20120396 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_2018_20181205

MONITORING YEAR 3
ANNUAL REPORT
Final
MOORES FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
Surry County, NC
DEQ Contract 6500
DMS Project Number 94709
DWR # 12-0396
USACE Action ID SAW -2011-02257
Data Collection Period: April -October 2018
Submission Date: December 5, 2018
PREPARED FOR:
rk�
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Mitigation Project Name Moores Fork
DMS ID 94709
River Basin Yadidn
Cataloging Unit 03040101
County Surry USACE Action ID 201142267
Date Project instituter] 10118/2010 NCDWR Permit No 20124396
Data Prepared 5/22/2018
Credit Release Milestone
Potential credits Mitt alien Plan
PolentialCmdkr A -built Su
Potential Credds (IRTAppmved)
Scheduled
Releases
(Stream)
Warm Cool
11,609.870
11,70&820
11,609,862
Cold
Anticipated Actual
Release Year Release Dare
(Stream) (Stream)
scheduled
Releases
(Forester])
woaand,Cnerits:.
Rlpadan Riparian Non Non+patlan
Wall,. dvedne scheduled
Releases
(Coastal)
Coastal
Anticipator] Actual
Release Year Release DMe
(Welland) (W"and)
1 She Establishment
NIA
WA
WA
NIA
WA
WA
WA
2 Year 0l AwSalh
30%
3,520.261
2016
9/302016
WA
NIA
WA
WA
3 earl Monitorin
10%
1,160.982
2012
8182012
WA
WA
WA
WA
IRTAtluamear
32.800
8182012
PercentageReleased
60%
60%
4 ear 2 Monitoring)10%
1,160.982
2018
4252018
WA
WA
WA
WA
5 ear 3 Monitoring)10%
3,955500
2019
$562.400
WA
WA
WA
NIA
6 Near 4Monitorin
5%
2020
Released Amounts (credits)
WA
We
WA
NIA
2 Year 5 Monitoring)
10%
2021
WA
WA
WA
NIA
BYear 6 MoniWdP
S%
2022
NIA
WA
WA
No,
9 Year 2 M.liftfired
2023 1
835.400
1 NIA
WA
WA I
NIA
Stream BanaNll Standard
10%
1,180.982
2018
4252018
NIA
NIA
NIA I
NIA
Total Credhs Releasedto Date
6,965.921
•NOTe: Adjusbnent required due toIRT concerns on howthe as4ouiit credits were calculated
DEBITS (releaser] credits only)
Ratios 1 1.141224 228581
1 - For NCDMS, no credits are released during the first milestone
EEEneaIRT
Adjustr] As$uilt AmouMS(Fort and acres)
FO7
6,592.000
6,645.000
4,279.000
IRT Adjted As$uit Amounts lm6igation credur)
5,]26.001
$902,066
855.800
PercentageReleased
60%
60%
60%
3,955500
3,982.000
$562.400
Released Amounts (credits)
3,465.601
1,244339
513.480
NCOWRPennit USACEAdon ID Project Name
NCDOT TIP R -2239C-
1999-0492 1999-20¢33 Moen, of US 421
835.400
192.500
1,283)00
2015-0402 201401300 courthouse Odve EdonOion
561.510
NCDOT TIP R2229C-
1999A492 199&20833 Wdenin9 of US 421
231.950
Remaining Amounts (not l acres)
607300
3$01.190
3,982.000
1,051.250
Remaining AmouMs(credits)
602.200
2804.922
1,244.239
210.350
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 authortzstion or written DA approval for poo ects where DA permit Issuance is not required
3- A 10% reserve of credits is to be held back unW the bankfull event performance standard has been mel

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

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
December 5, 2018
Mr. Matthew Reid
Western Project Manager
Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Dr., Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Yadkin River Basin — CU# 03040101
Surry County, North Carolina
NCEEP Project # 94709
Contract No. 6500
Dear Mr. Reid:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) has reviewed the Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) comments
from the Draft Monitoring Year 3 report for the Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project. The following
Wildlands responses to DMS's report comments are noted in italics lettering.
DMS comment; Two overhead lines were identified on a recent site visit. One crosses Corn Trib, and
the other crosses Moores Fork. Please see the attached asbuilt sheets for locations. Please assume 20'
utility easement and reduce credit in these sections by 50%. A brief discussion can be added in Section
1: Project Overview. Please update references to mitigation asset totals in the report with the revised
number as necessary.
Wildlands response; Text was added to the second paragraph in Section 1 of the report to describe the
reduction of 10.4 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) on Moores Fork and 4.1 SMUs on Corn Trib because of
the 20' overhead powerline easement.
DMS comment; 1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern: DMS has hired a contractor to treat invasives at
the site. The contractor has treated the site multiple times this summer and fall: July 5-6, July 10-12,
August 24 and 27, September 3 and 5, and November 28-30. The contractor will continue to work on
the site to eradicate the invasives.
Wildlands response; Text in Section 1.2.2 has been added to indicate that invasive species treatment
occurred in the summer and fall.
DMS comment; Table 1: Please update table after determining utility crossing losses.
Wildlands response; Table 1 was updated with the reductions from the utility crossings on Moores Fork
and Corn Trib for a total of 11,588 SMUs.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
DMS comment; Table 2: Please add Invasive Species Treatment to table for MY3 (Jul, Aug, Sep and
Nov 2018).
Wildlands response; Invasive Species Treatment dates for MY3 were added to Table 2.
DMS comment; CCPV: Thanks for providing updated invasive species polygons. Please continue to
update as treatment occurs and populations are reduced. This map is a useful tool for the contractor
treating the site.
Wildlands response; Wildlands will continue to update the CCPV figures as treatment of invasive species
occurs and populations are reduced.
DMS comment; CCPV: Please update map with the two additional utility lines.
Wildlands response; The CCPV figures have been updated with the additional utility lines crossing on
Moores Fork and Corn Trib.
DMS comment; DMS made a site visit on November 26, 2018. We are exploring the possibility of
remedial action to some areas depicted on the CCPV as being problem areas. DMS will coordinate
with Wildlands when final decisions have been made.
Wildlands response; Thank you for this information. Wildlands will look for communication from DMS
about possible remedial action to some areas of concern depicted on the CCPV.
DMS comment; Cross-sections: Please turn off markers for all years except MY3.
Wildlands response; All markers have been turned off except for MY3 on cross-section plots.
DMS comment; Please add the attached treatment logs to an Appendix F.
Wildlands response; Invasive species treatment logs were added to an Appendix F.
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,
I 41
Kirsten Y. Gimbert
Project Manager
kgimbert@w ildlandseng.com
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S. Mint Street, # 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
restored, enhanced, and preserved approximately 19,587 linear feet (LF) of Moores Fork and 13
unnamed tributaries (UTs), provided livestock fencing and alternative water sources to keep livestock
out of the streams, removed invasive plant species across the project, and established native riparian
buffers. The restoration project was developed to fulfill stream mitigation requirements accepted by
the DMS for the Upper Yadkin River Basin (HUC 03040101). The Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
(the Site) will net 11,588 stream mitigation units through a combination of restoration, enhancement I
and 11, and preservation.
The Site is within a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) identified in the Upper Yadkin River Basin
Restoration Priority (RBRP) plan (NCDENR, 2009). The RBRP identified the Stewarts Creek 14 -digit HUC
03040101100010 as a TLW. Agriculture is the primary land use in the watershed (36% agriculture land
cover and only 3% impervious cover) and the RBRP identified degraded riparian buffers as the major
stressor to water quality. The Site is also located within the identified as a priority subwatershed for
stream restoration and agricultural BMPs during the initial Upper Yadkin -Ararat River local watershed
planning (LWP).
The final design was completed in June of 2013. Construction activities and as -built surveys were
completed in December of 2014. Planting of the site took place in February of 2015. A large flood event
with an estimated return interval of 50 to 100 years occurred at the site on April 18-19, 2015, causing
damage to the main stem of Moores Fork. This damage was repaired in March and April of 2016, and a
second as -built survey was performed on the repaired areas in April of 2016. The baseline monitoring
efforts began in June of 2016 and monitoring year one efforts were initiated in late October of 2016. The
Monitoring Year 3 (MY3) monitoring activities were completed in October 2018.
The Site is on track to meet MY3 success criteria for vegetation, geomorphology, and hydrology
performance standards. The MY3 vegetation survey resulted in an average stem density of 458 planted
stems per acre. The Site has met the interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre, with 9 of the
12 plots (75%) individually meeting this requirement. The MY3 vegetation monitoring and visual
assessment revealed invasive plant populations have responded to treatment that occurred in Summer
and Fall of 2018. Morphological surveys indicate that the channel dimensions are stable and functioning
as designed with minor deviation from the as -built baseline dimensions. A few instances of localized
bank erosion and structure instability are present on the Site. At least one bankfull event occurred
during MY3 and was recorded by the Moores Fork crest gage and debris indicators were observed on
Silage Tributary. The performance standard of two recorded bankfull events in separate monitoring
years has been met for both Moores Fork and Silage Tributary.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - FINAL

MOORES FORK STREAM MITIGATION PROJECT
Year 3 Monitoring Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1:
PROJECT OVERVIEW.....................................................................................................1-1
Appendix A
1.1 Project
Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
Project Vicinity Map
1.2 Monitoring Year 3 Data Assessment..........................................................................................1-2
Project Component/Asset Map
1.2.1
Vegetation Assessment......................................................................................................1-2
Table 2
1.2.2
Vegetation Areas of Concern.............................................................................................1-3
Project Contact Table
1.2.3
Stream Assessment............................................................................................................1-3
Table 5
1.2.4
Stream Areas of Concern...................................................................................................1-3
Visual Assessment Data
1.2.5
Hydrology Assessment.......................................................................................................1-4
Table 6a -j
1.3 Monitoring Year 3 Summary......................................................................................................1-4
Table 7
Section2:
METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................2-1
Stream Photographs
Section3:
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................3-1
Appendix C
kPPENDICES
Appendix A
General Tables and Figures
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contact Table
Table 4a -b
Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Table 5
Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3.0-3.6
Integrated Current Condition Plan View
Table 6a -j
Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Table 7
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Stream Photographs
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
Table 8
Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Table 9
CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Table 10
Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Appendix D
Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 11a -b
Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table 12a -b
Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross -Section)
Cross -Section Plots
Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Appendix E
Hydrology Summary Data and Plots
Table 13
Verification of Bankfull Events
Monthly Rainfall Data
Appendix F
Invasive Species Treatment Logs
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report - FINAL ii

Section 1: PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Site was implemented under a design -bid -build contract with DMS in Surry County, NC. The Site is
located in the Yadkin River Basin; eight -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03040101 and the 14 -digit Hydrologic
Unit Code (HUC) 03040101100010 (Figure 1). Located in the Piedmont physiographic province (NCGS
2004), the project watershed primarily includes agricultural land cover. The drainage area for the lower
end of Moores Fork is 1,527 acres and the drainage area for Silage Tributary is 156 acres. The site is
located approximately 0.25 mile north of NC 89 on Horton Road. The project site is located on both
sides of Horton Road. Latitude and longitude for the site are 36.506671 N and -80.704115 W,
respectively (Figure 1).
The NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) restored, enhanced, and preserved approximately
19,587 linear feet (LF) of Moores Fork and 13 unnamed tributaries (UTs), provided livestock fencing and
alternative water sources to keep livestock out of the streams, removed invasive plant species across
the project, and established native riparian buffers. The restoration project was developed to fulfill
stream mitigation requirements accepted by the DMS for the Upper Yadkin River Basin (HUC 03040101).
Mitigation work within the Site included restoring and enhancing 15,308 LF and preserving 4,279 LF of
stream. The Moores Fork Stream Restoration Project will net 11,588 stream mitigation units (SMUs)
through a combination of restoration, enhancement I and 11, and preservation. Due to overhead utility
easements that cross project streams, 7.8 SMUs were removed on Silage Tributary Reach 2 (starting at
STA 30+10.49 and ending at STA 30+33.95), 10.4 SMUs were removed on Moores Fork (starting at STA
37+22.01 and ending at STA 37+42.79), and 4.1 SMUs were removed on Corn Trib (starting at STA
19+38.58 and ending at STA 19+59.15) as shown in Table 1 of Appendix A.
The final design was completed in June of 2013. Construction activities and as -built surveys were
completed in December of 2014. Planting of the site took place in March of 2015. A large flood event
with an estimated return interval of 50 to 100 years occurred at the site on April 18-19, 2015, causing
damage to the main stem of Moores Fork. This damage was repaired in March and April of 2016, and a
second as -built survey was performed on the repaired areas in April of 2016. The baseline monitoring
efforts began in June of 2016 and monitoring year one efforts were initiated in late October of 2016. The
Monitoring Year 3 monitoring activities were completed in October 2018. More detailed information
related to the project activity, history, and contacts can be found in Appendix A, Tables 1 and 2.
Directions and a map of the Site are provided in Figure 1 and project components are illustrated for the
Site in Figure 2. Please refer to the Project Component Map (Figure 2) for the stream features and to
Table 1 for the project component and mitigation credit information for the Site. This report documents
the results of the monitoring year three efforts (MY3).
1.1 Project Goals and Objectives
Prior to construction activities, dairy and farming operations on the site had deforested riparian buffers
and allowed direct livestock access to the stream, leading to elevated temperatures and nutrients.
Channel straightening and dredging throughout much of the project had also contributed to channel
degradation. Table 11 in Appendix D present the pre -restoration conditions in detail.
This mitigation site is intended to provide numerous ecological benefits within the Yadkin River Basin.
The project goals identified in the Mitigation Plan (Confluence, 2012) include:
• Improve water quality in Moores Fork and the UTs through reductions in sediment and nutrient
inputs from local sources;
• Create conditions for dynamic equilibrium of water and sediment movement between the
supply reaches and project reaches;
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 1 1

• Promote floodwater attenuation and secondary functions associated with more frequent and
extensive floodwater contact times;
• Improve in -stream habitat by increasing the diversity of bedform features;
• Enhance and protect native riparian vegetation communities; and
• Reduce fecal, nutrient, and sediment loads to project streams by promoting and implementing
livestock best management practices.
The project objectives have been defined as follows:
• Restoration of the dimension, pattern, profile of approximately 1,828 LF of Moores Fork Reach 2
and 243 LF of the Pond Tributary;
• Restoration of the dimension and profile (Enhancement 1) of the channel for approximately
2,832 LF of Moores Fork Reach 3, 900 LF of Silage Reach 1, 2,448 LF of Silage Reach 2, 300 LF of
Barn Reach 1 and 112 LF of Corn Reach 2;
• Limited channel work coupled with livestock exclusion, gully stabilization, invasive species
control and buffer planting (Enhancement II) on approximately 761 LF of Moores Fork Reach 1,
167 LF of Cow Tributary 1,767 LF of Cow Tributary 2, 3,134 LF of Barn Reach 2, 1,350 LF of Corn
Reach 1, and 466 LF of UT1;
• Livestock exclusion fencing and other best management practice installations;
• Invasive plant species control measures across the entire project wherever necessary; and
• Preservation of approximately 4,279 LF of relatively un -impacted forested streams (UTs 2, 3, 6,
7, 8, 9, 10) in a permanent conservation easement.
1.2 Monitoring Year 3 Data Assessment
Annual monitoring was conducted during MY3 (April to October 2018) to assess the condition of the
project. The stream restoration success criteria for the Site follows the approved performance standards
presented in the Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project Final Mitigation Plan (Confluence, 2012).
Annual monitoring will be conducted for seven years to provide a project data chronology that will
facilitate an understanding of project status and trends.
1.2.1 Vegetation Assessment
A total of 12 vegetation monitoring plots were established during the baseline monitoring within the
project easement areas using a standard 10 by 10 meter plot. Please refer to Figure 3 in Appendix B for
the vegetation monitoring locations. At the end of year five of the monitoring period, the vegetation
success criterion is the survival of 260 planted stems per acre in the riparian corridor along restored and
enhanced reaches. The final vegetation success criterion is the survival of 210 planted stems per acre at
the end of year seven of the monitoring period. The interim measure of vegetation success for the Site is
the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period.
The MY3 vegetation survey was completed in August 2018, resulting in an average stem density of 458
planted stems per acre. The Site has met the interim requirement of 320 stems per acre, with 9 of the
12 plots (75%) individually meeting this requirement. Vegetation plots 2 and 8, both having densities of
283 stems per acre, did not meet the interim success criteria. However, they still meet the MY5 density
requirements of 260 planted stems per acre. Vegetation plot 3, with 242 stems per acre, still meets the
MY7 density requirement of 210 stems per acre. The planted stem mortality was approximately 3% of
the MY2 stem count which was 472 stems per acre. There is an average of 11 stems per plot.
Approximately 2.1% of the planted stems scored a vigor of 1, indicating that they are unlikely to survive.
This low vigor rating is due to damage from storm events, suffocation from dense herbaceous cover,
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
400 Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 1-2

insects, vine strangulation, deer herbivory, or other unknown factors. Please refer to Appendix B for
vegetation plot photographs and Appendix C for vegetation data tables.
1.2.2 Vegetation Areas of Concern
Several vegetation problem areas of invasive plant populations were identified in MY3 throughout the
Site. Species included: kudzu (Pueraria montana), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Winter Creeper (Euonymus fortunei),
Oriental Bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus), and Japanese stilt grass (Microstegium vimineum). The
supplemental treatment of invasive species that occurred in the Summer and Fall of 2018 significantly
reduced areas of Chinese privet, multiflora rose, and kudzu. Along the floodplain of Moores Fork Reach
3, areas of Kudzu and Chinese privet persist after the treatment. Many planted stems continue to be
damaged from vine strangulation along Barn Tributary Reach 1. DMS has hired a contractor to treat
invasives at the Site. The contractor treated the Site multiple times this summer and fall: July 5-6, July
10-12, August 24 and 27, September 3 and 5, and November 28-30. The contractor will continue to work
on the Site to eradicate the invasives species. Areas of invasive species that persist throughout the
conservation easement are indicated on Figure 3 in Appendix B.
The site has a strong herbaceous cover consisting of various species of clover, rye grass, fescue, and
sedge. Isolated bare/poorly vegetated areas that were observed in MY2 have herbaceous cover that is
becoming established in MY3. These vegetation areas of concern are shown in Figure 3 in Appendix B.
1.2.3 Stream Assessment
Morphological surveys for MY3 were conducted in June 2018. In general, MY3 riffle pebble counts in
Moores Fork indicate coarser sediment size distribution as compared to MYO. Cross-section data
indicate that channel dimensions for Moores Fork have changed very little since the April 2016 baseline
data was collected. Riffle width to depth ratios have changed only modestly, and pool depths are being
maintained close to baseline depths. At Moores Fork riffle cross-section 2, the width to depth ratio has
increased compared to MYO but appears stable. At Moores Fork pool cross-section 6, an increase in
bankfull cross-sectional area was observed in MY2 where a boulder of a stone toe structure has been
undermined on the outer bend of the channel. Additional scour behind the structure at this bend was
observed in MY3.
Along Silage Tributary, MY3 riffle pebble counts indicate similar or coarser sediment size distribution as
compared to MYO. Silage Tributary Reach 1 MY3 indicates somewhat larger deviations from the baseline
in part due to the small channel dimensions. On Silage Tributary riffle cross-section 1, scour along the
right bank has caused an increase in bankfull bank height ratio. Similarly on Silage Tributary riffle cross-
sections 3 and 6, the survey data indicates some channel bed scour due to concentrated flow against a
small bar that has formed, resulting in a decrease in width to depth ratios as compared to MYO. For the
remaining cross-sections, results indicate that channel dimensions are stable and functioning well.
Please refer to Appendix D for cross-section plots and morphological summary tables.
1.2.4 Stream Areas of Concern
Stream areas of concern include instances of bank erosion and sediment deposition. In MY3, a
significant area of erosion was observed on the left bank of Moores Fork Reach 2 near STA 35+60.
Moores Fork Reach 3 continues to have localized areas of bank erosion near STA 49+00 and just
upstream of the confluence of UT8 (STA 44+50). Three structures have been undermined including a log
vane structure at STA 41+10, a stone toe boulder at STA 47+50, and root wads at STA 44+50.
Additionally, headcuts are visible at both the UT8 and UT10 wetland confluences located along Moores
Fork Reach 3. Silage Tributary Reach 2 has new or expanded bank erosion (STA 22+30, 30+30, 31+20,
and 34+50). Several structures along Silage Tributary Reach 1 and 2 have been undermined including log
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
400 Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 1-3

structures at STA 15+80, 18+20, 26+90, 31+90, 33+10 and a boulder step footer at STA 35+20. These
areas will continue to be monitored in future years for signs of accelerated instability. Stream areas of
concern are indicated in Table 6 and Figure 3 in Appendix B.
1.2.5 Hydrology Assessment
Bankfull data collected from Moores Fork Reach 2 and the Silage Tributary Reach 2 on April 12, 2018
indicate that a bankfull event occurred. A crest gage bankfull measurement was documented for
Moores Fork and debris wracklines on the floodplain was evident for the Silage Tributary. NCCRONOS
daily rainfall data suggest that the bankfull event may have occurred around March 25, 2018. Two
bankfull flow events must be documented on restoration reaches within the seven-year monitoring
period and must occur in separate years. Therefore, the performance standard has been met for the Site
in MY3. Refer to Appendix E for hydrologic data and graphs.
1.3 Monitoring Year 3 Summary
The Site is on track to meet monitoring success criteria for MY7 vegetation, geomorphology, and
hydrology performance standards. The MY3 vegetation survey resulted in an average stem density of
458 planted stems per acre. The Site has met the interim requirement of 320 planted stems per acre,
with 9 of the 12 plots (75%) individually meeting this requirement. The MY3 vegetation monitoring and
visual assessment revealed invasive plant populations have responded to treatment that occurred in
Spring 2018. Morphological surveys indicate that the channel dimensions are stable and functioning as
designed with minor deviation from the as -built baseline dimensions. A few instances of localized bank
erosion and structure instability are present on the Site. At least one bankfull event occurred during
MY3 and was recorded by the Moores Fork crest gage and debris indicators were observed on Silage
Tributary. The performance standard of two recorded bankfull events in separate monitoring years has
been met for both Moores Fork and Silage Tributary.
Summary information and data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these annual monitoring reports can be found in the Mitigation Plan
documents available on DMS's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices
are available from DMS upon request.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
400 Monitoring Year 3 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.
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 2-1

Section 3: REFERENCES
Confluence Engineering, PC. 2012. Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Plan. NCEEP, Raleigh, NC.
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.2. Retrieved from: http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/protocol/cvs-eep-protocol-v4.2-lev1-
2.pdf
North Carolina Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database (NCCRONOS).
2016. State Climate Office of North Carolina. Version 2.7.2. MT Airy 2 W. Station ID No. 315890.
Accessed October 2017.
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2016. Surface Water Classifications. Retrieved
from http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-
standards/classifications
NCDENR. 2009. Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration Priorities. Retrieved from
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-planning/watershed-planning-
documents/yadkin-river-basin
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS). 2004. Physiography of North Carolina. Map compiled by the
Division of Land Resources. Raleigh.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1998. North Carolina Geology.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/energy-mineral-land-resources/north-carolina-geological-
s u rvey/
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
Monitoring Year 3 Annual Report -FINAL 3-1

APPENDIX A. General Tables and Figures

�y Cr°ck
r
Project Location
-!F �� _ ■ Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
VIRGINIA
NORTH GARQLINA
jar Na
k6Q,
f �G
s C
Slcyvdrjs C� � V
ve �J
03040101100010
041 ,^
03040101090020
JI
0IF
v
' � fir, .-.��,-- �•� �� � Bza�h�"a '
yr • _ ^ • iprners GAS
s Beech ro
The subject project site is an environmental restoration site of Pine■ Crean o
the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality aslc Golf h�urlr t
(NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is Course "' - " (=hand*I
encompassed by a recorded conservation easement, but is a
bordered by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement Directions to Site:
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not From Charlotte: Head north on Interstate 77 north of Elkin, NC, take
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and exit 100 (North Carolina 89) toward Galax and Mt. Airy. Turn right
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in onto North Carolina 89 (West Pine Street) and travel approximately
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration 2 miles. Turn left onto Pine Ridge Road and continue 0.2 mile to a
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their left turn onto Horton Road. The project site is located on both sides
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by of Horton Road. Latitude and longitude for the site are 36.506671 N
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles and -80.704115 W respectively.
and activites requires prior coordination with DMS.
X
WILDLAND5 0 0.5 1 Mile
cr. r,�eak�tic: � I I I I I
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Surry County, NC

1
adwo �j.l
yw
y:rlr tlr lirt•r frrlh
..Aft.
soon, Conservation Easement
—Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level 1; Reduced Credit
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Stream Preservation
Reach Break
j Non Project Streams
'1 0 Existing Wetland
Overhead Power Easement
iya,hi
ti►
l,ryi,r+—
\�'f f iR •►
i
►�I
`•`'•'♦ r �
> rF FF►�■►'For+ `►r+ •��
• • ► ++lt �
.r
► ►1
,r ►
y�{am,��w-� �►
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
1p Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Site
W I L D LA N D S , 0 700 Feet DMS Project No. 94709
tl: C�iVCklINC•
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Surry County, NC

Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Type I Restoration I Enhancement I I Enhancement II I Preservation
Total 2071.000 5757.790 2902.953 855.800
N/A - Not Applicable
1Project components and mitigation credits reverted back to Mitigation Plan totals as requested by IRT.
7Project Componen7�7
Reach ID
Pre -project
Footage or
Acreage
Restoration Footage
or Acreage
Restoration Level
Restoration or
Rest Equiv.
Mitigation
Ratio
Mitigation
CreditsStationing
Notes
Moores Reach 1STA
989-1750
761
761
N/A
Ell
2.5:1
304.400
Moores Reach 2
STA 1750-3578
1,636
1,828
P2
R
1:1
1,828.000
Moores Reach 3
STA 3578-6410
2,856
2,832
P2/3
EI
1:1
2,821.610
Reduction in 10.39 SMU because of 20'
1 overhead powerline easement
Silage Reach 1
STA 1000-1900
900
900
P1
EI
1:1
900.000
Silage Reach 2
STA 1900-4348
2,448
2,448
P3
EI
1.5:1
1,624.180
Reduction in 7.82 SMU because of 20'
overhead powerline easement.
Cow Trib 1
STA 1219-1386
167
167
P4
Ell
1.5:1
111.333
Cow Trib 2
STA 1331-2098
767
767
P4
Ell
1.5:1
511.333
Pond Trib
STA 1000-1243
194
243
P2
R
1:1
243.000
Barn Reach 1
STA 1000-1300
300
300
P3
EI
1:1
300.000
Barn Reach 2
STA 1350-3746; STA
4069-4757
3,134
3,134
N/A
Ell
2.5:1
1,253.600
Corn Reach 1
STA 1000-2350
1,350
1,350
N/A
Ell
2.5:1
535.886
Reduction in 4.114 SMU because of 20'
overhead powerline
Corn Reach 2
STA 2350-2462
112
112
P3
EI
1:1
112.000
UT1
STA 1000-1466
466
466
N/A
Ell
2.5:1
186.400
Preservation Reaches
Restoration Level
UTs 2,3,6,7,8,9,10
Stream (Linear Feet)
4,279 4,279
Length and
Riparian Wetland (acres)
N/A
Area Summations
Non -riparian
Wetland (acres)
P 5:1
'
Buffer (Square feet)
855.800
1�11
Upland (acres)
Riverine
Non-Riverine
Restoration
2,071
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
6,592
Enhancement II
6,645
Creation
Preservation
4,279
High Preservation
Quality
N/A - Not Applicable
1Project components and mitigation credits reverted back to Mitigation Plan totals as requested by IRT.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
ctivity or Deliverable
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Data Collection Complete
Completion or Delivery
Mitigation Plan
Asheville, NC 28806
December -2011
November -2012
Final Design — Construction Plans
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
N/A
June -2013
Construction (Repairs)
Mount Airy, NC 27030
N/A
December -2014 (April -2016)
TemporaryS&E Mix Applied
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
N/A
December -2014 (April -2016)
Permanent Seed Mix Applied
Raleigh, NC 27629
N/A
December -2014 (April -2016)
Containerized, Bare Root and B&B Plantings For Reach/Segments
N/A
February -2015 (April -2016)
Invasive Species Treatment
May -2016
May -2016
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Vegetation Survey
June -2016
August -2016
150 Pine Ridge Road
Stream Survey
June -2016
Seeding Contractor POC
Invasive Species Treatment
Seed Mix Sources
September -2016
September -2016
Year 1 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
October -2016
November -2016
1430 South Mint Street, Ste 104
Stream Survey
November -2016
Year 2 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
August -2017
November -2017
Kirsten Gimbert 704-332-7754, ext 110
Stream Survey
June 2017 -July 2017
Invasive Species Treatment
July, Aug, Sept & Nov 2018
November -2018
Year 3 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
August -2018
November -2018
Stream Survey
June -2018
Year Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
2019
November -2019
Stream Survey
2019
Year 5 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
2020
November -2020
Stream Survey
2020
Year 6 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
2021
November -2021
Stream Survey
2021
Year 7 Monitoring
Vegetation Survey
2022
November -2022
Stream Survey
2022
N/A - Not Applicable
Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Designer
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
167-B Haywood Road
Asheville, NC 28806
Primary project design POC
Andrew Bick 828-606-0306
Construction Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Construction contractor POC
Wayne Taylor 336-341-6489
Survey Contractor
Turner Land Surveying, PLLC
PO Box 41023
Raleigh, NC 27629
Survey Contractor POC
David Turner 919-623-5095
Planting Contractor
Keller Environmental, LLC
7921 Haymarket Lane
Raleigh, NC 27615
Planting Contractor POC
Jay Keller 919-749-8259
Seeding Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc.
150 Pine Ridge Road
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Seeding Contractor POC
Wayne Taylor 336-341-6489
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources 336-855-6363
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Foggy Mountain Nursery 336-384-5323
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Ste 104
Charlotte, NC 28205
704.332.7754
Stream Monitoring POC
Kirsten Gimbert 704-332-7754, ext 110
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Kirsten Gimbert 704-332-7754, ext 110

Table 4a. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
N/A Not -applicable
Project
Information
Project Name
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
County
Surry
Project Area (acres)
—140
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36.506671 N, 80.704115 W
Project Watershed
Summary Information
6�� IEL..
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03040101100010
DWR Sub -basin
Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-02
Project Drainage Area (acres)
1,527 ac (2.39 mi
ProjectDrainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Cropland and Pasture, Confined Animal Operations
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Moores Fork Reach 1 & 2
Moores Fork Reach 3
Silage
Cow Trib 1
Cow Trib 2
Length of Reach Post Construction (LF)
2,636
2,885
3,348
167
767
Valley classification (Rosgen)
VIII
VIII
II/IV
II
II
Drainage area (acres)
1,193
1,527
156
4
16
NCDWQ stream identification score
35
34.5
23.5
20
23.5
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS -IV
WS -IV
WS -IV
WS -IV
WS -IV
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type)
C4
C4
G4/C4
G5
G5
Evolutionary trend
C -F
C -F
G -F
G
G
Underlying mapped soils
CsA, FsE
CsA, FsE
FeD2
FeD2
FeD2
Drainage class
well drained
well drained
well drained
well drained
well drained
Soil Hydric status
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
Slope
0.008
0.006
0.030
0.056
0.038
FEMA classification
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Native vegetation community
Felsic Mesic Forest
Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest Felsic Mesic Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
0
Wetland Summary
0
Information
0
0
0
Parameters
Wetland 1
Wetland 2
Wetland 3
Wetland 4
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.49
0.04
0.08
0.15
Wetland Type
riparian non-riverine
riparian non-riverine
riparian non-riverine
riparian non-riverine
Mapped Soil Series
FsE
FsE
CsA
FsE & CsA
Drainage class
well drained
well drained
well drained
well drained
Soil Hydric Status
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
Source of Hydrology
UT9 & UT10
UT8
Toe seep
Toe seep
Hydrologic Impairment
none
none
none
none
Native vegetation community
Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
0
Regulatory
0
Considerations
0
0
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved? Supporting Documentation
Waters of the United States — Section 404
Y
Y USACE ID No. SAW -2011-02257
Waters of the United States — Section 401
Y
Y
NCDWR # 12-0396
Endangered Species Act
Y
Y
CE Approved 12/21/11
Historic Preservation Act
N
N/A
-
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management
Act (CAMA)
N
N/A
-
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
N
N/A
-
Essential Fisheries Habitat
N
N/A
-
N/A Not -applicable

Table 4b. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
N/A Not -applicable
Project Information
Project Name
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
County
Surry
Project Area (acres)
-140
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36.506671 N, 80.704115 W
Project Watershed Summary
Information
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
03040101100010
DWR Sub -basin
Pee Dee River Subbasin 03-07-02
Project Drainage Area (acres)
1,527 ac (2.39 miz)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
<5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
Cropland and Pasture, Confined Animal Operations
Summary Information
IReach
Parameters
Pond Trib
Barn Reach 1 & 2
Corn Reach 1 & 2
UT1
Length of Reach Post Construction (LF)
243
3,434
1,452
466
Valley classification (Rosgen)
VIII
IV
IV
IV
Drainage area (acres)
27
184
30
6
NCDWQ stream identification score
20
36.5
21
23
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS -IV
WS -IV
WS -IV
WS -IV
Morphological Description (Rosgen stream type)
64/5
G4
G4
134
Evolutionary trend
B -C -F
G -F
G -F
-
Underlying mapped soils
CsA
FeD2, FsE
CSA, FsE
FeD2
Drainage class
well drained
well drained
well drained
well drained
Soil Hydric status
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
not hydric
Slope
0.029
0.025
0.057
0.040+/ -
FEMA classification
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Not in SFHA
Native vegetation community
Felsic Mesic Forest
Felsic Mesic Forest
Felsic Mesic Forest
Felsic Mesic Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
0
0
0
0
Parameters Wetland 5 Wetland 6
Size of Wetland (acres) 0.03 0.06
Wetland Type riparian non-riverine riparian non-riverine
Mapped Soil Series FeD2 FsE & FeD2
Drainage class well drained well drained
Soil Hydric Status not hydric not hydric
Source of Hydrology Toe Seep Toe Seep
Hydrologic Impairment none none
Native vegetation community Dist. Small Stream/ Dist. Small Stream/
Narrow FP Forest Narrow FP Forest
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation 0 0
N/A Not -applicable

Table S. Monitoring Component Summary
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Parameter Monitoring Feature
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Frequency
Moores
Reach 1
Pond Trib
Moores
Reach 2
Corn Reach 1
Corn Reach 2
Moores Silage Silage
Reach 3 Reach 1 Reach 2
UTI
Cow Trib 1
Cow Trib 2
Barn 1
Barn 2
Dimension Riffle XS
Pool XS
2
4 1 3
1 1
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7
1
2 1 2
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, 7
Substrate 100 Pebble Count
2
4 1 3
Annual
Hydrology Crest Gage
1
1
Semi -Annual
Vegetation Vegetation Plots
43
1 2
Annual
Visual Assessment Project Site
Y Y
Y
Y
Y
Y Y Y
Y
Y
Y Y Y
Semi -Annual
Reference Photos Permanent Photo Points
2 2
11
1
2
19 6 12
2
2
4 3 3
Annual

APPENDIX B. Visual Assessment Data

Figure 3.0 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Key)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
kt� DMS Project No. 94709
W I L D L A N D S' 0 300 600 Feet Monitoring Year 3- 2018
ENGIN EER ING I i i i I Ili Surry County, NC

Figure 3.1 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 1 of 6)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
kt� DMS Project No. 94709
W I L D L A N D S' 0 250 500 Feet Monitoring Year 3- 2018
ENGIN EER ING I i i i I N Surry County, NC

■■■■■ Conservation Easement
Overhead Power Line Easement
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level 1; Reduced Credit
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Stream Enhancement Level 11; Reduced Credit
Stream Preservation
Reach Break
Non Project Streams
---- Top of Bank
0 Existing Wetland
♦ Photo Point
Crest Gage
Cross -Section
Vegetation Monitoring Plots (VP) - MY3
Q Criteria Met
- Criteria Not Met
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY3
Invasive Plant Population
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
I.- --it iMS L% I &-- i
,yf
I..
f+
x00
..
$fix +
00 O - - - - -
c- ,:11 Ib�0 1 [ �i, o
r
yR� - ■
+ O
rU • � ar � - y a
11+01 ► +a
5+00 O ~�i s'' • • • • •
O N �. ••
N •. , 3i+00f 34+Op �1
qe. ale
.. .. ,. +,�. y.r ►� ,,
N.
+ c + �,'o - Structures
ti• Constructed Riffle
IQ
�_ -_- `. +�+• Brushmat
c N: 29+00
0 Geolift
+ c
C5
Debris Plug
- t
.• 0 Bridge
+ _ ---- Gully Stabilization
Tree fallen in channel _ O r�
butj o + _ . _ - • • - • • • • - —^ — Facines
.1161t .1- •• f1laut
Stream Areas of Concern-MY3
i aer 41111 f1 ` 11■,1+ 1
Aggradation
Erosion
W I L D L A N D Srit 0 250 500 Feet
ENGINEERING
I I I I I
Root Wad 1� J -Hc
Rock Vane Lop Vane
�i Step
r S€one Toe
Figure 3.2 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 2 of 6)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Surry County, NC

moon- Conservation Easement
Stream Restoration
-'.fie
-
j�iir_ ,•
.
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Non Project Streams
ty.
yY`'
{ly
y
- - - - Top of Bank
'��*`
0 Existing Wetland
eery■
Constructed Riffle
;�
0 Brushmat
yy■ •►• {{{{{{
•i "0'.■rr•A■
IL
Geolift
Cross -Section
CDt}r
O
■
Bridge
— -
---- Gully Stabilization ,
0 Criteria Not Met
— — Facines ',
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY3
Structures
o
48+00
j
r e
39tgG00 i,
�•, �I
a
O
_.�,01
N
-
t•i r
?C
tp
sOx � %
OO +
O i,
O O
■
err+
;rl•• -
\'ft
moon- Conservation Easement
Stream Restoration
Stream Preservation
Stream Enhancement Level I
Stream Enhancement Level 11
Non Project Streams
y
- - - - Top of Bank
Structures
0 Existing Wetland
Constructed Riffle
f Photo Point
0 Brushmat
-0 Crest Gage
Geolift
Cross -Section
0 Debris Plug
Vegetation Monitoring Plots (VP) - MY3
Bridge
Q Criteria Met
---- Gully Stabilization ,
0 Criteria Not Met
— — Facines ',
Vegetation Areas of Concern - MY3
Structures
Invasive Plant Population
Root Wad J -Hook
Bare/Poor Herbaceous Cover
Vane
Stream Areas of Concern -MY3 Rock Vane Log � ��,■.
Aggradation Step
Erosion
Stone Toe
WiTw'
WILDLANDS '
E N[,IN E E R I NG
■+{yyy ffi
s3.
33
O '
O A
+
O '
60+00 x�0 O
Aftw
00
59+00 '
•y ■i
a
R75 w =r rr'*V.
rrr
•■lrr4
0 250 500 Feet
I I I I I
N
2014 Aerial Imagery
Figure 3.3 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 3 of 6)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Surry County, NC

Figure 3.4 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 4 of 6)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
r��
DMS Project No. 94709
WILDLANDS 0 250 500 Feet Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
ENCa]N EEILIN(i
Surry County, NC

Figure 3.5 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 5 of 6)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
' DMS Project No. 94709
W I L D L A N D S 0 250 500 Feet Monitoring Year 3- 2018
ENC, IN EEIEINC, I I I I I
Surry County, NC

Figure 3.6 Integrated Current Condition Plan View (Sheet 6 of 6)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
' DMS Project No. 94709
W I L D L A N D S 0 250 500 Feet Monitoring Year 3- 2018
ENC, IN EEIEINC, I I I I I
Surry County, NC

Table 6a. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Moores Fork Reach 1(Assessed Length : 761 feet)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
4
4
100%
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
5
5
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30%of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
5
5
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
5
5
100%
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
5
5
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are rovidin habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining ^ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 6b. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Moores Fork Reach 2 (Assessed Length : 1875 feet)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
3
85
95%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
8
8
100%
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
6
7
86%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30%of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
6
7
86%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
6
7
86%
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
6
7
86%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
2
35
98%
1
10
99%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are rovidin habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
2
35
98%
1
10
99%
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.
5
5
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%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
9
9
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining ^ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
2
2
100%

Table 6c. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Moores Fork Reach 3 (Assessed Length : 2885 feet)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
5
130
95%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
13
13
100%
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
16
16
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30%of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
16
16
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
16
16
100%
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
16
16
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
2
50
98%
0
0
98%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are rovidin habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
2
50
98%
0
0
98%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
24
27
89%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
6
6
100%
3. Engineered
structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
24
27
89%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
18
18
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining ^ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
3
3
100%

Table 6d. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Silage Reach 1(Assessed Length : 900 feet)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
12
12
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30%of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
12
12
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
12
12
100%
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
12
12
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
2
35
96%
0
0
96%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are rovidin habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
2
35
96%
0
0
96%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
6
8
75%
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.
6
8
75%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
1
1
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining ^ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 6e. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Silage Reach 2 (Assessed Length : 2448 feet)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
%Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Numberwith
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
5
60
98%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
15
15
100%
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
13
16
81%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30%of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
13
16
81%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
13
16
81%
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
13
16
81%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
6
100
96%
0
0
96%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are rovidin habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
6
100
96%
0
0
96%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
12
16
75%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
12
16
7S%
3. Engineered
structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
12
16
75%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining ^ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
3
4
75%

Table 6f. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cow Trib 1(Assessed Length : 167 feet)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
2
2
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30%of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
2
2
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
N/A
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
N/A
and are rovidin habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
N/A
Totals
0
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
13
13
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
13
13
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
13
13
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining ^ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 6g. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cow Trib 2 (Assessed Length : 767 feet)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30%of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are rovidin habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
1
20
99%
0
0
99%
Totals
1
20
99%
0
0
99%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
22
24
92%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
22
24
92%
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
22
24
92%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining ^ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 6h. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Pond Trib (Assessed Length : 243 feet)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
1
40
84%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
Channel largely overgrown with
vegetation. No discernible facets
in some segments of channel.
2. Length appropriate (>30%of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are rovidin habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
7
7
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.
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining ^ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 6i. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Barn Trib Reach 1(Assessed Length : 350 feet)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
Channel largely overgrown with
vegetation. No discernible facets
in some segments of channel.
2. Length appropriate clf centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and headd of of downstrem riffle)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are rovidin habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
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.
15
15
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
15
15
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining ^ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
1
1
100%

Table 6j. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Corn Trib Reach 2 (Assessed Length : 112 feet)
Major Channel
Category
Channel Sub -Category
Metric
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number in
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Footage
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle and
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
Run units)
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
N/A
N/A
N/A
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth> 1.6)
1
1
100%
1. Bed
3. Meander Pool Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30%of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
1
1
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
1
1
100%
4.Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
1
1
100%
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Bank
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are rovidin habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
4
4
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
4
4
100%
3. Engineered
Structures
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
4
4
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining ^ Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
N/A
N/A
N/A

Table 7. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Table
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Planted Acreage 15.4
Easement Acreage 140
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
CCPV Depiction
Number of
Combined
% of Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions
1000 SF
CCPV Depiction
45
7.0
5.0%
Threshold
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
None
N/A
Cross Hatch
0.00
0.0%
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
0.1 acres
4
0.06
0.4%
Yellow
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria.
0.1 acres
N/A
6
0.15
1.0%
Total
10
0.21
1.4%
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year.
0.25 acres
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
10
0.21
1.4%
Easement Acreage 140
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV Depiction
Number of
polygons
Combined
Acreage
%of Easement
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Cross Hatch
Green
45
7.0
5.0%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
None
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%

Stream Photographs

PP1— Moores Reach 1, looking upstream (06/05/2018) 1 PP2 — Moores Reach 1, looking downstream (06/05/2018) 1
PP3 — Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/05/2018) 1 PP4 — Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/05/2018)
PP5 — Moores Reach 2, looking upstream (06/05/2018) 1 PP6 — Pond Tributary, looking downstream (06/05/2018)

PP7 — Pond Tributary, looking downstream (06/05/2018) 1 PP8 — Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/05/2018) 1
PP9 — Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/05/2018) 1 PP10 — Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/05/2018)
PP11— Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/05/2018) 1PP12 —Barn Reach 2, looking upstream (06/05/2018)

v-, r z'�,
PP13 — Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/05/2018) PP14 — Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/05/2018)
PP15 — Moores Reach 2, looking downstream (06/05/2018) 1 PP16 — Moores Reach 2, looking upstream (06/05/2018)
PP17 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/05/2018) 1PP18 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/05/2018)

PP19 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/05/2018) 1 PP20 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/05/2018) 1
PP21— Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/05/2018) 1 PP22 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/05/2018)
PP23 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/05/2018) 1 PP24 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/05/2018)

PP25 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/05/2018) 1 PP26 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/05/2018) 1
PP27 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/05/2018) 1 PP28 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/05/2018)
PP29 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/05/2018) 1 PP30 — Moores Reach 3, looking downstream (06/05/2018)

.rte � ,y ar'
�r ♦ C' ° '� .aa - -
_
U 23• • • • • •
r
• • • • • •
r
_qy ,
Moores • • • •
r0512018)
PP33a — Moores Reach 3, looking•(0610512018)
.�-

�tl Jt v
lw�
�'t k
wITA Y
5.
i
y
Z
t i q -
h.
3,
r
1
'
ki
1
Z
t i q -
3,
r
1
'
3,
r
ki
1

4- w 4" . s ro � �_ � 3� �-�Y ✓ r. ; -rte �� v� � S d . ". -
�"
.a
Y
lm
,y �.y is •. \...
�� •• �• I. I. I '�Al•• •� I. I.
W.
4'
r
4
f `fin
x
�or
r f! v ti
lookingPP43 — Cow Tributary 2,
downstream (0610612018) PP44 — Cow Tri. •• downstream (06106120
�,.-�' � h � t ,� of P� '� �: '. � K..y •'
3
*s� q
r• �3
�r
X6.06.2018 10 05

-r�
_ d
tl f1
v 5'
F � $
8r,`20rs`1o �5
06.06.2018 1V7"
j,
♦ i.

.E r
T
AA
-4�-

PP65 — Barn Reach 2, looking downslope (06/05/2018) 1 PP66 — Silage Reach 1, looking upslope (06/05/2018) 1
PP67 — UTI, looking downstream (06/06/2018)

Vegetation Photographs

IL
f
r�
s tr A .' I
1 l
„P
$ -
P
IL
f
r�
s tr A .' I
MC�Ar Y r'C
„P
p'
MC�Ar Y r'C
bj° �
4
bj° �

• :'yf• @. � - 4 �t °l"'Alt
_
74 %ilxpe
02
� v
. . 1• I . . I I
s� f :, _•; �..i � � � . ��t � t��' ,� r' x �'� n ,r��r� °``� �, � yeti
v y
�: � �- .ave 3`W �.r,�v r�� � �� _ ,f+� �t E•v'�.,� � � -,,,� Jfr
y i Z7�t;F f r F
yy
5 l
om�v i••`�• .t= rt,F _. , � ,,r 47r .s,p- r „�.- i--� - ,. �p� X'L-`- p ��:
-� •- k �b1 }� � - I` ��� �"i tem` `

APPENDIX C. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 8. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Plot MY3 Success Criteria
Met (Y/N)
Tract Mean
1 Y
75%
2 N
3 N
4 Y
5 Y
6 Y
7 Y
8 N
9 Y
10 Y
11 Y
12 Y
Table 9. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Database Name
cvs-eep-entrytool-v2.5.0 Moores MY3.mdb
Database Location
Q:\ActiveProjects\005-02153 Moores Monitoring\Monitoring\Monitoring Year 3\Vegetation Assessment
Computer Name
MIMI-PC
File Size
48578560
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
94709
Project Name
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation
Description
River Basin
Length(ft)
Stream -to -edge Width (ft)
Area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
12
Required Plots (calculated)
12
Sampled Plots
12

Table 10. Planted and Total Stem Counts
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Current Plot Data (MY3 2018)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
94709-01-0001
PnoLS P -all T
94709-01-0002
PnoLS P -all T
94709-01-0010
94709-01-0003
PnoLS P -all T
94709-01-0012
94709-01-0004
PnoLS P -all T
94709-01-0005
PnoLS P -all T
94709-01-0006
PnoLS P -all T
94709-01-0007
PnoLS P -all T
Acer rubrum
Red Maple
Tree
Species Type PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T 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
3
15
2
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
7
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
1
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
3
2
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
1
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
3
3
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
11
1
31
4
41
4
8
8
8
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
4
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
14
141
14
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
3
31
3
1
1
1
11
1
2
2
2
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
15
15
16
13
13
13
14
14
14
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
4
4
48
1
1
1
31
3
3
9
9
9
2
2
2
7
7
7
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
6
6
6
4
4
4
2
2
2
17
17
17
3
3
3
19
19
19
Quercus montana
Rock Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
1
1
1
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
31
3
3
1
1
1
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
Tree
30
30
301
28
28
28
29
29
29
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
Rhus glabra
Smooth Sumac
Shrub Tree
14
14
14
14
14
14
21
1
21
22
22
1
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
Tree
1
1
2
6
6
Stem count
121
121
14
7
7
7
61
61
6
15
151
15
141
141
16
141
141
14
12
12
16
Quercus phellos
lWillow Oak
size (ares)
I
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
4
4
1
4
7
71
size (ACRES)
71
0.02
7
Rhus glabra
0.02
IShrub Tree
1
0.02
2
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
31
31
3
4
41
1
41
31
31
35
Stem count
5
5
4
4
6
7
7
7
4
4
5
16
10
Stems per ACRE
486
486
567
283
283
283
243
243
243
607
607
607
5671
5671
647
567
5671
567
486
4861
647
Current Plot Data (MY3 2018)
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
94709-01-0008
94709-01-0009
94709-01-0010
94709-01-0011
94709-01-0012
MY3 (2018)
MY2 (2017)
MY1 (2016)
MYO (2016)
Species Type PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T 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
3
15
2
20
7
Betula nigra
River Birch, Red Birch
Tree
1
1
1
3
2
Cercis canadensis
Redbud
Shrub Tree
1
1
Diospyros virginiana
American Persimmon
Tree
11
1
31
4
41
4
11
1
1
61
6
61
17
171
21
161
16
171
14
14
14
14
141
14
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash, Red Ash
Tree
2
2
2
15
15
17
15
15
16
13
13
13
14
14
14
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
Tree
2
2
40
4
4
48
4
4
70
4
4
8
4
4
4
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
5
5
5
16
16
16
17
17
17
20
20
20
19
19
19
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
23
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
26
26
26
26
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
Tree
3
3
3
6
6
61
1
31
3
3
1
1
1
28
28
28
30
30
301
28
28
28
29
29
29
Quercus montana
Rock Chestnut Oak
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
14
14
14
14
14
14
21
21
21
22
22
22
Quercus nigra
Water Oak
Tree
1
1
1
6
6
6
2
2
2
15
15
15
15
15
17
14
14
14
14
14
14
Quercus phellos
lWillow Oak
ITree
I
1
11
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
7
71
7
71
7
7
Rhus glabra
ISmooth Sumac
IShrub Tree
1
1
2
5
2
1
Stem count
61
61
14
16
16
20
10
101
65
14
14
16
10
10
10
136
136
213
140
140
221
146
146
154
149
149
149
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
12
12
12
12
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.30
Species count
31
3
7
61
6
7
31
31
5
4
41
41
41
4
91
91
13
10
10
12
91
91
11
9
91
9
Stems per ACRE 1
2431
2431
567
6471
647
809
4051
40SI
2630
567
5671
647
4051
4051
405
4591
4591
718
472
472
745
4921
4921
519
502
5021
502
Color for Density
Exceeds requirements by 10%
Exceeds requirements, but by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements, by less than 10%
Fails to meet requirements by more than 10%
Volunteer species included in total
PnoLS: Number of plZ
P -all: Number of planted stems including live stakes
T: Total stems

APPENDIX D. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 11a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Moores Reach 1, Reach 2, & Reach 3; Silage Reach 1 & Reach 2
Moores
Fork Reaches
Moores Fork Reaches
Moores Fork Reaches
Parameter
Gage
Moores Fork Reach 3
Silage Reach 1
Silage Reach 2
Mill
Branch
Moores
Fork Reach
3
Silage Reach 1
Silage Reach 2
Moores Fork Reach 3
Silage Reach 1
Silage Reach 2
1/2
1/2
1/2
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
27.3
30.6
24.9
34.2
6.7
6.9
18.2
27.2
33.6
36.5
37.0
8.8
12.5
31.8 33.2
30.2
52.2
4.2
10.6 14.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
109.0
137.7
104.0
E125.0
11
16.0
100.0
72.1
72.5
145
124
19
28
145
124
9.4
23 30
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.7
2.6
2.3
1
2.9
0.8
1.2
1.7
1.9
2.2
2.2
2.3
0.6
1.00
2.1 2.2
1.9
2.6
0.7
0.6 0.8
Bankfull Max Depth
3.0
3.4
4.0
1.2
1.7
2.3
2.4
2.7
3.5
3.6
0.8
1.50
3.3 3.5
3.3
4.1
1.2
1.3 1.5
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area(ft)
N/A
46.9
78.2
73.3
77.6
5.6
8.4
31.6
50.8
72.4
82.1
85.3
5.1
13.1
67.2 74.1
72.5
101.1
2.8
6.9 9.3
Width/Depth Ratio
12.0
15.9
8.4
15.1
5.7
8.0
10.5
14.5
15.6
16.2
16.0
15.1
11.9
14.9 15
12.5
26.9
6.4
16.2 22.7
Entrenchment Ratio
4.0
4.5
3.7
4.2
1.6
2.3
5.5
2.7
5.0
4.0
2.2
2.2
4.4 4.6
2.5
4.1
4.5
1.3 2.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.9
1.0
1.6
3.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50(mm)
29
30
4
23
20
29
30
4
23
1 11 25
13
28
16
6 14
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
50
70
10
195
---
16 63
32 178
26.0
199.0
---
13.12 55.95
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
0.0059 0.0180
0.0038
0.02
---
0.0492 0.0514
0.0045 0.0158
0.0027
0.0180
---
0.0017 0.0554
Pool Length (ft)
N/A
---
---
---
---
42
140
40
112
---
15 35
63 170
81.0
139.0
---
10 19
Pool Max Depth (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
5.0
5.5
---
---
3.0 6.0
4.3
8.5
1.2
1.4 2.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
130
270
78
334
20 23
15 75
118 295
106
325
13.3
171.5
21 79
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
52
161
43
208
---
---
86
55
165
53
267
---
---
7 84
8
59
7
36
8 59
Radius of Curvature (ft)
65.8
102.7
41
94
---
---
19.6
25.8
53
124
58
74
---
---
25 58
13
24
9
25
13 24
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
2.4
3.4
1.7
2.8
---
---
0.7
0.9
2.0
6.0
1.7
4.0
---
---
0.8 1.8
0.4
0.8
2.1
6.0
1.2 2.3
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
---
---
N/A
N/A
N/A
---
---
123 210
63
158
61
100
63 158
Meander Width Ratio
1.9
5.3
1.7
6.1
---
---
3.2
1.9
5.7
1.7
8.6
---
---
3.9 6.6
2.1
5.2
14.5
23.8
5.9 14.9
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d50/d84/d95
N/A
28/67/89 and 29/43/56
---
---
---
40/89/133
---
---
---
---
25/58/90 and 11/38/110 8; 28/62/150; 13/28/51;
16/35/61
9.8/37/64 and 6/31/72
Max part size (mm) mobilized at banI F
Stream Power (Ca acit) W/mz
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
1.9
0.070
0.24
5
1.90
2.34
0.070
0.24
1.90
2.34
0.070
0.24
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<5%
<5%
<5%
---
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
Rosgen Classification
C4
G4/B4
E4
C4
C4
C4
B4
E4
C4
C4
B4
E4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
41
5.3
W2.3
5.4
6.6
6.3
5.0
5.5
5.0
4.9
4.5
4.5
4.4
4.6
4.2
5.1
5.0
4.5 5.1
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
193.9
411.4
30.2
55.1
197.5
N/A
250-260
260
24
60
297.6
340.8
348.4
468.7
13.8
31.2 44.3
Q-USGS NC HR1(2-yr)
N/A
237-278
29
63
385
237-278
278
29
63
237-278
278
29
63
Valley Length (ft)
2227
2234
1
1079
1 1200
1
4730
1
2227
1
2234
1
1079
1 1200
1 2227 1
2234
1
1079
1 1200
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
2393
2847
1198
1441
327
2578
2825
1198
1441
2,628
2,856
1,198
1,441
Sinuosity
1.07
1.27
1.11
1.20
1.26
1.16
1.26
1.11
1.20
1.2
1.3
1.11
1.20
Water Surface Slope ft/ft z
0.0077
0.0067
0.0357
0.0294
0.0101
0.0076
0.0064
0.0357
0.0294
0.005541
0.005511
0.0389
0.02758
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
0.005265
0.006112
0.0404
0.02740
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 11b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Barn Trib, Corn Trib, Pond Trib
PRE -RESTORATION
Barn (Reach 1)
Corn (Reach 2)
Pond
Parameter
Gage
Barn
Corn
Pond
Barn Trib Pres Rch
Corn Trib Pres Rch
Barn (Reach 1)
Corn
Pond
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
I
Max
Min
I
Max
Min I
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
1.6
4.6
16.3
7.0
4.1
6.0
6.6
8.0
---
---
---
Floodprone Width (ft)
4.0
7.8
50.0
9.9
13.7
19
20
25
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.6
0.5
1.5
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.7
---
---
---
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
0.7
2.6
1.1
0.5
0.8
0.6
1.0
---
---
---
Bankfull Cross-sectional Area ft2
N/A
0.9
2.4
24.4
4.6
1.5
3.2
2.9
5.5
---
---
---
Width/Depth Ratio
2.9
8.9
10.9
10.6
11.2
11.3
15.1
11.6
---
---
---
Entrenchment Ratio
2.5
1.7
3.1
1.4
3.3
3.2
3.0
3.1
---
---
---
Bank Height Ratio
7.6
3.8
1.1
1.6
1.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
---
---
D50 (mm)
46
46
Riffle Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
5
31
---
12.0
8.4
27.3
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
0.02
0.0538
---
0.0498
0.0136 0.0241
Pool Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
8 13
---
10
30
---
17.5
32.9
27.8
37.9
N/A
Pool Max Depth (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
2.6
3.6
0.7
1.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
8 1 10
---
15
1
54
6.11
77.7
9
56
22
43
Pool Volume(ft)
---
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
13
26
20
22
24
24
Radius of Curvature (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
12
30
12
29
15
21
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
---
--
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
Meander Length (ft)
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
71
85
49
61
66
78
Meander Width Ratio
---
-
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
dS0/d84/d95
N/A
NMI=
10
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m2
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.01
0.05
0.04
0.08
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.040
0.01
0.05
0.040
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
<5%
Rosgen Classification
G4
G4
C4b (trampled)
B4
E4b
E4b
B4
C41b
E4b
B4
C4b
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
2.70
5.01
7.4
3.84
2.7
3.31
4.7
3.93
---
---
---
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
2.5
12.0
181.4
17.7
4.0
11
---
19
---
---
---
Q-USGS NC HR1(2-yr)
8
---
20
---
---
8
---
20
N/A
Q -Mannings
11
---
19
---
---
11
---
19
11
---
19
Valley Length (ft)
622
84
187
622
---
330
84
187
330
84
187
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
250
97
194
84
28
350
97
243
350
112
243
Sinuosity
0.40
1.15
1.04
0.14
---
1.06
1.15
1.30
1.06
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope ft/ft2
0.0206
0.0567
0.029
0.0211
0.0243
0.0206
0.0567
0.0176
0.0478
0.1124
0.0425
0.0118
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
---
---
---
0.0463
0.1005
0.0478
0.0129
( --- ): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 12a. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Moores Fork
'Adjustment in survey points included in bankfull calculations resulting in change to previous monitoring year bankfull dimensions.
2Prior to MY3, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY3 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
MI
Cross
M2
Cross
M3
Dimension and Substrate Base
MYl
MY2
-Section (Riffle)
MY32 MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
=
MY1
MY2
-Section (Riffle)
MY3' MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7 Basel
MY3'
MY2
-Section (Pool)
MY3' MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation (ft) 1150.4 1150.4 1150.4 1150.5
1148.7 1148.7 1148.7 1149.1
1148.4 1148.4 1148.4 1148.7
low bank elevation (ft) 1150.4 1150.5 1150.4 1150.3
1148.7 1148.7 1148.6 1148.8
1148.4 1148.3 1148.4 1146.7
Bankfull Width (ft) 33.2
34.2
34.1
36.0
31.8
32.5
32.5
38.5
39.1
39.3
38.9
42.4
Floodprone Width (ft) 145.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
145.0
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.7
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 3.3
3.2
3.4
3.5 1 1
1 1 3.5 1
3.4 1
3.4
1 3.7 1 1
1 1 1 5.2 1
5.1 1
5.2 1
5.4
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft) 74.1
74.3
71.9
74.1
67.2
65.6
62.0
67.2
91.8
90.1
87.8
91.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 14.9
15.7
16.1
17.5
15.0
16.1
17.0
22.1
16.6
17.2
17.2
19.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 4.4
4.2
4.3
4.0
4.6
4.5
4.5
3.8
---
---
--
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0
Dimension and Substrate Base
1.0
MY3
1.0
cross-section
MY2
<1.0
M4 (Riffle)
MY32 MY4
1.0
ffip�
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base'
1.0
MY3
1.0
Cross
MY2
<1.0
-Section MS (Riffle)
MY32 MY4
---
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base'
---
MY3
---
Cross
MY2
---
-Section M6 (Pool)
MY32 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation (ft) 1142.3 1142.3 1142.3 1142.5
1139.5 1139.5 1139.5 1139.5
1138.6 1138.6 1138.6 1138.4
low bank elevation (ft) 1141.6 1141.6 1141.6 1141.6
1139.5 1139.4 1139.7 1139.7
1138.6 1138.5 1138.5 1136.8
Bankfull Width (ft) 52.2
51.6
52.3
56.7
32.0
31.6
32.6
32.7
39.3
39.1
39.3
45.5
Floodprone Width (ft) 124.0
124.0
124.0
124.0
124.0
124.0
124.0
124.0
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.7
2.7
2.9
2.3
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 3.3
3.2 1
3.7
1 3.5 1
1 1 3.5
3.6 1
3.6
1 3.8 1
1 1 5.1
5.5 1
5.2 1
5.0
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft) 101.1
97.4
95.8
101.1
73.0
72.4
72.8
73.0
106.1
106.2
115.6
106.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 26.9
27.3
28.6
31.9
14.0
13.8
14.6
14.6
14.5
14.4
13.3
19.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2.4
2.4
2.4
2.2
3.9
3.9
4.1
3.8
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio <1.0
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
-
---
---
---
Dimension and Substrate Base'
MY1
MY2
MY32 MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MY11
MY2
MY3' MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MY11
MY2
MY3' MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation (ft) 1134.9 1134.9 1134.9 1135.0
1132.4 1132.4 1132.4 1132.4
1132.1 1132.1 1132.1 1132.1
low bank elevation (ft) 1134.9 1134.9 1135.0 1134.8
1132.4 1132.3 1132.3 1132.2
1132.1 1132.1 1132.1 1132.1
Bankfull Width (ft) 49.5
49.2
49.6
51.0
1 34.6
34.0
33.5
36.5 1
1 30.6
33.1 1
32.9 1
35.9
Floodprone Width (ft) 124.0
124.0
124.0
124.0
124.0
124.0
124.0
124.0
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.5
4.0
3.8
3.7
3.4
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 3.5 1
3.5 1
3.8
4.0
4.1
4.3
4.2
4.3
6.3
6.3
6.5
6.2
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft) 118.1
117.0
117.7
118.1
91.5
91.5
89.2
91.5
122.0
125.9
122.3
122.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 20.7
20.7
20.9
22.0
13.1
12.6
12.6
14.6
7.7
8.7
8.8
10.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.4
---
---
---
---
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0
1.0
1.0
<1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
---
---
---
'Adjustment in survey points included in bankfull calculations resulting in change to previous monitoring year bankfull dimensions.
2Prior to MY3, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY3 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. Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross -Section)
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Silage Tributary
Cross STI
Cross
ST2
Cross
ST3
-Section (Riffle)
Dimension and Substrate Base MY1 MY2 MY32 MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
=
MY1'
MY2
-Section (Pool)
MY3' MY4
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base
MY3'
MY2
-Section (Riffle)
MY3' MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation (ft) 1234.6 1234.6 1234.6 1234.1
1233.4 1233.4 1233.4 1233.3
1193.4 1193.4 1193.4 1193.2
low bank elevation (ft) 1234.6 1234.6 1234.6 1234.4
1233.4 1233.4 1233.5 1233.4
1193.4 1193.4 1193.4 1193.0
Bankfull Width (ft) 4.2 4.0 4.5 4.2
5.1
4.5
5.3
4.6
14.6
14.7
14.6
12.9
Floodprone Width (ft) 9.4 9.2 9.6 10.7
---
---
---
---
22.5
22.8
24.6
24.6
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth( 1.2 1.1 1.5 0.9 1 1
1 1 1.2 1
1.2 1
1.1
1 1.0
1.3 1
1.3 1
1.9
1 1.7
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft2) 2.8 2.3 4.1 2.8
3.2
2.8
3.0
3.2
9.3
8.8
11.0
9.3
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 6.4 6.7 4.8 6.2
8.0
7.2
9.2
6.5
22.7
22.8
19.4
18.0
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.6
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.3
cross-section sT4 (pool)
Dimension and Substrate Base' MY1' MY2 MY32 MY4
---
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base'
---
MY1'
---
Cross
MY2
---
-Section ST5 (Pool)
MY32 MY4
1.0
MY5 MY6 MY7 Base'
1.0
MY1'
1.0
Cross
MY2
1 <1.0
-Section ST6 (Riffle)
MY32 MY4 MY5 MY6 MY7
bankfull elevation (ft) 1193.1 1193.1 1193.1 1192.9
1185.1 1185.1 1185.1 1184.8
1175.4 1175.4 1175.4 1175.4
low bank elevation (ft) 1193.1 1192.9 1192.9 1192.3
1185.1 1184.9 1185.0 1184.7
1175.4 1175.3 1175.3 1175.4
Bankfull Width (ft) 13.9 14.9 14.7 15.3
7.8
8.7
8.4
8.8
9.6
8.4
8.7
8.2
Floodprone Width (ft) --- --- --- ---
---
---
---
---
28.0
28.0
28.0
28.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.4 2.7 1 2.3 1 2.3 1
1 1 1.4 1
1.5 1
1.6
1 1.3 1 1
1 1 1 1.3
1.5 1
1.5
1 1.5
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft) 15.5 19.4 16.0 15.5
7.9
8.1
8.7
7.9
6.8
6.1
7.3
6.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.5 11.4 13.4 15.2
7.7
9.4
8.1
9.8
13.5
11.6
10.4
9.9
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio --- --- --- ---
---
---
2.9
3.3
3.2
3.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio -- --- -- ---
---
---
1.0
<1.0
<1.0
1.0
Dimension and Substrate Base' MY11 MY2 MY32 MY4
bankfull elevation (ft) 1164.7 1164.7 1164.7 1164.7
low bank elevation (ft) 1164.7 1164.6 1164.6 1164.6
Bankfull Width (ft) 10.3 1 10.5 1 10.8 9.6
Floodprone Width (ft) 29.6 31.8 33.6 32.9
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.6
Bankfull Cross -Sectional Area (ft) 8.8 9.3 9.6 8.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 12.0 12.0 12.1 10.5
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.0 <1.0 1.0 1.0
MY5 MY6 MY7
'Adjustment in survey points included in bankfull calculations resulting in change to previous monitoring year bankfull dimensions.
2Prior to MY3, bankfull dimensions were calculated using a fixed bankfull elevation. For MY3 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
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section M1- Moores Fork
27+16 Riffle
1160
x -section area (ft.sq.)
36.0
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
3.5
max depth (ft)
37.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
1155
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.5
width -depth ratio
145.0
W flood prone area (ft)
4.0
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
c
0
v 1150
w
1145
7
1
1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—MYO (06/2016) — MY1 (11/2016) —MY2 (06/2017) --*--MY3 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
74.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
36.0
width (ft)
2.1
mean depth (ft)
3.5
max depth (ft)
37.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.5
width -depth ratio
145.0
W flood prone area (ft)
4.0
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section M2- Moores Fork
29+84 Riffle
1155
x -section area (ft.sq.)
38.5
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
3.7
max depth (ft)
39.9
1150
1.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
22.1
width -depth ratio
145.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.8
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
c
0
v 1145
w
1140
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—MYO (06/2016) — MY1 (11/2016) —MY2 (06/2017) --*--MY3 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
67.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
38.5
width (ft)
1.7
mean depth (ft)
3.7
max depth (ft)
39.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
22.1
width -depth ratio
145.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.8
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section M3- Moores Fork
31+07 Pool
1155
1150
x -section area (ft.sq.)
42.4
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
5.4
max depth (ft)
44.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.5
width -depth ratio
c
0
v 1145
w
1140
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—MYO (6/2016) —MY1 (11/2016) —MY2 (06/2017) --$--MY3 (06/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
91.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
42.4
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
5.4
max depth (ft)
44.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section M4- Moores Fork
39+92 Riffle
101.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
56.7
1149
1147
1.8
mean depth (ft)
3.5
max depth (ft)
58.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
1145
1143
width -depth ratio
124.0
c
0
m 1141
2.2
entrenchment ratio
v
1139
low bank height ratio
1137
1135
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—MYO (6/2016) —MY1 (11/2016) —MY2 (06/2017) --$--MY3 (06/2018) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
101.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
56.7
width (ft)
1.8
mean depth (ft)
3.5
max depth (ft)
58.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
31.9
width -depth ratio
124.0
W flood prone area (ft)
2.2
entrenchment ratio
0.7
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section M5- Moores Fork
45+02 Riffle
1150
x -section area (ft.sq.)
32.7
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
3.8
max depth (ft)
34.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.1
1145
14.6
width -depth ratio
124.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
0
v llao
w
1135
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—MYO (6/2016) —MY1 (11/2016) —MY2 (06/2017) --$--MY3 (06/2018) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
73.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
32.7
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
3.8
max depth (ft)
34.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.1
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.6
width -depth ratio
124.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.8
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section M6- Moores Fork
47+34 Pool
1145
1140
x -section area (ft.sq.)
45.5
width (ft)
2.3
mean depth (ft)
5.0
max depth (ft)
48.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.5
width -depth ratio
c
0
v 1135
w
1130
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—MYO (6/2016) —MY1 (11/2016) —MY2 (06/2017) --$--MY3 (06/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
106.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
45.5
width (ft)
2.3
mean depth (ft)
5.0
max depth (ft)
48.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
19.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section M7- Moores Fork
52+16 Run
1145
x -section area (ft.sq.)
51.0
width (ft)
2.3
mean depth (ft)
4.0
max depth (ft)
52.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.2
1140
22.0
width -depth ratio
124.0
W flood prone area (ft)
2.4
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
c
0
v
1135
M
1130
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—MYO (6/2016) —MY1 (11/2016) —MY2 (06/2017) --$--MY3 (06/2018) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
118.1
x -section area (ft.sq.)
51.0
width (ft)
2.3
mean depth (ft)
4.0
max depth (ft)
52.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
22.0
width -depth ratio
124.0
W flood prone area (ft)
2.4
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section M8- Moores Fork
56+02 Riffle
1140
x -section area (ft.sq.)
36.5
width (ft)
2.5
mean depth (ft)
4.3
max depth (ft)
38.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.6
width -depth ratio
124.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
1135
c
0
v 1130
w
1125
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—MYO (6/2016) —MY1 (11/2016) —MY2 (06/2017) --$--MY3 (06/2018) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
91.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
36.5
width (ft)
2.5
mean depth (ft)
4.3
max depth (ft)
38.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.6
width -depth ratio
124.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section M9- Moores Fork
57+38 Pool
1140
x -section area (ft.sq.)
35.9
width (ft)
3.4
mean depth (ft)
6.2
max depth (ft)
38.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1135
c
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.6
width -depth ratio
0
v 1130
w
1125
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—MYO (6/2016) —MY1 (11/2016) —MY2 (06/2017) --$--MY3 (06/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
122.0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
35.9
width (ft)
3.4
mean depth (ft)
6.2
max depth (ft)
38.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
3.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.6
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section ST1- Silage Trib
13+46 Riffle
1242
1240
x -section area (ft.sq.)
4.2
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
5.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
1238
c
0
1236
6.2
width -depth ratio
10.7
W flood prone area (ft)
2.6
v
w
1.3
low bank height ratio
1234
1232
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width (ft)
—MYO(06/2016)—MY1(11/2016)— MY2 (06/2017) --$-- MY3 (06/2018) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
2.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
4.2
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
5.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
6.2
width -depth ratio
10.7
W flood prone area (ft)
2.6
entrenchment ratio
1.3
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section ST2- Silage Trib
13+81 Pool
1241
x -section area (ft.sq.)
4.6
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.0
1239
5.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
6.5
width -depth ratio
1237
c
0
1235
>
v
w
1233
1231
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width (ft)
—MYO (6/2016) — MY1 (11/2016) —MY2 (06/2017) --$--MY3 (06/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
3.2
x -section area (ft.sq.)
4.6
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
5.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
6.5
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section ST3 - Silage Trib
25+48 Riffle
1198
1196
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.9
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
14.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.0
width -depth ratio
24.6
W flood prone area (ft)
1.9
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
x1194
c
0
1192
a
>
w
1190
1188
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width (ft)
—MYO(06/2016)—MY1(11/2016)— MY2 (06/2017) --$-- MY3 (06/2018) —Bankfull—FloodproneArea
Bankfull Dimensions
9.3
x -section area (ft.sq.)
12.9
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
14.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.0
width -depth ratio
24.6
W flood prone area (ft)
1.9
entrenchment ratio
0.9
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section ST4 - Silage Trib
25+70 Pool
1198
1196
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.3
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
16.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.2
width -depth ratio
1194
x
c
0
1192
R
v
w
1190
1188
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width (ft)
—MYO (6/2016) — MY1 (11/2016) —MY2 (06/2017) +MY3 (06/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
15.5
x -section area (ft.sq.)
15.3
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
16.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
15.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section STS- Silage Trib
28+55 Pool
7.9
1191
8.8
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
9.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
1189
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.8
width -depth ratio
1187
x
c
0
1185
a
v
w
1183
1181
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width (ft)
—MYO (6/2016) — MY1 (11/2016) —MY2 (06/2017) +MY3 (06/2018) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
7.9
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.8
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
9.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.8
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section ST6 - Silage Trib
32+44 Riffle
6.8
1181
8.2
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
9.3
1179
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.9
width -depth ratio
28.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
1177
x
c
0
a 1175
>
w
1173
1171
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width (ft)
—MYO (6/2016)—MY1(11/2016) —MY2 (06/2017) --$--MY3 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
6.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
8.2
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.5
max depth (ft)
9.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.9
width -depth ratio
28.0
W flood prone area (ft)
3.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Cross -Section ST7- Silage Trib
36+85 Riffle
1172
1170
—1168
x
c
0
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.6
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.6
a 1166
v
w
10.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.5
1164
32.9
W flood prone area (ft)
3.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
1162
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width (ft)
—MYO (6/2016)—MY1(11/2016) —MY2 (06/2017) --$--MY3 (06/2018) —Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
8.8
x -section area (ft.sq.)
9.6
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
10.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.5
width -depth ratio
32.9
W flood prone area (ft)
3.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 06/2018
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Moores Fork Reach 2, Cross -Section M1
Moores Fork Reach 2, Cross -Section M1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
46.15
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
121.7
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
ble
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
70
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
aro
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
6
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
8
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
8
os�ss,,,%%;oo•;s
m
"' .a..a..a..,o'%'%'o•.% Very Fine
2.8
4.0
8
Fine
4.0
5.6
a
8
E
ft
ooaaeeo®o% Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
10
Medium
8.0
11.0 j
2
2
12
0
o�b'Lo1.1h onh Oh 1
'L ,ti4 b yto 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti Ah /off` �p 1.yW ,y00 �y0 3�'1. y1'1' 1O'1C` ryDA$ �96
$ goy% s y%y.•
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
18
®®® ®®®®®®® Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
20
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
24
Very Coarse
32
45
10
10
34
Very Coarse
45
64
14
14
48
Small
64
90
24
24
72
Small
90
128
14
14
86
Large
128
180
8
8
94
Large
180
256
6
6
100
i€€€ Small
256
362
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
100
........................
Small
362
512
100
-------- Medium
512
1024
100
:lii Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
Moores Fork Reach 2, Cross -Section M1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Cross -Section M3
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
14.12
D35 =
46.15
D50 =
65.8
D84 =
121.7
D95=
190.9
Dla0 =
256.0
Moores Fork Reach 2, Cross -Section M1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand
avel
100
90
ble
r
70
gp
d
y
60
aro
a
� 70
N
50
m
i 60
U
40
m
�
30
50
a
20
E
ft
E
10
u 40
0
o�b'Lo1.1h onh Oh 1
'L ,ti4 b yto 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti Ah /off` �p 1.yW ,y00 �y0 3�'1. y1'1' 1O'1C` ryDA$ �96
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018
30
a
CL 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0--MYO 12016 tMYI-11/2016 tMY2-07/2017 MY3-0/2018
Moores Fork Reach 2, Cross -Section M1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
y
60
a
N
50
m
U
40
m
�
30
a
20
ft
E
10
0
o�b'Lo1.1h onh Oh 1
'L ,ti4 b yto 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti Ah /off` �p 1.yW ,y00 �y0 3�'1. y1'1' 1O'1C` ryDA$ �96
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Moores Fork Reach 2, Cross -Section M2
Moores Fork Reach 2, Cross -Section M2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Summary
Particle Class
35.60
D50 =
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
D95 =
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
80
80
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
8
8
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
N
50
10
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
14
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
14
os�ss,,,%%;oo•;s
�
"' .a..a..a..,o'%'%'o•.% Very Fine
2.8
4.0
14
Fine
4.0
5.6
a
20
14
E
30
ooaaeeo®o% Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
18
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
22
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018
$ goy% s y%y.•
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
26
®®® ®®®®®®® Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
28
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
30
Very Coarse
32
45
16
16
46
Very Coarse
45
64
10
10
56
Small
64
90
8
8
64
Small
90
128
2
2
66
Large
128
180
10
10
76
Large
180
256
6
6
82
i€€€ Small
256
362
8
8
90
Small
HHHHH:
362
512
4
4
94
Medium
512
1024
4
4
98
:lii Large/Very Large
1024
2048
98
Bedrock
2048
>2048
22
100
Total
100
100
100
Moores Fork Reach 2, Cross -Section M2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Cross -Section M2
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
6.69
D35 =
35.60
D50 =
51.8
D84 =
279.2
D95 =
608.9
D300 =
>2048
Moores Fork Reach 2, Cross -Section M2
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand avel
100
cobble
r
80
80
70
aro
d
y
70
60
a
i 60
N
50
m
S 50
U
40
m
�
30
Z 40
a
20
E
30
10
0
a
CL 20
o�b'Lo1.th onh Oh 1
'L ,ti4 b yto 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti Ah /off` �p ,1'yW s e 3�'1. y1'1' 1O'1C` ryDA$ �96
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO /2016 tMYI-11/2016 tMY2-07/2017 MY3-0/2018
Moores Fork Reach 2, Cross -Section M2
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
y
60
a
N
50
m
U
40
m
�
30
a
20
E
10
0
o�b'Lo1.th onh Oh 1
'L ,ti4 b yto 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti Ah /off` �p ,1'yW s e 3�'1. y1'1' 1O'1C` ryDA$ �96
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M4
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
34.11
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
85.7
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
80
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
5
Coarse
0.5
1.0
N
5
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
7
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
7
os�ss,,,%%;oo•;s
m
S 50
"' .a..a..a..,o'%'%'o•.% Very Fine
2.8
4.0
7
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
9
ooaaeeo®o% Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
11
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
15
0
30
o�b'Lo1.1h onh Oh 1
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
17
®®® ®®®®®®® Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
5
22
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
32
Very Coarse
32
45
16
16
48
Very Coarse
45
64
18
18
66
Small
64
90
21
21
87
Small
90
128
3
3
90
Large
128
180
3
3
93
Large
180
256
1
1
94
i€€€ Small
256
362
4
4
98
Small
362
512
2
2
100
-------- Medium
512
1024
100
ie
:li;i Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
1 2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
1 100
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Cross -Section M4
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
13.27
D35 =
34.11
D50 =
46.8
D84 =
85.7
D96=
279.2
Dla0 =
512.0
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M4
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/ClaySandavel
Individual Class Percent
100
90
bble
80
r
gp
d
y
aro
60
70
a
N
50
i 60
U
40
m
S 50
�
30
a
20
E
u 40
10
0
30
o�b'Lo1.1h onh Oh 1
'L ,ti4 b yto 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti Ah �oC` �p 1.yW ,y00 �y0 3�'1" y1'1' 1O'1C` ryDA$ �96
Particle Class Size (mm)
•Beries2
•MY3-11/2016 MY2-07/2017 0Mn3 /2018
a
CL 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0--MYO /2016 MYI-11/2016 tMY2-07/201] MY3-0/2018
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M4
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
y
60
a
N
50
m
U
40
m
�
30
a
20
E
10
0
o�b'Lo1.1h onh Oh 1
'L ,ti4 b yto 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti Ah �oC` �p 1.yW ,y00 �y0 3�'1" y1'1' 1O'1C` ryDA$ �96
Particle Class Size (mm)
•Beries2
•MY3-11/2016 MY2-07/2017 0Mn3 /2018

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M5
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section MS
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Das =
46.34
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
202.4
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
80
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
r
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
4
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
8
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
8
os�ss,,,%%;oo•;s
m
"' .a..a..a..,o'%'%'o•.% Very Fine
2.8
4.0
8
Fine
4.0
5.6
a
8
ooaaeeo®o% Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
10
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
14
0
o�b'Lo1.1h onh Oy 1
'L 'J4 t. yto 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti Ah /off` 1O'1C` ryDA$ tp96
u 40
$ goy% s y%y.•
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
16
E ®®®®®®® Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
20
wo,
®®®®®��®®® Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
26
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
34
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
46
Small
64
90
10
10
56
Small
90
128
20
20
76
Large
128
180
6
6
82
Large
180
256
6
6
88
i€€€ Small
256
362
6
6
94
Small
362
512
94
Medium
512
1024
6
6
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
�d
Total
100
100
100
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section MS
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Cross -Section MS
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
16.00
Das =
46.34
Ds0 =
73.4
D84 =
202.4
D96 =
574.7
D,,0 =
1024.0
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section MS
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/ClaySandavel
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
b le
r
80
60
CL
aro
70
N
50
m
u
40
i 60
m
�
30
S 50
a
20
E
10
0
o�b'Lo1.1h onh Oy 1
'L 'J4 t. yto 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti Ah /off` 1O'1C` ryDA$ tp96
u 40
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018
30
a
CL 20
Pd
—2
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
--0--MYO 12016 MYI-11/2016 tMY2-07/201] MY3-0/2018
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M5
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
y
60
CL
N
50
m
u
40
m
�
30
a
20
E
10
0
o�b'Lo1.1h onh Oy 1
'L 'J4 t. yto 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti Ah /off` 1O'1C` ryDA$ tp96
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M7
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Das =
25.19
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
57.3
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
bble
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
70
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
aro
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
N
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
2
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
2
os�ss,,,%%;oo•;s
m
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
4
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
5
ooaaeeo®o% Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
7
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
11
10
0
$ goy% s y%y.•
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
15
E ®®®®®®® Coarse
16.0
22.6
15
15
30
Coarse
22.6
32
16
16
46
Very Coarse
32
45
25
25
71
Very Coarse
45
64
19
19
90
Small
64
90
7
7
97
Small
90
128
2
2
99
Large
128
180
1
1
100
Large
180
256
100
i€€€ Small
256
362
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Cross -Section M7
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
16.37
Das =
25.19
D50 =
33.8
D84 =
57.3
D95=
81.6
Dla0 =
180.0
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
11 San4avel
100
90
bble
r
70
80
d
y
60
aro
a
70
N
50
m
i 60
U
40
m
�
30
S 50
a
20
E
u 40
10
0
o�b'Lo1.th onh Oh 1
'L ,ti4 b yto 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti Ah /off` �p 1.yW s e 3�'1. y1'1' 1O'1C` ryDA$ �96
30
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018
a40
CL 20
10
EL
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO 12016 --0--MYI-11/2016 tMY2-07/201] MY3-0/2018
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M7
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
y
60
a
N
50
m
U
40
m
�
30
a
20
E
10
0
o�b'Lo1.th onh Oh 1
'L ,ti4 b yto 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti Ah /off` �p 1.yW s e 3�'1. y1'1' 1O'1C` ryDA$ �96
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M8
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M8
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Das =
41.32
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
151.8
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
11 San4 0.
avel
80
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
70
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
r
0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
N
0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
10
10
10
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
10
os�ss,,,%%;oo•;s
m
i 60
"' .a..a..a..,o'%'%'o•.% Very Fine
2.8
4.0
10
Fine
4.0
5.6
a
10
E
10
-
0
ooaaeeo®o% Fine
5.6
8.0
'L ,ti4 b yto 4 -,- ,y/ ", 3- " /o'` " ss e ", y1ti 1O'1C` ryDA$ �96
10
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
14
u 40
$ goy% s y%y.•
Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
20
®®® ®®®®®®® Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
22
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
26
Very Coarse
32
45
12
12
38
Very Coarse
45
64
18
18
56
Small
64
90
16
16
72
Small
90
128
8
8
80
Large
128
180
8
8
88
Large
180
256
6
6
94
i€€€ Small
256
362
2
2
96
Small
HHHHH:
362
512
96
Medium
512
1024
96
:lii Large/Very Large
1024
2048
96
Bedrock
2048
>2048
4
4
100
Totall
100
100
100
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M8
Cross -Section M8
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
12.46
Das =
41.32
D50 =
56.9
D84 =
151.8
D95 =
304.4
Dl.0 =
>2048
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M8
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M8
100
Individual Class Percent
100
90
Silt/Clay
11 San4 0.
avel
80
70
d
y
be
60
r
80
N
50
aro
m
u
70
40
m
i 60
�
30
a
S 50
E
10
-
0
o�b'Lo1.1h onh Oh 1
'L ,ti4 b yto 4 -,- ,y/ ", 3- " /o'` " ss e ", y1ti 1O'1C` ryDA$ �96
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018
u 40
30
a
CL 20
FM
10
Ll0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO /2016 tMYI-11/2016 tMY2-07/2017 MY3-0/2018
Moores Fork Reach 3, Cross -Section M8
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
y
60
CL
N
50
m
u
40
m
�
30
a
20
E
10
-
0
o�b'Lo1.1h onh Oh 1
'L ,ti4 b yto 4 -,- ,y/ ", 3- " /o'` " ss e ", y1ti 1O'1C` ryDA$ �96
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Silage Trib Reach 1, Cross -Section STI
Silage Trib Reach 1, Cross -Section ST1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Das =
17.44
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
90.0
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
14
14
14
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
16
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
6
22
Medium
0.25
0.50
70
22
Coarse
0.5
1.0
N
22
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
8
8
30
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
30
os�ss,,,%%;oo•;s
m
50
"' .a..a..a..,o'%'%'o•.% Very Fine
2.8
4.0
30
Fine
4.0
5.6
E
a
30
ooaaeeo®o% Fine
5.6
8.0
u 40
30
;,�s�ss,Ee Via,
Medium
8.0
11.0
10
30
0
30
'L ,ti4 b yto 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti Ah /off` �p 1.yW ,y00 �y0 3�'1" y1'1' 1O'1C` ryDA$ �96
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
34
®®® ®®®®®®® Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
38
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
42
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
56
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
68
Small
64
90
16
16
84
Small
90
128
8
8
92
Large
128
180
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
92
Large
180
256
4
4
96
i€€€ Small
256
362
4
4
100
Small
eMedium
362
512
100
512
1024
100
:lii Large/Very Large
1024 1
2048 1
100
Bedrock
2048 1
>2048 1
100
Totall
100
100
100
Silage Trib Reach 1, Cross -Section ST1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Cross -Section ST1
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
0.13
Das =
17.44
D50 =
38.9
D84 =
90.0
D15=
234.4
Dl.0 =
362.0
Silage Trib Reach 1, Cross -Section ST1
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sandavel
Individual Class Percent
100
90
bble
80
r
gp
d
y
aro
60
70
CL
N
50
i 60
40
m
50
30
E
a
20
E
u 40
10
0
30
'L ,ti4 b yto 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti Ah /off` �p 1.yW ,y00 �y0 3�'1" y1'1' 1O'1C` ryDA$ �96
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018
a
CL 20
LAO -
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO 12016 --0--MYI-11/2016 tMY2-07/201] MY3-0/2018
Silage Trib Reach 1, Cross -Section ST1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
y
60
CL
N
50
m
u
40
m
30
a
20
E
10
0
o�b'Lo1.1h onh Oh 1
'L ,ti4 b yto 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti Ah /off` �p 1.yW ,y00 �y0 3�'1" y1'1' 1O'1C` ryDA$ �96
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Silage Trib Reach 2, Cross -Section ST3
Silage Trib Reach 2, Cross -Section ST3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
Summary
Particle Class
29.34
D50 =
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
D15=
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
80
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
6
6
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
N
i 60
10
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
12
12
22
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
S 50
22
os�ss,,,%%;oo•;s
�' °' .a..a..a..,o'%'%'o•.% Very Fine
2.8
4.0
22
Fine
4.0
5.6
a
20
22
E
Z 40
0
ooaaeeo®o% Fine
5.6
8.0
22
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
24
a
CL 20
$goy%
®®�a� Medium
11.0
16.0
6
6
30
. ®®®®®®® Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
32
Coarse
���®®
2
®®®® Very Coarse
325
45
4
4
50
®®®%�®®®®® Very Coarse
45
64
8
8
58
Small
64
90
4
4
62
Small
90
128
12
12
74
Large
128
180
12
12
86
Large
180
256
10
10
96
i€€€ Small
256
362
4
4
100
eSmall
362
512
100
-------- Medium
512 1
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
Silage Trib Reach 2, Cross -Section ST3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Cross -Section ST3
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
1.41
Das =
29.34
D50 =
45.0
D84 =
170.1
D15=
247.1
Dl.0 =
362.0
Silage Trib Reach 2, Cross -Section ST3
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/Clay
Sand avel
100
90
bbl
r
80
80
70
d
y
aro
70
60
CL
N
i 60
m
u
40
S 50
m
30
a
20
E
Z 40
0
o�b'Lo1.th onh Oy 1
'L 'J4 b "t 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti Ah /off` �p 1.yW ,y00 �y0 3�'1" y1'1' 'e ryDA$ �96
Particle Class Size (mm)
30
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018
a
CL 20
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO 12016 tMYI-11/2016 tMY2-07/2017 MY3-0/2018
Silage Trib Reach 2, Cross -Section ST3
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
y
60
CL
N
50
m
u
40
m
30
a
20
E
10
0
o�b'Lo1.th onh Oy 1
'L 'J4 b "t 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti Ah /off` �p 1.yW ,y00 �y0 3�'1" y1'1' 'e ryDA$ �96
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Silage Reach 2, Cross -Section ST6
Silage Reach 2, Cross -Section ST6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
D35 =
16.71
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
101.2
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
r
80
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
70
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
12
12
12
Medium
0.25
0.50
12
Coarse
0.5
1.0
N
12
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
14
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
50
14
os�ss,,,%%;oo•;s
m
"' .a..a..a..,o'%'%'o•.% Very Fine
2.8
4.0
E
14
Fine
4.0
5.6
a
14
E
u 40
0
ooaaeeo®o% Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
16
Medium
8.0
11.0
16
16
32
$ goy% s y%y.•
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
34
®®® ®®®®®®® Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
42
Coarse
22.6
32
4
4
46
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
54
Very Coarse
45
64
12
12
66
Small
64
90
14
14
80
Small
90
128
12
12
92
Large
128
180
2
2
94
Large
180
256
4
4
98
i€€€ Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
e
362
512
100
Medium
.......
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Silage Reach 2, Cross -Section ST6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Cross -Section ST6
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
8.00
D35 =
16.71
D50 =
37.9
D84 =
101.2
D96 =
196.6
D,,0 =
362.0
Silage Reach 2, Cross -Section ST6
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
Silt/ClaySandavel
Individual Class Percent
100
90
bble
r
80
80
70
d
y
aro
70
60
CL
N
i 60
m
u
40
50
m
30
E
a
20
E
u 40
0
o�b'Lo1.1h onh Oy 1
'L 'J4 b '3 o 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti to /off` �p 1.yW ,y00 �y0 3�'1. y1'1' 1O'1C` ryDA$ �96
Particle Class Size (mm)
30
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018
a
CL 20
L III
10
0
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
MYO 12016 tMYI-11/2016 tMY2-07/2017 MY3-0/2018
Silage Reach 2, Cross -Section ST6
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
y
60
CL
N
50
m
u
40
m
30
a
20
E
10
0
o�b'Lo1.1h onh Oy 1
'L 'J4 b '3 o 4 ,y1 ,y/o ry,Lb 3ti to /off` �p 1.yW ,y00 �y0 3�'1. y1'1' 1O'1C` ryDA$ �96
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018

Cross -Section Pebble Count Plots
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No. 94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
Silage Reach 2, Cross -Section ST7
100
90
80
70
i 60
£ 50
u 40
30
a
a 20
10
Silage Reach 2, Cross -Section ST7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO /2016 --0--MYI-11/2016 tMY2-07/201] MY3-0/2018
Diameter (mm)
Channel materials (mm)
Summary
Particle Class
Das =
33.87
Riffle 100-
Class
Percent
128.0
min
max
Count
Percentage
Cumulative
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
70
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
8
12
Medium
0.25
0.50
12
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
14
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
m
u
14
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
40
14
s.,g.w.y.•o.•o.•o.,
m
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
14
•°os s aa "o;•oo;
Fine
4.0
5.6
a
14
ooaaeeo®oa Fine
ss,.&`e`c Egos,
5.6
8.0
14
o
":+�"'a1c?�•:o;:a� Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
16
0
o�/p'Lo1.1h onh Oh 1
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
18
®®® ®®®®®®® Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
24
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
34
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
40
®®®®®®®® Very Coarse
45
64
16
16
56
Small
64
90
20
20
76
Small
90
128
8
8
84
Large
128
180
10
10
94
Large
180
256
4
4
98
i€€€ Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
iiieiiieeeee
Large/Very Large
1024
2048
100
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Totall
100
100
100
100
90
80
70
i 60
£ 50
u 40
30
a
a 20
10
Silage Reach 2, Cross -Section ST7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO /2016 --0--MYI-11/2016 tMY2-07/201] MY3-0/2018
Cross -Section ST7
Channel materials (mm)
D16 =
11.00
Das =
33.87
D5o =
56.1
D84 =
128.0
Dob =
196.6
Dlao =
362.0
100
90
80
70
i 60
£ 50
u 40
30
a
a 20
10
Silage Reach 2, Cross -Section ST7
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MYO /2016 --0--MYI-11/2016 tMY2-07/201] MY3-0/2018
Silage Reach 2, Cross -Section ST7
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
d
y
60
CL
N
50
m
u
40
m
�
30
a
20
E
L
I-
10
0
o�/p'Lo1.1h onh Oh 1
'L ,ti4 b ytp 4 ,y1 ,y/p ry,Lb 3ti Ah /off` �p 1.yW ,y00 �y0 3�'1" y1'1' 1O'1C` ryDA$ tppi6
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYO /2016
•MYI-11/2016 •MY2-07/2017 •MY3-06/2018

APPENDIX E. Hydrology Summary Data and Plots

Table 13. Verification of Bankfull Events
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018

Monthly Rainfall Data
Moores Fork Stream Mitigation Project
DMS Project No.94709
Monitoring Year 3 - 2018
12018 rainfall collected from NC CRONOS Station Name: MT AIRY 2 W (NCSU, 2018)
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station MT AIRY 2 W, NC (USDA, 2018)
Moores Fork 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2018 Slurry County, NC
12.00
10.00
7 8.00
0
a 6.00
m
CL
4.00
2.00
0.00
Jan -18 Feb -18 Mar -18 Apr -18 May -18 Jun -18 Jul -18 Aug -18 Sep -18 Oct -18
NC CRONOS MT Airy 2 W Date
—70th percentile
—30th percentile
12018 rainfall collected from NC CRONOS Station Name: MT AIRY 2 W (NCSU, 2018)
2 30th and 70th percentile rainfall data collected from weather station MT AIRY 2 W, NC (USDA, 2018)

APPENDIX F. Invasive Species Treatment Logs

MEMO
To: Matthew Reid, NCDEQ
From: Joe Secoges
Date: 09/08/2018
Subject: Moore's Fork Mitigation Site Maintenance Report
For reporting purposes, Eastern Forest Consultants produced a map delineating five management
units. The units are labeled A through E on a map attached to the memo to help describe tasks
performed in various areas of the property.
Tasks Preformed:
• Management Area A- July 5th, 6th, and 11th was spent spraying in Management Area A.
Invasive species found in the management area include Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu,
Chinese privet, multi -flora rose and oriental bittersweet. There were large amounts of
honeysuckle sprayed in the cove area on the south side, along with a small area of kudzu.
Chinese privet was scattered throughout all of the area, some spots being denser with the
species than others. The herbicide used to spray all species, except kudzu, was Rodeo.
Rodeo was used at a rate of 5oz per gallon. The kudzu was controlled with Transline at
an approximate rate of 10 oz per acre (half the amount allowed on a site in one year).
On August 24th, Area A was treated again. The honeysuckle, privet, rose, and bittersweet
were treated using a mix of 4 oz Rodeo and 2 oz Vastlan per gallon of water. Kudzu was
treated again using Transline at an approximate rate of 10 oz per acre.
• Management Area B- July 10th and 11th was spent treating Management Area B.
Invasive species found in the area include Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, Chinese privet,
multi -flora rose and oriental bittersweet. Honeysuckle and bittersweet had a well-
established presence in the area. There was also a small patch of kudzu that was starting
to work its way back into the forested area. Rodeo was used at a rate of 5oz per gallon.
The kudzu was controlled with Transline at an approximate rate of 10 oz per acre.
Several ailanthus and paulownia trees were treated via hack and squirt.
On August 24th° and 27th and September 3rd and 5th, Area B was treated again. The
honeysuckle, privet, rose, and bittersweet were treated using a mix of 4 oz Rodeo and 2
oz Vastlan per gallon of water. Kudzu was treated again using Transline at an
approximate rate of 10 oz per acre.
• Management Area C- Management Area C was treated on July 11th and 12th. Invasive
species found in the management area include Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, Chinese
privet, multi -flora rose and oriental bittersweet. The area was not heavily populated with
invasive species. The south side of the stream was more heavily populated, but was still

RFP Number: 16-007505 Vendor:
MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
The invasive vegetation treatment will be paid per the Payments and Milestones Schedule listed in Section 4.6 of this RFQ.
VENDOR must follow the PAYMENT & INVOICING PROCEDURES fisted in Section 4.7 to avoid delays in payments.
■.
Page 24 of 24

w
00
r
0
rl

sporadic. Rodeo was used at a rate of 5oz per gallon. The kudzu was controlled with
Transline at an approximate rate of 10 oz per acre.
On August 27th and September 5th, Area C was treated again. The honeysuckle, privet,
rose, and bittersweet were treated using a mix of 4 oz Rodeo and 2 oz Vastlan per gallon
of water. Kudzu was treated again using Transline at an approximate rate of 10 oz per
acre.
• Management Area D- Management Area D was treated on July 11th and 12th. Invasive
species found in the management area include Japanese honeysuckle, kudzu, Chinese
privet, multi -flora rose and oriental bittersweet. Invasive species populations in this area
were sporadic but dense when found. Rodeo was used at a rate of 5oz per gallon. The
kudzu was controlled with Transline at an approximate rate of 10 oz per acre. Some
ailanthus trees were flagged to be hacked and squirted on the next application.
On August 24th and 27th, Area D was treated again. The honeysuckle, privet, rose, and
bittersweet were treated using a mix of 4 oz Rodeo and 2 oz Vastlan per gallon of water.
Kudzu was treated again using Transline at an approximate rate of 10 oz per acre.
• Management Area E- Management Area E was treated on the afternoon of July 10th and
12th. Invasive species found in the management area include Japanese honeysuckle,
kudzu, Chinese privet, multi -flora rose and Oriental bittersweet. The area was dense in
honeysuckle, and bittersweet and had some dense areas of kudzu on the outer edges.
Rodeo was used at a rate of 5oz per gallon. The kudzu was controlled with Transline at
an approximate rate of 10 oz per acre.
On August 27th and September 5th, Area E was treated again. The honeysuckle, privet,
rose, and bittersweet were treated using a mix of 4 oz Rodeo and 2 oz Vastlan per gallon
of water. Kudzu was treated again using Transline at an approximate rate of 10 oz per
acre.
Other Notable Information:
• Kudzu was found to be more abundant than originally noted on the site assessment
report. A map is attached to this memo noting the kudzu that was located and treated in
the field.
• On the second round of control (late August — early September) extra care was taken
when treating kudzu along the field edges, especially in Blocks B and E, because corn
and/or sorghum was planted nearby.

PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE APPLICATION RECORD
PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER:
Name: Matthew Reid
NC DEQ DMS
Address: 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone #: [phone]
ADDRESS/LOCATION OF APPLICATION SITE (if different than above):
Address/Location: Moore's Fork Mitigation Site — Surry County
CERTIFIED APPLICATOR:
Joseph M. Secoges (Applicator Cert. # 026-34911 / Consultant Cert. # 030-1312)
Eastern Forest Consultants LLC
P.O. Box 1577
Clemmons, NC 27012
240-446-1583
DATE + START/END TIME OF APPLICATION: 7/5/2018; 1000-1630
RESTRICTED ENTRY INTERVAL (REI):
DURATION (# OF HOURS): 4 Hours
EXPIRATION (DATE/TIME): 7/5/18 @ 2030
PLANTS/SITES TREATED: Upland Area around Stream
PRINCIPLE PESTS TO BE CONTROLLED: Privet, Honeysuckle, Bittersweet,
Multi -flora Rose

ACREAGE, AREA, OR NUMBER OF PLANTS TREATED:
Spot Spray As Needed
IDENTIFICATION/AMOUNT OF PESTICIDES USED:
1) Brand/Common Name: Rodeo
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-324
Amount Applied to Site: 165 oz
Application Rate: 5 oz/gallon
2) Brand/Common Name: CWC 90 Surfactant
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 33 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz / gallon
3) Brand/Common Name: Bullseye Spray Pattern Indicator
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 33 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz / gallon
4) Brand/Common Name:
EPA Reg. Number:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
DILUENTS USED (Water, Oil, Fuel, etc.):
1) Diluent: Water
Amount Applied to Site: 33 gallons
Application Rate: As Needed
2) Diluent:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
TYPE OF APPLICATION EQUIPMENT USED: Back -pack Sprayers

WEATHER:
Temp: 90-95 deg F
Wind Speed: 0-5 mph
Wind Direction: variable
NOTES: Sprayed with Preston Millsaps and John Smith
Treated "Block A" on SE side of property

PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE APPLICATION RECORD
PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER:
Name: Matthew Reid
NC DEQ DMS
Address: 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone #: [phone]
ADDRESS/LOCATION OF APPLICATION SITE (if different than above):
Address/Location: Moore's Fork Mitigation Site — Surry County
CERTIFIED APPLICATOR:
Joseph M. Secoges (Applicator Cert. # 026-34911 / Consultant Cert. # 030-1312)
Eastern Forest Consultants LLC
P.O. Box 1577
Clemmons, NC 27012
240-446-1583
DATE + START/END TIME OF APPLICATION: 7/6/2018; 0930-1200
RESTRICTED ENTRY INTERVAL (REI):
DURATION (# OF HOURS): 4 Hours
EXPIRATION (DATE/TIME): 7/6/18 @ 1600
PLANTS/SITES TREATED: Upland Area around Stream
PRINCIPLE PESTS TO BE CONTROLLED: Privet, Honeysuckle, Bittersweet,
Multi -flora Rose

ACREAGE, AREA, OR NUMBER OF PLANTS TREATED:
Spot Spray As Needed
IDENTIFICATION/AMOUNT OF PESTICIDES USED:
1) Brand/Common Name: Rodeo
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-324
Amount Applied to Site: 60 oz
Application Rate: 5 oz/gallon
2) Brand/Common Name: CWC 90 Surfactant
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 12 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz / gallon
3) Brand/Common Name: Bullseye Spray Pattern Indicator
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 12 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz / gallon
4) Brand/Common Name:
EPA Reg. Number:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
DILUENTS USED (Water, Oil, Fuel, etc.):
1) Diluent: Water
Amount Applied to Site: 12 gallons
Application Rate: As Needed
2) Diluent:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
TYPE OF APPLICATION EQUIPMENT USED: Back -pack Sprayers

WEATHER:
Temp: 85-95 deg F
Wind Speed: 0-5 mph
Wind Direction: variable
NOTES: Sprayed with Preston Millsaps and John Smith
Treated northern end of "Block A" on SE side of property
Heavy rain storm came in about an hour after we finished spraying ... no
spraying after rain event

PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE APPLICATION RECORD
PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER:
Name: Matthew Reid
NC DEQ DMS
Address: 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone #: [phone]
ADDRESS/LOCATION OF APPLICATION SITE (if different than above):
Address/Location: Moore's Fork Mitigation Site — Surry County
CERTIFIED APPLICATOR:
Joseph M. Secoges (Applicator Cert. # 026-34911 / Consultant Cert. # 030-1312)
Eastern Forest Consultants LLC
P.O. Box 1577
Clemmons, NC 27012
240-446-1583
DATE + START/END TIME OF APPLICATION: 7/10/2018; 0930-1600
RESTRICTED ENTRY INTERVAL (REI):
DURATION (# OF HOURS): 4 Hours
EXPIRATION (DATE/TIME): 7/10/18 @ 2000
PLANTS/SITES TREATED: Upland Area around Stream
PRINCIPLE PESTS TO BE CONTROLLED: Privet, Honeysuckle, Bittersweet,
Multi -flora Rose

ACREAGE, AREA, OR NUMBER OF PLANTS TREATED:
Spot Spray As Needed
IDENTIFICATION/AMOUNT OF PESTICIDES USED:
1) Brand/Common Name: Rodeo
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-324
Amount Applied to Site: 255 oz
Application Rate: 5 oz/gallon
2) Brand/Common Name: CWC 90 Surfactant
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 51 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz / gallon
3) Brand/Common Name: Bullseye Spray Pattern Indicator
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 51 oz
Application Rate: I oz / gallon
4) Brand/Common Name:
EPA Reg. Number:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
DILUENTS USED (Water, Oil, Fuel, etc.):
1) Diluent: Water
Amount Applied to Site: 51 gallons
Application Rate: As Needed
2) Diluent:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
TYPE OF APPLICATION EQUIPMENT USED: Back -pack Sprayers

WEATHER:
Temp: 85-95 deg F
Wind Speed: 0-5 mph
Wind Direction: variable
NOTES: Sprayed with Preston Millsaps and John Smith
Treated blocks `B" and `B"

PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE APPLICATION RECORD
PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER:
Name: Matthew Reid
NC DEQ DMS
Address: 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone #: [phone]
ADDRESS/LOCATION OF APPLICATION SITE (if different than above):
Address/Location: Moore's Fork Mitigation Site — Surry County
CERTIFIED APPLICATOR:
Joseph M. Secoges (Applicator Cert. # 026-34911 / Consultant Cert. # 030-1312)
Eastern Forest Consultants LLC
P.O. Box 1577
Clemmons, NC 27012
240-446-1583
DATE + START/END TIME OF APPLICATION: 7/11/2018; 0930-1430
RESTRICTED ENTRY INTERVAL (REI):
DURATION (# OF HOURS): 12 Hours
EXPIRATION (DATE/TIME): 7/12/18 @ 0230
PLANTS/SITES TREATED: Upland Area around Stream
PRINCIPLE PESTS TO BE CONTROLLED: Kudzu

ACREAGE, AREA, OR NUMBER OF PLANTS TREATED:
Spot Spray As Needed
IDENTIFICATION/AMOUNT OF PESTICIDES USED:
1) Brand/Common Name: Transline
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-259
Amount Applied to Site: 20 oz
Application Rate: 8 oz / 12 gallons
2) Brand/Common Name: CWC 90 Surfactant
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 30 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz / gallon
3) Brand/Common Name: Bullseye Spray Pattern Indicator
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 30 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz / gallon
4) Brand/Common Name:
EPA Reg. Number:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
DILUENTS USED (Water, Oil, Fuel, etc.):
1) Diluent: Water
Amount Applied to Site: 30 gallons
Application Rate: As Needed
2) Diluent:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
TYPE OF APPLICATION EQUIPMENT USED: Back -pack Sprayers

WEATHER:
Temp: 85-95 deg F
Wind Speed: 0-5 mph
Wind Direction: variable
NOTES: Sprayed with John Smith
Treated all known kudzu in blocks A and B, Some in C and D
Rain Storm started about 35 minutes after we stopped spraying

PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE APPLICATION RECORD
PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER:
Name: Matthew Reid
NC DEQ DMS
Address: 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone #: [phone]
ADDRESS/LOCATION OF APPLICATION SITE (if different than above):
Address/Location: Moore's Fork Mitigation Site — Surry County
CERTIFIED APPLICATOR:
Joseph M. Secoges (Applicator Cert. # 026-34911 / Consultant Cert. # 030-1312)
Eastern Forest Consultants LLC
P.O. Box 1577
Clemmons, NC 27012
240-446-1583
DATE + START/END TIME OF APPLICATION: 7/12/2018; 0930-1600
RESTRICTED ENTRY INTERVAL (REI):
DURATION (# OF HOURS): 12 Hours
EXPIRATION (DATE/TIME): 7/13/18 @ 0600
PLANTS/SITES TREATED: Upland Area around Stream
PRINCIPLE PESTS TO BE CONTROLLED: Kudzu, Privet, Bittersweet, Rose,
Honeysuckle

ACREAGE, AREA, OR NUMBER OF PLANTS TREATED:
Spot Spray As Needed
IDENTIFICATION/AMOUNT OF PESTICIDES USED:
1) Brand/Common Name: Transline
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-259
Amount Applied to Site: 18 oz
Application Rate: 12 oz / 12 gallons
2) Brand/Common Name: Rodeo
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-324
Amount Applied to Site: 90 oz
Application Rate: 5 oz / gallon
2) Brand/Common Name: CWC 90 Surfactant
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 36 oz
Application Rate: I oz / gallon
3) Brand/Common Name: Bullseye Spray Pattern Indicator
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 36 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz / gallon
DILUENTS USED (Water, Oil, Fuel, etc.):
1) Diluent: Water
Amount Applied to Site: 36 gallons
Application Rate: As Needed
2) Diluent:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
TYPE OF APPLICATION EQUIPMENT USED: Back -pack Sprayers

WEATHER:
Temp: 80-90 deg F
Wind Speed: 0-10 mph
Wind Direction: variable
NOTES: Sprayed with Preston Millsaps John Smith
Treated all known kudzu in blocks C, D, and E
Joe sprayed kudzu with Transline and Preston and John sprayed other
invasive spp. with Rodeo

PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE APPLICATION RECORD
PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER:
Name: Matthew Reid
NC DEQ DMS
Address: 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone #: [phone]
ADDRESS/LOCATION OF APPLICATION SITE (if different than above):
Address/Location: Moore's Fork Mitigation Site — Surry County
CERTIFIED APPLICATOR:
Joseph M. Secoges (Applicator Cert. # 026-34911 / Consultant Cert. # 030-1312)
Eastern Forest Consultants LLC
P.O. Box 1577
Clemmons, NC 27012
240-446-1583
DATE + START/END TIME OF APPLICATION: 8/24/2018; 0800-1600
RESTRICTED ENTRY INTERVAL (REI):
DURATION (# OF HOURS): 24 Hours
EXPIRATION (DATE/TIME): 8/25/18 @ 1600
PLANTS/SITES TREATED: Upland Area around Stream
PRINCIPLE PESTS TO BE CONTROLLED: Kudzu, Privet, Bittersweet, Rose,
Honeysuckle

ACREAGE, AREA, OR NUMBER OF PLANTS TREATED:
Spot Spray As Needed
IDENTIFICATION/AMOUNT OF PESTICIDES USED:
1) Brand/Common Name: Transline
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-259
Amount Applied to Site: 45.5 oz
Application Rate: 21 oz / 12 gallons
2) Brand/Common Name: Vastlan
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-687
Amount Applied to Site: 30 oz
Application Rate: 4 oz / gallon
3) Brand/Common Name: Rodeo
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-324
Amount Applied to Site: 60 oz
Application Rate: 5 oz / gallon
4) Brand/Common Name: CWC 90 Surfactant
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 38 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz / gallon
5) Brand/Common Name: Bullseye Spray Pattern Indicator
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 38 oz
Application Rate: I oz / gallon
DILUENTS USED (Water, Oil, Fuel, etc.):
1) Diluent: Water
Amount Applied to Site: 38 gallons
Application Rate: As Needed
2) Diluent:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
TYPE OF APPLICATION EQUIPMENT USED: Back -pack Sprayers

WEATHER:
Temp: 80-90 deg F
Wind Speed: 0-10 mph
Wind Direction: variable
NOTES: Sprayed with Preston Millsaps
Joe treated kudzu in block A, south side of block B and block D; Preston
treated various invasives in block A.
Joe sprayed kudzu with Transline and Preston sprayed other
invasive spp. with Rodeo and Vastlan

PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE APPLICATION RECORD
PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER:
Name: Matthew Reid
NC DEQ DMS
Address: 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone #: [phone]
ADDRESS/LOCATION OF APPLICATION SITE (if different than above):
Address/Location: Moore's Fork Mitigation Site — Surry County
CERTIFIED APPLICATOR:
Preston Millsaps (Applicator Cert. # 026-36367)
Eastern Forest Consultants LLC
P.O. Box 1577
Clemmons, NC 27012
240-446-1583
DATE + START/END TIME OF APPLICATION: 8/27/2018; 0830-1700
RESTRICTED ENTRY INTERVAL (REI):
DURATION (# OF HOURS): 24 Hours
EXPIRATION (DATE/TIME): 8/28/18 @ 1700
PLANTS/SITES TREATED: Upland Area around Stream
PRINCIPLE PESTS TO BE CONTROLLED: Privet, Bittersweet, Rose,
Honeysuckle

ACREAGE, AREA, OR NUMBER OF PLANTS TREATED:
Spot Spray As Needed
IDENTIFICATION/AMOUNT OF PESTICIDES USED:
1) Brand/Common Name: Vastlan
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-687
Amount Applied to Site: 42 oz
Application Rate: 4 oz / gallon
2) Brand/Common Name: Rodeo
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-324
Amount Applied to Site: 84 oz
Application Rate: 5 oz / gallon
3) Brand/Common Name: CWC 90 Surfactant
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 21 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz / gallon
4) Brand/Common Name: Bullseye Spray Pattern Indicator
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 21 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz / gallon
DILUENTS USED (Water, Oil, Fuel, etc.):
1) Diluent: Water
Amount Applied to Site: 21 gallons
Application Rate: As Needed
2) Diluent:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
TYPE OF APPLICATION EQUIPMENT USED: Back -pack Sprayer

WEATHER:
Temp: Approx. 90 deg F
Wind Speed: 0-10 mph
Wind Direction: variable
NOTES:
Sprayed on blocks C, D, and E and the southern portion of block B

PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE APPLICATION RECORD
PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER:
Name: Matthew Reid
NC DEQ DMS
Address: 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone #: [phone]
ADDRESS/LOCATION OF APPLICATION SITE (if different than above):
Address/Location: Moore's Fork Mitigation Site — Surry County
CERTIFIED APPLICATOR:
Preston Millsaps (Applicator Cert. # 026-36367)
Eastern Forest Consultants LLC
P.O. Box 1577
Clemmons, NC 27012
336-466-4008
DATE + START/END TIME OF APPLICATION:
9/3/2018:0815-1700
RESTRICTED ENTRY INTERVAL (REI):
DURATION (# OF HOURS): 24 hours
EXPIRATION (DATE/TIME): 9/4/2018 @ 1700
PLANTS/SITES TREATED:
Sites treated were hill tops, side slopes, and bottomlands
PRINCIPLE PESTS TO BE CONTROLLED:
Privet, bittersweet, honeysuckle, paulownia, ailanthus

ACREAGE, AREA, OR NUMBER OF PLANTS TREATED:
Spot sprayed as needed
IDENTIFICATION/AMOUNT OF PESTICIDES USED:
11) Brand/Common Name: Vastlan
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-687
Amount Applied to Site: 36 oz
Application Rate: 2 oz/Gallon
2) Brand/Common Name: Rodeo
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-324
Amount Applied to Site: 72 oz
Application Rate: 4 oz/Gallon
3) Brand/Common Name: Spreader 90 Surfactant
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 18 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz /gallon
4) Brand/Common Name: Bullseye Dye
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 18 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz/gallon
DILUENTS USED (Water, Oil, Fuel, etc.):
1) Diluent: Water
Amount Applied to Site: 18 gallons
Application Rate: As Needed
2) Diluent:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
TYPE OF APPLICATION EQUIPMENT USED:
Backpack sprayer

WEATHER:
Temp: 85-90 deg F
Wind Speed: 0-5 mph
Wind Direction: variable
NOTES:
There was a shower around 1530.

PESTICIDE/HERBICIDE APPLICATION RECORD
PROPERTY OWNER/MANAGER:
Name: Matthew Reid
NC DEQ DMS
Address: 5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone #: [phone]
ADDRESS/LOCATION OF APPLICATION SITE (if different than above):
Address/Location: Moore's Fork Mitigation Site — Surry County
CERTIFIED APPLICATOR:
Joseph M. Secoges (Applicator Cert. # 026-34911 / Consultant Cert. # 030-1312)
Eastern Forest Consultants LLC
P.O. Box 1577
Clemmons, NC 27012
240-446-1583
DATE + START/END TIME OF APPLICATION: 9/5/2018; 0900-1515
RESTRICTED ENTRY INTERVAL (REI):
DURATION (# OF HOURS): 12 Hours
EXPIRATION (DATE/TIME): 9/6/18 @ 0315
PLANTS/SITES TREATED: Upland Area around Stream
PRINCIPLE PESTS TO BE CONTROLLED: Kudzu

ACREAGE, AREA, OR NUMBER OF PLANTS TREATED:
Spot Spray As Needed
IDENTIFICATION/AMOUNT OF PESTICIDES USED:
1) Brand/Common Name: Transline
EPA Reg. Number: 62719-259
Amount Applied to Site: 42 oz
Application Rate: 21 oz / 12 gallons
2) Brand/Common Name: CWC 90 Surfactant
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 24 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz / gallon
3) Brand/Common Name: Bullseye Spray Pattern Indicator
EPA Reg. Number: N/A
Amount Applied to Site: 24 oz
Application Rate: 1 oz / gallon
4) Brand/Common Name:
EPA Reg. Number:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
DILUENTS USED (Water, Oil, Fuel, etc.):
1) Diluent: Water
Amount Applied to Site: 24 gallons
Application Rate: As Needed
2) Diluent:
Amount Applied to Site:
Application Rate:
TYPE OF APPLICATION EQUIPMENT USED: Back -pack Sprayers

WEATHER:
Temp: 85-95 deg F
Wind Speed: 0-10 mph
Wind Direction: variable
NOTES: Treated all known kudzu in northern portion of Block B, all of C, and all
of E
Wind was still in morning when spraying kudzu near corn and sorghum