac.)
• : �' ' Stream Problem Areas - MY2
Bank Scour/ Eroded
..i ,
•
•
••vy : 3 , •
I ,
4vv
WILDLA'11Ds nkf
ENGINEER4NG
NEW
' I
It ` • ►
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
I i i i I Monitoring Year 2- 2018
Guilford County, NC

1
37
''�. �.•'41
38 '
\ _ — — - ■.•r Baa -'`I` - . -. >t `�4 i -I
' � :fir J ' . •wia• r - .�i_y; — — — = . � ' i��� •
j ■,,,,,,■,,,,",,...-
w
W1 LD _A'11Ds nkf
ENGINEERING
�.aa•a''arjy11'al1aay Y>v A}' •.
•
A
36
I ,
i
1
I.
•
� yf�
ti
40
\
y, 39
0
1 1
1 1
I \
's
I ,
Conservation Easement
® Internal Crossing
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
< 50' Buffer Width
- - - - • Bankfull
Cross -Section
Reach Break
Barotroll
Crest Gage (CG)
♦ Photo Point
Vegetation Plots - MY2
- Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met
Vegetation Problem Areas - MY2
= Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover (approx. 0.83 ac.)
Invasive Plant (approx. 0.84 ac.)
err ■r+f..•r•SS i..r.rrrrr... �.
L
i
w ■
i
, , , " k , a 11r Ia■..1. Ir a. a L{ f It
I
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
i i i I Monitoring Year 2- 2018
Guilford County, NC

%rrrrsI
- r Conservation Easementrrrrr
® Internal Crossing
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
< 50' Buffer Width
- - - - • Bankfull
Cross -Section
Reach Break
+ Crest Gage (CG)
♦ Photo Point
Vegetation Plots - MY2
OP -7v
I I
r � ,
i \ ,
r _
\
` •` - •i 11 2 r' ` I
I. 'E•- ;t.' •�„ E,,,���,,,rr�Ea.u„►n rrrrr�rrrrrrrrrr�rrrrE���„.:c::-•::o:
r`
t
34
- Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met
�
Vegetation Problem Areas - MY2
LA—
,\
o ye
.•i ',
® Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover (approx. 0.83 ac.)
r
Invasive Plant (approx. 0.84 ac.)
K -t -ACL
i■ .
Stream Problem Areas - MY2
Bank Scour/ Eroded`
'■f■solid...►,,,
1,:
+ 10
w
ti”
-
t..
I 1
3
�. 9
I o—
-
I
\
,L>• I I I
4q!
�
♦
r
/
r
r 8
'*,;
, 1
,
.
�
• f �. 7
I
1 ,
■
♦
-
\ 1
1 1
,I 1
• M /
1
I
1
N1,4.
1
1 -
\
r
r■r
■r
-
•. T
■r
♦
I
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
., Candy Creek Mitigation Site
4, 0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
WILD LAN DS I i i i I Monitoring Year 2-2018
ENGINEERIhlG
Guilford County, NC

12
4P
W1 L D L A'11 D S nkf
ENGINEER4NG
. .110
;,7 w
34
33
I oil I 15 5 1 1 so
Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Guilford County, NC
♦ Photo Point
Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plots - MY2
E22Internal Crossing
Criteria Not Met
Stream Restoration
0 Criteria Met
0
Stream Enhancement I
Vegetation Problem Areas - MY2
Stream Enhancement 11
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover (approx. 0.83 ac.)
Stream Preservation
Invasive Plant (approx. 0.84 ac.)
< 50' Buffer Width
Stream Problem Areas - MY2
Bankfull
Bank Scour/ Eroded
Cross -Section
Reach Break
Crest Gage (CG)
Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Guilford County, NC
♦ Photo Point
"
00
Oil
40
.Z00%
.L1 '"iALA
's
Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Guilford County, NC

■
W- '7 'F- --F—Taw
f,
AAV
ak
J.
1911"
28
Ap
29
16 -48#1 NJ JIM I Evil IN @,:" JAZ%1141141811 all I Ilk
•
74*
W
4k, Tj
ItS
15
30
........
......
4
13
. IV,
A4.
-f
11
Conservation Easement
Molise,
Internal Crossing
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Stream Preservation
< 50' Buffer Width
Bankfull
Cross Section
Reach Break
Crest Gage (CG)
Stream Gage (SG)
Photo Point
Vegetation Plots - MY2
Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met
Vegetation Problem Areas - MY2
= Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover (approx. 0.83 ac.)
EmInvasive Plant (approx. 0.84 ac.)
Figure 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
WILDLANDS Monitoring Year 2- 2018
Guilford County, NC

22
..*r . 11,1
�• "0
lot
r
I•
21 r ��
<r t 4
=:.::.r
Conservation Easement
® Internal Crossing
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
< 50' Buffer Width
- - - - Bankfull
Cross -Section
Reach Break
♦ Photo Point
Vegetation Plots - MY2
_ Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met
Vegetation Problem Areas - MY2
MaBare/Poor Herbaceous Cover (approx. 0.83 ac.)
Fi 1 Invasive Plant (approx. 0.84 ac.)
Stream Problem Areas- MY2
sL r
+� !� Bank Scour/ Eroded
r 20
r
1 •� � - r � � rr
i4 ' ■
r�
41 i, r i s -' ■
` i t
i
t
1 004
! 19 it
�" .ice A,' �.. ��� ", �, aR ' ► �
. t ,
I# 18
� � "''moi'• iii �� •I.L.
- � ` � r• �� �. 1 ��•,,��. ,. _ 1, _
N 1�Y
Air 17
+r
►r r'
■
a {I 3 .K r r►► - rr
s ,
ki
.lotF ••'tier_J
� � �#.i �• €: 'Fi : �' � ` - �; if : �;. 1 •. ,i .�, .
' � • � ,�J,r� '� �. �,.j � is �I }•�, r � , �. .� . � ,
.11 f� �� ,,. 'SSI -1 r; i �' •Si. •ir I �' [[ `Y T.. 7r # .! r• .• 1 f ill
- • •• .� ''
Figure 3.6 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
WZLDr.AN17S I i i i I Monitoring Year 2-2018
ENGIN EERIN C:
Guilford County, NC

:MINI ir Conservation Easement
® Internal Crossing
Stream Restoration
r►
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
< 50' Buffer Width
- - - - ` Bankfull
Cross -Section
Reach Break
+ Crest Gage (CG)
♦ Photo Point
Vegetation Plots - MY2
- Criteria Not Met
Criteria Met
Vegetation Problem Areas - MY2
® Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover (approx. 0.83 ac.)
Invasive Plant (approx. 0.84 ac.)
Stream Problem Areas- MY2
Bank Scour/ Eroded
:4
a,.
ift} 1 1
J�ff� l• ��!� >e 4 I
�• 'i,�/' _ 'aaa � i .
as
�a
as
0 1 Fes'
I� 'a �, r+.lir` W,. •.
. .` , t viii liisiil ii■ia ,
't♦ 25 :
= o o _t"
' / 1
. t
t
24
47
f
%,a
•
r
Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
W1 LD 1, ANDS I i i i I Monitoring Year 2-2018
ENGINEERIfJG
Guilford County, NC

Table 5a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candv Creek Reach 1 (2,619 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%fo r
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
39 39
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
38 38
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
38 38
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
38 38
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
38 38
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
2
29
99%
0
0
99%
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
2
29
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
32
32
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
8
8
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
8
8
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
27
27
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
27
27
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 5b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy Creek Reach 2 (2,215 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%fo r
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
24 24
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
24 24
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
24 24
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
24 24
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
24 24
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
2
40
98%
0
0
98%
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
2
40
99%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
29
29
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
12
12
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
12
12
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
17
17
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
17
17
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 5c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candv Creek Reach 3 (2,135 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%fo r
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
23 23
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
17 17
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
17 17
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
17 17
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
16 16
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
35
35
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
12
12
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
12
12
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
23
23
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
23
23
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 5d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candv Creek Reach 4 (3,564 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%fo r
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
42 42
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
39 39
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
39 39
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
38 38
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
39 39
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
2
30
99%
0
0
99%
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
2
30
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
56
56
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
22
22
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
22
22
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
38
38
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
38
38
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 5e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT1C(728 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%fo r
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
32 32
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
7 7
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
7 7
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
7 7
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
7 7
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totalsj
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
29
29
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
22
22
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
22
22
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
7
7
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
7
7
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 5f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT1D (379 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%fo r
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
24 24
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
2 2
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
2 2
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
2 2
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
2 2
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totalsj
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
30
30
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
29
29
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
29
29
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
1
1
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
20
20
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table Sig. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT2 Reach 1 (1,188 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
32 32
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
8 8
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
8 8
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
8 8
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
8 8
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totalsj
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
32
32
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
31
31
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
31
31
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
1
1
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
22
22
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 5h. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT2 Reach 2 (643 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As-BuiltWoody
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
6 6
100%
Lead
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
7 7
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
7 7
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
7 7
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
7 7
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
l.Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
9
9
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
8
8
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
8
8
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
2
2
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
4
4
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 5i. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT2A (353 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
11 11
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
4 4
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
4 4
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
4 4
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
4 4
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totalsj
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
12
12
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
12
12
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
12
12
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
12
12
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 5j. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT2B (657 LFI
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%fo r
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
5 5
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
6 6
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
6 6
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
6 6
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
6 6
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
l.Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totalsj
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
16
16
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
16
16
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
16
16
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
n/a
n/a
n/a
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
4
4
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 5k. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT3(346 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
11 11
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
10 10
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
10 30
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
10 10
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
10 10
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
15
15
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
9
9
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
9
9
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
6
6
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bank -full Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
5
5
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 51. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT4 (1,356 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%fo r
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
32 32
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
30 30
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
30 30
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander be Run
30 30
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
30 30
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
22
22
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
7
7
100%
3. Engineered
Structures'
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
7
7
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
15
15
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
16
16
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table Sm. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UTS (1,012 LF)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
in As -Built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footagewith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjust%for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability
Aggradation
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
Degradation
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
Texture/Substrate
21 21
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool
Depth Sufficient
21 21
100%
Condition
Length Appropriate
21 21
100%
4. Thalweg Position
Thalweg centering at upstream of
meander bend Run
21 21
100%
Thalweg centering at downstream of
meander bend Glide
21 21
100%
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting
1. Scoured/Eroded
simplyfrom poor growth and/or scour
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
and erosion.
Banks undercut/overhanging to the
extent that mass wasting appears likely.
2. Bank
2. Undercut
Does NOT include undercuts that are
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
modest, appear sustainable and are
providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
Totals
0
0
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no
dislodged boulders or logs.
22
22
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting
maintenance of grade across the sill.
12
12
100%
3. Engineered
i
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow
underneath sills or arms.
12
12
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent
of influence does not exceed 15%.
12
12
100%
Pool forming structures maintaining
4. Habitat
—Max Pool Depth : Bankfull Depth >_ 1.6
Rootwads/logs providing some cover at
12
12
100%
baseflow.
Excludes constructed riffles since they are evaluated in channel category.

Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Planted Acreage 32
Easement Acreage 62
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
none
0
0
0.0%
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
(Ac)
Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0.1
3
0.83
2.6%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 5, or 7 stem count
Low Stem Density Areas
0.1
7
0.2
0.5%
criteria.
Total
10
1.0
3.1%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring
Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
0.25 Ac
0
0
0%
year.
Cumulative Total
10
1.0
3.1%
Easement Acreage 62
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
(SF)
Number of
Polygons
Combined
Acreage
% of
Easement
Acreage
Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1,000
54
0.84
1.4%
Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas of points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
0
0
0.0%

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Candy Creek Reach 1
Monitoring Year 2

�•:��
r fir-
a
Y�
f '+6
�v.
� �r� :, �. �'.-yam —✓�� �' y�`l �y +d'd,
!
y
71
, VVa

Photo Point 4 — looking upstream (8/29/2018) 1 Photo Point 4 — looking downstream (8/29/2018) 1
I Photo Point 5 — looking upstream (8/29/2018) 1 Photo Point 5 — looking downstream (8/29/2018)
Photo Point 6 — looking upstream (8/29/2018) Photo Point 6 — looking downstream (8/29/2018) 1

Photo Point 7 — looking upstream (8/29/2018) 1 Photo Point 7 — looking downstream (8/29/2018) 1
I Photo Point 8 — looking upstream (8/29/2018) 1 Photo Point 8 — looking downstream (8/29/2018)
Photo Point 9 — looking upstream (8/29/2018) 1 Photo Point 9 — looking downstream (8/29/2018)

Photo Point 10 — looking upstream (8/29/2018) 1 Photo Point 10 — looking downstream (8/29/2018) 1
I Photo Point 11— looking upstream (8/29/2018) 1 Photo Point 11— looking downstream (8/29/2018)
Photo Point 12 — looking upstream (8/29/2018) Photo Point 12 — looking downstream (8/29/2018)

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Candy Creek Reach 2
Monitoring Year 2

2AW I41v�,ra'.�.A�a"...?y�fr.: �,w•'
y
.�,. *elm+
�Via
a ti�
rI
y r
t S
r
}� �9 s i - �" • �, h
iiiJ { 5 i ae'
_
•:
6�
,
1M 5 ✓ _
,�,}
� M
t S
r
}� �9 s i - �" • �, h
iiiJ { 5 i ae'
j 6
,�,}
M4
�O
�Yp
t
�
1
I
t S
r
}� �9 s i - �" • �, h
iiiJ { 5 i ae'
j 6
,�,}
M4
�
1
I
1
�
5
�

r'.
�r
r
h
f
y
_
f
r'.
�r
r
y
_
}� r

Photo Point 20 — looking upstream (9/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 20 — looking downstream (9/19/2018) 1
I Photo Point 21— looking upstream (9/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 21— looking downstream (9/19/2018)
Photo Point 22 — looking upstream (9/19/2018) Photo Point 22 — looking downstream (9/19/2018)

Photo Point 23 — looking upstream (9/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 23 — looking downstream (9/19/2018) 1
Photo Point 24 — looking upstream (9/19/2018)

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Candy Creek Reach 3
Monitoring Year 2

k f
4
-
Nil.
'� '.`��
amu-
.�
• ..
MOM�!
k f
4
-
Nil.

Photo Point 27 — looking upstream (9/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 27 — looking downstream (9/19/2018) 1
I Photo Point 28 — looking upstream (9/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 28 — looking downstream (9/19/2018) I
Photo Point 29 — looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 29 — looking downstream (9/25/2018)

Photo Point 30 — looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 30 — looking downstream (9/25/2018) 1
I Photo Point 31— looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 31— looking downstream (9/25/2018)
Photo Point 32 — looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 32 — looking downstream (9/25/2018)

� Y
i�L$",'
+`fin ,a• v
Yl
4
AV ��

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Candy Creek Reach 4
Monitoring Year 2

Photo Point 35 — looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 35 — looking downstream (9/25/2018) 1
I Photo Point 36 — looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 36 — looking downstream (9/25/2018)
Photo Point 37 — looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 37 — looking downstream (9/25/2018)

Photo Point 38 — looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 38 — looking downstream (9/25/2018) 1
I Photo Point 39 — looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 39 — looking downstream (9/25/2018) I
Photo Point 40 — looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 40 — looking downstream (9/25/2018)

Photo Point 41— looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 41— looking downstream (9/25/2018) 1
I Photo Point 42 — looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 42 — looking downstream (9/25/2018) I
Photo Point 43 — looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 43 — looking downstream (9/25/2018) 1

Photo Point 44 — looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 44 — looking downstream (9/25/2018) 1
I Photo Point 45 — looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 45 — looking downstream (9/25/2018)
Photo Point 46 — looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 46 — looking downstream (9/25/2018)

h
L�
1 '
Y
f� ^r
h
L�

Photo Point 50 — looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 50 — looking downstream (9/25/2018) 1
I Photo Point 51— looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 51— looking downstream (9/25/2018) I
Photo Point 52 — looking upstream (9/25/2018) 1 Photo Point 52 — looking downstream (9/25/2018)

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT1C and UT1D
Monitoring Year 2

Photo Point 53 — looking upstream (9/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 53 — looking downstream (9/19/2018) 1
I Photo Point 54— looking upstream (9/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 54— looking downstream (9/19/2018) I
Photo Point 55 — looking upstream (9/19/2018) Photo Point 55 — looking downstream (9/19/2018)

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT2, UT2A, and UT2B
Monitoring Year 2

E
3
-
i
"*
S�
:1se�
q4Y ,k
IVA-
1
1
P
1
E
3
-
i
"*
F n
:1se�
E
3
"*
IVA-
1
1
5

Photo Point 61— looking upstream (9/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 61— looking downstream (9/19/2018) 1
OR L - - A L. Aw�
I Photo Point 62 — looking upstream (9/19/2018) 1 Photo Point 62 — looking downstream (9/19/2018)
Photo Point 63 — looking upstream (9/19/2018) Photo Point 63 — looking downstream (9/19/2018) 1

1
^k
it _i'�'� - tae." B'�r",�^ t �'• `.
-yam
==:._. t. -tee

4
(�
I
tOii
Ed
F
f .
S~
ri
� a
4
(�
I
F
f .
ri

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
UT3, UT4, and UT5
Monitoring Year 2

Photo Point 74— looking upstream (8/29/2018) 1 Photo Point 74— looking downstream (8/29/2018) 1
I Photo Point 75 — looking upstream (8/29/2018) 1 Photo Point 75 — looking downstream (8/29/2018)
Photo Point 76 — looking upstream (8/29/2018) Photo Point 76 — looking downstream (8/29/2018)

'� .� , mks �.'•.r, to w�'.�.'1� -"tea � � .:,gvm:>
r a �-
" dtte" -
t �?�'' .N� - t�J� �rs,�y� "yam` ,• }
S ^y
Y
w I - A�--4 —J 1 �
�P 5.�•
gyp,
xY
Iw S
i q
We
ol
p
( f
" dtte" -
t �?�'' .N� - t�J� �rs,�y� "yam` ,• }
S ^y
Y
w I - A�--4 —J 1 �

!. .. ♦ 7�'. 3 may: � � . '
v- �jrz
Opp
zra.
y4
f
�
h xs
.�: ,e
f
fir �'>•
1
y
�
�
5
F
y �•% �A"2
:k• -r-
Intl.", t'��`E '`ri M1�s,
� vv
�" ��-�` P. ,e
!. .. ♦ 7�'. 3 may: � � . '
v- �jrz
Opp
zra.
, FFi+ }
1 h
W ;7"t4
t �
r �9 �
J 4
y4
f
�
h xs
.�: ,e
f
fir �'>•
'#i „cam- '
y
y�c
�
5
, FFi+ }
1 h
W ;7"t4
t �
r �9 �
J 4

VEGETATION PHOTOGRAPHS
Monitoring Year 2

�'`•F' r -- x it d
-
Y
F� � R.,� � .; Ads �� . - �t� �_` .t+s:. ' �r- �d �„I• l Y ,g'� : \ i� � , y,', ( . s „ � � ;:�
1 -
1
a
r'
y.
r
s • vc chi.
z
INS
Vegetation Plot 3 (812812018) Vegetation Plot 4 (812812018)
VeCIA
r
"I '' Iry � a `
y� Iy a4
>� �•�a� ti t. ¢..: ti s3•�ti��

Vegetation Plot 7 (8/28/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 8 (8/28/2018) 1
I Vegetation Plot 9 (8/28/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 10 (8/28/2018)
Vegetation Plot 11 (8/28/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 12 (8/28/2018)

Vegetation Plot 13 (8/28/2018) Vegetation Plot 14 (8/28/2018) 1
I Vegetation Plot 15 (8/28/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 16 (8/28/2018)
Vegetation Plot 17 (8/27/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 18 (8/27/2018)

Vegetation Plot 19 (8/27/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 20 (8/27/2018) 1
I Vegetation Plot 21 (8/27/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 22 (8/27/2018)
Vegetation Plot 23 (8/27/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 24 (8/27/2018)

Vegetation Plot 25 (8/27/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 26 (8/27/2018) 1
I Vegetation Plot 27 (8/27/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 28 (8/28/2018)
Vegetation Plot 29 (8/28/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 30 (8/28/2018) 1

Vegetation Plot 31 (8/28/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 32 (8/28/2018) 1
I Vegetation Plot 33 (8/28/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 34 (8/28/2018)
Vegetation Plot 35 (8/28/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 36 (8/28/2018)

Vegetation Plot 37 (8/28/2018) 1 Vegetation Plot 38 (8/28/2018) 1
Vegetation Plot 39 (8/28/2018) I Vegetation Plot 40 (8/28/2018)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Plot Success Criteria
Met (Y/N)
Tract Mean
1 Y
83%
2 Y
3 Y
4 Y
5 Y
6 N
7 Y
8 Y
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 N
13 Y
14 Y
15 N
16 Y
17 N
18 N
19 Y
20 Y
21 Y
22 Y
23 Y
24 Y
25 Y
26 Y
27 Y
28 Y
29 Y
30 N
31 Y
32 Y
33 Y
34 Y
35 N
36 Y
37 Y
38 Y
39 Y
40 Y

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Tables - Metadata
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Report Prepared By
Ruby Davis
Date Prepared
10/2/2018 13:54
Database Name
Candy Creek MY1 CVS-v2.5.0.mdb
Database Location
Computer Name
File Size
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02145 Candy Creek\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 2 (2018)\Vegetation Assessment
RUBY -PC
87818240
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Project Planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Project Total Stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
196315
Project Name
I Candy Creek Mitigation Site
Sampled Plots
140

Table 9a. Planted and Total Stems
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 -2018
Current Plot Data fMY2 20181
Current Plot Data fMY2 20181
•
m®mmmmaamm®maam®mmmmm
•
mmmmmmmmmaammmmaa®mmm
Species count
aamaaaa©ooaoo©ooaao©m
tr
Species wunt
o©vo©oo©mo©00000000©a
Current Plot Data fMY2 20181
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P -All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than 1
Volunteers included
•
m®mmmmaamm®maam®mmmmm
Species count
aamaaaa©ooaoo©ooaao©m
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P -All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than 1
Volunteers included

Table 9b. Planted and Total Stems
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 -2018
Current Plot Data IMY2 20181
Current
Plot Data (MY2 2018)
mmun
KIII "IM
•
as®mmmaaaaam®m®aa®mmm
•
mmmm®mmm®mmm®m®mmmm®m
000aamooaoo©000a©aoao
Current Plot Data IMY2 20181
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P -All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteers included
KIII "IM
•
mmmm®mmm®mmm®m®mmmm®m
aaaa000©vo©000a0000©m
Exceeds requirements by 10% PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P -All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteers included

Table 9c. Planted and Total Stems
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year2 -2018
Exceeds requirements by SO% PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P -All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than 30%
Volunteers included
Current Plot Data (MY2 2018)
Current Plot Data (MY2 2018)
Annual
Mean
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation If 29
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 30
Vegetation
Plot 31
Vegetation Plot 32
Vegetation Plot 37
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation If
33
Vegetation Plot
34
Vegetation Plot 35
PnoLS P -all T PnoLS
P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
Red Maple
Tree
11
30
2
10
20
15
2
Alnus serrulata
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
Alnus serrulate
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
1
8
River Birch
Tree
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Carya ovata
Shagbark Hickory
Tree
47
47
70
98
98
98
Carya ovata
Shagbark Hickory
Tree
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
2
3
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
Diospyros virginiano
American Persimmon
Tree
2
Diospyros virginiona
American Persimmon
Tree
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2 3
3
3
3 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1 1 1
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
21
2
2
31
3
3
3 3
31
3
3
3
2
21
2
103
103
104
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
35
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
24
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
10
5
50
15
10
35
5
Nyssa sylvotica
Black Gum
Tree
188
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
12
10
23
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
21
2
2
3 3
3
23
3 3
3
2
2
12
1
1
1
3 3 3
Prunus caroliniana
Carolina Laurel Cherry
Shrub Tree
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
3
3
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
8
2 2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
83
83
224
107
107
107
Prunus caroliniana
Carolina Laurel Cherry
Quercus michouxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
7
7
7
1
1
1 3
3
3
1 1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
2 2 2
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
Tree
Tree
1
1
1 2
2
2
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
1 1 1
Rhus copallinum
Winged Sumac
Shrub Tree
68
109
109
109
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1 1
1
1
1
Salix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
2
36
36
37
75
75
75
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
1
1
1
1
3 3
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
2
3
3
3
70
70
70
107
107
107
Rhus copallinum
Winged Sumac
Shrub Tree
Sambucus canodensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
1
1
Splix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
Ulmus alata
lWinged Elm
Tree
1
3
8
15
Salix sericea
Ulmus americanp
JAmerican Elm
Tree
2
3
35
Stem count
11
11
71
7
7 1 21
11
1 11
86
30 10
15
11
11
36
12
12
77
7 7 0
8
Size(ares)
1
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
1
1
75
1
1
15
1
35
1
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
American Elm
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species countl
4 1
4
9
5
5 8
4 4
7
5 5
8
6
6
7
6
6
9
4 4 5
11
76
Stems per ACRE
445
445
2,873
110
283 850
445 445
3,480
405 405
607
445
445
1,457
486
486
3,116
283 354
Exceeds requirements by SO% PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P -All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than 30%
Volunteers included
Current Plot Data (MY2 2018)
Annual
Mean
Annual
Mean
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Vegetation Plot 36
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 37
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 38
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 39
PnoLS P -all T
Vegetation Plot 40
PnoLS P -all T
PnoLS
MY212018)
P -all
T
PnoLS
MYO (2017)
P -all
T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
30
20
20
188
Alnus serrulate
Tag Alder
Shrub Tree
1
Betula nigra
River Birch
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
1 1
1
2
2
2
47
47
70
98
98
98
Carya ovata
Shagbark Hickory
Tree
3
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
2
Diospyros virginiona
American Persimmon
Tree
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
Tree
21
2
2
31
3
3
3 3
31
3
3
3
2
21
2
103
103
104
1071
107
107
Lindera benzoin
Northern Spicebush
Shrub Tree
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
Sweet Gum
Tree
5
50
10
5
10
188
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
12
10
23
40
54
444
Nyssa sylvotica
Black Gum
Tree
1
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
3
3
13
3
3
8
2 2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
83
83
224
107
107
107
Prunus caroliniana
Carolina Laurel Cherry
Shrub Tree
1
Quercuslyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
2
Quercus michouxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 2
2
1
1
1
68
68
68
109
109
109
Quercus pagoda
Cherrybark Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1 1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
36
36
37
75
75
75
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
1
1
1
3 3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
70
70
70
107
107
107
Rhus copallinum
Winged Sumac
Shrub Tree
1
Splix nigra
Black Willow
Tree
1
3
8
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
Shrub Tree
35
Sambucus canodensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
8
Ulmus alata
Winged Elm
Tree
75
15
35
238
Ulmus americanp
American Elm
Tree
31
Stem count
10
30
142
11
11
76
12 12
60
9
9
110
11
11
98
407
407
1,726
603
603
603
Size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
40
40
Size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.99
0.99
Species countl
4 1
4
7
5
5
7
5 5
8
4
4
8
5
5
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
Stems per ACRE
405
405
5,747
445
445
3,076
486 486
2,428
364
364
4,452
445
445
3,966
412
412
1,746
610
610
610
Exceeds requirements by SO% PnoLS: Number of planted stems excluding live stakes
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10% P -All: Number of planted stems including live stakes
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10% T: Total stems
Fails to meet requirements by more than 30%
Volunteers included

APPENDIX 4. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy Creek Reach 1
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel
Condition
IF
.1110
Candy Creek Reach 1
Candy Creek Reach 1
Candy
Creek Reach 1
Candy
Creek Reach 1
Candy Creek Reach 1
Candy Creek Reach 1
Parameter
Gage
Candy
Creek Reach 1
Collins
Creek
Long Branch
UT to Rocky Creek
Spencer
Creek
Reach 2
(100+08 - 118+91
)
( 118+91 - 125+27
)
125+27 - 126+27
( )
100+08 - 118+91
( )
118+91 - 125+27
( )
125+27 - 126+27
( )
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
in
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.7
9.4
11.9
20.1
14.8
18.6
12.2
10.7
11.2
10.6
13.6
16.8
11.9
12.8
16.1
17.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
11
16
60
>50
72
60
>114
23
53
30
68
37---F-84
53
97
164
292
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.3
1.4
1.6
2.7
1.3
2.1
1.3
1.6
1.8
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth
1.7
1.8
3.3
4.2
1.9
2.9
1.8
2.1
2.6
1.2
1.5
1.8
1.0
1.2
1.8
2.3
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
N/A
12.1
12.3
32.9
25.0
34.6
16.3
17.8
19.7
8.2
13.2
19.9
5.7
8.9
13.9
20.3
Width/Depth Ratio
6.2
7.2
4.4
12.1
7.9
13.8
9.1
5.8
7.1
13.7
14.0
14.2
18.4
25.3
18.6
14.3
Entrenchment Ratio'
1.2
1.7
2.0
3.0
>3.4
6.0
5.5
>10.2
2.2
1
5.0
2.2
1
5.0
2.2
1
S.
4.4
8.1
10.2
17.1
Bank Height Rati02
3.8
3.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.0
6=mmm
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
2.4
0.9
2.8
14.6
Riffle Length (ft)
--
--
---
---
---
--
---
11
55
7
59
17 29
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
0.031
0.003
0.008
0.012
0.013
0.061 0.089
0.013
0.005
0.078
0.007
0.047
0.007
0.023
0.002
0.055
0.006
0.017
0.007 0.017
Pool Length (ft)
---
--
--
--
---
---
---
18
70
19
57
52
N/A
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.2
3.3
0.9
2.4
1.2
3.0
1.4
3.7
2.1
3.0
3.3
3.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
20
57
32
80
50
105
26 81
71
23
85
30
106
37
118
23
102
53
110
N/A
Pool Volume (ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
---
60
---
38
41
28
94
39
121
50
150
19
47
25
58
54
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
---
16
87
---
11
15
16
34
20
44
25
54
17
38
22
44
40
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
---
1.1
4.7
---
1.3
1.4
1.5
3.2
1.5
3.2
1.5
3.2
1.6
3.0
1.4
2.6
2.4
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
---
---
---
---
53
148
68
190
84
235
32
92
65
110
160
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
---
--
---
---
5.0
14.0
5
14.0
5.0
14.0
3.1
6.4
3.6
6.2
3.2
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G %/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.57/1.4/2.4/15.3/26/45
---
--
--
0.6/3.0/8.8/42.0/90/--
SC/0.35/0.9/62/114/512
SC/0.34/2.8/72/168/256
0.15/0.9/15/83/129/256
N/A
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftZ
0.73
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.28
0.41
0.40
0.63
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.88
1.68
1.49
1.10
0.96
0.22
0.24
0.88
0.22
0.24
0.88
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
---
--
---
---
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rosgen Classification
G4c
E4
C/E4
E4b
E4
C/E
C/E
C/E
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
5.3
5.4
3.9
3.6
4.0
5.5
4.9
T
5.4
3.0
3.3
3.2
2.7
4.2
3.0
3.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
65
115
150
101
124
85
97
24
42
65
24
42
65
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
---
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
N/A
---
Q-Mannings
--
Valley Length (ft)
2,268
-
---
---
-
1,615
550
88
1,615
550
88
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,887
-
---
---
---
1,894
636
100
1,883
636
100
Sinuosity
1.27
---
1.30
1.10
2.30
1.17
1.16
1.14
1.17
1.16
1.14
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)Z
---
---
---
---
---
0.004
0.021
0.006
0.012
0.006
0.010
0.008
0.009
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
--
0.012
0.009
0.005
0.010
0.009
0.008
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy Creek Reaches 2 and 3
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Restoration
Condition
0
Reference Reach ..
Candy Creek Reach 2
Candy
Creek Reach 2
Candy Creek Reach 3
Candy
Creek Reach 2
Candy Creek Reach 2
Candy Creek Reach 3
Parameter
Gage
Candy Creek Reach 2
Candy Creek Reach 3
See Table 7a
(126+27 - 143+06)
(143+06 - 148+02)
(149+02 - 155+05)
(126+27 - 143+06)
(143+06 - 148+02)
(149+02 - 155+05)
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
F
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
18.2
19.4
15.3
17.6
17.5
17.0
20.0
16.1
19.5
16.7
19.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
27
99+
24
60
39
1
88
37
1
85
44
1
100
154
254
164
57
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.4
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.9
2.1
1.8
2.3
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
N/A
23.4
27.9
25.8
27.6
See Table 10a
21.8
20.9
28.0
16.2
23.3
20.8
28.2
Width/Depth Ratio
11.9
16.2
9.1
11.2
14.0
13.8
14.3
13.3
16.3
13.5
13.1
Entrenchment Ratio'
1.4
3.2+
1.4
3.9
2.2
5.0
2.2
5.0
2.2
5.0
9.5
15.8
9.8
3.0
Bank Height Ratioz
1.3
2.4
1.8
2.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.8
N/A
0.4
0.5
1.0
Riffle Length (ft)
®,
,®„
®:„,;
, ®::,
_
--
--
--
24
63
14
60
10 61
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.005
0.010
N/A
0.004
0.035
0.011
0.035
0.006
0.013
0.001
0.019
0.001
0.019
0.001 0.035
Pool Length (ft)
-_
23
101
23
58
22 53
N/A
See Table 10a
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.7
N/A
1.5
3.9
1.5
3.8
2.1
4.2
3.3
3.5
3.9
3.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
16
68
N/A
39
124
37
119
40
130
59
146
55
136
49 97
Pool Volume (ft),
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
48
156
38
151
N/A
31
72
23
68
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
26
56
26
54
N/A
20
107
27
42
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
See Table 10a
1.5
3.2
1.5
3.2
N/A
1.1
4.5
1.3
1.9
N/A
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
88
245
85
238
N/A
81
171
54
121
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
2.2
8.9
2.2
8.9
N/A
1.4
3.0
1.1
3.0
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
ryuuuuuuw
VVVVhYYYYY uuuiuuw
it iri
VVhYYYY w +
ullll tri
VVVV YYYY w +
it i9
lll�u VnYYY
!fj uuw
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
i
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.3/0.8/9.1/13.9/23
N/A
SC/0.17/0.4/93/146/256
SC/0.21/0.5/72/117/362
SC/0.27/1.0/113/148/256
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftz
N/A
0.42
N/A
See Table 10a
0.50
0.50
N/A
0.40
0.48
0.58
N/A
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
1.08
1.26
0.93
1.08
1.26
0.93
1.08
1.26
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rosgen Classification
F5
G4c
C/E
C/E
C/E
C5
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.6
4.3
3.4
3.6
3.5
4.0
3.2
3.2
4.6
4.1
3.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
85
93
75
85
93
75
85
93
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
---
---
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
N/A
---
---
See Table 10a
Q -Mannings
---
--
Valley Length (ft)
1,387
551
1,363
426
511
1,363
426
490
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,780
671
1,679
536
628
1,679
536
603
Sinuosity,
1.28
1.22
1.23
1.26
1.23
1.23
1.26
1.23
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)z
0.0041
0.009
0.009
0.004
F
0.005
0.007
0.008
0.004
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
0.018
0.007
0.007
0.009
0.005
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 10c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy Creek Reach 4
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel
andy Creek Reach 4
Candy Creek Reach 4
Candy Creek Reach 4
Candy Creek Reach 4
Parameter
Gage
Candy
Creek Reach
4
See Tabl(170+71
77a
- 196+50)
(196+50 - 206+35)
(170+71
- 196+50)
(196+50
- 206+35)
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.4
14.1
22.0
20.0
19.1
24.9
21.7
23.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
17
21
77
1
176
70
1
120
158
222
132
155
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.5
1.8
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.9
2.5
2.9
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area f12
N/A
20.4
21.5
See Table 10a
32.1
27.2
26.9
38.1
31.6
32.8
Width/Depth Ratio
6.4
1
9.2
1
15.1
14.7
13.6
16.3
14.4
17.1
Entrenchment Ratio'
1.5
1.5
3.5
8.0
3.5
6.0
7.1
11.6
6.1
6.7
Bank Height Ratioz
1.9
2.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
2.2
0.4
0.6
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
14
74
15
53
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
N/A
0.006
0.020
0.011
0.039
0.003
0.022
0.004
0.025
Pool Length (ft)
---
20
125
22
71
N/A
See Table 10a
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.8
2.9
4.4
2.7
4.1
4.5
4.6
4.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
N/A
88
154
26
132
40
145
52
111
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
66
154
30
100
66
154
30
100
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
25
55
25
50
25
55
25
50
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
See Table 10a
1.2
2.5
1.3
2.5
1.2
2.5
1.3
2.5
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
84
220
80
220
84
220
80
220
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
3.0
7.0
1.5
5.0
3.0
7.0
1.5
5.0
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be %
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.3/0.7/2.2/14/28/256
SC/0.15/0.4/64/180/256
0.09/0.26/0.6/49/111/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/fiz
N/A
0.69
See Table 10a
0.46
0.46
0.40
0.44
0.85
0.83
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
---
---
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
1.46
1.40
1.46
1.40
1.46
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rosgen Classification
G4c
C/E
C/E
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
4.9
5.2
3.3
4.0
3.3
3.2
3.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
105
---
105
---
105
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
---
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
N/A
---
See Table 10a
Q -Mannings
--
Valley Length (ft)
2,847
1,976
744
1,981
745
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
3,359
2,575
983
2,579
985
Sinuosityl
1.18
1.30
1.32
1.30
1.32
Water Surface Slope ft/ft z
---
0.004
1
0.008
0.009
1
0.013
0.005
0.010
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)l
1
1
0.005
0.012
1
0.005
0.008
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel

Table 10d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT1C and UT1D
Reference
Reach Data
sign
Dead
As-Built/Baseli
I
Gage
UT1C
UT1D
UT to Varnals Creek
Spencer
Creek Reach 3
Agony Acres UT1-Reach
3
UT to Richland Creek
UT1C
UT1D
UT1C
UT1D
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.7
6.4
9.3
10.5
6.3
9.3
9.1
1
10.4
8.8
10.4
5.8
3.7
7.8
7.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
12
34
20
64
14
125
36+
28
31
13
1
29
8
18
28
15
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.3
0.6
1.1
1.2
0.8
1.0
1.0
T
1.2
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.7
1.0
1.5
1.7
1.0
1.2
1.8
1.1
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.9
0.8
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
N/A
7.2
3.7
10.3
12.3
6.6
8.7
10.7
11.3
7.8
8.5
2.1
0.8
4.0
3.8
Width/Depth Ratio
4.5
11.2
8.1
9.3
7.9
9.3
7.3
10.1
10.0
12.8
16.0
16.1
15.0
15.4
Entrenchment Ratio'
2.1
5.3
1.9
6.1
1.7
4.3
>3.9
2.5
4.0
2.2
5.0 1
2.2
1
5.0
3.6
2.0
Bank Height Rati02
3.8
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
2.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.3
0.3
12.8
31.2
Riffle Length (ft)
-
--
--
-
-
3
43
4
62
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
0.024
1 0.057
0.018
0.034
N/A
0.021
0.045
0.030
0.050
0.006
0.112
0.003
0.082
0.002
0.085
Pool Length (ft)
--
--
-
-
--
--
5.0
20.0
4.0
1
15.0
N/A
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
N/A
2.5
2.6
1.2
1.8
2.5
N/A
0.7
1.3
0.5
0.8
1.7
1.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
N/A
N/A
8
82
9
46
N/A
N/A
8
29
5
26
6
51
6
33
Pool Volume (ft),
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
15
45
10
50
21
93
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
8
47
12
85
14
60
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.6
3.2
1.9
9.1
1.5
5.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
--
53
178
---
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
1.0
3.0
1.6
5.4
2.3
8.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
/9.4/30/90
SC/0.1/0.3/2.9/5.2/15
--
1.9/8.9/11/64/128/--
--
--
SC/0.39/12.8/82/117/180
0.3/6.1/31/57/78/128
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftZ
N/A::2.70
0.39
0.31
0.50
0.84
1.48
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.04
0.01
0.41
0.37
0.30
0.28
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.01
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
<1%
--
-
-
---
1%
<1%
1%
<1%
Rosgen Classification
E5b
C5
B
E4
E4
C4/E4
B/C
B/C
B/C
B/C
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
0.8
0.5
4.4
5.2
5
5.6
2.2
2.4
3.5
4.1
2.5
3.0
1.5
0.5
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
6
2
54
35
25
29
32
6
2
6
2
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
---
--
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
N/A
---
--
Q-Mannings
---
--
Valley Length (ft)
688
378
--
--
--
--
684
370
672
363
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
728
436
--
--
--
--
740
385
728
379
Sinuosity
1.06
1.15
1.20
1.00
1.30
1.35
1.00
1.08
1.04
1.08
1.04
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
---
-
-
--
--
--
0.028
0.006
1
0.075
0.028
0.051
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
-i
--
--
0.040
0.052
0.028
0.045
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel

Table 10e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT2 and UT2A
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
Pre
-Restoration Condition
Reference Reach Data
a
Parameter
Gage
UT2
- Reach 1
UT2 -Reach 2
UT2A
See Table 7d
UT2
- Reach 1
UT2
- Reach
2
UT2A
UT2
- Reach 1
UT2
- Reach 2
UT2A
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
3.1
6.7
5.2
2.8
6.4
7.5
4.6
4.8
7.5
7.8
7.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
4
9
7
9
19
82
16
1
28
10
7
18
22
47
60
31
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.4
1.5
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
N/A
2.4
3.0
3.3
1.2
See Table 10d
2.7
3.9
1.3
1.2
6.8
4.1
4.1
Width/Depth Ratio
4.0
14.9
8.3
6.6
15.1
14.4
16.3
8.3
18.5
14.9
11.9
Entrenchment Ratio'
1.1
1.3
1.4
3.1
3.0
12.8
2.1
3.7
2.2
3.9
2.9
9.8
7.7
4.4
Bank Height Rati02
4.3
4.9
3.8
5.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.1
N/A
N/A
34.6
4.5
2.5
Riffle Length (ft)
--
--
--
4
68
7
80
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
0.110
N/A
N/A
0.011
0.070
0.017
0.032
0.035
0.065
0.004
0.063
0.001
0.055
0
Pool Length (ft)
_-
4
18
11
62
N/A
See Table 10d
L41
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
N/A
N/A
1.0
1.9
1.0
2.0
0.6
1.0
1.7
1.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
22
116
N/A
N/A
8
42
17
53
6
30
8
45
13
51
Pool Volume (ft),
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
25
N/A
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
17
54
N/A
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
See Table 10d
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.7
9.2
N/A
N/A
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
21
68
N/A
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2
5.6
N/A
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/SC/0.1/22.6
/36.7/90
N/A
N/A
0.35/6.0/34.6/70/90/256
0.2/0.7/5/56/161/>2048
0.27/1.1/2.5/47/76/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftZ
N/A
1.80
N/A
N/A
See Table 10d
0.95
--
--
0.31
1.05
0.45
1.32
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.07
0.10
0.02
0.07
0.10
0.02
0.07
0.10
0.02
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
3%
3%
5%
3%
3%
5%
3%
3%
5%
Rosgen Classification
F5
G5c
G5
B
C/E
B
C4
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.0
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.1
3.1
2.3
1.3
7.5
2.9
1.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
9
12
4
9
12
4
9
12
4
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
---
---
---
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
N/A
---
---
---
See Table 10d
Q -Mannings
---
--
Valley Length (ft)
1,105
595
341
1,168
591
340
1,168
591
358
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,279
731
376
1,208
645
349
1,208
643
366
Sinuosity
1.16
1.23
1.10
1.03
1.09
1.02
1.03
1.09
1.02
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
---
0.010
0.035
0.014
0.016
0.032
0.036
0.021
0.031
0.015
0.039
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.038
0.019
0.038
0.023
0.032
0.014
0.040
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.

Table 10f. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2017
UT3, UT4, and UT5
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel
Parameter
Gage
UT3
UT4
UT5
See Table 7d
UT3
UT4
UT5
UT3
UT4
UT5
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
T
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
5.8
8.5
9.5
7.8
11.0
9.8
8.8
11.5
15.1
9.7
10.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
8
11
10
17
100
24
135
22
100
77
98
288
83
229
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.9
1.1
0.6
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.6
2.1
0.9
1.3
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area (ft)
N/A
3.9
7.2
6.7
See Table 10d
4.8
9.4
7.5
5.5
11.0
15.2
6.0
8.8
Width/Depth Ratio
8.8
10.2
13.4
12.7
12.9
12.8
14.0
10.2
15.0
12.8
15.5
Entrenchment Ratio'
1.3
1.2
1.1
2.2
12.8
2.2
12.3
2.2
10.2
8.8
6.5
25.0
8.6
21.6
Bank Height Rati02
5.4
6.2
5.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
10.6
2.8
12.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
Riffle Length (ft)
--
8
20
8
69
11
28
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.011 0.072
0.011 0.064
0.020 0.012
0.003
0.035
0.007
0.057
0.000
0.072
0.000
0.027
Pool Length (ft)
8
24
9
42
12
39
N/A
See Table 10d
L12.
L11.
L72.6
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.5
2.41.1
2.7
2.3
2.9
1.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
6 43
12 42
9 54
25
64
24
33
24
123
26
65
Pool Volume (ft),
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
6
16
10
28
9
64
7
19
10
45
10
39
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
27
14
28
13
49
12
24
12
33
11
48
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
See Table 10d
1.3
3.5
1.3
2.5
1.3
5.0
1.1
2.1
1.1
2.1
0.8
3.6
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
41
101
39
105
54
127
28
76
31
72
34
71
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.8
2.0
0.9
2.5
0.9
6.5
0.8
1.7
0.7
2.7
0.9
2.2
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.1/10.6/22.6/41/64
0.3/0.5/2.8/28.5/40.6/64
0.3/2.8/12.5/29.7/41/90
SC/0.36/1.5/81/111/180
SC/0.16/0.6/100/161/512
SC/SC/0.6/32/143/362
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib/ftZ
N/A
0.93
0.55
1.90
See Table 10d
0.81
0.61
0.28
0.88
0.30
0.32
0.23
0.30
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/mZ
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.12
0.30
0.21
0.12
0.30
0.21
0.12
0.30
0.21
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
Rosgen Classification
G4
G4
F4
C/E
C/E
C/E
C5
C5/E5
C5/E5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.7
4.2
3.3
2.9
3.2
2.9
2.5
2.0
2.7
2.5
3.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
14
30
22
14
30
22
14
30
22
Q-NFF regression (2 -yr)
---
--
---
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2 -yr)
N/A
--
---
See Table 10d
Q -Mannings
---
--
---
Valley Length (ft)
238
1,058
732
301
1,111
845
301
1,111
845
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
346
1,270
1,012
346
1,355
1,012
346
1,356
1,012
Sinuosity
1.45
1.20
1.38
1.15
1.22
1.20
1.15
1.22
1.20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)Z
---
--
0.011
0.032
0.003
1
0.012
0.002
1
0.010
0.024
0.006
0.006
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
-
0.016
0.032
0.012
0.012
0.022
0.006
0.007
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
2Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel

Table Ila. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 -2018
'Entrenchment Ratio is the Rood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
'Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
'Prior to MY2, Bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 Bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018).
Cross
Base
-Section 1, Candy Creek Reach I (Riffle)
MVl MY2 MY3 MY4 MV5 MY6 MY7
Base
�M
MVl MY2 MY3 MY4 MV5 MY6 MY7
cross-section
Base
3, Candy Creek Reach I (Riffle)
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
Cross
Base
-Section
MYl
4, Candy Creek Reach I (Pool)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
Dimension and Substrate;
(10/2016)
(2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
(10/2016)
(2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
(10/2016)
(2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
(10/2016)
(2017)
(2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
Bankfull Elevation
765.9
765.9 766.0
763.4
763.4 763.5
763.0
763.0 763.1
757.4
757.4 757.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
765.9
765.9 766.0
763.4
763.4 763.4
763.0
763.0 763.1
757.4
757.4 757.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
12.8
11.3 12.2
18.7
17.0 19.5
12.0
10.6 11.8
12.5
11.7
13.5
Flood prone Width (ft)
71
71 71.0
---
--- ---
97
97 97.0
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.7 0.7
1.0
0.9 0.9
0.5
0.5 0.5
1.1
1.1
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1 1.2 1 1.2 1 1 1 1 1 1
3.0
1 3.0 1 2.9 1 1
1.0
1.0
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftp)
8.9
8.3 8.9
18.4
15.8 18.4
5.7
5.7
13.5
12.3
13.5
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
18.4
15.4 16.8
19.0
18.3 20.7
25.3
24.5
L
11.6
11.1
13.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
5.5
6.3 5.8
---
-- --
8.1
8.2
---
--
--
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0 1.0
---
-- --
1.0
1.0 1
---
---
WPM
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
Base
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
Base
MY3
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
Dimension and Substrate;
(10/2016)
(2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
(10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
(10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
(10/2016)
(2017)
(2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
Bankfull Elevation
757.1
757.1 757.1
749.3
749.3 749.4
748.9
748.9 749.0
747.3
747.3 747.3
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
757.1
757.1 757.1
749.3
749.3 749.3
748.9
748.9 748.9
747.3
747.3 747.3
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.9
12.1 12.1
19.9
19.7 20.4
16.1
14.8 14.3
17.0
15.3
15.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
53
53 53.0
---
--- ---
164
164 164
292
292
292
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.6
0.6 0.6
1.8
1.7 1.7
0.9
1.0 1.0
1.2
1.3
1.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.2
1.2 1.3
3.3
4.0 4.0
1.8
1.8 1.8
2.3
2.3
2.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
7.1
7.5 7.1
35.5
34.2 35.5
13.9
14.3 13.9
20.3
20.3
20.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
19.9
19.5 20.5
11.2
11.3 11.7
18.6
15.4 14.7
14.3
11.5
11.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
4.4
4.4 4.4
---
--- ---
10.2
11.1 11.5
17.1
19.1
18.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0 1.0
in
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiCross-Section
Base
9, Candy Creek Reach 2 (Pool)
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
Cross
Base
-Section t , Candy Creek Reach 2 (Riffle) Vkhp
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
Cross
Base
-Section 11, Candy Creek Reach 2 (Riffle)
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
cross-section
Base
MYl
12, Candy Creek Reach 2 (Pool)
MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
Dimension and Substrate
(10/2016)
(2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
(10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
(10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
(10/2016)
(2017)
(2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
Bankfull Elevation
745.6
745.6 745.5
745.0
745.0 745.0
741.1
741.1 741.0
737.4
737.4 737.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
745.6
745.6 745.6
745.0
745.0 745.0
741.1
741.1 741.1
737.4
737.4 737.4
Bankfull Width (ft)
22.0
24.9 24.1
16.1
16.0 16.7
16.3
16.2 15.6
23.6
23.7
23.5
Flood prone Width (ft)
---
--- ---
254
254 254
154
154 154
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
1.7 1.7
1.0
1.0 1.0
1.2
1.3 1.3
1.9
1.7
1.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.5
3.9 4.1
1.9
2.0 2.0
1.9
2.3 2.2
3.3
3.5
3.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
40.1
42.1 40.1
16.2
16.5 16.2
19.8
21.5 19.8
44.2
40.9
44.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.0
14.7 14.5
16.0
15.5 16.7
13.3
12.2 12.3
12.6
13.7
12.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
---
--- ---
15.8
15.9 15.2
9.5
9.5 9.9
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
---
--- ---
1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0
1.0 1.1
---
---
---
Cross-Section
Base
13, Candy Creek Reach 2 (Riffle)
MVS _MW_ -MW- _MW -MV-5 MY6 MY7
Cross
Base
-Section 14, Candy Creek Reach 2 (Riffle)
MY6 MY7
MYl MV2 MY3 MY4 t(2021)
Base
aim 9M 9100 UZZ, mm
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
Dimension and Substrate3
(10/2016)
(2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
(10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2022) (2023)
(10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
Bankfull Elevation
737.0
737.0 736.9
733.1
733.1 733.1
733.2
733.2 733.4
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
737.0
737.0 737.0
733.1
733.1 733.1
733.2
733.2 733.2
Bankfull Width (ft)
19.5
18.2 18.1
16.7
17.3 16.8
23.9
21.8 30.9
Flood prone Width (ft)
221
221 221
164
164 164
---
--- ---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.3 1.3
1.2
1.3 1.2
1.9
2.2 1.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.0 2.1
1.8
2.1 1.9
3.9
4.5 4.4
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
23.3
24.3 23.3
20.8
22.7 20.8
46.3
47.8 46.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.3
13.7 14.00
13.5
13.2 13.6
12.3
9.9 1 20.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
11.3
12.1 12.2
9.8
9.5 9.7
---
--- ---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0 1.1
1.0
1.0 1.0
---
--- ---
'Entrenchment Ratio is the Rood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
'Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
'Prior to MY2, Bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 Bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018).

Table 11b. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 -2018
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
*Revised MYO dimensions reported for XS16 in MY1 to correct error.
3Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018).
Cross
16, Candy Creek Reach 3
Cross
17, Candy Creek Reach 3
Cross
18, Candy Creek Reach 4
19, Reach 4
Dimension and Substrate'
-Section (Pool) -Section (Riffle) -Section (Pool) Cross -Section Candy Creek (Riffle)
Base* MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7 Base MY3 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7 Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
(10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
Bankfull Elevation
729.2
729.2
729.2
729.1
729.1
729.2
720.6
720.6
720.7
720.5
720.5
720.5
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
729.2
729.2
729.2
729.1
729.1
729.2
720.6
720.6
720.6
720.5
720.5
720.5
Bankfull Width (ft)
26.2
25.8
25.5
19.2
18.0
20.2
26.9
26.3
37.1
19.1
19.8
20.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
57
57
57
---
---
---
222
222
222
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.9
2.1
2.0
1.5
1.4
1.4
2.2
2.1
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
3.5
4.2
4.1
2.3
2.4
2.3
4.5
4.8
4.7
2.2
2.1
2.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
50.0
54.3
50.0
28.2
25.9
28.2
58.7
55.5
58.7
26.9
23.3
26.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.8
12.3
13.0
13.1
12.5
14.5
12.3
12.4
23.4
13.6
16.8
14.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
---
---
---
3.0
3.2
2.8
---
---
---
11.6
11.2
11.1
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
Dimension and Substrate'
--- I ---I --- 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 --- I --- I ---I I I I I I1.0 1.0 1.0
��n 21, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Pool) Cross -Section 22, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Pool) Cross -Section 23, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Riffle)
Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7 Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7 Base MYi MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7 Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 MY7
(10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
Bankfull Elevation
717.8
717.8
717.8
717.7
717.7
717.5
714.0
714.0
714.0
713.9
713.9
713.9
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
717.8
717.8
717.9
717.7
717.7
717.5
714.0
714.0
714.0
713.9
713.9
713.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
22.4
22.2
21.3
29.3
30.0
28.6
23.6
23.8
22.8
24.9
22.5
22.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
158
158
158
---
---
---
---
---
---
180
180
180
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
1.4
1.5
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.1
2.2
1.5
1.7
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.1
2.3
2.3
4.6
4.6
5.2
4.6
4.0
4.5
2.9
2.8
2.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
31.0
31.7
31.0
70.1
74.0
70.1
51.1
50.2
51.1
38.1
37.4
38.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
16.2
15.6
14.7
12.2
12.2
11.7
10.9
11.3
10.2
16.3
13.5
13.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
7.1
7.1
7.4
---
---
---
---
---
---
7.2
8.0
7.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1 1.0 1
1.1 1 1 1 1 1 1---1
--- I
---I I I I I I
---
I --- I
---I I I I I 1
1.0
1 1.0 11.0
Dimension and Substrate'
W Cross-section 24, Candy Creek Reach 4 [Riffle�ftmcross-Section
Base MYl MY2 MY3 9Y4 MYS MY6 MY7
(10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
25, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Riffle) MIML_cross-section 26, Candy Creek Reach 4 [Pooqk_��ross-section 27, UTIC (Riffle)
Base -MY-1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7 Base MYl MY2 MY3 MY4 MYS MY6 9Y7
(10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
Bankfull Elevation
707.8
707.8
707.8
702.6
702.6
702.7
702.1
702.1
702.3
752.2
752.2
752.2
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
707.8
707.8
707.8
702.6
702.6
702.6
702.1
702.1
702.3
752.2
752.2
752.1
Bankfull Width (ft)
23.2
23.5
23.6
21.7
21.6
22.2
23.6
24.6
28.9
7.8
7.8
9.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
155
155
155
132
132
132
---
---
---
28
28
28
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.2
2.1
1.8
0.5
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.9
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.5
4.1
4.4
4.2
0.9
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
31.6
32.4
31.6
32.8
32.8
32.8
51.3
52.5
51.3
4.0
3.7
4.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
17.1
17.1
17.6
14.4
14.3
15.0
10.8
11.6
16.20
15.0
16.2
21.7
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.1
6.1
6.0
---
---
---
3.6
3.6
3.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio'
1.0
1.0
1.0 1
1.0
1.0 1
1.0
---
---
---
1.0
1.0
<1
110�r
Dimension and Substrate'
r
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
(10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023) (10/2016) (2017) (2018) (2019) (2020) (2021) (2022) (2023)
Bankfull Elevation
752.1
752.1
752.0
742.7
742.7
742.7
771.9
771.9
771.7
763.8
763.8
763.8
Low Bank Elevation (ft)
752.1
752.1
752.0
742.7
742.7
742.7
771.9
771.9
771.7
763.8
763.8
763.8
Bankfull Width (ft)
6.4
9.1
5.7
7.6
7.1
7.1
7.5
7.8
7.6
4.8
4.3
3.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
---
---
---
15
15
15
22
22
22
47
47
47
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.7
1.8
1.7
0.8
1 0.8
0.9
1.5
1.4
1.5
0.4
0.3
0.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
5.4
6.1
5.4
3.8
3.3
3.8
6.8
6.3
6.8
1.2
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
7.5
6.1
15.4
15.3
13.1
8.3
9.7
8.6
18.5
23.3
12.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio'
---
�35
--2.0
2.1
2.1
2.9
2.8
2.9Bankfull
Bank Height Ratio------
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
*Revised MYO dimensions reported for XS16 in MY1 to correct error.
3Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018).

Table 11c. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 -2018
'Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the ban kfulI channel.
'Priorto My2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For My2 through MY7 bankfulI elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCI RT and NCDMS (9/2018).
Cross -Section 32, UT2 Reach 1 (Pool) Cross -Section 33, UT2 Reach 1 (Riffle) Cross -Section 34, UT2 Reach 2 (Pool)
Cross -Section 35, UT2 Reach 2 (Riffle)
Bankfull Elevation
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
Dimension and Substrate'
Cross -Section 36, UT2A (Riffle�� Cross -Section 37, UT3 Reach 2 (Riffle) Cross -Section 38, UT4 (Riffle) �� Cross -Section 39, UT4 (Pool) —
Bankfull Elevation
L— Bank Elevation (ft)
Bankfull Width (ft)
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area fft2)
•
�mm_____®'
mm_____®'
®' m_____®mm_____
Bankfull Entrenchment
Bankfull Bank Height
Dimension and Substrate'
Cross -Section 40, UT4 (Pool) Cross -Section 41, UT4 (Riffle)
Cross -Section 42, UT4 (Riffle) Cross -Section 43, UT4 (Pool)
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area fft2)
'
�m®_____®®®_____
'®mm_____�
®_____
®==_____�MM_____�®M_____®==_____
-
®®®_____�=m_____�MM_____®®®_____
Dimension and Substrate 3
Cross -Section 44, UT5 (Riffle) Cross -Section 45, UTS (Pool)
Cross -Section 46, UTS (Riffle) -mr Cross -Section 47, UT5 (Pool)
Mnkfull Width (ft)
'loodprone Width
Bankful Mean Depth
gankfull Max Depth (ft)
'Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the ban kfulI channel.
'Priorto My2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For My2 through MY7 bankfulI elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCI RT and NCDMS (9/2018).

Table 12a. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy Creek Reach 1 (Sta. 100+08 - 118+91)
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
'Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)
Parameter -- 2016
Min I Max
MY1
Min
2017r
I Max
Min
r 2020 MYS 2021r
I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate'
Bankfull Width (ft) 11.9 12.8
10.6
12.1
11.8
12.2
Floodprone Width (ft) 53 97
53
97
53.0
97.0
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.5 0.7
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth 1.0 1.2
0.9
1.2
1.0
1.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2) 5.7 8.9
5.1
8.3
5.7
8.9
Width/Depth Ratio 18.4 25.3
15.4
22.2
16.8
24.5
Entrenchment Ratio 4,4 8.1
4.4
9.1
4.4
8.2
Bank HeightRatio 1.0
1.0
0.9
D50 (mm) 0.9
1.7
1.1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 11 55
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.002 0.055
Pool Length (ft) 18 70
Pool Max Depth (ft) 2.1 3.0
Pool Spacing (ft) 23 102
Pool Volume ft'
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 19 47
Radius of Curvature (ft) 17 38
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.6 3.0
Meander Wave Length (ft) 32 92
Meander Width Ratio 3.1 6.4
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft) 1,883
Sinuosity (ft) 1.17
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.010
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) 0.010
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% ---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% ---
d16/d35/d50/cI84/cI95/d100 SC/0.35/0.9/62/114/512
-T-
% of Reach with Eroding Banks 0%
<1%
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
'Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)

Table 12b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 2 - 2018
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
'Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
'Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)

Table 12c. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 2 - 2018
Candy Creek Reach 1 (Sta. 125+27 - 126+27)
Min I Max
Min I Max
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrates
Bankfull Width (ft) 17.0
15.3
15.4
Floodprone Width (ft) 292
292
292
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.2
1.3
1.3
Bankfull Max Depth 2.3
2.3
2.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2) 20.3
20.3
20.3
Width/Depth Ratio 14.3
11.5
11.7
Entrenchment Ratio 17.1
19.1
18.9
Bank Height Ratio 1 1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm) 14.6
36.9
11
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 17
29
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.007
0.017
Pool Length (ft) 52
Pool Max Depth (ft) 3.2
Pool Spacing (ft) N/A
-
Pool Volume ft'
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 54
Radius of Curvature (ft) 40
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 2.4
Meander Wave Length (ft) 160
Meander "Al Ratio 3.2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft) 100
Sinuosity (ft) 1.14
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.009
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) 0.008
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% ---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% ---
d- 35/d50/d84/d 95/d 100 0.15/0.9/15/83/129/256
of Reach with Eroding Banks 0%
0%
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
'Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
'Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)

Table 12d. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 2 - 2018
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
'Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
'Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)

Table 12e. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy Creek Reach 2 (Sta. 143+06 - 148+02)
2016
MYI 2017
MY2 2018 MY3 20192020 MYS 2021i
Min
Max
Min I Max
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
16.7
17.3
16.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
164
164
164
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.2
1.3
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
2.1
1.9
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
20.8
22.7
20.8
Width/Depth Ratio
13.5
13.2
13.6
Entrenchment Ratio
9.8
9.5
9.7
Bank Height Ratio'l
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.5
11.0
11.0
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 14
60
MEW
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.001
0.019
-
PoolLength(ft) 23
58
Pool Max Depth (ft)
3.9
Pool Spacing (ft) 55
136
-
Pool Volume(ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 23
68
- - -
Radius of Curvature (ft) 27
42
-
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.3
1.9
-
Meander Wave Length (ft) 54
121
- -
Meander Width Ratio 1.1
3.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
536
Sinuosity (ft)
1.26
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.008
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.009
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
---
d16/d3$/d5D/d84/d9$/d1DD SC/0.21/0.5/72/117/362
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
2%
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
;Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)

Table 12f. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy Creek Reach 3 (Sta. 149+02 - 155+05)
2016
MYI 2017
MY2 2018 MY3 20192020 MYS 2021i
Min Max
Min I Max
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft) 19.2
18.0
20.2
Floodprone Width (ft) 57
57
57
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.5
1.4
1.4
Bankfull Max Depth 2.3
2.4
2.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2) 28.2
25.9
28.2
Width/Depth Ratio 13.1
12.5
14.5
Entrenchment Ratio 3.0
3.2
2.8
Bank Height Ratio'l 1.0
1.0
0.9
D50 (mm) 1.0
1.2
0.7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 10 61
MEW
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.001 0.035
-
PoolLength(ft) 22 53
Pool Max Depth (ft) 3.5
Pool Spacing (ft) 49 1 97
-
Pool Volume(ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) N/A
— - -
RadiusofCurvature(ft) N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) N/A
-
Meander Wave Length (ft) N/A
Meander Width Ratio IN
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft) 603
Sinuosity (ft) 1.23
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.004
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) 0.005
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% ---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% ---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100 SC/0.27/1.0/113/148/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0% 10%
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
;Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)

Table 12g. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy Creek Reach 4 (Sta. 170+71 - 196+50)
2016
MYI
2017
MY2
2018 MY3 2019r i2023
Min
Max
Min
I Max
Min
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate;
Bankfull Width (ft) 19.1
24.9
19.8
22.5
20.0
22.9
Floodprone Width (ft) 158
222
158
222
158
222
Bankfull Mean Depth 1.4
1.5
1.2
1.7
1.3
1.7
Bankfull Max Depth 2.1
2.9
2.1
2.8
2.3
2.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2) 26.9
38.1
23.3
37.4
26.9
38.1
Width/Depth Ratio 13.6
16.3
13.5
16.8
13.8
14.8
Entrenchment Ratio 7.1
11.6
7.1
11.2
7.4
11.1
Bank Height Ratio'l
1.0
i
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.4
0.8
0.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 14
74
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.003
0.022
-
PoolLength(ft) 20
125
Pool Max Depth (ft) 4.5
4.6
Pool Spacing (ft) 40
145
-
Pool Volume(ft')
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 66
154
- - -
Radius of Curvature (ft) 25
55
-
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 1.2
2.5
-
Meander Wave Length (ft) 84
220
- -
Meander Width Ratio 3.0
7.0
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2,579
Sinuosity (ft)
1.30
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.005
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.005
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
---
d16/d3$/d50/d84/d9$/d10D SC/0.15/0.4/64/180/256
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
<1%
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
;Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)

Table 12h. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 2 - 2018
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
'Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
'Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)

Table 12i. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 2 - 2018
UT1C
Parameter
As-Built/Baseline
Min
I
2016
Max
MYI 2017
Min I Max
MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY4 2020 MYS 2021
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min7 Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.8
7.8
9.3
Floodprone Width (ft)
28
28
28
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.5
0.4
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
4.0
3.7
4.0
Width/Depth Ratio
15.0
16.2
21.7
Entrenchment Ratio
3.6
3.6
3
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
0.9
D50 (mm)
12.8
48.8
58.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
3
43
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.003
0.082
Pool Length (ft)
5
20
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.7
Pool Spacing (ft)
6
51
-
Pool volume ft'
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B/C
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
728
Sinuosity (ft)
1.08
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)
0.028
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.028
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
---
d16/d35/dS0/d84/d95/d100 SC/0.4/12.8/82/117/180
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
10%
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
'Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
'Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)

Table 12j. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 2 - 2018
UT1D
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
'Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
'Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)

Table 12k. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 2 - 2018
UT2 - Reach 1
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
'Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
'Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)

Table 121. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 2 - 2018
UT2 - Reach 2
Parameter
As-Built/Baseline
Min
I
2016
Max
MYI 2017
Min I Max
MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY4 2020 MYS 2021
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min7 Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.8
7.8
13.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
60
60
60
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.5
0.4
0.3
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
4.1
3.0
4.1
Width/Depth Ratio
14.9
20.2
42.5
Entrenchment Ratio
7.7
7.7
4.5
Bank Height Ratio 1
1.0
1.0
0.9
D50 (mm) 1
4.5
1.9
0.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
80
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.001
0.055
Pool Length (ft)
11
62
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
13
51
-
Pool Volume ft'
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
Meander Wave Length (ft)
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
643
Sinuosity (ft)
1.09
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)
0.015
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.014
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
---
d16/d3S/dS0/d84/d9S/d 100 0.2/0.7/5/56/161/>2048
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
'Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
'Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)

Table 12m. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 2 - 2018
UT2A
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
'Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
'Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)

Table 12n. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 2 - 2018
UT3
Parameter
As-Built/Baseline
Min
I
2016
Max
MYI 2017
Min I Max
MY2 2018 MY3 2019 MY4 2020 MYS 2021
Min I Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min7 Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.8
8.7
8.4
Floodprone Width (ft)
77
77
77
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.6
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth
1.1
1.1
1.1
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
5.5
5.3
5.5
Width/Depth Ratio
14.0
14.1
12.8
Entrenchment Ratio
8.8
8.9
9.2
Bank Height Ratio 1
1.0
1.0
1.1
D50 (mm) 1
1.5
11.9
0.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8
20
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.007
0.057
Pool Length (ft)
8
24
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
2.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
24
33
-
Pool Volume ft'
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
7
19
Radius of Curvature (ft)
12
24
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.1
2.1
Meander Wave Length (ft)
28
76
Meander Width Ratio
0.8
1.7
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
346
Sinuosity (ft)
1.15
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)
0.024
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.022
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
---
d16/d3S/dS0/d84/d9S/d 100 SC/0.36/1.5/81/111/180
%of Reach with Eroding Banks
0%
0%
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
'Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
'Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)

Table 12o. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 2 - 2018
UT4
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
'Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
'Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)
Min
Max I
Min
I Max
Min I
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrates
Bankfull Width (ft)
11.5
15.1
12.3
14.7
11.9
16.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
98
288
98
288
98
288
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.7
1.1
Bankfull Max Depth
1.6
2.1
1.6
2.1
1.6
2.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2)
11.0
15.2
11.1
14.4
11.0
15.2
Width/Depth Ratio
10.2
15.0
11.9
15.0
10.9
23.7
Entrenchment Ratio
6.5
25.0
6.7
23.5
5.8
24.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
0.9 1
1.0
D50 (mm)
0.6
12.1
0.4
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8
69
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.000
0.072
Pool Length (ft)
9
42
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.3
Pool Spacing (ft)
24
123
Pool Volume fts
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
10
45
Radius of Curvature (ft)
12
33
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
1.1
2.1
Meander Wave Length (ft)
31
72
Meander Width Ratio
0.7
2.7
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,356
Sinuosity (ft)
1.22
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)
0.006
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.006
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
---
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100SC/0.2/0.6/100/161/512
anks
%of Reach with Eroding Banks!
0%1
0%
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
'Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
'Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)

Table 12p. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 2 - 2018
UT5
Min I Max I
Min
I Max
I Min
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Dimension and Substrate
Bankfull Width (ft) 9.7
9.6
10.8
9.8
17.0
Floodprone Width (ft) 83
83
229
83
229
Bankfull Mean Depth 0.6
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth 0.9
P8.8
0.9
1.3
1.1
1.3
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2) 6.0
5.6
8.4
6.0
8.8
Width/Depth Ratio 12.8
13.8
16.2
14.4
32.9
Entrenchment Ratio 8.6
8.8
21.2
8.5
13.5
Bank Height Ratio 1.01.0
1.0
1.1
D50 (mm) 0.6
1.7
1 0.6
Profile
Riffle Length (ft) 11 28
Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0.000 0.027
Pool Length (ft) 12 39
Ogg"
Pool Max Depth (ft) 1.9
Pool Spacing (ft) 26 65
Pool Volume (ft)
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 10 39
Radius of Curvature (ft) 11 48
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft) 0.8 3.6
Meander Wave Length (ft) 34 71
Meander Width Ratio 0.9 2.2
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification C5/E5
Channel Thalweg Length (ft) 1,012
Sinuosity (ft) 1.20
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.006
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft) 0.007
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S% ---
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be% ---
d16/d35/d50/cI84/ 95/d 100 SC/SC/0.6/0 2/143/362
%of Reach with Eroding Banks 0%
0%
(---): Data was not provided
'Entrenchment Ratio is the flood prone width divided by the bankfull width.
'Bank Height Ratio is the bank height divided by the max depth of the bankfull channel.
'Prior to MY2, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY2 through MY7 bankfull elevation is calculated using a fixed Abkf as described in the Standard Measurement of the BHR Monitoring Parameter provided by NCIRT and NCDMS (9/2018)

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 1- Candy Creek Reach 1
105+85 Riffle
768
767
766
0
_v
765
764
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
0 MYO (10/2016) -MY1 (10/2017) 0 MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
8.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.2
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
12.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.8
width -depth ratio
71.0
W flood prone area (ft)
5.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 2 - Candy Creek Reach 1
108+94 Pool
766
765
19.5
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
2.9
max depth (ft)
21.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
764
20.7
width -depth ratio
763
0
762
°; 761
760
759
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
4 MYO (10/2016) s MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
18.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
19.5
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
2.9
max depth (ft)
21.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 3 - Candy Creek Reach 1
109+19 Riffle
766
765
764
c
763
v
w
762
761
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Width (ft)
� MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) s MY2 (06/2018) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.8
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
12.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
24.5
width -depth ratio
97.0
W flood prone area (ft)
8.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross Section 4 - Candy Creek Reach 1
114+15 Pool
761
760
13.5
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
14.6
759
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.5
758
.0 757
@
°; 756
755
754
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
—4 MYO (10/2016) s MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) — Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
13.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.5
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
14.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 5 - Candy Creek Reach 1
114+37 Riffle
7.1
760
12.1
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
759
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.5
width -depth ratio
53.0
W flood prone area (ft)
4.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
758
- ;
c
757
v
w
756
755
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
� MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) s MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
7.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.1
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
12.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.5
width -depth ratio
53.0
W flood prone area (ft)
4.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 6 - Candy Creek Reach 1
122+41 Pool
752
751
20.4
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
4.0
max depth (ft)
22.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.7
750
749
0
748
.@
°; 747
746
745
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—4 MYO (10/2016) s MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
35.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
20.4
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
4.0
max depth (ft)
22.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 7 - Candy Creek Reach 1
122+91 Riffle
751
750
749
c
748
v
w
747 Nov/
746
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
� MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) -Bankfull - Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
13.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
14.3
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
14.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.7
width -depth ratio
164.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.5
entrenchment ratio
0.93
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 8 - Candy Creek Reach 1
125+45 Riffle
750
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.4
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
16.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
749
748
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.7
width -depth ratio
292.0
W flood prone area (ft)
18.9
entrenchment ratio
.00
low bank height ratio
747
c
0
v 746
w
745
744
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
r MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) s MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
20.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.4
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
16.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.7
width -depth ratio
292.0
W flood prone area (ft)
18.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 9 - Candy Creek Reach 2
129+13 Pool
748
747
24.1
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
746
max depth (ft)
26.3
/
1.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.5
width -depth ratio
745
0
744
°; 743
742
741
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
—4 MYO (10/2016) s MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
40.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
24.1
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
4.1
max depth (ft)
26.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 10 - Candy Creek Reach 2
129+43 Riffle
16.2
748
16.7
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
17.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.2
width -depth ratio
254.0
W flood prone area (ft)
15.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
747
746
woo. 0
745
c
0
v 744
w
743
742
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
� MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) s MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
16.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.7
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
17.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.2
width -depth ratio
254.0
W flood prone area (ft)
15.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 11- Candy Creek Reach 2
134+43 Riffle
744
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.6
width (ft)
743
742
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
16.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
741
c
0
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.3
width -depth ratio
v 740
w
739
W flood prone area (ft)
9.9
entrenchment ratio
VFW -
738
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
� MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) s MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
19.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.6
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.2
max depth (ft)
16.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.3
width -depth ratio
154.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.9
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 12 - Candy Creek Reach 2
139+87 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
740
width (ft)
1.9
mean depth (ft)
739
max depth (ft)
25.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.5
width -depth ratio
738
737
0
736
°; 735
734
733
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—4 MYO (10/2016) tMY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
44.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
23.5
width (ft)
1.9
mean depth (ft)
3.7
max depth (ft)
25.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 13 - Candy Creek Reach 2
140+26 Riffle
23.3
740
18.1
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
19.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.0
width -depth ratio
221.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.2
739
1.1
low bank height ratio
738
737
c
0
v 736
w
735
734
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
r MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) s MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
23.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
18.1
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
19.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.0
width -depth ratio
221.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.2
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 14 - Candy Creek Reach 2
145+46 Riffle
737
736
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.8
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
735
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
734
0
width -depth ratio
164.0
W flood prone area (ft)
733
°; 732
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
731
730
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
� MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) s MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
20.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.8
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
17.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.6
width -depth ratio
164.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 15 - Candy Creek Reach 2
145+82 Pool
738
30.9
width (ft)
737
mean depth (ft)
4.4
736
33.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
735
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.6
734
733
c
732
w 731
730
729
728
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—s MYO (10/2016) s MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
46.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
30.9
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
4.4
max depth (ft)
33.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
20.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 16 - Candy Creek Reach 3
151+71 Pool
733
25.5
width (ft)
732
mean depth (ft)
4.1
731
730
27.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.0
y 729
0 728
v 727
w
726
725
724
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
tMYO (3/2017) 4 MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
50.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
25.5
width (ft)
2.0
mean depth (ft)
4.1
max depth (ft)
27.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.0
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 17 - Candy Creek Reach 3
152+02 Riffle
732
x -section area (ft.sq.)
20.2
width (ft)
1.4
731
2.3
max depth (ft)
21.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
730
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.5
width -depth ratio
57.0
W flood prone area (ft)
2.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
729
cOol
0
v 728
w
727
726
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
tMYO (3/2017) s MY1 (10/2017) $ MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
28.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
20.2
width (ft)
1.4
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
21.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.5
width -depth ratio
57.0
W flood prone area (ft)
2.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 18 - Candy Creek Reach 4
172+87 Pool
724
x -section area (ft.sq.)
37.1
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
4.7
723
39.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
23.4
722
721
720
719
c
718
w 717
716
715
714
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
�MYO (3/2017) s MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
58.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
37.1
width (ft)
1.6
mean depth (ft)
4.7
max depth (ft)
39.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
23.4
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 19 - Candy Creek Reach 4
173+32 Riffle
724
723
x -section area (ft.sq.)
20.0
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
20.7
722
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
721
width -depth ratio
222.0
.0 720
@
°— 719
11.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
718
717
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO (3/2017) s MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
26.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
20.0
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
20.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.8
width -depth ratio
222.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 20 - Candy Creek Reach 4
178+99 Riffle
722
31.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
21.3
width (ft)
1.5
721
2.3
max depth (ft)
22.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
720
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.7
width -depth ratio
158.0
719
718
7.4
01 1
1.1
low bank height ratio
c
0
m 717
_v
716
715
714
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
tMYO (3/2017) s MY1 (10/2017) $ MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
31.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
21.3
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
22.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.7
width -depth ratio
158.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.4
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 21- Candy Creek Reach 4
179+39 Pool
722
28.6
width (ft)
2.5
721
5.2
max depth (ft)
31.3
720
2.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.7
719
718
717
c
716
w 715
714
713
712
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
�MYO (3/2017) s MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
70.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
28.6
width (ft)
2.5
mean depth (ft)
5.2
max depth (ft)
31.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 22 - Candy Creek Reach 4
187+21 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
715
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
4.5
max depth (ft)
25.3
714
2.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.2
width -depth ratio
713
712
0
711
°; 710
709
708
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
--s.—MYO (3/2017) s MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
51.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
22.8
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
4.5
max depth (ft)
25.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 23 - Candy Creek Reach 4
Bankfull Dimensions
187+59 Riffle
718
22.9
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
717
max depth (ft)
23.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
716
715
714
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.8
width -depth ratio
180.0
c
0
.@ 713
_v
7.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
IL
712
711
710
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO (3/2017) s MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
38.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
22.9
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
2.8
max depth (ft)
23.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.8
width -depth ratio
180.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 24 - Candy Creek Reach 4
197+77 Riffle
712
31.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
23.6
width (ft)
1.3
711
2.4
max depth (ft)
24.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
710
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.6
width -depth ratio
155.0
709
708
6.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
c
0
m 707
_v
706
705
704
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
tMYO (3/2017) s MY1 (10/2017) $ MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
31.6
x -section area (ft.sq.)
23.6
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
24.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.6
width -depth ratio
155.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 25 - Candy Creek Reach 4
203+63 Riffle
706
x -section area (ft.sq.)
22.2
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
705
max depth (ft)
23.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
704
width -depth ratio
132.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.0
entrenchment ratio
703
low bank height ratio
0
702
.@
°; 701
700
699
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
tMYO (3/2017) s MY1 (10/2017) $ MY2 (06/2018) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
32.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
22.2
width (ft)
1.5
mean depth (ft)
2.5
max depth (ft)
23.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.0
width -depth ratio
132.0
W flood prone area (ft)
6.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 26 - Candy Creek Reach 4
203+98 Pool
706
x -section area (ft.sq.)
28.9
705
1.8
704
4.2
703
31.8
702
1.6
701
c
16.2
700
w 699
698
697
696
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
�MYO (3/2017) s MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
51.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
28.9
width (ft)
1.8
mean depth (ft)
4.2
max depth (ft)
31.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 27 - UT1C
202+17 Riffle
756
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.3
755
754
0.4
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
9.7
753
c
0
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
21.7
width -depth ratio
28.0
v 752
w
751
3.0
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
750
0 10 20 30
Width (ft)
tMYO (2/2017) s MY1 (10/2017) $ MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.3
width (ft)
0.4
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
9.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
21.7
width -depth ratio
28.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.0
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 28 - UT1C
202+23 Pool
754
c
752
v
w
750
0 10 20 30 40
Width (ft)
tMYO (2/2017) $ MY1 (10/2017) $ MY2 (06/2018) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
5.4
x -section area (ft.sq.)
5.7
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
7.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
6.1
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 29 - UT1D
250+84 Riffle
745
744
743
c
0
.9
_v
742
741
0 10 20
Width (ft)
tMYO (3/2017) s MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.1
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
7.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.1
width -depth ratio
15.0
W flood prone area (ft)
2.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 30 - UT2 Reach 1
302+27 Riffle
779
778
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.6
width (ft)
777
mean depth (ft)
776
max depth (ft)
775
774
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
0 773
width -depth ratio
772
v
W flood prone area (ft)
w 771
770
entrenchment ratio
769
768
0 10 20 30 40
Width (ft)
� MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) s MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
6.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
7.6
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
8.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.6
width -depth ratio
22.0
W flood prone area (ft)
2.9
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 31- UT2 Reach 1
305+70 Riffle
769
1.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
3.9
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
768
767
max depth (ft)
4.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.6
width -depth ratio
47.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.1
entrenchment ratio
766
c
0
low bank height ratio
v 765
w
764
763
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
r MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) s MY2 (06/2018) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
1.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
3.9
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.5
max depth (ft)
4.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.6
width -depth ratio
47.0
W flood prone area (ft)
12.1
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 32 - UT2 Reach 1
307+52 Pool
763
762
761
c
760
v �
w
759
758
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
4 MYO (10/2016) s MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
6.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.4
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
10.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.3
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 33 - UT2 Reach 1
307+61 Riffle
3.5
762
6.3
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
6.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
761
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.3
width -depth ratio
88.0
W flood prone area (ft)
14.0
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
760
c
0
_v
759
758
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
� MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
6.3
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
6.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.3
width -depth ratio
88.0
W flood prone area (ft)
14.0
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 34 - UT2 Reach 2
316+47 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
738
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
13.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.6
width -depth ratio
737
736
735
c
2
v 734
w
733
732
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
—4 MYO (10/2016) s MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
7.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.5
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
13.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 35 - UT2 Reach 2
31+62 Riffle
738
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.2
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.8
737
13.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
42.5
width -depth ratio
736
W flood prone area (ft)
4.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
c
735
v
w
734
733
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
r MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) s MY2 (06/2018) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
13.2
width (ft)
0.3
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
13.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
42.5
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
4.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 36 - UT2A
353+06 Riffle
753
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.3
width (ft)
0.5
752
1.1
max depth (ft)
9.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.7
width -depth ratio
36.8
W flood prone area (ft)
4.4
751
0.9
low bank height ratio
750
3=
0
749
°; 748
747
746
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
� MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) s MY2 (06/2018) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.3
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
9.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.7
width -depth ratio
36.8
W flood prone area (ft)
4.4
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 37 - UT3
412+91 Riffle
751
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.4
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
8.9
750
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.8
width -depth ratio
77.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.2
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
c
0
v 749
w
748
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
� MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) s MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.4
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
8.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.8
width -depth ratio
77.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.2
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 38 - UT4
504+91 Riffle
757
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.8
width (ft)
0.9
756
2.0
max depth (ft)
17.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
755
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.5
width -depth ratio
98.0
W flood prone area (ft)
5.8
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
754
c
0
v 753
w
752
751
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) -MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
15.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.8
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
2.0
max depth (ft)
17.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.5
width -depth ratio
98.0
W flood prone area (ft)
5.8
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 39 - UT4
505+16 Pool
758
x -section area (ft.sq.)
21.9
width (ft)
757
mean depth (ft)
2.4
756
755
23.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
26.9
754
0 753
v 752
w
751
750
749
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
—4 MYO (10/2016) s MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
17.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
21.9
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
23.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
26.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 40 - UT4
508+51 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
752
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
18.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.2
width -depth ratio
751
750
c
749
v
w
748
747
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
—s MYO (10/2016) s MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
18.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.8
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
2.4
max depth (ft)
18.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 41- UT4
508+78 Riffle
753
752
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.2
width (ft)
0.7
751
1.6
max depth (ft)
16.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
750
0
v 749
w
748
width -depth ratio
172.0
W flood prone area (ft)
10.6
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
747
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
� MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) s MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
11.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.2
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
16.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
23.7
width -depth ratio
172.0
W flood prone area (ft)
10.6
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 42 - UT4
512+03 Riffle
752
751
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.9
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
12.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
750
width -depth ratio
288.0
W flood prone area (ft)
24.2
entrenchment ratio
749
low bank height ratio
0
.@ 748
°; 747
746
745
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
� MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) s MY2 (06/2018) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
13.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
11.9
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
12.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.9
width -depth ratio
288.0
W flood prone area (ft)
24.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 43 - UT4
512+35 Pool
749
748
747
c
746
v
w
745
744
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
—4 MYO (10/2016) s MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
20.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
16.0
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
3.2
max depth (ft)
18.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.7
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 44 - UTS
602+45 Riffle
760
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.8
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
10.1
759
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.9
width -depth ratio
83.0
W flood prone area (ft)
8.5
entrenchment ratio
c
low bank height ratio
0
v 758
w
757
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
� MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) s MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
6.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.8
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
10.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.9
width -depth ratio
83.0
W flood prone area (ft)
8.5
entrenchment ratio
1.1
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 45 - UTS
602+63 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
761
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
10.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.0
width -depth ratio
760
759
758
c
0
v 757
w
756
755
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
4 MYO (10/2016) s MY1 (10/2017) MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
9.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.9
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
10.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.0
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 46 - UTS
606+10 Riffle
6.8
757
9.9
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
756
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.4
width -depth ratio
84.0
755
c
2
8.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
_v
754
753
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
� MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) s MY2 (06/2018) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
6.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.9
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
10.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.4
width -depth ratio
84.0
W flood prone area (ft)
8.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 47 - UTS
606+34 Pool
x -section area (ft.sq.)
758
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
18.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.6
width -depth ratio
757
756
755
1
c
0
v 754
w
753
752
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
—4 MYO (10/2016) s MY1 (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
14.7
x -section area (ft.sq.)
17.0
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
18.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Cross -Section 48 - UTS
609+31 Riffle
8.8
755
17.0
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
17.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
754
32.9
width -depth ratio
229.0
W flood prone area (ft)
13.5
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
753
c
752
v
w
751
750
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
� MYO (10/2016) MYl (10/2017) 4 MY2 (06/2018) -Bankfull -Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
8.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
17.0
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
17.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
32.9
width -depth ratio
229.0
W flood prone area (ft)
13.5
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Wildlands Engineering
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy Rl (100+08 -118+91), Reachwide
Candy R1 (100+08 - 118+91), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.30
D50 =
1.1
Dfl0. =
Class
Percent
90.0
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
24
29
29
29
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
1
1
1
30
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
1
31
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
11
14
14
45
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
dera ro
4
4
49
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
12
14
14
63
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
v
60
63
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
pe -
1
1
64
�•a�•s•�o;'�0;'6;°o�s$s�•a�'s'`�o° Fine
4.0
5.6
3 50
64
s�•a�s,®a®s®oaa�s,�s,�•aas,&s
Fine
5.6
8.0
64
0
ewwass w`caa Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
65
Medium
11.0
16.0
�bti yyti
OOra'LOy�h O.1h
65
Particle Class Size (mm)
v 30
0MYl-10/2017 0MY2-09/2018 ■MY2-09/2018
0MY2-09/2018
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
1
3
3
68
�,��scso®eeee�e�e,�.xses. Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
3
71
®®®'9a•':o°:o°�®®®®®®®�'9a•°:`. Very Coarse
32
45
13
13
13
84
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
7
91
Small
64
90
4
4
4
95
Small
90
128
3
3
3
98
Large
128
180
1
1
1
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 t MY2-09/2018 t MY2-09/2018 t MY2-09/2018
99
111111 Small
362
512
1
1
1
100
Medium
IIIIIIII€Illlllil
512
1024
100
€ Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Candy R1 (100+08 - 118+91), Reachwide
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.30
D50 =
1.1
Dfl0. =
45.0
D95 =
90.0
D100 =
512.0
Candy R1 (100+08 - 118+91), Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Candy R1(100+08 - 118+91), Reachwide
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90
Silt/Clay
90
Sand
ave,
80
bble
w
70
y
60
a
N
So
dera ro
0 70
m
u
40
m
v
60
pe -
20
3 50
10
0
�? 40
Oh ti ti
ti� D< yro 0 yti 1�O ,L,1•�0 3� by FP` �O yn4 y�0 �y0
�bti yyti
OOra'LOy�h O.1h
yO.1,DP��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
v 30
0MYl-10/2017 0MY2-09/2018 ■MY2-09/2018
0MY2-09/2018
a 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MYl-10/2017 t MY2-09/2018 t MY2-09/2018 t MY2-09/2018
Candy R1(100+08 - 118+91), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
w
70
y
60
a
N
50
m
u
40
m
v
30
20
10
0
Oh ti ti
ti� D< yro 0 yti 1�O ,L,1•�0 3� by FP` �O yn4 y�0 �y0
�bti yyti
OOra'LOy�h O.1h
yO.1,DP��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO-10/2016
0MYl-10/2017 0MY2-09/2018 ■MY2-09/2018
0MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R1, Cross -Section 1
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
v
30
a 20
10
Candy 111, Cross -Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
19.02
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
64.0
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8
8
8
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
8
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
Medium
0.25
0.50
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
10
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
24
24
34
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
34
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
34
m
30
$"�'%'°'"°'"°'"°• Fine
4.0
5.6
34
Fine
®®®®®® ®®®®
5.6
8.0
34
®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®@®®®®®
ac�aaa e.aa Medium
8.0
11.0
34
^oro;.Medium
11.0 1
16.0
34
a y$ aaa a
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
36
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaaao®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
12
12
48
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
62
Very Coarse
45
64
22
22
84
Small
64
90
6
6
90
Small
90 1
128
8
8
98
Large
128
180
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
IIIIIIII€i€€€
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
v
30
a 20
10
Candy 111, Cross -Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
1.19
D35 =
19.02
D50 =
33.6
D80. =
64.0
D95 =
112.2
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
v
30
a 20
10
Candy 111, Cross -Section 1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Candy R1, Cross -Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
60
a
50
m
u
40
m
30
4
20
c
30
0
OOro'LOylh O.1h Oh 'Y 'L ,ti`b
b 56 'b 1ti ,y0 �,L�o .6'L �h 0� �O yti'b y$O �y0 �b-, y1ti yO.tiI lb �OSo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R1, Cross -Section 3
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy 111, Cross -Section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
tMYO-10/2016 tMY1-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.77
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
71.7
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
12
12
12
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
16
Medium
0.25
0.50
14
14
30
Coarse
0.5
1.0
8
8
38
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
10
10
48
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
48
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
48
:o;;,o;;,o;;,00s..a..a.w •oror°' Fine
4.0
5.6
48
Fine
5.6
8.0
48
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
es.��es ec�a Medium
a`,;c;,o,;,o,�ss a`aac.•o.•o.•o.,o
8.0
11.0
48
s`;i�-°i�%,�' .���%as-;;s-;`�•;`s- Medium
11.0 1
16.0
48
Coarse
16.0
22.6
OOro'LOylh O.1h 'L ,y4
11 'b 1y1 y0 ��6 �ti Ph 0� p0 yti'b y$O �y0 �bti y1ti y�.ti4ti��� �Op�O
48
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-10/2016
MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
52
.....y.o.•o •o.
•o:
.g..g..g...o•..o..o.
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
66
Very Coarse
45
64
14
14
80
Small
64
90
12
12
92
Small
90 1
128
6
6
98
Large
128
180
98
Large
180
256
1
1
99
.. Small
256
362
99
......... Small
Illllilllllllll
362
512
1
1
100
Medium
512
1024
100
HUMM:M: IIIIIIIIIII III
Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy 111, Cross -Section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
tMYO-10/2016 tMY1-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 3
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.25
D35 =
0.77
D50 =
26.9
D84 =
71.7
D95 =
107.3
D100 =
512.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy 111, Cross -Section 3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
tMYO-10/2016 tMY1-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Candy 111, Cross -Section 3
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
v
70
u
m
60
a
N
50
_2
U
40
30
v
C
20
10
0
OOro'LOylh O.1h 'L ,y4
11 'b 1y1 y0 ��6 �ti Ph 0� p0 yti'b y$O �y0 �bti y1ti y�.ti4ti��� �Op�O
Particle Class Size (mm)
■ MYO-10/2016
MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy 111, Cross -Section 5
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy 111, Cross -Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 -
0.44
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
56.9
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
14
14
14
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
14
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
8
22
Medium
0.25
0.50
16
16
38
Coarse
0.5
1.0
8
8
46
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
8
8
54
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
54
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
56
:o;:o;:o;,00 ..�..�.w.,o•.,o•.,,,.,
Fine
4.0
5.6
1 56
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
56
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
Medium
8.0
11.0
56
•oj Yjo;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
56
aye aaaa•oro:
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
58
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaco®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
62
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
76
ssss®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
88
Small
64
90
4
4
92
Small
90 1
128
4
4
96
Large
128
180
2
2
98
Large
180
256
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
1
100
Totall
100 1
100
1 100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy 111, Cross -Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 5
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.15
D35 -
0.44
D50 =
1.4
D80. =
56.9
D95 =
117.2
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy 111, Cross -Section 5
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Candy R1, Cross -Section 5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
20
C
10
0
oobtiotiyh otih oy ti ti ti$
tib w titi tie �ti� 3ti �y o� �o tiyvl ti$o �y� �bti y1ti yotio p so
tia�
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R1(118+91-125+27), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.39
Dso =
0.9
D84 =
Class
Percent
180.0
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
17
21
21
21
Very fine
0.062
0.125
q
21
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
6
7
7
28
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
9
11
11
39
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
6
12
12
51
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
6
8
8
59
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
59
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
20 -
59
Fine
4.0
5.6
J L a IL OL 0
1
1
1
60
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
61
Medium
8.0
11.0
61
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
2
2
63
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
2
2
65
Coarse
22.6
32
4
2
6
6
71
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
5
76
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
4
80
Small
64
90
7
7
7
87
Small
90
128
5
5
5
92
Large
128
180
3
3
3
95
Large
180
256
1
1
1
96
Small
256
362
4
4
4
100
..............
... . ......
111111 Small
362
512
100
..... .....
iffli: HHHUM:
.... ......
.... .......
... .........
.. .........
.. ..........
..111111111MM: Medium
............
Illlllllllllllil
512
1024
100
...............
...............
. ...............
................................... Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
so
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.39
Dso =
0.9
D84 =
77.8
D95 =
180.0
D100 =
362.0
Candy R1(118+91- 125+27), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100 -
90
-
80
-
q
70 -
60 -
so -
40 -
30
20 -
10
i Id L
0
J L a IL OL 0
0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016 0 MYI-10/2017 E MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy 111, Cross -Section 7
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy 111, Cross -Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
37.95
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
137.0
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
6
6
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
10
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
2
2
12
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
12
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
12
:o;:o;:o;,00 ..�..�.w.,o•.,o•.,,,.,
30
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
1 12
20
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
c
12
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
Medium
8.0
11.0
12
•oj Yjo;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
6
6
18
aye aaaa•oro:
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
24
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaco®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
30
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
40
sss;�s®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
46
Small
64
90
20
20
66
Small
90 1
128
16
16
82
Large
128
180
10
10
92
Large
180
256
8
8
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
11 i 11 Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy 111, Cross -Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
14.12
D35 =
37.95
D50 =
68.5
D80. =
137.0
D95 =
205.4
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy 111, Cross -Section 7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Candy R1, Cross -Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
60
a
50
m
u
40
m
30
4
20
c
30
0
oobtiotiyh otih oy ti ti ti$
56 ro titi ti� �ti� 3ti �y o� �o $ ,51 �y� �bti y1ti yoti1, lb �o�o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R1(125+27 -126+27), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.48
DSo =
11.0
Dfl0. =
Class
Percent
128.0
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
7
10
10
10
Very fine
0.062
0.125
w
10
Fine
0.125
0.250
y
9
9
9
19
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
13
17
17
36
Coarse
0.5
1.0
36
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
6
12
12
48
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
48
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®
emo�oe»samo Very Fine
2.8
4.0
48
w`e •o;•oo;;ssa coa
;a`wo•o•o•;o; saaw;o�•o
�a�•s•�o;'�0;'6;°o�s$s�a�'s'`�o° Fine
4.0
5.6
0
Oh ti
48
Fine
5.6
8.0
Particle Class Size (mm)
48
0MYl-10/2017 0MY2-09/2018 ■MY2-09/2018 0MY2-09/2018
ewwass w`caa Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
2
50
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
52
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
2
54
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
4
58
+,�sscs®a®ee�e�+�+,asses.
®®®�'9a•':o°:o��®®®®®®®�'9a•':`. Very Coarse
32
45
3
3
3
61
Very Coarse
45
64
7
7
7
68
Small
64
90
11
11
11
79
Small
90
128
16
16
16
95
Large
128
180
3
3
3
98
Large
180
256
1
1
1
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
111111 Small
362
512
100
Medium
IIIIIIII€Illlllil
512
1024
100
€ Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
65
35
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.20
D35 =
0.48
DSo =
11.0
Dfl0. =
100.5
D95 =
128.0
D100 =
362.0
Candy R1(125+27 - 126+27), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
w
70
y
60
a
N
50
m
u
40
m
�
30
20
C
10
0
Oh ti
ti ti� D< yro yti 1�O ,L -,b 3� by FP` �O yn4 y�0 �y0 �bti yyti
OOra'LOy�h O.1h
yO.yDPeb
Particle Class Size (mm)
■MYO-10/2016
0MYl-10/2017 0MY2-09/2018 ■MY2-09/2018 0MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R1, Cross -Section 8
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
v
30
a 20
10
Candy 111, Cross -Section 8
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 --0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018 MY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 -
1.41
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
135.5
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
6
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
20
20
30
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
10
10
40
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
m
30
40
$"�'%'°'"°'"°'"°• Fine
4.0
5.6
40
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
42
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oae ®®®®
Medium
8.0
11.0
42
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
2
2
44
ay$ ease^oro;.
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
50
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaco®®®
eo®ooee%eec�.� Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
52
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
54
ssss®®fie+s�&m�ez
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
64
Small
64
90
10
10
74
Small
90 1
128
8
8
82
Large
128
180
12
12
94
Large
180
256
4
4
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
IIIIIIII€i€€€
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
v
30
a 20
10
Candy 111, Cross -Section 8
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 --0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018 MY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 8
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
0.62
D35 -
1.41
D50 =
22.6
D80. =
135.5
D95 =
196.6
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
v
30
a 20
10
Candy 111, Cross -Section 8
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 --0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018 MY2-09/2018
Candy R1, Cross -Section 8
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
4
20
C
30
0
OOro'LOylh O.1h Oh 1 'L ,y4
0 56 'b titi ,y0 �,L�o .6'L �h 0� �O yti'b 1y�0 �y0 �bti y1ti y�.ti0tip Opo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0MYO-10/2016
■MYI-10/2017 ■MY2-09/2018 ■MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R2 (126+27 -143+06), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.71
D50 =
11.0
Class
Percent
D95 =
min
max
Riffle
Pool Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
6
6
8
Medium
0.25
0.50
20
20
20
28
Coarse
0.5
1.0
14
14
14
42
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
6
6
48
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
m
48
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®
emo�oe»+%mo Very Fine
2.8
4.0
30
48
%`e •o;•oo;;ssa coa
;a`wo•o•o•;o; saaw;o�•o
�a�•s•�o;?�0;?6;°o�s$s�a�'s'`�o° Fine
4.0
5.6
48
Fine
5.6
8.0
C
48
10
Ld
do
Medium
.g:. g..g: •�..o..o
8.0
11.0
2
2
2
50
Medium
11.0
16.0
0 MVO -10/2016 0 MYI-10/2017 ■ MV2-09/2018
50
®®®®®®®®®® ®®®® Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
2
52
®®®®® ®®
Coarse
22.6
32
52
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
2
54
Very Coarse
45
64
2
2
2
56
Small
64
90
16
16
16
72
Small
90
128
16
16
16
88
Large
128
180
12
12
12
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
111111 Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
IIIIIIII€Illlllil
€ Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
0 100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.33
D35 =
0.71
D50 =
11.0
Dfl0. =
117.2
D95 =
156.2
D100 =
180.0
Candy R2 (126+27 - 143+06), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
w
70
u
y
60
a
N
50
m
u
40
m
�
30
20
C
10
Ld
do
0
O.1h Oh ti ti ti� P h� � yti 1rO ,L,1•�0 3� by FP` �O yn4 y�0 �y0 �bti yyti
OOra'LOy�h
yO.yD�� P��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016 0 MYI-10/2017 ■ MV2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R2, Cross -Section 9
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R2, Cross -Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
1.09
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
114.4
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
7
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
24
24
34
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
8
8
42
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
m
42
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
42
:o;:o;:o;,00 ..a..a.w.,o•.,o•.,,,.,
4
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
1 46
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
46
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
%e%s� ess %ca®sa Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
47
•oj Y>w;o;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
4
4
51
aye aaaa•oro:
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
52
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaco®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
53
Very Coarse
32
45
3
3
56
sss;�s®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
1
1
57
Small
64
90
12
12
69
Small
90 1
128
22
22
91
Large
128
180
9
9
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R2, Cross -Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.59
D35 =
1.09
D50 =
14.6
D80. =
114.4
D95 =
148.9
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R2, Cross -Section 9
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Candy R2, Cross -Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
4
20
c
30
0
O�oLotilh o1h Oh Y ti tib
b hb titi ye �yb 5L ph ob �o tiyw tiyo �y� �bti y1ti yotio p �oso
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R2, Cross -Section 11
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R2, Cross -Section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0-- MVI -10/2017 t MY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.91
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
115.4
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
8
8
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
29
29
39
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
12
12
51
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
51
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
51
:o;:o;:o;,00 ..a..a.w.,o•.,o•.,,,.,
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
1 53
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
c
53
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
%e%s� ess %ca®sa Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
57
•oj Y>w;o;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
2
2
59
aye aaaa•oro:
Coarse
16.0
22.6
7
7
66
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaco®®®
eo®ooeepeec�.� Coarse
22.6
32
66
Very Coarse
32
45
66
sss;�s®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
1
1
67
Small
64
90
5
5
72
Small
90 1
128
17
17
89
Large
128
180
10
10
99
Large
180
256
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R2, Cross -Section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0-- MVI -10/2017 t MY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.58
D35 =
0.91
D50 =
1.9
D80. =
115.4
D95 =
157.1
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R2, Cross -Section 11
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0-- MVI -10/2017 t MY2-09/2018
Candy R2, Cross -Section 11
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
U
40
m
30
20
c
30
0
11 1 16 IL I
oobtiotiyh otih oy ti ti ti$
o h6 ro titi ti� �ti6 3ti ah ba �o tiyw tiyo �y� �bti y1ti yotio tip jos o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R2, Cross -Section 13
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R2, Cross -Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 -
0.58
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
39.3
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
90
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
3
Medium
0.25
0.50
28
28
31
Coarse
0.5
1.0
19
19
50
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
6
6
56
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
56
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
m
30
56
:o;:o;:o;,00 ..a..a.w.,o•.,o•.,,,.,
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1 57
20
Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
2
2
59
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
%e%s� ess %ca®sa Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
61
•oj Y>w;o;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
4
4
65
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
75
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaco®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
81
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
86
sss;�s®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
92
Small
64
90
4
4
96
Small
90 1
128
2
2
98
Large
128
180
1
1
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R2, Cross -Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.34
D35 -
0.58
D50 =
1.0
D80. =
39.3
D95 =
82.6
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R2, Cross -Section 13
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Candy R2, Cross -Section 13
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
U
40
m
30
4
20
C
10
0
OOro'LO11 O.1h Oh 'Y ti ,y4
b 56 1ti ti° ,ti-y� ,6'L P, 'k Ao y'Lq, 'p ti"- 3b-, yy 01
N tip ipso
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R2 (143+06 -148+02), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.74
D50 =
1.6
Dfl0. =
Class
Percent
160.7
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
w
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
y
7
7
7
9
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
10
13
13
22
Coarse
0.5
1.0
10
13
23
23
45
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
3
7
7
52
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
52
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®
emo�oe»samo Very Fine
2.8
4.0
20
52
w`e •o;•oo;;ssa coa
;a`wo•o•o•;o; saaw;o�•o
�a�•s•�o;'�0;'6;°o�s$s�a�'s'`�o° Fine
4.0
5.6
52
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
3
55
oobtiotiyti
yO1A P��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016 0 MYI-10/2017 ■ MV2-09/2018
ewwass w`caa Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
2
2
57
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
3
7
7
64
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
2
2
66
Coarse
s,��scso®eaee�+�+,�wsas.
22.6
32
1
5
6
6
72
®®®�'9a•':o':o°�®®®®®®®�'9a•°:o Very Coarse
32
45
3
3
3
75
Very Coarse
45
64
2
2
2
77
Small
64
90
1
1
1
78
Small
90
128
9
9
9
87
Large
128
180
10
2
12
12
99
Large
180
256
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
111111 Small
0:
362
512
100
INHUH:
Medium
I......I €Illlllil
512
1024
100
€ Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.36
D35 =
0.74
D50 =
1.6
Dfl0. =
113.8
D95 =
160.7
D100 =
362.0
Candy R2 (143+06 - 148+02), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
w
70
y
60
a
N
50
m
u
40
m
�
30
20
C
10
0
otih og ti ti ti� a h� titi tib �ti6 3ti ah �o tiy� y�0 �y0 �bti yyti
oobtiotiyti
yO1A P��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016 0 MYI-10/2017 ■ MV2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R2, Cross -Section 14
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R2, Cross -Section 14
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
5.60
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
94.6
min
max
D100 =1
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
9
9
9
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
11
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
6
17
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
19
Coarse
0.5
1.0
13
13
32
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
1
1
33
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
33
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
33
:o;:o;:o;,00 ..a..a.w.,o•.,o•.,,,.,
30
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
1 35
20
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
6
6
41
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
%e%s� ess %ca®sa Medium
8.0
11.0
9
9
50
•oj Y>w;o;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
8
8
58
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
10
68
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaco®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
74
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
76
ssss®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
3
3
79
Small
64
90
4
4
83
Small
90 1
128
7
7
90
Large
128
180
7
7
97
Large
180
256
1
1
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R2, Cross -Section 14
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 14
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.22
D35 =
5.60
D50 =
11.0
D80. =
94.6
D95 =
163.3
D100 =1
362.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R2, Cross -Section 14
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Candy R2, Cross -Section 14
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
60
a
50
m
u
40
m
30
'—a
20
c
30
0
oobtiotiyh otih oy ti ti ti�
tib titi ti� �ti� 3ti �y o� �p yob "p �,b fib-, yy'L 1��N p �0so
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R3 (149+02 -155+05), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.35
Dso =
0.7
D84 =
Class
Percent
122.8
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
3
3
3
Very fine
0.062
0.125
8
8
8
11
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
11
15
15
26
Medium
0.25
0.50
7
12
19
19
45
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
9
13
13
58
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
2
6
6
64
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
k
64
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
10
-h
64
Fine
4.0
5.6
L IUMM-s-
64
Fine
5.6
8.0
64
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016 0 MYI-10/2017 E MY2-09/2018
Medium
8.0
11.0
64
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
1
65
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
1
5
5
70
Coarse
22.6
32
70
Very Coarse
32
45
1
1
1
71
Very Coarse
45
64
2
1
3
3
74
Small
64
90
5
1
6
6
80
Small
90
128
16
1
17
17
97
Large
128
180
3
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
.......... ........................ Small
256
362
100
111111 MMUM Small
362
512
100
.. ..... ..............
H H. HHHHHUMB: Medium
512
1024
100
H MHUHHHHHHHH:
:Large/Very Large
....................... ........... :
1024
2048
1
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.16
D35 =
0.35
Dso =
0.7
D84 =
97.8
D95 =
122.8
D100 =
180.0
Candy R3 (149+02 -155+05), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100 -
90
-
80
q
70 -
60 -
so -
40 -
30 -
20 -
k
10
-h
0
L IUMM-s-
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016 0 MYI-10/2017 E MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R3, Cross -Section 17
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R3, Cross -Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 -
1.17
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
40.2
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
3
3
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
3
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
Medium
0.25
0.50
12
12
15
Coarse
0.5
1.0
16
16
31
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
18
18
49
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
49
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
50
:o;:o;:o;,00 ..a..a.w.,o•.,o•.,,,.,
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
1 53
20
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
2
2
55
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
%e%s� ess %ca®sa Medium
8.0
11.0
6
6
61
•oj Y>w;o;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
12
12
73
aye aaaa•oro:
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
79
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
82
�;;;�•ogQg�����,�.�,�eg;;;;;;o; Very Coarse
32
45
3
3
85
sss;�s®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
1
1
86
Small
64
90
4
4
90
Small
90 1
128
8
8
98
Large
128
180
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€ii€€€ Large/Very Large
1024
2048
1
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
1
100
Totall
100 1
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R3, Cross -Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 17
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.52
D35 -
1.17
D50 =
4.0
D80. =
40.2
D95 =
112.2
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R3, Cross -Section 17
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Candy R3, Cross -Section 17
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
20
C
10
0
O�oLotilh o1h Oh Y L tib
b 56 1ti ye 1yb 5L ph ob �o tiyw tiso �y� �bti y1ti yotio tip jos o
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R4 (170+71-196+50), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.28
Dso =
0.6
D84 =
Class
Percent
141.1
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
20
24
24
24
Very fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
3
27
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
2
6
6
33
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
8
12
12
45
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
12
17
17
62
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
2
64
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
>
64
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
64
Fine
4.0
5.6
10
-J
64
Fine
5.6
8.0
0
64
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016 0 MYI-10/2017 E MY2-09/2018
Medium
8.0
11.0
64
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
2
2
66
Coarse
16.0
22.6
66
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
1
67
Very Coarse
32
45
1
1
1
68
Very Coarse
45
64
9
9
9
77
Small
64
90
9
1
10
10
87
Small
90
128
6
6
6
93
Large
128
180
6
1
7
7
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
111111 Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1 1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
so
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.28
Dso =
0.6
D84 =
81.3
D95 =
141.1
D100 =
180.0
Candy R4 (170+71- 196+50), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100 -
90
-
80
-
q
70 -
60 -
so -
40 -
30 -
>
20
10
-J
0OOr
J
0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016 0 MYI-10/2017 E MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R4, Cross -Section 19
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R4, Cross -Section 19
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.56
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
114.7
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
21
21
21
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
21
Fine
0.125
0.250
9
9
30
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
33
Coarse
0.5
1.0
12
12
45
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
45
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
45
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
m
30
45
:o;:o;:o;,00 ..�..�.w.,o•.,o•.,,,.,
Fine
4.0
5.6
1 45
20
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
45
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
Medium
8.0
11.0
0
45
•oj Yjo;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
1
1
46
aye aaaa•oro:
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
50
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaco®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
54
Very Coarse
32
45
3
3
57
sss;�s®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
63
Small
64
90
10
10
73
Small
90 1
128
16
16
89
Large
128
180
11
11
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R4, Cross -Section 19
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 19
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.56
D50 =
22.6
D80. =
114.7
D95 =
154.2
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R4, Cross -Section 19
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Candy R4, Cross -Section 19
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
4
20
c
30
0
OOro'LOyyh O.1h Oh 'Y ti ,tib
b h6 '6 1ti ti° �,L�O 6k �p yti', 'p �"- fib-, yy'L'Yo.�,O�'Lop �0so
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R4, Cross -Section 20
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R4, Cross -Section 20
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 -
2.00
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
125.0
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
6
10
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
6
16
Coarse
0.5
1.0
15
15
31
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
4
4
35
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
35
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
35
:o;:o;:o;,00 ..�..�.w.,o•.,o•.,,,.,
30
Fine
4.0
5.6
1 35
-'-a
20
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
C
35
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
Medium
8.0
11.0
10
35
•oj Yjo;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
1
1
36
aye aaaa•oro:
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
37
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaco®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
39
Very Coarse
32
45
7
7
46
sss;�s®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
57
Small
64
90
13
13
70
Small
90 1
128
15
15
85
Large
128
180
15
15
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R4, Cross -Section 20
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 20
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.50
D35 -
2.00
D50 =
51.1
D80. =
125.0
D95 =
160.7
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R4, Cross -Section 20
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Candy R4, Cross -Section 20
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
-
=
70
d
u
y
60
a
50
m
u
40
m
30
-'-a
20
C
10
0 111 b
oobtiotiyh otih oy ti ti ti�
tib titi tie �ti� 3ti �y o� �o tiyvl ti$o Cyd �bti y1ti yotiN 4�lb ad��
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R4, Cross -Section 23
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R4, Cross -Section 23
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
11.00
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
116.7
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
6
6
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
9
9
15
Medium
0.25
0.50
11
11
26
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
30
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
1
1
31
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
31
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
m
30
31
:o;:o;:o;,00 ..�..�.w.,o•.,o•.,,,.,
Fine
4.0
5.6
1 31
20
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
31
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
%e%s� ess %ca®sa Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
35
•oj Y>w;o;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
3
3
38
aye aaaa•oro:
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
42
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaco®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
46
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
52
sss;�s®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
9
9
61
Small
64
90
9
9
70
Small
90 1
128
19
19
89
Large
128
180
11
11
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R4, Cross -Section 23
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 23
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.27
D35 =
11.00
D50 =
40.2
D80. =
116.7
D95 =
154.2
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R4, Cross -Section 23
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Candy R4, Cross -Section 23
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
4
20
C
10
0
OOro'LOyyh O.1h Oh 1 'L ,y4
0 56 " ,y6 10,'o .6'L Q , 'k �p y.�, 160 �,b �b., y1ti 01N tip Opo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R4 (196+50 - 206+35), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.53
D50 =
0.8
D84 =
Class
Percent
163.3
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
16
16
16
16
Very fine
0.062
0.125
q
16
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
4
20
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
11
13
13
33
Coarse
0.5
1.0
13
11
24
24
57
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
1
3
3
60
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
60
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
20 -
60
Fine
4.0
5.6
r
60
Fine
5.6
8.0
10
IL J6
60
-,b by eb
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
61
Medium
11.0
16.0
61
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
2
63
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
1
64
Very Coarse
32
45
2
1
3
3
67
Very Coarse
45
64
2
2
2
69
Small
64
90
5
5
5
74
Small
90
128
15
1
16
16
90
Large
128
180
6
1
7
7
97
Large
180
256
1
1
1
98
Small
256
362
98
..............
... . ......
HHHHHHH! GliSma11
111111
362
512
98
..... .....
.... ......
iffli: HHHUM:
.... .......
... .........
.. .........
.. .......... Medium
............
Illlllllllllllil
512
1024
98
...............
...............
. ...............
...................................
.................................. : Large/Very Large
1024
2048
2
2
2
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.53
D50 =
0.8
D84 =
112.2
D95 =
163.3
D100 =
2048.0
Candy R4 (196+50 - 206+35), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100 -
90
-
80
q
70 -
60 -
so -
40 -
30 -
20 -
r
10
IL J6
0
-,b by eb
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016 0 MYI-10/2017 E MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R4, Cross -Section 24
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R4, Cross -Section 24
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.76
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
19.0
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
5
5
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
5
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
8
Coarse
0.5
1.0
45
45
53
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
19
19
72
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
72
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
m
30
72
:o;:o;:o;,00 ..�..�.w.,o•.,o•.,,,.,
Fine
4.0
5.6
1 72
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
5.6
8.0
72
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
c
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
%e%s� ess %ca®sa Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
75
•oj Y>w;o;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
8
8
83
aye aaaa•oro:
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
85
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaco®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
91
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
93
sss;�s®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
2
2
95
Small
64
90
2
2
97
Small
90 1
128
2
2
99
Large
128
180
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R4, Cross -Section 24
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 24
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.57
D35 =
0.76
D5o =
1.0
D80. =
19.0
D95 =
64.0
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
Candy R4, Cross -Section 24
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Candy R4, Cross -Section 24
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
4
20
c
30
0
OOro'L p O -P Oh'Y 'L ,y4
0 56 titi ,y0 �,L�o 'k �p yti' , 160 �y0 �bti y1ti y�.ti0� tip Opo
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy R4, Cross -Section 25
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
0.01 0.1
Candy R4, Cross -Section 25
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
t MYO-10/2016
10
Particle Class Size (mm)
0-- MVI -10/2017
100 1000 10000
t MY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
91.16
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
124.8
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
90
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
1
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
5
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
3
3
8
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
8
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
9
:o;:o;:o;,00 ..a..a.w.,o•.,o•.,,,.,
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1 10
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
11
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
c
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
%e%s� ess %ca®sa Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
13
•oj Y>w;o;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
2
2
15
aye aaaa•oro:
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
19
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
20
<;<;�;o;�•o;°gQg�����,�.�,�eg;,o;;,o; Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
22
sss;�s®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
1
1
23
Small
64
90
10
10
33
Small
90 1
128
55
55
88
Large
128
180
8
8
96
Large
180
256
1
1
97
Small
256
362
97
Small
362
512
2
2
99
MUN
IIII II MM: Medium
512
1024
1
1
100
Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
1 1
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
1 1
100
Totall
100 1
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
0.01 0.1
Candy R4, Cross -Section 25
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
t MYO-10/2016
10
Particle Class Size (mm)
0-- MVI -10/2017
100 1000 10000
t MY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 2S
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
17.44
D35 =
91.16
D50 =
100.4
D80. =
124.8
D95 =
172.5
D100 =
1024.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
0.01 0.1
Candy R4, Cross -Section 25
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
t MYO-10/2016
10
Particle Class Size (mm)
0-- MVI -10/2017
100 1000 10000
t MY2-09/2018
Candy R4, Cross -Section 25
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
4
20
c
30
0
ooro'L p o1h Oh Y L ti4
b 56 titi ye �yb 5L ph ob �o tiyw tiso �o �bti y1ti yotio ti��� -oso
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT1C, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
6.69
Dso =
58.6
Class
Percent
D95 =
min
max
Riffle
Pool Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
10
10
20
20
Very fine
0.062
0.125
20
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
2
22
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
6
28
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
6
34
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
34
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
m
34
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®
emo�oe»samo Very Fine
2.8
4.0
30
34
w`e •o;•oo;;ssa coa
;a`wo•o•o•;o; saaw;o�•o
�a�•s•�o;°�0;°6;°o�s$s�a�'s'`�o° Fine
4.0
5.6
34
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
2
36
10
ewwass w`caa Medium
8.0
11.0
36
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
2
38
otih og ti ti ti�
a h� titi tib �ti6 3ti ah �o tiy� y�0 �y0 �bti yyti
oobtiotiyti
yO1A P��6
Coarse
16.0
22.6
0 MVO -10/2016
0 MYI-10/2017 ■ MV2-09/2018
38
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
4
42
+,�sscs®a®ee�e�+�+,asses.
Very Coarse
32
45
1
1
2
44
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
8
52
Small
64
90
8
8
16
68
Small
90
128
12
12
24
92
Large
128
180
4
4
8
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
111111 Small
0:
362
512
100
INHUH:
Medium
512
1024
100
I......I €Illlllil
€ Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
100
Total
50
0 50 1
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
6.69
Dso =
58.6
Dfl0. =
113.8
D95 =
145.5
D100 =
180.0
UT1C, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
w
70
y
60
a
N
50
m
u
40
m
�
30
20
10
0
otih og ti ti ti�
a h� titi tib �ti6 3ti ah �o tiy� y�0 �y0 �bti yyti
oobtiotiyti
yO1A P��6
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016
0 MYI-10/2017 ■ MV2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT1C, Cross -Section 27
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT1C, Cross -Section 27
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
42.21
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
114.9
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
12
12
12
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
12
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
13
Coarse
0.5
1.0
13
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
13
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
13
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
m
30
13
:o;:o;:o;,00 ..�..�.w.,o•.,o•.,,,.,
Fine
4.0
5.6
1 13
20
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
13
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
Medium
8.0
11.0
13
•oj Yjo;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
13
aye aaaa•oro:
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
15
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaco®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
22
Very Coarse
32
45
16
16
38
ssss®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
23
23
61
Small
64
90
14
14
75
Small
90 1
128
13
13
88
Large
128
180
8
8
96
Large
180
256
2
2
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT1C, Cross -Section 27
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 27
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
23.75
D35 =
42.21
D50 =
54.1
D80. =
114.9
D95 =
172.5
D100 =
362.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT1C, Cross -Section 27
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
UT1C, Cross -Section 27
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
4
20
c
30
0
1 OL
Q, (Zi p O.1h Oh 'Y 'L ,y4
Q 56 1ti ,y0 �,L�o ,6'L �h 0� �O yyw y$O 1O.tib ti��0�0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT11), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.27
Dso =
22.6
D84 =
Class
Percent
90.0
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
18
22
22
22
Very fine
0.062
0.125
q
22
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
10
12
12
34
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
8
10
10
44
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
4
48
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
48
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
48
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
20 -
48
Fine
4.0
5.6
48
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
49
0
Particle Class Size (mm)
Medium
8.0
11.0
49
Medium
11.0
16.0
49
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
50
Coarse
22.6
32
4
2
6
6
56
Very Coarse
32
45
6
5
11
11
67
Very Coarse
45
64
17
3
20
20
87
Small
64
90
5
3
8
8
95
Small
90
128
4
1
5
5
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
111111 Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
so
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.27
Dso =
22.6
D84 =
60.7
D95 =
90.0
D100 =
128.0
UT11), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100 -
90
-
80
-
q
7
60 -
so -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10
1 J w
U U u
0OOr
0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016
0 MYI-10/2017 E MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT1D, Cross -Section 29
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT11), Cross -Section 29
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
Silt/Clay
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
59.6
min
max
D100 =1
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
35
35
35
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
35
Fine
0.125
0.250
35
Medium
0.25
0.50
35
Coarse
0.5
1.0
a
35
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
35
®®®®®®® ®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
35
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
35
�"�"�"° "° "° "°• Fine
4.0
5.6
1 35
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
35
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
as.�oaa a�a Medium
8.0
11.0
35
"oro;.Medium
11.0 1
16.0
35
a y� aaa a
Coarse
16.0
22.6
30
35
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaaao®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
9
9
44
Very Coarse
32
45
24
24
68
Very Coarse
45
64
20
20
88
Small
64
90
12
12
100
Small
90 1
128
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT11), Cross -Section 29
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 29
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
D50 =
34.8
D80. =
59.6
D95 =
78.1
D100 =1
90.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT11), Cross -Section 29
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
UT1D, Cross -Section 29
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
60
a
50
m
u
40
m
30
20
c
30
0
oobtiotiyh otih Q111 ti ti -1,10
"1 tib � titi tie �ti� "p,ay ok Co tiyvl ti$o IOD �bti y1ti yotio 40��
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT2 111A, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.45
Dso =
0.9
D84 =
Class
Percent
90.0
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
10
13
13
13
Very fine
0.062
0.125
r
13
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
5
5
18
Medium
0.25
0.50
5
15
20
20
38
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
7
13
13
51
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
4
55
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
55
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
20 -
55
Fine
4.0
5.6
10
55
Fine
5.6
8.0
0
(01, CO y14 y00 -10 +11
55
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016
0 MYI-10/2017 E MY2-09/2018
Medium
8.0
11.0
55
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
2
3
3
58
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
2
60
Coarse
22.6
32
5
2
7
7
67
Very Coarse
32
45
12
1
13
13
80
Very Coarse
45
64
8
2
10
10
90
Small
64
90
3
2
5
S
9S
Small
90
128
4
4
4
99
Large
128
180
1
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
H: Small
0:
362
512
100
INHUH:
HHUM: H: Medium
512
1024
100
.......... lllilM
...................................
...................... ::: Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.19
D35 =
0.45
Dso =
0.9
D84 =
51.8
D95 =
90.0
D100 =
180.0
UT2 111A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100 -
90
-
80
-
r
70 -
60 -
so -
40 -
30 -
20 -
0
10
0OOr
0
(01, CO y14 y00 -10 +11
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016
0 MYI-10/2017 E MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT2 R1, Cross -Section 30
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT2 111, Cross -Section 30
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
22.60
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
70.5
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8
8
8
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
8
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
8
16
Medium
0.25
0.50
9
9
25
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
29
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
2
2
31
®®®®®®® ®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
31
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
31
�"�"�"° "° "° "°• Fine
4.0
5.6
1 31
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
1
1
32
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
%e%s� ess %ca®sa Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
33
"oro;.Medium
11.0 1
16.0
1
1
34
a y� aaa a
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
35
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaaao®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
13
13
48
Very Coarse
32
45
17
17
65
Very Coarse
45
64
15
15
80
Small
64
90
14
14
94
Small
90 1
128
5
5
99
Large
128
180
99
Large
180
256
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
11 i 11 Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT2 111, Cross -Section 30
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 30
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.25
D35 =
22.60
D50 =
33.3
D80. =
70.5
D95 =
96.6
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT2 111, Cross -Section 30
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
UT2 111, Cross -Section 30
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
60
a
50
m
u
40
m
30
20
c
30
0
OOro'LOyyh O.1h Oh 'Y ti ,y4
b 56 'b 1ti ti° 6 4, 4," 01040�0
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT2 R1, Cross -Section 31
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT2 111, Cross -Section 31
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.66
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
70.5
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
12
12
12
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
14
Medium
0.25
0.50
17
17
31
Coarse
0.5
1.0
10
10
41
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
41
®®®®®®® ®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
41
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
m
30
41
�"�"�"° "° "° "°• Fine
4.0
5.6
1 41
4
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
41
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
as.�oaa a�a Medium
8.0
11.0
41
"oro;.Medium
11.0 1
16.0
41
a y� aaa a
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
43
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaaao®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
50
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
64
ssss®®aaa�ao�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
16
16
80
Small
64
90
14
14
94
Small
90 1
128
6
6
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT2 111, Cross -Section 31
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 31
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.27
D35 =
0.66
D50 =
32.0
D80. =
70.5
D95 =
95.4
D100 =
128.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT2 111, Cross -Section 31
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
UT2 111, Cross -Section 31
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
4
20
c
30
0
oobtiotiyh otih oy ti ti ti$
56 titi ti� �ti� 3ti ay o� �o tiyw tiro �y� �bti y1ti yotio 40��
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT2 111, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.50
D50 =
0.9
D84 =
Class
Percent
151.8
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
16
17
17
17
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
18
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
4
22
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
10
13
13
35
Coarse
0.5
1.0
11
6
17
17
52
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
3
4
4
56
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
56
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
20 -
56
Fine
4.0
5.6
56
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
10 -
0 A LIN
1
1
57
A
ft. <, p ti -1, J�
4�1
by q�,
10, 1�1
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
0 MYI-10/2017 E MY2-09/2018
1
1
58
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
1
59
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
60
Coarse
22.6
32
3
1
4
4
64
Very Coarse
32
45
1
2
3
3
67
Very Coarse
45
64
3
3
6
6
73
Small
64
90
7
7
7
80
Small
90
128
9
2
11
11
91
Large
128
180
7
1
8
8
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
..............
... . ......
HHHHHHH! Gli
i H 11 11
:: ......... . Small
362
512
100
/11111111MR!
..... .....
iffli: HHHUM:
.... ......
.... .......
... .........
.. .........
.. .......... Medium
............
512
1024
100
...............
...............
Illlllllllllllil
. ...............
................................... Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
so
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.50
D50 =
0.9
D84 =
102.3
D95 =
151.8
D100 =
256.0
UT2 111, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100 -
90
-
80
-
q
70 -
60 -
so -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 A LIN
Id Ll J
0 Ild L
A
ft. <, p ti -1, J�
4�1
by q�,
10, 1�1
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016
0 MYI-10/2017 E MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT2 R1, Cross -Section 33
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT2 111, Cross -Section 33
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 -
0.87
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
99.1
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
3
Medium
0.25
0.50
12
12
15
Coarse
0.5
1.0
25
25
40
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
4
4
44
®®®®®®® ®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
44
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
m
30
44
"° "° "°•
�"�"�"° Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
1 46
Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
2
2
48
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
as.�oaa a�a Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
51
"oro;.Medium
11.0 1
16.0
3
3
54
a y� aaa a
Coarse
16.0
22.6
54
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaaao®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
57
Very Coarse
32
45
7
7
64
Very Coarse
45
64
11
11
75
Small
64
90
6
6
81
Small
90 1
128
11
11
92
Large
128
180
8
8
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT2 111, Cross -Section 33
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 33
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.51
D35 -
0.87
D50 =
9.9
D80. =
99.1
D95 =
145.5
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT2 111, Cross -Section 33
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
UT2 111, Cross -Section 33
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
20
C
10
0
OOro'LOylh O.1h Oh 'Y 'L ,y4
0� 56 16 1ti ,y0 ��6 yti'b y$O �y,b �bti y1ti yO.tiN tip 0p�O
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT2 R2, Reachwide
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
r- 30
R
a 20
10
UT2 R2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-10/2016 --0--MYl-10/2017 H—MY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.26
D50 =
0.6
Dfl4 =
Class
Percent
162.5
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8
9
17
17
17
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
18
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
15
16
16
34
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
9
12
12
46
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
9
11
11
57
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
4
6
6
63
®®®®®®® ®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
a
63
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
64
.a`.w.o•.o•.o••o; s..a..a.w.
s��ag;':o°6•'-gaas��a� Fine
sa a':o::sg a s sa
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
66
Fine
Medium
5.6
8.0
8.0
11.0
1
3
2
1
5
1
5
67
72
ewwas' w`c:w`:
.g:. g..g: •�..o..o
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
0 MYO-10/2016
2
2
74
Coarse
16.0
22.6
74
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
1
75
Very Coarse
32
45
75
Very Coarse
45
64
75
Small
64
90
4
4
4
79
Small
90
128
9
9
9
88
Large
128
180
10
10
10
98
Large
180
256
2
2
2
100
?€ Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100 1
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
r- 30
R
a 20
10
UT2 R2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-10/2016 --0--MYl-10/2017 H—MY2-09/2018
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.26
D50 =
0.6
Dfl4 =
109.5
D95 =
162.5
D100 =1
256.0
100
90
80
70
60
50
E
40
r- 30
R
a 20
10
UT2 R2, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO-10/2016 --0--MYl-10/2017 H—MY2-09/2018
UT2 R2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
w
70
u
y
60
a
N
m
50
m
40
30
a
20
c
10
0
oye og ti ti ti�
o h6 titi ti� ��� 3ti o`� ba Co tiyro tiro eye �bti ytiti
oobtiotiyh
yoyo ti°� bo9�
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT2 R2, Cross -Section 35
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT2 R2, Cross -Section 35
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 -
1.74
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
135.1
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
1
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
Medium
0.25
0.50
5
5
6
Coarse
0.5
1.0
21
21
27
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
10
10
37
®®®®®®® ®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
37
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
37
"° "° "°•
4
�"�"�"° Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
1 40
C
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
6
6
46
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
as.�oaa a�a Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
50
"oro;.Medium
11.0 1
16.0
4
4
54
a y� aaa a
Coarse
16.0
22.6
54
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaaao®®®
aoaooaapmac�.�
c�^oaasa..acaoo, Coarse
22.6
32
54
Very Coarse
32
45
1
1
55
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
59
Small
64
90
9
9
68
Small
90 1
128
13
13
81
Large
128
180
19
19
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT2 R2, Cross -Section 35
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 35
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.70
D35 -
1.74
D50 =
11.0
D80. =
135.1
D95 =
164.6
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT2 R2, Cross -Section 35
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
UT2 R2, Cross -Section 35
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
4
20
C
10
0
OOro'LOylh O.1h Oh 1 'L ,y4
0 h6 '6 1ti ,y0 ��6 yti'b y$O �y0 �bti y1ti 011 40p�O
1
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT3, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
Silt/Clay
Dso =
0.4
D84 =
Class
Percent
128.0
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
7
33
40
40
40
Very fine
0.062
0.125
q
40
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
2
2
42
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
10
11
11
53
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
2
2
55
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
2
57
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
30 -
57
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
a
57
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
2
2
59
Fine
5.6
8.0
NE
1
1
1
60
,0
'J, �p
Particle Class Size (mm)
Medium
8.0
11.0
60
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
62
Coarse
16.0
22.6
62
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
1
63
Very Coarse
32
45
1
1
1
64
Very Coarse
45
64
1
2
3
3
67
Small
64
90
8
8
8
75
Small
90
128
19
1
20
20
95
Large
128
180
3
3
3
98
Large
180
256
2
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
111111W11dil
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
Silt/Clay
Dso =
0.4
D84 =
105.5
D95 =
128.0
D100 =
256.0
UT3, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100 -
90
-
80
-
q
70 -
60 -
so -
40 -
30 -
a
20 -
L
10
0
NE
0 J6 IL I-
I -L
,0
'J, �p
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016
0 MYI-10/2017 E MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT3, Cross -Section 37
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT3, Cross -Section 37
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
34.85
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
117.2
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
12
12
12
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
12
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
6
18
Coarse
0.5
1.0
8
8
26
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
4
4
30
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
30
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
m
30
:o;:o;:o;,00 ..�..�.w.,o•.,o•.,,,.,
Fine
4.0
5.6
1 30
20
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
2
2
32
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
Medium
8.0
11.0
32
•oj Yjo;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
2
2
34
aye aaaa•oro:
Coarse
16.0
22.6
34
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaco®®®
eo®ooeepeec�.� Coarse
22.6
32
34
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
38
sss;�s®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
44
Small
64
90
16
16
60
Small
90 1
128
32
32
92
Large
128
180
6
6
98
Large
180
256
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT3, Cross -Section 37
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 37
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.40
D35 =
34.85
D50 =
72.7
D80. =
117.2
D95 =
151.8
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT3, Cross -Section 37
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
UT3, Cross -Section 37
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
20
c
30
0
oobtiotiyh otih oy ti ti ti$
56 titi ti� �ti� 3ti ah 0� �o tiyw tiro �y� �bti y1ti yotio tip
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT4, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.15
D50 =
0.4
Dfl0. =
Class
Percent
141.1
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
27
33
33
33
Very fine
0.062
0.125
w
33
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
6
7
7
40
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
10
13
13
53
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
4
6
6
59
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
m
59
®®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
59
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
59
;a`wo•o•o�•o; �..�..�.w •o •o
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
61
Fine
5.6
8.0
O.1h Oh ti 1- ti�
P h� 0 yti 1�O ,L,1•�0 3� by FP` �O y14 y�0 �y0 �bti yyti
61
yO.1,D� P�06
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018
ewwass w`%;w;v Medium
.g:. g..g: •�..o..o
8.0
11.0
61
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
1
3
3
64
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
4
68
®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®® ®®
Coarse
22.6
32
2
1
2
2
70
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
4
74
®®®®®® Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
5
79
Small
64
90
6
6
6
85
Small
90
128
8
8
8
93
Large
128
180
7
7
7
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
MMUM
111111 Small
362
512
100
Medium
IIIIIIII €......I
512
1024
100
€ Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50 1
100
100 1
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.15
D50 =
0.4
Dfl0. =
85.0
D95 =
141.1
D100 =
180.0
UT4, Reachwide
UT4, Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
Individual Class Percent
90 Silt/Clay
Sand avel
bble r
80
a ro
0 70
1>1 60
90
3 50
�? 40
v 30
If
a 20
w
70
u
y
60
a
N
50
10
m
u
40
m
30
0
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
C
--4 ---MYO-10/2016 tMYl-10/2017 MY2-09/2018
UT4, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
w
70
u
y
60
a
N
50
m
u
40
m
30
20
C
10
0
O.1h Oh ti 1- ti�
P h� 0 yti 1�O ,L,1•�0 3� by FP` �O y14 y�0 �y0 �bti yyti
OOra'LOy�h
yO.1,D� P�06
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
0 MYl-10/2017 ■ MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT4, Cross -Section 38
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT4, Cross -Section 38
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 -
0.77
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
145.5
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
15
15
15
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
15
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
18
Medium
0.25
0.50
12
12
30
Coarse
0.5
1.0
8
8
38
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
2
2
40
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
40
:o;:o;:o;,00..a..a.w.,o•.,o•.,,,.,
4
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
1 42
C
Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
1
1
43
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
%e%s� ess %ca®sa Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
44
•oj Y>w;o;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
4
4
48
aye aaaa•oro:
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
49
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaco®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
3
3
52
Very Coarse
32
45
2
2
54
ssss®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
4
4
58
Small
64
90
7
7
65
Small
90 1
128
10
10
75
Large
128
180
24
24
99
Large
180
256
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
11 i 11 Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT4, Cross -Section 38
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 38
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.16
D35 -
0.77
D50 =
25.4
D80. =
145.5
D95 =
170.1
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT4, Cross -Section 38
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
UT4, Cross -Section 38
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
4
20
C
10
0
oobti p otih oy ti ti ti$
56 titi ti� _11� 3ti ay 'k �o tiyw tiro �"- �bti y1ti yotio ti��� -dso
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT4, Cross -Section 41
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT4, Cross -Section 41
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.92
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
112.7
min
max
D100 =1
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8
8
8
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
8
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
12
Medium
0.25
0.50
12
12
24
Coarse
0.5
1.0
12
12
36
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
2
2
38
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
38
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
m
30
38
:o;:o;:o;,00 ..�..�.w.,o•.,o•.,,,., Fine
4.0
5.6
1 38
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
1
1
39
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
Medium
8.0
11.0
39
•oj Yjo;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
30
39
aye aaaa•oro:
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
40
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaco®®®
eo®ooeepeec�.� Coarse
22.6
32
40
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
44
sss;�s®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
49
Small
64
90
15
15
65
Small
90 1
128
30
30
95
Large
128
180
5
5
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
99
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT4, Cross -Section 41
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 41
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.31
D35 =
0.92
D50 =
64.7
D80. =
112.7
D95 =
128.4
D100 =1
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT4, Cross -Section 41
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
UT4, Cross -Section 41
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
20
c
IL
a
30
0
oobti pop oy ti ti ti�
tib titi tie �ti� 3ti ay ok �o tiyw tiro �y� �bti y1ti yotio tip adso
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT4, Cross -Section 42
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT4, Cross -Section 42
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
9.38
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
113.1
min
max
D100 =1
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
19
19
19
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
19
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
21
Medium
0.25
0.50
5
5
26
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
31
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
m
u
40
31
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
31
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
31
:o;:o;:o;,00 ..�..�.w.,o•.,o•.,,,.,
'-a
Fine
4.0
5.6
1 31
c
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
2
2
33
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
%e%s� ess %ca®sa Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
37
•oj Y>w;o;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
2
2
39
aye aaaa•oro:
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
43
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaco®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
45
Very Coarse
32
45
4
4
49
sss;�s®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
3
3
52
Small
64
90
8
8
60
Small
90 1
128
37
37
97
Large
128
180
3
3
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT4, Cross -Section 42
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 43
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
9.38
D50 =
50.6
D80. =
113.1
D95 =
125.6
D100 =1
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT4, Cross -Section 42
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
UT4, Cross -Section 42
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
'-a
20
c
30
0
000Lotilh o1h Oh Y L ti4
b 56 titi ye �yb 5L ph ob �0 1yv2 ti$o �y� �bti y1ti yotio tip a�so
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UTS, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.13
D50 =
0.6
D84 =
Class
Percent
141.8
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
9
25
34
33
33
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
34
Fine
0.125
0.250
11
11
11
45
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
2
47
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
8
9
9
56
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
1
4
4
60
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
60
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
20
60
Fine
4.0
5.6
10
60
Fine
5.6
8.0
'p
60
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016
0 MYI-10/2017 E MY2-09/2018
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
61
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
63
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
2
65
Coarse
22.6
32
5
2
7
7
72
Very Coarse
32
45
5
1
6
6
77
Very Coarse
45
64
5
1
6
6
83
Small
64
90
7
7
7 1
90
Small
90
128
4
4
4
94
Large
128
180
3
3
3
97
Large
180
256
2
2
2
99
iiiiil Small
256
362
1
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
M111111
Large/very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total l
50
1 52 1
102
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.13
D50 =
0.6
D84 =
66.2
D95 =
141.8
D100 =
362.0
UT5, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100 -
90
-
80
q
70 -
60 -
so -
40 -
30 -
20
0
10
0
'p
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016
0 MYI-10/2017 E MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UTS, Cross -Section 44
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT5, Cross -Section 44
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
31.21
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
72.7
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
12
12
12
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
12
Medium
0.25
0.50
12
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
6
18
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
m
u
40
18
®®®®®®® ®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
18
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
18
�"�"�"° "° "° "°• Fine
4.0
5.6
1 18
20
--
c
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
—
18
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
as.�oaa a�a Medium
8.0
11.0
56 titi ti� �ti� 3ti ay o� �o tiyw ti4o �y� �bti y1ti yotio ti��� -dso
18
"oro;.Medium
11.0 1
16.0
2
2
20
a y� aaa a
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
22
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaaao®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
14
14
36
Very Coarse
32
45
20
20
56
Very Coarse
45
64
22
22
78
Small
64
90
16
16
94
Small
90 1
128
4
4
98
Large
128
180
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT5, Cross -Section 44
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 44
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.79
D35 =
31.21
D50 =
40.6
D84 =
72.7
D95 =
98.3
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT5, Cross -Section 44
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
UT5, Cross -Section 44
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
4
20
--
c
30
—
0
oobtiotiyh o'p oy ti ti ti$
56 titi ti� �ti� 3ti ay o� �o tiyw ti4o �y� �bti y1ti yotio ti��� -dso
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UTS, Cross -Section 46
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT5, Cross -Section 46
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
23.60
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
81.6
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
8
8
8
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
8
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
12
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
16
Coarse
0.5
1.0
16
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
6
6
22
®®®®®®® ®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
22
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
22
�"�"�"° "° "° "°• Fine
4.0
5.6
1 22
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
22
®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
ac�aaa a�a Medium
a,`aasss, a;as
8.0
11.0
4
4
26
"oro;.Medium
11.0 1
16.0
6
6
32
a y$ aaa a
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
34
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaaao®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
42
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
50
Very Coarse
45
64
24
24
74
Small
64
90
14
14
88
Small
90 1
128
6
6
94
Large
128
180
2
2
96
Large
180
256
4
4
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
MH MHURN
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT5, Cross -Section 46
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 46
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.50
D35 =
23.60
D50 =
45.0
D80. =
81.6
D95 =
151.8
D100 =
256.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT5, Cross -Section 46
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
UT5, Cross -Section 46
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
20
c
30
0
OOro'LOyyh O.1h
�,L�o 'k �p '0, 'p �,b �b-, y1ti 1��N tip �0so
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UTS, Cross -Section 48
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT5, Cross -Section 48
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.09
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
78.5
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
32
32
32
Very fine
0.062
0.125
6
6
38
Fine
0.125
0.250
38
Medium
0.25
0.50
38
Coarse
0.5
1.0
38
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
38
®®®®®®® ®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
38
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
m
30
38
�"�"�"° "° "° "°• Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
1 40
Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
2
2
42
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
%e%s� ess %ca®sa Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
46
"oro;.Medium
11.0 1
16.0
2
2
48
a y� aaa a
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
54
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaaao®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
56
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
62
Very Coarse
45
64
16
16
78
Small
64
90
10
10
88
Small
90 1
128
8
8
96
Large
128
180
4
4
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT5, Cross -Section 48
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 48
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
D35 =
0.09
D50 =
18.0
D80. =
78.5
D95 =
122.5
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT5, Cross -Section 48
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 0--MYl-10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
UT5, Cross -Section 48
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
20
c
30
0
OOro'LOylh O.1h Oh 'Y 'L ,y4
Q 56 titi ti° �,L6 yti'b 160 �y0 �6'L yy'L y�.ti0tip �0so
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT2A, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.87
D50 =
1.4
D84 =
Class
Percent
114.5
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
7
10
10
10
Very fine
0.062
0.125
r
10
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
12
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
8
9
9
21
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
12
17
17
38
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
13
11
24
24
63
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
>
63
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
2
2
65
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
1
66
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
67
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
6
6
73
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
75
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
76
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
4
80
Very Coarse
32
45
4
1
5
5
85
Very Coarse
45
64
5
5
5
90
Small
64
90
2
1
3
3
93
Small
90
128
3
3
3
96
Large
128
180
1
2
3
3
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
iiiiil Small
256
362
100
Hilillil Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
...................................
................................... Large/very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total-
50
49
99
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.34
D35 =
0.87
D50 =
1.4
D84 =
42.5
D95 =
114.5
D100 =
256.0
UT2A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100 -
90
-
80
-
r
70 -
60 -
so -
40 -
30 -
>
1
20
10
0
�p y14 '00 '0 0ti 01
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MVO -10/2016
E MYM9/2018 E MYI-10/2017

Reachwide and Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
UT2A, Cross -Section 36
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT2A, Cross -Section 36
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
0.91
Riffle 100 -Count
Class
Percent
60.6
min
max
D100 =
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
12
12
12
Very fine
0.062
0.125
80
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
14
Medium
0.25
0.50
9
9
23
Coarse
0.5
1.0
14
14
37
Very Coarse
1.0 1
2.0
11
11
48
®®®®®®® ®®®®®® Very Fine
2.0
2.8
48
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
m
30
48
:o;:o;:o;,00 ..a..a.w.,o•.,o•.,,,.,
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
1 50
20
®®®®®®®®®**®®®®®®® Fine
®®®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®®
5.6
8.0
6
6
56
g®®®®®®®®®eat+ ®®®®®®®
%e%s� ess %ca®sa Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
60
•oj Y>w;o;;o;;o;
Medium
11.0 1
16.0
4
4
64
aye aaaa•oro:
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
66
®®®®®®®®® ®®®®®®®
®®®®®® ®®®®
®®®®oaco®®®
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
68
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
73
sss;�s®®fie+s�&o�zz
Very Coarse
45
64
13
13
86
Small
64
90
7
7
93
Small
90 1
128
5
5
98
Large
128
180
2
2
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
MUN
Medium
Illllliillllll
512
1024
100
€iiiii Large/Very Large
1 1024 1
2048
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT2A, Cross -Section 36
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
Cross -Section 36
Channel materials (mm)
D1fi=
0.29
D35 =
0.91
D5o =
5.6
D80. =
60.6
D95 =
103.6
D100 =
180.0
100
90
80
70
60
Z 50
E
�? 40
30
V
a 20
10
UT2A, Cross -Section 36
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
t MYO-10/2016 MVI -10/2017 tMY2-09/2018
UT2A, Cross -Section 36
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
=
70
d
u
y
a
60
50
m
u
40
m
30
4
20
c
"'1
30
0
d
oobti p otih oy ti ti ti�
56 w titi tie �ti� 3ti �y o� �o tiyvl ti$o �y� �bti y1ti yotio 4ad��
Particle Class Size (mm)
0 MYO-10/2016
• MYl-10/2017 0 MY2-09/2018

APPENDIX 5. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Reach
6
Monitoring Year
Date of Occurrence
6/19/2017
Method
Candy Creek Reach 4
—
MY1
Stream Gage
MY2
7/30/2018
9/17/2018
10/11/2018
Candy Creek Reach 2
MY2
10/11/2018
Stream Gage
UT1C
MY2
2/9/2018
Stream Gage
3/9/2018
10/22/2018
UT2
MY2
1/27/2018
Stream Gage
7/30/2018
9/17/2018
10/11/2018
UT2A
MY2
2/9/2018
Stream Gage
UT3
MY2
10/11/2018
Stream Gage
UT4
MY2
1/31/2018
Stream Gage
7/30/2018
9/17/2018
10/11/2018
UT5
MY1
4/24/2017
Stream Gage
6/19/2017
MY2
1/31/2018
Stream Gage
2/6/2018
3/9/2018
7/30/2018
9/17/2018
10/11/2018

Stream Gage Plot
Candy Creek Mitigation Site (DMS Project No. 96315)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
Candy Creek Mitigation Site: Stream Gage for UT1D (XS 29)
Monitoring Year 2 - 2018
744.0
4.0
743.5
3.5
743.0
_ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ _
3.0
742.5
2.5
742.0
d
c
-
741.5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
2.0
`c
s
3 741.0
1.s
740.5
1.0
740.0
0.5
739.5
III739.0
0.0
c a c m a +• > u
a 75
LL g a g < n o z° o
Rainfall — UT1D (XS 29) Water Depth — — Thalweg Elevation — • Bankfull