The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20030341 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20110922-; -: ~2.- .,fir, •. :!a; ... _r.:i:: +y' �sd:.:. ' Yti xt',. a�'` '•rr -v• :'i�eSy- Z f;•.". fir. �r: -3:y: �'.; rim :�',f ��. • :`t:• \�j• :�'].��j:;'.,�r.;,�t'_ =�,; _� °'��:= ,g'a'r( �.��`��.,�'. •:^1 -.a. },• ..' -�: ;" .,� ^•::,r ..`.:�; �. a =: ;.- 1;�••' '•.9Ui: _ \ ..w ' Ix In lb- alt - �'.:_.- �;�:;.:s �.. •' -,y �1:` .ate r 1 STILLHOUSE CREEK STREAM RESTORATION — PROJECT #363 2011 FINAL MONITORING REPORT — YEAR 5 CONDUCTED FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/PROJECT ABSTRACT i 1 II METHODOLOGY ; 2 2 1 STREAM METHODOLOGY 2 2 2 VEGETATION METHODOLOGY ' 2 III REFERENCES 3 APPENDICES Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables Figure 1 0 Project Vicinity Map and Directions Table 1 0 -1 1 Project Restoration Components Table 2 0 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 0 Project Contacts Table Table 4 0 Project Attribute Table Appendix B Figure 2 0 Table 5 0 Table 6 0 e -Table e- Photos e -Table e- Photos Figures 3 0 -3 4 Figures 4 0 -4 1 Appendix C Table 7 0 Table 8 0 Table 9 0 Report e- Tables Visual Assessment Data Current Conditions Plan View Visual Morphological Stability Assessment Vegetation Condition Assessment Table i Stream Problem Areas Inventory Table Stream Problem Area Photos Vegetation Problem Areas Inventory Table Vegetation Problem Area Photos Stream Station Photos Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos Vegetation Plot Data Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary a Table Vegetation Metadata Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species 2011 Supplemental Planting Report Raw CVS vegetation data sheets RECEIVED Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #363 RJG &A SEP 2 2 2011 NC ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM 2011 Monitoring Report Year 5 of 5 Page I Appendix D Stream Survey Data Figures 5 0 -5 4 Cross sections with Annual Overlays e- Tables Raw cross - section survey data spreadsheets Figures 6 0 -6 2 Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays e- Tables Raw longitudinal profile survey data spreadsheets Figures 7 0 -7 4 Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays e- Tables Raw pebble count data spreadsheets Tables 10 0 -10 1 Baseline Stream Data Summary Table Table 11 0 Monitoring— Cross - Section Morphology Data Table Table 11 1-114 Monitoring— Stream Reach Morphology Data Table Appendix E Hydrologic Data Table 12 0 Verification of Bankfull Events titi 1 Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration 2011 Monitoring Report EEP Project #363 Year 5 of 5 RJG &A Page 11 r� I Executive Summary/Project Abstract As outlined in the 2005 Restoration Plan, the Stillhouse Creek Restoration Project was designed to achieve the following goals and objectives • Reduce stream bank erosion and prevent downcutting by restoring degraded, incised stream to stable, referenced condition • Prevent stream erosion from continuing to threaten existing building foundation located near the head of the stream by implementing natural stream design restoration • Improve retention of nutrients by restoring woody vegetation to riparian buffer • Increase environmental education opportunities within a park setting • Improve wildlife habitat within the conservation easement area and in- stream • Enhance habitat for wetland dependent plants and animals by use of shallow wetland habitat areas in the floodplain • Improve water quality by providing temporary stormwater storage in shallow wetland habitat areas in the floodplain • Improve aesthetics of stream corridor In July 2011 RJG &A staff evaluated the planted woody stem survival in four permanent O vegetation plots using the CVS -EEP monitoring protocol, level 2 Planted woody stem survival and vigor are high Planted stem density lags behind in plot 2 in Reach 2, but vigor is excellent The average live planted woody stem density was 343 live stems per acre, exceeding the Year 5 vegetation success criteria of 260 stems /acre Total (planted and volunteer) stem density was 1,234 live stems per acre Supplemental planting for areas with low woody stem densities was done in March 2011 Details about this planting can be found in Appendix C Treatment and removal of targeted invasive exotic plants within the project area was conducted in 2010 and early 2011 No individuals of Ailanthus altissima (tree of heaven) were noted during the July 2011 fieldwork, but we identified several small Ligustrum sinense (Chinese privet) Invasive treatment and removal will continue through October 2011 and address any isolated Ligustrum sinense or other invasives remaining in the buffer RJG &A staff collected cross - section, longitudinal, and pebble data in July 2011 Overall, the site is maintaining its as -built dimension, pattern, and profile Evaluation of the crest gauge on 17 March 2011 and 19 July 2011 indicate that several bankfull events have occurred in 2011 This was supported by on -site qualitative evidence Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or encroachment and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices Narrative background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring Report (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly the Restoration Plan) documents available on EEP's website All raw data O supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available from EEP upon request Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration 2011 Monitoring Report EEP Protect #363 Year 5 of 5 RJG &A Page 1 II Methodology Monitoring methodologies follow the current EEP- provided templates and guidelines (Lee et al 2006) Photographs were taken digitally A Trimble Geo XT handheld mapping -grade unit was used to locate cross section, vegetation corner, photopoint, locations and collect problem area locations Additional notations were written on the Current Condition Plan View maps created in March 2011 2 1 Stream Methodology Methods employed were a combination those specified in the Mitigation Plan, the First Annual Monitoring Report, and standard regulatory guidance and procedures documents Stream monitoring data was collected using the techniques described in USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines, US Forest Service's Stream Channel Reference Sites, and Applied River Morphology ( USACE, 2003, Harrelson et al , 1994, Rosgen, 1996) A South Total Station was used to collect the longitudinal profile data The location of bedform features, in- stream structures, bankfull, top of bank, water depth, and permanent benchmarks were collected Data were analyzed using RIVERMorph and Microsoft Excel Stations were assigned based on a stream centerline created from the as -built survey data Cross - section data was collected using a Nikon automatic level and analyzed using RIVERMorph Elevations for the longitudinal profile and cross sections were derived from known permanent benchmarks Photographs facing downstream were taken at each cross section 2 2 Vegetation Methodology Four representative vegetation survey plots were selected and installed in reaches 1, 2, 3 and 4 during October 2007, pursuant to the EEP /CVS vegetation monitoring protocol (Lee et al 2006) All plots measure 100 square meters and are either 10 meters by 10 meters, or five meters by 20 meters The four corners of each plot (either 10x100 or 5x20 feet) were marked with 18 -inch long, one - half -inch diameter galvanized steel conduit For monitoring year 5, Level 1 (planted woody stems) and Level 2 (volunteer woody stems) data collection was performed in July 2011 Within each plot, each planted woody stem location (x and y) was recorded, and height and live stem diameter were recorded for each stem location All planted stems were identified with pink flagging Vegetation was identified using Weakley (Weakley 2007) Photos were taken of each vegetation plot from the 0,0 corner Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration 2011 Monitoring Report EEP Project #363 Year 5 of 5 RJG &A Page 2 r> III References CDM (2005) Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration Project Sediment and Erosion Control Plan Provided by NCEEP, November 2007 Harrelson, Cheryl, C L Rawlins, and John Potpondy (1994) Stream Channel Reference Sites An Illustrated Guide to Field Technique USDA, Forest Service General Technical Report RM -245 Lee, Michael T, Peet, Robert K, Roberts, Steven D, Wentworth, Thomas R (2006) CVS -EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4 0 Retrieved October 30, 2006, from http //www nceep net / business /monitoring/veg/datasheets htm NC CRONOS (2010) North Carolina Climate Retrieval and Observations Network of the Southeast Database, Station NC -OR-6, Orange County, NC Retrieved August 25, 2010 from http //www ncclimate ncsu edu /cronos Radford, A E , H E Ahles, and C R Bell (1968) Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas University of North Carolina Press Chapel Hill, NC Rosgen, D L (1996) Applied River Morphology Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO Rosgen, DL (1997) "A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers In Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision, ed S S Y Wang, E J Langendoen and F B Shields, Jr University of Mississippi Press, Oxford, MS USACOE (2003) Stream Mitigation Guidelines USACOE, USEPA, NCWRC, NCDENR -DWQ Weakley, Alan (2007) Flora of the Carolinas Virginia Georgia and Surrounding Areas Retrieved March 27 2007 from http //www herbarium unc edu /flora htm Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #363 RJG &A 2011 Monitoring Report Year 5 of 5 Page 3 Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables Figure 10 Project Vicinity Map and Directions Figure 1 1 Aerial of Restoration Site and Downtown Hillsborough, NC Table 1 0 -1 1 Project Restoration Components Table 2 0 Project Activity and Reporting History Table 3 0 Project Contacts Table Table 4 0 Project Attribute Table Take I -85 to the Town of Hillsborough. Take exit 164 and head north on l f X. = t �', I South Churton Street for 1.3 miles. Turn east on East Margaret Lane J -% and then right on South Cameron Street. Parking is available in a government r• lot on the left/west side of South Cameron. 4. • r � ^�.r aA: � i . , tea..' '' `y �'.•:f'.^ - 0 1i:'1 j �� c -' !'ti ic` .rsCF��`�a .t +ra,J�• 1 L fi.. + �x� 86 ' « r �S �l �:�. r�1 {( ��r ' ' L` •� �1,: ' �� '� I :':' /J �, /i l:. w L' t j`: pr • -M•sr� I • 'j t, �rJj "�.4•= �+(.D, :{ _ ,,. .�. �,t, , 11J11 1�jr �� f l iJr 4 4$Qj•' T� }y�.,/•% . i lt+ .�q 1�` -- { \J �.It •.�wJ fit ` )'Y�( f1�' he V _ T�j�� f �': •''J,�i -� I+ -� •'Lr •:. • }. �.+�''�.`. � ^; ,` w y� � .,{ i'1,•' -�l'. f -`' `' \\ `� --�� .lr" /1 .1 S.nl • 4 Srb„' "�• n_ ,'I.,.,p+r�� '�"' ► •_ �..,-.� i �•c tih^',4 r•+ ,....r'\`�/ } ; / �,'Ati r %�' �l? i .. • : .1 „ryt. i 'i s •. �.. /� -11 %r Y «11 T .T �' Ir\. ' : ✓` - '. i � -n'!✓ i' i% ./I /r+ f. � ti` I �: r y �' sa� /, _ - 1 � ' f to r�` r,�"' , • � w: ` ' 1. • S 't-- -: •-, '"1`" . t,k F_ F11! , ' /( J r t'rjj 1 /r * .,. �. : ' r' =, '�' •.Cfi -i, , � .'` /r ��. .�� ,'• .M , ^'� j•` .►;. -', M �'-' � • lu i % \�`` \� � � ��. I•�.f 'i '`"'t.> V �, • •t ! r/ , i I� ) I'� ,-t— 1 J •� r l• . r t�rfj rr �� ,. J1 'i� '.�y 1 4 � , •' �_ •�k k� r �! � 1 � • - : ie�iti'• .I• �� I � \ a �' ' ,�' y - , „• � .. �l�Jas -�, � ' � � ' 1 nom, J , ?'� Y ��1 ' � •i ��'' � �,,li, r� ?t �'� ��i F ''ode -e', � S�t',' ri'�'t' �.: • ; ' �'�� ` �-� .J�. '/S{ 'i �, ,�' j, ti 4, { �� ' h �, '. � � } -- ...gyp'• ` r ��r �,� �,T �•�, Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration Site VL .:� �\ i�` • � �Kt,• � i� ~ . ' _ - G-1 j 1�:1:fi�' I�~ � z ��iF!r'k � '' �� } �,11 � • ) �. • t. �^' ' S r ti -~ y. . `_ ` te..�r �. L -L+1, �'` _. ~•�_ - �!' it . T ' \` 1 _j l • �• ` _- f�'i , 7'�* r' . �; 11� ^: - . , <• -- -{•':' -=�^'r .al 1. �{ � c� -'•�4 - -, "", -.R,� - . �. i.' � _ r +_�•.•.S•.'' •,, �.a U:.,l )� 't �� kt �' Y. 'y rr. %�� yt � / is f+., �, jSf � 1 /r�ti`. _ wi,i` •i ^J1j, �.y�`,ttr a r % /J-y .. I , ll� �- 4r i1} w•� - - -� 1 _ "I �•` . ! p.. t r f +. • s Jr `iiJ �`� ice_ -% Jt llt,(C� y "vr IIti y r- tl I.. ' r - .r ', `•J`yr a f.r� •�ti 86 /r � ��;1 � ,',1if'I�I� ;� ,l\ - -t'�� llr � 1� "\. ..._ r ( �y . �� \,ra•� �� _ ,�_1 K .li I I � ri � `t,�� _ r ^�,. j ,� �'—,�- .'. .�'� •,; ' �r ' ;�, � �. � \� 1�- � /ir !' (j;3,� ��1t � fit: � � � ,` 65��. �... c. b/'' 7 • -+../; '` ..:� rrr_ i L•'� -� 1' J .' i� - I �;, i��;.;� {f s i�• `.. ,. , , , ' { ,,., ��`�, %� ., ` !V4 �,ti •" ' � .� { :- � �_ - .i .r', -,'I� �• -" � �. y`! �t�T�l., f Ih '•�( ��S '�:. .� .._�.. �" - ' i' ir' - :t �: • hl I I'� >; `/' i t _ , -i ��\ 1- t��' I• ? •`:o �5` itf�� F �.', b ��>fEfi•i. /,. , , � � �.� I #Gf k. Ri rµ . �'' /r�E!�'�t{ ! t' �\' �yy""� "- "`�yt�:,` �•� • r�i ��• i''i� II fIr,, ;e icy �' (''Yf� -.. r -- - �ti�1` -� i'- •- fz�-.l � •.t-�" - �I� �, j `�._`W NQ.�U..b F y �•� i .^ /f a�.��"�:��• -�' -� � �. r i J � p '' _� �• 1 �..'�., +rv.= � y`_- J,'�- f � / ��-�i � 1 �r•� I 1 �`�s "y'��y i i'4_. .'�`S_ I {.'�': t 1 ..f V, _'tj( 1.e !/� ti .�'- 'I�''rb/L_ •�'.tf� �1'ti, �� _ •�'�: - : -� .- %�-•� ��` �- �"_��'.. � / ...•.t )71. � .��J ' ...,`t • �7 Y�f i '' ��• \��ti rte. \\ p'- -�\_ IL4} 1•Ir. T, l :ti•..+r X` ,. r �`iYr. � �,.1 1 1..-`rr' -' f_r �`.rf t�'M. ,'.t ; \,._: .f� I (r J 1`'• `` \N l ,r j ', \i .• l t' ��,�r ti ` - fr t j �� l .n, •r.iti > > i LK r _ i,:^ `�`• �� I t�.r• ;. %- �1�h,i Figure 1.0. Stillhouse Creek Stream j 86 , • f Restoration - Orange County, NC Proje sick + frt �L�ICitelll ;�.. LAMANCE, Feet y� source: NCDOT Data Distribution - Orangesid 'DURHAM it a melli .� www. ncdot .org /ittgis /DataDistribution t�RANG ; ' '•° " 0 1,000 2,000 .s*y"r- '..-.. ri' --✓ �' ;( ri=�/ �'.r: '/ r V.,.'_-,�� -n . :( O O O Table 1 0 Project Components 1 = BR = Bioretention Cell SF = Sand Filter SW = Stormwater Wetland WDP = Wet Detention Pond DDP = Dry Detention Pond FS = Filter Strip Grassed Swale = S LS = Level Spreader NI = Natural Infiltration Area O = Other CF = Cattle Fencing WS = Watering System CH = Livestock Housing 0 Table 1 1 Component Summations suunouse creeK stream restoration - ttv rro ect ;F.sbs Non Restoration Stream Riparian Ripar Upland Buffer Level M Wetland Ac (Ac) (Ac) (Ac) BMP -a - I* �-� 4 - Non Rivenne Rivenne . Restoration 978 NIMWOPW *,WAN= OW mULO 112 Enhancement x� Enhancement 1 196 Enhancement 11 Creation m_ Preservation - HQ Preservation a w = Totals Feet/Acres 1174 0 0 0 112 0 MU Totals 1109 0 0 0 1 12 0 Non Applicable Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration — EEP Project #363 Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete 4 yrs 4 months Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete 4 yrs 4 Months Number of Reporting Years' 4 Activity or Deliverable Data Collection Complete Completion or Delivery Restoration Plan Nov 05 Final Design — 90% Nov 05 Construction Mar 06 Temporary S &E mix applied NA Permanent seed mix applied NA Bare Root Planting Mar 06 Mitigation Plan /As built Aug 06 Dec 07 Year 1 Monitoring Dec 07 Qualitative Evaluation June and November 2007 Vegetation Oct -07 Geomor holo is Nov 07 Year 2 Monitoring Nov -08 Qualitative Evaluation May and October 2008 Vegetation Aug 08 Geomor holo is Aug 08 Year 3 Monitoring Aug 09 Qualitative Evaluation March and August 2009 Vegetation Aug 09 Geomor holo is Aug 09 Year 4 Monitoring Aug 10 Qualitative Evaluation March and July 2010 Vegetation Jul 10 Geomor holo is Jul -10 Year 5 Monitoring Aug 10 Qualitative Evaluation March and July 2011 Jul -11 Vegetation Jul -11 Geomorphologic Jul -11 Bolded items are examples of those items that are not standard but may come up and should be included Non bolded items represent events that are standard components over the course of a typical project part of this exhibit If planting and morphology are on split monitoring schedules that should be made clear in the table 1 = Equals the number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline Table 3 Project Contacts Table Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration — EEP Project #363 Designer Primary project design POC NRCS Angela Greene Construction Contractor Construction contractor POC Fluvial Solutions Peter Jelenevsky Survey Contractor Survey contractor POC NA NA Planting Contractor Planting contractor POC Fluvial Solutions Peter Jelenevsky Seeding Contractor Contractor point of contact NA NA Seed Mix Sources NA Nursery Stock Suppliers Mellow Marsh Monitoring Performers Robert J Goldstein & Associates 1221 Corp oration Parkway Raleigh NC 27610 Stream Monitoring POC Sean Doig (919) 872 -1174 Vegetation Monitoring POC Sean Doi 919 872 -1174 INA Wetland Monitoring POC e Table 4 Project Attribute Table Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration — EEP Project #363 Project County Orange ysiograp is egion Piedmont coregion Carolina Slate Belt Project River Basin Neuse USGS HUG or Project (14 digit) 3020201030020 NGDWQ Sub asin or rojec 03 04 01 Within extent of a ers a d Plan7 No WRC Hab Class arm Cool Cold) Warm % of project easement fenced or demarcated 25% Beaver activity observed during design phases NA Restoration Component Attribute Table Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Drainage area 0 19 020 021 022 Stream order First Restored length (feet) 235 400 220 355 Perennial or Intermittent Perennial Watershed type (Rural Urban Developing etc) Urban Urban Urban Urban Watershed LULC Distribution (e g ) Residential Ag Row Crop Ag Livestock Forested Etc Watershed impervious cover ( %) NCDWQ AU /Index number 27 2 (7) 27 2 (7) 27 2 (7) 27 2 (7) NCDWQ classification C NSW C NSW C NSW C NSW 303d listed9 No No No No Upstream of a 303d listed segment9 No No No No Reasons for 303d listing or stressor NA NA NA NA Total acreage of easement 2 09 acres Total vegetated acreage within the easement Total planted acreage as part of the restoration Rosgen classification of pre existing E4 E4 E4 G4c /1 Rosgen classification of As built E4 E4 E4 134 /1 Valley type Valley slope 0 012 0 012 0 012 00185 Valley side slope range (e g 2 3 %) Valley toe slope range (e g 2 3 %) Cowardm classification NA NA NA NA Trout waters designation No No No No Species of concern endangered etc? (Y/N) No No No No Table 4 Project Attribute Table Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration — EEP Project #363 Reach I Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Dominant soil series and characteristics Series Georgeville Georgeville Georgeville Congaree Depth 65 65 65 63 Clay% 5 40 5 40 5 40 5 25 K 043 043 043 028 T 3 3 3 5 (J Appendix B Visual Assessment Data Figure 2 0 Current Conditions Plan View Table 5 0 Visual Morphological Stability Assessment Table 6 0 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table e -Table Stream Problem Areas Inventory Table e -Table Vegetation Problem Areas Inventory Table Figure 3 0 -3 4 Stream Station Photos e- Photos Stream Problem Area Photos Figures 4 0 -4 1 Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos e- Photos Vegetation Problem Area Photos StillhouseCre Jam Restoration - EEP Project #363 J Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Reach ID Reach 1 Assessed Length 223 Major Channel category 1 Bed 3 hiarik 3 f' s 3 Engineered 1 Overall Integrity 1 Vertical Stability 1 Aggradatron Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect (Riffle and Run units) flow laterally (not to include point bars) 2 Degradation Evidence of downcutting Performing as 2 Riffle Condrbon 1 Texture/Substrate Riffle maintains coarser substrate 3 Meander Pool Condition 1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1 6) - Intended 2 Length appropriate ( 30 / of centerline distance between tail of Se ments upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle) 4 Thatweg Position 1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run) 2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide) 0 1000/ 1 Scoured/Eroding Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or scour and erosion 0 Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears 2 Undercut likely Does NOT include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable and are providing habitat 3 Mass Wasting Bank slumping calving or collapse 6 f physicalty intact with no dislodged boulders or logs 2 Grade Control JGrade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 2a Piping Strictures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms 3 Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15 /. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) 4 Habitat Pool forma g structures maintaining -Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth ratio > 16 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base flow Number Stable 7 Number of Amount of /Stable Performing as Total Number Unstable Unstable Performing as Intended in As built Se ments Foote a Intended 33 0 0 1000/ 100°/ gk �r 3 0 0 100°/ 7 7 6 6 j illy 100% 7 7 100°/ 7 7 100% 7 7 100/0 7 7 10jj0% 0 0 100°/ t' 3I 1 0 0 100% �1 0 0 100% NMI 33 Totes 0 0 100% 7 7 100% oft 3 Aft 7 7 100% g f �s 3 j31 � 100% 7 7 7 7 100°/ 7 7 100% �w Stdlhouse Creek Stream Restoration — EEP Project #363 Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Reach ID Reach 2 Assessed Length 400 Stillhouse Cre' Restoration — EEP Project #363 O O —dam Table 6 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment Reach ID Reach 3 Assessed Length 196 Grade Control JGrade control structures exhibiting mantenance of grade across the sill Piping Structures lacking arty substantial flow underneath sills or arms Bank Protection Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed 15,6 (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document) Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth Mean Banktull Depth ratio > 1 6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base flow Stdlhouse Creek Stream Restorabon — EEP Project #363 Table 5 Visual Stream MorpholoaV StabditV Assessment Reach ID Reach 4 Assessed Length 366 Still�\Creek Stream Restoration — EEP Project #363 O Tab /j Vegetation Condition Assessment Planted Acreage' 21 Ve etatlon Cate o Definitions Mapping Threshold CCPV Depiction Number of Pol ons Combined Acrea a / of Planted Acreage 1 Bare Areas Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material 0 1 acres NA 0 000 00/ 2 Low Stem Density Areas Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3 4 or 5 stem count criteria 0 01 acres Pink 0 000 00/ i � alt d Y / 31 6 t j3 dt Total }'d 3 P 31 7 9 3 3 � 7 c 3I 0 / 1 0` i4010` 3 [00% 3 3 Areas of Poor Growth Rates or Vigor Areas with woody stems of a size class that are obviously small given the monitoring year 0 25 acres NA 0 000 00/ 1119 61 � { 'yjf r4��tt� m�fatp�vV� � ffTbiat @ O i 11111 070, 0 / t/ Easement Acreage 21 Ve etatlon Cateaory Definitions Mapping Threshold CCPV ctlon Number of Polygons Combined a / of Easement Acreage 4 Invasive Areas of Concern Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale) 1000 SF NA 0 000 00/ rf W, W% Dd ins { OVINFAMM, P9I 011 s E "" 4 Ir 19 15 Easement Encroachment Areas' Areas or points (d too small to render as polygons at map scale) NA NA 0 000 00/ 1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory the channel acreage crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort 2 = The acreage whin the easement boundaries 3 = Encroachment may occur whin or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage In the event a polygon is cataloged into dams 1 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant dem (i a item 1 2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in dem 5 4 = Invasrves may occur in or out of planted areas but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage Invasrves of concern/interest are listed below The list of high concern spcies are those with the potential to directly outcompete native young woody stems in the short term (e g monitoring period or shortly thereafter) or affect the community structure for existing more established tree /shrub stands over timeframes that are slightly longer (e g 1 2 decades) The low /moderate concern group are those species that generally do not have this capacity over the timeframes discussed and therefore are not expected to be mapped with regulardy but can be mapped if in the judgement of the observer their coverage density or distribution is suppressing the viability density or growth of planted woody stems Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are based on the integration of risk factors by EEP such as species present their coverage distribution relative to native biomass and the practicality of treatment For example even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed early in the projects history will warrant control but potentially large coverages of Mrcrostegwm in the herb layer will not likley trigger control because of the limited capacities to impact tree /shrub layers within the timeframes discussed and the potential impacts of treating extensive amounts of ground cover Those species with the watch list designator in gray shade are of interest as well but have yet to be observed across the state with any frequency Those in red italics are of particular interest given their extreme nsktthreat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history However areas of discreet dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons The symbology scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing mvasrves polygons particulalry for situations where the conddon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense discreet patches In any case the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset in legend items if the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary Stream Problem Areas (electronic submission only) Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #363 Feature Issue I Station Numbers I Suspected Cause Photo # Reach 1 No stream problems identified Reach 2 No stream problems identified Reach 3 No stream problems identified Reach 4 No stream problems identified i 1 Stream Problem Areas (electronic submission only) UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402 Feature Category Station Numbers Probable Cause Photo # Reach 1 No vegetation problems identified Reach 2 No vegetation problems identified Reach 3 No vegetation problems identified Reach 4 No vegetation problems identified Figure 3.0. Permanent Photopoint Photographs - Year 5 - 2011 - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #363) PP #2 (Sta. 2 +30 — Looking Downstream) (06/14/07) PP #2 (Sta. 2 +30 — Looking Downstream) (06/10/11) Figure 3. 1. Permanent Photopoint Photographs - Year 5 - 2011 - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #363) PP #4 (Sta. 4 +25 — Looking Downstream) (06/14/07) PP #4 (Sta. 4 +25 — Looking Downstream) (06/10/11) Figure 3.2. Permanent Photopoint Photographs - Year 5 - 2011 - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #363) PP #5 (Sta. 5 +50 — Looking Upstream) (06/14/07) PP #6 (Sta. 6 +95 — Looking Upstream) (06/14/07) PP #6 (Sta. 6 +95 — Looking Upstream) (06/10/11) Figure 3.3. Permanent Photopoint Photographs - Year 5 - 2011 - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #363) PP #7 (Sta. 8 +50 — Looking Downstream) (06/14/07) PP #8 (Sta. 9 +10 — Looking Downstream) (06/14/07) PP #8 (Sta. 9 +10 — Looking Downstream) (06/10/11) Figure 3.4. Permanent Photopoint Photographs - Year 5 - 2011 - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #363) PP #10 (Sta. 11 +85 — Looking Upstream) (06/14/07) PP #10 (Sta. 11+85— Looking Upstream) (06/10/11) Figure 4.0. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs - Year 5 - 2011 - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #363) Plot 2 (Sta. 4 +60) (10/31/07) Plot 2 (Sta. 4 +60) (7/15/11) Figure 4. 1. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photographs - Year 5 - 2011 - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #363) Plot 4 (Sta. 10 +55) (11/05/07) Plot 4 (Sta. 10 +55) (7/19/11) 1 Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data Table 7 0 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table Table 8 0 Vegetation Metadata Table 9 0 Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species Report 2011 Supplemental Planting Report e- Tables Raw CVS vegetation data sheets Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #363 Vegetation Plot ID Vegetation Survival Threshold Met Tract Mean 1 Y 75% 2 N 3 Y 4 Y Table 8 Vegetation Metadata Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #363 Report Prepared By sean doi Date Prepared 7/25/201113 51 database name 363Stillhouse mdb database location D \Sean \EEP \Stillhouse \11 Monitoring computer name IJESSIO file size 135905536 DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code Description of database file the report worksheets and a summary of Metadata project(s) and project data Description Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre for each Prof, planted year This excludes live stakes length(ft) Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre for each year stream -to edge width ft This includes live stakes all planted stems and all natural /volunteer Pro j, total stems stems Required Plots calculated List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems Plots dead stems missing etc) Vigor Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots Vigor by Spp Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences Damage and percent of total stems impacted by each Damage by Spp Damage values tallied by e for each species Damage by Plot Damage values tallied by type for each plot A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for Planted Stems by Plot and Spp each plot dead and missing stems are excluded A matrix of the count of total living stems of each species (planted and natural volunteers combined) for each plot dead and missing ALL Stems by Plot and spp stems are excluded PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code 363 project Name Stillhouse Description stream restoration River Basin Cape Fear River Basin length(ft) 1 210 stream -to edge width ft 20 -80 area (sq m) 8 457 93 Required Plots calculated 4 Sampled Plots 4 O Table 9 Pleanted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means) Stdlhouse Creek Stream Restoration EEP Project #363 Current Plot Data (MY6 2011 Annual Totals Scientific Name Common Name Speci es Type E363 o &sd -0001 E363 o&sd -0002 E363 o &sd -0003 E363 o &sd -0004 MYS 2011 MY4 2010 MY3 2009 MY2 2008 M 2007 P LS Pall IT P LS Pall IT P-LS Pall IT P LS Pall T P LS Pall T P LS Pall T P-LS Pall T P LS Pall IT P LS Pall IT Acer ne undo boxelder Tree ifti 5 Jul 1 511 3 1=9 Acer rubrum red maple Tree 1 awl 1 VM3 Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven Tree 0 AM2 Betula ni ra river birch Tree #M1 Car anus caroliniana American hombeam Shrub Tree RM2 Ca rya hickory Tree &W2 Ca rya cordrformis bittemut hickory Tree 1 Ca rya illinoinensis per-an Tree 5 Ca rya ovata shagbark hickory Tree Mai Ceftis laew ata suqarberry Shrub Tree 14 0463 Corpus amomum silky do wood Shrub 3 3 3 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Fraxinus pennsyl vanica green ash Tree 2 2 1 1 3 3 6 6 6 6 5 (4 8 5 5 6, WA8 Ilex verticillata common wnterberry Shrub Tree I I I 1 1 11 1 21 1 2 1 5 5 6 6 6 6 Ju lans nigra black walnut Tree 2 W S 1192 10 ' lo 3 La erstroemia indica crapemyrtle Shrub Tree 23 `*23 23 W40 Li ustrum sinense Chinese privet Shrub Tree 1 Afti d:`2 2 4 WIT44 Lindera benzoin northern s icebush Shrub Tree 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 Li uidambar styraciflua sweet um Tree 1112 Linodendron tuli ifera tuli tree Tree 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Morelia cenfera wax myrtle Shrub Tree 3 3 1 1 6 61 1 1 11 11 ill 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 N ssa s Ivatica black um Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pinus taeda loblolty pine Tree 1 Platanus occidentalt.s American sycamore Tree 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Quercus ni ra water oak Tree 0 & 61 18 Quercus phellos wnllow oak Tree 3 1 1 1 1 2 5 2 S 2 2 2 2 2 2 Quercus rubra northern red oak Tree 3 3 1 1 41 4 1 4 4 3 3 5 5 5 5 Quercus spp oak Tree 4 4 4 Rhus co allinum flameleaf sumac Shrub Tree 1 Salix ni ra black wallow Tree 1 Sambucus canadensis Common Elderberry Shrub Tree 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 � 5 Ulmus s elm Tree 4 4 4 Ulmus rubra slippery elm Tree t3 Ulmus alata Han ed elm Tree U16 4 1 21 21 41 Stem count 6 9 42 0 5 24 1 14 34 0 12 21 7 40 120 7 37 119 9 41 85 9 45 45 10 47 204 size ares 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 size ACRES 002 002 002 002 010 010 010 010 0 10 Species count 2 3 8 0 3 6 1 7 11 0 9 13 2 12 20 2 10 22 2 11 18 2 11 11 2 11 27 Stems per ACRE 242 8 364 2 1700 0 202 3 971 2 40 47 566 6 1376 0148561 849 8 70 82 404 7 1214170 82 37431 1204191 0514 14 8 860 91 OS 455 3 455 3 101 2 475 5 2064 ODate of Inspection Date of Report SCO ID# Project Location Inspection of By WEEKLY INSPECTION REPORT 03 -16 -2011 03 -17 -2011 09- 0730012 (Axiom Supplemental Planting Oversight for EEP Supplemental Planting 2010 -03 Stillhouse Creek - EEP #363 Orange County North Carolina Supplemental Planting 2010 -03 (Constr Contract D09116s) (Contract(s)) Axiom Environmental Inc (Name) Name & Title of Inspector W Grant Lewis - Senior Protect Manager (Designer) COMMENTS The Stillhouse Creek site supplemental planting was initiated and completed on 03 -16 -2011 Axiom arrived before planting contractors to discuss plans with Perry Sugg of NC O EEP Planting material was delivered to the site on planting day in an enclosed trailer by the planting contractor (River Works George Morris) All plants installed were provided by NCEEP through the WRC Dan River nursery At the Stillhouse site a total of 110 containerized plants were installed per the EEP planting plan with some adjustments NCEEP requested some minor revisions based on site conditions The original quantity in the plan was increased by the addition of 10 oak species that were installed on the left side of the easement downstream end — see attached planting plan for revisions Axiom Environmental verified species plant size and distribution in each planting zone All stems planted met NC EEP size and vigor requirements A final walk through was conducted by Axiom Environmental at the end of the day on 03 -16 -2011 and all work was completed as requested O(This report is to be made weekly by the designer and submitted as a part of monthly progress reports ) SCO (Rev 11/6/06) Species Quantity Planted Container Size Ironwood Carp►nus carohn►ana 25 #5 Green ash Frax►nus pennsylvan►ca 15 #5 Red Oak Quercus rubra 20 #5 White Oak Quercus alba 15 #5 Willow Oak Q phellos 5 #5 Persimmon D►ospyros v►rg►n►ana 15 #5 River Birch Betula n►gra 15 #10 (This report is to be made weekly by the designer and submitted as a part of monthly progress reports ) / SCO (Rev 11/6/06) OEEP Supplemental Planting Species Lists - SP2010 -03 (Various Project Sites) Containerized Plant Measurements - June 2010 Plant Species Type Minimum Caliper (inches) Minimum Height (feet) Black Cherry tree 7/16 40 Black Willow tree 11/16 55 Carolina Ash 10 gal tree 3/4 70 Cherrybark Oak tree 3/8 25 Green Ash tree 3/4 70 Ironwood tree 7/16 40 Persimmon tree 5/16 35 Red Maple tree 3/8 30 Red Oak tree 1/2 45 River Birch 10 gal tree 1 70 River Birch 5 gal tree 7/8 60 Water Oak tree 3/8 25 White Oak tree 5/8 30 Willow Oak tree 3/8 30 Arrowwood shrub 3/8 25 Button Bush shrub 1/2 50 Elderberry shrub 1/2 45 Red Chokeberry shrub 3/8 50 Silky Dogwood shrub 5/8 50 ' i Legend Staging Area i Site Access 2010 -03 Planting Areas 2010 -03 Project Easements x- dk r y J`e 6 b° a All 0 - t in .t l Plant Area Quantity Acreage Planting Type 1 70 0.33 Riparian 2 30 0.11 Riparian N Stillhouse Crk - EEP #363 Hillsborough NC 0 50 100 200 PLANTING PLAN Feet Appendix D. Stream Survey Data Figures 5.0 -5.4 Cross sections with Annual Overlays e- Tables Raw cross - section survey data spreadsheets Figures 6.0 -6.2 Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays e- Tables Raw longitudinal profile survey data spreadsheets Figures 7.0 -7.4 Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays e- Tables Raw pebble count data spreadsheets Tables 10.0 -10.1 Baseline Stream Data Summary Table Table 11.0 Monitoring --- Cross- Section Morphology Data Table Table 11.1 -11.4 Monitoring— Stream Reach Morphology Data Table Figure 5.0. Cross Sections with Annual Overlays - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #363 River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Reach: Date: Field Crew: Station I Rod Ht. I Elevation 0 9.81 508.16 0 9.98 507.99 2.4 10.83 507.14 4.4 11.49 506.48 5.9 12.01 505.96 7.2 12.62 505.35 9.2 12.9 505.07 12.6 13.45 504.52 15.5 13.57 504.4 17 14.64 503.33 18.1 14.92 503.05 19.4 15.27 502.7 20.9 15.09 502.88 22 13.65 504.32 24.7 13.17 504.8 26.8 12.03 505.94 30 11.06 506.91 32.7 10.17 507.8 34.6 9.79 508.18 34.6 9.41 508.56 Neuse Stillhouse Creek XS 1 (pool) 1 7/15/2011 SD &CH SUMMARY DATA Bankfull Width ft 13.83 Flood prone Width ft 26.84 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.86 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.10 Rankfull Area 2 11.89 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 16.09 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 1.94 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.00 d50 (mm), 0.44 Stream Type: B5 View of cross - section Stillhouse XS -1 looking downstream XS1, Riffle, Sta. 1 +53 MY4 Bankfull 30- June -10 MY1 5- Nov -07. -MY2 17- July -08 509 MY3 6- Aug -09 t MY4 30- June -10 -MY5 15- July -10 Ja 508 507 a� 506 c 505 W 504 503 502 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Station (feet) Figure 5.1. Cross Sections with Annual Overlays - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #363 River Basin: Neuse Watershed: Stillhouse Creek XS ID XS 2 (pool) Reach: 2 Date: 7/15/2011 Field Crew: SD & CH 4.2 SUMMARY DATA Station Rod Ht. Elevation 0 4.76 502.74 0 4.98 502.52 2 5.08 502.42 4.2 5.29 502.21 5.6 5.52 501.98 7.3 5.7 501.8 8.2 5.87 501.63 9.1 6.15 501.35 9.6 6.22 501.28 10.1 7.19 500.31 11 7.6 499.9 13.1 7.84 499.66 14.8 8.02 499.48 15.6 7.23 500.27 16.6 5.77 501.73 18.5 5.58 501.92 20.3 5.08 502.42 21.4 4.93 502.57 21.4 4.72 502.78 Bankfull Width ft 18.30 Flood rove Width ft Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 94.50 1.20 2.94 Bankfull Area 2 21.93 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio 15.27 5.16 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.00 d50 mm 1.43 Stream Type: C5 View of cross - section Stillhouse XS -2 looking downstream XS2, Pool, Sta. 4 +63 503 MY5 Bankfull 15- July -11 MY1 5- Nov -07. MY2 17- July -08 MY3 6- Aug -09 MY4 30- June -10 MY5 15- July -11 502 a� 0 501 c� m W 500 499 0 5 10 15 20 Station (feet) Figure 5.2. Cross Sections with Annual Overlays - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #363 River Basin: Watershed: XS ID Reach: Date: Field Crew: Neuse Stillhouse Creek XS 3 (riffle) 2 7/15/2011 SD & CH SUMMARY DATA Station Rod Ht. Elevation 0 4.76 502.74 0 4.98 502.52 1.6 5.09 502.41 3.9 5.34 502.16 5.3 5.71 501.79 7.8 5.91 501.59 9.6 6.07 501.43 10.1 6.05 501.45 11.2 6.88 500.62 12.1 7.04 500.46 12.7 7.08 500.42 13 7.06 500.44 13.8 6.14 501.36 15.1 5.78 501.72 17.1 5.63 501.87 19.4 5.51 501.99 21 5.5 502 22 5.5 502 22 5.38 502.12 View of cross - section Stillhouse XS -3 looking downstream Stream Type: C4 XS3, Riffle, Sta. 4 +74 504 MY4 Bankfull 30- June -10 MY1 5- Nov -07 MY2 17- July -08 MY3 6- Aug -09 MY4 30- June -10 _MY5 15- July -11 03 a� X02 J01 500 0 5 10 Station (feet) 15 20 Figure 5.3. Cross Sections with Annual Overlays - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #363 River Basin: J Neuse Watershed: Stillhouse Creek XS ID XS 4 (riffle) Reach: 4 Date: 7/19/2011 Field Crew: SD & CH SUMMARY DATA Station Rod Ht. Elevation 0 2.97 500.46 0 3.1 500.33 1.3 3.38 500.05 2 3.72 499.71 4.4 5.54 497.89 6.7 7.2 496.23 9.9 9.36 494.07 12.8 9.67 493.76 14 9.96 493.47 15.5 10.35 493.08 16 10.72 492.71 16.7 11.49 491.94 18 11.73 491.7 19.6 11.64 491.79 20.1 11.21 492.22 21.9 10.64 492.79 24.2 10.15 493.28 26.9 9.73 493.7 29.9 9.59 493.84 32.3 9.31 494.12 34.7 8.77 494.66 37 7.92 495.51 39.4 6.87 496.56 42.6 5.63 497.8 44.7 5.31 498.12 44.7 5.04 498.39 Bankfull Width ft 15.39 Floodprone Width (ft) 30.40 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 0.89 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.06 2 13.66 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio 17.33 Bankfull Entrenchment 1.98 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio 1.00 d50 (mm), 8.42 Stream Type: XS4, Riffle, Sta. 10 +28 501 500 w 499 ,a 498 c 497 m 496 ai 495 W 494 493 492 491 B4 View of cross - section Stillhouse XS -4 looking downstream 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Station (feet) Figure 5.4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlays - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #363 River Basin: Neuse Watershed: Stillhouse Creek XS ID XS 5 (pool) Reach: 4 Date: 7/19/2011 Field Crew: SD & CH 2.2 SUMMARY DATA Station I Rod Ht. Elevation 0 1.56 500.84 0 1.71 500.69 3 2.2 500.2 5.9 4.35 498.05 8.6 6.49 495.91 9.6 7.61 494.79 11.6 8.58 493.82 12.5 8.81 493.59 14.6 9.43 492.97 15.7 10.9 491.5 17.5 11.21 491.19 19.5 11.42 490.98 22 11.36 491.04 23 9.77 492.63 24.4 9.42 492.98 25.8 9.15 493.25 29.3 8.7 493.7 32.5 8.53 493.87 35.9 7.54 494.86 39.3 6.07 496.33 41.4 4.92 497.48 43 4.72 497.68 43 4.54 497.86 Bankfull Width ft 15.94 Flood prone Width ft 30.77 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) 1.36 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) 2.61 Bankfull Area s 21.61 Bankfull Width/Depth 11.76 Bankfull Entrenchment 1.93 Bankfull Bank Hei ht 1.00 d50 mm 23.54 Stream Type: B4 View of cross - section Stillhouse XS -S looking downstream Figure 6.0. Longitudinal Profile with Annual Overlays — Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration — MY5 (2011) — EEP Project #363 Stillhouse Creek (#363), Longitudinal Profile As -Built Stationing 0 -410 510 I 509 As-Built Thalweg 2007 Thalweg (11/19/07) 508 -0000000000000001 lNEEMEMEMEMEME ■I 507 01-2011 506 - I Water (7/1 & 7/5/11) 505 __OEM C w 504 ■ ■Iii ■iii■ ��lh W 503 , , Of Ma r M N M 0 a 2 0 1 502 I WN!, 501 - 500 - 499 - 498 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 Station (feet) I ■ ■Iii ■iii■ ��lh Figure 6.1. Longitudinal Profile with Annual Overlays — Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration — MY5 (2011) — EEP Project #363 Stillhouse Creek ( #363), Longitudinal Profile As -Built Stationing 410 -820 505 Grade Control Structures 504 —As -Built Thalweg —2007 Thalweg (11/19/07) 503 Crop 3 Sect n 2 —2008 Thalweg (8/25/08) —2009 Thalweg (8/11 - 8/12/09) 502 —2010 Thalweg (7/1- 7/2/10) ■ 2011 Bankfull (7/1 & 7/5/11) ■ 501 —2011 Water (7/1 & 7/5/11) — x-2011 Thalweg (7/1 & 7/5/11) 500 IV X�L, 499 to 498 ■ W 497 V. 496 Cross S Dction 495 494 493 410 430 450 470 490 510 530 550 570 590 610 630 650 670 690 710 730 750 770 790 810 Station (feet) Figure 6.2. Longitudinal Profile with Annual Overlays — Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration — MY5 (2011) — EEP Project #363 Stillhouse Creek ( #363), Longitudinal Profile As -Built Stationing 820 -1230 498 - - - 497 2007 Thalweg (11/19/07) 496 495 -Mis 1111— NONNI.,@. N.ONNI --dr-2011 Thalweg (7/1 & 7/5/11) M 2011Bankfull(7/1&7/5/11) Ki low 494 493 LV ,� G O 492 � W illc 491 -MEMEMEMEMigs, WT."JOVEMMUMMI 490 "Ron 489 - M, 01 488 - 487 - I 7 � - 1 820 840 860 880 900 920 940 960 980 1000 1020 1040 1060 1080 1100 1120 1140 1160 1180 1200 1220 Station (feet) Figure 7.0. Pebble Counts - Year 5 - 2011 - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #363) Cross Section One -Reach 1 2011 Descri t. Material Size (mm) Total # Class % Cum % Silt/Clay Silt/Clay .062 9 9 9 Sand Very Fine Sand .125 5 5 14 Fine Sand .25 25 25 39 Medium Sand 0.5 14 14 54 Coarse Sand 1.0 5 5 59 Very Course Sand 2 13 13 72 Gravel Very Fine Gravel 4.0 8 8 80 Fine Gravel 5.7 2 2 82 Fine Gravel 8 6 6 88 Medium Gravel 1.3 7 7 95 Medium Gravel 16 3 3 98 Coarse Gravel 22.6 0 98 Coarse Gravel 32 1 1 99 Very Course Gravel 45 11111011 0 99 Very Course Gravel 64 1 1 100 Cobble Small Cobble 90 0 100 Small Cobble 128 0 100 Medium Cobble 180 0 100 Large Cobble 256 0 100 Boulder Small Boulders 362 0 100 Small Boulders 512 0 100 Medium Boulders 1024 0 100 Large Boulders 2048 0 100 Bedrock Bedrock 40096 0 100 1 'otal 99 Cumulative Percent 100 90 c 80 d 70 IL 60 MY1 (11/14/07) R 50 MY2 (7/17/08) 40 MY3 (8/6/09) V 30 MY4 (6/28/10) 20 MY5 (7/15/11) 10 0 06'� '�S ai , -d' 'O 'O d -,P �O a� �l ptS 00 i�0 ,00 �tS� 0-a 0� �OaQ�CO Z Particle Size Class (mm) Individual Class Percent 50 x,,45 540 v a5 y30 k5 220 ca 11111011 =15 >10 c5 0 . IL Lo 1. L •O •".: •,a O " ca V tS d c4� r O T, ti i v A 'tS 'O 'O > .,p -S, t4 75, S. O ! 1J 0 o�O a s a •„ 0 Z& Particle Size Class (mm) ■ MY1 (11/14/07) ■ MY2 (7/17/08) ■ MY3 (8/6/09) 0 MY4 (6/28/10) ■ MY5 (7/15/11) Figure 7.1. Pebble Counts - Year 5 - 2011 - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #363) Cross Section Two -Reach 2 2011 Descri t. Material Size (mm) Total # Class % Cum % Silt/Clay Silt/Clay .062 31 31 31 Sand Very Fine Sand .125 0 31 Fine Sand .25 50 0 31 Medium Sand 0.5 6 6 37 Coarse Sand 1.0 10 10 47 Very Course Sand 2 7 7 54 Gravel Very Fine Gravel 4.0 6 6 60 Fine Gravel 5.7 3 3 63 Fine Gravel 8 4 4 67 Medium Gravel 1.3 1 1 68 Medium Gravel 16 13 13 81 Coarse Gravel 22.6 12 12 93 Coarse Gravel 32 5 5 98 Very Course Gravel 45 1 1 99 Very Course Gravel 64 1 1 100 Cobble Small Cobble 90 0 100 Small Cobble 128 0 100 Medium Cobble 180 0 100 Large Cobble 256 0 100 Boulder Small Boulders 362 ■ MY5 (7/15/11) 0 100 Small Boulders 512 0 100 Medium Boulders 1024 0 100 Large Boulders 2048 0 100 Bedrock Bedrock 40096 0 100 Total 100 Cumulative Percent 100 90 45 c 80 Mf d m v 40 70 a� 60 _MY1 (11/14/07) 50 MY2 (7/17/08) E 40 MY3 (8/6/09) v 30 MY4 (6/28/10) 20 10 MY5 (7/15/11) cD IL 30 0 y Qsa r'�r c'°> �� 's r $ �� rc, ' s s 0 o ocptpacb$ Particle Size Class (mm) Individual Class Percent 50 45 m v 40 35 cD IL 30 y m 25 V 20 R 15 > 10 c 5 0 0 c 0 acS c3` 'O a .0 -� 'v� '6� �i� �tS Y $ c� 'dam ac�` �� L11 V3- 'Opa�� y0�� Particle Size Class (mm) ■ MY1 (11/14/07) ■ MY2 (7/17/08) ■ MY3 (8/6/09) ■ MY4 (6/28/10) ■ MY5 (7/15/11) Figure 7.2. Pebble Counts - Year 5 - 2011 - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #363) Cross Section Three -Reach 2 2011 Descri t. Material Size (mm) Total # Class % Cum % Silt/Clay Silt/Clay .062 2 2 2 Sand Very Fine Sand .125 0 2 Fine Sand .25 4 4 6 Medium Sand 0.5 0 6 Coarse Sand 1.0 5 5 11 Very Course Sand 2 8 8 19 Gravel Very Fine Gravel 4.0 2 2 21 Fine Gravel 5.7 4 4 25 Fine Gravel 8 4 4 29 Medium Gravel 1.3 5 5 34 Medium Gravel 16 11 11 45 Coarse Gravel 22.6 11 11 56 Coarse Gravel 32 7 7 63 Very Course Gravel 45 19 19 82 Very Course Gravel 64 13 13 95 Cobble Small Cobble 90 2 2 97 Small Cobble 128 0 97 Medium Cobble 180 2 2 99 Large Cobble 256 1 1 100 Boulder Small Boulders 362 0 100 Small Boulders 512 0 100 Medium Boulders 1024 01 �O p0 a .gyp °p�, 0 100 Large Boulders 2048 0 100 Bedrock Bedrock 40096 0 100 Total 100 Cumulative Percent 100 90 c 80 a� 70 IL 4) 60 MY1 (11/14/07) 50 MY2 (7/17/08) E 40 MY3 (8/6/09) t i 30 MY4 (6/28/10) 20 MY5 (7/15/11) 10 0 a s s °�r O `� D � �� cr, �i- pcs $ :� 0 �cF `'s 0 o o,, 01 �O p0 a .gyp °p�, o Particle Size Class (mm) % Individual Class Percent 50 45 40 d 35 IL H 30 H .2 25 20 -a 15 ;0 10 5 0 IdLILLANNEEft'. A a , .o r, o a � s 'd% n s>> a >!® �+ V30 o 1.s s ay 0% Particle Size Class (mm) � o ■ MY1 (11/14/07) ■ MY2 (7/17/08) ■ MY3 (8/6/09) 0 MY4 (6/28/10) ■ MY5 (7/15/11) Figure 7.3. Pebble Counts - Year 5 - 2011 - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #363) Cross Section Four -Reach 4 2011 Descri t. Material Size (mm) Total # Class % Cum % Silt/Clay Silt/Clay .062 7 7 7 Sand Very Fine Sand .125 0 7 Fine Sand .25 m 0 7 Medium Sand 0.5 11 11 18 Coarse Sand 1.0 4 4 22 Very Course Sand 2 16 16 38 Gravel Very Fine Gravel 4.0 3 3 41 Fine Gravel 5.7 2 2 43 Fine Gravel 8 7 7 50 Medium Gravel 1.3 4 4 53 Medium Gravel 16 8 8 61 Coarse Gravel 22.6 5 5 66 Coarse Gravel 32 9 9 75 Very Course Gravel 45 5 5 80 Very Course Gravel 64 7 7 87 Cobble Small Cobble 90 7 7 94 Small Cobble 128 3 3 97 Medium Cobble 180 2 2 99 Large Cobble 256 1 1 100 Boulder Small Boulders 362 0 100 Small Boulders 512 0 100 Medium Boulders 1024 0 100 Large Boulders 2048 0 100 Bedrock Bedrock 40096 1 0 100 1 otal 101 Cumulative Percent Individual Class Percent 100 50 90 45 c 80 m 70 40 d m 60 MY1 (11/14/07) 50 a� MY2 (7/17/08) E 40 MY3 (8/6/09) IL 30 V 30 MY4 (6/28/10) 20 10 MY5 (7/19/11) V 20 0 �v 15 > 10 .0 .0 '0 ci$ � Q � 0- S .apt3,� r- % ; O� c 5 Particle Size Class (mm) Individual Class Percent 50 45 m 40 v a� 35 IL 30 y 25 V 20 �v 15 > 10 c 5 0 wl" RIJUVO Particle Size Class (mm) ■ MY1 (11/14/07) ■ MY2 (7/17/08) ■ MY3 (8/6/09) ■MY4 (6/28/10) ■ MY5 (7/19/11) Figure 7.4. Pebble Counts - Year 5 - 2011 - Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration (EEP Project #363) Cross Section Five -Reach 4 2011 Descri t. Material Size (mm) Total # Class % Cum % Silt/Clay Silt/Clay .062 32 32 32 Sand Very Fine Sand .125 2 70 0 32 Fine Sand .25 1 1 33 Medium Sand 0.5 0 33 Coarse Sand 1.0 0 33 Very Course Sand 2 1 1 34 Gravel Very Fine Gravel 4.0 0 34 Fine Gravel 5.7 0 0 34 Fine Gravel 8 2 2 36 Medium Gravel 1.3 2 2 38 Medium Gravel 16 9 9 47 Coarse Gravel 22.6 2 2 49 Coarse Gravel 32 10 10 59 Very Course Gravel 45 8 8 67 Very Course Gravel 64 13 13 80 Cobble Small Cobble 90 10 10 90 Small Cobble 128 3 3 93 Medium Cobble 180 2 2 95 Large Cobble 256 2 2 97 Boulder Small Boulders 362 1 1 98 Small Boulders 512 1 1 99 Medium Boulders 1024 1 1 100 Large Boulders 2048 0 100 Bedrock Bedrock 40096 1 0 100 i otai 100 Cumulative Percent 100 90 c 80 0 2 70 N CL 60 MY1 (11/14/07) 0 50 MY2 (7/17/08) E 40 MY3 (8/6/09) v 30 MY4 (6/28/10) 20 10 MY5 (7/19/11) 0 oa cs atS O�na��YDO� ,g Particle Size Class (mm) Individual Class Percent 50 45 40 m 35 a W 30 '0 25 V 20 15 �Z 10 c 5 0 c� cS cP O b� d cep Y� o,^ Particle Size Class (mm) `�1 ■ MY (11/14/07) ■ MY2 (7/17/08) ■ MY3 (8/6/09) ■ MY4 (6/28/10) ■ MY5 (7/19/11) l i Table 10 0 Baseline Stream Data Summary Stlllhouse Creek NCEEP# 363 - Reaches 1 -3 855 feet Parameter Gauge Re ional Curve Pre Existin Condrtion Reference Reach Data es Design ;Tontoring Baseline Drrrenslon and S'U"te- Rrffle� my LL UL Eq Min Mean Med Max SD' n Min Mean Med Max SD' n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD5 n Bankfull Width (ft) NA 6 0 70 — 76 — — 73 97 — 124 — — 75 95 — — — — — — Floodprone Width (ft) 171 351 — 470 — — 270 496 — 740 — — 230 1760 — — — — — — Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) NA 5 6 73 — 81 — — 73 104 — 132 — — 90 — — — — — — 'Bankfull Max Depth ft NA ' r r 08 10 - 14 - - 09 1 1 - 13 - - 10 12 - - - - - - Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft) NA 12 17 - 20 - - 16 1 8 - 2 0 - - 1 3 2 - - - - - - Width /Depth Ratio NA 44 71 — 93 — — 73 93 — 140 — — 60 1 — — — — — — Entrenchment Ratio NA y 23 51 — 63 — — 27 56 — 101 — — 27 2 d — — — — — — 'Bank Height Ratio, NA 10 1 1 — 14 — — 10 1 1 — 1 3 — — — 1 0 — — — — — — P f& flOR h' ac 3 '4 t Riffle Length (ft) 4 - - - - - - 24 66 — 153 — — Riffle Slope (ft/ft) " - - - 0 00204 0054 - - 0006 0017 -0003 0 029 - 014 - - Pool Length (ft) 11 0 225 465 — — 75 11 8 170 — — 85 196 94 228 — 760 — — Pool Max depth (ft) ° � 7 a 4 I t 11 - - - - - - - 00 50 - 182 - - Pool Spacing (ft) e 372 — — — — 21 5 — — — 153 — — — Patte Channel Beltwidth (ft) w ,�\ 60 116 - 190 - - 124 137 - 167 - - 85 19 618 - 247 - — Radius of Curvature (ft) i t i3 , 8 7 12 2 — 16 5 — — 6 5 14 6 — 20 5 — — 12 8 23 — 32 7 Rc Bankfull width (ft/ft) � - - - - - - - - - Meander Wavelength (ft) 29 0 63 0 — 116 0 — — 21 2 34 7 — 57 0 L716 — — 12 8 39 — 75 4 Meande2r. Width Ratio 0 9 17 - 2 7 - - 1 0 1 4 — 2 3 — — 1 0 2 — — ,i Transport liamrneteni 3 \ 33 { Reach Shear Stress (competency) We - Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull - ; A - - Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m 3, ,3 AddWonal Reach Parametefs `�-- OWL W111FA, z A A,PN, v V11 � Rosgen Classification NA t1; ' - 3 \ E4 E4/5 E4 - Bankfull Velocity (fps) NA - - - Bankfull Discharge (cfs) NA - Or A III I MW Valley length (ft) = 672 168 Channel Thalweg length (ft) In 748 2675 946 855 Sinuosity (ft) ' 1 1 1 6 14 1 30 Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) NA 3r' 3 00126 00094 00086 0 011 BF slope (ft/ft) NAB - - - - 3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres - - - - 4% of Reach with Erodin Bank Channel Stability or Habitat Metnc Biological or Othe �� „a �\ - - 21" Shad dcelly and t th tm —11 hp lb t 61W 1 = Th d tnb t f tha pmam t rs m m lud mf rm t from b th th —ctn ymmvy and th 1 g tadmal p f l 2 — F p jest v th p =al USGS g g m hm n th th p jest t —h (added bankfu0 d" t arc) 3 Utdimg —d t p d x an -t® t f th bamkf 0 floodplam ar m aye h h h Id b th area fr m th t p f bank t th t f th t rrace rrs / I p 4— Prop rt f acb ch b I g bank th t ar a dmg based th u al my f company t m t nmg d 1 5 Of afid ceded h if th exmed 3 Mew t med an p ded f design mb rs Table 10 1 Baseline Stream Data Summary Stlllhouse Creek NCEEP# 363 - Reaches 4 355 feet Parameter Gauge Regional Curve Pre Existing Condition Reference Reach(es ) Data Design Monitoring Baseline 01mensron and Substrate Rdfie Only ' LL UL Eq Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD' n Min Med Max Min Mean Med Max SD" n Bankfull Width (ft) NA 98 11 8 — 148 — — 23 1 256 — 280 — — 149 — 195 — — — — — Floodprone Width (ft) 155 193 — 268 — — 330 337 — 350 — — 179 — 351 — — — — — — Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) NA 192 217 — 247 — — 685 435 — 489 — — 180 — 22 0 — — — — — — 'Bankfull Max Depth ft NA 1 7 19 — 20 — — 1 5 1 7 — 1 9 — — 1 1 — 1 2 — — — — — — Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft) NA 26 27 - 28 - - 24 27 - 29 - - 17 - 1 9 - - - - - - Width/Depth Ratio NA 49 62 — 86 — — 124 15 2 — 172 — — 124 — 172 — — — — — — Entrenchment Ratio NA 14 16 - 18 - - 1 2 1 3 — 14 — — 1 2 — 1 8 — — — — — 'Bank Hei ht Ratio. NA �; 25 26 - 29 - - 1 0 1 0 - 10 - - 1 0 - 1 0 - - - - - - Profile ail' - �, ( �'3 Y I 41111111115 ' F It, Riffle Length (ft) t - - - - - - 95 184 - 290 - - 60 - 195 25 173 - 401 - - Riffle Slope (ft/ft) _ ' - - - - - - 0 008 0 012 - 0 016 - - 0 017 - 0 034 0 043 0129 - 0164 - - Pool Length (ft) Ak — 82 31 2 — 680 — — 50 — 530 150 701 — 426 — — Pool Max depth (ft) - Pool Spacing (ft) )f; - - - - - - 272 624 — 1290 — — 390 — 940 00 11 1 — 401 — — Pattem WAWA F I A, 1 114 h I a� Channel Beltmdth (ft) t ' - - - - - - 400 437 510 — — 238 — 390 120 1 196 — 279 — — Radius of Curvature (ft) 1 ' 11 - - - - - - 195 413 540 - - 298 - 390 254 403 - 554 - - Rc Bankfull vndth (ft/ft) 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Meander Wavelength (ft) , - - - - - - 1300 1680 — 2450 — — 390 — 940 962 1326 — 1878 — — Meander Width Ratio i 3' - - - - - t - 16 17 - 20 - - 16 - 20 - - - cans ort °rarneters wl FM Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2 - - Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull I WIN& 1 11 - Stream Power (transport capacity) W /m2 IF, , 0&1, 1 � - ditlo al Reach Parameters)r , " i Rosgen Classification NA c4r1 e4c/1 eon - Bankfull Velocity (fps) A - IS - - Bankfull Discharge (cfs) ]NA K W, 'Aw I Y Valley length (ft) zaz 325 ' Channel Thalweg length (ft) VONA& 314 348 314 355 Sinuosity (ft) 1 1 i 1 07 1 1 1 30 Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) NAB 0 017 0 006 0 0n 002 BF slope (ft/ft) NA Nk - - - - 3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres - 4p� of Reach with Erodin Banks ` - - Channel Stability or Habitat Metric ' - - Biological or Othe ' 4L I ,31 ), i , Shaded .11s and t th t th m11 q p aU3 i b 1711 d m 1 = Th d tnb 1 f th par— t an m 1 d f rm t fr m b th th — -sect —ey and th 1 g tadmal p Id 2 – F p ,KCt vdh p nmal USGS g g m Im wnh th p fed re h (added bankfall —F t are) 3 Ul I mg t data p od a an tan t f th bankf 11 fkrodpl m ar m acre hrch h Id b th ar a fir m th t p f bank t th t f th 1 awe nm /sl p 4 P p n f rea h dr b tmg bank th t arc rodmg bored th I --f mpam t m t mg d t 5 Of I d dad h d th u d 3 M m t mcd an p dad f design mba I 0 } l j !1 1) Table 11 0 Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters —Cross Sections) Stlllhouse Creek (NCEEP# 363) - Reaches 1-4 (1,210 feet) 1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurvey will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional /depositional development Input the elevation used as the datum which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used for prior years this must be discussed with EEP If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the momtonnq history which may influence calculated values Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary Cross Section 1 (Riffle) Reach 1 Cross Section 2 (Pool) Reach 2 Cross Section 3 (Riffle) Reach 2 Based unfixed baseline bankfull elevattoiti Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 'MY4 MY5 MY+ Record elevation (datum) used NA 508 16 508 16 508 16 508 16 508 16 NA 502 74 502 74 502 74 502 74 502 74 NA 502 74 502 74 502 74 502 74 502 74 Bankfull Width (ft) NA 1354 1264 1203 1272 1383 NA 1794 1912 1684 1710 1830 NA 12 41 13 18 15 47 j14 31 14 86 Floodprone Width (ft) NA 2587 2795 2578 2683 2684 NA 9450 9450 945 9450 9450 NA 107 00 107 00 107 00 10700 10700 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) NA 1 099 1 03 1 03 1 02 086 NA 1 32 1 25 1 19 1 126 1 20 1 NA 1 069 064 054 1051 052 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) NA 202 237 1 214 229 210 NA 268 285 264 273 294 NA 1 14 1 31 147 1145 1 57 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft) NA 1339 1301 1236 1304 11 89 NA 2364 2390 2000 2160 2193 NA 861 843 839 727 770 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA 1370 1229 1170 1242 1609 NA 1361 1530 1418 1354 1527 NA 1787 2060 2853 2818 2865 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA 1 91 221 214 211 1 94 NA 527 494 561 553 516 NA 870 812 691 748 720 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio NA 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 NA 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 NA 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft) NA 9500 9620 9840 9700 91 80 NA 1 2820, 2720, 2620, 25 70 2520 1 NA 1920 17 40 d50 (mm) NA 004 0 98 0 34 0 28 044 NA 6 85 0 42 0 21 6 39 1 43 NA 6 85 E1860 0 248 26 36 19 00 Cross Section 4 (Riffle) Reach 4 Cross Section 5 (Pool) Reach 4 BasedJon fixed baseline bankfull elevation' Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Base MY1 MY2 MY3 MY4 MY5 MY+ Record elevation (datum) used NA 50046 50046 50046 50046 50046 NA 500 84 500 84 500 84 500 84 50084 Bankfull Width (ft) NA 1240 1470 1530 1488 1539 NA 1241 11 53 1229 1586 1594 Floodprone Width (ft) NA 2930 3064 3068 3026 3040 NA 2891 2907 2876 3075 3077 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) NA 1 06 099 094 092 1 089 NA 1 1 21 1 38 1 1 35 129 1 36 Bankfull Max Depth (ft) NA 206 220 218 209 206 NA 227 233 229 262 261 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2 NA 1320 1450 1530 1372 1366 NA 1497 1587 1658 2040 2161 Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio NA 11 75 1486 1625 1613 1733 NA 1029 838 910 1233 11 76 Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio NA 236 200 1 1 91 209 1 98 NA 233 252 234 1 67 1 93 Bankfull Bank Height Ratio NA 1 00 100 1 00 1 00 1 1 00 NA 1 00 1 1 00 1 00 1 1 00 1 00 Cross Sectional Area between end pins ftZ NA 20280 201 20 19980 1980020090 NA 20400 19840 19560 19860 20050 d50 (mm) NA 267 300 400 603 842 NA 1600 2260 29 30 13 00 23 54 1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurvey will be based on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of dimensional /depositional development Input the elevation used as the datum which should be consistent and based on the baseline datum established If the performer has inherited the project and cannot acquire the datum used for prior years this must be discussed with EEP If this cannot be resolved in time for a given years report submission a footnote in this should be included that states It is uncertain if the monitoring datum has been consistent over the momtonnq history which may influence calculated values Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired to provide confirmation Values will be recalculated in a future submission based on a consistent datum if determined to be necessary Table 11 1 Monitoring Data Stream Reach Data Summary Stlllhouse Creek NCEEP# 363 Reach 1 235 feet Parameter Baseline MY 1 MY 2 MY 3 MY 4 MY 5 33 . 0 is ' " >i a 5 } 4 k 9 4 W a y Almenstan andd Substrate Rff le oro Min Mean Med Max SD° n Min Mean Med Max SD" n Min Mean Med Max SD" n Min Mean Med Max SD° n Min Mean Med Max SD° n Min Mean Med Max SD" n Bankfull Width (it) NA NA NA NA NA 0 135 135 135 135 NA 1 126 126 126 126 NA 1 120 120 120 120 NA 1 127 127 127 127 NA 1 138 138 138 138 NA 1 Floodprone Width (ft) NA NA NA NA NA 0 259 259 259 259 NA 1 280 280 280 280 NA 1 258 25 8 258 258 NA 1 268 268 268 268 NA 1 268 268 268 268 NA 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) NA NA NA NA NA 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA 1 1 0 1 0 1 o 1 0 NA 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA 1 09 0 9 O g 0 9 NA 1 ' Bankfull Max Depth ft NA NA NA NA NA 0 20 20 20 20 NA 1 24 24 24 24 NA 1 21 21 2 1 21 1 NA 1 23 23 23 23 NA 1 2 1 21 2 1 21 NA 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft) NA NA NA NA NA 0 134 134 134 134 NA 1 130 130 130 130 NA 1 124 124 124 124 1 NA 1 130 130 130 130 NA 1 119 119 jig 11 9 NA 1 Width /Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 0 137 137 137 137 NA 1 123 123 123 123 NA 1 11 7 117 11 7 117 NA 1 124 124 124 124 NA 1 161 16 1 161 161 NA 1 Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 0 1 9 1 9 1 9 1 9 NA 1 22 22 22 22 NA 1 21 21 2 1 21 NA 1 21 21 21 21 NA 1 19 1 9 1 9 1 9 NA 1 'Bank Height Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA 1 10 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA 1 10 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA 1 Profile 1114 ��1 � 1 � �� i � w � ' � 1,� � � 9 Riffle Length (ft) 435 975 105 153 416 5 20 110 90 290 89 7 40 180 180 320 101 7 70 163 170 300 70 7 50 145 115 320 94 6 5 168 16 285 898 5 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 002 0 053 004 012 004 5 001 003 001 008 003 7 002 002 001 009 003 7 000 003 003 008 003 7 001 003 003 008 002 6 001 004 003 009 003 5 Pool length (ft) 155 2174 32 328 431 7 100 186 185 300 72 8 70 140 125 250 63 100 175 160 260 56 6 100 187 170 260 57 7 105 188 193 25 611 6 Pool Max depth (ft) 1 8 25 24 32 04 70 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 6 2 0 2 1 22 03 6 1 1 1 8 1 9 24 05 6 Pool Spacing (ft) 203 32 328 431 828 7 11 0 268 270 390 90 8 90 271 250 471 141 dNA 19 0 31 8 25 5 71 0 19 5 6 22 0 30 0 32 0 37 0 5 7 7 20 34 7 33 53 5 12 1 5 Pattern 33 11 i A Olaw Channel Beltmdth (ft) 10 4 114 12 9 0 97 1 5 a -A Radius of Curvature (ft) 133 21 53 — 272 464 5 Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data dimensional data or profile data indicate significant shifts from baseline Rc Bankfull width (ft/ft) NA NA — NA NA 0 tfF 3 Meander Wavelength (ft) 463 652 829 126 5 > Meander Width Ratio NA NA NA NA 0 1 IT no UR a If ho 61, *8 kv III AddMonal Reach Parameters Rosgen Classification B6 B5 B5 B5 B5 Channel Thahveg length (ft) 855 Reaches 1 3 227 226 228 225 225 Sinuosity (ft) 1 3 Reaches 1 3 1 05 1 04 1 05 1 04 1 05 Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft) 0 011 Reaches 1 3 0 009 0 009 0 011 003 003 BF slope (ft/ft) 001 0 008 002 0 014 0 011 3Ri°/ I Ru / / P / / G A / S / NA NA I NA I NA I NA 34 0 66 0 0 53 0 47 0 0 52 0 48 0 0 40 0 60 0 0 40 0 53 7 0 11 3SC / / Sa /o / G A I C°/ I B°/ / Be/ Aw p a 15 36 38 2 0 9 42 48 9 1 0 0 37 35 27 1 0 0 9 63 28 0 0 0 3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 /31 , 3�3 0 25 0 73 0 98 45 2048 3 0 02 0 05 0 34 167 1 8 1 0 03 0 062 0 28 7 14 28 9 0 13 0 23 044 1 6 53 11 4 z/ of Reach with Eroding Banks NA 00 00 00 00 00 Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in 1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross section surveys and the longitudinal profile 2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table 3 = Riffle Run Pool Glide Step Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock dip = max pave disp = max subpave 4 = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3 0 fl Table 112 Monitoring Data Stream Reach Data Summary Stillhouse Creek NCEEP# 363 Reach 2 400 feet Parameter Baseline MY 1 MY 2 MY 3 MY 4 MY 5 LSD° Dimensionand�Substrate Rrfflemy Mm Mean Med Max SD° n Min Mean Med Max SID n Min Mean Med Max SD ° n Min Mean Med Max SD' n Min Mean Med Max n Min Mean Med Max SD ° n Bankfull Width (ft) NA NA NA NA I NA 0 124 124 - 124 124 NA 1 132 132 13 2 132 NA 1 155 155 155 155 NA 1 143 143 143 143 NA 1 149 149 149 149 NA 1 Floodprone Width (ft) NA NA NA NA NA 0 T07-0 107 0 1070 1070 NA 1 1070 1070 1070 1070 NA 1 107011070 1070 1070 NA 1 1070 1070 1070 1070 NA 1 1070 1070 1070 1070 NA 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) NA NA NA NA NA 0 1 07 07 07 07 NA 1 06 06 06 06 NA 1 05 05 05 05 NA 1 05 05 05 05 NA 1 05 05 05 05 NA 1 'Bankfull Max Depth (ft) NA NA NA NA NA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NA 1 1 3 1 3 13 1 3 NA 1 1 5 1 5 15 1 5 NA 1 1 5 15 1 5 1 5 NA 1 16 1 6 1 6 16 NA 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft) NA NA NA NA NA 0 86 86 86 86 NA 1 84 84 84 84 NA 1 84 84 84 84 NA 1 73 73 73 73 NA 1 77 1 77 77 77 NA 1 Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 0 179 179 179 179 NA 1 1 206 206 206 206 NA 1 285 285 285 285 NA 1 282 282 28 2 282 NA 1 287 287 287 287 NA 1 - Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 0 87 87 87 87 NA 1 8 1 81 81 8 1 NA 1 69 69 69 69 NA 1 75 75 75 75 NA 1 72 7 2 72 72 NA 1 'Bank Height Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA 1 Profile I A M!k, r x e i A Riffle Length (ft) 24 595 513 1163 272 15 40 83 80 150 34 12 60 100 90 280 53 15 50 75 70 110 20 14 20 69 70 110 26 14 25 6292 625 105 2463 12 Riffle Slope ( ft/ft) 0 007 0 029 10 02B 0 064 017 15 1 001 003 002 009 003 12 002 002 002 006 002 15 10011 0 033 003 0062100171 14 001 0 043 0 044 0 106 003 14 0 015 0 062 0 056 0 157 0 038 12 Pool Length (it) 117 1712 1597 2855 52 1 170 1 90 184 170 280 60 16 60 178 170 280 61 16 50 194 185 410 84 16 50 178 180 330 63 17 10 18 17751 295 4712 16 Pool Max depth (ft) 147 226 235 295 04 170 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 17 22 22 28 04 13 1 3 20 21 27 04 16 Pool Spacing (ft) 1541 2406 2635 3217 5 1 160 15 0 29 5 260 630 120 16 180 286 260 71 0 125 16 70 186 180 330 61 16 18 0 241 240 350 47 16 17 2713 25 475 8 105 16 Pattern 9" V Channel Beltmdth (ft) 966 1714 - 2488 444 15 h -�-rS 4M RM =I= Om k am #i 2i Radius of Curvature (ft) 425 683 - 1109 144 15 's� Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data dimensional data or profile data indicate significant shifts from baseline dM Rc Bankfull width (ft/ft) NA NA — NA NA 0 c Meander Wavelength (ft) 28 84 32 71 3958 333 15 m ^1% Meander Width Ratio NA NA NA I NA p , Ora Addd.ona'(Reach Parar ete s y 9 a t f Rosgen Classification C4 C4 C4 C4 C4 Channel Thatweg length (ft) 855 Reaches 1 3 385 368 371 374 377 Sinuosity (ft) 1 3 Reaches 1 3 1 57 1 5 1 51 1 53 1 55 Water Surface Slope (Channel) ( ft/ft) 0 011 Reaches 1 3 0 008 0 009 0 008 003 005 BF slope ( ft/ft) 0 007 0 007 0 011 0 008 001 3Ri°/ / Ru°/ / P°/ / G°/ / S / NA NA I NA NA I NA 23 0 77 0 1 0 y + 34 0 66 0 0 24 0 76 0 0 '3 22 0 78 0 0 19 1 74 6 0 3SC / / Sa / l G / I C / I B / l Be / %=1 r, 1j' X63 s �-�' 33 10 55 0 0 2 31 6 60 2 1 0 14 12 72 2 0 0 165 20 61 25 0 0 3d16 I d35 / d50 I d84 I d95 I m 004 1 53 5 86 29 63 44 8711 004 6 56 112 49 32 89 50 46 2 67 7 92 16 38 33 16 48 57 083 6 075 10 22 32 79145 18 Z/ of Reach with Eroding Banks NA 00 00 00 00 00 Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in 1 = The distnbubons for these parameters can include information from both the cross section surveys and the longitudinal profile 2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table 3 = Riffle Run Pool Glide Step Sift/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock dip = max pave disp = max subpave Table 11 3 Monitoring Data Stream Reach Data Summary Stlllhouse Creek NCEEP# 363 Reach 3 220 feet 12 77 Parameter Baseline MY 1 MY 2 t MY 3 MY 4 MY 5 ; i "- 5 5 - 11 am IAVOE Rosgen Classification NA } A NA Rc Bankfull width (ft/ft) NA 160 NA 205 — Xk.v NA - V 1 3 Reaches 1 3 significant shifts from baseline 1 05 Dtmeuton and Substrates , - '*aniy Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD" n Min Mean Med Max SD" n Min Mean Med Max SD n Min Mean Med Max SD" n Min Mean Med Max SD ° n Bankfull Width (ft) NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 Floodprone Width (ft) NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 ' Bankfull Max Depth ft NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA I NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft) NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA I NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 Width /Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA I NA NA NA 0 NA NA I NA NA NA 0 'Bank Height Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 T7-- rofile �� - iii 3 , " TIF %_ Riffle Length (ft) 70 114 119 147 33 4 40 83 70 140 51 3 200 295 295 390 134 2 140 215 215 290 106 2 60 75 75 90 21 2 9 104 104 118 198 2 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0 00 003 002 007 003 4 0 026 004 0 027 007 0 022 3 002 002 002 003 000 2 0 014 0 026 0 026 0 037 0 016 2 0 025 0 029 0 029 0 032 000 2 0 039 0 047 0 047 0 056 0 013 2 Pool Length (ft) 176 240 239 280 42 5 21 0 330 31 5 480 117 4 220 354 370 530 131 5 70 406 270 990 352 5 70 230 230 410 129 6 10 1881 185 28 69251 7 Pool Max depth (ft) 22 25 24 28 03 5 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20 24 25 27 02 6 1 7 22 22 24 03 7 Pool Spacing (ft) 101 335 308 540 163 5 150 440 51 0 590 1 197 4 330 405 37 5 540 95 5 230 436 6 35 0 88 0 25 7 5 10 0 30 6 33 0 43 0 129 5 7 2779 21 675 2068 7 Pattern 17-0 r Y 7V 7 T1 Channel Beltmdth (ft) 12 64 1B 78 2737 626 3 4 - 1 Mit A: 1 ' "Al ON iA * 0 3 Radius of Curvature (fl) 12 77 19 09 — 2736 611 3 v ' ; Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data dimersional data or profile data Indicate am IAVOE Rosgen Classification NA 20' A NA Rc Bankfull width (ft/ft) NA 160 NA 205 — NA NA 0 Sinuosity (ft) 1 3 Reaches 1 3 significant shifts from baseline 1 05 1 08 V 1 08 Water Surface Slope (Channeo (fVft) 0 011 Reaches 1 3 601 001 0 008 005 004 BF slope (ft/ft) Meander Wavelength (ft) 45 11 64 0 012 — 7362 11 78 3 NA NA NA 12 ac W, lit I 0 0 bid 29 10 61 0 0 i'Ia 21 10 69 # 0 19 Meander Width Ratio NA NA 67 0 NA NA 0 5 74 9 0 Ot I R "'VE-11111M f 0 3 i d NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Addtttonal Reach Parameters y tw L i v ' ; Rosgen Classification NA NA NA NA NA Channel Thatweg length (ft) 855 Reaches 1 3 205 202 207 208 209 Sinuosity (ft) 1 3 Reaches 1 3 1 07 1 05 1 08 108 1 08 Water Surface Slope (Channeo (fVft) 0 011 Reaches 1 3 601 001 0 008 005 004 BF slope (ft/ft) 0 012 0 016 0 017 0 012 0 009 3Ri°/ / Ru°/ / P / / G°/ / S°/ NA NA NA NA NA 12 24 64 0 0 bid 29 10 61 0 0 21 10 69 0 0 19 23 10 67 0 0 12 5 74 9 0 'SC/ I Sa / /G/ l C / I B/ /Be/ m R` NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 3d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / , NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA i ,' NA NA NA NA NA g 2/ of Reach with Eroding Banks NA 00 00 00 00 00 Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other Shaded cells Indicate mat these Will typically not be tl9eo in 1 = The distributions for these parameters can Include Information from both the cross section surveys and the longitudinal profile 2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table 3 = Rrffle Run Pool Glide Step Sift/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock dip = max pave disp = max subpave ( 1 Table 114 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary Sttllhouse Creek NCEEP# 363 Reach 4 355 feet 194 Parameter Baseline MY 1 MY 2 MY 3 MY 4 MY 5 49 5 44 5 72 0 179 6 80 367 350 660 166 1 8 50 336 340 71 0 232 6 32 5033 48 72 1745 6 7 40 88 37 751 72 5 20 75 8 0021 3Rio/ / Ru / I P// G /o / S A ntmenstooand ,SabstraterRdffeonly Min Mean Med Max SD" n Min Mean Med Max SD" n Min Mean Med Max SD° n Mm I Mean Med Max SD" n Min Mean Med Max SD° n Min Mean Med Max SD" n Bankfull Width (ft) NA NA NA NA NA 0 124 124 124 124 NA 1 147 147 147 147 NA 1 1531 153 153 153 NA 1 149 149 149 149 NA 1 149 149 14 9 149 NA 1 Floodprone Width (ft) NA NA NA NA NA 0 293 293 293 293 NA 1 306 306 306 306 NA 1 307 307 307 307 NA 1 303 303 303 303 NA 1 303 303 303 303 NA 1 Bankfull Mean Depth (ft) NA NA NA NA NA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 NA 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA 1 09 09 09 09 NA 1 09 09 09 09 NA 1 09 09 09 09 NA 1 ' Bankfull Max Depth ft NA NA NA NA NA 0 — 21 2 1 21 21 NA 1 22 22 1 22 22 1 NA 1 22 22 22 22 NA 1 21 21 21 21 NA 1 21 21 21 21 NA 1 Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft) NA NA NA NA NA 0 132 132 132 132 NA 1 145 145 1 145 145 NA 1 153 153 153 153 NA 1 137 137 137 137 NA 1 137 137 137 137 NA 1 Width/Depth Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 0 11 8 11 8 118 118 NA 1 149 149 149 149 NA 1 1 163 163 163 163 NA 1 161 16 1 161 161 NA 1 161 161 161 161 NA 1 Entrenchment Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 0 24 24 24 24 NA 1 20 20 20 20 NA 1 1 9 19 1 9 19 NA 1 21 21 21 2 1 NA 1 21 21 21 21 NA 1 'Bank Height Ratio NA NA NA NA NA 0 10 10 1 0 10 NA 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 10 NA 1 1 0 10 10 10 NA 1 1 0 10 10 10 NA 1 10 1 0 1 0 1 0 NA 1 Profile 3 I are, a * ' - Riffle Length (ft) 77 159 143 284 76 5 60 210 200 440 145 5 60 204 190 440 127 7 80 304 240 159 0 211 5 13 12575 23 44 1367 4 95 148 15 205 404 5 Riffle Slope (ft/ft) 0 017 0 034 10 021 10081 0 027 5 000 003 003 006 1 002 5 10 02210 041 0 04 009 002 7 000 001 001 003 002 5 0 021 0 037 003810053 0 013 4 10008 0 044 005 10065 0 022 5 Pool Length (ft) 91 257 278 364 97 8 1 21 0 31 9 350 470 96 7 60 191 200 290 72 9 80 21 9 240 350 91 7 11 33 32 1 58 1529 7 11 2389 21 435 1249 9 Pool Max depth (ft) 19 24 24 29 04 5 NA I NA NA I NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 21 27 29 30 04 5 20 28 27 1 36 06 9 Pool Spacing (ft) 194 454 506 61 1 166 7 30 0 49 5 44 5 72 0 179 6 80 367 350 660 166 1 8 50 336 340 71 0 232 6 32 5033 48 72 1745 6 7 40 88 37 751 72 5 20 75 8 0021 3Rio/ / Ru / I P// G /o / S A "1" knia 30 0 , - 0 3 ] - M .( 0 V 14V, §- 0 58 0 3 I dil 0 we Oln 3 V ' j24 A. f 71 Channel Beltwidth (ft) 1838 2532 - 3774 754 4 R& v MwW QW, b � I 1 7 FISUR c W 7-3� 4 -sl 1 6 33 r rw 16 3 0 12 16 64 6 2 a 19 Radius of Curvature (ft) 278 41 72 2 497 896 4 1, 1 k Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data dimensional data or profile data indicate ; 111 " fi ' 004 5 48 12 8 'd 12048 Rc Bankfull mdth (fUft) 003 053 - - - - 041 WIM In significant shifts from baseline 113 0 245 4 34 115 98 64 91 r141T 0 � 1 NA 00 00 00 00 Meander Wavelength (ft) 105 6 1436 1789131 281 4 Biological or Other Shaded cells indicate that these Nn0 tvoical)v not be filled in Meander Width Ratio '211K I Make, A � Addtttonal R ae Ch Pa aimeters I, - , 331 rl 3 1 , � 4 ,k Rosgen Classification B4 B4 B4 B4 B4 Channel Thahveg length (ft) 355 363 359 359 357 360 Sinuosity (ft) 1 08 i l l 109 1 09 1 09 1 1 Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fUft) 002 0 023 0 023 0 017 003 004 BF slope ( ft/ft) - 0 023 0 023 0 019 0015 0021 3Rio/ / Ru / I P// G /o / S A 30 0 70 0 3 40 0 60 0 3 42 0 58 0 3 29 0 71 0 3 V ' j24 0 71 3 3 3SCo/ / Sa / / G/ /C/ / B/ / Beo/ 31, d 11 trr z 35 15 1 40 4 1 0 1 6 33 8 40 16 3 0 12 16 64 6 2 0 19 16 1 48 15 2 0 3d16 / d35 I d50 / d84 / d95 / 140 1, 1 Nowl 111 ' 004 5 48 12 8 1066 12048 1 1 003 053 167 78 4 1 131 041 3 16 857 43 8 113 0 245 4 34 115 98 64 91 r141T 0 � 2/ of Reach with Eroding Banks NA 00 00 00 00 00 Channel Stability or Habitat Metric Biological or Other Shaded cells indicate that these Nn0 tvoical)v not be filled in 1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross section surveys and the longitudinal profile 2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table 3 = Riffle Run Pool Glide Step Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock dip = max pave disp = max subpave Appendix E Hydrologic Data Table 12 0 Venfication of Bankfull Events Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events Stillhouse Creek Stream Restoration - EEP Project #363 Date of Data Date of Occurrence Method Photo Collection (mm/dd /yy) (if available) 14 June 2007 Unknown On -site high NA water indicators 7 October None Crest gauge NA 2007 27 November 24 -27 October 2007 Crest gauge NA 2007 (4.47 ") 1 May 2008 4 March 2008 (2.00 ") Crest gauge NA 26 August 5 July 2008 (2.39 ") Crest gauge NA 2008 6 March 2009 August 28 (4.82 "), Crest gauge NA September 6 (3.98 "), and September 26 (2.18 ") December 12, 2008 (2.43 ") or March 1 -2, 2009 (1.33" 12 August 6 June 2009 (2.39 "), Crest gauge NA 2009 10 June 2009 (1.31 "), or 1 August 2009 (1.38 ") 16 March 11 -13 November Crest gauge; NA 2010 2009 (5.21 "), 19 On -site high December 2009 water (1.62 "), 26 December indicators 2009 (1.34 "), 6 February 2010 (2. 01 ") 14 July 2010 29 May 2010 (1.19 ") Crest gauge; =- On -site high water indicators 17 March September 27, 2010 Crest gauge, NA 2011 (101"), October 14, On -site high 2010 (1 13 ") water indicators 19 July 2011 April 9, 2011 (105"), Crest gauge, NA May 27, 2011 (2 69 ") On -site high water indicators