20050733 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20110218

i: Ya
'Y?
fleX (L%, I. - , ;.-1 , — 9, , a - , -- - -, - - . 'Tai . . .. . ..
EBX
ker

�I
i
I J
L�
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
Project Restoration Components
Table 2
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3
Project Contacts
Table 4
Project Background
Table 5
Tree Species Planted in the Cleghorn Creek Restoration Area
Table 6
Herbaceous Species Planted in the Cleghorn Creek Restoration Area
Table 7
2010 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Species Composition
Table 8
Verification of Bankfull Events
Table 9
2010 Stream Repair/Maintenance Sites
Table 10
Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Project Location Map
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Annual Report details the fifth year monitoring activities on the Cleghorn Creek Stream Restoration Site
( Site') Construction of the Site, including plantmg of trees was initially completed in May 2006 This Annual
Monitoring Report presents data on stream geometry stem count data from vegetation monitoring stations, and
discusses any observed tendencies relating to stream stability and vegetation survival success Despite routine
repairs over the course of the monitoring period to address impacts related to beaver habitation in the project
reaches vegetative and geomorphic data collected in October 2010 show this Site meets the hydrologic
vegetative, and stream success criteria specified in the Cleghorn Creek Restoration Plan
The Cleghorn Creek Site was restored through a contract with EBX Neuse I LLC (EBX) who is in turn, under
contract with the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) to develop Stream Mitigation Units
from stream restoration efforts conducted on -site Prior to restoration, stream and riparian functions on the Site
were impaired as a result of adjacent agricultural land uses, including livestock grazing The streams on the Site
were channelized and riparian vegetation had been cleared Cattle were allowed to graze on the banks and had
unrestricted access to the channels As built surveys conducted in July 2006 after completion of restoration work
indicated that 5 196 linear feet of stream were restored on Cleghorn Creek and Charles Creek, a tributary to
Cleghorn Creek producing 5,196 stream mitigation units (SMU)
In order to document project success five vegetation monitoring plots eleven permanent cross sections two
longitudinal profile surveys and crest gauges were installed and assessed over the last five monitoring periods
following the as -built survey
The five vegetation monitoring plots 100 square meters (m2) (1 Om x 10m) in size were used to predict survival of
the woody vegetation planted on -site These plots were randomly located to represent the different zones within
the project site Isolated bank stabilization work at the beginning of the 2007 growing season made it necessary to
replant some of the site and re- establish the monitoring plots The Year 5 vegetation monitoring documented an
average survivability of 600 stems per acre and a range of 520 to 640 stems per acre To ensure the survival of
planted riparian vegetation some maintenance in the riparian buffer was conducted in September 2010 to manage
Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) and other invasives that were observed inside the restoration area The
vegetative monitoring data documents that the Site has met the final vegetation survival criteria of 260 stems per
acre after the fifth growing season
Cross - section and longitudinal surveys indicate the stream dimension and profile of Cleghorn Creek and Charles
Creek have remained stable Several pools most of which are located in meanders on both streams were
noticeably deeper in 2009 as compared to previous monitoring events These pools (most notably the pool at
Cross Section 4), are now slightly filled in as compared to 2009 and are similar to conditions present prior to Year
4 Monitoring Some localized aggradation observed in both streams can be attributed to the presence of beaver
dams The site was periodically inspected between Years 4 and 5 of monitoring and multiple beaver dams on
Cleghorn Creek and Charles Creek were removed
In- stream structures have remained stable and riparian vegetation survival is good throughout the project site
despite continued beaver activity in the project area and mayor flooding during the winter of 2009 2010 At least
two intact beaver dams were observed recently on Charles Creek and Cleghorn Creek, while remnants of several
other dams were present, primarily on Charles Creek The longitudinal profiles for Cleghorn Creek and Charles
Creek illustrate the location of the two dams and the remnants of additional dams between stations 10+00 and
12 +00 on Charles Creek
Two isolated sections of unstable bank approximately 15- 25 feet in length were recorded on Cleghorn Creek
upstream of the bridge crossing at stations 117 +00 and 121 +50 The source of the bank instability at station
117 +00 is attributed to a point bar that has grown over the course of the monitoring period and is now acting as a
mid - channel bar, forcing flow into the right bank, causing bank erosion The source of bank instability along an
approximately 15 foot section of the right bank at Station 121 +50 is unknown, however, beaver activity is
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
0
J
iJ
1
I]
L
1]
l'
0
0
0
r�
i
I.-
�J

F,
L
F'
i�
J
suspected of playing a role in the current condition of the bank During winter 2010 these bank sections will be
stabilized by reslopmg the banks and planting a series of tag alders or other woody vegetation Based on the
overall stability of both channels no other maintenance or repair work is required at this time
Three bankfull events were observed and documented during the As built and Year 1 monitoring periods Both
Cleghom Creek and Charles Creek suffered erosion damage during two of these flood events, the first in August
2006 and the second in January 2007 Two rounds of post construction repairs were conducted between
November 2006 and April 2007 The third bankfull event occurred on March 2007 while the second round of
repairs was in progress No bankfull events were recorded during 2008 Another round of repairs was completed
in the fall of 2008 These repairs included bank grading bioengineering matting, seeding and re planting at 11
sites on Cleghom Creek In May of 2009 the bankfull elevation along the last 100 -feet of Charles Creek was
lowered to match the bankfull elevation of Cleghorn Creek Grading work performed should prevent Charles
Creek from incising at this location Riparian vegetation was temporarily moved while the bank elevation was
adjusted and re- planted immediately once grading was completed One or more bankfull events occurred on site
during the first two weeks of November 2009 Streamflow conditions were such that a moderate amount of
sediment was deposited at or above bankfull elevations along both Cleghom Creek and Charles Creek Debris
piles were also a common observance during the Year 4 survey A minor flood event in 2010 was recorded on the
crest gauge on Charles Creek Streamflow conditions at the time of Year 5 monitoring were normal and there
were no indications of recent flooding on site
Overall it appears that the project has achieved the stream stability success criteria specified in the Restoration
Plan for the site
The monitoring plan and Year 5 monitoring data are discussed in Section 2 0 of this report Vegetation monitoring
plots were assessed in October 2010 Stream cross section and profile data presented in this report were also
collected in October 2010
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
O EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT IV
1

J
10 PROJECT BACKGROUND O
The Cleghorn Creek restoration project involved the restoration or enhancement of 5,167 linear feet (LF) of
channelized stream on Cleghorn Creek and Charles Creek a tributary to Cleghorn Creek Both Cleghorn Creek O
and Charles Creek are "blue -line streams as shown on the USGS topographic quadrangle for the site and are
considered to be perennial based on field evaluations using NCDWQ stream assessment protocols A total of
24 33 acres of riparian buffer are protected through a permanent conservation easement
1 1 Project Goals and Objectives
The goals for the restoration project are as follows
Create geomorphically stable conditions on Cleghorn Creek and Charles Creek
Restore hydrologic connections between creek and floodplam
Improve the water quality of Cleghorn Creek and Charles Creek, O
Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the project comdor, and
Deliver at least 5 167 LF of stream with restored channel dimension pattern and profile 0
To achieve these goals, design objectives of the project included
Restoration or enhancement of channel dimension pattern and profile
Improved water quality in the Cleghorn Creek watershed through nutrient removal sediment removal, improved D
recreational opportunities streambank stability and erosion control
Improved water quantity/flood attenuation through water storage and flood control, reduction in downstream D
flooding due to the reconnection of stream and floodplam improved groundwater recharge and improved and
restored hydrologic connections and
Enhancement of aquatic and terrestrial habitats through improved substrate and instream cover addition of
woody debris reduction in water temperature due to shading restoration of terrestrial habitat and improved
aesthetics
12 Project Structure ` O
Restoration of site hydrology involved the restoration of natural stream functions to impaired reaches on the site
The streams in their pre project condition were channelized and, as a result, were highly incised Because of the
extent of the incision a Rosgen Priority I restoration which connects the stream to the abandoned floodplam
(terrace), would not have been feasible without extending the project reach several thousand feet upstream and
significantly altering the channel profile However, there was sufficient space in areas within the project
O
boundanes to implement a Rosgen Pnonty II restoration by excavating the floodplam and creating a new
meandering channel The restored streams were designed as Rosgen `E channels with design dimensions based
on those of reference parameters
The design for restored sections of the streams involved the construction of new, meandering channels across
excavated floodplams This new channel system was constructed through agricultural fields The streams through
the site were restored to a stable dimension pattern, and profile Total stream length across the project was
increased from approximately 4 641 LF to 5 196 LF The design allows stream flows larger than bankfull flows to
a
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT I
0
0

F'
I�
2
spread onto the floodplain dissipating flow energies and reducing streambank stress Instream structures were
used to control streambed grade reduce streambank stress and promote bedform sequences and habitat diversity
Rootwad and log vane structures will protect streambanks and promote habitat diversity in pool sections
Streambanks were stabilized using a combination of erosion control matting bare -root planting transplants and
geohfts Willow transplants were used to provide immediate living root mass to increase streambank stability and
create shaded holding areas for fish and aquatic biota Native vegetation was planted across the site and the entire
restoration site is protected through a permanent conservation easement Table 1 summarizes project data for each
reach and restoration approach used
13 Project Location
The Cleghorn Creek mitigation site is located in Rutherford County North Carolina (Figure 1) and lies in the
Broad River Basin within North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) sub basin 03 -08 02 and United
States Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 03050105040090 From Asheville, take I -26 South and merge
onto US 74 East towards Columbus Continue on US 74 East and take the Union Hill Road Exit (Exit 173) Turn
right on Union Road (SRI 153) At the end of Union Rd turn left onto Coxe Road On Coxe Rd travel northeast
and cross under US 74 The Cleghorn Creek site is on the left across from the Cleghorn Plantation Country Club
(_J
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT Z
1

fI
I
L_)
f�
� J
Fj
(�1
0
O
F�'
J
�J
�I
�I
L
(.LtUML)KN C-KttK KtJ I UKA I IUN VKUJU- I
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
I
�l
3

n
L
0
li
1
�f
i
I
14 History and Background
The headwaters of Cleghorn Creek are located in the Town of Rutherfordton Land use within the Town area is
predominantly residential and commercial The remainder of the Cleghorn Creek watershed and the entire Charles
Creek watershed are mostly rural with land uses that include agriculture, timber logging forested area residential
development and a golf course near the project area The Site itself has a recent land use history of pasture and
general agricultural usage A small equestrian center is located west of the project area The streams on site were
historically channelized and stream and riparian functions had been severely impacted as a result of agricultural
land use
In accordance with the approved restoratio' n plan for the site construction activities began in July 2005 Project
activity on Cleghom Creek and Charles Creek consisted of making adjustments to channel dimension pattern, and
profile A primary design consideration for this project was to allow stream flows larger than bankf ill to spread
onto a floodplam dissipating flow energies and reducing streambank stress The project design involved a priority
11 approach with the construction of new meandering channels across a floodplam that was excavated to the
bankf ill elevation of the creeks A modification to channel pattern was made during construction so that the
constructed channel would avoid several mature trees and a healthy stand of native river cane The design
intended to avoid the trees but channel excavation during construction revealed that the design location would
damage the root structure of the trees and likely cause them to fall into the creek The floodplam was not graded
around the base of the trees to avoid damage
An archaeological site was identified by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on the upstream left
floodplam of Charles Creek As a result the original design was modified to avoid impact to the site so that the
stream migrates away from the archaeological site rather than along its edge The vertical alignment was also
modified to account for the pattern adjustment The final as built stream length for the project is 5,196 LF,
producing 5 196 stream mitigation units (SMU)
Rootwads, rock and log vanes and other structures were used to protect streambanks and promote habitat diversity
in pool sections Streambanks were stabilized using a combination of erosion control matting, bare -root planting
transplants and geolifts Transplants provided living root mass quickly to increase streambank stability and create
shaded holding areas for fish and other aquatic biota Native vegetation was planted across the site and the entire
restoration site is protected through a permanent conservation easement
The chronology of the Cleghorn Creek Restoration Project is presented in Table 2 The contact information for all
designers contractors and relevant suppliers is presented in Table 3 Relevant project background information is
presented in Table 4
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT

Table 2 Protect Activity and Reporting History
Cle hom Creek Restoration Proj ect #D0410 (EBX Neuse I LLC
Activity or Report
Data Collection
Complete
Actual Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan Prepared
N/A
Mar 05
Restoration Plan Amended
N/A
Apr 05
Restoration Plan Approved
N/A
Final Design — (at least 90% complete)
N/A
Jul 05
Construction Begins
N/A
Aug 05
Temporary S &E mix applied to entire
project area
N/A
N/A
Permanent seed mix applied to entire
project area
N/A
Apr 06
Planting of live stakes
N/A
Apr 06
Planting of bare root trees
N/A
May 06
End of Construction
N/A
May 06
Survey of As built conditions (Year 0
Monitoring baseline
Jul 06
Jul 06
Repair Work
Apr 07
Apr 07
Year 1 Monitoring
Apr 07
June 2007
Year 2 Monitoring
Dec 07
Dec 07
Repair Work
Nov 08
Nov 08
Year 3 Monitoring
Dec 08
Dec 08
Minor Bank Repair /Grading
May 09
May 09
Year 4 Monitoring
Dec 09
Dec 09
Year 5 Monitoring
Oct 10
Nov 10
Minor Bank Repair /Installation of 1 Vane
Dec 10
Dec 10
Monitoring has occurred each year since the original Mitigation Report (As- built) was submitted in August 2006
Year 1 monitonng was done in the spring of 2007 and evaluated channel changes and vegetation survival since the
spring of 2006 Data collection was delayed until spring by repair work that was necessary following flood events
that occurred in the summer of 2006 and the begm ung of 2007 Year 2 monitoring was also done in 2007 but in
the fall of that year after the second growing season Year 3 monitoring was performed in November and
December of 2008 Year 4 monitoring commenced in November and was completed December 2009 Year 5
sampling was conducted in October 2010
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
5

51
1�
—1
{
Ff
U
�j
r
U
U,
li
F
U
Table 3 Project Contacts
Cle horn Creek Restoration Project fiD0410
EBX Neuse I LLC
Full Service Delivery Contractor
909 Capability Drive Suite 3100
EBX Neuse I LLC
Raleigh NC 27606
Contact
Norton Webster Tel [phone]
Designer
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201
Michael Baker Engineering Inc
Asheville NC 28806
Contact
Matthew Reid Tel [phone]
Construction Contractor
Riverworks Inc
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Cary NC 27518
Contact
Will Pedersen Tel [phone]
Planting and Seeding Contractor
8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200
Riverworks Inc
Cary NC 27518
Contact
George Moms Tel [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Mellow Marsh Farm 919 742 1200
Nursery Stock Suppliers
International Paper 1 888 888 7159
Monitoring
Stream Monitoring Point of Contact
Michael Baker Engineering Inc
Carmen Horne McIntyre Tel [phone]
797 Haywood Rd Suite 201
Asheville NC 28806
Vegetation Monitoring Point of Contact
Chris Huysman Tel [phone]
Wetland and Natural Resources
P O Box 882
Consultants Inc
Canton NC 28716
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT 6

Table 4 Protect Background
0
Cleghom Creek Restoration Project #D0410 (EBX Neuse I LLC
Project County
Rutherford County NC
Drainage Area
Cleghom Reach 1
14 21 mm'
Cleghom Reach 2
17 23 mi'
Charles Creek
3 02 mi'
Stream Order
Cleghom Reach 1
4
Cleghom Reach 2
4
Charles Creek
2
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ion
Southern Inner Piedmont
Rosgen Classification of As Built
Cleghom Reach 1
C
Cleghom Reach 2
C
Charles Creek
C
Cowardm Classification �
Riverme Upper Perennial
Unconsolidated Bottom Sand
Dominant Soil Types
Cleghom Reach 1
ChA ToA
Cleghom Reach 2
ToA RnE
Charles Creek
ToA GrE
Wheat Creek and UT to the Broad
River east of the Hwy 74/Union Rd
Reference Site ID
intersection
USGS HUC for Project and Reference Sites
03050105040090
NCDWQ Sub basin for Project and Reference
03 08 02
NCDWQ classification for Project and Reference
C
Any portion of any project segment 303d listed9
No
Any portion of any project segment upstream of a
303d listed se ment9
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor?
N/A
% of project easement fenced
100%
15 Monitoring Plan View
0
The monitoring plan view for Cleghom Creek and Charles Creek is included in Appendix A The plan set
provides a view of channel pattern as well as the location of structures designed to aid in dimension and profile
stability Other features shown on the plan view include the location of crest gauges, vegetation monitoring plots
cross - sections and reference photo stations
2 0 YEAR 5 PROJECT CONDITION AND MONITORING RESULTS
The five -year monitoring plan for the Site includes criteria to evaluate the success of the vegetative and
geomorphic components of the project The specific locations of vegetation plots permanent cross sections and
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
7
0
i
19

crest gauges are shown on the Year 5 monitoring plan sheets (Appendix A) Photo points located along the stream
restoration project are also shown
21 Vegetation Assessment
2 11 Description of Vegetative Monitoring
L� As a final stage of construction the stream margins and riparian area of the Site were planted with bare
root trees live stakes and an herbaceous seed mixture of temporary and permanent ground cover
vegetation Tree species planted are summarized in Table 5 After grading repairs were completed on the
Site a permanent ground cover seed mixture was broadcast on the Site at a rate of 10 pounds per acre
The seed mix is presented in Table 6
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration active planting
of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community In order to
detemmne if the criteria are achieved, five 100 square meter monitoring plots were installed across the
restoration site to predict the survival rate of the bare rooted trees On a designated corner within each of
rI the five vegetation plots one - 1 square meter herbaceous plot was also delineated Survival was
determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted trees and the current year's
living planted trees Herbaceous survival was determined by subjectively fudging the area of coverage in
each herbaceous plot
J
Plot construction involved using metal fence posts at each of the four corners to clearly and permanently
establish the area that was to be sampled Then ropes were hung connecting all four corners to help in
determining if trees close to the plot boundary were inside or outside of the plot Trees right on the
boundary and trees dust outside of the boundary that appear to have greater than 50% of their canopy
inside the boundary were counted inside the plot A piece of white PVC pipe ten feet tall was placed over
(� the metal post on one corner to facilitate visual location of site throughout the five -year monitoring period
LAll of the planted stems inside the plot were flagged with orange flagging and marked with a 3 foot tall
piece of half inch PVC to identify them as the planted stems (vs any colonizers) and to help in locating
them in the future Each stem was then tagged with a permanent numbered aluminum tag Individual
seedlings within each plot were flagged to facilitate locating them during future monitoring events Each
seedling was also marked with aluminum tags to ensure that the correct identification is made during
future monitoring of the vegetation plots Plots were stratified in the project site to represent the different
r� areas within the project These plots, one on Charles Creek (Plot # 5) and the four plots on Cleghom
` Creek were re- established in June 2007 The locations of the five vegetation plots are presented in
Appendix A
IJLive stakes were installed on both stream banks along both reaches of Cleghorn Creek and the upstream
half of Charles Creek The species composition was roughly 40 percent silky dogwood (Cornus
amomum) 40 percent silky willow (Salix serecia) 10 percent elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and 10
percent mnebark (Physocarpus opuliaa) These same species were used in brush mattresses and geolifts
l installed throughout the repair areas on Cleghorn Creek
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT

Table 5 Tree Species Planted in the Cleghorn Creek Restoration Area
Cleghorn Creek Restoration Project #D0410 EBX Neuse I LLC
ID
Scientific Name
Common Name
FAC Status
1
N ssa s Ivatica
Black um
FAC
2
Quercus phellos
Coastal Willow Oak
FACW -
3
Dzospyi us vii iniana
Persimmon
FAC
4
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
FACW
5
Liriodendron tuli i era
Yellow Poplar
FAC
6
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
FACW
7
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
FACU
g
Betula mgia
River Birch
FACW+
9
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
FACU
to
Quercus michauxii
Swamp Chestnut Oak
FACW+
Table 6 Herbaceous Species Planted in the Cleghorn Creek Restoration Area
Cle hom Creek Restoration Project #D0410 EBX Neuse I LLC
Scientific Name
Common Name
Percentage
A rostis alba
Redtop Grass
10
EI mus vii micas
Virginia Wildrye
15
Panicum vii atum
Switchgrass
15
Tn sicum dactyloides
Eastern Gamma Grass
5
Polygonum pennsylvanicum
Pennsylvania Smartweed
5
Schizach rnim sco arium
Little Bluestein
5
Juncus effuses
Common Rush
5
Bidens rondosa
Devil s Beggartick
10
Coreo sis lanceolata
Lanceleaf Tickseed
10
Panicum clandestinum
Deertongue
10
Andro 0 on gerardu
Big Bluestem
5
Sor astrum nutans
Indian Grass
5
2 12 Vegetative Success Criteria
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site was the survival of at least 320, 3 year old, planted
trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period The final vegetative success criteria is the
survival of 260, 5 -year old, planted trees per acre at the end of the fifth monitonng period Herbaceous
cover has been photographed annually during the growing season to provide a record of the density of
ground cover derived from the riparian seed mix applied If the measurement of vegetative density proves
to be inadequate for assessing plant community health, additional plant community indices may be
incorporated into the vegetation monitoring plan as requested by the NCEEP
Up to 20% of the site's species composition may be compnsed of volunteers However, remedial action
may be required should volunteer species (i e loblolly pine, red maple, sweet gum, etc ) present a problem
and exceed 20% composition
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
0
0
0
L1
0
0
l�
i
I -)
U
l�J
i
1
1
0
a
a
i 1,

0
J
LJ
n
2 13 Vegetation Observations and Results
The Site was planted with bottomland hardwood forest species in May 2006 The aforementioned
flooding caused damage or destruction of much of the initial planting and the five vegetation-monitoring
plots installed at the Site had to be abandoned to perform grading repairs The Site was re planted in April
2007 and vegetation plots were re- established at locations shown on the plans With the exception of
isolated bank repairs performed in 2008 (most of which were the result of beaver activity) permanent
seeding applied to streambanks beneath the erosion matting have generally provided good ground
coverage Live stake bare root trees and live brush in the geolift structures have flourished and are
contributing to streambank stability
Vegetation monitoring conducted in the fall of 2010 documented a survival rate of 520 stems per acre to
640 stems per acre with an overall average of 600 stems per acre which is a survival rate of greater than
90% based on the initial planting count of 656 stems per acre As part of the streambank maintenance
performed some replanting occurred in the repaired areas and equipment access lanes Despite replanting
these areas appeared comparable to the sections of the project area that have not been repaired
Earlier vegetative monitoring data documented that this site met the minimum interim success criteria at
the end of Year 3 monitoring Year 5 sampling documented that the Site has met the final success criteria
of 260 trees per acre at the end of Year 5
The following information in Table 7 presents stem counts for each of the plots for Year 5 monitoring
Each planted tree species is identified across the top row and each plot is identified down the left column
The species code numbers on the top row correlate to the ID column of the previous Table (6) Planted
were flagged to mdicate there origin at the beginning of site monitoring Trees are re- flagged in the field
�( on an as needed basis before the old flags degrade Flagging is utilized because it will not interfere with
l the growth of the tree Volunteer trees are also flagged during this process Annual variation in stem
count data can be attributed to mortality and regeneration from root stock of stems previously assessed to
be dead
f�f
I�
J
Table 7 2010 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Species Composition
Cleghom Creek Restoration Project #130410 (EBX Neuse I LLC)
Plot
Species Code*
Total
Stems/
per Acre
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
0
0
0
10
0
0
5
0
0
1
16
640
2
0
1
0
1
1
6
0
6
0
0
15
600
3
0
0
0
0
3
3
4
2
1
0
13
520
4
2
0
1
2
3
3
0
4
0
0
15
600
5
0
1
1
4
4
6
0
0
0
0
16
640
Average Stems/Per Acre 600
Range of Stems/Per Acre 520 640
IL *Species codes relate to identification shown in Table 5
Volunteer species will also be monitored throughout the five year monitoring period Below is a list of
Lthe most commonly found woody volunteer species
r)
i
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC
I YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT
it
10

O
Volunteers within the Conservation Easement Area
Scientific Name Common Name FAC Status O
Platanus occidentalis Sycamore FACW
Acer negundo Boxelder FACW ((��
Acer rubrum Red Maple FAC U
Alnus sei rulata Tag Alder FACW+
Volunteer woody species were observed in most all of the vegetation plots Sycamore (Platanus a
occidentahs), red maple (Ace> i ubrum) and boxelder (Acer negundo) are the most common volunteers in
plots Tag alder is more common as a volunteer on the stream banks
In addition to the volunteer species noted above, there are quite a few weedy species occurring on the site �l
including aster (Aster spp ) goldenrod (Sohdago spp ) and horseweed (Conyza spp ) though they do not J
appear to be threatening the survival of woody or herbaceous hydrophytic vegetation planted
Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum
suiense) have been observed inside the restoration area Maintenance to the riparian buffer was U
undertaken in September 2010 to treat invasive vegetation in the easement area
2 14 Vegetation Problem Areas 0
Besides minor areas of Johnson grass along the right terrace of Charles Creek no extensive vegetation
problem areas were identified EBX is discussing treatment of the field adjacent to the Charles Creek and
Cleghorn Creek with the landowner as the field is heavily infested with Johnsongrass O
2 15 Vegetation Photos
Photographs are used to visually document vegetation success in sample plots Reference photos of tree r,
and herbaceous conditions within the five plots are taken at least once per year Photos of the plots are U
included in Appendix C of this report
22 Stream Assessment 0
2 2 1 Description of Geomorphic Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of restored stream reaches was conducted over a five year period to evaluate the O
effectiveness of the restoration approach Monitored stream parameters include channel dimension (cross_
sections) profile (longitudinal survey) bed composition bank stability bankfull flows and stability of
reference sites documented by photographs Crest gauges as well as high flow marks were used to 0
document the occurrence of bankfull events The methods used and any related success criteria are
described below for each parameter The location of permanent cross - sections and crest gauges is shown
on the Year S monitoring plan sheets in Appendix B
2 2 2 Morphometric Success Criteria 0
2 2 2 1 Cross - sections
Eleven permanent cross - sections were installed in pools and riffles throughout the site, with seven 0
on Cleghorn Creek Reach 1 one on Cleghorn Creek Reach 2, and three on Charles Creek Each
cross - section was marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used A
common benchmark was used for cross sections and consistently referenced to facilitate comparison a
of year -to -year data The annual cross sectional survey included points measured at top of bank,
edge of water water surface and thalweg, if the features are present Riffle cross sections were
classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC n
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT I I Il JI

I
There should be little change in as -built cross - sections If changes to the channel cross section take
Cf place they should be minor changes representing an increase in stability (e g settling vegetative
changes deposition along the banks or decrease in width/depth ratio)
2 2 2 2 Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile was completed for the restored streams to provide a baseline for evaluating
changes in channel bed condition over time A 1 500 foot longitudinal profile of Cleghorn Creek
was surveyed in October as well as the entire project reach along Charles Creek Longitudinal
profiles have been replicated annually during the five year monitoring period for this Site
n Measurements taken during longitudinal profiles include thalweg, water surface, inner berm
bankfull and top of low bank if the features were present Each of these measurements was taken at
the head of each feature (e g riffle or pool) and the maximum pool depth All surveys were tied to
a permanent benchmark of know elevation Cross - section and longitudinal profile data are provided
in Appendix B
The longitudinal profiles should show that the bed features are remaining stable and are not
(� aggradmg or degrading The pools should remain deep with flat water surface slopes and the riffles
L should remain steeper and shallower than the pools Bed form observations should be consistent
with those observed for channels of the stream type that the design was based on
2 2 2 3 Bed Material Analyses
Bed material analyses have included pebble counts taken during each geomorphic survey Pebble
{ i counts will provide data on the particle size distribution of the stream bed These samples may
reveal changes in sediment gradation that can occur over time as the stream adjusts to constructed
channel and to its sediment load Significant changes in the particle size distribution was evaluated
with respect to stream stability and watershed changes
2 2 3 Morphometric Results
2 2 3 1 Cross - sections
Cross - section data for stream stability were collected during October 2010 Cross - section (channel
` dimension) data were collected after construction was completed (as -built condition) and have been
collected each subsequent year Location pins for cross - sections 1, 2, and 3 were disturbed during
repair work and were reset nearby, which is why the location of the channel and floodplain features
(� shifted between the As built and Year 1 monitoring period Cross - sections 4 through 8 on Cleghom
Creek and 9 through 11 on Charles Creek have used the same pins since construction was
completed
I� The eleven permanent cross - sections along the restored channels (six located across riffles and five
located across pools) were surveyed in October 2010 to document stream dimension at the end of
the monitoring year Data from each of these cross - sections are summarized in Appendix B From
Year 1 through Year 5, channel dimension has exhibited only small changes in stream bedform and
Jelevation which could be considered within the range of normal year -to year variations for a sand -
bed channel
The most notable changes in channel dimension that are shown in the cross - section data actually
occurred between the As -built and Yearl surveys The cross sections display the effects of the flood
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT 12
Irk

damage and subsequent repair work that was done which had the combined effect of increasing the
channel cross - sectional area and reducing bank slopes particularly in point bar locations
To better define changes in channel dimension measurements of bankfull cross section geometry
were evaluated These measurements include average depth width, area, maximum depth and
width/depth ratio The measurements indicate significant changes between the As built and Year 1
data, but do not clearly demonstrate a pattern of change in subsequent years From Year 1 through
Year 5, some cross sections on Cleghorn Creek were either highly vanable (getting larger one year
then smaller the next) or they did not change appreciably over the course of the monitoring events
Survey data collected in 2010 indicates that the site has remained stable since the last survey was
completed in 2009
Channel dimensions on Charles Creek do not reflect any instability and instead seem to reflect
normal year to year variations Cross - section 10 has shown minor changes in bankfull width over
time due to deposition associated with flood events, but is stable This channel has often been
inundated by a series of beaver dams and some variability is likely associated with the affects of
these dams While conducting Year 5 monitoring evidence of beaver activity was observed
(observations include remnants of dams that have been removed as well as two intact beaver dams
x
that were scheduled to be removed once field surveys were completed)
Eight of the eleven cross - sections surveyed in Year 5 do not appear to deviate from conditions
observed in 2009 The pool at Cross - section 4 on Cleghorn Creek was noticeably deeper in 2009
compared to previous years and had decreased in area as sediment has deposited on the point bar and
the channel width narrowed In Year 5 this pool was found to have filled back in to a depth similar
to measurements recorded prior to 2009 Pools were also highly vanable with regards to width and
depth and only one of the four pool cross - sections on Cleghorn Creek indicated a slight decrease in
area as sediment deposits on the point bar and the channel width narrows Most other pool features
appear to have remained relatively similar to what has been observed in previous monitoring events
Most riffle cross - sections surveyed did not change significantly in 2010 and remain stable Cross
sections 6 and 8 on Cleghorn Creek and Cross section 11 on Charles Creek had become slightly
deeper by Monitoring Year 3 However, these riffle cross - sections have aggraded back to an
elevation similar to that of the as built elevation Deepening pools, point bar development inside
meanders and stable or slightly aggraded riffles reflect a positive trend in channel stability
Another factor contributing to the stability observed on site during 2010 was the lack of beaver
dams present on Cleghorn Creek as compared to previous years and a thriving riparian buffer
Beaver dams have been built and destroyed several times within the time frame of this project The
beaver dams block the flow of sediment through the system until the dams are removed and the
resulting upstream sediment moves downstream Saturation of banks within the pools created by the
dams kills stream bank vegetation and can result in slumping of the banks Although beaver activity
abounds across the site and is suspected to be related to a small section of eroded bank on Cleghorn
Creek, bedload transport functions appear to have improved on Cleghorn Creek since 2008 Beaver
activity on site is expected to continue given the proximity of the project area to the confluence of
Cleghorn Creek and the Broad River The two beaver dams that were still intact in October 2010 are
not currently causing considerable bank instability problems nor are they expected to since they are
scheduled to be removed once field monitoring is complete
2 2 3 2 Longitudinal Profile
Longitudinal profile data for stream stability were collected at the same time as cross section
measurements during October 2010 Longitudinal profile data were collected after construction was
completed (as built condition) and have been collected each subsequent year The longitudinal
profile on Cleghorn Creek begins dust downstream of Photo Point 4 and continues 1 500 LF
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
1
i
i
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC r�
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT 13 U

U
0
downstream past the bridge crossing The longitudinal profile for Charles Creek spans the entire
length of the project reach on this stream (1 426 LF)
Measurements included top of bank channel thalweg and water surface Profile 'plots in Appendix
O B display 2010 thalweg water surface and top -of -bank points as compared to profiles surveyed
during previous monitoring events The Year 1 survey was performed in April 2007 following
stream repairs made after the second flood event occurred The Year 2 longitudinal survey was
performed in November 2007 and the Year 3 longitudinal survey was performed in November and
O December of 2008 The Year 4 longitudinal survey was performed in November and December of
2009 The Year 5 longitudinal survey was performed in October 2010
The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedfonn features are remaining stable (not aggrading
or degrading) The pools should remain deep with flat water surface slopes and the nffles should
remain steeper and shallower than the pools The profile companson indicates that overall both
Cleghorn Creek and Charles Creek have maintained their respective as -built slopes and channel
depths although some meander pools on Cleghorn Creek have deepened since last year Although
several beaver dams were removed on both Cleghorn Creek and Charles Creek in 2010 the Site
does not appear to have suffered significant damage from beaver habitation over the past year in
companson with previous years During Year 5 Monitoring at least one intact beaver dam was
lJ located on Cleghorn Creek while one of three recent dams built on Charles Creek remained The
l—J other two dams appeared to have been recently removed
As with the cross sections the longitudinal profile data show that the greatest adjustments on
i J Cleghorn Creek occurred between the As built and the Year 1 survey as well -as the Year 4 survey
I J which was taken a few weeks after at least two flood events occurred on -site As discussed in
previous monitoring reports these adjustments were a combination of flooding effects and
maintenance adjustments to increase the cross sectional area When comparisons of the plotted
profiles from Monitoring Years 1 through 5 are made it does not appear that the overall thalweg
elevation has increased or decreased sigmficantly
The most noticeable profile difference on Cleghorn Creek between Years 4 and 5 of monitoring was
the filling in of pools that were noticeably deeper in November and December of 2009 as a result of
scour associated with recent flood events at the site However extreme flooding during the winter
of 2010 appears to have moved a significant amount of sand into the project site and contnbuted to
�J this pool filling The profile for Year 5 on Cleghom Creek generally appears to be more in line with
what was observed in earlier monitoring years with the exception of sections where beaver dams
have been located As previous monitoring reports note the thalweg between stations 16 +73 and
—20 +50 appears to be lower when comparing Year 1 to Year 3 but from station —20 +50 to the end
of the profile the elevation is approximately the same The location of where this change occurs is
near the dnveway bridge and was the site of a large beaver dam in Year 2 of the monitoring period
At least one more beaver dam was present that year at station 20 +17 The impacts of these dams are
L evident in the Year 2 profile marked by aggradation upstream of the dams and degradation (plunge
pools) below --the dams The lower profile elevation between stations 16 +73 and —20 +50 appears to
n be a result of the large dam at station 16 +73 and the down cutting that resulted below the dam By
LJ Year 3 the scour pool below the dam had filled but the overall profile through this dam area had
lowered as the fines that aggraded upstream of the dam moved through the system, resulting in a
n localized lowering of the profile This lowering of the profile is consistent with what was observed
! I in Year 1 monrtonng of the profile The intact beaver dam located on Cleghorn Creek near station
22 +75 as shown on the Year 5 longitudinal profile is characteristic of what has previously been
observed signs of aggradation upstream of the dam followed by a plunge pool on the downstream
Oend of the dam
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT 14
I
I,

it
Although pool length and pool spacing has decreased since Year 4 the channel appears to be very
stable as indicated by a decreasing width depth ratio an increasing meander width ratio and
O
generally stable well vegetated streambanks This stream has a sand bed that is perpetually scoured
by any rock or wood debris in the channel This process results in the formation of scour holes that
may fall between meander bend pools which is common in these systems and indicates a positive
change in bedform diversity Perhaps the most important determination for stability is how the
0
overall water surface slope and thalweg elevations change year to year and how they change relative
to the bankfull elevation In this case the reach wide water surface slope and thalweg elevations do
not appear to be changing significantly The water surface slope across the reach has remained at
O
002 each year and the bank height ratio has not exceeded 1 1
The profile at Charles Creek is similar to what has been described for Cleghorn, however the profile
O
has not changed significantly between the As -built monitoring period and subsequent years Pools
have either deepened or have filled slightly but the overall elevation and water surface slope ( 005)
have remained relatively the same In Year 2 the beaver problems experienced on Cleghorn Creek
were even more prevalent on Charles Creek The profile indicates the presence of at least 6 different
O
beaver dams along the project reach and this resulted in most of the reach being inundated by
backwater These dams were either removed or washed out during Year 3 of monitoring Since that
time, the channel had returned to almost the same profile as was seen in the as built profile with an
O
additional pool at station 2 +50 and the recovery of a pool that had disappeared during Years 1 and 2
near station 6 +65 The thalweg elevation in Year 5 is similar to the as -built elevation with the
exception of the profile around stations 10 +00 to 12 +00 and 12 +83 to 15 +26 where beaver dams
have been concentrated and where the channel at the confluence with Cleghorn Creek was scoured
O
in Year 3 A divergence in thalweg elevations occurs in these areas but recovers near the end of the
profile at station 12 +83 where the elevation is similar in nature to that of the channel elevation
present at the beginning stages of the monitoring period In 2008 it was discovered that Charles
O
Creek had become incised near its confluence with Cleghorn Creek There are various ponds
upstream of this site and there were a number of high -water events during the fall of 2008 One
hypothesis is that a sudden high volume of water was released down this channel resulting in
O
channel bed scour Subsequently in May 2009 approximately 100 lmear feet of banks were graded
at the confluence of Charles Creek and Cleghorn Creek to lower the bankfull elevation and prevent
further incision along this subreach of Charles Creek The increase in channel elevation near station
14 +34 can be attributed to the filling in of the previously incised outlet of Charles Creek Like
0
Cleghorn Creek Charles Creek appears to be stable as evidenced by healthy bank vegetation, a bank
height ratio of 10 a low width depth ratio and stable riffle pool sequencing
0
2 2 3 3 Bed Material Analyses
Year 5 pebble count data collected in the upper and lower subreaches of Cleghorn Creek and 0
Charles Creek indicate these streams are transporting particles roughly the same size or larger as
those found during as built surveys (Table 132 Appendix B) Visual observation of Cleghom Creek
and Charles Creek and a review of pebble count data collected did not yield any signs that sediment
transport functions have been hampered by the restoration project Despite the higher occurrence of 0
beaver dams on Charles Creek as well as the storm event in 2008, the profile of Charles Creek has
remained relatively the same as compared to Cleghorn Creek This is likely m part due to the
differences in bedload particle size and the fact that streams like Cleghorn Creek that are sand -bed 0
systems tend to experience more microfeatures and fluxes in riffle pool features
2 2 4 Hydrologic Criteria
The occurrence of bankfull events at the Site are documented by the use of crest gauges and photographs O
Crest gauges were installed on the floodplam within 10 feet of the restored channels One crest gauge was
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC 0
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT 15
I

i
placed on Charles Creek and one was placed on Cleghorn Creek The crest gauges record the highest
4 watermark between site visits and were checked during site visits to determine if a bankfull event
occurred Photographs were taken to document the occurrence of these bankfull events during the
respective years in which they were observed
The hydrologic monitoring criteria for this project requires the documentation of two bankfull flow events
within the 5 year monitoring period The two bankf ill events must occur in separate years otherwise, the
stream monitoring may have to be continued until two bankfull events have been documented in separate
years
2 2 5 Hydrologic Monitoring Results
The crest gauge located on Cleghorn Creek approximately 250 feet above the confluence with Charles
Creek, documented the occurrence of one bankfull flow event during the first year of the post - construction
monitoring period (Table 8) The crest gauge on Charles Creek was damaged during this event no data
was collected from this gauge until April 2010 The Cleghorn gauge was subsequently taken out of
service during repair work and re- installed Inspection of site conditions over the next seven months
revealed visual evidence of at least two additional out of bank flows The largest stream flow documented
during As built and Year 1 of monitoring was approximately 2 5 feet above the bankfull stage The most
recent bankfull events likely occurred sometime in late summer /early fall 2010 A small flood event was
recorded using the Charles Creek crest gauge A measurement was not obtained from the crest gauge on
Cleghorn Creek due to tampering with the gauge
Table 8 Verification of Bankfull Events
Cleghorn Creek Restoration Pro ect #D0410 EBX Neuse I LLC
Date of Data Collection
Date of Event
Method of Data Collection
Gauge Height feet
8/25/2006
8/12/2006
Crest Gauge
25
1/3/2007
1/1/2007
Visual Inspection of Wrack Lines
01+/
3/7/2007
3/2/2007
Visual Inspection of Wrack Lines
24+/
11/23/09
Early Nov
Visual Inspection of Wrack Lines and
25+/
damage to Crest Gauge
2/17/10
Winter (Jan
Visual Inspection of Wrack Lines
>2 5 (nearing terrace
earl Feb 2010
elevation
10/20/10
Unknown
Visual Inspection of Crest Gauge
01+/
Charles Creek Gauge)
Notes Unless otherwise noted bankfull and flood events recorded for this project were measured on Cleghorn Creek A
final check of the crest gauge on Cleghorn Creek in October 2010 revealed that a dowel rod used to help measure flood
events had been removed from the gauge therefore a measurement could not be obtained
2 2 6 Stream Problem Areas
The 2010 monitoring data used to determine stream stability during the project s post construction
monitonng penod are summarized in Appendix B Monitoring of the project site in 2010 resulted in the
identification of four minor areas on Cleghom Creek and Charles Creek that needed maintenance or repair
prior to close out of the mitigation project Maintenance work was limited to beaver dam removal on
Charles Creek and Cleghorn Creek and minor bank stabilization along two small sections of Cleghorn
Creek above the bridge Several other dams had already been removed at the time Year 5 monitoring took
place The mid channel bar present on Cleghorn Creek at Station 116 +00 was removed and a small vane
r ' was installed to discourage the formation of mid - channel bars in the future The area of bank erosion on
the right bank adjacent to the bar and a small segment of bank erosion downstream at Station 122 +00 was
repaired using a mini - trackhoe, both banks were replanted in December 2010 Table 9 below summarizes
conditions at each site prior to repair and the likely cause for bank instability observed The location of
each site is illustrated on the plans provided in Appendix A
— CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC
J YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT 16
f
I

Table 9 2010 Stream Repair/Maintenance Sites
Cle horn Creek Restoration Project #D0410 EBX Neuse I LLC
Site
Issue
Suspected Cause
Mid channel bar and eroding bank caused by mid
Channel bar growth (bar has been present
I
channel bar (Sta 116 +00)
throughout monitoring period but has
expanded recently)
2
Minor bank erosion (Sta 122 +00)
Unknown Beaver habitation in the
project site likely a contributing factor
3
Re install crossing rope at lower horse crossing on
Unknown
Cleghorn Creek (Station 131 +50)
Removal of two beaver dams on Cleghorn Creek and
Charles Creek (Stations 131 +75 and 123 +000
4
respectively) Beaver dams noted on Charles Creek at
Beaver activity
Stations 120+00 and 122 +00 were removed recently
enough that they are still obvious in the profile of
Charles Creek
227 Stream Photographs
Photographs are used to document restoration success qualitatively Reference stations were photographed
during the as -built survey and have been documented annually since construction Reference photos are
taken once a year, from a height of approximately five to six feet Permanent markers were installed to
ensure that the same locations (and view directions) are utilized during each monitoring period Reference
photos were taken October 15 2010 and are shown in Appendix C
Photographs will be used to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation or degradation bank erosion
success of riparian vegetation and effectiveness of erosion control measures Photos should indicate the
absence of developing bars within the channel no excessive bank erosion or increase in channel depth
over tune, and maturation of riparian vegetation
Reference photo transects were taken of the right and left banks at each permanent cross - section
Photographs were also taken facing upstream and downstream at the permanent cross - section photo
stations For each stream bank photograph a survey tape was centered in the frame which represents the
cross section line located perpendicular to the channel flow The water line was located in the lower edge
of the frame in order to document bank and riparian conditions Photographers will make an effort to
consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time These photos are presented along with the
cross section baseline data in Appendix B
2 2 8 Stream Stability Assessment
In stream structures installed within the restored reaches of Cleghom Creek and Charles Creek include log
vanes geolifts and root wads Brush mattresses were also installed along the outside of many of the
meander bends, but these are not referred to as in stream structures since they are considered bank
treatments Visual inspection of the log vanes and root wads indicate that they are functioning
appropriately and, as of the date of this Report, there are no signs of instability The geolifts are also
performing very well, with healthy growth of the vegetation and a generally stable bank and toe
Table 10 presents a summary of the visual inspection of in- stream features and structures performed
during October 2010 The percentages noted area general overall field evaluation of how the features
were performing and are based solely on the field evaluator's visual assessment at the time of the site visit
NJ
a
iJ
1
0
i
0
1
1�
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 EBX NEUSE I LLC
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT 17 J

I �
Table 10 Categorical Stream Feature Visual Stability Assessment
Cleghorn Creek Restoration Pro ect #D0410 EBX Neuse I LLC
Feature
Performance Percentage
Initial
MY 01
MY 02
MY -03
MY -04
MY 05
Riffles
100%
100%
100%
90%
90%
90%
Pools
100%
90%
80%
90%
100%
100%
Thalwe
100%
100%
100%
90%
90%
100%
Meanders
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Bed General
100%
95%
85%
90%
100%
100%
Log Vanes
100%
100%
95%
85%
100%
100%
Geolifts
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Rootwads
100%
100%
100%
95%
95%
95%
- Based on the data collected riffles pools and other constructed features along the restored channels are
stable and are functioning as designed Riffles have generally been more stable on Charles Creek as
compared to Cleghorn Creek in part because the channel bed of Charles Creek is not in as much flux as the
sandbed channel that typifies Cleghorn Creek in the project reach Transitions aside riffle pool sequences
on Cleghorn Creek are functioning as needed and are within the acceptable limits of design parameters
applied to this project Structures installed to enhance pool habitat and stabilize streambanks are also
stable and functioning well Beyond the issues noted above no areas of concern have been identified
during the first year following completion of the project Overall the site has achieved the stream
morphology success cntena specified in the Restoration Plan for the Site
2 2 9 Quantitative Measures Summary Tables
The quantitative pre construction, reference reach and design data used to determine restoration approach,
as well as the As built baseline data used during the project s post construction monitonng penod are
summarized in Appendix B
3 0 WILDLIFE OBSERVATIONS
Observations of deer coyote turkey, beaver and raccoon tracks are common on the Site Fish have been seen in
the both Charles and Cleghorn Creek Evidence of beaver habitation is prevalent m the project area and includes
bank slides stumps of cut trees and chewed limbs in the channel Some trees have been visibly damaged by
beavers and several dams have been located on the Site Although several dams have already been removed at
least two were present within the project reach on Charles Creek dunng the recent surveys Coyote scat is very
common along stream banks throughout the site Hawks and migratory ducks and geese have also been observed
on the Site
40 CONCLUSION
Year 5 data evaluated against monitoring cntena established for this project indicate the site is stable, has a stable
channel geometry and has a npanan buffer that is healthy throughout the project reach No further monitoring is
required since monitoring to date indicates that this project, which has expenenced numerous flood events and
other natural disturbances, meets the success cntena specified in the Restoration Plan
CLEGHORN CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT
EEP CONTRACT NO D 04010 E8X NEUSE I LLC
YEAR 5 MONITORING REPORT 18

0
0
0
c.
n
n
APPENDIX A. Year 5 Plans

SITE LOCATION MAP
LEGEND
CHANNEL ALIGNMENT
TOP OF BANK
TOP AND BOTTOM OF TERRACE SLOPE
o----- a ----o-- CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND FENCE
X#-CROSS SECTION LOCATION
ROOTWAD CLUSTER
VEGETATED GEOLIFT
r --1
STREAM CROSSING
000000
CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
LOG VANE
CEEGH OR N CREEK
YEAR 5 MONITORING PLANS
RUTHEREORDTON, RUTHEREORD COUNTY,
PREPARED FOR: EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
BAN
909 CAPABILITY DRIVE
SUITE 3100 -'
RALEIGH, NC 27606
NC
DRAWN: MDR
APPROVED: MIdC
Date:
1112010
U
C (D
O
OD
co
Q OD
N
ry C
C O 00
C m
W o U� o
L O V
x 0 O c+� O
A 00 z00(n
3 M
m TO 00 �
tOt3 =N > N�
L N N C
U 7 to L N
l�(nQdU-
L
W-
as
U-1
o z U
O
Q O O
00 ~
u
ui O
�
W 75
z G
O Lf
= D'
ui
W
J Q
U
W
v U
W
rr j
o W
z
0 x
`m m
a w
m
File Name
Yr5_Monitoring.dwg
Drawing Sheet No.
Sheet 1 of 4

f z Prepared for the Office of:
o 3 EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
A
Za
o�
0
>>
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. o
r�
U ) n
n
—I f-
tl D m
r ,
0
'
I
" (I`
D
O Z
r
n
I� A
m
I
a
V
N
II'
v
O
O
0
0
f z Prepared for the Office of:
o 3 EBX NEUSE -I, LLC
A
Za
o�
2 RO \ X I
O I-0 � \\ \ \ tl
O R O \ \ \�. \ \ I
.\
r
/
//+/
I
Z OR
m a N
z
G �,
7 / r
0 IN "\ \ \
O
r \ \ \
CA
r:'
O
0
O
O \ \ •���\,, \•
O I \
2 11!
\\ ,
Cn
03
z
2 A T`
O I L7
J
O
O y
z ? a
\ ° a ao
cc
R a�
\ 0. Y\
a 1
cc
a a Cc 1 r I
Z L33HS
T 133HS I 3NIlH31HYy / \ Ov, r R
a r
CLEGHORN RESTORATION PROJECT
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NC
low
4
YEAR 5 MONITORING PLAN .., .j��.�s
O
-i
O
O
z
rn
D
O
C
0
Z
r
/V
O
m
>>
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. o
r�
U ) n
A? r/
".'
—I f-
tl D m
r ,
0
'
I
" (I`
+
O Z
a I ,f
n
I� A
tl
I
a
V
I
I
\.
\
2 RO \ X I
O I-0 � \\ \ \ tl
O R O \ \ \�. \ \ I
.\
r
/
//+/
I
Z OR
m a N
z
G �,
7 / r
0 IN "\ \ \
O
r \ \ \
CA
r:'
O
0
O
O \ \ •���\,, \•
O I \
2 11!
\\ ,
Cn
03
z
2 A T`
O I L7
J
O
O y
z ? a
\ ° a ao
cc
R a�
\ 0. Y\
a 1
cc
a a Cc 1 r I
Z L33HS
T 133HS I 3NIlH31HYy / \ Ov, r R
a r
CLEGHORN RESTORATION PROJECT
RUTHERFORD COUNTY, NC
low
4
YEAR 5 MONITORING PLAN .., .j��.�s
O
-i
O
O
z
rn
D
O
C
0
Z
r
/V
O
m
>>
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. o
797 Haywood Road
07
Suite 201
0
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
I� A

h�K���|TU[�|hJ�| PROFILE
�^�.n��//����"nr`�_
PHOTO POINT #ll
P HOTO POINT #9
PHOTO POINT #10
CROSSING NEEDS
ROPE REPAIRED
BEAVER DAM
73,3 00
PHOTO POINT #12
END
DESIGNED: J�p
DRAWN: MDR
APPROVED: MMc
91
11/2010
IQ
� b
PHOTO PQINT #20
X5/-'""'" POINT " #''
' _�-__ .. .
�nu-- -m �u/m/ #/«
� LOT #3 �
PHOTO POINT #13
,
PHOTO POINT #16
PHOTO POINT #15
FA
|�
^
4
__j
[L
o u
� z (D
[�
o 0
VEG PLOT #4
LLJ a- 0
E � ~_
�-
PHVTO POINT #l9~
Lu
LLJm__�__~_-�_-�-_�-_=_-�__ \
-PH0T0 POINT #18
cd
SCALE: 1 100' 7ile Name
50 Yr5_Monitor
SCALE (FT) Sheet 3 of 4

DESIGNED: lLR
DRAWN: MDR
APPROVED: MMG
CLEGHORN CREEK D
PHOTO POINT #21 STA 147 [phone]
CLEGHORN CREEK PHOTO POINT #22 c o
STA 143 +95 -•
—CE —a a —a °' 00
CHARLES CREEK I co
STA 124 +26 6� I t
"a co
CHARLES CREEK -� "
�. _�_ w o 0
6/ `^ 146�k. 147 +00 147 1 d
PHOTO POINT #1 1. t x° o M 0
CHARLES CREEK /d 10 O Z °O 1O
a � r I °_� o ai � �
PHOTO POINT #2 / ca N .� • • w
a_
CHARLES CREEK / • °O
CHARLES CREEK a - -° •� r t co
PHOTO POINT #6 PHOTO POINT #3 s r,! -'� u� Q a
BEAVER DAM PHOTO POI #23
lit
CHARLES CREEK /a X-1
PHOTO POINT #7 �I��d /j "// l �, 1\ •.� '_ a
CE X2 '77
"`
CE BEAVER DAM \
CE
CHARLES CREEK —a —ate 2�+0
STA 110 +00 _ a a
- - a —a —a—
/6 �0L CHARLES CREEK �/ % - - -- t %;; i BEAVER DAM
�. n a
6,a PHOTO POINT #12
CHARLES CREEK
a,a CHARLES CREEK PHOTO POINT # 10 / qw / '
PHOTO POINT #14
/ , j y/ ,X / PLOT # 5
p
CHARLES CREEK
PHOTO POINT #16
U LLJ
LID
Elf
v —
CHARLES CREEK /I /
_ -."' a .,' , r �'� /p PHOTO POINT #5 �:1 z0
S ' t: z
�" \Af III ¢ O
CHARLES CREEK / f J' O o
i . , PHOTO POINT #4 0
LU LL
\� X3 gyp/ CHARLES CREEK >i / ! //� R O
LO
PHOTO POINT #9 I'► j
J
U Q
CHARLES CREEK CHARLES CREEK �':v•, R W
PHOTO POINT #13 PHOTO POINT #11 CHARLES CREEK
PHOTO POINT #8 b �\ A R
CHARLES CREEK
PHOTO POINT #15
b
t,
>C 1 a �1: I
2 vdi
b I f 1I
I;1 a I
- z
'S / SCALE: 1 " - 100' w
b /
SCALE (FT)
File Name
,�. %r � � Yr5_Monitoring.clwg
fr
brewing Sheet No.
W
b,i. _ / O / Sheet 4 of 4

0
0
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
0
i
0
0
0
u
l
APPENDIX B. Year 5 Geomorphic Data

0
0
0
1
0
17
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

T,hlr Rl Mnrohnlnov end Hvdr —hr 111nminnno Snmmnry Cleohnrn Cr—k
Cleghorn Creek Restoration Site
' v Re ch CI horn Creek a f r pP�"
Parameter
Cross Section 1
Riffle
Cross Section 2
Pool
Cross Section 3
Riffle
Cross Section 4
Pool
AB
MY]
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MN5
AB
MN
MY2
MY3
Ml4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width (11)
309
420
424
442
51 1
351
407
403
469
401
43 5
342
279
466
380
370
38 5
400
35 7
498
443
468
41
485
Floodprone Width (ft)
1503
1250
1503
1347
1347
1241
1502
1216
1449
1216
1219
1217
1505
165 3
1507
1510
154 3
165 3
1500
1633
1633
1634
163 3
1634
BF Cross Sectional Area (112 )
91 3
1171
1225
1217
1166
97 3
1086
1362
1402
1306
1254
1157
799
1213
103 5
103 3
103 8
1204
$97
1475
1359
1332
1568
143 8
BF Mean Depth (ft)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width/Depth Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
30
28
29
28
23
28
27
34
30
33
29
34
29
26
27
28
27
30
25
30
31
29
38
30
51
46
52
1 54
55
47
61
51
56
53
60
55
46
50
46
47
56
41
53
63
65
60
91
67
104
151
146
160
214
127
152
120
157
124
151
101
97
179
140
132
143
133
142
168
144
164
108
164
49
>3 0
36
>3 0
26
3 5
3 7
>3 0
3 1
>3 0
29
36
54
3 5
40
>4 1
43
4 1
4 2
3 3
3 7
3 5
40
34
368
476
481
497
556
407
460
47 1
528
467
493
410
336
51 8
43 5
426
43 9
460
40 8
55 7
504
52 5
48 8
544
25
25
25
24
21
24
24
29
17
28
25
28
24
23
24
24
24
26
21
26
27
25
32
26
r a �' ` Aearh CI
hoFn Creek (cont)
6
>
4
Parameter
Cross Section 5
Pool
Cross Section 6
Riffle
Cross Section 7
Pool
Cross Section 8
Riffle
AB
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
Ml5
AB
MYI
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width (ft)
Floodprone Width (ft)
38 1
461
449
459
491
456
33 5
472
439
44 5
460
420
309
484
48 �
452
473
470
442
41 9
44 7
44 9
457
43 3
953
1386
1390
1377
143 8
137 5
1507
1502
1501
1500
1503
1503
1500
1499
1501
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
143 3
1499
BF Cross Section-il Area (ft2 )
BF Mean Depth (ft)
1117
1461
135 1
1323
143 7
1168
101 0
153 2
1447
1502
1416
1398
894
1570
1636
1399
1399
134
1027
191 0
1271
2345
23 6
2 1
29
32
30
29
29
26
30
32
33
34
31
33
29
32
34
31
30
29
46
46
51
53
51
51
BF Max Depth (ft)
49
55
58
56
61
53
46
52
55
60
54
52
55
56
59
61
74
64
62
61
72
78
77
69
Width/DepthRatio
130
146
149
158
168
178
111
146
133
132
148
126
107
149
142
146
160
165
96
9
88
83
90
84
Entrenchment Ratio
25
30
31
>30
29
30
45
32
34
34
33
36
49
31
31
>33
32
32
34
36
34
>34
31
35
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
439
52 5
509
51 7
550
507
395
53 7
505
51 2
522
486
367
549
55 0
51 4
53 2
52 7
53 3
51 0
549
548
55 9
53 5
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
25
28
27
26
26
23
26
29
29
29
27
29
24
29
30
27
26
25
38
37
41
43
42
42
Substrate
d50 (mm)
d84 (mm)
Parameter
As Built
MY 1 (2007)
MY 2 (2007)
MY 3 (2008)
MY 4 (2009)
MY 5 (2010)
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Mm
Mix
Med
Mm
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Belt-width (ft)
100
150
115
84
170
127
127
170
149
117
170
149
1 7
170
149
127
170
149
Radius of Curvature (ft)
80
120
100
78
144
111
78
144
111
78
144
111
78
144
111
78
144
111
Meander Waveletibtli(ft)
300
390
345
285
417
351
285
417
351
285
417
351
285
417
351
285
417
51
Meander Width Ratio
333
50
42
28
38
33
28
38
33
28
38
3
28
38
33
8
38
33
Profile
Riffle lenbth (ft)
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
85
1778
93 2
34 5
2979
1662
10 903
446
277
31 6
1746
78 1
35 3
1019
709
37 5
164 5
53 4
0 005
0 005
0 005
0 001
0 009
0 005
0 002
0 018
0 010
0 002
0 016
0C)09
0 003
00141
0 006
0 001
0 009
0 003
Pool Lenbth (ft)
Pool Spacuib (ft)
Substrate
908
1884
1396
434
1 6 1 1
1022
18 1
1308
795
28 3
11 1
702
88 5
1 8 1 3
1 1 1 5
428
181 0
83 2
169
253 7
21 1 4
1308
4422
2865
498
1684
109 1
59 8
226 1
1430
1653
2549
1899
862
2456
151 5
d50(inm)
1 06
1
53
83
501
88
95
d84 (mm)
69
146
102
199
226
181
Addinomil Reach Perimeters
Valle) Lenbth (ft)
Channel Lenbth (ft)
Sinuosity
1 649
1 601
1 347
1 594
1 667
1 667
1 986
1 943
1 624
1 940
2008
1 794
1 20
1 21
1 21
1 2
1 17
126
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
BF Slope (ft /ft)
0 002
0 002
0 002
0 002
0 002
0 002
0 002
0 001
02-01
0 001
0 002
0 001
Rosben Classification
E
C
C
C
C
EBc

Table BI !coot 1 Mornholnvv and Hydraulic Momtormi, Summary Charles Creek
Uata based on prot le sampled not total project ienbtn
Y
Parameter
Goss Section
Riffle
1
Cross Section
Pool
2
Cross Section
Rife
3
4B
MYI
MY2
MY3
hIY4
MY5
4B
MYl
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
AB
MN I
MY2
NIY3
MY4
MY5
Dimension
BF Width (R)
Floodpi one Width (ft)
BFCioss Sectional Aiea(ft2)
BF Mean Depth (R)
BF Max Depth (ft)
Width/DepthRatio
Enti enchment Ratio
Wetted Perimeter (ft)
Hydraulic Radius (ft)
Substrate
d50 (um)
d84 (mm)
154
158
152
149
139
150
171
146
15
158
159
144
06
169
174
189
14
175
668
705
702
704
706
705
697
698
697
698
698
698
699
697
697
698
698
697
262
306
83
259
49
268
271
177
286
319
316
291
66
259
76
252
267
304
1 7
1 9
19
1 7
1 8
1 8
1 6
1 9
19
20
1
20
1 3
1 5
1 6
1 3
1 5
1 7
30
31
32
33
35
35
1
34
1 30
37
1 41
37
24
24
24
25
27
1 28
90
8�
8-)
86
78
84
109
76
81
78
77
71
160
110
109
142
1 4
100
>4 3
>4 4
>4 6
>4 7
5 1
47
>4 1
>4 8
>4 6
>4 4
44
48
>3 4
`4 1
>4 0
`3 7
3 8
40
188
197
190
184
175
186
204
184
190
198
100
185
32
199
06
215
211
09
1 4
1 6
1 5
14
1 4
14
1 3
1 5
1 5
1 6
16
16
1 1
1 3
1 3
1 2
1 3
1 5
Parameter
As Built
MY 1 2007)
MY 2 (2007
MY 3 (2008)
MY 4 2009)
MY 5 (2010)
Min
Mix
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Min
Max
Med
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
76
100
88
66
84
75
66
84
75
66
84
75
66
84
75
66
84
75
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Meander Wavelenbth (ft)
40
80
60
58
88
73
58
88
73
58
88
73
58
88
73
58
88
73
180
70
2 5
195
205
100
195
205
200
195
05
200
195
105
00
195
105
100
Meandet Width Ratio
319
42
37
25
32
29
5
32
I9
25
3
29
25
3
9
25
31
29
Profile
Riffle length (ft)
1786
84 1
510
31 8
574
446
31 1
729
525
31 3
658
485
37 1
605
450
31 5
58
516
Riffle Slope (ft /ft)
0 002
0 015
0 009
0 007
0 024
0 016
0 007
0 021
0 014
0 006
0 026
0 016
0 004
0 020
0 010
0 008
0 017
0 010
Pool Lenbth (ft)
479
1354
91 7
545
900
713
424
73 3
579
388
582
48 5
48 7
989
632
480
91 1
52 1
Pool Spacing (ft)
34 71
1387
$67
888
111 8
1053
789
1462
1126
70 1
1240
97 1
859
143 8
1003
736
1450
101 5
Substrate
d50 (mm)
— d84 (mm)
Additional Reach Parameters
9
1
80
154
1 68
It 9
94
1 30
23 0
4� 5
265
380
38 1)
Valley Lenbth (ft)
1 140
1 159
1 162
1 161
1 162
1 162
Channel Lenbth (ft)
1 346
1 393
1 400
1 398
1 411
1 415
Sinuosity
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft)
1 18
1 10
1 0
1 20
1 I
1 20
0 005
0 004
0 005
0 005
0 004
0 005
BF Slope (ft/ft)
20o5
0 004
0 004
0 004
0 004
0 006
Rosben Classification
C/E
E
E
E
E
E
Uata based on prot le sampled not total project ienbtn
Y

T
T bl B2 Ba I e St e m S mm y Cle h C k
CI ho C eek Rest 1 S tc
P met
D ign
A .43u It
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
4�
m"n
an
%
n
to Al
9%
n
911
O&M n
tart
r "w
r Min
000
%
M A r
B kf Y Wldth R
4225
27 9
3409
44 2
41 9
444
472
380
423
447
370
42 5
M 5
38 5
458
51 1
342
5
Flo d W dth R
100 0
1300
1600
1500
1502
1505
1250
1476
1653
1500
1503
1507
1347
1464
151 0
121 9
1468
1633
124 1
3
Bankfull Me n h ft
308
29
34
48
26
33
46
27
35
51
28
36
53
23
29
51
26
1
Bankfull M D th R
45
46
51
62
46
53
61
46
56
72
47
60
78
54
55
91
47
M44
9
Bankfu8 Cross Sect onal A e ft2
1300
799
1187
2027
1171
1457
191 0
1035
1495
227 1
1033
1524
2345
1038
1296
2326
97 3
1
WMth/De thR to
137
96
102
111
92
142
179
88
127
146
83
127
160
90
146
224
84
8
Entrenchment tl
24
31
38
34
46
54
32
34
36
34
36
4
34
34
34
26
32
43
30
1
B kHe htRtl
10
10
10
11
1
10
11
1
10
1
1
10
1
09
10
10
06
0
IV I a f
—
36
—
—
42
—
—
J8
—
—
35
—
—
75
—
—
41
—
—
Ch IB —th R
35
160
100
12$
150
127
147
170
127
167
170
127
147
170
127
147
170
127
147
170
R d 'Uw to e M1
0
120
80
100
120
78
112
144
78
112
144
78
112
144
78
112
144
78
112
144
Mead W le th R
5
]90
300
345
J90
285
348
417
285
346
417
285
348
417
285
J48
417
285
348
417
M rider Wtlth R h
20
3 79
3 33
4 17
5 00
2 80
3 24
3 75
3 00
3 48
4 02
2 99
J 46
4 00
2 77
3 21
3 71
3 10
3 59
4 15
w
W
z
�
RM L ft
2
1778
85
932
1778
345
1095
2979
109
317
446
316 566
945
353
687
1029
375
804
1645
R Me Sb fl/fl
05
0 005
0 005
0 005
0 005
0 001
0 004
0 009
0 002
0 007
0 018
0 002 0 009
0 016
0 003
0 007
0 014
0 001
00
Pool Len h tt
9 6
188 4
90 8
1396
1884
434
1170
161 1
281
738
130 8
283 54 5
127 1
68 5
123 2
181 3
428
877
�245
Pool S a fl
35
253 7
169 0
211 4
2537
1308
2307
442 4
498
1055
1684
598 1408
2261
1653
1934
2549
862
1527
ndsTnAli arl P8"ramatara "3tS
�`` r9:
s
s%'
°f
1>✓
7 a
r
d16 / d35 / d50 / d841 d95
NA/03/0 6/69/19 9
NA/0 3/0 6/6 9/19 9
0 49/1 6/5 3/14 6/19 8
18/3 28/5 01/19 93129 62
2 00/5 2918 80/22 60/31 09
1 41/6 17/9 5/18 07/22 6
R h Sh St tom ten
057
042
036
041
035
—
— 035
—
— 035
—
Stream P w t rt a ea WIm2
31 7
260
113.
21 2
— 17 8
—
— 206
—
— 206
—
—
Ch noel length ft
J 753
3 753
J 753
3 753
—
—
3 753
—
3 753
—
D e e Area SM
14/17
14/17
14/17
14/17
—
14/17
—
—
14/17
R n Classtflmbon
E
E
C
5373
C
—
—
E
—
—
8 Mull Dische fs
600
500
528
528
—
528
—
—
528
S o
13
12
12
12
—
—
12
—
—
13
BF I pe (fVR
0 002
0002
0 001
—
0 002
—
—
0 001
—
Ch n I I gth presents tot I I f tag of ch nnef e t d Str am length w y d a part of long t d I p fil ft ted in T bl 1
A y d panty bet. e A b R d t presented th p rt Tabl s 1 d 2 d th original rep rt b d c rr cbo s f I I t g median inste d f m n me to at o s

Table B2 (cont) Basehne Stream S mmn Cha les C e k
CI Zho C ek Resto at o S t
Parameter
Des gn
As Built
MY 1
MY 2
MY 3
MY 4
MY s
DmensroW Me*
*Mint'
t'Med
Max
can
V Wax }
Mm s
0 mean
Max
1� M
can
$
b1+
can
ax
m m�
Mean
ax
in
an
Max
B kfull Nfdth fl
2360
1538
1799
206
1564
1636
1688
1524
1631
1737
149
169
188
139
161
182
175
206
458
Flo d ro Wdlh ft
700
900
1100
668
6835
899
697
70 10
70 5
697
6995
702
698
701
70 4
698
702
706
697
701
705
Be kf 0 Mean Depth R
1 90
129
1 50
1 7
1 53
1 73
1 93
1 59
1 73
1 Be
1 3
1 5
1 7
1 5
1 6
2 1
1 4
20
23
Bankf II Ma Depth tt
31
235
265
295
238
274
31
242
280
317
25
29
33
27
31
41
28
39
50
B nkfu6 C oss Sea onal Area fl2
450
2617
2639
266
2589
2626
30 62
27 56
2793
283
252
255
259
249
258
326
304
431
61 8
WkRh/De hRatio
1256
9
1248
1596
82
960
11
82
855
109
86
114
142
77
101
124
102
102
339
Entrenchment Ratio
29
38
48
34
39
43
4t
43
44
40
43
48
37
42
47
38
45
51
75
35
40
Bank Height Ratio
1 0
1
1 3
1 6
1
1 3
1 5
1
1 3
1 5
1 1
1 3
1 4
1 0
1 3
1 5
06
1 0
10
B kf 5Veloct 5
—
41
—
—
76
—
—
72
—
73
—
—
80
—
79
—
—
47
—
rn
Chan el Beltw dth ft
76
88
88
100
66
78
84
66
78
64
66
78
84
66
78
84
66
78
84
Red us of C mature 11
40
80
60
80
58
67
88
58
67
88
58
67
88
58
67
88
58
87
88
Meande W elan th rt
180
225
225
270
195
200
205
195
200
205
195
200
205
195
200
205
195
200
205
Meander Wdth Rat o
3 19
3 70
9
F13541479.'
3 70
4 20
4 03
4 58
5 13
4 05
4 60
5 15
3 91
4 44
4 98
4 11
4 67
5 23
3 20
3 64
4 07
Profile a
Y
^9
a
s
R ffle Len h fl
10
41 6
41 6
73 1
31 8
43 4
57 4
32 1
44 9
72 9
31 3
51 5
65 8
37 1
47 2
80 5
31 5 48 4
58 2
R lfle Slo a Nfl
0010
0010
0
0010
0011
0007
0013
0024
0007
0012
0021
0006
0012
0026
0004
0011
0020
0008 0010
0017
Pool Le th R
47 9
91 7
9
91 7
135 41
54 5
64 9
90 0
42 4
55 1
73 3
38 8
49 5
58 2
48 7
69 2
98 9
48 0 60 6
91 1
P I
71 9
124 575
9
1246
177 3
88 8
108 3
121 8
789
104 8
148 2
70 1
101 0
124 0
85 9
1059
1438
736 1079
1450
Substrate and rametaFx
d16/d35 / d50/d84 /d92_
NA/l/9/30164
025 /2 8 / 8 / 23
/64
2 37/9 38/15 41142 51164
NA/2 95/8 79/26 52140 48
4 28/8 18/11 86137 95/56 08
71/5 08/9 38/38 88/56
08
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/t2
073
041
037
045 —
— 044
—
—
0 38
—
—
058
—
Stream Power ire s ort ca a W /m2
—
438
—
— 43 6
—
— 38 3
—
473 —
— 506
—
—
41 0
—
—
38 8
—
dddtonatRaaeh arainetere
"eT''
—
—
1 426
—
—
1425
—
Chan at length R
1 415
1 428
1 426
1 426
—
1 426
Dra n ge Area (SM)
3
3
3
3
—
—
3
—
—
3
—
—
3
—
Ros en Class ficat on
E
C/E
E
E
—
E
—
—
E
—
E
—
Bankfull D sche a cfs
200
200
203
203
—
—
203
—
—
203
—
—
203
—
S n osi
1 15
1 18
1 20
1 20
1 20
—
—
1 19
—
—
12
—
BF sb Wfl)
0 005
0 004
0 004
—
—
0 004
—
—
0 004
—
—
0 004
-
Chennel length represents total I near footage of chanrel redo, d Stream length surveyed as pan of long tudin p of ]as reflected m Table 1
Any disc span b tween As buifl date presented in this report in Tables 1 and 2 and the or g net report are based on corrections for calcutat ng median instead of mean in some locah ns

Cleghorn Creek Longitudinal Profile: Year 5
740
738
736
734
G 732
> 730
LV 728
726
724
722 '
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
TWG LTB RTB WSF
2600

Cleghorn Creek Longitudinal Profile: As -built to Year 5
730
728
726 – —�- --, ----
o f.
724 -- �I
a�
w
722
720
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600
Station (ft)
j As -Built ----,---Year 1 - Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Charles Creek Longitudinal
Profile: Year 5
738
p
736
734
732
-- - -- .... _._ -
- - -- - - - - -- -
C
O
cv
730
- --
>
&
LLl728
-- - - - - - - --------- .... .. .... ..
.... ...... ....... - - -- - - - - _
726
- -- - -- - -....
_ - - - - - - -- -- - -- - - --
724
- -
.. -.. --
722
0
200 400 600 800
1000 1200 1400 1600
Station (ft)
TWG LTB -° - RTB
-WSF

732
731
730
729
728
727
0
726
cwa
725
724
723
722
721
720
Charles Creek Longitudinal Profile: As-built to Year 5
- ---------
0 250 500 750 1000
Station (ft)
As-Built YR2 YR3
1250 1500
YR 4 _YR 5

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
97.3
1 35.12
2.77
4.71
1 12.67
0.7
3.5
734.07
732.46
Cross - Section X1 - Longitudinal Station 1 +08
742 - - --
740
$
--------------------------------------------- 738
---- - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - -
c 736
0
734 --------------------------
m 732
w
730
728
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Station (ft) - - - © - -- Bankfull - - -o- -- Floodprone
Photo 12: XS -1 facing right bank Photo 13: XS -1 facing left bank
Photo 14: XS -1 facing upstream
Photo 15: XS -1 facing downstream

Feature,
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
Be
115.7
34.22
3.38
5.5
10.12
1
3.6
734.58
734.58
Photo 16: XS -2 facing right bank
Photo 17: XS -2 facing left bank
Photo 18: XS -2 facing upstream Photo 19: XS -2 facing downstream
742
Cross - Section X2 - Longitudinal Station 2 +09
740
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
.-.
738
736
734
----------------------------
732
_>
ul
730
728
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Station (ft) © - -- Bankfull - - -© - -- Floodprone
Photo 16: XS -2 facing right bank
Photo 17: XS -2 facing left bank
Photo 18: XS -2 facing upstream Photo 19: XS -2 facing downstream

740
738
$ 736
0
}, 734
R
al 732
730
728
740
738
736
c
734
c�
w 732
730
728
100
Cleghorn Creek Cross - section 1, All Years
bankfull
As -Built
— Year 1
Year 2
Cross - section data for Year 2 was Year 3
misaligned. This was corrected in Year 4
Year 3. Year 5
120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Station (ft)
Cleghorn Creek Cross - section 2, All Years
bankfull
1 As -Built
- -Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
260
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Station (ft)

- :;Feature
d
Stream
Tvpe
BKF Area
BKF
Width
1
BKF
Depth
1
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
1
BH Ratio
1
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Be
1 120.4
40
3.01
5.58
13.29
0.9
4.1
733.32
732.74
Photo 20: XS -3 facing right bank
Photo 21: XS -3 facing left bank
Photo 22: XS -3 facing upstream
Photo 23: XS -3 facing downstream
Cross - Section X3 - Longitudinal Station 9 +19
740
738
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
736
734
732
d
730
W
728
726
100 120 140 160 180 200 2200 240 260 280
Station (ft) I -- a - -• gankfull --- 0--- Floodprone
Photo 20: XS -3 facing right bank
Photo 21: XS -3 facing left bank
Photo 22: XS -3 facing upstream
Photo 23: XS -3 facing downstream

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
BKF
De th
Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
1
ER
I
BKF Elev
I
Pool
E
143.8
-Width
1 48.49
2.97
6.71 I
16.35
0.8
3.4
732.6
Cross-Section X4 - Longitudinal Station 18+10
740
738
736
734
0 732
730
728
LU 726
724
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280
Station (ft) I - - -p - -- Bankfull - - -o- -- Floodprone
Photo 24: XS-4 facing right bank Photo 25: XS-4 facing left bank
Photo 26: XS-4 facing upstream Photo 27: XS-4 facing downstream

Cleghorn Creek Cross - section 3, All Years
740
738
-- —
736
bankfull
.�
As -Built
c
734
_.___ _. _ /`
Year 1
>
732
Year 2
m
W
730
Year 3
728
Year 4
Year 5
726
100
120
140 160 180 200 220 240
260 280
Station (ft)
Cleghorn Creek Cross - section X4, All Years
738
bankfull
736
734
732
— _
As -Built
o
730
Year 1
a
728
Year 2
W
726 -
1
—Year 3
724
Year 4
722
Year 5
720
100
120
140 160 180 200 220 240
260 280
Station (ft)

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
1
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
E
116.8 1
45.61
2.56
5.26
17.81
0.7
3
730.38
728.76
Cross - Section X5 - Longitudinal Station 22 +35
738
736 ---------------- - - - - -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
734
732
730 -----------------------------------
728
W 726
724
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Station (ft) -- © --- Bankfull - - -o- -- Floodprone
Photo 28: XS -5 facing right bank Photo 29: XS -5 facing left bank
Photo 30: XS -5 facing upstream Photo 31: XS -5 facing downstream

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
Be
139.8
1 71-.953.33
5.23
12.59
0.8
3.6
730.25
729.01
Cross-Section X6 - Longitudinal Station 24+76
738 -
736 -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0
734 -
732 -
=0 730 - -------------------------------
M
> 728 -
u' 726 -
724
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Station (ft) F--0 Bankfull -- -© - -- Floodprone
Photo 32: XS-6 facing right bank Photo 33: XS-6 facing left bank
Photo 34: XS-6 facing upstream Photo 35: XS-6 facing downstream

Cleghorn Creek Cross - section X5, All Years
740
--
738
736
__
-
-
ban full
.-.
.2
=
734
732
As -Built
I
a
730
Year 1
-
°'
Year 2
W
728
Year 3
I
Right bank floodplain was
726
graded during repair work to
Year 4
increase floodplain area.
724
-
-Year 5
722
100
120
140 160 180 200
220 240 260
Station (ft)
Cleghorn Creek Cross - section X6, All Years
736
- - - --
bankfull
734
$
732
As -Built
=
0
730
Year 1
728
Year 2
w
726
Year 3
Year 4
724
Year 5
722
100
120
140 160 180 200
220 240 260
Station (ft)

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
E
134.2
47
2.85
6.44 1
16.47
0.6
3.2
1 729.96
727.58
Cross - Section X7 - Longitudinal Station 27 +77
738
736 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - --o
734
$ 732
c730 ------------------------------------
728
to 726
724
722
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Station (ft) © - -- Bankfull - - -© -- Floodprone
Photo 36: XS -7 facing right bank Photo 37: XS -7 facing left bank
Photo 38: XS -7 facing upstream Photo 39: XS -7 facing downstream

Feature
Stream
Type
1
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth_
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
1
TOB Elev
Riffle
F
222.1
1 43.25
5.13
6.9
8.42
1
3.5
729.86
729.86
Cross - Section X8 - Longitudinal Station 3106.5
738
736
734
732
c730 --------------------------------
728
_d 726
W 724
722
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Station (ft) F - -© - -- Bankfull - - -© - -- Floodprone
Photo 40: XS -8 facing right bank Photo 41: XS -8 facing left bank
Photo 42: XS -8 facing upstream Photo 43: XS -8 facing downstream

Cleghorn Creek Cross - section 7, All Years
736
734
-- - _ bankfull
732
730
+ '-- As -Built
°
728
Year 1
m
726
Year 2
_ID
W 724
Year 3
Year 4
722
Year 5
720
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Station (ft)
Cleghorn Creek Cross - section 8, All Years
736
734
bankfull
... 732
�..
$ 730
____ _.______- .. -_ -- _ -. -- _ As -Built
g 728 Year 1
726
Year 2
4)
w 724
Year 3
Year 4
722
Year 5
720
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Station (ft)

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
De th
Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
I E
1 26.8
15.02
1.78
3.51
8.24
1 1.4
1 4.7 1
728.35
729.81
Cross - Section X9 - Longitudinal Station 11 +89
736
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ----------- ------ ---4
_ 734
732
730 ----------------------------------
m 728
w
726
724
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Station (ft) © - -• Bankfull --- a--- Floodprone
Photo 1: XS -1 facing right bank
Photo 2: XS -1 facing left bank
Photo 3: XS -1 facing upstream
Photo 4: XS -1 facing downstream

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
C
61.8
1 45.78
1.35
4.91
1 33.88
0.6
1.5
1 729.62
727.59
733
Cross - Section X10 - Longitudinal Station 11 +27
732
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
731
730
0 729
R 728
m 727
w 726
725
724
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Station (ft)
© - -- Bankfull - - -e - -- Floodprone
Photo 5: XS -2 facing right bank Photo 6: XS -2 facing left bank
Photo 7: XS -2 facing upstream Photo : facing downstream

Charles Creek Cross - section 9, All Years
734
733
732
731
bankfull
730
As -Built
0
729
Year 1
> 728
Year 2
w
w 727
Year 3
726
Year 4
725
-- -Year 5
724
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Station (ft)
Charles Creek Cross - section 10, All Years
734
--
732
bankfull
$ 730
- -
As -Built
i
0 728
Year 1
ca
>
Year 2
m
U 726
Year 3
724
Year 4
—Year 5
722
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Station (ft)

Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E
30.4
1 17.46
1.74
2.84
1 10.02
l
4
732.09
732.09
Cross - Section X11 - Longitudinal Station 3 +33
736
735 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -o
734
733
732 --------------- - - - - -- -
731
w 730
729
728
100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Station (ft) © - -- Bankfull - - -© - -- Floodprone
Photo 9: XS -3 tacmg nght bank
Photo 10: XS -3 facing left bank
Photo 11: XS -3 facing upstream
Photo 12: XS -3 facing downstream

Charles Creek Cross - section 11, All Years
734
733
bankfull
732
As -Built
0
- -- Year 1
731
Year2
°'
730
Year 3
w
729
Year 4
Year 5
728
100
110 120 130 140 150 160
170 180
Station (ft)

Cross - Section Photo Log Comparison: Monitoring Years 1, 3 and 5
Photo Point 1: XS 1 Year 1 Photo Point 2: XS 1 Year 3 Photo Point 3: XS 1 Year 5
Photo Point 4: XS2 Year 1 Photo Point 5: XS2 Year 3 Photo Point 6: XS2 Year 5

Photo Point 7: XS3 Year 1(above XS, from left bank) Photo Point 8: XS3 Year 3 Photo Point 9: XS3 Year 5
Photo Point 10: XS4 Year 1 Photo Point 11: XS4 Year 3 Photo Point 12: XS4 Year 3

Photo Point 13: XS5 Year 1 Photo Point 14: XS5 Year 3 Photo Point 15: XS5 Year 5
Photo Point 16: XS6 Year 1 Photo Point 17: XS6 Year 3 Photo Point 18: XS6 Year 5

Photo Point 19: XS7 Yearl Photo Point 20: XS7 Year 3 Photo Point 21: XS7 Year 5
Photo Point 22: XS8 Year 1 Photo Point 23. XS8 Year 3 Photo Point 24: XS8 Year 5

Photo Point 25: XS9 Year 1 Photo Point 26: XS9 Year 3 Photo Point 27: XS9 Year 5
Photo Point 28: XS 10 Year 1 Photo Point 29: XS 10 Year 3 Photo Point 30: XS 10 Year 5

Photo Point 31: XS 11 Year 1 Photo Point 32: XS I 1 Year 3 Photo Point 33: XS 11 Year 5

100%
90%
®Year 1
Year 2
80%
Year 3
M =Year 4
70%
■Year 5
60%
c
a�
L
IL 50%
cn
y
m
U 40%
30%
20%
10%
Cleghorn Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
o `O 000 o,�ti`' yti �'� �`� �` oo �,yo goo ���o
0
Particle Size Class (mm)

100%
90%
■Year 1
Year 2
80%
Year 3
■ Year 4
70%
■Year 5
60%
c
d
IL 50%
N
VJ
m
U 40%
30%
20%
10%
Charles Creek
Riffle Pebble Count Size Class Distribution
o o,�ti oy o�A ►.° ti° ti® a° h�' 0° NNI ° �' �ti �' dA ►,tip ►,� ti 's' h'`�' a ,
Particle Size Class (mm)

u
r�
u
0
�7
0
a
APPENDIX C. Year 5 Project Photo Log
0
a
0
G
0
0
i
i
J

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u

Cleghorn Creek Restoration
Photo Log - Reference Photo Points
Notes: Photos for Cleghom Creek were taken October 16`h 2010.
1. Photo point locations are shown on the plan views in the actual location the picture was taken.
2. All points are marked with a wooden stake and flagging tape. For channel points, the stake is set up on the
most accessible
3. One or more notable storm events has occurred since the previous monitoring efforts were conducted.
Debris piles, pressed herbaceous cover and aggradation on the floodplain were observed throughout the
project site.
Photo Point 1: looking downstream
Photo Point 2: looking downstream
Photo Point 3: looking downstream
Photo Point 4: looking downstream

Photo Point 5: looking downstream
Photo Point 6: looking downstream
Photo Point 7: looking upstream
Photo Point 8: looking downstream
Photo Point 9: looking downstream
Photo Point 10: looking downstream

Photo Point 11: looking downstream
Photo Point 12: looking downstream
Photo Point 13: looking downstream
Photo Point 14: looking downstream
Photo Point 15: looking downstream
Photo Point 16: looking downstream

Photo Point 17: looking downstream
Photo Point 18: looking downstream
Photo Point 19: looking downstream
Photo Point 20: looking downstream
Photo Point 21: looking downstream
Photo Point 22: looking downstream

Photo Point 23: looking downstream

Charles Creek Restoration
Photo Log - Reference Photo Points
Notes: Photos for Charles Creek were taken on October 16`h 2010.
1. Photo point locations are shown on the plan views in the actual location the picture was taken.
2. All points are marked with a wooden stake and flagging tape. For channel points, the stake is set up on the
most accessible
3. One or more notable storm events has occurred since the previous monitoring efforts were conducted.
Debris piles, pressed herbaceous cover and aggradation on the floodplain were observed throughout the
project site.
Charles Creek Photo Point 1: looking upstream
Charles Creek Photo Point 2: looking downstream
Charles Creek Photo Point 3: looking downstream
Charles Creek Photo Point 4: looking downstream

Charles Creek Photo Point 5: looking downstream
Charles Creek Photo Point 6: looking downstream
Charles Creek Photo Point 7: looking downstream
Charles Creek Photo Point 8: looking downstream
Charles Creek Photo Point 9: looking downstream
Charles Creek Photo Point 10: looking downstream

It
WIN
N
Film"
4 it

Reference Station Photo Log Comparison: Monitoring Years 1, 3 and 5
Note: Photo Points 2, 6, 11, 17, 18 and 20 are located on Cleghorn Creek. Photo Points 1, 2, 9 and 15 are on Charles Creek.
Photo Point 1: Photo Point #2 Year 1 Photo Point 2: Photo Point #2 Year 3 Photo Point 3: Photo Point #2 Year 5
Photo Point 4: Photo Point #6 Year 1 Photo Point 5: Photo Point #6 Year 3 Photo Point 6: Photo Point #6 Year 5

Photo Point 7: Photo Point #11 Year 1 Photo Point 8: Photo Point #11 Year 3 Photo Point 9: Photo Point #11 Year 5
Photo Point 10: Photo Point #17 Year 1 Photo Point 11: Photo Point #17 Year 3 Photo Point 12: Photo Point #17 Year 3

Photo Point 13: Photo Point #18 Year 1 Photo Point 14: Photo Point #18 Year 3 Photo Point 15: Photo Point #18 Year 5
Photo Point 16: Photo Point #20 Year 1 Photo Point 17: Photo Point #20 Year 3 Photo Point 18: Photo Point #20 Year 5

Photo Point 19: Photo Point #1 Yearl Photo Point 20: Photo Point #1 Year 3 Photo Point 21: Photo Point #1 Year 5
Photo Point 22: Photo Point #2 Year 1 Photo Point 23: Photo Point #2 Year 3 Photo Point 24: Photo Point #2 Year 5

Photo Point 25: Photo Point #9 Year 1 Photo Point 26: Photo Point #9 Year 3 Photo Point 27: Photo Point #9 Year 5
Photo Point 28: Photo Point #15 Year 1 Photo Point 29: Photo Point #15 Year 3 Photo Point 30: Photo Point #15 Year 5

r
AW
0 llwvj-
-,E 4
An
lnl
i
a
`.� o
�.►,�- �-�-+� .mss , '. / R '8� V: � ~I, , ` � '`,����= �'
. �• i '� 1� 1. �'� ����!"�'►�. �.� � i

,.• ,� �
:; rift "
/� r
i a
�'.
��<
ate:

sir •p,� � � � ` �
1, ;'�. 1• if ; i �- �r.-,�r i 11th i�. �� ~4.� �F.� �' +' •,S•
�- 09/36/2010
is
/"8-0/20,10
r
sir •p,� � � � ` �
1, ;'�. 1• if ; i �- �r.-,�r i 11th i�. �� ~4.� �F.� �' +' •,S•
�- 09/36/2010

Problem Areas and Miscellaneous Photos
Notes: Photos taken September and October 2010.
Bank erosion at Sta. 117 +00 caused by growth of a
mid - channel bar near the left bank.
Mid - channel bar causing erosion on right bank at Sta.
117 +00.
Approximately 15 -feet of scour along right bank at
Sta. 121 +50.
Worn animal path at Sta. 121+50 (same area located on
left side of previous photo.

Sta. 131 +50 where rope for crossing will be re-
installed. Beaver dam was also scheduled for removal
once survey crews were out of the area.
Loss of vegetation to beaver impacts has been
minimized by periodic site visits to assess the area for
beaver activity. Beavers will likely continue to be
present at the site, particularly in light of the proximity
of the site to the confluence of Cleghorn Creek with the
Broad River.