20100898 Ver 1_Year 1 Monitoring Report_20130328

I�'d�98
CANDIFF CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FOR 2012 (YEAR 1)
Cnhmittt,d to
r-'1- �f
IF tem
,,goT
In lart
VROGR�`A
Submitted bv:
�JM coil and
EEP Project Number: 92767
NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1H 103
Raleigh, NC 27604
Surry Soil and Water Conservation District
220 Cooper Street
P.O. Box 218
Dobson, NC 27017
Prepared by: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Mich" Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway
Suite 600
Cary, North Carolina 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
January 2013
FINAL
TEK I
i�d1!!ianrfe o cam___ 2UALITY
RECEIVED
FEB 2 8 7013
ENHANCEMENT PR GRAM

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................ ............................... 1
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ..................................... ...............................
2 1 Project Objectives
2
22 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
2
23 Location and Setting
5
24 Project History and Background
5
25 Project Plan
5
3.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS .......... ............................... 9
3 1 Vegetation Assessment
9
3 1 1 Description of Vegetative Monitoring
9
3 1 2 Vegetative Success Criteria
9
3 1 3 Vegetative Observations and Results
11
- 3 14 Vegetative Problem Areas
11
3 1 5 Vegetation Photographs
11
32 Stream Assessment
11
32 1 Morphometric Success Criteria
11
3 2 2 Morphometric Results
12
3 2 3 Hydrologic Criteria
14
3 2 4 Hydrologic Monitoring Results
14
3 2 5 Stream Problem Areas
14
3 2 6 Stream Photographs
14
3 2 7 Stream Stability Assessment
15
3 2 8 Quantitative Measures Summary Tables
15
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... .............................16
5.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS ......................................................... .............................17
6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................... .............................17
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Vegetation Data
APPENDIX B - Geomorphic Data
Attached CD — Stream Photographs
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767 1
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Design Approach for the Candiff Restoration Project
Table 2.
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3.
Project Contacts
Table 4.
Project Background
Table 5.
Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Project
Table 6.
Verification of Bankf ill Events
Table A.I.
Vegetation Metadata
Table A.2.
Vegetation Vigor by Species
Table A.3.
Vegetation Damage by Species
Table A.4.
Vegetation Damage by Plot
Table A.S.
Stem Count by Plot and Species
Table A.6.
Plot Species and Densities
Table B.I.
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table B.2.
Baseline Stream Summary
Table B.3.
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
CandlffCreek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767 11
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Vicinity Map of Candlff Creek Restoration Project
Figure 2.
Summary Map of Candlff Creek Restoration Project
Figure 3A.
As -built Plan Sheet 1 for the Candlff Creek Restoration Project
Figure 3B.
As -built Plan Sheet 5 for the Candlff Creek Restoration Project
Figure 3C.
As -built Plan Sheet 5A for the Candlff Creek Restoration Project
Figure 3D.
As -built Plan Sheet 5B for the Candlff Creek Restoration Project
Figure 3E.
As -built Plan Sheet 5C for the Candlff Creek Restoration Project
Figure 3F.
As -built Plan Sheet 5D for the Candlff Creek Restoration Project
Figure 3G.
As -built Plan Sheet 5E for the Candlff Creek Restoration Project
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767 111
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Annual Monitoring Report details the monitoring activities during the 2012 growing season
(Monitoring Year 1) for the Candiff Creek Restoration Project ( "Site ") As per the approved
Mitigation Plan for the Site, this Annual Monitoring Report presents stream geometry data, stem
count data from vegetation monitoring stations, and discusses any observed tendencies relating
to stream stability and vegetation survival success
Prior land use on the Site consisted primarily of pasture and forest Candiff Creek had been
channelized and riparian vegetation had been cleared in the lower half of the site The upstream
reaches of the project had a narrow, early successional buffer that included several exotic
vegetation species Prior to restoration, Candiff Creek was incised and lacked bedform diversity
As a result, channel degradation was widespread throughout the Site
A total of 13 monitoring plots, 100 square meters (m2) (IOM x 10m) in size, were used to predict
survivability of the woody vegetation planted on the Site Data from Year 1 monitoring for the
13 vegetation plots exhibited a survivability range of 728 to 1,052 stems per acre The data
showed that the Site had an average survivability of 878 stems per acre following Year 1
monitoring
According to the Year 1 vegetative monitoring data, the Site is on track to meet the interim
success criteria of a minimum of 320 stems per acre by the end of Monitoring Year 3
Cross - sectional monitoring data for stream stability were collected during Year 1 monitoring A
longitudinal profile survey was completed during Year 1 monitoring for approximately 3,674
linear feet (LF) of stream on the Site The longitudinal profile was completed for Reach M3
only
The cross - sectional data and the longitudinal profile indicate that Reach M3 is stable and
functioning as designed
According to the on -site crest gauge, the Site experienced at least one bankfull flow event during
the Year 1 monitoring period The largest on -site bankfull flow event documented by the M3
crest gauge during Year I monitoring, occurred sometime in April -May 2012 It was estimated
that flows at the M3 crest gauge during this time period were approximately 160 feet above
bankfull stage Inspection of conditions during a spring site visit revealed visual evidence of out -
of -bank flows ,
In summary, the Site is on track to meet the hydrologic, vegetative, and stream success criteria as
specified in the Site Restoration Plan
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project involved the proposed restoration of 4,109 linear feet (LF) of stream, 1,757 of stream
Enhancement (265 LF of Enhancement I and 1,492 LF of Enhancement II) and 1,200 LF of stream
preservation The final stream lengths for all reaches are shown in Table 1 and Figure 2 summarize
the restoration zones on the Site A total of 27 54 acres of stream and riparian buffer are protected
through a permanent conservation easement
2.1 Project Objectives
The specific goals for the Candiff Creek Restoration Project were as follows
• Create geomorphically stable conditions along Candiff Creek through the project area
• Prevent cattle from accessing the project reaches, reducing excessive bank erosion,
• Improve habitat quality in a riffle dominated stream by adding pool /riffle sequences and
expanding the floodplam, while improving overall ecosystem functionality
• Improve water quality within the Candiff Creek Restoration Project area through reduction of
bank erosion and reductions in nutrient and sediment loads
• Stabilize streambanks through installation of in- stream structures and establishing a riparian
buffer consisting of native plant species
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through increased substrate and >n- stream cover,
additional woody debris, and reduced water temperature by increasing stream shading, and
restored terrestrial habitat
2.2 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach
For analysis and design purposes, Michael Baker Engineering, Inc (Baker) divided on -site streams
into reaches The reaches were numbered sequentially from upstream to downstream, with a "M"
designation for the "mamstem" and a "UT" designation for unnamed tributaries Two UTs are
located on the Site (labeled UTI and UT2) The on -site streams are described as follows M1 begins
on the upstream section of the Site at the River - Siloam Road culvert, and then flows southward to
the confluence with UT2 M2 begins at the Ml/UT2 confluence and flows south 265 feet to the
beginning of the restored portion of the mainstem M3 begins at the restored channel and then flows
southeastward for 4,123 feet and terminates at the property line adjacent to the Yakin Valley
Railroad right -of -way located at the downstream end of the Site UTI flows onto the Site from the
southern Wall property line and flows southward for 885 feet to the confluence with M1 UT2 flows
onto the Site from the eastern Aztar Group, LLC property line and flows eastward for 1,162 feet and
terminates at the Ml/M2 transition The reaches described above are presented in the plan sheets
located in Figures 3A through Figure 3J
The restoration design allows stream flows greater than the designed bankfull elevation, to spread
onto the floodplam, dissipating flow energies and reducing stress on streambanks In- stream
structures were used to control streambed grade, reduce streambank stress, and promote bedform
sequences and habitat diversity The in- stream structures installed consist of constructed riffles,
cover logs, log /rock vanes, log /rocky -hook vanes, rock cross vanes, vegetated geolifts, vegetated
brush mattresses and root wads These structures promote a diversity of habitat features in the
restored channel Where grade control was a consideration, constructed riffles, grade control rock j-
hook vanes, and rock cross vanes were installed to provide long -term stability Streambanks were
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767 2
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

stabilized using a combination of erosion control matting, temporary and permanent seeding, bare -
root planting, transplants, brush mattresses and geolifts Transplants provide areas for living root
mass to increase streambank stability and also to create holding areas for fish and aquatic biota
The purpose of the project is to restore stream functions to the impaired reaches the Site Native
species vegetation was planted across the Site and the entire project area is protected through a
permanent conservation easement
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767 3
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

'T. 161. 1 nom {.... A—r—oh far the f anrliff d"rnPk RPCtnrntinn Proleet
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Protect No. 92767
Protect
Segment
Existing
Mitigation
Approach
Linear Footage/
Creditable
Mitigation
Mitigation
Stationing
Comment
or Reach
Feet /Acres
Type *
**
Length
Ratio
Units
ID
10+00-
Invasive species vegetation removal and
Nil
690
E
EII
735/690
25 1
276
17 +35
buffer planting, 45 LF of stream length
removed for one stream crossing
M2
265
E
EI
265/265
15 1
177
17+35-
20 +00
Installed in-stream structures to control
grade and reduce bank erosion
20+00-
Invasive species removal and buffer
M3
3,828
R
P1, P2
4,123/4,081
1 1
4,081
61 +23
planting, 42 linear feet of stream length
removed for two stream crossings
UT 1
14+00-
Invasive species vegetation removal,
(Lower
E
EII
485/485
25 1
194
18 +85
buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
fencing
Reach
885
UT1
(Upper
P
N/A
400/400
5 1
80
10+00-
14 +00
Preservation area - no construction
activities in this area
Reach
UT2
18+00-
Invasive species vegetation removal,
(Lower
E
Ell
362/317
25 1
127
21 +62
buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
fencing
Reach
1,117
UT2
(Upper
P
N/A
800/800
5 1
160
10+00-
18 +00
Preservation area - no construction
activities in this area
Reach
Mitigation Unit Summations
Stream Planted Permanent Conservation
Riparian Wetland (Ac) Non - riparian Wetland (Ac) Total Wetland (Ac) Riparian Easement (Ac)
(LF) Buffer Ac
5,095
0
0
0
1731
2754
K = Kestoranon - r i = rnoniy i
E = Enhancement P2 = Priority II
P = Preservation Ell = Enhancement II
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL
4

2.3 Location and Setting
The Site is located in Surry County in western North Carolina, approximately 175 miles west of
Siloam Township, and dust north of the Surry- Yadkin County line, as shown in Figure 1 The Site
lies in the Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin, within the US Geological Survey (USGS) targeted local
watershed 03040101, and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub -basin 03 -07-
02
2.4 Project History and Background
Land use at the Site consists primarily of pasture and forest Candiff Creek had been channelized
and riparian vegetation had been cleared at the lower half of the Site The upstream end of the Site
had a narrow, early successional buffer that included several exotic vegetation species Prior to
restoration, Candiff Creek was incised and lacked bedform diversity As a result, channel
degradation was widespread throughout the Site
The chronology of the Candiff Creek Restoration Project is presented in Table 2 The contact
information for the designers, contractors, and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3 Relevant
project background information is provided in Table 4
2.5 Protect Plan
Plans illustrating the as -built conditions of the mayor project elements, locations of permanent
monitoring cross - sections, and locations of permanent vegetation monitoring plots are presented in
Figures 3A through 3G of this report
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

'rnhlo 9 Vo—; rt Aehuity anti Rnnnrttnv Mrtnry
Candlff Creek Restoration Pro ect: Pro ect No. 92767
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data
Collection
Complete
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan Prepared
Jul -10
N/A
Jul -10
Restoration Plan Amended
Aug -10
N/A
Aug -10
Restoration Plan Approved
Aug -10
N/A
Aug -10
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
Jul -10
N/A
Jun -11
Construction Begins
N/A
N/A
Sep -11
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Apr -12
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
N/A
Apr -12
Planting of live stakes
N/A
N/A
Apr -12
Planting of bare root trees
N/A
N/A
Apr -12
End of Construction
NA
N/A
Mar -12
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring-
baseline
N/A
Mar -12
Mar -12
Year 1 Monitoring
Nov -12
Oct -12
Dec -12
Year 2 Monitoring
Scheduled
Nov -13
Scheduled
Nov -13
Scheduled
Nov -13
Year 3 Monitoring
Scheduled
Nov -14
Scheduled
Nov -14
Scheduled
Nov -14
Year 4 Monitoring
Scheduled
Nov -15
Scheduled
Nov -15
Scheduled
Nov -15
Year 5 Monitoring
Scheduled
Nov -16
Scheduled
Nov -16
Scheduled
Nov -16
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

Table 3. Prolect Contacts
Candiff Creek Restoration Protect: Protect No. 92767
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact
Scott Hunt, P E, Telephone 919 - 463 -5488
Construction Contractor
River Works, Inc
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact
Bill Wright, Telephone 336 - 279 -1002
Planting Contractor
River Works, Inc
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact
Bill Wright, Telephone 336 - 279 -1002
Seeding Contractor
River Works, Inc
6105 Chapel Hill Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
Contact
Bill Wright, Telephone 336 - 279 -102
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, 336 - 855 -6363
Nursery Stock Suppliers
ArborGen, Inc, 843 -528 -3204
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott Hunt, P E, Tel 919 - 463 -5488
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Scott Hunt, P E , Tel 919 - 463 -5488
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

Table 4. Proiect Background Table
Candiff Creek Restoration Project. Project No. 92767
Project County
Surry County, NC
Drainage Area
Reach
square miles (mil)
M1
235
M2
253
M3
274
UTI
006
UT2
014
Estimated Drainage % Impervious Cover
M1, M2, M3, UTI, UT2
<5%
Stream Order
UTI
1
UT2
2
M1, M2, M3
3
Ph sio ra hic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Northern Inner Piedmont
Rosgen Classification* of
As -built
M1, M2, M3
C
UTI (Lower Reach)
N/A
UTI (Upper Reach)
N/A
UT2 (Lower Reach)
N/A
UT2 (Upper Reach
N/A
Cowardm Classification*
M1, M2, M3, UT2
Riverme, Upper Perennial, Cobble - Gravel
UTI
Riverme, Intermittent, Cobble - Gravel
Dominant Soil Types*
M1, M2, M3, UTI (Lower Reach),
UT2 (Lower Reach)
CsA
UTI (Upper Reach), UT2 (Upper
Reach)
FsE
UTI (Upper Reach
FeC2
Reference site ID
On -site
USGS I UC for Project
03040101
NCDW Sub -basin
03 -07 -02
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference
MI, M2, M3, UTI, UT2
C
Any portion of any project segment 303d hsted9
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d listed
segment9
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor?
N/A
% of project easement fenced
100%
* Rosgen, 1994, *Cowardin,* -USDA, 2007
CandlffCreek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

3.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
3.1 Vegetation Assessment
3.1.1 Description of Vegetative Monitoring
As a final stage of construction, the stream margins and riparian areas of the Site were
planted with bare root trees, live stakes, and a seed mixture of temporary and permanent
herbaceous vegetation to establish ground cover The woody vegetation was planted
_ randomly from the top of the stream banks to the outer edge of the project's re- vegetation
limits In general, bare -root vegetation was planted at a target density of 680 stems per acre,
in an 8 -foot by 8 -foot grid pattern Live stakes were installed two to three feet apart in
meander bends and six to eight feet apart in the riffle cross - sections The live stakes were set
up using triangular spacing along the stream banks between the toe of the stream bank and
bankfull elevation The tree species planted at the Site are shown in Table 5 The temporary
seed planted following construction was rye grain The permanent seed mix of herbaceous
species planted in the project's riparian area included redtop (Agrostis alba), big bluestem
(Andropogon gerardn), beggartick (Bidens frondosa), lanceleaf tickseed (Coreopsis
lanceolata), deertongue (Pancium clandestinum), Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus), soft
rush (Juncus effusus), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), smartweed (Polygonum
pensylvanicum), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), Indian grass (Sorghastrum
nutan), and eastern gamma grass (Tripsacum dactyloides) This seed mixture was broadcast
on the Site at a rate of 15 pounds per acre All planting was completed in April 2012
At the time of planting, 13 vegetation plots — labeled 1 through 13 - were established on -site
to monitor survival of the planted woody vegetation Each vegetation plot is 0 025 acre in
size, or 10 meters x 10 meters All of the planted stems inside the plots were flagged to
distinguish them from any colonizing individuals and to facilitate locating them in the future
The trees also were marked and labeled with aluminum metal tags to ensure that the correct
identification is made during future monitoring of the vegetation plots In addition to
flagging and tags, the locations of planted stems and vegetation plot corners were recorded
by use of survey equipment
3.1.2 Vegetative Success Criteria
To characterize vegetation success criteria objectively, specific goals for woody vegetation
density have been defined Data from vegetation monitoring plots should display a surviving
tree density of at least 320 trees per acre at the end of the third year of monitoring, and a
surviving tree density of at least 260 five- year -old trees per acre at the end of the five -year
monitoring period
CandlffCreek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767 9
January 2013, Monitoring Year I FINAL

Table 3
Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Project
Species Scientific Name Common Name Pei-cent Planted by Total Number of Stems
Bare Root Trees Species
Betula nigra
river birch
233%
1,800
Diospyros virgintana
persimmon
78%
600
Fraxinus pennsylvantca
green ash
156%
1,200
Ltriodendron tulipfera
tulip poplar
78%
600
Platanus occidentahs
sycamore
221%
1,700
Quercus mtchauxtt
swamp chestnut oak
156%
1,200
Quercus phellos
willow oak
78%
600
Bare Root Shrub Species
Asimina triloba
paw paw
95%
400
Carpinus carohniana
ironwood
12%
500
Cercus canadensts
redbud
14%
600
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
19%
800
Lindera benzoin
spicebush
95%
400
Sambucus canadensts
elderberry
19%
800
Viburnum dentatum
arrowwood
17%
700
Native Herbaceous Species
Agrostis alba
redtop
10%
NA
Andropogon gerardit
big bluestem
5%
NA
Bidens frondosa
devil's beggartick
5%
NA
Coreopsis lanceolata
lanceleaf tickseed
10%
NA
Dichanthehum clandestinum
deertongue
15%
NA
Elymus virginicus
Virginia wild rye
15%
NA
Juncus effusus
soft rush
5%
NA
Panicum vitgatum
switchgrass
15%
NA
Polygonum pennsylvanicum
Pennsylvania smartweed
5%
NA
Schizachyrium scoparium
little bluestem
5%
NA
Sorghastrum nutans
Indiangrass
5%
NA
Tripsacum dactyloides
eastern gamagrass
5%
NA
Woody Vegetation for
Live Stakes
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
30%
2,100
Salix sertcia
silky willow
30%
2,100
Salix nigra
black willow
10%
700
Sambucus canadensts
elderberry
1 30%
1 2,100
CandiffCreek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767 10
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

3.1.3 Vegetative Observations and Results
Permanent ground cover has been successfully established at the Site through the planting of
the permanent seed mixture planted at the Site, as observed during Year 1 monitoring of the
Site
Tables A 1 through A 6 in Appendix A present vegetation metadata, vegetation vigor,
vegetation damage and stem count data for the monitoring stations at the end of Year 4
monitoring Data from Year 1 monitoring for the 13 vegetation plots exhibited a range of
728 to 1,052 stems per acre The data show that the Site had an average survivability of 878
stems per acre following Year 1 monitoring In comparison, following as -built conditions,
the Site demonstrated an average survivability of 915 stems per acre
Trees within each monitoring plot are re- flagged regularly to prevent planted trees from
losing their identifying marks due to flag degradation It is important for trees within the
monitoring plots to remain marked to ensure they are all accounted for during the annual
stem counts and calculation of tree survivability Labeled aluminum tags with wire hangers
are used on surviving stems to aid in relocation during future counts The aluminum tags are
removed from each stem once the tree becomes established and is recognizable by species
during plot monitoring Flags are also used to mark trees because they do not interfere with
the growth of the tree
All plots will continue to be assessed during Year 2 monitoring for occurrence of volunteer
species -
3.1.4 Vegetative Problem Areas
During Year 1 monitoring, kudzu (Pueraria montana) was observed on the Site in the
vicinity of vegetation Plot 13 This concentration of kudzu is located on the upstream portion
of Reach M1, downstream of River - Siloam road This area of kudzu was previously treated
during construction This area of kudzu is scheduled to be treated again during the
appropriate time(s) in 2013
There are relatively few weedy species occurring on the Site, and none of the on -site species
seem to be posing any issues for the planted woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation at
this time
3.1.5 Vegetation Photographs
Photographs are used to visually document vegetation plot success A total of 13 reference
stations were established to document tree conditions at each vegetation plot across the Site
Reference photos of tree plots are taken at least once per year Photos of the tree plots for
Year 1 monitoring that show the on -site planted stems are included in Appendix A of this
report
3.2 Stream Assessment
3.2.1 Morphometric Success Criteria
To document the stated success criteria, the following monitoring program was instituted
following construction completion on the Site
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767 1 1
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

Cross - sections Two permanent cross - sections were installed per 1,000 LF of stream
restoration'work, with one of the locations being a riffle cross - section and one location being
a pool cross - section in each series A total of 10 permanent cross - sections were established
across the Site Each cross - section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to
establish the exact transect used The permanent cross - section pins are surveyed and located
relative to a common benchmark to facilitate easy comparison of year -to -year data The
annual cross - section surveys include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of
bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg
The approved Mitigation Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream
restoration success
• There should be little change in as -built cross - sections
• If changes do take place, they will be evaluated to determine if they represent a
movement toward a more unstable condition (e g , down - cutting or erosion) or a
movement toward increased stability (e g , settling, vegetative changes, deposition
along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio)
• Cross - sections will be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System
(Rosgen, 1994), and all monitored cross - sections should fall within the quantitative
parameters defined for channels of the design stream type
Longitudinal Profiles A complete longitudinal profile was surveyed following construction
completion to record as -built conditions and to establish a baseline profile The profile was
conducted for the entire length of each restored channel for all reaches Measurements
included thalweg, water surface, inner berm, bankfull, and top of low bank Each of these
measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e g , riffle, pool, and glide) In addition,
maximum pool depth was recorded All surveys were tied to a single, permanent benchmark
The approved Mitigation Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream ' -
restoration success
• A longitudinal profile will be completed annually for the five -year monitoring period
• The profile will be conducted for 3,000 LF of restored Candiff Creek channel
• The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are remaining stable,
i e , they are not aggrading or degrading
• Pools should remain deep, with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles should
remain steeper and shallower than the pools
• Bedforms observed should be consistent with those observed for channels of the
designed stream type
3.2.2 Morphometric Results
Year 1 cross - section monitoring data for stream stability was completed during October
2012 The 10 permanent cross - sections along the restored channels (5 located across riffles
and 5 located across pools) were re- surveyed to document stream dimension at the end of
Monitoring Year 1 Data from each of these cross - sections are presented in Appendix B
CandlffCreek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767 12
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

Cross - sections 1, 4, 6, 8 and 10 are situated across riffles that are located between pools
Based on the survey data, Cross - sections 6, 8 and 10, located on the mid- downstream portion
of M3, showed relatively little change since as -built conditions Cross - sections 1 and 4 are
located on the upstream portion of M3 and demonstrated minor fluctuations in riffle
dimensions during the first year of monitoring Cross - sections 1 and 4 appear to have
aggraded in channel dimension slightly since as -built conditions The left bank of Cross-
section 1 also appears to have increased in elevation It is likely that the changes observed in
Cross - sections 1 and 4, both at riffles, are due to the spring rains which also marked the
highest bankfull readings for Year 1 monitoring These two cross - sections will be closely
observed during Year 2 monitoring
Cross - sections 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9 are situated across pools which are located at the apex of
meander bends Based on the survey data, Cross - sections 2, 3 and 5 have shown relatively
little change since as -built conditions However, Cross - sections 7 and 9 have demonstrated
minor fluctuations in pool dimensions since as -built conditions Cross - sections 7 and 9 are
located on the downstream portion of M3 and appear to have aggraded slightly since as -built
conditions It is likely that the morphological changes observed in Cross - sections 7 and 9,
both at pools, are also due to the spring rains Based on the Year 4 monitoring survey data,
all pool cross - sections show the slow development of point bar features on the inside banks
of the meander bends
The longitudinal profile for Year 1 monitoring was completed in October 2012 The Year 1
monitoring data were compared to the data collected during the as -built condition survey
completed in April 2012 During Year 1 monitoring, the longitudinal profile survey was only
completed for Reach M3 A total stream length of 3,674 LF was surveyed for M3 The
longitudinal profiles for these reaches are presented in Appendix B
Year 1 monitoring data for the M3 longitudinal profile indicate that the riffles in this reach
have essentially maintained the same bed elevations since as -built conditions However,
some pools in M3 have continued to increase in depth since as -built conditions It is noted
that increased pool depths were observed mostly in the middle of portion of M3 The deeper
pools in M3 are providing increased channel stability while promoting greater habitat
diversity It is likely that the morphological changes observed in Cross - sections 7 and 9,
both at pools, are again attributed to the spring rains Overall, the longitudinal profile for M3
demonstrates that the in- stream structures within the reach are stable and functioning as
designed
In- stream structures installed within the restored stream included constructed riffles, log
vanes, grade control rock and log J -hook vanes, rock cross vanes, root wads and stream
crossings Visual observations of these structures throughout Year 1 monitoring indicated
that all structures are functioning as designed and holding their post - construction grade
Structures that were installed to develop deep pools, such as cross vanes and j- hooks, are
performing their designed functions Log vanes placed in meander pool areas have provided
scour to keep pools deep and provide cover for fish J -hooks placed in lower end of the riffle
areas have maintained riffle elevations and provided downstream scour holes that provides
aquatic habitat Root wads placed on the outside of meander bends have provided bank
stability and in-stream cover for fish and other aquatic organisms
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767 13
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

3.2.3 Hydrologic Criteria
One crest gauge was installed on the Site to document bankfull events The gauge is checked
during each site visit and records the stage of the highest out -of -bank flow between site
visits The gauge is located on the left bank on the downstream portion of M3 at station
55 +50
The approved Mitigation Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream
restoration success Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five -year
monitoring period The two bankfull events must occur in separate years, otherwise, the
stream monitoring will continue until two bankfull events have been documented in separate
years
3.2.4 Hydrologic Monitoring Results
According to the on -site crest gauge, the Site experienced at least one bankf ill flow event
during Year lmomtoring The largest on -site bankfull flow event documented at the UT1
crest gauge during Year 1 monitoring, occurred in April -May 2012 It is estimated that the
stage of the highest flow at the M3 crest gauge during April -May 2012 was approximately
160 feet above bankfull stage Following the April -May 2012 storm events, the crest gauge
on M3 did not document additional out of channel bankfull flows for the remainder of Year 1
monitoring
Crest gauge readings are presented in Table 6 and photos of the crest gauges and out -of -bank
evidence are presented in Appendix B
Table 6. Verification of Bankfull Events
Candiff Creek Restoration Protect: Protect No 92767
Date of Data
Collection
Estimated Occurrence
of Bankfull Event
Method of Data
Collection
M3 Crest (feet)
4/18/2012
Gauge Installed
Crest Gauge
N/A
5/22/2012
April -May 2012 storms
Crest Gauge
160
3.2.5 Stream Problem Areas
During Monitoring Year 1, there were no stream problem areas observed at the Site
3.2.6 Stream Photographs
Photographs are used to document restoration success visually A total of 59 reference
stations were installed and photographed after construction Photographs of these reference
stations will be collected for at least five years following construction Reference photos are —
taken at least twice per year, and are taken in enough locations to document the condition of
the restored system Permanent markers were established to ensure that the same locations
(and view directions) on the Site are documented in each monitoring period
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767 14
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

The stream systems are photographed longitudinally, beginning at the downstream portion of
the restoration reaches, and moving upstream to the beginning of the reaches Photographs
are taken looking upstream at designated locations Reference photo locations are marked
and described for future reference Points are spaced sufficiently close to provide an overall
view of the reach The angle of the photograph depends on which direction provides the best
view and is noted and will be continued for future photos When modifications to photo
position and/or direction are made due to obstructions or other reasons, the modified photo
position and /or direction is noted, along with any landmarks The same position is used in
the future
Additional photographs are taken to document any observed evidence of flooding patterns
such as debris, wrack lines, water marks, channel features, etc
Also, both stream banks are photographed at all permanent cross - section photo stations For
each stream bank photo, the photo view line follows a survey tape placed across the channel,
perpendicular to flow (representing the cross - section line) The photograph is framed so that
the survey tape is centered in the photo (appears as a vertical line at the center of the
photograph), keeping the channel water surface line horizontal and near the lower edge of the
frame In each cross - section photo showing the left bank, flow is moving to right
Conversely, in each cross - section photo showing the right bank, flowing is moving to the
left
A photo log of the restored channel is presented in the attached CD of this report Photos for
each of the 10 permanent cross - sections are included in Appendix B
Photographs of the restored channel were taken in October 2012 to document the evolution
of the stream geometry Herbaceous vegetation and shrubs were dense along the banks of
M2 and M3, making the photography of some of the stream channel areas difficult
3.2.7 Stream Stability Assessment
Table B 1 provides a summary of the results obtained from the visual inspection of in- stream
structures performed during Year 1 monitoring The percentages noted are a general, overall
field evaluation of the how the features were performing at the time of the photo point
survey According to the visual stability assessment following Year 1 monitoring, and after a
visual evaluation throughout 2012, it was determined that all features at the Site are currently
performing as designed However, it is noted that the pool in Cross - section 7 has aggraded
slightly This pool will be closely observed during Year 2 monitoring and future site visits
3.2.8 Quantitative Measures Summary Tables
The quantitative pre - construction, reference reach, and design data used to determine
restoration approach, as well as the as -built baseline data used during the project's post
construction monitoring period are summarized in Appendix B
Candlff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767 15
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Stream Monitoring - The total length of stream channel restored on the Site was 4,123 LF This
entire length was inspected during Year 1 monitoring to assess stream performance Year 1
monitoring did not reveal any significant problem areas within the boundaries of the Site
Cross - section monitoring data for stream stability were collected during Year 1 monitoring A
longitudinal profile survey was also completed during Year 1 monitoring for approximately
3,674 LF of stream on the Site The longitudinal profile was completed for Reach M3 only
Year 1 monitoring data for the M3 longitudinal profile show that the riffles in this reach have
maintained relatively the same bed elevations since as -built conditions The longitudinal profile
demonstrates that the in- stream structures within M3 are stable and functioning as designed
The cross - sectional data and the longitudinal profile indicate that Reach M3 is stable and
functioning as designed
According to the on -site crest gauge, the Site experienced at least one bankfull or greater flow
event during Year 1 monitoring The largest on -site bankfull flow event documented by the M3
crest gauge during Year 1 monitoring occurred approximately in April -May 2012 It was
estimated that the stage associated with these flows at the M3 crest gauge during this period was
approximately 160 feet above banlAll stage Inspection of conditions during a spring site visit
revealed visual evidence of out -of -bank flows
Vegetation Monitoring - Data from Year 1 monitoring for the 13 vegetation plots exhibited a
range of 728 to 1,052 stems per acre The data showed that the Site had an average of
survivability of 878 stems per acre
During Year 1 vegetation monitoring, kudzu was observed on the Site in the vicinity of
vegetation Plot 13 This concentration of kudzu is located on the upstream portion of Reach Ml,
downstream of River - Siloam road This area of kudzu was previously treated during
construction This area is scheduled to be treated again in 2013 during appropriate treatment
window(s)
According to the Year 1 vegetative monitoring data, the Site is on track to meet the interim
success criteria of 320 stems per acre by the end of Year 3 monitoring
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767 16
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

5.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer and raccoon tracks are common at the Site During Year 1 monitoring,
many small animals such as snakes, frogs and rodents were periodically observed Various
songbirds and birds of prey were observed on the Site throughout Year 1 monitoring Wild
turkeys are also commonly observed in the area
6.0 REFERENCES
Rosgen, D L 1994 A Classification of Natural Ravers Catena 22 169 -199
Cowardm, L M , V Carter, F C Golet, E T LaRoe 1979 Classification of wetlands and
deepwater habitats of the United States U S Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D C
USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Surry County, North Carolina,
2007
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No 92767 17
January 2013, Monitoring Year 1 FINAL

FIGURES

Project Location
10 0.5 1 2 3
Miles
CO
T Yr
r►ei� r��•�� may,
Surry County
m!
y, %r �
l \� Yadkin River
NCDVW Sub -Basin 03-07 -02
8 Digit HIIC - 03040101
14 NO HUC - 03040101110000
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
:andW Creek - Surry County, NC
sa. w
r�
PIP &aim }item
Figure 1. Vicinity Map of Candiff Creek Restoration Project.

Figure 2. Summary Map of Candiff Creek Restoration Project.

Ww
U
w
A
Z
U
kn
ti
DATUM DESCRIPTION
NORTH CAROLINA GRID COORDINATES (NAD83) FOR PRIMARY
GPS DERIVED CONTROL POINTS WERE ESTABLISHED FOR
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC CARY NC
SUPPLEMENT CONTROL POINTS (NAD83) UTILIZED FOR THIS
SURVEY WERE ESTABLISHED BY MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING
USING CONVENTIONAL METHODS
NORTH CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
GRAPHIC SCALES PROJECT LENGTH
40
CANDIFF UT1
20 0 40 80
EXISTING REACH LENGTH = 4,783 885
1111101111m. I --m
PLANS DESIGN REACH LENGTH = 5,064 885
50 25 0 50 too AS —BUILT REACH LENGTH = 5,078 885
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
SURR Y COUNTY
LOCATION: ON THE JOHNSON PROPERTY NEAR SILOAM, NC
OFF RIVER- SILOAM ROAD
TYPE OF WORK: AS BUILT PLANS FOR STREAM RESTORATION,
ENHANCEMENT, AND PRESERVATION
WAW LlA[q wmwr LIB — NU Y;;;;A NC 118335 1 7
PREPARED FOR
INDEX OF SHEETS
1
TITLE SHEET
1 A
STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
1,117
GENERALNOTES
1,117
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
VEGETATION SELECTION
1B
NCDOT CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
2 2E
STRUCTURE DETAILS
3 3A
REVEGETATION
4 4E
PLAN OF PROPOSED AND EXISTING
STREAM DESIGN
5 5E
PLAN OF AS -BUILT
6 6E
PLAN OF AS BUILT AND DESIGN
7-8
PROFILES
DATUM DESCRIPTION
NORTH CAROLINA GRID COORDINATES (NAD83) FOR PRIMARY
GPS DERIVED CONTROL POINTS WERE ESTABLISHED FOR
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING INC CARY NC
SUPPLEMENT CONTROL POINTS (NAD83) UTILIZED FOR THIS
SURVEY WERE ESTABLISHED BY MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING
USING CONVENTIONAL METHODS
NORTH CAROLINA
ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
GRAPHIC SCALES PROJECT LENGTH
40
CANDIFF UT1
20 0 40 80
EXISTING REACH LENGTH = 4,783 885
1111101111m. I --m
PLANS DESIGN REACH LENGTH = 5,064 885
50 25 0 50 too AS —BUILT REACH LENGTH = 5,078 885
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
SURR Y COUNTY
LOCATION: ON THE JOHNSON PROPERTY NEAR SILOAM, NC
OFF RIVER- SILOAM ROAD
TYPE OF WORK: AS BUILT PLANS FOR STREAM RESTORATION,
ENHANCEMENT, AND PRESERVATION
WAW LlA[q wmwr LIB — NU Y;;;;A NC 118335 1 7
JULIE CAHILL
PROJECT MANAGER
SUBMITTED BY
THE OFFICE OF
J
Sol and ly���ia
TONY DAVIS
PROJECT MMAGER
APRIL 2012
CO"LRTIONN DAIS.
THE OFFIC2
Michael Baker ERphteerlrg I.
acce RK y P M SW M
Cary NORTH CN oum U518
p,— 91—
' 916 a55 Saeo
M1 f F toga
WILLIAM SCOTT HUNT III, PE
PROJECT ENGRABER
JOSHUA WHITE, PG, PE
PROJECT A14MCER /GEOMORPROLOGIST
FIGURE 3A
PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY
WILLIAM KENT
L 3708
JUNE 5 2012
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
PREPARED FOR
THE OFFICE OF
UT2
1,117
1,117
1,117
aieineilt
PROGRAM
JULIE CAHILL
PROJECT MANAGER
SUBMITTED BY
THE OFFICE OF
J
Sol and ly���ia
TONY DAVIS
PROJECT MMAGER
APRIL 2012
CO"LRTIONN DAIS.
THE OFFIC2
Michael Baker ERphteerlrg I.
acce RK y P M SW M
Cary NORTH CN oum U518
p,— 91—
' 916 a55 Saeo
M1 f F toga
WILLIAM SCOTT HUNT III, PE
PROJECT ENGRABER
JOSHUA WHITE, PG, PE
PROJECT A14MCER /GEOMORPROLOGIST
FIGURE 3A
PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY
WILLIAM KENT
L 3708
JUNE 5 2012
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT

I
m
w
LL
w
w
0
U
m
L
s
r
no
\ \� \ \ \\
\�\ /// j
\\ \\ \ \ / ////7
N \\�\
�\\� \\x,
gagr llllll /llll1l /llllilll�lll'l�ll!! 'l' /!' l l
CONSTRUC4N CAND11 RU CREE�K�
!sT X0000 = 8 CO,S NT
/CTION M
'�� � I III
I tl IIIilllllli III III I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1
1 11111 \Iliillll'llll\`��IIIiI \I \ \I \ \I I I I� I I I I � ��
Ems{
Zz�
_
��- -�- --
zzzz
PROJECT ENGINEER
/' EVE ER TF��c M�K(I-
/ /-- JOHNSO
NOTE.
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONTOURS
AS BUILT
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)

r
1
1
I �
a
U
W
0:
7
U
LL
4
C
C
O
U
a0
0, 00
0
x 0
S•�QY � —
FILLED EXISTING DITCH
/
rOHNSOW-'
-- ---- i i— •� \ \ —me— �-- _ �_ �"' eta
ASBUILT
NOTES PLAN VIEW
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONTOURS
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)
PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY
WILLIAM IDENT
JUNE 5 2012
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
ACERTIFIED DOCUMENT
I MeelB Pr EnBineS,ft Inc
1080Rq�nq'�M1U
CuT NORTR CMOLINA 3)6,e
27518
FIGURE 3C
\�eTS��
��
lZ
/ o
END CONSTRUTL�TIOOMI2 - - - - --
STA 17 +34 94
G S 1
1 \ 1530718 46
=92585888 END CONSTRUCTION M2
_ X a =82124 ... ...� .. .. ..
,
0, 00
0
x 0
S•�QY � —
FILLED EXISTING DITCH
/
rOHNSOW-'
-- ---- i i— •� \ \ —me— �-- _ �_ �"' eta
ASBUILT
NOTES PLAN VIEW
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONTOURS
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)

ol
0
w
Ic
U
LL
w
4
0
s
c
0
E
__—'�
EXISTING___
FENCE ------- --
-
/EMERGENCY LIVESTOCK ACCESS
PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY
WILLIAM KENT
L-3708
JUNE 5 2012
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
o
PP #41
X
EXISTING PP #42 PP #40/ PP #35 1`'s
PP "*FENCE o" / ( PP #39 H
X VEGPLOT x PP #43 �32+ + � 37 U co
F-
W
2
y
W
Z
2
U
H
DO P PP #48
-P �l]l .2 PP #53 �\ PP ( P� B
°ra��
/ / ///
�V�%NE\ mlk�
SON
ZZO
/
to ji
4/4 � % /// / i
g/
,j�%
j /
/ / / % / / /� / / / /<
iii /! I I I �llj ll�lllll �
ZZ
\\
1 X04 }O
VEG#PTLOT
1 �1111����11�1 Ill�illll \����;
I IVI111141j1�11 �jllll� �%
II II�Ill�lj�l�lllll� �/�
11411ii i � 1�/ Ijl (��
�'�j
PLUGGED DITCH
FILLED EXISTING DITCH
9
NOTE
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONTOURS
AS BUILT
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)
Michm1 8°ker Enpinaerin9 Inc
.
�
aw°PA m ftii gWbm
nre
• •
� 91p N,r �ouru
F4 gig ..
tkenw I F —
FIGURE 3D
o
PP #41
X
EXISTING PP #42 PP #40/ PP #35 1`'s
PP "*FENCE o" / ( PP #39 H
X VEGPLOT x PP #43 �32+ + � 37 U co
F-
W
2
y
W
Z
2
U
H
DO P PP #48
-P �l]l .2 PP #53 �\ PP ( P� B
°ra��
/ / ///
�V�%NE\ mlk�
SON
ZZO
/
to ji
4/4 � % /// / i
g/
,j�%
j /
/ / / % / / /� / / / /<
iii /! I I I �llj ll�lllll �
ZZ
\\
1 X04 }O
VEG#PTLOT
1 �1111����11�1 Ill�illll \����;
I IVI111141j1�11 �jllll� �%
II II�Ill�lj�l�lllll� �/�
11411ii i � 1�/ Ijl (��
�'�j
PLUGGED DITCH
FILLED EXISTING DITCH
9
NOTE
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONTOURS
AS BUILT
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)

w
r,
w
u
w
4
C
U
me
E
O
M
i
EVERET-'rE -61 -MIKE
--JOHNSON
FILLED�XISY NG DITCH WITH MATERIAL FROM AEWLY-- EXCAVATED c)nruvLvel�
BLENDED THE NORTHERN SLOPE INTO THE LANDSCAPE PER 'DIRECTION OF-,Ff,4 E R,;
PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY
WILLIAM KENT
L370B
JUNE 5 2012
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
11,11,11 Bake, Eng. —d.g Inc
. 8000 Rpu y PNx Su. 80a
Cary NORTNCMOL,NATl518
� PBanw S,S M85109
FQ 010 F 6{W
umivar r 1ao�
FIGURE 3E
PLUGGED DITCH
FILLED EXISTING DITCH
NOTE.
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE RESTORATION CONTOURS
AS BUILT
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 SO
SCALE (FT)

tL
w
cc
7
L3
tL
w
4
U
0
0
N
o fr
Q
le
h
U �
r �
h
2 X07
h \
PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY
/�OLIISAMM KENT
JUNE 5 2012
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
n� P M Sub em
c.n worm{ 0-518
d) —�'— — ice$ EVETTE §1 MIKE/
\ JOH ON / I
_ _ - � FIGURE 3F --
P¢LE4"E)(ISANr CH WITH MA ROM -NEWLY EXCAVATED CRANNEL.— �� r / / / Q 7 /
\D ED THE NORTI�ERR'SL9PEi- ATP �E LANDSCAeE PER 'DIRECTION-OF _ENNGI ER \ —_ -- / / / e` / / /
_ --
X81 - 0
110
N- olV D -C6N UCiIO / VF/CREEK M3/
ISI
PP #17�
VEG�PLOT
\N
\ \ r
\\PP #13
PP #14
GPS 8
`i•�.� '�
.. ", ",
V X70
X= 1532508 71
371
Y =2 58
p
\
r
I
PP #'
/
VEGPLOT
F EMERGENCY LIVESTOCK ACCESS
PP #5!
�0�
PP #17�
VEG�PLOT
\N
\ \ r
\\PP #13
PP #14
GPS 8
`i•�.� '�
.. ", ",
V X70
X= 1532508 71
371
Y =2 58
\
Z =5280 46
/
VEGPLOT
F EMERGENCY LIVESTOCK ACCESS
PP #5!
�0�
\ PP #20 \ +00 \
X08
\P #16 \
PP #9
PP #10
PP #30 CREST GAUGE
PP #6 -
P ®`P #8
PP #4
II� I
II iil
/ I I lll�ll
- GeouFT
[FE�NCST GPP #7
_ PERMANENT FOND f�i
NOTE•
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONTOURS
AS BUILT
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (Fr)

m
3-V �jF� .�lll� \ \ \ \ \\
\ \ \ \ \i II)
� II I III I I I I I I
&W __ __ �" /�, /� /•� /� /� % / 878—x.— �� __� �"B�6 1
llj 11 Illill III ICI I I I I I I
=— BB_^
_' --�-- -- �- _ — — — — — —__
�•B15��. -- //_ / /�i / ��865� �.
�_
-- — -_ -- - -_ _ _ / III �IIIIIIIIII /
888—
— — —
a-�
ZA
O
X
Y= 925985 99
BCP 23
=Y= 925948 %
Imp co
-= \fir
l III l I
\ \\\ \ \ \ 1 / /� _ = \ \\ \ \\ 11 \ I\ X1111 \ \ \
\�I\ \\ \\;111 l /jl� / �/ // iii — — \ \�\ \ \� 1 l II I 1 1111 II 1i \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
\�\ i/ II Ii 11 11 \ I\ \1 \ \\\ \ \\ \ \\ \\
11 111
\�� \ \\
\\\ illll /lll
_\ \ \ \ l lr) i \
\\ \\ �II I I II III (II I II I I / l l� I I III III � Sri /// r / /i /l /i l �l l/l � l I ► i III 1 \\ � \\\
\�I
\ \ \1 \�
\ \ \ � IIII 1
\ \\ \
///
�
\ \ \� \�� \�\�
11 \ \\
\�� \ \�\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\
Illeal l 11 I I I 111 1 \ \ \\\ \ \\
PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY
WILLIAM KENT
L3708
JUNE 5 2012
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
Michael Baker Engineering Inc
- BOW R"— PeArey S.. BW
Uq R8 LMV618
PBow9 8 848
F¢ 81 19 4 3 W
4w wt F 1084
FIGURE 3G
Go
Q
Z
NOTE.
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE RESTORATION CONTOURS
AS BUILT
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)

APPENDIX A
VEGETATION DATA

VEGETATION TABLES

i ame H. i vegetation mecaaaza
Candiff Creek Restoration Project Project No 92767
Report Prepared By
Dwayne Huneycutt
Date Prepared
11/12/2012 16 17
database name
cvs- eep- entrytool v2 3 1 mdb
database location
L \Monitoring \Veg Plot Info \CVS Data Tool \Candiff
computer name
CARYLDHUNEYCUTT
file size
60329984
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
PROJECT SUMMARY------ -
Project Code 92767
project Name Candiff
Description Stream and Buffer Restoration
River Basin Yadkin -Pee Dee
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots 13

Candiff Creek Restoration Project Project No 92767
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Asimina trdobo
1
Betula nigra
35
21
3
Corpus amomum
10
15
2
Diospyros virgmiana
10
15
11
Fraxmus pennsylvamca
Quercus michauxn
5
16
4
11
2
1
Quercus phellos
4
5
1
Sombucus canodensis
2
Viburnum dentatum
2
Carpmus carohniana
5
4
Cercts canadensts
2
9
3
Ulex
1
Quercus rubro
1
4
1
brnodendron tulipifero
3
2
1
Platanus occidentalts
34
26
6
Unknown
2
1
2
12
3
TOTAL
16
127
121
31
3
13
3

i aoie A s vegetation uamage Dy Species
Candiff Creek Restoration Project Project No 92767
o aQOo
y
O O 40
e o4�1 o wo Al wy 3c
NCO
J�
As►m►na tnloba pawpaw 0 1
Betula n►gra river birch 3 56 2 1
Carp►nus carohn►ano American hornbeam 0 9
Cerc►s canadens►s eastern redbud 1 13 1
Corpus amomum silky dogwood 0 27
D►ospyros v►rg►n►ana common persimmon 0 36
Frax►nus pennsylvan►ca green ash 3 6 3
br►odendron tuhp►fera tuliptree 0 6
Platanus occ►dental►s American sycamore 6 60 6
Quercus m►choux►► swamp chestnut oak 1 29 1
Quercus phellos willow oak 0 10
Quercus rubra northern red oak 0 6
Sambucus canadens►s Common Elderberry 0 2
Ulex gorse 0 1
Unknown N/A 6 14 6
Viburnum dentatum Isouthern arrowwood 1 0 2
TOTAL 116 115 1 20 278 12 1 8

Table A 4 Vegetation Damage by Plot
Candiff Creek Restoration
Project Project
No 92767
O
y
Ooh o��°
ao
C
°
c
40.
pro
c
92767 -01 -0001
0
26
92767 -01 -0002
1
24
1
92767 -01 -0003
3
20
1
2
92767 -01 -0004
0
24
92767 -01 -0005
9
14
8
1
92767 -01 -0006
2
17
1
1
92767 -01 -0007
0
22
92767 -01 -0008
2
19
2
92767 -01 -0009
0
19
92767 -01 -0010
0
21
92767 -01 -0011
2
23
2
92767 -01 -0012
1
24
1
92767 -01 -0013
0
25
TOTAL 13
1 20
278
12
8

1 able A A Ylantea biers oy 1'IOt ana Species
Candiff Creek Restoration Protect Protect No 92767
/ F c` ,, y d c
� o
F d` �iQ FF
vo tiQ yQ to
Asimma tnloba
Shrub Tree
pawpaw
Betulo mgra
Tree
river birch
Carpmus carobniana
Shrub Tree
American hornbeam
Ceres canadensrs
Shrub Tree
eastern redbud
Cornus amomum
Shrub
silky dogwood
Diospyros wrgimano
Tree
common persimmon
Fraxmus pennsylvanica
Tree
green ash
Lirrodendron tulip era
Tree
tuliptree
Plotanus ocadentahs
Tree
American sycamore
Quercus michauxn
Tree
swamp chestnut oak
Quercus phellos
Tree
willow oak
Quercus rubro
Tree
northern red oak
Sambucus canadensis
Shrub Tree
Common Elderberry
Unknown
unknown
Viburnum dentatum
Shrub Tree
southern arrowwood
is
15
14
Oy 00 O^ 00 00 ti°
Qc
wo of o 0 0 0 o Qo 0 0 o po 00 °o
&a oy�
(` y
Ilk, (p^ tp^ ' ti 0 r0^ (p^ r0^ �O'\ fp^ tp^ fp^ �'�
Qua �� Qo h ti H H ti ti ti '� ti H ry N
do Q Quo Quo Quo Quo Quo Quo Quo Quo Quo Quo Quo Quo Quo

Table A 6 Plot Species and Densities
Candiff Creek Restoration Project Protect No 92767
ee �Is
1
2 3
4
5
6
1
lots
8
5
9
10
10
7
11
12
1
13
1
Year 1
Totals
Yearly Average
Stems /acre
7
3
Betula nigra
12
3
5
4
7
59
Drospyros vrrgrmana
4
1
2
3
5
5
1
1
9
4
1
36
Fraxrnus Pennsylvanrca
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
9
Lrrrodendron tulrprfera
1
5
6
Platanus occidentalis
10
1
5 1
5 1
7
6
1
4
10
7
10
66
Quercus mrchauxrr
4
2
2
2
3
3
5
6
3
30
Quercus phellos
7
1
1
1
10
Quercus rubra
6
6
Unknown
1
1
2
1
5
Shrub Species
Asrmma trcloba
1
1
Carpmus carohnrana
2
1
4
2
9
Cercrs canadensrs
9
2
1
1
1
14
Cornus amomum
1
4
6
4
7
3
2
27
Lindera benzom
0
Sambucus canadensrs
1
1
2
Viburnum dentatum
1
1
2
Number of stems /plot
26
24
21
23
21
18
22
19
19
20
24
23
22
282
Stems /acre Year 1
1052
971
850
931
850
728
890
769
769
809
1 971
931
890
1 878
Stems /acre Initial
1052
931
1012
931
809
728
890
850
769
890
1012
1012
1012
915

VEGETATION PHOTOS

Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 6

Vegetation Plot 7
Vegetation Plot 9
Vegetation Plot 8
Vegetation Plot 10
Vegetation Plot 11
Vegetation Plot 12

Vegetation Plot 13
Kudzu growth in M 1 and vegetation plot 13
vicinity

APPENDIX B
GEOMORPHIC DATA

STREAM TABLES

Tahw R I _ C'atevarical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Candiff Creek Restoration Protect: Protect No 92767
Performance
Percentage
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A Riffles
100%
100%
B Pools
100%
96%
C Thalweg
100%
100%
D Meanders
100%
100%
E Bed General
100%
100%
F Bank Condition
100%
100%
G Wads
100%
100%

Table B 2 Baseline Stream Summary
Candiff Creek Restoration Project Project No 92767
Candiff Creek - M2
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve Interval
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As-built
Dimension - Riffle
LL
UL
Eq
Min
-Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Max
BF Width (it)
198
198
Floodprone Width it)
38
277
30 0_
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
4­2
142
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
185
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
282
29 0
Width/Depth Ratio
139
14
-----
139
-----
-- ---
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
12
14
---
1 5
Bank Height Ratio
-----
6
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
37
35
-----
5
36
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
-----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
-----
-----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
---
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
0005
00081
Pool Length (ft)
---
-----
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
---
297
99
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 I d50 / d84 / d95
8 3/24 4/36 7/82 0/119 3
8 3/24 4/36 7/82 0/119 3
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
-----
-----
-----
-----
035
---
036
---
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/M2
---
21 7
21 7
- --
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
265
-----
265
---
265
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
253
253
253
Rosgen Classification
F4/1
134c/1
---
B4c/1
BF Discharge (cfs)
105
105
Sinuosity
-----
100
---
12
14
100
100
BF slope (ft/ft)l
-----
1
00045
b 0045
_0_00457�--
Candiff Creek - M3
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve Interval
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As-built
Dimension - Riffle
LL
UL
Eq
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
BF Width (ft)
207
-----
322
-----
204
---
198
256
216
Floodprone Width _(ft)
355
941
-----
600
1200
1080
1399
1202
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
09
14
-----
16
---
124
1 58
144
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
20
24
1 9
22
1 96
243
215
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft2)
292
326
-----
320
2862
3244
3077
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
146
-----
346
11
---
14
-----
130
126
207
154
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
17
29
----
29
59
42
70
56
Bank Height Ratio
10
25
1
1 1
1
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 0
BF Velocity (fps)
35
39
35
5
35
5
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
-----
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
Meander Width Ratio
-----
35
7
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
00078
00104
---
-----
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
816
1428
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
-----
8 3/24 4/36 7/82 0/119 3
---
8 3/24 4/36 7/82 0/119 3
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
-----
-----
-----
032
---
044
---
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/M2
-----
221
266
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
3828
-----
-----
-----
4,109
---
4123
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-----
274
-64/1,
274
274
Rosgen Classification
-----
F-4/1
-----
C4/1
C4/1
BF Discharge (cfs)
115
-----
-----
115
Sinuosity
-----
1 29
133
*00—;2
141
BF slope (ft/ft)
00055
0
00052
1

T.W. R 4 MnmhMl .-A IWI-A d.n IU..n.l....n.. c
Candiff Creek Restoration Project Protect No 92767
Reach M3
Parameter
Cross - section 1
Riffle
Cross - section 2
Pool
Cross - section 3
Pool
Cross - section 4
Riffle
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width ft
1949
3060
3308
1817
BF Mean Depth ft
109
1 14
181
141
Width/Depth Ratio
1782
1 2696
1 1831
1286
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft)
3
347
598
257
BF Max Depth ft
1 56
338
435
203
Width of Flood prone Area ft
7364
15388
12467
12072
Entrenchment Ratio
380
500
380
660
Bank Height Ratio
1 10
1 00
100
1 10
Wetted Perimeter ft
2167
3288
367
2099
Hydraulic Radius ft
098
1 06
163
122
Substrate
d50 mm
d84 mm
Parameter
MY -1 2012
MY -2 2013
MY -3 2014
MY-4 2015
MY -5 2016
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Meander Wavelength ft
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle length ft
Riffle Slope ft/ft
Pool Length ft
Pool Spacing ft
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
4826
Channel Length ft
3674
Sinuosity
141
Water Surface Sloe ft/ft
00051
BF Slo a ft/ft
00072
Rosgen Classification
C

Reach M3
Parameter
Cross - section 5
Pool
Cross - section 6
Riffle
Cross - section 7
Pool
Cross - section 8
Riffle
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY1
MY2
MY31
MY4
MY5
MY1
MY2
MY31
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width ft
3508
1957
41 11
1935
BF Mean Dept ft
161
141
1 06
145
Width/Depth Ratio
21 78
1378
3884
1336
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft)
5
278
435
280
BF Max Depth ft
4 04
201
257
209
Width of Flood prone Area ft
11900
10803
11858
.11523
Entrenchment Ratio
340
550
290
600
Bank Hei ht Ratio
100
100
1 00
1 10
Wetted Perimeter ft
3830
2239
4323
2225
Hydraulic Radius ft
148
12
101
126
Substrate
d50 mm
d84 (mm)
Parameter
MY -1 2012)
MY -2 2013
MY -3 2014
MY-4 2015
MY -5 2016
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth ft
Radius of Curvature ft
Meander Wavelength ft
Meander Width Ratio
Profile
Riffle length ft
Riffle Slope ft/ft
Pool Length ft
Pool Spacing ft
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
4826
Channel Len th ft
3674
Sinuosity
141
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
00051
BF Slope ft/ft
00072
Ros en Classification
C

Reach M3
Cross-section
Pool
Cross-section
Riffle
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft)
WMI
BF Max kepth
Entrenchment Ratio
Bank Height Ratio
Wetted Ferimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
ekadiusOTUurvature
Meander Wavelength (ft)
MeanderWidth
Off
:Additional Reach Parameters
valley LanAth
Channel Length

STREAM DATA

820
818
816
814
�«. 812
C
810
.� 808
W
806
804
802
800
Chart M1 - Year 1 Station 20 +00 to 42 +00
(Data collected October 2012)
2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000
Station (ft)

810
808
806
804
802
C
w
800
ce
a? 798
W
796
794
792
790
Chart M1 - Year 1 Station 42 +00 to 62 +00
(Data collected October 2012)
4100 4350 4600 4850 5100 5350 5600 WO 6100
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 1
(Year 1 Data - Collected October 2012)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
I Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
1 21.3
1 19.49
1.09
1.56
1 17.82
1.1
3.8
817.07
817.24
Candiff Cross - section 1
822
821
820
819
818
c _
w
817 ------- - - - - --
c�
816
w
815
814
As -Built -Year 1
813 - --o-- Bankfull - --o-- Floodprone
812
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 2
(Year 1 Data - Collected October 2012)
_.s
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
34.7
30.6
1.14
3.38
26.96
1
5
816.12
816.06
821
820
819
818
817
c 816
> 815
a>
w 814
813
812
811
Candiff Cross - section 2
As -Built - Year 1
D-- Bankfull - --o -- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 3
(Year 1 Data - Collected October 2012)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKFArea
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elegy
Pool
1 59.8
33.08
1.81
1 4.35
1 18.31
1
3.8
813.37
813.36
Candiff Cross - section 3
818
o ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
817
816
815
814
c
-.. 813
-------------------------
R
2
m 812
w
811
810
As -Built Year 1
809
0 -- Bankfull - -- Floodprone
808
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 4
(Year 1 Data - Collected October 2012)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
BKF
BKF
I
Feature
T' e
BKF Area
Width
Depth
IMaxBKFj
Depth =
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev'
Riffle
C
25.7
18.17
1.41
1 2.03
1 12.86
1.1
6.6
810.48
810.63
Candiff
Cross - section 4
815
814
813
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - - - -o
812
811
°—
810
m
809
w
808
807
As -Built -Year 1
806
9 -- Bankfull - --& -- Floodprone
805
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
70 80 90 100 110 120 130
140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 5
(Year 1 Data - Collected October 2012)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
56.5
35.08
1.61
4.04
21.78
1
3.4
808.2
808.37
Candiff Cross - section 5
813 -- - --
812 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
i
811
I
810
809
I
0 808 ---------------------------
m 807
u' 806
805 As -Built — •— Year 1
804 0 -- Bankfull - -- Floodprone
803
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 6
(Year 1 Data - Collected October 2012)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
813
812
811
810
c
809
R
808
ai 807
w
806
805
804
803
Candiff Cross - section 6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)
Stream
BKF
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
Width
Depth
I Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
27.8
19.57
1.42
2.01
13.78
1
5.5
807.64
807.67
813
812
811
810
c
809
R
808
ai 807
w
806
805
804
803
Candiff Cross - section 6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 7
(Year 1 Data - Collected October 2012)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 1 43.5 41.11 1.06 2.57 38.84 1 2.9 803.9 1 803.81
Candiff Cross - section 7
809
808
807
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -0
806
_
805
c
804
-------------------- - - - - -- --
d 803
w
802
801
As -Built Year 1
800
- -- Bankfull - -- Floodprone
799
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 8
(Year 1 Data - Collected October 2012)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
stream I BKF I BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
r , nc no �4 ZF 1 F Rni Rr, Rn2 11
Candiff Cross - section 8
--
807
806
- --
805
804
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
803
802
-------- - - - - --
a�i 801
w
800
799
As -Built Year 1
798
e -- Bankfull - --a? Floodprone
797
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 9
(Year 1 Data - Collected October 2012)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W!D
I BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
1 31.5
24.25
1.3
3.24
18.67
1 1
3.6
798.8
1 798.73
Candiff Cross - section 9
804
803
- - - --
802
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
801
800
799
-----------------
d 798
w 797
796
As -Built Year 1
795
- - -Q -- Bankfull - --o Floodprone
794
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 10
(Year 1 Data - Collected October 2012)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream I ( BKF ( BKF I Max BKF
[Feature I Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D I BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C 24.4 18.72 1.3 1.83 14.37 1.2 6.3 797.85 798.2
Candiff Cross - section 10
803
802
801
800
-- - ---------------------------------- - - - - -o
799
c
798
A
d 797
w 796
795
As -Built Year 1
794
e Bankfull - --o-- Floodprone
793
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

PP STA 61 +60, Constructed Riffle
PP 2 61 +25, Constructed Riffle
PP 3 STA 60 +25, Rock J -Hook
PP 5 STA 59 +10, Log J -Hook
PP 4 STA 60 +10, Constructed Riffle
PP 6 STA 58 +85, Constructed Riffle

PP 7 STA 57 +65, Log J -Hook
PP 8 STA 57 +50, Stream Crossing
PP 9 STA 56 +70, Log J -Hook
PP 10 STA 56 +50, Constructed Riffle
PP 11 STA 55 +40, Log J -Hook
PP 12 STA 55 +15, Constructed Riffle

PP 13 STA 53 +95, Rock J -Hook
PP 14 STA 53 +75, Constructed Riffle
PP 15 STA 52 +35, Log J -Hook
PP 16 STA 52 +05, Constructed Riffle
PP 17 STA 50 +75, Log J -Hook
PP 18 STA 50 +40, Constructed Riffle
�. .
A
1.� V
I�`
J.
PP 14 STA 53 +75, Constructed Riffle
PP 15 STA 52 +35, Log J -Hook
PP 16 STA 52 +05, Constructed Riffle
PP 17 STA 50 +75, Log J -Hook
PP 18 STA 50 +40, Constructed Riffle

PP 19 STA 49 +15, Log J -Hook
PP 20 STA 48 +75, Constructed Riffle
PP 21 STA 47 +50, Log J -Hook
PP 22 STA 47 +25, Constructed Riffle
PP 23 STA 46 +15, Log J -Hook
PP 24 STA 46 +00, Constructed Riffle

PP 25 STA 45 +25, Rock J -Hook
PP 27 STA 43 +50, Log J -Hook
PP 26 STA 44 +90, Constructed Riffle
PP 28 STA 43 +25, Constructed Riffle
PP 29 STA 42 +10, Log J -Hook
PP 30 STA 41 +80, Constructed Riffle

PP 31 STA 40 +25, Log J -Hook
PP 32 STA 40 +00, Constructed Riffle
PP 33 STA 38 +50, Rock J -Hook
PP 34 STA 38 +25, Constructed Riffle
PP 35 STA 36 +75, Rock J -Hook
PP 36 STA 36 +45, Constructed Riffle

PP 37 STA 35 +05, Log J -Hook
PP 38 STA 34 +80, Constructed Riffle
PP 39 STA 33 +90, Rock J -Hook
PP 40 STA 33 +60, Constructed Riffle
PP 41 STA 33 +00, Stream Crossing
PP 42 STA 32 +10, Log J -Hook

PP 43 STA 32 +75, Constructed Riffle
PP 44 STA 30 +55, Log J -Hook
PP 45 STA 30 +20, Constructed Riffle
PP 46 STA 28 +80, Log J -Hook
PP 47 STA 28 +65, Constructed Riffle
PP 48 STA 27 +75, Log Vein/Pool

PP 49 STA 27 +10, Log J -Hook
PP 50 STA 26 +75, Constructed Riffle
PP 51 STA 25 +65, Rock J -Hook
PP 52 STA 25 +45, Constructed Riffle
PP 53 STA 24 +25, Log J -Hook
PP 54 STA 24 +00, Constructed Riffle

PP 55 STA 22 +90, Log J -Hook
PP 56 STA 22 +70, Constructed Riffle
PP 57 STA 21 +65, Log J -Hook
PP 58 STA 19 +75, Rock Cross Vane
PP 59 STA 17 +75, Rock Cross Vane
M3 crest gauge STA 55 +50

Bankf ill evidence from April 2012 storms, photos
taken May 23, 2012. Approximately 1.60 feet.
Bankfull evidence from April 2012 storms
Bankfull evidence from April 2012 storms
Bankfull evidence from April 2012 storms
Bankfull evidence from April 2012 storms
Bankfull evidence from April 2012 storms