20131087 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2018_20190201

Mitigation Project Name Poplin Ridge Site
DMS ID 95359
River Basin Yadkin
Cataloging Unit 03040105
County Union USACE Action ID 2012-01079
Oats, Project instituted 71512012 NCOWRPermlt No 20134087
Date Prepared 8127/2018
Credit Release Mllennne
Potentivl Credos Mki ation Plan
Potential Credits(As-Built Survey)
Potential CredR9(IRT Approved)
Schrduletl
Releases
(a".)
We.
6,346.2)0
6,365000
6,346.268
Cool cold
Anticipated Acual
Release Year Release Data
(Stream) (Stream)
Scheduled
Releases
(Forested)
Weiland Cretlse
Riptide Riparian Non Noo-tlpatlanCoastal
RlvOdne dverine Scheduled
Releases
(Coasmg
Anticipated Aew.1
Release Year Release Date
(We08nd) (Wetland)
1 ante Establishment)
NIA
8,203.333
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
NIA
2 ear 01 AsSiult
30.00%.
1.909.500
2015
9/42015
30%
30%
WA
NIA
3 earl Menkerin
10.00%
636.500
2016
4252016
10%
10%
NIA
NIA
IRTAdusbn.d-
NCDWRPennit USACEA40on ID Pmjeat Name
-7.693
10202017
WA
NIA
4(Yei Monitoring) -NOT RELEASED
10.00%
634.627
2017
Not Released
10%
15%
WA
NIA
5 ear 3 Monitoring)
7.20%
457.054
2018
6262018
15%
20%
WA
NIA
5(Year s6(Year n -Noring) RELEASED
2.60%
iT/.5]3
2016
Not Released
6 ear4MonNOT
5.00%
2019
5°6
10%
NIA
ear 5 Monitorin
10.00%
202016%
16%
NIA
8 Year 6 M.dMdn
5.00%
2021
5.6
MIA
NIA
A]
9 ear l Monitorin
10.00%
222
10%
NIA
NIA
stream Ba ddull standard
10.00%
634.627
2017
10202017
WA
WA
1,367.021
220.333
TOtel credits Released to Date
23.840
3,630.188
TOTAL Credits at Risk to Dale
612200
^NOTE: Adjustment required due to IRT concerns on how Ne aa3uilt cretlits were calculated
DEBITS (released creRce only)
Rod. 1.00.92 1.5 2,5
IRT Approvetl ASBUIIt Arnoun[s (feet antl acres)
3,697.000
3,305.000
953.009
1,192.000
2Ad 2u 2s, Za
mV
G Uw Ud
IRTAppmved As$uiltAmoun6(.nigafion<Mtlits)
3,523.335
8,203.333
381,200
238.400
Perttnlage Released
58.98%
70.00%
2828%
70.00%
Total Released Amounts YnAl acres)
2,168.309
2,313.500
269.508
830.400
Total Released Amounts (credltsl
2,056.923
1.542333
107.803
166.880
NCDWRPennit USACEA40on ID Pmjeat Name
NCDOTTIP R -E616 -US 601
20051398 200600393 Wdening. Union County
170.150
NCOOTTIP R-212CE,
2011-0431 201141237 charade Outer Loop
749.835
545.050
NCOOTTIP R -2248E-
2011-0431 2011.01237 Chiseled. Outer Loop
734.400
1233.165
571.000
Remaining Area unte(feetlacres)
1,423.909
330.500
502192
119.200
Remaining Amounts (credits)
1,367.021
220.333
420.917
23.840
Contingencies (if any): None

PcVLAn � Lam
C-1 (-/I c�'
Date
1 - For NCDMS, no credits are rele&ed during the first milestone
2- For NCDMS projects, the sewn credit release milestone occurs automatically when the as -built report (baseline monitoring report) has been made available to the NCIRT by posting it to the NCDMS Portal, provided the following criteria
have been met:
1) Approval of the final Mitigation Plan
2) Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE covering the property
3) Completion of all physical and biological improvements to the mitigation site pursuant to the mitigation plan
4) Reciept of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for porjects where DA permit issuance is not required
3 - A 10% reserve of credits is to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met

Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7
FINAL
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project
NCDMS Contract No.: 004672
NCDMS Project No.: 95359
USACE Permit Action ID: SAW -2012-01079
DWR Project No.: 13-1087
Union County, NC
Data Collected: September 2018
Date Submitted: February 2019
Submitted to:
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
NCDEQ-DMS, 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1652

fires
February 1, 2019
Paul Wiesner
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services
5 Ravenscroft Drive, Suite 102
Asheville, NC 28801
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
RE: Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site: MY4 Monitoring Report (NCDMS ID
95359)
Listed below are comments provided by DMS on January 9, 2019 regarding the Poplin Ridge
Stream Restoration Site: Year 4 Monitoring Report and RES' responses.
General: An IRT credit release site visit meeting was held at the Poplin Ridge site on 7/11/19.
RES generated a meeting minute memo on 7/19/18 which was provided to the IRT on 8/3/18.
Please document the IRT site visit discussion in the report text and include the RES memo
(attached) as an Appendix in the FINAL MY4 report.
Done.
General: During the 2018 IRT credit release, the IRT withheld mitigation credits as follows:
Poplin Ridge — DMS# 95359
UT2-2 in the pond (4+90-10+75): 585.0 SMUs
UT2-1 (0+00-4+90): 196.0 SMUs
UT2-A (4+50-5+28): 31.2 SMUs
Total SMUs Withheld (2018): 812.2 SMUs
DMS will be withholding payment for the "at risk" credits that have been withheld by the IRT during
2018 credit release. If the IRT acknowledges that these credits are valid at a later date, DMS will
revise contract payments accordingly.
When "at risk" credits are removed, there are 5,534 SMUs currently meeting success in MY4. At
Task 10 (MY4), RES can bill for 80% of the adjusted contract value. The 80% value of the 5,534
SMUs currently meeting success = $1,465,403.20. To date, DMS has made $1,474,770.50 in
total contract payments to RES. Accordingly, RES should not invoice for Task 10 (Contract
004672 -RFP 16-004110 ).
Noted.
Section 1.4 — Project Performance: The NCDMS website for the project document portal should
be updated to: https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-projects
Done.

Section 1.4.1 -Vegetation & CCPV Maps: This section reports that areas were replanted in
February 2018 and one (1) area of conservation easement encroachment was observed. Please
clearly identify and label the replanted areas on the MY4 CCPV maps. Please add a legend label
to the CCPV map for the small encroachment area (Figure 2 (6)).
The replant areas have been labeled on the CCPV and the legend label for the encroachment
area is in the "Vegetation Condition Assessment" in the bottom right corner of the map.
Section 1.4.2 -Stream Geomorphology, CCPV Maps & Table 5: The report text notes, "Small
areas of bank scour, bed aggradation, and bed degradation were seen on-site but not all were
considered problem areas in MY4." Any areas considered Stream Problems Areas should be
discussed in the report text, photo documented, identified on the CCPV maps and documented
in Table 5. Please update the report and/ or the Section 1.4.2 text accordingly.
This text has been updated to say, "Small areas of bank scour, bed aggradation, and bed
degradation were reported as problem areas in previous years but are no longer problem areas
MY4. RES will continue monitor these areas during future visits to assess the stability of the
channel and the need for any repair."
Section 1.4.3 — Stream Hydrology & Table 14: The report indicates that MY4 (2018) bankfull
events were limited to one (1) event at 1 of 3 crest gauges. Please confirm that the three (3) crest
gauges installed on the site are functioning properly and have been maintained. Based on the
precipitation data it appears likely that the site had more than 1 bankfull event in 2018.
Additionally, the raw data support file provided shows more than one bankfull event at each station
in 2018; however, the report text indicates that manual readings were utilized. If the installed crest
gauges (automated or manual) are not capturing accurate yearly bankfull events, DMS
recommends replacing the monitoring equipment. Please review the data and update the report
text and table accordingly.
Due to the flashy nature of the channels on site, RES had been previously only reporting bankfull
events with durations of over six hours. This was reported incorrectly in the MY4 Draft Report and
has now been updated. The crest gauge on UT1-2, however, reported abnormally high readings
throughout the year. All the transducers on site were replaced in January 2019. This has been
added to the report.
Section 1.4.4 — Adaptive Management: Providing the general proposed adaptive management
plan for the site in the MY4 report is helpful for documentation purposes. DMS also recommends
submitting a standalone detailed adaptive management plan with figures and drawings (as
necessary) to the IRT for comment prior to implementation. The standalone adaptive
management plan should be submitted to DMS for review first and then DMS will submit the final
adaptive management plan to the IRT for review and comment.
The adaptive management plan should discuss any supplemental monitoring elements and/or
additional monitoring time being proposed to close the site with the IRT. If no supplemental
monitoring elements and/or additional monitoring time are being proposed, it should be discussed
and justified in the adaptive management plan.
Noted.
Table 2: Please list all invasive -exotic treatments, supplemental plantings, and maintenance
activity efforts in Table 2. The table should report ALL maintenance efforts post construction.
Done.

0
CCPV Maps & Table 6: The CCPV maps and Table 6 indicate that invasive -exotic plant species
are absent on the site. Invasive -exotic plant species have been an issue on the Poplin Ridge site
since construction. DMS understands that numerous treatments were conducted in 2018. Please
confirm the site's invasive -exotic assessment and update the report text, CCPV maps and table
as necessary.
RES treated the invasive species on site three times in 2018. This treatment included mulching,
cutting, and spraying. As of the last site visit in 2018, there are no invasive species problem areas
to report. RES will continue to monitor for invasive species on site, especially in the areas that
have been treated in previous years.
Electronic Deliverables: Please provide ALL project GIS shapefiles (stream layer, TOB, etc.) in
the FINAL MY4 electronic deliverable CD.
Done.

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

Contents
1.0
Project Summary............................................................................................................................... 3
1.1.
Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................................... 3
1.2.
Success Criteria............................................................................................................................. 3
1.3.
Project Setting and Background.................................................................................................... 4
1.4.
Project Performance...................................................................................................................... 5
2.0
Methods.............................................................................................................................................6
3.0
References.........................................................................................................................................6
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project 1 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95359 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 February 2019

Appendices
Appendix A. General Tables and Figures
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3. Project Contacts
Table 4. Project Information
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Figures 2. Current Conditions Plan View Maps
Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
2018 Photo Station Photos
2018 Problem Area Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary
Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata
Table 9. Total Planted Stem Counts
Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
(Not required for MY4)
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15.2018 Rainfall Summary
Appendix F. Poplin Ridge MY3 IRT Credit Release Site Visit July 2018
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project 2 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95359 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 February 2019

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1. Goals and Objectives
The project goals address stressors identified in the TLW, and include the following:
• Nutrient removal,
• Sediment removal,
• Reducing runoff from animal operations,
Filtration of runoff, and
Improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Establishing riparian buffer areas adjacent to CAFOs.
• Converting active farm fields to forested buffers,
• Stabilization of eroding stream banks,
• Reduction in streambank slope,
Restoration of riparian buffer bottomland hardwood habitats, and
Construction of in -stream structures designed to improve bedform diversity and trap detritus.
1.2. Success Criteria
The success criteria for the Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site follows accepted and approved success
criteria presented in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and subsequent NCDMS and agency
guidance. Specific success criteria components are presented below.
1.2.1. Stream Restoration
Bankfull Events - Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven-year monitoring
period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years. Otherwise, stream monitoring will
continue until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years. Bankfull events will
be documented using crest gauges, auto -logging crest gauges, photographs, and visual assessments
for evidence of debris wrack lines.
Cross -Sections - There should be little change in as -built cross-section. If changes do take place,
they should be evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a less stable condition,
or minor changes that represent an increase in stability.
Bank Pin Arrays - Bank pin arrays will be used as a supplemental method to monitor erosion on
selected meander bends. Bank pin exposure will be recorded at each monitoring event.
Digital Image Stations- Digital images will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation
or degradation, bank erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control
measures. Longitudinal images should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel
or an excessive increase in channel depth. Lateral images should not indicate excessive erosion or
continuing degradation of banks over time. A series of images over time should indicate
successional maturation of riparian vegetation.
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project 3 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95359 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 February 2019

1.2.2.Vegetation
Interim measures of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320 three-year-old trees
per acre at the end of Year 3 and 260 five-year old trees per acre at the end of Year -5. The final vegetative
success criteria will be the survival of 210 trees per acre at the end of Year 7.
1.3. Project Setting and Background
The Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site (Site) encompasses approximately 27.17 acres, of which 4.69
acres are wooded and the remaining 22.48 acres are agricultural fields and pastures. The western and
eastern systems, UTI and UT2 respectively, consist of unnamed tributaries to the East Fork of Stewarts
Creek. UTI is divided into seven reaches and UT2 is divided into five reaches. The Site is located within
the Yadkin River Watershed (NCDWR sub basin 03-07-14 and HUC 03040105070050) in Union County,
North Carolina, approximately six miles north of Monroe. The Site is located within the Stewarts Creek
Watershed, a NCDMS targeted local watershed.
Following 2016 monitoring the NCIRT requested a review of the differential between the Approved
Mitigation Plan and Baseline Monitoring Report. The table below details the discrepancies by reach. The
primary cause of increased baseline SMUs is survey methodology (thalweg vs. centerline). The Mitigation
Plan lengths were based on centerline. Also, UT2-4 had a large decrease in SMUs due to loss of land
control. RES has reverted back to the Mitigation Plan (Proposed) SMUs.
Reach
Mitigation Type
Proposed Length
(Lfl*
Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed SMUs
Baseline SMUs
UTI -1
Preservation
572
5:1
114
114
UTI -1
Enhancement I
566
1.5:1
377
377
UTI -2
P1 Restoration
1,171
1:1
1,171
1,178
UTI -3
P1 Restoration
901
1:1
901
893
UTI -4
Enhancement I
1,210
1.5:1
807
815
UTI -A
Enhancement I
217
1.5:1
145
144
UTI -13
Preservation
620
5:1
124
124
UTI -13
Enhancement I
455
1.5:1
303
303
UT1-C
Enhancement I
857
1.5:1
571
586
UT2-1
Enhancement H
490
2.5:1
196
196
UT2-2
P1 Restoration
847
1:1
847
847
UT2-3
P1 Restoration
521
1.5:1
347
347
UT2-4*
PI Restoration
257
1:1
257
257
UT2-A
Enhancement H
463
2.5:1
185
184
Total
9,147
6,346
6,365
*Reach was shortened due to loss of land control.
**The contracted amount of credits for this Site was 6,944 SMUs
On July 11, 2018, the IRT, DMS, and RES had a site visit to discuss credit release at Poplin Ridge. It was
determined that credits from UT2-1, UT2-2, and UT2-A associated with the drained pond bottom would be
withheld (812.2 SMUs). Additionally, it was requested that RES submits a Remedial Action Plan to address
the issues in the drained pond bottom and that a flow gauge is to be installed on UT2-A to document at least
intermittent flow. A memo documenting this site visit is attached in Appendix F.
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project 4 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95359 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 February 2019

1.4. Project Performance
Monitoring Year 4 (MY4) data was collected in September 2018. Monitoring activities included visual
assessment of all reaches and the surrounding easement, 17 permanent photo stations, and 13 permanent
vegetation monitoring plots. Per the Approved Mitigation Plan, geomorphic data was not collected in MY4.
Summary information and data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver activity or easement
encroachment and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found
in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting information
formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly the Mitigation
Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly the Restoration Plan) documents available on NCDMS' website
(https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-projects). All raw data supporting the tables
and figures in the appendices is available from NCDMS upon request.
1.4.1.Vegetation
Visual assessment of the site indicates that herbaceous vegetation has become well established on-site. The
areas of low stem density and poor growth were replanted in February 2018 with 1,000 containerized trees.
Two of the vegetation plots (9 and 10) in the replanting areas still did not meet success. RES will re-evaluate
these areas as well as the pond bottom for replanting in MY5. The invasive species areas were treated in
February, June, and August of 2018 and treatments will continue as needed throughout the monitoring
period. The small encroachment area is still present and RES will add additional marker poles to prohibit
the encroachment in MY5.
Monitoring of 13 permanent vegetation plots was completed in September 2018. Summary tables and
photographs associated with MY4 monitoring can be found in Appendix C. With the exception of Plots 9
and 10, MY4 monitoring data indicates that all vegetation monitoring plots met the MY5 interim success
criteria of 260 planted stems per acre. Planted stem densities among the plots ranged from 40 to 1,052
planted stems per acre with a mean of 595 stems per acre across all plots. When volunteer stems are
included, densities ranged between 121 and 1,578 total stems per acre with a mean of 672 stems per acre
across all plots. A total of 19 plant species were documented within the monitoring plots. The estimated
average planted stem height was 6.8 feet. Low stem densities in plots 9 and 10 are likely attributed to a
combination of dry conditions and shallow, rocky soil. The areas in and around these plots were replanted
in early 2018 but the replanted stems did not survive.
1.4.2. Stream Geomorphology
Visual assessment of the stream channel was performed in order to document signs of instability, such as
eroding banks, structural instability, or excessive sedimentation. Small areas of bank scour, bed
aggradation, and bed degradation were reported as problem areas in previous years but are no longer
problem areas MY4. RES will continue monitor these areas during future visits to assess the stability of the
channel and the need for any repair.
Geomorphic data, including cross-section, bank pin array, and substrate, for MY4 was not collected. It will
be collected and reported again in MY5 and MY7.
1.4.3. Stream Hydrology
Since project completion in April 2015, six bankfull event have been recorded on UT1-2, 25 on UT1-4, and
16 on UT2-3. MY4 bankfull events are identified by manual crest gauge and transducer gauge readings
(Table 13). Stream hydrology issues were identified and discussed with the NCIRT during a site visit in
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project 5 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95359 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 February 2019

July 2018. RES installed a flow gauge downstream of XS -3 on UT2-A in January 2019. These issues are
discussed further in Section 1.4.4.
1.4.4.Adaptive Management
During a site visit with NCIRT and NCDMS at the Poplin Ridge Site in July 2018, several problem areas
were identified (Appendix F). Per the request of NCIRT, RES is providing an Adaptive Management Plan
to be sent to the IRT in early 2019. The Adaptive Management Plan proposes to add log sills in the old
pond bottom on UT2-1 as well as notch the log structure inhibiting flow at the top of the reach and notch
the filter berm that is damming flow at the bottom of the reach. Additionally it describes how RES will
document at least intermittent flow on UT2-A and treat the vegetation growth in the channel of UT2-2.
2.0 METHODS
Visual assessment of the project was performed at the beginning and end of the monitoring year. Permanent
photo station photos were also collected during the morphologic and vegetation data collection events.
Additionally, photos were taken of vegetation or stream problem areas not revealed in the permanent photo
station images.
Geomorphic measurements (MYO, MY I, MY2, MY3, MYS, MY7) were taken during low flow conditions
using a Topcon GTS -312 Total Station. Three-dimensional coordinates associated with each cross-section
data were collected in the field and geo-referenced (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200). Morphological
data was limited to 29 cross-sections. Survey data were imported into CAD, ArcGIS, and Excel for data
processing and analysis. Channel substrate was characterized using a Wolman Pebble Count as outlined in
Harrelson et al. (1994) and processed using Microsoft Excel.
Vegetation success is being monitored at 13 permanent monitoring plots. Vegetation monitoring follows
the CVS-EEP Level 2 Protocol for Recording Vegetation, version 4.2 (Lee et al. 2008) and includes analysis
of species composition and density of planted specimens. Data is processed using the CVS data entry tool.
In the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked with rebar and photos of each plot are
taken from the origin each monitoring year.
Precipitation data was collected using an Onset HOBO Data Logging Rain Gauge. Bankfull events were
documented with manual crest gauges, which were installed within each of the following reaches - UT1-2,
UT1-4, and UT2-3. Crest gauge data was downloaded during quarterly site visits.
3.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Banc & Exchange. 2014. Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project Final Mitigation Plan.
North Carolina Ecosystems Enhancement Program, Raleigh.
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm; accessed November 2008.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project 6 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95359 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 February 2019

Appendix A
General Tables and Figures

* Stream credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg. Based on the April 3, 2017 IRT Credit Release Meeting, these stream credits have been reverted back to the amounts in the IRT approved mitigation plan.
Table 1. Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project
Mitigation Credits
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Stream*
Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Nutrient Offset
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
RE
R
RE R
RE
Totals
6107.9
238.4
N/A
N/A N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Project Components
Project Component
Reach ID
As -Built
-or-
Stationing/Location (LF)
Approach
Existing (PI, PII etc.)
Footage/Acreage
Restoration -
or -
Restoration
Equivalent
Restoration Footage or Acreage
Mitigation Ratio SMUs
UTI -1
1+20 to 6+92
572 Preservation
RE
572
1 : 5
114
UTI -1
6+92 to 12+58
566 EI
R
566
1 : 1.5
377
UTI -2
12+58to24+96
1,284 PI
R
1,171
l:]
1,171
UTI -3
24+96 to 34+50
833 PI
R
901
1:1
901
UT14
34+50 to 46+73
1,252 EI
R
1,210
1 :1.5
807
UTI -A
0+73 to 2+89
197 EI
R
217
1:1.5
145
UTI -B
0+09 to 6+29
620 Preservation
RE
620
1 : 5
124
UTI -B
6+90 to 11+45
512 EI
R
455
1 : 1.5
303
UTI -C
1+21 to 10+01
883 EI
R
857
1:1.5
571
UT2-1
0+00 to 4+90
490 EII
R
490
1 : 2.5
196
UT2-2
4+90to 13+97
875 PI
R
847
1:1
847
UT2-3
13+97 to 19+18
495 PI
R
521
1:1.5
347
UT24
19+18to22+07
270 PI
R
257
l:]
257
UT2-A
0+45 to 5+06
365 EII
R
463
1 :2.5
185
Component Summation
Stream
Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Wetland
Buffer
Upland
Restoration
Level
(linear feet)
(acres) (acres)
(square feet)
(acres)
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
3,697
Enhancement I
3,305
Enhancement 11
953
Creation
Preservation
1,192
High Quality
Preservation
BMP Elements
Element
Location
Purpose/Function
Notes
BMP Elements
BR — Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW — Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP — Dry Detention
Pond; FS — Filter Strip; S — Grassed
Swale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area; FB = Forested Buffer
* Stream credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg. Based on the April 3, 2017 IRT Credit Release Meeting, these stream credits have been reverted back to the amounts in the IRT approved mitigation plan.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Deliver
Mitigation Plan
NA
Jul -14
Final Design — Construction Plans
NA
Oct -14
Construction Completed
Apr -15
Apr -15
Site Planting Completed
Apr -15
Apr -15
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
Apr -15
Jul -15
Year 1 Monitoring
Dec -15
Jan -16
Year 2 Monitoring
Sep -16
Oct -16
Invasive Species Treatment
NA
Aug -17
Year 3 Monitoring
Vegetation: Sep -17
Nov -17
Stream: Sep -17
Invasive Species Treatment and Supplemental Planting
NA
Feb -18
Invasive Species Treatment
NA
June -18
Invasive Species Treatment
NA
Aug -18
Year 4 Monitoring
Vegetation: Sep -18
Feb -19
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project
Designer
WK Dickson and Co., Inc.
720 Corporate Center Drive
Raleigh, NC 27607
[phone]
Frasier Mullen, PE
Construction Contractor
Wright Contracting
PO Box 545
Siler City, NC 27344
[phone]
Joseph Wright
Planting Contractor
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone]
David Godley
Seeding Contractor
Wright Contracting
PO Box 545
Siler City, NC 27344
[phone]
Joseph Wright
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arbogen, NC Forestry Services Nursery
Full Delivery Provider
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Project Manager:
Brad Breslow
Monitoring Performers (MYO)
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone]
Project Manager:
Brian Hockett, PLS
Monitoring Performers (MYl-MY2)
Equinox
2015-2016
37 Haywwod Street, Suite 100
Asheville, NC 28801
Project Manager:
Drew Alderman [phone]
Monitoring Performers (MY3+)
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC
2017+
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
[phone]
Project Manager:
Ryan Medric

Table 4. Project Information
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project
Table 4 Cont'd. Project Information
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project
Project Name
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project
Reach Summary Information
County
Union
UTl-C UT2-RI
Project Area (acres)
UT2-R3
27.17
Length of reach (linear feet)
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
847
UTl: 35° 03' 15.97" N 80'34'21.64"W
UT2: 35° 03' 17.99" N 80'33'46.77"W
257 461
Project Watershed Summary Information
VIII VIII
Physiographic Province
VIII
Piedmont
Drainage area (acres)
River Basin
726
Yadkin
861 49
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
35 33.5
3040105
22.5
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
03040105070050
WS -III
DWQ Sub -basin
WS -III WS -III
03-07-14
E4 C4c
Project Drainage Area (acres)
E4
UTI: 1.14 square miles (728 acres)
UT2: 1.35 square miles (861 acres)
Evolutionary trend
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious
Area
N/A
UTI: 8%
UT2: 5%
Stage II Stage IV
CGIA Land Use Classification
developed (open space, low density, med. density, high density), cultivated crops,
pasture/hay, deciduous forest, evergreen forest
ChA
Reach Summary Information
ChA ChA, CmA
Parameters
UTI -RI
UTl-R2 UTl-113 UTI -R4 UTI -A
UTI -B
Length of reach (linear feet)
1,138
1,178 893 1,223 216
1,075
Valley Classification
VIII
VIII VIII VIII VIII
VIII
Drainage area (acres)
136
248 384 728 88
120
NCDWQ stream identification score
35
22.5 30 31 35
35
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS -III
WS -III WS -III WS -III WS -III
WS -III
Morphological Description (stream type)
E4
E4 E4 C4 E4
E4/C4
Evolutionary trend
Stage I
Stage II Stage II Stage V Stage I
Stage I/III
Underlying mapped soils
CmB
CmB, TbB2 CmB, TbB2 CIA CmB
CmB
Drainage class
mod. well
mod. well; mod. well; somewhat
well well poorly mod. well
mod. well
Soil Hydric status
Not Hydric
Partially
Not Hydric Not Hydric Hydric Not Hydric
Not hydric
Slope
0.48%
0.70% 0.40% 0.50% 1.20%
1.80%
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A N/A Zone AE N/A
N/A
Native vegetation community
mice
hardwood
forest,
cultivated
cultivated cultivated cultivated cultivated
mixe
hardwood
forest,
cultivated
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation
10%
0% 0% 0% 5%
15%
Table 4 Cont'd. Project Information
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Project
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UTl-C UT2-RI
UT2-112
UT2-R3
UT2-114 UT2-A
Length of reach (linear feet)
880 490
847
521
257 461
Valley Classification
VIII VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII VIII
Drainage area (acres)
250 631
726
792
861 49
NCDWQ stream identification score
35 33.5
33.5
22.5
33.5 33.5
NCDWQ Water Quality Classification
WS -III WS -III
WS -III
WS -III
WS -III WS -III
Morphological Description (stream type)
E4 C4c
N/A
E4
E4 C4
Evolutionary trend
Stage IV Stage VI
N/A
Stage II
Stage II Stage IV
Underlying mapped soils
TbB2 ChA
ChA
ChA, BaB
ChA ChA, CmA
Drainage class
somewhat
well poorly
somewhat
poorly
somewhat
poorly; well
somew at
somewhat poorly; mod.
poorly well
Soil Hydric status
Partially
Not Hydric Hydric
Partialy
Hydric
Partially
Hydric
Partially
Hydric Not Hydric
Slope
0.80% 0.27%
0.10%
0.57%
0.31% 1.30%
FEMA classification
N/A Zone AE
Zone AE
Zone AE
Zone AE N/A
Native vegetation community
woody cover,
cultivated cultivated
cultivated
cultivated
cultivated cultivated
Percent composition of exotic invasive vegetation 0% 20%
0%
0%
0% 1 0%
Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Documentatio
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
SAW -2012-01079
Waters of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
DWR# 13-1087
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
USFWS (Corr. Letter)
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
SHPO (Corr. Letter)
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/Coastal
No
Area Management Ac[ (CAMA)
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Yes
EEP Floodplain
Requirements Checklist
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A

.rte+■ i ■-_v r.i r i _ ..s � �
Urving Directions: To access the site from the eity of
Monroc, travel west on West Roosevelt Boulevard, then
tum north onto Secrest Shorlsut Road. 'Ib access U11,
travel 3-6 miles on Sccrest Shortcut Road, then turn right
onto a gravel farm mad and drive appmNimateh 0-6 miles.
To access UT2, trm•cl north on Sccrest Shortcut Road for
2.8 miles, then turn right onto Roanoke Church Road.
After 0.8 miles. turn lcft onto a gravel farm road. This
private road will spit just past the pond on the left- Al the
split slay to the loll and novel appmximalely 81X1 feel In
access the dovnsrrcvn end of UT2.
The ;ubject project %i le is an environmental restoration site
of ilio NCDMS and cneompasscd by a recorded
conservation casement, but is bordered by land with
private ownership. Aeccesing the silo may "t1ire
traversing areas near or along the easement bounday and
therefore access to the general public is not permitted.
1
UT9
Poplin Ridge Stream
Mitigation Sites
G , UT2 1 '601
1. � �''ltavukr C'hu
tilt Ro�'d
�L. Roads
[=Mitigation Sites
Water Bodies Monroe e5
Figure t w
Poplin Ridge Mitigation Site 1
Ores
Project Vicinity Map w e nisi`
8
!i I 2 d
Miles

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data

U
W,
fires
N
W E
S
0 50 100
Feet
Figure 2
UT1-1A �
Poplin Ridge Stream
Restoration Project
MY4 2018
Current Conditions
- Plan View
MksRi j't+'� f Date: 2/1/2019 Drawn by: RTM
1 inch = 100 feet
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plot
= >260 stems/acre
5 , ,-, = <260 stems/acre
`i. Cross Section
fir• r�.
4= 7/-71 Feb 2018 Replant Area
_ -- BMP
��. Enhancement I
�- Enhancement 11
Preservation
—Restoration
r •'
Stream Structure
® Crest Gauge
® Flow Gauge
' ' • Rain Gauge
6 Photo Station
!- •• llr? c ` Vegetation Condition Assessment
y Target Community
Present Marginal Absent
Absent
+• , #' .. �. 4 ` f:: _ �- M No Fill
yPresent
NC Center for GeoElrcaphic Imf-ormatlon & Anal, sis

N
-� W E
S
13 .•;•Ij.° y 0 50 100
Feet
Figure 2
'. 2
Poplin Ridge Stream
Restoration Project
MY4 2018
Current Conditions
Plan View
• Date: 2/1/2019 Drawn by: RTM
. -•,�
w 1 inch = 100 feet
LEGEND
F . 1 O Conservation Easement
L Vegetation Plot
M >260 stems/acre
$
M <260 stems/acre
a a t _ Cross Section
Feb 2018 Replant Area
-` 7 - -- BMP
UT1-2"'`x r Enhancement I
J - Enhancement 11
- a
— Preservation
— Restoration
_ - — Stream Structure
rt� ; �'t ^ • Crest Gauge
® Flow Gauge
4 Rain Gauge
Photo Station
■'• - _ w sx ' Vegetation Condition Assessment
? Target Community
K y
�' m Present Mar inal Absent
Absent No Fill
•y Present
Source':•2015 NC OneMaN,Aerial Imagery x•' '
NC Center for GeogrLaphic Info_rmaton>&.Ana.lysis

Orr
VIM
- l44,,
_ 4
amu:
.
:Y r-L�
4-
��•iasl�
�iliir-:
0r�s
N
W E
S
0 50 100
Feet
Figure 2
3
Poplin Ridge Stream
Restoration Project
MY4 2018
Current Conditions
Plan View
Date: 2/1/2019 1Drawn by: RTM
1 inch = 100 feet
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plot
= >260 stems/acre
= <260 stems/acre
Cross Section
Feb 2018 Replant Area
-- BMP
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
- Preservation
— Restoration
Stream Structure
• Crest Gauge
Flow Gauge
• Rain Gauge
Photo Station
Vegetation Condition Assessment
y Target Community
m Present Marginal Absent
Q, Absent No Fill
rq
d
.y
Present
W
C

res
W
3 Z
J"-
0 50 100
Feet
Figure 2
4
Poplin Ridge Stream
Restoration Project
MY4 2018
Current Conditions
Plan View
Date: 2/1/2019 Drawn by: RTM
1 inch = 100 feet
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plot
M >260 stems/acre
M <260 stems/acre
Cross Section
Feb 2018 Replant Area
-- BMP
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
- Preservation
— Restoration
Stream Structure
• Crest Gauge
Flow Gauge
• Rain Gauge
Photo Station
Vegetation Condition Assessment
y Target Community
m Present Mar final Absent
p, Absent No Fill
rq
y Present
so
c
��V
40
12
-
res
W
3 Z
J"-
0 50 100
Feet
Figure 2
4
Poplin Ridge Stream
Restoration Project
MY4 2018
Current Conditions
Plan View
Date: 2/1/2019 Drawn by: RTM
1 inch = 100 feet
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plot
M >260 stems/acre
M <260 stems/acre
Cross Section
Feb 2018 Replant Area
-- BMP
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
- Preservation
— Restoration
Stream Structure
• Crest Gauge
Flow Gauge
• Rain Gauge
Photo Station
Vegetation Condition Assessment
y Target Community
m Present Mar final Absent
p, Absent No Fill
rq
y Present
so
c

k
UT1-B
It
J'.
NC Center
fires
N
W E
S
0 50 100
Feet
Figure 2
5
Poplin Ridge Stream
Restoration Project
MY4 2018
Current Conditions
Plan View
Date: 2/1/2019 Drawn by: RTM
1 inch = 100 feet
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plot
M >260 stems/acre
= <260 stems/acre
Cross Section
Feb 2018 Replant Area
-- BMP
Enhancement 1
} Enhancement 11
— Preservation
— Restoration
— Stream Structure
• Crest Gauge
® Flow Gauge
Rain Gauge
* Photo Station
Vegetation Condition Assessment
U) Target Community
m Present Marginal Absent
p, Absent No Fill
N
Q
y
Present
C
r
L
UT1-B
It
J'.
NC Center
fires
N
W E
S
0 50 100
Feet
Figure 2
5
Poplin Ridge Stream
Restoration Project
MY4 2018
Current Conditions
Plan View
Date: 2/1/2019 Drawn by: RTM
1 inch = 100 feet
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plot
M >260 stems/acre
= <260 stems/acre
Cross Section
Feb 2018 Replant Area
-- BMP
Enhancement 1
} Enhancement 11
— Preservation
— Restoration
— Stream Structure
• Crest Gauge
® Flow Gauge
Rain Gauge
* Photo Station
Vegetation Condition Assessment
U) Target Community
m Present Marginal Absent
p, Absent No Fill
N
Q
y
Present
C

fires
� w
Jzl
►L Replace Log Sill
-'. with Constructed Riffle
0 50 100
f . { Feet
}
Notch Log Sill
Figure 2
F 6
_ 1
Poplin Ridge Stream
Restoration Project
v.•s ;�<: I MY4 2018
t ��
a Current Conditions
Plan View
+�• # UT2-2
Date: 2/1/2019 Drawn by: RTM
1 inch = 100 feet
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
r. �f
=, - r .•� • Vegetation Plot
r Install Lo Sill M >260 stems/acre
•� r ^,.�� UT2-1 _ 9
•� f' 1p
<260 stems/acre
Cross Section
py% fi Feb 2018 Replant Area
-- BMP
Enhancement I
2
Enhancement 11
Notch Filter Berm — Preservation
— Restoration
' — Stream Structure
r UT2-A - ®Crest Gauge
r
I _ ® ® Flow Gauge
• Rain Gauge
r� Photo Station
•,1p Y!
g
Vegetation Condition Assessment
4.
� , �� } �, �, • � y Target Community
- R Present Marginal Absent
€ ! J 3t � 7 .• r"'L - p, AbsentF.
No Fill
Present
Source: 2015 NC OneMap Aerial Imagery
,`x' � t . NC Center for.G:eogr_aphisInTrmation &Analysis

6
Notch Filter Berm
M
"O�FL���
UT2-3
6
r
res
ii L= r w
Jz"
,f
z -
r Z
0 50 100
Feet
Figure 2
Poplin Ridge Stream
Restoration Project
MY4 2018
Current Conditions
Plan View
UT2-4
Date: 2/1/2019 Drawn by: RTM
1 inch = 100 feet
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plot
>260 stems/acre
<260 stems/acre
Cross Section
Feb 2018 Replant Area
-- BMP
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
— Preservation
— Restoration
— Stream Structure
® Crest Gauge
® Flow Gauge
• Rain Gauge
Photo Station
.'
Vegetation Condition Assessment
}
`j
I
U
6
Notch Filter Berm
M
"O�FL���
UT2-3
6
r
res
ii L= r w
Jz"
,f
z -
r Z
0 50 100
Feet
Figure 2
Poplin Ridge Stream
Restoration Project
MY4 2018
Current Conditions
Plan View
UT2-4
Date: 2/1/2019 Drawn by: RTM
1 inch = 100 feet
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
Vegetation Plot
>260 stems/acre
<260 stems/acre
Cross Section
Feb 2018 Replant Area
-- BMP
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
— Preservation
— Restoration
— Stream Structure
® Crest Gauge
® Flow Gauge
• Rain Gauge
Photo Station
.'
Vegetation Condition Assessment
}
U) Target Community
m Present Marginal Absent
U
�r r
r
r
Absent
Q
Present
E-xx�<
,f
a.

Table 5. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT1-1- Enhancement I
Assessed Len th 566 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0 0
o
100/o
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
2. Bank
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. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
Totals
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
3
3
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
5%
15%.
3
3
100%
4. Habitat
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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT1-2 - P1 Restoration
Assessed Len th 1,178 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0 0
n
100/o
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
26
26
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
25
25
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
25
25
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
25
25
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
25
25
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured / Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion.
4
100%
0
0 100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
0
0
100%
N/AN/A
N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
3
3
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
15%.
3
3
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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT1-3 - Pl Restoration
Assessed Len th 893 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0 0
°
100/o
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
18
18
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
18
18
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
18
18
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
18
18
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
18
18
100%
2. Bank
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. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
3
3
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
15%.
3
3
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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UTI -4 - Enhancement I
Assessed Len th 1,223 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0 0
o
100/o
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
2. Bank
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. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
N/A
N/A
N/A
2a. Piping
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 doesNOT exceed
5%
15%.
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Habitat
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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT1-A - Enhancement I
Assessed Len th 216 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0 0
o
100/o
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
2. Bank
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. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
N/A
N/A
N/A
2a. Piping
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 doesNOT exceed
5%
15%.
N/A
N/A
N/A
4. Habitat
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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UTI -B - Enhancement I
Assessed Len th 455 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0 0
°
100/o
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
11
11
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
11
11
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
I
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
11
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
11
100%
2. Bank
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. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
0
0
100%
N/AN/A
N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
1
1
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
I
1
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
1
1
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
15%.
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.
1
1
100%

Table 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UTI -C - Enhancement I
Assessed Len th 880 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0 0
°
100/o
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
14
14
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
13
13
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
13
13
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
13
13
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
13
13
100%
2. Bank
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. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
2
2
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
15%.
2
2
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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT2-1 - Enhancement II
Assessed Len th 490 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0 0
o
100/o
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
2. Bank
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. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
2
2
100%
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
2
2
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
15%.
2
2
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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT2-2 - P1 Restoration
Assessed Len th 847 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0 0
o
100/o
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
5
5
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
5
5
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream 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 bend (Glide).
5
5
100%
2. Bank
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. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
Totals
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
2
2
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
15%.
5%
2
2
100%
4. Habitat
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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT2-3 - P1 Restoration
Assessed Len th 521 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0 0
o
100/o
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
8
8
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
8
8
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
8
8
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
8
8
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
8
8
100%
2. Bank
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. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
Totals
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
3
3
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
3
3
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
3
3
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
15%.
5%
3
3
100%
4. Habitat
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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT24 - P1 Restoration
Assessed Len th 257 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0 0
o
100/o
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
4
4
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
5
5
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream 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 bend (Glide).
5
5
100%
2. Bank
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. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
Totals
0
0
100%
N/A N/A N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
N/A
N/A
N/A
2a. Piping
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 doesNOT exceed
15%.
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 5 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site - UT2-A - Enhancement II
Assessed Len th 461 feet
Major Channel
Category
Channel
Sub -Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number in
As -built
Number of Amount of
Unstable Unstable
Segments Footage
% Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Footage
with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars).
0 0
°
100/o
2 Degradation - Evidence of downcutting.
0 0
100%
(Riffle and Run Units)
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate.
10
10
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
13
13
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
13
13
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
13
13
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
13
13
100%
2. Bank
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. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse.
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
Totals
0
0
100%
N/A
N/A N/A
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
5
5
100%
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
5
5
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
5
5
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence doesNOT exceed
15%.
5
5
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining- Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull
Depth Ratio >1.6. Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
5
5
100%

N/A - Item does not apply.
Table 6. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site
Planted Acreage :
22.5
% of
Vegetation Category
Definitions
CCPV Depiction
Number of
Combined
Planted
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material.
N/A
0
0.00
0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, ol
2. Low Stem Density Areas
5 stem count criteria.
Orange Simple Hatch
3
0.83
4%
Totals
3
0.83
4%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given
3. Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
the monitoring year.
N/A
0
0.00
0%
Cumulative Totals
1 3
1 0.83
1 4%
Easement Acreage :
27.1
Number of
Combined
% of
Vegetation Category
Definitions
CCPV Depiction
Easement
Polygons
Acreage
Acrea e
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
N/A
0
0.000%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
Red Simple Hatch
1
0.01
0%
L
N/A - Item does not apply.

of +' Y► i j+
r'
` o aEa amw
Ilk: •_
tj
1•? y I,s P qtr l y�1�� i �y �
VIY
1 - � 3 s'< 1l�• �
fi I: y

rel,,
� � ��.� V 1 7J
Y,,� ♦r r��t�
�'�" F ,ti �Y Y � � Ij". �\•, r + ���; 'A �tt�l �` y1�L ��
iA
r ,�•
i
,�r�,

Project Reach UT1-3 — Permanent Photo Station 5
Station 27+50 — Looking Downstream
Project Reach UT1-4 — Permanent Photo Station 6
Station 47+20 — Looking Upstream

Project Reach UTI -A - Permanent Photo Station 7
Station 2+00 — Looking Downstream
Project Reach UTI -B — Permanent Photo Station 8
Station 9+86 — Looking Downstream
September 27, 2017

X�
ake
��yy` `fid ��s, �f � �°-�=�� �"�d�'b���t�`.."� `` `•'1 '��-'�' ' P'� '
K,R.
Project Reach UT1-C — Permanent Photo Station 9
Station 2+50 — Looking Upstream
Project Reach UT2-1 — Permanent Photo Station 10
Station 4+50 — Looking Upstream

S
l�

Project Reach UT2-2 — Permanent Photo Station 13
Station 7+59 — Looking Downstream
September 26, 2017
Project Reach UT2-3 — Permanent Photo Station 14
Station 13+83 — Looking Downstream
September 26, 2017

Sr—
WIN. 17
g'-
Nit
-
;.�
C
i
� .• i i� �� � ` it �� 1 ti
. 6�
Ik

Project Reach UT2-A — Permanent Photo Station 17
Station 2+62 — Looking Downstream
September 26, 2017

�,�-fir,:. ,. �F,.;.. ���;,,.-+ ,Te-�: 1'�a� i� �.r.rr n���;��7i:'�1l'�^�'����" ,I_.. ��
.� . -.
� � 1
P�aY`r I` q
,.�Gi - � � .:, � } : �.
� w
r=te � � � 1 ,
�� r � ��n' �; =�
y
� t _ �' � � .�r1 P+�.11 �
r. � �' �
� x __ _ �� � �� �.- d �' ,
� t i i � d
� x 1
__ _ �7, ,1 �' ���
�y,
Y � k
.� / > 1 �t
�. 4 � �� I
I � � � � '�' ",�� �'_ �y
_ - � � � a
/ �
` /� ,p y .�
'. 1 l: �f Imo` VV � 1� �'����I" � \'F

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data

Table 7. MY4 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Planted
Plot #
Stems/Acre
Volunteer
Stems/Acre
Total
Stems/Acre
Success
Criteria
Met?
Average
Tree Height
(ft)
1 688
202
890
Yes
7.7
2 324
40
364
Yes
5.7
3 647
40
688
Yes
8.5
4 971
40
1012
Yes
8.1
5 1052
526
1578
Yes
7.5
6 769
0
769
Yes
6.0
7 809
40
850
Yes
8.5
8 647
0
647
Yes
3.7
9 121
0
121
No
4.3
10 40
121
162
No
8.2
11 526
0
526
Yes
4.7
12 445
0
445
Yes
9.4
13 688
0
688
Yes
5.9
Project Avg 595
78
672
Yes
6.8

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Poplin Ridge Stream Restoration Site
Report Prepared By
Ryan Medric
Date Prepared
9/7/2018 0:00
database name
Ride 95359 2018 MY4 CVS Ve etation.mdb
-Poplin
database location
computer name
file size
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 lot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY ------------------------------------
Project Code
95359
project Name
Poplin Ride Stream Restoration Project
Description
River Basin
Yadkin -Pee Dee
le ngth(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
13

Table 9. Total Planted Stem Counts
•.. M. M I
Current Plot Data (MY4 2018)
Scientific Name Common Name
- - • gas .. - . -
--�
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---

Table 9. Total Planted Stem Counts
Poplin Ridge
Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
MY4 (2018)
Species Type Pn.LS P -all T
MY3 (20 7)
PnoLS P -all T
MY2 (2016)
PnoLS P -all T
MY1(2015)
PnoLS P -all T
MYO (2015)
PnoLS P -all T
Acernegundo
boxelder
Tree
4
3
Acer negundo var. negun boxelder
Tree
4
Acer rubrum
red maple
Tree
2
123
Acer rubrum var. rubrum red maple
Tree
121
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
1
4
4
4
5
5
5
21
21
21
Baccharis halimifolia
eastern baccharis
Shrub
10
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
12
12
12
7
7
7
9
9
9
9
9
9
27
27
27
Carya
hickory
Tree
6
2
Carya alba
mockernut hickory
Tree
1
5
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Tree
1
Celtis occidentalis
common hackberry
Tree
321
9
D i o s py ros v i rgi n i a n a
common persimmon Tree
1
1
3
1
1
71
4
2
DONTKNOW: unsure record
7
71
7
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
41
41
4
11
1
3
3
2
Juniperusvirginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
1
Li q u i d a m b a r sty ra ci f I u a
sweetgum
Tree
12
17
106
8
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
71
71
7
71
34
34
34
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
27
27
27
21
21
21
21
21
21
20
20
20
26
26
26
Populus deltoides
eastern cottonwood Tree
7
Quercus
oak
Tree
2
2
2
31
31
31
126
126
126
Quercus alba
white oak
Tree
1
1
1
9
91
9
Quercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
4
41
41
10
10
10
Quercus lyrata
overcup oak
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak Tree
3
3
3
41
4
4
5
5
51
4
4
4
8
8
8
Quercus nigra
wateroak
Tree
59
591
59
65
65
65
791
79
79
69
69
69
22
22
22
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
421
421
42
45
45
45
43
43
43
46
46
46
50
50
50
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
18
18
18
19
19
19
21
21
21
8
8
17
Qu e rcu s ve I uti n a
black oak
Tree
12
12
12
14
14
14
14
14
14
6
61
6
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry Shrub
2
Ulmusalata
winged elm
Tree
2
18
Ulmus rubra
Islippery elm
ITree
I
1
2
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
1911
12
595
1911
13
0.32
12
595
216
191
672
1911
131
595
1911 365
13
0.32
131 18
595 1136
209L
111
651
2091 499
13
0.32
11 21
651 1553
213
13
663
213
13
0.32
13
6631
252
19
7841
340
11
10581
340 340
13
0.32
11 11
10581 1058

• r
At
4A j5f
5or` 09 05.2018
r.
wlt':
VA
�� - 1``- 1'x4 _ - /l �( ''.�♦ .�s_. ��.

s
Wiwi
pJ�
�`�+0
s�+ apt �� r�
yv, � �•,-'.,� ' >•-
i
4+

W 1w:

�A a
�►' ••, � , •' ' ( "� + ,X�,1` � �� �' •fir _ ,�_.•,
I •I
a
.+� a � Ads �'�'�✓ w'iJF��� "���, W .� � � %� y�i � s
� X ♦ .:._ �.5.-✓,.� �' ••g•rte� • /, �r��!$" �: a �,. e^/,I+ ' ..
_ P
!! w

z'-
�
.,A. M A� ,•.�f � �S - 'r'�� ice. x� i��'-
�' -iii
ref �
j
41.
z'-
�
.,A. M A� ,•.�f � �S - 'r'�� ice. x� i��'-

•fir
Alt
All
r. * ' - • _ ` ,
09.06 2018

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
(Not required for MY4)

Appendix E
Hydrology Data

Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Crest Gauge
Number ofBankfull Events
Maximum Bankfull Height (ft)
CGI UTI -2
On -Site Monthly
Precipitaiton*
30 70
Percent Percent
MY 1
1
0.50
MY2
0
N/A
MY3
4
0.49
MY4
1
0.95
CG2 UT1-4
4.45
3.10
MY1
2
2.00
MY2
5
0.80
MY3
4
2.60
MY4
14
4.86
CG3 UT2-3
2.94
1.22
MY1
2
4.30
MY2
5
2.00
MY3
3
2.83
MY4
6
3.70
Table 15. 2018 Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal Limits
Monroe Station
Precipitation
On -Site Monthly
Precipitaiton*
30 70
Percent Percent
January
4.07
2.74
4.87
4.47
3.76
February
3.49
2.39
4.17
2.43
2.30
March
4.45
3.10
5.29
3.95
4.41
April
3.07
1.82
3.72
3.81
4.07
May
3.47
2.22
4.18
2.94
1.22
June
4.57
2.91
5.50
2.65
---
July
4.50
2.90
5.42
3.30
---
August
4.71
2.78
5.18
4.73
---
September
4.24
2.02
5.18
12.36
---
October
3.81
2.00
4.57
5.59
---
November
3.33
1.90
4.05
6.83
---
December
3.85
2.56
4.62
7.06
---
Total
47.56
29.34
56.75
60.12
15.76
*On-site rain gauge malfunctioned after May 2018

Photo Verification of Bankfull Events
Crest Gauge @ UT1-2 — 0.95 ft. (Est. Date of Occurrence:
9/16/2018)
Crest Gauge @ UT2-3 — 3.70 ft. (Est. Date of
Occurrence: 9/16/2018)
Crest Gauge @ UT1-4 — 4.86 ft. (Est. Date of
Occurrence: 9/16/2018)