20051061 Ver 1_Year 5 Monitoring Report_20120823

UT ROCKY RIVER STREAM RESTORATION — NCEEP Project #402
2011 FINAL MONITORING REPORT — YEAR 5
CONDUCTED FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Submitted on February 27, 2012 to:
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
laI Ijj�t 1652 Mail Service Center
rwor- Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
AUG 'a' 3 2012
DENR . WATER QUAUTr
WETLAWS AND STQRMWZTER BRAHM
RECEIVED
MAR 9 - 2012
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRA4

UT ROCKY RIVER STREAM RESTORATION — NCEEP Project #402
2011 FINAL MONITORING REPORT — YEAR 5
CONDUCTED FOR THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Table of Contents
1.0
Executive Summary ............................................................. ............................... 1
2.0
Methodology ........................................................................... ..............................2
2 1
Stream Methodology 2
22
Vegetation Methodology 2
3.0
References ................................................................................ ..............................3
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 10
Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 1 0
Project Restoration Components
Figure 1 1
Buffer Mitigation Credits
Table 2 0
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 0
Project Contacts Table
Table 4 0
Project Attribute Table
Appendix B.
Visual Assessment Data
Figure 2 0 -2 1
Current Conditions Plan View
Table 5 0
Visual Morphological Stability Assessment
Table 6 0
Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
Figures 3 0 -3 3
Stream Station Photos
Figures 4 0 -4 2
Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Table 7 0 Vegetation Plot Mitigation Success Summary Table
Table 8 0 Vegetation Metadata
Table 9 0 Stem Count Total and Planted by Plot and Species
Report Supplemental Planting Report
UT Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream Restoration 2011 Final Monitoring Report
EEP Project #402 Year 5 of 5
RJG &A

Appendix D.
Figures 5 0 -5 4
Figures 6 0 -6 2
Figures 7 0 -7 4
Tables 10 0
Table 11 0
Table 11 1
Appendix E.
Table 12 0
Stream Survey Data
Cross sections with Annual Overlays
Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Baseline Stream Data Summary Table
Monitoring—Cross-Section Morphology Data Table
Monitoring — Stream Reach Morphology Data Table
Hydrologic Data
Verification of Bankf ill Events
UT Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream Restoration 2011 Final Monitoring Report
EEP Project #402 Year 5 of 5
RJG &A

1.0 Executive Summary
The goals of the UT Rocky River Stream Restoration Project are to
• Improve water quality and reduce erosion through restricting cattle access and
improved riparian buffers,
• Improve aquatic habitat using natural material stabilization structures, and
• Provide aesthetic value, wildlife habitat, and bank stability through
restoration/enhancement of the riparian zone
The objectives for this restoration are to
• Exclude cattle from Reach 1,
• Enhance approximately 150 feet of Reach 1 and stabilize an additional 955 feet of
the same reach,
• Reconnect Reach 2 to its floodplain,
• Provide a stable channel for both reaches in terms of pattern, profile, and
dimension, and
• Provide a conservation easement and enhance /restore portions of the buffer for
both reaches
The average live planted woody stem density (472 live stems per acre) has exceeded the
vegetation success criteria (260 live stems per acre in Year 5) by 81 percent Planted
vegetation survival in the two vegetation plots in Reach 1 do not met the success criteria,
however planted stem density along Reach 1 has increased due to a supplemental
planting along the left bank of Reach 1 on March 11, 2011 A total of 145 stems were
planted Additional details about this planting can be found in Appendix C Three
sections along Reach 2 qualify for riparian buffer credit Planted stem density in these
areas exceeds the required 320 stems /acre Invasive exotics were treated throughout the
conservation easement in the summer of 2010 and 2011
Overall, the restoration project appears to have met morphological goals The enhanced
sections of Reach I are stable Flowing water was present in the Reach 2 channel during
the initial 2011 assessment conducted, but there was no flow during the August 2011 site
visits The lack of flow during the summer and fall assessments in 2011 corresponds
with similar findings in 2007 through 2010 The overgrown channel hampered visual
assessment, but overall the channel appears to be stable
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver or
encroachment and statistics related to performance of various project and monitoring
elements can be found in the tables and figures in the report appendices Narrative
background and supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in
the mitigation and restoration plan documents available on ESP's website All raw data
supporting the tables and figures in the appendices is available from EEP upon request
UT Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream Restoration 2011 Final Momtonng Report
EEP Project #402 Year 5 of 5
RJG &A Page 1

2.0 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 collect cross section, vegetation corner, photopoint, and
problem area locations All problem areas identified on the spring 2011 versions of the
CCPV were re- evaluated
2.1. Stream Methodology
Methods employed were a combination of those specified in the Mitigation Plan, the First
Annual Monitoring Report, and standard regulatory guidance and procedures documents
Stream monitoring data was collected using the techniques described in USACE Stream
Mitigation Guidelines, US Forest Service's Stream Channel Reference Sites, and Applied
River Morphology ( USACE, 2003, Harrelson et al , 1994, Rosgen, 1996) A South Total
Station and Nikon automatic level were used for collecting all geomorphic data
Photographs facing upstream were taken at each cross section
2.2. Vegetation Methodology
A total of six representative vegetation survey plots were selected and installed in the
Reaches 1 and 2 by Ward Engineering in 2007 All plots measure 100 square meters in
area and are five meters by 20 meters Pursuant to the guidelines, the four corners of
each plot (0,0, 0,20, 5,0, and 5,20 ) are marked with metal pipe
Level 1 (planted woody stems) and Level 2 (volunteer woody stems) data collection was
performed in all plots, pursuant to the most recent CVS/EEP protocol (Lee et al 2006)
Within each plot, each planted woody stem location (x and y) was recorded, and height
and live stem diameter were recorded for each stem location All planted stems were
identified with pink flagging Vegetation was identified using Weakley ( Weakley 2007)
Photos were taken of each vegetation plot from the 0,0 corner
UT Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream Restoration 2011 Final Monitoring Report
EEP Project 9402 Year 5 of 5
RJG &A Page 2

3.0 References
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 /monitonng/veg/datasheets htm
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
Robert J Goldstein & Associates (RJG &A) (2009) UT to Rocky River (Smith Tract)
Stream and Buffer Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation, Chatham County, North
Carolina Final Monitoring Report February 15, 2008
Rosgen, D L (1996) Applied River Morphology Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa
Springs, CO
Rosgen, DL (1997) "A Geomorphological Approach to Restoration of Incised Rivers
In Proceedings of the Conference on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel
Incision, ed S S Y Wang, E J Langendoen and F B Shields, Jr University of
Mississippi Press, Oxford, MS
USACOE (2003) Stream Mitigation Guidelines USACOE, USEPA, NCWRC,
NCDENR -DWQ
Ward Consulting Engineering (2007) UT to Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream and
Buffer Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation, Chatham County, North Carolina
Mitigation Report March 20, 2007
Ward Consulting Engineering (2008) UT to Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream and
Buffer Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation, Chatham County, North Carolina
Final Monitoring Report February 15, 2008
Weakley, Alan (2007) Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding
Areas Retrieved March 27, 2007 from http / /www herbarium unc edu/flora htm
UT Rocky River (Smith Tract) Stream Restoration 2011 Final Monitoring Report
EEP Project #402 Year 5 of 5
RJG &A Page 3

Appendix A. Protect Vicinity Map and Background Tables
Figure 10
Project Vicinity Map and Directions
Table 10
Project Restoration Components
Figure 1 1
Buffer Mitigation Credits
Table 2 0
Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 3 0
Project Contacts Table
Table 4 0
Project Attribute Table

UT Rocky River Stream Restoration (EEP Project #402)
Appendix A. Figure 1. Vicinity Map.
Reach 2
)/
Reach 1
Ftj
r-• �'�!� �i�l U�L� / � SO - 'J `� \%J ! lei
r- _ J
° Project Entrance '� • -+ _ --_ -� }�
CD
i
fn
Figure 1. UT Rocky River Stream ���yyKK
k�. r Restoration - Chatham County - N 13� r KIII
NCEEP #402 n
Chatham County
0 125 250 500 0 1, 000 2.000
Miles v Feet

Appendix A
Table 1 Protect Components and Mitigation Credits
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
Mite ation Credits
Summations
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non- npanan
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorus
Nutrient
Offset
,Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Ratio
Reach ID
Stationing/Location
Totals
L 1111
1 443
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
017
0
0
Project Com onents
Summations
Project
Stream
Existing
Approach
Restorationor Restoration
Restoration
Mitigation
Component or
acres
Footage /Acreage
(PI, PII,
Equivalent
Footage or
Ratio
Reach ID
Stationing/Location
etc)
Acreage'
1111
Reach 1
00 +00- 00 +47,
827
SS
Ell
827 LF
2 5 1
00 +107 -08 +87
Enhancement 1
168
Reach 1
08 +87 -9 +10, 9 +50
U
P1
El
168 LF
1 51
10 +95
Creation
Reach 2
00 +00 - 11 +11
U
P1
R
1,111 LF
1 1
Reach 2
00 +00 - 11 +11
017
R
0 17 AC
1 1
Com onent
Summations
Restoration
Stream
Ri anan Wetland
Non-Riparian
Buffer
Upland
Level
linear feet
acres
acres
(square feet
acres
Rivenne
Non -
Riverme
Restoration
1111
7405
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
168
Enhancement II
827
Creation
Preservation
HQ Preservation
BMP Elements
Element Location Purpose/Function Notes
1 = In 2010 numbers were adjusted to exclude all ford crossings and bridges Any differences in asset numbers between the 2011
report and earlier reports are due to this adjustment
2 = 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,
0 = Other, CF = Cattle Fencing, WS = Watering System, CH = Livestock Housing

Appendix A.
Figure 1.1. Available Buffer Mitigation Credits
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
N
E
W
S
I
u
d
0
IL`
IL
w
w I
U
Z
0
U
E d
CO
CO E
co E M y
N N O M
C ` w
CO C
N N Y Oy O
R ~ CO m 0
O C N
O LL O N
C
d 0 O
0 O O

Appendix A
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete 4 yrs 11 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete 4 yrs 9 Months
Number of Reporting Years' 5
Activity or Deliverable
Restoration Plan
Final Design — 90%
Construction
Temporary S&E mix applied
Permanent seed mix applied
Bare Root Planting
Mitigation Plan /As -built
Year 1 Morntonno
ualitative Evaluation
Data Collection
Complete
2003
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
n or
Del
Oct -06
July 2006 (131), Sept
2006 R2
July 2006 (R1), Sept
2006 (R2)
Dec -06
Mar -07
Dec -07
Vegetation
Nov -10
Geomorphologic
Nov -07
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov -08
Qualitative Evaluation
Oct -08
Vegetation
Oct -08
Geomorphologic
Oct -08
Year 3 Monitoring
Nov -09
Qualitative Evaluation
Oct -09
Vegetation
Oct -09
Geomorphologic
Oct -09
Year 4 Monitoring
Oct -10
Qualitative Evaluation
Oct -10
Vegetation,
Aug-10
GeomorDholooic
Aua -10
Year 5 Monitoring I I Sep -11 1
Qualitative Evaluation Aug -11
Vegetation Aug-1 1
Geomorphologic Aug -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

Appendix A
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
Designer
Ward Consulting Engineers
8386 Six Forks Road, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27615 -5088
Primary project design POC
Becky Ward
919 870 -0526
Construction Contractor
McQueen Construction
619 Patrick Road
Bahama, NC 27503
Construction contractor POC
Harvey McQueen
919 697 -0614
Survey Contractor
NA
Survey contractor POC
NA
Planting Contractor
Southern Garden Inc
P O Box 808
Apex, NC 27502
Planting contractor POC
NA
919 362 -1050
Seeding Contractor
McQueen Construction
619 Patrick Road
Contractor point of contact
Bahama, NC 27503
Harvey McQueen
919 697 -0614
Seed Mix Sources
Evergreen Seed
919 567 -1333
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Coastal Plain Consery Nursery, Inc (Edenton, NC)
Ellen Colodne 252 482 -5707
Cure Nursery (Pittsboro, NC)
Bill and Jennifer Cure 919 542 -6186
Brook Run Nursery (Blackstone, VA)
Howard Malinski 919 422 -8727
Monitoring Performers
Robert J Goldstein & Associates
1221 Corporation Parkway, Raleigh NC 27610
Stream Monitoring POC
Sean Doig, (919) 872 -1174
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Sean Doig, (919) 872 -1174
Wetland Monitoring POC
INA

Appendix A
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
Project County
Chatham
Ph sio ra hic Region
Piedmont
Ecore ion
45c Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Cape Fear
USGS HUC for Project 14 digit)
3030003070020
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
03 -06 -12
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan?
No
WRC Hab Class Warm, Cool, Cold
Warm
% of project easement fenced or demarcated
100%
Beaver activity observed during design phase?
INA
Restoration Component Attribute Table
Reach 1
Reach 2
Drainage area
128
0 21
Stream order
Second
First
Restored length feet
1095
1111
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Intermittent
Watershed type Rural, Urban, Developing etc
Rural
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution e g
-
-
Residential
-
-
A -Row Crop-
-
A - Livestock
-
-
Forested
-
-
Etc
-
-
Watershed impervious cover %
2%
1%
NCDWQ AU /Index number
17 -43 -9
17 -43 -9
NCDWQ classification
C
C
303d listed?
No
No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment?
No
No
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
NA
NA
Total acreage of easement
568
342
Total vegetated acreage within the easement
-
-
Total planted acreage as part of the restoration
-
-
Ros en classification of pre-existing
C4 /E4
G4
Ros en classification of As -built'
C4 /E4
C4
Valle e
-
-
Valley sloe
0 012
0 012
Valley side slope ranee g 2 -3 %
-
-
Valley toe slope ranee g 2 -3 %
-
-
Cowardin classification
NA
NA
Trout waters designation
No
No
Species of concern, endangered etc Y/N
No
No

Appendix A
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402
Dominant sod series and characteristics
Cid- Lignum Complex 2-
6% slopes
Nanford -Baden Complex, 2
6% slopes
Series
Cid- Nanford -Li num
Cid- Nanford -Li num
Depth
0 -80
0 -80
Cla /o
10 -55%
2 -35%
K
24-55
43-64
T
2-4
4

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

- —�ev-
14
RJG&A
AL

Reach 2
Northing
Easting
Cross - section end point
1A
734770.682
1875860.234
1B
734765.676
1875825.748
2A
734621.348
1875826.406
2B
734610.913
1875782.013
3A
734295.488
1875723.921
3B
734325.640
1875679.006
4A
734172.300
1875721.546
4B
734182.082
1875674.445
5A
734030.805
1875695.028
5B
734052.832
1875648.378
Ve etation plot
0,0 corners
3
734674.043
1875847.255
4
734474.961
1875761.754
5
734193.568
1875718.263
6
734019.034
1875676.278
1
..
�Ylil ,
IFt rfRs �_ 5
Gt 05",
ys
,s
f�
i�
1 ,
f�
1',ll gal Clem
Figure 2.1. Current Conditions Plan View. Rocky
River - Reach 2. Chatham County. NCEEP Project #402
Thalweg Monitoring
Year 5 (8/2/2011) #O Photopoints Oe
As -built Thalweg + Crest Gauge
As -Built Data (Supplied by Ward Engineering)
Conservation Vegetation Monitoring
Easement Plot
Cross vane
O Wetland
Q Single -wing cross vane
Top of Bank Cross - Section
0 50 100 200 300
Feet
1 inch equals 100 feet

UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402 MY5 (2011)
Table 5 0 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 1
Assessed Length 1095 (reconstructed channel sta 8 +87 to 10+95)
Major Channel JChannel
Catenory
ISub-Cateaory
Metric
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1 Aggre m
dation Bar fourtion /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
2 Degradation Evidence of downcutting
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture/Substrate Riffle maintains coarser substrate
3 Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1 6)
2 Length appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
4 Thalwag Position
1 Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
2 Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
Number Stable,
Performing as
Intended
Total Number
In As -bulk
Number of
Unstable
Se ments
Amount of
Unstable
Footaue
% Stable,
Performing as
Intended
0
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
4
4
100%
3
3
100%
3
3
100%
3
3
100%
3
3
100%
Number with Footage with Adjusted % for
Stabilizing Stabilizing Stabilizing
Woody 1 Woody 1 Woody
Bank
t Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
scour and erosion
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2 Undercut
likely Does NOT include undercuts that are modest appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providing habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Tots
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3 Engineered
.__
t Overall Integrity
eg ty
Structures physically intact with no dislodged
p ys y ged bouldere or logs
1
1
°
100 /o
Grade Control Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill 1 1 100%
Piping Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms 1 1 100%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does M1 exceed
Bank Protection 15% (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance 1 1 100%
document)
Habitat Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull 1 1 100%
Depth ratio > 16 Rootwadsllogs providing some cover at base -flow

UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402 MY5 (2011
Table 51 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment'
Reach ID Reach 2
Assessed Length 1111
LOW HOW m Channel nas allowed herbaceous material to become established over the Course of Bie year making visual assessment dafimit
+As-built data for Section 2 not available Numbers are based on earlier monitoring year assessments
Number
Number with
Footage with
Adjusted % for
Major Channel
Channel
Stable,
Performing as
Total Number
Number of
Unstable
Amount of
Unstable
% Stable,
Performing as
Stabilizing
Woody
Stabilizing
Woody
Stabilizing
Woody
Cat o
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
Intended
In As -built+
Seaments
Foota a
Intended
V etatlon
Ve station
1 Bed
1 Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1 Aegradaton - Bar fomiabon /growth sufficient to significantly deflect
ow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
_Yeggtation
2 Degradation Evidence of downs utbng
0
0
100%
2 Riffle Condition
1 Texture/Substrate Riffle maintains coarser substrate
30
30
100%
3 Meander Pool
Condition
1 Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull Depth > 1 6)
30
32
94%
2 Lepath appropriate ( >30% of centerline distance between tad of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
32
32
100%
4 Thalweg Position
1 Thatweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
32
32
100%
2 Thatweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
32
32
100%
Bank
1 Scoured/Eroding
Bank ladung vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
satyr and erosion
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2 Undercut
likely Does NOT mctude undercuts that are modest appear sustainable
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
and are providin habitat
3 Mass Wasting
Bank slumping calving or collapse
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
100%
3 Engineered
Structures
1 Overall In tegrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs
8
8
100%
2 Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill
8
8
100%
2a Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms
8
8
100%
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does putt exceed
3 Bank Protection
15% (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
8
8
100%
document)
4 Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining — Max Pool Depth Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 16 RootwadsAogs providing some cover at base flow
6
8
75%
LOW HOW m Channel nas allowed herbaceous material to become established over the Course of Bie year making visual assessment dafimit
+As-built data for Section 2 not available Numbers are based on earlier monitoring year assessments

UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration — EEP Project #402 MYS (2011)
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage' 34
e etatlon Cat o
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
De Diction
Number of
Combined
a j 9
% of Planted
Acres L e.
1 Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material
0 1 acres
NA
_E211gons
0
000
00%
2 Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3 4 or 5 stem count criteria
01
Lime Green
Stippling
2
078
229%
Total
2
078
229%
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
000/0
Cumulative Total
2
078
229%
Easement Acreage= 91
e station Catenory
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
22&1 ctlon
Number of
Pol ons
Combined
Acres a
% of
Easement
Ac a e
Invasive Areas of Concern"
Areas or points (d too small to render as polygons at map scale)
01
NA
0
000
00%
5 Easement Encroachment Areas
Areas or points (rf too small to render as polygons at map scale)
none
NA
0
000
00,10
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory the channel acreage
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of encroachment
the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i a item 1 2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage Invasrves of ooncern/mterest 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 penod 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 regularity 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
nsk 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 %crostegwm 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 nsk/threat level for mapping as points where isolated specimens are found particularly ealry in a projects monitoring history However areas of discreet dense patches will of course be mapped as polygons The symbology
scheme below was one that was found to be helpful for symbolzing mvasrves polygons pancculalry for situations where the conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense discreet patches In any case the
point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset in legend items it the number of species are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary

Appendix B. Figure 3.0. Stream Station Photos
Photopoint 1 -Reach 1- Station 1110
11/14/2007
8/9/2011
' -Reach 2- Station 110
11/14/2007 8/9/2011

Appendix B. Figure 3.1. Stream Station Photos
Reach 2- Station 285
11/14/2007
Reach 2- Station 325
8/9/2011
11/14/2007 8/9/2011

Appendix B. Figure 3.2. Stream Station Photos
each 2- Station 450
11/14/2007
8/9/2011
-Reach 2- Station 535
11/14/2007 8/9/2011

Appendix B. Figure 3.3. Stream Station Photos
11/14/2007
-Reach 2- Station 610
Reach 2- Station 1070
8/9/2011
11/14/2007 8/9/2011

Appendix B. Figure 4.0. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
Veg Plot 1 -Reach 1- Station 1070
10/29/2007
Veg Plot 2 -Reach 1- Station 240
7/28/2011
10/29/2007 7/28/2011

'Ilk
rK
mior
-! .� •.'� _ �. • r Jy Vii_ .'� +.► d
Y
r:.. \.

Appendix B. Figure 4.2. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Photos
;ach 2- Station 770
10/23/2008
Veg Plot 6 -Reach 2- Station 960
7/29/2011
10/30/2007 7/29/2011

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 Supplemental Planting Report

Appendix C
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
MY5 2011
Tract
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold
Met
Tract Mean
Reach 1
1
N
0%
2
N
Reach 2
3
Y
100%
4
Y
5
Y
6
Y

Appendix C
Table 8 Vegetation Metadata
UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
MYS 2011
Report Prepared By
sean doi
Date Prepared
8/22/2011 19 17
database name
402UTtoRR mdb
database location
D \Sean \EEP \RockyRiver \11 Monitonng\UTRockyRiver_SmithTract-
402-MY5-201 1 \Support Files \3 Vegetation Plot Data
computer name
JJESSIO
file size
134316288
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT
17 Z* 'X1;fAMi11! I'll /_1 A
Project Code
Description of database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
Metadata
ro ect s and project data
Description
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each
Pro j, planted
year This excludes live stakes
length(ft)
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year
stream-to-edge width ft
This includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural /volunteer
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 b Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences
Damage
and percent of total stems impacted by each
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by e 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
17 Z* 'X1;fAMi11! I'll /_1 A
Project Code
402
project Name
UT to Rocky River Smith Tract
Description
stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation
River Basin
Cape Fear
length(ft)
R1 1,095, R2 1,111
stream-to-edge width ft
R1 25' -64', R2 V -125'
areas m
R1 3,830, R2 4,660
'Required Plots calculated
6
,Sampled Plots
6

Table 8 Planted and Total Ste
�
.:
mom
o00
000
mmm
mmm
�
��
mmo
mmm
mmm
mom
::.',; ;, ,,::,, :7:
mmm
MEN
o00
000
mom
�
mm
©mmm
mom
�
mm
®mmm
• :
mom
r
mmm
mom
• : - : ; :
mmm
r
mmm
mmm
mom
r
mmm
mmm
00o
r
mmm
mom
mmm
r
�mm
mom
mom
r
o00
000
Om
mom
r
�mm
��m
mom
©
©
©©
©
©©
•
000
mmm
mmm
o ©v
®mmm
mmm
OEM
19�

i
1 1
Legend
k Staging Area
Site Access
2010 -03 Planting Areas
2010 -03 Project Easements
Y j /YYt
y A
r
1 Itelll
1�I 1?lP!1
Plant Area Quantity Acreage Planting Type
1 120 0.6 Riparian
2 25 0.13 Riparian
0 62.5 125 250
Feet
UT Rocky River - EEP #402
Chatham County
PLANTING PLAN
October 2010

EEP Supplemental Planting Species Lists - SP2O1O -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

Appendix D. Stream Survey Data
Figures 5 0 -5 5 Cross sections with Annual Overlays
Figures 6 0 -6 2 Longitudinal Profiles with Annual Overlays
Figures 7 0 -7 5 Pebble Count Plots with Annual Overlays
Tables 100-10 1 Baseline Stream Data Summary Table
Table 11 0 Momtonng— Cross - Section Morphology Data Table
Table 11 1-112 Monitonng— Stream Reach Morphology Data Table

Figure 5.0. Cross Sections with Annual Overlays - UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
UT to Rocky River
XS ID
XS 1 -1 (Riffle)
Reach:
1
Date:
8/9/2011
Field Crew:
_ _ .,,., SD & CH
18.21
SUMMARY DATA
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
0
6
548.28
9
6.1
548.18
15.7
6.11
548.17
18.21
6.42
547.86
19.9
6.82
547.46
22
7.43
546.85
23.1
8.84
545.44
25.2
8.81
545.47
27.2
8.68
545.60
28.81
8.94
545.34
30.7
8.51
545.77
32.2
8.11
546.17
33.9
7.42
546.86
35.8
6.66
547.62
38.6
6.15
548.13
41.7
5.97
548.31
45.6
5.45
548.83
49.7
5.15
549.13
53
4.99
549.29
58.3
4.92
549.36
68.71
4.87
549.41
73.91
4.57
549.71
Bankfull Width ft
18.9
Flood prone Width ft
157.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.5
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.5
Bankfull Area 2
28.1
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
12.8
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
8.3
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.1
d50 (mm),
13.18
Stream Type: C4
View of XS 1 -1 looking downstream
XS 1 -1, Riffle, Sta. 9 +50 Bankfull - 8/18/2010 Year 1 - 11/14/2007 Year 2 - 10/17/2008
Year 3 - 11/04/2009 -- Year 4 - 8/18/2010 f Year 5 - 8/9/2011
550
549
a
548
c
,o
547
Q>
W
546
545
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Station (feet)

Figure 5.1. Cross Sections with Annual Overlays - UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
UT to Rocky River
XS ID
XS 2 -1 (Riffle)
Reach:
2
Date:
7/28/2011
Field Crew:
SD
17.21
SUMMARY DATA
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
0
4.50
559.00
6.9
4.91
558.59
11.6
5.09
558.41
17.21
5.17
558.33
20.51
5.95
557.55
24.6
6.49
557.01
25.9
6.64
556.86
26.7
6.91
556.59
27.4
6.91
556.59
28.8
6.08
557.42
31.81
4.93
558.57
35.11
4.60
558.90
Bankfull Width ft
14.0
Flood prone Width ft
104.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.9
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.7
Bankfull Area z
12.8
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
15.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
7.4
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
d50 (mm),
0.05
Stream Type: C4 A
View of XS 2 -1 looking downstream
XS 2 -1, Riffle, Sta. 0 +78
Bankfull - 7/28/2011 Year 1 - 11/14/2007 - Year 2 - 10/17/2008
Year 3 - 11/04/2009 Year 4 - 8/18/2010 Year 5 - 7/28/2011
560
559
w
m
558
-
c
0
557
a�
Lu
-
-
556
--
555
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Station (feet)

Figure 5.2. Cross Sections with Annual Overlays - UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
River Basin: Cape Fear
Watershed: UT to Rocky River
XS ID XS 2 -2 (Pool)
Reach: 2
Date: 7/28/2011
Field Crew: SD
SUMMARY DATA
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
0
4.35
559.02
10.2
6.22
557.15
15.5
6.66
556.71
22.61
6.96
556.41
25
8.12
555.25
26.3
8.24
555.13
27.8
8.28
555.09
30.4
7.48
555.89
32.7
6.86
556.51
35.51
6.9
556.47
41.81
6.84
556.53
45.61
6.58
556.79
Bankfull Width ft
12.5
Flood prone Width ft
112.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.4
Bankfull Area z
8.9
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
17.4
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
9.0
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.00
d50 (mm),
0.03
Stream Type: Aft
View of XS 2 -2 looking downstream
XS 2 -2, Pool, Sta. 2 +66 -Bankfull-7/28/2011
Year 1 - 11/14/2007 Year 2 - 10/17/2008
Year 3 - 11/04/2009 Year 4 - 8/18/2010 --E--Year 5 - 7/28/2011
560
559
558
557
0
m
556
W
555
554
0 5 10
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Station (feet)

Figure 5.3. Cross Sections with Annual Overlays - UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
River Basin:
Watershed:
XS ID
Reach:
Date:
Field Crew:
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
0
5.31
552.38
8.2
5.64
552.05
13.3
6.06
551.63
211
6.15
551.54
29.3
6.18
551.51
30.8
6.74
550.95
31.9
6.96
550.73
33.5
7.62
550.07
35.3
7.54
550.15
36.91
6.53
551.16
38.7
6.4
551.29
40.1
5.92
551.77
43.3
5.86
551.83
49.1
5.97
551.72
54.1
5.75
551.94
Cape Fear
UT to Rocky River
XS 2 -3 (Riffle)
2
7/28/2011
SD
SUMMARY DATA
Bankfull Width ft
10.0
Flood prone Width ft
200.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
0.7
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.4
Rankfull Area 2
7.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
13.6
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
19.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.00
d50 (mm),
0.03
Stream Type:
C4
View of XS 2 -3 looking downstream
XS 2 -3, Riffle, Sta. 6 +34 Bankfull - 7128/2011
Year 1 - 11/14/2007 Year 2 - 10/17/2008
Year 3 - 11/04/2009
Year 4 - 8/18/2010 Year 5 - 7/28/2011
554
553
a
�
552
c
.g
551
LI
a�
W
550
549
0 10 20
30 40 50
Station (feet)

Figure 5.4. Cross Sections with Annual Overlays - UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
River Basin: Cape Fear
Watershed: UT to Rocky River
XS ID XS 2 -4 (Pool)
Reach: 2
Date: 7/29/2011
Field Crew: SD
SUMMARY DATA
Station
Rod Ht.
Eleva on
0
4.96
549.84
7.6
5.02
549.78
14.9
5.17
549.63
19.31
5.16
549.64
23.71
5.09
549.71
26.3
5.06
549.74
29.3
6.51
548.29
30.3
6.8
548.00
31.8
6.85
547.95
32.7
6.64
548.16
33.6
5.79
549.01
36.1
5.33
549.47
37.5
4.94
549.86
39.2
4.9
549.90
44
5.02
549.78
47.81
5.06
549.74
Bankfull Width ft
10.8
Floodprone Width (ft)
160.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.8
Rankfull Area z
10.4
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
14.9
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.00
d50 (mm),
0.04
View of XS 2 -4 looking downstream
Stream Type: - C4
XS 2 -4, Pool, Sta. 7 +90 Bankfull - 7/29/2011 Year 1 - 11/14/2007 Year 2 -10/17/2008
Year 3 - 11104/2009 Year 4 - 8/18/2010 -Year 5 - 7/29/2011
552
551
0
550
c
0
549
a�
W
548
547
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Station (feet)

Figure 5.5. Cross Sections with Annual Overlays - UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
River Basin:
Cape Fear
Watershed:
UT to Rocky River
XS ID
XS 2 -5 (Riffle)
Reach:
2
Date:
7/29/2011
Field Crew:
SD
22.2
SUMMARY DATA
Station
Rod Ht.
Elevation
0
4.75
547.87
8.1
4.95
547.67
13.3
4.94
547.68
22.2
4.67
547.95
27.9
4.69
547.93
33.1
4.8
547.82
35.3
5.65
546.97
36.6
6.42
546.20
38.11
6.73
545.89
39.2
6.74
545.88
40.1
6.5
546.12
41.4
5.61
547.01
44.5
4.9
547.72
47.8
4.94
547.68
51.51
4.4
548.22
Bankfull Width ft
11.6
Flood prone Width ft
130.0
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.9
Rankfull Area z
12.0
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.2
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
11.2
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
d50 (mm),
21.7
Stream Type: C4 J
View of XS 2 -5 looking downstream
XS 2 -5, Riffle, Sta. 9 +32
Bankfull - 7/29/2011 Year 1 - 11/14/2007 Year 2 - 10/17/2008
Year 3 - 11/04/2009 Year 4 - 8/18/2010 f Year 5 - 7/2912011
550
549
a�
548
0
547
W
546
545
0 10
20 30 40 50
Station (feet)

Appendix D. Figure 6.0. Longitudinal Profile with Annual Overlays. Reach 1. UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration - EEP Project #402
552
551
550
549
r 548
O
it
W 547
546
545
544
543
542
As -Built TW
YR1 TW (11/14/2007)
Xs 1
Cattle Fence
f Beginning of Restoration
Cross Vane
Fence
YR2 TW (9117/2008)
YR3 TW (11/4/2009)
YR4 TW (8/27/2010)
f YR5 TW (08/03/11)
YR5 BKF (8/3/2011)
■ YR5 TOB
800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100
Station (ft)

Appendix D.
Figure 7.0. Pebble Counts. UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration (EEP Project #402)
XSI -I (Riffle)
2011
Descri t.
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Class %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
.062
18
19
19
Sand
Very Fine Sand
.125
0
19
Fine Sand
.25
4
4
23
Medium Sand
0.5
3
3
26
Coarse Sand
1.0
1
1
27
Very Course Sand
2
2
2
29
Gravel
Very Fine Gravel
4.0
2
2
31
Fine Gravel
5.7
3
3
34
Fine Gravel
8
9
9
44
Medium Gravel
11.3
4
4
48
Medium Gravel
16
5
5
53
Coarse Gravel
22.6
4
4
57
Coarse Gravel
32
17
18
75
Very Course Gravel
45
8
8
83
Very Course Gravel
64
8
8
92
Cobble
Small Cobble
90
2
2
94
Small Cobble
128
3
3
97
Medium Cobble
180
3
3
100
Large Cobble
256
0
100
Boulder
Small Boulders
362
■ MY5 8/9/11
0
100
Small Boulders
512
0
100
Medium Boulders
1024
0
100
ILarge Boulders
2048
0
100
Bedrock
Bedrock
40096
1
0
100
Total 96
Individual Class Percent
30
C
25
a4'
20
a
m
15
U
10
'a
5
Es
0
•0 •,a O e3
6' S 'd` .0
0
7P cS � ! tJ t4 n t9
.0 '> V a' tJ <J S O
> > s t� v
t0 00 S0 O� O� p 00
a � LOO
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/27/07)
■ MY2 (10/17/08)
■ MY3 (8/6/09)
■MY4 8/18/10
■ MY5 8/9/11
■■■■■■MP1/014PW
■■■■■■■■■
■■■
■
■
■
■
■
/�In
A
/■■■■■■■■■■■■■
1
1 1:
. 1•
Individual Class Percent
30
C
25
a4'
20
a
m
15
U
10
'a
5
Es
0
•0 •,a O e3
6' S 'd` .0
0
7P cS � ! tJ t4 n t9
.0 '> V a' tJ <J S O
> > s t� v
t0 00 S0 O� O� p 00
a � LOO
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/27/07)
■ MY2 (10/17/08)
■ MY3 (8/6/09)
■MY4 8/18/10
■ MY5 8/9/11

Appendix D.
Figure 7.1. Pebble Counts. UT to Rocky River Stream Restoration (EEP Project #402)
XS2 -1 (Riffle)
2011
Descri t.
Material
Size (mm)
Total #
Class %
Cum %
Silt/Clay
Silt/Clay
.062
65
67
67
Sand
Very Fine Sand
.125
0
67
Fine Sand
.25
0
67
Medium Sand
0.5
0
67
Coarse Sand
1.0
0
67
Very Course Sand
2
0
67
Gravel
Very Fine Gravel
4.0
0
67
Fine Gravel
5.7
1
1
68
Fine Gravel
8
0
68
Medium Gravel
11.3
0
68
Medium Gravel
16
3
3
71
Coarse Gravel
22.6
0
71
Coarse Gravel
32
3
3
74
Very Course Gravel
45
3
3
77
Very Course Gravel
64
■ MY1 (11/27/07)
0
77
Cobble
Small Cobble
90
9
9
87
Small Cobble
128
9
9
96
Medium Cobble
180
1
1
97
Large Cobble
256
3
3
100
Boulder
Small Boulders
362
0
100
Small Boulders
512
0
100
Medium Boulders
1024
0
100
Large Boulders
2048
0
100
Bedrock
Bedrock
1 40096
0
100
Total 97
Individual Class Percent
70
m
60
WOMEN
L
50
H
R
40
V
30
ea
20
Z
'a
c
10
0
id U
s '
s o
> o `� s o �o w A'00
o a
o
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/27/07)
■ MY2 (10/17/08) ■ MY3 (11/3/09)
■ MY4 8/18/10
■ MY5 8/9/11
1
/ 1:
1•
Individual Class Percent
70
m
60
L
50
H
R
40
V
30
ea
20
Z
'a
c
10
0
id U
s '
s o
> o `� s o �o w A'00
o a
o
Particle Size Class (mm)
■ MY1 (11/27/07)
■ MY2 (10/17/08) ■ MY3 (11/3/09)
■ MY4 8/18/10
■ MY5 8/9/11

Appendix 0.
Table 10.0 Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Rocky River NCEEP# 402 - Reach 1 1,095 feet total, Enhancement I length 208 feet Station 8 +87 to 10 +95
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach es
Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only+
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD S
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD'
n
Min
Med'
Max
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
NA
8 1
28
14
17
19.9
22.3
12.7
13.3
13.9
24
24
Floodprone Width (ft)
95
153
196
27
35.3
45
125
140
155
125
140
155
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
NA
1.03
26
t6
1.5
1.74
2.08
0.65
0.88
0.91
1.6
1.44
' Bankfull Max Depth (ft
NA
2.45
2.62
3
1.26
1,34
1.44
2.3
2.45
2.6
2.3
28
2.6
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
NA
13
1 5a
25
31.4
34
36
11.03
11.59
it%
38
1 38.4
53
34.4
Width/Depth Ratio
NA
8.17
11.75
14.87
14.5
15.15
16.36
15
165
Entrenchment Ratio
NA
4.8
6
7
2.13
2065
124
-
5.2
5.8
6.45
5.23
5.85
6.48
'Bank Height Ratio
NA
1
12
1.3
-
-
0.84
--
1.19
1.8
-
1
1.1
1 2
1
-
1.15
1.2
-
--
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
8
24.5
45
5
15.92
24
10
30
60
7
24
53
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0 003
0.015
0.036
0.0156
0.0257
0.149
0.033
0.034
0.037
0.012
0.03
0.032
Pool Length (ft)
-
23
46
5
9.99
19
19
40
55
19
36
50
Pod Max depth (ft)
Pool Spacing (ft)
43.7
57 5
228
403
64
27
526
60
24
45.8
60
Pattem
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
40
60
80
15
21.7
32
40
50
70
40
50
70
Radius of Curvature (ft)
15
40
70
11.7
21.5
35.9
55
60
70
55
62
70
-
-
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
_
_
--
--
-
-
_
-
-
Meander Wavelength (ft)
65
112
160
35 1
1
45.8
F 57.5
100
1 105
1 110
100 1
105
110
Meander Width Ratio
2 35
301
358
-
113
1 63
1 241
-
16
1 2
1 29
167
21
293
Trarnportr - _-
Reach Shear Stress (competency) lb/f2
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W /mz
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
NA
c4
ca
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
NA
-
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
NA
Valley length (ft)
185
312
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
222
397
208
208
Sinuosity (ft)
1.2
1.27
1.12
1.12
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (fttft)
NA
0.0088
0.0078
0.0103
0.0093
BF slope (ft/ft)
NA
0.0103
0.0079
0.0105
0.0105
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
_
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-
Biological or Other.
-
-
1M, %,1 calk InJnat[ Ilut thane H,II tyl,really nM M1[ hlktl m.
1 =fhe d-b-n, f-hmh lhecross- seelitm anrveyvnndit kmgimdm.IPmffle 2 =1m Pml-- 1hnP"- ILSGSg.ngein -Ime wish the pm", ranch l.ddnl Wafdlvrnficntion -mrcl.
1:1i1iimg surrey dam Pnnh¢e an --f the be.kfdl no,dplem mea m-mhwh sM Id be them. from the t,pnrbonk to the I-f the 1-is-1,N 4= Pnpm -of reach nh.biling Wks lhal me -ding h--dtm 1k, -I swr l'm comp -m mmnormg dnm: illf value dad only ifthe nescecd1
Maw.. nnl titan. m.nwlnl firs d- g. .umbers. +Numbers Provided may rml he for riffles only.

Appendix D
Table 10 0 Baseline Stream Data Summary
UT to Rocky River NCEEP# 402 - Reach 2 1 111 feet
Parameter
Gau e'
Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach es
Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dlmenslon and Substrate - Riffle Only*
LL
UL
Eq
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
I SD'
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mad
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
NA
37
14
76
77
813
87
127
133
139
11
989
1115
1457
Floodpmne Width (ft)
11
1133
12
27
353
45
100
144
200
104
1412
200
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
NA
059
155
102
075
082
091
0 a5
088
091
074
074
084
077
087
1 02
' Bankfull Max Depth ft
NA
12
126
1 37
126
134
144
1 05
116
1 33
134
151
164
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
NA
34
15
75
603
67
704
1103
1159
1195
82
82
92
804
986
1487
Width/Depth Ratio
NA
842
10
1094
145
1515
1635
13
15
1635
1116
1275
1428
Entrenchment Ratio
NA
126
14
156
213
265
324
99
13
18
79
1356
2185
'Bank Height Ratio
NA
1 46
-
166
1 a3
-
-
084
-
102
1 18
-
-
084
10
1 15
10
-
104
1 12
-
-
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
4
2278
1175
5
1592
24
4
95
26
3
948
263
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0 005
00305
00722
00156
00257
0 149
002
0 035
0 083
0 012
0 033
0 064
Pool Length (ft)
6
975
13
5
999
19
13
164
27
788
1584
295
Pool Max depth (ft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Pool Spacing (ft)
14
40
139
228
403
64
17
275
51
123
29
63
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
13
20
35
15
21 7
32
125
18
265
143
21
35
Radius of Curvature (ft)
76
123
21 2
117
215
359
10
135
20
10
138
20
Rc Bankfull width (f tft)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
_
_
-
Meander Wavelength (ft)
35
57
85
35
458
575
24
38
65
24
371
65
Meander Width Ratio
1 6
246
43
1 13
163
241
1 13
763
2 47
1 3
198
27
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) (bite
-
-
-
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
-
-
-
Stream Power (transport ca W /m2
-
-
-
Additional Reach Parememrs
Rosgen Classification
NA
G4
C4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
NA
-
-
_
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
NA
-
Valley length (ft)
950
312
Channel Thahveg length (ft)
1011
397
1165
1111
Sinuosity (ft)
1 OB
1 27
123
120
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
NA
0 015
0 008
0 013
no water In channel
BF slope (ft/ft)
NA
0 014
0 008
0 013
0 009 (upper poraon) 0 014 (lower portion)
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
0 013
_
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
-
-
Biological or Other
-
-
bT.dcd — and nle el.t -- tyP— Y not ee I.- n
I -The du h— far them pmmrlen e.n ircWh mfm.wl- fiwn both Ih a oao-.aa- I—r od Ih 4npmdnd p rle 2 - Fm pm}co v W . pm.mml USCS gauge mom mth ibe pm,e i m h (added bnkfail v-11mm me)
1 Uhhrmga— yd.up.&¢..am.te of1heb..kfull no.dplem erameanwh.h.h -W be ihe.mfiomfloP orbek mihe me ofd. lvt.ee— I.lope 4- Pmpmtnnof— heahibihns heob d., — elodms b..cd -the -1..,q fm comp.r000 l moon nag d.0 aOf a]u.eNed- lydiheneaeaWI
M­—&- &- po idrd fm dmpt m -ban -K—d en pm ded may m be fm nM ady

Appendix D
Table 11 0 Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters — Cross Sections)
UT to Rockv River (NCEEP# 4021- Reaches 1 -2
1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurvey will be based
on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of
for prior years this must be discussed vnth EEP If this
cannot be resolved in time for a given vears report
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired
Cross Section 1 -1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 -1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 -2 (Pool)
Based on 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
5483
5483
5483
5483
5483
NA
5590
5590
5590
5590
5590
NA
5590
5590
5590
5590
5590
Bankfull Width (ft)
NA
182
181
192
21 1
189
NA
132
150
150
143
140
NA
99
132
114
129
125
Floodprone Width (ft)
NA
1577
1570
1570
1570
1570
NA
1040
1040
1040
1040
1040
NA
1120
1120
1120
1120
1120
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
NA
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 5
1 5
NA
10
1 0
09
10
09
NA
09
07
08
08
07
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
NA
25
26
26
28
25
NA
16
18
18
18
1 7
NA
14
16
15
16
14
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area W
NA
1 278
273
291
326
281
NA
126
148
141
138
128
NA
86
98
85
100
89
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
NA
11 9
120
127
137
128
NA
138
153
159
149
152
NA
115
177
153
166
174
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
NA
84
87
82
74
83
NA
79
69
69
73
74
NA
113
85
98
87
90
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
NA
1 1
1 1
1 1
12
1 1
NA
1 1
1 0
10
10
10
NA
10
10
1 1
10
10
Cross Sectional Area between end pins (ft2)
NA
71 0
684
70 3
56 2
703
NA
31 5
29 7
22 0
22 1
29 0
NA
57 2
49 2
56 5
583
565
d50 (mm)
NA
1000,
11 30
570
21 50
1318
NA
22 00
004
485
60,
005
NA
018
004
0 03
1 004
1 003
Cross Section 2-3 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2-4 (Pool)
Cross Section 2 -5 (Riffle)
Based on 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
5524
5524
5524
5524
5524
NA
5498
5498
5498
5498
5498
NA
5479
5479
5479
5479
5479
Bankfull Width (ft)
NA
92
103
118
109
100
NA
110
109
113
100
108
NA
106
131
123
146
116
Floodprone Width (ft)
NA
2000
2000
2000
2000
2000
NA
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
NA
1300
1300
1300
1300
1300
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
NA
08
08
07
08
07
NA
10
1 0
09
1 0
1 0
NA
10
09
09
09
1 0
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
NA
1 3
1 6
16
16
14
NA
18
18
1 7
1 8
1 8
NA
18
20
19
1 20
1 9
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area W
NA
72
82
83
82
74
NA
110
109
105
98
104
NA
103
11 3
108
123
120
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
NA
117
129
168
144
136
NA
110
109
122
102
11 2
NA
110
152
141
172
112
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
NA
21 9
194
169
184
199
NA
146
147
142
160
149
NA
122
99
106
123
112
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
NA
10
10
10
1 0
1 0
NA
10
10
10
10
10
NA
10
10
10
1 1
10
Cross Sectional Area between end pins ftz
NA
331
1 41 8
207
307
308
NA
171
141
14 4
12 5
130
NA
243
21 9
159
261
236
d50 (mm)l
NA
025
1 004
005
003
003
NA
020
004
0 04
0 11
004
NA
023
3980,
1500,
1900,
21 72
1 = Widths and depths for monitoring resurvey will be based
on the baseline bankfull datum regardless of
for prior years this must be discussed vnth EEP If this
cannot be resolved in time for a given vears report
Additional data from a prior performer is being acquired

Appendix D
Table 11 1 Monitoring Data Stream Reach Data Summary
UT to Rocky River NCEEPN 402 Reach 1 1,095 feet total, Enhancement I lengMth 208 feet Station 8 +87 to 10+95
Parameter
Baseline
MY 1
MY -2
MY 3
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
182
182
182
182
NA
1
181
181
181
181
NA
1
192
192
192
192
NA
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
1577
1577
1577
1577
NA
1
1570
1570
1570
1570
NA
1
1570
1570
1570
1570
NA
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
1 5
1 5
15
1 5
NA
1
1 5
1 5
15
15
NA
1
15
15
15
1 5
NA
1
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
25
25
25
25
NA
1
26
26
26
26
NA
1
26
26
26
26
NA
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
278
278
278
278
NA
1
273
273
273
273
NA
1
291
291
291
291
NA
1
Width/Depth Rata
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0 1
119
119
119
119
NA
1
120
12--0
120
120
NA
1
127
127
127
127
NA
1
Entrenchment Ratio
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
84
84
84
84
NA
1
87
87
87
87
NA
1
82
82
82
82
NA
1
'Bank Height Ratio
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
NA
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
NA
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
NA
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
7
-
24
53
-
26
64
74
80
25
4
110
150
115
260
74
4
60
90
70
160
48
4
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0 012
-
003
0 032
-
003
003
003
005
001
4
002
002
002
003
001
4
001
002
002
002
001
4
Pool Length (ft)
19
-
36
50
-
-
193
31 4
275
495
123
6
190
308
290
480
104
6
190
343
370
450
103
6
Pool Max depth (ft)
-
_
_
_
-
_
_
19
24
24
29
NA
2
21
26
24
33
05
5
Pool Spacing (ft)
24
458
60
-
244
458
487
579
135
5
240
454
490
580
129
5
250
500
530
740
181
5
Pattern
'
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
40
-
50
70
-
-
1
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc Bankfull width (ft/ft)
55
_
-
_
62
70
-
_
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless casual data dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Meander Wavelength (ft)
100
-
105
110
-
Meander Width Ratio
167
-
21
293
-
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
208
207
208
202
Sinuosity (ft)
1 12
1 12
1 12
1 09
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
00093
No water in channel at time of survey
0 013
00057
BF slope (f fft)
001505
00093
00055
00074
3RD% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
-
-
-
10
4
73
12
0
24
0
73
3
0
14
0
81
5
0
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
18
17
52
12
1
0
14
27
59
0
0
0
3d16 / d35 / d50 / d841 Or,
0 06
2
11 3
59 25
90
0 1
1
5 7
23 54
38 5
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
NA
00
00
00
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
_
_
Biological or Other
_
_
Shaded cells indicate that these will typicaly 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 = Rifle 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

Appendix D
Parameter
MY 4
MY 5
Dimension,and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SID
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
21 1
21 1
21 1
21 1
NA
1
189
189
189
189
NA
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
1570
1570
1570
1570
NA
1
1570
1570
1570
1570
NA
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1 5
1 5
15
1 5
NA
1
1 5
15
1 5
15
NA
1
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
28
28
28
28
NA
1
25
25
25
25
NA
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
326
326
326
326
NA
1
281
281
281
281
NA
1
W idth/Depth Ratio
137
137
137
137
NA
1
128
128
128
128
NA
1
Entrenchment Ratio
74
74
74
74
NA
1
83
1 83
83
83
NA
1
'Bank Height Ratio
1 2
1 2
1 2
1 2
NA
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
NA
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
60
130
105
250
84
4
8
1813
1275
39
1427
4
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
002
007
006
015
006
4
0 017
0 039
0 037
0 065
0 025
3
Pool Length (ft)
120
278
280
460
142
6
9
2058
205
34
844
6
Pool Max depth (ft)
19
26
29
35
07
5
15
25
26
32
067
6
Pool Spacing (ft)
160
408
420
710
225
5
245
41 1
39
56
1332
5
Pattern
Channel Beltwtdth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc Bankfull vwdth ( ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Ratio
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
205
211
Sinuosity (ft)
1 11
1 14
Water Surface Slope (Channel) ( ft/ft)
No water in channel at time of survey
No water in channel at time of survey
BF slope ( ft/ft)
00048
00041
3RI% I Ru% / P% / G% / S%
20
8
56
16
0
3SC% I Sa% I G% / C% I B% / Be%
0
18
82
0
0
0
19
10
63
8
0
0
3d16 I d35 I d50 I d84 / d951
1
13 05
21 5
44 07
57 67
005
5 85
13 18
4653
105 2
No of Reach with Eroding Banks
00
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other

Appendix D
Table l l 1 Monitoring Data Stream Reach Data Summary
UT to Rocky River NCEEPS 402 - Reach 2 11111 feet
Parameter
Baseline
MY 1
MY -2
MY- 3
Dimension and Substrate Riffle only
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
92
110
106
132
NA
3
103
128
131
150
NA
3
118
130
123
150
NA
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
104
145
130
200
NA
3
104
145
130
2000
NA
3
104
145
130
2000
NA
3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
08
09
10
10
NA
3
08
09
09
10
NA
3
07
08
09
09
NA
3
' Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
1 3
16
16
1 8
NA
3
16
18
1 8
20
NA
3
16 1
1 7
18
1 9
NA
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
72
100
103
126
NA
3
82
114
11 3
148
NA
3
83
11 1
108
141
NA
3
W idth/Depth Ratio
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
110
122
117
138
NA
3
129
145
152
153
NA
3
141
156
159
168
NA
3
Entrenchment Ratio
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
79
140
122
219
NA
3
69
121
99
194
NA
3
69
115
106
169
NA
3
'Bank Height Ratio
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
10
10
10
1 1
NA
3
1 0
10
1 0
10
NA
3
10
10
10
10
NA
3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
3
948
263
-
-
266
107
11
276
59
35
50
137
110
320
76
25
50
150
110
430
92
29
Riffle Slope (fl/ft)
0 012
0 033
0 064
-
0
003
003
006
002
35
002
003
003
Oft
002
25
0 002
0 013
0 014
0 023
0 006
28
Pod Length (ft)
788
15 84
295
-
97
187
15
478
101
26
80
201
175
510
97
28
130
187
170
300
52
30
Pod Max depth (ft)
-
_
_
_
_
_
20
25
25
35
04
21
1 7
23
22
31
04
20
Pod Spacing 0)
123
28
63
159
429
34
1 12421
267
25
130
404
290
840
224
27
120
381
310
1090
209
29
Pattem
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
143
21
35
-
Radius of Curvature (ft)
10
-
138
20
-
-
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc Bankfull width (ftfft)
_
_
_
_
_
_
Meander Wavelength (ft)
24
-
371
65
Meander Width Ratio
13
198
27
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1111
1200
1111
1112
Sinuosity (ft)
1 2
1 17
1 17
1 17
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ftKt)
No water in channel at time of survey
No water in the channel at time of survey
No water in the channel at time of survey
No water in the channel at time of surve
BF slope (ftfft)
0 009 (UDDer ion 0 014 lower rtxon
0 009 (upper >ortion) 0 014 lower ion
0 014
0 013
3Ri% / Ru% I P% I G% / S%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
34
DK
44
DK
0
31
DK
51
DK
0
38
9
47
6
0
'SC% I Sa% I G% I C% / B% I Be%
64
09
141
165
45
0
581
3
249
126T-14
0
3d16 /d35 /d50Id84 /d95
001
4
8
425
769
08
21
42
372
1 71
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
NA
00
00
00
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or :her
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 Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder Bedrock dip = max pave disp = max subpave

Appendix D
Parameter
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dhnenslon and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
log
133
143
146
NA
3
100
119
116
140
NA
3
Fk)Ddprone Width (ft)
104
145
130
200
NA
3
104
145
130
200
NA
3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
08
09
09
10
NA
3
07
09
09
10
NA
3
' Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
16
1 8
18
20
NA
3
14
1 7
1 7
19
NA
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
82
114
123
138
NA
3
74
108
120
128
NA
3
W idth/Depth Ratio
144
155
149
172
NA
3
112
133
136
152
1 NA
3
Entrenchment Ratio
73
127
123
184
NA
3
74
129
112
199
NA
3
'Bank Height Ratio
10
1 0
10
1 1
NA
1 3
1 0
1 0
1 0
10
NA
3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
30
116
85
260
72
30
4
137
113
47
95
30
Riffle Slope (f /ft)
001
004
004
011
002
30
001
004
003
017
003
30
Pool Length (ft)
60
164
1 155
430
73
32
7
153
148
265
43
32
Pool Max depth (ft)
1 3
22
21
32
04
27
1 7
21
21
28
04
29
Pool Spacing (ft)
50
356
320
800
189
31
7
34
305
905
184
31
Pattern
Channel BellHndth (ft)
Radius of Curvature (ft)
Rc Bankfull width (ft/R)
Meander Wavelength (ft)
Meander Width Raho
Additional Reach ParaMiaters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1119
1115
Sinuosity (ft)
1 18
1 17
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
No water in the channel at time of survey
No water in the channel at time of survey
BF slope (ft/ft)
0 014
0 013
3RD% / Ru% / P% / G% I S%
41
4
48
7
0
48
3
0
'SC% / Sa% / G% I C% / B% / Be%
41
18
34
6
1
0
q47
19
0
3d16 /d35Id501d841d95
12
25
5
195
527
44
E396
1134
Z% of Reach with Eroding Banks
00
0
Channel Stability or Habitat Metnc
Biological or Other

Appendix E. Hydrologic Data
Table 12 0 Venfication of Bankfull Events

Appendix E
Table 12 0 Bankfull Verification
UT to Rocky River NCEEP# 402
Photo #
Date of Data Collection
Date of Occurrence
Method
if available
14- Apr -08
March 5, 2008, April 5, 2008
Crest gauge evaluation,
NA
presence of wrack and drift
lines, evaluation of NC
CROWS data
17- Oct -08
August 27, 2008, September 6,
Crest gauge evaluation,
NA
2008
presence of wrack and drift
lines, evaluation of NC
CROWS data
12- Mar -09
December 11 -12, 2008, January
Crest gauge evaluation,
NA
6, 2009, March 2, 2009
presence of wrack and drift
lines, evaluation of NC
CROWS data
November 11, 2009 (2 34 "),
Presence of wrack and drift
NA
December 2, 2009 (1 73 ") and
lines, evaluation of NC
17- Mar -10
February 5, 2010 1 94"
CROWS data
September 30, 2010 (2 87 ")
Crest gauge evaluation,
presence of wrack and drift
lines, evaluation of NC
21- Oct -10
CROWS data
NA