20100898 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20150414

CANDIFF CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FOR 2014 (YEAR 3)
Submitted to:
r�
Ecosystem
nNNMNI.M
Submitted by:
Soil and
Co'Serya�`
EEP Project Number: 92767
NCDENR - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
2728 Capital Blvd, Suite 1 H 103
Raleigh, NC 27604
Surry Soil and Water Conservation District
220 Cooper Street
P.O. Box 218
Dobson, NC 27017
Prepared by: Michael Baker International
INTERNATIONAL
r R,ECVM JAN 2 0 2015
January 2015 A� 4 2015
FINAL , TER ReSOURCES
TVjg'0R.Vkn0N ERMgTING UNIT

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 .......................................................................... ...............................
12
3.2.1
Moiphometric Success Criteria ................................................ ...............................
12
3.2.2
Morphometric Results .............................................................. ...............................
13
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 ................................................................. ...............................
15
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 — Photographs
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767
January 2015, Monitoring Year 3 FINAL

I It
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 Bankfull 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.
Planted Stems 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
January 2015, Monitoring Year 3 FINAL
ii

1 It
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.
Figure 4.
Current Condition Plan View Figure Index
Figure 4A.
Current Condition Plan View Figure 4A
Figure 4B.
Current Condition Plan View Figure 4B
Figure 4C.
Current Condition Plan View Figure 4C
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767
January 2015, Monitoring Year 3 FINAL
111
r

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Annual Monitoring Report details the monitoring activities during 2014 (Monitoring Year
3) 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 3 monitoring for the
13 vegetation plots exhibited a survivability range of 243 to 1,052 stems per acre. The data
showed that the Site had an average survivability of 766 stems per acre following Year 3
monitoring.
During Year 3 monitoring, kudzu (Pueraria montana) was present on the Site in the vicinity of
vegetation plot 13. 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 was treated in August and October of 2014 by
use of the herbicides Glyphosate and Triclopyr. The Year 3 vegetation monitoring data for
vegetation plot 13 in the treated area exhibited 243 stems per acre. Upon control of the kudzu,
the area will be replanted at an appropriate density in order to meet the Year 5 success criteria of
260 stems per acre.
Cross - sectional monitoring data for stream stability were collected during Year 3 monitoring. A
longitudinal profile survey was completed during Year 3 monitoring for approximately 3,102
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 significant bankfull flow
events during Year 3 monitoring. The largest on -site bankfull flow event documented at the M3
crest gauge during Year 3 monitoring, occurred in on January 11, 2014. It is estimated that the
height of highest flow at the M3 crest gauge observed in January was approximately 0.82 feet
above bankf ill stage. Following the January event, the next recorded observation occurred
approximately on April 29, 2014. The crest gauge on M3 did not document additional out of
channel bankfull flows for the remainder of Year 3 monitoring.
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 2015, Monitoring Year 3 FINAL

2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The project involved the restoration of 4,081 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 and
summarizes 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 International (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 M1/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. UT1 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 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
January 2015, Monitoring Year 3 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
January 2015, Monitoring Year 3 FINAL

v
.v
.a
i.
a
0
a
d
U
w
b
U
r
u
a
d
�A
.y
A
h
b
0 .G
a a �
II II II
a a w
C p
c d o
g
L
N
xwr�
n u n
u:wa.
rn
a
z
.a
a
ww
� M
0 00
o •q
U ccv
U
b
0
0
U
O
O
•Cd
axi y! .�.7
U
O
w U
O
w u
O
q
O S •--. r,
q
N
•+7
�n
U
O
V
N d
o
N U
b y
U O
•� .�
N
•� °°
y y
N O N
-A a
y y
Q O
a w°
.0 •9
cd W
b
'd
> e0 y
>y app
`d °'
y0 7r, en aCC�
.9 [� H
4
� m
«Jr a w e
bA
O
M
O +
O
O
O
O
+
+ C
+
O
+ ±
+ �
O
+
00
+
O
F c'aG3,
M
ad
�p
•--�
N
•-"
o
�
N
as „+rte
t`
000
O
00
t`
N
O
U
3
a
N
~
~
N
71
`n
N
'—
a
a
»
O
co
v �
o
W')
00
v�
o
�
o
c
:�
+
G
a o
N
�
M
000
Cad
ao
'b
�
�
3
y
b
cd
°
*
U
v
N
C
C°
a
0-4
d
b
a
w
w
a
w
z
w
z
o
z
b
3
°
bD �
V
rn
y d
110
o
N
00
0
00
W
W
tr1
r
fj O
���
-
`VN
�Mr
a
m
co
tn
rq
H�
�Gn
b
0 .G
a a �
II II II
a a w
C p
c d o
g
L
N
xwr�
n u n
u:wa.
rn
a
z
.a
a
ww
� M
0 00
o •q
U ccv
U

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 (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 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. In addition to the as -built plans a Current Condition Plan View
Map (Figure 4 through 4c) set is included in the Figures section in this report.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767
January 2015, Monitoring Year 3 FINAL

Table 2. Proiect Activity and Reporting History
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: EEP 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
Oct -12
Oct -12
Dec -12
Year 2 Monitoring
Oct -13
Nov -13
Dec -13
Year 3 Monitoring
Oct -14
Nov -14
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 2015, Monitoring Year 3 FINAL

Table 3. Project Contacts
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project No. 92767
Designer
Michael Baker International
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Scott Hunt, P.E., Telephone: [phone]
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: [phone]
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 International
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 2015, Monitoring Year 3 FINAL

Table 4. Proiect Background Table
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project No. 92767
Project County:
SurTy County, NC
Drainage Area:
Reach:
square miles (mi2):
Ml
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 1
1
UT2
2
M1, M2, M3
3
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Northern Inner Piedmont
Rosgen Classification* of
As- built:
M1, M2, M3
C
UT 1 (Lower Reach)
N/A
UTl (Upper Reach)
N/A
UT2 (Lower Reach)
N/A
UT2 (Upper Reach
N/A
Cowardin Classification *:
M1, M2, M3, UT2
Riverine, Upper Perennial, Cobble - Gravel
UT1
Riverine, Intermittent, Cobble - Gravel
Dominant Soil Types*:
M1, M2, M3, UT1 (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
NCDW 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
January 2015, Monitoring Year 3 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 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
January 2015, Monitoring Year 3 FINAL

Table 5. Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Project
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project No. 92767
CommonName
Percent Plante d by
Species
Total Number
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
January 2015, Monitoring Year 3 FINAL

3.1.3 Vegetative Observations and Results
Permanent ground cover has been successfully established through the planting of the
permanent seed mixture planted at the Site, as observed during Year 3 monitoring of the Site.
Tables A.1 through A.6 in Appendix A presents vegetation metadata, vegetation vigor,
vegetation damage and stem count data for the monitoring plots at the end of Year 3
monitoring. Data from Year 3 monitoring for the 13 vegetation plots exhibited a range of
243 to 1,052 stems per acre. The data show that the Site had an average survivability of 766
stems per acre following Year 3 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
moved to a single branch instead of the main stem once the tree becomes established. Flags
are also used to mark trees because they do not interfere with the growth of the tree.
During Year 3 monitoring some volunteer species tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera) and
redbud (Cercus canadensis) were noted on the Site along the southern portion of M3. All
plots will continue to be assessed during Year 4 monitoring for occurrence of volunteer
species.
3.1.4 Vegetative Problem Areas
During Year 3 monitoring, kudzu (Pueraria montana) is present 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
was treated in August and October of 2014 by use of the herbicides Glyphosate and
Triclopyr. The Year 3 vegetation monitoring`data for vegetation plot 13 exhibited 243 stems
per acre. Upon control of the kudzu, this area will be replanted at an appropriate density in
order to meet the Year 5 success criteria of 260 stems per acre. Photos of vegetation plot 13
and the surrounding vicinity showing the Kudzu extent is presented in Appendix A.
Vegetation Plots 1 through 12 on reach M2 and M3 exhibited relatively few invasive or
aggressive species occurring on the Site. 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 3 monitoring that show the on -site planted stems are included in Appendix A of this
report.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767 11
January 2015, Monitoring Year 3 FINAL

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:
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.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767 12
January 2015, Monitoring Year 3 FINAL

3.2.2 Morphometric Results
Year 3 cross - section monitoring data for stream stability was completed during November
2014. 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 3. Data from each of these cross - sections are presented in Appendix B.
Tables B.1 through B.3 in Appendix B present visual stability assessment data, the baseline
stream summary and the morphologic and hydraulic monitoring summary.
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 a slight riffle elevation increase 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 Year 3 of monitoring. Cross - sections 1 and 4 appear to have aggraded in
channel dimension slightly since as -built conditions. Cross- section 6 is located mid - stream
on reach M3 and has remained stable since Year 2.
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 fluctuated mostly in thalweg depth. Based on the Year 3
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 3 monitoring was completed in November 2014. The Year
3 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 3 monitoring, the longitudinal profile survey was only completed for Reach M3.
A total stream length of 3,102 LF was surveyed for M3. The longitudinal profiles for M3 is
presented in Appendix B.
Year 3 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. This pool depth change was also noted during Year 3 monitoring.
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 and also providing an area for energy dissipation 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 3 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 the lower end of the
riffle areas have maintained riffle elevations and provided downstream scour holes that
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767 13
January 2015, Monitoring Year 3 FINAL

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
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 3 monitoring. The largest on -site bankfull flow event documented
at the M3 crest gauge during Year 3 monitoring, occurred on January 11, 2014. It is
estimated that the height of highest flow at the M3 crest gauge observed in January was
approximately 0.82 feet above bankfull stage. Following the January event, the next
recorded observation occurred approximately on April 29, 2014. The crest gauge on M3 did
not document additional out of channel bankfull flows for the remainder of Year 3
monitoring. A photograph depicting a large stump that washed up along M3 in January 2014
is included in Appendix B.
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:
EEP Project No. 92767
Date of Data
Collection
Estimated Occurrence
of Bankfull Event
Method of Data
Collection
M3 Crest (feet)
5/22/2012
4/2012 - 5/2012 storms
Crest Gauge
1.60
2/7/2013
1/18/2013
Crest Gauge
2.49
9/23/2013
7/5/2013
Crest Gauge
1.21
4/9/2014
1/11/2014
Crest Gauge
0.82
7/23/2014
4/29/2014
Crest Gauge
0.23
3.2.5 Stream Problem Areas
During Monitoring Year 3, there were no stream problem areas observed at the Site.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767 14
January 2015, Monitoring Year 3 FINAL

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
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 the 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 2014 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 3 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 3 monitoring, and after a
visual evaluation throughout 2014, it was determined that all features at the Site are currently
performing as designed.
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
January 2015, Monitoring Year 3 FINAL

4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Stream Monitoring - The total length of stream channel restored, enhanced and/or preserved on
the Site was 7,038 LF. The project involved the restoration of 4,081 linear feet (LF) of stream
along M3. Additionally 1,757 of stream Enhancement (265 LF of Enhancement I along M2 and
1,492 LF of Enhancement II along Ml, UT1 and UT2) and 1,200 LF of stream preservation
along UTl and UT2. This entire length was inspected during Year 3 monitoring to assess stream
performance. Year 3 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 3 monitoring. A
longitudinal profile survey was also completed during Year 3 monitoring for approximately
3,102 LF of stream on the Site. The longitudinal profile was completed for Reach M3 only.
Year 3 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
Year 3 cross - sectional data also 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 3 monitoring. The largest on -site bankfull flow event documented at the M3
crest gauge during Year 3 monitoring, occurred in on January 11, 2014. It is estimated that the
height of highest flow at the M3 crest gauge observed in January was approximately 0.82 feet
above bankfull stage. Following the January event, the next recorded observation occurred
approximately on April 29, 2014. The crest gauge on M3 did not document additional out of
channel bankfull flows for the remainder of Year 3 monitoring.
Vegetation Monitoring - Data from Year 3 monitoring for the 13 vegetation plots exhibited a
range of 243 to 1,052 stems per acre. The data showed that the Site had an average of
survivability of 766 stems per acre.
During Year 3 monitoring, kudzu (Pueraria montana) was present on the Site in the vicinity of
vegetation plot 13. 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 was treated in August and October of 2014 by
use of the herbicides Glyphosate and Triclopyr. The Year 3 vegetation monitoring data for
vegetation plot 13 exhibited 243 stems per acre. Upon control of the kudzu, this area will be
replanted at an appropriate density in order to meet the Year 5 success criteria of 260 stems per
acre.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767 16
January 2015, Monitoring Year 3 FINAL

5.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer and raccoon tracks are common at the Site. During Year 3 monitoring,
small animals such frogs, rodents, snakes, and fish were periodically observed. Various
songbirds and birds of prey were observed on the Site throughout Year 3 monitoring. Wild
turkeys are also commonly observed in the area.
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 Suny County, North Carolina,
2007.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, EEP Project No. 92767 17
January 2015, Monitoring Year 3 FINAL

FIGURES

Boonville
N
tk
S U R R Y
COUNTY
o�
m
Siloam
R.e S�aT W
Project Location
Yadkn River
YADKIN
100.51 2 3 1 CO Ulu 17
Miles
SurryCounty
e7 Fs>ist 8�fd
NCDWt7 Sub -Basin 03 -07 -02
8 Digit HUC - 03040101
14 Digit HUC - 03040101110060
Rgure 1. Mcinity Map
Candiff Creek - Suny County, NC
u�yr wk''k
� r'7
INTERNATIONAL
Figure 1. Vicinity Map of Candiff Creek Restoration Project.

Figure 2. Restoration Summary Map of Candiff Creek Restoration Project.

0.
i
= i
q�4
I
c) �
ON
CIO)
U
W �
mom
Z o 0
U V
1 Y 1
o
a
R
?Iigyo jjia V3 SEEM -Z37 O2Id,

LLJ
�� 11
\ _ — — _
Il 11
II
1 \)\ )1�IIIlI1 �` 111111 1111/ jai i
I �/ ►flu � 1 11)1)111.1/ /��
//
: iii_
ii /�
IIII�IlI��1110
Jll rl \\ \\\ \ „� \ „ \ \\\ \ \���� \\\\ \ \ \ \\ \\I
�\
� l I ► � \ \ \ \ \� \ \ \ \ \� \ \ \'� \�,: \ \ \ \;; \ \ \,�\ 1111►
\\\\\\\\ �\ � \ \� \� \ \� \ \` \1 \1 \I11�1111111111
\��;����� \��\ \� \� \11111} IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I
!
1),w 1 \ \
lztrl �`\ � jl II1I1 1 }11111111111111
l%i \�\ \ \\ � /IliM1111II}II�}III�I
�\\\ IIII�III III Ij IIIIIIIII I
11 /llll J� /�i����
Iw ,"'awl t(il 11111 \ \111
p� IIIIIIaiIII11I11 I 11
I� IIQI \\1111 \111 \ Il
'Ok, /IJ�11 11
�\F\1\ 1 \\ � lllllllli
1F1r1111111 11111;11
II 1111 IIII�IIIIIIIIIIII
\ \ \ \\ I I II
; )I1 1111111 1111111
\ \ \ \� 0 \ \, Il II Ij IIIII�IIIIIII
\ \ \ \1\ Q\ 1 I II I I I IIIIIIIIIII
\ \ \ \� \ \�Q 1 I)II I I IIIIIIIIIII
111111111 \ \`' /j II I IIIINII�II
X111111111 Iv1111111111B11111
\\ �� IIIII \l\ 11111 I'�IIIINIIIIII
MM\ , \`� Jlllll'111111
1 N \
\ _ — — _
Il 11
II
1 \)\ )1�IIIlI1 �` 111111 1111/ jai i
I �/ ►flu � 1 11)1)111.1/ /��
//
: iii_
ii /�
IIII�IlI��1110
Jll rl \\ \\\ \ „� \ „ \ \\\ \ \���� \\\\ \ \ \ \\ \\I
�\
� l I ► � \ \ \ \ \� \ \ \ \ \� \ \ \'� \�,: \ \ \ \;; \ \ \,�\ 1111►
\\\\\\\\ �\ � \ \� \� \ \� \ \` \1 \1 \I11�1111111111
\��;����� \��\ \� \� \11111} IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I
!
1),w 1 \ \
lztrl �`\ � jl II1I1 1 }11111111111111
l%i \�\ \ \\ � /IliM1111II}II�}III�I
�\\\ IIII�III III Ij IIIIIIIII I
11 /llll J� /�i����
Iw ,"'awl t(il 11111 \ \111
p� IIIIIIaiIII11I11 I 11
I� IIQI \\1111 \111 \ Il
'Ok, /IJ�11 11
�\F\1\ 1 \\ � lllllllli
1F1r1111111 11111;11
II 1111 IIII�IIIIIIIIIIII
\ \ \ \\ I I II
; )I1 1111111 1111111
\ \ \ \� 0 \ \, Il II Ij IIIII�IIIIIII
\ \ \ \1\ Q\ 1 I II I I I IIIIIIIIIII
\ \ \ \� \ \�Q 1 I)II I I IIIIIIIIIII
111111111 \ \`' /j II I IIIINII�II
X111111111 Iv1111111111B11111
\\ �� IIIII \l\ 11111 I'�IIIINIIIIII
MM\ , \`� Jlllll'111111

1 1 1 1111 III1111114111111',1111
1
1 1 ll II I I I jlljlll IIII 11;1 1 1
1\ I 1 1111111 /1111111 1111 1 1
. 1 l,1 !I/llllll 1 11 11 1 1
� \\ \ �111//ll111111111 11 1
�\ \11 I /1 /!l1 1111;11 11 I I
��\ \ \1,1 ►111 11 11111 1 1111 1; 1
� ; \ \ \11111,1,1111 I 1 111 11111 ► \ \
\ \\ \\\\1111111111 I I 1 111111 1 1 1
%\ \ 1`111111� 1 IIIIII' 11111I11111 1 I I I I I I I I I
�111111111111�I11 I I I I
\1111101.11 111III111111111111 I ► ; 1
1111111111lr1111l111111 I�1111111 I I
IIII/ 1/1 /1111 :1111; I l l I I I I I I I
/ /%l /11111111111 �II 11 I I I I
�/ /� /jllllllllFl+lII111 I I j I
���� /l /1111 �1�1111 °I I III j I
11111111
//llll/111111II I I I I 1
� \I\ 111 ►I I I II I IIll / 11 1 I
x\ w;A111111111111111
\m 11111 \1111111111111111
/1111111111111111,;1111111111 � I
/ /1X111111111111 ►111111111 \ \\ \ I
11 /11► ►11111111111;\\\ \ I\ t
j / /11]1111111 X11111
�I \ I
,111�I1111 \111 \ \ \
I �I ►111111111111111 l
I I I I11111111111/l 11
I I I I IIII IIII +1111 /! �
�� r 11�iiillil✓liliiilllillr
/ 1 111111] ►it, 111111�11
/ 1 !11111 II11 ►1111111 I I
/ 1 111]1 ]1111► Ill I I I I I I
/ / !l l jl1 ►I ►Ill 1 1 11 I I
/j l/I jll1111�1 I I ► I I
' 111]111 TZ1 1 1 I
///III, I 10 l\ l l
11111111 \ \\\ \\
11111
\ 1lln\v
`'i �1 1 \ \` 11111111
If
R

\ \11,I,IIlIf11 =I 1
1 11 I l l 11111! 111 I
1 1 Illljl III 1 1� � � i "�
jl{lllll 111 \\ 1�
+ l l ll l f l�ll 1 111\ } \ \•
\Illlj�l�fl�jj��jl,lill \ 1 x
11111 \111 \1111�1II�11IjIja�\\ � � �
11 \ \ \ \1� \11 \111111 \ \\ \\ 11111 \Ix
111111 11 1111`1 11``1 ` 111111` \`` 11 1111 1111 °111111 \\ l
11111 1 111 11 }111111 } \\
`\ 1\ 1 1 111111` \111111 \I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \\
\1
\ 1 +111
\`11\111 tItIiI� 1
\ 1\\1111\}1111111111 /
1 111 Ill II!
,/ /l l! 11118 =11f1111f 111!! I I I! 1 I II I
I!
lllllll
lllllll / / / /��
ll/lll II1II 1 I / //�j /i
K \ \ \
\ \ \ \ \ \�\ 1► I I ll I viii /iii iiir /�
lll / / / / / / / / / //i
/I ! 111,11�1�111111I��rllpNll/f
/ 1 I l; lull rl 111 lli 111// /ii,�
r /I/ I ill 1111i1ir1 �lyp iglill�ll�ll l�(r,
/ //� //�/l111l1111111���11�1j11� �� / /1111IIIj11 I
ut It III I,1�i,1Tt
I f 111 I // ///111�I���IIIp111111j1���1�\1\
Ill / / // / /IIII VIII 1111,1111 \�`\� \\
IIII /,,,,, 111 ►11111111 ►111111111,; `\;
11111 / //i ///11111111111 }1111�,�1 \ \�` \\
j111 I ll/ //
1! 1 11 I /11111111111111111111 \��
1111111111 I / /l /ll l I} +,1111 n1111
��11111111I( �lil! 1 111111 11111111,1111111

W
t+f
LU
w
Z)
LL
ul i III 1111�2
IIII;:�IIP
r II ItHll�
r I. 11111
I II 111111
1
I I
\ \ 1 t \ X11
rr/ r
r / / o/ r r
I I I l 1
1 1 \ \ \ \ 1 1
\ `1�;111`11I 1
eyS
ypyp��i
L

LL
LU
LL'
7
C7
LL
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \w A
\I I)
\ \1`_ \ i II IIIIII(ll
W\ I
\ 1 \ \\ \\ ,o
Lu
I I I II j l l j l l l l i l I� 11
I I IIII II I
1 1 1 1 1 1 IIIIIIII @�I
11 I 11 I l l l ll�llll I Ijl /'
i �llii�illl►Ir /iii��/
x 133NS 3Nl)N�lyyy
1
JJIP -]
y
W8
S

/ / � 1 I IF � 1111111111111 %
// e /i /,; � 1 1�l/ ll11111I�I11/Ij
/ / /// / � � I 1 111 / 111111111j111
i111���
111j� I�i �lj'��flllllll�ll�j
Ij1111)III�I I1 0
�;, � I I� �, loll 11111i1i,1 ►, ►,, � 11111
��'`1 \�I �1i111111111111111�� Ilhllll,ll
� \;111111111j11�IIE� 1111��11��11 I II��Ihjl
\ \ \I1 \ 1111 I II 111111111111 1111 I I I I I 1111111
�\�\�\11 111�II111111111�1 ��i1111 111111 11111`111
' \ \� \ \ \ \ \\ X1111111111111111 j11111111 �1111`111�
\1 \1 \ \1 \•\ � 1111 +1111�I 1111111111 l +1111'111
1111 \ \ \ \ \ \\1 \ \I \1111 IIIII
1\ll�\\�\ \\lid\ \1 I ll i 11111
h1111111111111 \1 II I�I I 1 11111
1111111111I�II11 �I II111111 h�'
1111111111111 1�1�1 III �� 1
��Illljlllllllllll ��III�II�
11111111111111 I��I I lid 11 j'll
/ / /lUlll ll l��llllll��l�� �1
to
II'Pl
IN I
\11111 \ \sillll��
II 1 1
11J�1 l� 111 /,

Legend
nsity)
N �jcri ar yr rya
Michael Baker
� c�ti,fcni
INTERNATIONAL EEP Project
# 92767
Current Condition
Plan View Figure Index
Candiff Creek - Surry County, NC
0 250 500 1,000
Feet

APPENDIX A
VEGETATION DATA

VEGETATION TABLES

E
( x
ci
k §
;.CL (
%%%� k E
\} \§ \
�u)£
CL
f &)§ 13 r-
§\\
m > U \
`
!� \ /&(k i
kwcuS k
,
-
m
�EEE -�
�k��§}\ }u
k
[&# §R)§ § §�
kk)t o S
_§
2 /9fE \ \�
-
\§ % %�_�%
\k
_
§�(m
2))277=
3
2
a§
����
\j� cu \ \ ƒjj)
§ /a)
s
�-
�a
�]�§
k$ \k } }{
)
}\
o
�kkk w to
-/(
f�
\)
§ §t«{ƒf�mmE
-
f
c
§ =a
R�<
I
§
a
/
�r`CL
§
�
_
ƒ .
ƒ
k�
$_
�|
k
§.
CL
��W
0
■ \
mac
.1 0
w
§- | §� #�
\i
�k
k��M�
�!■
to & & &�
U2 ■��E
%%
�c
CL
ag2
■��a ��
�! «— ,��EEE
�!�#;IE_ -�
o_- ©��•._E
pJ
ao
awe
o ■�JJ�¢aoo£
92ga)it &Ia

m
m
CL
N
a
0
O
C
0
w
ro
m
3
0
c
Y
C
7
c
N
CN
G
m
N
N
rl
rl
N
N
l0
N
O
N
N
m
O
N
w
m
11
N
O
N
N
V7
b
N
m
o
a
n
r•1
.ti
m
O
.^I
a
°•1
E
z
P
O
C O
Y
o
Z•
O
E
Gi
co
r
E
E
O
O
N
E
3_
"
m
E
u
3
0
O
°
Z
L
V
t;
C
H
O
N
N
m
a
E
a
c
E
•
0
3
m
E
v
O
E
a`a
N
r
v
u
d
a
ul
I
3
u°, 1
a
v
�
m
°c
o
E
°�
CL
;_
cz
o
c
d
.`
y
a
c
c
o
y
a
v
a
N
O
d=
V
O
p
O
U
o°
E
h
n
E
n
E
N
c
2
N
>
;
>
CL
S
E
`
o
c>>
je
m
D
°n
v
'a
u°
Si
a
cr
>
u°
cr
U
a
a
c
r
W
p
U

H
m
m
a
N
m
Im
co
t£o
D
r
0)
d
ri
Q
d
M
H
/agP
�a
pJay�
00
v1
m
111
a i
v1
N
ao
ri
N
n
'^
4Mo4�r4
N
m
ri
t0
Sa4f,
ri
N
m
10,00
a
salloo9 -90we
ri
00
v
o
00
m
00
ri
o
ri
rn
Ln
ri
ri
o
O0
CF
ei
ri
N
Ln
N
N
,
aka
�a
0
o-i
111
m
Cif
w
ri
v1
m
ri
o
N
o
-40J4
-1
%D
N
hob
n
041,
°
m
o
N
o�
o
k4i
E
3
E
m
°
3
G
ob
e
v
Z
r+
O
L
)
O
3
a
?
N
N
Y
W
m
0
u
c"
c
V
a
m
0
c
c
c
O
a
m
u
a
3
r
E
r
IL
m>
a,
E;
.�
T
Y
o
w
�,
a
v
E
m
o
o
E
0
+�
0
;.;
a
•`
a
v
u
o0
,�
a
3=
3
c
U
to
v
m
�
IL
°
�+
p
C
in
o
m
Q
m
a
Or
L
V
c
�
m
V
O

0
IL
m
cm
R
E
R
0
C
r
w
m
cm
Q
_m
d
H
/aga
�aA�aS/�
r-
N
00
N
Ln
o�
414)0
N
.--1
r-4
N
%D
v�'v�
s,�va
M
cn
,0,0
400,
O
�
co
N
�I._PpO,
N
Ol
ri
00
ri
N
N
01
ri
O
N
00
a- i
00
ri
N
M
N
1,
ri
O
O
Z
V
sa1,O
'Wale 4
a
a
O/o/
a
v
N
r-I
M
O
ri
r
N
r-I
O
000
O
N
O
o o,
m
'o
a
c
0
+'
R
� o
r♦
0
N
0
M
0
Cf
0
to
0
tD
0
1,
0
00
0
m
0
O
ri
ri
ei
N
r-1
M
r-I
0
/ar
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
0
O
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
to
m
rl
O
ri
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
r-I
O
ri
O
ri
O
ri
O
r-I
O
ri
O
ri
O
r-I
O
ri
O
Y
n
tD
n
to
n
tD
n
tD
n
tD
n
tD
n
tD
n
tD
n
tD
n
tD
n
tD
n
tD
n
tD
m
m
n
N
n
N
n
N
n
N
r,
N
^
N
r,
N
n
N
n
N
n
N
n
N
n
N
rl
N
M
`
cn I
O1
Ch I
Ch I
O1
Cl
O1
Q1
01
01
Ol I
01 I
O1 I
r•1
V
J
H
C
V
O

Ftg7.
tp,
1916
N
N
M
to
r;n_ {O /d
to
19126
ti
N
m
e
m
m
N
tt� Jp/
d
to
191t6JO/d
.�
n
o
N
m
N
N
Ott
t
o
191x6
n
m
Ln
m
.�
spy_ ;p /
d
to
191F6
o
.�
i
v
.+
If
;p/
d
to
1g1t6
to
in
Ln
00
1p _ ;p
/d
to
.r
191x6
9b,_ ;p /
m
n
m
N
m
N
to d
;C
l9ljs;p
Sd,_
%& /d
N
a
tc
m
to
l9l
?6 4p /d
�n
+
m
n
N
^tp,
l9lrsJp
v
w
ry
Ln
m
N
F
/d
IO,
19126
l ;p /
an
t°
+
m
ry
ti
N
to d
1912s
tAn_ ;p/
m
e
.�
m
n
m
lgl2
/d
JSJfO
�a�e
a7
b
N
t0
N
m
r,
fn
cq
fn
00
N
M
m
e-1
N
Ln
c
-4
Ln
m
�p
s4iaJ /dio
,oeeemaorv�mm
S� 0
JVE
/d /PJp
to
1n
00
N
'i
m
N
n
N
m
m
n
m
m
N
m
m
m
.�
to
c
m
Z•
o
aVip
N`O
0
.0
E
E
.
1
a
4i
C
`o
O
O
E
U
S
°
1
L
.n
o
O
N
Y
-o
4"
W
10
N
N
U
4
C
N
v
N
L
U
C
C
C
O
C
n
u
d>
`
.0
O
E
m
d
`
a
W
a
L
E
m>
E
^0
'—_`
o
•�
E
3
0
0
0
+L+
o
n
n¢
a
U
m
3
c
V
e
.�
r
N
Ch
c
1as
0!
Ol
va,
W
OJ
�d
0!
z
m
.0
.0
.
-
�
m
`
'
`
'
a`
oc°
sa/
°c
c
i
�:
`x
c
E
a
a
•'c
c 0
a°
a
c
��
ai
EN
C
O
U
C`
C
>
V
N
C
N
a
>
`w
>
>
`w
m
E
�m
"v��•ctL�acrctct
n`
E
h
0
xx
0
o°
a
>
v
>
E,
a
m
klo
V
o
9
c
�
V
0

.y
Q
a�
A
b
Q
H
.N
u
a
c
a
d
F
� u
y
r-
01
00
00
V1
(-
00
00
01
y0
�
N
01
�O
tn
N
D,
M
O
00
N
N
O
M
N
�+ F
N
M
O
10
'T
N
0000
\O
0Oi
00
N
.-,
•--�
V1
�,O
N
M
O
N
O
CC
00
O
C� 00
rq
O
[-
M
.--�
O
N
00
00
;7,
01
0
01
N
C
l�
l�
a0
00
01
Ic
r-
r-
r-
00
�O
v)
V1
O
N
N
ID
On
01
O
O
O
�
00
00
00
00
.A
h
M
�-+
[�
N
O
b
IC
On
O
IT
d'
N
M
00
O
N
N
a\
00
001
00
M
01
M
01
�O
M
v1
H
N
10
O
N
O
to
O
to
O
.n
N
r
N
oo
rn
ON
is
iSr
a
�,y
N
O
N
O
N
N
O
N
O
N
O
N
O
Gil
r
u
as
o
0
Q
h
�
h
Y
r
y
q
M
aol
N
cc
0
st
c
13
o
v
ZS
w
w
U
d
bo
g°
a
a
y
Fj
.o
F
sue.
L

VEGETATION PHOTOS

i
�%Y
� i� �i! �••�L � i; 'alp_.
Vegetation Plot 1
Vegetation Plot 2
Vegetation Plot 3
Vegetation Plot 4
Vegetation Plot 5
Vegetation Plot 6

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

Vegetation Plot 13
View of Kudzu across easement fence (vicinity of
Vegetation Plot 13)

APPENDIX B
GEOMORPHIC DATA

STREAM TABLES

Table B.1. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project No. 92767
Performance Percenta e
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A. Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
B. Pools
100%
96%
96%
96%
C.Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
E. Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
F. Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
100%
G. Wads
100%
1 100%
1 100%
100%

Table B.2. Baseline Stream Summary
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project No. 92767
Candies Creek - M2
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve Interval
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -bulk
Dimension - Riffle
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mad
Max
Min
Mean
Max
BF Width ft
19.8
19.8
Flood prone Width (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
23.8
-
-
-
-
27 7
-
30.0
-
-
-
BF Mean Depth ft
1.42
1.42
BF Max De th R
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.85
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft2)
-
-
-
-
-
-
28.2
-
-
-
-
-
29.0
-
-
-
-
WldthlDe th 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 s
-
-
-
-
-
-
35
_
5
-
36
-
-
-
-
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth R
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Radius of Curvature ft
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Meander Wavele R
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Meander Width Rabo
Profile
!%-37
RiRfle Le th (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Riffie Sb 11M
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0 005
-
0.0081
-
Pool Len th ft
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pool Spacing ft
29.7
99
Substrate and Transport Parameters
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
8.3124
4/36 7/82 0/119.3
8 3124.4/36.7/82
0/119.3
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ibff
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.35
-
-
-
-
-
0.36
-
-
-
-
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m
21.7
217
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel le ft
-
-
-
265
-
-
-
-
265
-
-
265
-
Draina Area (SM)
-
-
-
2.53
253
2.53
Rosgen Classification
F4 /1
NO
84d1
BF Discharge cfs
105
105
Sinuosi
1.00
1 2
1.4
1.00
1.00
BF slope Rest
0.0045
0.0045
0.0045
Candles Creek - M3
Parameter
USGS Gauge
Regional Curve Interval
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As -bulk
Dimension - Riffle
LL
UL
Eq
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
Min
Mean
Max
BF Width fl
207
32.2
204
198
25 8
216
Floodprone Width ft
355
941
60.0
1200
1080
139.9
1202
BF Mean Depth ft
-
-
-
-
-
0.9
1.4
-
-
-
1.8
1.24
1.58
1.44
BF Max Depth fl
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/De th Ratio
14.6
34.6
11
14
13.0
12.6
20.7
15A
Entrenchment Ratio
1.7
2.9
2.9
5.9
4.2
7.0
5.6
Bank Height Rabo
1.0
2.5
1
1.1
1
1 1
10
1.1
1.0
BF Velocity s
3.5
3.9
3.5
5
3.5
5
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth it
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Meander Wavelength R
Meander Width Rabo
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3 5
-
7
-
-
-
Profile
Riffle Length fl
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Riffle Slope ft/ft
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0078
-
0.0104
-
-
-
Pool Length ft
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pool Spacing ft
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
81.6
-
142.8
-
-
-
substrate and Transport Parameters
dl / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
8.3124.4136.7/82.0
/119.3
8 3124.4/36
7/82 01119.3
Reach Shear Stress (competency) IbR'
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.32
-
-
-
-
-
044
-
-
-
-
Stream Power transport capacity) W/m 2
-
-
-
-
-
-
22.1
-
-
-
-
-
26.8
-
-
-
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Channel length R)
3,828
4,109
4,123
Drainage Area SM
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.74
-
-
-
-
-
2.74
-
-
2.74
-
Ros en Classification
C411, F411
C411
C411
BF Discha a cfs
-
-
-
-
-
-
115
-
-
-
-
-
115
Sinuosity]
1.29
1.33
1.41
BF slope Wit
00055
0.0052
0.0052

Table B.3. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: EEP Project No. 92767
Reach: M3
Parameter
Cross - section 1
Riffle
Cross - section 2
Pool
Cross - section 3
Pool
Cross - section 4
Riffle
MY1
I 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
23.30
30.60
19.24
13.49
33.08
17.96
18.03
18.17
19.33
25.62
BF Mean Depth ft
1.09
1.24
1.23
1.14
1.82
2.37
1.81
3.02
2.78
1.41
1.61
1.18
Width/Depth Ratio
17.82
16.00
15.42
26.96
10.55
5.70
18.31
5.95
6.48
12.86
12.03
21.77
BF Cross - sectional Area W
21.3
16.1
23.3
34.7
35.1
31.9
59.8
54.2
50.1
25.7
31.1
30.2
BF Max Depth ft
1.56
1.83
1.231
1
3.381
3.99
3.631
4.35
4.27
4.42
2.031
2.30
2.21
Width of Flood prone Area ft
73.641
77.58
73.521
1
153.88
153.85
153.95
124.67
124.70
124.66
120.72
120.78
120.8
Entrenchment Ratio
3.801
3.90
3.90
5.00
8.00
11.40
3.80
6.90
6.90
6.60
6.20
4.7
Bank Height Ratio
1.11
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
Wetted Perimeter ft
21.671
22.40
25.76
32.88
22.88
18.23
36.70
24.00
23.59
20.99
22.55
27.98
Hydraulic Radius ft
0.98
0.72
0.90
1.06
1.53
1.75
1.63
2.26
2.121
1.22
1.38
1.08
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
Proflle
Riffle length ft
Riffle Slope fVft
Pool Length ft
Pool Spacing ft
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
4826
1
4826
4826
Channel Length ft
3674
3674
3674
Sinuosity
1.41
1.41
1.41
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
0.0051
0.0052
0.0052
BF Slope ft/ft
0.0072
0.0073
0.0071
Ros en Classification I
C
C
C

Reach: M3
Parameter
Cross - section 5
Pool
Cross - section 6
Riffle
Cross - section 7
Pool
Cross - section 8
Riffle
MY1
I 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
32.78
19.57
22.56
21.12
41.11
27.78
21.23
19.35
19.66
19.55
BF Mean Depth ft
1.61
1.68
1.63
1.41
1.34
1.24
1.06
1.70
2.19
1.45
1.38
1.36
Width/Depth Ratio
21.78
20.81
20.16
13.78
16.86
17.05
38.84
16.36
9.69
13.36
14.23
14.42
BF Cross - sectional Area (ft)
58.6
53.3
27.8
30.2
26.2
43.5
47.2
46.5
28.0
27.1
26.5
BF Max Depth ft
4.04
4.37
4.271
1 2.01
2.451
2.101
1 2.57
4.081
4.16
2.09
2.171
2.16
Width of Flood prone Area ft
119.00
119.06
119.061
108.03
108.03
108.13
118.58
118.63
118.56
115.23
115.12
115.21
Entrenchment Ratio
3.40
3.40
3.60
5.50
4.80
5.10
2.90
4.30
5.60
6.00
5.9
5.9
Bank Height Ratio
1.00
0.90
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.10
1.1
1.1
Wetted Perimeter ft
38.30
38.29
36.04
22.39
25.24
23.60
43.23
31.18
25.61
22.25
22.42
22.27
Hydraulic Radius ft
1.48
1.53
1.48
1.24
1.20
1.11
1.01
1.51
1.82
1.26
1.21
1.19
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
Mad
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
1
4826
Channel Length ft
3674
3674
1
3674
Sinuosity
1.41
1.41
1.41
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
0.0051
0.0052
0.0052
BF Sloe tuft
0.0072
0.0073
0.0071
Ros en Classification
C
C
C

Reach: M3
Parameter
Cross - section 9
Pool
Cross- section 10
Riffle
MY1
I MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width ft
24.25
22.72
16.74
24.40
19.04
18.23
BF Mean Depth ft
1.30
1.62
1.42
1.30
1.30
1.12
Width/Depth Ratio
18.67
14.05
11.75
14.37
14.59
16.31
BF Cross - sectional Area ft=
31.50
36.80
23.80
24.40
24.80
20.40
BF Max Depth ft
3.24
3.98
2.981
1.83
2.211
1.74
Width of Flood prone Area ft
88.141
94.15
82.921
117.32
117.30
117.31
Entrenchment Ratio
3.60
4.10
5.00
6.30
6.20
6.40
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
Wetted Perimeter ft
26.85
25.96
19.58
27.00
21.64
20.47
Hydraulic Radius ft
1.17
1.42
1.22
0.90
1.15
1.00
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 S acin ft
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length ft
4826
4826
4826
Channel Length ft
3674
3674 1
1
1 3674
Sinuosity
1.41
1.41
1.41
Water Surface Slope ft/ft
0.0051
0.0052
0.0052
BF Slope ft/ft
0.0072
0.0073
0.0071
Ros en Classification I
C
C
C

STREAM DATA

825
Chart
M1
(Data
- Year
collected
2-
Station
November
20
+00
2014)
to 62
+00
-
— As-Built Thd m
-Year 1 ThAM
820
-
-Year 2 Th*&"
i
_ Ysar 8 Th*mg
- Wdar Sudbw
815
— Low barn
`—' 810
A
0
e�
805
W
800
795
790
I
1200 1450 1700 1950 2200 2450 2700 2950 3200 3450 3700 3950 4200 4450 4700 4950 5200 5450 5700 5950 6200
Station (ft)

Chart M3 - Year 2- Station 20 +00 to 35 +00
(Data collected November 2014)
819
— A"��Thaw - --
-Year 1 Thahmg
—Year 2 Th&"
817
--Year 3 ThsKM
— W@W Sur(ew
—Low bank
815
-
813
!
811
-
,a
W
�
809
r
i
807
805
2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500
Station (ft)

Chart M3 - Year 2- Station 35 +00 to 52 +00
(Data collected November 2014)
809
—A~ TNdwsg
—Year 1 Thalweg
— Year 2 ThsWeg
807
--- Year 3 ThaWeg
— Water Surface
— Low hank
805
w
803
- -
d
801
-
.>�.
W
799
-
797
795
3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 5000
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 1
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2014)
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
23.3
18.97
1.23
1.74
15.42
1.1
3.9
817.07
817.29
822
821
820
819
818
c
817
R
d 816
w
815
814
813
812
Candiff Cross - section 1
As -Built Year 1
— Year 2 Year 3
Bankfull - -- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 2
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2014)
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 31.9
13.49
2.37
1 3.63
5.7
1.1
1 11.4
816.08
816.26
Candiff Cross - section 2
821
820 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --0
819
818
817
c816 Z, ✓ --- - - - - --
m
m 815
W 814
813 As -Built Year 1
-� — Year 2 Year 3
812
Bankfull - -o -- Floodprone
811
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 3
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2014)
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
1 50.1
1 18.03
2.78
4.42
1 6.48
1.0
1 6.9
813.37
813.45
Candiff Cross - section 3
818
-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
817
816
815
814
c
813
------ ---- --
R
m
812
w
811
810
As -Buik
Year 1
809
Year 2
Year 3
ED Bankfull
- - -0 -- 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 3 Data - Collected November 2014)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
I
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
De th
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
1
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
30.2
25.62
1.18
2.21
21.77
1
1 4.7
810.63
810.58
815
814
813
812
r 811
0
w 810
> 809
m
W 808
807
806
805
Candiff Cross - section 4
3— - ------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------- -- - -- - --0
b
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
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 5
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2014)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
TvDe
BKF Area
BKF
Width
j
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
1
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
53.3
32.78
1.63
4.27
20.16
1
1 3.6
808.2
808.28
813
812
811
810
iK 809
C 808
m 807
W 806
805
804
803
Candiff Cross - section 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
As -Built Year 1
t Year 2 Year 3
- -O 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 6
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2014)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
T
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1 1
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
1
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
1 1
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
1 26.2
21.12
1.24
1 2.1
17.05
1 1
5.1
807.67
807.68
813
812
811
810
809
C
0 808
�a
m 807
IL
806
805
804
803
Candiff Cross - section 6
As -Built Year 1
t Year 2 Year 3
4- Bankfull 0- - Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 7
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2014)
n.
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
T
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
46.5
21.23
2.19
4.16
9.69
1
5.6
803.7
803.82
809
808
807
806
805
c
0 804
a
_> 803
w 802
801
800
799
Candiff Cross- section 7
As -Built
Year 1
­8­ Year 2
Bankfull
o Floodprone
Year 3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

I . .
Permanent Cross - section 8
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2014)
i
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
I BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
26.5 1
19.55
1.36
2.16
1 14.42
1.1
5.9
801.85
802.03
807
806
805
804
803
0 802
m 801
U' 800
799
798
797
Candiff Cross - section 8
As -Built Year 1
o-- Year 2 Year 3
Bankfull Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross - section 9
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2014)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/O
I BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pod
1
1 23.8
1 16.74
1 1.42
2.98
1 11.75
1 1
5
798.8
798.88
Candiff Cross - section 9
804
803 & ------------------------------------------------------------------
802
801
800
c
799 ----- - - - - --
w
m 798
w
797
796 As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
795
Bankfull --9- Floodprone
794
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

. 1 r .
Permanent Cross - section 10
(Year 3 Data - Collected November 2014)
"P,
4
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 Eiev To Elev
Riffle
C
20.4
18.23
1.12
1.74
16.31
1.2
6.4
797.85 798.19
803
802
801
800
799
c 798
0.
797
W 796
795
794
793
Candiff Cross - section 10
As -Built Year 1
—� Year 2 Year 3
4 Bankfull - o Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

• 0, .
PP 1 STA 61+60, Constructed Riffle
PP 2 61 +25, Constructed Riffle
PP 3 STA 60 +25, Rock J -Hook
PP 4 STA 60+10, Constructed Riffle
PP 5 STA 59 +10, Log J -Hook
PP 6 STA 58 +85, Constructed Riffle

PP 7 STA 57+65, Log J -Hook
e
PP 9 STA 56 +70, Log J -Hook
PP 8 STA 57 +50, Stream Crossing
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

. 0� .
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

•4 .
PP 25 STA 45 +25, Rock J -Hook
PP 26 STA 44 +90, Constructed Riffle
PP 27 STA 43 +50, Log J -Hook
PP 28 STA 43 +25, Constructed Riffle
PP 29 STA 42 +10, Log J -Hook
PP 30 STA 41 +80, Constructed Riffle

'4 •
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

. 14 .
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

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

. 15 -
PP 55 STA 22 +90, Log J -Hook
PP 56 STA 22 +70, Constructed Riffle
PP 57 STA 21+65, Log J -Hook
PP 59 STA 17 +75, Rock Cross Vane
PP 58 STA 19 +75, Rock Cross Vane
M3 crest gauge STA 55 +50, April 8, 2014. Crest
gauge reading of 0.82 feet.

It .
Bankfull evidence observed on April 8, 2014.
Evidence likely deposited on January 11, 2014
M3 crest gauge STA 55 +50, July, 23 2014. Crest
gauge reading of 0.23 feet