20070623 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20101201

b� oda3
LITTLE WHITE OAK CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION
POLK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CONTRACT # D06027 -B
4�5oeoeeeeeee��i
o' O, oe• .•• Q
vp 71621
%,?��.• ticrrv��F Jac.
Prepared For: Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
's��e1ll 1652 Mail Service Center
Ebb Iai �'II�11 Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
raocawr•
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 3 OF 5)
DECEMBER 2010

LITTLE WHITE OAK CREEK
STREAM RESTORATION
POLK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
CONTRACT # D06027 -B
Prepared For: �- Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1652 Mail Service Center
�St�IIl Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
1 ��. lay en�cnf
PNOZNAIA
ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT (YEAR 3 OF 5)
DECEMBER 2010

Owner NCDENR
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1652 Mail Service Center
stem Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
iii
lair
rcoavnn
EEP Project Manager: Guy Pearce
Phone: [phone]
Design and Monitoring Firm
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
M U L KEY 6750 Tryon Road
E��. »EEas 6 �o�=� , <w,n Cary, North Carolina 27518
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Project Manager: Wendee B. Smith
Phone: [phone]
Project Engineer: Emmett Perdue, PE
Phone: [phone]

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary ........................................ ............................... 1
2.0 Project Background ......................................... ...............................
2.1 Project Location and Setting
2.2 Project Goals and Objectives
2.3 Project Restoration Approach and Mitigation Type
2.4 Project History
2.5 Project Monitoring Plan View
3.0
Project Condition and Monitoring Results .............. ...............................
8
3.1
Project Vegetation Monitoring
8
3.1.1
Vegetation Monitoring Methodology
8
3.1.2
Vegetation Monitoring Success Criteria
9
3.1.3
Vegetation Monitoring Results for Year 1 of 5
10
3.1.4
Vegetation Monitoring Results for Year 2 of 5
10
3.1.5
Vegetation Monitoring Results for Year 3 of 5
11
3.2
Project Stream Monitoring
12
3.2.1
Stream Monitoring Methodology
12
3.2.2
Stream Monitoring Success Criteria
15
3.2.3
Stream Monitoring Results for Year 1 of 5
16
3.2.4
Stream Monitoring Results for Year 2 of 5
19
3.2.5
Stream Monitoring Results for Year 3 of 5
22
4.0 Project Monitoring Methodology ............................ ............................... 24
5.0 References ......................................................... .............................25
Figures
Tables
Figure 1. Location Map
Table I. Project Restoration Approach and Mitigation Type
Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table III. Project Contacts
Table IV. Project Background
Table V. Stem Counts Monitoring Year 3 for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Table VI. Vegetative Problem Areas
Table VII. Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Table VIII. Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
Table IX. BEHI and Sediment Transport Estimates
Table X. Verification of Bankfull Events
Table XI. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Table XII. Stream Problem Areas
Appendices
Appendix A. Monitoring Plan View
Appendix B. Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix C. Reference Point Photos

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
Appendix D. Cross Section Photos
Appendix E. Raw Data
Appendix F. Year 3 Areas of Concern Photos
December 2010

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of S)
1.0 Executive Summary
This annual monitoring report details the third year monitoring activities and their results for
the Little White Oak Creek Stream Restoration Site (LWOC). All of the monitoring
activities were conducted and the subsequent results are reported in accordance with the
approved mitigation plan (Mulkey Engineers and Consultants, 2008) for LWOC. The
content and format of this report were developed in accordance with the contract
requirements for the Full Delivery RFP 16- DO6027 (NCEEP, 2005). Accordingly, this
report includes project background information, project monitoring results, and description
of the project monitoring methodology.
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants (Mulkey) submitted LWOC for the Full Delivery RFP
16- DO6027 to provide 18,200 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs). Mulkey was awarded the
stream restoration contract and began work on the project on May 16, 2007 The primary
goals of LWOC were to improve water quality, to reduce bank erosion, to reestablish a
floodplain along each of the stream reaches, and to improve the aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife habitat. These goals were met through the following objectives:
By using natural channel design to restore stable pattern, dimension, and profile for
18,290 linear feet of stream channel
By establishing a conservation easement, which will protect the streams from cattle
intrusion and future development activities
By establishing a floodplain or reconnecting the stream back to its historic
floodplain, or a combination of both, for each project stream reach
By creating or restoring floodplain features such as vernal pools, off channel ponds,
or riparian wetlands
By increasing the amount of aquatic habitat through the addition of rock and wood
structures
By reestablishing native plant communities throughout the conservation easement,
whereby reintroducing shading, cover areas, and travel corridors.
LWOC is located in Polk County, North Carolina near the community of Mill Springs and is
situated in the Broad River Basin. Past land use practices, including extensive cattle
farming, stream channelization and dredging, and clearing of the riparian buffers resulted in
substantial degradation of the stream systems at LWOC. LWOC is comprised of seven
stream reaches totaling 18,290 feet of restored stream channel. All of the analyses, design,
and restoration at LWOC were accomplished using natural stream channel design methods.
In addition to stream channel restoration, the restored stream banks and the riparian and
upland buffer areas along LWOC were also replanted with native species vegetation.
The survivability of the planted vegetation at LWOC was monitored at representative
vegetation plots as well as project -wide. Stem counts, photo documentation and
comparison, and visual assessment were utilized. Bare root stock were planted at a density
of 680 stems per acre (8 foot by 8 foot spacing) and live stakes were planted on the stream
banks at a density of 1,742 stems per acre (5 foot by 5 foot spacing). A total of 24
representative vegetation plots were installed at LWOC based on the recommendations set

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
forth by EEP regarding the acreage contained in the conservation easement. The
survivability of the planted woody vegetation at LWOC was monitored using annual stem
counts at each of the plots. In addition to the stem counts, annual photos were taken at each
of the plots and also from 14 other permanent photo reference points. The vegetation plot
photos were used for photo documentation and comparison of the vegetation growth at each
plot. The photo documentation at the reference points were employed to assist in a project -
wide visual assessment of the vegetation at LWOC. Survivability will be based on
achieving a minimum of 320 stems per acre after Year 3 and 260 stems per acre after Year
5, across the project site. The stem counts were conducted during the latter part of the
growing season months (August, September, and October) to insure survival throughout a
complete growing season while still allowing for relative ease in identification.
In late August 2008, the vegetation monitoring for Monitoring Year 1 was conducted using
the methodologies described above, including stem counts, photo documentation, and visual
assessment. The stem counts resulted in the 24 vegetation plots having a survivability of
planted woody stems ranging from 438 to 1000 stems per acre, with an average survivability
of 713 stems, per acre. The results indicated the survivability of the planted woody
vegetation at LWOC will meet the success criteria outlined above for Year 3 and Year 5.
The comparisons of the baseline and Monitoring Year 1 photos at both the 24 vegetation
plot photo reference, points and the 14 permanent photo reference points strongly
complemented this suggestion, as no concerns, problems, or negative trends were
documented. Similarly, the project -wide visual assessment provided further validation, as
no vegetation problem areas were observed.
In mid - October 2009, the vegetation monitoring for Monitoring Year 2 was conducted using
the methodologies described above, including stem counts, photo documentation, and visual
assessment. The stem counts resulted in the 24 vegetation plots having a survivability of
planted woody stems ranging from 367 to 1000 stems per acre, with an average survivability
of 670 stems per acre. As with the previous year, the results indicated the survivability of
the planted woody vegetation at LWOC will meet the success criteria outlined above for
Year 3 and Year 5. The comparisons of the baseline and Monitoring Year 2 photos at both
the 24 vegetation plot photo reference points and the 14 permanent photo reference indicated
the vegetation is moving in a positive direction. The project -wide visual assessment
provided validated this positive trend, as no vegetation problem areas were observed.
In early November 2010, the vegetation monitoring for Monitoring Year 3 was conducted
using the methodologies described above, including stem counts, photo documentation, and
visual assessment. The stem counts resulted in the 24 vegetation plots having a survivability
of planted woody stems ranging from 327 to 917 stems per acre, with an average
survivability of 557 stems per acre. The results indicated the survivability of the planted
woody vegetation at LWOC met the success criteria outlined above for Year 3 and is on
track to meet the criteria for Year 5. The comparison of the Monitoring Year 3 photos with
all prior photos at both the 24 vegetation plots and the 14 permanent photo reference points
indicated the vegetation is growing as expected. The vegetation is becoming well
established and is steadily outcompeting many of the pioneer species such as grasses, briers,
2

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
and weeds. The project -wide visual assessment also validated this positive trend, as no
vegetative problem areas were observed.
Stream dimension, pattern, profile, stream bed material, bank stability, and bankfull
hydrology were monitored to evaluate the success of stream restoration at LWOC. The
limits of the project stream reaches to be monitored at LWOC were determined using the
sampling rates outlined by the USACE et al. (2003). The monitoring was conducted using
annual field surveys, pebble counts, crest gage recordation, visual assessment and photo
documentation. Baseline conditions for comparison of the stream parameters to be
monitored were established from data gathered immediately after construction through the
as -built survey process. Longitudinal profiles and Modified Wolman pebble counts were
conducted for all reaches and a total of 13 permanent cross sections were surveyed and
photo documented across LWOC. A total of eight crest gages across LWOC were installed
for hydrologic monitoring to verify the occurrence of bankfull storm events. Annual photo
documentation was used for stream monitoring to complement and validate the other stream
monitoring practices from 14 permanent reference photo points. Annual project wide visual
assessment was conducted using field observation and pedestrian surveys to identify any
specific problem areas. Since it is only required during Monitoring Year 3 and Monitoring
Year 5, the BEHI information was collected during this year. Stream restoration success at
LWOC was evaluated by comparison of the annual monitoring results against those same
parameters as predicted, specified, and required in the proposed design and as implemented
during the construction process represented by the as -built or baseline conditions. Success
was achieved when all such comparisons reveal positive trends toward overall stream
stability.
In late August 2008, the stream monitoring for Monitoring Year 1 was conducted using the
methodologies described above. The results of the stream dimension, pattern, and profile
monitoring demonstrated that all of the reaches were experiencing the expected minor
adjustments indicative of movement toward increased stream stability and were attributed to
vegetation establishment and natural channel adjustments. Fluctuations in bed materials
were expected to occur during the early years following construction. Fining of the bed
materials was documented by the stream bed material monitoring. The stream systems at
LWOC appear to be sand - dominated and therefore coarsening of the bed may not occur.
However, the monitoring results suggested on -site sediment supply from LWOC has been
reduced as a result of the restoration. Fluctuations in bed materials are likely to continue
and several years may be needed to observe a consistent bed material. Data collected at six
of the eight on -site crest gauges provided evidence indicating a storm event producing a
stage in excess of the bankfull storm occurred at LWOC during Monitoring Year 1. This
documented the first of two required bankfull events over the five year monitoring period in
order to achieve success with regards to hydrologic monitoring at LWOC. No stream
problems were documented through the photo documentation comparison process.
However, the project -wide visual assessment conducted along each of the project stream
reaches revealed 12 specific stream problem areas which included in -stream structure
failures and associated stream bank erosion, areas of floodplain and adjacent stream bank
erosion, and an area of stream bank erosion. Mulkey elected to promptly address all of the
observed stream problem areas and conducted construction repairs of each in October 2008.
3

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
All of the in- stream structures and the areas of floodplain and stream bank erosion were
repaired. The repairs to the all of the areas of eroded stream banks included re- grading, re-
seeding with appropriate temporary and permanent seed, re- installing coir fiber matting, and
re- planting with live stakes. Upon completion of the repair work, LWOC experienced no
other stream problem areas and was deemed a success for Year 1 Monitoring.
In mid - October and early November 2009, the stream monitoring for Monitoring Year 2 was
conducted using the methodologies described above. The results of the stream dimension,
pattern, and profile monitoring demonstrated that all of the reaches were experiencing the
expected minor adjustments indicative of movement toward increased stream stability and
were attributed to vegetation establishment and natural channel adjustments. Fluctuations in
bed materials were expected to occur during the early years following construction. Fining
of the bed materials was documented by the stream bed material monitoring. The stream
systems at LWOC appear to be sand - dominated and therefore coarsening of the bed may not
occur. However, the monitoring results suggested on -site sediment supply from LWOC has
been reduced as a result of the restoration, particularly from increased native vegetation and
soil stabilization. Fluctuations in bed materials are likely to continue and several years may
be needed to observe a consistent bed material. Data collected at seven of the eight on -site
crest gauges provided evidence indicating a storm event producing a stage in excess of the
bankfull storm occurred at LWOC during Monitoring Year 2. This documented the second
of two required bankfull events over the five year monitoring period in order to achieve
success with regards to hydrologic monitoring at LWOC. No stream problems were
documented through the photo documentation comparison process. However, the project -
wide visual assessment conducted along each of the project stream reaches revealed 3
specific stream problem areas, all of which are associated with beaver dams constructed
along reaches R1 and R2. Mulkey is actively coordinating with the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Wildlife Services under their Beaver Management
Assistance Program (BMAP) to have the beavers and beaver dams removed, as well as to
have site monitored for future beaver activity.
In early November 2010, the stream monitoring for Monitoring Year 3 was conducted using
the methodologies described above. Despite the site suffering a flood event from the
remnants of a tropical storm, the overall stability of the six stream reaches has improved.
The stream dimension, pattern, and profile remained consistent with the previous years' data
and continue to remain within the tolerances of the design parameters. The bed material in
the larger streams is beginning to coarsen to the projected design values while the smaller
streams remain finer than anticipated. It must be noted that along R1 the visual assessment
indicated multiple areas of bank, bench, and terrace scour. The scour was confined to R1 as
there was no presence of scour along the other five reaches though they experienced the
same event as indicated by the absence of the crest gauge or direct measurement of the crest
gauge on each respective reach and apparent deposition of sediment on the benches.
Although mostly along the terrace, Mulkey intends to repair the scour areas in early 2011 to
ensure an ample amount of time is available for the regrowth of vegetation in the areas
where significant disturbance will occur. However, even with this disturbance along R1, the
Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near Bank Shear stress (NBS) evaluation of all
El

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Strewn Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
reaches showed a significant reduction in sediment supply throughout the entire stream
network.
As a note, Mulkey performed the required fence reloc4tion to encompass a minimum 50 foot
buffer as requested by NCEEP in late Spring of 2010. These changes are reflected on the
plan sheets in Appendix A.
Therefore, it is the determination of Mulkey, the LWOC has proven to be an overall success
in both vegetative and stream monitoring for Year 3 monitoring (2010). Both the vegetative
and stream monitoring depict a stable stream system despite being impacted by flood flows.
As mentioned, Mulkey intends to correct several areas of scour, however these areas are
restricted to the floodplain benches and terraces which did not reflect negative trends under
the monitoring guidance.
2.0 Project Background
2.1 Project Location and Setting
The Little White Oak Creek Stream Restoration Site is located in Polk County, North
Carolina approximately 2.5 miles east/southeast from the community of Mill Springs along
NC Highway 9 South, and approximately 0.5 mile northwest from the intersection of NC
Highway 9 South and US Highway 74 (Figure 1). LWOC is situated in the Broad River
Basin 8 -digit cataloging unit of 03050105 and the 14 -digit cataloging unit 03050105030010.
Mulkey proposed to provide 18,200 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) with LWOC under the
Full Delivery RFP 16- DO6027 issued by the Ecosystem Enhancement Program Department
of Environment and Natural Resources ( NCEEP). Mulkey acquired and installed permanent
fencing along an easement covering 55.3 acres, which encompasses the restored streams and
associated buffers at LWOC.
2.2 Project Goals and Objectives
The primary goals of LWOC were to improve water quality, to reduce bank erosion, to
reestablish a floodplain along each of the stream reaches, and to improve the aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife habitat.
These goals were met through the following objectives:
By using natural channel design to restore stable pattern, dimension, and profile for
18,290 linear feet of stream channel
By establishing a conservation easement, which will protect the streams from cattle
intrusion and future development activities
By establishing a floodplain or reconnecting the stream back to its historic
floodplain, or a combination of both, for each project stream reach
By creating or restoring floodplain features such as vernal pools, off channel ponds,
or riparian wetlands

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
By increasing the amount of aquatic habitat through the addition of rock and wood
structures
By reestablishing native plant communities throughout the conservation easement,
whereby reintroducing shading, cover areas, and travel corridors.
2.3 Project Restoration Approach and Mitigation Type
LWOC is comprised of three main reaches (R1, R2 Upper and R2 Lower) and four
tributaries (R1A, R2A, R2B and R21)). Prior to construction, these seven reaches were
identified and proposed for restoration due to their distinct stream characteristics and
drainage areas. These seven existing reaches totaled approximately 15,487 linear feet. A
total of 18,290 linear feet of stream channel was restored at LWOC within the 55.3 acre
conservation easement.
Analyses, design, and restoration of the stream channels at LWOC was accomplished using
Natural Stream Channel design methods developed by Rosgen ( Rosgen, D. L., 1994, 1996,
1998). The proposed Rosgen channel type for two of the tributaries (R2A and R2B) was a
C4 channel. The restoration of these tributaries was implemented using Priority Level I and
II methodologies. The proposed stream classification for the majority of the reaches (R1,
R1A, R2 Upper, and R2 Lower) was a C5 channel. A combination of Priority Level I and II
methods were used to construct these reaches. The remaining reach (R2D) was proposed to
be a C6 channel using the same methods previously mentioned.
The most significant stream restoration component at LWOC involved the reconstruction of
each of the stream reaches such that stream flows greater than bankfull are allowed to access
the restored stream's floodplain. Two different approaches were used to insure such
floodplain access. The first approach involved relocating and raising the stream bed such
that the historic floodplain is accessed by stream flows greater than bankfull (the sections of
the project stream reaches that were restored using Priority Level I methodologies). A
second approach was used where site constraints prevented such relocation and raising of
the stream bed. Therefore the second approach involved building a floodplain at a level
lower than the historic floodplain through the construction of bankfull benches (the sections
of the project stream reaches that were restored using Priority Level 11 methodologies). In-
stream structures were installed along each of the stream reaches to provide grade control
and stream bank protection, and to increase in -stream habitat diversity. The in- stream
structures installed included rock cross vanes, j -hook rock vanes, rock vanes, constructed
riffles, and root wads. Stream banks were further stabilized through the installation of coir
fiber erosion control matting, temporary and permanent seeding, and the installation of
native species vegetation in the form of transplants, live stakes, and bare root stock. All
areas of the site that were disturbed during construction activities were stabilized using
temporary and permanent seeding. The riparian and upland buffer communities along
LWOC were also restored with native species vegetation using a target community which
will emulate the PiedmonULow Mountain Alluvial Forest described by Shafale and Weakley
(1990). The conservation easement was fenced to permanently protect the restored stream
and buffer areas. Information regarding the restoration approach and mitigation type for
each of the seven project stream reaches is detailed in Table 1.
0

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
2.4 Project History
The existing conditions at LWOC prior to restoration were a result of cattle use for the past
50 years. When Mulkey initially became involved with this project, there were
approximately 200 livestock (cattle and horses) utilizing the pastures. The livestock had
never been fenced from any of the stream channels within LWOC. This continual livestock
access to the streams resulted in substantial erosion along the stream banks, incision of the
channels, channel widening in some areas, and heavy siltation throughout LWOC, as well as
reduced water quality due to large quantities of fecal matter into the stream system. Based
on information gained from the property owner, it was determined that many of the streams
at the LWOC, particularly the smaller tributaries, were historically maintained through
channelization, dredging, and clearing of the riparian buffer. As a result of these land and
water quality issues, Mulkey submitted LWOC for the Full Delivery RFP 16- DO6027 to
provide 18,200 Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs). Mulkey was awarded the stream
restoration contract by the NCEEP and began work on the project on May 16, 2007. The
project activity and reporting history are detailed in Table II. Table III lists the contacts for
the designer, contractor, relevant suppliers, and monitoring firm for LWOC. Table IV
provides a complete listing of project background information.
2.5 Project Monitoring Plan View
Mulkey conducted monitoring baseline surveys along the entire length of each of the
restored project stream reaches using total station survey equipment. These surveys were
conducted to establish and document baseline conditions for the newly restored stream
channels for future monitoring activities. As -built drawings were developed using the
results of the monitoring baseline surveys. These drawing depicted the post construction
condition of LWOC and are included in Appendix A. The as -built drawings consisted of
plan sheets that include the following:
Title sheet
Legend sheet
As -built planimetric drawing developed from aerial photography of LWOC after the
completion of construction
As -built planimetric drawings and profiles developed from the baseline monitoring
field surveys
The as -built drawings illustrate the location of all major project elements, including, but not
limited to the:
Restored stream channel thalweg, normal edges
channel limits, and the constructed cut slope limits
Conservation easement boundaries
Permanent fencing limits
Topography
In- stream structures
7
of water, constructed bankfull

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
Photo points
Crest gages
Vegetation plots locations
Permanent cross sections
Project survey control
Monitoring profile survey limits
Relevant structures and utilities
3.0 Project Condition and Monitoring Results
3.1 Project Vegetation Monitoring
3.1.1 Vegetation Monitoring Methodology
The survivability of the planted vegetation at LWOC, including both woody and herbaceous
species, was monitored at representative vegetation plots as well as project -wide.
Monitoring at representative vegetation plots focused primarily on planted woody vegetation
and was conducted using stem counts and photo documentation. Project -wide monitoring of
planted vegetation included both woody and herbaceous species and was accomplished
using visual assessment as well as photo documentation.
Major grading and channel construction was completed during the last week of November
2007. Throughout construction, appropriate temporary and permanent seeding was
conducted to stabilize areas disturbed during construction. Appropriate existing native
species vegetation was also salvaged, where feasible, in the form of transplants and live
stakes, throughout the construction process. Immediately following the completion of the
major grading and channel construction activities, all remaining plant material was installed
during the months of November and December 2007. These remaining plant materials
consisted of native species bare root seedlings and live stakes and were installed, as
appropriate, to restore the riparian and upland buffer communities along LWOC within the
conservation easement area. A complete listing of the planting zones, their corresponding
acreages, and the corresponding vegetation species was included in the approved mitigation
report (Mulkey Engineers and Consultants, 2008). The bare root stock were planted at a
density of 680 stems per acre (8 foot by 8 foot spacing) and the lives stakes were planted on
the stream banks at a density of 1,742 stems per acre (5 foot by 5 foot spacing).
An As -Built Survey was initiated immediately following the installation of plant materials.
In December 2007, during the as -built survey and after the completion of planting, a total of
24 representative vegetation plots (vegetation plots 1 through 24) were installed randomly
across LWOC. An iron pipe was installed at each plot corner for monumentation and a
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, along with a label specifying the plot number, was also
installed at one of the corners of each plot. The plot corners were strategically located such
that each plot has a total area of approximately 100 square meters. Between January and
February 2008, after the establishment of the plots, all stems contained in the plots were
identified and tallied by species and plot, then marked with loosely tied survey flagging (on
lateral branches) to facilitate future identification. This data was recorded to provide the
E.

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
baseline survivability. The survivability of the planted woody vegetation at LWOC for the
various monitoring periods was then calculated using annual stem counts at each of the plots
and compared to the baseline data. During each of the annual stem counts, the planted stems
were re- flagged as required to ensure that all planted stems were accounted for and
considered in the survivability calculations. In addition to the stem counts, photos were
taken at each of the plots. Where necessary, the corner of each plot was remarked with PVC
pipe and the plot number relabeled. This PVC plot corner was used as the reference point
from which the annual vegetation plot photos were taken such that the photos at each plot
will have the same orientation. The photos were compared to the photos from the previous
years to validate and document vegetation success. In addition to the photo reference points
established at each of the vegetation plots, a total of 11 additional permanent photo reference
points were installed across LWOC. Subsequently, three additional permanent photo
reference points (photo points 2.5Y1, 3.5Y1, and 8.5Y1) were added during the Year 1
monitoring period to ensure adequate photo documentation would be conducted within the
monitoring limits of the project stream reaches. These additional permanent photo reference
points were monumented using steel rebar and PVC pipe. Photos were taken from each of
the 14 permanent photo reference points with the same orientation each applicable year and
used for photo documentation and annual comparison of the vegetation growth across
LWOC. This exercise helped to further validate and document vegetation success at
LWOC. Between January and February 2008, after installation of the described 11
permanent photo reference points, photos were taken from each of the permanent photo
reference points to document the baseline conditions at LWOC with regards to planted
vegetation. Monitoring Year 1 and Monitoring Year 2 photos were taken from all 14 photo
points during the visit in August 2008 and October 2009, respectively. Project -wide visual
assessment was also used for vegetation monitoring at' LWOC. A visual assessment was
conducted using annual field observation and pedestrian surveys to identify any specific
vegetation problem areas at LWOC during the monitoring period. Any problem areas where
vegetation was lacking or exotic vegetation was present, was identified and categorized as
bare bank, bare bench, bare floodplain, or invasive population. Such areas were documented
using representative photos and their locations were identified on the Monitoring Plan View.
3.1.2 Vegetation Monitoring Success Criteria
Vegetation success at LWOC was determined by stem survivability. Successful
survivability is dependent upon achieving at least 320 stems per acre after three years and
260 stems per acre after five years across the project site. Therefore, survivability rates
exceeding these requirements in previous years were deemed successful. The stem counts
were conducted during the latter part of the growing season months (August, September, and
October) to ensure survival throughout a complete growing season while still allowing for
relative ease in identification. As described above, photo documentation and visual
assessment was used to complement the stem counts as part of the vegetation monitoring
protocol at LWOC. If during any given year, the planted species survivability was not
anticipated to meet the final criteria established for vegetation; supplemental plantings were
considered. In the event this occurred, a remedial planting plan was developed to achieve
the survivability goals established for Years 3 and 5.
9

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of S)
3.1.3 Vegetation Monitoring Results for Year 1 of 5
In late August 2008, the vegetation monitoring for Monitoring Year 1 was conducted. The
methodologies described in the Vegetation Monitoring Methodology Section above were
used for the vegetation monitoring at LWOC for Monitoring Year 1. Stem counts were
conducted at each of the 24 vegetation plots and the results are summarized in Table V.
Photos were taken from the photo reference points at each of the 24 vegetation plots.
Appendix B compares these photos with the initial baseline photos taken from the photo
reference points at each of the 24 vegetation plots. Photos were also taken from each of the
14 permanent photo reference points. Appendix C compares these photos with the initial
baseline photos taken from the original 11 permanent photo reference points and provided
the baseline photos for the 3 points installed during the Monitoring Year 1. A project -wide
visual assessment was also conducted to identify any specific vegetation problem areas.
Table VI summarizes the results of the project -wide vegetation visual assessment. The
results of the Monitoring Year 1 stem counts showed that the 24 vegetation plots had
successfully achieved the survivability of planted woody vegetation with stem counts
ranging from 438 to 1000 stems per acre, with an average survivability of 713 stems per
acre. The results indicated the survivability of the planted woody vegetation at LWOC
should meet the success criteria defined in Section 3.1.2. During the stem counts, it was
noted no significant volunteer woody species were observed at any of the 24 vegetation
plots. The comparison of the baseline and Monitoring Year 1 photos at both the 24
vegetation plot photo reference points and the 11 permanent photo reference points strongly
complemented this suggestion, as no concerns, problems, or negative trends were
documented. The project -wide visual assessment provided further validation, as no
vegetation problem areas were observed. Based on the results of the vegetation monitoring
for Monitoring Year 1 at LWOC, Mulkey did not propose any additional recommendations
or actions other than to proceed with the annual vegetation monitoring.
3.1.4 Vegetation Monitoring Results for Year 2 of 5
In mid - October 2009, the vegetation monitoring for Monitoring Year 2 was conducted. The
methodologies described in the Vegetation Monitoring Methodology Section were used for
the vegetation monitoring at LWOC for Monitoring Year 2. Stem counts were conducted at
each of the 24 vegetation plots. Table V presents the results of these stem counts for each of
the plots. This table includes and compares the results of the initial stem counts from the
original planting, the previous years, and Monitoring Year 2. Photos were taken from the
photo reference points at each of the 24 vegetation plots and are compared to the previously
collected photos in Appendix B. Photos were also taken from each of the 14 permanent
photo reference points. Appendix C compares these photos with the initial baseline photos
taken from the original 11 permanent photo reference points from Year 0 and the photos
from the 14 total permanent photo reference points in Monitoring Year 1. A project -wide
visual assessment was also conducted to identify any specific vegetation problem areas and
is summarized in Table VI. The results of the Monitoring Year 2 stem counts continued to
display successful survivability in all 24 vegetation plots with the counts ranging from 367
to 1000 stems per acre and an average survivability of 670 stems per acre. Therefore
survivability of the planted woody vegetation at LWOC should meet the success criteria
1)
10

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
established in Section 3.1.2. Similar to Monitoring Year 1, no significant volunteer woody
species were observed at any of the 24 vegetation plots. The comparison of the Monitoring
Year 2 photos to those previously collected at both the 24 vegetation plot photo reference
points and the 14 permanent photo reference points suggested the vegetation was growing
exceptionally well. Live stake vegetation has exceeded growth expectations and the bare
root material is starting to overcome the weedy vegetation. A further review of the
vegetation through the project -wide visual assessment validated this positive trend, as no
concerns, problems, or negative trends were documented. Based on the results of the
vegetation monitoring for Monitoring Year 2 at LWOC, Mulkey did not propose any
additional recommendations or actions other than to proceed with the annual vegetation
monitoring.
3.1.5 Vegetation Monitoring Results for Year 3 of 5
In early November 2010, the vegetation monitoring for Monitoring Year 3 was conducted.
The methodologies described in the Vegetation Monitoring Methodology Section were used
for the vegetation monitoring at LWOC for Monitoring Year 3. Stem counts were
conducted at each of the 24 vegetation plots. Table V presents the results of these stem
counts for each of the plots. This table includes and compares the results of the initial stem
counts from the original planting, the previous years, and Monitoring Year 3. Photos were
taken from the photo reference points at each of the 24 vegetation plots and are compared to
the previously collected Ophotos in Appendix B. Photos were also taken from each of the 14
permanent photo reference points. Appendix C compares these photos with the initial
baseline photos taken from the original 11 permanent photo reference points from Year 0
and the photos from the 14 total permanent photo reference points in Monitoring Year 1. A
project -wide visual assessment was also conducted to identify any specific vegetation
problem areas and is summarized in Table VI. The results of the Monitoring Year 3 stem
counts continued to display successful survivability in all 24 vegetation plots with the counts
ranging from 327 to 917 stems per acre and an average survivability of 557 stems per acre.
Therefore survivability of the planted woody vegetation at LWOC meets the success criteria
established in Section 3.1.2. for Year 3 and is on track for success in Year 5. Additional
uncounted volunteer woody species were observed at all of the 24 vegetation plots. The
comparison of the Monitoring Year 2 photos to those previously collected at both the 24
vegetation plot photo reference points and the 14 permanent photo reference points
suggested the vegetation was growing exceptionally well. Live stake vegetation has
exceeded growth expectations and the bare root material is starting to overcome the weedy
vegetation. A further review of the vegetation through the project -wide visual assessment
validated this positive trend, as no concerns, problems, or negative trends were documented.
Based on the results of the vegetation monitoring for Monitoring Year 3 at LWOC, Mulkey
did not propose any additional recommendations or actions other than to proceed with the
annual vegetation monitoring. The only additional plantings that will be utilized are
associated with the repair work discussed in Section 3.2.5.
11

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of S)
3.2 Project Stream Monitoring
3.2.1 Stream Monitoring Methodology
Stream dimension, pattern, profile, stream bed material, bank stability, and bankfull
hydrology were monitored to evaluate the success of the stream restoration activities at
LWOC. The monitoring of stream dimension, pattern, and profile, or morphometric
monitoring, along with the monitoring of stream bed material, were conducted using annual
field surveys along with visual assessment. The morphometric, stream bed material, and
stream bank stability monitoring were conducted along representative sections of the project
stream reaches. Hydrologic monitoring consisted of field measurements of bankfull events
using crest gages. Project -wide stream monitoring was accomplished using visual
assessment as well as photo documentation.
Major grading and channel construction were completed during the last week of November
2007. Immediately following the completion of the major grading and channel construction
activities, all remaining plant material was installed during the months of November and
December 2007. The as -built survey of all of the stream reaches at LWOC were initiated
immediately following the installation of plant materials and were conducted utilizing aerial
photography and total station surveys while following the protocols set forth by the 2003
USACE Stream Mitigation guidelines ( USACE et al., 2003). In addition to documenting
the construction of LWOC for comparison to the proposed design, the results of the as -built
survey were also used to establish baseline morphology for the proposed monitoring. This
information is presented in Table VII. A summary of the restored stream channel lengths
are outlined in Table I. A complete set of As -Built Drawings including a monitoring plan
view and longitudinal profile for the as -built conditions of the restored channels can be
found in Appendix A. After the completion of the as -built survey, the limits and
corresponding lengths of the project stream reaches to be monitored at LWOC were
determined using the sampling rates outlined by the USACE et al. (2003). A total of 5,893
linear feet (32 %) of all restored stream channels will be surveyed annually during the
monitoring period. Based on these the sampling rates, the limits of the project stream
reaches to be surveyed annually for monitoring are as follows:
Reach R1 —
1,974 Linear Feet Total (Stations 14 +00 -R1- through 33 +74 -R1 -)
Reach R I A
— 500 Linear Feet Total (Stations 0 +00 -RIA-
through 5 +00 -RIA -)
Reach R2 —
2,047 Linear Feet Total (Stations 25 +13 -R2-
through 45 +60 -R2 -)
Reach R2A
— 326 Linear Feet Total (Stations 0 +00 -R2A-
through 3 +26 -R2A -)
Reach R2B
— 551 Linear Feet Total (Stations 9 +35 -R2B-
through 14 +86 -R2B -)
Reach R21)
— 495 Linear Feet Total (Stations 2 +84 -R2D-
through 7 +79 -R2D -)
The upstream and downstream limits of these reaches were monumented in the field using
steel rebar/PVC pins. Each pin was also labeled with an aluminum tag identifying the
respective reach and the correct descriptor ( "begin' or "end ").
A total of 13 permanent cross sections, consisting of both riffles and pools, were established
across LWOC and surveyed during the as -built survey process. The number of cross
12

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of S)
sections was determined using the sampling rates outlined by the USACE et al. (2003). The
left and right ends of each cross section were monumented with a steel rebar pin and PVC
pipe. An aluminum tag identifying the cross section number was also installed at the pin on
the left side of the channel. In addition to the cross section surveys, photos were taken at
each of the 13 cross sections, looking across the stream from left to right, to document the
baseline conditions at each respective cross section. Specific stations along each permanent
cross section were established during the as -built survey to promote replication and
consistency during the subsequent annual cross section surveys. The stationing for each
cross section was established to always begin on the left side of the channel, facing
downstream, at the left rebar /PVC pin, and to continue across the stream channel to the
rebar /PVC pin on the right side. The as -built survey of the 13 cross sections established the
baseline conditions with regards to stream dimension. All of the 13 cross sections will be
surveyed each year during the five -year monitoring period and the resulting parameters will
be compared annually. The parameters to be monitored include bankfull width, floodprone
width, bankfull cross sectional area, bankfull mean depth, bankfull max depth, width to
depth ratio, entrenchment ratio, wetted perimeter, and hydraulic radius. Annually, photos
will be taken at each of the 13 cross sections looking across the stream from left to right and
compared to the photos from the previous years to document stream conditions at each
respective cross section.
The pattern for all of the stream reaches was surveyed and baseline conditions were
established as part of the as -built survey. Monitoring surveys for stream pattern are limited
to the project stream reaches specified above for annual monitoring surveys. The stream
pattern parameters resulting from the annual monitoring surveys include sinuosity, belt
width, radii of curvature, meander wavelength, and meander width ratio. These parameters
will be compared annually.
The as -built survey included a longitudinal profile survey along the entire length of all
restored stream reaches. Longitudinal profiles were surveyed by identifying each stream
feature (riffle, run, pool, or glide) and surveying specific points at each feature. These
specific locations included top of bank, bankfull, water's edge or surface, and thalweg. The
as -built survey were used to establish the baseline conditions with regards to monitoring the
longitudinal profile within the project reaches described above. The longitudinal profiles
surveys conducted each year are then limited to the project stream reaches specified above.
The parameters resulting from these longitudinal profile surveys are compared on an annual
basis to those of the baseline and previous years. The parameters to be monitored include
bankfull slope, riffle length, riffle slope, pool length, and pool to pool spacing.
During the as -built survey, Modified Wolman pebble counts were conducted at each of the
project stream reaches to classify the stream bed materials. The pebble counts for the larger
project stream reaches (R1 and R2) were conducted at each of the permanent cross sections
by performing an equal number of counts at each cross section and then combining the
results into a reach -wide count. A minimum of 100 counts were made for each of these
larger reaches. Reach -wide pebble counts were conducted along the smaller project stream
reaches (R1A, R2A, R213, and R2D). A minimum of-50 counts were made for each of these
smaller reaches. The stream bed materials are monitored at LWOC by repeating the same
13

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
pebble count procedures on an annual basis. The results of the pebble counts for each
specified project stream reach are compared on an annual basis.
BEHI information was collected during the existing condition surveys and sediment
transport rates were subsequently developed. The resulting information -served as baseline
data for stream bank stability at LWOC. Stream bank stability monitoring using these
parameters is required in Monitoring Year 3 and 5. Data collected during these years will be
compared with pre - construction conditions to determine the change in bank erosion hazard
indices and sediment export rates for each reach assessed. Positive change, namely
reduction, in both the stream bank erosion rates and sediment transport rates at LWOC are
expected as a result of restoration and will be documented as described to demonstrate
success.
A total of eight crest gages, one at each reach and one at the confluence of Reaches R 1 and
R2, were installed across LWOC during the as -built survey. At the base of each crest gage a
permanent vertical datum was installed. The locations of each crest gage along with the
elevation of the permanent vertical datum were surveyed during the as -built survey. The
crest gages were used for the hydrologic monitoring at LWOC to verify the occurrence of
bankfull storm events. Each crest gage was set during its initial installation and baseline
photos were taken. The crest gages were checked annually and the flood stage(s) recorded
by each gage and measured relative to the permanent vertical datum of the respective gage.
The results of these measurements were used to document the occurrence of significant
storm events, with the goal of specifically documenting the occurrence of bankfull and
larger stream flow events.
Photo documentation and project -wide visual assessment was used for stream monitoring at
LWOC to complement the other stream monitoring practices. A total of 14 permanent
reference photo points were installed across LWOC (11 during the as -built survey and 3
during the Year 1 monitoring period as described above). These photo points were
monumented using steel rebar /PVC pins. Photos were taken at that time to provide photo
documentation of baseline stream conditions. Photos were taken from each of the 14
permanent photo reference points with the same orientation each year and were used for
photo documentation and annual comparison of the stream conditions across LWOC. This
exercise helped to further validate and document stream restoration success at LWOC. The
visual assessment was conducted using annual field observations and pedestrian surveys to
identify any specific problem areas along the streams at LWOC during the monitoring
period. Any such problem areas were identified and organized under appropriate categories.
Such areas were documented using representative photos, where applicable, and their
locations were mapped on the Monitoring Plan View. The suspected cause and appropriate
remedial action for each problem was determined. If during any given year, the streams
were not anticipated to meet the final established monitoring criteria, corrective actions were
considered. Such modifications were documented and discussed with EEP.
14

Little Wliite Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
3.2.2 Stream Monitoring Success Criteria
Stream dimension, pattern, profile, stream bed material, bank stability, and bankfull
hydrology were monitored annually for the project stream reaches as described in detail
above. Stream restoration success at LWOC was evaluated by comparison of the annual
results against the same parameters as predicted, specified, and required in the proposed
design. Success was achieved when all such comparisons reveal positive trends toward
overall stream stability. Expectation was the stream monitoring results should confirm the
stream channels at LWOC are of the proposed stream channel type (Rosgen 1994).
Stream dimension parameters including bankfull width, floodprone width, bankfull cross
sectional area, bankfull mean depth, bankfull max depth, width to depth ratio, entrenchment
ratio, wetted perimeter, and hydraulic radius were measured and/or calculated for each of the
permanent cross sections. The described dimension parameters were expected to remain
consistent from year to year and should fall within the ranges established by the original
proposed design parameters. It was expected and acceptable that minor adjustments in
dimension will occur such as the development of point bars and the subsequent deepening of
pools. As vegetation becomes established and the stream banks are stabilized, the
anticipation was that the width depth ratios will decrease and the entrenchment ratios will
increase slightly, both within the normal ranges for C and E stream channel types (Rosgen,
1994).
Stream pattern parameters including sinuosity, belt width, radii of curvature, meander
wavelength, and meander width ratio were measured and/or calculated. Stream pattern
measurements were expected to remain consistent from year to year and to fall within the
originally proposed design parameters. As vegetation becomes established and the stream
banks are stabilized, it was anticipated that the sinuosity of the streams will also adjust,
likely becoming more sinuous with time.
Stream longitudinal profile parameters including bankfull slope, riffle length, riffle slope,
pool length, and pool to pool spacing were measured. Longitudinal profiles parameters were
expected to remain relatively consistent from year to year. The stream profiles should not
show aggrading or degrading conditions during the five -year monitoring period, however,
minor profile'adjustments such as deepening of pools was expected.
Stream bed material was monitored using the described Modified Wolman pebble counts.
The success criteria for the bed material will be determined at the end of the five -year
monitoring period when data can be reviewed and compared to the proposed channel
material types. Fluctuations in bed materials will likely occur during the early years
following construction and several years may be needed to observe a consistent bed
material. Bed materials should ultimately reflect the proposed design conditions for each
reach at LWOC.
Stream bank stability will be monitored using BEHI and sediment transport estimates during
Monitoring Years 3 and 5. Data collected during these years will be compared with pre -
construction conditions to determine the change in bank erosion hazard indices and sediment
15

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
export rates for each reach assessed. Positive change, namely reduction, in both stream bank
erosion rates and sediment transport rates at LWOC are expected as a result of restoration
and will be documented as described to demonstrate success.
Hydrologic monitoring success was based on the ability to document the occurrence of
bankfull storm events at LWOC. A minimum of two bankfull events, each occurring in two
separate monitoring years, are required to be documented within the five -year monitoring
period. The described crest gauges were used to determine and document the occurrence of
these bankfull events.
As described above, photo documentation and visual assessment was used to complement
the other stream monitoring practices as part of the stream monitoring protocol at LWOC. If
during any given year, the streams were not anticipated to meet the final established
monitoring criteria, corrective actions was considered. Such modifications were
documented and discussed with EEP.
3.2.3 Stream Monitoring Results for Year 1 of 5
In late August 2008, the stream monitoring for Monitoring Year 1 was conducted. The
methodologies described in the Section 3.2.1 were used for the stream monitoring at LWOC
for Monitoring Year 1. Detailed surveys were conducted along the project stream reaches
specified to be surveyed for annual monitoring. The results of these surveys were compared
to the baseline data for the morphometric monitoring obtained during the as -built survey.
All of the 13 cross sections were surveyed to measure the bankfull width, floodprone width,
bankfull cross sectional area, bankfull mean depth, bankfull max depth, width to depth ratio,
entrenchment ratio, wetted perimeter, and hydraulic radius. The results of the cross section
surveys are presented in Table VIII. Appendix D compares photos taken during Monitoring
Year 1 with the initial baseline photos at each of the 13 cross sections. Appendix E provides
an overlay of the Monitoring Year 1 and baseline conditions along with the raw data for
each cross section. The comparison of the baseline and Monitoring Year 1 stream
dimension morphometric data for each of the project stream reaches showed very positive
results, all of which were comparable to the originally proposed design parameters. The
results showed that all of the reaches were experiencing the expected minor adjustments
including decreasing width to depth ratios, increasing entrenchment ratios, and minor
increases in depth. Each of these trends was indicative of movement toward increased
stream stability and was attributed to vegetation establishment and natural channel
adjustments. The comparison of the Year 1 Monitoring cross section photos to the as -built
cross section photos strongly complemented these suggestions, as no concerns, problems, or
negative trends were documented.
The pattern for all of the stream reaches was surveyed to measure the parameters of
sinuosity, belt width, radii of curvature, meander wavelength, and meander width ratio. The
results of the pattern surveys are presented in Table VIII. The comparison of the baseline
and Monitoring Year 1 stream pattern morphometric data for each of the project stream
reaches showed very positive results, all of which were comparable to the originally
16

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
proposed design parameters. The results showed that all of the reaches were experiencing
the expected minor adjustment attributed to vegetation establishment and natural channel
adjustments. This adjustment included slightly increasing radii of curvature, indicative of
movement toward increased stream stability. These minor adjustments can be viewed
through the overlays included in Appendix A.
Longitudinal profile surveys were conducted along each of the project stream reaches
specified for annual monitoring surveys. The surveys were performed to measure the
parameters of bankfull slope, riffle length, riffle slope, pool length, and pool to pool spacing.
The results of the longitudinal profile surveys are presented in Table VIII. The comparison
of the baseline and Monitoring Year 1 longitudinal profiles for each of the monitored project
stream reaches showed very positive results, all of which were comparable to the originally
proposed design parameters. The results showed that all of the reaches were experiencing
the expected minor adjustment attributed to vegetation establishment and natural channel
adjustments. This adjustment included deepening of pools. The comparison of the baseline
and Monitoring Year 1 longitudinal profiles did not show excessive aggrading or degrading.
Overlays can be found in Appendix E along with the raw data from both the baseline and
Monitoring Year 1 conditions.
Modified Wolman pebble counts were repeated at each of the project stream reaches to
classify the stream bed materials for comparison to the baseline conditions. The results of
the pebble counts are presented in Table VIII while the raw data and overlays of the percent
accumulation graphs can be viewed in Appendix E. Fluctuations in bed materials were
expected to occur during the early years following construction. This expectation was
observed in comparing the results of the baseline and Monitoring Year 1 pebble counts.
Specifically, the bed material d50 and d84 for each of the stream reaches decreased. This
trend may be observed during the five -year monitoring period. At this time it is believed
that the original assumption that the stream bed materials would coarsen after restoration
may have been incorrect. The stream systems at LWOC appear to be sand - dominated and
therefore coarsening of the bed may not occur. The monitoring results do suggest, however
that on -site sediment supply from LWOC has been reduced as a result of the restoration. As
noted earlier, the success criteria for the bed material will be determined at the end of the
five -year monitoring period when data can be reviewed and compared to the proposed
channel material types. Fluctuations in bed materials will likely continue to occur and
several years may be needed to observe a consistent bed material.
Stream bank stability monitoring was not conducted, as this monitoring practice is scheduled
to be performed using BEHI and sediment transport estimates during Monitoring Years 3
and 5. BEHI information was collected during the existing condition surveys and sediment
transport rates were subsequently developed. The resulting information will serve as
baseline data for stream bank stability at LWOC and is presented in Table IX. The raw data
for this table can be viewed in Appendix E.
Each of the eight crest gages were checked during the Monitoring Year 1 surveys to monitor
hydrology at LWOC. Six of the eight crest gages recorded flood stages in excess of the
bankfull stage. The two crest gages that did not record flood stages in excess of the bankfull
17

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
stage were the crest gages at Reaches R2A and R2D. The crest gage at Reach R2A
apparently did not record any evidence of a flood stage event, possibly due to problems with
the cork or the gage itself. The crest gage at Reach R21) recorded a flood stage that was
0.26 feet below the bankfull stage. Each of the crest gages was reset after checking stage
measurements, in order to record future events. Table X lists the information related to the
verification of bankfull events at LWOC for Monitoring Year 1 while the raw data can be
found in Appendix E. The evidence recorded by the crest gages indicated a storm event
producing a stage in excess of the bankfull storm occurred at LWOC during Monitoring
Year 1. This documentation of the first bankfull event at LWOC during the monitoring
period suggests success with regards to hydrologic monitoring at LWOC.
Photo documentation and project -wide visual assessment were used to complement the other
Monitoring Year 1 stream monitoring practices. Photos were taken from each of the original
11 permanent photo reference points. Three additional photo points (photo points 2.5Y1,
3.5Y1, and 8.5Y1) were also added to ensure that adequate photo documentation would be
conducted within the monitoring limits of the project stream reaches. Photo point 2.5Y1
was added for Reach R2, photo point 3.5Y1 for Reach R2B, and photo point 8.5Y1 for
Reach R1A. After installation, photos were taken at each of the three added photo points.
Appendix C includes all of the described photos and provides comparison of the photos with
the initial baseline photos taken from the 11 permanent photo reference points. The new
photos taken at three additional photo points will serve as supplemental baseline condition
photos and subsequent photos at these same locations will be compared in Monitoring Years
2 through 5. No stream problems were documented through the photo comparison process.
A project -wide visual assessment was conducted along each of the project stream reaches to
identify any specific stream problem areas. Table XI presents the results of the project -wide
visual assessment. The project -wide visual assessment revealed 12 specific stream problem
areas. Each of these stream problem areas, including their description, location, and
suspected cause, are listed in Table XII. The stream problem areas included eight in- stream
structure failures and associated stream bank erosion, three areas of floodplain and adjacent
stream bank erosion, and one area of stream bank erosion. Mulkey elected to promptly
address all of the stream problem areas and conducted construction repairs of each in
October 2008. The eight stream problem areas categorized as failures of in- stream
structures and were determined to be caused by incorrect construction of the given in- stream
structure. The failed in- stream structures included j -hook rock vanes and rock cross vanes.
All eight of the structures and the associated areas of stream bank erosion were repaired.
Several of the j -hook rock vanes were converted to rock vanes during the repairs to prevent
future point bar erosion. The three stream problem areas categorized as floodplain and
adjacent stream bank erosion were determined to be attributed to the incorrect installation of
floodplain interceptors. All three of the eroded areas were repaired and floodplain
interceptors were installed using both rock and log materials. The remaining stream
problem area categorized as stream bank erosion was determined to be caused by a minor
field adjustment made to the stream alignment in order to save an existing mature tree at the
request of the landowner. This area of stream bank erosion was also repaired. The repairs
to the all of the areas of eroded stream banks included re- grading, re- seeding with
appropriate temporary and permanent seed, and re- installing coir fiber matting. Black
willow (Salix nigra) and/or silky dogwood (Corpus amomum) live stakes were harvested on-
18

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of S)
site and were installed at the repaired stream banks. Please note that the results shown in
Table XI were updated such that the repairs to the stream problem areas described above are
included. Based on the results of the stream monitoring for Monitoring Year 1 at'LWOC, as
well as the subsequent corrective actions taken, Mulkey did not propose any additional
recommendations or actions other than to proceed with the annual stream monitoring.
3.2.4 Stream Monitoring Results for Year 2 of 5
In mid - October and the beginning of November 2009, the stream monitoring for Monitoring
Year 2 was conducted. The methodologies described in the Section 3.2.1 were used for the
stream monitoring at LWOC for Monitoring Year 2. Detailed surveys were conducted along
the project stream reaches specified to be surveyed for annual monitoring. The results of
these surveys were compared to the previous data collected during prior monitoring periods,
baseline conditions established through the as -built survey, and to the proposed design
parameters calculated prior to construction.
All of the 13 cross sections were surveyed to measure the bankfull width, floodprone width,
bankfull cross sectional area, bankfull mean depth, bankfull max depth, width to depth ratio,
entrenchment ratio, wetted perimeter, and hydraulic radius. The results of the cross section
surveys are presented in Table VIII. Appendix D compares photos taken during Monitoring
Year 2 with the initial baseline photos and the previous monitoring photos taken at each of
the 13 cross sections. Appendix E provides an overlay of the Monitoring Year 2, the
previous monitoring periods, and baseline conditions along with the raw data for each cross
section. The comparison of Monitoring Year 2 to the previous surveys for stream dimension
data for each of the project stream reaches showed very positive results, all of which were
comparable to the originally proposed design parameters. Throughout all the cross sections,
the bankfull cross sectional area and entrenchment ratios remained consistent indicating the
channels were able to contain and convey all the flows experienced during Monitoring Year
2. However, the main channels R1 and R2 displayed typical signs of adjustment in their
channel geometries. Both of these reaches have recently been impacted by beavers and
some of these adjustments can be attributed to this recent development. In particular on R1,
cross section 11 had a significant increase in the width to depth ratio due to the backwater of
a downstream beaver dam causing the pool to experience siltation. On the other end, cross
section 12 experienced the reverse because a beaver dam was located directly upstream and
the cascading water created scour ultimately decreasing the width to depth ratio. Similarly,
cross sections along R2 exhibited localized changes in channel geometries, some attributable
to beaver activity and others to natural fluctuations, but all within the acceptable ranges of
the design parameters. The one exception was cross section 1, with a width to depth ratio
climbing up to 22 and the bankfull cross sectional area remaining consistent, a cursory
analysis raised concern. However, the overlay of cross section 1 clearly demonstrated the
channel developing opposing inner berms to better accommodate the low flow capacity.
This effectively allowed the channel to deepen without creating a change in the cross
sectional area causing the width to depth ratio to increase instead of decrease due to the
derivation being based on the calculated value of mean depth. The results of the smaller
tributaries R1A, R2A, R213, and R21) consistently exhibited minor natural adjustments
typical of stable C type streams. The comparisons of the Monitoring Year 2 overlays and
19

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of S)
cross sectional photos to the previous year's strongly substantiated these findings, as no
concerns, problems, or negative trends were documented.
The pattern for all of the stream reaches was surveyed to measure the parameters of
sinuosity, belt width, radii of curvature, meander wavelength, and meander width ratio. The
results of the pattern surveys are presented in Table VIII. The comparison of the Year 2
monitoring data to previous years stream pattern data for each of the project stream reaches
showed very positive results, all of which were comparable to the originally proposed design
parameters. The results showed that all of the reaches remained consistent to the design
parameters with minor variations attributed to vegetation establishment, natural channel
adjustments, and variance in measuring techniques. These minor variations can be viewed
through the overlays included in Appendix A.
Longitudinal profile surveys were conducted along each of the project stream reaches
specified for annual monitoring surveys. The surveys were performed to measure the
parameters of bankfull slope, riffle length, riffle slope, pool length, and pool to pool spacing.
The results of the longitudinal profile surveys are presented in Table VIII. In comparing the
data collected from Monitoring Year 2 to the previously collected data, the results followed
the previous analysis. All reaches showed acceptable minor variations in all parameters
monitored. These variations are within the design tolerances and are attributable to
vegetation establishment, natural channel adjustments, and variance in measuring
techniques. Overall, none of the longitudinal profiles showed excessive aggrading or
degrading. Overlays of the longitudinal profiles can be found in Appendix E.
Modified Wolman pebble counts were repeated at each of the project stream reaches to
classify the stream bed materials and for comparison to the previous years' conditions. The
results of the pebble counts are presented in Table VIII while the raw data and overlays of
the percent accumulation graphs can be viewed in Appendix E. Fluctuations in bed
materials were expected to occur during the early years following construction. Over time
the expectation was for the stream to eventually coarsen, however, Monitoring Year 1 and
Year 2 have shown the opposite to be true. Specifically, the bed material d50 and d84 for
each of the stream reaches decreased. Therefore it is believed that the original assumption
that the stream bed materials would coarsen after restoration may have been incorrect. The
stream systems at LWOC appear to be sand - dominated and therefore coarsening of the bed
may not occur. Nonetheless, the monitoring results do suggest on -site sediment supply from
LWOC was reduced as a result of the restoration. As noted earlier, the success criteria for
the bed material will be determined at the end of the five -year monitoring period when data
can be.reviewed and compared to the proposed channel material types. Fluctuations in bed
materials will likely continue to occur and several years may be needed to observe a
consistent bed material.
Stream bank stability monitoring was not conducted, as this monitoring practice is scheduled
to be performed using BEHI and sediment transport estimates during Monitoring Years 3
and 5. BEHI information was collected during the existing condition surveys and sediment
transport rates were subsequently developed. The resulting information will serve as
20

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
baseline data for stream bank stability at LWOC and is presented in Table IX. The raw data
for this table can be viewed in Appendix E.
Each of the eight crest gages were checked during the Monitoring Year 2 surveys to monitor
hydrology at LWOC. Seven of the eight crest gages recorded flood stages in excess of the
bankfull stage. The one crest gage that did not record a flood stage in excess of the bankfull
stage was at Reach R2D. Although, the region has seen a significant drought, the site has
received large quantities of rain this monitoring year. Additionally, the R2D reach has a
constant flow of water throughout its course. The crest gage at Reach R2D recorded a flood
stage that was 0.10 feet below the bankfull stage this monitoring year. This information
coupled with the other seven gauges having recorded a bankfull event during this monitoring
year suggested that Mulkey needs to recheck the R21) crest gage in 2010 for elevation
discrepancies with regard to its zero elevation. All of the crest gages were reset after
checking stage measurements, in order to record future events. Table X lists the information
related to the verification of bankfull events at LWOC for Monitoring Year 2 while the raw
data can be found in Appendix E. The evidence recorded by the crest gages indicated a
storm event producing a stage in excess of the bankfull storm occurred at LWOC during
Monitoring Year 2. This documented the second and final required bankfull event at LWOC
and therefore demonstrated success with regards to hydrologic monitoring per Section 3.2.2.
Photo documentation and project -wide visual assessment were used to complement the other
Monitoring Year 2 stream monitoring practices. Photos were taken from each of the 14
permanent photo reference points. Appendix C includes all of the described photos and
provides comparison of the photos between the baseline conditions, Monitoring Year 1 and
Monitoring Year 2 photos taken from the 14 permanent photo reference points. No stream
problems were documented through the photo comparison process. A project -wide visual
assessment was conducted along each of the project stream reaches to identify any specific
stream problem areas (Table XI). During the project -wide visual assessment, along with the
other Monitoring Year 2 field work activities, Mulkey noticed a significant increase in
beaver activity at the site. Specifically, beaver dams have been constructed along Reaches
RI, R2 Upper, and R2 Lower in several locations. Please note that Table XI and Table XII
have been updated to reflect these observations. Mulkey is currently coordinating with the
USDA Wildlife Services under BMAP to have the beavers and beaver dams removed, as
well as to have the site monitored for future beaver activity. Mulkey has also observed
cattle intrusion into the fenced buffers at LWOC. Mulkey is working with the landowner to
prevent future cattle trespass from occurring. Other field observations made during the
Monitoring Year 2 include the observation of the apparent restoration of wetland hydrology
adjacent to Reach R1A. The restoration of Reach R1A appears to have reconnected the
stream to its historic floodplain, as well as raise the groundwater table in the buffer areas
adjacent to the reach. These observations are evidenced by the increase of wetland
vegetation species and the saturation of the soils in the buffer areas adjacent to Reach R1A.
The waste treatment outfall located on R1 reach and emanating from the nearby school
appears to be functioning extremely well. Vegetation around the outfall is growing rapidly
and helping to create a highly stable secondary treatment area.
21

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
Based on the results of the stream monitoring for Monitoring Year 2 at LWOC, as well as
the subsequent corrective actions being taken, Mulkey does not propose any additional
recommendations or actions other than to proceed with the annual stream monitoring.
NCEEP expressed concerns regarding the fencing of the conservation easement at LWOC to
Mulkey in a letter dated May 26, 2009. Mulkey responded to NCEEP in a June 1, 2009
letter, urging NCEEP to consider several key exceptions for this particular case. These
exceptions are explained in the referenced June 1, 2009 letter. Mulkey awaits response from
NCEEP regarding the July 2009 letter before further addressing the concerns raised by
NCEEP.
3.2.5 Stream Monitoring Results for Year 3 of 5
In early November 2010, the stream monitoring for Monitoring Year 3 was conducted using
the methodologies described above. Despite the site suffering a flood event from the
remnants of a tropical storm, the overall stability of the six stream reaches has improved.
The stream dimension, pattern, and profile remained consistent with the previous years' data
and continue to remain within the tolerances of the design parameters which is explained in
detail below. However the visual assessment did reveal areas of scour along the banks,
benches, and terraces confined mostly to reach R1. Mulkey intends to repair these areas in
early 2011 to ensure ample time for the project to recover. Nonetheless, per the monitoring
guidance, the overall stability of LWOC is within acceptable tolerances.
LWOC experienced several storm events over the Year 3 monitoring period, the most
extensive occurring from the remnants of a tropical storm occurring in late September of
2010. This event created storm flows well in excess of the bankfull 'stage evidenced by
wrack lines along the terrace slopes. These lines were often above the measurable extent of
the crest gages. In fact, the flows destroyed four of the eight crest gages across the site. The
four destroyed crest gages existed on reaches which have achieved the two bankfull events
in two separate years' hydrological monitoring success criteria. Overall, five of the six
reaches on LWOC have achieved the hydrological success criteria for monitoring; therefore
Mulkey intends to only continue monitoring R21).
The visual assessment of LWOC supported the crest gage data with several areas of scour
occurring along reach R1, vegetative matts being forced down, wrack lines along the terrace
slopes, silt dispersed on the vegetation on the bench, deposition of sand/silt on the benches,
and minor washing out of the fence. Most of this evidence can be viewed through the photo
logs of the vegetation plots (Appendix B), photo points (Appendix C), and cross sections
(Appendix D); however photos of the scour along R1 can be found in Appendix F as no
existing photo points could capture the areas of concern. The scour occurred because back
eddies were formed from the terrace slopes following the creek. In these areas the back
eddies essentially drilled a hole in the bench and deposited the materials downstream. Areas
of bank scour were located in the vicinity of these scour holes as heavy flows began re-
entering the channel. There are also areas of scour around the structure tie -ins with the
bench where unforeseen eddies began to develop downstream of structure arms. Due to the
location of this disturbance occurring up on the bench or terraces, the monitoring does not
22

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
reflect any instability from these areas of concern. Nonetheless, Mulkey perceived these
areas of concern as detracting from the overall positive trends developing across LWOC and
therefore intends to repair these areas in early 2011. The repairs will consist of a
combination of grading and vegetative activities to minimize the effects of future excessive
flows.
Contrary to the visual assessment, the comparison of the 13 cross sections to previous
monitoring data indicated stability across the site (Appendix E). The cross sections along
R2 (1 -5) not only show signs of a stable channel, but they depict the expected tightening of
the channel due to vegetation taking hold with aggradation along the banks occurring in all
but 1 cross section. The cross section on R2A (6) also depicts this phenomenon while the
cross sections for R1A (13), R213 (7) and R21) (8) show no significant change in shape or
form. The cross sections along R1 (9 -12) show slight variation in shape and form that is
indicative of a recent excessive storm event. However, upon comparison of all cross
sections with past monitoring data and design tolerances, every measured variable is either
varying within the design tolerance or migrating back towards an acceptable value.
Therefore in terms of channel dimension, LWOC has been determined to be stable and
meeting all monitoring success criteria.
Similarly, the stream pattern for all reaches across LWOC portrayed a stable stream
network. The meander length, belt width, and radius of curvature measurements for each
reach remained within the design tolerances and showed no significant deviations from the
previously collected monitoring data.
The longitudinal profiles, found in Appendix E, depicted slight variations in each stream
reach. Reaches R1 and R213 were consistent with previously collected data while R2 and
R2A displayed degradation and R1A and R21) aggradation. These differences can be
attributed to the dynamic nature of the stream system coupled with the system experiencing
an intense storm event. Typically, the bed materials would correlate and support stream bed
fluctuation with aggrading streams displaying an influx of finer materials and vice versa for
degrading streams. This correlation is displayed in R1A and R21) where the finer sediments
upstream are being slowed by the vegetation and aggrading the channel. Similarly, R2 is
displaying the correlation in reverse with the bed material coarsening while the bed degrades
exposing the larger substrate materials. R1 has a consistent longitudinal profile and is
beginning to coarsen indicating the reach still moving towards an equilibrium between
stream power and sediment transport. R2A with degradation in the longitudinal profile and
fining of the bed materials is still trying to accommodate the sediment supply exposed
upstream during the construction process. R2B displayed consistent bed slope and bed form
thus indicating a balance reached between stream power and sediment transport. Therefore
all of the reaches except R2B are still showing the expected signs of stream fluctuation
indicative of a system trying to establish equilibrium. None of the described trends are
representative of trends toward instability, rather they depict the natural development of a
young stream network striking a balance between stream power and sediment transport.
As detailed by the monitoring guidance, data was collected and analyzed for the Bank
Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near Bank Shear Stress (NBS) in an effort to quantify the
23

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of S)
sediment transport rate in tons /year for each reach in LWOC (See Table IX). The results of
this process indicated a significant decrease across LWOC. Pre - construction data
determined the sediment transport rate to be 1853 tons /year. Data collected in Monitoring
Year 3 revealed a sediment transport rate of 342 tons /year or an 82% reduction in sediment
in the system. Reach R1, the reach most affected by the storm event, showed a reduction in
sediment transport from 455 tons /year to 189 tons /year or a 58% reduction. These
individual reach trends and cumulative system wide trends show extremely positive results
and are indicative of stream stability across the entire stream network at LWOC.
In Spring of 2010, Mulkey relocated portions of the fence surrounding the easement around
LWOC. This was performed at the request of NCEEP to ensure the entire easement was
protected from cattle and to include the required 50 foot buffer established by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers. The new fence locations have been incorporated and
accurately depicted on the plan sheets found in Appendix B.
In conclusion, Mulkey has determined that all monitoring aspects have met the monitoring
success criteria established for LWOC. Mulkey does intend to perform some minor
corrections to LWOC in early 2011 so as not to detract from the overall success of the
project. These corrections are minor in scope and do not affect the overall stability of
LWOC. Given the overall success and the prior fence relocation, Mulkey does not
recommend any action except to proceed with the annual stream monitoring.
4.0 Project Monitoring Methodology
Success criteria for stream mitigation sites are based on guidelines established by the
USACE, US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), NC Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) and the NCDWQ (USACE et. al, 2003). These guidelines establish
criteria for monitoring both hydrologic conditions and vegetation survival. These same
guidelines were used to develop the monitoring methods, frequencies, and success criteria
discussed herein for LWOC and further described in detail in the approved mitigation report
(Mulkey Engineers and Consultants, 2008). LWOC site conditions will be monitored
annually during the latter part of the growing season months (August, September, and
October) over the five -year monitoring period. This monitoring period complies with the
requirements set forth in the Full Delivery RFP 16- D06027. Monitoring results will be
documented on an annual basis, with the associated reports submitted to the NCEEP as
evidence that the established project goals and objectives are being achieved. The results of
annual monitoring will be used to evaluate the degree of success LWOC has achieved in
meeting the said goals and objectives. In the event that goals are not being met, Mulkey will
coordinate with the NCEEP to develop a plan for ameliorating the areas of concern.
24

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report December 2010
Stream Restoration (Year 3 of 5)
5.0 References
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants. 2008. Little White Oak Creek Stream Restoration
Mitigation Report. August 2008.
NCEEP. 2005. Content, Format, and Data Requirements for EEP Monitoring Reports.
Version 1. 1, September 16, 2005. NCDENR, NCEEP. 17 pp.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena, 22:169 -199.
Rosgen, D.L. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs,
Colorado.
Rosgen, D.L. 1998. The Reference Reach — A Blueprint for Natural Channel Design. From
Proceedings of the Wetlands and Restoration Conference, March 1998, Denver CO.
Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division
of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
USACE, USEPA, NCWRC, and NCDWQ. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines. April
2003.
25

-r`-� -. -�•_ _._ _- :.1 WATAUG NEW R NOKE CHOW N
Lm i - \% - • l LITTLE F, CH CATAWBA YADKIN -pqM/ PASQUO ANK
o BROA 7 C
Ila '.(.J� T, -� ,•� *j + TENN SSEE r OqA NEUSE O
`l))) ir, HIWA SEE F
�" \` l {•'/ -"j - - }., S! �—•+1 �� SAVANNAH FqR
WHI K
i a0 tl
•i z ar..no..y •�� l � -- � I 1 jf Y
I` •'its —. \�'��� .��;���
LITTLE WHITE OAK
;w-
• - - MITIGATION SITE i
35'17'21.1"N 80'07'00.4"W j
TO CHARLOTTE
' ice• �. � Q� -mss•. :�� Oq
rme
!• - 74
an
o
TO (ASHEVILLE' `f ! 1
1:36,000 N r • - ,:
Feet �`� ` �� � � •� /• �� ,
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
. I
USGS 7.5- Minute Topographic Quadrangles. • • ! ��i� • '•\ ,'` �- ,
Mill Spring &Pea Ridge',(
C
AL
ontour Interval 40 Feet
r� LOCATION MAP Figure
�"En LITTLE WHITE OAK STREAM RESTORATION
- LE
}— MUKY POLK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 7
PROJECT NO. D06027 -B March 20, 2008

Table I. Project Restoration Approach and Mitigation Type
Little White Oak Creek Stream Restoration / D06027 -B
Stream Reach
Restoration
Mitigation
Linear
S = Stabilization
SS = Stream Banks Stabilization
ID
Approach
Type
Footage
Stationing
Comments
Channel relocation with floodplain
RI
P2
R
7,543
0+00-75+43
excavation
Includes 850 feet of P1 and 190 feet of
R1A
P1/P2
R
1,040
0+00-10+40
P2 channel relocation
R2 (Upper
Channel relocation with floodplain
and Lower)
P2
R
7,107
0+00-71+07
excavation
Channel relocation with floodplain
R2A
P2
R
336
0+00-3+36
excavation
Includes 250 feet of PI and 1224 feet of
R2B
P1/P2
R
1,474
0 +00 — 14 +74
P2 channel relocation
Includes 100 feet of and 690 feet of
R21)
P1/P2
R
790
0+00-7+90
P2 channel relocation
R = Restoration
P1 = Priority I
El = Enhancement I
P2 = Priority II
EI1= Enhancement 11
P3 = Priority Ill
S = Stabilization
SS = Stream Banks Stabilization

Table II. Project Activity and Reporting History
Little White Oak Creek Stream Restoration / D06027 -B
Activity or Report
Scheduled
Completion
Data
Collection
Completion
Actual
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan Prepared
Oct -06
Aug -06
12- Feb -07
Restoration Plan Approved
Nov -06
N/A
30- Mar -07
Final Design - 90%
Dec -06
N/A
16-May-07
Construction
Jun -07
N/A
13- Nov -07
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire project area
Jun -07
N/A
13- Nov -07
Permanent seed mix applied to entire project area
Jun -07
N/A
13- Nov -07
Planting live stakes
Dec -07
N/A
I I- Jan -08
Planting bare roots
Dec -07
N/A
1 I- Jan -08
End of Construction
Dec -07
N/A
11- Jan -08
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring - Baseline)
Jan-08
Jan -08
9- Jan -08
Monitoring
Year I - 2008
Dec -08
Sep -08
Dec -08
Year 2 - 2009
Dec -09
Oct -09
Dec -09
Year 3 - 2010
Dec -]0
Nov -10
Dec -10
Year 4 - 2011
Dec -] I
N/A
N/A
Year 5 - 2012
Dec -12
N/A
N/A
Bolded items represent those events or deliverables that are variable. Non - bolded items
represent events that are standard components over the course of a typical project.

Table III. Project Contacts
Little White Oak Creek Stream Restoration / D06027 -B
Designer
6750 Tryon Road
Mulkey Engineers
Cary, NC 27518
and Consultants
Contact:
Emmett Perdue, PE Tel. [phone]
Construction Contractor
P.O. Box 796
Vaughan Contracting, LLC
Wadesboro, NC 28170
Contact:
Tommy Vaughan Tel. [phone]
Planting Coordinator
150 Black Creek Road
Bruton Nurseries and Landscapes
Fremont, NC 27830
Contact:
Charles Bruton, Jr. Tel. [phone]
Seeding Contractor
P.O. Box 796
Vaughan Contracting, LLC
Wadesboro, NC 28170
Contact:
Tommy Vaughan Tel. [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
P.O. Box 669
Evergreen Seed
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Contact:
Wister Heald Tel. [phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
5594 Highway 38 South
International Paper
Blenheim, SC 29516
South Carolina SuperTree Nursery
Contact:
Geoffrey Hill Tel. [phone]
762 Claridge Nursery Road
North Carolina Forestry Service
Goldsboro, NC 27530
Claridge Nursery
Contact:
James West Tel. [phone]
Monitoring Performers
6750 Tryon Road
Mulkey Engineers
Cary, NC 27518
and Consultants
Contact:
Emmett Perdue Tel. [phone]

Table IV. Project Background
Little White Oak Creek Stream Restoration / D06027 -B
Project County Polk County, North Carolina
Drainage Area [sq. mi(acres)]
RI
4.46 (2854)
R I A
0.11 (70)
R2
10.85 (6944)
R2A
0.54 (355)
R213
0.12 (77)
R2D
0.05 (32)
Drainage Impervious cover estimate ( %)
RI
2
R1A
2
R2
2
R2A
2
R2B
2
R2D
2
Stream Order
RI
3
R1A
1
R2
3,4
R2A
2
R2B
1
R2D
1
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Southern Inner Piedmont
Rosgen Classification (As- built)
Rl, R1A, R2
C5
R2A, R2B
C4
R2D
C6
Cowardin Classification
R3UB2*
Dominat Soil Types
Riverview - Chewacla- Buncombe
Reference Site ID
UT to Ostin Creek
USGS HUC for Project and Reference
Project
03050105
Reference
03050105
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project and Reference
Project
03 -08 -02 (Broad)
Reference
03 -08 -03 ( Borad)
NCDWQ Classification for Project and Reference
Project
C
Reference
C,Tr
Any portion of any project segement 303d?
No
Any portion of any project segement upstream of a 303d listed segment?
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
N/A
Percent of project easement fenced
100
(R) Riverine (3) Upper Perennial (UB) Unconsolidated Bottom (2) Sand

�N
Ev 00
r l�0
0�0 M
M VQ'�
U
OO �rfi
b r
VMl
00 r
`6
t�
M_
O
�y
N
0
F
oo
�F
r
o
w
z
m r
r°
d L
C
V
xz
Q
�
e
c
Ha
N N
—
vryi R
Ic
x
-o
V
zG
O O
b �
O
C
s$y
k
O
F§
C
Q
O
G
Q
�µ
r
00
r
�O
p
M
O
M M
M
0
E
a
c
n
nUU
E~• uUU�i4
'4
04401
QI
(zo
nj

Table VI. Vegetative Problem Areas
Little White Oak Creek Stream Restoration / D06027 -B
Feature/Issue
Station / Range
Probable Cause
Photo No.
(If Available)
No vegetative problem areas observed (Year 1, 2008)
All project reaches
N/A
N/A
No vegetative problem areas observed (Year 2, 2009)
All project reaches
N/A
N/A
No vegetative problem areas observed (Year 3, 20 10)
All project reaches
N/A
N/A

m
10
"t
"no
M
2
N
V
N
O
R
O
M
O
x'o
Vl
7
00
00
00
;y
N
v
N
0,
7
N
�:Cr
O
N"
�"
C
O
7
O
a
.M.
ccl
C
q
pp
M
V
M
N
M
N
C
m
N"
M
r
�C+
O
N
•mr
r
O
r
V
O
N
7
r
00
r
T7
a,
O
d
D
C
r
N
m
N
'r
�'"
a
O
M
`"�
G
O
rl
V`"
G
O
41
CD
00
C'
O
W
N'
00
M
•r-�
Q
—
�
C
Co
O
"
^'
v�
oo
V
00
�G+
r
m
7
cr
O
O
Ln
N
3
'O
in
N
M
ct
O
m
00
'O
O
O
°,
O
a
O
'O
°
o
--�
W)
00
U
�C
Oo
N
�O
r
x
o
o
.--�
C
'cE
O,
R Qa
C
v'1
°`
0
7
�O
,-•
N
•�
cxr
ON
r
M
N
."-�
v"i
oo
O
N
°
C
m
O
O
D`
n
C
v
U
U
C
C
N
d'
r
V
y
m
M
m
00
00
O
v�
i4
0
�"�
C
'O
V
•�
m
N
a
O
b
o0
r
r
N
.�Gr
O
m
O+
v
oo
a`
0o
b
oo
m
°'
N
o
om
v
ao
ON
�
cfi
"
"
If)
b
°m`.
oo
m
oro
7
�"°
is
_
O
C
r
N
N
O
<t
O
N
C
C
V
�D
Q a
LW
��C++
U
Ol U
y
W
rl
�p
N
W
W
� �
S
Co
1
v
Q
7
I
TiTi
11
1
O O •--. r-.
.. .-. p
.. .-.
.R 2 Y y C
s Nssaa
s � a
w.c tb
vas o'er
aCi L C y b
'O C .J
OA N 0,0 ..C.,
O V
'n 00
y V0 C W
u)
U
�
ca
y w
Ou
C
y
V
O
�l
y
yy
'O
A
0.
0.
vo
d

r
oo
O
M
O
r
M
o0
-�-.
O
N
N
��X
oC
U
Q
°
O
N
oo
O
p
O
IO
N
7
o0
M
v1
C+
v'1
M
T
O
>1
V1
7
�D
V'�
O�
r
�O
•__,
O
.�
r
Vl
v�
Q
R
V
�O
C)
N
O
C
N
oo
O
N
O
U
oc
N
�Cr
N
O
'D
�n
N
M
V
O
M
oo
'O
Ij
O
O
O
b
N
.--�
G
M
r
U
'c
oo
v
N
r
.°
r
�
0
0
o
X
"D
o;
°4
U
In
°o.
�c
•U
N
m
N
N
V
V°'1
.�-.
V�1
o6
O
O
M
°
C
c,
OV
V
ri
r
r
o
M
c°n
°
m
O
o6
6
►fir �"'
R
o
a�
r
oo
M
r
v�
?
C,
0O
C5
a•
o
oo
r
M
CD
b
w
O
o
U
pa
Sao
_
o°U
&W oC
"
V
oo
N
O
O
CO
o �
V �
c
O
CT
a a
A
U
-o o
Ri
CD V
A aQi E C �
3 i3
='' �
a °
a
h oc
h
=
Ar
.'.
.° .°-�
Q
u
u
i
d
a
o
r
�
L
w
y
O

N
00
M
7
"R
r
O
0
N
cn
U
�•�r
O
V
m
^2
G�
v'�
�D
:a
°
V
O�
in
00
O
N
00
N
N
N
G
M
N
O
O
M
_
D\
�
00
CV
M
V'1
~
N
O
N
r.-
M
N
�"
C O
O\
00
m
N
M
M
r
N
N
M
00
C
,
In
0
7
In
V1
O
<t
O�
V
p��C+
oo
V
��C•+
�C+
oc
p
a
0o
N
it
l/1
�c
M
ai
N
C
��xrr
1p
°N
o0
7
r
_
7
•
fi�x++
ON
'r
M
~
00
0
p�
00
O_
M
7
^
r
M
N
.Nr
Fi
U
N
7
r
7
'n.
m
C
O
O
O
T
K
p
M
M
Q
o
r
r^
o
o
m
o
00
0
b O
00
W 1�i
•"
O
CA
ni
1
oo
r
N
r
N
y
V
�o
p`
v
°
O
V
in
°
W
��x++
�"•
N
�
r
?
a
00
h
`"•
°
b
'�"
�
v
N
_
vi
�D
�!J
'�
�"
°
_
m
7
R Qn
{x C
m
O
�
vi
....
o
°r°
,ten
C4
N
M
7
C
O
vii
�0
r0�
to
5
o
v
°°
M
A
6) y
F+
U
c
w
rn
N
00
rn
c
p
I
k
6� a
F
14
Ca
x
x
x
ao
U
U
Ln
y
w
o
a a
s a
G c op
C
v s �a
'c
c x
3 ���
a
bb
.^.�
o� un
u=1> 3
Ln "0
o
v -- c U
E
= c o
04
r
U
3 x
U
co o
w
a
°
a
o u
d
AAll

O
7
O_
'D
�C
10
�
m
tX7
G
R
N
r
,.0
^ V1
z
^
o
N
N
r
N
M
V1
O
4
m
rn
/.
o
r
00
V
O
Ir1
N
N
U
N
m
m
O
V
m
l/l
M
r�
!-.
O
N
V
O
C
b,0
ON
v�
O,
OC
Q,
M
�D
N
V
U
In
V'I
X
a
00
r
.r
rn
^
o0
eX+
00
m
O
Q
C
00
C
oo
O
D`
C
IO
o0
V
00
O
m
N
N
ON
M
v1
Cl!
M
c{
O
m
00
O
O
O
'L7
00
b
m
a
m
ON
G
b
7
rn
M
O
vi
m
00
r
V]
p
U
�D
00
7
N
r
ID
In
r
M
O
O
O
X
C,
00
O
^
iiCC4C��
��rr
NO
r
M
N
00
O'n
7
U
w
O
y
O
N
7
r
m
C
0
0
rC
m17,
.d C
h
00
N
00
N
m
00
O
M
v1
r
X
N
7
r
00
N
O
O
O
r
O�
U
C
7)
�
o
�
p
M
M
,z
Q
Qr it
W
CC_
N
O
0o
r
vi
cC.
N
CN
cc
r
C
N
r
C
00
w
w
QM
�I
O �
G
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
cz
R 4
Q
U
q}
O
.r
'D b .� v v 'Y C 'C7
9 C �q
Oq d �q .�
O V
[
° �
° °
°� �' g
3
D"
c r >
o�°'o
c'a
cl
r� x
a
a v
o
c
�
A
a
a
v
e

O
00
G
oC
M
v'1J
O
N
M
C,
C
��r
/..
N
N
-,I-
M
/-.--'
vi
m
M
bC0
�
N
O
X
C
Vl
Vl
r
,__,
ti
N
vi
M
C
�o
7
c
/.
N
v1
R
Q
O
G
N
V'1
C
V�
N
N
C�
O
c.C.+
O
y
00
W
0o
N
'O U
�
N
-
D\
M
U
U
01
^
~
O
O
N
[t
r
M
In
C
0
0
0
Cam.
O
M
M
M
M
/-.
V1
CAS \
CJ
b Q
4
=
'O
2
C. w
c
U
7
M
r
m
O
00
M
XN
oo
C
U
�
�
N
X
L•y •,f f'r
FZ
u
c
y
�
v a
E.y
Q
V
cn
C7
U
tD L O c`ys
'G 'O .� d d L y ?
'O 7 KO ,�
op d
d
dE�i
h y
G. V o
w
"
c U
ca
�7
ca
L
t

V
w
C
O
O
O
M
r
M
00
W
V
N
O�
U
N
D
G
7
ON
ZO
/-.
N
N
C,
M
O
vrj
U
Q
O
O
�C+
00
C
f_
M
M
r
oo
M
In
—
o+
C
P
M
N
h
00
'O
v1
N
M
7
O
M
00
N
is
�
O
M
M
N
O
7
O
M
O
c
h
M
w
r
it
'+�
IO
oN
oo
r-
V
M
N
r
m
r
N
v
vp
O
-
O
oo
K
�
O,
oo
o
U
y
a,
O
�*
C N
N
o
C_++
O
N
r
M
C_
O
O
O
C
p
M
M
•O A
y
}
G
r-
N
1.0
O,
M
O
00
O
c. C
Po
r
v,
p
C w
o
—
W
C'�
0
�
N
C
QM W
N
_
M
cq
O CC is
it
°�
Tl
N
O
Ci
r
\O
O^
U
y
M
N
O
W
rOj �
c
O
.1
.1
ro
A
ao
x
x
x
ull
v
7
C
c
•
O 7
N C W C
Ln
w 3 O
w w a O
C—
F
����a
a
C�C w C
r> bo
U
a
w
LY
O U
b
A
a
w
12,
d

d
r
4�
r
d
r
�
E
r
0
8
}
f
2
r
d
i
CA
o
d
�
"°
_ c
m
vi
00 O
•� o
r
e W
l� y
0
o
R�
o
-.
e
d
L
m
a o
e o
'O e
°
•O
°
o o
—
,n U
"I I p� N
O
Al N
C
y ad
v
G
d
d N
_-
x
y 0
O �
� 3
a
r
a
�
o
ea
V
KK
F��
pp_
d
vt K
O O
`•
O
S N
d y
vdi U
i
e
o r
}
i
g
po
�
C
N
C - G
w
33 �caoga�
�
F
9
�
�
� 3 c:a x•
�
3
pQQe�
S
U
r d t OG
e
� n
� �
� 1y '9 � '«i
E
O
4�
�
E
0
8
2
r
d
�
8
0
o
R�
o
-.
e
d
L
m
a o
e o
'O e
°
•O
°
o o
—
,n U
r
a
o
V
KK
F��
pp_
d
vt K
O O
`•
O
S N
d y
vdi U
r
g
po
r d t OG
�• � � W
� �
� 1y '9 � '«i
U 5
a
C 4
E
d
4
a
h
Q

/
7
$]
/
#
k
£
!
!
}/
)
\
/
)
!;G}3I;
§ =G
(
,
(
-
/
7
$]
/
#
k
£
!
!
}/
)
\
/
)
!;G}3I;
§ =G
(
,
(
K
- /p
2
/�
;
_
`
§$!I
�%
�
$
:

G
r
L
Z
}
O
r
5.
r
r
Y
Z
r
�
a
c
°
-
E
C
U
j• �°
ry
e o
`c
°` o
O
r
r
L
L
r
G
O
Y
N 4'
�
N
O•
— Z
r
U
�• o
N <r
N
�c o
0
0
rl
-
r
a
a
•� �o
� a
00 CJ
p A
« G
N
Y
•G O
p W
o
VU
N
�
•D
O ry
Y a
o U
}
�O
y
O
Y
O �
�3
�
�
a
0 8
d
•c �o
o a
> �
y
r
i
�
Q
—
O
Y
r
N
�
O
°W�
o < 777
e
e
Y
�
a
=
'a
d
y
Q
d
U
c
e �
E
q
G
L
O
E
5
�
9
E
O
r
L
L
0
0
0
rl
0_o
r
o
}
y
O
�
�
a
0 8
d
•c �o
o a
Q
—
O
°W�
e
e
Y
�
a
=
'a
d
y
Q

G
Y
O
}
}
}
S.
}
}
O
}
}
9
}
}
O
}
C
}
Y
Oa
L
r
� Q
qbq
a q
}
Y
O
y
l'�
O
O
O
�o
k Y a
� O
i
N
ao
O y
^
o
N
7
� �
f
Y
F
O
}
i
Y
i
Y
}
}
O
O
I
n C
N��
Q
�O
N
V
O N
-� O
.C. C..
a
^�
Q
a
G U
GL
� m
E
c
G
O
}
S.
S
9
O
L
L
O
O
O
� O
N
^
o
O
Y
i
a
^�
U
x
t
oC
z
2
�
A
e
E
G

,
¥
!
I
)
$
}k
§
,
(
,
§
-,
H U
\)U> \�
;
k]]!
`
`
a
)
%
%

7
...
...
/
[)
§
£
;
!
7
}!
)
§
@!
,,
_
_
_
§
\
,
k ;Gy
&5373[
(
_
;
7
7
/
[)
§
£
;
!
7
}!
)
§
@!
,,
_
_
_
§
\
,
k ;Gy
&5373[
(
_
;
) §>
Ell,
«
%
%

Exhibit Table IX. BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates
Little White Oak Creek Stream Restoration / D06027 -B
Time Point
Segment /
I Reach
Linear
Footage or
Acreage
Extreme
Very High
High
Moderate
Low
Very Low
Sediment
Export
ft
%
ft
%
ft
%
ft
%
ft
%
ft
%
tons /yr
Preconstruction
2006
RI
6530
5877
90
455
R1A
906
906
100
229
R2
5979
5381
90
767
R2A
625
625
100
32
R2B
1713
1
11713
100
120
R2D
526
526
100
1
1
250
TOTAL
16279
6813
42
6502
40
1713
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
1853
Monitoring Y3
2010
R1
7543
5280
70
2263
30
189
R1A
1040
1040
100
1
R2
7107
7107
100
123
R2A
336
336
100
3
R2B
1474
1474
100
LL
4
R2D
790
790
100
22
TOTAL
18290
0
0
0
0
0
0
12387
68
5903
32
0
0
342
Monitoring Y5
2012 (NOT
APPLICABLE)
R1
7543
R1A
1040
R2
7107
R2A
336
R2B
1474
R2D
790
TOTAL
18290
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Exhibit Table X. Verification of Bankfull Events
Little White Oak Creek Stream Restoration / D06027 -B
Date of Data
Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo No.
(If Available)
8/25/08 - 8/27/08
Unknown
Crest Guage
N/A
10/13/09 - 10/14/09
Unknown
Crest Guage
N/A
1 ](01/10 - 1 1/03/10
Unknown
Crest Guage
N/A

Table XI. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Little White Oak Creek Stream Restoration / D06027 -B
Reach RI (7543ft)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02A
MY -03a
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
91%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
84%
Thalwegs
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
100%
100%
95%
95 %
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
Structures
100%
100%
95%
88%
Rootwads
100%
100%
95%
98%
Reach R1A (1040ft)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
Thalwegs
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
Structures
100%
100%
100%
100 %
Rootwads
100%
100%
100%
100%
Reach R2 (7107ft)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02"
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
Thalwegs
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
100%
100%
95%
95%
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
Structures
100 %
100%
95%
95 %
Rootwads
100%
100%
95%
95%
Reach R2A (336ft)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
Thalwegs
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
Structures
100%
100 %n
100%
100%
Rootwads
100%
100%
100%
100%
Reach R2B (1474ft)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
Thalwe s
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100 %
Structures
100%
100%
100%
100%
Rootwads
100%
100%
100%
100%
Reach R2D (790ft)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
Thalwegs
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
Structures
100%
100%
100%
100%
Rootwads
100%
100%
100%
100%
Notes:
"The results shown above as less than 100% percent, reflect the construction of beaver dams on the
respective reaches during MY -02 (2009).
BThe entire project suffered a flood event during MY -03 (2010) causing damage along R1.

Table XIL Stream Problem Areas (Year 3 of 5)
Little White Oak Creek Stream Restoration / D06027 -B
Photo No.
Feature/Issue
Station / Range
Probable Cause
(If Available)
Right bench erosion
Approximate station 2 +10 -RI -
Flood Event
N/A
Appendix F
Left terrace erosion
Approximate station 3+75 -RI -
Flood Event
Photo 1
Appendix F
Left bench and terrace erosion
Approximate station 8 +75 -RI -
Flood Event
Photo 2
Right bench and terrace erosion
Approximate station 10 +96 -RI -
Flood Event
N/A
Appendix F
Left bench and terrace erosion
Approximate station 12 +10 -R l-
Flood Event
Photo 3
Appendix F
Right terrace and streambank erosion
Approximate station 16 +75 to 18+00 -RI -
Flood Event
Photo 4
Left bench and terrace erosion
Approximate station 19 +10 -R I -
Flood Event
N/A
Appendix F
Left streambank erosion
Approximate station 20 +05 to 20 +50 -RI -
Flood Event
Photo 5
Right bench and terrace erosion
Approximate station 20 +25 -RI -
Flood Event
N/A
Right bench, terrace, and streambank
Approximate station 23 +90 -RI-
Flood Event
Appendix F
erosion
Photo 6
Appendix F
Right streambank erosion
Approximate station 25 +10 to 25 +35 -RI -
Flood Event
Photo 7
Left streambank erosion
Approximate station 26+45 to 26 +55 -RI-
Flood Event
N/A
Appendix F
Right streambank erosion
Approximate station 26 +75 to 27+45 -RI -
Flood Event
Photo 8
Right streambank scour
Single Arm Vane Structure Number 26
Flood Event
N/A
Approximate station 28 +35 -R1-
Right bench erosion
Approximate station 29 +75 -R1-
Flood Event
Appendix F
Photo 9
Left streambank scour
Single Arm Vane Structure Number 28
Flood Event
N/A
Approximate station 30 +25 -RI -
Appendix F
Left bench and terrace erosion
Approximate station 31 +35 -Rl-
Flood Event
Photo 10
Right streambank erosion
Approximate station 31 +15 to 31 +75 -R1-
Flood Event
N/A
Right streambank erosion
Approximate station 34 +00 to 34 +50 -R1-
Flood Event
N/A
Left bench erosion
Approximate station 34+40 -Rl-
Flood Event
N/A
Left terrace erosion
Approximate station 36 +70 -R1-
Flood Event
N/A
Appendix F
Left bench erosion
Approximate station 39 +70 -R1-
Flood Event
Photo I1
Right terrace erosion
Approximate station 41+60 -RI-
Flood Event
N/A
Left bench erosion
Approximate station 42 +30 -R1-
Flood Event
N/A
Right streambank erosion
Approximate station 43 +50 to 44 +00 -RI -
Flood Event
N/A
Right bench erosion
Approximate station 44 +35 -R1-
Flood Event
N/A
Right streambank erosion
Approximate station 46 +95 to 47 +30 -Rl-
Flood Event
N/A
Right streambank erosion
Approximate station 58 +30 to 58 +70 -RI-
Flood Event
N/A
Appendix F
Right bench and streambank erosion
Approximate station 61 +85 to 62 +75 -R1-
Flood Event
Photo 12
Right streambank erosion
Approximate station 54 +60 to 55+40 -R2-
Flood Event
N/A
Appendix F
Left streambank erosion
Approximate station 56 +10 to 57+00 -R2-
Flood Event
Photo 13

W
O
O
O
b
W
P
2�
Q O
2
O �
O
�W
w=
~M
V
2
o
O ¢
o�
W
O
A
O
A
O
V
U
W
O
N � N
n
" O
i
v p
�. .zo
,32 .15
� O1,
CL
N
d Q6 `r}
" � M Oi
V Ot' al _Z
O
N
N
Z
V
W
m
O
LL olI
a �
f
N
0 0
W W
W O
z
w
w
0
a
Lr
W
N
¢
w
r_
_J
z LLJ
� w
W m
W W
O Q
m
a°
Yr~
`^Q
r
W
o
Y x
J
�
Z
z
w
w
0
a
W
U
N
¢
w
w r
z LLJ
� w
W m
W W
O Q
m
a°
Yr~
`^Q
r
W
o
Y x
J
�
�m
Z
7
wiJ
o
Z
�0
m
7
�
�
o
�
U
�
NNmZ
r
wY
W
h tll
z
Z
oommi
a
�mw
Z
W
ajii
ILIZ --3
Z
4 i
i
Z
W 3
J Ox
Q �
U
N N
a
s u
V) I=11F,
n r r
W O 2 2

w
F4
04
°1ri � ii i I
5 pII o I I I o o .}o��ol <0> i } I I
Li
W m
t ° : o
m : V ° :C3 c m m
E o° (� c c
> m W x=
y Q
° 3 a
°° x y o m ; o
p) W O t C m m u m m
L C y t C Oe W N % U 1H N J O L C C F •3 � C O m m � W d • sm ~ J m
m , LO p) a '° LL
Cl t w N„ F NN w IN r m
O D N N Ce ° N O d O_ O_ OZ O dO
d O
I
u
� ow ❑w a
I o I
m w
LL
LL
c
e 7
m
C u C
O m LL m m m m
z W
-0 C O N W d p C
C ° m
m C C m 0 0C J C ° E ►• 00
p 0 U
CL N C ° y O N p N Cp 7
C
N S
O O °° 3 o y o o E o 0 o m m o 0 0 o c 0
3, U H U e°e CE u� CL a- H CL CL a- ~ 3 CL. U U :7 IL U
zz
Ll
I
Z E : ►-
CO
rrww L
m O O m Y p
c N ; c c
0 °O m° m
-~°o O s �i m° a �, m E o u
c -° 0 q v m 3 C c 3 p o 0
u r �. > o° n= o vii a m
W N W 5 m N U j= w LL o N H H m
P•
99 ,o
O
I
I
I
I
1
vl
I •�
®
�#
O
0
I
I
3
CL
m
c
co
o
cm
D
m
O
:
:
a
°
m c
c
:
a
c
a-
C
°'
p p
a
U C
m
C
E
-o
o
W
ppc
c
o
m
m
W �.
m
o
CL
m
y
E p
m
o
O
y
°
DC
Z
IL
LL
m
m
H
p
Im
W
� o
°m
E
l7
'
m
y in
d
0
m cm
i
2
m
2
t
?
CL
°2
-0
�
O
o
O
cc
Z
O
V
m
N
0
u
°
$
2
O
o
o
o
-o E
m
E
m
o
,
tp
m
e •� )
ce o
oe
N
O
U Oo
o
U
m
y
m
y
L
U
U
O
H El
4
0
O
?J O
0
o
•❑
O®
z
O
O O
=
W
Ow
°
O O
_m
U
m
.
m
C
Vy/
C
O
U
0
2
m
J
m
m
L
m-C-C
m m
0
c
o
o
p
U
0
m
m
o
m
o
o
y
C7 (�
0
0-
c 0
m
p
c
m
O
O
1.- ~
W
LL
m3
.0
O
U
u
C
C
t
CL 0
m i
O °
0
m
—
m
r
m
0
u
0
U-
N
LU
Z C
C C
m
m
U
-0
m
-0
m
Z
O O
S
o
C
L
'O
m
O
_
O C S
0m
O
C C
T T
_2
o
LU z-
�
1
`
12
c
W Z
J
.
m m
GI
m
W
m
O
m
O
m
O
m
N
'p
C c
to
O m
om
em
W
N N
C
°1ri � ii i I
5 pII o I I I o o .}o��ol <0> i } I I
Li
W m
t ° : o
m : V ° :C3 c m m
E o° (� c c
> m W x=
y Q
° 3 a
°° x y o m ; o
p) W O t C m m u m m
L C y t C Oe W N % U 1H N J O L C C F •3 � C O m m � W d • sm ~ J m
m , LO p) a '° LL
Cl t w N„ F NN w IN r m
O D N N Ce ° N O d O_ O_ OZ O dO
d O
I
u
� ow ❑w a
I o I
m w
LL
LL
c
e 7
m
C u C
O m LL m m m m
z W
-0 C O N W d p C
C ° m
m C C m 0 0C J C ° E ►• 00
p 0 U
CL N C ° y O N p N Cp 7
C
N S
O O °° 3 o y o o E o 0 o m m o 0 0 o c 0
3, U H U e°e CE u� CL a- H CL CL a- ~ 3 CL. U U :7 IL U
zz
Ll
I
Z E : ►-
CO
rrww L
m O O m Y p
c N ; c c
0 °O m° m
-~°o O s �i m° a �, m E o u
c -° 0 q v m 3 C c 3 p o 0
u r �. > o° n= o vii a m
W N W 5 m N U j= w LL o N H H m

G) 0

O
Z
F
W
W
=
Q
0
F
Z
Q
F
W,
m Q
0 ID
zz
w
C
U to V
0 Nq•=
w
N CD
A f0
r
J NVOU�
w
¢
a
o
a:
W LZ:.�J
W
= M
i pemii
m
s
L9 0 1� O G;
°m m
ma
W L�pO'
w
o
a
J
maDm
W
W
W
. am
A
M
m
Q O
• pl
f >
m W
W
I- I
03 I 1
W I I I
\ X�I1
I ,
x
\ \ I I
\ X I
\ \\
\ S\ x \
SS 01
NO
NO
j
I
1
w
i
CD
i
CD,z
�--=CD
C�
N.
Q::� Q
c QL,J
Q LLJ
LiJ
�LLJ
S? LLB �—
L-LJ,O
Q
LLJ Lai
El = L
m �
II' �
1
1
1
1
■
■
■
t3l,iC C3wils :
> tp
0
n m
m m
m Q
0 ID
Q m
fD Q
N O
n
N Oi
N.
a N
N CD
A f0
CD m m
w
nnn
n
m
ma
°m m
ma
m
W waD
uj
maDm
. am
.
. .
mm
aDmmaDmmm
'I
anD°
J
O
r
C7�°r�`�iinu
e�vn.
.
.
C4
O
N
O m
O N
Q ED
n(((���
.
W . n
11
N
Z
1 p
tOyl
O
� �
y
�
Cp p
O
11Wpp
W 0
(m(pp tWtpp
0 0
rmrpp
0 0
(O(ppI {O{ppI
0 0
0 0
ttpp
0 0
ttpp
0 0
((pp 11pp
0 0
((pp 11pp
0 0
0 0 0
U
NQ
H
8
,F
�Q
+
W�
m
O
m.-pof
n O
O� W
O] 10
inn
aD Q
O� CND
N O
M h
Cp
O n
p� _
N OQi �
�
= N
N1 t"1
V7 n
iG 1��p
I� N
O CO
!{�hamJ
O
C�
LL
Z n
n n
n n
n n
toff tDt��P
n n
n n
n n
�G�JJ
n n
pa0�
n n
tNp
n n n
a
Z N
1A .........
N
N h
N N
N N 1A
0
d Q
0 0
f Q
0 0
Q Q
0 0
Q Q
0 0
Q Q
0
Q Q
Q O
m Q
Q O
tp
f O
n aD W
d 0 0
II' �
1
1
1
1
■
■
■
t3l,iC C3wils :
O O
00
m
Go co
Go
to
'I
O
r
y
I
I
LL
+
cir*
l
:ZDq-
NQ
8
,F
�Q
+
r
J
Q-(n
m t
Q 1
�
r
Q
o N
j;
1'
+
I
I,
O
r
I'
1'
I;
M
O
r'
+
I
S
a
°o
co
I
_t
�
/
O
O �
O
i
;I
I
,1
10
I
1
00
y
4
°o
1
;1
�I
�I
c
o
M
t
>
a
J,
V8
W
>
FO
I"
Z>
O
+
1'
�a
m
N
m o
�I
NU
,I
a
F
�
I'
I
3 Z
O
;i
oa
N
O
+
Z
Ujo
r
f
JU
2;
ow
/a-,
I�
x
a0
Z
oow-
ZQ
O
I.
+
w
VM -
W
co
OT
W
OD
MMN
W W
O O

.3113. .3.11. .3110'
OZ m 0. Go Go ^ O
H Ifl 2 co co co co
W F +
= / O
W
L V
o M7y � u P m t P`r
O npOZ
w a K ptiPOY 11
¢ o �W AZ.IJ v
w nn� +
w h: Z �s00E
3c 19
z o I
w � W L
0 I.
cr
d J
I O
r_ ` +
`U co
ssb� a ,jl /ice +
NO
Co
\\ �� I, kn
(. \ 1 I,
�� v. -�N A
�W 25*9p l 1 I , 1 `• I;
ww z:
+
K / I
w I
1.1 x(/ / 1
CD
Uzi
/ / z�O 1
1` P IN _1'I / z_ — t +
N
Q '1
LO
cow O J T O
m
w a w >-- I O
�O� I $
� W O �' a
/ / I
I ,, J Lij
Zw
sw
I U
��
J
o { oQ C
�d Nz +
LUO -0
VV r Jv
\ 0
0
{ Xx
J ao
C ww
z °a C
t +
O �[f O off Ln
co Go c c
�soN maQMeQ n In Nfn in M.o
W O 01 0 M
J 0 m m m n O N n t00 m m 0 A m m CD OM1 Ono 0 0
Wm ao °Dmmao mco aomao aommao
J
O (�v+im�v'Dinv°'i m`D Unim�a �'r�m�nu�m
O
F— ap pQp
Z � �'�pp im�pp �T�pp �T�pp O �O�ppl {00{pp1 O M Q � �O�ppD �OpDOp OND 1� �A�pp �tM�ppO �t�p0p Ab�pp �N�pp
O a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
H
U� 0) M N � � M N t0 M aD OO M 0 OD M N 0) d1 1f1 0
M 01 .- pp yy N n O N t0 N 0) r pp 0 0 y d1
W O n 0 T W 0 t0 0) + 0 0) N O M N V N N W
� 2NVi vi lorilcrvaon oaoorvao 'mom
O� N 0 N N M N n N 0 0 N O N0 � IlJ aD Q N OI 00
OJ N m 01 M M 01 N -- M M h 01 O) 01
M M M M M M M+
CL
Z h
h 10
N N
N I(1
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N
N N 1!1
rOO�NO
a a
�
+In
IOnOe
°�!Mlln
ln�
aom

O
Z
H
w
=
to
'D
m
F
Z
F
J
m Q�
z • Zo
p n
o
w¢
V
U O
U r 4v
naaZ_
r
p Ol0
w
Er
o
m
R U Y
W a= J
N M
o
z ximiE
�
3
m
w
Ol
W LlNti
(L
t•I
m o
5
W
W
i l l
i�
i�
/
P GN
c� z
zoo
o--
�z
zoo
O :�E
N
Q
n--<l
aw>-
w >-
�- V�
v� w
v�w�-
wl-O
�oz
Ozw
zwo
wo
o z
ww
o=w
.3111. .3.1- .311(
ir) 0 Lrt o
OD OD OD OD
Cc
i
Ili
I.
M I�
W I'
O I
I
o I'
I�
I,
I'
I.
I-
I'
f;
r,
I,
I'
I;
i'
. I
'I
{
t
+
Cm
Cm
Lm
Cm
m
N 0
m Q
Q N
!0 Q
� n
N
....
N m
�
N M
J
MI, V
,
0 ti
Oi
Ol
Oi
ti
t•I
m o
i'
W m
a o a o
a
m
o I.
J
C7R��"1n
mNm
n
Rm�"lm(nQN
mn
N N�
N
-N
mmm-m
m.-
cr
�J 0
0(V N
0 f7
O N
Oy m
n �
- n
m I�
!� m
N Ol N
F�
Z
m
N O
A
tNO 1n0
O
0 0
00 A
y
f0 Oni
C r
N A^
AM
N
N<
n
r b
mp °O N
O
OO
W8B8`8...0
OnD
On
^0
^0008o88B800
ONO
I;
�I �Q
z
H
;i QL-
°
M
U
m
M N
M N
m M
m m
M m
m C
0 O
m 0
W
O
n m
O1 �
0 i0
m Q
0 m
N 0
t7 N
O N
N m
+
Q°�
tG n
Y OG
to (y
a
O Ofi
a�
O IA
m m
? m
i ° i
N t•1 .-
m m e'
N
N N�
N
N N
N
N N
N�
N N
h
N N N
a
Z
�; mo
Intl
I, w�
llnl
a~O
�
CCCCCCCmmc.
o
ZZ
3 Z
-N
(n Qlmm�kkl
+
P GN
c� z
zoo
o--
�z
zoo
O :�E
N
Q
n--<l
aw>-
w >-
�- V�
v� w
v�w�-
wl-O
�oz
Ozw
zwo
wo
o z
ww
o=w
.3111. .3.1- .311(
ir) 0 Lrt o
OD OD OD OD
Cc
i
Ili
I.
M I�
W I'
O I
I
o I'
I�
I,
I'
I.
I-
I'
f;
r,
I,
I'
I;
i'
. I
'I
{
t
+
Cm
Cm
Lm
Cm
O O
+
is
i'
a
m
o I.
d
'I
,I
i
I',
O
t
+
i
is
I,
I; >
+
or_�
eh
I'
I;
�I �Q
z
;i QL-
°
M
.i
:I
r
8
I.
+
qv
I;
' ,1
8
+
>-
M
r,
I; moo:
�o
-1�
+
DCL
C4
�; mo
I, w�
- aw
o
ZZ
3 Z
` oa
L ,_�-
Z
+
r
M
J°
U- w
I1
�x
I _ ao
f, z
o
f oa-
I'
ZZ
O
+
a o LO 0
4
0
00 01) Go Go
O O

°z m 0 ul 0
w C7 �i 0 co 0
VV
m apmZ
r 1"
z
w O W AZ..,
LL W e ;
_ M z ximel n
o e _.. I
■yaa
w a �Z G` °° ' CP
W d C r. l
O
CL
55+0o i
00 1•
oo
LLJ
CD I'
i xx 00 I;
I/
<W%— I
- /l�, Un I
y - -_ —__ ,� O Z L_LJ
W W m i;
L_CJ � L: I
fJ
i
11 '�
O I.
I.
1'
1
I'
I,
O I,.
I,
0 V7
co G OD
.3113. t3W11c .31
In 0
10 g Go Go
8
O
�o
O
O
+
a
O
O
+
co
O
0
0
%O
op N
cG
J +
Ln
S
07
O
+
M
kn
0
O
+
N
tn
O
0
0
+
O
to
S
+
Ln
,O
co
m
a
Ocr
J
O>
pO
zW
a +
JQ �
930
(/)U
QW
N=
H
ZN
3Z 8 Z
OQ
NZ +
jU
WW
O
XX
ao
WW
oa-
ZQ
+
wG
Inn tN�f
O 1p
n V�y.1
N
N T
d N
l�p+1
Vd C
m m N
J m
LOW
n n
m m
n r
m m
�' �
a
p.
d
J
F—
m
N O
N
N m
On
N ON
Nl
7 A
o n
Z
,¢0`8
`�00�00000�0�000
N O
m
000
H
U
m
M N
h N
m C7
m m
t� m
m N
O
pppp N N
W
T O
1l m
m m
m m
n
m d
m h
m m
Ip N
N 0
m
C7 IA
m Ol
d N
m d m
N m r
Q
0�umi�uNivumi�vvcoamm�mm
N
N
n n
n N
N N
N N
ma
n n
a
Z
.....
lnt) Int)
Int) Int)
Int)
d vv
vv vv
vv vv
vv vv
O'kI
v
v a
e o
e v e
11 '�
O I.
I.
1'
1
I'
I,
O I,.
I,
0 V7
co G OD
.3113. t3W11c .31
In 0
10 g Go Go
8
O
�o
O
O
+
a
O
O
+
co
O
0
0
%O
op N
cG
J +
Ln
S
07
O
+
M
kn
0
O
+
N
tn
O
0
0
+
O
to
S
+
Ln
,O
co
m
a
Ocr
J
O>
pO
zW
a +
JQ �
930
(/)U
QW
N=
H
ZN
3Z 8 Z
OQ
NZ +
jU
WW
O
XX
ao
WW
oa-
ZQ
+

O
Z
m
w
m
F
Z
N l7
O N
w
=
N
Q
f,
J
m
N Onl
O N
j
C3 �1
a F
° I�r
OD
/
-J
Z Y
U {� - U
nam2
m°pm
�'l
wz < �'1
�C
o
m a PUW
m ���Y
W �
"F
�'im
( `J
- LL
w M
3
z xo;mm
m m`y`ua
�0z� 0
�
GCpa�
o�z
-zo
J
V
C�} N
O
aD N
OI
tp N
Yl n
O M
m n
N 10
Opp
b n
N N
10 l7
N
O 7.
N N
Z. p
n O�
Ol
� <' LLJ
Zcr
F-. t—ptpp
pp
tp,ptpp N
Q W
N
OI O,
OV O
O 2
Y
(f nt�yyV ���pp
� n
{yapppD �npp
npp tttpp0
��tNpp� �1�ppp N
w
W 0
0 0
0 0
U —
0 0
0 O
- -
O
0 0
- -
0 0
- -
0 0
- -
H
(�
Q
x_x
/
O,W
t0 N
m
�y
N
=LLJ0
y�
m � W
I\
ch
Oi
n OD
0 0
O� W
1 I\
-\\ 1
W I- I
aD
Of
,G
N O
rO
C! ,A
a0 OOi
N
N O.
O��
(OV
0:� 0;) 04
Od
.
N N
N V
N b
0 Y
C�1I 0
0 �
CI CSI
� tO�l
[O�J tOl O
\ \\\ \\\ \ I
F O
N
th Q
\\
6S
I
n o
O! O
W N
v
(7 O
a ...
,A O
n aG Oi
v a e
a�� `I i 1 I \\
�Km
/ / I I I I
co>
mw
I �
60foo
o
A� CH 0
M
SHEET �
1
1
1
1
1
1.
1
■
•
co w w
I
I
1
Y 1
O I,
m I,
_ 1
4U 1;
Q 1"
o I�
1;
I�
f 1",
I
I
C
/
1,
4
.1
•I
'l
1
1
•1
,I
I
�4
,I
I,
I�
1'
1
I'
11
.l
_•1
,I
1
o ,r
O I,
0 1�
A
� I
;j
�I
1
1
,I
.I
1
l
w
I
1
I.
I;
I•
I�
,1
,I
;I
,I
I
,1
LO O Ln
co co Go
O O
i3llit i3rvLLi i31Ya
O Ln
co Go
8
+
Ln
O
n
0
+
O
0
O
+
O
O
+
n
o�
J °
0
+
co
10
O
O
%0
O
O
+
•o
%0
O
�o
S
O
NO
co
I+
a
V)m
o>
�o
OW
Z>
oQ o
Ja
N
QW
in=
F
32
O Q
Q v
V)z +
JO
Ll
OW
Mx
CLQ
�a
ZQ °
O
N
> O
N l7
O N
N O
N Onl
O N
A t0
O
OD
m°pm
W �roa�om
�'im
°$m°�mmmam
W�mmanom
J
V
C�} N
O
aD N
OI
tp N
Yl n
O M
m n
N 10
Opp
b n
N N
10 l7
N
O 7.
N N
Z. p
n O�
Ol
b ap
ff) pp
Zcr
F-. t—ptpp
pp
tp,ptpp N
r N
N
OI O,
OV O
O 2
Y
(f nt�yyV ���pp
� n
{yapppD �npp
npp tttpp0
��tNpp� �1�ppp N
O
W 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 O
- -
O
0 0
- -
0 0
- -
0 0
- -
H
(�
i0
t7 N
�`Y N
t0 N
m
�y
N
ymp
y�
m � W
W
ch
Oi
n OD
0 0
O� W
r
Ol 10
N n
Op O
aD
Of
,G
N O
rO
C! ,A
a0 OOi
N
N O.
O��
(OV
�OyR
Od
.
N N
N V
N b
0 Y
C�1I 0
0 �
CI CSI
� tO�l
[O�J tOl O
F O
N
th Q
,A i0
n o
O! O
W N
v
(7 O
a ...
,A O
n aG Oi
v a e
1
1
1
1
1
1.
1
■
•
co w w
I
I
1
Y 1
O I,
m I,
_ 1
4U 1;
Q 1"
o I�
1;
I�
f 1",
I
I
C
/
1,
4
.1
•I
'l
1
1
•1
,I
I
�4
,I
I,
I�
1'
1
I'
11
.l
_•1
,I
1
o ,r
O I,
0 1�
A
� I
;j
�I
1
1
,I
.I
1
l
w
I
1
I.
I;
I•
I�
,1
,I
;I
,I
I
,1
LO O Ln
co co Go
O O
i3llit i3rvLLi i31Ya
O Ln
co Go
8
+
Ln
O
n
0
+
O
0
O
+
O
O
+
n
o�
J °
0
+
co
10
O
O
%0
O
O
+
•o
%0
O
�o
S
O
NO
co
I+
a
V)m
o>
�o
OW
Z>
oQ o
Ja
N
QW
in=
F
32
O Q
Q v
V)z +
JO
Ll
OW
Mx
CLQ
�a
ZQ °
O
N

O
Z
m
w
=
[1�
v
m
F
Z
Q
J
0 O
o
d �
�
U P -V
pp�Z
r
z
w a
pJ N PP
w Y
¢ o
w =
M
�W
i
anD anD
W anD
osmii
ID •i�PP
�Op
anD 10
�qNp
CD
w UM
w �
a_
cr
a
CD C�D
mm
aD 01 COD
iW
a V
1NA
W
a
tG N
N n
O\
�0
/• �� �, y
i
is
.3113. .3.1.
OD co Go co Go
1 �
r
r
' r
I,
.I
1 0
'I
I O
'I o
;t +
.I N
G
1'
i'.
I'
I; o
� o
;I r
'I
'I
J
I o
o � °
c
'I r
'I
'1
� III g
i_ a
I
I
.I
,I
;I
�I
O
ao
;I
_Q b
� 1
l'
lhr
I, o
+
b' n
�I p
rl ,o
I.
II
I' o
r tn
,r
I,
I'
II� O
I� +
I �
1
I O
�r O
> M
I a
r J
1 O>
Z zoW
l F� +
I �a N
I Ma.
I 10
N
aw
' N=
°o I 3 Z O
II V)Z +
i JO
1 ow
I O�x
U-Q
Z
o I Hd
ZQ
+
LO O Ln O in O
00 OD N N No
h OD CD Go ao Go
O O
> N
N l��l
O �
d �
�
On!
V N
♦mom O
W CD
anD anD
W anD
N
�Op
anD 10
�qNp
CD
OOD
mC� t+m��
CO CD
CD C�D
mm
aD 01 COD
J
O
a V
1NA
m^
tG N
N n
S n
O n
O N
9 y
1D t"1
cc
�Op
CD
CO�yI N
N
O 17
N
O N
N
Ol
d
typ h
N
f�D
N CG
Cf Oi
CII V
fD O
7-
Q QD
n N
N
n N
b n
O
O
A n
O
A
0�D
b DD
N
dD
d
N N
O
W ei
(a1G
o 0
0 0
8 8
0 0
0 8
0
8 0
0 o
g o 8
U
H
C7
U
W
m
N
On
N N
fly
aD
� �
O a
0!
M N
N N
N n
DD DD
DD N
O�Cta.VD�
� aD
4p N
N OC�N
DD N
N OI
aD Ol
OmNN
aD N N
A DD
O
��
m �Y
.O�iD
ta�D �Yy
OOcc
n n
n n
n n
n
ON
a
Z N
N N
N
N N
N N
N N
0
d a
0 0
a a
0
v g
N tD
a a
n CD
a a
W O
a o
� N
a e
N O
v a
N (O
v e
n aD W
a a a
.3113. .3.1.
OD co Go co Go
1 �
r
r
' r
I,
.I
1 0
'I
I O
'I o
;t +
.I N
G
1'
i'.
I'
I; o
� o
;I r
'I
'I
J
I o
o � °
c
'I r
'I
'1
� III g
i_ a
I
I
.I
,I
;I
�I
O
ao
;I
_Q b
� 1
l'
lhr
I, o
+
b' n
�I p
rl ,o
I.
II
I' o
r tn
,r
I,
I'
II� O
I� +
I �
1
I O
�r O
> M
I a
r J
1 O>
Z zoW
l F� +
I �a N
I Ma.
I 10
N
aw
' N=
°o I 3 Z O
II V)Z +
i JO
1 ow
I O�x
U-Q
Z
o I Hd
ZQ
+
LO O Ln O in O
00 OD N N No
h OD CD Go ao Go
O O

O N
Z
o V Z
w Q
w F
=
W,
mo
Z � v
0
o x U C 4 t1
n■�Z
r
m N 61
00
w a 9
¢ o W AZ' -J
LLJ LL M z ximsi
w �w Loa
z
w � W d l
0- J 1�1
W
di
SHEE -� 11
TO
L
1
/� �` J 111x« j 1 � / /// • � // /J
/ J /5�.
II ( ( I
I
iO
°o.3
mw
w \\
�O
�P
CD z
C--- CD
Poo � {vq¢
CD :E
N r
/y l I IQ
LL QI W '
<I 1
t_)J
UT
V�W
LLJ
0
°zw
:El o
wo
o z
W W
W
nE- m G
> O
N Cf
O
MA�CN
N O
N a!
V N
I
N O
O m
Go
W m
m .
. O
O 01
h �
X
.001
COD COD
. O
m
O
Q
O N
{O
0 n
O n
°'D
X
N
c
O
01 N
O 0
w
CD
I I I
n
O n
I Ay
I
yN
cyQy
10—
z
s
CD 0
0 0
0 0
\ 11
CD CD
0 0
0 0
D �p0p N�pp
O
W O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
x /
O O O
°
-°cr
H
U
CD
I /
I I /
C N
O
p P
O
t7 D)
O (2
N O
O N 0
W
�CD
0
1� CO
0 0
0 O1
01 t0
n
CD Q
N
01 O)
N
N O
O
Ol N
001
O LO
01 O O
N 0
7
O
COQ
I"' N
ON1 I i
N^
N n
N 0
r.: N
O N
6l� N
O
/
I
(QO
N
N N
N N
N O
N N
h
N
Y f
N N
C0'l O
N
Q COI
N
/
M i7
N I(]
M Q
N N
a
Z
1
�
1r[I
r[
C4
1 II
I \ \ \
L
1
/� �` J 111x« j 1 � / /// • � // /J
/ J /5�.
II ( ( I
I
iO
°o.3
mw
w \\
�O
�P
CD z
C--- CD
Poo � {vq¢
CD :E
N r
/y l I IQ
LL QI W '
<I 1
t_)J
UT
V�W
LLJ
0
°zw
:El o
wo
o z
W W
W
nE- m G
P
0
z
w
w
N
Z
O
V)
w
J
U-
0
a.
a
N
Ql-
�1
1
1
1
1
III'
■
■
■
■
■
.31". CA(
> O
N Cf
O
Q
N O
N a!
V N
0'n1 N
N O
O m
Go
W m
m .
. O
O 01
h �
� 0D
.001
COD COD
. O
m
O
Q
O N
{O
0 n
O n
N N
N
N
c
O
01 N
O 0
O
CD
n
n
O n
r O
N C1 N
yN
cyQy
Ir
z
s
CD 0
0 0
0 0
CD CD
0 0
0 0
D �p0p N�pp
O
W O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O
O O O
°
-°cr
H
U
CD
7 N
C N
O
p P
O
t7 D)
O (2
N O
O N 0
W
�CD
0
1� CO
0 0
0 O1
01 t0
n
CD Q
N
01 O)
N
N O
O
Ol N
001
O LO
01 O O
N 0
7
O
COQ
I"' N
ON1 I i
N^
N n
N 0
r.: N
O N
6l� N
O
N A O
I
(QO
N
N N
N N
N O
N N
h
N
Y f
N N
C0'l O
N
Q COI
N
P
in
M i7
N I(]
M Q
N N
a
Z
1
�
1r[I
r[
C4
P
0
z
w
w
N
Z
O
V)
w
J
U-
0
a.
a
N
Ql-
�1
1
1
1
1
III'
■
■
■
■
■
.31". CA(
O O
Go
c.
Go
Go
co
+
p
O
M
CZ 1.
Ir
I,
Ir
o
+
J i
Ol
N
J
�I
°
-°cr
;1
LLJ
N
cr-
�N
I
JIB
C
1
�
C4
O
,1
QZ
I;
N
I'
I:
I'
O
o
►;
+
i
N
;I
g
t
v
'
N
II
I
I'
O
I
+
`
N
f
1�
I;
1'
p
I'
I'
N
I'
O
I.
+
I,
1'
J
I.
O
'
Ir
N
N
C
d
o
m
'I
;1
o
'1
S
1
4
0+.
�
I
ot:
I'
%
O
O
I
Go
r
I
a
zw
L '
O>
'
FO
I ,
z°>
I;
a
+
I.
C°O
I
V)
V)=
ZVI
+
V)
O
V
I,
JV
r
1'
0w
1'
Ir
WX
�Q
Z
Lrjuj
OCL
O
I
za
O
�I
+
O
OD
LA
N
O
LO
NO
Ln
OD
O
co
O O

O
z
w
w
=
N
rrAA
f V
�
z
Q
F
J
m
z w `tl
�
w
x
� 0
U p �tl
r
w
O�
m ariuu
w
a
W
n n
n n
w
o!��z
b
W
'W ■1
w
w
�
z o
w �
a
J
m m
W
I s!
�-o I
w
,W
V 1
O
U
Q
J
w O
N e�1
O V
n �-
N
co
a
O�
�1
H �1
J m
n n
n n
� N
b
W
pN�
O. m
pm tm�
O m
Y
imp
Oi m
W m
m m
m m
m
m m
m m
m m
m m
CO
CD
J
1
� 1
ow
z
f
I;
I.
M
/9'v/7
0C
O
40+00
0
al vii
�OOI
°r°�'uQn`�i
NOt7ON
�npmnu�a`r'
1 Ild,
N
M
n
mnn
O
f�Onm
N mN
of
x
fV N
T
fV h
TOAAO
XX
B�OOO I�
fV ty7
°
U]
m m
O 1VVG
mrAOm
N m
O. < M
DOA
0
W00000'S'800000000`8`�0000
ano
3
Go
`\
I-
Go
U
1
ti
;I
yZ
+
-
I
CV)
o
I
I
J°
,I
I
U
�m
Cf N�
�
t0N
c7m
m
c7 m
GCS
N�'im
NOl
w
M
A
O O
o
O
C
\� •II
mw
LJ
/
J / /
I � \
1
0 SHEET
MATH T
CD
CD z
CD =
z�0
CIL-0�
0 z
�zo
zCDo
0�
� N �
LJ_ Q
� < LLJ
Q W
W>-
U�
' I
U-)�� /�I
V / w
W�—
LLJ f-0
i-oz
ozLLJ
zwo
wo
o z
LLJ LLJ
o =w
LLJ m—j /cr�y
LL W �J
13l11. t3rvLLS .3
w O
N e�1
O V
n �-
N
co
a
K
��O-p O
CO C�
J m
n n
n n
� N
pO�
I� m
qN am
01 m
pN�
O. m
pm tm�
O m
m
imp
Oi m
W m
m m
m m
m
m m
m m
m m
m m
CO
CD
J
� 1
ow
z
f
I;
I.
M
I;
l'
0C
O
0
al vii
�OOI
°r°�'uQn`�i
NOt7ON
�npmnu�a`r'
O COn
N
M
n
mnn
O
f�Onm
N mN
Z
[G
�m
fV N
T
fV h
TOAAO
IN Oi
B�OOO I�
fV ty7
°
U]
m m
O 1VVG
mrAOm
N m
O. < M
DOA
0
W00000'S'800000000`8`�0000
ano
3
Go
{_
,I
1
Go
U
1
ti
;I
yZ
+
-
I
CV)
o
I
I
J°
,I
I
U
�m
Cf N�
�
t0N
c7m
m
c7 m
GCS
N�'im
NOl
w
M
A
O O
o
O
C
0
I;
r�
Z<
1;
M
¢ °m
uminvai�vO1i��a�avcmn�mc�
n
Ln
0
r
N
"f�cmima
N to
N N
a
z In(I
............
+
I
1
CV)
{
pp
13l11. t3rvLLS .3
1 1+
IV
a I;
v
co
K
K
10
108
CD
am
OD
co
c
.. _ ...._. _._._..
I
r
+
c
�.
_.
I
Ln
f1
1
�o
� 1
ow
z
f
I;
I.
M
I;
l'
0C
O
04 ;I
I,
0
N
M
+
;I
.I
N
oc
_. I . __
-4w
I.
I;
+
o
o
I,
3
Go
{_
,I
1
Go
O
1
ti
;I
yZ
+
-
I
CV)
o
I
I
J°
,I
I
ow
I
I
crx
CL- ES
Do
r
t
ww
+
o
O
OCL
I;
r�
Z<
1;
M
0
Ln
0
1 1+
IV
m I eh
a I;
v
,a I.
I'
S
+
t;
+
1.
M
r
1,
c
�.
_.
I
Ld
1'
�o
� 1
ow
z
M
I;
l'
O
O
04 ;I
I,
0
N
M
mU
;I
.I
N
oc
_. I . __
-4w
J {
+
o
o
3
Go
{_
,I
Go
O
1
ti
;I
yZ
N
{
-
I
CV)
o
J°
I
.I
ow
I
I
crx
CL- ES
r
t
ww
o
O
OCL
I'
Z<
�l
M
0
Ln
0
r
cc 00 co
co
+
I
LO
1
CV)
{
pp
m I eh
O O
a I;
,a I.
I'
S
t;
+
1.
M
1,
a
J
_.
I
Ld
1'
�o
I
ow
z
I;
l'
° �
a
O
I,
0
N
M
mU
N
_. I . __
-4w
N=
~
o
o
\}
O q
O
;I
yZ
+
CV)
J°
I
.I
ow
I
crx
CL- ES
ww
o
{
OCL
I'
Z<
+
0
Ln
0
cc 00 co
co
O O

O
Z
W
(�
N 0
w
U O
m
F
Z
Q
J
m
M n
Ed
Fa Manz
m ariss
°
W
Z
w
w
¢
o M
W A= J
i
Ir
w
°Sp
w
o
CL
`-
W a
W
a
MATCH T
0 SHEET 13
>..
0
%,
\ \I\ A \\\0 ! x
' � x
�j
/.
n q
O
Q�
m J
W
G)
v I \ x V
Qj
l I1 1
I
45+00 // i„
1 H�1 bW
CD
zoo
CD
�zo
zo>
o�
� N �
1�
Q LLl >-
LIJ }—
V)
cn w
U�LL�
LIJ �— 0
f- o z
ozw
zwo
LLl C:)
C--) z
LJ LLJ
C:) = LIJ
LLJ jcr_�
LL 02 CJ
�1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
■
i
■
O
h M
O b
r
N O
N A
O N
N
O
CND m m
co
,II
'I
L4
J
Wmmmmmm�mmm���
^ ^
^ ^
O N
^
It
4
m
CD m
m
Of CAD
J
0
0
l;
r,
j;
N
ZZ
I,
0
I.
I�
t;
;1
.I
II
N
I
LO
- ...._.. -.._ I�.. ... .
O
NN
O
IA n
-C
I'
COQ
.I
°o
jr
F—
�o
F- CND
min
N O
o�odpp
Np (
.
a a
aD
;G Qn
(n(yy
N 2
nmtntppn
V N
N O
m
�
Nrn N
m N b
Z
O Do
Quo
o
m
io
0 0
m o
nm.nn
`8 O
m m
O O
o 0
nm�n
0 0
co
0
eomco
0 0
mso
0
moo
0
U
w
0
0
0 0
U
Ur CD
N N
E �
N N
b N
W W�
m
m N
N T
m N Oi
W
M
O
OI
n O
pp<
Of Of
T iD
IA n
d
CD IA
A 0
10 N
N O
(D
M N
m W
d N
W ep
N
CC
h N
N
v
(d� ta�D
t1pp�1 N
d
O CC
O 1�
CNVp CD
N t7 �
M M
cc
l0
d
1m11 fO
d d
t7
a
tm�l
t�l
d
CL
Z
Lit
O
0
d
N
0 0
d d
t7 V
0
d d
�(1 tG
0 0
d d
n CD
0 0
d d
OI O
0
d a
� N
a a
t0 O
a a
In tD
e v
n Cp O�
e v a
G)
v I \ x V
Qj
l I1 1
I
45+00 // i„
1 H�1 bW
CD
zoo
CD
�zo
zo>
o�
� N �
1�
Q LLl >-
LIJ }—
V)
cn w
U�LL�
LIJ �— 0
f- o z
ozw
zwo
LLl C:)
C--) z
LJ LLJ
C:) = LIJ
LLJ jcr_�
LL 02 CJ
�1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
■
i
■
.3111. i3Wlli .3110.
0 in
a in
OD
+
co
10
OD
co
,II
'I
o .h
' II
QL
I
It
4
0.
N
;I
�I
'I
'I
I'
!
I'
I'
I.
0
0
l;
r,
j;
N
ZZ
I,
0
I.
I�
t;
;1
.I
II
N
I
LO
- ...._.. -.._ I�.. ... .
O
1
I
r
O
I'
COQ
.I
°o
I
NQZ
I;
Do
.I
.j
;I
,I
o
11 I
la
to O
N N
IA
10
OD OD
OD
.3111. i3Wlli .3110.
0 in
a in
OD
+
10
C 'I
o .h
0
QL
I
ti
0.
N
)) /
0
0
1
1,
N
ZZ
I,
0
I�
LO
- ...._.. -.._ I�.. ... .
O
O
I
COQ
.I
°o
I
NQZ
.I
Do
1
�f
�I
C 'I
o .h
QL
I
ti
)) /
1
1,
N
ZZ
I,
�o
I�
- ...._.. -.._ I�.. ... .
In
I
COQ
.I
I
NQZ
.I
Do
.I
.j
;I
,I
LLJZ�
11 I
la
to O
N N
IA
10
OD OD
OD
o,
3
O
�O
a0
:a
Cm
C7
+
O
V) OD
III
Q
J
knm
ZLU
O>
po
0 1
Z>
o o
a � +
Ja F\
511- m
10
NV
QL
Z{/1
=a O
�z +
JU V
�w
O
Q:ia
ao
�a
OCL
Z< C
N

Z
m
ox o
z w
w U
U P z
na•i
r
w <
< ¢
m �
w a
a hi
aw:l
W
11
x c
\+ \\
oa \ \
db �\
" \ \\
mW
w
mo
mW
Q/
65+00
CD
-moo
Fr o
N -2:0
zo>
CD
rr
�X ..� 60
s a Rd,i fix-
x -x--x x-
---------- - ---
LijC iCi o'R C4 do vpa C4 IR . .m .of
(Y; 6
CD Of O, m aD m m O,
J
0 N A N Ii m m m m t7 d N th A O l7 N m
cc
O O, I( G f O t7 O N d
,G fV N N n NN aAa IOIpp I� N t7 .- N (Oy 1pC IA CC Ol d t7
(n (C aC(pppp N n N O� O lml < Y 1p�p1pppp 1lpNp1'pDppl N �D lh A m ct o�tpppp n
U O w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U �m 7N 7 N m 7mm 7 m
W ttVV c�pp tt��m ..yy . . md (I m
m m C4 m �
F N ANN prp N s ns�� t Nt�� O t^O N O N i( m< N Obi m
Q cc d m N N d v0I an d tm�l O d i7 tm'i d
c r r n n n n n n n n r n n n r n n n n n
a -L . N m h N N N N N
F- O N l7 d m m I� m Of O W N f7 d m m f� m W
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d d d d d d d d d d e e a a v a v a o e
• � I / I
I / I
I,
AT CH TO
M
x-
ow
` 1-1 ICY
•
f C�
W'zI
W
x--x t� w
I I I
SHEET 12
:1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
■
■
■
■
0 co co
Em
/
`r
- I
I 0
I; +
I;
I'
I�
I;
1
.I
,I
1 -
C D
I, +
ON
P
\ � J
\ O
!, +
t , 3 %0
1�
(l
I G
+
co
I
1'
O
I�
I' C
I'
I
,I
,I o
;1 O
-- - -- - - +
J
f �
I;
I'
I. p
I' 8
)lV
1
1
I
+
02 1 f
O I a M �O
Nm
o Fw
I� i• po
"C: I • Zw
-I oQ O
U
d +
I DC
1, aw
JI oQ O
\' NZ +
JO �
�w
0
Ccx
I ao
I Z
LOW
I ZQ
�t __1ww
r %0 V
co OD c OD 4
O O
�X ..� 60
s a Rd,i fix-
x -x--x x-
---------- - ---
LijC iCi o'R C4 do vpa C4 IR . .m .of
(Y; 6
CD Of O, m aD m m O,
J
0 N A N Ii m m m m t7 d N th A O l7 N m
cc
O O, I( G f O t7 O N d
,G fV N N n NN aAa IOIpp I� N t7 .- N (Oy 1pC IA CC Ol d t7
(n (C aC(pppp N n N O� O lml < Y 1p�p1pppp 1lpNp1'pDppl N �D lh A m ct o�tpppp n
U O w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U �m 7N 7 N m 7mm 7 m
W ttVV c�pp tt��m ..yy . . md (I m
m m C4 m �
F N ANN prp N s ns�� t Nt�� O t^O N O N i( m< N Obi m
Q cc d m N N d v0I an d tm�l O d i7 tm'i d
c r r n n n n n n n n r n n n r n n n n n
a -L . N m h N N N N N
F- O N l7 d m m I� m Of O W N f7 d m m f� m W
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d d d d d d d d d d e e a a v a v a o e
• � I / I
I / I
I,
AT CH TO
M
x-
ow
` 1-1 ICY
•
f C�
W'zI
W
x--x t� w
I I I
SHEET 12
:1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
■
■
■
■
0 co co
Em
/
`r
- I
I 0
I; +
I;
I'
I�
I;
1
.I
,I
1 -
C D
I, +
ON
P
\ � J
\ O
!, +
t , 3 %0
1�
(l
I G
+
co
I
1'
O
I�
I' C
I'
I
,I
,I o
;1 O
-- - -- - - +
J
f �
I;
I'
I. p
I' 8
)lV
1
1
I
+
02 1 f
O I a M �O
Nm
o Fw
I� i• po
"C: I • Zw
-I oQ O
U
d +
I DC
1, aw
JI oQ O
\' NZ +
JO �
�w
0
Ccx
I ao
I Z
LOW
I ZQ
�t __1ww
r %0 V
co OD c OD 4
O O
• � I / I
I / I
I,
AT CH TO
M
x-
ow
` 1-1 ICY
•
f C�
W'zI
W
x--x t� w
I I I
SHEET 12
:1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
■
■
■
■
0 co co
Em
/
`r
- I
I 0
I; +
I;
I'
I�
I;
1
.I
,I
1 -
C D
I, +
ON
P
\ � J
\ O
!, +
t , 3 %0
1�
(l
I G
+
co
I
1'
O
I�
I' C
I'
I
,I
,I o
;1 O
-- - -- - - +
J
f �
I;
I'
I. p
I' 8
)lV
1
1
I
+
02 1 f
O I a M �O
Nm
o Fw
I� i• po
"C: I • Zw
-I oQ O
U
d +
I DC
1, aw
JI oQ O
\' NZ +
JO �
�w
0
Ccx
I ao
I Z
LOW
I ZQ
�t __1ww
r %0 V
co OD c OD 4
O O
O O

O 01
2 rA
c V Z
w �
w
= J
N
m b Q0
Z P <Y
o
U r �p
wppOZ
ZY° - Jma.aa� MATCH TO SHEET 5
uj
¢ o W
W w M z QZeal
LU
o
cr
EL
z�
0
�W
o�
-_j Lid
�J W
z
� J
O �
Ct- LLJ
Q �
to
O'
w�
0
w�
a�
x0
�0
PQ::�
u i
� 5 +0o
0
\ \oo /
i
i
N]
G
o'
w�
00
�0
x O'�
zo
W
a
L_/) Ln
v-))
--J F 0
Q L.L.JZ p
LLJ
_ F-
0 N LL) LLJ
NN=
Q = N
CDc
= L
w X 0
=00�
LL_ O
— F.... 0:.. 1
O O
W
1�
0
n
Q
I W-PA
0
0
W
W
S
T;
V /
.3311. .3NI$ $.
V)
a
J
N�
Zw
O 0
F-
pw
Z>
oa
r- a
_Jp.
5m
m0
aw
LnH
Z N
�?
NZ
w0
J
ww
0
ao
ww
�_(L
z Q
1D
w O
n t7
N lh
CD fD
O
d
n
X(-D z�
n
Oi
--
zoo
N cU
O
N 17 17
amD m t7
WC2Cp
W CO
. n
CD dp
n n
m CO
. N
O OI
. IqG
O m
�Np
0� �
pp
m m
.Oppf
OD �
Cy�p
CO COO
.0 W m
J
O
cr
y
�(f
(7 N
�j
b N
N n
O t7
>
f0 n
N
fG t7
n �
N
O
� n
N N
t7
O n
n Ol
O
n i0
t0 CD
I[l CD
N OI N
7-
Z
FCDNO
�
C Q
p
A
Q w
a
p
Q I
w >-
loO
Vw
F-
LLJ �__'o
0
�- o z
0 0
0 0
-ozw
0 0
0 0
zwa
X
O)
wa
�
f7 N
a z
w
CO (p
1.1 W
o�w
N O
CO N O
wLi
N
� O(�1
O
I� dD
O d
O OI
Ol O)
N n
a0 d
CO N
O� CO
l0 N
NNp O
b
t� N
Z
O1 d CO
N Ol
W
fpl�pppi N
N
w
Li
N G1.1�
N
L.L.j LL
Q n
L_/) Ln
v-))
--J F 0
Q L.L.JZ p
LLJ
_ F-
0 N LL) LLJ
NN=
Q = N
CDc
= L
w X 0
=00�
LL_ O
— F.... 0:.. 1
O O
W
1�
0
n
Q
I W-PA
0
0
W
W
S
T;
V /
.3311. .3NI$ $.
V)
a
J
N�
Zw
O 0
F-
pw
Z>
oa
r- a
_Jp.
5m
m0
aw
LnH
Z N
�?
NZ
w0
J
ww
0
ao
ww
�_(L
z Q
1D
w O
n t7
N lh
CD fD
O
d
n
N p
n
Oi
m O
d
N�1
0! CD
/D
N cU
O
N 17 17
amD m t7
WC2Cp
W CO
. n
CD dp
n n
m CO
. N
O OI
. IqG
O m
�Np
0� �
pp
m m
.Oppf
OD �
Cy�p
CO COO
.0 W m
J
O
cr
y
�(f
(7 N
a0 ^
OI N
b N
N n
O t7
m n
N �O
O N
f0 n
N
fG t7
n �
N
O
� n
N N
t7
O n
n Ol
O
n i0
t0 CD
I[l CD
N OI N
7-
Z
FCDNO
�
p
A
ffdpp
a
p
loO
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
U�
O)
O N
E �
f7 N
O lh
CO (p
1.1 W
m tl
N O
CO N O
W
N
� O(�1
O
I� dD
O d
O OI
Ol O)
N n
a0 d
CO N
O� CO
l0 N
NNp O
b
t� N
O) O
N
O1 d CO
N Ol
F N<
fpl�pppi N
N
N n
N G1.1�
N
O N�
N
Vd
CD V
N m CD
tO
N
N I(N1
n N
CMy
N d
N N
N�
N
O Q
1,01 O
N N
d lO•l
N.
M M
N.
E 10.1
N
M fO•f Q
N
a
Z
InCI
Il
N N
F- O�
0
a d
N
0 0
Q d
t7 d
0 0
d d
N (O
0 0
d Q
n CD
0 0
d d
Ol O
0
d d
W N
Q d
t7 d
d Q
h t0
d d
n O O
d d d
L_/) Ln
v-))
--J F 0
Q L.L.JZ p
LLJ
_ F-
0 N LL) LLJ
NN=
Q = N
CDc
= L
w X 0
=00�
LL_ O
— F.... 0:.. 1
O O
W
1�
0
n
Q
I W-PA
0
0
W
W
S
T;
V /
.3311. .3NI$ $.
V)
a
J
N�
Zw
O 0
F-
pw
Z>
oa
r- a
_Jp.
5m
m0
aw
LnH
Z N
�?
NZ
w0
J
ww
0
ao
ww
�_(L
z Q

W
t
W
4
Q
f
J
� r �
i
J as jz
Om
a W AZ�w3
0
Nr� i o :I
3 C Z,
LW L Oa
J
0
n
m ,
I.M.
0 i
Z \
O LQ
O�
J
tiW
crQ�
oQ
Q O
91 1 31H S
/
\ i /
\ I
I\,
• / 1 � / 1 I
4 , \
'r
01 H01 VVV
I
l
CD
(3- za
CD
z
Cr-
oo
� 0
0 z
�zo
zoo
O
N �
wa
11_Qw
'Q w �
1 tl r
U 'w
V)wi-
wI-CD
f- 0z
ozw
,ziwo
LLI
ww
D wJ
1ww�
Q:� m- CD
-- - -- Z.8 --
z
w
w
W
LL.
WLL
J p
Q
C)
N — —
QwOZ °
W
Z N
O W
NOW zz
O = N
2 ~
LJ O
O
�L�L o
EL
O G
W
lI
I I
0
^
I^
1L
t1
1
ww
0
1_
0
0
O
W
W
V /
W
W
}
_j CL
m0
N
aw
x
NH
Zy)
Z
o<
N Z
W0
J
Cy W
X X
d25
ww
H d
Z Q
w O
N M
0 td0
n
N O
No!<
Nq
0! Imfo�
O
IR -9 ti
J.
W m
n n
m m
n r
m m
m m cli
m b
0
100
aD m
q
..
m m
COD ..
m 0
O a0
O O) CD
J
O
C71
m^19
s
lO IlNO�a
V
1°nw__ml�n�
Q
Z
O
tG
a0
0 N
1A
N O
O M
n
N N
O
O N
N
d d
d 0o
d n
t0 01
O M
tnv
N A
d
n
O N
COO 1�
m G
N d
1m0
I 10
N n
N 01 N
N d
�p
N
O
tatppU
W 0
ranrppO {ON{ppi
0 0
{On{ppi
0 0
1001ppi 1O1ppi
0 0
0 0
{�pp
010
11OppD 101pp0
0 0
(CN(ppO �n1pp
0 0
1r1pp 10D
0 0
f0
0 0 0
U
ap
M N
� �p
M N
M
m m
M CD
m M
0 0
m NO O
W
xO
r GG
p
S+01
G1 i0
00
i3 a
-! o
O
IiA
O u
Nc4
0=
OF
N
yNy
¢ 10
1�l 17
m
h 1A
1p 1�
N {Gyp
N d
t0 r
N n
N
d CD
1N� fO�
d d
I N
tppl ((,y�
l�l d
O a0
O �Np
d t"1
O n
M M
O.
1pAp Od1
17 M
N ch .-
O0f 'N
M M d
O r
r r
n r
n r
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
N
a
-L N
N 10
1A 10
N N
10 10
N 10
M N
N M1
N�
N N
F- O
0
a d
N
0 0
a a
M d
0 0
d d
�0 10
0 0
d d
n Cl
0 0
d a
0 O
0
d V
�- N
O<
M d
Y V<
10 t0
V
n OC 0
V Y<
01 H01 VVV
I
l
CD
(3- za
CD
z
Cr-
oo
� 0
0 z
�zo
zoo
O
N �
wa
11_Qw
'Q w �
1 tl r
U 'w
V)wi-
wI-CD
f- 0z
ozw
,ziwo
LLI
ww
D wJ
1ww�
Q:� m- CD
-- - -- Z.8 --
z
w
w
W
LL.
WLL
J p
Q
C)
N — —
QwOZ °
W
Z N
O W
NOW zz
O = N
2 ~
LJ O
O
�L�L o
EL
O G
W
lI
I I
0
^
I^
1L
t1
1
ww
0
1_
0
0
O
W
W
V /
W
W
}
_j CL
m0
N
aw
x
NH
Zy)
Z
o<
N Z
W0
J
Cy W
X X
d25
ww
H d
Z Q

.3111. t3Y1• t3-1
� m
z rA
r V Z
w Ww
y
yS
z
r v�I y
as o �W WI,'J ,� \�� �� V
w w W O
w = Ni Z D�OOi hl �!
Q-
cr
LL—
O W
y I
CCJJ C � 1 i
/0 �-OO
"
OL
All I I
g I I a
X r I
0 P4
X CD z N
LL 0
O ~Z
�z0
O
0
i Q--'
t / �Q I ,
,- \� \ L J >-
/' \\ 8/1 I V) W T
W I-- O
z LLJ
\ \ z. LL o
`N
\
= W
\ D
\ I \ Lij —i L-
W
V)
LLI
zw
J
� W
\
\ \ , ESo
z Zj
w
Se . LL J
m0
Q
U In — of
N -- ai
~ OW
m daOa.Om p-
p p D i �
°e OZN QW cc
ON O l7 m A N w z
Ay NN O N M. OM = Nw Nw 8O o�8o8 0 z oo o T N N = i _ -
0 O N w
w O A m G ri U . m W N 0 [7 N wx
O wcr 0 4-0
� y nAAnnnrnnnA
a Z N N N N N N Oa
Z¢ a
Z N
Q
O O
0
a d
0 0
d d
0 0
d d
0 0
d d
0 0
d d
0
d O
d d
d d
d d
d d 0
O O

t3llji t3Wili t31v4i
O N
Z (1�
Z
w Q
� J
m + F
0
o 20 V
CJ z
Z w I�j ANN ■2 �
w� J W c�z-
w Q 0 Nil
:3 N O
w o M Z %I■ ■F L�
C/ W L■ ■O
O
`pp
w o�z
w �
T � 3 � z o
SH EE zoo
MA-�CM °�
�Q W
EL Q W
Q W
V) W
LL-
w
x �oz
j,
l' Ozw
I FU r i �i� : ; z LiJ �
/ 00
W W
I I z
\ i \�>
`L a =W
LLJ ___j cl:�
0
cr m (-3
00
'D N I
x cn
X
pq I I i /l LL
I I
IL—
I / �
z
goo
0 1---
W
- W
V)
a
nor: J
Zw
O>
O
W
OW
Z Z>
J
W a
rQ
LL �d
<L
Jp my
U(nl� aw
V)-- _
LAF-
QL�Z a ZN
F -w �Z
QQ
ONL1J NZ
IVN= w0
O2N �w
F--
Ox
woo ao
O� ° ~d
OCL
w ZQ
F
Z N
W N N W b - O CD Op t7
J °mn dnnO'�°'no�
W m m N CC CD CD m ED m 0 GO m 0 OD 01 m
O d 0D N �O N t7 n fp n N� N N�
W 7 0 Oi N O M O N � n GD n n tmp N OI N
7 h yy n N Obi O �O ^ m Oi d t7
ap N O S O Q t0 d N N d f7 N �O
Z Sao commoam mmmmn��:c •°a uni
O W` 8S`8`8no`8`8000`S`8`8`80`8$`88g
U
F-
U U• m m N � � f") N �G OI OO m fh m m f7 mNm Oi m Q NQ T
M O• � O d •- �- N n m� N 0� 1(] Y N N T m
W O n OG O• A A ID CD d O1l
O ~ V aOGpp N N Cep N n i7 i7 Oi N � m f7 � N Odi (NO T �
f0 V) N IA d N� d d t7 d d t7 t7 t7 t7 O m
N d
�
O n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n
n n n
a
Z N
N�
N N
�[1 N
N N
N N
IA h
IA IA
N I(f
I(f N N
F O
N
M d
N b
n m
Oi O
r N
t7 d
�n •O
n Op O�

6ii�i►
I0 .01=1
I HI
a:
a

= MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot I
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

4 =- MULKEY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
F
Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 2
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

4-- MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 3
As -built Survey: January 2008
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year I Monitoring: September 2008
�Y
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

t=- M U LK EY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 4
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

4"MUL.KEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 5
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
5
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 6
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

-F=- M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 7
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

- -- M U LK EY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 8
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

- r= MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 9
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

-t= M U LK EY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 10
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
10
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

_"MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 11
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
11
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

-�- M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 12
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
12
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

'-- M U LK EY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
—, ' I _ ' Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 13
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
13
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

_�.- M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Vegeation Plot 14
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
14
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

- M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 15
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
15
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

QA
W,
vtfI&I
oJw— -
2010 11

i
It" MULKEY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
1 Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 17
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
17
Year I Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

�=- M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
ti Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 18
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
18
Year I Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

- }- MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 19
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
19
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

MULKEY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 20
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
20
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

- -MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 21
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
21
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

41 --MUL -KEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 22
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
22
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

- fi:- MULKEY 11 1 .11
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 23
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
23
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year S Monitoring:

-#=-- M U LK EY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
' Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 24
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
24
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 1; Looking Downstream on Reach R2
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Little White Oak Creel:
Sireani Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 2; Looking Downstream on Reach R2
As -built Survey: January 2008
tir
r.
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
X�
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 2; Looking Upstream on Reach R2
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 2; Looking upstream on Reach R2A
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 2.5Y1; Looking Downstream Along R2
Not Applicable
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

- -- M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 2.5Y1; Looking Upstream Along Reach R2
Not Applicable
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 3; Looking Downstream Along Reach R213
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year I Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 3; Looking Upstream Along Reach R2B
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year I Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

M U L. K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 3.5Y1; Looking Downstream Along R2 &R2B
Not Applicable
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 3.5Y1; Looking Upstream Along R2
Not Applicable
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
10
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

-=- MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 3.5Y1; Looking Upstream Along R2B
Not Applicable
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Little "tie Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year I Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

.. MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 4; Looking Downstream Along R2
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
12
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 4; Looking Upstream at Confluence ofRl &R2
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
13
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 5; Looking Downstream Along R2
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
14
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 5; Looking Upstream Along R2
As built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
K
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 6; Looking Downstream Along Reach RI
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
16
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 6; Looking Upstream Along Reach RI
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
17
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
• r-
-awl
• F
" 2010 11'01
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:
1,
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
17
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
• r-
-awl
• F
" 2010 11'01
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 7; Looking Downstream Along Rl
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
18
Year I Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
" Stream Restoration
Photo Point 7; Looking Upstream Along R1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
19
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

- M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak G-eek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 8; Looking Downstream Along Rl
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
20
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 8; Looking Upstream Along R1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
21
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

M U LL K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 8; Looking Upstream Along R1A
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: November 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
22
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 8.5Y1; Looking Downstream Along R1A
Not Applicable
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
23
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak G-eek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 8.5Y1; Looking Upstream Along R1A
Not Applicable
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
24
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 9; Looking Across Reach RI
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
25
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

= M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 9; Looking Downstream Along Reach RI
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
26
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

MUL-KEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 9; Looking Upstream Along Reach RI
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
27
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year I Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 10; Looking Across Reach R1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
28
Year I Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

MULLKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 10; Looking Downstream Along Reach R1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
29
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 10; Looking Upstream Along Reach RI
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
30
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
'r
2010.11.02
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

-►=- M U L.K EY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
" Stream Restoration
Photo Point 11; Looking Across Reach R 1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
31
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

--- MULLKEY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
NeLF" ° Stream Restoration
Photo Point 11; Looking Downstream Along Reach R I
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
32
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year S Monitoring:

-r- MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 11; Looking Upstream Along Reach RI
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
33
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

4 M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Permanent Cross Section 1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Permanent Cross Section 2
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Permanent Cross Section 3
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
3
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

t= M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Permanent Cross Section 4
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
4
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

4--- M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little ff'hite Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Permanent Cross Section 5
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
67
Year I Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

- 4- MULKEY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Permanent Cross Section 6
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:
6

*— M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Permanent Cross Section 7
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:
7

- - M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Permanent Cross Section 8
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

A=- MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Permanent Cross Section 9
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: November 2009
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: Year 5 Monitoring:

-t= M U LK EY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Permanent Cross Section 10
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: November 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
10
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

4.�
d ..

-F=- M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Permanent Cross Section 12
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: November 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
12
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

- 4- MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Permanent Cross Section 13
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring:
13
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

N .2
N
N
O m
( �
N � �
C
_ II
a) (1) N w
u) x
• ,L
N o}
U
U)
^ ' N
�{J O
r- o
o a�i 00
T U } +
a)
Co C u
O o w
a--� V x
CU �
C/) CD
C/) co
c
O `m c
U�
�a
CY N
L��.( _O 'n
`�i � M
/11 ='1 N
W �
C II
�i w
Y x
C f�
cu 3
m
d
N �
Np cr
2
0—
M C
i O
} U Cc
(11) UOIIEA913
0
0
0
O
rn
O
0
O
n
U
C
c�
o �
L p
c
o N
� O
o
co
O
N
0
O

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2
Cross Section Name: (Year 3) cross Section 1 - Riffle (R2)
Survey Date: 11/09/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0 I
10 I
15 I
25 I
35 I
40 I
44 I
48.5 I
51.5 I
52.5 I
53 I
54 1
55
56
57
58 l
60
62.5
64
65
67
69
72
76
78
82.5
92
97.5
104.5
110
=S
ELEV
NOTE
-------------------------------------------------------
877.077938
GS
876.48
876.741741
GS
873.27
876.262877
GS
Floodprone width (ft)
874.161063
GS
- - - --
873.72517
GS
11.73
873.850267
GS
3.89
873.734995
LB
Mean Depth (ft)
872.36849
GS
2.23
871.827762
GS
2.81
871.531669
GS
12.48
871.050844
GS
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
870.820353
LEw
26.15
870.699815
GS
15.11
870.949956
GS
1.77
870.536388
GS
Begin BKF Station
870.244861
GS
57.26
870.330971
GS
870.064136
Tw
870.490847
GS
871.045931
REw
872.702281
GS
873.271399
BKF
873.232246
GS
873.452167
GS
873.742915
GS
873.802471
GS
874.10567
GS
875.60042
GS
876.528036
GS
876.95486
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
876.48
876.48
876.48
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
873.27
873.27
873.27
Floodprone width (ft)
91.33
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
23.46
11.73
11.74
Entrenchment Ratio
3.89
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
1.88
1.53
2.23
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.21
2.81
3.21
width /Depth Ratio
12.48
7.67
5.26
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
44.12
17.97
26.15
wetted Perimeter (ft)
24.97
15.11
15.47
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.77
1.19
1.69
Begin BKF Station
45.53
45.53
57.26

End BKF Station 69 57.26 69
Entrainment Calculations
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
Shear Stress (lb /sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

O O
U) O
O r
U N
N c M
co •0^ II
N U Cy
} c X
• 'A
N r
N s (,
C a)}
(n N
�./ to -
0 2'5
U
0 L
N O
N °�
U } �
0 �C n
O o o w
x
0 000 Q
(n
a>
o )
L d
U
.o
M
y
cz ^` co M
W N
W
�c x
C
m �
N O
to O
20-
UN
ch c
ca
o
t �S
(11) UOIIBA913
O
N
O
O
Cl
O
O
O
00
O
N
O
CO
O
LO
O
It
O
M
O
N
O
CD
U
C
(z
Cl)
0
C
O
N
L
O
No

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2
Cross Section Name: (Year 3) Cross Section 2 - Pool (R2)
Survey Date: 11/09/2010
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
0
0
876.084001
GS
10
0
876.164913
GS
17
0
875.941231
GS
19
0
875.744862
GS
28
0
873.577713
GS
38
0
873.177689
GS
49
0
873.121267
LB
52.5
0
872.659279
GS
56
0
872.417024
GS
59
0
872.506682
GS
61
0
872.355958
GS
62
0
871.936833
GS
63
0
871.268923
GS
64.5
0
870.546761
LEw
65.5
0
869.589694
GS
67
0
869.866881
GS
70
0
869.593597
GS
73.5
0
869.159368
Tw
74
0
870.573002
LEw
76
0
872.66945
BKF
79
0
873.048082
GS
87.5
0
872.679629
GS
93.5
0
872.616596
GS
108.5
0
875.929642
GS
112
0
876.360059
GS
115
0
876.072211
GS
120
0
876.054147
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
876.18
876.18
876.18
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
872.67
872.67
872.67
Floodprone width (ft)
116.67
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
23.5
11.75
11.75
Entrenchment Ratio
4.96
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
1.56
0.45
2.67
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.51
2
3.51
width /Depth Ratio
15.06
26.11
4.4
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
36.66
5.28
31.38
wetted Perimeter (ft)
26.32
14.2
16.13
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.39
0.37
1.95
Begin BKF Station
52.5
52.5
64.25
End BKF Station
76
64.25
76

Entrainment calculations
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields curve
channel Left side Right side
slope 0 0 0
shear stress (lb /sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

m o
rn o
O IL ao
U� o
N C �
cu O _ II
} N N w
Ch
c
N °�
(D }
�U) �
E�
O o 0
Uo
O L
C') 0 rn
M 0 c
U � �
U) C4 n
o CC
w�
N w
:� o o x
U � Co Q
N .
m
as
U) =
O�
L � r
U 76o
ir CL
M
czL � r
^' c6
W N
C II
w
Y x
c
m S
y O
'o
20-
UM
M C
� O
}
(11) UOIIBA913
O
r`
0
m
0
LO
O
v
O
r
0
0
0
0
C) a
CD U
C
cz
00 N
C)
C
O
N
L
CO O
Cl
LO
O
CY)
0
N
O
O

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2
Cross Section Name: (Year 3) Cross Section 3 - Pool (R2)
Survey Date: 11/09/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0 I
10 I
20 1
24
32 l
38 l
48
53
55
56
58
60
60.5
62.5
63
65
66
68
68
71
75
81
86
96
114
120
126
138
148
157
164
=S ELEV
-------------------------
873.969054
873.666259
873.696899
873.658087
872.506864
872.248624
872.277731
872.117464
872.127393
871.387219
870.754577
870.335641
869.607094
868.063405
868.241002
868.685863
868.892668
869.016849
869.537405
871.144944
871.397353
872.017843
871.398239
871.509783
875.59945
875.771219
875.900292
873.576144
I 873.224619
I 873.365697
I 874.397008
NOTE
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
LB
GS
GS
GS
LEW
TW
GS
GS
GS
GS
REW
GS
GS
BKF
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
875.98
875.98
875.98
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
872.02
872.02
872.02
Floodprone width (ft)
164
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
25.7
12.85
12.85
Entrenchment Ratio
6.38
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
1.59
2.43
0.74
Maximum De th (ft)
3.96
3.96
2.4
width /Depth Ratio
16.16
5.29
17.36
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
40.82
31.28
9.54
wetted Perimeter (ft)
28.11
17.23
15.68
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.45
1.81
0.61

Begin BKF Station
End BKF Station
55.3 55.3 68.15
81 68.15 81
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields curve
channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
Shear Stress (lb /sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

d
N
O �
U'
v
N c
d 5
N
}cam
� T
c co
N o0)
N o
U�
�o
1
c lC
U
C Ucc
O �y
+-� o
V U�
c
N m
O
L N
�0
U
a.
M
L O
C13 U
W C
Y
c
ro
00
N
ti�
O cr
U�
fO o
} U CC
♦
co
Ln
I
W
x
A
a
rn
I
W
x
A
0
N
W
x
A
3
(11) U011RAO13
O
N
O
O
O
0
O
0
00
0
n
N
o U
co co
o ca
LO
C
O
N
O
CD 2
O
ch
0
N
0
O

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2
Cross Section Name: (Year 3) Cross Section 4 - Riffle (R2)
Survey Date: 11/09/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0
8.5
18
23
33
41
43
45.5
48
50
51
53
56
57
58
58.5
59.5
64
68.5
78
86
96
106
116
120
S ELEV
------------------------
874.265195
874.195697
872.042921
871.733904
871.859033
871.525668
871.023839
870.190093
868.885601
868.095984
868.000976
868.129993
868.335711
868.346019
868.881521
869.938739
869.751997
870.245416
872.203095
872.179994
872.123873
873.537267
872.987295
873.07339
872.609835
NOTE
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
BKF
GS
GS
LEW
GS
TW
GS
GS
GS
LEW
GS
GS
GS
RB
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
875.06
875.06
875.06
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
871.53
871.53
871.53
Floodprone width (ft)
120
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
26.06
13.12
12.93
Entrenchment Ratio
4.61
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
1.99
2.11
1.86
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.53
3.53
3.33
width /Depth Ratio
13.1
6.22
6.95
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
51.82
27.72
24.1
wetted Perimeter (ft)
27.86
17.13
17.38
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.86
1.62
1.39
Begin BKF Station
40.9
40.9
54.02
End BKF station
66.95
54.02
66.95
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --

Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields curve
channel Left side Right side
slope 0 0 0
shear stress (lb /sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

U) o
rn o 00
o d
U � �
LO
N
} (D X
N
U) p
N �}
fLYL" (n N
O2-60
in c
c m
O
U) C\j u
0 w w
+-,
26 x
U Ua Q
a�
as
c
0 c
U
_ �a
co
o
cz
M
(D U
CN
II
Y w
x
N p
m 3
rn O
N O
oa
U�
M c
O
)
(11) UOiJEna13
0
0
0
0
CD
O
co
r-
0
CD
N
U
C
(.-
O C/)
LO 0
N
c
O
o N
v 'L
O
0
co
O
N
0
O

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2
Cross Section Name: (Year 3) Cross Section 5 - Pool (R2)
Survey Date: 11/09/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0 I
14 I
29 1
45
48
54 1
56 l
57
58 l
60
63
67
69
70
70.5
73
77
81.5
88.5
99
105
=S ELEV
-------------------------
871.298724
871.454868
871.303848
870.929709
871.075395
869.723203
869.355633
868.808855
868.606455
867.840918
867.854936
867.467667
867.689128
868.760152
869.571849
869.962148
870.688772
870.968285
871.00457
872.904581
873.387886
NOTE
GS
GS
GS
GS
LB
GS
GS
GS
LEW
GS
GS
TW
GS
LEW
GS
GS
BKF
GS
GS
GS
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left Side Right side
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
873.91
873.91
873.91
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
870.69
870.69
870.69
Floodprone width (ft)
105
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
27.31
13.65
13.66
Entrenchment Ratio
3.84
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
1.71
1.64
1.78
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.22
2.87
3.22
width /Depth Ratio
15.97
8.32
7.67
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
46.75
22.45
24.3
wetted Perimeter (ft)
28.8
16.96
17.57
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.62
1.32
1.38
Begin BKF Station
49.71
49.71
63.36
End BKF Station
77.02
63.36
77.02
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left Side Right side

Slope
shear stress (lb /sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

m
e
0 OC rn
U ' M
co
N C rn
Q
} Cn W
x
a
QCD
°
N '
O N
O O
O
,o
�i./
'^ p }
U Q
a�
mac_
c m
o
U
co a)
0
L N c
M ,
L O
c
U
C
Y
C
ca
m
d
N_
O
U�
co c
`m a Q
} a) CC
�c
I-
11
w
x
A
0
m
I
W
x
A
3
(11) UOIIBA913
0
rn
0
00
O
I-
O
CD
U
Q�
U
C
(z
U)
C)
c
0
N
�L
O I
M
O
N
O
0

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2A
Cross Section Name: (Year 3) Cross Section 6 - Riffle (R2A)
Survey Date: 11/08/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0 l
20 l
20 l
28.5
38.5
42
47
50
52
54
56
56
57
58
58
58.5
59
60
64
65
73
79
84
90
=S ELEV
-------------------------
880.257537
880.380444
880.380462
880.097987
876.998672
876.395067
876.432554
876.191129
875.836549
875.660304
874.926806
874.18215
873.818284
874.19652
874.597959
874.601007
874.816608
875.313228
875.625679
875.911569
876.452247
878.889882
879.680163
879.83018
NOTE
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
LB
GS
GS
LEW
GS
TW
GS
GS
GS
LEW
GS
GS
BKF
GS
GS
GS
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
878
878
878
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
875.91
875.91
875.91
Floodprone width (ft)
41.55
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
13.41
6.7
6.7
Entrenchment Ratio
3.1
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
0.86
0.54
Maximum Depth (ft)
2.09
2.09
1.31
width /Depth Ratio
19.16
7.79
12.41
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
9.39
5.76
3.62
wetted Perimeter (ft)
15.05
9.44
8.22
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.62
0.61
0.44
Begin BKF Station
51.59
51.59
58.29
End BKF Station
64.99
58.29
64.99
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --

Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
Shear Stress (lb /sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

m
O o[
U r�
N C d+
O
N - m I
}Cnc w
x
K4
m c)
N °'
0m
O N
CD Er
N
OE
c o
o}
N m
C: UCj
O Ch
O
� U
U �
U)
O
U�
M y
(� o
Z U_
W �
C
c
co
m
N
ti
O
U�
CO c
- m O CO
a) aa) �
.� co .�
Ln
u
w
x
A
0
co
II
x
,n
3
(11) UOIIBA913
0
0
Lol
n.
CD
8
LO C:
(d
N
0
0 c
o
0
2
0
M
N
7

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2B
cross section Name: (Year 3) Cross Section 7 - Riffle (R2B)
Survey Date: 11/09/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0
10
19
25
33
36
40
42
44
47
49
50
51
52
52.5
54
55
57
58
59
61
64
67
69
73
80
90
S ELEV
------------------------
874.740362
874.803279
874.61007
874.597095
874.560587
874.491044
874.454251
873.927287
873.293239
872.96995
872.731264
872.668255
872.596297
872.344637
871.815305
871.790267
871.849961
872.008623
872.47748
872.625695
872.713116
872.577514
872.904667
873.662504
874.004544
873.923606
873.881421
NOTE
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
LB
LEW
GS
TW
GS
REW
GS
BKF
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
873.47
873.47
873.47
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
872.63
872.63
872.63
Floodprone width (ft)
25.05
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
8.47
3.97
4.5
Entrenchment Ratio
2.96
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
0.51
0.53
0.5
Maximum Depth (ft)
0.84
0.84
0.81
Width /Depth Ratio
16.61
7.49
9
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
4.36
2.1
2.26
wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.86
5.04
5.44
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.49
0.42
0.42
Begin BKF Station
50.53
50.53
54.5
End BKF station
59
54.5
59

Entrainment Calculations
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields Curve
Channel Left side Right side
slope 0 0 0
shear stress (lb /sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

N
O Er
U '
N C
�
N
U)
� A
N
N o}
CDo
U N
N
Al O E
�• t
O
O cu
d
M p }
W O
U) CC
O ."
}� O Ei
U UiT
N
OC()
CD
C�
M
c
`} U
Y
c
cd
m
m
U)_
o
U�
ch c
x.00
U N
4-4
x
A
D
II
4-i
X
A
3
(11) UOIIBA913
0
O
Lo
O
It
9
U
c
to
O
c
c
0
0
0
N
O
J
ON

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2D
Cross Section Name: (Year 3) Cross Section 8 - Riffle (R2D)
Survey Date: 11/10/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0 I
5 1
10 l
16
22
28.5
29 l
30.5
31
31.5
32.5
33.5
35
36
36.5
37
38
39
42
49
59
65
70
=S ELEV
-------------------------
871.542239
871.444674
871.273228
870.972042
870.70704
870.642531
870.635602
870.088088
869.955404
869.606895
869.712753
869.770743
869.783584
869.87344
869.897699
870.095923
870.425439
870.487743
870.840767
870.988172
870.904198
870.856729
870.774037
NOTE
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
BKF
GS
LEW
GS
GS
GS
TW
GS
REW
GS
GS
RB
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
871.67
871.67
871.67
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
870.64
870.64
870.64
Floodprone width (ft)
70
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
11.1
5.23
5.87
Entrenchment Ratio
6.31
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
0.59
0.7
0.48
Maximum Depth (ft)
1.03
1.03
0.86
width /Depth Ratio
18.81
7.47
12.23
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
6.5
3.67
2.83
wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.46
6.33
6.86
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.57
0.58
0.41
Begin BKF Station
29
29
34.23
End BKF Station
40.1
34.23
40.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve

Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
Shear Stress (lb /sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

cn 75
2 CL
U ,n
N C M
} N T W
U) x
� A
�\ C
T O N
d }
`./ U
to
O UO O
�
CL
1 C" O N
T O co
V� 5 }
i )
pc�
y _ W
a„ _, a o x
U 0n Q
N .
U)
aD
N CO
U) =
m
L d c
c)
3:a
M
L p n
czrn
C II
w
�c x
� A
m �
En O
O O
O n
U�
M C
If O
N
(14) UOIIEA913
0
Cl)
0
N
T
O
O
O
O
m
O
00
O
n
U
C
cd
O N
4-
c
C) O
to N
O
2
0
O
co
0
N
0
T
O

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R1
Cross Section Name: (Year 3) Cross Section 9 - Pool (R1)
Survey Date: 11/09/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
0
888.47913
GS
5
0
888.572354
GS
10
0
888.511825
GS
15
0
888.34598
GS
20
0
887.836966
GS
25
0
886.538971
GS
30
0
884.6788
GS
33
0
883.826213
GS
42
0
883.175455
GS
48
0
883.05673
GS
52
0
882.910264
GS
56
0
882.700029
LB
58
0
881.991422
GS
60
0
880.269024
GS
61
0
879.618628
LEw
61.5
0
878.725333
GS
63.5
0
878.651034
GS
64
0
878.647769
Tw
65
0
878.736895
GS
66
0
878.907932
GS
67
0
878.928064
GS
67.5
0
879.382256
GS
68
0
879.625813
GS
69
0
881.029214
GS
70.5
0
881.454256
GS
74
0
882.05077
GS
76.5
0
882.335479
BKF
79
0
882.279817
GS
85
0
882.269851
GS
91
0
883.001258
GS
96
0
884.033747
GS
100
0
885.011109
GS
105
0
886.397563
GS
112
0
887.980946
GS
116
0
888.442301
GS
120
0
888.609257
GS
130
0
888.778565
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
Floodprone width (ft)
Bankfull width (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio
Channel
Left
Right
886.03
886.03
886.03
882.34
882.34
882.34
77.32
- - - --
- - - --
19.48
14.82
4.66
3.97
- - - --
- - - --

Mean Depth (ft)
1.82
2.29
0.3
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.69
3.69
0.66
width /Depth Ratio
10.7
6.47
15.53
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
35.4
34.01
1.39
wetted Perimeter (ft)
22
17.95
5.37
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.61
1.89
0.26
Begin BKF Station
57.02
57.02
71.84
End BKF Station
76.5
71.84
76.5
Entrainment calculations
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified shields curve
channel Left Side Right side
Slope 0 0 0
Shear Stress (lb /sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

O
41 O
to
O
Uo .
N C M
O
(D tT II
�cn 44
x
• A
T 00 c`v
- N
}
N
ON _
O p
O U0
00
O
C
i 0 d N
O w
}�
2'5
A
U Ua Q
CO
C
Co ch
O v,
L � �
.o
cy •
r
L-
0
W U �
`✓ C II
W
� x
A
c 3
of
m
O
O O
to d
O
U°
M o
� U r
} c
(11) UOIIBA913
O
CIO
0
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CIO
o �
U
O in
CO Q
c
0 0
LO N
0
0
O
('7
0
N
O
r
0

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R1
Cross Section Name: (Year 3) Cross Section 10 - Pool (R1)
Survey Date: 11/09/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0
4 I
9 I
19
24 I
29 I
34 I
44 I
49 I
54 I
59 I
64 I
67 I
69 I
70 I
71
72
74 1
75 1
75
76 l
76.5
77
80 t
81
82
83
83
84
86
87.5
93
99
104
106
110
116
119
130
=S
ELEV
NOTE
-------------------------------------------------------
886.345723
GS
885.824
GS
884.698386
GS
882.626846
GS
881.565434
GS
881.595007
GS
881.767258
GS
881.749858
GS
881.985365
GS
881.538707
GS
881.359276
GS
881.435774
GS
881.404951
GS
881.308515
GS
881.315598
BKF
881.261262
GS
880.676991
GS
879.31185
GS
879.027186
LEw
878.680899
GS
878.405048
GS
878.54975
GS
878.539544
GS
878.386016
GS
878.334285
GS
877.376296
Tw
877.387325
GS
879.033263
REw
879.391491
GS
880.639867
GS
882.106927
RB
882.088673
GS
881.939318
GS
882.057804
GS
882.187411
GS
883.379207
GS
885.415107
GS
886.222416
GS
886.276029
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 885.26 885.26 885.26
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 881.32 881.32 881.32
Floodprone width (ft) 109.06 - - - -- - - - --

Bankfull width (ft)
16.69
7.41
9.28
Entrenchment Ratio
6.53
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
2.08
1.61
2.45
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.94
2.91
3.94
width /Depth Ratio
8.02
4.6
3.79
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
34.66
11.91
22.74
wetted Perimeter (ft)
20.46
11.24
14.82
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.69
1.06
1.53
Begin BKF Station
70
70
77.41
End BKF Station
86.69
77.41
86.69
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
Shear Stress (lb /sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

O
U) O
O EL
N
U T .
N T o
c �
� p
cli.d T II
-� CC w
x
• A
T c0 cC
�i U
cn .r cr
O o—
O
O U a°
r
T C O N
T 0 N
C:
Q l w
U) x
+�
2-5
A
U U0 °
c
VJ U
c
O co
^� L
M
r
i
cz p
UN
` '0 II
w
� x
A
M
m
O
to O
y
O
Ur
M �
�^
CD v
}U�
(4) UOIIUA913
O
C7
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
co
C
U
C
co
CD U)
(D Q
c
0 0
L N
0
O
CO
0
N
O
O

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little White Oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R1
Cross Section Name: (Year 3) Cross Section 11 - Pool (R1)
Survey Date: 11/09/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
0
885.860499
GS
5
0
885.954149
GS
14
0
885.523811
GS
19
0
885.360982
GS
24
0
884.850953
GS
26
0
884.695566
GS
29
0
883.740645
GS
34
0
882.187127
GS
38
0
880.940862
GS
42
0
880.705761
GS
48
0
880.642966
GS
52
0
880.729534
GS
56
0
880.617989
GS
58.5
0
880.575273
LB
59.5
0
880.401963
GS
62
0
878.871729
GS
63
0
878.601415
GS
64
0
878.455667
GS
65
0
877.898983
LEW
65.5
0
876.40614
TW
66
0
877.185615
GS
67.5
0
877.538002
GS
69
0
877.546547
GS
71
0
877.570611
GS
72
0
877.517195
GS
73
0
877.52271
GS
74
0
877.585256
GS
75
0
877.574535
GS
78
0
877.605742
GS
79.5
0
877.843412
REW
79.5
0
877.826467
GS
81
0
878.12024
GS
85
0
879.574055
GS
86
0
880.434286
BKF
91
0
880.337327
GS
96
0
880.545149
GS
101.5
0
881.569489
GS
106.5
0
882.827563
GS
111.5
0
883.988447
GS
116.5
0
884.77074
GS
121.5
0
885.034564
GS
130
0
885.176403
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Channel Left Right

Floodprone Elevation (ft)
884.45
884.45
884.45
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
880.43
880.43
880.43
Floodprone width (ft)
87.72
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
26.66
16.8
9.86
Entrenchment Ratio
3.29
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
2.27
2.42
2.01
Maximum Depth (ft)
4.02
4.02
2.84
width /Depth Ratio
11.74
6.94
4.91
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
60.51
40.74
19.77
wetted Perimeter (ft)
29.46
21.81
13.34
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
2.05
1.87
1.48
Begin BKF Station
59.34
59.34
76.14
End BKF Station
86
76.14
86
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
Shear Stress (lb /sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

co co Er
O
U cm �T
N �
C
� .0 II
} N T W
N r
T c ca
>-
N r
N
O
�o
N
O } -
cin T u
jr O w
�.:.i O A
N .
U)
a�
U) -C
0 3
L .N
U
M
�I,
CZ ai N
W
C
w
Cfj
A
m
N
O
UN
CV) C
� O
U U r
rU,oc
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
(11) uOiI 'en213
0
-o
T
O
_ O
-
0
_o
(D
LO
U
O C
(o
4—
U)
O
N
L-
0
2
0
N
- O r
0
I
I
r
I
i
I�
1
* f ;
i
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
(11) uOiI 'en213
0
-o
T
O
_ O
-
0
_o
(D
LO
U
O C
(o
4—
U)
O
N
L-
0
2
0
N
- O r
0

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R1
Cross Section Name: (Year 3) Cross Section 12 - Riffle (R1)
Survey Date: 11/09/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0 I
8 t
11 I
15 I
20 I
25 I
31 I
35 1
37.5 1
38
40 t
41
41.5 1
42.5
43
45
46
47
49
49
50
51.5
52.5
54
56
57
59
61.5
62.5
63.5
64.5
69.5
73.5
78.5
84
90
95
100
=S
ELEV
NOTE
-------------------------------------------------------
885.050579
GS
883.68
884.326429
GS
879.64
883.283706
GS
Floodprone width (ft)
881.855269
GS
- - - --
880.051583
GS
11.29
879.638414
GS
879.710466
GS
878.925684
GS
879.637126
BKF
879.364497
GS
878.227061
GS
877.87767
GS
877.585521
LEw
876.131511
GS
875.595617
Tw
876.041597
GS
876.29106
GS
876.463696
GS
877.444476
GS
877.549631
REw
877.910347
GS
878.122473
GS
877.875294
GS
878.103052
GS
878.434225
GS
878.40966
GS
878.764094
GS
880.078619
GS
880.406568
GS
880.787485
RB
880.917988
GS
880.687149
GS
880.646076
GS
880.342149
GS
882.081119
GS
883.66376
GS
884.28379
GS
1
884.406182
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
883.68
883.68
883.68
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
879.64
879.64
879.64
Floodprone width (ft)
80.32
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
23.05
11.29
11.76

Entrenchment Ratio
3.48
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
1.91
2.5
1.34
Maximum Depth (ft)
4.04
4.04
2.3
width /Depth Ratio
12.07
4.52
8.78
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
43.98
28.25
15.73
wetted Perimeter (ft)
25.43
15.4
14.63
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.73
1.83
1.07
Begin BKF Station
37.5
37.5
48.79
End BKF Station
60.55
48.79
60.55
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields curve
Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
Shear Stress (lb /sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

N
N �
O r
N C M
f6 O
N U Q II
}�C w
X
• 1]
r T
cif
T p }
�a
O
CO
o
0
o}
r N Q II
C: Ir w
Ox
N A
2= n
VJ
v
O
L a) c
U CL
M U) Ln
Ln
Y
v r
CZ
W C II
- w
Y A
C
co
m
d
N
O
� Ch
U
M C
co O Q
O V T
} cn
(11) UOIIBA913
O
co
T
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
C)
CD
U
C
co
C) U)
C
O Q
LO 'L
O
0
O
c+)
O
N
O
O

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R1A
Cross Section Name: (Year 3) Cross Section 13 - Riffle (R1A)
Survey Date: 11/08/2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0
10
25
30
34
39
47
53
55
57
58
59
60
61
63
69
74
79
89
99
109
125
=S ELEV
-------------------------
887.807646
887.610973
887.697326
887.564138
887.668765
887.5075
887.379413
887.578973
887.911016
887.211508
886.914573
886.951896
887.251344
887.3577
887.762267
887.585651
887.652452
887.659217
887.648803
887.798802
887.49785
887.576212
NOTE
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
LB
LEW
GS
TW
REW
GS
BKF
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
888.61
888.61
888.61
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
887.76
887.76
887.76
Floodprone width (ft)
125
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
7.55
7.02
0.53
Entrenchment Ratio
16.56
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
0.46
0.49
0.05
Maximum Depth (ft)
0.85
0.85
0.11
width /Depth Ratio
16.41
14.33
10.6
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
3.47
3.44
0.03
wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.78
7.35
0.65
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.45
0.47
0.04
Begin BKF Station
55.44
55.44
62.46
End BKF Station
62.99
62.46
62.99
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve

channel Left side Right side
slope 0 0 0
shear stress (lb /sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)

o •
o •
O♦ ♦
• o
o'
0
o
0
i
°_
O
0
( 48) 814!8 - Z 4 U01joes SsaO (£ JaeA)- o¢ —
0
O•
A�� ♦ O
1 `
+ 0•
M '
M °•
1 °♦
1 �
O ♦ O
O (t H) 100d - 4 4 UOIPGS SsaO (£ JB8A)– : —
+
♦O
� b
T •
O
O
O
U)
`^ `• O
W '
♦
N—
O •°
L.L ♦
O °♦
(18) I00d - 0 4 Uo!loeS ssaO (£ JEW–
� o �
O
' °
J •
O
T O•
Cc O
M °.
L 0
(z o
} (W) 100d - 6 UO!I38S ssaO (£ Ju8A) o —
04 '
•
0
O •
o
o'
S�
o •
•
o •
ro
w
(4) U01I2A913
0
Cl
U)
co
0
0
Cl)
0
0
m
co
0
0
co
O
O
O
Cl)
0
0
N
CD
O
co
O
CD
N
O
(OD
N
LO
0
N
O
a
N
O
O
N
O
0
N
N
O
N
O
0
N
CD
CDO
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
r
0
ov
0
n N
CD o
¢�o
wo
o +
Nary
> o
j UJ
•
d
O
O +;F
l< o C?
N
� 2
oaa�
} G ~ c)
J S
E
(z
Q�
L
N
0)
0
m
a)
U
C
� m
cn Ir
p O
m
J
LL
Y
m
U)
3
0
S
U

RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R1
Profile Name: (Year 3) R1 Long. Profile (STA 14 +00 -- 33 +74)
Survey Date: 11/19/2010
Survey Data
DIST
CH
wS BKF
LB
RB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1400
879.305
1400
880.875
1400.69
882.297
1401.113
883.956
1409.081
880.805
1409.332
879.022
1426.471
879.874
1426.577
880.875
1427.864
882.949
1433.57
882.983
1441.8
880.857
1441.985
879.386
1454.112
880.809
1454.254
879.12
1454.686
883.042
1463.477
880.806
1463.922
878.738
1463.922
882.759
1478.154
880.821
1478.289
880.083
1486.026
883.006
1486.879
882.531
1501.822
880.629
1501.951
880.234
1517.192
880.133
1517.25
880.415
1520.837
882.642
1531.374
880.414
1531.652
879.69
1544.071
883.444
1551.119
878.163
1551.287
880.102
1551.287
878.163
1562.002
879.34
1562.238
880.162
1564.77
883.08
1585.017
882.414
1587.148
880.109
1587.487
880.073
1588.157
882.67
1588.157
879.238
1595.411
882.583
1606.783
880.043
1606.783
879.342
1615.292
882.306
1628.557
880.061
1628.564
879.028
1628.564
882.126
1641.237
878.694
1641.507
881.874

1641.646
880.028
1656.86
878.853
1657.008
880.043
1662.626
882.166
1665.433
882.606
1667.12
880.051
1667.228
879.152
1690.123
880.066
1690.199
879.564
1690.894
882.74
1694.633
882.234
1709.874
879.952
1710.052
878.961
1716.208
882.498
1720.27
879.926
1720.902
878.918
1720.902
882.741
1730.16
879.734
1730.239
877.723
1732.822
882.314
1737.917
879.25
1738.425
879.745
1739.845
-
882.41
1746.444
882.788
1752.091
879.013
1752.195
879.676
1754.423
882.887
1770.815
878.862
1770.815
882.702
1770.968
879.645
1772.94
881.679
1786.062
878.648
879.619
882.051 882.7
1815.892
878.842
1816.845
879.612
1824.917
882.571
1841.048
882.71
1841.052
879.546
1841.442
878.807
1846.375
882.054
1846.375
879.559
1846.375
878.682
1865.826
882.129
1872.617
878.253
1873.174
879.545
1890.649
882.431
1890.649
879.061
1890.9
879.513
1898.914
879.477
1902.577
878.738
1918.921
881.634
1925.352
878.431
1925.352
879.479
1940.392
882.105
1940.392
878.381
1940.585
879.5
1945.861
879.349
1946.119
877.702
1953.66
879.338
1953.758
879.007
1972.436
879.303
1972.763
877.989
1972.763
882.52
1978.982
882.296
1993.181
879.269
1993.324
878.645
2004.459
881.724

2016.603
879.222
2017.185
878.502
2033.198
882.255
2042.614
879.228
2043.035
878.39
2059.702
879.23
2060.029
878.04
2062.94
882.073
2067.685
882.979
2072.424
879.171
2072.747
877.944
2078.022
879.203
2078.085
877.934
2091.385
879.202
2091.541
878.579
2100.641
881.99
2110.951
878.305
2110.951
882.487
2110.951
879.131
2123.214
879.119
2123.574
877.886
2145.681
879.133
2145.853
878.212
2150.155
882.014
2159.859
879.117
2160.114
877.917
2163.992
882.098
2182.713
879.118
2182.781
878.032
2184.255
881.303
2196.945
881.703
2200.078
881.393
2210.997
878.53
2211.234
879.077
2229.159
878.45
2229.283
879.137
2236.976
881.654
2250.308
879.089
2250.36
877.8
2254.085
881.325
2255.462
881.205
2267.038
882.057
2276.365
877.376
879.027
882.107
881.316
2289.254
877.832
2289.696
879.018
2295.292
881.532
2307.732
876.993
2307.942
878.996
2309.872
881.55
2323.921
878.25
2324.089
879.019
2326.563
880.843
2330.1
881.09
2335.793
879.012
2335.846
877.871
2338.949
880.96
2351.644
878.827
2351.899
877.939
2357.453
880.918
2369.522
881.21
2377.29
880.771
2383.071
878.791
2383.244
878.799
2383.555
877.84
2395.99
881.431
2396.464
878.792

2396.824 877.869
2418.047
878.785
2418.336
878.008
2425.984
881.141
2427.496
881.182
2431.466
878.781
2432.305
877.969
2441.897
877.19
2441.909
878.576
2449.112
878.214
2449.665
874.949
2459.079
877.168
2459.405
878.167
2463.285
881.224
2475.421
878.174
2475.773
877.314
2481.146
881.185
2499.742
878.183
2499.852
877.142
2511.414
880.587
2516.866
881.249
2520.462
876.914
2520.676
878.042
2537.988
878.072
2538.706
876.313
2543.768
880.807
2548.291
878.088
2548.6
877.374
2574.479
878.053
2574.491
877.177
2577.835
881.059
2580.252
880.448
2585.5
876.971
2586.154
878.028
2600.602
877.156
2600.769
877.973
2615.1
880.658
2628.76
877.385
2628.862
877.983
2637.08
880.421
2643.118
877.881
2643.118
876.751
2663.021
880.612
2663.418
876.919
2663.683
877.901
2670.04
880.656
2673.994
877.966
2673.996
877.448
2688.513
880.791
2690.29
876.914
2690.513
881.023
2690.533
877.817
2709.315
880.846
2717.576
877.918
2717.99
876.229
2720.655
880.678
2729.238
880.548
2731.92
877.885
2736.244
876.406
877.899
880.434 880.575
2760.776
877.88
2761.162
876.695
2765.576
880.653
2768.358
880.068
2781.803
877.829
2782.024
876.545
2791.734
880.242

2803.036 876.881
2803.375
877.791
2813.151
880.054
2825.369
880.344
2827.604
877.818
2828.011
876.836
2838.162
876.72
2838.229
877.791
2842.037
874.763
2842.274
877.685
2851.658
877.683
2851.724
876.969
2856.235
880.283
2858.773
880.09
2875.263
876.375
2875.263
877.638
2887.482
879.782
2887.606
880.431
2893.154
876.44
2893.745
877.632
2913.325
877.625
2913.34
876.957
2916.853
880.382
2922.137
880.191
2944.439
880.148
2944.439
876.79
2944.446
877.727
2955.818
877.676
2955.969
876.369
2956.485
880.184
2969.866
876.747
2969.978
877.643
2985.795
877.639
2985.815
876.982
2995.019
880.076
2996.128
880.49
3010.951
877.639
3011.383
876.567
3020.575
879.984
3039.566
880.189
3045.08
877.632
3062.681
877.629
3063.293
876.405
3072.627
877.593
3073.097
875.797
3073.097
878.949
3104.016
877.584
3104.371
876.983
3104.371
879.928
3114.565
875.753
3114.565
879.7
3114.565
877.571
3118.732
875.596
877.586
880.787 879.637
3127.227
877.549
3127.29
876.751
3128.956
879.606
3144.334
880.318
3157.894
877.547
3158.084
876.799
3162.357
879.25
3180.365
880.175
3187.889
877.563
3188.228
876.378
3206.456
879.582
3215.425
876.663
3215.466
877.535

3218.525
880.18 5.
3239.168
876.279
3239.237
877.52
3244.919
879.984
3250.606
876.843
3250.606
879.391
3250.73
877.488
3263.68
879.337
3275.18
876.806
3275.28
877.32
3285.914
879.763
3287.759
878.701
3287.759
876.33
3288.604
876.908
3294.124
875.067
3294.277
876.153
3303.856
879.557
3305.386
876.088
3305.512
874.489
3324.267
880.016
3326.752
876.027
3327.441
874.656
3342.26
879.684
3344.049
875.984
3344.693
875.178
3354.153
875.959
3354.235
875.159
3359.016
879.38
3368.195
879.12
3374.329
875.94
3374.744
875.103
3385.978
875.947
3386.368
874.759
3387.669
879.839
3393.429
878.506
3399.487
875.935
3399.887
875.134
3414.768
879.317
3416.719
875.937
3416.785
874.489
.
3425.285
878.868
3426.289
879.615
3437.443
875.912
3437.505
875.217
3451.665
874.968
3452.102
875.895
3456.622
878.626
3463.885
879.213
3473.861
875.856
3473.892
874.368
3481.772
879.384
3485.346
878.474
3491.48
874.708
3491.885
875.843
3505.538
878.217
3508.578
879.222
3509.476
875.806
3509.476
874.884
Cross section / Bank Profile Locations
Name Type Profile station
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Year 3) Cross section 9 - Pool (R1)Pool XS 1786
(Year 3) Cross Section 10 - Pool (Rl)POOI XS 2276
(Year 3) Cross section 11 - Pool (R1)Pool XS 2736

(Year 3) cross Section 12 - Riffle (Rl)Riffle XS 3118
Measurements from Graph
Bankfull slope: 0.00183
Variable
Min
Avg
Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S riffle
0.00093
0.00797
0.01777
S pool
0
0
0
S run
0
0
0
S glide
0
0
0
P - P
49
87.47
149.04
Pool length
14.29
33.57
69.42
Riffle length
12.25
19.69
29.05
Dmax riffle
0
0
0
Dmax pool
0
0
0
Dmax run
0
0
0
Dmax glide
0
0
0
Low bank ht
0
0
0
Length and depth
measurements
in feet,
slopes in ft /ft.
0
LEW
1846.375
LEW
RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
Notes
River Name: Little white oak creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R1
Profile Name: (Year 3) R1 Long. Profile (STA 14 +00 -- 33 +74)
Survey Date: 11/19/2010
DIST Note
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1400
LEW
1409.081
LEW
1426.577
LEW
1441.8
LEW
1454.112
LEW
1463.477
LEW
1478.154
LEW
1501.822
LEW
1517.25
LEW
1531.374
LEW
1551.287
LEW
1562.238
LEW
1587.148
LEW
1587.487
LEW
1606.783
LEW
1628.557
LEW
1641.646
LEW
1657.008
LEW
1667.12
LEW
1690.123
LEW
1709.874
LEW
1720.27
LEW
1730.16
LEW
1738.425
LEW
1752.195
LEW
1770.968
LEW
1786.062
XS9 - Tw Intersect @ station 1786.062
1816.845
LEW
1841.052
LEW
1846.375
LEW

1873.174 LEW
1890.9 LEW
1898.914 LEW
1925.352 LEW
1940.585 LEW
1945.861 LEW
1953.66 LEW
1972.436 LEW
1993.181 LEW
2016.603 LEW
2042.614 LEW
2059.702 LEW
2072.424 LEW
2078.022 LEW
2091.385 LEW
2110.951 LEW
2123.214 LEW
2145.681 LEW
2159.859 LEW
2182.713 LEW
2211.234 LEW
2229.283 LEW
2250.308 LEW
2276.365 XS10
2289.696 LEW
2307.942 LEW
2324.089 LEW
2335.793 LEW
2351.644 LEW
2383.071 LEW
2383.244 LEW
2396.464 LEW
2418.047 LEW
2431.466 LEW
2441.909 LEW
2449.112 LEW
2459.405 LEW
2475.421 LEW
2499.742 LEW
2520.676 LEW
2537.988 LEW
2548.291 LEW
2574.479 LEW
2586.154 LEW
2600.769 LEW
2628.862 LEW
2643.118 LEW
2663.683 LEW
2673.994 LEW
2690.533 LEW
2717.576 LEW
2731.92 LEW
2736.244 XSll
2760.776 LEW
2781.803 LEW
2803.375 LEW
2827.604 LEW
2838.229 LEW
2842.274 LEW
2851.658 LEW
2875.263 LEW
2893.745 LEW
2913.325 LEW
2944.446 LEW
2955.818 LEW
2969.978 LEW
- TW Intersect @ station 2276.365
- TW Intersect @ station 2736.244

2985.795
LEW
3010.951
LEW
3045.08
LEW
3062.681
LEW
3072.627
LEW
3104.016
LEW
3114.565
LEW
3118.732
x512
3127.227
LEW
3157.894
LEW
3187.889
LEW
3215.466
LEW
3239.237
LEW
3250.73
LEW
3275.28
LEW
3288.604
LEW
3294.277
LEW
3305.386
LEW
3326.752
LEW
3344.049
LEW
3354.153
LEW
3374.329
LEW
3385.978
LEW
3399.487
LEW
3416.719
LEW
3437.443
LEW
3452.102
LEW
3473.861
LEW
3491.885
LEW
3509.476
LEW
- TW Intersect @ station 3118.732

0
In
1
O
O
O
/F-
♦�
v!
W
O
I..V
0)
C
O
J
Q
M
I`
cu
Q�
(11) UOIILDAG13
O
O in
0
0
v
0
0
c7
O
N
¢=O
a` +
0
m of Q o
macro
Y oy +
J In
•
Q N
'w0 00
ra +
0
m tT Q o
(Dc�o
J ri)
Q � i
cc_ O O
°ao
� o1Q o
(DcHo
o J - t n
E
co
(D
L
in
0)
U
C
cz
cn CO
cr
0
m
J
O LL
o Y
m
U)
0
2
U
0

RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: RlA
Profile Name: (Year 3) RlA Long. Profile (STA 0 +00 -- 5 +00)
survey Date: 11/19/2010
survey Data
DIST
CH
WS BKF
LB RB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
891.031
0
891.923
1.708
891.969
1.981
891.848
7.68
891.679
7.914
891.196
15.958
891.163
16.377
890.742
16.413
891.585
25.373
891.802
30.573
891.491
31.022
890.633
38.612
891.226
43.97
890.983
43.97
891.344
57.889
890.848
57.99
890.306
71.795
890.764
72.169
890.278
73.443
891.246
75.74
890.665
76.85
890.311
86.944
890.193
87.342
890.634
101.945
889.945
102.077
890.52
104.65
890.499
109.576
890.367
109.718
889.73
110.019
890.701
122.553
889.806
122.553
890.369
124.074
890.576
129.57
889.805
129.996
890.33
136.799
890.267
137.654
890.346
140.204
890.088
140.369
889.839
158.516
889.471
158.516
889.16
169.72
889.439
171.677
889.175
171.734
888.828
171.812
888.832
171.812
889.755
182.697
888.932
182.929
888.646
190.749
888.504
190.909
888.923

191.852
202.444
888.327
202.658
888.759
214.484
888.669
214.788
888.308
220.703
888.549
220.809
888.083
228.791
888.547
228.992
888.448
232.645
233.196
888.324
233.551
888.095
239.423
244.691
887.633
244.691
888.038
250.239
251.685
887.554
251.752
888.003
253.563
259.325
887.884
259.455
887.529
270.227
887.392
270.227
887.86
279.427
887.408
279.681
887.867
282.454
290.354
290.354
887.388
290.422
887.785
298.923
887.188
299.12
887.8
300.881
308.888
309.553
887.482
309.868
887.087
321.172
323.408
887.153
323.408
323.663
887.454
332.817
333.892
887.122
333.892
887.376
342.382
343.13
887.331
343.41
886.866
343.704
350.321
350.339
887.272
350.592
886.8
351.735
355.896
886.748
356.269
887.243
361.464
887.259
361.855
886.521
366.475
886.704
366.475
366.619
887.189
371.55
887.004
371.921
887.225
375.594
886.915 887.212
387.527
886.617
389.255
887.001
396.265
400.128
886.989
400.306
886.43
404.088
889.348
888.785
888.832
:::
888.465
888.41
888.222
888.379
887.877
887.705
887.871
887.603
887.771
888.02
887.716
888.001
887.924
887.762 887.579
887.62
887.523
it

413.779 886.671
414.072
Min Avg
886.97
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S riffle
414.512
0
0
887.739
422.017
886.547
0
S run
422.232
0
886.962
S glide
431.165
886.423
0
P- P
431.681
0
886.936
Pool length
442.419
0
886.931
Riffle length
442.419
886.611
0
Dmax riffle
451.303
0
0
887.529
451.303
886.428
0
Dmax run
451.535
0
886.776
Dmax glide
454.111
0
0
887.424
458.29
0
886.836
Length and depth
458.514
886.618
feet, slopes in ft /ft.
0
470.75
886.78
470.794
886.621
PROFILE SUMMARY
479.978
887.247
480.054
886.706
480.582
886.444
481.969
887.091
488.069
886.214
488.069
887.198
488.369
886.51
490.847
887.023
496.328
885.927
496.393
886.462
500.621
886.84
501.622
886.499
501.747
886.795
501.747
886.105
cross Section / Bank Profile Locations
Name Type Profile Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Year 3) cross Section 13 - Riffle (R1A)Riffle XS 375
Measurements from Graph
Bankfull Slope: 0
variable
Min Avg
Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S riffle
0
0
0
S pool
0
0
0
S run
0
0
0
S glide
0
0
0
P- P
0
0
0
Pool length
0
0
0
Riffle length
0
0
0
Dmax riffle
0
0
0
Dmax pool
0
0
0
Dmax run
0
0
0
Dmax glide
0
0
0
Low bank ht
0
0
0
Length and depth
measurements in
feet, slopes in ft /ft.
0
RIVERMORPH
PROFILE SUMMARY
Notes
River Name: Little white oak creek (Year 3)

Reach Name: RlA
Profile Name: (Year 3) RlA
Survey Date: 11/19/2010
DIST Note
0
LEW
7.68
LEW
16.413
LEW
30.573
LEW -
43.97
LEW
57.889
LEW
71.795
LEW
87.342
LEW
102.077
LEW
109.576
LEW
122.553
LEW
129.996
LEW
140.204
LEW
158.516
LEW
171.677
LEW
171.734
LEW
182.697
LEW
190.909
LEW
202.658
LEW
214.484
LEW
220.703
LEW
228.791
LEW
233.196
LEW
,244.691
LEW
251.752
LEW
259.325
LEW
270.227
LEW
279.681
LEW
290.422
LEW
299.12
LEW
309.553
LEW
323.663
LEW
333.892
LEW
343.13
LEW
350.339
LEW
356.269
LEW
361.464
LEW
366.619
LEW
371.921
LEW
375.594
xS13
389.255
LEW
400.128
LEW
414.072
LEW
422.232
LEW
431.681
LEW
442.419
LEW
451.535
LEW
458.29
LEW
470.75
LEW
480.054
LEW
488.369
LEW
496.393
LEW
501.622
LEW
Long. Profile (STA 0 +00 -- 5 +00)
- TW Intersect @ station 375.594

W
LO
1
M
r
U')
F-
U)
W
O
/1
.0)
c
O
J
N
M
(4) UOIIEn813
0
0
co
v
O
0
In
v
0
0
v
v
0
0
O
V
O
O
d'
O
O
V
O
O
co
O
0
m
M
O
O
r-
co
O
(O
M
O
O
LO
co
O
O
M
0
M
M
0
O
N
M
0
0
co
O
O
co
00
rn
N
O
co
N
to0
0
N
O
O
N
N
O
O
N
m
co
2 +
Nd N(O
} o ~Ln
d
O
� Q. Ln
Y
o UJ
N co
62
0-
(D oF�
z_c
C
CTJ
m
0
ca
CD
U
c m
cn m
Q o
m
J
U-
Y
m
U)
O
U

RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2
Profile Name: (Year 3) R2 Long. Profile (STA 25 +13 -- 45 +60)
Survey Date: 11/19/2010
Survey Data
DIST
CH
wS BKF
LB
RB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2513
869.834
2513
870.991
2513
873.449
2513.334
872.486
2525.359
868.714
2525.359
872.267
2526.388
871.11
2527.778
872.452
2549.761
873.389
2552.838
871.178
2553.774
873.623
2553.774
869.284
2583.918
873.226
2586.041
871.057
2587.715
873.685
2587.715
869.373
2604.391
869.666
2604.391
871.036
2604.391
873.645
2608.619
873.063
2642.347
870.064
870.82
873.271
873.735
2677.993
872.553
2679.808
870.972
2682.045
869.531
2682.045
873.427
2714.73
873.528
2718.491
870.939
2721.168
869.34
2721.168
873.262
2747.834
873.35
2749.053
869.418
2752.321
870.974
2756.056
873.597
2778.865
873.727
2790.25
869.56
2790.25
873.515
2829.386
869.573
2829.386
873.211
2833.032
870.798
2837.068
873.13
2855.351
873.431
2858.942
870.805
2860.518
869.463
2861.693
873.168
2888.819
873.148
2892.536
870.836
2892.536
869.742
2892.536
873.183
2919.333
870.84
2919.333
872.932

2919.333
2924.183
2944.19
2945.328
2947.401
2947.401
2975.615
2975.615
2978.878
2982.37
2997.657
3000.958
3000.958
3000.958
3027.106
3028.587
3031.836
3031.836
3064.177
3065.68
3067.691
3073.355
3116.413
3120.726
3127.972
3132.029
3132.029
3165.554
3166.929
3168.003
3168.003
3198.711
3199.076
3199.606
3202.861
3222.49
3233.357
3233.357
3233.443
3253.525
3253.525
3253.525
3256.577
3269.67
3270.945
3274.526
3274.526
3298.641
3308.111
3308.111
3308.111
3342.062
3345.168
3345.168
3345.168
3390.501
3394.136
3394.888
3395.849
3428.742
3432.977
3436.213
3436.213
3455.756
3455.756
3458.349
870.686
869.494
869.375
870.55
869.341
870.655
870.662
869.294
869.473
870.664
869.159 870.547
870.617
869.311
870.388
869.715
870.282
868.949
868.752
870.351
870.41
868.395
E :% IWWOI
868.707
870.397
870.335
870.332
869.341
868.305
869.795
868.416
868.06
869.792
869.584
872.579
872.94
872.929
873.106
873.921
873.299
873.064
872.546
872.635
872.755
873.324
872.669 873.121
872.921
872.789
872.625
873.17
873.036
872.787
872.781
872.403
872.948
872.862
872.077
872.749
872.181
872.391
872.488
872.619
872.885
872.185
872.231
872.716
872.669

3463.281
872.069
3477.905
872.516
3482.549
869.67
3484.654
868.265
3486.48
872.236
3502.164
872.278
3502.837
868.591
3506.463
869.613
3509.923
872.371
3540.131
868.637
3540.131
872.574
3540.774
869.636
3541.816
872.046
3581.253
872.043
3581.253
868.705
3581.253
869.727
3585.959
871.885
3624.362
868.063
869.607
872.018
872.127
3645.959
871.547
3651.414
869.315
3656.305
871.843
3656.305
867.927
3689.642
871.02
3690.402
869.437
3691.864
871.684
3691.864
868.289
3733.507
870.489
3734.503
868.412
3735.27
869.454
3736.937
871.895
3771.204
871.766
3773.433
869.284
3775.022
866.773
3775.022
871.661
3796.58
871.764
3796.58
868.033
3800.99
869.334
3809.61
871.827
3842.045
871.697
3846.422
867.239
3849.396
869.245
3851.776
871.856
3852.542
871.853
3854.614
869.314
3857.782
871.512
3857.782
867.277
3886.202
871.72
3886.202
868.41
3886.202
869.371
3888.625
871.782
3921.127
871.815
3924.98
871.673
3924.98
868.049
3926.432
869.274
3950.133
870.699
3952.234
869.105
3953.942
865.614
3955.797
871.768
3979.903
870.605
3980.057
869.19
3981.014
868.189
3981.014
871.853
4009.738
867.862
4009.738
871.625
4011.842
869.03
4013.261
870.474

4040.612
871.493
4040.612
868.084
4043.542
869.006
4043.822
871.477
4072.772
868.001
868.886
872.203
871.526
4107.045
871.547
4110.32
868.977
4113.538
871.162
4113.538
868.109
4130.595
871.303
4135.158
868.955
4138.885
867.348
4138.885
871.065
4163.484
871.002
4164.621
868.919
4168.007
871.24
4168.097
867.176
4193.703
870.536
4195.382
868.802
4201.098
870.931
4201.098
867.098
4233.983
871.422
4233.983
867.989
4236.78
868.816
4240.742
871.06
4262.379
870.961
4262.532
867.981
4263.523
868.825
4264.793
871.074
4288.229
871.215
4294.065
868.85
4294.065
867.828
4294.754
870.832
4310.311
866.952
4310.311
870.62
4312.926
868.862
4315.98
870.448
4340.014
870.991
4344.36
868.716
4348.44
870.645
4348.44
867.422
4374.905
867.622
4374.905
870.753
4379.912
868.662
4383.567
870.753
4420.003
871.019
4421.208
867.867
4421.478
868.792
4423.441
870.937
4437.49
870.54
4440.355
868.764
4443.529
870.246
4443.529
867.111
4466.365
867.33
4466.365
870.541
4470.793
868.758
4474.168
870.59
4504.463
868.743
4509.442
870.582
4509.442
867.319
4521.913
870.741
4525.447
867.468
868.606
870.689
871.075
4564.219
867.323
4564.219
868.605
4564.219
870.789
4571.201
871.533

4577.503 870.379
4580.146 867.877
4580.146 871.322
4580.146 868.61
4599.377 870.641
4602.905 867.937 868.561 869.592
Cross Section / Bank Profile Locations
Name
Min
Avg
Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S riffle
Type
Profile Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Year
3)
Cross
section
1
- Riffle (R2)Riffle xS
2642
(Year
3)
Cross
Section
3
- Pool (R2)Pool XS
3116
(Year
3)
Cross
Section
2
- Pool (R2)Pool XS
3624
(Year
3)
Cross
section
4
- Riffle (R2)Riffle XS
4072
(Year
3)
Cross
Section
5
- Pool (R2)Pool XS
4525
Measurements from Graph
Bankfull Slope: 0.00116
Variable
Min
Avg
Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S riffle
0.00314
0.00568
0.01194
S pool
0
0
0
S run
0
0
0
S glide
0
0
0
P - P
61.25
129.41
200.08
Pool length
20.42
35.18
65.33
Riffle length
22.46
32.26
38.79
Dmax riffle
0
0
0
Dmax pool
0
0
0
Dmax run
0
0
0
Dmax glide
0
0
0
Low bank ht
0
0
0
Length and depth
measurements
in feet,
slopes in ft /ft.
0
RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
Notes
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2
Profile Name: (Year 3) R2 Long. Profile (STA 25 +13 -- 45 +60)
Survey Date: 11/19/2010
DIST Note
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2513
LEW
2526.388
LEW
2552.838
LEW
2586.041
LEW
2604.391
LEW
2642.347
XS1 - TW Intersect @ station 2642
2679.808
LEW
2718.491
LEW
2752.321
LEW
2833.032
LEW
2858.942
LEW
2892.536
LEW
2919.333
LEW
2945.328
LEW
2978.878
LEW

3000.958
LEW
3028.587
LEW
3067.691
LEW
3116.413
XS2
- Tw Intersect @ station 3116
3127.972
LEW
3166.929
LEW
3199.076
LEW
3233.443
LEW
3253.525
LEW
3270.945
LEW
3308.111
LEW
3345.168
LEW
3394.888
LEW
3432.977
LEW
3458.349
LEW
3482.549
LEW
3506.463
LEW
3540.774
LEW
3581.253
LEW
3624.362
XS3
- Tw Intersect @ station 3624
3651.414
LEW
3690.402
LEW
3735.27
LEW
3773.433
LEW
3800.99
LEW
3849.396
LEW
3854.614
LEW
3886.202
LEW
3926.432
LEW
3952.234
LEW
3980.057
LEW
4011.842
LEW
4043.542
LEW
4072.772
XS4
- Tw Intersect @ station 4072
4110.32
LEW
4135.158
LEW
4164.621
LEW
4195.382
LEW
4236.78
LEW
4263.523
LEW
4294.065
LEW
4312.926
LEW
4344.36
LEW
4379.912
LEW
4421.478
LEW
4440.355
LEW
4470.793
LEW
4504.463
LEW
4525.447
XS5
- Tw Intersect @ station 4525
4564.219
LEW
4580.146
LEW

�
N
+
M
O
O
+
O
�
Cc/)
m
O
�
�
�
O
J
Q
N
cr-
Cyr)
cz
¢
�
)uq O
CD
Rl
«e.
§
ScN
t\ \/
Mk/
723
t\\/
k2
Cc c:
\ \
k
a.
E
ca
2
�
2
§
2
¢
co
D �
M
o •
k
U)
0
§

RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2A
Profile Name: (Year 3) R2A Long. Profile (STA 0 +00 -- 3 +26)
survey Date: 01/19/2011
Survey Data
DIST
CH
WS BKF
LB
RB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
874.449
0
877.113
0.157
876.887
0.295
876.057
10.55
876.823
10.946
877.378
11.503
875.005
11.661
876.118
21.753
876.805
22.299
875.125
22.299
876.082
25.484
877.149
40.891
875.987
41.93
876.948
41.93
874.902
46.612
876.948
49.095
876.987
51.277
875.185
51.943
876.034
52.155
877.117
63.589
875.917
63.589
874.891
63.589
876.97
66.304
877
76.745
876.667
78.276
875.656
79.771
874.507
79.8
876.884
87.47
874.113
87.47
877.002
88.148
875.655
90.897
876.906
94.397
876.641
94.698
874.161
94.981
875.666
100.241
875.45
100.241
876.291
100.241
874.1
103.015
876.66
124.478
873.818
874.927
875.912
876.191
142.082
873.715
142.082
876.08
142.505
874.481
143.171
875.86
151.53
875.819
155.677
873.147
155.677
874.406
155.677
875.664
168.355
874.164
168.842
876.007

168.842 872.893
170.417
0
875.569
182.4
873.356
Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S riffle
0
182.497
0
874.093
0
0
182.515
S run
0
0
875.342
183.511
0
0
875.342
P- P
197.549
0
0
875.467
0
198.161
0
874.248
0
0
198.534
872.818
0
0
0
198.534
875.112
211.425
875.268
214.915
872.712
215.015
874.771
215.667
873.974
226.177
873.716
226.177
874.65
226.177
872.577
230.893
874.84
241.876
874.365
243.176
873.25
243.912
874.319
243.912
872.369
256.015
874.317
258.712
871.94 ,
259.488
873.179
260.368
874.021
270.245
874.202
273.906
872.237
273.906
873.882
274.558
287.185
873.687
287.745
872.357
287.856
872.627
289.079
874.319
297.85
871.834
297.85
873.396
298.306
873.641
298.484
872.744
310.486
870.873
311.484
872.462
315.204
874.69
316.786
873.868
317.284
873.861
318.497
871.367
Cross Section / Bank Profile Locations
Name Type Profile Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Year 3) Cross Section 6 - Riffle (R2A)Riffle XS 124
Measurements from Graph
Bankfull slope:
0
variable
Min
Avg
Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S riffle
0
0
0
S pool
0
0
0
S run
0
0
0
S glide
0
0
0
P- P
0
0
0
Pool length
0
0
0
Riffle length
0
0
0
Amax riffle
0
0
0

Dmax pool
0
0
0
Dmax run
0
0
0
Dmax glide
0
0
0
Low bank ht
0
0
0
Length and
depth
measurements in
feet, slopes in ft /ft.
D
XS6 - TW Intersect @ station 124.478
142.505
LEW
155.677
LEW
RIVERMORPH
PROFILE SUMMARY
Notes
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2A
Profile Name: (Year 3) R2A Long. Profile (STA 0 +00 -- 3 +26)
Survey Date: 01/19/2011
DIST Note
0.295
LEW
11.661
LEW
22.299
LEW
40.891
LEW
51.943
LEW
63.589
LEW
78.276
LEW
88.148
LEW
94.981
LEW
100.241
LEW
124.478
XS6 - TW Intersect @ station 124.478
142.505
LEW
155.677
LEW
168.355
LEW
182.497
LEW
198.161
LEW
215.667
LEW
226.177
LEW
243.176
LEW
259.488
LEW
274.558
LEW
287.856
LEW
298.484
LEW
311.484
LEW

00
T
LO
M
a
U)
O
L
c
C
O
J
m
N
M
L
cz
a)
w
0
L
O<
O
(14) UOIILIAG13
O
O
O
r
O
O
0
N
0
0
m 0) i
Ir O m
N R
f0 p) Q 000
•
me
07
IZ O m
^a +
rnF
`m M. o
dc +
} J T
m
N N
m = m
° a rn
mc
of Q oo
d cF +
J m
E
co
CD
co
0)
C
ca
Qi
U
C
� o
m
J
<L
Y
m
O D.
O
O
In
O
2
U
Cl
rn
Go

RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
River Name: Little White Oak Creek (Year 2)
Reach Name: R2B
Profile Name: (Year 2) R2B Long. Profile (STA 9 +35 -- 14 +86)
survey Date: 11/18/2009
Survey Data
DIST CH WS BKF LB RB P3 P4
924.61 877.23
924.61
878.28
924.61
877.98
925.679
878.11
933.761
877.87
935.004
877.49
935.004
878.13
936.758
878.45
941.173
878.31
943.268
877.58
943.795
877.79
945.385
877.7
945.857
877.43
953.135
878.64
955.511
878.3
958.117
877.31
958.58
876.96
965.379
878.43
967.252
876.81
968.21
877.26
972.1
878.17
973.197
878.17
976.199
877.17
977.147
876.99
981.288
878.19
987.126
877.99
988.087
877.06
988.183
876.57
990.685
877.66
998.28
877
998.579
876.49
998.862
877.44
1002.065
877.58
1007.894
877.52
1008.257
876.98
1008.503
876.63
1015.368
876.87
1016.127
876.55
1016.51
877.37
1017.003
877.59
1028.669
876.51
1028.721
876.23
1028.721
876.96
1034.535
877.52
1035.896
876.34
1036.589
876.22
1042.318
876.98
1044.857
876.84
1044.857
875.75
1045.16
875.98

1051.886
876.43
1052.112
875.8
1053.059
875.62
1054.044
876.51
1064.07
876.46
1064.07
875.41
1064.171
875.77
1065.01
876.91
1076.668
876
1080.245
875.41
1080.245
876.07
1080.245
875.59
1092.231
876.05
1095.112
874.78
1095.112
875.79
1095.191
875.25
1104.18
876.21
1104.557
875.11
1106.005
874.66
1106.005
875.65
1118.173
875.13
1118.173
876.46
1118.173
874.53
1121.504
876.08
1125.567
876.12
1129.724
876.07
1129.724
874.5
1129.724
875
1137.277
876.03
1138.117
874.82
1138.117
874.44
1139.334
875.92
1149.049
875.7
1150.107
874.37
1151.385
874.71
1151.478
875.74
1163.11
875.23
1164.93
874.67
1169.904
874.07
1169.904
875.28
1177.929
874.63
1179.61
875.21
1179.841
874.18
1183.142
875.2
1192.223
874.81
1192.323
874.52
1193.25
874.1
1193.729
875.01
1206.618
874.93
1207.98
873.86
1208.38
875.04
1209.471
874.23
1217.616
873.71
1217.616
875.11
1217.616
874.18
1219.635
874.8
1229.62
874.12
1229.62
874.4
1229.62
873.93
1230.876
874.46
1242.49
874.17
1243.605
873.43
1243.605
873.17
1243.605
874.12
1254.865
873.36
1255.71
873.95

1255.71 872.9
1256.951
873.96
1263.43
873.97
1263.43
872.89
1265.268
873.26
1268.413
873.9
1269.283
873.99
1278.311
873.7
1279.697
873.1
1279.798
873.67
1279.798
872.84
1295.728
872.79
1297.505
873.28
1297.505
872.21
1301.036
873.64
1311.743
873.3
1315.122
873.37
1315.122
872.44
1315.142
872.73
1328.975
871.88
872.14 872.73
872.71
1340.098
872.87
1340.623
871.84
1341.215
872.04
1342.305
872.59
1349.141
872.9
1349.141
871.48
1349.81
871.64
1352.01
872.45
1360.588
871.05
1360.958
870.88
1361.215
871.76
1361.74
871.94
1375.751
870.08
1375.751
871.29
1376.583
870.45
1377.717
871.61
1386.652
871.49
1389.809
870.9
1390.288
870.56
1390.288
869.99
1401.083
870.1
1401.288
870.95
1401.304
870.26
1404.106
871.14
1413.858
870.78
1415.061
870.09
1415.603
869.51
1415.603
870.87
1425.579
870.98
1428.077
869.21
1433.106
870.54
1433.565
869.92
1442.854
870
1443.387
869.34
1446.568
870.34
1448.881
870.02
1468.562
870.52
1470.06
870.02
1470.809
868.95
870.15
1476.969
866.12
cross section / Bank
Profile Locations
Name
Type
Profile Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Year 2)
cross Section
7 - Riffle
(R2B)Riffle
xS 1328

Measurements from Graph
Bankfull slope: 0.01641
Variable
Min
Avg
Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S riffle
0.01252
0.03485
0.04758
S pool
0
0
0
S run
0
0
0
S glide
0
0
0
P - P
30.37
42.24
55.12
Pool length
13.5
17.51
23.62
Riffle length
5.06
7.76
10.69
Dmax riffle
0
0
0
Dmax pool
0
0
0
Dmax run
0
0
0
Dmax glide
0
0
0
Low bank ht
0
0
0
Length and depth
measurements
in feet,
slopes in ft /ft.
0
REW
1243.605
REW
RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
Notes
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 2)
Reach Name: R2B
Profile Name: (Year 2) R2B Long. Profile (STA 9 +35 -- 14 +86)
survey Date: 11/18/2009
DIST Note
----------------------------------------------------------------------
924.61
REW
933.761
REW
943.795
REW
945.385
REW
958.117
REW
968.21
REW
976.199
REW
988.087
REW
998.28
REW
1008.257
REW
1015.368
REW
1028.669
REW
1035.896
REW
1045.16
REW
1052.112
REW
1064.171
REW
1080.245
REW
1095.191
REW
1104.557
REW
1118.173
REW
1129.724
REW
1138.117
REW
1151.385
REW
1164.93
REW
1177.929
REW
1192.323
REW
1209.471
REW
1217.616
REW
1229.62
REW
1243.605
REW
1254.865
REW

1265.268
REW
1279.697
REW
1295.728
REW
1315.142
REW
1328.975
XS7
1341.215
REW
1349.81
REW
1360.588
REW
1376.583
REW
1390.288
REW
1401.304
REW
1415.061
REW
1433.565
REW
1448.881
REW
1470.06
REW
- TW Intersect @ station 1328

AV I
1
1
1
�M
W
N
Q
F-
N
O
1`
CL
C
O
J
N
Cl)
L
cz
04
O
O♦
a
d
1`
W
n
W
(14) UOIIEA913
0
0
0
0
n°
O
O
(D
O
0
LO
0
0 a> I
¢ 'a Op
N (L N _
N C U
U) I
} J I +
•
O co
N p�
3—
O
N _
6 O 000
O IL N
% O ~ +
E
co
m
L
cn
0)
c
0
a)
U
C
fib
m
6 ¢
0
m
J
LL
Y
m
O �
O
C.)
m
3
0
x
U
•
0
0
N
O
00 co

RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2D
Profile Name: (Year 3) R2D Long. Profile (STA 2 +84 -- 7 +79)
Survey Date: 11/19/2010
Survey Data
DIST
CH
WS BKF
LB
RB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
276.5
869.371
276.5
869.996
276.5
870.904
278.759
870.852
290.016
869.607
869.955
870.488
870.636
298.559
870.704
299.905
870.437
300.239
869.908
300.403
869.442
308.902
868.723
308.902
870.213
310.758
869.863
313.312
870.753
330.559
870.763
331.716
869.782
331.788
869.502
333.038
870.751
347.678
870.301
347.678
868.804
348.118
869.751
349.219
870.109
359.131
868.952
359.131
870.006
359.331
869.696
364.333
870.502
376.003
870.043
378.023
869.656
378.144
869.222
378.555
869.92
391.534
869.874
393.84
868.909
393.84
869.938
394.041
869.243
404.799
869.688
405.936
869.106
-
406.049
869.602
406.049
868.794
418.274
868.567
418.274
869.637
418.416
868.946
419.683
869.346
433.053
869.48
437.601
867.923
437.601
869.187
437.673
868.59
448.187
869.046
448.761
868.599
448.889
868.017
449.95
869.105
461.898
868.048

462.023
868.389
462.084
868.811
464.746
869.129
471.737
868.989
471.737
867.863
471.799
868.157
473.926
868.74
480.264
868.824
483.534
867.992
483.878
868.753
483.878
867.287
495.885
867.808
495.885
867.491
496.197
868.475
497.293
868.629
511.558
868.23
511.558
867.287
511.634
867.61
513.324
868.024
520.661
868.066
521.71
867.108
521.856
867.829
521.856
866.796
535.383
866.514
535.383
867.367
535.797
866.774
537.972
868.134
547.702
866.875
548.054
867.459
548.054
866.755
550.099
867.733
554.242
867.526
554.557
866.237
554.665
865.293
555.219
867.722
561.849
867.544
563.333
865.254
563.375
866.231
563.415
867.23
563.834
867.36
567.536
866.2
569.477
865.658
569.477
867.41
569.477
867.076
573.034
865.76
573.317
866.155
587.857
866.507
588.3
866.777
588.409
866.013
588.608
865.736
609.591
865.662
609.695
865.878
609.695
865.387
614.734
866.132
625.257
866.12
628.543
866.089
628.543
865.502
628.543
865.186
638.94
865.484
639.359
866.028
639.366
865.176
641.905
865.989
646.268
865.513
646.588
865.894
647.413
865.026
648.452
866.046

659.331
Min Avg
865.415
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S riffle
0
659.44
865.057
S pool
0
0
659.44
S run
0
866.13
0
662.366
0
0
0
865.968
669.849
0
0
865.786
0
670.5
865.002
Riffle length
0
0
670.708
Amax riffle
865.173
0
0
670.894
0
0
0
865.845
682.312
0
0
Amax glide
866.044
682.312
864.159
Low bank ht
0
0
682.611
Length and depth
864.87
measurements in
feet, slopes in ft /ft.
686.193
866.009
696.493
RIVERMORPH
PROFILE SUMMARY
865.779
697.906
864.556
698.017
864.744
699.132
865.719
711.112
865.364
712.439
864.477
712.439
865.333
712.511
864.554
722.905
865.233
722.905
864.083
723.453
864.45
724.203
865.338
732.937
864.799
732.954
865.237
733.409
864.081
733.508
864.222
735.848
865.483
736.136
862.683
736.201
863.704
736.419
864.963
742.222
865.424
747.982
865.428
748.193
863.155
863.496
cross section / Bank Profile Locations
Name Type Profile Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Year 3) Cross Section 8 - Riffle (R2o)Riffle XS 335
Measurements from Graph
Bankfull Slope: 0
Variable
Min Avg
Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S riffle
0
0
0
S pool
0
0
0
S run
0
0
0
S glide
0
0
0
P- P
0
0
0
Pool length
0
0
0
Riffle length
0
0
0
Amax riffle
0
0
0
Amax pool
0
0
0
Amax run
0
0
0
Amax glide
0
0
0
Low bank ht
0
0
0
Length and depth
measurements in
feet, slopes in ft /ft.
0
RIVERMORPH
PROFILE SUMMARY
Notes

River Name: Little white Oak creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2D
Profile Name: (Year 3) R2D Long. Profile (STA 2 +84 -- 7 +79) S
Survey Date: 11/19/2010
DIST Note
276.5
LEW
290.016
xS8 - Tw Intersect @ station 290
300.239
LEW
310.758
LEW
331.716
LEW
348.118
LEW
359.331
LEW
378.023
LEW
394.041
LEW
405.936
LEW
418.416
LEW
437.673
LEW
448.761
LEW
462.023
LEW
471.799
LEW
483.534
LEW
495.885
LEW
511.634
LEW
521.71
LEW
535.797
LEW
547.702
LEW
554.557
LEW
563.375
LEW
567.536
LEW
573.317
LEW
588.409
LEW
609.591
LEW
628.543
LEW
638.94
LEW
646.268
LEW
659.331
LEW
670.708
LEW
682.611
LEW
698.017
LEW
712.511
LEW
723.453
LEW
733.508
LEW
736.201
LEW

L
O)
C
U-
C:
N
U
i
U
d
(Year 3) R1 Reachwide Pebble Count
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
♦ (Year 3) R1 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
♦ (Year 0) R1 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
♦ (Year 1) R1 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
• (Year 2) Rt Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)

River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
Size (mm)
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Little white
R1
(Year 3) R1
11/03/2010
Oak Creek (Year 3)
Reachwide Pebble Count
TOT # ITEM % CUM
0 - 0.062
24
23.53
23.53
0.062 - 0.125
1
0.98
24.51
0.125 - 0.25
9
8.82
33.33
0.25 - 0.50
14
13.73
47.06
0.50 - 1.0
13
12.75
59.80
1.0 - 2.0
17
16.67
76.47
2.0 - 4.0
1
0.98
77.45
4.0 - 5.7
4
3.92
81.37
5.7 - 8.0
6
5.88
87.25
8.0 - 11.3
6
5.88
93.14
11.3 - 16.0
4
3.92
97.06
16.0 - 22.6
3
2.94
100.00
22.6 - 32.0
0
0.00
100.00
32 - 45
0
0.00
100.00
45 - 64
0
0.00
100.00
64 - 90
0
0.00
100.00
90 - 128
0
0.00
100.00
128 - 180
0
0.00
100.00
180 - 256
0
0.00
100.00
256 - 362
0
0.00
100.00
362 - 512
0
0.00
100.00
512 - 1024
0
0.00
100.00
1024 - 2048
0
0.00
100.00
Bedrock
0
0.00
100.00
D16 (mm)
0.04
D35 (mm)
0.28
D50 (mm)
0.62
D84 (mm)
6.73
D95 (mm)
13.53
D100 (mm)
22.6
Silt /Clay (%)
23.53
Sand (%)
52.94
Gravel (%)
23.53
cobble (%)
0
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total Particles = 102.

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: RlA
Sample Name: (Year 3) RlA Reachwide Pebble Count
Survey Date: 11/03/2010
Size (mm)
TOT #
ITEM %
CUM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 - 0.062
39
78.00
78.00
0.062 - 0.125
0
0.00
78.00
0.125 - 0.25
5
10.00
88.00
0.25 - 0.50
3
6.00
94.00
0.50 - 1.0
1
2.00
96.00
1.0 - 2.0
2
4.00
100.00
2.0 - 4.0
0
0.00
100.00
4.0 - 5.7
0
0.00
100.00
5.7 - 8.0
0
0.00
100.00
8.0 - 11.3
0
0.00
100.00
11.3 - 16.0
0
0.00
100.00
16.0 - 22.6
0
0.00
100.00
22.6 - 32.0
0
0.00
100.00
32 - 45
0
0.00
100.00
45 - 64
0
0.00
100.00
64 - 90
0
0.00
100.00
90 - 128
0
0.00
100.00
128 - 180
0
0.00
100.00
180 - 256
0
0.00
100.00
256 - 362
0
0.00
100.00
362 - 512
0
0.00
100.00
512 - 1024
0
0.00
100.00
1024 - 2048
0
0.00
100.00
Bedrock
0
0.00
100.00
D16 (mm)
0.01
D35 (mm)
0.03
D50 (mm)
0.04
D84 (mm)
0.2
D95 (mm)
0.75
D100 (mm)
2
silt /Clay ( %)
78
sand ( %)
22
Gravel (%)
0
Cobble (%)
0
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total Particles = 50 (need at least 60).

L
U
C
LL
C
U
L
^CD
I -
(Year 3) R2 Reachwide Pebble Count
Particle Size (mm)
♦ (Year 3) R2 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
♦ (Year 0) R2 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
♦ (Year 1) R2 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
• (Year 2) R2 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2
sample Name: (Year 3) R2 Reachwide Pebble count
Survey Date: 11/03/2010
Size (mm)
TOT #
ITEM %
CUM
---------------------------------------------------
0 - 0.062
19
19.00
19.00
0.062 - 0.125
4
4.00
23.00
0.125 - 0.25
10
10.00
33.00
0.25 - 0.50
21
21.00
54.00
0.50 - 1.0
11
11.00
65.00
1.0 - 2.0
11
11.00
76.00
2.0 - 4.0
3
3.00
79.00
4.0 - 5.7
5
5.00
84.00
5.7 - 8.0
4
4.00
88.00
8.0 - 11.3
5
5.00
93.00
11.3 - 16.0
4
4.00
97.00
16.0 - 22.6
1
1.00
98.00
22.6 - 32.0
2
2.00
100.00
32 - 45
0
0.00
100.00
45 - 64
0
0.00
100.00
64 - 90
0
0.00
100.00
90 - 128
0
0.00
100.00
128 - 180
0
0.00
100.00
180 - 256
0
0.00
100.00
256 - 362
0
0.00
100.00
362 - 512
0
0.00
100.00
512 - 1024
0
0.00
100.00
1024 - 2048
0
0.00
100.00
Bedrock
0
0.00
100.00
D16 (mm)
0.05
D35 (mm)
0.27
D50 (mm)
0.45
D84 (mm)
5.7
D95 (mm)
13.65
D100 (mm)
32
Silt /Clay ( %)
19
sand (%)
57
Gravel ( %)
24
cobble (%)
0
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total Particles = 100.

N
C
IL
C
U
(Year 3) R2A Reachwide Pebble Count
Particle Size (mm)
♦ (Year 3) R2A Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
♦ (Year 0) R2A Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
♦ (Year 1) R2A Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
• (Year 2) R2A Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2A
Sample Name: (Year 3) R2A Reachwide Pebble Count
survey Date: 11/03/2010
size (mm)
TOT #
ITEM %
CUM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 - 0.062
29
58.00
58.00
0.062 - 0.125
0
0.00
58.00
0.125 - 0.25
5
10.00
68.00
0.25 - 0.50
0
0.00
68.00
0.50 - 1.0
1
2.00
70.00
1.0 - 2.0
2
4.00
74.00
2.0 - 4.0
0
0.00
74.00
4.0 - 5.7
1
2.00
76.00
5.7 - 8.0
1
2.00
78.00
8.0 - 11.3
3
6.00
84.00
11.3 - 16.0
3
6.00
90.00
16.0 - 22.6
3
6.00
96.00
22.6 - 32.0
2
4.00
100.00
32 - 45
0
0.00
100.00
45 - 64
0
0.00
100.00
64 - 90
0
0.00
100.00
90 - 128
0
0.00
100.00
128 - 180
0
0.00
100.00
180 - 256
0
0.00
100.00
256 - 362
0
0.00
100.00
362 - 512
0
0.00
100.00
512 - 1024
0
0.00
100.00
1024 - 2048
0
0.00
100.00
Bedrock
0
0.00
100.00
D16 (mm)
0.02
D35 (mm)
0.04
D50 (mm)
0.05
D84 (mm)
11.3
D95 (mm)
21.5
D100 (mm)
32
silt /Clay (%)
58
sand ( %)
16
Gravel ( %)
26
Cobble ( %)
0
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock ( %)
0
Total Particles = 50 (need at least 60).

U
C
LL
C
U
U
d
(Year 3) R213 Reachwide Pebble Count
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
♦ (Year 3) R2B Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
♦ (Year 0) R2B Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
♦ (Year 1) R28 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
• (Year 2) R21B Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2B
sample Name: (Year 3) R2B Reachwide Pebble Count
Survey Date: 11/03/2010
Size (mm)
TOT #
ITEM %
CUM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 - 0.062
50
100.00
100.00
0.062 - 0.125
0
0.00
100.00
0.125 - 0.25
0
0.00
100.00
0.25 - 0.50
0
0.00
100.00
0.50 - 1.0
0
0.00
100.00
1.0 - 2.0
0
0.00
100.00
2.0 - 4.0
0
0.00
100.00
4.0 - 5.7
0
0.00
100.00
5.7 - 8.0
0
0.00
100.00
8.0 - 11.3
0
0.00
100.00
11.3 - 16.0
0
0.00
100.00
16.0 - 22.6
0
0.00
100.00
22.6 - 32.0
0
0.00
100.00
32 - 45
0
0.00
100.00
45 - 64
0
0.00
100.00
64 - 90
0
0.00
100.00
90 - 128
0
0.00
100.00
128 - 180
0
0.00
100.00
180 - 256
0
0.00
100.00
256 - 362
0
0.00
100.00
362 - 512
0
0.00
100.00
512 - 1024
0
0.00
100.00
1024 - 2048
0
0.00
100.00
Bedrock
0
0.00
100.00
D16 (mm)
0.01
D35 (mm)
0.02
D50 (mm)
0.03
D84 (mm)
0.05
D95 (mm)
0.06
D100 (mm)
0.06
silt /Clay (%)
100
sand ( %)
0
Gravel (%)
0
Cobble (%)
0
Boulder (%)
0
Bedrock (%)
0
Total Particles = 50 (need at least 60).

L
U
C
LL
C
0)
U
L
a_
(Year 3) R2D Reachwide Pebble Count
Particle Size (mm)
00
♦ (Year 3) R21D Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
♦ (Year 0) R21) Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
♦ (Year t) R2D Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
• (Year 2) R2D Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 3)
Reach Name: R2D
Sample Name: (Year 3) R2D Reachwide Pebble Count
Survey Date: 11/03/2010
Size (mm)
TOT #
ITEM %
CUM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 - 0.062
46
92.00
92.00
0.062 - 0.125
0
0.00
92.00
0.125 - 0.25
2
4.00
96.00
0.25 - 0.50
0
0.00
96.00
0.50 - 1.0
2
4.00
100.00
1.0 - 2.0
0
0.00
100.00
2.0 - 4.0
0
0.00
100.00
4.0 - 5.7
0
0.00
100.00
5.7 - 8.0
0
0.00
100.00
8.0 - 11.3
0
0.00
100.00
11.3 - 16.0
0
0.00
100.00
16.0 - 22.6
0
0.00
100.00
22.6 - 32.0
0
0.00
100.00
32 - 45
0
0.00
100.00
45 - 64
0
0.00
100.00
64 - 90
0
0.00
100.00
90 - 128
0
0.00
100.00
128 - 180
0
0.00
100.00
180 - 256
0
0.00
100.00
256 - 362
0
0.00
100.00
362 - 512
0
0.00
100.00
512 - 1024
0
0.00
100.00
1024 - 2048
0
0.00
100.00
Bedrock
0
0.00
100.00
D16 (mm)
0.01
D35 (mm)
0.02
D50 (mm)
0.03
D84 (mm)
0.06
D95 (mm)
0.22
D100 (mm)
1
Silt /Clay ( %)
92
Sand M
8
Gravel M
0
cobble M
0
Boulder M
0
Bedrock M
0
Total Particles = 50 (need at least 60).

z
E
m
�
E
7
S
:
@
§
m
3
o
I
I
E
3$
�
\
\
�
k
\
�
�
\ R
\
f
�
<
<
E
/
Q
%
i
§
�
$ k
�
j /
&� 2
CO
CO
CO
CO)
m
CO
CO
_ \
»
■
a
6
0
\
9
a @
^
\
CD
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0\
C
\
0
} 0
G
J
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0)
m
\
0 C
E
C)
{ ƒ
2
3
E )
E
q
�
6
\
\
cn
2
, \
=
0
a
§
I
\ 0
f �
_
G
cz
E
§
_
o
o
/
-6
q
% $
k
> �o
f
ZD
f
o
\
{\ cl
$ f
00
<
<
<
«
«
«
<
<
0 2
E
\
2
2
2
y
2
2
z—
\
2
.2 0
/
nE
§
D §®
f
z
3
q%
\
L
o
%
\/
)
f
0
\\
a) 2
o
w
3
w
3
a)
�\
\
CL
2
I
%
\
L
E
\
I
$
/
]
\ §
2`
LLI
\ :
:-
c
ClJ
3
%
°
%
q
°f \ 0
lid °
a
w
d
a
3
\
$
3\
2
E
2�
2
q
\
$
2
=cac
/ / {U
�>
L
§b /o
8 (D
.:
0$$2
IL L)
�
■
) = »E
_
C\l
CY)
®
(D
It-
00
i & E
CCU CL
k
co
<E
. .
s 0

4'- M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
..11. f - " Stream Restoration
Year 3 Areas of Concern
Photo 1: Station 3 +75 -R1- looking downstream
Photo 3: Station 12 +10 -Rl- looking downstream
Photo 2: Station 8 +75 -Rl- looking downstream
Photo 4: Station 18 +00 -R1- looking upstream
Photo 5: Station 20 +05 -Rl- looking downstream Photo 6: Station 23 +90 -Rl- looking across channel

--- M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
""" `" ` - ; Stream Restoration
Year 3 Areas of Concern
Photo 7: Station 25 +10 -Rl- looking downstream
Photo 9: Station 29 +75 -Rl- looking across channel
Photo 11: Station 39 +70 -Rl- looking downstream
2
Photo 8: Station 26 +75 -Rl- looking downstream
Photo 10: Station 31 +35 -R1- looking downstream
Photo 12: Station 54 +60 -RI- looking downstream

-�_- M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
" Stream Restoration
Year 3 Areas of Concern
Photo 13: Station 56 +10 -Rl- looking downstream