20060043 Ver 1_Year 3 Monitoring Report_20120823

Briles Stream Restoration
Monitoring Report
Year 3 of 5 (2011)
FINAL
Randolph County, North Carolina
USGS HUC: 03040103
Project ID No. 047
Prepared for:
c�
Ecmystem
NCDENR- Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652
Submitted November 2011
Briles Monitoring Report (047) November 2011 — Year 3 of 5
�[9@90wp=§
AU6 Z 3 2012
- MATER QUAUTY
WETtAl IDS AND STORWATER GRAN

Executive Summary
The Briles Site Stream Restoration site is situated within the USGS hydrologic unit 03040103
and is in a portion of the NCDWQ Priority Sub -basin 03-07-09. The site is located on an 87-acre
parcel owned by Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Briles. It is located southeast of the intersection of Ross
Wood Road and Pleasant Grove Road in Trinity, Randolph County, North Carolina. The
primary land uses on the property include rangeland (pasture), a chicken egg farm, and forest.
The project stream, UT to Jackson Creek, became impaired from poor grazing management and
human impacts.
The project goals were to:
• Restore stable channel morphology that is capable of moving the flows and sediment of
the associated watershed.
• Restore riparian habitat and functions.
• Improve water quality and reduce land and riparian vegetation loss resulting from lateral
erosion and bed degradation.
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
The above project goals were achieved through the following project objectives:
• Constructed appropriate C4 and 134c channels with stable channel dimensions.
• Planted a functional Bottomland Hardwood Forest community to create an effective
riparian buffer.
• Excluded livestock from the riparian areas.
• Preserved portions of the site that function as a stable riverine environment.
KCI Associates of NC designed the restoration plans and restoration was completed in late 2007
and early 2008. Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) performed stream and riparian
monitoring in the fall of 2011 for this Year 3 Monitoring Report. During the monitoring process
KHA assessed eight (8) vegetation quads. Five (5) of the eight (8) plots met or exceeded the
success criteria of 320 stems/acre (minimum stem count after 3 years). The vegetation averaged
343.75 stems/acre, which exceeds the monitoring success criteria. The herbaceous vegetation
continues to out -compete the woody stems in some areas of the project, however not as
significantly as the previous monitoring year.
A visual assessment and geomorphic survey were completed for the site, and indicated that the
project reaches were performing within established success criteria ranges as shown below. Two
small head cuts were observed near stations 10+75 and 15+25. These head cuts have been
monitored for the previous two monitoring years, and do not seem to be active or progressing.
This can be seen in the longitudinal profile in the appendix. Minor erosion was observed along
the banks and bankfull benches from station 18+50 to 19+50, and appeared to be caused by the
lack of vegetation growth in these locations. No significant bank erosion was recorded, and the
geomorphic measurements are within the range of the design parameters. Bankfull indicators
were noted and recorded along the project reach (Appendix E, Photos SP3 and SP4). There is no
crest gauge installed on site.
Briles Monitoring Report (047) November 2011 — Year 3 of 5 Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

Stream Success Criteria (from approved Mitigation Plan 2008):
• Little or no change from the as -built cross -sections.
• Pools shall maintain design depths with lower water surface slopes, while the riffles
should remain shallower with steeper water surface slopes.
• Sediment transport shall remain relatively unchanged with respect to aggradation and
deposition of sediments.
• There should be no visual indicators of instability.
• A minimum of two bankfull events must occur in separate years within the five-year
monitoring.
Summary information/data related to performance of various project and monitoring elements
can be found in the table and figures in the report appendices. Narrative background and
supporting information formerly found in these reports can be found in the Baseline Monitoring
Reports (formerly Mitigation Plan) and in the Mitigation Plan (formerly the Restoration Plan)
documents available on EEP's website. All raw data supporting the tables and figures in the
appendices is available from EEP upon request.
Methodology
• Surveys/topographic data collections was performed using total station, survey grade
GPS, or equivalent such that each survey point has three-dimensional coordinates, and is
georeferenced (NAD83-State Plane Feet — FIPS3200).
• Longitudinal stationing was developed using the as -built survey thalweg as a baseline.
• The particle size distribution protocol used was the Modified-Wolman pebble count.
• CVS level 2 was used as the vegetation plot methodology.
References
Rosgen, David L. 1996. Applied River Morphology, Second Edition., Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa
Springs, Colorado.
Lee, Michael T., Peet, Robert K., Roberts, Steven D., Wentworth, Thomas R. 2006. CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation, All Levels of Sampling, Version 4.0.,
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-
87-1. United States Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
LeGrand, H.E. and S.P. Hall.
Briles Monitoring Report (047) November 2011 — Year 3 of 5 Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
APPENDIX A - PROJECT VICINITY AND BACKGROUND TABLES
FIGURE 1
PROJECT SETTING
TABLE 1A
PROJECT COMPONENTS
TABLE 1B
COMPONENT SUMMATIONS
TABLE 2
PROJECT ACTIVITY AND REPORTING HISTORY
TABLE 3
PROJECT CONTACTS TABLE
TABLE 4
PROJECT ATTRIBUTE TABLE
APPENDIX B - VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA
FIGURE 2 CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW UPPER
FIGURE 3 CURRENT CONDITIONS PLAN VIEW LOWER
TABLE 5.1-5.4 VISUAL STREAM MORPHOLOGY STABILITY ASSESSMENT
TABLE 6 VEGETATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX C - VEGETATION PLOT DATA
TABLE 7 VEGETATION PLOT CRITERIA ATTAINMENT
TABLE 8 CVS VEGETATION PLOT METADATA
TABLE 9 PLANTED AND TOTAL STEM COUNTS (SPECIES BY PLOT WITH ANNUAL
MEANS)
APPENDIX D - STREAM SURVEY DATA
STREAM SURVEY DATA
TABLE 9
PLANTED AND TOTAL STEM COUNTS
TABLE 1OA.I-1OA.2
BASELINE STREAM DATA SUMMARY
TABLE IOB. I-1OB.2
BASELINE STREAM DATA SUMMARY
TABLE 1 LA
DIMENSIONAL MORPHOLOGY SUMMARY
TABLE 11 B.1-11 B.2
STREAM REACH DATA SUMMARY
APPENDIX E - HYDROLOGIC DATA
TABLE 12 VERIFICATION OF BANKFULL EVENTS
Briles Monitoring Report (047) November 2011 — Year 3 of 5 Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX A
PROJECT VICINITY MAP AND
BACKGROUND TABLES

f
.
' � r
'*� � (
•~
��
r,.-�.r ,��-� �
1
Briles Sife
� _
� 11
1
1'
y`
I
0 1,000 2,000
Feet
Title
Project Setting
Prepared For:
Project
Briles Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 3 — 2011
Randolph County, North Carolina
Date
Project Number
Figure
1',I l'di L licilt
11/15/11
047
1
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, InG
Briles Monitoring Report (047) November 2011 —Year 3 of 5

Table la. Project Components
Briles Stream Restoration Site/047
Project
Existing
Restoration
Footage or
Mitigation
Mitigation
Component or
Feet/Acres
Level
Approach
Acreage
Stationing
Ratio
Units
BMP Elements
Comment
Reach ID
UTJC1
1,358
R
P2
1,425
10+00 - 24+25
1:1
1408
UTJC2
355
R
P3
362
24+47 - 28+09
1:1
362
UTJC3
784
E1
P3
817
50+00 - 58+17
1.5:1
509
UTJC4
508
P
-
1 508
28+88 - 33+96
5:1
102
1 = BR = Bioretention Cell; SF = Sand Filter; SW = Stormwater Wetland; WDP = Wet Detention Pond; DDP = Dry Detention Pond;
FS = Filter Strip; Grassed Swale = S; LS = Level Spreader; NI = Natural Infiltration Area, O = Other
CF = Cattle Fencing; WS = Watering System; CH = Livestock Housing
Briles 047 November 2011 Year 3 of 5 M F1y Kimle -Horn
M and Associates, Inc.

Table 1 b. Component Summations
Briles Stream Restoration Site/047
Restoration
Level
Stream
(If)
Riparian
Wetland (Ac)
Non -
Ripar
(Ac)
Upland
(Ac)
Buffer
(Ac)
BMP
Non-
Riverine Riverine
0 0
Restoration
1787
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
817
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
508
HQ Preservation
Totals (Feet/Acres)l
3112
0
0
0
0
0
MU Totalsi
2381
0
0
0
0
0
Non -Applicable
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 Kimley-Horn
M I, and Associates, Inc.

Table 2. Project Activity and Reporting History
Briles Stream Restoration Site/047
Elapsed Time Since Grading Complete: 3 yrs 11 months
Elapsed Time Since Planting Complete: 3 yrs 11 Months
Number of Reporting Years': 3
Activity or Deliverable
Data Collection
Complete
Completion or
Delivery
Restoration Plan
2003/2004
Dec-05
Final Design — Construction Plans
NA
Sep-06
Construction
NA
Nov-07
Containerized, bare root and B&B plantings for reach/segments 1 &2
NA
Nov-07
Mitigation Plan / As -built (Year 0 Monitoring — baseline)
Dec-07
Jan-08
Year 1 Monitoring
Mar-09
Nov-09
Year 2 Monitoring
Oct-10
Jan-11
Year 3 Monitoring
Oct-11
Bolded items are examples of those items that are not standard, but may come up and should be included
Non -bolded items represent events that are standard components over the course of a typical project.
The above are obviously not the extent of potential relevant project activities, but are just provided as example as part of this exhibit.
If planting and morphology are on split monitoring schedules that should be made clear in the table
1 = Equals the number of reports or data points produced excluding the baseline
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 Kimley-Horn
M I, and Associates, Inc.

Table 3. Project Contacts Table
Briles Stream Restoration Site/047
Designer
KCI Associates of NC
Landmark Center II, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Rd Raleigh, NC
27609
Primary project design POC
Adam Spiller 919 783-9214
Construction Contractor
L-J, Inc.
220 Stoneridge Dr., Suite 405 Columbia, SC 29210
Construction contractor POC
Richard Goodwin [phone]
Survey Contractor
KCI Associates of NC
Landmark Center II, Suite 220 4601 Six Forks Rd Raleigh, NC
27609
Survey contractor POC
Adam Spiller 919 783-9214
Planting Contractor
Habitat Assessment and Restorartion Program, Inc.
9305-D Monroe Rd. Charlotte, NC 28270
Planting contractor POC
Alan Peoples [phone]
Seed Mix Sources
Evergreen Seed Company
[phone]
Nursery Stock Suppliers
Foggy Mountain Nursery
[phone]
Monitoring Performers
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
3001 Weston Parkway Cary, NC 27513
Stream Monitoring POC
Daren Pait [phone]
Vegetation Monitoring POC
JDaren Pait [phone]
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 Klmiey-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

Table 4. Project Attribute Table
Briles Stream Restoration Site/047
Project County
Randolph County
Physiographic Region
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Carolina Slate Belt
Project River Basin
Yadkin
USGS HUC for Project (14 digit)
3040103050030
NCDWQ Sub -basin for Project
03-07-09
Within extent of EEP Watershed Plan?
No
WRC Hab Class (Warm, Cool, Cold)
Warm
% of project easement fenced or demarcated
100%
Beaver activity observed during design phase?
No
Restoration Component Attribute Table
Reach UTJC1
Reach UTJC2
Drainage area
0.4
0.6
Stream order
1 st
2nd
Restored length (feet)
1425
362
Perennial or Intermittent
Perennial
Perennial
Watershed type (Rural, Urban, Developing etc.)
Rural
Rural
Watershed LULC Distribution (e.g.)
Residential
Ag-Row Crop
Ag-Livestock
Forested
Etc.
2%
2%
12%
12%
13%
13%
72%
72%
<1%
<1%
Watershed impervious cover (%)
<1%
<1%
NCDWQ AU/Index number
13-2-2
13-2-2
NCDWQ classification
C
C
303d listed?
No
No
Upstream of a 303d listed segment?
Yes
Yes
Reasons for 303d listing or stressor
Low dissolved oxygen
Low dissolved oxygen
Total acreage of easement
13.3
13.3
Total vegetated acreage within the easement
4.8
4.8
Total planted acreage as part of the restoration
8.5
8.5
Rosgen classification of pre-existing
G4c/E4/C4/5
G4c/E4/C4/5
Rosgen classification of As -built
C4
134c
Valley type
VIII
VIII
Valley slope
0.90%
0.90%
Valley side slope range (e.g. 2-3.%)
7-20%
7-20%
Valley toe slope range (e.g. 2-3.%)
2-8%
2-8%
Cowardin classification
N/A
N/A
Trout waters designation
No
No
Species of concern, endangered etc.? (Y/N)
No
No
Dominant soil series and characteristics
Georgeville silt loam
Georgeville silt loam
Series
N/A
N/A
Depth
N/A
N/A
Clay%
N/A
N/A
K
N/A
N/A
T
N/A
N/A
Use N/A for items that may not apply. Use "-" for items that are unavailable and "U" for items that are unknown
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 PPP_ M �� Klmley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX B
VISUAL ASSESSMENT DATA

i
yy• � 1 .�'A +� ^may; �)°s. - ,.. .r-!+•. �%4�. a � a_�. rr Xr�.^ rN� �,t..
%`f' �r ♦, �.° :j_ '3+ �� 1,�'h"S'i�"r� - , r' kirr a` r .ate; j���y�.'
% ,�. - ! 5 � .� f�' +s � 7. ` '!- � i �: �'��,_. fir • �� �
-
> •� �� �_ a,: ` nf++ at rt6 rt�r
4
.mil •j` d ♦ �0
r.
19
I.Pa
. - � ° `_ � �, _- _ �", i - ...E t , � •:¢ �?� O •
56
t
,..,Mai_
4
Legend
:riles As -Built Centerline Channel Structures Condition• • • • • EL
Reach
Thalw-• 1 • • ' -• • Good Growth on,
Monitoring • • • FailingGrowth Weak G n c2 €'
Conservation Easement D- • • Stressed - :- ;f
r'
f
0 Fair Bare Floodplain
f
�7Vegetation Quads
Has not • Stable =Off•- •- r P 2 yf Y�
Has met Success Criteria Bed/Bank Condition Invasives
Backof Bench• •Encroachment +;, • „t .5 - '+ i .1S'+�•' 1 4 R- t may,
<( Photo Points -- Scour
Rock Cross Vane
r•
Feet
keg
3
A

c:
d
-. �: ,. ,. ._- -._ .....-.. . .. r ,..
• _ _ ^;. ' _ `-.- dot-
Reach UTJC1
�+
r
_ •: •
Reach UTJC2
each
UTJC
_
s Reach UTJ2
Z
l 4
Legend
' Briles As -Built Centerline
Channel Structures Condition
Vegetation Condition
Thalweg (MY2011)
O Not Assessed/Missing
Good Growth)
rya, -
w
�
�
-
i 4 �
�'r, ..''f'.M„ _
.,;k,•y. ,T,�ia_
Monitoring Cross -Section
• Failing
[--] Weak Growth
- Conservation Easement (Design)
O Stressed
0 Bare Bench
_
'' -
y _
f� - -
�n
Vegetation Quads
O Fair
ID Bare Floodplain
s .
s
Has not met Success Criteria
O Stable
= Off Target Species"
_ �.i,r
tT
Has met Success Criteria
Bed/Bank Condition
Invasives4
Back of Bench Erosion
Encroachment
.
Photo Points
-- Scour
=t
AEESIUMP
'1!' Rock Cross Vane
`
-
4
? Headcut Location
0 50 100 200
S 4Fmr`
Y
t
,y.
Feet
Title
Current Conditions Plan View Lower (2010 Aerial)
Prepared For:
Briles Stream Restoration Monitoring Year 3 —
2011
Project
Randolph County, North Carolina
5E111
Date
Project Number
Figure
1
1"'111d1 C111(1it
12/5/11
047
3
Briles Monitoring Report (047) November 2011 — Year 3 of 5 m KimlayHom
� and Associates, Inc.

Table 5.1 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach UTJC1
Assessed Length 1425
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Numberwith
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
% Stable, Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate or
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
2
3
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
12
12
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
12
12
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
12
12
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
12
12
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
12 12
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
2
60
98% 0 0 98%
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0
0
100% 0
0 100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0
0
100% 0
0 100%
Totals
2
60
98% 0
0 98%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
6
6
o
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
6
6
100%
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
6
6
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
6
6
100%
document)
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%
Briles (047) November 2011 Y= 3 of 5 Kimley-Horn
Clan and Associates, Inc.

Table 5.2 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach UTJC2
Assessed Length 362
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Numberwith
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of Amount of
% Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0 0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
2
2
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
2
2
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
2
2
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
2
2
100%
2. 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
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0 0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0 0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0 0
100%
0
0
100°%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
--
—
N/A
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
--
--
N/A
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
--
--
N/A
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3. Bank Protection
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
--
--
N/A
document)
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
--
N/A
Briles (047) November 2011 Y= 3 of 5 Kimley-Horn
Clan and Associates, Inc.

Table 5.3 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach UTJC3
Assessed Length 817
Footage
Adjusted %
Number
Numberwith
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of Amount of
% Stable, Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable Unstable
Performing Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments Footage
as Intended Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aggradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0 0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0 0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
7
7
100%
100%
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
7
7
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstrem riffle)
7
7
100%
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
7
7
100%
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
7 7
100%
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0 0
100% 0 0 100%
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0 0
100% 0
0
100%
sustainable and are providinghabitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0 0
100% 0
0
100%
Totals
0 0
100% 0
0
100°%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
4
4
o
100/o
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
4
4
100%
100%
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
4
4
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3. Bank Protection
15%. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
4
4
100%
document)
4. Habitat
rming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Fleothratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
4
4
100%
Briles (047) November 2011 Y= 3 of 5 Kimley-Horn
Clan and Associates, Inc.

Table 5.4 Visual Stream Morphology Stability Assessment
Reach ID Reach UTJC4
Assessed Length 508
Footage
Adjusted e/
Number
Number with
with
for
Major
Stable,
Total
Number of
Amount of
e/ Stable,
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Stabilizing
Channel
Channel
Performing
Number in
Unstable
Unstable
Performing
Woody
Woody
Woody
Cate o
Sub-Cateciory
Metric
as Intended
As -built
Segments
Footage
as Intended
Vegetation
Vegetation
Vegetation
1. Bed
1. Vertical Stability
(Riffle and Run units)
1. Aegradation - Bar formation/growth sufficient to significantly deflect
flow laterally (not to include point bars)
0
0
100%
2. Degradation - Evidence of downcutting
0
0
100%
2. Riffle Condition
1. Texture/Substrate - Riffle maintains coarser substrate
--
--
N/A
3. Meander Pool
Condition
1. Depth Sufficient (Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull Depth > 1.6)
--
—
N/A
2. Length appropriate (>30 % of centerline distance between tail of
upstream riffle and head of downstream riffle)
N/A
4.Thalweg Position
1. Thalweg centering at upstream of meander bend (Run)
--
—
N/A
2. Thalweg centering at downstream of meander (Glide)
-- --
I,
2. Bank
1. Scoured/Eroding
Bank lacking vegetative cover resulting simply from poor growth and/or
scour and erosion
0 0
100%
0 0 100%
Banks undercutloverhanging to the extent that mass wasting appears
2. Undercut
likely. Does NOT include undercuts that are modest, appear
0 0
100%
0
0
100%
sustainable and are providing habitat.
3. Mass Wasting
Bank slumping, calving, or collapse
0 0
100%
0
0
100%
Totals
0 0
100%
0
0
100°%
3. Engineered
Structures
1. Overall Integrity
Structures physically intact with no dislodged boulders or logs.
--
—
N/A
2. Grade Control
Grade control structures exhibiting maintenance of grade across the sill.
--
--
N/A
2a. Piping
Structures lacking any substantial flow underneath sills or arms.
--
--
N/A
Bank erosion within the structures extent of influence does not exceed
3. Bank Protection
15 %. (See guidance for this table in EEP monitoring guidance
--
--
N/A
document)
4. Habitat
Pool forming structures maintaining - Max Pool Depth : Mean Bankfull
Depth ratio > 1.6 Rootwads/logs providing some cover at base -flow.
--
N/A
Briles (047) November 2011 Y= 3 of 5 Kimley-Horn
Clan and Associates, Inc.

Table 6 Vegetation Condition Assessment
Planted Acreage 8.8
% of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Planted
Vegetation Category
Definitions Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
1. Bare Areas
Very limited cover of both woody and herbaceous material. 0.1 acres
Pattern and
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Pattern and
2. Low Stem Density Areas
Woody stem densities clearly below target levels based on MY3, 4, or 5 stem count criteria. 0.1 acres
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
0
0.00
0.0%
Pattern and
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
0
0.00
0.0%
Color
Cumulative Total
0
0.00
0.0%
Easement Acreage 14
e/ of
Mapping
CCPV
Number of
Combined
Easement
Vegetation Category
Definitions
Threshold
Depiction
Polygons
Acreage
Acreage
4. Invasive Areas of Concern
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
1000 SF
Pattern and
7
0.47
3.4 %
Color
5. Easement Encroachment Areas'
Areas or points (if too small to render as polygons at map scale).
none
5
0.11
Pattern and
0.8
Color
1 = Enter the planted acreage within the easement. This number is calculated as the easement acreage minus any existing mature tree stands that were not subject to supplemental planting of the understory, the channel acreage,
crossings or any other elements not directly planted as part of the project effort.
2 = The acreage within the easement boundaries.
3 = Encroachment may occur within or outside of planted areas and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. In the event a polygon is cataloged into items 1, 2 or 3 in the table and is the result of
encroachment, the associated acreage should be tallied in the relevant item (i.e., item 1,2 or 3) as well as a parallel tally in item 5.
4 = Invasives may occur in or out of planted areas, but still within the easement and will therefore be calculated against the overall easement acreage. 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, if in the judgement of the observer their coverage, density or distribution is suppressing the viability, density, or growth of planted woody stems. Decisions as to whether remediation will be needed are
based on the integration of risk factors by EEP such as species present, their coverage, distribution relative to native biomass, and the practicality of treatment. For example, even modest amounts of Kudzu or Japanese Knotweed
early in the projects history will warrant control, but potentially large coverages of 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 italics 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 conditon for an area is somewhere between isolated
specimens and dense, discreet patches. In any case, the point or polygon/area feature can be symbolized to describe things like high or low concern and species can be listed as a map inset, in legend items if the number of species
are limited or in the narrative section of the executive summary.
Briles (047) Nmember 2011 Y= 3 of 5 Kimley-Horn
Clan and Associates, Inc.

r I -
4 �iA� ,'yfjl'c'r ESL
Permanent Photo PP 1 a
Taken: 2007
� r
AW
f yr
f
r-
��✓
v
&. - to
Permanent Photo PP 1 a
Taken: 2009
❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

t a` • 9 �� f-,' - v
spell Y � 6 a e , j
, 01*
a + r 0
,. ff Aer
(
k 101,
orl-
islZ��'��
- ` jet .���':. �� �• �—ate,,..+-� �,�. I
Jp
- Jii Ft
7 .
'* II
r � >14Vii
•1,
h:'y[F
Vi IA .I�/
�E�FS 1a4� 5 f,_+i. "�.r
�. � ��* '�al�, F �•� �
Ih,d� I
,;'�t.
�ppry 11
l � ,1
d
y9, �wr
L' +n P �)'j FiT P ^s.
y4■i y � �
•� .. Y .S
rli 4e ..
..
"i$.Y.� �•�
�.IFifi.y ker �
1 ' •h

4 it
_ t
ag. K
y � ri it
Permanent Photo PP 1 b
Taken: 2007
I;.
f
Permanent Photo PP 1 b
Taken: 2009
❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

k
1`_L-= }I
Al 01
td ;}I_"
y N
fltiMINI.
+ f
ad. a�zJ.
Permanent Photo PP2a
Taken: 2007
Permanent Photo PP2a
Taken: 2009
❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

C=Fj Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

o:
Permanent Photo PP2b
Taken: 2007
Permanent Photo PP2b
Taken: 2009
❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

r-

Permanent Photo PP3a
Taken:2007
C:MFI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

<
,
Ni
_
V
AV.
i6l
Y
i
`TX� .i ram,
Ya
F
A_�
Ow
Permanent Photo PP3a
Taken: 2010
4f i j"r _
J
Permanent Photo PP3a
Taken: 2011
CMFI IGmleyHom
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Assodates, InQ

F%4 u i �y_.Yy atiAW
y
I 'Nil�.
rV
F _
Permanent Photo PP3b
Taken: 2007
Permanent Photo PP3b
Taken: 2009
❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

r b
Permanent Photo PP4a
Taken: 2009
❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

r'
r
_ . -_ r .. -•fir.✓.+
Permanent Photo PP4b
Taken: 2007
Permanent Photo PP4b
Taken: 2009
❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

law
1 �LL
�.Sr�

r�.•+w.-�. -'S :t yr
_ - * tow -
Permanent Photo PP5a
Taken: 2007
Permanent Photo PP5a
Taken: 2009
❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

Permanent Photo PP5b
Taken: 2007
p 111
5 -
IV
I�
Permanent Photo PP5b
Taken: 2009
❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

,1
t.. i
� . , c y �A j� Y �r,j �� ��.�� � r `•tip
,7
Ib 4
Permanent Photo PP5b
Taken: 2010
Permanent Photo PP5b 1■�L[Y
Taken: 2011
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5
►MPI Kimley-Horn
`� and Associates, Inc.

Permanent Photo PP5c
Taken: 2007
Permanent Photo PP5c
Taken: 2009
❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

Permanent Photo PP6a
Taken: 2007
` r
r
s
Permanent Photo PP6a
Taken: 2009
i
a
❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

PhotoPermanent "••
11
A.
Permanent Photo PP6b
Taken: 2009
❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

©_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

MIS
f
; a
-1.•�F jar .. �„
�
! � �' • ��.

IT
�� -
-•.JF ',�
�;
r
A•. �
-. 'fly{`.

Permanent Photo PP7a
Taken: 2007
Permanent Photo PP7a
Taken: 2009
❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

©CFI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

s.:

- k� ; � R r '� ■1�'>''� g1R.$i � y� �� ; ♦�� yry .1 ���i r.p3
.�AW
K I:
'i
y {y� A
$
r

Y[, r
\4
4r -
"� a rl � � .� ♦�''^ w#d4��O •_.

k.p.
IMP d
T
y

Permanent Photo PP8b
Taken: 2007
Permanent Photo PP8b
Taken: 2009
❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

r.�
T
tN
:r
•� �`_ M1 r r� 3
sr-

OdI
Permanent Photo PP9a
Taken: 2007
Permanent Photo PP9a
Taken: 2009
❑CFI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

M
Permanent Photo PP9b
Taken: 2007
Permanent Photo PP9b
Taken: 2009
CMFI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

Ai_

look.
OILAO
14.
?r' .1 .'f� 4 ,� .. �• 'r it
�#4

rill
r •r
Yi 1�1
J
/�, i. y5 ��'07 . -V
`�' � 4
In
' '
A� j b 1, ►Tr
r
r
�
y rt
4 -
i
pp
gv� LL !

k
—��
Permanent Photo PP 1 Ob
Taken: 2007
Permanent Photo PP 1 Ob
Taken: 2009
4
❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

Permanent Photo PP 1 Ob
Taken: 2010
Permanent Photo PP 1 Ob
Taken: 2011
❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

l�OR -;'.
SP1: Head cut at STA 10+75
Taken: April 2011
r � r
r
SP2: Head cut at STA 15+25
Taken: April 2011
❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

❑_FI Kimley-Horn
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

VQ1: Vegetation Quad 1
Taken: 2007
I
<� f a
M �, 6 r4
� � ♦ ,� _
e,
-0:
VQ L Vegetation Quad 1
Taken: 2009
Briles (047) November 2011 — Year 3 of 5 _� Klmley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

sigglM1
VQ 1: Vegetation Quad 1
Taken: 2010
77
YY y
f
_reel
VQ 1: Vegetation Quad 1
Taken: 201 1
Briles (047) November 2011 — Year 3 of 5 Klmley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

Briles (047) November 2011 — Year 3 of 5 Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

M i
-
I,
101
's,y�'�'�
4

VQ3: Vegetation Quad 3
Taken: 2007
!WA41MW— - r
VQ3: Vegetation Quad 3
Taken: 2009
Briles (047) November 2011— Year 3 of 5 C=Fl Klmley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

`�
�
! 4.
- ,. `r
� .1 � CIF f
,
r, � _
� �•
IK
1

•� .
.ter
��

s�.
VQ4: Vegetation Quad 4
Taken: 2010
VQ4: Vegetation Quad 4
Taken: 201 1
Briles (047) November 2011— Year 3 of 5 KIf1 ley -Hof n
and Associates, Inc.

Briles (047) November 2011 —Year 3 of 5
Jt�lk4
VQ5: Vegetation Quad 5
Taken: 2007
VQ5: Vegetation Quad 5
Taken: 2009
C�=" Klmley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

;at ,
,
ij
44• kYl
+ i
'0u t s {
ply del d.a,�� ,f"., �: `jS',: � " ,, � .� s' - � •.
rya' xT
VQ5: Vegetation Quad 5
Taken: 2010
r
nL • a r
VQ5: Vegetation Quad 5
Taken: 201 1
Briles (047) November 2011 — Year 3 of 5 Klmley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

. ` . ����� )� �`
� |
��e/ \.\ ^�\ !.�
!� />:� . .�} 2 . � .
, � : r
��� �a< .,._\\-- . \ .,� y.» �
,>g. .. �.�.! .. .
� �, � � » . - .. « \ y� ?:� y\� ./� \� /y %{ . . .

0'r
314, � "o
Y fir. { �.
r r
Il r i /r
.r r
AT
vh-
tit � �� �r �ri ! -�s.., � �•��M � 'r���� ' ' � i � s,s r F `'
till

.-.. .�,.. a .... ems. a':.r,'+a'
VQ7: Vegetation Quad 7
Taken: 2007
VQ7: Vegetation Quad 7
Taken: 2009
Briles (047) November 2 011 — Year 3 of 5 Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

-a
g
^ f
a
Al 1
ow
r
s

i n{' t'"-�+•. a art � ��� S V� y � �
Ir r
I 1 i

r r
� qq
-
P+ k
Zax
- r �- a .. • - / J;,.
a
t �
�f
i � 3
W
o

VP 1: Weak woody stem growth on Reach UTJC 1
Taken: April 2011
VP2: Bare bench on Reach UTJC1 (STA 20+00)
Taken: April 2011
Briles (047) November 2011 —Year 3 of 5 CKimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

BrIles (047) November 2011— Year 3 of 5 _� Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

�" p.' �'� �,� is .� • �,.
a w
s
VP5: Multiflora Rose on Reach UTJC3
Taken: April 2011
576�'
a✓6
VP6: Multiflora Rose on Reach UTJC3
Taken: April 2011
Briles (047) November 2011 — Year 3 of 5 Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX C
VEGETATION PLOT DATA

Table 7. Vegetation Plot Criteria Attainment
Briles Stream Restoration Site/047
Vegetation Plot ID
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
Vegetation Survival
Threshold Met?
Tract Mean
047-01-0001
Y
75%
Y
coo,N
Y
coo/
047-01-0002
Y
Y
Y
047-01-0003
N
N
N
047-01-0004
Y
Y
Y
047-01-0005
Y
Y
047-01-0006
Y
N
Y
047-01-0007
Y
N
N
047-01-0008
N
Y
Y
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

Table 8. CVS Vegetation Plot Metadata
Briles Stream Restoration Site/047
Report Prepared By
Joshua Allen
Date Prepared
11 /1 /2011 12:56
database name
Briles CVS Database.mdb
database location
K:\RAL_Environmental\011795 Briles Monitoring BRILE\VEGETATION
computer name
DD83306
file size
66236416
DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHEETS IN THIS DOCUMENT------------
Descriptionof database file, the report worksheets, and a summary of
Metadata
project(s) and project data.
Each project is listed with its PLANTED stems per acre, for each year.
Proj, planted
This excludes live stakes.
Each project is listed with its TOTAL stems per acre, for each year. This
Proj, total stems
includes live stakes, all planted stems, and all natural/volunteer stems.
List of plots surveyed with location and summary data (live stems, dead
Plots
stems, missing, etc.).
Vigor
Frequency distribution of vigor classes for stems for all plots.
Vigor by Spp
Frequency distribution of vigor classes listed by species.
List of most frequent damage classes with number of occurrences and
Damage
percent of total stems impacted by each.
Damage by Spp
Damage values tallied by type for each species.
Damage by Plot
Damage values tallied by type for each plot.
A matrix of the count of PLANTED living stems of each species for each
Planted Stems by Plot and Spp
plot; dead and missing stems are excluded.
PROJECT SUMMARY -------------------------------------
Project Code
047
project Name
Briles Stream Restoration Site
Description
stream restoation, enhancement, and preservation
River Basin
Yadkin
length(ft)
3112
stream -to -edge width (ft)
100
area (sq m)
53,823
Required Plots (calculated)
8
Sampled Plots
8
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 L7MFJKlmley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

Table 9 Planted and Total Stem Counts (Species by Plot with Annual Means)
Current Data (MY3 2011)
Annual Means
Common
Name
Type
Plot 1
Plot 2
Plot 3
Plot 4
Plot 5
Plot 6
Plot 7
Plot 8
Current Mean
MY2
2010
MY1
2009
MYO
2007
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
I T
P
T
P
I T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
Alnus serrulata
tag alder
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
Betula nigra
river birch
Tree
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
7
7
7
7
7
7
15
15
Cornus amomum
silky dogwood
Shrub
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
8
8
16
16
35
35
44
44
Fraxinus nigra
black ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
green ash
Tree
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
3
3
4
4
2
2
12
12
13
13
16
16
26
26
Juglans
walnut
Tree
1
1
1
1
Liquidambar styraciflua
sweetgum
Tree
I
1
1
1
1
Linodendron tulipifera
tuliptree
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
3
8
8
Platanus occidentalis
American sycamore
Tree
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
Quercus pagoda
cherrybark oak
Tree
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
5
5
3
3
8
8
11
11
Quercus phellos
willow oak
Tree
2
2
Salix nigra
black willow
Tree
1
1
5
5
1
1
7
7
3
3
3
3
Salix sericea
silky willow
Shrub Tree
2
2
3
3
5
5
9
9
12
12
11
11
Sambucus canadensis
lCornmon Elderberry
Shrub Tree
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
9
9
11
11
Plot area (acres)
Species count
Stem Count
Stems per Acre
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
5
5
6
6
4
4
6
6
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
12
12
11
11
10
10
11
11
8
8
10
10
6
6
9
9
6
6
7
7
2
2
7
7
471
471
631
631
961
961
1351
135
4001
4001
3001
3001
4501
4501
3001
3001
3501
3501
1001
1001
3501
3501
343.751
343.751
2831
2831
4861
4861
6831
3
Type = Tree, Shrub, Livestake
P = Planted
T = Total
B,il. (047) November2ou Y-3 ors Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX D
STREAM SURVEY DATA

•. 1
1 ..
1 •�. �
0 Not Assessed
•'•
Failing
4W.
Poor

643
`..`;
642
641
640
4. e
w'F ,
r 639
i
Ir
a
-
"' 638
45 100
40 90
637
35 80
�o
30
3 60
25
v
636
N 50
u 20 3
`m 40 E
a 15 u
30
635
10 20
5 10
OAT, 0
634
N Ott ut, O, O, N,-7 1 00 M,lO,lO, N,M V, O, 00, O,t0, N, N, V, 00, 00
tD N N ut c-j O N vt n c-I c-I N M V tD Ot N w ut tD .-I N V V
O M N N a N M v 0 0 0
N
u N N N V D N M V D O W O 0 N" n
N
O.00 20.00
40.00
60.00
V
N
O
Station
(ft)
vt
M
Particle Size (mm)
ID YEAR PHASE FACET TYPE Wbkf Abkf Dbkf
ID YEAR PHASE d50 (mm) d84 (mm)
XS1 2007 AB RIFFLE 13.4 15.9 1.2
XS1 2007 AB 0.07 5.02
XS1 2009 MY1 RIFFLE 14.6 16.0 1.1
XS1 2009 MY1 11.73 31.00
XS1 2010 MY2 RIFFLE 14.5 16.53 1.14
XS1 2011 MY3 RIFFLE 14.3 16.21 1.13
XS1 2010 MY2 8 22.3
XS1 2011 MY3 7.84 29.15
Water Surface Elevation X51-2011 Bed Elevation XS1-2010
� Bankfull Elevation XS1-2011 ------ Bed Elevation XS1-2009
t Bed Elevation XS1-2011 — — Bed Elevation XS1-2007 (AB)
a
� Kimley-Ham
Briles Monitoring Report (047) March 2011 —Year 3 of 5 � araassoaa�es,inc.

643
642
641
640
r 639
c
0
r
i
Lu 638
637
636
635
Water Surface Elevation XS2-2011 Bed Elevation XS2-2010
Bankfull Elevation XS2-2011 - - - - - - Bed Elevation XS2-2009
t Bed Elevation XS2-2011 — • — Bed Elevation XS2-2007 (AB)
01
634
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
Station (ft)
ID
YEAR
PHASE
FACET TYPE Wbkf
Abkf
Dbkf
XS2
2007
AB
POOL
15.9
18.9
1.2
XS2
2009
MY1
POOL
17.6
22.5
1.3
XS2
2010
MY2
POOL
16.59
19.43
1.17
XS2
2011
MY3
POOL
16.25
19.84
1.22
35
30
r- 25 -
7
v°
as 20
u
6 15
a
10 -
5
0
90
80
70
60
N
50
7
40 3
u
30
20
10
} r 0
N Ill vl O O N V 1 w M'� U' N' 0 zT O' w O'
t0 N N Ill O r-I M V T Ol O N Ill h ti N
.-I fA N tD N vl V
0 l0 N O N n
vl O
I
I� I�iil�ill'1�111�►�
�
I I
Particle Size (mm)
ID
YEAR
PHASE
d5o (mm)
d84 (mm)
XS2
2007
AB
0.14
3.63
XS2
2009
MY1
28.15
62.7
XS2
2010
MY2
38.5
89.59
XS2
2011
MY3
3.17
57.66
[� Kimley-Hom
Briles Monitoring Report (047) March 2011 -Year 3 of 5 and Associates, Inc.

Legend
— Briles As -Built Centerline O Not Assessed
Stream Channel Profile - Thalweg 2010 O Missing
• Monitoring Cross -Section • Failing
Vegetation Quads O Poor
_'Rock Cross Vane O Fair
O Good
0 Excellent
•�•' ................
S
nZI

639
638
637
636
635
c
0
634
W
633
632
631
630
.�
Water Surface Elevation XS3-2011 Bed Elevation XS3-2010
Bankfull Elevation XS3-2011 - - - - - - Bed Elevation XS3-2009
t Bed Elevation XS3-2011 — • — Bed Elevation XS3-2007 (AB)
%
i�
r
I
i
629
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
Station (ft)
ID
YEAR
PHASE
FACET TYPE Wbkf
Abkf
Dbkf
XS3
2007
AB
POOL
14.2
16.2
1.1
XS3
2009
MY1
POOL
14.1
17.9
1.3
XS3
2010
MY2
POOL
13.56
16.03
1.18
XS3
2011
MY3
POOL
18.91
19.72
1.04
90
100
2011
80
90
sa
70 -
�0
60 -
3
60
50
2001
50
`—' 40 _
3
40 E
a
30 -
30
20 -
20
10 -
1a
0
0
N ut vt O O N V h w M tD tD N m V O OJ O tD N N V OJ OJ
tD N N Ott .-I M V T T N w vt tD .-I N V V
O N ut n N
O c-I 0
' pit pit O .--I
c-I c-I N M� O O O
V M N l0 N pit -Zr .--I N N
V
n
vt O
.-I
Particle Size (mm)
I�
00000 I
I �
I
I �
� � I
I
I ,
I I
3011
R■�n
■
ID
YEAR
PHASE
d50 (mm) d84 (mm)
XS3
2007
AB
-- 1.05
XS3
2009
MY1
-- 11.17
XS3
2010
MY2
0.04 1.4
XS3
2011
MY3
0.3 36.55
[� Kimley-Hom
Briles Monitoring Report (047) March 2011 -Year 3 of 5 � and Associates, Inc.

Z7
•'.� ••.•
El
Al .

634 633
a - I
632 �
i Ri i p
} 631'"`
c
0
r
a
W 40 100
630
35- -90
80
30 -
70
629 3 25 60
U
as 20 - 50
3
m 15 _ 40
u
- 30
628 10
- za
5 10
a, ro
..... .........
N /1 ut O O N V 1� 00 M tD tD N ut V O 00 O tD N N 00 00
N N O N Li ^-4 .--I N M V tD T .N-I w N M Ott O O O
627
u N N N a WtD N M V la0 0 w 6 l6 N N n
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 N O N.. D V V
� rl .--I N
v O
Station (ft) Particle Size (mm)
ID YEAR PHASE FACET TYPE Wbkf Abkf Dbkf ID YEAR PHASE d50 (mm) d84 (mm)
XS4 2007 AB RIFFLE 15.8 19.8 1.3 XS4 2007 AB 0.09 3.53
XS4 2009 MY1 RIFFLE 15.0 20.2 1.4
XS4 2010 MY2 RIFFLE 14.5 19.1 1.32 XS4 2009 MY1 12.71 42.24
XS4 2011 MY3 RIFFLE 18.6 22.61 1.22 XS4 2010 MY2 20.4 69.2
XS4 2011 MY3 30.92 68.16
Water Surface Elevation XS4-2011 Bed Elevation XS4-2010
� Bankfull Elevation XS4-2011 ------ Bed Elevation XS4-2009
t Bed Elevation XS4-2011 — — Bed Elevation XS4-2007 (AB)
i
1
.1
i
Il��il■�
l i
i i»
� Kimley-Hom
Briles Monitoring Report (047) March 2011 -Year 3 of 5 � a"d AmciatKI"0'

633
1 yi4y
631 _•,
630
Y
Q
629
>
a)
lu 80 - 100
70 - 90
628 80
60 -
70
50 60
627 ar 40 - 50
R
Y 3
a 30 - 40
30 u
626 20
- zo
10 Ammiml
0
00 o
N Ott ut O O N V h OJ M tD tD N /1 V O OJ O tD N N V OJ OJ r
625 D N N Lq O N u n N M V D O N W D N V V
O c-I N M N �p N pit `� N M Ott O O O
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 N N N V 0J D N M V D 6 N W 6 rD V V^
l0 rl •--I •--I N •y •--I N M •--I N
� vt O
rl
Station (ft) Particle Size (mm)
ID YEAR PHASE FACET TYPE Wbkf Abkf Dbkf ID YEAR PHASE d50 (mm) d84 (mm)
XS5 2007 AB RIFFLE 14.0 21.4 1.5 XS5 2007 AB -- 0.37
XS5 2009 MY1 RIFFLE 12.7 18.2 1.4 XS5 2009 MY1 5.89 15.25
XS5 2010 MY2 RIFFLE 13.6 19.1 1.4
XS5 2011 MY3 RIFFLE 16.9 23.0 1.4 XS5 2010 MY2 15 38.6
XS5 2011 MY3 7.08 54.62
XS5-2011
Water Surface Elevation
Briles Monitoring Report (047) March 2011 —Year 3 of 5
[i [ir I and Associates, Inc.

Table 10a.1 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Briles Stream Restoration Site/047 - UTJC1 (1,425 feet)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
LL
UL
Eq.
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD5
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Med
Max
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
7.617
8.419
8.018
8.5
15.2
11.7
28.8
8.9295
4
9.0
13.1
12.6
18.0
3.7
6
15.4
13.4
13.8
14.2
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
20
42
44
60
16
4
13
114
150
200
79
6
>35
38
43
>48
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.063
1.175
1.119
0.6
1.4
1.4
2.2
0.6532
4
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.5
0.2449
6
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
2
113ankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.5
2.0
1.8
2.8
0.556
4
1.3
1.6
1.6
2
0.2872
6
1.5
1.9
2.0
2.0
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
10.92
12.07
11.49
15.1
17.6
18.2
18.8
1.6256
4
10.4
15.3
13.5
22.3
5.0408
6
17.0
15.9
16.1
16.2
2
Width/Depth Ratio
3.8
16.3
8.2
44.9
18.474
4
7.6
11.5
9.7
18
4.4922
6
14.0
11.3
11.9
12.4
2
Entrenchment RatlO
1.8
3.5
1.2038
4
1.3
7.5
8.4
14.4
5.361
6
>2.2
2.7
3.1
>3.5
2
Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.7
±:L�
0.4082
4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
20
46
44
115
40.91
19
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.003
0.04
0.076
0.005
0.009
0.012
0.001
0.01
0.01
0.016
0.006
19
Pool Length (ft)
28
108
15
30
7
12
10
27
8.9069
17
Pool Max depth (ft)
1
1.23
4.12
1.7387
17
Pool Spacing (ft)
38
181
46
154
50
82
78
157
45.77
17
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
50
75
135
77
31
51
56
60
12.87
5
Radius of Curvature (ft)
25
57
14.5
26.8
20
50
28
41
42
55
11.03
14
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
0.9
6.7
1
1.6
1.5
3.2
2
3
3
4
Meander Wavelength (ft)
50
100
70
148
105
170
78
92
91
110
13.15
6
Meander Width Ratiol
1.7
1
1
1 5.9
3.6
1
1 13
1
5
1
2.2
1 3.7
1 4.1
1 4.3
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
0.69888
0.58344
0.71136
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
53.6750893
44.47063129
54.67420176
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
120.5568
128.0916
143.1612
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G4c/E4/C4/5
C4
C4
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.805
4.206
4.005
1.8-3.6
3-3.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
43.73
48.33
46.03
50-65
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1375
1446
1432
Sinuosity (ft)
1
1.5
1.2
1.1
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.004-0.012
0.007-0.012
0.005
0.0063
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.005
0.0057
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 - The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 - For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankfull verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull tloodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 -Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 Klmley-Horn
� and Associates, Inc.

Table 10a.2 Baseline Stream Data Summary
Briles Stream Restoration Site/047 - UTJC2 (362 feet)
Parameter
Gauge
Regional Curve
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data
Design
Monitoring Baseline
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle Only
ILL
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)
9.068
10.02
9.545
22.9
1
9.0
9.5
10.0
2
14.3
15.8
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
37
1
13
17
21
2
19
32
>60
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.21
1.337
1.274
0.8
1
1.1
1.2
1.2
2
1.2
1.3
1
lBankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.2
1
1.3
1.4
1.5
2
2.5
2.3
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
14.38
15.9
15.14
18.8
1
10.4
10.6
10.7
2
17.0
19.8
1
Width/Depth Ratio
27.9
1
8.0
10.0
12.0
2
12.0
12.6
1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.6
1
1.3
1.8
2.3
2
2.3
>3
1
Bank Height Ratio
I
2
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
2
1.0
1.0
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17
150
232
2
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.004
0.008
0.012
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.005
0.009
0.012
0.005
0.006
0.006
2
Pool Length (ft)
3
25
15
30
8
11
14
2
Pool Max depth (ft)
0.5
0.94
1.38
2
Pool Spacing (ft)l
30
1
1 59
1
1
1 28
86
1
256
11
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
50
45
70
28
29
30
2
Radius of Curvature (ft)
25
57
13
42
28
100
44
53
48
66
3
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
0.8
6.7
1.3
4.4
2
7
2.8
3.4
3
4.2
Meander Wavelength (ft)
50
100
96
136
72
215
45
63
81
2
Meander Width Ratio
1.7
5.9
4.5
5
5
1.7
1.8
1.9
Transport parameters
Reach Shear Stress (competency) Ib/f2
0.39936
0.63648
0.454272
Max part size (mm) mobilized at bankfull
29.9589873
48.6910315
34.26324512
Stream Power (transport capacity) W/m2
120.5568
128.0916
84.38976
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
G4c/E4/C4/5
134c
134c
C4
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.867
4.274
4.071
2.1
3-3.8
Bankfull Discharge (cfs)
58.56
64.72
61.64
50-65
Valley length (ft)
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
365
362
353
Sinuosity (ft)
1
1.2
1.1
1.05
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.004-0.012
0.013
0.06
0.0047
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.06
0.0043
3Bankfull Floodplain Area (acres)
4% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 - The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile. 2 - For projects with a proximal USGS gauge in -line with the project reach (added bankroll verification - rare).
3. Utilizing survey data produce an estimate of the bankfull tloodplain area in acres, which should be the area from the top of bank to the toe of the terrace riser/slope.
4 -Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey for comparison to monitoring data; 5. Of value/needed only if then exceeds 3
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 Klmley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.

Table 10b.1 Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Briles Stream Restoration Site/047 - UTJC1 (1,425 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data Design
As-built/Baseline
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
14
27
47
7
5
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip /disp(mm)
0.3
1.2
6.1
10.6
61.9
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross -sections as part of the design survey), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross -sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 Kimley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc.

Table 10b.2 Baseline Stream Data Summary (Substrate, Bed, Bank, and Hydrologic Containment Parameter Distributions)
Briles Stream Restoration Site/047 - UTJC2 (362 feet)
Parameter
Pre -Existing Condition
Reference Reach(es) Data Design
As-built/Baseline
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
14
27
47
7
5
d16/d35/d50/d84/d95/dip /disp(mm)
0.3
1.2
6.1
10.6
61.9
2Entrenchment Class <1.5 / 1.5-1.99 / 2.0-4.9 / 5.0-9.9 / >10
Incision Class <1.2 / 1.2-1.49 / 1.5-1.99 / >2.0
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
2 = Entrenchment Class - Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as visual estimates
3 = Assign/bin the reach footage into the classes indicated and provide the percentage of the total reach footage in each class in the table. This will result from the measured cross -sections as well as the longitudinal profile
Footnotes 2,3 - These classes are loosley built around the Rosgen classification and hazard ranking breaks, but were adjusted slightly to make for easier assignment to somewhat coarser bins based on visual estimates in the field such that measurement of every segment for ER would not be necessary.
The intent here is to provide the reader/consumer of design and monitoring information with a good general sense of the extent of hydrologic containment in the pre-existing and the rehabilitated states as well as comparisons to the reference distributions.
ER and BHR have been addressed in prior submissions as a subsample (cross -sections as part of the design survey), however, these subsamples have often focused entirely on facilitating design without providing a thorough pre-constrution distribution of these parameters, leaving the reader/consumer with a sample that is weighted heavily on the stable sections of
the reach. This means that the distributions for these parameters should include data from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile and in the case of ER, visual estimates. For example, the typical longitudinal profile permits sampling of the BHR at riffles beyond those subject to cross -sections and therefore can be readily integrated and provide
a more complete sample distribution for these parameters, thereby providing the distribution/coverage necessary to provide meaningful comparisons.
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 Kimley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc.

Table 11a. Monitoring Data -Dimensional Morphology Summary (Dimensional Parameters -Cross Sections)
Briles Stream Restoration Site/047
Cross Section 1 (Riffle)
Cross Section 2 (Pool)
Cross Section 3 (Riffle)
Cross Section 4 (Riffle)
Cross Section 5 (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+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Base
MY1
MY2
MY3
MY4
MY5
MY+
Record elevation (datum) used
637.2
637.2
637.2
637.2
637
637
637
637
632.8
632.8
632.8
632.8
629.9
629.9
629.9
629.9
628.9
628.9
628.9
628.9
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.4
16.47
14.2
14.28
15.36
17.04
16.12
16.25
14.2
13.85
16.69
18.91
15.8
19.62
21.34
18.6
14.0
16.12
15.54
16.89
Floodprone Width (ft)
>48
49.05
50.28
49.04
60.27
57.95
59.51
57.49
38
42.42
43.54
46.14
>60
68.03
67.95
67.89
78.65
78.7
78.45
78.37
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.2
1.06
1.14
1.13
1.2
1.22
1.18
1.22
1.1
1.25
1.16
1.04
2.3
1.21
1.12
1.22
1.5
1.4
1.42
1.36
Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.9
2.08
2.37
2.23
2.2
2.36
2.33
2.36
2.0
2.51
2.5
2.77
1.3
2.78
2.8
2.72
3.5
2.8
2.79
2.85
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area(ft)
15.9
17.46
16.16
16.21
18.9
20.86
19.01
19.84
16.2
17.3
19.33
19.72
19.8
23.65
23.9
22.61
21.4
22.61
22.02
22.97
Bankfull Width/Depth Ratio
11.3
15.54
12.46
12.64
12.49
13.97
13.66
13.32
12.4
11.08
14.39
18.18
12.6
16.21
19.05
15.25
8.83
11.51
10.94
12.42
Bankfull Entrenchment Ratio
>3.5
2.98
3.54
3.43
3.92
3.4
3.69
3.54
2.7
3.06
2.61
2.44
>3.0
3.47
3.18
3.65
5.71
4.88
5.05
4.64
Bankfull Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1
Cross Sectional Area between end pins ftZ
67
67
67
67
84
84
84
84
146
146
146
146
86
1 86
86
86
82
1 82
82
82
d50 (mm)
0.14
31
1 8
7.84
0.27
1 62.7
38.5
1 3.17
1
1
10.062111.171
0.04
1 0.3
-40.17
142.241
20.4
130.921
10.062115.25
114.99
7.08
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."
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 �M �� KlmleyHorn
\ and Associates, Inc.

Exhibit Table 11 b.1 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Briles Stream Restoration Site/047 - UTJC1 1,425 feet
Parameter
Baseline MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD'
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
13.4
13.8
14.2
2
13.9
15.2
16.5
2
14.2
15.4
16.7
2
14.3
16.6
18.9
2
Floodprone Width (ft)
38
43
>48
2
42.4
45.7
49.1
2
43.5
46.9
50.3
2
46.1
47.6
49.0
2
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.1
1.2
1.2
2
1.06
1.16
1.25
2
1.14
1.15
1.16
2
1.0
1.1
1.1
2
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
1.9
1 2.0
1 2.0
1 2
2.08
1 2.3
1 2.51
2
2.37
2.44
2.5
1 2
2.2
2.5
2.8
2
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft)
15.9
16.1
16.2
2
17.3
17.4
17.5
2
16.2
17.7
19.3
2
16.2
18.0
19.7
2
Width/Depth Ratio
11.3
11.9
12.4
2
11.1
13.3
15.5
2
12.5
13.4
14.4
2
12.6
15.4
18.2
2
Entrenchment Ratio
2.7
3.1
>3.5
2
2.98
3.02
3.06
2
2.61
3.08
3.54
2
2.4
2.9
3.4
2
'Bank Height Ratio
1.0
1.0
1.0
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
2
1.0
1.1
1.1
2
1.0
1.0
1.0
2
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
20
46
44
115
40.9095
19
19.1
38.4
78.9
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.0014
0.0095
0.0102
0.0163
0.0061
19
0.00535
0.01012
0.03324
Pool Length (ft)
7
12
10
27
8.906926
17
14.0
42.8
86.1
Pool Max depth (ft)
0.1
0.8
1.6
Pool Spacing (ft)1
50
82
78
157
45.7703
17
14.0
76.5
178.7
Pattern
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
31
51
56
60
12.8712
5
Radius of Curvature (ft)
28
41
42
55
11.0303
14
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate significant
shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
2
3
3
4
Meander Wavelength (ft)
78
92
91
110
13.1498
6
Meander Width Ratio
2.2
3.7
4.1
4.3
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
1432
1432
1432
1432
Sinuosity (ft)
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0063
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0057
3Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
3SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
3d16/d35/d50/d84Id95
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Othe
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Braes (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 Klrnley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc.

Exhibit Table 11 b.2 Monitoring Data - Stream Reach Data Summary
Briles Stream Restoration Site/047 - UTJC2 (362 feet)
Parameter
Baseline
MY-1
MY-2
MY- 3
MY- 4
MY- 5
Dimension and Substrate - Riffle only
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Min
Mean
Med
Max
SD4
n
Bankfull Width (ft)
15.8
1
19.6
1
21.3
1
18.6
1
Floodprone Width (ft)
>60
1
68
1
68
1
67.9
1
Bankfull Mean Depth (ft)
1.3
1
1.21
1
1.12
1
1.2
1
'Bankfull Max Depth (ft)
2.3
1
2.78
1
2.8
1
1 2.7
1
1
1
Bankfull Cross Sectional Area (ft2)
19.8
1
23.7
1
23.9
1
22.6
1
Width/Depth Ratio
12.6
1
16.2
1
19.1
1
15.3
1
Entrenchment Ratio
>3
1
3.47
1
3.18
1
3.7
1 1
'Bank Height Ratiol
1.0
1
1.0
1
1.0
1
1.0
1
Profile
Riffle Length (ft)
17
150
232
2
16.0
31.9
56.4
Riffle Slope (ft/ft)
0.01
0.01
0.01
2
0.0109
0.0123
0.0147
Pool Length (ft)
8
11
14
2
50.5
81.3
112.1
Pool Max depth (ft)
0.6
0.9
1.4
Pool Spacing (ft)
256
1
126.9
131.9
136.9
Pattern
F:�4
Channel Beltwidth (ft)
28
29
30
2
I
I
I
Radius of Curvature (ft)
44
53
48
66
3
Pattern data will not typically be collected unless visual data, dimensional data or profile data indicate
significant shifts from baseline
Rc:Bankfull width (ft/ft)
2.8
3.4
3
4.2
Meander Wavelength (ft)
45
63
81
2
Meander Width Ratiol
1.7
1.8
1.9
Additional Reach Parameters
Rosgen Classification
C4
C4
C4
C4
Channel Thalweg length (ft)
353
353
353
353
Sinuosity (ft)
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
Water Surface Slope (Channel) (ft/ft)
0.0047
BF slope (ft/ft)
0.0043
Ri% / Ru% / P% / G% / S%
SC% / Sa% / G% / C% / B% / Be%
d1 6 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
2% of Reach with Eroding Banks
Channel Stability or Habitat Metric
Biological or Other
Shaded cells indicate that these will typically not be filled in.
1 = The distributions for these parameters can include information from both the cross-section surveys and the longitudinal profile.
2 = Proportion of reach exhibiting banks that are eroding based on the visual survey from visual assessment table
3 = Riffle, Run, Pool, Glide, Step; Silt/Clay, Sand, Gravel, Cobble, Boulder, Bedrock; dip = max pave, disp = max subpave
4. = Of value/needed only if the n exceeds 3
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 C]MKimley-Horn
M and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX E
HYDROLOGIC DATA

Table 12. Verification of Bankfull Events
Briles Stream Restoration Site/047
Date of Data
Collection
Date of
Occurrence
Method
Photo #
if available
7/6/2010
N/A
Rack lines observed along channel bank
4/19/2011
N/A
Rack lines observed along channel bank
SP3/SP4
Briles (047) November 2011 Year 3 of 5 ::] M Kimley-Horn
M I, and Associates, Inc.