20070623 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20120221

„yam � E;,' ;s~ �• , ..v v��M z3.� t�. �i � f yt .. ~ �f� �z'! 1 r�” � _ f ��" Y�'k"� �-.+k� � a,�' �"�' � fi� �. �, �,�� wy l � � 1,`i j ,..
tl
;.. ! Y, s S j {v k y i� i 'tip c�.�'� kc s�_'�,�. t ". ?t r w• t
,{y ��` r 'k•t. �{f '`k ..,L` � i;Sk�`'� tfk�� -J; 1 a /��� � L;1 � � {�. �` ��; T ����yA:, #�:i� tl Year 1

Owner NCDENR
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1652 Mail Service Center
,los Stem Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
L,11 lal LCI11eil�
rnocawM
EEP Project Manager: Guy Pearce
Phone: [phone]
Design and Monitoring Firm
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
4-- M U L K O EY 6750 Tryon Road
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 February 2012
Strewn Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary ........................................ ............................... 1
2.0
Project Background ............................................ ...............................
3
2.1
Project Location and Setting
3
2.2
Project Goals and Objectives
3
2.3
Project Restoration Approach and Mitigation Type
4
2.4
Project History
5
2.5
Project Monitoring Plan View
5
3.0
Project Condition and Monitoring Results .............. ...............................
6
3.1
Project Vegetation Monitoring
6
3.1.1
Vegetation Monitoring Methodology
6
3.1.2
Vegetation Monitoring Success Criteria
7
3.1.3
Vegetation Monitoring Results for Year 1 of 5
8
3.1.4
Vegetation Monitoring Results for Year 2 of 5
8
3.1.5
Vegetation Monitoring Results for Year 3 of 5
9
3.1.6
Vegetation Monitoring Results for Year 4 of 5
10
3.2
Project Stream Monitoring
10
3.2.1
Stream Monitoring Methodology
10
3.2.2
Stream Monitoring Success Criteria
13
3.2.3
Stream Monitoring Results for Year 1 of 5
15
3.2.4
Stream Monitoring Results for Year 2 of 5
15
3.2.5
Stream Monitoring Results for Year 3 of 5
20
3.2.6
Stream Monitoring Results for Year 4 of 5
23
4.0
Project Monitoring Methodology ............................ ...............................
26
5.0
References ......................................................... .............................27
Figures
Tables
Figure 1. Location Map
Table I.
Table II.
Table III.
Table IV.
Table V.
Table VI.
Table VII.
Table VIII
Table IX.
Table X.
Table XI.
Table XII.
Appendices
Project Restoration Approach and Mitigation Type
Project Activity and Reporting History
Project Contacts
Project Background
Stem Counts Monitoring Year 4 for Each Species Arranged by Plot
Vegetative Problem Areas
Baseline Morphology and Hydraulic Summary
Morphology and Hydraulic Monitoring Summary
BEHI and Sediment Transport Estimates
Verification of Bankfull Events
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Stream Problem Areas
Appendix A. Monitoring Plan View

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of S)
Appendix B. Vegetation Plot Photos
Appendix C. Reference Point Photos
Appendix D. Cross Section Photos
Appendix E. Raw Data

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
1.0 Executive Summary
This annual monitoring report details the fourth 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 Februmy 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 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.
Mulkey relocated portions of the fence surrounding the easement around LWOC during the
Spring of 2010. 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. On February 23, 2011, woody vegetation was
planted within the new areas created by fence relocation.
During the middle of October 2011, the vegetation monitoring for Monitoring Year 4 was
conducted using the methodologies described above, including stem counts, photo
documentation, and visual assessment. The stem counts resulted in the 325 stems being
counted in 24 vegetation plots. These plots have a survivability of planted woody stems
ranging from 327 to 917 stems per acre. The survival level of the planted woody vegetation
at LWOC was maintained from Year 3 to Year 4. The site is on track to meet the success
criteria established for Year 5 described above. Visual comparison of the vegetation plot
and permanent photos clearly show the significant growth that has taken place over the last 4
years. The project -wide visual assessment also confirmed a sustained growth 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. BEHI information was not collected during the current year since it
is only required during Monitoring Years 3 and 5. Stream restoration success at LWOC was
evaluated by comparison of the annual monitoring results against those same parameters as
W

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of S)
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.
During the early months of 2011, repairs were conducted on the floodplain benches and
terraces of R1 and R2 following a large flood event in 2010. These repairs were highly
successful in improving the benches and terraces throughout these two reaches. Visual
assessments of these areas do not show any future areas of concern.
During November 2011, the stream monitoring for Monitoring Year 4 was conducted using
the methodologies described above. The stream dimension, pattern, and profile remained
consistent with the 3 previous years' data and continue to remain within the tolerances of the
design parameters. All reaches have maintained stable C type stream channels throughout
the past 4 years of monitoring. Bed materials have also remained stable with only slight
fluctuations; however one reach experienced significant coarsening over the last monitoring
period. The compilation of four years of monitoring data strongly suggests that the LWOC
project is trending toward a restored, stable stream system.
Therefore, based on the positive trends from the Year 4 monitoring data, Mulkey does not
propose any actions other than to proceed with the final year of monitoring.
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
3

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
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.
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,
RIA, R2 Upper, and R2 Lower) was a C5 channel. A combination of Priority Level I and 11
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 II 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
m

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
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 Piedmont /Low 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.
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:
5

Little White Oak- Creek Annual Monitoring Report
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of S)
Restored stream channel thalweg, normal edges
channel limits, and the constructed cut slope limits
Conservation easement boundaries
Permanent fencing limits
Topography
In- stream structures
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
February 2012
of water, constructed bankfull
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
0

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
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
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 2.5Y 1, 3.5Y 1, and 8.5Y 1) 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
7

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
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.
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 I 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

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
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
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 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 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
W

Little "ite Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
annual vegetation monitoring. The only additional plantings that will be utilized are
associated with the repair work discussed in Section 3.2.5.
3.1.6 Vegetation Monitoring Results for Year 4 of 5
During October 2011, the vegetation monitoring for Monitoring Year 4 was conducted. The
methodologies described in the Vegetation Monitoring Methodology Section were used for
the vegetation monitoring at LWOC for Monitoring Year 4. Stem counts were conducted at
each of the 24 vegetation plots and Table V presents the results for each of the plots. This
table includes and compares the results of the initial stem counts from the original planting
through 5 years of monitoring. 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 the permanent photo reference points for the current and previous years, showing
reachwide views of the woody vegetation growth across the entire site. 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 4 stem counts continue to display good survivability in
all 24 vegetation plots with the counts ranging from 327 to 917 stems per acre with an
average survivability of 553 stems per acre. Therefore survivability of the planted woody
vegetation at LWOC is on track to meet the success criteria outlined for Year 5 (Section
3.1.2.). In Year 4, 325 stems were tallied, which represents a 71% survival rate since the
site was planted. Additional uncounted volunteer woody species were also observed at all of
the 24 vegetation plots. A comparison of the Monitoring Year 4 photos to those previously
collected suggests that the vegetation is growing exceptionally well. Live stake vegetation
has continued to exceed growth expectations. The bare root material is becoming more
dominant within the plant community with some species reaching 10 to 15 feet in height.
Briers and grasses still comprise large portions of several vegetation plots, making them
difficult to navigate during monitoring. The project -wide visual assessment indicated a
positive growth trend and did not find any concerns or problem areas throughout the site.
Based on the results of the vegetation monitoring for Monitoring Year 4 at LWOC, Mulkey
does not propose any additional recommendations or actions other than to proceed with the
annual vegetation monitoring.
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
10

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report Februauy 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
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 (USAGE 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 R1A — 500 Linear Feet Total (Stations 0 +00 -R1A- through 5 +00 -R1A -)
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 R213 — 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
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
11

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
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 was 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, R2B, and R213). 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
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
12

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
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 R1 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.
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
13

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
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
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
14

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
monitoring criteria, corrective actions was considered.
documented and discussed with EEP.
3.2.3 Stream Monitoring Results for Year 1 of 5
Fcbruaiy 2012
Such modifications were
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 I stream pattern 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 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
15

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
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
stage were the crest gages at Reaches R2A and R21). 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
16

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
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 3.5Y 1 for Reach R213, and photo point 8.5Y 1 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 (Cornus amomum) live stakes were harvested on-
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,
17

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of S)
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, R2B, and R21) consistently exhibited minor natural adjustments
typical of stable C type streams. The comparisons of the Monitoring Year 2 overlays and
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 year's 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.
18

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of S)
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
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 R213. 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 R21) 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
19

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
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
R1, 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 R 1 A. The restoration of Reach R 1 A 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.
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
20

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Pear 4 of 5)
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 are 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 stonn 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
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 RI (13), R213 (7) and R21) (8) show no significant change in shape or
form. The cross sections along RI (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
21

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of S)
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. R213 displayed consistent bed slope and bed form
thus indicating a balance reached between stream power and sediment transport. Therefore
all of the reaches except R213 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
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 the 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.
PIa

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report Februaiy 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of S)
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.
3.2.6 Stream Monitoring Results for Year 4 of 5
During the early months of 2011, repairs were conducted on the floodplain benches and
terraces of R1 and R2. These repairs involved reshaping portions of the benches and
terraces, installation of live brush mattresses, temporary and permanent reseeding and the
installation of erosion control matting. Following these improvements, bare root plants and
live stake material were installed in areas impacted by the repair work.
During November 2011, the stream monitoring for Monitoring Year 4 was conducted using
the methodologies described above. During initial site investigations, Mulkey noticed that
beaver activity had returned to the R1 and R2 reaches. Since Mulkey is currently contracted
with the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Wildlife Services, it
immediately notified them of the activity. Stream surveys of the RI, R2, and R2A reaches
was challenging due to the increased water levels. These fluctuations are noticeable
throughout the current years' data for these reaches. Immediately following our stream
surveys, personnel from APHIS trapped beavers and removed their dams. Mulkey will
continue to monitor the site for beaver activity and notify APHIS personnel as necessary.
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 4 with all of the previous monitoring years at each of the 13 cross sections. Appendix
E provides an overlay of the Monitoring Year 4, the previous monitoring periods, and
baseline conditions along with the raw data for each cross section. The comparison of
Monitoring Year 4 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 4. 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. Cross section 12 located on the R1 reach is
continuing to recover from scour associated with beaver dams in Year 2. The bankfull
maximum depth for Cross Section 12 is continuing to decrease and move closer to the
design parameters. 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 only exception was Cross
Section 1 which has a width to depth ratio of 20.4. After review of the previous years' cross
23

Little White Oak Creek- Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
sections, the bankfull width has remained constant but the bankfull maximum depth has
fluctuated. The increased bankfull maximum depth is likely related to beaver activity and
associated scour from cascading water. Since the site is under management for beaver
activity by APHIS, the situation is currently being addressed. 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 4 overlays and
cross sectional photos to the previous year's strongly substantiated these findings. No other
concerns, problems, or negative trends were documented except the issues discussed above.
The pattern for all of the stream reaches was surveyed to measure the parameters of
sinuosity, belt width, radius of curvature, meander wavelength, and meander width ratio.
The results of the pattern surveys are presented in Table VIII. The comparison of the Year 4
monitoring data to previous years showed very little variation in the data, indicating
stability. 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. The longitudinal
profiles, found in Appendix E, depicted slight variations in each stream reach. Some of
these variations are the result of the beaver activity which was present during the November
2011 stream surveys. The beaver activity caused higher water and thalweg elevations
between the areas with beaver dams. Beaver activity was confined to R1 and R2 but other
reaches were impacted by the backed up water, particularly R2A. Each of these beaver
activity areas are detailed in Table XII. In comparing the data collected from Monitoring
Year 4 to the previously collected data, the results showed that reaches only experienced
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 have stabilized and remained consistent on nearly all reaches. Reach R2A
coarsened over the last year, which was expected according to the design parameters. The
stream systems at LWOC appear to be sand - dominated and therefore coarsening of the bed
may not occur on all reaches as expected. 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
24

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
material types. Fluctuations in bed materials will likely continue to occur and several years
may be needed to observe a consistent bed material.
Data for the Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near Bank Shear Stress (NBS) was not
collected in Year 4 per the monitoring guidance. Data is scheduled to be collected again in
Year 5. Data previously collected can be seen in Table IX.
Previously, five of the six reaches on LWOC had achieved the hydrological success criteria
for monitoring; therefore Mulkey only monitored R21) in Year 4. Table X lists the
information related to the verification of bankfull events at LWOC for Monitoring Year 4
while the raw data can be found in Appendix E. At the end of the Year 4 monitoring
period, all reaches had achieved at least 2 bankfull events which demonstrates success with
regards to hydrologic monitoring per Section 3.2.2.
A project -wide visual assessment was conducted along each of the project stream reaches to
identify any specific stream problem areas (Table XI). Photos were taken from each of the
14 permanent photo reference points. Appendix C includes all of these photos and provides
comparison of the photos between the baseline conditions and all subsequent years of
monitoring. 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 4 field work activities, Mulkey noticed a
significant increase in beaver activity at the site. Specifically, beaver dams have been
constructed along Reaches R1 and R2 Upper (above R1 /R2 confluence). Please note that
Table XI and Table XII have been updated to reflect these observations. As mentioned
previously, Mulkey is currently contracting with APHIS Wildlife Services to monitor and to
control the beavers at the site. Following stream surveys in November 2011, beavers were
trapped and dams removed by the APHIS personnel.
Other field observations made during the Monitoring Year 4 include numerous whitetail
deer bedded within the easement. This is primarily due to the suitable habitat created by the
increased vegetation within the easement compared with the surrounding fields and woods.
Additionally, during field investigations in March 2011, large quantities of macro -
invertebrates were noted in the R2 reach. These macro - invertebrates primarily included
caddisflies, stoneflies, and hellgrammites.
In conclusion, Mulkey has determined that all monitoring aspects have met the monitoring
success criteria established for LWOC. The stream dimension, pattern, and profile have
remained consistent across previous monitoring years. The majority of the data has
remained within the design tolerances, which has resulted in stable C type stream channels
throughout the past 4 years of monitoring. Based on the current stream monitoring results at
LWOC, as well as the recent corrective actions taken, Mulkey does not propose any
additional recommendations or actions other than to proceed with the annual stream
monitoring.
25

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 of 5)
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.
26

Little White Oak Creek Annual Monitoring Report February 2012
Stream Restoration (Year 4 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.
27

WATAUG NE_ ROAN KE CHOW N
-��Mf • ('% j \ �. CH '4•p PASQUO NK
LITTL BROA CAT AWBA YADKIN
P — �( __ up •. j _ _.,r, TENN SSEE C,9 NEUSE O
HIWA EE
,rr .\ -� • \. / J ;� • '� r , 5.tC^•' SAVANNAH FqR
,6
cos
' •e p,
-vY • / p \..mi l 111 �41�r'!a'�� ! l' j \ eF,�, N \'1 ^'L. 04 I • _ ` l
Mill
1 •1 � / "�•• '�''k'� ✓,y/i " ^, ai • G.�f r I `% \ ,r yfv,. j / }I..� • 1 l I ` � � � .
LITTLE WHITE OAK
� MITIGATION SITE
J'� 35'17'21.1"N 80° 07' 00.4" W
1 s prr,� , iv ` , nom.. • �r� +rr�•
9j, TO CHARLOTTE"\..
VVhjtf
on •" ;� �� �, ( 9oti ( % - -.
„.�' ! � � ; J , a 4 j� ' \ 6 .t � •'.fit' �
�. _\ TO ASHEVILLE
A.
1 --
7 � -
�l
Feet / < i
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 •-°�- �� �" iii-` �•
USGS 7.5- Minute Topographic Quadrangles: •• • + �:'J t '
Mill Spring 8 Pea Ridge
Contour Interval 40 Feet I• u, r I ,%v
�.� LOCATION MAP Figure
m LITTLE WHITE OAK STREAM RESTORATION
MULKEY POLK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA 1
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
R1
P2
R
7,543
0+00-75+43
excavation
Includes 850 feet of P1 and 190 feet of
R1 A
PI/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 P1 and 1224 feet of
R213
PI/P2
R
1,474
0 +00 — 14 +74
P2 channel relocation
Includes 100 feet of P1 and 690 feet of
R21)
PI/P2
R
790
0+00-7+90
P2 channel relocation
R = Restoration
PI = Priority I
El = Enhancement I
P2 = Priority II
Ell = Enhancement lI
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
11- Jan -08
Planting bare roots
Dec -07
N/A
1 1- Jan -O8
End of Construction
Dec -07
N/A
1 1- Jan -08
Survey of As -built conditions (Year 0 Monitoring - Baseline)
Jan -08
Jan -08
9- Jan -08
Monitoring
Year 1 - 2008
Dec -08
Sep-08
Dec -08
Year 2 - 2009
Dec -09
Oct -09
Dec -09
Year 3 - 2010
Dec -10
Nov -10
Dec -10
Year 4 - 2011
Dec -1 I
Oct - Nov 11
Jan -12
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
Vaughan Contracting, LLC
Coordinator
Bruton Nurseries and Landscapes
Seeding Contractor
Vaughan Contracting, LLC
Mix Sources
Evergreen Seed
Stock Suppliers
International Paper
South Carolina SuperTree Nursery
North Carolina Forestry Service
Claridge Nursery
Performers
Mulkey Engineers
and Consultants
P.O. Box 796
Wadesboro, NC 28170
Contact:
Tommy Vaughan Tel. [phone]
150 Black Creek Road
Fremont, NC 27830
Contact:
Charles Bruton, Jr. Tel. [phone]
P.O. Box 796
Wadesboro, NC 28170
Contact:
Tommv Vaughan Tel. [phone]
P.O. Box 669
Willow Spring, NC 27592
Contact:
Wister Heald Tel. [phone]
5594 Highway 38 South
Blenheim, SC 29516
Contact:
Geoffrey Hill Tel. [phone]
762 Claridge Nursery Road
Goldsboro, NC 27530
Contact:
James West Tel. [phone]
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 27518
Contact:
Emmett Perdue Tel. [phone]

Table IV. Project Background
Little White Oak Creek Stream Restoration / D06027 -B
Project County JPolk County, North Carolina
Drainage Area [s q. mi(acres)]
R1
4.46 (2854)
R 1 A
0.11 (70)
R2
10.85 (6944)
R2A
0.54 (355)
R213
0.12 (77)
R21)
0.05 (32)
Drainage Impervious cover estimate ( %)
R1
2
R1A
2
R2
2
R2A
2
R2B
2
R2D
2
Stream Order
R1
3
RIA
1
R2
3,4
R2A
2
R2B
1
R2D
I
Physiogra hic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Southern Inner Piedmont
Rosgen Classification (As- built)
R1, R1A, R2
C5
R2A, R2B
C4
R2D
C6
Cowardin Classification
R3UB2k
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 se ement 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

eri
h
Y
�
} F
t
N ✓+
} F
—
F v
9
}
O V
� C
�
� ry
a
N r
P M
r N
O N�
Y
t•�1 d
7 Y
P-
N a
,�
h
Y M�
C
C
O
rl
' G
Y
d M
M V'
O
�'
N
-
-
•-• r
-
�
yyyy yy
V d Y
y �
b
L n
1„ N
O
QO
aG
00 �
U �
W O
W y
Y
r
N
P—
Y
—
vri
m
P V°Oi N
o0
i p
O
N N
c
y
L �
� o
d
•E
y
R
o
O
r
C Z
C
E
Ao
a
°
--P1 O
�.ff
o
0
N
M
Cl
b
$
O O
�D O
OC
c
d o
o d
C
-1 d
C
r
x
M
rN„ o
0
Y
0oq p
00
O
ry
N
N
P M
ry
pp
N
N
N
b
p
� O
d
0
c
C
-
R R
W
oil
w
la Q
v,
CjUh
= m`vUO�.�a-
aeaaOidOdOiOi�nj

Table VI. Vegetative Problem Areas
Little White Oak Creek Stream Restoration / D06027 -B
FeaturelIssue
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, 2010)
All project reaches
N/A
N/A
No vegetative problem areas observed (Year 4, 2011)
All project reaches
N/A
N/A

N
X
00
00
N
O
In
N
M
M
N
M
O
In
C4
N
r
7
N
—
N
7
Cl
O
00
—
O
�
'D
�
h�
N
C,
h
N
N
N
M
N
—
C,
"D
O
M
,�
O
7
O
C
011
N
N
O
7
r
M
txtl
M
0\
m
00
O,
,6
N
N
b
N
N_
7
O
—
N
oC
O
m
V
O
N
C
U
�
O
i
i
oo
—
y�O
oo
V
N
�
O
N
M
r
r^,
N
O
=
O
N
O
Nw
N
r
M
ri
M
M
M
O
QO
O
\
O
O
b
O
—
M
M
�D
oo
r
,n
N
M
O
�ai
m
M
M
N
'
M
V
^
c
W
C
U
x
M
r
M
O
x
�O
oo
ON
v'
O
M
oho
O
N
—
NG
h
�p
M
vi
C
d0.
vri
OA
N
D
C
O
Q;
O
h
N
N
G_
O
7
O
N
c_
C
C
IO
0 y a
vN
M
N
N
N
O
O
O
Vl
ii r
u
d
O � y
10
N
W
W
S
r
�3
�
to
� w
A
to
x
xy
C7
❑
c
c_
�
V
w
E E
_ o
ro �
t t
o c °
° 8 c s
c & c 'G
o 00
°1 ❑ ou
c 9
E
E
� a
o cz It
3
B o
a
E
c
0. G
'
�
'' e s>
3 U
L
a
to
U
� � �'
� b =
"=
s °' a
GL
e V
v
c

N
M
CO
O
h
—
�O
—
00
O
N
M
V
O
00
O
...
00
�{
N
x
h
O
1—
_
x
O
h
M
m
N
ooc
N
OM
V1
O
O
O
00
—
U
C
O
O
r
V7
V
O
oo
OM
C
v'
r
h
N
00
M
M
a\
h
O
00
N
N
7
�
M-
O\
M
O
C
N
U
O
c
Q
M
O
V
'D
C
N
7
O
oc
O
_
00
N
O
M
N
N
��.C+
G
O
O
r
N
E
b
v�
N
M
7
O
M
oo
'O
O
d
`
O
O+
=
C—
M
O
M
0r0
oo
V
N
�I>
h
x
O
O
O
x
rn
V
ir,
O
O+
O�
V
•','
A
O^
�
h
h
�
�
T
M
G
M
�
M
�
O
00
O
GO \
O
N
O
y
c
'O
r
oo
r
vi
�
V
oo
h
M
Ld h w
N
O
�
pQ W C
O
D\
C
�•
'
O
W
O
T
00
e`
x s
� u
_ 1 a
- U
0.1
Z
h
—
Va
N
M
N
v
c
J
Ic
o�
o
a
a
w
GC
� J
0
to
x
v a
E c
z
n
un
M. b
o[ 3 c
T
c
la a tl V
u
R c s>
d U p
pj
a
h
d
as
C aL
u
c
E
c
a
e

-
�
IT
V
D'
O
7
O
r
eq
.�
U
M
N
r
7
N
N
Q
r
N
7
m
-
C
F
h
O
0`
'0
O
O
In
M
r
V
N
r
.0
C
M
N
N
N
M
m
N
'�
�^
ONO
G
M
O
0`A
•
00
7
O
M
�
V
X
N
7
N
V1
�
ed
�.
N
O
cd
V1
r
r
O
_C
O
(V
M
M
v'ni
M
00
00
L
En
O—
y
00
•�
C_
O
O
O
C
M
M
Q
Q
�
�
�
N
�
�
�
M
�
M
�
rMi
�
O
oo
O
fr \
C
CL
O
.b
10
r
7
M
°O
°
7
0
I� W
V
�O
rn
00
h
O
cxd
vi
cxa
r
r4
oNO
In
�
X
^
r
N
h
oo
In
C
p
v
CCC_
C,
'n
O
00
00
� x
acr
q
U
w
N
00
(V
W
w
5
�
C
O
�
V
�
c
to
J
cD
oc
w
�
ra
B
Q
ti
C7
`"
a
c
c
c
0 0
c
F
t
b0
bL
U
d L
3 o
b .F. L
3
0A N .0
` o` a
O
�
o C v
o
u3 v ca
X°
u
OTC
aC u u a .2
m U w$
°' $
a
E= c U
2
0
3
w
°_
W
c 2 u. o�
c o c
a aS
I Y n `° v
w
a U> 00
c5
x
a
c U
°'
C

C`
C�
'C
•--.
Vl
1�
N
N
O
M
V
—
O
O
O
2
'C
t-
Cl
O
7
ol
�n
r
10
00
''�9++
N
N
C�
M
Cl
M
N
V
p=q
M
00
C,
X
C.
v1
X
O
00
--�
X
00
O
N
C
.�
V
00
M
N
N
N
O
M
'9
vl
N
M
7
S
O
O+
M
w
'D
O
O
O
00
C�
O
._
r
V
C,
M
00
M
00
ON
N
Q�
v
M
In
C
w
h
M—
N
v,
—
—
W
O
U
N
� �
y
a
C
CC
O
N
C
V
M
O
O
O
a,
e
•�
u
A
_
G
l0
N
M
_
�C
L
M
cM�1
i4
O
o0
O
\
6.
O
U
M
r
Q`
m
W
0
X
N
-�
W
O
M
�n
N
V
1�
N
O
�O
W
co
r,
N
r
N
_
M
�
�n
D\
h
N
_O
C
f�
M
M
D
O
W
Vl
c hL+I
a
O
O
O
r
N
O
°°
U a
It
7
s
o
�3
c
0
aWi
�
a
� a
Q
C7
Ln
a
0 0
0
w v v
E E
c
C
'C bq
DA bA
E�
—
C a0
3 3 Q Q a u E
7
'3 `° a
a� .=
= o° m
0 7
9 v
U C L=
E
a
` Q �C1L
cl p O1 u
-
ed
a a
6
v
i
o adi
s
V
pC°, U o
N p] 3
L 'd F
'•=
s a
U u
a
�
u
�
o
u
OG
Oa.
p
a
a
mo

oo
Q
—
C
°O
N
vi
O
O
oc
M
C
V
V
O
r
q
f,
—
U
n0-
O
N
oo
N
C
M
^
o6
O
r
N
O
.
M
7
O
M
00
V
'O
u
O
O
O
O
O
o6
Ic
O
M
�'.
°'
M
O
N
G
r
O
O+
V
7
O
M
O
ut
M
oo
r
`
iQ
v
O
7^
10
oo
V
r
O-
O lo
°�
ovo
O
N
rMi
r
—
M
N
N
V
O
v�
vi
oo
cxe
00
O
M
O
O
v°'i
7
•�
r
In
Q
G
�
�D
N
�
�
O'
M
G
M
�
M
G
O
o0
O
\
b c
M+
0
cD
O
M
O
O
O
E
tl
�"
u
M
^
oo
cxc
ca
O
r
r
O
M
`G
N
V
v
� t
u
� ea
�
U
Q)
a
o
CC
M
� w
a
Q
x
x
Cn
cn
0 0
w
°
E E
c
o
A
s t t a a y 7
A
t s a
? t to
E E
v
m
c o a o c
3 ° v a aci E
c on c
3 d aci a
oo a� r-
c
°°
c °D c
o 2 v) '
3
d14
a aj u
y
a
a
Z

v
N
00
.
IC!
C
O
M
r
Q,
M
ttl
�
c0
7
M
O
O
�
vrj
U
Q
�D
—
�O
M1
M1
oo
M
vi
'O
N
o0
7
•O
N
M
—
O�
ao
OM
V•'
O
O
N
M
O�
O
.�
OC
N
_•
N
�
M
�
�
�
M
M
ee
'D
V
N
�
00
N
v1
V
�O
O
O
—
N
O
Cl
O
'p
00
v,
U
A
O
C
p
oc
O
yO
b
v'1
N
M
7
O
M
00
O
b
O
O
O
M
"a
O
M
M1
c
—
In
7
O,
O
X
�O
00
7
N
M1
�D
r
d.
x
O
O
O
U
C�
F m.
M
O
o
O
O+
O
.-
7
�'.
v
���++
N
N
C
O
C
v1
V
U
� �
C
•� A
u
F
O
N
��
M
SO
O
.�
`p
N
C,
M
�p
M
U
M
o0
C
U
00
"
...
06
N
N
O
O
C
V vi
w
94
W
V
M
N
C
LC
h
cc ed
O
O
�
v
_
0
c
J
CQ
A
W
V
X
cl
v
cn
.7
LL. N
O '9
3 3 R v a a=i E
3 aFi v
.=
= a c
O V
v 00
y F bD = w
a c
V) _ v'
=a
p 6 G
.�
c r>
�G "
ul
= "o o
ebo
0. U o
❑j
�Nmm 3�
u

}
f
}
a
0
C
Y
i
�
N
i
v
i
r
i'
r
i
a
r
r
i
5
f
i
9
i
III
HIM
i
III
r
f
fl'Pi
r
N
U
;1 P
O
[V y
d•O
N fV
r ffVV
'p`'
O en
P
FLiI
5
p Pp a
r
5
N
n S
v, P
$
O
V
� r
y o
m o
�O r
`'• �o
�' �
W n
Y r
g N
r wp)
0^0 •p
N o
N d
N N
w�1 y
W� a
H L
P
P h
- •p
�
O
L
O
N
pm
� d
tK�ff
a a
S
pQ.
0 p�j
N P
m •Q
N�
F
y a��
i
y m
poa
5
n 8
0
a e
f
TP
-
C
�-
E
O
q�
m m4
^ W
ry v
�
2
m m
R °o
ffi
d^
o c
N U
r
c c a; a c n •� a c
i
�m
f_
ran
y'�m3c53S
m
•$
.n o
o ry�
.n �
o r
m
�
c
0
0
C
�
�
v
i
i
r
i
5
f
9
i
III
HIM
III
r
5
p Pp a
V
oo 0
5
N
n S
v, P
P
P h
- •p
�
O
O
N
pm
i
y m
poa
5
n 8
0
a e
TP
C
y
q�
m m4
^ W
ry v
�
2
m m
R °o
ffi
d^
o c
N U
r
i
�m
f_
ran
•$
.n o
o ry�
.n �
o r
v
c
ry N
8
�^'•
� V
M
e
i
d
4�^
��
c c
m^
or
o N�
E
m a c •�
c
c° pp gp
E fi
a° ap° g c
9
y�� �
f�t �
M, u 3
�
8
a
g u

s
-E
r
}
5.
}
N
O
v
}
Q
5-
Y
i
e
}
F
}
}
}
f
5
f
5
i
}
}
!1
U
.� N
N •O
M�
P O�
N
O
O
C�
}
N
p
IT
O
ry
,_,
C
N
tn�
O p
pp
py .p
I� N
.. O
y� 1�
r N
•D m
}
G
v
}
s
arc
O
}
a
f
O
}
}
}
vv��
N P
p0 �
v '^
r •O
G r
O g
PP
O
��
�O
rte! M
a p
`D •e
00 a
r
yyp
r
p
5 r
a �
N N
h 5
� �
'O '^
•+ O
O
•, r
^
v c5t H
0 8 = SS
3 3 a
N m m 3
m
-E
N
O
v
Q
5-
}
5
f
5
i
U
.� N
N •O
M�
P O�
V
O
O
C�
}
N
p
IT
O
ry
,_,
C
N
tn�
O p
pp
py .p
I� N
.. O
y� 1�
r N
•D m
G
}
O
vv��
N P
p0 �
v '^
r •O
G r
O g
PP
ry N
pp
�O
}
5 r
a �
N N
h 5
� �
'O '^
•+ O
O
•, r
^
•O
O
�
�
m �D
N
O
O
C! C!
5 3
qq�S NS
9

f
}
E
E
v
r
i
N
O
N..
}
r
O
r
i
h
}
f
O
-
N
I' �p
G^
- N
p��
-1-1
a _
fL
<
-
N1
-
N
Hl
Y
f
_
Y °•
o p
o •p
a n
p m
O
a
H
N
�
O h
q
P �
I-
P m
N '+
� N
� N
•,,, h
N t�f
�<
N N
�
•Q \
c
� N
N yrvj
M
.�: a
N ^
0
0
E n
a
va`i
6"
e
D 61
Y
E
a
}
'I
o
o
u
e
o
�
R .Nn
a
d
a
P
m N
r m
N tit
vo e�
N-
5
r r
V<
RM
5 a
N N
e
E a
a-
- N
a g ,xt a c •a •� c c
H
a � •sµ •sp a x �
a
a
i
m
D
f
E
N
O
N..
O
r
5
8
p a N
b h�
N
Hl
O
0
r
5
r cn
N
5 a
ry v
e
a
a
i
•& L' �
•y5� � °�
a
u 5ryy'o rY'6Yo rbpypy'o '�
voNn
y

r
}
N
O
}
y
}
}
Y
a
}
}
5
f
.5
�
}
}
}
}
T
L
°
}
N
�
�
m
e e
^
O
CE
°
u
E
0
C t�
� _P
d O
�p ,Q
ro�p h
•p
�
< �
N p
U
o u
.p
�
•H
pp P
R h
y
a N
u
a
�
f
F
}
f
}
}
g
•g
a n
a$
o ''^
N °•
r 'ry?
g
o
0
c •aa ,W z g
•ss g5p••saz
m m
ai
S.
Q
m
N
O
y
5
f
.5
�
°
}
^
O
0
C t�
� _P
d O
�p ,Q
ro�p h
•p
�
< �
N p
8"
C
.p
•H
pp P
R h
y
a N
M
•g
a n
a$
o ''^
N °•
r 'ry?
S.
C
m
o�
m
fi
a, a .g a s
CIO
a oz
�O
g
9

f
}
f
a
r
E
N
O
r
r
f
O
r
r
r
i
a
r
E
Y
f
5
i
5
f
Y
r
a
f
r
0 g 0 0
o
r
r v
.o
U
r
°
f
� N
�
�
00
C
.5
°O
.n.. P
h ^ N
N�
5
N 90
O
n O
`o ^
h O�
^
V C
e�
C
i
Ell
r
r
r �
0 m
r
f
o
^
F
r
r
i
°
r
r
°o
8
m m v
i
m
o
f
f
N
O
O
r
5
i
5
f
r
0 g 0 0
o
h a_
r v
.o
U
r
°
f
.5
°O
.n.. P
h ^ N
N�
5
N 90
O
n O
`o ^
h O�
^
C
r
o
^
°
r
8
i
P
a
E
� A
V
y
� i
r
pe
i
�
H

!
7
.
\k
!
k
!
!
�
,
11
1
Hill
C5
,
7§§
;:7322
,
£G4;2
;2G§
■
) §f,
l =77 f.
-
-
�
7 ,
!
7
.
\k
!
k
!
!
�
,
11
1
Hill
C5
,
7§§
;:7322
,
£G4;2
;2G§
■
) §f,
l =77 f.
�
7 ,
!
-

Exhibit Table IX. BEHI and Sediment Export Estimates
Little White Oak Creek Stream Restoration / D06027 -B
Time Point
Segment /
Reach
Linear
Footage or
Acreage
Extreme
Very High
High
Moderate
Low
Very Low
Sediment
Export
ft
I %
ft
%
ft
%
ft
%
ft
%
ft
%
Ions /yr
Preconstruction
2006
R1
6530
5877
90
455
RIA
906
906
100
229
R2
5979
5381
90
767
R2A
625
625
100
32
R2B
1713
1
17131
100
1
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
RI
7543
5280
70
2263
30
189
RIA
1040
1040
100
1
R2
7107
7107
100
123
R2A
336
336
100
3
R2B
1474
1474
4
R2D
790
790
ILH
22
TOTAL
18290
0
0
0
0
0
0
12387
68
5903
32
0
0
342
Monitoring Y5
2012
R1
7543
RIA
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
11/01/10 - 11/03/10
Unknown
Crest Guage
N/A
11/14/11 - 11/15/11
Unknown
Visual Assessment
N/A

Table X1. Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Little White Oak Creek Stream Restoration / D06027 -B
Reach RI (754311)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02 "
MY-03"
MY-04'
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
91 %
90 %n
Pools
100%
100%
100%
84%
90%
Thalwc s
100%
100%
100%
100%
90%
Meanders
100 %r.
100%
95%
95%
100 %r.
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Structures
]00%
100%
95%
88%
100%
Rootwads
100%
100%
95%
98%
100%
Reach RIA (104011)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100 %
100%
Pools
100 %n
100 %n
100 %n
100 %n
100 %n
Thalwc's
100 %n
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bed General
100%
100 %n
100%
100%
100%
Structures
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Rootwads
100%
100%
]00%
100%
100%
Reach R2 (7107ft)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02"
MY -03
MY-04�
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
95%
Pools
100 %n
100%
100%
100%
95%
Thalwc s
100%
100%
100%
100%
95%
Meanders
100%
100%
95%
95%
]W%
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Structures
100%
1 100 %
95%
95 %
100%
Rootwads
100%
100%
95%
95 %
100%
Reach R2A (336f1)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04 c
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
95%
Pools
100%
100%
100 %
100%
95%
Thalwc s
100%
100%
100%
100%
95%
Meanders
100%
100%
100 %n
100 %
100%
Bed General
100%
100%
100 %n
100 %n
100%
Structures
100%
100%
100%
100 %n
100%
Rootwads
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Reach R2B (1474ft)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Thalwc s
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Structures
100 %a
100%
100%
100%
100%
Rootwads
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Reach R21) (790ft)
Feature
Initial
MY -01
MY -02
MY -03
MY -04
MY -05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Pools
100%
100 %
100%
100%
100%
Thalwc s
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bed General
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Structures
1W%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Rootwads
100%
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)
nThe entire project suffered a flood event during MY -03 (2010) causing damage along RI.
cThe results shown above as less than 100 % percent, reflect the construction of beaver dams on the
respective reaches during MY -04 (2011). Beavers in these reaches were trapped and the beaver dams
destroyed shortly after the stream surveys were conducted.

Table XIL Stream Problem Areas (Year 4 of 5)
Little White Oak Creek Stream Restoration / D06027 -B
Photo No.
Feature/Issue
Station / Range
Probable Cause
(If Available)
Beaver dams constructed
Reach -R I- scattered reachwide
Beavers
N/A
Reach -R2- scattered in upper portions of reach
Beavers
N/A
Beaver dams constructed
(above RI /R2 confluence)
Note- Beavers were trapped in both reaches R 1 and R2 during November 2011. Beaver dams were manually removed in December 2011.

0-)
F-
W,
o
CL
LU
C\j
44
cr
0
o
V� o � - f� � l�,
Lu A 0-
A
LLJ
co
LLI
LI)
LL, LD
<
Z C:: CL z
w wi
LLI ui L)
z V)
t"Oo
V) LD
cc
U Z
w �6 ui a C)
0 � LL, - 2 <
® Q
Q4 LL) >- Go
cr LLJ
CL V)
<
I- LLJ z V) >- 2
uj
, 0
w
L'i
Co
F-
z
w
Z
ED OW
Li
0 U
K
<
a- J ul
10 w 7
IL w Z j
:1 WZ
z in
< M@ss3
z 0 z o J--3:
w I al
Og
.20
32 .15 CL
to I
<
z
z
x FoGd
z
A f2
Z uj
m
o
'I Li
@ (D

tis i i � I i. �ffl n < O 0 9:
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
CL
Ile
c o c'
r r r i r i L m r r r r r r i i r °
IT c c
w ; O c
L C 0 ° F� 4 O
O S S
V U O
UJ
d ✓
r m ar N 8 3 y D > W ° E y in E in o
45 ° O O U j N E N
S °
a u v � o V, (n c ° u
o 0
0 kn o p o u u N
0
03 °
•5 0 ° O . ' C d w ,C C 0 C C t O °' V V 00 O W O
y d V U
N LL V w N V N U O U d O > N N d F- N LL >
s
+ o o a a o ®� o ®a •❑ o o o
r r r r r r
'
r r r r r r r r r r r a N r r r
r r r r r r r r r r r o r r r
QI •F N r r i i r r r r i r i r r r � r r r
° O r r r r r r T r r L O
YO c
C U V r r U
N r _ r r r J
V
o a� a� •Q c : ° °� fl
o c O O ° ; m °
S J v
° s s 0 ; L° O d u m° J 0 0 0 s= J a
CL N _O Q a L .O- C U L H y C O ` N
C7 C7 C7 E v
vi c u O
-C C O — N fl N O V) O p V O W L L N ° V
CL m° n U s° o a 3 D o Ow 3 m u r 3 3 a E 3 3 3 0 N
s
w Q) a� m a� a� a c i -° a 2° U Z° N °� d° N Ln y ,� o N
° m m' m a s F`- o c c c p u
0 0 0 0 a� m a� a) > S m 0 3 g 0° o a 0 J
N O 0 o a a a a a 4) > 0 v w °
Qo o o o o U ' u o ° u ° °
w 0 0 0 O
w J N N N a
W W F- N '
F F_ <
0 UZ
I I I'
w
L
° °
> a)
r r _ _ r r r _ '6 r r r r r r 'O r J C C
VV O �O r c
a) r r r {� X N — r S ° ° S N J a
O r LO m O r r w d d L L ;O p
� rn °o : q a o C7 p : o 3 U (D : ra a° 3 o C7 O
4 O y Q N O O O f N C X L L N O ° O U N U� C
V '� .0 3 .0 S ~ O 3 O
C7 0 v° c7 ° U v°i 11 CQC' y ? J C� F' 3 > d ° .u- d a��i `�' a° ° o 3 a� v
t
in �1 N •w .' . w ' m m 0 a L m c o o O o ° > Ck Q -0 � c c L '> 0 O � �
C o � ° o
c 0 a O O
i ' . O ` ` O X x O O O O N .9
v w w w 0> o_ L L O
C7 Q
I
Li
W I
r r r r d r
rrAA L
O m O) O
a� a ° ; .� N ° y O O E 0 m o O o
O
0
m o .0 >. > o c o 3
L 'O
N LL Q m N U S W LL N F- F- N a m
x
rA
H
�
I
OW
❑w
x
O
I
r�
o
W Ci
'
®
;
c
C
LL
°
V
C
c
y
LL
O
c
r
LL
O
F-�
a�
y
3
LL
0
3
0
•E s°
1�
N
y
C
C
N
LL
O
C
U-
>
°
t
p
C
7
.0
X
W
c
7
J
.•
�
c
c
°
a
U
m
u
m
O
o
C o p
c.O9
.Y
L
c
o
a
a°
S
C
2
O
•t
O)
•t
O)
-0
-0
v
p
u
p
o
t
O
w
n
w
d
c
a
a O
O
0
O
O
Q)
O
O
O
d
O
O
E
° c O
® ®
p
U
H
oO
O
a
w
a
a
x
O
i
a
F
O
-+
d m V
z z
I
Li
W I
r r r r d r
rrAA L
O m O) O
a� a ° ; .� N ° y O O E 0 m o O o
O
0
m o .0 >. > o c o 3
L 'O
N LL Q m N U S W LL N F- F- N a m

u P'f0 nd\s4GGIV gdJD-- 6-1—1 -lAV8 Wv sllo.6 zioz /II /1
J r)

.31". •3.11+ lh-
Ca IIAI o' Lfw
0. Z
r CDI Od 00'. CO coo
LJ
w w /� Y ,a rNNmZ ' \,
_
cc CD
la7 017 _, ..> ``\ '` -• 4 ` ;lil r / ll'I r : I S -..
Ir
r _
a.
+ / —_.i - +
I ,� fill I �'�1 yi %r' I .�. 1� •-- r- - ---r- -
LZ
IN
` _ _
`• \�` 1 :\ •` , 1', '' •I I ��' ff. .f'.�'. -•'.ice i� %•� ,� + ;�C /,'•' i'''' -r"-
\` O
X \,1 ' ' -y',• I 'lq it f /j:•1� //jf '''' /'�' %'�r - -;-- -� •!- -'- - -I I .1.:
' I 1; 1;, 1 rrI' �,i��� / �i�' ''nor ,' /'� ', ��r.r - •-- - -_ — ` �I - � -
Jln
I %• ; /' �� � `� t�, ;I I 1 11 iI;'1'1'1 �' �1�11 r ' / %, ;%/ °' - -. -- • - --; - , -+--
, ri
V`
,`+
111 \ ,.''�' •'' r _ ( - - -.___
ol
1 ,r
W 'Ar
`y�i /_ ice/ ;%
..t�.,'•''j / -
J- .: j / -, :'_�,. ',' /' _' -- -Y'- - _.__.- _ ''ice' %iC �Jns'' %% / �.`��.�.• .��. !�'- ''' / " /''/ '�,,."�7 ,�.� -_
'iii -, ` it %.' .,. %s�.� y� % \ \\ %j''� J %,','.','i �.�•+�(�' L__-, '
l
CD
Wx
1' 1,11 I ', r'�� c ' / /' ,`'' / ' / ' lr<• �� � � - -
, \I #' � / —v�� Cr /, 6:' '�1- -- "::_?rsY' .�'' " %" =ter'" _ ;;'• -'- -'�.•�•'� �""_ '' � �) I ,
�?,`,t, ``�, 1_ mW' �� ,l';1 l• \\, -"'% ��i'' 'i �- �1'�'� ''" '1 /I ('; '1 ".'i ,- '',.'; /.,� `_ _ '� \O� I i. -�.
�•� t`>: ' ',`,'' X _.V J)`,IY y+,� �ltf iit`Q,l '''1 :r.. , /;.' 1' ,k,lt ll,'ad��,\`\ \`, \\
'.QI'•\p,`�'1 \ \'1 \\ \\�'`, \' // ���.• Y \M ..1_-- .__— . - -._ —.
1, LY ij
l
\. `\ III In
,\ ' \y,\ rte. ,SC 1/ � I �, .+ \`, . \` `,,,, \`,•;`;`�:.,. \; \: \\;.`: \,�`,.. = - __; j `,, -�". , \��C.�- �4�,�` \ - -- — + __ _ {__ I
X . . °y/ II 1tg ,Ioiall ` ` ` \y`' '. \`: , ` \'``� �:,..�`N ----------
'
ZX
Ax
w P7
WL
IA
{ %
`. \ `•` -` -` `� �t \� \ f it ' 'r r• '�i __. -_ -- 1, :i• � ' , ',` \, — ._. _ _ __ _ _- `- - J
'. /1,` `,' \, \•,`1i \ '; \ ` ` .- \ `\ 1,,` \ ',,1 L.:rl \`` a�`,';'I� ---- I -1- - -- -- I --- gam-
\ \\ \ � OF O
\•, 'Iili '� "f•, ,'fir: t��i�;�`,'''' \\`, . \`,•� \` `�..- -- ---- -f - -- � I 1
I
W O
i7
0
N 2
in
R N
O'n) m
O
m at')D
M
I-- 'l- -1-
pp
= W
A A
A
n
m N
A s
t0 W
T
m
W
m
Waommaom
\ 1 1
ammaommao
0
_ - _- ___• -la_ -_ _ -
-
co •mmaomm
O to o.
o
J
O
U, Q
ILI
tC
F-m
N IlI
A N
fV A
A
Ippp ()i
Q A
N a7
r IO
M
(Oy tC
N S
aA m
er)�On
V
t7
Z
0<
In m
woopo
O
O OOTr
000
acAl�l�mmmaommao
O
2
ODmm
o
A
A D«tDDDDDD
0
co aum
n
U
W
Z
ON
fpm
O)O�
W apmQ
t2pp
��mIN
Ot)In
p0p00
po�OO
InNOI
p0�
i
O
FN
Owl
N ONON�
aAf)rD
pV
<�N�pp
Omlm
Q-"�1��an
In
aa1�A�NNN
1n N
pMpppNrp
1A p
h b
NfO00NQ0�Mt�'')f7M
N N
N
h
r�
N
N N
V
a-
Z
1-1-1 O V<
H-Iddvl
«O
Y V
V O
I
U
all:
Z Z
O
I-- 'l- -1-
,OQ
I- -- =k--
o
+
W O.
JLI
r
a.
WW:
\ 1 1
0
_ - _- ___• -la_ -_ _ -
-
+
O to o.
o
G' Go ^
0 O

O
Z
r n
W
W
O
7
Q
iW
in C W
O
C; w
w
�'
<U
n r ` o
NNmZ
'V
O
N maw
w a
¢ o
'G
L7
tX U77Y
t w J
W
M
w N ;; 3
w
�'
Z
W
3
m�
%OmmF
L^ mwmo
F
L)
LLJ m
�Z
w d.W -
In
o- J
Ujo
m
W
2
a
i>1d
.3113. s3M. •311x.
• r
N
V�
� -
-�--
\ / jAl
,o
: gip',;', Z5 CN
It
Ln
Q1. C14
25�p1' :I 5fl8 1`�r :' r I 1 I _ - i -- - --
,
r
Fmo
,,I;,IV / -_,," ,/
>�I,1 -J� ' p l 1� •11 ._ N
CN
Rv
,1` I l i. o
T —�- - +
ro C14
I
' 4-
J � , ' `. -' � _ ''`'� /lam✓ I % % ,''� � �1 m /' l L.: -�'4, �' � ', I ! , ' - - -- - - I N
tn
!/ �"
mJ '' ',y/f7 ��•-,, ZN
co
`O
' r
LLJ
Ell' 0
O
N
O
1 m
rm 912,
1 m M
W
J m
A
I
O m
m
m�
=Z
LLJ m
m
Ujo
m
O
J
9
m �'2
rn icy
�nm�Q
rn N
�m<nM
A'
m
rnm
01
C14
--7
m
A m
N m N
�
Z
.cN
H m
�m
N o
Am
--------
T O
O
T
r W
--------
m m
A
A m0
mC N N
Q m
m m
m n
m
n
A m
m m
m m
m m
m m m
0 21
o
L)
p;
W
Zom�o
C
Ln
NAm
OmN
T
m. -mmmQm
I r
O r
•7
2 p Np
1pp"ppI �
m A
m s ns��
O m
A N
0 0
0 A
rcQ m
h t7 r
a
d Q
O Q
Q O
Y<
O O
C Q<
Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q Q
• r
N
V�
� -
-�--
\ / jAl
,o
: gip',;', Z5 CN
It
Ln
Q1. C14
25�p1' :I 5fl8 1`�r :' r I 1 I _ - i -- - --
,
r
Fmo
,,I;,IV / -_,," ,/
>�I,1 -J� ' p l 1� •11 ._ N
CN
Rv
,1` I l i. o
T —�- - +
ro C14
I
' 4-
J � , ' `. -' � _ ''`'� /lam✓ I % % ,''� � �1 m /' l L.: -�'4, �' � ', I ! , ' - - -- - - I N
tn
!/ �"
mJ '' ',y/f7 ��•-,, ZN
co
`O
' r
LLJ
Ell' 0
Wi:
to,
c co coo
r
'
Ir
M
I
=Z
Ujo
lit
/
v
01
C14
--7
-7j777jr-
0.
i
r-
co
..
• r
N
V�
� -
-�--
\ / jAl
,o
: gip',;', Z5 CN
It
Ln
Q1. C14
25�p1' :I 5fl8 1`�r :' r I 1 I _ - i -- - --
,
r
Fmo
,,I;,IV / -_,," ,/
>�I,1 -J� ' p l 1� •11 ._ N
CN
Rv
,1` I l i. o
T —�- - +
ro C14
I
' 4-
J � , ' `. -' � _ ''`'� /lam✓ I % % ,''� � �1 m /' l L.: -�'4, �' � ', I ! , ' - - -- - - I N
tn
!/ �"
mJ '' ',y/f7 ��•-,, ZN
co
`O
' r
LLJ
Ell' 0
S G)
BCZ
=Z
Ujo
lit
--7
-7j777jr-
0.
i
..
L LLI
~oaa
I
o
p;
Ln! O
I Ln`
C
Ln
o
T
W' ' oDi
I r
h
Co.!
co! o'
co,
S G)

O
Z
r io
w
x
' a
3Z-
Vi
` Z
T Q
J
m F
L <U
o
z "
w
O
0 � �
Yz
U U
11 7!Z
W O
Q pN�
Q
�In r
In N
iw a
� o
J_
�
�U�'�'W
a Y
W mZ--j
w
nr
m 7
w
.00 aD�Of
Z
W maO
Ol�rN
13
m
C Wp U3
r;
aj
oa "3
w i:2
W
GZ
11, ILM
N
lD th
Q r
r H
W
4
5;I ;
IkWiF 1A,
,t'
t : d
i m 110,
t �L
<
I' �t 4,1
J
��f
%1
131— 13—. 13110.
co; Go` ^;
col Go; 00 00 coo
Qwc
QL
N
qq
I t
I I I
1•
O
- - I
\ - 4 —+— — — `�'
CD �- :f jr
- - -- -
CD=
CD
�.. --------------
'I
,
— -- —
,I
V) Li It M
V) W I- ,
W O I _ ^-; A, _ --
I-OZW
OZWC3
W C� W - -_ f ;
WWI i I j zW.
O =IWIZ ! ; d =' 00
a—"mCD 0— �— F I f3� r�
CIE I, m0
' a
3Z-
O
O
N Op
W O
Q pN�
b m
QGo 1p
N t0
a�� O
IfI C� t�J
CD W 1'7
J_
�
J�n
wWmmmm
A
nr
mN
�mmmmmmmm�m
1�i00
.00 aD�Of
W maO
Ol�rN
�m
J
O
U'
GO N
N
1�
,O
.O �- h
N
lD th
Q r
r H
O.
t7 IA
I'
Z
. Op
OD
�CGm
h
� Oy
N O
TOf
O N
N0 D5
OO
O N
. OQ
W
Qp Cp
0 T
O��O
1� �
N s�st
� A
N
mmmA
m r•
.
O({�� R
t• f0
.
r00�00h
N O N
.
N .NO
O
a000000000
o ^00000`�`g000
W=
N O
1-
O
F_ N
(Ny th
pN� ipp�
'y C
f�Y t+f
tp (C4
Of N
(CR
C .
6
9 �
9 M V
Of
zv,
pTp
c(`iG>iilo^nlci
N aD
ntiID5iiD;D;
f�
t7
M (7
oDile,^nrn
th t7 Q
�. O
W N
f�f Q
O O
A O
Of O
r N
t+1 Q
IA O
f• O O
5;I ;
IkWiF 1A,
,t'
t : d
i m 110,
t �L
<
I' �t 4,1
J
��f
%1
131— 13—. 13110.
co; Go` ^;
col Go; 00 00 coo
Qwc
QL
N
qq
I t
I I I
1•
O
- - I
\ - 4 —+— — — `�'
CD �- :f jr
- - -- -
CD=
CD
�.. --------------
'I
,
— -- —
,I
V) Li It M
V) W I- ,
W O I _ ^-; A, _ --
I-OZW
OZWC3
W C� W - -_ f ;
WWI i I j zW.
O =IWIZ ! ; d =' 00
a—"mCD 0— �— F I f3� r�
CIE I, m0
O O
' a
3Z-
O
�-
ch
J_
�
o
..
OIL
.WW..
O
O
�i f co n 14
m
O O

♦31" ♦3-1 .1110.
C5 N ''�' ' I, ";I' ''Ii';ii �� .;;�tl l 7 Q, 1:i O' :ii CD
Co' Co -.
W
/ y �;
Co. .
i� ,1 r,'(;I 'I; Iilji�I;l;i�'±' !ili llll'l+lil i %i �• � .I ! t ! 10
z
Y° m •.'t. i l'i;ll'
ZY U r —U i, i'�'; �Ii 1;1 iII�IiII (Ilij� �f ffj; _. —._. _•I'i --j__ ___. —_
La w C .J� NNmz ,;I;i;;l! 'i�l'i;if;';I, rl;li 'I J. !I; I'
U V N N NNy}j Il:llr
z f #' I I
w C3 �tl��y ; ;di ' i I;'��lii
wo �w mZ��] '' �I
it; C3 03
� • U m WU, O13 ' I � ' , ' 1 %'1. fl1;;,1,: ; li;,, l l ' 1 ,' I I '' • Y ' : '/ II I I i Lo LLJ
61 d ;F /, li: �♦ %i '+ ` l 1 !
11 - - -- -- -- --
(;i /: ;';l,'ili p'I'I' '; vi
' '' , ' , 1'. 11 ul II,;f 3 ; , It� ♦ �/I 7 i "// t''' '% `±, � `\ —,V '�`. -- � ��- -
' / , 1 11 ;; Iri;; I„', 1 . { i Iii ;4• , . 'i �' ' �� � -- =, / _ � - t - - - --
' / I ' I II •I�I;Ii'(; : i ; � I , � , I , ; i' l '/ /;� is - - - -�� � C _ _y.. --
-
'
� 1, ;;;�'j ;, ;, ,,, / ; ;,,�,,; 1• =. %1' %l ,T ,, . I,I� 11; jl; II,; ,��,,<s -- -- �/ // i � -� -
';" iJ;
55400
+
3 si � d p _ r `\\`��; `�� \�P.�\ \�'{ ;:ii(i; ', / r i, �' r " , \ �•nu nl ." -. , . \\ 1'� \� `� - -- - i _. 1' — �I I1 ._. �
1 _
©:; �• i <�
Ln,
'(D 1n',' %1"
j-l�_- `_�--�i``�, ,', ri, {,.,, ' , i, / I 1 ,rte`, , ''� - - -_- �•_� -- --` � ~ - -- - -- -- - ^- — - -- -
_ - _________ _ ''j/ / " „�; :�, 'i,�, lac♦ %, J,rkl , '11� ' �•`` `,1`\ G�� _I _. I. _ - O
0 to
Tr
lot
IN
N
Ln
y
LO
—Vl __ -1 —_-
1, �]�•��k�' / _ t= •i � ~•�
I 1J;
-�-
/ /Afk<' J
iM
�•1,.`= � /iii ; ; � "� � '
Unl
L1� a+o
A.
LLI--
i ( I pr O
O+
' U �••' m t7 N p � „', e'l m l'� m m m m m
W ?( ONy n � my m�Of m 000 �( m(yy N O�In eOe}} N Cmj W m
H N 1n N ih N n N 0 fAD N O N ,A(I m C N CD
0
a z..����6��sn����������
�O�000'�oo� °avvvvvvvvvv
n.$$ooa.�vv
1
L No ,o
pW
I Z
WW
_ �-a
oa p
Za p
O KY, O to LO
— Q, Go, Imo, 1� `O
;�� _ _" '// '• ___- h Co! Co. Coy Co
O O
O O
M
M w
. W
m
ON$
W m
m m m
m m m
m m m
J
O c
cD O UUII m
m'2N e
en A m
mnN m
m�N m
mN n
n Olm�m
O m
m m 0
0 t7 O
O N O
O m A
A �-• �
� A m
m A n
n t
Of Y l'�
Z'0 0
tp t
tV IL7 N
N m
,fI Oppi �
��Opp 1� f
fV I7 �
� h
N a--- O
O A
m m
m rn m
m o a
m O
O M
m m
m m m
m A n
n m m
m m v�
W o
1
L No ,o
pW
I Z
WW
_ �-a
oa p
Za p
O KY, O to LO
— Q, Go, Imo, 1� `O
;�� _ _" '// '• ___- h Co! Co. Coy Co
O O
;�� _ _" '// '• ___- h Co! Co. Coy Co
O O

.111. .3-, '3"o,
O
Z lz O' Co coo
w 'acG, I
_ — f t I LO
J W
7 f
Y O < U 'JF CD z
Z w r , t• —.
W
w CE O J NLiNNW (
�/ Or— — - -
KO O
era , L,
C _ I v
r L5
oa
w UJ 1, arc�'�'3
Ix
a - 1� zoo
r� ' ij es. -•�� �.;i .' III/ r ii���;1
Q-1- W W
N
cow
g g gg ii ���w ._ \ C � ��"►1,'Y') %;;;. ;rrQ %; i '`; ,1 E ,,ti ; t ' \ \ \\.; ._` ^'a' \ \ ` �` ^E v F ( J��! J J�` YI --+, I 1�� -\,-- .ice �`\ ' \ �_ - -�- �I 1 , _ I _ ' — ,
I O \ , ,' I
J ','�I�l
a / �o `tf 1
IL
•..I _F_1\�^ , _ __- ...� .-I. -_- - --I_- •_ --
,\a
"Q,a,,
a , _
a ,
ol
ov
1 10
ij
a _ _
\:
o
t
f
� ( c I f
\ a
CLIP
Ln
\\
x
i�
tjZo
�;. -I-
UL
\` 1 am
HEM
Q, O{ d0; Go. ap
O O
>O,/
�O,QOQ
O
i?I
ON
�Q
N
a? imD�
O
CD cq M
O,
Ii �0
W�
ooQnomm°
°c6maWiDOm
a�omm�a�ommmam
J
\ t I I ..z
WLU
�WL
lz q
p
O
C�7cRC
�,A
+
'T4Rio
O tn O•
Imo' ►� �O �O!
O
10
i
rnA mfpC401N
c4
,
R,7Rcl
ra�AmW`�A
Z
O
uj,s
oo0000000oo`8`Soo
H
U
W
C9mMNapO�
�TOr�SiO
CAN
O
7tDDDOD
eO
�N
hm
O
mp 7
Q Aa
�OCD
�N
V(JO
m
O
,p
O
Of
O
N
M Q
0
O t0
0 0
n OD
0 0
fA O
0
.- N
t7 Q
O ,O
n W m
0
d Q
0 0
Q Q
0
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q e
o v
o v
c v
v <<
Q, O{ d0; Go. ap
O O
-I ,o
1 gnu
1
—
oQ'
O
r
O,
Ii �0
\ t I I ..z
WLU
�WL
lz q
p
+
O tn O•
Imo' ►� �O �O!
O
10
Q, O{ d0; Go. ap
O O

.3313. .3-1 .31,Cl
Z - rl Oo 000' 0c01 �: O
Lu r m / Z
W N - -I I -� - -- -- _� -- -
o Y - - - - -1 -- - 1 -
� X�
F4 0
w/t Z m Q [] c 1 -_ �__ I 1 (
�t 4 " '
J r- Z pp
w W o r t` tv m I r' I, -- ; I - ,--.--,-I-----,- I -; � 1
V-- - --- --- -
Z x �r m ^U�QW %1r I I 1 lI 1 I O
¢o 'C w mz� -� ,I';1 -.- r1 I 1 f. O
w m _ - -- - - -- ' - -- --
mWmm3 \ \ = ^� _ ;are. :.z!!'
r- W Z 0 , m 3 I IIm/ -- ; Z � , �' I';cv5,,,'I/ ,. - - - I - _ .
- I w arc__3 I ''',4'1,,111_ =` : �`::- ,-� \r ; ;,' j1 '1 ; - I,
o w� v `, ?a `1' ill. ,, I''i .
a ' 1� `�� \ �`II - \ \` \''I I \'` ,<.I; 1'' "1I ' It X1''1 -' - III I -�
` , ,
\ \
C \ I ` \ \' ; I;;;; -I ,; 1111,.
-1 \ li �,,, \` -- \ \`, ,,' \, =1;;;'llt1;i11 �1 �Il,ll,lly �� r - ,I .. -_ Q
J \ \\ '` / \,`5,� \1 +il il;';;I';'1�,. "I;I,d,,. -- �. , I 11.L o I -1
Y // O -�`, }, / \_ \ ,` ; ' '-'I, '1;, I,i;;Ii�'`, t5''I\`�, ... - i - - - -•- .-t _ .- -- -i-
1., pc \ `; \`.'_',,,A1 1, 1u�. 'li�',1,11v�} \, +. _ I I I _- .�._ M I; I Iyi��3' \,`i / ``,\ -, ", � : b i l l ' I�:,,II ;I i _ _ I W'14-0,1
P 1, ) %, ; ",7';:,�,;;'/ /;';;'It'`' _ rt- --1- -.
\\ -\ `! - �a -r"'. \, F�'/''f�l' 1 /ii,�(( /! %!/'!' r r ' , ,, 5,1t I„ _ 11 I
/'" C.\ \`I 616 IJ:I' ;l,' / / ",� „/ I .1-t-- -+ I )I
- ` / �/; )ii--- ;I; ,;1,,+;/, /j'.� ,v e; _ - ' {
``Y \`` r \` `` `� ` 1 , ''',,` v''' /�l // �'/ , \„•I ; I ' ' , 1111•,' 1 / 1 / , ' ' /' >� .. _ �. i -_ 7 -.� . -� --
\`•�� \�` `\ \�♦ I k - -I /' ; /'/ \\'' ` \; I r4 +' 'I '' / , - - 1' --- - - -----
'IN,- .` \`, \,` \``,� `'yam �/ // ' / /',l "'' \`I�+>< I I'1' :I S . ' 1 , /',I , .1 II li� f \\,`,',
° a `4 `\, ,.` ♦ \♦`,\S, ,,` ,v', IS:. , ``� / ``\ ` -- „ \,`,\ YI, `I _ .. -I- - f - + %
,I
\`�`:`', �`; �\' / /,`/ \ III..,, \ \ \I`II I, \,,II, \I I', 1 - _
% -- - --- ; `♦ w `I`\`; c..' \,, `:\ ,\0 �\,`` `\ \ \' `(Ct`I`�\ l \ \``, w� ` - ` ` \ ;, ",• , „i�`Z,i�,'}`, \ \`,', `,'```,`, :\I \iI - _ - �:.
_- ``. , ` , , 1 I
-�.r__ , \`` ` \I ,'I `,\ 1 > I, ♦�``,` ` „`` \ \ ,` I1 N:',*0 �' \,; ,II , y\`,`,,`,, \ 1 1'I 1.
� -•;' - - _.- I_.__- O
' \',`1 `
,
�, .
\`` � 4` b, I'll, \` -
,
,
\ \ r I '`III . 1
` . 1 ♦ 1`, +,1 \I` `` ', ,`1 , \` ,`I ` \ 1 _ �� �\ `,`` ,� I.p IP1',1",` 1,,, ' \`,` ' 1 \', \ \\ .1... .. __ Q
\ ```,\ , \`I `, ,``,'`14; 1I \`, .:. \, 1, +h.� \ \a\ �_�a•_� �.� �,\ \�,J \`�Ih11 \ \,'`• \II„ \,\I`', ' \',,,, I I C '' .;
- -- `,\`` , V, ,V`; '`\ , +',` M,' \, ='l` `' ` \:�`` -- -tee - -- „\♦ \ \\ `` ' II,1 \. ,;\ , -- - - -- .. I -1
- \,, :,\ ,',`I \"o; \ \``I`,`` l,'`` } I , \ 1,`',`, \' I'.` - - - -- --.- t� -- - I. , p, 1 ' \ , , ` - - - -�. ,, ♦` \, \ 1'1'Qyi, ` `�`I \I;,;. , \r, ,,, \I \, _. )!•� _ - -11 -- -I'-
\` ``I ;II\ I\\, ', eP`,\ I'I ; `;'' \ ' '�� \ <\ 1 '�\,,, \,�Ii \`; ,,', \'1'1 `Ir , v _ 1 1 I - . - I . _ 1
- \\,;•,`1'' , %,` \I1, •\;;;;`'`';,`,\`,',', '\;\'.1' '; " 1 ' \','` `,`` \" ; ;� ��\ \ ,�;`; 1 ►I' ; xrI . \' , \i`,, \,`,\,\ _ % ;\: \ \`; � '" ; \`, ,,�I \:;, ""` t, +I I 1 ; :.\ f r;l �;�/ /,' 1;x,1 \A`,'';`- ;\''I�'I'0,\`;\ , Co 1 1-.1 _I L . -
_'�� : \ : \` :�`` ; `;�� \� `;, \. \;;` I ; 1 ; \ q `, t ��,;> / %'` `!' ►;I( I X41 ;';\+, \` +, ` +; \` \, -- - { �-r- - • - -t- - -- - - --
�.`.`\ \"`� c ,114;, ; I ' , r \ X, ' . \``',', I - . 1 F.
00 III, y.` , \`\ `A l „ \•,l( \`.` \ \`��J \1, , , I -I , ) - 1 �/ /ir I I i 1 ' `I \ \`',``� \I'I` 1 -4 - I -' . \1 I
° \`�• .,�. ,\`�I I \.`�\,,,, ,,II \"� `111 i � /'! ; II r1, +, \, -I_T -- -
1I` ;il 1 -
A -- - . _L -- ----I-----
\'` ' \ \; , \`I ;`� \ \i \,`�`� +,, =r. -I �\ \`','�I \'`,,, \1`•�`\i` `� \;1'I II' I r`! /,i /,,. /' .'�� .Ca: ^. -y; ''I , ' ;�;'p' Ii 'fll - I
`` `;4` `,\ ```C ` '„)�'`', �t1a, ,` k1 I, \, ♦,,,, \ , /�,I/ I � ,d I„pI , , I',;,I _ T_ I
` \``�'.` `. \I1 \\ \\\ * \I1 \ ` \\`, `.', \',`�.`, , 'W> \ \III 1'I ; „ / %1 ,��__. `,yc ,' 1111; I I '1 '_.�j ,I _
,\ ` ,�``, " % \,`,`I�\IL'II \\ \,,`�`� \ \. •'.tl�\; •, \`,1''I" P. ,' I' , 1,11 ; ,I 11 !j ,..
\•: < \\`1.;,`I \\ \ \`,`,, I \1 I`,I ' y., k . I I ) I 1 ; ,' __ . 1 ^u.� ` ; \,I ' i- 1 -' ;, , ; ,1; {�,, , I , I I.I
\`` I, \'I ``� \ \- , \`, . \ \.I ,\\ I l6` „\` \;,l ; 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 i 1 1 \`,\ \ x , I I."M '4 11 , ; I �_•- _�_ -� _ -
`'\ \`` 1 ;\ \'\ , \1. n 'I I I V \.�\ I. `, ; I I '-,;I i I,, ; 1 O
:�: ,`,\ +`,�,: ,`';,,,\`; \\,I,\`;''' e;,t4� \, \`'`;; \ „\ x t \;;1 \,1,�L\ �'� I I;;"I" I;�;; ,1 0
.ti, , t`♦ , \a,` `,\`` ``\,; ,`\`I ., \, ",\ `,, I ,.f•, , \„I,, I M 1 ` `` \ \`� k ; I „III I 1''I I .. -.._-
\' • \ \ : `I`,III% , I1 +� ... \ ; ;`I, "1111. \ C \` \� ♦ •� 3 ! I 1 ,VI
, � `` ` \'. ; , \`, \\ ``I* \` I ,` \`; ` ``, . , ' „V ``,, I,\II I Aq I I . I x \,., ^.\ `,\ �;' ' .. " ", - - -- -.... .� .
,1\`` \ '``'\ \III I
,\'\` , \`; ', \'` 1Ii, \``' t, \�`''\:�`� \``,` \;; \d 5` „ \ \, ` \ \```', -- I,I11,;'.;II -v"` \'\\ \•:` \ \ II; - I
`, \`, I \\,\ `' ,; \,, I` \`I \1.. - 11..,` � t.. I'1 \; 1 i. i.V ` % . +, \ �\ ;'111 '1.1 I '`` I:' I I I
\`,` ` \\ 1\ 1 `t,,\ , ak `\wW I, )I II,II If, I I '3�:-.-'\ �` `\ 1 \ 11, rl \\'•`: I' +';I ID 1' �.
1 ` \ \I, ' \\ I \ \I \�, I \ \' ��`, ,`�!}'I �\II` i`,1 ,." + 11 ,� 11 -Iv y�,\�'•\,L` ,f, 1 r 1; 1,I ( ,_
\� \\ , , \,` `\ \ \' `: \ ='\ 1\\: ,,\` ,�;;,\ \,` : \ \` , I. �\,15t ti; ; I i 1 ' R X / /�'# t �I\ C' it at I \ �```\h;r' ' - - } T� O
.I\I, `\ I `, \'. , \,�" \I \, +`V�'`I, ", `,\ I \, ' I' i ; I ; ,'`, ` 1 11� �;11� 1,; �� I;IiI 'i `X i, n`:

I
W
M A co
O
N
O
Q
N O
N
WN
T
O
�Z
0
X 0
Np 4U
Lu
J N
U
r, U
NNmZ
u O
� (0
N NQrW
Y
O
^h
In
mZ��J
m W
�W
W
N NNE
a
Z
ofm10
.'W-•
�
cc L+
m Jmm3
w
G`
w
oa��3
aa__3
Jill1
II 00-
I
W
M A co
00
O
N
O
Q
N O
N
O
Npa�
T
O
m J
Lu
J N
r^
A A
fQ0
n
m
Cmp N
t\ m
m
p
W m
{a+mtG+aa
N m
<�
CD W
m W
W W
m m
m
m
m m
m
m m
m m
_ Z'
m m m
Jill1
II 00-
!
°a
za
O
p
O
03=2nr
'.t
Rn1�mMe��mrnmntmn
mNmN
nm
�O�tm�ylmONONQ
H m
N
A N
O M
O O
•-
G 'VC
Dn
N
N tN0
Z
cnm
Wp�p�aa000000pp��COp�oo1
1-
mmOmm1.
W Oa
m
M m
W CNDm
o
19120
U
N
'-
-
oa
W
ONV
m
nvaa mom
m m
m m
m Q
O!my
1
ti rA
Q h
ou
\
N
t
�t+ (
9f 2
az
C
N
N
b Q
tp
Q Q
lm+f <
Q N
N lN'•f
1.
N
N O
a
z���������6D6Era
rn,
FO
O_ Q
NNQ
mmn
mmO�
NC�Orl7m
n mm
j
Z
00
O
N
O
Q
N O
N
O
Npa�
T
O
m J
Lu
J N
r^
A A
fQ0
n
m
Cmp N
t\ m
m
p
W m
{a+mtG+aa
N m
<�
CD W
m W
W W
m m
m
m
m m
m
m m
m m
_ Z'
m m m
J
II 00-
a3lifa a3rviia a31vCa
O'. ui: p Ln
001 1", ^, I 0
co: Co Co co 0
-- i - -- - I -' - - - - -I - o
cDz_
CDz�
—�O a
cr_Q�z -- --
$
ON
1 1 EE - -- +
OD
J�T
�\ \J�,A .'({1,'(y'1��1 ,''�S' ' ,��'�,1y�'�'I��I`•��f1 •I /',I�i.'t'(�'1/ __ -_ -..- I _� /`���� '. �
/`I
i''
WY
;
r ��1 .
1 1 `
��:`'jj� /,',' Ill , � ,....'':w'., ' ; /N;�s' I';$'!r'' .� --��► 1 = _ : _' v
MO
_t N
' 'A• I 1 , ' N
I
\:��\� \�\ I, _ �, `a;; ;; � / Irk,, ;' � ► ;- --r- -. —, -- I 1 - —� - - -, -c
N
'I N
r 7, T �—
I 11, I r-� -_ 1 - I
.`iao%�� j' '�, %/1 Dh a ,`\�,,` \,- ._.._• - -, ;',; 1; ���I; •;''loll; .f' .... I
r �.) •- � �,,', %; �� \ Via, \.� —•�'"_ I ; ' ' Il B i , 1 � ; , - - - -_ .�,. _- 1-_
'
j9, f =� r lfrr iV),: /}P/ !—+- -, - -:�- I-- _�- 1__. -.�.--
} 1 ' • ri,, 1 , I r r I i , , I,,; Ij/•1,1 ,/•,�': „�'i !fyi', %,,'f, i, ( I ..
.'i„/ 1 , 1r Ir�Irl,r+ /, r1 /„ r' / "•,.5� %, ,.�;y — .- i^�- .'�C'�. '�. —. -.- 1
-�- --
'
F- - r
—I-- , I
w pt:
— *— +
O
LLJ J _.. - I
I" v)z
LL
-- - - - - - -1 -r 7—
o ! �_
I o-
a I.: - �. -- - +
C\j
QI
I', W Co, Co CO. OCI
04 O
O
N
O
Q
N O
N
O
Npa�
T
O
C'�D CND lma
Lu
J N
r^
A A
fQ0
n
m
Cmp N
t\ m
m
p
W m
{a+mtG+aa
N m
<�
CD W
m W
W W
m m
m
m
m m
m
m m
m m
m m
m m m
J
II 00-
!
°a
za
O
p
O
03=2nr
'.t
Rn1�mMe��mrnmntmn
mNmN
nm
�O�tm�ylmONONQ
H m
N
A N
O M
O O
•-
G 'VC
Dn
N
N tN0
Z
cnm
Wp�p�aa000000pp��COp�oo1
1-
mmOmm1.
W Oa
m
M m
W CNDm
o
19120
U
N
O
W
ONV
m
nvaa mom
m m
m m
m Q
O!my
N O
ti rA
Q h
N m
7
0
N
t
�t+ (
9f 2
tNNV pCnp9
C
N
N
b Q
tp
Q Q
lm+f <
Q N
N lN'•f
1.
N
N O
a
z���������6D6Era
rn,
FO
O_ Q
NNQ
mmn
mmO�
NC�Orl7m
n mm
QI
I', W Co, Co CO. OCI
04 O
CI
II -
-�-
o
10
�"-
f - -.- -!
'-- I I I —{
-
LLOW.
I
a2
o
--
II 00-
!
°a
za
O
p
ao F%. r, 10
QI
I', W Co, Co CO. OCI
04 O

f 1�
�i
I-
7
IA
Aci
HS
Wo
f
N OQQl
vo
a❑
w
n
r ' U
v Q
�N
NtVm}
r
De
p
tr
N7NPw
Y
O! OOf
m m
�W
yl
Z
N N 7
x C3 C)
F
J
J V4
a
I
�3ll� tD•Nl� s3170s
O LO Im
co N
00 O o? as coo
tn
CD
, T I
zQ--OO v
I,
I 1 1 I '-
_ c\lj ll:� - - - - - --
�QW o
• I -- I O
N
>- (/) W
V) LLJ
—1
T
I
=
I—OZW
uo
ic
"
O.
i
�yy',� i• A,
l
0
- —, --
Comp
/ mw /� ' ` a;:RS•`= Jam'':% - \ _ .`.`\`\ ,
LJ
\ • • �. {
\`,1' ,\
Ln
f�..; S' ^S• �"�1 ��� ...\ \�'v: \`' #,, ?\ $C' \�`:\``.\\ \t \•;� 'I'1, ,\ \,`,',,', ', \'`,` ` ,, \', I. �' I. I I Ij I M
fm
iii /' �.�„ . \• �l,l`�' /(;:;:(: "' / "' S "/ T� F I: —, --
SHE r i
I1 �
BHT -z>
._ -� ' • � � � MAC �1 I�
>m
O
IA
Aci
HS
W
N O
N OQQl
W W
R N
0
-•m
O
Nof S+1
m m (h
J O
LL,
A A
m m
A A
m m
N
m
f00
m m
t�`O m
m m
O! OOf
m m
COD m
m m
Off
m m
CAD O� O
m m m
J
O
i 'wr'
Z
iG
HmNOm,n
IV SA
fV n
� Ol
p 1�
<O OJN
N (h
MV
r In
�tNt0
SCE SpG
N SC'�O
t7 Of
O> 'V M
tOOA
Z�
OW
CD
m
CAD
m m
m A
m m
�
A A
�
A m
0
my Cp
f0 f0
0 0
m A
m m
0 0
A fp
m SD
0 0
fp {p m
i$ SO m
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
�i��`\'O
U
�3ll� tD•Nl� s3170s
O LO Im
co N
00 O o? as coo
tn
CD
, T I
zQ--OO v
I,
I 1 1 I '-
_ c\lj ll:� - - - - - --
�QW o
• I -- I O
N
>- (/) W
V) LLJ
—1
T
I
=
I—OZW
uo
ic
"
O.
i
�yy',� i• A,
l
0
- —, --
Comp
/ mw /� ' ` a;:RS•`= Jam'':% - \ _ .`.`\`\ ,
LJ
\ • • �. {
\`,1' ,\
Ln
f�..; S' ^S• �"�1 ��� ...\ \�'v: \`' #,, ?\ $C' \�`:\``.\\ \t \•;� 'I'1, ,\ \,`,',,', ', \'`,` ` ,, \', I. �' I. I I Ij I M
fm
iii /' �.�„ . \• �l,l`�' /(;:;:(: "' / "' S "/ T� F I: —, --
SHE r i
I1 �
BHT -z>
._ -� ' • � � � MAC �1 I�
�aa N
M
-- (
TO
IAZ
'I
.._... n m
'JL)
-- 77 -- �- L' -- LLW
WX
.. W W
— -. - -- - -- - — - - o+
O. Lin O` Lo: O
°n 01 rl0 C^0 :9 M
0 O
>m
O
IA
Aci
p�`mQ
O SO
N O
N OQQl
W W
R N
mm�N
m m
-•m
O
Nof S+1
m m (h
J O
LL,
A A
m m
A A
m m
N
m
f00
m m
t�`O m
m m
O! OOf
m m
COD m
m m
Off
m m
CAD O� O
m m m
J
O
Z
iG
HmNOm,n
IV SA
fV n
� Ol
p 1�
<O OJN
N (h
MV
r In
�tNt0
SCE SpG
N SC'�O
t7 Of
O> 'V M
tOOA
Z�
OW
CD
m
CAD
m m
m A
m m
�
A A
�
A m
0
my Cp
f0 f0
0 0
m A
m m
0 0
A fp
m SD
0 0
fp {p m
i$ SO m
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
�i��`\'O
U
v��
Sin
CmD I�mN
rD�
0"'D�OmIQm
W
0
O
$1
A CD
SA SA
m m
m R
m m
N O
Sal 9
Q h
N SP r
a
l�nv,n
z�
�������������rnin���
.�
o vn°ii
va�<<�
M°io�mic
�
~ 0
O- v
0 0
v v
v v
S v
v
v v
v v
v v
v v
v v v
�aa N
M
-- (
TO
IAZ
'I
.._... n m
'JL)
-- 77 -- �- L' -- LLW
WX
.. W W
— -. - -- - -- - — - - o+
O. Lin O` Lo: O
°n 01 rl0 C^0 :9 M
0 O

z
70,AM0tp
m
o
p, .N-
r
W
Oz
�
`rO�m
oM
LLJO
J m
CO
Wr
N f
z
m Nm
o
Z w
c�1
7 <U
n 4
U
CD
Gl 0)
W m
NNmz
r
O
UJ m
mz��J
o
W
mIca
-1
k a)I
Ct
+
Ln
° ° --
mwtntn3
w
V N
�
UQ ^'3
C) IT arx0°3 E
�� E
o_w TCH TO SH
�J� A
M jp
�y' ,
I :.t 13',1 b; !
/ l/ J
/ // r i
All
lo, �+
M
\` \
PI
VIA\� `` �. �\ ` mot., 1,` _ •/C II Y
%/'
lil- 13.11. .3 -v0.
LO O^ 1 O
00 Co. 00 00 O
'.I 10
Ol
LO
-- - ;; -
-
T 3
LO
;�`�w -,=��' ' �' '• /,' ' r' , � r �' �` ,�,/ , ,,,,'_ "ice � I ',, /, _ _ __.._
;\ate V,
tn
Ln
a,:l',',I „ill„ ,,,;!,',� ,'' ,1' ,.;I. /, --• -I --
n,
i< „ "i,; ;,ai,l; ;ix
\' Ln
.,\,`,�
\;
_
- .. - --
\
ly
\, ,;;\
VON
`` \ "``ems `' ;; ?,,,• _1 __
LO
I\'',
„ 1-
CDO
�Nk ! 1 O
Ok LO
IV-
cL
\ N;;
o I ! C4
\IN
Ln
CD C) i I I_ 7 I -- �- Ln
�
R — i $ 'I
poi-
F O — �- o►
CD J
z
_
L!]
> .
�_ �� w i- � O O4!
1 - - - - - -_ ' y zz ZQ O
1 , ( -- —✓- - -r -- -rte +
_-
S O r I^ / �W� T- Ii
'�IJ J-L bV� cry w �- o - -! . �'
LLB I— O z
I O Z W
O z LLJ
70,AM0tp
I - , �Z NV.
I W
-_. r-
az
o
p, .N-
N�N�ONO'pnl
Oz
f00
`rO�m
oM
LLJO
J m
A A
A A
m Nm
A t00
m
{gy�pp'
aD YD
Ol
m eD
CD
Gl 0)
W m
OAD
a0 A m
O
UJ m
m W
CD 41
ID
-1
-- __�_ - - -� - -:
�? O! in O'
+
Ln
J
O
pp
C7 N
V N
�
�
A
A
N O N
'w-
W b
N OfNO
0 Ol
O
L6 6 N
p
^ NtG
6
16
64 �
F•-
Z
,��O�,O�a
W
�
o
W0000soosss0000�ooao
()
V•Z ' Cto D
aW 7 N
r O Y
1r" • N
tA 7
p 1p
lf"0 , m N
p v
g
so-
w
O
N O
O
V N
aO
Am
Ci
MmMN
N
Mt0
G
M
im
my
Rv3
aZiNiAi^v"iiAn
uiiiAni,
DA,
Di D5 o
rO
NMQ'�,
tOA
ODOO�NfnQ
Nip
AtO O,
lil- 13.11. .3 -v0.
LO O^ 1 O
00 Co. 00 00 O
'.I 10
Ol
LO
-- - ;; -
-
T 3
LO
;�`�w -,=��' ' �' '• /,' ' r' , � r �' �` ,�,/ , ,,,,'_ "ice � I ',, /, _ _ __.._
;\ate V,
tn
Ln
a,:l',',I „ill„ ,,,;!,',� ,'' ,1' ,.;I. /, --• -I --
n,
i< „ "i,; ;,ai,l; ;ix
\' Ln
.,\,`,�
\;
_
- .. - --
\
ly
\, ,;;\
VON
`` \ "``ems `' ;; ?,,,• _1 __
LO
I\'',
„ 1-
CDO
�Nk ! 1 O
Ok LO
IV-
cL
\ N;;
o I ! C4
\IN
Ln
CD C) i I I_ 7 I -- �- Ln
�
R — i $ 'I
poi-
F O — �- o►
CD J
z
_
L!]
> .
�_ �� w i- � O O4!
1 - - - - - -_ ' y zz ZQ O
1 , ( -- —✓- - -r -- -rte +
_-
S O r I^ / �W� T- Ii
'�IJ J-L bV� cry w �- o - -! . �'
LLB I— O z
I O Z W
O z LLJ
I - , �Z NV.
I W
-_. r-
az
o
Q,
Oz
W D L>J
LLJO
10
Ow.
! u_
Li LLJ
Z
W Dr
O
ww
-_
�/�y
I Ili
L
- I , ; ZQ
-1
-- __�_ - - -� - -:
�? O! in O'
+
Ln
'
Q,
�! CO'. i 001
O 0

.11". •31,- .31—
U! . :� . `� l �.' / , `` \ t;\. \. � \ - y'y ` ♦ ` � ,`�: , \`. Sri' � O'. l:•i 0 LO
10 a LO
w Q \ \ ', ' �; 1 ! '%i' r r \ t♦ \ • a -' _ \ , \;,': '♦ 00` d0 00 00
'' `^ \ " \cam \' ` \:.� : , \`, `� � ♦ `
N
wig ,
\
LU
C;
ae W
Z w /�j o NNm2 '__________ ?,'u- • -- /r:' i ��5� r .
LLJ
cr
..
1A, .I_
LLI
,
CN
2a
cw
`;\ _ I r _ cl
I
'o
If
s �:\_ -_ .... - -, ~// �• °� ,� � ��, ,'� � � ��� I j \\ lam. /� _ � r` - t � — �— --o
C i \
Via!
co
CD- r-- --I- -- I ; r—
� ! /;•fir ,�y .;/ �, Z CD
-Nr'r0_
lf', CD
IV
CD
% - EzO
I,
\ o 4, a
IL
.J
,
` , `` `, , ,'r'::ii__' -` ♦�'!\ ` ♦L' � \`,,;,`, _ BAR• �_', %,\ ', `. ` NZ \``;` still �`; ' a!\`:♦ \ i ^X _ —E I .o
`, \,���i:;��- .yZ�9 ��:t+�,.,,,:.�,'�.,, S,r�II ,���',�,�„ i�,�`'ti ,y"7,,y'��'•` =. �.�_� \\ ___ '- 'I � •, ' ll.iii. :�Y ^��� %���_,' -�, .
\ +q, r.� - .1�rr��z%L,1 �.Ay9 •% •„ '`, `,'t , ,'` /N0
;'',t, %`•_`_4_-i'`_rr -3•_= $_ -_-J'` s"�' s F/% i ` i , ' , ` +r ` j• ` /. .,d1 ` "``: ' /•,'c'.' �- . 4 I
�,� mss. ..>'� �'jji'�,�, 1ti;" , ✓ .' ,l' %�'(';,',; r;. /,'.' ' - ---- C
~ - - - _•- -- _ "- --'
`X '7S — ' -
_rti '- _ _ =s. <. _` �,'. '•_y'- s's������R ,��✓ ls9Q1 .irj ,:r`% r i + \,`` ```` , :14 t' i„rr 1/ . ...': :�. _ - I I . _.. w0
"''• '•'____��--__- -_ - -_ __ rr'�Il/ ,' '��.Z� i' ;f�; ,i +.?;;,fin rl I , �y�,'' .. )
,- _k - - -- _ -' - - -- ;' •�� �' '' ;•��jr;I, /,'l1�- ;�'l %; � \' :rr ;/, j ' s% p� ;'�'�j;li �r•� I�',; ;,I`''��`�! ",-� � � °i 1 j ,�� °o
+
!r ;' !;'::I, '1/ I,j I' \I., '.i'. I ; , -'a
-- 1 30
1
1
• , \ 1 I
,o SHEE -� !
Zw
H M �\ o Q O
Nz +
4 JO
v
- �- oW
1
P-a_
! Z °a °o
Ln o to ! o 0
N. �' wc; <o; wo
s O
7 d
u.
.
J
m A
A
N
A
F
0
m
LLi
ODmmrq
O.mmmlbm
f�'p
t00
OOf
mmOmO
W O. cO
J
O
U�m
�iA
Ap�N
p�Y
A
�M
W A
TtOIM
A f0
m
NCD
N O. N
l••-'
O
z q
(O,), U1
0! WNy
O t7
P
O N
e GD
1(`,!
N fqp
O�
W N
Z
Q�AOf�
rHAf�A�N�
t00
t00
OwC.?-------------
oOCCO�o
U
CD
[/Np��
�N
Otn�GD
ICD
�mpM
----O.
W
7=
O
?O�OC
N
N
Bi�
m n
W tO
tG r
19
Y ap0
C.
I�
OD
G
O ..6
a6V li �
a
Di
Di ti In
z�����>n�����fnln��DS
tD
A
0 0
0
e
v v
v
41TI
v a
v v
v v
e e
v v
v e
v v
o
• , \ 1 I
,o SHEE -� !
Zw
H M �\ o Q O
Nz +
4 JO
v
- �- oW
1
P-a_
! Z °a °o
Ln o to ! o 0
N. �' wc; <o; wo
s O

Z r Z
O u
[•� Y Z --
O w ��y n -U
Z w ,� NNIOZ
w� r ^ MATCH TO SHEET 5 t
c�C�rr y}j I -
wo 'G w �zO:•� E
w W t7 -NNE
LLI
LL �! Z xzmmi i 1
fry w LL MEN: - - ,, + . ' �. ( i •. I I -
W
,
,
1 I
��
\\
3 g
Lai
'Lid i
LQ' r-I
/ / X pe.[� —�- -�— -
>c
:a X o�, ----
LLJ
CD
CD
O-�------ - --- —', I 00 t ---Ir -
,fl x
`cl,j ..
LLj-
'LIJ, — i - - - - --
O -� \ .IW I--' O
L LI Q x.71`-1 1 - -i-. -- -' --
PQ
L_lsl' W� �
i
LLJ
w
20
LLJ
\
Lij
LL Jd
i
:' / LL m�
N UV) — Ln
> m
W O
I
t'1
mo Q
m
Q�
m
N
mp
Q N
V.
O
o
m m
rn
17
NV)=
= OD
W m
h
m m
A
m
N
m
n
m
01-1-1-148
p
m
.........
p
J
O
U' I�i���nn�ni
m N
m N
f7
`n.-
m n
�nmrno.-
N N
N
O N
�nrnrnc�Gm
m
m
m
w
Z
m
N W
N
z
m
N
n o
N r
m m
�1 Oi
Q Q
Q
m 01
N f7
N T
Q�p �(l
M
O tG
N
h CO
M A
O Q
t0 O
f7
Z
W
V%mmmmomm��Qrn
m
mmnnmm
vl
O
W o
0
�m
U
Z M
MN�"M
m
O Q
N
m M
O n
W
m
t•ImmC)
m N
m
� (A
m (P
m mrn
m Q
m
W
W
OCOnY �
()
O m
N m
�
O
f-
2M-
N O
O N
m Q
M
N T
m
0
n
r
C�`nY
6
n n
Q n
a
z
�--•O
NM
Q
lnm
m00�
Nt7Q
In m
n mfA
N UV) — Ln
I
J
Q W Z a
-, --
Z
_'__. - I v
Z'
W
= F-
ZZV)W
i
- -
- — I— — i VV)Z
NV)=
WU
I W
crc:)
��
WW
M
O<
..
o
m
I f 1
C) 0

O
Z
N
r
LU
N
Z
O
[may
N
Z
W_j
Z /7 Q U
❑ m
Q V
z w
LLj W
O
4
U r U
NNmZ
O'nf
V
ONO l,Nl
to N NNW
W
W 00
2
¢
W
W W VN7
L9
J
7 m JNN3
❑^ ^
w n w4
°~
9J
-I-- -- - - --
1 J3H S -- : -- --, --rt - -,
,
• 1 -
on 01 H31 VW ,
,
,
,
,
r I _
I ,
C]AYtr$i I
,
/ CD
,
�z0, 0 -
;' _-
\
\ \
CD-
�' '. �` i� '• ice' ��f`` =•/ / ��: ' � �� � --�- -; - +- --`- - -- -
-
\ I \'
(..
l LLJ
------ W C�-- -
\
\\ \ Q t� -� , . - - - - - --
Li LLJ
7.
Li
- —
Lij,
L i
At
,
,
,
�1 - - - - - --
I
ZL,,
LL
Ld
LLj LL-
CDC
,
�' - _ •. \ , .;,:: -fir / q —�— ; _
\J / U (n
�—
w
Lij
Da
N(n= i I i WL
LLJ
cLr-
LLJ
'WV
\ I `\ // - -- • •'C0 `\ CL 11 m —�__ -- Y— �: --- - F-.0
Lli
O O
.1$1.14
Q V
N O
N�
O N
O'nf
vO{� O.
ONO l,Nl
W
W 00
�l
J
O
1
VEg
o'VIn
Nt�
Wf
W
of
Z
R�p
w
c l
O N
Q W
ftV�
1�
W f<r
1� W
N O'nl• N
Z
t
I"- m
-mm9;moaiXi°`rFE
a000000000'�000
tWNV
N o
tOv
t6 •A
yWy gWg
a
t0 W
ran
N O,
N
N 0,
,umm.^n
w
O
oo
H
V
W
N N
l7 N
f0 1.1
W W
f7 W
W l7
W W
W
W
Z M
W
pp ��••
W ,-
W N
W N
W .-
W W
mom
O, W
O
a
z��
Q O6Di
rl�m'Dvi
vG�Dim����Fi����
c
r 0
N
0
M Q
o c
h W
o 0
r W
0
Ol O
0
N
t7 Q
,n W
n W W
-I-- -- - - --
1 J3H S -- : -- --, --rt - -,
,
• 1 -
on 01 H31 VW ,
,
,
,
,
r I _
I ,
C]AYtr$i I
,
/ CD
,
�z0, 0 -
;' _-
\
\ \
CD-
�' '. �` i� '• ice' ��f`` =•/ / ��: ' � �� � --�- -; - +- --`- - -- -
-
\ I \'
(..
l LLJ
------ W C�-- -
\
\\ \ Q t� -� , . - - - - - --
Li LLJ
7.
Li
- —
Lij,
L i
At
,
,
,
�1 - - - - - --
I
ZL,,
LL
Ld
LLj LL-
CDC
,
�' - _ •. \ , .;,:: -fir / q —�— ; _
\J / U (n
�—
w
Lij
Da
N(n= i I i WL
LLJ
cLr-
LLJ
'WV
\ I `\ // - -- • •'C0 `\ CL 11 m —�__ -- Y— �: --- - F-.0
Lli
O O

O
r
Z
w a a UY
o 'G w �z)
LL I
w ~ w x I m m i --
Z a �\ \
cr
W aW-n: \ i
Vi
LL-
-y` - -i-----------'----I---°----
W,
, W,
__..
fill
z 00
7 - y
CD
CD o
cr-
CD
CD
\ i
X N - --
V) LLJ
jXii
O
L
-L +7 _
• �- W L
IN 0 W W --�-
- -- O�W�
LLJ
LLJ
-
-
,
. I I
4-
Z W
W
\ ~ Z
t�
I
- —
ui
4, w_ COO
- -- -
- Jp - - -- -- --r- -- r -- :T- ..000
O
LLJ
C><
�O
- - P NN= I-
wOO . .I... I I �Z
LL-
ZQ
O
O
M
Qe`me
O m
N O
nmrn�nm�m,na
N m
Q N�
m
O
m
m ) th
W
J m
A A
m A
m
A
m N
l
m
oi m
OOi
00 `m
YY
m
a, m
W m
m m
m
.
m
m m
m m
m m
m
m
J
0
T
n O
rncn
0
m m
li
m
6
N
0 17
N
O N
N m
e m
O r`
n •-
N tai
� m
.p- -i
m �
o .pG
n m
N aC
N O, N
Oi O t�
z
r' m
ucpm
N O
ON
m N
��OO
Q e
Om
m Of
O^��Tmmmnnm
N Ol
m�
N tD
M W
t�0 0 r
l
oW0000�000000001.2
m m
m N OI
N
� �
-0 t7
n
m m
m N
f7 m
m N
m M
m
N
N
N r
N O
N
ON
O
Q
N Owl m
��u°Q
uni
t7
uNia
u°'i�e
vm<vMinMMmm�v
,O
�
Qnn
n
nnnn
n u
n n
n
n
n
n n
n n
n n
n
rn m
nnnr
n n
-n
n n n
n.
z n
n n
�o
0
NmQ,mm�mrno.-
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
NnQmmnmm
O
LLJ
C><
�O
- - P NN= I-
wOO . .I... I I �Z
LL-
ZQ
O

Z N '• i
V) _ F CD
� x 0 1 1 I - I-- -- • ' I -
Z w N
LI.I
w r
-y
W a O J NUN @Y �J LL O ____•__ -- i __ -r_ I i I --- _
w O �W NZj 1� O aoo
ui N QI N ' --�- -. _-.- -
J' ^;
Er 0 0 CD
�W arc....3 zO i I
I
4 �� 13 ~ZOO - --� - - -- -.._
a J O
a .r. LLJ �
\\ I QW>- I - --
X \\ \� X W — - -- - .._
a vnw�' LLJ CD
X / / -`/ �OZIW ,
i
P
I�
? a r 4 J 4
/', 0�: m CD W I
'� �., Q - ' it ,r'� � � � � 1 __ -_ -- - {- - - - -•- -
X
;
H , �{
\ _` Imo•• � / j ! - ! . i ;
—
;,:; . Y
•'r
- ! _
4-
,
,
-
j
- - -- W
Z�
- _ - --
EiLLi
w i UQ
LLI .4
r
,
t
- --
w
w� -
N
ZN� i
t. o w
NN= ; LLJU
� H
O= LULLI
LL F
Za
U O
O
'n a7
♦O
0 e
Q m
m
N O
N T
Q m
N
N m
O, m
o
7
m
W
J m'
n
m
p
m
o .
W m
m m
m m
m
m m
m m
m
m m
m m
m m m
J
O
m N
m N
f7 n
m
N ,[I
N
M N
n Of
m m
F' m
N O
m Y1
N Oi
e m
O m
Q C
m
N ♦O
M A
,O O A
Z
Z
co<»mmmoO00�♦�m�.
-�mm
mmnnmm,n
,n
O¢mmmmnmmnnnmmmmmmmmmm
LL,o
00000000000000,
0
o uo
H
[h N
m
m
MmmM
OO
m O m
W
Z m
O
O♦ �
n m
O e
m m
� �
O♦ m
m e
m m
N 0
[n m
e m
N N
N
O m
O n
,[1
Q
N m
O
F N
T N
v°3 ,n
N M
vNi a
N n
u�'f m
N O
e e
m N
m e
O N
e M
�
M �n
e7 m
c'I m e
iA
1n N
N
N In
♦I7 N
In N
In N
h N
1n N
In N In
IL
Z
0
d e
0 0
e e
0 0
e e
0 0
e e
0 0
a e
0
e e
c e
e o
o v
o v e
N
ZN� i
t. o w
NN= ; LLJU
� H
O= LULLI
LL F
Za
U O

....
,:.WOOD,
..W....
: : :::::
901 ..D
END
1111:
iu

M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

d
9
i
01 30 zoos
2010 02

1—= M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
11-11 . Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 3
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 4
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
4
Little White Oak Creek
Strewn 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
Vegetation Plot 5
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

4=- MUL..KEY
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: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

- ` MU L KEY 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: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

4--- M U LK E Y 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: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 9
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year I Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:
9

t- MULKEY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
.� ,...e.•. s ��.,a..,, Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 10
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year I Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

` �- MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 1 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: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

4-- m1uLKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 12
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: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:
12

MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 13
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year I Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:
13

M ULKEY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Vegeation Plot 14
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
14
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

-i. MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 15
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
15
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

I M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 16
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
16
Year I Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

i
-r -MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 17
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
17
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

-�MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 18
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Little While Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:
18

PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 19
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
19
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

41
1lE di'
Av�
dY VA
2010,1 '1 0 1
hn,
k
At"
2010,1 '1 0 1

4_' MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 21
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Little White Oak Creek
Strewn Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:
21

-1=MUL.KEY 1.
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Vegetation Plot 22
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: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:
22

-r-- MU LK EY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
,.
Stream Restoration
Vegetation Plot 23
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
23
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

r�

A If
i rhv, i
01 30'2006
2019;' 1 02

41- MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 2; Looking Downstream on Reach R2
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Little While Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

MU L KEY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 2; Looking Upstream on Reach R2
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

--= M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
.1, „ . 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: November 2011 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: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

t- MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 2.5Y1; Looking Upstream Along Reach 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: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

1
- +=- MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 3; Looking Downstream Along Reach R213
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: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

- �= MULKEY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek 11-1 1. Z. 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: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

-°= M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 3.5Y]; Looking Downstream Along R2 &R2B
Not Applicable
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
x
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

4 MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 3.5Y1; Looking Upstream Along R2
Not Applicable
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
El
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

-r=- M U L K E Y
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 3.5Y1; Looking Upstream Along R213
Not Applicable
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Little White Oak Creek
Siream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011 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: November 2011
12
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

-r�-- M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
1 . I I I Stream Restoration
Photo Point 4; Looking Upstream at Confluence of R1 &R2
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
13
Year l 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 5; Looking Downstream Along R2
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
14
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

i.
MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 5; Looking Upstream Along R2
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
E
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

4--MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 6; Looking Downstream Along Reach R1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
9
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

I A
Cl
F
: am-
-40
LAL
01 31 2008
; wl-
2010 11 01

- M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 7; Looking Downstream Along R1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
18
Year l Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

01 31,'2008
It owl It"
m
: Tic, "I
77
2010 1 i oi
•I-

-t= M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 8; Looking Downstream Along R1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
20
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

- 1=- MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 8; Looking Upstream Along R1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
0
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 8; Looking Upstream Along R1A
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: November 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
22
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

k
- �- �- MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 8.5Y1; Looking Downstream Along R1A
Not Applicable
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
23
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year I Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

--= MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 8.5Y1; Looking Upstream Along RI
Not Applicable
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
24
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

--- M U L K E r PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 9; Looking Across Reach R 1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
25
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

E_ MULKEY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Photo Point 9; Looking Downstream Along Reach R1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
Oka
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

i
=' MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 9; Looking Upstream Along Reach RI
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
27
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

42- 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: November 2011
28
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

-- MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 10; Looking Downstream Along Reach R1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
29
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year I Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

- t= MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 10; Looking Upstream Along Reach R1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
30
Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

-F- M U L K E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
' - . Stream Restoration
Photo Point 11; Looking Across Reach R1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
31
Year I Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

y=- M U LK EY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
1. ° Stream Restoration
Photo Point 11; Looking Downstream Along Reach R 1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
32
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

°-=- MULKEY
PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG
Photo Point 11; Looking Upstream Along Reach R1
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
33
Little While Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

f M U LK 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: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

01/30/2008
11 AM,
iF KI
4N.
iF KI

-fit` - 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: November 2011
3
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
Permanent Cross Section 4
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
4
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 5 Monitoring:

-4 - M U LK EY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
_ _ _.. _ _ . Stream Restoration
Permanent Cross Section 5
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

1
Y
F
Wr
a - ,

M U LK EY 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: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

MLJLKEY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
' Stream Restoration
Permanent Cross Section 8
As -built Survey: January 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: October 2009
Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:

-1! - M U LK E Y PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
1 z . "- Stream Restoration
Permanent Cross Section 9
As -built Survey: January 2008 Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: November 2009 Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011 Year 5 Monitoring:
�9

�-- M U LK EY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
Stream Restoration
Permanent Cross Section 10
As -built Survey: January 2008 Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
Year 2 Monitoring: November 2009 Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
10
Year 5 Monitoring:

x
V
'- to
k

r'— M ULK EY PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG Little White Oak Creek
s — - Stream Restoration
Permanent Cross Section 12
As -built Survey: January 2008 Year 1 Monitoring: September 2008
1 f
, 1S
�'
�,r,
J.'f
n�
Year 2 Monitoring: November 2009 Year 3 Monitoring: November 2010
Year 4 Monitoring: November 2011
12
Year 5 Monitoring:

`^
01/31/2008
'
• r •
I
\ 2010"11,08

m
rn —
o�
U'
CO C
(a O
} u N
t c) a:
N
O
^ U '
N C
� O
N
W W�
C
O N
N cr
1 W
U)
T �
C Ur}
O�
U u�
a�
U)
N � O
Cn O
in Uri
O
L N
C)
�. o
(z 3 a
_
Y (J
l0
m C
N
O �
Uf
U cc
w
Q
M
M
I
x
A
(11) UOIJUAGIB
0
0
0
0
O
O
00
O
O
CD
U
C
(z
o cn
L Q
N
c
0
N
a 'C
0
7
u
7

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2
Cross Section Name: (Year 4) Cross Section 1 - Riffle (R2)
Survey Date: 11/14/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0 i
10 i
20 i
25
35 I
40 I
44 I
48.5
51.5
54
57
59
60.5
64
65.5
67
69.5
72
76
78
82.5
92
104.5
110
=S
ELEV
NOTE
-------------------------------------------------------
877.2
GS
877.27
876.81
GS
873.83
875.32
GS
Floodprone width (ft)
874.33
GS
- - - --
873.84
GS
14.59
874
GS
3.27
873.83
BKF
Mean Depth (ft)
872.59
GS
1.56
872.17
LEW
3.25
870.99
GS
20.38
871.13
GS
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
870.44
GS
29.68
870.39
TW
18.4
870.53
GS
1.58
872.17
REW
Begin BKF Station
872.71
GS
58.59
873.05
GS
58.59
873.32
GS
I
873.62
RB
873.88
GS
873.99
GS
874.2
GS
i
876.62
GS
i
876.97
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
877.27
877.27
877.27
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
873.83
873.83
873.83
Floodprone width (ft)
110
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
33.62
14.59
19.03
Entrenchment Ratio
3.27
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
1.65
1.77
1.56
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.44
3.25
3.44
width /Depth Ratio
20.38
8.24
12.2
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
55.48
25.8
29.68
wetted Perimeter (ft)
35.08
18.4
23.18
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.58
1.4
1.28
Begin BKF Station
44
44
58.59
End BKF station
77.62
58.59
77.62
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
(0 O
o a
U'
N
M c
d U
N
N O
fA O
20-
�1U'
N N N
C
N 'U
N OC
_ U)
O•
O
O
N
N
I o O r
co cn
O
N oa
UN�
O�
U S N
VJ o O
N
N oa ta
N UN}
O <
CUcu
it C
cz a
7
Y
C
CO C
O O
O O
O a
UN
_o
} O Er
CO
R
f
x
N
I
W
A
3
(11) UOIIUA913
0
0
0
0
M
O
M
O
n
O
(D
O
U
cz
o N
L Q
O
o N
O
h
7
V
7
J

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2
Cross Section Name: (Year 4) Cross Section 2 - Pool (R2)
Survey Date: 11/14/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0 i
10 i
17
18
28
38
49.5 l
52
55
60
62
64
65
67.5
71
72.5
74.5
75.5
76.5
79
87.5
93.5
108.5
112 C
120 C
=S
ELEV
NOTE
-------------------------------------------------------
876.23
GS
876.43
876.13
GS
872.94
876.04
GS
Floodprone width (ft)
875.83
GS
- - - --
873.52
GS
17.34
873.3
GS
4.64
873.34
GS
Mean Depth (ft)
872.94
BKF
2.37
872.2
GS
3.11
872.34
GS
15.22
872.15
GS
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
871.3
LEW
20.25
869.83
GS
21.5
870.07
GS
I
869.67
GS
I
869.45
TW
69.34
869.92
GS
69.34
871.38
REW
I
872.66
GS
873.17
RB
i
872.88
GS
i
872.71
GS
i
875.97
GS
i
876.4
GS
i
876.1
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
876.43
876.43
876.43
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
872.94
872.94
872.94
Floodprone width (ft)
120
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
25.87
17.34
8.53
Entrenchment Ratio
4.64
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
1.7
1.36
2.37
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.49
3.11
3.49
width /Depth Ratio
15.22
12.75
3.6
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
43.86
23.6
20.25
wetted Perimeter (ft)
28.45
21.5
13.11
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.54
1.1
1.54
Begin BKF Station
52
52
69.34
End BKF Station
77.87
69.34
77.87
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Oa
U '
.-. co
CL) 'V N R II
Q
to O
to O
oa
U '
N C
) N
^
C
.o
N
N �
I C —
M 0 -
o a- m
C: U r) }
0
.mil C x
p
U 0
C\J
U) � 0 &
woo
fA ° a
(J) U M }
0
i L)
Uco
�t � .o
cV 3 a
/ II
w
� O Y
Y U U
m C
(n O
N 0
20-
U c�
C
O
} U cr Cj
�U
(11) UOIIUA913
O
r,
O
(D
O
to
O
v
O
Cl)
O
N
O
O
O
T N
U
c
D cz
)o N
0
c
O
N
D O
2
r
0
J

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2
Cross Section Name: (Year 4) Cross Section 3 - Pool (R2)
Survey Date: 11/14/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0
10 i
20 i
24 i
32 i
38 i
48
53 I
54.5 I
56 1
57.5 1
59.5
60.5
61
62.5
63.5
66
67
67.5
68.5
71
81
86
96
114
120
126
138
148
157
164 C
=S
ELEV
NOTE
-------------------------------------------------------
874.19
GS
876.15
873.82
GS
872.21
873.82
GS
Floodprone width (ft)
873.91
GS
- - - --
872.76
GS
21.81
872.47
GS
6.24
872.5
GS
Mean Depth (ft)
872.29
GS
0.19
872.29
GS
3.94
871.71
LB
16.73
870.89
GS
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
870.5
GS
0.85
869.49
LEW
24.6
868.38
GS
868.27
Tw
868.6
GS
868.72
GS
869.01
GS
869.52
REW
870.6
GS
871.36
GS
I
872.21
BKF
I
871.75
GS
I
871.72
GS
I
875.69
GS
i
875.99
GS
i
876.06
GS
i
873.7
GS
i
873.42
GS
i
873.37
GS
i
874.74
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
876.15
876.15
876.15
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
872.21
872.21
872.21
Floodprone width (ft)
164
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
26.27
21.81
4.46
Entrenchment Ratio
6.24
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
1.57
1.86
0.19
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.94
3.94
0.38
width /Depth Ratio
16.73
11.73
23.47
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
41.34
40.5
0.85
wetted Perimeter (ft)
28.69
24.6
4.86

Begin BKF Station 54.73 54.73 76.54
End BKF Station 81 76.54 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
w
O
U'
a
� c
N
�C/)
N
cn
O
^ U '
N V-
N c
� O
4� ♦
q_ C
/Y N
E N
1 U) N
.y to
V O fSf
C: Uv�
O�
V .o
N
^, a
�f' ) (n N
O (p
C/) Uv�
0
Uro
.0. C
(z 3 a
7
Y
C
m C
_N
N_
O
U�
o
U Cc
.� fn
.n
v
I
Q
N
I
w
x
n
3
(11) UOIIEn913
0
N
O
O
0
O
M
co
O
I\
U
c0c C
(a
C0
0
N c
O
N
O
u
7

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2
Cross Section Name: (Year 4) Cross Section 4 - Riffle (R2)
Survey Date: 11/15/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0 i
8.5 �
17.5 I
23
33
41
43
45.5
48
48.5
49
51.5
54.5
56
57
58
58.5
62.5
68.5
78
86
96 C
106 C
116 C
120 C
=S
ELEV
NOTE
-------------------------------------------------------
874.43
GS
875.37
874.34
GS
871.73
872.23
GS
Floodprone width (ft)
871.81
GS
- - - --
871.89
GS
12.69
871.73
BKF
4.73
871.16
GS
Mean Depth (ft)
870.22
GS
2
869.86
GS
3.64
868.87
LEW
12.39
868.4
GS
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
868.09
Tw
25.35
868.3
GS
17.27
868.13
GS
1.86
868.45
GS
I
868.88
REW
I
870.29
GS
I
870
GS
872.67
RB
i
872.55
GS
i
872.43
GS
i
873.91
GS
i
873.36
GS
i
873.43
GS
873.09
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment calculations
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
875.37
875.37
875.37
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
871.73
871.73
871.73
Floodprone width (ft)
120
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
25.39
12.69
12.7
Entrenchment Ratio
4.73
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
2.05
2.1
2
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.64
3.64
3.6
width /Depth Ratio
12.39
6.04
6.35
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
52
26.64
25.35
wetted Perimeter (ft)
28.01
17.27
17.71
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.86
1.54
1.43
Begin BKF Station
41
41
53.69
End BKF Station
66.39
53.69
66.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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)

w o
w O
O
LO
UO
M C
N
CC
N 0
N O
as
N LO
/'yam N C
L } '
N
Er
Q �
O
.O
N
N �
C O
w 0
LO 0
C: c) U')
O.4
C
U^' 'V N
/W u
Cl) s
V) . o O
N Oa
O�
L N
U�
L td 'a
(Z 3 a
Qi
Y
O �
m C
O O
y O
O
U�
va
U cr cj
U)
X
S1
a
W
(11) UOilena1g
0
0
0
0
m
0
00
O
O
W
U
C
0
N Q
O
C) N
v
O
2
?7
Nj
u

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little White Oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2
Cross Section Name: (Year 4) Cross Section 5 - Pool (R2)
Survey Date: 11/15/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0 i
14
29
45 I
48
54
56 l
58.5
60
64
68
69.5
70
73
77
81.5
88.5
99
105
=S ELEV
---------------------
871.56
871.56
871.42
871.01
871.18
869.95
869.72
868.7
867.99
867.55
867.76
868.71
869.54
870.25
1 870.86
871.05
871.05
873.05
873.47
NOTE
GS
GS
GS
GS
LB
GS
GS
LEW
GS
TW
GS
REW
GS
GS
BKF
GS
GS
GS
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left Side Right Side
slope 0 0 0
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
874.17
874.17
874.17
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
870.86
870.86
870.86
Floodprone width (ft)
105
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
27.44
13.72
13.72
Entrenchment Ratio
3.83
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
1.68
1.6
1.76
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.31
3.23
3.31
width /Depth Ratio
16.33
8.57
7.8
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
46.07
21.97
24.09
wetted Perimeter (ft)
28.81
17.43
17.83
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.6
1.26
1.35
Begin BKF Station
49.56
49.56
63.28
End BKF Station
77
63.28
77
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left Side Right Side
slope 0 0 0

Movable Particle (mm)

CD
H
fq
O
Q.
co
M C
} Q
N
CC
N
�\ O cc
Q U
CD
N
N C
CU O C
W �
�~ O N
cn d
I co r
`^ O
C
O
U N
in m
'^ w = o
C/) J o co
N
U
O m
U�
.o
cz .
a�
o
Y U
W
In C
_N
O
UC�
N U N
} (D n
N
x
Q
co
w
x
R
Q
(11) UOlJBInal=1
0
rn
0
w
O
P-
C)
(O
�
m
U
co
CD 0
f�
C
O
N
O
2
_
u
J

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2A
Cross Section Name: (Year 4) Cross Section 6 - Riffle (R2A)
Survey Date: 11/15/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0
20 i
28.5
38.5
42 I
47 I
50 I
53
55
56
56.3
57
59
60
64
73
79
84
90
=S
ELEV
NOTE
-------------------------------------------------------
880.22
GS
878.18
880.4
GS
876.1
880.1
GS
Floodprone Width (ft)
877.19
GS
- - - --
876.68
GS
6.32
876.67
GS
3.29
876.3
LB
Mean Depth (ft)
875.86
GS
0.83
875.62
GS
2.08
874.91
LEW
15.6
874.13
GS
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
874.02
TW
5.25
874.62
GS
9.02
875.18
REW
0.74
876.1
BKF
Begin BKF Station
876.64
GS
I
879.2
GS
57.68
879.85
GS
I
880
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left side Right side
Slope 0 0 0
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
878.18
878.18
878.18
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
876.1
876.1
876.1
Floodprone Width (ft)
41.51
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
12.64
6.32
6.32
Entrenchment Ratio
3.29
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
0.81
0.79
0.83
Maximum Depth (ft)
2.08
2.08
1.88
width /Depth Ratio
15.6
8
7.61
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
10.24
4.99
5.25
wetted Perimeter (ft)
13.78
9.02
8.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.74
0.55
0.62
Begin BKF Station
51.36
51.36
57.68
End BKF Station
64
57.68
64
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left side Right side
Slope 0 0 0

Movable Particle (mm)

a�
rn —
w
o p�
U'
�n
� c _
a) V m
N
a)
O CC
CO U
N n
/yam N c
LL a) U m
�
}`N
W �
c m
0 N
(n a)
' w
O
U ^�
0
O m
ol
CD cn a)
/n to w_ O
V i a cv
C/) 4
0 a>
L �
U�
cn
�IL
cd ►
a�
y
cu
Y U
cC
CO C
cn_N
V)_
O
U^
o
}U
�En
X
A
n>
(11) U01jeA913
O
rn
O
co
O
n O
c0
LO
W
U
C
ca
N
It
co
O
N
O
M Z
:V
_
7

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2B
Cross Section Name: (Year 4) Cross Section 7 - Riffle (R2B)
Survey Date: 11/15/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
Irdal
0
10 f
19 I
25
33
40
44
49
50
53
54
55.5
56.5
58
66
70
80
90
=S ELEV
---------------------
874.93
875.08
874.85
874.8
874.73
874.67
873.43
872.96
872.82
872.12
871.98
871.86
I 872.16
I 872.82
I 872.85
I 874.01
I 874.12
873.88
NOTE
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
LB
L EW
GS
TW
REW
BKF
GS
GS
GS
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left side Right side
Slope 0 0 0
shear Stress (lb /sq ft)
Mnwnkl n Dn rt- i rl n (mm)
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
873.78
873.78
873.78
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
872.82
872.82
872.82
Floodprone width (ft)
26.34
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
8
4
4
Entrenchment Ratio
3.29
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
0.56
0.46
0.66
Maximum Depth (ft)
0.96
0.84
0.96
width /Depth Ratio
14.29
8.7
6.06
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
4.48
1.82
2.66
wetted Perimeter (ft)
8.28
4.93
5.03
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.54
0.37
0.53
Begin BKF Station
50
50
54
End BKF Station
58
54
58
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve
Channel Left side Right side
Slope 0 0 0
shear Stress (lb /sq ft)
Mnwnkl n Dn rt- i rl n (mm)

m
N
O
U'
�-. ao
M c _
N
o cr
0 Uco
//N�y•
LL 0) U 0
}��
W
O 0
•- N
U �
(n 0)
ry1 2 a: ca
W V 00 } CD
C �
co
O N
W (n 0)
tp w O
to -
O � cd
C/) Uao�
O m
i m
U�
'o
L �d
N
Y
f0
m C
0)
y w
O
UC�
CD CDcr
��
x
C
0
x
s�
z
(11) UOIIUA913
0
r
0
co
LO
Ir
f
am
U
C
co
O
O
N
.7
O
2
u

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2D
Cross Section Name: (Year 4) Cross Section 8 - Riffle (R2D)
Survey Date: 11/15/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
0 I
10 I
22 1
26.5 l
29.5
31
32
33
34.5
36
37
38
39
42
49
59
70
=S ELEV
---------------------
871.49
871.19
870.64
870.45
870.63
869.86
869.57
869.61
869.68
869.68
869.75
870.27
I 870.49
I 870.76
I 871.01
870.88
870.69
NOTE
GS
GS
GS
GS
BKF
LEW
GS
GS
TW
GS
REW
GS
RB
GS
GS
GS
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
871.69
871.69
871.69
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
870.63
870.63
870.63
Floodprone width (ft)
70
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
11.04
5.52
5.52
Entrenchment Ratio
6.34
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
0.66
0.82
0.51
Maximum Depth (ft)
1.06
1.06
0.95
width /Depth Ratio
16.73
6.73
10.82
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
7.33
4.5
2.82
wetted Perimeter (ft)
11.43
6.7
6.63
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.64
0.67
0.43
Begin BKF Station
29.5
29.5
35.02
End BKF Station
40.54
35.02
40.54
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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)

w O
0 O
Od
U�
M C
O
}y�
U
o a
�1U'
�rn
T N C
} N cc
�C/)
O�
O
� o .
U)
0
o a c`u
� Urns
Oc
U ° `
�/O/'�
V'J y 00
V ^ O
J O`
(n Urn}
O
a.. m
C) ca
t
� U
C
L �o
CIO a
tf
}
y
Y U
M
m C
U O
N O
O d
U�
o
O U r
} U)
N
x
11
m
x
A
3
(ll) UOIIUA913
O
Cl)
O
N
O
O
O
O
rn
O
M
C)
O
U
C
co
D
co
O
n O
N
O
2
a
M
V

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R1
cross Section Name: (Year 4) Cross Section 9 - Pool (R1)
Survey Date: 11/14/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
If-1199-
0
5
10
15
20
25
30 i
33 i
37
42 I
48 I
52 I
56
58
60
60.5
61
62
64
65
66
67
67.5
68
69.5
70.5
73
74
76.5
79
85 C
91 C
96 C
100 C
105 C
112 C
116 C
120 C
130 C
FS
ELEV
NOTE
-------------------------------------------------------
888.5413
GS
888.6185
GS
888.5389
GS
888.344
GS
887.8469
GS
886.4981
GS
884.6068
GS
884.0379
GS
883.4719
GS
883.2812
GS
883.0651
GS
882.9403
GS
882.7071
LB
881.8772
GS
880.4105
GS
880.0753
LEw
878.8247
GS
878.4645
Tw
878.7184
GS
878.9013
GS
878.953
GS
879.077
GS
879.1761
GS
I
880.0751
REw
I
881.3271
GS
I
881.9133
GS
I
882.1361
GS
882.1056
GS
882.2615
BKF
i
882.1902
GS
i
882.4773
GS
882.6397
GS
883.3926
GS
884.8813
GS
886.3531
GS
888.0522
GS
888.4478
GS
888.6651
GS
888.8689
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 886.06 886.06 886.06
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 882.26 882.26 882.26

Bankfull width (ft)
19.4
8.87
10.53
Entrenchment Ratio
4.01
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
1.68
2.52
0.97
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.8
3.8
3.31
width /Depth Ratio
11.55
3.52
10.86
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
32.58
22.39
10.19
wetted Perimeter (ft)
22.17
13.78
15.01
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.47
1.62
0.68
Begin BKF Station
57.08
57.08
65.95
End BKF Station
76.48
65.95
76.48
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
U o
M
.2s
} y O
C/) a
N
N
O
^ Uo
c
076
} in a°
O
or
U �
N
(n O a`
O N a°
T p fd
O
c o
or
U
N �� °C
/ UN a o
P► N
O (d
U) U °}
O
U`°
M
^ CO
C
.p
3a
cz
(D
O 4
j � O
Y "
fd r
m C
U°_
o�
� U O
} (n d
(11) UOIIEA013
0
M
O
N
O
O
O
0
rn
C)
Qi
U
C
N
..
cCo (A
D �
LO O
N
O
2
a
D
V

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R1
Cross Section Name: (Year 4) Cross Section 10 - Pool (R1)
Survey Date: 11/14/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
0
4
9
14 i
19 i
24 i
29
34 I
39 i
44 I
49
54
59
64
65
67
69
71
73
74.5
75
76
77.5
81
83
84.8 C
84.8 C
86 C
88 C
93.5 C
99 C
104 C
106 C
110 C
116 C
119 C
130 C
�:S
ELEV
NOTE
-------------------------------------------------------
886.4706
GS
884.61
885.7921
GS
881.34
884.7667
GS
Floodprone width (ft)
883.4731
GS
- - - --
882.646
GS
8.76
881.6876
GS
881.8367
GS
881.9515
GS
881.8282
GS
881.8688
GS
882.2073
GS
881.6426
GS
881.3271
GS
881.529
GS
881.5229
GS
881.5501
GS
881.3409
BKF
881.1601
GS
879.9178
GS
879.1055
LEW
878.5721
GS
I
878.7167
GS
878.6432
GS
i
878.6591
GS
878.0734
TW
879.0663
REw
878.2151
GS
881.0233
GS
882.2127
RB
882.1508
GS
882.0425
GS
881.994
GS
882.2076
GS
883.655
GS
885.509
GS
886.2372
GS
886.4358
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
884.61
884.61
884.61
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
881.34
881.34
881.34
Floodprone width (ft)
103.46
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
17.52
8.76
8.76

Mean Depth (ft)
1.99
1.51
2.48
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.27
2.77
3.27
width /Depth Ratio
8.8
5.8
3.53
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
34.95
13.19
21.77
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
21.47
12.27
14.59
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.63
1.08
1.49
Begin BKF Station
69.01
69.01
77.77
End BKF Station
86.53
77.77
86.53
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
to
O ,
U�
M C �
O U O
}tna_
•
co
N
O
^ Ur
C �
} O O
cn a-
.0-
U �
N _
T Na `
T 2
Uri
O�
}I 0 r
C/) 22 00^
0
o , cn
U) Ur}
O
U
�cn
co
.o
`W
N
=
Y
M 'D
m C
N
to
O
Ur_
o�
N 6-5
ru°ia°
J
I
X
Y
ii
N
N
II
W
x
3
(J }) UOIILIna13
O
M
O
N
O
O
0
O
m
0
00
O
U
C
cz
CD N
c�
C
O
n N
O
2
It
_
`7
V

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R1
cross Section Name: (Year 4) cross Section 11 - Pool (R1)
Survey Date: 11/14/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
FS
ELEV
NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0
0
885.9182
GS
5
0
885.9921
GS
9
0
885.7356
GS
14
0
885.609
GS
19
0
885.4228
GS
24
0
884.8807
GS
26
0
884.6986
GS
29
0
883.8964
GS
34
0
882.2653
GS
38
0
880.9251
GS
42
0
880.7398
GS
48
0
880.8799
GS
52
0
880.9106
GS
56.5
0
880.6225
GS
57
0
880.6587
GS
59
0
880.3766
LB
60
0
880.0311
GS
62.5
0
879.5195
GS
63
0
878.9044
GS
64
0
878.2105
LEw
64
0
877.085
GS
66
0
877.213
Tw
67
0
877.4489
GS
68
0
877.5524
GS
69
0
877.599
GS
71
0
877.6833
GS
72
0
877.6256
GS
73
0
877.6398
GS
74
0
877.6273
GS
76
0
877.439
GS
76.5
0
878.1919
REw
78
0
878.5884
GS
81
0
879.655
GS
82.5
0
880.0989
BKF
85
0
880.245
GS
91.5
0
880.495
GS
96.5
0
880.7063
GS
101.5
0
880.6754
GS
106.5
0
881.4182
GS
111.5
0
882.6066
GS
116.5
0
884.4198
GS
121.5
0
885.0695
GS
130
0
885.2149
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
883.12
883.12
883.12
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
880.1
880.1
880.1
Floodprone width (ft)
81.51
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
22.72
11.36
11.36
Entrenchment Ratio
3.59
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
1.81
1.93
1.68
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.01
3.01
2.66
width /Depth Ratio
12.55
5.89
6.76
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
41.01
21.91
19.1
wetted Perimeter (ft)
25.17
15.52
14.5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
1.63
1.41
1.32
Begin BKF Station
59.8
59.8
71.16
End BKF Station
82.52
71.16
82.52
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
o ,
:i N
� C �
cu �° m
} Co c
U
N
�1 O ,
�Ty—� U _N
N U —
N }u)
w_—
c _-
U
N
o
� , n
O c Y
U)
o
U
O
U�
N
.o
Co ► V
w ` N
N I
Y U 1
Cr cc
O
0 N.�
� O �
d U
} u)
(11) UOIILIA913
0
0
0
rn
O
0
0
co
0
LO
a
h
V
J
D
N
U
C
Ri
N
0
cu
C
O
N
O
OI■

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R1
Cross Section Name: (Year 4) Cross Section 12 - Riffle (R1)
Survey Date: 11/14/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
8
11
15
20
25
31
35
38 i
40 i
41.5
41.5 I
42.5 I
44 I
45 I
46.5 l
47
49
51.5
52.5
54
56
57
59
61.5
62.5
64.5
69.5
73.5
78.5
84
90
95 C
100 C
FS
ELEV
NOTE
-------------------------------------------------------
885.0723
GS
883.46
884.1964
GS
)
883.1008
GS
Floodprone width (ft)
881.8882
GS
- - - --
879.9582
GS
11.1
879.642
GS
3.69
879.8082
GS
Mean Depth (ft)
879.6464
GS
1.22
879.4952
BKF
3.96
878.5748
GS
877.5017
LEW
877.0603
GS
875.538
Tw
875.672
GS
875.7289
GS
876.0992
GS
876.1654
GS
877.4647
REW
877.7312
GS
877.7497
GS
878.1057
GS
878.6436
GS
878.7227
GS
878.9583
GS
880.1896
GS
880.5345
RB
1
880.8761
GS
880.5869
GS
I
880.5719
GS
I
880.3291
GS
I
882.0204
GS
i
883.17
GS
i
883.948
GS
i
884.3407
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
883.46
883.46
883.46
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
879.5
879.5
879.5
Floodprone width (ft)
81.87
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
22.2
11.1
11.1
Entrenchment Ratio
3.69
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
1.89
2.56
1.22
Maximum Depth (ft)
3.96
3.96
2.04

Bankfull Area (sq
ft)
41.96
28.4
13.56
Wetted Perimeter
(ft)
24.72
15.38
13.41
Hydraulic Radius
(ft)
1.7
1.85
1.01
Begin BKF Station
37.9
37.9
49
End BKF Station
60.1
49
60.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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)

N
N
O _
UMQ
lU U —
} d w
Cn Cc
♦ s
o
o
Q 6 ; Q_
T N C
N U
fCD
W cc
H C Q
O �
� w _
to � T r'
O M
r Ur} i
x
p �a G
o u
o w
(/) UM}
(A �
O�
L ca
C)
U)
cd ►
N
x
r
N
m�
o
U�Q
ID U
} (o
0
(11) UOIIUAG13
O
Cl)
O
N
O
O
O
0
O)
O
OD
O
U
C
COO �
c
n O
N
O
2
_
u

RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: RlA
Cross Section Name: (Year 4) Cross Section 13 - Riffle (R1A)
Survey Date: 11/14/2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry
BM Elevation: 0 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 0 ft
TAPE
0 i
10
25 1
30
34
39
47
50
53
54
55
56
57
57.5
58
59
60
60.4
61
62.5
69
74
79
89
99
109 C
125 C
=S ELEV
887.8178
887.5721
887.75
887.5553
887.6232
887.4413
887.3365
887.6649
887.7402
887.7162
887.8021
887.5072
887.2611
887.0197
886.9054
886.9422
I 887.1036
I 887.2127
887.3622
I 887.8034
I 887.6107
i 887.6118
i 887.6653
i 887.5785
i 887.718
i 887.3988
887.5852
NOTE
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
BKF
GS
LEW
GS
TW
GS
GS
R EW
GS
RB
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
GS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Channel
Left
Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft)
888.69
888.69
888.69
Bankfull Elevation (ft)
887.8
887.8
887.8
Floodprone width (ft)
125
- - - --
- - - --
Bankfull width (ft)
7.48
4.84
2.64
Entrenchment Ratio
16.71
- - - --
- - - --
Mean Depth (ft)
0.52
0.59
0.38
Maximum Depth (ft)
0.89
0.89
0.72
width /Depth Ratio
14.38
8.2
6.95
Bankfull Area (sq ft)
3.85
2.86
1
wetted Perimeter (ft)
7.73
5.72
3.46
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
0.5
0.5
0.29
Begin BKF Station
55.01
55.01
59.85
End BKF Station
62.49
59.85
62.49

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)

(L H) OPH - Z1 U01339g ssaO (q ROM
qt
+
M
M
i
i
O ( la) 100d l l UOQOag SSOJO (4 JUOA)
O
T
Q
^)
W
0
(1H) hd - 0l U01108g SSOJO (q ROM
O
J
T
L
cz
a)
(18) 1004 - 6 U01100g SSOJO (y ROM
o
♦o
♦o
O
♦ O
♦ O
O •
O ♦
O •
O
O
O ♦
O
• yr
44p
• • 00 i
♦O
O •
O •
b
O •
O
O
♦o
♦ o
O
�O
a �
0
O �
O
O •
O ♦ t
to
o
♦ w
O �•
O ��♦
O ♦ ��
°0 All
oos . r;•♦
♦
-s
s
i
rl y
/M ♦
i O
.4
♦ O
. O
«�•
00 04
3
O O ♦
.'♦
O •
♦ O
ty
V>
♦_�-
4>O
♦O O
♦•
n •
♦ o
m rn ao Go o co 00 o cd co ao
0 0o m m ro m co co 0 o m
(4) UOIIUA813
0
0
co
co
0
0
v
co
O
0
co
M
O
N
co
O
O
M
0
0
o
co
O
— M
N
co
O
N
N
0
0
N
0
0
CD
N
O
N
O
0
N
O
O
co
N
O
N
N
O
O
N
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
0
0
r
0
O
0
0
0
LO
0
0
a
n
ro
M
N
co
}
m
O
c0
}
•
v
co
N
N
0)
1_
0
cu
U
c
CO CEI
ir
c
0 0
m
J
LL
Y
CO
3
0
a
m
}
•

File: G: \Project \2006 \237.00 little white oak creek stream restoration \Monitorir
ig \Year 4 - 2011 \Appendix \Appendix E - LPs \Individual LPs \R1 Data 1/11/2012, 12
RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
River Name: Little White Oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R1
Profile Name: (Year 4) R1 Long. Profile (14 +00 -- 33 +74)
Survey Date: 11/15/2011
Survey Data
DIST CH WS BKF LB RB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1399.0387 879.613
1399.0387 883.951
1399.0387 881.135
1400.6137
1405.0587 881.097
1405.5177 879.04
1416.6397
1417.0697 881.277
1418.1017 879.698
1420.9317
1429.4907 880.791
1429.6727 881.159
1433.1367
1439.1867 879.742
1439.3737 881.197
1445.9537
1446.9977
1450.1477 881.092
1451.2227 879.35
1464.2327 880.989
1464.8447 880.173
1467.1657
1470.5297
1484.7587
1486.6067 881.115
1487.0877
1487.0877 880.517
1511.0477 881.042
1511.0687 880.121
1511.5687
1513.4177
1528.3107 880.957
1529.1587 879.618
1534.8687
1542.6127
1544.9987 880.985
1545.6837 879.884
1549.8907 880.955
1549.9797 878.199
1557.3387
1568.9487 879.149
882.73
883.836
882.97
883.569
883.222
882.98
882.467
882.995
883.413
882.85
883.525
882.84
883.58
882.965
883.177
Page: 1

File: G: \Project \2006 \237.00 little white oak creek stream restoration \Monitorir
ig \Year 4 - 2011 \Appendix \Appendix E - LPs \Individual LPs \R1 Data 1/11/2012, 12
1568.9667
880.948
1575.5567
883.197
1578.4667
882.71
1585.5087
880.962
1586.0717
879.318
1601.5747
882.559
1603.9537
879.385
1604.8487
880.275
1606.4607
882.943
1618.4507
882.862
1618.6507
880.299
1620.3277
879.211
1624.8547
880.26
1626.7787
878.424
1631.1627
880.197
1632.3717
879.365
1636.6847
882.336
1639.4927
878.575
1640.3437
880.159
1640.4207
882.621
1646.1017
882.546
1647.8147
880.106
1648.4667
877.718
1659.0027
880.166
1659.2877
879.587
1663.1037
883.063
1663.7007
882.829
1688.7187
882.445
1693.5627
882.748
1694.4107
880.141
1695.5017
879.417
1713.3537
882.631
1717.5357
882.985
1717.5357
879.043
1717.8947
880.227
1725.4237
878.467
1725.4657
880.082
1736.5067
882.763
1737.6197
878.867
1738.4947
880.105
1745.0397
882.535
1752.0177
883.055
1756.8567
878.866
1757.3827
880.074
1766.9987
882.16
1774.0767
878.537
1774.0767
882.792
1774.3477
880.099
1781.0497
882.142
1784.8897
878.465
880.075 882.262
882.136
882.707
1790.0917
882.747
1791.0827
878.167
1791.3057
879.782
1794.6887
882.108
1804.2607
879.849
1804.5627
878.906
1808.0397
882.973
Page: 2

File: G: \Project \2006 \237.00 little white oak creek stream restoration \Monitorir
ig \Year 4 - 2011 \Appendix \Appendix E - LPs \Individual LPs \R1 Data 1/11/2012, 12
1812.3357
882.385
1819.3087
879.295
1820.2617
878.553
1831.9537
882.444
1831.9537
878.804
1832.0017
878.762
1838.5577
883.12
1845.5437
879.786
1846.4577
878.471
1849.9637
881.934
1852.9957
879.148
1853.8127
879.069
1863.4297
882.903
1867.9467
881.672
1872.7207
878.474
1873.4617
878.891
1876.2397
882.555
1886.0587
881.582
1890.9517
878.273
1892.5567
882.568
1893.1247
879.654
1909.2677
879.713
1909.2677
878.609
1909.5377
881.942
1916.0857
881.955
1917.4757
877.455
1917.8477
879.537
1926.3207
882.377
1930.4637
879.5
1931.2757
878.642
1935.9787
882.067
1942.7067
882.318
1944.9887
878.327
1945.3827
879.422
1953.1907
879.478
1953.2497
882.164
1953.7407
878.725
1961.9767
881.847
1971.5157
879.298
1971.6517
878.95
1974.5127
881.92
1980.5387
879.354
1981.3247
877.763
1983.2347
881.258
1990.9117
878.278
1991.0247
879.344
1991.4227
881.927
2005.3477
879.331
2006.2937
878.474
2007.0837
882.351
2012.8697
879.482
2013.0557
878.292
2022.8477
879.374
2023.3027
882.82
2023.8407
878.079
2032.8387
882.151
2046.2447
883.253
Page: 3

File: G: \Project \2006 \237.00 little white oak creek stream restoration \Monitorir
ig \Year 4 - 2011 \Appendix \Appendix E - LPs \Individual LPs \R1 Data 1/11/2012, 12
2047.0677
878.325
2047.3837
879.376
2049.0767
882.076
2053.2547
877.097
2054.2167
879.364
2060.8277
882.719
2066.6527
878.416
2067.0177
879.371
2075.5237
882.117
2076.8867
882.93
2090.6667
879.359
2090.7947
877.78
2095.2327
882.319
2099.1237
881.915
2106.1817
878.401
2106.5117
879.362
2116.1367
882.325
2122.6767
878.199
2123.1917
879.447
2127.5057
882.006
2136.5347
879.322
2136.7567
877.749
2136.7567
882.048
2149.7047
879.274
2150.8587
878.08
2154.6897
881.561
2157.7877
881.834
2166.9897
881.571
2167.9897
882.076
2171.5027
878.176
2171.5837
879.274
2171.8857
881.543
2185.0227
881.735
2193.4247
878.64
2193.9977
879.24
2199.4167
882.122
2200.8467
881.858
2209.8647
878.181
2210.6497
879.263
2215.1647
881.925
2221.5367
879.3
2221.5367
878.188
2225.1927
877.315
2225.2377
879.122
2230.8287
881.195
2231.1677
881.911
2239.9487
878.195
2239.9637
879.136
2243.8677
881.948
2249.6377
878.073
879.106
881.341 882.213
2255.0977
881.992
2255.0977
878.104
2255.2077
879.125
2277.4407
880.888
2278.8137
877.294
2279.1717
879.073
2279.2747
881.473
Page: 4

File: G: \Project \2006 \237.00 little white oak creek stream restoration \Monitorir
ig \Year 4 - 2011 \Appendix \Appendix E - LPs \Individual LPs \R1 Data 1/11/2012, 12
2293.2627
878.343
2293.2627
879.103
2298.6247
881.431
2308.6457
880.795
2314.6877
879.065
2315.6077
877.947
2328.2257
881.233
2338.8747
880.908
2345.9577
881.114
2350.2827
880.481
2350.2827
878.436
2350.3837
879.022
2364.9527
880.539
2365.5877
877.912
2366.3817
879
2375.5697
877.589
2376.2407
878.998
2381.7777
880.919
2382.9597
881.368
2393.4887
877.438
2394.3767
879.012
2401.3147
881.073
2402.7537
878.917
2403.0107
877.968
2409.1647
880.938
2410.6037
877.316
2411.5107
878.614
2418.6247
875.28
2419.2537
881.228
2419.2907
878.565
2427.3357
881.048
2432.3527
877.842
2435.6467
881.234
2453.0697
880.826
2455.7307
878.511
2460.4887
881.479
2481.4127
877.134
2482.0727
878.521
2486.6117
881.372
2491.9907
880.767
2499.5747
877.006
2499.9067
878.488
2508.1897
876.171
2508.2737
881.119
2508.8517
878.33
2515.9497
875.897
2516.3427
878.408
2527.7447
881.105
2528.6297
878.347
2528.7027
877.371
2531.0967
880.909
2537.8707
878.414
2538.3307
876.997
2539.0647
881.101
2551.6377
880.635
2553.7577
878.297
2554.4007
876.989
Page: 5

File: G: \Project \2006 \237.00 little white oak creek stream restoration \Monitorir
ig \Year 4 - 2011 \Appendix \Appendix E - LPs \Individual LPs \R1 Data 1/11/2012, 12
2558.5857
881.053
2564.7997
878.496
2565.0317
876.614
2573.8497
878.255
2574.8087
877.456
2581.4057
880.817
2585.4277
880.567
2601.5657
880.758
2604.2037
876.92
2604.2037
878.246
2618.4357
880.733
2621.3247
878.235
2621.5977
877.24
2627.7687
880.717
2644.7007
880.591
2652.2597
880.644
2653.3387
878.246
2654.0457
877.379
2661.6417
880.488
2673.8367
880.892
2675.7837
878.248
2676.1797
877.312
2680.1037
879.562
2688.5137
878.196
2688.6787
876.854
2688.6787
880.691
2697.6227
880.314
2701.2767
877.184
2701.3117
878.227
2703.2557
880.007
2704.3927
877.085
878.211
880.099
880.377
2710.6117
880.295
2711.6857
878.01
2712.7057
880.135
2735.4807
880.168
2738.3287
880.597
2741.5217
877.945
2741.6697
877.053
2760.0247
877.929
2760.5157
876.579
2760.5157
880.239
2774.5557
879.952
2778.5597
877.32
2778.7127
877.822
2782.6377
880.179
2794.1677
877.84
2794.3087
876.325
2799.4347
880.913
2803.3017
877.906
2803.5107
876.04
2809.2147
877.834
2809.7177
874.741
2819.3487
880.143
2821.6977
876.701
2821.9647
877.812
2827.1257
879.889
2840.3127
880.288
Page: 6

File: G: \Project \2006 \237.00 little white oak creek stream restoration \Monitorir
ig \Year 4 - 2011 \Appendix \Appendix E - LPs \Individual LPs \Rl Data 1/11/2012, 12
2840.3127
876.835
2841.4677
877.794
2854.6687
876.837
2855.4677
879.991
2855.6287
877.787
2862.2857
880.151
2874.3237
877.752
2874.4947
876.848
2887.6867
879.598
2888.2897
880.52
2893.1587
876.495
2893.1587
877.728
2906.1757
880.254
2908.2557
879.835
2924.2867
877.593
2924.5977
876.577
2931.1897
879.949
2936.7247
877.106
2936.8587
877.714
2943.6367
880.223
2947.8837
877.632
2948.1777
876.529
2966.0017
880.553
2968.5367
877.615
2968.5877
876.741
2973.0677
880.856
2974.4827
879.925
2987.6957
879.803
2996.6287
880.04
3002.8317
877.601
3003.9407
876.924
3014.0967
879.827
3015.8137
876.175
3016.2927
877.224
3020.2227
879.853
3031.6757
875.713
3031.6757
879.576
3032.6647
877.519
3039.0597
879.511
3044.0667
877.624
3044.3767
876.674
3051.5787
879.799
3058.2677
879.929
3064.0347
877.56
3064.7027
876.724
3066.0507
879.648
3070.5747
877.584
3071.6577
876.031
3073.3897
875.538
877.502
879.4952880.535
879.495
3079.1647
879.041
3092.2427
876.26
3092.4687
877.519
3093.0467
879.909
3106.8857
877.485
3107.4287
876.305
3108.0387
879.341
3117.3927
880.234
Page: 7

File: G: \Project \2006 \237.00 little white oak creek stream restoration\Monitorir
ig \Year 4 - 2011 \Appendix \Appendix E - LPs \Individual LPs \Rl Data 1/11/2012, 12
3127.7767
877.434
3137.9957
879.005
3138.1617
880.2
3147.6137
877.457
3148.5927
875.961
3153.9127
877.431
3154.2987
879.756
3154.4127
875.711
3164.7567
876.199
3165.1957
877.401
3166.2327
878.715
3174.8237
879.839
3179.1577
877.468
3179.5367
875.779
3191.1567
879.895
3196.1907
878.612
3197.4057
877.461
3197.9997
876.65
3214.3207
879.572
3216.9917
879.162
3242.9387
879.11
3243.4317
876.702
3243.4487
876.114
3246.5907
876.018
3247.0597
875.07
3249.6887
880.173
3254.5647
874.204
3256.1887
876.004
3262.8257
879.404
3270.2467
875.987
3270.4387
875.151
3270.6937
879.905
3289.4537
879.843
3289.9107
875.935
3290.8687
874.936
3303.5027
879.332
3304.1877
879.725
3317.1807
875.895
3317.9477
874.948
3321.9897
879.22
3329.8837
879.18
3333.0437
875.874
3333.3877
874.378
3345.6617
879.384
3347.4207
878.724
3351.1387
875.806
3351.6817
875.091
3369.3267
873.846
3369.3267
879.145
3369.4887
875.816
3380.6167
875.76
3381.5367
878.749
3381.5367
874.826
3392.8957
878.994
3401.5657
878.584
3405.3247
874.495
3406.3647
875.737
Page: 8

File: G: \Project \2006 \237.00 little white oak creek stream restoration \Monitorir
ig \Year 4 - 2011 \Appendix \Appendix E - LPs \Individual LPs \Rl Data 1/11/2012, 12
3413.7437 878.09
3424.2167 874.333
3424.2167 878.9
3425.0237 875.69
3430.8477 873.668
3431.7707 875.658
3441.4807 875.687
3441.6417 874.526
3446.9577 877.889
3450.0967 879.177
3463.3467 878.977
3464.2377 877.924
3465.1087 875.648
3465.1087 874.627
Cross Section / Bank Profile Locations
Name
Min
Avg
--------------------------------------
S riffle
0.00187
Type
Profile Station
(Year
4)
Cross
Section
9 -
Pool (R1)Pool XS
1784
(Year
4)
Cross
Section
10
- Pool (R1)Pool XS
2249
(Year
4)
Cross
Section
11
- Pool (R1)Pool XS
2704
(Year
4)
Cross
Section
12
- Riffle (R1)Riffle XS
3073
Measurements from Graph
Bankfull Slope: 0.00216
Variable
Min
Avg
--------------------------------------
S riffle
0.00187
0.00414
S pool
0
0
S run
0
0
S glide
0
0
P - P
95.89
125.88
Pool length
26.52
37.54
Riffle length
14.28
17.95
Dmax riffle
0
0
Dmax pool
0
0
Dmax run
0
0
Dmax glide
0
0
Low bank ht
0
0
Length and depth
measurements
in feet,
Max
0.00746
0
0
0
161.18
55.09
28.56
0
0
0
0
0
slopes in ft /ft.
Page: 9

File: G: \Project \2006 \237.00 little white oak creek stream restoration \Monitorir
ig \Year 4 - 2011 \Appendix \Appendix E - LPs \Individual LPs \R1 Data 1/11/2012, 12
RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
Notes
River Name: Little White Oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R1
Profile Name: (Year 4) R1 Long. Profile (14 +00 -- 33 +74)
Survey Date: 11/15/2011
DIST Note
1399.0387 LEW
1405.0587 LEW
1417.0697 LEW
1429.6727 LEW
1439.3737 LEW
1450.1477 LEW
1464.2327 LEW
1486.6067 LEW
1511.0477 LEW
1528.3107 LEW
1544.9987 LEW
1549.8907 LEW
1568.9667 LEW
1585.5087 LEW
1604.8487 LEW
1618.6507 LEW
1624.8547 LEW
1631.1627 LEW
1640.3437 LEW
1647.8147 LEW
1659.0027 LEW
1694.4107 LEW
1717.8947 LEW
1725.4657 LEW
1738.4947 LEW
1757.3827 LEW
1774.3477 LEW
1784.8897 XS9 - TW Intersect @ station 1784
1791.3057 LEW
1804.2607 LEW
1819.3087 LEW
1832.0017 LEW
1845.5437 LEW
1852.9957 LEW
1873.4617 LEW
1893.1247 LEW
1909.2677 LEW
1917.8477 LEW
1930.4637 LEW
1945.3827 LEW
1953.1907 LEW
1971.5157 LEW
1980.5387 LEW
Page: 10

File: G: \Project \2006 \237.00 little white oak creek stream restoration \Monitorir
ig \Year 4 - 2011 \Appendix \Appendix E - LPs \Individual LPs \R1 Data 1/11/2012, 12
1991.0247 LEW
2005.3477 LEW
2012.8697 LEW
2022.8477 LEW
2047.3837 LEW
2054.2167 LEW
2067.0177 LEW
2090.6667 LEW
2106.5117 LEW
2123.1917 LEW
2136.5347 LEW
2149.7047 LEW
2171.5837 LEW
2193.9977 LEW
2210.6497 LEW
2221.5367 LEW
2225.2377 LEW
2239.9637 LEW
2249.6377 XS10
2255.2077 LEW
2279.1717 LEW
2293.2627 LEW
2314.6877 LEW
2350.3837 LEW
2366.3817 LEW
2376.2407 LEW
2394.3767 LEW
2402.7537 LEW
2411.5107 LEW
2419.2907 LEW
2455.7307 LEW
2482.0727 LEW
2499.9067 LEW
2508.8517 LEW
2516.3427 LEW
2528.6297 LEW
2537.8707 LEW
2553.7577 LEW
2564.7997 LEW
2573.8497 LEW
2604.2037 LEW
2621.3247 LEW
2653.3387 LEW
2675.7837 LEW
2688.5137 LEW
2701.3117 LEW
2704.3927 XSll
2711.6857 LEW
2741.5217 LEW
2760.0247 LEW
2778.7127 LEW
2794.1677 LEW
2803.3017 LEW
2809.2147 LEW
2821.9647 LEW
2841.4677 LEW
2855.6287 LEW
- TW Intersect @ station 2249
- TW Intersect @ station 2704
Page: 11

File: G: \Project \2006 \237.00 little white oak creek stream restoration \Monitorir
ig \Year 4 - 2011 \Appendix \Appendix E - LPs \Individual LPs \R1 Data 1/11/2012, 12
2874.3237 LEW
2893.1587 LEW
2924.2867 LEW
2936.8587 LEW
2947.8837 LEW
2968.5367 LEW
3002.8317 LEW
3016.2927 LEW
3032.6647 LEW
3044.0667 LEW
3064.0347 LEW
3070.5747 LEW
3073.3897 XS12 - TW Intersect @ station 3073
3092.4687 LEW
3106.8857 LEW
3127.7767 LEW
3147.6137 LEW
3153.9127 LEW
3165.1957 LEW
3179.1577 LEW
3197.4057 LEW
3243.4317 LEW
3246.5907 LEW
3256.1887 LEW
3270.2467 LEW
3289.9107 LEW
3317.1807 LEW
3333.0437 LEW
3351.1387 LEW
3369.4887 LEW
3380.6167 LEW
3406.3647 LEW
3425.0237 LEW
3431.7707 LEW
3441.4807 LEW
3465.1087 LEW
Page: 12

(4) UOIIEn813
M
lC
}
N
to
}
0
m
♦
E
c0
SD
cn
0)
C
O
ca
O
U
C
(U CO
cn cc
WE
co
U-
r �� ♦
0
Ln
J •`
♦
4•
♦ . •
• ♦.4♦ ♦
p
V
(dl8) 914!8 - El uo!loag ssaO (q jeeA)
»�
O
O• ♦ 7
O
O . •♦
♦ «♦ •
LO
�
• r
•o ti»
O
O
o •
♦o .�
o
Cl)
+
•O • •
O
O ♦�
Q
O • .I
U)
�♦
.�
o
N
• ♦0
O
i
♦
N
C
O
O •i
Q
T
♦ ♦
• `�
a
•
O
L
cz
J •
o
♦ ♦M
14 4 ,
0
O• •♦♦
00
0
�n a co a o
00 cO10 000 coo coo coo
rn 0o n o `a3
0000 00D0 0 c
°0o Ooo 00
(4) UOIIEn813
M
lC
}
N
to
}
0
m
♦
E
c0
SD
cn
0)
C
O
ca
O
U
C
(U CO
cn cc
WE
co
U-

RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: RlA
Profile Name: (Year 4) R1A Long. Profile (STA 0 +00 -- 5 +00)
Survey Date: 11/14/2011
Survey Data
DIST CH WS BKF LB RB
1.5268
891.915
1.5268
891.817
7.9068
891.675
8.0708
891.42
8.0708
891.78
11.2498
891.72
12.3858
892.046
12.4678
891.855
12.6908
891.376
13.0158
891.675
16.5188
891.572
16.6038
891.877
16.6038
891.227
19.5318
891.579
19.7158
891.271
20.4458
891.384
23.6378
891.469
23.9068
891.054
25.0898
891.897
26.4218
890.934
26.5028
891.407
28.6868
891.613
30.6428
891.408
30.6888
891.158
31.4608
891.836
32.2598
891.474
35.5798
891.454
35.8058
891.662
35.8058
890.925
40.2568
891.436
40.3488
890.88
40.4238
891.931
42.6198
891.439
45.5738
891.307
45.5918
891.014
49.8288
890.874
49.8288
891.323
49.9568
891.074
51.0738
891.285
51.8688
891.056
52.1548
890.777
53.9708
891.125
55.9718
890.989
56.2488
890.607
58.4608
891.226
60.0798
890.966
60.1718
890.426
60.3968
891.019

64.2408
890.898
65.3308
890.548
65.8718
890.891
70.7288
891.244
74.3898
890.655
76.0308
890.825
76.2378
890.141
78.2548
891.106
82.2178
890.804
82.7158
890.028
83.1818
891.421
86.1308
890.711
89.8918
890.75
90.1498
890.054
90.1498
890.772
96.6718
890.563
96.6858
890.625
100.3028
890.623
100.6098
889.981
107.0228
890.557
107.3648
890.568
107.3648
889.798
110.1138
890.525
114.8908
889.724
115.1518
890.491
116.0028
890.619
119.1748
890.325
123.1358
890.361
125.1078
890.345
125.9898
889.811
128.1628
890.341
128.3568
889.63
128.3568
890.647
131.8908
889.63
131.8908
890.585
132.1868
890.324
133.2808
890.321
137.1838
890.201
138.4998
890.208
140.4008
890.077
143.4238
890.177
143.7148
889.385
143.7508
889.954
144.5298
889.974
148.6678
889.499
148.8498
889.139
150.8048
889.691
154.0808
889.818
154.7638
889.438
155.4318
888.937
162.2068
889.265
162.2068
889.601
162.2068
888.794
162.2068
889.852
162.4468
889.392
162.4808
889.382
162.5518
888.768
171.4338
888.647
171.4338
889.781
171.7178
889.312
173.5078
889.267
176.7248
888.607
177.0038
889.318
177.7948
889.48
178.5668
889.214
185.5228
889.452

187.0888
889.012
187.0888
888.646
191.0348
889.125
194.6568
888.924
194.7958
888.711
197.1188
889.224
198.6508
888.894
198.9848
888.518
201.6748
888.905
207.7698
888.264
207.7698
888.837
208.2608
888.826
210.2858
889.081
211.8188
888.849
214.3768
888.777
214.6048
888.144
220.6698
888.72
220.9268
888.812
221.0468
888.213
223.6018
889.248
225.6518
888.168
225.7148
888.688
232.6708
888.681
232.7978
888.068
232.9038
888.784
235.1858
889.106
235.9238
888.424
236.2228
888.011
239.0238
888.946
240.1238
888.793
241.6848
888.439
241.9528
887.979
246.3108
888.251
247.1268
887.543
248.5368
888.69
251.4098
888.266
251.4108
888.62
251.4108
887.521
256.6338
888.284
257.3478
887.507
257.5358
888.606
258.8648
888.857
262.7608
887.566
262.7628
888.445
263.2328
888.008
264.9448
888.308
272.5468
888.423
275.0808
887.885
275.2278
887.303
275.2278
888.884
279.8848
887.84
280.4768
887.323
282.1638
888.351
288.4748
887.857
288.8018
888.381
288.8018
887.157
291.7068
888.537
294.7698
887.874
295.0758
887.2
296.2008
888.226
297.6278
888.408
301.8108
887.801
302.0088
887.119
304.2118
888.344
310.7178
887.218

311.3488
887.77
317.3428
888.111
320.4088
887.96
321.6738
887.723
322.0928
887.162
324.3288
887.68
324.4058
887.099
324.7638
888.139
333.2918
887.511
334.1128
888.253
334.1128
886.919
335.9718
887.937
339.2458
887.856
341.5378
886.99
341.6678
887.465
346.5578
887.065
346.7338
887.039
347.6698
887.461
348.8718
887.749
350.7388
887.912
351.6778
887.56
357.5318
887.369
357.6668
886.765
361.2778
887.733
361.8748
887.607
366.2028
887.591
370.3428
886.637
370.3428
888.079
370.4768
887.317
375.0498
887.203
375.4018
886.673
376.9418
887.718
379.7968
886.905,
887.261
887.802 887.803
381.7508
887.245
381.9978
886.968
389.4178
887.758
390.2388
887.12
390.4188
886.81
395.5728
887.669
398.3788
887.438
405.0608
886.963
405.3858
886.346
405.4758
887.214
406.7288
887.484
410.2458
886.52
410.5048
886.969
414.2478
887.537
415.2528
886.512
415.4158
887.873
415.7718
886.996
423.1988
887.737
423.7908
886.422
424.2078
886.892
428.6108
887.604
433.0268
886.887
433.0808
886.486
438.9728
886.275
439.1498,
886.885
441.4798
887.843
443.5288
887.361
450.0468
887.556
451.1878
886.606
452.5358
886.858
453.1098
887.033
456.4758
886.808
456.6308
886.2

458.4548
458.9558
465.1178 886.704
465.1928 886.481
465.1928
467.2758
476.9178 886.739
476.9768 886.466
478.6678
479.2938
486.7648
487.5978 886.343
487.6428 886.348
487.9888
493.3568
493.3568 886.208
493.6438 886.633
496.8098
499.6568
500.2958 886.054
500.5128 886.597
502.1178
503.0268 885.994 886.661
887.289
887.395
887.1
887.588
887.035
887.236
887.061
886.936
887.286
886.977
886.922
886.919
886.838
Cross Section / Bank Profile Locations
Name Type Profile Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Year 4) Cross Section 13 - Riffle (R1A)Riffle XS 379
Measurements from Graph
Bankfull slope: 0.01018
variable
Min
Avg
Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S riffle
0.01177
0.0233
0.04578
S pool
0
0
0
S run
0
0
0
S glide
0
0
0
P - P
19.94
33.94
44.99
Pool length
7.42
12.01
19.02
Riffle length
5.57
6.73
9.28
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.
RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
Notes
River Name: Little White Oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R1A
Profile Name: (Year 4) R1A Long. Profile (STA 0 +00 -- 5 +00)
Survey Date: 11/14/2011
DIST Note
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1.5268 LEW

13.0158 LEW
16.5188 LEW
19.5318 LEW
23.6378 LEW
26.5028 LEW
30.6428 LEW
35.5798 LEW
40.2568 LEW
45.5738 LEW
49.9568 LEW
51.8688 LEW
55.9718 LEW
60.0798 LEW
65.8718 LEW
76.0308 LEW
82.2178 LEW
89.8918 LEW
100.3028 LEW
107.0228 LEW
115.1518 LEW
125.1078 LEW
128.1628 LEW
132.1868 LEW
138.4998 LEW
143.7508 LEW
148.6678 LEW
154.7638 LEW
162.4468 LEW
162.4808 LEW
171.7178 LEW
177.0038 LEW
187.0888 LEW
194.6568 LEW
198.6508 LEW
208.2608 LEW
214.3768 LEW
220.6698 LEW
225.7148 LEW
232.6708 LEW
235.9238 LEW
241.6848 LEW
246.3108 LEW
251.4098 LEW
256.6338 LEW
263.2328 LEW
275.0808 LEW
279.8848 LEW
288.4748 LEW
294.7698 LEW
301.8108 LEW
311.3488 LEW
321.6738 LEW
324.3288 LEW
333.2918 LEW
341.6678 LEW
347.6698 LEW
357.5318 LEW
370.4768 LEW
375.0498 LEW
379.7968 XS13
381.7508 LEW
390.2388 LEW
405.0608 LEW
410.5048 LEW
415.7718 LEW
424.2078 LEW
- Tw Intersect @ station 379

433.0268
LEW
439.1498
LEW
452.5358
LEW
456.4758
LEW
465.1178
LEW
476.9178
LEW
487.5978
LEW
493.6438
LEW
500.5128
LEW

(11) UOIIEA913
co
co
N
}
0
r
+r ♦
cu
co
rn
c
0
N
U
C
CU m
cr
C)°
m
J
•
U-
Y
m
N
3
m
}
•
O
O
O
•° Via•
(Zd) lood
- S U0l13aS SSOJO (q Jee k) • Ky
o• r i.
00
O • • ; 'r •
o *�•
v
•o y
o
CD
♦ to a
♦ ♦.
o
°4 •.
• i.
$. ♦`•
CM
,It
O •
�+ •
�
(Z») alll!N
•
- 4 uogoag SSOJO (q Jea,k) • o• • • y
O
�
O
♦ o ��
�
♦
°♦ � -♦
o
It
♦
o
i
o 46
♦
Cl)
M
$ �r :
*0 A • .
o
co
LO
•
• •
�M
0
N
•o
-
o
•O :
• pp
►
M
(FU) IOOd -
£ UOIjOaS SSOJO (q MOM •C V r1• ♦
•O ♦
O
U)
C♦ �
M to
M
W
•O
• ° f t
O • f_.
O
v=
O . •� +
v
co
o
O A
•O l ♦• •
O
°v
♦�•
co
° •
O
. ` • s
M
J
O♦ • . 1
O
cc
(EH) loud -
Z UopoaS SSOJO (q ROM
0O
W •• • (h'
♦ o «I ♦ •
Cl)
•o •
i
•
CD
•p • • •
♦ �� �O♦
Cl)
0♦
O
♦ •+ O
p • +'� •
OOi
N
o . !, 0%
°• b
o
OD
�.. •«
o i �. y •
°o
1•
a I
(ZS�) I�.a -
O ♦ •
t uogoa ssoJ Jea ••
S O (7 A� •
N
t �. •
'•y
0
co
o•♦ '0
N
0
O T co
n n
n cD In tr M N O to CO n w a M N
n n
n W
to
N
O
000 co co
co co co 000 Ono Ono Ono GOD COO 000 OOD 00 000 co W
co 000
(11) UOIIEA913
co
co
N
}
0
r
+r ♦
cu
co
rn
c
0
N
U
C
CU m
cr
C)°
m
J
•
U-
Y
m
N
3
m
}
•

RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2
Profile Name: (Year 4) R2 Long. Profile (STA 25 +13 -- 45 +60)
Survey Date: 11/15/2011
Survey Data
DIST CH WS BKF LB RB
2525.05 869.29
2525.05
873.75
2526.591
872.54
2526.792
874.04
2539.722
872.5
2540.476
870.9
2546.674
873.68
2553.364
872.48
2554.592
869.65
2562.629
873.89
2564.229
873.44
2568.977
872.38
2569.76
869.33
2580.097
872.38
2580.211
869.61
2585.006
873.85
2588.762
873.77
2604.392
873.75
2606.5
872.27
2606.794
870.08
2615.419
873.96
2623.824
873.69
2628.216
872.29
2628.909
870.22
2631.71
873.93
2642.925
873.89
2644.266
870.39
872.17 873.83
873.62
2650.329
872.79
2654.681
870.51
2654.721
871.59
2675.585
873.82
2676.388
873.3
2681.529
871.57
2681.921
870.1
2701.265
870.38
2701.856
871.54
2705.723
873.5
2717.678
874.11
2718.445
869.71
2718.445
871.53
2730.993
873.63
2734.385
873.95
2736.23
870.38
2736.481
871.51
2744.826
873.77
2749.277
869.6
2749.726
871.53
2752.513
873.87
2765.982
869.28

4269.606 868.23
4271.065
868.7
4271.638
871.41
4294.405
871
4316.983
868.02
4317.411
868.79
4319.176
870.52
4320.359
871.29
4326.176
868.79
4326.176
866.21
4338.7
868.81
4339.368
867.74
4339.368
870.75
4354.7
868.26
4355.027
868.81
4368.735
870.82
4370.805
868.77
4370.96
867.22
4377.931
871.22
4391.003
868.74
4392.843
867.94
4392.843
871.11
4406.466
871.23
4409.616
868.73
4409.616
868.18
4413.252
871.46
4438.599
871.23
4438.991
871.03
4458.227
868.73
4458.787
870.53
4458.787
867.72
4472.69
868.68
4473.502
867.7
4481.543
870.76
4482.947
870.3
4491.603
868.57
4493.478
868.13
4506.399
868.68
4507.017
866.8
4507.246
870.66
4514.394
870.24
4527.832
866.94
4528.769
868.67
4528.793
870.84
4531.908
870.02
4537.539
868.68
4538.624
866.74
4543.094
867.55
868.7
870.86
871.18
4553.712
871.02
4553.762
867.68
4553.977
868.69
4565.823
871.45
4568.054
868.71
4568.581
871.02
4568.914
867.5
4585.777
867.54
4586.06
868.72
4586.118
870.8
4598.615
871.63
4605.405
868.66
4605.901
867.93
870.77
870.62
cross section / Bank Profile Locations
Name Type Profile station
--------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --

(Year
4)
Cross
Section
1
- Riffle (R2)Riffle XS
2644
(Year
4)
Cross
Section
2
- Pool (R2)Riffle XS
3166
(Year
4)
Cross
Section
3
- Pool (R2)Pool XS
3634
(Year
4)
Cross
Section
4
- Riffle (R2)Riffle XS
4097
(Year
4)
Cross
Section
5 -
Pool (R2)Pool XS
4543
Measurements from Graph
Bankfull Slope: 0.00156
variable
Min
Avg
Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------
s riffle
0.00059
0.00379
0.00933
S pool
0
0
0
S run
0
0
0
S glide
0
0
0
P - P
55.29
133.80
208.89
Pool length
30.72
42.24
67.58
Riffle length
26.62
33.45
43.01
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.
RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
Notes
River Name: Little White Oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2
Profile Name: (Year 4) R2 Long. Profile (STA 25 +13 -- 45 +60)
Survey Date: 11/15/2011
DIST Note
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2526.591
LEW
2539.722
LEW
2553.364
LEW
2568.977
LEW
2580.097
LEW
2606.5
LEW
2628.216
LEW
2644.266
XS1 - Tw Intersect @ station 2644
2654.721
LEW
2681.529
LEW
2701.856
LEW
2718.445
LEW
2736.481
LEW
2749.726
LEW
2766.274
LEW
2771.86
LEW
2784.237
LEW
2808.2
LEW
2838.396
LEW
2880.688
LEW
2902.246
LEW
2915.479
LEW
2924.322
LEW
2958.315
LEW
2977.944
LEW

3043.989 LEW
3071.877 LEW
3088.553 LEW
3103.889 LEW
3116.099 XS2
3127.149 LEW
3140.556, LEW
3153.111 LEW
3155.516 LEW
3173.672 LEW
3186.41 LEW
3195.534 LEW
3218.844 LEW
3231.729 LEW
3253.732 LEW
3268.298 LEW
3294.318 LEW
3306.188 LEW
3317.578 LEW
3345.624 LEW
3397.609 LEW
3419.399 LEW
3437.061 LEW
3454.153 LEW
3463.785 LEW
3476.978 LEW
3482.844 LEW
3495.487 LEW
3513.693 LEW
3540.597 LEW
3554.949 LEW
3575.452 LEW
3591.18 LEW
3607.974 LEW
3608.385 LEW
3622.042 LEW
3634.169 XS3
3637.774 LEW
3658.36 LEW
3668.579 LEW
3674.314 LEW
3693.994 LEW
3730.218 LEW
3753.536 LEW
3769.333 LEW
3791.45 LEW
3802.738 LEW
3823.325 LEW
3842.24 LEW
3857.687 LEW
3880.312 LEW
3904.318 LEW
3930.502 LEW
3949.934 LEW
3962.198 LEW
3973.547 LEW
3985.616 LEW
4008.234 LEW
4038.781 LEW
4062.343 LEW
4076.811 LEW
4089.262 LEW
4097.649 XS4
4105.097 LEW
4143.831 LEW
4166.261 LEW
- TW Intersect @ station 3116
- Tw Intersect @ station 3634
Tw Intersect @ station 4097

4189.173
LEW
4192.194
LEW
4211.692
LEW
4228.568
LEW
4244.412
LEW
4271.065
LEW
4317.411
LEW
4326.176
LEW
4338.7
LEW
4355.027
LEW
4370.805
LEW
4391.003
LEW
4409.616
LEW
4458.227
LEW
4472.69
LEW
4491.603
LEW
4506.399
LEW
4528.769
LEW
4537.539
LEW
4543.094
X55
4553.977
LEW
4568.054
LEW
4586.06
LEW
4605.405
LEW
Tw Intersect @ station 4543

W
N
M
O
O
t
O
Q
F-
U)
N
y=-
O
c
O
J
Q
N
cri
V
L
(4) U011722AO13
S
0
0
Cl)
Cl)
m
}
•
N
N
}
}
0
}
E
c�
a�
c
0
ca
a)
U
C
cu m
N ¢
c
m
J
LL
Y
m
N
n
a
l0
m
}

RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2A
Profile Name: (Year 4) R2A Long. Profile (STA 0 +00 -- 3 +26)
Survey Date: 11/14/2011
Survey Data
DIST
CH
WS BKF
LB
RB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1.549
874.66
1.549
877.64
1.549
876.17
1.549
877.57
11.282
877.17
11.65
875.83
12.293
877.56
12.661
875.34
21.86
877.01
22.933
875.8
23.205
876.81
23.205
875.37
32.225
876.88
34.626
876.82
34.626
875.33
34.719
875.78
40.101
876.71
41.855
875.59
42.916
875.19
42.916
877.02
50.251
875.27
50.882
875.55
51.234
877.16
51.356
876.89
62.767
874.75
62.898
877.08
62.944
875.35
64.149
877.19
64.814
876.58
67.187
875.28
68.334
874.69
68.334
876.49
74.481
876.77
75.723
874.41
76.255
875.29
76.986
877.05
88.617
874.43
88.621
877.13
89.454
875.27
92.033
877.08
97.818
876.56
97.818
874.46
98.48
875.21
100.536
876.91
109.442
877.04
110.622
874.26
110.622
876.51
110.861
875.1
125.388
874.02
874.91 876.1
876.3

132.131 873.83
132.665
Min
Avg
Max
875.85
132.702
0.01320
875.13
S pool
0
144.643
0
S run
876.22
0
146.203
s glide
875.19
0
0
146.203
873.89
69.70
78.61
Pool length
149.283
20.39
22.07
Riffle length
876.2
153.509
12.78
Dmax riffle
0
875.83
154.573
873.74
0
0
0
163.162
0
0
876.09
Dmax glide
163.162
873.72
0
Low bank ht
0
163.162
0
875.19
measurements
in feet,
174.186
875.63
176.775
RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
875.79
177.413
875.159
177.414
873.55
208.336
875.62
208.604
875.09
210.244
875.09
210.408
873.15
Cross section / Bank Profile Locations
Name Type Profile Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Year 4) Cross Section 6 - Riffle (R2A)Riffle XS 125
Measurements from Graph
Bankfull slope: 0.01094
variable
Min
Avg
Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------
s riffle
0.00951
0.01320
0.01688
S pool
0
0
0
S run
0
0
0
s glide
0
0
0
P - P
56.54
69.70
78.61
Pool length
18.59
20.39
22.07
Riffle length
12.00
12.39
12.78
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.
RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
Notes
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2A
Profile Name: (Year 4) R2A Long. Profile (STA 0 +00 -- 3 +26)
survey Date: 11/14/2011
DIST Note
1.549
LEW
11.65
LEW
22.933
LEW
34.719
LEW
41.855
LEW

50.882
LEW
62.944
LEW
67.187
LEW
76.255
LEW
89.454
LEW
98.48
LEW
110.861
LEW
125.388
XS6 - TW Intersect @ station 125
132.702
LEW
146.203
LEW
163.162
LEW
177.413
LEW
208.604
LEW'

co
+
LO
M
0)
Q
U)
Q�
O
i
i
O
J
m
cz
(8ZE0 81JAJ - L U01100S ssaO (q Jean,)
•U � y
a '
•O ♦��
o♦ • •a
v •� i
O ♦ •
O♦
o• a
C • • rI
O• • •��
o•
♦p 0 ♦ i
o• i
o •
• �*
Go
m
(4) UoiITena13
t7
co
rl
00
0
0
0
0
O
V
O
0
0
0
Cl)
ca
}
N
w
N
}
a>
}
0
}
E
cz
N
rte+
co
0)
C
_O
cu
O
U
C
cu
cnCC
W=
o m
O J
r .
LL
Y
m
0
0
0
J g
m
CD
co
co
m
3
0
v
m
r

RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2B
Profile Name: (Year 4) R2B Long. Profile (STA 9 +35 -- 14 +86)
Survey Date: 01/05/2012
Survey Data
DIST CH WS BKF LB RB
960.4373 877.440
960.4373
878.180
960.4373
877.820
966.8053
878.630
970.9873
878.280
971.0583
877.880
971.1843
877.600
972.8593
878.690
982.0813
878.640
982.8473
877.430
983.0943
877.630
983.6633
878.310
992.1353
878.010
993.4733
877.380
994.1143
878.350
994.1143
877.170
1003.3213
877.360
1003.7903
877.090
1003.7903
878.350
1005.8783
878.300
1018.4093
877.770
1018.7283
877.250
1019.5433
876.810
1020.8503
877.820
1029.6453
877.120
1029.6453
877.680
1029.6453
876.810
1032.4063
877.680
1045.9933
877.300
1047.0803
876.590
1047.0803
877.470
1047.0803
876.790
1064.0763
876.300
1064.7933
876.160
1064.7933
877.290
1065.5683
877.070
1074.5853
875.760
1075.4233
876.690
1075.4793
875.940
1077.4803
876.510
1083.8683
875.530
1084.2963
875.790
1084.2963
876.670
1084.4563
876.510
1096.7943
876.250
1097.4793
876.210
1097.4923
875.690
1097.4923
875.420
1114.8053
875.110

1115.2363
875.370
1117.2523
876.100
1126.5633
875.150
1127.0773
875.810
1127.0773
874.920
1128.3093
875.660
1148.0753
875.000
1148.1723
874.750
1148.8523
875.710
1149.1773
875.400
1157.0173
875.300
1158.9923
874.590
1158.9923
875.780
1159.8373
874.830
1171.8283
876.200
1172.8623
874.700
1172.8633
874.500
1173.2793
875.970
1192.4213
874.540
1192.7473
875.080
1192.9033
874.240
1194.2883
875.250
1204.3953
875.130
1204.3953
874.570
1204.3953
874.180
1207.2363
875.320
1221.0623
875.070
1222.3763
874.570
1222.9463
874.200
1222.9463
875.070
1240.1483
874.920
1240.7363
874.280
1241.8143
873.920
1241.8143
875.210
1252.2773
874.890
1253.7653
874.060
1253.9203
874.510
1254.4703
874.220
1270.6233
874.080
1271.1343
873.580
1271.3353
873.390
1272.1303
874.050
1290.5483
873.920
1291.1893
873.190
1292.4833
873.050
1292.4833
874.070
1300.9713
872.920
1300.9773
873.820
1301.0593
873.100
1302.3153
873.790
1319.5903
873.440
1319.6703
872.830
1319.8613
872.680
1320.8893
873.240
1330.5293
873.510
1330.6543
872.650
1332.0583
872.170
1332.0583
873.340
1343.5773
872.580
1344.1463
873.330
1344.1463
872.480
1346.1923
873.300
1359.2433
871.860
872.120
872.820
872.820
1374.3543
872.620
1374.3543
871.800
1375.1903
871.930

1376.5373
Min
Avg
Max
872.470
1378.9063
0.02809
0.03733
S pool
872.380
1379.7363
0
871.760
0
0
1380.1723
871.460
0
0
0
1380.6303
39.10
51.97
872.350
Pool length
1395.2223
18.25
21.50
Riffle length
871.450
1396.6953
10.43
870.530
0
0
1396.7773
870.390
0
0
0
1397.8863
0
0
871.600
Dmax glide
1416.5573
0
0
871.490
0
1422.8113
870.350
Length and depth
measurements
in feet,
1422.8113
871.100
1422.9903
870.530
1434.4553
870.960
1435.3063
870.200
1435.6493
870.050
1436.8043
870.990
1448.2013
869.930
1448.2013
871.000
1448.2013
869.820
1450.5133
870.780
1457.8383
870.570
1459.6963
870.520
1459.6963
869.600
1460.0013
869.870
1481.2523
869.980
1482.7453
869.960
1482.7493
869.080
1483.1793
869.320
1496.0873
870.360
1497.3323
870.340
1497.3323
869.210
1497.3323
868.900
cross section / Bank Profile Locations
Name Type Profile Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Year 4) cross Section 7 - Riffle (R2B)Riffle XS 1359
Measurements from Graph
Bankfull Slope: 0.01586
variable
Min
Avg
Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S riffle
0.02151
0.02809
0.03733
S pool
0
0
0
S run
0
0
0
S glide
0
0
0
P - P
39.10
51.97
64.51
Pool length
15.64
18.25
21.50
Riffle length
7.17
8.73
10.43
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.
RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
Notes

River Name: Little white oak creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2B
Profile Name: (year 4) R2B Long. Profile (STA 9 +35 -- 14 +86)
Survey Date: 01/05/2012
DIST Note
960.4373 LEW
971.0583 LEW
983.0943 LEW
993.4733 LEW
1003.3213 LEW
1018.7283 LEW
1029.6453 LEW
1047.0803 LEW
1064.0763 LEW
1075.4793 LEW
1084.2963 LEW
1097.4923 LEW
1115.2363 LEW
1126.5633 LEW
1148.0753 LEW
1159.8373 LEW
1172.8623 LEW
1192.4213 LEW
1204.3953 LEW
1222.3763 LEW
1240.7363 LEW
1254.4703 LEW
1271.1343 LEW
1291.1893 LEW
1301.0593 LEW
1319.6703 LEW
1330.6543 LEW
1343.5773 LEW
1359.2433 XS7
1375.1903 LEW
1379.7363 LEW
1396.6953 LEW
1422.9903 LEW
1435.3063 LEW
1448.2013 LEW
1460.0013 LEW
1483.1793 LEW
1497.3323 LEW
- Tw Intersect @ station 1359

A�
1 1`
AT
1 `
MI
W1
T
N
Q
F-
U)
N
y=
O
C
O
J
0
N
(1j) U01JEA913
0
0
m
0
0
n
0
m
m
}
N
N
}
O
O
c0 �
N
}
O
c0
(D
}
E
cu
a�
cn
0)
c
0
76
a�
U
C
� m
N m
c
m
J
LL
Y
m
3
C
v
T
}

RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2D
Profile Name: (Year 4) R2D Long. Profile (STA 2 +84 -- 7 +79)
Survey Date: 11/15/2011
Survey Data
DIST
CH
WS
BKF LB
RB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
283.705
869.66
870.69
283.947
870.55
284.178
869.93
288.425
869.57
869.86
870.63 870.49
298.76
870.47
298.918
869.37
298.918
869.78
301.44
870.44
310.103
868.93
310.103
870.48
310.99
869.83
312.244
870.58
321.859
870.56
322.593
870.64
322.593
869.49
322.966
869.72
334.508
870.5
334.776
869.35
334.874
869.58
336.271
870.44
345.033
870.15
346.981
869.52
346.981
868.74
346.981
870.37
357.976
868.93
357.976
869.71
359.832
869.51
364.01
870.02
380.317
870.06
380.722
869.37
381.191
869.91
381.372
869.09
398.255
869.01
398.706
868.58
398.706
869.79
402.572
869.64
407.7
868.93
407.789
869.51
407.888
868.7
408.295
869.61
420.654
869.35
420.654
868.64
422.149
869.19
434.914
869.28
438.392
867.95
438.392
868.42
438.392
869.02
447.887
868.43
448.26
- ^- --
868.96

451.317
869.16
463.126
868.08
463.385
868.73
463.433
868.24
465.79
868.61
478.577
867.88
478.577
868.92
478.896
868.06
482.185
868.79
494.573
868.29
496.134
867.48
496.134
868.45
496.156
867.77
508.91
868.28
509.306
867.42
509.498
867.28
510.222
867.96
521.224
866.99
521.358
867.57
521.358
866.68
522.923
867.87
535.364
866.77
535.791
866.58
535.791
867.35
537.295
867.89
546.794
867.39
547.177
866.12
547.682
866
548.274
864.83
548.394
867.59
559.504
865.48
559.504
867.12
560.279
867.15
560.42
866.17
564.814
867.15
566.805
865.87
568.125
866.67
581.531
866.47
582.97
865.76
582.97
865.86
583.134
866.73
608.929
865.47
609.322
866
609.322
865.15
613.082
865.9
623.799
866.04
624.416
865.24
625.081
865.32
628.878
866.08
634.012
865.05
634.012
866.01
634.083
865.38
636.752
865.96
646.456
865.82
646.456
865.1
646.456
865.24
649.168
866.08
658.573
865.75
660.065
865.08
660.42
865.21
661.703
866.01
673.555
866.04
675.574
864.79
675.791
866.03
676.157
864.43
685.587
864.63

685.587
Min
Avg
Max
865.69
690.295
864.53
0.02268
S pool
0
691.065
0
S run
865.64
0
691.356
S glide
864.71
0
0
696.677
26.72
40.55
60.11
865.49
699.201
12.34
16.7
865.73
6.97
706.849
864.4
Dmax riffle
0
0
706.849
Dmax pool
0
865.38
0
707.563
0
864.59
0
Dmax glide
708.451
0
0
Low bank ht
865.42
717.384
864.15
Length and depth
measurements
in feet,
717.384
865.21
718.564
864.42
719.246
865.25
738.108
865.39
740.313
864.37
740.595
865.65
740.595
865.16
740.595
863.31
cross Section / Bank Profile Locations
Name Type Profile Station
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Year 4) Cross section 8 - Riffle (R2D)Riffle XS 288
Measurements from Graph
Bankfull Slope: 0.01319
variable
Min
Avg
Max
----------------------------------------------------------------------
S riffle
0.00728
0.01442
0.02268
S pool
0
0
0
S run
0
0
0
S glide
0
0
0
P - P
26.72
40.55
60.11
Pool length
10.02
12.34
16.7
Riffle length
6.97
9.3
11.62
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.
RIVERMORPH PROFILE SUMMARY
Notes
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2D
Profile Name: (Year 4) R2D Long. Profile (STA 2 +84 -- 7 +79)
Survey Date: 11/15/2011
DIST Note
284.178 LEW
288.425 xS8 - Tw Intersect @ station 288
298.918 LEW
310.99 LEW
322.966 LEW

346.981
LEW
359.832
LEW
380.722
LEW
398.255
LEW
407.7
LEW
438.392
LEW
447.887
LEW
463.433
LEW
478.896
LEW
496.156
LEW
509.306
LEW
521.224
LEW
535.364
LEW
547.177
LEW
560.42
LEW
582.97
LEW
608.929
LEW
625.081
LEW
634.083
LEW
646.456
LEW
660.42
LEW
675.574
LEW
691.356
LEW
707.563
LEW
718.564
LEW
740.313
LEW

10
s
8
7
c8
4)
i 5
N
CL
4
3
21
1i
(Year 4) R1 Reachwide Pebble Count
)---
--
,
I 111
1 7
--
--
—
i
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
C R1 Reachwide Pebble Count (PC)
♦ (Year 0) R1 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
6 (Year 1) R1 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
O (Year 2) R1 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
® (Year 3) R1 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)

River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
Size (mm)
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Little white
R1
R1 Reachwide
10/19/2011
Oak creek (Year 4)
Pebble Count
TOT # ITEM % CUM
0 - 0.062
25
25.00
25.00
0.062 - 0.125
17
17.00
42.00
0.125 - 0.25
12
12.00
54.00
0.25 - 0.50
15
15.00
69.00
0.50 - 1.0
21
21.00
90.00
1.0 - 2.0
5
5.00
95.00
2.0 - 4.0
2
2.00
97.00
4.0 - 5.7
2
2.00
99.00
5.7 - 8.0
1
1.00
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)
0.04
D35 (mm)
0.1
D50 (mm)
0.21
D84 (mm)
0.86
D95 (mm)
2
D100 (mm)
8
silt /Clay ( %)
25
sand M
70
Gravel M
5
cobble M
0
Boulder M
0
Bedrock M
0
Total Particles = 100.

1C
6
7
C 6
U-
'E
N
N5
d
4
3
2
U
(Year 4) R1 A Reachwide Pebble Count
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
® R 1 A Reachwide Pebble Count (PC)
♦ (Year 0) R1 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
® (Year 1) R1A Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
O (Year 2) R 1 A Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
® (Year 3) R1A Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
�JJ
�
0.01
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
® R 1 A Reachwide Pebble Count (PC)
♦ (Year 0) R1 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
® (Year 1) R1A Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
O (Year 2) R 1 A Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
® (Year 3) R1A Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white Oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R1A
sample Name: R1A Reachwide Pebble Count
Survey Date: 10/19/2011
size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM
0 - 0.062
32
64.00
64.00
0.062 - 0.125
10
20.00
84.00
0.125 - 0.25
8
16.00
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)
0.02
D35 (mm)
0.03
D50 (mm)
0.05
D84 (mm)
0.13
D95 (mm)
0.21
D100 (mm)
0.25
silt /Clay ( %)
64
sand M
36
Gravel M
0
Cobble M
0
Boulder M
0
Bedrock M
0
Total Particles = 50 (need at least 60).

10
9
81
71
N
C 61
LL
c
N
i
5(
CL
4(
3(
2(
1(
0
001
(Year 4) R2 Reachwide Pebble Count
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
(& R2 Reachwide Pebble Count (PC)
® (Year 0) R2 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
® (Year 1) R2 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
O (Year 2) R2 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
® (Year 3) R2 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
c
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
(& R2 Reachwide Pebble Count (PC)
® (Year 0) R2 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
® (Year 1) R2 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
O (Year 2) R2 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
® (Year 3) R2 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)

River Name:
Reach Name:
Sample Name:
Survey Date:
Size (mm)
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Little white
R2
R2 Reachwide
10/19/2011
Oak Creek (Year 4)
Pebble Count
TOT # ITEM % CUM
0 - 0.062
2
2.00
2.00
0.062 - 0.125
17
17.00
19.00
0.125 - 0.25
7
7.00
26.00
0.25 - 0.50
23
23.00
49.00
0.50 - 1.0
25
25.00
74.00
1.0 - 2.0
8
8.00
82.00
2.0 - 4.0
3
3.00
85.00
4.0 - 5.7
4
4.00
89.00
5.7 - 8.0
4
4.00
93.00
8.0 - 11.3
5
5.00
98.00
11.3 - 16.0
1
1.00
99.00
16.0 - 22.6
1
1.00
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)
0.11
D35 (mm)
0.35
D50 (mm)
0.52
D84 (mm)
3.33
D95 (mm)
9.32
D100 (mm)
22.6
silt /Clay ( %)
2
sand M
80
Gravel M
18
Cobble ( %)
0
Boulder M
0
Bedrock M
0
Total Particles = 100.

10
9
8
7
C 61
LL
c
N
2 51
tv
d
41
31
21
it
0
0.01
(Year 4) R2A Reachwide Pebble Count
01 1 . 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
® R2A Reachwide Pebble Count (PC)
♦ (Year 0) R2A Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
® (Year 1) R2A Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
O (Year 2) R2A Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
® (Year 3) R2A Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)

River Name:
Reach Name:
sample Name:
Survey Date:
size (mm)
RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
Little white
R2A
R2A Reachwide
10/19/2011
Oak Creek (Year 4)
Pebble Count
TOT # ITEM % CUM
0 - 0.062
0
0.00
0.00
0.062 - 0.125
3
6.00
6.00
0.125 - 0.25
0
0.00
6.00
0.25 - 0.50
6
12.00
18.00
0.50 - 1.0
4
8.00
26.00
1.0 - 2.0
11
22.00
48.'00
2.0 - 4.0
1
2.00
50.00
4.0 - 5.7
1
2.00
52.00
5.7 - 8.0
3
6.00
58.00
8.0 - 11.3
11
22.00
80.00
11.3 - 16.0
5
10.00
90.00
16.0 - 22.6
1
2.00
92.00
22.6 - 32.0
2
4.00
96.00
32 - 45
1
2.00
98.00
45 - 64
1
2.00
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)
0.46
D35 (mm)
1.41
D50 (mm)
4
D84 (mm)
13.18
D95 (mm)
29.65
D100 (mm)
64
Silt /clay ( %)
0
sand M
48
Gravel M
52
cobble M
0
Boulder M
0
Bedrock M
0
Total Particles = 50 (need at least 60).

N
_C
lL
C
U
L
a)
d
(Year 4) R213 Reachwide Pebble Count
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
® R213 Reachwide Pebble Count (PC)
® (Year 0) R21B Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
® (Year 1) R21B Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
O (Year 2) R26 Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
♦ (Year 3) R21B Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2B
Sample Name: R2B Reachwide Pebble Count
Survey Date: 10/19/2011
Size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM
0 - 0.062
39
78.00
78.00
0.062 - 0.125
9
18.00
96.00
0.125 - 0.25
0
0.00
96.00
0.25 - 0.50
2
4.00
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)
0.03
D50 (mm)
0.04
D84 (mm)
0.08
D95 (mm)
0.12
D100 (mm)
0.5
Silt /Clay ( %)
78
Sand M
22
Gravel M
0
cobble M
0
Boulder ( %)
0
Bedrock M
0
Total Particles = 50 (need at least 60).

L
N
C
LL
C
U
a.
(Year 4) R2D Reachwide Pebble Count
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10u00
Particle Size (mm)
® R2D Reachwide Pebble Count
(PC)
A (Year 0) R2D Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
A (Year 1) R2D Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
O (Year 2) R21D Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)
A (Year 3) R2D Reachwide Pebble
Count (PC)

RIVERMORPH PARTICLE SUMMARY
River Name: Little white oak Creek (Year 4)
Reach Name: R2D
sample Name: R2D Reachwide Pebble count
Survey Date: 10/19/2011
size (mm)
TOT # ITEM % CUM
0 - 0.062
19
38.00
38.00
0.062 - 0.125
20
40.00
78.00
0.125 - 0.25
5
10.00
88.00
0.25 - 0.50
6
12.00
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)
0.03
D35 (mm)
0.06
D50 (mm)
0.08
D84 (mm)
0.2
D95 (mm)
0.4
D100 (mm)
0.5
silt /Clay ( %)
38
sand M
62
Gravel M
0
cobble M
0
Boulder M
0
Bedrock M
0
Total Particles = 50 (need at least 60).

BEHI and Sediment Transport Data was not collected during year 4 monitoring. This sampling
method is only required in Year 3 and 5.

'd
'0
W
L
W
LLI
Z
W
-gyp
11J
LLl
3 m
CO
cn
M
c
-
_�
a) E ca
_�
m c
Q
N
Q
N
co
U
O
O) N ro
�
�
U) E _ S2
CD a
T > C
U U N
L O
C
m ro
2
0 d
aa) a)
U r m
U
+O !0
M
�Y
'T
N
a>i c a)
jj���
V
C N E C
O
x
cn
O a) C
O T O
O
O
o T W
N
>
m m o ID, >
U « a)
cli
C O a)
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
10 c o a
0
.5
N
W c
N N
O C C a)
r
C
E v °
r0
l0
r
r
r
r
r
r
>
UO O
N
d
iC o > coo
CD
o m m w 3
d
A
Cl)
0 CL c N
a) o2 m c
O
❑
r0
N
(5
d
r
r
r
r
E a L c V
C o 0) m
o
O c
(D c a) m N
N
° 3
0
N
aE)
c c .! a>
yL.
C)
r
r
r
r
r
r
O
a) O
_
N
_
aa)) : C
o E y
c
a) > c_ o
pp
cu
r
r
r
O
r
O
M
L y
O
N
y
} H m
p
0 C>
E
co
U
m a)
c a m
'
U
Y
p
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
� m m m>
> C a) 1>
O
cz�..
O
N
Cc
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
O ro d a)
o .o
z
}
co Y 3
W
>,
Ctj
O E t _
O
i T
a7 ca
Y
O
3 t .N
J
O
O
d
N O
LO
M
N
w
U)
I-
r,
r-
(D
r
n
O
(D
(D
(0
L) rn
co o a7
a
oo
05
cc)
00
w
co
��
00 0
,�
m
o CD
01 0)
lJJ
C a) a)
O
m N c
E _ E c o.
E C N
=
r
O
�
U O U a7
3
G>
Y p
C9
(
�
�
rn
rn
,0 _
G1 d
_ :r
(D
CV
V)
CO
(D
r
O
(0
_o
N T 3 .'�
ca �0)
E a
3
e0 >
w
M
M
M
M
a^0
co
coo
m 3>
4 E m o
Z CO)
(Cq
_
C y C N
°c°
W
m0) �o c1°ia�i
d C
W
coi .0 a> m c
`
0
7 O) N
Y E m�
G1
M
r
N
CO
"T
(D
N
O
m m
N a) 0)N y L
(9
N
.0 E f0 7 L N t N
0 a) >
a a u C o