20051061 Ver 1_Year 4 Monitoring Report_20101220

,r +'2• ;�iLL'... j'Li�f �j
't $,_ '�•�. •�i is j�i5l`y " "•'�'� +�'1`r :,.,,.,�•,v
} r 1 �c i•'
.} l• �r.
\'' � �r! r V :y 'i•: :,lye,; {"'1,.:GR ?' —'rf +• y, i \y:�i;i:3+:.:" .
r 1: i � �nY •i ,t} it � - �, � .:i � ) �:9 + "� t•.. N��:.Z.
y�'tf,•�i�"^�y.��'•• I *is-'? .'. � ll:s�1%r•, '�• - ��t .'•F 1�: ..��ty i- �itF � ;1� � w::'V 1
e:4�-:A�.rL'�;j'L"���_, +. \.:�h; .u14.•�A -� 'l•-�j`�^i;�': •,fir) �' 11�� ���a,(�''*rA'. -.� -w; ;i
:Y• .�.$. +YYr.' a + "_ !". ';.; - {'^.' �,• .'Gs.tr ). .. ,'.... 4` ; :•'i'.sZ' s ;
:�;;, �`.��,rrj+;l'; :r ��= y - "f`l. •�T, JJ ' Lacs ,'r�?•rsf�'F!.r,;.��.'},ttriF r.�:.-'t =s•'.j].,hs;:i+• t
'�''':l:,iti �Jr: •\:;. t:.1 .t.Z. y i �:�:��^^.�L: -, f'i': tt::: k:�'.�, �'.t n' t �. n.t.:.� 'i :, 4:. •i.l; 1�' �''' �;' •.'• ;
:1.;1.,r�,: �Y;i, •t•.: _i',,��i F�,••fi•,•��M1+�. ;•r� ✓,,y� j[: w - j... � I.,.. ,�:� ;:,et,:.
'•h�;{:{ ,'.,'• r' � ' ' hit, tom. ' l;•• •1.
�a ! : � �:i .,. —WIN �r1 -�• ��l ?':i� ?j; •11?�,�r +(. '�s'•;,'r , "�rs,�; ���r�I�eth 14; .. Y'�'• 1i;. V:.;-
.f;:,- kc ;:,.si'f.�'.;,".•h,� !s r�,. �.•J'�';i.
�"'1`.i:��'(r %" ''�.'45�::, i` r •�t ,J,.it�rl�1�.�r. �+ir-: i. w• �. : s:'". • '!.: • car- •:••.: ' "�; 1 r •' r.
-i. +: '•�'. 1•� ;n?'•. ,,�.+,.. ,,, ?) .J;..,T• :i `. •t:!S:+. t��•s,`> -�i o. w'�s:'� ''��•�:�'.�+,,. ,.ii. 1i• .. �; � •� +''�.'�..'..
i - anti• - .�. s,�pp�'�Y. ' ; (.Y.�, ''F.• `J•„ t' 1 : ti. ;,�
,I._T'.r('�,':.i ••'t:: '; i�'ri j�;.• M ,•. r i'i1;4J-a- Ga.:•3.- ?.�, .5,� ',V \•:f
..•:• ,,,� :. t_ x. gi;: t.. 3: ..;1�;:;'.i;;.�3;j,".�i•,�i71.r i _ '�1�,. rr ,. ,�''I.�i:?.t:.•.:•.,1�'•'•:.,;' :;r';':7:�. sr','y `)_
.fi: ,::�.: ,1 :1r-•rj: -.,� ii•OY ^'' ` :lip.` '',. ,(- . f.•{.._Zi;;' - lrii^ 'r, •i: ;�b..�li �1,�
' zr =i.!} -:r !ir f•. i:��- .:,.',ri4 ( • -i%:�� .7,: .Lt`::' r:C}f�r•.:a: - 'hi... l,,..�,' /•
)• '`(;; .•i' �.:;!iU,rC.A,,�y�..�..jN���:I.TT r,�V: _ r3 ^'•.. ,�,5S .•iN.�,� ,•a,;; �.
,>:� �tf �i":. 71" ':�iji::: ,;; ^t�3, "�`'i.:;�,'3�,�.: �q, z•6 .�{�r., �.`,r�.�: t.: ' �13 '
' yt��'" 3r". �'• 1'' �� `!`,�;•�a�i \,;L`1t.'�•'��<<'i�" `:1�'�.� .• fi;' ,..}�, a.i:JF lr,;c!..'�1P.� 4 �.,r�..1� `• :�:'
,i.! ... '�e,• _ •s ,fit'\ 1,� ,.•.•;,s,•r4ti'�€:�' :.' r ,K i C ;�:•.�'�k.. .t'.� ,; ..`�
�•,.t.,'
i., lir •.!_ .rn' r.,'�•; .:�:. �c )..' ',r, ..w•,: C•�..
t ,S. �; tin. !<- .� ti� �L" . �. .1•,3; 7 i'1.
j2"! tr r•: �1.,:
'. `r'+ :y,= „4.,`.ky, 7.•T, `� _ - ':i•n',F'::.'. ': •:.r; •'A '?J4•'y;�„ VEC {' ,,,y-� r ...,
.'= I7;:E�.S. L� if• t••L �: i., -. Y� ,C. rn�.r :n,• �3 '.'A ("` .T •f.' {�1+�) $a '�,'��` \'r �
I,; r•' );: � :t. L •�.._r,:_',Tai.�r;•.,:p .�' t , .Jf.;•'{�•',. 's�. ,.Y'11+ i.•' �'��..
= .f ".;di: ir:: �� ,'X.r., 1'r ..I . :� �r sal :" • �`} „�.�. r �'_s ( :`..
. 4 •�'. �+,t '✓•� i �i
,.C. i
: is J.,.,•i. - ?'�•�,.. ,i�:! ^ „•-tS. ,. �, 'C• ,. 1 ,113�r. _ ,•'�R:. 'a 7J' t�, C. .
'1/J'�^♦'1�+; ; \`3�:1.:a..l.ji alai 'Shits;” %.�i .\ ee } - °s.=, rI+� �,�•�';•� n��;
(F �'. ��.! j! ••��,,�, i . �:.: �(C, ry= !'�':�r'T�'��r �,'� ~� . :)�. t .� � i,,. 4�!! r i; I .4�V "1 ��Y�.j7,,r� •a �:,
:.:: - :•i!i,:,rr.. {^::? ;•"T',l.l'. :�M `r�?Z'(,�1�'E , ' ,1'n. 3 ,Z ') Iyf.�iiiT - \•.
�, ^.3•; frY y �1!'�I+ ;.'4:;'1 ":��+ "ri:'.�•yJ �v�:�� fell. r {:�:i. : �:, • ;:li ,.I1. .�ir'�titg�^k ?�!Yf� ;�'r+ •.. `�: s��CY,C.: i Y�
, .: ,j. �f': 5ri.7, ...• 1! •� _ {Q ;y'Y I'3 11:. '�S,•; f� 1%,,
1.�''L'' •. 4��.•., it,_.. �` �f �•: PS; �' ��sr^; �a •��J+.�ir,ll,.�i..�.,•�•.;1�. .. = `�`�'.(.
„C,.,.\..' I :.`x: r :.y \� •�r.. �7�,1' .� � 1 . 1*f „'-• T” �:, �.. c • 1. , •'` , �',ti_ •'/
`i'li.
_ `+•'�'- •a'1'i;'�] `•1;t'•.y - i �f.. ir., .r: ;' :1���....... •.,G.: :- y• yRiL:'
i:. �1• j /,�:�i r � /: iW `•h �` \�' .,. :; (��f>~w•�) . ; ``• }•,�^• ::c:. ,k'%r� fir 5.
;��':•"��•L,:�;f.�,' ��i:l`1� \,�l.r'.' -r.:l n'inl��t ��3�5•at7f� i %4��� ��kr'�.�. ..,,' � '�,.d'f�•}•'��`+ ?w_

UT ROCKY RIVER STREAM RESTORATION — NCEEP Protect #402
2010 FINAL MONITORING REPORT — YEAR 4
CONDUCTED FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Table of Contents
10 Executive Summary
20 Methodology
2 1 Stream Methodology
22 Vegetation Methodology
30 References
APPENDICES
Appendix A Protect Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 1 0
Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 1 0 -1 1
Project Restoration Components
Table 2 0
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 0
Project Contacts Table
Table 4 0
Project Attribute Table
Appendix B
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2 0 -2 1
Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5 0
Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table 6 0
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
e -Table
Stream Problem Areas Inventory Table
e- Photos
Stream Problem Area Photos
e -Table
Vegetation Problem Areas Inventory Table
e- Photos
Vegetation Problem Area Photos
Figures 3 0 -3 3
Stream Station Photos
Figures 4 0 -4 2
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 0 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Table 8 0 Vegetation Metadata
Table 9 0 Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
e- Tables Raw CVS vegetation data sheets
2
2
2
3
Appendix D
Stream Survey Data
Figures 5 0 -5 4
Cross sections with Annual Overlays
e- Tables
Raw cross - section survey data spreadsheets
Figures 6 0 -6 2
Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
e- Tables
Raw longitudinal profile survey data spreadsheets
Figures 7 0 -7 4
Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
OUT
Rocky River (Smith
Tract) Stream Restoration 2010 Final Monitoring Report
EEP Project #402
Year 4 of 5
RJG &A

e- Tables Raw pebble count data spreadsheets
Tables 100-10 1 Baseline Stream Data Summary Table
Table 11 0 Monitoring— Cross - Section Morphology Data Table
Table 11 1 -11 4 Monitoring— Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table 12 0 Verification of Bankfull Events
UT Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream Restoration 2010 Final Monitoring Report
EEP Project #402 Year 4 of 5
RJG &A
r;

10 Executive Summary
The goals of the UT Rocky River Stream Restoration Project are to
• Improve water quality and reduce erosion through restricting cattle access and
improved riparian buffers,
• Improve aquatic habitat using natural material stabilization structures, and
• Provide aesthetic value, wildlife habitat, and bank stability through
restoration /enhancement of the riparian zone
The objectives for this restoration are to
• Exclude cattle from Reach 1,
• Enhance approximately 150 feet of Reach 1 and stabilize an additional 955 feet of
the same reach,
• Reconnect Reach 2 to its floodplain,
• Provide a stable channel for both reaches in terms of pattern, profile, and
dimension, and
• Provide a conservation easement and enhance /restore portions of the buffer for
both reaches
The average live planted woody stem density (512 live stems per acre) has exceeded the
vegetation success criteria (288 live stems per acre in Year 4) by 77 percent, although
mac, vegetation survival in the two vegetation plots in Reach 1 do not met the success criteria
UInvasive exotics were treated throughout the conservation easement in the summer of
2010 and will be treated in 2011
Overall, the restoration project appears to have met morphological goals The enhanced
sections of Reach I are stable Flowing water was present in the Reach 2 channel during
the initial 2010 assessment conducted, but there was no flow during the August and
October 2010 site visits As can be seen in the cross - section and stream problem area
photos, some herbaceous and woody species have established themselves in the channel
throughout Reach 2 The lack of flow during the summer and fall assessments in 2010
corresponds with similar findings in 2007 through 2009 The overgrown channel
hampered visual assessment, but overall the channel appears to be stable Aggradation
associated with the downstream -most cross -vane is still present
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 formerly found in these reports can be found in
the mitigation and restoration plan documents available on ESP's website All raw data
supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from EEP upon request
UT Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream Restoration 2010 Final Monitoring Report
EEP Project #402 Year 4 of 5
RJG &A Page 1

2 0 Methodology
Monitoring methodologies follow the current EEP - provided templates and guidelines
(Lee et a12006) Photographs were taken digitally A Trimble Geo XT handheld
mapping -grade unit was used to collect cross section, vegetation corner, photopoint, and
problem area locations All problem areas identified on the spring 2010 versions of the
CCPV were re- evaluated
21 Stream Methodology
Methods employed were a combination of those specified in the Mitigation Plan, the First
Annual Monitoring Report, and standard regulatory guidance and procedures documents
Stream monitoring data was collected using the techniques described in USACE Stream
Mitigation Guidelines, US Forest Service's Stream Channel Reference Sites, and Applied
River Morphology ( USACE, 2003, Harrelson et a] , 1994, Rosgen, 1996) A South Total
Station and Nikon automatic level were used for collecting all geomorphic data
Photographs facing upstream were taken at each cross section
22 Vegetation Methodology
A total of six representative vegetation survey plots were selected and installed in the
Reaches 1 and 2 by Ward Engineering in 2007 All plots measure 100 square meters in
area and are five meters by 20 meters Pursuant to the guidelines, the four corners of
each plot (0,0, 0,20, 5,0, and 5,20 ) are marked with metal pipe
Level 1 (planted woody stems) and Level 2 (volunteer woody stems) data collection was
performed in all plots, pursuant to the most recent CVS /EEP protocol (Lee et a12006)
Within each plot, each planted woody stem location (x and y) was recorded, and height
and live stem diameter were recorded for each stem location All planted stems were
identified with pink flagging Vegetation was identified using Weakley ( Weakley 2007)
Photos were taken of each vegetation plot from the 0,0 corner
UT Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream Restoration 2010 Final Monitoring Report O
EEP Project #402 Year 4 of 5
RJG &A Page 2

3 0 References
Harrelson, Cheryl, C L Rawlins, and John Potpondy (1994) Stream Channel
Reference Sates An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique USDA, Forest Service
General Technical Report RM -245
Lee, Michael T, Peet, Robert K, Roberts, Steven D, Wentworth, Thomas R (2006)
CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4 0 Retrieved October 30, 2006,
from http / /www nceep net / business /monitoring/veg/datasheets htm
Radford, A E, H E Ahles, and C R Bell (1 968) Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas University of North Carolina Press Chapel Hill, NC
Robert J Goldstein & Associates (RJG &A) (2009) UT to Rocky River (Smith Tract)
Stream and Buffer Restoration Enhancement and Preservation Chatham County North
Carolina Final Monitoring Report February 15, 2008
Rosgen, D L (1996) Applied River Morphology Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa
Springs, CO
Rosgen, DL (1997) "A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers
In Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel
Incision, ed S S Y Wang, E J Langendoen and F B Shields, Jr University of
Mississippi Press, Oxford, MS
USACOE (2003) Stream Mitigation Guidelines USACOE, USEPA, NCWRC,
NCDENR -DWQ
Ward Consulting Engineering (2007) UT to Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream and
Buffer Restoration Enhancement and Preservation Chatham County North Carolina
Mitigation Report March 20, 2007
Ward Consulting Engineering (2008) UT to Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream and
Buffer Restoration Enhancement and Preservation Chatham County North Carolina
Final Monitoring Report February 15, 2008
Weakley, Alan (2007) Flora of the Carolinas Virginia Georgia and Surrounding
Areas Retrieved March 27, 2007 from http //www herbarium unc edu /flora htm
OUT Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream Restoration 2010 Final Monitoring Report
EEP Project #402 Year 4 of 5
RJG &A Page 3

Appendix A Protect Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 10
Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 1 0 -1 1
Project Restoration Components
Table 2 0
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 0
Project Contacts Table
Table 4 0
Project Attribute Table
r"
I

UT Rocky River Stream Restoration (EEP Project #402)
Appendix A. Figure 1. Vicinity Map.
�i J
Reach 2 _
rte,, ` Ir
20
Project Entrance
D
' J�,' ^�\
(7i i =
64 L
�� _- ti lam) a� (� ice-= -- %;•' - = ; ;± , �
Figure 1. UT Rocky River Stream �`��`���
Restoration - Chatham Count N I. Steil]
y-
l`;:' NCEEP #402
Chatham County +ti •
0 125 250 - 5001
Mlles 0 1,000 2.000
OFeet

AFhhx A C�
Table 1 0 Project Components
LIT to Roc River Stream Restoration — EEP Pro ect #402
Project Component
Existing
Restoration
Footage or
Mitigation
Mitigation
BMP
or Reach ID
Feet/Acres
Level
Approach
Acreage
Stationing
g
Ratio
Units
Elements'
Comment
Reach 1
827
Ell
SS
827 LF
00 +00 00 +47
00 +107 08 +87
25 1
331
wri
Bank stabilization fence out cattle
08 +87 9 +10
a4
Relocation of channel improve
Reach i
U
El
P1
168 LF
9 +50 10 +95
1 5 1
112
cattle crossing re establish pattern
and dimension
="t
Reconnect to floodplain adjust
Reach 2
U
R
P1
1 111 LF
00 +00 11 +11
1 1
1 111
a
pattern profile and dimension
install structures and vegetation
1 = BR = Bioretention Cell SF = Sand Filter SW =
I 1 1 f, 1
WDP = Wet Detention Pond DDP = Dry Detention Pond
FS = Filter Strip Grassed Swale = S LS = Level Spreader NI = Natural Infiltration Area O = Other
CF = Cattle Fencing WS = Watering System CH = Livestock Housing

Appendix A
m - , Non Applicable
0
Table 1 1 Component Summations
UT to Rocky
River Stream Restoration - EE P Project #402
Non
Restoration
Stream
Riparian
Ripar
Upland
Buffer
Level
I
Wetland Ac
(Ac)
(Ac)
(Ac)
BMP
-
Non
-
_
Rivenne
Rivenne
Restoration
1111
IkM A0,
_
a
Enhancement
L
Enhancement 1
168
jp
AV y
Enhancement II
827
4w
r"�
Creation"
m
v low,
vow AL
Preservation
i
T
z ",
Er-
: A
T -
HQ Preservation
°` w
A,
n
f
f
11 AV w
Totals Feet/Acres
2106
0
0
0
0
0
1
MU Totals
1554
0
0
0
0
0
m - , Non Applicable
0

Appendix A
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete 4 yrs 0 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete 3 yrs 10 Months
Number of Reporting Years' 4
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
2003
Apr 05
Final Design - 90%
NA
Oct 08
Construction
NA
Oct 06
Temporary S &E mix applied
NA
July 2006 (R1) Sept
2006 R2
Permanent seed mix applied
NA
July 2006 (R1) Sept
2006 (R2)
Bare Root Planting
NA
Dec 06
Mitigation Plan/As built
-
Mar 07
Year 1 Monitonnq
Dec -07
Year 2 Monitonn
OYear 3 Monitonn
Year 4 Monitonn
Qualitative Evaluation
Vegetation
Qualitative Evaluation
Vegetation
Geomorphologic
Qualitative Evaluation
Vegetation
Geomorphologic
Qualitative Evaluation
Vegetation
Geomorphologic
Nov 07
'
Nov 10
Nov 07
rT§zFw14w1-,
Nov 08
Oct 08
77 3
Oct 08
Oct 08`
Nov 09
Oct 09
Oct -09
Oct 09
IWI
Oct -10
Oct -10''
Aug 10
wq
Aug 10
Bolded items are examples of those items that are not standard but may come up and should be included
Non bolded items represent events that are standard components over the course of a typical project
The above are obviously not the extent of potential relevant project activities but are lust provided as example as
part of this exhibit
If planting and morphology are on split monitoring schedules that should be made clear in the table
1 = Equals the number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline

Appendix A
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
Designer
Ward Consulting Engineers
8386 Six Forks Road Suite 101
Raleigh NC 27615 5088
Primary project design POC
Becky Ward
919 870 0526
Construction Contractor
McQueen Construction
619 Patrick Road
Bahama NC 27503
Construction contractor POC
Harvey McQueen
919 697 0614
Survey Contractor
NA
Survey contractor POC
NA
Planting Contractor
Southern Garden Inc
P O Box 808
Apex NC 27502
Planting contractor POC
NA
919 362 1050
Seeding Contractor
McQueen Construction
619 Patrick Road
Contractor point of contact
Bahama NC 27503
Harvey McQueen
919 697 0614
Seed Mix Sources
Evergreen Seed
919 567 -1333
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Coastal Plain Consery Nursery Inc (Edenton NC)
Ellen Colodne 252 482 5707
Cure Nursery (Pittsboro NC)
Bill and Jennifer Cure 919 542 6186
Brook Run Nursery (Blackstone VA)
Howard Malinski 919 422 8727
Monitonng Performers
Robert J Goldstein & Associates
1221 Corporation Parkway Raleigh NC 27610
Stream Monitoring POC
Sean Doig [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Sean Doig [phone]
Wetland Monitoring POC
NA

Appendix A
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
Project County
Chatham
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
45c Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit )
3030003070020
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
03 06 12
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan?
No
WRC Hab Class (Warm Cool Cold)
Warm
% of project easement fenced or demarcated
100%
Beaver activity observed during design phase?
NA
Restoration Comp onent Attribute Table
Reach 1
Reach 2
Drainage area
1 28
021
Stream order
Second
Second
Restored length (feet)
1095
1111
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Intermittent
Watershed type (Rural Urban Developing etc)
Rural
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution (e g
-
Residential
-
A -Row Crop
-
A - Livestock
-
Forested
-
Etc
Watershed impervious cover ( %)
2%
1%
NCDWQ AU /Index number
17 43 9
17 -43 -9
NCDWQ classification
C
C
303d listed9
No
No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment?
No
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
NA
NA
Total acreage of easement
568
342
Total vegetated acreage within the easement
-
Total planted acreage as part of the restoration
Rosgen classification of pre - existing
C4 /E4
G4
Rosgen classification of As built'
C4 /E4
C4
Valley type
Valley slope
0 012
0 012
Valley side slope range (e g 2 -3 %)
-
Valley toe slope range (e g 2 3 %)
-
Cowardin classification
NA
NA
Trout waters designation
No
No
Species of concern endangered etc ? (Y/N)I
No
No

Appendix A
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
Dominant soil series and characteristics
Cid Lignum Complex 2
6% slopes
Nanford Badin Complex 2
6% slopes
Series
Cid Nanford Lignum
Cid Nanford Lignum
Depth
080
080
Clay%
1055%
235%
K
24 55
43 64
T
24
4

Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2 0 -2 1 Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5 0 -5 1 Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table 6 0 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
e -Table Stream Problem Areas Inventory Table
e -Table Vegetation Problem Areas Inventory Table
Figure 3 0 -3 4 Stream Station Photos
e- Photos Stream Problem Area Photos
Figures 4 0 -4 1 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
e- Photos Vegetation Problem Area Photos

UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
Table 5 0 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 1
Assessed Length 1095 (reconstructed channel sta 8 +87 to 10 +95)

UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
Table 5 1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 2
Assessed Length 1111

UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 34
Easement Acreage' 9 1
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
/ of Planted
e etation Cat000ry
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Po ons
Acrea a
Acrea e
1 Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0 1 acres
NA
0
000
00/6
2 Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities dearly below target levels based on MY3 4 or 5 stem count criteria
0 01 acres
Lime Green
Stippling
4
087
256/6
i i ))
g
I} 33 r p 7 yf
3�� , 1 otal
4
3�0 67
256%
i
Y iL 3i '61
3 3
A� }
3333
3 Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor
Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year
0 25 acres
NA
0
000
0 0 A
i / I i3 F pF, 3 4, 3� ¢ aR 3 k E g
w �1� I„ �� �d4 1 Cumua eTotal
i'� 4
3
087,A
25e%
Easement Acreage' 9 1
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory the channel
acreage crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries
i = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i a item 1 2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage Invasrves of concem/hnterest are listed below The list of high concern spcies are those
with the potential to directly outcompete native young woody stems in the short term (e g monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing more established tree /shrub stands over timeframes that are
slightly longer (e g 1 2 decades) The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regulanty but ran be
mapped if in the judgement of the observer their coverage density or distribution is suppressing the viability density or growth of planted woody stems Decisions as to whether remedration will be needed are based on the integration of
risk factors by EEP such as species present their coverage distribution relative to native biomass and the practicality of treatment For example even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control but potentially large coverages of Microstegwm in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the bmeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating
extensive amounts of ground cover Those species with the watch list designator in gray shade are of interest as well but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency Those in red italics are of particular interest given
their extreme nsk / threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history However areas of discreet dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons The symbology
scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasrves polygons particularry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense discreet patches In any case the
point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary
/ of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
e etation Cate o
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Po ons
Acrea a
Acrea e
4 Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (d too small to render as polygons at map scale)
0 02 acres
Black cross
2
002
02/
hatch
5 Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (d too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
NA
0
000
0 0 A
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory the channel
acreage crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries
i = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i a item 1 2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage Invasrves of concem/hnterest are listed below The list of high concern spcies are those
with the potential to directly outcompete native young woody stems in the short term (e g monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing more established tree /shrub stands over timeframes that are
slightly longer (e g 1 2 decades) The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regulanty but ran be
mapped if in the judgement of the observer their coverage density or distribution is suppressing the viability density or growth of planted woody stems Decisions as to whether remedration will be needed are based on the integration of
risk factors by EEP such as species present their coverage distribution relative to native biomass and the practicality of treatment For example even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will
warrant control but potentially large coverages of Microstegwm in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree/shrub layers within the bmeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating
extensive amounts of ground cover Those species with the watch list designator in gray shade are of interest as well but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency Those in red italics are of particular interest given
their extreme nsk / threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history However areas of discreet dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons The symbology
scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing invasrves polygons particularry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense discreet patches In any case the
point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary

♦ I
Reach 2
Northing
Easting
Cross - section end point
1A
734770.682
1875860.234
1B
734765.676
1875825.748
2A
734621.348
1875826.406
2B
734610.913
1875782.013
3A
734295.488
1875723.921
3B
734325.640
1875679.006
4A
734172.300
1875721.546
4B
734182.082
1875674.445
5A
734030.805
1875695.028
5B
734052.832
1875648.378
Vegetation plot 0,0 corners
Easement
3
734674.043
1875847.255
4
734474.961
1875761.754
5
734193.568
1875718.263
6
734019.034
1875676.278
t ,
Ligustrum sinense
1 � _
r
4�
,s
-"A
to-
,vr
f�
Figure 2.1. Current Conditions Plan View. Rocky
River (Reach 2) - 2010. Chatham
County.
NCEEP Project #402
A
Thalweg Monitoring
Year 4 (8/20/2010)
# Photopoints
As -built Thalweg
+ Crest Gauge
Stream Problem Areas
Aggradation Pool
Vegetation Problem Areas
Low Planted Stem Density
Invasive species
(Ligustrum sinense)
As -Built Data (Supplied by Ward Engineering)
Conservation
Vegetation Monitoring
Easement
Plot
Cross vane
O Wetland
Single -wing cross vane
Top of Bank
Cross- Section
0 100
200
Feet

Reach 1 Northing Easting
Cross- section end point
1A 733824.106 1876704.110
1 B 733887.867 1876667.219 '
Vegetation plot 0,0 corners
ll 733921.773 1877367.424
21 733786.687 1876587.837
u
q{ �
•` r
IL
1
t s • _ ►a is
r�
' r
• �- J`r
AFO
Ailanthus altissima
Op
i
t 1
"'P
W.
'4�
Figure 2.0. Current Conditions Plan View. Rocky
River (Reach 1) - 2010. Chatham County.
NCEEP Project #402
As -built Thalweg O Photopoints
Thalweg Monitoring
Year 4 (8/20/2010) + Crest Gauge
Vegetation Problem Areas
�I . nvasive species I
�► h - . Low Planted Stem Density (Ailanthus altissima)
As -Built Data (Supplied by Ward Engineering)
- - - -- Easement -
Conservation ase ent Cross Section
+ t� pt�1Ar1 Cross Vane Vegetation Monitoring
,IIlal TI"91 � Plot
rao I p
i
Top of Bank
• ' 0 100 200
Feet

Appendix B. Figure 3.0. Stream Station Photos
Photopoint 1 -Reach 1- Station 1095
11/14/2007
Photopoint 2 -Reach 2- Station 110
3/17/2010
11/14/2007 3/17/2010

Appendix B. Figure 3.1. Stream Station Photos
Photopoint 3 -Reach 2- Station 285
11/14/2007
Photopoint 4 -Reach 2- Station 325
3/17/2010
11/14/2007 3/17/2010

Appendix B. Figure 3.2. Stream Station Photos
Photopoint 5 -Reach 2- Station 450
11/14/2007
Photopoint 6 -Reach 2- Station 535
3/17/2010
11/14/2007 3/17/2010

Appendix B. Figure 3.3. Stream Station Photos
Photopoint 7 -Reach 2- Station 610
11/14/2007
Reach 2- Station 1070
3/17/2010
11/14/2007 3/17/2010

Appendix B. Figure 4.0. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Veg Plot 1 -Reach 1- Station 1070
10/29/2007
Veg Plot 2 -Reach 1- Station 240
8/27/2010
10/29/2007 8/27/2010

Appendix B. Figure 4.1. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Veg Plot 3 -Reach 2- Station 180
11/16/2007
Veg Plot 4 -Reach 2- Station 425
8/27/2010
10/29/2007 8/27/2010

Appendix B. Figure 4.2. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Veg Plot 5 -Reach 2- Station 770
10/30/2007
Veg Plot 6 -Reach 2- Station 960
8/27/2010
10/30/2007 8/27/2010

0
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 0 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Table 8 0 Vegetation Metadata
Table 9 0 Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
e- Tables Raw CVS vegetation data sheets

Appendix C
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment!
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration EEP Pro ect #402
Tract
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold
Met
Tract Mean
Reach 1
0%
2
N
Reach 2
3
Y
100%
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y

Appendix C
Table 8 Vegetation Metadata
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration EEP Project #402
Report Prepared By
sean doi
Date Prepared
9/1/2010 12 02
database name
402UT Rock River mdb
database location
C \Documents and Settin s \Owner\Deskto \EEP2010
computer name
GATELAP
file size
127389952
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
PROJECT SUMMARY -- - - - —
Project Code
Description of database file the report worksheets and a summary of
Metadata
project(s) and project data
Description
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre for each
Pro j, planted
year This excludes live stakes
length(ft)
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre for each year
stream to edge width (ft)
This includes live stakes all planted stems and all natural /volunteer
Prod, total stems
stems
Required Plots (calculated)
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems
Plots
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
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences
Damage
and percent of total stems impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot
A matnx of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
each plot dead and missing stems are excluded
A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted
and natural volunteers combined) for each plot dead and missing
ALL Stems by Plot and spp
stems are excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY -- - - - —
Project Code
402
project Name
UT to Rocky River (Smith Tract)
Description
stream restoration enhancement and preservation
River Basin
Cape Fear
length(ft)
R1 1 095 R2 1 111
stream to edge width (ft)
R1 25 64 R2 1 125
area (sq m)
R1 3 830 R2 4 660
Required Plots (calculated)
6
Sampled Plots
16

0
ri
Table 9 Planted and Total Stem Counts UT to Rocky River
Stream Restoration EEP Proiect #402
Current Plot Data (MY4 2010)
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
Plot 5
Plot 6
MY4
(2010)
MY3
(2009)
P w/o
LS
P all
T
P w/o
LS
Pall
T
P w/o
LS
Pall
T
P w/o
LS
Pall
T
P w/o
LS
P all
T
P w/o
LS
P all
T
P w/o
LS
Pall
T
P w/o
LS
P all
T
cer rubrum
red maple
Tree
1
8
1
10
21
Ibizia jullbnssin
sdktree
Shrub Tree
Inus serru/ata
hazel alder
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
3
3
3
5
5
5
8
8
8
9
9
9
Carpinus carohmana
Amencan hornbeam
Shrub Tree
Carya
hickory
Tree
7
1
8
3
Carya alba
mockernut hickory
Tree
Carya cord1formis
bitternut hickory
Tree
1
1 1
1
2
2
1 2
3
3
4
6
6
7
3
3
3
Carya glabra
pignut hickory
Tree
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
Tree
1
1
2
Celtis laevigata
sugarberry
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
5
5
6
4
4
4
Cercis canadensts
eastern redbud
Shrub Tree
8
8
7
Elaeagnus umbellata
autumn olive
Shrub
I
1
4
Fraxmus amencana
white ash
Tree
1
1
Fraxinus pennsy/vanica
green ash
Tree
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
5
5
5
1
1
2
13
13
14
13
13
15
Gleditsta tnacanthos
honeylocust
Shrub Tree
1
2
3
1
Ilex opaca
American holly
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
Ilex vertiallata
common winterberry
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
Juglans nigra
black walnut
Tree
4
1
1
1
5
Juniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
9
1
10
4
LIgustrum sinense
Chinese privet
Shrub Tree
1
6
7
10
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
4
4
5
3
3
3
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
5
23
73
35
29
165
131
Linodendron tu/ipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
6
1
1
17
1
1
4
2
3
3
30
4
4
27
Morus
mulberry
Shrub Tree
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
4
2
2
4
1
1
2
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
2
1
7
1
1 11
5
Platanus occidentals
American sycamore
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
Prunus serobna
black cherry
Shrub Tree
1
2
3
1
Quercus albs
white oak
Tree
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
Tree
I
1
1
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
1
2
3
Quercus velutma
black oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
Shrub Tree
1
Rosa multiflora
multiflora rose
Shrub Vine
1
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
1
1
5
5
6
6
6
6
Ulmus
elm
Tree
4
4
8
23
U/mus alata
w raged elm
Tree
2
4
6
1
Ulmus amencana
American elm
Tree
3
3
4
1
1
1
2
2
2
6
6
7
7
7
7
Unknown
unknown
3
Vibumum nudum
possumhaw IShrub
Tree
1
Stem coun
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species coun
Stems per ACRE
6
6
30
3
3
23
10
10
57
17
18
129
19
19
60
15
20
61
70
76
360
68
74
321
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
00247
00247
00247
00247
00247
00247
015
015
4
4
12
3
3 1
10
4
4
12
8
9
14
7
7
11
8
9
13
15
16
32
15
16
35
242 81
242 81
1214 1
121 411121411930
78
404 69
404 69
2306 7
687 97
728 43
5220 4
768 9
768 9
2428 1
607 03
809 3712468
6
472 13
5126
2428 1
458 64
499 1112165
1

Table 9 Planted and Total Stem Counts UT to Rocky River
Cfrnnm Pnafnrnfinn FFP Prnlar+oAng Annual Means
i
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
MY2
(2008)
MY7
(2007)
MYO
(2006)
P w/o
LS
Pall
T
P w/o
LS
P all
T
P w/o
LS
P all
T
cer rubrum
red maple
Tree
74
juhbnssin
sdktree
Shrub Tree
2
Inus serrulata
hazel alder
Shrub Tree
4
4
4
7
7
7
9
9
9
[CaryIbizia
etula mgra
river birch
Tree
9
9
9
11
11
110
12
12
12
arpinus carollmana
American hornbeam
Shrub Tree
6
6
6
a
hickory
Tree
Carya a/ba
mockernut hickory
Tree
2
Carya cordiformis
bitternut hickory
Tree
7
7
7
23
23
24
28
28
28
Carya glabra
pignut hickory
Tree
4
Carya ovata
shagbark hickory
Tree
Ce/tis /aevigata
sugarberry
Shrub Tree
7
7
7
9
9
10
5
5
5
Cercis canadensis
eastern redbud
Shrub Tree
8
E/aeagnus umbellata
autumn olive
Shrub
Fraxinus amencana
white ash
Tree
Fraxinus pennsy /vanica
green ash
Tree
14
14
14
17
17
18
16
16
16
Gleditsia tnacanthos
honeylocust
Shrub Tree
Ilex opaca
American holly
Shrub Tree
2
Ilex verticdlata
common wmterberry
Shrub Tree
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
Juglans mgra
black walnut
Tree
4
uniperus virginiana
eastern redcedar
Tree
Ligustrum smense
Chinese privet
Shrub Tree
8
Lindera benzoin
northern spicebush
Shrub Tree
5
5
5
6
6
6
8
8
8
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
58
Lmodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
2
2
2
8
8
30
15
15
15
Morus
mulberry
Shrub Tree
2
Nyssa sylvatica
blackgum
Tree
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
Pinus taeda
loblolly pine
Tree
13
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
Prunus serotina
black cherry
Shrub Tree
Quercus albs
white oak
Tree
5
5
5
7
7
7
6
6
6
Quercus coccinea
scarlet oak
Tree
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
4
4
4
8
8
8
8
8
8
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
5
5
5
9
9
9
10
10
10
Quercus rubra
northern red oak
Tree
2
2
2
4
4
5
5
5
5
Quercus ve /utina
black oak
Tree
Rhus copallinum
flameleaf sumac
Shrub Tree
Rosa mu /tiflora
multiflora rose
Shrub Vine
Sambucus canadensis
Common Elderberry
Shrub Tree
5
5
5
5
7
7
U/mus
elm
Tree
Ulmus alata
winged elm
Tree
Ulmus amencana
American elm
Tree
7
7
7
6
6
44
7
7
7
Unknown
unknown
Vibumum nudum
possumhaw
Shrub Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Stem coun
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species coun
Stems per ACRE
84
89
89
134
139
479
156
163
163
6
6
6
015
015
015
16
17
17
16
17
28
17
18
18
566 56
600 28
600 28
903 8 1937
52132
7
105 2 211099
411099
4
�J

0
Appendix D Stream Survey Data
Figures 5 0 -5 5
Cross sections with Annual Overlays
e- Tables
Raw cross - section survey data spreadsheets
Figures 6 0 -6 2
Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
e- Tables
Raw longitudinal profile survey data spreadsheets
Figures 7 0 -7 5
Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
e- Tables
Raw pebble count data spreadsheets
Tables 10 0 -10 1
Baseline Stream Data Summary Table
Table 11 0
Monitoring--Cross- Section Morphology Data Table
Table 11 1 -11 4
Monitoring— Stream Reach Morphology Data Table

Figure 5.0. Cross Sections with Annual Overlays - UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
River Basin:
Watershed:
XS ID
Reach:
Date:
Field Crew:
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
0
6.11
548.28
5.2
6.13
548.26
10.8
6.23
548.16
16.31
6.27
548.12
19.1
6.7
547.69
22.4
7.66
546.73
23.1
8.93
545.46
25.5
9.06
545.33
27.6
8.94
545.45
29.5
8.77
545.62
32.4
8.14
546.25
34.6
7.13
547.26
35.7
6.66
547.73
37.8
6.19
548.2
43.31
5.88
548.51
49.9
5.2
549.19
56.4
5.08
549.31
65.8
5.11
549.28
73.6
4.68 1
549.71
Cape Fear
UT to Rocky River
XS 1 -1 (Riffle)
1
8/18/2010
SD & CH
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Width ft
21.14
Flood prone Width (ft)
157.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.54
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.79
Bankfull Areq z
32.57
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.72
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
7.43
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.15
d50 (mm),
21.5
Stream Type:
•
View of XS 1 -1 looking downstream
XS 1 -1, Riffle, Sta. 9 +50 Bankfull - 8/18/2010 Year 1 - 11/14/2007 Year 2 - 10/17/2008
Year 3 - 11/04/2009 T Year 4 - 8/18/2010
550
549 -
w
a�
548 -
c
0
m 547
W
546
545
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)

Figure 5.3. Cross Sections with Annual Overlays - UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
River Basin: Cape Fear
Watershed: UT to Rocky River
XS ID XS 2 -3 (Riffle)
Reach: 2
Date: r 8/18/2010
Field Crew: SD & CH
SUMMARY DATA
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
0
5.72
552.38
9.2
6.16
551.94
14.9
6.44
551.66
20.71
6.56
551.54
25.8
6.57
551.53
28.7
6.54
551.56
30.2
7.01
551.09
31.7
7.35
550.75
32.7
7.85
550.25
33.61
8.11
549.99
35.4
7.81
550.29
37
6.9
551.2
38.7
6.79
551.31
40.2
6.35
551.75
44.8
6.25
551.85
501
6.37
551.73
542
6.16
551.94
Bankfull Width ft
10.85
Floodprone Width (ft)
200.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.75
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.57
Bankfull Area z
8.15
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
14.44
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
18.43
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.00
d50 (mm),
0.03
Stream Type:
View of XS 2 -3 looking downstream
XS 2 -3, Riffle, Sta. 6 +34 Bankfull - 8/18/2010 Year 1 - 11/14/2007 Year 2 - 10/17/2008
Year 3 - 11/04/2009 ---#-Year 4 - 8/18/2010
554
553
Q)
552 - -
c
0
551
a�
W
550
549
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)

Figure 5.4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlays - UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
River Basin: Cape Fear
Watershed: UT to Rocky River
XS ID XS 2 -4 (Pool)
Reach: 2
Date: 8/18/2010
Field Crew: SD & CH
SUMMARY DATA
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
0
5.28
549.84
6.5
5.29
549.83
11
5.45
549.67
17.91
5.48
549.64
22.31
5.37
549.75
27.6
5.38
549.74
28.5
6.55
548.57
30.6
7
548.12
31.1
7.17
547.95
32.5
7.1
548.02
33.61
6.15
548.97
35.5
5.85
549.27
38.3
5.22
549.9
43.2
5.31
549.81
48
5.37
549.75
Bankfull Width ft
9.99
Floodprone Width (ft)
160.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.98
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.79
Bankfull Arpq z
9.80
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
10.18
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
16.02
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.00
d50 (mm),
0.11
Stream Type:
View of XS 2 -4 looking downstream
XS 2 -4, Pool, Sta. 7 +90 Bankfull - 8/18/2010 Year 1 - 11/14/2007 Year 2 - 10/17/2008
- Year 3 - 11/04/2009 t Year 4 - 8/18/2010
552
551
w
a�
550
c
0
m 549 -
a�
W
548 - -
547
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Station (feet)

Figure 5.5. Cross Sections with Annual Overlays - UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
UT to Rocky River
XS ID
XS 2 -5 (Riffle)
Reach:
2
Date:
8/18/2010
Field Crew:
SD & CH
181
SUMMARY DATA
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
0
5.62
547.87
7.7
5.86
547.63
13.7
5.85
547.64
181
5.69
547.8
28
5.58
547.91
30.1
5.72
547.77
33.2
5.73
547.76
35
6.38
547.11
35.9
6.92
546.57
36.41
7.28
546.21
38.1
7.68
545.81
38.9
7.62
545.87
40.1
7.22
546.27
42.8
6.21
547.28
46.2
5.82
547.67
49.71
5.62
547.87
51.61
5.27
1 548.22
Bankfull Width ft
14.58
Flood prone Width (ft)
130.00
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.85
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.95
Bankfull Area 2
12.34
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
17.22
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
12.34
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.05
d50 (mm),
19
Stream Type:
View of XS 2 -5 looking downstream
XS 2 -5, Riffle, Sta. 9 +32 Bankfull - 8/18/2010 Year 1 - 11/14/2007 Year 2 - 10/17/2008
Year 3 - 11/04/2009 4 Year 4 - 8/18/2010
550
549
a�
548
c
0
547
a�
W
546 -
545
0 10 20 30 40 50
Station (feet)

Appendix D. Figure 6.0. Longitudinal Profile with Annual Overlays. Reach 1. LIT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
552
551
550
549
r 548
O
w 547
546
545
544
543
542
M
XS 1: Station 9 +55.61
■
X
X
X
X X
X
0
950
Station (ft)
-- As -Built TW
YR1 TW
(11/14/2007)
-- - XS 1
Cattle Fence
— ■— Beginning of
Restoration
Cross Vane
Fence
YR2 TW (9/17/2008)
YR3 TW (11/4/2009)
--} -YR4 TW (8/27/2010)
X YR4 BKF (8/27/2010)
1000 1050 1100

Appen 1. Figure 6.1. Longitudinal Profile with Annual Overlays. Reach ; * to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
562
560
558
556
v
0
554
W
552
550
548
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00
Station (ft)
400.00 500.00
As -Built TW
YR1 TW (11/14/07)
Stations 0 +0 - 5 +50
xS1
—- XS2
-- XS3
t XS4
�— XS5
YR2 TW (9/17/2008)
YR3 TW (11/5/2009)
■ YR4 BKF (8/20/2010)
■
t -YR4 TW (8/20/2010)
Single -arm cross vane
■
%lee
A�
■
■
■
XS 1: Station 78
XS 2: Station 2 +66
XS 3: Station 6 +34
XS 4: Station 7 +90
XS 57 Station 9+32
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00
Station (ft)
400.00 500.00

Apper ). Figure 6.2. Longitudinal Profile with Annual Overlays. Reach
554
552
550
548
0
m 546
W
544
542
540
to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
550.00 650.00 750.00 850.00 950.00
Station (ft)
1050.00 1150.00

Appe D.
Figure 7.0. Pebble Counts. UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration (EEP Project #402)
XS1 -1 (Riffle)
2010
Descri t.
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Class %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
.062
0
0
Sand
Very Fine Sand
.125
2
2
2
Fine Sand
.25
6
6
8
Medium Sand
0.5
3
3
11
Coarse Sand
1.0
5
5
16
Very Course Sand
2
2
2
18
Gravel
Very Fine Gravel
4.0
1
1
19
Fine Gravel
5.7
1
1
20
Fine Gravel
8
9
9
29
Medium Gravel
11.3
3
3
32
Medium Gravel
16
8
8
40
Coarse Gravel
22.6
12
12
52
Coarse Gravel
32
19
19
71
Very Course Gravel
45
14
14
85
Very Course Gravel
64
15
15
100
Cobble
Small Cobble
90
0
100
Small Cobble
128
0
100
Medium Cobble
180
0
100
Large Cobble
256
0
100
Boulder
Small Boulders
362
0
100
Small Boulders
512
0
100
Medium Boulders
1024
0
100
Large Boulders
2048
0
100
Bedrock
Bedrock
40096
0
100
i vial l UU
:; YIIIIYYIIYnn1i11iii .:d�.iiu����Y■Y
., Yllllllllllllllllllllr ,, /.� / %YIIYIIYYYY
, ■1111111111111111111�/.iP YYYIIIIYYIIII
:• YYU111111111111�i1 ;r1�n1111111111YY1111
.• , IIIIYIIIIIIY11 .�r�ilYllllllllllllllllllll
• , , IIIIIIIIY .I�,��:�nA�AY1111111111111111Y
111111YI� 1�IIYIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIY
, 11111!x, �Y��YIIIIIIIIIIY111111111111
I:r' �wAAI1�111111111111Y IIIIIIIIIIIIY
1�� % �YIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIYIIIIIIIIIIIIY
Individual Class Percent
O " o d> ` O o ca •s •o s fl O
� `0, 00
° `$
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/27/07) ■ MY2 (10/17/08) ■ MY3 (8/6/09) ■ MY4 (8/18/10)
c 25
IA
15
a
11
I■
ICI'
ins
Irrri
L16
O " o d> ` O o ca •s •o s fl O
� `0, 00
° `$
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/27/07) ■ MY2 (10/17/08) ■ MY3 (8/6/09) ■ MY4 (8/18/10)

Appei D.
Figure 7.1. Pebble Counts. UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration (EEP Project #402)
XS2 -1 (Riffle)
2010
Descri t.
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Class %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
.062
32
32
32
Sand
Very Fine Sand
.125
0
32
Fine Sand
.25
1
1
33
Medium Sand
0.5
6
6
39
Coarse Sand
1.0
1
1
40
Very Course Sand
2
3
3
43
Gravel
Very Fine Gravel
4.0
4
4
47
Fine Gravel
5.7
2
2
49
Fine Gravel
8
11
11
59
Medium Gravel
11.3
10
10
69
Medium Gravel
16
16
16
85
Coarse Gravel
22.6
6
6
91
Coarse Gravel
32
3
3
94
Very Course Gravel
45
0
94
Very Course Gravel
64
0
94
Cobble
Small Cobble
90
2
2
96
Small Cobble
128
1
1
97
Medium Cobble
180
2
2
99
Large Cobble
256
0
99
Boulder
Small Boulders
362
0
99
Small Boulders
512
1
1
100
Medium Boulders
1024
0
100
Large Boulders
2048
0
100
Bedrock
Bedrock
40096
0
100
Total 101
'; Illlllllllllllnlllll !!:�"''r� -".% nn1111n11
nllllllllllllllll /Jlllln =��I�111111111111
. 1111111111111111n�1 •��= ;iii1n1111111111111111
: .; IIIIIIIIIIN���1111111111111111111111111111
n11N��!: ��r_ � .1�In11111111111111111111111111
,, i�iiiliui/ �; e1111111111111111111111111111111111
, 1��!'! ��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIB11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
' nllnnnlllll�lllllllllllllnllllllnllllnllll
1 1 1: 1• 1
Individual Class Percent
70
d 60
v
a 50
40
V 30
ca
20
Z
10 10
E
0
qa as'as s > o o � ppoo$
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/27/07) ■ MY2 (10/17/08) ■ MY3 (11/3/09) ■ MY4 (8/18/10)

Appe D.
Figure 7.2. Pebble Counts. UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration (EEP Project #402)
XS2 -2 (Pool)
2010
Descri t.
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Class %
Cum %
Silt /Clay
Silt/Clay
.062
87
87
87
Sand
Very Fine Sand
.125
0
87
Fine Sand
.25
0
87
Medium Sand
0.5
0
87
Coarse Sand
1.0
0
87
Very Course Sand
2
0
87
Gravel
Very Fine Gravel
4.0
0
87
Fine Gravel
5.7
1
1
88
Fine Gravel
8
5
5
93
Medium Gravel
11.3
4
4
97
Medium Gravel
16
1
1
98
Coarse Gravel
22.6
0
98
Coarse Gravel
32
2
2
100
Very Course Gravel
45
0
100
Very Course Gravel
64
0
100
Cobble
Small Cobble
90
0
100
Small Cobble
128
0
100
Medium Cobble
180
0
100
Large Cobble
256
0
100
Boulder
Small Boulders
362
0
100
Small Boulders
512
0
100
Medium Boulders
1024
0
100
Large Boulders
2048
0
100
Bedrock
Bedrock
40096
0
100
i otai 100
j /!i�����llllllllllll�llll
1■■■■■■•■ x-011 !illllllllllllllllllllllllll
, HIIHIn111�iii111111111111HH111111111111H1111
■nl!.�111111111111111 ■■■111111111111■ ■11
.' 11���■ 1111111111111111 ■�n1111111111N ■ ■11
nllllllllllllllll ■ ■Illllllllllllln ■11
' nH�llllllllllllllllllHl
11111111111111111 H 11
nlllnllllllllllHllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
, 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1►, HII■ ■IIHH ■n1111HH111111H111111H1111
1 . 1 1: 1 • : 1
Individual Class Percent
100
90
d 80
70
IL 60
eNa 50
V 40
�a
V
30
> 20
c 10
0
Frr,' asr'tr • °�r o o � o
Particle Size Class (mm)
0 MY1 (11/27/07) ■MY2 (10/17/08) ■MY3 (11/3/09) 0 MY4 (8/18/10)

Appei �.
Figure 7.3. Pebble Counts. UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration (EEP Project #402)
XS2 -3 (Riffle)
2010
Descri t.
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Class %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
.062
93
93
93
Sand
Very Fine Sand
.125
0
93
Fine Sand
.25
0
93
Medium Sand
0.5
0
93
Coarse Sand
1.0
0
93
Very Course Sand
2
0
93
Gravel
Very Fine Gravel
4.0
0
93
Fine Gravel
5.7
0
93
Fine Gravel
8
2
2
95
Medium Gravel
11.3
2
2
97
Medium Gravel
16
1
1
98
Coarse Gravel
22.6
l
1
99
Coarse Gravel
32
0
99
Very Course Gravel
45
1
1
100
Very Course Gravel
64
0
100
Cobble
Small Cobble
90
0
100
Small Cobble
128
0
100
Medium Cobble
180
0
100
Large Cobble
256
0
100
Boulder
Small Boulders
362
0
100
Small Boulders
512
0
100
Medium Boulders
1024
0
100
Large Boulders
2048
0
100
Bedrock
Bedrock
40096
0
100
I otal 1 UU
., N__.____ .�_�--- :,.■nn11111�111111n11�11
:, iiii� iii® A�111 ►Nn11111111111111111111 11
YY����w�_ li. illllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
' Anllr�■ �i�lllllllllllllllllllllllllllNllll
.' �111!�''' ■ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIII
,' nllliln� 111111111111111111111111111111111111
' Illl�lllln�llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
, 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
YIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIYIINIIIIIIIIIIIIII
, n�IN1111YY111111N11NN ■NYIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Individual Class Percent
100
90
m 80
v
70
W 60
J 50
V 40
V
30
'> 20
V 10
0
O 0.-1 !� o� �a `� `'d ��O a`�r Coi) sa �oope'q� "eb
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/27/07) ■ MY2 (10/17/08) ■ MY3 (11/3/09) ■MY4 (8/18/10)

Appe D.
Figure 7.4. Pebble Counts. UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration (EEP Project #402)
XS2 -4 (Pool)
2010
Descri t.
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Class %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
.062
0
0
Sand
Very Fine Sand
.125
65
65
65
Fine Sand
.25
0
65
Medium Sand
0.5
6
6
71
Coarse Sand
1.0
0
71
Very Course Sand
2
0
71
Gravel
Very Fine Gravel
4.0
0
71
Fine Gravel
5.7
3
3
74
Fine Gravel
8
3
3
77
Medium Gravel
11.3
4
4
81
Medium Gravel
16
8
8
89
Coarse Gravel
22.6
7
7
96
Coarse Gravel
32
2
2
98
Very Course Gravel
45
0
98
Very Course Gravel
64
1
1
99
Cobble
Small Cobble
90
1
1
100
Small Cobble
128
0
100
Medium Cobble
180
0
100
Large Cobble
256
0
100
Boulder
Small Boulders
362
0
100
Small Boulders
512
0
100
Medium Boulders
1 1024
0
100
Large Boulders
2048 1
0
100
Bedrock
Bedrock
40096 1
1
0
100
i uial I UU
IIP.. �NII■ nlllllllllllllllllllllllllllinllll
, 111 ► NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIInNllll
■� , Nllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllnll
n �■ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIInNllllllllllllllllll
11► I1■ NYIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillllllllllllll
IIIA■■■ 11111111111111111111111111111111 ■1111
1'/ Yn■■ IINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIYYYrllll
1 1 1: 1• : 1
Individual Class Percent
90
., 80
c
70
a 60
0 50
ea
V 40
is
'�0 30
2 20
V
10
0 -111 IL
s O `' o d' Lp
!� `'� da 'Pir $ e� ��� `�cS�`,
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/27/07) ■ MY2 (10/17/08) ■ MY3 (11/3/09) 0 MY4 (8/18/10)
„ n
■••::::a ■
nn■■ ■
■ ■
. ,
n■■ �r! �
WO. '�
, n
Individual Class Percent
90
., 80
c
70
a 60
0 50
ea
V 40
is
'�0 30
2 20
V
10
0 -111 IL
s O `' o d' Lp
!� `'� da 'Pir $ e� ��� `�cS�`,
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/27/07) ■ MY2 (10/17/08) ■ MY3 (11/3/09) 0 MY4 (8/18/10)

Appel D.
Figure 7.5. Pebble Counts. UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration (EEP Project #402)
XS2 -5 (Riffle)
2010
Descri t.
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Class %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
.062
0
0
Sand
Very Fine Sand
.125
7
7
7
Fine Sand
.25
';
0
7
Medium Sand
0.5
0
7
Coarse Sand
1.0
1
1
8
Very Course Sand
2
2
2
10
Gravel
Very Fine Gravel
4.0
5
5
15
Fine Gravel
5.7
0
15
Fine Gravel
8
13
13
27
Medium Gravel
11.3
6
6
33
Medium Gravel
16
12
12
45
Coarse Gravel
22.6
11
11
56
Coarse Gravel
32
11
11
67
Very Course Gravel
45
12
12
78
lVery Course Gravel
64
5
5
83
Cobble
Small Cobble
90
4
4
87
Small Cobble
128
6
6
93
Medium Cobble
180
5
5
98
Large Cobble
256
1
1
99
Boulder
Small Boulders
362
., IIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIII�il��llllllllllllllllll
0
99
Small Boulders
512
1
1
100
Medium Boulders
1024
0
100
Large Boulders
2048
1
0
100
Bedrock
113edrock
1 40096
1
1 0
100
Total 102
Individual Class Percent
50
w, 45
aci 40
v
m 35
IL
W 30
!° 25
V
20
15
10
c 5
0 p �p
6� ins �tS A` O a O > O vi
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/27/07) ■ MY2 (10/17/08) ■ MY3 (11/3/09) ■MY4 (8/18/10)
';
NIIIIIIIIIINNIINNNNNIIIII
!::nA111111
., NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�N
', NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIA
:�lllllllllllllll
.A!'�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
., IIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIII�il��llllllllllllllllll
IIIIIIIINIIIIIIIINUJ�I
/�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINII
' 1111111!
��IIIIIIIIN
,i�.rYNllllllllllilllllll
11111
/IIIIIIIIII�III
I
INININIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
!'/11NN111111111111NN1111111111
C~'""""'
, /�iN■��INNNNNNNNNNNN
■NNNIINN
Individual Class Percent
50
w, 45
aci 40
v
m 35
IL
W 30
!° 25
V
20
15
10
c 5
0 p �p
6� ins �tS A` O a O > O vi
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/27/07) ■ MY2 (10/17/08) ■ MY3 (11/3/09) ■MY4 (8/18/10)

l
Appendix D
Table 10 1 Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate Bed Bank and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
UT to Rocky River (NCEEP# 402) Reach 1 (1 095 feet total Enhancement I length 208 feet Station 8 +87 to 10 +95)
Parameter
Pre Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
As built/Baseline
f i3? i
s
�Eyxistin
0,
r�
l
�
�
W F
i
3
n3O"
k
m
411,
�i3�
9, !
�3
's
�
, ¢.
�v
R8*'
Rie/ /RuA /PA /G/ ISe/
U
U
U
U
I U
IF
NP,
U
I U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
'SC / /Sa / /G / /C / /B /IBe/
U
U
U
U
U
U
4p
U
I U
U
U
U
U
W
-,6,I
1
A4hu4,
r�
1d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip /dip mm
U
U
37
79
U
U
U
U
U
3
31
U
U
U
i
�—e
'Entrenchment ass <
49/5099/ >10
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
kwo
alai
a
U
U
U
U
U
0
>20
U
I U
I U
U
U
I U
U
U
t
U
U
U
U
Sh ded 1 rd t th t th vall typ caly t b fit d
1 R M R P I GI d St p S IVCI y S d Gr I C bbl B Id B d k d p m pa d p m ubp
2 E tr hm t Cla A grJb the h f t g to the I ss a ind at d and pr id th p t g f th t t I h f tag h In th t bl This .9 it f m th me a red asp t —11 1 thin t s
3 A g fb th h f otag t th lass di at d a d pr vid ih p t g f th t t I h f t g a h I e th tabl This all III m th m ed c saw t s a —11 th I ga d I p fl
Foot ote 23 Th Is a 1 I y b it d th R g lass 11 t d ham d anla g b k b t ve df t d I ghtty t m k to e a signm it a m M t b b d ritual t met a in th 0 d a h th t m m t f y s gm if ER vo Id t b ry
Th t t h I d d th d / m td g d m A g t m t o w th g od g I f th d i f hyd I g t m t th p e t g nd th r h b i t t d i t —11 mp so s t th f d t bull
ER d BHR h b dd d p subm s ne a s subsampl ( r s-s t p rt III, d g rvey) h ve e in a subsampl s ha R f d t y f It t g d e g wrihout p d g a th gh p< t t d t but o f th pa m t m I g th d/ m veth a sampl th t
ve ght d h y the tabl s t f th r h Thl m th t th d t but f th p m t h d lud d to fr m b th M r t ti ry y d th I ng t d I p 11 d the a f ER vi I t m t F e mpi the typ I long t d to n p m t mp1 ng f th BHR t M bey d th
subl i t -s b s rid th f b d y teg t d d p d m mpi t ampl d i b t f th p m t n th by p d g th d t b t N g ry t p d m gf I mp is

Appendix D
Table 10 1 Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate Bed Bank and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
UT to Rocky River (NCEEP* 402) Reach 2 (1 111 feet)
Parameter
Pre Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
As built/Baseline
lot � 3 - kv
l
41,
1*
lin+d
1 91
w
1.1w,"
Foot t 23 Th s
ra
g m it m wh t b b sed at t mat a fn th It Id su h that m a m t f
I
1
0
Wl
1I 11%i
ER dBHRh b
dd d p eubm so ubs mpl ( s a b p rt Ith d g ry y) h a the ubs mpl
low
11
h a y th t bl
t 1 th h Th m e th t the d t but s/ th se p am t rd sh u1d I d d to f m both th b t
, y nd th I g t d If, it d th of ER ual shmat F ampl th yp 11 g tud
I p fl p m t mpl g f th BHR t m b y d th b/ t t
a t d th
f b ad y teg t d a of p de m ompl t mpt di tribLd f th p m t. th by p Id g th
d t b t / e g { a ry t p d mea gful mp a
'
tRie/ /Ru/ /P/ IG/ /S/
U
U
U
U
U
I
U
U
U
U
I U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
i ilr
tSC / /Sa / /G /o /C /o /B /o /Be/
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
�- ��
'
i
ld16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dip I dl p (mm)
U
U
29
110
U
U
U
U
U
3
31
U
U
U
'
2Entrenchment Class <1 5/ 1 5 1 99 / 2 0 4 9 1
5 0 9 9/> 10
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
$il
(
3
1i3 iIP
Wx
r
i
U
U
U
U
U
'Incision Class <1 2/ 1 2 149115199/>201
U
U
U
U
tf
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
Sh d d c Is ind at th t th .II typ arty t b 111 d
1 R ffl R P I
GI d St p S ti/Clay Sa d G av 1 C bbl 8 Id B d k d p m p d p ma by
2 E t hm t Cla
As grdb th r h f tap t th I d t d d p d th p t g I th t tat h f t g h t
I th t b1 Th. wll It f m th m d a t s —11 1 t m t
3 A gn/bi th
h f tap t th I d t d d p —d th p i g 1 the total h 1 t g h I th t bl Th. .1 It f m th mea u d " t so "n a th I pRudi I pt fl
Foot t 23 Th s
Is s a I I y b it d th R g 1 f t d h mot a ki g b ks but ee adl i d I ghtly t m k f
g m it m wh t b b sed at t mat a fn th It Id su h that m a m t f
ry gm t f ER ao Id i b ry
Th t th t p
d th d/ m I d g d m a g tom t Mh g dp I fth d t 1hyd I g t
me t the p" st g nd the h bit t dst i s wait mp t th f d t but
ER dBHRh b
dd d p eubm so ubs mpl ( s a b p rt Ith d g ry y) h a the ubs mpl
ha a f u d t ey to It t g g �Ah ut ovd U h _o t t d t but Ith
p p ug p
p ometeB l a g the ad / ireum veth mq th t vepht d
h a y th t bl
t 1 th h Th m e th t the d t but s/ th se p am t rd sh u1d I d d to f m both th b t
, y nd th I g t d If, it d th of ER ual shmat F ampl th yp 11 g tud
I p fl p m t mpl g f th BHR t m b y d th b/ t t
a t d th
f b ad y teg t d a of p de m ompl t mpt di tribLd f th p m t. th by p Id g th
d t b t / e g { a ry t p d mea gful mp a
i

rj
Appendix D
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in
I = The distributions fin these parameters can mclude information from both the cross section surveys and the to grtudmal profile 2 = For p olects with a p oxEmal USGS gauge in line with the project each (added bankfull venf cation rare)
3 Utilizing survey data p oduce an estimate of the bankfull floodplam area in acres which should be the area from the top of ba k to the toe of the terrace nser /slope 4 = proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are a od b based on the visual survey for comparison to mon tonng data 5 Of value/needed only f the n exceeds 3
�V` Mean not median provided for design numbers +Numbers provided may not be for r ffles o ly
Table 10 0 Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Rocky River NCEEP# 402 - Reach 1 1 095 feet total Enhancement I length 208 feet Station 8 +87
to 10 +95
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre - Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
MUNOMMIx
L A A'S
Dimensontand Substrate - Riffle Only+
LL
UL
Eq Min
Mean
Med
Max
SDS
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SDS
n
Min
Med'
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
NA
81
28
14
17
-
199
223
—
—
127
—
133
139
—
—
24
—
—
—
24
—
Floodprone Width (ft)
R
95
—
153
196
—
—
27
—
353
45
—
125
140
155
125
—
140
155
—
—
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
NA
103
26
1 6
15
174
208
—
—
085
—
088
091
—
—
16
—
—
—
144
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
NA
g
245
262
3
—
—
1 26
—
1 34
144
—
23
245
26
23
—
28
26
—
—
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2
NA
13
50
25
31 4
34
36
—
— t
1103
1159
1195
38
384
53
—
—
344
Width/Depth Ratio
NA
AAVt4
817
1175
1487
—
—
145
—
15 15
1635
—
—
15
—
—
—
166
Entrenchment Ratio
NAB
48
—
6
7
—
—
213
—
265
324
—
52
58
645
523
—
585
648
—
'Bank Height Ratio
NA
1
1 2
1 3
—
—
0 84
—
119
1 8
—
—
1
1 1
12
1
—
115
12
—
Profde
Riffle Length (ft)
8
245
45
—
—
5
—
1592
24
—
—
10
30
60
7
—
24
53
—
Riffle Slope ( ft/ft)
yeti
0 003
0 015
0 036
—
00156
—
00257
0 149
—
0 033
0 034
0 037
0 012
—
0 03
0 032
Pool Length (ft)
a s`
7
23
46
—
—
5
—
999
19
—
19
40
55
19
—
36
50
—
Pool Max depth (ft)
_
_
_
Pool SpacAng (ft)
s
NMI
26
437
575
—
—
228
—
403
64
—
—
27
526
60
24
—
458
60
—
8"'� 1 i d ,�
Pattern 3 « /
- r
J r p
�"� �
t
�#3
h4 4
a }�
�allo
E
l
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
;
40
60
80
—
—
15
—
21 7
32
40
50
70
40
—E
50
70
—
Radius of Curvature (ft)
-��
15
—
40
70
—
—
117
—
21 5
359
—
55
60
70
55
—
62
70
—
Rc Bankfull width (ft/ft)
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Meander Wavelength (ft)
wffi�
65
—
112
—160
—
—
35
—
458
575
—
—
100
105
110
100
—
105
110
—
—
Meander Width Ratiol
, iQ1
235
—
301
358
—
—
113
—
1 63
241
—
16
2
29
1 67
—
21
293
—
—
Tr ansport parameters , ,� ;�
y
r �,�
'it, �
--
A,
-41w-
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib /f2
00
W.5 qwm
�
". V 2 W I
-
-
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
ZAkftjj� W,-
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2
`
Web 'TW 19
-
9j
'f b i
-
� � %, 3 3
onal Reach Parameters' � �y
9
,x
'3;
2 3 3 J
rE ' i
`w i 3
IN
,.&
Rosgen Classification
NA
����
c41E4
C4
c4
c4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
NA
Mar
's t '1110L
-
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
NA
-
A92"044
W4
Valley length (ft)
"R
i RI B
_
185
312
� � i
i A U , "r t
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
AVb,,
�, 1, `�
222
397
208
208
Sinuosity (ft)
ul
-Q '4
12
1 27
1 12
1 12
Water Surface Slope (Channel) ( ft/ft)
NA
00088
00078
00103
00093
BF slope ft/ft
p ( )
NA
��
0 0103
0 0079
o olos
00105
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
M A 11
-
-
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
_
)
11
1
'E
' o
,
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
frq l
'' r
-
- li
h 1£ `� -
Biological or Other
4 f I X to M
% Pow la
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in
I = The distributions fin these parameters can mclude information from both the cross section surveys and the to grtudmal profile 2 = For p olects with a p oxEmal USGS gauge in line with the project each (added bankfull venf cation rare)
3 Utilizing survey data p oduce an estimate of the bankfull floodplam area in acres which should be the area from the top of ba k to the toe of the terrace nser /slope 4 = proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are a od b based on the visual survey for comparison to mon tonng data 5 Of value/needed only f the n exceeds 3
�V` Mean not median provided for design numbers +Numbers provided may not be for r ffles o ly

I
Appendix D
of Curvature (ft)
55 — 62 70Y Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data dimensional data or profile data indicate
Rc Bankfull width ( ft/ft) _ _ _ _ _ _ sb` y significant shifts from baseline
Meander Wavelength (ft) 100 — 105 110 — _ )�
i
Meander Width Ratio 1 67 — 21 293 — — ' i 3 ! }Y 3! 11
£ 9 , ^ Ate' 9 ] �! ^P q " .y - ""
Additional Reach P meters �" } � a
Rosgen Classification C4 C4 C4 C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 208 207 208 202
Sinuosity (ft) 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 09
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 00093 No water in channel at time of survey 0 013 00057
BF slope (ft/ft) 001505 00093 00055 00074
3RI% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% — — — — — 10 4 73 12 0 6 �� 24 0 73 3 0 i 14 0 81 5 0
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be% - 18 17 52 12 1 0 14 27 59 0 0 0
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/ Ib f� i�, 006 2 113 5925 90 01 1 57 2354 385
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks NA 00 00 00
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle Run Pool Glide Step Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock dip = max pave disp = max subpave 4 = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
r �
Table 11 1 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
UT to Rocky River NCEEP# 402 - Reach 1 (
(1 095 feet total, Enhancement I length 208 feet Station 8 +87 to 10 +95
Parameter B
Baseline M
MY -1 M
MY 2 M
MY- 3
vi '' 4 "a� ^„ "" X F
F ° 4 hN� l
lw '
'>� "'�� "
NNOW v
"E @ $w i
i '
'A 9
9 �
� "'' ^
^` A
Al .
.r "
"7
Dimension and Substrate - fRiffli Drily M
Min M
Mean M
Med M
Max S
SD' n
n M
Min M
Mean M
Med Max S
SD4 n
n M
Min M
Mean M
Med M
Max S
SD4 n
n M
Min M
Mean M
Med M
Max S
SD ° n
n
Bankfull Width (ft) N
NA N
NA N
NA N
NA N
NA 0
0 1
182 1
182 1
182 0
0 182 N
NA 1
1 1
181 1
181 1
181 1
181 N
NA 1
1 1
192 1
192 1
192 1
192 N
NA 1
1
Floodprone Width (ft) N
NA N
NA N
NA N
NA N
NA 0
0 1
1577 1
1577 1
1577 1
11577
NA 1
1 1
1570 1
1570 1
1570 1
1570 N
NA 1
1 1
1570 1
1570 1
1570. 1
1570 N
NA 1
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) N
NA N
NA N
NA N
NA N
NA 0
0 1
1 5 1
1 5 1
1 5 1
1 15 N
NA 1
1 1
1 5 1
1 5 1
1 5 1
1 5 N
NA 1
1 1
1 5 1
1 5 1
1 5 1
1 5 N
NA 1
1
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft) N
NA N
NA N
NA N
NA N
NA 0
0 2
25 2
25 2
25 ;
; 2 5 N
NA 1
1 2
26 2
26 2
26 2
26 N
NA 1
1 2
26 2
26 2
26 2
26 N
NA 1
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2) N
NA N
NA N
NA N
NA N
NA 0
0 2
278 2
278 2
278 2
278 N
NA 1
1 2
273 2
273 2
273 2
273 N
NA 1
1 2
291 2
291 2
291 2
291 N
NA 1
1
Width /Depth Ratio N
NA N
NA N
NA N
NA N
NA 0
0 1
11 9 1
11 9 1
11 9 ,
, 11 9 N
NA 1
1 1
120 1
120 1
120 1
120 N
NA 1
1 1
127 1
127 1
127 1
127 N
NA 1
1
Entrenchment Ratio N
NA N
NA N
NA N
NA I
I NA 0
0 1
1 84 8
84 8
84 t
t 84 N
NA 1
1 8
87 8
87 8
87 8
87 N
NA 1
1 8
82 8
82 8
82 8
82 N
NA 1
1
'Bank Height Ratio N
NA N
NA N
NA N
NA N
NA 0
0 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 N
NA 1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 N
NA 1
1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 N
NA 1
1 *
Profile r ! L 3'i � �I a
a 2
2,— A
*1 V
A d
V P
d y
y� b
b �
�94� W
W9,6
-
Riffle Length (ft) 7
7 —
— 2
24 5
53 —
— —
— 2
26 6
64 7
74 8
80 2
25 4
4 1
110 1
150 1
115 2
260 7
74 4
4 6
60 9
90 7
70 1
160 4
48 4
4
Riffle Slope ( ft/ft) 0
0 012 —
— 0
003 0
0 032 —
— —
— 0
003 0
003 0
003 0
005 0
001 4
4 0
002 0
002 0
002 0
003 0
001 4
4 0
001 0
002 0
002 0
002 0
001 4
4
Pool Length (ft) 1
19 —
— 3
36 5
50 —
— —
— 1
193 3
314 2
275 4
495 1 1
123 6
6 1
190 3
308 2
290 4
480 1
104 6
6 1
190 3
343 3
370 4
450 1
103 6
6
Pool Max depth (ft) —
— _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ 0
05 0
09 0
07 1
15 0
04 6
6 0
05 0
08 0
06 1
14 0
04 6
6 0
05 0
08 0
08 1
12 0
03 6
6
Pool Spacing (ft) 2
24 —
— 4
458 6
60 —
— —
— 2
244 4
458 4
487 5
579 1
135 5
5 2
240 4
454 4
490 5
580 1
129 5
5 2
250 5
500 5
530 7
740 1
18 1 5
5
Pattern A P t
t" �
�J !
! ,
J m
, �
�� . �
�I��
a„
Channel Beltwidth (ft) 4
40 —
— 5
50 7
70 —
— —
— p
p r
r J
m a
Radius o
55 — 62 70Y Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data dimensional data or profile data indicate
Rc Bankfull width ( ft/ft) _ _ _ _ _ _ sb` y significant shifts from baseline
Meander Wavelength (ft) 100 — 105 110 — _ )�
i
Meander Width Ratio 1 67 — 21 293 — — ' i 3 ! }Y 3! 11
£ 9 , ^ Ate' 9 ] �! ^P q " .y - ""
Additional Reach P meters �" } � a
Rosgen Classification C4 C4 C4 C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft) 208 207 208 202
Sinuosity (ft) 1 12 1 12 1 12 1 09
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 00093 No water in channel at time of survey 0 013 00057
BF slope (ft/ft) 001505 00093 00055 00074
3RI% / Ru% / P% / G% / S% — — — — — 10 4 73 12 0 6 �� 24 0 73 3 0 i 14 0 81 5 0
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be% - 18 17 52 12 1 0 14 27 59 0 0 0
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/ Ib f� i�, 006 2 113 5925 90 01 1 57 2354 385
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks NA 00 00 00
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle Run Pool Glide Step Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock dip = max pave disp = max subpave 4 = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
r �
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be tilled in
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle Run Pool Glide Step Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock dip = max pave disp = max subpave 4 = Of value /needed only if the n exceeds 3
r �

Appendix D
Parameter
MY- 4
MY 5
a 09 4W1 M M
X33 4 li ft
84
4
N ON
J
002
N4 p
Dirn rision and Substrate Ij, it ''''ly
Mm
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
21 1
21 1
21 1
21 1
NA
1
Pool Max depth (ft)
03
08
Floodprone Width (ft)
1570.
1570
1570
1570
NA
1
Pool Spacing (ft)
160
408
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 5
NA
1
Pattern
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
28
28
28
28
NA
1
w
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ftz)
326
326
326
326
NA
1
Channel Beltwidth (ft )
,
Width /Depth Ratio
137
137
137
137
NA
1
Entrenchment Ratio
74
74
74
74
NA
1
Radius of Curvature (ft)
��3''
'Bank Height Ratiol
1 2
12
12
12
NA
1
R
Rc Bankfull width (ft/ft)
ft
Riffle Length (ft)
60
130
105
250
84
4
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
002
007
006
015
006
4
Pool Length (ft)
120
278
280
460
142
6
Pool Max depth (ft)
03
08
07
17
05
6
Pool Spacing (ft)
160
408
420
71 0
225
5
Pattern
a'
M
A,
w
Channel Beltwidth (ft )
,
3,fx
d +4
gr
w
3 i
Radius of Curvature (ft)
��3''
R
Rc Bankfull width (ft/ft)
ft
IWIlIft
,t
I
lk
3 31 TV ,
Meander Wavelength (ft)
� �3
�I 3 1 '3,
3 � 3 � �
61
a
3 3
Meander Width Ratio
,�
w
3
4
Add venal Reach Parameters
Vw-
3
3
Rosgen Classification
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
205
Sinuosity (ft)
1 11
Water Surface Slope (Channel) ( ft/ft)
No water in channel at time of survey
BF slope (ft/ft)
00048
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
20 1
8
56
16
0
Owl
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
0
18
82
0
0
0
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d951
1
1305
215
4407
5767
Z% of Reach with Eroding Banks
00
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
—
Biological or Other
—
I
r

Appendix D
Table 11 1 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
UT to Rocky River NCEEP# 402 - Reach 2 11,111
feet)O
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
740 U FF safflff, P T aw
L �, 4 gwlr °,
V06%1 1" -
r
Xlwa k
„� „r
1W ARM
EWWWAM
4M
= AWO
-0
As _
61,111 on a�d�`Substrate = Riffle #
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
92
110
106
132
NA
3
103
128
131
150
NA
3
118
130
123
150
NA
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
104
145
130
200
NA
3
104
145
130
2000
NA
3
104
145
130
2000
NA
3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
08
09
1 0
1 0
NA
3
08
09
09
1 0
NA
3
07
08
09
09
NA
3
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
1 3
16
16
1 8
NA
3
16
1 8
1 8
20
NA
3
1 16
1 7
1 8
1 9
NA
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
72
100
103
126
NA
3
82
114
11 3
148
NA
3
83
11 1
108
141
NA
3
Width /Depth Ratio
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
11 0
122
117
138
NA
3
129
145
152
153
NA
3
141
156
159
168
NA
3
Entrenchment Ratio
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
79
140
122
219
NA
3
69
121
99
194
NA
3
69
11 5
106
169
NA
3
'Bank Height Ratio
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
NA
3
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
NA
3
10
1 0
1 0
1 0
NA
3
Riffle Length (ft)
3
—
948
263
—
—
266
107
11
276
59
35
50
137
11 0
320
76
25
50
150
110
430
92
29
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0012.
—
0033,
0 064
—
—
0
003
003
006
002
35
-002
003
003
011
002
25
0 002
0 013
0 014
0 023
0 006
28
Pool Length (ft)
788
—
1584
295
—
—
97
187
15
478
101
26
80
201
175
51 0
97
28
130 1
187
170
300
52
30
Pool Max depth (ft)
_
_
—
_
_
—
03
07 06
1 5
03
26
01
07
07
16
04
28
02
06
06
12
03
30
Pool Spacing (ft)
123
—
28
63
—
—
159
429 34
1242
267
25
130
404
290
840
224
27
120
381
31 0
1090
209
29
Ptt earn -
N
=
3k
�
S"a
A
a'j
k
� r a
a
»
),��
�3
a �, .�
r
�fppf'�f°f ti33
A
, r*
11
1��
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
143
—
21
35
—
—
d�
PEWIWI
al
--I
IL
Radius of Curvature (ft)
10
—
138
20
—
—
'=I
j ">
y
Rc Bankfull width ( ft/ft)
e
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data dimensional data or profile
data indicate
,
_
_
_
_
_
_
significant shifts from
baseline
Meander Wavelength (ft) 1
24
1 —
371
65
ll
Meander Width Ratio
1 3
1 —
1 98
1 27
—
—��
¢
W
_
� � �� i
Additional Reach Parameters
1
'
'I
�1�
-�
s
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1111
1200
1111
1112
Sinuosity (ft)
12
1 17
1 17
1 17
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
No water in channel at time of survey
No water in the channel at time of survey
No water in the channel at time of survey
No water in the channel at time of survey
BF slope (ft/ft)
0 009 (upper ortion 0 014 lower portion
0 009 (upper
ortion 0 014 (lower p ortion
0 014
0 013
3RD% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
NA
NA
NA I
NA
NA
3 0 0 0 0 0 0
SC/o /Sa/o /G/o /C/o /B/o /Be%
r
-
3'
64
09
141
165
45
0
581
3
249
126
14
0
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/a
�13,;'�
'
001
4
8
425
769
�a
08
21
42
372
71
Z% of Reach with Eroding Banks
NA
00
00
00
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
—
Biological or Other
--
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in
1 = The distributions for these parameters can
include information from both the cross - section surveys and the longitudinal profile
L
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle Run Pool Glide Step Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock dip = max pave disp = max subpave

Appendix D
Parameter
MY- 4
MY- 5
Wi � I I awalvjm X13
'a®'C
IRM
N
W i A
dAw 3
3 U
i'' , f
,s
V 6
r 1 N111 1" Al
t)imye�`slon and�Subs3trateRrffle anly d
Min
Mean
Med
Max
4
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
4
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
log
133
143
146
NA
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
104
145
130
200
NA
3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
08
09
09
j 1 0
NA
j 3
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
16
1 8
1 8
20
NA
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
82
114
123
138
NA
3
_ Width /Depth Ratio
144
155
149
172
NA
3
Entrenchment Ratio
73
127
123
184
NA
1 3
'Bank Height Ratio
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 1
NA
3
i
Rifle Length (ft)
30
116
85
260
72
30
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
001
004 004
1 011
002
1 30
Pool Length (ft)
60
164 155
430
73
32
Pool Max depth (ft)
01
05 05
1 0
03
32
Pool Spacing (ft)
50
-356 32 0
800
189
31
Pattern
WHEA
MY"
A'
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
-
W&
I
�
" R
Radius of Curvature (ft)
yl
}
Rc Bankfull width (ft/ft)
3
Meander Wavelength (ft)
A
I L.
!
WA
k
I
Meander Width Ratio
.
mks&
Additio'"nal ,_Reach Parameters 1
%k
111k%1#0
i 3 b
t
3
,
Rosgen Classification
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1119
Sinuosity (ft)
118
Water Surface Slope (Channel) ( ft/ft)
No water in the channel at time of survey
BF slope (ft/ft)
0 014
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
a
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
41
18
34
6
1
0
3d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/
12
25
5
195
527
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
00
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-_
Biological or Other
O

Appendix E Hydrologic Data
Table 12 0 Verification of Bankfull Events
0

r�
Appendix E
Table 12 0 Bankfull Verification
UT to Rocky River NCEEP# 402
Photo #
Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
(if available)
14 Apr -08
March 5 2008 April 5 2008
Crest gauge evaluation
NA
presence of wrack and drift
lines evaluation of NC
CRONOS data
17 Oct 08
August 27 2008 September 6
Crest gauge evaluation
NA
2008
presence of wrack and drift
lines evaluation of NC
CRONOS data
12- Mar -09
December 11 12 2008 January
Crest gauge evaluation
NA
6 2009 March 2 2009
presence of wrack and drift
lines evaluation of NC
CRONOS data
4 Nov 09
None
Crest gauge evaluation and
NA
absence of wrack and drift lines
indicates bankfull event has not
occurred since assessment in
March 2009
November 11 2009 (2 34)
Presence of wrack and drift
NA
December 2 2009 (1 73 ) and
lines evaluation of NC
17 -Mar 10
February 5 2010 (1 94)
CRONOS data
None
Crest gauge evaluation and
NA
absence of wrack and drift lines
indicates bankfull event has not
occurred since assessment in
27 Aug 10
March 2010
September 30 2010 (2 87)
Crest gauge evaluation
presence of wrack and drift
lines evaluation of NC
21 Oct 10
CRONOS data
NA