20051290 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20120823

os a RO
McCain Stream Restoration Project
Randolph County, North Carolina
MY -03 Monitoring Report
Data Collected: August 25, 2011
Submitted: December 2, 2011
r 'I*-
LcoTtem
]dl l,
reaaaiw
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
Parker Lincoln Building
2728 Capital Boulevard, Suite 1H -103
111 V� 11 OWN I naacigu, 114 %. /-iow
RECEIVED
AUG 2 3 2012
-WATER WAUIY
Pit i i l; M oA STiOF 7ER MtA"
DEC 0 2 2011
NC ECOSYSTEM
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

McCain Stream Restoration
EEP Project #443
Sophia, North Carolina
Randolph County
MY -03 Monitoring Report
Prepared By:
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C.
Firm License Number C -2619
Project Manager: Becky Ward, P.E.
8368 Six Forks Road, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615 -5083
Ph: 919 - 870 -0526
Fax: 919 - 870 -5359
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project number: 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. December 2011

i
�i TABLE OF CONTENTS
I Executive Summary 2
II Methodology 3
A Vegetation Methodologies 3
B Stream Methodologies 3
III References 4
APPENDICES
r
Appendix A Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
5
�—
Figure la Vicinity Map
6
Table la Project Components
7
Table lb Component Summations
7
Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
8
J
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
9
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
10
Appendix B Visual Assessment Data
11
Figure 2 Consolidated Current Conditions Plan View
12
1
Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Assessment Table
16
Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment Table
20
Photos 1-6 Stream Station Photos
22
Photos 7 -13 Vegetation Monitoring Plots Photos
25
Appendix C Vegetation Plot Data
29
Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
30
{
Table 8 CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
31
I
Table 9 CVS Planted and Total Stem Counts
32
Appendix D Stream Survey Data
33
Figure 3 Cross - Section 1
34
Figure 4 Cross - Section 2
35
1
Figure 5 Cross - Section 3
36
Figure 6 Cross - Section 4
37
Figure 7 Cross - Section 5
38
Figure 8 Cross - Section 6
39
Fi
Figure 9 Longitudinal Profile
40
Figure 10 Pebble Count Plots - XS -1
41
r-
Figure 11 Pebble Count Plots - XS -2
42
Figure 12 Pebble Count Plots - XS -3
43
-
Figure 13 Pebble Count Plots - XS-4
44
Figure 14 Pebble Count Plots - XS -5
45
7
l f
Figure 15 Pebble Count Plots - XS-6
46
-
Table 10a Baseline Stream Data Summary
47
_
Table 10b Baseline Stream Data Summary
49
Table l la Dimensional Morphology Summary
50
+J
Table l lb Stream Reach Data Summary
51
Appendix E Hydrologic Data
53
Table 12 Verification of Bankfull Events
54
Photo 14 Wrack Line
54
McCain Stream Restoration
Year 3 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Protect number 443
Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C
December 2011
r

I. ' Executive Summary
The McCain Stream Restoration Site restored a total of 2;470 linear feet of stream in the Lower
Yadkin River Basin The project site is situated in Randolph County in the Piedmont
physiographic province of North Carolina and is in the Carolina Slate Belt ecoregion The
project stream is an Unnamed Tributary to Back Creek (UTBC) From the confluence with
UTBC, Back Creek flows approximately one mile to'Lake Lucas / Back Creek Reservoir The
McCain Stream Restoration site is located on a 71 -acre parcel located approximately one mile
southeast of the intersection of Lake Lucas Road (SR 1518) and Spero Road (SR1504) in
Randolph County, North Carolina The property is an active livestock farm, and is surrounded by
a mix of hardwood forests, row crops, and other livestock operations See Figure 1 Viciiuty'Map
in Appendix A '
Project Goals
• Restore a stable channel morphology that is capable of moving the flows and sediment
provided by its watershed
• Restore riparian buffer habitat and functions
• Improve water quality to'the receiving watershed by reducing bank erosion and bed
degradation 1
• Improve aquatic habitat
Project Objectives
• Build an appropnate'C4 channel with stable channel dimensions
• Plant a functional Bottomland Hardwood'Forest community to create an effective
riparian buffer '
• Exclude livestock from the riparian areas
Seven vegetation monitoring plots (1 -7) were monitored for MY -03 Of these seven plots, plots
1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 are not meeting vegetation success criteria The vegetation success criteria have
been met by 28% of the plots in momtonng,year MY 03 The success criterion for planted
woody species,is 320 stems /acre after MY -03 A mortality rate of ten percent will be allowed
after MY -04 (288,stems /acre), with another ten percent,allowed after MY -05 (260 stems /acre)
Currently the site contains 289 planted stems /acre, excluding livestakes, which is'below the
success criteria for MY -03 Total stem counts including natural -stems and livestakes resultedan
722 stems /acre Bare banks, areas of low stem densities, and invasive exotics are the only
notable vegetation problem areas for MY -03 Invasive exotics within the conservation easement
include tall fescue (Schedonurus arundinaceus), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum),
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), and Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense) Although these species have been given different ranks of seventy, the
functionality of the project is not expected to be impaired significantly It is likely that all of
these species were present in and,adjacent to the conservation easement previous to construction
The tall fescue and Japanese stiltgrass appears to be inhibiting. some growth of planted stems in .
some areas, and there is very few successional woody stems were observed in the fescue
dominated areas For additional information relating to vegetation, see Appendix C
Approximately 4 acres have been identified for supplemental planting in the future but has not
been scheduled by the time of this report
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project number 443 Year 3 of S
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C December 2011

There has been little change in the stream pattern, profile or dimension between MY -02 and the
present monitoring year MY -03 The stream lacked flowing water at the time of data collection,
with a few isolated pockets of standing water In the majority of the stream length bedform
features ar`e providing vertical stability throughout the project site_ In general, all pools are
maintaining their depth with most of the very deep pools forming on the downstream side of
structures The lack of flowing water made the assessment of properly functioning stream
features difficult Throughout the'entire stream, the cross section dimensions have not
significantly changed as compared to MY -02
Reach 1 is a short stream segment consisting of 286 linear feet in the upper most portion of the
protect In this reach 100% of riffles and pools are stable and functioning as designed The riffle
pebble count in this reach exhibits slight coarsening The visual assessment for Reach 1
reflected bank stability at 91% The total bank erosion length of 50 feet is a relatively small
length of the total protect distance but resulted in a high percentage value due to the short reach
length The bank erosion on the left bank at station 10 +25 was marked as an erosional feature
however significant erosion has not occurred this year as compared to its condition in previous
monitoring years The stream right bank, due to tie in constraints at the beginning of the project,
is an extension of the steep valley slope The toe of the slope is stable however the bank supports
woody vegetation at bankfull elevations perched on the slope with undercut roots The bank is
not expected to fully stabilize due to lack of vegetation and the steep grade of the adjacent slope,
however continued mass wasting is not anticipated Only two structures are located in Reach 1
The structure functionally rate was 50% for MY -03 due to signs of piping that were observed at
the rock cross vane located at station 12+49 during the site visit conducted in March12011
Piping was not observed during the August 201.1 data collection due to a lack of flowing water
The piping was occurring between the sill rock and vane arm and was viewed as, minor as it was
not causing scouring or compromising the structure function The structure will be re- evaluated
during the site visit in the spring of 2012
Reach 2 is 2250 linear feet and comprises the majority of the stream length In Reach 2, 94% of
riffles and 89% of pools are functioning properly Thalweg centering appears to be an issue on
approximately 24% of the upstream side of pools (Runs) and 6% of the downstream side of pools
(Glides) This is primarily due to aggradathon, which appears in about 1% of the overall reach
length The lack of centering is not causing bank erosion The structures in Reach 2 are showing
afunctionahty of 100% throughout ,the reach and exhibit no signs of piping or integrity issues
The banks of Reach 2 appear to be stable with no signs of new erosion '
Summary information/data related to the occurrence of items such as beaver encroachment and -
statistics related to performance of various protect 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 Restoration Plan) documents available on
EEP's website All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the appendices are available
from EEP upon request
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project number 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C December 2011

II. Methodology
Methodologies follow EEP monitoring report template Version 1.3 (1/15/2010) and guidelines
(Lee et al 2008). Photos were taken with a digital camera. A Trimble Geo XT handheld unit
with sub -meter accuracy was used to collect vegetation monitoring plot origins, and problem
area locations. Cross sectional and longitudinal surveys were conducted using total station
survey equipment. Data was entered into AutoCAD Civil3D to obtain dimensions of the cross
sections and parameters applicable to the longitudinal profile. Reports were then generated to
display summaries of the stream survey.
A. Vegetation Methodologies
Level II of the EEP /CVS protocol Version 4.2 was used to collect data for the seven
representative vegetation monitoring plots within the conservation easement for MY -03. Data
collected for these plots are in Appendix C.
B. Stream Methodologies
Stream profile and cross - sections were surveyed using total station equipment and methods. The
survey data was plotted using AutoCAD Civil3D. The longitudinal profile was generated using
the MY -00 alignment. Cross sectional data was extracted based on a linear alignment between
the end pins. Cross section bankfull elevations for yearly comparisons are based on the baseline
bankfull elevation established for each cross section.
III. References
Lee, Michael T. Peet, Robert K. Roberts, Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. (2008). CVS -EEP
Protocol for Recording Vegetation Version 4.2.
Weakley, Alan (2007). Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, Georgia, and Surrounding Areas.
http:/ /www.herbarium.unc.edu /flora.htm.
Wolman, M.G., 1954. A Method of Sampling Coarse River -Bed Material, Transactions of
American Geophysical Union 35:951 -956.
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project number: 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. December 2011

Appendix A. Project Vicinity Map and Background Tables
I�
L I McCain Stream Restoration
I NCEEP Project number 443
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C
i�
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Year 3 of 5
December 2011

CL
N
i
d
m
3i
c
f
a
0
N
W
W

Table 1 a. Project Components
Table la. Project Components
McCain Stream Restoration -Pro ect No. 443
Project
Riparian
Wetland Ac
Restorat
Upland
Ac
Footag
BMP
Non -
Riverine Riverine
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
BMP
2417
Compone
Existing
Enhancement 1
Approac
a or
Stationin
Mitigatio
Mitigation
Ele
0
nt or
Feet/Acres
ion
h
Acreag
g
n Ratio
Units
men
Comment
Reach ID
2417
Level
0
a
0
0
ts'
Stream was
10+00—
realigned and
Reach I
490 If
R
P2
286 If
1
286
two cross
12 +86
vanes were
installed
Stream was
realigned and
six cross
vanes were
installed. A
53' length of
Reach II
1955 If
R
P2
2184 If
12 +87
1
2131
channel
34 +70
through an
easement
exception has
been excluded
from the
mitigation unit
calculation.
1 = BR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention
Pond; FS = Filter Strip; S = Grassed Swale; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area, O = Other, CF = Cattle Fencing;
WS = Watering System; CH = Livestock Housing
Table lb. Component Summations
Table 1 b. Component Summations
McCain Stream Restoration Site /Project No. 443
Restoration
Level
St ea
m
If
Riparian
Wetland Ac
Non -
Riparian
Ac
Upland
Ac
Buffer
Ac
BMP
Non -
Riverine Riverine
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0
Restoration
2417
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
0
Enhancement II
0
Creation
Preservation
0
HQ
Preservation
0
Totals
Feet/Acres
2417
0
0
0
0
0
MU Totals
2417
1 0
0
0
0
0
Non-Applicable
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project number: 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. December 2011

Table 2 Project Activity and Reporting History
Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
McCain Stream Restoration Site /Project No. 443
Elapsed Time Since Grading Completer 2' yr 10 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: _ 2 yr 10 Months
Number of Reporting Years': 3
"
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Deliver
Restoration Plan
2003/2004
Jun -05
Final Design — Construction Plans f
N/A
May -06.
- Construction
N/A
f Mar -09
Temporary seed mix applied to entire project area
N/A
Mar -09
Permanent seed mix applied to reach/segments 1 -4
N/A
Mar -09
Mitigation Plan / As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
May -09 - '
Jul -09
Year 1 Monitoring
Oct -09
Dec -09
Year 2 Monitoring
Nov -10
Nov -10
Year 3 Monitoring
Aug -11
Nov -11
Year 4 Monitoring
Year 5 Monitoring
1 = Equals the number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
McCain Stream Restoration
NCEEP Project number 443
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Year 3 of 5
December 2011

Table 3 Project Contacts Table
Table 3 Project Contacts Table
McCain Stream Restoration Site/Project No. 443
Designer
KCI Associates of NC
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Rd -'
Raleigh, NC 27609
Primary project design POC
Adam Spiller (919) 783 -9214
Construction Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc
PO Box 1905
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Construction contractor POC
Stephen James (336) 320 -3849
Survey Contractor
Survey contractor POC
_
Planting Contractor
Carolina Environmental Contracting, Inc
PO Box 1905
Mount Airy, NC 27030
Planting contractor PO_ C
Stephen James (336) 320 -3849 -
Seeding Contractor
Contractor point of contact
Seed Mix Sources
Company and Contact Phone
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Virginia Department of Forestry
(504) 363 -5732
Monitoring Performers
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C
8368 Six Forks Rd, Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615
Becky Ward (919) 870 -0526
Stream Monitoring POC
Becky Ward (919) 870 -0526
Vegetation Monitoring POC
Chris Sheats - The Catena Group - (919) 732 -1300
Wetland Monitoring POC
Chris Sheats - The Catena Group - (919) 732 -1300
McCain Stream Restoration
NCEEP Project number 443
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C
Year 3 Momtormg Report
Year 3 of 5
December 2011

Table 4 Protect Attribute Table
Table 4 Project Attribute Table
McCain Stream Restoration Site/Project No 443
Project County
Randolph County
Phystographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Pro ect River Basin
Yadkin
USGS HUC for Project 14 digit)
3040103050050
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
03 -07 -09
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan?
No
WRC Hab Class arm Cool Cold
Warm
% of proiect easement fenced or demarcated
100%
Beaver activity observed during design phase?
No
Restoration Com onent Attribute Table
Reach 1
Reach 2
Drainage area
0 88 sq mi
0 88 sq mi
Stream order
First
First
Restored length feet
286
2184
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Perennial
Watershed type Rural Urban Developing etc
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution (e g)
Urban
Ag -Row Crop
Ag- Livestock
Forested
Water/Wetlands
4%
16%
120/0
67%
<1%
Watershed impervious cover %
2° /G
NCDWO AU /Index number
13 -2 -3 -3 UT Back Creek
NCDWQ classification
C
303d listed?
No
Upstream of a 3034 listed segment?
No
Reasons for 303d listina or stressor
WA
Total acreage of easement
12 9 Acres
Total vegetated acreage within the easement
4 8 Acres
Total planted acreage as part of the restoration
7 6 Acres
Rosgen classification of pre-existing
134c
C5 /E5 /C4
Rosgen classification of As -built
134c
C4
I
Valley type
V
V
Valley sloe
00066
Valley side slope ranee g 2 -3 %
138%-326%
Valley toe slope ranee q 2 -3 %
2 52% - 6 15%
Cowardin classification
N/A I N/A
Trout waters desi nation
No
Species of concern endangered etc ? /N
No
Dominant soil series and characteristics
Series
Dogue Sandy Loam
Dogue Sandy Loam
Depth
U
U
Clay-/.
U
U
K I
U
U
T I
U
U
Use N/A for items that may not apply Use ---tor items that are unavailable and "U" for items that are unknown
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
I NCEEP Protest number 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C December 2011

I - i
f�
�I
Appendix B. Visual Assessment Data
�i
i
((({ McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
t� NCEEP Project number 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C December 2011
it

4 P
i ,;1,r _,�r� ` ' � � yj,�,,,• �,7 �- r 'S { , r _ � : � j� -'"'C 1,.
lt'w
LEGEND: U
P"' PROBLEM AREA - CCC)
Ln
; %� i r sal ✓�yJ �: vP -2 VEGETATION PLOT °N' Ln t9 m
.w,; ,,i.. [. J 1,r' A :t". 3• - j N
PHOTO POINT Ln
VEGETA TION PROBLEM AREA o 0
BANK PROBLEM AREA - SCOURED /ERODING O co
BANK PROBLEM AREA - UNDERCUT L m
f
BANK PROBLEM AREA - MASS WASTING
yyd k°f3 l M1�r x
PROBLEM AREA - MISCELLANEOUS
per %'k STREAM PROBLEM AREA - DEGRADATION
t CROSS SECTION
M STREAM THALWEG
��Y`),M'fr' / �z" ' 1 CONSERVATION EASEMENT p
STREAM CROSSING V
S
P STRUCTURE PROBLEM AREAS
` rta,d! Y` ✓. ���yf ` -, . -, -r. . 'r�r`'.'.' c'�..c. : /'`.F3"'!r`,l�.: =.a `�r'1�'+ t.�� ?,-
oWik
�. y -� M
Vegatation Plot Pin Coordinate Table- (NAD83)
Vegatation
Pin
1
Pin
2
Pin
3
1 Pin
4
Northing
Easting
Northing
Easting
Northing
Easting
Northing I
Easting
Plot Number
1
734720.6
1746458.3
734703.2
1746430.5
734674.8
1746448.4
734691.7 11746476.8
1746732.4
2
734493.4
1746543.0
734476.2
1746571.3
734446.9
1746550.0
734465.4
1746523.3
3
734162.7
1746572.3
734168.9
1746541.4
734136.8
1746534.4
734130.7
1746567.2
4
733830.0
1746523.9
733863.9
1746517.8
733868.0
1746550.0
733835.2
1746556.2
5
733565.2
1746579.5
733597.1
1746572.7
733602.5
1746606.0
733570.7
1746613.3
_
6
733365.1
1746622.0
733331.8
1746625.4
733336.5
1746657.3
733368.9
1746654.4
7
0 733124.5
1746641.1
733095.5
1746656.9
733080.5
1746628.0
733109.4
j 1746612.9
Cross
Section Pin Coordinate Table (NAD83)
ss Section
Left Pin Right Pin
Number
Northing
Easting
Northing
Easting
1746310.8
1746536.5
1
734735.9
734473.6
1746381.9
1745659.4
734750,7
734404.4
2
3
733888.1
1746462.6
733915.0
1746403.8
4
733744.3
746493.0
733773.5
1746430.1
5
733469.0
1746732.4
733442.5
1746673.0
6
733326.2
1746726.5
733291.0
1746668.6
GRAPHIC SCALE
150 0 75 150 300
W FEET )
2010 Aerial from NCOne Map corn finch = 150 ft.
1
1
1
w
I1,
• •i
1 •
•
1
M 13 APRIL 2011
27 OMDM 2011
MOM PROPEW
�WME
ocry
MU
1, .150'
sw a

Ve atation Plot Pin Coordinate Table (NAD83)
U-e I Pin 2 Pin 3
_�galafion Pin Pin 4 Ln Ln
Plot Number Northing Easting Northing Easting Northing Easting Northing Easting
'•
734720.6 1746458.3 734703.2 1746430.5 734674.8 1746448.4 734691.7 1746476.8 •
2 734493.4 1746543.0 734476.2 1746571.3 734446.9 1746550.0 734465.4 1746523.3 A-6 co
VPA-7
3 734162.7 1746572.3 734168.9 1746541.4 734136.8 1746534.4 734130.7 1746567.2 W. a
8
P in 3
9
0
5
4 733830.0 1746523.9 733863.9 1746517.8 733868.0 1746550.0 733835.2 174 556.2 LL-
5 733565.2 1746579.5 733597.1 1746572.7 733602.5 1746606.0 733570.7 1746613.3
PP-7 crj
733368.9 1746
6 733365.1 1746622.0 733331.8 1746625.4 733336.5 11746657.3 654.4
7 733124.5 1746641.1 733095.5 1746656.9 73 3080.5 11746628.0 733109.4 1746612.9
VPA-5
Cross Section Pin Coordinate Table (NAD83) Wil
Cross Section Left Pin Right Pin
Number PA-6
19+00 PC
Northing Easting Northing Eastin7g . ' 6
In Ra '.*V 7
1746310.8
1 734735.9 1746381.9 734750.7
2 734473.6 1745659.4 734404.4 1746536.5
3 733888.1 1746462.6 733915.0 1746403.8 PP. -6
4 733744.3 746493.0 733773.5 1746430.1
5 733469.0 1746732.4 733442.5 1746673.0 VP-2
6 1 733326.2 1746726.5 733291.0 1746668.6 j.
v
VPA-2
03 IL
VPA-18
•
d1k
r
VPA-1 PA-5
PA-2 p
FF`FJ-4
PA-4
41,
PP-3 LEGEND:
p
P"" E: A
P MUOLLAVI Mn
PP-1 7N
VEGETATION PLOT
PHOTO POINT
DM 15 APW 201
PA-3 VEGETATION PROBLEM AREA I
BANK PROBLEM AREA - SCOURED/ERODING 27 OGMW W11 •
. I 'It
-nee BANK PROBLEM AREA - UNDERCUT -ift
BANK PROBLEM AREA - MASS WASTING
MISCELLANEOUS
PROBLEM AREA pow me
MOWN PROPOW
STREAM PROBLEM AREA DEGRADATION
CROSS SECTION un Me
PA 1 GRAPHIC SCALE CCpv
STREAM THALWEG 50 0 25 50 100 200 =a
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
STREAM CROSSING
STRUCTURE PROBLEM AREAS IN FEET 1 inch = 50 ft
4 2010 Aerial from NCO e ap.com
PKILM 2A

r � '16: '4�' • K ; • r�,� Y,�•, • ' , nQl�...; n .._IGIJIIj jJ_II ��� • 1 1
r � r� ' - y,5•t�a . _ Y.�_ .r_ ^: s . � � r "` , ' •..F- 4,� `� i .. : . • a � '' •.>tili �!!` •••'�11 ::',��__l�!j� 1
Y� � •l: 4''13 -� w {.�_ J �� :�- ..._.�` %� �� _ •: � -•.tK ��-11' .;�iijjJll�jj�� ���JIII�.JII �
� • dl;
CA
1 •�- ; : Y - �SUr.- r:.._.. _.!15_iii- :.. -•: 1ii-
®♦ ,t• l„4 .K 'i_
{=t`. . ' s' T t r�[ ► t� • �►Y _ :, (lnlil -: �illj�Jli_..._.:IliiliJi "
�. - '�cil -s - '�►� «.� , ��• a.• ✓ - `w' %► � ` _ • - .!!lIlj�Jh It!fYlt�ll!fJ'IIj�J�l�,�, I�III,_• �'''SiJlijd.J11
.1�• • . •4J:1 ,_- _ :;',� aj' .:!�SIIIRjII ::. -•.:_:..�iil�fl �::�Ill�if � ..1�tiiTJi � � W
-���'1 k- it' '' �IijirJ11 •tS -r _:I�Jllfrylll !fill rJI11�J110- d1y•.. �I I�J{I -. _.. ;::.; V
..' :C •'•:_..rillp ',,.��. �.-- w M •' a •::_ 5i11 '' 11'- _ :�Ili':::�..!ILIjjSjh i!R,iillj_
. 's: __ •J►111•lu.r::._ ,,.. � _ Iltt�q I II = 11 .. _
_ .Ir':'-
- _..1l.�il ... I
'r' •'J �' d J,I - -!INC i
•r• - - 't'-' ..rill ..1
- '1'r .rlll
_rSlljj"'::.�..._. 11 _.II "�� -• _;li .._ _ ..._
_ VII N, _:..5 �;- '.._.i riiii�;ii =;!ii
_ .Nlji - - 1 • cIttj1119 "j 111Jii = i.
• Sri �Ji° Y+ `� , c�.t,r �•
u,
"� Grii�:: X1111
I s • tilGC _ �.. - . i9r._..;_ 1 _ .JII
;. �• < •.�= `j.r .yll' ..Ilf "•- - JII _ !,� ill
',- �Ill�••• -•�._. JII :..�If •„
•`� -�V • -'' • 11 r' ;� - .::.• - "r -rll_ all'-- ..�i�r:c�l - tsiiic::��: _.;9i _ PJj;jrr:;°� i•�1.
... .l � ..-..! ii��i�51n -'..!'�i�'���51n•_..15oii- 115111 5111.._. ' �• �'::�'� i
'`�r•�' s 1 '.� Ir ' .ql •tlriilltRllr .: Jllrjll . ~r� ,JIIIyl; I�lil Llli11 lljll -;
1'Sil Id�i.rill .pJr v . IiJjl
nfJlij rals2, It�JIllpt 11�1116Vr1 '!"311 iii .,
,,,apt. � -�` � �•� � - _ � '
ir�j•- •.• -_:. Jnry'i • -�'' iec , ..tar •�y,• 1 _��!11 -�,r1 � • .:�,:
' _'"uli� = IliJiij,�l1� = II�jIIlAjyj -::: a! 111 - n•J1nl.J;' �II.tFa r•. :u�tl.(�tiyi iu �1
.. 911 •II =11 ...- .;,_..!ill �;:.- ttlla F,yYr L : �c „�'
i�Jll ]li :!�Jli I
:,' - -•.._ ..� 111 .._ 5ii�i iiiiil� " .. , 1 Jtl I 1 ,
_ .5 nNj�i ,._.:..5in -
_..!5tiii � •.- �il►y.,,' i15iiljjji:::_.. Il r I•'>ist119
-• '�t11ji�::Jt1lr11fi�iJii' 111i'� �llrill,illi: i t•.. it'll 1' a it , !fF rg•I'' Jdj114r�1'' +•11.1 • ®:
� .IC.ijl`: :._ ,, , _•:: - .r15! j :._ Y `Iti r tM nl .Itlltl • I!' �'V.� -
, •j i - .�11rYJ;i- '�:rjgiii�� �IIIQ'If�i �, I l4JL�tse s,aillLm -' ♦ �`..��• •Att��, .:�.�n '�`.' •
•i �! III ' II .+ 15r,lkr !�'� •
� \ � .• x ��� `'IiJI,� �Rilllr3rfi.11 1f.1 t rr11 a rry alr +IfFji.: 't � d ' -; _ � .. � •• � :� r• � ?a`pn •-
`! `
't,E)�,ii� a1 �7ilhlf r t�lil�ll!� t.GllilA .•� �`• ' •
._I!!iii ail
rll�lll l�Jir .. • t►" •1 +IC J
, 5 ;•+ it
lll;t, tSirtlnJtlf. 11 !ll•,JIIFjll ' ;iTijjlg.:!rs'
■ 1 '�_I_j►• IJ1Ii�Jl.r}„i �. - _.I�JIi��`' •� �. ••: a` ��• 1 1n'� �Jt' ti •
■ nllgi It 1�►, '+Uiit�.i Gi•: 01� 1 i _ `_ ._:, ® = i.j;'' •
'1111'`, �l .'� -.1� ,.4,I •�� r+ 7°_ ,�••� (t�lti�l_ t •. •. •,ii •
.`r ,., ._,..= ire, � •
Cross Section Pin Coordinate • '
• - • • • • •• • e `i J s' tt' ri .' �� v. + ' A • C a'! i _ ' S�'.11 ' __, >:` ^4� s 11 1
•- • • : ' My 1 : - •..a = ��;�\ •� i� �.• IFj r�••i•'• ,� r _ _ t. ,r -• Ib "' ■ r.- ll _ i► ,4
p.
®® ,,� • �i - .nil u • ''.i,��'•So., -. �'4• all -r>. J ' :..Ittfyt • '1• , - •� - ._`. `rJRI�} - r �' r .. �'t • •
.. M. NMI
• • _ f• �L•��rR . r�c, `� •j iii,_ `�'i:•� _1r + , Cy r,K ... iAn:. ' _�` T'
® ® ®� t •~ IZ , • ni _ ' - ( 1 l 1 1 i... w i �� f fir■. M'
•• ' • • • 1 ' • 1 '' �. - - \ � • �rL.' � - 116 ;'1f�•�� ,'� �r1 /� }j ��r�.. . •
® ' • ® ' •' 1 .. - �'■ �, - _ lei,. �_,• 1.�� •;�g�� "� -f 4. • : _ j� `
1 fi. •,�� NIL. :aZ,.C•�,• _�� .• !,f; 'r
• • 1 ' •• ' ® ' • . 1 rr, [ :,•� `1'1^�r tt��L, T�a y ' c { t �T �►r -•�_T :t'�10• •
• • • ' • • • : • Ste-! .:�' `•'R. i. ^� r • ..r...� 7i �t . �.,.�'. +_ w-� - ti ' '
' �,. - w:+� -,.r- -- -mow -1�l' �•. r-r •'�,ep+.r'.� 4 , : __ IR,�•� •j j....� . -•'•;w -.r�
Vegatation Plot Pin Coordinate Table (NAD83)
_
tr
-• •
. . ■
plot Numbergmmm •' • • • • • • ..gal • '•`
GRAPHIC SCALE
1 ' ®® 1 '' ' ® ®® ~-
vl•..
4
733830.0
1746523.9
733863.9
1746517.8
733868.0
1746550.0
733835.2
1746556.2
SOW in
5
733565.2
1746579.5
733597.1
1746572.7
733602.5
1746606.0
733570.7
1746613.3 ,.
6
733365.1
1746622.0
733331.8
1746625.4
733336.5
1746657.3
733368.9
1746654.4 , ( IN FEET )
7
733124.5
1746641.1
733095.5
1746656.9
733080.5
1746628.0
733109.4
1746612.9 s " 'f `�' 1 inch = 50 ft.
, t 2010 Aerial from NCOneMap.com
� Zg
I
-r +
1,
{.
�, �

_" �q ; -4a'Y• �•i�' �' � ��i•�[ - y. �!- { +►_'• I •y�'�4,!iC..! �Il ... w =�,w IK °' / °r- '.'v!�
'- r�'1 ` •k"Y'�A - ' ' 'N - — ,v'tf - r �� f .. iL. r ` -- ` /= t s71�"+T�,.+. t�' • _ •
Vegatation Plot Pin Coordinate Table A1383)
Vegatafl
ion
Plot Number
,0 ,p
' ( • ?y .sue+: -•A .r,A/,�}+M^ /. r 'fr y:,�/rW� �r..q1��� 1 �•
©� ' • ' 1I .� ... • • . • / 1 .. • . ®L '•�/i�'•- .. ..,�- t - _,Td'• row�'ri+ ! *s' ;.5�= mow±- a• •
99 NEUMM sing M,
all
ME 0=1 WHEN
1 • V.-M,
1 : 1 • • i 1 1 • • • • - r• �� -`,+. •`•,a ter. a! �' ' N
. w•'�, L *'�� r.,��. tyy• f_j �t r' ! `: f'M!'!!I�JII(s r �Jli t�"�' •.>'• •
It
%�/ ►� - -'' i ,. / 'i 'r:' !i'7' ;:: =.... _:' VIII _i�� _' !111 °'j;..*�'� +fk.. a ��
f Roll .vr . t: v :3! ��;.• 11 :!JII r_
• �: 'r� tt` •, •� ,�•'�. =1�nv � i� {IRI:d= ftyl�llalll �!Ir/ ->•�"
/ _1134 „rte . - 33tylgv. �� -_ _� - .: _,• . ► r_ �_• "^�_ r £
r � Jllry,• � •'> �• ,•_ - .. Imo'; .• ,�: _ _ � _ �y
_ - 'I`:'�;i :.:1331 I' /, ✓sy' r _s�i� :• 'T '
..1 .. = .:I�.Jlliyj -•�� _ • C =`._ .� i 1 !jilllli:ii_ u.Jj.;�' +. ,i• � s sf . �,� ,� J ..' ..� �.
�� � _Ic _ = .il5iii5iji = .ii5iii5, � i� _ '� . - . ' b�'' =-� .•� �
:.:. -,!iii •::._.. 13ii. •::._.. • `�''• . +� "� � ^' �!r '
_Ir •• �. = .;I�JII_..:= ..._..I ■.Jli_..._ � JII. -'• � _
!/1111 33111 ' :._.:_..�ii11Si r ♦ �•
`.i .•{ • �; -. �,;, a,► _`
IF
_:;rid '; _' ::_.:.�iliii� ••:._:.. r�jii ••:._:.. ii
_.i5fiii - _.'iii._..._.. _ �i . s r f►
gii ii
rili�l .. _... �iiiu .. _... rini� _ — •, _ , �� 1�ic
c 'v'
_: °..r9111j !!►� , +`
.'3tl'•”
•r _
°` - .Jtl:yj�l •.. = ...JII�ii1F:: _ ,;Fh�,jj•" .• - :...JL�j� +� ��::._. _;,. _.. .
5iii• i,3 _::._..!3ill• -•:. - :R!Siil�;:: -.. ii -
_..I ■JII ........_ _.Ir r :..__ ,• .. ••
�I�II .J 191t1i13jj1' 1 "i - �L31t�ili�` : r �.��i'"V' �m 1115111' i .-' W.-f1lp Irlii 1` -'I = .1{tlg l .::...:ddll rlilc,r_ _ .. !Jif SII'� a 15iii T! i� ��' =;':• _ If'1... t' - 11, ., � '• itci: . c: =• Irl'-•i '.. - J ' ... ` 4L,. _ it ®j5jl Fi }l = , 1 = .1fi _ sl.ii: � ..::: ...`1i•.1= ' _ _ _ �,• - - - - ii - iiiir _I j 'c' lY3jii' .._ l,Ilj j� �. i°' r - - JII - .J.I: - .ra - Awi' lf YI' '= !111jili l-Y Ilr + i'ii =::: _... rs1 II _ 5 _ _ _ r._ _
_.11 _.II/j.!I - � I �E:1 lIli _ I II '•c;;': �i;1 :13t3;i,_ 5; �I -77,°._e...-. ;=Z:
�Ilj�' � i ■' • �.lITi1_�11Li•• =! _ .3�'j °::_.. . 1■ r;= ' �.�. -';::- ji��� .I�JIL- �ijj� =;: �.;I�- jij'�■il, �„ :,js. �. �,aX �� •
1�
!IVll�jll 111 :.= ;Ial1'Irl t,-i . �ai�' �IIIAi °'- �r.. ��' �uuT,,: 1!/:_ �Sti�i11j���F .:�:iiT�llljs;'� - `�''!''..' '�..�i �. � ..,,,,, • �`• � •
..I113►J'1 rl q , �. - jlu[iiiie ,. 1 r L •
!115111�j
Ilil ••' '�„ _ r''7 - ' �Illii �,., :��, �'yr'.•" . � %R• `s'• 1 �
.�1113nIA1. = ��' *•ter: •A - ' .' ' •
Cross Section Pin Coordinate Table ;'iii j - ' � •','- , 1
'+ -
W_ INT
.Y .1 `�,�,. , •I•
All
PROBLEM AREA - `� .�•• (. ,t y _ � , .. • : • ' . � . • � L .. r • � • , • 1 • .._._. •,� :M't1 � t _tie.•.,:
'fit I;JCf111t,� h tt - a., 7 �, �' +. - �t .. • ._ MISCELLANEOUS . l' j s�•r. ♦ S C
STREAM PROBLEM AREA - DEGRADATION
GRAPHIC SCALE
CROSS S
ECTION
STREAM THALWEG 50 0 25 so 100
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
STREAM CROSSING
,,r� `.. 7 ` a • w
PROBLEM AREAS
50 ft.
I inch
PROM NNE:
hil l PROPERTY
m Nile
CCPV
200 OONE
1' . 50'
aEfr w
F0011L 2C

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 1
Assessed Length 286
Major
Channel
Category
Channel
Sub-Category
Metric
Number
Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Total
Number In
As -built
Number of
Unstable
Segments
Amount of
Unstable
Foota a
%Stable,
Performing
as Intended
Number with
Stabilizing
Woody
Ve elation
Footage with
Stabilizing
Woody
Vegetation
Adjusted %
for
Stabilizing
Woody
Ve elation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
( Rrffle and Run units)
1. Aearadation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
100%
2. Dearadation - Evidence of downculting
1
30
90%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
2
2
100%
3. Meander Pool
Cond"n
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth 2:1.6)
3
3
100%
2. Length appropriate (>30% of centerline distance between tai( of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
3
3
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thahveg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
3
3
100%
r2, Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
2
2
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
o
100%
100%
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does hM include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
and are providing habitat.
1
50
91%
91%
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
100%
100%
Totals
1
50
91%
0
0
91
3. Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
2
2
0
100 /°
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
2
2
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
2
2
100%
3. Bank Protection
Bank erosion within the strictures extent of influence does = exceed
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance document)
2
2
100%
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio 21.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
2
2
100

Table 5 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach 2
Assessed Length 2184
Adjusted %
Number
Number with
Footage with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
%Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Category
Sub-Cateaory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Se ments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability (Riffle
and Run units)
1. Aaaradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to sgnificandy deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
j
30
99
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
1
125
94%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture /Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
16
17
94%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth: Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
16
18
89%
2. Length appropriate (,30% of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
18
18
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
13
17
76%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
16
17
94%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and /or
scour and erosion
100 %
100
Banks undercut/overhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does N�T include undercuts that are modest, appear sustainable
100%
100%
and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
100%
100%
Totals
0
0
100%
0
0
1001/1,
3. Engineered
Structures
1 Overall Integrity
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%
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)
5
6
83
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
6
6
100

Criteria. Definitions and Thresholds for Visual Stream Morpholoav Assessments
Major
Channel
Chanel Sub.
Cat, o
G7 o
Metrk
DMinklans
Cafthmina Threshold
OcPv
1, Bed
1. •rdoW 91.tl1
sue mo•to
PoHk sro Run .old)
gArtlik. a filling of pock a o bolos b•.dbrr akYanm.. An yeadng laser ffi dffin chrcMatl by send
m•loft(uN El l) Mo k r Iwd 15 rr11n kngn a2p%.1
Raw! Ime lomntlm /poMh wlm emockeW fNlp d meet substrrie Md rnmlhng W M ntlt Imp pafu.
to dM&Nun Ingih, ~o,00 k lose.
NepRadM sew eiRiNkarlt nocph m tleflmd lbw aBarsl latkm ahaAd W utroPm. Red rlt
aopdda n a k•Y ad F .wwdra RpNd appredetlm. (Soo Wtdo MddNt t bWOw fa mP A rsnpk hr
ple
emyaggntleun)
2. Numbr ntl a2. A adders tlontcuffi wXMn PorllaRun unit.
• pml•a• hMraPYAyapc.d mrynewoo gr.tls control, tlprooabNtlorrnadtlnp k mq•dM my F soar,
sbp my H lams has moot d pie dircerknn dwaibed
Inplo. 'Indcamr• bWd• pndnd WI donna bM ttdps' ni deMrbh pent mabXW.
ma loft (roll E12) are k a 15 feat in Inge a 2c% d
aspdb.dnfm•trimeb•rkln .W —y, or ocarwdMewb.trsFt
mlmmph mryWngrprde savoys
adXlakun Inptn, wntheeklose.
is
tlwvn w etalrys Noub wppat n M•Ymnl d
ntl perhaps dew wM run py. should
Imp'Ra1M
end sa.
eeRadaNm wn.l. M dwr.w.mnt.a whey o.rlw.
J. A
. 10111. Cmdtlon
1.7pyQ
Mould maF4F a mranses elmb m lh chain dabWtlm. d er rM. wean
A
IA
rim welar ni la M rNM. Repo p. bbl. auto WaM rippar an ems•pnrn drab lining whr.
amn Isua sorb; gaRr. 2 oaaw lesaaa�:a M„Ixldba Ia amdcama arvMn :).
no� pools oral dw
dWm
t•R.d naafis M pole wil b ooekd.d re tWW here rM undr th• HAMA 9NCadpry aay. m• max
bMkbd dgth Marti d 1.6 Woe M moon b.Mful dapih (Max Pod Doom : Moon B.ddul Dope, > 1.6).
mac bnMul daps hon M A•- Wbksaku wrvry an be ulitatl m eau ask datrmnatlm. Ed .N,
omw rwklum pool d.pib• using m• 1.6 multlplr fa • mq• d own &—.1 Wrie depn• ma typfy
r -aadon Ral.cffi.
2. Lft=aWOped?
Too moob wr only be applied In ..Ww pook, Ito mwrer pool knpm MaM be a of th • -iwn
N
NA
norin• dance b•dwan to tW of the upon— dirk and to .121. daenomeen rel•.
Tlulwg p w
1. Thaooeg —lo,lng ri upelneonof moon
to Mad p t eb.
NA
A
a M.. bnkn nor bra apoA bW V tin oriented larrbm•wlr b•A too in WOn Mond px
Ratrrtdllmkaoomq•cffidm
ry Folcs Mpai0 ng(MOdbrkarulm. SMrly,Mp
ce to ,,kW
inn re• ROe pahantarbblMook A2 brMrl. ThacunrtPyrr drWuep ooaMadnMCCPV IIya•en
a n ink eaaaemrrt
. ThAeog —Ming d tloanatrarn d a-- bare (GHe)'!
Moot e.t abort
NA
NA
2 Bank
1. Soaur•dmrodnp Bank
earla an euldMa srrHa IMOaan
straw.
Nelgl Lnglh
Psl -.,al .nr.'a t0:1
Iwlow Tlso
In om•r to borer, ease conlrum bank roobn uk, IWW brie W— s an dtermclrlsd rlh napW V
the pradatY sea ktt ...mart d.,.WLdng ngomOon. faWnuM roobn ri k for a ghn be* nm "y
rrdlay at>YdiM doArw.rea by .gaunt mriu• Ympmarin rxla •Lbrdnp nor.. One a lea• msNn
in cbe• Raknky (ap. 10 rr o lose) a dWwe nt.grrlm d roe roes. rNlin dwbre leis sew
A 6
3-6 8
A 10
. Wd—
at orar n p to • •td w the ease woo . eppoora Y. untlMMe ri
..pprr waunatlstffitle nor r• provldlnp tetlta.
nP'
TMs table Raked a Wilda kr wmla,g mruhalds for
d ram P—W m• WyFO of a Ow bark djwt inb M •dfmW "A Mmgxy rd" b rbk d
YWRY(Ggkmm lL 9(1hk JaW AM MW. E.—"Y• MU P%" d.m.s dnxiq tlnWY and
my. ft— SENla.rwmrn)sewed1.be- *ftMhwm.
be* era" calaognymepphlg beuo m bank hoOt.
Fmrwbeneepp! WIWIStl. gerund For d-CA-
balk b be rneppee eld 181bd lo apo;tlkd. For Burgle,
_
. WooWoodrtp
where basks ere A feW high. sly map an uretahle
sepnmt X N is Z 10 laa.'
Stru es
I. Ownll hd•prhy
wont d npiurM ebudure pXamnn etwM Fete• al struduse roar proWds gnW control. bark
d abutlue WYacWY Inffid wXh ro oleladpstl pouldre a bP'
l)dnp talons a solo• odoo moon to maFffiIn lagbity, "as
Rabdim, a hooXa hncpaw. Tleoo M cIe Vres, J -hods. nd a—elo, da.
trucWrs a ih n 1 H arucWra iabn h® ococnM
2 Tmd, C —m
acmtr avast •nKWr• No widW Ion d bod d.adKn m d yupeewn 0
Ming Man. or momma rmoorw to me nl.nk y, nndm.
trtKmnT Son. plping b—F na catWMb. b•a d grade —.d.
tructrtr•wtlh red'G' X amdua hs b.t gratl. mnhol
2a. Rog
m arucWrea nY n moo • a nand roc..
lldrtp o or mwoo m m roods
truoarr.wlln rmd- N apdfkam piping hee aaunad
. BaAc Raec6on
a sin—a ti manta d b
�a/rWw
aey a.om0 rrwmm y, nn.td•
aFibnu rasmb15 %a Mtaelling
erWdin rmd'B'N emceesnw r.W mRodin bask
ofk�m• —,dn, Me
o-tekrw.pnmrm a nitMtar. inn M ebYCpa• eMtM N d..Nkd wgptl•addnp.darr•b.Wt praeAm n
dm"berk sea
offidim
• era ter.
P—
. wtlm
a 1. moor-
v aalM awn tom nnatek
booabw rd Roaolrb our.
a0 .0- 0 on-aam k nal Ro.Ybq helft

Exhibit 1. Examples of bar features warranting concerning related to cataloging item 1.1.1 of the assessment
Exhibit 3. Residual Pool Depth Table - Relating 1.6 criterion for typical mean riffle depths to residual pool depths
This residual pool table was provided in the event the tracking of bankfull at each pool feature to estimate a Dmax was inconvenient. Estim[
the residual pool depth by measuring the max pool depth to water surface and subtracting the water depth at the riffle head may provide a n
convenient way under certain circumstances to estimate in the field. For this reason the exhibit table provides a relationship between the
criterion applied to mean riffle depth for the site and the resulting residual pod depths.
Mean
Riffle Depth
D„a
Multiplier
Iler
Target
Pool
Pool M
Max
Residual
Pod
Depth
---.- Water surface
Rifne Crest Depth
•
i'
Red" _..\
si
, _ _!
Riffle Goat
From: Hilton and flab, 1993
1.0
1.6
1.6
0.6
145
1.6
2.4
0.9
2.0
1.6
3.2
1.2
2.5
1.6
4.0
1.5
3.0
1.6
4.8
1.8
3.6
i.6
5.6
2.1 1
4.0
1.6
6.4
2.4
4.5
1.6
7.2
2.7
5.0
1.6
8.0
3.0 1
5 = The above was developed because of the need to have a threshold
given the large number of performers and to avoid spending time trying to
catalog and map small objects that if excluded would have minimal overall
impacts on the performance percentages. N is a guide that tries to strike
a balance between the obvious need to have a threshold, yet provide
confidence that the site conditions are accurately represented. For
example, a scenario where 1 objet( nearly exceeding the threshold were
to occur every 100 feet of bank height (which would be a high frequency
and unlikely) with a bank height of 5 feet, would yield an error of -3 %.
However, t the observer is encountering a truly high number of objects
lust below the threshold in the above table (e.g. > 1 per 100 feet of bank
:hannel on average) and is concerned that the exclsuion of such objects is
going to misrepresent the she conditions, then judgement should be
applied and objects below the threshold may be cataloged. If a rare
-ondtion as described does occur and the thresholds are not utilized then
a table footnote explaining this should be included.
_astly, given the increase in overall area and the implications to stability,
greater banks heights required smaller threshold minimums.
Exhibit 2. Grephic dspicOV embedding of riffles with tine material
pm*ng from top to bottom, the series of graphics to the
cis the fining of intershal spaces between coarser panicles. T
xibes increasing levels of embededness in riffles. The obser
1 have an understanding of the intended sutxtr
ibutionsnlexture of the bed for the projects riffles when assess
However, as a guideline for streams in the coarse gravel
tie range, the 2nd panel from the top represents a via
eline for the condition that would begin to elicit concern for t
meter, but still contains a good deal of coarse meter
teasing from that state to the conditions depicted in the the
4th panel represents a visual qua for significant emdedding.
Exhibit 4. aOant of BtruotwM Influence for Bank Protection
The drawing Is a guideline for the extent d Influence
van arm.. I n stream bank.. The bracketed
egl
segment 11of) ImmWl.oaly, adjacent m the wife
5loot
6 feat
am Is multiplied by 5 to datennine "total length
of bank Influenced by a cross van. This includes
phis bank length still acant to each vet emt, 1 length
(10 kid) below each van arm. and % length 15 feet)
on each bank above me uppermost structural
element (In this tees the vane ale), yielding 50 feet
10 feat
_10 feat
in this example case. In this example a single arm
vane orj -hook would only Influence 25s of bank.
N the amount d nacent bank erosion
d wca than within the extent inan exceeds 16 %Men ate
structure le deemed rim to be Providing adagwb
bank Protection In the above examples tlda would
amour! b - 8 and 4 feet. raspactively.
10 bid
10 feet
N In an erl er assessment the structure felled the
15% bank protection shade but the eroalon he.
subsequently stabilised, than the observer can use
beat proleselon.l judgment to determine N the
structure is currently meeting the bank protection
criteria.

McCain Property
Table 6 Veaetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 7.98
Easement Acreage 13.34
e etation Cateno
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
De iction
Number of
Polvoons
Combined
Acreage
% of
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Microstegium, tall fescue, multiflora rose, Chinese privet, Chinese lespedeza
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Planted
Ve etation Cateoory
Definitions
Threshold
De iction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of planted woody and herbaceous material on stream banks
0.1 acres
Solid Yellow
3
0.01
0.1
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on visual observations and MY3 stem
2. Low Stem Density Areas
1count
0.1 acres
Solid Orange
6
3.32
41.6
criteria.
Total
9
3.33
41.7
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
N/A
0
0.00
0.0%
Cumulative Total
9
1 3.33
1 41.7%
Easement Acreage 13.34
e etation Cateno
Definitions
Mapping
Threshold
CCPV
De iction
Number of
Polvoons
Combined
Acreage
%of
Easement
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Microstegium, tall fescue, multiflora rose, Chinese privet, Chinese lespedeza
1000 SF
Hatched
15
3.96
29.7
Easement Encroachment Areas
Microstegium encroachment
none
Hatched
7
2.58
19.3
= 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.
= The acreage within the easement boundaries.
= 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.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
= Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. Invasives 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 regularity, but can be
mapped, it 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 Microstegium 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 i ics are of particular interest
given their extreme risk.!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 invasives polygons, particulalry for situations where the condition for an area is somewhere between isolated specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any
case, the point or polygorVarea 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.

High Concern:
Low/Moderate Concern:
Vines
Genus/Species
Shrubs/Herbs
Genus/Species
Shrubs/Herbs
Genus/Species
Kudzu
Pueraria lobata
Japanese Knotweed
Pol onum cus idatum
Japanese Privet
Li ustrum Ja onicum
Porcelain Berry
Am elo sis brevi eduncu
Oriental Bittersweet
Celastrus orbiculatus
Gloss Privet
Li ustrum lucidum
Japanese Hone sucklc;
Lonicera japonica
Multiflora Rose
Rosa multiflora
Fescue
Festuca spp.
Japanese Hops
Humulus japonicus
Russian olive
Elaea nus an ustifolia
English Ivy
Hedera helix
Wisterias
Wisteria spp.
Chinese Privet
Li ustrum sinense
Microste ium
Microste ium vimineum
Winter Creeper
Euon mus fortunei
Chinese Silver grass
Miscanthus sinensis
Burning Bush
Euon mus alatus
Bush Killer Watch List
Ca ratia'a onica
Phra mites
Phra mites australis
Johnson Grass
Sor hum hale ense
Bamboos
Ph llostach s spp
Bush Honeysuckles
Lonicera, s
rees
Sericea Les edeza
Sericea Les edeza
Periwinkles
Vinca minor
ee of Heaven
Ailanthus altissima
Garlic Mustard Watch List
Alliaria etiolata
Morning Glories
Morning Glories
Mimosa
Albizia julibrissin
Co on Grass Watch List
Im erata c lindrica
Bicolor Les edeza Watch List
Les edeza bicolor
Princess Tree
Paulownia tomentosa
Giant Reed Watch List
Arundo donax
Chinese Yams Watch List
Dioscorea oppositifolia
China Berry
Melia azedarach
Tro ical Soda Apple Watch List
Solanum viarum
Air Potato Watch List
Dioscorea bulbifera
Gallery Pear
P rus calle ana
Ja anese S irea Watch List
S iraea japonica
a anese Climbing Fern Watch List
L odium a onicum
hite Mulberry
Morus alba
Ja anese Barber Watch List
Berberis thunber ii
Tree Watch List
Triadica sebifera

Stream Station Photos
Photo 1. Looking downstream at XS -1
Photo 2. Looking downstream at XS -2
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project number: 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. December 2011

` �'� �'� �, . yE„ T i• r,�Y�' .ANY
t
Photo 3. Looking downstream at XS -3
'S
Photo 4. Looking downstream at XS -4
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project number: 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. December 2011
XS_3
t
q --
r,K
S
Photo 3. Looking downstream at XS -3
'S
Photo 4. Looking downstream at XS -4
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project number: 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. December 2011

Photo 5. Looking downstream at XS -5
Photo 6. Looking downstream at XS -6
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project number: 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. December 2011

Vegetation Monitoring Plots Photos
9
P��1tt•.F%�ni� +�.�:9� .ai►�:�" 'rte
Photo 7. Vegetation Plot 1 (September 8, 2011)
Photo 8. Vegetation Plot 2 (September 8, 2011)
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project number: 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. December 2011

Photo 9. Vegetation Plot 3 (September 8, 2011)
Photo 10. Vegetation Plot 4 (September 8, 2011)
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project number: 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. December 2011

Y y
Photo 11. Vegetation Plot 5 (September 8, 2011)
Photo 12. Vegetation Plot 6 (September 8, 2011)
i,
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project number. 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. December 2011

{
i r '
�.
r
�. a +, ... ' �y �Fy1 .�, f4-e '•�, y�.n_�, .. :t :�:.
Photo 13. Vegetation Plot 7 (September 8, 2011)
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project number: 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P.C. December 2011

ri
� ~I -J :
117
LI
McCain Stream Restoration
4f NCEEP Project number 443
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C
Appendix C. Vegetation Plot Data
Year 3 Monitoring Report
Year 3 of S
December 2011

Table 7 Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Vegetation Plot ID
Vegetation Survival Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
VP 1
No
VP 2
No
VP 3
Yes
VP 4
Yes
100%
VP 5
No
VP 6
No
VP 7
No
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitonng Report
NCEEP Project number 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C December 2011

- Table 8 CVS Vegetation, Plot Metadata - -
- - McCain Stream Restoration Site/Project No 443 ' - -
Report Prepared By -
The Catena Group
database name
McCain property mdb r
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT -- -
- - -
Description of database file, the report
- -
worksheets, and a summary of project(s)
Metadata
and project data
Each project is listed with its PLANTED
stems per acre, for each year This
Prof, planted
excludes live stakes
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems
per acre, for each year This includes live
stakes, all planted stems, and all
Prof, total stems
natural/volunteer stems
List of plots surveyed with location and
summary data (live stems, dead stems,
Plots
missing, etc
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for
Vigor
stems for all plots
Frequency distribution of vigor classes
Vigor by Spp
listed by species
List of most frequent damage classes with
number of occurrences and percent of total
Damage
stems impacted by each
Damage values tallied by type for each
Damage by Spp
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 each plot, dead
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
and missing stems are excluded
PROJECT SUMMARY - - __�_�____�__
Project Code
443
project Name
McCain
Stream restoration site located in the
Description
Yadkin River Basin
River Basin
length(ft)
2450
stream -to -edge width (ft)
50
area (sq m)
2275894
Required Plots (calculated)
7
Sampled Plots
7
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project number 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C December 2011

EEP Project Code 443. Project Name: McCain
Table 9: Planted and Total Stem Counts
Current Plot Data (MY3 2011)
1 Annual Means
Scientific Name
Common Name
Species Type
E443 -A -0003
1 E443- A-0002
E443 -A -0003
E443 -A -0004
I E443 -A -0005
E443 -A -0006
E443 -A -0007
MY312011)
MY2(2010)
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
IT
JPnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
T
PnoLS
P -all
IT
PnoLS
P -all
IT
PnoLS
P -all
T
Acerne undo
boxelder
Tree
1
4
5
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
1
1
1
6
6
6
3
3
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
11
1
1
18
18
18
18
18
18
omus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
8
8
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
5
5
3
18
18
3
18
18
Dias yros vir iniana
common persimmon
Tree
1
1
1
2
5
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
2
2
41
1
1
2
1
1
4
2
1
14
4
4
27
4
4
4
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
I
I
1
1 4
5
9
Liriodendron tulipitera
tulipiree
Tree
3
3
3
11
1
1
1
11
2
5
5
6
5
51
5
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
1
1
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
91
9
9
9
9
9
uercus falcata
southern red oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
uercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
uercus hellos
willow oak
Tree
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
7
6
6
6
Rosa multdora
multiflora rose
Shrub Vine
1
1
alix n ra
black willow
Tree
7
7
1
8
8
7
7
alix sericea
silky willow
Shrub Tree
1
1
4
4
3
3
8
8
8
8
Stem count
size (ares)
size (ACRES)
Species count
Stems per ACRE
7
7
7
4
20
23
18
18
20
8
8
12
3
11
20
6
6
7
4
1 11
36
50
811
125
49
79
79
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
7
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.17
0.17
2
2
2
3
6
7
6
6
7
5 5
6
3
6
10
3
3
4
4
5
9
8
10
1
8
10
10
283.3
283.3
283.3
161.9
809.4
930.81728.41
728.41
809.4
323.71
485.6
121.41
445.2
809.4
242.81242.81283.3,
161.91445,21
14571
289.11468.31
722.7
283.31
456.71
456.7

I_,
Appendix D. Stream Survey Data
I
0
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
_ NCEEP Project number 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C December 2011
I�
I
I

Project:
MoCaln Property
Summa bankfull
Crass Section:
Cross Section 1
MYO
MYt
MY2
MY3 MY4 MY5
Feature
Riffle Reach 1
A (BKF)
18.6
20.8
18.7
17.8
Station:
12 +11.30
W (BKF)
16.9
17.2
18.1
16.2
Date:
8/25/11
Max d
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.7
Crew:
BW, ZAP, SY
Mean d
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.1
WID
15.4
14.2
17.5
14.6
MYOO.2009
MYOt -2009
MY02.2010
MY03 -2011
Station Elevation
Notes Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
548.39
LPIN
548.39
LPIN
548.39
LPIN
548.39
LPIN
6.50 547.76
0.30
548.19
0.10
548.26
0.05
548.29
14.00 546.79
6.00
547.72
2.80
548.15
5.83
547.82
...�.
.
21.10 546.16
13.40
546.76
9.25
547.37
12.62
546.94
~
...
25.50 545.21 22.10
545.85
14.42
546.82
20.31
546.45
30.60 544.82
34.10 543.31
TOBLBKR 24.30
27.40
545.16
545.05
21.29
24.14
546.18
545.36
24.04
28.52
545.38
545.04
xs
36.20 543.19
29.40
544.79
26.88
545.13
30.27
545.03 TOBL BKFIL
i !
38.70 543.11
30.60
544.68
TOBL BKFL
30.72
544.75 TOBL
EIKH
32.31
544.35
40.50 543.01
42.80 543.01
32.30
33.90
544.06
543.25
32.01
34.33
544.09
543.58
34.81
36.83
543.63
542.97
TOE L
°
45.20 542.91
TW 35.60
542.88
35.79
543.04
TOE L
38.90
542.70
TW
(!
45.70 543.12
37.40
542.76
37.32
542.96
41.08
542.85
47.10 543.83
38.30
542.66
TW
38.96
542.80
TW
43.22
$43.04
48.40 544.42 rOBR BKFF 40.60
542.70
40.26
542.86
45.19
542.99
TOE R
54.20 545.10
42.60
542.84
4210
543.01
46.40
543.72
'fly
56.50 545.81
45.50
542.84
44.62
543.00
TOE
47.56
543.93
59.70 546.45
46.60
543.50
45.27
543.34
48.93
544.72 rOBR
64.50 547.03
48.70
544.32
rOBR BKFF
47.77
543.97
52.94
544.89
69.00 547.76
52.70
544.82
50.16
544.56 rOBR BKF
54.97
545.21
72.60 548.15
RPIN 55.60
545.44
53.54
544.93
57.36
546.08
58.50
546.15
57.71
545.95
61.77
546.79
62.40
546.77
61.30
546.66
66.47
547.42
67.40
547.45
65.01
547.13
72.63
548.02
Photo of XS -1, looking in the downstream direction
71.90
547.93
68.96
547.59
72.79
548.25
RPIN
72.70
548.13
RPIN
72.76
547.99
72.79
548.14
RPIN
Cross Section 1
549.00
548.00
547.00
546.00
c
0
Qa
545.00
W
544.00
543.00
54200
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00 50.00
60.00 70.00 80.00
Station (Feet)
+- As -Built --a Year 1 -*- Year 2 -a- Year 3 BKF

Project:
McCain Property
Summa
banklull
LM
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Cross Section: Cross Section 2
Feature
Riffle Reach 2
A (BKF)
33.7
42.7
44.4
43.3
Station:
16 +25.07
W (BKF)
24.6
25.2
28.0
26.3
Date:
8/25111
Max d
1.8
2.5
2.6
2.6
Crew:
BW, ZAP, SV
Mean d
1.4
1.7
1.6
1.6
W/D
18.0
14.9
17.6
16.0
•`� A� '�
MY00 -2008
MY01 -2009
MY02.2010
MY03.2011
Station Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
'r
r
543.01
LPIN
543.02
LPIN
543.01
LPIN
543.03
LPIN
8.50 542.71
1.30
542.72
0.10
542.79
0.09
542.81
16.90 542.73
11.30
542.75
5.41
542.74
6.21
542.76
R'
20.10 542.57
20.50
542.51
14.66
542.73
15.09
542.65
23.80 541.30
23.80
541.24
19.98
542.59
20.18
542.59
«•
29.50 541.02
TOBL BKFL 29.60
540.96
TOBL BKFL
23.53
541.30
23.71
541.22
32.90 539.61
31.30
540.34
26.44
540.93
27.35
541.03
3
{
36.00 539.40
39.20 539.30
42.90 539.26
33.00
33.40
TW 36.10
539.64
539.14
539.09
29.09
32.32
32.96
540.91
539.92
539.31
TOBL BKFI
29.74
32.33
33.87
540.88
539.82
539.16
TOBL BKFL
TOE L
4 u e s v J1
45.90 539.29
48.20 539.47
37.80
38.90
538.98
538.47
35.92
38.49
539.25
538.73
TOE L
36.59
3821
539.19
538.78
50.10 539.68
41.30
538.40
TW
39.90
538.58
39.07
538.76
51.60 539.98
LOBRBKFF 42.80
538.42
43.14
538.44
TW
41.63
538.39
TW
54.40 541.11
45.70
538.49
47.21
538.60
46.73
538.82
60.30 541.36
62.30 542.52
48.00
49.90
538.67
539.01
49.50
50.39
538.65
539.68
TOE R
48.55
50.50
538.82
539.80
TOE R'
Ar`'
69.30 542.78
51.90
539.86
52.52
540.26
52.65
540.18
76.70 543.18
RPIN 53.60
540.51
1 53.87
541.01
54.33
541.10 rOBR BKFR
55.00
540.87
rOBR BKFF
54.13
540.97
rOBR BKF
57.37
541.09
60.60
541.14
55.94
540.94
60.79
541.42
63.60
542.52
58.75
541.06
6220
542.47
71.70
542.84
60.44
541.46
65.96
542.66r_�
_
76.20
543.03
62.34
542.42
71.83
542.97
Photo of XS-2, looking In the downstream direction
76.70
543.23
RPIN
6625
542.68
76.31
543.08
71.59
542.89
76.64
643.18
RPIN
76.49
543.12
76.58
543.13
RPIN
Cross Section 2
544.00
-
54x00
-
542.00
ILL.
p 541.00
m
W
540.00
539.00
538.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00 60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
Station (Feet)
-+-As -Bust - (-Year 1 - .-Year 2 - a-Year 3 -+-BKF

Project:
McCain Property
Summs
bankfull
Cross Section:
Cross Section 3
MY3
MY4 MY5
MYO
MYt
MY2
Feature
Pool Reach 2
A (BKF)
33.6
34.1
30.8
30.7
Station:
23.45.75
W (BKF)
22.6
23.0
22.3
22.1
Date:
8/25111
Max d
2.2
2.2
2.4
2.6
Crew:
BW, ZAP, SV
Mean d
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
W/D
MY03.2011
MY00.2009
MY01 -2009
MY02 -2010
Station Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation Notes
537.42
LPIN
537.41
LPIN
537.42
LPIN
_
537.42 LPIN "
0.40 537.22
0.30
537.10
0.16
537.17
021
537.24
4.90 537.35
5.60
537.18
5.47
537.30
4.81
537.34 �5 A
10.80 537.23
10.70
537.06
10.85
537.15
9.33
537.27;-
14.80 536.00
15.30
535.76
TOBL BKFl
14.13
536.24
11.21
537.15
17.00 535.61
17.80
535.49
16.82
535.75
13.66
536.22
20.40 535.64
TOBLBKR
20.20
535.53
19.75
535.67
17.21
535.66 y
.XSa
-_ y ,'f ,:.;y
w,,;
23.50 534.21
22.60
534.71
20.55
535.75
20.39
535.65 TOBL BKFL
24.80 534.18
25.30
534.23
20.59
535.67
TOBL BKFI
22.90
535.00
26.20 534.48
26.70
533.93
22.15
535.28
25.74
534.65
28.30 534.03
30.20
533.65
23.51
534.96
28.41
534.53
29.30 533.96
31.70
533.39
25.84
534.66
30.85
533.46 TOE L
"<
33.50 533.72
33.90
533.39
27.64
534.57
33.36
533.03 TW
35.00 533.47
3620
533.49
29.25
534.26
35.53
533.29
35.70 533.43
TW
37.60
533.34
TW
29.91
533.73
TOE L
37.70
533.41 TOE R
37.80 533.51
39.40
533.90
31.73
533.51
39.46
534.12
'
39.90 534.03
40.70
534.41
33.44
533.24
TW
42.27
535.48
43.90 536.10
rOBR BKF
44.60
536.11
rOBR BKF
35.66
533.40
45.16
536.37 rOBR BKFR
45.10 536.35
49.90
536.30
38.05
533.44
48.22
536.31'
50.00 536.45
53.40
537.72
38.48
533.49
TOE R
5024
536.56
56.60 539.15
56.90
539.05
39.52
534.06
53.15
537.77
60.80 539.51
62.70
539.47
42.28
535.18
57.12
539.19
:..
64.70 539.76
RPIN
64.70
539.77
RPIN
44.41
536.24
rOBR BKF
61.55
539.63
45.35
536.32
64.93
539.74
Photo of XS -3 boldng in the downstream direction
47.78
536.29
64.94
539.74 RPIN
50.18
536.53
53.78
537.89
56.63
539.17
60.69
539.57
64.01
539.66
64.85
539.83
RPIN
Cross Section 3
541.00
540.00
MOO
539.00
537.00
c
yO
536.00
Ae
m
w
535.00
534.00
533.00
532.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00 40.00 50.00
60.00
70.00
Station (Feet)
tAS-BuiR -+~ Year 1 -*- Year 2 -w- Year 3 + BKF

Project:
McCain Property
Summa
bankfull
Cross Section:
Cross Section 4
MYO
MYt
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Feature
RHfle Reach 2
A (BKF)
30.5
29.7
31.3
30.3
Station:
25 +05.32
W (BKF)
23.3
23.4
24.4
24.3
Date:
8(25/11
Max d
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.0
Crew:
Billy, ZAP, SV
Mean d
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.2
W(D
17.4
18.4
19.1
19.5
MY03.2011
MYOO-2000
MY01.2009
MYO2.2010
Station Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
536.96
Notes
LPIN
536.98 [PIN 537.03 LPIN 536.96 LPIN
5.00
536.62
1.00
536.72
0.14
536.83
0.23
536.62
'
11.40
536.32
4.90
536.57
7.07
536.48
5.72
536.56
18.80
535.00
9.80
536.21
14.93
536.07
11.25
536.27
23.90
534.73
TOBL BKFIL 14.40
536.09
16.99
535.36
15.98
536.05
27.90
533.01
16.30
535.79
1884
534.99
18.75
534.98
28.30
532.96
18.40
535.04
21.09
534.85
20.51
534.83
29.40
532.71
TW 19.50
534.82
24.04
534.62
TOBL BKFI
24.67
534.67 TOBL BKFL -
31.60
532.89
24.00
534.68
TOBL BKFL
26.40
533.67
27.38
533.45
33.60
532.94
27.00
533.34
27.45
533.25
28.91
532.51
34.80
532.81
28.50
532.52
28.30
532.55
TOE L
30.66
532.63
V'
37.20
532.76
29.30
532.54
30.05
532.64
33.36
532.48
TW
39.50
532.94
30.60
532.80
32.15
532.61
35.06
532.56
43.80
533.13
32.40
532.56
34.29
532.44
TW
36.68
532.80
TOE R
47.70
534.52
34.60
532.46
TW
35.57
532.61
41.65
533.62
49.30
534.51
IFOBR BKFF 37.00
532.74
37.56
532.76
TOE R
44.80
533.62
f x »
50.40
534.87
41.50
533.59
38.34
533.03
47.59
534.02
53.20
534.93
43.00
533.59
39.76
533.07
50.48
534.80 rOBR BKFR
58.70
536.66
44.70
533.49
41.03
533.43
53.81
534.94
65.90
536.65
46.00
533.70
1 42.30
533.59
57.03
536.13
69.40
536.72
RPIN 47.90
534.44 rOBR BKFF
44.75
533.51
58.87
536.53
50.50
534.82
45.77
533.63
69.44
536.54
54.00
535.03
47.37
534.37
69.69
536.63
RPIN
56.80
536.06
48.46
534.42
1
Photo of XS-4, IooWrg In the downstream direction
59.60
536.53
49.95
534.79
rOBR BKFR
66.20
536.62
52.78
534.80
69.40
536.70
RPIN
54.29
535.10
55.49
535.47
56.50
535.96
56.90
536.10
5893
536.48
62.10
536.53
69.35
536.50
69.47
536.59
RPIN
Cross Section 4
538.00
537.00
535.00
yO 535.00
A
W
534.00
533.00
532.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00 50.00
50.00 70.00 80.00
SMIon (Feet)
t A6 -Buit t Year 1 -.- Year 2 -0- Yew 3 -+- BKF

Project:
WCeln Property
Summa
bankfu0
-
Cross Section:
Goss Section
5
MYO
MYt
NIY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
Feature
Pool Reach 2
A (BKF)
22.2
17.8
20.5
18.7
Station:
29 +60.52
W (BKF)
16.7
14.3
16.0
14.0
Date:
8125/11
Max d
2.8
2.5
2.8
2.8
Crew:
BW, ZAP, SV
Mean d
1.2
12
1.3
1.3
WiD
MYOO.2009
MY01.2009
MY02.2010
MY03.2011
Station Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
534.81
LPIN
534.83
LPIN
534.81
LPIN
534.81
LPIN
1.30 534.61
0.85
534.55
0.10
534.66
0.16
534.64
4.50 534.49
7.04
534.34
4.64
534.53
3.54
534.58
7.10 534.47
9.74
534.25
8.58
534.52
9.37
534.39
9.90 534.27
12.69
533.03
11.79
533.58
12.19
533.54
.a "-
15.60 532.08
15.31
532.09
14.13
532.51
16.43
531.84
22.10 531.29
TOBL BKFL
17.68
531.53
16.94
531.79
19.79
531.65
TOBL BKFL
23.50 530.57
21.06
531.28
TOBL BKFI
19.09
531.58
22.63
531.30
24.30 530.15
22.28
531.15
21.52
531.32
T08L BKFI
23.11
531.03
24.80 530.05
23.71
530.35
22.78
530.98
25.13
529.44
TOE L
26.10 528.48
TW
25.07
529.71
24.38
530.40
26.28
528.76
27.00 528.84
26.46
528.68
25.37
529.46
TOE L
27.09
528.53
TW
28.20 528.85
28.01
528.70
26.16
528.67
28.25
528.76
29.20 529.10
28.55
528.61
TW
27.85
528.46
TW
30.17
529.34
29.90 529.40
29.77
529.27
30.26
529.36
31.33
529.92
TOE R
31.00 529.75
30.71
529.72
31.96
529.68
TOE R
32.59
530.68
31.70 530.04
32.08
530.26
32.69
530.30
34.37
530.98
33.10 530.28
34.31
530.73
33.54
530.76
38.32
531.55
35.60 530.77
38.84
531.56
rOBR BKF
34.93
530.94
42.21
532.13
rOBR BKFR
38.60 530.66
42.10
531.99
37.34
531.25
43.68
532.24
42.30 532.07
rOBR BKFF
45.60
532.03
39.09
531.60
47.59
532.37
46.90 532.25
47.75
532.36
42.04
531.96
52.99
534.59
53.00 534.62
50.39
533.56
44.65
532.04
54.72
534.70
56.70 534.80
53.09
534.59
47.54
532.32
TOM BKF
59.47
534.88
Photo of XS-5, looking in the downstream direction
60.80 534.90
57.36
534.68
49.05
533.30
65.23
535.31
65.10 535.20
RPIN
61.80
534.85
50.87
533.82
65.25
535.30
RPIN
65.09
535.23
RPIN
53.22
534.64
57.43
534.76
61.37
534.89
64.64
535.11
64.92
535.11
RPIN
Cross Section 5
536.00
535.00
534.00
533.00
532.00
p
�W
>t
W 531.00
530.00
529.00
528.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00
Station (Feet)
-As-But - Year 1 -A- Year 2 t Year 3 t BKF

Project:
McCaln Property
Summa
bonkfutl
Cross Section:
Cross Section 6
M 1
MYt
MY2
MY3
MY4
MYS
Feature
RUfle Reach 2
A (BKF)
30.8
25.2
27.8
28.1
Station:
31 +23.66
W (OKF)
20.6
18.4
20.8
20.6
Date:
8!25111
Max d
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.3
Crew:
BW, ZAP, SV
Mean d
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.4
WID
13.8
13.4
15.5
15.1
MY00.2009
MY01.2009
NrY02 -2010
MY03.2011
Station Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
Station
Elevation
Notes
534.05
IN
534.06
LPIN
$34.05
LPIN
534.05
LPIN
1.20 533.88
0.70
533.82
0.46
533.87
0.21
533.90
6.30 533.79
6.70
533.62
3.65
533.88
3.74
533.84
12.00 532.04
11.40
532.13
6.56
533.73
8.24
533.32
18.40 531.79
27.20 531.57 TOBL BKR
19.30
27.10
531.73
531.56 TOOL BKR
9.79
12.11
532.77
532.09
11.43
16.28
532.21,
531.88
31.90 529.62
30.00
530.32
17.67
531.84
21.94
531.68
35.40 529.32
31.90
529.56
23.58
531.71
27.12
531.67 TOBL BKFL
37.20 529.17
35.50
529.56
25.48
531.75
29.67
530.68
y
39.20 529.13
TW
3720
529.46
27.37
531.63 TOBL BIKFI
32.05
530.04
41.30 529.29
39.00
529.10
29.66
530.59
35.18
529.78
43.10 529.25
40.30
528.98
TW
31.44
530.13
38.76
529.38
TOE L
43.70 529.27
44.30 529.66
41.60
43.80
529.06
529.14
32.62
35.86
529.76
529.59
TOE L
41.56
43.06
529.14
529.00
TW
48.60 531.25 rOBR BKF
44.70
529.74
37.90
529.44
44.22
529.13
TOE R
53.70 531.47
46.80
530.99
39.28
529.27
46.05
530.54
57.90 533.34
48.90
531.22 rOBR BKF
41.25
529.31
47.47
531.15
60.00 533.68
53.90
531.45
43.16
529.12
TW
49.15
531.36 rOBR BKFR
65.80 533.81
56.60
532.70
44.05
529.34
TOE R
51.66
531.41
67.80 534.22
RPIN
58.60
533.50
44.57
530.01
54.75
531.69
63.50
533.69
45.87
530.55
56.72
532.65
67.40
533.93
47.21
531.14
58.73
533.56
67.70
534.23
RPIN
50.46
531.45 rOBR OKF
6286
533.76
54.62
56.73
531.68
532.93
67.76
67.85
534.04
534.24
RPIN
Plato of XS-6, looking in the downstream direction
58.82
533.61
60.49
533.81
63.53
533.88
67.45
534.10
67.46
534.26
RPIN
Cross Section 6
535.00
534.00
7�
533.00 -
53200
C
531.00
W
530.00 -
Af/
529.00
528.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30M
40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 60.00
SWUM (Feet)
--o- As -Built Year 1 -.- Year 2 --m- Year 3 -4o- BKF

Elevation (feet)
CA
N W W ASP C
C (A O () I O C11
p
ROCK STRUCTURE
1
STA 10 +18
r
1 1
�
1
.l
om
11
n
�
11
N
1
C
j
CROSS SErTION
1
1
12 +11
ROCK E
TRUCTURE OMMEMEdW
cj
STA 12+49
1
+
O
1
�
1
O
' I
O
1
Ln
1
+
O
O
ROCK STRUCTURE1
p)
STA 15 +5
D '
1
+
CD
1
11
CROSS SECTION
2
16 +25
1 1
V
+
I °0
1 1
+
O
O
1
ROCK STRUCTURE
1
O
co
STA IS -62
+
O
O
O
� 1 1
i
N
1
O
1
O
1 1
0;1
1
7
i
1
+
O
r
0
I
N
1
S C
N
m
'
0
1
N fp
.
1 1
D
W
m
i
7 7 a
N�
+O
1
ID
O
11
1
COl
3
I(
n
+
Q O�
23+46
0
1
Cw11 �
O
ROCK STRUCTU
E
1
Ul
STA 24+41
1
O
O
W
+
It
CROSS SECTION
4
O
25 +05
O
1
tT
G
V)
0
1
O
1
V
O
W
+O
1
1
0
1
1
co
A
I
+
O
O
co
1
W O
1 1
O
1
CROSS SECTION
5
W
O
29+61
o
ROCK
11
O
STRUCTURE
W
STA 3
74
1
1
O
1
CROSS SECTION
6
O
31 +24
N
1
+
°0
1
W
I
W
I
+
O
�
1
O
1
�
ROCK11
+
O
O
STA 3 +4
1
1
W
1
O
O 1

PEBBLE COUNT
Project: McCain Property Date: 8/25/2011
Location: Cross Section #1
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
32.9
Riffles
Pools
Total No.
Item %
% Cumulative
90%
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
5 /C::::
0
0
0
0%
0%
Very Fine
.062-.125
::: ; : =:::
0
0
0
0%
0%
Fine
.125-.25
: fk ::::
2
0
2
2%
2%
Medium
.25-.50
:: N :w:::
0
0
0
0%
2%
Coarse
.50-1.0
::: D ::::
2
0
2
2%
4%
.04-.08
1 Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
::: S ::::
5
1 0
5
5%
9%
.08-.16
Very Fine
2.0-4.0
0
0
0
0%
9%
.16-.22
Fine
4.0-5.7
::::G:: _ : _
2
0
2
2%
11%
.22-.31
Fine
5.7-8.0
::::Fi:::::::
10
0
10
10%
21%
.31-.44
Medium
8.0-11.3
A : ::
2
0
2
2%
23%
.44-.63
Medium
11.3-16.0
V:::::::
8
0
8
8%
31%
.63-.89
Coarse
16.0-22.6
:::::B:::::
10
0
10
10%
41%
.89-1.26
Coarse
22.6 - 32.0
:::::::::::
8
0
8
8 0/0
49%
1.26 - 1.77
Very Coarse
32.0-45.0
:S:::::::::
14
0
14
14%
63%
1.77-2.5
Very Coarse
45.0-64.0
14
0
14
14%
77%
2.5-3.5
Small
64-90
:::::
10
0
10
10%
87%
3.5-5.0
Small
90-128
4 4
0
4
4%
91%
5.0-7.1
Large
128-180
::$:::
6
0
6
6%
97%
7.1 - 10.1
Lar a
180-256
: L ::::
2
0
2
2%
99%
10.1 - 14.3
Small
256-362
B ::::
1
0
1
1 %
100%
14.3-20
Small
362-512
L ::::::
0
0
0
0%
100%
20-40
Medium
512-1024
D::
0
0
0
0%
100%
40-80
L[ q- Very Lrq
1024-2048
:::: R ::::
0
0
0
0%
100%
Bedrock
BDFiI<:: j
0
0
0
0%
100%
Totals 100 0 100 100% 100%
d16
d35
1
d50
d84
d95
7.0
18.4
32.9
82.2
162.7
Bed Particle Size Distribution
Cross Section 1: Riffle
100%
90%
80%
d
70%
W
0 MY -00
60%-
E
V
3 MY -01
50%
C
—6 MY -02
p
40%
—�- MY -03
m
LL
30%
Ole
20%
10%
0%
0.1 1
10 100 1000 10000
100000
Particle Size - Millimeter

PEBBLE COUNT
Project: McCain Property Date: 8/25/2011
Location: Cross Section #2
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
157.7
Riffles
Pools
Total No.
Item %
% Cumulative
90%i°
Silt/ Cla
< 0.062
S/C :::
4
0
4
4%
4%
Very Fine
.062-.125
::: ::::
0
0
0
0%
4%
Fine
.125-.25
: tk ::::
0
0
0
0%
4%
Medium
.25-.50
N
0
0
0
0%
4%
Coarse
.50-1.0
0
0
0
0%
4%
.04-.08
Very Coarse
1.0 - 2.0,
::::
15
0
15
15%
19%
.08 - .16
Very Fine
2.0-4.0
0
0
0
0%
19%
.16-.22
Fine
4.0-5.7
:(a:::: ':
2
0
2
2%
21%
.22-.31
Fine
5.7-8.0
:R:::::
4
0
4
4%
25%
.31 -.44
Medium
8.0 - 11.3
0
0
0
0%
25%
.44-.63
Medium
11.3 - 16.0
V ::::
8
0
8
8%
33%
.63-.89
Coarse
16.0-22.6
::E:::,:.
13
0
13
13%
46%
.89-1.26
Coarse
22.6-32.0
L::::
4
0
4
4%
50%
1.26 - 1.77
Very Coarse
32.0-45.0
17
0
17
17%
67%
1.77-2.5
Very Coarse
45.0 - 64.0
20
0
20
20%
87%
2.5-3.5
Small
64-90
::—::C.
2
0
2
2%
89%
3.5-5.0
Small
90-128
0: ::
2
0
2
2%
91%
5.0 - 7.1
Large
128-180
8::::::::
7
0
7
7%
98%
7.1 - 10.1
Large
180-256
L: :::.::
1
0
1
1 %
99%
10.1 -14.3
Small
256-362
B
1
0
1
1%
100%
14.3-20
Small
362-512
L
0
0
0
0%
100%
20-40
Medium
512-1024
D
0
0
0
0%
100%
40-80
Lr - Very Lrg
1024-2048
R
0
0
0
0%
100%
Bedrock
BDRK
0
0
0
0%
100%
Totals 100 0 100 100% 100%
d16
d35
d50 d84
d95
1.8
16.9
32.0 61.2
157.7
Bed Particle Size Distribution
Cross Section 2: Riffle
100%
90%i°
1
80%i°
70%
--0 MY -00
60%
-:? - MY -01
50%
MY -02
�o
F
40%
40, MY-03
m
A
30%
LL
0
°
20%
10%
0%
0.1 1
10 100 1000 10000
100000
Particle Size - Millimeter

PEBBLE COUNT
Project: McCain Property Date: 8/25/2011
Location: Cross Section #3
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
43.1
Riffles
Pools
Total No.
Item %
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S /C::: -:
12
12
12%
12%
Very Fine
.062-.125
::: =R . : =:
0
0
0%
12%
Fine
.125-.25
::: A ::::
m
70%
2
2
2%
14%
Medium
.25-.50
=N ::::
0
0
0%
14%
Coarse
.50-1.0
:::::R :*...
0
0
0%
14%
.04-.08
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
S ::::
E
0
0
0%
14%
.08-.16
Very Fine
2.0-4.0
60%
V
0
0
0%
14%
.16-.22
Fine
4.0-5.7
:
50%
0
0
0%
14%
.22-.31
Fine
5.7-8.0
:.:.:R......
C
0
0
0%
14%
.31 - .44
Medium
8.0-11.3
: A ::::
40%
2
2
2%
16%
.44-.63
Medium
11.3-16.0
: V ::::
L
6
6
6%
22%
.63-.89
Coarse
16.0-22.6
::::::::::
10
10
10%
32%
.89-1.26
Coarse
22.6-32.0
::::::ir:::::
6
6
6%
38%
1.26 - 1.77
Very Coarse
32.0-45.0
14
14
14%
52%
1.77-2.5
Very Coarse
45.0-64.0
14
14
14%
66%
2.5-3.5
Small
64-90
G :::::
6
6
6%
72%
3.5-5.0
Small
90-128
0:::::
8
8
8%
80%
5.0-7.1
Large
128-180
::B::
0
0
0%
80%
7.1 - 10.1
Lar a
180-256
L : ::
0
0
0%
80%
10.1 - 14.3
Small
256-362
B ::::
0
0
0%
80%
14.3-20
Small
362-512
: L ::
0
0
0%
80%
20-40
Medium
512-1024
:::D:::::
0
0
0%
80%
40-80
Lr - Very Lrg
1024-2048
R : ::
0
0
0%
80%
Bedrock
BOFiK::
20
20
20%
100%
Totals 0 100 100 100% 100%
d16
d35
d50
d84
d95
11.0
27.0
43.1
1 0.0
0.0
Bed Particle Size Distribution
Cross Section 3: Pool
100%
90%
80%
m
70%
0 MY -00
E
60%
V
—2— MY -01
50%
C
6 MY -02
40%
MY -03
L
d
LL 30%
ae
20%
�:�
10%
,344��
0%
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Particle Size - Millimeter

PEBBLE COUNT
Project: McCain Property Date: 8/25/2011
Location: Cross Section #4
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
Riffles
Pools
Total No.
Item %
% Cumulative
-Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S /C::: -:
6
6
6%
6%
Very Fine
.062 - .125
: S ::
0
0
0%
6%
Fine
.125-.25
::: A ::::
2
2
2%
80/0
Medium
.25-.50
::: PI ::::
0
0
0%
8%
Coarse
.50-1.0
: D ::
0
0
0%
8%
.04-.08
1 Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
S ::::
0
0
0%
8%
.08-.16
Very Fine
2.0-4.0
0
E
0
0%
8%
.16-.22
Fine
4.0-5.7
:::::G::::::::
4
4
4%
12%
.22-.31
Fine
5.7-8.0
::::R:::::
10
10
10%
22%
.31 - .44
Medium
8.0 -11.3
::A::::::::
10
10
10%
32%
.44-.63
Medium
11.3-16.0
: V : ::
4
4
4%
36%
.63-.89
Coarse
16.0-22.6
::::::::::::::::
0
0
0%
36%
.89-1.26
Coarse
22.6-32.0
:::::L:::::
20
m
20
20%
560/6
1.26 - 1.77
Very Coarse
32.0-45.0
::: =S ::::
10
10
10%
66%
1.77-2.5
Very Coarse
45.0-64.0
6
6
6%
72%
2.5-3.5
Small
64-90
6
6
6%
78%
3.5-5.0
Small
90-128
::t7:::;:::::
15
15
15%
93%
5.0-7.1
Large
128-180
::::B =:
0
0
0%
93%
7.1 - 10.1
Lar a
180-256
::: L ::
2
2
2%
95%
10.1 - 14.3
Small
256-362
: B::::::::
2
2
2%
97%
14.3-20
Small
362-512
:f ::::::::
0
0
0%
97%
20-40
Medium
512-1024
:::D:::::
0
0
0%
97%
40-80
L[ q- Ve LE9
1024-2048
::::::::R:::::::::
0
0
0%
97%
Bedrock
;:BQfiK::::
3 1
3
3%
100%
Totals 100 0 100 100% 100%
d16 d35 d50 d84 d95
6.8 14.8 29.0 105.2 256.0
Bed Particle Size Distribution
Cross Section 4: Riffle
100%
90%
B El B E3
80%
..
d
70%
E
60%
- 0 MY -00
9
B MY -01
50%
W
40%
—6 MY -02
- 0 MY -03
m
30%
ii
3e
20%
10%
0%
0.1
1 10 100 1000 10000
100000
Particle Size - Millimeter

PEBBLE COUNT
Project: McCain Property Date: 8/25/2011
Location: Cross Section #5
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
16.9
Riffles
Pools
Total No.
Item %
% Cumulative
90%
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
S /C::::
4
4
4%
4%
Very Fine
.062-.125
: S ::::
0
0
0%
4%
Fine
-125-.25
::::A ::
0
0
0%
4%
Medium
.25-.50
::::N ::::
0
0
0%
4%
Coarse
.50-1.0
: D ::::
0
0
0%
4%
.04-.08
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
4
4
4%
8%
.08-.16
Very Fine
2.0-4.0
0
0
0%
8%
.16-.22
Fine
4.0-5.7
Ea::
4
4
4%
12%
.22-.31
Fine
5.7-8.0
E
12
12
12%
24%
.31 - .44
Medium
8.0-11.3
A : ::
12
12
12%
36%
.44-.63
Medium
11.3-16.0
V ::::
12
12
12%
48%
.63-.89
Coarse
16.0-22.6
:::::E:::::
14
14
14%
62%
.89-1.26
Coarse
22.6-32.0
:::::L:::::
12
12
12%
74%
1.26 - 1.77
Very Coarse
32.0-45.0
: =S
6
6
6%
80%
1.77-2.5
Very Coarse
45.0-64.0
m
LL
30%
8
8
8%
88%
2.5-3.5
Small
64-90
C ::::
4
4
4%
92%
3.5-5.0
Small
90-128
O :
0
0
0%
92%
5.0-7.1
Large
128-180
B :
0
0
0%
92%
7.1 - 10.1
Lar a
180-256
: L :
0
0
0%
92%
10.1 - 14.3
Small
256-362
B ::::
0
0
00/0
92%
14.3-20
Small
362-512
:::::
0%
0
0
0%
92%
20-40
Medium
512-1024
:::::D:::::
Particle Size - Millimeter
0
0
0%
92%
40-80
L[ q- Ve L[q,
1024 - 2048
:::: R ::::
0
0
0%
92%
Bedrock
B RK::
...........
8
8
8%
100%
Totals 0 100 100 100% 100%
d16
d35
d50
d84
d95
6.7
10.8
16.9
54.5
0.0
Bed Particle Size Distribution
Cross Section 5: Pool
100%
90%
80%
..
d
70%
W
7
$ MY -00
E
v
60%
-B- MY -01
C
50%
40%
-6 MY -02
-0 -MY -03
m
LL
30%
3e
20%
10%
0%
0.1 1
10 100 1000 10000
100000
Particle Size - Millimeter

PEBBLE COUNT
Project: McCain Property Date: 8/25/2011
Location: Cross Section #6
Particle Counts
Inches
Particle
Millimeter
26.0
Riffles
Pools
Total No.
Item %
% Cumulative
Silt/Clay
< 0.062
:S /C:::::
3
3
6%
6%
Very Fine
.062-.125
:::: ::
0
80%
0
0%
6%
Fine
.125-.25
::::
0
0
0%
6%
Medium
.25-.50
: KI ::::
0
0
0%
6%
Coarse
.50-1.0
: R ::::
0
0
0%
6%
.04-.08
Very Coarse
1.0-2.0
::: S ::::
2
2
4%
10%
.08-.16
Very Fine
2.0-4.0
0
0
0%
10%
.16-.22
Fine
4.0-5.7
::::G::::::::
2
2
4%
14%
.22-.31
Fine
5.7-8.0
::Fi:::::
5
5
10%
24%
.31-.44
Medium
8.0-11.3
:::::i4:::::::::
2
2
4%
28%
.44-.63
Medium
11.3-16.0
V ::::
4
4
80/a
36%
.63-.89
Coarse
16.0-22.6
::::::::::::::::
5
5
10%
46%
.89-1.26
Coarse
22.6-32.0
:::::L:::::
5
5
10%
56%
1.26 - 1.77
Very Coarse
32.0-45.0
::: S := ::
7
7
14%
70%
1.77-2.5
Very Coarse
45.0-64.0
10
10%
10
20%
90%
2.5-3.5
Small
64-90
C ::::::
5
5
10%
100%
3.5-5.0
Small
90-128
C7:::::
0
0
0%
100%
5.0-7.1
Large
128-180
::::8::::::
0
0
0%
100%
7.1 - 10.1
Larcle
180-256
:::: L ::::
0
0
0%
100%
10.1 - 14.3
Small
256-362
: B ::::
0
0
0%
100%
14.3-20
Small
362-512
:::::: ; ::::::
0
0
0%
100%
20-40
Medium
512-1024
:::::D:::::
0
0
0%
100%
40-80
L[ g- Ve Lrj
1024-2048
:::::::::R:::::::::
0
0
0%
100%
EE
Bedrock
BIQf K::::
0
0
0%
100%
Totals 50 0 50 100% 100%
......... .... - ---
d16
d35
d50
d84
d95
6.4
15.4
26.0
58.3
77.0
Bed Particle Size Distribution
Cross Section 6: Riffle
100%
90%
80%
d
E 60%
0 MY -00
�j
B MY -01
50%
e
40%
- MY -02
�— MY -03
m
LL 30%
20%
10%
0%
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Particle Size - Millimeter

Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
McCain Stream Restoration Site/Project No. 443 - Reach: 1 286 feet
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
Monit"oring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate •
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Mod
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mod
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
14.6
18.7
25.9
29.3
4
10.4
27.1
18
16.9
Floodprone Width (ft)
34
95
125
125
3
150
200
35
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.7
4
0.8
1.5
1.4
1.1
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.7
2.7
2.8
3.5
4
IA
2
2
1.5
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
21.3
25.6
25.9
29.3
4
12.5
22.3
24.6
18.6
Width /Depth Rati
8.3
14
15
17.6
4
11.6
18.5
13.2
15.4
Entrenchment Rati
1.8
5.6
6.4
8.5
3
7.4
14.4
2.1
'Bank Height Rati
1
1.2
1.1
1.7
4
1
1
1
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
9
108
58
54
63
63
72
12
2
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.01
0.0756
0.0068
0.0048
0.0059
0.0059
0.007
0.0016
2
Pool Length (ft)
28
108
38
16
21
22
25
4
3
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.8
3.1
3
Pool Spacing (ft)
38
181
95
107
113
113
119
8
2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)i 75 135 78
Radius of Curvature (ft)l 14.5 26.8 30 35 35 38 38 40 2
Rc:Bankfull width (ftJft)l 1 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.4
Meander Wavelength (ft)l 70 148 190 204 1
Meander Width Ratij 3.6 13 4.6
Transport Parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib /f
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B4c /E4/C4 -5
B4c'C3'C4
B4c
Bac
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.9
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
2155
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
2475
285
286
Sinuosity (ft)
1.15
1.50 -1.70
1.17
1.3
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0070- 0.0120
0.0067
0.0068
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0070- 0.0120
0.0067
0.0065
'Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
'% of Reach with Eroding Bank
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
bosom enua romewe ma, ,nc.e w,n,yp�auy „« � bum m.
I = The dja I mina W ihmparampen em inebdc inf ,ion hm, bob da; crow.ms --ya and du: k v dkaf pm8k. ? = Faprojicia whh a prouna1 U3G3 gorge n -fne whh d,epmjxi reach faddcd henklull .vil" "cation ran:l.
1. IAtliring survey dau produce an uaimne of dlebankfull Ihiodphdn ama in aaa. wheh dw,M be Ne ana f the uy ofbanh m d,c Inc afdc mns rhvhlapa.
4 =Pmpmim nfrnch eab'bilh,g bmkn du, arc �rodmg br dm,hc riaW ��rmy fwcunpariaon mmoe,norhlg dau; S.Of vakdnpdod mhif dicn uc�a3

S'da ttna indlcau that thuc win lypeally na M filled in.
I = The d- budone Im th- p.- aan meWde ml'amutbn hum buJi do noaa -ww, au ,and the Imgiudmal pm1i4•. 2 = Fn projsu wkh a pma W USGS gauge m -F , wish the pm}xt rush Wdw bankl'ull nmr dm
J. lhilidng annoy dau produce an aatima�v or the Ean41u11 noodpmm aru in ancv. which ahouW be me w I'mm the wP nl hm�4 m tug d the urruc riuzMlapt•..
S = Protxmion ol'ruch cahibitmg Mn4a Net em cradi� hq� on the WauJ aor.<y Ihr eumpariaon m mmiming dau; d.01 raWGnadod only il'dtc n axeuda l
Table 10a. Baseline Stream Data Summary
McCain Stream Restoration Site /Pro ect No. 443 - Reach: 2 2184 feet
Parameter
I Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate -
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)
14.6
18.7
25.9
29.3
4
10.4
27.1
18
20
24
20.6
22.8
23.3
24.6
0.9
3
Floodprone Width (ft)
34
95
125
125
3
150
200
47
54
51
63
6.2
3
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.7
4
0.8
1.5
1
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.5
0.1
3
'Bankfull Max Depth ft
1.7
2.7
2.8
3.5
4
1.4
2
1.3
1.7
2
1.8
1.9
1.8
2.1
0.2
3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
21.3
25.6
25.9
29.3
4
12.5
22.3
25
25.5
26
30.8
31.89
31.2
33.7
1.3
3
Width/Depth Rat'
8.3
14
15
17.6
4
11.6
18.5
12.7
15.6
23
13.8
16.4
17.4
18
0.8
3
Entrenchment Rab
1.8
5.6
6.4
8.5
3
7.4
14.4
2
2.3
2.5
2.5
0.1
3
Bank Heigh Rat'
1.2
1.1
1.7
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
9
108
59
67
88
20
68
76
97
23
13
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.01
0.0756
0.008
0.008
0.0104
0.0028
0.0087
0.0075
0.019
0.004
13
Pool Length (ft)
28
108
47
52
59
12
22
23
33
6
13
Pool Max depth (ft)
1.8
3.1
2.3
2.8
3.3
2.2
2.5
2.8
2
Pool Spacing (ft)
38
181
106
118
147
56
117
123
150
25
12
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)l
75
135
20
62 97
24
10
Radius of Curvature (ft)
14.5
26.8
35
60
35
43 80
14
12
Rc:Bankfull width (fUft)
1
1.6
1.8
3.1
1.5
L221
2.2 3.3
Meander Wavelength (ft
70
148
212
236
294
158
229 261
36
10
Meander Width Rat
3.6
13
1.9
2.7 4.8
ransport Parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankful
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
B4c /E4/C4 -5
B4c /C3 /C4
B4c
134c
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.9
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
Valley length (ft)
2155
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
2475
285
286
Sinuosity (ft)
1.15
1.50 -1.70
1.17
1.3
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0070 - 0.0120
0.0067
0.0068
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0070 - 0.0120
0.0067
0.0065
3Bankfull Flood lain Area acres
a% of Reach with Eroding Ban
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Otherl
S'da ttna indlcau that thuc win lypeally na M filled in.
I = The d- budone Im th- p.- aan meWde ml'amutbn hum buJi do noaa -ww, au ,and the Imgiudmal pm1i4•. 2 = Fn projsu wkh a pma W USGS gauge m -F , wish the pm}xt rush Wdw bankl'ull nmr dm
J. lhilidng annoy dau produce an aatima�v or the Ean41u11 noodpmm aru in ancv. which ahouW be me w I'mm the wP nl hm�4 m tug d the urruc riuzMlapt•..
S = Protxmion ol'ruch cahibitmg Mn4a Net em cradi� hq� on the WauJ aor.<y Ihr eumpariaon m mmiming dau; d.01 raWGnadod only il'dtc n axeuda l

Table 10b. Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
McCain Stream Restoration Site /Project No. 443 - Entire Stream (2470 If)
Parameter
Pre-Existing Condition
Reference Reach es Data
Design
As -built /Baseline
'Ri% /Rue/ /P % /G % /S%
56%
40%1
1
'SC % /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
d16 /d35 /d50 /d84 /d95 /dF / di" (mm
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5 -1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0 -9.9 / >1
#=
Incision Class <12 / 1.2 -1.49 / 1.5.1.99 / >2.
i
—1--
ShaO et! cells IrOade Thal In—" lypicaly not be liled to
I - Rigb, FM. Pod. Ciao, SW; SNt/Cky. Sand. Craw, Cobble, Barber, Baora *; alp- — pave, dsp . mar wbpeve
2. Entrenchment Clams - ! signibin the reach image into the cleses lndicaled erq p Wde the pace cage d the Taal ose,h Wage In each Gass n the lade This wll -neW Iran the measumd va:s-soclions as wet as ­W estimates
3 - Atssign/dn the neeeh loGNe ado the classes Indicated and prorvbe the percentage G the Idal reach IooltBe In eni less in the table. This A re%A horn the r eo ants- sectlms as vat es the bngfWmst prGnle
Foolnoles ;9 - These Gasses 0-e lorsley bull awed the Reagan Gassftation and hmaa rig beeks, tae vrere aguslel shghhy to make for easier assipnmea to ser —her toes® inns basal m visual estinales n the Held such Thal measam 1 d eery segmcnl to ER wall nor be oneessary.
The intent here's to Provide the readalcenshme of oesign a b mahhonrng in ooeellon with a good g dl save d the atoll d hy&dVc coolalnmenl'n the p—sisti g are the rehablhWw states as wet es canpansae to the nelsons dsh dons'
ER and BHR have been aaoresseo n pna submsslons as a suhswoe (oose- sections as part of hle oes' f saucy). hoint— these shin —ples have dlen roc— sturdy on IacWaing design withwl pro idng o Ih—gh pre- conshulinn dstrhwlion G these pararrelas, k wft IM naaoerlcasana with a swig* Ihel is welghoo heaviy an the statee secgas G
the reach. This means thal the dstndtions br these pe- nelers sho i hnkae data tron bUh the doss- section surveys orb the "Weal prattle and in the case of ER, visual enhnaes. For a nple. the typical kaghudnal pratle p000ds sampling d the SHR N Vies beyond these Wbjecl to soss-s ens and thedoe can be reeoly Megratetl art prwbe
a more canylde sample dshiWion la these peen fors, themby pronong the c1stilbOion/caa9e reressery la peoMe meahrgtnl coo pe iso s.

Table 1la. Monitoring Data - Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters - Cross Sections)
McCain Stream Restoration Site /Project No. 443
Cross Section 1 (Reach 1- Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Reach 2- Riffle)
Cross Section 3 (Reach 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) us
544.4
544.3
544.4
544.4
541
540.9
541
541
535.6
535.5
535.6
535.6
Bankfull Width (ft
16.9
17.2
18.11
16.22
24.6
25.2
27.87
26.32
22.6
23
22.25
22.08
Floodprone Width (ft
35
37
35
35
63
>75
63
63
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
1.1
1.2
1.033
1.096
1.4
1.7
1.584
1.645
1.5
1.5
1.384
1.388
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
1.6
1 1.6
1 1.7
1
1 18
2.5
1 2.55
1 2.61
1
1 2.2
1 2.2
2.36
2.57
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
18.6
20.8
18.71
17.77
33.7
42.7
44.14
43.3
33.6
34.1
1 30.8
30.65
Bankfull Width /Depth Rati
15.4
14.2
17.52
14.79
18
14.9
17.59
16
-
-
-
-
Bankfull Entrenchment Rati
2.1
2.2
1.933
2.158
2.5
>3.0
2.261
2.394
Bankfull Bank Height Rati
1
1
1.1
1.188
1
1
0.969
0.954
Cross Sectional Area between end ins fe
174.2
182
184.8
184.21
119
137
137.4
136.91
97
87
90
167.3
d50 mm
21
1 18
1 13.5
1 32.9
19
17
1 24.2
1 32
8.1
1.7
31
43.1
Cross Section 4 (Reach 2- Riffle)
Cross Section 5 (Reach 2 -Pool)
Cross Section 6 (Reach 2- 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) use
534.5
534.4
534.5
534.5
531.3
531.2
531.3
531.3
531.3
531
531.3
531.3
Bankfull Width (ft
23.3
23.4
23.99
24.32
18.1
14.3
16.46
13.96
20.6
18.4
20.79
20.6
Floodprone Width (ft)
47
52
47
47
51
50.5
51
51
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1.3
1.234
1.246
1.2
1.2
1.282
1.339
1.5
1.4
1.339
1.363
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.8
2
1.99
2.02
2.8
2.5
2.88
2.77
2.1
2
2.18
2.3
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area ft2
31.2
29.7
29.61
30.29
22.2
1 17.8
21.1
18.69
30.8
25.2
27.84
28.08
Bankfull Width /Depth Ratiol
17.4
18.4
19.44
19.53
-
-
-
-
13.8
13.4
15.52
15.11
Bankfull Entrenchment Rati
2
2.2
1.959
1.932
2.5
2.7
2.453
2.476
Bankfull Bank Height Rati
1
1
1.095
1.084
1
1
1.069
1.026
Cross Sectional Area between end ins ftz
103
120
132.3
124.2
146
148
158.3
155.8
133
159
157.1
159.2
d50 mm
17
1 14
1 24
1 29
1
1
1 0.6
3
9.3
16.9
11
4.6
16.8
26
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 monitoring 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."

1 =The distributions-for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and Ife longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhbRirg barks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessmern table
3 = Rifle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step: Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble. Boulder, Bedrock: dip = max pave, dlsp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed orgy I the n exceeds 3
Exhibit Table 11 b. Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
McCain Stream Restoration Site /Project No. 443 - Reach: 1 286 feet
Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate -
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD`
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
IMean
Med
Max
SD"
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD`
n
Min
Meanj
Med
I Max
SD`
n
Min
I Mean
Med
Max
SD`
n
Bankfull Width (it)
16.9
17.2
17.03
16.22
Floodprone Width (it
35
37
35
35
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft
1.1
1.2
0.92
1.096
'Bankfull Max Depth k
1.5
1.6
1.42
1.7
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area lft'
18.6
20.8
15.67
17.77
Width/ Depth Rati
15.4
14.2
18.5
14.79
Entrenchment Pall
271
2.2
2.056
2.158
'Bank Height Rati
1
1
L239
1.188
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)l
54.01
63.01
63.0172.01
12.01
2
1
1 67.01
1
50.46
54.87
54.87
59.27
6.23
2
43.86
49.61
49.61
55.36
2
Riffle Slope (ft4t
0.005
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.002
2
0.007
0.002
0.005
0.005
0.009
0.005
2
0.005
0.007
0.007
0.008
2
Pool Length (ft)
16.0
21.0
22.0
p25.0
4.0
3
25.0
30.0
31.0
93.02
96.96
96.96
100.9
5.57
2
28.85
63.2
58.56
102.2
36.88
3
Pool Max depth (ft
3.72
4.82
4.82
5.91
1.55
2
3.31
4.35
3.39
6.35
1.733
3
Pool Spacing (ft
107.0
113.0
113.0
119.0
8.0
2
112.0
125.0
194.0
127.1
1
104.5
117.9
117.9
131.4
2
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft 76
Radius of Curvature (ft 35 38 38 40 2
Rc:Bankfull width (ft!ft 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.4
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Meander Wavelength (ft 204
Meander Width Rati 4.6
dditional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classlficatlo
B4c
C4
B4c
B4c
Channel Thalweg length (ft
286
286
286
286
Sinuosity (ft
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft}
0.0068
0..65
0.0074
0.008
BF slope (tt/f1)
0.0065
0.0039
0.0037
Ri% /Ru% /P% /G % /S%
38%
t0%
47%
10%
34.69
5.619145.8118-2551
SC% /Sa % /G % /C % /B % /Be%
4%
19%
65%
11%
0%
1%
0%
9°/
68%
22%
1%
0%
dl 6 / d35 / d50 / d84 I d95
0.2
14.2
21.1
56.2
90
7
18 -4
32.9
82.2
162.7
of Reach with Eroding Bank
t %
21%
9%
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
1 =The distributions-for these parameters can include information from both the cross - section surveys and Ife longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhbRirg barks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessmern table
3 = Rifle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step: Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble. Boulder, Bedrock: dip = max pave, dlsp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed orgy I the n exceeds 3

Parameter
Baseline
MY -1
MY -2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Ritlle 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
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Mad
Max
SD°
n
Barddull Width (ft
20.6
22.8
23.3
24.6
0.9
3
18.4
22.33
23.4
25.2
3.523
3
20.79
23.08
23.99
24.44
1.992
3
20.6
23.75
24.32
26.32
2.904
3
Floodprone Width (ft
47
54
51
63
6.2
3
51
55.33
52
63
6.658
3
47
53.67
51
8.327
3
47
53.67
51
63
8.327
3
Baniffull Mean Depth (h
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.5
0.1
3
1.3
1.467
1.4
1.7
0.208
3
1.281
1.425
1.339
0.201
3
1.246
1.418
1.363
1.645
0.205
3
'Bankfull Max Depth h
1.8
1.9
1.8
2.1
0.2
3
2
2.167
2
2.5
0.289
3
2.06
2.197
2.18
0.146
3
2.02
2.31
2.3
2.61
0.295
3
Bardtfull Cross Sectional Area ftz
30.8
31.89
31.2
33.7
1.3
3
25.2
32.53
29.7
42.7
9.088
3
27.84
32.95
31.3
k1.069
6.102
3
28.08
33.89
30.29
43.3
8.222
3
Width/Depth Rati
13.8
16.4
17.4
18
0.8
3
13.4
15.57
14.9
18.4
2.566
3
14.5
16.37
15.52
2.41
3
15.11
16.88
16
19.53
2.335
3
Entrenchment Rati
2
2.3
2.5
2.5
0.1
3
2.2
2.467
2.5
2.7
0.252
3
1.923
2.334
2.453
0.366
3
1.932
2267
2.394
2476
0.293
3
'Bank Height Rati
i
1
1
1
0
3
1
1
1
1
0
3
1.051
1.059
1.058
7009
3
0.954
1.021
1.026
1.084
0.065
3
Profile
Riffle Length (ft 20.0
1 68.0
76.0
97.0
23.0
13
16.0
37.6
86.8
13.0
65.8
692 1112.0
29.3
17
15.63
74.41
69.7
196
37.61
17
Riffle Slope (" 0.003
0.009
0.008
0.019
0.004
13
0.001
0.012
0.027
0.002
0.011
0.007 0.059
0.013
17
0.000
0.005
0.006
0.011
0.003
16
Pool Length (h 12.0
122.0
23.0
33.0
CO
13
12.0
29.2
144.3
29.4
57.0
50.1 160.4
30.6
19
26.74
48.29
45.31
78.75
14.47
18
Pool Max depth (ft 2.2
2.5
2.8
2
1.8
3.1
2.8 5.9
0.9
19
2.15
3.372
3.405
4.43
0.655
18
Pool Spacing (ft 56.0
117.0
123.0
150.0
25.0
12
52.0
144.0
317.0
76.9
121.5
116.5 183.7
30.7
18
48.5
124.9
121
241.2
43.89
17
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft 20 66 62 97 24 10
Radius of Curvature (ftj 35 1 49 1 43 1 80 14 12
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft 1.5 22 2.2 3.3
lorel data or probe data indicate
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, baseline
significant shihs from baselne
Meander Wavelength (ftj 158 1 221-1 229 1 261 36 10
Meander Width Ratiol 1.9 1 3.1-1 2.7 4.8
ddftional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classificatio
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft
2182
2182
2182
2182
Sinuosity (h
1.18
1.78
1.18
1.18
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ftRt
0.0068
n.0067
0.0066
0.0066
BF slope (ft4t
0.0065
0.007
0.0068
0.0063
1% /RU % /P % /G %/S
54%
2%
32%
16%
1
1%
2°/
33%
5%
'SC%/Sa%/G%/C%/B
11%
10%
71%
7%
0%
1%
5%
7°/
71%
15%
1 1%
1 1%
dl6 / d351 d50 / d841 d95
1.6
6.22
14.06
41.34
97.76
5
15.68
29
74.88
163.6
a%of Reach with Eroding Bank
0%
1%
0%
Channel Stability or Habitat Matti
Biological or Othe
�naoed cela indbate that these wa typxal y not oe haw in.
1 = The distribulons for these parameters can include Information from both the crass - section surveys and the longitudinal profila.
2 = Proportion of reach exhbtirg barks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessmom table

�I
Appendix E. Hydrologic Data
1
McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Project number 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C December 2011
�J
E

Table 12 Verification of Banldull Events
Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
McCain Site Stream Restoration - Project No. 443
Date of Data
Date of
Collection
Occurrence
Method
Photo #
17 -Nov -09
13- Nov-09
Site Visit to evaluate indicators of stage after storm events
N/A
Photo 14
30- Sep -10
30- Sep -10
NWS COOP Station and site visit for confirmation
MY -02
Report
No new bankfull events were observed or recorded by the onslte stream crest gauge prior to the
W -03 data collection date (August 25, 2011)
U
0
LI
LI McCain Stream Restoration Year 3 Monitoring Report
NCEEP Protest number 443 Year 3 of 5
Ward Consulting Engineers, P C December 2011