20140334 Ver 1_Mitigation Plans_20170606

BASELINE MONITORING
DOCUMENT AND AS -BUILT
BASELINE REPORT
Final
CANDY CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Guilford County, NC
NCDEQ Contract 5794
DIMS ID No. 96315
Data Collection Period: October 2016 — March 2017
Final Submission Date: June 2, 2017
PREPARED FOR:
4 A�'6
7�'� o ;�
A N 6'
NC Department of Environment Quality �.2
Division of Mitigation Services k�OT
1652 Mail Service Center 16
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 �N

PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
1_I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Wildlands Engineering (Wildlands) implemented a full delivery project at the Candy Creek Mitigation Site
(Site) for the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) to restore, enhance, and preserve a
total of 19,583 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent streams, in Guilford County, NC. The Site is
expected to generate 15,507 stream mitigation units (SMUs) through the restoration, enhancement, and
preservation of Candy Creek and nine unnamed tributaries (Table 1).
The Site is located northeast of the Town of Brown Summit within the DMS targeted local watershed for
the Cape Fear River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03030002010020 and NCDWR Subbasin 03-06-01
(Figure 1) and is being submitted for mitigation credit in the Cape Fear River Basin HUC 03030002. The
Site is located within the Haw River Headwaters Watershed, which is part of DMS' Cape Fear River Basin
Restoration Priorities (RBRP). While Candy Creek is not mentioned specifically, this document identifies
a restoration goal for all streams within HUC 03030002 of reducing sediment and nutrient pollution to
downstream Jordan Lake. The Haw River watershed was also identified in the 2005 NC Wildlife
Resources Commission's Wildlife Action Plan as a priority area for freshwater habitat conservation and
restoration to protect rare and endemic aquatic fauna and enhance species diversity. No rare and
endemic aquatic species have been documented onsite or are proposed for re-establishment onsite as
part of the project. The Wildlife Action Plan calls for "support of conservation and restoration of streams
and riparian zones in priority areas (acquisition, easements, and buffer)." Restoration at the Site directly
and indirectly addressed these goals by excluding cattle from the stream, creating stable stream banks,
restoring a riparian corridor, and placing land historically used for agriculture under permanent
conservation easement. A conservation easement was recorded on 61.74 acres to protect the restored
riparian corridor in perpetuity.
The project goals established in the mitigation plan (Wildlands, 2016) were to provide ecological
enhancement and mitigate site water quality stressors that will benefit the receiving waters in the Cape
Fear River Basin. This will primarily be achieved by creating functional and stable stream channels,
increasing and improving the interaction of stream hydrology within the riparian zone, and improving
floodplain habitat and ecological function. This will also be achieved by restoring a Piedmont
Bottomland Forest community as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) along the stream reaches
within open pastures. Completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that were described
in the RBRP and to address stressors identified in the LWP, the following project goals were established:
• Reduce in -stream water quality stressors resulting in enhanced habitat and water quality in
riffles and pools.
• Construct stream channels that are laterally and vertically stable resulting in a network of
streams capable of supporting hydrologic, biologic, and water quality functions.
• Improve on -site habitat by diversifying and stabilizing the stream channel form; installing habitat
features such as undercut logs, brush toe, wood and stone based riffles; and by establishing
native stream bank vegetation and shading where none exists.
• Exclude cattle from project streams resulting in greater treatment and reduction of overland
flow and landscape derived pollutants including fecal coliform, nitrogen, and phosphorus.
• Increase and improve stream hydrology connectivity with riparian floodplains resulting in
temporary water storage and recharge of wetlands and floodplain pools during high flows;
increased groundwater connectivity within floodplains and wetlands; promotion of nutrient and
carbon exchange between streams and floodplains, and reduced shear stress on channels during
larger flow events.
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL

• Restore and enhance native floodplain forest resulting in improved riparian habitat, reduced
competition from non-native species, stream shading and reduced thermal loading, woody
debris inputs for adjacent streams, and flood flow velocity reductions within the floodplain
allowing for pollutant and sediment deposition.
• Permanently protect the Site ensuring that development and agricultural uses do not impact or
reduce the watershed benefits provided by the project.
Site construction occurred between July 2016 and March 2017. The as -built surveys were completed
between October 2016 and March 2017. Planting and baseline vegetation data collection occurred in
March 2017. Minimal adjustments were made during construction and specific changes are detailed in
Section 5.1. Baseline (MYO) profiles and cross section dimensions closely match the design parameters.
Cross section widths and pool depths occasionally exceed design parameters within a normal range of
variability for natural streams. Due to field conditions and construction adjustments, there are several
sections where the buffer width ended up less than 50'. The buffers widths in most of these sections are
between 45' and 50'. The total length of these sections is approximately 3.1% of the total project length.
The Site has been built as designed and is expected to meet the upcoming monitoring year's success
criteria.
A Candy Creek Mitigation Site
W Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL

CANDY CREEK MITIGATION SITE
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES........................................................1-1
1.1 Project Location and Setting......................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives.....................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach..................................................................1-3
1.3.1 Project Structure................................................................................................................1-3
1.3.2 Restoration Type and Approach........................................................................................1-3
1.4 Project History, Contacts, and Attribute Data...........................................................................1-5
Section 2: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS..........................................................................................2-1
2.1 Stream........................................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.1 Dimension..........................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.2 Pattern and Profile.............................................................................................................2-1
2.1.3 Substrate............................................................................................................................2-1
2.1.4 Photo Documentation........................................................................................................2-1
2.1.5 Hydrologic Events...............................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................2-2
2.3 Schedule and Reporting.............................................................................................................2-2
Section 3: MONITORING PLAN........................................................................................................3-1
3.1 Stream ...................................................... ..................................................................................
3-1
3.1.1 Dimension..........................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.2 Pattern and Profile.............................................................................................................3-1
3.1.3 Substrate............................................................................................................................3-1
3.1.4 Photo Reference Points.....................................................................................................3-1
3.1.5 Hydrology Documentation.................................................................................................3-2
3.1.6 Visual Assessment..............................................................................................................3-2
3.2 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................3-2
Section 4: MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN......................................................................4-1
4.1 Stream........................................................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Vegetation..................................................................................................................................4-1
4.3 Site Boundary .............................................................................................................................4-1
Section 5: AS -BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE)...................................................................................5-1
5.1 Record Drawings........................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 Candy Creek.......................................................................................................................5-1
5.1.2 UT1C...................................................................................................................................5-3
5.1.3 UT1D...................................................................................................................................5-3
5.1.4 UT2.....................................................................................................................................5-4
5.1.5 UT213 ...................................................................................................................................5-4
5.1.6 UT3.....................................................................................................................................5-5
5.1.7 UT4.....................................................................................................................................5-5
5.1.8 UT5.....................................................................................................................................5-5
5.2 Baseline Data Assessment ................................... ......................................................................
5-5
5.2.1 Morphological State of the Channel..................................................................................5-5
5.2.2 Vegetation..........................................................................................................................5-6
Section6: REFERENCES...................................................................................................................
6-1
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 General Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Project Component/Asset Map
Figure 3.0-3.7
Monitoring Plan View
Table 1
Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 2
Property Ownership and Conservation Easement Recording
Table 3
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 4
Project Contact Table
Table 5
Project Information and Attributes
Table 6
Monitoring Component Summary
Appendix 2 Morphological Summary Data and Plots
Table 7a-f Baseline Stream Data Summary
Table Sa-c Morphology and Hydraulic Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Section)
Longitudinal Profile Plots
Cross Section Plots
Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Stream Photographs
Appendix 3 Vegetation Plot Data
Table 9 Planted and Total Stems
Vegetation Photographs
Appendix 4 Record Drawings
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
W Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL iv

Section 1: PROJECT GOALS, BACKGROUND, AND ATTRIBUTES
1.1 Project Location and Setting
The Site is located in northeast Guilford County approximately 15 miles northeast of the City of
Greensboro off of Old Reidsville Road and Hopkins Road (Figure 1). Conservation easements were
recorded on a total of 61.74 acres and includes portions of 14 parcels owned by 11 landowners (Table
2).
The Site is located in the Cape Fear River Basin; eight -digit Cataloging Unit (CU) 03030002 and within the
DMS targeted watershed for the Cape Fear River Basin 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
03030002010020 (Figure 1). The Site is being submitted for mitigation credit in the Cape Fear River Basir
HUC 03030002.
Located in the Inner Piedmont Belt of the Piedmont Physiographic Province (USGS, 1998), the project
watershed is primarily comprised of agricultural and forested land. The drainage area for the Site is 937
acres. From Greensboro, NC, take US-29 North approximately 12 miles past the communities of Browns
Summit and Monticello. The north end of the Site including Candy Creek Reach 3, Candy Creek Reach 4,
UT1D, and UT11) may be accessed by Old Reidsville Rd (NC SR 2514). The south end of the Site including
Candy Creek Reach 1, Candy Creek Reach 2, UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT5 can be accessed via Hopkins Rd (NC
SR 2700).
Candy Creek and the unnamed tributaries (UT1C, UT1D, UT2, UT2A, UT213, UT3, UT4, UT5, and UTSA) are
located within the NC Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) subbasin 03-06-01. Candy Creek (NCDWR
Index No. 16-5) has been classified as Water Supply V (WS-V) waters with a supplemental classification
of Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) which recognizes waters needing additional nutrient management.
These waters are also protected for Class C uses such as secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and
aquatic life propagation and survival, and agriculture. The Site is located within a Targeted Local
Watershed (TLW) identified in DMS' 2009 Cape Fear River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP). The Site is
also identified in the 2005 NC Wildlife Resources Commission's Wildlife Action Plan. No rare and
endemic aquatic species have been documented onsite or are proposed for re-establishment onsite as
part of the project.
Prior to construction activities, stream impairments included incised and over widened channels, bank
erosion with areas of mass wasting, historic channelization, floodplain alteration, degraded in -stream
habitat, and impoundments. Riparian impairments included clearing and livestock grazing. Table 5 in
Appendix 1 and Tables 7a-f in Appendix 2 present the pre -restoration conditions in more detail.
1.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The overarching goals of the proposed stream mitigation project are to provide ecological enhancement
and mitigate site water quality stressors that will benefit the receiving waters in the Cape Fear River
Basin. The Site will treat almost all of the headwaters of Candy Creek and 47% of the entire 3.1-square
mile Candy Creek watershed before flowing to the Haw River. A primary goal of the RBRP is to restore
and maintain water quality as stated in the Jordan Lake Nutrient Management Strategy. The project
goals established for the Site were completed with careful consideration of goals and objectives that
were described in the RBRP and include the following:
Reduce in -stream water quality stressors. Reconstruct stream channels with stable dimensions.
Stabilize eroding stream banks. Add bank protection and in -stream structures to protect
restored/enhanced streams.
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-1

• Construct stream channels that are laterally and vertical stable. Construct stream channels that
will maintain a stable pattern and profile considering the hydrologic and sediment inputs to the
system, the landscape setting, and the watershed conditions.
• Improve on -site habitat. Construct diverse and stable channel form with varied and self -
sustainable stream bedform. Install habitat features such as undercut logs, brush toe, wood and
stone -based riffles. Establish native stream bank vegetation and shading where none exists.
• Exclude cattle from projectstreams. Install fencing around the conservation easement adjacent
to cattle pastures.
• Increase and improve the interaction of stream hydrology within the riparian zone to in turn
improve floodplain habitat and ecological function. Reconstruct stream channels with
appropriate bankfull dimensions and raise them to the proper depths relative to a functioning
floodplain.
• Restore and enhance native floodplain forest. Plant native trees and understory species, and
treat invasive species in the riparian zone.
• Permanently protect the project Site from harmful uses. Establish a conservation easement on
the Site.
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-2

1.3 Project Structure, Restoration Type, and Approach
The final mitigation plan was submitted and accepted by DMS in March of 2016. Construction activities
were completed in March 2017 by Land Mechanic Designs, Inc. Kee Mapping and Surveying, P.A.
completed the as -built survey activities in March 2017. Planting was completed by Bruton Natural
Systems, Inc. in March 2017. Minimal adjustments were made during construction and field adjustments
made during construction are described in further detail in Section 5.1. Refer to Appendix 1 for detailed
project activity, history, contact information, and watershed/site background information.
1.3.1 Project Structure
The project is expected to provide 15,507 SMUs. Refer to Figure 2 for the project component/asset map
for the stream feature exhibits and Table 1 for the project component and mitigation credit information
for the Site.
1.3.2 Restoration Type and Approach
The design streams were restored to the appropriate type based on the surrounding landscape, climate,
and natural vegetation communities but also with thorough consideration to existing watershed
conditions and trajectory. The project includes a combination of stream restoration, enhancement, and
preservation. The specific stream restoration and enhancement activities are described below.
The stream restoration portion of this project included 13 reaches:
• Candy Creek (Reaches 1 and 2): The start of Candy Creek Reach 1 is controlled by an existing
culvert outfall at the upstream project limits. Candy Creek Reaches 1 and 2 were restored with the
Priority 1 approach, connecting the proposed top of bank at approximately the existing floodplain
elevation. There were two exceptions where some floodplain excavation was necessary to
connect with existing channel grade constraints. The upper 500 feet of Candy Creek Reach 1
required approximately 6 to 18" of floodplain excavation to transition to a full Priority 1 approach
approximately 500 feet downstream from the upstream project limits. Additionally, the lower 500
feet of Candy Creek Reach 2 required approximately 12 to 30" of floodplain excavation to
transition to existing bedrock grade control upstream of the bridge at Hopkins Road.
• Candy Creek (Reach 4): Dimension, pattern, and profile were restored in Candy Creek Reach 4
using a Priority 1 design approach. A new, offline, meandering channel was constructed in the
right floodplain, occasionally tying back into the existing channel to maximize belt width while
avoiding impacts to existing wetlands and trees located throughout the reach corridor. Several
vernal pools were created along the left floodplain from unfilled portions of the remnant channel
in order to create floodplain diversity and reduce site impacts that would be necessary to haul in
extra fill material. The reach transitioned to a step -pool morphology within the downstream 731
LF of channel as the valley narrows and steepens, eventually stepping down to a Priority 2 channel
to match the existing bed elevation at the downstream project limits.
• UT1C: UT1C began at a headwater impoundment which was drained to restore the natural valley
and associated stream reach. The restoration approach included a Priority 1 B/C type stream to
dissipate flows vertically through the narrow, wooded valley. The Priority I restoration activities
tied into an existing, stable stream channel prior to the confluence with Candy Creek.
• UT1D: Similar to UT1C, the design approach for UT11) was a Priority 1 stream restoration involving
the restoration of the valley via excavation through an old pond bed and breached dam
embankment. UT1D begins upstream as a low gradient, meandering, C type stream constructed
through a portion of the old pond bed and existing valley before transitioning to a B type step -
pool channel until its confluence with Candy Reach 3.
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-3

• UT2 (Reach 1 - Restoration): Restoration transitions from a Priority 2 at the upstream end to
Priority 1 as the stream approached an old cattle pond. Restoration activities within the pond bed
area resemble a Priority 2 approach, with wide floodplain benches and terrace slopes tying into
natural ground. A permanent culvert crossing was installed on this reach to allow free access for
cattle crossing. The internal crossing is fenced to exclude cattle from the easement.
• UT3: The upstream extent of UT3 is in stable condition and is included as a preservation reach.
The lower portion of UT3 was severely degraded prior to the confluence with Candy Creek.
Restoration activities tied to the existing stable channel on the upstream end and realigned the
lower portion through the center of a wide forested valley to the confluence with Candy Creek
Reach 1C. The Priority I design restored the natural sinuosity and reconnected the stream and
floodplain. Structures were incorporated into the design to provide a stable and improved
bedform and enhanced aquatic habitat.
• UT4: This stream reach was deeply incised prior to restoration activities. A Priority 2 approach was
utilized to tie in the restored channel with the existing upstream elevation. While the existing
channel is heavily incised at the tie in location, a bedrock feature exists to ensure a stable
connection. UT4 was realigned to the center of the existing valley and a bench was cut for the
Priority 2 channel. The remainder of UT4 was restored by implementing Priority 1 restoration.
Structures were added to increase bedform diversity and increase available aquatic habitat. Areas
of the old abandoned channel were utilized to create vernal pools on the floodplain, which will
provide open water habitat and floodplain storage.
• UTS: Restoration for UT5 began at the confluence of UT5 and UT5A preservation reach. The
overall sinuosity of UT5 was decreased slightly as the existing stream had created tight radius
bends in the existing pattern resulting in erosion and mass wasting. The restored dimension of the
channel reconnected UT5 to the floodplain and provides relief for channel banks during high flow
events. Areas previously manipulated for farm crossings and/or abandoned impoundments were
restored to a natural valley condition with an adequate bench created for floodplain flow. Similar
to UT4, areas of old abandoned channel were used to create open water habitat and floodplain
storage.
The project also included stream enhancement on five reaches classified as either enhancement I (Ell or
enhancement II (Ell).
Candy Creek Reach 3: An El approach was utilized between Hopkins Road and the confluence of
UT1D, with Ell through the remainder of the downstream corridor until Candy Creek Reach 4. El
activities included minor realignment of channel pattern by straightening a few tight meander
bends and excavating bankfull benches to improve the expansion of flow between Hopkins Road
and the UT1D confluence. Channel profile was adjusted with the installation of constructed riffles,
jhook vanes, and a cross vane. Ell measures included the sporadic placement of in -stream
structures for bank protection, grade control, and to help raise the channel bed slightly to lessen
incision throughout the reach. Bankfull benches were created in selected areas where the channel
dimension was constricted to afford a wider channel width and limited floodplain access. In
multiple locations, short sections of manmade levy were excavated to remove historic flood
protection and re -connect bankfull flows to the wider floodplain.
UT2 (Reach 1 - Enhancement): The bedform along UT2 Reach 1A was considered functional, in
spite of mass bank failure and deep incision. In order to retain the bedform, an El approach was
utilized to excavate a floodplain bench along both banks allowing for floodplain access and
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
W Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-4

stabilized terrace slopes. A few structures and constructed riffles were installed to supplement
bedform and habitat.
• UT2 (Reach 2): The banks along UT2 Reach 2 were fairly stable and the channel pattern was well
developed. An El approach was incorporated to raise the channel while retaining the existing
pattern. Additionally, a floodplain bench was excavated to allow for floodplain access. In -stream
log sills and constructed riffles were used to raise the bed elevation through the reach which
promoted large, deep pools between structures, which will benefit habitat.
• UT2A: The El approach for UT2A consisted of excavating a floodplain bench along both banks,
stabilizing the two existing headcuts, and adding riffles and pools for habitat. The excavated bench
addressed the channel incision and entrenchment while laying the terrace slopes back to a flatter,
more stable slope. A log step pool series was installed to arrest the migrating headcuts and
achieve a more consistent channel slope. Habitat was enhanced by introducing riffles and pools
through log structures.
• UT2B: Th Ell approach retained the pattern of the existing channel while addressing discrete
occurrences of vertical or stressed banks and provided habitat through riffle and pool structures.
One short section (approximately 50 LF) of channel was realigned to repair a blowout caused by
cattle access. The steeper intermittent upstream section was stabilized using a log step pool
system that spreads the drop out and dissipates energy in the pools.
Design parameters were developed for restoration reaches based on the design bankfull discharge,
dimensionless ratios from the reference reach data, and professional judgment of the designers. The
restoration reaches were designed to be similar to type C/E or B type streams according to the Rosgen
classification system (Rosgen, 1996). Type C/E streams are meandering streams with well developed
floodplains and average gradients of 2% or less. C/E streams occur within a wide range of valley types
and were appropriate for Candy Creek Reaches 1-4, UT2 Reach 2, UT3, UT4, and UTS. Type B streams
occur within headwater and 2nd order streams in steeper, more confined valley settings and have narrow
floodplains with average gradients typically steeper than 2%. Construction of B-type step -pool channels
were implemented for UT1C, UT1D, UT2 Reach 1, and UT2A.
The morphologic design parameters are shown in Appendix 2, Tables 7a-f for the restoration reaches
and fall within the ranges specified. The specific values for the design parameters were selected based
on designer experience and judgment and were verified with morphologic data form reference reach
data sets.
1.4 Project History, Contacts, and Attribute Data
The Site was restored by Wildlands through a full delivery contract with DMS. Tables 3, 4, and 5 in
Appendix 1 provide detailed information regarding the Project Activity and Reporting History, Project
Contacts, and Project Information and Attributes.
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 1-5

Section 2: PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The performance criteria for the Site follows approved performance criteria presented in the Candy
Creek Mitigation Plan (Wildlands, 2016). Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted
to assess the condition of the finished project. The stream reaches were assigned specific performance
criteria components for stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation. Performance criteria will be
evaluated throughout the seven year post -construction monitoring. If all performance criteria have been
successfully met and two bankfull events have occurred during separate years, Wildlands may propose
to terminate stream and/or vegetation monitoring after year five pending little to no prevalent invasive
species issues. An outline of the performance criteria components follows.
2.1 Stream
2.1.1 Dimension
Riffle cross sections on the restoration and enhancement (EI) reaches should be stable and should show
little change in bankfull area, maximum depth ratio, and width -to -depth ratio. Per DMS guidance, bank
height ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and entrenchment ratios shall be at least 2.2 for restored channels to
be considered stable. All riffle cross sections should fall within the parameters defined for channels of
the appropriate stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes will be evaluated to assess whether
the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of instability include trends in vertical
incision or bank erosion. Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced
habitat include a decrease in the width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool
depth. Remedial action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability.
2.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Annual longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven year monitoring period
unless other indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral
instability. If a longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in
the 2003 USACE and NCDWR Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches. A longitudinal
profile was conducted as part of the as -built survey to provide a baseline for comparison should it
become necessary to perform longitudinal profile surveys later during monitoring and to insure
accordance with design plans.
2.1.3 Substrate
Substrate materials in the restoration and enhancement (EI) reaches should indicate a progression
towards or the maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle features and smaller particles in the pool
features.
2.1.4 Photo Documentation
Photographs should illustrate the Site's vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal
photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel or vertical incision. Grade
control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is
preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.
2.1.5 Hydrologic Events
Two bankfull flow events must be documented on the restoration and enhancement (EI) reaches within
the seven-year monitoring period. These two bankfull events must occur in separate years. Stream
A Candy Creek Mitigation Site
W Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 2-1

monitoring will continue until success criteria in the form of two bankfull events in separate years have
been documented. Bankfull events will be documented using pressure transducers, manual crest gages,
photographs, and visual assessments such as debris lines.
Consistent flow must be documented in the intermittent stream (UT1D) at the Site. Under normal
circumstances stream flow must be documented to occur every year for at least 30 consecutive days
during the seven year monitoring period. Stream flow must also be documented to occur intermittently
in all months other than July through September of each monitoring year. Flow will be documented in
UT1D using a pressure transducer established within the thalweg of the channel.
2.2 Vegetation
The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the planted
riparian corridor at the end of the required monitoring period (MY7). The interim measure of vegetative
success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third
monitoring year and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring. If this
performance standard is met by MY5 and stem density is trending towards success (i.e., vigor),
monitoring of vegetation on the Site may be terminated provided written approval is provided by the
USACE in consultation with the NC Interagency Review Team. The extent of invasive species coverage
will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required monitoring period.
2.3 Schedule and Reporting
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year during the monitoring period and submitted
to DMS. Based on the DIMS Monitoring Report Template (Version 1.5, 6/8/12), the monitoring reports
will include the following:
• Project background which includes project objectives, project structure, restoration type and
approach, location and setting, history and background;
• Assessment of the stability of the stream based on the cross sections and visual assessments;
• Stream hydrological data and attainment of bankfull and flow attainment;
• Photographs showing views of the restored Site taken from fixed point stations;
• Vegetative data as described above including the identification of any invasion by undesirable
plant species; and
• Maintenance issues and recommended remediation measures will be detailed and documented.
A Candy Creek Mitigation Site
W Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 2-2

Section 3: MONITORING PLAN
Monitoring will consist of collecting morphological, hydrological, and vegetative data to assess the
project success based on the restoration goals and objectives on an annual basis or until success criteria
is met. The success of the project will be assessed using measurements of the stream channel's
dimension, substrate composition, permanent photographs, surface water hydrology, and vegetation.
Any areas with identified high priority problems, such as streambank instability,
aggradation/degradation, or lack of vegetation establishment will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis.
The problem areas will be visually noted and remedial actions will be discussed with DIMS staff to
determine a plan of action. Refer to Table 6 in Appendix 1 for monitoring component summary.
3.1 Stream
Geomorphic assessments follow guidelines outlined in the Stream Channel Reference Sites: An
Illustrated Guide to Field Techniques (Harrelson et al., 1994), methodologies utilized in the Rosgen
stream assessment and classification documents (Rosgen, 1994 and 1996), and in the Stream
Restoration: A Natural Channel Design Handbook (Doll et al, 2003). Refer to Figures 3.0 — 3.7 in
Appendix 1 for monitoring locations discussed below.
3.1.1 Dimension
In order to monitor the channel dimension, 48 permanent cross sections were installed per DMS
guidance along the stream restoration and enhancement I reaches. Each cross section is permanently
marked with rebar installed in concrete and marked with PVC pipes. Cross section surveys include points
measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. If bank
erosion is observed within permanent cross sections during the monitoring period, an array of bank pins
will be installed in the permanent cross section where erosion is occurring for reaches with bankfull
widths large enough to warrant bank pin monitoring. Bank pins will be installed on the outside bend of
the cross section in at least three locations (one in upper third of the pool, one at the permanent cross
section, and one in the lower third of the pool). Bank pins will be monitored by measuring exposed rebar
and maintaining pins flush to bank to capture bank erosion progression. Cross section and bank pin
surveys (if applicable) will be conducted in monitoring years one (MY1), two (MY2), three (MY3), five
(MY5), and seven (MY7). Photographs will be taken annually of the cross sections looking upstream and
downstream.
3.1.2 Pattern and Profile
Longitudinal profile surveys will not be conducted during the seven year monitoring period unless other
indicators during the annual monitoring indicate a trend toward vertical and lateral instability. If a
longitudinal profile is deemed necessary, monitoring will follow standards as described in the 2003
USACE and NCDWR Stream Mitigation Guidance for the necessary reaches. Stream pattern and profile
will be assessed visually as described below in Section 3.1.6.
3.1.3 Substrate
A reach -wide pebble count will be performed in each restoration and enhancement level I reach for
classification purposes. A pebble count will be performed at each surveyed riffle to characterize the
pavement. Substrate sampling will occur in MY1, MY2, MY3, MYS, and MY7.
3.1.4 Photo Reference Points
A total of 85 permanent photograph reference points were established along the stream reaches after
construction. Permanent markers were established so that the same locations and view directions on
A Candy Creek Mitigation Site
W Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 3-1

the Site are photographed each year. Longitudinal stream photographs will be taken looking upstream
and downstream once a year to visually document stability. Cross sectional photos will be taken at each
permanent cross section looking upstream and downstream. Representative digital photos of each
permanent photo point will be taken on the same day the stream assessments are conducted. The
photographer will make every effort to consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
3.1.5 Hydrology Documentation
Bankfull events will be documented using crest gages, pressure transducers, photographs, and visual
assessments such as debris lines. Eight hydrology monitoring stations with crest gages and pressure
transducers were installed (Candy Creek Reach 2B, Candy Creek Reach 4A, UT1C, UT2 Reach 1, UT2A,
UT3, UT4, and UT5). The gages were installed within a surveyed riffle cross section of the restored
channels. The gages will be checked at each site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred.
Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition. Baseflow
within the intermittent stream (UT1D) will be documented with a pressure transducer automated
stream gage installed at the thalweg elevation of the channel. The pressure transducer data will be
plotted and included in the annual monitoring reports.
3.1.6 Visual Assessment
Visual assessments will be performed along all stream areas on a semi-annual basis during the seven
year monitoring period. Problem areas will be noted such as channel instability (i.e. lateral and/or
vertical instability, in -stream structure failure/instability and/or piping, headcuts), vegetated health (i.e.
low stem density, vegetation mortality, invasive species or encroachment), beaver activity, or livestock
access. Areas of concern will be mapped, photographed, and described through a written description in
the annual report. Problem areas will be re-evaluated during each subsequent visual assessment. Should
remedial actions be required, recommendations will be provided in the annual monitoring report.
3.2 Vegetation
Planted woody vegetation will be monitored in accordance with the guidelines and procedures
developed by the Carolina Vegetation Survey Level 2 Protocol (Lee et al., 2006) to monitor and assess
the planted woody vegetation. A total of 37 standard 10 meter by 10 meter vegetation plots and three
non-standard 5 meter by 20 meter plots were established within the project easement area. Refer to
Figure 3.0 — 3.7 in Appendix 1 for the vegetation monitoring locations.
Vegetation plots were randomly established within the planted areas to capture the heterogeneity of
the designed vegetative communities. The vegetation plot corners have been marked and are
recoverable either through field identification or with the use of a GPS unit. Reference photographs at
the origin (southwest corner) looking diagonally across the plot to the opposite corner were taken
during the baseline monitoring in March 2017. Subsequent annual assessments following baseline
survey will capture the same reference photograph locations. Species composition, density and survival
rates will be evaluated on an annual basis by plot and for the entire Site. Individual plot data will be
provided and will include height, density, vigor, damage (if any), and percent survival. Planted woody
stems will be marked annually as needed based off a known origin so they can be found in succeeding
monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the baseline year's living
planted stems and the current year's living planted stems.
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 3-2

Section 4: MAINTENANCE AND CONTINGENCY PLAN
Wildlands will perform maintenance as needed on the mitigation project. A physical inspection of the
Site shall be conducted a minimum of once per year throughout the post -construction monitoring
period until performance standards are met. These site visits may identify components and features that
require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years
following construction and may include one or more of the following components.
4.1 Stream
Stream problem areas will be mapped and included in the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) as part of
the annual stream assessment. Stream problems areas may include bank erosion, structure failure,
beaver dams, aggradation/degradation, etc. Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may
include chinking of in -stream structures to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting, and
supplemental installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where
storm water runoff flows into the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and
head -cutting.
4.2 Vegetation
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted community. Vegetative
problem areas will be mapped and included in the CCPV as part of the annual vegetation assessment.
Vegetation problems areas may include planted vegetation not meeting success criteria, persistent
invasive species, barren areas with little to no herbaceous cover, or grass suffocation/crowding of
planted stems. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting,
pruning, mulching; and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species shall be controlled by mechanical and/or
chemical methods. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be performed in
accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
4.3 Site Boundary
Site boundary issues will be mapped and included in the CCPV as part of the annual visual assessment.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the Site and adjacent
properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other means as
allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or
destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
A Candy Creek Mitigation Site
W Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 4-1

Section 5: AS -BUILT CONDITION (BASELINE)
Site construction occurred between July 2016 and March 2017. The as -built surveys were completed
between October 2016 and March 2017. The survey included developing an as -built topographic
surface, locating the channel boundaries, structures, and cross sections. For comparison purposes,
during the baseline assessments, reaches were divided into assessment reaches in the same way that
they were established for design parameters.
5.1 Record Drawings
A sealed half-size record drawing is located in Appendix 4 that includes redlines for any significant field
adjustments made during construction that were different from the design plans. Minor adjustments
made during construction were primarily associated with instream habitat improvement, erosion
prevention measures and availability of onsite materials. Specific changes are detailed below:
5.1.1 Candy Creek
• Station 100+00 to Station 100+20 alignment shifted to facilitate proper tie in at upstream
extent;
• Station 105+33 to Station 105+47 constructed riffle added;
• Station 105+46 to 105+74 sod mat replaced with brush toe to provide additional habitat;
• Station 107+37 boulder sill added to stabilize bed form;
• Station 108+21 to 108+41 brush toe not installed;
• Station 108+80 to 109+10 lunker log installed versus sod mat to provide additional habitat;
• Station 109+81 to 110+09 lunker log not installed to save existing trees;
• Station 110+41 to 110+53 brush toe reduced;
• Station 111+02 log sill not installed;
• Station 111+05 to 111+31 lunker log added to provide bank protection and habitat;
• Station 112+81 to 113+21 brush toe not installed;
• Station 113+96 to 114+21 sod mat replaced with brush toe to provide additional habitat;
• Station 114+18log vane not installed;
• Station 119+90 to 120+44 brush toe not installed;
• Station 123+91 to 124+28 sod mat replaced with brush toe to provide additional habitat;
• Station 124+86 to 124+96 log vane shifted upstream;
• Station 125+90 to Station 126+10 log vane shifted downstream;
• Station 127+11 to 127+43 sod mat replaced with brush toe to provide additional habitat;
• Station 127+91 to 128+22 root wads replaced with brush toe;
• Station 128+31 to 128+93 brush toe not installed;
• Station 128+93 to 129+20 sod mat not installed;
• Station 132+38 log sill added to insure downstream grade control at stream crossing;
• Station 134+76 to 135+13 root wads replaced with brush toe;
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5-1

• Station 138+23 to 138+40 log vane not installed to save existing trees;
• Station 138+89 log sill added;
• Station 138+89 to 139+14 brush toe not installed to save existing trees;
• Station 140+82 to 141+17 root wads replaced with brush toe;
• Station 141+52 to 141+90 sod mat not installed;
• Station 149+06 to 149+23 boulder toe not installed to save existing trees;
• Station 149+07 to 149+31 constructed riffle extended;
• Station 149+23 to 149+41 j-hook not installed;
• Station 154+59 to 154+90 boulder toe not installed to save existing trees;
• Station 155+30 to 155+42 constructed riffle length reduced due to existing crossing;
• Station 15S+50 to 155+88 cross vane shifted;
• Station 155+80 to 156+25 brush toe logs not installed to save existing trees;
• Station 156+78 to 157+13 constructed riffle added;
• Station 157+71 to 157+97 brush toe not installed;
• Station 158+86 to 159+37 brush toe extended;
• Station 160+47 to 160+73 brush toe log not installed;
• Station 162+38 to 162+92 brush toe logs not installed;
• Station 163+28 to 163+47 brush toe not installed to save existing trees;
• Station 163+80 to 164+14 brush toe logs not installed;
• Station 164+15 to 164+39 lunker logs not installed to save existing trees;
• Station 164+39 to 165+28 brush toe not installed;
• Station 167+47 to 167+65 log vane replaced with rock vane;
• Station 167+94 to 168+37 brush toe replaced with boulder toe;
• Station 168+30 to 168+44 brush toe logs not installed;
• Station 169+08 to 169+29 log vane replaced with rock vane;
• Station 169+31 to 169+41 boulder toe not installed;
• Station 176+68 to 176+73 root wads not installed;
• Station 182+25 to 182+66 brush toe reduced;
• Station 185+78 to 186+41 brush toe not installed;
• Station 186+71 to 187+44 brush toe reduced;
• Station 188+12 to 188+31 brush toe not installed;
• Station 192+46 to 192+83 brush toe added;
• Station 193+55 to 193+81 brush toe reduced;
• Station 196+88 cross vane replaced with j-hook;
• Station 198+80 log sill added;
• Station 198+80 to 199+22 brush toe added;
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5-2

• Station 199+41 to 199+75 boulder toe added;
• Station 201+97 to 202+58 sod mat replaced with brush toe to provide additional habitat;
• Station 204+92 to 205+23 boulder toe added;
• Station 205+46 to 205+62 brush toe not installed;
• Station 205+62 log sill replaced with boulder sill; and
• Station 205+65 root wad not installed.
5.1.2 UT1C
• Station 200+17 to 200+24 boulder toe not installed;
• Station 200+55 boulder sill replaced with log sill;
• Station 201+22 to 201+28 boulder toe not installed;
• Station 202+05 log vane not installed;
• Station 204+38 log vane not installed;
• Station 204+81 j-hook not installed;
• Station 205+00 log vane not installed;
• Station 205+12 log vane not installed;
• Station 205+36 to 205+42 brush toe not installed;
• Station 207+18 log vane not installed;
• Station 207+26 log vane not installed;
• Station 207+30 log sill added; and
• Station 207+32 j-hook not installed.
5.1.3 UT1D
• Station 250+02 to 250+54 field base alignment adjustment to facilitate proper tie in at upstream
extent;
• Station 250+02 to 250+54 rock sills replaced with log sills;
• Station 250+59 to 250+92 constructed riffle lengths reduced;
• Station 251+32 boulder sill not installed;
• Station 251+91 to 252+10 constructed riffle lengths reduced;
• Station 252+10 to 252+21 brush toe not installed;
• Station 252+43 to 252+68 constructed riffle lengths reduced;
• Station 252+50 to 252+60 brush toe not installed;
• Station 252+71 to 252+93 log sill not installed;
• Station 252+85 to 253+00 boulder toes not installed;
• Station 253+12 boulder sill not installed;
• Station 253+16 to 253+42 constructed riffle lengths reduced;
• Station 253+21 log sill added;
• Station 253+30 log sill added;
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5-3

• Station 253+46 to 253+60 boulder toes not installed; and
• Station 253+48 log sill replaced with boulder sill.
5.1.4 UT2
• Station 303+46 to 303+68 brush toe not installed;
• Station 305+33 to 305+53 structures not installed due to bedrock;
• Station 305+76 cross vane replaced with log sill;
• Station 306+32 log sill replaced with boulder sill;
• Station 306+59 log sill replaced with boulder sill;
• Station 306+89 cross vane replaced with boulder sill;
• Station 308+50 log sill replaced with boulder sill;
• Station 308+60 log sill not installed;
• Station 308+70 log sill replaced with boulder sill;
• Station 308+92 log sill replaced with boulder sill;
• Station 309+40 log sill replaced with boulder sill;
• Station 309+47 log sill replaced with boulder sill;
• Station 309+66 to 309+75 constructed riffle length reduced;
• Station 309+76 log sill replaced with boulder sill;
• Station 309+86 log sill replaced with boulder sill;
• Station 310+14 log sill replaced with boulder sill;
• Station 310+26 log sill replaced with boulder sill;
• Station 310+58 log sill not installed;
• Station 310+92 log sill replaced with boulder sill;
• Station 311+02 log sill replaced with boulder sill;
• Station 311+14 log sill replaced with boulder sill;
• Station 312+62 to 312+48 constructed riffle added;
• Station 313+91 log sill added; and
• Station 314+13 log sill removed.
5.1.5 UT26
• Station 270+29 boulder sill added;
• Station 270+56 to 270+65 log sills added;
• Station 271+62 to 272+05 sod matting not installed to save existing trees;
• Station 272+80 to 273+09 sod matting not installed to save existing trees; and
• Station 273+45 to 273+73 sod matting not installed to save existing trees.
A Candy Creek Mitigation Site
W Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5-4

5.1.6 UT3
• Station 411+56 rock sill replaced with log sill;
• Station 413+42 to 413+94 log sills replaced with rock sills due to bedrock; and
• Station 414+00 lunker log not installed to save existing trees.
5.1.7 UT4
• Station 507+90 lunker log not installed to save existing trees.
5.1.8 UTS
• Station 608+46 608+62 log sill replaced with brush toe.
5.2 Baseline Data Assessment
Baseline monitoring (MYO) was conducted between October 2016 and March 2017. The first annual
monitoring assessment (MY1) will be completed in the fall of 2017. The Site will be monitored for a total
of seven years, with the final monitoring activities to be conducted in 2023. The close-out for the Site
will be conducted in 2024 given the success criteria is met. As part of the closeout process, DMS will
evaluate the Site at the end of the fourth year monitoring period to determine whether or not the Site is
eligible to closeout following MYS. If the Site is meeting success criteria, DMS will propose to the
Interagency Review Team (IRT) to proceed with the closeout process. If the Site is not meeting success
criteria, then an additional two years of monitoring will be conducted by Wildlands.
5.2.1 Morphological State of the Channel
Morphological data for the as -built profile was collected in October 2016 and March 2017. Refer to
Appendix 2 for summary data tables, morphological plots, and stream photographs.
Profile
The baseline (MYO) profiles closely match the profile design parameters. On the design profiles, riffles
were depicted as straight lines with consistent slopes. However, at some locations the as -built survey
riffle profiles are not consistent in slope due minor variations during construction as well as natural
scour and deposition within some shallow reaches. Additionally, maximum pool depths typically exceed
design parameters and are expected to trend towards the design depths as a result of natural deposition
over time. These variations in riffle slope and pool depths do not constitute a problem or indicate a need
for remedial actions and will be assessed visually during the CCPV Site walks.
Dimension
The baseline (MYO) dimension numbers closely match the design parameters with minor variations in all
reaches. These occasional variations are primarily due to a larger as -built bankfull width constructed on
UT1C, UT11), and UT2-Reach 2 as reflected in the cross sections. We expect that over time as vegetation
is established, the channels may narrow more toward the design dimensions. This narrowing over time
would not be seen as an indicator of instability in and of itself.
Pattern
The baseline (MYO) pattern metrics fell within acceptable ranges of the design parameters for all
restoration and enhancement level I reaches. Pattern data will be evaluated if there are any indicators
through the profile or dimension assessments that significant geomorphic adjustments have occurred.
Sediment Transport
As -built shear stresses and velocities are similar to design calculations and should reduce the risk of
further erosion along the reaches. The as -built condition for each of these reaches indicates an overall
WCandy Creek Mitigation Site
Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5-5

increase in substrate particle size (Table 7a-f). The substrate data for each constructed reach was
compared to the design shear stress parameters from the mitigation plan to assess the potential for bed
degradation. The shear stresses calculated for the constructed channels are within the allowable range,
which indicates the channel is not at risk to trend toward channel degradation.
Bankfull Events
No bankfull events were recorded following completion of construction. Bankfull events will be
documented and reported in subsequent annual monitoring reports.
5.2.2 Vegetation
The baseline (MYO) planted density is 610 stems/acre, which exceeds the interim measure of vegetative
success of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of the third monitoring year. Summary data
and photographs of each plot can be found in Appendix 3.
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
W Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 5-6

Section 6: REFERENCES
Doll, B.A., Grabow, G.L., Hall, K.A., Halley, J., Harman, W.A., Jennings, G.D., and Wise, D.E. 2003. Stream
Restoration A Natural Channel Design Handbook.
Harrelson, Cheryl C; Rawlins, C.L.; Potyondy, John P. 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: An Illustrated
Guide to Field Technique. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation Version 4.0. Retrieved from
http://www.nceep.net/business/monitorinp,/veg/datasheets.htm
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/`ps/csu/`classifications
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources Division of Mitigation Services, 2009. Cape Fear River
Basin Restoration Priorities. http://Portal.ncdenr.org/c/document library/get file?uuid=864e82e8-
725c-415e-8ed9-c72dfcb55012&grou pld=60329
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh, NC
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3rd
approx. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. USACE, NCDENR-
DWQ, USEPA, NCWRC.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1998. North Carolina Geology.
http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/coastalp.htm
Wildlands Engineering, Inc (2016). Candy Creek Mitigation Site Mitigation Plan. North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources Division of Mitigation Services, Raleigh, NC.
A Candy Creek Mitigation Site
W Baseline Monitoring Document and As -Built Baseline Report -FINAL 6-1

APPENDIX 1. General Figures and Tables

Hydrologic Unit Code (14)
_ DMS Targeted Local Watershed
Project Location
/ P 1
•i`` \ � .. .1hJ 'y Y.
"@3030002 0030
030300f12010010 0301010402P010
J 1`
Ire—
� f GOiar. rti 1
_ 1 •
I t
, t �
3
03030002010020 eW30002010040
a -
r 0303090201005q
�..
03030002020020
-
rf -' 03030002020070
JP
/ 03030002020030 \�
The subject project site is an environmental restoration
site of the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and is encompassed
by a recorded conservation easement, but is bordered
by land under private ownership. Accessing the site
may require traversing areas near or along the easement
boundary and therefore access by the general public is not
permitted. Access by authorized personnel of state and
federal agencies or their designees/contractors involved in
the development, oversight,and stewardship of the restoration
site is permitted within the terms and timeframes of their
defined roles. Any intended site visitation or activity by
any person outside of these previously sanctioned roles
and activities requires prior coordination with DMS.
Directions to Site:
From Greensboro, NC, take US-29 North approximately 12 miles
past the communities of Browns Summit and Monticello. The north
end of the project Site including Candy Creek Reach 3, Candy
Creek Reach 4, UTSC, and UT1D may be accessed by Old
Reidsville Rd (NC SR 2514). The south end of the project Site
including Candy Creek Reach 1, Candy Creek Reach 2, UT2,
UT3, UT4, and UT5 can be accessed via Hopkins Rd (NC SR 2700).
v p1�n
W0 1.5 Miles
WILDLANDS
tN O1NEf t�NO
Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Guilford County, NC

I
p'i'*'
OVA
)• .7
c
' 1
WIL�NDS fkq
ENOINeEE1No
P
conservation Easement
<50' Buffer Width
Internal Crossings
— Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Stream Preservation
— Non Project Stream
Reach Breaks
Figure 2 Project Component/Asset Map
0 1,000 Feet Candy Creek Mitigation Site
I i i i I DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Guilford County, NC

Figure 3.0 Monitoring Plan View (Key)
W Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 300 600 Feet DIMS Project No. 96315
s tkIf I i i I I t Monitoring Year 0- 2017
Guilford County, NC

�.un1
� � • � • � Conservation Easement
— <50' Buffer Width
® Internal Crossings
— Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
— Stream Preservation
— Reach Breaks
Structures
Vegetation Monitoring Plots
Cross Sections
* Photo Points
♦ Barotroll
♦ Stream Gage
. JV'' 4 ' . r. ' r!%-lr"r '•'9..' � � � r�•1' - A (xw♦7���� fj 7
l �i,� � .,Y i,��yC^i- 1%� .itLu'..7'- f��r_ ; =r�.. - l I� ll�Y I1,,. �s� � :LI S •. twi,
Ss�y 'or Y ..
Figure 3.1 Monitoring Plan View
CIS Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet -/` DMS Project No. 96315
I t r i I ///j]]/// Monitoring Year 0- 2017
Guilford County, NC

�s
x
1
WI I.n 1. XN ns
.
�nur1
Conservation Easement
— <50' Buffer Width
'
® Internal Crossings
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
t
11 F,
Stream Enhancement 11
Y
�'{' •
- Stream Preservation
Reach Breaks
'..�
4>.
,r Iky 1.
Structures
Vegetation Monitoring Plots
Cross Sections
f�� �•-
I
i Photo Points
J
t 1.
Barotroll
r•r
kD Stream Gage
t
Y
1
t ,,3h
I ,f
fir•,,
�' ' I �
�7 � ��
r1
Y
ITWIOII�
Fir
,,t• f,
�`
a ' 1}_ Ayye
f ;\ ' �' ••t.•' � t ..
I
:•r . K I
'E
Figure 3.2 Monitoring Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
250 Feet DIMS Project No. 96315
�!L I Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Guilford County, NC

= Conservation Easement !. ;'r �•
<SO' Buffer Width I1 �1f ..• Y
i
® Internal Crossings
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I 1 'A Ax
Stream Enhancement II II , • ,� `,
r { J • 1
Stream Preservation '' ' j'� •� Y ''rl (�i+ ;:•
AA
Reach Breaks ( If i
wt '
Structures .�II1 i ,'t,o. 1.i1 �,: I
-/ -
AA
•
•Innnlll n�ui uln�••.nlln a.•IIn.In 11 n. u111111
Vegetation Monitoring Plots
Cross Sections I•f 1 T r ! r
f Photo Points � I \ ' ) _ C3 r ( w •.
♦ Stream Gage i�;: I, iAA
/✓/ 4, �� •� r '
�....
Ta
.A.
AA
,�,'
•••
' I •�'AA11••11111
3
fA.
i1A.
�r'�Ii�
., '
.� , all fi6"'ll, *�t ]{ 1 t
l
i
6
' � 4
W0 125 250feet
W1LAD LAnns
Figure 3.3 Monitoring Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Guilford County, NC

:....�
Conservation Easement
<50' Buffer Width
® Internal Crossings
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Stream Preservation
—•—•• Reach Breaks
Structures
- Vegetation Monitoring Plots
Cross Sections
i Photo Points
♦ Stream Gage
1
t
.1 rye ♦ 4\ ^ V4T• \ ,•• � .• • � � ;
It
aii
961L*O, Al
, � .anon n• •••'
it ,9. - •. ,. W \ t ,.••• 4 ' C .n....un p........-.vunnrnn•• � �•. K •,,
1 j� + 1,. Y \� cam,• ''•• 1 ;••, •. - -••,e•
` .. 'S/'
dL
. �.
w[ELDLANDS �l
1
.01
is
�. 1 _..t 1 •. r '11 i.
3 t
..................................
.-
y
!` ia• ry1.f.nn••..y!
r
Figure 3.4 Monitoring Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Guilford County, NC

7:
� �• fie: �.�1 � +'t f ..�, r ry. � ,;, f y: � �'.
rol—
Y r r� «�r' �.r✓ ,fi 4 eT:/,. r: �- /!. , ./ ',��.. •.a .• i
4.
I ! / / it s..• "` , ,: \ 'I�r ..I
A• /� r d' H! t� �f �� `rf /I�..� "..T`i,''.. / �E�`� /, r _J .
P`
\V11.n LA NDS Mi
L_ _
125
�' ` 'v .� � '.�' .• Via/ � .' .. / I r 'y�' ' Ai � {: �::t �, +
A" �9V
X.
Y.. -
.............
.............i.�.n n...un` /
250 Feet
M
ti
- Conservation Easement
<50' Buffer Width
® Internal Crossings
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
— Stream Enhancement 11
Stream Preservation
Reach Breaks
Structures
Vegetation Monitoring Plots
— Cross Sections
f Photo Points
Stream Gage
® Flow Gage
Figure 3.5 Monitoring Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Guilford County, NC

Conservation Easement
' y
<50' Buffer Width
® Internal Crossings
•
a �,
� � • ;
it
Stream Restoration
i
Stream Enhancement I
1 r'
♦
�
—Stream Enhancement II
— Stream Preservation
f
Reach Breaks
r
�a'
F
.
`, •� 5 C I �
Structures
®Vegetation Monitoring Plots
• ..�>.•
—Cross Sections
.f . •�.
O
-
t Photo Points
♦ Stream Gage
m
r
l� , f
M m
01,
11 it
3 .. ' I I ' . 1 ••�.,'.• rro I -� �, �.•�•, II I L ' I• "'yYy`,�7}�,��';
• ( [ 1j ' 4
11 oil.
It
a
- r} ,�' .vim[" � 2 .r - .- -;` i9� - h.`r�••',4 Y��,, '._ ' ,.e ' V�/ {,�
�. '• SS i .• y, ' 1 •1 ,. 1
r T I i ,i ! ,•! .r ?
14
ViIi
SEW FK
CL
r t`
t
i,
Figure 3.6 Monitoring Plan View
W Candy Creek Mitigation Site
0 125 250 Feet DMS Project No. 96315
\v 11. n r, A n s 1 I I I I I Monitoring Year 0- 2017
Guilford County, NC

L
Conservation Easement
< 50' Buffer Width
Internal Crossings
Reach Breaks
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement 11
Stream Preservation
Structures
Vegetation Monitoring Plots
Cross Sections
0 Photo Points
♦ Stream Gage
40
;4
n
to
OL
lie.
Figure 3.7 Monitoring Plan View
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
125 250 Feet DIVIS Project No. 96315
\V1 II D I T . A I N 11 S Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Guilford County, NC

Table 1, Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
oMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0- 2017
Mitigation Credits
Wpm Riparian Wetland Noo-Ripadan Wetland Buffer NitrogOffi end Phosphorous NutrientOt
et
Type R RE R RE 0. RE
Totals 1d,9)6 531 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Project Components
AFBullt
tege/ Aroach Restoration or Restoration Equivalent Restoration F..tage/Acreage Mitigation Rath (5NCredut
RptltW Stationing/ Edsti'Kpp
k«»tion
Candy Creek Reach 1
100.08-117.19
2,Ba5
P1
Rr,Watloo
1711
IT
1,711
11).a5-126.2)
1`1
Rertontbn
882
1:1
that
Candy Creek Reach2
126.2]-131.80
2,398
PS
Restoration
553
1:1
553
132.40-101.17
PI
Restoration
e]J
1:1
877
163.03-148.42
P3
Restoration
699
1:1
699
Candy Creek Roach 3
109FOt-155.05
2,333
El
Enhancement
03
1.5:1
02
155.05-]55.33
Ell
Enhancement,
28
2.5:1
11
155.62-160.35
Ell
Enhancement
473
2.5:1
199
160+6t-1]0.3]
Ell
Enhancement
975
2.5:1
3W
Candy Creek Reach
1]0.11-178.74
3,386
PI
ResteratlPn
803
1:1
W3
I]9.00-196a4]
P1
Restoration
1,)4)
1:1
1,)4)
196.68-206.35
PI
Restoration
967
1:1
SO
UTiC
2001,12-207a40
551
PS
Restoration
728
1:1
7t8
UTSC-P
207.d0-211.39
398
-
Pnservatlon
me
5:1
80
WILD
150+01; 253.79
437
P1
Restoration
379
1:1
379
Uf2 Reath
300.W-30e.24
SI0
El
Enhancement
624
1.5:1
283
3[1e.20.305.01
P3
Restoration
TI
1:1
77
W0 26-311.ed
P3
Restoration
662
LI
662
Uf2 Reach
311.88-31 31
7d6
El
Enhancement
643
33:1
429
UT2/.
3 114-354.37
376
EI
Enhancement
353
1.5:1
235
UT38
2] 28-276.85
702
Ell
Enhancement
657
2.5:1
263
UTi-P
100.00-413.50
I,150
-
Preservation
1,150
5:1
2M
Ufa
411.50-414.96
729
PI
Restoration
366
2:2
US
UTd
S00aa9.51d.o5
1,2)o
P1
Restoration
1,356
1:1
1,356
UTS-P
599.19. 600.00
e1
-
Preservation
81
5:1
16
UIS
600.00-607.91
1,29)
PS
Restoration
791
1:1
791
fioea6.610.12
Restoration
196
1:1
1%
UTSA
650.Oo-659.)0
1,056
-
Preservation
970
5:1
IN
659.99-550.53
-
Preservation
54
5:1
11
Component Summation
Restoration level Stream (IF) Riparian Wetland Non -Riparian Wetland Buffer Upland
acres (ac es) (square feet acres
Riverine
Non-RNerine
Restoration 22,))4
Enhancement
Enhancement 1 2,023
Enhancement II 2,133
Preservation 2,03
TerhowhetanuY1M WM me Arvivir nrrr were eatlWNMmtlrc rnm......

Table 2. Property Ownership and Conservation Easement Recording
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Landowner
Aniyikalye, Bamidele and Barbara
Parcel Number
0114329
De�d Book and Page Number
7756/909
Protected Acreage
1.26
Bray, Nancy
0113973
7756/720
0.63
Carr, Darin W. and Tamela P.
0112709
7756/816
6.96
Chrismon, Bruce H. and Margie L.
0114364
7756/753
0.71
Chrismon, David Elmo
0112710
7756/651
8.42
Hopkins, Herbert Wallace and Marjorie
0112712
7756/738
3.75
Hopkins, Bryan D.
0112713
7756/855
6.66
Hopkins, Jefferson Todd and Mary Ann
0114284
7756/679
6.34
0114313
7756/679
2.75
0114300
7756/679
4.47
0112711
7756/679
9.59
Hopkins, Joe W. and Lisa R.
0112718
7756/772
7.11
Thacker, Robert K.
0114363
7756/959
2.04
Wagoner, David G. Sr.
0113981
7756/879
1.05
7756/893

Table 3. Project Activity and Reporting History
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS project No. 96315
Monitoring year 0 - 2017
Activity or Repoit
Mitigation Plan
Data Collection Complete
November 2014
Completion or Scheduled Delivery
March 2016
Final Design- Construction Plans
July 2016
July 2016
Construction
July 2016 - March 2017
March 2017
Temporary S&E mix applied to entire project area'
July 2016-March 2017
March 2017
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments
March 2017
March 2017
Bare root and live stake plantings for reach/segments
March 2017
March 2017
Baseline Monitoring Document (Year 0)
Stream Survey
October 2016-March 2017
May 2017
Vegetation Survey
March 2017
Year 1 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2017
December 2017
Vegetation Survey
2017
Year 2 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2018
December 2018
Vegetation Survey
2038
Year 3 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2019
December 2019
Vegetation Survey
2019
Year 4 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2020
December 2020
Vegetation Survey
2020
Year S Monitoring
Stream Survey
2021
December 2021
Vegetation Survey
2023
Year 6 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2022
December 2022
Vegetation Survey
2022
Year 7 Monitoring
Stream Survey
2023
December 2023
Vegetation Survey
2023
'Seed and mulch Is added as each section of construction is completed.
Table 4- Project Contact Table
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Designer
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Aaron Earley, PE
Charlotte, NC 28203
704.332.7754
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Construction Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc
Planting Contractor
P.O. Box 1197
Fremont, NC 27830
Land Mechanic Designs, Inc.
Seeding Contractor
126 Circle G Lane
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Seed Mix Sources
Green Resource, LLC
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Bare Roots
Dykes and Son Nursery
Live Stakes
Bruton Natural Systems, Inc & Foggy Mountain Nursery
Monitoring Performers
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Jason Lorch
Monitoring, POC
919.413.12141. ext. 107

Table S. Project Information and Attributes
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0-2017
Pro'eds Name
Candy Creek Mft tkn Site
Project Information
Guilford Coun
Projectii Ate] .aS
6134
Project Coordinates (lathude and longitude)
Phologniphic Prftroe
Upstream Pro eds Umes-36.13'3T V'N, n'39'39.99-W
Downstream Project Units-36-14'39.74-M,19-39'50.46'W
Project Wateished Summary Information
Inner Piedmont Beh of the Piedmont Phyalographic Province
River Basin
Cape Fear
USGSH drolo kUnit 8-chit
03030002
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-di N
0 OCX102010(120
DWR Sutaoasin
03A 1
Project Drain iage Area (acres)
932
Project Drainage Are. Percent,, of Impervious Ame.
1%
CGIA land Use aias eatlon
Paameters
M%- Nure/Mana ed Herkiceous;29%- Forested/Scubland, 5%-Developed!
Reach Summary Information
Candy Creek Reach I Candy Creek Reach 2 Candy Utak Reach3 Candy Creek Readi
Length of Reach (linear fret-Port-Restoranon
2,593
2,129 2,079 3,519
Drainage Area (acres)
560
6% m 1 937
NCDWR Stream Identifiation some
40.5
1
40.5 1 45.0 1 43.0
NCDWR Water Quality ClassiRotbn
W V NSW
Mo holo icaI Desnpoon stream
G4e
FS Ci4e
GOe
Evolutionary trend(Simon's Model) - Pre- Restoration
N
IV IN
11 N
Underlying mapped soli,
Clifford Sandy
Clay Wam, Colons Loam, N]thalie Sandy Loam, Poplar Forest Grawly, Sandy Loam
Orame class
Well Drained to Somewhat Poorly Drained
Sell M1 dnc status
Codorus Loam- Hydric
smee
FEMAdasslficauon
N/A
Native ve etation community
Piedmont Bottimnand Forest
Percent composition emoc invasive vegetation -Piet-Restoration
mi
Parameters
IITIC
MID
1112
[RSA
URN,
UY3
VT4
Uf5
VISA
Length of Reach (linear feet- Past -Restoration
1,126
379
1,806
1 353
657
1 1,496
1 1.356
1 1,068
1,024
Drainage Area acres
28
6
63
1 15
24
1 99
1 190
1 137
45
NCDWR Stream ldiniifiaOon Score
35.0
27.5
34.5
1 31.5
31.5
1 365
1 37.5
1 31.5
33.5
NCDWR Water Quality Classlflation
C
Mor,thologicatDesri an stream
ESb
CS
FS
GS
BSc G4
64
1 F4
N/A
Eyolutiona VendSimon'S Motlel-Pm Restoration
III
I IVIII
I IIIN
I III
it In I N
IV
I IV
N/A
Underlying soils
Cssvlik Sandy Wam,
Cadent, Loam, Nathalie Sare, Wam
Drama doss
Well Umined to Somewhat Drained!Soilh
d<rtafus
Codoas Warm- Hydric
So
FEMA dassifiatlon
I
N/A
Native y ration conmunitr.
I
Piedmont Bottomland forest
Percemcom '[kn exotic lnvashz ve Non-Port-ResWratlan
A kaNe9
Regulatory Considerations
MWNMi
O%
OOMn4nbtbn
Waters of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
USAGE Nationwide Permit No.22(Adion IN SAW-2015-01209) and DWR 401 Water Quality Certification (letter Iron DWR
5/33/2015).
dated
Waters of has United states - Section 401
Yes
Yes
DMsion of land Quan (Dam Safety)
No
N/A
N/A
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Candy Creek Mitigation Plan; Wlldlands determined 'no effect' on Gaged County listed endangered spedes. USFWS responded on April 4,
2014 and stated Nse'propm ed action is not likely to
adversely affeds any federalkylisted endangered or threatened species, their formally designated
critical habitat or specks easterly proposed for listing under the Act".
Historic Pieseewition Ads
Yes
Yes
No historic resources were found to be Impacted! letter from SHPO dated 3/24/2014).
Coaztal2one Management Ads faMA)/Coastal Area Management
Act CAMA)
No
N/A
N/A
FEMA Fbatl lain Cam Ilarce
No
N/A
N/A
Essential fishedes Xabitrt
No
N/A
N/A

Table 6 Monitoring Component Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0- 2017
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Candy Creek
Candy Creek
Candy Creek
Quantity / Length by Reach
Candy Creek Candy Creek
Candy Creek
Candy Creek
4
Card, Cria,k
4
Ri fle Goss Sections
Reach 1
3
Reach I
1
Reach 1
1
Reach 2 Reach 2
3 1
Reach 3
1
Reach
3
Reach
2
Dimension
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and ]
Pool Goss Section
2
1
N/A
2 1
1
3
1
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
Profile
Longitudinal Profile
N/A
N/A
Substrate
Reach Wide (RW)/tiffs (RF)
SRW/3 RF
1RW/IRE
IRW/IRF
1RW/3 RF
IRW/1 RF
IRW/1 RF
IRW/3 RF
1RW/2 RF
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and?
10 Pebble Count
Hydrology
Stream Gage (SG) /Flow
1 SG
I SG
Quarterly
Gage (FG)
Vegetation
Vegetation Plots
4
1
1
4 2
5
8
2
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7
Visual Assessment
All Streams
Entire Reach
Semi -Annual
Exotic and Nuisance
Annual
Vegetation
Project Boundary
Annual
Reference Photos
Photos
9
3
1
]
3
11
12
6
Annual
Quantity
/ Length by Reach
Riffle Goss Sections
1
1
3
1
1
N/A
1
3
3
Dimension
Years 1, 2, 3, 5, and ]
Pool Cross Section
1
N/A
1
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
2
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
N/A
Profile
ton Rudlnal Profile
N/A
N/A
substrate
Reach Wide (RW)/Riffle (RE)
IRW/IRF
IRW/IPf
IRW/3 RF
1RW/IRF
1RW/1 RE
N/A
1PW/1 PF
IPay /3 RF
SRW /3RF
years 1, 2, 3, 5, and]
IDO Pebble Count
Hydrology
Stream Gage (SGI /Flow
1 SG
1 FG
I f
1 SG
I SG
I
N/A
I
1 SG
I
1 SIS
I
I SG
Quarterly
Gage(FG)
Vegetation
Vegetation Plots
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
Years 1 2 3 5 and ]
Visual Assessment
All Streams
Entire Reach
Seml-Annual
Exotic and Nuisance
Annual
V etation
Project Boundary
Annual
Reference Photos
Photos
4
1
8
3
2
3
2
5
5
Annual

APPENDIX 2. Morphological Summary Data and Plots

Table 7a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy Creek Reach 1
Parameter
Gage
Pre -Restoration
Condition
Candy Creek Reach l
Collins Creek
Reference
Long Branch
Reach Data
UT to
Rocky Creek
Spencer Creek Reach 2
Candy Creek Reach 1
(100+09-118+91)
r-
Candy Creek Reach l
(118+91-125+27)
Candy Creek Reach l
(125+27-126+27)
Candy Creek Reach 1
(100+08 - 118+91)
Candy Creek Reach l
(118+91-125+27)
- ..
Candy Creek Reach
(125+27 - 126+27)
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
8.7
9.4
11.9
20.1
14.8
18.6
12.2
10.7
11.2
10.6013+6
16.8
11.9
12.8
16.1
17.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
11
16
60
>50
72
60
>114
23
5368
37
84
53
97
164
292
Bankfull Mean Depth
3.3
1.4
1.1.7
1.3
2.1
1.3
1.6
1.8
0.8
1.2
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth
1.7
1.8
3.3
4.2
1.9
2.9
1.8
2.1
2.6
1.2
1.8
1.0
1.2
1.8
2.3
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area it'
N/A
12.1
12.3
32.9
25.0
34.6
16.3
17.8
19.7
8.2
19.9
7.1
9.3
13.9
20.3
Width/Depth Ratio
6.2
7.2
4.4
12.1
7.9
13.8
9.1
5.8
7.1
13.7
14.2
18.4
25.3
18.6
14.3
Entrenchment Ratio
1.2
1.7
2.0
3.0
>3.4
6.0
5.5
>10.2
2.2
5.05.0
2.2
5.0
4.4
8.1
10.2
17.1
Bank Height Ratio
3.8
3.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
2.4
0.9
2.8
14.6
Rif0e Length (ft)
-
--
-
--
--
-
-
11
55
7
59
17
29
Riffle Slope(ft/ft)
0.007
0.031
0.003
0.008
0.012
0.013
0.061
0.089
0.013
0.005
0.078
0007T
0.047
0.007
0.023
0.002
0.055
0.006
0.017
0.007
0.017
Pool Length (ft)
-
-
--
-
--
-
-
18
70
19
57
52
Pool Max Depth (ft)
N/A
2.1
2.4
2.2
2.2
3.3
0.9
2.4
1.2
3.0
1.4
3.7
2.1
3.0
3.3
3.2
Pool Spacing (ft)
20
57
32
80
50
105
26
81
71
23
BS
30
106
37
118
23
102
53
110
N/A
Pool Volume ft'
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
N/A
---
60
-
38
41
28
94
39
121
50
150
19
47
25
58
54
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
-
16
87
-
31
i5
16
34
20
44
25
54
17
38
22
44
40
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
-
1.1
4.7
-
1.3
1.4
1.5
3.2
1.5
3.2
1.5
3.2
1.6
3.0
1.4
2.6
2.4
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
-
-
-
53
148
68
190
84
235
32
92
65
110
160
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
-
---
--
-
5.0
14.0
5
14.0
5.0
14.0
3.1
6.4
3.6
6.2
3.2
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
0.57/1.4/2.4/15.3/26/45
-
--
---
0.6/3.0/8.8/42.0/90/-
SC/0.35/0.9/62/114/512
SC/0.34/2.8/72/166/256
0.15/0.9/15/83/129/256
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft'
N/A
0.73
-
0.45
0.45
GAS
0.35
0.43
0.40
0.63
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W/m'
-
-
--
--
-
--
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
0.88
1.68
1.49
1.10
0.96
0.22
0.24
0.88
0.22
0.24
0.88
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
-
--
--
--
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rosgen Classification
G4c
E4
C/E4
E41b
E4
C/E
C/E
C/E
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
5.3
5.4
3.9
3.6
4.0
5.5
4.9
5.4
3.0
3.3
3.2
2.6
3.4
3.0
3.2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
65
115
150
101
124
85
97
24
42
65
24
42
65
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
-
Q-USGS extrapolation(1.2-yr)
N/A
Q-Mannings
-
Valley Length (ft)
2,268
--
-
1,615
550
88
1,615
550
88
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
987
2FE42
--
-
-
1,894
636
100
1,883
636
100
Sinuosity
7EE�
-
1.30
1.10
2.30
1.17
1.26
1.14
1.17
1.16
1.)IWater
Surface Slo ft-
--
-
-
0.004
0.021
0.006
0.012
0.006
0.010
0.008
0.009
Bankfull Slor (h/ft)
-
--
-
-
0.012
0.009
0.005
0.010
0.009
0.008
SC: Sift/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(-): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 7b. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy Creek Reaches 7 and;
Parameter
Gage
Pre -Restoration
Candy Creek Reach 2
Condition
Candy
Creek Reach 3
Reference Reach Data
See Table 7a
Candy Greek Reach 2
(126+27 - 143+06)
Design
Candy Creek Reach 2
(143+06-148W2)
Candy Creek Reach 3
(149+02-155+05)
Candy Creek Reach 2
(126+27-143+Ofi)
Candy Creek Reach 2
(143+06-14g+02)
Candy Creek Reach 3
(149+02 - 155+05)
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min I Max J
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Mtn
Maz
Min Max
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
18.2
19.4
15.3
17.6
See Table 7a
17.5
17.0
20.0
16.1
19.5
16.3
19.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
27
99+
24
60
39 88
37 85
44 100
154
254
164
57
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.2
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.4
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
1.8
2.4
2.2
2.4
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.9
2.1
1.8
2.3
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area ftz
23.4
27.9
25.8
27.6
21.8
20.9
29.0
16.2
23.3
20.8
28.2
Width/Depth Ratio
11.9
16.2
9.1
11.2
14.0
13.8
14.3
13.3
16.3
13.5
13.1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.4
3.2+
1.4
3.9
2.2 5.0
2.2 5.0
2.2 5.0
9.5
15.8
9.8
3.0
Bank Height Ratio
1.3
2.4
1.8
2.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50(mm)
0.8
N/A
0.4
0.5
1.0
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A
See Table 7a
---
-
---
24
63
14
60
10
61
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.005 0.030
N/A
0.004 0.035
0.011 0.035
0.006 0.013
0.001
0.019
0.001
0.019
0.001
0.035
Pool Length (ft)
-
-
23
101
23
58
22
53
Pool Max Depth (ft)
2.7
N/A
1.5
3.9
1.5
3.8
2.1
4.2
3.3
IS
3.9
3.5
Pool Spacing (ft)
16 68
N/A
39
124
37
119
40
130
59
146
55 136
49 97
Pool Volume ft°
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
See Table 7a
48
156
38
151
N/A
31
72
23
68
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
26
56
26
54
N/A
20
107
27
42
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
1.5
3.2
1.5
3.2
N/A
1.1
4.5
1.3
1.9
N/A
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
88
245
85
238
N/A
81
171
54
121
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
2.2
8.9
2.2
8.9
N/A
1.4
3.0
1.1
3.0
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
See Table 7a
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.3/0.8/9.1/13.9/23
N/A
SC/0.17/0.4/93/146/256
SC/0.21/0.5/72/117/362
SC/0.27/1.0/113/148/256
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft 2
0,42
N/A
0,50
0.50
N/A
0.40 0.48
0.59
N/A
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W m2
--
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
1.08
1.26
See Table 7a
0.93
1.08
1.26
0.93
1.08
1.26
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
Rosgen Classification
F5
G4c
C/E
C/E
C/E
CS
C5
C5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.6 1 4.3
3.4 1 3.6
IS
4.0
3.2
3.2 1 4.6
4.1
3.3
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
85
93
75
85
93
75
85
93
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
---
---
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
--
---
Q-Mannings
---
---
Valley Length (ft)
1,387
551
1,363
426
511
1,363
426
490
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,780
671
1,679
536
628
1,679
536
603
Sinuosity
1.28
1.22
1.23
1.26
1.23
1.23
1.26
1.23
Water Surface Sloe ft z
--
---
0.004 0.009
0.009
0.004 1 0.00S
0.007
0.008
0.004
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
--
---
0.D06
0.018
0.007
0.007
0.009
0.005
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(--): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table ]c. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitodng Year -W1]
Parameter
Gage
Pre -Restoration
Condition
Candy Creek Reach 4
Reference Reach Data
See Table Ja
Deiiip
Candy Creek Reach 4
(1]MJ1-196.50)
Candy Creek Reachb
(1%aS0-20E35)
As Built/Baseline
Candy Creek RearN 4
(IJMTS-19 50)
Candy Creek Batch
(19(ix50-206H5)
Min
I Max I
Min I Max
I Min
I Max
I
MM
I Max
I Min
I MM
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle
Bankfull Width(ft)
N/A
11A
14.1
See TabN]a
220
20.0
194
24.9
21.7
23.2
Floodprone Width (ft)
11
21
]] 176
]0 120
158
222
133
155
Bankfull Mean Depth
1.5
L3
1.5
IA
IA
1.5
1.4
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth
is
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.1
2.9
2.5
2.9
BankhllCross-settbnal Area ft'
20.4
21.5
32.1
2)3
26.9
38.1
31.6
32.8
Wldm/De Ratio
6A
9.2
15A
14.7
13.6
16.3
12.2
16.2
Entrcridimem Rath
1.5
1.5
3.5 8.0
3.5 6.0
7.1
11.6
6.1
6.J
Bank He' ht Ratio
1.9
2.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.6
DW(mm)
2.2
Riffle Length (R)
N/A
N/A
2.8
N/A
See Table Ja
14
74
15
53
Riffle Slope(ft/ft)
D.006 0.020 0.011 0.039
0.003
0.022
0.004
0.025
Pool Lengm(ft)
- -
20
125
22
]1
Pool Max Depth(ft)
2.9 4A 23 &1
4.5
4.6
4.1
Pool Sped Ift)
% ISa 26 13Z
40
245
52
111
Pool VONme fta
Pathan
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
N/A
N/A
See Table Ja
66
154
30
IM
66
154
30
300
Radius of Curvature ft)
N/A
25
55
25
50
2S
SS
25
50
Rc:Bankfull Widthft/ft)
N/A
12
3.5
1.3
2.5
IR
2.5
1.3
2.5
Meander Length ft)
N/A
P4
220
80
220
84
220
N
220
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
30
7.0
1.5
5.0
3.0
7.0
1.5
5.0
Substrate, Bad and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/5%
N/A
0.3/0.]/2.2/I4/28/256
0.69
See Table ]a
0.46
0.46
SC/0.15/04/fi4/180/256
OA0 0.44
0.09/026/0.6/49/111/180
0.85 0.83
d16/d 35/dSD/dB4/d9S/d1W
Rea ch Shea r Stress Com ten Ibft'
Max pan size (men) mobilized at bankfuR
Stream Power Ca ab W m'
Additional M26 Parameters
Drainage Area(SM)
N/A
1.46
See Table Ja
1,40
1.46
Lan
IA6
Watershed impervious Cover Estimate(%)
1%
1% 1% 1% 1%
Rosgen Classification
Glc
CIE C/E CS CS
Bankfull Vebc
4.9 S.Z
3.3 4.0 3.3 3.2
3.3
Bankfull Discharge As)
105
105 105
1,976 744 L%I 745
D-NFFregression 2
D-USGS extra tbn 1.2- )
C-Mannings
Valley Lenath(ft)
2,847
Channel Thahweq, Length ft)
3,359
Z575 983 Z579 965
Sinuosity
1.18
1.30 1.32 1.30 1.32
Water Surface Slo '
0.004 0.008 0.009 1 0.013 0.005 0.010
Bankfull Slope(ft/ft)
0.005 0.012 0.005
SC, Sih/CUI s0.062 men dlamtter pankles
(-): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 7d. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 -2017
Uf1C and UTSD
Pre -Restoration
Condition
Reference Reach
Data
Design
UTIC
UT1D
UT to Varnals Creek
Agony Acres
Spencer Creek Reach3 Reach
UTI
UT to Richland Creek
UT1C
UT1D
UT1C
UT1D
Parameter
Gage
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min max
Min
Maz
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
9.3
9.1
10.4
8.8
10.4
5.8
3.7
7.8
7.6
Bankfull Width (ft)U4.5
6.4
.3
10.5
6.3
36+
28
31
13
29
8
18
28
15
Floodprone Width (ft)34
0
PI.
64
14
125
1.0
1.2
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.8
Bankfull Mean Depth0.6
.1
1.2
0.8
1.0
1.8
1.1
1.3
0.5
0.3
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth1.0
5
1.7
1.0
1.2
11.3
7.8
8.5
2.1
0.8
4.0
1.8
3.8
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area ft'
N/A3.7
10.3
12.3
6.6
8.7
30.7
16.04
Width/Depth Ratio11.2
8.1
9.3
7.9
9.3
7.3
10.1
10.0
12.8
4.0
2.2
5.0
2.2
5.0
3.6
2.0
Entrenchment Ratio5.3
1.9
6.1
1.7
4.3
>3.9
1.0
2.5
1.4
2.1
1.0
1.0
1..
1..
Bank HeightRatio1.2
0.9
1.0
1.0
12.8
31.2
D50 (mm)
0.3
0.3
3
43
4
62
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
0.024
0.057
0.018
0.034
N/A
0.021
0.045
0.030
0.050
0.006
0.112
05.03
04.02
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
-
-
-
5.0
20.0
20.0
4.0
15.0
15.0
Pool Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.5
2.6
1.2
_
1.8
2.5
N/A
0.7
1.3
0.5
0.8
1.7
1.1
Pool Max Depth (k)
N/A
N/A
8
29
5
26
6
51
6
33
Pool Spacing (ft)
N/A
N/A
8
82
9
46
Pool Volume ft'
Pattern
N/A
N/A
15
45
10
50
21
93
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N A
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
85
14
60
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
8
47
12
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width(ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.6
3.2
1.9
9.1
1.5
5.8
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
---
53
178
---N/A
N/A
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/ A
N/A
SC/SC/0.3/9.4/30/90
2.70
SC/0.1/0.3/2.9/5.2/16
0.39
---
1.9/8.9/11/64/128/---
---
---
0.31
0.50
SC/0.39/12.8/82/117/180
0.84
0.3/fi.1/31/57/78 128
1.48
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/ee%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
Reach Shear Stress Com eten Ib ft'
max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power(Capacity)W m'
Additional Reach Parameters
0.30
0.28
0.04
0.01
0.04
0.01
Drainage Area (SM)
0.04
0.01
0.41
0.37
<1%
1%
<3%
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
<1%
C4/E4
B/C
B/C
B/C
B/C
Rosgen Classification
E5b
C5
B
E4
E4
2.4
3.5
4.1
2.5
3.0
1.5
0.5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
0.8
0.5
4.4
5.2
5
5.6
2.2
6
2
6
2
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
6
2
54
35
25
29
32
--
---
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
N/A
--
'--
q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
Q-Mannings
'-
688
728
1.06
'--
---
---
378
436
1.15
--
-
---
--
1.20
-
--
1.00
---
___
1.30
___
---
-
___
1.35
___
---
1.00
---
---
740
740
1.08
0.028
0.040
385
1.04
1.0
0.006
0.052
0.075
728379
1. 8
1.08
0.029
0.028
1.0
1.04
0.051
0.045
Valley Length (it)
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
Sinuosity
Water Surface Sloe k°
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
SC: Sih/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(-): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 7e. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 -2017
UT2 and UT2A
Parameter
Gage
UT2 - Reach 1
UT2-Reach 2
UT2A
See Table
Data
7d
UT2 - Reach I
Design
UT2 - Reach 2
UT2A
UT2 - Reach 1
UT2 - Reach 2
UT2A
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min Max I
Min
I
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
3.1
6.7
S.2
2.8
See Table
7d
6.4
7.5
4.6
4.8
7.5
7.8
7.0
Floodprone Width (ft)
4
9
7
9
19 1 82
16 28
10 18
22
88
60
31
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.5
0.6
Bankfull Max Depth
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.4
1.5
0.8
1.0
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area ft'
2.4
3.0
3.3
1.2
2.7
3.9
1.3
1.2
6.8
4.1
4.1
Width/Depth Ratio
4.0
14.9
8.3
6.6
15.1
14.4
16.3
8.3
18.5
14.9
11.9
Entrenchment Ratio
1.1
1.3
1.4
3.1
3.0 1 12.8
2.1 1 3.7
2.2 1 3.9
2.9
11.3
7.7
4.4
Bank Height Ratio
4.3
4.9
3.8
5.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50(mm)
0.1
N/A
N/A
34.6
4.5
2.5
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A
See Table
7d
--
--
--
4 1
68 1
7
180
3
102
Slope (ft/ft)
0.003 0110
0.071RiBe
Pool Length (ft)
-
-'
4
18
11
62
4
12
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
N/A
N/A
18
1.9
1.0
2.0
0.6
1.0
1.7
1.5
1.5
2.1
Pool Spacing (ft)
22 116
N/A
N/A
S
42
17
53
6
1 30
8 1
45
13
1 51
7
55
Pool Volume ft'
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
See Table
7d
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
25
N/A
N/A
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
17
54
N/A
N/A
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.7
9.2
N/A
N/A
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
21
68
N/A
N/A
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.2
5.6
N/A
N/A
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
See Table
7d
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/dS4/d95/d100
SC/SC/0.1/22.6 /36.7/90
N/A
N/A
0.35/6.0/34.6/70/90/256
0.2/0.7/5/56/161/>2048
0.27/1.1/2.5/47/76/180
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) lb/ft' ft'
1.80
N/A
N/A
0.95
---
-
0.31 1.05
0.45
1.32
Max part size (mm) mobilized at 6ankfull
Stream Power Ca aci[
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area (SM)
N/A
0.07
0.10
0.02
See Table
7d
0.07
0.10
0.02
0.07
0.10
0.02
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
3%
3%
5%
3%
3%
5%
3%
3%
5%
Rosgen Classification
FS
GSc
GS
B
C/E
B
C4
CS
CS
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.0 3.7
3.6
3.5
3.1
3.1
2.3
1.3 1 7.5
2.9
1.0
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
9
12
4
9
12
4
9
12
4
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
-
--
-
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
---
---
--
Q-Mannings
---
---
--
Valley Length (ft)
1,105
595
341
1,168
591
340
11168
591
358
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
1,279
731
376
1,208
645
349
1,208
643
366
Sinuosity
1.16
1.23
1.10
1.03
1.09
1.02
1.03
1.09
1.02
Water Surface Sloe ft
---
---
--
0.010 0.035
01
0.014 0.6
0.032 1 0.036
0.021
0.031
0.015
0.039
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
---
---
--
- 0.038
0.019
0.038
0.023
0.032
0.014
0.040
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(--): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Table 7f. Baseline Stream Data Summary
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT3, UT4, and UT5
Parameter
Gage
PRE-RESTORATIONDESIGNREFERENCE
UT3
UT4
UTS
REACH
DATA
See Table 7d
UT3
UT4
UTS
UT3
UT4
77 UTS
Min Max
Min
Max
Min Max
Min Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Min
Max
Ml3
Max
Dimension and Substrate - Shallow
Bankfull Width (ft)
N/A
5.8
8.5
9.5
See Table 7d
7.8
11.0
9.8
8.8
11.5
15.1
7.9
9.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
8
11
10
17 1 100
24 1 135
22 1 100
77
98
288
83
229
Bankfull Mean Depth
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.9
1.1
0.6
1.2
Bankfull Max Depth
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.6
2.1
0.9
1.9
Bankfull Cross -sectional Area (ft)
3.9
7.2
6.7
4.8
9.4
7.5
5.5
11.0
15.2
6.0
9.1
Width/Depth Ratio
8.8
10.2
13.4
12.7
12.9
12.8
14.0
10.2
25.0
6.9
15.5
Entrenchment Ratio
1.3
1.2
1.1
2.2 1 12.8
2.2 1 12.3
2.2 1 10.2
8.8
6.5
25.0
8.5
28.8
Bank Height Ratio
5.4
6.2
5.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
D50 (mm)
10.6
2.8
12.5
1.5
0.6
0.6
Riffle Length (ft)
N/A
See Table 7d
-
---
---
8
20
8
69
11
28
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.011 0.072
0.011 1 0.064
0.020 1 0.012
0.012 0.092
0.003 0.018
0.003 0.035
0.D07
0.057
0.000
0.072
0.7
0.027
Pool Length (ft)
_
---
8
24
9
42
12
39
Pool Max Depth (ft)
1.1
1.4
1-.2
1.1
2.1
1.7
2.6
1.5
2.4
1.1
2.7
2.3
2.9
1.9
Pool Spacing (ft)
6 43
12 42
9 54
17
43
28
66
25
64
24
33
24
123
26
65
Pool Volume ft3
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth(ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
See Table 7d
6
16
10
28
9
64
7
19
10
45
10
39
Radius of Curvature (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
30
27
14
28
13
49
12
24
12
33
11
48
Rc:Bankfull Width (ft/ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.3
3.5
1.3
2.5
1.3
5.0
1.1
2.1
1.1
2.1
0.8
3.6
Meander Length (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
41
101
39
105
54
127
28
76
31
72
34
71
Meander Width Ratio
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.8
2.0
0.9
2.5
0.9
6.5
0.8
1.7
0.7
2.7
0.9
2.2
Substrate, Bed and Transport Parameters
Ri%/Ru%/P%/G%/S%
N/A
See Table 7d
SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B%/Be%
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/d100
SC/0.1/10.6/22.6/41/64
0.3/0.5/2.8/28.5/40.6/64
0.3/2.8/12.5/29.7/41/90
SC/0.36/1.5/81/11l/180
SC/0.16/0.6/100/161/512
SC/SC/0.6/32/143/362
Reach Shear Stress (Competency) Ib ftz
0.93
0.55
1.90
0.81
0.61
0.28
0.88
0.30 0.32
0.27 0.32
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (Capacity) W mt
---
---
---
--_
--
---
Additional Reach Parameters
Drainage Area(SM)
N/A
0.12
0.30
0.21
See Table 7d
0.12
0.30
0.21
0.12
0.30
0.21
Watershed Impervious Cover Estimate (%)
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
Rosgen Classification
G4
G4
F4
C/E
C/E
C/E
CS
C5/E5
CS/E5
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.7
4.2
3.3
2.9
3.2
2.9
2.5
2.0 1 2.7
2.4 1
3.7
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
14
30
22
14
30
22
14
30
22
Q-NFF regression (2-yr)
-
---
--
Q-USGS extrapolation (1.2-yr)
--
---
--
Q-Mannings
--
-
-
Valley Length (ft)
238
1,058
732
301
1,111
845
301
1,111
845
Channel Thalweg Length (ft)
346
1,270
1,012
346
1,355
1,012
346
1,356
1,012
Sinuosity
1.45
1.20
1.38
1.15
1.22
1.20
1.15
1.22
1.20
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft)
---
--
-
0.012
0.032
0.003 1 0.012
0.002 1 0.010
0.024
0.006
0.006
Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
--
-
-
0.016
0.032
0.012
0.012
0.022
0.006
0.007
SC: Silt/Clay <0.062 mm diameter particles
(-): Data was not provided
N/A: Not Applicable

Reach 1(Riffle)
Cross Section 6. Candy Creek Reach 1(Pool)
Cross Section 11, Candy Creek Reach 2
Cross Section 2, (end, Creek Reach 1(Pooll
Cross Section ], Candy Creek Heath 1(Riffle)
Cross SHUon 12,
Cross Seclion 3, Candy Creek Reach 11Rlflle)
Cross Section 9, Candy Creek Reach 1 Rifflel
Cross Section 13,
Cross Section 4, Candy Creek RNOr 1(Pool)
Cross Section 9, Cantly Creek Reath 2 (Pon)
Cross Seniors It. Candy
Cfri Seclion 5, Candy Creek Reath 1 RIHIel
Cr... Sort-10, Candy Creck Reach 2 (Rolle)
Cross Section 15,

Cross Section 16, Candy Creek Reach 3 (Pool)
Cross Section 20, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Riffle)
Cross Section 24, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Riffle)
Cross Section 12, Candy Creek Reach 3
Cross Section 21, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Pool)
Cross Section 25, Candy Creek Reach 4
Cross Section 29, UT10
Cross Section 18, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Pool)
Cross Section 22, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Pool)
Cross Section 26, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Pool)
Cross Section 30, UT2 Reach 1
Cross Section 19, Candy Creek Reach 4
Cross Section 23, Candy Creek Reach 4 (Riffle)
Cross Section 27, UT3C (Riffle)
Cross Section 31, UT2

UII Rea[R I flooll Cross Section 43, UII RexR I Minis) Cox K V33 I �R-R Croes Se[[Ion W lR
Cross SeClion
NO lRifllel Cross Smlon 43. Ui<
Crms

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy Creek Reach 1(STA 100+08 -
775
770
765
760
0
m
OEM-
w"Emmommko
1,
m
m
ENRON
755
10000 30050 10100 10150 10200 10250 103M 10350 30400 10450 30500 10550 10600 10550 10700 10750 10800 10m 10900 10950
Station (feet)
——TW(MS010/2016)-------Wsr(M 10/2016) • UWATOBIMTO-10/2016i • a /Fnw(M 10/=R . Smuctum(6e'0-10/7D16)
Undo Creek Reach 1(STA 109+50-11R+911
765
•♦ ♦ i f 1 h h♦
a
! f!
�
760
=5
9
755
1 1
•• •
a♦
W
750
745
10950 11000 11050 11100 13150 112W
11250 11300
11350 11400 11450 11500 115W 31600 11650
117W 11750 11800 11850 11900
Station (feet)
—r1W IMYO-14/2016)-------
WSF (Mm-10/MIQ
LBkF/LTOB(B I0/M36) ♦ RBI6/RTOB IMTFSO/1016)
. MUCTUFUE(MM10/2016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy Creek Reach 1(STA 118♦91-
760
755
750
W 745
e
z
�
�
• •! •r
• •• A, •
i•
1
u
! • • !
• •
1
1
•
1
-----•.
-.-__-----L_
__ ____.____
•
♦ • •• •
• • ♦• f
1
M•
A
1
1
1
1
1
740
11850
11900 11950 12000 12M 12100 12150 12200 12250 12300 12350 12400 12450 12500 125W 226W 12650
Station (fee)
11a tMYy10/2016)------- NSB(hWMW/W16) LBKG/LTOBfMY0.10/2016i ♦ 661R/Rn1B IMYPIO/3016) • STNICIURlIMM0.10/3016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2027
Candy Creek Reach 2 (STA 126+27 . 135+00)
750
745
V
740
q 51
..
....
;
_________
______
• •
r . r
• • ••.
r
__.
1
-
__ ___ __
•� •
• ! 'l
.•'•• r
Ol
1
735
12600 12650 12700 12750 12M 128SO 129W 129M 13000 13050 13100 131M 13200 132W 13300 133M 13400 13450 13500
Staem (het)
—r TW fMY0.10/30161 ------- WSF I•n W/20161 . WffATOe JM W/MQ • MO/RTOe IM7O30/m61 • ST1U[NRE (MY0.10/2016)
Candy Creek Reach 2 (STA 135+00 -
745
740
a
735
730
13500
r
•
r r 1
1
_
A A
_____
____________
1
1
1
13550 13600 1300
� TW (MY0.30/Z0361
137M 13750 13800 13850
----- -- WSF bWMW/1016)
13900 13950
sub" )feet)
UIOATO• (M W/2036)
14000 14050 L
• MI•/PTOe l6rvataR0161
• smcruRElm1 10/2036)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Creek Reach 2(5TA 143406 -
740
gg 735
3
730
Ili
7225
14300
w
�
__ _______________
____
I
' •.
• r
____
•
• y
I
I
I
I
I
I
14350 14400 14450 14500 14550
146M 14650 14700 14750 14800 14850
Station (feet)
TN iMYO-10/2016) WSFiMYO-1012016i LBKF/LTOBiMYb 10/2016i ♦ RBKF/RTOB iMYO-10/2016I 0 STRURURE(MYO-10/2016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Creek Reach 31STA 149402-
735
730
9
a 725
US
720
149W
9 R
1 •1•
••• ••' •
•r • • • •
• •• ••
4•
1
1
1
1
1
1
14950 15000 15050
� TW IMYM3/2017i
15100 15150 15200
Station (fW)
WSF(MYO-03/2017) LBKF/LTOB(MYO-03/2017)
15253 15300 15350 15400 15450 15500
♦ RBKF/RTOB)MYO-03/2017) O STRUOURE(MYM3/2017)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy Creek Reach 4(STA 170+71-
725
720
Z 715
0
a
" 710
705
170SO
d M 4M
•
,M,•I.j•� 1 ••
••j•♦y3 ••
•
i
a.w...
••u.rey
a a ar.•y
••r
--
----------
I 1
I 1
1
1 1
171W 172W 17350 174M 175W 17650 17750 imo 17950 18050 18350 38250 18350
Station Beet)
�-7M'(M H/30171 ------ MF (My043/2017) ♦ LWATO.(•ty0 VM27) • RWfRT06(WM3/Vn7) a STRUCTUM(m 03/ml>)
Candy Creek Reach 41STA 183+60 -
7715720
710
705
mmmuommmmmmmmm
MAD
18350 13450
lasso 18650 187W 18850 19950 19050
Station (4at)
ti—TW IMy0U3/30171------ ."(y 03/1017) ♦ UWATOa (My003/2M7)
19150 19250 19350
♦ R•10/0.10•(MY003/IDI71
19450 1955o 19650
0 smumR6(Myo-w"17)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Creek Reach 4(5TA 196+50 -
712
707
a M2
i
c
07
692
19650
2
1
Y ♦
f �
____
""'A.
1
1
___-___
-
•'f��•1�•
N4•M�•� •y
1�
-1
1 1
__ _------- _ _- -
1 1
197M 19M 19950 20050 20150
Station ifeet)
—�—TW (MY 03/2017i WSF(MYO-03/2017) LBKF/LTOB iMYO-03/2017i
20250 203%
• RBKF/RT09 iMY043/20171
20450
e STRUCTURE (MYM3/3017)
20550 20650

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0. 2017
200*12-
7s8
753
748
`o
7.3
738
733
200M
•
7� �
f •
•
11
- •y
•
•
20100 202W 203M 2NW
station(fm)
—TW(MY003/2a17) ------ WSF(MY"3/2017) 0BF/1TOB(MY"3/2017)
20500 20KO 20700
• BBNF/BTOB(MYB-03/2017) • STBUCI M(WM3/2017)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT1D (STA 250+00 - 253+79
755
Ik 2
745
740
a 735
m 730
725
720
2soao
•
7Mi
1
Y
y
r
25050 251M
. M(MYO4WN17) ---- W5F(MYO-03/2017)
25150 252M
Station (feet)
LBMF/LTOB (MYO'03/2017)
25250
RBNF/RTOB(MYO 03/2017)
2s3ao
e Smucn3ae(Sna0372017)
25350 25400

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT2 Reach 1 (STA 300+00 - 304+24)
7m
775
770
765
7m
3WW
IN
765
7W
755
0
750
745
740
• •.
•, ♦
A.•• • • y
.•Nt
Nt
.•
1
1
-
3W50 301W W1
—y M(M W/2036) ------ a16F IMrP10/i016)
302W
Sutim (lewd
1a10'ATOa(MY W/m16)
302m 303W
• MF/RTOB(M W/ZM)
30350 304W
I 1
1 1
I
�
1 1
1 1
30400 WSW
7M JM Wbuu
30600 307W
_.._. _. W F(MY 10/1016)
3am0
Station (feet)
u6F/LiOelMraw/m16)
30900
• neiv/e7oe lMvo.lo/1o1q
31000
31100
31200
•
STRUL7UREIMr6f0/3016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT2 Reach 2
745
740
x 735
0
r 730
725
31175
_
• i '� •
• • • 4
• • •
r
I
—Li ____
______}_
y
1 1
--
1 1
31225 31275 31325 31375
—.-1W Ia1Y61a/m161 ______. yyyrlMYO-1o/m161
31425 31475 31525
Station (feet)
LRRi/LTOB(MY0-10/2016)
31575 31625 31675
• RBRr/RTOB(MM10/2o16)
31725 31775 31925

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2027
UTZA (STA 350+94 - 354+37
760
755 -
750
° 745
u 740
735
35075
si
•
• •
••
•y
35125
-+— 1W(MYO-10/2016)
3S175
WSF(MYO-10/2016)
35225 35275
Station (feet)
tBRF7lrOB(MYO-10/2016)
35325 3537S 35425
• RBNF/RTOB(MYO 1012016) • STRUCrum JM W/10161

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT31SfA 411+50 - 414+96)
755
750
I
`o
a
t 745
740
411SO
• .• ♦ h +
1
-_______
--• •
_______
h . ..•
1
.._____�____ ___
�' ♦ • •• • M
Al ♦ • d •.•
�♦
412M
. TMI(M 10/mml
412SO
------- WSF(t4Tom/m16)
413M 41350
Sntla• (het)
• URFATOI(• W/m16) • ROKF/RTOO (MVO-10/2016)
414M
e snucruw(• Io/m16)
41450
415M

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 0. 2017
760
1 755
L 750 .
a
m 745
7.0
50050
T p
2
•
$ a
><
1
r• r Y
♦ W• ♦f-a •
•♦Y♦
r •♦6
4.-41AAU
At
Mi: =i♦u
1 1
1
1 1
50150 50250 50350 50650 50550 S0650 50750 50850
Station lkat)
. rvv(M iol2016)------'M (66 W/2016) • U16ATD5lhn0.10/1016)
50950 51050
• RW/R7oe lMY0.10/3016)
51150 51250 51350
♦ 6TRUMR6lRt M/2016)

Longitudinal Profile Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
CMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
765
760
755
0
W 750
745
60000
xx
1 1
x
_____ ! ..
r•r• of • • f
! f 1 • � •F
•••! ! f
1 1
1
1
60100 60200 60300 60400 60500 60600
Station (feet)
—�—TW IMY0.10/Z036)------ ww(Mro.w/miq • LBKF/LTOB(MYO-10/2016)
60700 60800 60K* 61000
. RBKF/RTOB(MYO-10/2016) o STRUMU(MYMOt" I

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 1- Candy Creek Reach 1
105+85 Riffle
768
767
766
_V
w
765
764
0 10 10 30 40 50
Width (ft)
——MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
8.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
12.8
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.2
max depth (ft)
13.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.4
width -depth ratio
71.0
W flood prone area (ft)
5.5
entrenchment ratio
2.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 2 - Candy Creek Reach 1
767
766
765
764
763
762
W 761
760 + 759
0
108+94 Pool
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
�MYO(10/2016) — Banktull
Bankfull Dimensions
18.4 •-section area (ft.sq.)
18.7 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
3.0 max depth (ft)
21.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
19.0 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream
100

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 3- Candy Creek Reach
109+19 Riffle
766
765
764
S:
0
n 763
w
762
761
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 BQ 90 100 110
Width (ft)
— MYO(10/2016)—Banktull—FloodprmeArea
Bankfull Dimensions
5.7
x-section area (ft.sq.)
12.0
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth(ft)
12.2
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
25.3
width -depth ratio
97.0
W Flood prone area (ft)
8.1
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Seaton 4 - Candy Creek Reach 1
114+15 Pool
761
760
759
_ 7S8
4:
c
.0 757
i
u� 756
755
754
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
�MYO(10/2016)—Banktull
Bankfull Dimensions
13.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)
12.5 width (ft)
1.1 mean depth (ft)
2.1 max depth (ft)
13.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.6 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 5- Candy Creek Reach 1
114+37 Riffle
760
759
758
r
757
w
756
755
0 SO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (it)
— MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
7.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.9 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (it)
1.2 max depth(ft)
12.3 wetted perimeter (it)
0.6 hydraulic radius (it)
19.9 width -depth ratio
53.0 W Flood prone area (ft)
4.4 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 6- Candy Creek Reach 1
122+41 Pool
752
751
750
749
x_
748
w 747
746
745
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
—-MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
35.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
19.9
width (ft)
1.8
mean depth (ft)
3.3
max depth (ft)
22.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 7 - Candy Creek Reach 1
122+91 Riffle
751
750
749
x
c
0
w
748
747
746
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
�MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
13.9
x-section area (ft.sq.)
16.1
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
16.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
18.6
width -depth ratio
164.0
W Rood prone area (k)
10.2
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 8- Candy Creek Reach 1
125+45 Riffle
750
749
748
c 747
0
i 746
745
744
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
�MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull—Floodprane Area
Bankfull Dimensions
20.3 x-section area (ft.sq.)
17.0 width (ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
2.3 max depth (ft)
18.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.3 width -depth ratio
292.0 W Rood prone area (ft)
17.1 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No, 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 9 - Candy Creek Reach 2
129+13 Pool
749
748
747
746
745
`o
V
744
w
743
742
741
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
�MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
40.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
22.0 width (ft)
1.8 mean depth (ft)
3.5 max depth (ft)
23.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
12.0 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 10- Candy Creek Reach
129+43 Riffle
748
747
746
r
745
744
743
742
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
-—MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull—Floodpronenrea
Bankfull Dimensions
16.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
16.1 width (ft)
1.0 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth (ft)
16.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
16.0 width -depth ratio
254.0 W flood prone area (ft)
15.8 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 11- Candy Creek Reach 2
134+43 Riffle
744
743
742
s
741
'v 740
739
738
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
- MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull--Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
19.8
z-section area (ft.sq.)
16.3
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
16.9
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
13.3
width -depth ratio
154.0
W flood prone area (ft)
9.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Goss Section 12 - Candy Creek Reach 2
139+87 Pool
740
739
738
737
9 736
V
w 735
734
733
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
- MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
44.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
23.6 width (Ft)
1.9 mean depth (ft)
3.3 max depth (ft)
24.9 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.8 hydraulic radius (ft)
12.6 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 23- Candy Creek Reach
140+26 Riffle
740 -
739
738
737
F
736
735
734
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
�Myo(10/2016)—Sankfull—RoWprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
23.3
x-section area (fts9.)
19.5
width (ft)
1.2
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (ft)
20.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2
hydraulic radius (ft)
16.3
width -depth ratio
221.0
W flood prone area (ft)
11.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation She
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 14- Candy Creek Reach
145+46 Riffle
737
736
735
734
� 733
i
vV 732
731
730
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
�MYO(1012016)—Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
20.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)
16.7 width (ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
1.8 max depth (ft)
17.3 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2 hydraulic radius (ft)
13.5 width -depth ratio
164.0 W flood prone area (ft)
9.8 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 15- Candy Creek Reach
145+82 Pool
738
737
736
735
734
_
x
c 733
0
a 732
731
730
729
728
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
�MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
56.4 x-section area (ft.sq.)
26.1 width (ft)
2.2 mean depth (ft)
3.9 max depth (ft)
27.6 wetted perimeter (ft)
2.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
12.1 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 16- Candy Creek Reach
151+71 Pool
734
733
732
731
730
729
m 728
w 727
726
725
724
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
——MYO(3/2017)—Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
44.4
z-section area (ft.sq.)
18.7
width (ft)
2.4
mean depth (ft)
3.5
max depth (ft)
19.7
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.3
hydraulic radius (ft)
7.8
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 17- Candy Creek Reach
152+02 Riffle
732
731
730
x
c 729
0
w 728
727
726
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (it)
�MYO(3/2017)—Bankfull —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
28.2
x-section area (ft.sq.)
19.2
width (it)
2.5
mean depth (fit)
2.3
max depth (ft)
20.0
wetted perimeter (it)
1.4
hydraulic radius(ft)
13.1
width -depth ratio
57.0
W flood prone area (it)
3.0
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 18 - Candy Creek Reach 4
172+87 Pool
724
723
722
721
720
c 719
0
A 718
w 717
716
715
714
0 10 10 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
-MYO(3/2017)—Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
58.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
26.9 width (it)
2.2 mean depth (ft)
4.5 max depth(ft)
29.0 wetted perimeter (it)
2.0 hydraulic radius (it)
12.3 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 19 - Candy Creek Reach 4
173+32 Riffle
723
722
721
720
u 719
718
717
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
MYO(3/2017)—Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
26.9 x-section area (ft.sq.)
19.1 width (ft)
1.4 mean depth (ft)
2.2 max depth (ft)
19.8 wetted perimeter (it)
1.4 hydraulic radius (ft)
13.6 width -depth ratio
222.0 W flood prone area (ft)
11.6 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 20- Candy Creek Reach
178+99 Riffle
722
721
720
719
718
c
0
717
w 716
715
714
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
—�—MYO (312017)—Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
31.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)
22.4 width (ft)
1.4 mean depth (ft)
2.1 max depth (ft)
23.0 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3 hydraulic radius (ft)
16.2 width -depth ratio
158.0 W flood prone area (ft)
7.1 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 21- Candy Creek Reach 4
179+39 Pool
722
721
720
719
718
S_ 717
S716
715
714
713
712
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (it)
�MYO(3/2017)—Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
70.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
29.3
width (ft)
2.4
mean depth (ft)
4.6
max depth (ft)
31.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
2.3
hydraulic radius (it)
12.2
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 22 - Candy Creek Reach 4
187+21 Pool
716
715
714
713
712
711
w
710
709
708
0 30 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
ti-MYO(3/2017)—Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
51.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
23.6
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (it)
4.6
max depth (ft)
26.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.9
hydraulic radius (it)
10.9
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 9631S
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 23 - Candy Creek Reach 4
187+59 Riffle
718
717
716
715
714
713
v
w 712
711
710
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
�MYO(3/2017)—Bankhll —Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
38.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
24.9 width (ft)
1.5 mean depth (ft)
2.9 max depth (ft)
25.7 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
16.3 width -depth ratio
180.0 W Rood prone area (ft)
7.2 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 24. Candy Creek Reach 4
197+77 Riffle
712
711
710
709
708
c
0
707
w
706
705
704
0 30 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
— MYO(3/2017)—Bankfull — Floodprone Area
Dimensions
31.6 a -section area (ft.sq.)
23.2 width (ft)
1.4 mean depth (ft)
2.9 max depth (ft)
24.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.3 hydraulic radius (fit)
17.1 width -depth ratio
155.0 W flood prone area (ft)
6.7 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 25 - Candy Creek Reach 4
203+63 Riffle
706
705
704
r
703
702
i
w 701
700
699
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
— MYO(3/2017)—Bankfull -- Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
32.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)
21.7 width (ft)
1.5 mean depth (ft)
2.5 max depth (ft)
22.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.5 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.4 width -depth ratio
132.0 w flood prone area (ft)
6.1 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2027
Cross Section 26- Candy Creek Reach
203+98 Pool
706
705
704
703
702
=
c
701
0
m
700
W
699
698
697
696
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (it)
�MYO(3/2017)—Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
51.3
x-section area (ft.sq.)
23.6
width (ft)
2.2
mean depth (ft)
4.1
max depth (ft)
26.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
10.8
width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 27 - UT1C
202+17 Riffle
756
755
754
c 753
0
a
' 752
751
750
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width (it)
— MYO(2/20171—Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.8 width (it)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.9 max depth (ft)
8.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius (it)
15.0 width -depth ratio
28.0 W Flood prone area (ft)
3.6 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 9631S
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 28- UT1C
202+23 Pool
755
754
753
r
a 752
i
w 751
750
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Width (ft)
�MYO(2/2017)—9u,1,1 l
Bankfull Dimensions
5.4 z-section area (ft.sq.)
6.4 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.7 max depth (ft)
7.5 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
7.5 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 29-Uf1D
250+84 Riffle
745
744
x 743
W 742
741
0 5 10 15 20
Width(it)
— MYO(3/2017)—Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.6 width (it)
0.5 mean depth (ft)
0.8 max depth (ft)
7.9 wetted perimeter (it)
0.5 hydraulic radius (it)
15.4 width -depth ratio
15.0 W flood prone area (ft)
2.0 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 3/2017
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 30 - UT2 Reach 1
302+27 Riffle
779
778
777
776
775
C 774
_d 773
r 772
_V
771
770
769
768
0 10 20 30 40
Width (ft)
�MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull—Roodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
6.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.5 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.5 max depth (ft)
8.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)
8.3 width -depth ratio
22.0 W flood prone area (ft)
2.9 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS project No. 96315
Monitoring year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 31 - UT2 Reach 1
305+70 Riffle
769
768
767
766
`o
'u 765
764
763
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
�MYO(20/2016)—Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
1.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.8 width (ft)
0.3 mean depth (ft)
0.4 max depth (it)
5.0 wetted perimeter (it)
0.3 hydraulic radius (ft)
18.5 width -depth ratio
47.0 W flood prone area (ft)
9.8 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 32 - UT2 Reach 1
307+52 Pool
763
762
761
r
`o
m 760
V
W 759
758
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 00
Width (ft)
�MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
6.2 x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.1 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (it)
1.7 may depth (ft)
11.0 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)
16.4 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 33 - UT2 Reach 1
307+61 Riffle
762
761
760
c
0
W 759
758
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
t MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull—Roodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
3.5
x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.8
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
8.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.4
hydraulic radius (ft)
17.2
width -depth ratio
98.0
W Flood prone area (ft)
11.3
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 34 - UT2 Reach 2
316+47 Pool
738
737
736
735
c
0
734
733
732
0 30 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
�MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
7.9 ■-section area (ft.sq.)
10.2 width (ft)
0.8 mean depth (R)
1.5 max depth (ft)
10.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
13.3 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 35 - UT2 Reach 2
31+62 Riffle
738
737
736
r
c
0
� 735
i
w 734
733
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
�MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.8
width (ft)
0.5
mean depth (ft)
0.8
max depth (ft)
8.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.5
hydraulic radius (ft)
14.9
width -depth ratio
60.0
W flood prone area (ft)
7.7
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 36 - UTZA
353+06 Riffle
753
752
751
750
o`
749
V
W
748
747
746
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
�MYO(10/2016)—Bankfuli—Roodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
4.1
■-section area (ft.sq.)
7.0
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
1.0
max depth (ft)
7.3
wetted perimeter (it)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
11.9
width -depth ratio
31.0
W flood prone area (ft)
4.4
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 37 - UT3
412+92 Riffle
752
751
750
`o
'u
w 749
748
0 10 20 30 40 5o 60 70
Width (ft)
— MYO(30/2016)—Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
5.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)
8.8 width (ft)
0.6 mean depth (ft)
1.1 max depth (ft)
9.1 wetted perimeter (it)
0.6 hydraulic radius (it)
14.0 width -depth ratio
77.0 W Flood prone area (it)
8.8 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 38 - U74
504+91 Riffle
757
756
755
754
ii
753
752
751
0 10 20 30 40 SO 60
Width (ft)
�MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull—Floodprwe Area
Bankfull Dimensions
15.2
v-section area (ft.sq.)
15.1
width (ft)
2.0
mean depth (ft)
2.1
max depth (it)
15.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (it)
15.0
width -depth ratio
98.0
W good prone area (ft)
6.5
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 39 - UT4
505+16 Pool
758
757
756
755
754
0
753
a
w
w
752
751
750
749
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
�MYO(10/20161—ganktull
gankfull Dimensions
17.8 a -section area (ft.sp.)
14.1 width (ft)
1.3 mean depth (ft)
2.3 max depth (ft)
15.1 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.2 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.2 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Nee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 40 - UT4
508+51 Pool
753
752
751
x 750
c
0
i 749
748
747
0 10 20 30 40 54 60 70 80
Width (ft)
�MYO(10/2016) —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
18.5 x-section area (ft.sq.)
14.5 width (ft)
1.3 mean depth (ft)
2.3 max depth (it)
15.6 wetted perimeter (it)
1.2 hydraulic radius (it)
11.4 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 41-UT4
508+78 Riffle
753
752
751
750
i 749
748
747
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
�WO(10/2016)—Bankfull—Floodprane Area
Bankfull Dimensions
11.0
x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.8
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.6
max depth (ft)
12.4
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.7
width -depth ratio
172.0
W flood prone area (ft)
14.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Goss Section 42 - UT4
512+03 Riffle
752
751
750
749
748
V
w 747
746
745
0 10 20 30 40 50
Width (ft)
tMYO(10/2016)—Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
13.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)
11.5 width (ft)
1.1 mean depth (ft)
1.8 max depth (ft)
12.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1 hydraulic radius(ft)
10.2 width -depth ratio
298.0 W Flood prone area (ft)
25.0 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 43 - t1T4
512+35 Pool
7SO
749
748
x 747
a
w 746
745
0 10 20 30 40 so
Width (fit)
-—MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
20.2 x-section area (ft.s9.)
16.9 width (ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
2.9 max depth (ft)
18.8 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.1 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.2 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 44- UTS
602+45 Riffle
760
759
r
758
757
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
--M"(10/2016)—Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
6.0 x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.7
width (ft)
0.6
mean depth (ft)
0.9
max depth (ft)
10.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
1S.5
width -depth ratio
83.0
W flood prone area (ft)
8.6
entrenchment ratio
1.0
low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2027
Cross Section 45- UTS
602+63 Pool
761
760
759
x 758
c
0
w 757
756
755
0 30 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
- MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
9.8 x-section area (ft.sq.)
10.6 width (ft)
0.9 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth (ft)
11.4 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)
11.4 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 46- U75
606+10 Riffle
757
756
755
w 756
753
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width (ft)
+Mv0(10/2016)—Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
6.8 :-section area (ft.sq.)
9.9 width (ft)
0.7 mean depth (ft)
1.0 max depth (ft)
10.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)
14.5 width -depth ratio
84.0 W flood prone area (ft)
8.5 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 47-UTS
606+34 Pool
758
757
756
755
c
0
V 754
753
752
0 10 20 30 40 so
Width (ft)
-My0(10/2016)—Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
14.7 x-section area (ft.sq.)
13.1 width (ft)
1.1 mean depth (it)
1.9 max depth (it)
14.2 wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0 hydraulic radius (it)
11.6 width -depth ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Cross Section Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Cross Section 48-U75
609+31 Riffle
744
743
741
741
o`
'2 740
739
738
0 10 20 30 40 so
Width (ft)
�MYO(10/2016)—Bankfull—Floodprone Area
Bankfull Dimensions
9.1 x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.9 width (ft)
1.2 mean depth (ft)
1.9 max depth (it)
9.1 wetted perimeter (it)
1.0 hydraulic radius (ft)
6.9 width -depth ratio
229.0 W Flood prone area (ft)
28.8 entrenchment ratio
1.0 low bank height ratio
Survey Date: 10/2016
Field Crew: Kee Mapping & Surveying
View Downstream

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy R3 (100+08- 118+91), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay0.000
0.062
3
17
20
20
20
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
20
Fine
0.125
0.250
8
8
8
28
Medium
0.25
0.50
5
10
15
15
43
Coarse
0.5
1.0
8
8
8
51
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
51
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
2
53
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
1
3
3
56
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
1
3
3
59
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
2
2
61
Medium
8.0
11.0
61
Medium
11.0
16.0
61
Coarse
16.0
22.6
61
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
6
67
Ve Coarse
32
45
8
8
8
75
Ve Coarse
45
64
10
10
10
85
Small
64
1 90
1 8
8
8
93
':�' Small
7o,,t-
90
128
3
3
3
96
Lar a
128
180
1
1
1
97
Large
180
256
97
LLu_
Small
256
362
2
2
2
99
Small
362
512
1
1
1
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Lar e e lar a
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK
lBedrock
2048
>2048 '
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
channel materials (mm)
Ds=
Silt/Clay
D35=
0.35
D. =
0.9
D. =
61.8
Ds5 =
113.8
D. =
512.0
e
1tn��aumna�.■plllll�■�11'I'I�"x
_.. ••N�II������1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111 MO.:K3'�Y�
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1'II III■�1111111■I
■■1111111■■illllll■■1111111���111111■�1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■�iilllll■�1111111■�1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■11!Till■■1111111■■1111111■�1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■�111111■�1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111��1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�1111111■■1111111
■■Illllllr■1111111■�1111111■�1111111■�1111111■�1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�1111111■■1111111
Candy 111(100+08-118+92), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
so
70
u
w
6
x
$0
R
y
40
a
30
3
20
c
10
0 y
�h
0p N' 0
; op
O b
'r 'L ,V9 46 Nr l0 41 +i;' 0 0� .�0 .�� .� .�61' yl�''rO 4p eP�
Particle Class Size (mm)
.xm39v3s

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy R1, Cross Section 1
Particle Class
Diameter
(mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
3
a Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
6
rav`O
T Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
7
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
6
6
13
Ve Fine
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
14
2.8
4.0
14
Fine
Fine
4.0
5.6
5.6
8.0
2
2
14
16
Medium
Medium
Coarse
8.0
11.0
11.0
16.0
4
6
4
6
20
26
16.0
22.6
16
16
42
Coarse
Very Coarse
22.6
32
1 32
26
26
68
1 45
12
1 12
80
Ve Coarse
Small
45
64
64
90
10
5
10
5
90
95
Small
La a
La a
90
128
180
128
180
256
4
1
4
1
99
100
100
Small
Small
Medium
tar eNe Large
BEDROCK Bedrock
256
362
512
3024
2048
362
512
1024
2048
>2048
1
100
100
100
S00
100
Total
I 100 1
100
100
Cross Section 1
Channel materials (mm)
Dss=
8.00
Dss o
19.43
D,,=
25.2
D. =
51.8
Dss =
90.0
DuW =
180.0
Candy R1, Cross Section 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
So
70
V
60
50
y
40
�
s
30
.2
a
C
zo
10
0
o.Ay Q%
ti 1 0 O hb 4r .>'i .>b
O�'LOa9
Pardde Clan She (mm)
auwurmu

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 0 - 2017
Candy R3, Cross Section 3
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
Riffle 100-Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
5
5
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
5
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
8
Medium
0.25
0.50
5
5
13
Coarse
0.5
1.0
13
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
13
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
4
4
1 17
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
4
4
21
Fine
4.0
5.6
3
3
24
5.6
8.0
Fine
3
3
27
8.0
11.0
Medium
27
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
28
28
Coarse
16.0
22.6
Coarse
22.6
32
9
9
37
Very Coarse
1 32
45
1 18
1 18
55
45
64
Ve Coarse
26
26
81
Small
64
90
7
7
88
Small
90
129
8
8
96
La a
128
180
1
1
97
lar a
180
256
1
1
98
362
Small
256
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/VeryLarge.nfery fare
3024
1 2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
100
100
look
Cross Section 3
Channel
materials (mm)
0,6=
2.57
D3s=
29.62
Dso=
40.9
Ds,=
74.1
on,=
122.5
Ds6s=
362.0
a
�
�����^lllil�l�81�81111 OHM —
Candy R1, Cross Section 3
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
V 70
60
u
it '°
p 40
s� 30
3 20
a
C 10
0
AO o,5 0`' ti .yb a yd a 4 tie ti1`° roti a`s d' da '0'
Particle Class Size (mm)
.vmuyan6

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy 113, Cross Section 5
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
Riffle 100-Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
#9 Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
2
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
6
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
5
5
11
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
13
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
4
17
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
19
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
21
8.0
11.0
2
23
Medium
2
11.0
Medium
26.0
8
8
31
Coarse
16.0
22.6
17
17
48
Coarse
22.6
32
20
20
67
Ve Coarse
32
45
1 18
18
85
45
64
Very Coarse
10
10
95
Small
64
90
3
3
98
Small
90
128
2
2
100
Lar a
128
180
100
Lar a
180
256
100
256
Small
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
lar, e/Ve tare
3024
2048
100
BEDROCK l0edrock
1 2048
1 >2048
1
1
100
Total
1 101
1 100
100
Cross Section 5
Channel
materials (mm)
D. =
3.71
Das=
17.48
D.=
23.6
D. =
44.0
Dss=
63.9
Dux=
128.0
s
�lii�.._... _..Win
9=0 AIR�1-.oil ,.Il�i�■IM�IIIIII�■1111111
""""i
■■1111111■milli I1■■1111 ■I�IIK iii �r : ai
`
■■1111111■■�111111■■11111II■■/111111■■1111111■I
`
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■JIIIIII■■1111111■■1111111
`
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■I/lllllll■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■l1111111■■1111111■■1111111
`
■■1111111■■1111111■■11111��,�■�111111■■1111111■■1111111
�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
1u������nllll■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■�
_..r11I■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Candy R1, Cross Section 5
Individual Class Percent
IN
90
80
e
Y
70
V
�
6
N
50
R
y
40
a
30
20
9
�
30
0
O�'LO�S 1p OS
'r n..�0 P yb 0 ti~ ,Yb ry,Lb .�1' Py (i .�U 'V Abti y�ti,r0�a'1�Po.
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MY6IWXM16

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy RI (118+91 - 125+27), Reachwide
Diameter(mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT C1AY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
23
27
28
28
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
28
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
3
31
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
7
8
8
40
SPttO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
8
9
9
49
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
49
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
50
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
2
2
52
2
1
3
Fine
11 4.0K22.6
3
55
Fine
5.6
5
5
5
60
Medium
8.0
1
1
1
61
11.0
Medium
2
2
2
64
Coarse
16.0
3
1
4
4
68
Coarse
22.6
5
5
5
73
Ve Coarse
32
6
6
6
79
Ve Coarse
45
3
3
3
82
1
1 5
1 5
88
Small
64
4
Small
90
1 128
4
4
4
92
La a
128
180
4
4
4
96
4
100
La a
180
256
4
4
256
1 362
100
Small
362
512
100
Small
Medium
512
1024
100
Lame/VeryLame/Very Large
1024
1 2048
100
BEDROCK liledrock
2048
1 >2048
100
Total
50
46
96
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D16=
Silt/Clay
Des =
0.34
D. =
2.8
Dae =
71.6
Dn =
168.1
D6 =
2S6.0
���iill!•�f'!S81
1
,111 �/ MIIlilll�■1111111
a�Mr.._. �
.,
■■Innll■■Innll■■I■iii�■In�i
..r�cal
aaluuel
1
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■�111111■■1111111■I
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■11111�I��1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1!:illl■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■111!lil■�1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111�/.111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■Illullr■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
,
Candy R1 (118+91 - 125+27), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
w
80
c 70
u
6
w 50
m
u 40
3 30
a
> 20
c
� 30
0 �o
odtie�.ty c� ob ro tie b S`° a ,,� tiS 40 Sti 0 to 6P ''1° 1p '0 S� S'' ,o'e ,,O0T
Particle Class Sire (mm)
.vmvunrs

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 0 - 2017
Candy R3, Cross Section 7
Diameter
(mm)
Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Clan
Riffle 100-Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Cla
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
Very fine
0.062
0.125
1
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
3
+9 Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
5
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
6
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
6
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
7
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
7
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
11
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
15
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
19
Medium
11.0
16.0
7
7
26
Coarse
16.0
22.6
8
8
34
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
41
Very Coarse
32
45
8
8
49
Ve Coarse
45
64
13
13
62
Small
64
90
11
11
73
Small
90
128
17
17
90
Lar a
128
180
8
8
98
La a
180
256
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1 1024
100
Lar e/Ve Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Ifledrock
2048
1 >2048
1
100
Total
1 100
100
100
Cross Section 7
Channel materials (mm)
D,s
8.66
Dss=
23.75
D.=
46.2
Da=
113.0
Des =
158.4
Due=
362.0
a
..>.__.�„11��.\BIIII�.�
���11�����������1111111�■1111111
�m��
��illlE±"ryllll�araon��
.,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111III�■IIIIC3"�i��
.%%i'�s�
ra�oun
1
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11111l,■■1111111■I
,
■■111IIII■■1111111■■1111III■■Ill�ill■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■Ilillll■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■�111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�IIIIIII■■1111111■■1111111
■■�nnll■■�nnll■■�nulr
■�■ull■■�nuu■■�nnll
'
■■1111111■■�111111��111!l�ii■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■�Iluiili�.\.IIII��■�IIIII■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Candy R1, Cross Section 7
Individual Class Percent
100
90
au
V
70
6
60
a
50
p
40
3
30
c
20
10
o
*,.P OyS Oh ti
0 0
yb
1 tib M s b 9 l~ tid q.`° �1 Py fi' .y'L� y4P .t°� A6ti reti~.>O1p,l� 0}y
Particle Class Size (mm)
.rmwrm,

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 0 - 2017
Candy R3 (225+27-126+27), Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
10
14
14
14
Very fine
0.062
0.125
14
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
4
6
6
20
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
8
9
9
29
�aV
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
3
7
7
36
VeryCoarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
37
-—'"Il
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
38
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
4
4
42
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
-4
4
46
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
2
48
y46'
Medium
8.0
11.0
48
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
2
51
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
5
5
56
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
6
62
'
Ve Coarse
32
45
5
5
5
67
-€
Ve Coarse
45
64
8
8
8
75
Small
64
90
12
12
12
87
e�E
Small
90
128
8
8
8
95
C0� '
Large
128180
180
4
4
4
99
:eklw i
Large
256
1
1
1
100
Small
256
362
300
BEDROCK
Small
Medium
La eNe Large
Bedrock
362
512
1024
2048
112
1024
2048
>2049
100
100
100
100
Total
66
33
99
100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D,s=
0.15
Dss =
0.87
Dye=
14.6
D. =
83.0
Dss =
128.5
D,on=
256.0
s
77111�a1a3tla1111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111�■111
g�,Mrees�M�ll_IIIII■■1111111
Mimi
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111;111■■1111111■I
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■��IIIII■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111��1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■�I�mai■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■111�!11��1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■�:�IIIII■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■111::11��1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
,
Candy R1 (125+27 - 126+27), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
y
60
6
x
$0
U
40
30
--
�
g
20
10
0
o¢, oyy o7" oy
ti ti 11, > y6 B y' N% ry,16 "+n' No 4i
Particle Class Ace (mm)
..uVxl,

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy RS, Cross Section 8
Diameter(
Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
Riffle 100-Count
min
maa
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY ISilt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
3
3
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
3
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
5
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
6
�a0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
9
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
30
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
12
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
13
Fine
4.0
5.6
5
5
18
Fine
5.6
8.0
7
7
25
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
29
Medium
11.0
16.0
5
5
34
Coarse
16.0
22.6
16
16
50
Coarse
22.6
32
10
10
60
Ve Coarse
32
45
12
12
72
Ve Coarse
45
64
14
14
86
Small
64
90
7
7
93
Small
90
128
5
5
98
Large
128
180
1
1
99
Large
180
256
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
La e/Ve Lar a
2024
2049
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Topl
300
300
100
Cross Section 8
Channel materials (mm)
Dss=
4.89
Dss=
16.35
Ds =
22.6
Dy=
60.9
Dss=
103.6
D1.=
256.0
s
e���•n7711a1•�■■aalll ■■�������■�� ��
r......,1
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111IIi�■Iql� i:.
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■lulu■■IGIIIII■■1111111■I
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1,111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■I1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■111111��.!■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111;ii�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■Illiiii��lllllll■�!:illll■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■111.....�..■.�ml�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Candy R1, Cross Section 8
Individual Class Percent
1w
90
10
70
6
60
x
50
3
40
30
c
20
10
0
V'
0 (i -P
Particle Class Sue (mm)
=MWIWM6

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring year 0 - 2017
Candy R2 (126+27 - 143+06), Reachwide
Diameter(mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILTICLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
25
27
27
17
Ver fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
3
30
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
12.
13
13
43
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
6
10
10
52
SP!O
Coarse
0.5
1.0
52
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
52
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
52
2.8
Ve Fine
4.0
52
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
2
3
3
55
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
2
57
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
58
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
4
4
62
22.6
3
Coarse
16.0
3
3
65
Coarse
22.6
32
6
6
6
1 71
Ve Coarse
32
45
2
2
2
73
Very Coarse
11 45
64
3
3
3
76
Small
64
90
7
1 7
7
83
Small
90
128
10
30
30
93
La a
128
180
5
5
5
98
Lar a
180
2S6
2
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
too
Medium
512
1024
100
Ur -Ne tare
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
51
50
102
100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials Imm)
Ds=
Silt/Clay
Dss=
0.17
Dse=
0.4
D. =
92.7
Dss =
146.2
D. =
256.0
.a
lrll�
'��dlll� �NI111111�■Ilillll
"••••.'I
■■Illllll■■Illllll■■111�1111�`II�Y� .�^�~�
■■Ilillll■■Ilillll■■Illllll■■��.�III■■Ilillll■I
■■Illllll■■Il�i�i�-���IIIII��1111111■■Ilillll■■Illllll
■■Illllll■■11_....___..�mi■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll
■■Ilillll■��IIIIII■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Ilillll■■Ilillll
■■IIIIIIII■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Ilillll
■■Iliiii�r■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll
■■Illllll■■Ilillll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Ilillll
■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Ilillll
,
Candy R2 (226+27-143+06), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
a0
c
Y
70
Y
6
W
a
50
N
y
3
40
v
30
>
20
9
�
30
0
q
O0'LOY. O� O!�
q
1 'L .Y0 P yb 0 '�'r 'is°.d ",�' 45 d' � Y 's4''1�
Particle Class Size (mm)
.um,am.s

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy R2, Cross Section 9
Particle Class
Diameter Imm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT [LAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
5
5
Very fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
7
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
11
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
14
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
15
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
15
Very Fine
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
1 2.8
4.0
6
6
15
21
Fine
Fine
Medium
4.0
5.6
8.0
5.6
8.0
11.0
4
6
4
6
25
25
30
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
11.0
16.0
22.6
1 32
45
16.0
22.6
32
45
64
6
6
3
1 4
7
6
6
3
1 4
7
36
42
45
49
56
Small
Small
0'
64
90
90
128
10
17
30
17
66
82
lar e
128
180
16
16
98
' Lar a
180
256
2
2
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
522
100
1II "Medium
Lar e/Ve Large
512
1020
1024
2..
100
300
BEOftOCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
102
100
1 100
Cross Section 9
Channel materials (mm)
Dss=
3.03
Dap=
14.75
Dom=
47.3
Da=
132.7
Das=
168.5
Dsm =
256.0
a
�����^1711�a1a1�a1111t�
,
,��111��-.��II�....0 _-... _�M�I��II��■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■Illl i�■IIIIKi�Y� i
sl''"'�MIN
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11111;�■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11��III■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�elllll■■1111111■■1111111
"
■■1111111■■1111111■■III�IIIr■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1��������1�.11��■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111��!.elllla�.l�llllll■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■Illllll.i■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Candy R2, Cross Section 9
Individual Class Percent
100
90
so
c
70
6
in
50
A
p
40
a
s
30
z
v C
zo
io
0
.yc �¢
4, 6 'r' y0 .'Ld ^�'L 0 k' ^P 'r'0, ,A P 'a -;�,,'p'laaP.
J'
Particle Class Sue (mm)
•MNIfYID16

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy 112, Cross Section 11
Diameter (mm(
Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Clan
Riffle 100-Count
min
maa
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
14
12
12
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
12
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
3
36
Medium
0.25
0.50
5
4
20
SPdD
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
22
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
22
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
22
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
7
6
28
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
5
33
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
36
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
3
39
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
3
43
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
5
48
Coarse
22.6
32
5
1 4
52
Ve Coarse
32
45
3
3
55
Ve Coarse
45
64
6
5
60
Small
64
90
12
30
70
Small
90
128
18
16
86
Lar a
128
180
12
10
97
Lar a
180
256
4
3
100
Small
256
362
SDO
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
300
La e/ve La a
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
1
200
Total
1 115
1 100
100
Cross Section 11
Channel materials (mm)
D,6=
0.26
D66=
7.32
D.=
26.9
D.=
122.1
D6s=
171.3
D,66 =
256.0
��gill��!T-.IIILIr.■n r....
.,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111�■IIIIK�
---��I����II��.1111111
".■"'"i
.:1'�"�
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111111!■■1111111■�I
'
■■1111111■■Itlllll■■1111111■■IIIISII■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■!:illll■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111/��1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■11�lI�i■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■11111
'
■■111!!IIIII■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
!!w■■It��I11■■1111111�■5111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■IIIIIIIlllll■■1111111■■Itlllll■■Itlllll■■1111111
Candy R2, Cross Section 22
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
e
70
Y
6
00
x
50
40
30
2
2
c
20
10
0
s�
d°~ 'iy �'✓ Oy
0 0
ti ti ,L4 F �b 0 ti~ ,>h R,4b .;6 0 fi'
Particle Clan Size (mm)
.MWIWl016

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy R2, Cross Section 13
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
4
4
Very fine
0.062
0.125
4
Fine
0.125
0.2S0
1
1
5
?0 Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
9
Coarse
0.5
1.0
6
6
15
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
15
Ve Fine
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
2
4
2
4
15
15
17
21
8.0
11.0
16.0
12.0
26.0
22.6
6
7
8
6
7
8
27
34
42
Coarse
Very Coarse
22.6
32
32
45
10
13
10
1 13
52
65
Very Coarse
Small
45
64
64
90
8
8
8
8
73
81
Small
La a
90
128
128
180
8
10
8
10
89
99
La a
Small
Small
Medium
Large/Very04 Large
180
256
362
256
362
512
1
1
100
100
100
512
1024
1024
28i
100
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 loo
Cross Section 13
Channel materials (mm)
Ds,=
4.73
D55=
16.71
D.=
29.8
Du=
102.7
D,,=
157.1
D,. =
256.0
r
" '—"'"""��"""'�•■��������■���
IliNlllllll�■1111111
"'...rrl
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111�■IIIIK�in
.:��►;:�
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111!ill■■1111111■I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1:11111■■1111111■■1111111
'
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■�111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■Illllllr■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
'
■■luml■■lumi���nn!la■I■I11■■mull■■Innll
■■1111111■■IIII.rt�..,�IIII■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■Illiiii.!:..��IIIII■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Candy R2, Goss Section 13
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
e
Y
V
6
m
.
R
p
40
30
32
20
2
v
10
0
OSpt,,0 DY
Y
Particle Class Size (mm)
..W..

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy R2 (143+06-148+02), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Particle Can
Class
Percent
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
17
21
21
21
Ve flne
0.062
0.125
1
1
1
22
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
13
17
17
39
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
9
12
12
51
FAO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
6
8
8
59
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
1
60
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
60
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
61
Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
2
2
63
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
2
65
69
Medium
8.0
I1.0
3
1
4
4
11.0
16.0
Medium
4
1
5
5
74
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
75
Coarse
22.6
32
2
1
3
3
78
Ve Coarse
32
45
1
1
1
79
Very Coarse
45
64
1 1
1
1
1
80
Small
64
90
1 12
12
12
92
Small
90
128
4
4
4
96
La a
128
180
1
1
1
97
La a
180
256
1
1
1
98
Small
256
362
2
2
2
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Very Large
3024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
so
So
1Do
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D,.=
Silt/Clay
Dss =
0.21
Dsa=
0.5
D. =
71.7
Dss =
117.2
D,, =
362.0
1ma��sumna�.■p11111�■�11'
.,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111 I�■IIIIKi�rl�il� ..1'�;t�l "•••�e'i
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111lr���lllll■■1111111■I
■■1111111■■1111111�■1��;lii�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
�■1111111■■11l:iil��lllllll■■1111111■�1111111■■1111111
�■1111111■l�111111■■1111111■■1111111■�1111111�■1111111
■■1111111��1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�illllll■■1111111
■■1111�11�1�1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�1111111�■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■�1111111■■1111111■�1111111�■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111�■1111111�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Candy R2 (243+06 - 148+02), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
60
EV
M
y
50
6
x
50
y
40
�
30
9
2
20
a
�
30
0
0 O' DLO Y A op It,
4,
Particle Clan She (mm)
..,organ.

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy R2, Cross Section 14
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Clan
Riffle 100-Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
13
13
13
Very fine
0.062
0.125
13
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
17
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
6
23
�#0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
26
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
3
3
29
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
3
3
32
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
6
6
38
6
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
44
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
48
4
52
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
Medium
11.0
16.0
3
3
55
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
56
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
58
Ve Coarse
32
45
3
3
61
Very Coarse
45
64
2
2
63
Small
64
90
11
11
74
Small
90
128
30
30
84
Lar a
128
180
10
10
94
Lar a
280
256
3
3
97
Small
256
362
3
3
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
2024
i 100
La N. lar a
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
i
100
Total
1 300
100
100
Cross Section 14
Channel materials (mm)
D1s=
0.21
D3,=
3.35
D. =
9.4
D. =
128.0
D„=
202.4
D1m =
362.0
s
„
�__.n1,11��...1111�4�������(�■■���IIIl�11111111�■1111111
gym..
�1i11�E1T!Rllll�rmsm�
.
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111III�■IIIIK3�ii�
.:r"�;:71""..r.'
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■Illllli■■1111111■I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1�!!ill■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111�'S�111111■■1111111■■Illilll
■■1111111■■1111111■■11'iill■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■11��111�l�111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1!../II��1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■11!!!!!!�IIIIIII■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
,
Candy R2, Cross Section 14
Individual Class Percent
100
90
so
70
act
Y
6
60
0
SB
y
40
32
30
.Z
a
C
20
10
0
(fiA 0V. c,p oN
0 y
1 'b ,�0 4 yb 0 '�' .�4',`'46 A�' Py b� cP ,�0 .ARP ,'� ,6F'1' y'>'1•,�'Ip A� ,
Particle Clem Size (mm)
.c xM-

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy R3 (149+02- 155+05), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
20
20
20
20
Very fine
0.062
0.125
20
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
12
14
14
34
Medium
0.25
0.50
9
9
9
43
�a0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
5
7
7
50
Ve Coarse
2.0
2.0
1
1
1
51
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1
52
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
52
Fine
4.0
5.6
52
Fine
5.6
8.0
52
Medium
8.0
11.0
1
1
1
53
Medium
11.0
16.0
53
Coarse
16.0
22.6
53
Coarse
22.6
32
53
45
Ve Coarse
32
2
1
3
3
56
64
Very Coarse
45
4
4
4
60
Small
64
90
10
10
10
70
Small
90
128
22
22
22
92
Large
128
180
7
7
7
99
Large
180
256
1
1
1
100
256
362
100
362
512
100
W
512
1024
100
la a
1024
2048100
>2048
100
2048
Total
50
50
100
1 10D
I 1DD
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D,r =
Silt/Clay
D,s=
0.27
Ds =
1.0
Da=
112.6
Dss =
148.1
D,. =
256.0
i r
""��'•""'�'■�����((�■■���IpI,I�Ir�i1�11111111�■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111 I�■1111 I� sl'Y1:'i ... I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111111!■■1111111■ � II
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■Illlill■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■��_I�Illnw■,GIIIII■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■11,;Till■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■P�111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■IIIIIIIII■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
,■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Candy R3 (149+02 - 155+05), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
N
c
70
m
so
a
x
50
N
u
40
a
w
>
V
�
20
10
0
p p
Particle Class Size (mm)
�MgIWIDl6

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DAVIS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy R3, Cross Section 17
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
Riffle 100-Count
min
maw
I
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
5
5
5
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
5
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
7
a0 Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
10
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
10
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
10
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
13
Fine
4.0
5.6
13
Fine
5.6
8.0
13
Medium
8.0
11.0
13
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
15
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
18
32
Coarse
22.6
4
4
22
Very Coarse
32
45
6
6
28
Very Coarse
45
64
9
9K51
Small
64
90
14
14Small
90
128
22
22Lar
a
128
180
15
15Lar
a
180
256
11
11Small
256
362
1
1
Small
362
512
Medium
512
1024
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Illedrock
2048
>2048
1
1 100
Total
1 100
100
1 100
Cross Section 17
Channel materials (mm)
Dts=
17.95
0�=
59.18
Dso=
87.8
D. =
164.4
D.=
225.2
Dyoo=
362.0
e����n1411����IIIII��A����������������■r��_IIII!II.,I'llllt
�■��■1�111111■■Illllll■■1■I�if'i�■1111
IK'�Y�
.ir�;:a�
w��en'I
■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■IIIIIIIr1■Illllll■
��II
■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■IIIIIII►I■Illllll■■Illllll
■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■111111'■■Illllll■■Illlllt
■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■1111!�I■■Illllll■■Illlllt
■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Il�illl■■Illllll■■Illllll
■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■�illlll■■Illllll■■Illlllt
■■Illllll■_■Illllll■■C��������1111111■■Illllll■■Illlllt
■■1111111..�1111111■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illlllt
Candy R3, Cross Section 17
Individual Class Percent
too
90
so
c
70
6
60
R
50
y
4Q
a
s
30
a
g
10
10
0
Particle Class Size (mm)1Y-
=umuymia

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy R4 (170+71-196+50), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/ClaV
0.0DO
0.062
7
25
32
32
32
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
32
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
12
13
13
45
a� Medium
0.25
0.50
30
30
30
55
Y Coarse
O.S
1.0
1
3
4
4
59
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
59
Very Fine
2.8
59
Ve Fine
4.0
1
1
1
60
Fine
5.6
60
Fine
8.0
1
1
1
61
Medium
11.0
61
Medium
d22.6
16D
3
3
3
64
Coarse
22.6
1
1
1
65
32
Coarse
7
7
7
72
77
Ve Coarse
45
5
5
5
64
7
Ve Coarse
7
7
84
Small
64
90
5
5
5
89
Small
90
128
3
3
3
92
Lar a
128
160
3
3
3
95
Lar a
180
256
5
5
5
100
Small
256
362
too
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Lar e/Ve Lar a
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
1 100
Total
SO
S0
100
100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Ds =
Silt/Clay
Dss =
0.15
D. =
0.4
D. =
64.0
Dss =
180.0
C. =
256.0
Candy R4 (170+71-196+50), Reachwide
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
100
90
80
70
w
5o
E
u �
30
e
y 30
10
0i , , I , I , — I ,III,,1 , ,�„III , , , , ,1,1 , , , ,.,,, , , , , , ,,I
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Pardde Clan Siff (mm)
�aauVmss
Candy R4 (170+71 - 196+50), Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
!w
70
e
u �
n
x 50
N
y aD
30
9
> 20
L
� 30
0
d' ,�y Drys oy ' ti ti> • 56 e q ti6 ,0.`° Ati ae d" <P s ti� ry0 ,�ti 5�rytiaptie4p
0 0
Particle Class Size (mm)
.M.u,am.s

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy R4, Cross Section 19
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 300-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT [LAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
1
1
Ve fine
0.062
0.225
3
3
4
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
6
Medium
0.25
0.50
6
�t10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
7
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
1 2
9
Ve Fine
Ve Fine
2.0V450
2
2
9
2.8
11
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Ve Coarse
Ve Coarse
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.0
16.0
22.6
32
45
64
1
4
10
9
12
8
13
1
4
10
9
12
8
11
12
16
25
34
46
54
13
67
Small
Small
La a
Lar a
Small
Small
Medium
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
90
128
180
256
362
512
3024
10
10
8
3
2
1
10
10
8
3
2
1
76
86
94
97
99
100
100
Lar e/Ve lar a
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
102
100
100
Cross Section 18
Channel materials (mm)
Dss=
11.13
Dss=
23.06
D.=
37.9
D. =
118.0
Dss=
200.1
Dss=
522.0
----^,111�1....1111���
1111�■■�I'����!��IIIIII�■IIIIIII
�...
. ��ItllllE'r11111�Iroo�
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■1111111�■IIII
11
.il'Y""i
r.'ll.aal
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■I
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■1■III
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■1�11111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
■■111IIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIII■�llllllll■■IIIIIII■■1■IIII
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■J1111111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
'
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIIIrI■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■hull
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII_■�11��!!Ili■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
■■III��i��.1■111111�■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
Candy R4, Goss Section 19
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
der
Y
60
50
p
40
3
s
30
.e
a
�
zo
10
0
SP 0 O.1N
oo,
tY Pv-
Particle Class Sire (mm)
.ti,wsaanc

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy R4, Cross Section 20
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Class
Percent
Panicle Class
Riffle 100-Count
min
mac
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
11
30
10
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
10
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
11
Medium
0.25
0.50
7
7
18
�aV
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
20
Ve Coarse
2.0
2.0
20
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
20
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
20
Fine
4.0
5.6
20
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
23
Medium
&0
11.0
5
5
27
Medium
11.0
16.0
10
9
37
Coarse
16.0
22.6
10
9
46
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
53
Ve Coarse
32
45
1 13
12
65
Ve Coarse
45
64
16
15
80
Small
64
90
10
9
90
Small
90
128
2
2
92
lar a
128
180
5
5
96
La a
180
256
2
2
98
Small
256
362
2
2
100
Small
362
512
too
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/Ve la a
1024
1 2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
106
100
10o
Cross Section 20
Channel materials (mm)
Dss=
0.41
Dss=
14.90
Ds =
27.6
Dss=
73.5
Dss=
164.7
Ds.=
362.0
1
1
„11��...IIIIBIaI�������������������MIIIIIII�■1111111
■IINON1"'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11►1111■■1111111■I
,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1�IIIII■■1111111■■1111111
,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■J111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■J1111111■■1111111■■1111111
,
■■1111111■■1111111■■IIIIIIIIJ■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111!!iii■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■1!:illlll■�1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Candy R4, Goss Section 20
Individual pass Percent
100
90
80
cr
70
Y
6
60
D
$0
v
ao
3
30
2
t
C
20
10
0
Off~0 '0 Q,p op
0
ti ti ,10 P 56 6 .,y ,1N ryy'o ,s'L Pc' Gi' 90 .a� 'p 'V' ,s;,
Particle Class Size (mm)
.mrouymv

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy R4, Cross Section 23
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
S
5
Ve fine
(1062
0A25
5
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
8
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
30
�t1O
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
11
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
11
Ve Fine
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2.8
4.0
11
11
Fine
Fine
4.0
5.6
5.6
8.0
3
3
11
13
Medium
Medium
Coarse
9.0
11.0
16.0
11.0
16.0
22.6
5
7
14
4
6
12
18
24
36
Coarse
Very Coarse
Very Coarse
22.6
32
45
32
45
64
20
12
11
18
11
10
54
65
74
Small
Small
Large
64
90
128
90
128
180
10
4
6
9
4
S
83
87
92
Lar a
180
256
7
6
98
Small
Small
Medium
256
362
512
362
512
1024
2
2
100
100
100
Large/VeryLarge
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
1 >2048
1
100
Total
1 113
100
200
Cron Section 23
Channel materials (mm)
D. =
9.73
D,, =
21.81
D. =
29.6
D.=
97.6
Dys =
223.0
D1.=
362.0
a
, ����•^1111����IIIII�L1�������)
'�II� J�IIII!II.,I'lllll
a��al�a8}1
niiiiiiiiiiII�'ililiilIlii
■'■lliiiiii
a:...
■■lllllll■■lllllll■■lllllll■■Ill.ill■■lllllll■il
■■lllllll■■lllllll■■lllllll■■RIIIII■■lllllll■■lllllll
■■lllllll■■lllllll■■lllllll■■lllllll■■lllllll■■lllllll
'
■■lllllll■■lllllll■■lllllll■/IIIIIII■■lllllll■■lllllll
'
■■lllllll■■lllllll■■lllllll■JIIIIIII■■lllllll■■lllllll
'
■■lllllll■■lllllll■■IIIIIIII
■lllllll■■lllllll■■lllllll
'
■■lllllll■_■__lllllll■■I11�l;1i■lllllll■■lllllll■■lllllll
■■1111111.1���111111■■lllllll■■lllllll■■lllllll■■lllllll
Candy R4, Cross Section 23
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
e
0
Y
�
6
x
50
N
a
w
30
s
a
a
zo
�
10
0
0 0
bb P 'iti %b ryb 9n' U, ,I, ,ab ,>� ,' 63' yyti�oo vb�bV
Particle Class She (mm)
...a.aan.

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy R4 (196+50 - 206+35), Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
9
1S
15
15
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
2
17
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
16
17
17
34
0 Medium
0.25
0.50
1
14
15
15
49
S
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
5
6
6
55
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
55
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
55
Ve Fine
2.8
4D
55
Fine
4.0 1
5.6
1
1
2
2
57
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
3
60
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
4
64
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
1
5
5
69
Coarse
16.0
22.6
3
3
3
72
Coarse
22.6
32
6
1
7
7
79
Ve Coarse
32
45
1 3
1 3
3
82
Very Coarse
45
64
7
1
8
8
90
Small
64
90
2
2
2
92
Small
90
1 128
5
5
5
97
Large
128
180
3
3
3
100
La a
180
256
100
Small
256
362
too
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
3024
too
La e e Lar a
1024
2043
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
so
too
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D,s =
0.09
Day =
0.26
D. =
0.6
D. =
49.1
D%=
111.2
Dina=
180.0
i r
s
""�""""��■■������■■■'�II�:rN11_IIIII■_
��..
■IIIIIII
ws"7glll�aa�aoa��
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■11111II�■I�il"�Y�
;:.
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■G1111111■■IIIIIII■�I
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■Illlp!J■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
■■IIIIIII■■IIII.!!I��:null■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
'
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
'
■■IIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
'
■■IIIIIIII■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
'
■■III7�iii■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
,
Candy R4 (196+50- 206+35), Reachwide
IndiWdual Class Percent
100
90
w
c
Y
70
Y
w
6
x
$0
As
y
40
30
a
�
T
20
10
0
O' '✓
Particle Class Size (mm)
.mw,o/mu

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
Candy R4, Cross Section 25
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
Riffle 100-Count
mln7
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
4
5
5
Very fine
0.062
0.125
5
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
8
13
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
5
19
Coarse
0.5
1.0
8
11
29
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
29
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
1 29
Ve Fine
2A
4.0
29
Fine
4.0
5.6
29
Fine
5.6
8.0
6
8
37
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
3
40
Medium
110
16.0
40
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
3
43
Coarse
22A
32
2
3
45
Ve Coarse
32
45
6
1 8
53
Ve Coarse
45
64
2
3
56
Small
64
90
15
20
76
Small
90
128
12
16
92
Lar a
128
180
2
3
95
La a
180
256
95
Small
256
362
4
5
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Lar eNe Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
1
100
Total
1 75
1 100
1 100
Cross Seaton 26
Channel materials (mm)
Dss=
0.35
Dss=
7.21
D,, =
39.0
D. =
107.3
Dss=
261.6
Drss =
362.0
r
sassassail
-�1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11111��■■1111111■
rll
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111�II■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1�/1111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■��111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■Ill�iil■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■111!III■�11�1111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■1�.illlll■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111./■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
Candy R4, Cross Section 25
Individual Class Percent
100
90
a0
e
70
V
60
6
50
W
�
40
a
3
30
2
9
�
20
10
In Is
In
0
osp,.p O.iS oh
l 'L ,4� > �b 0 .>h 'rb 4, 1;6 0fi" .fie yaP ',� ,�bn' y'>�''>0'b. so .pd
a
Particle Clan She (mm)
..t Wxua

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UTIC, Reachwide
Diameter
imm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percents a
Cumulative
SILT CLAY ]Sllt/ClaY
0.000
0.062
2
23
25
25
25
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
25
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
5
5
30
Pd�
Medium
0.25
0.50
8
8
8
38
S
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
2
40
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
40
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
40
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
3
3
3
43
Fine
43
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
4
47
Medium
&a
11.0
1
1
1V
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
1
5
5
Coarse
16.0
22.6
Coarse
32
4
2
6
6
Ve Coarse
45
8
1
9
9:8�1�
Ve Coarse
64
11
11
itSmall
90
7
7
7Small
F256
128
12
12
12
K06
Large
180
2
2
2
100
Large
256
100
}
Small
362
100
ER-
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
�OJ
._
La rge/very Large
11024
2048
1Do
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D.=
Silt/Clay
Oss=
0.39
D. =
12.8
D. =
81.6
Dss =
117.2
D,. =
180.0
Nlt�-■••�1�1—�■■■■�I�■■■��III�IINIIIIIII�■1111111
,, ��gilll�'"��Illl�aaaoo , �aou reaoneL
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111�■IIIC�Yi ..... 1
'■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■11�1111■■1111111■I
'■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■Iilllll■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111!!��111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■��!nill�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■��illlll■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■IIIa111��1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1momill■■1111oil ■■MEN
1111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
,■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■I111111■■1111111■■1111111
Uf1C, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
IN
90
80
r
70
Y
6
�
x
50
a
y
40
9
30
>
20
9
�
10
0
o sp �p .,y 0y ti
0 0
ti ,LT P yb 0 .�' 'rb'b �ti Pam' 4P .�0 ti� '+l' h�ry'r��p'C' Ox•
Particle Class Size (mm)
.xroswmss

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UTIC, Cross Section 27
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
Riffle 100-Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.125
0.250
6
6
6
.d0 Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
8
Y Coarse
0.5
1.0
8
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
8
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
8
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
8
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
8
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
10
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
12
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
14
Very Coarse
32
45
24
1 24
37
Ve Coarse
45
64
24
24
61
Small
64
90
14
14
75
Small
90
128
12
12
86
lar a
128
280
8
8
94
Large
1 180
256
6
6
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
lar e/Ve Lar a
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
102
100
100
Cross Section 28
Channel materials (mm)
D,s=
33.07
Dss=
43.55
D o =
54.5
D. =
119.6
Drs=
189.8
D,.=
256.0
r •
�����^7711����IIIII�a
()�����������■11IIII.,1'UM
a�aoa
�
r
��illlETl'!�Ilp�lr�am
,
��
� aalaaat�alrl
-
.,
■,"I'III■„IIII'I■„1'I'll■,111I'�(.,1'lllll■���gllll
��1111111■■1111111■�1111111�■Ill�ill■■1111111■■1111111
��1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■I�illlll�■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111��1111111■■1111111■■/111111�■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111��_�_�_��������!J111111■�1111111■�1111111
■■IIIIIIIA��umi���ami�■1111111■�1111111■■1111111
,
t7T1C, Cross Section 27
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
70
Y
u
60
^
SO
m
Cj
40
3
s
30
2
c
20
10
0
� P o.15 �y l 'Y ,1,0
0 0
y y
O �6 0 'i'Y tib tiryb 9n' Py ti 'r10 'i� N A�Ory °,ti~.�01a.ytl-
Particle Class She (mm)
.Gm.l0.

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT11), Reachwide
Diameter lmm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Toni
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
11
11
11
11
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
11
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
3
3
14
Medium
0.25
0.50
9
9
9
23
SPaO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
5
5
5
27
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
4
31
Ve Fine
2.0
2A
31
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
32
Fine
4.0
5.6
2
2
2
34
Fine
5.6
8.0
3
3
3
37
Medium
8.0
11.0
37
Medium
11.0
16.0
37
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
1
38
Coarse
22.6
32
8
5
13
13
51
Ve Coarse
32
45
16
6
22
22
73
Ve Coarse
45
64
15
2
17
17
89
Small
64
90
10
30
10
99
Small
90
128
1
1
1
100
Lar a
128
180
100
Lar e
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Lar elVery Large
1024
204g
1Do
BEDROCK lBedrock
1 2048
1 >2048
100
Total
50
52
102
100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Drs=
0.30
D35 =
6.09
Dsa=
31.2
D.=
57.3
Dss =
78.3
D3.=
128.0
s
T4ILILLL��onnL�41■�■1111�■�11'1'
., I�il1��-.1111�1.._... _-.. Ii�Mlll�����■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111 I�■111,16iJY� :f" �"i """''i
'■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■IG11111■■1111111■I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■/111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■►lllllll■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■IIIIIIII■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■11��111���!:iiiilililllllll■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■11,.III/■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111���111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■Iona
,■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
UT1D, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
Y
70
y
60
6
x
$0
N
y
40
30
9
�
`v
20
�
30
0
dot' ay O',15 'p
o m
p �b
'r 'Y .0 O so0 9 4i oP y'L V' 'L� .�b�' S'r0'.O ,e yP"
Particle Class Size (mm)
•MYOINIDI6

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT113, Cross Section 29
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
mas
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
11
22
22
Very fine
0.062
0.125
22
Fine
0.125
0.250
22
�@0 Medium
0.25
0.50
8
16
38
Coarse
0.5
1.0
38
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
38
Ve Fine
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2.8
4.0
38
38
Fine
Fine
Medium
4.0
5.6
8.0
5.6
8.0
11.0
38
38
38
Medium
Coarse
11.0
16.0
16.0
22.6
3
6
38
44
Coarse
Ve Coarse
Ve Coarse
Small
22.6
32
45
64
32
45
64
90
30
9
6
3
20
16
12
6
64
82
94
100
Small
Lar a
Lar a
Small
Small
Medium
Lar e/Ve LarRe
BEDROCK Bedrock
90
128
180
256
362
512
10 24
2048
128
180
256
362
512
1024
2048
>2048
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Total
1 50
1 100
100
Cross Section 29
Channel materials (mm)
D.=
Silt/Clay
Das=
0.44
Da4=
25.1
Da,=
47.7
D.=
67.7
D,. =
90.0
s
�*i�J
W�alllM�.nnn�..m+i��M�llllll�■1111111
l...1■■1111
r..•..r,l
■■1111111■■
f�i1,NMp1iC=—
.1 ""�
i
�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■I
�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111�■
1111111■■1111111■■1111111
�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■I1111111�■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■�_�__111111�l1111111■■1111111■■1111111
,
�■1111111■■��um���aum■i��llllll�■�IIIIII�■�IIIIII
■■111�����!�1111111�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
UT1D, Cross Section 29
Individual pass Percent
100
90
80
70
6u
0
R
So
D
40
30
sa
20
2
V
C
30
0
O�ryb�b O.th b!b
ti ti ,fib 4 hb b N% Nb ,(16 hti Oh 10% cp No, ,ebb .�'-P hbv h�.s01p,1�
Partkle Class She (mm)
...uVXuG

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT2 R3, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
F.a.
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
1
4
5
5
5
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
5
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
5
7
7
12
ly0 Medium
0.25
0.50
3
5
8
8
20
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
3
23
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
23
Ve Fine
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
2.8
4.0
5
3
5
3
5
3
28
31
Fine
Fine
5.6
11 4.0K22.6
1
3
2
2
3
5
3
5
34
39
Medium
Medium
Coarse
8.0
11.0
16.0
1
1
1
39
40
40
Coarse
Ve Coarse
22.6
5
2
7
13
7
13
47
60
32
13
Ve Coarse
Small
Small
Large
La a
Small
45
18
2
20
20
80
64
90
1 128
180
256
362
12
2
3
15
2
15
2
1
2
95
97
98
100
100
128
180
256
1
2
1
2
Small
Medium
La e/Very Large
BEDROCK Bedrock
362
512
100
100
100
100
512
1024
2048
1024
2048
>2048
Total
60
40
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Des =
0.35
Dss =
6.01
D90 =
34.6
D. =
70.1
D99=
904
Dt. =
256.0
'; i���3III■dill■w!!!!'0�!!!!�I���MIIIIIII�■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111 I�■IIIIK�Y� :1'""� """"i
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■illllll■�I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■/1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■Illllli�_�1!!illlr■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
�1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
,■■1111111���111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
,■■1117111IB/■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
UT2 R2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
a0
c 70
w
u �
0
50
y 40
3o
v
2 20
a
� 10
0
46
Particle Class Size (mm)
.mocawvs

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT2 RI, Cross Section 30
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Clan
Percent
Particle Class
Riffle 100-Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
0
Fine
0.12S
0.250
0
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
1
�!P
Coarse
0.5
1.0
4
4
5
1.0
2.0
1 2
2
7
Ve Coarse
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1 1
8
2.8
4.0
Ve Fine
8
Fine
4.0
5.6
8
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
10
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
12
16
Medium
11.0
16.0
4
4
Coarse
16.0
22.6
12
12
28
Coarse
22.6
32
18
18
46
Ve Coarse.
32
45
23
23
69
Ve Coarse
45
64
1 16
1 16
85
Small
64
90
11
11
96
Small
90
128
4
4
100
100
lar a
128
180
lar a
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
too
Medium
512
1024
100
Urge/VeryUrge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
To"I
100M100
100
Cross Section 30
Channel materials (mm)
Dra=
16.00
Dn=
25.87
Dt =
34.0
Dw =
62.6
Dn =
87.3
D,. =
128.0
100
90
80
K 70
60
50
E
3 w
30
6 20
10
UT2 III, Cross Section 30
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
Particle Clan Size (mm)
�.miym,s
UT2 1111, Cross Section 30
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
V
70
so
6
x
50
W
O
40
3
32
30
2
v
e
20
10
0
* y ON Q.
0 o
Particle Class Size (mm)
.vr�ordmr

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT2 R1, Cross Section 31
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
Riffle 1D0-Count
min
me.
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.062
4
4
4
Ve fine
0.125
2
2
6
Fine
0.250
4
4
10
Medium
0.50
2
2
12
Coarse
P2.0
1.0
4
4
16
Ve Coarse
2.0
16
Ve Fine
2.8
1
1
17
4.0
2
Ve Fine
2
19
4.0
5.6
Fine
1
1
20
5.6
8.0
Fine
20
8.0
11.0
Medium
20
Medium
11.0
16.0
2
2
22
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
26
Coarse
22.6
32
11
11
37
Ve Coarse
32
45
25
1 25
62
Ve Coarse
45
64
14
14
76
Small
64
1 90
17
17
93
Small
90
128
4
4
97
lar a
128
180
3
3
100
lar a
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
la e/Ve tare
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
1 100
100
100
Cross Section 31
Channel materials (mm)
Dss=
1.00
Dss =
30.04
Dss=
38.2
Dr.=
75.1
Dss=
107.3
D,. =
280.0
s
��
•----�„IL....Illl�a��mm��ugl�i,�M�111111�■1111111
1
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111�■IIUK�Y�
.:t�:�
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■IIIEIII■■1111111■I
'
■■�nuu■■�nnll■■�uuu■■�rum■■�nnu■■�mlll
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■N111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�illllll■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■111111I��1111111■■111111I■■1111111
■■1111111��1��!IIII>.��IIIIII■■111III
I■■1111111■■1111111
■■111.ill.���llllll■■�IIIIII■��111111■��IIIIII■■�IIIIII
UT2 111, Cross Section 31
Individual Class Percent
100
90
90
V
70
V
60
6
B
SO
-
y
40
s
30
IN
20
10
0
0 0
Q�
ti0tia"p V'
Particle Class Size (mm)
.nroarmu

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0. 2017
UT2 R3, Cross Section 33
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Clan
Percent
Particle Class
Rif0e 100-Count
min
max
Percents a
Cumulative
SILT/CIAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
2
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
3
�)VO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
6
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0 1
1 1
1
7
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
2
2
9
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
4
13
Fine
4.0E445
3
3
16
Fine
5.6
2
2
16
Medium
8.0
2
2
20
Medium
11.0
2
2
22
Coarse
16.0
3
3
25
Coarse
22.6
14
14
39
Ve Coarse
32
19
19
58
Ve Coarse
45
19
19
77
Small
64
6
6
83
Small
90
11
11
94
La a
228
180
1 6
6
100
La a
180
256
100
Small
256=2048
100
Small
362
100
Medium
512
100
Iar e/Ve Wr a
1024
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
100
100
100
Cress Section 33
Channel materials (mm)
Dss=
5.60
Dss=
28.97
D. =
39.0
Ds.=
92.9
Dss=
135.5
Dss=
180.0
lIMF.. Hill\■�mm�■��i��Ilr�All_IIIIII��1111111
..:� III�E!"!�IIII�Y-tea ---e aaar.an.l
WE ON 111■1111111■■11M li�li�■1111F3m- hi
milli 1MINIMUM ■■1111111■m111i111■■1111111■I
'■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�1111111■�1111111■�1111111
■�1111111■■1111111■�1111111■■1�11111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■Idlllll■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'■■1111111■■1111111■�IIIII�I�!�IIIIIII■�1111111■�1111111
, ■■1111111■■1111111■�I:dill■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■�11111111�11�II�iii��111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
UT2 R1, Cross Section 33
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
sE
Y
60
N
50
V
�
2
c
20
10
0
d°~ 41, Oyy OS
O' O
'> ti ,LO O yb 6 "ti~ ,>O',40 yti Uy l� - v4 . P .10 ,�6n' y11'yO'ta,v�4O.
Particle Class She (mm)
..nourma

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0. 2017
UT2 R2, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT CIAY Sil Cla
0.000
0.062
1
8
9
9
9
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
9
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
10
11
11
20
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
11
12
12
32
SPao
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
S
6
6
38
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
2
2
40
Ve Fine
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
4.0
1
5
1
6
2
6
2
46
48
2.8
1
Fine
Fine
Medium
4.0
5.6
1
5
6
6
1
4
54
55
59
5.6
8.0
8.0
11.0
1
2
2
1
4
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Ve Coarse
11.0
16.0
5
5
3
6
1
1
5
6
3
6
5
6
3
6
64
70
73
79
16.0V3652
22.6
32
Ve Coarse
Small
Small
Large
lar a
Small
Small
Medium
1a e e 1ar a
BEDROCK Bedrock
45
64
90
128
180
256
362
512
8
2
4
3
1
1
1
8
2
4
3
1
1
2
8
2
4
3
1
1
2
87
89
93
96
97
97
98
98
98
100
512
1024
2048
>2048
1
1024
2048
Tonal
SO
50
100
100
1 100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Dss=
0.19
D35 =
0.71
D,, =
4.5
D. =
56.1
Dss =
160.7
DSO=
>2048
s
7711BB��B1 Nnarew�.....�—
Iuu��1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■IIII�i��Y�
..1"""i
""""I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■�IIIIII■■1111111■�I
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■11'����I■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
�'
■■1111111■■111IIII■■Il.rtn�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111�6�111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■11!!m�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■�rllllll■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111��1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■Illllllr■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
UT2 R2, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
c
Y
70
Y
n
�
50
y
40
�
30
a
2
20
10
0
d;,oN
O
Particle Class Size (mm)
.Ymso/mu

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT2 R2, Cross Section 35
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
Riffle 100-fount
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
3
3
Very One
0.062
0.125
3
0.125
0.250
4
4
7
Fine
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
10
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
2
2
12
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1 13
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
15
Fine
4.0
5.6
4
4
19
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
20
Medium
8.0
11.0
9
9
29
41
Medium
21.0
16.0
12
12
Coarse
16.0
22.6
6
6
47
Coarse
22.6
32
7
7
54
Very Coarse
32
45
1 10
10
64
Very Coarse
45
64
6
6
70
Small
64
90
8
8
78
Small
90
1 128
SO
10
88
tar a
128
180
6
6
94
tar a
180
256
6
6
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
1 100
Medium
512
1024
100
Iar e/Ve lar a
1024
2048
1
11
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
1
100
Total
1 100
1 100
100
Cross Section 34
Channel materials (mm)
D. =
4.35
D9s=
13.27
Ds =
26.2
D. =
111.2
D9s=
190.9
Dry=
256.0
100
90
X 70
SO
E
u 40
30
i 20
i41
0 +-
0.01
UT2 R2, Cross Section 35
Pebble Count Particle Distribution
0.1 1 10
Particle Class Size (mm)
—FMwrdmu
100 1000 10000
UT2 R2, Cross Section 35
100
Individual Class Percent
90
80
c
70
Y
6
60
y
40
30
8
20
2
a
�
10
0
O'Y O!i
S 'L ti0 b yb 6 l'� 'r0 ,Iryb ^,'1 bN �i' -p .s� .�4}1 ,t'P .i6'l.
Ot{stiON'
Panicle Class Size (mm)
�M96IWAr6

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT2A, Reachwide
Diameter
(mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT CLAY Silt Cla
0.000
0.062
2
7
9
9
9
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
1
1
2
2
11
Fine
0.125
0.250
3
1
4
4
15
ly3P Medium
0.25
0.50
0
9
9
9
24
Coarse
0.5
1.0
0
10
10
10
34
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
9
10
10
44
Very Fine
2.0N22.6
2
7
9
9
53
Ve Fine
2.8
1
3
4
4
57
4.0
Fine
0
0
57
5.6
Fine
1
1
2
2
59
Medium
8.0
4
0
4
4
63
Medium
11.0
2
1
3
3
66
Coarse
16.0
6
0
6
6
72
Coarse
22.6
3
0
3
3
75
Very Coarse
32
45
7
1
8
8
83
Very Coarse
45
64
30
1 10
10
93
Small
64
90
4
4
4
97
Small
90
128
0
97
Lar a
129
180
3
3
3
100
Lar a
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
S12
1024
100
L a
arge/Very Large
100
1024
2048
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D. =
0.27
D3s=
1.07
D. =
2.5
Du =
46.6
Dss -
75.9
Dus =
180.0
s
���•��m��.nnnllllllw■�111111�■�IIP"
�I�illl�*'.ryllll�rs.... �II�NIII�!��I♦■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111�■I�IIK�iI�1'!:"71 "•••aa'
'■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■I��111111■■1111111■I
■■1111111■■1111111■■IIIIIIIJ■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■l:iillll■■1111111■■illllll■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111l�1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■111111!�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■I�iilll■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111/_�IIIIIII■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
UT2A, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
300
90
so
d
70
a
M
50
N
y
40
9
30
�
v
20
�
30
011
y
p a
y
�,b 1 Py d y� V �b� y O'p, `so pd{
Particle Class Size (mm)
.MRIWIDI6

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT2A, Cross Section 36
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
Riffle 100-Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
0
0
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
0
0
0
0.125
0.250
0
0
0
Fine
Medium
0.25
0.50
0
0
0
�PlP
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
1
Ve Coarse
2.0
2.0
1
1
2
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
5
5
7
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
6
6
13
Fine
4.0
5.6
9
9
22
Fine
5.6
8.0
8
8
30
Medium
8.0
11.0
8
8
38
Medium
21.0
16.0
6
6
44
Coarse
16.0
22.6
16
16
60
Coarse
22.6
32
18
IB
78
Ve Coarse
32
45
13
13
91
Ve Coarse
45
64
7
7
98
Small
64
90
1
1
99
Small
90
128
0
0
99
Lar a
128
180
0
0
99
Lar a
180
256
1
1
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
1
100
100
Cross Section 36
Channel materials (mm)
Dtr=
4.47
Uss=
9.76
Dsa=
18.2
Dr=
37.5
Dss =
55.0
Dsw=
256.0
,
1s11��O11ea111�ew�„IIII���1���II���,I'lll.,lllllll
��llillEf"!�IIII�Irlon I>.�n�....—
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111�■/,IIIK�iY�
,
�"'"�1
..i''er�
,
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�I
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■/llllllll■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■IIIIIIIIJ■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■11111!!�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■Il�illl■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■l�IIIII■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111���111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
,
UT2A, Cross Section 36
Individual Class Percent
200
90
80
-4
70
Y
6
60
ti
u
50
M
2
s
30
.2
zo
—
10
0
odno,�y O1S �5
ti ti ,`B P yb 0 y'. .>e,'6 •6n' Ph '. c}a
P�
Particle Gass Size (mm)
.u,orayss

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT3, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
maa
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
23
25
25
25
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
2
2
2
27
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
2
2
29
Medium
US
D50
1
10
11
11
40
SPt10
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
6
7
7
47
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
4
5
5
52
Very Fine
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
2.8
4.0
1
5
1
6
1
6
1
58
59
Fine
Fine
Medium
4.0
5.6
8.0
5.6
8.0
11.0
59
59
59
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
Ve Coarse
11.0
16.0
16.0
22.6
32
45
1
1
1
60
3
1 4
60
63
67
22.6
32
3
4
3
4
Ve Coarse
Small
Small
La a
Lar a
45
64
90
128
180
64
90
128
180
256
5
17
10
1
5
17
30
1
5
17
10
1
72
89
99
100
too
Small
256
362
100
Small
Medium
urge/Veryurge/Very Large
362
512
100
100
100
512
1024
1024
2048
BEDROCK lBedrock
2048
1 >2048
1
100
Total
I 50
50
1 100
1 100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Drs =
Sift/Clay
Drs =
0.36
D.
1.5
D. =
81.4
N =
111.2
Di. =
180.0
-a
�; i�i���ll� /MIIIIIII�■Illllll
■■Innll■mnl■■Il
Imi ::wM:��-•aar;
'
■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■IIIJII■■Illllll■�I
,
■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■��'rlllll■■Illllll■■Illllll
�;
■■Illllll■■1111111l��Illlllr■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll
■■Illllll■■111!�II�■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll
'
■■1111111���111111■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll
'
■�1111111.��1111111■�1111111■■Illllll■�1111111■■Illllll
'
■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Ilnlll■■Illllll■�1111111
■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll■■Illllll
,
UT3, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
a0
c
u
70
V
�
6
�n
$(J
V
40
3
9
S
30
0
20
�
10
0
de~ pp OS
O O
ti 1, .y4 > y0 B 'rY yts rylb ^?' PS 4i' aP 'ap ti� S�.>e4p 0
Particle Class Size (mm)
aurouVm�s

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0. 2017
UT3, Cross Section 37
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
Sit Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
Fine
�}V0 Medium
0.062
0.125
2
0.125
0.250
2
0.25
0.50
2
Coarse
O.S
1.0
1
1
3
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
1
1
4
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1 5
Ve Fine
Fine
Fine
2.8
4.0
5.6
4.0
5.6
8.0
1
1
1
1
5
6
7
Medium
Medium
Coarse
8.0
11.0
16.0
11.0
16.0
22.6
2
1
1
2
1
1
9
30
11
Coarse
Ve Coarse
22.6
32
32
45
4
8
4
8
15
23
Ve Coarse
45
64
16
16
39
Small
Small
U a
tz a
64
90
128
180
90
128
180
256
25
24
9
2
25
24
9
1
64
88
97
99
Small
Small
Medium
Lar e/Ve Lar a
BEDROCK Bedrock
256
362
512
1024
2048
362
1
1
100
512
1024
2048
1 >2048
1
100
100
1 100
1
1
1 100
Total
1 100
1 100
1 100
Cross Section 37
Channel materials (mm)
Du,=
33.39
Das=
58.61
D. =
74.4
D. =
120.7
D%=
166.9
Ds.=
362.0
,
„
�___�„11��.■■1111�■���������■■����IltiMlllllll�■1111111
�■�■�1111111■
111111■■1111�■1111
t►
�
.:..:
�•■"'
i
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■
1�11
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111�III■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1►11111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■��IIIIII■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■�IIIIIII■�::iiiil■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
UT3, Goss Section 37
100
Individual Class Percent
90
80
70
t
e
o
60
6
9
50
y
40
s
30
zo
.a
a
C
10
0
O"1
�Y'
's '1 ,y4 b. yb %b O6 .8'6 p5 1JI cQ 0 yqp ,1'p
0� O•Y
Particle Class Sin (man)
.aroeraas

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT4, Reachwide
Diameter (mm)
Panicle Count
Reach Summary
Class
Percent
Panicle Class
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0
30
30
30
30
Ve Rne
0.062
0.125
0
1
1
1
31
Fine
0.125
0.250
5
6
11
11
42
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
4
6
6
48
SPaO
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
4
6
6
54
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
4
4
4
58
VeryFine
2.0
2.8
0
58
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
59
Fine
4.0
5.6
0
59
Fine
5.6
8.0
1
1
2
2
61
Medium
8.0
11.0
0
61
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
1
62
Coarse
36.0
22.6
1
1
1
63
Coarse
22.6
32
2
2
2
65
VeryCoarse
32
45
2
2
2
67
72
VeryCoarse
45
64
5
5
5
Small
64
90
9
9
9
81
Small
90
128
10
10
30
91
Urge
128
180
6
6
6
97
Lame
180
256
2
2
2
99
Small
256
362
0
99
Small
362
512
1
1
I
100
Medium
512
1024
100
la eNe lar a
3024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
100
Total
50
50
100
too
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
Dss=
Silt/Clay
Dss=
0.16
Dso=
0.6
D. =
100.0
Dss =
160.7
Dsm =
512.0
r
„ .—_-.�„Ili....atlta�■�111111�■�11�111`��IIIIII�■1111111
., �I�ill�t'r�llll�r�..x
Faalalat4!1
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111 I ■1■I� ::rw;c� :. 1
'■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111!ill■■1111111■I
■■1111111■■1111111■�Illllll��i�lllll■■1111111■■1111111
�'■■1111111■■1111�!!i��111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■�:i11111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'■■1111111�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
,■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■■1111111■■111111■■1111111
tTT4, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
ao
1i
70
6
x
$B
y
40
30
20
c
10
0 y �O!> 1
O m
1 11, > �? B 'r' Nr '111D 19� 0 4P ,A, 1'lV' 1p 'V 'Y' '�'rti'yO'La.l� pd°
6'
Particle Cass Site (mm)
.ematvmu

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT4, Cross Section 38
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
max
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY
Slit/Clay
O.D00
0.062
1
1
1
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
0
0
1
Fine
0.125
0.250
0
0
1
Medium
0.25
0.50
1
1
2
lyP
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
4
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
4
4
8
Ve Fine
Ve Fine
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
2.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.0
16.0
2.8
4.0
5.6
8.0
11.0
16.0
22.6
2
2
10
4
4
14
9
9
9
8
6
9
23
9
9
9
6
32
41
49
55
Coarse
Very Coarse
22.6
32
32
45
4
6
4
6
59
65
Ve Coarse
Small
Small
lar a
45
64
90
128
64
90
128
180
7
12
6
4
7
72
12
6
4
84
90
94
tar a
Small
Small
Medium
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
BEDROCK 113edrock
280
256
362
512
1 1024
2048
256
362
512
1024
2048
1 >2048
3
3
3
3
97
100
100
100
100
100
Total
1 100
1 100
100
Cross Section 38
Channel materials (mm)
Dss=
4.31
Das=
8.90
D,s =
16.9
D. =
90.0
Dss=
202.4
Dw=
362.0
s
� i
.��..n1111����B5111������llll������lll��7■_III�II..111'lll
�...
Jr
�I�YIIl�T!'81111�r.■..
. �
r
slunln
��I��IIII��1111111■■1111111��1��!iII�����Illl�I
■,11I'III■,1"III■,111IIII■./rlllll■,11'llll■.'''IIII
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111��1111111�■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■Illllll�il■1111111■�1111111�■1111111
■■1111111■■IIIIIII��IIIII!it■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■�IRAII■■1111111■�1111111�■1111111
,
�����
IIII■w�nnii����lllll�■1111111■11111111■■1111111
__..■��1111111■■1111111■■1111111�■1111111
UT4, Cross Section 38
100
Individual pass Percent
90
80
70
c
6O
6
50
N
a�
40
30
s
a
a
�
zo
SO
O
o�'L 9, 0p oh
p g
l ti ,�4 > yb 0 ,y'1 tib �E Ati 4y (i aP 'i0 's^ 'V ^,tip' y'l~'Yp0. so Po.
Particle Class She (mm)
.wwnalans

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT4, Cross Section 41
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
Riffle 100-Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
3
3
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
3
3
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
10
�a Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
14
SY'0
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
1
15
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
0
15
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
16
2.8
4.0
1
1
17
Ve Fine
4.0
5.6
1
1
Fine
18
5.6
8.0
Fine
1
1
19
Medium
8.0
11.0
4
4
23
Medium
11.0
16.0
5
5
28
Coarse
16.0
22.6
5
5
33
Coarse
22.6
32
8
8
41
Ve Coarse
32
1 45
9
9
50
Ve Coarse
45
64
13
13
63
Small
64
90
19
19
82
Small
90
128
16
16
98
Lar a
128
180
1
1
99
Lar a
180
256
0
0
99
Small
256
362
1
1
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
>2048
1
1 100
Total
110
100
1 100
Cross Section 41
Channel materials (mm)
Du=
2.80
D. =
24.65
D. =
45.0
D.=
94.1
Dss=
119.8
Ds. =
362.0
r
�� .----^,41111a�1.■■.8111
�j�■■����II<rMllllll��■1111111
+. �lilll�?T!�1111�1.■.0.
a■■■.
.�
".■"'"i
■■1111111■■1111111■■11111�■11111'�Y�
.:1"�"i
1�11
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111�II■■1111111■
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111:111■■1111111■■1111111
.
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■Illtllll■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■�111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■IIIIIIIJ■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■_■IEiIIR!•■�u�lll■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■111!!11.��1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
(1T4, Cross Section 41
Individual Class Percent
too
90
80
e
70
8
60
50
a
s
30
�
zo
c
10
0
pdo' h p',.0 pN 'r
✓
'4 ,1} P �b 0 'Y'r '�.° '1b "i�' Py YP' ^}� s .�� , jp
Particle Class Size (mm)
=wroWaas

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UT4, Cross Section 42
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
Riffle 100-Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
6
6
6
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
0
6
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
2
8
Medium
0.25
0.50
4
4
12
Coarse
0.5
1.0
3
3
15
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
1 1
1
16
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
1
1
1 17
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
2
2
19
Fine
4.0
5.6
5
5
24
Fine
5.6
9.0
8
8
32
Medium
9.0
11.0
7
7
39
Medium
11.0
16.0
11
31
50
Coarse
16.0
22.6
4
4
54
Coarse
22.6
32
5
5
59
Ve Coarse
32
45
7
7
66
Ve Coarse
45
64
1 7
1 7
73
Small
64
90
20
20
93
Small
90
128
7
7
100
Large
128
180
100
Large
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
100
Medium
512
1024
100
Lar e/Ve Large
1024
2048
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2046
>2048
100
Total
100
100
100
Cross Section 43
Channel materials (mm)
D. =
2.00
Das=
9.17
D. =
16.0
D. =
77.2
Dss=
99.5
Due
128.0
s
�i1I11��R71111�a.lrun r II ��M� IIIIII�■1111111
'ilINUMON
. �
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111
.;
reouor
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■111!III■■1■III
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1.11111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■�IIIIIII■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■IIIIIIIII■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■11111!ii■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■11'illl■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■11�!!I1���111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■Ill��ii.���llllll■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
UT4, Cross Section 42
Individual Class Percent
too
90
Bo
ye
70
Y
6
69
l
$0
p
40
M
20
10
0 y N
(fi~ Y' O•Y 0�7
OO
1 'L ,ti0 O yb 6 'y" '>b ,'L�° '�1' ay (� � .�ryO y4P ,� ,�61' y1�'�O'La'L��i
Particle Class Size (mm)
.rm.aans

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIAS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0. 2017
UTS, Reachwide
Particle Class
Diameter(mm)
Particle Count
Reach Summary
min
max
Riffle
Pool
Total
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
34
37
37
37
Very One
0.062
0.125
0
0
37
Fine
0.125
0.250
2
6
8
8
45
Medium
0.25
0.50
3
1
4
4
49
SPao
Coarse
Ve Coarse
0.5
1.0
1
3
4
4
53
1.0
2.0
0
0
53
Ve Fine
Very Fine
Fine
Fine
2D
2.8
11 4.0
5.6
2.8
1
1
2
4
3
6
2
4
3
6
55
59
62
68
4.0
5.6
8.0
3
1 3
3
1
0
3
Medium
Medium
Coarse
Coarse
8.0
12.0
16.0
22.6
11.0
26.0
22.6
32
3
3
4
5
1
4
3
4
5
4
3
4
5
72
75
79
84
Very Coarse
32
45
5
5
1 5
89
Ve Coarse
Small
Small
45
64
90
64
90
128
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
91
92
94
Lar a
128
180
3
3
3
97
tar a
180
256
2
2
2
99
Small
256
362
1
1
1
too
Small
Medium
362
512
512
1024
100
100
Lar e/Ve Lar a
1024
2048
lOD
BEDROCK Bedrock
2046
>2048
100
Total
5p
5p
100
100
100
Reachwide
Channel materials (mm)
D,z
Silt/clay
Dss=
Silt/clay
0. =
0.6
Dar=
32.0
Das=
143.4
Dry =
362.0
-a
lll��l��■1111111
■■1111111■Ilnl■■In
� �
�111R1���
�.1'e�sa
rehhuw;
_.
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111�■1111111■■1111111■I
■■1111111■■1111111■■11�lill■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
�'
■■1111111■■IIIII!!!��111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111��.'illllll■■Illlllt■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■Iliiiiii�■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
'
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
,
tTfS, Reachwide
Individual Class Percent
100
90
a0
c
e
]0
Y
a
so
w
50
y
40
9
�
30
g
20
10
QOJ
-r 'L ,�L P 56 0 -rti .Y 19T 0 'P
o10 o.� O,V
'11P
Particle Class Size (mm)
.M.a.vm.:

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DIMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UTS, Cross Section 44
Diameter Imm)
Summary
Class
Percent
Particle Class
Riffle 100-Count
min
max
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
3
3
3
Very fine
0.062
0.125
0
0
3
Fine
0.125
0.250
4
4
7
#9
Medium
0.25
0.50
9
9
16
Coarse
0.5
1.0
11
11
27
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
1 0
0
27
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
2
1 2
29
Ve Fine
2.8
4.0
8
8
37
Fine
4.0
5.6
9
9
46
Fine
5.6
8.0
2
2
48
Medium
8.0
11.0
2
2
so
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
51
52
Coarse
16.0
22.6
1
1
Coarse
22.6
32
1
1
53
Ve Coarse
32
45
7
7
60
Ve Coarse
45
64
17
17
77
Small
64
90
16
16
93
Small
90
128
4
4
97
Lar a
128
180
3
3
100
Lar a
180
256
100
Small
256
362
100
Small
362
512
1D0
Medium
522
1024
100
Large/VeryLarge/Very Large
1 1024
1 2048
1
1
100
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
1 >2048
1
1
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
Cross Section 45
Channel materials (mm)
Dzs=
0.50
Dss=
3.66
Ds,=
11.0
Dw =
74.3
D. =
107.3
D. =
180.0
s
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■1111�■1111�
1,
�gII11�E?71111�aa�o4
11 alp
I.I.�BIIII
�.w�„���)—�.,�1II�,I���IIIIII.,1111111
I�a1a1�
Maine
.:1''4�a�
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■111�111■■IIIIIII■
all
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■�!5111111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■Il:iill■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■�111111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
■■IIIIIII■■1111l1i�%IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
■■IIIIIII■■I:illll■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
■■111������1111111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
UTS, Cross Section 44
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
70
to
Y
60
y
50
40
a
s
w
zo
a
g
10
0
.y
O0fi' Op Oy
-P y p�
h v ,Yb P y0 0 ti~ .�0 ryb '�Oy 41 yti0 yaP N Abti S'r�''r01a'1" °
Particle Class Size (mm)
nrowm,s

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
DMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0. 2017
UT5, Cross Section 46
Diameter (mm)
Summary
Class
Percent
Panicle Class
Riffle 100-Count
min
mac
Percentage
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
10
10
10
Ve fine
0.062
0.125
0
0
10
Fine
0.125
0.250
1
1
11
Medium
0.25
0.50
2
2
13
Sp}3O
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
15
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
0
15
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
6
6
21
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
4
4
25
Fine
4.0
5.6
6
6
31
Fine
5.6
8.0
4
4
35
Medium
8.0
11.0
3
3
38
Medium
11.0
16.0
1
1
39
Coarse
16.0
22.6
2
2
41
Coarse
22.6
32
1 11
1 11
52
Very Coarse
32
45
14
14
66
Ve Coarse
45
64
15
15
81
Small
64
90
13
13
94
Small
90
128
4
4
98
La a
128
180
0
0
98
La a
180
256
1
1
99
Small
256
362
99
Small
362
512
99
Medium
512
3024
1
3
120
La e/Ve Large
1024
2048
SDo
BEDROCK Bedrock
2048
1
1
1 100
>2048
Total
I too
1 100
1 100
Cross Section 46
Channel materials (mm)
D,s=
2.12
D,s -
8.00
0. =
30.0
D. =
69.2
D„ -
99.3
Du,o=
1024.0
��.—_--.,,LI�L....■■Ll�\�.■lum.■■nll����l��lllp�■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111 If�■III�K �il� .:re�">i "••••"i
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■Ildlll■■1111111■I
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1�11111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■�1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■IIIIIII�I1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■■11�!gill■1■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■■1111111■��41111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■1111111■�1111;1i��lllllll■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
■■Illllllr�lllllll■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111■■1111111
UT5, Goss Section 46
Individual Class Percent
100
90
80
V
70
Y
6
60
50
yx
>3
40
s
30
a
9
�
20
30
0
de~ $ opOS '>
oo
y �(o
1. A0 P ,b 0 .>ti Ab ,1ryd A�' OS li' .yAA A� e 's, c,'1'.rOba" Po-
Panicle Class She (mm)
..UM.

Reachwide and Cross Section Pebble Count Plots
Candy Creek Mitigation Site
CMS Project No. 96315
Monitoring Year 0 - 2017
UTS, Cross Section 48
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Riffle 100-Count
Summary
min
Fmax
Class
Percentage
Percent
Cumulative
SILT/CLAY Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
2
2
2
Very fine
Fine
0.062
0.125
0
0
2
0.125
0.250
1
1
3
'IV#0 Medium
0.25
0.50
3
3
6
Coarse
0.5
1.0
2
2
8
Ve Coarse
1.0
2.0
0
0
8
Ve Fine
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
2.8
4.0
1
1
1
1
9
10
Fine
Fine
Medium
Medium
Coarse
4.0
5.6
4
4
14
5.6
8.0
11.0
16.0
8.0
11.0
16.0
22.6
2
5
6
8
2
5
6
8
16
21
27
35
Coarse
Very Coarse
22.6
32
32
45
3
11
3
11
38
49
Ve Coarse
Small
45
64
64
90
13
11
13
62
31
73
Small
Lar a
90
128
128
180
18
6
18
6
91
97
ear a
190
256
1
1
98
Small
Small
Medium
Lar e/Ve Large
BEDROCK Bedrock
256
362
512
362
512
3024
1
1
1
1
99
100
100
1024
2048
2048
>2048
100
100
Totall
100
1 100
1 100
Cross Section 48
Channel materials (mm)
Dss=
8.00
Dss=
22.60
D. =
46.2
D. =
111.6
D,,=
160.7
D,.=
512.0
t
.----^Lt1im=moo011
n ��,11115%iiIIIIIIII�■IIIIIII
�ailllE":
1111�run Boa
""".'i
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■1111�■IIII
11 .:1'"P"i
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■11111!)■■IIIIIII■I
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■Illhll■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■1■IIII■■11�1111■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■�i'illllll■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
'
■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■11'Illl
J■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
�����/����II��II.�1��■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
■■11!
_�.■nm�■IIIIIII■■1■IIII■■IIIIIII■■IIIIIII
'
,
UTS, Cross Section 48
Individual Class Percent
100
90
so
70
c
60
n
50
0
40
30
31
t
a
�
20
10
0
40 h O.p 01i
ti 'L 10, > hb 0 'r1 l0 .�ryb +,�' P� (i -P ,y'LV' ,y4' ,y'P ,�b1' y'�O'L�ry�
Partide C ass Size (mm)
..W..

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Candy Creek Reach 1
Monitoring Year 0

MI.
"I 13 ltu WP
0: A

Photo Point 4— looking upstream (0310612017) Photo Point 4 — looking downstream (0310612017)
.(Y T
.,
Photo Point 5— looking upstream (0310612017) Photo Point 5 — looking downstream (0310612017)
Photo Point 6 — looking upstream (0310612017) 1Photo Point 6 — looking downstream (0310612017)

01 ".Y
Photo Point 10-looking iip i,, am (0310612017)
Photo Point 10 - looking downstream (0310612017)
Photo Point 11- looking upstream (0310612017) 1 Photo Point 11- looking downstream (0310612017) 1
Photo Point 22 - looking upstream (0310612017) 1 Photo Point 12 - looking downstream (0310612017)

• tr N
'V 1
Photo Point 13 — looking upstream (0310612017)
Photo Point 13 — looking downstream (0310612017)

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Candy Creek Reach 2
Monitoring Year 0

c
aim
&M

} f
Y$1

d
Photo Point 20— looking
�gupstream (0310712017) Photo Point 20—■■looking downstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 21— looking upstream (0310712017) 1 Photo Point 21— looking downstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 22 — looking upstream (0310712017) 1 Photo Point 22 — looking downstream (0310712017)

1
1
C
i
Photo Point 23— looking upstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 23 — looking downstream (0310712017)
4
i
Photo Point 24— looking upstream (0310712017)

i
Photo Point 24 — looking downstream (0310712017)
i
Altk
slat 9 � •' �
Photo Point 25 — looking upstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 25 — looking downstream (0310712017)
i
Photo Point 26 — looking upstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 26 — looking downstream (0310712017)

f ?�
I. e-ln_.: --
r

I
I roll,

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Candy Creek Reach 4
Monitoring Year 0

Photo Point 35 - looking upstream (0310712017)
�.,<"Am
Photo Point 35 - looking downstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 36 - looking upstream (0310712017) 1 Photo Point 36 - looking downstream (0310712017) I
Photo Point 37 - looking upstream (0310712017) 1 Photo Point 37 - looking downstream (0310712017)

1
y,
pp yy
Photo Point 38 — looking upstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 38— looking downstream (0310712017)
a:
Photo Point 39— looking upstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 39 — looking downstream (0310712017)
L
Photo Point 40 — looking upstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 40 — looking downstream (0310712017)

Photo Point 41— looking upstream (0310712017) 1 Photo Point 41— looking downstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 42 — looking upstream (0310712017) I Photo Point 42— looking downstream(0310712017)
f^
-I.
Photo Point 43 — looking upstream (03/07/2017) 1 Photo Point 43 — looking downstream (0310712017)

d j
Photo Point 44 — looking upstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 44 — looking downstream (0310712017)
��.
Photo Point 45 — looking upstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 45 — looking downstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 46 — looking upstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 46 — looking downstream (0310712017)

i
Photo Point 47— looking upstream (0310712017) 1 Photo Point 47 — looking downstream (0310712017) 1
Photo Point 48 — looking upstream (0310712017) 1 Photo Point 48 — looking downstream (0310712017) 1
Photo Point 49 — looking upstream (0310712017) 1 Photo Point 49 — looking downstream (0310712017)

Ars

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Unnamed Tributaries 1C and 1D
Monitoring Year 0

0
r Ile

i a
e
7:
Photo Point 56— looking upstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 56 — looking downstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 57 — looking upstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 57 — looking downstream (0310712017)

STREAM PHOTOGRAPHS
Unnamed Tributaries 2, 2A, and 2B
Monitoring Year 0

i im fAl
. . ij�j
FBI
o
in
is

Photo Point 61— looking upstream (0310712017) 1 Photo Point 61— looking downstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 62 — looking upstream (0310712017) 1 Photo Point 62— looking downstream (0310712017) 1
y}
i .
, rl A
Photo Point 63 — looking upstream (0310712017) Photo Point 63 — looking downstream (0310712017)

Photo Point 64—looking upstream (0310712017) 1 Photo Point 64— looking downstream (03/07/2017)
Photo Point 65 — looking upstream (0310712017) Photo Point 65 — looking downstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 66 — looking upstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 66 — looking downstream (0310712017)

4,
Photo Point 67 — looking upstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 67 —looking downstream (0310712017)
i �
T
R
vh �
Photo Point 68 — looking upstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 68 — looking downstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 69 — looking upstream (0310712017)
Photo Point 69 —looking downstream (0310712017)

If
All
m

'I
All

�y� • . �1
77
9-
f I
yg�
law III
�
lookingPhoto Point 75 — 0.
�.

LAIC
0 '49
, i ITS V !,�l
19M
7yA

• ' >�/1$ ±\
:�r Y

Photo Point 83 — looking upstream (0310612017) Photo Point 83 — looking downstream (03/
.06/1017J� '.I _t�1�Y 9liHLML,V :.. YN_ri`Ym)M.�Pffio.fk f�I LRf'1I' Y.9 �
Photo Point 84— looking upstream (0310612017) 1 Photo Point 84— looking downstream (0310612017) 1
Photo Point 85 — looking upstream (0310612017) 1 Photo Point 85 — looking downstream (0310612017)

APPENDIX 3. Vegetation Plot Data

Table 9. Planted and Total Stems
Candy Creek Mitigation Me
OMS Projett No. 96315
Monitoring YUra -M7
Cursesd Not Deq (AMID M371
VU.11m,
Nell
I
"NeresearePbt3
I Vestments.
PI .
I VUelrtbn
NMS
Vgagtlm
Ret
V
tlon Net]
Pen"
HII
T
PnotS
Hu
T
NLL9
H6
T
PmA3
HII
T
PM.S
P�II
T
p—
H6
T
NwL9
PaM
T
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
J
.
6
E
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
S
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
E
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
I
S
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
S
1
3
3
3
u
3s
ss
ss
u
IS
1s
ss
15
ss
15
ss
ss
IS
u
ss
ss
15
15
ss
ss
3
1
1
1
1
1
0.02
am
aW
am
0.02
am
ace
5 5 5
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
0 60]
'6W... 6m 60]
60) 60]
60] 60]
6a] 6W
60] -1
-- 60] 60]
Cu a Not Daleoffil2U111
Veaeealion
N.,9
VgMtim,
pb[10
VgeYtbn
NN
11
uhi
na mIN
12
V
tbn Noe
13
VgeYtlpn
Nat
lb
PneLS
Pell
T
PmWS
Pall
T
PNALS
Ha
T
pmL9
Pall
T
Pm LS
Hp
T
PANS
H6
T
3
3
3
2
]
2
3
3
313
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
312
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
S
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
M33
2
2
2
11
1
2
S
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
ss
is
1s
is
ss
ss
1s
ss
ss
ss
IS
15
ss
1s
u
u
is0.03
0.02
a0t
0.03
0.03
O.W
6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6]
60]. 60] 60]
60] 6W
6Q] [Q]
60] 60]
6T 60J
60] 60] WI
Cement Not DNa (MYa 2117(
Prro : Number of planted stems eatluding we stakes
P.All: Number of limed ner, wduding lice flakes
T:T..,mma
Vakntsere edP6M

Table 9. parsed and Total Stems
Candy Geek MRl6atbn See
OMS Project No. 9015
Marketing Year -2017
Ntrelt Mot Data(MY0201])
norepardfines
Mann
I Inkneaders
Phat
23
tlen Pbt24
elesson No
15
Vegetation
Plat
26
Vq.4tl.nplM
27
Ne1L
Stl.-Mr: No.
Gmmon Me—
notes
Purls
Pell
T
Pw15
Pall
T
Fell
Pal
T
Psok[
Pall
T
or..
Pall
T
Prol
"a
T
pas
Pal
T
Same, ni m
River bons
Tm
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
E
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
.. ro
GreenM
TTrask3
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
S
2
2
3
3
3
Plamnw wckhentoor
mnn Ao
T.
2
S
2
3
3
3
2
2
3
6
e
e
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Querms mi.be—,
So. dsbwt wY
Took
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
qun[us
Q Mwk
Tm
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
aver[. elba
VlHowwF
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
l
2
1
N..
ss
is
SS
ISISss
]5
IS2S
IS
2S
IS
15
ss
IS
15
is
1s
15
Is
Is
Sk..rea
1
a
1
I
1
1
Site ACRES
0.03
OA2
am
am
0.02
0.2
002
Seems. wont
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
Stems No AM
W] W
60J a0]
60] 60)
60) 6O)
60] 60]
60] 6W
EW 60)
Current Plot Data (MYO 2017)
w es
Vegetation
Not
29
Ve4Ytlere
Met
30
V
tlw Not
31
Veaeheon
%at
31
Vetation
PlPt
33
Vasn'to
Ret
3a
Veg..StlmtlOt
Name
aw
T
P-AS
Pall
T
Rwk9
NII
T
Nwks
NI
T
FpS
NI
T
pM5
P-all
T
Nal
Pan
T
Pnok5
P-en
T
RRWoni m
Tree
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
Frwtnus ennsleuniw
Trte
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
Naean.omdentalis
Trte
1
1
1
22
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
pueacw m¢6omeii
u[wk
Trte
]
]
)
2
3
3
33
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
4
a
k
Tree
MT.ai
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
1
1
1
pver[w eWs
Trte
3
2
1
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
Stem cwnt
ss
ss
15
35
Sala
35
0
15
15
15
15
15
35
]S
15
15
IS
15
15
15
No. am.
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
ah.lACIIES
O.D3
OW
0.02
002
0.03
0.0i
0.@
Sgd. eOont
5 5 5
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
SNms RCRE
60) .1
6P/ 60) CW
6D) EO]
60) 60) 60)
60) 60]
60] 60]
60] 60]
Current Not DMa (MYO 2017)
Ark ... I Summodea
took, Most
36
tiw Plet12
Vegetation
Not
1.
wpas
b11 MDt
33
Vesselsden
Pbtas
MYO (31201))
sdeminc Name
CammOn Noma
Tespas
Pol
NII
T
Pnols
"a
T
NwIS
Pan
T
purls
Pall
T
Posts
NII
T
Is is
Pall
T
RrtWoni re
Rrver Lbd
T.
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
l
2
•
6
<
1
1
1
9a
W
H
faaan. wnko
Green es6
Tree
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
107
307
10I
MOtan. ocudentWis
am--nc s,m...
Trte
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
a
6
a
107
107
to
Q-,cak ..he.,
Swam channut talk
Tree
3
3
3
3
3
3
l
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
103
103
l09
gwrc.
CAer ark oak
Tree
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
3
2
75
75
75
querr. ed.
Willowoak
Tm
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1.
10)
1.
SIn—r
IS
15
0
25
15
IS
35
IS
15
15
15
15
15
15
35
603
603
603
Nn .ra
1
1
1
1
1
b
Sha ACR65
am
002
am
002
0.02
0.99
Sgdesewnt
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
6 6 6
Slam. asks, ACRE WJ 607 60] 60) 60) 60) 6M 60) 60) 60] 6W 610 610
P All::Numeer plantedsperms d,dEin6liv stakes
P All: Numaer of plante6 stems InduEing Ilve Hakes
T: Total no
9

VEGETATION PHOTOGRAPHS
Monitoring Year 0

-IFIOPPOITWI, , 7"

N. %, 0.
Vegetal
RAF,
M !, -
to 1

y
4MUP11'. 11
F
�
x
B
�
a
L

Vegetation Plot 19 (0310712017) Vegetation Plot 20 (0310712017)
--^^A
Vegetation Plot 21 (0310712017) 1 Vegetation Plot 22 (0310712017) 1
Vegetation Plot 23 (0310712017) 1Vegetation Plot 24 (0310712017) 1

E
y �
i
1�.
-a

4
JVLpr
A 'N'� �, , "I l.", T� F,
r
s.

APPENDIX 4. Record Drawings

k•
a
l
RFCFA Candy Creek Mitigation Site -Record Drawings
SUN 0
VFQ Guilford County, North Carolina
Mir/o/�/ �0'� Cape Fear River Basin - HUC 03030002
GqT jOti ERVjCFs for
Nc'- •3
$C3Ic=tl � f
-•,L Cn�,T
L'r�,vl,t SITE
1urFII!itI
y
L
A n
29
MILea -vide
10
_ _
��FF99Ett)EE � a
15.HERECAND92015MkMWftCorpaiati6n r�'�:•�-1
Vicinity Map
:sotto Scale
NC DEQ
Division of Mitigation Services
Environmental
Quality
RECORD DRAWINGS
ISSUED MAY 30, 2017
CERTFNATEOFSHSRVfY
AND
AOEGVI
F NOlAN 0.fARMAIX CERMY1145T1HE GRdINDTOYOGRAPNCSURVEY
PdRiDN Oi1116 PROIER WAS COMPtEFEDUN0E0. MY dRERSlNE0.VRI0N
i0.0EA AN ARUAISURVrIMAOE UIIOE0. MY gRER SUPE0.VGION, IFNTINE
FROMD# RAL RMWEREYED BY
Y WIHOHANOS ENWNEERING, A
FROM OIGIfA fIlES RRONDEO BY ME MAYYINGMID SURVr/ING, PA At
SNOWN10N M Af W MUD
MAY
FOR 201 STATE Oi NC, OtVtS10N Df
PERFORMED
RMED SfMK¢' DA1E0 ANY; loll: THAT MI5 SURVEY WAS
YERfORMEDATTHE WM1nNDENCEt&RK MEET THE ifDFRM
GEDOIUYNICO DATA COMMRTF MEMEMIOS:TNATTNISSUMEY SWM
UR
YEAEORMED TO MEn THE PEQUMEMFNR FOR R TOPoGRRPNC SU0.V EY TO
TIE A[[II0.AOf CHATSRR NTA ANDCIASSCVERII
APYLNABiE: THAT ME dfUNM DATA WAOBTAdEp BETWEEN THE DATES
OF U/Il/16-3IH/1):TNTTXE CONIWRS SNOWN AS BRORFN lINFS
AIAr NOT MEW TIE 9TATED STANDARDAND ALLCOORpINAT¢ARE MEFO
DN NADB3IX$R$10111AND MLEtFVATgNSARF BASE ON ruwas; TINT
TITSMAYMEEKTIE SVEOEKATg fORTW;G TKSUflVFWI
STATED IN TRLE]l, CMAYTE0.56, SECTON.1606; 1NATTNIf MAY WASNOT
PREYARFOIN ACCOppAKKE WIIN GSa)")II, AT AMfNOEDAND ODf3 NOT
REP0.ESEM AN CMi1C1ALBOUNDARY SURVEY.
WRME55 ORWINMSIGFNNRf, REWSTMTtON NUMBER AND SFAS TIRS
THE YOf &� "J_-L.
OFi1CUl sfAt
�SGARO�"'4
�Q•l�jiBl Y`�''o;
9 i vABTA,�'�Pc
N 1.11
Sheet Index
Title Sheet 1.0
Project Overview 1.1
General Notes and Symbols 1.2
tr_ _iI IN •_t ._E. • f. TM,
Candy Creek
2.1.1 -2.1.24
UTiC
2.2.1- 2.2.4A
UTSD
2.3.1- 2.3.2
U12
2.4.1- 2AA
UT2A
2.5.1
UT2B
2.6.1- 2.6.2
UT3
2.7.1-2.7.3
UT4
2.8.1- 2.8.3
UT5
2.9.1- 2.9.2
UT5A
2.10.1-2.10.2
Planting Plan 3.0 - 3.18
Project Directory
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F4)831
1430 South Mint Street
Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Aaron Earley, PE
704-332-7754
Surveying:
Kee Mapping and Surveying, PA
88 Central Avenue
Asheville, NC 28801
Nolan Carmack, PLS
828-575-9021
Owner:
NCDEQ
Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones St., Ste 3000A
Raleigh, NC 27603
Jeff Schaffer
919-707-8308
DMS #: 96315
L
P

T Joid RVdS�u� � I
l � `
I I I \
BA BARAR AMYIKAIYE&I I I 3, .
SPOAN YIIKAIYE ELE I III 37
PIN:cE
8900.36.8021 q'�/ \
— _ DB:6507 PG2573 , cE —•I— cE \
CANDY CREEK REACH 4 I \.
G- IJEFFERSON T. HOPKINS & I \ \
�IJ / IWIFE MARYANN HOPKINS33I
, PIN:89M47.6144
ROBERT K. TRACKER - MAINI7 PG:176I I J WIFE
RSONMARY T. HOPKINft
JN
JEffER50N T.HOPKINS& (REMAINING PORTION WIFE MARY ANN.HOPKIN cE
_ PIN:8900-05-3431 / TRACT II) PIN:8900-08-2030
IRGINIA M. WAGONER - EE I P I BRUCE H. CHRISMON & D0:5891 PG:1013 (.,. A D8:4507 PG:1769
WIFE MARY ANN HOPKINS cE
PIN:8900-00-3874 I PIN:8900d6.6427
g WIFE M CHR LONG IN:89 (REMAINING PORTION OF
1ESTATE FILE: 95-E-1675 CE .Q ce 7 PG:1613 I \ CHRISMON 1 I TRACT I)
REF:DB3728 PG:1496 I ; / \ PIN:8900.44-7926 1 ' / / nj (REMAINING PORTION OF) I ,
J- d' 41 I \ I 08:6156 PG:1053 I Q
�_� CC / T re \ ` — — LPe:lorPG:sz 1 L Q Q
9.11
_ 33
33,
I I
VIRGINIA M. WAGONER 33 -` 3T v
— — — _ _ I //�• j�GC`��,� ��t�PL.� � / ,. W// / �,. J j ( r6 I2 ..\ ;� G��_ _. \\ rf \1C
CE CE
REF:08:32Z2.PG:646PIN:8809.49-7477
ESTATE FILE: 95-E-1675 1111DY cED.REACH cl Q-
NANCY BRAY ti=�
II �. \ G�`
I I
PIN:8900.50.2413 I
D8:4552 PG:2029 I / '1 ``O I ,nI I I W� 1 I
P8:168 PG:103 (LOT 2) �" / /P,\ I JOE W. HOPKINS & WIFE, I :(7� DAVID ELMO CHRISMON I I
DAVID ELMO CHRISMO\ \
1 . LISA RICH HOPKINS �- PIN:8900.55-2557
DB:PIN3500-02.8870 2557
ESTATE FILE: PG:S341 - ESTATE F/ E:05-E941 t'f — — _ _
ell
DB:3502 PG:1633 I REF: ING P P PORTION
J (REMAINING PORTION OF) REF:D8:188 PG:532 I r —
I / I J (REMAINING PORTION OF) /
BRYAN DAVID HOPKINS '%� ERBERT WALLACE HOPKINS & w. I
BEGIN CANDY CREEK PII'7:8900-S1-5378 I SPOUSE, MARJORIE HOPKINS I '>' i"
I
tAT: N36'13'24.04' 1 PIN:6900 53-3395 I
ESTATE FILE: DARN W..CARR & v 0 i
LONG: W79'39'34.06" DB:3654PG:306 ,' O '
I REF:08:1826 PG:75 WIFE, TAMEIA P. CARR I Ir�—
(REMAINING PORTION OF)
VIRGINIA M. WAGONER PIN:8900.52-0126 1 v/ 3� xl — — — —J` I
P — — — — — —
08:7310 PG:3064
ESTATE FILE: 95-E-1675 0— T
REF:DB:3222 PG:644
I I
I
1 I S^ I J I IEFFER50N TODD
I _ TL-
HOPKINS&
M
,
WIFEARY ANN / I
I I I ARI S
PIN:8900.53.8916
I I I I DB:3557 PG:2fi2
Irie, \
p cl,'J' b d v \
0' 30V 600' 900,
•. PgNMM�IJ
,�pttlttpryryh
C}' J
cy orno��
�44lIp1gL0
H
I
Cu
Iv
.0
V
cd
\i
A,
N

As -Built Features As -Built Structures As -Built Structures n
® As -Built Log Sill
� E
® Z;, RPin-
As-Built various Constructed Riffles® As -Built tankera,.
is
Log ¢:d ^,q is
00
—_ 10-00 _Az-BuiltThalweg Alignment As -Built Brush Toe As -Built Log l-Hook
As -Built Major Contour (5' Interval)
As -Built Minor Contour
As -Built Rock 1-Hook
aagpO..ry�n
As -Built Log Vane p Ty
IJ
�d as
As -Built Pock Cross Vane
•v'•a� .nP
O0O As -Built Boulder Sill
CXDc;0 As -Built Boulder Toe Protection
AS -BUILT DRAWINGS: ` / `^a
Deviations from the design will be shown in red. As -guilt Permanent Crossing
Existing Features Proposed Features Proposed Structures Proposed Structures p
-- - - - Existing Property Line --- Ce - cE cE -- Recorded Conservation Easement ­r Proposed Log Sill F.
Proposed Various Constructed Riffles 0 CIS
- - - - - - 1D0- - Existing Major Contour (V Intervaq -- CE xx --- CE xe --- - - Reserved Stream Crossing /
.�.0 U a�
- - - - - - - - - ExistingMinor Contour P cE - - rcE rcE Proposed Temporary Construction Easement \\\ Proposed Brush Toe I '-I
\�\ x\ \ ® Proposed looker Lag t N
0.00 d
- oHE — ous niit Existing Overhead Electric - - -- Proposed Thalweg Alignment � � G
Existing Power Pole _ - - -- Proposed Bankfull 00
Proposed Brush Mattress Proposed Log 1-Hook O
Existing Easement------100------- Proposed Major Contour (5'Interval( 0 •L.•-
-- Existing Fence - - - - - - - - - - - - - Proposed Minor Contour - _ z
Proposed Vernal Pool 0 M
- roc roc — Foc - Existing Fiber Optic Cable - - s ---- e - s Proposed Back of Bench Proposed Rode J-Hook U
-
uuE—uutuuE- Existing Underground Utility Easement X Proposed Tree Removal N
Proposed Channel Plug U
- oUE ouL ouE - Existing Overhead Utility Easement �s Proposed Tree Save Proposed Log Vane N
s v
— Ss ss — ss — Existing Sanitary Sewer - SAP - -' SAF -- - W Proposed Safety Fence O G r^
Proposed Transplanted Sod Mat Proposed Root Wad U V
- SSE — SSE - ssE Existing Sanitary Sewer Easement T
Proposed Silt Fence
Existing Storm Pipe
- - Ixl Ixl -- Ixl - - - ' Proposed Vegetated Soil Lih
_ _ _•- . _ _ _ _-_ - - Proposed Rod Cross Vane
Existing Trail -Ixl --ontw-- Ixl --- Proposed Temporary Silt Fence Gravel Gullet U
• j Existing WHIand I I I Proposed Temporary Rock Sediment Dam
OaQ Proposed Boulder Sill
Existing Tree
Existing Groundwater Well
ixCO Proposed Boulder Toe Protettian
Existing Bedrock -
Proposed Permanent Crossing
Existing Road
Proposed Temporary Crossing
PROJECT NOTES:
Topographic survey was completed by Kee Mapping and Surveying in March
2015. Parcel boundary survey completed by Kee Mapping and Surveying in
2015.-n-3uip survey completed M.v(il )01
"Y Proposed Temporary Construction Entrance R - W 0 =
3
��Z r�
Riffle selection will be varied based on avaiable materials at the Engineers'
discretion. Field coordination will be required.

ns
m
m
+ -}-+
-
-
+
-
�DGPAI?E
. _
-
I
m
lw0
ALIGNMENT
SNIFFED
i
Gr 4' b'
rvu.nu n
ns ^
':'(W=z
ao �a
3^
no
m
sw.00 Ease
772
77
3 I
1
— a D
a � a
a a I
—aIA
a a
IV_ VI V
a
a I a
Sheet Index
�Dric
AEn
W
d O
0 Er
aS
v U
U5z
0�0
U
U
G
U

_ 1 I
' I
� I
I _ I
1- BRUSNTOE
REMOVED
G I t" J BRUSH TOE INSTEAD
+I OF SOD MAT HJ
BOULDERSILL 2L_
- ADDED
RIFFLE -_.-s _ 5" Q $ -k,✓
ADDED _
I I
IAN
_
D—D— a D a P D D 11
•ID D D D—D�p_�D�_D--P P P a a
_ I
I
n
4. s.
Sheet Index
�IC
119
117
C.
€}�Sil i"Y
flvo
y
0rr0
.a
3
nY
�
5
v
oa
0
o
0
�
U
all
•l�'.
'�
U per.
V
R
�
l.i
W
U
rj
lz
IU

765
s
160
tCI
m
1a•w ,OMO
1�
LOG SILL
BRUSH TOE / REMOVED — — ^ — — — —
® _ ��"
CR
~ __ pCt�6 la
RR
9 -- -�\
LUNKERLW REMOVED — NKER IOG ADDEh
FOR TREES LU � - - \
SUN MATERLOGAOVED - -
LUNKERLW ADDED
� Ifil[
BRUSHTOE _ I
REMOVED\
D—D--D—p—D!p�D—p—P
II
I
n—n—D--�
II
I
a
m
960
0• 1' b
!n
p 21Y 10' e0' ZL^r
��wn2
3y

m
m
1111111111�ij
r
I --
� ' `VROYOSEO GMOf
-_ +
_a—a—
i J
1
I �-a
ILI
—41 e
l59 J5q 'y BRIDGE PQSSMIG
l
- --
1
/ a
BRUSH i0E INSTEAD ® O �� v e \I\ Ali, •1�, '
I OF SOD MAT
LOG VANE
REMOVED
t
b it \ S II
® 1w
4
�DDD—D1]lJ DIJD-3JJJ-3>�3J—DD—IJD�3]�]]iJ3JD�l,'
W p
A
W 11 CJ
\S ry
7 •R'
Sheet Index
/C"IC
1n
r�r
ca
.a
3
Q
-o 0
H
o U
v
p
�z
0
U
'd
U �
U

m
6'
rvmui
Q 2D40' 6V
266
166
to
00
To
o0 m
v
v
o d P.
lu . G
11MW 11 •.OD 116 w 120-00 I3 w 121g0 121.50 122.00 123N0 f�9 )( R
1-4
O Lam'
V t6
1a�a I bA � 'OC
n' fy i ��'. V 1tl a10i
ST 118.91
CRFER RFAOI I..l - NL ..1
ND UTS
_ O ,yF
w-
17
AR
® BRUSH I.- ♦� II
REMOVE �
Sheet Index
23
zizt
1m
2.1.19 K
21.11 LI.`

m
70
—t
-
�PPOPOSED GPADF
1 -
[AS
W MT
Kf
4-_
121,50 125.00 124-M 125W 125H0 12M6a 12Nlp
\ 1
9 /
\ P /
P /
b
'TA 216.n
Mu10 ar2rn cu6c 65K212
rss
a Y 6'
menu !A
b to- 5aSO ' z 4 R' !
Is0 �Y _ �• LL
,45
Sheet Index
e�
/vlc
N
C�C
.a
3
cil
o q
12 O M
Q U
1 �
i o
(n Z
�0
� b
.x o
w
W
U U
b
V
N

m
NO
735
�PACMSEDGAADE
i
j
ASBUILT SURFACE
126.80 127-00
5
1
J
745
70
i55
1]WSO t31M0 151-M
•R
a
R
\ O
\a
R
\R)
' ®©� BRUSH TOE INSTEAD i ` J �/ O� _ 1r1. �♦ /
OF ROOT WAD 4Q' DSS
125,00
__
BRUSH TOE INSTEAL
�- OF SOD MAT
128-50 I`iM`00 , 129-50 10
V
I SOD MAT REMOVED
c
1peet
OF 2
Cw ,0
e�rnmn.i
51",tlnd,
tn
� a -
Zo.RSg�
Qz
3• 4
;P Iammrlrrrr--
s YO r7i o 3:5
e
b�$y ppf?
P
I000.1�J
CO
bo
3
o V
d
+� O
USz
O �5'
03
0
U
V
'> C�

750
745
70
131-W Ii1H
1 t M-&llll SURFACE
I� I] w 133,00 I] w 114100 111,W I35,00 135.50
F\
cF� waocxoksixs�
�a.
- A
1 / v
i n
\ I �
r gip•. •, ft �.
\R
' e
00
iMY
a /
a /
a /
6 /
a /
a/
a /
a /
a a. 6.
IN
A'
743
70
C.
I
0
.'1
3
o
o a
U
r4
N
o
i O
�z�
u
as0
a
�G O
U
U
Sheet index
12y
122
P
2120.19 TIC
1.17 21.15 IFnn
L lO 1.13
zt16 21.N it'll VR11
21.1
21.1 21.9
a pg W C
/,/\
V�J
Its
Ift3
21A
IITI 11I3 iI z11
8dddt d
_

m
PROPOSED GRnoE
a
a zs' a' 61 zgs x a
<; a=
9 z
3.
,H
@P pS, •Old 1-
N aiPg
4.nnF.WJJ
7" m �F-
111{HI) 11l.W
St RFACE
IJ11.FO HTH9 131H0 iWX) Iwm 139H9 1llNW
Fell♦
may} 1]0
140-00 HORN
y iT _PIP
M
R TOE REMOVED
FOR TR++
FOR EES � O
W
m
Sheet Index
JI e ``\ �"'�w�1.iF'� '`•��� `� J11� ' I~3 J 1121 e
<�f-
- __ ® 112
_ zlzl
1 --- _ LOG SILL 1]a
ADDED 2119 /UTC
LOG VANE I 1'1721.15 llTlo
21.18 1.13
tt REMOVED 211.
\ q q FORTREES ' 21.16 LLI 21.11
L1.9
u J
21,11
q 4 2 V
' lR3 21
F

i
I
7w
uaw 1w•w
Tr
u1M0 14l�1uW0
DJ
BRUSH TOE WADIINSTEAD
OFRDT WAD OF O
i
waoaossuw
�!Slllll
MD, gEfl1lFAQli
STAa18�31
WE
n
r_
6
.5
�w,rw
C
w
eu,uwn.,
.0
.0
135
$h2 t Ind"
/mc
219
Wr
.a
3
^d o
w F~
,
N U
O
zaa
o Y
0
V
W
X 2
N �
U V
U

1.0
,15
730
ns
144.80 1•s
.00
v
ENOCRNO ME[ 1 R Z
NO WORE WA 1• 42-SS0.. 149,01
I p
_ D /
a
4 b'
w
a
20 v_..
40 w
15
m
M
�.w
Et
57a 149.00
BEGIN GWDY ERFER RFA013,
Sheet Index
1
dPik �3je2
b adyYall r �
�q PPP
N,MUMRp
u

ns
m
ii1
1m } I
tN.wtss.w uapo
1
AS -MILT SURFACE
f "� 41�\_
usao +sowo tsaso tst.00 tnno �•� ��
I
b b b b i b
35
M
725
tsx.w tu.n
Shee[Index
/ric
113
Re

a � s
m
m
Tts
,".50
0
,64HIG
,OOr00
155.50
158-00
b
\
4 �
_ n �
0 L \ MttIGF GOSFIrIG
CROSS VANE SHIFTED.
HALF LOG HALF ROC"
RW \
�C11
iia Piiiir:�N r. ii .Jp .i..:..i%✓
RIFFLE REDUCED
FOR CROSSING
1 _
1 ° \ REMOVED FOR TFL!
S A� sw5
END CANDY CREEK REAU1��53—{[[[ryNNNCFNNNM,,,[[[ENT
1 \°\ BEGIN CANDYCRFEX 56LM �NNANCE
o- \
1 ° \
1 \°
I �
Fm
ns
Em
,IONO ISIN00
_ fO0. TREES
6
/6 /
Ga ,•�-11UNDr CR[FE REALMS \ /b
ENO MID n 6
fO 4 \
b
Sheet Index
/ c

i30
72
m
71a
A&KIALT SURFACE
PIED ;RAOE
I
I
o a6'
n
z' W P
<��AmmZ
�sRfi i=€
3-
na
ti
m
ns
15aNa la).0o Isn60 1NM0 13a1a0 1aaRW ESMM 1a0.00 IaM60 INROU
1 I
A
T If
7—�—
0
i y
M 1 RO KANDYa111K READ 3 H i
1 ]sa ss NDUTiw INKMAVATKIN\ \ i
RIFFLE \
1 ADDED 4 Iti
N
I 21• ��
"_ / RLR D _4 BRUSH TOE
/ EXTENDED
FQ-
LDG REMOVED IV1
Y W
vbl .i\� J\\4 1ai=
vul -r l 1
�s� TOE (_CAY CRE I��a
i g
a EMOVED ® 1
x. v —
1 I
le
If
' I
/ I
/ \ ® I
a A a a a a a
I I a a
Sheet Index
/ovnc
Z1.1
W
N

,]U
m
m
715
- -+ +
I ,
RSBUIli T11PFRCE 1
/ 1
a r r c
r1 ��
a w m
M
VH1 12wa NN=0 10. 111a luw 16 0 1E5.00 'W"
/
In n a a
I /
I /
+I /
I I
�I /o
21 /� CANDY CREW. FOBRUSH R
REMOVED
OR TREES
/e
BRUSH TOE
c,WA LOG REMOVED
161wa
— c tN • ` J
c
CI P 165100 S
I (;� BRUSH TOE i .__
LO6 REMOV EG � � •` If
I ® 1t>
a
I jE5 v LUNKER LOG
MOVED FOR TREES /
BRUSH TOE /
�— REMOVED /
_<e-----�—b—a—a—a—a—a—a—a—a—a—a—a—a—a—a—a—a—a—a—a—a—a—�e
I
I
I
Sheet Index
/6O

m
116
no
HN>f0 1W50 tee.W 1M.W tel.00
� W
\ g
/000
as-euK1 wnPACE
` MOPOSED GRADE
o r s•
V 30 ID W
725 uaraunu, -
na
115
no
1l1.S0
IN.00
la.Nl
teY.00 1N.W 110.00
4b
W
W\
W
W W
W
W \ W
W
\
0
I
W
W
W
\W W
W/\W
ROEK VA INSTEAD
OF LOG VANE
ROCK VANE INSTEAD OF /
\ - _ LOG VANE i
\ \ ROULDER TOE W
\ REMOVED
\ W
BOULDER TOE ADDED
BRUSH TOE REMOVED 7�
\ BRUSHTOELOGF6Y
REMOVED
\ _ �—�• � _� IK.D
it a/a/
a
a /
Sheet Index
/snC
co
ww �y
.M
u�
Go
u"

mi
na
i15-0U11i Sl
- _
�� LL
F
}eRDYO5ED4MDE j�
a 3
„ate
„U.UU ,l0
5
nsauar SURFACE
to
FT F
0
O.'.,,p<.mi
e e
ns.00
w
1' ]6'
n xc .o
Sheet Index
P�
/uTIC
11.9

ns
M
no +--
nswo
-- — - ASWILT SURFS
n=w
naoo
__.+.
i
rn.RR-
Wyk
y—a—a_a
/ I / I
p3' C b'
zs
m.K.r
p 10' 0'
- e�mri
120
TIS
no
10
kIC
n
a E ^
Z 004
¢Em _2
a�F�aa=
7
In
3
Q
'a O
O V
N
a� O
T,z
o�
�0
v
yO
U
C7
b
V
ldhhl
U `
Ln

72$
715
Imm
a � n
\Jain
P Y J.
m.mn
P le JD'
.u.w..0
]D j�
715
Sheet Index
r
W
N
1I01I1I N

720
710
m
ienso
-
ram- +
PROPOSED GRADE
1MM0 1NH0 1Ma00 nNl0
1
r�
J
1El�W tN.30 137w0 Ie1.50
•\ /a/a /'-tea_ _a_ -i
a
a � a
710
tNgD
a. G.
a
a m as en zi�R7l#$
Sheet Index
N
bA
3
ACRC
0
O co
y U
F
+�+ O
�z
0
0
U
'd
N 0
v
z•. �
U C7
I
J k it
111111 N

720
705 +-
1e8.00
t --t-
i
e00VO5ED GUM
77 t _
._L_ _ / f I
lasso iec.00 insa 100.00 100.W also iulso mxso
z1 � CA DYCREEK
/ a
a ' /a�
a /
i
a /
o r s
7x0
�r
o' xn w w Z° R�
P. ra:3 -
715 / 3e
710
-rt xos
100H0
Sheet Index
/vnC
N

M
115
210
705
m
102.
t5
,. i
S PROPOSED GRADE
PSBUIIT SDIIRPCE
1p 1M 1"W
/n
/ n /
/ o
/ n W
� D
716
710
005
m
1M IO� 1M lww
V\
a
\
a
W W
�
W W�
JJ
LL \
\l\
y
� W
O
r^h
a
\
DY CREEK
i
neeau
a 1a 50
to /
/""c
tMD
1.10
IN
L1.1 ZIM ll:
2
21.1 1i°
V
C.
9Ir N

)15
I i
-t
---�-�--ter--
+-
-r
1s)ws 1v).w ,se.sa ,v..so 1vv.so ,so.w ioo.00 �.,.
V �
��. •• \• . ���.�. • � •_ • �_-�ir� ~�� •ram _
lee
)15 • 6
� a
>a w z�.R�a
=aa�
l� t Dq0
3
),0
4;�
—m
.,wo
Na
•
a N

710
no
m
M
IO1.W ]O1H0 IClMO Z9N69 ]MWY 29J•50 lIIAWp 'yN(0 1MM0
`\
BOULDER TOE
A
_ ^ ADDDED
Ds /1
4 JK •35
/ / :'' •/_i 5♦0 . fHD GNR101111Yl SE$
CT N
/
PROPOSED GRADE
ICI ' 1
1 I
7
AS.BUIEi SURFACElit
/
rlo w �L INSTEAD
ei i
9 SILL
ROOTWAD
REMOVED ,-Z,
fti�hl
BRUSH TOEINSTEAD
MA
-__ OF 6DO MAT
C a
—aid-
_�a__a a a
,05
m
595
M-w
I- 6
M.SMI
Sheet Index
/ D
4& w
21.9
W
to

765
m
m
,u
16B
llN {—
lOMBD
BEGIN
AS BURS SURFACE
'100Hp SOI.OB
_ � a
a � a
a � a
� a
P
1
P
1
1
201H0
m
ii9
—} 1t3
wl1
ass_____
57 5'
0' 10' 30' BO'
Sheet Index
Lil Vic
L22
EZA LTD
.1
AA 31
URA �
i
Ed
O
�•1

1
99
7"
To
742
al10a05EDGM°E
——
ASaUIITjUaaAQizz
zo+.90 zozwa am.ae
a � Y
n �
_ate
i-----------
IN
MO
9' 1.5' s' 2sn 22
�..�..,, zo:Ria
a 10. ze w �ZIA
.,Jc qni
3:
Alw: y gAt
Sheet Index
221 Unc
rzx
°
i
4A tCREEK
Uf3a
v�e°R
s
N
sv
0
u�

m
�u
140
]]5
25a-C^.
i
'ANSO >OaW
a iP�
� P
P
b
/ P
9 /
55
0' 25' S' 7.5'
0' lP ZO' w
�W
,m
70
7u
]l5
A
Sheet Index
zzl� lc
uz
OF

9.5
9.0
m
m
I 10
1
MgIOSEOGMOE
AHU4T
AEE
1_•
/
T!0
B2.5 B,._'
zoaag0
o' Io' zoBo' �
a
745
70
. `.
t F.wa•.oego
m
730
207..o
_ ll
I
_l3S-
LOGVANE J-NOOK
REMOVED REMOVED
i- ---•—tea
+
CR.R
--- _-__y--___a - Q
•- F- Sheet Index
J 20s. 2
UI ENO UTIC RESTORAT" 1
BEGIN UTIGP PRESERVATION U
321 UTIC
I � 222
IL L ID
1
2LA 28.1
132 tnzw zs.l vrze
UZ 61
-----------
14A
CAN CREEK
I .B
173 B
2B
263
I I U.1
29.
VTS 02
29.1 01
LTSA

1-4
25040 nV4111
251.59 251.0
'NOTE : STEP POOL SECTIONS WILL VARY IN SIZE, COORDINATE WITH ENGINEER INFIELD
I
v
Q
Sheet Index
L2.
3 LTIC
22.2
2
n
�.2A
U)2B
LT_A 2.51 1
LT2 6]
29.1
CAN CREEK
a
i)J 3 R
u l'J
N29
R 112 p f =
19.1 l0J d A d
LTSA

n0
m
10GOD 3"0 MAO n1N0 M3-M ]WMD
—
_ a—a—_n—n—n—n—
/n
i
� a
�1 ON 1i
3
ns
m
m
sa.w
Sheet Index
of
to
bD
C O
0 0
Ri
U
+j O
za
0cl
G
,�p O
U
14
v o
v�
U
M
U
C1
iE
0

IY
TEO
in
SI
001.30 Sa.so JB� mnT ]OTKo EOMW
/ D 1
/ D
b _
D _
b _
/ RIFFLES REMOVED
J-N 3' REMOVED
a ` LOG SILL REMOVED
' FOR BEDROCK
a
a�
/ a _
a
/ Q
BOULDER SILL INSTEAD
OF LOG SILL
BOULDER SILL
INSTEAO OF LOG SILL
BOULDER SILL ADDED
V
ER SILL INSTEAD
OF CROSS VANE
CRiP
- 307�00'-__w___
...-CR`Ln UT2
s
LOG SILL :' Si0._3111 •
INSTEAD OF UT] REACH 1 RESTOMTIO
CROSS VANE S I STA. 216.81
I.TlE COKRUE
On
ZD
BOULDER
SILLINSTEAD
OF LOG SILL
a
T6
m
TEE
ANC
rW
.a
3
L1 .ca
"c o
0 It
�
v U
o
�z
Q0
U
U U
U
Sheet Index
2E.1 Unc
21 UTID
IA u3 UT1B
UT2A Mi.1 6.1
llf2 Z
N 21J _
v
0
rl C

IF-4 --1 +:
_
_
M
—4-
4—o
'
a zD• w� so�
a
Zi¢es�$
44
a^
,55
I
I
C'-
o �� N
ea
]50 I
I
I
,45
]IS
ii--T t
,a
,m
I
,5,
..A 509.00 J09�30 310.00 510.50 311.00 511H0 31" 513N0 31"
/
S1, 54.97
EMD UT
n n n - / Si ln.SP RIFFLE -
n /
END Uii PEACNIRSTOMTION -, ADDED - �_- / ---- PFGIN Uf30.EACN2Ef/XfJICEMENfl /; IS
_TGD__ ___ I / - {l
BOULDER
l _
--- - - - SILL INSTEAD
S
OF LOG BILL
/ lSOUIDER LOG SILL �'a' / "�-•��-'�-�- ,� l y,_
BOULDER _ SILL INSTEAD REMOVED
/ 1=
SILL INSTEAD OF LOG SILL
OF LOG SILL r
---- � -cxLP IQ
RIFFLE
w - SHORTENED
\CPLP q i
• 30gr00 �___ - O'
r
- 1 I
,SD , F 1
I
__ BOULDER_ _ - - - r
-- SILL INST
LOSOF LOG SILL EADI
Q _ G ILL _ - BOULDER
-� --�
REMOVED - � SILL INS]
OF LOG SILL
a O
r�r
.a
3
,a o
1-4
v 0
i�
N O
5.
�z
�G
.0
a
0�
U
v
b
Ln
U
U
Sheet Index
me
1
LID
UT
�B
UR 1
a
v N ti 2•.1
GN REEK
In
,.1
LBS
i9
29.1
�5A

.m
710
gS
+
}
}
}
F
}
-•
SEDGMDE
I
Im
31�
1ObU
M7-W
M1
11
313-H
Wh
y �o-
a / 1
a/
1�s Zo:Ru$
� Zo
p AM
3 Fl� `LL E
NO
735
CbjDC
.a
1]0
MN
0
-0
1-I :N
o V
L P _ 0)
MFlu4 1 y�N
D•
o�
CO 0
U
i '24
x o
it
Sheet Index
zz trttc
us
E�
0
N P�

>«
Ts]
B A
740
3MNn
I
1
' '. PROPI)$FD GHADf
i
AS BUILT SURFACE
}
i
uBNB u1M8 utae $s3•BB ]]E•SB u\]MO ( uN'A
P
\ a a a n
v\a
\ STA. 3W.M
BEGIN SEEM ENHANCEMENT 1
]BB
in
\e
EN\G UT2\e�NEACH 1 NE90RATION
N UT2 MACH 2EE1NANfFMFMi\ `
\�
$TA: 31CH
UR BFACX E ENHANCEMENT 1'
STA 35,1.37
NO UE]A ENHANCEMENT I
Sheet Index
u�Itmc
l =1LAI 15 I

m
T]s
no
765
]6R
]es
U-M
ns
to l
PH
m
27 w 270-M vl• 271• v" t/t•EG x]1.0o asaG lis+o0 aNss
/
��➢��p—D�D�➢ A�b��A—A—A�� /
a
1.� D ➢ D ➢ D � � ,e
P BOULDER SILL ADDED �`. SOD MATTING /
I T REMOVED FOR TREES /
BOULDER /
P SILL ADDED ,o -
STA.➢0+18 \ /
BEGIM UT3R EN14NEFMfNT3 I 11 _---
I-_-__ - ---- - l
B
U ` $ nay
l
~— - AS SOD MATTING
__ REMOVED FOR TREES
IfLOG
SILL
IADDED
P
I
a — a
0
-a-a-a-a
a -a
SOD MATTING
REMOVED FOR TREES
0
A' 1.
nlnw�
o
Aa EG'
v
I
Sheet Index
r:
zs.1 lrrlc
Lt2
23.1n
UT]B
2 N.0 15.1 1
Ui]s
v v L4.1
CAN REEK
n
v0
2R1
78.1
2i9.1'rr..
N
Iw
I0.1

nE
m
m
1e0
As BUILT SUIIEACf _ _
BBaPOSFOGMOF
a r A s
m
m.Rw
a wBo• ,Z �$��0
3�
m
1,
lee
Me
214.30 274-W mwe VIP" SIVee Bf1.E9 SIWB
i
/
/
� a
�3
'2 O
v V
v
in z
go_
cq
as
o
E
y U
v
U U
U
Sheet Index
iz.a UnS
!za
L! nD
u 22�utH vLI URB
Drz �
Cq
kEEK
�
1
E I$
y

]80 — - 70
U d' <6'
n/nwi
� a
9' w +D' ED' Zi`R3
Q yTi
a.15
Q�u�49
]55 1S5 ~
� #4—
'rodN
750 — 1 750 �4/IlyNuyW�
---r -r- ,
\; F POSEDGRME
AS -BUILT SUPPACE �/ l � .a
]35 ]a5
i 1 rl
o d
v
� � o
yo �
v
no HD 'O
411. 41E190. 41 n 41 100 415 I4100 41 H 41+NE
ca
• U
14
a I
iA
a-
I�
Q ® FOR TREES
REMOVED `
IC FOR TREES " \ ca
ROCK SILL I 1 ] S
I� INSTEAD OF LOG Sheet Index
.y \ JINUU FOR BEDROCK
411r50 C .W arc
T
SSEMAID ^ C CR., �= ® STA: +19.96
UGN END OT3 MUM \ ZR.RP ENDUT3 u UiIO
l 51A [25.I1 Z).1
' / R ":—^� f � CAFE[R 1 UTEB
25.1 6t a
63 {
23.1
` C^NDVC�Cr� 'RM CAN (7�EK
3p�
l C
a .1
2 b� b_ D_ DAD - + UT 10.E Y I l V
29.1 161 8
b� ��

w
m
7w
6'
r�
p p 40' 60'
Sheet Index
L2.1 Unc
2
22A F VfD
U.1

m
I55
?w
745
SW.JO 504-50
MS."
I
�R\
R \
R \
I R \
I v R \ R
oI -
P --
UlI
Nlpp
a /
a /
a /
a /
a /
a /
a /
a FOR TREES
a /
a / 1
CRd
CaICM�
I0.J /
50W00 L
I
I" b 7
I \ D \ b
I �b
I
1
D
I
I b�b\b`b\b\PI D--D'D PIP P
I
,.S
w
1
y 9'
I D
ID \
P
11) I
I D I D I 9 \
I
P I
tl �. 6.
rrtm�u
N�R4RW
A,
QaW
Oz; a
tlW5•
C.
co
.5
0
0
�1
U
Y
O
z
0
U
w

IN
+ - + __ «-
fi
P80PO51D GMDE
j 1
- .ISMIILT SURFA'�
I 70
1.0
50{.50 50{.00
50N50
510.00
stO
{I1.00
I v
11I
L 1
~n n p
\ b
511.50
51N00
{t5W{
513-M
IN
745
110
514M0514.10
0' 2' 9' 6'
0P.
' 20 .a.eox.090' 60'
Sheet Index
12.1 L lc
12
z.z
z •.9
A�
11,11111111
w

ies
m
�„
TY �
BOWBB
eoo.BB wl, wl• .ox.DB ao:.w Bm.Do .w.>o r
BEGIN UES V MESEWAaOW�
ST,\fiW.00
ENDUTSi MESEBVATp
H. BFGIN Uf5 RESTORAiX)N�
NIP
a. n
as
o' r2
aTT=
x
m 3 —
„o
BW.BD M..1B
i�''
r
nJ
E
•.r
�
•w.
i
w
m
_ \ f
Sheet Index
G,
Rea' ���
{ G \\
e E -� � V
d 1,1dlolfl

I +751
NIOPoSEDGMDf
I
i
VIC
i
AS -GUILT Ask: df
yy
t
1
i
15
._�
a ,, 5cs.aa
E06.W
M6.DC
66N6U 6UtW6 607.w
6UpU6
0.60 M.UD
•UM60
Gia 616N2
a 2 < c
11
a a — a
U' 2a ea 60
.a
�a
�r
)
VIE 61U12
END M
9A. 116 l
CREENKREl
y
}'
GNDY
FLU NCE Y
�p
LOUSLLTOEMOVED
6RUSN TOE ADDED
CONRV
y
SZr
II
cK cAc w o
-
Sheet Index
®
-
y�
tbt
UT5
r
zzl EmC
ifx
�\
xzz
MIDGE CMSSIN
E "
—
w
K-
CANDY CREE
22 11iiD
L1.1
C
u.l IMB
J
2
UE2
�
\ J O
\
N
r- � �
� .J �
•
66DGf
CA CREEK
n
- )Sa
�
w
�
D—n—aa�
2I, n
ze.l
�
, UT lu
10.1
lR6A
A

7 t \!
/ *CE
,'
CE �� 1. �L`CE �4-tt rt t +!'
/ / 4iTIIfG CE CE 1L lSrt' tt
*YE�tET RYA CELL tE ! •C t\� \ trt `• t�t
C� x x CE. �- CE �'t ! Lr ,rl ,'. ' , ` ; r� }rl �\ /
t 11'C� CE �-`+ CE / x* C6 CE T� CE ACE \ !!` t�; t�t 1rt . trt ` `tt r try tit lr+ 1 t , ` Y
CE CE 1' . l L t t`+ I t , r` tr r L 1
tr. Lrt ,ri , CE CE - 1 CE y ,� in l 1 r �. FrL i,t
! t ti - .� �— CE E`. !rL l t ®\r ,it 1 r trt rt . C l
!�` �- t i `� t ``5 j i \ t �r, !l i !r, tr, t r Ir `r ! trt ! ! l 1 t \r 1 :rt I ttt
, 1 �' \ t, i1 ,r r ! fir, in lrl ,t1 t t tr, t t t , t L ,. t 5 l L r I t ltr ' 2s
1 ri +r 1 ! ` \
r � r r i't , � jj r
,rt jr! Yrt � 1I Ill ,rl trt ttt `r , tr` Y, tt! � �rt r � � !` � t ` I L
! 1 + r I , , i , t \r, t t. _ tr 4 !rt 10 �`. ! t t ® , - .._t, ,r! /,% ` 1
... in Lit .7 it / )II !r5 Lrt tri 5 107w0 Irl !�! \ \ trl _ '00 tlt ® t 11! !r
1 1, ( r r , [ r r r ' L r'
°z. +r 1 !r ! ` ,rt r II ; Il !! ! t�l ,rt ~ 11ot ,' ! ! !�
t\+ ♦ ! er 1I 17 l lr ' y_ \ 1t r Ir rt
t lrt it tkV I
1t r 1 ��� 11( 1t crL . III , / _, t + t t �109+�0 r t t f t" !�} �t
t ,, � , t
t! t t t ! t ! t t
S Lrt t�l l tr tr+ r l i� t .. _! -' r Lr trl L` '" ! L. , ,r r L t
.�
! .. _._.— +r ! _ _
!� , _.__ r t �,11 ,.!
yC DY CREEK �! ! ! t 1` , r, ! I Il Il II ,r Il I1 tl 1
�, l' S ! L r® 4`\ ! ! L ! lI: l.11 r ,rt �. Il 1l j Ill I S\L r+
lr r r rL ® r`. ` ! r lr! 1 tr` I1 t Ill I +!t `r5 lit r ' it
3D
Al tr Lrt /\1
tr, ,r, ,rl !. !rl trl l trt ' lr� trt \ 1`t� lr A, lrt , t art Al ( 1 !
`r' t5+ tr` ,r! ,rl ,r! trl ,ir ir' l ,r, Lr, t�l lrt 11,j\ , } wtr4. ` 3� l=l®3
�� t L�L , 1� Ir�,�r4 1Ft tr'i�� l 3]i'� p �� ® /_�
33 �- S
Sheet Index
p' 40' 80, 120,
- (xoxa�ertety -
ki
t'a
0
u
1
0
a�
ML
cn
ZNry�mLL
��ut?mMZ
N
aZ=�so
AZm= d A�
� ufLL
0
0
Ow"
�S
7—I
z
O
u
R
0
�r
4
J

/
/
O• / EE ��<F ��Q
�Y/ • • y CE CE-CECF-� % •
R • /
CREEKi v'
1 • \ • / /A�/� / • • •. •
a
•
•
P I • tl `
I •
• F I l'
, tl •
• / 1a •
/ N �
�% �� • 110.pp _ �
•
3J
U `
U
f=
PUlR [0..,G:EaES M`IR
PER' INEERSR0.ECEWM
P �0' ttl I':,
�w
I
h

.1
,
I
,
,
I
,
• 1 —a�a�
a\
11 •Y p�^a • a
• a •CL
GitEEK �<
1b�ao•; AA':. "AA�ti\1�
��� � j3� • • � � l\ �V`�AAAA AAlA1� VA1A1A
,
t
1
a40 ...eV, 80' 120'
p A3
'4. ody o " Doi -
4 p3
4�../44u..J.J�
u
N
V �
A
�r
C
v0.
b
u

/ I
/ I
\ 132i0o-....\
ilitlllitllllllIlt —I i
ltllltllltlll \\ e "®�``1'`.�i3 T37�37 N
o ltlllt ® lilt
�..ccy !.
' � ��' • \ tiltttttllttlilt-�-37M4,i�
��'
llilllllttl,ltiliIlt ��� ` ~ tliltlttittlllttitli \ \ \ \�\
ei
cc
/ \ \ \ \CE N IN NI
/ I CE
ce
CE \ \
/ INTERNALCROSSING
1
0' 40' 80' 120'
WOR90WAU
0
H 0-2g -
4ZN nmmm
W«uT(II RI2
\WCZH
A'Z� cSS c
Z gA
w
C13 CIS
o U
O
�z
0_
0
U
'�4
.,.
U �

rrr rrr! rrr rrr rrrr !} ;1, tt i '
�r rrr
ir rrrrrj(rf Fr
s}� j
t,
I } 4 t l
lF
0/1 /
16
` +t { \
it
t I-40
t
.sIlk
I,}F 4tl
:l,
tt' /CE `y`
t} ® ��?'C, !�E CANDhRE'
ilk
, it ,�, 1t . Q/ q. , It, t 4�, ,t ;�! , EK ` tIt1-v.
'� �/ tl4 !tl ��� t i�t14 t i f�S/
t}I tt8�p0,r48�
t !1' 4' tyt I t
}: IV !l, / �� t ,I, _, t {lF t�f V t �1. VA I,, III t}S
1 t, III }_ , 'tit Eiti 1
��y
4 t}, { l Ilk 'l' { \ ° S�S { 44t 4�
F} , i
!'
cr
t
' t t
t!t / ! t {}i 150�pp % { ,4; i'• it
Pt �' ' t{' ,It ,t 69,
It
ttIII , }, i4
-} "
/ ,I
Ilk
Ilk
I Ilk
ilk
SS\� ` INTERNAL CROSSING
lSd k�
v
Sheet Index.
0' 40' .80. I20'
tNpAR AQ
'ZOgQ�ioq .
Z= raO . _
dp{rutV fV O
t�WyZmmZ
2N e�oy
raZme;t°-'LLE
3

'w
aosswc �4
•
• SANDY jtE K
• • • �.
00
• 1
/
v
/ 9 •• ' ,&M
9 '
Sheet Index
A

s
61���/� �.• � ? z z i ate/
E '
a
ice\
•
�4
• a � a � a
�g
0. 1. w
�w
Sheet Index
0
I
F

D
i
J� / ///// /�// /� • f
�'o*oo / ��• � � � �� ����� CANDY CREEK'' �\\)
\\\
/ F a
—rya—a
�Cf�R
\ CE
•
•
o an aa' nc
ncwo-nw
/
Sheet Index
vl
as
zorR�#a
azipq
a=s&tea€
3�
U
liflalll

m
a
I
I
I
I
1
r
I I r
I p
I I
MATCH LINE. SHEET 3.19 —
y �-
zy
Q a
'Le•R�SY$
n6
,:tiimTi
__SPA
3�
R
0
V
7s
0
0
U
.Q
A

S
n
X
�wx.ma.n OM..031[5
crgrt�(ryln.. [�
...per 53D
R
R
R
R
I
R
R.
R;.
I!
I
R
✓_
n
m
m
R
II
j .
1
F\
F\
F•
F
b
I
b
I
b
b
ti
\o
\G
P
Candy Creek Mitigation Site -Record Drawings
Guilford County, North Carolina
IZ
wILllLANDS
�2/9j34
INOIM[[111 Wax
I[30 i Min 3t FY3a IP[
J
Mxa b , NC 3BID3
M1p/NE
TN: 7M333.77%
E/P 4
Fa[: 104333.3M
.. S
Firmlivn»NO.F4B31
3.10
Candy Creek Reach 4
Planting Plan

'I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I`
1
.I
-w
I }Ib
a2
1 3U 1
0' MY 80' 120'
. � owc¢orrtw au
As
znq
ZN��m9
�ZTmm
'�zgo88�
We�rl V f LL
H � W
J•
w
bA
Cd
3
Q fi
CtS
-d o
� ;-4
o U
a�
4
z.
o
O
.,� U
-' 4
U.0
U
s
U P-4
0
C) ONY
G
M•

t • •
on.: M.v 30, 301)
io4.uni3r. Qp5.3M5
�.�
w.wM SID
wa M IL
3.12
a14 •
e
/
/
a
/
a
Candy Creek Mitigation Site -Record Drawings
Guilford County, North Carolina
UT2
Planting Plan
UT2A
T
SEAL"
WILDLANDS t•MS MW 33L aS.ke
n"3
F..: 3333W
in LbvN. f31

rA
wv.
Mav:tl.'_017
ppxim4..
WSA145
vrg.n EHh..�.
ME
aee.a lr
11,
f
i
yJl
O
•
uswo �
y • d
'thou • \ •
• ` � d
<O • • •` • • •00
a
a �
Candy Creek Mitigation Site -Record Drawings
Guilford County, North Carolina
v SEA WILDLANDS.� l.........
J2AilUy .msl intu., "'"
TO: WM .133.113!
5 EI,P�' is+: TH. . F3
Firm liarW fil.f-0B31
3.13
V 1G
Planting Plan

------- �
/F
I s
b
• tit
• /�
�S S N Ulll ��
�• ,I lilt o
0 11 r
It •
mull
llllltl o
• • / lilt �� •�
/n III �c
tr � snn.:a � •
/ a
•/
tr 1
/ lilt
llllll
llllll
/ ,'lllll
Allllll ••
�`� o �llllil
YA
8
n � �
R •
p
• `\ $
` Illlit •
1111Ri•
• a !llllll • • �
�• �Illldl� •
• p
• • a ��tllll7 \
i
• p
a
i
r
8 ;I I � \ •
1 _
tRON-eq •
I • .. • , 1Fl � •
z
1
1 i
� 1
2 �
e O • �It3ry
ss
Candy Creek Mitigation Site -Record Drawings
w..w+r 03503133 ID
s?pP`fF$31p
hq.erw..r.
�..... ,o Guilford County, North Carolina a�s�4 wILVI.wNus
O.b.M IL pp ow.enno
� 3.30 S. MIM N, Suhad
3.14 UT4 fq OU: 7". 32H303
TN: )W.333.333.
�h 5 . EA0 F..: ] 333.3306
Planting Plan Fh.0 ...N..=31

�\ • C A
• •I
+ mob\ •.. • ¢q
b • • • I
o 'J\JJJ_'Q•/ • `� 8 � I
a
or
4
Candy Creek Mitigation Site -Record Drawings „ a
w.W B•rwr. ASE �`�PpfFSSlpe,,��
Guilford County, North Carolina € a"sEA�g WILULANUS
O.JdN IE C N&MW 3.IN0
0 I�30 S MMt U. Sup. 103
3.15 5 f - ha: 7N.32,77%
99p S E�Q'�, FaN: ?N 331330E
Planting Plan

d
Sheet Index
d
/ d
A \
T\ \
/ / d c�4ryf� \
3,16 \ \
/
on
c
3
s~
Q
v
0
0
u
v
v
in
G
0
b
04
.y
x
v
U
1~
m
i

0
•
4
I NIII
Ih Ili oil,
Ili fit
It
d
I
it 7
lit
lit
fit I
-lit
li
lit •-11,
/it
lit ill fit
,it I I
lit ill lit Ij•1
it Ijl
7-1
I/ N�
A
40' go, 12W
Sheet Index
_j
6
co
V)
cis cis
o
0 U
;0-
U)
0 r11
z 0
C13 0
0
U
-0 4
0
u P-4
CIO

\
'1
. �
1
,\
1
1
,1
\ 1
�bo add
N
wunn
b o
o U
v JS
+• O
U)z
,1
o
0
_Vi w
(U
1
V
1
q
V
Sheet Index
f
m