20041635 Ver 1_Monitoring Report Year 4_20110401

mum.
pia Ag
so
RM, n U,
i
N
-Tx.
fV
Vill
............
A P, mv-
KPA,
S
VZ
............
...............

Invasive exotics throughout the conservation easement that are a threat to native vegetation
include tree of heaven (Alianthus altisimma), princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), and
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Other invasive exotics infrequently observed that did not seem
to be an imminent threat include tall fescue (Schedonurus arundinaceus), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). According to the EEP Invasives of
Concern /Interest List, tree of heaven, princess tree, mulitflora rose, Chinese privet, and Japanese
honeysuckle are all classified as "High Concern' species and fescue as a "Low /Moderate
Concern' species. For additional information relating to vegetation, see Appendix C.
The UT to Cane Creek Restoration project shows little change from MY -03 to MY -04. When
field work was conducted, the channel was mainly dry and overgrown with vegetation in some
segments of the channel. Vegetation is well established on the banks and floodplain throughout
the reach. The stream banks are stable and the instream structures are functioning as intended.
A comparison of the longitudinal profile between MY -03 and MY -04 shows little change in the
portion of the stream that is downstream of the crossing at 19 +10. However, the profile
upstream of the stream crossing indicates that some of the pools are aggrading slightly due to the
impoundment caused by recent and remnant beaver dams. Aggradation (occurring in
approximately 13% of the project length) and the formation of mid - channel bars (present in MY-
02) are still an issue throughout most of the project. This soils deposition is being held in place
by vegetation, including willows and cattails, in some areas of the channel. The mid - channel;
bars are preventing the flow from centering in the channel.
Several location along the stream reach have obstruction causing backwater conditions; the
stream crossing at station 19 +10 and the remnant beaver dams at stations 13 +75 (removed
August 20 10) and 15 +50 (remnant soils). The stream crossing at station 32 +50, and the remnant
beaver dam at station 20 +50 were not causing backwater conditions at the time of our survey due
to the dry conditions.
A comparison of the cross sections between MY -03 and MY -04 shows little change. Cross
Section 2 shows slight bank erosion due to local disturbance caused by a dislodged tree on the
bank. The stream banks in general are in good condition and the vegetation is well established at
the permanent cross section locations. For MY -04, the bankfull data calculations were based on
the baseline bankfull elevations. This elevation has varied in previous monitoring years. Pebble
counts at riffle Cross Sections 1 and 3 show a trend towards a finer substrate due to the
impoundment caused by the beaver dams. The pebble count at the riffle on Cross Section 5
continues a trend toward coarser substrate.
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment,
and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements, can be found in
the tables and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and supporting
information formally found in these reports can be found in the mitigation and restoration plan
Cane Creek Stream Restoration Year 4 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number 69 Year 4 of 5
The Catena Group 2 April 2011

documents available on EEP's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices are available for EEP upon request.
2.0 Methodology
Methodologies follow EEP monitoring report template Version 1.3 (1115110) and guidelines (Lee
et a12008). Photos were taken with a digital camera. A Trimble Geo XT handheld unit with
sub -meter accuracy was used to collect groundwater gauge locations, vegetation monitoring plot
origins, and problem area locations. Cross sectional and longitudinal surveys were conducted
using Total Station survey equipment. Data were entered into AutoCAD Civel3D to obtain
dimensions of the cross sections and parameters applicable to the longitudinal profile. Reports
were then generated to display summaries of the stream survey.
2.1 Vegetation Methodologies
Level II of the EEP /CVS protocol, version 4.2, was used to collect data for MY -04, which
includes natural stems. Since Plots 2, 3, and 5 were established in MY -02, all stems recorded in
these plots were classified as natural stems. Vegetation Plot 1 was omitted this year due to an
additional stream crossing that will traverse the plot. Data collected for these plots are in
Appendix C.
2.2 Stream Methodologies
Stream profile and cross sections were surveyed using Total Station equipment and methods.
The survey data were plotted using AutoCAD Cive13D. The longitudinal profile was generated
using the MY -02 alignment. Wolman's Method was used to determine particle size distribution.
Cross sectional data were extracted based on a linear alignment between the end pins.
3.0 References
Lee, Michael T., R. K. Peet, S. D. Roberts, and T. R. Wentworth. 2006. CVS -EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, Version 4.0 ( http : / /cvs.bio.unc.edu /methods.htm)
Weakley, A.S. 2007. Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and surrounding areas. Working
draft of January 2007. University of North Carolina Herbarium, North Carolina Botanical
Garden, University of North Carolina. 1015pp.
Cane Creek Stream Restoration Year 4 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number 69 Year 4 of 5
The Catena Group 3 April 2011

Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Cane Creek Stream Restoration Year 4 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number 69 Year 4 of 5
The Catena Group 4 April 2011

The Cane Creek Stream Restoration Site �.� Figure
Catena Site Location Map
Group Alarnance County, North Carolina t?S Stein
t � }
20c5Aena1CrlhophotographicMaps Date: i a11 icll ,3���'•i1{
EEP Project No. 69 Souroe. Alamance County, NC November 2010

Table la and b. Project Components and Summations
Table la. Project Components
Cane Creek / EEP #69
Project
Stream (if)
Riparian Wetland (ac)
Non -
Riparian
(ac)
Upland
(ac)
Buffer
(ac)
BMP
Riverine
Non-
Riverine
Restoration
Component
Existing
-
-
Footage
-
-
Enhancement
-
-
or Reach
Feet/
Restoration
-
or
Enhancement I
Mitigation
Mitigation
BMP
-
ID
Acres
Level
Approach
Acreage
Stationing
Ratio
Units
Elements'
Comment
-
Creation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Instream
-
-
-
-
-
10 +11-
-
HQ Preservation
-
structure
Reach 1
2,260*
R
P2
2,260 if
32 +88
1:1
2,260*
CF =5730
and
0
0
1
W Totals
2,260
1 0
1 0
0
0
vegetated
buffer
*This length exclude the 17' wide crossing,
CF = Cattle Fencing
Table lb. Component Summations
Cane Creek / EEP #69
Restoration Level
Stream (if)
Riparian Wetland (ac)
Non -
Riparian
(ac)
Upland
(ac)
Buffer
(ac)
BMP
Riverine
Non-
Riverine
Restoration
2,260
-
-
-
-
-
-
Enhancement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Enhancement I
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Enhancement II
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Creation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Preservation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
HQ Preservation
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Totals (feet/acres)
2,260
1 0
0
0
0
0
1
W Totals
2,260
1 0
1 0
0
0
1 0
Cane Creek Stream Restoration Year 4 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number 69 Year 4 of 5
The Catena Group 6 April 2011

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Cane Creek / EEP #69
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete:
4 years 8 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete:
4 years 7 months
Number of Reporting Years :
4
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
N/A
April 2003
Final Design — Construction Plan
N/A
October 2005
Construction
N/A
March 2006
Containerized, bare root, and B &B plantings for Reach/Segments 1 &2
N/A
March 2006
Mitigation Plan / As -Built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
May 2006
June 2006
Year 1 Monitoring
February 2007
March 2007
Year 2 Monitoring
October 2008
January 2009
Year 3 Monitoring
September 2009
December 2009
1 = Number of reports produced excluding the baseline
Cane Creek Stream Restoration Year 4 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number 69 Year 4 of 5
The Catena Group 7 April 2011

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Table 3. Project Contact Table
Cane Creek / EEP #69
Stantec Consulting Services Inc
Designer
801 Jones Franklin Road, Suite 300 .
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Primary Project Design POC
David Bidelspach - (919) 851 -6866
Shamrock Environmental Corp.
Construction Contractor
6101 Corporate Park Drive
Browns Summit, North Carolina 27699
Construction Contractor POC
Bill Wright - (800) 881 -1098
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
Survey Contractor
P.O. Box 33127
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636
Survey Contractor POC
Derek F. Batts — (919) 851 -1912
Seal Brothers Contracting, LLC
Planting Contractor
P.O.Box 86
Dobson, North Carolina 27017
Planting Contractor POC
Brian Seal — (336) 786 -2263
Seal Brothers Contracting, LLC
Seeding Contractor
P.O.Box 86
Dobson, North Carolina 27017
Seeding Contractor POC
Brian Seal — (336) 786 -2263
Shamrock Environmental Corp.
Seed Mix Sources
6101 Corporate Park Drive
Browns Summit, North Carolina 27699
Hills Nursery Co., Inc.
Nursery Stock Suppliers
(931) 668 -4364
The Catena Group (TCG)
Monitoring Performers
410 -B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27678
Ward Consulting Engineers
Stream Monitoring POC
8368 Six Forks Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27613 -5083
The Catena Group (TCG)
Vegetation Monitoring POC
410 -B Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27678
Wetland Monitoring POC
N/A
Cane Creek Stream Restoration Year 4 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number 69 Year 4 of 5
The Catena Group 8 April 2011

Table 4. Cane Creek /EE P #69 Project Attribute Table
Project County
Alamance
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit)
0303002050050
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
Cane Creek
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan?
Watershed Restoration Plan for the Cape Fear River Basin 2001
WRC Hab Class (Warm, Cool, Cold)
Warm water
% of Project easement fenced or demarcated
100% fenced beyond the 50 ft easement buffer
Beaver activity observed during the design phase?
U
Restoration Component Attribute Table
Reach 1
Drainage Area (acres)
2,003
Stream Order
3`
Restored Length (feet)
2,271
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Watershed Type (Rural, Urban, Developing, etc.)
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution:
Residential
5 %*
Ag — Row Crop
10 %*
Ag — Livestock
50 %*
Forested
35 %*
Watershed Impervious cover ( %)
<5 %*
NCDWQ AU /Index Number
22
NCDWQ Classification
C, NSW
303d listed?
No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
N/A
Total acreage of easement
6.42
Total vegetated acreage within the easement
6.42
Total planted acreage as part of the restoration
6.42
Rosgen classification of pre- existing
C4
Rosgen classification of As -built
C
Valley Type
VIII
Valley Slope
0.0034 ft/ft
Valley side slope range
0.07 -0.135 ft/ft
Valley toe slope range
0.02 -0.03 ft/ft
Cowardin classification
R3UB 1
Trout waters designation
No
Species of concern, endangered, etc.
No
Dominant soil series and Characteristics
Series
Herndon
Depth
Unknown
Clay %
Unknown
K
Unknown
T
Unknown
* These values are approximations from cursory analysis
Cane Creek Stream Restoration Year 4 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number 69 Year 4 of 5
The Catena Group 9 April 2011

Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
Cane Creek Stream Restoration
NCEEP Project Number 69
The Catena Group
10
Year 4 Monitoring Report
Year 4 of 5
April 2011

N
32+00
31+00
30+00
2
27 +00
26+00
25+00
24+00
23+00
22+00
3 -
21 +00
20+00
19 +00
18+00
17+00
14+00 18+00
13+00
12+00
s
10+00
Legend
Conservation Easement (6.42 acres)
• Cross Section Pins
Own sa a an ID X Y Cross Secdons
Lot Bank - 79.429!0111070 35.86518915350
Banc - 7212973992470 35.88500B1e500 MY-04 7hekveg
Let Bank - 7943027980 35.86433769
XS4 Bank - 7Q43012571100 35.85490458200 ■ Surface Waters
X83 Let Bank -7943029797320 35.66378796M 1
XS-3 Bark - 79.43014541310 35.953832,8610 0 7 1 -79.42908473080 36.865MMI0190
XB-2 Let Bank -7043030037990 35.8meoe m 2 - 79.42988,00910 35.9619.512360
X8.2 Bank 7243016486180 35.8Gt02752470 3 79.43024283620 36.86366902090 0 125 250 500
X9.1 Lit Bwnk - 7Q4313MMM 35.961704379,0 • - 79.43012479500 35.86235887580 Feet
X8.1 P4t Bank - 79431178820 35.86181748880 5 - 7143088136380 36.66160647870
Cane Creek Stream Restoration Site Figure
The Current Conditions Plan View
CO1ef o Alamance County, North Carolina Key
)5V,itll At
2010 AeNW Sar6b Irtopwy Dab:
EEP Majed No. 69 Sourm: BMq Maps 2010 November 2010
Cane Creek Stream Restoration Year 4 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project Number 69 Year 4 of 5
The Catena Group 11 April 2011

-
i!f {}i /#�
®t!�■
� !!
!� #�,.�..�� „ - ,,•74`a�� ' |!
|£ < |!
!
e\£!
' ggG■gb■■\ ■d■' - | |i | ■!! ■E §
ud-
;}
;
| °
■
a
2
?
o�
!
0r
.
§t)
Wit
E o �!
mk{)!
«
&§!
�7
�
|
�
,! !! '■ || |� §t |�
|!|
- ■ ..���m�n.�
§|||/
2
MOU!|(|2
| |§ §§ - § | §! §��a•&
|§■!
; ; §§§ ; ;;

} �
# ■
3| 2 !
«��;
■ | #ill � |
-
•�p(
!
in
\ \E \ \
\ ■ ■.2MOM - ®IIII ■O ■
!|
�
e
c
o■
�'22� j
■ �$
CL
■ | I
■ |!
2 0 ƒ ||
cu
v
9 �
2
� 1
� ■
! !
| /`«
®& ■�!!�|
� �§ � | | h,■
� # * 9�° ■.
227
�`
■q�■R�`
Doll�

■
ƒ■
4
�7! ■f i��|
I
���!
w
� ! | | ■ ■| E '
|� -� -��
k!I
�
`|
„ ,,. -. �## ■a
2a.� | # | | ««« | & | |3| | | & &■ |� ! ■a
�� 022 ■Eg ■!3 ■g ■' ®| |I| ■I! oil ■
.
S
■
■
o§
22.
;
CL
§§|\
| |
2 c I|
`
C�
_
7
§
�u
2
.
,
!
■
|
� -
� |�-
X22
\
�.
k ��l�

�!
■
FYN"
°
\$ \ \ \� \ \ \ }j | ■f |� \�
■k\� ■� ® | ®
7 .
. �
!
©
` ,
k
.@
2 ,
. ;
\ r
■�!
E o # _|
g¢f!�
` !!�
19
&$�
Q §
(�
,
o
�
©@A !VMEZ
. §6�p2� f
/fƒ
�t . / t }!
E ®® ,!!!!

C
C
A
L
U
C N
`d N
L
Q1
C
J
d
B m
e Of C
o ar
o
O
Q N >
L
= � C
N
a 0
°
`o 2 2
00 9
U.
3 .5 '°
N
$
E o
o
:°.
zy >
aj _C s
�p € v
8e
0
-It
"1'
O
O °
O
H C
O
O
O
O
O
O
r
O
o L N
0
c a
7 N O
N LO
O
O
O
c o
O LL
O aJ H
� C
E
O
O
N
O
N
Ey
z �n
C
H
—
O
~
FEN
N
N
N
N
N
m
N
N
Q
z
y y C 'O
C
ON
E A Q C
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
z N y N
a R
ro
_
a
m
(1
v
a
319
n
A
✓
n0
o
m n
'
o
S
g
y
m
m
Q,
a
i`wy
v
C
G O
"o E
a
m
w
3
c
c W
m e
a
F
y
n
o
G
pp
m
y w
a n
g
a
0
g
w
0
all
Ctf
m
W
a
_
CC
N
a
u�w1
p
O e
v
c
-q
o m
t
y
U
a m e
E
O p
w
'I
= °-
A„
%
E
lu
;
x
V g
j i°
y
a
O
- o
�
4
m53
m ro
m
V)
n
O
r
.o
C_
q
2 C
m
cp
a
o
�
c
ly
�
3
e
�
v
at
g
d R
n1 D
v
o
=
-
a
Y
p
9
a
u
21L
C
L 3>
z
f o cp
h
f
O
O
a
t`E
U N
IV
H V
Q
N
M
r
N
N
ri
d
�i d
Z
C
Y
C 7
I
m
m
w
L
TC U
� N
� r
G
0
�o
� C
O
CC
U U
d
Uz9

L
OI
m
tG Q
A
H a
C d
C 00) N N
aQ
� d
C
0 �
0 0
U
O M
C
c v
;a
za
V � U
Uo�a;
�p U
S o
aN
CL
� � O
m
.y
'C
u
c
'o
E
4
In
Q
y�
N
a
h
d
El
m
Q
T
A
QJ
u
m
to
c
N d
T
y0
T
h
N
d
o
� E
F N
d
'cf
V
a
C
m
F
m
N
f6
W
C
E
O N
A
W
9
d
C
a
0
U
O
a
E
0
z
CL
8
d
o
N CA
C
A
In
co
N
`o
a
g
d �
H
U. Q
o
m
3
m
b
d
{O
E
C
Y
C
d as
3
C
CL E
A
A
N� E
/0
`d
C
C
d y
O A
L
0
g o
8 � d
O
O y t
N L a
N ~ N
Q A
E� 4
A
N
y DT
U 7
rc £
C y R
0
u
A d C
a
m c ;
a d A
C W N ~
II Q II
u
r
d ff�
ZI
c 41
pm d U A
C OU ` A N m m
rn�3'�Ydu`L'�a
d 2 2L 01 Q, 7 y d
$ w
.0-.8 A E C
0
E
c d m . 3 �
c - E
3$ -7�i�r
`o
N 4
c E 2.2 g 8 A d m
o y A
A =Z d d A 0 U Z= c C
o
c 8d�u'OoOCE
7A'- 8
d A
C N y V O 3
� _ E Ed�LL��E�B
d m o 'E Zppp U
C U�£BEiSm
A
E E
m O -r 7 mf A c
.-. p°° A d A sJ A
A N
U d T$ q C >, cp
Ln d
C d A Y R Q
�r , a _® U O d ° 7 O
E � A "2 A v vi u
N OE O Y, O G V d t 0;
5°- .2o5�gd 3
u s
?. CC N m Q
O - 9,-. m gf d m
d A _ � y _ Y
y eq 4 O L A A
> A y
y O R Q Y Y C m C
B rc d
A U .0
cd c$scAvNE�
U
d E A y pp A y p N N
, S m � � o
N aV. p
;y 7 F t O JA
V N « � $,N d
6
N G d d .�
d 3 Cp N a O C L 3 L
d �C L L N 1Q Q m gV d
D
402 6
m a d N c c>° p° 3
y W
c E 10
� C O V 9 `- NC)
d 8 ;5
m m p d O A
A 7
� D! Y
-d �dE'd��'L S
N d 8
p m E N o E$ E
y c£^ o A E u
GO a�����Ad�udio
�A
d
Ry Fi N C W« E C
U rd tr& W d N A 0
u N t b O 2. 3 G
A' [A ce Y y V
d C ;_ .E C A IQ .Z
�vaaa
w 4 A E� S S
11 11 A �O Q d ID
tW) —
O to* O
.O
O
L
y �
�z
x'3 U
x .o e
U W
U
u

UT to Cane Creek MY -04 Photo Points
Photo 1. Looking downstream at XS -1
Cane Creek Stream Restoration
NCEEP Project Number 69
The Catena Group
Photo 2. Looking downstream at XS -2
18
Year 4 Monitoring Report
Year 4 of 5
April 2011

F,
f ,A
yr f
,y � � r ¢ •tit �, \';
r
gib
34,
44 ,A }.
s

MY -04 (2010) Vegetation Plot Photos
Photo 6. Plot 2 (Sept 6, 2008)
Photo 7. Plot 3 (Sept 6, 2008)
Photo S. Plot 4 (Sept 6, 2008)
Photo 9. Plot 5 (Sept 6, 2008)
Cane Creek Stream Restoration
NCEEP Project Number 69
The Catena Group
20
Photo 10. Plot 2 (Sept 3, 2010)
Photo 11. Plot 3 (Sept 3, 2010)
Photo 12. Plot 4 (Sept 3, 2010)
Photo 13. Plot 5 (Sept 3, 2010)
Year 4 Monitoring Report
Year 4 of 5
April 2011

Appendix C. Vegetation Assessment Data
Cane Creek Stream Restoration
NCEEP Project Number 69
The Catena Group
21
Year 4 Monitoring Report
Year 4 of 5
April 2011

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Vegetation Plot
ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold
Met?
Tract Mean
01
Plot Removed
100 %*
02
N/A
03
N/A
04
Yes
05
N/A
* Tract mean met for Plot 04, the only plot with confirmed planted stems
Cane Creek Stream Restoration
NCEEP Project Number 69
The Catena Group
22
Year 4 Monitoring Report
Year 4 of 5
April 2011

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Metadata Table
Prepared By
The Catena Group
-Report
Date Prepared
11/5/2010 0:00
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------- - --
Metadata
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of project(s) and project
data.
Pro', planted
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year. This excludes live
stakes.
Pro', total stems
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This includes live stakes,
all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer stems.
Plots
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data live stems, dead stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor b Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
Damage
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and percent of total stems
impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by e for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each plot; dead and
missing stems are excluded.
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers
combined ) for each lot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY ---- ----- -------- — ---- — --------
Project Code
69
project Name
UT to Cane Creek
Description
2232 if of stream restoration
River Basin
Cape Fear
length(ft)
22321f
width ft
12
-stream-to-edge
areas m
6.42 acres easement
Plots calculated
5
-Required
-Sampled Plots
4*
* Plot 01 was removed from the data set. A replacement plot is scoped to be established in the winter of 2010 -11
Cane Creek Stream Restoration
NCEEP Project Number 69
The Catena Group
23
Year 4 Monitoring Report
Year 4 of 5
April 2011

:r
.E
^_^O
F�
C
CC
a
1�1
CC
O
7
O
U
U
t v
O O
L2
L L
C
O
i
N
r-
0
IJ
E
�z
y �v
� O �
V �
U W �
� U
W
�z�
n
N
r-1
O
m
n
O
m
V1
N
V
a
ti
Ol
V1
N
00
Q1
V1
00
VI
W
r
N
8
m
N
V1
N
N
V
A
ry
}
C
O
O
O
O
a
c
0
ti
v
M
d
m
N
o
N
N
0
0
CL
O
r
n
N
�l1
O
O
N
e-1
N
N
N
N
ip
N
n
N10
N
00
cf
N
N
p
-
v
N
n
O
N
N
00
V
a
�
f
o
0
0
a
'^
a
r
00
-
O
N
O
O
O
d
°
°
10
w
a
O
O
O
c
a
r
W
lf1
N
n
N
M
M
~
^
.Oi
>
N
ry
n
ry
m
O
ry
C
O
N
W
�
C
O
d
a
-
N
C>
O
N
O
O
�
C
10
O
u
W
o
0
0
d
N
a
r
m
>
O
N
O
O
N
O
A
ti
O
�
a
O
w
0
0
0
i
a
u U Q
a
F-
r
r
r
r
r>
° L)
E v a
y
avvv�
v
v
v
v>?
L
L
E
L
v
�av
v
v
o
L
v"
v
L
L
v
v�
v"`
L
L
L
L
L
a E
E
n
v
w
=
v
to
c`
o
a
v
v
$
E
E
a
.a
3
E
v
v
o
Ol
T
v
C
u
E
'_''
T
op
Q
a
s
Y
v
m
`E°
E.
�°
�°
v
01
w¢
w
w
w
u
3
n
o
a
3
E
u°
m
E
v
E
0
c
c
m
E
>
w
a
o
o
m
>
E>
.c
.c
.3
E
v
o
o
>—
c
E
'c
n
o
c
u
u+
°
c>>
E
E
m
o
E
o`
>>
L
U
E
a
E
?E
A
u
a
s
v
`
`
E
o.
o.
>?
c
c
v
v
2
..
v
u
u
u
E
c
>
>
>
u
w
A
`o
_E
c
_E
c
m
Q?
¢¢¢¢
m
U
u
W
-
a
O
O
d
z
t v
O O
L2
L L
C
O
i
N
r-
0
IJ
E
�z
y �v
� O �
V �
U W �
� U
W
�z�

Appendix D. Stream Survey Data
Cane Creek Stream Restoration
NCEEP Project Number 69
The Catena Group
Year 4 Monitoring Report
Year 4 of 5
April 2011

p£g
6
s i
j
i
I
i
II
I
X I,
8
LL
I
I
f
zAn P 1� h AA1� Ply ^h ^A l�h 1� HE
v�onnnwh,nnnn,n w
Q
�$Soa°b ai- wasst; a�a��a�6a w '
e3
i a
�c� °iQQ��i$i3=��l�e�i S86t�S8n r �
j
gs
m
>
O j
jnOp�ijobN�siae� °�iS�a�n -SB a'Ib SB SiB�oSR .
�W�nnnnnlnnv1661i16nnnnnbin
i
sl Nlno ^ ^. �$��So Si rS �Sfi irvn��iR nSo &°Yb oSB
'I
1
c
p rc
S3
E
ON�p��nOnOiO�pOCf i0Oa0 W�
�ODA
N
�P n Yf �O �f1 iff �'1 iA YI h �^fI
Wn
pN nh
�Ypef
QO 1pNAOI .1OAtA�� O��l7N�Ml'Im �
I
zz Z
I Z
g
NonAAA�A . . . . .ni � mS$i�siBZS o$
no?�e,t�.�i(V
o
bb n �
> hh bb h M N blAb bYl Ylbbbb11f 111 b
W
i��8g���7B8
'.
...���iii
�O 1pp p`�♦�111SB `�Yp-�pSqBp�hS36�p�tl1
'
��np �m�pt�pp�p3p
�O'a ObO �f�d�r]Il t� f d V InI V f'n1 f V f YIN N�Y16�A
gC
A. Z.
^a,SlZ,2..S.QS. A.°ynffRS.R.a.S.SS.S.
�
b b V f f t7 N � � f f m A
W66666666666E6r6666
8
2
$LL�ii Rio ^14i'i+�Ri °fe'3114StilennA °OSn
pWJ1
-PAM'J
t h r-+
ti
0 C
•O
N
0
A4 'g
Z
.LS U
UWU
�z�

V7 ""
p, 0 �
O
t-
N
ii
O
�z
o
O
f.
U W �
UzF
Hp
f i
I
r tT✓
H F
aV
O C
iZs838& 88�$igg4S5�5QQg�o€�o�s8gpSN33M8���3�� N
+
�dS
i
��+nrnanr. �nT 7S �S aS��n �nnnrnhna�nnrn
IT
�8��$��nRn°i6���A6 °�l8S48maM� w
�
NO,�Obau �ian�e ie is S?8��its Si ^. SI �rR �s�rf- N
y
�yy
S
cr
pp rr�� pp @ ��yy rryy {�pp qq (JJJ ♦f eM
fmn� �N �h rOO���MQNN�tlD pp��
�ji
3Nm'VO WE oE5 Er 919r onn6nnnic.
II
e
IZ LL�
E
e
�_mN„NO 888 `���SI�O�p�Opol( °pyam�R33iCe��:
Rf
� '
___
$
M.N
�N nhYf hM Nh nUf Rf ntlf hrnr
�
O
�hMI+N� �H FIRMONIO1OOMp�8O1pO���F, ��p'3$�N��^
� ���'•N
I
�Or�i Oim NNI\ Nn ^7 FlS vv O elf •(•�pbh
I
Hill
]4[
yQJ Qm'
e
F
i W
�n h n rn h reJ r. rn rr�
�
yy
885$$ p& a�i° n��3pt��8p2pR8 ♦�ptp�A��pFgipBpR�R$grA�i$
` C
O l•f V � � N h N [V ;V N 1�1 rN•J 1.1 f7 r^9 19 1'/ R O f f� q iD r
'.
I
rL
�
°m'r�i"���aSC�
I
igonne
yng�
nnrn h n � 7i � §1 SEE EsD5 i
{S
8
�y
�y}i'NQSC
��n86'a
-°p.
fit' U
�
9 9 f Pl
N O O n O Oi OI N f�Y 'V o N p
V7 ""
p, 0 �
O
t-
N
ii
O
�z
o
O
f.
U W �
UzF

V: W)
eai O N
C � Q
O
r
rO
QO
N
0
wqN
CA
o
P4 �
Z
E�
U W� U
U z H
i
oc
~
i
}
e
�888�" �nmyCy��!ffi�QQ^gg..!°"arQQ!��QQaBa¢¢9gg3$��1R.`�88 oa
�
>
N
�
) qq ryry
�r(�m O NM YI� NqN �
� I)
pNr(y ♦M♦
�ry�0�l�m�� �� NNNfVR AI f.l el0n l'7
r
C
0
cu
I
N`
f/J
O ]TEL®
r
ppppeepp ��pp pp y
h � �OO �fj f7 f � �
b V W OHO CC
ie e 7 O.°i �anpp ;vj ttyTpl, �Y�Q1, OO4
N � V
N C e
W h DbMf b b101OO�NN �
�p pp �p (r� ��yy �p �ryy p O ++ ♦+
1
i o O I?
•- � a � � N � IO C1 � M � 1'1
f!p� G
�YNQ1 �YQ �Op
�siSi4z4zS i�E E f �StS�S 7Sn�v na
N
d aa!< QQ QQ yyuCDQpO ,,..�� pO 10 �
Z ZZ2Z AR
I %2 V Q N R
4)o V "I ri N)YI
W
s`
I
U
V
p ffiy�at
2X
5ciaNdi3
Q
auLLh
V: W)
eai O N
C � Q
O
r
rO
QO
N
0
wqN
CA
o
P4 �
Z
E�
U W� U
U z H

d � N
� � Q
r
v
a�
N
b
H �
�za
D
V1 ,^
� 0 �
U W� U
d
UZH
u
w
�
i
�
D
i
8
I
8
I
i
8
g
o
�
a
8: M3t2P$SS$"2V. BplE 8iCl9�iAl ;Z. Z.
s
}
W{�22 WI
gg �
b..R��88$i2R1���8�Sn8��l�l6��R� -888 P
j
�aS��EI�����IMES5.5
n ieyn�mnn
LL
4;Z.1 ppqq((n��hlnDn Onnaav�n
.. 8 8 O S. I O 8 V O F F f V
r�To
5��.�0� R` ,:�anea6FgSe18f3Fil�iAlL��Eai:
� tim�751S 7f�iS�7�dSroin
`gQ444
99;, ,,F
�`ZZ Z� g1O7 riv
V$pBi,n
� a
a
I
F
_
ui
I I
U
N
U ao�
a8Xa3 Z
5; 00
(om)
UaaAOs
d � N
� � Q
r
v
a�
N
b
H �
�za
D
V1 ,^
� 0 �
U W� U
d
UZH

rl
N
C O
Q%
O
M
O
y �
9z�
� v
a
Uw� U
U Z H
I
!
8
i
I
M W dW'
I
O
S A
8R� o9�(.(yy�S�pp�8S�1
'�
�
Z
♦8♦�8�ppmrmo�8�jgy%y1�m3(rNy^m^:
01�01� � �NNN�1^•11h MN)f.7 �•i1HObH
�'
gK
O O F O ~
= J ~ ~
fA
N
�
�1 �NlOnNpnl � lV
Q� R}���gnp
[y1
=Ci
1Y•
OOO��f��^N�
��'iNN� ��
mVyNb��Op �OOp.�1b^•1
�YNf h�DN�S�i(i �DO��tf � hhtl ��fiNN YNiF
--
R
vro��m
A
�� ?iS OFO
E
�
�y�
QQN gqapqq PP p
� F NhN�O�o� NOD H�a��QQONgrg F8S3F
�ZZZZ
�nrN- �n °7S�n
lit
I
O
8
R
q pQ pmp pp
% Z Z
i/i FS8lSM1RWSiAl888
S o°
n
e
°
n N
�ci R' NO�m
IQs
N �
O
w
$
8
8 8 8
8
8 8
8 8
8
�j
AIfI
h b 1f1
tS � C
n6 ✓� #
h
(100:1) uollen013
�C
u7 �Il
�
N
rl
N
C O
Q%
O
M
O
y �
9z�
� v
a
Uw� U
U Z H

( ;aa ;) uoi ;en01
3
00 •
�o
' a
o
s ■� g
o$.
y
�
0
cod
aUi!ZJ 86+82 '
°
•0 '
3,
9 u°13o88 sso
�
■
oN}
N
■
o �
I
r
o°
o, ■0 0
4rchi
0
loud SL+SZ'e ;$
b■
q uo!�ag ssab
..o�
o
04
aUiRl 8L+EZ'e
o
£ uol�ag ssoi
■ �
'
Y 41 O
p �
+
o
G O
0
N
Vac
v�o2
0
0
c
o C
m
«
0
d
C �
o
H
0
m
Q
UN
O�
C
■8'
P
ooq
�Z+BL'1'0+8� Va
Bulsso�� wee
�
■ o
o
ali!M SL +ZL
L uo!3�3 sso �
�
Ind 4L+LL'
L uol3�eS ssc
o �
o ib
00
m
!
o
�
n
I
•
°� j
o
■
o
s.
24 Id
Ap
OD
as
4) CL
22
co (O � N O co
u) 0 LO �
f0
+
0
V •-
LO
( ;aa ;) uoi ;en01
3
ali!M SL +ZL
L uo!3�3 sso �
�
3

PEBBLE COUNT
Project: UT to Cane Creek, Project # 69 Date: 9/10/2010
Location: Cross Section #1
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
0.0
Riffles
Pools
Total No.
Item %
°% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S/C
13
0
13
12%
12%
Very Fine
062- 125
0
0
0
0%
12°%
Fine
.125 -.25
.'.-.A'.'.'
3
0
3
3%
15%
Medium
.25-.50
PJ
3
0
3
3%
18%
Coarse
.50-1.0
12
0
12
11%
30°%
.04-.08
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
. ' .S ' • ' • '
3
0
3
3%
32%
.08-.16
Very Fine
2.0-4.0
;
4
0
4
4%
36%
.16-.22
Fine
4.0-5.7
:
13
0
13
12%
49%
.22-.31
Fine
5.7-8.0
:R ; :
9
0
9
9°%
57%
.31 -.44
Medium
8.0-11.3
. Fc . .
14
0
14
13%
70%
.44-.63
Medium
11.3 - 16.0
: ;'.V :
15
0
15
14%
85°%
.63-.89
Coarse
16.0-22.6
.. E :
10
0
10
10%
94%
.89-1.26
Coarse
22.6-32.0
... L :
2
0
2
2%
96%
1.26 -1.77
Very Coarse
32.0 -45.0
.':'S :'.'
0
0
0
0%
96%
1.77-2.5
Very Coarse
45.0-64-0
1
0
1
1%
97%
2.5-3.5
Small
64-90
2
0
2
2%
99%
3.5-5.0
Small
90-128
• ' •O ' • ' • '
0
0
0
0%
99°%
5.0-7.1
Large
128-180
: ; g :
1
0
1
1%
100°%
7.1 - 10.1
Large
180-256
: ;
0
0
1 0
0%
100°%
10.1 - 14.3
Small
256-362
B ' . ' . '
0
0
0
0%
100%
14.3-20
Small
362 - 512
0
0
0
0%
100%
20 -40
Medium
512-1024
.'.D'.'•'
0
0
0
0%
100°%
40-80
Lr - Very Lrg
1024-2048
'R •' •'
0
0
0
0%
100%
Bedrock
I • : eQRK: -:1
0
1 0
0
0%
100°%
Totals 105 0 105 100% 100°%
100%
90%
80%
d
70%
3
E 60%
V
c 50%
R
r
40%
c
LL 30%
20%
10%
0%
d16
d35
d50
d84
d95
Silt/Clay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Bed Particle Size Distribution
Cross Section 1: Riffle
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Particle Size - Millimeter
10000 100000
—#— MY -00
— 0 MY -01
A MY -02
0 MY -03
—X - MY-04

PEBBLE COUNT
Project: UT to Cane Creek, Project # 69 Date: 9/10/2010
Location: Cross Section #3
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
0.0
Riffles
Pools
Total NoT
Item %
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
..S /C
0
0
0
0%
0%
Very Fine
.062-125 .125
S ,
2
0
2
2%
2%
Fine
.125-.25
. • .A
38
0
38
37%
39%
Medium
.25-.50
N •' •' •
27
0
27
26%
65%
Coarse
.50-1.0
..
5
0
5
5%
70%
.04 -.08
1 Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
S'
0
0
0
0%
70%
.08-.16
Very Fine
2.0-4.0
2
0
2
2%
72%
.16-.22
Fine
4.0 - 5.7
.. b : :.
0
0
0
0%
72%
.22-.31
Fine
5.7-8.0
..R ..
0
0
0
0%
72%
.31-A4
Medium
8.0-11.3
. -A...
0
0
0
0%
72%
.44-.63
Medium
11.3-16.0
.. •.V...
0
0
0
0%
72%
.63-.89
Coarse
16.0-22.6
. E...
0
0
0
0%
72%
.89-1.26
Coarse
22.6-32.0
.. L ..
1
0
1
1%
73%
1.26 - 1.77
Very Coarse
32.0-45.0
. S .' .
5
0
5
5%
78%
1.77-2.5
Very Coarse
45.0-64.0
. . .
7
0
7
7%
84%
2.5-3.5
Small
64-90
• •C
5
0
5
5%
89%
3.5-5.0
Small
90-128
; •O ;
6
0
6
6%
95%
5.0-7.1
Large
128-180
, .
3
0
3
3%
98%
7.1 - 10.1
Large
180-256
0
0
0
0%
98%
10.1 - 14.3
Small
256-362
H . ' . '
0
0
0
0%
98%
14.3-20
Small
362-512
L' . ' • ' .
0
0
0
0%
98%
20-40
Medium
512-1024
D' •' •'
0
0
0
0%
98%
40 -80 1
Lr - Very Lrg
1024 -2048
'•'•'R•'.'.
0 1
0 1
0
0%
98%
Bedrock
QRK: -:1
2 1
0
2
2%
100%
Totals 103 0 103 100% 100%
v
e
m
L
r
d
e
LL
100%
90%
80%
70%
80%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 4.
0.1
dill
d35
d50
d84
d95
Silt/Clay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Bed Particle Size Distribution
Cross Section 3: Riffle
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Particle Size - Millimeter
�r MY-02
0 MY-03
X MY-04

PEBBLE COUNT
Project: UT to Cane Creek, Project # 69 Date: 9/10/2010
Location: Cross Section #5
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
0.0
Riffles
Pools
Total No.
Item %
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
• .S?C
0
0
0
0%
0%
Very Fine
.062-.125
$ :
0
0
0
0%
0%
Fine
.125-.25
.'.A'.'.'
4
0
4
4%
4%
Medium
.25-.50
2
0
2
2%
6%
Coarse
.50-1.0
11
0
11
10%
16%
.04-.08
Very Coarse
1-0-2.0
S' •' -'
0
0
0
0%
16%
.08-.16
Very Fine
2.0-4.0
1
0
1
1 %
17%
16 -.22
Fine
4.0 -5.7
. Q. ..
1
0
1
1%
18%
.22-.31
Fine
5.7-8.0
.Ft .'.
4
0
4
4%
22%
.31 - .44
Medium
8.0-11.3
. A...
2
0
2
2%
24%
.44-.63
Medium
11,3-16.0
. •.V..'.
6
0
6
6%
30%
.63-.89
Coarse
16.0-22.6
. E...
6
0
6
6%
35%
.89-1.26
Coarse
22.6-32.0
...L...
19
0
19
18%
53%
1.26 - 1.77
Very Coarse
32.0-45.0
S . ..
12
0
12
11%
65%
1.77-2.5
Very Coarse
45.0-64.0
20
0
20
19%
84%
2.5-3.5
Small
64-90
E
11
0
11
10%
94%
3.5-5.0
Small
90-128
: Q :
4
0
4
4%
98%
5.0-7.1
Large
128-180
1
0
1
1%
99%
7.1 - 10.1
Large
180-256
1
0
1
1 %
100%
10.1 -14.3
Small
256 -362
B'.'.'
0
0
0
0%
100%
14.3-20
Small
362-512
L' ' •'
0
0
0
0%
100%
20 -40
Medium
512 -1024
.D'.' -'
0
0
0
0%
100%
40-80
Lr - Very Lrg
1024 - 2048
' •'R
0
0
0
0%
100%
Bedrock
F?RK;
0
0
0
0%
1 100%
Totals 105 0 105 100% 100%
100%
90%
80%
70%
E 60%
U
50%
r 40%
C
ii 30%
ae
20%
10%
0%
d16
I d35
d50
d84
d95
Silt/Clay
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 El
Bed Particle Size Distribution
Cross Section 5: Riffle
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Particle Size - Millimeter
--d —MY-02
- O W-03
X MY-04
i
O �
X
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Particle Size - Millimeter
--d —MY-02
- O W-03
X MY-04

G �
s
8 B
0
� 6
5 E
6
a
s
@ a
c
$ b
°n
sm
�e
� o
�s
5
di
C
G
�
CO
M
O
W
O
lxp
O
O
r
m
�
N
N
R
N
(Nh
�
C
R
U
N
N
00
00
.0
•� O
m
N
N
N
iO
I�
N
O
N
M
O
o
M
V
pp O
O
Q
O
N
-
O
O
C
a
v
N
O
O
M
r
v
v
lxp
N
C
Mm
•�
p
(O
N
/raj
to
U
a
y
O
N
N
1�
N
N
n
M
co
O
N
O
0
M
V
o
o
N
O
O
O
O
C
v
N
LO
C
z
a)
cN
N
YI
u)
V
C
M
C
u
N
ONJ
a
^
N
M
n
N
O
O
M
U')
U
0
co
0
U
2•
C
u
C
O
N
N
M
N
10
aJ
R O
O Z
O
M
O)
o
O
N
co
E N
O O
o
c
y O
R
L
C
O
_
pp
N0l�
N0�O
c
N
N
Q
co
v
v
N
00
p
O
O
N
M
O
C
m l0
p
M
lfl
O
N
0
N
o
O
o
w
c
Fto (A
Y
d
N
_
N
a)
�
U
C
A
U
2
w
j
U
C
O
J
J
d
c�
�
�
x
L
�
'
r
�
N
�
-
�
•2
C
EEj
x
x
L
r
L•,
p
(op
L
L
N
L
K
r
d
L
m
v
Z
Y
rn
c
L
a
7
�.
m
rn
c
in
c
r,
v
y
o
3
O
0
c
O.
c
J
d
rn
a
—
N
c
M.
X
p
f0
_
U
y
O
(n
J
u
'S
j
d
V
L
4
O`
R
N
LL
<
8
lap
{p
U
m
Sc
$
o
S2
fn
w
a
m
2mv
a0
g
=p'
_o
So
a'r
LL
C
l9
m
N
U
lip
C
m
m
C
u%
LL
u
fp
Lj
E
VD
m
c�
—
a)
Ui
i°
ffi
y
E
U
o
d
to
PL
[�
m
m
O
L
U
a
e
c
Y
A
N
o
C
G �
s
8 B
0
� 6
5 E
6
a
s
@ a
c
$ b
°n
sm
�e
� o
�s
5

N
c
0
N
in
Cd
G
c
cc
N
d N
c m
10 c
c c
O L
UU
O
'm c
O c
a
x�
c o
c Z
Wc 41
cc
Y O
m O
a
m N
O
ca
Y
N 01
a :.
02
E
ca
N
Y
y
caU
� c
gU
m
N F"
d�
d
m
d
c
N
jr
N
Q
C
N
U
2 Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z Z
�
u
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q Q
d°
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z 2 2
E
E
D
N
d
s
mm-MM
n Q
$
d
d
z
O
C
-
d
.p
Q Q
z z
Q Q
Z Z
Q Q
Z Z
Q Q
z z
Q Q Q
z z Z
d
N
N
d
C
O
r
a a
a a
a a
a a a
z z
z z
z z
'O
C
z z z
j
�
I w
N
N
�
�Ei N
�p y
O
c
m
o
N
X
W
O c
N
a
o
a
s
�
� d
Y
�
Z Z
z z
z z
Z Z
Z Z
z z
z z
Z Z
Z Z Z
z z z
W
CD
z z
U
m
v
rn
w
d
U
� c
t p
s`
O a
LM
O
N
N
�
Q
(A
p
E
_
N
YY
'8
E8
/1 W
1
a d
vrvni �
n
n&
o m
W
V
G
N
C
O
d
x
U
C
'v
c
E
L
U
�
E
W
U
m
c
p
r
a
n
A
"
Q W
� � O
u U yy�
a
U8, 6
`Ras
�rga�
s s "s;j
c
m ° 5
� .
ti 2-2
� s �
fi P
8gyP
�4 o 25
E �
0
9 Z E
yr�E
y �
P
'Lip
p
a o
P � E
� a•Pa g%'2 F'
Qma
a E P F ~
v �
f i 8 s`
E
0
E�
�a
E
N �
c °O
s °o
a �
ffi
a
�m
Ea
&E
z�
F V.
oEa
aid
5�8
E E
=ti -
° � E
$S9
�cx
mo$
C c
EN�
mnq
5cP
gp�
yam
Eta
o a
m x
E � a
Ec
m €
$�s
m�a
;eo
Ewa
N
ffi
gyp€
�aa
ova
R E
`e ffi fi
n o 0
m � n
cam¢
a
m
}
c
0
rn
y �
� E
� a
vz,
0
U � A
oWU
SUr
U2F
N
U
2 Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z Z
�
u
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q Q
d°
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z Z
Z 2 2
E
E
mm-MM
n Q
$
n
z
-
.p
Q Q
z z
Q Q
Z Z
Q Q
Z Z
Q Q
z z
Q Q Q
z z Z
d
N
N
N
a a
a a
a a
a a
a a a
z z
z z
z z
z z
z z z
j
�
I w
N
N
�
�Ei N
�p y
>
O c
N
a
o
Z
� d
Y
�
Z Z
z z
z z
Z Z
Z Z
z z
z z
Z Z
Z Z Z
z z z
`7 O
m
z z
k z
Z k
z z
z z z
O N
� c
t p
s`
O a
LM
Y
A �
E
_
'8
E8
/1 W
1
a d
vrvni �
n
n&
o m
s a Z
d
x
0 c
U
m
c
p
r
n
A
"
i
d
a
>
mix°v°na�m
�
n
�Ndn�r�����
�
r
o
N
o
i
mm��m��1S�m
ry a
o
g
agzz
E
c$
c 5
2 0
E&
Y v
'&
"
w
�
o
.z
—
a�
m
�
c
o
O
8
U
m
E
0
E�
�a
E
N �
c °O
s °o
a �
ffi
a
�m
Ea
&E
z�
F V.
oEa
aid
5�8
E E
=ti -
° � E
$S9
�cx
mo$
C c
EN�
mnq
5cP
gp�
yam
Eta
o a
m x
E � a
Ec
m €
$�s
m�a
;eo
Ewa
N
ffi
gyp€
�aa
ova
R E
`e ffi fi
n o 0
m � n
cam¢
a
m
}
c
0
rn
y �
� E
� a
vz,
0
U � A
oWU
SUr
U2F

O
Zr
I$
m
5E Z'
7
�2
hRls
N v
n M
g
c m
m m
m m
m m
m
Ea
J9
0
7j,
w cn
g3
6
Z
xm
2
2
AE
Lu
O
— —
—
—
— —
— —
— —
u
—
— —
— —
—
—
— —
gm—
-
—
— —
— —
—
— —
— —
—
-----
-----
— —
— —
—
— —
— —
—
-
i;z
;R,
f.
? k,
v
&
-02
Em
*
ZR
91
a
'o
Ifl
I I
I I
IN
I
I 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
O
Zr
I$
m
5E Z'

Appendix E. Hydrologic Data
Cane Creek Stream Restoration
NCEEP Project Number 69
The Catena Group 38
Year 4 Monitoring Report
Year 4 of 5
April 2011

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Verification of Bankfull Events
Cane Creek / EEP #69
Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
Photo#
Late 2005 /Early 2006
Late 2005 /Early 2006
Visual during construction
N/A
October 26, 2008
September 7, 2008
Wrack lines
None
July 24, 2009
June 6, 2009
Crest gauge
N/A
June 23, 2010
May 17, 2010
Visual observation
N/A
Cane Creek Stream Restoration
NCEEP Project Number 69
The Catena Group
39
Year 4 Monitoring Report
Year 4 of 5
April 2011