20140547 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_2018_20190125

Mitigation Project Name 601 East Stream Restoration Project
OMS ID 95756
River Basin Yadkin
Cataloging Unit 03040105
County Union USACE Action ID 201340265
nate ProjectlnsOtufed 11MV2012 NCDWR Permit No 2014-0547
Data Prepared 5/22/2018
Credit Release Milestone
Potential Credits Mit cicn Plan
Potential Credits As -Built Sures)
Potential Credits (IRT Approved)
Scheduled
Releases
(Stream)
Warm Cool
3;681.66]
3713670
3,681.66]
Cold
Anticipated Actual
Release Year Release Date
IS.) IBmeem)
Scheduleq
Releases
(Forested)
Welland Credits
Riparian Rparian Non Non-dpadan
Rlvetlne dvedne Scheduled
Releases
DeasWp
Coastal
Anticipated ACW.1
Release Year Release Dste
(Welland) (Wetland)
I Srte Establishment
NIA
WA
NIA
WA
WA
NIA
N/A
2 ear 0l As -Built)
30%
1.114.101
2015
$212015
30%
30%
NIA
WA
] earl Monitorin
10%
371.36]
2016
425/2016
10%
10%
WA
NIA
4Year2 Monitore
10%
368.16]
2017
102¢2617
10%
15%
WA
NIA
IRT Adusbnent'
-12.800
10202017
WA
NIA
SYear 3 Monibnn
10%
366.167
2018
41252018
15%
20%
NIA
NIA
6 Year 4 Monibdn
5%
43.000
2019
S/
10%
WA
WA
7 Year SMonMan
10%
70%
2020
1YA
1PA
NIA
WA
8 ear. Monitodn
5%
2,360.400
2021
150.500
ev,
NIA
NIA
WA
9 earl Menhedn
10%
Released Amounts(med'ns)
2022
186.667
1Ot,
NIA
NIA
WA
Stream Bandull Standard
10%
368.18)
2017
10202017
NIA
WA
NIA
WA
Tobi Credits Released to Date
2,571.188
NCDOT TIP P-52088 0 E F.
'NOTE: Adjusenent required due to IRT concems on how the as -built cooks were calculated
DEBITS (released crad'ds only)
Red. 1 1.5 2.5
2C
2U
2W d
n
Uu
n
Uy
n
Ud
IRT Adjusted Abatflit Amounts (feel and acres)
3,372000
400.000
215.000
IRT Adjusted Plaudit Amounts (mitigation credits)
3,372000
266.667
43.000
Percentage Released
7e%
70%
70%
Released Amounts)feed acres)
2,360.400
280-000
150.500
Released Amounts(med'ns)
2,360.400
186.667
30.100
NCDWR Permit USACE Acdon ID Project Name
NCDOT TIP P-52088 0 E F.
Cebanus / Mecklenburg
'
2010.01630 Counters.
448.000
NCOOT TIP R355) / R-3329-
Monree Bypass and
2002 -OM 200940876 Connector, Union County
572.800
123.600
NCDOTTIP R-2559 / R3329-
MonreO Bypass and
20020672 2009-50876 Connector Union County
339.600
SR 1611 - Bridge 410 -
2017.03i2 2017.0111O Division 1O, Union County
82.000
NCDOT TIP LL3440, Cab crus
2016-0605 20124)0417 County
562800
116.400
NCDOT MP R3123CE-
2011-0431 2011-01237 Charlotte Oubr Loop
337200
40.000
150.500
Remaining Amounts (feet l acres)
0.000
0.000
0.000
Remalning Amounts(credlta)
0.000
-call
0.000

c(� /Is,,
ate
1 :For NCDMS, no credits�k 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 ofthe 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 perjects where DA permit issuance is not required
3 -A 10% reserve of credits is to be held back until the bankfull event perfonnance standard has been met

Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7
601 East Stream Restoration Project
NCDMS Contract No.: 004925
NCDMS Project No.: 95756
USACE Permit Action ID: 2013-00265
DWR Project No.: 14-0547
Union County, NC
Data Collected: November 2018
Date Submitted: January 2019
Submitted to:
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
NCDEQ-DMS, 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1652

fires
January 25, 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: 601 East Stream Restoration Site: MY4 Monitoring Report (NCDMS ID 95756)
Listed below are comments provided by DMS on January 4, 2019 regarding the 601 East Stream
Restoration Site: Year 4 Monitoring Report and RES' responses.
General: The 2018 credit release meeting was held on April 24, 2018. Invasives on the site;
beaver and beaver dams on the site; and encroachment on the site were discussed. RES
indicated that all of the issues reported in the 2017 monitoring report (MY3) were resolved in early
2018 (March). The IRT requested a memo from RES to document the resolutions discussed. The
IRT agreed to release the credits on the site as proposed upon approval of the 601 East memo.
The requested memo was submitted to the IRT as requested and is included as Appendix F in
the MY4 (2018) report.
The IRT made a credit release site visit on July 12, 2018. Please document the IRT credit release
site visit in the revised MY4 report. Any IRT comments, questions or concerns should be included
in the meeting minutes. Meeting minutes can be included briefly in the report text or as a report
Appendix in the final MY4 report.
The IRT decided to forgo the July 12, 2018 site visit therefore there are no meeting minutes.
General: Conservation Easement encroachment has been an issue on the 601 East site since
MY1 (2015). DMS understands that the encroachment areas were remarked and replanted in
March 2018. In the revised report, please confirm that encroachment has been eliminated based
on RES's November 2018 site visit and monitoring data collection. If encroachment has not been
eliminated, please discuss areas, issues and proposed resolutions in the revised MY4 report.
As of November 2018, the encroachment has been eliminated. This has been added to Section
1.4.1.
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: The aquatic invasive "Parrot Feather" was a point of discussion
during the July 12, 2018 IRT site visit. The May 3, 2018 adaptive management memo states that
invasive treatment results will be described in the MY4 report. Please describe MY4 treatment
efforts and results for the invasive species reported on the site and discuss proposed MY5 (2019)
invasive treatment efforts.
res.us

0
RES used an aquatic safe herbicide to the treat the Parrot Feather in the spring and fall of 2018.
The Parrot Feather was still present in the areas noted on the CCPV during the November 2018
site visit. RES will reevaluate the efficacy of the aquatic herbicide in early 2019 and continue to
treat the Parrot Feather if determined to be necessary. This has been added to the report.
Section 1.4.2 — Stream Geomorphology: Please note that beaver should be trapped, and the
associated dams removed from the project site for the entirety of the monitoring term. This should
be completed as quickly as possible to avoid project damage and abnormal monitoring data.
Beaver management, including trapping and dam removal, will be performed again in MY5. This
has been added to the report.
Were any dry channels observed on the site in the MY4 monitoring period on Reach 1 or Reach
2? Please update the text accordingly as this has been a previous DMS project concern.
RES made site visits in March and November 2018. Dry channels on Reach 1 or Reach 2 were
not observed during either site visit. Photo documentation from November 2018 is in Appendix B.
This has been added to the report.
Section 1.4.3 — Stream Hydrology: The report indicates that MY4 (2018) bankfull events were
documented via wrack lines and only one event was noted at each location. Please confirm that
the two (2) 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. If the installed crest gauges are not capturing accurate yearly bankfull events, DMS
recommends installing self -recording transducers.
Both crest gauges were overrun with ants in MY4. RES cleaned the crest gauges out and expects
them to record bankfull events in MY5.
CCPV Sheets/ Report Text: In the report text, please describe/ discuss the erosional feature
shown on Figure 2b (Reach 1).
The erosional feature is a small headcut that formed at the edge of the easement from a field
drain. The feature has stabilized with the maturation of vegetation in the buffer. If conditions
worsen, RES will stabilize the headcut with rock and add coir logs along the feature. This has
been added to the report.
Table 2: Please list all invasive -exotic treatments, supplemental plantings, maintenance activities
and beaver removal efforts in Table 2. The table should report all efforts post construction.
Done.
Table 13: Two (2) of the table entries in Year 3 have " * "; however, there are no footnotes
included. Please include the footnotes. In the report text (or the missing footnote), please describe
the difference in measurements for XS -17 between Year 2, Year 3 and Year 4.
In MY3, the beaver dam directly downstream caused unusually high water and localized bank
erosion. This footnote has been added back to Table 13.
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....................................................................................................................
5
1.1.
Goals and Objectives....................................................................................................................
5
1.2.
Success Criteria.............................................................................................................................
5
1.3.
Project Setting and Background....................................................................................................
7
1.4.
Project Performance......................................................................................................................
8
2.0
METHODS.......................................................................................................................................
9
3.0
REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................10
601 East Stream Restoration Project 3 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 January 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
Figure 2. Current Conditions Plan View Map
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Figure 3. 2018 Photo Station Photos
Figure 4. 2018 Problem Area Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
(Not required for MY4)
Appendix D. Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
Charts 1-5. MY4 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Appendix E. Hydrology Data
Table 14. Verification of Bankf ill Events
Figure 7. Photo Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15. 2018 Rainfall Summary
Appendix F. MY3 2017 Adaptive Management Memo
601 East Stream Restoration Project 4 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 January 2019

1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1. Goals and Objectives
The project goals address stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
• Reduce water quality stressors originating in and around the project area affecting the project
• reaches and downstream watercourses, which include population of the Savannah Lilliput
• (Toxolasma pullus) and the Carolina Creekshell (Vilosa vaughiana), both listed species of
concern. Specifically involving:
o Reducing turbidity and sediment loading
o Input reductions of nutrients and crop protection chemicals
o Improving thermoregulation
• Improving aquatic habitat quality and diversity within project reaches
• Improving recruitment of instream fine organic matter (FOM) in the near term and both FOM and
• large wood in the long term
• Improving terrestrial habitat diversity and quality in the vicinity of project reaches
• Establishing habitat continuity between the reach headwaters and Lanes Creek
• Improving flood flow attenuation and floodplain interaction
The project goals are addressed through the following project objectives:
• Restore or enhance reach pattern, dimension, and profile
• Stabilize eroding stream banks
• Install stream structures to maintain grade and improve bed form complexity
• Implement BMP detention devices on lateral agricultural drainages
• Install diverse native riparian buffer
• Removal of invasive exotic plant species
• Secure a protective conservation easement and establish fencing as needed
1.2. Success Criteria
The success criteria for the 601 East Stream Restoration Site follows accepted and approved success criteria
presented in the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines and subsequent NCDMS and agency guidance.
Specific success criteria components are presented below.
1.2.1. Stream Restoration
Morphologic Parameters and Channel Stability — Restored and enhanced streams should
demonstrate morphologic stability to be considered successful. Stability does not equate to an absence
of change, but rather to sustainable rates of change or stable patterns of variation. Restored streams
often demonstrate some level of initial adjustment in the period that follows construction and some
subsequent change/variation is also to be expected. However, the observed change should not be
unidirectional such that it represents a robust trend. If some trend is evident, it should be modest or
indicate migration to another stable form. Annual variation is to be expected, but over time this should
demonstrate equilibrium on the reach scale with the maintenance of or even a reduction in the
amplitude of variation. Lastly, all of this must be evaluated in the context of hydrologic events to
which the system is exposed and the design type/intent (i.e. threshold versus free form alluvial
channels).
601 East Stream Restoration Project 5 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 January 2019

Dimension — General maintenance of a stable cross-section and hydrologic access to the floodplain
features over the course of the monitoring period will generally represent success in dimensional
stability. However, some change is natural and expected and can even indicate that the design was
successful and appropriate for the hydrologic and sediment regime. Examples include depositional
processes resulting in the development of constructive features on the banks and floodplain such as
an inner berm, a slightly narrower channel, modest natural levees, and general floodplain deposition.
For stream dimension, cross-sectional overlays and key parameters such as cross-sectional area, and
the channel's width to depth ratios should demonstrate modest overall change and patterns of
variation.
Significant widening of the channel cross-section or trends of increase in the cross-sectional area
generally represent concern, although some adjustment in this direction is acceptable if the process
is arrested after a period of modest adjustment. In the case of riffle cross sections, maintenance of
depths that represent small changes to target competence (e.g. consistently low BHRs <1.2) would
also reflect stability. Although a pool cross-section may experience periodic infilling due to
watershed activity and the timing of events relative to monitoring, the majority of pools within a
project stream reach/component should demonstrate maintenance of greater depths and low water
surface slopes over time. Rates of lateral migration need to be moderate. Bank pins will be installed
to monitor rates of erosion.
Pattern and Profile — Pool depths may vary from year to year, however the majority of pools should
maintain depths that are distinct in the profile and are readily observed. Pattern measurement will not
be collected unless observations indicate a detectable change based on observations and/or dimension
measurements.
Substrate — Generally it is anticipated that the bed materials will coarsen over time. The majority of
riffle pebble counts should indicate maintenance or coarsening of the substrate. The D50 and D84 of
the substrate should show a coarser distribution of bed materials in riffles and finer size class
distribution in pools.
Sediment Transport — Depositional features should be consistent with a stable stream that is
effectively managing its sediment load. Point Bar and inner berm features should develop without
excessive encroachment of the restored channel. Trends in the development of systemic robust mid -
channel or alternating bar features will be considered a destabilizing condition and may require
intervention.
The tributaries outside of the conservation easement will be observed yearly and the monitoring
report will document the function of the upstream basins in capturing excess sediment produced by
observed degradation in the narrative. A specific performance standard has not been added.
1.2.2. Surface Water Hydrology
Monitoring of stream water stages through a staff gauge should show recurrence of bankfull flow on average
every 1 to 2 years. Throughout the monitoring period, the surface water stage should achieve bankfull or
greater elevations at least twice. The bankfull events must occur during separate monitoring years.
601 East Stream Restoration Project 6 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 January 2019

1.2.3. Vegetation
The vegetation monitoring will be conducted according to the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) — EEP
protocol Version 4.2 (Lee et al 2008). Vegetation monitoring plots will be 100 square meters in size and
will be conducted according to the Level I protocol which has a focus on planted stems only. The purpose
of this level of monitoring is to determine the pattern of installation of plant material with respect to species,
spacing, density, and to monitor the survival and growth of those installed species. The success criteria for
the preferred species in the restoration areas will be based on annual and cumulative survival and growth
over seven (7) years. Survival on preferred species must be at a minimum 320 stems/acre at the end of the
three years of monitoring and 260 stems/acre after five years. At year 7, density must be no less than 210
seven-year-old planted stems/acre. Level II of the CVS protocol, which includes natural stems and planted
stems, will be followed for the monitoring year 2 and subsequent years until the project close out year.
1.3. Project Setting and Background
The 601 East Stream Restoration Site is located in Union County, approximately 13 miles south of
Monroe, NC (Figure 1). The site encompasses 12.8 acres of formerly agricultural land and includes
portions of Tanyard Branch, a tributary of Lanes Creek. The Site is located within the Yadkin River
Basin, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 14 -digit Hydrologic Unit 0304010508 10 10 and the
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) sub -basin 03-04-14. The drainage area of
Tanyard Branch at the downstream end of the site is 0.56 square mile (354 acres). Land use within the
watershed is predominately agriculture with the remaining land use composed of low density residential
and forested areas.
Following 2016 monitoring the NCIRT requested a review of the differential between the Approved
Mitigation Plan and Baseline Monitoring Report. The table below details the discrepancies by reach. The
primary cause of increased baseline SMUs is survey methodology (thalweg vs. centerline). The Mitigation
Plan lengths were based on centerline. Additionally, there were likely minor field adjustments during
construction.
Reach
Mitigation Type*
Proposed Length
(LIF)
Mitigation
Ratio
Ratio
Baseline SMUs
Reach A
Buffer Establishment
215
5:1
43
43
Reach la
P1 Restoration
350
1:1
350
350
Reach lb
Enhancement I
85
1.5:1
56
57
Reach lc
Enhancement I
155
1.5:1
103
103
Reach ld
P1 Restoration
800
1:1
800
803
Reach 2a
Enhancement I
40
1.5:1
26
30
Reach 2b
Enhancement I
120
1.5:1
80
85
Reach 2c
P1 Restoration
724
1:1
724
730
Reach 3a
P1 Restoration
368
1:1
368
369
Reach 3b
P1 Restoration
650
1:1
650
649
Reach 3c
P3 Restoration
480
1:1
480
495
Total
3,987
3,680
3,714
*P1=Priority 1, P3=Priority 3
**The contracted amount of credits for this Site was 3,576 SMUs
601 East Stream Restoration Project 7 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 January 2019

1.4. Project Performance
Monitoring Year 4 (MY4) data was collected in November 2018. Monitoring activities included visual
assessment of all reaches and the surrounding easement, 20 permanent photo stations, nine pebble counts,
and nine bankpin arrays. Per the Approved Mitigation Plan, vegetation and cross-section monitoring was
not performed in MY4. Summary information and data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver
activity or encroachment and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. A visual overview of the site can be seen in
the Current Conditions Plan View Maps (Figure 2). Photographs taken at permanent stations throughout
the project site also display general site conditions (Figure 3). Narrative background and supporting
information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly
Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly Restoration Plan) documents available on the
NCDMS website (https:Hdeq.nc.gov/about/divisions/mitigation-services/dms-projects). All raw data
supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from DMS upon request.
1.4.1. Vegetation
Visual assessment of the easement (Table 5; Figure 2) indicates vegetation is well established throughout
the easement. The bare areas and encroachment areas that were lacking vegetation were addressed in March
2018. 250 container trees were planted in these areas and the encroachment on Reach 3 and 4 was blocked
off by t -posts. Additionally, the Chinese Privet and Parrot Feather areas were treated in the spring and fall
of 2018. RES used an aquatic safe herbicide to treat the Parrot Feather. As of November 2018, it was still
present in the areas noted on Figure 2. RES will reevaluate the efficacy of the aquatic herbicide in early
2019. These areas will continue to be monitored and treated as necessary. Per the November 2018 site visit,
the encroachment has been eliminated. A memo from May 2018 that describes the Adaptive Management
in more detail is attached in Appendix F.
Monitoring of the 10 permanent vegetation plots was not completed in MY4. The vegetation plots will be
monitored again in MY5 and MY7.
1.4.2. Stream Geomorphology
Visual assessment of the stream was performed to document signs of instability, such as eroding banks,
structural instability, or excessive sedimentation (Table 6). The erosional feature noted in the right buffer
of Reach 1 is a headcut that formed at the edge of the easement from a field drain. The feature has stabilized
with the maturation of vegetation in the buffer. If conditions worsen, RES will stabilize the headcut with
rock and add coir logs along the feature. The major stream problem areas from MY3 were two beaver dams
on Reach 4. These dams and beavers were removed in March 2018 and the dams were completely taken
out and the banks were stabilized and replanted. The beavers, however, returned in MY4 and built new
dams on Reach 4. Beaver management, including trapping and dam removal, will be performed again in
MY5.
Geomorphic data was not collected in MY4 and will be collected again in MY5 and MY7.
Substrate monitoring was performed during MY4. Pebble count D50 was fine gravel for Reach 1, fine gravel
for Reach 2, coarse gravel for Reach 3, and medium gravel for Reach 4 (Table 12; Charts 1-5). The channel
substrate will be monitored in future years for shifts in particle size distributions.
The bank pin arrays indicate that no erosion is taking place in the pools at cross-sections (Table 13).
601 East Stream Restoration Project 8 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 January 2019

1.4.3. Stream Hydrology
During MY4 bankfull events were documented on both the Reach 2 and Reach 3 via wrack lines (Table
14; Figure 7). Project site precipitation data can be found in Table 15. Dry channels were not observed in
MY4 during either site visit in March and November 2018. Photo documentation of the stream from
November 2018 is in Appendix B.
Summary information/data related to the performance of various project and monitoring elements can be
found in the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting information
formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan)
and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly Restoration Plan) documents available on NCDMS' website. All raw
data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from NCDMS upon request.
2.0 METHODS
Visual assessments of the project were performed at the beginning and end of the monitoring year.
Permanent photo station photos were collected during vegetation monitoring. Additional photos of
vegetation or stream problem areas were documented with photographs throughout the project area.
Geomorphic measurements (MYO, MY I, MY2, MY3, MY5, MY7) were taken during low flow conditions
using a Topcon GTS -312 Total Station. Three-dimensional coordinates associated with cross-section and
profile data were collected in the field and geo-referenced (NAD83 State Plane feet FIPS 3200).
Morphological data was limited to 18 cross-sections. Survey data was imported into CAD, ArcGIS, and
Excel for data processing and analysis. Channel substrate was characterized using a Wolman Pebble Count
as outlined in Harrelson et al. (1994) and processed using Microsoft Excel.
Vegetation success (MYO, MY1, MY2, MY3, MY5, MY7) is being monitored using 10 permanent
monitoring plots. Vegetation monitoring followed CVS-EEP Level 1 Protocol for MY1 and is following
Level 2 Protocol Version 4.2 for monitoring years 2-7 (Lee et al. 2008). Level 2 Protocol includes analysis
of species composition and density of planted species. Data is processed using the CVS data entry tool. In
the field, the four corners of each plot were permanently marked with rebar and photos of each plot taken
from the origin each monitoring year. The locations of the three temporary plots surveyed in Years 2 and 3
were randomly selected within the replant areas. The plots were surveyed by pulling tapes to form 10 x 10
meter plots then counting all woody stems within the plots.
Precipitation data was reported from the NCCRONOS station number 315771 in Monroe, NC. Two crest
gauges were installed on the mainstem channel, one upstream of Lansford Road in Reach 2 and another
downstream of Lansford Road in Reach 3. During quarterly visits to the site, the height of the cork -line was
recorded.
601 East Stream Restoration Project 9 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 January 2019

3.0 REFERENCES
Resource Environmental Solutions, LLC. 2015. 601 East Stream Restoration, Baseline Monitoring
Document and As -Built Baseline Report Final, Union County, North Carolina. NCEEP Project
No. 95756
Harrelson, Cheryl, C. Rawlins and J. Potyondy. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM -245. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service. Fort Collins, Colorado
Lee, M.T.,R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. http://cvs.bio.unc.edu/methods.htm; accessed November 2008.
601 East Stream Restoration Project 10 RES
NCDMS Project No. 95756 Annual Monitoring Report
Monitoring Year 4 of 7 January 2019

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

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Note: Stream credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg Based on the April 3, 2017 IRT Credit Release Meeting these stream credits have been reverted back to the amounts in the IRT approved mitigation plan.
Table 1: Project Components and Mitigation Credits
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Mitigation Credits
Nitrogen
Phosphorous
Stream
Riparian Wetland Non -riparian Wetland Buffer
Nutrient Offset
Nutrient Offset
Type R
Type
RE
R RE R RE
Totals 3638.67
43
Project Components
Mitigation
Project Component
Restoration -or- Restoration
Ratio
Credits
or- Reach ID
/Location
Stationing
Existing FootagelAcreage
Approach (PI, PII etc.)
Equivalent
Restoration Footage or Acreage
Reach A Ephemeral
5+45-7+60
215
Buffer establishment and BM P
215
1 :5
43
sediment import reduction
Reach l a
7+60-11+10
336
P I
R
350
1: 1
350
Intermittent
Reach lb
11+10— 11+95
85
Enhancement
El
85
1 :1.5
56.7
Imcn rittran
Reach I Perennial
11+95 — 13+50
136
Enhancement
El
155
1 :1.5
103.3
Reach 1 d Perennial
14+00 - 22+00
790
Pi
R
800
l : I
800
Reach 2a
Perennial
22+00 - 22+40
40
Enhancement
El
40
1 : L5
26.7
Reach 2b
Perennial
22+80 - 24+00
125
Enhancement
El
120
1 :1.5
80
Reach 2c Perennial
24+00 - 31+24
669
P 1
R
724
1 : 1
724
80' active channel
Reach 3a Perennial
43+06 - 46+60
112' relic channel
PI
R
368
1 : 1
368
Reach 3b Perennial
47+20 - 53+70
502' relic channel
Pi
R
650
1 : 1
650
Reach 4 Perennial
53+70 —59+50
470' relic channel
P3
R
480
1 : 1
480
Component Summation
Stream
Non -riparian Welland Buffer
Restoration Level
Riparian Wetland (acres)
Upland (acres)
Mitigation
Credits
(linear feet)
(acres) (square feet)
(
Riverine Non-Riverine
Restoration
3372
3372
Enhancement
Enhancement I
400
266.6
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation/Other
215
43
HQ Preservation
BMP Dements
Element
Location PurposeTunction
Notes
Ephemeral Channel
FB, LS, S, FS
Slowing the water down for settling and filtering excess sediment
Sediment expected from future
degradation upstream
5+45-7+60
BMP Elements
BR = Bioretention cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Storntwater Wetland; WDP =
Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS = Level Spread; NI = Natural Infiltration
Area; FB = Forested Buffer
Note: Stream credit calculations were originally calculated along the as -built thalweg Based on the April 3, 2017 IRT Credit Release Meeting these stream credits have been reverted back to the amounts in the IRT approved mitigation plan.

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
May 2013
Jan 2014
Final Des' — Construction Plans
Sept 2013
Jan 2014
Construction
-
Dec 2014
Containerized, bare root and B&B plantings
-
Jan 2015
Mitigation Plan / As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
Feb 2015
Feb 2015
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov 2015
Nov 2015
Supplemental Planting (Entire Site)
-
Apr 2016
Year 2 Monitoring
Sept 2016
Oct 2016
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream - July 2017
Vegetation - Oct 2017
Jan 2018
Supplemental Planting, Encroachment Blocking, Beaver Removal, Invasive
Treatment
Mar 2018
Invasive Treatment
-
Sept 2018
Year 4 Monitoring
Nov 2018
Jan 2019
Year 5 Monitoring
Year 6 Monitoring
Year 7 Monitoring

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Table 3. Project Contact Table
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Designer
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. (WCE)
4805 Green Road, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27616
Primary project design POC
Becky Ward [phone]
Construction Contractor
Wright Contracting
P.O. Box 545, Siler City, NC 27344
Construction contractor POC
Joseph Wright [phone]
Planting Contractor
H & J Forest Services
1416 Ocean Boulevard, Holly Ridge, NC 28445
Planting contractor POC
910) 512-6754
Construction Survey Contractor
Turner Land Survey, PLLC
3719 Benson Drive, Raleigh, NC 27629
Survey contractor POC
Elizabeth Turner [phone]
Seeding Contractor
Wright Contracting
P.O. Box 545, Siler City, NC 27344
Construction contractor POC
Andrew Dimmette [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource - Raleigh, NC
As Purchased by EBX 919 829-9909 x213
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Arbor Gen - Blenheim, SC
800 222-1290
NC Forest Service Nursery - Goldsboro, NC
[phone]
[Baseline] Monitoring Performers
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
4805 Green Road, Suite 100, Raleigh, NC 27616
Stream Monitoring POC
Rachael Zi ler - W CE - [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Chris Sheats - The Cantena Group - [phone]
Monitoring Performers (MYl-MY2)
Equinox
2015-2016
37 Haywood Street, Suite 100
Asheville, NC 28801
Stream Monitoring POC
Drew Alderman [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Drew Alderman [phone]
Resource Environemntal Solutions (RES)
Monitoring Performers (MY3+)
302 Jefferson Street, Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Stream Monitoring POC
Ran Medric [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Ran Medric [phone]

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Table 4. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
601 Fast Stream Restoration Site
Project Information
Project Name 601 East Stream Restoration Site
County Union County
Project Area (acres) 12.78
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 34° 50' 21.62" N, 80° 25' 32.26"N
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -Digit USGS Hydrologic Unit 14 -digit 3040105081010
DWQ Sub -basin 3/4/2014
Project Drainage Area (acres) 361.33
Project drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 2%
CGIA Land Use Classification 2.01.01.07 Annual Row Crop Rotation
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Length ofreach (LF)
1,418; 1,393 LF Restored
906; 902 IF Restored
1,080; 1,018 LF Restored
Relic Channel, 495 LF Restored
Valley Classification
II
II
VIII
VIII
Drainage area (acres)
109
135
333
359
NCDWQ stream
Intermittent: 19.5
33.5
33.5
33.5
identification score
Perennial: 33.5
NCDWQ Water Quality
13-17-40-(1)
13-1740-(1)
13-17-40-(1)
13-17-40-(1)
Classification
Morphological
G4/B4/C4b
C4/E4/DA
C4/G4
C4
Description (streamty e)
Evolutionary trend
(reference channel
G
GDA
G
G
evolution model used)
Intermittent: Tatum gravelly silty
Underlying mapped soils
Cid channery silt loam, Tatum
Chewacla silt loam
Chewacla silt loam
Perrenial: Cid channery silt loam
gravelly silt loam
Drainage class
Well Drained
Moderately Well Drained
Somewhat Poorly Drained
Somewhat Poorly Drained
Soil Hydric status
Non Hydric
Non Hydric
Non Hydric
Non Hydric
Slope
2%
0.84%
0.67%
1.25%
FEMA classification
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Agriculture along upstream
Canopy species include Willow
Red Maple, Sweetgun, Eastern
Canopy species include Red
Canopy species include Red
The remaining stream buffer
Maple, Hackberry, Willow Oak,
Maple, Hackberry, Willow oak,
Native vegetation
within this reach is composed of
Wetland A is composed of
and Sweetgum. The presence of
and Sweetgum. The presence of
community
Willow Oak, Red Maple, River
Cattails, spike rush arrow -arum,
Chinese privet outcompete any
Chinese privet outcompete any
Birch, Black Willow, Elderberry,
and duckweed.
shrub and herb layer.
shrub and herb layer.
and Blackberry.
Percent composition of5%
0 %
50 % of Parrot feather
of Japanese stilt grass, 80%
80% Chinese privet
exotic invasive vegetation
Chinese privet, and kudzu

Appendix A — General Tables and Figures
Table 4 cont. Project Baseline Information and Attributes
601 Fast Stream Restoration Site
Wetland Summary Information
Parameters
Wetland 1
Size of Wetland (acres)
0.43 ac
Wetland Type (non-
Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh
riparian, riparian riverine,
Mapped Soil Series
Cid channery Silt Loam
Moderately Well Drained to Somewhat Poorly
Drainage class
Drained
Soil Hydric Status
Non -Hydric
Tanyard Branch headwaters, groundwater, and
Source of Hydrology
adjacent runoff
Wetland A formed from accumulating sediments
Hydrologic Impairment
filling the channel resulting in a braided channel
system through the wetland.
Herbaceous -Vegetation is domninated by
herbaceous vegetation such as Cattail (Typha
latifolia ), Bulrush (Scirpus cyperinus ), Conmion
Native vegetation
Rush (Juncus effuses). Some tree species such as
community
Black Willow (Salix nigra), and Red Maple
(Acer rubrum) are present in the wetland
margins.
95% -The invasive Parrot Feather
Percent composition of
(Miriophyllum aquaticum) is dominant
exotic invasive vegetation
throughout the wetland where there is standing
water.
Re latory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United
SAW 2013 -
States -Section 404
Yes
00265; EEP IMS
#95756
Waters of the United
Yes
DWR# 14-0547
States — Section 401
Endangered Species Act
No
Yes
ERTR
Historic Preservation Act
No
Yes
ERTR
Coastal Zone
Management Act
(CZMA)/Costal Area
No
N/A
Management Act
(LAMA
FEMA Floodplain
No
N/A
Compliance
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A

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

Reach 3
Poo
.o
�r
�^� � .� � `�..`�n• ,,,E
w'y
• .w. • + � �f ' � ill
�. �.;_ {';-'. � �.r;� •[ ' J=am ,�,� � � "ifir
�- 5
r �
Reach 2 Reach
Li
LJ
.4r,
r=
Rd6i -WA
fires
0 175 350
Feet
1 inch = 350 feet
Figure 2a
601 East Stream
Restoration Project
MY4 2018
Current Conditions
Overview Map
Date: 11/29/2018 i Drawn by: RTM
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
— Stream Restoration
Cross Section
— Structure
Top of Bank
® Crest Gauge
t Bankpin Array
Photo Station
Vegetation Success
J = MY3 Criteria Met
Vegetation Condition Assessment
L4) Target Community
m Present Marginal Absent
u
m
n Absent
fE./
•N Present
c

Cattails
A
7
rn
Reach
Erosional Feature low
7 8 LO --pCO
4
:{
Rd4blf, '
10
1
2 }
Cattails
n 9
;:. L
Sour�ce.:12011%NC D
fires
w
0 100 200
Feet
1 inch = 200 feet
F' 2 b
figure
601 East Stream
Restoration Project
MY4 2018
Current Conditions
Plan View
Date: 11/29/2018 Drawn by: RTM
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
— Stream Restoration
— Structure
Top of Bank
Cross Section
* Photo Station
g Bankpin Array
• Crest Gauge
Vegetation Success
MY3 Criteria Met
Vegetation Condition Assessment
HTarget Community
A Present Marginal Absent
U
ED Absent
W No Fill
•N Present
R
7
C

Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Figure 3. 2018 Photo Station Photos
Figure 4. 2018 Problem Area Photos

N/A - Item does not apply.
Table 5. Vegetation Condition Assessment
601 East Stream Restoration Site
Planted Acreage 12.8
Easement Acreage 12.8
% 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.
Red Simple Hatch
0
0.00
0%
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4
2. Low Stem Density Areas
or 5 stem count criteria.
Orange Simple Hatch
0
0.00
0%
Totals
0
0.00
0%
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small
3. Areae of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
given the monitoring year.
Orange Simple Hatch
0
0.00
0%
Cumulative Totals
0
0.00
0%
% of
Vegetation Category
Definitions
CCPV Depiction
Number of
Combined
Easement
polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
Yellow Crosshatch
8
0.44
3%
5. Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
Red Simple Hatch
0
0.00
0
N/A - Item does not apply.

Table 6. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 1
Assessed Len th 1,393 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.
32 32
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
33 33
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
33 33
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
33 33
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
33 33
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%.
5%
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 6 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 2
Assessed Len th 902 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.
16
16
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
17
17
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
17
17
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
17
17
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
17
17
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%.
5%
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 6 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 3
Assessed Len th 1,018 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.
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%.
5%
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 6 cont'd. Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
601 East Stream Restoration Site - Reach 4
Assessed Len th 495 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.
9
9
100%
3. Meander Pool
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth>_ 1.6).
9
9
100%
Condition
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle).
9
9
100%
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run).
9
9
100%
4. Thalweg Position
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander bend (Glide).
9
9
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/AN/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%

Appendix B — Visual Assessment Data
Figure 3. 2018 Photo Station Photos
Reach 1 — Permanent Photo Station 1
Top of Project— Looking Downstream
Reach 1 — Permanent Photo Station 2
Cross Section 1 — Looking Downstream

Appendix B — Visu
1, ii TT v
�l.�i.. 0�1"rt
Reach 1 — Permanent Photo Station 3
Cross Section 2 — Looking Downstream
Reach 1 — Permanent Photo Station 4
Cross Section 3 — Looking Downstream
a1 Assessment Data

Reach 1 — Permanent Photo Station 7
Cross Section 6 — Looking Downstream
Reach 1 — Permanent Photo Station 8
Cross Section 7 — Looking Downstream
al Assessment Data

Reach 1 — Permanent Photo Station 9
Cross Section 8 — Looking Downstream
Reach 2 — Permanent Photo Station 10
Cross Section 9 — Looking Downstream
al Assessment Data

! I
4
lik � r - _
��
IVIV
� t f

Reach 2 — Permanent Photo Station 13
Cross Section 12 — Looking Downstream
Reach 3 — Permanent Photo Station 14
Cross Section 13 — Looking Downstream
al Assessment Data

T.3� 4i
a
3 d
9
�
1'�_' r
3 d
9
�

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

m

Appendix C
Vegetation Plot Data
(Not required for MY4)

Appendix D
Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
MY4 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
Table 13. Bank Pin Array Summary

Appendix D Stream Geomorphology Data
Table 12. Pebble County Data Summary
MY4 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
601 East MY4 Substrate Composition
70%
60%
40%
30%
20%
1Q96 ILL.
a%
Silt/Clay Sand
Gravel
J_
Cobbie Boulder Bedrock
■ R-] ■ R-2 ■ R-3 w R-4
Table 12. Pebble Count Data Summary
601 East
MY 1
- 2015
MY2 - 2016
MY3 - 2017 MY4 - 2018 MY5 - 2019 MY6 - 2020 MY7 - 2021
Pebble
Count
Pebble Count
Pebble Count Pebble Count Pebble Count Pebble Count Pebble Count
Stream Reach
D50 O
D84 (—)
D5o (—) D84 (—)
D5o (—) D84 (—) D5o (—) D84 (—) D5o (W) D84 (—) D5o (—) D84 O D50 (—) D84 O
Reach 1
14.1
48.8
4.9 25.6
25.5 87.3 4.8 48.3
Reach 2
0.062
61
2.9 34.1
9.7 20 5.5 30.9
Reach 3
27
79.5
6.2 39.5
73.5 140 26.5 72
Reach
47
110
4.2 66
12 95 12 95
MY4 Stream Reach Substrate Composition Charts
601 East MY4 Substrate Composition
70%
60%
40%
30%
20%
1Q96 ILL.
a%
Silt/Clay Sand
Gravel
J_
Cobbie Boulder Bedrock
■ R-] ■ R-2 ■ R-3 w R-4

50°/O
45%
40%
3 5°/O -
3 0°/O —
2 SVa —
20%
15%
100/a —
5°/0
0%
Appendix D Stream Geomorphology Data
641 East R-1 - Substrate Composition
Silt/Clay
Sand
Gravel Cobble Boulder
a MY1 ■ MY2 MY3 o MY4
601 East R-2 - Substrate Compositio>ll
70%
60% -
50°j0
40%
30% - -
20%
0,
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cabbie Boulder
0 MY1 0 MY2 MY3 0 MY4
Bedrock
Bedrock

7'0•°4
60%
5 N
40%
300/0
zv�/o
10`/0
0% �
Silt/clay
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20016
1fl%
0%
Appendix D Stream Geomorphology Data
641 East R-3 - Substrate Composition
■ ■
Sand Gravel
■ MY1 ■ MY2
Cobble Boulder Bedrock
MY3 n MY4
641 East R-4 - Substrate Composition
■
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble
■ MY1 ■ MY2 MY3 i=i MY4
Boulder Bedrock

Table 13. Bank Pin Array Summary
601 E Stream Miti attion Site
Bank Pin Location
Position
Year 1
Reading (mm)
Year 2
Reading (mm)
Year 3
Reading (mm)
Year 4
Reading (mm)
XS -1
Upstream
0.0
35.6
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS -3
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS -5
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS -7
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
12.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS -10
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS -12
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS -14
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS -15
Upstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
XS -17
Upstream
0.0
0.0
50.8*
0.0
At Cross -Section
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Downstream
0.0
0.0
177.8*
0.0
*A beaver dam directly downstream caused unusually high water and localized bank erosion.

Appendix E
Hydrology Data
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 15. 2018 Rainfall Summary
Figure 7. Photo Verification of Bankfull Events

Appendix E - Hydrology Data
Table 14. Verification of Bankfull Events
Date of Data Collection
Estimated Date of Occurrence
Method
Maximum Bankfull
Height ft
Photo#
Reach 2
2.68
4.65
4.47
Feb
11/1/2015
9/30/2015
Wrack Lines
Unknown
---
3/1/2016
2/16/2016
Crest Gauge
1.4
MY2
4/25/2017
4/24/2017
Crest Gauge
2.5
MY3
7/19/2017
6/20/2017
Crest Gauge
1.3
---
10/17/2017
9/12/2017
Crest Gauge
0.7
---
11/7/2018
Reach 3
3/1/2016
9/16/2018
Unknown
Wrack Lines
Crest Gauge
0.66
0.2
1
MY2
4/25/2017
4/24/2017
Crest Gauge
0.3
---
7/19/2017
6/20/2017
Crest Gauge
1.4
MY3
10/17/2017
9/12/2017
Crest Gauge
0.9
---
11/7/2018
9/16/2018
Wrack Lines
0.79
2
Table 15. Rainfall Summary
Month
Average
Normal Limits
30 Percent 70 Percent
Monroe Station
Precipitation
Jan
3.9
2.68
4.65
4.47
Feb
3.29
2.45
3.85
2.43
Mar
4.22
3.02
4.98
3.95
Apr
3.29
2.01
3.98
3.81
May
3.25
1.99
3.93
2.94
Jun
4.66
2.84
5.65
2.65
Jul
4.34
2.83
5.21
3.30
Aug
4.76
3.00
5.75
4.73
Sep
4.46
2.4
5.44
12.36
Oct
3.88
1.89
4.66
5.59
Nov
3.38
1.86
4.12
6.83
Dec
3.6
2.58
4.25
---
Total
47.03
29.55
56.47
53.06

Appendix E — Hydrology Data
Figure 7. Photo Verification of Bankfull Events
Wrack lines @ Crest Gauge Reach 2 — 0.66 feet
Wrack lines @ Crest Gauge Reach 3 — 0.79 feet

Appendix F
MY3 Adaptive Management Memo

fires
May 3, 2018
Paul Wiesner
NCDEQ — DMS
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Asheville, NC 28801
302 Jefferson St. Suite 110
Raleigh, NC 27605
Corporate Headquarters
5020 Montrose Blvd. Suite 650
Houston, TX 77006
Main: 713.520.5400
RE: 601 East Stream Restoration Project — MY3 Adaptive Management Memo
Mr. Wiesner,
In response to the discussion at the Credit Release meeting regarding the adpative management work
done at 601 East, RES has prepared this memo to provide documentation of the activities performed in
late March 2018.
1. Encroachment areas near Reach 3 and 4
RES addressed the encroachment areas on Reach 3 and 4. The work included adding posts and
tape to block off the encroachment area as well as repairing the appropriate crossing outside of
the easement near VP5. RES also found another encroachment area on Reach 4 during a site visit
in early 2018. This area is near the end of the project and was remarked with additional posts.
Both impacted areas were replanted with about 200 three -gallon container trees.
2. Beaver dams on Reach 4
RES removed the beaver dams on Reach 4. The dams were completely taken out and the banks
were stabilized with seed, straw, and livestakes.
3. Invasive species
RES treated the invasive species on site. The treatment included the Parrot Feather on Reach 2
and the Chinese Privet on Reach 4. The Parrot Feather was treated with an aquatic herbicide as an
experiment and the results will be reported at the end of MY4. Cattails were not treated because
populations are isolated and are not negatively affecting the growth of planted trees.
4. Bare area on Reach 1
RES replanted about 50 three -gallon container trees in the 0.05 -acre bare area on Reach 1.
Attached are photos and maps associated with the activities described above. Invasive species treatment
will continue throughout the monitoring period as needed and RES will continue to keep a close watch on
possible encroachment and beaver issues.
Thank you,
Ryan Medric I Ecologist
res.us

0
Encroachment area planting and easement marking near VP5. (3/27/2018)
Encroachment area planting and easement marking on Reach 4. (3/27/2018)

0
Crossing repair near VP5. (3/27/2018)
Crossing repair near VP5. (3/27/2018)

0
Beaver dam removal and bank stabilization near XS 17. (3/27/2018)
Beaver dam removal and bank stabilization downstream of XS 18. (3/27/2018)

6�.
Bare area planting near the crossing on Reach 1. (3/27/2018)

i
7
F.
Reach'2
tr
fF•
-0 6
."JESPI Parrot Feather - Treated
8
�
7 ;
ReachTA
Reach
1
Bare Area - Replanted
Erosional Feature 1
2
7
� 3 /
10
Cattails
r -'-t
r
A' �.
Source: 201&NC OneMap
(,,Esri�E'RE, OeLbi me, ivla rn india, v v ei
fires
3
0 100 200
Feet
1 inch = 200 feet
Figure 1
601 East Stream
Restoration Project
MY3 2017 - AMP
Current Conditions
Plan View
Date: 5/3/2018 1 Drawn by: RTM
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
Photo Station
— Stream
g Bankpin Array
Cross Section
• Crest Gauge
— Structure
Top of Bank
— MY3 SPAs
Vegetation Success
o Criteria Met
o Temporary Plot
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
a Present Mar inal Absent
w_
'0 Absent No Fill
CL
y
> Present
Common ----

• -r
Crossing - Cleared and Repaired
` Reach 3
IJ
Encroachment - Blocked off r=
and Replanted +
Aell
3
Reach 4
Encroachment Cattails
_ _ --• �15 :� � fes-:•
-,
Chinese Privet - Treated
Encroachment - '= - Co 1
Remarked and Replanted
i4. • . Beaver Dams - Removed - _ -
"Sourcn MaDTAY5511me
fires
0 50 100
Feet
1 inch = 100 feet
Figure 2
601 East Stream
Restoration Project
MY3 2017 - AMP
Current Conditions
Plan View
Date: 5/3/2018 Drawn by: RTM
LEGEND
O Conservation Easement
— Stream
Photo Station
Top of Bank
Cross Section
— Structure
— MY3 SPAs
g Bankpin Array
• Crest Gauge
Vegetation Success
E71 Criteria Met
o Temporary Plot
Riparian Buffer Conditions
Target Community
a Present Mar inal Absent
'5 w_
Absent No Fill
CL
y
> Present
N
S Common ----