20100898 Ver 2_Year 5 Monitoring Report_2016_20161205

CANDIFF CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FOR 2016 (YEAR 5)
NCDEQ-DMS Project Number: 92767
Submitted to: NCDEQ — Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Submitted by: Surry Soil and Water Conservation District
220 Cooper Street
SOO anct tl' P.O. Box 218
Dobson, NC 27017
Aid
�s�'NaEivn C7�y
Prepared by: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
INTERNATIONAL
November 2016
FINAL
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, DMS Project No. 92767 i
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 FINAL

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................1
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND............................................................................................. 3
2.1 Project Objectives............................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Project Structure, Restoration Type and Approach.......................................................... 3
2.3 Location and Setting......................................................................................................... 6
2.4 Project History and Background...................................................................................... 6
2.5 Project Plan...................................................................................................................... 6
3.0 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS ....................................... 10
3.1 Vegetation Assessment..................................................................................................
10
3.1.1
Description of Vegetative Monitoring....................................................................
10
3.1.2
Vegetative Success Criteria....................................................................................
10
3.1.3
Vegetative Observations and Results......................................................................
12
3.1.4
Vegetative Problem Areas......................................................................................
12
3.1.5
Vegetation Photographs..........................................................................................
12
3.2 Stream Assessment.........................................................................................................
13
3.2.1
Morphometric Success Criteria...............................................................................
13
3.2.2
Morphometric Results.............................................................................................
14
3.2.3
Hydrologic Criteria.................................................................................................
15
3.2.4
Hydrologic Monitoring Results..............................................................................
15
3.2.5
Stream Problem Areas............................................................................................
16
3.2.6
Stream Photographs................................................................................................
16
3.2.7
Stream Stability Assessment...................................................................................
17
3.2.8
Quantitative Measures Summary Tables................................................................
17
4.0 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................
18
5.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS...................................................................................... 19
6.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................20
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Vegetation Data
APPENDIX B - Geomorphic Data
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, DMS Project No. 92767 11
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 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 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 A.7.
Planted and Total Stems Summary
Table B.I.
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table B.1 a
Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table B.2.
Baseline Stream Summary
Table B.3.
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, DMS Project No. 92767 111
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 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.
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, DMS Project No. 92767 iv
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 FINAL

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
M3, M2, and M1 Lower Summary
This Annual Monitoring Report details the monitoring activities during 2016 (Monitoring Year 5)
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 (m2) (lOm x 10m) in size, are used to predict
survivability of the woody vegetation planted on the Site. Data from Year 5 monitoring for the 13
vegetation plots exhibited a survivability range of 607 to 931 stems per acre. The data showed
that the Site had an average survivability of 738 stems per acre following Year 5 monitoring.
Vegetation Plots 1 through 12 on reach M2 and M3 did not exhibit any invasive or aggressive
species occurring on the Site.
Cross-sectional monitoring data for stream stability were collected during Year 5 monitoring. A
longitudinal profile survey was completed during Year 5 monitoring for approximately 3,150
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 has remained stable
throughout the monitoring period and is still functioning as designed.
Two pools located at stations 46+50 and 55+50 exhibited areas of erosion during Year 4
monitoring. The erosional areas observed in 2015 are have not expanded and are currently stable.
The erosional areas are occurring on outer bends below root wads and are approximately 10 feet
or less in length. These two minor problem areas make up approximately 0.28% of the total as -
built stream length of 7,018 feet. The erosional areas are isolated and are not trending towards
long-term instability.
Year 5 stream profile monitoring revealed that the Site has three beaver dams located along the
Reach 3 profile. The dams are located at stations 43+75, 48+75 and 51+75 on Reach 3. The
dams are relatively small with the largest dam being at station 48+50. As of October 2016, the
dams were not exhibiting adverse effects on the stream or stream banks. The beaver(s) are
currently being trapped and the dams will be removed when the beaver have been eliminated
from the Site. All beavers and dams will be removed prior to closeout. (See Appendix for photo
point PP20, Station 48+75 in the Stream Photo Log).
According to the on-site crest gauge, the Site experienced at least one significant bankfull flow
events during Year 5 monitoring. The largest on-site bankfull flow event documented at the M3
crest gauge occurred on August 4, 2016. It is estimated that the height of highest flow at the M3
crest gauge observed in Year 5 was approximately 3.24 feet above bankfull stage.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, DMS Project No. 92767 1
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 FINAL

Overall Summary for M3, M2, and M1 Lower
In summary, M3, M2 and the lower portion of M1 has met the hydrologic, vegetative, and stream
success criteria as specified in the Site Restoration Plan in all areas.
Ml Upper Stream Enhancement Summary
Additionally, stream enhancement work along M1 and UT1 was completed in September 2015.
Bankfull benches were excavated and vertical stream banks were sloped to stable angles. Vane
structures and toe wood were installed along meander bends to protect the stream banks, provide
additional habitat, and to provide long-term stream bank stabilization. No additional credit is being
requested as a result of this work. During this time, the existing kudzu plants and roots were
cleared within a large portion of the easement area. Per the permit conditions for the enhancement
work, monitoring along M1 and UT1 will be conducted for a minimum of one additional year
beyond the monitoring required in the mitigation plan. This monitoring will include visual
assessments conducted twice per year and the installation and annual monitoring of two bank pin
arrays installed in the outside of meander bends. No exposed bank pins were noted as part of the
Year 5 monitoring efforts.
Additional bare -root trees were planted during the winter of 2015 in the riparian buffer areas along
M1 and UTI to increase density and to offset mortality from treating kudzu.
During Year 5 monitoring, the majority of kudzu (Pueraria montana) which was present on the
Site in the vicinity of vegetation plot 13 and the M 1 Enhancement area has been mostly eradicated.
The 2016 site inspection did not note any areas of kudzu greater than 100 ft2. This area of kudzu
was previously treated during construction in the spring of 2012, August 2014, October 2014, early
August 2015, late August 2015 and in spring 2016. This area was treated by use of the herbicides
Glyphosate and Triclopyr. Any remaining kudzu in this area will be treated again during the early
growing season 2017. Property boundary fencing in the M1 vicinity was installed during the
summer of 2015. This fence allows the landowner to graze cattle outside of the fenced
conservation easement, which will prevent kudzu re-establishment.
Overall Summary for M1 Upper
In summary, after remedial activities conducted in winter 2015 and summer 2016, to control
kudzu and improve tree density along MI, the Site is on track to meet the vegetative and stream
success criteria as specified in the Site Restoration Plan in all areas.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, DMS Project No. 92767 2
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 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 Goals and 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.
To accomplish these goals, this project will pursue the following objectives:
• Restore existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating a stable channel with
access to its floodplain,
• Improve in -stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools,
creating deeper pools and areas of water re -aeration, and reducing bank erosion,
• Control invasive species within the project reaches,
• Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation protected by a permanent
conservation easement to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, improve bank
stability, shade the stream to decrease water temperature, and provide improved wildlife
habitat quality.
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 UTI and UT2). The on-site streams are described as follows: M1 begins on the
upstream section of the Site at the River -Siloam Road culvert, and then flows southward to the
confluence with UT2. M2 begins at the 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. UTI flows onto the Site from the southern
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, DMS Project No. 92767 3
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 FINAL

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 3G.
The restoration design allows stream flows greater than the bankfull discharge, 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 stabilized using a combination of
erosion control matting, temporary and permanent seeding, live stakes, 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, DMS Project No. 92767 4
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 FINAL

Table 1. Design Approach for the Candiff Creek Restoration Project
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92767
Project
Existing
Mitigation
Linear
Mitigation
Mitigation
Segment or
Feet/Acres
Type *
Approach
Footage
Ratio
Units
Stationing
Comment
Reach ID
Invasive species vegetation removal and
buffer planting; 45 LF of stream length
M 1
690
E
Ell
690
2.5:1
276
10+00-
removed for one stream crossing. In -
17+35
stream structures installation and
bankfull bench excavation conducted in
2015 along with replanting of buffer.
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
4,081
1:1
4,081
61+23
planting; 42 linear feet of stream length
removed for two stream crossings
UT 1 (Lower
14+00-
Invasive species vegetation removal,
Reach
E
Ell
485
2.5:1
194
18+$5
buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
885
fencing.
UT 1 (Upper
p
N/A
400
5:1
80
10+00-
Preservation area - no construction
Reach)
14+00
activities in this area
Invasive species vegetation removal,
UT2 (Lower
E
Ell
317
2.5:1
127
18+00-
buffer planting, and livestock exclusion
Reach)
21+62
fencing. 45 LF of stream length
1,117
removed for one stream crossing.
UT2 (Upper
p
N/A
800
5:1
160
10+00-
Preservation area - no construction
Reach)
18+00
activities in this area
Mitigation Unit Summations
Stream
Planted
Permanent Conservation
(SMU)
Riparian Wetland (Ac)
Non -riparian Wetland (Ac)
Total Wetland (Ac)
Riparian
Easement (Ac)
Buffer (Ac)
5,095
0
0
0
17.31
27.54
* R = Restoration *' P 1 =Priority I
E = Enhancement P2 = Priority II
P = Preservation ER = Enhancement II
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, DMS Project No. 92767
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 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 (USGS) and North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services (NCDEQ DMS) subbasin
03040101 (previously categorized as subbasin 03-07-02) and Targeted Local Watershed (TLW)
03040101-110060 of the Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin.
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, DMS Project No. 92767 6
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 FINAL

Table 2. Proiect Activitv and Revortine History
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: DMS 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
Oct -15
Oct -15
Oct -15
Year 5 Monitoring
Oct -16
Oct -16
Nov -16
Year 6 Monitoring'
Oct -17
Oct -17
Oct -17
' Year 6 monitoring will be limited to the visual assessment of M1 and UTl, and bank pin measurements along M1 as
described in the executive summary.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, DMS Project No. 92767
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 FINAL

Table 3. Project Contacts
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92767
Designer
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Contact:
Jake Byers, 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: [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resources, 336-855-6363
Nursery Stock Suppliers
ArborGen, Inc., 843-528-3204
Monitoring Performers
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact:
Jake Byers, P.E., Telephone: [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact:
Jake Byers, P.E., Telephone: [phone]
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, DMS Project No. 92767
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 FINAL

Table 4. Proiect Background Table
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92767
Project County:
Surry County, NC
Drainage Area:
Reach:
square miles (miz):
MI
2.35
M2
2.53
M3
2.74
UTI
0.06
UT2
0.14
Estimated Drainage % Impervious
Cover:
Ml, M2, M3, UT I, UT2
<5%
Stream Order:
UTI
1
UT2
2
M1, M2, M3
3
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Northern Inner Piedmont
Rosgen Classification* of
As -built:
M1, M2, M3
C
UTI (Lower Reach)
N/A
UTI (Upper Reach)
N/A
UT2 (Lower Reach)
N/A
UT2 (Upper Reach)
N/A
Cowardin Classification*:
M1, M2, M3, UT2
Riverine, Upper Perennial, Cobble -Gravel
UTI
Riverine, Intermittent, Cobble -Gravel
Dominant Soil Types*:
M1, M2, M3, UTI (Lower Reach),
UT2 (Lower Reach)
CsA
UTI (Upper Reach), UT2 (Upper
Reach)
FsE
UTI (Upper Reach)
FeC2
Reference site ID
On-site
USGS HUC for Project
03040101
NCDWQ Sub -basin
03-07-02
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference:
M1, M2, M3, UT I, 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, DMS Project No. 92767
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 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 840ot 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, DMS Project No. 92767 10
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 FINAL

Table 5. Vegetation Species Planted Across the Restoration Project
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92767
Scientific Nam Common NamellEF-percent Planted by 'O�otal Number of Stems
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, DMS Project No. 92767 11
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 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 5 monitoring of the Site.
Tables A.1 through A.7 in Appendix A presents vegetation metadata, vegetation vigor,
vegetation damage and stem count data for the monitoring plots at the end of Year 5
monitoring. Data from Year 5 monitoring for the 13 vegetation plots exhibited a range of 607
to 931 stems per acre. The data show that the Site had an average survivability of 738 stems
per acre following Year 5 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 5 monitoring, volunteer species including tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipfera)
and redbud (Cercus canadensis) were noted in plots 8 and 4, respectively.
3.1.4 Vegetative Problem Areas
The kudzu problem area is located on the upstream portion of Reach M1, downstream of River -
Siloam Road. During Year 5 monitoring, the majority of kudzu (Pueraria montana) which
was present on the Site in the vicinity of vegetation plot 13 and the M 1 Enhancement area has
been mostly eradicated. The 2016 site inspection did not note any areas of kudzu greater than
100 ft2. This area of kudzu was previously treated during construction in the spring of 2012,
August 2014, October 2014, early August 2015, late August 2015 and in spring 2016. This
area was treated by use of the herbicides Glyphosate and Triclopyr. Any remaining kudzu in
this area will be treated again during the early growing season 2017.
Additionally, stream enhancement work along M1 and UTI was completed in September 2015.
During this time, the existing kudzu plants and roots were cleared within a large portion of the
easement area. Property boundary fencing in the M1 vicinity was installed during the summer
of 2015. This fence allows the landowner to graze cattle outside of the fenced conservation
easement, which will prevent kudzu re-establishment.
Additional bare -root trees were planted during the winter of 2015 in the riparian buffer areas
along M1 and UTI to increase density and to offset mortality from treating kudzu. Following
Year 5 monitoring, the newly planted stems in the enhancement are proving successful and are
beginning to establish along the riparian buffer.
Vegetation Plots 1 through 12 on reach M2 and M3 did not exhibit any invasive or aggressive
species occurring on the Site.
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.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, DMS Project No. 92767 12
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 FINAL

Reference photos of tree plots are taken at least once per year. Photos of the tree plots for Year
5 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:
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
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, DMS Project No. 92767 13
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 FINAL

• Bedforms observed should be consistent with those observed for channels of the
designed stream type.
3.2.2 Morphometric Results
Year 5 cross-section monitoring data for stream stability was completed during October 2016.
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 5. Data from each of these cross-sections are presented in Appendix B. Tables B.1 and
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.
Monitored cross-sections 1, 4, 6, 8, and 10 are located on M3 and based on the survey data,
these cross-sections demonstrated minor fluctuations in riffle dimension during Year 5 of
monitoring and currently remain stable.
Cross-sections 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9 are situated across pools, which are located at the apex of
meander bends. Based on the Year 5 survey data, all five pool Cross-sections 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9
have demonstrated minor fluctuations in pool dimensions since as -built conditions. Based on
the Year 5 monitoring survey data, all pool cross-sections show the development of point bar
features on the inside banks of the meander bends.
According to the Year 5 cross-section data, all cross-sections are currently meeting the success -
criteria as stated in the Site Mitigation Plan. Note that some riffle cross sections are shown as
having bank height ratios greater than 1.0. This is due to using the same bankfull elevation for
each years monitoring and not adjusting this elevation to the yearly indicator, which may
change due to natural deposition and channel fluctuation. These channels are not incised and
are functioning as designed.
The longitudinal profile for Year 5 monitoring was also completed in October 2016. The Year
5 longitudinal profile monitoring data were compared to the data collected during the as -built
condition survey completed in April 2012. During Year 5 monitoring, the longitudinal profile
survey was completed for Reach M3. A total stream length of 3,150 LF was surveyed for M3.
The longitudinal profiles for M3 is presented in Appendix B.
Year 5 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 is noted that
increased pool depths were observed throughout most 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. While
the pools remain deep, the survey data indicate that the M3 riffles are stable. Additionally, the
longitudinal profile for M3 demonstrates that the in -stream structures within the reach are
stable and functioning as designed.
According to the Year 5 longitudinal profile data, the restored stream thalweg is stable and
currently meeting the success -criteria as stated in the Site Mitigation Plan.
In -stream structures installed within the restored stream included constructed riffles, log vanes,
rock j -hooks, log j -hooks, rock cross vanes, root wads and stream ford crossings. Visual
observations of these structures throughout Year 5 monitoring indicate that all structures are
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, DMS Project No. 92767 14
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 FINAL

functioning as designed and holding their post -construction grade. Structures that were
installed to develop deeper pools, such as cross vanes and j -hooks, are performing their
designed functions. Log vanes placed in meander areas have provided scour in pools to provide
cover for aquatic wildlife. J -hooks placed in the lower end of the riffle areas have maintained
riffle elevations and have provided downstream scour holes that provides aquatic habitat.
Additionally, bioengineered structures placed on the outside of meander bends have provided
bank stability and in -stream cover for fish and other aquatic organisms.
However, two minor pool problem areas were observed during Year 5 monitoring. These two
areas are described in Section 3.2.5.
3.2.3 Hydrologic Criteria
One crest gauge was installed on the Site to document bankfull events. The gauge is checked
during each site visit and records the stage of the highest out -of -bank flow between site visits.
The gauge is located on the left bank on the downstream portion of M3 at station 55+50.
The approved Mitigation Plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream
restoration success: Two bankfull flow events must be documented within the five-year
monitoring period. The two bankfull events must occur in separate years, otherwise, the stream
monitoring will continue until two bankfull events have been documented in separate years.
3.2.4 Hydrologic Monitoring Results
According to the on-site crest gauge, the Site experienced at least one significant bankfull flow
event during Year 5 monitoring. The largest on-site bankfull flow event documented at the
M3 crest gauge occurred on August 4, 2016. It is estimated that the height of highest flow at
the M3 crest gauge observed in Year 5 was approximately 3.24 feet above bankfull stage.
Photos of the reading and bankfull evidence are included in Appendix B.
The approved Mitigation Plan requires that two bankfull flow events must be documented
within the five-year monitoring period. Since As -built conditions, eight documented bankfull
events have been recorded. Each of the five years of monitoring has documented at least one
bankfull event within the restored channel. As such, the hydrologic success criteria for the Site
has been met. Crest gauge readings from all five years of monitoring are presented in Table 6
and photos of the crest gauge in 2016 and out -of -bank evidence are presented in Appendix B
Stream Photo Log.
Table 6. Verification of Bankfull Events
Candiff
Creek Restoration Project:
DMS Project No. 92767
Date of Data
Collection
Estimated Occurrence of
Bankf ill 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
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, DMS Project No. 92767 15
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 FINAL

4/30/2015
4/20/2015
Crest Gauge
2.85
10/19/2015
10/4/2015
Crest Gauge
1.60
10/11/2016
8/4/2016
Crest Gauge
3.24
3.2.5 Stream Problem Areas
Year 5 stream monitoring revealed that the Site has three beaver dams located along Reach 3.
The dams are located at stations 43+75, 48+75 and 51+75. The dams are relatively small with
the largest dam being at station 48+50. As of October 2016, the dams were not exhibiting
adverse effects on the stream or stream banks. The beaver(s) are currently being trapped and
the dams will be removed when the beaver have been eliminated from the Site. All beavers
and dams will be removed prior to closeout (See Appendix for photo point PP20, Station 48+75
in the Stream Photo Log).
Two pools located at stations 46+50 and 55+50 exhibited areas of erosion during Year 4
monitoring. The erosional areas observed in 2015 have not expanded and are currently stable.
The erosional areas are occurring on outer bends below root wads and are approximately 20
feet in length combined. These two minor problem areas make up approximately 0.28% of the
total as -built stream length of 7,018 feet. The erosional areas are isolated and are not trending
towards long-term instability.
Additional stream enhancement work along M1 and UTI was completed in September 2015.
Bankfull benches were excavated and vertical stream banks were sloped to stable angles. In
addition, vane structures and toe wood were installed along meander bends to protect the
stream banks, provide additional habitat, and to provide long-term stream bank stabilization.
No additional credit is being requested as a result of this work. During this time, the existing
kudzu plants and roots were cleared within a large portion of the easement area. Per the permit
conditions for the enhancement work, monitoring along M1 and UTI will be conducted for a
minimum of one additional year beyond the monitoring required in the mitigation plan. This
monitoring will include visual assessments conducted twice per year and the installation and
annual monitoring of two bank pin arrays installed in the outside of meander bends.
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
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, DMS Project No. 92767 16
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 FINAL

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 Appendix B of this report. Photos for each
of the 10 permanent cross-sections are included in Appendix B.
Photographs of the restored channel were taken in October 2016 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. Additionally,
photographs of the enhancement work performed along M 1 and UT 1 are provided in Appendix
B.
3.2.7 Stream Stability Assessment
Table B.1 and Table B.1 a provide a summary of the results obtained from the visual inspection
of in -stream structures performed during Year 5 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 (Table B.1) and the visual
morphological stability assessment (Table B.la) following Year 5 monitoring, and after a
visual evaluation throughout 2016, it was determined that all features at the Site along M2,
M3, and UT2 are currently performing as designed. With the recent enhancement activities,
kudzu treatment, and planned re -planting, the features along M1 and UTI also meet
performance standards.
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, DMS Project No. 92767 17
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 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 MI, UTI and UT2) and 1,200 LF of stream preservation along
UTI and UT2. This entire length was inspected during Year 5 monitoring to assess stream
performance. Year 5 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 5 monitoring.
Additionally, a longitudinal profile survey was also completed during Year 5 monitoring for
approximately 3,150 LF of stream on the Site. The longitudinal profile was completed for Reach
M3 only. Year 5 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 5 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 one significant bankfull flow
events during Year 5 monitoring. The largest on-site bankfull flow event documented at the M3
crest gauge occurred on August 4, 2016. It is estimated that the height of highest flow at the M3
crest gauge observed in Year 5 was approximately 3.24 feet above bankfull stage.
Since As -built conditions, eight documented bankfull events have been recorded as shown in Table
6. The approved Mitigation Plan requires that two bankfull flow events must be documented
within the five-year monitoring period.
Given that each of the five years of monitoring has documented a bankfull event within the restored
channel, it is noted that the hydrologic success criteria for the Site has been met.
Two pools located at stations 46+50 and 55+50 exhibited areas of erosion during Year 4
monitoring. The erosional areas observed in 2015 have not expanded and are currently stable (see
photographs in Appendix B). The erosional areas are occurring on outer bends below root wads
and are approximately 20 feet in length combined. These two areas are isolated and are not
trending towards long-term instability.
Additional stream enhancement work along M1 and UTI was completed in September 2015.
Bankfull benches were excavated and vertical stream banks were sloped to stable angles. In
addition, vane structures and toe wood were installed along meander bends to protect the stream
banks, provide additional habitat, and to provide long-term stream bank stabilization. As a result
of this work, no additional credit is being requested. M1 and UT1 have remained stable and are
functioning as designed. It is also noted that no exposed bank pins were noted during Year 5
monitoring.
Year 5 stream monitoring revealed that the Site has three beaver dams located along Reach 3. The
dams are located at stations 43+75, 48+75 and 51+75 on Reach 3. The dams are relatively small
with the largest dam being at station 48+50. As of October 2016, the dams were not exhibiting
adverse effects on the stream or stream banks. The beaver(s) are currently being trapped and the
dams will be removed when the beaver have been eliminated from the Site. See Appendix for
photo point PP20, Station 48+75 in the Stream Photo Log).
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, DMS Project No. 92767 18
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 FINAL

Vegetation Monitoring - Data from Year 5 monitoring for the 13 vegetation plots exhibited a range
of 607 to 931 stems per acre. The data showed that the Site had an average of survivability of 738
stems per acre.
During Year 5 monitoring, the majority of kudzu (Pueraria montana) which was present on the
Site in the vicinity of vegetation plot 13 and the M 1 Enhancement area has been mostly eradicated.
The 2016 site inspection did not note any areas of kudzu greater than 100 ft2. This area of kudzu
was previously treated during construction in the spring of 2012, August 2014, October 2014, early
August 2015, late August 2015 and in spring 2016. This area was treated by use of the herbicides
Glyphosate and Triclopyr. Any remaining kudzu in this area will be treated again during the early
growing season 2017. Kudzu in this area is now under control and of minimal concern.
Vegetation Plots 1 through 12 on reach M2 and M3 did not exhibit any invasive or aggressive
species occurring on the Site.
The additional bare -root trees that were planted during the winter of 2015 in the riparian buffer
areas along M1 and UTI are healthy and meeting success.
5.0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer and raccoon tracks are common at the Site. During Year 5 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 5 monitoring.
Candiff Creek Restoration Project, DMS Project No. 92767 19
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 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
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, DMS Project No. 92767 20
November 2016, Monitoring Year 5 FINAL

FIGURES

Boonville
_J
-]H7
0 C.5 1 2
,9.. -U -N -TY
CA
>J--
%
k, Silo am
Project Location
YacWn Fn�er
YA D K I r4
3 L C 0 U
JrOiles
13D
Surry County —J
N C Su'sin 03-07-02
8 Dpg�fOHUC03040101
1414 Digit HUC - 03040101110060
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Candiff Creek - Surry County, NC
DEQ -
Dvision of NI itigation
Services
I
INTERNATIONAL
Figure 1. Vicinity Map of Candiff Creek Restoration Project.

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

Legend
o Photo Points
Crest Gauge
Cross Section
OConservation Easement
In -Stream Structures
Beaver Dams
Top of Bank
..... Emergency Livestock Access
- Vegetation Plot: (Year 5 Density/Planted Density)
Stream Crossing
As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Restoration
Stream Problem Areas
INgoilandiyd DEQ - N Current Condition
13°o tP Division of A Plan View Figure Index
Michael Baker —L—.Mitigation Candiff Creek - Surry County, NC
Services 0 250 500 1,000
N T E R N A T I 0 N A L�o�sayationk5 DMS Project
# 92767 1 Feet

4 Legend
o Photo Points
Crest Gauge
r
Cross Section
OConservation Easement
�• ° + In -Stream Structures
Beaver Dams
a - Vegetation Plot: (Year 5 Density/Planted Density)
Stream Crossing
�s As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type
ti Enhancement I
Enhancement II
01 Preservation
Restoration
c+.oma.,, 0—ki— A --
Previous VPA - Kudzu (Pueraria montana)
Treated in August and October 2014, ° 1
and twice in August 2015. During October 2016
inspection, no Kudzu areas greater than 100 ft2 were
observed in the treated area. This area will continue
��. to be monitored for Kudzu in 2017.
'K d
Veg Plot 13: 607/1012 \
r -`'r. • l
Veg Plot 11: 931/1012
r
rr y A
Enhancement/Stabilization work
completed on UT1 and M1
in August 2015
Veg Plot 12: 890/1012
o�
NC OO neMap N Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, NC 911
Board
soil andtdfP DEQ - N Current Condition
Michael Baker
Division ofA Plan View Figure u
Mitigation Candiff Creek - Surry County, NC
Services 0 87.5 175 350
INTERNATIONAL °�Se oy`�4 DMS Project
Natl°�
# 92767 Feet

. 0
0
Veg Plot 10: 688/890
rt
0
0
0
0 7,
e
0
h. 0 ...
Veg Plot 9: 648/769 L?„
"k 0 0T1
Veg Plot 8: 688/850
ft `.
o 0�
Legend
o Photo Points
J Crest Gauge
Cross Section
Conservation Easement
In -Stream Structures
tr
Beaver Dams
- Vegetation Plot: (Year 5 Density/Planted Density)
Stream Crossing
As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type
Enhancement
® Enhancement II
Preservation
Restoration
Stream Problem Areas
0
w
Veg Plot 7: 648/890
,AV
Veg Plot 6:
607/728
0�
0
�soiland�dfP DEQ - N Current Condition
_ Baker
Division of A Plan View Figure 413
Mitigation Candiff Creek - Surry County, NC
Services 0 87.5 175 350
INTERNATIONALeryaaDMS Project
o"oFeet
# 92767

Legend
o Photo Points
O Crest Gauge
Cross Section
® Conservation Easement
M@
In -Stream Structures
0
Veg Plot 5: 728/809
Beaver Dams
0�
- Vegetation Plot: (Year 5 Density/Planted Density)
Stream Crossing
As -Built Streams by Mitigation Type
Enhancement
ffi
® Enhancement II
o
Preservation
°m
Veg Plot 4:
728/931
Restoration
O�
Stream Problem Areas
O
a
t
Veg Plot 3: 850/1012
0
Stream Problem
Area #1 (<10 ft)
s.
o 0
Veg Plot 2: 728/931
Q it
/M0
OA
Q o
O�
MITI
O
Stream Problem
OF
Area #2 (<10 ft)�
qui
Veg Plot 1: 931/1052
e
y
;
T
NC OneMap, N Center for Geographic Information : nd Analysis, NC 911
�'�'•.
y
Board
DEQ -
N
Current Condition
�soiland�dfP
Division of
Plan View Figure 4C
Michael
Baker
Mitigation
Candiff Creek - Surry County, NC
INTERNATIONALenaay``°
Services
A
0 87.5 175 350
o"a
DMS Project
# 92767
Feet

APPENDIX A
VEGETATION DATA

VEGETATION TABLES

Table A.1. Vegetation Metadata
(Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 92767
Report Prepared By Dwayne Huneycutt
Date Prepared 10/18/2016 11:00
database name MichaelBaker_2016_Candiff UTMillSwamp.mdb
database location L:\Monitoring\Veg Plot Info\CVS Data Tool\Candiff UT to Mill Swamp
computer name CARYLDHUNEYCUTT
file size 59187200
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Metadata Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project data.
Proj, planted Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live stakes.
Proj, total stems Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
Plots List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -----------
Project Code
project Name
Description
River Basin
length(ft)
stream -to -edge width (ft)
area (sq m)
Required Plots (calculated)
Sampled Plots
92767
Candiff
Stream and Buffer Restoration
Yadkin -Pee Dee
13

Table A.2. Vegetation Vigor by Species
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 92767
Species
Common Name
4
3
2
1
0 Missing Unknown
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
1
Betula nigra
river birch
48
2
3
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
9
10
3
3
Diospyros virginiona
common persimmon
19
7
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
6
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
14
11
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
8
2
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
8
1
1
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
5
3
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
3
2
2
3
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
6
1
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
54
4
1
1
TOTAL
171
44
16
8
13

Table A.3. Vegetation Damage by Species
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 92767
tea,
m
v
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
01
1
Betula nigra
river birch
0
53
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
0
9
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
0
10
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
0
25
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
0
28
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
0
8
Liriodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
0
7
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
0
60
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
0
29
Quercus phellos
willow oak
0
10
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
0
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
0
10
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood 1
01
1
TOTAL
1
01
252

Table AA Vegetation Damage by Plot
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 92767
ay
o`er
X40
m
V
Go
m
moo"'
0
0
Q
V
92767-01-0001-year:5
0
23
92767-01-0002-year:5 0
19
92767-01-0003-year:5 0
21
92767-01-0004-year:5 0
20
92767-01-0005-year:5 0
20
92767-01-0006-year:5 0
17
92767-01-0007-year:5 0
20
92767-01-0008-year:5 0
18
92767-01-0009-year:5 0
17
92767-01 -001 0-year:5 0
17
92767-01-0011-year:5 0
23
92767-01-0012-year:5 0
22
92767-01-0013-year:5 0
15
TOTAL 113 0
252

Table A.5. Planted Stems by Plot and Species
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: Project No. 92767
00
591Z Oy Opo O^ ON O� ti0 titi tiry ti�
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 z Oz 00 00
Oti Oy Oti Oti Oti Oy Oti (Z) Oti Oti Oti Oy
(O (O (O (O �O (O �O �O �O �O (O <O
Qpm Q� 40� ti '� '� ti ti ti ti 'v ti ti ti ti
0 � 0) � 0 0
o �o �Qo��o �o Qo��o �o Qo
zo 410
Asimina triloba
Shrub Tree
pawpaw
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
Tree
river birch
50
10
5
10
2
5
4
5
2
6
9
6
1
Carpinus caroliniana
Shrub Tree
American hornbeam
9
5
1.8
2
1
3
2
1
Cercis canadensis
Shrub Tree
eastern redbud
7
3
2.33
5
1
1
Cornus amomum
Shrub
silky dogwood
22
6
3.67
1
4
6
1
4
41
1
3
Diospyros virginiana
Tree
common persimmon
27
9
3
1
1
3
3
5
1
1
8
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Tree
green ash
8
7
1.14
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tree
tuliptree
7
3
2.33
1
5
1
Platanus occidentalis
Tree
American sycamore
60
11
5.45
9
1
5
5
7
6
1
4
10
6
6
Quercus michauxii
Tree
swamp chestnut oak
27
8
3.38
3
2
3
3
3
5
5
3
Quercus phellos
Tree
willow oak
10
4
2.5
7
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
Tree
northern red oak
1
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
Shrub Tree
Common Elderberry
9
4
2.25
1
1
1
6
Viburnum dentatum
Shrub Tree
southern arrowwood
1
1
1
1
1
TOTAL
239
14
23
18
21
18
18
151
16
171
161
171
23
221
15

Table A.6. Plot Species and Densities
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92767
Tree Species
1
2
3
4
5
6
Plots
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Year 5
Totals
Betula nigra 10 2 5 4 5 2 6 9 6 1
50
Dios yros virginiana
1
1
3
3
5
1
1
8
4
27
Fraxinus Pennsylvanica 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
8
Liriodendron tuli ifera
1
5
1
7
Platanus occidentalis 9 1 5 5 7 6 1 4 10 6 6
60
Quercus michauxii
3
2
3
3
3
5
5
3
27
Quercus phellos 7 1 1 1
10
Quercus rubra
1
1
Yearly Average
Stems/acre
Shrub Species
Asimina triloba 1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
2
1
3
2
1
9
Cercis canadensis 5 1 1
7
Cornus amomum 1 4 6 4 4 3
22
Lindera benzoin
0
Sambucus canadensis 1 I 1 6
9
Viburnum dentatum 1
1
Number of volunteer stems/plot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1
Number of planted stems/plot 23 18 21 18 18 15 16 17 16 17 23 22 15
239
Total Stems/acre Year 5
931
728
850
728
728
607
648
688
648
688
931
890
607
744
Total Stems/acre Year 4
931
769
850
809
769
688
809
728
688
688
890
890
40
735
Total Stems/acre Year 3
1052
769
850
890
769
648
809
728
688
728
890
890
243
766
Total Stems/acre Year 2
1052
809
850
890
769
648
890
728
728
769
931
890
688
819
Total Stems/acre Year l
1052
971
850
931
850
728
890
769
769
809
971
931
890
878
Total Stems/acre Initial
1052
931
1012
931
809
721
890
850
769
890
1012
1012
1012
915

Table A.7. Planted and Total Stem Summary
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project ID No. 92767
Current
Plot Data (MYS 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
92767-01-0001
Pacts P -all T
92767-01-0002
PnoLS
92767-01-0003
92767-01-0004
92767-01-0005
92767-01-0006
92767-01-0007
P -all
T PrmLS
P -all T PnoLS P -all
T POOLS P -all T PnoLS P -all T PrmLS
P -all
T
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
10
10
10
2
2
2
5
5
5
4
4
4
5
5
5
2
2
2
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
1
1
1
4
4
4
6
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
4
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
Liriodendron tuli itera
tuli tree
Tree
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
9
9
9
1
1
1
5
51
5
5
51
5
71
71
7
61
6
61
1
1
1
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
31
3
3
3
3
3
Quercus hellos
willow oak
Tree
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
TreeySambucus
canadensis
common elderbe
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
U33
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Viburnum dentatumsouthern
arrowwood
Shrub
1
1
1
Stem count
23
23
23
18
18
18
21
21
21
18
18
18
18
18
18
15
16
16
16
size (ares)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
51
51
5
61
61
6
71
7
5
5
5
6
6
6
5
5
5
7
7
7
Stems per ACRE
930.8
930.8
930.8
728.4
728.4
728.4
849:8
849.8
849.8
728.4
728.4
728.4
728.4
728.4
728.4
607.0
607.0
607.0
647.51
647.51
647.5
Current
Plot Data (MYS 2016)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
92767 -01 -MS
PnoLS P -all IT
92767-03-0009
POOLS P -all
92767-01-0010
92767-01-0011
92767-03-0012
92767.01-0013
T PrmLS
P -all T PnoLS P -all T PnoLS P -sill
T PnoLS I P -all
Asimina triloba
pawpaw
Tree
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
6
6
6
9
9
9
6
6
6
1
1
1
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree
1
1
1
Comus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
3
3
3
Diospyros virginiana
common persimmon
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
8
8
4
4
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Liriodendron tuli Itera
tuli tree
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
Platanus occidentalis
Americans camore
Tree
4
41
4
1
101
10
10
6
6
6
6
6
6
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
5
5
5
5
5
5
3
3
3
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
ITree
1
1
1
Sambucus canadensis
common elderberry
Shrub
1
1
1
6
6
6
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Shrub
Stem wont
17
17
17
18
16
18
17
17
17
23
23
23
22
22
22
15
15
15
size (ares)
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
size (ACRES)
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Species count
41
41
41
51
51
5
61
61
6
5
5
5
7
7
7
5
5
5
Stems per ACRE
688:0
688.0
688.0
647.5
647.5
647.5
688.0
688.0
688.0
930.8
930.8
930.8
890.3
890.3
890.3
607.01
607.01
607.0
Current
Plot Data (MYS 2016)
Scientific Name
Asimina triloba
Common Name
paoipaw
Species Type
Tree
MY5 (2016)
PnoLS _ Pall
1 1
1
- LS
1
MY4 (2015)
P -all
1
IT_
1
PnoLS
1
MY 3 (201.
P -a
1
PnotS,
1
1
MY2 (2013)
P -all
1
T .,
1
POOLS:
1
MY1(2012)
Pall
1
IT
1
Betula nigra
Over birch
Tree
50
50
50
53
53
53
56
56
56
56
56
56
59
59
59
Carpinus caroliniana
American hornbeam
Tree
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Tree 1
7
7
7
10
10
10
12
12
12
12
12
12
14
14
14
Comus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
22
22
22
25
25
25
25
25
25
27
27
27
27
27
27
Diospyros virgimana
common persimmon
Tree
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
27
30
30
30
36
36
36
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
reen ash
Tree
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Liriodendron tuli Hera.
tuli tree
Tree
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
61
6
6
6
6
6
6
Platanus occidentalis
Americansycamore
Tree
60
60
601
54
54
54
57
57
57
63
63
63
66
66
66
Quercus michauxii
swamp chestnut oak
Tree
27
27
271
29
29
29
29
29
29
30
30
301
301
30
30
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
10
101
10
10
101
10
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
Quercus cobra
northern red oak
Tree
f
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
6
6
6
Sambucus canadensis
common elderberryShrub
9
9
9
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Unknown
Shrub or Tree
3
3
3
5
5
5
Viburnum dentatum
southern arrowwood
Shrub
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
Stem count
239
239
239
236
236
236
246
246
246
263
263
263
282
282
282
size (ares)
13
13
13
13
13
size (ACRES)
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.32
Species count
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
Stemsper ACRE
744.0
744.0
734.7
734.7
765.8
765.8
765.8
818.7
818.7
818.7
877.9
877.9
Exceeds requirements, by greater than 10

VEGETATION PHOTOS

4 'r jnL i"yC _
�a

Vegetation Plot 13

APPENDIX B
GEOMORPHIC DATA

STREAM TABLES

Table 13.1. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92767
Performance Percenta e
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
A. Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
B. Pools
100%
96%
96%
96%
99%
99%
C. Thalweg
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
D. Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
E. Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
F. Bank Condition
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
99%
G. Wads
100%
100%
100%
100%
99%
99%

Table B.la Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92767
Feature Category
Metric (per As -built and reference baselines)
(# Stable)
Number
Performing as
Intended
Total
Number Per
As -built
Total Number /
Feet in Unstable
State
% Performing
in Stable
Condition
Feature
Performing
Mean or Total
A. Riffles
1. Present
27
27
NA
100
100
2. Armor Stable (e.g. no displacement)
27
27
NA
100
3. Facet grade appears stable
27
27
NA
100
4. Minimal evidence of embedding/fining
27
27
NA
100
5. Length appropriate
27
27
NA
100
B. Pools
1. Present (e.g. not subject to severe aggradation or migration)
28
28
NA
100
100
2. Sufficiently Deep (Max Pool D: Mean Bkf >1.6)
28
28
NA
100
3. Length appropriate
28
28
NA
100
C. Thalweg
1. Upstream of meander bend (run/inflection) centering
28
28
NA
100
100
3. Downstream of meander (glide/inflection) centering
27
27
NA
100
D. Meanders
1. Outer bend in state of limited/controlled erosion
26
28
20
93.0
97.4
2. Of those eroding, number with concomitant point bar formation
27
28
NA
96.4
3. Apparent Rc within specifications
28
28
NA
100
4. Sufficient floodplain access and relief
28
28
NA
100
E. Bed General
1. General channel bed aggradation areas (bar formation)
NA
NA
0/0
100
100
2. Channel bed aggradation - areas of increasing down -cutting or head cutting
NA
NA
0/0
100
F. Bank
1. Actively eroding, wasting or slumping bank
NA
NA
0/0
100
100
G. Vanes
1. Free of back or arm scour
29
29
NA
100
100
2. Height appropriate
29
29
NA
100
3. Angle of geometry appear appropriate
29
29
NA
100
4. Free of piping or structural failures
29
29
NA
100
H. Wads/Boulders
1. Free of scour
12.
40
40
NA
100
100
Footing stable
40
40
NA
100

Table B.2. Baseline Stream Summary
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: DMS 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
-----
-----
-----
-----
BFMax Depth (ft)
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- 1.85 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- 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
-----
0.0081
-----
-----
-----
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) lb/fl
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.35 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.36
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) Whn2
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- 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 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
B4c/1
-----
-----
B4c/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
-----
-----
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
21.6
25.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
----- -----
----- ----- -----
35.5 ----- 94.1
-----
-----
-----
60.0
-----
120.0
108.0
120.2
139.9
BF Mean Depth (ft)
----- -----
----- ----- -----
0.9 ----- 1.4
-----
-----
-----
-----
1.6
-----
1.24
1.44
1.58
BF Max Depth (ft)
----- -----
----- ----- -----
2.0 ----- 2.4
-----
-----
-----
1.9
-----
2.2
1.96
2.15
2.43
BF Cross-sectional Area (W)
----- -----
----- ----- -----
29.2 ----- 32.6
-----
-----
-----
-----
32.0
-----
28.62
30.77
32.44
Width/Depth Ratio
----- -----
----- ----- -----
14.6 ----- 34.6
11
-----
14
-----
13.0
-----
12.6
15.4
20.7
Entrenchment Ratio
----- -----
----- ----- -----
1.7 ----- 2.9
-----
-----
-----
2.9
-----
5.9
4.2
5.6
7.0
Bank Height Ratio
----- -----
----- ----- -----
1.0 ----- 2.5
1
-----
1.1
1
-----
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
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
-----
7
-----
-----
-----
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- ----- -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
-----
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- I ----- I -----
-----
----- I
-----
0.0078
-----
1 0.0104
-----
-----
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) lb/fZ
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- 0.32 -----
-----
-----
-----
-----
0.44
-----
-----
-----
-----
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/mz
----- -----
----- ----- -----
----- 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
-----
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. Mornhologv and Hvdraulic Monitoring Summary
Candiff Creek Restoration Project: DMS Project No. 92767
Reach: M3
Parameter
MYl I
Cross-section 1
Riffle
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5
MYl
Cross-section 2
Pool
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5
Cross-section 3
Pool
MYl MY2 MY3 I MY4
MY5 MYl
Cross-section 4
Riffle
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft)
19.49
19.92
23.30
16.80
16.58
30.60
19.24 13.49
12.38
12.95
33.08
17.96
18.03
17.42
17.02
18.17
19.33
25.62
19.95 19.69
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.09
1.24
1.23
1.09
1.09
1.14
1.82 2.37
2.48
2.49
1.81
3.02
2.78
2.82
2.37
1.41
1.61
1.18
1.47 1.47
Width/Depth Ratio
17.82
16.00
15.42
15.43
15.21
26.96
10.55 5.70
4.99
5.191
18.31
5.95
6.48
6.19
7.17
12.86
12.03
21.77
13.55 13.36
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
21.3
16.1
23.3
18.3
18.1
34.7
35.1 31.9
30.7
32.3
59.8
54.2
50.1
49.1
40.4
25.7
31.1
30.2
29.4 29.0
BF Max Depth (ft)
1.56
1.83
1.23
1.61
1.59
3.38
3.99 3.63
3.68
3.57
4.35
4.27
4.42
4.44
3.49
2.03
2.30
2.21
2.17 2.19
Width ofFloodprone Area (ft)
73.64
77.58
73.52
73.02
72.48
153.88
153.85 153.95
153.88
153.88
124.67 124.70
124.66
124.69
124.69 120.72
120.78
120.8
120.71 120.74
Entrenchment Ratio
3.81
3.9
3.9
4.3
4.4
5.01
8.0 11.4
12.4
11.9
3.8
6.9
6.9
7.2
7.3
6.6
6.2
4.7
6.1 6.1
Bank Height Ratio
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.9
1.3
1.0
1.0 1.1
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9 1.0
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
21.67
22.40
25.76
18.98
18.76
32.88
22.88 18.23
17.34
17.93
36.70
24.00
23.59
23.06
21.76
20.99
22.55
27.98
22.89 22.63
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.98
0.72
0.90
0.96
0.96
1.06
1.53 1.75
1.77
1.80
1.63
2.26
2.12
2.13
1.86
1.22
1.38
1.08
1.28 1.28
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
MY -1 (2012)
MY -2 (2013)
MY -3 (2014)
MY -4 (2015)
MY -5 (2016)
Parameter
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
Protile
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
3415
3145
3406
2508
2766.53
Channel Length (ft)
1
4827
1
1
1
4827
1
1
4794
3542
3926.39
Sinuosity
1.41
1.41
1.41
1.41
1.42
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0051
0.0052
0.0052
0.0051
0.0051
BF Slope(ft/ft)
0.0073
0.0073
0.0071
0.0072
0.0073
Rosgen Classification
C
C
C
C
C

Reach: M3
Parameter
MYl I
Cross-section 5
Pool
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5
MYl
Cross-section 6
Riffle
MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5
Cross-section 7
Pool
MYl MY2 MY3 MY4
MY5 MYl
Cross-section 8
Riffle
MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft)
35.08
34.93
32.78
36.77
17.72
19.57
22.56 21.12
22.49
19.48
41.11
27.78
21.23
19.03
17.01
19.35
19.66
19.55
19.15 19.19
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.61
1.68
1.63
1.41
2.69
1.41
1.34 1.24
1.15
1.26
1.06
1.70
2.19
2.04
2.94
1.45
1.38
1.36
1.32 1.21
Width/Depth Ratio
21.78
20.81
20.16
26.00
6.59
13.78
16.86 17.05
19.51
15.45
38.84
16.36
9.69
9.31
5.791
13.36
14.23
14.42
14.47 15.84
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
56.5
58.6
53.3
52.0
47.6
27.8
30.2 26.2
25.9
24.6
43.5
47.2
46.5
38.9
50.0
28.0
27.1
26.5
25.4 23.3
BF Max Depth (ft)
4.04
4.37
4.27
4.04
3.81
2.01
2.45 2.10
2.09
1.97
2.57
4.081
4.16
3.58
4.16
2.09
2.17
2.16
2.00 1.92
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
119.00
119.06
119.06 119.03
119.04
108.03
108.03 108.13
108.00
108.03
118.58 118.63
118.56
118.65
118.63 115.23
115.12
115.21
115.20 115.15
Entrenchment Ratio
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.2
6.7
5.5
4.8 5.1
4.8
5.5
2.9
4.3
5.6
6.2
7.0
6.0
5.9
5.9
6.0 6.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1 1.3
Wetted Perimeter (11)
38.30
38.29
36.04
39.59
23.10
22.39
25.24 23.60
24.79
22.00
43.23
31.18
25.61
23.11
22.89
22.25
22.42
22.27
21.79 21.61
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.48
1.53
1.48
1.31
2.06
1.24
1.20 1.11
1.04
1.12
1.01
1.51
1.82
1.68
2.18
1.26
1.21
1.19
1.17 1.08
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
Parameter
Min
MY -1 (2012)
Max Med
Min
MY -2 (2013)
Max Med
Min
MY -3 (2014)
Max Med
Min
MY -4 (2015)
Max Med
Min
MY -5 (2016)
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)
3415
1
3145
1
3406
2508
1
2766.53
Channel Length (ft)
4827
4827
4794
3542
3926.39
Sinuosity
1.41
1.41
1.41
1.41
1.42
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0051
0.0052
0.0052
0.0051
0.0051
BF Slope (ft/ft)
0.0073
0.0073
0.0071
0.0072
0.0073
Rosgen Classification
C
C
C
C
C

Reach: M3
Dimension
Parameter
BE Width (ft)
MYl
24.25
Cross-section 9
Pool
MY2 MY3 MY4
22.72 16.74 11.51
MY5
12.05
MYl
24.40
Cross-section 10
Riffle
MY2 MY3 MY4
19.04 18.23 17.25
MY5
17.59
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1.30
1.62
1.42
1.93
1.55
1.30
1.30 1.12
1.27
1.20
Width/Depth Ratio
18.67
14.05
11.75
5.97
7.78
14.37
14.59 16.31
13.62
14.70
BF Cross-sectional Area (ft')
31.50
36.80
23.80
22.20
18.70
24.40
24.80 20.40
21.90
21.00
BE Max Depth (ft)
3.24
3.98
2.98
2.89
2.07
1.83
2.21 1.74
1.92
1.91
Width of Floodprone Area (ft)
88.14
94.15
82.92
82.43
78.07
117.32
117.30 117.31
117.29
117.27
Entrenchment Ratio
3.61
4.1
5.0
7.2
6.5
6.31
6.2 6.4
6.8
6.70
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1 1.2
1.0
1.2
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
26.85
25.96
19.58
15.37
15.15
27.00
21.64 20.47
19.79
19.99
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.17
1.42
1.22
1.44
1.23
0.90
1.15 1.00
1.11
1.05
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
MY -1 (2012)
MY -2 (2013)
MY -3 (2014)
MY -4 (2015)
MY -5 (2016)
Parameter
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
ProFde
Riffle length (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
Pool Length (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
Additional Reach Parameters
Valley Length (ft)
3415
3145
3406
2508
2766.53
Channel Length (ft)
1
4827
1
4827 1
1
1
4794
1 1 3542
1 3926.39
Sinuosity
1.41
1.41
1.41
1.41
1.42
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
0.0051
0.0052
0.0052
0.0051
0.0051
BE Slope (ft/ft)
0.00731
0.0073
0.0071
0.0072
0.0073
Rosgen Classification
C
I
C
C
C
C

STREAM DATA
AND PHOTOGRAPHS

M2 and
M3
- Year 5 - Station
20+50
to 52+00
ace
(Data
collected October
2016)
825
- Low
bank
-As-Built Thalweg
820
-Year 1 Thal weg
-Year 2 Thalweg
Year 3 Thalweg
815
-Year 4 Thalweg
-Year 5 Thalweg
-Water Surf
8]0
ii
O
..w
805
W
800
795
790
2050 2200 2350 2500 2650 2800 2950 3100 3250 3400 3550 3700 3850 4000 4150 4300 4450 4600 4750 4900 5050 5200
Station (ft)
ace
- Low
bank

M2 and M3 - Year 5 - Station 20+50 to 35+00
(Data collected October 2016)
82s
823
__._- ___
—As -Built Thalweg
—Year 1 Thalweg
821
__.
.. ...__. ................ ................. ...............
—Year2 Thalweg
—Year3 Thalweg
819
..
... .................. .................. .........
—Year 4 Thalweg
—Year 5 Thalweg
817
�..i
- ---
—
— Low bank
Water Surface
815
8137
811
809
--
807
805
2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300 2350 2400 2450 2500 2550 2600 2650 2700 2750 2800 2850 2900 2950 3000 3050 3100 3150 3200 3250 3300 3350 3400 3450 3500
Station (ft)

M3 - Year
5
- Station
35+00
to
52+00
(Data
collected
October
2016)
815
813
_
_
-- _ _
—As -Built Thalweg
—
— —-
——-
-
-- - ——--
—Year 1 Thalweg
811
—Year 2 Thalweg
—p—•Year3 Thalweg
809
Year 4 Thalweg
Wig�
Year 5 Thalweg
i
C807..............
............................._..._.
_ _....._...._.
._...-_......
Water Surface
—Low bank
805
— -
------- - -
-
C�
803
801
-
-
-
-
--
-
- - -
- -
ALW
799
—
—
--
— -
—
-
—- -
--- -I/y
-
797
795
3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000 4100 4200 4300 4400 4500 4600 4700 4800 4900 5000 5100 5200
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 1
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2016)
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
18.1
16.58
1.09
1.59
15.21
1.3
4.4
817.07
817.59
822
821
10INIA
819
818
_
.° 817
> 816
w 815
814
813
812
Candiff Cross-section 1
------------------------e
As -Built Year 1
0 Year 2 Year 3
Year 4 Year 5
-� 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 2
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 32.3 12.95 1 2.49 3.57 5.19 1.3 11.9 816.08 817.24
821
820
819
818
817
g 816
815
w 814
813
812
811
Candiff Cross-section 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- o
As -Built Year 1
--e- Year Year
Year 4 ---a--- Bankfull
-o--- Floodprone Year 5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 3
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2016)
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
40.4
17.02
2.37
3.49
1 7.17
1.2
7.3
813.37
814.02
818
817
816
815
$ 814
c
813
c�
812
LU
811
810
809
808
Candiff Cross-section 3
As -Built Year 1
0 Year 2 Year 3
Year 4 Year 5
---0--- Bankfull ---0 - Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 4
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
Feature Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C
29
19.69
1 1.47
2.19 13.36 1 6.1 810.53 F 810.53
815
814
813
812
811
c 810
809
d
w 808
807
806
805
Candiff Cross-section 4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
As -Built Year 1
Year Year
Year 4 Year 5
--[�- Bankfull---G--- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 5
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D
BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool 47.6 17.72 1
2.69
3.81 6.59
1 6.7 808.2 808.32
813
812
811
810
809
0 808
m 807
LU 806
805
804
803
Candiff Cross-section 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
-------------
As-Built Year 1
—0 Year Year
Year 4 Year 5
---0--- Bankfull ---0--- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 6
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2016)
r�
wv.
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF
BKF Area Width
BKF Max BKF
Depth Depth W/D
BH Ratio ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
C
24.6 19.48
1.26 1.97 15.45
1 5.5
807.57
807.58
813
812
811
810
809
c
0 808
ca
ani 807
w
806
805
804
803
Candiff Cross-section 6
8----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
Year 4 Year 5
0--- Bankfull ---e- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 7
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2016)
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
50
17.01
2.94
4.16
5.79 1
7
803.7 803.88
809
808
807
806
805
804
ca
803
w
802
801
800
799
Candiff Cross-section 7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
707
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
Year 4 Year 5
a--- Bankfull---9--- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 8
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2016)
ism <<
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
19.19
1.21
1.92
15.84
1.3
6
801.85
802.38
807
806
805
804
803
0 802
m 801
U' 800
799
798
797
Candiff Cross-section 8
$----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------o
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
Year 4 Year 5
c Bankfull---o--- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 9
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Stream
Feature Type
BKF BKF
BKF Area Width Depth
Max BKF
Depth W/D BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB
Elev
Pool
18.7 12.05 1.55
2.07 7.78 1.2
6.5
797.85
798.19
804
803
802
801
800
.2 799
> 798
LU 797
796
795
794
Candiff Cross-section 9
------------------------------------------------------------------
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
Year 4 Year 5
-s Bankfull --o--- Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (ft)

Permanent Cross-section 10
(Year 5 Data - Collected October 2016)
Looking at the Left Bank
Looking at the Right Bank
Feature BKF Area BKF Width BKF Depth
L7E
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle 21 17.59 1 1.2
1.91
14.7
1.2 1 6.7 797.85 798.2
803
802
801
800
$ 799
c 798
a 797
w 796
795
794
793
Candiff Cross-section 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------w
As -Built Year 1
Year 2 Year 3
Year Year5
--o--- Bankfull --o - Floodprone
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Station (ft)

. ,`Lest•. v
� � � �A .fi!a�
z �3rW�i`�.�
1
l
f:
_
f �
. ,`Lest•. v
� � � �A .fi!a�
z �3rW�i`�.�
f:

PP 7 STA 57+65, Log J -Hook
PP 9 STA 56+70, Log J -Hook
t
l 4
aJ.a�.�3s�1
PP 8 STA 57+50, Stream Crossing
7,t
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 17 STA 50+75, Log J -Hook
PP 16 STA 52+05, Constructed Riffle
PP 18 STA 50+40, Constructed Riffle
{ � t
4,
i'
,
r
E
T�
� d J
4�
� J+=�F�
A �� •�S� Lf'iE
;9
�"
S'L liT`i
Ya vi.
E F
PP 13 STA 53+95, Rock J -Hook
PP 14 STA 53+75, Constructed Riffle
PP 15 STA 52+35, Log J -Hook
PP 17 STA 50+75, Log J -Hook
PP 16 STA 52+05, Constructed Riffle
PP 18 STA 50+40, Constructed Riffle

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

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

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

`45
PP 37 STA 35+05, Log J -Hook
PP 39 STA 33+90, Rock J -Hook
P 41 STA 33+00, Stream Crossing
PP 38 STA 34+80, Constructed Riffle
PP 40 STA 33+60, Constructed Riffle
PP 42 STA 32+10, Log J -Hook

fk
jr
AL
r `J�
_ f
OF
�A
a.
Y4.
T_ F

�F*--''�' r
1-7
1 '' r � .f �k is F � �i'�' s I � ��• X11` � S` : �'i, r '°.,Y++4,A F � �v 3s,�
1� �•��+..,a y ids �y �+ ♦ �. ',,
ap
K
`
.s
N F I III' 1
�"•
�
r,'
107

+ T `4 as
Alf
- r � � i. _ 1�� it �"� r1 A x� r ��""�-4._ ��r�•+,r
z
w
- -
S
IFA Jk-\
v
12,
f f • •
KIM f
• •
..se
Atr
�•p` `

M3 crest gauge STA 55+50, October 11, 2016
Crest aauae reading of 3.24 feet.
Stream Problem Area 1 - STA 46+50. Bank
heavily vegetated. Seems to have stabilized.
M3 crest gauge bankfull evidence. October 11,
2016.

New Candiff Creek Enhancement Area, Ml Upper, Year 5 Photographs
:
__�, �' > ,�f��"''q� ` d„y� ids✓'+`•
M 1 Enhancement, October 2016
?ra
C
`a
-J
M1 Enhancement, October 2016
M 1 Enhancement, October 2016
M1 Enhancement, October 2016
MI Enhancement, October 2016
Bank pin near Station 13+40, pin NOT exposed