20100898 Ver 1_Year 2 Monitoring Report_20140808

CANDIFF CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FOR 2013 (YEAR 2)
EEP Project Number: 92767
Submitted to: NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Prepared by: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8066 Regency Parkway
Suite 6170
Cary, North Carolina 27598
Phone: [phone]
Fax: 919A63.6496
February 2014
FINAL
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1H 103
��Raleigh,
NC 27604
i QS Stem
i 1dI 'eIl eht
PFtorlum
Submitted by:
Surry Soil and Water Conservation District
220 Cooper Street
a soil ana+dy�r
P.O. Box 218
Dobson, NC 27017
ohs"'
ation'5141
Prepared by: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8066 Regency Parkway
Suite 6170
Cary, North Carolina 27598
Phone: [phone]
Fax: 919A63.6496
February 2014
FINAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................ ............................... 1
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND .............................................................. ............................... 2
2.1 Project Objectives ............................................................................. ............................... 2
2.2 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach ........................... ............................... 2
2.3 Location and Setting .......................................................................... ............................... 5
2.4 Project History and Background ....................................................... ............................... 5
2.5 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
3.1.4
Vegetative Problem Areas ....................................................... ...............................
11
3.1.5
Vegetation Photographs ........................................................... ...............................
11
3.2 Stream Assessment .......................................................................... ...............................
11
3.2.1
Morphometric Success Criteria ................................................ ...............................
11
3.2.2
Morphometric Results .............................................................. ...............................
12
3.2.3
Hydrologic Criteria .................................................................. ...............................
13
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 ....................................................... ............................... 16
6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................... .............................17
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Vegetation Data
APPENDIX B - Geomorphic Data
Attached CD — Photographs
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767 j
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 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.1.
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.1.
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table B.2.
Baseline Stream Summary
Table B.3.
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767 11
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 FINAL

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
Vicinity Map of Candiff Creek Restoration Project.
Figure 2.
Summary Map of Candiff Creek Restoration Project.
Figure 3A.
As -built Plan Sheet 1 for the Candiff Creek Restoration Project.
Figure 3B.
As -built Plan Sheet 5 for the Candiff Creek Restoration Project.
Figure 3C.
As -built Plan Sheet 5A for the Candiff Creek Restoration Project.
Figure 3D.
As -built Plan Sheet 5B for the Candiff Creek Restoration Project.
Figure 3E.
As -built Plan Sheet 5C for the Candiff Creek Restoration Project.
Figure 3F.
As -built Plan Sheet 5D for the Candiff Creek Restoration Project.
Figure 3G.
As -built Plan Sheet 5E for the Candiff Creek Restoration Project.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767 111
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 FINAL

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Annual Monitoring Report details the monitoring activities during the 2013 growing season
(Monitoring Year 2) 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 was 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 (m) (10m x 10m) in size, are used to predict
survivability of the woody vegetation planted on the Site. Data from Year 2 monitoring for the
13 vegetation plots exhibited a survivability range of 648 to 1,052 stems per acre. The data
showed that the Site had an average survivability of 818 stems per acre following Year 2
monitoring.
According to the Year 2 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 2 monitoring. A
longitudinal profile survey was completed during Year 2 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 two bankf ill flow events
during the Year 2 monitoring period. The largest on -site bankf ill flow event documented by the
M3 crest gauge during Year 2 monitoring, occurred on January 18, 2013. It is estimated that the
height of highest flow at the M3 crest gauge observed in January was approximately 2.49 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 l
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 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 I 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 floodplain, 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 in- 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 "mainstem" and a "UT" designation for unnamed tributaries. Two UTs are
located on the Site (labeled UT 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 MI/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 M1/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 floodplain, 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 /rock j -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
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 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
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 FINAL

Table 1. Design Approach for the Candiff Creek Restoration Project
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 92767
Project
Segment
Existing
Mitigation
Approach
Linear Footage
Mitigation
Mitigation
Stationing
Comment
or Reach
Feet /Acres
Type *
Ratio
Units
ID
10+00-
Invasive species vegetation removal and
M1
690
E
Ell
735
2.5:1
276
17 +35
buffer planting; 45 LF of stream length
removed for one stream crossing
M2
265
E
EI
265
1.5:1
177
17+35-
Installed in -stream structures to control
20 +00
grade and reduce bank erosion
20+00-
Invasive species removal and buffer
M3
3,828
R
P 1, P2
4,123
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
1
Ell
485
2.5:1
194
18 +85
buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
Reach)
fencing.
UT 1
885
(Upper
P
N/A
400
5:1
80
10+00-
Preservation area - no construction
14 +00
activities in this area
Reach
UT2
18+00-
Invasive species vegetation removal,
(Lower
F
Ell
362
2.5:1
127
21 +62
buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
Reach
fencing.
1,117
UT2
( U (Upper
pp
P
N/A
800
5:1
160
10+00-
Preservation area - no construction
18 +00
activities in this area
Reach
Mitigation Unit Summations
Planted
Stream
Riparian Wetland (Ac)
Non - riparian Wetland (Ac)
Total Wetland (Ac)
Riparian
Permanent Conservation
(LF)
Buffer (Ac)
Easement (Ac)
5,095
0
0
0
17.31
27.54
* R = Restoration ** P =Priority I
E = Enhancement P2 = Priority II
P = Preservation EII = Enhancement II
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 FINAL

2.3 Location and Setting
The Site is located in Surry County in western North Carolina, approximately 1.75 miles west of
Siloam Township, and just 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 (USES) 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 Project Plan
Plans illustrating the as -built conditions of the major 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 5
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 FINAL

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Project 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
Nov -13
Nov -13
Dec -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
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 FINAL

Table 3. Project Contacts
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Project 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: [phone]
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. [phone]
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 FINAL

Table 4. Proiect Background Table
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 92767
Project County:
Surry County, NC
Drainage Area:
Reach:
square miles (miz):
MI
2.35
M2
2.53
M3
2.74
UT 1
0.06
UT2
0.14
Estimated Drainage % Impervious
Cover:
M1, M2, M3, UT1, UT2
<5%
Stream Order:
UT I
1
UT2
2
M1, M2, M3
3
Ph sio a hic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Northern Inner Piedmont
Rosgen Classification* of
As- built:
M1, M2, M3
C
UT (Lower Reach)
N/A
UT (Upper Reach)
N/A
UT2 (Lower Reach)
N/A
UT2 (Upper Reach )
N/A
Cowardin Classification *:
Ml, M2, M3, UT2
Riverine, Upper Perennial, Cobble - Gravel
UT1
Riverine, Intermittent, Cobble - Gravel
Dominant Soil Types*:
M1, M2, M3, UT (Lower Reach),
UT2 (Lower Reach)
CsA
UT1 (Upper Reach), UT2 (Upper
Reach)
FsE
UT1 (Upper Reach
FeC2
Reference site ID
On -site
USGS HUC for Project
03040101
NCDWQ Sub -basin
03 -07 -02
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference:
M1, M2, M3, UT1, UT2
C
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed?
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a 303d listed
segment?
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor?
N/A
of project easement fenced
100%
*Rosgen, 1994; *Cowardin;* -USDA, 2007
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 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
bankf ill 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 gerardii), beggartick (Bidens frondosa), lanceleaf tickseed (Coreopsis
lanceolata), deertongue (Pancium clandestinum), Virginia wildrye (Elymus virginicus), soft
rush (Juncus effusus), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), smartweed (Polygonum
pennsylvanicum), 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.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767 9
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 FINAL

Table 5.
Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Project
Scientific Name Common Name ercent Planted by Total Number of Stems
AL Species
Bare Root Trees Species
Betula nigra
river birch
23.3%
1,800
Diospyros virginiana
persimmon
7.8%
600
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
15.6%
1,200
Liriodendron tulipfera
tulip poplar
7.8%
600
Platanus occidentalis
sycamore
22.1%
1,700
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
15.6%
1,200
Quercus phellos
willow oak
7.8%
600
Bare Root Shrub Species
Asimina triloba
paw paw
9.5%
400
Carpinus caroliniana
ironwood
12%
500
Cercus canadensis
redbud
14%
600
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
19%
800
Lindera benzoin
spicebush
9.5%
400
Sambucus canadensis
elderberry
19%
800
Viburnum dentatum
arrowwood
17%
700
Native Herbaceous Species
Agrostis alba
redtop
10%
NA
Andropogon gerardii
big bluestem
5%
NA
Bidens frondosa
devil's beggartick
5%
NA
Coreopsis lanceolata
lanceleaf tickseed
10%
NA
Dichanthelium clandestinum
deertongue
15%
NA
Elymus virginicus
Virginia wild rye
15%
NA
Juncus effusus
soft rush
5%
NA
Panicum virgatum
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 sericia
silky willow
30%
2,100
Salix nigra
black willow
10%
700
Sambucus canadensis
elderberry
30%
2,100
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767 10
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 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 2 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 2
monitoring. Data from Year 2 monitoring for the 13 vegetation plots exhibited a range of
648 to 1,052 stems per acre. The data show that the Site had an average survivability of 819
stems per acre following Year 2 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.
During Year 2 monitoring no significant population of volunteer species were noted on the
Site. All plots will continue to be assessed during Year 3 monitoring for occurrence of
volunteer species.
3.1.4 Vegetative Problem Areas
During Year 2 monitoring, kudzu (Pueraria montana) was observed on the Site in the
vicinity of vegetation Plot 13 and in the general vicinity. This concentration of kudzu was
previously treated during construction but is now re- establishing in the same location. The
kudzu is located on the upstream portion of Reach M1, downstream of River - Siloam Road.
This area is scheduled to be treated in May of 2014 during the appropriate treatment window
by use of the herbicides Glyphosate and Triclopyr.
Vegetation Plots 1 through 12 exhibit 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 2 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 11
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 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 2 cross - section monitoring data for stream stability was completed during October
2013. 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 2. Data from each of these cross - sections are presented in Appendix B.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767 12
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 FINAL

Cross - sections 1, 4, 6, 8 and 10 are situated across riffles that are located between pools.
Based on the survey data, Cross - section 10 located on the mid - downstream portion of M3,
showed relatively little change since as -built conditions. Cross - sections 1, 4, 6 and 8 are
located on the upstream portion of M3 and demonstrated minor fluctuations in riffle
dimensions during the first and second years of monitoring. Cross - sections 1 and 4 appear to
have aggraded in channel dimension slightly since as -built conditions and Year 1. These two
cross - sections were observed during Year 2 monitoring and appear to be stable. Cross -
section 6 is located mid - stream on reach M3. This Cross - section has shifted slightly
downward since Year 1. This shift is likely due to riffle adjustment and maturation. Cross -
section 6 will be closely observed during Year 3 monitoring for any shift toward instability.
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, all five pool Cross - sections 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9 have
demonstrated minor fluctuations in pool dimensions since as -built conditions. It is noted that
these pool cross - sections have deepened in the thalweg since as -built conditions. Based on
the Year 2 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 2 monitoring was completed in October 2013. The Year 2
longitudinal profile monitoring data were compared to the data collected during the as -built
condition survey completed in April 2012 and the Year 1 data collected in October 2012.
During Year 2 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 2 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. It was
observed in Year 1 and in Year 2 that 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 noted in M3 are benefiting the overall
functionality of the Site by providing increased channel stability while promoting greater
habitat diversity. 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 2 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.
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
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767 13
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 FINAL

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 two significant bankfull
flow events during Year 2 monitoring. The largest on -site bankfull flow event documented
at the UT 1 crest gauge during Year 2 monitoring, occurred in on January 18, 2013. It is
estimated that the height of highest flow at the M3 crest gauge observed in January was
approximately 2.49 feet above bankfull stage. Following the January event, the next
recorded observation occurred approximately on July 5, 2013. The crest gauge on M3 did
not document additional out of channel bankfull flows for the remainder of Year 2
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 Project: Project No. 92767
Date of Data
Collection
Estimated Occurrence
of Bankfull Event
Method of Data
Collection
M3 Crest (feet)
2/7/2013
1/18/2013
Crest Gauge
2.49
9/23/2013
7/5/2013
Crest Gauge
1.21
3.2.5 Stream Problem Areas
During Monitoring Year 2, 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.
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
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767 14
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 FINAL

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 modified position is used
in all future photographs of that site.
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 May and November 2013 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 2 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 2 monitoring, and after a
visual evaluation throughout 2013, 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 recovered
from aggrading in Year 1 and is deepening as designed. This pool will be observed during
Year 3 monitoring and future site visits for any significant changes.
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.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767 15
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 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 2 monitoring to assess stream performance. Year 2
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 2 monitoring. A
longitudinal profile survey was also completed during Year 2 monitoring for approximately
3,674 LF of stream on the Site. The longitudinal profile was completed for Reach M3 only.
Year 2 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 two significant bankfull flow
events during Year 2 monitoring. The largest on -site bankfull flow event documented at the UT1
crest gauge during Year 2 monitoring, occurred in on January 18, 2013. It is estimated that the
height of highest flow at the M3 crest gauge observed in January was approximately 2.49 feet
above bankfull stage. Following the January event, the next recorded observation occurred
approximately on July 5, 2013. The crest gauge on M3 did not document additional out of
channel bankfull flows for the remainder of Year 2 monitoring.
Vegetation Monitoring - Data from Year 2 monitoring for the 13 vegetation plots exhibited a
range of 648 to 1,052 stems per acre. The data showed that the Site had an average of
survivability of 818 stems per acre.
During Year 2 vegetation monitoring, kudzu was observed on the Site in the vicinity of
vegetation Plot 13 and in the general vicinity. This concentration of kudzu was previously
treated during construction but is now re- establishing in the same location. The kudzu is located
on the upstream portion of Reach M1, downstream of River - Siloam road. This area is scheduled
to be treated in May of 2014 during appropriate treatment window(s). The kudzu is to be treated
in the early growth season by use of the herbicides Glyphosate and Triclopyr.
According to the Year 2 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.
5.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer and raccoon tracks are common at the Site. During Year 2 monitoring,
small animals such frogs, rodents and fish were periodically observed. Various songbirds and
birds of prey were observed on the Site throughout Year 2 monitoring. Wild turkeys are also
commonly observed in the area.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767 16
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 FINAL

6.0 REFERENCES
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22: 169 -199.
Cowardin, 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.0
USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Surry County, North Carolina,
2007.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767 17
February 2014, Monitoring Year 2 FINAL

FIGURES

J
BURRY
COUNTY -
-, r —
Project Location
0 0.5 1 2 3
1 Miles
'YADKIN
C0U "N TY
.T���i1tr4�a,��lr►� � �
r��► i+►.�Il�ir ` * j► ail' 77 I
Surry County
R4
Yadkin River
NCDWQ Sub -Basin 03 -07 -02
S Digit HUC - 03040101
14 Digit HUC - 03040101110060
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Candiff Creek - Surry County, NC
Figure 1. Vicinity Map of Candiff Creek Restoration Project.

1
4h
1� S
Legend
z
As -built Stream Alignment
r�
Preservation (1,200 ft)
Stream Enhancement 1 (265 ft)
u
Stream Enhancement 11 (1.582 ft)
"v
4h
1� S
y
`i
Exhibit 2 - Restoration Summary Map
Candiff Creek - Surry County, NC
1.I�sz em , 7 354 700 1,a00 m
GiiiiiiMMMMMMOMMOI Feet
Figure 2. Summary Map of Candiff Creek Restoration Project.
Legend
As -built Stream Alignment
r�
Preservation (1,200 ft)
Stream Enhancement 1 (265 ft)
Stream Enhancement 11 (1.582 ft)
"v
Stream Restoration ( 4,123 ft)
Conservation Easement (27.54ac)
' ° RiWer= Siloam Rd
w
f
,R
Fn
.�S3.LL..•'3�ilio - '�
y
`i
Exhibit 2 - Restoration Summary Map
Candiff Creek - Surry County, NC
1.I�sz em , 7 354 700 1,a00 m
GiiiiiiMMMMMMOMMOI Feet
Figure 2. Summary Map of Candiff Creek Restoration Project.

w
w
U
tn
M
fln
ti
U
W
O
a
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
S URR 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
M
co
0
Q
Z
a
ffAW "K PRGIRCT RRIRRRNCR pQ
NCI 118335 1 1 1 i
FIGURE 3A
GRAPHIC SCALES
INDEX OF SHEETS
1 ...
TITLE SHEET
1 -A ...
STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
GENERALNOTES
THE OFFICE OF.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
BOD R
sa��a600
VEGETATION SELECTION
1 -B ...
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
5-6E ...
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
S URR 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
M
co
0
Q
Z
a
ffAW "K PRGIRCT RRIRRRNCR pQ
NCI 118335 1 1 1 i
FIGURE 3A
GRAPHIC SCALES
PROJECT LENGTH
PREPARED FOR
SUBMITTED BY
PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF
PROJECT ENGINEER
THE OFFICE OF.
THE OFFICE OF.
BOD R
sa��a600
CANDIFF UTl UT2
2]516
= • II, a 919463.88av
I p
40 20 0 40 80
EXISTING REACH LENGTH = 4,783 885 1,117
DESIGN REACH LENGTH = 5,064 885 1,117
ax 9N946354g60LINN
LCe "5e "iF1684
THIS DOCUMENT
THIS
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY
PLANS
50 25 0 50 t00
AS —BUILT REACH LENGTH = 5,078 885 1,117
WILLIAM SCOTT HUNT III, PE
WILLIAM KENT
E"��pTM
iai �I ilf'IIf
GROGRAM
C4 ►��
ESQ ��
n'BtioC+�
PROJECT ENGINEER
APRIL 2012
COMPLETION DATE:
TUNE S, zD'2
JUNE
BE CONSIDERED
ACIE CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
PROFILE HORIZONTAL
JOSHUA WHITE, PG, PE
5 0 5 10
JULIE CAHILL
TONY DAVIS
PROJECT MANAGER IGEOMORPHOLOGIST
PROJECT MANAGER
PROJECT MANAGER
P.E.
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
SIGNATURE:

PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED
WILLIAM KENT
JUNE / % % / / / / / / / /// // /1 \\\ 1 I \ _ 1 1 I I I
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
1 1 I I N I I O I N , T I = U �� J \ N CANDI CREEK
/ / / • , Licene sae e #1 B'. aker Eng
ineering I
n
c.
IN CONSTRUCTION M1 Re6P Sue 800
I B Cary NORTH CAROLINA2]51a T 10 000 P-91 9193463 54 a5
F10840
�� v v �__� /� /// / / I I I II I1�11111111111111111111111 II I I �11 vvv / /� / / ii
FIGURE 313
-
�y /X �
_
/
EVERETTE MI.KE /
J oHt s Dy
-
N+O ,���� _—
o � \
\\ / �/ 1�1
END O \
NS CTION U 141
SxL nnn Qo / // // /// 1$% _zc�� II STA— 8+ 5-39
\ I I R1 /BDP1
3Y =� � //r / / / %� / /� S E 24.38/_ °
/
09S
:�aea�
T
L
O
\\ % ax
5
yP
5
NAD 83
NOTE:
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONTOURS.
AS —BUILT
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)

— � 035 � / 03 � j T � ` ` � —930 -
/ -8300
/525
/
/x
025
/ / C
Dry/
END CONSTRUCTION M1 =
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION M2 /
STA. 17 +34.94
\ X15307, 8.46
Y, 9256587 .66 � END CONSTRUCTION M2 = /
r Z =82124 BEGIN CONSTRUCTION M3 /
cE STA. 20 +00.00 /
m I
x0000/ W CE - - - -- 1 / / GE
O
x�
--
5 !� x TX CE
VE PLOT E
EXISTING CE /
6 +p0 / 00k FENCE CE I
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
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
- 8000 Regency Parkway, Suile 800
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
License #'. F -1084
FIGURE 3C
�G��\ PIP x/ /
�'- \\ J x�X / \0 GPS 2 J I PP #56
X= 1530791.18 VEGPLOT �Rr
Y= 925420.81
#10 �x
x_x Z= 818.88 -
-578= N. + S
n�8 �� x -x
PP �•X
I AP
o —� '
9 _
END `CONS URT CTION� UT2 \ J �\ s 27,.00
STA. 21+61.19_ \ \��
\ \ \ \ \ \ VEGPLOT \ \\
BRUSH MATTRESS,_
PP #57 —
/tVER TTE—& MIfE\
xsOOO JOHNSON
NOTES:
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE- RESTORATION CONTOURS.
Hq0 8
\3
PLUGGED DITCH
FILLED EXISTING DITCH
AS -BUILT
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)

PROJECT ENGINEER
/ —
\ — / / / THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY / / ISSUED AND
SEALED BY:
WILLIAM KENT
JUNE 5, 2012
/ X825_— I / THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
Michael Baker Engineering Inc.
Cary, NORTH CAROLI NA 27518
—11�, 820
—a20 �� Fax^Bt94 F-1084 Ba
"a License #'. F -1084
Me
� -_ FIGURE 3D
'
\ \ EXISTING ats
—e21— / / / /= / / /a, -- FENCE —
/ago— / / / / \ —yam} -x 7 "
--EMERGENCY LIVESTOCK ACCESS
CE C E
E
CE G X X Ir PP #41 1 / / / a
GE x/ 1 PP #42 / / �X PP #40 (\ PP #35
EXISTING \ 1
FENCE / 5 C
-� PP #39 PP #36 F-
/ fix— PP 6 X / VEG BLOT a \ 11 #43 +00 \
x x x rn\'
C 3� U
GE / /-/- PP #47 W
LU
/ BRUSH MATTRESS x �+ �/ _ � X04 x co
VEGPLOT / LU
PP 451 ( X03
1 03 2
PP
X02
5 +00 g
_
o
x04
Pla #48
VE:PPLOT
PP #54\ PP #49
�.. ��X02TPP #53 ����/ /
iI l I l IlI l ilImlI I lII lI l lIlIlI V l IW jI I l lIII I � Ill l ly ill i1/j %j / I 111-111 pi
;,a /// /////- \�Illlllllllllllllllljlll I�IIIII�� /I�I�(� / /� /� /�
�� j /
/ /�/�/ /, *// % %//
%� Fy������I
�V RTE MI
� � / / i .� I �jlllllllllll
J�HI�SOI� �� // / /� %. I I��/II llllll I
I I I l IIII I ` —!j \ \�
NOTE:
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONTOURS.
PLUGGED DITCH
/ / /� / / / /�� \� / /// AS -BUILT
PLAN VIEW
FILLED EXISTING DITCH
\ \III
A �II I I 40 20 0 40 $o
SCALE (FT)

\ \ 4
EVERET MIKE
JOHNSON
FILLED_EXING DITCH WITH MATERIAL FROM WEWLY_EXCAVATED C ANNE \
/ BLENDED THE NORTHERN SLOPE INTO THE LANDSCAPE PER— DIRE-QTION OLE k
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 Michael Baker Engineering Inc. I
- 8no0 Regency Parkway, Suile18
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 2]518
Phone. [phone]
Fax: [phone]B0
License #'. F -1084
FIGURE 3E
��o
\cam
PLUGGED DITCH
FILLED EXISTING DITCH
NOTE:
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONTOURS.
AS -BUILT
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (FT)

PROJECT ENGINEER
THIS DOCUMENT
ORIGINALLY ISSUED AND
SEALED BY:
WILLIAM KENT
ry L -3708
/ / 20� / / JUNE 5, 2012
THIS MEDIA SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED DOCUMENT
8°Ioo R. -y P'R," sulile 600c
Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
v
Rh,, 919 919463.. 54 5
X825- - - - - -825- X825/ EVE�ETTE $l MIKE / i j / / ��cen=e tF';oaa°
JOHNSON —
\ FIGURE 3F
\ \ \\ \ —e2°—
x-82°`
\ \ \\ PICLED'-EXfSTJAI /
G BITCH WITH MATERMSWL�X6A1[ATED CHAL.—
BLENDED _THE =ORT= ERR- BL9F�NeTisO`E= GAGE =\ DIRE6Tl0�0= ENGl`R.
BCP 32 �
153277 / /
rF � _ — — \ \� — — — — _ Y�s2s7i a €ND �Nl
� I(�N C DYFF CREEK M3
0 \\ Z= 81101 i �� / PP #1
O j PP #21 C / FENCE"�j \ \ \ /�-1 G� \ PP #2
o \ F 1
f.,
PP 94
w I
PP #17 X O 1n o
= C --X—X-- X10 4
i PP #18 VEGPLOT f GPS 6 _ 0 X
#3
Ce XC = 153250 87 1
Z 802 58 = 46
O0 G�'
PP #5
PLUGGED DITCH X07 VEGPLOT
A A
I
EMERGENCY LIVESTOCK ACCESS
PP #13 - - -
/ I R
PP #14 \ Ce °o \ I I I II I �I 1 1 II I © FILLED EXISTING DITCH
t / J
\ \ PP #6
\ PP #20
_ - 0B
X06 �
®� �
S\ PP #8 m
PP #9
\ \ \ \ O
\ \ \a\ \ \ \ \ PP #10 X09
\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ CREST GAUGE
\P 916 sa\ � � xO ® 0 GEOLIFT
\ \ N\
EXIST FENC NOTE:
a\ X \ / CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE- RESTORATION CONTOURS.
PERMANENT FORD
\
AS —BUILT
PLAN VIEW
SCALE (FT)

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
600' I
8000 Regency Parkway, Su 600
�IEE�(LJE���/s��fl�[J1.KE Cary, NORTH CAROLINA 27518
— d- k�R -15i 7-V-LV 1 \ \ \ \\ \ \\ \1111111. 7 I • Phone. [phone]
� Fax: Bt9463.54B0
_ Il 1 111111 oae# F -1064
77 696 _ _ '/ ��i �i ii6s= _ _ —66 1 I III \\ III1� IIIIIIIIIIIII I�II1 I FIGURE 3G
6]0__ _ __ -- ��I I1�11111111�111 1111 114�1111 �I /
=� -
_
/ 7_____- _= _- - _ -_ -_=
- -- _ - -fi5- IIIII �II��111�1�1111111 \I
NN
66_
AZTA% G_M JFl L CI
_22 \ � r 835 == h
%y. \ 'o C)
\\ \ Y= 925985.99 00 Q
BCP 23
23 co
\ / _ /// //Z=83998 \ \\ \
\ \ \\ _
_ w Y= 9259963.111 S \\ 0 Q
LU
c
\ \ \ /
\\ \k \_��� 111/ i//// /�� % /i'=== _��\�\ \ \ \� \ \ \ \� \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \\
W��_� \� \ \ \\
\ \ 1111111 /Ill / / %� / / /i /i�/ �i /% % I I\ \ \\ �1 X1111 III11111111111 \I\ \
�
N
I
�\J
\ \ \ \\ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \�
,E ► / I I \
�
/�
v �y I
\ v v I m l\ v�
NOTE:
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE PRE - RESTORATION CONTOURS.
1 \\ \ \ \
�
AS BUILT
PLAN VIEW
40 20 0 40 80
SCALE (Fl)

APPENDIX A
VEGETATION DATA

VEGETATION TABLES

A.1. Veaetation Metadata
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 92767
Report Prepared By Dwayne Huneycutt
Date Prepared 12/4/2013 11:13
abase name cvs- eep- entrytool- v2.3.1.mdb
abase location L: \Monitoring \Veg Plot Info \CVS Data Tool \Candiff
iputer name CARYLDHUNEYCUTT
size 64065536
CRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT ------------
tadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
j, planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
j, 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.
:s
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
)r
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
)r by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
nage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
nage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
nage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
ited 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.
ECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
ct Code 92767
ct Name Cardiff
•iption Stream and Buffer Restoration
Basin Yadkin -Pee Dee
eam -to -edge width (ft)
2a (sq m)
quired Plots (calculated)
mpled Plots 13

Table A.2. Vegetation Vigor by Species
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 92767
Species
4
3
2
1
0
Missing
Unknown
Asimina triloba
1
Betula nigra
30
24
2
2
1
Cornus amomum
1
10
15
1
Diospyros virginiona
14
4
11
1
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
1
7
1
Quercus michauxii
9
13
6
2
1
Quercus phellos
4
5
1
Sambucus canadensis
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
2
Corpinus caroliniana
2
5
1
1
Cercis canadensis
1
9
2
2
Quercus rubra
4
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
3
3
Platanus occidentalis
37
141
101
2
3
Unknown
11
21
1 11
4
TOTAL
15
971
871
701
91
151
7

Table A.3. Vegetation Damage by Species
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 92767
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
01
1
Betula nigra
river birch
4
55
2
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
0
9
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
1
13
11
1
Corpus amomum
silky dogwood
11
16
10
1
Diospyros virginiona
common persimmon
2
33
2
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
2
7
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
2
4
2
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
2
64
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
8
23
5
2
1
Quercus phellos
willow oak
0
10
Quercus rubro
northern red oak
1
5
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
0
2
Unknown
N/A
0
8
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
0
2
TOTAL
15
15
33
252
21
1
2
3
6

Table AA Vegetation Damage by Plot
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 92767
�DQO .0
Jc ,mac
/4Q?
92767 -01 -0001
1
25
1
92767 -01 -0002
3
21
3
92767 -01 -0003
5
16
5
92767 -01 -0004
2
22
2
92767 -01 -0005
2
21
1
1
92767 -01 -0006
6
12
5
1
92767 -01 -0007
4
18
3
1
92767 -01 -0008
2
17
2
92767 -01 -0009
0
19
92767 -01 -0010
0
20
92767 -01 -0011
1
23
1
92767 -01 -0012
2
21
2
92767 -01 -0013
5
17
1
4
TOTAL
13
1 33
252
21
1
2
3
6

Table A.5. Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 92767
`9 ti N M P h SO ^ M � o ti N M
�F 6 00 00 00 0° 00 00 0° o° o°
hw w� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 �y
w ti w ti
0 Q F F o w� Q \ \o Oi Qp w ti w ti w ti w ti w ti w ti w ti w ti w ti w Oti f w oti f �
Vo hQ Vo �o Rro Q Q \o Q \o Q \o Q \o Q \o Q \o Q \O Q \o Q \o Q \o Q \O Q \o Q \o
Asimina triloba
Shrub Tree
pawpaw
1
1
1
1
Betula nigro
Tree
river birch
56
11
5.09
12
3
5
4
5
1
3
5
10
7
1
Corpinus coroliniano
Shrub Tree
American hornbeam
8
4
2
2
1
3
2
Cercis canadensis
Shrub Tree
eastern redbud
12
5
2.4
8
1
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
Shrub
silky dogwood
27
7
3.86
1
4
6
4
7
3
2
Diospyros virginiona
Tree
common persimmon
30
10
3
1
1
1
3
5
5
1
1
8
4
Froxinus pennsylvanica
Tree
green ash
9
8
1.12
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tree
tuliptree
6
2
3
1
5
Plotanus occidentalis
Tree
American sycamore
63
11
5.73
10
1
5
5
7
6
1
4
10
6
8
Quercus michauxii
Tree
swamp chestnut oak
30
9
3.33
3
2
3
2
3
3
5
6
3
Quercus phellos
Tree
willow oak
9
3
3
7
1
1
Quercus rubra
Tree
northern red oak
5
1
5
5
Sambucus canadensis
Shrub Tree
Common Elderberry
2
2
1
1
1
Unknown
Unknown
NA
3
3
1
1
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
Shrub Tree
southern arrowwood
2
2
1
1
1
TOTAL
10
15
15
14
263
15
26
20
21
22
191
16
22
18
18
19
23
22
17

Table A.6. Plot Species and Densities
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 92767
Tree Species
Plots
Year 2
Totals
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Betula nigra
12
3
5
4
5
1
3
5
10
7
1
56
Diospyros virginiana
l
1
1
3
5
5
1
1
8
4
30
Fraxinus Pennsylvanica
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
9
Liriodendron tulipifera
1
5
6
Platanus occidentalis
10
1
5
5
7
6
1
4
10
6
8
63
Quercus michauxii
3
2
3
2
3
3
5
6
3
30
Quercus phellos
7
1
1
9
Yearly Average
Quercus rubra
5
5
Unknown
1
1
1
3
Stems /acre
Shrub Species
Asimina triloba
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
2
1
3
2
8
Cercis canadensis
8
1
1
1
1
12
Cornus amomum
1
4
6
4
7
3
2
27
Lindera benzoin
0
Sambucus canadensis
1
1
2
Viburnum dentatum
1
1
2
Number of stems /plot
26
20
21
22
19
16
22
18
18
19
23
22
17
263
Stems /acre Year 2
1052
809
850
890
769
648
890
728
728
769
931
890
688
819
Stems /acre Year 1
1052
971
850
931
850
728
890
769
769
809
971
931
890
878
Stems /acre Initial
1052
931
10121
931
1 809
1 728
1 890
1 850
1 769
1 890
10121
1012
10121
915

VEGETATION PHOTOS

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

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

Vegetation Plot 13

APPENDIX B
GEOMORPHIC DATA

STREAM TABLES

Table 13.1. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 92767
Performance Percenta e
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A. Riffles
100%
100%
100%
B. Pools
100%
96%
96%
C.Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
100%
100%
E. Bed General
100%
100%
100%
F. Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
G. Wads
100%
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 (ft)
-----
19.8
-
-
-
-
19.8
-
-
-
-
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
23.8
-
-
-
27.7
-
30.0
-
-
-
BF Mean Depth (ft)
-----
1.42
-
-
-
-
1.42
-
-
-
-- --
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
1.85
-
- - - --
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
-----
28.2
-
-
-
-
29.0
-
-
-
--- --
Width /Depth Ratio
-----
13.9
-
11
-
14
-
13.9
-
-
-
-
Entrenchment Ratio
-
1.2
-
-
-----
1.4
-----
1.5
-----
-----
--- --
Bank Height Ratio
-
2.6
1
-
1.1
1
-----
1.1
-----
-----
- - - --
BF Velocity (fps)
-----
3.7
3.5
-
5
-
3.6
-
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-----
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
-
-
--- --
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
-
-
-
-
Meander Width Ratio
-
-
-
-
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-
-
-
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-----
0.005
-
00081
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-
-
-
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
29.7
-----
99
-----
-----
--- --
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) Ib/f2
-
-
-----
0.35
-
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.36
-
-
- - - --
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/rn2
-
-
-
21.7
-
21.7
-
-
- - - --
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
-----
-
265
265
-
-
265
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-
2.53
2.53
-
-
2.53
Rosgen Classification
-
F4/1
I34c/1
-
-
134c/1
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
-
105
105
-
-
- - - --
Sinuosity
-
1.00
1.2
1.4
1.00
-
-----
1.00
--- --
BF slope (ft/ft )
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.0045
-----
-----
-----
0.0045
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)
---
---
---
---
-----
20.7
32.2
-
-
-
20.4
-
19.8
25.6
21.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
-----
35.5
-
94.1
-
-
-----
60.0
-----
120.0
108.0
139.9
120.2
BF Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
-
1.4
-
-
-
1.6
-
1.24
1.58
1.44
BF Max Depth (ft)
-----
2.0
-
2.4
-
-
-----
1.9
-----
2.2
1.96
2.43
2.15
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
---
29.2
-
32.6
-
-
-
-
32.0
-
28.62
32.44
30.77
Width/Depth Ratio
-----
14.6
-
34.6
11
-
14
-
13.0
-
12.6
20.7
15.4
Entrenchment Ratio
-----
1.7
-
2.9
-
-
2.9
-----
5.9
4.2
7.0
5.6
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
-
2.5
1
-
1.1
I
-
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
BF Velocity (fps)
---
3.5
-
3.9
3.5
-
5
3.5
-
5
-
-
-
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-----
-
-
-
-
-
-
Meander Wavelength (ft)
-----
-
-
-
__ --
Meander Width Ratio
-----
3.5
-----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
-----
-
-
-
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
00078
-
00104
Pool Length (ft)
-----
-
-
-
Pool Spacing (ft)
-----
81.6
-
142.8
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) Ib/f2
-
-
-
-
-
0.32
-----
-----
0.44
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/rn2
-
-
-
-
-
22.1
-----
26.6
-----
- - - --
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length (ft)
-----
-
-
-
-
3,828
---
4,109
4,123
Drainage Area (SM)
-----
-
-
-
-
2.74
2.74
2.74
Rosgen Classification
-
-----
C4/1, F4/1
-----
-----
-----
C4/1
-----
C4/11
BF Discharge (cfs)
-----
115
-
-
-
-
115
- - ---
Sinuosity
-----
1.29
-
-
-
-
1.33
1.41
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0055
0.0052
0.0052

Table B.3. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Project 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
19.49
19.92
30.60
19.24
33.08
17.96
18.17
19.33
BF Mean Depth ft
1.09
1.24
1.14
1.82
1.81
3.02
1.41
1.61
Width /Depth Ratio
17.82
16.00
26.96
10.55
18.31
5.95
12.86
12.03
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft')
21.3
16.1
34.7
35.1
59.8
54.2
25.7
31.1
BF Max Depth ft
1.56
1.831
1
1 3.38
3.991
4.35
4.27
2.03
2.30
Width of Flood prone Area ft
73.64
77.58
153.88
153.85
124.67
124.70
120.72
120.78
Entrenchment Ratio
3.80
3.90
5.00
8.00
3.80
6.90
6.60
6.20
Bank Height Ratio
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
Wetted Perimeter ft
21.67
22.40
32.88
22.88
36.70
24.00
20.99
22.55
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.98
0.72
1.06
1.53
1.63
2.26
1.22
1.38
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
4826
Channel Length ft
3674
3674
Sinuosit y
1.41
1.41
Water Surface Slope ft /ft
0.0051
0.0052
BF Slope ft/ft
0.0072
0.0073
Rosgen Classification
C
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
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width ft
35.08
34.93
19.57
22.56
41.11
27.78
19.35
19.66
BF Mean Depth ft
1.61
1.68
1.41
1.34
1.06
1.70
1.45
1.38
Width/Depth Ratio
21.78
20.81
13.78
16.86
38.84
16.36
13.36
14.23
BF Cross - sectional Area ftz
56.5
58.6
27.8
30.2
43.5
47.2
28.0
27.1
BF Max Depth ft
4.04
4.371
2.01
2.45
2.57
4.08
2.09
2.17
Width of Flood prone Area ft
119.00
119.06
108.03
108.03
118.58
118.63
115.231
115.12
Entrenchment Ratio
3.40
3.40
5.50
4.80
2.90
4.30
6.001
5.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
0.90
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.10
1.1
Wetted Perimeter ft
38.30
38.29
22.39
25.24
43.23
31.18
22.25
22.42
Hydraulic Radius ft
1.48
1.53
1.24
1.20
1.01
1.51
1.26
1.21
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
4826
Channel Length ft
3674
3674
Sinuosity
1.41
1.41
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
0.0051
0.0052
BF Slope ft/ft
0.0072
0.0073
Rosgen Classification
C
C

Parameter
Cross-section
Pool
Cross-section
Depth BF Mean
Width of Floodprone Area
Entrenchment Ra
Bank Height
Substrate
Parameter
-.
Channel Beltwidth(z����M���MM
Radius of Curvature
Pool Length
Pool Spacing
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length
Channel Length

STREAM DATA

Chart M3 - Year 2- Station 20 +00 to 35 +00
(Data collected October 2013)
819
— As -Built Thalweg
—Year 1 Thalweg
817
�— Year 2 Thalweg
Water Surface
Low bank
815
C 813
811
-
I
-
W
809
I
_
807
805
2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500
Station (ft)

Chart M3 - Year 2- Station 35 +00 to 52 +00
(Data collected October 2013)
809
- As- BuiltThalweg
-Year 1 Thalweg
807
-
- = =Year 2 Thalweg
- _
Water Surface
Low bank
805
-
w
803
0
-
-
0
801
-
-
W
799
-
-
797
795
3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 5000
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 1
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2013)
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
Riffle
C
24.6
19.92
1.24
1.83
16.12
1.1
3.9
817.07
817.31
822
821
820
819
818
c
817
ca
816
w
815
814
813
812
Candiff Cross - section 1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 2
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2013)
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
35.1
19.24
1 1.82
3.99
10.55
1
8
816.08
816
821
820
819
818
817
c
g 816
> 815
w 814
813
811
Candiff Cross - section 2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 3
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2013)
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
1
54.2
17.96
1 3.02
4.27
5.95
1.1
6.9
813.37
813.68
818
817
816
815
814
_
813
D 812
w
811
810
:1•
ROOM
Candiff Cross - section 3
As -Built Year 1
- Year 2 - - -© - -- Bankfull
© - -- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 4
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2013)
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
Riffle
C
31.1
19.33
1.61
2.3
12.03
1
6.2
810.63
810.64
815
814
813
812
811
0 810
> 809
a�
w 808
807
806
805
0
Candiff Cross - section 4
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 5
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2013)
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
58.6
34.93
1 1.68
4.37
20.81
0.9
3.4
808.2
807.61
813
812
811
810
809
0 808
m 807
w 806
805
804
803
Candiff Cross - section 5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 6
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2013)
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
Riffle
C
30.2
22.56
1 1.34
2.45
16.86
1
4.8
807.67
1 807.68
813
812
811
810
$ 809
c
0 808
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 2 Data - Collected October 2013)
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
1 7.2
27.78
1.7
4.08
16.36
1
4.3
803.7
803.5
:1•
�.*Ii
807
806
Rnti
C
g 804
ca
> 803
w 802
:1
:11
799
Candiff Cross - section 7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 8
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2013)
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
Riffle
C
27.1
19.66
1.38
2.17
14.23
1.1
5.9
801.85
802.08
807
806
805
804
803
o 802
> 801
d
U' 800
799
798
797
Candiff Cross - section 8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 9
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2013)
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
36.8
22.72
1 1.62
3.98
14.05
1
4.1
798.8
798.67
=
.1
:1
801
800
c
°- 799
798
w
797
796
795
794
Candiff Cross - section 9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 10
(Year 2 Data - Collected October 2013)
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
Riffle
C
24.8
19.04
1.3
2.21
14.59
1 1.1
6.2
797.85
798.15
803
802
801
800
799
c 798
797
w 796
795
794
793
Candiff Cross - section 10
As -Built
Year 2
-- o -- Floodprone
Year 1
- --& -- Bankfull
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)